I enjoyed this one, and I'm glad to see it was selected. The subject matter certainly skirts the line of going over the top (some very gothic-style images that do not appeal to everyone), but I think the poet pulls it off. I agree with someone (Roger, I think) who thought the last line was a bit of a let down. But I think the rest of it is strong enough to carry it.

Oh, points where I think it might even bubble slightly over the top: "mortal bane," "queen was slain," and "waste be drink." The archaic feel is supported by the subject, though.

It's interesting to compare this one with "Requited Love." Both seem to use some of the same rhetorical techniques (repetition of keys words and phrases, along with a sort of list-poem feel) - bit of the same formula. However, if I had to choose between the two, I would probably go with "Requited Love" as #1 right now. In this poem, I am a bit disappointed in the almost exact repetition and use of the same rhyme word in the sestet, but I think it works with the overall mood of the poem. Also, I'm not really sure there is a volta here, for those who scream for the volta. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

As for the epigraph, it almost made me stop reading. Too much wall-of-text feel, and not really necessary.

Wow, the comments and views have really tapered off. . .are people just getting tired?

I admire the unusual themes here but it doesn't quite work for me and I'm having trouble putting my finger on why. Too forced? Too self-consciously baroque?

.......let mortal bane
be gulped, and waste be drink for bole and briar...

This part of the poem illustrates what bothers me...but I can't express exactly why. The sword-and-sorcery vocabulary?? The archaisms, like "babe" instead of "baby."

Yes, there's intentionally a fairy-tale feel, and I think there's always a place for exotic vocabulary, well-deployed; and I admire that this poem is trying something vivid and colourful--the opposite of the restraint of "Requited Love," as someone has pointed out. But. Not quite working.

Christine.

Fascinating. Carried through all the way. I like Childe ballads, and I like formal diction when appropriate, as in this poem. I will come back to this poem more than once.

L3 - the queen could have been murdered, not executed. Same for the heirs.

L4 - does not parallel the rest of L2-L8. "and nothing learned" is both weak and confusing.

So (L2-L4):
The ashes from the fire/flames/pyre/x that burned the witch,
Mold from the cellar where the queen was slain,
Dirt from the place the prince lay in a ditch,

& therefore:
L6 - Gravedigger's/Grave robber's drops...

L11 - "mortal bane" - the parallel with "mortal wound" is inexact and some readers may be confused that somehow the "bane" is mortal. So "deadly bane", despite being somewhat hackneyed, at least until something better can be found.

L12 - "gulped" seems to me not in accord with the diction of the rest of the poem and obtrusive. Try "sucked".

L14 - The couplet needs work. "marvel what man mars" seems rhyme forced & "gleams like stars" inaccurate anyway. So:

At last, the new-washed babe, her eyes agleam,
Her flesh so innocent and sweet, like cream.

This is lame, I guess. I offer it only to show that the sonnet is not locked-in to the existing couplet. There should be many possibilities. The "new-washed babe" and the innocent flesh are surely worth saving.

I had the same reaction as Catherine. I love the concept, but the details are not quite gripping me. I had a look last night when I was stupid-tired, and am having another now that my brain has kicked somewhat back into gear, but it's still not clicking.

It doesn't bother me that the Thistlewaite epigraph is false, since it's colorfully false.

The verb in "Let it go, let it all go" feels too weak and generic to start an incantation with (twice!). "Drip", maybe? That starts a slow trickle that speeds up with "swirl" in S3.

In addition to the historical issues already pointed out, the passive voice in S1-S2 isn't serving the poem. The point is that people did these horrible things. Yet the sentence structure tiptoes politely around the perpetrators to focus on the victims.

I love the sonics in S3. With "Let mortal bane/ be gulped", I find again that the passive voice is distancing or muting something that ought to be louder.

Officially stating the poem's morals weakens it: "nothing learned"; "marvel what man mars". Just give me the juxtaposed images, and I can work it out.

I do love the innocent flesh in the couplet.

This one's got great potential, but isn't quite there yet in terms of execution.

I'm an epigraph fan but this sounds too much like wikipedia and way too wordy -- but -- could be effectively shortened to make it more 'in tune" with the poem itself, e.g.

...the lord of his household would bathe first,
followed by other men, then women, then children —
...the unfortunate baby being plunged last into sinfully
black waters...author

I have to disagree with some of the points made a few posts back about "Marvel what man mars." "Forced" is not what it is; to be "forced" it would have to be syntactically wrong in all types of English. It's marked by the poetic device of alliteration, and it's in elevated diction, and it could reasonably be called archaic because of all those things taken together. But it's not "forced."

And it's right that it should be marked and elevated, because it's a crux in the poem. It summarizes the poem's claim, which is the wish that all the evils of human culture might be thrown away, leaving the purity of a child's nature. The poet wants us to pay attention at just that spot.

This is a masterful, raging sonnet, every word another indictment. It rivals Geoffrey Hill, Blake, Milton - what can I say but wow. Also, Thank You, Poet.

I agree with Maryann about "marvel what man mars." I think that line works well, but the slightly overblown diction elsewhere distances me from feeling much about the poem. It's a good concept but somehow doesn't entirely deliver for me.

I like Sharon's suggestion to shorten the epigraph. The historical context helps, but there is currently too much of it.

I like the closing couplet
 

quite a lot; the rest's a logical muddle to me, only somewhat clarified by the epigraph.

I appreciate this effort and, as has been stated, it has a lot of potential.

Yet, while we're "throwing out the baby with the bath water," then why do we have:

Let it go, let it all go down the drain?

This could be taken metaphorically but with the image of a literal bath being the anchor of the poem I can't help but think of modern plumbing. Yet we don't say "don't let the baby go down the drain."

Similarly,

Let it swirl, let it all swirl down the drain—
Let murderous grime be curlicues to gyre

"Gyre" is soooooo "20th century," with the Yeat's association raising a red flag. Seeing how this word choice reinforces the idea of a bathtub drain, rather than the tossing of water, it doesn't add anything realistic while it distracts with the unintended or clumsy literary allusion.

This observation ties in with the other historical aspects mentioned earlier (e.g., witches were not burned in forests).

All this is moot and mute, if the medieval Europeans had drains for their bathtubs. But even if they did, which I seriously doubt, then why toss babies?

The archaic diction (sorry, Nigel, no disrespect!) bothers me. Yet, this poem has a single thought and carries it all the way through even if, as others have observed, correct details are lacking.

Don