Ross Gay on Burial and Resurrection

Poet Gay Ross

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Sunday

Our church’s seminarian recently introduced our congregation to the poetry of Ross Gay, after which I promptly ordered his books for my wife’s birthday. His poem “Burial,” which reminds me somewhat of Wendell Berry’s poem “Testament,” comes close to capturing my own view of resurrection.

The burial in this case is his father’s ashes, which become fertilizer for a plum tree. Or as Gay puts it,

the magic dust our bodies become
casts spells on the roots
about which a dumber man than me
could tell you the chemical processes,
but it’s just magic to me…

Believing that his father is lonely in the jar in which he has been residing, Gay pours him into the hole he has dug, “hoping to coax him back/ for my mother as much as me.”

His father, he says, dives right in, “glad for the robust air.” Gay then inserts the plum tree sapling, describing it as

the flag
to the nation of simple joy
of which my father is now a naturalized citizen…

Gay imagines the roots curling round him

like shawls or jungle gyms, like
hookahs or the arms of ancestors,
before breast-stroking into the xylem,
riding the elevator up
through the cambium and into the leaves where,
when you put your ear close enough,
you can hear him whisper
good morning, where, if you close your eyes
and push your face you can feel
his stubbly jowls…

Then, when the fruit shows up, his father starts having fun:

my father
guffawed by kicking from the first bite
buckets of juice down my chin,
staining one of my two button-down shirts,
the salmon colored silk one, hollering
there’s more of that!
almost dancing now in the plum,
in the tree, the way he did as a person…

Some things never change, the speaker concludes:

he knew he could make you happy
just by being a little silly
and sweet.

Each time I have poured ashes of loved ones into earth or water—my oldest son’s, my parents’—I have felt that a sacred mingling was going on. Gay reminds me that the joy of growth also awaits.

Burial
By Ross Gay

You’re right, you’re right,
the fertilizer’s good—
it wasn’t a gang of dullards
came up with chucking
a fish in the planting hole
or some mid-wife got lucky
with the placenta—
oh, I’ll plant a tree here!
and a sudden flush of quince
and jam enough for months—yes,
the magic dust our bodies become
casts spells on the roots
about which a dumber man than me
could tell you the chemical processes,
but it’s just magic to me,
which is why a couple springs ago
when first putting in my two bare root plum trees
out back I took the jar which has become
my father’s house,
and lonely for him and hoping to coax him back
for my mother as much as me,
poured some of him in the planting holes
and he dove in glad for the robust air,
saddling a slight gust
into my nose and mouth,
chuckling as I coughed,
but mostly he disappeared
into the minor yawns in the earth
into which I placed the trees,
splaying wide their roots,
casting the grey dust of my old man
evenly throughout the hole,
replacing then the clods
of dense Indiana soil until the roots
and my father were buried,
watering it in all with one hand
while holding the tree
with the other straight as the flag
to the nation of simple joy
of which my father is now a naturalized citizen,
waving the flag
from his subterranean lair,
the roots curled around him
like shawls or jungle gyms, like
hookahs or the arms of ancestors,
before breast-stroking into the xylem,
riding the elevator up
through the cambium and into the leaves where,
when you put your ear close enough,
you can hear him whisper
good morning, where, if you close your eyes
and push your face you can feel
his stubbly jowls and good lord
this year he was giddy at the first
real fruit set and nestled into the 30 or 40 plums
in the two trees, peering out from the sweet meat
with his hands pressed against the purple skin
like cathedral glass,
and imagine his joy as the sun
wizarded forth those abundant sugars
and I plodded barefoot
and prayerful at the first ripe plum’s swell and blush,
almost weepy conjuring
some surely ponderous verse
to convey this bottomless grace,
you know, oh father oh father kind of stuff,
hundreds of hot air balloons
filling the sky in my chest, replacing his intubated body
listing like a boat keel side up, replacing
the steady stream of water from the one eye
which his brother wiped before removing the tube,
keeping his hand on the forehead
until the last wind in his body wandered off,
while my brother wailed like an animal,
and my mother said, weeping,
it’s ok, it’s ok, you can go honey,
at all of which my father
guffawed by kicking from the first bite
buckets of juice down my chin,
staining one of my two button-down shirts,
the salmon colored silk one, hollering
there’s more of that!
almost dancing now in the plum,
in the tree, the way he did as a person,
bent over and biting his lip
and chucking the one hip out
then the other with his elbows cocked
and fists loosely made
and eyes closed and mouth made trumpet
when he knew he could make you happy
just by being a little silly
and sweet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Honoring Our Immigrant Past

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Friday

One of the most gratifying aspects of last week’s book trip to St. Mary’s College of Maryland, where I taught for 36 years, was seeing students that I’d lost contact with. I learned that one of them, Angela DiBenedetto (now Edwards), has been exploring her father’s Sicily and Manhattan heritage in fiction and poetry. At a time when immigrants are being demonized and rounded up, it’s good to remember the richness that immigrants have brought with them from the beginning of our republic. It’s what makes America America.

In her forthcoming poetry collection Tribute, Angela’s “Pictures of the West” talks about the courage that it took for immigrants to

strike out, as in a storm, into a quagmire of
Prairie grass and Indian hatchets,
Sod huts, salt pork, and newspaper cut-outs
Hung in windows to make their
Holes in the ground
Look sweet.

Then, updating the trek, she notes that it also took courage to strike out for Manhattan,

a quagmire of
Skyscrapers and liberty statues,
button hooks, white bread, and chalk marks
signifying
Who stays and
Who gets tossed back.

So how is she to find her own courage? Retrieving family stories is a good start.

Pictures of the West
By Angela Edwards

There they are: paragons of legend.
Settlers from near and far:
Swedes and Chinamen, Mormons,
Mexicans, Irishmen, and Negroes.
Sophisticated Bostonians who left
Behind the sinking vestiges of civilization
To strike out, as in a storm,
into a quagmire of

Prairie grass and Indian hatchets,
Sod huts, salt pork, and newspaper cut-out
Hung in windows to make their
Holes in the ground
Look sweet.
Women rip-roaring on
Sleigh-footed horses over the plains of Kansas.
A stoic, unsmiling brood of Scandinavians,
Mother at the helm, holding on to her
cooking spoon—
Her last link to the newness,
the vastness,
Of the unknown West—
And everything she’s left behind.
I see the courage in their eyes. And wonder…
Am I courageous?
Who are my paragons? My marble statues?
Are they anchored on prairie grass,
beneath a yawning sky
swallowing clouds on western breezes?
Are they windmills tilted by tornadoes,
Indian Wars, whims of nature
weaving a
Locust net across fields of plenty?
Perhaps.

But the look of the woman with the spoon is haunting.
I’ve seen it in my own yellowing pictures
Of a girl, a young woman, who shot across
The foaming grasses of the Atlantic
To strike out, as in a storm,
into a quagmire of

Skyscrapers and liberty statues,
Button hooks, white bread, and chalk marks
signifying
Who stays and
Who gets tossed back.
An innocent who navigated New York
in ankle skirts and laced boots,
Slowed by arcane notions of family honor, cumparatu,
And Etna’s smoking fury.

Looking in her eyes, I see
I don’t need to transect a prairie in a wagon
to know what courage is. I don’t have to
Cross an ocean in a sallow-bellied hunk of steel.
Only to think of the ones
Who did these things:
Look at their pictures, ponder their lives.
And wonder how I will live my own life
without their steel-anchored hearts
and wisdom-weighted words
To guide me.

What kind of stories will be passed down to their descendants by those immigrants fleeing from violence and poverty in Central America, Venezuela, and the Caribbean? This country was forged by people undertaking such dangerous undertakings. We impoverish ourselves, and desecrate our own histories, when we turn our backs on them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

The Late Tom Robbins on Jezebel

Gustave Doré, The Death of Jezebel

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Thursday

I’m laid up with a bad cold so today’s essay comes to you late. Having just heard about the death last week of comic novelist Tom Robbins, I am repurposing a post I wrote four years ago about his take on the Biblical figure of Jezebel. In the 2020 election, various Christian Trump supporters were accusing Kamala Harris of being a Jezebel so I used Robbins to show how this could be a compliment rather than an insult.

Jezebel is best known for arraying herself in all her beauty before being thrown out of a window in a palace coup. Anne Branigan in a Washington Post column reports that various Southern Baptist preachers were associating Harris with the queen in 2021, including Tom Buck and Steve Swofford. In a videotaped sermon, Swoffrod, after calling Joe Biden cognitively dysfunctional,” asked, “What if something happens to [Biden] and Jezebel has to take over? Jezebel Harris, isn’t that her name?”

 Branigan explains the significance:

The “Jezebel” reference is…highly specific, a trope that speaks to deeply entrenched views about power and what is “normal” or “traditional” in American culture, especially when it comes to racial and gender hierarchies….Calling Harris a Jezebel accomplishes multiple things: It delegitimizes her power and dehumanizes her.

According to William and Mary religious studies professor Jessica Johnson, whom Branigan interviewed for her article, “Jezebel” has historically been used as a justification for racial violence against Black women. Branigan notes that Christian nationalists, who are always searching for an authoritarian father figure, saw in “Jezebel Harris” their worst fears realized: “that they will be replaced; that their fate is in the hands of a godless, amoral Black woman.”

This view of Harris played no small part in the 2024 election. And what Tamura Loman says of Jezebel in Jezebel Unhinged can also be said of attacks on Harris: Jezebel, Loman points out, “never did anything sexual. They hated her for her power.” All the sexual connotations that were later attached to Jezebel were just further ways to “both undermine her and further highlight her deviance.”

Fundamentalists invoke Jezebel’s name in Robbins’s Skinny Legs and All. After fundamentalist preacher Buddy Winkler catches his daughter wearing lipstick and attending a life drawing class in her college, he and other members of the congregation set upon her, scrubbing her face until it’s raw while calling her a Jezebel.  Robbins fights back with an historical explanation of Jezebel’s real crime. The queen, he writes, worshipped the earth goddess Astarte, who was

the Goddess, the Great Mother, the Light of the World, the most ancient and widely revered divinity in human history. Shrines to her date back to the Neolithic Period, and there was not one Indo-European culture that failed to remove with its kiss the mud from her sidereal slippers. In comparison, “God,” as we moderns call Yahweh (often misspelled “Jehovah”) was a Yahny-come-lately who would have approached her enormous popularity. She was the mother of God, as indeed, she was the mother of all.

It’s no surprise, then, that, when

King Ahab’s Phoenician bride started building shrines to Astarte, and when the Israelites started flocking to those shrines—the populace apparently favored Astarte’s voluptuous indulgence over Yahweh’s rigid asceticism—the patriarchs reacted violently against her.

Robbins provides an interesting side note:

[O]ne of the crimes charged to Jezebel, according to the historian Josephus, was the planting of trees. Since the Goddess always has been honored in sacred groves, it is understandable that patriarchs, then as now, leaned toward deforestation.

Because the devotion to Astarte was “contagious,” Robbins writes, and because “it weakened the grip of the Yahweh cult, “Jezebel” was slandered, framed, and finally murdered.” Robbins gives his own account of her death:

When the moment arrived, Jezebel was thoroughly aware that she was to be assassinated. She put up her ergot-black hair, donned her tiara, rouged her cheeks and lips, applied kohl to the lids of her huge Phoenician eyes, and went to face her killer with the style, dignity and grace befitting a reigning queen. So much for painted hussies.

While Harris fans were celebrating Harris’s infectious laugh and her multicultural background when she ran first for vice-president and then for president, we may have underestimated how she was triggering hatreds that went as deep as those directed against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While there are scores of explanations as to why she lost to Donald Trump, the fact that she was an assertive black woman must figure prominently. Maybe what’s most amazing about the 2024 election is that she came as close as she did to winning.

At the end of Skinny Legs and All, Buddy Winkler attempts to strangle a Middle Eastern woman dancing the dance of the seven veils, with each veil representing one of the ways we blind ourselves to the richness of life and human possibility. Such men were active in Jezebel’s time, and they remain a lethal threat today.

Further thought: I’m thinking, in Trump’s attempted January 6 coup, that another powerful women–Nancy Pelosi–was in danger of being thrown from a window in a reenactment of the Jezebel murder.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Which Tolkien Character Is Elon Musk?

Dourif, Lee as Wormtongue, Saruman in Lord of the Rings

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Tuesday

Yesterday I compared Donald Trump to Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment but noted a dramatic contrast: because Dostoevsky’s axe-murdering protagonist has a complex inner life, his punishment ultimately originates within himself. Unable to withstand the horror at his act, he confesses to his crime and takes his punishment.

Trump, because he is a sociopath who appears to have no internal complexity, crimes without remorse. To be sure, I think he lives a miserable life as a result, but this is of scant consolation to his victims.

I find myself wondering if the same can be said of his eminence grise Elon Musk. (An eminence grise is a person who exercises power or influence in a certain sphere without holding an official position.) Musk is one who has read widely (if articles about him are to be believed) and who at times has had intelligent things to say. Yet his reading hasn’t prevented him from selling his soul for political power, and it is this issue that I take on today.

One of the works that Musk has mentioned frequently is Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. A 2024 article in Times Now contends that Tolkien’s themes of “rich storytelling, complex characters, and themes of courage and perseverance…have resonated with Musk throughout his life.”

It so happens that Lord of the Rings was the most important book of my own childhood and I certainly can see how it bolsters one up. In my case, I was a shy, short, and bookish child who did not play football (almost a sin for a boy growing up in 1950s rural Tennessee) so to see short characters like Frodo and Gimli Son of Gloin triumph over adversity was inspirational. If it did the same for Musk, I’m happy for him.

Unfortunately, some of the problematic aspects of Tolkien’s fantasy epic are showing up in Musk’s current view of the world. Tolkien’s longing for a pastoral, class-based society meant that he turned in horror from an industrialized world in which workers demand their rights. While the goblins and orcs may stand in for Nazis in thrall to Hitler (Sauron) and Bolsheviks in thrall to Stalin (Saruman), they are also a threat in their own right. The elites of Tolkien’s world—the Men of the West and the Elven aristocracy—regard the orcs as vermin, to be exterminated wholesale. Musk, who grew up white and rich in apartheid South Africa, would have felt right at home in this vision. In his reading of the text, he may have substituted Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress for the orcs.

I can see Musk preferring the peaceful hierarchy that we see in the shire, where the Bagginses and Tooks are held in special regard while the servant class—Gaffer Gamgee and his son Samwise—know their place. In this way, he sees eye to eye with Trump, who after all has always been reluctant to pay anyone who ever worked for him. Together they are going after trade unions, the working class, and government workers.

But even if Musk’s class politics align with Tolkien’s (with Tolkien having the excuse of belonging to an earlier age), he is clearly missing Tolkien’s major lesson, which is that power corrupts. Musk may like to think of himself as a heroic Frodo, but he’s behaving much more like Gollum. Whatever contributions that Musk has made to the world are being undone by his craving for power. As he seeks it, he is hollowed out as Gollum has been hollowed out. Here is the ring-obsessed figure as he tracks Frodo and Sam in The Two Towers:

He was getting lower now and the hisses became sharper and clearer. “Where iss it, where iss it: my Precious, my Precious? It’s ours, it is, and we wants it. The thieves, the thieves, the filthy little thieves. Where are they with my Precious? Curse them! We hates them.”

When Gollum finally gains possession of the ring, he cavorts around like Musk on the stage with Trump:

But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire.

‘Precious, precious, precious!’ Gollum cried. ‘My Precious! O my Precious!’

While Musk would disavow any similarity to Gollum, he might acknowledge some kinship with Saruman, the onetime good wizard who has gone over to the dark side. The “two towers” of the second book are Sauron and Saruman, and Musk might see himself and Trump in an unstable but necessary alliance that allows them to rule the world together. Like Saruman, he might even regard Sauron as the junior partner.

Musk, however, lacks Trump’s power base and is, to borrow from T.S. Eliot’s “Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” no leading player but rather someone in attendance:

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

When it comes down to it, Musk is not Saruman but Wormtongue, the wizard’s lickspittle attendant. In short, a fool. He just doesn’t know it yet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Trump, Raskolnikov’s Napoleonic Complex

Illus. from Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Tuesday

Over the weekend Donald Trump, with his flair for the grandiose, quoted Napoleon in what some are calling the most frightening presidential pronouncement in history: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Napoleon, of course, hijacked the French government, became dictator and emperor, upended Europe, and ran his country into the ground.

Reader Luke Ross, a political science major, recently reminded me that, back in August of 2017, I wrote a blog essay comparing and contrasting Trump to Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. While I didn’t mention that the axe-murdering protagonist has a Napoleonic complex, it seems time to mention that now.

To be clear, in my essay I noted that there are more differences that similarities. True, both have a vision that they are superior to common people, believing they can run roughshod over all that is sacred: Raskolnikov kills an old pawnbroker just to prove to himself that he can while Trump is attempting to murder American democracy. But Raskolnikov is reflective and he has a conscience. This means that he is redeemable whereas I have seen nothing to indicate that Trump is salvageable.

But back to Napoleon. In one of his numerous diatribes, Raskolnikov regards the French leader as one of the greats who have murdered to achieve notable ends. In his own version of Trump’s “he who saves his country does not violate any law,” Raskolnikov says that

an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right… that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep… certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). 

Note the “perhaps” in his parenthetical comment, which is a weak attempt to justify his argument.

The argument doesn’t get stronger when Raskolnikov gets specific. He contends that Kepler or Newton would have been right—indeed, would have been “duty-bound”—to eliminate “the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity.” Of course, neither did so. Had he known of Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who performed medical experiments on life concentration camp victims, would he have the courage of his argument to applaud him?

He’s on more familiar ground when he cites political figures like Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, and Napoleon, who did in fact claim victims. In the following century, he could have cited fellow countrymen Lenin and Stalin. As he says of Napoleon et. al., they were “all without exception criminals.” He explains how:

Making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defense of ancient law—were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. 

Later, confessing his crime to prostitute-with-heart-of-gold Sonia, Raskolnikov says, “I wanted to become a Napoleon, that is why I killed her…. Do you understand now?”

Sonia doesn’t.

What particularly bothers Raskolnikov, once he starts reflecting, is the wide gulf between a student who kills a feeble old lady and a general who (to use his summation) “storms Toulon, makes a massacre in Paris, forgets an army in Egypt, wastes half a million men in the Moscow expedition and gets off with a jest at Vilna.” The Russian student shudders at the contrast: “Napoleon, the pyramids, Waterloo, and a wretched skinny old woman, a pawnbroker with a red trunk under her bed…It’s too inartistic. ‘A Napoleon creep under an old woman’s bed! Ugh, how loathsome!’” He seeks to be great and ends up a hideous jest.

Which might be something that he and Trump actually have in common.

In his thinking, Raskolnikov may be drawing on Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion of the Übermensch, the figure who soars above the sheep-like masses. Trump, despite never having read Nietzsche (although he has read Hitler), has the same contempt for these masses, even (or especially) those who worship him. And they, like Napoleon’s Polish soldiers in War in Peace, are ready to commit suicide for their emperor.

If Trump were to read Crime and Punishment—not that it would ever happen—he would lambaste Raskolnikov for confessing what could be a perfect crime. In his view, you’re either on top or you’re a pathetic loser.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments closed

Happy Birthday to the Love of My Life

Julia Bates


Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Monday

While others today are celebrating presidential birthdays, we’ll be celebrating my wife’s, who shares February 17 with Michael Jordan. (Julia played basketball in college and so is happy with the pairing.) When we are young, of course, each birthday has its own individual importance, but after a while anniversaries start to merge together. What really is the difference between 73 and 74?

In “On the Eve of a Birthday,” Timothy Steele uses the occasion to reflect on his life. “Calendars aren’t truthful,” he observes—is he suggesting that he feels younger than his years?—and the Scotch sloshing in his glass is contributing to his jaunty buoyancy. I am reminded of the aging Eben Flood in E.A. Robinson’s “Mr. Flood’s Party.”

As the speaker looks towards the future, sometimes he sees himself stepping into a richly furnished dining room and sometimes into a spare garret. Yet when pulled down by “bad dreams” (Steele borrows from Hamlet here), he rallies and toasts the future, which will be “the best year yet.”

I think of a friend from our days in St. Mary’s City, MD, an actress who had made her way from Texas to New York (she did so as a burlesque dancer) in 1934 and who was one of the most upbeat people I have ever known. Maurine Holbert Hogaboom used to insist that each decade was better than the one before—or at least she said this about her sixties, seventies, and eighties. (She died at 96.)

In any event, the fact that time is running out is all the more reason to regard life as precious. No point in regrets about “mixed joys,“ “harum-scarum prime,” or “auguries reliable and specious.” When he talks about “constellated powers” swaying him, I think of William Ernest Henley thanking “whatever gods there be/For my unconquerable soul” in “Invictus.” The speaker toasts them all.

The wonderful thing about reaching this age—I join Julia at 74 later this year—is that we have been able to spend 53 of those years together. Nor have we needed sloshing Scotch to value what we’ve been through, the unsuccesses as well as the successes, the tragedies as well as the victories. Each passing year deepens the bond.

Happy birthday, my dear.

On the Eve of a Birthday
By Timothy Steele

As my Scotch, spared the water, blondly sloshes
About its tumbler, and gay manic flame
Is snapping in the fireplace, I grow youthful:
I realize that calendars aren’t truthful
And that for all of my grand unsuccesses
External causes are to blame.

And if at present somewhat destitute,
I plan to alter, prove myself more able,
And suavely stroll into the coming years
As into rooms with thick rugs, chandeliers,
And colorfully pyramided fruit
On linened lengths of table.

At times I fear the future won’t reward
My failures with sufficient compensation,
But dump me, aging, in a garret room
Appointed with twilit, slant-ceilinged gloom
And a lone bulb depending from a cord
Suggestive of self-strangulation.

Then, too, I have bad dreams, in one of which
A cowled, scythe-bearing figure beckons me.
Dark plains glow at his back: it seems I’ve died,
And my soul, weighed and judged, has qualified
For an extended, hyper-sultry hitch
Down in eternity.

Such fears and dreams, however, always pass.
And gazing from my window at the dark,
My drink in hand, I’m jauntily unbowed.
The sky’s tiered, windy galleries stream with cloud,
And higher still, the dazed stars thickly mass
In their long Ptolemaic arc.

What constellated powers, unkind or kind,
Sway me, what far preposterous ghosts of air?
Whoever they are, whatever our connection,
I toast them (toasting also my reflection),
Not minding that the words which come to mind
Make the toast less toast than prayer:

Here’s to the next year, to the best year yet;
To mixed joys, to my harum-scarum prime;
To auguries reliable and specious;
To times to come, such times being precious,
If only for the reason that they get
Shorter all the time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

The Rose that Cannot Wither

Gustave Doré, Dante’s Paradiso

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Sunday

As political chaos appears to be the order of the day, causing Americans like me to experience deep feelings of dread, it is comforting to turn to a poem like Henry Vaughan’s “My Soul, There Is a Country.” Written during times yet more turbulent than our own—England was in the grip of a civil war—the poet assures us that there exists a realm of “sweet peace” far beyond “noise and danger.”

When we are feeling powerless and dispirited, we can choose to focus on Jesus’s vision of “pure love.” This love will guard us like “a winged sentry,” Vaughan writes, drawing an image from the war he was witnessing. “The rose that cannot wither,” he continues on, provides us with a fortress and a place of rest.

Perhaps the rose is the celestial rose of Dante’s Paradiso, the “Love that moves the sun and the other stars.” The poem is a wake-up call to our own souls.

My Soul, There Is a Country, 1650
By Henry Vaughan

My soul, there is a country
Far beyond the stars,
Where stands a winged sentry
All skillful in the wars:

There, above noise and danger
Sweet Peace sits crowned with smiles
And One, born in a manger
Commands the beauteous files.

He is thy gracious friend
And, O my soul, awake!
Did in pure love descend
To die here for thy sake.

If thou canst get but thither,
There grows the flow’r of Peace,
The Rose that cannot wither,
Thy fortress and thy ease.

Leave then thy foolish ranges,
For none can thee secure
But One who never changes,
Thy God, thy life, thy cure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Austen: Romance without Words

Firth and Ehle in 1995 Pride and Prejudice

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Friday – Valentine’s Day

I find it fascinating that the author of England’s most beloved courtship novels never shows us directly the moment her works have been building up to, which is the heroine saying “yes” or “I do” to a proposal. We occasionally see heroines saying “no,” most notably Elizabeth to Darcy’s first proposal. But never the opposite.

We have to wonder whether Jane Austen is teasing us, taking us up to the pinnacle moment and then dropping us. Maybe she feels the moment is too private to be revealed. Or maybe she believes that her heroine’s heart is so full that language can’t do it justice. Perhaps her silence on the subject only makes the moment more intense as we are forced to imagine it.

One last theory given there’s comedy in a number of the non-revealed answers: by using humor to deflect from deep emotion, Austen may feel safe from too much sentimentality. Stiff upper British lip and all that.

I provide all the implied yeses below, ordering the relationships by romantic intensity. I begin with the relationship we most desire and are happiest with when it occurs:

Elizabeth-Darcy in Pride and Prejudice
Anne Elliot-Wentworth in Persuasion
Elinor Dashwood-Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility
Emma Woodhouse-Mr. Knightley in Emma
Catherine Morland-Mr. Tilney in Northanger Abbey
Fanny Price-Edmund Bertram in Mansfield Park
Marianne Dashwood-Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility

Now for the indirect report of the heroines’ responses:

Elizabeth to Darcy’s proposal:

Elizabeth, feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his situation, now forced herself to speak; and immediately, though not very fluently, gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure his present assurances. 

Anne to Wentworth’s:

In half a minute Charles was at the bottom of Union Street again, and the other two proceeding together: and soon words enough had passed between them to decide their direction towards the comparatively quiet and retired gravel walk, where the power of conversation would make the present hour a blessing indeed, and prepare it for all the immortality which the happiest recollections of their own future lives could bestow. There they exchanged again those feelings and those promises which had once before seemed to secure everything, but which had been followed by so many, many years of division and estrangement. 

Elinor to Edward’s:

How soon he had walked himself into the proper resolution, however, how soon an opportunity of exercising it occurred, in what manner he expressed himself, and how he was received, need not be particularly told [my bold]. This only need be said;—that when they all sat down to table at four o’clock, about three hours after his arrival, he had secured his lady, engaged her mother’s consent, and was not only in the rapturous profession of the lover, but, in the reality of reason and truth, one of the happiest of men. 

Emma to Mr. Knightley’s (Jane Austen at her best):

She spoke then, on being so entreated.—What did she say?—Just what she ought, of course. A lady always does.—She said enough to shew there need not be despair—and to invite him to say more himself.

Catherine Morland to Henry Tilney

…but his first purpose was to explain himself, and before they reached Mr. Allen’s grounds he had done it so well that Catherine did not think it could ever be repeated too often. She was assured of his affection; and that heart in return was solicited, which, perhaps, they pretty equally knew was already entirely his own; for, though Henry was now sincerely attached to her, though he felt and delighted in all the excellencies of her character and truly loved her society, I must confess that his affection originated in nothing better than gratitude, or, in other words, that a persuasion of her partiality for him had been the only cause of giving her a serious thought. It is a new circumstance in romance, I acknowledge, and dreadfully derogatory of an heroine’s dignity; but if it be as new in common life, the credit of a wild imagination will at least be all my own.

Fanny Price-Edmund Bertram

I purposely abstain from dates on this occasion, that everyone may be at liberty to fix their own, aware that the cure of unconquerable passions, and the transfer of unchanging attachments, must vary much as to time in different people. I only entreat everybody to believe that exactly at the time when it was quite natural that it should be so, and not a week earlier, Edmund did cease to care about Miss Crawford, and became as anxious to marry Fanny as Fanny herself could desire.

Marianne Dashwood-Colonel Brandon

With such a confederacy against her—with a knowledge so intimate of his goodness—with a conviction of his fond attachment to herself, which at last, though long after it was observable to everybody else—burst on her—what could she do?

The best Jane Austen movies are aware of her strategy and come up with their own indirect articulations. My favorite is the 1995 Persuasion, where we see neither proposal nor response. Instead, we see Anne and Wentworth leave center stage and go down a side street, where the business is done. Rather than follow them, the camera stays in place and watches a street carnival passing through. The carnival music swells and then subsides, at which point the couple returns to view, leaving us to believe that the music has captured first their own intense joy and then quiet contentment.

The runner-up award goes to Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility: there we see young sister Margaret in her treehouse spying on Elinor and Edward and reporting on proposal and acceptance to Marianne and Mrs. Dashwood.

What to take away from all of this? Well, if you’re having trouble expressing your Valentine’s Day love to your sweetheart, knoq that one of Britain’s greatest prose writers sometimes avoided direct expression herself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Our Round of Austen-Like Visitations

Goth, Taylor-Joy as Harriet, Emma in Emma


Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at [email protected]. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Thursday

Julia and I have been on the road for the past two days, and because I wrote today’s essay in a hotel without internet access, it’s off the top of my head and short. During the trip I (1) gave a reading from Better Living through Literature at my old college; (2) taught a Chaucer class while there; (3) gave a film talk about Goodbye, Lenin to my college roommate’s church in Greenbelt, MD; and (4) saw many friends and my eldest son’s family It’s these friend visits that I want to talk about today.

I felt like I was in a Jane Austen novel as we moved from friend to friend. If you’ve read her novels, you know that her characters spend a lot of time visiting. I’m thinking especially of Elinor and Marianne in Sensibility, the Bennet sisters in Pride and Prejudice, and Emma in Emma. These are the three novels set in small towns, in contrast to a country estate (Mansfield Park) or Bath (Northanger Abbey and Persuasion). Although even in Persuasion, some of Anne Elliot’s best moments are spent visiting her friend Harriet Smith.

There are two kinds of visits in these novels. The town visits are relatively short and are basically used to exchange news/gossip and to knit together the social fabric. Some of the other visits, because they require long journey, can last weeks or even months, as in Catherine visiting Northanger Abbey, the Dashwoods visiting Mrs, Jennings in London, Elizabeth visiting Charlotte Lucas Collins, the Crawfords visiting Mrs. Grantly, and Anne visiting the Musgroves.

Our visits were a combination of these—which is to say, short visits requiring long journeys. In those short visits, however, there was so much richness that we wished they could have been extended. I saw students who I hadn’t seen for years (including one, featured in my book, who came down especially from Baltimore to hear my talk); colleagues who I hadn’t seen since before Covid, even though our collective efforts helped sustain the college; an Ethiopian refugee who lived with us for four years in order to attend St. Mary’s who now works in the patents office (and who, because Julia and I attended Carleton College, now has a daughter there); the widower of a former colleague who talked of how they used poetry to cope with her final weeks; my 13-year-old grandson, who is now only an inch shorter than I am and who is a superlative violinist; and on and on.

Reflecting on how they had impacted our lives and we theirs, Julia and I agreed that such relationships are essential to psychic health. I know several lives worth living,” Mary Oliver writes of people who have witnessed humpback whales in action, and we came away feeling that we had lived such lives by having deep and abiding friendships. Although these relationships are not based on growing up in a common locality or belonging to large family networks, as they are in Austen novels, they are nonetheless foundational to living a meaningful life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed