Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Critical Survey of Poetry: Topical Essays

Critical Survey of Poetry: Topical Essays

More  Critical Survey of : Topical Essays

TABLE OF CONTENTS Metaphysical Introduction History of the concept by John R. Holmes Characteristics

Metaphysical Introduction Universal analogy

Marinismo and Gongorismo In the eighteenth century, the term “” was coined to refer to Strong lines certain writers, primarily of religious verse, of the late sixteenth and early Doctrine in metaphysical verse seventeenth centuries who shared similar characteristics. Although scholars

Bibliography. have suggested many alternative names (Louis Martz called their works the poetry of meditation, and Mario DiCesare’s anthology spoke simply of seventeenth century religious poets), the term “Metaphysical poets” remained useful to literary historians for more than two hundred years.

The Metaphysicals were never a self-conscious group, for the most part having limited or no contact with one another—even though the literary world of London at the time was quite small. The list of who is considered a Metaphysical has fluctuated through changes in fashion and, of course, in the very definition of Metaphysical verse. Prominent names in most discussions of Metaphysical poetry include (1572-1631), (1593-1633), (1621-1678), (c. 1637- 1674), (1622-1695), (c. 1612-1649), Robert Southwell (c. 1561-1595), (1618-1667), Sir (1606-1668), Sir (1609-1642), and (1594-1640). American critic Louis Martz has recognized two early American poets, (1612?-1672) and (c. 1645-1729), as sharing many characteristics with these English poets.

Lists of those characteristics vary, but the primary quality critics have found in the works of these poets is reflected by their epithet, “metaphysical.” The poetry is often built around metaphysical speculation, usually of a formal, scholastic type (“scholastic” in the seventeenth century sense, referring to the “schools” of thought at the University of Paris, predominantly those of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure). Because scholastic thought is primarily theological, the poems are often religious in nature. However, equally common is a conflation of the religious and the erotic reminiscent of the troubadour poets. In Herbert, this combination became a self-conscious “war on poetry,” declared in a 1610 letter to his mother (first published by in 1670). Herbert employed what the German poets of his time called kontrafaktur, inverting the clichés of secular love poetry to express the higher love of Jesus Christ. At the other extreme may be the love poetry of Donne, who risks what may seem blasphemy in using religious language to describe the speaker’s quite human love, in poems such as “The Canonization” and “The Relic,” wherein the speaker imagines himself and his beloved as “saints of love” venerated by the church and its faithful.

Intellectual speculation in these poems, however, is not limited to metaphysics or theology, but extends to all learning of the day, including new scientific ideas and geometrical analysis. In “The Definition of Love,” for instance, Marvell used cartographic experiments in representing the sphere of the earth in two-dimensional drawings (the planisphere) as a metaphor for confining something as multidimensional as love within the “flat” boundaries of a definition. Such intricate and sometimes counterintuitive analogies, known as metaphysical conceits, were themselves a typical element of these poems, and a major source of the disfavor the Metaphysical poets met from the time coined the term “Metaphysical poet” in 1781 until T. S. Eliot’s influential review in 1921 of Sir Herbert Grierson’s Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century: Donne to Butler (1921).

History of the concept

Although the specific designation “Metaphysical poet” was not used until 1781, the adjective “metaphysical” was applied to the works of these poets in their own time. The Scots poet William Drummond of Hawthornden spoke of a tribe of writers in his day filling poems with “metaphysical Ideas and Scholastic Quiddities.” In 1693, the most influential of restoration critics, , scorned the verse of Donne because in it he “affects the metaphysics.” In the early eighteenth century, identifies Cowley (and, parenthetically, Davenant) as a poet who “borrowed his metaphysical style from Donne.” In fact, it was in the context of Cowley, and not of Donne, that Johnson invented the term “Metaphysical poet.” In his essay on Cowley in Lives of the Poets (1779-1781), Johnson wrote “About the beginning of the seventeenth century appeared a race of writers that may be termed metaphysical poets.”

For about a century and a half, Metaphysical poetry fell out of favor, although the Romantics, especially Samuel Taylor Coleridge, expressed a liking for them. It remained for Grierson’s work (and Eliot’s famous review of it) to revive an interest in these poets—and to provide at least one theory of why they had been ignored for so long. In his introduction, Grierson, after listing what he considers the major hallmarks of the Metaphysical poets, ends with the most important: “above all the peculiar blend of passion and thought, feeling and ratiocination which is their greatest achievement.” This “passionate thinking” as Grierson put it, was the hint that led Eliot to theorize that Dryden’s generation lost or turned against that ability to feel thought. Eliot’s catch- phrase for the theory was “dissociation of sensibility.” Eliot’s theory—and it was never presented as more than a theory, a convenient story explaining the fall of the Metaphysicals from popularity—was simply this: “In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered.” Donne and his generation, according to the theory, were able to “feel their thought as immediately as the odor of a rose.” After Dryden, this was no longer possible. Hence Johnson’s criticism of the Metaphysicals, occurring after the supposed disintegration of thought and feeling, was understandably negative.

Eliot’s theory was never universally adapted; indeed, Eliot himself seemed to turn from it a decade later in the 1931 essay “Donne in Our Time,” in which he asserts that Donne himself showed the split between thought and feeling. In his 1951 volume, The Monarch of Wit, J. B. Leishman systematically demolishes the theory with counterexamples. Nevertheless, the notion that the generation between World Wars I and II resonated with that of Donne allowed a resurgence of interest in Metaphysical poetry that continued into the twenty-first century.

Characteristics

The criteria by which Johnson faulted Cowley and his “race” of Metaphysicals became standard hallmarks of their poetry: (1) ostentatious learning; (2) metrical irregularity; (3) “metaphysical wit,” defined as novel connections in image and metaphor; (4) unusual diction; and (5) using “courtship without fondness” in their love poetry. Each of these supposed poetic vices have been considered virtues by critics who revived interest in Metaphysical poetry in the 1920’s.

The first quibble, “showy” erudition, depends on the reader’s judgment of the poet’s motive. When Cowley likens human judgment to a telescope or “multiplying glass” in his “ of Wit” (1668), detractors such as Johnson might think he is either parading his learning or trying to be up-to-date. However, more sympathetic readers may read that as just being playful, or simply choosing the most effective analogy.

The second charge, roughness of poetic rhythm, can likewise be met by inquiring how the poets actually read their verse. In the early nineteenth century, poet and critic Coleridge observed that ignoring function words, such as prepositions, articles, and conjunctions, will usually smooth out the most seemingly irregular of Donne’s verses. Nevertheless, many a reader has found Donne’s rhythms—and those of his fellow Metaphysicals—quite awkward. Donne’s contemporary even quipped that Donne’s looseness of accent was a hanging offense.

The third, an accusation of seeking novelty rather than appropriateness in metaphor, is virtually a repetition of the complaint that Metaphysical poets show off their learning. Johnson, with justice, observed that the Metaphysical notion of wit, which Johnson supposed was seeking to surprise the reader with something unthought of, was directly opposed to the reigning notion of wit best described by Pope in An Essay on Criticism (1711) as “what oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed.” The Metaphysical notion of avoiding the too-obvious analogy has at least as ancient a pedigree as Pope’s neoclassic one, however, as the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus taught that hidden connections are better than the obvious ones.

The quibble over diction, the fourth point, is simply a matter of taste. Metaphysical poets wanted their poetry to echo the rhythms of conversation rather than art, and so their lyrics often open abruptly with colloquial exclamations: “I struck the board, and cry’d, No more” (Herbert, “The Collar”); “Goe! Hunt the whiter Ermine!” (Davenant, “For the Lady Olivia Porter”); “Out upon it, I have lov’d” (Suckling, “Song”). “Rough” words such as Donne’s “snorted” (snored) for “slumbered” in “The Good Morrow” were not considered poetic enough for neoclassic writers.

The last point, a supposed confusion of love and intellect, is implicit in Dryden’s initial comments on Donne, in effect accusing him of creating poetic lovers who attempt to reason women into love with them, instead of wooing. One answer to this charge is Eliot’s concept of the dissociation of sensibility.

Metaphysical conceits

What Johnson called metaphysical wit is most characteristically expressed in the form of the metaphysical . In modern usage, the literary term “conceit” generally refers to an extended comparison, though as Joseph Anthony Mazzeo pointed out, the word “conceit” could be used in the seventeenth century as a simple synonym for “metaphor.” Typical conceits before the Metaphysicals treated clichéd comparisons, such as love as a storm at sea in Rima 189 of Petrarch (1304-1374). The specific poem was well known in the sixteenth century through translations by Sir Thomas Wyatt and .

Such a comparison stated baldly or succinctly would just be a simile, “love is like a storm at sea,” or, if expressed more directly a metaphor, “love is a storm at sea.” However, Petrarch’s figure becomes a conceit by expanding the comparison and multiplying details: the lover’s sighs are the winds, his tears the rain, the lady’s scorn for him the dark clouds, and so on. Petrarch’s conceit is not, however, metaphysical. The conceits of the Metaphysical poets differ from the conceits of Petrarch and his many English imitators of the sixteenth century by doing just what Johnson scorned: making comparisons that were novel rather than traditional.

The most-discussed metaphysical conceit, Donne’s comparison in “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” of a loving husband and wife as two legs of a compass, is a convenient example. The speaker of the poem is a husband chafing under the necessity of leaving his wife behind as he goes off on business. (Donne’s friend and biographer, Walton, asserted that the poem was written by Donne to his wife on setting off to France in 1610.) In urging his wife not to mourn, the speaker reminds her that they are one, so that they can never be truly separated even if one should leave the other. Or if one insists on seeing husband and wife as two only in a limited sense, he says, turning to the famous conceit: “If they be two, they are two so/ As stiff twin compasses are two:/ Thy soul, the fixed foot, makes no show/ To move, but doth, if the other do….” Donne does not stop there, and it is his elaboration which makes the analogy typically metaphysical. As Donne works through the analogy, he proves its aptness by making all of his observations on the compass apply equally well to the husband and wife. She is the “fixed foot,” while he is the one that moves; yet the farther he is from her, the more she “leans and hearkens after” him—and indeed, the farther the moving foot of a compass goes, the more the fixed foot leans. When the moving foot is brought back to the fixed foot, the fixed foot “grows erect”—and of course the husband’s return would cause the wife to rise from her seat. Finally, the poet observes, the only way a compass can make a perfect circle is if the fixed foot remains fixed. Similarly, the wife, by being steadfast, brings the husband home. “Thy firmness makes my circle just.”

Universal analogy

Whether or not Johnson was right in attributing the elaborateness of such Metaphysical images to a lust for novelty depends on how apt the reader finds the analogy. Johnson thought the typical Metaphysical image to be not at all apt. In Metaphysical poetry, he asserted, “the most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together.” How “natural” a comparison seems to the reader may be a function of the reader’s culture, poetic tradition, and to some extent, mere taste. For example, the well-known hardness of flint, yielding to no other substance, sprang easily to Petrarch’s mind when describing the unyielding heart of the beloved, deaf to the lover’s pleas. So the Petrarchan cliché of the “flint-hearted lady” seemed “natural” to Renaissance poets and readers, no less poetic for being conventional.

In the sixteenth century, however, arose an anti-Petrarchan sentiment that was tired of clichés. Parodies of Petrarch’s comparisons ridiculed their conventionality. ’s 130 meets the traditional lover’s hyperbole of his beloved’s eyes being brighter than the sun with “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun,” and goes on to offer similar reductive satire of other stock images. Donne’s elegy “The Comparison” presents typical analogies for his beloved, inverts them into disgusting images for someone else’s beloved, and concludes, “She, and comparisons, are odious.” Johnson apparently assumed that all metaphysical conceits were similar inversions of tradition in search of novelty, but there is another possibility that critics have explored since the middle of the twentieth century. Roughly the same time as Metaphysical poetry was gaining popularity, a Platonic idea known as universal analogy was also being revived. Giordano Bruno argued in De gli eroici furori (1585, “on heroic madness”) that, far from being attempts to yoke disparate ideas, metaphysical conceits (concetti) stem from the poet’s recognition of a hidden kinship in the nature of things, not immediately recognized in surface appearances. That doctrine, known to later philosophers and divines as a theory of “correspondences,” was known in the seventeenth century as “universal analogy.”

In a series of articles in the early 1950’s, Mazzeo presented the doctrine of universal analogy, especially in Bruno’s formulation, as a poetic that explains Metaphysical poetry better than any of the then-current theories. Whether the Metaphysical poets were adherents of this philosophy, or even conscious of it, its very existence offers an alternative possibility to the unflattering notion that these poets simply wanted to try analogies that had not been used before or to see how far they could stretch a patently absurd comparison. Readers need not see them, as Johnson apparently did, as overgrown adolescents trying to shock their readers.

Marinismo and Gongorismo

While Metaphysical poets were identified as a type in the English-language tradition, the phenomenon of highly conceited poetry merging thought and feeling was a widely European development in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In Italy, Giambattista Marino (1569-1625) was famous, and widely imitated, for his reversal of Petrarchan conventions in love poems collected in Le rime (1602; Steps to the Temple, canto 1 only, 1646) and La Lira (1615). Marino and his father, a Neapolitan lawyer, became part of the literary circle of Giambattista Della Porta, where Marino encountered the philosophy of Giordano Bruno. The result was a series of lyrics that produced poetry criticized for seeking novelty, not only in its comparisons but also in its subject matter and diction. Marino was exploring metaphysical concetti independently of early English Metaphysicals such as Donne, though he directly influenced a second English generation, particularly Crashaw, who translated Marino’s verse. By 1627, Marino’s imitators in Italy were called i Marinisti, “the Marinists,” and the Italian equivalent of Metaphysical poetry was Marinismo or secentismo (seventeenth-century-ism).

In Spain, the poetry of Luis de Góngora y Argote gave the name of Gongorism to the metaphysical style in Spanish poetry. Gonogora’s opponents called this style culteranismo, combining the words culto (“cultivated,” which sounds flattering, but implies an overworking of the material) and luteranismo (“Lutheranism,” which implies a heresy against poetry).

Strong lines

One quality celebrated (or condemned) in the poetry of both Marino and Gongora was also identified in the English Metaphysicals by their contemporaries, who did not use the term “metaphysical.” Helen Gardner opens her influential introduction to her anthology of the Metaphysicals with a discussion of this quality under the name of “strong lines.” Lines of poetry were considered “strong” if they were concise, packing a great deal of meaning into few words, which at the same time made them difficult to interpret.

Identifying the Metaphysical poets as purveyors of strong lines presents a paradox, since the metaphysical conceit is characterized by elaboration— tracing down every nuance of a comparison—and the strong, or “masculine,” style is characterized by epigrammatic, elliptical conciseness. Mario Praz met this criticism by theorizing that the Metaphysical style began as a sort of offshoot of the vogue for emblems, allegorical pictures of abstract concepts accompanied by epigrams defining that concept. Praz’s theory depends rather heavily on not making fine distinctions between several types of seventeenth century verse and is no longer widely held.

Doctrine in metaphysical verse

With the notion that the Metaphysical poets read their learning into their poetry came the obvious question (though it was not apparently obvious until the 1970’s): If the thought in the devotional lyrics of the Metaphysical poets is theological, then what is the relation of doctrine to the poems? Can the reader determine the denominational drift of the poet’s Christianity from the poems? In the 1950’s, critic Martz discovered a curious phenomenon: Though largely Anglican, the Metaphysical poets were, Martz was convinced, influenced by Catholic devotional manuals from the continent.

Then a series of critics, starting with William Halewood in The Poetry of Grace (1970), began to assert the existence of what by the end of the decade became known by Barbara Lewalski’s term, “Protestant poetics,” in these poets. Whether a particular poet leaned more toward Calvinism or Anglican orthodoxy (other than the two Roman Catholic poets in , Crashaw and Southwell), this theory maintained, their sensibilities were decidedly Protestant, not informed by Ignatian guides to meditation as Martz suggested. However, in The Emotive Image (1983), Anthony Raspa posited a “Jesuit poetics” in of the seventeenth century, and in Doctrine and Devotion in Seventeenth Century Poetry (2000), R. V. Young demonstrated that most of the supposedly Protestant elements of this poetry were common in Catholic thought and doctrine as well.

Paradoxically—and the Metaphysical poets loved paradox—this critical attention to theological subtleties long since forgotten or ignored by English- speaking culture at large has helped to keep the Metaphysical poets not only relevant but also vital to twenty-first century literary discourse. Terms such as “provenient grace,” which had not been a part of ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Protestant theologians for centuries, became vital to arguments for or against the notion of Protestant poetics in the twenty-first century. Nor are these theological discussions peripheral, for most participants in the controversy assume that whatever theology informs the poetry is crucial to reading and interpreting it.

The relevance of the Metaphysical poets to modern readers is not limited to their religious verse, however. The Donne revival that led to a rekindling of interest in all Metaphysical poets in the 1920’s was feared in the decades immediately following to be a mere vogue. C. S. Lewis opened a 1938 essay on Donne’s love poetry by citing E. E. Kellett’s Whirligig of Taste (1929) as a convenient emblem for the shifting views toward the Metaphysicals: Scorned by Victorians, lionized by the Jazz Age, perhaps the revival was merely a phase, to be replaced by another hibernation. That has not happened, however. The metaphysical poets show no sign of being dislodged from the curriculum of English poetry in the early twenty-first century.

Bibliography.

1 Dickson, Donald R. John Donne’s Poetry. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007. Though this edition treats only Donne, the critical essays are excellent overviews of critical controversies on metaphysical poetry.

2 Gardner, Helen. The Metaphysical Poets. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961. A revision of the 1957 Penguin anthology, correcting the text of Donne’s poems and reprinting Gardner’s now- classic essay on metaphysical poetry as an introduction.

3 Grierson, Sir Herbert J. C. Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems of the Seventeenth Century. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1921. The standard anthology that almost singlehandedly revived interest in Metaphysical poetry, with a perceptive and influential introduction.

4 Mazzeo, Joseph. Renaissance and Seventeenth-Century Studies. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. This collection includes Mazzeo’s discussion of “universal analogy” in Metaphysical poetry, a more accessible version than in his earlier scholarly articles.

5 Young, R. V. Doctrine and Devotion in Seventeenth-Century Poetry: Studies in Donne, Herbert, Crashaw, and Vaughan. Cambridge, England: D. S. Brewer, 2000. A detailed study of how these four Metaphysical poets (and others) interrelated theological thought and religious feeling.

Citation Types

Type Format

MLA Style Holmes, John R. "Metaphysical Poets." Critical Survey of Poetry: Topical Essays, edited by Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman, Salem, 2011. Salem Online, https://online.salempress.com

APA Style Holmes, H. (2011). Metaphysical Poets. In R. Reisman (Ed.), Critical Survey of Poetry: Topical Essays. Hackensack: Salem. Retrieved from https://online.salempress.com

CHICAGO Style Holmes, John R. "Metaphysical Poets." Critical Survey of Poetry: Topical Essays. Hackensack: Salem, 2011. Accessed April 15, 2019. https://online.salempress.com.

Top View