Webworks

  • The Virginia Quarterly Review
    "The Mutable Past," a memoir collected in FANTASEERS, A BOOK OF MEMORIES by Lewis Turco of growing up in the 1950s in Meriden, Connecticut, (Scotsdale AZ: Star Cloud Press, 2005).
  • The Tower Journal
    Two short stories, "The Demon in the Tree" and "The Substitute Wife," in the spring 2009 issue of Tower Journal.
  • The Michigan Quarterly Review
    This is the first terzanelle ever published, in "The Michigan Quarterly Review" in 1965. It has been gathered in THE COLLECTED LYRICS OF LEWIS TURCO/WESLI COURT, 1953-2004 (www.StarCloudPress.com).
  • The Blue Moon Review
    “Blues for George Gershwin.”
  • The Aroostook Review
    An interview, some poems, and an Xmas card with the printmaker George O'Connell.
  • Poetry Porch
    Three poems by Wesli Court in Poetry Porch, Spring 2009, "Basso Profundo, A Carol," "A Paternal Curse," and "The Shade."
  • Poetry from East to West
    Two poems, "Columbian Ode" and "Sestina" by Wesli Court
  • Ploughshares
    "The Man in the Booth" (story); "Vigilance," "Joseph Carr," "Brontophobia" (poems).
  • Per Contra, Spring 2009
    Two poems by Wesli Court, one for Yeats' Birthday and the other for Joyce's Bloomsday.
  • Per Contra, Fall 2008
    A short story, "Moving Day."
  • Per Contra Spring 2009 Light Verse Supplement
    Three sonnets and a "Calendar of [37 literary] Epitaphs" by "Wesli Court" in the first Per Contra Light Verse Supplement published on April Fool Day 2009.
  • Nightsandweekends.com
    "The Secret Name," "Erda," "Salt," "The Prison," "The Chair," "Kelly," "One Sunday Morning," "Matinee," "The Bath," "Dinny O'Toole's Fortune," "The Catalog Idea," "An Incident at Callahan's," "The Laugher," "The Great Collapse" (short-stories); "A Nest of In-Laws" (memoir).
  • Mipoesias
    "Acousticophobia," "Agoraphobia," two poems from "A Book of Fears" (collected in FEARFUL PLEASURES: THE COMPLETE POEMS OF LEWIS TURCO 1959-2007, www.StarCloudPress.com).
  • McSweeney’s Internet Tendency
    Two sestinas, "The Vision" and "Tsunami."
  • KUSP Santa Cruz radio interview reprise
    Reading and discussion during the reunion -- after forty-six years -- of three poets: Morton Marcus, Vern Rutsala, and Lewis Turco, who were classmates at the Iowa Writers' Workshop in 1959-60, hosted by Dennis Morton.
  • Italian American Writers
    Six poems from A BOOK OF FEARS, winner of the first annual Bordighera Bi-Lingual Poetry Award, "Erratophobia," "Papyrophobia," "Monophobia," "Amathophobia," "Chronophobia," "Ambiguphobia," (collected in FEARFUL PLEASURES: THE COMPLETE POEMS OF LEWIS TURCO 1959-2007, www.StarCloudPress.com).
  • Inkpot #63, Classical Music Reviews
    "Blues for George Gershwin"
  • Google Book Search
    Excerpts from THE BOOK OF DIALOGUE, HOW TO WRITE EFFECTIVE CONVERSATION IN FICTION, SCREENPLAYS, DRAMA, AND POETRY by Lewis Turco (University Press of New England, 2004), A companion volume to The Book of Forms and The Book of Literary Terms.
  • Google Book Search
    Excerpts from VISIONS AND REVISIONS OF AMERICAN POETRY by Lewis Turco, winner of the Melville Cane Award of the Poetry Society of America (University of Arkansas Press, 1986).
  • Google Book Search
    Excerpts from THE BOOK OF LITERARY TERMS: THE GENRES OF FICTION, DRAMA, NONFICTION, LITERARY CRITICISM AND SCHOLARSHIP by Lewis Turco, A Choice “Outstanding academic title” for 2000. A companion volume to The Book of Dialogue and The Book of Forms (University Press of New England, 1999).

Lynx

My Photo

Good Books

  • Alfred Nicol, Editor: The Powow River Anthology
  • Alice L. Teeter: String Theory
  • Anthony Taylor Dunn: Sunbathing on the Bottom of the Atlantic
  • Ben Doller: FAQ
  • Christian Nguyen Langworthy : The Geography of War
  • Daniel Hoffman: Zone of the Interior, A Memoir
  • David Sacks: Language Visible: Unraveling the Mystery of the Alphabet from A to Z
  • Geraldine Cannon: Glad Wilderness
  • Jasper Fforde: The Well of Lost Plots
  • Kathrine Varnes: The Paragon
Blog powered by TypePad
Mobilise this Blog

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Turco Shots

  • Mathom_bookshop
    Lewis Turco at the 40th birthday of the Oswego Creative Writing Program

My Online Status

July 08, 2009

What It All Meant

 

The sluggard was so stupid he didn’t know what movement.

The sailor was so stupid he didn’t know what shipment.

The undertaker was so stupid he didn’t know what bereavement.

The tailor was so stupid he didn’t know what measurement.

The policeman was so stupid he didn’t know what entrapment.

The woodsman was so stupid he didn’t know what encampment.

The guest was so stupid he didn’t know what department.

The general was so stupid he didn’t know what enforcement.

The garage mechanic was so stupid he didn’t know what retirement.

 

The realtor was so simple she didn’t know what allotment.

The makeup artist was so simple she didn’t know what defacement.

The seamstress was so simple she didn’t know what disfigurement

The nurse was so simple she didn’t know what implement.

The actress was so simple she didn’t know what engagement.

The cook was so simple she didn’t know what derangement.

The divorcee was so simple she didn’t know what apartment.

 

The contractor was so stupid he didn’t know what improvement.

The French eradicator was so simple he didn’t know what rapprochement.

The Selective Service administrator was so stupid he didn’t know what enlistment.

The musician was so simple he didn’t know what arrangement.

The shepherd was so stupid he didn’t know what abutment.

The medical student was so stupid he didn’t know what internment. The sexton was so simple he didn’t know what interment.

The trapper was so stupid he didn’t know what deferment.

The quiz show host was so stupid he didn’t know what bafflement.

The photographer was so stupid he didn’t know what enlargement.

The novelist was so stupid he didn’t know what entitlement.

The essayist was so stupid he didn’t know what contentment.

The fisherman was so slow he didn’t know what abatement.

The madam was so stupid she didn’t know what procurement.

The poet was so stupid he didn’t know what amusement.

The games maker was so stupid he didn’t know what amazement.

The farmer was so slow he didn’t know what appeasement. The Scotsman was so dumb he didn’t know what monument.

The sea captain was so dull he didn’t know what deportment.

 

The kennel owner was so foolish she didn’t know what curtailment.

The dissatisfied boss was so gaga he didn’t know what unemployment.

The messy secretary was so out of it she didn’t know what defilement.

The fired worker was so inexperienced she didn’t know what discernment.

Her boyfriend was so inexperienced he didn’t know what entanglement.

The architect was so dumb he didn’t know what pediment.

The obstructionist was so stupid he didn’t know what impediment.

The trespasser was so dull he didn’t know what encroachment.

The cane grower was so gross he didn’t know what refinement.

The novice teacher was so callow she didn’t know what assignment.

The seer was so inept he didn’t know what assignment.

The artist was so untalented he didn’t know what alignment.

The garageman was so stupid he didn’t know what alignment.

The makeup artist was so inept she didn’t know what lineament.

The trainer was so dumb he didn’t know what liniment.

The sports doctor was so stupid he didn’t know what medicament.

The owner of the team was so raw he didn’t know what emolument.

The successful athlete was so new he didn’t know what endorsement.

The siren was so modest she didn’t know what allurement.

Merlin was so young he didn’t know what entrancement,

And neither did the new arrival.

 

July 06, 2009

Defining "Free Verse"

Walt

         Robert Wallace begins the first paragraph of his essay, "Meter in English" (in Meter in English, q.v. bibliography, below) with an assertion that others have made before him: "The difference that distinguishes verse from prose or speech is the unit of line."  Not so.  Much more than merely the existence of "lines" in the genre of "poetry" distinguishes verse from prose, the only modes of language in which any genre (fiction, drama, poetry) may be written.

         Wallace begins his second paragraph with another disputable sentence: "In free verse, the units of line are or appear arbitrary, that is, relatively unpredictable."  What I object to here is the use of the undefined term "free verse," as though such a term makes sense, for, to reiterate, there are only two modes in which any genre can be written, prose and verse.  Prose is unmetered language; verse is metered language.

         If Wallace wishes to take exception to this definition, he should direct his remarks to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary which notes as the first definition of prose, "The ordinary form of written or spoken language, without metrical structure" [emphasis added].  Similarly, the first definition of verse in the OED is, "A succession of words arranged according to natural or recognized rules of prosody and forming a complete metrical line [emphasis added]."  The first definition of metre, "To compose or put into metre," according to the Oxford, is obsolete; the second is, "To compose verses; to versify."  Wallace, like many traditional prosodists, seems to have forgotten that the term "free verse" came to us in the twentieth century from the nineteenth-century French vers libre, but adopting a foreign term does not rewrite history, nor change the definitions in our dictionaries.  As to the concept of "line" rather than "meter" being primary in the recognition of "verse," nowhere in the OED can one find that verse means "a line of language," only that a verse may mean "one of the lines of a poem or piece of versification."

         Wallace didn't even bother to try to define the term upon which his essay is built, nor has anyone had success in conventionally defining the term "free verse." The point I make in The Book of Forms (q.v. bibliography) is that "poetry" is a genre, with fiction, drama, and the various nonfiction genres (autobiography, travelogue, epistles, journalism, and so forth), whereas "verse" is a mode, like prose, and, again, any of the genres may be written in either of the modes.  We are victims of the traditional Anglo-American cultural bias that poetry must be written in verse or it isn't poetry (the terms "verse" and "poetry" are often confused), and that bias clouds our judgment just as it clouded that of the French, forcing them to come up with definitions that transform prose modes into verse modes — hence vers libre / "free verse," which is clearly a contradiction in terms: how can "verse" be "free" if it must (according to dictionary denotations) be "metrical"?

         Anyone who reads the Bible can tell that prose poems have existed from the beginnings of history.  Anyone can prove by scanning (if one knows how to scan: see "the Rules of Scansion" in The Book of Forms, Third Edition) nearly any piece of English prose that it consists primarily of iambic and anapestic rhythms, not meters, for Whitman was not counting syllables in his prose poems, though the parallel grammatical structures of his prosody certainly did provide repeating rhythms, as The Book of Forms discusses.  We know when Whitman was writing metrical poems, which he did early in his career and when he wrote "O Captain, My Captain," because the verse lines are apparent on the page, and one can count the strict lengths of the accentual-syllabic verses.  This brings up another point: the mere act of scanning prose does not turn that prose into verse.  Verse is verse only by virtue of the fact that the maker of the verses counted the syllables, stresses, and/or verse feet in discrete lines.

         Why do traditionalists insist that poetry in English must be written in some sort of "verse" or it isn't poetry?  And why do they have to justify line-phrased prose as verse?  The answer is simple: given the former bias, the latter is a requirement if prose works are to be allowed into the poetic canon.  Perhaps if we plow a few rows with everyone's exemplar, Walt Whitman, we can illuminate this discussion of "lineation" and "verses."  As I type I have beside me several editions of Whitman's Leaves of Grass.  Let's here set down the first few "lines" of that "poem," together with the poet's own line counts, first from the edition of 1855:

[1]

I celebrate myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

 

I loafe and invite my soul,

I lean and loafe at my ease....observing a spear of summer grass.     5

 

[2]

Houses and rooms are full of perfumes....the shelves are crowded

         with perfumes,

 

I breathe the fragrance myself, and know it and like it,

the distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it.

 

The atmosphere is not a perfume....it has no taste of the

         distillation....it is odorless,

 

It is for my mouth forever....I am in love with it,                            10

I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised and naked,

I am mad for it to be in contact with me.


         Now, what are the "lines" of this passage?  Where, for instance, does line 6 end, with the word "crowded" or with "perfumes"?  If with the former, then Whitman's "line 10" is really line 12.  What caused Whitman (who was his own printer) to curl line six over?  Why, right-hand justification, of course, just as though it were prose.  The page wasn't wide enough to print the clause all in one line.  Can this be proven?  Certainly.  Here is line six of the same poem (only now titled "Walt Whitman") from the third edition (1860-61):

         Houses and rooms are full of perfumes—the shelves

                  are crowded with perfumes,...

Why does the "line" now break after "shelves" rather than after "crowded"?  Because the pages are narrower in this edition, therefore the right-hand justification required that this prose sentence break elsewhere.  Here is the same passage from the edition of 1900:

         Houses and rooms are full of perfumes—the shelves are

                  crowded with perfumes,...

Francis Murphy's edition of The Complete Poems breaks this passage of the protean poem in the same place, but now it is line 14, as it is in some of the other editions published during Whitman's life.

         What constitutes the Whitmanian "line," then, at least in the poet's own view?  Clauses, generally independent clauses.  Meter has nothing to do with it, nor has "versification" of any known kind.  Line one is an independent clause; so are lines two and three and all the rest of the lines of this passage.  They are linked independent clauses in parallel constructions.  One can see the parallelism by running one's eye down the left-hand margin of the poem.

         Now, if we scan the "Song of Myself," what will we find?  We will find iambs and anapests randomly, except where the parallels require that the same rhythms appear in approximately the same order.  This is not versifying; these are not meters.  Although "lineation" is taking place, it is not typographical "lineation" but grammatical lineation.  If we want Whitman's prose poem to look even more like a "traditional" verse-mode poem, we may line-phrase it further, in the manner of William Carlos Williams, by breaking the clauses into phrases:

                  I celebrate myself,

                  and what I assume

                  you shall assume,

                  For every atom

                  belonging to me

                  as good belongs to you.

Have we made this poem any more of a "poem" by doing this?  Is it any more "verse" than it was before?  Have we hurt the poem or helped it?  We have done no more to it than draw attention to it for a specific purpose.  By the way, did Whitman use the term "free verse"?  Certainly not, as it didn't exist in English at the time.  He knew he was writing prose poems.

         Until someone else can establish a "convention" for free verse — that is to say, a definition that most users of the English language can agree with, "free verse" will not, in fact, exist except as a confusing term.  Despite the fact that we have been using it for most of a century, there is no reason for anyone, at this juncture, to jump on the free verse bandwagon and define it as anything but prose, whether "lineated" or not.

         Wallace nevertheless elsewhere in the opening section of his essay continues to treat the term "free verse" as though such a convention actually exists.  He writes, "Reading or hearing unmetered verse...we are not aware of any fixed or predictable pattern."  Does the term unmetered verse make sense in terms of the OED definition?  "In free verse, there will of course be natural patterns and probably significant repetitions of them, but we have no particular sense of predictability or expectation."  What does Wallace mean by natural patterns?  Is this term the same as his other neologism, "speech-run"?

         Wallace also refers to "free verse" as "the predominant verse form in the twentieth century."  Is prose a verse form?  One had thought that the term referred to such things as sonnets, sestinas, or villanelles.  Does he mean that prose has become the predominant mode for writing poetry in the twentieth century?  I can agree with that statement, but the "forms" of prose used in modern poetry are the forms of grammatical parallelism (synonymous, synthetic, antithetic, and climactic parallels) to be found in Whitman and the Bible (and in The Book of Forms).

         In the early chapters of his book Free Verse Charles O. Hartman (q.v. bibliography) talks about the necessity for "conventions" in poetics and prosodics.  He reviews the various prosodies and the inappropriate application of the concept of "isochrony," or musical time, to English poetry. Hartman spends all of his chapter three telling the reader that no one agrees on a definition of "free verse”; then, in chapter four, ignoring what he has just written, Hartman talks about English poetry primarily in terms of isochrony and begins to come up with yet another definition of "free verse" that I for one cannot even understand.

         Let me be specific.  Hartman writes, "A meter is a prosody whose mode of organization is numerical." Certainly not.  A meter is a meter; a prosody is a prosody; to wit: a prosody is any system for writing the genre of poetry (OED); there are verse systems and prose systems: verse and prose are modes.  Some examples of verse systems are accentual verse, syllabic verse, and accentual-syllabic verse (although Wallace does not believe that the first two of these exist).

         Within these prosodies there are various specific meters; for instance, within accentual prosody there can be a meter called dipodics; in syllabics, decasyllabics; in accentual-syllabics, anapestic trimeter (Wallace denies that any of these things exist).  An example of a prose prosody is grammatic parallelism, as in the Bible.

         There are many of Hartman's and Wallace's scansions with which I do not agree, nor do I see how many others could agree with them.  For instance, Hartman distinguishes between two lines: "Shivering in their beds in November's wind" and "Shiver in their beds in November's wind." But in fact the two lines scan exactly the same way: "Shiv'ring" is an elision — who, except perhaps for Wallace, who does not believe in elision, either, pronounces it with three syllables?  Therefore, "Shiver" is a trochee also, and the line looks like this in both versions: ´x | .x | ´x | x´ | x´ — there are three trochees in the line, so it is trochaic pentameter both ways standing on its own, but in an iambic pentameter poem both lines would be headless iambic — (x)´ | x. | x´ | xx´ | x´ — with a promotion in the second foot and an anapest substitution in the fourth foot.

         Hartman scans some Hopkins lines, but in the "dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in (secondary stress by promotion) his riding" sequence he doesn't stress dawn or drawn, even though they are sprung with alliteration and rhyme; he doesn't show the promotion of in, and he doesn't show the stress in riding, which any pronouncing dictionary will indicate.  The same is true in the following line, where the un in "underneath" is obviously accented, as is the first syllable of steady.  In the next line, "there" takes a rhetorical stress; "how" takes an alliterative stress, and the second syllable of upon is normally stressed.  I simply have no idea what Hartman is talking about here in his discussion of Hopkins' prosody.

         Hartman's scansion of Morris' poem is equally baffling to me.  No matter how one pronounces "Gradually," whether with four syllables or three (a w-glide elision on dua), one of the normally unstressed syllables in "...dually in the" is going to be promoted — I hear it on the y.  Ditto in the following line: one of the syllables in "That are out..." must be promoted if they are all normally unstressed, but in fact out in "outlasting" takes a primary stress, according to my dictionary, which also shows that the dis in "disappear" takes a primary stress.  The reader may check any pronouncing dictionary to confirm these assertions.

         At the beginning of chapter three Hartman asks, "Why is poetry usually written in verse?"  It isn't.  If he had said "English language" poetry, the question might have been appropriate, but the poetries of many cultures are, and always have been, written in prose, which was the first mode for poetry beginning with Gilgamesh and continuing through the "Song of Songs" and the Psalms.  In English Christopher Smart, William Blake, Martin Farquhar Tupper and Edgar Allan Poe wrote prose poetry before Whitman did.  Even Euphues is more poem than novel.

         Hartman wrote further, "Though isochronous prosody only marginally belongs to poetry — its natural home is in song — the lines of distinction are not always easy to draw. " ***  "...Once words give up the rhythmic support of music...the temporal prosody becomes one of two meters.  In a stress-oriented language [like English], it becomes accentual meter."  Hartman goes on then to mis-scan the Morris poem mentioned earlier and to discuss accentual meter, but five pages later he talks as though isochrony were applicable to English, which it is not, as he himself had just finished pointing out.

         On page 64 Hartman talked about "counterpoint between accentual isochrony and lineation," which sounded as though it might be an interesting idea, but he discussed it in terms of some lines from W. C. Williams' "The Dance."  Hartman maintained that the first and last lines, which are identical, "In Breughel's great picture, The Kermess," "...is so clearly a line."

         But it isn't!  Without a gloss, how does the ordinary reader pronounce "Kermess," with the stress on the first syllable?

         In Breughel's great picture, '' The Kermess

or on the second?

         In Breughel's great picture, '' The Kermess

Hartman gives no scansion, and a standard dictionary is of no help.  If the word is pronounced the first way, then it is a stich of Anglo-Saxon prosody with the caesura out of place, and it's a poor line for that reason; if it is pronounced the second way it scans x´ | x´ | ´x |.x |´ (x), starting out iambically and shifting  to trochees, and it's still a bad line rhythmically.  The "tweedle of bagpipes" line is a good line, but it's also obviously a perfect line of Anglo-Saxon prosody, including alliteration, and that's why we like it, not because it is "anacrustic" and so forth, as Hartman maintains.

         At least here Hartman is talking about "counterpoint" as something rhythmical.  I understand the term to mean more specifically variations, including substitutions, in an accentual-syllabic poem, as I have written in The Book of Forms.  One has also heard of "eye counterpoint," which is spatial — I was the first to use this term, I believe, as applied to verse, and Hartman uses it as well although he, like others — including the so-called "New Formalists" and Wallace — doesn't cite, or even mention, any edition of The Book of Forms, which was first published in 1968, long before Hartman's book, or any neoformalist volume, was published.  "Eye counterpoint" has to do with the placement of lines on the page, and perhaps Hartman was trying to work the two ideas together somehow, but he wrote, "These shifting relations between syntax [my emphasis] and linear isochrony constitute the poem's prosody." That is opaque for these reasons:

         1)  Hartman had earlier said that isochrony is not really applicable to accentual or accentual-syllabic prosody.

         2) He had talked about "counterpoint" in terms of meter, and perhaps worked it along to a consideration of something like "eye-counterpoint" in his discussion of "lineation," a term out of art, not out of literature, according to the OED.  Here, however, Hartman is getting into matters of sentence structure as well.  By the time the reader reaches page 72 Hartman has left the concept of counterpoint as a rhythmic device well behind and he is talking about "the counterpoint of lineation and syntax alone."

         By the time we have arrived at this point Hartman has completely lost me and, I am sure, nearly everyone who cares about verse writing or even prosodics.  Hartman is nowhere near establishing a "convention" regarding "free verse," nor even a reasonable definition of it.  Wallace in his essay attempts a finesse by not trying to establish a definition but simply acting as though one exists.  My own definition has the advantage of simplicity and is easily defended: verse is metered language, and prose is unmetered language.  The OED definition of these terms is the same.

 

WORKS CITED

 

David Baker, editor, Meter in English, A Critical Engagement, Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1997

Charles O. Hartman, Free Verse, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1980.

Lewis Turco, The Book of Forms: A Handbook of Poetics, Lebanon NH: University Press of New England, 2000.TBOF

——. The Public Poet, Ashland: Ashland Poetry Press, 1991.Public Poet 1

Walt Whitman, The Complete Poems, ed. Francis Murphy, New York: Penguin, 1975.

——. Leaves of Grass: The First (1855) Edition, ed. Malcolm Cowley, London: Secker and Warburg, 1959.

——. Leaves of Grass, Boston: Thayer and Eldridge, 1860-61.

——. Leaves of Grass, Philadelphia: David McKay, 1900.


REMARKS

Excellent essay, Lew! I've printed it out to read again, more slowly and carefully. Thanks!

Love,

Rhina


Lewis,

Enjoyed reading this on your site. I tend to put the term 'free verse' in quotation marks when using it. Maybe now just I'll stop saying it altogether. I must say that 'accentual-syllabic' is still a mystery for me; I thought I understood it clearly until I read Mary Kinzie's version of it. What do you think of her Poet's Guide? It seems to me an odd mixture of the simplistic and the abstruse! (Besides having a great many typos.) But there is much that is helpful.

Marta Finch

 

Marta,

I haven’t seen Ms. Kinzie’s material. Why do you need anything else if you own The Book of Forms? There’s nothing hard about “accentual-syllabic” prosody. The poet counts, first, all the syllables in the line; then he or she counts the stressed syllables in the line, and finally the poet counts the verse feet in the line. In a perfect line of iambic pentameter verse there will be, first, ten syllables in the line; second, there will be five stressed syllables in the line, and these will alternate regularly with the unstressed syllables, the line beginning with an unstressed syllable, which will yield, third, five iambic verse feet. Of course, there should be variations of one kind or another in the line, but iambs must predominate; that is to say, the iamb must be the running foot, and very few lines should be perfect.

Lew


Lew,

Thanks, that was fast! But you very kindly explained the part I knew. Of course I have read and re-read your book's explanation, and here you make it seem very simple. But it isn't. What throws me is when there are 13 syllables in a line and it can only properly be scanned as pentameter; or, conversely, when a line of only 9 (or even 8) syllables must be. If a 10-syllable line has 6 strong stresses, is it still a pentameter line? And is that what makes it accentual-syllabic? Or is it what I would have thought — just a poor line? (Yes, I know it depends on the poet/poem, but could it be accentual hexameter?) I'll look for some examples in the next few days and send them to you to perhaps clarify what I'm trying to say. 

Marta

 

Marta,

I described a PERFECT line of iambic pentameter verse. But I also said, "Of course, there should be variations of one kind or another in the line, but iambs must predominate; that is to say, the iamb must be the running foot, and very few lines should be perfect." So in any iambic pentameter line as variations there may be up to two other kinds of feet. If you substitute two three-syllable feet, say two anapests for two iambs, the syllable count will be twelve, not ten, but iambs will still PREDOMINATE, and it will still be an iambic pentameter line, though with two variations. If your line contains thirteen syllables, it's not likely to be an iambic line because there will be three variations, and odd feet will predominate. Similarly, the only way that an iambic pentameter line can contain six stressed syllables is by substituting a spondee for an iamb, which one can do in the first foot (very unlikely anywhere else). Contrarily, if one drops an unaccented syllable somewhere, most likely in the first foot (a "headless" line), the syllable count will be nine, not ten, but it will still be an iambic line, and what is most important is that there be five verse feet in the line. ALL THIS IS IN The Book of Forms, Third Edition on pages 37-43.

Lew 

July 01, 2009

Rhyme, Meter, and Poetry for Children

 

Poets seldom write rhymed and metered poetry anymore, as there seems to be no future in it at the moment — it is [in 1976] out of fashion.  But if we think about the situation for a moment it might occur to us that children, who are the future, want no part of poems that aren't rhymed and metered.

How many of us haven't read at least one book about teaching poetry to children that makes such points as these: Poetry is that which is washed out of children by education; education, including the learning of metrics, is responsible for killing poetry; therefore, we ought not to force children to learn the techniques of versification, because poetry is a spontaneous activity — whatever children write is the stuff of poetry?

If that is so, why do children demand nursery rhymes still?  Why [did] my three-year-old son love to sway to the heavy beat of rock and roll?  Why do all pop songs still rhyme and meter?  How is it that the "now" generation wants to write unmetered poems while their PR men make vast claims that the songwriters are the new, true poets of the age, and that formal poetry is dead as a doormat?  If that makes sense, then I don't know what doesn't.

Something's really wrong here, and I think I know what it is: We are the victims of propaganda — all of us except the children.  The propaganda serves the purposes of people who have tin ears but want to write poetry anyhow.  It's a very simple thing to tell when a rhymed, metered poem is a failure, much more difficult when there is no rhythmic structure against which to measure the ineptitudes of the would-be poets who can't make the English language do what they want it to do.  It's all very democratic — if poetry is treated as the subjective welling-up of the unconscious, then the results can only be judged subjectively, and no one is a failure, because at least our mothers and our friends will like our literature (or say they do).

I should have said we are all the victims of propaganda except the children and the “rock poets.”  One even wonders if it isn't the rock poets who finance this media blitz, because if people begin writing good metrical verse again, it will immediately become obvious that the tinny effusions of the songsters are written at a very low level of competence.  As long as no one challenges them, people are going to believe they are the last of the old-time bards, these bumpers and grinders.

The best thing that could happen in grade school English lessons would be teaching children the methods used in writing the kinds of poems they most enjoy.  Of course it would be difficult to teach, and to learn.  So is taking piano lessons.  And not all children are going to turn into poets — Muses forbid!  But it wouldn't hurt the young folk to learn something about how to write in their native language and tradition.

"Native language" — there's something wrong with that phrase, too. Nobody has a "native language."  One is not born knowing English or French or Russian or Tagalog.  One learns it.  There is absolutely nothing automatic or "natural" about learning to speak and write.  It is not one's subconscious mind that figures out how to put words together.  A child consciously learns his language by imitation, rote memory, trial and error, and parental correction.  If a poet is one who, as Auden said, "refines the dialect of the tribe," then he or she has learned to do better what the tribe has learned to do well. Learned.

These things are so obvious I blush to say them, but the rock and roll PR and the psychological and sociological educationese are so loud that I must say this, I'm afraid: He or she who is the best poet is that person who has learned best how to say what must be said.

And you can't fool the children.  They are bored by unimaginative writing; by slack writing; by unclear writing.  I don't know how anyone is going to train our poets to be imaginative, but they can certainly be trained to be clear and rhythmic.  Enough, however, about meters and forms and sounds, all of which fascinate children.

I want to say something also about imagination. In 1978 Charlie Davis published my illustrated children's story Murgatroyd and Mabel which had been dismissed years earlier by a well-known juveniles publisher whose editor had not liked my "distortions of reality."  I was told on that occasion, in so many words, that distortion is not regarded as good for children.  Murgatroyd and Mabel is about two caterpillars, one of whom turns into a beautiful butterfly; the other, instead of growing wings, grows a propeller on his nose.

In my reply to the editor I pointed out that, quite to the contrary, distortion is at the heart of much, if not most, good children's literature: Dumbo's ears, for instance; Alice's shrinking, her lengthening neck; the bloodthirsty occurrences in the Oz books with their concomitant distortions of reality; Mickey Mouse wearing pants, speaking, having one too few fingers — fingers at all!  And so forth and so on and on.

Oddly enough, the current crop of young poets have learned very well how to distort reality.  Dugan Gilman, one of the young Wesleyan poets, a few years back came to see me after his first book of poems had been published and gotten good reviews.  Arriving with a new ms. of poems, he told me that he had written his first collection by osmosis, picking up out of the air the neo-surrealism that hung like a "pink fog" (his phrase) over the campuses.  Now, he said, he wanted to learn how to write well.  I read the ms., which was full of formal verses, and I had to tell him I felt he had a long way to go before he could handle meters and rhymes and such bugbears with seeming ease — with artfulness.  He had, I said, gone about the whole thing backwards: He had written a passable book of poetry before he had learned how to write. He had imitated a popular period style, “deep imagism,” and gotten away with it, but if he wished to grow he would have to put his mind to it. I'm afraid he was considerably disillusioned, but it was the truth.  He had two choices: He could go on imitating the poems he had written and their models, or he could learn how to write anything he wanted to write.

I recall, on another occasion, a talented undergraduate poet — who has since turned himself into a director of documentary films for The Learning Channel — coming into my office and showing me the poems he was working on.  I told him his poems sounded like every other neo-surrealist's.  He objected, and I reached for a contemporary anthology.  I had wanted to try this for a long time, and this was my chance: I opened the book at random, took his poem, read a line from it, then read a line from someone else's work; I continued to alternate lines until even he had to admit the two poems were indistinguishable from one another; in fact, they sounded like one poem.  Many years later (in 1983), I had the opportunity to do exactly the same thing in a review of several books:

 

When I tell you I've waked as if in a basement,         

and the windows are open, I can smell roots —

don't do anything, you say, just stand there.

 

Because I said I did and because I never did

I am now someone who has only to imagine

the evenings where the boats dock

and men drink,

 

to live the lie again.

Absurd to sit here chained. They mean

to kill me, to draw their life from mine.

My eyes bulge huge and placid and intent.

My mouth grows wider, deeper, wears a grin.

The circle narrows and I take them in.

 

The first four lines are from "Learning a New Language" by Margaret Gibson in her book Long Walks in the Afternoon; the next five lines are from "Anonymous Meditation" by Jane Miller in The Greater Leisures, and the last five lines are from "Vortex" by Rika Lesser in Etruscan Things.  In order to make up this "found poem" one had to do nothing more than leaf through a few books to find a first-person "I" narrator and select two first strophes and a final one.

The "poem" has a certain feeling of completeness about it, and this is due in part to the Lesser strophe, which ends in an accidentally (?) rhymed couplet.  All these lines except the last three are written in prose made to look like verse by disposing the lines according to phrasing — what W. C. Williams used to call the "breath pause."  But the third-to-last line is written in iambic tetrameter verse — the two kinds of rhythm, prose and verse, are thus "harmonized,” to use A. D. Hope's term.  The last two lines are an iambic pentameter ("heroic") couplet rhymed aa.  Thus, the tetrameter line serves as a bridge to the heroic couplet, in which the expectation of completion set by the meter is juxtaposed with the preceding prose, much as in the case of Sylvia Plath's "Amnesiac" (see elsewhere on this blog). This expectation is fulfilled, giving a good deal of pleasure, a feeling of climax and cloture (which it also did in the original poem). Nevertheless, the "poem" has a feeling that it has been built by jury-rigging, which indeed it was.  The same feeling is in the originals.

 

Here is another poem constructed in much the same way:

 

Through rain I see huge moonless spaces,

intricate scars in the earth,                                   

a fine thread of water.

Two voices in the clouded space name the planets,

the moon, the earth.

 

Body upon body

flattened by wave-press,

the purple and brown stars

cling to each other in heaps:

the opposite of a Japanese garden,

where a few enduring stones

suggest the significance

of time and distance.

 

I won't wake you.  I am staring

into the dark, making the storm happen.

But if it never breaks?  If all things

must hang in violent equilibrium?

 

I never thought we'd end up

this far north, love.

Cold blue tinge in lieu of heavens.

Quarter moon like chalk on a slate.

 

All of these lines are nearly plain prose, without rhythm except for some accidental approaches to meter, as in strophe three.  The tradition is the backwash of Imagism.  There is, however, very little sense of line "the moon, the earth" has no reason for being a line other than length, perhaps: If it had been appended to the line above, that line would have seemed too long, but this seeming would have been owing entirely to typography, not rhythm.  (Perhaps Charles Olson would have justified it on the basis of "eye-rhythm.")  The same is true for "Body upon body," "suggest the significance," and "this far north, love."

There is very little sense of the poem's architecture, either of overall plan or movement.  No doubt the apologists for "free verse" will be delighted with this state of things, because poetry has now become so democratic that anyone can do it.  The danger in writing poetry in verse mode is simple: The reader can tell almost instantly if the poem is badly written — one can check the meters: do they jingle?  Do they grate?  Are the sounds of the poem trite or inventive?  Is something said poorly or superbly?  But there is little danger in writing prose poems.  Who is going to say whether one of them is badly written?  There are no counterpointing rhythms to bother the ear, not even much punctuation, probably.  Conrad Aiken, late in life, said contemporary poetry is so much "sawdust cornflakes."  Some of these volumes have won prizes; but, truly, how does a "judge" tell that one is better or worse than the other.  How does one go about telling them apart?

The first strophe of the second “found poem" is from "Photograph" by Anthony Petrosky in Jurgis Petraskas; the second is from "Not Stars, Not Fish" by Erika Funkhouser in Natural Affinities. The third is from "Storm Watch" by Celia Gilbert in Bonfire, and the last is from "Rural Delivery" by Charles Simic in Austerities.

Well, if the poets can learn how to distort reality to such a degree that they all sound like one another, perhaps they can learn how to write as well.  There's still time.  Meanwhile, the children continue to like rhythm, chime, and craziness.  The little savages.

I find myself in the way of developing a theory, which I hadn't intended to do when I began this essay: Is it possible that what children respond to on a basic level is all that poets have to work with when they grow up?  And if they, the writers, throw away the sounds, is all they have left to work with distortions of reality, that is to say, language images — metaphors and likenesses and other figures of speech?  Well, if that's so, their poetry will be like a six cylinder car engine hitting on only two cylinders.  The vehicle won't get where it wants to go very well, if it gets there at all.

Here is an anthology of small songs I wrote for my children, Melora and Christopher. The first one is a nursery rhyme written in madsong stanza (see The Book of Forms for a description).  All lines are refrains; the first line is repeated as the fifth; the short lines are incremental refrains, for the speaker makes up his or her own short line couplets by filling in the appropriate animals and their actions:

 

THE LARK

 

Hark! Hark! The lark!

How he doth spark!

         To woo the owl

         The lark must howl.

Hark! Hark! The lark!

 

Hark! Hark! The lark!

How he doth spark!

         To woo the snake

         The lark must shake.

Hark! Hark! The lark!

 

Hark! Hark! The lark!

How he doth spark!

         To woo the worm

         The lark must squirm.

Hark! Hark! The lark!

 

Hark! Hark! The lark!

How he doth spark!

         To woo the squirrel

         The lark must whirl.

Hark! Hark! The lark!

 

Hark! Hark! The lark!

How he doth spark!

         Would you go on?

         Make up your own.

Hark! Hark! The lark!

 

 

MORTIMER LUMP

 

Bumpitty bumpitty bump,

My name is Mortimer Lump

         I eat out of pans

         And old tin cans

Because I live in a dump, a dump,

Because I live in a dump..

 

Bumpitty bumpitty bump,

My name is Mortimer Lump

         I nibble on seeds

         And dig in the weeds

That grow in the fields in a clump, a clump,

That grow in the fields in a clump.

 

 

THE SINGLE STAIR

 

There once was a single stair

Who wanted to go somewhere,

         So he put on his shoe

         And sailed for Peru —

But he found he was already there!

 

 

ROCKET BY, BABY

 

Rocket by, baby, in your space ship,

When you count down the rocket will zip.

When you blast off, go into free fall,

And off will go baby, cockpit and all.

 

 

BUGS

 

Big Bug, little Bug,

Middle Bug, Beetle,

One named Tweedledum,

Another named Tweedle,

The Third named Sam and he went for a ride

With a pretty little ladybug sitting at his side.

 

 

HAPPY HARRY

 

Happy Harry Hooligan,

Acting like a fool again,

         Kissed a frog

         That sat on a log

And jumped into the pool again.

 

 

TIMOTHY WITHERS

 

Timothy Withers dabbles and dithers

When he goes out to play.

But Timothy Withers blathers and blithers

If it's a nasty day.

 

 

HAIRY PIGS

 

Three little pigs,

They lost their wigs

         And couldn't go to the barber,

So they bought some wool

For the barber to pull

         And jumped into the harbor.

 

 

PIRATE SONG

 

By jingo, by Joe, by gee,

I think I'll go to sea.

         I'll set my sail

         Abaft of the rail,

A binnacle on my knee, by gee,

A binnacle on my knee.

 

By jingo, my gee, by Joe,

I think I'll go below.

         I'll stow my gold

         Down deep in the hold

Because of the winds that blow, by Joe,

Because of the winds that blow.

 

 

SQUIRREL

 

Gosh all hemlock, golly gee,

I've chased a squirrel up a tree!

Gosh all hemlock, golly Joe —

The squirrel's got me by the toe!

 

RELATIVITY

 

Aunty Nat,

She ate a rat.

Since it was large, she grew fat.

She's lost some weight — search the house!

Now she may only eat a mouse.

 

Uncle Larry

Was kind of scary

And couldn’t read the dictionary,

But he had words he loved to toss

At everybody but his boss.

 

Aunty Bette

Tried hard to get

As much as she could gross and net.

She got some lots and land and such,

But moneywise she got not much.


Uncle Allen

Drank a gallon

Of bile and ate an eagle's talon.

He tied a cord around his throat

And tried to fly but couldn't float.

 

Aunty Anne,

Since time began,

Sat drinking in a frying pan.

She drank and drank until she died —

Now Aunty Anne's completely fried.

 

Uncle Dave

Was very brave

And always knew how to behave

Until they shot him from the sky

And now who knows how he may lie.


Uncle Curt,

He got hurt

Playing in the backyard dirt.

We patched him up with webs and clay —

Now Uncle Curt's outdoors all day.


Pretty Aunt Jean

Was very clean

Until she ate a jellybean.

She got it on her yellow dress —

Now Aunty Jean's an awful mess.


Uncle Lou

Just loved to stew

And you should see the fits he threw.

Now he is old and out of sorts

And loves to tend his patch of worts.


         Some other examples of children’s verse may be found in my volume titled, The Collected Lyrics of Lewis Turco / Wesli Court 1953-2004 in the subsection titled “A Choker for Mother Goose,” pp. 184-189.

CollectedLyrics120W

An early version of this essay was originally published in Phantasm, iii:6, issue 18, 1978, pp. 28-29, © 2009 Lewis Turco; all rights reserved.

REMARKS

Such lovely poems.

Marinela Reka, age 12

http://www.marinelareka.com


I'm glad you like them, Marinela. Thank you for writing.

Lewis Turco / Wesli Court


Lew,

Some poets, like Hayden Carruth, became so good at making line breaks that charged the lines that he left it at that and did not work for rhyme. I think Hayden worked metrics to his benefit, though. But yes, poems in The New Yorker are stories with shortened lines. I still see the poet bringing the poem out of the metaphor eventually, but sometimes it comes dangerously close to making a literal point, which certainly isn't what I read poems for. I wonder if New Yorker editors can read a poem the way one listens to good music? You never ask "what" or "why" about something Gustav Mahler wrote or a passage Charlie Parker played? Just because the music and language are much closer in verse than in music doesn't mean they need to be as studied. If you want to know a poem, read it once every day for your lifetime. When you get to the end of your life you will not have to ask what the poem means, but you will also not have an answer if asked. Same with Mahler's symphonies.

          This comes dangerously close to mere wandering. Sorry. I'm warming up to do my regular newspaper column and I am inflicting my pre-writing roaming through ideas on my friends.

John Herrmann


John,

I don't think that poems have to "mean" something, but they ought to sound like something, I think. What does "Happy Harry" or "Hairy Pigs," above, mean? They mean what they sound like.

Lew


Sure. Meaning is overrated in a lot of language exchanges. You say, with force, "I love you" and you sit with your arms folded over your chest, closing off the other. So which do we believe, the statement or the body language?

But — we are in an age of self-help books, deluged with information.

Information is good. Information can save your life, like if you are a skydiver looking for the little label on a handle that says PULL. But poetry is the blossoming of the chute and it is what really saves you. Not the chute, the blossoming of it.

John


Do you know John Ciardi’s book How Does a Poem Mean?

Lew


Thanks, Lew. 

I agree that the fashion in children's literature then was a poor one — it discouraged me from finishing up some wonderful rhymed children's pieces i had going, since I thought/believed children loved rhyme and wrote with my childhood delight in mind.  I had loved poems, and my children did.  Maybe these new children the editors of the 'Seventies envisioned were hypothetical, not real children who would enjoy, remember, and ask for repetitions of favorites — ?  I hope the fashion has changed again — I have scarcely dared venture into the children's section of the library this past couple of decades, but I am hopeful more satisfying materials for children are appearing now.

Judging from the delights of Poem-in-Your-Pocket Day and Poetry Month hereabout, I do believe it is happening.

Ruth L. Harrison

 

I hope so too, Ruth, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Lew


Excellent essay, Lew, and delightful examples!

Rhina


Lewis,

Your MORTIMER LUMP especially delightful!

Marta Finch

 

Thank you, Marta.

Obviously, though, it’s not a very PC nursery rhyme, at least it wasn’t until “Slumdog Millionaire” came along.

Lew

 

June 29, 2009

An Epistle-Review

Ben, Lew & Chris

Ben Doyle ["Ben Doller"], Lew Turco, Chris Turco, Morgantown WV, 1997.


FAQ by Ben Doller, Boise: Ahsahta Press, 2009, New Series #27, ISBN- 13 978-1-934103-05-0 trade paperback, $17.50.


51ngEBVjjjL._SL500_AA240_

The publisher says, “Thank you for your question. In this book of answers, Ben Doller (Doyle, author of Walt Whitman Award–winning book Radio, Radio) molds a speaker confident in his own impertinence to the form of an FAQ culture, participating in an all-pervasive, invasive questioning—ultimately raising questions about voice, knowledge, and our speakers/our selves. Bending but not breaking to the form, this book of poems takes a turn for the novella, busting open the prose poem and walking the dotted yellow line in the headlights of an increasingly invisible interviewer.”

Susan Howe, who chose Doller’s first book, Radio, Radio as winner of the Walt Whitman Award, says, “Is what seems absurd really absurd? We can never be sure what poetry is for. This poet strikingly connects a world of surveillance with one of poetics. . . . Is this expert knowledge, or psychotic ‘private’ truth? . . . In an upstate wilderness of noir, the only certainty is that everything recurs, that recurrence itself recurs. What makes this young poet’s work so compellingly in the spirit of Crane and Spicer (even Poe) is its tone of pixilated delinquency.”

The Author says, “Thank you for your question. FAQ: springs from several fascinations: for one, the form and language of advice, especially the sort of advice frozen in online portals, usually tapped from the fingers of nameless or aliased non-credentialed purveyors of wisdom. I am happy to report that this fascination has now officially been exorcised. The other long-standing fascinations continue to linger and trouble: the (im)possibilities of the poetic line, the distinctness of aural and visual elements in writing, the obsessive accretion of sentences in prose, and the non-narrative potential of texts as energy.



“’Frequently Asked Questions’ (or ‘FAQ’ in the acronym) are masses of questions listed alongside corresponding answers, intended to streamline any website’s communicative features. If you want to know something within a certain context — any context — simply trace yourself into that context on the web, and you will most likely always find that you aren’t the first to have such a quandary (a disturbing existential problem in itself).


“I don’t know what I was looking for like five years ago, but there was something I wanted to fix, make, or understand. It might have even been a kind of poem or animal I wanted to know more about, and instead I found this strange ‘FAQ’ breed of meta-communication—a communication at once collective and clubby and oddly impersonal. (I often find myself a little too entranced reading similar such forms of formally directive public speech — recipes, instruction manuals, bus schedules, advertisements, and so on.)

“So I began Googling ‘FAQ’ — repeatedly — and got lost in the omnipresence of this form. Then I began to construct my own.



“The distinctly FAQ brew of laziness ISO couch-potato practicality, along with the complex dramatic situation inherent in this ghostly interface between people (or typings that are remnants of creatures that were at some point real people) still strikes me as funny, sad, and staggering. The necropolis of the interwebs is almost too nauseating to bear, the detritus fetid with abandoned possibilities and existences. The voices behind the “Frequently Asked Questions” blend together and boil. The voices behind the “Frequently Offered Answers” are conspicuous in their pretense of mastery and wisdom, while inhabiting merely partial identities, someones somewheres purely textual.



“Most poetry lies on the page in this same way: strings of decisions made we know not why, other potentials discarded and disappeared. A poem can be as remarkable for the things it omits — the zones it suggests but does not hazard — as the things it contains.



“No one even knows how to pronounce FAQ: ‘fak,’ ‘fax,’ ‘facts,’ ‘fock,’ or ‘ef-ay-cue.’ We live in an era so textual that the names we use are often only seen, never uttered. I want a poetry that does the exact opposite: combinations of words/sounds that make new meanings beyond their textual placeholders, new potentials, which liberate rather than confine a reader.



“FAQ: the book is, in some ways, a total resistance to FAQ the mentality.


“I was also thinking of the portability of conceptual art while writing this book, a suitcase full of concepts, jokes that can be retold in form only. Then there’s the South American experimental narrative tradition, which I love and towards which I can only hope to tip a hat. (Hello, Madam Lispector; Good evening, Señor Cortazar.) There’s “Fizzles.” There’s Cela’s Mrs. Caldwell Speaks to Her Son. There’s the piling up of language in sentences, in vignettes seemingly unconnected but by voice. Speaking of sentences piling, here’s where I should stop now.

“But there’s the line. As to the poetic line, it is the reason I am drawn to poetry. The line and its breaking is, to me, the fundamental quality of poetry, the thing about which I think the most, and of which I think the most highly. In this book, I wanted to see if there were ways that prose could hold the same potential for energy and transformation as I see built into the end of a broken line (the “gulp”). I hope the twin phantoms of poetic music and logic rattle their chains between these margin walls.



“Any questions?”


The publisher on its web page gives us a sample poem to read:

Thank you for your question. The first industrial modern robots were the Unimates developed by George Devol and Joe Engelberger in the late 50’s and early 60’s. The first patents were by Devol for parts transfer machines. Engelberger formed Unimation and was the first to market robots. As a result, Engelberger has been called the ‘father of robotics.’ 

I like to call my arm Engelberger Arm, these people it points to—“fixing the power”—Unimates. The flashlights on their helmets are undeniable, and therefore good. The lights on their helmets are each kind of part. O light, wed to dust, leave it, flux me into a cloud shape; I know the first man to lift a stick to strike was the first man, the first man to dissolve the first god the first god.

Another theory posits the scarecrow as the first robot. This theory is endangered however, due to the recent discovery that the first scarecrow was an eviscerated crow. 

Still other theories posit the effigy, the story, the bomb, Cye, and the SDR-3X.


I say, Thank you, Ben, for your volume. Now I have two of them. No, I have three of them. No, I have two of one and one of the other. So I do have two of them. And three of them. But I do have both of them. Both of them are good. But one of them is doubly good because I have two of that one. Both of them speak volumes. Both volumes speak a volume. The speaking these volumes do is voluminous. One of them speaks voluminously twice. It is difficult to turn up the volume. When I go looking for it I turn up the wrong volume sometimes. Sometimes I turn it up twice and it is still the wrong volume. But thank you for both of them if not all three of them.

 

June 21, 2009

Witchcraft in Maine

THE TRIAL OF THE REVEREND GEORGE BURROUGHS OF CASCO AND WELLS, a talk derived from his book, Satan’s Scourge: A Narrative of the Age of Witchcraft in England and New England 1580-1697, delivered by Lewis Putnam Turco during the Old Fort Western Lecture Series in Augusta, Maine, at 2 p.m. on Sunday, March 29, 2009, in the Learning Gallery, room 146, Old Fort Western Museum, 1 City Center Plaza, Augusta ME 04330.

 

Scourge cover

When Harvard College graduated its class of 1670 in June, among the new holders of the baccalaureate degree was a young man who had distinguished himself, while at the school, as an athlete and gymnast. George Burroughs was a small man in stature, but solidly built. More than that, he liked to astonish people with his feats of strength, and he had a teasing streak in him as well. When folk marveled at his abilities in anything he was wont to be mysterious about how he did what he did. Yet, all in all, he was an affable young man who was likely to do well as the parson of a village — one of the lesser ones, probably. It came to pass that he chose Casco, Maine, as the place in which he wished to do his religious work. He was held in awe by many of the inhabitants, not only because he was an educated man of God, but because he could do things with his muscle that few ordinary men could do.

Casco was an outpost of New England civilization — a backward, insignificant settlement surrounded on three sides by dense forest filled with hostile Indians, and on the fourth by the chill ocean. In 1676 a band of Indians fell upon the community and destroyed it. Thirty-two people were killed or captured; others managed to escape into the forest. Rev. Mr. Burroughs was able to get to an island in Casco Bay from which he was eventually rescued by a party from the mainland. He was asked to write a report of the raid for the authorities in Boston, which he was glad to do.

By 1680 the church members of Salem Village (known in the 20th century as Danvers, Massachusetts, a suburb of Salem) for a number of years, since it broke away from Salem to form its own parish, had been fighting among themselves over their ministers. The latest, Rev. James Bailey, had left behind a dilapidated parsonage that would need extensive repair before the next minister could move in. That minister, it had been decided, would be the Rev. Mr. George Burroughs of Casco, Maine, whose acquaintance Jonathan Putnam had made on trips to the area. Mr. Burroughs was called to Salem Village in November by the Parish Committee, and when he arrived in town he and his wife moved in with the family of Lt.. John Putnam, Jr., until the parsonage could be repaired.

The new year began auspiciously for Sgt. Thomas Putnam, Jr, and his wife Ann Carr Putnam. Since their marriage in 1678 Ann, like her sister Mary, had experienced a miscarriage or two, but on February 9th, 1681, she was delivered of a healthy son who was christened Thomas Putnam III. The next day the Salem Village Parish voted the Rev. Mr. George Burroughs, their new minister, his salary for the year. All was not harmony in the Village, however, for Mr. Burroughs, though he like Bailey before him was the majority choice, was nevertheless not the unanimous choice. He soon found that he had automatic enemies in Thomas Putnam, Sr., Bailey’s prime backer, and in Ann Carr Putnam, Mary Bailey’s sister. With both his father and his wife opposed to Burroughs, Sgt. Thomas Putnam, Jr., of course was entered in the opposing lists as well.

Furthermore, there was friction developing between Burroughs and Lt. John Putnam, Jr., in whose house Burroughs continued to live while the parish wrangled over the refurbishment of the parsonage. Neither John nor his wife, Rebecca, cared for the way Burroughs treated his wife who was something of a gossip. Burroughs had a strong sense of privacy, and he objected to his spouse’s telling Rebecca all the family grievances. He chastised her for her loose tongue on several occasions — and, naturally, Mrs. Burroughs relayed these lectures to Rebecca who passed them on to John. Their sympathies lay with the oppressed wife, not the secretive minister. In April the Salem Village parsonage was ready for habitation and the Burroughs family moved into it.

In September, however, Mrs. George Burroughs died, perhaps of Satan’s Scourge: smallpox, and the minister was in deep trouble. He was totally broke, for no one had collected the rates he had been voted earlier in the year, and he had not been paid his salary. He and his existed on the charity of Capt. John Putnam, Jr., as best he could; now, he had to bury his helpmeet. He was forced to go further into debt.

It was the end. He foresaw no possibility of his being able to stay on in Salem Village and appease the warring parishioners. When he had come he had been wise enough to realize this might be the case, so he had had an escape clause written into his contract with the Village: “All is to be understood so long as I have Gospel encouragement.” He had had no encouragement whatsoever. As soon as he could get his affairs in order he left Salem Village, without even calling a parish meeting to try to settle the wages owed him, and went back to Maine — but not before he had taken another wife, the sister of Thomas Rucke. Burroughs’ abrupt departure did nothing at all to sweeten the atmosphere of the parish, and the minister left in his wake a number of implacable enemies, including his new brother-in-law.

At Ipswich Session of the Essex County Court in April of 1683 the Salem Villagers petitioned for relief from their lack of ministry and asked the magistrates that “they be pleased to write to Mr. Burroughs, requiring him to attend an orderly hearing and clearing up the case” and to settle accounts with them in respect to his salary and debts. It was to be a balancing of the books prior to the Village’s calling another minister. The Court agreed, and it summoned Mr. Burroughs from Casco; however, the “orderly hearing” was anything but that.

On April 24th Burroughs appeared for the accounting, a letter from the Court was read directing the participants to settle accounts, and Burroughs asked his former parishioners, “Do you take up with the advice of the court, given in the letter, or do you reject it?”

“Yes,” the Villagers answered him, “we take up with it,” and no man demurred. They worked out a proposed settlement, and “the second, third, and fourth days of the following week were agreed upon by Mr. Burroughs and the people to be the days for every man to come in and to reckon with the said Burroughs; and so they adjourned the meeting to the last of the aforesaid three days, in the afternoon, then to make up the whole account in public.”

So May 2nd was the day of reckoning. As the Villagers were gathered to complete the accounting and payments, Henry Skerry, the county marshal, came in the door, walked up to Lt. John Putnam, and whispered something to him. Putnam said aloud, “You know what you have to do! Do your office.”

Reluctantly, the marshal went over to Burroughs and said to him, “Sir, I have a writing to read to you.” It was an attachment of the salary the Village owed Burroughs, sworn out by John Putnam for debts Burroughs purportedly owed him for the time the minister had lived with the Putnam family, and for money that had been borrowed to pay for the funeral of Mr. Burroughs’ first wife.

When Marshal Skerry had read the document, Burroughs turned to Lt. Putnam and asked, “What money is it that you attach me for?”

Putnam replied, “For five pounds and odd money at Shippen’s at Boston, and for thirteen shillings at my father-in-law Gedney’s, and for twenty-four shillings at Mrs. Darby’s.”

Burroughs turned again to the marshal and told him, “I have no goods to show, but I am now reckoning with the inhabitants, for we do not know yet who is in debt,” he paused for a breath and said, “but here is my body.” He spread his arms wide.

Nathaniel Ingersoll stood up and faced John Putnam. “Lieutenant,” he said, “I wonder that you attach Mr. Burroughs for the money at Darby’s and your father Gedney’s, when, to my knowledge, you and Mr. Burroughs have reckoned and balanced accounts two or three times since — as you say — it was due, and you never made any mention of it when you reckoned with Mr. Burroughs.”

It was true. Furthermore, Ingersoll and his wife, Hannah, had been present when Burroughs borrowed the money for Shippen as well. Ingersoll had heard Burroughs ask for a draft to be presented to Mr. Shippen, and Putnam had inquired, “How much will you take up at Shippen’s?”

Burroughs had answered, “It might be five pounds,” but when he had done some more figuring he had said, “It may be it might come to more, therefore I will have to give him a draft to the value of five or six pounds.”

Putnam had replied, “It is all one to me,” and he had written the draft, read it to Burroughs, and said, “This will go for a part of the 33 pounds, 6 shillings, eight-pence the Parish owes you.”

There was nothing John Putnam could reply to Ingersoll — they were both well aware that the parish owed Burroughs much more than Burroughs owed Putnam. The two men stood looking at one another for a moment, and Putnam finally said, “It is true, and I own it.” But John Putnam was not about to let a small matter of equity interfere with what he had made up his mind to do.

The incident had broken up the meeting with nothing settled, and people were getting up to leave, most of them in great embarrassment, when Mr. Burroughs said, “Well, what will you do with me?”

The marshal approached John Putnam uncertainly and asked, “What shall I do?”

Putnam replied, “You know your business.” He tossed his head in the direction of the minister, then went over to his brother Thomas, tugged at his coat, and they went outdoors to confer while the marshal arrested Burroughs. The Putnam brothers came back in a moment later, and John Putnam said, “Marshal, take your prisoner and have him up to the Ordinary” — Ingersoll’s Inn — “and secure him till the morning.”

The marshal took Burroughs out, shouldering through the knots of citizens who stood about and looked angrily or reproachfully upon the proceedings. Some of the Villagers decided to do something about it. They followed Burroughs and Marshal Skerry to Ingersoll’s where they drew up a bond:

“We whose names are underwritten do bind ourselves jointly and severally to Henry Skerry, Marshal of Salem, our heirs, executors, and administrators, in the sum of fourteen pounds money, that George Burroughs shall appear at the next court at Salem, to answer to Lieutenant John Putnam according to the summons of this attachment, and to abide the order of the court therein, and not to depart without license; as witness our hands this 2nd of May, 1683.” The bond was signed by Burroughs, Ingersoll, John Buxton, Thomas Haynes, Samuel and William Sibley, and William Ireland, Jr The Casco minister was set at local liberty for the time being.

It was a measure of John ’s vindictiveness when, in June, in Essex County Court, he brought a suit against George Burroughs for a “debt for two gallons of Canary wine, and cloth, &c., bought of Mr. Gedney on John Putnam’s account, for the funeral of Mrs. Burroughs.”

On February 22nd 1684 the Salem Village parish again voted to raise “fifteen pounds for Mr. Burroughs” so that he could continue to exist while he awaited trial. In the meantime the parish committee had received permission to call another minister to preach in the Village, and it had settled upon Deodat Lawson who was, however, reluctant to respond to the call, for the notoriety of the settlement as a place of pastoral contention was widespread. Lawson was importuned to accept, however, and at last, reluctantly, he did so. At the same meeting that voted Burroughs funds, a committee of parish members was formed to arrange to have Lawson’s worldly goods transported into town from Boston.

In April Mr. Burroughs, who wanted nothing more than to get out of town, proposed a solution to his own particular problem: He authorized Lt. Thomas Putnam to receive from the parish the money due him by “the inhabitants of Salem Farms.” Thus, Thomas could pay his brother John whatever the Court decided Burroughs owed him, if anything, and send the rest up to Casco. Burroughs was not fool enough, however, to think that he would receive much of anything by mail. If by chance he did, fine; if not, at least he would be free of the toils of Salem Village, or so he surmised.

In 1685 Samuel Webber was living in Casco, Maine, where George Burroughs was once again the minister. Webber had heard about the prodigious strength of the man of God, and during a visit Webber finally got to talk about it with him. Burroughs didn’t offer to demonstrate, but he did tell Webber that he had put his fingers into the bung of a barrel of molasses, lifted it up, carried it around, and set it down again. Webber was impressed with the story, and a preacher wouldn’t make up something like that, would he?

The Salem Village parishioners on November 15th, 1688, appointed a committee whose members were Capt. John Putnam, Jr, Joshua Ray, Sr., and Francis Nurse. They were empowered to approach the Rev. Mr. Samuel Parris and ask him to become the fourth minister of Salem Village. Parris was, in the pecking order of the unofficial ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bottom of the barrel, lower even than George Burroughs who had at least graduated from Harvard, though he had afterwards become a backwoods preacher down East.

Parris had attended Harvard, but he had never graduated, and any community of New England — if it could not have an Englishman out of Oxford or Cambridge — at least expected to have a Harvardian. Worse still, Parris had not gone straight into the ministry; rather, he had become a businessman in Barbados. It was through this connection that the Putnams became acquainted with the man, for the late Thomas’ second wife, Mary Veren Putnam, had property and other interests in Barbados. It was not until he had failed in business that Parris had returned to New England and taken up his cross. Four years later, in 1692, it would be in Rev. Parris’ household that the great Salem Witch Hunt would begin.

In 1689, however, The Devil manifested himself to William Barker of Salem Village. He was a Black Man with a cloven foot, and he put this proposition to Barker: He would pay Barker’s debts and see to it that he lived comfortably; for his part, Barker was to cede his soul to the powers of darkness. It was the Devil’s plan to begin his own coup by taking over Salem Village and then spreading out into the countryside. Barker made his pact and was taken to a Sabbat that had been called by Bridget Bishop and the former minister of Salem Village, Rev. George Burroughs. One hundred and five young blades, some of them armed with rapiers, gathered together at the assembly and, at the sound of a trumpet, fell to drinking wine and eating bread at the site of the Sabbat, which was a field nearby the meetinghouse.

Simon Willard, thirty-nine, went to Falmouth, Maine, on Casco Bay, and he stayed in the home of Robert Lawrence. They got to speaking of various things, and Mr. Lawrence introduced the subject of the local parson, Rev. Mr. George Burroughs, who was also visiting and present in the room. He commended Mr. Burroughs’ strength to Willard; he said, “We could none of us do what he could do, for Mr. Burroughs can hold out his gun with one hand.” The company were astonished, but Burroughs affirmed that he could do it. He showed the folk present where he held the gun to perform the feat — behind the flintlock. It was a rifle with a seven-foot barrel. Burroughs, being a modest man, refused to perform, but Willard picked it up, held it where Burroughs had shown him, and couldn’t lift it with both hands. Later Willard, still skeptical, mentioned it to Capt. Wormall, but the Captain assured him that Burroughs could do what he said.

At another gathering Burroughs was present when some members of Capt. Edward Sergeant’s garrison were talking about the minister’s ability to lift a barrel of molasses out of a canoe by himself and carry it to shore. The short, stocky preacher told the men, and Simon Willard who was there as well, that he had carried one barrel that was like to have hurt him, but Willard took this to mean that the ground was rough and he might have strained a leg, not that the effort was too much for him. He shook his head in wonder.

In 1690 another Indian raid got underway, but the people had been told help was in the offing, and no one was inclined, yet, to take to the woods. Lt. Richard Honeywell, Thomas and John Greenslit, and Rev. George Burroughs were at the home of Capt. Joshua Scott of Blackpoint. At the Scott home the people gathered there witnessed at last some of the proverbial strength of the minister. When the demonstration was over Thomas Greenslit told people that he had seen Burroughs insert his forefinger into a rifle with a six-foot barrel and lift it, holding it out at arm’s length; further, he had seen Burroughs lift a barrel with only his two fingers stuck into the bung; he had carried it that way from the stage depot to the door of the stage without setting it down along the way. Those to whom he told the story were amazed beyond measure — or skeptical.

When the Indians had finally finished with Casco it was a ruin, but once again George Burroughs managed to be one of the survivors. This time, though, he took his family and migrated down the coast a way to Wells where he was granted 150 acres of land. 

Early in 1692 the Rev. Mr. Samuel Parris was engaged with a lawsuit against the Salem Village Church and with various political intrigues. He was paying little attention to his daughter and the girls who orbited Tituba, a member of the Parris household’s Barbados servant family that included her husband, John Indian, and their young son whom everyone called merely, “Boy.” This group grew and fluctuated. Besides the minister’s daughter Elizabeth Parris, nine, there were her cousin Abigail Williams, eleven; Mary Walcott, sixteen, a near neighbor; Annie Putnam, twelve, Mary’s step-cousin, and Mercy Lewis who often came with Annie Putnam inasmuch as she was a servant of Sgt. Thomas and Ann Carr Putnam. On occasion she also worked for Carolina John Putnam (parenthetically, my several times maternal great grandfather), and when Rev. George Burroughs had been the Salem Village minister, Mercy had lived in his family for a while, having no family of her own. Other neighbors of the Parrises were Susannah Sheldon, eighteen, and Elizabeth Booth, sixteen, both of whom had taken to dropping in and listening to Tituba’s stories of phantasms and witchery. They were joined frequently by Elizabeth Hubbard, seventeen, the niece of Mrs. William Griggs, who lived with Dr. William Griggs’ family as a servant; by another servant, Sarah Churchill, twenty, maid of George Jacobs, and Mary Warren, also twenty, maidservant of John and Elizabeth Proctor.

Tituba’s influence, by January of 1692, had gone beyond mere storytelling. She had introduced the girls to some of the divinatory arts and to sympathetic magic. Tituba was a good teacher, for she gave her girls a thorough education in folklore. This, added to the fire and brimstone theology to which they all had been born, and that Mr. Parris reinforced twice each week from the pulpit, together with all the rumors and news of occult manifestations that were currently taking place in New England — such as those that had been laid out on the printed page by Cotton and Increase Mather of recent years in books that were easily available — wrought heavily on the girls’ minds. When they secretly got together in twos and threes to experiment with scrying and fortunetelling, they had the exquisite knowledge that if their parents and employers knew what they were up to they would be horrified. On the other hand, the young people knew for a fact that there were many witches, both white and black, who had been practicing more or less openly in the community and the area for years, usually without having incurred any real reprobation.

Moreover, the girls knew that nearly everyone from time to time applied some sort of magic to situations where nothing else seemed to be of avail. Even the doctors used remedies that seemed not to be entirely medical when they came to treat a particularly difficult case, and when they were baffled they would as often as not shake their heads and excuse their lack of skill by saying, “There is an evil hand in it,” or something suchlike. There was not one of the girls who had not been indoctrinated at an early age into the mysteries of the birth process, an event ringed around with superstition and presided over by the midwife, who was held in no little awe by the girls and the men of the villages particularly. The midwife was, to all intents and purposes, half priestess when she was practicing her calling, and she herself knew it. There was not one midwife anywhere who was not to some degree an herb-doctor, and an herb-doctor was one remove from the witch, if that much.

But what the girls did not foresee in their experiments was that some of the younger members of the juvenile coven might take things too seriously. These were delicious games they were playing when, though they didn’t know the technical terms, they practiced onychomancy — scrying into their waxed or oiled fingernails; Bibliomancy, as Increase Mather himself, and even some of their parents did when they allowed the Bible to fall open of itself to prophetic passages; chiromancy — palmistry; or cosquinomancy, divining by means of a sieve balanced on a rod or pincers, or oomancy: breaking an egg into a bowl of water and watching to see what shape it assumed. Had they known these names, the sounds would only have added occult glamour to their practices.

The trouble was that Elizabeth Parris particularly was too impressionable, and when she saw the egg in her bowl assume the shape of a coffin, she became uncontrollably hysterical, thus providing a model of behavior for the other girls. She was the minister’s daughter, and she was much more aware than the others that what they were doing was truly sinful. She was filled with feelings of guilt and impending damnation, but she could say nothing to her father, for she would be ostracized by her friends. They would all get into terrible trouble, and Tituba the witch would take revenge upon her. When finally Rev. Parris discovered what was going on he was all too ready to take the pressure that his parishioners were putting upon him off himself and transfer it to the witches that soon were to be found everywhere. And the girls were acting out in ways to keep the onus for what was happening in the Parris and Putnam households, and soon in many households around the Colony, off of themselves.

Abigail Hobbs implicated a number of people in Topsfield, Ipswich, Salem Village, and Salem Town itself; Mercy Lewis cried out upon George Jacobs, and Annie Putnam saw the shape of the Rev. Mr. George Burroughs of Casco. She exclaimed, “Oh! Dreadful! Dreadful! What? Are ministers witches too? What is your name, for I will complain of you, though you be a minister, if you be a wizard.”

Burroughs’ specter tortured her — she was racked and choked. He tempted her to write in his book, but she refused with loud cries: “I will not write in your book though you tear me to pieces! It is a dreadful thing that you who are a minister that should teach children to fear God, should come to persuade poor creatures to give their souls to the Devil. Oh! Dreadful! Tell me your name that I may know who you are!”

Instead of doing so, however, Burroughs tortured her again, once more requested that she put pen to book. When Annie refused, Burroughs’ apparition told her, obligingly, “My name is George Burroughs. I have had three wives. I bewitched the first two of them to death, and I killed Mrs. Lawson” — Rev. Deodat Lawson’s wife — “because I was so unwilling to leave Salem Village, and I killed Mr. Lawson’s child because he went to the Eastward” (meaning Maine) “with Sir Edmund [Andros], and I preached so to the soldiers, and I bewitched a great many soldiers to death at the Eastward when Sir Edmund was there, and I made Abigail Hobbs a witch and several witches more, and above a witch, I am a conjuror as well.”

Thomas Putnam, Annie’s father, wrote a letter to Judges John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin that read in part, hinting darkly, “We thought it our duty to inform your Honors of what we conceive you have not heard, which are high and dreadful — of a wheel within a wheel, at which our ears do tingle.” Thomas hoped God would prepare them that they “may be a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well….”

Warrants were soon issued for the arrest of several people, and Elisha Hutchinson, a magistrate, issued a surreptitious warrant for the arrest of Rev. George Burroughs of Wells, Maine. One evening shortly afterward Rev. Burroughs was sitting in the hall eating his supper when Field Marshal John Partridge rode up, burst into the house, arrested him, and without an explanation bundled the minister off on the familiar road to Salem.

Judge Hathorne in his examination of Deliverance Hobbs toward the end of April 1692 elicited yet another accusation of witchcraft from her against Rev. Burroughs and others. The specter of Rebecca Nurse told Mary Walcott that she had had a hand in the deaths of Benjamin Houlton, John Harrod, Rebecca Shepard and others, and in the evening the Rev. Mr. George Burroughs appeared to Annie Putnam again, asked her to sign his book; when she refused he said, “My two first wives will appear to you presently and tell you a great many lies, but you should not believe them.” Immediately, two phantoms put in an appearance: They were women in winding sheets with kerchiefs about their heads. They turned to Burroughs looking “very red and angry” and said, “You have been a cruel man to us. Our blood does cry for vengeance against you. We shall be clothed with white robes in Heaven when you are cast into Hell.” Apparently Hell was not a place that intimidated Annie Putnam herself.

Burroughs vanished. The women turned to Annie Putnam: Their color had changed — now they “looked as pale as a white wall.” They told the tirl, “We were Mr. Burroughs’ two first wives. He hath murdered us.”

One said, “I was his first wife. He stabbed me under the left arm and put a piece of sealing wax on the wound.” She pulled aside her winding sheet and showed Annie Putnam. The phantom continued, “I was in the house where Mr. Parris now lives when it was done.”

The other moaned, “Mr. Burroughs and his present wife did kill me in the vessel as I was coming to see my friends, for he and that woman” — she meant Burroughs’ third wife — “would have one another.”

Both the ghosts charged Annie Putnam to tell the magistrates these things “before Mr. Burroughs’ face, and if he does not own to them, we do not know but we shall appear there in the court.” It was a hair-raising prospect to the Salem Villagers until they thought about it — and then they realized they would probably be able to see no more of these shades than they had of all the others which, apparently, only the girls could see.

Early in May Warrants were issued in Salem Village against George Jacobs and his granddaughter Margaret Jacobs, and the specter of George Burroughs came a-visiting Annie Putnam again. Burroughs in person appeared in Salem under arrest in custody of Field Marshal John Partridge who turned him over to the local authorities. The minister was not put in prison but given lodging at Thomas Beadle’s Inn.

Thursday, May 5th, Eleazer Keysar, forty, was at Beadle’s in Salem socializing with Capt. Daniel King and others, and the inevitable topic of conversation was the upstairs guest. King said to Keysar, “Will you not go up and see Mr. Burroughs and discourse with him?”

“It does not belong to me,” Keysar replied, “and I am unwilling to make or meddle with it.”

King said, huffily, “Are you not a Christian? If you are a Christian, go and see him, and discourse with him.”

Keysar set his glass on the table and told King measuredly, “I do believe it does not belong to such as I am to discourse with him, he being a learned man.”

King began to grow angry. “I believe he is a child of God,” he said, “a choice child of God, and God will clear his innocency.”

But Keysar’s back was up too. He cleared his throat and looked at the Captain. “My opinion or fear is that he is the chief of all the persons accused for witchcraft, or the ringleader of them all,” Keysar said. “If he is such a one, his Master has told him by now what I have said of him.”

Captain King flew into a rage and began to rail at Keysar. A wary hush settled over the room, and Keysar forebore to speak further until the situation had been glossed over by the others present.

Nevertheless, that afternoon Keysar did in fact have occasion to be in Mr. Burroughs’ chamber, and it seemed to him that Burroughs “did steadfastly fix his eyes” upon him.

After his day at the tavern Keysar went home and, he wrote in a deposition given in later, “The same evening, being in my own house, in a room without any light, I did see very strange things appear in the chimney, I suppose a dozen of them, which seemed to me to be something like jelly that used to be in the water, and quivered with a strange motion, and then quickly disappeared. Soon after which, I did see a light up in the chimney, about the bigness of my hand, something above the bar, which quivered and shaked, and seemed to have a motion upward, upon which I called the maid, and she, looking up the chimney, saw the same; and my wife looking up could not see any thing. So I did and do conclude it was some diabolical operation!”

On Friday, May 6th, Daniel Wilkins — while his father and uncle were still away at Boston — grew ill up on Will’s Hill in Salem Village. In the evening George Burroughs’ specter appeared to Mercy Lewis, tortured her, and tried to get her to sign his book, which she refused to do. Then he brought her “a new-fashion book which he did not use to bring.” He told her, “You might write in this book, for it is a book that was in my study when you lived with my family.”

Mercy replied, “I do not believe you, for I was often in your study, but I never saw that book there.”

Burroughs replied, “I had several books in my study which you never saw, and with them I could raise the Devil. I bewitched Mr. Shepard’s daughter.” Burroughs was referring to Rebecca Shepard, daughter of the late Rebecca Putnam Shepard — Mrs. John Shepard, alias Widow John Fuller.

“How can you go,” Mercy asked, “to bewitch her now you are kept at Salem?”

“The Devil is my servant,” Burroughs informed her. “I sent him in my shape to do it.” He tortured her again, threatened to kill her “For,” he said, “you shall not witness against me.”

Lydia Wilkins, who had been attending her brother Daniel in his illness, came down with the contagion, smallpox,” on May 8th. Her father and uncle yet were away in Boston where Bray Wilkins was still feeling ill himself. And the young Wilkins people were not the only ones who were down with the spread of Satan’s scourge. Cases were being reported all over Salem Village. Carolina John Putnam — now Constable John — was recovered from his own affliction; he and his family had buried Sarah, who had succumbed to the pox, and none of that family doubted that the witches were responsible. The Constable threw himself into his work with a will and a vengeance.

The next day, Monday, William Stoughton and Samuel Sewall came down from Boston to join John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin on the bench, but the first examination of the day was held in private, only the magistrates and ministers present.

Burroughs was asked when he had last partaken of the Lord’s Supper, for he maintained that he was a full communicant of the congregation at Roxbury. “It has been so long since, I cannot tell,” Burroughs told the interrogators.

“Have you not been to church when the Lord’s Supper was served?”

“I was at meeting at Boston part of one day when it was served, and again at Charlestown part of a Sabbath, but I did not partake at either time.”

“Why did you not?”

“I do not recall.”

“Is it not true that your house at Casco is haunted?” Burroughs was a bit confused — he no longer lived at Casco, but at Wells. Nevertheless he answered, “It is not true.”

“Is it not? Doth it not have toads in it?”

“It hath toads, but it is not haunted.” It seemed a fine distinction to the judges.

“We have it by report that you made your wife to swear,” — swear, that is, not to tell his secrets to the Putnams when they lived together. “What do you say to it?”

“I deny it.”

“When she wished to write to her father, did you not forbid it without your consent?” This was all material that had been provided by Mrs. Ann Carr Putnam who had been Mrs. Burroughs’ gossip.

“I deny it.”

“Is it not true that, of your children, none but the eldest is baptized?”

“It is true.”

“How comes this to pass?”

Burroughs did not answer, and the judges decided that it might be better to adjourn to the public gallery. No sooner had they all walked in than the afflicted people went into paroxysms of agony — screams, thrashings-about, wails, ululations: virtual Pandemonium. It lasted a long time, but eventually William Stoughton and the others managed to get things a bit settled and to take testimony from the accusers. Susannah Sheldon said, “This is the man who murdered his two wives. They came to me in their winding sheets and told me so.”

Burroughs was asked to turn about to face Susie — he looked back over his shoulder and almost all the afflicted were knocked down; Susie and Annie Putnam gasped that he brought the Book for them to sign. Finally, the judges asked, “What do you think of these things?”

“It is an amazing and humbling Providence,” Burroughs admitted, “but I understand nothing of it.” He mused for a moment, then said, “Some of you may observe that, when they begin to name my name, they cannot name it.”

Annie Putnam and Susannah testified that he murdered his two wives and two of his children. Some of the bewitched had such terrible fits that they were ordered to be carried out of the courtroom. Sarah Bibber, an adult accuser, managed to rasp out, “This is the man that has hurt me in his shape, but I have not seen him in his presence” — that is, in the flesh — “before this.” Assumedly Burroughs had never seen her either, so why would he have tormented her? However, logic was lacking at that time, and Burroughs was too confused to think of it.

Mary Warren told the court that Burroughs, when he wished to call a Sabbat in Rev. Mr. Parris’ field, blew a trumpet “to summon the witches to their feasts” — it could be heard rolling against the hills of Lynn and Gallows Hill in Salem Town, its spectral notes echoing down the Merrimac to Cape Ann and west to Andover, but its blast was audible only to the members of the coven.

The depositions of Abigail and Deliverance Hobbs and Eleazer Keysar were read; Capt. Simon Willard, John Brown, and John Weldon testified to the reality of the myths regarding his strength: He held up a great gun with one hand, even with but one finger stuck in the barrel; Capt. John Putnam, Jr., affirmed the truth of the stories. Capt. William Wormall testified about the barrel of molasses, but he said that Burroughs held the gun in front of the lock and rested its butt on his chest. John Brown told a story about a barrel of cider, but denied that his family was frightened by a white calf in his house. Capt. Putnam deposed that Burroughs forced his wife to enter into a covenant with him, and Abigail Hobbs submitted evidence from prison that Burroughs made her sign the Devil’s Book.

A body search of the minister for a witch’s mark had revealed nothing. At great length, Burroughs was quizzed and finally sent back to confinement. The evidence was overwhelming — at least to Stoughton and Hathorne, if not to Sewall and Corwin; but Sewall, at least, was enormously impressed.

On the 12th of May Abigail Hobbs was examined in Salem Prison. She was asked, “Did Mr. Burroughs bring you any of the poppits” — that is, witch dolls — “of his wives to stick pins into?”

“I do not remember that he did,” she replied.

“Did he bring any of his children, or of the Eastward soldiers?”

“No.”

“Have you known of any that have been killed by witchcraft?”

“No. Nobody.”

“How came you to speak of Mr. Burroughs’s wives yesterday?”

“I don’t know.” For a confessed witch, Abigail was being singularly uncooperative.

“Is that true about Davis’ son of Casco, and of those of the Village?”

“Yes, it is true.”

“What service did he put you upon? And who are they you afflicted?”

“I cannot tell who, neither do I know whether they died.”

“Were they strangers to you that Burroughs would have you afflict?”

“Yes.”

“And were they afflicted accordingly?”

“Yes.”

“Can’t you name some of them?”

“No. I cannot remember them.”

“Where did they live?”

“At the Eastward.”

“Have any vessels been cast away by you?”

“I do not know.”

“Have you consented to the afflicting of any others besides those at the Village?”

“Yes.”

“Who were they?”

“I cannot tell, but it was of such who lived at the fort side of the river about half a mile from the fort toward Capt. Brackett’s.”

“What was the hurt you gave to them by consent?”

“I don’t know.”

“Was there anything brought to you like them?”

“Yes.”

“What did you stick into them?”

“Thorns.”

“Did some of them die?”

“Yes. One of them was Mary Lawrence that died.”

“Where did you stick the thorns?”

“I do not know.”

“Was it about the middle of her body?”

“Yes, and I stuck it right in.”

“What provoked you? Had she displeased you?”

“Yes, by some words she spoke of me.”

“Who brought the image to you?”

“It was Mr. Burroughs.”

“How did he bring it to you?”

“In his own person, bodily.”

“Where did he bring it to you?”

“Abroad a little way off from our house.”

“And what did he say to you then?”

“He told me he was angry with that family.”

“How many years since was it?”

“Before this Indian war.”

“How did you know Mr. Burroughs was a witch?”

“I don’t know.”

“How long have you been a witch?”

“I made two covenants with the Devil, first for two years, and after that for four years. I have been a witch these six years.”

“Did the maid complain of pain about the place you stuck the thorn in?”

“Yes, but how long she lived, I don’t know.”

“How do you know Burroughs was angry with Lawrence’s family.”

“Because he told me so.”

“Where did any other live that you afflicted?”

“Just by the other toward James Andrews’, and they died also.”

“How many were they — more than one?”

“Yes.”

“And who brought those poppits to you?”

“Mr. Burroughs.”

“What did you stick into them?”

“Pins. And he gave them to me.”

“Did you keep those poppits?”

“No, he carried them away with him.”

“Was he there himself with you in bodily person?”

“Yes, and so he was when he appeared to tempt me to set my hand to the Book. He then appeared in person, and I felt his hand at the same time.”

“Were they men, women, or children you killed?”

They were both boys and girls.”

“Was you angry with them yourself?”

“Yes, though I don’t know why now.”

“Did you know Mr. Burroughs’ wife?”

“Yes.”

“Did you know of any poppits pricked to kill her?”

“No, I didn’t.”

“Have you seen several witches at the Eastward?”

“Yes, but I don’t know who they were.”

Toward the middle of the month Ann Foster was questioned several times — she was a goldmine of occult information, but this time she began to repeat herself, though some details were new: She had agreed to serve the Devil two years, “upon which he promised me prosperity but never performed it.” Indeed, it was remarkable how little prosperity there was among most of the accused witches. As she and Martha Carrier were going to the Witches’ Sabbat in Salem Village “the stick broke as we were carried in the air above the tops of the trees, and we fell, but I did hang fast about the neck of Goody Carrier, and we were presently at the Village, but I was then much hurt of my leg.” Though there were only twenty-five present at the meeting she “heard some of the witches say that there was three hundred and five in the whole country, and that they would ruin that place, the Village.”

Besides Burroughs there were at the meeting two men, “and one of them had gray hair.” Ann, contrite, told the judges that she “formerly frequented the public meeting to Worship God, but the Devil had such power over me that I could not profit there, and that was my undoing.” She recalled another act of murder that had been committed: “About three or four years ago Martha Carrier told me she would bewitch James Hobbs’ child to death, and the child died in twenty-four hours.” It was Martha Carrier who had brought the infection of smallpox into Andover, and perhaps into Salem Village as well.

After the judges left, the Rev. John Hale asked Ann further questions. “Did you ride to the witches’ meetings on a stick?”

“Yes.”

“What did you do for victuals?”

“I carried bread and cheese in my pocket. I came before the meeting with the Andover folk to Salem Village, and we sat down together under a tree and eat our food, and I drank water out of a brook to quench my thirst.”

“Where was the meeting?”

“Upon a grassy place by a cart path, and there was sandy ground in the path with the marks of horses’ feet.” She said further, “I am in fear that Mr. Burroughs and Martha Carrier will kill me, for they appeared to me and brought a sharp-pointed iron like a spindle, but four-square, and threatened to stab me to death with it because I had confessed my witchcraft and told of them that they were with me at meeting. It was Martha Carrier that made me a witch.”

The third session of the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer was convened in Salem, the purpose of which was to try John and Elizabeth Proctor, Rev. George Burroughs, John Willard, George Jacobs, Sr., and Martha Carrier. By this time many witches had been hanged on Gallows Hill where there was no true gallows, only a ladder against a tall tree up which the condemned people were led and then “turned off,” that is, twisted off of the rung upon which they stood.

The trial of George Burroughs was held on both August 2nd and 3rd, there were so many witnesses against him. At first the bitch witches had such a great number of fits and were struck so dumb at Burroughs’ entry into the courtroom in Salem that no one could accuse him. But after a great while Justice Gedney asked the minister, “Who do you think hinders these witnesses from giving their testimonies?”

“The Devil, I suppose,” Burroughs answered.

“How comes the Devil so loath to have any testimony borne against you?”

Burroughs didn’t know how to answer. The girls complained, “He bites!” and they showed the tooth marks. The court ordered Burroughs to bite a stick; the judges compared the stick with the bite marks on the children’s arms, and sure enough — !

Mercy Lewis in her fit said, “George Burroughs carried me away to a very high mountain where all the kingdoms of the world lay below and said, ‘I will give all these to you if you will but write in my Book, and if you do not I will throw you down and break your neck,’ but I told him, ‘They are none of yours to give, and I will not write if you throwed me down on a hundred pitchforks.’ 

True to their word, Burroughs’ two murdered wives appeared to Annie Putnam right there in court. She told the judges, “They cry, ‘Vengeance! Vengeance!’” The other girls were asked if they saw the specters there, and of course they did.

Hathorne asked Burroughs, “Do not you see the apparitions of your dead wives?”

“I know nothing of it,” he replied, baffled.

“You are not a large man,” Hathorne noted, “yet it is said you have performed feats beyond the strength of a giant. What do you say to it?”

“It is not true.”

“Did not you hold out a gun seven foot in the barrel with one hand?”

“An Indian was there, and held it out at the same time.”

Annie Putnam broke in, “It was the Black Man, or the Devil, who looks like an Indian. It was Hobbamock,” she told the Court, “who was with him in the appearance of a man.”

“Did you not carry a barrel full of molasses or cider from a canoe to the shore without help?” a judge queried.

“It is no great thing,” he replied. “It was a cask, not a barrel.”

“Here is testimony that you caught up with your wife and her brother Richard preternaturally quick when you had been left far behind” — the judge waved a deposition at him — “and you chided her for speaking of you and told her you knew their thoughts” (a new charge: Burroughs was a telepath); “that Rucke was startled and said that the Devil himself did not know so far, and that you replied, ‘My God makes known your thought to me.’”

“Rucke and my wife left a man with me when they left me,” Burroughs said, implying that he had a witness. But Thomas Rucke, who was present in Court, stood forth and called, “That is false!”

Gedney asked Burroughs, “What was the man’s name?”

Burroughs did not answer.

“Why do you not reply? Is it because you only stepped aside to put on your invisibility so that you might listen to them in a fascinating mist?” It was a fascinating question.

Rather than answer, Burroughs submitted a paper to the Court that read, in part, “There neither are, nor ever were, witches that, having made a compact with the Devil, can send a Devil to torment other people at a distance.” The magistrates read it; then Gedney asked, “Did you write this?”

“Yes,” Burroughs replied. It was a stupid lie because the one thing no one should have doubted was that this court was widely and deeply read in the literature of witchcraft.

“You are a liar!” he was told. “This paper is transcribed from the book of Thomas Ady.” The eyes of judge and accused locked: They both knew they were talking about the 1655 skeptical treatise titled A Candle in the Dark. Now Burroughs was accused of two new charges — telepathy and plagiarism!

Caught in an untenable position, Burroughs, like his colleagues in Boston, chose to bluster it out. “I took none of it out of any book,” he maintained.

“How does it happen, then, that this sounds so much like the other?”

“A gentleman gave me the discourse in a manuscript,” Burroughs said, “from whence I transcribed it.” It was a mealy-mouthed reply that nevertheless meant he himself had not written the paper. The Court was disgusted, and the parade of witnesses and storm of depositions continued unabated, but they were no longer needed — they were but window dressing to justify the condemnation of an ordained minister.

The affidavit of Samuel Sheldon was read. He said that the day before the trial Burroughs appeared to him and asked if Sheldon “would go to the village tomorrow to witness against him.” When Sheldon answered he would, Burroughs’ specter told him that before that happened he would be killed. That hadn’t happened, obviously.

Later, at Ingersoll’s, the shade reappeared and told Sheldon, in direct contradiction of the details as they had been revealed to Annie Putnam, that he had smothered his first wife and choked the second, together with his two children. He had also killed three other children in Maine.

After his condemnation Burroughs said to the magistrates, “I am innocent, yet I justify you in your verdict, for there are many positive witnesses against me, but I die by false witnesses.” His justification of the Court gave some faint satisfaction to the ministers of Boston.

In addition to George Jacobs, John Proctor and Burroughs, John Willard and Martha Carrier were convicted by Friday, August fifth, 1692.

Friday, August 19th, was a day of execution. As the cart bearing the condemned people — George Jacobs, Sr., John Proctor, John Willard, Martha Carrier, and the Rev. Mr. George Burroughs — proceeded slowly up Gallows Hill, at one point it got stuck. The bitch witches, who walked alongside, informed the crowd, as people put their shoulders to the wheels, “The Devil hinders it.”

At the gallows oak the crowd was ominously quiet; when George Proctor and John Willard died bravely and well, the silence began to grow into an angry murmur. Cotton Mather had come up from Boston to be present at this execution of a colleague; he sat upon a horse while the hangings took place. Samuel Sewall was in the crowd, as were several ministers — Rev. Messrs. Simms, John Hale, Nicholas Noyes, and Samuel Cheever among others.

Martha Carrier, like the others before her, died protesting her innocence. And when George Burroughs mounted the ladder he spoke to the gathering of Puritans, said he was innocent, delivered a short oration, and ended with a flawlessly executed recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

The display, as it was meant to do, amazed the crowd, for no witch was supposed to be able to manage such a feat, and he was quickly turned off the ladder before the assembly could assimilate his achievement. While the little dark minister was swinging and dying Cotton Mather on his horse shouted, “They all died by righteous sentence! Mr. Burroughs was not an ordained minister.” That was an incomprehensible remark. “That he could recite the Lord’s Prayer is no proof of his innocence, for the Devil often has been transformed into an angel of light” — another remarkable statement.

The corpses were cut down and hastily buried among the rocks in shallow graves. Burroughs was tumbled into a gash in the ground along with John Willard and Martha Carrier. When the soil was shoveled in, the gravediggers were in too great a hurry to get away, for they left the preacher’s hand and chin uncovered, as well as a foot of one of the others. There were many people who left Gallows Hill weeping that day.

 

June 17, 2009

Allen Ginsberg as Neoformalist

Ginsberg

         Allen Ginsberg was seven years younger than his friend, publisher and fellow "Beat poet" Lawrence Ferlinghetti, having been born in 1926, but his Howl and Other Poems was published in 1956 from City Lights Bookstore and Press only a year after Ferlinghetti's own self-published first book.  When it arrived on the scene "Howl" was hailed by the Beat Generation as the greatest American opus since Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass.  The Modernist William Carlos Williams wrote an introduction for it, which Ginsberg reprinted in his Collected Poems 1947-1980:

         "When he was younger, and I was younger, I used to know Allen Ginsberg, a young poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, where he, son of a well-known poet, had been born and grew up. He was physically slight of build and mentally much disturbed by the life which he had encountered about him during those first years after the first world war as it was exhibited to him in and about New York City."  However, Ginsberg was no more a product of the unwashed masses than Walt Whitman was, no more a poet of the streets than Ferlinghetti or most of the other "Beatniks," as the Establishment liked to call them, using a linguistic back-formation from "Sputnik," the first satellite to orbit the earth, launched by the USSR in 1957.  The term was meant to have the overtone of being subversive or Communist.

         However, Allen Ginsberg served in the Military Sea Transport Service during the Second World War, subsequently taking his B.A. from Columbia University in 1948, the same year that Ferlinghetti took his first graduate degree there.  Ginsberg's father, Louis, whom Williams characterized as “well known,” was actually known as a minor, traditionally formal poet, and one must assume that it was at least partially against this background that Allen originally rebelled.  This is what the father was writing at the time of Allen’s birth; it was published in The Grub Street Book of Verse, edited by its publisher, Henry Harrison, in 1927, from a poem titled "To My Two Sons":

My little sons, because I know

That Love perpetuates only woe,

I write these lines so you may read

Some night upon your hour of need.

To judge from the quality of this verse, the anthology was well titled and Louis Ginsberg was well suited to grubbing around in its pages.

         "Howl,” on the other hand, takes its form from older sources, in particular the Bible; it is a straight prose poem built in grammatic parallel structures — catalogues of clauses in the manner not merely of the Good Book but of “the good gray poet” Walt Whitman and of the British poets Martin Farquhar Tupper in the nineteenth century and William Blake and Christopher Smart in the eighteenth.  But Ginsberg was more than influenced by the poetry — both the verse and the prose poetry — of the visionary William Blake, for in 1948 he heard Blake speak to him "across the vault of time," as Paul Portuges wrote in The Visionary Poetics of Allen Ginsberg:

         As Ginsberg experienced the auditory apparition, an overwhelming emotion arose in his soul in response to it.  The emotion produced a sudden visual realization that helped him comprehend the meaning of this awesome phenomenon.  He was, at the moment of the visual sensation, looking out through the window at the sky; suddenly, he felt, with Blake's voice guiding him, that he could penetrate the essence of the universe.  He felt himself floating out of his body and thinking that heaven was on earth. He had a great realization that “This existence was it.”  His sense of hopelessness vanished.  He felt he had been chosen to experience a vast cosmic consciousness.  Looking out of his window, the sky seemed very ancient.  It was the “ancient place that he [Blake] was talking about, that sweet golden clime.”

         Ginsberg’s was a peculiar response to this hallucination or “vision” because anyone else might have jumped to the conclusion that, far from realizing that “This existence was it,” the experience proved to the contrary that there was something beyond “heaven on earth” and he had been chosen by a Higher Power to spread the word. Nevertheless, it was a  "priest-poet" experience of the first order.  Ginsberg "swore never to get lost," Portuges wrote a bit further on, "in the endless maze of superficial distraction, such as the mundane jobs the middle-class pursue [and] American life offers.  Instead, he must, as a poet, always pursue the visionary calling, for 'the spirit of the universe was what I was born to realize,'" in the opinion of the poet. Aha! So he had been chosen after all!

         "'I would call that man a poet,'" John Tytell in his essay, "Allen Ginsberg and the Messianic Tradition" —  from his book Naked  Angels: The Lives and Literature of the Beat Generation — quoted Henry Miller  as  having  written, "'who is capable of profoundly altering the world': ‘Howl’ and ‘Kaddish’ are two examples of a body of poetry that has had a  tremendous impact on the values of a generation.  Ginsberg has focused his vision on the forces depleting the life spirit of the West. While his inspiration has been apocalyptic, he offers us compelling alternatives to the general disaster he sees."

         "Howl" had a tremendous impact on some of the literary members of Ginsberg's generation, and on the period of the 1960s as well.  In the anthology titled New Naked Poetry, edited by Stephen Berg and Robert Mezey in 1976, contributors were asked to make their donations to the poetics of organic form or "open poetry," and Allen Ginsberg attempted  to explain something about the composition of his poem: "Part one uses repeated base who, as a sort of kithera BLANG, homeric (in my imagination) to work off each statement, with rhythmic unit." Kithera BLANGs are certainly a good part of the Ginsberg imagination, whatever the rhythmic unit might chance to be.

         Actually, the poem is divided into three sections, the first of which, after an introduction, has parallel clauses beginning with the word "who":

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,

Angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,

who  poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of  cold-water  flats  floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,

who  bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,

and so on for six pages, all of it just one sentence.  The next section is made up largely of clauses beginning with the word "Moloch."  Part three is addressed to Carl Solomon, to whom the entire work is dedicated — it is the "I'm with you in Rockland" section.

M. L. Rosenthal wrote in his The New Poets that "The initial excitement  over Allen Ginsberg's Howl and Other Poems when it appeared in 1956 was perhaps mainly the result of its vocabulary.  For the first time in the history of serious American poetry with a relatively popular appeal, Ginsberg and some of his 'Beat' associates were writing lines" that used words like "copulated" and related four-letter words.

It was a replowing of the ground that Whitman had broken out of the American forest primeval in the 19th century, but something retrograde happened to Ginsberg between the 'fifties and the 'eighties, for he began to sound in some poems not only like his early self again, but like his father.  According to Allen Ginsberg's Collected Poems 1947-1980 (1984), this is what the son was writing in his 1948 pre-Beat days — from a poem titled "A very Dove":

A very Dove will have her love

ere the dove has died;

the spirit, vanity approve,

will even love in pride.

         Before he discovered that prose could be a vehicle for poetry, as in the Bible, on occasion even Walt Whitman wrote verse this bad and published it in the pages of the Brooklyn Eagle; here is Whitman’s “Old Grimes”:

He lived at peace with all mankind,

         In friendship he was true;

His coat had pocket-holes behind,

         His pantaloons were blue.

 

Unharmed, the sin which earth pollutes

         He passed securely o’er, —

And never wore a pair of boots

         For thirty years or more.

And this is Allen Ginsberg returning to his roots in verses titled "Love Forgiven," written in 1979:

Straight and slender

Youthful tender

Love shows the way

And never says nay

No doubt both Walt and Louis might have burst their buttons with pride. Around 1980 Allen even wrote a poem with a Greek title that was composed in classical Sapphic stanzas:

Red cheeked boyfriends tenderly kiss me sweet mouthed

under Boulder coverlets winter springtime

hug me naked laughing & telling girl friends

gossip till autumn

The return to formalism that got under way around the nation during the 1980s may thus be perceived by some critics as not an unmixed blessing.


 

=============

REMARKS

On June 16, 2009, Jack Foley sent me a paper he wrote on the late Harold Norse. This was the last paragraph of the paper:

         In his memorial poem to Harold Norse, Norse’s longtime friend and advocate Neeli Cherkovski wrote, “You / were the man / who showed me / at least one way / out of solitude / and back into the self.” In 1993, I gave Harold a cassette tape of Walt Whitman reading his poem, “America.” The only place Harold could play the tape was in his message machine — and that fact gave him a poem. I’ve always loved Harold’s poem because it shows not only his love of Whitman — a major factor in his writing — but also his charm, his wit, his love (though he could be a vain man) of community and of poetry itself, particularly of poetry as it manifested in that “American idiom” which Walt Whitman was among the first to enunciate and which Harold Norse clearly and vibrantly continued.


I replied,

Interesting paper, Jack, but that business about the "American diction" of Whitman is bullshit. His diction was the same Romantic diction Wordsworth used. Check this out:

 

When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom’d

 

1

 

WHEN lilacs last in the door-yard bloom’d,

And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,

I mourn’d — and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.

 

O ever-returning spring! trinity sure to me you bring;

Lilac blooming perennial, and drooping star in the west,

And thought of him I love.

 

2

 

O powerful, western, fallen star!

O shades of night! O moody, tearful night!

O great star disappear’d! O the black murk that hides the star!

O cruel hands that hold me powerless! O helpless soul of me!

O harsh surrounding cloud, that will not free my soul!

 

You call that "American diction"? It's the same old tired 19th century poetic diction, and he couldn't even put it into verse the way Wordsworth did.

Did you read my essay, "William Carlos Williams' Prosody," on my blog?

 Lew


I agree [Jack replied] — though the attempt to incorporate American colloquial speech (which Williams more or less didn't do) is an important one. Whitman, for all his failings, did make that attempt.

I wrote this in another paper on Norse — a review of a collection of his correspondance with WCW:

William Carlos Williams certainly "loosened Norse up," as Norse is the first to admit in this wonderful collection of letters.  But "the American idiom" as it emerges in this book is not quite what Williams thought it to be.  It is not "the idiom spoken in America" or the sense of the colloquial, etc., so much as it is the expression of an ongoing tension between history and "now," between authority and freedom, between the entire tradition of poetry and what we as individuals may make of it.  Williams' late search for disciples and a disciple is someone to have authority over was in a way a search for history.  As his work if not necessarily his theory makes clear, American verse is not the solution to this tension between form and freedom; it is rather the expression of it.

Williams' last book, Pictures From Brueghel, has a fine poem about "variable feet," about women walking, "putting / their feet down / one before the other":

back and

forth and back and forth

and back and forth

The poem is a triumph.  There is not even a hint of iambic pentameter about it. But it depends for its effect precisely on our awareness of that fact.

The "Variable Foot" is not what Williams hoped for, a "solution," but it is, like the women he describes in "Some Simple Measures," a beautifully poised and ongoing problem.  For Harold Norse — and, ultimately, for Williams too — the expression of that problem constitutes "the American idiom."

Haven't had a chance to read your essay yet.

Jack Foley

 

Lew,

I enjoyed the Ginsberg posting. Also enjoyed "Words for White Weather / White for Weather Words" and "A Hollow Rush" — and what a very complete analysis of the poem by Jack Gilbert.

I participated in "a non-stop, straight-through, marathon reading of Walt Whitman's Song of Myself on his "190th b-day" at a local art gallery. I read sections 50 and 51. I thought some of the sections were good. Got to meet a lot of local poets and put faces onto names. 

Good wishes,

Alice Teeter


Thanks, Lew. 

It took me a couple of days to get to it, but I did, and I enjoyed it.  Especially Ginsberg's venture into Sapphics — the  form is an interesting challenge, and I have enjoyed thoroughly my attempts to do things with it.  I like it, because the cadences are almost conversational, or can be made to seem so.  Anyway — I'm here to talk about your fine Ginsberg piece, not wander on about Sapphics. 

You made Ginsberg more nearly explicable than anyone else who's  written about him, and I enjoyed the piece!  Thanks!

Ruth L. Harrison

P.S. Speaking of Sapphics, have you browsed the latest issue of The Lyric?


I'm glad you liked the Ginsberg, Ruth.

No, I don't pay any attention to The Lyric. In my whole life they have never accepted a single one of my poems though I've sent them many. It's a phenomenon I find inexplicable. I can only assume they despise my work, so I despise them back.

Lew


"The return to formalism that got under way around the nation during the 1980s may thus be perceived by some critics as not an unmixed blessing."

Well, but Lew, the fact that bad poetry may be written in form as easily and as often as in "free verse" is hardly news, is it? The return to formalism was a "blessing," not because it guarantees excellence (it doesn't; nothing does!), but because it offers the poet more varied tools to work with, and encourages him to learn their use. With those tools he may attempt to build either the Taj Majal or a crooked table. The results of his efforts are uncertain; what is certain is that no craftsman ever went wrong through excess expertise with the tools of his trade.

That being the case, I'm going to assume that you're not among the "some critics" you posit in your last sentence, above.

Rhina Espaillat

 

Of course I'm not one of those critics, Rhina,

But I am one of those critics who occasionally employ the trope called "sarcasmus." It is sometimes best enunciated with the tongue placed securely in the cheek.

Lew

June 15, 2009

Words for White Weather / White for Weather Words

Levy

The Cleveland poet Russell Atkins wrote me in 1967, “Well, I suppose you might have heard that d. a. levy and some of the group here have become objects of the police, FBI and narcotics agents. Much cause célèbre in the making here.” An elegy I wrote for levy, “Words for White Weather,” was written on request for a memorial publication when d. a. committed suicide the following year, 1968.

 

WORDS FOR WHITE WEATHER

for d. a. levy

 

On a gross day, in a green month

once, a child was Summer’s lover.

She, heavy with worlds, sent

the child bouquets of amber light. Giver

 

and taker, she tossed him petals;

in good barter he gave his leman

words shaped like flesh

of fruits: sweet peach, tart lemon,

 

berryheart whose vine goes

twining with grass. She gave

him this too: a grassblade made

the frost’s sickle, lush love

 

turned root rape, the maggot’s

carnal slither. No matter. Her

kiss was decay. Still, his songs

weather the winter.

 

Five years later I rewrote the poem and used it as an example of hypallage which is an exchange of words in phrases or clauses, a technique e. e. cummings used often, and cummings was one of levy’s influences. The disjuncture of hypallage allows lines to work ambiguously on more than one associative level, and it is sometimes used humorously: “I smell a smile; will she rat on me?” instead of I smell a rat; will she smile on me? Here is the poem I wrote for levy revised through hypallage; it is interlined: The lines in normal print are the original version; the italicized lines are the revised version:

 

WHITE FOR WEATHER WORDS

for d. a. levy

 

On a gross day, in a green month

On a green month, in a gross day,

 

once, a child was Summer’s lover.

A child was once Summer’s lover.

 

She, heavy with worlds, sent

She with worlds sent, heavy

 

the child bouquets of amber light. Giver

giver, the child light: bouquets of amber

 

and taker, she tossed him petals;

and she tossed him petals. Taker,

 

in good barter he gave his leman

he gave3 his good leman in barter

 

words shaped like flesh

flesh like shaped words

 

of fruits: sweet peach, tart lemon,

swet of fruits: peach, lemon, tart

 

berryheart whose vine goes

vine whose berryheart goes

 

twining with grass. She gave

with grass. She gave twining

 

him this too: a grassblade made

too a grassblade, made him this

 

the frost’s sickle, lush love

frost’s love, the lush sickle

 

turned root rape, the maggot’s

root turned the maggot’s rape,

 

carnal slither. No matter. Her

no carnal matter. Her slither

 

kiss was decay. Still, his songs

was his still kiss. Songs decay

 

weather the winter.

the winter weather.


"Words for White Weather" appeared in Poetry: Cleveland, edited by Alberta Turner, Cleveland: Cleveland State University Poetry Center, 1971. The hypallage version, "White for Weather Words," was published in Poetry: An Introduction through Writing, © 1973 by Reston Publishing Co., copyright reversion to Lewis Turco, all rights reserved 2009.

Click on an image to make it larger:

 

Levy newsLevy poem

June 11, 2009

An Analysis of a Poem by Jack Gilbert


Jgilbert-1  

An analysis of  “Horses At Midnight Without A Moon” by Jack Gilbert, from Refusing Heaven. © Alfred A. Knopf, 2005, published in Garrison Keillor’s “The Writer’s Almanac” on Jun. 11, 2009:

Our heart wanders lost in the dark woods.

  Q1. What is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “our”?

  Q2. Is it possible for “us” to share a heart?

  Q3. Is it possible for the “heart” to leave the body and “wander,” “lost” or otherwise, anywhere?

  Q4. What “dark woods”?

 

Our dream wrestles in the castle of doubt.

  Q5. See Q1, above.

  Q6. Is it likely, or even possible, for more than one person to experience the same dream?

  Q7. What is the nature of “Our dream”?

  Q8. With whom or what does “Our dream” “wrestle”?

  Q9. What is the nature of this conflict?

Q10. Is it possible for an abstraction, “doubt,” to “inhabit” a physical

          structure such as a “castle”?

 

But there's music in us. Hope is pushed down


but the angel flies up again taking us with her.

Q11. What music?

Q12. Who, or what, is “pushing” the abstraction, “Hope,” down?

Q13. What “angel”?

Q14. When did the “angel” fly up the first time?

Q15. Aside from the general direction, what does “up” signify?

Q16. What is the nature of the “angel”?

The summer mornings begin inch by inch


while we sleep, and walk with us later

as long-legged beauty through


the dirty streets. It is no surprise


that danger and suffering surround us.

Q17. Is the article “The” necessary in this sentence?

Q18. Can “summer mornings” “walk with us”?

Q19. Can “beauty” have long legs?

Q20. Can “summer mornings” have long legs?

Q21. Why does the writer in the middle of his “poem” change his premise

          that each line will be a phrase and start a new sentence in mid-line?

Q22. Why does the new sentence enunciate a truism rather than continue

          the  premise that the poem is constructed upon “deep images”?

 

What astonishes is the singing.

Q23. Who is astonished?

Q24. What singing?

 

We know the horses are there in the dark


meadow because we can smell them,


can hear them breathing.


Q24. What horses?

Q25. Where did “the dark” come from? Wasn’t it morning?

Q26. Why is the adjective “dark” separated from the word it modifies?

Q27. Why does the word that “dark” modifies begin a new line, unlike all

          preceding similar constructions?

Q28. Who are “we,” and is it possible for all of us to do these things?

 

Our spirit persists like a man struggling


through the frozen valley


who suddenly smells flowers


and realizes the snow is melting


out of sight on top of the mountain,


knows that spring has begun.

Q29. See Q2 above.

Q30.  “Persists” doing what?

Q31. What “frozen valley”? Wasn’t this a summer morning? Weren’t we listening to horses in a dark meadow?

Q32. Does snow begin to melt at the top of a mountain?

Q33. What happened to summer?

Q34. How do flowers manage to bloom in the snow?

 

Q35. What, or how (to quote John Ciardi) does this “poem” mean? Does it make logical sense? Does it make poetic “sense”?

 

Q36. Or does it operate through the use of “cues”?  To quote The Book of Forms,  “Many abstract nouns are cues, meant to elicit automatic stock responses in the reader or the listener.  Society has conditioned its members to respond in knee-jerk fashion to certain words, much as the Russian scientist Pavlov conditioned his dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by ringing one every time he fed them.  After a while, he did not need to feed them at all to make them drool, simply ring the bell.  Just so, we are meant to respond without thinking to terms such as ‘motherhood,’ ‘Old Glory,’ ‘evil,’ ‘love,’ ‘soul,’ ‘God,’ and so forth.”

 

Q37. How many cues are to be found in this “poem”? —

            1. “heart,” 2. “lost,” 3. “dark,” 4. “dream,” 5. “doubt,” 6. “music,” 7. “Hope” (note the capitalization; it is also a personification), 8. “down,” 9. “up,” 10. “angel,” 11. “summer mornings,” 12. “sleep,” 13. “beauty,” 14. “dirty streets,” 15. “danger,” 16. “suffering,” 17. “singing,” 18. “dark” again, 19. “meadow,” 20. “spirit,” 21. “struggling,” 22. “flowers,” 23. “snow,” 24. “spring.”

 

Q38. Has the writer of this piece written a poem, or has he simply strung cues together in order to push

the buttons of the reader so as to produce automatic responses? If he has, what is the overall single

effect of his button-pushing?

 

Q39. If he has not, what does the poem mean now that we know how it means?

 

For more information about the so-called “deep image” see the essay on Robert Bly elsewhere in this

blog. Also see the discussion of Arthur Koestler's theory of the hypothalamic brain and the neo-cortex in

the essay on William Carlos Williams’ prosody.

REMARKS


Another Gilbert-Bashing Moron. This “critic” wants “poetry” to be more like science.

Jason Mashak

Portland State University

Czech Republic

 

Jason,

I see that you are a college graduate, so you should know that merely calling me a "moron" doesn't prove anything, does it? Nor does it win an argument. What it does is tend to show that you have no wit, merely a low level of language skills.

There's nothing wrong with someone being a "critic," is there, so long as one can prove one knows how to write other things besides criticism? You've been on my blog, so you know I can do that. I taught young people like you something about writing over a period of more than three decades; many of them are now professional writers, and I never once called any of them morons.

I don't want poetry to be "more like science," I want poetry to be "language art," not a listing of words to which people have been trained, like Pavlov's dogs, to respond automatically. That is a technique of advertising, not literature.

Lewis Turco


Lewis,

What would make you feel better? "Another Gilbert Basher" (dropping the "moron")?

One other thing, it seems rather easy to take any masterpiece and break it down line by line, word by word, to find flaws. Does Gilbert's work not speak to you as a whole? I'm very curious about this.

Ah, this Ironic Age...suggest a thing and you've suggested its opposite. I happen to agree with several of your points, but it's a Jack Gilbert group [on Facebook], to introduce folks to his work and keep them up to speed about latest developments. That I added (acknowledged) your points at all should tell you something, no? Maybe the word "moron" was/is a little harsh... but, no, I don't think so. Many words don't carry the same power they once did. I assume there's at least a generation between you and me, and my friends and I used that term often on each other as one of endearment. Please take no offense. I wanted folks in the group to see your points, or I wouldn't have put them there (on Facebook :).

Jason


Jason,

I don't feel bad about anything, but I'm happy to hear that by using the word "moron" you meant to include me as a member of your group of "friends." Are you suggesting that they are all morons?

I'm happy to learn that you "happen to agree with several of [my] points," but how does introducing someone to bad "poetry" help anyone keep "up to speed about developments" — assuming you mean developments in Gilbertiana — if those developments are retrograde?

Under no circumstances would I consider this poem by Jack Gilbert to be a "masterpiece," unless you are speaking in terms of training people to salivate like Pavlov's dogs by using cues that jump from image to image without point or sequence. As a Pavlovian linguistic exercise perhaps it has some merit, but you would have to explain critically how that might be so.

It is one of the useful functions of criticism to discuss literature in terms of its elements, thereby finding both its flaws and its strengths. Gilbert's work does not speak to me at all, let alone as a "whole." There is nothing to understand in a series of non-sequiturs jumping from cue to cue.

Lewis


Lewis,

Can you accept that not everyone sees/processes existence exactly like yourself, and that Gilbert's work DOES speak to a small but growing number of readers?  Even Hume would accept this much.  I had to accept it when I was teaching, as well.
I never said this poem by Gilbert is a masterpiece — I said it's easy to do what you did with one. I could make a case for why Dante's work is shit in any other era but his own, but considered in the context of the time in which he wrote it, it's brilliant. What I learned most from my university experience was that the majority of my professors were bitter/resentful toward anything people like. Maybe it's a simple symptom of elitism, maybe it's the historically recurring transition between eras (in this case the shift from modernism to post-modernism, or po-mo to post-po-mo) and the resulting communication breakdowns that ensue, I don't know. But I was disappointed. One of the few profs who taught me anything worthwhile was in the German language department, but teaching a class on German Intellectual History. I tore Hegel a new asshole (the way you did Gilbert), and my prof responded with something like: "Cheap shots. Anyone can tear something apart — but can you find what's true in it?"  I realized in later months that all my literature classes were locking us into paralyzing arguments with secondary texts...and the primary text was left somewhere beneath the publish-or-perish rubble.
 For me, for lots of people I know, language can have a magic about it that resists all logical deconstructionalisticisms. It appeals to the heart, and the mind rests a while, gratefully, because of it. Sure, Mein Kampf used the same tricks, maybe, but Gilbert ain't no Hitler.

By the way, "What It All Meant," on your blog, is a brilliantly crafted manipulation of language...great enjoyment...an exercise for the mind...but does nothing for my heart.  I can only speak for myself in this regard, as others' hearts remain elusive. I'm constantly on the fence about such things, one foot in brain fluid, the other ankle-deep in blood.


Jason

 

Jason,

Yes, you did call Gilbert's "poem" a "masterpiece." Take a look above. Of course I can accept that a small group of people like the sort of material that Gilbert writes. In fact, I can accept that the literary cultures of the United States and Canada fell in love with the “deep image,” which Robert Bly popularized in the ‘sixties and ‘seventies (and about which you may read in a number of pieces on my blog). I was a minority of one for about three decades in my disdain for this “period style.”

In 1958 Robert Bly founded his extremely influential little magazine that inaugurated the capitulation of formalist poets. It was originally titled The Fifties, then The Sixties, and, briefly, The Seventies, together with his press of the same names. In his periodical and in the books that he issued from his press, no less than in his own work, Bly began to press two ideas. The first was that, in order to write quintessentially "American" poetry one had, quixotically and paradoxically, to study the work of the Chilean Marxist poet Pablo Neruda and the Scandinavians, including Gunnar Ekelof and Thomas Tranströmer, all of whom Bly was translating.

         Bly's second idea was that poets needed to get in touch with their basic natures somehow, needed to reach down into their ids to pull up and bring to light the primal urges of the brute and somehow reconcile them with their conscious existence. The way to do this was to utilize what has come to be called the "underground" or "deep” image, a term coined by Amiri Baraka, but an idea Bly derived from Theodore Roethke whose method it was to walk the edge of madness, not falling over into insanity nor, on the other hand, giving in to the logical mind. It was the poet's job to bring from the side of the unconscious those images that would enable humankind to face and understand itself. These images would, of course, be distortions of "reality" as the conscious mind perceived it; therefore, "deep imagism" was a type of literary surrealism.

Bly pressed ahead with his theories, and soon he had a great many converts, one of whom, obviously, was Jack Gilbert. Bly's major conversion, however, was that of James Dickey, although the association between him and Bly was short-lived. Soon the "pink fog" — to use the term of the young Upstate New York poet Dugan Gilman who fell into and out of the mire — of Deep Imagism began to envelop the college graduate writing workshops, of which there began to be a great many throughout America during the late 1960s and the 1970s (was this where you ran into the work of Jack Gilbert?). During this period many formal poets were persuaded to the new view that formal poetry was no longer relevant to the times, which were becoming oriented to social activism, reform and to “self-expression”; i.e., egopoetry and “confession.” Unlike every other art taught in the academy, poetry became the stepchild of "intuition."  If anyone wanted to find out what he or she was actually doing with pen, muse, and paper, it had to be learned privately, on one's own in the silent hours, an activity I was able to foster in 1968 by publishing The Book of Forms: A Handbook of Poetics.

I append part of an essay that my daughter sent me this morning by P. Lutus; she took it from this url:

         http://www.arachnoid.com/alaska2007/crazy_tourists.html

“I've read a number of articles that say bears have tiny brains and are rather dumb. That is not my experience. I regularly see some pretty sophisticated bear reasoning, like mama bear deciding that I'm a safe haven for her cubs, on the basis that the male bears, the primary threat to her cubs, wouldn't think of approaching me.

“But my perception of bear intelligence is related to my perception of human intelligence, and over decades I've gradually realized that some people are astonishingly dumb, given the size of our brains. I know my readers may find this hard to believe, but when people run out of reasonable arguments to support a decision they've made, they frequently abandon anything resembling rational thought and instead invoke the authority of an imaginary ruler of the universe. Over time, their ability to reason withers away like an unused limb, and they begin to invoke the authority of an imaginary superbeing all the time.

          “The advantages of this system should be obvious. Because the ruler of the universe is fictional, he won't contradict anyone who invokes his authority. In fact, people can and do justify absolutely anything based on this imaginary authority without any chance of contradiction. It's a kind of artificial, self-imposed stupidity, by creatures who aren't naturally stupid. It reverses the natural tendency to accomplish as much as possible with a little, and tries to accomplish as little as possible with a lot.

“Such people, having permanently shut their brains down, possess no personal doubt whatever. They are supremely confident of the rightness of their thoughtless actions. This raises ordinary clinical narcissism to an art form and strips it of anything resembling caution or self-doubt. It turns out that about 90% of Americans can be relied on to invoke the imaginary authority when things become complicated and a keen, trained mind would ordinarily be called for.

“By that measure, bears aren't dumb at all. At least they work things out for themselves, without abandoning the reasoning powers nature has granted them.”

I’m glad you liked my series of puns, “What It All Meant,” Jason, and I’m pleased that you noticed it’s a mind exercise. There is nothing wrong with human beings exercising their minds. In fact, it is the human mind, the neo-cortex, not the human “heart,” that writes poetry, and it is not the “heart” that is the seat of emotion, it is the mammal brain: Take a look on my blog at the essay titled “Sympathetic Magic” for an expansion of some ideas of Arthur Koestler on this subject.

Lewis


Hell, Prof. Turco,

Read the quote. So? The writer said nothing that has not been said before and better expressed centuries ago; a wordy recycling of arguments.

William

 

William,

You knew that stuff about bears? I didn't. Or are you upset about the remarks about the Supreme Being? Those remarks may be old hat, but they can't be repeated often enough. All one has to do is take a look at the Middle East today. Everybody is dead sure that God is on their side, and they're going to stay dead sure until everybody is just dead.

Lewis


Lew,

Thanks for this. I went to his web site and read the entire piece. Very sensible stuff, and the clip in the first page about brains going soft because of dependency on an invisible power is funny until you realize our former president did exactly that.

I met a writer at one of the conferences here in Montana, where I gave a talk and workshop, who is called the Bear Man where he lives, near Bozeman, MT. That's because he raised a black bear from a cub and keeps it at his home in the mountains. It is very gentle with all members of the family. But it is aggressive to outsiders.

So one day the fish & game guys bring him a starving set of twin bear cubs. Mom was shot by hunters and the cubs were left to live or die on their own. The Bear Man and wife and little girl nursed the two of them back to good health from near death. He said the female couldn't stand up on her own when they got them and that the male was only slightly stronger. Anyway, they got them fed and strong in about two months. He said that you can tell when a bear cub feels good because they race around your house and break everything you have.

At about the 3rd month, the Bear Man called the fish & game people and said the cubs were ready to go to whatever life was appropriate. They could not live at their age alone in the wild, and probably not for about 18 months. So they had to go either to a public or private zoo. The Montana wildlife management guys returned and collected the bears.

In about three weeks, the Bear Man received a postcard from the wildlife management people that read as follows: “Thank you for your work in saving the two bear cubs. No good home was available for them so there was no choice other than to destroy them both.”

John

 

June 10, 2009

A Hollow Rush

Luigi Turco

                                                                  Meriden, Connecticut

                                                                  October 26, 1960

Lewis, dear, I never wanted to be a religious fanatic, but I wanted to be an intelligent religious minister. I never was satisfied with the idea that life consisted in living three-score years and ten and then end in oblivion. I never was satisfied to believe that life consisted in a terrific struggle to make a living. I wanted to know what was my connection or relationship with what science calls “the principle of life,” or “first cause”; what philosophy calls “the reality of life,” or what religion calls “God.”

My understanding of life, then, is beautifully expressed in your poem, “A Hollow Rush”:

 

it goes away, leola,

      as the rabble hooves have gone:

            the prairies linger.

none, no, none may know

      the sable mane for long,

            nor the stallion’s great desire.

the souls of brontosaurs may run

      their feather course

            for all I know, leola.

this is true, though:

      oceans dwell

            among the continents.

look through a hollow rush,

      leola; sight is limited

            and vaguely dry.

peer through your flesh

      or mine, leola —

            what do you see?

 

It was exactly the way I was looking at life then, as “A Hollow Rush,” a worthless existence and an unintelligent and rash preparation for it….

 

Your father,

Luigi Turco

The poem was originally published in The Midwest QuarterlyA Journal of Contemporary Thought, i:4, 1960, and reprinted in The Midwest Quarterly, “100 poems from 50 years…,” l:4, Summer 2009, p. 341. It was collected under the title "It Goes" in The Collected Lyrics of Lewis Turco / Wesli Court 1953-2004, Scottsdale: Star Cloud Press, 2004. 


CollectedLyrics100H-1

The essay and poem are excerpted from La Famiglia / The Family, Memoirs, New York: Bordighera Press, © Lewis Putnam Turco 2009. All rights reserved.La Famiglia covermock

June 07, 2009

William Carlos Williams’ Prosody

Williams

          It has been convenient for well over a century to distinguish between "classical" and "romantic" poetry, or between the Aristotelian and the Platonic.  The former is "professional" or art poetry, and it derives from the social practices of mankind — storytelling, word-games, lullabies, work songs and suchlike activities.  The latter is "amateur" or, to use Hyatt H. Waggoner's term, "vatic poetry"; its derivation is from the system of "sympathetic magic" which obtained in the world at large before the age of science. The object of vatic poetry is to control the environment of mankind through "words of power": incantations, prayers, charms, blessings, curses, and so forth.

         Professional poets tend to define poetry as "language art," but amateur poets, depending on their particular religious or philosophical set of mind, define poetry in more circumscribed ways, as "vision" or "prophecy" or "revelation" or "ecstasy," as Waggoner has discussed.  Such poets consider language not as their primary focus, not as the substance of their product, poetry, but rather as the vehicle for their religious experience, whatever it may be.

         On Sunday, October 19, 1969, there was a fine article in the New York Times Magazine by Arthur Koestler: "Man — One of Evolution's Mistakes?" What, according to Koestler, are the possibilities for the poet? First there is pure intellectuality, the activity of the human brain’s neocortex — classicism, what I have called “professional poetry.” Then there is extreme hypothalamiumism, the activity of the hypothalamus, the unthinking animal brain — pure gut-romanticism such as Theodore Roethke espoused when he courted the edge of madness, what I have called “amateur” poetry, but might better be named “priest poetry,” visionary poetry.

Koestler felt it was impossible for poets — in the manner of Robert Bly, for instance — to attempt to establish actual communication between the human cortex and the hypothalamus because the animal brain does not understand rationality. It's stupid. All it can do is feel. (For a fuller discussion of this issue, see my essay titled "Sympathetic Magic" in Visions and Revisions of American Poetry or in Heyen's volume, both cited in the bibliography below. See also the essays on Robert Bly and Theodore Roethke elsewhere on this blog.)

However, it might be possible to try to understand the animal mind, to filter the emotions it produces through the thinking brain.  This is man attempting to understand itself.  Probably most great (i.e., non-exclusive or unlimited) art does this, which may explain why visionaries cannot understand the arguments of craftsmen such as Poe — they're operating on intuitive-truth principles.  Faith — animal gut reaction — cannot be subverted by argument.  These facts also may explain why craftsmen can understand visionary points of view, though those views may be rejected.  No wonder my preacher father was never swayed by argument, nor visionaries like Gandhi.  Argument with them is useless.

         A third sort of poet, however, besides the professional and the amateur, is the "agonist" — a professional who is as committed to language art as any other poet, but who is more interested in theories than in performance.  Sometimes such poets — as for instance Wallace Stevens — will embody their theories in poetry rather than in essays.

Although William Carlos Williams was a member of the great Modernist generation of the 20th century, he remained a poetry activist until his death in 1963 and was always, in his own way, a propagandist who made great claims for a liberal America in his poetry.  Williams was not, however, a Stevens-style agonist, for it was not in his poetry that he did most of his theorizing; rather, it was in his letters to young poets, and in the comparatively little prose he published — sometimes in his long pastiche poem, Paterson, in In the American Grain, and in Something to Say which, according to its editor, "collects all of Williams' known writings — reviews, essays, introductions, and letters to the editor — on the two generations of poets that followed him, from Kenneth Rexroth and Louis Zukofsky to Robert Lowell and Allen Ginsberg."  None of the great Modernists, not even Ezra Pound, was more generous and welcoming to new talent, more encouraging of the development of new voices and styles, or more insistent that these be recognizably American.

         Despite William Carlos Williams' charter membership in the school of Modernist poets originally called "Les Imagistes" by its founder, Ezra Pound, and his public adherence to the movement's slogan, "No ideas but in things," which he coined, Williams was in fact very much interested in the dance of language. Imagism gave rise subsequently to Robert Bly's "deep image surrealism," among other movements including Charles Olson's Black Mountain school and Charles Reznikoff's cadre of "Objectivists," both of which split their loyalties between Williams and Pound.  Yet it was Williams' interest in prosodic theory and his invention of a variably accentual three-line unit that gave rise to Olson's opaque theories of "projective verse" — often reprinted but never adequately interpreted — and to many later attempts to justify prose-mode poetry as some sort of "free verse," as Stephen Cushman did in an essay titled "Forms of Poetry."  "What we have wanted," Cushman quoted Williams as saying, "is a line that will allow us room in which to develop the opportunities of a new language, a line loose as Whitman's, but measured as his was not."

         Some critics consider that Williams was a proselytizer for a certain kind of amateur poetry; he was a sort of American prophet following Whitman and, many have argued, the Whitman line, for American "poetry" isn't about language, it isn't about art, it's about patriotism, in a peculiar way.  Stephen Tapscott wrote, "Williams chose Whitman as an appropriate model because Williams needed to invent a tradition to join," for, as Williams remarked to his son, "I have wanted to link myself up with traditional art."

         George S. Lensing, discussing the Tapscott book in his essay, "Williams after the First Quarter-Century," wrote, "Whitman was American, vernacular, committed to place, experimental in form, consciously rebellious — all qualities extolled by Williams.  Whitman's transcendentalism, however, was regarded with suspicion; and many of the formal experiments, according to Williams, failed."  In other words, Williams did not see himself as a prose-mode vatic poet like Whitman.

         American poetry, when it was defined by Emerson and Whitman, was defined specifically as vatic poetry, but a particular kind, in order to distinguish it from European amateur poetry.  American poetry was to be anti-formal, intuitive, "organic."  Whitman, as the prime poet-prophet of America, was concerned with mythicizing American experience in this "new" way.  It is itself a myth, however, that Williams was essentially a Whitmanian.

         Waggoner claimed that Williams "really knew very little about Whitman." Williams was interested in only part of Whitman's program.  Waggoner talked about the mainstream of American poetry deriving from Whitman and Emerson, but then he made distinctions among those poets who derive directly from Emerson's Transcendentalist credo, those who derive directly from Whitman's prose-poetry practice, and those who derive from a combination of the two.

         Williams derives primarily from Whitman's practice, not from Emerson's agonism.  That is to say, Williams was interested in Whitman's attempt to write in prose, thus getting away from traditional British practice.  Rather than write prose poems, however, Williams wanted to write in a "measured" line.  For many years he experimented, and finally Williams invented a verse prosody — variable accentuals — that looks, acts, and sounds like prose most of the time (see the entry on the "Triversen" in The Book of Forms, Third Edition).  In this way he was like Whitman superficially.

         Williams was also interested in the "common man," as Whitman professed to be, but in Williams' poetry the reader will find real people whereas in Whitman's work one may find laborers mentioned and over-mentioned in catalogs of people, but the only person one will find is Whitman himself, or at least the image of himself that he projected.  Williams was interested in Everyman; Whitman was interested in himself as the symbol of Everyman, but it is a tossup which of these two poets was more responsible for the proliferation of "democratic" poetic schools and canons in mid-twentieth-century American poetry.

         To say that Ezra Pound and the Imagist poets were influenced not only by Whitman's practice but also by Japanese poetry — especially the haiku — is to utter a truism, but the argument can be made that Williams deliberately invented an American accentual stanza in his "triversen" that is the equivalent of the Japanese haiku — or, more exactly, the three-line katauta, as I have discussed in chapter 12, "Of Imagery," in Poetry: An Introduction (q.v. bibliography).  In effect, in his earliest poems — those to be found in the first volume of his Collected Poems, from which all the illustrations used here have been taken — Williams adapted to American poetry the syllabic prosody of the haiku and katauta by transmuting it: syllables became stresses; the seventeen syllables of the haiku and the nineteen syllables of the katauta, arranged in three lines of 5-7-5 or 5-7-7 syllables, became a "variable foot," to use Williams' terminology, also arranged in three lines.

         Besides the "variable foot," Williams talked about the "breath pause," an accentual prosody version of the katauta which is, according to Brower and Miner, "A fragmentary form of three lines of 5, 7, 7 syllables.  Sometimes used in pairs for dialogue; suggests incompleteness when alone."  There are actually two forms that are called "katautas"; both are formal, but only one is a stanza form per se, and both are based upon spontaneous "utterances" which, in the Japanese tradition, are sudden, emotive words, as in the first line of Williams' poem "Mujer":

 

                  Oh, black Persian cat!

 

The first form of the katauta is an emotive question or its answer, as in lines two and three of the same poem:

 

                  Was not your life

                  already cursed with offsprings?

                                                         (Collected Poems, Vol. I, 78)

 

A pair of such katautas is a mondo as in Williams' poem "The Hunter," stanzas two and three:

 

                  Where will a shoulder split or

                  a forehead open and victory be?

 

                  Nowhere.

                  Both sides grow older.

                                                         (CP I, 164)

 

Mondos may look like the Western syllogism and appear in similar parallel constructions, as for instance in stanza one of Williams' "The Fool's Song":

 

                  I tried to put a bird in a cage.

                                    O fool that I am!

                           For the bird was Truth.

                  Sing merrily, Truth: I tried to put

                                    Truth in a cage!

                                                        (CP I, 5-6)

 

But the katauta answer is not derived logically; it is intuited, as in the Zen koan or "unanswerable question," for Zen Buddhism is at the root of the haiku.  As Yoel Hoffman noted, "Zen literature eventually came to serve as a means to enlightenment in Zen monasteries.  Several times a week, every monk would meet alone with the master.  The latter would tell an anecdote or present a koan, a sort of problem or riddle from Zen literature.  The monk's response would not necessarily be verbal, and it is often difficult to see the connection between the answer and the anecdote." An example of such intuition is to be found in lines two through four of Williams' "Fire Spirit":

 

                  I am old.

                  You warm yourselves at these fires?

                  In the center of these flames

                  I sit, my teeth chatter!

                  Where shall I turn for comfort?

                                                        (CP I, p. 58)

 

The last line in this strophe is a rhetorical question, not a katauta question, and the first line is merely a statement, not an emotive utterance.  One can see the difference between the two sets of lines if lines one and five are juxtaposed —

 

                  I am old.

                  Where shall I turn for comfort?

 

or, in reverse order,

 

                  Where shall I turn for comfort?

                  I am old.

 

— and then set against the three middle lines:

 

                  You warm yourself at these fires?

                  In the center of these flames

                  I sit, my teeth chatter!

 

This cannot be said to be a logical consequence of a rational action.

         The second kind of katauta is a stanza or poem form.  It is made up of three parts arranged in lines of 5-7-7 syllables, these lengths being approximately breath-length, or the appropriate lengths in which to ask a sudden, emotive question and respond to it, also emotively.  Seventeen syllables — as in the haiku, or nineteen — as in the katauta, are as many as can normally be uttered in one short breath; five to seven syllables are approximately equal to the utterance of an emotive question or its answer.  The Japanese poet Igarashi wrote of this basic and organic unit of Japanese poetry, "Katauta is a poem of three lines in which the first two lines consist of one short and one long one; and the last line is the same length as the second line, which is added as a prop to help harmonize the rhythm.  This is the unit of Japanese poetry." (Poetry: An Introduction, 163)

         In Williams' "variable foot" accentual prosody version of this unit, two to four stresses are approximately equal to the utterance of an emotive question or its answer, and six to twelve stresses are the outer limits of the utterance of a question and its intuitive "answer."  Arranging these stresses and emotive utterances into lines not exceeding four stresses each, one will have a stanza or poem three lines in length, each line being equal to one phrase.  In fact, this system in grammatic prosodies is called "lineating" (by Cushman and others) or "line-phrasing," and there is such a grammatical element in some Japanese forms as well, particularly in the tanka which, like the katauta, takes two forms. (Brower, 511; Hoffman, 19-22)

         Both forms of the tanka are externally alike in that they are quintet poems with lines, in this order, of 5-7-5-7-7 syllables. In the first tanka form, called the waka, one subject is treated in the first two lines, another in the next two, and the last line is a refrain or paraphrase or restatement: 5-7, 5-7, 5.  The first two lines are a dependent clause or a phrase, the last three an independent clause.  Grammatically, Williams often did similar things with his stanzas: note the stanza from "The Fool's Song" above.

         The second type of tanka consists of two parts.  The first three lines are an independent unit ending in a noun or verb after which a turn takes place: 5-7-5, 7-7.  The triplet is an observation, the couplet is a comment on the observation.  Returning to Williams' "Fire Spirit," and dropping the first line to last position, we have the form — disregarding syllabification — of this kind of tanka:

 

                  You warm yourself at these fires?

                  In the center of these flames

                  I sit, my teeth chatter.

 

                  Where shall I turn for comfort?

                  I am old.

 

         In his poem "Epitaph" Williams used this same division though, again, not the syllabification:

 

                  An old willow with hollow branches

                  slowly swayed his few high bright tendrils

                  and sang:

 

                  Love is a young green willow

                  shimmering at the bare wood's edge.

                                                      (CP I, 160)

 

The second line of this poem is unusually long for Williams, and it does not fit the "variable foot" pattern in that it is a line of more than four stresses.  Williams wanted to avoid the English iambic pentameter line, and his development of the triversen stanza allowed him to do so.  The stress pattern of "Epitaph" is as follows, (where the breve [x] stands for an unstressed syllable, the accent ['] stands for a primary stressed syllable, and the dot [.] stands for a secondary stressed syllable):

 

                  1.         x''xx'x'x

                  2.         'x'x'.x'x

                  3.         x'

 

                  4.         'xx'.'x

                  5.         'x.x'.' (r-glide elision in shimmering.)

 

Line two is heavily overstressed, or "sprung," with alliteration and assonance so that, though it has too many stresses to fit the triversen pattern, it nevertheless avoids the five-stress regularity of iambic pentameter, accentual-syllabic verse.  Line five is exactly five stresses long, but the elision of "shim'ring" and the springing of the last three syllables avoid pentameter as well.

         A renga, according to Brower, is "Linked verses.  Historically two different forms, both involving more than one author.  The earlier form, called tanrenga, or "short renga," is a “tanka” whose first three lines were composed by one poet, and last two lines by another;..."  This final couplet response is the hanka.  A renga chain or "long renga" is a poem made of a sequence of rengas and composed by two or more authors.  The first triplet sets the subject, the succeeding couplet and all ensuing triplets and couplets amplify, gloss, or comment upon the first triplet. Various other changes might also be rung upon the long renga, but what is important to this discussion is the development of the haiku from the tanka and the renga.

         The tanka developed from an older form, the choka, which was a poem written in alternating 5-7-syllable lines.  The conclusion of the choka would be, often, an envoy that doubled the last 7-syllable line: 5-7-7 — the katauta — or that consisted of two choka couplets with a doubled last line: 5-7-5-7-7 — the tanka. One can see the katauta is the base of the tanka, and one can see the haiku growing out of the first three lines of the tanka.  But it was from the renga chain that the hokku developed.  The word is Chinese in origin, and it came to specify in Japanese poetry the first triplet of a renga chain.  This first verse set the theme of the chain and was the most important part of the poem, the rest of which, beginning with the succeeding 7-7-syllable hanka couplet, served to elaborate upon or gloss the hokku. The hokku of a renga chain ended with a full stop — it was complete by itself.

         The term haikai no renga applies to the humorous renga chain, and it means, specifically, "renga of humor." By various stages the term haiku — a corruption and blending of the dissimilar words "hokku" and "haikai" — came to denote an independent tercet of 5-7-5 syllables.  The haiku dropped all hankas, glosses, comments, and elaborations.  It became a poem that had as its basis emotive utterance, an image, and certain other characteristics as well, including spareness, condensation, spontaneity, ellipsis, and a seasonal element.

         Ideally the haiku, though complete in itself, would be open-ended in that its statement would "reverberate" beyond itself into overtone.  Williams' "The Soughing Wind" is a good example of what the haiku poet tries to accomplish by way of suggestion:

 

                  Some leaves hang late, some fall

                  before the first frost — so goes

                  the tale of winter branches and old bones.

                                                               (CP I, 158)

 

         The haiku has perhaps been best described as a moment of intense perception.  A distinction is sometimes made between the senryu and the haiku, though both have the same syllabic form.  The senryu was originally a parodic haiku, but in its serious aspect it has been characterized as an inquiry into the nature of man; the haiku, an inquiry into the nature of the universe.  (Poetry: An Introduction, 168-9)  There seems to be a number of dualities in the Japanese tradition: two kinds of katautas, two kinds of tankas, and two kinds of haiku.

         Williams was particularly successful in adapting to American poetics not only Japanese metrical theory, but also the spirit of the haiku to the American sensibility.  Many other Western poets have been notably unsuccessful in writing good haiku or haiku-style poetry, and this failure has to do with their attempting what Williams did not attempt to do: naturalize Zen Buddhism, of which the haiku is a relatively recent outgrowth.

         Haiku translated into English often appear to members of Occidental cultures to be overly sentimental.  The Zen poet attempts to put the self into the thing perceived, to do more than empathize with it and "become one" with the thing; thus, by extension, with all things. In Western traditions empathizing with objects is sentimental; there is even a term, "the pathetic fallacy," to describe the state of excessive personification or over-empathy.  If American poets try to become one with the object of their perception, their work will appear to be self-indulgent and egocentric.  Williams doubtless understood his danger, for, as has been noted above, it was he who gave Les Imagistes their slogan, "No ideas but in things."  It was T. S. Eliot, though, who produced the theory that Williams put into practice, the theory of "the objective correlative": the poet must choose that object which will be the idea, not merely the symbol of the idea, which was the theory of another Modernist school, the Symbolists.  Another Williams poem, "Spring," will illustrate:

 

                  O my grey hairs!

                  You are truly white as plum blossoms.

                                                               (CP I, 158)

 

         The "objective correlative" is nothing more than the "vehicle" of the metaphor of the poem, the figure of speech that carries the weight of the identification of one object with another, dissimilar, object.  In this Williams couplet mote the "grey hairs" is the tenor or subject of the metaphor, and "plum blossoms" — a traditional Japanese symbol for spring, incidentally — is the vehicle or object; that is, the "objective correlative": that object which is relative to the idea of the tenor.  In the context of the poem the objective correlative allows the implication or overtone that something old can paradoxically be young.  The hairs are at once white and wintry, white and spring-like.  Williams' "idea-in-the-thing" substitutes for Zen Buddhist "thing-empathy," but much of the effect of the Zen identification with an object is preserved, though the observer of the poem is emotionally severed from the perceived article.  It is through this objectivity or aesthetic distance, finally, that the poet in English — at least a poet like Williams — achieves empathy, which is only a way of saying that there is no such thing as pure objectivity where human beings are concerned.

         As a final support for the thesis that the Japanese forms are analogous to Imagist poetry in English, and specifically that the Japanese 5-7-5-syllable count is analogous to Williams' phrasal-accentual prosody, here is Williams 1916 poem "Marriage":

 

                  So different, this man

                  And this woman:

                  A stream flowing

                  In a field.

 

                                    (CP I, 56)

 

         The original version of this poem is a sentence that has been line- phrased; that is to say, the sentence has been broken into phrases and each phrase has become a line.  This is the stressing pattern:

 

                  1.  ''x''

                  2.  x''x

                  3.  x''x

                  4.  .x'

 

         The first syllable of line four is promoted because, in the sentence, it is the middle syllable in a series of three unstressed syllables (see “The Rules of Scansion” in The Book of Forms, Third Edition, op. cit.).  Thus, in this early poem there are no more than four, and no fewer than two strong stresses in any line, as in the triversen stanza, but there are four lines here, not three. However, if the lines of this poem are rearranged in syllabic lengths of 5-7-5, the poem becomes a perfect three-line senryu:

 

                     So different, this

                  man and this woman: a stream

                     flowing in a field.

 

                                    (Poetry: An Introduction, 170)

 

         The senryu itself first showed up unmistakably in Williams' poetry only three pages farther along in the Collected Poems, on page 59, as the 1917 poem titled "Chinese Nightingale":


                  Long before dawn your light

                  Shone in the window, Sam Wu;

                  You were at your trade.


Its syllabification is off by only one syllable in the first line, but the poem is a lineated compound sentence.

         The prosody Williams developed from Japanese sources has become widely dispersed among American poets since its early appearances in short, haiku-like poems written by the Imagists.  Williams himself soon used it as a stanza pattern, developing out of the haiku a triplet, each line of which equals one phrase, the whole triplet equal to one independent clause, each line containing no more than four stressed syllables and generally no fewer than two.

         In Williams' work there are literally dozens of poems that fit this description.  The triversen stanza first showed up in section VII of the 1923 Spring and All, and thereafter it occurred with increasing frequency in his work, though it cannot be claimed that it became his mainstay strophe.

         To list examples of the triversen stanza and of pseudo-haiku in the work of other poets would be an endless task, but one other poet who did fine things in the Japanese tradition — once only, and atypically — was Wallace Stevens in "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Bird" (see elsewhere on this blog), his only truly Imagist, as distinguished from Symbolist, poem. But in "Not Ideas about the Thing but the Thing Itself" Stevens not only wrote a poem in triversen stanza, he glossed Williams' Imagist credo as well.

ADDENDUM

This following short series of poems, taken from The Book of Forms, Third Edition, cited below, illustrates a number of the Japanese forms and their chronological development and evolution toward the haiku (it may also be found in Fearful Pleasures, cited below):

 

PARADIGM

 

         Why does the brook run?

The banks of the stream are green.                mondo

 

         Why does the stream run?

The banks of the brook bloom

with roe and cup-moss, with rue.                  katauta

 

         The trees are filled with

cups.  Grain in the fields, straw men

         talking with the wind.

Have you come far, water-

         borne, wind-born?  Here are

hounds-tongue and mistletoe oak.                 choka

 

         When the spears bend as

you walk through vervain or broom,

         call out to the brook —

it will swell in your veins as

you move through broom or vervain.               waka (5-7-5, 7-7)

 

         Have you spoken aloud?  Here,

where the swallows' crewel-work

         sews the sky with mist?

You must cut the filament.

You must be the lone spider.                          tanka (5-7-5, 7-7)

 

         The bole is simple:

Twig and root like twin webs in

         air and earth like fire.                            haiku (5-7-5)

WORKS CITED

Robert H. Brower and Earl Miner, Japanese Court Poetry, Stanford: Stanford University               Press, 1961.

Stephen Cushman, "Forms of Poetry," Sewanee Review, xcvi:1, Winter 1988.

Heyen, William, ed., American Poets in 1976, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976.

Yoel Hoffman, ed. & tr., Japanese Death Poems, Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, 1986.

George S. Lensing, Collected Poems, New York: Knopf, 1957.

Stephen Tapscott, American Beauty: William Carlos Williams and the Modernist Whitman, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.

Lewis Turco, The Book of Forms, Third Edition, Hanover: University Press of New England, 2000.

TBOF

——, Fearful Pleasures: The Complete Poems 1959-2007, Scottsdale: Star Cloud Press, 2007.Fearfulmedium120W

——, Poetry: An Introduction Through Writing, Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, 1973.

Poetry an Intro

——, Visions and Revisions of American Poetry, Fayetteville, University of Arkansas Press, 1986.

Visions_revisions-thumb

Hyatt H. Waggoner, American Poets from the Puritans to the Present, Boston: Houghton, 1968; rev. ed., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984.

William Carlos Williams, The Collected Poems, Vol. I, 1909-1939, ed. A. Walton Litz and Christopher MacGowan, New York: New Directions, 1986.

——-, In the American Grain, Norfolk, CT: New Directions, 1925.

——-, Paterson, New York: New Directions, 1963.

——- Something to Say: William Carlos Williams on Younger Poets, ed. James E. B. Breslin, New York: New Directions, 1985.

——-, Spring and All, Paris: n.p., 1923.


This essay first appeared in The Cloverdale Review, 1992/93, pp. 37-49, copyright 1993 and 2000 by Lewis Putnam Turco, all rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without the specific written permission of the author.

June 03, 2009

Weird Sonnet Invitational

Following Jack Foley's example, other poets are invited to get it off their vests...er, chests, with odd, weird, or outrageous sonnets to be posted below by submission to turco@oswego.edu.

37393063

OH, WOE! BEGONE! A REVIEW BY JACK FOLEY

77 Love Sonnets by Garrison Keillor, New York: Penguin USA, 2009.

If only we didn’t want to read

These crummy “sonnets” he writes so badly

If only we didn’t have to read

These “sonnets,” which are, sadly, sadly,

Neither well nor cleverly written —

And were published for one reason only: they

Were made by someone whose “voice”* had smitten

Millions of listeners with cash to pay.

Abominations of an art

Practiced with grace “in sondry londes”

But not in Lake Wobegon! Faint of heart,

Faint of mind — not faint of fans —

This book will sell, though my heart break;

He did better with that fucking lake.

* N.B. “Voice” is the Brooklynese pronunciation of “verse”; Keillor’s “voice” is different from his “verse.”

Jack Foley


Hi, Lew,

I look forward to seeing your "collection" as it grows. The following is from my brand new book, Karma, Dharma, Pudding & Pie (Quantuck Lane Press/WW Norton, 2009).

THAT TIME OF YEAR

So April's here, with all these soggy showers,

Making us almost long for March again,

As every twiglet makes a play for flowers

And every hack for miles picks up a pen,

Girls all playing hankypank, not soccer,

The smell of oozing sap all over town,

Teen-age boys completely off their rocker,

And rutting rabbits diddling farmer Brown.

 

We're in for it now, nothing to be done:

Loving's what we wanted, what we got.

At least we're going to have a little fun –

With any luck, we're going to have a lot.

Thirty days hath April: seize the day!

Don't trust to luck for darling buds in May.

Philip Appleman

 

THE PARASOL

On a word by Katherine Mansfield

Along the beach the lady wearing white

Made her shell-like way, the spray kissing

Her knees.  You almost heard the fish whispering

About her in the waves.  She walked, but might

 

Have ridden seahorses promenading

Had she wished.  She was a lady of fashion,

High-waisted, well made.  The sun was crystalline

Upon her parasol.  Her gown flouncing,

 

All her appointments minutely kept, she glanced

Among the emerald waves, and as she strolled,

The susurruses of the fawning ocean rolled

After her.  She flirted, she blushed, she danced

 

And giggled for her lovers.  "I'm nearly dead!

It's hot beneath this perishall," she said.

Della Diabolo


Not sure if this qualifies for your odd sonnet series, Lew, but here it is. I've been sending this notice around:

David Bromige died this morning.

There's a website accepting tributes:

http://bromige.wordpress.com/

I wrote this, using two poems by David:

 

R.I.P.

 

If your child is holding you

I can’t say that I ever satisfied him

in an intensity of feeling that you find’s

He was insatiable

too difficult to bear

Sometimes, I felt I had really disappointed,

you can abstract yourself by naming this

in the sense I had failed him.

experience: Biological identity.

At other times, I felt I had satisfied him

There is a use of category

It’s a lot like sex, though I don’t mean it to be

that brings hopeless reassurance.

 

You think of big B Being,

I wouldn’t have liked to make love to Robert Duncan

with all that term can bear to you.

It didn’t go further for me.

You needn’t think it rimes with big B Boeing

We were friends. Friends.

in that rare realm where you are big G Going.

And now Duncan is Gone

And call the boy your son.

And David is

This is a sonnet.

gone, — who said “sonnet” like “sun—”

 

Jack Foley


EPISTLE IN DEPRESSION

 

I’m not to blame that you are “bent and broke”

(Not to mention bankruptured and broken)

Because you spent your savings — every token,

Apparently, in your retirement poke —

 

Upon self-publication and ego trips

Foreign and domestic. Nor did I worsen

Your situation purposely, or coarsen

Your talents by applying contest judgeships

 

To work which you submitted that failed to win.

Those contests were anonymous, please note;

So, too, was the epistle that you wrote

Implying that your losses were my sin.

 

I doubt it, dear old friend, but I do worry

That you are in distress, and I am sorry.


Anne Ominous

WOODBANE

 

Hour on hour I've wandered Venus' arbor

Looking for the sun.  All I encounter

Is dappled leaves and lichen.  In her bower

She stands disarmed.  Each time I try to mount her

 

I fall unmembered to the harlot moss,

The victim of her concrete passion, dazzled

And confused.  I try to fit my loss

Into her cross words, but my mind is puzzled —

 

Incomplete and wretched intellect

Is no help at all.  Before the tomb

Of love I stand and pray to be elect,

To be at one with her in her blue womb,

 

For there at least and last I could not fault her,

And I'd have no more reason to assault her.

 

Hank O’Hare


Among Well-Thumbed Magazines

 

A life, however fierce we may intend,

is but a slight sublunary event—

it happens, here it comes and there it went.

Its major turns and roadblocks all depend

 

on cultural fixed variables.  We bend

our wills to doing.  All the while a silent

thief awaits, to rob us of intent.

Or here's a gap where we'd supposed a friend.

 

Let's pack our rumpled laundry up and go

off to the laundromat's bright lights.  That's where

we'll find no guilt, surcease, surcease ...  I know

seeking a mindless pause, we'll find it there

 

on plastic chairs.  We'll sit and weigh our grief

and for a time suspend our disbelief.

 

Ruth F. Harrison


Lew,

My reason for writing is to inquire if you are still soliciting sonnets, under your "Weird Sonnet Invitational" a month ago. If so, perhaps the following is appropriate. (Composed in response to someone's criticism of an earlier sonnet by me using capital letters, as here, to begin each line.)


Capital Punishment


A poet said to me the other day

Initial ‘caps’ on lines are now, he fears,

Best avoided. Oh, yes––and by the way,

That he himself has not used them for years.

 

Captious fellow! Full-blown ‘prof,’ indeed.

Eschewing tradition’s become a raison d’etre.

New rules from upper ranks have been decreed:

No caps, no vague allusions, no––et cetera.

 

(Surely it’s not by chance the works I love

Start in higher realms; conversely, those

Begun all leveled-down, I think less of.)

 

He handles Shakespeare’s sonnets, I suppose,

Re-typed, with lowered letters––what a bore.

Or does he just not read them anymore?

 

Marta Finch

 

Always appropriate, Marta.

Lew

May 29, 2009

Requiem for a Name

Turco family 1936

For as long as I have known the meaning and origin of my surname, I have known about the Putnams of Salem, Massachusetts, and their involvement in the Witch Hunt of 1692.

Scourge FC

 Luigi Turco met May Laura Putnam — “Mom May” as she liked to call herself, because of the pun, I suppose — at a Methodist camp in Wakefield, Massachusetts, where she was working as a missionary among Italian immigrants. At the time she was an old maid in her thirties who had pulled herself out of rural poverty in Superior, Wisconsin, by sheer wit and strength of will. Despite the desperate penury of her second generation Danish mother, born Laura Christine Larsen; the shiftlessness of her father, William Herbert Putnam, descendant of an old New England family, and the competition of her six brothers and two sisters, Mom May had made something of herself, becoming the only one of the Putnam siblings to attend and graduate from college — Boston University’s School of Religious Education.

Believe it or believe it not,

                  My mother was a Putnam once.

         On her ancestral tree she swears

The Lowells and the Deweys too

         Hang pendulous as lovely pears.

                  My grampaw was a sort of dunce

Who rather let things go to pot —

 

Himself, his offspring, farm and wife.

                  My grampaw was a sort of dunce.

         His homestead I remember well:

The floors were warped, the doors askew,

         And now and then the rafters fell.

                  My mother was a Putnam once —

She led a less than social life,

 

So she went East from grampaw's West.

                  My mother was a Putnam once

         Till she was married, woe O! woe.

No longer was she maiden free —

         She cursed her pa from pate to toe.

                  My grampaw was a sort of dunce

To cheat the eaglet in its nest

 

By willing her a woman's form.

         My grampaw was a sort of dunce,

                  But what a hefty name he wore!

He gave my middle name to me;

                  It fits me like a saddlesore.

         My mother was a Putnam once,

I'd be one too, come sun or storm.

 

The Deweys and the Lowell hosts

         Are pendant from a hollow tree.

Now with this rime let them be felled,

         Let me be nothing more to me

Than windfalls blasted by the frosts.

 

                  My mother was a Putnam once;

                  My grampaw was a sort of dunce.

 

Mom May was wrong about the Lowells, but right about the Deweys.

         So my parents married and I was born into their middle age. We lived a while in Buffalo near my father's sister, Vita Sardella, and her family.  I was christened Lewis (my mother was having no other "Luigi" in the family) Putnam (hyphenated last names were not yet current in the U.S.) Turco, and then we moved to Meriden, where I was brought up unaware of how poor we were.  Thinking back on my early life, I consider it remarkable that my parents, given their own histories, brought up their children as members of the middle class who had no doubt at all we were as privileged as anyone else.  Though we had no money, the house was full of books of all sorts.  My parents read to me practically from the moment I was born, and soon I was reading for myself.

La Famiglia covermock

From La Famiglia / The Family, Memoirs, New York City: Bordighera Press, copyright 2009 by Lewis Turco. All rights reserved. May not be reprinted or posted on the web without the express written permission of the author.

 

May 25, 2009

Wallace Stevens in His Role as Imagist

Stevens

         A native American form of variable accentuals, I have written in The Book of Forms: A Handbook of Poetics, Third Edition (q.v. bibliography below) and elsewhere, is the triversen stanza, which was developed by William Carlos Williams and a number of others as an American analogue of such three-line Japanese poem and stanza forms as the katauta, the haiku, and the sedoka.  Essentially, a triversen (“triple verse sentence,” The Book of Forms, pp. 31-2) stanza is partly grammatical in its prosody: One stanza equals one sentence.  This sentence is broken into three parts, each part becoming a line composed of approximately one phrase.  Thus, three lines (three phrases) equal one stanza (one sentence or clause).  Williams, in attempting to explain this prosody, spoke of the "breath pause" — meaning the process of breaking the sentence or clause into phrasal lines.  He also spoke of the "variable foot" — the accentual element of the prosody: Each line could vary in length, carrying from two to four stressed (but not necessarily alliterated) syllables.

         The first appearance of the triversen stanza in Williams' work was section "VIII" of Spring and All (1923).  Some of the better known examples are "On Gay Wallpaper" (to be found on p. 32 of The Book of Forms, op. cit.), parts I and II of "Birds and Flowers,"  "This Florida: 1924," "Fine Work with Pitch and Copper," several sections of Paterson, and "The Artist."

         To list examples of William Carlos Williams' triversen stanza and of pseudo-haiku in the work of other poets would be an endless task, but in "Not Ideas about the Thing but the Thing Itself" Wallace Stevens not only wrote a poem in triversen stanza, he also glossed Williams' credo, "No ideas but in things" (Collected Poems, 534).

         This poem consists of eighteen triplets; all are end-stopped except the penultimate stanza.  The first two lines of stanza five, like the preceding four triplets, is an independent clause, but the sixth sentence begins with the third line of the triplet, and it ends medially in line seve