The Second Coming

[PDH]

See, I have always seen Owen as a tragic figure - pushed into the war because it was the right thing to do (even though he was no fighter), caught in a shell-hole for three days and quite rightly breaking down, but despite all this returning to combat while damning it before dying.  His perceived duties dooming him - at least this semester it struck a chord.

[Caliga]

Plus, I think that students remember even the facts better if they see them applied in different ways.  The Second Coming isn't necessarily about the consequences of WW1, but students get a lot of utility out of figuring out the connections as if it were.

Oh, I don't at all disagree... I was just commenting that my class was structured differently.  I wonder if that was because the structure of the course has since changed, or the teacher disregarded the structure and taught it his own way (and he'd be the type to have done that).

When I took American History AP we had to read "Battle Cry of Freedom" and the guy who wrote the book (Bruce MacPherson?) actually came to discuss it with our class. 

[Caliga]

This is one of my favourite poems of all time - know it by heart.

It is one of the best poems ever written, yes.

Also, as an aside, Things Fall Apart (title inspired by the poem) is a great book.

[Martinus]

I don't think this is worth mentioning (as obviously everybody realized it) but the beast described in the second stanza is obviously the Sphinx. So it's about the chaos caused (or which causes) the birth of an enigma. It's like the Joker's monologue from Dark Knight - we are really afraid of the unknown - not the evil. We fear chaos more than iniquity. Which is why "strong arm" rule of totalitarian regimes is seen by most people as a preferable alternative to the chaos of anarchy or the insecurity of trying times. In that, I guess you could connect back to your idea of applying this to the rise of nationalism - after all the rise of nationalism in Europe occurred in a direct response to chaos - either direct, political one (revolutionary Spain, revolutionary Russia - if you consider Stalin's communism as a form of nationalism, which it was in a sense) or a perceived or more esoteric chaos of financial and economic crisis (as it happened in Germany or Italy).

[Malthus]

I must say Grumbles, that would be a great lesson. I think I'd have enjoyed your class as a student. 

As for the poem - to my mind it is pointing to the simultaneous wild hopes and dread that the millenial type movement creates out of dispair - the millenialist finds the world as it is hopelessly corrupt, and seeks to tear it down in order to create utopia which he assumes in any event is inevitable by the laws of eithe god or history (Surely some revelation is at hand!) - but in doing so, very easily becomes the worst terror of all ("hardly are those words out ...") 

Often, millenialism is tinged with the religious or mystic: "Spiritus Mundi" is obviously a reference to the mystic notion that we are all connected, like the Chinese Tao. 

The vision presented is of course one of terror not utopia - the "rough beast" with "gaze blank and pitiless as the sun" - which is a pretty accurate assessment of the actual effect of most active millenial movements.

In short, in my opinion the poem is eerily precient not because Yeats predicted the rise of Hitler and Stalin specifically, but because he nailed the type which they both represent.

Perhaps a good companion-piece would be Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

[grumbler]

I don't think this is worth mentioning (as obviously everybody realized it) but the beast described in the second stanza is obviously the Sphinx.

True, but the Greek concept of a sphinx, not the Egyptian one.

[grumbler]

In short, in my opinion the poem is eerily precient not because Yeats predicted the rise of Hitler and Stalin specifically, but because he nailed the type which they both represent.

Well-put.  That is the approach I took, and the challenge for the student is to match the archetype to the actual.

[Malthus]

I don't think this is worth mentioning (as obviously everybody realized it) but the beast described in the second stanza is obviously the Sphinx.

True, but the Greek concept of a sphinx, not the Egyptian one.

Wouldn't "the sands of the desert" tend to indicate that the Egyptian variety was referenced? Though the Greek sphinx would make more sense - the Thebian Sphynx asks a question of Oedipus that he must answer to be king, and the answer is, in fact, himself ("A man") - the "Sphinx" being nothing more than the city itself personified, and the Oedipus myth all about the importance of knowing yourself. 

Edit: this puts an interesting gloss on the identity of the "rough beast".

[grumbler]

Wouldn't "the sands of the desert" tend to indicate that the Egyptian variety was referenced?  Though the Greek sphinx would make more sense - the Thebian Sphynx asks a question of Oedipus that he must answer to be king, and the answer is, in fact, himself ("A man") - the "Sphinx" being nothing more than the city itself personified, and the Oedipus myth all about the importance of knowing yourself. 

I think that taking the description of the beast and the desert literally will lead one astray.  The Egyptian sphinx was a positive sign, the Greek one a negative one.

[Malthus]

Wouldn't "the sands of the desert" tend to indicate that the Egyptian variety was referenced?  Though the Greek sphinx would make more sense - the Thebian Sphynx asks a question of Oedipus that he must answer to be king, and the answer is, in fact, himself ("A man") - the "Sphinx" being nothing more than the city itself personified, and the Oedipus myth all about the importance of knowing yourself. 

I think that taking the description of the beast and the desert literally will lead one astray.  The Egyptian sphinx was a positive sign, the Greek one a negative one.

Yeah I managed to convince myself that the Greek sphynx was probably what was intended. In context the Egyptian one makes less sense.

[Berkut]

I love that poem, but I am not at all comfortable trying to "figure out what it means" beyond what it says to me.

And that is rather vague and uneasy - not at all well defined.

[Martinus]

I don't think this is worth mentioning (as obviously everybody realized it) but the beast described in the second stanza is obviously the Sphinx.

True, but the Greek concept of a sphinx, not the Egyptian one.

Well, Yeats is neither a Greek nor an Egyptian. He is a modern poet. He is going to be syncretist, and it's a mystical / symbolic poem, so he can't be expected to use the revelatory imagery in a precise manner.

[Martinus]

I must say Grumbles, that would be a great lesson. I think I'd have enjoyed your class as a student. 

As for the poem - to my mind it is pointing to the simultaneous wild hopes and dread that the millenial type movement creates out of dispair - the millenialist finds the world as it is hopelessly corrupt, and seeks to tear it down in order to create utopia which he assumes in any event is inevitable by the laws of eithe god or history (Surely some revelation is at hand!) - but in doing so, very easily becomes the worst terror of all ("hardly are those words out ...") 

Often, millenialism is tinged with the religious or mystic: "Spiritus Mundi" is obviously a reference to the mystic notion that we are all connected, like the Chinese Tao. 

The vision presented is of course one of terror not utopia - the "rough beast" with "gaze blank and pitiless as the sun" - which is a pretty accurate assessment of the actual effect of most active millenial movements.

In short, in my opinion the poem is eerily precient not because Yeats predicted the rise of Hitler and Stalin specifically, but because he nailed the type which they both represent.

Perhaps a good companion-piece would be Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.

I think Spiritus Mundi here means more something like the Zeitgeist, and not some sort of a pan-human connection. Imo, a Latin name for it is also used to invoke associations with Rex Mundi - the Antichrist (and Stupor Mundo, Frederick II, considered by many to be the Antichrist).

Obviously, the beast slouching towards Betlehem is the Antichrist too.

Speaking of which, does anyone think that the beast may be interpreted as a sort of ambiguous (rather than purely evil) figure here?

[grumbler]

Well, Yeats is neither a Greek nor an Egyptian. He is a modern poet. He is going to be syncretist, and it's a mystical / symbolic poem. You seem to expect him to describe his visions with a scientific precisions.

You are the one trying to be concrete here. I am trying to retain the symbolism, and describe how his poem could be applied as a bit of prophecy,to help students understand how a guy like Hitler could come to power.

You think it worth mentioning that you think Yeats must have been referring to a sphinx.  I point out that he wouldn't have been referring to the good-luck Egyptian version, and you point out (duh!) that Yeats is neither a Greek nor an Egyptian! 

Generally speaking, Marti, you should stay out of conversations like this. 

[PDH]

Don't poems mean only one thing?