Peter Doyle

Peter Doyle was an Irish Immigrant that came over to the Americas in the early 1800s. He landed in the South, D.C. and then Virginia and voluntarily fought against the Union in the Civil War. He met Walt Whitman later as a streetcar driver where they "felt to each other at once." It is said they became lovers for the last years of Whitman's life, inspiring Whitman's Calamus poems if not directly but in reassurance of the feelings portrayed in them. Doyle was also a witness to Abraham Lincoln's death in which Whitman is said to draw from his experience in his infamous poem "O Captain, My Captain."

There seems to be a shift in Whitman that I noticed in the Calamus poems. He is less preachy and confident, and more a love's servant, commenting on the beauty of nature and death and love and turning the reader away from viewing him as a teacher of sorts. Although in the end he eludes to those doubts as a test, he doesn't directly take on the role he held within Leaves of Grass as a guide for the reader. I think this has to do with his association with Doyle and new found appreciation for Love. Doyle changed Whitman as a man, more concerned with his lovers and friends, commenting on how often he thinks of them. I believe he also states somewhere that he doesn't revel in his previous beliefs on America and his appreciation for it as often as he used to. When thinking about it, maybe Doyle was to Whitman as Yoko was to Jon Lennon, still an artist but that's when he started spouting 'All You Need Is Love' and focusing on world peace and what not. In the biography in the Walt Whitman archive, it is even said that Doyle might be the reasoning for 'O Captain, My Captain's' rhyme, which was not at all Whitman's preferred verse at all.

Whitman may also have broken from his own poetical tradition and adopted rhyme to make the poem more appealing to the limerick-spouting Doyle. Interestingly, Whitman's first draft of "O Captain!" is not rhymed, but rather written in free verse.

 Oh, what things people do for love!

Project: To Enslave or Not to Enslave?

In light of our conversation about Whitman being anti-abolitionist while still trying to explore the experience of the runaway slave, I want to rethink my blog, The Stupor Passes, based on a Specimen Days entry addressing the First Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War. I made the statement

maybe [Whitman's] state was a common one for an American of the times.. One that was confused and torn between sides, and the issues with slavery: in theory supporting the abolition of it, but patriotically supporting its continuance because of America's history and commonality of slavery.

This makes me wonder the answer to this eluded question: did the common American of the times feel torn between abolition and pro-slavery? Was it a state of confusion? To try and answer this question, I will attempt to research the works, speeches, and literature of prominent literary figures of the times. I will then create a Cento, or a poem/compilation of lines from these figures and advocates that will try to provide the multiple or common views held on this issue. A bonus with this project would be finding out the African American or non-white perspective on White abolitionists. How did they interact? Did they try to work together? Or was there a disconnect similar to the one expressed in our class the other day by the student who felt Whitman had no right to take on the voice of the runaway slave? I will also try very hard to keep my opinions from entering my poem because I really want to understand the perspective of Whitman's time.

Tupper!

Martin F. Tupper was an English poet and philosopher whose most famous works included Proverbial Philosophy, which included "rhythmic" proverbs on how to be a proper Englishman.

While Tupper and Whitman are both associated with their free form, causing remarks of egotism by many reviewers, and some content as seen in the discussion of the sublime etc... They seem the most similar in regards to their social standings, public opinion, and how they represented something more than just what their poetry had to say. In many English reviews, as Whitman first started out, he was compared to Tupper, most often in a negative light. While Tupper associated with the elite, upper class advocating the Anglo Saxon race, and Whitman associated with the lower, working class advocating equality and popular opinion, they were both seen as outlandish insults... So says Matt Cohen in his essay "MARTIN TUPPER,  WALT WHITMAN,  AND THE EARLY REVIEWS OF LEAVES OF GRASS:"

 To most of  the s e  pape r s ,  then,  Whi tman and Tuppe r ,  r epr e s ent ing the  wor s t  of  both worlds, were happily uni t ed by a coinc idenc e  of  form.

 Even in America, Tupper was frequently pictured as an embarrassing Englishman, appearing drunk and rambling about England's superiority over America. Whitman was similarly seen as an ignorant egotist, trying to represent a country that didn't want him.. which indefinitely they did.. Whitman even recognized this association and used it to us his advantage, riding off the coattails of Tupper and his current celebrity [1860ish], re-publishing all the reviews in which they were compared.

For me, they seemed to be two figures in which their homelands loved to hate, only momentarily for Whitman though... which in turn sort of did what Whitman hoped for, a means of unification. They seemed to represent a change that was taking place in poetry, that old English scholars didn't want to accept, as seen in their negative reviews. While Tupper represented more of what was associated with the typical poet of the times, stuffy, political, white wigged, conservative... He did relate to Walt by going against the grain. Maybe it wasn't his desire to be that way, but that is how the public viewed him. They both offered something different than the status quo.. which Whitman seemed to recognize for he reviewed Tupper as "one of the rare men of the times."

Youth in the Homestead

Specimen Days: The Maternal Homestead

Whitman logs the memories stirred in his mind when he visits the site where his mother's home and where he spent a good portion of his childhood in. He finds it mostly gone, with only a few remnants left, over taken by grass and weeds. Many generations lived in that home, seems like 3 or 4, so it's interesting to note that it stopped at Walt's generation.

The image of the 29th bather comes to mind, yearning to swim with the 28 men in her home. The home could somehow represent the confines of the woman, that have finally been torn down and all who inhabited the place are now dead, bathing with the others, or swaying in the wind in the very blades of grass and weeds that grew over the place.

The memories Whitman recalls seem very romanticized. His grandparents take an archetypal characters: the jolly grandfather and the sweet old grandmother... The lineage of horses raised with the family... It makes me think of how we tend to gloss over our memories of childhood and associate them with 'better times' or 'ignorant bliss.' Maybe the house represented some sort of innocence for Walt that is now shattered in adulthood, metaphorically represented by the run down house, even the 'copious old brook and spring... have mostly dwindled away.' This is a theme Whitman explores throughout all of his poetry, and seems to be a great hardship in his life, the losing of innocence. America, as a country, seemed to have gone through that phase during Whitman's lifetime as well... trying to unite and ignoring the problems of the times, but couldn't and broke out in a civil war. America too yearns for those simpler days, which probably never existed in either case, Whitman or America or for anyone in fact, it's just that shield youth brings about that what is truly missed.

The Wit of Walt Withstanding the Test of Time

Walt's words inspired a beer! His description of a Philadelphia sunset inspired a Philadelphia Brewing Company to craft their own beer in a taste similar to what the words are describing.

"...a broad tumble of clouds, with much golden haze and profusion of beaming shaft and dazzle"

 In one review, a person describes the beer as "Spicier, the ale brings quite a bit to the table." 


It seems as though the brewing company captured Walt well in this beer, representing his multi-faceted nature and desire to appreciate all aspects of the world and the people and things that inhabit it. I think Walt would appreciate this certain influence he had as well for he meant his appreciative nature to transcend into mass culture. What better way to do that than in beer form? In today's culture, beer is a symbol of unity. It brings people together! 

Beer Review 1

Beer Review 2

Walt's image and words is rumored to have inspired the Bram Stoker's [1897] infamous character, Dracula. Stoker believed Whitman to be a "father, brother, and wife to his soul"which the vampire captures well within its character. Not only does his image relate, the "long, white hair,  heavy moustache, great weight and strength..." his poetry explores the intermixings of death and love that Dracula embodies as well. Song of Myself absolutely comes to mind for Whitman as the narrator lives on forever, enticing the reader to join him in this immortal death. And what do vampires do? The same thing! Whoa! It all makes so much sense.

Looks Pretty Similar To ME!

Dracula!

Walt Whitman has also made his way into British Film! The poem "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking" makes its way into the 2001 movie L.I.E. when the protagonist Howie, a 15 year boy who has 'lost everything' and is in the process of 'finding himself' quotes a few lines. I have not seen the movie, but it seems as though the lines represent the current state of the boy, losing his innocence associated with growing away from childhood, especially in the line "Never again leave me to be the peaceful child I was before what there, in the night..." Once again, Whitman's lines are able to capture a common American life, and represent a coming of age process for this boy... withstanding the test of time in that his words still associate with the common process or life of the American.

The scene in which Howie recites Whitman

L.I.E. Synopsis

Review on Reviews of Whitman

It is amazing how people can consume the same product and recognize the product in the same exact ways, but have entirely different judgments of them. This was most apparent within the three reviews I read, Leaves of Grass New York. 1855. London. Horsell., "[We have before us]." The London Weekly Dispatch, and  "Studies Among the Leaves." The Crayon 3. 

All three focused on the topics of Whitman's work as:

-appreciative of Nature's beauty

-lacking of form, rhyme, or any typical features of 'poetry'

-simplistic language

-Whitman as a 'new-comer'

-representative of the modern man

The first review, Leaves of Grass done by Horsell in London, received these topics in an EXTREMELY negative light. One of the questions for this assignment asked if there were any over-reactions and this is most definitely the case. They even went as far as to say 

"Walt Whitman is, as unacquainted with art, as a hog is with mathematics. His poems--we must call them so for conveniance--twelve in number, are innocent of rhythm, and resemble nothing so much as the war-cry of the Red Indians."

Whoa! Since Whitman lacks form and rhythm, Horsell believes his piece of work shouldn't even be considered art or poetry. Horsell goes on further to say that Whitman

"talks like a man unaware that there was ever such a production as a book, or ever such a being as a writer... who gives us slang instead of melody, and rowdyism in the place of regularity... a man who calls his free speech the true utterance of a man: we... call it the expression of a beast...deserv[ing] nothing so richly as the public executioner's whip."

 So, not only is Whitman not an artist, or poet, but he is not even deserving of the title 'writer' but instead punishment via whipping. And this is all due to his simplistic language, use of slang, and addressment of topics outside of the elite scholar. This makes me think that the American Poet was very much assumed to be reflective of the English Poet, one that speaks the finest of languages, addresses only matters of the wealthy, and looks and acts reserved. Horsell mentions that Whitman appreciates nature but in the perspective of an animal... so it seems as though one must not only discuss certain things for a work to be considered poetry but they must only do it through a certain perspective... This makes me think of our discussion about the hierarchy of senses and how sight is reflectant of the privileged while smell as we see in Horsell's words is indecent: "Is it possible that the most prudish nation in the world will adopt a poet whose indecencies stink in the nostrils?"

Horsell's review also makes me think of Barnum and how he would promote negative reviews of himself for it would bring an audience with the intent to see for themselves the reasoning behind the bad reviews. It's like when mother's in the late 80's or early 90's disliked the 'satanic' music their children were listening to, metal, and pushed for a parental advisory sticker on the cd's that had the most outlandish lyrics and threatening instrumentals. This turned, though, into a positive thing for a record's sales for if the album didn't get a parental advisory sticker, it wasn't worth one's time to listen to for it wasn't 'metal enough.' Maybe Whitman wanted to be, in fact I'm pretty sure he did, rebellious and representative of what was considered 'un-civilized.' He wanted to redefine what was poetry, and probably appreciated these negative views for it got more people interested in what he was doing and opened their minds in the realm of literature.

The other two reviews by the London Weekly Dispatch and The Crayon 3 don't have as drastic views as Horsell, and both illude to Whitman's work as having potential, but needing work in order to become the great poet they knew Whitman could be. The London Weekly mentions also mentions that Whitman's lack of standard poetic-ness may be seen as a negative, his

"strength of expression...fervor, hearty wholesomeness...originality, mannerism, and freshness...appropriate to themselves alone... and his poems in time will become a pregnant text-book..."

The Crayon 3 also says that

"...the rude, vigorous, and grand if chaotic thought of Whitman...[is] imperfect only from want of development...not yet having attained its parts."

While these two reviews recognize the standards of poetry, they predict the growth not only within Whitman, but the reader of poetry. They know that it's ever changing and should be representative of the times, not stuck in the old English ideas of poetry that it was to serve a particular instead of the whole that Horsell believed in. I think this must reflect the ideology of the American people, they seemed desperate for something new and more relatable that Whitman was about to make happen.

I agree with this idea of poetry representing the times, or just representing anything. People need to get over the idea of poetry or literature as a habit of the elite and just accept it for its intent, content, or just for the words itself.

Loco for Workingmen

Frances Wright was a scottish-born immigrant to America who advocated feminism, abolitionism, as well as the working man's rights. Her ideas weren't based in simplicity though, and much like Walt Whitman, were grounded in basis of American ideology: opportunity. For example, Franny believed one couldn't just free the slaves for it would illegitimize the slave owner's right to property. Whitman also felt slaves couldn't be freed simply for it would uproot the very foundations of America. One needs to think of the good of the whole rather than the part as these two seemed to believe.

How they are more directly connected is through the influences of Franny's ideologies had specifically on Walt and his father. Walter Whitman Sr. was a member of the Locofoco Party, a radical wing of the Democratic Party localized mainly in New York that backed the workingman and state banks, monopolies, paper money etc. They distrusted any small organizations that had large control over the masses. This makes me understand Walt Whitman a little more because it seems to me that it didn't really matter WHAT people wanted for him... as long as the wishes of the larger population were granted that was okay, and I think that's what Franny was trying to say as well. And this matches the culture of America for it's not necessarily equality in content but equality in opinion. It's okay that the President and the Prostitute have their unequal places in the hierarchal society, but they are equal in the sense of being a person and having opinions, the only difference comes from how they got to where they ended up, it doesn't make them any less or more of a person.