T.S. Eliot’s Cats and Jesus’s Sheep

The Good Shepherd (c. 280-290)

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Spiritual Sunday

With our regular rector Rob Lamborn on sabbatical, we are fortunate to have a former English major taking his place. Fortunate, that is, because Scott Lee draws heavily on literature in what has been a series of memorable sermons.  Two weeks ago Scott used a poem from one of T.S. Eliot’s cat poems to explain Jesus’s parable about the shepherd who knows his sheep.

Here’s the passage that Scott made the subject of his sermon (John 10:1-10)

Jesus said, “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.” Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

So again Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”

T. S. Eliot, Scott said, knew something about this business of secret names before quoting from the opening poem of Ole Possum’s Book of Practical Cats:

The Naming of Cats

The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey—
All of them sensible everyday names.
. . .
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover—
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.

After noting that each of us has our own “deep and inscrutable singular name,” Scott cited instances of such names in the Bible. For instance, after Jacob wrestled with the angel, he was told, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel”(1 Genesis 32:28). God told the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5a), and Isaiah reported, “The LORD called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me” (Isaiah 49:1b).

What is true of the prophets,” Scott said, is true of each of us. Indeed,

to God all hearts are open and all secrets are known – including that name that says who we really, really are. In what Jesus says to us this morning we have, most supremely, the words that assure us that we are known by Jesus, who says he is the kind of shepherd who “calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

Notice, Scott continued, that

these sheep follow one whose voice they have learned to recognize. They follow as he leads the way, who shows them, shows us, the way to go; not like a New Zealand sheep dog nipping at us, frightening and coercing us to go where he wills, but a loving shepherd who calls us by name. So, whatever your secret name is – that is whoever deep, deep down in your very soul you are–Jesus knows you. Deep, deep down in that place where you are really, really real, Jesus knows your name.

Our true name, Scott explained, is the person “who is really, really you – without any pretending or posturing or concealing.” And even though

many, maybe even most of us, don’t know that secret name very well, just like Ole Possum’s cats we can come to know it and can revel deep inside with the joy of knowing that we are already known. It is a name we can come to know as we are willing to slow down, to sit in silence, to listen for the voice of God.

Scott concluded his sermon by listing some of the deep, inner, ineffable names by which we are known to God, including

Image of God
Crowned with glory and majesty
Wonderfully made
Bought with a price
The sheep of God’s pasture, Lamb of his flock
Justified
Saved
Redeemed
The image and the glory of God
Ambassador of God
Beloved of the Lord
Little lower than the angels
The apple of God’s eye
The temple of the Holy Spirit
The crown of creation

and the loveliest name of all:

Child of God

“That,” Scott said, “is who we are. We have only to be still and listen for the one who knows us and calls us each by name.”

Further note:

In a previous post  I reported on a presentation that Scott gave to our adult Sunday school where he cited Romantic poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge and John Keats to capture how Jesus uses parables to get people to imagine the kingdom of God come to earth. Parables, Scott notes, speak to the human imagination, which Coleridge described as “the living Power and prime Agent of all human Perception” and “a repetition in the finite mind of the eternal act of creation in the infinite I Am.”

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

The Perfect Sonnet for Mother’s Day

James Whistler, Icon of Mother’s Love

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Friday

With Mother’s Day coming up Sunday, here’s one of the best poems I know to honor the occasion. Imagine being eighty years old and receiving this sonnet from your daughter.

Sonnets Are Full of Love
By Christina Rossetti

Sonnets are full of love, and this my tome
      Has many sonnets: so here now shall be
   One sonnet more, a love sonnet, from me
To her whose heart is my heart’s quiet home,
   To my first Love, my Mother, on whose knee
I learnt love-lore that is not troublesome
   Whose service is my special dignity,
And she my loadstar while I go and come.
And so because you love me, and because
   I love you, Mother, I have woven a wreath
      Of rhymes wherewith to crown your honoured name:
      In you not fourscore years can dim the flame
Of love, whose blessed glow transcends the laws
   Of time and change and mortal life and death.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Reading Lit to Cope with Prison

Daniel Genis, author of Sentence: Ten Years and a Thousand Books in Prison

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Thursday

After a pause, I’m back to reading Daniel Genis’s Sentence: Ten Years and a Thousand Books in Prison, which I’ve blogged about in a previous post. I am drawn to the book in part because I’ve often wondered whether literature would help me cope with imprisonment were I ever to be in that unfortunate situation. Genis talks about the different ways that fiction came to his aid while he was serving time as one who had mugged people (albeit non-violently) to pay for his drug addiction.

At one point, he talks about reading the literature of other cultures to better understand his fellow inmates. As he notes, sometimes he “allowed chance meetings to direct my choices”:

A Czech friend, in for drunkenly assaulting the love of his life, sent me down a Bohemian path beyond the Franz Kafka I already knew, loved, and practically lived. His sense of humor was in congruence with what I found in Bohumil Hrabal and Jaroslav Hašek; I Served the King of England and The God Soldier Švejk were companions that kept me in good humor, as their protagonists took misery and injustice with such aplomb. When Švejk is sent to jail, he is quite happy with the boards he has to sleep on, since it could have been the cold stone floor.

The prison’s Latino contingent, meanwhile, sent Genis to Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, and Gabriel GarcÍa Márquez. These he added to the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges, the existential author who, like Kafka, “seemed to be the author of some of the absurdities of my condition.” Unfortunately, he never met a hispanophone prisoner with whom he could talk about literature.

He did find such a companion—at least for a while–in a Korean-American prisoner, who alerted him to fantasy writers Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman and to Haruki Murakimi’s novel 1Q84. Genis doesn’t mention what about these novelists and this novel he loved, but I can speculate. Perhaps he identified with Shadow in Gaiman’s American Gods, who spends time in jail and then goes on a spiritual quest to find meaning in life. Or with Moore’s graphic novel Watchmen, where secret forces control life on earth. In 1Q84, meanwhile, the major characters must find a way to escape a tyrannical cult, which sounds a lot like coping with prison life.

At one point, Genis does acknowledge that reading literature is “ultimately secondary to reading men themselves,” which sounds reasonable. I wouldn’t say see it as either/or, however. Reading books assisted him in “reading” his fellow inmates so that the two feed off of each other.

Genis’s reading also gives him a way of imagining his relationship with his fellows, who he talks of as “books bound in varying shades of human leather.” Comparing them and himself to Valentine Michael Smith, the enlightened alien in Robert Heinlein’s science fiction classic Stranger in a Strange Land, he says that “they made the small scope of human experience wider.”

Along with using literature to learn about other cultures, Genis used it to learn about his own, which is immigrant Russian Jew. Unobservant before he was imprisoned, he learned that there were certain benefits to identifying Jewish (kosher cooking is a step up from normal prison food) and so read novels to learn what it means to be Jewish. He notes that Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, and Joseph Heller “explained much of myself to me”:

It was in Portnoy’s Complaint, Herzog, and Good as Gold that I found evidence proving I was a Jew after all. The intellectual egotism I knew well in my father and better in myself was common to us. We were oversexed, simultaneously needy, and a bit predatory. I was of a gabby culture no matter how much I wished I was the strong, silent type, and I loved an argument while fearing an actual fight, just like the Jews is the brilliant literature that came out of Judaic America. The characters I found there were funny, chubby, horny, and hirsute. Rother’s clever, insecure protagonsits were me. “Too Jewish,” Jackie Mason might have said, but it was right for me. Portnoy’s complaints were familiar, even if I am a Soviet Jew, from another culture and another continent.

Expect to hear more about Genis’s prison reading program in future posts.

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

Thrown by Proust into the Past

Paul Nadar, photo of Jeanne Pouquet, Proust’s model for Gilberte Swann

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Wednesday

An unexpected gift of reading Swann’s Way, my Lenten project, has been to find myself plunged into memories of my own childhood. In other words, I have been inspired to go searching for my own lost time. When the narrator describes a childhood friendship he develops with Swann’s daughter Gilberte, I think of Chris Mayfield.

Chris was a friend in third, fourth, and fifth grades when her father, Judd, was attending Sewanee’s School of Theology. Despite the relatively short time period, Chris occupies an outsized place in my imagination, just as Gilberte does in that of Proust’s narrator.

First to Gilberte, whom the narrator initially encounters only at a distance. Her father regularly dines with his family in Combray, their country home away from Paris, and the narrator first sees her when he is walking past the Swann house:

Suddenly I stood still, unable to move, as happens when something appears that requires not only our eyes to take it in, but involves a deeper kind of perception and takes possession of the whole of our being. A little girl, with fair, reddish hair, who appeared to be returning from a walk, and held a trowel in her hand, was looking at us, raising towards us a face powdered with pinkish freckles. 

When he hears Gilberte’s mother call out her name, he feels he has encountered “a talisman which might, perhaps, enable me some day to rediscover her whom its syllables had just endowed with a definite personality, whereas, a moment earlier, she had been only something vaguely seen.”

And indeed, he will later and unexpectedly encounter Gilberte in Paris when he is taken for walks on the Champs Elysée. She invites him to join in a game she is playing with friends, and he falls hopelessly in love with her. Or at least puppy love.

The love is not, nor could it be, reciprocated since the narrator so idealizes Gilberte. As a result, for every happy moment, there are many more unhappy ones. First, here’s a memory he treasures:

We got ready to play and, since this day which had begun so sadly was destined to end in joy, as I went up, before the game started, to the friend with the sharp voice whom I had heard, that first day, calling Gilberte by name, she said to me: “No, no, I’m sure you’d much rather be in Gilberte’s camp; besides, look, she’s signalling to you.” She was in fact summoning me to cross the snowy lawn to her camp, to ‘take the field,’ which the sun, by casting over it a rosy gleam, the metallic lustre of old and worn brocades, had turned into a Field of the Cloth of Gold.

Even this happy occasion, however, only serves to accentuate the unhappy ones. As the narrator observes, “This day, which I had begun with so many misgivings, was, as it happened, one of the few on which I was not unduly wretched.”

He’s wretched in part because the relationship is almost entirely one-sided. He reports being a little boy obsessed with someone who is not obsessed in return:

For, although I no longer thought, now, of anything save not to let a single day pass without seeing Gilberte…yet those moments which I spent in her company, for which I had waited with so much impatience all night and morning, for which I had quivered with excitement, to which I would have sacrificed everything else in the world, were by no means happy moments; well did I know it, for they were the only moments in my life on which I concentrated a scrupulous, undistracted attention, and yet I could not discover in them one atom of pleasure. All the time that I was away from Gilberte, I wanted to see her, because, having incessantly sought to form a mental picture of her, I was unable, in the end, to do so, and did not know exactly to what my love corresponded. Besides, she had never yet told me that she loved me. Far from it, she had often boasted that she knew other little boys whom she preferred to myself, that I was a good companion, with whom she was always willing to play, although I was too absent-minded, not attentive enough to the game. 

My own relationship with Chris was nothing like this. First of all, as we lived in the same wooden apartment building—situated where Sewanee’s library now stands—and as we were in the same class in school, I saw her all the time. In other words, I didn’t have to conjure her up in my imagination.

Nor did I idealize her, at least not then. Still, she was my best friend and I did find her remarkable. Here are a few memories that I have carried around with me in the 60 or so years since we were playmates:

–I remember her arguing loudly for women’s rights with some boy in fourth grade. I believe the issue was whether the Girl Scouts or the Boy Scouts were founded first, and while I remember asking her why this mattered, I see now she was pushing against boys with an entitled sense of their superiority. I’m sure she became a feminist, like the woman I myself married.

–I also remember her telling me, with horror in her voice, about how sometime in the future as a girl, she would start bleeding every month. She found this to be terribly unfair whereas I was grossed out and didn’t want to hear any more about it.

–Chris introduced me to the Narnia books—this when we were in third grade—and I can still remember her showing me The Silver Chair. She wanted us to put out our hands out and pray to Aslan, like Jill and Eustace, so that we would be transported to Narnia. I thought this was weird but went along.

–I believe she also introduced me to Tolkien, whose books would become the great love of my childhood (followed closely by Narnia). When I wrote to Tolkien and he sent me (along with his letter) a signature “to paste in one of your books,” I gave the signature to Chris.

–In fourth grade, when my mother was teaching our class French, Chris wrote a French version of Snow White for a play that our class performed. For having done so, she was offered any role she wanted and chose the wicked stepmother. She recognized that the stepmother was far more interesting than Snow White.

–Once, when we were building a shelter with sticks we found in the yard, I thought it would be more efficient to use boards from our jungle gym. Without consulting her, I replaced the sticks with boards. She was so furious with me that she wouldn’t speak to me for the rest of the day, and I have carried that lesson with me ever since. (It’s the process, not the final product, that’s important.)

–For some reason, Chris was always late to school. I remember one morning, however, when she was proud to have gotten there before me—only to feel upstaged when I came with the announcement that my youngest brother had been born overnight.

–I also remember envying her that she had a bicycle and I didn’t. We would walk home from school together—she walking her bicycle—but she would take off down a steep hill when we reached it and then see how far she could pedal up the ascent on the other side. Wanting to experience the same thrill, I borrowed her younger brother’s bicycle (without asking) and set off for that same hill—and had a painful crash when I hit a pothole.

I regard it as primarily my fault that we lost touch after she left Sewanee, her father having become a rector in a Pensacola, Florida church. I’m pretty sure she would have written if I had, but I’m a lousy correspondent and never followed up my vague yearnings to find out how her life had gone. I have no idea how to get in touch with her now.

Proust writes that “the memory of a certain image is but regret for a certain moment,” but I don’t know if it is regret so much as curiosity that has me thinking of Chris now. If a reunion were ever to occur, I would not be sad that she didn’t live up to certain images I have of her because I think she would be far more interesting now than she was then. After all, she’s had a whole life of experiences, as have I. I’ve heard that she has three daughters and that she edited a collection of essays—Growing Up Southern—which means that it would be fascinating to learn about how the girl I knew became the woman she became.

I’m not sure how to make it happen. But I’m open to it if it does.

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

On Trump, Achilles, and Retribution

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Tuesday

My faculty book group concluded Homer’s Iliad yesterday with an examination of Priam’s meeting with Achilles to recover the body of his son. While we were discussing how revenge hollows out Achilles, I thought of Donald Trump openly promising retribution upon all who have slighted him.

In a recent appearance at Waco, Texas, an event that attracted white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other shady types, Donald Trump declared,

I am your warrior, I am your justice. For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution.

Trump is no Achilles, who is not only a great warrior but a gifted leader, but the thirst for revenge operates similarly on both men. But while I hold out little hope for Trump, Achilles reconnects with his humanity by the end of the epic.

First, however, Homer shows retribution’s corrosive effects. Following the death of his BFF Patroclus, Achilles goes on a killing rampage that eventually has his chariot throwing up a bloody spray:

…before great-hearted Achilleus the single-foot horses
trampled alike dead men and shields, and the axle under
the chariot was all splashed with blood and the rails which encircled
the chariot, struck by flying drops from the feet of the horses,
from the running rims of the wheels. The son of Peleus was straining
to win glory, his invincible hands spattered with bloody filth.

Wilfred Owen, incidentally, alludes to this passage in his great anti-war poem “Strange Meeting,” where he writes “when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels” to capture the horrors of World War I.

The killing spree continues. When one Trojan begs Achilles for mercy, the Greek hero not only ignores his pleas but derides and dishonors him:

Achilleus caught him by the foot and slung him into the river
to drift, and spoke winged words of vaunting derision over him:
‘Lie there now among the fish, who will lick the blood away
from your wound, and care nothing for you, nor will your mother
lay you on the death-bed and mourn over you, but Skamandros
will carry you spinning down to the wide bend of the salt water.
And a fish will break a ripple shuddering dark on the water
as he rises to feed upon the shining fat of Lykaon.

Even nature is appalled at what it is witnessing so that the Skamandros River rises up and threatens to drown Achilles.

We see how brutish Achilles has become in his final confrontation with Hektor. Before they fight, Hektor asks Achilles to agree that the victor will honor the other’s body. The imagery Achilles uses, however, reveals him to be animal-like:

Then looking darkly at him swift-footed Achilleus answered:
‘Hektor, argue me no agreements. I cannot forgive you.
As there are no trustworthy oaths between men and lions,
nor wolves and lambs have spirit that can be brought to agreement
but forever these hold feelings of hate for each other,
so there can be no love between you and me, nor shall there be
oaths between us, but one or the other must fall before then
to glut with his blood Ares the god who fights under the shield’s guard.

After killing Hektor, Achilles then drags him around the walls of Troy three times. Yet even this does not bring him peace so that, by the last book, he is thinking of further ways to enact revenge for the friend he has lost:

Remembering all these things he let fall the swelling tears, lying
sometimes along his side, sometimes on his back, and now again
prone on his face; then he would stand upright, and pace turning
in distraction along the beach of the sea, nor did dawn rising
escape him as she brightened across the sea and the beaches.
Then, when he had yoked running horses under the chariot
he would fasten Hektor behind the chariot, so as to drag him,
and draw him three times around the tomb of Menoitios’ fallen
son, then rest again in his shelter, and throw down the dead man
and leave him to lie sprawled on his face in the dust.

To end this madness and bring order back to humankind, Zeus sends down divine intermediaries. Priam is prompted to go and beg the body of his from the man who has killed him while Achilles is ordered to be merciful. At this point, as our discussion leader John Reishman pointed out, the gods withdraw from the scene, leaving it up to the two men to work things out. Priam wins Achilles over by prostrating himself before him and then asking him to think of his own father:

‘Achilleus like the gods, remember your father, one who
is of years like mine, and on the door-sill of sorrowful old age.
And they who dwell nearby encompass him and afflict him,
nor is there any to defend him against the wrath, the destruction.
Yet surely he, when he hears of you and that you are still living,
is gladdened within his heart and all his days he is hopeful
that he will see his beloved son come home from the Troad.

The plea gets through:

So he spoke, and stirred in the other a passion of grieving
for his own father. He took the old man’s hand and pushed him
gently away, and the two remembered, as Priam sat huddled  
at the feet of Achilleus and wept close for manslaughtering Hektor
and Achilleus wept now for his own father, now again
for Patroklos. The sound of their mourning moved in the house.

At that point they engage is very human actions, eating together and then retiring to sleep. The sacred rules of hospitality, which Paris violated when he ran off with Helen, have been restored:

Automedon took the bread and set it out on the table
in fair baskets, while Achilleus served the meats. And thereon
they put their hands to the good things that lay ready before them.
But when they had put aside their desire for eating and drinking,
Priam, son of Dardanos, gazed upon Achilleus, wondering
at his size and beauty, for he seemed like an outright vision
of gods. Achilleus in turn gazed on Dardanian Priam
and wondered, as he saw his brave looks and listened to him talking.

So are other sacred rituals. For instance, before Priam returns to Troy with Hektor’s body, Achilles asks him how long the father will need to mourn his son’s death (eleven days) and promises that the Greeks will hold off fighting until then.

John and others in our group noted that, in a world of cruelty and death, such rituals are essential if we are to rise above our animal selves and find meaning to our existence. Without them, the life of humans is (to quote Thomas Hobbes) “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

This is what awaits the United States if it allows Trump’s vengeful desires to win out–which is to say, if people with power act out their angry urges upon those who disagree with them. If Achilles and Priam, enemies with every reason to hate each other, can break bread together, then Democrats and Republicans should be able to do the same.

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

A Child’s Vision of British Monarchs

E. H. Shepard, “The King’s Breakfast”

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

Following the coronation of King Charles III on Saturday, I found myself thinking about how literature has shaped my vision of British monarchs. Major influences have been the poetry of A.A. Milne, The Adventures of Robin Hood, and (later in life) Shakespeare’s history plays, which allow me to sort out the Lancasters and the Yorks in the War of the Roses.

Milne, however, seems to have left the deepest mark, and I can still recite both “King John’s Christmas” and “The King’s Breakfast.” Given how many people seem to be dismissing Charles as irrelevant or worse, perhaps the first of the two poems captures the way he is being treated:

King John was not a good man —
He had his little ways.
And sometimes no one spoke to him
For days and days and days.
And men who came across him,
When walking in the town,
Gave him a supercilious stare,
Or passed with noses in the air —
And bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown.

Why King John is bad Milne never explains, although as one of the villains in the Robin Hood saga—he opposes the return of the true king, his brother and crusader King Richard the Lion-Hearted—he has certainly gotten bad press.

Charles III has sometimes been described (perhaps unfairly, I don’t know) as overly concerned with trivial matters, which is the case with the monarch in “The King’s Breakfast.” Children like the bounciness of the poem, and they also relate to how the king is being told what he should want rather than what he actually wants. After the cows says he should prefer marmalade to the butter he asks for, he goes to bed in a pout:

The King said,
“Bother!”
And then he said,
“Oh, deary me!”
The King sobbed, “Oh, deary me!”
And went back to bed.
“Nobody,”
He whimpered,
“Could call me
A fussy man;
I only want
A little bit
Of butter for
My bread!”

As a child, I loved the image of the king sliding down the bannisters when he finally gets his wish:

The Queen took
The butter
And brought it to
His Majesty;
The King said,
“Butter, eh?”
And bounced out of bed.
“Nobody,” he said,
As he kissed her
Tenderly,
“Nobody,” he said,
As he slid down the banisters,
“Nobody,
My darling,
Could call me
A fussy man –

BUT
I do like a little bit of butter to my bread!”

Speaking of English kings, there’s a great mnemonic for remembering Britain’s monarchs going back to William the Conqueror. Richard III gets called “Dick the Bad”—I complained about this in a recent post—but it’s handy for getting everyone straight:

Willie Willie Harry Stee
Harry Dick John Harry three;
One two three Neds, Richard two
Harrys four five six….then who?
Edwards four five, Dick the bad,
Harrys (twain), Ned six (the lad);
Mary, Bessie, James you ken,
Then Charlie, Charlie, James again…
Will and Mary, Anna Gloria,
Georges four, Will four Victoria;
Edward seven next, and then
Came George the fifth in nineteen ten;
Ned the eighth soon abdicated
Then George six was coronated;
After which Elizabeth
And that’s all folks until her death.

Now we just have to figure out to get Charles III in the poem.

Past post
King Charles poems (Charles I and II)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

Secret Garden, Hidden Soul

Dixie Egerickx as Mary in The Secret Garden

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Spiritual Sunday

For some reason, I recently experienced the urge to reread the Francis Hodgson Burnett novels that played a key role in my childhood. My ranking has changed so that Little Lord Fauntleroy has fallen from first to third, but The Secret Garden and A Little Princess still hold me in their magic the way they did then.

The secret garden that Mary discovers works as a metaphor for the soul, and the central theme of the book is characters reconnecting with that part of themselves that they have lost touch with. The drama is captured through images of spring growth, which the children call Magic:

They always called it Magic and indeed it seemed like it in the months that followed—the wonderful months—the radiant months—the amazing ones. Oh! the things which happened in that garden! If you have never had a garden, you cannot understand, and if you have had a garden you will know that it would take a whole book to describe all that came to pass there. At first it seemed that green things would never cease pushing their way through the earth, in the grass, in the beds, even in the crevices of the walls. Then the green things began to show buds and the buds began to unfurl and show color, every shade of blue, every shade of purple, every tint and hue of crimson.

And:

The seeds Dickon and Mary had planted grew as if fairies had tended them. Satiny poppies of all tints danced in the breeze by the score, gaily defying flowers which had lived in the garden for years and which it might be confessed seemed rather to wonder how such new people had got there. And the roses—the roses! Rising out of the grass, tangled round the sun-dial, wreathing the tree trunks and hanging from their branches, climbing up the walls and spreading over them with long garlands falling in cascades—they came alive day by day, hour by hour. Fair fresh leaves, and buds—and buds—tiny at first but swelling and working Magic until they burst and uncurled into cups of scent delicately spilling themselves over their brims and filling the garden air.

As Dylan Thomas puts it, “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower/ Drives my green age.”

This magic works not only on the children but on the heartsore owner of the estate, who flees from the garden after his wife is killed by a falling tree limb. Following ten years of empty wandering in a spiritual desert, however, he experiences a Wordsworthian connection with nature that transforms him. It occurs when he is walking in the Austrian Alps and settles upon a carpet of moss by a stream. What Wordsworth describes in Tintern Abbey happens to Archibald Craven as he gazes at the stream and the birds that “come and dip their heads to drink in it and then flick their wings and fly away.” In Wordsworth’s case, the poet is visited by a “blessed mood”

In which the burthen of the mystery,
In which the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world,
Is lightened:—that serene and blessed mood,
In which the affections gently lead us on,—
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
And even the motion of our human blood
Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul:
While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,
We see into the life of things.

Burnett writes:

As he sat gazing into the clear running of the water, Archibald Craven gradually felt his mind and body both grow quiet, as quiet as the valley itself. He wondered if he were going to sleep, but he was not. He sat and gazed at the sunlit water and his eyes began to see things growing at its edge. There was one lovely mass of blue forget-me-nots growing so close to the stream that its leaves were wet and at these he found himself looking as he remembered he had looked at such things years ago. He was actually thinking tenderly how lovely it was and what wonders of blue its hundreds of little blossoms were. He did not know that just that simple thought was slowly filling his mind—filling and filling it until other things were softly pushed aside. It was as if a sweet clear spring had begun to rise in a stagnant pool and had risen and risen until at last it swept the dark water away. But of course he did not think of this himself. He only knew that the valley seemed to grow quieter and quieter as he sat and stared at the bright delicate blueness. He did not know how long he sat there or what was happening to him, but at last he moved as if he were awakening and he got up slowly and stood on the moss carpet, drawing a long, deep, soft breath and wondering at himself. Something seemed to have been unbound and released in him, very quietly.

“What is it?” he said, almost in a whisper, and he passed his hand over his forehead. “I almost feel as if—I were alive!”

The focus on the forget-me-nots also brings to mind the concluding lines of Wordsworth’s Intimations of Immortality:

Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
   Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,
   To me the meanest flower that blows can give
   Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

In Secret Garden, when asked by the children whether the process is indeed Magic, Susan Sowerby, functioning in the book as the wise mother, observes that the label doesn’t matter. Having come upon the children right after they have sung the Doxology—“Praise God from whom all blessings flow”—Susan observes,

I never knowed it by that name [“Magic”] but what does th’ name matter? I warrant they call it a different name i’ France an’ a different one i’ Germany. Th’ same thing as set th’ seeds swellin’ an’ th’ sun shinin’ made thee a well lad an’ it’s th’ Good Thing. It isn’t like us poor fools as think it matters if us is called out of our names. Th’ Big Good Thing doesn’t stop to worrit, bless thee. It goes on makin’ worlds by th’ million—worlds like us. Never thee stop believin’ in th’ Big Good Thing an’ knowin’ th’ world’s full of it—an’ call it what tha’ likes.

“Big Good Thing” works as well as any description. So does her next appellation, which is “Joy Maker”:

Th’ Magic listened when tha’ sung th’ Doxology. It would ha’ listened to anything tha’d sung. It was th’ joy that mattered. Eh! lad, lad—what’s names to th’ Joy Maker,”

When a New York Times reporter tried to pin the author down to a particular religious influence, Burnett gave a response very much in the Sowerby spirit:

I am not a Christian Scientist, I am not an advocate of New Thought [like Theosophy], I am not a disciple of the Yogi teaching, I am not a Buddhist, I am not a Mohammedan, I am not a follower of Confucius. Yet I am all of these things.

Late in the book, Burnett attempts to set forth her philosophy. In the process, she articulates what I think Jesus meant by creating the kingdom of God on earth. The passage occurs in response to Colin declaring, in his exuberance at his new-found health, “I shall live forever—and ever—and ever”:

One of the strange things about living in the world is that it is only now and then one is quite sure one is going to live forever and ever and ever. One knows it sometimes when one gets up at the tender solemn dawn-time and goes out and stands alone and throws one’s head far back and looks up and up and watches the pale sky slowly changing and flushing and marvelous unknown things happening until the East almost makes one cry out and one’s heart stands still at the strange unchanging majesty of the rising of the sun–which has been happening every morning for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. One knows it then for a moment or so. And one knows it sometimes when one stands by oneself in a wood at sunset and the mysterious deep gold stillness slanting through and under the branches seems to be saying slowly again and again something one cannot quite hear, however much one tries. Then sometimes the immense quiet of the dark blue at night with millions of stars waiting and watching makes one sure; and sometimes a sound of far-off music makes it true; and sometimes a look in someone’s eyes.

Or as Wordsworth puts in in Tintern Abbey,

And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.

I sensed Burnett’s vision as a child. I find it even more powerful now.

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

Crucial Support in the Face of Death

Winfrey (Mattie), Whitfield (Ciel) in Women of Brewster Place

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Friday

Yesterday I discussed how much I admired Kitty in Anna Karenina for nursing her dying brother-in-law, despite the objections of a husband that wants to protect her from all unpleasantness. Today I write about another woman who will not be denied her place by someone who is dying. Such literature inspires us by showing how life insists upon itself, despite all obstacles.

The character I have in mind is Mattie Michael in Gloria Naylor’s The Women of Brewster Place. The novel is a series of stories about Black women who live in an urban cul-de-sac, and Mattie has had her share of troubles, from being beaten by her father and leaving home for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy to losing this son years later when he jumps bail following a manslaughter charge. Having known such sorrow, she doesn’t hold back when her next-door-neighbor is close to death.

Ciel has lost her baby girl after the child electrocutes herself by sticking a fork in a socket. Ravaged by grief, she decides to die herself, refusing all food and drink:

People had mistaken it for shock when she refused to cry. They thought it some special sort of grief when she stopped eating and even drinking water unless forced to her hair went uncombed and her body unbathed. But Ciel was not grieving for Serena. She was simply tired of hurting. And she was forced to slowly give up the life that God had refused to take from her.

While others, somewhat like Kitty’s Levin, shy away from what they’re seeing, Mattie does not. Instead, she charges in, refusing to let death have dominion:

Mattie stood in the doorway, and an involuntary shudder when through her when she saw Ciel’s eyes. Dear God, she thought, she’s dying, and right in front of our faces.

“Merciful Father, no!” she bellowed. There was no prayer, no bended kneed or sackcloth supplication in those words, but a blasphemous fireball that shot forth and went smashing against the gates of heaven, raging and kicking, demanding to be heard.

“No! No! No!” Like a black Brahman cow, desperate to protect her young, she surged into the room, pushing the neighbor woman and the others out of her way.

Like Kitty with Levin’s brother, Mattie instinctively knows what the occasion calls for as she takes Ciel in her arms:

She sat on the edge of the bed and enfolded the tissue-thin body in her huge ebony arms. And she rocked. Ciel’s body was so hot it burned Mattie when she first touched her, but she held on and rocked. Back and forth, back and forth—she had Ciel so tightly she could feel her young breast flatten against the buttons of her dress. The black mammoth gripped so firmly that the slightest increase of pressure would have cracked the girl’s spine. But she rocked.

Perhaps there’s a slight echo of Walt Whitman’s “Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking” here because the rocking takes on archetypal dimensions. Mattie becomes that force which, through the long history of human suffering, provides a comfort so deep as to keep the race keeping on:

Ciel moaned. Mattie rocked. Propelled by the sound, Mattie rocked her out of that bed, out of that room, into a blue vastness just underneath the sun and above time. She rocked her over Aegean seas so clean they shone like crystal, so clear the fresh blood of sacrificed babies torn from their mother’s arms and given to Neptune could be seen like pink froth on the water. She rocked her on and on, past Dachau, where soul-gutted Jewish mothers swept their children’s entrails off laboratory floors. They flew past the spilled brains of Senegalese infants whose mothers had dashed them on the wooden sides of slave ships. And she rocked on.

And in that comfort, which passeth all human understanding, she finds her way to the heart of the pain:

She rocked her into her childhood and let her see murdered dreams. And she rocked her back, back into the womb, to the nadir of her hurt, and they found it—a slight silver splinter, embedded just below the surface of the skin. And Mattie rocked and pulled—and the splinter gave way, but its roots were deep, gigantic, ragged, and they tore up flesh with bits of fat and muscle tissue clinging to them. They left a huge hole, which was already starting to pus over, but Mattie was satisfied. It would heal.

And Ciel does heal. First she retches (“After a while she heaved only air, but the body did not seem to want to stop”), which Naylors describes as “exorcising the evilness of pain.” Then Mattie gives her water, gently bathes her, and wraps her in a clean sheet. The session ends in healing tears:

And Ciel lay down and cried. But Mattie knew the tears would end. And she would sleep. And morning would come.

Dylan Thomas counseled us not to go gentle into that good night but to “rage and burn” at the approach of death. When Julia and I lost our Justin, I was like King Hrethel in Beowulf, who crawls into bed when he loses his eldest son, never to emerge, but Julia insisted on life. I still remember, the morning after, going out at dawn into the grass by the inlet close to our house and lying together in the wet grass. Although our grief shook us to our core, she insisted that we keep going.

And we have.

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

Tolstoy’s Kitty and a Dying Patient

Victorian nurses caring for a dying man suffering from Tuberculosis

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Thursday

My favorite episode in Anna Karenina is the one where Levin tries to protect his new wife from his dying brother—he doesn’t want her to have to confront the unpleasantness of the world—only to discover that she can handle the situation better than he can. At that moment, he realizes he has married a woman with far more depth than he realized.

The episode also raises a question I’ve long thought about: why do women seem more able to handle sickness, dying, and death better than men?

Such a question comes with the caveat that all gender generalizations are suspect and none should be seen as absolute. In my own experience, however, this has proved to be the case. When my oldest son died and our family was lost in a haze, a number of women descended upon our house and took over. They saw there was a need and saw that they could help.

I also saw how my wife Julia worked with my dying mother far better than I did. I was like Tolsoy’s Levin, getting tangled in my head about what I should say or do, whereas Julia—like Kitty—kept her eye firmly fixed on what was most important.

When Levin’s brother is dying, Levin initially tries to prevent Kitty from going to see him, believing that his young bride won’t be able to handle either the brother’s unpleasantness or his lower class female companion. Kitty, however, refuses to stay away. Here’s an excerpt of from one of their first marital arguments:

“I tell you, that if you go, I shall come with you; I shall certainly come,” she said hastily and wrathfully. “Why out of the question? Why do you say it’s out of the question?”

“Because it’ll be going God knows where, by all sorts of roads and to all sorts of hotels. You would be a hindrance to me,” said Levin, trying to be cool.

“Not at all. I don’t want anything. Where you can go, I can….”

“Well, for one thing then, because this woman’s there whom you can’t meet.”

“I don’t know and don’t care to know who’s there and what. I know that my husband’s brother is dying and my husband is going to him, and I go with my husband too….”

As it turns out, Levin is fairly useless when he encounters his brother:

Levin could not look calmly at his brother; he could not himself be natural and calm in his presence. When he went in to the sick man, his eyes and his attention were unconsciously dimmed, and he did not see and did not distinguish the details of his brother’s position. He smelt the awful odor, saw the dirt, disorder, and miserable condition, and heard the groans, and felt that nothing could be done to help. It never entered his head to analyze the details of the sick man’s situation, to consider how that body was lying under the quilt, how those emaciated legs and thighs and spine were lying huddled up, and whether they could not be made more comfortable, whether anything could not be done to make things, if not better, at least less bad. It made his blood run cold when he began to think of all these details. He was absolutely convinced that nothing could be done to prolong his brother’s life or to relieve his suffering. But a sense of his regarding all aid as out of the question was felt by the sick man, and exasperated him. And this made it still more painful for Levin. To be in the sick-room was agony to him, not to be there still worse. And he was continually, on various pretexts, going out of the room, and coming in again, because he was unable to remain alone.

This stands in stark contrast to how Kitty responds:

But Kitty thought, and felt, and acted quite differently. On seeing the sick man, she pitied him. And pity in her womanly heart did not arouse at all that feeling of horror and loathing that it aroused in her husband, but a desire to act, to find out all the details of his state, and to remedy them. And since she had not the slightest doubt that it was her duty to help him, she had no doubt either that it was possible, and immediately set to work. The very details, the mere thought of which reduced her husband to terror, immediately engaged her attention. She sent for the doctor, sent to the chemist’s, set the maid who had come with her and Marya Nikolaevna to sweep and dust and scrub; she herself washed up something, washed out something else, laid something under the quilt. Something was by her directions brought into the sick-room, something else was carried out. She herself went several times to her room, regardless of the men she met in the corridor, got out and brought in sheets, pillow cases, towels, and shirts.

Levin thinks his irascible brother will be upset at Kitty’s interference, only to discover that she understands the brother better than Levin does:

Levin did not approve of all this; he did not believe it would be of any good to the patient. Above all, he feared the patient would be angry at it. But the sick man, though he seemed and was indifferent about it, was not angry, but only abashed, and on the whole as it were interested in what she was doing with him.

Tolstoy continues to hammer home the difference between the two different approaches to death as the episode continues. Here he contrasts Kitty and the brother’s female companion with Levin:

Both [women] knew, without a shade of doubt, what sort of thing life was and what was death, and though neither of them could have answered, and would even not have understood the questions that presented themselves to Levin, both had no doubt of the significance of this event, and were precisely alike in their way of looking at it, which they shared with millions of people. The proof that they knew for a certainty the nature of death lay in the fact that they knew without a second of hesitation how to deal with the dying, and were not frightened of them. Levin and other men like him, though they could have said a great deal about death, obviously did not know this since they were afraid of death, and were absolutely at a loss what to do when people were dying. If Levin had been alone now with his brother Nikolay, he would have looked at him with terror, and with still greater terror waited, and would not have known what else to do.

And further on:

More than that, he did not know what to say, how to look, how to move. To talk of outside things seemed to him shocking, impossible, to talk of death and depressing subjects—also impossible. To be silent, also impossible. “If I look at him he will think I am studying him, I am afraid; if I don’t look at him, he’ll think I’m thinking of other things. If I walk on tiptoe, he will be vexed; to tread firmly, I’m ashamed.” Kitty evidently did not think of herself, and had no time to think about herself: she was thinking about him because she knew something, and all went well.

Ultimately, it is Kitty, not Levin, who does the brother the most good in his final moments.

As I say, I shy away from gender generalizations, and there are undoubtedly men who can handle sick beds and women who can’t. But my own experience has been Levin’s, and I deeply admire and gratefully acknowledge those women who step up in moments of crisis.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed