Surprisingly, the first definition that came up was "A person who cuts grass, etc., with a scythe or (now usually) a mowing machine." I was expecting something else entirely, considering that the poem was written in the 1600s, but it seems that definition of mower has been around since 1225! So in that sense, I suppose you could read it as the Mower, or mankind in general, getting his hands all over nature and basically landscaping it to make it his own? (This poem was kind of confusing to me in general, so if I'm totally off base here, let me know!)
The other definition of mower I found interesting was "A person who makes a face; a jester, a mocker." This definition hasn't been used widely since about the time Marvell was born, but I tried to consider it anyway just for fun. The poem, at least in my few readings, seems to be concerned about the way man has been changing nature from the purity of God's work to something that's preferable and more useful to himself. If we wanted to think about this definition of mower alongside this reading of the poem, I would say that Marvell thinks that man's treatment of nature, God's work, is making a mockery of it/Him.
I find it interesting that you said the poem classifies untouched nature as "God's work" since I have the same impression but don't see a reference to Christianity anywhere in the poem. In fact, the final line of the poem indicates that it may be more pagan than Christian; "The gods themselves with us do dwell." There certainly is a religious flavor to the poem, and I think this is why Christianity instantly springs to mind. One moment in the poem struck me especially as a possible Christian reference - line 9, which reads, "The pink grew then as double as his mind." The concept of double-mindedness seems like a reference to Matthew 6:24 which deals with the concept of a man being unable to "serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth," (ASV Bible). If Marvell is referring to this passage, your reading of "mower" meaning "jester" or "mocker" makes a lot of sense since a man who worships God (pure nature) and the World/Satan (the luxurious garden) is, in effect, unable to serve God and mocks him with his prayers and service. And clearly this reading works well within the poem, since the double-minded man is working against the simple purity of God's nature by mowing it down to create something better, more voluptuous, more beautiful (i.e., more worldly, impure, and corrupt).
ReplyDeleteI feel Marvell's mindset is more Juvenal than ecological. The "change" brought by man to his environment is seen, but in respect to what man might "mow" from what he has done. "Luxurious man" is the opening image of the poem, not a "plain and pure" fields of flowers. There is undoubtedly a case (especially in the 21st century) for an ecological reading, but more so Marvell attacks the deepest vices of man: sex, money, and control. To so directly address the human condition is less to examine man's agency over nature but a flaw in social reasoning. I remember getting a good chuckle out of the "tulip depression" that cost people their own homes and livelihood. The absurdity of that idea is precisely Marvell's aim: to get man to understand his own shortcomings logically.
ReplyDeleteI think Collin is right. Ultimately Marvell seems to be pointing out the absurdity of a garden. Trying to make something whose inherent beauty is its "wild-ness" more beautiful by confining it. However, reading it in a more religious connotation give lines 20-27 an interesting meaning. He could be likening the confusion in species due to grafting to the confusion of the many different religions because they have slowly morphed and strayed from the "stock from which it came"
ReplyDeleteI find this more than an attack on gardens but an attack on the entire species of human beings. The title of the poem is, "The Mower against Gardens." This literally says the mower is against all gardens including the first garden every made which was the Garden of Eden. If the mower is against gardens then the motives are that of or at least aligned with the first mower of gardens which was the serpent. The serpent mowed the first garden with his tongue by persuading Eve to eat the apple and to convince Adam to eat the apple. So in following this logic I found this poem was an argument that humans are inherently sinful by the gardens that they create which imitate or in the mower's view quite possibly mock the original garden made by God for Adam and Eve. This is saying that humans manipulate the purity of nature which could mean that which what is from God and pervert it to their own accord just like they did the Garden of Eden. It's as if the mower or death or the serpent is making a case to extinguish humans because of the Frankenstein gardens we build that out of our selfish nature
ReplyDelete