The Rape of the Lock

I started reading this poem with my own preconceived notions of what an Alexander Pope poem would be like. You know, something resembling that little bit from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind...

What I found was this Heroi-Comical poem, or mock epic, that pokes fun at the trivial problems of upper class folk who have the tendency to blow them out of proportion. I found it amusing that the poem was written as a request to repair the relationship between two families where a certain hair cutting incident actually took place.

Pope fills the poem with classical images in order to draw out the epic style. He writes these lines spoken by Belinda's guardian, Sylph: "Of all the nurse and all the priest have taught,/ of airy elves by moonlight shadows seen,/ The silver token, and the circled green,/ Or virgins visited by angel powers,/ With golden crowns and wreaths of heavenly flowers,/ Hear and believe! thy own importance know,/ Nor bound thy narrow views to things below. (30-36)" The last two lines are very tongue in cheek in the way they mention Belinda's delusions of self-importance and the fact that she doesn't need to pay any mind to those below her.


When the Baron cuts the perfect lock of hair from Belinda's head, nothing can console her. Clarissa, who aided in the crime, suggests that she look beyond her anger, but Umbriel the gnome has gone to the Cave of the Spleen to bring back things that will make her even angrier. With this, Pope highlights such pitfalls as envy and vanity, which he brings to a perfect conclusion with Belinda choosing to believe that her lock of hair has become a constellation of stars.

The Rape of the Lock

            Pope starts off by identifying the piece as a Heroi-Comical poem. After looking the term up I found out that a Heroi-Comical poem is commonly referred to as a mock-epic or sometimes as a mock-heroic. Now I understand why Pope recognized it as such. The Rape of the Lock treats petty human experiences and insignificant occurrences as extraordinary instead of trivial. The poem deals with society’s fuss over trifling matters by blowing them way out of proportion.

 Let’s take a look.

In the poem a feud of epic proportions starts up after the baron steals a lock of Belinda’s hair.

For ever curs'd be this detested Day,
Which snatch'd my best, my fav'rite Curl away!
Happy! ah ten times happy had I been,
If Hampton-Court these Eyes had never seen!

I never knew someone could cherish one specific lock of hair so much.

The small matter of losing a lock of hair enrages Belinda:

Then flash'd the living Lightnings from her Eyes,
And Screams of Horror rend th' affrighted Skies.
Not louder Shrieks to pitying Heav'n are cast,
When Husbands, or when Lapdogs breathe their last,
Or when rich China Vessels, fal'n from high,
In glitt'ring Dust and painted Fragments lie!

Now the act of having a piece of your hair cut seems that it has the power to start a war.

Pope takes this trivial occurrence and makes it important.

Belinda battles the Baron for her lock of hair, only to not find it after the battle ends. Don’t worry though because that is also made into an extraordinary event when Pope says that the trimmed lock of her golden hair has risen to the heavens, there to become a shining star.

So on that note, Pope’s poem embodies all that is expected of a Heroi-Comical poem. But it does make you wonder if anyone would actually make such a fuss on losing a lock of hair. Would you?

Community in "Essay on Man"

When I first began to read Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Man," I thought that it would be a longer version of one of my favorite poems, Rudyard Kipling's "If." The opening lines (of the segment available in our book) sound like instruction, "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan." However, in Epistle III, Pope begins to examine a history of the world as he knows it. I particularly like how Pope seems to acknowledge the failure of man as both a superior species and a beast. Pope then acknowledges the skill that man obtained by watching those beasts whose instinctual actions could be mimicked by “the wiser” men.

Man was then able to create the civilization as Pope knew it. Pope presents God and Nature as two influences to make man as great as he is today. I find this presentation interesting, but I find the challenge he places before his fellow man to be more so. In one of the last stanzas, Pope writes:

For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate’er is best administered is best:

For modes of faith, let graceless zealots fight;

His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right:

In faith and hope the world will disagree,

But all mankind’s concern is charity:

All must be false that thwart this one great end,

And all of God, that bless mankind or mend.

In this passage, Pope very obviously states that charity is the most important work for men. However, the line “His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right” sounds as though it would encourage a single individual to take solace in the fact that he is doing the right thing, regardless of the governing bodies around him. This line is almost immediately followed by, “But all mankind’s concern.” I believe that by using the word “mankind,” Pope intends to convey that charity is societal concern, not that of a single individual. If this is the case, then Pope is very different than Kipling, as Kipling’s poem focuses on those things that an individual should do, while Pope attempts encourage men to band together in order to act a certain way. I think that Pope’s interest in the larger community would be ambitious, as I believe that during this time in Europe there was a large emphasis on an individual’s own relationship with his or her god. 

Gilpin, Price, and the Picturesque

Ramblin' Ramblers (posted for Dana)

Samuel Johnson centers “The Rambler” around a subject that I think everyone can relate to: procrastination. Coming from the Enlightenment, a time period all about self-improvement, I thought it did at times come across as preachy. Initially, Johnson was off to a good start when he discusses how his own issues with procrastination affect his work as a writer. Johnson beginning his column this way allows him to assimilate himself with his audience and shows that he is like the rest of us procrastinators who need to change their ways. The topic also instantly intrigued me because as a college student procrastination is something that l deal with everyday. I know that I am not the first person who has begun an assignment at two in the morning the night before it is due. However, I do think the column became too preachy when Johnson refers to the “evils” and “malignity” of procrastination. I understand that the piece was written in another time period, but I found these adjectives too extreme and harsh to be used to describe a problem that is not dangerous and uncommon. While Johnson provides laziness as one of the reasons for procrastination, his second reason, a fear of failure, hit closer to home. I know that when I am procrastinating writing it is usually because I feel as though my ideas are not good enough for anyone else to read. Which of Johnson’s reasons, if any, do you think are the reasons why students procrastinate most? Overall, even though “The Rambler” did not suit my interests, it is comforting to know that even sophisticated writers of the Enlightenment experienced writers’ block and the temptation to procrastinate from time to time.

Oh, the irony!

Jonathan Swift is hilariously twisted and clever in “A Modest Proposal.” To say that he is a proponent of irony is an understatement, but I suppose that became fairly obvious when he decidedly published an entire argument for the invention of a baby meat market to benefit society. There is no doubt that “A Modest Proposal” lies on a solid foundation of satirical remarks and sarcastic witticism at this bizarre proposition. Yet as disconcerting as the idea of a baby meat market can be, it is not what I ended up finding the most ironic part about Swift’s argument. Rather, I think the greatest irony lies in how, in order to even SUGGEST the idea of the baby market, Swift does not treat the Irish population like fellow human beings. He degrades them down to emotionless statistics who will have no problem selling their babies for the “welfare” of society. The welfare of society? If the Irish population were just numbers and statistics, why would Swift care about the “welfare” of the human race?

Let’s just take a look at some of the diction to see how he does this, shall we?

“The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders” (222).

“I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty shousand may be reseved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males” (223).

Breeders. Okay. Men and women have been reduced down to breeders. But let’s be honest…he’s mostly saying this in reference to women, and this is not the last time we'll see him do so.

In reference to teenage boys and girls, he simply uses the terms “male” and “female” when discussing what to do with “so great a number of both sexes” and their place in the baby meat market (224).

“And, secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom…” (227).

Creatures. The population is not comprised of fellow human beings but “creatures” that merely look like humans. So of course it is okay to execute Swift’s plan, because no one can feel remorse for hundreds of creatures.

So on that note, I guess its okay to proceed with the baby meat market. Seems logical enough, and after all its for the benefit of society. Guess Swift has a heart after all.

A Modest Proposal.

Modest.

*consults OED*

"disinclined to bring oneself into notice" (3a)

It's safe to say that got nixed with the suggestion of marketed infanticide/cannibalism. 

Right.

But some of Swift's jabs are placed in grammatically inconspicuous places.
Examples:

when calculating viable couples, Swift notes in parentheses “there cannot be so many [as 30,000 out of 200,000, or 15%], under the present distresses” (222).  What's one of the bolder statistics doing there?!

In another computation for “the charge of nursing a beggar’s child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, labourers, and four-fifths of the farmers)” (223) -  more parentheses.

No parentheses, but:
"I grant this food will be very dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children” (223).  [italics mine]  That's a clause branching off a secondary clause, but semantically, primary.

Only one more:

 “Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where they will probably be sold cheaper) [italics mine] the remaining eighty thousand” (226).

I almost missed that.  Then I looked again and...

OH, I GET IT!!  Unfair trading practices...I knew that...don't judge

But why put all these on the sidelines?  Sure he's pretending to be earnest, but...

It's an aside, Sarah.

Like on stage, there's this one idiot/jerk talking, with some wiseacre snarking quietly, but everyone's paying attention to him, in part because it seems illicit.

Well played, Swift.

Does make me curious that he's using what's typically a theatrical device.  A lot of contemporary satirists hated the theater.  What was his opinion?  Did he produce any drama?  Are there any other theatrical devices I missed?

You don't have to comment on theater, I just like it.  See you Monday!