“ Of the other verse forms in the aggregation, it may be proper to state that they are either absolute innovations of the writer, or facts which took topographic point within his personal observation or that of his friends. The verse form of the Thorn, as the reader will shortly detect, is non supposed to be spoken in the writer ‘s ain individual: the character of the chatty storyteller will sufficiently prove itself in the class of the narrative. ” ( Advertisement 1798 )
The above statement posed by Wordsworth gaining controls what he claims to hold been an experiment for The Thorn. The Thorn is based on a communal chitchat ; the narrative environing the abandoned female parent and her murdered baby which invites the readers to conceive of the verse form as a superstitious. The footing of showing this verse form surrounded in communal chitchat has to make with Wordsworth ‘s experiment which he clarifies subsequently in Preface ( 1802 ) :
“ The rule object, so, which I proposed to myself in these Poems was to chuse incidents and state of affairss from common life, and to associate or depict them, throughout, every bit far as was possible, in a choice of linguistic communication truly used by work forces ; and, at the same clip, to throw over them a certain coloring of imaginativeness, whereby ordinary things should be presented to the head in an unusual wayaˆ¦ ”
Wordsworth wanted poesy written in ‘language of work forces ‘ because Wordsworth thought poetic ruse made for bad poesy. He expected poesy to purge itself of ruse by copying common linguistic communication. He approaches the job by stylising The Thorn in “ state of affairss from common life, ” [ communal ] and “ linguistic communication truly used by work forces ” [ gossip ] . If this is so, so The Thorn was intended to be a psychological survey, a verse form showing to the head ordinary things [ communal chitchat ] “ in an unusual manner. ” The head whose workings are revealed is that of the storyteller who is non involved in the incident environing the communal chitchat of Martha Ray. This paper will analyze the psychological science of the storyteller in The Thorn within the context of syllabic metre ; whenever the syllabic metre of the 8-8-8-6-8-8-8-8-6-8-8 alterations within the 11 lines of 23 stanzas in the verse form, the alteration reflects the working of the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness that has no being outside of the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness of the communal chitchat.
The lineation of syllabic metre in The Thorn is revealed in Stanza I. The storyteller associates the order in which the verse form ‘s event passes through his head. The verse form begins with the scene of the irritant:
There is a irritant ; it looks so old,
In truth you ‘d happen it difficult to state,
How it could of all time hold been immature,
It looks so old and Grey.
Not higher than a biennial ‘s kid,
It stands vertical this elderly irritant ;
No leaves it has, no thorny points ;
It is a mass of knotted articulations,
A deplorable thing forlorn.
It stands vertical, and like a rock
With lichens it is overgrown.
The syllabic metre is constructed in 8-8-8-6-8-8-8-8-6-8-8, which established the psychological stableness of the storyteller. The scene of the irritant is associated with the event of the verse form. However, there is no interaction with the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness with the event from the scene of the irritant. The stanza depicts of a perspective description of the irritant: the age [ old ] , the colourising [ Grey ] , the height [ two-year ‘s kid ] , and covered by lichens. It is the order in which the storyteller ‘s probe begins.
The storyteller ‘s imaginativeness begins to work in Stanza II. The irritant, after the perspective description of Stanza I, engages with nature of mosses in Stanza II:
Like stone or rock, it is o’ergrown
With lichens to the really top,
And hung with heavy tussocks of moss,
A melancholic harvest:
Up from the Earth these mosses creep,
And this hapless irritant they clasp it unit of ammunition
So near, you ‘d state that they were set
With field and manifest purpose,
To drag it to the land ;
And all had joined in one enterprise
To bury this hapless irritant for of all time.
The irritant is being covered by mosses, and being dragged to the land. Stanza II is constructed in 8-8-8-6-8-8-8-8-6-9-9 syllabic metre, which is different from the syllabic metre of Stanza I. The storyteller ‘s imaginativeness is engaged with the last pair of the stanza: “ And all had joined in one endeavour/To bury this hapless thorn forever. ” The pair, [ I think ] , is metaphorical which engages the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness ; the mosses environing the irritant is the communal ; the irritant is associated with the event of Martha Ray. The metaphor of Stanza II so, is the communal burying the event environing the chitchat of Martha Ray. This apprehension of Stanza II differs aggressively from Stanza I because the reading of the verse form so becomes about a psychological survey of storyteller ‘s imaginativeness ; the events that design the verse form stimulates his apprehension of the irritant and begins to associate it to the communal chitchat of Martha Ray.
From Stanza XII, the storyteller tells the narrative of Martha Ray ‘s matrimony and forsaking:
And they had fix ‘d the wedding-day,
The forenoon that must marry them both ;
But Stephen to another amah
Had sworn another curse ;
And with this other amah to church
Unthinking Stephen went —
Poor Martha! on that woful twenty-four hours
A cruel, barbarous fire, they say,
Into her castanetss was sent:
It dried her organic structure like a clinker,
And about turn ‘d her encephalon to tinder.
The syllabic metre of this stanza is 8-8-8-6-8-6-8-7-6-9-9. Martha ‘s joy lasts until the clip of her moral misdemeanor. The storyteller ‘s imaginativeness begins to work with the metaphor of the consuming fire because the storyteller can non experience for himself the state of affairs Martha Ray felt. The fire is presented into both “ castanetss ” and “ encephalon. ” The fire represents the devouring scorn felt from the broken curse that brings about inquiry of moral understanding for Martha Ray. Morality and the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness of its affect are bound together in The Thorn ; they function to sketch the communal representation of the Martha Ray and make the superstitious notion environing the events “ some two and twenty old ages ” ago.
Up until the narrating of Martha Ray ‘s narrative, the storyteller has remained “ chatty, ” associating pieces of the superstitious notion. With Stanza 17 nevertheless, the writer offers his experience of claiming to hold seen a adult female. Stanza 18 inquiries the cogency of the claim, as the visibleness is ruined. Stanza 19 is when the writer is certain of seeing a adult female:
I did non talk — I saw her face,
Her face it was plenty for me ;
I turned approximately and heard her call,
“ O wretchedness! O wretchedness! ”
And there she sits, until the Moon
Through half the clear blue sky will travel,
And when the small zephyrs make
The Waterss of the pool to agitate,
As all the state know,
She frissons and you hear her call,
“ Oh wretchedness! oh wretchedness!
Stanza 18 is constructed in 8-9-8-7-8-8-8-8-6-8-8, while Stanza 19 is constructed in 8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-6-8-8. The alteration in Stanza 18 engages the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness with the obscured visibleness from the mist, storm, and rain. Even though the vision becomes blurry, the storyteller is certain of seeing a adult female in the scene: “ I saw her face, ” which leaves this stanza equivocal. The inquiry of whether the adult female is Martha Ray or non and analyzing the inquiry left by the ambiguity would be to roll off from what Wordsworth intended with the verse form: “ to exhibit some of the general Torahs by which superstitious notion acts upon the head. ” Martha Ray ‘s presence in the communal chitchat and the equivocal physical presence illustrate Wordsworth ‘s purpose ; the storyteller ‘s sight of the mosses burying the irritant engages his head with metaphorical representation of the chitchat, so the storyteller ‘s imaginativeness turns the irritant into a adult female, a nonliteral representation of Martha Ray.
From the disclosure of its events, the lineation of the verse form becomes that of a psychological survey. Instigated by the storyteller ‘s brush of the irritant, the storyteller begins to associate the irritant to communal chitchat about a adult female. As the storyteller accounts these superstitious notions, his ain imaginativeness is roused to activity, and he proceeds to demo how superstition acts upon his head. By the terminal of the verse form, the thought around his imaginativeness has no being outside of his imaginativeness, merely under the influence of the superstitious notion.