For this, the first reading response, we're taking a look at Marvell's "Horatian Ode Upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland." This will be somewhat anomalous in the class, since we'll mainly be reacting to dramatic scenes, characters, plot-lines, genres, and other elements of Restoration and 18th-c. drama.
Nevertheless, the poem is a fascinating one, as we started to see in class. Here are some potential areas to write about:
1) Tone -- choose a moment in the poem that you think is either tonally complex or tonally confusing. (Tone refers to the speaker's apparent attitude toward his subject, so genres like satire often have a clear and distinct tone, while other genres may or may not be clear.) Comment on what you think is complex or confusing.
or
2) Ending -- How does this poem end? Why does it end this way?
or
3) edited vs. unedited -- what difference does it make, as a reader some 350+ years removed from this poem, to have a version with notes versus without? Select a specific spot where this difference is made clear or has a potential impact. OR, to what degree does the subject matter and poetic mode of this poem still matter? Does a revolutionary poem from England's failed experiment in republicanism have anything to tell us in today's political climate?
or
4) As with every reading response, you can always respond to something not covered in the prompts above. Did any lines seem particularly interesting or memorable to you? Does this poem remind you of something else? Feel free to react in any free-form way you choose.
Portrait of Hannah Cowley - artist & date unknown
Portrait of Hannah Cowley - artist & date unknown
According to the Encylopedia Brittanica, a Horatian Ode is normally written in praise of a person, usually a friend. Marvell’s “An Horatian Ode upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland,” however, can be read simultaneously as praise and as just the opposite. In fact, when I first read it, I assumed the poem was a bitter criticism of Cromwell, full of tongue-in-cheek praises meant to convey thinly veiled scorn. The tone is highly unclear; while I personally feel that the tone is sarcastic, there is plenty of room for the opposite opinion. Lines 9 through 20 were particularly ambiguous. The phrase “the inglorious arts of peace” can be read sarcastically, but perhaps it really is praise; perhaps the writer really does believe peace is inglorious. It is also unclear (at least to me, with my meager knowledge of the history of the time) what the poet means when he says that Cromwell was like the lightning, “through his own side / his fiery way divide.” Was fighting the Irish considered fighting his own people? Or is the poet referring to the civil war beforehand? Regardless, is this description of Cromwell dividing his own side, the place where he was “nurst” meant as praise or criticism? The metaphor of lightning on the surface sounds like a positive description for a warrior. But breaking through the thing which nursed you sounds like betrayal. Then comes an ambiguous statement, which, dependent on tone, can be interpreted as praise, sarcastic condemnation, or something else altogether. “For tis all one to courage high, / The emulous, or enemy; / And with such, to enclose / Is more than to oppose;” (ll 17-20). Does this stanza mean to praise Cromwell for facing his neighbors or his previous allies with the same courage that he would face an enemy? Or is it condemning him for striking his own people – is “courage” meant sarcastically? And what exactly does it mean that “to enclose is more than to oppose”?
ReplyDeleteIn the light of Marvell’s life story/political position, the fact that he seems to waver between praises of both Charles and Cromwell makes sense. He treats the events of the Revolution and its aftermath as very noble, and through rose-coloured lenses-- for example, he claims that the Irish gracefully accepted their subduction by Cromwell, when that was very much not the case.
ReplyDeleteI also might have read the poem incorrectly, but to me it does seem as if Marvell refers to Charles more often than he does Cromwell-- at least in the first seventy lines or so.
I’m still confused as to who the gardener is--I’m still reading him to be Charles, especially after reading that “bergamot” is the “prince’s pear,” and the poem continues onward from there to the king’s execution--in a narrative sense, it wouldn’t make sense for a description of Cromwell to cut Charles’ story in half (although this is a poem, not a story). Additionally, it was Charles who ruined the work of Time--i.e. a monarchy that’s meant to last forever, or at least for a long time--by screwing up the government, albeit accidentally; the gardening would be a metaphor for his seemingly benign intentions? His ancient rights of kings were of no use to him once the revolutionaries gained too much power. Cromwell’s intercedence into the narrative here would be at “greater spirits,” as he (Cromwell) is described to have a greater capacity for leadership, and therefore Charles must make room for him in the world (presumably by dying). Once Cromwell enters, Charles becomes a “royal actor,” and is no longer the ruling power.
Interestingly, that gruesome event is described to be somewhat regal. I’m interpreting he who “bowed his comely head” and didn’t “call[ed] the gods in spite/to vindicate his helpless right” to be Charles-- the passive description continues making him into a martyr, just like the Eikon Basilike. However, I’m not sure how this perspective is appropriate in an ode to Cromwell.
Something that interests me is that both Cromwell and Charles are compared to caesars, and the entire country to Rome. Cromwell is said to blast away Charles’ laurels, and yet he treats the battle with the Irish and Scots as Caesar’s with Gaul, and his coin (as we saw in class) dressed him as a Roman emperor. Charles’ head is also said to mark the land of the “new empire/country/government” just as a dismembered head was found in Rome to mark it as the capital of the Empire--blood and death, all gruesome yet the foundation of many a state. The funny thing is that Britain was quite averse to Roman conquest (unless I’m completely misconstruing my memory of history classes), so the fact that Marvell is drawing a very strong comparison between the two is odd, to say the least. I wonder if this points to a disapproval of this whole affair by Marvell and others like him, or if the imagery is purely poetic and Classical in nature and has nothing to do with politics (which I find difficult to believe, personally).
The poem is jarring pretty much right away because although it is named for Cromwell less than halfway through it transforms into a poem about the execution of the king. Marvell manages to never give the reader the right adjectives to understand his exact stance. On the one hand he seems to be writing in praise of Cromwell but then he describes Cromwell’s almost blasphemous breaking of the ancient right of the king. However, Marvell then defends Cromwell by pointing out that, because the king was not preforming his role as he should there was a vacuum and this allowed Cromwell to step in as a rightful (read: more able) ruler. So he was a usurper in the sense that he overthrew a monarchy, but the monarchy seems to have overthrown itself.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very Hobbesian idea. Hobbes believed that the only a ruler can be overthrown is if he fails to protect his people’s lives, and a more able protector comes along. After all Cromwell was the Lord Protector (although Cromwell was not what Hobbes had in mind… I am not really sure what Hobbes had in mind, but I digress). In this was Marvell both accuses and acquits Cromwell. I am confused as to what Marvell means by the lines “What field of all the civil war/ Where his were not the deepest scar?” this could be a harsh indictment of Cromwell, that he has caused the most harm the state, or it could be a celebration of Cromwell’s contributions to the war. Basically, is Cromwell a power hungry bully or the true Lord Protector?
Then it gets even more confusing because suddenly the read is with King Charles. Marvell compliments the king’s demeanor during his trial and execution (sounds a little similar to propaganda because didn’t Charles refuse to accept the legitimacy of the proceedings? I can’t imagine how he could do that silently) It is interesting that in a matter that tore the country apart, Marvell has taken an almost ambivalent approach.
More questions: is the Horace of the Horatian ode the same Horace who wrote blame poetry? Because that might add an interesting dynamic. Also who are the architects that run on line 70? Is that parliament seeing how shaky their power is after a precedent of execution of a king? Or is their power stronger now?
This poem has a number of layers. On the surface it is - as the title claims - an ode to Cromwell. Marvell does admit in stanza seven that, "much to the man is due”.
ReplyDeleteAfter my initial reading of the text I thought the poem was simply a tribute to Cromwell. It seemed clear that Andrew Marvell believed in Cromwell’s cause and gave him high praise for his efforts.
However, upon further analysis, I found that my first reading of the poem had been superficial and naive. While Marvell does praise Cromwell’s leadership, the praise is juxtaposed with descriptions of brutality and violence. I understood these juxtapositions to mean that the praise is undermined by the nature of Cromwell’s actions.
One example of where I saw this was in line 33, that “by industrious valor” he climbed and then in the following line it says that he ultimately ruined “the great work of time” which refers to his reshaping of British government. He “cast the kingdoms old into another mold”.
The tone of the poem is ambiguous, it leaves the reader questioning whether Marvell believed in the monarchy and divine rule, or whether he wanted to see political change in England. I don’t think Marvell necessarily hails Cromwell as a hero or condemns him as a villain.
The poem contains unpleasant imagery. Perhaps this is because Marvell is praising the cause but simultaneously condemning the methods that Cromwell employed in order to achieve his goal.
Lines 69-72 refer to the execution of King Charles and express the tension perfectly:
“A bleeding head, where they begun,
did fright the architects to run;
and yet in that the State
foresaw its happy fate!"
The execution was horrific to the people, nevertheless it was symbolic of a new government in which the people were represented.
The poem ends on a cautionary note:
“The same arts that did gain
a power, it must maintain.”
These words a perhaps a warning to Cromwell that whatever power he has gained was founded upon fear and therefore to maintain his power, he must continue to frighten the people into submission. Once the path of brutality has been chosen it is difficult to switch to a more moderate path while maintaining that authority.
While this poem mainly depicts the victories of Cromwell and the death of King Charles, Marvell begins and ends with seemingly unrelated passages. The Ode begins by stating that a certain “forward youth” must abandon his intellectual pursuits in favor of war. It ends by addressing “War’s and Fortune’s son”.
ReplyDeleteThe “forward youth” described in the poem’s opening stanza seems to be merely a means to segue into the topic of war, and then to Cromwell. The youth may have been intended as a contrast to Cromwell, possibly even as a means of portraying Cromwell in a negative light. Although the youth is described as forward, or brash, he is an intellectual: the Muses are “dear” to him; he sings and reads books. I’m not sure if the reference to numbers (his numbers languishing) refers to mathematical pursuits or a number of likeminded youth. In stark contrast, Cromwell is described as as “restless” and “fiery”. Coming from the intellectual Marvell, this comparison seems to reflect poorly on Cromwell.
The youth, according to Marvell, must leave his studies to go to war. Whether the youth is fighting for or against the New Model Army is not implied. I think that the youth, who appears only in the first two stanzas of the Ode, is intended only to introduce the concept of war. It’s an unusual opening, and the poem could just as easily opened with the third stanza: So restless Cromwell could not cease…
The poem’s ending is just as incongruous. After detailing the threat Cromwell poses to the world at large, Marvell seems to address the reader as Thou. As he does throughout the Ode, Marvell declines to clearly identify the subjects of his pronouns. Whoever “Thou” is meant to refer to, Marvell calls him “War’s and Fortune’s son”, and adds that he continues to march with a sword. He ends the poem by stating that besides the sword’s power to frighten darkness, it must maintain “the same arts” that it used to gain power. Although the wording is unclear, I think Marvell is saying that acts of military force are required to keep power once it has been way. In this way, Marvell begins and ends his Ode to Cromwell with general statements about war.
We discussed in class the possible meaning of the "scars" in the poem. It seems unclear whether the scars belong to Cromwell or the nation. It seems fitting that since Cromwell is the one who's been fighting in battle for his country, that he suffered most from the Civil Wars. The position he takes on when he returns from battle victorious comes along with those scars naturally acquired during the battle.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of An Horation Ode is interesting- it focuses on the many enemies of the new Republic and the ways in which Cromwell is expected to protect it after his victory. As discussed in class, it is a bit unclear what the word 'Pict' means, but it's possible that it refers to Scotland- which was the next greatest threat against the new Republic.
The poem seems to rely heavily on the expectations that arise for Cromwell after his victorious return- he can't afford to lose a battle after he comes back. His reputation is that of a hero who brought glory to England.
In the last part of the poem, Marvell suggests that Cromwell shall fight the battle with him sword raised upward in fighting the "spirits". At the same time though, Cromwell is unable to lower his sword back down after it has been raised since it must maintain its power, which I believe corresponds to the overall expectation of continued greatness from Cromwell.
The last 5 stanzas' comparison of Cromwell to Caesar, which allows for a segue into allusions to other ancient or medieval elements -- Hannibal, the Pict, the Caledonians — invites a reading that completes this strange poem on unsure footing regarding the positive or negative associations wrapped up in the Cromwell figure. While at first, Cromwell as imperial ruler at seem to make the case for a formidable victor, the question preceding the Caesar reference, "What may not others fear/If thus he crowns each year?" (may bear the overt suggestion of Cromwell's strength) can be read as a sort of cautionary pronouncement of the ends Cromwell may go to, or the tactics he may use in seeking victory. He is Caesar, but "ere long,” which may mean long gone, suggesting that the fate of the failed Caesar, long dead and defeated, is the destiny that awaits Cromwell. He may be asserting the power of his empire, but, in the process he becomes a destructive megalomaniac, a Hannibal from which the ancient institutions “sad/shrink.” This allows for the last 2 stanzas to be read not as one dimensional laudatory notes, but as a melancholy reproach of a not unimpeachable, out of control leader. Despite the death and destruction he initiate, Cromwell does “March indefatigably on,” indeed making him a son of War, and of the inevitable Fortunes that await all blood-soaked men. He will go down with his sword, but he will go down: “for last effect,” as the “last” will come, eventually. The final stanza, and even more so the last line of the poem is unequivocally cautionary: “A power, must it maintain” can be read as nothing but illusory to the inevitable end that awaits when a ruler uses the means that Cromwell has employed to subdue peoples. This Horatian Ode is most confoundedly not one of that genre at all. Ultimately, one is forced to recognize that this piece is neither commendatory nor laudatory, but uncomfortably disarmed by Cromwell’s actions.
ReplyDelete