In “A Bird Came Down the Walk,” I was very curious about why the bird “bit an Angle Worm in halves \ And ate the fellow, raw” (4), but “then hopped sidewise to the Wall \ To let a Beetle pass” (8). I wondered why the bird didn’t also eat the beetle. These two instances are juxtaposed and I think it brings up the idea of nature being unpredictable and not clearly understood by humans. I also interpreted this as reflecting a conscience in the bird, where the bird doesn’t just kill and eat without purpose. The contrast between the image of biting a worm in half and eating it raw, and the image of a bird hopping sideways in order to avoid stepping on a beetle is a little funny. For me, this also makes me think of the curiosity of the speaker, and brings me a little smile to think about how interesting and almost silly this picture would have seemed.
In line 13, the speaker says “Like one in danger, Cautious, I offered him a Crumb.” The end-stopped punctuation of the preceding line makes this statement seem like the speaker is the one who is in danger and being cautious. But I think that there is some ambiguity here, because the bird would also presumably find itself in danger when faced with this human. This ambiguity is furthered by the description of the bird as having eyes that “looked like frightened Beads” in the preceding paragraph (11). I think this ambiguity is important, because it puts the speaker and the bird on equal terms, both as observers. The part where the bird “unrolled his feathers, \ And rowed him softer Home” (15-16) is also interesting, because at first, I imagined the bird unrolling his feathers like he was opening his hand to take the crumb, but the bird actually flies away. This seems to emphasize the seamlessness and grace of nature, as described in the last stanza, where the ocean is described as “Too silver for a seam” and butterflies “Leap, plashless as they swim.” The bird seamlessly acts in unpredictable ways and that is a remarkable thing to be capable of.
“Split the Lark” seems to have a similar message about the seamless and unpredictable grace of nature. In that poem, Dickinson focuses on a “look but don’t touch” aspect of the beauty of nature. I think that’s connected to her message in “A Bird Came Down the Walk,” where she’s telling us that in fact, you can’t break up the grace of nature. I also drew comparisons between the message of this poem and physics. There is a weird quantum physics experiments called the double slit experiment where electrons behave in different ways when they were observed/measured, vs when they are unobserved. The electrons’ beauty and mysterious behavior is altered by any sort of attempt to observe them, and I think that this phenomenon reflects the message of “Split the Lark” beautifully. I’m not going to try to explain these experiments, because I would do a bad job, but here is a link to a video about the double slit experiments: https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ?si=WLbory2-Wz1MlmdR
I think that you’re interpretation of the bird eating the worm but not the beetle is quite interesting. There is an interesting distinction here, which makes me wonder if it is related to the beetle and worm themselves or if it is related to a matter of timing. As you described, the bird isn’t killing just to kill, but rather for necessity, for food. As such, perhaps the bird’s hunger has been satisfied, as there was no need for the beetle to be eaten. However, I don’t know if this is the correct interpretation due to the respect the bird shows the beetle.
The language relating to eating the worm is far more aggressive versus a more respectful tone between the bird and the beetle. This could imply a different assortment of respect that the bird has for the beetle over the worm. Whatever the case, it is certainly something interesting worth considering.
I think that your point of the juxtaposition of the bird devouring the worm and letting the beetle pass shows the consciousness of animals is spot on! I really couldn’t put my finger on what that was intended to mean, but I find your analysis really interesting. I think that the language in these two lines emphasizes the contrast between the actions and the bird’s active choices. For example the imagery of biting “an Angle worm in halves” and eating “the fellow raw” is very violent, making the bird seem animalistic and wild. This language pushes the bird away from civilization, where we actively try to fight our animal instincts to maintain order. However, the language of “hopp[ing] sideways to a wall / To let a Beetle pass” makes the bird sound very human-like, as it implies that the bird has manners to some extent. Letting a beetle, being a common prey of birds, pass shows the bird’s constraint against its carnal instincts, emphasizing its ability to think and reason.