There is an interesting contrast between Christianity and Roman mythology. Barbauld uses epic conventions to accentuate the differences between the meager life (Christian) and the hedonistic (Roman). The best example of this is at the beginning with an invocation to the muse, "The faithful Muse believe" (3), which identifies the poem quickly as a reference to the epic. Words like "reverent" (2), "pious" (4), and "grace" (14) are Christian themes interlaced inside a poem that also references Roman myth, such as "blu-ey'd Naiads" (18) and "Ceres['s]... golden stone" (33). These themes appear to be in harmony until the tankard, comes to life and speaks. It calls into question its use with its first breath by referencing Satan's speech in Paradise Lost, ""How changed the scene!" (27). This Miltonic reference hints that the tankard has fallen from a higher order, like Satan in Paradise Lost, once used in a jovial, extravagant manner but now solely used in a simple, utilitarian manner for only water. It also signifies a shift in tone, where the Christian values and hedonistic values clash against each other. The tankard takes the contrast a step further in line 68 when it says, "No carnival is even Christmas here". Even in times of supposed celebration, these Christian participants are living "one long Lent" (69), implying that they have lost the foundation of their Christian belief, the joy of Jesus' birth, through adherence to Christian values. The religious head of the church, "who lull'd in downey slumbers" (73) is contrasted against "Comus' sprightly train their vigils hold" (76), a sleepy religion against a lively party, to highlight that adherence to religion has resulted in a loss of humanity.
What is the Sybil's role at the end of the poem? I see similarities to when the tankard speaks: "Cold drops of dew" (23) and "Chill'd at her touch" (85), "deep hollow groans" (26) and "low murmurs" (87), and the startling supernatural appearance of both the Sybil and the speaking tankard. At the same time I am confused on how to read these similarities in the greater context of the poem. Also, how do the references to exotic locations, such as India, China, and the Indies, in the tankard's speech work within the poem? It is interesting to me that these foreign drinks are what the tankard thinks should be placed within him instead of water, which is pure and from England.
Barbauld's use of contrasting Christian and pagan rhetoric in the poem is quite interesting, I agree—this is a key way in which Barbauld distinguishes between the tankard’s former life in the houses of Anglican minsters and government officials (which are cast in pagan language), and its new life in the home of a religious Dissenter. This brings out the fundamental condition of the tankard’s perspective, and the poem’s satire on both tankard and its former owners. Your question about Sybil is a good one: in making the chastisement come from Sybil, it seems Barbauld is marking the tankard’s skewed perspective and alerting us to the social satire in the poem. The point about goods from the East and West Indies suggests that the drink being referenced is not necessarily foreign, but Barbauld is drawing our attention to the imperial and colonial context in which alcohol is produced (and thus to the way Aldermen and Mayors are consuming the products of empire, which is certainly meant as a double critique of their morals).
ReplyDelete