Dryden's Annus Mirabilis

The section assigned to read of this poem were very interesting. It basically told about the Great Fire of London in 1666. This part of Annus Mirabilis seems to be divided into two parts, which represent a "during" and "after" look of the event. The first part, which is considerably smaller than the second, is about the actual fire that has destroyed the city. The second part, however, is all about the new rising and rebuilding of London, which is extremely optomistic and maybe even somewhat of a hyperbole. I say this because the new city is compared to both a queen and a godly figure. First Dryden calls London "More great than human, now, and more August,/ New deified she from her fires does rise" (1177-1178), which puts the city way up on a pedastal, almost like a god. Several stanzas later, London is used in a simile with a "Maiden Queen" (1185), yet another high power over man kind. Now, before London was reconstructed, and even before the fire, Dryden refers to the city as a sheperdess "who sat to bathe her by a river's side" (1182). He considers the city to have been much more modest and humble then, but does not present this as a necessarily good trait. The idea that London later became a huge power house that declared its worth seems more important to Dryden. Over all the comparisons of London to higher powers are very interesting as they seem to personify the city into controlling those around it.

Something I noticed that seemed possibly important to this poem, is the fact that London is always referred to as a female, and the fire that burned it down is referred to as a male. For example, in line 845, London is called an "empress." This is before the Great Fire came and burned the city down. Then we are introduced to the fire, as if it is a character: "His birth, perhaps, some petty village hides,/ And sets his cradle out of fortune's way" (851-852). It could be that a city is typically considered female, much like ships are always femininely named, and fire just sounds male, but I think there could be more to it than that. It could be that Dryden feels a little compassion for women. Perhaps he believes that in beauty, women hold a lot of power and should definitely flaunt and use to advantage. Going with that, he also might believe that males have a tendency for destruction, especially that of seemingly successful females. The fire (male) burns down London (female) because that is what men are supposed to do. Well, that is just an idea anyway. But I think it's an important aspect in this section of Annus Mirabilus.

I found that one of the pivotal moments in Book II of Paradises Lost came when Beezlebub makes the great suggestion that the army of devils attack God's new creation, man. This is certainly important, as it directly effects the downfall of man. The argument that Beezlebub gives sounds so good and convincing, that it only seems right he make the suggestion. The way Milton describes Beelzebub's authority and wiseness only strengthens his argument. Especially after hearing the three other arguments by demons previously made at the council. Before making his huge statement, Beezelbub is described as being a farily reasonable and knowledgable figure. Lines 302-304 say, "deep on his front engraven/Deliberation sat and public care;/And princely cousel in his face yet shone." Milton's words make him sound credible and it gives us a reason to listen to him. Line 303 uses an anastrophe for the word "sat." I think Milton was trying to seperate the descriptions of "deliberation" and "public care" from one another by putting the word "sat" in between them. The diction is chosen to go together, and yet it's so different. Deliberation sounds strong-standing and outright, while the phrase "public care" makes Beezelbub sound soft-hearted and wanting to take responsibility for his "people," or demons. He continues in his speech by describing the great new structure Hell shall take on, and "build up here/A growing empire" (314-315). This statement sounds very noble and empirical of Beezelbub. The use of enjambment really makes the empire stand out. It does not sound negative at all, as mostly positive rhetoric and diction is used in this speech.

Most of the scene in the demon's council comes off as very natural and realistic of any group trying to figure a way out of a miserable spot. The way that the different fallen angels describe their damnation, which God has put them in, makes one almost feel sympathetic. Milton writes out this scene in Pandemonium with only the upright most honesty of how the demons probably felt. He doesn't put in any extra narration to make us feel sorry for their place, but he certainly allows the demons to tell it for themselves. The first demon to have spoken up at the council was Moloch, who basically says nothing good be worse than the position they are already in, so making war against Heaven is of no consquence. In other words, he's saying Why not? While making his argument he refers to God as "the Torturer" (64), which sounds bad, but is understandable coming from a demon whom God has condemned from Heaven. In a way, God is torturing these fallen angels, so we almost (but not quite) sympathize for them as if they had done nothing wrong. It is after all, not really mentioned what wrong doings each one of these demons has committed. I think the fact that Milton does not discuss God's opinion or side of the story at this point in PL, we feel no strong reason to side against Satan's plan to attack God's new creation.

The second argument at the convention comes from a demon named Belial. He is described as having a "persuasive accent" (118), but I think readers are able to figure out that assumption on their own. He actually gives God the benefit of a doubt, saying that they were actually previously be worse off when they had been chained to the firey lake. Belial's argument says that if they wage war against Heaven, God would only heighten their punishment and that would be pointless. He says, "We are decreed,/Reserved and destined to eternal woe," which is strong auxesis of the suffering they are forever binded to by God. Basically, I feel that the arguments made by every demon who speaks up, make very good points. As readers we see this, therefore we do not look down at the creatures of Hell quite as horrendous as we would otherwise. They are given sophisticated voices and brains, and good reason to want to rebel against God some more. The fact that the plot sounds reasonable and the characters are of true heart, only makes me excited in finding out how exactly Satan's plan continues to unravel.

Milton's Paradise Lost

It's interesting that Milton was asked to write a summary of the books for his epic poem. The "arguement" should easily be seen just by reading each book; I think that would be the point. Book one covers what happens with Satan in his lair before the fall, which is basically the act of Eve eating fruit from the "forbidden tree, whose mortal taste/ Brought death into the world, and all our woe" (2-3). Satan is brought up as a culprit in this downfall, who of course tempted Eve to eat the fruit. Most of Milton's first book describes the "life" of Satan in Hell and the army he creates of former angels who are against God. I felt that the majority of this part of the epic weighed largely on the theme of war and darkness. If Milton was trying to poke any sympathy towards Satan, I must have missed it. Everything around Satan and Hell is fire, darkness, and ugly demons. Even with fire, there is a lack of light: "The seat of desolation, void of light,/ Save what the glimmering of these livid flames" (181-182). I really like how Milton uses the Greek (Roman?) gods as demons in Hell. He alluded to mythology in the last two poems we read for class and he's even found a way to fit them into Paradise Lost. They are the secular gods cast into Heaven.

One of the large themes in the first book of PL is that of war, which also happens to be an epic convention. Milton uses many of these guides of basis throughout his work, yet uses them in his own way to create the proper tone and plot. In lines 666 (ooohh...) - 669 the speaker says "Far round illumined Hell: highly they raged/Against the Highest, and fierce with grasped arms/ Clashed on their sounding shields the din of war,/ Hurling deifance toward the vault of Heav'n." A lot is going on in this statement. First we get an image of the demonic armies Satan has created against God. The words Hell and Highest are alliterated to contrast the two opposites in this forboding war. Next is a sound of symbolism. The clashing shields represent the readiness of war and agression. Milton uses anastrophe here to make emphasis on the loud clashes just before war. The last line declares a strong act of rebellion. Satan is so completely set on messing with God's plan that he has been able to make all of hell just as anti-God as he feels himself. These lines are strong like a battle cry. I think it really sets the tone of Book one.

In Milton's L'Allegro, happiness is potrayed as very "light and fluffy." The joys the speaker is faced with are innocent and fun. They almost seem dream-like. He seems to take pleasure in the small things, and joy is everywhere. In contrast, Il Penseroso's happiness is one that comes more from logic than just the pure sensation of joy. His idea of happiness is that most is in vain and certainly not innocent.

In L'Allegro happiness comes from a sense of euphoria and bliss. After melancholy is cast off with its darkness and gloom, a sense of unearthly Heaven is displayed in rejoicement. Allusions to Greek myth are made to show the idea of happiness coming from an unwordly place. Such lines as "the frolic wind that breathes the spring" (18) give a light and airy feel to this concept of joy and contentment. Certainly "frolic" brings to mind innocent images such as children running around playfully. The speaker in this poem let's himself fall endlessly into mirth. He describes just what mirth brings, which is basically fun and games. In lines 129 and 130, Milton writes, "Such sights as youthful poets dream/ On summer eves by haunted stream." The sights and dreams he's refering to are probably those poems and plays that closest to fantasy. An example could be the forest in "A MidSummer Night's Dream." The characters and setting are so strange and magical, that it could only be seen if fantasy. The joys found in fantasy can be unconsequential and careless. That is the mirth that this speaker wants the most in L'Allegro.

Il Peneroso is all about the joys in life which are realistic. The speaker puts down fantasy and elevates the ideas of work and purpose. Everything seems to be written about darkness and gloom, and how it comes from vain happiness. Line 35 and 36 say, "And sable stole of cypress lawn/Over thy decent shoulders drawn." This is a solemn, down to Earth description of a less-than-perfect life. It is completely opposite of the tone and ideas in the first poem. The last few lines tell exactly what kind of happy life the speaker wishes for: "Where I may sit and rightly spell/of every star that heaven doth shew" (170-171). In other words, he wants to study in solitude and learn more about the world, which is not at all fantasy. Though this last statement is completely different from the first poem, similar comparisons are still able to be drawn between the two. For example, both poems use allegory of Greek (Roman?) myths to describe their states of happiness in life. They also have a similar ending which describes each speaker's preferred way of life. Each ending uses apostrophe to close the speaker's last thoughts. In L'Allegro mirth is being adressed, and in Il Peneroso melancholy is humor. I really feel that these poems work well together as they compare completely seperate ideas of joy in similar ways.

George Herbert's "Death"

I think Herbert's intent here is to express his thankfulness for the option of Heaven after life ends. The title makes the poem seem as if you will be reading something completely about the elements of death, but it's really the afterlife Herbert is focused on. I would consider the entire poem an apostrophe because the speaker is directing all of his thoughts and observations to Death "himself." It seems that this poem is divided into two parts. The first makes a description of the original negative thoughts the speaker had on death, and the second part talks about the positive aspect of death, which is afterlife or Heaven. Each section has three stanzas with twelve lines, which is the basic structure of the entire poem. There is also a rhyme scheme of ABBA CDDC, etc. It seems Herbert wanted to give this poem an important and discplined structure. The idea of Heaven and God must have played a very important role in his life as it is highlighted in his poetry.

To the speaker, death used to be a terrible thing. He describes it as an "uncouth, hideous thing" (1) and in line four says, "Thy mouth was open, but thou couldst not sing." The latter strikes me as an odd description. If the speaker is talking about a particular dead person this would simply mean that he had his mouth open but of course could not use it because he was dead. On the other hand, since I think Herbert is talking about Death itself the line makes less sense. Maybe Herbert is just describing what Death makes of humans once they are taken. Basically, that they just decay lifelessly once gone from the Earth. That is, before the Lord died and gave death a new meaning of joyfulness and Heaven.

I noticed in the second part of the poem that the letter "g" was often alliterated. This occurs in the fourth and fifth stanzas. Line fifteen says "Thou art grown fair and full of graces," making death positive. The following line uses the word "good," and line seventeen says "For we do now behold the gay and glad." Not only are all of these "g" words alliterated with positive diction, but the word "God" also begins with the same letter. Perhaps this wasn't on purpose, since the poem is very religiously based. The last line of the poem gives a final thought through a small metaphor. This stanza gives a summary of what death brings, and then ends with "Making our pillows either down or dust" (24). I believe this is touching on the choice of Heaven or hell. Down pillows are representing the afterlife, while the pillows of dust refer to the idea of death before the Savior turned things around for the better.

"On Giles and Joan"

I really enjoyed Jonson's satire in this poem. It reminds me exactly of today's married couples, except Giles and Joan don't get divorced like everyone else does (or maybe that's just in California, I can't speak for NC). The concept of it was just simple and funny. I almost expected to read "Dick and Jane" at times. Basically this poem is satirizing married couples who aren't exactly happy with one another. After listing all of the great reasons why two people shouldn't be together, Jonson slaps down the last line to make it all a big joke. Because the couple are in such an equal state of loathing for one another, Jonson says, "I know no couple better can agree" (18). The poem sounds almost cynical, but still makes for great entertainment.

Throughout the poem Jonson uses literary devices to elaborate on certain lines and words. For example, anastrophe is used several times. The word "married" is emphasized in line three with the word "repents" so we can see how grave a mistake Giles thinks he's made in marrying Joan. Also, line fifteen says, "In all affections she concurreth still." The word "concureth is emphasized her to remind readers of the agreement between the unhappy couple. It's almost like agreeing to disagree. Another device Jonson plays with is enjambment. The particular sentence that caught my attention using this made up lines nine and ten: "Ofttimes, when Giles doth find/ Harsh sights at home, Giles wisheth he were blind." I'm not exactly sure what the "harsh sights" are that Jonson refers to, but phrase certainly stands out. My interpretation is that either Joan frequently cheats on her husband, thus creating harsh sights upon his arrival home, or they simply hate looking at eachother period. Either way it makes for a pretty sad marriage.

All of the emphasis Jonson puts on the negative aspects of the Giles/Joans relationship only gives the last line a bigger kick of satire. Readers are supposed to get caught up in this ugly relationship while picking up the subtle hint that each spouse agrees with the other's opinion. Therefore, Jonson is able to turn everything around as a big joke in the end, but still hold an impact.

I also noticed that throughout the poem, Giles is always the character with the first opinion. His wife is always in agreement with him, but her thoughts are never mentioned prior to Gile's. I wonder if this is having to do with sexism on Jonson's part. And when Gile's comes home to "harsh sights" (presumably Joan cheating), does this mean that only women do bad things in marriages? There seems to be some stereotyping. In lines 12-13, Jonson talks about the husband denying his children as his and Joan "so swears." Is this again bringing up the fact that the wife cheats and raises the children of different fathers? I'm not really sure, but many of our poets so far have seemed rather sexist, and I wouldn't be suprised if Jonson was another.

The Flea

Donne creates a couple of very interesting images in this poem. He talks about sex in terms of the flea, followed by marriage and the pregnancy of a woman. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that Donne is trying to play the guilt game with this woman that he is after. Apparently she will not have sex with him because he says "...use make you apt to kill me" (line16). That is, he cannot survive much longer if she won't give him her body. This sounds like the typical modern male to me. And further into this conceit of the flea, Donne tries to act innocent "except in that drop which it sucked form thee" (18). Could it be that the speaker has forced himself on the women before, only to get a "taste" before she got bothered enough to make him stop? The use of the flea as a conceit for sex makes the poem much more literary and interesting than if Donne simply wrote down his sexual ideas about this woman in plain English. He seems to be hiding behind his poetic devices, which can disguise his thoughts as more acceptable.

The poem itself is in an interesting form. There are three stanzas, nine lines in each, and an odd rhyming scheme. The lines are AA, BB, CC, DD, and then EEE. Perhaps these last lines ryhme and are also indented to draw more of a reading closeness to them. For example, in the second stanza the last three lines go as follows: "Though use make you apt to kill me,/ Let not to that, self-murder added be,/ And sacrilege, three sins in killing three" (16-18). The meaning behind these lines is absurd. It seems that Donne is trying to draw comparisons to the absense of sex and death. First he says that he will die without it, then he says that she will die without it, and finally he mentions that without sex no babies can be made, which is murder in itself. All in all, he is attempting to guilt-trip the woman into sleeping with him or otherwise it is considered a triple murder. Maybe it's not just about sex, it's about starting a family, but either way Donne is very forceful about his desire to make love.

Soliloquy 1.5 277-287

"What is your parentage?"
"Above my fortunes, yet my state is well.
I am a gentleman." I'll be sworn though art.
Thy tongue, thy limbs, thy actions, and spirit
Do give thee five-fold blazon. Not too fast. soft, soft--
Unless the master were the man. How now?
Even so quickly may one catch the plague?
Methinks I feel this youth's perfections
With an invisible and subtle stealth
To creep in at mine eyes. Well, let it be.
What ho, Malvio.

Like all of Shakespeare's writing, whether sonnet or play, this soliloquy shows off his talent in using literary devices. Like a poem, it is written with one subject and is displayed in freeverse. Within the lines Shakespeare utilzes enjambment, blazon, and some alliteration to bring the main point of the soliloquy, which also happens to be a huge event in the plot into view. Thus, the reason Shakespeare made Olivia's speech a soliloquy.

This soliloquy is basically about Olivia's realization that she is falling in love with the disguised Viola. After having a sarcastic and witty coversation with the cross-dresser, Olivia begins to ponder her attraction to the "man/boy." To point out the attributes of Viola that Olivia feels most attracted to, she lists them in a blazon: "Thy tongue, thy face, thy limbs, actions, and spirit..." (line 280). She sees him as a gentleman and we also notice that she is talking like a smitten woman. Lines 284 - 286 have enjambment in them to make each point that they make stand out. Olivia calls attention to the fact that she finds perfection in Viola (284) and on the next line she mentions that this vision is "subtle stealth" (notice the alliteration pointing out this pair of words as well). Finally line 286 ends the sentence with this vision of perfection and admiration finds way into her sight. Looking at these three lines, we know that Viola is falling in love. In line 283, she refers to love as "the plague." It is a metaphor that compares love to something that is easy to catch, hard to get rid of, and usually painful. Olivia doesn't particularly seem pleased with the fact that she is falling for Viola considering the metaphor of the plague, and yet she brushes off the event at the end of the poem saying "Well, let it be" (286). Through literary device we are able to understand this character and what is happening in her mind.

This soliloquy is very important to the plot. We learn that Olivia is falling in love with a woman whom she believes to be a man. The rest of the play is based off of this idea that characters are falling in love with those of the hetero sex. That and deceiving personas. Because Olivia is in love with a woman a theme begins to stem. Shakespeare apparently has an opinion about homosexual relationships and attraction because this theme frequently comes up. It seems subtle, however, because the audience can understand that the charcters are only in love with the same sex because they are being deceived. I think Shakespeare really wanted some of these characters together even though it was socially unacceptable. He had to be sly through the disguise of giving other character's disguises. I feel that this theme is largely brought up in Olivia's soliloquy. The fact that she describes her unyielding attraction to Viola at first as a plague and then merely accepts it lightly in the end, really says something about Shakespeare's beliefs and possibly the purpose of the entire play. I think Shakespeare wants us to see that even though this kind of attraction is seen as wrong and shameful, there is a part in humans that can dismiss the negative feelings and just accept it. Just like at the end of the play when all disguises are revealed, characters still get married to the strangers they were fooled by. This strange love is accepted, in a way. Perhaps this kind of plot in a play was Shakespeare's closest way to letting his thoughts on homosexuality get out.