ABSTRACT
This chapter moves chronologically from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, first by exploring another form of allegory, the emblem, a mode of writing which led to accusations that allegory was arbitrary in the way it used images, and second by exploring the Romantic reaction against allegory, in favour of the symbol. The debate will be explored here as part of a historical shift in poetic discourse, which required the invention of symbolism as a stronger, more spiritual, and more vital form of expression. The main reason for the downplaying of allegory was that it was considered unable to yield a sufficient intensity of spiritual meaning. We will begin with the allegorical emblem. What emblems are,
can be illustrated from a poem full of images derived from the tradition of emblematic thinking. Written by the religious and ‘metaphysical’ poet George Herbert (1593-1633), it is called ‘Hope’:
The title’s personification of ‘Hope’ is followed by the listing of a formidable number of symbols, as the poem proceeds to evoke a courtly exchange of presents. It is as though the ‘I’ of the poem is a courtier hoping for royal preferment, but enlisting the aid of a wealthier agent or courtier. William Empson sees an irony in the poem, arguing that the ‘I’ treats only with Hope, ‘not with the person or thing hoped for; he has no real contact with his ideal but only with its porter’ (Empson, 1966: 119). Hence the gifts given in return become, for the speaker, more and more inadequate. Empson also says that the gifts have less meaning in themselves than as symbols of an exchange, but we can add that if such an interchange of emblems can be imagined, each is given not as a present, but as something that requires to be interpreted by the receiver: each gift is a riddle. These gifts: watch, anchor, prayer book, optic and vial, the few
green ears and the ring, exist as complex images, which are both visual and non-visual. The watch, for instance, denotes both the object, but also the brevity of human life, and indicates the length of time which has been spent waiting. As a sign of the passing of time, it implies the need for action. The reciprocal gift of the anchor is a visualization of an image in the Bible – ‘which hope we have as an anchor of the soul’ (Hebrews 6.19) – so the picture of the anchor also connotes hope. It also suggests the quality of endurance that has already been learned from experience: an anchor must remain firm and endure the buffets of the sea. The old prayer book is a sign of dedication. Its age indicates calculation on the part of the giver who thereby wishes to emphasize how long he has been waiting for advancement. The optic (eyeglass) is another sign, indicating that the soul can scan the heavens, though it also suggests that the heavens are far away. The vial full of tears is a marker of sorrow and faithfulness; the ears of corn given in reply
are a testimony to the possibility of future resurrection, but the colour indicates that there will be delay, since the harvest is not ripe, and the speaker must continue to hope. The soul admits that it has been hoping for a symbol of reciprocity: a ring. It is perhaps a wedding ring (Empson connects it with the prayer book containing the marriage service), so implying a consummation more real than these signs which defer fulfilment; hence the accusation that Hope is a loiterer, deferring, wasting time. But the ‘real’ loiterer is the speaker who only deals with the intermediary, Hope, the allegorical figure. The poem does not explain itself; it has no commentary. It stands as a riddling text, as much as any of the emblems which it shows going back and forth as gifts to be interpreted. Empson analyses ‘Hope’ as part of his discussion of the third of
‘seven types of ambiguity’ in poetic writing. In this third type, ‘what is said is valid in, refers to, several different topics, several universes of discourse, several modes of judgement or feeling’. And Empson links it with allegory, which rests on ambiguity when it ‘describes two situations and leave[s] the reader to decide which can be said about both of them’ (Empson, 1966: 111-12). Allegory, punning, ambiguity, and variety of feeling all work together, unfixing meaning. And meanings are equally unfixed with emblems, several fine examples of which have been passed to and fro in the poem. With these examples given, we can now turn to definitions.
