4/7/09 The
Victorians and Religion: Tennyson, In Memoriam 56, Arnold, "The
Study of Poetry"
and "Dover Beach"; Browning, "An Epistle Containing
the Strange Medical Experience of Karshish, the Arab Physician"
Today: We're introducing
another major Victorian poet, Matthew Arnold, but we'll do this in a roundabout
way, by talking about the Victorians and religion.
Let's start with the problem,
page 1993. First, the context: In Memoriam, the long poem sequence
of which this poem is one part, was written to work through Tennyson's grief
after the death of Arthur Hallam. Religious issues are near the fore of the
poem, because Hallam's death causes Tennyson to question his belief in God.
The poem asks questions appropriate to the theodicy, something
we've discussed before: if God is good and all-powerful, why
is there suffering in the world? Why did Hallam, one of the best and brightest
of his generation, have to die? In the poem, Hallam's death serves as a springboard
for Tennyson
to explore the whole range of religious doubt and eventually affirmation
of belief.
The first line in 56 refers
to the poem before. In that poem, he has asked whether God and nature are
at strife, since nature, while "careful of the type," is "careless
of the single life." In other words, nature seems to ensure that species
live and reproduce, but individual lives don't seem to matter at all: "of
fifty seeds," Tennyson writes, Nature "often brings but one to
bear." Worth remembering that life span was much lower in those days,
and infant mortality much higher.
In 56, Tennyon's doubt
and despair reach one of their depths. [Read stanza 1.] The reference here
is to something I think I've mentioned before: Lyell's Geology, published
in 1830 (long before Darwin's Origin of Species), which pointed
out that the fossil record shows both that many species have lived
and died
that
are
no
longer on this earth, and that life has been on the earth for millions of
years longer than people had thought.
- st. 1-5: how is
nature characterized here? How would you compare this view of nature with
Wordsworth's?
- paraphrase the question
in st 1-5. How does it follow from the view of nature we've seen?
- st 6-7: how has the
poem implicitly answered the question, and what conclusions follow from
it?
- last line: hopeful,
despairing, some of both?
How Victorians dealt with
religious doubt varied tremendously. We've seen one reaction already: Elizabeth
Barrett Browning rejects conventional, institutional religion (consider Aurora
Leigh's reaction to her pious aunt), but affirms private piety and faith
(remember her feeling saved by her "relations in the Unseen").
Tennyson ultimately affirms his faith in In Memoriam, although I
would agree with T. S. Eliot's assessment that the poem is religious not
because
of the
quality
of its faith but because of the quality of its doubt. Today, we'll look at
two more reactions: Browning's and Arnold's. We'll start with Arnold
"The Study of Poetry" (2127)
- [read] probable reference
of "the
fact is failing it": "higher criticism" of the Bible, which
began in Germany in the late 18th C and appeared in England in the 1840's.
Higher criticism--distinguished from lower criticism, which is the study
of the text of the Bible with an eye to finding the best version--is the
study of the Bible as a document written by human beings in particular
historical contexts. The higher critics attempted to find independent confirmation
of the events in the Bible. But what they found didn't always serve that
purpose--instead, it tended to humanize--and therefore to one degree or
another secularize--religious figures such as Jesus and Mary. In addition,
this project implies doubt about the divine inspiration of the authors
of the Bible. When faith starts checking its facts, it has ceased to become
faith and has begun to become something else.
- Does Arnold believe
in the literal truth of the Bible, so far as you can tell? How about the
metaphorical truth? Does he find what religion OFFERS to be worthwhile
or even indispensable?
- Why
link poetry and religion together?
"Dover Beach" (2105)
- first verse ¶: looking
out at the waves at Dover Beach; hears "the eternal note of sadness" in
the sound of the waves.
- 2nd: thinks back to
Sophocles, seeing in the waves a metaphor for the "ebb and flow of human
misery" Then he has a thought, which is where we come in.
- What's the thought?
- Last verse ¶: what follows
from this withdrawal of faith?
- at the end: what's Arnold's
solution to religious doubt? is it convincing? Is it meant to be?
- [practice run for paper:
have before you a brief commentary on the poem. Let's assume for a moment
that
Schow
is
right
that
the language of the last stanza echoes the language of Romans 8 in the
King James Bible. What's his point?
- Schow: "itemizes the emptiness that imply the Divine absence and the
impossibility of faith"; "attempted to intensify the pathos of the modern
condition"
- if used in paper:
- paraphrase or quotation of claim. What exactly depends on how you
use it. (E.g. here--quote the whole passage or not?)
- "Arnold Show points out the language of the last stanza echoes
the language of Romans 8.38-39 in the King James Bible...."
- conclusion to
be drawn from it (could be original point, in which case be doubly
sure to give credit; or disagreement, qualification,
etc.)]
"Karshish"
- opening lines--what
does this lengthy salutation establish about the character of the speaker?
- 79-101: short description
of the case: what does this tell us about Karshish's approach to the world?
- 102-117 what's different
about Lazarus that makes Karshish not dismiss his story outright?
- 126 - 145, 146 - 177,
178 - 201 - What are the qualities and causes of Lazarus' childlike state?
- 126-145: the beggar
grown rich metaphor: knowledge beyond human capacity
- 145-177 apparent
confusion of priorities
- 178-201 existence
in two worlds simultaneously
- 202-212 submission
to God's will
- 213-219 doesn't
proselytize
- 220-231 how L
deals with potential calamity
- Given all of the above:
should we believe in the resurrection of Lazarus or not?
- 243-282: Jesus as learned
leech; Lazarus the madman; J's divinity of less import than a medicinal
flower. Again, should we believe in the resurrection of Lazarus or not?
- what do we make of the
final verse paragraph? Is the beginning of belief, or just intellectual
curiousity about what a falsehood would mean if it were true?