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.
Monday, June 29, 2009
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
