Love and suffering

We continued “A View from the Bridge” today. Miller is above.

Alfieri is now used, partly like the Chorus in Greek tragedy to comment on the action and partly to move the action on several weeks to when Catherine and Rodolpho are going out together. Eddie is hanging around waiting for them to come back from the cinema and discusses with Beatrice his apparent worries about Rodolpho as a suitor and possibly husband for Catherine:

Rodolpho sings a lot in public.
He’s blond.

Beatrice changes the subject: Eddie and she haven’t been sleeping together for three months – what’s the reason for this? He evades the question: he’s not been feeling good.

When Catherine and Rodolpho return, Eddie sends Rodolpho away and tells Catherine that Rodolpho just wants to marry her to become an American citizen. (Might this be true?) He points out that Rodolpho is spending his money, not saving it or sending back to Italy.

Catherine is very upset and denies it: Rodolpho loves her.

We can see love emerging as another theme: love between two young people, between husband and wife, between parent (and Eddie and Beatrice are almost Catherine’s parents) and child.

Once Eddie goes, Beatrice gives Catherine a little lecture: she must behave more circumspectly around Eddie now she’s grown up. She’s a woman – she should behave like one. Catherine is uneasy at the implication behind Beatrice’s words.

Now Alfieri takes on a dual role: as narrator saying that Eddie now has “a destiny” and as a character, the local lawyer. The two roles merge seamlessly together – he turns from the audience and is apparently mid-conversation with Eddie, who has come to consult him. Eddie wants the law to help him against Rodolpho who, he says, is “not right” – he’s implying that Rodolpho is gay. Alfieri has to tell him that even if he were, this is not illegal. Then he gently suggests that sometimes “there is too much love for the daughter, there is too much love for the niece”.

Alfieri tells the audience that he “could see every step coming, step after step… I knew where he was going to end”.

We then read and discussed WH Auden’s “Museé des Beaux Arts”, in which the poet (above)praises the Old Masters – famous European painters from before 1800 – for understanding about suffering: that one person’s suffering (or indeed any strong emotion), however extreme, isn’t really that important to other people.

In the first verse, he discusses this in general. In the second, he applies this to Breughel’s Icarus, which depicts the fall of Icarus, who flew too near the sun so that the wax melted from his wings.

Auden starts with inversion:
“About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters”.

This informal, conversational beginning draws attention to the word “suffering” and also intrigues the reader – who were never wrong?

We noticed: the list of ordinary, mundane activities that go on while someone is suffering nearby; the contrasting word choice describing these two types of experiences; the almost flippant tone towards the end of the first verse. We also noticed the repeated structure of “they understood … how it takes place… how….there must always be…”.

In verse 2, the example of Icarus is mentioned in quite conversational language: “In Breughel’s Icarus, for instance…” with again that “how” structure – “how everything turns away…” linking the verses. The word “leisurely” suggests the calmness of the other elements in the picture as Icarus falls to his death: the ploughman, the sun and the ship which sails on regardless. Again we noticed the contrast in language: Icarus’s “forsaken cry” – desolate and abandoned – compared to the general feeling that it was “not… important”; and then “amazing… a boy falling out of the sky” compared to “sailed calmly on”.

We also discussed the rhyme – it’s not a rhyme scheme, since it has no regular pattern. Why is the rhyme not obvious? Because it’s not in a pattern; because of the enjambment (run-on lines); because of the irregular length of the lines. Why has WH Auden put it there? Well, who knows? But possibly just because he could; as a little structural constraint upon himself; to make his life more interesting. In an essay, there’s no point in mentioning the rhyme – or anything, come to that – unless you at least venture an opinion on the effect, so if you want to discuss it you might say that it adds a certain focus or unity or musical quality… whatever you feel yourself. Or you could just omit any reference to it.

Homework - write an essay either on the following question (probably on "Musée ") OR using another another question which suits a poem you want to write about:

Choose a poem in which the poet uses contrast to good effect (or to highlight a key idea? I can't quite remember what I said; sorry!)

Discuss how the poet uses these opposing elements and say how effective you find this use of contrast. (Or whatever it was that I suggested...).