To All The Girls I've Loved Before

I came across this poem by Jack Gilbert this morning, and it seemed to speak to something like what I talked about in yesterday's post.

Cherishing What Isn't

Ah, you three women whom I have loved in this

long live, along with the few others.

And the four I may have loved, or stopped short

of loving. I wander through these woods

making songs of you. Some of regret, some

of longing, and a terrible one of death.

I carry the privacy of your bodies

and hearts in me. The shameful ardor

and the shameless intimacy, the secret kinds

of happiness and the walled-up childhoods.

I carol loudly of you among trees emptied

of winter and rejoice quietly in summer.

A score of women if you count love both large

and small, real ones that were brief

and those that lasted. Gentle love and some

almost like an animal with its prey.

What is left is what's alive in me. The failing

of your beauty and its remaining.

You are like countries in which my love

took place. Like a bell in the trees

that makes your music in each wind that moves.

A music composed of what you have forgotten.

That will end with my ending.

I love this poem, not least for its echoes of Whitman ("I sing the songs of the glory of you," said Whitman), right up until the line "You are like countries in which my love took place," at which point Gilbert just blithely removes the personhood of 20 or so women. He's a lover; they're locations in which his love plays out. So, love is something a man does in a woman, the way he might be a tourist or a scholar or an archeologist in foreign country. What metaphors didn't make it into the final draft, I wonder? Were they blank pages on which he wrote his life? Prepared canvasses eager to receive his warm, moist paint? Bleah.

 

I'm not too fond of "What is left is what's alive in me," either, because unless I'm mistaken, when a relationship ends in something other than death, two people walk away from it, each of them carrying their piece of it. In Gilbert's vision, the women he's loved have forgotten; only he remembers, so the music that is these women's music ("a bell in the trees that makes your music") is something only he hears and only he carries and it will last only as long as he lives.

 

Bit of an egoist there, Jacky-boy. As if there aren't some 19-ish women out there, for some of whom you were a love, and for some of whom you were someone they "may have loved, or stopped short of loving," some of whom think of you with longing, or with regret, others of whom certainly think of you with indifference, or not at all. Perhaps there is at least one who sings to herself a song of your terrible death. When you died last November, surely some of these women saw the obituary and said, "Jack Gilbert...he was my lover once. I remember him." Surely not everything you claim as yours belonged only to you. I expect you know that by now.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

An Unfailing Sufficiency: Up Late, Thinking About Whitman

All this week, I've been waking up at some point during the night, and then I'm awake for an hour or so before I can go back to sleep. I recently read an article that said a lot of people do this and it is apparently normal, and that's probably where I got the idea. I'm getting a little tired of it, though--I like nights when I sleep straight through.

I do various things with my hour. Sometimes I read a book, if I've got one going, or watch a little TV. Or check my e-mail and write long notes to friends. But tonight, I'm thinking about Walt Whitman, which I'm sure is how many insomniacs spend their nights.

Specifically, I'm thinking about Walt Whitman, and me as a high school freshman reading him for the first time in American Literature. The Whitman poems we read in class--and we're talking about 1979, here, so my memory may be faulty--were the most schoolroom-ish of his poems. We read "O Captain, My Captain," probably because it was short and it rhymed and it had no sex in it. But it's a terrible introduction to Whitman, a weak example of his work and not at all typical. I'm sure we read When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed. And we read, I seem to remember, Starting from Paumanok, though looking at it again that seems unlikely, what with "sexual organs and acts" there in line 178. It was either "Starting from Paumanok," or one of the other boring ones.

Anyway, it wasn't a very auspicious introduction, yet somehow I fell in love. I think part of why I fell in love was my American Literature teacher, whom I did not, overall, care for, because he was dismissive of me, and he looked at my breasts a lot, and his idea of a final exam in literature was to have us memorize 100 titles and publication dates. But I seem to remember him reading aloud from Whitman in class, and reading well, and reading with passion. And I remember a poem I hadn't liked on the page becoming more alluring when I heard him read it.

Anyway, I bought a copy of Leaves of Grass at the bookstore in the mall.

I tell you, of all the things I've ever gotten rid of in my life, that first copy of Leaves of Grass is one of two I regret. It was just a cheap Signet edition, and I carried it around with me from 1979 until just a few years ago, so it was spine-broken and the pages were starting to come unglued. I had marked the poems I liked with paper clips, and they rusted and left marks. It was in terrible shape, and it made sense to let it go and get a nicer copy. But I shouldn't have done it.

Anyway, those paper clips would be an interesting glimpse into my teenage psyche. I was intimidated by the longer poems; they were just incomprehensible to me. But I loved, for instance, "I Saw In Louisiana A Live-Oak Growing," and I memorized it so well that I believe I can recite it to this day. It's short enough to just give it to you right here:

I saw in Louisiana a live-oak growing,
All alone stood it and the moss hung down from the branches,
Without any companion it grew there uttering joyous leaves of dark green,
And its look, rude, unbending, lusty, made me think of myself,
But I wonder'd how it could utter joyous leaves standing alone there
without its friend near, for I knew I could not,
And I broke off a twig with a certain number of leaves upon it and
twined around it a little moss,
And brought it away, and I have placed it in sight in my room,
It is not needed to remind me as of my own dear friends,
(For I believe lately I think of little else than of them,)
Yet it remains to me a curious token, it makes me think of manly love;
For all that, and though the live-oak glistens there in Louisiana
solitary in a wide in a wide flat space,
Uttering joyous leaves all its life without a friend a lover near,
I know very well I could not.

I loved this poem for what it said about friendship, which of course was the most important thing in my life at 14 and 15 and 16. I liked it because I imagined Whitman saw that tree while taking a long solitary ramble, which was something I also did a lot of. I liked the sound of "rude, unbending, lusty." It was one of the first poems I ever read that seemed to me to be speaking my own thoughts.

Another little fragment I adored--and memorized, which was easy because it's only about 3 lines, was this:

O you, whom I often and silently come where you are that I may be with you;
As I walk by your side, or sit near you, or remain in the same room with you,
Little know you the subtle electric fire that for your sake is playing within me.

I believe that, more than once, as a young lesbian, I slipped a woman a note with this poem written in it as an act of seduction.

But the poem I loved best as a teenager and young adult is a longer poem called "To You," which distinguishes it not at all from a number of Whitman's poems that start in exactly that same way. Here it is.

By God, I loved that poem, and I still do. As a teenager, I felt that Whitman was speaking right to me, in all my adolescent insecurity, and his voice was tremendously reassuring:

There is no endowment in man or woman that is not tallied in you;
There is no virtue, no beauty, in man or woman, but as good is in you;
No pluck, no endurance in others, but as good is in you;
No pleasure waiting for others, but an equal pleasure waits for you.

Nobody but Whitman was saying things like that to me, God knows. I loved its tallying of my gifts, its promises for the future.

But I also loved the egalitarianism of the poem:

Painters have painted their swarming groups, and the centre figure of all;
From the head of the centre figure spreading a nimbus of gold-color’d light;
But I paint myriads of heads, but paint no head without its nimbus of gold-color’d light;
From my hand, from the brain of every man and woman it streams, effulgently flowing forever.

It took me awhile, as a teenager, to parse that image, but once I got it, I loved it. Whitman was saying: Everybody gets a halo.

I loved Whitman's commitment to the male and the female in this poem. His relationship to the female is pretty complicated, and not always what we might wish it to be, but look at him here! I have spent my life listening to people say we can't use "he and she" in writing because it's ugly, but look how he builds it into the driving, building rhythm of these lines. Maybe you or I can't make it beautiful, but Whitman did:

Whoever you are! claim your own at any hazard!
These shows of the east and west are tame, compared to you;
These immense meadows—these interminable rivers—you are immense and interminable as they;
These furies, elements, storms, motions of Nature, throes of apparent dissolution—you are he or she who is master or mistress over them,
Master or mistress in your own right over Nature, elements, pain, passion, dissolution.

And, finally, Whitman includes in this poem a notion that I love, the idea of sufficiency. We talk a lot these days about abundance, but Whitman doesn't so much. He likes to say that something will "prove sufficient." He simultaneously makes you extravagant promises--he sings the songs of the glory of none sooner than he sings the songs of the glory of you, after all--and reminds you of the imperfect body and world you live in: your unsteady eye, your drunkenness, your greed, your deform'd attitude, your premature death, all of these are mentioned in the poem as well.

But listen to the closing lines of the poem:

The hopples fall from your ankles—you find an unfailing sufficiency;
Old or young, male or female, rude, low, rejected by the rest, whatever you are promulges itself;
Through birth, life, death, burial, the means are provided, nothing is scanted;
Through angers, losses, ambition, ignorance, ennui, what you are picks its way.

That's my Walt. "The means are provided, nothing is scanted." I find those to be about the most comforting words I've ever read.

I wonder how many hours in total I spent as a teenager declaiming this poem in the solitude of my room. I know that for a long time I had it memorized, too, and it is a great poem for reading, or reciting, aloud. It has a thundering rhythm. I remember reading a book that talked about Whitman being influenced by the cadences of the preachers of the Second Great Awakening, and this is surely an exhortation. I think you could deliver this poem as a sermon, punctuating your words with the book in your hand, like a preacher with a Bible.

I don't believe I've said anything about Whitman I haven't said before, and some of you have certainly heard me say it. I don't suppose I should expect to be original at three in the morning when what I really want is to be sleeping. But this is all something I like to revisit from time to time. I've been reading these poems for over 30 years now, and while a poem like "I Saw in Louisiana a Live-Oak Growing" is in some ways a trifle, "To You" has never let me down yet.

Belatedly Snow-Bound with John Greenleaf Whittier

Last week, right before the big snowstorm, I wrote a blog post and posted it. While I was then proofing and editing it, I lost most of it in one of those computer things that happens, and I thought it was gone forever. But it turns out that the people who get e-mail notifications when I post something get the entire post as an e-mail message, so my friend Joann was able to send it to me. It's about ten days late, but here it is:

Everybody's getting all hunkered down for the blizzard, though we seem to still be on the first trailing edge of it; nothing too dramatic seems to have happened outside, snow-wise. I have kind of a holiday feeling, knowing we're going to be snugged into the house tomorrow. I don't know why this feels different from any ordinary day; the kids and I spent the day at home today, after all, for no good reason but that we had nowhere to go. But it does feel different.

I can't help thinking about John Greenleaf Whittier's poem Snow-Bound, which you might have heard of in school but probably haven't read. Does anybody read Whittier anymore? I recently did a little reading project on him in preparation to teach some of his poetry in Adult Religious Education at my Quaker meeting (Whittier was a Quaker), and was amused that even scholars who were interested enough to write a whole book about him don't claim he was a great poet. In fact, they are inclined to say, "Whittier was by no means a great poet," in so many words. Often more than once. They claim "competence," instead, or cultural significance, since he was such a popular poet in his day. Time was every schoolchild could recite "Blessings on thee, little man / barefoot boy with cheek of tan." Not so much anymore.

I find I could say a lot about Whittier, and Snow-Bound. I was just going to pop in to say that the poem is a nostalgic remembrance of being snowed-in with his family at Haverhill, the farm the Whittiers had lived on since at least 1647. He wrote Snow-Bound in 1866, when he was almost 60 years old, and as well as being about nostalgia for a lost boyhood, it also takes its place in a culture that was very conscious of the past slipping away. Technological changes were affecting the way people lived, their mobility, their family relations, and it was frightening. The central images of Snow-Bound are about the family gathered around the hearth:

Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door,
While the red logs before us beat
The frost-line back with tropic heat;
And ever, when a louder blast
Shook beam and rafter as it passed,
The merrier up its roaring draught
The great throat of the chimney laughed;
The house-dog on his paws outspread
Laid to the fire his drowsy head,
The cat's dark silhouette on the wall
A couchant tiger's seemed to fall;
And, for the winter fireside meet,
Between the andirons' straddling feet,
The mug of cider simmered slow,
The apples sputtered in a row,
And, close at hand, the basket stood
With nuts from brown October's wood.

One of the technological changes taking place in the 19th Century was that stoves were replacing hearths as the primary way of heating homes. They were more efficient and more effective, but commentators feared the decay of family life, which had so often centered around the hearth in the evenings. Who can gather around a stove? And why would they have to, if the stove can make the whole room warm? Their homes heated by stoves, what could there be to keep families together? It's all sort of quaint and hilarious, but also familiar, if you read excerpts from some of these writings (and I'm sorry I don't have some for you; it's in my brain from some old piece of criticism I read a long time ago). It seems there is always something threatening to atomize the nuclear family. A few years ago I read a book about the Schoolroom Poets of the 19th and early 20th century (appropriately enough, the book is called Schoolroom Poets). One of the arguments of the book is that the notion that an educated child ought to be able to recite poetry by heart is one of the things that paved the way for free verse to become the dominant poetic form in the 20th century. Whittier was a prominent Schoolroom Poet, along with Lowell, Longfellow, and some other guys I don't remember right now. Their poetry was perfect for memorization: strongly rhythmical and tightly rhymed. No assonance for these boys, by golly! Here's Longfellow. Listen to the absolutely inflexible marching rhythm here; and is there any rhyme more pure than the single syllables he ends all these lines with?

Under a spreading chestnut tree
The village smithy stands;
The smith, a mighty man is he,
with large and sinewy hands;
And the muscles of his brawny arms
are strong as iron bands.

(Why do I know that? Does Laura's little sister Carrie Ingalls recite it at the school exhibition in whichever Little House book that is? Some book I read over and over as a child featured a character saying those first four lines nervously over and over. In any case, can't you just see some cute little 8-year-old standing by her desk reciting that?)

Anyway, I have often seen the rise of free verse attributed to Whitman, who pretty much invented it and showed what it could do (free verse does not have to have either rhyme or meter, though our former poet laureate Robert Pinsky argues in The Sounds of Poetry that the iambic pentameter is so fundamental to the poetic line in English that it permeates even free verse in unexpected ways. Still: free verse, no set rhyme or meter). But the author of Schoolroom Poets argues that the imposition of memorization on children created in the generation that came of age in the 20th century an association of strong rhyme and meter with immaturity. So poets and readers turned away from childish-seeming metrical verse, to something that seemed more mature, and more modern. Again, we get the theme of a time and a culture passing away, though this time it's a deliberate turning forward and away from the past, away from a poet like Whittier who is associated with childhood schoolrooms and who is a bridge to an even earlier time that looks ever more benighted to the modern sensibility. Hence, free verse.

Ten years ago, I wrote a good paper on Walt Whitman and thought about turning it into a master's thesis. But then I had a baby, and got kind of busy and didn't do that. Another reason I didn't do it is my advisor wanted me to do Whittier, too, and I just never loved Whittier. I should have listened to my advisor, though, because when I did some reading on Whittier for this ARE program, a kind of interesting guy emerged. The poetry is still pedestrian; the word "doggerel" wants to force itself upon one's consciousness as one reads. But Whittier the man: very interesting. His biographers believe he was celibate his whole life and died a virgin. And yet he had many flirtations with women, and was known for stringing them along and taking gifts from them, leading them to believe something might happen which never did. One biographer kept saying, "If he were a woman, they'd have called him a coquette." Look at this face: a flirt, really? A coquette? So hard to believe. And yet so they say. Whittier was also tirelessly politically active. He was an ardent abolitionist (in this, we modern Quakers can embrace him, whereas we have to bear our disappointment in our beloved Walt Whitman, he of the so-very-superior poetry and the distressingly retrograde opinions on abolition and equality between the races). Whittier was deeply involved in politics, often exerting a great deal of influence from behind the scenes; he worked tirelessly to elect abolitionist candidates and served in the legislature himself. Here's a broadside he wrote for the cause: Am I Not a Man and a Brother?

This is all probably much more than you ever wanted to know about John Greenleaf Whittier (though if you come to ARE at Red Cedar Friends Meeting on February 27 you will learn more! Or maybe you'll just hear all this again. But we'll read more of his poetry). But I will end by saying that sometimes, in his poems about Quakerism, he gets at something that rises above doggerel and feels like he is saying something I recognize, putting an experience into words. His poem The Meeting is about bringing a friend to Quaker worship; I like the friend's palpable relief when the silent worship ends, and his incredulous questions. "What part have you," his friend asks, "in these dull rites of drowsy-head?" "Dull rites of drowsy-head" indeed; who has not dozed during Quaker meeting?

I like Whittier's answer. It's long, but listen to this little excerpt. This is the very essence of Quaker worship, I think:

And so I find it well to come
For deeper rest to this still room,
For here the habit of the soul
Feels less the outer world's control;
The strength of mutual purpose pleads
More earnestly our common needs;
And from the silence multiplied
By these still forms on either side,
The world that time and sense have known
Falls off and leaves us God alone.

(note: I was being hyperbolic when I said "no assonance for these guys." The not-quite-rhyme of "come" and "room" is an example of slant, or half, rhyme. Which is not assonance, per se, since assonance depends on the vowel sounds, but is still not perfect rhyme, either.)

Anticipation

I'm really excited about leading my Song of Myself workshop at the FGC Gathering next week. This will be the fourth time I've done it; twice previously at Gathering and once for a group in my monthly meeting. I love reading the poem again--it's like a favorite old movie, I find myself all excited thinking about when we get that that part--and that other part--and then the one part that....

It's also a mystery, doing this. My system is to simply read the poem together; we read it aloud, stopping at the ends of the 52 numbered sections, and then discussing what we've read, asking and answering questions. It's a big poem and the whole world is in there (dinosaurs, even!), and what rises to the top for any group depends on who's there. One year, I had someone very versed in scripture, for instance, and from him we got a lot of insight into scriptural echoes. Or there might be someone who knows a lot of 19th-century or Civil War history, or who is familiar with other poetry written during the same era, or who knows more about Whitman's biography than I do, or who knows very well the Eastern religious texts that had recently been translated for the first time and were lighting Western thinkers on fire.

Much also depends on what happens in the room as we read, which is always unpredictable. One year, my group got to the end of section 45 and was so moved to be at that place that we stopped and re-read the section chorally, in unison, and then just sat there in stunned, emotional, worshipful silence together. Here's some of it:

I open my scuttle at night and see the far-sprinkled systems,
And all I see multiplied as high as I can cipher edge but the rim of the farther systems.

Wider and wider they spread, expanding, always expanding,
Outward and outward and forever outward.

My sun has his sun and round him obediently wheels,
He joins with his partners a group of superior circuit,
And greater sets follow, making specks of the greatest inside them.

There is no stoppage and never can be stoppage,
If I, you, and the worlds, and all beneath or upon their surfaces,
were this moment reduced back to a pallid float, it would not avail the long run,
We should surely bring up again where we now stand,
And surely go as much farther, and then farther and farther.

A few quadrillions of eras, a few octillions of cubic leagues, do not hazard the span or make it impatient,
They are but parts, any thing is but a part.

See ever so far, there is limitless space outside of that,
Count ever so much, there is limitless time around that.

My rendezvous is appointed, it is certain,
The Lord will be there and wait till I come on perfect terms,
The great Camerado, the lover true for whom I pine will be there.

My rendezvous is appointed, it is certain,

The Lord will be there and wait till I come on perfect terms,

The great Camerado, the lover true for whom I pine will be there.

Gives me shivers.

So the next time I led the workshop, I couldn't wait until we got to this piece! And people would be amazed and moved! I quivered with anticipation.

And the group blew right past it. It just didn't particularly speak to their condition.

That group, on the other hand, went nutso for the sex parts (this was also the group that really went deep into the scriptural references--what a great week that was. My ignorance of scripture is vast, so I learned a lot). They thought section 28, in which the poet's "other senses" abandon their sentry posts and leave him at the mercy of "villain touch" was absolutely the best description of sexual abandon and orgasm they'd ever heard, and they really wanted to talk about it:

The sentries desert every other part of me,
They have left me helpless to a red marauder,
They all come to the headland to witness and assist against me.

I am given up by traitors,
I talk wildly, I have lost my wits, I and nobody else am the greatest traitor,
I went myself first to the headland, my own hands carried me there.

You villain touch! what are you doing? my breath is tight in its throat,
Unclench your floodgates, you are too much for me.

"Unclench your floodgates," indeed. Walt, you sexy old guy.

There's always a day when we end in the darkest part of the poem, where the poet has let himself get caught up in the contemplation of evil, and feels lost, degraded, hopeless. He sees himself imprisoned, impoverished, ill to the verge of death; he feels himself united in every sufferer:

For me the keepers of convicts shoulder their carbines and keep watch,
It is I let out in the morning and barr'd at night.

Not a mutineer walks handcuff'd to jail but I am handcuff'd to him and walk by his side,

(I am less the jolly one there, and more the silent one with sweat on my twitching lips.)

Not a youngster is taken for larceny but I go up too, and am tried and sentenced.

Not a cholera patient lies at the last gasp but I also lie at the last gasp,

My face is ash-color'd, my sinews gnarl, away from me people retreat.

Askers embody themselves in me and I am embodied in them,
I project my hat, sit shame-faced, and beg.

I don't plan for us to end a day's session at that point, but somehow we always do. And as the group shuffles out, discouraged, cloud-covered, hag-ridden, I call out after them desperately, "It gets better! We're not stuck here! Trust me!" The next morning, they are impatient to get started, to hear the poet's next words:

Enough! Enough! Enough!

I think it's good to break there; it's only 10 lines from the poet as degraded beggar to the resurrection ("the grave of rock multiplies what has been confided to it, or to any graves/ corpses rise, gashes heal, fastenings roll from me."), and it's possible to come up for air too quickly, to dash past the dark place the poet has led us to. It's good to carry it for an afternoon and evening.

I could go on and on--about 85% of the poem falls into "OMG I love this part!" territory for me. And that's really why I lead the workshop, because it's a chance to inveigle 20 or so people into listening to the poem, to all the parts I love so much, and I get to see them fall in love with it, too (and get angry at it and frustrated at Walt and suffer from bafflement and all the other things that always happen alongside the loving it part), and sometimes--always, at some point during the week--the thing they fall in the love with and the ways they love it illuminate the poem in a new way for me, and it becomes a new poem and I love it even more.

Stop this day and night with me [says our Walt] and you shall possess the origin of all poems,
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.