I’ve been spending the day caring for my mom and am delighted to see this lively conversation going on! Will catch up and chime in as I can. What a wonderful community we have here!
So much beauty and meaning in such a short little poem. There is a possible triple meaning that I caught a glimpse of in the lines, possibly because I once memorized Romans 6, 7, & 8. As Romans 6 says, whose who trust in Christ die to their old selves in His death and are raised with Him to new life - so I immediately percieved "U is graved" as being Herbert's sense of his old self, in the second person, being buried. I memorized those chapters of Romans while in the midst of and at the behest of a very legalistic program, and so the idea of that death of the old self, burial, and resurrection in Christ seemed to require laborious self sacrifice. Herbert's little poem has reminded me that Jesus said that His yoke was easy and His burden light (Matthew 11:30)- He truly does ease us.
Karen, regarding the discussion last week whether Jesus is 'The Pulley' when I saw the title of this week's article, I suddenly remembered Jesus' words from the Gospel of John (12:32), "As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself." Yes, I think He is Herbert's pulley.
If I may go backwards a moment with another point about "The Pulley," many of Herbert's poems are about what he calls the church furniture, "The Altar" being one of them. We should note that pulleys were used/are used in old church buildings, where a deacon would lower the chandelier to light its candles. You get both up-close illumination while the chandelier is lowered for lighting, and illumination for the church when the chandelier is raised.
At the moment, I have nothing to add to the discussion of "Jesu" ("Iesu") other than to say a hello to Elizabeth and we should meet again for Abbey or Lola coffee soon. My Pendleton book group is looking to start now in November. (I should probably have put this last paragraph in an email, if I could find your address again.)
Hi, Jack! *waves to Marion from Upland* I have your email address, so I'll drop you a line to set up coffee. Looking forward to hearing more about the book group starting up again, too.
What an exquisite poem. And this is such a lovely meditation, thank you so much for it. Finding at the end that not only is the Lord Jesus a balm for Herbert's broken heart (no small thing!) but that he is also Jesu for the whole of Herbert makes the invitation of the poem linger and intensify. He is not simply medicine for the sick but Messiah for the sinner, loving Lord for the loveless and lost (and on we could easily go). "Once the heart is touched, a poem like this becomes a friend. Once a friend, it will further reveal itself over time with study and contemplation, just like Christ our comforter" is a precious prospect. Thank you again.
This is excellent. Thank you Elizabeth. I fit in the category of people who is new to all this. It is a blessing to me to read this kind of poetry and consider something new. I’ve done my own breaking and putting together the past year and I have found how near and dear Jesus has always been. Abiding in Christ has been the theme of the year. I appreciated your explanation. So good.
Thanks for reading, Mel! I love it that you were able to identify with the speaker in the poem, and I love your connection to the practice of "abiding in" (remaining, waiting on, continuing in patience, patiently enduring). Surely this is central to the poem since Herbert begins there: "Jesu is IN my heart".
Thank you Elizabeth (and Karen) for sharing this poem! Herbert provides such solace for the soul. Easter Wings is one of my favorite Herbert poems, so I look forward to next week. I'm just reading all of Paradise Lost for the first time and it is fascinating to see how Milton creates his own epic poem through the story of creation. I haven't read Robinson's book about Genesis, but I so love Gilead. Personally, I did not find the other three books in that series to be nearly as beautiful.
I have an aesthetic question for Elizabeth or Karen or anyone interested. Some of the metaphysical poetry of the 17th Century slides into sentimentality of the kind Flannery O'Connor dislikes. Too much preciousness. With his emphasis on sweetness, does Herbert ever become too sentimental? If so, when? Would an answer only be a matter of personal taste?
(I can't think of a Herbert poem I dislike, but I have occasionally thought that he makes a cute move, and then I have questions.)
If his poems were less perfectly wrought or his persona less humble, he might be guilty of sentimentality! As it is, his genius and his humility keep his poetry from crossing that line for me. WWFT(What Would Flannery Think?)??
I think Elizabeth is spot on. It can be a fine line. And I think sometimes (because of overuse) what once was clever and witty (truly) loses its edge. Even so, it’s a good thing to ask how something does pass the test of time in this way. I’m going to think about it more. I know when I first read this poem, I didn’t “get” it with just one reading and much keeps being revealed with each re-reading.
Dr Johnson perhaps has a point about Paradise Lost but unless we tackle it we will not know so I think that we definitely should . I have never read it and I feel that if I did , and read it slowly I would be glad . Besides the reason that I so enjoy this substack is the feeling that we are exploring all English literature but there is no hurry , no exams.
Karen, re Robinson's book, Reading Genesis - I read it earlier in the year and found it quite a mixture. I've read most of what she's written, her volumes of essays included (the sole exception is Housekeeping, funnily enough!), so I'm familiar with what she would term her liberal calivinist approach (albeit I don't share it). Because she is here dealing with scripture front, centre and back, it means her approach to scripture is always on display - and that approach is what could be called old-school liberal, yet without the unbelief that so often accompanied that phase of biblical criticism. And it was a phase; she sounds somewhat old fashioned at times, in scholarly terms, when she talks about biblical interpretation. It probably reflects the dominant approaches that were in vogue in the academy when she first studied (that's my guess anyway).
It's not an approach I would recommend to a young-in-the-faith Christian but there remains so much in what she writes that is truly helpful. Her observations so often transcend that old critical school and can be so acute, so perceptive and attentive to the subtle literary nuances and the heavy theological import of scripture.
Which is so ironic because there is one huge disappointment in the book: for such a careful reader of the text of scripture Robinson mixes up her Lamechs - not only once and not over insubstantial points. There is a Lamech from Cain's line who is given to violence (Gen 4:19ff) and a Lamech from Seth's line who is Noah's father (Gen 5:25ff). Not the same guy at all. And it means the strength of the case she's making in that part of the book (which she frequently references) is eviscerated and its validity questioned. How that wasn't picked-up in the editorial stage is a mystery to me. It's such a shame because it inevitably makes one ask, Has she been careless elsewhere in her reading of Genesis?
So definitely a book worth reading, especially for its larger observations, but not a doctrine of scripture I would advocate and disappointing where it appears sloppy.
What an odd mistake to make. I love reading the genealogies of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament because they have hidden nuggets of information, so I know Lamech, Noah's father is the son of Methuselah, the famously oldest man in the Bible, and the grandson of the mysterious Enoch, who walked with God and was not, for God took him.
The Lamech who is known for being the second recorded murderer in Genesis is descended from the line of Cain, Adam's oldest son and the first murderer. That Lamech's line has two similarly named people, Enoch and Methushael in it, but not in the same order - an Irad and Mehujael are in between them. The Lamech of Cain's line is 5 generations removed from Cain.
Lamech, Noah's father, is descended from Seth, Adam's third son. Seth was born, it is indicated, when Cain was a grown man. This Lamech is 6 generations removed from Seth. The line of Cain and the line of Seth are placed in deliberate contrast (Adam had other sons, but other than the murdered Abel, only Cain and Seth are named), the way Esau' family and Jacob's family are later contrasted in Genesis. Contrast between brothers is a recurrent theme of Genesis, so it would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the book to confuse the lines of Cain and Seth.
16 hrs ago·edited 16 hrs agoLiked by Karen Swallow Prior
Yes, quite so. The first passage I noted with that mistake was page 59 - I wondered if it was my mistake, that she was somehow meaning both Lamechs but I don't think she can be: "the long genealogical view of the family of Cain reflects God's knowledge of the lives that would be spared with his [Cain'] life. Murderous Lamech is one, and Noah son of Lamech is another...". And then p.68 is very clearly muddling the different Lamechs: "Noah at this point can be compared to his father, Lamech. Both of them exact revenge, Lamech by killing anyone who injures him..."
She actually makes a similar mistake with her Enochs - there is Enoch, son of Cain, and there is Enoch, father of Methuselah, grand-grandfather of Noah, clearly different characters but on page 56 she writes of Cain naming a city for his son Enoch and on page 57 continues "[Cain's] son Enoch has an exceptional place in the tradition, having 'walked with God' through a long life, until 'he was not; for God took him'".
It really puzzles me. Perhaps the publishers didn't have it read by an OT scholar as part of the editorial process? Maybe that's not how things are done. But it would have spared some blushes had they done so.
Oh dear, that so clearly violates the literary intent of laying the lines of Cain and Seth side by side. Cain's Lamech has three sons who develop agriculture, manufacture, and entertainment. They are building a great civilization, but it is a wicked and cruel one, and with the long lives such men live, the agony of the weak and powerless will be unbearable - those who live under a tyrant at least have the hope the tyrant will die one day, but what if that tyrant could live for at least five centuries, or even three quarters of a millennia? The wickedness is spreading - even Seth's line is starting to maltreat women by engaging in the polygamy that Cain's Lamech started.
In opposition, Seth's Lamech is the father of Noah. Lamech sees clearly the great suffering around him and gives Noah his name, saying, "This one will bring us relief from the agonized labour of our hands." Noah will build an Ark at the Almighty's instruction, and the flood will sweep away the cruel civilization being built by the other Lamech's sons. The Almighty promises Noah that never again will such a Flood need to occur. God also decrees that whoever sheds human blood, by humans his blood will be shed - no longer will those with murderous intent, like Cain and his descendant Lamech, be allowed to walk the earth for so long with impunity.
I’ve been spending the day caring for my mom and am delighted to see this lively conversation going on! Will catch up and chime in as I can. What a wonderful community we have here!
So much beauty and meaning in such a short little poem. There is a possible triple meaning that I caught a glimpse of in the lines, possibly because I once memorized Romans 6, 7, & 8. As Romans 6 says, whose who trust in Christ die to their old selves in His death and are raised with Him to new life - so I immediately percieved "U is graved" as being Herbert's sense of his old self, in the second person, being buried. I memorized those chapters of Romans while in the midst of and at the behest of a very legalistic program, and so the idea of that death of the old self, burial, and resurrection in Christ seemed to require laborious self sacrifice. Herbert's little poem has reminded me that Jesus said that His yoke was easy and His burden light (Matthew 11:30)- He truly does ease us.
Karen, regarding the discussion last week whether Jesus is 'The Pulley' when I saw the title of this week's article, I suddenly remembered Jesus' words from the Gospel of John (12:32), "As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to myself." Yes, I think He is Herbert's pulley.
Beautiful connection to Matthew 11:30, Holly! Thank you for sharing.
Wow! Yes. I love this insight. He is our rest. He is the pulley!
Herbert is so full of gems.
If I may go backwards a moment with another point about "The Pulley," many of Herbert's poems are about what he calls the church furniture, "The Altar" being one of them. We should note that pulleys were used/are used in old church buildings, where a deacon would lower the chandelier to light its candles. You get both up-close illumination while the chandelier is lowered for lighting, and illumination for the church when the chandelier is raised.
At the moment, I have nothing to add to the discussion of "Jesu" ("Iesu") other than to say a hello to Elizabeth and we should meet again for Abbey or Lola coffee soon. My Pendleton book group is looking to start now in November. (I should probably have put this last paragraph in an email, if I could find your address again.)
Excellent insight about the pulleys used for the chandeliers!
Hi, Jack! *waves to Marion from Upland* I have your email address, so I'll drop you a line to set up coffee. Looking forward to hearing more about the book group starting up again, too.
What an exquisite poem. And this is such a lovely meditation, thank you so much for it. Finding at the end that not only is the Lord Jesus a balm for Herbert's broken heart (no small thing!) but that he is also Jesu for the whole of Herbert makes the invitation of the poem linger and intensify. He is not simply medicine for the sick but Messiah for the sinner, loving Lord for the loveless and lost (and on we could easily go). "Once the heart is touched, a poem like this becomes a friend. Once a friend, it will further reveal itself over time with study and contemplation, just like Christ our comforter" is a precious prospect. Thank you again.
"...loving Lord for the loveless and lost" -- I think you have captured Herbert's heart here. Thank you for engaging with the post, Richard!
This is excellent. Thank you Elizabeth. I fit in the category of people who is new to all this. It is a blessing to me to read this kind of poetry and consider something new. I’ve done my own breaking and putting together the past year and I have found how near and dear Jesus has always been. Abiding in Christ has been the theme of the year. I appreciated your explanation. So good.
Thanks for reading, Mel! I love it that you were able to identify with the speaker in the poem, and I love your connection to the practice of "abiding in" (remaining, waiting on, continuing in patience, patiently enduring). Surely this is central to the poem since Herbert begins there: "Jesu is IN my heart".
Thank you Elizabeth (and Karen) for sharing this poem! Herbert provides such solace for the soul. Easter Wings is one of my favorite Herbert poems, so I look forward to next week. I'm just reading all of Paradise Lost for the first time and it is fascinating to see how Milton creates his own epic poem through the story of creation. I haven't read Robinson's book about Genesis, but I so love Gilead. Personally, I did not find the other three books in that series to be nearly as beautiful.
Thank you for reading, Virginia!
That is one more vote in favor, possibly, of covering Paradise List here…
I have an aesthetic question for Elizabeth or Karen or anyone interested. Some of the metaphysical poetry of the 17th Century slides into sentimentality of the kind Flannery O'Connor dislikes. Too much preciousness. With his emphasis on sweetness, does Herbert ever become too sentimental? If so, when? Would an answer only be a matter of personal taste?
(I can't think of a Herbert poem I dislike, but I have occasionally thought that he makes a cute move, and then I have questions.)
If his poems were less perfectly wrought or his persona less humble, he might be guilty of sentimentality! As it is, his genius and his humility keep his poetry from crossing that line for me. WWFT(What Would Flannery Think?)??
I think Elizabeth is spot on. It can be a fine line. And I think sometimes (because of overuse) what once was clever and witty (truly) loses its edge. Even so, it’s a good thing to ask how something does pass the test of time in this way. I’m going to think about it more. I know when I first read this poem, I didn’t “get” it with just one reading and much keeps being revealed with each re-reading.
Dr Johnson perhaps has a point about Paradise Lost but unless we tackle it we will not know so I think that we definitely should . I have never read it and I feel that if I did , and read it slowly I would be glad . Besides the reason that I so enjoy this substack is the feeling that we are exploring all English literature but there is no hurry , no exams.
Excellent points, Miranda! 😃
Karen, re Robinson's book, Reading Genesis - I read it earlier in the year and found it quite a mixture. I've read most of what she's written, her volumes of essays included (the sole exception is Housekeeping, funnily enough!), so I'm familiar with what she would term her liberal calivinist approach (albeit I don't share it). Because she is here dealing with scripture front, centre and back, it means her approach to scripture is always on display - and that approach is what could be called old-school liberal, yet without the unbelief that so often accompanied that phase of biblical criticism. And it was a phase; she sounds somewhat old fashioned at times, in scholarly terms, when she talks about biblical interpretation. It probably reflects the dominant approaches that were in vogue in the academy when she first studied (that's my guess anyway).
It's not an approach I would recommend to a young-in-the-faith Christian but there remains so much in what she writes that is truly helpful. Her observations so often transcend that old critical school and can be so acute, so perceptive and attentive to the subtle literary nuances and the heavy theological import of scripture.
Which is so ironic because there is one huge disappointment in the book: for such a careful reader of the text of scripture Robinson mixes up her Lamechs - not only once and not over insubstantial points. There is a Lamech from Cain's line who is given to violence (Gen 4:19ff) and a Lamech from Seth's line who is Noah's father (Gen 5:25ff). Not the same guy at all. And it means the strength of the case she's making in that part of the book (which she frequently references) is eviscerated and its validity questioned. How that wasn't picked-up in the editorial stage is a mystery to me. It's such a shame because it inevitably makes one ask, Has she been careless elsewhere in her reading of Genesis?
So definitely a book worth reading, especially for its larger observations, but not a doctrine of scripture I would advocate and disappointing where it appears sloppy.
What an odd mistake to make. I love reading the genealogies of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament because they have hidden nuggets of information, so I know Lamech, Noah's father is the son of Methuselah, the famously oldest man in the Bible, and the grandson of the mysterious Enoch, who walked with God and was not, for God took him.
The Lamech who is known for being the second recorded murderer in Genesis is descended from the line of Cain, Adam's oldest son and the first murderer. That Lamech's line has two similarly named people, Enoch and Methushael in it, but not in the same order - an Irad and Mehujael are in between them. The Lamech of Cain's line is 5 generations removed from Cain.
Lamech, Noah's father, is descended from Seth, Adam's third son. Seth was born, it is indicated, when Cain was a grown man. This Lamech is 6 generations removed from Seth. The line of Cain and the line of Seth are placed in deliberate contrast (Adam had other sons, but other than the murdered Abel, only Cain and Seth are named), the way Esau' family and Jacob's family are later contrasted in Genesis. Contrast between brothers is a recurrent theme of Genesis, so it would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the book to confuse the lines of Cain and Seth.
Yes, quite so. The first passage I noted with that mistake was page 59 - I wondered if it was my mistake, that she was somehow meaning both Lamechs but I don't think she can be: "the long genealogical view of the family of Cain reflects God's knowledge of the lives that would be spared with his [Cain'] life. Murderous Lamech is one, and Noah son of Lamech is another...". And then p.68 is very clearly muddling the different Lamechs: "Noah at this point can be compared to his father, Lamech. Both of them exact revenge, Lamech by killing anyone who injures him..."
She actually makes a similar mistake with her Enochs - there is Enoch, son of Cain, and there is Enoch, father of Methuselah, grand-grandfather of Noah, clearly different characters but on page 56 she writes of Cain naming a city for his son Enoch and on page 57 continues "[Cain's] son Enoch has an exceptional place in the tradition, having 'walked with God' through a long life, until 'he was not; for God took him'".
It really puzzles me. Perhaps the publishers didn't have it read by an OT scholar as part of the editorial process? Maybe that's not how things are done. But it would have spared some blushes had they done so.
Oh dear, that so clearly violates the literary intent of laying the lines of Cain and Seth side by side. Cain's Lamech has three sons who develop agriculture, manufacture, and entertainment. They are building a great civilization, but it is a wicked and cruel one, and with the long lives such men live, the agony of the weak and powerless will be unbearable - those who live under a tyrant at least have the hope the tyrant will die one day, but what if that tyrant could live for at least five centuries, or even three quarters of a millennia? The wickedness is spreading - even Seth's line is starting to maltreat women by engaging in the polygamy that Cain's Lamech started.
In opposition, Seth's Lamech is the father of Noah. Lamech sees clearly the great suffering around him and gives Noah his name, saying, "This one will bring us relief from the agonized labour of our hands." Noah will build an Ark at the Almighty's instruction, and the flood will sweep away the cruel civilization being built by the other Lamech's sons. The Almighty promises Noah that never again will such a Flood need to occur. God also decrees that whoever sheds human blood, by humans his blood will be shed - no longer will those with murderous intent, like Cain and his descendant Lamech, be allowed to walk the earth for so long with impunity.
Great insights, Richard. Thank you! This will help when I get to the book.