This is a consummate 'catch-22' verse. (You can't visit Major Major Major Major when he's in, you can only visit him when he's out.) The beloved pays no attention to the lover's voice when it's there, but only notices (the absence of) his voice when it's not there. So how can he ever reach her, how can he ever communicate? It's enough to make anybody scream with frustration-- so why wouldn't he scream? He screams with despair-- over the way she only hears his scream when it stops. The commentators mostly prefer another reading: the lover screams in obedience, because the beloved enjoys listening to him scream, and gets irritated with him if he doesn't. His scream of anguish and frustration is music to her ears. (Compare 8,3 , in which she enjoys the bloody writhing of her wounded lovers the way others enjoy the sight of flowers.) There's no contradiction here; both readings can easily coexist. It's also worth noting that is much more active than : it has a sense of deliberateness and volition. In story literature, when a king sends for somebody, the messenger usually says, , 'His Excellency has called you to mind', because the king's thinking of someone is tantamount to a command for that person to appear before him at once. So there's this implication too: she never 'calls him to mind', thus summoning him to her presence, unless he falls silent. But how can he fall silent? He can't help but scream with despair, because she never 'calls him to mind' or summons him to her presence or pays him the least attention-- unless he stops screaming. And yet his scream is his best (and only) hope of making his voice heard! What's the good of being summoned into her presence anyway, if he can't scream? It's enough to make anybody scream! So the catch-22 effect is always lurking in the interpretive background. Compare Mir 's take on a similar situation: M 387,7 . graphics/scream.jpg