2/19/09 Coleridge continued,
Keats
Qs on midterm? P1? R1 due before spring break
Summary of last time:
- Had two questions on
the table: 1) if this is a tale of guilt and expiation, what's the crime?
2) if the mariner is a poet figure, what are poets and poetry like for
Coleridge?
- Second question first:
the poet is a figure who is isolated from the community, exemplified by
the wedding ceremony, and who is compelled to tell something to anyone
who will hear. Poetry has almost magical powers; the wedding guest has
to hear
the
story
against his will--but only to a degree: only one of the three guests is
caught in this way. One way to put this is to say that poetry as much the
same force for Coleridge that it does for Wordsworth, but Coleridge's view
is tempered with some skepticism: the mariner is a graybeard loon,
even if he is also a prophetic bard figure.
- I don't think that we
answerd the first question, but I do think that we got at something just
as good. The question we ended up answering goes something like this: what
are we to make of the religious references in the poem? There
are plenty of
them all over the poem: we might be able to read the poem as Christian
allegory. But although we believe that the religious imagery is intentional,
we don't feel like we're supposed to take it completely at face value.
In part this is because the poem is ABOUT reading into situations: when
the wind stops, the sailors blame that on the mariner's killing the albatross,
but when fog comes up, they change their minds and say it was a good
thing to kill the albatross that brought the fog. It is possible, we thought,
that the bird is just a bird, not some kind of spirit, and the weather
is just the weather, and there is nothing supernatural in the world.
- This move, however,
puts us in an uncomfortable situation. What happens when we "sail south,"
that is, we leave the community's beliefs? We end up in a land of lifelessness,
where there is no life, nothing but ice. If birds are just birds, the world
is just "lifeless mechanism"; there is no real meaning to anything. In
this reading, the mariner's killing the albatross amounts to something
like losing belief. The result is that the speaker is won by Life-in-Death,
essentially a meaningless existence. What we do with the other sailors
in this reading I don't know.
- This question of what
to believe is reflected in the form of the poem. On the one hand, it's
a ballad, a popular form one would usually associate with the sensational
and unbelievable. But its Latin epigraph and marginal glosses add a great
deal of authority to the low form: we are being told, it seems, to take this improbable
story seriously. But then we find that the whole tale is told by a graybeard
loon. We could probably trace this building up and undercutting through
a few more turns if we wanted.
- So what happens when
the mariner blesses the water snakes? All kinds of readings here are possible:
we can take them as God's living creatures, and say that the mariner has
regained faith. We can note that snakes aren't neutral in Christian
mythology, and say that the mariner has discovered or created a kind of
non-Christian
spirituality. We didn't go this way, but we could take the snakes as phallic
symbols and do something with that. But in the reading we ended on, we
declined to speculate on whether or not this universe is "really" Christian
in its metaphysics. Instead, we said that the point is simply that he believes,
whether what he believes in is true or not: ultimately, this is a poem
that says that the difference between the world as "lifeless mechanism"
and the world as "living power" is imagination--the
ability to perceive water snakes, which before this imaginative moment
would presumably be akin to the "slimy things [that] did crawl with legs/
Upon the slimy sea," and "God's living creatures."
This is a powerful reading,
and it sets us up nicely for Keats. I would like to spend a little time on
the end of the poem, however.
- 582 ff. Has the mariner
returned to the community or not? (597-609). Why is the telling of the
tale so important?
- 609-617: the mariner's
own moral to the story. Is it an adequate moral? how does it connect with
the frame tale?
- ending: what happens
to the poor wedding guest? why?
Keats
In moving along to Keats,
we're skipping over two decades: all of the poems that you've read for
today were written in 1819. Barbauld, Wordsworth and Coleridge, and Blake
when
we get to him, are considered early Romantics; Keats and Shelley are
late Romantics. I mention this because two decades is long enough for poets
to start questioning their immediate predecessors. Keats' letters, which
is
where he outlined many of his ideas about poetry, question Coleridge
and
Wordsworth, even though Keats clearly admires both poets. Coleridge reasoned
too much, Keats claimed, thinking primarily about works that we have
not read in this class. As for Wordsworth--well, Keats used the phrase "egotistical
sublime" to describe Wordsworth's poetry,
a phrase that captures both his admiration for the grandness and intensity
of Wordsworth's
vision as
well as Keats'
own
unwillingness
to adopt
the Wordsworthian pose. (In contrast, Keats writes that a poet has no identity--though
what he means by that would be a lengthy discussion.)
But what about the imagination?
Has Keats' view of the imagination changed from what Wordsworth and Coleridge
believed? That's the question for today, which we'll address by looking at
two related poems, "The Eve of St. Agnes" and "La Belle Dame
Sans Merci." On Tuesday, we'll concentrate on "Ode to a Grecian
Urn," and perhaps address the other two poems less thoroughly.
Note that we've already
seen differences in opinion between Wordsworth and Coleridge. Very simply,
Colerige has doubts that Wordsworth doesn't have: it's hard to reconcile
Wordsworth's idea of the poet as someone with a more enthusiasm, more tenderness,
and a "more comprehensive soul" with Coleridge's "greybeard loon," no matter
how powerful and bardic the figure of the mariner is. But it wouldn't do
to overstate Coleridge's skepticism: in "Kubla Khan" especially, the imagination
is pictured as an extraordinarily powerful force capable of pulling together
contraries like "stately" and "pleasure," "5 miles" and "measureless," "holy" and "demon
lover."
So how about Keats? Letter
to Benjamin Bailey, November 22, 1817: "I am certain of nothing but
of the holiness of the Heart's affections and the truth of the Imagination--what
the imagination
seizes as Beauty must be Truth--whether it existed before or not...The imagination
my be compared to Adam's dream--he awoke and found it truth." (ref to
Paradise Lost, where Adam dreams of Eve and awakens to find that she has
been created)
But that was in 1817. 1818
was a truly horrible year for Keats: there were 2 published attacks on Keats
as member of "Cockney
school" of poetry;
his brother George (and to a lesser extent Keats himself) fell into financial
distress; his brother Tom died of TB; he fell
in love with
Fanny
Brawne but was too poor to marry; and he went of a walking tour that led
to ulcerated throat--something he knew could be a sign of TB. In 1820 he
coughed up blood, making it certain.
And in between there was
1819, one extraordinary year, in which Keats wrote nearly all of his best
poetry.
Question:
did Keats
still believe in "the truth of the Imagination" in 1819?
Note the likeness between
his description of the imagination in the letter to Bailey and the plot of "Eve
of St.
Agnes": Adam awoke and found his dream truth; Madeline awakens from
a dream of Porphyro to find him there. Is this a positive portrayal of imagination?
- 2-3 vs. 6-8. Who comes
off looking better? What's the point of starting with the Beadsman? (Keats
was an agnostic.) If neither comes off looking too sharp, are they foolish
in the same way or different ways?
- 7: whim, M as oblivious
as the Beadsman
- 9 Porphyro: what's he
doing? Is he a worshipper or peeping tom?
- 16 what is the beldame's
first reaction to the "strategem"? is she right?
- 20 last lines--note
that the beldame is counting on Porphyro wedding Madeline--is this a reasonable
expectation?
- 22 ring-dove--hunting
reference?
- 23 tongueless nightingale:
Philomel, raped by Tereus, changed into a nightingale
- 24-5 rich imagery--what
do we do with it?
- 26: voyeurism; irony
of last line. what does the fantasy set her up for?
- 27 swoon, haven from
both joy and pain; is this a good state?
- 28-31 P sets the trap.
Again, rich description. Do you trust the religious imagery at the end?
- 32, 34-35 note that
she's hard to wake up. how does the dream compare with the reality?
- 36 consumation. Note
storm.
- 37, 38 realization of
betrayal, followed by promise of marriage. "saved by miracle"?
Is that what happened?
- 39 explains away the
storm
- 40, 41 the too-easy
getaway
- 42 and the conclusion?
what to make of this?
"La Belle Dame Sans
Merci"
- picks up, one might
say, where the other leaves off--the dream is over.
- why the autumn/harvest
imagery?
- 5-7 did she love him
or not?
- what's the result?