Despite my previously expressed frustration with poetry, the poems from Herman Melville’s, Battle Pieces, did not aggravate me in the slightest. The reasons for my newfound poetic appreciation are somewhat mysterious (even to myself), but still, I want to try to pinpoint exactly what is responsible for the abrupt change in my attitude.
The first (and most substantial) culprit for the conversion is undoubtedly the straightforwardness of the message in Melville’s pieces. This is especially evident in the poem, “The Portent.” The title could have been anything—from “John Brown,” to “An execution,”—but by calling it “The Portent,” Melville is stating outright that the action contained in this poem is in some way going to be an omen, or sign of something to come. Well, considering the actual poem, it goes, “Hanging for the beam, / Slowly swaying (such the law)” is “(Lo, John Brown)” (1-2, 6). Continuing, the last lines state, “But the streaming beard is shown / (Weird John Brown), / The meteor of the war” (12-14). So, in the piece, there is an insinuation that the actions and execution of John Brown are an indication of a coming war. Well, that fits nicely with the title, especially since John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, failed slave revolt, and subsequent execution are indeed “meteors” or warnings of the Civil War. Here is a poem whose title states what the action confirms, and is not a trick or lofty reflection. It is concrete, to the point, and all accomplished while retaining the tradition of wonderfully poetic language.
However, it is important to mention the role of the footnotes and how in this particular case, they are responsible for some of the piece’s clarity. They not only provide key snippets of historical context in which to place the poem, but also reveal, “Melville takes Brown’s raid as a portent of the Civil War” (2461). Obviously, reading that makes interpreting and understanding the poem far easier than if a reader were to go it alone. Still, not all the credit lies entirely with these notes. Reading the work in 2008 and not being an avid historian, I am not familiar with the exact dates or details of Harper’s Ferry and John Brown’s execution, but this is definitely not true of Melville’s contemporary readership. His audience would have been acutely aware these happenings since these were the day’s “front-page” stories. For that reason, in his time, the poem could stand alone, being clear without an explanative footnote.
Certainly, there are more reasons for my change other than the directness in Melville’s poetry, as I also like how he tackles a tangible subject matter (like war) rather than some cosmic musing. Yet, after the long-long-long story of “Benito Cereno,” the succinct and straightforward nature of these poems is what stands out the most. It is probably why I like them so much, because it is in this honest, frank, (and short) manner that Melville is able to make poignant and perceptive statements. He is not trying to confuse the reader, bury his message, or be obscenely ambiguous in an attempt to appear larger than what he is.
Melville, Herman. "The Portent" The Norton Anthology of American Literature Vol. B. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007. 2461.
2 comments:
I also enjoyed Melville's "Battle Pieces," even though I am not a huge advocate of poetry overall. Your mentioning of the footnotes is very true. However, this is why I love literature. It is a perfect combination and poetic interpretation of history.
I also liked the straightforwardness of "The Portent." I think Melville did a very nice job of taking the poetic language used in the "cosmic musings" (as you worded it) of poems about more abstract topics and applying it to a heavier, more real topic such as war. There is a good balance between the poetic elements of the language, while maintaining the directness of prose.
Post a Comment