"The Second Coming" by W.B. Yeats

turgon

As I detailed on the other thread, I read this poem today (with a friend) and I thought I would share my initial interpretation of it. Hopefully Im not too off and wont get shot down. Im uncomfortably aware that some Boardies have Doctorates in English poetry

Heres the poem (I put in line numbers):

[1]Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
[5]The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[9]Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
[13]Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all around it
[17]Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
[21]And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

My initial interpretation is heavily influenced by Harold Blooms opinion that the poem is based on the Russian Revolution.



The first two lines tell us that some controller is losing control of that which he administers. Some people maintain this is Mankind's loss of control over technology; but I disagree. I think this has something to do with how those who create ideologies [in Russia's case, communism] rarely keep a hold on those they have influenced. Things tend to "fall apart" as adherents become a little out of control. In the example of Russia, the communist regime there (the falcons) didnt adhere to Marx (the falconer) but rather just set up an oppressive statist regime.

Poetically, Yeats starts with 'Turning' to initiate the undercurrent of movement that is present in the whole poem, in my opinion.

Lines 3 and 4 (which provided the basis for the title of Chinua Achebe's first novel) reinforce this. I think the center refers again to the falconer (he being at the center of the gyre), and upon him losing power anarchy is loosed. I also think this "center" might be a reference to that political position, or even the political middle-ground. Those who would seek to negotiate or reconcile flounder.

The end of the first verse continues this theme. The sense of movement within the poem continues with "tide is loosed." Once again we see how control passes from superior to inferior, "The best lack all conviction...."



The first two and a half lines of the second verse come across as a jibe uttered in a sarcastic mocking tone. Its as if Yeats is dismissing their view that they will change the world; he seems to think that nothing will be different. I think this is the central theme of the second verse: how that which is promised will likely not come to fruition.

Then he mentions the Sphinx. I think he sees the Sphinx as the Communists' Christ; or what a second coming really means in terms of Communism. Note that the sphinx has the head of a man and a body of a lion. So what the revolution will entail is essentially the brains and intellect of humankind at the control of what is effectively a body designed only to hunt and kill. Also note that the sphinx isn't even a "second coming," he has been there for thousands of years. This latter point, imo, emphasizes that the second coming wont be anything different.

At line 17 the birds return, albeit this time "indignant." Do these birds symbolize those who toil over their supreme idea; over the promise of change? But yet they are angry, and is this a sign of how they will act? The reeling here refers, I think, to both the gyre and the undercurrent of movement.

I find lines 19&20 a bit more elusive. I think the "rocking cradle" is caused by the movement about the sphinx; maybe about the war and strife that has played about it, which caused the "stony sleep" to vex "to nightmare."

The last two lines then complete the theme regarding the lack of knowledge one has as to what the" second coming" means. "What rough beast ... slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" A valid question that essentially asks: what will the repercussions of the communists victory be? What will actually happen? A fitting question not only because of the great betrayal that 'communist' Russia was to pure communism.



Thats obviously what Ive taken out of it. Before you go and tirade me for being wrong etc, bear in mind that this is the first poem Ive ever read without official supervision. In terms of the whole act of reading poetry I thought it was unbelievably fulfilling. A completely different experience to reading prose.

WinstonSmith

Hi Turgon. You have hit on a correct enough reading of this. One of Yeats's major ideas was to 'hammer [his] thoughts into unity' which meant that his opinions on more than just politics can be seen in this poem, mainly there is a marriage between politics, religion and occultism. There are certainly political undercurrents in the poem, and certainly Yeats was no friend to Communism (being renowned for some of his very public flirtations with fascist organisations to the extent that Foster refers to him as being a proto-fascist); there are however, some very religious and occult references in the poem and these are married to the political connotations therein. the very term 'The Second Coming' is surely a Biblical reference, although in this instance it relates not just to The Coming of the Anti-Christ the Bible refers to, but rather what Yeats predicted would happen instead. It's really quite difficult to summarise this here, but it is all contained within 'A Vision' whish was first published a few years after this poem. Basically, in case you don't know, it suggests that the world goes through phases of subjectivity and objectivity, where there are different prevailing thoughts or ideas as it were influencing the world (this isn't Yeats own language but is an incredible attempt at a startlingly brief description of his vision). app 2,000 years BC was the last change between these phases, brought about by the rape of Leda by Zeus in the form of a Swan, which gave birth to the ancient Greeks etc... The next big shift between phases was the birth of Christ and this phase has lasted the last 2,000 years. As you can tell the next big shift was due around Yeats's lifetime sometime, and it seems that he sees this big shift as being the birth of Communism (in this poems at least) wherein not the anti-Christ slouches towards Bethlehem but some rough beast that will bring about the change between the phases. The implication is that Yeats perceives it to be Communism at this moment in time.

2040

Brilliant interpretations above. This is my favourite Yeats poem.

I always thought this poem had some Jungian themes, particularly the following.



Above is the constellation of Pisces. The first fish represents the age of christ and spirituality while the second represents the age of materialism and the antichrist. Coming up to Pisces II is 1789, the year of the French Revolution. After that we get Charles Darwin, Karl Marx etc, leading into the Pisces II.

I think this ties in to what you've both said to some extent.

Carl Jung also had an interest in Mandalas. I always thought of Yeats' gyre as a sort of mandala.

Food for thought.

EDIT: I've only just looked at the wikipedia entry now. There's also:

The "spiritus mundi" (Latin "spirit of the world") is a reference to Yeats' belief that each human mind is linked to a single vast intelligence, and that this intelligence causes certain universal symbols to appear in individual minds. Carl Jung's book The Psychology of the Unconscious, published in 1912, could have had an influence, with its idea of the collective unconscious.

WinstonSmith

2040 wrote: »

Brilliant interpretations above. This is my favourite Yeats poem.

I always thought this poem had some Jungian themes, particularly the following.



Above is the constellation of Pisces. The first fish represents the age of christ and spirituality while the second represents the age of materialism and the antichrist. Coming up to Pisces II is 1789, the year of the French Revolution. After that we get Charles Darwin, Karl Marx etc, leading into the Pisces II.

I think this ties in to what you've both said to some extent.

Carl Jung also had an interest in Mandalas. I always thought of Yeats' gyre as a sort of mandala.

Food for thought.

EDIT: I've only just looked at the wikipedia entry now. There's also:

Correct 2040, Carl Jung and Freud are both commonly received as being influences on Yeats and certainly contrasts can be seen between the work of the three.

RandomName2

Wouldn't say its too directly related to Communism - which is a shame because its a nice analogy.

More semi-mythical geo-political; intimations of 'the end of the world' (How seriously Yeats took this is a moot point).

More a product of the 1930s, I think, than 1918.

WinstonSmith

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wouldn't say its too directly related to Communism - which is a shame because its a nice analogy.

More semi-mythical geo-political; intimations of 'the end of the world' (How seriously Yeats took this is a moot point).

More a product of the 1930s, I think, than 1918.

Poem was written in 1920's not '30's, so the political interpretation is given a little more credence when taken with the knowledge of the temporal proximity to the Russian Revolution, First World War, Irish War of Independence etc... so there is no doubt that Yeats saw the political upheavals as being a part of the shift between phases as I mentioned earlier. Perhaps you may be correct with it no referring specifically to Communism, but politics it certainly does.

turgon

Well, whatever the mind of the poet when composing it, I think one of the good things here is the wide variety of interpretations. If you think that communism fits well as an interpretation, perhaps that fact that the poet wasnt thinking that should weigh you down too much.

ocianain

I always thought it was about WWI, from the "ceremony of innocence" to "the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity" it seems much more applicable to the run up to war,(which is planned) rather than revolution (which is "spontaneous"). However, when you look at how Europe suffered from WWI on, you could see how an artist would see WWI and The Russian Revolution, and the suffering these events brought forth, as a foreshadowing of the Second Coming of Christ. Great Poem!

Earthhorse

Can I ask OP, if Bloom hadn't suggested it would you think that this poem was about the Russian Revolution or communism?

turgon

Thats a good question.

I dont think its singularly about the Russian revolution. I think a lot of it would have been apparent even if I hadnt followed on that premise, but I dont know would I have understood fully. Tbh I would probably have thought more along the mythic/religious lines suggested by the title itself.


The reason I read this poem was because of the introduction as it was the first poem Id ever really read and I felt I needed easing into poetry.

Do you consider the communism interpretation flawed?

WinstonSmith

turgon wrote: »

Thats a good question.

I dont think its singularly about the Russian revolution. I think a lot of it would have been apparent even if I hadnt followed on that premise, but I dont know would I have understood fully. Tbh I would probably have thought more along the mythic/religious lines suggested by the title itself.


The reason I read this poem was because of the introduction as it was the first poem Id ever really read and I felt I needed easing into poetry.

Do you consider the communism interpretation flawed?

I do not think that interpreting this poem in relation to politics (Communism or otherwise) is flawed as Yeats clearly had such ideas in his mind during the writing process. An early draft of the opening lines read "The gyres grow wider and more wide / The Hawk can no more hear the falconer / The Germans to Russia to the place [etc...]". Also, such esteemed critics of Yeats as Rick Albright (I've disagreed with him on a lot, but he is spot on on this point) has openly declared "[the poem] was written in direct response to the Great War of 1914-1918" (WB Yeats: The Poems, Rick Albright. 1994, Everyman, pg 619), so I think it is beyond doubt that politics, Communism, the Irish War of Independence all influenced Yeats as he wrote this poem and so political interpretations of it cannot be flawed.

P.S. You could have chosen a lighter poem to get interested in poetry. This seems pretty heavey for one just introducing themselves to the genre. Perhaps some Spike Milligan or Macavity the Mystery Cat would have been a better choice. Either way, I hope you enjoyed reading this poem. It is certainly one of my favourites.

turgon

Actually, donegalfella recommended an anthology "The Best Poems in the English language" by Howard Bloom, and this is the collection I read it in. I turned to Yeats as he was the only relativity recent poet who's work I had previously read (September 1913).

Earthhorse

turgon wrote: »

Do you consider the communism interpretation flawed?

No, I don't think it's flawed, I just don't think it's yours!

The Russian Revolution and World War I took place almost a century ago. They don't really mean anything to you, they're not at the forefront of your thoughts. So when you associate them with the poem you are doing so at Bloom's suggestion.

The reason I read this poem was because of the introduction as it was the first poem Id ever really read and I felt I needed easing into poetry.

I get that approach but I meant to mention to you on the other thread that I didn't think The Second Coming was a good starting choice! Moreover, I think you should try reading the poems first (and second, and third) before reading interpretations of them. It's nice to have the fallback of context and analysis but you don't really need those stabalisers to appreciate a really good poem.

I wouldn't recommend reading Milligan or Macavity as a means of getting into poetry as I think it'll be too frivolous to draw you in, but I wouldn't be worried too much about "getting" poems, especially the thick, symbolist pieces that Yeats often writes. Instead, concentrate on enjoying the poetry first and understanding it second (which can also be enjoyable).

turgon

I wouldnt view my interpretation within terms of the Russian Revolution specifically but rather in terms of general socialist (and other) revolution itself. The political interpretation is far more relevant nowadays than you seem to believe. In fact many of the communists over on the politics boards exhibit the same "second coming" mentality, in that they believe they will be able to bring huge change, when the probability is they would end up just like the past communists.

So his poem summarize a thought I had gathered over the last 2 months while debating with said communists; that their promises are false and they are doomed to same totalitarian ends as their predecessors. I felt it was relevant in this regard.

History is not some happening relevant solely to the past, its relevant to nowadays too.

Earthhorse

Of course history isn't something distant and irrelevant to us; we're living through history right now, as are all people in all times. But you admit yourself that:

turgon wrote: »

My initial interpretation is heavily influenced by Harold Blooms opinion that the poem is based on the Russian Revolution.

That's all I'm saying. Give yourself more space with the next poem you read to allow your own interpretation to grow.

turgon

Earthhorse wrote: »

Give yourself more space with the next poem you read to allow your own interpretation to grow.

I know. It was my first poem so thats why I approached it that way

WinstonSmith

And please let us know what the next poem you read is, so we can discuss it as well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ocianain

WinstonSmith wrote: »

And please let us know what the next poem you read is, so we can discuss it as well.

As long as it's not anything by Sylvia Plath!:eek:

WinstonSmith

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting. And of course, Yeats found this heroism that you describe his world of 1921 being devoid of, in Fascism and the rise of NAZI Germany and especially Mussolini in Italy. Don't agree with everything you say, but I think you're spot on on this point. Thanks for posting.

ocianain

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It can be argued Europe never recovered from WWI, it came close to losing a whole generation of men. The English lost near 20,000 men in a single battle. In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks negotiated a separate peace with Germany and pulled their troops out of the war, hoping by doing so to prolong it and thereby help spread the revolution in Europe. The Soviets soon established a Soviet in Bavaria and launched a war against Poland (1919) only the Poles stood between the Bolsheviks and Europe, thank God they won (the second time by the wa they saved Europe). The Russian Revolution was being presented as a victory for the working class, Walter Duranty and his ilk misrepresenting, I mean lying, about the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine for example. Because of this very few knew what was really happening in Soviet Union

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cool.

That's a very scholarly reading of the poem though. What if we didn't know the poem was written in 1921? What if we had no idea who the Bolsheviks were? Do we need to be familiar with Jung's work in order to understand the poem?

What does it matter to us as we read the final draft of a poem what was in the earlier drafts? It may tell us what Yeats intended the poem to be about or it may indicate that he decided to write about something else instead. Otherwise, why remove that line, or reference to these figures, or any figures from the time, altogether?

There is actually very little within the poem itself that indicates it is about those events.

ocianain

Earthhorse wrote: »

Cool.

That's a very scholarly reading of the poem though. What if we didn't know the poem was written in 1921? What if we had no idea who the Bolsheviks were? Do we need to be familiar with Jung's work in order to understand the poem?

What does it matter to us as we read the final draft of a poem what was in the earlier drafts? It may tell us what Yeats intended the poem to be about or it may indicate that he decided to write about something else instead. Otherwise, why remove that line, or reference to these figures, or any figures from the time, altogether?

There is actually very little within the poem itself that indicates it is about those events.

Excellent points!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course poems aren't written in a vacuum; no art is. No painting, film, sculpture or music is created without context. But what worth is any of this art if we need to know the context in order to appreciate the work? In this case you are telling us that "the poem cannot be understood very much at all" without reference to further writing by the author. If we were to come across the manuscript in the desert and it were the only surviving work by the author it would be essentially meaningless. That says a lot.

The exegetical approach called "genetic criticism" focuses on reconstructing the poet's writing process, with the goal of showing what ideas were in his mind as he worked on the poem. It takes the final text not as something that sprang into being ex nihilo, but as a culmination of a process of note-taking, drafting, editing, revising, and so on.

Yes, so, a very scholarly approach, like I said. Again, it is quite obvious that a poem could be a culmination of drafting, editing and revising but the fact that the final draft is the one we have is more important. We don't interpret film by talking about the scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor nor songs by the outtakes that never made the album. It might be interesting to learn of such things and they may enhance our enjoyment around the work but the fact that such ideas were left out of the finished article is far more important than the fact that they were ever there.

Clearly Yeats decided that he wanted the poem less obviously situated in relation to events of the moment; but that does not mean that he did not have those events in mind as he wrote.

Clearly? Why is that clear? Perhaps he simply moved away from the idea of the poem being about those events at all. Perhaps those lines were written as placeholders to help him remember the rhythm he wanted. Also, the fact that a writer has something on their mind that at the time of writing, even something that might be driving the writing, does not mean that the piece is "about" that thing.

I would disagree strongly here. I think there's a lot to indicate Yeats' fear of a collectivized force overwhelming the last vestiges of the old individualist (or heroic) order.

I don't think there's a lot of reference to a collectivised force. "Indignant desert birds" is about as close as he comes to mentioning any collection. Again, there is almost nothing in the poem that indicates it is about the Russian revolution or any specific historical event at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I don't think that's true of all works of literature or all works of art. Many poems, short stories and novels require nothing more than a cursory knowledge of the world around you and the human experience in order to be understood.

Modernist poetry in particular is often deliberately difficult, fragmentary, and densely referential; it frequently contains wave after wave of classical allusions, quotations, historical and cultural allusions, neologisms, foreign languages, and other meta-literary material that is inaccessible to the non-scholarly reader. For many modernist writers, this was the very point: They wrote to challenge the notion of poetry as readily comprehensible or internally coherent; they believed that reading should not be a simple or transparent activity; they wanted to make a point about cultural literacy in an age that no longer seemed to value it very much.

As I've said, if we don't take a scholarly approach to a poet such as Yeats -- or Eliot, or Pound, or any number of other modernist writers -- we will never attain anything other than a superficial understanding of their work. How does one ever hope to understand a poem such as "The Waste Land" without doing a great deal of reading outside the immediate text?

Maybe one doesn't hope to understand The Waste Land. If the author's work intrigues you enough to seek out the translations, references and historical context then more power to you. Personally, I regard such exercises, if needed to understand the poem, as a mark against the poet in their ability to convey their meaning, even if such exercises were part of their stated aim.

Consider, then, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, which he revised endlessly throughout his life. Are you arguing that the so-called "Deathbed Edition" is the only one we should consider, since it presumably represents the poet's final intentions for the collection? What would you say to the many critics and teachers who still rely on the first edition?

If he published the various revisions throughout his life then each revision should be taken and appreciated in its own right. You can consider the "Deathbed Edition" in studying the Deathbed Edition and you can consider the first edition when studying the first edition. To interpret one using lines from the other seems a rather strange approach to me.

What happens, then, when a so-called "director's cut" of a film restores material that may not have appeared in the original? How, then, do we interpret the film, or adjudicate competing versions of it? Which do we disregard, and why?

We don't have to disregard either; but we should disregard scenes that never appear in either cut. How far would you go with your exercise? Would you consider early drafts of the script that were never filmed? How about storyboards from when the movie was first being pitched? Or the conversation in which the director went "wouldn't it be cool if..."?

Your analogy doesn't hold up because drafts and revisions are not the same as published or released material that someone has said; here is a version of the work I consider complete.

For most readers, knowing that Yeats had considered inserting references to Burke and Pitt into the poem would greatly illuminate the lines "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." The poem is an evident lament for the lack of Burke- or Pitt-like figures in our modern era, which, in Yeats's mind, enables terror and cultural devastation to proceed unchecked and uncriticized.

I don't find the line that illuminating personally.

As for discounting these drafted lines as placeholders for the rhythm, it's hardly credible to suggest that the twentieth century's greatest master of prosody would have needed to resort to such a primitive device.

One of Yeats' offspring said in an interview that when he was composing he would demand total silence and they knew not to say a word lest they disturb his concentration. Often he would simply fill out lines he hadn't written yet with nonsense rhythm - "da da-da da-da da-da". It doesn't require much of a leap to assume he might do the same on paper.

What does Yeats mean, then, by "a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi"?

I don't know without reference to Jung's work, which brings me full circle.