I n t e r p r e t a t i o n1 3 1An alternative version of the poem reads ‘But none for the little
boy who lives down the lane’. (Those with an interest in cultural
difference might note that there are also alternative ways of singing
it. The British version differs slightly from the American.) Perhaps
the little boy who lives down the lane is the speaker himself, and
this is a sardonically roundabout way of letting him know that
there is no wool for him. The refusal is sadistically reinforced by
the fact that the sheep has just told us that there are three bags
available, and thus in principle one for the little boy. Maybe the
sheep is familiar with the speaker’s name but frostily refuses to use
it in retaliation for the abusive ‘Baa baa’. Or perhaps the little boy is
not identical with the questioner, in which case it is puzzling that
the sheep should mention him. It seems to be a little more informa-
tion than is strictly necessary. The sheep may simply be demon-
strating his power to grant or withhold wool as he pleases, as an
ominous warning to his interrogator. It may be his way of regaining
the upper hand after the opening put- down. There is clearly a
power- struggle afoot here.
What is wrong with this analysis, apart from its gross improba-
bility? Obviously the fact that it looks only at content and not at
form. We also need to note the leanness and economy of the verse,
the way it sets its face against any verbal exuberance or excess. All
the words of the poem except three are monosyllables. The
language, which is image- free, aims in realist style for a transpar-
ency of word to thing. The metrical scheme is tight – more so, in
fact, than the rhyming pattern, which contains a half- rhyme or
para- rhyme (‘dame’ and ‘lane’). You can read each line of the verse
as having two stressed syllables (though this is not the only way of
scanning it), which restricts what the speaking voice can make of it.
By contrast, an iambic pentameter like ‘Shall I compare thee to a