Poetry and Poetics–Lit 204

Gerard Manley Hopkins’s poem Spring and Fall depicts a child coming to terms with death, and the speaker makes that child aware of their maturing and mortality. 

Acknowledging the fact that this poem is addressed to a child is already engaging in itself. It is common for a child to eventually grapple with the concept that they will one day die, just as everything will. This is articulated in the poem through the opening lines, which suggest the child is saddened by the leaves falling.

This is quite interesting as the poem’s title invokes a cyclical nature, Spring and Fall. This is a constant cycle, which begs the question, what changes? How is this poem about mortality if there is an endless cycle of birth and death? The answer is this child, Margaret, is mortal. While the nature of children, in general, is cyclical, with them being born each year and coming to terms with the world that surrounds them and for them to have more children, which repeats the process, the nature of a specific child isn’t. For the first time, Margaret can comprehend that nothing lasts. This is a problematic notion for a child to grow out of, as when one is born, they are led to believe that everything around them is constant. This concept fades with maturity, referenced in the lines “as the heart grows older / It will come to such sights colder” (6-7). 

It is also interesting that the poem gradually increases its complexity from the beginning to the end, just as a child can comprehend more complex concepts as they age. It starts by just talking about the leaves falling and how it may be sad to see this, but it grows into all things dying and that Margaret, the child, will die at one point, too. This is particularly interesting as, realistically, Margaret wouldn’t be able to understand all of these concepts as she has yet to reach that level. As readers, however, we have a particular insight into the awakening that she will one day have.

While I was initially interested in this poem due to the Breaking Bad reference, that episode is number 1 on IMDB; I was immediately fascinated by it. The whole concept of a falling kingdom is tragic, though the poem describes it ironically, which particularly intrigued me.

Line 7 is a good depiction of this: “Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things” (7). This poem forces the reader to question the meaning of the word survive. Because, in truth, Ozymandias has a remembered name. His name did “survive,” as evidenced by the “traveler” who told the story about his engraving. With that being said, his legacy died. His name is only known by a small collective of people, which is a significant fall from power since he self-proclaimed himself to be the “king of kings.” 

The shift in tone is also extraordinary, encapsulated in lines 10-12. 
     “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
      Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
      Nothing beside remains.
      (10-12)
This again shows the irony presented here, as Ozymandias’ empire no longer exists. It makes it tragically humorous that he encourages whoever shall approach to behold all that he has built but only to see nothing but desert. It is also interesting to note that this poem can be read as three sentences. This emphasizes the second sentence, only three words: “Nothing beside remains.” This evokes such power with the depiction of such a fall from power. Going back to what the poem initially asks, what does survival mean? Ozymandias’s name can be remembered due to the inscription, but the evidence behind his claim has long been destroyed. 

Ozymandias depicts the fall of a kingdom and how one’s legacy may be altered with that fall or destroyed entirely.

Upon first glance, this poem is a love letter from a wife to a husband. It does very well in this regard, giving traditional examples of how profound their love is. The last line is lovely: “That when we live no more, we may live ever” (12), suggesting their love is eternal. With all that being said, I found myself stumped with the line “Nor ought but love from thee give recompense” (8). I have two theories to interpret this, and I would be curious to know if anyone else felt similarly. It seems as if the wife feels guilty as she feels deeply loved by her ‘dear and loving husband’ that she could not reciprocate that love. This could be read as sweet and endearing, as she can only aspire to return her love, but I wonder if there is also a hint of something more promiscuous. Does the husband love her even though the wife may have done something to inhibit that love, such as an affair? In this sense, while the wife still deeply loves the husband, she feels she cannot ‘recompense’ due to that stain on their marriage. If this is a plausible interpretation, it gives the poem a far more somber tone, depicting the wife’s internal strife. She wants to love her husband the same way he loves her, but she feels she can’t make the mistakes she’s made. 

I would be inquisitive if anybody else could get on board with this theory or tell me I am wrong and just reading too deeply into nothing.

This ballad was especially interesting to me. Upon first reading, I was already fascinated with it due to the double rhyming scheme. Every line rhymes with every other line, with some minor exceptions, which may be due to different ways of pronunciations. This creates such an exciting read, especially out loud, and it allows the ballad to flow more in a songesque way, which makes sense, seeing as Askew sang this while in captivity. As I did more research on Anne Askew and the conditions of her imprisonment, the words held far more profound meaning. While I encourage others to look up the history for themselves, the general sense of it was that Anne Askew was a devout Protestant who married a devout Catholic. Her husband later kicked her out, and she traveled to London, where she continued to preach Protestantism. Her husband later had her arrested, from which she was held in the Tower of London and tortured. She was repeatedly asked who else followed the Protestant ways and tried to convert her, but she did not give up any names nor switch her ideology. She was eventually burned at the stake, though she stuck to her beliefs even as she was chained. Certain lines ring strong in the ballad, acknowledging her dedication to her beliefs. For instance, in line 4, “and faith shall be my shield,” which displays both determination and irony, as faith is also the sword of her captors for which she is being slain. Line 2, “appointed to the field,” invokes a sense of purpose, as if she was placed on this earth to preach Protestantism, and she intends to do that. Also, passage 7…

“More enemies now I have
Than hairs upon my head
Let them not me deprave,
But fight thou in my stead.”

…is also interesting, as while her enemies were numerous, that being the crown and Catholics, I also think this applies to men. On the Wikipedia page, it was said that both her husband and brothers were against her expressing her religious beliefs. In this sense, men have oppressed her; they are also her enemies. I also like how she acknowledges that history may vilify her, though she believes that the truth will come out and those followers will fight her enemies in place of her. This also cements her determination and dedication to the cause, as it is implied that Askew knows about her impending death.