Good morning ladies. This is again the English
poetry course from the Islamic University of Gaza
Palestine. Today we'll have one session on
neoclassical poetry but before we do that let's
hear some of the poems or parodies some of you
wrote and want to share with us. Could you come
please? Good morning, everyone. I wrote a parody
of Come Live With Me and Be My Love. In this
parody, the voice is an Israeli voice when the
Israelis were calling people to come and immigrate
to Palestine. So this is what I wrote.Come live
with me and have come live with us and have your
land and we will all our wishes stand that fertile
lands trees and fields milk or flowing honey
yields and we will sit upon the mosques seeing the
Arabs apply their jokes by Balfour's promise to
who's signed singing Hatikvah we first find. And
we will make the homes and beds and a thousand
jobs do trade with Arabs, their homes get in,
their olive trees and holy lands, then when? All
Israeli soldiers shall dance and sing for Arabs
defeat each fifth John morning. Yet if Muslims
unite and gather again, then go back or you'll
taste pain again.
Very nice attempt at again appropriating a
particular text to your own course. Thank you very
much. It's a short poem. Life is too short to
hesitate, taking the adventures our hearts
indicate. Life is too short to keep thinking
physically. Set your soul free and let madness
spread excessively. Let it happen, darlings. Don't
think about the surroundings. Smell, touch, and
feel it, the freedom you wished you could even
have a bit. Farewell overthinking, goodbye
regretting. Hey love, hello hope, welcome
happiness. Get out of here sadness. No fears, no
tears, just smiles all over here and there. Open
the curtains and stir, colors here and there. The
sun is smiling, blue clouds are surrounding. Ha,
everything sucks, how I dare. It's nice, pretty,
and so rare, the trip we decide to take with those
who are willing to stake. With them, all scars
disappear, all hunting ghosts fear. As long as
they are here, we say bye fear. Thank you. Thank
you. Anna? Thank you, Rawan. So you have a clay?
This is all for pottery?
Okay, good. Good morning. I have a parody about, a
parody of my mistress' eyes are nothing like the
sun. My mama's eyes. My mama's eyes are nothing
like the sun. They give him color and give him
fun. If sun has wires, golden wires grow on her
smile. Sun rays are tranquil, warm. for the sight.
But no such warmth feel I as her own teeth are
burning bright. For I am shake, disturbed with
this delight. And yet by heaven I think my love as
rare.
And yet by heaven I feel this love as rare as when
we meet and she prevails. No such fear and no
despair. Therefore by heaven you see I dare say
that her love has no compare.
Okay, so I've written a parody about also my
mistress' eyes, but here I want to show you
something. Now, when I read the poem, I was
actually thinking about this person here. If we
look at the description that Shakespeare himself
gave, it was like describing dimmed eyes and no
red lips, tan complexion, and black curly hair, no
redness in her cheeks, she smells normal, music is
better than her voice, and she walks, she ain't an
angel. So if we think about it, probably
represents most if not all of us. So here I am
trying to draw the same portrait of this lady
here, but in a different style. Okay. Okay, I will
read now. The beauty I behold is nothing mundane.
Your eyes charm me with endless depths of ink,
shielded with black peacock's feather in vain.
Your lips' cupid bow conquered every pink and
lived peacefully on your sunkissed skin. Hair
drowns me in endless stretch of midnight sky. It
waves, I wave, or I commit a sin. With few words,
you shout a million replies. One smile, two
dimples are all it shall take to drill your love
in my heart as dauntless. Your natural scent
travels at daybreak. No perfume could ever do you
justice. By heavens, my love for you is rare, when
with other lovers, me you shall compare. I just
want to say one thing. I chose to confront her
because Yerehov. I think that he meant to
highlight her imperfections. So yes, this is kind
of like challenging for Shakespeare.
Very good, very good poems. I know many of you
have hidden talents when it comes to writing
fiction and poetry, but you need some pushing. I'm
willing to do the pushing, the guiding, the help.
Just keep writing. Okay, so today we move to
English poetry, neoclassical or Augustan poetry.
We already mentioned something about
neoclassicism. We mentioned something about them
when we discussed John Donne. Remember many people
consider the metaphysicals John Donne and his
followers to be a digression. Our argument here is
no, John Donne was as important. John Donne and
his followers are where and are still as important
as any movement, maybe as important as the
romantic movement of poetry, not a digression, not
somebody or a group of poets who are doing they
don't know what. And we understood this. So John
Donne was in the heyday of neoclassicism, as I
claim. So therefore we need to go back to two of
the most significant names of neoclassical poetry.
Number one is John Milton. We're going to study a
short extract from his epic, Paradise Lost, and
then we're going to study in more detail an
extract from Alexander Pope's essay on criticism.
Just to get an idea, what neoclassical or Augustan
poetry is. So this is by John Milton, An Extract
from Paradise Lost. And as the name suggests, it's
about paradise. Paradise we lost. Who are we? How
did we lose this paradise? What is this paradise?
What happened? How can we probably regain it later
on? When you look at the title here, you come with
the fact that this is basically not an ordinary
poem, especially if you take Paradise, like
literally not. Sometimes when you lose something,
you say, oh, my paradise. Many people speak of
Palestine as paradise lost, for example. or you
losing something. But here this is literally about
paradise. This is not a metaphor or some kind of
simile or something. When we read the poem, again
it begins with of man's, there should be an
apostrophe here, of man's first disobedience and
the fruit.
of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste brought
death into the world, and all our woe, with loss
of Eden till one greater man restore us and regain
the blissful seat. If you look here, there are
many biblical references, many biblical references
taken directly from religious texts, from the
Bible, et cetera. Look at the subject matter of
the poem. It's not an ordinary subject matter.
It's not, in their opinion, simplistic like we
have with the metaphysicals. Remember, we said the
subject matter for most of those neoclassicists
had to be about significant issues, issues of
great significance to the society, the collective
society as a whole, not to individuals. We'll see
how also the romantics hated this about this, the
poetry of this age They said poetry has to be self
-expression rather than a tool of teaching and
educating or sometimes delighting If you notice
here of man, this is a phrase of man's first
disobedience and of the fruit of that forbidden
tree whose mortal taste brought, this is still a
dependent clause, brought death into the world,
brought death and woe into the world with loss of
Eden, you know, Eden. And that's the title here,
Paradise Lost, loss of Eden. till one greater man,
perhaps he's talking here about Jesus, restore us.
He did write actually another text which he called
Paradise Regained, where again Jesus brings us
back to God, saves us, the savior. Restore us and
regain the blissful seat, our place in heaven.
Sing, this is the main verb, delayed for like In
line six, interesting. Sing or muse, sing muse.
The muse is considered to be the source of
inspiration for many classical poets, almost all
of them. The muse, you know, in Arabic we say
Rabbit al-shar sometimes or Shaytan al-shar. The
Arabs used to believe in this. Some poets believe
that every poet is like this muse thing. The muse
here means a goddess of poetry. I think I quoted
Ahmed Matar the other day saying something to the
effect of
something like this. The inspiration doesn't have
to be restricted by rules. But look at how this
muse, the source of inspiration for poetry, is not
ordinary, it's also heavenly. Heavenly. Saying
heavenly muse that on the secret top of Urib or
Sinai did inspire that shepherd, and perhaps the
shepherd is Moses. who first taught the chosen
seed, probably the Israelites. And now look at
this, of man's first disobedience, that's Adam,
Adam and Eve, right?
There's the forbidden tree here, the tree of
knowledge, the fruit. And there's the Garden of
Eden, Janat Adam. Look at the characters, look at
the setting. A very significant representation of
what neoclassical poetry was mainly about You
don't talk about ordinary people, about poor
people, about the masses You speak about
significant issues. This is, if you read these
texts and you have no idea about the biblical
story of Adam and Eve or even the story we tell in
Islam, you will find this difficult to understand.
And again, I'm imagining somebody in the 17th
century reading this. If this person is not
religious, doesn't go regularly to the church to
hear very often about Christ and the forbidden
tree, there will be a lot of difficulty
understanding what this man is talking about. Now
look at even these references, Urib and Sinai.
So sing heavenly muse that on the secret top of
Urib or Sinai did inspire the shepherd who first
taught the chosen seed in the beginning And in the
beginning is a direct quote from also the Bible in
the beginning was the word, probably the opening
verses of the Bible. How the heavens, if you look
here, like the extra, the syllable there is gone,
heavens, should be read as heavens to keep the
music of, or the flow and the music of the meat of
the lion. How the heavens, look at what he's doing
here again How the heavens and earth rose out of
chaos كيف خلق الله السماوات والأرض من العدم How
God created the heavens and earth Look at what the
poet again is doing This is not a love poem, this
is not a relationship poem It's a poem about how
God created the universe
And if Zion, hell delight thee more, and Ceolus
brook that flowed fast by the oracle of God, I
thence invoke thy aid. You know, to invoke, like
to try to beg for somebody to bring, to be
inspired by something. Thy aid, probably he's
talking to still the heavenly muse. I invoke. This
is my, this is how I can write poetry, by being
inspired. ''Thy aid to my adventurous song that
with no middle flight intends to soar above the
Ionian mount where it pursues things unattempted
yet in prose or rhyme'' And I find this really
beautiful and sweet Things unattempted yet in
prose or rhyme
Look at the ambition here to do so. And indeed,
this is something that is unmatched. This is one
of the most beautiful poems. It's a very, very
long poem, thousands of lines. If you are
interested more in Milton, one of the most
fascinating poets, you could at least listen to
his poetry on YouTube. You will find some good
dramatization of this poem and sometimes sketches
on YouTube. You'll enjoy this. Things, look at
what he's doing, he's not doing something
ordinary, he knows this from the beginning. Things
unattempted yet, things that have never been
written about in prose, yet in prose or rhyme.
This is an old spelling of rhyme.
Okay, and chiefly thou, O spirit that dost prefer
before all temples the upright heart and pure
instruct me seeking instruction.For thou knowest
thou from the first was present, and with mighty
wings outspread dove-like sets brooding on the
vast abyss, and made it pregnant. What in me is
dark? That's the object. That's why he's doing it.
He wants what is dark in him to be illumined, to
be bright, to be lightened. What is low, raise and
support? Bring me up. that to the height of this
great argument. And again, the most important
thing is how this opening ends there, here. This
is just the opening. Why are you writing this? Why
do you write poetry? Why is this poem being
written? Because he wants to assert, I may in
order to, I may assert eternal providence, an
eternal providence, that God is there, that God is
taking care of everything, is watching over us,
that he will always protect us, that whatever God
does, it's for our own good. I may assert eternal
providence and justify the ways of God to men. So
if you sometimes suffer or you know you are in
pain, you lose, you don't get what you like, what
you love, what you work for, don't worry because
this is God's doing and God likes us all, loves us
all. It's always going to be for your own benefit.
If you get it, it's good. If you don't get it,
it's also good. And I usually say that this is
basically not the job of poets. It's the job of
prophets and messengers. Look at again how the
poet here is assuming this position, being a
prophet-like, getting inspiration from wherever it
gets, from God, from the muse, the spirit, in
order to write great poetry. Poetry that, in the
definition of are neoclassicists, neoclassical
critics, both that teaches and delights. You'll be
delighted here. But it's also going to teach you
about life, about the creation. Now when you read
this, you need to be careful. because this is a
religious poem. Indeed, it is a religious poem,
but many people did not take it as a religious
poem. Many Christians hated John Hamilton for
doing this and considered him to be, you know,
heretic and, in a way, blasphemous. Because in the
text, who are the main characters again? There's
God, Adam, Eve, Satan, you know, the angels, the
good and the fallen ones. Now in literature there
is no pure or good or bad. Many students want to
write short stories or texts or whatever and they
usually focus on the pure good or the pure evil.
This is not good literature. Literature is about
the grey area, the area that makes us all wonder
and think. It's not about being too good or too
bad. It's about a good person doing something bad
or a bad person doing something good. Now, in
Paradise Lost, Satan sometimes, the devil, is
depicted as blameless or to blame as other
characters. Sometimes you feel like, oh, you feel
sorry for Satan. If you do, it doesn't mean you're
evil. It means John Milton is a genius. But that's
not what I want to focus on. But it's good to
think about this. So again, we end here this
example by why he's doing this, why he's writing
this text. I may assert eternal providence and to
justify the ways of God to men. I find this very
beautiful in many ways, the poetry. If you notice,
of course, there's no particular regular rhyme
scheme there because this could be classified as
blank verse. Like in Shakespeare, when you write
thousands and thousands of lines, it's going to be
very tough to keep the rhyme regular. So you free
yourself, this is poetry, but you free yourself of
the rigidity of the rhyme scheme. Now most
importantly, This essay on criticism by Alexander
Poppe
basically
lived the first half of the 18th century. Remember
Alexander Poppe, he was one of the critics who did
not like John Donne. And when many critics who
even didn't like John Donne said that John Donne,
at least he was witty, like he has this unmatched
intellectuality and wit. Alexander Pope said,
nope, he doesn't have even imagination. His
imagination is ordinary. And I find him very
interesting. He's one of the most canonical
writers, but also very interesting. If you read
him and Shakespeare, I once read an article that
explained how Alexander Pope was not happy with
many things in Shakespeare's plays, and he would
just fix them and change them and edit them,
saying that it should be this way. Shakespeare
must have meant it this way, not that way.
Shakespeare was wrong. That's very extreme in many
ways. Okay, so the title is also very interesting.
It says an essay on criticism. If one of you wants
to read, like you Google, okay, you have some time
to kill, you Google essay on criticism, you want
to know more about criticism and how to do
criticism, and this essay pops up as the first
result, you're going to be surprised. Because this
is not an essay, it's a poem. But look at how even
he says, even your criticism, your critical ideas
are written in the form of long poems, not
ordinary poems. The second thing we notice is this
foreign language, not English. Again, imagine
yourself living in the 18th century.
It's Latin, I guess. You don't have, your father
couldn't afford the money to send you to
university or even to a grammar school, but you
worked hard and you managed to be able to read
English and you pride yourself in this. And then
somebody tells you, hey, there's this interesting
text if you want to read it. It's like, okay, it's
say on criticism and what? That's all I can say,
it's a poem. And then you come face to face with a
foreign language, a language you're not familiar
with. I'm not sure if this is going to be a turn
off or what. But again, this is one reason why I
say that much of the poetry written by those
people was poetry written by the elite and for the
elite. You had to be educated at university
sometimes to understand their allusion. There are
many allusions. Like when you read John Milton,
there are so many religious allusions and
allusions to other places and sometimes
mythologies that you don't get if you don't read
about them. You have to do effort. Unlike Jonah
and all you have to do sometimes is just to think
and try to connect things.
And also what he says, this is translated here, I
think this is a quote from Horace. It's translated
into, if you have come to know, it's like a
challenge. The poem opens with a challenge. If you
write something as good as this, then show it to
me. If you don't, then follow me. In a way, you
can't do this. Nobody can do something like this.
If you have come to know any precept more correct
than these, share it with me brilliant one. If
not, use these with me. Follow me. These are the
way to write poetry. These are the ways to write
poetry. These are the rules and the regulations.
And again, this is only the opening bit extracts
from Hesayon criticism. Let's focus more on them,
say, discuss issues and examine how he wants us to
write poetry. The first idea is the first, the
opening paragraph is an imperative verb. First,
follow. Follow what? We need to follow nature.
You're already familiar with Plato and Aristotle
imitating nature. Somebody said, was it Plato?
Plato said, pottery is not good because it's just
imitation of an imitation, the world of being and
the world of becoming. We're not writing anything
original. We're just imitating something that is
itself an imitation of a perfect thing. And then
Aristotle said, it's okay as long as our imitation
is good, is close to nature. So the fact, but
again, don't mix between the concept of nature for
the romantics and the concept of nature for
Alexander Paul. Nature basically means the world
that exists around us. And in many ways, nature is
perfect. We are perfect. We are created in this
fascinating symmetrical Image. Look at the eyes
and the nose, where everything is, right? Like
almost everybody. Look at the animals, the tigers
and the lions or the cats, or like how beautifully
they are. Very symmetrical. Look at the trees.
Most of the trees, you will find them in a way
very, very symmetrical. So if you want to produce
something, you need to echo the perfection and the
symmetry of nature around us. before it is touched
and changed and damaged by man. First, follow
nature and your imagination frame. By here,
because nature has just standards. Her standard is
just, is fair. Not sure if it means more than
this. And also, which is still the same. Nature
was and is and will be. it's almost fixed. I think
here the idea is that if you count on your
imagination and you on your feelings emotions
experiences encounters these are things that are
changeable by time possibly changeable you change
now you're sad then you're happy now you're
optimistic and then you're pessimistic we can't
count on this because They're not fixed, they're
not the same. But nature is the same, it doesn't
change. So it should inspire us to write in a
particular way. And also nature is, I like this
word, unerring. You know, to err is human, to
forgive is divine. So nature never makes mistakes,
never errs. Unerring nature, still divinely
bright. One clear, unchanged and universal light.
I think the idea is that nature provides us with
clear, unchanged, universal light, life, force and
beauty. Must all impart. Imparts all of these on
us. Nature imparts, gives us, bestows on us light,
life, force and beauty. We can be touched by
nature because it gives us everything we need, we
require. And also, at once nature should be,
that's following nature, at once the source and
end and test of art. What a beautiful thing to
say. Can someone try to explain this? At once, the
source and end and test of art.
Talking about nature. How's that? It's the source
of our life. We were born here and the end of our
life and our grades. And it's just a word like art
is art. Art. Art.
It's like the experience of a whole life. More.
Please. I think it means that like you are born in
this nature and you die in it. So you're not
really seen except for this imitation and the
imitation. So in a way or another, this nature
represents everything in your life. You did not
really see anything else to be inspired by it.
More?
I don't think he means nature being our source and
our in. He's saying that nature is the source of
art, the end of art, the test of art. If you want
to, because this is about writing poetry, it's
your own criticism. You're inspired, you should
be, you have to be inspired by nature and natural
elements. And we write to reflect on natural
elements, the end, not the end like Finish, done.
It's why we do things, you know, the end. We say
sometimes the end doesn't justify the means.
That's why we write poetry. We write poetry to
imitate, to echo, to mirror life, to mirror
nature. And at the same time, it's the test of
art. And that's a very extreme thing to say. The
thing is that this idea about nature being the
test of life is very, very, very subjective
because nature is not a human being to test
things. But again, those poets with Horace and The
Rules of Decorum, remember I'll go through them
when I finish again, so you remember, you don't
forget. Those people looked at, they believed that
the greatest Greek and ancient poets were the
closest to nature. Nature that is unchanged before
man could change and destroy nature. So when they
wrote poetry, their poetry was a perfect
reflection of nature. Okay, so we study these
poems. We study these poems and we come up with
the criteria and standards why these texts are
great. And then we follow these rules. So in
reality, we're not following nature because nature
is different. Sometimes you find trees that are
not symmetrical. Sometimes you find things that
are not, that don't go, that have, don't have
balance or symmetry or a pattern. Indeed, we are
following people who wrote poetry in a particular
way, but those critics claim that those people are
the best, the perfect embodiment of nature. So
when we say nature is the test of art, it's
actually not nature itself, but the rules of
decorum, devised in a way, not devised by Horace.
Horace examined the greatest literary works of the
golden age of poetry 2000 years ago. And he said,
okay, these are great because one, subject matter,
two, the language, three, the form. And if you
want to write a great poetry, you need to follow
these standards. So the test of art, if you want
to examine whether a test, a text is great or not,
you bring it to these criteria devised by those
poets and critics. If these, if the text is closer
to to these criteria, then like. If it's not, then
meh. And that's why John Donne in many ways
violated these rules of decorum, violated the
natural standards set by those poets in form, in
theme, in language. We're going to see also next
class how the romantics also violated everything
about this. They didn't believe, they trashed
everything the neoclassicists came up with.
Nature is the source
of these beautiful things and also they should
Embody nature, true. If you write, if you want to,
life should embody, I don't know what exactly he
means by force, but beauty, if you write beauty,
if you want, beauty is inspired by nature, but
also if you want to write about something that's
beautiful, you imitate nature. In a way. I have a
question. Is he with the rules of decor or
against? What do you think? He's against. No. So
how should he be with them when he says about
nature that it is a test of art? So when I want to
write about something, nature will be the source
of my poetry or my art, while nature have from
black to white. It doesn't meant to move. I'll
just answer this question in a way. How, again,
these rules are inspired by Homer. The Elliot and
the Odyssey and those great literary works of 2000
years ago.
Yeah, true. So they are inspired by nature,
because they were closer to nature than us, to the
perfect reality of nature than us now, today. So
when they wrote poetry, they were very close to
nature. And then if you examine these texts, you
come up with the rules that we have to follow. The
rules dictate that there should be a particular
language, a particular form, and a particular
subject matter. He is. That's Alexander Pope.
That's Alexander Pope. Please. I need to get this
clear. So he's suggesting here that a poet should
be inspired by nature and its rules but not
depicting natural elements? No. He doesn't say
that. Whereas he's saying don't depict natural
elements. No, not this. But the subject matter of
the poet should not be like romantics, for
example. Imagination and natural elements. We
haven't come to imagination and romantics yet.
Yes, I get this. But the main idea is to give
Actually,
not that nature follows rules, that nature is the
rules
But I think everything everything everything even
I don't think he basically means human nature like
the human nature because human nature is erring
everybody knows this Instinct is always right I
think maybe he means like when you want to judge
something just follow your instinct I think it
means everything, like our nature as humans, but
also life around us, creatures, the creation as a
whole, and we being part of this. This is what I
believe. We can look more into what, because those
people would be using words in a way that we don't
use them nowadays. Like we'll see wit and
judgment, how he tries to do, look at them. Now,
more.
Art from that fund, so this is a fund, like you
take money from, you take inspiration from. Each
just supply provides works without show and
without pomp resides. I don't know how, like this
is like when you work without pomp, you know
pompous, pedantic, showing off your linguistic and
poetic abilities and skills. Although some people
accuse those neoclassicists of being pompous, of
trying to show off, to use language in a way, you
know, we spoke many times about the highly
embellished language, the language that nobody
understands except educated people, people who
went to Oxford or Cambridge. In some fair body,
thus the informing soul with spirits feeds, with
vigor fills the whole. Each motion guides. because
we are guided by, again, by the nature of things.
Each motion guides, and every nerve sustains
itself unseen. But ineffects remain, some to whom
heaven in wit has been profuse. Look at, again,
heaven. This is just one syllable because he wants
to do something, change. So I think here he's
saying that heaven, God, nature, life give some of
us an excess of wit, too much wit. You know
sometimes you hear somebody cries profusely, like
you cry a lot. So some to whom heaven in wit has
been profuse. Many people were blessed by
excessive wit, excessive intellectuality. Want as
much more to turn it to its use, to make use of
this wit, probably by writing poetry. For wit, and
then he goes to something that I find very
striking here. For wit and judgment often are at
strife. I find it striking because, you know, when
two things are at strife, struggling, like kind of
a conflict, conflicting interests here. Does he
mean wit? The brain, the mind, possibly, and
judgment means instinct, our intuition, our guts,
knowing how you feel about things. I'm not sure,
but these things are at strife. Using your?
But that's still an intellectual thing, an
intellectual activity. But if we talk about the
heart here, we talk about feelings and emotions
rather than ideas and thoughts. Now what I usually
do with Alexander Pope, I want you to try to do
this. I usually try to hide, when I read one line,
I try to hide the other line and guess what word
he's going, it's a game I play, it's a very boring
game I play sometimes. Try to guess the rhyme
scheme, the rhyme, how he's going to rhyme the
line. And when I when I got here for wit and
judgment often are at strife though meant each
other's aid like man and wife I never expected him
to go for for wife because but again in poetry
anything is possible it's just it takes a simile
or a figure of speech and everything can be
possible Why do I find this interesting? We know
like, and we see this all the time, I pronounce
you husband, man and wife, right? But logically
speaking, it shouldn't be man and wife, it should
be man and woman or husband and wife. I know it's
more common to say man and wife, but some
feminists will find this offensive because it
suggests that a man when he marries never changes,
he's the same. A man is a man, no matter what
happens to him. But the woman, when she gets
married, she changes totally. She becomes somebody
else because she is no longer a woman. In a way,
she becomes a wife. Probably I'm putting too much
into this or stretching it a little bit, but I
find this very striking here. And does he mean,
like when he says, wit and judgment, man and wife,
does he mean wit like in man and judgment like in
wife? But also there's something interesting,
though mint each other, he's saying that wit and
judgment should complement each other, should
complete each other, should be there in harmony.
And he uses one of the most striking similes here,
like man and wife. And we know husbands and wives
are not always in a harmonious relationship. So
this is a very strange thing to say, like man and
wife. So for wit and judgment often are at strife,
though they are meant to be to each other's aid,
to aid each other, to help each other, to
complement each other, like man and wife.
And finally, is this the final thing? No, we still
have the finally to come. It is more to guide than
spare the muse's steed You know steed? What's a
steed?
What's a steed? Don't watch Shrek?
Any cartoon? There's always a steed in cartoon
movies Steed is horse, but it's a poetic word
Steed
Like in Arabic, like horse is in Arabic, horse,
الحصان for example You don't find the word حصان in
poetry, right? It's not poetic It's
more to guide, now going back, again it's not easy
sometimes to follow the pronouns here because here
it says it is not, is he referring to nature, the
nature of things? It is more to guide. These rules
guide us. The rules of nature, the standard of
nature, the just fixed standard of nature is meant
to guide us than spare the muse's steed.
I find this also very strange coming from
Alexander Pope. Look at John Milton. John Milton
was invoking the muse. He was expecting
instructions and inspiration from them. He was
asking for help to do this great project of his.
Now here he says if you're basically writing
poetry means you need to guide your Muse your
writing rather than spare, you know spare here,
you know spare Anybody follows football Premier
League England the spare is what's the spare?
No Spare
a spare When usually, when horsemen, when they
ride, first thing they do, usually it's not good
for horsemen to carry sticks and hit the horse.
It's not good for the optics of it. A horse
shouldn't be hit, unlike a donkey sometimes or a
mule. So the first thing they do, they just hit
with the back of their foot, they hit the horse.
But usually, we see this in Western movies, in
Hollywood movies, there's some metal there. The
pointy, spiky metal No, that's for the horse, this
is for the horseman Yeah exactly, we see it in
Hollywood cowboy movies In Arabic it's called
المهمز because it تهمز So there's a football team
in England called Tottenham Hotspurs They call
them the Spurs, المهاميز, something like this
Strange in Arabic, but very beautiful in English.
So we're not he says we need to guide again He's
not also talking about the muse. He brought a
horse for the muse Okay Then spare the muse's
steed. We should not spare the muse's steed We
should control it and guide it Restrain his fury
his still refers to Restrain, limit. Remember we
said for John Donne these rules were limiting,
were restraining for imagination and experience
and whatever. Even for the romantics later on,
they believed that these rules are not only
restrictive but also repressive. They restrict you
from what you want to say, but they also repress
you. They keep your feelings deep inside you,
causing implosion sometimes. Restrain his fury,
then provoke his speed. Don't provoke the speed of
your muse. Don't let your muse loose. Free,
unchained, ungoverned, uncontrolled, unpatterned,
unorganized. There should be rules. There should
be organization. The winged, and again, I find it
very strange that he goes back to horse. He just
said steed, meaning horse, and then he comes back
to horse, which rhymes with course. The winged
courser, like a generous, again, we drop here the
generous, the extra horse, so we have a perfect
example. Perfect music here. The winged courser,
like a generous horse, shows most true mettle when
you check his course. In a way, what I understand
is that if you control, if you try to control, to
limit this horse, this steed, it gives you better
results. If you just keep it out in the open,
doing whatever it wants to do, it won't help. And
he's referring to the muse here. Our everybody,
like those poets who can write following the muse
unrestrained, probably they're not going to be
writing good poetry. You need to control and limit
and organize and structure these things. So the
winged courser, the horse, like a generous horse,
probably the winged courser, maybe the muse
itself. Shows most middle, when does it show
results, good results? When you check his course,
when you control his, where he's going, where it
is going, where and how. When you follow the
rules. And then the most interesting part, I
quoted this before in one of the classes. The
summary is this, look at this, this is like an
essay, like an academic essay with an argument
with the opening line, first follow nature being
the general statement and then narrow it down to
things and then going for the wrapping up. Those
rules of old discovered, not devised.
These rules have been discovered from ancient
times. No man made them up. They are not man-made.
They are man-made. But the claim is that these men
who put them down, wrote them down, were more into
discovering them because they already existed in
nature and because they already existed in the
poetry of the great poets of the past. Those rules
of all discovered, not devised, are nature still.
They are nature still, but nature methodized. And
look at like there's something different here.
Remember we, in the opening, he invited us to
follow nature because nature is unchanging,
unerring. Nature is unchanged. Nature is divinely
bright. Nature is the same. Nature is fair. But
the idea, what I understand here is that What he
implies is that of course nature has been changed
because of society, because of civilization,
because of man, because of industry, because of
everything. So what he's doing, he claims to be
methodizing nature. And I love how he's using this
word as a verb. I'm not sure if it was used as a
verb before. So not devised, but nature
methodized. I am not making these rules up. I am
just trying to regulate what has already been
discovered in the past. Nature like liberty. Look
at this simplistic, cool simile here. Like
freedom, nature is but restrained. There's no
absolute freedom. And nature itself is not
absolute. Not because there's something wrong with
nature, but perhaps because man changed nature. We
don't want to follow the changed nature of things
and people and life. We need to follow the origin,
virgin form of it. By the same laws which first
herself ordained. Nature itself, I like the use of
herself ordained. These are rules dictated upon us
by nature. Not the trees necessarily, but the
nature of things, nature of people.
To many this is very extreme, very restrictive,
very repressive, very suppressive even. But for
Jonah, again, if you read this poetry, some of the
most beautiful poetry was written in this. period.
It's similar to the Arabic poetry of, you know,
the classical Arabic poetry where you have to do
the same thing, the same rhyme scheme, the same
meter, choosing, you know, highly embellished
language and choosing very significant subject
matters to write about. Before I let you ask
questions, if you notice, I'm not sure whether how
much he sticks here to the same number of
syllables and And feet, if you have time, extra
time at home, some time to kill, could you please
count the syllables and see whether he, you know,
goes for perfect iambic pentameters or like at
least the number of syllables and the number of
feet? You'd be surprised that almost always he
does that. But the other interesting thing is the
couplets, the rhyme scheme. Frame same bright
light impart art Provides, presides, soul, whole,
sustains, remains, profuse, youth, strife, wife,
steed, speed, horse, course, devised, methodized,
restrained, and, or didn't. Not even one imperfect
triumph. If this is John Donne, he could have
thrown two or three imperfect triumphs in our
faces.
And that's why we'll see next class. Again, I said
this many times. We'll see this when we talk about
romanticism. Romanticism took all these things and
you just literally trashed them. They are all, all
of them. That's, that's very, you know, extreme
discipline here. But look at John Donne. Remember
John Donne? Sometimes he goes for 12, sometimes he
goes for 9. If you want to say something before
the question, please.
to make a connection between the note that he
wrote in the beginning and the whole nature of
nature itself. Like he's saying that if you find
anything that is more correct or anything more
perfect than nature, than this poetry, come back
to me. And the same thing he says about nature.
Nature is perfect and you cannot find anything
else that you can get inspiration from. Again, I
take this as some kind of arrogant, you know,
challenge. I take this as he say, you can't come
up with better poetry than this. And with this
mentality, with this mindset, with this worldview,
hopefully we will understand how and why they
excluded John Donne and his followers from the
English canon, how they trust John Donne, how they
negatively frame John Donne. And then we'll see
how the romantics said, okay, sorry, it's time for
change now.
Yeah.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And this
is again, if you don't read that, if you don't
have knowledge, how can you make the connection?
You have to be educated. You have to be a person
who went to Oxford or Cambridge, who studied the
Elliot in order to understand to make this
connection. They will find so many allusions, so
many myths, so much intertextuality with other
texts that you have to be an educated person to
realize this. And again, this in itself is
challenging. This in itself pushes poetry up for
the 1%, for the elite, so to speak, rather than
for the masses. And this again, thankfully, will
be challenged by the romantics themselves. So
we'll find the features of romanticism here, the
subject matter, the language, the sophisticated
language, the rules of decorum, how strictly he
sticks to ten syllables, five feet, and the
perfect couplets, described sometimes as the
heroic couplet. This Alexander Pope is one of the
most fascinating. Don't take me wrong. I'm not
trashing anybody. I'm not saying this poetry is
better than that poetry. I'm saying this poetry is
the poetry of its time. But later on, we'll have
people change this in many ways. It's up to you to
like whichever school or movement or poet, et
cetera. You could, if you are interested, you
could read or at least go to YouTube and listen to
The Rape of the Lock. A mock epic by Alexander
Popp. We have two questions here. How does the
poem by Alexander Popp reflect the rules of
decorum that were followed in the neoclassical age
in terms of form, theme, and language? And then
number two, important question. Popp seems to
indicate that There is no room for originality and
innovation. All you have to do is just to imitate,
to follow. Follow. Don't invent.
Don't devise. Just follow the discovered rules in
nature, that nature itself or herself ordained. So
I want you to think of this question. Why does
Pope think there is no room? Because for many
people this is very, very serious. Like it doesn't
only reflect poetry, but it reflects the mentality
of the high class, the ruling class. If you belong
to the ruling class, you need to believe this
because you want people to follow you and your
constructs and not to think about breaking the
rules or breaking the pattern or changing the
worldview. And in this sense, I understand John
Donne as a revolutionary poet, a man who said no,
who turned everything upside down. The same thing
could apply to the Romantics, especially to
William Blake. Just if you give me one or two
minutes maximum. Again, I just want to remind you
of something we went through before the rules of
decorum by Horace. Horace meant to guide the poets
to the features how to write great. Poetry, they
were adopted from ancient Greece and Roman
literature. The aim of poetry is to teach and
delight, not to confuse, not to make us ask
questions or raise questions or question things.
In order to achieve greatness themes in poetry
themes language and forms have to be elevated like
subject matters things of great issues of great
significance to the society as as a whole usually
about universal truths to achieve decorum mixtures
of forms should not happen you shouldn't mix
tragedy and comedy or different things Poetic
diction, we spoke about the refined highly
embellished sophisticated language, the language
of like that's why you mix Latin, you use
references to Sinai. Imagine someone in England
like 400 years ago, someone telling him Sinai,
what's Sinai? I never heard of this word, like
another reference is there.
Avoid conversational colloquial language because
this is the everyday language. You make poetry
special, you don't just mirror what people say in
the state. And finally, the form means that the
rules of decorum dictate that the poem has to
follow a regular form.
We've seen this with our friend Alexander Popp. In
both the shape and the lines have to be well
structured. This applies to the number of lines,
the number of syllables, and even the rhyme
scheme, which has to be regular. And again, I gave
the sonnet as the example. Okay, we'll stop here.
If you have questions, please stay.