The Triumvirate welcomes you!
"The term triumvirate (from Latin, "of three men") is commonly used to describe a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals" (Wiki).
I really liked this. My brief (relatively so) initial analysis is as follows.
In the first stanza, the speaker's (apparently Housman often used "Terence" to refer to himself in his poetry) friend wryly prods his friend for writing such maudlin poetry. "Come, sing a tune to dance to, lad." His friends are sick of his melancholy writings.
In the second stanza, the speaker considers the merits of alcohol---he feels that his friends would be better off finding his merriment in spirits than in poetry. At the beginning of Paradise Lost, Milton asks the Muse to help him "assert Eternal Providence, / And justify the ways of God to men." Milton's questions of God and his tolerance of Evil seem simple and unnecessary through beer-goggles, for Evil doesn't seem to exist when you're sloshed. Fleeting happiness of merry poetry is like drinking, apparently---reality will still be here when one comes to in the morning.
In the third stanza, the speaker explains his philosophy a bit. Reality can be harsh, so one should prepare for those harsh times---not count on the uncommon good ones. His gloomy poems come from bitter experience, so his friend should read them to prepare his own heart and mind for such an "embittered hour." Poetry is experience, so it's useful to read of bad experiences to prepare for the worst that life dishes out.
In the fourth stanza, the speaker tells the tale of King Mithradates VI of Pontus to illustrate his point. To put it simply, Mithradates took a little poison every day to make himself immune. This way, he couldn't easily be... poisoned. The speaker tells this story, I think, in a metaphor. Just as Mithradates was immune to poison from frequent exposure in small doses, the speaker feels that painful literature should be used to create a sort of immunity from life's numerous pains.
That's why we need and desire tragic literature---it helps us deal with tragedies in real life. If one simply escapes from it all with drink and merriment, reality's still waiting there to bite back with a vengeance when we come back down.
These are initial thoughts, mind you. I'll think about this more, but I really have to go right now---I'll come back to the blog later and see what people are saying (this is/was the first post as of when I started writing this).
To be honest, I was really overwhelmed when I first read this poem. It seemed at first that none of the lines or stanzas went together and I got very confused. But after reading it again and reading your post David, it is coming out a little bit clearer.
I am still confused about lines 49-52 ('Tis true...weary land"). Actually that whole part confuses me. You seemed to understand this poem so maybe you can help??
In the third paragraph of the poem there is a significant shift, its after the "begin the game anew". Its like the speaker has sobered up and is now facing the dreary darkness of life, where there is fewer good than ill. I think the stuff thats not as brisk a brew as ale, is philosophy. Its wrong from the weary land and will benefit the listener when they are in his place. I thought that part was interesting with many implications. I think one way of looking at it might be that the speaker has chosen drink to ease away all his painful days and now he is approaching the end of his life. He is giving advice to someone who is following in his stead, and beginning the game again. He warns his friend to take in sorrows in small increments so he will become immune to great sorrows, like poison for Mirthidates. I think the speaker may have had a great sorrow that sent him into drink since he wasn't prepared and now he is trying to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else. The poem seams to contradict itself to me in that in the first part the speaker defends drinking and in the second part advocates dealing with reality. I guess it shows that drink and merriment will eventually fade away and then if unprepared the poisons of tragedy will be lethal. I don't know exactly I could be way off on the second part, so please correct me if I am wrong. I hope this helps.
Second stanza, I think that the speaker doesn't view the world without beer-goggles as a world of evil that awaits him, but rather a world of good which is just waiting to be discovered, albeit via the aforementioned goggles.
Third stanza, the speaker noted that being prepared for ill is more rational than preparing for good. I'm not so sure that the speaker means that his poetry should be read and interpreted as experiences, rather his poetry stands for each person's life experience which, maybe, he writes about?
Taking my previous statement into the fourth stanza, the Mithridates is the speaker himself and each person's melancholy experience which he writes about is his poison from the many-venomed earth.
I think Housman is not writing as himself in this poem, though I could be wrong. I think he's created, for the sake of proving a point, this lad, Terence, whose friends, in the first stanza, are lecturing him on his drinking habits and his melancholy verse.
In the second stanza, as I understand it, of course, Terence, the speaker, responds to their accusations.
In that same stanza, there is evidence that Terence is dealing with some heavy inner turmoil in a light fashion. He barely brushes over it in lines 33 and 34. "Then the world seemed none so bad, / And I myself a sterling lad;" I'm not sure why this part stood out to me, but I feel like most people are kind of touching on Terence's view of the world, but I think we can't forget his inner view as well. If, only after "Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer" he thinks himself a "sterling lad", this means he can't think much of himself while sober. That or I'm reading WAY too much into this and he's just illustrating that brazen attitude that alcohol induces.
In response to Krista's view that the line "begin the game anew" meant the change of perspectives, I would have to disagree. I think when Terence wakes from his drunken stupor, we really feel the narration shift in a darker direction. I could almost hear the sigh escape through the words "The world, it was the old world yet," line 39.
Then I view Terence on that little wooden stool in our crazy English classroom (that's only secretly an English classroom because it looks a whole lot like a Spanish classroom to me) holding that weird gourd (why does Mr. Duncan have a gourd in his classroom? Do gourds ever perish?) like it was Shakespeare's famous skull and brooding like Hamlet.
I think this image was backed up when the fourth stanza began with "There was a king reigned in the East: / There, when kings will sit to feast, / They get their fill before they think / With poisoned food and poisoned drink." So I think the rest of my view of this poem is quite possibly tainted by that image, since I don't think, upon a more sensible review, that this is a logical way to envision the deliver of this poem in my mind, but that doesn't mean I can shake the image.
I did regain some (of what little I had) ability to process this poem by the end. Of course, you can't poison joy. Joy will sit and drink and eat and get fat! Mirth is much stronger than poison, though there may be more ill than good in the world.
Someone correct me if I'm completely off base, here!
I think that the first paragraph is a merry person complaining about the speaker being mopey and mocking his misery.
The second paragraph is a sarcastic comment on their lifestyle of ignorance is bliss. "Ale that is the stuff to drink, for fellows whom it hurts to think." and also sort of a concession that drinking will make them more happy, but happy in a meaningless way
The third paragraph there is a tone shift to the speakers philosophy and the stem that scored the hand is symbolic of suffering with meaning. The speaker advocates for using small suffering to prepare for greater ills rather than ignore them and hope nothing really bad ever happens. He is saying that yes you will not be as happy this way but you will be "better for the embittered hour"
The forth paragraph supports this claim using mithridates as an example. Since Mithridates took small amounts of poison regularly he was immune when every one tried to poison him hard core. So taking small amounts of suffering regularly will make it so one will not be wiped out by greater tragedies. Drinking and merriment will leave one unprepared int the "dark and cloudy day".
Just a quick question: for this analysis, we don't have to answer the questions at the end, right? Is this more of an open analysis where we can talk about anything that was striking to us?
I have to say, I’m with Hannah. This poem I found to be difficult to understand- though your posts David and Krista did help. Honestly though, I still don’t think I completely get it.
As far as I can understand:
The speaker in the first stanza seems to talk to his friend being to serious and down, and to lighten up.
The speaker in the second stanza responds by saying that the first speaker tries to find joy and merriment in drinking, but it is meaningless.
In the third stanza the speakers continues on to talking about their philosophy. The world is harsh, with less good than ill in it, so be prepared.
With the fourth stanza, the speaker supports what they have said with the example of Mithridates. The small amounts of poison he took daily (suffering) prepared him for and against an awful situation of really being poisoned (a great amount of suffering).
To me this poem was divided into three parts, how the speaker has lived his life, his realization that he can no longer live that way, and then, by means of the example of King Mithridates, show why it is that life cannot be spent merely partying or drinking, but that hard times (poisoned moments in our lives) are there to make the even harder times not so bad.
The first part is from the beginning to about line 35/36 (in the second stanza). This section is not by any means happy or cheerful, but it isn’t cynical. It is simply a state of being. I think that the Speaker’s theory right here is that yes the world sucks but alcohol will fix that, it will allow him, or anyone for that matter, “to see the world as the world’s not.” (Line 26) It allows an escape from the reality of the world (not unlike the other poem we are currently discussing), however unlike Suicide’s Note, this poem’s relief from the world is a temporary fix. It is not until the third section that a more permanent philosophy is adapted and the “eat, drink, and be merry” attitude is put aside for a more mature and realistic outlook on life.
The transition from the first section to the last comes in the form of a serious reality check. The Second section of this poem starts on approximately line 27 which states, “Then I saw the morning sky…” I feel that this is really when the tone, or really more of the atmosphere around the poem shifts from a feeling of denial about the world to a feeling of total understanding of the world, and the cynicism that encompasses such knowledge. The speaker says, “I’d face it as a wise man would, and train for ill, and not for good.” He is preparing for the worst and there is no faith in this. He still has some hope, he isn’t a completely lost and depressed soul but he does refuse to get his hopes up about things that he realizes most likely won’t happen. It’s like when the weatherman tells us that it will, 100% without a doubt, snow tomorrow and then the next day as you open your window, it is lightly drizzling and there isn’t the faintest hint of snow on the ground. It sucks to be disappointed like that, when your hopes are high and the promises are piled high, and so it is no surprise to me that the speaker would write about it, because that is the reality of life. However all is not lost, not all of life sucks, there is something good that comes out of all of this bad, and that is discussed in the third part.
The third section is simply the last stanza. This story represents life and how the king slowly built up an immunity to poison so that he could not, as easily, be poisoned. In life everyone experiences trials, and these trials are what build up our own personal immunities to the trials we will encounter in the future. “That which does not kill you makes you stronger,” and I honestly believe that. There is always something to be learned or gained from any experience in life, especially the bad experiences.
Overall I think that this poem is a sort of parable and philosophy all rolled into one. It tells a story and explains what it means without being completely upfront about the subject. Thoughts? Comments? Let me know!
Before I begin my analysis, I would like to give some advice to those who have not yet posted. It is far easier to analyze a poem when listening to Miles Davis than when listening to Three 6 Mafia. And looking up the various references Housman makes to places and other writers, etc. One more thing before I get started....Albert, when David uses the term "sloshed," is that medical jargon or some techinical term? Because it seems out of place. The first stanza, like David excellently pointed out, is the complaint of a friend of the speaker's who is chiding the speaker for his cynical view of the world and his drinking of alcohol to fight away his sorrow instead of contructively adding happiness. The second stanza considers the benefits of not understanding what is going on, that ignorance is bliss in a sense. I feel like the speaker is simply using alcohol as an example, not the exclusive method of avoiding problems. He argues that the problems in the world are too great to deal with, and continues this argument in the third stanza. The third stanza serves the author's purpose of putting forth the concept that bad things are more common than good things, so you should always prepare for bad, as "a wise man would." The fourth stanza serves to further the author's ideas on preparing for the worst. As David unhelpfully pointed out before I could jump on it with my Wikipedia knowledge, the Mithridates referenced is Mithridates VI, who took poison in controlled amounts so that when his enemies used it against him he had an immunity. This distrust of his fellow man concurs with the hypothesis of the speaker, that preperation for the worst pays off. Unfortunately, many people take the easy route of forgetting their problems, which only helps until those problems jump out again. An ending note to this analysis, this poem was organized almost like an argument, with points followed by an example that serves to prove these points. I don't know if I am off base with this, just something I noticed. Almost essay-like in orgaization.
Just to put in my two cents at this late hour, I really liked this poem when I finally understood it. It is told from the perspective of someone who is wise and has learned from their mistakes.
The speaker seems to understand that the more you experiance and the harder your life, the easier it becomes because you have built up a tolerance and become stronger. Whereas when you drink and avoid your problems they will still be there just as strong the next day, maybe even worse.
I love that he ends with the story about the king, I think it's perfect.
Sam, I believe David was attempting to use a polite euphemism for inebriated. Although, don't take my medical advice too seriously, after all, I have a Ph.d, not an M.D.. But,I took a prerequisite course back in the day called "How to give excellent medical advice", so I'm fairly experienced at this sort of thing. Oh, and which Miles Davis Album are you listening to? For me it has to be Kind of blue. Modal trumps bebop for background music every time.
"Terrence, this is stupid stuff" seems a defense of tragic and sad literature. While many turn to alcohol as a great way to enjoy the day and avoid the sorrows of life, Terrence makes an argument for a long term solution: sad, tragic literature. While alcohol may be more inviting at first, and gives one instant gratification, the world is sadly the same the next morning. The speaker compares the sadness endured when reading such literature to the slow exposition to poison undergone by King Mithridates: while it does not offer the best short term relief, It offers increased ability to cope with life's darker sides. He argues that this type of literature can give you perspective and acceptance, just as gradual exposure to poison builds up a tolerance. He admits it is not as pleasant, "Tis true, the stuff I bring to sale/ Is not so brisk a brew as ale:" but will bring comfort to ourselves for the rest of our life, not just until your liver finished its day's work.
It's late and I am approximately 94% asleep, so please pardon my direct quoting myself which was taken from a chat. I found this to be a simpler way of viewing the poem, at least for me:
29.01.09 23:47:30 the first stanza some dude doesn't like the speaker's poetry because it's always so melancholy 29.01.09 23:47:45 and never happy 29.01.09 23:47:59 then in the second part the speaker is like "you can drink all day but then reality is still waiting for you"
I liked the way I worded that. Wanted to share my groggy thoughts.
The first stanza, not much thought about it. I have more questions of this stanza than any analysis. For example, why did the cow die? Does the cow represent something? When he mentions the horns, does it seem to remind you of the devil? So is the cow the devil? But why would the devil be involved in this poem? Well, that’s kind of easy to answer. Is it the drinking that is making the speaker in the first stanza and Terence to be singing silly songs, which they in turn sing the cow to death? Or is the speaker referring songs as rash actions that make people do things that they regret, such as killing a cow? Or is the first stanza even that involved in the cow? Probably not, but that’s what I thought about it.
The second stanza I got more out of. Line 20-22 “Livelier liquor than the Muse, / And malt does more than Milton can / To justify God’s way to man.” The drink provides more answers than the Muse can, because the speaker is not relying on someone else to solve their problems. It allows people to see another side of themselves, what “God” made man to be. Man is not perfect, although we all try to achieve that perfection, liquor will bring out the worst in the person. What is ironic about that is that while a person is on the drink, they see the world in a more beautiful state. Well, some people. In this poem, Housman wants the reader to see that people can escape life by drinking it away, “Look into the pewter pot / To see the world as the world’s not” (Line 25-26) Or “Happy till I woke again. / Then I saw the morning sky: / Heigho, the take was all a lie;” (Line 36-38). By drinking, a person doesn’t have to live in a life of woe, but they can escape to their sanctuary. In this state, people can see mud as “lovely muck” (Line 35) and not worry if their tax is paid or if they have the buttons on their shirt put on right. They are oblivious of their problems, and what better way to live life?
The third stanza, I think this is the drink speaking. From when it was a wee little grapevine to a thief of souls. Yea, literally, the drink speaking. It gives the advice that “Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure, / I’d face it as a wise man would, / And train for ill and not for good.” (Line 46-48). What better way to train for ill than just drinking? Trying to erase the bad to make it good? I think, if I refer to this stanza as the plant speaking, the answer to Hannah’s question is that the grape is being planted into a place where despair is vast and hope is limited. So “ ‘Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale / Is not so brisk a brew as ale: / Out of a stem that scored the hand / I wrung it in a weary land.” (Line 49-52) is talking about how the grape may make wine? And that’s not as strong as ale, but still has the same effect. I think, that’s what I’m trying to get at. And last thing about why I think this is the drink speaking is Line 56 “When your soul is in my soul’s stead” people drink, and they get addicted to it. They become alcoholics and become dependent on it, so basically, a person just sold their soul.
I did not understand how this last stanza tied in with the poem, but when I read David’s post it was such an “AHA!” moment for me. The king becoming immune to the drink as he takes it little by little and living longer therefore foiling the plans of others to kill him sooner. Woof, that just totally made so much sense to me. But I guess I’m still kind of confused about this last stanza. “He killed all her killing store”? What’s that supposed to mean? Yuppers, that’s pretty much it. Have fun reading!
[Michael, I was talking to you at 11/12/whatever and you seem perfectly awake. Or perhaps you always seem this slow to me. :)]
I interpret this poem as a way to defend for what the speaker did in the past. The first stanza is a repeat of someone else's words about what the speaker was going on about. I'm guessing the speaker has been sad about cows and to drink himself some beer. (Well, doesn't have to be exactly about cows.)
So the speaker gets defensive and justifies alcohol as a method to relieve senses. It is a depressant after all. Too much will create a lot of fun, but "till I woke again" it's no longer fun at all. And he is back to being sad.
Because of that, poems are much nicer to work with because it does not provide a roller coaster of feelings and emotions and actions. While alcohol is very good at downplaying sadness, it is too bothersome to use. The speaker likes to work with poems more than alcohol. Alcohol is a kind of poison that fuddles with the mind.
I really like the way you described the poem David. Very helpful.
I don't think the cow has that much meaning behind it Thanh. Perhaps the other guy was like "you need to stop being sad about the stupidest things" and used cows as an example because it's hard to be sad about cows. Unless you're a starving farmer and your only dairy cow died.
Wow okay so I think that the "stupid stuff" is the (poetry? I'm not really certain on what Terence is selling) that the first speaker is trying out, because it's neither beer nor ale and is not getting him drunk.
I looked online to try to help me make sense of this poem and I found a few interesting tidbits that may be of use to some other people as well. Firstly, the name Terence could be a reference to an ancient Greek playwright of the same name. He wrote six plays that have all survived to this day. I don't know why Housman would reference him, but maybe his plays were really depressing. He might have been using Terence as a discreet allusion and example of the melancholy prose he was complaining about.
Also, the first paragraph seems to pose a question to the poet. The speaker is asking why poets write about depressing subjects. Then, the rest of the paragraphs are dedicated to defending the poet, with the last paragraph being an example for the poet. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I read, and maybe it will help us all make some sense of this poem.
Thanh, the "he killed all her killing store" line you mentioned references the King consuming (killing) all the poisons of the world (the killing store).
OHHhhhh.. Okay, I took the poem too literally. After hearing the discussion in class and Michael's comment, it's poetry he's talking about. Thanks Lisa and Matt for clarifying my cow and quote bonanza too. It all makes sense now.
I have a question about #4 of the Terence questions. It asks what the three aids for worthwhile living and I'm confused what they are. I thought maybe alcohol, poems with pain, and maybe light-hearted poems?? Anyone have any insight to offer me? Thanks in advance.
What do you know I am slightly puzzled by the same question. He barely mentions dancing at the begining of his part, after the quoted section. I was thinking 1. being merry and ignoring the pain, 2. using alcohol to dull the pain, and 3. taking the pain, expressing the pain, and dealing with the pain through poetry.
28 comments:
I really liked this.
My brief (relatively so) initial analysis is as follows.
In the first stanza, the speaker's (apparently Housman often used "Terence" to refer to himself in his poetry) friend wryly prods his friend for writing such maudlin poetry. "Come, sing a tune to dance to, lad." His friends are sick of his melancholy writings.
In the second stanza, the speaker considers the merits of alcohol---he feels that his friends would be better off finding his merriment in spirits than in poetry. At the beginning of Paradise Lost, Milton asks the Muse to help him "assert Eternal Providence, / And justify the ways of God to men." Milton's questions of God and his tolerance of Evil seem simple and unnecessary through beer-goggles, for Evil doesn't seem to exist when you're sloshed. Fleeting happiness of merry poetry is like drinking, apparently---reality will still be here when one comes to in the morning.
In the third stanza, the speaker explains his philosophy a bit. Reality can be harsh, so one should prepare for those harsh times---not count on the uncommon good ones. His gloomy poems come from bitter experience, so his friend should read them to prepare his own heart and mind for such an "embittered hour."
Poetry is experience, so it's useful to read of bad experiences to prepare for the worst that life dishes out.
In the fourth stanza, the speaker tells the tale of King Mithradates VI of Pontus to illustrate his point.
To put it simply, Mithradates took a little poison every day to make himself immune. This way, he couldn't easily be... poisoned.
The speaker tells this story, I think, in a metaphor. Just as Mithradates was immune to poison from frequent exposure in small doses, the speaker feels that painful literature should be used to create a sort of immunity from life's numerous pains.
That's why we need and desire tragic literature---it helps us deal with tragedies in real life. If one simply escapes from it all with drink and merriment, reality's still waiting there to bite back with a vengeance when we come back down.
These are initial thoughts, mind you. I'll think about this more, but I really have to go right now---I'll come back to the blog later and see what people are saying (this is/was the first post as of when I started writing this).
Uh... looks like it's still the first post.
Kind of excited to see what people will have said here when I come back.
To be honest, I was really overwhelmed when I first read this poem. It seemed at first that none of the lines or stanzas went together and I got very confused. But after reading it again and reading your post David, it is coming out a little bit clearer.
I am still confused about lines 49-52 ('Tis true...weary land"). Actually that whole part confuses me. You seemed to understand this poem so maybe you can help??
In the third paragraph of the poem there is a significant shift, its after the "begin the game anew". Its like the speaker has sobered up and is now facing the dreary darkness of life, where there is fewer good than ill. I think the stuff thats not as brisk a brew as ale, is philosophy. Its wrong from the weary land and will benefit the listener when they are in his place. I thought that part was interesting with many implications. I think one way of looking at it might be that the speaker has chosen drink to ease away all his painful days and now he is approaching the end of his life. He is giving advice to someone who is following in his stead, and beginning the game again. He warns his friend to take in sorrows in small increments so he will become immune to great sorrows, like poison for Mirthidates. I think the speaker may have had a great sorrow that sent him into drink since he wasn't prepared and now he is trying to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else. The poem seams to contradict itself to me in that in the first part the speaker defends drinking and in the second part advocates dealing with reality. I guess it shows that drink and merriment will eventually fade away and then if unprepared the poisons of tragedy will be lethal. I don't know exactly I could be way off on the second part, so please correct me if I am wrong. I hope this helps.
A direct response to David.
First stanza, agree with all that's said.
Second stanza, I think that the speaker doesn't view the world without beer-goggles as a world of evil that awaits him, but rather a world of good which is just waiting to be discovered, albeit via the aforementioned goggles.
Third stanza, the speaker noted that being prepared for ill is more rational than preparing for good. I'm not so sure that the speaker means that his poetry should be read and interpreted as experiences, rather his poetry stands for each person's life experience which, maybe, he writes about?
Taking my previous statement into the fourth stanza, the Mithridates is the speaker himself and each person's melancholy experience which he writes about is his poison from the many-venomed earth.
I think Housman is not writing as himself in this poem, though I could be wrong. I think he's created, for the sake of proving a point, this lad, Terence, whose friends, in the first stanza, are lecturing him on his drinking habits and his melancholy verse.
In the second stanza, as I understand it, of course, Terence, the speaker, responds to their accusations.
In that same stanza, there is evidence that Terence is dealing with some heavy inner turmoil in a light fashion. He barely brushes over it in lines 33 and 34. "Then the world seemed none so bad, / And I myself a sterling lad;" I'm not sure why this part stood out to me, but I feel like most people are kind of touching on Terence's view of the world, but I think we can't forget his inner view as well. If, only after "Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer" he thinks himself a "sterling lad", this means he can't think much of himself while sober. That or I'm reading WAY too much into this and he's just illustrating that brazen attitude that alcohol induces.
In response to Krista's view that the line "begin the game anew" meant the change of perspectives, I would have to disagree. I think when Terence wakes from his drunken stupor, we really feel the narration shift in a darker direction. I could almost hear the sigh escape through the words "The world, it was the old world yet," line 39.
Then I view Terence on that little wooden stool in our crazy English classroom (that's only secretly an English classroom because it looks a whole lot like a Spanish classroom to me) holding that weird gourd (why does Mr. Duncan have a gourd in his classroom? Do gourds ever perish?) like it was Shakespeare's famous skull and brooding like Hamlet.
I think this image was backed up when the fourth stanza began with "There was a king reigned in the East: / There, when kings will sit to feast, / They get their fill before they think / With poisoned food and poisoned drink." So I think the rest of my view of this poem is quite possibly tainted by that image, since I don't think, upon a more sensible review, that this is a logical way to envision the deliver of this poem in my mind, but that doesn't mean I can shake the image.
I did regain some (of what little I had) ability to process this poem by the end. Of course, you can't poison joy. Joy will sit and drink and eat and get fat! Mirth is much stronger than poison, though there may be more ill than good in the world.
Someone correct me if I'm completely off base, here!
I actually disagree with my first post.
I think that the first paragraph is a merry person complaining about the speaker being mopey and mocking his misery.
The second paragraph is a sarcastic comment on their lifestyle of ignorance is bliss. "Ale that is the stuff to drink, for fellows whom it hurts to think." and also sort of a concession that drinking will make them more happy, but happy in a meaningless way
The third paragraph there is a tone shift to the speakers philosophy and the stem that scored the hand is symbolic of suffering with meaning. The speaker advocates for using small suffering to prepare for greater ills rather than ignore them and hope nothing really bad ever happens. He is saying that yes you will not be as happy this way but you will be "better for the embittered hour"
The forth paragraph supports this claim using mithridates as an example. Since Mithridates took small amounts of poison regularly he was immune when every one tried to poison him hard core. So taking small amounts of suffering regularly will make it so one will not be wiped out by greater tragedies. Drinking and merriment will leave one unprepared int the "dark and cloudy day".
Just a quick question: for this analysis, we don't have to answer the questions at the end, right? Is this more of an open analysis where we can talk about anything that was striking to us?
I have to say, I’m with Hannah. This poem I found to be difficult to understand- though your posts David and Krista did help. Honestly though, I still don’t think I completely get it.
As far as I can understand:
The speaker in the first stanza seems to talk to his friend being to serious and down, and to lighten up.
The speaker in the second stanza responds by saying that the first speaker tries to find joy and merriment in drinking, but it is meaningless.
In the third stanza the speakers continues on to talking about their philosophy. The world is harsh, with less good than ill in it, so be prepared.
With the fourth stanza, the speaker supports what they have said with the example of Mithridates. The small amounts of poison he took daily (suffering) prepared him for and against an awful situation of really being poisoned (a great amount of suffering).
To me this poem was divided into three parts, how the speaker has lived his life, his realization that he can no longer live that way, and then, by means of the example of King Mithridates, show why it is that life cannot be spent merely partying or drinking, but that hard times (poisoned moments in our lives) are there to make the even harder times not so bad.
The first part is from the beginning to about line 35/36 (in the second stanza). This section is not by any means happy or cheerful, but it isn’t cynical. It is simply a state of being. I think that the Speaker’s theory right here is that yes the world sucks but alcohol will fix that, it will allow him, or anyone for that matter, “to see the world as the world’s not.” (Line 26) It allows an escape from the reality of the world (not unlike the other poem we are currently discussing), however unlike Suicide’s Note, this poem’s relief from the world is a temporary fix. It is not until the third section that a more permanent philosophy is adapted and the “eat, drink, and be merry” attitude is put aside for a more mature and realistic outlook on life.
The transition from the first section to the last comes in the form of a serious reality check. The Second section of this poem starts on approximately line 27 which states, “Then I saw the morning sky…” I feel that this is really when the tone, or really more of the atmosphere around the poem shifts from a feeling of denial about the world to a feeling of total understanding of the world, and the cynicism that encompasses such knowledge. The speaker says, “I’d face it as a wise man would, and train for ill, and not for good.” He is preparing for the worst and there is no faith in this. He still has some hope, he isn’t a completely lost and depressed soul but he does refuse to get his hopes up about things that he realizes most likely won’t happen. It’s like when the weatherman tells us that it will, 100% without a doubt, snow tomorrow and then the next day as you open your window, it is lightly drizzling and there isn’t the faintest hint of snow on the ground. It sucks to be disappointed like that, when your hopes are high and the promises are piled high, and so it is no surprise to me that the speaker would write about it, because that is the reality of life. However all is not lost, not all of life sucks, there is something good that comes out of all of this bad, and that is discussed in the third part.
The third section is simply the last stanza. This story represents life and how the king slowly built up an immunity to poison so that he could not, as easily, be poisoned. In life everyone experiences trials, and these trials are what build up our own personal immunities to the trials we will encounter in the future. “That which does not kill you makes you stronger,” and I honestly believe that. There is always something to be learned or gained from any experience in life, especially the bad experiences.
Overall I think that this poem is a sort of parable and philosophy all rolled into one. It tells a story and explains what it means without being completely upfront about the subject. Thoughts? Comments? Let me know!
Before I begin my analysis, I would like to give some advice to those who have not yet posted. It is far easier to analyze a poem when listening to Miles Davis than when listening to Three 6 Mafia. And looking up the various references Housman makes to places and other writers, etc.
One more thing before I get started....Albert, when David uses the term "sloshed," is that medical jargon or some techinical term? Because it seems out of place.
The first stanza, like David excellently pointed out, is the complaint of a friend of the speaker's who is chiding the speaker for his cynical view of the world and his drinking of alcohol to fight away his sorrow instead of contructively adding happiness.
The second stanza considers the benefits of not understanding what is going on, that ignorance is bliss in a sense. I feel like the speaker is simply using alcohol as an example, not the exclusive method of avoiding problems. He argues that the problems in the world are too great to deal with, and continues this argument in the third stanza.
The third stanza serves the author's purpose of putting forth the concept that bad things are more common than good things, so you should always prepare for bad, as "a wise man would."
The fourth stanza serves to further the author's ideas on preparing for the worst. As David unhelpfully pointed out before I could jump on it with my Wikipedia knowledge, the Mithridates referenced is Mithridates VI, who took poison in controlled amounts so that when his enemies used it against him he had an immunity. This distrust of his fellow man concurs with the hypothesis of the speaker, that preperation for the worst pays off. Unfortunately, many people take the easy route of forgetting their problems, which only helps until those problems jump out again.
An ending note to this analysis, this poem was organized almost like an argument, with points followed by an example that serves to prove these points. I don't know if I am off base with this, just something I noticed. Almost essay-like in orgaization.
Just to put in my two cents at this late hour, I really liked this poem when I finally understood it. It is told from the perspective of someone who is wise and has learned from their mistakes.
The speaker seems to understand that the more you experiance and the harder your life, the easier it becomes because you have built up a tolerance and become stronger. Whereas when you drink and avoid your problems they will still be there just as strong the next day, maybe even worse.
I love that he ends with the story about the king, I think it's perfect.
Sam, I believe David was attempting to use a polite euphemism for inebriated. Although, don't take my medical advice too seriously, after all, I have a Ph.d, not an M.D.. But,I took a prerequisite course back in the day called "How to give excellent medical advice", so I'm fairly experienced at this sort of thing. Oh, and which Miles Davis Album are you listening to? For me it has to be Kind of blue. Modal trumps bebop for background music every time.
"Terrence, this is stupid stuff" seems a defense of tragic and sad literature. While many turn to alcohol as a great way to enjoy the day and avoid the sorrows of life, Terrence makes an argument for a long term solution: sad, tragic literature. While alcohol may be more inviting at first, and gives one instant gratification, the world is sadly the same the next morning. The speaker compares the sadness endured when reading such literature to the slow exposition to poison undergone by King Mithridates: while it does not offer the best short term relief, It offers increased ability to cope with life's darker sides. He argues that this type of literature can give you perspective and acceptance, just as gradual exposure to poison builds up a tolerance. He admits it is not as pleasant, "Tis true, the stuff I bring to sale/ Is not so brisk a brew as ale:" but will bring comfort to ourselves for the rest of our life, not just until your liver finished its day's work.
Alkaloids, heavy metals, what's next? I propose a new class: Chemical Applications of Literature
It's late and I am approximately 94% asleep, so please pardon my direct quoting myself which was taken from a chat. I found this to be a simpler way of viewing the poem, at least for me:
29.01.09 23:47:30 the first stanza some dude doesn't like the speaker's poetry because it's always so melancholy
29.01.09 23:47:45 and never happy
29.01.09 23:47:59 then in the second part the speaker is like "you can drink all day but then reality is still waiting for you"
I liked the way I worded that. Wanted to share my groggy thoughts.
The first stanza, not much thought about it. I have more questions of this stanza than any analysis. For example, why did the cow die? Does the cow represent something? When he mentions the horns, does it seem to remind you of the devil? So is the cow the devil? But why would the devil be involved in this poem? Well, that’s kind of easy to answer. Is it the drinking that is making the speaker in the first stanza and Terence to be singing silly songs, which they in turn sing the cow to death? Or is the speaker referring songs as rash actions that make people do things that they regret, such as killing a cow? Or is the first stanza even that involved in the cow? Probably not, but that’s what I thought about it.
The second stanza I got more out of. Line 20-22 “Livelier liquor than the Muse, / And malt does more than Milton can / To justify God’s way to man.” The drink provides more answers than the Muse can, because the speaker is not relying on someone else to solve their problems. It allows people to see another side of themselves, what “God” made man to be. Man is not perfect, although we all try to achieve that perfection, liquor will bring out the worst in the person. What is ironic about that is that while a person is on the drink, they see the world in a more beautiful state. Well, some people. In this poem, Housman wants the reader to see that people can escape life by drinking it away, “Look into the pewter pot / To see the world as the world’s not” (Line 25-26) Or “Happy till I woke again. / Then I saw the morning sky: / Heigho, the take was all a lie;” (Line 36-38). By drinking, a person doesn’t have to live in a life of woe, but they can escape to their sanctuary. In this state, people can see mud as “lovely muck” (Line 35) and not worry if their tax is paid or if they have the buttons on their shirt put on right. They are oblivious of their problems, and what better way to live life?
The third stanza, I think this is the drink speaking. From when it was a wee little grapevine to a thief of souls. Yea, literally, the drink speaking. It gives the advice that “Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure, / I’d face it as a wise man would, / And train for ill and not for good.” (Line 46-48). What better way to train for ill than just drinking? Trying to erase the bad to make it good? I think, if I refer to this stanza as the plant speaking, the answer to Hannah’s question is that the grape is being planted into a place where despair is vast and hope is limited. So “ ‘Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale / Is not so brisk a brew as ale: / Out of a stem that scored the hand / I wrung it in a weary land.” (Line 49-52) is talking about how the grape may make wine? And that’s not as strong as ale, but still has the same effect. I think, that’s what I’m trying to get at. And last thing about why I think this is the drink speaking is Line 56 “When your soul is in my soul’s stead” people drink, and they get addicted to it. They become alcoholics and become dependent on it, so basically, a person just sold their soul.
I did not understand how this last stanza tied in with the poem, but when I read David’s post it was such an “AHA!” moment for me. The king becoming immune to the drink as he takes it little by little and living longer therefore foiling the plans of others to kill him sooner. Woof, that just totally made so much sense to me. But I guess I’m still kind of confused about this last stanza. “He killed all her killing store”? What’s that supposed to mean? Yuppers, that’s pretty much it. Have fun reading!
[Michael, I was talking to you at 11/12/whatever and you seem perfectly awake. Or perhaps you always seem this slow to me. :)]
I interpret this poem as a way to defend for what the speaker did in the past. The first stanza is a repeat of someone else's words about what the speaker was going on about. I'm guessing the speaker has been sad about cows and to drink himself some beer. (Well, doesn't have to be exactly about cows.)
So the speaker gets defensive and justifies alcohol as a method to relieve senses. It is a depressant after all. Too much will create a lot of fun, but "till I woke again" it's no longer fun at all. And he is back to being sad.
Because of that, poems are much nicer to work with because it does not provide a roller coaster of feelings and emotions and actions. While alcohol is very good at downplaying sadness, it is too bothersome to use. The speaker likes to work with poems more than alcohol. Alcohol is a kind of poison that fuddles with the mind.
I really like the way you described the poem David. Very helpful.
I don't think the cow has that much meaning behind it Thanh. Perhaps the other guy was like "you need to stop being sad about the stupidest things" and used cows as an example because it's hard to be sad about cows. Unless you're a starving farmer and your only dairy cow died.
Wow okay so I think that the "stupid stuff" is the (poetry? I'm not really certain on what Terence is selling) that the first speaker is trying out, because it's neither beer nor ale and is not getting him drunk.
Eh?
I looked online to try to help me make sense of this poem and I found a few interesting tidbits that may be of use to some other people as well. Firstly, the name Terence could be a reference to an ancient Greek playwright of the same name. He wrote six plays that have all survived to this day. I don't know why Housman would reference him, but maybe his plays were really depressing. He might have been using Terence as a discreet allusion and example of the melancholy prose he was complaining about.
Also, the first paragraph seems to pose a question to the poet. The speaker is asking why poets write about depressing subjects. Then, the rest of the paragraphs are dedicated to defending the poet, with the last paragraph being an example for the poet. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I read, and maybe it will help us all make some sense of this poem.
Thanh, the "he killed all her killing store" line you mentioned references the King consuming (killing) all the poisons of the world (the killing store).
OHHhhhh.. Okay, I took the poem too literally. After hearing the discussion in class and Michael's comment, it's poetry he's talking about.
Thanks Lisa and Matt for clarifying my cow and quote bonanza too. It all makes sense now.
I have a question about #4 of the Terence questions. It asks what the three aids for worthwhile living and I'm confused what they are. I thought maybe alcohol, poems with pain, and maybe light-hearted poems?? Anyone have any insight to offer me? Thanks in advance.
What do you know I am slightly puzzled by the same question. He barely mentions dancing at the begining of his part, after the quoted section. I was thinking 1. being merry and ignoring the pain, 2. using alcohol to dull the pain, and 3. taking the pain, expressing the pain, and dealing with the pain through poetry.
Thanks, Sam! That makes sense. :D
Glad to help. I was trying to think of something more fleshed out than the happy dancing, but nothing came to mind.
Post a Comment