Probably, she is saying: If I were starving or in severe pain, I might sell your love in exchange for food or to relieve my pain. I don't think I would, but I might because love isn't everything. So, love isn't everything, but it's so precious that I would not sell it. I could, but I wouldn't. 

I read it this way. Not sure if this is what she intended when she wrote the poem. 




When I read it that's how I interpreted it until the final line, when she seems to revert back to the standard "love conquers all." 

siggy47

Could not give you a better answer than this:

This poem challenges the romanticized notion of love as the ultimate answer to life's problems. Millay asserts that while love provides emotional sustenance, it cannot solve practical or physical ailments. She explores the tension between love's limitations and its profound emotional impact, suggesting that even in the face of overwhelming hardship, the memory of love can provide solace and strength. Compared to Millay's other works, this poem's tone is more somber and realistic, reflecting the harsh realities of the time period. It critiques the societal tendency to over-idealize love while neglecting the importance of practical necessities for human well-being.

BooksAndArticles

Love is Not All - Edna St. Vincent Millay

Taft

Could not give you a better answer than this: 

>This poem challenges the romanticized notion of love as the ultimate answer to life's problems. Millay asserts that while love provides emotional sustenance, it cannot solve practical or physical ailments. She explores the tension between love's limitations and its profound emotional impact, suggesting that even in the face of overwhelming hardship, the memory of love can provide solace and strength. Compared to Millay's other works, this poem's tone is more somber and realistic, reflecting the harsh realities of the time period. It critiques the societal tendency to over-idealize love while neglecting the importance of practical necessities for human well-being.

