Faith and Femininity in Christina Rossetti's 'Remember'

===

[00:00:00] 

Maiya: Remember me when I am gone away, gone far away into the silent land when you can. No more hold me by the hand, nor I half turn to go yet turning.

Stay. Remember me when no more day by day you tell me of our future that you planned only remember me. You understand it will be late to counsel then or pray. Yes if you should forget me for a while and afterwards, remember, do not grieve. For if the darkness and corruption leave a vestige of the thoughts that once I had better by far you should forget and smile than that you should remember and be sad.

Joe: Welcome to Beyond the Verse, a poetry podcast brought to you by the team at PoemAnalysis.com and Poetry+. I'm Joe, and I'm here with my co-host Maiya, who's just wonderfully read today's poem. Remember, by the great Victorian poet Christina Rossetti. We're [00:01:00] gonna be discussing a range of themes related to the poem today, including memory, mortality, and Victorian ideals.

But before we get into the poem itself, Maiya, you just read the poem really wonderfully for our readers. I'm sure they have a really vivid sense of. the language of this poem, but can we zoom out slightly? Christina Rossetti, what can you tell us about her life? The key dates that relate to her biography?

Maiya: Absolutely. Well, thanks Joe. . So. Christina Rossetti was born in 1830 in London to an Italian poet, Patriot Father Gabriele Rossetti, and a mother Frances Polidori. They come from this lovely family. She has three older siblings. They are all very well educated in the art, and actually, Jo and I were talking before this podcast.

They all are involved in some way, shape, or form. The arts, they're literary critics, they're poets, they're painters. So she comes from this very rich literary family, I would say. she had quite a complicated life at 14, she had a breakdown whilst she was at [00:02:00] school. This resulted in her kind of transition into a very, very devout Anglo-Catholic faith. this followed kind of her whole life, and actually she was engaged in 1848, but broke it off due to those religious differences, and this is a theme we see carried out.

She was proposed to many, many times throughout her life and consistently rejected those suitors. She was very successful in terms of the literary scene at the time, throughout the fifties and sixties. She was publishing a few poems in and around the 1850s, but it was in 1862 when her debut collection Goblin Market and Other Poems came out, which is where, remember the poem we're discussing today comes from, she actually lived quite a long life.

She lived until she was 64, which. By all standards in the Victorian era was pretty successful. she kind of had a few illnesses throughout her life. She was diagnosed with Graves disease and cancer and died in 1894. But you know, she has lived over this kind of huge period of change throughout Victorian England.

And her poem today that we're talking about is one that is very, [00:03:00] very well known. So, Joe, tell us a little bit more about this poem and kind of where it comes from.

Joe: thanks, Maiya. That was really, really helpful. So. The dates here are really crucial. So the poemwas written in 1849. So first of all, let's remember that Christina was a very young writer at the time, 18, possibly 19, but still a teenager. Still very, very young. And yet, as Maiya mentioned already, quite a few significant events had taken place in her life.

Most recently, of course, she had become engaged and broken off that engagement the year before. She writes this poem, and I'd love to talk later on when we get into it, about who the addressee. Of this poemmay well be. And I think that that figure of the former fiance looms large, but to go back a few more years to that, year that she had her breakdown when she was 14 years old.

So this poemis written just four or five years later, and that breakdown is really, really significant. It kind of either causes or coincides with, as Maiya mentioned. Her conversion to Anglo Catholicism, which is a theme we'll return to later on in the episode. But in terms of the poem itself, as some of our more regular listeners might have noticed, it takes a form of a Petrarchan sonnet.

Now don't worry if you didn't notice [00:04:00] that. We'll talk about that later on. But, it's a short 14 line poem that basically, The clue isn't the title. it's a poem related to memory related to whether or not, the speaker wishes to be and how they wish to be remembered after they die. So again, a slightly strange topic perhaps for a 19-year-old poet to be writing.

The poem is very much writing into an imagined future when the speaker has passed away. Now, Maiya and I were talking before the episode about how there's a lovely kind of shift and a Volta as we'll we'll talk about later on, which is typical of the Petrarchan sonnet because the first eight lines, the octave of this poem. Are quite insistent, they're quite direct and they're kind of, it's a call to be remembered. I would like to be remembered in this way. However, in the the final six lines, the sestet that the speaker becomes a lot more meek, a lot more willing to accept the possibility they may not be remembered. And crucially, there is a desire to permiss that they are willing to accept the fact that they, if they're not remembered, then it's okay.

It's a kind of way of assuaging the guilt, of her. loved ones, whether it's a former [00:05:00] fiance, family members, we're not exactly sure, but that's kind of the poemin broad outline. But Maiya, in terms of a deep dive, where would you like to begin? 

Maiya: Well, as you say, any regular listeners will know. I love to start with a title and because this is a one word instructive title, it's the speaker telling. Any reader, any listener, to remember. It's so important to focus on that as an instructive word, because actually throughout the poem, the meaning does change, and that's what I'd really like to focus on.

You know, we're very lucky that this poem is out of copyright, so we can talk about the whole poem and use all the lines, but remember is the first word of this poem. It's immediately entering into a landscape with the communion between the speaker and the listener. that Are being told what to do, you are being told to remember.

And actually it's such a lovely idea because of course once you are gone, you don't have control over the people that remember you. You don't have control over. Who sits there and thinks of you. And that's the realization that we get as we move through this poem.

So [00:06:00] remember, starts something that is very instructive, as we move through the lines of the poem, it starts to become something a little bit softer. And that again, adds to this sense that the speaker becomes a little bit more meek, a little bit more mild, and kind of appreciates, you know, if you don't remember me, it's also okay because you have to move on with your life.

And it's a really. Mature lens. I think especially if we consider that the speaker might be as young as the writer is. And of course, this is probably gonna be a very interesting conversation throughout this podcast episode. Joe is so often we view poems as autobiographical, but with this poem, we are never quite sure if it is or not, because we have this very rich literary family and.

An investment in kind of poetic forms. So this sonnet very well could be written from the perspective of someone else. It could be about, someone we have no idea who she's talking about. It could be about a family member, a loved one. It could not be her voice specifically. And I like that Rossetti kind of plays with sense of [00:07:00] memory, because of course, remember only has an instruction so far as you know who is telling you to do that thing.

That's something that I think weakens as we go throughout this poem, and I, I wonder if that's maybe intentional.

Joe: Yeah, I mean, it's a really, really interesting title and, all of our regular subscribers will know that, like Maiya, I have a bit of an obsession with poetic titles, and this is such an interesting one because ostensibly it's very direct, it's very simple, and yet the complexity kind of reveals itself the longer you think about it because as Maiya mentioned. There was a question of, autobiography in this poem. There was a question of whether or not the speaker can be mapped onto rosette's own life, and we'll talk whether or not the addressee later on might be a kind of a shadowy figure that maybe resembles this, this form of fiance of rosette's. But that word remember, I think, serves to both universalize the permit to depersonalize it, and yet also conversely create a sense of intimacy.

And I'll explain why first and foremost, the act of remembrance, the act of memory, the act of thinking about our past is a universal act. It's something that everybody does. Everybody has [00:08:00] nostalgia, everybody has regret. Everybody thinks about the past. So on the one hand, the title is incredibly universalizing, creates a sense that any single person. Read the poem and reflect upon the way that they themselves would like to be remembered. Okay, so on the one hand, it kind of abstracts, and takes us further away from any specific figure. And yet what you then have is a sense that the intimacy fills in the gap.

Because if you are speaking to somebody that you know, somebody that you love, somebody that you have a history with, and you are telling them to remember, they have the context. They will know what it is, what memory you are calling to mind. They will have a sense of moment they fell in love, the moment they fell out of love, the moment that they said something, they regretted the moment that they got engaged, the moment that they got divorced, whatever it is. And I think. The act of saying the word alone can, in fact serve to create a sense of intimacy in the poem, because if the specific addressee was reading that title. Knowing it was coming from Christina Rossetti, or let's say a different poet wrote it, they would know what they were being [00:09:00] told to remember.

They would know it was not merely a general act of remembrance. They would know that something specific was being caught to mind. So I really, really enjoy that kind of duality of the title. The other thing I really like about it is it focuses on memory as an act, not memory as an ideal. So the title could have been called memory. And yet it is not. It is the verb. Remember, there isn't a way in which Rossetti is reminding the readers that memory is not something that exists outside of our ability. Memory is only something that happens when we act in a certain way, and what it does is it creates a sense of agency. In the addressee, we think of memory as being fixed.

Things happen, we can't change them, but the act of remembering them positively. regularly or irregularly changes the act itself. So what I love about the title is in a poem that as we're gonna explore, in which the speaker is largely abdicating their agency and kind of giving up, their control over their own legacy to other people, is a sense that she is not destroying her agency, but merely handing it to somebody else but the agency nevertheless exists. Does that make [00:10:00] sense? 

Maiya: It does. It does and oddly enough on most points I think I would agree with you, but the one thing that kind of as you were talking then that came to mind was that as you were saying, you know, memory is an act, remembering is an act, and yet we write things down, we record them so that we don't forget.

It takes away. The necessity of you having to recall those memories to mind. And actually, by writing this poem, part of me thinks she's maybe not negating that agency to, create memory and put the pressure on the partner or the family member to, sit and have carry those memories.

But instead she's writing her own. Allowance in a strange sort of way, she's allowing them to forget her because as she's gone through the poem, she's actually made that realization. I think when I first looked at this poem, and I know it's quite a popular opinion with the poem as well, that that kind of Volta later in the poem is her becoming, I guess, less concerned about her own position in memory, her own position in history or her own legacy. [00:11:00] But actually it may be the case to say that as she was writing this poem, she kind of realizes that.

Her own position is less important because she gets the opportunity to write it. She has the ability to publish and to write and to create her own history. So here where she talks of the future that the other person has planned, she gets to write the present as it is in this exact moment. She gets to write a new future, and the future that she writes is one where that person is happy without her.

And I think that's quite a lovely thought, really. It becomes. know, as we say, very soft, but I don't necessarily know if that translates to her being weak in a sense, but I might be completely off piece there. What do you think

Joe: , I think you're absolutely onto something there. And I think actually it strikes at one of the, the kind of core tensions of rosette's career and we're gonna talk later on about to what extent this poem kind of subscribes to Victorian idealized womanhood, particularly, and that links to this question as well, because, you know, Rossetti is a. Unmarried woman who makes her own [00:12:00] money. I mean, that is a very unusual thing for a Victorian woman. And yet many of her poems sort of align themselves with Victorian idealized visions of womanhood. So there is this tension between the reality of her life and the world she portrays in her poetry.

And we see that here as well, because I've just mentioned, and you know, as this poem explores. There is a sense of acknowledging the fact that one's legacy is always continued by others, people who come after you, the way they remember you, how much they decide to think of you and, kind of enshrine your memory and your legacy. That is the case for the majority of us. Writers and artists are some of the few people who actually get to speak to subsequent audiences directly because the art. Persists. So there is a really odd tension there between, on the one hand, the poem is kind of slightly giving over responsibility for, remembering this speaker to others, to those loved ones, and yet the very act of writing the poem means that you have a direct line of communication between yourself and subsequent generations.

You almost can bypass your loved ones. It's not as [00:13:00] important how they choose to remember you. Because you can speak directly, to the future in a way that very few kind of civilians can, if you will. And there's a lovely tension there between this abdication on the one hand of agency while writing that abdication of agency is in itself reclaiming it. 

Maiya: For sure. It's a really strange balance, I think between certainty and uncertainty there too. And one of the things that always stands out to me in this poem is the way that death is described is quite euphemistic. It's very. Gentle and it's very unsure. You know, I'll just pick up a few phrases within the poem, such as The Silent Land and Gone Away.

These are very, very light touch ways of describing what death is and when you have the certainty of memory. As contrasted against the uncertainty of death, there really is a distance that's created between the speaker and this proposed future for her. And I really love the way that that kind of creates this very, ephemeral [00:14:00] atmosphere around this poem.

It feels very. grand in many ways and, I know that it's one poem that is consistently read at, funerals, for example, because the language is so beautiful and so simple, and yet there is something very magical about the way that death is described because in many ways it's quite abstracted this impression of being gone into a silent land. She repurposes the peace that is suggested by her departure. . Offers herself a kind of solace outside of what this marriage or what this partnership is.

And I find that a really unique proposition, especially for a Victorian woman at the time, and someone who, you know, as I'm sure will go on to discuss, lived quite reclusive. You know, as she was publishing her poems. And as I said in the intro, she was rejecting proposals left, right, and center. She lived a relatively solitary life in terms of.

Something outside of her family. So I really love this impression that she's been able to create her own piece and come to terms with the fact that, if her loved ones do move on without her, that is also [00:15:00] okay. And it's a really, you know, as I said earlier, it's a very mature perspective for someone who was so young when they were writing this.

I wouldn't be surprised looking back at poems that I wrote, or poems that we've spoken about on the podcast, like, Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night that they absolutely rage against this idea of death.

And yet here death is purposed to something that is much more abstract, much more ephemeral, and actually is a really beautiful moment to. Come to terms with your own sense of self, and she's just, wonderful at creating that piece. I find.

Joe: No, I think you're absolutely right, and I think the Dylan Thomas comparison is an excellent one. And if any listeners haven't checked the episode out, we did that I think in season two.

It was a really interesting conversation about that poem, so feel free to go and check that one out after this episode. But. I think we have to, at this point refocus in on the religious element. And obviously, you know, the reference to the silent lands is a kind of an obscure biblical reference. there's an allusion to some the text of Isaiah.

There's an allusion to Psalms, but it's not. A declarative way of describing heaven as it kind of appears. I think, deliberately [00:16:00] murky example. you know, in some cases in the Bible, it's a physical place, to the west. In other places in the Bible, it's regarded as a kind of abstract moment in time between death and resurrection.

But it's not the most obvious solution to heaven. She certainly could have chosen more, and it's not that she didn't know them. As we've mentioned, she was very devout. If she'd wanted to make a more direct illusion to heaven, she could have done now. Nevertheless, it is definitely, a, a kind of framing of the permanent religious context.

By the end of the second line, we understand where everybody is here. This is not a physical journey she has taken on earth that has separated her from the addressee. It is a spiritual journey. She has passed away in this kind of imagined future, and she is, imploring, the loved one. And we'll talk about who that is in a moment, to remember her as she was in life.

I mean, there's so much going on here that I'd like to explore. I'm interested, ma, I'd love to get your thought on this. The title of the poems we've mentioned is Simply That Word, remember, and yet the poem begins, remember Me? And I'm so curious as to why the Me has been kind of removed from that title.

'cause I think in many [00:17:00] ways, given the, only thing or figure in the poem that is being called to remember is the speaker, it would almost make more sense for the title to be Remember Me? why do you think Rossetti has withdrawn that word? Why leave the word remember alone in the title. 

Maiya: That's such a good question and I'd actually not considered why she would've taken it away, , But I must admit, what I think stands out to me is the latter part of this poem, post Volta, let's say, because I think what she's actually trying to say is to recall the memories that made the other person happy.

And those aren't necessarily, yes, they're, you know, associated with that one person, but. I guess the sum of the parts is much greater than the individual. So I think by taking the me away, it's a bit more selfless. She's allowing that person to retain those positive memories, to remember the good times, and yet not clinging onto the slightly more negative implications of remembering a person. Because of course, grief is absolutely all consuming and remembering [00:18:00] someone, will come with pain if you've lost that person. there's so many romance stories and novels that have been written about the fact that, you know, if you hold onto someone for so long, you can never let them go.

It doesn't allow you to move on. So I think she has through both metaphor and quite literally removed herself from the equation. She has left nothing but those memories, and I think that's why she's taken the me out of it. It's quite a literal removal of self, a very selfless act because there's something very, very beautiful about allowing the person you love.

Your family to move on without you. it's an incredibly hard decision to make, especially when we are talking about a speaker who has kind of already passed off of the earthly plane. You know, you have no control anymore. And of course, you'd want your loved ones to clinging onto you, but.

Perhaps you also need that freedom and this language of the silent land, the handholding, and being able to let go. Reminds me of the myth of Orpheus and ize because of course we have this kind of journey that is [00:19:00] being taken through a spiritual realm, and actually the question is asked, is it better to hold on and clinging onto that grief?

Or is it better to let go and simply move on with life? And it's a really wonderful way of decentralizing the central speaker I find. 

Joe: That was a really, really fascinating comparison. I hadn't thought about the myth of Orpheus, but I think it really works nicely. I'm so glad you mentioned that word, selflessness or selfless in that explanation, because I think that's really at the crux of what's going on in this poem. And there's a couple of key details I'd like to focus in on, and as you mentioned. Especially as a poem to all towards its conclusion, the kind of main wish being expressed here is that while the speaker would like to be remembered, they don't want to be remembered if it causes their loved one's pain, if it's a choice between her memory, persisting in the world or her loved one's living. an existence devoid of pain, devoid of painful memories. She would rather the latter. She would rather spare her loved ones. And it's an incredibly selfless act. And I wonder whether we can view the, poemthe [00:20:00] context of those Victorian ideals that I mentioned at the top of the episode, because so much of our perception of the Victorian era. Is centered around kind of masculine figures. I mean, so many of the novels of this era are around the solitary masculine figures who have to be austere and patriotic and reserved and we've taught in previous episodes, I think, and certainly it's, very much in kind of the public conversation around how. There is kind of a dark undercurrent to the Victorian male image that actually there is a sorted underbelly to these respectable Victorian gentlemen. But this perm, of course, is very much interested in the idea of the Victorian woman, and it really is worth pointing out the dates again here. So Rossetti was born in 1830.

Victor takes a throne just seven years later. So Rossetti would've had a handful of memories before Queen Victoria took the throne, and Queen Victoria continued to reign for seven years after rosette's death. So Rossetti knew virtually nothing except the reign of Queen Victoria in which Britain was kind of the global superpower.

And British [00:21:00] supremacy abroad was, largely unchallenged. Now. the image of the Victorian woman in this, moment in time is a fascinating one because obviously there are expectations around being reserved as well, like their male counterparts, but there is obviously a key emphasis placed on domesticity, being in the home, raising the family. and imparting good Victorian values around respect and, reservedness as I've mentioned, I mean, it's not a coincidence that Earnest is such a popular name in the Victorian era. There was a sense that to be a good Victorian, you had to be religious, you had to be earnest, but there's two kind of comparison points I think are important here. And one is a real Victorian, contextual point and one is a religious point. As we mentioned. The poemis written in 1849, but not published until 1862.

And there is a key thing that happens between those dates that I think shapes the way that this poemgoes on to be read and interpreted. And that is a Crimean War. In particular the figure in the Crimean War of Florence Nightingale, you have the kind of archetypal image of what a Victorian woman could be utterly selfless, only ever really concerned [00:22:00] with the lives of others, never thinking of herself.

This is the image that we have conjured of Florence Nightingale in our minds, and I think it's really interesting that this poem was obviously written before Florence Nightingale ever goes to the Crimean War, and yet we can see those parallels with that. Archetypal figure, so clearly resonating in the poem, which as I mentioned, would never been read by the public until after Florence Nightingale came to prominence.

So that's an interesting comparison. And again, of course we talk about Florence Nightingale so often in popular culture as being a kind of pseudo religious figure. It was almost being an incarnation of an angel of some kind. And that brings me to the other point, which is the religious point.

Because I think when we have a poem like this, it is a female narrative voice that is expressing complete selflessness. We have to go back to religion and we have to go back in particular to the figure of Mary, the mother of Christ. And I think this is a really subtle thing that perhaps certain readers might not have picked up on because. Britain at the time, and Victorian England was an Anglican country, a Protestant country, but as Maiya mentioned earlier on Rossetti and her mother and her [00:23:00] sister had a much greater interest of converted to the Anglo-Catholic faith and Catholicism to this day, places a much greater emphasis. On the figure of Mary, the selfless mother figure who thinks only of her son and thinks only of the, pain experienced by him rather than the pain that she undergoes.

And again, that sense of a figure who is willing to abdicate. She doesn't choose to bear the son of God. It is a something that is forced upon her and yet she accepts it. And that vision of what femininity can be is something, that is ultimately. Willing to acquiesce to forces beyond your control.

And again, that's not particularly a modern mindset that we hold and rightly so, but I think those two influences, one may well have influenced the writing of this poem, which is the Catholic, figure of Mary. But one I think really shapes the perception of the poem once it's published, because the Victorian readership would've been so familiar with, by that point in 1862, the iconic figure of Florence Nightingale. 

Maiya: I hadn't even considered kind [00:24:00] of Florence Nightingale's role, , And I think that's such an excellent point, Joe, and so well put, it's a fascinating way to interpolate that angelic figure, and it really sits at odds, I think, to some of the language that's used in this poem, which is the darkness and corruption that sort of sneaks its way in at the end.

But what we're actually exploring here is the banishment of that, and I love the idea that, the replication of those sorts of Victorian female values, what a woman should be in the home and in her marriage. Reflects the banishment of those kind of corruptive elements. The fact that, being good and pure and angelic and representing those more positive emotions and allowing yourself to be a conduit for those more heavenly attributes is what will banish away the bad.

And that's what I think sneaks in at the end. And, you are absolutely right. I think it can be very easily missed in this poem because of how. Simple the languages, but when you really focus in on those kind of biblical phrasings, it [00:25:00] becomes so evident.

Joe: I just as you were speaking there and I was thinking about this, this myth of Orpheus, and I just had to jump forward actually to some of my favorite lines in the poem.

So lemme just read these again. Nor I half turn to go yet turning stay. Remember me when no more day by day you tell me of our future that you planned now I want to jump to these lines for several reasons, but the first thing is when you were talking about the myth of Orpheus and UREs, that line, nor I half turn to go yet turning stay really came to mind because for anyone who's not aware, in the myth of Orpheus, he is able to lead Reus who has died outta the underworld, through the magic of his musical ability.

So long as he doesn't look around, if he gets all the way to earth and doesn't look back at her following behind him. She can be reborn. And at the very last moment, of course, in classic kind of Greek mythological fashion, he turns and she vanishes. So that sense of the figure in this poem turning yet, not turning as a kind of a hesitation, I think is, perhaps an illusion to that poem.

So I'm so glad you mentioned it. So I'm not sure I would've made that connection [00:26:00] otherwise, but. The other thing I really like about that is, again, it, kind of encapsulates something about the tension I mentioned about Rossetti as a radical figure and yet as a very conservative one. 'cause on the one hand, there's so much of her biography in her life that feels strikingly radical.

And you know, a woman who makes her own money, who doesn't marry. Who's surrounded by artistic figures. You know, her brother Dante Gabriel Rossetti , and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood were a very subversive literary and artistic group, and she was involved with that to an extent. And there's so much about her life that feels radical.

And in many ways, feminist critics of the late 20th century who were really important in reevaluating her work probably looks to stress some of those radical elements. And yet. There is also something about her as a conservative figure, deeply religious, deeply devout, writes a lot about archetypal femininity in the Victorian era without ever really, rattling the cage of what that means. And I think this line brilliantly encapsulates that. 'cause if we think about what this means to turn, we meant we get that word, twice in that line, turn and [00:27:00] then turning, we almost have that image of the revolution of a wheel. And what I love about that is. That image of a revolving wheel. And that word revolution in and of itself has opposite meanings.

On the one hand, the revolution is to continue doing the same thing and to not buck the trend and to not, cause a stir. And yet, of course, the other meaning of revolution is the exact opposite of that. To rip up the rule book to start again, to break structures. And I, love the way that line kind of flirts with both of those realities. So much of Rossi's career I think is, treading that line between whether or not she wants to be a radical or whether or not actually she's happy with the status quo as it is.

Maiya: I think that's such an excellent point. And actually just to add to that, I think there is actually a very slight rejection of this male planned future here as well.

Because of course, the lines you mentioned, remember me when no more day by day, you tell me of our future that you'd planned. There was no self insertion in that future planning. It was the partner specifically that was telling her what was going to [00:28:00] happen, and yet we have a rejection of that because of course in the line prior to this, we understand that she has made the decision to not turn or to turn.

She's given agency here and of course contrasting the, agency that she gets either to, half turn, but to go by turning stay. Set against the rejection of the planned future and also, you know, within the environment of the poem, which is of course an imagined future outside of the earthly realm.

I think it's such a fantastic way to kind of recall a little bit of power. Obviously. I completely appreciate that, you know, are writing a, slightly revolutionary poem within the parameters. Of what she can at the time. But I can absolutely see why feminist critics come back to this poem and kind of start to pull out the slightly finer threads of what could be early feminist theory here, because absolutely we have core female values in the Victorian era represented here.

But those small corruptions of that I think are [00:29:00] just early seeds of, dissatisfaction. And as you say, she spent. A whole life rejecting the comfort that, a suitor could bring a, safe and, comfortable marriage that was expected for someone of her era. And to actually be a woman in that era and have that choice is a rare and wonderful thing.

Joe: I am so glad you stuck upon that line. It's my favorite line in the poem, and you are so right that the kind of, the kernels of something much more radical are present there. Even if actually the rest of the poem doesn't follow through on that line. But you tell me of our future that you planned, I mean. there's something obviously, and I appreciate the irony of, man and the woman on the podcast, and the man is the one saying this line. But there is something so mansplaining about that. There is an acknowledgement. Oh, you tell me of our future, the idea of a future that, speaker has part ownership of.

It's Ours, but no influence over the shape of it, the way it looks, the way it's going to appear. No influence.

Maiya: I mean, I guess there's also a [00:30:00] question there of, you know, I completely agree, very mansplaining, to use a modern term of course . but there may also be that question of, the only method of escape here in this poem is that She has to die to escape that proposed future. The imagined future that she has is one outside of the trappings of that marriage, and I'm using marriage here because I think it becomes increasingly evident throughout the poem that this is meant to be a partnership, however, is that a resistance to the planned future or is that naturally her kind of falling into line and saying, well.

As a living woman, this is the expectation that is put upon me and my only escape would be through death. I think it's a, really troubling kind of undercurrent throughout this poem, and, and it's a question that I, actually, I'm not sure I know the answer to.

Joe: I mean, you're absolutely right. and another literary term, the kind of rom-com version of this poem, , if you will, would see her rejecting her mansplaining partner, and then going to marry the person she does really love. It's worth noting of course, that that doesn't happen in Rosette's [00:31:00] life. Of course, we don't know exactly.

It's the speaker is meant to resemble Rossetti and obviously Rossetti writing this at 19 could not have known that she would never marry. But is a kind of a, bittersweet. Interpretation of that line, which on the one hand feels like a moment of the speaker becoming aware of their own power and their own ability to reject this man who has laid out her future for her, whether or not she likes it or not, which is a really empowering moment.

But as my mentioned. Rejection of one abject future does not mean that there is a better one necessarily, or, or there is a, romantic partner more suitable for Rossetti, or the speaker actually is, as Maiya says, and as Rosette's life plays out, it was a series of rejecting lives that she doesn't want and, Maybe that's because she only ever wanted to be alone. We don't know. I mean, there was other poetry that, suggests that she certainly was interested in romance over the course of her life. So we can imagine that perhaps on some level she was interested in finding a romantic partner, but that doesn't happen for her. There are things that are more important to her than a romantic partner, and there is an unwillingness to compromise on those things, [00:32:00] which feels again, deeply modern in many respects. But. there's something slightly narratively unfulfilling about that for a modern audience, I feel, because obviously we would want there to be somebody that can, be a life partner for her in the way that she would've wanted. And, one doesn't want to draw too many biographical comparisons, but you know, one, the other, poets that we've discussed in this era, of course, is Elizabeth Barrett Browning. And it's such a contrast in that world because the relationship that she ended up having with her husband, Robert Browning. Feels like one of those marriages in the Victorian era, a very rare thing where there is not a massive need to compromise on either part, that they were willing to support one another artistically as well as in the home as well as professionally, in other ways. And the absence of that figure, I think is quite telling in this poem.

Maiya: Well, yeah, I think the comparison between Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Christina Rossetti is a really interesting one because one of the kind of concerns that came to my mind before we started this podcast was, in many ways a lot of the women writers from the Victorian era that we talk about do have these you know, as you [00:33:00] said earlier, revolutionary poems, even if they are in kind of smaller doses.

But what I find really quite. Odd in a sense is that both of those poets were reclusive. we are told that they lived in their homes. They didn't venture out much. They were either sickly or just happened to, exist in very small spaces, in homes, in, countryside or in Rossetti's case, in a house in London, and she never really went out.

So I guess the question, and I'd actually love to know what listeners or readers of Rossetti think is that. to be a woman and to be successful, commercially successful in this time. Was that almost a requirement? Did they have to not really be out and about and did they have to kind of tow the line in order to have that commercial success?

Because of course, it's hard to be controversial if you're never out of the house. It's hard to be controversial if you are not running in kind of complex social circles. If you simply exist within the, very fine parameters of a, Wealthy and supported life. I guess it makes it easier, but then also is that just, you know, is it just a kind of odd coincidence or is it something that [00:34:00] perhaps was more intentional, for both of them, coming from an educated family background, having support, having wealth, having access to books and histories and mythologies has of course made their writing all the richer.

But is it something that's. Also not benefited them because they haven't been able to step out into Victorian society, perhaps in the way that we would expect other wives to do other expectations that were laid on them to be a wife in this society. And yeah, I mean it's a, thought that kind of occurred to me and. It's actually probably a pretty good opportunity to ask. Um, as of this week, I believe, poem analysis.com has set up a community, so actually Joe and I are both on there. You can talk to us directly. We will be posting stuff on there, asking questions to our lovely listeners. So what do you think? Do you think this is.

A rossetti at her best. Do you think she was a revolutionary? Do you think she was just a woman who happened to love art and write poetry? I'd absolutely love to know people's thoughts, especially given that's all we have time for today, [00:35:00] unfortunately. 

Joe: You are absolutely right Maiya, and that community has been really, really great to see it get going. It's been in the works for a long time. I've really enjoyed the interactions I've already had on there with listeners and poetry lovers.

So do get on there and do, tell us what you think and just on that last point, Maiya, you were making about. The kind of acceptable face of the female writer in the 19th century. 'cause it's not just, of course, in Victoria, England. I mean, we did the episode on Emily Dickinson, who obviously is a contemporary.

and again, that sense of being a recluse. And I'm thinking of other writers of this era, you know, the Bronte sisters and, The idea that Emily Brontë in particular could write something as unbelievably radical and brilliant as Wuthering Heights. And in the preface to that book, her sister Charlotte could effectively write an apology for the book.

there is an acceptable level of radicalism, but there is also a line that should not be crossed for female writers. And I'm thinking, the century in terms of literary figures, I think as kind of book ended. By the likes of Byron at the beginning of the century, and someone like Oscar Wilde at the end of the century, not necessarily saying they were the greatest writers of their time, but certainly they were among the most [00:36:00] famous.

And it's hard to picture how a female writer could have behaved in the way that they did. I mean, Lord Byron famously described as mad, bad, and dangerous to know. And of course, Oscar Wilde at the end of the century with all of his eccentricities and all of his very exaggerated public persona. It's hard to picture a female writer being able to, in that era, be that way in public and yet remain commercially successful. It would, of course, too much outrage. So I think it's interesting to see radicalism that takes root in the work first before the public persona can kind of catch up. it's a really curious one.

And of course, you know, the 19th century in many ways is the century in which the birth of modern celebrity occurred. Those early celebrities, Byron, as I mentioned, Oscar Wilde and others, and it's interesting to see. How some of those tropes around the way that male celebrities are allowed to behave compared to female celebrities continue right up to the present day.

I mean, the hypocrisy of our current media and the way we portray male and female celebrities, I think is very much apparent. But as Maiya mentioned, if [00:37:00] you have any thoughts on that or any of the things we discussed in this episode. We want to hear them on the community pages. I mean, we've got brilliant stuff already there.

There's forums of book recommendations, poem discussions. You can suggest more episodes of beyond the verse. You can tell us which episodes you've enjoyed the most. We can't wait to see you there, but unfortunately that is all we have time for today.

But Maiya, can you tell us what we're talking about in next week's episode?

Maiya: I am very excited for next week's episode. It's gonna be a slightly different sort of episode for us. We will be talking about the ODE form in its entirety, but I promise it's not gonna be a three hour long episode. We will try and keep it nice and condensed for you all. But as Joe says, that's all we have time for today.

So for now, it's goodbye from me.

Joe: And goodbye from me and the whole team at PoemAnalysis.com and Poetry+. See you next time.