Read the
following poem carefully. Then write a cohesive essay in which you show how the
language of each stanza reveals the perceptions and feelings of the speaker.
In
“When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer,” Walt Whitman inundates the first five
lines with enjambment and repetition to contrast between the monotony of the
lecture room and the fascination of the night sky, affirming that man’s
attempts to analyze and explain facets of nature is incomparable to the beauty
of nature itself.
While
enjambment occurs within every line of the poem, as the poem itself is only one
sentence, the longest lines of enjambment are all within the description of the
astronomer’s discussion of the stars, where the astronomer “lectured with much
applause in the lecture/room” (Whitman 4-5). The length of each of these lines
slows down the reading of the poem, and mimics how slowly time is passing by in
the lecture room. Such a slow pacing creates a tone of apathy; there is a clear
distance between the events in the room and any connection to the speaker. Though
the speaker concedes that the astronomer is well-versed in the analysis of the
stars, he is still unable to immerse himself in the “charts and diagrams”, to
ever truly be drawn into what the lecturer is saying, instead only detachedly
paying attention in the hopes that the mechanical analysis of stars will soon
end (Whitman 3).
The
enjambment of the first lines is reinforced by the anaphora of “When”, a word
that precedes every descriptor of the events within the lecture room (Whitman
1-4). The repetitive use of the word before every clause creates a very static
pace within the poem, one that is reflective of the dullness within the
lecture-room itself. By using anaphora within these lines, the speaker’s sense
of boredom is conveyed in that everything shown in the lecture room is
uninteresting to the point of monotony, that the supposedly impressive figures
the astronomer is presenting are nothing more than numbers on a page to the
speaker; the beauty of the stars is diminished to nothing more than “proofs”
and “figures” (Whitman 2).
The
speaker is, on the other hand, more than engaged when he observes the night sky
“from time to time”, a notice that creates a tranquil ambience in the last half
of the poem (Whitman 8). The phrasing of time now is not that of something painfully
slow but something no longer of consequence—the speaker doesn’t feel the minutes
passing by. There is nothing forced about the speaker’s observation of these
stars, unlike the stars in the lecture room. The contrast between the speaker’s
indifference towards the lecturer and his marvel at the night sky is conveyed
by the enjambed lines, as time is distorted in each to adapt to the speaker’s
attitude towards each.
Whitman’s
assertion that the simple beauty in observing stars is exponentially preferable
to hearing a man explain their nature is embodied within Huxley’s message that
man’s attempts at scientific progress tear away at man’s natural beauty and
humanness. Rather than complicating what occurs perfectly in nature with
scientific discoveries and mathematical proofs, Whitman, becoming "tired
and sick" (Whitman 5) leaves the room to appreciate things as they are,
not for what man has explained them to be. This theme directly relates to
Huxley's perspective on the effect of progress on mankind, for as laudable as
modern technologies are, they cannot compare with “the sea in peace”, with
nature at its finest (Huxley 90). Once something is tampered with by man's
hands-Bokanovsky's Process rendering natural birth superfluous as "mass
production is at last applied to biology" (Huxley 7), a starry night
dissected and explained "with much applause in the lecture
room"(Whitman 4)-it loses its original meaning, and the singular beauty
that came with it.
Your analysis with this poem is very cohesive and thorough, I especially like how you concede that indeed the professor is well-learned in astronomy, yet the speaker cannot derive beauty from these "proofs". This analysis fits in perfectly with the themes put forth by your author since the speaker can only appreciate the beauty of nature by experiencing it firsthand.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your analysis, I would like to propose an alternate interpretation of the poem that adds a little more depth to its reading. It is not arguable that the speaker appreciates nature the most when he is directly in contact with it, but what if this poem is read from the perspective of the professor? Maybe the professor spent countless summer nights as a child gazing at the night sky and was inspired to be an astronomer. Maybe he deeply appreciated that beauty and saw learning and deep analysis of it as a way to extend that beauty? If the poem is read from this mindset, it becomes much more complex and gives the other side of the argument a lot more say.