14.07.2013 Views

ENG LYRIC POETRY.pdf - STIBA Malang

ENG LYRIC POETRY.pdf - STIBA Malang

ENG LYRIC POETRY.pdf - STIBA Malang

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4<br />

CAROLINE AMUSEMENTS<br />

But thou art gone, and thy strict lawes will be<br />

Too hard for Libertines in Poetrie.<br />

Thomas Carew, “An Elegie upon the death of the<br />

Dean of Pauls, Dr. John Donne”<br />

For most readers of seventeenth-century verse, Caroline poetry immediately<br />

conjures up a set of adjectives, and almost all have to do with some aspect of<br />

courtly artifice: precious (containing echoes of the French “précieuse” to denote<br />

the literary and intellectual fashions that arrived from France with Charles I’s<br />

bride, Henrietta Maria); decorative (to suggest concern with surface detail, like<br />

the flow of a gown); conservative, even effete in its celebration of the king and<br />

the ceremonialism of the English church as it emerged under Archbishop Laud.<br />

Caroline poetry, we learn, is pre-eminently graceful and lyrical, conceived at a<br />

moment in history when singing and “musing” kept especially close company,<br />

but not a poetry of great intellectual substance. The Romantic critic, William<br />

Hazlitt, gave this view a conveniently precise formulation when he located<br />

Caroline verse within a larger narrative recording the decline and fall of English<br />

poetry from the Renaissance to the late eighteenth century. Poetry written under<br />

Elizabeth, Hazlitt urged, was a poetry of the “imagination.” Poetry written in the<br />

time of Charles, he noted, invoking the other half of a dialectic nearly sacred to<br />

the Romantics, was a poetry of “fancy.” And for Hazlitt, the slide only continued,<br />

through the “wit” of the Restoration to the “mere common places” of the<br />

eighteenth century. 1<br />

Fewer readers today would overtly subscribe to Hazlitt’s general scheme,<br />

although influential versions can still be found even among recent literary<br />

historians. 2 The presence of Milton alone must give us pause, we are often<br />

reminded, to say nothing about either Herbert, whose Temple (1633) was<br />

published while Charles was on the throne, or Marvell, who began as a late<br />

Caroline. But other than a zealous Puritan perhaps—a not insignificant “other”<br />

as Caroline England especially came to understand—who would want to deny<br />

91

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!