Poetry Sunday 26 January 2014

Delight in Disorder by Robert Herrick,
A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness;
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction;
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher;
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribands to flow confusedly;
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat;
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.
with comments by Ira Maine, Poetry Editor
Herrick had a good start. Born in London, the son of a wealthy goldsmith, he was apprenticed to his uncle , Sir William Herrick. The young Herrick’s interests, however, lay elsewhere and he was ordained in 1623. Eventually (1629) he became vicar of Dean Prior, in Devonshire. He lost this position during the Civil War, but had it restored on the accession of Charles the Second.

During all this time Herrick produced poetry of the finest quality. He was a long time admirer of Ben Johnson (who wrote ‘Volpone’, “The Alchemist’ etc). It is said that if Shakespeare had never existed, we’d be as much in awe of Johnson today as we are of the Bard.

Be that as it may, Herrick’s poetry was relatively unfashionable, not only during his lifetime but right up to the 19th century when he was ‘re-discovered’. Believe it or not, Shakespeare himself was also ‘unfashionable’ for years and years until the Victorian nouveau riche brought him back into the fold. Naturally, they also brought their  contemptible ‘respectability’  to bear on the matter, when they  took it upon themselves to ‘edit’ Shakespeare to the point where his plays became virtually incomprehensible!.

Just listen to this; Herrick’s advice  ‘…to the virgins, to make much of time…’

Gather ye Rose-buds while ye may,

Old Time is still a flying;

And this same flower that smiles to day,

To morrow will be dying.

Wouldn’t you give almost anything to have written something as fine as that?

Herrick never married, but the poem ‘Delight in disorder’ does tend to display a more than academic interest in ‘…erring lace..’ and the ‘…tempestuous petticote…’.

Not that it matters a tinker’s curse, but this poem does show more of an interest in the ‘…cloathes…’ than in the woman herself. In fact there is, in this poem, no mention of any part of the female anatomy whatever. This is skillfully done and we are artfully led to conclude that the wearer is a woman, when no such woman may have existed.
This is mere conjecture on my part, of course, but would as skillful a poet as Herrick ‘accidentally’ allow us space to speculate on this possibility? Surely if he wanted to ensure we were persuaded that there was a woman involved he would have included mention of specifically female attributes?. He does not, and I am almost persuaded that this is deliberate. Concealed, not obvious, but nevertheless deliberate.

Perhaps Herrick dressed up his horse, or his dog in female clothing? And, if that seems a bit too fanciful for your taste, well, we must consider other people, other possibilities… any suggestions?

IRA MAINE