As you prepare to talk more about "The Ruins of Rome" on Wednesday, and the related issues of how the British Empire understood and justified itself, think about the relationship of this text to the other readings for this course.
John Dyer, the author of "The Ruins of Rome" appears on our "Roll Call" list, but not the "The Short-List" or "The Survivors." Keep in mind that those lists are based on the frequency with which certain authors appear in college textbooks. You don't have to read very far into "The Ruins of Rome" to see that there are reasons, completely independent of the poem's intrinisic merits, why this poem doesn't get published in textbooks: it's long and it's full of allusions to classical antiquity that would require extensive footnotes. A landmark poem like Milton's Paradise Lost can get a pass on those kinds of problems--it's a deal-breaker for lesser works.
That said, respond to this post with a thoughtful reflection on the particular aspects of this poem make it important for understanding eighteenth-century literature. Would you categorize it as "essential and illuminating reading," "an interesting contribution to your contextual understanding," "an oddball text befitting an oddball literary period" or "further proof that--despite all the special pleading of Frye and Butler--late C18 poetry is a stagnant swamp"? Cite some lines from the poem and explain how they illustrate and support your characterization.
Deadline: Friday (2/27), 10am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would call this a contribution to my understanding of the period. From the very first lines of the poem I immediate sensed the author's sentiment of the sublime in looking and pondering the ruins of Rome. He finds the beauty in the "silent heap, her heroes all sunk in their urns; behold the prid of pom[...] obscured in dust even yet majestical." Dyer finds a sense of beauty and is moved by these dusty ruins because to him they symbolize the amazing power that the Roman empire once had. Yet even as they fill him with awe they also serve as a chilly reminder of the mortality of man. Dyer is aware that Britain's majesty will not always last "so time ordains[...] behold that heap of mouldring Urns[...] the fame Story tell." Dyer is wondering what Britain's legacy will be when their empire has once again become dust? He is confident that Britain is the safeguard of freedom and virtue but it may also fall prey to the same excesses that ruined Rome. I think that the poem is impotant because it is a contrast to poems such as Rule Britannia, it is evident that even during this high colonial period people were considering the eventual downfall of the empire. I'm not sure if I would say its essential but I think that it provides a differing perspective from the robustly prideful Rule Britannia.
Post a Comment