It’s interesting to note how many of the great artistic movements got their names from insults hurled by their critics. The work of a group of Parisian artists was described as not painting, but mere “impressions??? and thus was born Impressionism. Later, in that same city, artists were derided as savage and primitive; “Fauves???, in short.
Similarly, the poets we now call “metaphysical??? did not choose this label for themselves. Writing, perhaps 100 years after the fact, of poets such as John Donne and Andrew Marvell, it was Samuel Johnson who coined the term. In using the word metaphysical, he was suggesting that these poets were insufficiently grounded, rather too fond of clever conceit and far-fetched metaphor. Metaphysical did not mean spiritual or philosophical, but “airy-fairy???.
Nonetheless, Johnson did have to concede the greatness of Donne (pronounced, incidentally, like the Irish “Dunne???), and for the same reasons that we today revere him. Even if you prefer a little more profundity in your poetry, there’s no denying the sparkle of intelligence and wit of his work. Glorying in its own cleverness, it takes love and its discontents as its main theme, but characteristically sounds a note of knowingness alongside the more traditional romantic approach. It’s this sharp, knowing edge that gives poems such as “Woman’s Constancy??? a remarkably contemporary flavour.
Now thou hast loved me one whole day,
To-morrow when thou leavest, what wilt thou say ?
Wilt thou then antedate some new-made vow ?
Or say that now
We are not just those persons which we were ?
Or that oaths made in reverential fear
Of Love, and his wrath, any may forswear ?
Or, as true deaths true marriages untie,
So lovers’ contracts, images of those,
Bind but till sleep, death’s image, them unloose ?
Or, your own end to justify,
For having purposed change and falsehood, you
Can have no way but falsehood to be true ?
Vain lunatic, against these ‘scapes I could
Dispute, and conquer, if I would ;
Which I abstain to do,
For by to-morrow I may think so too.
Donne here asks his loved one how and when she is likely to leave him. What will be her reasoning? Here, Donne lists a variety of excuses, all remarkably close to our contemporary clichés – note, in particular “We are not just those persons which we were???. It’s only a surprise that “it’s not you, it’s me??? doesn’t make an appearance. Donne sees these various lines as what they are, “’scapes???. Devoid of any sense or sincerity, these are simply exit lines, ways of getting out, no more. Combined with the bitter sarcasm of the poem’s title, the contemptuous listing of these excuses suggests the bitterness of one thus scorned, but Donne closes the poem with a twist. He could argue against any of these excuses and win, but he declines to do so. The reason? He may end up using the same excuses himself. Given the social and sexual politics of the day, the playful cynicism of “Woman’s Constancy??? is remarkable. Indeed, it may be that it was so ahead of it’s time that it escaped censure only because no-one could take it for anything more than a joke. Indeed, it may well have been merely a joke, but jokes, like art can always touch upon certain universal truths about the human condition, cutting closer to the bone than many in the audience will prepare to admit.