Need help with some poetry.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I want to explore English poetry anywhere from the time of Chaucer to the Romantics -- that is, 1350-1800; the only ones I have perused or spent time with are Donne, Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Spenser. I like the first four a great deal; the last one really irritates me.

I do not usually care much about meter or rhyme, as some poets work extremely well with it, and others without. Also, while I mentioned strictly English poets above, I ask this in the spirit of breaking free from those confines.

In other words, just throw out some names -- your favorites, your most abhorred, whatever it be. I understand that what works for one does not necessarily imply that it will work for the other, but I figure that this is the best way to approach it. It is more exciting this way.

If you need clarification on any point you might be curious about, please ask.

mj (robert blake), Tuesday, 14 February 2006 04:48 (nineteen years ago)

Err, make that poetry written in English in the first sentence.

mj (robert blake), Tuesday, 14 February 2006 04:50 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_poetry

Might help. My only comment is that I don't like that Mr. Pope.

Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 14 February 2006 05:13 (nineteen years ago)

Reading poetry from way back is a hit and miss proposition. What strikes you as unreadable today you might go back to in a year and like a lot. You've really done well to go to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne and Milton first.

Among the early poets, I like John Skelton. He's feisty, somewhat of a dandy, and has very glossy feathers he loves to preen. So, he's rather fun. Sidney's sonnets are not as good as Shakespeare's, but they are good.

Herbert was a puzzlement at first, since he is so Christian and devotional. After I got more comfortable with that, I discovered he was a keenly sad and sincere poet, who poured a lot of his heart into his work. Herrick, another cleric, is a trifler, but many of his trifles are sweet and foolish (in the good sense of the word).

Pope can be damned hard to take. The best I can say for him is that he was the undisputed ringleader of the combative, competitive wits of his day and he had a quick, mean jab. Reading him can be like being trussed up and smacked around, even though he is superficially all politeness. He inspires a desire to hit back, which is frustrating, because he's dead.

Kit Marlowe didn't write much poetry that wasn't in his plays, but his poems are worth reading. Kit Smart is hard to find copies of, but he's very interesting - a scribbler, bawd-chaser, tippler, and eventual madman who wrote poems directly to God from the madhouse. Smart's much livelier than most of his contemporaries.

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 February 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

Have you thought of reading poetic history books? I've always found them pretty fun.

Also, for the elizabethans, you might want to read Eliot's book and then read the Duchess of Malfi.

kenche, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 21:45 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks Aimless; I figured that you would give me some leads. The Herbert, in particular, sounds interesting.

Have you thought of reading poetic history books? I've always found them pretty fun.

Could you name a couple that you have liked? It sounds like a good idea, as long as the author is excited about the subject.

Also, your Eliot recommendation is well-noted.

Kit Marlowe didn't write much poetry that wasn't in his plays

As you and Kenchen have pointed out, there were great writers who stuck all of their poetry into plays, which I keep forgetting; I probably should read more Marlowe while I am in this mood.

mj (robert blake), Tuesday, 14 February 2006 22:32 (nineteen years ago)

There are a lot of histories, but I like _A Critical History of English Poetry_ by Grierson and Smith. I haven't read Johnson's Lives of Poets, but there was a glitzy Lives of the Poets by Michael Schidt that came out a few years ago. I skip around in it, but it does a good job of contextualizing old poetic history and while it is more fatuous than the no-nonsense Grierson, it also has the benefit of coming later, so he can quote everyone else (mainly Eliot and Johnson). People don't like this b/c he's not as good at the Twentieth Century, but that's obviously not important here.

If you're at work, see here: http://www.luminarium.org/lumina.htm

kenchen, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 22:51 (nineteen years ago)

I've never heard of Kit Smart! I want to now.

I can't remember who called who called Rochester "the greatest of our second-rate poets" but it's true, I think, or nearly. Not that I'm qualified to say that! But there's a lot beneath the rage and buggery and impotence, even though the rage and buggery and impotence is so good that there doesn't even need to be? I think he'd be a great choice if you weren't too concerned with meter-mastery.

I like Richard Barnfield a lot too - his better known poems are these very homoerotic pastorals that were a big influence on the Shk Young Man sonnets, they're pretty light and pleasant to read but if you feel like bouncing some close reading at them they yield a surprising amount pretty fast. The earlier editions are wicked bowlderised tho so um watch out for that or something.

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 00:04 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks everybody! Much of what has been recommended or suggested sounds great so far.

GP -- speaking of Rochester, I am glad you mentioned him, because I have been meaning to read his poetry for ages. Sodom, as well.

I might revive this thread every now and then if the need arises.

mj (robert blake), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 04:48 (nineteen years ago)

I love the passion, immediacy and broken tortured syntax of Herbert - all strangely modern somehow:

THE COLLAR.

I STRUCK the board, and cry’d, No more ;
I will abroad.
What ? shall I ever sigh and pine ?
My lines and life are free ; free as the rode,
Loose as the winde, as large as store.
Shall I be still in suit ?
Have I no harvest but a thorn
To let me bloud, and not restore
What I have lost with cordiall fruit ?
Sure there was wine,
Before my sighs did drie it : there was corn
Before my tears did drown it.
Is the yeare onely lost to me ?
Have I no bayes to crown it ?
No flowers, no garlands gay ? all blasted ?
All wasted ?
Not so, my heart : but there is fruit,
And thou hast hands.
Recover all thy sigh-blown age
On double pleasures : leave thy cold dispute
Of what is fit, and not forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands,
Which pettie thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw,
And be thy law,
While thou didst wink and wouldst not see.
Away ; take heed :
I will abroad.
Call in thy deaths head there : tie up thy fears.
He that forbears
To suit and serve his need,
Deserves his load.
But as I rav’d and grew more fierce and wilde,
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling, Childe :
And I reply’d, My Lord.


Marvell is interesting too, I think.

Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 10:20 (nineteen years ago)

I sound really neutral in my Rochester praise above - I think he's swell! If you're allowed to read plays then The Man Of Mode (Rochester dramatised by Etherege) might be an idea too, it's pretty easily my favourite comedy ever I think.

Archel that poem is great!

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

If you google kit smart, call him christopher smart and you'll have better luck.

Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 16 February 2006 02:10 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.