Tag Archives: poem

Thomas Hardy On a Fine Morning

19 Friday Jun 2020

Posted by in Thomas Hardy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

How can one have comfort in an impersonal accidental universe? This was a great problem for Hardy. The world will simply calmly destroy us.

So he asks the question where can I find solace?

It can’t be from our actual experience:

Whence comes Solace?—Not from seeing
What is doing, suffering, being,
Not from noting Life’s conditions,
Nor from heeding Time’s monitions;
But in cleaving to the Dream,
And in gazing at the gleam
Whereby gray things golden seem.

There is just an accident a surprise which permits him to see grey appear to be gold. Even shadows are turning to sun.


Thus do I this heyday, holding
Shadows but as lights unfolding,
As no specious show this moment
With its irised embowment;
But as nothing other than
Part of a benignant plan;
Proof that earth was made for man.

That last line is the key: I am somehow meaningful. The earth is meant for human life.

This is the point where Hardy differs from Lewis. That surprise of joy led Hardy to have a moments accident – a dream. For Lewis the surprise of joy requires an explanation: it can’t be grounded in life experience which is suffering. Where then?

Misery requires no explanation of life is a bare cosmic accident: why should the ends meet? Darwin only requires existence not the good true or beautiful: those have no anchor in a world of chance. Beauty is purposeful, ordered.

Hardy can’t give a better explanation for his morning than “dream.”

Edward Taylor, Was there a palace of gold.2

18 Thursday Jun 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

What could possibly motivate God to show grace? And if God were inclined in general to do good, why would he do good to such a one as the poet? This is a central mystery in Christianity as Paul write in Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”  

Christ does not die so that we will be loved. Rather, God loves us first. The cross is provided because God loves us – not so that God will love us. 

This leads to the paradox which Taylor considers: If God does me so much good, why do I return so little?  Love naturally begets love; but the love which Taylor shows to God is nothing compared to the love which God has shown him.

What aim’st at, Lord? That I should be so Cross.

My mind is leaden in thy golden shine.

Though all o’re Spirit, when this dirty dross 

Doth touch it with its smutting leaden line.

What shall an eagle t’catch a fly thus run?

Or Angel dive after a mote int’sun?

What is the intention of God, when Taylor is 

Lead; where God is gold

Dross, filth; where God is Spirit.

What motivation could there be? Why would an eagle waste its time to capture a fly; or an angel chase a speck of dust.

How then can Taylor remedy the trouble? He will take “vengeance” upon himself for his improper response to God’s love. 

And yet, all he can muster is a mismatch: I should have actual tears in my eyes for my wretchedness, but all I can offer is the idea: these words, this poem:

What folly’s this? I fain would take, I think,

Vengeance upon myself: But I confess,

I can’t. Mine eyes, Lord, shed no tears but ink.

My handy works, are words and wordiness.

Earth’s toys wear knots of my affections, nay,

Though from thy glorious self, they stole away.

The trouble is in Taylor’s affections. Affections are deeper word than an emotion; it is the emotion with the matching desire. To love or hate are both affections; but rather than a brief feeling, the affection deeper, more settled. 

Taylor knows that he should love. Then not loving well, he should have sorrow for his sinful lack of love. But he cannot even manage that sorrow. The trouble is his heart is set too fully upon “toys”. 

A “knot” is a bouquet of flowers. The image is the various “toys” being dressed with loving affection.

To understand Taylor, you must understand how Taylor thought:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any many love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

1 John 2:15-16. This does mean a hatred of human beings: there is a command to love human beings. This does not mean destruction of the world. The world is given as a stewardship: it belongs to God, but cared for by us. In John, the “word” means the system of being in rebellion against God. 

You must think of the world like the Witch’s House in Handsel and Gretel: it is made of candy, but it is a trap. Having fully set out the problem, Taylor must 

Edward Taylor, Was there a palace of gold.

16 Tuesday Jun 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Literature

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The poem begins with a fantastic, impossible scene of the throne of God. The subjective, if such a place actually existed, does not deny the existence of such a place, but rather underscores the desire:

The image only in generalities tracks any biblical scene. The references to gemstones here – and in Scripture – as well as impossibly beautiful, even absurd (a cushion of sunshine, what could that even as a concrete item?) hints to the reason why such things even exist as gemstones: They are concrete items to act as metaphors to the heavenly original. They give us an inkling as to the marvel. It is sort of a reverse Platonism. Rather than the earth being a copy of the heavenly; the earth is given as a metaphor for the heavenly.

Was there a palace of gold, all ston’d 

And pav’d with pearls, whose gates rich jaspers were

And throne a carbuncle whose king enthroned 

Sat on a cushion all of sunshine clear

Whose crown a bunch of sunbeams was: I should 

Prize such as in his favor shrine me would.

A carbuncle is a ruby. 

Thus, if there were such a place, I would give anything to be there. But how could I ever gain entrance? 

There are only two possibilities: To earn it or to receive as a gift. And Taylor, being a Christian, knows that salvation is of grace; not of personal merit:

Was there a palace of gold, all ston’d 

And pav’d with pearls, whose gates rich jaspers were

And throne a carbuncle whose king enthroned 

Sat on a cushion all of sunshine clear

Whose crown a bunch of sunbeams was: I should 

Prize such as in his favor shrine me would.

The Lord of perfect purity is the one who opens (opes) the entrance. Standing behind this scene is the concept of Psalm 24:

Psalm 24 (ESV) 

A Psalm of David. 

1    The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, 

the world and those who dwell therein, 

2    for he has founded it upon the seas 

and established it upon the rivers. 

3    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? 

And who shall stand in his holy place? 

4    He who has clean hands and a pure heart, 

who does not lift up his soul to what is false 

and does not swear deceitfully. 

5    He will receive blessing from the Lord

and righteousness from the God of his salvation. 

6    Such is the generation of those who seek him,

who seek the face of the God of Jacob. Selah

7    Lift up your heads, O gates! 

And be lifted up, O ancient doors, 

that the King of glory may come in. 

8    Who is this King of glory? 

The Lord, strong and mighty, 

the Lord, mighty in battle! 

9    Lift up your heads, O gates! 

And lift them up, O ancient doors, 

that the King of glory may come in. 

10    Who is this King of glory? 

The Lord of hosts, 

he is the King of glory! Selah

Who may enter into this holy place? Only one who is perfect. Who is such a one? The King of Glory. And who is the King of Glory? Jesus Christ. The psalm is commonly taken as a reference to the Ascension of Christ into glory. 

The poet is thus being offered entrance into this impossible, heavenly scene. 

And important point of contrast which will be developed in this poem is the matter of words. Here note that the words of the king upon his throne are embellished with more radiance than sunshine. 

And so we come to the contrast which marks Taylor’s mediations: The Lord is all of glory, but I am not. 

This is a point which is under considered when academics discuss “Calvinists”. Election does not give rise to a thought of superiority but rather of confusion, How am I here? It is not merit, but impossibility. And the stark understanding of human nature is not a matter of despair, but rather of hope for remaking the world. 

Thy milk white hand, my glorious Lord, doth this:

It opes this gate and me conducts into 

This golden palace whose rich pavement is

Of precious pearls; and to this King also. 

Thus, thron’d and crown’d: whose words ‘bellish’d all

With brighter beams, than e’re the sun let fall.

There two marvelously awkward line breaks here. The first line “I” following a pause hurries on to the second line, like a tumble down the stairs. Also the break from the third to fourth line works perfectly: My affections fly On toys. The short half line of two syllables followed by a remaining line of 8, puts tremendous force upon the insufficient object of affection. I love toys! 

We so often love the good things God gives things, we love the gift more than the one who has given the gift. The poet would rather have the toys than the hand. 

And this is the great fault of human beings: our affections are curved back up on ourselves as Augustine notes. 

Melville: what like a bullet can undeceive

30 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in Literature

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

General Grant prevailed on second day of the battle of Shiloh (April 6 & 7 1862). The Union suffered 13,000 casualties. The Confederates lost 62,000 killed, wounded, captured or missing.

The population of the USA in 1860 was 31,443,322. The current population is more 10 times greater. Adjusted for population more men died those two days than have died in the current pandemic.

The word “foeman” is Melville’s word for enemy: a Foe-man.

The concept was captured by Marie Aurelius in his Meditations

“In death, Alexander of Macedon’s end differed no whit from his stable-boy’s. Either both were received into the same generative principle of the universe, or both alike were dispersed into atoms.”

Shiloh. A Requiem. (April, 1862.)

Skimming lightly, wheeling still,

The swallows fly low

Over the field in clouded days,

The forest-field of Shiloh—

Over the field where April rain

Solaced the parched ones stretched in pain

Through the pause of night

That followed the Sunday fight

Around the church of Shiloh—

The church so lone, the log-built one,

That echoed to many a parting groan

And natural prayer

Of dying foemen mingled there—

Foemen at morn, but friends at eve—

Fame or country least their care:

(What like a bullet can undeceive!)

But now they lie low,

While over them the swallows skim,

And all is hushed at Shiloh.

Edward Taylor, Would God I in that Golden City Were.3

13 Wednesday May 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

At this point, the poet continues on with the absurdity which lies at the heart of Christianity: How and why could or would God be joined to us?

I have heard atheist mock Christian belief with the ridiculous thought that God – if there were a God – would concern his Godship with a particular set of beasts roaming around on a small planet around an insignificant star in the midst of an enormous universe.

However, that absurdity is the nature of the Christian claim. One can reject it; but it is silly to think that one has come upon some novel insight. Even before we realized the size of the universe, we were well aware of the ridiculous claim.

Here Taylor presses home the point: it would be more reasonable to believe a king married a flea than to believe God should have dealings with us:

My Maker, he my husband? Oh! Strange joy!
If kings wed worms and monarchs mites we should
Glory spouse shame, a prince a snake or fly
An angel court an ant, all wonder would.
Let such wed worms, snakes, serpents, devils, flies.
Less wonder than the wedding in our eyes.

At this point, it would be useful to take time to consider what is meant by “marriage in this context. It plainly cannot mean an actual human marriage. Rather, marriage is one of the many images which God has given in the world to help us understand what it means for God to love us.

First, it is not the only image: other incompatible images are used such as Father and son or Lord and servant or Creator and creature. There are, for instance, 95 different images used to describe the Church in the New Testament.

To understand this marriage imagery, John Piper helps in his bookSex and the Supremacy of Chirst:

In answering this question let’s remember that knowing someone in the fullest biblical sense is defined by sexual imagery. Genesis 4:1, “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.” Knowing here refers to sexual intercourse. Or again in Matthew 1:24- 25 we read, “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” He “knew her not” means he did not have sexual relations with her.

Now I don’t mean that every time the word know is used in the Bible there are sexual connotations. That’s not true. But what I do mean is that sexual language in the Bible for our covenant relationship to God does lead us to think of knowing God on the analogy of sexual intimacy and ecstasy. I don’t mean that we somehow have sexual relations with God or he with man. That’s a pagan thought. It’s not Christian. But I do mean that the intimacy and ecstasy of sexual relations points to what knowing God is meant to be.

The language of marriage and sex helps as a metaphor to understand God’s love. Since we could not understand God directly, God created metaphors in the world so that could understand God analogically. The metaphor helps to understand the original.

Taylor continues on with this theme of the absurdity of God’s love. The analogy of a King wedding a mite is insufficient. Christ’s love for me makes less sense than a king marrying an ant:

I am to Christ more base, than to a King
A mite, fly, worm, serpent, devil is,
Or can be, being tumbled all in sin,
And shall I be his spouse? How good is this?
It is too good to be declared to be thee.
But not too good to be believed by me.

Human sin makes a human being more unfitting of relation to God than does mud make a worm less fitting to an emperor. And yet this Good News (which is the meaning of Gospel) is not too good to be rejected

The heart of the Gospel is not going to heaven, it is being with God. We are not seeking a place but a friend and more than a friend.

In this stanza, Taylor hits upon the grace of God which first works upon us before we believe and love Him. The Spirit first speaks these words to us before we believe. As it reads in 1 John, we love Christ because he first loved us:

Yet to this wonder, this found in mee,
I am not only base but backward clay,
When Christ doth woo, and till his Spirit be
His spokesman to compel me I deny.
I am so base and forward to him, he
Appear as wonders wonder wedding me.

The poem ends with a prayer that Spirit work upon his heart to make him into the man who can be conformed and fitting to this call:

Seeing, Dear Lord, it’s thus, thy Spirit take
And send thy spokesman to my soul, I pray.
Thy saving grace my wedding garments make:
Thy spouses frame into my soul convey.
I then shall be thy bride espoused by thee
And thou my bridegroom dear espoused shalt be.

Marriage is the beginning and end of the Bible. In the Garden of Eden God performs the first marriage. The eschatological hope of the Church is the marriage party of the Lamb.

Edward Taylor, Would God I in that Golden City Were.2

09 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Literature, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

May my rough voice and blunt tongue but spell

My tale (for tune they can’t) perhaps there may

Some angel catch an end of’t up and tell

In Heaven when he doth return that way

He’ll make thy palace, Lord, all over ring

With it in songs, thy saint and angels sing.

The poet cannot now come to heaven; for as Paul writes, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And thus, he prays that perhaps his song spoken on earth might be heard by an angel and delivered to Heaven – and there it might be sung.

The idea that an angel might hear his song and deliver it to Heaven is a remarkable conceit, but that precise idea does not appear in the Bible. There are numerous instances of an angel speaking to a human being, but I can think of no instance in which an angel delivered an earthly message to heaven. It should be understood that the word “angel” means messenger.

The idea of speaking with a rough voice and a blunt tongue seems to be most related to two passages. First, when God calls Moses to speak to Pharaoh, Moses protests that he cannot deliver the message because he is a defective speaker:

Exodus 4:10 (AV)

 10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

The related passage which also may have informed Taylor’s poem comes from the book of Romans where Paul explains that the Holy Spirit corrects our prayers:

Romans 8:26–27 (AV)

 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

In the next stanza, Taylor continues with the theme of his inability. He then addresses the rank absurdity which lies at the heart of Christianity – if God is so great, so perfect, so holy, how could God also love us:

 

I know not how to speak’t, it is so good;

Shall Mortal and Immortal marry? Nay,

Man marry God? God be a match for mud?

This King of Glory wed a worm? Mere clay?

This is the case. The wonder too in bliss.

Thy maker is thy husband, hear’st thou this?

That marriage was given not merely for human comfort but ultimately as the basis for understanding the relationship between God and human beings is intrinsic to the Christian understanding of redemption. A parable by Kierkegaard can help open this idea:

Once upon a time, there was a prince who was single and very eager to marry a lovely maiden for his future queen. Near his palace was a large city, and often he rode his carriage down to the city to take care of various chores for his father. One day, to reach a particular merchant, he had to go through a rather poor section. He happened to glance out of the window and right into the eyes of a beautiful maiden.

He had occasion on the next few days to return to the section of the city–drawn as he was by the eyes of the maiden. And more than that, he had the good fortune once or twice actually to meet this young girl. Soon he began to feel that he was in love with her. But now he had a problem. How should he proceed to procure her hand?

Of course, he could order her to the palace and there propose marriage. But even a prince would like to feel that the girl he marries wants to marry him. Or perhaps, somewhat more graciously, he could arrive at her door in his most resplendent uniform and, with a bow, ask her hand. But even a prince wants to marry for love.

Again, he could masquerade as a peasant and try to gain her interest. After he proposed, he could pull off his ‘mask.’ Still, the masquerade would be ‘phony.’ He really could not manage it.

Finally a real solution presented itself to his mind. He would give up his kingly role and move into her neighborhood. There he would take up work as, say, a carpenter. During his work in the day and during his time off in the evening, he would get acquainted with the people, begin to share their interests and concerns, begin to talk their language. And in due time, should fortune be with him, he would make her acquaintance in a natural way. And should she come to love him, as he had already come to love her, then he would ask for her hand.

Or a passage from Thomas Watson:

Christ is full of love, as he is of merit. What was it but love, that he should save us, and not the angels? Among the rarities of the loadstone, this is not the least, that leaving the gold and pearl, it should draw iron to it, which is a baser kind of metal; so, that Christ should leave the angels, those more noble spirits, the gold and pearl, and draw mankind to him, how doth this proclaim his love? Love was the wing on which he did fly into the virgin’s womb. 1. How transcendent is Christ’s love to the saints! The apostle calls it a love ‘that passeth knowledge,’ Eph. 3:19. It is such a love as God the Father bears to Christ; the same for quality, though not equality, John 15:9. ‘As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you:’ A believer’s heart is the garden where Christ hath planted this sweet flower of his love. It is the channel thro’ which the golden stream of his affection runs. 2. How distinguishing is Christ’s love, 1 Cor. 1:26. ‘Not many wise, not many noble are called.’ In the old law God passed by the lion and the eagle, and took the dove for sacrifice; that God should pass by so many of birth and parts, and that the lot of free grace should fall upon thee; O the depth of divine grace! How invincible is the love of Christ! ‘It is strong as death,’ Cant. 8:6. Death might take away his life, not this love; and as death, so neither sin could wholly quench that divine flame of love; the church had her infirmities, her sleepy fits, Cant. 5:2 but though blacked and sullied, yet still a dove; Christ could see the faith, and wink at the failing.

 

Thomas Watson, “A Christian on the Mount, or a Treatise Concerning Meditation,” in Discourses on Important and Interesting Subjects, Being the Select Works of the Rev. Thomas Watson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co.; A. Fullarton & Co., 1829), 212–213.

The picture of the love between God and humanity being symbolized as marriage is the backdrop for the book of Hosea. In Isaiah, the particular image of maker and husband is given:

Isaiah 54:4–5 (AV)

4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. 5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

And in the letter to Ephesians, Paul makes plain this point:

Ephesians 5:30–33 (AV)

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

 

 

Edward Taylor, Would God I in that Golden City were.1 (Imposter syndrome)

08 Friday May 2020

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Literature, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

A meditation on Canticles 4:8

This poem begins with an unmistakable picture of the heavenly Jerusalem come down to earth. In the first stanza, the poet tells us that his soul would become “inflamed” if he were only to see that city filled with saints and angels.

To understand the function and bite of the poem, you must first know what Taylor alludes as he writes:

Revelation 21:9–27 (AV)

9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which arethe names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

It is a city of remarkable beauty. And unlike the Garden of Eden, the serpent (something which would “defile”) the whole cannot enter:

 

Would God I in that Golden City were

With jaspers walld, all garnish, and made swash,

With precious stones, whose gates are pearls most clear,

And street pure gold, like to transparent glass.

That my dull soul might inflamed to see

How saints and angels ravish are in glee.

 

If I could only see that joy, how it would overcome my soul. He then begins to imagine what he could do if he were present in the City. “His story” would be his testimony of Christ’s redemption. The poet is unworthy of entrance – and yet his entrance his story would be the greatness not of himself, but of Christ who would love someone like him (as we shall see as the poem progresses):

Were I but there, and could but tell my story

‘Twould rub those walls of precious stones more bright;

And glaze those gates of pearl with brighter glory,

And pave the golden street with greater light.

‘Twould in fresh raptures saints and angels fling.

But I poor snake crawl here, scare mudwalld in.

The bite is in that last line. The poet is the defiled thing which has no right to entrance.

As an aside to the poem, there is the concept of being an imposter. When placed in a position where one is thought well of, where one is given position or power, the person who stops to self-reflect knows himself to be a fraud.

This poem points at a theological basis for that sensation: It is the heart of the Christian religion that human beings are meant to be with God. To be in the image of God is the highest possible conception of a human being. And simultaneously, we understand ourselves to be ruined creatures.

This remarkable inconsistency in our self-understanding creates a tremendous conflict in our self-understanding. As Lewis writes in Prince Caspian:

“You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” said Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”

If only I were to come to heaven, what praise I could bring. But if I were to come to heaven, I would be the serpent in Paradise.

William Carlos Williams, “The Farmer”

25 Wednesday Mar 2020

Posted by in Genesis, Literature, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

29432557064_0f6e39ae2a_6k

(Photo by Ian Livesey)

The farmer deep in thought

is pacing through the rain

among his black fields, with

hands in pockets,

in his head

the harvest already planted.

A cold wind ruffles the water

among the browned weeds.

On all sides

the world rolls coldly away:

black orchards

darkened by the March clouds-

leaving room for thought.

Down past the brushwood

bristling by

the rainsluiced wagonroad

looms the artist figure of

the farmer – composing

antagonist

 

 

There are so many things wonderful about this poem. In no systematic form are some observations:

The portrait: The portrait is remarkably well-drawn. Notice the farmer is shown in silhouette: we see his posture, but we have no description of his personal features. We don’t know the color of his clothes, his eyes, his hair, et cetera.

But the world has colors: browned weeds, black orchards, darkened.

We see the world around the farmer in fine details the wind ruffles the water, there are March clouds, the road is “rainsluiced”. But there are other aspects which are missing from the description.

The parties: The poem ends with the word “antagonist”. The farmer is plotting his attack upon this deranged world by putting it in order and planting his harvest. The farmer is also an artist, who has a vision of beauty which he is going to wrought in the world.

The world is cold, forbidding and filled with death: even the orchards are “black”. The world is one of chaos, and the farmer is going to overcome the chaos and make a thing of use and order.

There is an interesting aside, “the world rolls by … leaving room for thought”. To the farmer, the chaos is an opportunity for order. He sees his harvest and nothing has yet been planted.

The combination of artist and antagonist may be an echo of Genesis 1. The world having come into existence is still without order, “The world was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” But God overcome the disorder as both antagonist and artist. The farmer here does the same thing.

In fact, God plants a garden and places the first human beings in that garden. The farmer here is planning on planting a garden and obtaining a harvest himself.

I cannot say that Williams is explicitly thinking of Genesis here. There are no unambiguous allusions to the English text of Genesis. But the form is here.

So the question: is it proper to make a connection or consider the comparison where the author has not necessarily forced the connection between the two?  Yes.

Here are some reasons: First, a comparison between any two things has the potential for providing information about both. A comparison may lead one to realize a connection which was not previously apparent. Whenever come to some-thing or some-one, we are making comparisons with other similar things or ones we already know. We understand the thing we are looking at by comparing it to our previous knowledge.

Thus, making a purposeful comparison may help us to see something which was already there but not previously noticed.

Second, there are certain forms of thought which seem to be inherent in human beings. The Golden Bough is an mountain of cultural comparisons of forms from many cultures and times. There are certain ideas which just seem to make sense to us people.

That store of common forms is even greater within a culture. The ideas of Genesis would likely be familiar to Williams merely by living in his world at that time. Biblical references would be commonplace. For example, in Tom Sawyer, Mark Twain makes a memorable joke based upon Tom’s lack of Biblical knowledge, but Twain’s counting on the reader knowing the facts immediately and without explanation.

There are myriad of details about the poem which deserves consider, such as three prepositional phrases built around “in” at the beginning of the poem: the farmer is in thought, his hands are in his pocket, his harvest is in his head.

Compare that to his pacing in his black fields – where he is thinking and the black orchards leave room for thought.

The structure of the poem is a marvel.

A final observation: Williams is an artist who is composing a portrait of the farmer. The farmer is an artist who is composing a portrait of a harvest.  Williams takes all of the unorganized, but very present details of the scene (there is a man walking on a blustery March day) and turns this into ordered art.

The Subalterns

11 Wednesday Mar 2020

Posted by in Literature, Thomas Hardy

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I

“Poor wanderer,” said the leaden sky,
“I fain would lighten thee,
But there be laws in force on high
Which say it must not be.”


II

– “I would not freeze thee, shorn one,” cried
The North, “knew I but how
To warm my breath, to slack my stride;
But I am ruled as thou.”


III

– “To-morrow I attack thee, wight,”
Said Sickness. “Yet I swear
I bear thy little ark no spite,
But am bid enter there.“


IV


V

– “Come hither, Son,” I heard Death say;
“I did not will a grave
Should end thy pilgrimage to-day,
But I, too, am a slave!”

VI

We smiled upon each other then,
And life to me wore less
That fell contour it wore ere when
They owned their passiveness.

Thomas Hardy

This poem is a compliment to Hap, the poem which sorrows for the meaninglessness of pain in a world without even a spiteful god.

Here there is a rule, but no meaning. Death and pain are built into the fabric of things; the come by compulsion.

He even seems to make a friend of pain and death, “We smiled on each other then”. What a curious line. I believe that line makes the poem neither cynical nor cute. There is something Stoic about a smile upon death (because death cannot help it). But unlike the Stoics I don’t know that Hardy held to any universal Reason.

What then is the rule or force from “on high”? The crushing nature of the world is unavoidable but not meaningful.

A matter which might make for a n interesting comparison in this point Hardy and the younger American H.P. Lovecraft saw a terror in the world which sprang from something ancient.

One made the terror more superhuman and pre-human in source. The other lodged pain in bones of civilization.

But neither could make sense of the horror of this world. Yet, they could sketch its contour with rare skill.

Herman Melville, Ball’s Bluff. A Reverie.

22 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Battle of Ball's Bluff Facts & Summary | American Battlefield Trust
(October, 1861.)
One noonday, at my window in the town,
  I saw a sight—saddest that eyes can see—
  Young soldiers marching lustily
      Unto the wars,
With fifes, and flags in mottoed pageantry;
    While all the porches, walks, and doors
Were rich with ladies cheering royally.
They moved like Juny morning on the wave,
  Their hearts were fresh as clover in its prime
  (It was the breezy summer time),
      Life throbbed so strong,
How should they dream that Death in a rosy clime
    Would come to thin their shining throng?
Youth feels immortal, like the gods sublime.
Weeks passed; and at my window, leaving bed,
  By night I mused, of easeful sleep bereft,
  On those brave boys (Ah War! thy theft);
      Some marching feet
Found pause at last by cliffs Potomac cleft;
    Wakeful I mused, while in the street
Far footfalls died away till none were left.