Emotion Over History: A Close Reading of ‘Oh Jerusalem, the City of Sorrow’
This Blog is a part of Thinking Activity assigned by Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad sir regarding I.A Richards' Figurative Language - Practical Criticism where I have been given the poem titled 'Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow' for close reading and my interpretavive biases on the same.
Here is a brief video overview of my blog-
In Richards' work there are-
Four Kinds of Meaning: A poet endeavors to convey ideas, and language serves as the vehicle for this communication. Language, comprised of words, assumes paramount significance in comprehending the essence of a work of art. I.A. Richards posits that words encapsulate four distinct realms of meaning, or, to be more precise, the comprehensive meaning of a word hinges upon four facets:
1) Sense2) Feeling3) Tone4) Intention
Four types of misunderstanding:
1) Misunderstanding of the sense of poetry: Careless, intuitive reading (rhyme or irregular syntax)2) Over-literal reading - prosaic reading3) Defective scholarship; inappropriate metaphor4) Difference in meaning of words in poetry and prose (Personification, Metaphor etc)
'Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow'
Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrowA big tear wandering in the eyeWho will halt the aggressionOn you, the pearl of religions?Who will wash your bloody walls?Who will safeguard the Bible?Who will rescue the Quran?Who will save Christ, From those who have killed Christ?Who will save man?(Nizar Qabbani: “Jerusalem! My Love,My Town:) My interpretation of the poem-
- When I read “Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow,” I immediately feel that the poem is a lament rather than a historical or religious statement. Jerusalem appears to me as a living, wounded presence—“a big tear wandering in the eye” which makes me sense prolonged pain and helplessness. The repeated questions beginning with “Who will…?” do not feel like demands for answers but express despair and moral anxiety, suggesting that no one is willing or able to stop the violence. References to the Bible, the Quran, and Christ make me understand that the city belongs to many faiths and that all of them are somehow injured by human aggression. Images such as “bloody walls” intensify my emotional response and make the suffering feel immediate and real. By the time I reach the final line, “Who will save man?” I feel that the poem shifts its focus from the city to humanity itself, suggesting that the real tragedy lies not in religion but in human cruelty and moral failure. My understanding of the poem arises from its emotive language and tone rather than from any external knowledge, which makes the sorrow and urgency of the poem deeply affecting.
1) Sense (What is said; the literal or conceptual meaning)
- According to I. A. Richards, sense refers to the logical or intellectual content conveyed by the words. In this poem, I understand the sense to be a series of questions about violence against Jerusalem and the inability of humanity to protect what is sacred. The poet speaks of aggression, bloody walls, and repeated acts of destruction. The mention of the Bible, the Quran, and Christ suggests that Jerusalem is important to multiple religions. Literally, the poem asks who will stop the violence, who will protect religious symbols, and finally, who will save humanity itself. Thus, the sense of the poem is a reflection on continuous human aggression and moral failure.
2) Feeling (The emotional state of the poet expressed in the poem)
- Richards defines feeling as the emotional attitude aroused or expressed by the speaker. As I read the poem, I strongly feel grief, sorrow, helplessness, and anguish. Images like “the city of sorrow” and “a big tear wandering in the eye” directly communicate pain rather than argument. The repetition of questions intensifies my sense of despair, making me feel that the poet is emotionally exhausted. The feeling is not calm or reflective; it is urgent and wounded. Through emotive language, the poem makes me share the poet’s deep mourning for both the city and humanity.
3) Tone (The poet’s attitude toward the reader and the subject)
- In Richards’ terms, tone indicates the speaker’s attitude toward the audience. To me, the tone of the poem is lamenting, accusatory, and pleading. The poet does not explain or persuade; instead, he confronts the reader with painful questions. I feel as if the poet is addressing humanity directly, holding it morally responsible. The repeated “Who will…?” creates a tone of accusation mixed with appeal, making me feel uncomfortable yet emotionally involved. The tone suggests disappointment in human beings and a demand for moral awakening.
4) Intention (The effect the poet wishes to produce in the reader)
- According to Richards, intention refers to the purpose behind the utterance and the response it seeks to evoke. From my reading, I feel the poet’s intention is not to provide answers but to disturb my moral comfort. By ending with “Who will save man?”, the poet shifts the responsibility onto humanity, forcing me to reflect on human cruelty rather than religious conflict. The intention seems to be to awaken ethical consciousness, empathy, and self-questioning in the reader. The poem intends to make me feel responsible, not informed.
Misunderstandings in the Poem (According to My Reading, in the light of I. A. Richards)
1) Misunderstanding of the Sense of Poetry (Careless, Intuitive Reading)
- From my view, I may misunderstand the poem if I read it carelessly and rely only on my immediate emotional reaction. The repeated “Who will…?” questions can make me think the poem is simply asking for solutions, whereas I now feel that these questions express despair and helplessness. If I read intuitively without attention to structure and repetition, I may miss the deeper sense of moral exhaustion conveyed by the poem.
2) Over-Literal or Prosaic Reading
- From my view, I can misunderstand the poem if I read it like prose or a political statement. Lines such as “Who will safeguard the Bible?” or “Who will rescue the Quran?” may appear as literal religious concerns. However, I feel that taking them literally reduces the poem’s emotional power. When I treat the poem as factual or argumentative, I overlook its poetic function as a lament rather than a report.
3) Defective Scholarship; Inappropriate Metaphor
- From my view, I may also misunderstand the poem by depending too much on external historical or religious knowledge. If I assume that understanding the poem requires detailed scholarship about Jerusalem’s conflicts, I risk forcing meanings onto the poem that are not present in the words themselves. This leads me to treat the poem as a historical allegory rather than an emotional expression, which distracts me from its immediate impact.
4) Difference in Meaning of Words in Poetry and Prose
- From my view, misunderstanding arises when I forget that poetic language works differently from prose. Phrases like “the city of sorrow” and “a big tear wandering in the eye” are not literal descriptions but emotional images. If I expect logical precision or factual accuracy, the poem may seem exaggerated or unclear to me. Recognizing metaphor and personification helps me understand the poem more fully.
Here is a brief Infograph of my blog-
References-
Barad, Dilip. I. A. Richards – Figurative Language – Practical Criticism. ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23687.98724.
Barad, Dilip. “Just Poems.” Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, 23 Sept. 2015, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2015/09/just-poems.html. Accessed 18 Dec. 2025.
Four types of misunderstanding:
1) Misunderstanding of the sense of poetry: Careless, intuitive reading (rhyme or irregular syntax)
2) Over-literal reading - prosaic reading
3) Defective scholarship; inappropriate metaphor
4) Difference in meaning of words in poetry and prose (Personification, Metaphor etc)
'Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow'
Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow
A big tear wandering in the eye
Who will halt the aggression
On you, the pearl of religions?
Who will wash your bloody walls?
Who will safeguard the Bible?
Who will rescue the Quran?
Who will save Christ, From those who have killed Christ?
Who will save man?
(Nizar Qabbani: “Jerusalem! My Love,My Town:)
- According to I. A. Richards, sense refers to the logical or intellectual content conveyed by the words. In this poem, I understand the sense to be a series of questions about violence against Jerusalem and the inability of humanity to protect what is sacred. The poet speaks of aggression, bloody walls, and repeated acts of destruction. The mention of the Bible, the Quran, and Christ suggests that Jerusalem is important to multiple religions. Literally, the poem asks who will stop the violence, who will protect religious symbols, and finally, who will save humanity itself. Thus, the sense of the poem is a reflection on continuous human aggression and moral failure.
2) Feeling (The emotional state of the poet expressed in the poem)
- Richards defines feeling as the emotional attitude aroused or expressed by the speaker. As I read the poem, I strongly feel grief, sorrow, helplessness, and anguish. Images like “the city of sorrow” and “a big tear wandering in the eye” directly communicate pain rather than argument. The repetition of questions intensifies my sense of despair, making me feel that the poet is emotionally exhausted. The feeling is not calm or reflective; it is urgent and wounded. Through emotive language, the poem makes me share the poet’s deep mourning for both the city and humanity.
3) Tone (The poet’s attitude toward the reader and the subject)
- In Richards’ terms, tone indicates the speaker’s attitude toward the audience. To me, the tone of the poem is lamenting, accusatory, and pleading. The poet does not explain or persuade; instead, he confronts the reader with painful questions. I feel as if the poet is addressing humanity directly, holding it morally responsible. The repeated “Who will…?” creates a tone of accusation mixed with appeal, making me feel uncomfortable yet emotionally involved. The tone suggests disappointment in human beings and a demand for moral awakening.
4) Intention (The effect the poet wishes to produce in the reader)
- According to Richards, intention refers to the purpose behind the utterance and the response it seeks to evoke. From my reading, I feel the poet’s intention is not to provide answers but to disturb my moral comfort. By ending with “Who will save man?”, the poet shifts the responsibility onto humanity, forcing me to reflect on human cruelty rather than religious conflict. The intention seems to be to awaken ethical consciousness, empathy, and self-questioning in the reader. The poem intends to make me feel responsible, not informed.
1) Misunderstanding of the Sense of Poetry (Careless, Intuitive Reading)
- From my view, I may misunderstand the poem if I read it carelessly and rely only on my immediate emotional reaction. The repeated “Who will…?” questions can make me think the poem is simply asking for solutions, whereas I now feel that these questions express despair and helplessness. If I read intuitively without attention to structure and repetition, I may miss the deeper sense of moral exhaustion conveyed by the poem.
2) Over-Literal or Prosaic Reading
- From my view, I can misunderstand the poem if I read it like prose or a political statement. Lines such as “Who will safeguard the Bible?” or “Who will rescue the Quran?” may appear as literal religious concerns. However, I feel that taking them literally reduces the poem’s emotional power. When I treat the poem as factual or argumentative, I overlook its poetic function as a lament rather than a report.
3) Defective Scholarship; Inappropriate Metaphor
- From my view, I may also misunderstand the poem by depending too much on external historical or religious knowledge. If I assume that understanding the poem requires detailed scholarship about Jerusalem’s conflicts, I risk forcing meanings onto the poem that are not present in the words themselves. This leads me to treat the poem as a historical allegory rather than an emotional expression, which distracts me from its immediate impact.
4) Difference in Meaning of Words in Poetry and Prose
- From my view, misunderstanding arises when I forget that poetic language works differently from prose. Phrases like “the city of sorrow” and “a big tear wandering in the eye” are not literal descriptions but emotional images. If I expect logical precision or factual accuracy, the poem may seem exaggerated or unclear to me. Recognizing metaphor and personification helps me understand the poem more fully.
Here is a brief Infograph of my blog-
References-
Barad, Dilip. I. A. Richards – Figurative Language – Practical Criticism. ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23687.98724.
Barad, Dilip. “Just Poems.” Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, 23 Sept. 2015, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2015/09/just-poems.html. Accessed 18 Dec. 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment