Sailing to Byzantium Essays

Sailing to Byzantium Essays Sailing to Byzantium Paper Sailing to Byzantium Paper Poetry means many things to people all over the world. Poetry is an outlet or artistic and creative way of telling a story or expressing your emotions. It is something that does not require a lot of skill, but imagination and feeling. â€Å"Sailing to Byzantium† written by William Butler Yeats is a poem that speaks of the craving for something one cannot have and the immortality of people, art and intellect, and greatness. â€Å"Sailing to Byzantium† is a poem based on the theme longing for something one cannot have. In this case the old man in the poem is yearning to be young and live on forever even when his time is up. To escape death and old age the man sails to Byzantium. Byzantium is the opposite of the old man. â€Å"The young in one another’s arms, birds in the trees† and â€Å"The salmon falls, the mackerel crowded seas† are lines from the poem that illustrate the youth and vibrance of Byzantium, the youth and viberance the old man desires. Throughout the poem there are lines that hint about the immortality of people and life. One can continue to live on forever spiritually or by being remembered for having a great achievement or a great impact. In the second stanza Yeats writes, â€Å"An aged man is but a paltry thing. Upon this realisation, he decides to travel to the holy city of Byzantium. Byzantium (which was renamed Constantinople, then Istanbul) was a city in the Eastern Roman Empire. The journey to Byzantium is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one which represents the acceptance of mortality, artistic splendour and a way of immortalising oneself through art. Art is an artificial creation, and is something which can stand the test of time and will remain beautiful from the moment it is first created. The use of symbolism and themes are very prevalent in conveying this message of mortality, which leads me to my guiding questions: How does Yeats use language to distinguish the difference between mortality and immortality for the reader? and How does Yeats use symbolism to convey the theme of immortality versus the transience of life? The first stanza presents an image of life to the reader; the birds in the trees, the fish filled waters, the young people who are preoccupied with their lives and loves. But in amongst the description of life Yeats refers to them as those dying generations. This is a reminder that life is inevitably followed by death, and that we are all moving closer to our deaths, or dying. It is a reminder that everything that lives is doomed. Whatever is begotten, born and dies /Caught in that sensual music all neglect /Monuments of unaging intellect. This is a crude summary of the aspects of life that everyone shares (conception, birth and death) and how all living things get caught up with the sensual music, and neglect the monuments of unaging intellect. The final line has a double meaning. The monuments of unaging intellect represents the elderly and how their minds and intelligence do not age with their bodies, but it also represents the artworks and paintings which Yeats destination, Byzantium, is so famous for. The people in paintings, sculptures and other forms of art are undying, and remain the same as they were the day they were first created for eternity. Yeats is condemning the natural as all things natural are doomed to die, and praising the artificial things as they can stand the test of times. This is paradoxical however, because without the natural, the artificial wouldnt exist. In the second stanza, Yeats likens and aged man to a scarecrow: An aged man is but a paltry thing,/A tattered coat upon a stick. This is a symbol of the elderly. Scarecrows are devices which were created to do just as their name describes to scare crows, but in the poem they represent a device which is to scare the youth. Many people fear death, and as the elderly remind the youth of their own mortality, in looking at the aged, they have a sense of fear as they are seeing what they will become. However, this is followed by unless/Soul clap its hands and sing, louder sing/for every tatter in its mortal dress. By using a personification of soul, Yeats reminds the reader that the soul is what separates each life from the next, and that for every problem it comes by, it becomes stronger. In saying this, Yeats is focusing on the fact that it is possible to avoid becoming an empty, lifeless shell, like the scarecrow, by concentrating on the soul, and therefore overcoming the constrictions of the human body. Since the journey to metaphorical one, Yeats is saying that the only way that the journey to Byzantium is possible is to learn to escape from the constraints of the body. Byzantium represents a desired destination, and in Yeats case, it is a symbol of permanence and intransience through art. During a trip to Ravenna, Yeats saw a painting which portrayed martyrs being burnt because of their faith. In the third stanza, in the line O sages standing in Gods holy fire/As in the gold mosaic of a wall, Yeats has incorporated his interpretation of this painting into the poem. He sees the martyrs as sages and the flames as the Holy Spirit. This is represents the transition between life as a mortal and life as an immortal, as at the time of their deaths the sages gained an immortal existence through being incorporated into art. The mosaic is described as gold, as this colour represents an untarnished and everlasting beauty. Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,/And be the singing-masters of my soul. Here, Yeats is referring to a spinning wheel, and the quick movement of thread through a bobbin and spool. This image of each strand of thread being merged into one constant piece symbolises how human life spawns other lives another and how each life links up with another creating a continuous flow of life. Yeats is asking the sages in the mosaic to free him from his body, which he describes as a dying animal, and guide him to Byzantium so that he too can join the artifice of eternity. The sages in the mosaic have seen many generations of people, without ageing themselves. The fourth and final stanza commences with Yeats pronouncing that once he has escaped him human form, he will never again take the form from anything natural, as from his description in the first stanza, these things are all prone to decay and death. He then proceeds to say that he would wish to take the form of a golden bird like the ones the Grecian goldsmiths used to make. He wishes to make the final transition from the transience of human life, and immortalise himself through an ancient form of art. The final line of the poem Of what is past, or passing, or to come is a reflection of the line Whatever is begotten, born and dies found in the first stanza. Yeats categorises time into past, present and future, which is a suggestion that even after escaping his human body, his mind would still be limited to what he can perceive as a human being. The idea of eternity is a concept almost impossible for a human mind to grasp, so we classify time into past, present and future. In answer to my first guiding question, there is a notable difference in the language Yeats uses depending on whether he the idea of mortality or immortality is being conveyed. For example, in the first stanza when the old country is being described, the words are limited to one or two syllables, and the language is rough and has a staccato style rhythm: The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,/Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long. The quick, often monosyllabic words help to enforce the idea that these things will eventually die, and the f and sh sounds are repeated, creating an alliteration which gives a sharper sound to the line. Yeats uses long, more flowing words in line 7, Caught in that sensual music all neglect, as if to admit that he, too, become preoccupied with this aspect of human life. In the final line of the first stanza, the reader is first introduced to the idea of an everlasting existence: Monuments of unageing intellect. This line rolls over the tongue, and is a contrast from line 5 which describes things that will die. It also displays a use of alliteration, as the letter n is echoed throughout the line. More examples language being used to emphasize the difference between transience and an endless existence can be found in the other stanzas: A tattered coat upon a stick and Monuments of its own magnificence: Consume my heart away; sick with desire/And fastened to a dying animal against Into the artifice of eternity. The lines which are referring to immortality have a much more soothing tone, whereas the lines which are referring to mortality are more staccato-like and harsher sounding. In answer to my second guiding question, Yeats use of symbolism is essential in his portrayal of immortality in opposition to mortality. The symbolism begins in the poems title, Sailing to Byzantium. Sailing symbolises a metaphorical journey, and Byzantium symbolises a desired destination, in this case, the desire to become immortal through art. In the first stanza, the images of the young lovers, fish and birds symbolise mortality and eventual death. By highlighting this component of the world he lives in, it makes it easier for the reader to understand his need for permanence. In the second stanza, the scarecrow signifies the elderly. The image of a solitary scarecrow in a field is seen often through literature and film, and in this case the scarecrow represents the neglected generation. The scarecrow is described as paltry (which means contemptible), and this symbolises how the younger generations have contempt for the older generations because they are a reminder of their own mortality. The scarecrow also represents everything that Yeats wishes to leave behind in departing his mortal existence. Finally, the image of the golden bird symbolises the flight Yeats has taken from his previous body, and the permanence he has found through art. The colour gold his also used several times throughout the poem, and this indicates everlasting beauty. Yeats uses images representing young life through to old life to demonstrate the transience of human life, but uses the constant image of the golden mosaics and the golden bird to show how art has a never-ending beauty. In conclusion, I think the main idea W. B. Yeats was trying to convey in writing this poem was that the artificial is superior to the natural, and that while all things natural are doomed to die, the artificial can exist forever. The way Yeats uses imagery helps to convey the idea that the artificial is an everlasting creation, and whereas the natural, while is beautiful at one time, eventually withers and dies. The fact that the author believes the artificial is superior to the natural becomes apparent in difference in language Yeats uses, depending on which of them he is talking about. The abrupt phrases and monosyllabic words Yeats uses to talk about the natural connote that the lives of these things, like the words, are quickly over. However, the more descriptive and flowing language used to describe things which are man-made, such as art, tells the reader that these things are longer lasting and more beautiful. I think that the way in which Yeats tells the poem complements the message he is conveying and causes the reader to contemplate their own existence.

How To Use the Two German Past Tenses

How To Use the Two German Past Tenses Although both English and German use the  simple past tense  (Imperfekt) and the  present perfect tense  (Perfekt) to talk about past events, there are some major differences in the way each language uses these tenses. If you need to know more about the structure and grammar of these tenses, see the links below. Here we will focus on when and how to use each past tense in German. The Simple Past  (Imperfekt) Well start with the so-called simple past because its simple. Actually, its called simple because its a one-word tense (hatte,  ging,  sprach,  machte) and isnt a compound tense like the present perfect (hat gehabt,  ist gegangen,  habe gesprochen,  haben gemacht). To be precise and technical, the  Imperfekt  or narrative past tense refers to a past event that is not yet fully completed (Latin  perfect), but I have never seen how this applies to its actual use in German in any practical way. However, it is sometimes useful to think of the narrative past as being used to describe a series of connected events in the past, i.e., a narrative. This is in contrast to the present perfect described below, which (technically) is used to describe isolated events in the past. Used less in conversation and more in print/writing, the simple past, narrative past, or imperfect tense is often described as the more formal of the two basic past tenses in German and it is found primarily in books and newspapers. Therefore, with a few important exceptions, for the average learner it is more important to recognize and be able to read the simple past than to use it. (Such exceptions include helping verbs such as  haben,  sein,  werden, the modal verbs, and few others, whose simple past tense forms are often used in conversation as well as written German.) The German simple past tense may have several English equivalents. A phrase such as, er spielte Golf, can be translated into English as: he was playing golf, he used to play golf, he played golf, or he did play golf, depending on the context. As a general rule, the farther south you go in German Europe, the less the simple past is used in conversation. Speakers in Bavaria and Austria are more likely to say, Ich bin in London gewesen, rather than Ich war in London. (I was in London.) They view the simple past as more aloof and cold than the present perfect, but you should not be overly concerned about such details. Both forms are correct and most German-speakers are thrilled when a foreigner can speak their language at all! Just remember this simple rule for the simple past: it is used mostly for narration in books, newspapers, and written texts, less in conversation. Which brings us to the next German past tense... The Present Perfect  (Perfekt) The present perfect is a compound (two-word) tense formed by combining an auxiliary (helping) verb with the past participle. Its name comes from the fact that the present tense form of the auxiliary verb is used, and the word perfect, which, as we mentioned above, is Latin for done/completed. (The  past perfect  [pluperfect,  Plusquamperfekt] uses the simple past tense of the auxiliary verb.) This particular German past tense form is also known as the conversational past, reflecting its primary use in conversational, spoken German. Because the present perfect or conversational past is used in spoken German, it is important to learn how this tense is formed and used. However, just as the simple past is not used exclusively in print/writing, neither is the present perfect used only for spoken German. The present perfect (and past perfect) is also used in newspapers and books, but not as often as the simple past. Most grammar books tell you that the German present perfect is used to indicate that something is finished at the time of speaking or that a completed past event has results that continue into the present. That can be useful to know, but it is more important to recognize some of the major differences in the way the present perfect is used in German and English. For instance, if you want to express, I used to live in Munich in German, you can say, Ich habe in Mà ¼nchen gewohnt. - a completed event (you no longer live in Munich). On the other hand, if you want to say, I have lived/have been living in Munich for ten years, you cant use the perfect tense (or any past tense) because youre talking about an event in the present (you are still living in Munich). So German uses the present tense (with  schon seit) in this situation: Ich wohne schon seit zehn Jahren in Mà ¼nchen, literally I live since ten years in Munich. (A sentence structure that Germans sometimes mistakenly use when going from German to English!) English-speakers also need to understand that a German present perfect phrase such as, er hat Geige gespielt, can be translated into English as: he has played (the) violin, he used to play (the) violin, he played (the) violin, he was playing (the) violin, or even he did play (the) violin, depending on the context. In fact, for a sentence such as, Beethoven hat nur eine Oper komponiert, it would only be correct to translate it into the English simple past, Beethoven composed only one opera, rather than the English present perfect, Beethoven has composed only one opera. (The latter incorrectly implies that Beethoven is still alive and composing.)