PoemoftheWeek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

How would you suggest we do this in the case of this specific poem?

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.

Hasn’t Hecht deliberately echoed Goethe’s words here (albeit in negative form)? Isn’t the suggestion that the Pole was motivated by simple common decency in his refusal? We might expect the humanistic ideals of Weimar and Goethe or the ideals of a supposedly loving God to influence him but they don’t appear to. Nevertheless, (“But”) he refuses.

---

I think you are correct to bring in all the information at your disposal to make available for our disposal, as others do all the time, and because we DO want to extract the most and best from the piece. Like this, people may question the source of a decision before taking up the point. I know you do that when you attach references, and that, for sure, increases the requirement to get informed. Frankly, we have to, else sometimes the point we're making looks like it was plucked from thin air. Obviously, Poem of the Week is given 'a week'. Ktd made me chuckle when I read, "But, its only Tuesday!" (something like that). I am indicating here, for 'some' poems, maybe a week is simply not enough given the enormity of it all, unless of course some boundaries, and realistic expectations are set. That does not mean to give up, just we should be realistic. I could write about cross-purposefullness here, I think there is an onus on the writer to be as efficient as possible when presenting their point.

Quote:

---

More Light! More Light!

For Heinrich Blucher and Hannah Arendt

Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
"I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime."

Nor was he forsaken of courage, but the death was horrible,
The sack of gunpowder failing to ignite.
His legs were blistered sticks on which the black sap
Bubbled and burst as he howled for the Kindly Light.

And that was but one, and by no means one of the worst;
Permitted at least his pitiful dignity;
And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,
That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility.

We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.


-Anthony Hecht

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isagel

Virgil and ktd222 - I have to think about the idea as the two events as contrasting each other. I do not really see it, but I´ll try and look at it from that perspective.There are differences of course, but I do not see the same contrast as you do, just levels of horror.
Perhaps some knowledge about the first person will make it easier.

---

Isagel, I agree with you that one of the differences between the first and second scenes is the level of horror. The first one is an execution of a person who claims to be innocent. I have read it a few times but I cannot find any obvious clues that it is based on religious grounds. ('The Tower' reference made me wonder if it could be Thomas More but he was beheaded and no gunpowder was involved. However, what is important, I feel, is that the person is given the chance to pray and also, more importantly, he feels the need to pray; he still believes in and trusts his God.

In the second scene, we observe another execution but this time we are given specifics (Jews, Pole, Weimar, Luger), which helps us to pinpoint what is exactly happening (and why). In my opinion, the level of horror is greater because of the style of the execution (buried alive and shot) but what is more horrifying and strikingly different from the first incident is that there is a resignation in the actions of the Pole and the Jews.

I think the line 'Much casual death had drained away their souls.' refers to many murders they have been witnessing in the concentration camps; so many that they seem numb and surely enough to make them give up. Unlike the first person executed in the earlier part of the poem, they don't feel the need to pray or express their faith in their dying moments because they are, maybe, convinced that they are deserted by their God.

I think 'no light', which is repeated in the poem a few times, is used to emphasise this fact; ie, no divine hope, no trust and no belief.

Also, I think the fact that the German soldier is described merely as a glove, Luger and boot, signifies that his identity as an individual is not essential for this poem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isagel

About historical knowledge - does anyone know who the person in the first part was?

---

This is from Ellen Miller Casey – one of the links posted above:

“Though not a specific figure, the victim evokes such men as the Protestant martyrs Nicholas Ridley and High Latimer, whose last words before being burned to death in 1555 were, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man: we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as I trust shall never be put out" (Ann Hoffman 294).”

I hope that helps.

Thank you. That thing with the gunpowder that did not light up left me with a nagging feeling that I should know what person it was.

Quote:

---

Composed in the Tower before his execution
These moving verses, and being brought at that time
Painfully to the stake, submitted, declaring thus:
"I implore my God to witness that I have made no crime."

Nor was he forsaken of courage, but the death was horrible,
The sack of gunpowder failing to ignite.
His legs were blistered sticks on which the black sap
Bubbled and burst as he howled for the Kindly Light.

And that was but one, and by no means one of the worst;
Permitted at least his pitiful dignity;
And such as were by made prayers in the name of Christ,
That shall judge all men, for his soul's tranquility.

---

Did you all happen to catch the rhyming patterns at the end of each line?

The first ritual:
Stanza 1/ Stanza 2/ Stanza3
L1:execution/ horrible/ worst
L2:time/ ignite/ dignity
L3:thus/ sap/ Christ
L4:crime/ light/ tranquility

Look at the first ritual and see how L2 and L4 have perfect rhymes: time/crime, ignite/light, dignity/tranquility; while L1 and L3 of the first three stanza's do not rhyme at all: execution/thus, horrible/sap, worst/Christ.
I guess if you looked at the rhyming pattern in the context of the first ritual, you can see that, by the consistent rhyming pattern, there seems to be a certain order to the ritual, even though it displays martyrdom scene taking place. That order may be, if I had a guess, could be in the purpose of the ritual? But at the same time, the non-rhyme of L1 and L3 gives the first ritual a sort of disorder to the scene as well. What that disorder may be, who knows, but again, if I had a guess it would probably do something with the Light? Any comments?

Quote:

---

We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot

---

The second ritual:
Stanza4/ Stanza 5/ Stanza 6/ Stanza 7/ Stanza 8
L1:wood/ hill/ souls/ eye/ hours
L2:hole/ refuse/ chin/ earth/ mute
L3:down/ glove/ came/ glove/ air
L4:Pole/ Jews/ in/ death/ soot

But in the second ritual, you initially have the same rhyming pattern of the first ritual where L1 and L3 do not rhyme while L2 and 4 rhyme; until you reach stanza 7 in which L1 and L3 still are not rhyming, while L2 and L4 is a half rhyme: earth/death. Then moving to the last stanza(8) both L1 and 3, and L2 and 4 all do not rhyme. Look at how the disorder inside the order, if you well, becomes completely unravelled into disorder. The poem becomes discombobulated at the end, or should I say the second ritual becomes discombobulated. Why; I don't know; any comments? Does this fit with what ya'll been thinking about the poem?

I can't but appreciate a poet who is conscious about utilizing means other than his words to reinforce what is being put forth in the poem. Everytime I read this poem I find something new.

ktd

Let me summarize the rhyming pattern this way:

The L1 and L3 of each stanza don't rhyme except for the third stanza where worst/Christ I would consider a slant rhyme. So I would conclude that the L1/L3 rhymes are not pattern forming, except if you may consider that one slant rhyme to provide emphasis.

The L2 and L4 of each stanza do exihibit a pattern. They are full rhymes in the first six stanzas. But in the last two, stanzas 7 and 8, they become slant rhymes: earth/death and mute/soot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd

The poem becomes discombobulated at the end, or should I say the second ritual becomes discombobulated. Why; I don't know; any comments? Does this fit with what ya'll been thinking about the poem?

---

I don't know if I would call it discombobulated, but it does shimmer with emphasis. Another nice observation.

BTW, are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?

---

That would explain a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

That would explain a lot.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

Look at the first ritual and see how L2 and L4 have perfect rhymes: time/crime, ignite/light, dignity/tranquility; while L1 and L3 of the first three stanza's do not rhyme at all: execution/thus, horrible/sap, worst/Christ.
I guess if you looked at the rhyming pattern in the context of the first ritual, you can see that, by the consistent rhyming pattern, there seems to be a certain order to the ritual, even though it displays martyrdom scene taking place. That order may be, if I had a guess, could be in the purpose of the ritual? But at the same time, the non-rhyme of L1 and L3 gives the first ritual a sort of disorder to the scene as well. What that disorder may be, who knows, but again, if I had a guess it would probably do something with the Light? Any comments?

---

Oh but that's just perfect. Let's ignore the content, let's not even bother with foreign-sounding, complicated references like "Weimar" - I mean, who needs all that "bull" anyway, huh? Let's slander and harangue relentlessly anyone who dares suggest that history (of all things) might have any significance at all over and above being useless, irrelevant facts force-fed into our brains which are already saturated with who knows what sort of sludge, let's declare that all their years of patience and learning count for nothing, let's insult them, let's drive them all out of this putrid hellhouse, because frankly we'd rather just believe the simplest, most commonplace, most ridiculous untruths in the world, than go to the trouble of actually listening to a point of view different from ours, or making the effort to understand it, right? And then, when we've done all that, when we've silenced everything but our own ignorant, complacent, raucous screeches, let's sit back on our sainted laurels and discuss - (drum roll, please) - the rhyme scheme!! :nod:

Of course it makes perfect sense.

Virgil, what is a 'crixifiction'?

Look out ktd, she's got a noose and I don't think she's afraid to use it! :lol: (Just kidding, both of you).

To give ktd credit where credit is due, I thought some of her earlier comments on this poem were fairly insightful. I thought she was setting up some good observations about comparing the two narratives in terms of their place as rituals and examining the presence (or, more particularly, absence) of religion in the poem, and I think her look at the rhyme scheme is meant as an addition to these earlier remarks, not as an exclusive take on the poem.

That being said, ktd, I've been quite surprised while catching up to the happenings on this thread to see you so vehemently suggesting that history has no place in this poem, and I can see how such a suggestion might open you up to charges of being overly pedantic. A poem is not only form but content, and the content of this particular poem explicitly relies on some understanding of the historical contexts described. I don't really want to re-open a bitter debate, but remain puzzled as to why you are so invested in taking an absolute stance against admitting any kind of historical knowledge from outside the poem. If there's some way we could agree to discuss this issue in a respectful fashion, I would be interested to hear your response.

I'd like to take your analysis of the rhyme scheme as a starting point to my questions. You've nicely outlined how it works--half the lines rhyming in each stanza and half not, with an increasing use of slant rhyme as the poem progresses. I would agree with you that I think this connects with your earlier points about an increasing lack of ritual. What you've got here is how the poet is going after a certain effect, and what that general effect is. What you need is to connect this with why he is going to the trouble to create this effect. On the most basic level isn't it to draw a comparison between two moments in history? And wouldn't it then be helpful to know at least a little something about the two periods described? How else are we supposed to come away with anything from this poem? I don't see how you can actually leave history out of it altogether. I think you're also right to connect this shift in both ritual and rhyme to the "light" mentioned in the poem. Could you understand this mention of "light" without any special outside knowledge? Of course you could. Since it's an old metaphor for truth, knowledge, faith, and generally good things, almost any reader could probably appreciate that the light is fading to darkness in this poem--becoming (like the slant rhyme?) increasingly distorted and then extinguished. All the same, if you happen to know that the poem's title comes from Goethe's dying words, doesn't that add a dimension to the poem, and to the understanding of what the poet is about? Doesn't it add an extra layer of irony to the setting of the second scene at Weimar? It also gives us a hint that the poet is not only using the metaphor of light in its most general sense (though I think that's one level of meaning at play), but has taken pains to set up that light as a specific allusion to humanism--surely both a word and a concept that are deeply important in thinking about the way humanity is portrayed in this poem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

ktd

Let me summarize the rhyming pattern this way:

The L1 and L3 of each stanza don't rhyme except for the third stanza where worst/Christ I would consider a slant rhyme. So I would conclude that the L1/L3 rhymes are not pattern forming, except if you may consider that one slant rhyme to provide emphasis.

---

Ya, I was thinking that. Maybe it was the late night but when I say it outloud
I don't hear even the half-rhyme.

Quote:

---

The L2 and L4 of each stanza do exihibit a pattern. They are full rhymes in the first six stanzas. But in the last two, stanzas 7 and 8, they become slant rhymes: earth/death and mute/soot.

---

This one I have to disagree. Mute/soot, when I say it outloud don't even sound like a half-rhyme.

Quote:

---

I don't know if I would call it discombobulated, but it does shimmer with emphasis. Another nice observation.

---

If I take mute/soot as not rhyming at all then maybe not discombobulated, but definetly unravel.

Quote:

---

BTW, are you telling us the truth that you're not in college yet?

---

No. Believe what you want. I just love poetry.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

That would explain a lot.

---

Oh, you didn't come into 'Poem of the Week' to contribute to poems. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shanna

Oh but that's just perfect. Let's ignore the content, let's not even bother with foreign-sounding, complicated references like "Weimar" - I mean, who needs all that "bull" anyway, huh? Let's slander and harangue relentlessly anyone who dares suggest that history (of all things) might have any significance at all over and above being useless, irrelevant facts force-fed into our brains which are already saturated with who knows what sort of sludge, let's declare that all their years of patience and learning count for nothing, let's insult them, let's drive them all out of this putrid hellhouse, because frankly we'd rather just believe the simplest, most commonplace, most ridiculous untruths in the world, than go to the trouble of actually listening to a point of view different from ours, or making the effort to understand it, right? And then, when we've done all that, when we've silenced everything but our own ignorant, complacent, raucous screeches, let's sit back on our sainted laurels and discuss - (drum roll, please) - the rhyme scheme!! :nod:

---

Shanna, I not the only one doing the 'slandering'. Are you going to get at a point? BTW, Hecht created the rhyme scheme, not me.

Quote:

---

Virgil, what is a 'crixifiction'?

---

Shanna, you may not want to throw stones at typos unless you're absolutely certain you'll never mis-spell anything yourself. :D (This is the voice of experience talking). There's also the fact that you'd have to take on the fearsome Unnamable as well (not something I would relish given the fact we've got pics of him wrestling tigers with his bare hands) about "High Latimer" in one of his posts above (actually a typo I found quite amusing given the high and mighty quality of Hugh Latimer's rhetoric) .;)