George Gordon, Lord Byron

Initially, this poem looked appealing to me, and was, because I’m a bit of a romantic and I really enjoy reading things that involve someone’s affection for another or a description of beauty. The poem is given several dark themes and symbols. His very first line reads, “She walks in beauty, like the night,” giving the reader an image of darkness surrounding this beautiful woman (358). “One shade the more, one ray the less,” also makes us think of darkness, adding shades to the scene, and removing rays of light (358). But there is a certain dualism involved, Byron describes her beauty in the first stanza saying, “ And all that’s best of dark and bright/ Meet in her aspect and her eyes:” which shows that all things good and all things bad can be seen from her character and her eyes (358). And in the last stanza, there is virtually no sign of darkness at all as Byron says that she has “The smiles that win, the tints that glow… A heart whose love is innocent!” (358). The entire stanza is illuminating her good and beautiful features, winning and glowing are not words someone would use to describe darkness, and especially not love.

So when I read in the caption that the poem was written with Byron’s cousin’s wife in mind, I was somewhat taken aback. The dark symbols: night time, the raven, shade, etc. could all be Byron’s acceptance and knowledge that the way he was feeling about this woman was wrong, dark. But by the end of the poem it no loonger matters because he’s become so intrigued by her beauty, all he can see is the good things about her, as opposed to the bad setting that he has found her in. Dr. Glance in his podcast, as well as the Introduction on George Gordon, Lord Byron, indicate that he was subjected to rumors of “insanity, incest, and sodomy” causing his wife to leave him (357). And even later in Venice his “ceaseless round of sexual activity” helped him in created his literature (357).

Perhaps my mind has been tainted with the image of a man who didn’t value the respects of marriage and love. I instead think of a man who was known for having affairs and didn’t mind being with different women constantly. If I thought he was a good man (at least in relationships), I would probably analyze his poem in a completely different way.

Writings on World War I

Before reading this selection, I would expect the writings to be very against war, especially coming from England, and that's what I tended to find especially from writers like Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. It is there use of an imagery that shows the horrors of war that makes them stick out so much to me. But there were also others who actually served in the war, or ended up serving like Rupert Brooke whose "The Great Lover" and "The Soldier" ended up being almost like his dying wish: written a year before his death in the war.

Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon both felt that sending men off to die in battle was a horrible thing to do. Upon looking at Sassoon's "Glory of Women," you would expect the poem to praise the virtues that women uphold for their families even in the absence of their husbands. Unfortunately, we see the negative side, one of a mother knitting for a son whose "face is trodden deeper in the mud" (1099). This kind of brutal and unforgiving reality is hard to imagine, because no one, I'm sure, wants to imagine their son being killed at war. Owen's "Anthem for Doomed Youth" has less of this brutality- at least in his imagery. But we still see a deep dislike for the concept of war. "What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?" says Owen, opening up the poem with a rhetorical question (1100). But he does go on to say guns and rifles will determine their fate now.

Although Owen and Sassoon are not the only Modernists to comment against the war, they are the most vivid writers about it from our anthology. Whether the writings of the Moderns had anything to do with the overall perception of World War I, I do not know. But seeing our status in the war right now, I feel more and more so that it is an unnecessary involvement.

Bernard Shaw: Pygmalion

Somewhat of a Greek mythology buff, I had heard of the story of Pygmalion before and how his love and adoration for his statue caused him to ask the goddess Venus to bring him a woman like her. He had detested women before hand, but longed for the touch of someone just like his statue. Impressed and touched by his show of live, Venus granted the wish.

So I wasn't surprised that in this play, Bernard Shaw wanted to remake this myth in a 1900 England setting. Although not nearly as fantastic as the original story, the Pygmalion here is Professor Higgins who takes it upon himself, with the help of Pickering, to improve the flower girl also known as Eliza. In Act 2, we see a snippet of her lessons with them as they teach her the "correct" way of reciting the alphabet. Taking away her personal dialect, they improve her speech and, although doing it in tears, she eventually starts to get it right (1032).

One of the best parts of the play is in Act 4 when Eliza expresses to Higgins that she is not able to do anything else, now that she has been turned into a lady. Higgins tells her, "I daresay my mother could find some chap or other who would do very well," in an attempt to tell her that she can get married and be a good wife for someone to take care of, she responds saying that her family is above that kind of thinking (1048). She doesn't want her purpose in life to be based on a man, she sold flowers before and was able to do for herself, and now in hindsight, realizes that that's exactly what she wanted.

The take home message I got from this rendition, as well as the actual myth for that matter, is that what makes any man think that he can mold a woman in his own fashion? Should it have been Higgins' and Pickering's responsibility to transform this woman into a lady? No, women are completely capable of deciding their own fate, whether they are statues or flower girls. Perhaps Shaw was attempting to say that it isn't right for women to be so subjected to what men want as they were in those times.

William Butler Yeats

After reading "The Second Coming" I was very interested in writing about it. Even though it is somewhat difficult to understand and analyze, there is a lot that can be left to the reader for interpretation, which I like. There is a lot of imagery, really making the poem come alive for you in a way that most of the other writings we've read haven't been able to do. I'm sure there is a lot of symbolize and ideas that I am not capable of identifying but I really enjoyed this piece.

William Yeats makes several references to the Bible, particularly ones in relation to the occurrences that we believe took place in Egypt. "The blood-dimmed tide is loose and everywhere, The ceremony of innocence is drowned;" probably symbolize the display of the Nile River turning to blood by Moses' staff and the sending of the Death Angel in order to convince Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go free (1122). So because the "shape with lion body and the head of a man" is presumably the Sphinx of ancient Egypt, are we to assume that the beast of Yeats' Second Coming is related to the forces that were against Moses and his followers (1122)?

I don't think he meant to say that there was literally a Second Coming involving a Sphinx or any other man-made creature. I think it is a reflection of the times in the sense that things were falling apart as he says in the first stanza of the piece. Different people were beginning to think differently and explode in controversies with one another, prime example World War I had taken place before the poem was published. He ends the poem with a question, "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,/ Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" ultimately asking what will come of the many varied and opposing view points at the time (1123).

Oscar Wilde: Importance of Being Earnest

I really enjoyed Oscar Wilde's satire, particularly in his play The Importance of Being Earnest. I want to explore a few of the main characters (Jack Worthing and Gwendolen) and try to relate how those characters symbolized the general Victorian image of men and women.

Jack is used to symbolize the men of the time because he has a front, a facade of sorts, and has a completely different personality that he is very conscious of. When Jack says to Algernon, "Well, my name is Ernest in town and Jack in the country" he is identifying an escape route, a separate self that he knows about, but uses as he needs to (851). Ernest is his scape goat, his reason for being able to leave his countryside on weekends and go to London. But more importantly, Ernest serves as an escape, something to balance out his dutiful and dependent side that others know as Jack. He escapes and he lies, even to the woman he hopes to marry, Gwendolen. It is Gwendolen, however, who forces him to own up to the fact that not only does he not know who he is, but also that he must choose only one person to be.

Gwendolen, on the other hand, is a reflection of women during the age and attends lectures and does things to improve herself but is also superficial. She only knows Jack as Ernest initially and loves him, mainly, it seems, because of his name. The importance of her emphasis on his name is important as it relates to how women (or their families) were likely to choose their husbands based on the stature of their name, who they descended from. So it is in this way that she is made up as the majority of Victorian women. In the end, she is able to forgive Ernest's behaviors and lies and of course the story ends happily ever after.

I think Wilde wanted to be sure that it wasn't until the very end, when Ernest learned to be true to himself that things naturally fell into place for him and the people around him. "I've now realized for the first time in my life the vital Importance of Being Earnest" (886). He discovers that the life he made up really wasn't fiction, but a reflection of his true self, his sincere self, his earnest self.

Thomas Hardy

I want to talk about, and kind of compare"Hap" and "Epitaph" because I think, to an extent, they are somewhat related in Thomas Hardy's views on religion, one of which is earlier in his life, and the other written 6 years before his death.

In "Hap," Hardy expresses concerns that a sadistic "Vengeful god" would tell him that his entire life, all of his existence, is nothing more than entertainment for said god- and even further that the god finds happiness and profit in Hardy's pain and losses (1073). I think people often del with this issue when considering what will really happen when they die, raising questions of whether or not there is an afterlife worth living for. For Hardy to think this and to proclaim that he would easily end his life for such an instance may lead one to think that Hardy may have had a somewhat agnostic view on life. It would also lead me to think that his view was also somewhat against structured religion, in order to question the morality of a god, Hardy could not have been an active Church-goer, or at the very least wasn't writing for them.

In "Epitaph," Hardy expresses that he's never cared for Life, but Life- who has cared for him, has forsaken him. Life now says, " thou didst ask no ill-advised reward,/ Nor sought in me much more than thou couldst find" (1079). This says that Hardy sought more out of life than it had to offer, and possibly got bored with it, explaining why he never really cared for it. But also, Hardy did not ask for anything more out of Life: an "ill-advised reward." He expected to gain nothing from Life, quite possibly even the promise of something after life. It is interesting that his description of their relationship is like a romantic one, and although Hardy has been faithful- never attempting to kill himself or anything- Life is no longer willing to stay with him.

Could this be Hardy foreshadowing his own death, 6 years later? Is it maybe a thought that death was coming soon for him? Or maybe it was him feeling that the rewards of Life were no longer available to him- perhaps the ripe old age of somewhere around 82 made him feel this way? I cannot answer any of these questions but I do think it continues his somewhat agnostic or even atheist view that there is no afterlife, nothing to search for in life because nothing will come after it.

Gerard Manley Hopkins

A man, as the introduction reads, whose "quest to find proof of God's work in nature" made his writings very Victorian in theme (773). And we can see this in several, if not all of his selections in the anthology. "The Windhover" is addressed to Christ our Lord in which he describes something from nature, a Falcon, in a beautiful fashion, making the falcon out to be an almost heavenly and divine creature talking of its achievements and mastery of flight (775). There are several other poems we see in which he refers to God or Jesus or writes the poem to or for either of them including "God's Grandeur," "The Windhover," "Pied Beauty," "Felix Randal," "As Kingfishers Catch Fire," and several others.

What is the significance of him being sure that people understood that God can be found in nature? According to his apparent beliefs, and considering the times, and that Hopkins was the most Victorian and the most modern of the Victorian writers, there is an important need to emphasize the simpler things in life, as opposed to the importance of hierarchies, and structure, and Industrialism that was taking place during the Victorian Age.

We especially see the purpose of his writings in "Pied Beauty." In the first stanza, he gives thanks for the multitude of beautiful and colorful things in our word that God has given us. The second stanza is saying that everything, no matter how traditional or strange, is made by Him. "With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;/ He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:/ Praise him" (776). What does it mean for beauty to be past change? God created us all as we are meant to be, rejoice in that and praise Him for it.

Victorian Ladies and Gentlemen

The ways in which both men and women were expected to behave are explored in several of the readings from this section. As far as men are concerned, John Henry Cardinal Newman in his [Definition of a Gentleman] from The Idea of a University seems to believe that a good gentleman is just that: a gentle man. He doesn’t raise his fist in anger, and his goal during any event or occasion is to keep everyone happy and satisfied, we see this when Newman says, “his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home” (563). “He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles” implies that a good gentleman of the time was expected to be somewhat of a push over (564). Yes, there are times for patience and being accepting of other’s philosophies and views, but there are also times to stand up for your own with conviction and with certainty that that’s how you feel and Newman makes no reference to the importance of these types of qualities in a man- at least not in a gentleman.

Sarah Stickney Ellis feels that women are on Earth for the purpose of being man’s “second conscience” (557). It is up to the woman to be the solace that a man needs when returning home from a world that is conflicting and may be confusing to him. In order for the woman to be able to serve as a comforter, she must be shielded from the outside world that her male counterparts need to be taken away from every night. This separation of worlds, an inside world for the female and an outside one for the male, is necessary, in Ellis’s opinion, for the success of the family and therefore, of the society in which they live. I cannot say I agree with this philosophy, especially being a somewhat liberal American, but I do understand it in the context of the times. What I don’t agree with from her writing is found on page 558 when she says:

“Look at all the heroines, whether of romance or reality-at all the female characters that are held up to universal admiration-at all who have gone down to honoured graves, amongst the tears and lamentations of their survivors. Have these been the learned, the accomplished women; the women who could speak many languages, who could solve problems, and elucidate systems of philosophy? No…” (558).

Maybe I have been in school too long to agree with this statement, but I feel that many of the women, dead or alive, that I look up to have had a significant education in some way or another. They have accomplished things worth being remembered for, and if they didn’t accomplish anything of significance, what is the purpose in honoring them? Considering the times, there probably weren’t many women who received educations so many of the women that people admired were queens and women of high stature, so my opinion on the statement could also be a reflection of the ways in which society has changed.

John Stuart Mills

It was interesting reading John Stuart Mill’s “Statement Repudiating the Rights of Husbands,” especially when reading it after Robert Browning’s selections about the control men exhibited over their wives. After reading the caption that went along with the statement, I learned that husbands literally had rights to their wives, and once married, women were not able to sign legal contracts or own any property (527). Women were subjected to the status of slaves or children, and I’m sure in some manner or instances they were treated as such, as we may be able to assume after reading Robert Browning.

So with this background in mind, of male dominance over woman, it makes sense that men of that time lost sight of what the institution of marriage was meant to be. Call me old-fashioned, but marriage is the union of two people, not the dominance and control of one over the other. Mills himself understands and acknowledges these virtues of marriage and wants it to be known that he thinks it’s important the woman he intends to marry “retains in all respects whatever the same absolute freedom of action, and freedom of disposal of herself and of all that does or may at any time belong to her, as if no such marriage had taken place” (527). He emphasizes that her own personal rights are much more important than him having any more control over her than he would normally have over any woman he wasn’t married to. The society’s general attempt to control their women is almost absurd after having live in America during this time period for all of my life.

Considering that Mills was a utilitarian and his growing up was heavily influenced by his utilitarian father, I wonder whether or not it is generally expected for him to feel this way about the relationships between men and women. After checking the dictionary, I saw that utilitarianism is about making sure that one’s conduct in society should maximize happiness of the majority of people. Also, from the introduction, I read that Mills was passionate and radical about promoting the ideas of “sexual equality, the right to divorce, universal suffrage, free speech, and proportional representation” (513). So it does make sense that he would want his own wife to have freedoms that weren’t accepted for married women at that time in England.

What do I take of John Stuart Mills? I think that he was probably a revolutionary, especially at that time in England because he was associated with being a radical. I do however, think that he wasn’t the only one who felt the way he felt. I’ve already read Robert Browning and, assuming his poems were more satirical than reflections of his actual views, he also felt that men’s control over women had become too extreme. I respect Mills for writing what he wrote about the rights of women and such and for being so adamant about things changing, if it weren’t for him and other revolutionaries throughout time, things may have never changed.

Robert Browning

Browning, at least from two of his selections, Porphyria’s Lover and My Last Duchess, seems to be interested in exploring the relationship of love, beauty, power and violence.

The Duke in “My Last Duchess,” as Dr. Glance said on his podcast, reveals more about himself than he probably intended. It was interesting how his monologue went from talking about the painting, to the beauty of the woman, to her personal life, to his involvement in her personal life. He may unintentionally allude to the controlling behavior of how he treated her and the reader must use their imagination to decide what really happened to his duchess. She smiled too much, and probably to the wrong people but because of his controlling manliness, he doesn’t argue, but rather takes action, doing what he has to do to stop her smiles. Even in her death he has a curtain around the painting so he can further control who sees her inviting smile and who doesn’t. Even by having the painting made in the first place shows that he wanted to immortalize her in some way, whether this is because of his love for her or some obsession or admiration of her beauty we can’t really say. But either way, it does show that he still needed to control the aspects of their marriage that he could.

In “Porphyria’s Lover” we see a man who may very well have loved the woman he was with, because we at least see that she loved him, calling to him when she came in from the rain and “murmuring how she loved [him],” showing her affection and her love (663). When he says, “That moment she was mine, mine fair,/ Perfectly pure and good,” he feels that he must do something to keep this feeling, of being loved by her, of being worshipped by her, as he says, and decides that the best way to keep this feeling alive forever, is to stop it right then and there (663). Stopping her from saying or doing anything else will help him believe forever that she loved him indefinitely.

The women in these two selections are made out to be the victims of a sort of blind love, being killed by men who need to control them, in the highest form of control- taking their lives. This can be related to the need of men to control behavior and such, especially someone who came from high rank and had power, like the Duke from “My Last Duchess.” I do wonder what Browning’s purpose was in writing these poems in this manner. Possibly he was using these stories as extreme examples of how men can take their power too far and was condemning this type of behavior.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

I want to focus on “The Lady of Shalott” for this blog because there seems to be a lot involved in it. After looking over it a few times, and listening to Dr. Glance’s podcast, I realized that every stanza ends in the word Shalott, and line 5 of every stanza ends in Camelot, but there are two exceptions to this trend. Line 77 of Part 3 reads “Of bold Sir Lancelot” (591). This is our first time knowing about Lancelot, why he is in Shalott we do not know, but we do see that, assuming Part 3 is written in Lady Shalott’s point of view, Lady Shalott thinks highly of him in her description that follows- highly enough to leave her station in order to find him.

The second exception is line 108 at the end of the stanza when Lady Shalott hears him singing, it reads: “Sang Sir Lancelot” (591). The very next line reads: “She left the web, she left the loom,” symbolizing her sudden entrancement and fixation on finding this beautiful man (591). What I found conflicting about the piece is that at the end of the stanza, she says “The curse is come upon me,” locking in her fate, knowing what is going to happen next (591). But the reason it’s so conflicting is that if she knows what is in store for her, it bothers me that she can’t simply stop herself. Perhaps the point is to say that people will weave these webs entangling themselves to their own tragic fate, and once fate is involved, what else is there that could control our lives more than that?

Every single remaining stanza of Part 4 ends with the line “The Lady of Shalott,” showing that she is perhaps leaving her mark as she progresses toward, and finally arrives at, Camelot (592). It seems that if Tennyson was more concerned with Lady Shalott leaving her mark on the world he would have kept the original ending, with her having the last word. In changing the ending, I think he felt a need to be sure that the reader didn’t think that Lancelot was inhumane or didn’t have the ability to show any remorse. I don’t think that Lancelot should be mistaken for someone who doesn’t care about the lady because it isn’t his fault that he was the outlet for the fulfillment of her curse.

On a side note: it seems that Tennyson had a certain tendency to write about death. From the introduction, we see that his first paid poem was an ode on the death of his grandmother, but we also see that the first several writings in his section of the anthology involve death, including the death of the giant beast in "The Kraken," the woman who cries out wishing she were dead in "Mariana," and "The Lady of Shalott", whose entrancement causes her own death. I’m not sure of what this could mean, perhaps Tennyson simply wanted to maintain that death is inevitable, even in some of his mildly fantastic and unrealistic pieces.

Thomas Carlyle

Thomas Carlyle felt, and possibly rightfully so, that people in society were moving to a state of mind that was less concerned with helping others and making the world a better place and more concerned with their own personal gratification. Now I will say that I am someone who believes that you should always try to do better for yourself, always improving yourself and not becoming complacent. However, improving yourself is about a lot more than just making more money, being successful is about a lot more than just longing for gold as Carlyle’s reference to Midas described (480). Carlyle used his sarcasm to show that a perpetual longing for money and wealth may very well get you just that- but money doesn’t buy happiness, and it didn’t for Midas either.

Something that I really liked about Carlyle is that he used current events, things that were actually going on, that had actually happened, to help prove his point. From Gospel of Mammonism, he talks about an Irish widow that likely had no means of getting food and maintaining shelter for her children who goes in search of finding someone who might be willing to help her in this desperate situation and no one does. The “Charitable Establishments” that Carlyle refers to all turn her away, and eventually she becomes ill with typhus fever (480). Not only does she become ill and dies, but so do 17 other people around her. It’s interesting here how Carlyle shows a lack of humanity of the people around her, meaning that they refuse to help her. But then we see just how much of a human she and the others were, becoming sick the way that they did, showing their mortality.

Carlyle warns that if England continues in this manner, we will see the wrath of God: “Our England, our world cannot live as it is. It will connect itself with God again, or go down with nameless throes and fire-consummation to the Devils” (484). Attempting to foreshadow the coming of God, Carlyle is making a point that humans can either rise like gods or fall like devils. On page 485 he says, “Let God’s justice, let pity, nobleness and manly valour, … testify themselves in this your Life-transit to all Eternities, Gods and Silences,” reminding us that this thing we call Life is only a portion of the Eternity that we are here for (485). We are here to work, but we are also responsible for each other.

Industrialism: Beginning of the Victorian Age

The ironic thing about the writings in this section that lead to the Victorian Age is that their theme is awfully reminiscent to the writings from the French Revolution, which brought in the Romantics. The bulk of these writings reflect either the pros or the cons to what is going on with the new advancements in technology of the time. So for some positive takes on the new use of science, we turn to the account of Fanny Kemble who was the first woman to ride on the steam locomotive, despite all of the opposition that came along with it being built. She loves it, with the new feeling of being able to cut through the air unlike before and to feel like flying as she described it was amazing (491). Also, on that very same page, we start to read about Macaulay who simply described these new advances as the "natural progress of society"(491).

People like Charles Dickens, Friedrich Engles and Henry Mayhew were not so optimistic about the new changes in society. In his account of an industrialized city he calls "Coketown," Dickens gives a very negative description of everything that is going on, going so far as to describe the new factories and machinery as giant prisons. He is upset that there is no longer a need for working with the seasons or with daylight, because of the new technology, people don't need to rely on the sun or warm weather for work. In his last sentence of his passage, he talks about gentlemen "that lived upon the best, and bought fresh butter, and insisted on Mocha coffee, and rejected all but prime parts of meat, and yet were eternally dissatisfied and unmanageable," saying that if these are the kind of people that an industrialized society produces, people who are wasteful and ungrateful of what they are given, then it is not a very good society (498).

Mayhew takes a turn similar to that of Blake's depictions of the Chimney Sweepers in his poems with the Watercress Girl. He, like Dickens, is unsure that society can properly function with people who are so detached from one another's lives. In particular, he speaks of this one 8 year old girl who's only purpose is to labor over watercress, who is already familiar with the "bitterest struggles of life" but has yet to ever play in a park or with toys (508). He also tells a similar heart-wrenching story of A Boy Crossing-Sweeper.

Luckily, at least from what I can see, living in America, industrialism has progressed to a stage where child labor is no longer needed, nor tolerated for that matter. But we must ask ourselves whether or not the forewarnings from writers like Dickens, Mayhew, and Engels had any substance value. If you think about, because of technology, we aren't even sitting in a class room having a personal discussion about these readings, we're writing blogs, does that mean that we're not personal with each other. Or for instance, when walking across campus and you see a familiar face you don't recognize, do you just look away or at your phone instead of saying "Hi"? I think that Engels said it best when he said that Industrialism will do nothing more than create an "isolation of the individual- this narrow-minded egotism" (502).

Felicia Hemans

The hardest aspect about Felicia Hemans is trying to understand exactly what kind of writer she was - at least as far as her views on a woman's place are concerned. The women in some of her poems from the selected reading can be taken as very traditional and docile, while others can be seen as very heroic and passionate. After considering Hemans own life, one would probably think that she is less on the traditional side, seeing as how her own father left her family while she was a teenager and even her own husband ended up leaving her family. So while raising her children, their was no male dominant image in the picture for her, so it's easy to see how her writings may have reflected a woman scorned or may have even been "making fun" of the traditional housewife.

The woman depicted as the Wife of Asdrubal may seem rather demented and extremely intense. I had to reread certain parts of the poem just to be sure that I was understanding that she was actually burning herself and her children alive. But this may be a very romantic idea, that the woman would rather die than live to be the wife of a coward and have the children of a coward. Dr. Glance in his podcast asks is this woman a heroic female, a spurned lover, or a homicidal mother? I would like to say that more than anything she is a reflection of Felicia Hemans herself.

Hemans probably related the story of this woman to her own life, with her husband leaving her to go to Italy for "ill health" as the introduction reads in the book (405). Regardless, Asdrubal left his family in order to save his own life, and in some way, perhaps Hemans felt the same way about her own Captain. So she took her children and did the best thing she could think to do. Luckily, Hemans wasn't as extreme and vindictive as the wife of Asdrubal, because Hemans simply went back to live with her mother while the martyr of our story killed herself and the children, hoping that the "avenging spirits" of the children haunt Asdrubal "Till vain remorse thy wither'd heart consume, Scourged by relentless shadows of the tomb!" (408). She obviously wants her husband to pay for the shame that he put upon himself and his family in order to avert death, and perhaps the same is true for Hemans.

It is intersting to note, however, that the wife's name is never given, perhaps this is simply because there is no historical account of what her name was. But as far as the significance that it has to this poem, Hemans herself probably felt that women are too often not given credit for their own actions. Instead of history writing her down as this strong prideful woman who would rather die than be shamed, all her actions are based off of this cowardly man. History doesn't even recognize her as being her own person, the only way she will ever be known is as the wife of Asdrubal.

Percy Bysshe Shelley

The thing that I found interesting about Percy Bysshe Shelley is that he seems to use two opposing ideas to describe one common thing. For instance, in Ozymandias, he describes this great and powerful king who once ruled over all of Egypt, but now his only remains are this beaten up statue that doesn't even have a torso. In Ode to the West Wind, he also uses this idea of opposites describing the wind as a Destroyer and a Preserver.

I wanted to look more deeply at his usage of opposites in his poem Hymn to Intellectual Beauty, because we rarely see the beauty in intellectualism, we tend to separate the two as if they can never coincide and I like it that he identifies that these opposites can and do coexist. In the second stanza he asks the Spirit of Beauty, "Why dost thou pass away, and leave our state, This dim vast vale of tears, vacant and desolate?- Ask why the sunlight not for ever Weaves rainbows o'er yon mountain river;" (397). This quotation is Shelley's way of asking Beauty why it must leave, the sun doesn't always show beautiful rainbows, because the rainbows will always die and go away. He proceeds to discuss other opposites saying, "Why fear and dream and death and birth Cast on the daylight of this earth," wondering why every goo dthing must have an opposite (397). He goes on to discuss how even the wisest sages and poets can't get rid of our human doubts of all these "bad" opposites, so we can see that these things must exist, like the wind that carries a tune or the moonlight on a stream (398).

His second to last stanza is his vow to use Intellectual Beauty in his poetry. I think what he means by Intellectual Beauty is this understanding that all things must have an opposite or some counter that allow us to know exactly what it is. There can't be good without bad or else we wouldn't know how good feels. There can't be beauty without ugly or else we wouldn't know what beauty looks like, and so on and so forth. When he calls "Loveliness" awful, and makes the statement that Intellectual Beauty will "free This world from its dark slavery," he's continuing this idea of opposites and the world is dark because it has yet to fiind his understanding of just how awful loveliness can be, simply becasue loveliness must always be coupled, to an extent, with awefulness (398).

In this way he's somewhat like William Blake, at least as far as the theme of having opposing ideas to describe one thing.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"The Eolian Harp"
When I listened to the audio clip of the eolian harp on Dr. Glance's podcast, I automatically thought that it sounded eerie. I think it was because I expected it to sound like the typical harp that I'm accustomed to, so when I heard this actual type, it sounded almost gloomy and made me think of bad things to come. With that being said, I tried to relate that to the poem when I read it. During some of the first half or so of the poem Caoleridge relates himself to the "Footless and wild... birds of Paradise" (325). These birds, being footless, never stay in one place, they are free to roam as the please, always with their heads in the clouds, forever in flight, forever free. Coleridge seems to talk about how great it is to be one of these birds, speaking of light and sound, "Fairy-Land" and flowers, Melodies and music (325). It isn't until after he mentions his wife in the poem that he comes down to earth. With her "Darts," it's almost as if the woman shoots him down from the sky with a single look (326). Only then does he talk about how important religion is as a person. And by not addressing the birds of Paradise, he pretty much completely rejects them. All that I can think that this might mean, in relation to the sound of the eolian harp, is that our reality isn't quite as pleasent as we would expect for it to be. No matter how the wind blows, a sound will be created in the harp that we either adore or just tolerate, but either way, we have to deal with it.

"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" was definitely a tale that had a lot of unexpected and surely unrealistic events take place, but it makes for a nice story. In an effort to find out the significance of the albatross, I kept finding that the general understanding of the metaphor behind it relates directly to this very poem! So, I figured I would just gain my understanding of the way in which Coleridge meant for the albatross to be portrayed. It is very clearly a sign of "good omen" as described by Coleridge in his side note on page 328, but it is also marked as a "pious bird" in that same side note. So when the mariner kills the bird and is thus cursed because of it, his crew or shipmates make him wear the dead Albatross around his neck. "Instead of the cross, the Albatross/ About my neck was hung" (330). Because Coleridge mentions how the cross would normally be worn around the neck, but instead the mariner muct wear the dead Albatross, shows that the Albatross, for the mariner atleast, has in a way become his savior. Just as many Christians may wear a cross to symbolize that they follow the teachings of Christ and appreciate him for what he has done, the mariner must pay his respect to the Albatross. In fact, the mariner is so controlled by the Albatross that it is not until he completely appreciates life around him and is able to pray that the Albatross falls from his neck (333).