Gerard Manley Hopkins

Poem: Spring and Fall
Poet: Gerard Manley Hopkins

Spring and Fall

to a young child

Márgarét, áre you gríeving
Óver Góldengróve unléaving?
Leáves, líke the thíngs of mán, you
Wíth your frésh thoughts cáre for, cán you?
Áh! ás the héart grows ólder
Ít will cóme to súch sights cólder
Bý and bý, nor spáre a sígh
Though wórlds of wánwood léafmeal líe;
And yét you wíll weep ánd know whý.
Nów no mátter, chíld, the náme:
Sórrow’s spríngs áre the sáme.
Nor móuth had, nó nor mínd, expréssed
What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
It ís the blíght mán was bórn for,
It ís Márgarét you móurn for.

A young girl named Margaret weeps to see the falling leaves. Our poet watches, and speaks to her, or imagines himself speaking to her. Her tears for the leaves he sees as signifying a broader sympathy for “the things of man.” She is still young enough to weep for these, is not yet inured to it, deadened by familiarity: “as the heart grows older / It will come to such sights colder / by and by.” Or is she immune to this desensitization? “And yet you will weep and know why.”

She will still weep, but not over leaves, for it was never leaves that were the source of her weeping. “Sorrow’s springs are the same.” There is only one source of true lamentation, and if we appear to grieve over the intimation of winter, that is only an outward name we give to the one true sorrow, “the blight man was for”:

It is Margaret you mourn for.

The title is, of course, a pun: to spring, to leap, and then to fall. Spring: the “fresh thoughts” of the young child. Fall: the growing older, colder. Yet the spring of the child is meeting the fall, there is not spring followed by fall, but spring and fall intertwined and inextricable. And indeed the very fall is the source of “Sorrow’s springs.” The seasons change, but the fact is eternal; once again:

It is Margaret you mourn for.

Addendum (October 24, 2016)

After spending more time with this poem, it occurred to me that the above misses the essential fact: Margaret is not the true subject of this poem. It is rather the speaker whose tears we see most vividly. The key is the line:

And yet you will weep and know why.

How does he know that Margaret will weep, and that she will know her weeping’s cause? Only because he himself is weeping over himself, and knows it. In just the same way he knows that her heart will grow colder to the falling leaves. In both instances, he is projecting his own development onto her. We may even imagine he is totally wrong about Margaret, about her present and about her future. It does not matter: the question is why he thinks of her in this way. Once we think to ask that question, we, too, “know why.”

Poem: [As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame]
Poet: Gerard Manley Hopkins

As kíngfìshers cátch fìre, drágonflìes dráw fláme;
As túmbled óver rím in róundy wélls
Stónes rìng; like éach tùcked stríng tèlls, éach hùng béll’s
Bòw swúng fìnds tóngue to flíng òut bróad its náme;
Éach mòrtal thíng dòes óne thìng ánd the sáme:
Déals òut that béing índòors éach òne dwélls;
Sélves—gòes itsélf; mysélf it spéaks and spélls;
Crỳing Whát I dó is mé: for thát I cáme.

Í sày móre: the júst màn jústicés;
Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his góings gráces;
Ácts in Gód’s èye whát in Gód’s èye he ís—
Chríst—for Chríst pláys in tén thòusand pláces,
Lóvely in límbs, and lóvely in éyes nòt hís
To the Fáther thróugh the féatures óf mèn’s fáces.

This poem arouses in me a curious emotion, something like a nostalgia for Christianity, only it cannot be true nostalgia, for I have never been Christian. Nor indeed religious at all: though I grew up in a nominally Jewish household, I was an atheist from the moment I was competent to form my own opinions, and my “religious” growth from that point on was primarily a matter of coming to reject merely “cultural” Judaism as insipid, a walking, mocking skeleton of the faith that once invigorated it.

Yet there remains something in me—perhaps not the best part of me, perhaps it is only the nihilistic, world-weary, rest-seeking part of me—nonetheless there is some part of me that longs for a kind of Christianity, that longs to be able to acknowledge my wretchedness before the glory and mercy of God. Why, exactly, I should feel this, I do not know, but may guess. I suspect that it would allow me to view what I recognize as wretchedness and smallness as perversion of something purer, and not as all there is. Yet I know it is all there is; thus Christianity is closed to me. Whence the nostalgia.

As I said, it is only a part of me that knows this longing, because only a part of me views myself as wretched, and not necessarily the best part. It is only when that part is stirred that the nostalgia comes—and this poem stirs it.

The octet of this poem reads as a great affirmation of life, of a kind of self-reliance: “each hung bell’s / bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name.” The world expresses itself with inexhaustible beauty. And after all, is it not expression we want. Here Emerson:

For all men live by truth, and stand in need of expression. In love, in art, in avarice, in politics, in labor, in games, we study to utter our painful secret. The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression.

The octet, taken by itself seems enough. But immediately it is shown not to be enough: “I say more.” And what is the more? Precisely that man does not merely express himself, but that he “acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is— / Christ—”. Now all this self-reliance of nature seems small, and seems small precisely because it is mere self-reliance. Thus it lacks in loveliness, the lovely flickering of Christ’s features like flame through our faces.

Here a word on the metrical side of this poem, which I have heretofore avoided, is requisite. The poem’s first line is perhaps the most perfect line in the history of English poetry, with its subtle interactions between the dipodic rhythm and alliteration (king/catch and drag/draw alliterating for primary stresses; fish/fire/flies alliterating on the secondary stresses) that are then carried upward by the line-ending clashing accents (draw flame), with “flame” picking up the alliteration of the secondary stresses and giving it completion. It is a line of unparalleled mastery, a miracle, the greatest advertisement imaginable for the expressive powers of sprung rhythm.

Yet in its own way the final line is equally a miracle. It is a miracle precisely because it violates the expectations of sprung rhythm. For, if sprung rhythm rests on one requirement, it is that a stress is a stress. Lines in sprung rhythm will happily require the demotion of normally stressed words to mere secondary stresses (e.g. “fire” in line one), but only rarely is a normally unstressed syllable heightened to take on a stress. Precisely this, however, occurs not once but twice in the final line of this poem. By the principles of pure sprung rhythm, the line should have only three primary stresses: Fath-/feat-/face-. But the poem demands that it have five stresses, so “through” and “of” must be promoted. The result is a line that is extraordinarily light, diaphanous, the opposite of the density at which Hopkins excelled. The first line tells us of kingfishers catching fire and dragonflies drawing flame, but it is only in this final line that we see the true flickering of the divine flame.

It is unbearably beautiful, so beautiful that the sestet makes the octet seem paltry, destroys all satisfaction it once gave. In so doing it reawakens the main anxiety I have about self-reliance in a world without God or natures. For even Emerson, in singing self-reliance, insists that what is found in the end is impersonal, even if we must tunnel into ourselves to find it. He does not call this impersonal by the name of “Christ,” but structurally his thought mirrors Hopkins’ in this poem. And next to this beautiful impersonal, this impersonal that lacks all the flaws and partialities of this wretched body I am, what joy is there in the now meager self-reliance of the kingfisher and dragonfly—a self-reliance, note, that is equally enjoyed by the lifeless stone? It is in this that brings to the fore my latent nostalgia.

I do not mean to endorse it, nor to reject it. It is an aspect of myself with which I am still coming to terms. This poem has done me the service of making it apparent.

Poem: [No worst, there is none. Pitched past pitch of grief]
Poet: Gerard Manley Hopkins

My previous attempts to scan this poem were produced under doubly disadvantageous conditions. First, at the time it was the only Hopkins poem I had attempted to scan; in other words, I was a mere beginner. Second, I did not realize the volume I own of Hopkins’ poetry, the 1948 third edition of Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins, published by Oxford University Press (which I found in a lovely local used bookstore), contains extensive notes, including Hopkins’ own markings of his poems. Since those attempts, I have rectified both of these issues. Here is the fruit, what I believe, with some confidence, is the proper scansion of this poem:

Nó wòrst, thére is nòne. Pítched pàst pítch of gríef,
Mòre pángs wìll, schóoled at fórepàngs, wílder wríng.
Cómforter, whére, whére is your cómfortíng?
Máry, móther of ùs, whére is yóur relíef?
My críes hèave, hérds-lòng; húddle in a máin, a chíef
Wòe, wórld-sorrow; on an áge-òld ánvìl wínce and síng—
Then lúll, then léave òff. Féry had shríeked ‘No líng–
ering! Lét me be féll: fórce I múst be bríef’.

O the mínd, mínd has móuntains; clíffs of fáll
Fríghtful, shéer, nó-man-fàthomed. Hóld them chéap
Máy who né’er hùng there. Nór does lóng our smáll
Dùrance déal with that stéep or déep. Hére! créep,
Wrètch, únder a cómfort sérves in a whírlwìnd: áll
Lìfe déath dòes énd and éach dày díes with sléep.

The differences are:

Line 2: from “móre pangs wìll” to “mòre pángs wìll”
Line 6: from “wórld-sòrrow; [R] òn an” to “wórld-sorrow; on an
Line 6: from “áge-old ànvil” to “áge-òld ánvìl”
Line 9: from “Ó the mìnd” to “O the mínd”

Line 2: Hopkins does not mark “pangs” as an outride, and I trust him in that. Given that all three syllables take some kind of stress, that means that pangs must take a primary stress.

Line 6: My first instinct to treat “on an” as outrides was correct, and my “correction” to include a rest was a mistake, as indicated by the fact that Hopkins marks all of “sorrow; on an” as outrides. This forces the further change that “age-old anvil” be treated as two dipodic trochees rather than as one dipodic first paeon. In hindsight, this change sounds better anyway.

Line 9: This change was not prompted by considering Hopkins’ own markings. Rather, I’ve simply come to think that “mind” has to take a stronger stress than “O.” This means that “O the” must be treated as an anacrusis, but Hopkins using anacrusis to open a sestet is not uncommon.

Poem: The Caged Skylark
Poet: Gerard Manley Hopkins

Taking a break now from Hopkins’ terrible sonnets, here is Hopkins in his uplifting mode, so far as it goes. My attempt to scan the poem is below, with commentary following. As usual, an acute accent marks a primary stress, a grave accent marks a secondary stress, and underlining marks outrides (all outrides follow Hopkins’ own markings).

As a dáre-gàle skýlàrk scánted in a dúll cáge
….Màn’s móunting spírit in his bóne-hòuse, méan hòuse, dwélls—
….Thát bìrd beyónd the remémbering hís frèe félls;
Thís in drúdgery, dày-lábouring-óut lìfe’s áge.

Though alóft on túrf or pérch or póor lòw stáge,
….Both síng sòmetímes the swéetest, swéetest spélls,
….Yet bóth dròop déadly sómetìmes ín their célls
Or wríng their bárriers in búrsts of féar or ráge.

Nót that the swéet-fòwl, sóng-fòul, néeds nò rést—
Whỳ, héar hìm, héar hìm bábble and dròp dówn to his nést,
….But his ówn nést, wíld nést, nò príson.

Man’s spírit wíll be flésh-bòund when fóund at bést,
But úncúmberèd: méadow-dòwn is nót distréssed
….For a ráinbòw fóoting it nòr hé for his bónes rísen.

Sprung rhythm allows for four basic types of foot, and, because it is dipodic, ten sub-variations within these four types:

Monosyllable: (1) /
Trochee: (2) / u | (3) / \
Dactyl: (4) / u u | (5) / \ u | (6) / u \
First paeon: (7) / u u u | (8) / \ u u | (9) / u \ u | (10) / u u \

Examples from “The Caged Skylark”:

(1) dull; line 1
(2) mounting; line 2
(3) dare-gale; line 1
(4) –yond the re–; line 3
(5) That bird be–; line 3
(6) n/a
(7) scanted in a; line 1
(8) n/a
(9) meadow-down is; line 13
(10) drudgery, day; line 4

I want to focus on Hopkins’ use of feet of types (1), (3), and (10). He uses each to excellent effect, demonstrating the expressive power of sprung rhythm.

Foot type (3)

Foot type (3) (along with foot type (9)) is one of the anchors of a dipodic rhythm. Both (3) and (9) create a pleasant and balanced rocking motion, whereas all other dipodic feet ((5), (6), (8), (10)) are “unbalanced” because of how their stresses are distributed. Hopkins especially likes to place feet of type (3) back-to-back, as occurs several times in this poem:

Line 1: dare-gale skylark
Line 2: bone-house, mean house
Line 9: sweet-foul, song-foul, needs no
Line 10: hear him, hear him

The use in the first two lines is especially powerful. The poem is an extended comparison between man and the skylark. In line 1, “dare-gale skylark” (the first two feet of the poem following the opening anacrusis) establishes the latter of these as courageous and noble, daring to take on the gale. (And with only a little imaginative extension, we can imagine the rising and falling motion of these feet as the movement of the skylark in the gale.) In line 2, we get a similar rich introduction to man and his “mounting spirit.” The absence of secondary stresses here gives the feeling of a continuous upward movement, echoing rhythmically the mounting of man’s spirit. But this then hits a brick wall with “bone-house, mean house,” where the back to back dipodic feet introduce a sense of falling—falling, that is, into our bodies. That is, because of the way the rhythm (and sense) of the first half of the line contextualizes these two feet, they take on a very different feel from the corresponding two feet in the first line, despite being rhythmically identical. Moreover, this very contrast deepens our experience of the meanness of man, for it brings us to feel this meanness in contrast with the very bravery of the skylark.

The overall effect of the first two lines is thus two-fold. The primary sense of the lines draws a straightforward parallel: just as the “dare-gale skylark” is reduced to life in a “dull cage,” so too “man’s mounting spirit” is forced to reside in a “bone-house, mean house.” But the rhythm produces a kind of semantic counterpoint, creating a second comparison between the meanness of man’s bone-house and the skylark daring the gale. This comparison makes us feel more acutely man’s wretchedness.

Foot type (1)

The use of monosyllables (foot type (1)) in sprung rhythm inevitably leads to clashing accents (back to back stressed syllables). Because each foot in sprung rhythm should be of roughly equal duration, this means that monosyllables must be dwelt upon, slowing down the poem and concentrating a great deal of emphasis in a small space. For instance, “dull cage” in line one disrupts the rhythm established by “dare-gale skylark,” just as the cage itself disrupts the skylark’s flight.

But the really striking use of monosyllables comes in line 11, where Hopkins places three back-to-back, leading to four consecutive stressed syllables: “own nest, wild nest.” The emphasis concentrated in these four words is tremendous, corresponding to the heightened emotional pitch of this line. We have just seen, in the final lines of the octet, the skylark and the spirit of man drooping in their cages. In the sestet, Hopkins is quick to assure us that he is not saying that the wild bird does not struggle, does not escape the need for rest, but notice where it rests: in its own, wild nest. The comfort is not perpetual vigor, but the ability to be at home where one rests. This sets up the final tercet, where we see that man’s spirit, when found at its best, is in a similar position: flesh-bound, but uncumbered.

Foot type (10)

This discussion will focus less on meaning and more on simply pointing out a metrical curiosity of this poem. While all 10 metrical feet surveyed above are allowable in sprung rhythm, I find that two of them are especially rare: (8) and (10). Indeed, I often use a desire to avoid feet of type (8) as an aid in scanning Hopkins. The reason is that these feet are strongly unbalanced (the dipodic dactyls are also unbalanced, but less strongly so) in where they place the stresses. I find it hard to explain just why, but they sound less natural to my ear than (7) or (9).

In this poem, however, there are three instances of foot type (10). Interestingly, Hopkins marked the slack syllables in each case as outrides. Since outrides are extrametrical and not counted in the scansion, in a sense these feet are technically of type (3), but their rhythmic effect is dramatically different from genuine type (3) feet, so I’m going to treat them as type (10) feet. Here they are:

Line 4: drudgery, day
Line 10: babble and drop
Line 14: footing it nor

It is worth noting that an alternate scansion of line 10 would put a primary stress on “drop” and a secondary stress on “down.” I avoid this for three reasons. First and foremost, because I think it sounds less good. Second (and in a sense this is just an elaboration of the first reason), because it would create a foot of type (8) (“drop down to his”). Third, because it would leave no explanation for why Hopkins marked the slack syllables as outrides. Every other instance in the poem is in a four-syllable foot (two of type (10) and one of type (7)).

Ultimately, I don’t see that the use of these type (10) feet contributes noticeably to enhancing the meaning of the poem, but it is interesting that this rare foot appears three times in this poem, and that (though this is no surprise, for it is Hopkins we are discussing) each time it enhances the rhythm of the line in which it appears.