In a message dated 2/11/2016 9:44:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"Also in The Hawk in the Rain collection is the poem "A Modest Proposal."
The idea that the hawk in The Hawk in the Rain might have been Sylvia was
perhaps novel, but there is little doubt that she has become a wolf in this
one."
In my previous post on "Re: Hughesiana" I explore the classical topos, that
man is a wolf to man.
Helm quotes from Hughes' first stanza: "There is no better way to know
us/Than as two wolves, come separately to a wood./Now neither's able to sleep
-- even at a distance/Distracted by the soft competing pulse/Of the other;
nor able to hunt -- at every step/Looking backwards and sideways, warying to
listen/For other's slavering rush. Neither can make die/The painful
burning of the coal in its heart/Till the other's body and the whole wood is
its
own./Then it might sob contentment toward the moon."
Helm comments:
"Plainer English in the first line might have been, "there is no better way
for us to know each other," so did Hughes mean more or something else than
that? He doesn't seem concerned about anyone else knowing them in the
rest of the poem so I'll assume not."
The logic of reciprocals is _VERY_ complicated. Surely the logical form of
1. Wolf 1 and Wolf 2 know each other.
is different from
2. Things are known above Wolf 1 and Wolf 2.
So, with Helm, I would also take the 'us' used by Ted Hughes, OM, as
'reciprocal'. Perhaps it may even be the case (I have a booklet published by
Blackwell, "The dialects of England," by Trudgill) that in Yorkshire, 'us'
means 'us each other'.
Helm goes on:
"The next seven lines seem straightforward which pretty much describes the
human condition for the more intense of us. I can understand "Till the
other's body" is desired, but "the whole wood"? At this point owning the
whole wood isn't clear, but see below.]"
Perhaps it's a typo (Plath typed this?) for 'the whole world'. People talk
all the time about 'the whole world'. It may be that in Hughes's
animalistic imagery:
iii. The world = the wood, the forest, the jungle.
As when we say, 'wildlife', 'in the wild', 'wild animals'. Note that
'woody' means lunatic, for some reason.
Helm: quotes the next stanza: ""Each in a thicket, rage hoarse in its
labouring/Chest after a skirmish, licks the rents in its hide,/Eyes brighter
than is natural under the leaves/(Where the wren, peeping round a leaf,
shrieks out/To see a chink so terrifyingly open/Onto the red smelting of
hatred)
as each/Pictures a mad final satisfaction." and comments:
"These wolves, Ted and Sylvia, retire to their individual thickets to nurse
their individual wounds. In line three we learn (gratuitously? "Eyes
brighter than natural under the leaves" -- surely that would be assumed.""
This may be implicatural.
While Grice's maxim is "Do not be more informative than is required" he
notes that when people are MORE informative than is required there is an
implicature (although Grice grants that the implicatures triggered by being
LESS informative than is required are always easy to catch). There's also
tautologies, like, "War is war", which 'surely would be assumed', but where the
implicature is directed towards some justifiability of some wars?
Helm:
"However, the next line perplexes."
Aristotle, quoting from Socrates, said that 'being perplexed' is the
origin of philosophy. Perhaps poetry appreciation, too?
Helm:
"Not only are both these wolves under leaves with their bright eyes, but a
wren is under there with them (one wren, two sets of leaves). What is the
wren up to? Is this the Day of the Wren, St. Stephen's Day? Is the wren
betraying one or both of these wolves? Is he doing that simply because it
is his nature? He seems to be more sympathetic than that. He is crying
out to see "a chink," presumably a bloody chink in one or both of the wolves
"terrifyingly open.""
The wren, incidentally, is a fascinating creature. I think Frazer spends
PAGES and PAGES analysing wren myths in England!*
Helm:
"In the next line "Onto the red smelting of hatred" strikes me as
awkward. Had Hughes written "To the red smelting of hatred" I might have
imagined
the wren warning these wolves that if they kept it up they were risking
their passion turning from love to hatred. "Onto" seems to reach for
something more abstract and less sensible."
And then there's "into" as when Millie says
iv. I'm into sport cars.
I never understand the need to prefix the 'to' with 'on-' or 'in-'. I guess
Heidegger didn't either. He wrote, "Introduction to Philosophy," not
"Introduction into Philosophy," or "onto philosophy".
Combos of prepositions can really trigger loads of philosophical
perplexities.
Helm:
"The last phrase, "as each pictures a mad final satisfaction" describes
each wolf imagining the defeat of the other -- something the clever wren might
well be shrieking his warning against. On the other hand he is more
probably warning against what is about to occur in the final stanza:] Suddenly
they duck and peer./And there rides by/The great lord from hunting. His
embroidered/Cloak floats, the tail of his horse pours,/And at his stirrup the
two great-eyed greyhounds/That day after day bring down the towering
stag/Leap like one, making delighted sounds." One is tempted to conclude that
Hughes is here recommending this peaceful alternative to their present violent
relationship. But that doesn't seem likely. It wasn't in either of
them (at least at this time) to become domesticated, to take on the patronage
of a great lord, to run at his side making delighted sounds (in their
poetry)."
I like the issue of domestication. Reminds me of that chapter in "Little
Prince" by S. E. where he tries to _tame_ a fox but fails. Wonder if Hughes
was familiar with that. As I recall, the fox says that being _tamed_ would
destroy his being a fox, almost!?
Helm:
"There would be no hope of owning the whole wood, for it would belong to
the Lord. One may think of Wyatt's "Whoso lists to hunt, I know where is an
hind . . .' In Wyatt's poem the deer Lord's preserve is dangerous: "And
graven with diamonds in letters plain / There is written, her fair neck
round about: / Noli me tangere, for Caesar's I am, / and wild for to hold
though I seem tame." But Hughes intends something wilder, two wolves laying
waste their powers not hunting (writing) but fighting each other. They are
not able to hunt, which would mean success of a different kind. They rend
each other while the wren shrieks. On the other hand they can only "duck
and peer" at the alternative. They are after all wolves and not greyhounds.
They make fierce and not delighted sounds -- in the wood, which is the
place where poetry is made. Although, if one thinks forward to Plath's Ariel
one sees that she hunted quite well in her fury.]"
Good. I never understood the real meaning of 'greyhound,' -- in other
languages, that breed is known as hare-hunter, no reference to coat colour,
which may vary!
Strange that Hughes does not mention that wolves are meant to be exctint
'in the wild' (or 'wood'). But since this can be assumed, perhaps he just
implicated it?
Cheers,
Speranza
* Fraser describes in his "Golden Bough" a wren hunting ritual recorded
since 1524 and still active! I love a wren and his song!
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
