The Presence of God in the Seventeenth-Century Literary Prose

A Comparison of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

Mohamed Mahou (c)2011

 Download as pdf document.

Religion fashioned the social life of the English people for centuries. In the Middle Ages, for instance, people were totally submissive to the power of the Church, which had its own laws and lands. Popes and bishops imposed taxes on people; and they accepted gifts. Additionally, indulgences became an important source of revenue for the Catholic Church. This behavior was subsequently viewed by many as a corruption. At the beginning of the Renaissance, the Church witnessed turmoil. Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus criticized harshly religious practices of the time. In October 1517, Luther published the 95 theses that resulted in the reformation of the Church. During the seventeenth century, English people witnessed some transformations in different domains, especially in Religion. Although it was challenged and questioned, religion remained a source of inspiration that gave rise to an unprecedented creativity. Indeed, the prose literature of the time, for example, was admirably rich and varied. The reason, to be sure, is not far to seek; it was the result of the translation of the Bible. In this paper, I will discuss the importance of the Bible translation and its influence on prose-writers of the seventeenth century. Then I will trace the sense of the presence of God in the works of three major figures: Francis Bacon, the most distinguished exponent of prose writing in the early decades of the century, and Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, from the later period. A quick survey of their influential works will reveal striking similarities and differences in their style of writing as well as their views about Religion.

For several centuries, the scriptures were written in Latin, a factor that limited its readership to the learned. Translations of the Bible into English were not appreciated and they were viewed inappropriate for the public use. It was not until 1611 that a useful version was published entitled, The Authorized Version. Forty-eight scholars were employed to accomplish this translation. G.H.Mair notices:

They (The translators of The Authorized Version) cared passionately for the truth; they were virtually anonymous and not ambitious of originality or literary fame; they had no desire to stand between the book and its readers. It followed that they cultivated that naked plainness and sparseness which makes their work supreme. ¹

The profound effect of the official distribution of this book was felt by all walks of life, especially the writers. Phrases from the Bible were embedded in their works; and a growing tendency to avoid rich, archaic, foreign-sounding sentences was in vogue. For the benefit of the ordinary Englishmen, Puritan preachers spoke to them in their own language, using direct and factual phrases. Examples from everyday life and stories from the Bible formed the backbones of the sermons, which resulted in different styles of prose-writing. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke opted for a direct and unadorned way. However, a multitude of writers, like Francis Bacon, wrote in the Renaissance style. It is worth mentioning here that John Donne, eminent of the dark and difficult eloquence in his sermons, was an exception both in prose and poetry. The Bible, after the publication of The Authorized Version, proves to be not only the first and greatest piece of English prose, but it was also the only literature easily accessible to the laymen. This work was, in fact, the fruit of Renaissance scholarship, a factor that led Francis Bacon to adhere to the old mode of the Elizabethan period.

Francis Bacon (1561- 1626), a famous lawyer in his time who also served in highly respected jobs in the government, was found guilty of bribery. He was imprisoned and debarred from holding public office, the fact that enabled him to invest the rest of his life in writing. He justified his decision by claiming: “I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth”. ² Bacon had a strong leaning towards Puritanism. His literary fame rests on his Essays, issued in 1597. His writing style is of a late Renaissance artist, using all the rules of imagery and rhetoric to create an effect on his readers. His style is criticized for being too complicated, discontinuous and sometimes unfamiliar. His terse openings to his essays are reminiscent of the opening lines of John Donne’s poems. Clearly, the complex fusion of ideas, the use of aphorisms and the poetic language are typical features of Bacon’s style. Although he argues for a divorce between theology and the study of the matter, his religious sense is not really profound.

Bacon plans to base all knowledge upon scientific observation. But his investigations, according to G.H.Mair, are trivial. As a clever “popularize” of the cause of science, Bacon is chiefly concerned with laying down general principles to guide others’ work. Additionally, His History of Henry VII, which embodies much of his ideas about the practice of politics, is a clear statement of tyranny and oppression in society. This book, along with some of his essays, teaches statesmen and princes how to acquire power and how to keep it. Another striking characteristic of Bacon’s philosophy is his distrust of the importance of the English language in writing. To him, Latin is the language of posterity. No wonder, thus, to find critics who do not pay tribute to his participation in the evolution of modern English prose. C.V. Wedgewood, for instance, states: “It is not really surprising that, although his English prose will always give the pleasure that a finished artistry must convey, it does not belong to the organic part of our literature.” ³ In fact, Francis Bacon’s contribution to English literature in general and in prose-writing in particular can not be denied. Nevertheless, his near- disengagement from the subject of Religion makes of his writings, in style at least, less of a man of the seventeen century, unlike Thomas Hobbes who boldly tries to shatter the religious tenets of the English church.

One major figure of the later seventeenth century prose is, indeed, Thomas Hobbes (1588- 1679). He was nicknamed the “Arch-Atheist” because of his subversive views of the established religious beliefs. His masterpiece Leviathan, issued in 1651, is considered a blasphemous book, in which he contends that people believe in God because they have fear of the future. Religion, to Hobbes, is like a dream and God is an illusion. Peter Quennell and Hamish Johnson point out:

The mystery of miracles is only a by-product of human ignorance, and … to explain them there is no need to look beyond material causes. This kind of thorough going materialism earned Hobbes the enmity of almost all the leading thinkers of his time; and he became the centre of a controversy that lasted for nearly three decades.⁴

The church resented his scientific arguments, notably the one which advocates a “social contract theory”. According to Hobbes, a subject should submit to any government with control to guarantee the reign of peace in society. Additionally, human nature, according to him, is governed by selfish and acquisitive motives; there is no virtuous act that is not triggered by a disguised self-interest. In 1667, the House of Commons passed a bill to burn publicly his works because they had attracted a wide readership. In fact, Hobbes’ fame is due, in part, to his writing style. In most of his essays and books, he is concerned with matter rather than with the manner. His prose is admirably lucid and full of images. He makes use of the unembellished language of the people similar to the one used in The Authorized Version. He separates judgment from wit; he disregards the use of metaphors. Bruce King has convincingly argued that: “Hobbes‘s own style is one of the best prose manners found among those associated with the new science.”⁵

In a similar fashion, John Locke (1632-1704) develops this lucid style of prose writing. He believes, like the founders of the Royal Society, in the importance of using the colloquial language in writing. Truth, according to Locke, can be achieved only through plain the language of the people. His works, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1671), Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693) and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), to name but a few, reveal his empiricism and his focus on experience and senses in order to get knowledge. At birth, Locke claims, human mind resembles a blank page on which experience is inscribed. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not raise question of Biblical criticism. His theory of toleration tallies with the Christian faith. In his works, religion is treated as a normal subject. Lewis Loflin observes:

In The Reasonableness of Christianity, Locke's most radical and polemical work, he wrote as a "minimalist" and pleaded in good conscience as a believing Christian, a rational defender of revelation, and a loyal Anglican that the Church of England should reform itself in order to attract members from the Dissenters.⁶

As a voluntary Christian, Locke advocates freedom in religious matters. The church for him “is a free and voluntary society, its purpose is the public worship of God”.⁷ His approach to religion is based on reason whereby God communicates truth to his people. Equally important, the government, according to Locke, should cater for religion; but it should not impose its religious ideas on its subjects.

As a conclusion, prose-writers, believers and atheist alike, have felt the Bible’s all-pervading influence. The Authorized Version, the supreme example of early English prose, has inspired subsequent writers to focus on the matter, rather than the manner. In fact, the achievement of the seventeenth century should be chiefly ascribed to the distribution of that book. Its clarity has conveyed Christian ideas to all people, which sometimes results in a conflict with the church. C.V. Wegewood (1970) argues: “This unresolved conflict is typical of the religious outlook of the age, in which the orthodoxy of a recent past conflicted with the explosive heterodoxy of the present.” ⁸ Bacon, because of his affiliations with the Royal Society and of his fear to cause another disgrace in his life, keeps distance from the subject of religion. Thomas Hobbes, his irreligious attitudes reflected in his Leviathan, fires harsh criticism at the Church rigid dealings with religious matters. John Locke occupies a middle position, trying neither to be harshly critical nor wholeheartedly supportive to the Puritan doctrine. Patently, Bible translations, especially The Authorized Version, fashioned for English literature in general a vigorous and concrete language. The rapid development of the printing press and the emergence of a host of energetic and imaginative writers have helped prepare an unprecedented intellectual climate in the English history. In this regard, C. V. Wedgwood notes:

Whatever good or harm was done in this reckless age (the seventeenth century), whatever else it destroyed, or created, or renewed, it brought forth poetry and prose more glorious, strange and varied than any other time and left to succeeding generations a treasure which can not be exhausted and which, to this day, has not been fully explored.⁹

Notes:

1. Mair, G.H. English Literature 1450-1900 (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) p 61
2. Quennell, Peter. Hamish Johnson. A History of English Literature. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973) p 114
3. Mair, G.H. English Literature 1450-1900 (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) p 17
4. Quennell, Peter. Hamish Johnson. A History of English Literature. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973) p 164
5. King, Bruce. Seventeenth- Century English Literature. ( Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 1982) p 49
6. Loflin, Lewis. “Information on Locke”. Sullivan-County. March 2002. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/locke_reason.htm p 2
7. Ibid.p 3
8. Wedgwood, C.V. Seventeenth-Century English Literature (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) p 23
9. Ibid .p 17

Works Cited

1. Mair, G.H. English Literature 1450-1900 London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969
2. Loflin, Lewis. “Information on Locke”. Sullivan-County. March 2002. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/locke_reason.htm
3. Quennell, Peter. Hamish Johnson. A History of English Literature. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973
4. Wedgwood, C.V. Seventeenth-Century English Literature London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1970

Postcolonial Theory & Postmodern Features

 Download as pdf document.

Today the postmodern theory and the postcolonial theory are numbered among the major contemporary discourses. In fact, the two theories share common counter discursive processes, a factor that leads some critics, like Linda Hutcheon, to consider postcolonial theory as a manifestation of postmodernism. However, some other scholars, like Wole Soyinka, disagree totally with this view. For them, the postcolonial theory is distinct and different from the Western theories, modern and ancient. To find a middle ground between these two views, I will argue in this paper that the postcolonial theory is both a continuity of the postmodern theory and a shift from it. The present paper tries to define the two theories. It also puts the emphasis on some of their similarities and differences. As a conclusion, I propose a strategic technique for the postcolonial societies to find a voice within the hybrid atmosphere of postmodernism.

A- Postmodernism and the Postmodern Theory:

Nowadays postmodernism manifest itself in different cultural fields: architecture, literature, photography, cinema, to name but a few. There are two major problems in approaching postmodernism: working out a clear-cut definition and determining distinct principles of its theory. Carolyn Brown indicates that postmodernism refers to “a changed status of knowledge” triggered off by “information technology, and the cumulative transformations in representations in the twentieth century.”¹ Ihab Hassan, one of the most imaginative theorists of postmodernism, states that “he can propose no rigorous definition of it (postmodernism)”² Indeed, this lack of clarity gives birth to a number of postmodernisms³: Frederic Jameson’s postmodernism, a general condition in the contemporary informational regime, Linda Hutcheon’s paradoxical postmodernism of historicity, Sherry Wolf’s postmodernism, gay liberation and so on. No one of these postmodernisms is more appropriate or inappropriate than the others; each one is essentially part of the postmodern project that favors plurality. Trying to find a unitary definition would certainly be a very un-postmodern thing.

Although it can not be defined emphatically, postmodernism, according to Ihab Hassan, can be theorized in order not to be a “derelict cliché” with “no cultural concept”⁴. Ironically, to theorize postmodernism is forcibly to acknowledge its ambiguity and indeterminacy. In his article, “Postmodern Perspective”, Ihab Hassan gives a list of features of postmodern theory. Through a number of examples, he deduces that indeterminacy and ambiguity pervade most of postmodern works in different fields; this ambiguity, as a matter of fact, is the result of favouring fragmentation and antitotalization, hence the use of montage, collage and metonymy. It is also a by-product of the process of denaturalization, or in Ihab Hassan’s term, carnivalization. Concepts of the center like family, capitalism, patriarchy and religion are denaturalized and subverted. Ihab Hassan affirms: “We decanonize culture, demystify knowledge, deconstruct the languages of power, desire, and deceit”.⁵

Equally important, the postmodern theory insists on difference which suggests plurality and heterogeneity. The postmodern difference is both plural and provisional. That is, it exists within challenging discourses as well as against the center. In a postmodern work, this difference is achieved through a set of techniques such as parody, travesty, pastiche and irony. As a result, the old hierarchy of high and low culture completely dissolves in the postmodern discourse. For the sake of setting a difference from the established order, the once- marginalized is now, thanks to postmodern theory, heard and given full credence. According to Ihab Hassan, the postmodern text, verbal and non-verbal, invites performance and participation from everybody. The postmodern discourse, to be sure, is characterized by the multiplicity of voices and dissolution of all canons. A further characteristic of postmodern theory is its rejection of basic spiritual and natural truths and in its emphasis on material and physical pleasure.

B- Postcolonialism and the Postcolonial Theory

In the past, postcolonialism referred to the national culture after the departure of the colonized. But now the term means the culture affected by the intrusion of an imperial power from the moment of colonization up to now. In order to contradict the Western ideological leadership in politics as well as in culture, postcolonial writers put forward a postcolonial theory that aims at rejecting Western universalization and dignifying their national cultures. Dennis Walder defines this theory:

Postcolonial theory is an area of literary cultural study that has come into being as part of the decentering tendency of post-1960s thought in the West. But it was also part of a metropolitan, left-wing response to the increasingly visible and successful struggles for independence of colonized peoples worldwide from the 1950s onwards.⁶

Postcolonial theory has a subversive posture toward the Western canon. This subversion is implemented through different techniques. A number of key themes, such as the theme of celebration of independence, the theme of otherness and the theme of the influence of foreign culture on the life of postcolonial societies, pertain to most postcolonial works. Additionally, the postcolonial discourse gives full weight to the once- neglected and “decentered” by focusing on their achievements in different domains. This new discourse tries to spot out the injustices of the past, practiced by the colonizer. Two main movements are highly active within the field of postcolonialism: The postcolonialist culturalist movement and the postcolonial materialist movement. The former, related to poststructuralist and deconstructuralist views, lays the focus on the flow of immigrants to the West and its result in cultural clashes. The second movement, mainly linked to Marxism, puts the emphasis on the economic problems and the effects of globalization on postcolonial societies.

Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) marks the real beginning of postcolonial theory. In this book, Said is mainly subversive of how Western cultural domination of other cultures and experiences is processed. In another seminal work entitled Culture and Imperialism (1993), Said urges the postcolonial nations to stop blaming colonialism for what happened to them. They should try to find a distinct voice in the multicultural world, based on toleration, democracy and reconciliation. Nativism, according to Said, reinforces the distinction between “us” and “them”, similar to the way of orientalism. Acting this way, nativism is totally exclusivist. Other works, like Aschcroft’sThe Empire Writes Back, and Ngugi’s Decolonizing the Mind, to name but a few, are also vey influential in theorizing postcolonialism. In fact, a brief survey of some of these works will immediately makes the reader aware of the ruptures that exist in postcolonialism, which are similar, in a sense, to the indeterminacies of postmodern theory.

C- Affinities in the Two Posts

Although they do not share the same historical or ideological backgrounds, postmodern and postcolonial theories reveal some similarities in their techniques. However, their objectives remain the main difference between them.

Both postcolonial and postmodern theories permeate different domains. They do not confine themselves to written materials. Oral media and visual art are also subjects of their interests. Both of them focus on the marginal. They celebrate the culture of minority groups and they dissolve all languages of power. In search of diversity, the two discourses favor difference. Elleke Boehmer sums up the common features between the two:

Postcolonial and postmodern critical approaches cross in their concern with marginality, ambiguity, disintegrating binaries, and all things parodied, piebald, dual, mimicked, borrowed and second-hand.⁷

To question the metropolitan and centric systems of language and thought, the two theories resort to subversion as their overriding principle. Subversion in literary works, for example, is often done through the use of parody, irony and fantasy. Indeed, poststructuralist and deconstructuralist counter discursive strategies intersect in both theories, a factor that is highly contested by some postcolonial critics like Simon During and Wole Soyinka. For them, poscolonial writers “need to define themselves both against the identity given them by the colonial past as well as against international postmodernism.”⁸

D- Differences in the Two Posts

In fact, differences between the two theories are quite obvious. Deconstruction, as an approach, aims at different purposes. For postmodern critics, it is a way to create a mess in the world by virtue of negating the existence natural truths. Unlike the postmdernists, the postcolonial writers seem to have a legitimate rationale behind adopting deconstruction as their main strategy. Their goal is to expose the past errors and to dignify their native cultures. Though they reject the colonial history, postcolonial scholars firmly preserve their own. Equally important, postmodern notions of meaning as arbitrary or of identity as provisional are hardly relevant to postcolonial theory.

Hybridity, an invention of postmodern thought, is viewed as a way out of binary thinking, which permits to destabilize the center. Poscolonial theorists, like Ngugi and Soyinka, think that hybridity is a negative discourse to copy. This idea is further discussed by Homi Bhabha, who defines it as “the sign of the productivity of colonial power”⁹, that results in a hybrid identity or, to borrow his own phrase, “the third space of enunciation”. A group of postcolonialist critics advocate the need to reconsider the notion of this term, which is actually perceived as another way of Western domination. They insist, thus, that postcolonial societies should preserve their own distinct cultural features and reject the myth of universalism. However, some scholars such as Bhabha and Spivak are critical of “the epistemology and politics of cultural nationalism or separatism”^10. They insist on giving respect for both the cultural difference and heterogeneity.

E- Conclusion: A way-out

A common ground between the postmodern theory and the postcolonial theory is their insistence on difference. The move off-center is indeed laudable; and it is highly appreciated by the once-marginalized voice. However, the postmodern theory seems to have no goal and it does not know where it is really leading. The postcolonial theory, on the other hand, is aware of its objectives, but it dwells too much on the past; and some of its radical movements are separatist and even racist (Negritude is a case in point). In Eurocentrism, Samir Amin condemns eurocentrism as anti-universalist because it does not seek to construct possible general laws of human evolution; rather it presents the Western view of the world as the only legitimate and triumphant consciousness. For Amin, Islamic fundamentalist as well as the nationalists act in the same vein. That is, they insist on “the affirmation of irreducible ‘unique traits’ that determine the course of history.”¹¹

Modernity requires from the postcolonial societies to have a sense of optimism and to be active agents in the postmodern project. Through acting as a vehicle for progression and inventing in different domains, the countries of the “periphery” will certainly find a sense of real identity in the postmodern era. Their works should not be characterized by opposition, rather by creativity and competition with the Western thought. Postcolonialists should try to benefit from the West in different fields; following, thus, the steps of some renowned scholars such as Ibn Rushd, Edward Said, Chinua Achebe, to name but a few. These multicultural, not to say postcolonial, theorists dealt with the West; they criticized and learned from its intellectual assumptions.

As a strategic move postcolonial theorists should preserve their cultural identity. They should actually affirm that they are economically and technologically postmodern; but, culturally speaking, they should protect their cultural distinctions. Additionally, having a sense of identity should not be an obstacle in dealing with the Western culture. Having an opened-minded attitude will clearly result in a brave new world that asserts both local independence and global interdependencies.

Notes

1. Brown, Carolyn. “Feminist Literary Strategies in the Posrmodern Condition”. Carr Helen. ed. From My Guy to Science Fiction: Genre and Women’s Writing in the Postmodern. (London: Panda, 1986), 113.
2. Hassan, Ihab. “ Pluralism in Postmodern Perspective” in Critical Inquiry 12 ( Spring 1986) , 503
3. Different postmodernisms are put forward by Brian Mc Hale in his book :

Mac Hale, Brian. Postmodernist Fiction (London and New York: Methuen, 1988), p. 11; quoted in Linda Hutcheon, (The Politics of Postmodernism), 11.

4. Hassan, Ihab. “Pluralism in Postmodern Perspective”. p 504.
5. Ibid. 505
6. Walder, Dennis. Postcolonial Literatures in English. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 59.
7. Boehmer, Elleke. Colonial and Postcolonial Literature. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 244.
8. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareths Griffths, Helen Tiffin, ed. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Postcolonial Literatures. (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 164.
9. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareths Griffths, Helen Tiffin, ed. The Postcolonial Studies Reader. ( London and New York: Routledge, 1995) , 34
10. Gilbert, Barth Moore. Postcolonial Theory. ( London and New York: Verso, 1997), 191
11. Amin, Samir. Eurocentricism Translated by Russell Moore. ( London and New York: Zed Books, 1988) , 135

Works Cited

1. Amin, Samir. Eurocentricism. London and New York: Zed Books, 1988
2. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareths Griffths, Helen Tiffin, ed. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Postcolonial Literatures. London and New York: Routledge, 1989
3. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareths Griffths, Helen Tiffin, ed. The Postcolonial Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1995
4. Brown, Carolyn. “Feminist Literary Strategies in the Posrmodern Condition”. Carr Helen. ed. From My Guy to Science Fiction: Genre and Women’s Writing in the Postmodern. London: Panda, 1986
5. Boehmer, Elleke.Colonial and Postcolonial Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995
6. Gilbert, Barth Moore. Postcolonial Theory. London and New York: Verso, 1997
7. Hassan, Ihab. “ Pluralism in Postmodern Perspective” In Critical Inquiry 12 Spring 1986
8. Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. London and New York: Routledge, 1989
9. Walder, Dennis. Postcolonial Literatures in English. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998

Metaphysical Poets: An Equivocal Generation

Mohamed Mahou (c)2010

Download as pdf document.

Metaphysical poetry is a movement that appeared in the seventeenth century by John Donne and his followers. It was a digression from the main current, characterized by sweet tones and other Elizabethan courtly-love conventions. Indeed, the overriding feature of this movement is its ambiguity, a fact which triggered off criticisms that slowed down and even eclipsed its pace in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There are two of the major problems in approaching this movement: working out a clear-cut definition and coping with the feeling of unease while reading some “metaphysical” poems for the first time. Hence, the term “strong-lined” poets which is used as a disapprobation by some critics.

It is difficult to define Metaphysical poetry and it is also hard to decide what poets to include in this school. That’s why, some critics, like Helen Gardner, in her book, The Metaphysical Poets (1957), avoided giving any definition of a “Metaphysical” poem because “it does not seem profitable.”In fact, Gardner’s view is not beside the point. Even the term school or movement is difficult to apply to these poets because they were not formally affiliated; most of them did not even know or read each other. In addition, as Gardner has pointed out, none of these poets ever thought of himself as writing something named metaphysical. Another striking point is the fact that the degree of the use of metaphysics differ from one poet to another. Helen Gardner states: “All these poems are metaphysical, but some are more metaphysical than others.”

In his seminal essay, “The Metaphysical Poets” (1921) T.S. Eliot points out that critics are prejudicing the case of these poets by using the adjective” metaphysical”. According to T.S. Eliot, these poets were “a direct and normal development of the precedent age.” Eliot insists on the unity of European sensibility and it is a mistake to consider seventeenth century poets “a distinct school.”

The term “metaphysical” was first used by John Dryden and Samuel Johnson. It was applied to European poets of seventeenth century such as John Donne, George Herbert, Andrew Marvel and Henry Vaughan. Dryden and Johnson disapprove of “the unnaturalness” of these poets. Dryden said of Donne:

He affects the metaphysical, not only in his satires, but in his amorous verses, where nature only should reign; and perplexes the minds of the fair sex with speculations of philosophy, when he should engage their hearts, and entertain them with the softness of love. In this…Mr. Cowley has copied him to a fault”

Patently, metaphysical poets go beyond the physical. They acquired a reputation for originality and intricacy. They investigated the world by rational discussion of its phenomena rather than by emotions and intuition. They came under the influence of the development of sciences and the rise of Protestant teachings. The reader of these poems will stare in bewilderment when noticing the extensive use of paradoxical images, often called “metaphysical conceits.” Added to that is the concentration of meaning which, in fact, “confuses the pleasures of poetry with the pleasures of puzzles.” Thus, huge demands and challenges fall upon the reader to make these poems out. This leads some critics like Samuel Johnson to deduce that these poets aim at showing their learning as their whole endeavour.

What may fitfully assuage the reader’s bewilderment and confusion is the use of ordinary situations and colloquial voices in metaphysical poems. Helen Gardner puts forward: “Dryden praised Donne for expressing deep thoughts in common language. He’s equally remarkable for having extraordinary thoughts in ordinary situations.”In a parallel fashion, T.S.Eliot states that the seventeenth century poets were able to “devour” any kind of experience, be it simple or complex. By way of contrast, Romantic poets, later on, adopted this style, trying to democratize poetry. These poets, like their predecessors, chose incidents of common life and used a language really spoken by people. In his “Preface to Lyrical Ballads” (1802), W. Wordsworth emphasizes that the low and rustic life is “the better soil of passions of the heart.” It would be appropriate to affirm that metaphysical poets used ordinary situations, but with an outstanding difference. Unlike Romantic poets, the poetry of strong lines was mired in ambiguity and hyperbolic abstractions. There was a tendency to use scientific and mechanical tools such as compasses and telescopes in love lyrics, woven strangely in “a passionate paradoxical reasoning.”

Indeed, this brief and intense meditation has leveled harsh criticisms at metaphysical poets. Donne’s celebrated metaphysical images are described by Samuel Johnson as “the most heterogeneous ideas…yoked by violence together.” Alexander Pope in his poem,” The Essay on Criticism”, describes the strong-lined poets as the fools who seek “a critic’s noble name.” Alexander Pope states:

“Some are bewildered in the Maze of schools,

And some made coxcombs Nature meant but fools

In search of wit these lose their common sense

And turn critics in their own defense.”

Even T.S.Eliot, a strong adherent of the movement, found some faults with these poets. He claims that they were too much interested in philosophy and they were engaged in “task of trying to find the verbal equivalent for states of mind and feeling.” Though he has conceded that their work is often intellectually stimulating, Johnson claimed that the metaphysical poets failed to move the affections and to reach the sublime.

As a conclusion, the school of Donne was made for clever and well educated readers. Lazy ones will have to read and reread their poems and will eventually make a little out of them. In fact, the difficulties presented by metaphysical poets or the equivocal generation will be a challenge not only for the readers, but also teachers. The latter will face the problem of finding beauty in a dry soil of, to use Pope’s words, “half-learned witlings.” The use of extensive conceits may kill strong-lined poems like “bodies perish through excess of blood.”

Written by: MAHOU Mohamed

26- 10- 2010

References:

- Alexander Pope, “An Essay on Criticism”

- Helen Gardner, The Metaphysical Poets (1957)

- T.S. Eliot, “The Metaphysical Poets” (1921)

- Norton Anthology

The Metaphysical love lyric and the Renaissance legacy

Mohamed Mahou  (c)2010

Download as pdf document.

The course of emotional experiences tends to differ very little from one era to another. More or less, the same attitudes, themes or even locutions, which originated from a previous era, may be used by other poets from another era as the direct expression of feelings and moods of their own generation. A brief survey of the metaphysical love poetry of the seventeenth century and that of the Renaissance, for instance, reveals some striking resemblances. The school of John Donne is, in fact, a continuation of the school of Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Wyatt. That does not, in any way, negate the originality of Metaphysical poets. As G.H.Mair (1969) states: “A poet is a poet first and most of all because he discovers truths that have been known for ages as things that are fresh and new and vital for himself”.¹Far from accusing Metaphysical poetry of being an imitative literary exercise, these poets intelligently use some Renaissance conventions in their love lyrics while adding a personal touch and an element of freshness that set them apart as a distinct group within the poetic tradition of the time. In his seminal essay, T.S. Eliot considers Donne a late Elizabethan, whose “telescoping images” and even feelings are close to that of Webster, Tourneur and Shakespeare². The notion that Elizabethan poetry is immature and different in relation to Donne and his peers is beside the point. Actually, the poetry of the Jacobean age seems to continue the spirit of the Elizabethan glory. Poets like Michael Drayton, Fulke Greville and Campion, to name but a few, exploited the courtly-love lyrics in a way reminiscent of Sir Thomas Wyatt and The Earl of Surry. George Herbert, a key figure in John Donne’s school, used simplicity in his poems similar to the way of a host of Elizabethan poets. Additionally, because he was an attested musician, Herbert wrote many of his lyrics for singing, a habit of the Renaissance period. In short, the Metaphysical poetry is a continuity of Petrarchan sensibility, not a break from it. The present paper is divided into two main sections. The first section is concerned with comparing and contrasting Renaissance love lyrics and Metaphysical love poems. The focus will mainly be on the courtly- love attitudes and some of outstanding features of these poems. The last part is devoted to a comparison of two poems: John Donne’s “The Bait” and Christopher Marlowe’s “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love”. This suggested comparison illustrates the fact that a Metaphysical love lyric is a new poem with some Renaissance traits.

Renaissance Courtly-love Lyrics and Metaphysical Love Poems

1. Similarities

Tottel’s Miscellany is a renowned book of English literature. It is claimed to have initiated lyrical love poetry in the English language. Thanks to Sir Thomas Wyatt and The Earl of Surry, it also initiated the imitation and adaptation of Italian metrical forms. Lyrics, poems originally set to music for performance, are usually the expression of moods and emotions, and they are often couched in the first person. Indeed, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the greatest periods of lyrics writing. Not surprisingly, most love poems of the two periods show obvious parallels in terms of the subject matter and the form.

Following the Italian forms, Renaissance lyrics make use of stanzas. Poets build their poems into two parts, the octave and the sestet. The former is a two -rhymed section of eight lines at the beginning while the sestet consists of a six –line close with three rhymes. Fine love lyrics of Wyatt, Sidney and Marlowe are good examples to illustrate the point. Nevertheless, some poets such as Shakespeare and Spenser have a different approach. They use three stanza poems with a couplet as a conclusion. Similarly, Metaphysical poets, the school of John Donne, try their hands with stanzaic love poems. Some of them are written in the two part form; others follow the Shakespearian tradition. Akin to Elizabethan lyrics, the Metaphysical poets resort to the octave to introduce a problem or to present a situation. The sestet is used to make a comment on the problem or to find a solution. Some of John Donne's poems like “ Thou Hast Made Me”³, George Herbert’s “ Jordan (I)”³ and John Milton’s “ O Nightingale, That On Yon Bloomy Spray” make use of the octave and the sestet. Most of their poems, however, opt for the use of three quatrains and a couplet. Both the Italian rhyme scheme (abab/abab/cd cd cd) and the English one (abab/cdcd/efef gg) are employed by the Metaphysical poets.

Related to the form, both Renaissance and Metaphysical poets use the pentameter, the most common meter in English poetry. It is a line of ten syllables alternately unstressed and stressed. Anthony Easthope (1983) confirms that “there is a solid institutional continuity of the pentameter in England from the Renaissance to at least 1900.”⁴ As a rule, the iambic pentameter distinguishes the proper poetic lyrics from the improper poetic ones. Put broadly, Anthony Easthope affirms that this meter designates a proper way of speaking that is compatible with the bourgeois norms. For Renaissance poets, it is a heritage that should be preserved. For Metaphysical poets, the use of the pentameter is a strategic move, which aims at being part and parcel of tradition as well as being critical of it through inventing different types of its variation. In fact, as Easthope points out, the iambic pentameter becomes a rule that a poet is expected to work within.

Another similarity between Renaissance lyrics and the Metaphysical poems is that they pertain to the theme of love. Though it is portrayed differently, love remains a dominant subject matter in the two periods. A quick reading of the titles of some poems will corroborate this fact: In Renaissance love poetry, we find Sidney’s “Astrophel and Stella, “come, sleep, O sleep!” and” Leave me, O love”; Spencer’s “One Day I wrote her name upon the sand”. In the seventeenth century, there were famous love poems, too, such as “Love III” and “The Flower” by George Herbert, Andrew Marvell’s “To His Coy Mistress” and “The Definition of Love”, John Donne’s “Love Growth”, “Loves Infiniteness”, and Richard Leich’s “ Sleeping on Her Couch’’. Lyrics in both periods focus on the capacity of language to vehicle emotions and personal feelings. However, critics criticize metaphysical love poets for not expressing real love. This is, to be sure, one of the salient differences between the lyrics of the two periods.

2. Differences

Although they share some similarities, Elizabethan love lyrics and Metaphysical love poems differ in various aspects. In an attempt to come up with a new genre, the Metaphysical poets introduced some changes to the field of love poetry. Indeed, such changes would not really be classified as a break from the tradition; rather, they highlight the increase of sensibility in these poets. T.S. Eliot affirms: “The poets of seventeenth century (up to the Revolution) were the direct and normal development of the precedent age.”⁵ This development of sensibility, previously felt in Sidney’s and Shakespeare’s poems, “devour” any type of experience, be it simple or complex. Poets from both the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries tried to reject and resist the overpowering influence of Italian and French poetic conventions. Consequently, the love lyric genre witnesses a deformation at the level of both the subject matter and form.

The language, as a major aspect of love sonnets, undergoes a noticeable change. The Elizabethan poets make use of simple diction and familiar structure. They often opt for the use of refrains, which may sound ridiculous. As a very simple example, Wyatt in one of his lyrics entitled “The Lover Complayneth the Unkindness of his Love”, repeats the line “My lute for I have done” eight times. Refrains like these are appreciated when poems are sung. Oddly enough, theses refrains may be meaningless, like the following example from Shakespeare’s play As You Like it; “a hey, and a ho, and a hey nonino” In the seventeenth century, love lyrics, with some exceptions, were not intended for singing. Freed from demands of song, love lyrics use ordinary speech with paradoxes and conceits. In addition to a play with language and syntax, Metaphysical poets play on some poetic conventions of the Renaissance. For instance, the Metaphysical love lyrics unfailingly offer great intellectual content using compressed words and thoughts. This development in the English language is but natural. C.V. Wedgwood (1970) states:

Language was still without abstract terms, the hideous ‘isms’ of philosophy and religion. Necessity was the mother of invention and this lack of abstracts compelled writers to invent concrete images to express general ideas.⁶

A good deal of what seems to separate Elizabethan from Metaphysical love lyrics lies in the use of imagery and conceits. The lynchpin of Elizabethan decorum is based on clarity and simplicity, containing images of nature and allusions to classical mythology. Some sonnets of Shakespeare (sonnet 130 and 138) and Sidney’s “Astrophil and Stella”, for example, are referred to as indecorous or, to be more precise, “anti Petrarchan” because of their unusual content. Thanks to their glances backward on Shakespeare’s and his peers’ style, the Metaphysical poets explore and push the Petrarchan images further. Metaphysical images and conceits employ curious learning in their unusual comparisons that make some demands upon the reader. Samuel Johnson disapproves of this juxtaposition of the dissimilar. According to him, these are “the most heterogeneous ideas…yoked by violence together.”⁷ Among the most famous Metaphysical conceits are to be found in the following poems: John Donne’s “Valediction Forbidding Mourning” and Andrew Marvell’s “On a Drop of Dew”. In his poem, Donne pictures love as a unity in separation through comparing the lovers’ souls to a pair of compasses. Andrew Marvell, in his own manner, compares the soul with a drop of dew. This stylistic difference is not to be considered a break from the Elizabethan love lyrics; it is, it must be admitted, another development of the Petrarchan love sonnet after the one performed and anticipated by Sidney and Shakespeare. T.S. Eliot observes that:

It is difficult to find any precise use of metaphor, simile, or other conceit, which is common to all the poets (Metaphysical) and at the same time important enough as an element of style to isolate these poets as a group ⁸

In fact, it is legitimate to consider the Metaphysical poets a contiguous and continuous evolution of the Petrarchan love lyric.

The theme of love, or the exploration of the experience of desire, is portrayed differently by the Elizabethan and Metaphysical poets. Early Renaissance love lyrics describe a single view of love. The persona is dutiful, adoring, and full of enthusiasm whereas the mistress is beautiful, proud and unreceptive. The persona’s misery is described in his continuous pursuit to attain the desirable female figure. The first twist in this tradition comes from Sidney and Shakespeare. In their lyrics, the lady is not blond and she is very accessible and no longer virtuous. In addition to their blend of lust and love in their poems, Sidney and Shakespeare lay much focus on their art and less on the beloved beauty. A more noticeable variation is initiated with the emergence of Donne’s school. The latter brings an unlimited situations and experiences to the view of love.

Love, as a major subject in Metaphysical sonnets, is used as a springboard to voice certain concerns in society, namely politics and religion. John Dryden is critical of John Donne because he fails to entertain women’s minds with the softness of love. For Dryden, love should be natural and related to the physical. This does not, in any sense, mean that Metaphysical poets have a unique view of love. In fact, love can be an experience of the body, the soul, or both, or it can be religious or merely sensual. To illustrate, in John Donne’s poem, “The Extasie”, love is described as a sublime union of two souls. In Andrew Marvell’s poem, “To His Coy Mistress”, the poet is actually addressing the physical love. George Herbert’s “Love III” embodies a religious sense of admiration. It is worthy to mention that metaphysical poets often contradict themselves from one poem to another, a fact frequently attested in Donne’s love poems⁹. Indeed, the extravagant approach of the Metaphysical poets to the theme of love is an adaptation with a variation of Sidney’s and Shakespeare’s style.

Christopher Marlowe’s “The Passionate Shepherd To His Love” and John Donne’s “The Bait”: Similarities and Differences

To compare and contrast the lyric poetry of the two periods, two key figures will be considered: Christopher Marlowe (1564- 93), “the most exquisitely sensuous of all the great Elizabethan poets”¹⁰ and John Donne (1572-1631), the founder of the school of “strong lines”. As young men, they were both rash and impulsive. They mostly devoted their time to writing love lyrics; and they went through much suffering because of their subversive non-conformist views. Christopher Marlowe was criticized as being an avowed atheist and a notorious homosexual. Likewise, John Donne was condemned as an anti-religious, erotic poet. In addition to these similarities in their lives, some of their poems yield some affinities as well. “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” and “The Bait” are relevant cases in this regard.

The theme of love is a common ground between the two poems. “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” is considered to be one of the most famous love poems in English literature. The shepherd, a persona in the poem, tries to woo his love to come and live with him and be the passion of his life. Through the portrayal of the surrounding environment, he addresses an invitation to his beloved. He describes the countryside as being pure and beautiful, reflecting, in a way, his professed natural and pure love. Similarly, John Donne portrays his pursuit to convince his woman to join him. Through describing fishing and fish, he is reasoning his sexual allure. The artificial nature of his love can be immediately felt by the reader. Love in Donne’s poem is not as sweet as in Marlowe’s. The speaker in “the Bait” lays much focus on the unpleasant aspects of love as it shown in the following lines: “Bedded fish in bank out-wrest” (line22), “And cut their legs with shells and weeds” (line18). By contrast, Marlowe portrays love in a platonic way: “Melodious byrds sing Madrigalls” (line 8), “With buckles of the purest gold.” (line 16).

Equally important, Donne and Marlowe make use of different images. Marlowe uses idyllic images to convince his mistress to respond to his invitation. He promises to bestow various presents and pleasures on her. His images comprise implicit sexual undertones: “beds of roses”, “fragrant poesies”, “A cap of flowers” and “A gown of the finest wool”. Marlowe’s hyperbolic tone along with the flowery imagery epitomize the pastoral style of the English poetry in the late Renaissance period. By contrast, Donne adopts a markedly serious tone and resorts to explicit sexual imagery. In his extended metaphor, Donne uses unfamiliar diction such as: “crystal brooks”, “silken lines”, “golden sands”. These images exemplify the metaphysical additions to the love lyric poetry. Additionally, both poets hold sexist attitudes. They consider woman as nothing more than an object or as a mere source of pleasure. To make matters worse, Donne puts forward a very negative image of women by describing them as deceitful (line 25) and traitorous (line 23). Donne’s and Marlowe’s sensual speculations alongside the objectification of women constitute some of the defining conventions of the Renaissance poetry.

The form of the two poems discloses points of similarity as well as some divergences. Marlowe’s poem is composed in the iambic tetrameter (four stressed/ unstressed syllables) with six stanzas. Like most Elizabethan poets, he does not object to the use of repetition. The line “Come live with me, and be my love” is repeated three times in the poem. In a similar fashion, Donne uses the iambic tetrameter with seven stanzas. In the three first stanzas of “the Bait”, the tone is rather playful like Marlowe’s. But the remaining four stanzas embody a serious and harsh mood. The use of argument and counter argument is typical of Donne’s poems, broadly speaking. These techniques are cleverly used in this poem. The last stanza introduces a paradox in which the woman is portrayed both as the bait and as the fish. Marlowe’s poem, on the other hand, encompasses no surprise; his beloved remains adorable and charming throughout the lyric. The contentment and the innocent romantic love of the speaker in “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” tally with the Elizabethan pastoral formula.

Comparing these two poems reveals the fact that some features of Petrarchan love lyrics still exist in the metaphysical poetry. The fact that Donne begins with two lines from Marlowe’s poem is of high significance. This shows that the Metaphysical poetry is a continuity of Renaissance “glorious” poetic heritage. Ironically, Marlowe’s poem embodies “all the pleasures” (Marlow’s poem, line 2) of the Petrarchan sonnet while Donne’s speaker proposes “some new pleasures” ( Donne’s poem, line 2). Actually, both the Elizabethan and Jacobean poets are, as Dryden affirms, “a legendary giant race.”

Notes

1. Mair, G. H. English Literature 1450-1900 ( London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) 21
2. Eliot, T. S. “The Metaphysical Poets” in Gerald Hammond. ed. The Metaphysical Poets ( Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press, 1974) 85
3. In fact, these are holy poems. They are used here to illustrate the point since a lyric can also be religious.
4. Easthope, Antony. Poetry as Discourse. ( London and New York: Methuen, 1983) 53
5. T. S. Eliot, “ The Metaphysical Poets”
6. Wedgwood, C.V. Seventeenth-Century English Literature ( Oxford and New York: Oxford university Press, 1970) 7
7. Johnson, Samuel quoted in C.V. Wedgwood Seventeenth-Century English Literature (Oxford and New York: Oxford university Press, 1970) 55
8. T. S. Eliot, “ The Metaphysical Poets” 84
9. Love is different in Donne’s poems. In the poem, “The Sun Rising”, for example, love is fulfilled and celebrated. But in “The Canonization”, love is viewed as a religion.
10. Quennell Peter. Hanish Johnson. A History of English Literature. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973) 48
11. Ibid. 93

Works Cited

1. Easthope, Antony. Poetry as Discourse. London and New York: Methuen, 1983
2. Eliot, T. S. “The Metaphysical Poets” in Gerald Hammond. ed. The Metaphysical Poets. Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press, 1974
3. Mair, G. H. English Literature 1450-1900. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1969
4. Quennell Peter and Hanish Johnson. A History of English Literature. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973
5. Wedgwood, C.V. Seventeenth-Century English Literature. Oxford and New York: Oxford university Press, 1970