1860 and 1855 Song of Myself Comparison.

I believe the principle difference between Whitman's 1860 and 1855 versions of Song of Myself is the stylistic tone employed in each text. Whitman's latter version seems invested in language similar to Milton's; each phrase seems to dwell in a kind of theatrical pageantry, it is overblown, epic. This is by no means a criticism of Whitman, indeed that the poem lends itself to such a genre is surely a compliment. That said I find the earlier version to be presented in a more intimate and accessible way. Let me quote an example from the begginning of each poem:

1860.

I, musing, late in the autumn day, gazing off south-
         ward,

Alone, held by the eternal self of me that threatens          to get the better of me, and stifle me,

Was seized by the spirit that trails in the lines          underfoot,

In the rim, the sediment, that stands for all the water
         and all the land of the globe. 

1855.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their
parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.  

 Firstly the content of each opening stanzas are vastly different. They appear to be unique works of poetry, rather than one a revision of the other. Notice Whitman's use of caesura- the break in a text. The use of comma is used for different ends in Whitman's revision of the poem. We are all well acquainted with Whitman's use of cataloguing, however the latter version uses the comma to add an air of significance and authority to the text, alongside Whitman's trademark indexing of imagery. 

It is because of this difference in punctuation that I contend Whitman's revision of Song of Myself was intended to be a more high-brow and literary version of the first. He is aligning his poem within the spectrum of epic poetry, and in doing so, I believe, abandons the intimacy and buoyancy which his original embraces. While it would be fatuous to criticise the latter version on these grounds, I find more inspiration and enjoyment in a poem who engages in language less distant and ornate. As the prententious drone at a sold out gig would say; I liked his early stuff better.

 

specimen days

In reading Whitman I find his appreciation of nature to be the most interesting facet of his writing. The posts in specimen days dedicated to the natual world seem to trace a pattern in American writing which express complete veneration toward the American landscape. In this sense Whitman's work contains favourable echo's of Emerson, and indeed informs a lot of beat literature which I have read.

These influences are especially pertinent in his short ode to Entering A long Farm Lane, which lends the sense of overwhelming joy at what one suspects is a fairly routine portrait of the American landscape. It begins, "As every man has his hobby-liking, mine is for a real farm-lane fenced by old chestnut-rails." The short piece continues to establish the details of Whitman's 'hobby,' and as each detail of the scenery is listed off one could be forgiven for feeling as if we are embarking on a quaint stroll through the countryside with Walt.

It is the term 'hobby' which Whitman applies to this elegant description of the long farm lane. He starts by measuring it against other men's hobbies, and thereby demonstrates the implicit notion that his hobby is in fact the world around him. Whitman's xbox is the portrait of a forgotten monument, his amateur dramatics performed in the theatre of a curious forest. His hobby does not detatch himself from life, rather it is life.

Favourite Whitman Line.

"A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more
than he."

I found this line to be particularly arresting. The child seems to be asking a simple question, and one which the reader, and indeed Whitman, would perhaps pay little thought to. What makes it so profound is the apparent simplicity of the question in conjunction with the ineffability of the answer. What is the grass? We can posit a response based on its properties, its function, its origins; but the child seems to be asking more than this. He is after a concrete existential definition of what grass is, to which of course, we are as ignorant as the child.


For me this became emblematic to a host of other concepts which we are equally alienated from. For example I thought of gravity and how Newton expresses its function. Much like Whitman explaining to the child, Newton's account of gravity can only appeal to what it does not what it is. The notion of gravity's function is almost ubiquitous in our collective consciousness, yet it is impossible to attempt to establish what it actually is. The child's question therefore undermines humanity as the privileged observer of nature, instead establishing the world as remote and unknowable. Concepts are only knowable through their function, not their existential significance. To be as ignorant as the child to some may be humbling, and to others distressing. That's what I liked.