A constant that runs through Felicia Hemans’s “Casabianca” and Gwendolyn Brooks’s “First Fight, then Fiddle” is a theme of war. Hemans poem is a tragic depiction of the effects of war, and uses her writing as a critique of unnecessary deaths caused in fighting. Brooks describes war as a necessity in order for culture and society to thrive. It is easy to see how these two poems can be interpreted as opposing arguments to war, Brooks’s in support, Hemans’s arguing against war. Hemans incorporates beautiful scenes of fire to tell her story of disastrous loyalty while Brooks argues that war is needed for civilization to become well-cultured. Clearly, they seem to oppose each other, even in basic style. Hemans uses evokes powerful sensations through effective story-telling. Her poem is marked with descriptive phrases such as “The flames rolled on,” and desperate dialogue, “My father! Must I stay?” Brooks approaches her poem as more of a speech, direct and less provocative of emotion. As if a calm elder speaking to students of war, Brooks writes, “First fight. Then fiddle.” It is almost a logical appeal to the senses.
Brooks and Hemans take a different approach to one issue, war. While both offer compelling imagery and seem to present counter arguments to the other’s interpretation of war on even the most basic levels, “Casabianca” and “First Fight, then Fiddle” both work to show the positives in great tragedy. Yet, they do so in different forms. Hemans uses the minute events of war to show some of the best qualities of mankind, while Brooks justifies war by writing of the positive results that come from it.
First, Hemans uses many positives in describing the young boy who perished in battle. Hemans starts by calling the boy, “a creature of heroic blood, a proud, thought child-like form.” Those who fight in war are often the most courageous of a society, those willing to die for an idea, a country or a people. War brings out the best people in a society. Even if the cause is unjust, it takes much gumption to willingly sacrifice yourself for an abstract concept. The unending loyalty of the child is established right away. “The boy stood on the burning deck, whence all but he had fled,” opens the poem, immediately saluting the quality and character of the child soldier. War does many things, including setting apart the true followers from those who simply tag along for the benefits of a war. The most courageous, those willing to die for a cause will continue the fight no matter how helpless a situation, simply because they believe in the cause.
Later, Hemans describes the boy’s mental state as “brave despair.” A strange oxymoron, it serves two purposes. While reminding readers of the inevitable deadly consequences of war, she plants an image of almost pitiful, but very admirable loyalty. The closing stanza finishes the poem with “But the noblest thing which perished there was that young faithful heart.” Again, reminding us that war ultimately ends in tragedy, Hemans completes the poem telling us that the boy, who perished, died with good intentions. The boy was steadfast in his resolve to follow orders and defend his ship and country; he was willing to accept his fate for a greater cause, even if he did so blindly. It is the character of the boy that Hemans wants us to recognize.
Brooks’s poem presents another positive side to war, the results. Brooks’s entire premise is that in order for a society’s culture to thrive, they must have a place that is free from oppression to do so. Her poem tells the reader to “muzzle the note with hurting love.” Brooks is telling us that war is necessary in some situations to accomplish certain positive results. The idea of necessity is reinforced later in the poem, “But first to arms, to armor.” Brooks wants her readers to realize that culture cannot come without a safe haven and war is sometimes necessary to create one. To further exemplify this, she tells the reader to “carry hate in front of you and harmony behind.” Brooks explains in this line that fighting is often one’s only form of protection in certain circumstances. She argues war comes first, but something good must follow. War is not simply fought for fighting’s sake, but just war has a cause behind it that leads to a positive end result.
Yet Brooks still reminds us of the deadly consequences saying that the people must “rise bloody.” From tragedy, rise good things. The end of war brings a final peace, the type of peace Brooks maybe suggesting is required for such cultural advancement to take place. Also, similar to Hemans’s poem, Brooks is describing war as something for the brave. Painful love represents a courageous sacrifice. Tying these ideas together, those who take on the brave challenge of carving themselves a space for culture, “For having first to civilize a space,” will be fairly rewarded with a place to “play your violin.”
Compared together, similar ideas run through these two poems. Both authors remind us that war is foremost, deadly and has many tragic consequences. It is clear in “Casabianca,” but a little more subtle in its presentation in Brook’s poem. Brooks puts in more general terms that hate must be had for war to be waged, while blood will be shed. Different scales are used, but the same message is being sent. Brooks uses a much more broad view, while Hemans singles in on one event, attempting to use it as an example of overall tragedy. The difference in scales can also be seen on the flipside, the positives of war. Hemans picks on person to exemplify all that is good in war, courage and loyalty, while Brooks uses an entire society as the example of positives in war. Again, the same message is passed along using different methods. Hemans small scale approach to the issue of war gives us a much more personified and personal feel to the poem. Brooks offers us a little more detachment, but allows us to consider the societal impacts of war and what positives may arise. Moreover, “Casabianca” uses individual qualities, personal bravery and one person’s loyalty to a commanding officer to display the good that is shown and comes from war. Brooks focuses on the success of an entire society. Her Volta, shows this point the best. She uses the word “civilize,” referring to a task that both requires and serves the purpose of a larger population. The differences in scale provide two glimpses into the same issue, an issue which both Brooks and Hemans arguably fall on the same side.
Both poems read literally and quickly seem to offer opposing view points on war. Hemans may be writing as a tragic explanation of the consequences of war and why it must be avoided. On the other hand, at first glance, Brooks is a clear advocate of war. When read a little more deeply, both offer the same argument, that while tragedy and death are inevitable in warfare, the good that stems from war, the qualities displayed in war are not only positives but sometimes desired.
