Still on a Pope Kick

Not to take away from Thomas Grey's Elegy, but I am still stuck on Pope's writings. I really respect and admire Pope for so craftily writing satire that had profound effects on society. It amazes me how brilliant some writers are and how much impact one person can have. I have been thinking about Pope's core ideology and how he believed that happiness was not determined by circumstance but by one's own perception of the circumstance, that is to say, one can control one's own happiness in any given situation. I really do agree with this. I have often heard that the mind is the most powerful organ in the human body. The mind can determine if we are sick, hungry, in pain,etc. Once again, I agree with this. However, my main concerns with this ideology are the effects this kind of thinking might have on the lower classes. People that don't have much are usually happy-from my own personal experiences. But, could these people be in a better economic situation if they were taught to fight for their rights? Can Pope's ideology be taken advantage of by those in power? As Marx once said, "religion is the opiate of the masses." I don't think Pope's ideas necessarily have anything to do with religion, but Marx's ideas still applies: the organizations in control subdue the masses into compliance for the benefit of those in power. This might not happen in every society, but I believe history has proven it to be the rule and not the exception. In sum, I whole-heartedly believe in a positive attitude, but I am cognitive of those that look to exploit the uneducated and impoverished.

Thomas Gray

Maybe this is obvious from reading Gray's Elegy, but since the middle ages, people had been buried in churchyards. You might find it interesting that these graves were commonly reused. (Think of the gravedigger scene in Hamlet, where Hamlet picks up the skull of Yorrick, unearthed as the grave is being re-dug for Ophelia.) Even today, when land in Britain is at a premium, laws are being passed about reusing, deepening, and otherwise altering old graves. These pictures are from churches in Wales where I have spent a good deal of time and where I have had very moving experiences similar to Gray's. (Now if I could only write a poem as good as his!) One of these churches was right down the hill from my home. The other (where I am standing) is the church where R. S. Thomas, one of the great religious poets of our time, worked as a priest until his retirement. These might give you an idea of the setting for Gray's poem. The last photo in particular seems appropriate for the "parting day" setting.

I started to write prompts, but they just seemed silly. "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" is one of the great poems of British literature, and perhaps the most famous elegy in English. One of the reasons it is so moving is that it is not an elegy for a specific person. It is an elegy for the nameless, "unhonored dead," for what was not able to be accomplished, for the ambition and fires of youth that could not be realized, for all of the "what ifs" that haunt us all, and for the ghosts of those who have faded into history. It is also a brilliant piece of social commentary. So I am leaving the discussion wide open today. Choose a few lines from the poem that affect you and see where they lead. I'll be anxious to read your responses.

Needing that Lock

I think most people can say they have been a witness to the celebration that comes from blowing things out of proportion. In fact I think it runs rampant nowadays. I'm a big movie buff, but I can hardly stand TV anymore, it makes me nauseated the fanatic way people react to certain situations.I question, why is it that people feel the need to make something small into something epic? I think it comes from a deeper vault of feelings that lay hidden, but are raging to get out.


I had an experience like this when my family got into a huge blowout over animal nipple placement. My family has this website, and in it my brother-in-law writes a humorous column about his thoughts on life. One day he wrote this little script about how he went to the zoo and noticed that so called smart animals such as monkeys and elephants have higher nipple placement and that dumber animals such as cows and horses have lower nipple placement. Well, little did he know that right at this time my sister was struggling to keep her horse who was on the verge of death alive, and she was deeply offended at his comment, actually no one knew except one other sister who proceeded to get on the website and tell my brother that he was a brain damaged animal. I was then told to get on the website and make a comment. I got on and there were over fifty posts. It had gone from brain damage animals to Nazi control, then to politics and religion. My first impression was to make fun of everyone, then I decided to quietly log off. I realized there were deeper issues and past grievances going on. I know now there was another reason for my silence. I'm not Alexander Pope. How he was able to take a two family squabble and turn it into a social commentary, mocking the serious attitude people had over superficial things is amazing. He incorporated what pride and vanity can do by bringing in some of the most prideful characters in history. He then gathers in the reader by making everyone a player in the epic, letting us know how we contribute as a society to the spectacle of drama. How we are called upon to give our own opinions and take sides, as if we have the power to tip the scales to what is right and wrong " Ye Sylphs and Sylphids, to your chief give ear/ Fays, Fairies, Genii, Elves, and Demons hear!/ Ye know the spheres and various tasks assigned/ By laws eternal to th' aerial kind." In the end it is extremely humorous, but at the same time it gives us a look at the human condition and how we crave drama, adventure, and the need for a battle even if it's over something like a lock of hair.

The battle field

I thought it was really interesting that the card game was depicted as a battle. So, of course, my mind went immediately to Beowulf for a comparison. From lines 133-170 of The Rape of the Lock, I'm reminded of Beowulf's fight with Grendel, although I associate the Baron with Beowulf and Belinda with Grendel. Grendel arrives at Heorot and sees a buffet ready for him. He's focused on his own gluttony just as Belinda is focused on her card game. Neither character is expecting that anything terrible could happen to them. Line 153-4 "The meeting points the sacred hair dissever/From the fair head, forever and forever" reminds me of when Beowulf rips off Grendels arm. The first similarity I saw between the two was in the reaction of each character's loss. Line 155-7 "Then flashed the living lightning from her eyes,/And screams of horror rend th' affrighted skies."/Not louder shrieks to pitying Heav'n are cast" I can't find my book to give you lines from Beowulf, but I seem to remember something about shrieks from Grendel. Then the Baron begins to boast "The prize is mine! (line 162)" just as Beowulf hung Grendel's arm from the ceiling as a trophy. In line 170, he even says, "So long my honor, name, and praise shall live!", which is the general idea with everything that Beowulf does.

Background Information

I've posted a document to the documents site that is really helpful in answering some of your questions about historical context. It also includes a timeline. Check it out!

And to Heaven it Went, That Beautiful Soul of a Lock

The element that I took from the mock-epic of The Rape of the Lock was the ending where the lock is forever thought to be immortalized in the stars as it would be more beautiful and envied there as it would ever be on earth. I thought that was hilarious and as comparing it to some other epic I am familiar with is the lost epic of Heracles, by Peisander (600 BC) - yes it is lost but the ending is still around as it is the constellation of Hercules, the Kneeling Man (he is holding the hydra and a club, he's about to beat them with it). I thought that was great because Heracles was immortalized in the stars because of his twelve arduous Labours and the hardships he endured as assuared by the 9 goddesses muse or Zeus (it's unclear who put him up there to be remembered forever). But the Lock was sent up to the skies "but trust the Muse-she saw it upward rise...A sudden star, it shot through liquid air, And drew behind a radiant trial of hair" (Canto 5 lines 123-128) basically to soothe the grief (as compared to when Romulus died and Proculus told everyone he went to heaven to soothe the grief). I loved that part the best, it was like the world's all over because this lock was taken and then lost but maybe just maybe it's up in the heavens looking down at us right now! How better off we are by avoiding the apocalypse of great sadness by not having the World totally void of this The Great Lock!

The Rape of the Lock

For Tuesday, find elements in The Rape of the Lock that seem to mock (comically make use of) other epics with which you are familiar. These might include Paradise Lost, Inferno, The Iliad, The Odyssey etc. You might also write about modern and contemporary mock-heroic epics that bear similarities to Pope's work. Quite simply, the poem doesn't "work" unless you make such comparisons, so have fun with it. All silliness is welcome since the poem is, well, pretty silly.

Hope

Essay 3 from Pope's An Essay on Man really stood out to me. I see a connection here with the Carpe Diem ideas that we spoke about earlier in the semester. Pope offers the idea that perhaps we wouldn't live our life to its fullest if we knew of things beyond our "present state"(line 78). I don't think he's implying that we should only live in the moment but he is simply offering that the knowledge of certain things might change our state for the worse.

Perhaps I only see it because I'm looking for it, but there is a naturalist connection between God, Man and life. Because we can't know what life will bring or what fruits Death will offer, it seems best not to dwell on them but to continue living with the hope that blessings are to come. If nothing else, death will be a learning experience for us just as is life.

Perhaps the most moving lines are 95-96:
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blessed"

I admire the thinking of Pope's time where science is being explored and accepted but God is not forgotten, rather God is being found in the depths of science. Pope is able to refer to the universe and and the planets but still put forth that God is over all.

The Sound Must Seem an Echo to the Sense

Alexander Pope not only claims the importance but also demenstrates thoroughly the idea that "the sound must seem an echo to the sense." He illistrates well in his own works just how significantly the forms and devices used can affect the overall presentation of the piece. There are numerous examples, his line on 367, "And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows" creates further enhancement than simply stating that the stream moves smoothly. Another example of his technique is lines 377-379 when he writes: "Now burns with glory, and then melts with love; Now his fierce eyes with sparkling fury glow, Now signs steal out, and tears begin to flow." The repetition of the word "now" adds emphasis and calls attention to the three lines and his descriptive word choice creates intense imagery for the reader such as "burns" "melts" and "sparkling".

Had Alexander Pope chosen to write his Essay on Man in prose form, I don't think I would have been half as fascinated by it, and I'm not even a poetry lover. I think of poetry vs prose as something like, a song vs a speech. The song is much easier to remember. You can remember what the general point of a speech is, but with a song, certain lines can stand out to you and you keep replaying them in your head, remembering it for much longer. That's probably a terrible analogy, I apologize, but it's all I could come up with in my sleepy state.
I think what I struck me most about An Essay on Man was it's positivity. As I was researching this particular poem, it was mentioned that it was considered "optimistic philosophy." I agree with that conclusion. I felt that part of what Pope was trying to do, is explain that though things are bad sometimes, maybe they're bad for a greater purpose. Lines 53-60 stood out to me in this respect.
"In human works, though labored on with pain/ A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain;/ In God's, one single can its end produce;/ Yet serves to second too some other use./ So Man, who here seems principal alone,/ Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown,/ Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal;/ 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."
LOVE it.
Another part that stood out to me (and some of you might think I'm stretching it here...and maybe I am, I don't know!) was line 185-186:
"Each beast, each insect, happy in its own;/ Is Heav'n unkind to Man, and Man alone?"
When I read this, I thought back to a few years ago when I found a dead spider under a dirty sock in my laundry room. I found inspiration in that event, for some morbid reason, and I ended up writing this short story about the life of this spider, how it'd just been searching for shelter from the outside world, and ended up suffocating from the stench of my brother's dirty sock. Anyway, I think people have the tendency to flatter themselves by thinking their problems are the worst in the world, but think of that poor spider! His life was much worse than a lot of ours. (Haha, what a ridiculous thing for me to say!)
Do you get my point? I think that maybe Pope was trying to point this out, that our problems aren't the end of the world, so to speak, maybe it's all for a higher purpose, if you believe in that sort of thing. Even if you don't, I think you can get from this epistle that maybe we just need to have a more positive outlook on life. My absolute favorite line is 282. "Our proper bliss depends on what we blame."
Touche, Mr. Pope. Touche.

I am friends with the members of some local bands. When I was reading lines 337-393, I was reminded of an incident when my friend was criticizing one of these bands. She said that the lines in his songs were too predictable. "They ring round the same unvaried chimes,/With sure returns of still expected rhymes (lines 348-349) . . . And raise the easy vigor of a line (line 360)." Not to say that he wasn't musically talented, but his "voice is all these tuneful fools admire (340)." The interesting thing is that she still owned their cd and attended their concerts. I think she believed more that "True ease in writing comes from art, not chance (Line 362)" This band didn't last, but I still enjoy listening to a few of their songs from time to time. I guess Pope was right when he said "Dullness is ever apt to magnify (line 393)"

Peeps are Peeps

I guess my reaction to Pope isn't as enamorous as others. I enjoyed reading what he had to say but to me his writing came off kind of arrogant. I still find it amazing that someone tried to write and poem condensing the condition of man into a few pages. However, I would like to build on what Launi had to say about the analytical nature of essays and line that Jake already pointed to "the proper study of mankind is man." It seems that nothing rings truer with humanity in literature than examples of real people. After reading this poem I realized that I would much rather see specific characters than see someone lecture on people. I just don't think I am ever going to find one person that I would trust enough to explain all of humanity to me, but when a person shows me characters that he/she has encountered, he/she takes a part of the wisdom of many people with him, beyond what he/she can put into words.

Alexander Pope

I am in a creative writing class and our first attempt in writing was poetry form. To my teacher's credit, she had us try many different forms but in the end we could basically choose to write our poems however we liked. I found it interesting that most of the students preferred to write in free verse... almost prose like. I, on the other hand, felt that writing in form, a strict form even, held more interest for me. In this, I felt a instant connection with Alexander Pope and his preferred motive of writing.
Many of the students in my class felt confined by the limits places on form writing. I liked how Pope justified his choice not only because he found it was a shorter way to convey his ideas, but because it allowed him to write without "sacrificing perspicuity to ornament" and without "breaking the chain of reasoning". In other words, the form actually helped to keep his thoughts on track without becoming too "dry and tedious". Amen! I am not a usually a fan of philosophical writing for that very reason. It reminds me a little of lawyer-writing. It takes time to read and re-read and I find it quite repetitive. "An Essay on Man" was nothing like that for me. It held my interest and I really enjoyed it. I believe this is due in part to Pope's ingenious choice to write in poetry... even rhyming form.
I also thought that it tied in nicely with his "An Essay on Criticism" because his stayed true to his belief that in order not to threaten the reader with sleep, you needed to write something new and interesting. To describe something in the "same unvaried chimes, with sure returns of still expected rhymes" (348-349) was not true writing.

Critic's Choice

I have a family member who is in the process of becoming a Literary Critic. She is not only family, but one of my best friends; I go to her for all my questions and concerns. I find her mental gymnastics amazing, therefore I usually take her word as truth. A week ago we were talking and I mentioned to her that I would be reading Alexander Pope. I am paraphrasing, but she told me that Pope was profound for history's sake ,but that his writings were tedious and dull. So I got myself all ready to just plow through the assigned reading, and that would be that. As I was reading Pope I found myself struck with such reverent emotion. It was if he was talking directly at me and addressing questions I have been trying to break through lately. I now have an awe-inspiring admiration for this man, he is my new favorite genius. I was about to call my mentor up and tell her she didn't know what the hell she was talking about, but as I read An Essay on Criticism I decided on a different tactic. I will still be telling her that she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about, but just in a more fair and refined manner. Maybe I'll say something from lines 9-16 where it states, " In poets as true genius is but rare/ True taste as seldom is the critic's share/ Both must alike from Heav'n derive their light".

The Chaos of Thought and Passion

My favourite passage of the Essay was the excerpt from the beginning of Epistle II. It seems to be a rather Humanist entry from where I see it. The line "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is Man" jumped right out at me in this regard. I really enjoy the polarity exhibited by the couplets here - the way each one presents two extremes of human experience side by side. Take, for example, "With too much knowledge for the skeptic side, / With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride", or "Alike in ignorance, his reason such, / Whether he thinks too little, or too much" both present opposing ideas, but paint an intimate picture of the human experience in beautiful language. My favourite line in the poem, however, is "Chaos of thought and passion, all confused; / Still by himself abused, or disabused". I'm not even entirely sure why these lines take me so, but they do. I think I like the juxtoposition of 'chaos' and 'passion' with 'thought'. Usually thought is looked at as a cold, calculated word, whereas chaos and passion are more fiery, unpredictable words, but Pope combines them here to create a beautiful, colourful image of the way we go through such disparate emotions, mental states, and creative realms, and the way we can both hurt ourselves or reach clarity through such exploration and experience.

Alexander Pope is the man.

Confession: I have taken many English classes here at UVU and this is the first time I’ve really sat down and read anything by Alexander Pope. The introduction says he is considered to be one of the greatest poets of all time, so I was glad to finally familiarize myself with him a bit. I really enjoyed reading “An Essay on Criticism”. I thought it was brilliant and realized when I finished reading it that I had underlined more than half of the poem.

The irony of the poem is that it is a criticism of criticism. By satirizing the swiftness with which literary critics pass judgment on a literary work, Pope sheds light on the hypocrisy of those who “lose their common sense” “In search of wit” (line 28). In other words, many critics are so focused on finding something to criticize that they end up missing the author’s point entirely. Sadly, the real meaning of a literary work often gets trampled in the mad rush of critics that come swarming in, eager to impart their supposed “wisdom” and sentence someone else’s thoughts to either success or failure.

I remember our class discussion on Astrophill and Stella about criticism. Someone made the comment that we have been taught to criticize and deconstruct literature to the point where it becomes difficult to simply read a poem, for example, and allow ourselves to feel a pure emotion without automatically questioning the author’s motives, his/her possible use of rhetorical strategies, what something may or may not be symbolic of, etc. “So by false learning is good sense defaced. / Some are bewildered in the maze of schools” (25, 26). I do not think that it is wrong to criticize literature; on the contrary I think it is a very beneficial skill to acquire for many reasons. I do, however, believe that too much of something (anything, really) can be negative, as is the case with literary criticism. When used with tact, it can help us as readers to gain more perspective, but the moment that criticism is superfluously used is the moment that the want for criticism overshadows the honest desire to understand literature. It’s kind of like an oxymoron. Usually, the harder people try to achieve something, the more likely they are to arrive at success. The irony of criticism seems to be that, many times, the harder people try to make meaning of a work of art or literature, the more likely they are to overanalyze it, thus pushing them further away from true understanding.

Pope

As I was reading I couldn’t help but think of food critics and chefs on the Food Network. In the opening lines of the poem he outlines that bad criticism is worse than bad writing and to follow, that even though there are bad critics, literature needs criticism. I applied this to the Food network. In the iron chef, there are these amazing chefs who cook up these amazing meals and then some celebrity judge comes out with “the saltiness of this dish overwhelms the sweetness of it.” There is no way that this benefits the cook in anyway and it makes me mad cause if I was there I would enjoy the dish. Pope also in lines 347- 353 says that a critic takes the easy way out and accuses them for using the same objection that other critics use. He also is saying that writers who use phrases like “the cooling western breeze” “it whispers through the trees” or writers who just use the same old material because it has worked in the past. This is where I also drew a parallel with iron chef. Bobby Flay he does the same thing every time with different dishes. If he is using spinach as the main ingredient, he will mask it with filet mignon, always sticking with what has worked in the past and not showing anything new. He is an example of where literature/ the chef needs some criticism in order for him to mix it up a bit. Another line that I really liked was "True ease in writing comes from art, not chance, / As those move easiest who have learned to dance" (362- 363) Greatest is not something that comes easily or something that you are born worth but rather something that you have to work for. “So much they scorn the crowd , that if the throng by chance go right, they purposely go wrong” back to the food network, there is the judge who is a British women on all the cake challenges. No matter what, she will have some scorn for the contestants even if they are doing what she just told them to do. She to me exemplifies this sentence “so much they scorn the crowd” and usually her comments find there way into the “I’m British and I have to be like Simon” category of nothing positive to say.

I know Better

I actually thought that the essay by Alexander Pope was great because of how focused, and precise it was, really did make the points stand out to me. The one that I especially thought was great was p. 2505 point number 4 "Go, wiser thou! and in thy scale of sense weigh thy opinion against Providence;" basically he goes on to say that people who think they know more than God because of their pride and unhappiness are wrong they are trying to be "the God of God!." Which I thought was great that he addressed that because a lot of people think they know more than God in all sense of the word, the all knowing being, the creator, etc. And there are those people around, I've heard them talk before about their b.s. So I thought it was great that he just called those people out "Aspiring to be gods, if angels fell, aspiring to be angels, men rebel;" because they are a certain type of persona in humanities repertoire :D and that stuck in my head because of how Pope condemned those people so well!

Prompts for Alexander Pope

1. In his introduction to An Essay on Man, Pope cites his reasons for writing an "essay" in verse form, rather than in prose. Quite simply, he believes it will have a greater immediate impact, be more memorable, and carry the force of conciseness. After reading the excerpts in the book, what parts strike you as particularly memorable or striking?

2. Read lines 362-373 of An Essay on Criticism. How does Pope demonstrate his belief that "The sound must seem an echo to the sense?" Be specific.

3. Other than this, I'd like to leave the prompts open. There is much here worth discussing, so I'll let you decide what is important to you.

That being said, I'm a bit bugged that the editors haven't included the entire Essay on Man in the anthology. It's one of the great poems of British literature, and you really ought to read all four epistles, not just the first one and the little sliver of two in your text. You can read it for free online. Here are a few of my many, many favorite parts that you don't have in your anthology. It's not required reading for this class, but in my eyes, it should be required reading for life.

From Epistle 2:

Self-love, the spring of motion, acts the soul; Reason's comparing balance rules the whole. Man, but for that, no action could attend, And but for this, were active to no end: Fixed like a plant on his peculiar spot, To draw nutrition, propagate, and rot; Or, meteor-like, flame lawless through the void, Destroying others, by himself destroyed. (lines 59-66)

Passions, like elements, though born to fight, Yet, mixed and softened, in his work unite: These, 'tis enough to temper and employ; But what composes man, can man destroy? Suffice that Reason keep to Nature's road, Subject, compound them, follow her and God. Love, hope, and joy, fair pleasure's smiling train, Hate, fear, and grief, the family of pain, These mixed with art, and to due bounds confined, Make and maintain the balance of the mind; The lights and shades, whose well-accorded strife Gives all the strength and colour of our life. (lines 111-122)
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. (lines 217-220)
Virtuous and vicious every man must be, Few in th' extreme, but all in the degree, The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise; And even the best, by fits, what they despise. 'Tis but by parts we follow good or ill; For, vice or virtue, self directs it still; Each individual seeks a several goal; But Heaven's great view is one, and that the whole. (lines 231-238)
Heaven forming each on other to depend, A master, or a servant, or a friend, Bids each on other for assistance call, Till one man's weakness grows the strength of all. Wants, frailties, passions, closer still ally The common interest, or endear the tie. To these we owe true friendship, love sincere, Each home-felt joy that life inherits here; Yet from the same we learn, in its decline, Those joys, those loves, those interests to resign; Taught half by reason, half by mere decay, To welcome death, and calmly pass away. (lines 249-260)
From Epistle 3:
 Look round our world; behold the chain of love Combining all below and all above. See plastic Nature working to this end, The single atoms each to other tend, Attract, attracted to, the next in place Formed and impelled its neighbour to embrace. See matter next, with various life endued, Press to one centre still, the general good. See dying vegetables life sustain, See life dissolving vegetate again: All forms that perish other forms supply (By turns we catch the vital breath, and die), Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne, They rise, they break, and to that sea return. Nothing is foreign: parts relate to whole; One all-extending, all-preserving soul Connects each being, greatest with the least; Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast; All served, all serving: nothing stands alone; The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown. (lines 7-26)
Has God, thou fool! worked solely for thy Thy good, Thy joy, thy pastime, thy attire, thy food? Who for thy table feeds the wanton fawn, For him as kindly spread the flowery lawn: Is it for thee the lark ascends and sings? Joy tunes his voice, joy elevates his wings. Is it for thee the linnet pours his throat? Loves of his own and raptures swell the note. The bounding steed you pompously bestride, Shares with his lord the pleasure and the pride. Is thine alone the seed that strews the plain? The birds of heaven shall vindicate their grain. Thine the full harvest of the golden year? Part pays, and justly, the deserving steer: The hog, that ploughs not nor obeys thy call, Lives on the labours of this lord of all.    Know, Nature's children all divide her care; The fur that warms a monarch, warmed a bear. While man exclaims, "See all things for my use!" "See man for mine!" replies a pampered goose: And just as short of reason he must fall, Who thinks all made for one, not one for all. (lines 27-48)
See [Man] from Nature rising slow to art! To copy instinct then was reason's part; Thus then to man the voice of Nature spake-- "Go, from the creatures thy instructions take: Learn from the birds what food the thickets yield; Learn from the beasts the physic of the field; Thy arts of building from the bee receive; Learn of the mole to plough, the worm to weave; Learn of the little nautilus to sail, Spread the thin oar, and catch the driving gale. Here too all forms of social union find, And hence let reason, late, instruct mankind: Here subterranean works and cities see; There towns aerial on the waving tree. Learn each small people's genius, policies, The ant's republic, and the realm of bees; How those in common all their wealth bestow, And anarchy without confusion know; (lines 169-186)
'Twas then, the studious head or generous mind, Follower of God, or friend of human-kind, Poet or patriot, rose but to restore The faith and moral Nature gave before; Re-lumed her ancient light, not kindled new; If not God's image, yet His shadow drew: Taught power's due use to people and to kings, Taught nor to slack, nor strain its tender strings, The less, or greater, set so justly true, That touching one must strike the other too; Till jarring interests, of themselves create The according music of a well-mixed state. Such is the world's great harmony, that springs From order, union, full consent of things: Where small and great, where weak and mighty, made To serve, not suffer, strengthen, not invade; More powerful each as needful to the rest, And, in proportion as it blesses, blest; Draw to one point, and to one centre bring Beast, man, or angel, servant, lord, or king. (lines 283-302)
For forms of government let fools contest; Whate'er is best administered is best: For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight; His can't be wrong whose life is in the right: In faith and hope the world will disagree, But all mankind's concern is charity: All must be false that thwart this one great end; And all of God, that bless mankind or mend.    Man, like the generous vine, supported lives; The strength he gains is from the embrace he gives. On their own axis as the planets run, Yet make at once their circle round the sun; So two consistent motions act the soul; And one regards itself, and one the whole.    Thus God and Nature linked the general frame, And bade self-love and social be the same. (lines 303-318)
From Epistle 4:
Oh, happiness, our being's end and aim! Good, pleasure, ease, content! whate'er thy name: That something still which prompts the eternal sigh, For which we bear to live, or dare to die, Which still so near us, yet beyond us lies, O'erlooked, seen double, by the fool, and wise. Plant of celestial seed! if dropped below, Say, in what mortal soil thou deign'st to grow? Fair opening to some Court's propitious shine, Or deep with diamonds in the flaming mine? Twined with the wreaths Parnassian laurels yield, Or reaped in iron harvests of the field? Where grows?--where grows it not?  If vain our toil, We ought to blame the culture, not the soil: Fixed to no spot is happiness sincere, 'Tis nowhere to be found, or everywhere; (lines 1-16)
An honest man's the noblest work of God. (248)
Know, then, this truth (enough for man to know) "Virtue alone is happiness below." The only point where human bliss stands still, And tastes the good without the fall to ill; Where only merit constant pay receives, Is blest in what it takes, and what it gives; The joy unequalled, if its end it gain, And if it lose, attended with no pain; Without satiety, though e'er so blessed, And but more relished as the more distressed: The broadest mirth unfeeling folly wears, Less pleasing far than virtue's very tears: Good, from each object, from each place acquired For ever exercised, yet never tired; Never elated, while one man's oppressed; Never dejected while another's blessed; And where no wants, no wishes can remain, Since but to wish more virtue, is to gain. (309-326)
Self-love thus pushed to social, to divine, Gives thee to make thy neighbour's blessing thine. Is this too little for the boundless heart? Extend it, let thy enemies have part: Grasp the whole worlds of reason, life, and sense, In one close system of benevolence: Happier as kinder, in whate'er degree, And height of bliss but height of charity.    God loves from whole to parts: but human soul Must rise from individual to the whole. Self-love but serves the virtuous mind to wake, As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake! The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds, Another still, and still another spreads; Friend, parent, neighbour, first it will embrace; His country next; and next all human race; Wide and more wide, the o'erflowings of the mind Take every creature in, of every kind; Earth smiles around, with boundless bounty blest, And Heaven beholds its image in his breast. (lines 353-372)
See you tomorrow

A Brief History of Ireland and Britan

I have been thinking a lot about J. Swift and what was going on during his life time. I found some info that might shed some light why Swift wrote the things he wrote.

In the 1530s England's King Henry began the process of breaking with the Catholic Church of Rome. This split led to the eventual foundation of the Church of England. The Reformation divided the Irish, who remained Catholic, from the English, who became Protestants. In 1601, at the battle of Kinsale, the Irish armies and their Spanish allies were defeated. For the first time all Ireland was governed by a strong English central administration based in Dublin.

Another English policy to subdue Ireland was the colonization of Ulster with new settlers, mostly Scottish Presbyterians and English Protestants. This system of colonization was known as "a planting". The native Irish were driven off almost 500,000 acres of the best land in counties Tyrone, Donegal, Derry, Armagh and Cavan. The property was then consolidated and colonizers were 'planted' on large estates. (6.)

In 1641 the Irish rebelled against the English and Scottish who possessed their land, and were immediately caught up in the English civil war between Parliament and king. In 1649 Oliver Cromwell landed at Dublin with an army of 12,000 men. He was joined by the 8,000 strong parliamentary army. He successfully laid seige to the town of Drogheda, and on his orders the 2,699 men of the royalist garrison were put to death. Townspeople were also slaughtered. Cromwell reported that "We put to the sword the whole number of inhabitants. I do not think thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives." (7.)
Large-scale confiscation of land followed. The owners were driven off eleven million acres of land and it was given to the Protestant colonists. "Irish landowners found east of the river Shannon after 1 May, 1654 faced the death penalty or slavery in the West Indies and Barbados." (8.) The expression "To hell or Connaught" originated at this time: "those who did not leave their fertile fields and travel to the poor land west of the Shannon would be put to the sword." (9.)

In the 1690s the Penal Laws, designed to repress the native Irish were introduced. The first ordered that no Catholic could have a gun, pistol, or sword. Over the next 30 years the other Penal laws followed: Irish Catholics were forbidden to receive an education, enter a profession, vote, hold public office, practice their religion, attend Catholic worship, engage in trade or commerce, purchase land, lease land, receive a gift of land or inherit land from a Protestant, rent land worth more than thirty shillings a year, own a horse of greater value than five pounds, be the guardian to a child, educate their own children or send a child abroad to receive an education.
Edmund Burke, an Irish-born Protestant who became a British Member of Parliament, (MP) described the Penal laws as "well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man." (11.) The Lord Chancellor was able to say, "The law does not suppose any such person to exist as an Irish Roman Catholic."

The eighteenth century in Ireland was a dismal time for the "untrustworthy majority." The Penal Laws, directed at their education, religion, and property rights, kept them poor and powerless. One who commented on their plight was Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, and Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin.
In "A Short View of the Present State of Ireland" he singled out the practice of absentee landlordism, estimating that half the net revenues of Ireland were taken out of the country and spent in Britain. Ever increasing rent, the source of most revenue, Swift declared, "is squeezed out of the very blood, and vitals, and clothes, and dwellings of the tenants, who live worse than English beggars. The families of farmers who pay great rents [are] living in filth and nastiness upon buttermilk and potatoes, without a shoe or a stocking to their feet, or a house so convenient as an English hog sty to receive them. These may, indeed, be comfortable sights to an English spectator who comes for a short time to learn the language, and returns back to his own country, whither he finds all our wealth transmitted." (12.)

It is interesting to note that Swift was born two years after the death of Cromwell. All this tension MUST have had a huge impact on Swift's writings. I love finding out what was going behind the literature we read!!

Swift a Powerful Satirist

Yes, it is rather revolting thinking about really putting Swifts's proposal into practice, but I know I was not alone in reading it and thinking about how genius it is. The reason it works so well as a satire is because of his amazing argumentative skills and ability to take something as insane as killing babies for bacon and turning it into even a little bit of an, athough sick and twisted, almost logical idea. With such a disastrous living situation in Ireland, Swift is able to take all the elements of what would be considered a normal argument for repairing the conditions, and incorporate them into his own, just with the added craziness of the whole idea. Swift is simply taking what he seees as the way Ireland's poor are already treated and turning it into a literal way of life.

Perhaps the best sting in his proposal comes toward the end when he is wrapping up his argument and actually speaks in a more realistic manner. He asks those who oppose his idea to consider asking the poor if they would prefer what he is proposing to "a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through." In other words, would this insane idea really be worse than how the poor of Ireland are already living? This is a bold and powerful statement made by Swift and therefore makes for a most excellent satire.

I think that one of the main reason that a Modest Proposal works so well as satire is because of the fact that it stays so true to form to other pamphlets and tracts of the day that dealt with Ireland and poverty in general. It is truly disheartening to read other essays that are NOT satire which, while perhaps not as outright outlandish as Swift’s proposal, still take the same oddly calculated and hubristic view of the poor that the authors are claiming to wish to help. Reading William Petty’s Political Arithmetic, one can see the true genius of Swift’s satire in the fact that Swift so perfectly matches the high handed tone. From the beginning Petty has the attitude of supremely knowing what is best for the poor and then literally treats them as no more than a simplified mathematical equation. The oversimplification and lack of anything actually approaching real sympathy and care is truly astounding.

Because of this and other similar articles of the time, to a contemporary reader of A Modest Proposal, the first part of the essay would have seemed completely standard and earnest. In the first part of the essay Swift expertly adopts the persona of a person genuinely interested in the plight of the Irish people as he describes their poverty. Halfway through the essay he suddenly introduces his modest proposal. Of course the idea is horrifying but hopefully would have made the reader realize that perhaps many of the other proposals for the poor being offered at the time were equally outlandish and cold. Swift also manages to do more than just attack the proposers but also the people of society who allow this kind of mindset to exist in the first place. Unfortunately, I think the idea of people for profit still continues. Swift points out that yes the idea of literally eating people is horrifying but don’t we figuratively do it all the time? I think my favorite line in the piece is when he slyly inserts the idea that the meat from the children would be “very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”

The image I found most revolting and yet intriguing was that of having a cooked baby to be served at the christening of another. For me, this image put into perspective the absolute inequality of the situation. It make me think about how those children had come into separate circumstances through no fault of their own and how unfair that is. How they would live or die based on the decisions and mistakes of other people. The image also points to some of the hypocrisies of religion, particularly the relevance of ceremony over practicality. By putting the two children together so closely and yet in such different circumstances brought to life the harsh reality of this time period.

Cannibalism rules.

The best satire is the most straight-faced; although they ostensibly have different goals, I'd argue that Stephen Colbert is much more successful a satirist than Jon Stewart because he plays his Stephen Colbert, Right-Wing Horse's Ass so sincerely that it feels like a real person. Similarly, Swift manages to be so deadly toward his target (maybe "targets" is more accurate) because he doesn't once tip his hand.

I won't go into specifics, but I was reading an article by an inexplicably famous conservative pundit (who, of course, claims himself to be a "libertarian") that I honestly believed was satire, a send-up of extreme right-wing, reactionary bullshit. I thought this person was mocking their own colleagues, pointing out how stupid they were. It was hilarious; I forwarded it to friends, shared its sentiments with professors, and just generally got a massive kick out of someone being so willing to embrace every horrible, hateful cliche of rabid conservative extremity.

One of the friends I had sent it to defended the guy's racist, xenophobic diatribe as some bizarre version of "This guy's just saying what everyone else is thinking." "Maybe what everyone committed in Bellevue is thinking," I thought, proud of myself for being able to discern true satire so cunningly delivered that even its target audience didn't know they were being mocked.

As you can imagine, turns out I'm the idiot. The pundit was being sincere. He meant (or purported to mean, anyway) every word. That's what I get for trolling the comments section of the Fox News website for giggles.

Anyway, I wonder how frequently someone like Swift was criticized as though he was being sincere. To be completely fair (and the devil's/cannibal's advocate), he lays out some exceptionally good arguments, many of which can be dismantled only with a king-sized helping of "BECAUSE EATING PEOPLE IS WRONG." If you take away the taboo around cannibalism and advocate strict pragmatism (as, say, certain political figures claim to do), then yeah, Swift's idea is pretty much deep-fried gold, smothered in awesome sauce, with a tall of glass of genius to wash it all down (to stick with a food metaphor).

Interestingly, I have a different friend that believes that someone like Ann Coulter isn't a pundit so much as a performance artist; she doesn't really believe anything that she says, and will one day hold a press conference and tell everyone that she was joking. I saw a post on a political message board today where someone said "You can't debate Ann Coulter because it would be like debating a Dadaist on why the sugarsnorklefickle 70,300.00 burglefish$ camera." After cleaning up the milk that shot out of my nose as soon as I read that, I wonder if any of Swift's audience (that wasn't familiar with his other work, anyway, considering its satirical nature) took him all that seriously.

All this has made me want a steak. I wonder what that says about me.

(okay, fine. The pundit was Glenn Beck. That guy's an asshole.)

True, "A Modest Proposal" is definitely a shocking, and ever "repulsive" piece of literature, but it is literature nonetheless. Many people are too quick to dismiss literature that explores such taboo and abnormal principles that they end up missing the point the author was trying to convey. "A Modest Proposal" and other such startling literature is great because it forces its audience to confront the bracing realities that they have either ignored or have refused to confront.

Swift's work serves well as satire because of the way he sets it up. At first, he sets the stage to portray the poor state of the people in Ireland, thus helping the reader feel sympathy for them. When he first mentions the basic idea of his argument, I wasn't sure if he was being serious or not. As one gets deeper into Swift's "proposal," however, it is made quite clear through his rhetorical strategies that he is making a political statement, not a literal proposal to eat Ireland's babies. Through the use of blatant sarcasm, ironies, and exaggeration, Swift was able to deliver a fierce deliverance to the leaders of Ireland in an effort to open their eyes to the terrible state of Ireland and the fact that something needed to be done.

Maybe it's my sick sense of humor, or maybe it's the joy I get out of satires, but I wore a smile as I read "A Modest Proposal ". My laughs were not hahaha this story is about eating children; thankfully I'm not that sick. My laughs came from the gumption of Jonathan Swift to tell it like it is. I really wish he was alive today, I think it would benefit our society as well, to hear a few harsh words about how things are done and the limit people put on compassion. I think this is a great example of a man questioning where a society's humanity has gone. Swift, I feel was dealing with many hostile forces: voices that say, well they brought it upon themselves, let them sink or swim, with a let them eat cake kind of attitude. Then he had to deal with other intellectuals who mentioned solutions that would actually treat the Irish like cattle. I believe this is when Swift with raw emotion ridicules the powers that be, and spells out a huge warning of the steps that take us to more barbaric rituals like cannibalism. Like Mr. P and some of the others said, Swift drove this home with such force because he did use children as "wholesome food". I feel he had to use such horrendous visuals because England and others were not just turning a blind eye to the situation it seemed their eyes were made of beads of glass and that it was the only way to shatter their stifled outlook.




I also thought he showed his talent for blunt, but breathtaking truth when he wrote " A Description of a City Shower" For me there was a unity to this poem, a feeling that it doesn't matter what class, station,or how rich or poor you are, we all live under the same sky, we are all going to get poured on and in the end all our crap is going to mingle together in the same sewer.

Paradise Lost Book 1

I found it interesting how Satan felt like he was too far gone to ever have redeemed himself. As I was reading through this section I got the sense that Satan genuinely thought that his ideas were going to be accepted, and then felt totally embarrassed when he got kicked to the curb. It seemed like he was stoked on his plans and then dumbfounded when it all blew up in his face. His immaturity and childish stubbornness shines through when he makes his speech about how he is going to dedicate his efforts to thwart the plan of God, kind of like a "my way or the highway" mindset. Looking past his obvious immaturity and rebellion, however, it's easy to feel pity for him in the way that Milton describes his despair and total isolation. If God (who is always described as being infinitely merciful and loving) cut me off from himself and every other living creature, I would be pretty put off too...then again, maybe that's what Satan wanted all along.

The Satirical Genius

A Modest Proposal, must have have blown some minds when it was written because it sure blew mine. This satire is without a doubt pretty disturbing but I think it achieves its purpose to perfection. The grotesque idea of eating another human being, not only a human being but a child, is presented with such nonchalance; Swift presents it as the most logical and humane thing in the world which is the beauty of satire. Its like a metaphorical conceit of sarcasm, that drives Swift's point home with clarity.

Lines like " Those who are more thrifty(as I must confess the times require) may flay the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies and summer boots for fine gentlemen". How sick is that? Make you never want to eat again kind of sick. But at the same time it perfectly illustrates what was going on in that society and in some ways what is now going on in ours. The book says that Swift believed Ireland to be its own worst enemy. The idea of cannibalism provides the perfect metaphor for that nations self-destructive tendencies, which I believe we are beginning to see in this one. Is our society not all about the individual's wants, needs, their consumption? Are we not all willing to "devour" others to keep ourselves on top? Its a scary thought. A declining society is one that has forgotten how to care about others. I think we might be well on our way to eating out hearts out. Metaphorically.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

When I first read this I found it disturbing that it is even a piece of British literature, but after reading a few of the blogs I now understand how cleaver and sneaky it really is. Jonathan Swift uses an outrageous topic in order to take the spot light off of the real intentions of this poem. By doing so, he is able to speak about sensitive subjects without getting ridiculed. Using poverty stricken babies as a potential form of meat is one way he tells the reader how worthless the lower class society is. But at the same time, he might be speaking to the reader(upper class) through their reactions to the text. As the upper class society might find this humorous, they might at the same time realize just how animal like they have become.

Swift makes a very good case for the poor throughout his seemingly heartless text about butchering and eating babies. He makes the point that the upper class is already doing just that. The poor are viewed as no more than animals who are infesting the society that belongs to the rich.

The real damnation

As outrageous and unacceptable as Swift's A Modest Proposal may seem, the more atrocious aspect to consider is that being raised as human livestock would have actually been an improvement in the lives of many of the poorer class of the 1700s. The unmentionables of society were more often than not left to starve in the streets with no shelter and no assistance. At least as a food source they would have been fed and clothed and treated properly until it was time to butcher them for market. The real damnation is that they were allowed to live in such horrible conditions as to make cannibalism appear as a reasonable solution. I think that Swift selected cannibalism as his social taboo of choice in order to direct attention to the greater taboo; that of the immense poverty of the time in contrast to the great wealth that was had yet never used to improve the standard of living.

It is also interesting that Swift claims the whole idea as having been mentioned to him by an American, that nasty lot of inbreds from across the pond. There is the idea that he is blaming the whole thing on the Americans as if to say "well they started it." This is evidence of some of the underlying social commentary that is taking place. The cannibalism issue is used as smoke and mirrors in order to discuss the true topics of poverty and the heathen colonials in the west. Swift's writing is very educated and deftly executed so that his reasoning is only enhanced by the delivery. "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food" (Swift 2432). His language and tone mask an underlying disgust for the 'American' and his ways. It's hardly a surprise since Swift is writing during the time leading up to the Revolutionary War.

Delicious

A Modest Proposal is a great piece of literature, and the use of the cannibalism of the poor helped me really pay attention to detail because it was such a wild idea. I just realized that Mike Myers as fat basterd was Irish and that declaring babies as the “other white meat” could have had a little more depth than I originally thought. Swift uses the piece to illustrate that the Irish are all ready being consumed by the British in a more literal sense saying, “they have already devoured most of the Parents”. He goes on later to state that the Irish are in such a dire state that they might as well be dead and that cannibalism and the chance to make a buck is an improvement. By using the most unconventional idea, he is able to be radical and sarcastic but also able to say things he might not have said. He is categorizing the nobles as people who care not about the lives of the poor, and that eating them would be fine alternative to giving them money. In the text Swift reaffirms that the Noble would be fine with this, well unless they where teenagers because that would be border lining on cruelty and they wouldn’t taste good anyways. Great literature and Great Idea!

Children are delicious

What better way to get your point across, then by proposing to eat children? Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is definitely a satire because of the sarcastic, even ridiculous, idea of literally using the poor to feed the rich. It is a piece of literature that would definitely draw the attention of those who oppressed Ireland and its people, but also get a very valid point across. After all, such a horrific plan would truly be preposterous in nature, yet the hidden message is clearly aimed at England, and what the country had already been doing: killing the poor by neglect; by cutting off their trade and by forcing them into the streets. Also, by hiding his sadism in a plan that only a madman would propose, no one would dare cause trouble with Swift for fear of showing agreement or disagreement to his words. It is literary genius, and rhetoric at its best. His craziness allows him to keep his head--well, implied craziness, craziness for a good purpose.

Although, it is disgusting to think of such a thing as raising and plumping children for meat and economic redemption, it was a necessary step for important social change. The intense and appalling description and elaboration of feeding on humans force the reader to almost say, "Please, stop, I get it already. Flaying a child, eating one as venison steak. Enough!" but Swift drives the point home. He rubs England's face in their misdeeds by nonchalantly suggesting to eat the Irish riffraff, and then explain the benefits. He says

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass [of the child], the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies and summer boots for fine gentlemen. (2433)

Swift is basically showing two important points, one, the other possible use of children (instead of the waste of them dying in the streets), and two, visualizing the unfortunate and wrong treatment of the poor by comparing them to cattle; if they are so poor that they are worse off than livestock, then there is nothing else for which they are good. If England disagreed then they would be looking into the eyes of their own hypocrisy, or if they agreed with his words--well, if they agreed then they would be equally damned. Even though the subject matter is gruesome and taboo, the eloquent words and parallel imagery of food and money to that of edible children cannot be overlooked or forgotten. I, in fact, don't know if I can look at my own children without Swift's ideas creeping into my head (I'm joking). I shiver at the thought.

Jonathan Swift Prompts

I hope you have been enjoying your spring break. Here are the prompts for Tuesday. All of them are based on A Modest Proposal (but please be sure to read all of the assigned material):

1. In terms of social commentary, which part of A Modest Proposal is the most damning? Why?

2. Do you see any similarities between A Modest Proposal and Utopia? How are they alike? What are their chief differences?

3. What makes A Modest Proposal work as satire? After all, cannibalism is one of the oldest, deepest, human taboos. And eating children? Flaying them? How can a piece like this be anything more than revolting? How can it qualify as literature?

4. A Modest Proposal is, in part, a parody--and a denunciation--of William Petty's Political Arithmetic (2437-38). Have a look at Petty's piece, which is not satirical in nature. Could one make the argument that Petty's piece is, in fact, much more horrifying than Swift's?

Cheers.

Heav'n or Hell

It seems like Milton is implementing the same meduim that we've seen previous authors use. As to how revolutionary his ideas where for the time, I'm not sure... but he is definitely using an unreliable character to put forth fairly sound ideas. Life is what we make of it after all. One man's trash is another man's treasure. In this case, Satan is arguing that one man's Hell is another man's Heaven. "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heav'n or Hell and a Hell of Heav'n." (line 254-255) There is absolutely some merit to what he is suggesting.
Satan also puts for th the idea (not unlike Faustus) that being lord over anything is better than being subject to anyone. "Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." (line 263) Milton uses Satan as a platform to put forth this statement so that the reader can choose to dismiss it if he likes. However, (and very ironically) the reader is also unable to deny the inherent honesty of the speaker. He is Satan after all.

Milton's Lucifer

A British comic book writer named Mike Carey wrote a really great, long-running comic series called Lucifer that takes Milton's interpretation of the character and puts him in modern-day Los Angeles. It's a spin-off from Neil Gaiman's Sandman comic, and it eclipses it by leaps and bounds. In it, Lucifer leaves Hell and decides that he wants to open a piano bar called Lux (not joking). He's constantly being dragged back into battles between Heaven and Hell, although hereally just doesn't want to get involved.

Carey's writing is pretty faithful to the character's Miltonic origins, and Lucifer is one of the most charming bastards you'd ever read about. He's clearly painted as an antihero at best (and a straight-up villain at worst), but the book is fascinating in its explorations of free will, its protagonist's raging against what he believes to be the predestination set in place by his father.

Here's how he's portrayed on one of the book's covers:

Definitely worth checking out.

Paradise Lost

I kind of had an odd response to Book One in that I felt, and still feel, a tad conflicted in what exactly Milton was attempting to do. As other students have pointed out, Book 1 seems to address similar ideas and themes as Dr. Faustus. However, Paradise Lost also reminded me a lot of other works as well; the most obvious being Dante’s Divine Comedy. In reality, Paradise Lost has a very similar style to just about any of the Greek epics such as Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad. However, what confused/conflicted me the most comes mainly from the beginning of Book 1 which is essentially Milton’s prologue. In it Milton refers to epics of the past as he invokes the idea of muses. However, Milton makes a point to state that his muse is none other than the Holy Spirit and goes on to clarify that it is the same Holy Spirit which inspired Moses. It just seemed like an odd juxtaposition because it seems as though Milton is attempting to write an epic in line with the aforementioned classics and yet he is comparing his inspiration to the same “being” that has provided prophets with, what many people, including presumably Milton, believe to be the “official” word of God. I’m not accusing Milton of pride or anything but it just seemed odd and made me wonder if he intended this work, which comes across to me to be dealing with religious themes but on a more literary and secular level, to be considered purely theological. I’d be curious to get any opinions on that.

I am really enjoying Paradise Lost. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to make it into a movie? Anyway, I was thinking about lines 253-256. Here, Satan is saying that any place can be Heaven or Hell depending on your frame of mind. I agree with Satan (that sounds weird) because I believe that our mind has the most influence over the way we perceive our situations and circumstances. I have seen two different people go through similar problems, like death, and each person reacted differently and, in turn, the outcomes of those "similar" situations ended up being totally different. I see this in people with depression, as well. Not to say that people with chronic depression can help it, but we all know someone who, to the outside world, appears to be fine-they have all their basic needs taken care of, yet they are sad because the chemicals in their head tell them they are sad. They have created a personal hell for themselves-or their mind has created it if they can't help it. I have also seen people take awful situations and create their own personal heaven-ie, single mothers, widowers, etc. So, I think this is a cool idea from Satan, but it seems like he is justifying his choices to me. It almost seems like Satan knows he made a mistake by rebelling against God and is now trying to convince himself that he made the correct decision. I can say that Satan appears to be a really smart guy. It is interesting to read a book where you can almost sympathize with someone like Satan-hats off to Milton.

Like Sarah, I too thought of Dr. Faustus while reading. However, for me, it was lines 249-250 that caught my attention. "The mind is its own place, and in itself/Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n."
Satan uses his fall from heaven as an advantage, you could say. He decides to make the best of it and instead of wallowing in misery, he's going to try and take mankind down with him. (Though, obviously he's still going to be miserable.)
The most intriguing line for me was 263. "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." This is a good example of how sly and smart Satan is, and shows how easy he can turn evil into an appealing thing. Wouldn't it be nice if we got to rule, instead of serve? I know my life would be less stressful. This line also shows a quality in Satan that is actually, to me at least, considered a great quality. Unfailing determination.

I couldn't help, but think of Dr. Faustus as I was reading Paradise Lost. This very well could be because of the immediate mention of Satan and Beelzebub, but I first noticed it fully in lines 242-45: "Is this the Region, this the Soil, The Clime,/Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat/That we must change for Heav'n, thi mournful gloom/For that celestial light?" These lines made me think of Mephostophilis specifically in the beginning of Faustus, when he is warning Faustus and telling him he knows the joys of Heaven and knows what he is missing. Then in line 261 he begins to say "Here we may reign secure, and in my choice/To reign is worth ambition though in Hell", which signifies the attitude Faustus has. He chooses power and knowledge for a few short years in exchange to suffer in hell. In line 33o when it says"Awake, arise, or be for ever fall'n", I think of the Good Angel who was constantly telling Faustus to realize that he could repent and escape hell and damnation. And finally in lines 603-608, I am reminded of a mixture of Faustus and Mephostophilis. "Of dauntless courage and considerate Pride/Waiting revenge"(the scene where Mephostophilis and Faustus are messing with the Pope) "cruel his eye, but cast/Signs of remorse"(This reminds me of all of the warnings Mephostophilis gives to Faustus and also of Faustus' internal struggles and remorse of what he has done) "The fellows of his crime, the followers rather/(Far other once beheld in bliss) condemned/For ever now to have thir lot in pain" (These lines make me think of Faustus as the follower of Mephostophilis and other devils who now is condemned and suffers great pain and anguish in the last scene of the text)

Maybe I read too much into it, but lines 244-45 really made the idea stick in my mind.

Paradise Lost Illustrations

I thought you might enjoy these. The color painting (1841) is John Martin's depiction of Pandemonium, the capital of hell. The black and white images are a few of Gustave Dore's famous engravings of Paradise Lost (1866). He illustrated the entire epic, but these are some images from Book I (except for the image of Satan being cast out of heaven; that comes later, but it's one of my favorites, so I included it anyway). Sorry for the screwy layout. Blogger drives me nuts sometimes. If you click on them, you can see them a bit larger, in more detail.

Paradise Lost Prompts

I hope you are enjoying Paradise Lost. It takes a while to get used to Milton's language and his rhythms, but the investment is worth it.

1. After reading Satan's argument in lines 249-270, what do you make of it? Our instinct may be to dismiss his argument because he is Satan (the fact that he has been cast out of heaven into a like of fire seems to suggest that he wasn't on the right side of things). But don't some of his arguments make sense? Or at least could one make the argument that he makes a pretty good case for himself? What do you think?

2. How does Milton's portrayal of Satan compare to the Beowulf poet's heroic depiction of Beowulf? Can you make any comparisons between the two epics? Can Satan be considered a heroic figure? Use examples from both poems in your response.

3. If you don't like either of those prompts, you can respond in another way. In fact, please consider this a standing invitation to ignore my prompts and write about something else. Every time I have left the responses open, I have been very pleased with what you have written. Maybe that should teach me something about my own prompts!

See you on Tuesday.

JU-JU's Robe

When Julia gets all nude and such
Mmm,mmm, I think about me lady much
that robe-disappearing to my touch.
When I stare at Ju-Ju from a tree
Her curvy bod I love to see
That milky skin infatuating me.

Carrying the Fire

So, I really need to stop reading other posts before I write my own because it gives me all of these other ideas I hadn't planned on. Jillian's reminder about The Road caused me to start thinking about what it really means to LIVE LIFE and especially how life is a matter of what we do/make out of what comes our way.

Milton writes beautifully in "When I Consider How My Light is Spent" of the talent given him and insinuates that he is somehow shaming his maker by being unable to continue shining. It is hard not to read the underlying depth of despair Milton feels at not being able to write and create. I only have one objection to his verse and that is the implication that his "light is spent" (line 1). The light that each of us chooses to shine, whether it be a bright glow of day or a grim and murky effusion that reflects off of solar luminescence, has a rippling effect that is impossible to calculate or anticipate. (Hopefully it is the bright and shiny sort of light.)

Milton's light continues to shine today through the words he wrote and the life he shared. Though there has been a literal 'death of the author,' his light continues to shine with each new reading of his creations. I love that each of us can use our talents to continue to 'carry the fire' and use our talents to the benefit of those around us.

Milton's writings also stand as a brave testament that faith doesn't have to conform to social norms in order to be acceptable to God. Milton was considered by many not to be a defender of the faith but to be a destroyer of the right way to worship. He chose to share his talents in a way that satisfied his needs and fostered an understandable relationship to deity. This poem was a refreshing reminder to me that we all have our own fire to carry. Just because we don't all do it in the same way doesn't mean that we aren't making use of our talent. I like to consider that the light we effuse might be similar to the sun in the sense that it may live on long after we have departed.

When I Consider...

The first thing I thought of when I read this poem is how Milton went blind in his later life. Knowing this detail about his life makes the line "When I consider how my light is spent" have a more profound meaning. He goes on to say that "E're half my days, in this dark world and wide,/And that one Talent which is death to hide,/Lodg'd with me useless, though my Soul more bent..." (ln. 2-4). The fact that he is so obviously passionate about “that one Talent”, or his ability to write, makes the next line, “Lodg’d with me useless”, incredibly sad. I’m no John Milton, but I have always had a great passion for writing. For me, while writing in and of itself is a great release and hobby, the other half of the fun is going back in my notebooks or computer files and re-reading things that I have written over the years. These things are personal to me, and if I lost my sight then they would most likely go unread by anyone because I wouldn’t want anyone else to read them to me.

However painful it must have been for Milton to lose his sight, I found it very impressive how he wrapped up the poem. Milton turns the tables on “blindness” and what it means to truly see. Being a devoutly religious man, he concludes that although he lost his sight, his “true account”, the real purpose of his life and talents, is to “serve therewith my Maker” (5). He reasons that “God doth not need/ Either man’s work or his own gifts, who best. Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best, his State/ Is Kingly…” (9-12). In other words, regardless of “man’s” talents or abilities, God’s work will go on more or less undisturbed (according to Milton).

I had mixed feelings about the above mentioned lines. I think that people’s talents and abilities are extremely important, however great or small they may be. I think Milton believed this too; perhaps he was just trying to be optimistic…I’m also a little confused at the line “Doth God exact day-labour, light deny’d” (7). I’m looking forward to today’s class discussion…I really like Milton’s poetry!

Milton, Donne...Nas?

Jllian's post below was great.

I have to say that I'm a Milton novice and am mostly unfamiliar with the majority of his work, but something as self-reflexive as this, as introspective and internal in its analysis of the writer himself (although, of course, there's that inherent line between writer and their adopted persona) makes me want to dig deeper into his catalog.

What I appreciate most about the poem, though, is his humility. We live in a world where all sorts of religious people will claim to be doing things in the name of God, for the glory of God, etc., when all they're really doing is adding a marketable byline to something that would otherwise be completely (and, often, rightly) ignored. Milton, on the other hand, acknowledges that he himself doesn't have anything to offer God that God doesn't have already (after all, he is God), and I think that's a pretty beautiful thing.

Also, Milton's use of the phrase "mild yoke" is really interesting. At first, I thought it was problematic, as some people (probably the majority of us, myself definitely included) have problems that we believe to be so all-encompassing, but we probably know exactly where our next meal is coming from.

I was speaking with a friend the other day about a particularly rough personal situation that's sort of thrown me for a loop in both its intensity and pain it's caused. We were discussing the nature of God in relation to what He/She/It allows to happen, versus what He/She/It causes to happen, and we both agreed that, assuming a monotheistic Judeo-Christian God exists, He/She/It worries about all of His/Her/Their children equally, and it would take a literally God-like sense of perspective and love in order to be able to actually deal with that, and it seems like Milton is at least partially acknowledging that our problems on Earth are relatively minimal, in the grand scheme of things.

In any case, my brain tied this poem back to something I said about King Lear and how everybody dying at the end of a story isn't necessarily a "sad" ending, because everybody dies in real life, and while that's hard for those left behind, that's often a good thing for the one that actually died. And that's a statement that then goes back to that Donne poem about death being a form of rest, and then I think about the Nas song "N.Y. State of Mind," where he raps "I don't sleep/because sleep is the cousin of death," and then I get sad, until I remember that I'm listening to good hip-hop and then I feel better.

This rambles. Sorry 'bout that.

How I Want To Spend My Light

In the blog post before me someone wrote that from the title of Milton's poem "When I Consider How My Light Is Spent", you can tell it's going to be a good one. And it certainly is. What I love about this poem is that I feel there are so many ways to look at it. The first is literal, Milton is blind or going to be there soon, he sees darkness, his light is spent. The second is referring to his talent of writing poetry and how it might all be spent now that he can not see. And how hopeless it makes him feel that the loss of his sight causes him to "bury" his talents. The third that I saw(and this might just be making things up) is a lesson in how we "spend our light". We are all given talents of course but I think our light could refer to more than that. Perhaps our light could refer to our ability to love, or our willingness to help, to serve, or to be kind. I believe every person has the capacity to do good and to be full of it, to spend their light in worthy ways. It kind of reminds me of Cormac McCarthy's The Road and carrying the fire. Milton may have thought that his light was all spent but what a way to spend it. So if my light is brief, if it will soon be spent, I would like to at least make sure, when considering how my light was spent, that it is in worthwhile ways.

When I Consider How My Light Is Spent

Even from the title of the poem, I knew that this was going to be one that I would enjoy. I was right. Out of all the poems we have read in this class thus far, this is my favorite.
This poem expresses the concerns and frustrations one might have when it becomes almost physically impossible to use the talents you've been given, especially when one believes it to be a sin to "bury" your talent. Milton refers to the parable of the Talents found in the bible, which basically teaches that if you are given a talent and you don't use it, you're sinning against God.
Milton had lost his sight, or was beginning to lose it, when he wrote this poem. It gives you a look into the hopelessness he may have been feeling. I love the line, "Doth God exact day-labor, light denied." A valid question, indeed. Will you be punished for not using your talent, when the means of doing so have been taken away from you? Then comes the response from Patience (hint, hint), "God doth not need either man's work or his own gifts," (A very humbling sentence, if I may say.) "who best bear his mild yoke, they serve him best." When translating this in my head, it kind of came out like this: "listen, God doesn't NEED your talents. He doesn't profit from them, he's God. If he gives you the talent of writing, and you don't write the best novel in the entire world, he's not going to fault you for it, especially when you've gone blind. All he asks is that you try."
I realize that that is ironic, seeing as how Milton's Paradise Lost is considered one of the best pieces of work ever written.....but I think it is applicable to what he was feeling at the time, and what a lot of us feel when we are in a situation where we can't seem to do what we feel we need to.
It's also nice to think of what happens after he wrote this poem. He did try, and boy did he succeed. He continued to write great things. I can't help but think of one of my favorite scriptures in the Book of Mormon that says, "...the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them..."

I loved his use of the words "light" and "dark" obviously referring to his ability to see. Instead of using the word "light" and "spent" in the title, change it to this, When I Consider How My Sight Is Gone. Then in the second line, "ere half my days, in this dark world," which is referring to his eyesight failing him. Milton paints a sad stage in the first three lines of the poem. First with light being gone, then using the word "dark" in the second line, and "death" and "hide" in the third. A pretty genius use of imagery there.

Great poem. :)