William Butler Yeats - No Second Troy - Analysis. Poetry Lecture by Dr. Andrew Barker

NO SECOND TROY. A beautiful poem of thwarted passion in which W. B. Yeats looks back on years of unrequited love and assesses the Irish people's relationship to his own object of oft-spurned affection, Maude Gonne. The lecture gives the background on Yeats, Gonne, and the Ireland of the time when the poem was composed. "No Second Troy" is a marvelous work in its own right, and begs comparison with Yeats's later poem, "Easter 1916", a poem written after the "ignorant men" Yeats so decries here have done exactly what he least expected them to do.
Andrew Barker
Please LIKE and SUBSCRIBE.
COMMENTS also are gratefully received.
Click andrewbarker.info should you wish for extra notes and a transcript of the lecture and analysis above.

[@mikekenney1947]

I agree. “Tightened Bow” is potential energy, poised to be loosed. Such clarity

[@clankclank79]

Man, I'm so very much impressed by you. Your way of teaching is just beautiful. Hope you're doing well.

[@hoiyanchan6685]

I see this poem as a love poem far more than a political one. The whole poem revolves around Gonne. Almost every line of it is to manifest how intelligent, brave and beautiful she is. I also see how obsessed Yeats is obsessed to Gonne as he describes her beauty through violent images as if she is something that he cannot touch; but he cannot resist to approach her again and again.

[@ellyreads4886]

A concise lecture on Yeats cannot be any more informative nor more enjoyable than this! You have covered different themes and gave the necessary background to understand it fully. You gave him his due, and ended it with one of the most beautiful lines of Yeat's " a terrible beauty is born."

[@user-lx2zt7ix2f]

Wow! Have come across this lecture series totally by accident. What a great exploration of the poem 'No Second Troy' with great social, political and personal context....leading on, quite brilliantly, to 'Easter 1916'. Thank you so much.

[@danieldeguerra3854]

Wonderful. This is what great teaching looks like.

[@tanveermalik8647]

Absolutely 👍Enjoyed the great lecture.

[@philiphema2678]

Thank you for this presentation. I hv loved Yeats' poem since first discovering hoi works years ago. It seems that great works come from deep suffering, the inability to reach the unattainable. There is no doubt that Yeats, the poet, lived in a world of great change, and unfulfilled desire. Seeing his world from the 21st c. does not, in my mind diminish the beauty of his words, nor the sense of his feelings or the questions he asks of himself of the woman he loves or the country he loves with equal intensity. The simplicity of his language is filled with imagery.

[@arunimabhattacharya436]

I missed my lectures in college. This helped me a lot while preparing for my exams. Thank you so much, Sir!

[@drewmcmillan3462]

Dear Dr Barker, Many thanks for such an enlightening exploration on ‘No Second Troy’ riddle, as it was to me, previous to your clearing walk-trough…

[@mycroftlectures]

Glad to have helped. May I suggest Yeats' poem "Words" as a clarifying enhancement on the sentiments expressed in this work.

[@amisharathee508]

Such a great explanation encompassing everything, the background, the analysis that too with such precision! Great reverence for the mentor.

[@mycroftlectures]

Many thanks.

[@User_123_abc45]

The best explanation on utube of this poem

[@lamvivian7202]

For me I see it as a poem about Irish Independence, especially when this was during Irish literary revival where nationalism was reawakening among the Irish. To me the "she" will be Ireland, and the line "or hurled the little streets upon the great", it means the commonwealth of Dublin against the Great British Empire. Also I'm not sure exactly which month this was written, but in 1910 it was Redmond of the INP that supported Asquith in exchange of Home Rule. Now although Yeats supported Home Rule, there are several problems: One, at that time there was only small chances it could be passed (which it didn't), and this may relate to "courage equal to desire"; Two, this might be against his disciplines as a protestant and such caused a conflict among himself, which was why he had the connotation between winning "her" over and destruction/violence.

[@lynkhs]

Very insightful. Make complete sense to me. I often wonder about the third verse of Easter 1919. It has always been my favorite Years poem. Yet those who teach it focus on the rebellion. Yet, hearts with no purpose alone Through summer and winter seem Enchanted to a stone To trouble the living stream The horse that comes from the road The rider The birds that range From cloud to tumbling cloud Minute by minute they change.. …. The stones in the midst of all. Even the lines I forgot just now as I read it so often I memorized it probably in 1972 and it remains memorized. (I didn’t look it up to find that line with the word plashing in it.). He then goes back to the rebellion and the four who were hung, ending again with Changed, changed utterly! A terrible beauty is born. This No Second Troy lecture was really helpful but of course he, like all interpreters goes straight to verses 1, 2, and 4. I’ve tried to find a discussion that discuddes Verse 3 with that pure poetry and I haven’t. Verse 1 is quoted all the time, even in the Australian comedy Rake! Those 3 verses are clearly beloved, remembered, quoted,… Oh! But that stone in the stream. The melodic description of all that natural action in verse 3. Doesn’t anybody love it like I do?

[@as1r6536]

Easter 1916.

[@zapstar78doesMC]

I just found this. What a brilliant lecture! Profound indeed

[@jadechan2055]

This video gives tremendous context and insight into this poem! Really helpful stuff.

[@shamsher1171]

Brilliant lecture! Thank you!

[@seanedgeworth6738]

Your doing a great job my friend........

[@flaviaromano9834]

Thank you much for your interesting analysis of this poem .i think without doubt that William Butler Yeats still lives in you ,cause i feel that there's no one who loves Yeats more thank you very much Dr Andrew Barker ! Simple as a fire ...

[@shreyashkashyap]

Really helpful stuff. Thank you Dr. Andrew

[@johuffines3560]

"Simple as a fire" to be means that she burned with passion and did so naturally.

[@pratibhaverma1954]

What an amazing analysis and some beautiful insights you have provided! The interest to listen to you kept growing every second. Thank you so much!

[@mycroftlectures]

Many thanks. Hope you enjoy the others too.

[@josephharley9448]

So crisp & clear highly enjoyable & educational. Wish there were more.......

[@moonnumonchathikal1799]

Thank you sir for the brilliant lecture on Yeats.

[@venuschan1485]

Yeats and Gonne had diametrically opposed views on love and politics: He was conservative about love and politics, hence his several proposals to (and poems about) her and his support for Home Rule over Irish independence; whereas she was unconventional about love and a political radical, hence her refusals to his proposals, her affairs with other men, and her advocacy for Irish independence. And yet the lives of these two people collided the moment he saw her. We do not and would not know whether his love for her was stemming from/ fuelled by these differences, but we know he loved her and they had these differences, and that’s where ‘the troubling of my (his) life began.’ With this knowledge in mind, I’ve come to see this poem as Yeats’s reflection on his tormented relationship with Gonne. I am inclined to think that Yeats in a sense considered himself no different to those ‘ignorant men’ who were ‘taught… the most violent ways’. Surely he was not ‘ignorant’ - blind - to the dangers of Gonne’s charm, but such awareness hadn’t stopped him from loving her anyway. He was like those ignorant men incited by Gonne’s words, like Paris attracted to Helen, and like particles falling into a black hole - it’s so irresistible and almost inevitable that he had just as much to ‘blame’ for his ‘misery’ as Gonne. Such realisation could be evidenced by the fact that the poem is essentially formed by four rhetorical questions, which suggests a sense of ‘self-evidentness’ in the poem. I tend to see the second last line of the poem as the perfect example to show how Yeats see himself as partly, if not equally, responsible for developing this troubled relationship with Gonne. Another word for the question word ‘why’, I think, is ‘surely’, which hints that the question following it - ‘what could she have done, being what she is?’ - is somehow self-explanatory - that he knows the answer before asking the question: She is who she is, and her doings simply reflect who she is. And so the problem is in fact in him: He blames her for leading the independence movement, to potentially ‘burn… another Troy’; but at the same time he knows he’s also to blame for loving her, which had 'filled his days with misery’. In a sense I think the pronoun ‘she’ in the line could be replaced with a ‘he’ to reflect his position in the relationship. In the poem Yeats likened Gonne to Helen of Troy - the most beautiful woman of her age and an infamous femme fatale. And I think such comparison reflects the intricacy of their relationship - one of love and hate, and one driven by obsession and resulted in depression.

[@moonnumonchathikal1799]

Your comments on Yeats are worthful.About twenty times he proposed to her and she turned down.As a poetic genius,he wanted her refusal for inspiration.

[@osheal]

@@moonnumonchathikal1799 he proposed to her daughter too ... eek

[@ocdtdc]

These analyses are great.

[@elishamillar606]

I have an essay due on this poem for uni and this analysis has helped me greatly! Very well explained and wonderful analysis. Thank you! :)

[@helenvaline891]

Great lecture! Thank you!!

[@Ayushi_singh184]

Awesome lecture🤗

[@trruthawareness]

Brilliant.

[@parvintelli5178]

I enjoyed the lecture, thank you..

[@Jane-zp7hy]

Thank you. A few days ago I put away the volume of Yeat's collected poems because I could not make sense of them. This lecture has taught me so much. Thank you!

[@mycroftlectures]

Glad to have been able to help.

[@lucycutemalinao1034]

Brilliant 👏

[@ashutoshsingha8995]

You are great sir.....

[@MoonLight-og7gf]

Thank you sir!!!

[@kidmarine7329]

This is very good. Nice lecture.

[@mycroftlectures]

Thank you.

[@nesaalli8778]

Thank you xx

[@desmondgahan1062]

Excellent

[@annebutt4507]

excellent presentation

[@janniesadventureswildatlan9689]

Everything you said here is just fine. You can take this mhz back by multiple times and flatten them out. Flattering the unflaterrable.

[@arshiyahafeez6693]

Thank you !

[@lkunkam]

I really like the poems written by W.B. Yeats. He's a great poet. It would be great if you could also talk about The Second Coming which is my all time favourite.

[@nuenglishliteraturebd3284]

thank u so much..very helpful video

[@thomassimmons1950]

Brilliant work you're doing, sir. As a self taught, amateur poet, this stuff is breathtaking on multiple levels. Absolutely inspired. Keep'em comin: SUBSCRIBED!

[@mycroftlectures]

Many thanks. If you've time let me know what you think of the sonnets.

[@thomassimmons1950]

@@mycroftlectures We have much in common Andrew. I was a construction pipe-fitter in St. Louis Mo., who stumbled into stage acting through Shakespeare, Pinter, Beckett, Mamet and Shepard. I eventually got to Los Angeles and in film and Television. I started writing poems around 50, largely influenced initially by writers like Ted Hughes, S. Heaney, Charles Simic and Bukowski. I'm just getting familiar with your work. Love your working class sensibility and your attention to the sounds of right placed words: "The complete concert dancing together" I'm a big fan of Shakespeare's sonnets. I memorize them along with monologues from favorite plays. Love what your doing with the form. We need more discipline and attention to language in American poetry. It's devolved into a feelings orgy. Quite bloody disturbing when you consider it, mate. Sorry to be so long winded, but you've quite inspired me in a very short time. Already sharing your work with friends. Intend to follow your efforts on all fronts. Thanks again... Tom

[@ellyreads4886]

I always come back here for the three poems. I hope you and whole your family are more than fine now. Stay safe, please.

[@mycroftlectures]

Many thanks. Here's another Yeats to Maud Gonne one worth looking at. Words I had this thought a while ago, 'My darling cannot understand What I have done, or what would do In this blind bitter land.' And I grew weary of the sun Until my thoughts cleared up again, Remembering that the best I have done Was done to make it plain; That every year I have cried, 'At length My darling understands it all, Because I have come into my strength, And words obey my call'; That had she done so who can say What would have shaken from the sieve? I might have thrown poor words away And been content to live. Yeats 1910

[@ellyreads4886]

@@mycroftlectures Thank you so much , Dr. Barker, I appreciate your sharing this poem.

[@commiemaku4554]

also, what is interesting to note is when he breaks iambic pentameter with the word ‘being’, it has an almost dactylic sound to it. what with ‘be’ having stress and then ‘ing’ becoming unstressed. homer himself is known for using dactylic meter in his epics. helen of troy happens to be a character from the epic, ‘the iliad’. yeats is often seen giving classical references like when he uses the word ‘Grecian’ in his ‘sailing to byzantium’ in reference to it being ‘monuments of unageing intellect’. there rises a dialectic where he would like to be this Grecian art, this unageing intellect, but also be reincarnated as flesh and be able to be young again. because ‘that is no country for old men’. i think he saw this ‘unageing intellect’ in Maud Gonne, since doesn’t she also have beauty that is ‘not natural in an age like this’? conversely, what is the true irony, is that yeats himself has become the ‘unageing intellect’ he wanted to be.

[@alihossain9575]

wow thank Sir

[@seanedgeworth6738]

Its all music to me, that is how I memorised hem :

[@oldepersonne]

"Yeats must have been the only man in history to have said that to a woman and not profited by it"

[@ClariceAust]

Yes, I too had a little laugh to myself..

[@davidjames9626]

Dr. Andrew Barker : I have to say that I have a lot of time for your passion that expresses itself with a directness , that , for my part, I find missing in most lectures I see on KZbin, and from my college days too..Also that your 'oeuvre' ( or the ambience of the lectures ) is life affirming ( if I may put it like that) ; here is my sticking point, I do not respond to having a line or lines or complete poem 'explained' even if there are some or all I do not understand..'sometimes a poem can take your breath away' even if the brain cannot deduce or explain in other words an understanding.. I have found this particularly so with some of the 'metaphysical poets' and yet I do not want the meaning 'explained' to me..likewise for Mr W B Yeats, however this is not a criticism, I would not be so pertinent, just a particular idiosyncrasy on my part.. But thank you for your lectures..they are well worth taking the time to listen to, which is more than can be said for many others ( in my opinion)

[@mycroftlectures]

For the point of offering a counter to your argument here. I think the "explanation" is just what people who know what is going on in a poem do at an almost subconscious level, instinctively. The explanation just provides the information for someone who does not know these things. As humans we have a strange ability to think that when we know something everybody else knows it as well, and as teachers we have to remember that this is simply not the case. Many years ago, as a student, I used to get very frustrated by teachers expecting me to know things just because they knew them. These teachers would then claim a heightened sensitivity to the art on display from the position of having access to information on it that I did simply not possess because nobody had told me it. The teachers who were of most use to me when I started reading and really appreciating poetry were the ones who helped me do the work of finding to what was going on in a poem, which would then allow me access to the poem's greatness, or lack thereof, from a position of understanding the references, rhetoric, word choices. Now, of course, most of that understanding often comes instinctively, I'm older and I know a lot more about for instance history and poetic composition than I did when I was younger, and I understand a lot more without having to have it explained to me, but only because that initial information is already locked in. Part of the problem with these lectures is knowing what audience they are for. Most people who already know something find it condescending or annoying when that thing is explained to them. And that is inevitable. My contention is that 'sometimes a poem can take your breath away' is very true, but that "lift" given in this experience is more often than not due to a connection between something the poet has said and something that we understand very clearly even if we don't want to articulate it. I actually enjoy trying to work out the mechanics of why it works. One of my favorite lines Dylan Thomas' "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower," works so well due to knowledge of DNA, what we might call Gaia Theory, and the alliterative connection between the F and T sounds, and I know all that subconsciously, and have fun bringing it to the surface. The poems that make the most connections I can bring to the surface are the ones I tend to enjoy most. I could go on, as this is a favorite discussion of mine, and I do, very much, understand your argument.Thanks for the comments. I'm very glad you enjoyed the lectures.

[@davidjames9626]

@@mycroftlectures thank you for responding in such detail and I do see your argument..the comment 'part of the problem with these lectures is knowing what audience they are for..yes I see that.. I think myself that the most important thing about a lecture series is that the tutor (if I can use the term) must have a dynamic and a love of the subject, then he or she is actually worth listening to and feeds the viewer/listener. I see too many lectures (most from a university base) that just leave me flat and I just stop after a few minutes..for the record I did a fine art degree, and during that time one particular lecturer introduced us to 'structuralism' and I was 'awakened' - for the want of a better word and completely bowled over by ; what to me was such a revelation that language had a structure and that it could be read like , for instance - architecture ( I wont go on, your a busy man) anyway I haven't stopped, and it has led to many doors, but I have no formal training in language studies or the Classic's and the like.. .. If you are ever in Rennes ( Brittany) and you visit the Musee de beaux arts, there is the Egyptian collection on the ground floor.. and on entering you are confronted with their 'reality' on being physically with their objects : human and animal mummies, stone tablets , furniture and pottery..it is another awakening to the multi faceted human consciousness, the history that is around us while we live.. I trust that doesn't sound too - head in the clouds..

[@kwunnamtang]

The way I see this poem is that it was a love/hate poem that he wrote to or about Maud Gonne. It had only a little bit that dealt with the whole Irish Independence. It is only because of the fact that Maud was a fanatic and cared more about the Irish Independence that people would critized Yates for blaming the Irish that because of the Irish people did not fight for their independence the way Yates would have them do, Maud had nothing better to do than to ruin his life. But in the poem, Yates was only expressing his sadness that he loved her so much but she only brought nothing but misery to his life. I think the poet should not be held accountable for what he had written in his or her poems/writings. They generally linked things to their ideas whther or not it was the case or not. I also like they way he used fire and the beauty of a tightened bow to describe Maud. They are cool stuff but they are also dangerous. It is as if he was teling us that she was like a femme fatale that had the prettiest face on earth but was also full of danger. He even describe her as the Helen of Sparta that brought two countries to war. It is like he was using the poem as an outcry for his sadness. When I read the line "why, what could she have done, being what she was", the "why" in the sentence was a bit odd. It was as if he said it with bitter. "Why" and then he did a bitter laugh. He looked at the sky and exclaimed "what could she have done'. He then felt a bit anger in "being what she was". It was as if he was desperated but ther was nnothing he could do. I want to know more about the sub-vocalize of the iambic pentameter. How does it work? Would you still need the 10 syllables or not because you can say it quicker for some words?

[@josephharley9448]

Additional info. Lol. The epitaph on Yeats headstone in drumcliff cemetery is “ cast a cold eye on life, on death. Horseman passbye “ A striking feeling I got when I visited his grave. Was how modest it was. It doesn’t stand out in anyway from other graves.

[@mycroftlectures]

There is actually great dispute about whether it's really his bones buried there at all.

[@florenciabuscio8361]

Wow!!! It looks as if you actually feel , live the poem! Thanks for explaining all the history and romance behind it. I don't understand why Maude would refuse Yeats? She was married to Ireland ???

[@mycroftlectures]

Well, when they first met she was the lover of the right wing French politician, Lucien Millevoy, and later was married to John McBride, one of the men killed during the Easter Rising. (A man Yeats loathed). Perhaps we think that writers who compose 'love poetry' tend to deserve to have the emotions they present returned and are upset when this proves not to have been the case. It is of course perfectly possible that Maude Gonne liked him as a friend and simply didn't find him physically attractive. A more excitingly reasoned argument is that Yeats' and Gonne's political views on Ireland were too divergent for them to be together.

[@ellyreads4886]

8:36 He Wishes For The Clothes of Heaven 33:43 Easter 1916 1:13 No second Troy

[@leviwarren6222]

That "bow" referred here to a weapon of war didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up. Could this reference not be a double entender to both the weapon of war in the ribbon tide to accent beauty? After all, wouldn't he have more readily used terms more evocative such as drawn or taught were you only referring to the weapon of war at readiness to do battle? By using the word "tightened", I think the reader is invited to see the bow as both war and a beauty. After all, a bow is nothing more than a ribbon until it is tightened and this leaves the ribbon permanently tensed in order that it might be beautiful.

[@TommyBeaux]

Excellent analysis. Thank you, thank you! I wonder though at a second interpretation of “tightened bow” - that worn in the hair, aloof, stern, binding and unyielding to desire?

[@mycroftlectures]

I'm always very supportive of any reading that can be supported by the words of the text itself, as this reading can. As readers we get twice as much "band for our buck" when this happens. Having said that, I find the bow and arrow "bow" the far more exciting or sexier interpretation, over the bow worn in the hair "bow". As an image, the bow in the hair is too restrictive, not violent in the way Yeats is associating the way he sees the beauty of his beloved here.

[@TommyBeaux]

@@mycroftlectures - is a bow string not drawn rather than tightened? And these lines, “With beauty like a tightened bow, a kind That is not natural in an age like this, Being high and solitary and most stern?”, do you not think the “high, solitary and most stern” might not refer to the demeanour of the tied bow?

[@TommyBeaux]

@@mycroftlectures - but I get what you are saying- the legend of Troy is about beauty and violence.

[@mycroftlectures]

@@TommyBeaux It certainly could refer to the demeanor of a tied bow. My question would be be, Does that make for the better image/poetry? The answer is a matter of preference, of course. For me the Trojan War/ Helen associations are extended with the tightened bow (and arrow) here. I just bothered to google tightened bow, and the strings are tightened, though they may be drawn too. I maintain that the hair bow reading has merit, particularly the association with the word "stern" but except in a sort of "sexy schoolmistress" way, I'm not sure how it would be seen as beautiful. Of course, it may be exactly that way that Yeats is going for, and that is not inconsistent with the way Gonne is described. I just have some trouble seeing the fiery Helen of Troy replacement in this way. Which doesn't mean he didn't.

[@TommyBeaux]

@@mycroftlectures - thanks so much for engaging with me on this. I do find the bow thing intriguing, and how images within one are evoked by poetry. When I first heard the poem read, the “beauty of a tightened bow” made me go “oh!” inwardly because it brought the image of a ribbon-bow supposedly beautiful and prim but also uncomfortably tight and proper, like cruelty disguised as caring by a mother combing a child’s hair. I am no expert, but I did love your analysis and will be looking through your other works. I have a preference for the longer video format. Thank you again.

[@llewellynhamiltoniiim.d.1057]

G lecture.

[@wailinglaw6702]

The first Troy, of course, was destroyed because of a quarrel over Helen, another politically troublesome beauty from another "age", ancient Greece. “No Second Troy” is a strong call towards peace leaving the violent way of war or destruction. The poem appeals that no beauty like Helen of Troy or to-day’s Maud Gonne will cause the destruction of another beauty like “Troy”. Lastly the speaker asks: “Was there another Troy for her to burn?”Because there was no "second Troy" for her to destroy nowadays, so she had to destroy other things, e.g. the happiness of others, the peaceful lives of Irish commoners.

[@mbitjitauaetuiihe8466]

could you please do an analysis about William Butler Yeats "an Irish airman foresees his death"

[@johnk.lindgren5940]

kiitos

[@hardlabour2239]

thanks from Banglades

[@Yau0395]

A fire and a tightened bow could mean dangerous and one-tracked, but it could also mean exciting and affective, as a compliment to Maude Gonne. A fire and a tightened bow are pretty cool to look at, they could hurt you if you don't use them right, but if you use them right they are great help. Anyway, the story about Troy is not quite romantic to me. 2 armies fighting for a woman... it seems like the responsibility of war is enforced on the women, as if a witch. I don't see how being compared to that could be a compliment for a right minded woman.

[@9digitNo]

"Being what I am, there is no other Troy for me to burn" Sinead O'Connor Troy

[@mycroftlectures]

Yep. The Emperor's New Clothes, was my favorite of hers.

[@michaelboylan5308]

Damned if Im going back to school to hear someone LECTURE on Yeats

[@hannahbae4967]

I could see how Yeats loved and almost respect/admire Maud Gonne. Because of the political backdrop, it is hard to say that the poem is just about a man describing a woman whom he's madly in love with. Yeats uses fire and tightened bow to describe her. Even though it is not commonly used complimenting words for women, I think it makes sense in 2 ways. First one is that fire and tightened bow are both destructive and go only for one-track. As we already heard the background of Maud Gonne, I think fire and tightened bow describe her well in a sense that she is straightforward and converts her idea right into her action in contrast with other ignorant Irish people. As fire burns and lights in the dark, she tries to enlighten stupid people. Second way that I would interpret is merely praising her personality/characteristics. Because she broke his heart time and time again and she was keep turning down Yeats' proposal, he would have a feeling of love-hate. Even though he hates the fact that she rejects him, he admits and describe her behavior as 'fire/tightened bow' which symbolize Maud who destroys him but at the same time her strong, high, and lofty attitude. That's why he says the 'beauty like a tightened bow'. He resents and sort of blame her showing the sadness asking the last question. It sounds like reproaching her for destroying him.

[@vietminh8034]

No Second Choice!

[@michaelcorrado3452]

Brings life to the poem. Nicely done. Two small things: Troy was not in Greece or in Greater Greece. And I think it’s Menelaus not Melenaus.

[@mycroftlectures]

Thanks. And I'm big enough to admit my mistakes. You're certainly right about the first one. It's generally acknowledged to have been in Turkey, I believe. The second one, I'd have to re-listen for, but I wouldn't mind betting you're right.

[@ClariceAust]

Well that was absolutely bloody brilliant, Dr Andrew Barker. Maude Gonne does sound like a woman 'out of her time'; she had a highly developed sense of self, purpose, plus original and independent thought, which would be more consonant in the 21st century woman than the early 20th. She retains that sense of self despite his protestations of infatuated love, He therefore refers to her as having a mind , "That nobleness made simple as a fire, // With beauty like a tightened bow, // ... // Being high and solitary and most stern". He would prefer her to be 'made peaceful' and the differences in their natures and temperaments, her radical to his conservative, result in his perceived destructiveness of her as a second Helen, bringing about his burning, as of that of Troy.

[@mycroftlectures]

Well, thank you very much for saying so. Of course the Maude Gonne we are speaking of here is the Gonne of Yeats' poetry, a woman mere flesh might have found it very hard to live up to. I often get the feeling that he cast here in that role, if you see what I mean! To be fair, it was not a role she was reluctant to play.

[@ClariceAust]

@@mycroftlectures No, and the literary world, quite rightly, thanks her for it.

[@mycroftlectures]

@@ClariceAust Exactly.

[@Kashish-jk4lj]

Sir looks like Yeats:)

[@rumsharizwan2102]

ok but why are you staring into my soul??? ;'((

[@mycroftlectures]

Should you be interested, the attached video link to "Modern Shakespearean Sonnet 133: Tenderness" found at kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHnZp5d4mp6pkMU is my attempt to write in the style of the early Yeats of "When You are Old." A bold attempt, I think but not wholly unsuccessful.

[@annetait8033]

Enjoyed this perceptive lecture, especially because I've written a play about Yeats and Maud Gonne called A Stubborn Passion. which dramatizes Yeats' obsession with Maud, and her obsession with rousing the Irish to revolution against the hated English. It's been done in Ireland and in Canada ... but Dr. Barker, please correct your mispronunciation of Menelaus, Iseult and slight misquoting in your recap reading of the poem. Anne Tait, Toronto, Canada

[@mycroftlectures]

Is the script of the play available?

[@youtube.comkhawarraisahmed]

But there is another accountable thing i noticed this gentleman resembles to yeats image .

[@MegaMowen]

Excellent ..guess I'd better go and iambic pentameter all my poems. doh!

[@mycroftlectures]

Hi Mervyn. "All" would certainly be overkill. I tend to pay a lot of attention to the beat and stress of poems where I believe this is doing some poetic "work". What Yeats has is, I believe, a very self trained awareness of iambics and beats in general that many poets today tend to believe they don't need as part of their . . . would, I dunno, 'tool kit' be an acceptable phrase? And often they may be right as the poetry they are writing may not benefit from that awareness. (One could argue that if they HAVEN'T got that awareness their poetry COULDN'T benefit form it, but that would be another discussion.) Yeats certainly has that awareness, but I would point out that the effects created here are by the deviation from the iambic, rather than the iambic itself. Of course we can't create an effect by a deviation if we haven't established the expected structure that the line or phrase we want to draw attention to is deviating from. That's what he does here. The deviations draw our attention, even our subconscious attention, to those parts of the poem in which they occur. Glad you enjoyed it.

[@briankelly5828]

In 1912 Ireland was coming close to civil war over proposed home rule and the covenant that Carson was proposing.

[@baderaltamimi87]

I believe that this poem is more about the refusal of Irish society at the time, presumably having strong religious influences and prejudices, of having a strong female character lead men. The very notion that he made multiple advances in an almost fanatical obsessive way, at a woman who continually rejected him somewhat illustrate this point. As if the idea that he really tried hard to be with her but she said no was ludicrous, how can she a woman refuse him. He is now finally coming to terms with this and question his own blame for her making him miserable. The idea that he blames her at all, shows how little value is assigned to a woman’s opinion, including in choosing her own mate! The fact that he attributes his misery to her would be ridiculous in modern times as he would be considered somewhat of a stalker and he wouldn’t receive much sympathy. The background of her having a presumably illegitimate child with a frenchman, underscored by the ongoing Irish nationalism, furthers that argument. She is not one to conform to what typical society expects of her. She is a rebel and that is the very exact thing that has made her charismatic to people, irresistible to him, and at the same time so infuriating. Even as he comes to term with this he is still saying why should I blame her, when she is native (will explain later) and surrounded by morons who cheer her on and agree with her. These idiots do not understand that high society needs to be civilized not violent. But how can they understand that when they idiotically believe that nobility is just about having passion (fire). If they feel equally entitled to rule as the noblemen and ruling class, they obviously don’t understand what nobility is. It is something that takes time and is taught and passed on. It requires specific heritage and a sophistication of higher education and higher social standing, not just a fiery passion and desire. Most importantly nobility is about being brave in the face of danger, not merely having a desire for it, it is fought for and maintained and so on. These heathens did not even have the courage to follow their desires, their desires of being noble when one of the main pillars of nobility is that courage. Indeed he does not mention that she did actually turn the streets of Dublin against the great and noble, but merely that she would have done so had they possessed courage equaling their desire. He goes on to say how can she peaceful when she’s reduced the great intricacies of nobility into a notion as simple as a fire, she is here being stupid like the idiots who listen to her. If you are a fiery simpleton, how can you be at peace; especially when you are so beautiful. Now as for the beauty i think if we take the attributes of a tightened bow, not just the attributes of a bow. The historical reference to me is not as strong as the specific attribute of tightened, otherwise why mention the tightened. The not being natural in this age I feel pertains to the beauty not the bow, “a kind” is describing the beauty not the bow, since the sentence is about describing this strange beauty that has made her like this. Had he said “the kind” not “a kind” it would have made more sense that he is talking about the bow. A kind of beauty that you is not natural, not the kind of bow that isn’t used now. Since the bow is well-known, he would use “the kind (of bow) that is not natural in an age like this”, since the reader already knows the bow and knows it is historical. I think it is more likely that her specific type of beauty, is unorthodox, and i believe the specific attribute of the tightened bow, is its tightness. The unusual thing about a bow seen in this age is that it would be tight, since it is quite old. Just like the specific thing that is unusual about her beauty is that she is unnaturally tight in this age. Perhaps here age refers to her actual age, she is an older woman who has had children, most mothers her age would literally sag like a bow. Or also perhaps this is a reference to her stiff and unwilling nature, as beautiful as she is, her behavioral tightness and stiffness, which is just her not conforming to the norms and being fiery and passionate as a woman, is unnatural in this age and that’s what makes her actually beautiful, not her physical attributes. Indeed, his obsession and constant advances and current questioning of her and her like condescendingly, is hinting at that. As if the narrative is “How can I blame her when she is a moron who is stiff (because she didn’t want me, obviously that means she is weird and stiff). Just look at her idiotic ideas and followers, why should I even blame her she knows no bette, otherwise she would be with me.” The being high and solitary and most stern is what could have made her peaceful, he is asking it sarcastically and rhetorically, he is describing how she actually lived her life in a sense, meaning is this really what gives her peace? To achieve the high status (at least mentally) and live alone and be rigid? That is preposterous! Lastly to continue the lamenting of her ludicrous behaviors, what does she think she is destined for? Does this moron really believe now that she has lived her life like this that she was gonna accomplish something? Does she really (stupidly) think that she will be Helen of Troy?

[@mycroftlectures]

I’m enjoying your comments tremendously, and think that this one is particularly well argued and has hit upon something that I have long suspected myself without actually having ever articulated. The excess of fawning before the wonder of the woman that the poem conveys masks a perceived judgement of stupidity on the woman herself. How far should we buy the nobleness, simple as a fire or not, that is the justification for her actions? Does not simple also mean dim witted? Bearing in mind what we know of Yeats complicated relationship with the poem’s subject, we may even question how far Yeats himself was aware of the revelations within this reading of the poem. Does he know that the poem can be read as saying this about his feeling for Gonne? Did he even know that these were his, presumably subconscious, feeling for her? I honestly couldn’t say, but am totally convinced by your interpretation. Many thanks for this illuminating angle on the piece.

[@ducky6368]

Ive an exam today. Bless you.

[@mycroftlectures]

Good luck.

[@vishalnanda7387]

Ya know it's generally considered that the 7th historical Troy was Homer's Troy.

[@mycroftlectures]

No. I didn't know that. Not as specifically relevant to the poem as the scatological use of "squats" in Larkin's Toads, but new information all the same.

[@altaroftheraven]

Do you really think one selects a muse? Have you no magick in your soul? Ther rejection is all part of the musing.

[@dlobrown3673]

Or are the little streets against the Great British anchoring the previous line?

[@mycroftlectures]

Poetry as Text and Experience 2023.

[@karenchick925]

Chick Karen Tsz Yu The poem commences with a rhetorical question, denoting that Yates should not blame her (Maud Gonne), who is a beautiful Irish. More specifically, he should not blame Maud who makes him suffer the feeling of “misery”. As you can see from the poem, the poet himself feels miserable, heartbroken and utterly disappointed by the fact that Maud has rejected his affection, as found in the first five lines of the poem. In addition, the poet indicates that he should not blame her for instigating and commanding innocent Irish to fight violently over the British rulers. Undeniably, the Irish revolution causes violence that people are striving for freedom. Following the last five lines of the poem, from the poet's perspective, the glorious moment of civilization cannot be retained eternally as the beauty presumably ruins a country. In other words, a beautiful woman can cause terrible destruction. Regarding his feelings for Maud Gonne at this stage in their relationship, there is no doubt that the poet is seized by a feeling of sadness when she has not responded to his love. Although she does not take his love into account, he does not blame her for hurting his feelings. On the other hand, he believes that she should take the responsibility for commanding people to pursue a sense of autonomy and their own freedom, which is considered to be rebellious. In light of this incident, he does not understand her underlying intention to encourage people to fight against British colonialism. Moreover, the poet compares her beauty to a “tightened bow”, which infers meaning that a simple thought can cause destruction despite her beauty.

[@barron3962]

Ng Sheung Huen Barron In "No Second Troy," Yeats portrays Maud Gonne as a figure of immense power and beauty, but also as a destructive force that has brought ruin to his life. for "she filled my days With misery." He describes her beauty and stature are no less than those of Helen who was responsible for the burning of Troy. He feels both love and resentment towards her, seeing her as a symbol of Ireland's struggle for independence, given that she is a well-known Irish republican revolutionary and suffragette. But also sees her as a woman who has rejected him and caused him great pain. Yeats recognizes that he will never be able to possess Gonne fully, but he still feels drawn to her and cannot escape her emotional hold over him, for she possesses the beauty of a kind which is high, solitary and very stem, something rare in his era. With a sense of distance when portraying Maud Gonne's gracefulness. The poem reflects Yeats' complex and conflicted emotions towards Gonne, highlighting the intensity of their relationship and her lasting impact on him and perhaps his work.

[@churro88888]

Lai Yuen Lam Thuy The emotional relationship between Yeats and Gonne was not a healthy one, as Yeats idealized Gonne and ignored warning signs, such as her rejection of him multiple times, her marriage, and affair with a French politician. In a contemporary setting, we might say that Yeats was looking at his infatuation with Gonne through rose-tinted glasses, rationalizing away the red flags. Despite knowing that what he was doing to Gonne was toxic and that she was not the right woman for him, Yeats continued to glorify his obsession with her, using her rejection as inspiration for his poetry. He wrote her into poems such as "No Second Troy" and "He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven" to make sense of his meaningless waiting for an available woman and relationship. However, in truth, Gonne was as dangerous as Helen of Troy, as Helen was a dangerous woman for whom two men fought a war. Yeats saw Gonne as a "trouble" in his life, and her beauty was described as "like a tightened bow." Gonne’s the type of woman that can destroy the world and him as well. Back then, Yeats feels like no one cares about fighting for Irish independence for the deification of Gonne, which may put the situation at the time in peril. Yeats knew that Gonne was everything for him and his “religion” for years as well, as they shared the same political belief that "nobleness made simple as a fire," and her beauty was second to none. Yeats deep down knew that he needed to let go of his irrational attachment to her but was unable to do so. This attachment was in tune with the political climate of the time, where some people in Ireland know they have to stand up and work towards Irish independence from British rule. Yeats knew that letting go of Gonne would cease his pain, but he could not overcome his infatuation for her. I can't really blame Yeats because love is blind. The title of the poem, "No Second Troy," suggests that Yeats viewed Gonne as the equivalent of Helen of Troy in terms of her beauty and power. He comes to terms with the fact that he will never have her and accepts that it's okay to continue loving her even if she is married. His love to Gonne is undeniably sincere and grounded. However, I can also sense some insecurity on Yeats' part. Gonne was his muse and inspiration for many of his beautiful poems and played a significant role in his political and literary career. He may have been afraid that losing her could mean losing his political career and his reputation as one of the most influential poets of his time. Nevertheless, he could still be a great poet without her and create appealing metaphors that would be relevant even today on social media. Gonne was not only passionate about her nationalist beliefs but also playful in her relationship with Yeats. The world was already complicated. Why did he make it even more difficult for himself? To defend Yeats, one could say that Gonne made a great poet. It was an inspiring experience, but no one cares that Gonne was actually destroying Yeats, keeping him from having the love he deserved in his life. In writing this, all I would like to say to Yeats is: Do not go gentle into that rosy-tinted maze. Wake up now. Ireland needs independence, and the Irish people need to wake up and fight for it. And so do you. Love Yourself.

[@jackkam7499]

Kam Chak Fai, Jack Yeats is heartbroken by the lack of responses from Maud to his love as well as being absolutely devastated by her sudden marriage with another man. He claimed that he didn’t blame her for filling his days with misery (or maybe he forgave her), and he didn’t blame her for attempting to start a bloody revolution against the British, there is no resentment for her, yet when he compared her nobleness to fire and her beauty to the “Helen of Troy”, we know that he knew that kind of fanatical nationalistic view would in itself cause destruction, and perhaps in some ways, it’s implied that deep down, he knew she was dangerously foolish, there would only be needless bloodshed. Yeats was fully aware and even hinted at “acknowledged” how dangerous Maud could be in the poem, as well as her negative impact on his life, as he compared her one track mind to the destructiveness to a fire, her beauty to the Helen of Troy as well as a tightened bow (on the verge of destruction), the question “Why, what could she have done, being what she is?” makes it sound like he’s already resigned to it, she couldn’t change, but because of her qualities, Yeats acknowledged that he couldn’t change too, he couldn’t stop loving this dangerous woman who caused a great deal of pain to him no matter what he did, and thought of her as an outstanding individual that could lead the people to defeat the British rulers, and defended her for her acts, claiming they were blameless, even if he had slight pity for her for having to lead “ignorant” people who weren’t up for the job, who weren’t made to be heroes.

[@vickychan3250]

Chan Wing Man, Vicky Even though Yeats and Gonne shared the belief in reviving Irish culture, they had different focuses. While Yeats emphasized Irish literature, Gonne was more involved in politics. At this stage, Yeats feels frustrated towards Gonne for being a fanatical revolutionary who supports the Irish Nationalist Movement but also serves as his poetic inspiration due to her representation of Ireland's spiritual allure. The title “No Second Troy'' suggests the destructive nature of Gonne as in the case of Helen of Troy, which causes misery and destruction to the community. The lines “filled my days with misery” and “taught to ignorant men most violent ways” reveal the political differences and diverse perspectives towards the use of violence between Yeats and Gonne, as Yeats remains skeptical and conservative when it comes to Gonne’s proactive political actions of asserting Irish independence. Interrogative sentences in the poem serve as Yeats’ attitudes and a belief that the power of art and literature matters more in promoting Irish identity. Meanwhile, Yeats presumably accuses Gonne of sacrificing their relationships (the refusal of Yeats's several proposals mentioned in the video) to make room for the political revolution and assuredly lends a melancholic tone about receiving no reciprocation from Gonne despite the admiration throughout the poem.

[@kamalaja8130]

When you are old - analysis

[@user-jv9qz2bu1r]

Troy is in modern Turkey, not Greece. Cloths of Heaven not Clothes.

[@mycroftlectures]

Yes. Both true. Guilty. A brief confession. I've said "clothes" of heaven for over twenty years now, and in my mind I think, I probably think it actually is "clothes" of heaven. I even forget that as you correctly point out it is really "cloths" of heaven. Clothes just sounds better. I know how . . . blasphemous this is. It's like singing the wrong words to Imagine.

[@briankelly5828]

Correct - I noticed both of these. Although Turkey didn't exist for another 2000 years and western Anatolia was Greek occupied for centuries. The Greeks are never called 'Greeks' in Homer but Argives.

[@Bernillary]

Because Ireland is a distinct landmass...(never mind the history of oppression).

[@MrJamyang24]

I too couldn't see the logic in 'landmass' explanation for the fervent struggle for homerule. Yeats, and the constitutional struggle at the time, wax not for an unattainable independence but for an automous British dominion status. Yeats was not s democrat or a republican; he was concerned with a Celtic cultural revival based a pre Catholic and preoccupation. It was always a question of authencity for Yeats; peeling back the layers of Irish history that had thrust Ireland onto the filthy tide of modernity.

[@mycroftlectures]

@@MrJamyang24 I very much agree with what you say here about Yeats' motivation, and the pre-Catholic and preoccupation principle. I always thought that being raised protestant he considered he had the lesser claim to "true" Irishness at the time, protestantism coming to Ireland after catholicism. Or if he didn't think that, a lot of others did. But to Yeats, who it could be coherently argued wasn't even christian, the greater Irishness would be to have a belief system that pre-dated the arrival of he christian religion in Ireland. As in," My beliefs were Irish before your beliefs were Irish." Let's face it, historically he has a point. I write this as a total non-theist myself. Just to explain the "distinct landmass " statement. I mean that at a time when Ireland was a part of Britain, Irish people, unsurprisingly, opposed being ruled from Westminster more than Welsh or Scottish people, (or anyone outside London it could be argued) because the island of Ireland is not physically connected to the landmass of (let's for argument's sake call it . . .) Britain. And that's a tangible physical reason, aside from the history of neglect and oppression. You're certainly right about Yeats not being a democrat or republican too. (Except when it suited him to be one of course).

[@mycroftlectures]

Text and Experience 2020.

[@ktecktan7369]

Tan Kai Teck Desmond (4198776) Yeats is such a beloved poet in Ireland that how critical he could be of the Irish people is often ignored. Write TWO paragraphs on how the Irish people are presented in No Second Troy, and how you think such presentation would be responded to if made today. Upon close reading, one thing is clear: For a beloved Irish poet in his country, William Butler Yeats is extremely critical of his fellow citizens in this poem. This is a poem dedicated to the love of his life, Maud Gonne, who had also turned him down on his confession several times. This perhaps can be understood as a description or lament for the love-hate feeling he has for this incredible woman. As the title suggests, this poem places Dublin, Ireland in the context of Troy and his love as the Helen of Troy. As explained in the video, the devastating battle of Troy happened all because of the feud for a beautiful woman, Helen. Here Yeats thinks of Gonne as Helen, matching her beauty in the line “beauty like a tightened bow” and her unyielding determination in the line “That nobleness made simple as a fire”. Her will for the independence of Ireland from the British is undeterred, dangerous even, like a raging fire or an arrow poised before being fired. But then Yeats introduces the twist to this modern version of Troy, the Irish people. Unlike the warriors of ancient Troy, he refers to the Irish as “ignorant men” and men not having the “courage equal to desire”. Perhaps the description of her being “high, solitary and most stern” in turn describe the Irish as people of lower status as her, of not being worthy of her and her ideals. The final question that he poses and the title “No Second Troy” (Emphasis on the “No”) suggests that the people of Ireland do not have the caliber or the courage to stand up against the British. Thus this will not be like Troy; there will be neither revolutions nor stories of heroes to tell. Perhaps there is even a slight hint at how the Irish are not worthy of being Gonne’s pawn in her grand, destructive scheme at overthrowing British’s hold of Ireland. Similar to what the video suggests, it is because Gonne could not start a revolution with such men that she has to find other ways to “entertain” herself, in this case causing Yeats’ misery. Here I would like to argue that much like Rita Dove’s The Enactment, or Louise Ho’s view on the strength and ingenuity of the Hong Kong people in Remembering June the 4th, Yeats’ view on the Irish people are not necessarily personal, but rather simply his realistic observation. A revolution requires determination and an iron will. People must be fearless and be willing to sacrifice everything, including his life or his family’s wellbeing for his/her land should it be required. This is a tall order, even for patriots, let alone ordinary men. In addition, his usage of fire as a comparison to her ideologies seem to suggest that even he does not agree entirely with her radical ideals. It is possible to think that he thought it normal that the Irish could not keep up with her way of thinking as well. Therefore, it was perhaps not his intention to diminish them in any way, to him this is more like stating a fact and that he truly believed that they would not have that strength and undying will to face off as difficult an enemy as the British. His stance would change drastically after the Easter Rebellion which set in motion events and political will that would ultimately lead to Irish independence. He would express his respect for the toughness and will of the Irish people in his poem dedicated to four of the fallen heroes during the uprising, “Easter, 1916”. Obviously looking back at this today, with all the historical context and stories of Ireland’s struggles towards independence, one would most certainly find this wrong. This is especially offensive when one realizes that the poem talks about how the Irish’s incapability to revolt is restricting one powerful woman’s aspiration to liberate the land. When viewed this way, it is essentially saying that there is no way the Irish people can compare to this woman. While this statement looks bad for the Irish, it makes for a powerful love speech. But on the other hand, when viewed together with the knowledge of Yeats’ political stance at the time, and of the reality behind an uprising, it might be possible to also think of this poem as a semi-realistic representation of the Irish (The word semi-realistic is used here because this poem does lump all Irish together when he criticizes their courage or their lack of education. No matter how one looks at these today, these are still bad presentations of the Irish.).

[@cherrychang1254]

Chang Cheuk Lam Cherry (4117708) Yeats in the poem "No Second Troy" expressed his admiration towards Maud Gonne and at the same time showed his perspective of the Irish people as “Ignorant”, “fool”, “uneducated”, and “cowardly”. Firstly, in line 3 , he said “Have taught ignorant men most violent ways”. This insulted the Irish as “ignorant” and “foolish” in politics and knew nothing about how to strive for themselves in a hard and violent way. Then, he belittled their audacity by saying they don’t even have the bravery to shout in the little streets, let alone in the great streets like in Greek. Here, he further implies the message by a rhetorical question that the Irish people do not deserve the same rights and desires like the Greeks have because they “don’t deserve”.As this poem does have a initiative to show his love and admiration towards Maud, I doubt if the Irish are as “dumb” and “chicken” that Yeats suggested. He may just exaggerated it because he wants to make Maud’s “nobleness” conspicuous in a comparison. I believe there are some more Irish people at that time who wanted to do something destructive like Maud planned to, but there are a lot of factors that restrict their ideas, we don’t know. Regardless of this, In general, he disrespected Irish people that they don’t have the courage to instigate an uprising against the British rulers. We can see that in the other poem that he wrote “Easter 1916”, he did not think that the Irish would dare to conduct a revolution until he finally sees it. Therefore, we can tell he has a tendency of looking down on the people in Ireland.If this presentation is made today, people would think you’re just a hypocrite. For me, Yeats was just “smack talking” because he believed that the revolution would not happen. Take example in Hong Kong 2014. That was the time when people first encountered the suppression of CCP. Many did not think there would be the largest revolution they’ve ever seen until they really see tons of people in the street, fighting their rights, risking their lives for their homeland. If this poem was published in the present world, people may just be more encouraged to go for rebellion and at the same time condemn Yeats for being such a hypocrite and coward.

[@waisumlam1590]

Lam Wai Sum, Phronesis (4074243) “Yeats is such a beloved poet in Ireland that how critical he could be of the Irish people is often ignored. Write TWO paragraphs on how the Irish people are presented in No Second Troy, and how you think such presentation would be responded to if made today.” This is a poem of half criticism and half tribute devoted to Yeats’s muse-Maud Gonne by Yeats. It has a combination of personal and political concerns, with national as well as mythological terms. Yeats was obsessed with Gonne and has wrote several poems for her, but Gonne turned out to reject his marriage proposal in his every attempt. Despite the fact that Yeats mentions ‘…she filled my days/ With misery…’, presumably pointing to the fact of her rejections and his unrequited affection for her, he puts a complexion of feelings toward the role of Gonne-who she was ‘being’ and how she was like. While alluding Gonne as the ‘troublesome beauty’, Helen of Troy, who in many ways was thought responsible for triggering the Trojan War and bringing up masses of destructions, Yeats criticizes Gonne in teaching the ‘ignorant men most violent ways’ and putting the simple and the poors to rebel against ‘the great’; Meanwhile, he was also kind of praising her ‘beauty’ as if it was ‘like a tightened bow’, and her nature ‘high, solitary, and most stern’ that those Irish men, who she attempted to penetrate violence in, were lazy, stupid and not qualified enough to ‘receive’ her, or to be taught by her. In Yeats’s eyes, Gonne was born out of her time. Yeats wasn’t as keen as Gonne on the idea of Irish being the independent state out of British’s rule, while he was having the love-hate feeling for Gonne, and questioning her ‘nobleness’ with ‘single-minded right-thinking’, he also puts no faith in Irish men in fighting against independence by raising the rhetorical question ‘was there another Troy for her to burn?’, implying that no heroes would be shaped from Dublin and that Dublin would not be any stuff similar as a legend as Troy. He did not actually believe Gonne’s idea that Ireland could possibly gain their rights to be independent until the uprising in Easter 1916. If Yeats’s reponses were made in present days, hypothetically before the Anti-ELAB Movement in Hong Kong, people might criticize his work heavily by viewing him as a coward who put no faith in them, but it might as well be widely-accepted or agreed after these tragical months in Hong Kong, that at the present, there is no another Troy for Hong Kong people to burn.

[@charlottec7342]

Chong Hoi Kwo 4084248 No Second Troy is a love poem in which William Butler Yeats compares the love of his life, Maud Gonne, to Helen of Troy on the ground that they can inspire wars. However, there is yet war but empty boast in Dublin - the “Troy” of Ireland - because the Irish people are “ignorant” (line 3) and cowardly “Had they but courage equal to desire” (line 5) who are not ready to or incompetent to “hurl the little streets upon the great” (line 4) - revolting the British rule. What complicates the image of the Irish people is Yeats’ profound affection for Gonne. Since Gonne is the Helen of Troy to Yeats, it is not surprising to describe what Gonne does as revolutionary and ‘heroic’, and she has a beauty that is “like a tightened bow” (line 8), and is “high” (line 10) - “nobleness” (line 7). As she is born out of the time, her advocacy of Irish independence may therefore be ‘avant-garde’ like a ‘foresight’ of hers and ‘hindsight’ of others who later follow lead. On an affectional level, it may be possible that Yeats may have projected his misery of the rejection by Gonne to the image of Irish people as being incapable to comprehend the legend that Gonne demands. On a rational level, as much as Yeats may have cast his personal feeling on the lack of readiness of Irish people against Britain, Yeats may have well been writing about the reality he observed, as in his poem Easter 1916 he wrote about the Easter Rising where we see a different attitude. From the poem and the explicit title “No Second Troy”, we know that Dublin is not any ‘legend’. However, if we situate the poem in today’s Dublin, it may not be well-received. Amongst the three integrated nations to England - Wales, Scotland and, in the past, Ireland, Ireland may be said to have been the one that was the strongest opposition against British rule. There was the violent Irish War of Independence from 1919 to 1921, and later the Republic of Ireland was declared in 1949. Warlike as the Irish may be called, they fought for their land with full determination. Though Northern Ireland remains a part of the U.K., the voice of Irish reunification remains. Hence, it can be humiliating and offensive to ignore the Irish people’s efforts in independence throughout history and call them “ignorant” and incapable of fighting for their land. On the other hand, if we draw on to Rita Dove’s The Enactment and Louise Ho’s Remembering June the 4th, Yeats may just be writing about the reality of the situation. The difference between 2014 and 2019 HK protests is the maturity of the people - people were more likely to be politically indifferent and oblivious to the socio-political climate in 2014. Yet, the 2014 protest had provoked people to engage with politics and society, to ‘learn about’ what is happening in their home town. Like Gonne in No Second Troy, there were leaders in 2014 who were criticised, but later recognised as ‘pioneers’ in ‘hindsight’ of people in 2019. Yeats’ poem is therefore legitimate in 2014 while may be criticised in 2019. Similarly, how Yeats’ poem will be received by the Irish people depends greatly on their readiness (to fight) and maturity. Although there is voice that calls for Irish reunification border polling, to what extent do they really “desire” it? Hence, it is hard to give a definite answer to the response of the Irish people regarding the poem today. If what is written in the poem is the reality, it is the Irish people’s reluctance to face the truth; if the depiction does not hold water, it is the Irish’s people’s justification to be irritated and offended.

[@hehelu4225]

LU Ruiqi, Gloria(4145195) Yeats‘s descriptions of Irish people at that time remind me of ‘The Mind of Crowds: The Study of Popular Mind’ by a French psychologist Gustave Le Bon. In this poem, Yeats compares the women he has admires in whole life, Maude Gonne, who devotes her life to the Irish independence movement as Helen, a peerless beauty directly causes the Troy War. Feeling the attraction to Gonne does not necessarily mean he also holds the strong determination and ambition in the independence movement, as far as suggesting in this poem. Because this loving poem has the features that exaggerate the lover’s beauty and characteristics romantically so that Irish people who stand up against England is presented as ‘ignorant men’, ‘lack of courage’ and simple-minded’. Similar descriptions are frequently seen in Gustave Le Bon’s studies on crowds' mind. However, being given little information of Irish people who share the same view with Gonne in this poem, it is hard to differ whether Yeats critically views the idea that supports Irish independence or he does not support the tendency that people follow others because this is the choice taken by the majority in the society. Of course, this love poem is about Gonne, it is reasonable for him to present the Irish people less pleasantly so that Gonne will not be outshone. So, when we talk about the tendency that attracts people to follow only because it is popular within the groups, for example, some strange challenges and checks on TikTok, Yeats’ criticism is still applied. Because the people who make the videoes and upload to TikTok is truly ‘ignorant men’, and ‘simple-minded’. But the thing is not the same if using his words to describe ordinary people who stand up to fight again totalitarian politics, which is very disrespect and cold-bloody, even is inhuman way to go. Take what recently happened in Thailand and last year’s Hong Kong, for example, the power disparity between the citizens and violent machine of a nation is so significant and can easily cause tragedy for a family. In this case, his words can find supporters as people do think differently, but there are many more disagreements on his comments.

[@user-vv9ii9tt1i]

This peom is talk about auther's idea which he thinks she is a beautiful women, and she dosen't need join the pointless battle. I am interested in the word "troy", why the auther use "no second Troy" to be the title, i think that auther use troy have two kinds of meaning. one is to say that troy have been described only because they were trapped, in other worlds, with out miracle, the revolution they had started would fail! And second meaning is that he thinks she only could be the reason of the revolution can not be the who fight for the revolution. This peom include the auther's love and grudge.

[@mycroftlectures]

Lifewriting 2020.

[@herachan237]

Life-writing. Lesson 8. No Second Troy Hera, Chan Pui Ki Yeats shows his complex emotions when he looks back on Maud Gonne’s influence in his life since he seems to have an emotional dilemma when he has an irrational and unrelenting affection for Maud Gonne. The poem starts with a rhetorical question asking “ Why should I blame her” that shows Yeats’ blame and forgiveness at the same time. Although she seems to have some personal qualities that Yeats cannot readily accept, Yeats embraces their differences in love and political views by showing his genuine love to her. Yeats is a loyal lover, while Maud Gonne does not reciprocate Yeats feelings. Being decisive enough to reject Yeats, Maud Gonne is a woman associated with powerful, intelligent, and unconversational images who consciously searches for her true love. Her feminine strength is further presented in the title “No Second Troy '', Maud Gonne is portrayed as Helen of Troy who caused the Trojan War. The qualities of Goodness, such as “peaceful”,” nobleness” and “beauty”, are used to present Maud Gonne. Yeats confesses his love to Maud Gonne, while he seems to be the one who suffers in love. He not only accuses her of causing his heartache but also stirring up political violence among the Irish nationalists. More importantly, Yeats viewed the people of Ireland as lazy, blank-minded followers of Maud Gonne who advocated Irish independence. As suggested in the poem -” ignorant men” are more likely to be working-class people in Ireland with relatively low social status. They are triggered by Maud Gonne, a noble, to start their violence against the British but they are not capable of doing so. For instance, she encourages Irish people to adopt the ” most violent ways,” to fight for autonomy. Apparently, Yeats did not praise the violent actions, and he was a conservative who did not want a revolution. “The Second Coming” reveals Yeat’s opinion on the social order, he believed that it is meaningless to create a new political order and the world will eventually fall apart. Besides, the class conflict between “the little street” and “the great street” represents the working class of Ireland and the wealthy and powerful British people in terms of economical and military strengths. Although the Yeats’ and Maud Gonne’s views on love and politics were radically different, Yeats justified that he loves Maud Gonne for being who she was in the last few lines "Why, what could she have done, being what she is?". He loves her regardless of the individual difference.

[@marygarciawong]

Lifewriting, Lesson 8 Mary Garcia Looking back to Maud Gonne’s influence on Yeats, the twelve-line poem expressed his affectionate and complex feelings to Gonne. Undeniably, Yeats was obsessed with Maud Gonne as he had proposed to her and been rejected numerous times. It was clear that he was not happy. The poem begins with a rhetoric question saying Yeats should not blame Maud Gonne for putting him in misery and it showed his forgiveness for her. Meanwhile, he compared her directly to Helen of Troy, the most beautiful goddess of all. The speaking is saying that Gonne would make destruction to the city and he did not agree with such an approach. He moved on to explain his forgiveness to Gonne and wrote that he was attracted by her grace and power as an "A tightened bow". He valued the aristocratic value of her in being “nobleness” and an individual that finds her worth. Yeats just loved the way how Gonne was and forgive her even she was a heartbreaker. Yeats questioned the method of Irish people used to free from British subjugation. Maud Gonne preached the Irish to perpetrate violence against the British while Yeast found those men stupid by using the word “ignorant”. It is worth noticing that Yeats never like the use of violence as he was a nationalist. His nationalism aimed to revive Irish culture and it was never extreme or one-sided. In his poem “September 1913”, he questioned the necessity of violence to sacrifice patriots in his country. He explained that people fought for their country and was ignored by society. In his other poem “Easter 1916”, he criticized the violence used for independence and expressed his ambiguous feelings towards the rebellion. Adding that, Yeats did not have much faith in “No Second Troy” on commoners as Gonne did. As commoners were mostly impoverished, Yeats despise their desire to overthrew the British rule with a rebellion as they would fail fatally.

[@6b26]

ENG3385 Lifewriting Liu Xu Fen Hugo (4024626) The predominant emotion Yeats displays in ‘No Second Troy’ is his overwhelming frustration, as he looks back on Maud Gonne’s impact on his life. Of course, the frustration he feels comes from Gonne rejecting Yeats’ love over and over again, filling him with misery as he stated. To say Yeats is heartbroken is an understatement, especially when in his eyes, Gonne is not just any lady, but a goddess ‘not natural in an age like this’. If Dublin is Yeats’ Troy, Gonne would be his Helen, a woman so beautiful and charismatic to inspire armies of countries to fight against each other. Yeats adores Gonne not necessarily just because of her beauty, but also her personality in which he describes as ‘nobleness made simple as fire’. Fire burns and destroys, but can light up one’s path and provide warmth as well. Given that both of them were Irish nationalists, it is possible that Yeats saw her being a nationalist capable of fighting and a source of encouragement for their independence movement and for himself too. Under these assumptions, Gonne’s rejections made Yeats lose his loves of his life - Gonne herself, and through her, his passion for an independent Ireland. The latter brings us the next point. His frustration is not merely due to Gonne rejecting his love, but also caused by the state of the Ireland and its people, with Yeats viewing his fellow countrymen as cowardly, in addition to referring them as ‘ignorant men’. As mentioned in the lecture, Yeats tries to explain the reason of Gonne rejecting him, which in his mind is her disappointment towards Irishmen not sacrificing themselves for her ideals of Irish independence. It is highly likely Yeats self-imposed his opinions regarding the political situation on his repeated failures of getting the woman he loves. In other words, it is Yeats himself who is dispirited by the lack of action against British rule. In the Trojan War, Helen made a Spartan invasion of Troy (which is allegedly in modern day Turkey) possible; In the late 19th century and early 20th century, nationalist movements in the Balkan countries led to the defeat of Ottoman colonization, an empire based from Turkey. Yeats may see parallels from these instances, believing that Ireland’s own Helen, in his mind being Gonne, can achieve independence not dissimilar to the Balkan victories. However, in Yeats’ view the lack of Ireland’s own soldiers of Troy or fighters from the Balkan movements is because of the cowardice of the Irish people. Yeats thinks Dublin is not going to ‘burn’ unlike Troy, hence the title of the poem, and blamed the people of Ireland for not giving their lives for their homeland, seeing them as being cowardly and hopeless.

[@ckt196]

Lifewriting Chan Ki Tung, Tony In No Second Troy, Yeats views the people of Ireland as “ignorant men”. In fact, Yeats does not spill much ink upon the people of Ireland except using the derogative phrase “ignorant men”. He instead uses Maud Gonne to reveal how he thinks about the people of Ireland. Maud Gonne is compared to Helen of Troy, a femme fatale who triggers Trojan warfare between men. But Gonne is not exactly Helen as she is more like an emblem of classical severity, being “high”, “solitary” and “most stern”. Also, she has a mind “made simple as fire” and has beauty “tighten as bow”. These similes point to the fact that Maud Gonne is a destructive woman, who uses “violent ways” to achieve home-rule. However, she is “not natural in an age like this”. Her radical political views won little appreciation as the people of Ireland did not follow her. If she is “high”, then the latter must be “low”; if she is “solitary”, they are populous; And if she is “most stern”, they are “not serious”. It is through this dichotomy that one could see how Yeats view the people of Ireland. And it is because Yeats knows that the people of Ireland are “ignorant men” that he does not blame Maud Gonne for messing up his life. As mentioned above, Maud Gonne is a destructive woman and she could burn another Troy. However, Ireland is “no second Troy” because the people of Ireland did not follow her, despite her high enthusiasm. Therefore, Gonne has to destroy another thing in substitute, which is Yeats himself. But Yeats does not blame her, as evidenced by his saying “Why should I blame her that she filled my days/ With misery” because he knows that it was not Gonne to blame but the Zeitgeist of Ireland. People of Ireland did not accept her political views as they do not have the courage to achieve it. Therefore, Even though Gonne keeps messing up his life (rejected his proposal many times), he still loves her.

[@demikong]

Lifewriting Demi Kong Yeats expresses his frustration when he looks back on Maud Gonne’s influence on his life. I think Yeats, to some degree, indulges himself in this frustration. The encounter with Gonne has started “the troubling of [his] life”. Soon Gonne becomes Yeats’ muse because of her intelligence and beauty, and Yeats is deeply and hopelessly drawn into. Yet he is rejected by Gonne on many occasions. But instead of condemning Gonne from making his life devastating and hard, he justifies Gonne’s behaviour by reiterating the woman just being born this way. To Yeats, Gonne is the reincarnation of Helen. She is the supposed vehicle for Dublin to be the second Troy. But because the people of Ireland do not have the bravery to follow Gonne, she messes Yeats’ life instead. Similarly, Yeats is “born this way” that he cannot prevent himself from hopelessly falling in love with this woman. He is like one of those “ignorant men”, taught and incited by Gonne. Although he can see the destructiveness of Gonne, he could not resist to love her still. All the justifications he gives for Gonne is only his own self-pity and indulgence to make himself feel better in his absurdity. Yeats once says, “my hatred tortures me with love, my love with hate”. His double consciousness of both Irish and English deeply influences his writing and political stance. While Yeats is so torn between Ireland and England, the condemnation of Irish men he convicts in this poem become very hard to understand. He accuses the people of Ireland to be “ignorant” and Ireland will not become another Troy because its people are too stupid and cowardly. To me, Yeats seems to instil his feelings towards Gonne into the way he sees the people of Ireland. His love and praise to Gonne lead him to see the Irish men as nothing, as useless. No one is worth to compare to Gonne, including himself. But in fact, there are plenty of other nationalists protesting and fighting for their own Independence. So, is Gonne the solitary noble stern figure in Ireland? Not exactly.

[@RiyaTomar-jd3mw]

Why do I see chunks of Tom Hiddleston in him :)

[@AmanNayak-zm8nu]

Aa gye Satyawati walo😂😂

[@jignyasu7997]

Hahahahaa

[@AmanNayak-zm8nu]

@@jignyasu7997 🤫

[@jignyasu7997]

Aur Bhai kl Ka match Dekha?

[@AmanNayak-zm8nu]

@@jignyasu7997 haan yrr .... sunrisers Hyderabad kya kheli hai 😂😂

[@jignyasu7997]

Are nhi, Mai Mumbai RCB ki baat me rha hun

[@MrJamyang24]

I commend but I don't agree. Symbolism is the magic that Yeats has so masterfully commanded in these esoteric verses... I fear that people''s freely given opinion, however well meant, are like thick coats of varnish over Yeats' pristine craftsmanship. Please read it again and let the Symbols illuminate and mystify the inner recesses of your mind

[@mycroftlectures]

This is rather a strange comment. There is nothing esoteric about this poem at all. What you say might be true of say, The Second Coming, and certainly all of A Vision (which is a very challenging read), but certainly not No Second Troy, where the symbolism, if it can even be said to exist, is Yeats at his most clear. He has to be clear because along with the personal reflection in the poem, about Gonne, he is also making a political point, about Ireland, that is admission, and perhaps apology. Because a poet writes esoteric verses does not mean that all that poet's work is esoterica, and I would argue that it it does a poet an injustice to view it as such. And, just out of interest, don't you think that illuminate and mystify are opposites?

[@janniesadventureswildatlan9689]

Schisms black holes. Look at asceticism. Gnosis. Long tarrying.

[@harryyoutt1532]

Beauty like a tightened bow. With respect, your simile-interpretation has gone temporarily off course. The tightened bow is for a stringed instrument, not for an arrow. A string player “tightens” her bow, just before she is called upon to perform her music. tightened, she produces more inspiring, more beautiful, more precise music. The “beauty” reference turns out to be cross-modal, honoring the sound she produces as she speaks. More sophisticated tribute to her intellect, as it departs the cliche of Maud’s physical beauty. Otherwise, you’re fairly spot on

[@mycroftlectures]

With respect, I'd have to disagree here. If this interpretation were correct, the bow being a musical instrument and not the pulled back bow used in Trojan warfare, why would it not be natural in an age like this? While I would grant that your interpretation is possible, and nicely put, don't you think it lessens the grandeur and violence that Yeat's is going for in his creation of Gonne here as a force and nature agent of chaos? Hers is a "terrible beauty" the intellectual content, which Yeats was wary of, far less important than the passion it evokes.

[@harryyoutt1532]

@@mycroftlectures I agree the war weapon interpretation is consistent with the violence theme. And I should have left it at that. I just was thinking the strength of your analysis of the poem was not advancing of its own energy on the archery reference. I also don’t associate the “tightened bow” phrase with archery. “Strung bow” might have been entirely different. “Bracing?” “Nocking?” But “tightened” I always associate only with the musical bow. And in this, I do confess my intrinsic bias. Long ago, I played a string bass in a concert orchestra. We “tightened” (that is in fact the official term) our bows and resined them before every rehearsal and performance. Especially every time we played anything by Beethoven! Beethoven was notorious for the intensity (grandeur and violence?) of his string bass parts. And when the bows of the orchestra’s strings were appropriately tightened, we might well have been able to characterize the sounds we produced as more “high and solitary” than more loosely strung bows would have yielded, and perhaps even “most stern.” I realize I’ve probably over-labored what remains of my point here. Your lecture was fine work, and I enjoyed it immensely. I should at least have had the good grace not to pick at your metaphors! In this instance, especially since I have no biographical basis for supporting an argument Yeats might have been referring to the “beauty” of Maud Gonne’s speaking voice. I only appreciate what would have been the sophistication of side-stepping what might have been a slightly hackneyed reference to her physical beauty by adopting a violin metaphor, crossing modes and adoring her voice (and by extension, the content of her message). But this would have tortured the poem back in the direction of the backhanded love poem that it probably wasn’t. Thank you again not only for your passionate attention to the interpretation, but also for your artistry in recitation.

[@mycroftlectures]

And many thanks for your reply. I always appreciate a discussion on alternative readings of lines from the great poems, or the ones that resonate most with me. I think, it part, that the reason they are great is that these poems can hold the different readings. I think that we as readers get "more for our money" by the poems holding alternative readings. I will certainly be including your interpretation of these lines in future classes, an 'intrinsic bias' or a superior-specific-knowledge generated justification for an interesting and illuminating new reading? I think the latter. It's rare these days that such readings come about, and I return my thanks once again. @@harryyoutt1532