In "The Windhover," the bird (a kestrel) is described in its flight. With this one, focus on how the speaker's emotions color the description of the bird.
The poem is also subtitled "To Christ our Lord." If you wish, discuss the bird as a metaphor for Christ.
The speaker projects the image of the kestrel as this majestic thing. He talks about the creature’s mastery of the wind in how he flies, or how he hovers in midair rather. He describes him as a “Brute beauty” and is awe of his abilities. The language used here is so grand, “the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion//Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!” It’s as though he thinks this bird is defying nature, like he’s some amazing thing that acts against nature with how he flies. The speaker’s adoration for this bird is something like what one might hold for Jesus Christ. The speaker even declares this bird “morning’s minion king-//dom of daylight’s dauphin.”
Showing posts with label Gerald Manley Hopkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gerald Manley Hopkins. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Journal: May 18, 1870
In the journal entry for May 18, 1870 (pp. 1525-6), Hopkins uses the terms "instress" and "inscape." How does his use of them here help you to understand what the editors tell us about these concepts? How does it help you to see what he attempts to do in his poetry?
In the introduction, the editors give us some information on “instress” and “inscape” already. “Inscape” is “the distinctive design that constitutes individual identity” which seems to be to be the thing that defines a work, or a poem in this case particularly. It’s about the individual feeling of the poem. “Instress” is the “apprehension of an object in an intense thrust of energy toward it that enables one to realize its specific distinctiveness” which I think means the understanding of something, in this case a poem, in such a way that you fully understand its uniqueness. So it seems from this, we’re meant to get the instress of the inscape. One solves the other rather.
With this journal entry and Hopkins’ use of the word, I feel that “inscape” reminds me of “landscape.” “I do not think that I have ever seen anything a more beautiful than the bluebell I have been looking at. I know the beauty of our Lord by it. It[s inscape] is [mixed of] strength and grace, like an ash [tree].” It’s the image, the picture painted by the poem to the audience. Hopkins felt that understanding and seeing this, or instressing the inscape, would bring one closer to God. In his poetry, he wants others to share in what he sees and feels and that is why he puts these images, or this inscape, into his work.
In the introduction, the editors give us some information on “instress” and “inscape” already. “Inscape” is “the distinctive design that constitutes individual identity” which seems to be to be the thing that defines a work, or a poem in this case particularly. It’s about the individual feeling of the poem. “Instress” is the “apprehension of an object in an intense thrust of energy toward it that enables one to realize its specific distinctiveness” which I think means the understanding of something, in this case a poem, in such a way that you fully understand its uniqueness. So it seems from this, we’re meant to get the instress of the inscape. One solves the other rather.
With this journal entry and Hopkins’ use of the word, I feel that “inscape” reminds me of “landscape.” “I do not think that I have ever seen anything a more beautiful than the bluebell I have been looking at. I know the beauty of our Lord by it. It[s inscape] is [mixed of] strength and grace, like an ash [tree].” It’s the image, the picture painted by the poem to the audience. Hopkins felt that understanding and seeing this, or instressing the inscape, would bring one closer to God. In his poetry, he wants others to share in what he sees and feels and that is why he puts these images, or this inscape, into his work.
Pied Beauty
"Pied Beauty" (p. 1518) praises God for many things. What do all these things have in common? Also, how does the speaker say God differs from these things He created? As with the others, focus on the language and imagery Hopkins uses to "paint his pictures."
This poem specifically applauds “dappled things” or things with mixed colors. “For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;//For rose-moles all in stipple upon upon trout that swim” These are all things of nature, things that change in time or simply by man’s own hand. The inscape I see here is a rich forest in fall with leaves still changing colors. Hopkins wants us to see here that we should appreciate our ever changing world and the God that in his constancy provides it, because while the world changes and is imperfect, its creator is not. “He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change.”
This poem specifically applauds “dappled things” or things with mixed colors. “For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;//For rose-moles all in stipple upon upon trout that swim” These are all things of nature, things that change in time or simply by man’s own hand. The inscape I see here is a rich forest in fall with leaves still changing colors. Hopkins wants us to see here that we should appreciate our ever changing world and the God that in his constancy provides it, because while the world changes and is imperfect, its creator is not. “He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change.”
Spring and Fall
What does the speaker first ask of her, and what does he tell her? Again, look also at the language and imagery. (You may, if you wish, compare this poem to Wordsworth's "We Are Seven").
The speaker is asks Margaret at first if she is mourning over Goldengrove, “Margaret, are you grieving//Over Goldengrove unleaving?” The speaker wonders if she loves the leaves like she loves the “things of man” thus we’re given the impression that this girl is young and possibly naïve. The poem being addressed “to a young child” also adds to this impression. He, the speaker, tells her that she will age and return to “such sights colder” as the forest, assumedly Goldengrove, will pale and change to her aging mind. Still, he says she’ll mourn the loss of the place she knew; here is where I first see the reference to the Garden of Eden. Goldengrove is Margaret’s Garden of Eden, a place that she could no longer visit after she had grown older, though aging is nothing like the Original Sin. The childish innocence of loving something so strongly as a place does remind me of the sweet child of “We Are Seven” who refused to allow that her and her siblings were no longer seven. With the final lines though, “It is the blight man was born for,//It is Margaret you mourn for.” I feel links the two girls more closely. Margaret didn’t wish to give up her beloved place that she loved more than people’s things, and the other girl simply refused to let it go of her belief. Both characters held strongly to something that seemed silly, but still the strength of their convictions was worth envy.
The speaker is asks Margaret at first if she is mourning over Goldengrove, “Margaret, are you grieving//Over Goldengrove unleaving?” The speaker wonders if she loves the leaves like she loves the “things of man” thus we’re given the impression that this girl is young and possibly naïve. The poem being addressed “to a young child” also adds to this impression. He, the speaker, tells her that she will age and return to “such sights colder” as the forest, assumedly Goldengrove, will pale and change to her aging mind. Still, he says she’ll mourn the loss of the place she knew; here is where I first see the reference to the Garden of Eden. Goldengrove is Margaret’s Garden of Eden, a place that she could no longer visit after she had grown older, though aging is nothing like the Original Sin. The childish innocence of loving something so strongly as a place does remind me of the sweet child of “We Are Seven” who refused to allow that her and her siblings were no longer seven. With the final lines though, “It is the blight man was born for,//It is Margaret you mourn for.” I feel links the two girls more closely. Margaret didn’t wish to give up her beloved place that she loved more than people’s things, and the other girl simply refused to let it go of her belief. Both characters held strongly to something that seemed silly, but still the strength of their convictions was worth envy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
