Critical Review of Professor Crawford's lecture, 10/12

In today's lecture, Professor Crawford introduced the sonnet in its traditional form, and explored how authors have "overgone" the conventions of the sonnet to convey their message. Prof. Crawford grounded her presentation in last week's discussion of the blazon, drawing on the theories of women in traffic and triangulation, as well as on the OED as a resource.

Prof. Crawford began her discourse with a fairly detailed review of her last lecture on the convention of the blazon. She reiterated where the tradition come from, as well as the three theories (traffic in women, homosociality, and triangulation) that may help illuminate the underlying intentions of the writers of blazons. Prof. Crawford then progressed quickly through each of the blazons we read for last class, focusing on how each author not only nods to Petrarch's convention, but "overgoes" it, in the sense of both skill and audacity.

After reminding the class of these works, Crawford delved into sonnets with Billy Collins' piece. She described how Billy Collins' both mocks Petrarchian convention in style and in content, a theme that would reappear again and again throughout the sonnets at hand. Prof. Crawford then entered a more in depth analysis of Sidney's 'Sonnet IX', references two schools of critical thoughts on Sidney, and relying on an OED definition for "front" to further the class's nuanced understanding of the poem. Crawford then moved to Shakespeare's 'Sonnet 130,' Donne's 'Sonnet XVIII' and Milton's political sonnets, all the while prompting the class to really focus on how each of these authors works within and "overgoes" tradition. In these discussions, Prof. Crawford brought in some historical information, but remained highly focused on each poem and its diction, with reference to the OED.

From the beginning, I questioned Prof. Crawford's detailed reiteration of last class's material. However, it quickly became apparent how closely tied the blazon and the sonnet are. As well-established conventions, both are subject to both mimicry and reworkings. By drawing our minds back to how blazon-writers reworked or "overwent" conventions, she established her argument that sonnet-writers do the same. However, Prof. Crawford's preoccupation with last class's material meant that much of this material's class received less attention. While she made a clear argument for how Collins and Sidney overcame Petrarchan convention both in style and content, she was not able to lead the class to a clear consensus on the last line of Shakespeare's sonnet before rushing onto Donne. By Milton, each of the poems' relationship with Petrarch had to be glossed over without delving into diction in any meaningful way.

Granted, we cannot fault Crawford for her rushed final points--if her argument were truly an essay and not a lecture, she would have undoubtedly given due attention to every aspect. Even with a shortage of time and some redundant class contribution, Crawford's interaction with last week's collection of poetry and its focus on "overgoing" convention allowed her to a very clear for how writers of sonnets related to convention in much the same way as writers of blazon.

on Milton's sonnet "To Sir Henry Vane the Younger"

Milton's Sonnet XVII generally follows an iambic pentameter, as is most explicit in lines 3 ("The helm of Rome, when gowns not arms repell'd"), 6-9, 12, and 14. As the meter traditionally employed in epics, the iambic pentameter appropriately emphasizes Milton's praise of Vane.

Where the meter deviates from a strict iambic pentameter, Milton's use of alternative meter or foot substitutions complement more specific aspects of Milton's view of Vane.

Beginning with the short, stressed syllable "Vane", line 1 resembles a dactylic tetrameter where the two unstressed syllables of the fourth dactyl is subsumed by the comma at the end of the line. This dactylic meter boldly announces Vane as the subject of the sonnet and launches the sonnet on an energetic, forward-heavy motion.

In line 4, the accents fall on the word "fierce", "bold", and the first syllables of "Epirot" and "African". The spondee in "fierce Epirot" imbues the line with extra force.

In line 5, the pyrrhus created by the trochaic substitution in "Whether to settle" seems to echo the uncertainty that accompanies political decisions.

In line 11, the trochaic substitution in "thou hast" emphasizes Vane as an exceptional example.

In line 13, the spondee in "firm hand" explicitly emphasizes a heaviness.

Something to Touch Up-On

I enjoyed today’s reading of Sir Philip Sidney’s Sonnet IX (Astrophel and Stella).  I was intrigued by Professor Crawford’s comments on the movement from the external to the internal, in other words, how descriptions move from the skin, to the lips, through the mouth, and lastly out from the eyes. I also felt the sonnet functioned effectively in delivering the reader from the visual to the tactile. I was stuck (more like I tripped) on one line in particular:

12. “Of touch they are, that without touch, doth touch”

That’s a lot of touching, don’t you think? It must be important! I felt this line delivered more of that “aha!” moment than the couplet. If we are to take it that Astrophel is the speaker, he is essentially saying without Stella touching him, he is stimulated (sexually, I imagine), but cannot touch her back. Tragic, really, and we’re reminded of it when the word “touch” returns in the last line of the poem.

14. “Of touch they are, and poor I am their straw”

In this line, he refers to touch powder, that is, a highly flammable substance that ignites quickly through physical contact (say, with a straw). Sidney compares his physical, erotic, explosive reactions to their touch-less contact, with combustion.

That’s a pretty big compliment.

Thoughts on Milton's Sonnet "To Sir Henry Vane the Younger"

In Milton's "To Sir Henry Vane the Younger," the speaker addresses Henry Vane, a young man "in sage counsel old" (XVII, 1) who in the aftermath of Cromwell's revolution helped to temper the violence of war and guide the country in peace. In sonnets to Cromwell and Fairfax, Milton's speaker hammers in the theme that, while war can be glorious, it leads to an unsustainable cycle of violence "Till Truth and Right from Violence be freed" (XV, 11).

The speaker celebrates Vane, comparing him to a Roman senator who repelled enemies with "gowns not arms" (XVII, 3), as opposed to Cromwell and Fairfax, who preferred arms. Indeed, though Cromwell was champion of Puritanism on the battlefield, it was "on [Vane's] firm hand religion leans/In peace" (13-14). The speaker uses enjambment between 13 and 14 to emphasize the weight of religion leaning over one line into the next.

Vane, sharp in council, helped decide "whether to settle peace" (5) and "how war may be best, upheld" (8). Both his knowledge of peace and war come from an ability to balance what the speaker posits are the main "nerves" of each: for war, "Iron and Gold" (8), and for peace both "spiritual power and civil" (10). It's the wisdom and balance of both pairs that makes religion "[reckon him] her eldest son" (14).

-Conor

Analysis of Professor Crawford's Lecture of 10/5/11

In class last Wednesday, Professor Crawford lectured on the tradition of the Blazon. She argued that classical Blazon poetry was primarily about competition between men, rather than actually trying to seduce women. To argue this, she relied on the originally anthropological theory called Traffic in Women. She then incorporated this with the theories of Homosociality and Triangulation. Professor Crawford relied on historicist methods to contextualize these theories, describing the intense competitions of the ambitious young men of the courts.

These secondary sources, however, were only useful in so far as they illuminated readings of the primary texts. Professor Crawford focused on Campion, Herrick, and Shakespeare first, to show examples of the early English tradition of Blazons, as well as highlight ways each poet played with the already existing Continental tradition. She drew in the secondary sources to argue that each poet's experimentation with form constituted competition: poetic one-upmanship, in which the poet's primary interest is establishing himself, rather than seducing the object of the poem. I found this argument very convincing. The three theories Professor Crawford presented worked very well with the historical context she described. Yet, as we discussed in our seminar, she did not discuss the role of women in the poems very extensively. I was left wondering where women fit in to the picture-beyond being objectively described.

Professor Crawford finally discussed comparatively modern poems by Carolin Forché and Jean Toomer. She attributed each poet's lampooning or break with tradition to both one-upmanship, as well as reaction against the objectification of traditional Blazons (which, interestingly Shakespeare was also doing). Once again, I couldn't help but think there was more to probe in relation to women in these texts. While the theories Professor Crawford discussed provided a fascinating and convincing reading of the texts, I did not think that they were able to truly account for the role of women in English Blazons.

My Take on Professor Crawford's Lecture Concerning the Blazon Poetic Tradition

Professor Crawford's poetry comparison lecture was effective mainly owing to her incorporation of Eve Sedgwick's interpretation of homosocial desire. Crawford convinced me of the relevance of this theory to the blazon tradition almost as soon as she introduced the question of why the authors might have written the poems that they wrote—in this case, Robert Herrick's "Upon the Nipples of Julia's Breast" and "Contreblason du Tetin," by Clément Marot. By analyzing specific verses and identifying the vehicles and the tenor there within, it appeared to me that Crawford explained the impact of the poems in consideration, their divergences and their similarities, as they match up in the blazon style.

The weakest element of Crawford's argument was her decision to ignore the active role that women may play, or choose not to play, in the theory of homosocial desire. I agree that the main thrust of her analysis fell within the realm of masculine relations, yet I think it was a mistake not to acknowledge, with a short and subtle digression, the influence that a woman holds over these social relations. Also, she said the word "right" way too much. It became distracting. And on that (perhaps superficial) note, I would likewise advise Crawford to stop her attempts at a French accent when pronouncing words in that language. Her accent is awful.

Recap/Analysis of Prof. Crawford's Lecture of 5 October 2011

Professor Crawford's lecture on the blazon tradition in poetry began with a brief discussion of the tools and resources she utilized/utilizes while researching and analyzing. The OED and DNB were mentioned along with primary and secondary texts as general reference guides. For the blazon lecture, she utilized the OED, DNB, criticisms by Edie Sedgwick and Nancy Vickers and finally period and contemporary examples of the blazon by Petrarch, Campion, Herrick, Shakespeare, Forché and Toomer.

Her approach was methodical: she began with a discussion of the political conditions and historical context (16th Century France) in which blazons were penned along with a definition of what a blazon is or was: a way of securing relationships of power between men via women. She specifically mentioned the Petrarchan "Laura" poems as models of the blazon and introduced the three main ideas which formed the framework of her analysis:

1) Traffic in Women: As per the ideas set forth by Levi-Strauss that argue that the use of women as commodities or objects have less to do with women than with the cementing of male power.

2) Homosociality: Socializing with people of your own sex.

3) Triangulation: the competition between two men for the attention of a woman.

She continued into the specificities of the blazon anatomique with examples of the type, noting that the poems being read were the ones that "won," hence their survival into the 21st century. As usual, the class was encouraged to ask questions, comment freely, and lend their observations to the discussion.

Professor Crawford is at her strongest when she is free to operate both within the text during close reading and outside of it in its context. Her lectures only seem to slow when the observations that are being made start to stagger the tempo and the energy of the class: in general, when the same observations are repeated or rephrased by others or when the rare inanity comes out of left field.

--K.S. Anthony