Bowery B'hoys

The Bowery B'hoys started out as a the tough youths that hung out in the Bowery and then as time went on the perception of them seemed to shift to that of the ideal urban American. The spelling is used to evoke an Irish pronunciation as many of them were immigrants, though not all Irish. It is speculated that the "voice" or persona of "Song of Myself" comes from the voice/position/social standing of a Bowery B'hoy. I was surprised to have read this because I thought the voice of Song of Myself" was the poet, Walt Whitman, himself. I can see where the attraction to the Bowery B'hoys lies for Whitman. He tends to romanticize the working-class, common man way of life so the Bowery B'hoy certainly would fit the bill for this: "That ruffianly lower-class swell, the Bowery B'hoy—already a hero of the raucous popular theater frequented by Whitman—lent his outrageous swagger to "Song of Myself"" (1855)(whitmanarchive.org). But in taking it a step further it is interesting to see how it was one of Whitman's goals to go beyond class structure in "Song of Myself," to include everyone, and as the Bowery B'hoy evolved from ruffian to a representation of a middle-class New Yorker we can see then how the voice really matches the intent of the poem.

There is a lot on the net about the Bowery B'hoys online, but I found these two sites paricularly interesting:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2uTCiN347lMC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Bowery+b’hoy&source=bl&ots=cScBcz89Kh&sig=h0Q4QL6UW5ue4OLn7NZGpkyn5X0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ud5FT__ALZT1sQLZ9YHDDw&ved=0CHMQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=Bowery%20b’hoy&f=false

http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/encyclopedia/entry_37.html

"Walt, Put Down the Pencil, and Back Away Slowly"

The most interesting revision to me was that Whitman strikes:

118   Thruster holding me tight, and that I hold tight!

We hurt each other as the bridegroom and the bride          hurt each other.

from the blue book and it doesn't remain in the 1867 version. I remember reading that the first time through and thinking, “Whoa, that causes a pause in 2012 never mind in the mid 1800s.” I wonder why he decided to take it out. Maybe he thought it was crossing the line, though I doubt it considering all of the other sexual references presented in the work.


The other revision that stood out to me was the addition of "O, speech" to one of my favorite lines, "Do you not know, O speech, how the buds beneath you are folded?" This really clarifies the metaphor and it makes the meaning much more powerful.

Other than some sporadic changes like these two, in which I can't speak to Whitman's motivation of why he cut these lines or not, the only pattern I noticed in this revision is that of taking the “e” out of past tense verbs so that they only have the “ 'd” remaining. He also changes some words that normally would be capitalized and makes them lowercase. I am not sure why he does this. The first thing that comes to mind is that he wants it to sound more colloquial, more like the common man and as for striking down the uppercase letters: Maybe he is getting rid of hierarchy in the written word to match his belief put forth in “Song of Myself” that everyone is as good or bad as everyone else. Equality everywhere, even for proper nouns! Don't think you're so important! 

Personal pet-peeve: Why doesn't every edition of Leaves of Grass have line numbering? (I am looking at the two editions I have, the original 1855 edition and the “Death-Bed” edition.) That would make everyone's life a lot easier for comparing since Whitman seems a bit OCD in changing his work over and over and over again. There is something to be said for over-revision. Maybe a poem shouldn't be treated like a series of new software releases.

I think that despite completely chopping certain sections, for the most part Whitman makes minor revisions; punctuation changes and the small detail changes mentioned above. The feel of “Song of Myself” remains the same. The heart of the poem, what it intends to do, works equally as well in all of these editions.  

Oneida Community

I think that what Whitman and the Oneida Community have in common is that they both had radical views for the time and were not shy to express them. I believe the most obvious and important connection would be that of their views on equality. No one is more than an another and no one is less either. Whitman strongly believed this view and expressed it often in “Song of Myself” with regards to the status of women and slaves, etc. In the Oneida Community women held important positions in their businesses and they were not looked at as inferiors. The Oneida Community developed a different type of dress for women that was less restrictive as well. I think Whitman would have liked this, but probably would have taken up a notch and said to lose the clothes all together as he advocated stripping bare so that one could experience the “touch,” that one could “know” the world around him. The Oneida also had the not so popular idea that Jesus had already come back to earth in AD 70 so they had the view that we are not just waiting around here and suffering in our earthly existence as a pit stop on the way to heaven, but that heaven is on earth, that we must have pleasure in this life as well. Whitman definitely thought that experiencing pleasure, that loafing, were beneficial which did not fit with traditional Christian views.   

Abraham Lincoln

We can really see how infatuated Whitman was with President Lincoln from this journal entry. He says that they would bow to each other cordially in passing. Did Lincoln know who Whitman was at the time?

It is interesting that Lincoln did not like the calvary of security that accompanied him when out riding. This seems to fit his humble persona, yet Whitman does mention that he saw the President riding alone with the first lady. It is difficult to imagine security not always accompanying the President and it is even more difficult to imagine them brandishing swords on horseback. With all of the tension leading to Civil War, I would have expected that he would have been heavily guarded. Where were his men at the Ford theater? I guess it was just a different time.

On a nicer note, I feel like only a poet or an artist would have noticed that,  "None of the artists or pictures has caught the deep, though subtle and indirect expression of this man's face. There is something else there. One of the great portrait painters of two or three centuries ago is needed."  Interesting assessment.

Whitman's Peers

In "Hunters of Men" Whittier addresses the issue of slavery. At first the reader is led to believe that the "hunters of men" are being exalted for their noble job. Later we see that the voice of the poem is sarcastic especially when we get to the line, "land of the brave and this home of the free." Whittier highlights the evil of enslaving those whose only "sin/Is the curl of [their] hair and the hue of [their] skin!" He makes his point by taking the tone of the slave catchers and those who favor slavery by echoing a sentiment that nonsensically must have been used a lot to advocate slavery:"What right have they here in the home of the white,/Shadowed o'er by our banner of Freedom and Right?" This is ridiculous logic since the whites were the ones who forcibly brought the slaves here. He makes the reader see that our notions of being a land founded on freedom were totally hypocritical. Whitman was obviously against slavery so the two poets have that in common and that they use their art to further their beliefs and influence others. I believe Whittier wrote this in iambic hexameter and the rhyme scheme is aabbcc and so on. This is a marked difference from Whitman who wrote is non-rhyming free verse in "Song of Myself."

In "A Dirge for O'Connell" the common thread between Lynch and Whitman is patriotism (albeit Irish rather than American patriotism,) though I don't know if Whitman would have been so quick to praise battle and fighting. She exalts the dead which Whitman does in his poem "Song of Myself" though for different reasons. She writes that O'Connell is a king though not born royal and I think that the merits of a person rather than the class hierarchy one is born into would have appealed to Whitman. He was against the rigid class structure of Europe. Again this poem is written in formal meter, quatrains of iambic trimeter and the rhyme scheme is abcb making this a ballad. This differentiates it from Whitman because he was writing free verse. I think he aimed to make a new type of poetry, one breaking away from the formal constraints of English and Irish poetry.

Broadway Sights

I really enjoyed reading the selection, “Broadway Sights” from Specimen Days because it brought up memories for me about growing up in New York. Going to Poe's House on the Grand Concourse, visiting the Van Cortlandt Mansion, and the Trinity Church graveyard, among other places, were memorable experiences. It also made me look into the origins of theater on Broadway, the connections between Astor and the arts and his connection to Poe. I now have a great little piece of useless trivia: The lions (Leo Lenox and Leo Astor ) at the NY public library were named after Astor and James Lenox because they founded the library. It must have been incredible for Whitman to see Edgar Allen Poe, James Fenimore Cooper and Charles Dickens, among others (I am focusing on the writers) as a young journalist and writer. I started to think about the celebrities I have seen or met there: Tom Hanks, Bernadette Peters, and Carol Channing and what an influence that had on me as a theater person. This seemed like a straight-up journal entry from Whitman and I am not sure exactly how it connects with Leaves of Grass except for the fact that New York itself certainly had some influence on his work, but it definitely took me on a trip down memory lane, which is funny since he lived SO long before my time. 

Barnum

http://books.google.com/books?id=M3D8ei8zhVkC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=Whitman+interviewed+Barnum+for+the+Brooklyn+Daily+Eagle+in+1846.&source=bl&ots=gjApxp9Gxe&sig=OW86g5z2AUKbdbUvy3JmiGGzkZE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZkszT8LyKIWnsQLA75SzAg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Whitman%20interviewed%20Barnum%20for%20the%20Brooklyn%20Daily%20Eagle%20in%201846.&f=false

This is the web address for a google books website that has a quote regarding Whitman's ties to P.T. Barnum. (It wouldn't let me cut and paste the quote.)

Whitman interviewed Barnum for the Brooklyn Eagle.The connection between the two men seems to rest on nationalism. We know that Whitman was a patriot and transformed American poetry so it makes sense that he would ask Barnum, after returning from a trip to Europe, whether there was anything in Europe that would make him love America less to which Barnum basically replied that Europe was stuffy and dead and America was vibrant and alive. I'm sure Whitman would have enjoyed that answer.

The other thing that ties them is their stance on secession. It seems that Barnum got a lot of heat from the Copperheads as well as the Unionists. It was probably a Confederate who burned down Barnum's museum as the Confederates had hatched a plot to burn down New York. Seems like he walked a tightrope concerning sectionalism. Obviously Whitman was against slavery, but he got some heat for his positions too, (just look at our blogs) was anti-abolitionist and it seems like having a stance wasn"t as clear cut as it would seem to us now,considering the political ramifications.

http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1901&context=wwqr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dwhitman%2520and%2520sectionalism%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCMQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fir.uiowa.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1901%2526context%253Dwwqr%26ei%3DmmYzT467CYfniAKUqpiZCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNExX-b0AJAE9JivcaL8pCmZFVuNcw%26sig2%3D73vdpdVTRtFb2LW83zfrPw#search=%22whitman%20sectionalism%22

Another interesting site.

Whitman and Barnum also looked down upon the European social class heirarchy which could tie them together. 

Where Language Fails

One of the motifs I found interesting and complex was that of “speech.” Whitman wants the reader to listen to what he has to say. He goes to great lengths with words to convey his message. He even states, “My words itch at your ears till you understand them.” However part of his message is that language/ talking/ speech is not enough.

Never fear, Whitman has his disclaimer: “Do I contradict myself? 
Very well then I contradict myself, 
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”

With that said, I've broken the quotes into two lists regarding Walt's stance on speech:

YAY

Section 26

I hear the sound I love, the sound of the human voice

Section 25

My voice goes after what my eyes cannot reach,

Speech is the twin of my vision

Section 47

It is you talking just as much as myself, I act as the tongue of 
you, 
Tied in your mouth, in mine it begins to be loosen'd.)

My words itch at your ears till you understand them.

NAY

Section 52

I too am untranslatable, 
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.

Section 47

And I swear I will never translate myself at all,

Section 25

Writing and talk do not prove me, 
I carry the plenum of proof and every thing else in my face, 
With the hush of my lips I wholly confound the skeptic.

you conceive too much of 
articulation, 
Do you not know O speech how the buds beneath you are folded? 
Waiting in gloom, protected by frost, 
The dirt receding before my prophetical screams,

Section 48

No array of terms can say how much I am at peace about God and 
about death.

The first of the quotes to really stop me in my tracks was: “No array of terms can say how much I am at peace about God and
about death." Yet it seems this lengthy poem is an attempt. It reminds me of a story about trying to discover the name of God. It is not possible; it is the thing that one can feel is on the tip of the tongue, but can never be uttered. It will never be tangible, like Whitman who becomes intangible by the end of the poem. Both are things that are there, but that cannot be grasped or deciphered. So no amount of terms, no amount of words would do justice. Perhaps that is why he references sound so many times, like early on with, “Only the lull I like, the hum of your valved voice.” It is more animalistic, it gets to the nature, the essence of the thing better than words. Whitman also says, “I too am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.” He cannot be deciphered either and I think that's interesting considering that he believes God is within the self. Speech will never fully succeed in explaining him as he says, “Writing and talk do not prove me, 
I carry the plenum of proof and every thing else in my face, 
With the hush of my lips I wholly confound the skeptic.”

BUT

Speech is important. It is compared to the “vision” which clearly Whitman takes quite seriously. Speech is the “twin of my vision” he states. Also his “voice goes after what [his] eyes cannot reach.” Clearly speech is important; he's a poet so of course he loves words, but also as we can see by looking at the type of language he uses. It is not full of poetic diction. It is an American style of speech. It really separates itself from the more formal language of his predecessors and that wasn't accidental.

Back to “sound.” Maybe “song” is so important to Leaves of Grass because it combines these two views. Song is like a compromise. A song weaves the words or the libretto with the music, and music is universal. It is something we can all understand regardless of what language we speak. It transcends language. So maybe he is not contradicting himself. Maybe it is that marriage between words and sound that becomes profound.

Strange, but all of the thinking about howling and yawping immediately made me think of Peter Pan and the Lost Boys crowing to let out their emotions. The primal cries we make are not well thought discourse. And that would fit with the motif of the child as well. The child is closest to our true nature. The failure of language can be seen when thinking of it in terms of the child. A child without a mastery of language skills still experiences the world, but in a different way. I would argue and I think Whitman would argue, more sensorily, more purely, than adults perceive the world.

Speaking of crowing, Whitman uses onomatopoeia for describing this type of action saying “I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.” Words like “yawp” and even “howl” mean what they sound like. We can get the meaning from the sound. It arouses in us a feeling beyond just knowing what the word means. Early on in the poem he speaks of “howls restrain'd by decorum.” I believe Whitman breaks those restraints by the end of the poem by announcing his yawp, by effusing his very self to the world around us. Ginsberg, years later, answers the call as well.

Regardless of the vehicle, Whitman is/we are always seeking to convey our truths and to understand those around us. The seeking, the need to pursue that journey is the important part and this is my favorite example of that, the lines are constructed so beautifully, the civilized and the primal so nicely juxtaposed:

Do you not know O speech how the buds beneath you are folded?

Waiting in gloom, protected by frost, 


The dirt receding before my prophetical screams