'Porphyria's Lover': A Historicist Reading

Tom Harper offers a Historicist reading of Robert Browning's poem 'Porphyria's Lover'. This article was originally published in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine in July 2013.

Browning’s work with the dramatic monologue form stems from numerous accusations of ‘perversity’ from contemporaries on account of the disturbing characters he invents in his poetry, and hence the form was utilised as a means of distancing himself from his more sinister speakers. However, where the historical reading in this piece lies is in the fact that such accusations were based on many readers feeling the need to sympathise with such vulgar characters, as many of the themes highlighted in the poem (not including spontaneous murder) were indeed typical of the Victorian context in which this narrative was created.

In the article ‘Men of Blood’ author Carter J. Wood acknowledges that analyses of Victorian violence necessitate an understanding of that period’s “constructions of dutiful femininity that excused men’s ‘disciplinary’ violence ... or even actively supported male household dominance”, as Victorian gender ideology held women in a passive, loyal and submissive role with men having the authority to keep them in such a category. When analysing the poem more closely various references can be found as evidence towards Porphyria’s potential infidelity and hence a violation of the Victorian mindset: whether it be the “gay feast” bringing implications of a lust-driven evening out or the more subtle word “fall” perhaps making a reference to the Victorian “fallen woman” and hence prostitute. Thus one might take the view that in killing Porphyria the narrator is executing justice upon her in accordance with the time period, as female sexual promiscuity was heavily condemned by such a culture.

Interestingly, the poem’s triumphant ultimate line “And yet God has not said a word!” can also be seen to reflect the crisis of faith occurring in the Victorian era. Darwin’s publication of The Origins of Species in the mid-1800s instigated an unprecedented debate over the existence of God and so arguably by potentially challenging a divine intervention the speaker can be seen to highlight the loss in faith of that period. Hence the narrator’s brutish act goes unpunished by the end of the narrative due to the context in which he resides, as from a historical reading not only can the murder be perceived as justifiable due to it conforming to Victorian social ideologies but also due to no spiritual repercussions being implied, thereby transforming a seemingly mindless act into debatably logical.

Read More

Ashes: Third Test

by Sampad Sengupta

Rain dampens Australia's hopes

Englandretained the Ashes as the third Test ended in a draw with the home side now having an unassailable 2-0 lead in the series.  The third Test at a new look Old Trafford stadium was cut short by some typical British weather as it poured down on the final day causing the match to end in a draw.  After having won the first two games, the momentum was with England who were looking forward to a whitewash.  On the other hand, Australia had to improve their performance drastically if they had to give themselves any chance of coming back into the series and they did not disappoint, putting together a good performance with both bat and ball to put England under pressure but fell prey to the weather.

Amidst talks of playing two spinners or bringing in Chris Tremlett into the attack, England fielded an unchanged side whereas Australia made a few changes. Nathan Lyon replaced fellow spin bowler Ashton Agar, Ryan Harris came in for the injured James Pattinson, and David Warner made his comeback into the Australian side at the expense of Phil Hughes. The visitors won the toss and chose to bat and scored over 500 runs for the first time this series with captain Michael Clarke leading the way with a massive individual score of 187 runs and with some useful contributions from Rogers, Smith and Haddin.  Graeme Swann was once again on the money for England as he picked up 5 of the 7 Australian wickets that fell.  England came in to bat and struggled early on with wickets falling but then Kevin Pietersen, who was doubtful for this game with fitness issues, chose the perfect moment to regain his form and struck a century which took England to 368. His innings had the usual swagger of any Pietersen innings, aggression mixed with patience, which was exactly what England needed at that time. Useful knocks from the lower order meant that England avoided the follow-on and Australia would have to bat again.

Celebrations all round

Australia came out in the second innings and made their intentions clear early on, sending Warner out to open the batting, and they scored freely to extend their first innings lead. In the quest for quick runs, they lost wickets at regular intervals but that was a risk they were ready to take as they had no intention of batting for a long time and wanted to put England in as early as possible. On the final day of what had been an exciting Test match, all three results were possible with England needing 332 runs to win and Australia needing 10 wickets.  As the commentators said, Australia needed 10 good deliveries out of a possible 588 and England only needed to score at around 3.8 runs an over which in modern day cricket is not a very daunting task.  Australia started the day well, getting 3 early wickets in the first session, but to England’s relief, that was all they could manage as the rain came pouring down which meant that no more cricket was possible and the match was drawn.  There were mixed reactions all around, some were unhappy that an exciting day of cricket was cut short by the rain, but on the other hand, England had managed to retain the Ashes as they could no longer lose the series from here on.

Kevin Pietersen

The match once again witnessed several controversial decisions alongside the high quality cricket that was played, notably the dismissals of the Usman Khawaja in the 1^stinnings and that of Kevin Pietersen on the final day. This sparked another debate regarding the DRS (Decision Review System) and its reliability at this level of the game. There were several positives for Australia with the return to form of their captain and the entire team finally scoring some runs out in the middle. England were also overjoyed by the return to form of star batsman Kevin Pietersen, who played down any thoughts of him being unfit for the game with a well-played century in the first innings.  Graeme Swann tops the wicket-takers charts with 19 wickets from the three games, showing why he is considered one of the best spin bowlers in the world at the moment. With the fate of the Ashes already decided, Australia would be playing for pride in the next two games whereas England would be looking to continue with their good form and show why they are one of the top Test playing sides in world cricket.

Michael Clarke on his way to a century

Read More

'Porphyria's Lover': A Feminist Reading

Josh Rampton offers a Feminist reading of Robert Browning's poem 'Porphyria's Lover'. This article was originally published in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine in July 2013.

This poem is clearly a controversial one, in the eyes of contemporary Victorian audiences and even more so in the eyes of an audience of today, accustomed to relative equality. To be shocking and controversial may have been the aim of Robert Browning, who with his wife Elizabeth Barrett Browning campaigned for liberal causes such as the rights of women. This poem could therefore have been aimed to satirise the stringency of the idea of perfect femininity, tied to husband and home, and the endemic domestic violence that was only just coming into public awareness.

From a feminist’s point of view, this poem could be seen to represent the indifference that men seem to show towards women exerting power and control to a degree, especially in a sexual sense, where this poem seems to infer the way men seem to find the reversal of dominance and passivity in this area erotic and even preferable. However, once women assert “too much power” men immediately take advantage of their testosterone fuelled brute force to restore women to their “rightful place”. This could be seen, to an extent, to reflect the discomfort that some men still feel towards women who are powerful or assert power or control.

This poem could be a reflection, satirical or non satirical, on the immensely popular contemporary work by Coventry Patmore ‘The Angel In The House’, becoming a household term to describe a woman who embodied the Victorian ideal of femininity, devoted to husband and family, that was epitomised by the Royal family (Queen Victoria and her devotion to Prince Albert) for the middle classes to emulate. A feminist may well see this as a nauseating reminder of the sickening and even pathetic devotion of women to their husbands that feminists still criticise some women for today.

Although those who retain a Victorian perspective on women might argue that Porphyria is some kind of loose woman or whore, a feminist or indeed a male inclined to respect the prerogatives of women over their own bodies and their sexual liberation would disagree. The way Porphyria “Made her smooth white shoulder bare” and made the lover’s “cheek lie there” is more of a sign of sexual independence and assertion than the vulgar, lewd acts of a “fallen woman” if one adopts this point of view.

The title of this poem “Porphyria’s Lover”  immediately satirises the convention that the woman would always be the possessed object however as it turns out it is the man who is passive, sitting waiting for her in a cottage and watching her action drive the narrative while he is inert. On one level this poem could be a reflection of the Pygmalion Myth, a male delusion that women can only be pure and truly feminine when they are an art object, under total control of men. Or simply, on a more disturbing level, the murder of Porphyria may just be simply a bid to regain control of a woman who has subverted the expectations and limitations of her sex as opposed to an attempt to attain some kind of warped perfection. The fact that the versification (the way the poem looks on the page) and the rhyme scheme remain unbroken even by the killing is a chilling suggestion that the lover is callous, cold and calculating.

Although open to different interpretations, the final line of this poem “And yet God has not said a word!” could be interpreted by a feminist as reminiscent of the religious roots of the oppression and mistreatment of women in that God “has not said a word” to condemn the cold blooded killing of Porphyria. Moreover, ironically linking back to the idea of ‘The Angel in the House’ Porphyria is portrayed as almost angelic at the beginning of the poem “when glided in Porphyria”, “making all the cottage warm” this not only emphasises the cruelty of her death but makes her an angelic martyr in a way that mirrors the portrayal of Emily Davison years later after her perceived martyrdom to the cause of women’s suffrage.

Read More

Sixth Form Demolition: Fourth Day

by Tony Hicks

Photographs taken on the fourth day of the demolition of the PGS Sixth Form Centre.

Read More

Different Interpretations of 'Porphyria's Lover': Introduction

Fay Davies introduces a series of articles responding to Robert Browning's poem 'Porphyria's Lover'. This series of articles was originally published in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine in July 2013.

When we think of the term ‘fight’, poetry interpretation might not immediately spring to mind. But I would like to propose that ‘Fight Club’ is not such a far cry from ‘Poetry Club’. An interpretation (or reading) of a text is, in some ways, an argument. You are telling people what you believe this text to mean. You are bringing your own philosophical, ideological, political and personal stance to the text; a stance that is to some extent unique. You are pitting yourself against other interpretations of this text, which may indeed contradict your own. In his 1976 article ‘Interpreting the Variorum’ the literary theorist Stanley Fish claims that we interpret texts as part of ‘interpretive communities’. This gives us a particular way of reading the text; a particular set of cultural assumptions. So, a group of different readings of a poem is really a clash between different ways of thinking.

These readings of ‘Porphyria’s Lover’ do indeed encompass different ways of thinking. Poetry is rooted firmly in historical context in Tom’s Historicist piece, but it has less prominence in Ben’s Aestheticist reading where he explores the conflicting images of the text. Josh brings a Feminist slant in his examination of power relations; such concerns are absent in Gregory’s Structuralist reading, in which he identifies allusions to other texts, genres and ideas. He argues that such allusions create expectations on the part of the reader, which Browning goes on to subvert. Note how Josh and Tom offer differing interpretations of the final line. Both attribute great importance to these last words, but their reasons are distinct.

Of course, meaning and significance is a vague area. Different interpretations will often overlap, drawing on similar ideas to shape meaning. But even when they collide head-on, both are correct. So perhaps the true difference between this exercise and the typical fight is that, in this case, there can be no winner.    

(see poem below):


THE rain set early in to-night,
    The sullen wind was soon awake,
It tore the elm-tops down for spite,
    And did its worst to vex the lake:
    I listen'd with heart fit to break.
When glided in Porphyria; straight
    She shut the cold out and the storm,
And kneel'd and made the cheerless grate
    Blaze up, and all the cottage warm;
    Which done, she rose, and from her form
Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,
    And laid her soil'd gloves by, untied
Her hat and let the damp hair fall,
    And, last, she sat down by my side
    And call'd me. When no voice replied,
She put my arm about her waist,
    And made her smooth white shoulder bare,
And all her yellow hair displaced,
    And, stooping, made my cheek lie there,
    And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,
Murmuring how she loved me—she
    Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,
To set its struggling passion free
    From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
    And give herself to me for ever.
But passion sometimes would prevail,
    Nor could to-night's gay feast restrain
A sudden thought of one so pale
    For love of her, and all in vain:
    So, she was come through wind and rain.
Be sure I look'd up at her eyes
    Happy and proud; at last I knew
Porphyria worshipp'd me; surprise
    Made my heart swell, and still it grew
    While I debated what to do.
That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
    Perfectly pure and good: I found
A thing to do, and all her hair
    In one long yellow string I wound
    Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
    I am quite sure she felt no pain.
As a shut bud that holds a bee,
    I warily oped her lids: again
    Laugh'd the blue eyes without a stain.
And I untighten'd next the tress
    About her neck; her cheek once more
Blush'd bright beneath my burning kiss:
    I propp'd her head up as before,
    Only, this time my shoulder bore
Her head, which droops upon it still:
    The smiling rosy little head,
So glad it has its utmost will,
    That all it scorn'd at once is fled,
    And I, its love, am gain'd instead!
Porphyria's love: she guess'd not how
    Her darling one wish would be heard.
And thus we sit together now,
    And all night long we have not stirr'd,
    And yet God has not said a word!
       

Read More

Last Sunrise Over The Sixth Form Centre

by Tony Hicks

Read More

Battle of the Sciences: Physics

Third in a series of articles discussing which scientific discipline was responsible for the most significant scientific discovery. Today, Sampad Sengupta argues for Physics. 

When speaking of experiments in physics, most people nowadays would think of dark matter research and space exploration. However, I believe some of the most influential experiments in physics have been conducted over 300 years ago when all this technology was not available and the human brain was one’s greatest tool.

Galileo Galilei was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, born in February 1564 in Pisa, Italy. He conducted experiments on motion which paved the way for many physicists in later years, including Sir Isaac Newton who formulated the mathematical laws of motion and universal gravitation. In 1581, when Galileo was in the University of Pisa, he noticed a swinging chandelier, which air currents shifted about to swing in larger and smaller arcs. He used his pulse as a timer and noticed that the chandelier took about the same time to oscillate regardless of how far it swung. He went home and conducted the experiment using several pendulums and concluded that a simple pendulum was isochronous, which meant it swung the same amount of time independent of its amplitude. Later on however, Christiaan Huygens, a Dutch mathematician discovered that this was only approximately true.

Galileo is better known for his experiments on motion. Contrary to the ideas of Aristotle, who believed that heavy bodies possessed a substance called ‘gravity’ and light bodies possessed a substance called ‘levity’ which caused heavier bodies to fall faster to the ground than lighter objects, Galileo said that the rate of acceleration of a falling object was independent of its mass, provided the opposing forces due to friction and drag were minimised. He proved this when he was studying metal spheres of different masses rolling down a groove in an inclined plane. He wanted to measure the distance travelled by the ball as function of time after release.  He demonstrated that for a given angle, they all took the same time to reach the bottom of the plane. This was because they were accelerated by the component of the gravitational force acting along the slope, and being spheres, they had very little friction. Galileo could show that this experiment was equivalent to free fall, but slower and thus easier to observe. Using the inclined plane at small angles made timing much easier as all he was using to time the spheres was his own pulse.

Galileo also carried out a demonstration from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa for everyone to see. According to a biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani, in 1589 Galileo had dropped two balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass. Thus he discovered that objects fell at the same acceleration, proving his prediction to be true, while at the same time proving Aristotle's theory of gravity (which states that objects fall at speed relative to their mass) false. Galileo proposed that a falling body would fall with a uniform acceleration, as long as the resistance of the medium through which it was falling remained negligible, or in the limiting case of its falling through a vacuum. He derived the correct kinematical law for the distance travelled during a uniform acceleration starting from rest, stating that it would be proportional to the square of the time elapsed. 

There were others who had suggested this theory earlier and Galileo had expressed the time-squared law using geometrical constructions and mathematically precise words, adhering to the standards of the day. He concluded that objects retained their velocities unless a force, namely friction, acts upon them, refuting the generally accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that objects "naturally" slow down and stop when they run out of force. Galileo also designed an experiment to demonstrate the parabolic path of a projectile in flight, thus contradicting Aristotle’s idea of force running out. He rolled a sphere down a curved track so that it was projected from the end through a series of hoops. He adjusted the positions of the hoops so that the sphere passed through each one, showing directly the parabolic path. Galileo's Principle of Inertia stated: "A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed." This principle was incorporated into Newton's laws of motion.

These experiments of Galileo and his theories were not well received by the Catholic Church then who condemned him for "vehement suspicion of heresy". However, his work acted as a platform for several physicists and mathematicians who followed. Sir Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.” Galileo’s ideas and experiments might not have been popular with most people during his time but they are now knowingly or unknowingly, an integral part of our daily lives.

This article was originally published in the 'Fight Club' issue of Portsmouth Point magazine in July 2013.

Read More