F. R Leavis | Scrutiny | The Great Tradition | New Criticism

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. F. R. Leavis was a prominent literary critic in the 20th century, known for his strong advocacy of close reading and his rejection of certain trends in literary criticism, including some associated with the New Criticism movement. Leavis published works of literary criticism throughout his career. He started with books on English poetry and later turned his attention to the English novel. At the same time as writing books, he set up a journal called Scrutiny which acted as a kind of arbiter of 'good literature'.

F. R Leavis was born in 1895 and passed away in 1978. At 19, he served in the British Army during World War I and joined the Friends' Ambulance Unit (FAU) at York in 1915. He witnessed the horrors of trench warfare, which impacted his worldview and outlook on literature. The brutal realities of war led Leavis to adopt a more critical stance towards contemporary society and culture. His war experiences contributed to his belief that literature should engage with moral and existential questions. He focused on the cultural malaise he perceived in society, criticizing the rise of materialism and mass culture. His work began to explore how literature could serve as a means of fostering a more moral and meaningful existence. His experiences led him to prioritize close reading and an appreciation for literary quality in his teaching at Cambridge.

F.R. Leavis and the American School of New Criticism:

F. R. Leavis's contributions to literary criticism highlight the interplay between textual analysis and cultural context. While he shares some principles with New Criticism, his emphasis on the moral role of literature and its societal impact distinguishes his approach. While New Criticism emphasized ‘close reading’ while minimizing authorial intent and historical context, Leavis emphasized the author's perspective and the cultural context. New critics stressed that the meaning of a text is found within the text alone, however, Leavis opined that the meaning is shaped by both the text and its relation to society. He never adopted (and was explicitly hostile to) a theory of the poem as a self-contained and self-sufficient aesthetic and formal artifact, isolated from the society, culture, and tradition from which it emerged. Leavis advocated for the moral and cultural value of literature. He married Queenie Roth in 1929 and strengthened the Cambridge School of New Criticism with her and L.C. Knights.

Scrutiny a Literary Journal:

Scrutiny was established in 1932 by F. R. Leavis and his colleague L. C. Knights. Leavis’s wife Queenie Roth also worked as a contributor and co-editor of Scrutiny. The journal aimed to provide a platform for serious literary criticism and to promote a moral and ethical approach to literature. It focused on the close reading of texts, emphasizing literary quality and the importance of context. As an editor, Leavis championed a moral seriousness in literature, arguing that literature should reflect the complexities of human experience. He believed in the value of high culture and was critical of popular and mass culture. L. C. Knights was another prominent contributor and served as an editor alongside Leavis. Knights was particularly interested in Shakespeare and English drama, contributing significantly to the understanding of dramatic literature. Queenie Roth contributed numerous articles and essays, focusing on literature, education, and cultural criticism.

Leavis used Scrutiny to criticize the Bloomsbury Group whose members included Virginia Woolf, E. M. Forster, John Maynard Keynes, Vanessa Bell, and Duncan Grant. Scrutiny emphasized the need for rigorous literary standards and often dismissed the Bloomsbury Group's work as being too abstract or elitist. Scrutiny favored literature that engaged with social realities and human experiences over the more introspective and abstract tendencies found in much of Bloomsbury's output. Scrutiny critiqued the Bloomsbury Group’s perspective on modernity and society, arguing that their privileged backgrounds led to a disconnect from the broader social issues of the time. Leavis and his followers believed that literature should address the moral and social challenges facing society. Scrutiny was highly successful during its initial years with subscribers including T.S. Eliot, and Aldous Huxley. The journal reached its peak in the 1950s.

Major works of F. R. Leavis:

There were two stages to Leavis’ work as a literary critic. The first one focused on poetry. Leavis criticized Victorian poetry, in particular. Victorian poetry was influenced by the Romantic poets and emphasized the senses, sentimentality, and emotion.

In 1932, he published New Bearings in English Poetry in which he explored the evolution of English poetry, focusing on the modernist movement. He emphasized the importance of the moral and social context in understanding poetry. The work tried to identify the new directions that poetry had taken after the end of the last century and was a homage to poets like T. S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, and Ezra Pound.

In 1936, Leavis published Revaluation: Tradition and Development in English Poetry in which he critiqued poetry back to the seventeenth century as he attempted to delimit a continuous tradition of excellence in English poetry.

The Great Tradition:

In the 1940s, F.R. Leavis turned his attention to novels. In 1948, he published his most talked about book The Great Tradition. The book is considered a touchstone for discussions about the value of literature, the role of the critic, and the criteria for assessing literary merit. In this book, Leavis explores the concept of a literary canon within English literature, championing a specific lineage of writers whose works he believes embody significant moral and artistic values. Leavis aimed to identify and defend a tradition of great literature in English that he felt represented the highest achievements in the literary field. He sought to establish a standard of quality and integrity in literature.

Key Concepts of The Great Tradition:

F. R. Leavis's "The Great Tradition" is significantly shaped by the modernist context in which both he and T. S. Eliot operated. While Leavis's primary focus is on a specific lineage of English novelists, Eliot's influence permeates Leavis's ideas. In his essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent," Eliot argues that a writer must engage with the literary past to create meaningful work. T.S. Eliot emphasized the continuity of literature and the importance of contextualizing new works within the established tradition. Leavis adopted a similar view of tradition concerning novels, although he focused more narrowly on specific authors. He believed that understanding these authors in the context of moral and ethical seriousness is essential. The authors preferred by F. R. Leavis included Jane Austen, George Elliot, Henry James, and Joseph Conrad. Leavis included Lawrence in his literary canon but often placed him in contrast with other authors, suggesting that while Lawrence had significant insights, he did not always offer a resolution to the moral and ethical dilemmas he presented. He excluded major authors such as Charles Dickens, Laurence Sterne, and Thomas Hardy from his canon. He mentioned Charles Dickens as a mere entertainer. However, he changed his views on Charles Dickens later and published Dickens The Novelist in 1970 which praised Dickens.

Leavis says that whenever a writer is following the guidelines of the great writers (mentioned in his canon), the writer is supposed to be following the great tradition. He believed that Jane Austen was the center of English tradition and anyone following her guidelines, was also following the great English tradition. He says that he included George Elliot in his cannon because Elliot was always indebted to Austen. He also says that he excluded Charlotte Bronte and Anthony Trollop from the canon because of their lack of appreciation of Austen.

Leavis, like T.S Eliot and Mathew Arnold, argues that we can only approach a text with a set of standards and if the text matches the set of standards, we can ascertain that the text is great. A text cannot be claimed to be great by only analyzing the text. Greatness cannot be found within the work, it is only by comparing it with other works, that we can actually ascertain the greatness. He believed that a literary work has a comparative rather than inherent value. It is similar to Mathew Arnold’s Touchstone Method which is a comparative literary criticism technique that uses short passages from the works of great poets to evaluate other works.

Leavis argued that literature should engage with moral and ethical issues. The preeminent evaluative criterion of F. R. Leavis’ The Great Tradition is the moral purpose. If a work is teaching moral views, only then it can be considered great.

So this is it for today. E will continue to discuss the literary theory of English literature and literary criticism. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

The Applicant by Sylvia Plath | Structure, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘The Applicant’ is a highly satirical poem by Sylvia Plath first published in The London Magazine in 1963 and then republished in her posthumous poetic collection Ariel in 1965. Plath wrote the poem after she separated away from her husband Ted Hughes. The poem appears to be her own expression of exasperation with her tumultuous marriage to the poet Ted Hughes. The poem raises the themes of rampant consumerism and patriarchy. The poem reprimands the wider trends and gendered stereotypes in post-war British and American cultures. The speaker is a bombastic and menacing salesman who interviews and tries to sell a potential wife to a man, the Applicant.

The poem parodies the transactional nature of modern courtship and marriages. To facilitate the deal, the speaker points out the applicant’s supposed shortcomings and depersonalizes his potential wife, so that she appears to be the ideal solution to all the applicant's problems. The poet satirizes that consumerism constantly creates and exploits superficial needs to encourage product consumption. To sell the applicant’s potential wife, the speaker dehumanizes her and strips her of all personality so that she is highly adaptable to the applicant’s needs and desires. She is supposed to “fill” his empty hand and be “the ticket” to remedying his empty head.  The speaker measures the applicant against a narrow definition of masculinity that prioritizes dominance in all areas of life while presenting the potential wife as the perfect archetype of a submissive woman, a 'living doll’. The speaker denies both the applicant and his potential wife their individual identities and right to self-determination. Thus, the speaker suggests that the market and society force the patriarchal gender roles to restrict the freedom of both men and women.

Structure of The Applicant:

It is a 40-line poem written in free verse. The lines are set in 8 five-line stanzas (quintains). The poem is a dramatic monologue with no rhyming scheme or specific metrical form. The poet uses satire, repetition, and dehumanizing language to critique consumerism, societal pressures, and the transactional nature of marriage. The poem uses aporia, synecdoche, symbolism, repetition, imagery, and irony.

Summary of The Applicant:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-5

“First, are you our sort of a person?

Do you wear

A glass eye, false teeth or a crutch,

A brace or a hook,

Rubber breasts or a rubber crotch,”

The poem is set as a man reaches to face the interviewer, the speaker who is in the job of making matches. The speaker begins with an aporia, suggesting that there is no guarantee that he would be able to provide a proper match to the man because he is not convinced if the applicant is ‘our’ sort of a person. ‘Our’ suggests that the interviewer isn’t acting alone, but he represents society, the market, or a larger system. It also indicates a sense of isolation for the applicant as an outsider to society at large. The interviewer pushes the applicant to fit into the expectations to become the right person for a deal. The speaker goes on to ask if the applicant has a glass eye, false teeth, a crutch, a brace, a hook, rubber breasts, or a rubber crotch. The speaker queries if the applicant is a mutilated man, a man in need, and in desperation. The speaker evaluates the applicant for what he lacks instead of who he is. The first stanza shows the rigid and unjust standards of the market and how consumerism and societal pressure dehumanize individuals. The terms ‘rubber breasts’ or ‘rubber crotch’ sound harsh, demeaning, and mechanical.

Stanza 2 Lines 6-10

“Stitches to show something’s missing? No, no? Then

How can we give you a thing?

Stop crying.

Open your hand.

Empty? Empty. Here is a hand”

In the second stanza, the speaker further strengthens the idea that people are judged by what they lack, instead of who they are or what qualities they possess. The speaker asks if the applicant has ‘stitches’ to show if something is missing. It is a Biblical allusion suggesting that Eve was created from Adam’s rib and hints that a man is incomplete without a woman. The description may also allude to the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, whose monstrous body is made up of body parts stolen from corpses. The speaker hints that the market is not for completely sane humans, it demands the consumers to be needy, lacking, and desperate, and if they are not, the market forces will try to make them desperate, otherwise, they are not ideal consumers. The speaker notices that the applicant is complete, he is not mutilated, and there is no stitch on him. He says that the applicant might not be a suitable consumer, implying that they won't be able to give him anything. The applicant appears to begin crying. The speaker stops him harshly and reprimands him ‘Stop crying,’ there is no need for emotions if the deal has to be made. The speaker asks the applicant to open his hand and observes it empty. Emptiness suggests a need. The speaker offers a ‘Hand’, a synecdoche to represent a wife. The empty hand symbolizes a need for service, rather than love or partnership.

Stanza 3 Lines 11-15

“To fill it and willing

To bring teacups and roll away headaches

And do whatever you tell it.

Will you marry it?

It is guaranteed”

In these lines, the speaker offers the role of the ‘hand’ he presented as the viable product for the applicant. The hand is meant to serve. The speaker mentions what the hand (wife) can do for the applicant. The hand can ‘bring teacups and roll away headaches’ which serves to epitomize the ‘traditional’ role of the wife characterized over time. The poet uses the imagery of servitude to show how societal expectations devalue individuality in favor of fitting into predefined roles. The speaker addresses the hand (wife) as ‘it’, completely dehumanizing the woman. It will 'bring teacups and roll away headaches.’ The speaker asks ‘Will you marry it?’ The wife is just a hand to serve, a handmaiden, a servile entity to please. The ‘hand’ or wife is a product that comes with a guarantee.

Stanza 4 Lines 16-20

“To thumb shut your eyes at the end

And dissolve of sorrow.

We make new stock from the salt.

I notice you are stark naked.

How about this suit——”

In this stanza, the speaker mentions how the ‘hand’ of the entity to be sold is totally dependent on the applicant. The hand (wife) will be with the man even when he dies (til death do us part) and then ‘dissolve of sorrow,’ without him, ‘it’ has no purpose and will simply fade away. The speaker notices that the man is naked, he is incomplete without a wife and offers a suit, which symbolizes the societal pressures men experience to take on a hard-nosed masculine persona, without it, they are incomplete and vulnerable. The man is naked because without a woman he is incomplete.

Stanza 5 Lines 21-25

“Black and stiff, but not a bad fit.

Will you marry it?

It is waterproof, shatterproof, proof

Against fire and bombs through the roof.

Believe me, they'll bury you in it.”

The speaker describes the suit which is black and stiff but will fit anyway. Without it, the applicant is naked and vulnerable. The speaker mentions the ‘hand’ again and asks the applicant if he is willing to marry it.

The 'suit' for marriage, like the woman (hand) the applicant needs to prop up his masculinity for life. The suit offers special powers to the man as it is waterproof, shatterproof… The Speaker suggests that marriage is an unbreakable agreement, the hand will remain obedient for life, the suit will never perish and the applicant will be buried in it after he dies, he will remain married forever. This durability suggests inflexibility, making it seem as though once someone enters this role, there is no room for growth or escape. Marriage is a confinement, it suggests. Plath gives off a sympathetic tone towards the applicant himself, implying that men are simply products of existing cultural norms.

Stanza 6 Lines 26-30

“Now your head, excuse me, is empty.

I have the ticket for that.

Come here, sweetie, out of the closet.

Well, what do you think of that?

Naked as paper to start”

The speaker notices that the applicant’s head is empty, which suggests that he lacks his own thoughts and is unable to make a decision. The poet shows how men are forced into roles like marriage without questioning why, simply because society expects it. The speaker depicts the applicant as a naive boy with a sense of naivety and helplessness. The speaker offers a ticket, the girl to be married. The 'hand' that he already presented is now presented as a whole. The speaker asks the woman to come out of the closet and mentions it ‘naked’ as paper to start. The ‘nakedness’ of the woman is different from that of the applicant. Her nakedness is a symbol of the wife’s submission: she is a blank sheet of paper on which the husband can write anything he wants, telling her what to think or do. The woman is “Naked as paper to start” because, like Pygmalion, the applicant can shape her according to his needs. The stanza indicates the deep imbalance between men and women, with the man given some illusion of choice, while the woman is treated as an object to mold, without any say in her future. However, the applicant, the man too is naked, and likewise has no voice.

Stanza 7 Lines 31-35

“But in twenty-five years she'll be silver,

In fifty, gold.

A living doll, everywhere you look.

It can sew, it can cook,

It can talk, talk, talk.”

The speaker mentions that though the wife is a blank paper now, she will keep changing as per the applicant’s life, and will be silver in 25 years and fold in fifty, comparing the wife to a wedding anniversary. In a way, the wife is an investment for the applicant, the speaker suggests. The speaker offers the woman to the applicant as a ‘living doll’, a helpless, docile person, a plaything, again suggesting imagery of servitude with sexual connotations. The speaker further mentions the services the woman can offer, ‘it can sew, it can cook,’ showing the limited roles assigned to women in marriage. The speaker also mentions ‘it can talk. ‘Talk’ is repeated two more times, suggesting that he talks, her opinions don’t hold any worth, other than entertainment if need be. Her role is reduced only to serve, to entertain, and to please like a ‘living doll.’

Stanza 8 Lines 36-40

“It works, there is nothing wrong with it.

You have a hole, it’s a poultice.

You have an eye, it’s an image.

My boy, it’s your last resort.

Will you marry it, marry it, marry it.”

After mentioning that the woman may talk, talk, and talk, the speaker says that it works, it is perfect for the applicant who lacks something. The marriage is presented as a transactional arrangement focused on function rather than emotional fulfillment. The speaker stresses the practicality of the relationship irrespective of it is meaningful or not. The speaker mentions the neediness of the man as a hole. The husband lacks something—physically, psychologically, or emotionally, the hand, wife, or ‘it’ is expected to be a tool for healing the husband as a poultice covers a wound. The speaker also stresses the beauty of the woman, suggesting that the wife must be useful but decorative as well. She is a ‘living doll’, a work of art to contemplate and admire, so she must remain attractive. The speaker then mentions that it is the ‘last resort’ for the applicant, there is no other choice and he has to say yes, and then he asks again ‘Will you marry it?’ The repetition of ‘marry it’ suggests the societal force that the applicant cannot ignore, there is no choice for either the man or woman, both are victims of societal norms and gender stereotypes.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland by Andrew Marvell | Structure, Summary, Analysis

 

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Andrew Marvell's An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland is a political poem that reflects on the social and cultural changes in England in 1650. The poem is a response to the return of Oliver Cromwell to England after he neutralized Irish opposition to the new English Republic. The poem is a delicate balance between celebrating Cromwell's victories and expressing sympathy for the executed King. The poem was written in a political environment where Rome was a frequent point of reference. Marvell uses Roman literature, social thought, and more recent European writings to confront the new political regime.

Marvell was a constitutional monarchist who was sympathetic to the King but believed in men over parties or principles. He hoped in Cromwell, seeing him as a ruler without personal ambition and a man of destiny. He avoided direct conflict against the new regime. The poem celebrates Cromwell's victories while also expressing sympathy for the executed King.

Structure of ‘An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell’s Return’:

As the name suggests, Andrew Marvell's An Horatian Ode is structured as a Horatian ode.

Horatian odes take their name and form from the Roman poet Horace (1st century BC). Horatian odes differ from the more formal Pindaric ode as they would often meditate on more intimate subjects such as love or poetry itself. Unlike Pindaric odes, Horatian odes follow a simpler structure. The Horatian ode is made up of either two or four-line stanzas and has a consistent rhyme scheme and meter. It is a lyric poem that expresses feelings of joy, pleasure, or appreciation for a particular subject. Marvell wrote his poem in quatrains (stanzas of four lines). Each stanza features a rhymed couplet in iambic tetrameter, followed by a rhymed couplet in iambic trimeter. The pattern is followed throughout the poem. The rhyme scheme is AABB CCDD EEFF etc. This regular rhyme scheme reinforces the poem's formal structure, creating a sense of musicality and elegance. The poem has 120 lines set in 30 quatrains.

The Title and Historical Context:

The long-standing quarrel between Charles I and the Parliamentarians or Roundheads - a quarrel involving religious, political, and constitutional matters - broke out into open hostilities in August 1642. In the battles that followed, Oliver Cromwell soon proved himself to be the most vigorous and powerful general that the Roundheads had. He organized the New Model army which inflicted a crushing defeat upon the royal army at Naseby in 1645. Charles surrendered to his Scottish subjects, who later turned him over to the English in 1647.

Charles was kept in protective custody at Hampton Court, from which he fled to Carisbrooke Castle in November 1647. Many Englishmen, including many who fought against Charles, shrank from the prospect of executing him. They held the person of the king sacred and acknowledged him as the legal head of the state. But Charles kept dickering with the Scots and attempting to regain his lost power. Finally, a strong-minded group of men in the Parliamentary party, led by Cromwell, drove forcibly out of Parliament the members opposed to extreme measures, tried Charles for treason, condemned him, and executed him on the scaffold on January 30, 1649. In the next year, Cromwell crushed Ireland and, as Marvell predicted he would in the "Ode," speedily broke the Royalist forces in Scotland. As Lord Protector, Cromwell ruled England until his death in 1658. Today we would call him a "dictator," though he was in many ways a beneficent dictator, and though he attempted several times to find a parliamentary basis for his government. The year before his death he was offered the crown and refused it after six weeks of contemplation.

Marvell wrote this poem to commemorate Oliver Cromwell’s return to England after a military expedition to Ireland. Cromwell defeated the Irish Catholic and English Royalist Alliance in a series of battles, thereby eliminating a major threat to the newly formed English Republican government. King Charles I was executed while his son Charles II was in exile. Marvell modeled his poem on the odes of the Roman poet, Horace, who fought on the side of Roman Republicans but eventually accepted Augustus Caesar's rule and the ensuing peace. The poem is ambivalent about the rule and execution of King Charles I, even though Marvell clearly praises Oliver Cromwell’s leadership. As a constitutional monarchist, Marvell could be expected to reject what Cromwell represented, but the poem suggests he feels Cromwell was fated for his position. The poem shows a ‘transitional character…where royalist principles and admiration for Cromwell the Great Man exist side by side’. It is similar to the transition of Horace from being a staunch republican to the acceptance of Augustus Caesar’s rule, and thus it appears appropriate for Marvell to follow the Horatian ode form for his poem.

Summary of An Horatian Ode:

Stanza 1-3 Lines 1-12

“The forward youth that would appear

Must now forsake his Muses dear,

Nor in the shadows sing

His numbers languishing.

’Tis time to leave the books in dust,

And oil th’ unused armour’s rust,

Removing from the wall

The corslet of the hall.

So restless Cromwell could not cease

In the inglorious arts of peace,

But thorough advent’rous war

Urged his active star.”

In the first quatrain, the speaker suggests that the ‘arts of war’ are nobler than the arts of peace.

Marvell begins the poem by presenting Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, as a “forward youth” who must once again engage in military conflict and achieve glory. ‘Forward youth’ may mean "high-spirited," "ardent," and "properly ambitious," but it may also offer a sense of "presumptuous," and "pushing." The speaker imagines Cromwell abandoning the Muses of Poetry and leaving his “books in dust” in favor of taking up his armor and corset. Cromwell is restless because his “active star,” or destiny, urges him toward the valor of “adven’rous war.” In line 9, the speaker mentions Cromwell as ‘restless,’ which may mean "scorning indolence," "willing to forego ease," and it may also suggest negative connotations.  Cromwell's "courage high" will not allow him to rest "in the inglorious arts of peace." The speaker mentions that peaceful ways were inglorious, and Cromwell’s driving force has been a desire for glory, it is a glory of that kind which allows a man to become dedicated and, in a sense, even selfless in his pursuit of it. He mentions that it may not be the fate of Cromwell to lead the nation but he urged his fate and forced through his ‘adventurous war.’

Stanza 4-6 Lines 13-24

“And like the three-fork’d lightning, first

Breaking the clouds where it was nurst,

Did through his own side

His fiery way divide.

For ’tis all one to courage high,

The emulous or enemy;

And with such to enclose

Is more than to oppose.

Then burning through the air he went,

And palaces and temples rent;

And Cæsar’s head at last

Did through his laurels blast.”

In these lines, Marvell compares Cromwell to “three-forked lightning” that breaks through the clouds where it is first nursed to strike out and carve its own fiery path. Cromwell eventually blasts through the laurels of “Caesar’s head,” which is an allusion to the head of King Charles I. Cromwell is like an elemental force--with as little will as the lightning bolt, and with as little conscience. The lightning first destroys the same clouds where it was developed. The poet uses metaphor to suggest the destructive effect of the civil war. The clouds have bred the lightning bolt, but the bolt tears its way through the clouds and goes on to blast the head of Caesar himself.

Stanza 7-9 Lines 25-36

“’Tis madness to resist or blame

The force of angry Heaven’s flame;

And, if we would speak true,

Much to the man is due,

Who from his private gardens where

He liv’d reserved and austere,

As if his highest plot

To plant the bergamot,

Could by industrious valour climb

To ruin the great work of time,

And cast the kingdom old

Into another mould.”

The speaker calls it “madness to resist or blame” Cromwell’s force because Cromwell clearly holds “Heaven’s flame” and England owes him a lot. Cromwell left his “private gardens” where he lived a peaceful and calm life, and was able to overthrow the monarchy and “cast the kingdoms old / Into another mold” using his “industrious valor” in the military world.

The speaker compared Cromwell to lightning, or the anger of Heaven’s flame, it is embodied in a human being who left the austerity and peace in favor of manliness--the strength, the industrious valor, the cunning. Cromwell’s only motive was to cast away monarchy and mold England into a republican, parliamentarian kind of state.
Stanza 10-12 Lines 37-48

“Though justice against fate complain,

And plead the ancient rights in vain;

But those do hold or break

As men are strong or weak.

Nature that hateth emptiness

Allows of penetration less,

And therefore must make room

Where greater spirits come.

What field of all the civil wars

Where his were not the deepest scars?

And Hampton shows what part

He had of wiser art,”

In these lines, the speaker mentions that Cromwell was deaf to the complaint of Justice and its pleading of the "ancient rights." Cromwell’s victories may seem to make “Justice against Fate complain,” and suggest that he has usurped the “ancient rights” of kings who once ruled over England. However, the speaker claims that these rights only hold or give way depending on the strength of the men who defend them. The poet offers another metaphor and says that nature abhors a vacuum, so when a greater body or spirit enters a particular space, the lesser spirit must “make room” for it. The speaker mentions that it was unjust to usurp and execute King Charles I but also says that a kingdom cannot be held by the mere pleading of the "ancient rights": "For those do hold or break / As men are strong or weak."

Stanza 13-15 Lines 49-60

“Where, twining subtle fears with hope,

He wove a net of such a scope

That Charles himself might chase

To Carisbrooke’s narrow case,

That thence the royal actor borne

The tragic scaffold might adorn,

While round the armed bands

Did clap their bloody hands.

He nothing common did or mean

Upon that memorable scene,

But with his keener eye

The axe’s edge did try;”

In these lines, the speaker highlights the success of Cromwell’s war strategy. Charles I’s flight from Hampton to Carisbrooke Castle proved to be disastrous for him. The speaker suggests that Cromwell cunningly (‘wiser art’) induced the king to flee to Carisbrooke, where he was trapped, captured, and then persecuted. The speaker has praised Cromwell’s manliness, ‘industrious valor’, who in desire of glory, left the ‘inglorious arts of peace,’ in favor of the ‘arts of war.’ He, through his ‘wiser art,’ succeeded in capturing the monarch and defied the pleas of ‘ancient right.’ In the following lines, he praises King Charles I.

The speaker describes King Charles I as a “royal actor” born to face the “tragic scaffold” of his execution while the armed masses look on and clap “their bloody hands.” The speaker claims that King Charles does “nothing common” or “mean” when facing his execution.

Stanza 16-18 Lines 61-72

“Nor call’d the gods with vulgar spite

To vindicate his helpless right,

But bowed his comely head

Down as upon a bed.

This was that memorable hour

Which first assur’d the forced pow’r.

So when they did design

The Capitol’s first line,

A bleeding head, where they begun,

Did fright the architects to run;

And yet in that the state

Foresaw its happy fate.”

The speaker continues to praise and describe how King Charles I faced his fate with dignity. He did not spitefully call upon God to lament his fate. Instead, Charles I meets the edge of the axe with the sharper edge of his own gaze, and “bow[s] his comely head” upon the executioner’s block as if it were a bed. The speaker describes King Charles I as the player king, the king acting in a play. He is the "royal actor" who knows his assigned part and performs it with dignity. He truly adorned the scaffold like a stage, "While round the armed bands / Did clap their bloody hands." The soldiers are said to have clapped to drown out the king's speech from the scaffold, but Marvell, drawing the incident into his theater metaphor, interprets the clapping as applause. The Parliamentarians, who vehemently opposed King Charles I, did they clap for applauding King Charles I for facing death with bravery? Or did they applaud Cromwell's resolution in bringing the king to a deserved death? That remains ambiguous. The speaker believes that Charles’s execution marks the “memorable hour” for the victorious Parliament Army, as well as those who must “design” the new State.

Stanza 19-21 Lines 73-84

“And now the Irish are asham’d

To see themselves in one year tam’d;

So much one man can do

That does both act and know.

They can affirm his praises best,

And have, though overcome, confest

How good he is, how just,

And fit for highest trust;

Nor yet grown stiffer with command,

But still in the republic’s hand;

How fit he is to sway

That can so well obey.”

In these lines, the speaker again turns his attention to Cromwell, and the present. He praises how Cromwell crushed the Irish Catholic and Royalist rebels within a year. Even the Irish “can affirm his praises” after being subdued by Cromwell, whom the speaker believes to be good and just. Cromwell is well prepared to serve the new English Republic because of his ability to obey the will of the people.
Stanza 22-24 Lines 85-96

“He to the Commons’ feet presents

A kingdom for his first year’s rents;

And, what he may, forbears

His fame, to make it theirs,

And has his sword and spoils ungirt,

To lay them at the public’s skirt.

So when the falcon high

Falls heavy from the sky,

She, having kill’d, no more does search

But on the next green bough to perch,

Where, when he first does lure,

The falc’ner has her sure.”

The speaker praises Cromwell’s disciplined manner. The speaker continues to express the ruthless energy and power of Cromwell, but Cromwell falls from the sky now, not as the thunderbolt, but as the hunting hawk. The trained falcon is not a wanton destroyer, nor an irresponsible one. It knows its master: it is perfectly disciplined. Cromwell wins the kingdom but gives it to the Commons, along with his fame. He lays his “sword and spoils” at the “skirt,” or feet, of the public. In this regard, the speaker compares Cromwell to an obedient falcon who kills and delivers her prey but does not return to the hunt unbidden.

Stanza 25-27 Lines 96-108

“What may not then our isle presume

While victory his crest does plume!

What may not others fear

If thus he crown each year!

A Cæsar he ere long to Gaul,

To Italy an Hannibal,

And to all states not free,

Shall climacteric be.

The Pict no shelter now shall find

Within his parti-colour’d mind;

But from this valour sad

Shrink underneath the plaid,”

The speaker now does not depict Cromwell in his character as the destroyer of the monarchy, but he describes him as the agent of the new state that has been erected upon the dead body of the king. The speaker shows his surprise as he notices that Cromwell continues to pay his homage to the republic each year. The homage is not forced, but voluntary and even unexpected.

The speaker imagines Cromwell and England’s united victories to come, comparing these future conquests to those of Caesar and Hannibal. He suggests that Cromwell will soon turn his attention to the nation of the “Pict” in Scotland, who will soon cower “underneath the plaid.” The wild Irish have been tamed, and now the Pict will no longer be able to shelter under his particolored mind. It is the hour of decision, and the particolored mind affords no protection against the man who "does both act and know." 

Stanza 29-30 Lines 109-120

“Happy if in the tufted brake

The English hunter him mistake,

Nor lay his hounds in near

The Caledonian deer.

But thou, the war’s and fortune’s son,

March indefatigably on;

And for the last effect

Still keep thy sword erect;

Besides the force it has to fright

The spirits of the shady night,

The same arts that did gain

A pow’r, must it maintain.”

The speaker salutes Cromwell as "The War's and Fortune's son." It is a great compliment: Cromwell is the son of the war in that he is the master of battles, and he seems fortune's own son in the success that has constantly waited upon him. Cromwell can claim no sanction for his power in "ancient rights." His power has come out of the wars and the troubled times. He urges Cromwell to march "indefatigably on." It appears as an irony because the speaker described Cromwell as "restless" who could not cease "in the inglorious arts of peace" when his "highest plot" was "To plant the bergamot," one cannot conceive of his ceasing now in the hour of danger. However, it is more like a warning. Those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword: those who by the sword have achieved their power in contravention of ancient rights can expect to maintain their power only by the sword. The speaker offers an explicit warning, both to Cromwell and to the people, about the exercise of absolute power and the possible necessity of further bloodshed to uphold it: “The same arts that did gain/ A power, must it maintain.”

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!