Share A Mouthful of Air: Poetry with Mark McGuinness
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
By Mark McGuinness
4.8
3333 ratings
The podcast currently has 74 episodes available.
Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.
In the Name of Red
In the Name of Red is available from:
The publisher: The Emma Press
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK
Be a darling and imagine. The reddest of all reds—
changeable in velvet, the usurper in broadcloth;
smooching the ground, cheek to cheek, in Louboutins.
I’m here, I’m always here, itching to breathe, vital
under your skin, trumpeted by pulse. I need to exist,
as the poison arrow’s target; dirty on the warrior’s face;
a flag rippling like a dragon overhead.
You wish you could know my names, all secret,
sacred, and true, but call me whatever you want,
I don’t care, or summon me as rose, claret, vermilion,
ladies-blush, lust; evoke me from ruddy, madder,
brazilwood, orchil, cochineal, urucum—I need
to exist. For no other colour in two lengths of cloth
makes a gentleman and keeps him that way,
and there’s nothing I can’t improve with a scandal,
though I’m happiest reclining on a girl’s pretty lips,
pitying potential left to rot, lesser reds that shall
but one day bloom into me if they dare. Know me
as a fiesta in everything I star in: I tickle a tree
and it’s autumn, I tap someone and they blush,
I storm into a battlefield and it’s a field of poppies,
all the time living my best life, as I always will,
me, Shakti, dancing like a graceful madwoman
in the flames of a star, roaring myself redder
(yes, it’s possible), and charging back down to Earth
in the pope’s fresh socks, diving into a dazzling
Diwali of fireflies as they, for a flare-and-sigh,
jaunt through my impermanent soul. But I need
to exist. Shed me, if you must, on your wedding night:
sari cloth, petticoat, silk blouse swaying with the bed,
or pin me as a bindi on your third eye like a sun,
so when they look at you they’ll see me first, exalted.
How fortunate I am to be a colour, let alone
Red.
Mark: Zaina, where did this poem come from?
Zaina: This poem was inspired by a book I read. It’s called My Name is Red by a Turkish writer called Orhan Pamuk. it’s such a beautiful novel. It talks about red and art and miniaturism in such kind of flair and floral language, but not done in a saccharine way. It’s so beautiful.
And it is a murder mystery, but the way it’s written is it’s written from different perspectives, different narratives. And you’ll have a tree talking, for example, or the colour red, or blood in this novel, which I found really creative. And I thought, ‘I want to…’ – because it’s so poetic. I wanted to write a poem kind of very similar to that, or just inspired by it, but obviously not copying it.
So I began writing about it, inspired by that. And also, at the same time I was writing, I had these other poems, about Persephone and Hades in this pamphlet and nature and all these things. And I really wanted to unify all these poems and write an introductory poem. And this is what this is in this pamphlet. It’s the first poem.
And to be honest, how it came together is it’s just automatic writing, which is when you just put pen to paper and you just write what is in your head and you don’t think too much. I just wanted it to flow, because that’s how I imagine red would be if it was a person. It would just be so confident. It doesn’t need to overthink anything. It believes in itself so much. It’s self-serving.
Mark: No self-esteem issues with red!
Zaina: No self-esteem issues. Yeah. And I just wanted to include all these references, which I found when I was researching, the history of red. And, there’s kind of references to fashion, to natural dyes. When I was researching it, I was very surprised to find that it’s not just a… it’s a masculine colour. Red is also a masculine colour, not just a feminine colour. I always thought it was a feminine colour. So I kind of talk about, ‘no other colour in two lengths of cloth makes a gentleman’, which is…
Mark: Is that the redcoat, the soldier?
Zaina: Yes, it is. Yeah. So the British Army used to wear red, in the Napoleonic Wars, which is funny to me to wear red on the battlefield. But yeah, it just kind of expresses confidence, doesn’t it? To your enemy.
Mark: Right, right. So it’s had quite a fluid history in terms of the associations.
Zaina: Yes.
Mark: And, I’m really curious about this thing about the novel because I would never have guessed that this came from a novel. And maybe we don’t need to know that because it’s not dependent on it. It’s almost like the spirit has flown out of the novel.
Sometimes you read a poem and it’s really obviously linked into another work of art, whether that’s a novel or a painting or whatever. And you kind of…it feels like it’s in dialogue. I mean, to what extent do you feel like this is in dialogue with the Pamuk novel, or do you feel that it’s kind of flown free and come its own thing?
Zaina: I agree with you. I think it’s flown freely from that. It was just the starting point. It was the inspiration. But when I was writing this, because it was done in the technique of automatic writing, it just kind of became its own creature, its own thing. And that’s good in a way because I didn’t want it to be linked with this novel. I just wanted to write a poem that was in this voice, in this red, that red is speaking to you. That was inspired by the novel, but this voice is its own voice, and it just came out of that automatic writing.
Mark: And it’s interesting that red in the poem says, ‘Call me whatever you want, / I don’t care,’ or, ‘Summon me.’ It’s like this is the spirit of red that you’re channelling through the automatic writing.
Zaina: Yes. So it is witchy in a way, it looks like a spell.
Mark: Yeah, absolutely.
Zaina: And when I think of red, I do associate it with the kind of darker symbolism of red, which is witchcraft and blood, thinking about the Incas and the Aztecs who would probably use it, a pigment of red in ritual, and they wore it in their headdresses, their clothing, they put it on their face. That’s what I mean by ‘dirty on the warrior’s face’ as well.
Mark: What was it like for you as a poet channelling that voice? Is it exciting? Is it scary?
Zaina: It was exciting because, I am not a very, very confident person, I wouldn’t say, and I’m quite reserved. And one of the reasons why I did write this poem is because I wanted to channel that confidence and that pride and be completely uninhibited, you know.
Mark: Yeah.
Zaina: Yeah, sometimes you just want to step outside of yourself, you know. And I think, for example, actors can do that. They just can go mad and become someone else.
Mark: Yeah. That’s quite true.
Zaina: And I think poets can do that in a way as well, you know. It is a dramatic monologue, and there are lots of dramatic monologues in this pamphlet too, because one of the motivations behind writing this was just to step out of myself and just feel liberated from being held back so much. And that’s what red means to me, it’s just freedom.
Mark: Well, you’ve done a tremendous job there, because there’s not a moment of hesitation right from the beginning. ‘Be a darling and imagine.’ I mean, that’s so kind of… it’s seductive and confident and taking us into its confidence, but it’s confidence, I guess, in both senses. But we’re doing what it’s going to tell us because we are going to imagine…
Zaina: Yes, so the first line, yes, ‘Be a darling and imagine,’ that’s sort of talking about this poem but this pamphlet is about readership, it’s about how readers interpret what they read and they make it their own. So as readers, we take in what we read, and we use our experiences to process what we read. And, interpretation is so important. We all see the world differently, we see colours differently, I’m sure. So the imagination in this pamphlet is so, so important. It’s such a core part of this. You know, it’s a major theme here. And that’s why I really wanted to get that word at the forefront. Yeah.
Mark: And for anyone who hasn’t read the pamphlet In the Name of Red, this is the first poem in the pamphlet. So this is really, on the one hand, it’s the voice of red, but it also seems like it’s the voice of the poet. ‘Be a darling and imagine.’ It’s like Shakespeare at the start of Henry V, telling the audience to ‘work, work your thoughts, and in imagination, see a siege’, orsomething like that. And he’s saying, ‘Look, you have to join in if this play is going to work, because we’re just some guys on a stage with some threadbare props.’ But you invite the reader to join in and to imagine and participate in the book right from the beginning.
Zaina: Yes. Well, another inspiration for this pamphlet was Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë. And she talks to the reader a lot in the novel, she addresses the reader, I’m feeling like this, this is happening to me. And as a reader, when you’re addressed, you’re more attentive and you want to do what the writer says. And I really wanted to include that element of talking to the reader directly. Because as a writer, that gives you so much power.
And I think red would want all the power. You know, as a person, you just want to control everything. So yeah, that’s another kind of element to that, speaking to the reader, because there is a relationship between the writer and the readers, kind of a symbiotic relationship. The writer provides the work but the reader brings the spirit and the life to the work, they bring it to life, I think. A piece of writing is nothing without the reader. That’s why, I think.
Mark: Right. And very often, it’s an assumed relationship, isn’t it? But maybe in poetry, particularly, some poets like to play with that relationship and be quite artful like you’re doing here.
And, it’s always been a theme on the podcast to how much does the ‘I’ of the poem, how closely does that align with the ‘I’ of the poet? Now, clearly, on one level, this doesn’t align because as you say, it’s a dramatic monologue. But then the game has got another level, because, behind that, as we’ve seen, maybe there is the poet’s voice as well.
Zaina: Yeah, definitely where there’s a repetition of ‘I need to exist.’ That sort of reflects my urge sort of to prove myself as a writer because this is one of the first things I’ve ever written, this book. I’m not a very experienced poet. And yeah, I need to exist. So it’s kind of from the heart. I want to be part of this poetry world. I want to be here. I need to exist. Yeah, I would say that’s me speaking there from the heart.
Mark: ‘I’m here, I’m always here, itching to breathe, vital / under your skin, trumpeted by pulse.’ Isn’t that wonderful, ‘trumpeted by pulse’? Yeah, it’s a joyous poem of announcement, isn’t it?
Zaina: Yeah, it’s saying, ‘I’m here, and I’m not going to go away. I want to inhabit all these things. I am versatile. I can morph into different things,’ as a poet can, a poet can inhabit so many different characters and write about so many things. And poetry is so free. It’s not like prose where you do have to think about structure but you can just be so free about it. It is a form of art, I would say, poetry more than it’s about writing.
Mark: And obviously, there’s so much verbal richness in this, I mean, all the words for red you’ve got: rose, claret, vermilion, ladies-blush, lust, ruddy, madder, Brazilwood, orchil, cochineal, urucam. I mean, I had to look some of these up. Did you have all of these at your fingertips? Did you have to look some up? Were there others that didn’t make the cut? I mean, how do you deal with such a kind of richness of description?
Zaina: Yeah, I did do my research, to begin with. I wanted a variety of different things, claret being, wine, vermilion is a pigment, but it’s also used in Hinduism. You know, the wives would wear red on their hairline to show that they’re married. And there’s these kind of juxtapositions. You know, there’s that kind of, following the rules, religion, and then there’s lust and being free and not being afraid to be sexual almost. And that’s what colour is, it inhabits all these different ideas. And it’s just free to do that. And that’s what I wanted to show. There’s just so many things you could write about colour. And that’s why it is such a long poem because there’s just so much to include. But yeah, I wanted to include as much as possible and be as varied as possible.
Mark: Well, also, another thing I noticed is obviously there’s an embarrassment of riches when it comes to adjectives to describe a colour, but I love the way you use verbs as well. So you say, ‘I tickle a tree / and it’s autumn’. That’s just delightful. ‘I tap someone and they blush. / I storm into a battlefield and it’s a field of poppies.’ I mean, you get a shiver down the spine when you realise the implications of that.
Zaina: Yeah. Again, it’s just showing how varied this colour is. It’s elegant, it’s delicate, but also it can storm into a battlefield. It’s powerful. It’s almost like I’m writing about a trickster god, like Loki. He could be in the myths, he could be very serious, but most of the time he’s just joking around. So I’ve always been fascinated by these trickster gods because yeah, they do very, very big things. They can destroy the universe if they could, but at the same time, they don’t take themselves seriously. They’re just joking around most of the time.
Mark: So Loki is from Norse mythology, but you’ve also got Shakti from India…
Zaina: Yeah. So I include a lot of Hindu references because when I think of red, of all the cultures, I think Hinduism really adopts red. Shakti is a very important goddess in Hinduism. She is the wife of Shiva, one of the creator gods, but she’s sometimes seen as more powerful than Shiva and she has many different guises. Sometimes she’s a demon slayer. Sometimes she’s the goddess of death, karma, and sometimes she’s a little bit more benevolent and kinder.
But this is introducing this theme of femininity and women not just being, one-dimensional. We have a good side, but also there are times when we do lash out. It’s introducing… You know, I talk about my Mum a lot in this pamphlet, Persephone, mythical character, and myself. You know, there’s this very chaotic poem in this pamphlet about Alice in Wonderland and it’s just so mad, called ‘The Red Queen’ and she’s all mad in the book. So it’s kind of looking at mental health in a way as well.
Mark: And it’s also really nice as an opening poem. This one colours the other poems, it’s like we’ve got spatters of red from this in things like ‘The Red Queen’ and some of the other poems later. I think that’s one of the real pleasures of a collection of poems, is the way the poems start to refract and reflect each other and speak to each other.
Zaina: Yes. This was definitely supposed to be an introduction to all the other themes in the book, kind of getting yourself ready for the chaos that follows. It’s not all chaotic. There are moments of reflection and contemplation and pauses, but this is a very chaotic, mad pamphlet.
Mark: So picking up on the writing process. I’m going to pick up that thread from the automatic writing. How close was your first automatic draft to what we see on the page today?
Zaina: I’d say it’s very close. I had to revisit the list of reds, rose, claret, vermilion. I think I took some things out and added… I think urucum was the last thing I added.
Mark: And what’s that? That’s one of the ones I had to look up. What is urucum?
Zaina: It’s a plant. It gives off pigments of red and it’s used in South America by Indigenous people. Yeah. And they rub it on photographs to protect themselves, to protect their spirit. It’s kind of used as protection.
Mark: So was the form basically there? You’ve got this wonderful almost like a helter-skelter of it’s all one verse paragraph and there’s a lot of enjambment, a lot of lines spilling over the sense from one line to another and so on. Was that pretty well established in the original draft?
Zaina: I had to revisit where everything ends, the line endings, the enjambment, making sure that it had a sort of rhythm to it, it wasn’t just blocky and prosaic. I wanted it to flow like a poem. And the ‘Be a darling and imagine’, that’s where it all started, ‘Be a darling and imagine’, ‘Okay, I’ve got that now. Now this is…’ Everything else flowed from that, you know. So yes, it was automatic writing but I had to start from ‘Be a darling and imagine’. Once I got that, I just wrote it down from there and it was pretty much like this with some tweaking here and there, but yeah.
Mark: Yeah, so fine-tuning, but this is… And it does have that kind of freshness, that energy of the… I really feel that automatic voice coming through, all the way to the end where you have quite a bold ending certainly formally, where you’ve got two lines.
So we’ve got one long verse paragraph and then we get these two lines on their own, including one of the boldest enjambments I think I have ever seen. So you’ve got, ‘How fortunate I am to be a colour, let alone’ – line break – ‘Red.’ And it’s red with a capital R and a full stop afterwards. I mean, how did you get to that? Did that just spill out? Did you think about that?
Zaina: No, so that came afterwards. I didn’t know how to finish this kind of flowing of words, yeah. I didn’t know how to finish this. You know, I could go on forever and then I thought, ‘Okay, I’ve kind of come to an ending here with the sun and the bindi and when they look at you, they’ll see me first.’ I thought, ‘Okay, it doesn’t sound like an ending, it’s kind of coming to an ending but it’s not ending.’ And yeah, I spent ages trying to find how to end this and then maybe it should just kind of go back into itself, this red, what am I? Essentially, ‘I am a colour, I’m fortunate to be a colour’.
And yeah, it just came. One day it just came to me. And this is the beauty about poetry is that you can just put it to one side but it’s still in your mind. Okay, you’re carrying it around with you while you’re shopping and you’re going out or whatever and it’s still in your mind, and one day something just drops, and this line is one that just sort of dropped while I was doing something that was not even related to poetry. And yeah, it was all on one line and then I thought, ‘No, we need red on its own at the end because it loves itself so much, it needs to be on its own, kind of standing on this platform and loving itself.
Mark: It’s brilliant, I love it. And I also love that story about you patiently waiting for the ending because, there’s a lot of stories of poets getting the inspiration for the beginning of a poem, you know, Coleridge and ‘Kubla Khan’ and so on, but we don’t often hear the story of the poet wandering about and ransacking their brains and going for walks until they get the ending, but very often that’s the case, isn’t it?
Zaina: Yes.
Mark: You’ve got most of it but haven’t found the ending yet and it’s kind of irritating and it can’t let you go. But if you’re patient, as you were, and receptive, then sometimes it will drop into your lap.
Zaina: Yes, I find it more difficult to finish a poem. I’d never know when to finish it really and you can kind of keep on writing forever, especially for a poem like this, where the subject is vast. But yeah, some poems I find it very, very difficult to find that impactful ending. And the best thing to do, and that’s my advice, is just to wait, and instead of chasing it, let it come to you. I think a lot of writers do that. You just wait for it to come to you because it does. You just need to have some faith.
Mark: It’s a little bit when you’re trying to remember the thought you just had. The harder you try the more elusive it is, but then if you maybe stop to think of something else it will pop into your mind. It’s a bit like that.
Zaina: Yeah, I think with anything creative, when you put too much effort into it, when you try to restrict it too much with thought, it does the opposite of what you want. You need to let it flow. You need to let go a bit and then kind of everything sort of falls into place. It needs to be effortless. It needs to feel effortless. You shouldn’t try too hard.
Mark: Yeah. Well, thank you, Zaina, you know, just as the poem could have gone on forever. I think, we could talk all morning about all the different aspects of this poem, but I really think this is maybe a good chance for us to have a listen to it again and appreciate that in the light of the conversation we’ve just had. So Zaina, thank you very much for coming on the show and sharing such a delightful poem.
Zaina: Thank you so much for having me.
Be a darling and imagine. The reddest of all reds—
How fortunate I am to be a colour, let alone
‘Reddest Red’ is from In the Name of Red by Z. R. Ghani, published by The Emma Press
In the Name of Red is available from:
The publisher: The Emma Press
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK
Z. R. Ghani lives in London. She graduated with a B.A. in Creative Writing from Bath Spa University in 2012. Her poems, which explore themes of identity, femininity, religion, and nature, have been published in literary journals such as Magma, Black Bough Poetry and The Willowherb Review. In 2021 her first collection of poems was shortlisted in the Poetry Wales Pamphlet Competition. In the Name of Red is her first poetry pamphlet.
Twitter: @zr_ghani
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.
John Keats
Mark McGuinness
By John Keats
I
Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fring’d legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
II
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
III
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearied,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy’d,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
IV
Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead’st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of this folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e’er return.
V
O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’
Last month Matthew Buckley Smith read us his poem ‘Drinking Ode’, inspired by Ode 2.14 by the Roman poet Horace. And just as we did with Terrance Hayes and the sestina, I thought it would be good to stay with the same poetic form and look at a classic example from the past.
And when it comes to the ode, John Keats is probably the preeminent name in English poetry. Other poets have written one or two famous odes, but Keats’ substantial reputation rests in very large part on a series of six great odes he wrote in the same year, 1819. So this feels like a good time to feature Keats on the podcast.
So what exactly is an ode? Well as Matthew said last month, the word has meant a lot of different things at a lot of different times. It’s a bit of a slippery form. For one thing, it’s not associated with a specific metrical form, the way the sonnet is, or the ballad, the sestina, the villanelle and so on. And for another thing, its character has changed quite a lot in the two and a half thousand years or so since it first appeared.
The word ‘ode’ comes from the ancient Greek word for ‘song’, and the original Greek odes were set to music and performed by a choir in a theatre, who went through a set pattern of movements as they sang: from east to west, then west to east, and then stopping in the middle. And the metre would change with the dance steps, and it must have been pretty dazzling, a bit like a modern gospel choir.
Pindar was the ancient Greek poet credited with writing the greatest of these odes for public performance. The Romans continued the tradition, most notably in the work of Horace, but the Horation ode was typically more private in theme and tone, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t lead a choir booming his works out in the public square.
The ode was a popular form for English poets in the 17th and 18th centuries, doing their best to emulate the classical poets they revered, with some leaning towards Pindar and some towards Horace. And at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Romantics really took on the ode in a big way, echoing Pindar in their sublime visions, and Horace in their focus on their own personal and subjective states. Wordsworth wrote an ode on ‘Immortality’, Coleridge did one on https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43973/dejection-an-ode, and Shelley did the west wind. And Keats of course did a whole series of odes.
So the ode in English is no longer a song and dance routine, but it does retain something of the grandeur of its roots. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics describes it as ‘the most formal, ceremonious and complexly organized form of lyric poetry’, lending itself to public or state occasions. Even when it’s on a personal subject, an ode is very much poetry with a capital P.
Supposing we compare the forms of lyric poetry to the violin family of musical instruments, and say the sonnet is about the shape and size of a violin, and the sestina is a cello, then the ode would be the double bass, producing the deepest and most sonorous notes, and usually only wheeled out when the occasion calls for a full orchestra.
So the ode is a form of lyric poetry, but of the weightiest and loftiest kind. Poets don’t typically write an ode about their trip to the supermarket or their dirty weekend in Paris. They write odes on immortality, beauty, death, or classical gods. Or in Keats’ case, all of them at once.
This lofty seriousness is one reason why odes aren’t particularly popular these days. They’re seen as a bit pretentious. But Keats was writing at the height of the Romantic era, so he wasn’t remotely scared of being pretentious, and thank goodness for that.
And Keats is a great example of a poet coming into his own when he found the form that fitted his talent. He started off wanting to be an epic poet in the tradition of Homer and Virgil and Spenser and Milton, and he wrote reams and reams of epic poetry that had a lot of great things in it, but didn’t really go anywhere.
He also wrote some great sonnets, and these are definitely worth reading, I may do one of them on the show at some point. But it’s the odes where he really stands out, where he stakes out his own unique territory, and does things no one has done in English before or since.
His most famous ode is the one ‘to a Nightingale’, and I was very tempted to do that one today, but it’s a little bit long for the podcast, this one is a bit more manageable and just as interesting in its way.
OK. ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’. It’s ostensibly a description of a Grecian urn, a fancy kind of vase (or ‘vayse’, depending where you’re from). And the speaker is looking at the urn and talking to it as if it were a person:
Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
So all of these epithets, the ‘unravished bride’, the ‘foster-child’, and the ‘Sylvan historian’ are the speaker’s pet names for the urn, capturing different aspects of what it means to him: a messenger or a historian, who is able to speak from the depths of silence and slow time, to bridge the gap between the ancient world and the present, and communicate something important from the past.
And he then goes on to introduce the images on the urn in quite an elegant way, by asking a series of questions:
What leaf-fring’d legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
And we know that Keats did spend time contemplating ancient Greek urns and other artworks, as part of the Elgin Marbles collection, and also by studying illustrations. We even have a drawing by Keats of one Grecian urn, the Sosibios Vase, which he traced from a book.
But no one has identified a single urn that depicts the exact set of scenes described by Keats in the poem. So it looks like his Grecian urn is a composite, an imagined object that exemplifies the themes he wanted to write about.
And given that the speaker of the poem is talking to the urn as if it were another person, and by the end of the poem, the urn starts talking back, we should probably be careful about taking the poem at face value.
So the poem’s structure is fairly straightforward – he starts by addressing the urn and then describes the scenes sculpted on the panels of the urn, with a different stanza for each scene, and then concludes with some final thoughts that are among the most quoted and debated lines in English poetry.
The stanza form is original to Keats, it’s basically a sawn-off Petrarchan sonnet, starting with only four lines, making a single quatrain, instead of the usual eight lines; and then followed by a typical sestet, the final six lines. And we know from Keats’ letters that this experimental form was born of a dissatisfaction with the way the sonnet worked in English, and he tries variations of it in several of his odes.
And for me, the effect is to undermine the usual four-square, solid appearance of the sonnet, and to foreground the fluid, intricate, open qualities of the sestet. Way back in Episode 3 of this podcast, you may recall Mimi Khalvati describing the Petrarchan sonnet. She said the octave, the first eight lines, is like ‘ a tall stand of still trees, somewhat gloomy, possibly and all standing close together’. And the sestet, the final six lines, is ‘like some little babbling brook at the feet of these trees’.
So Keats has basically cut Mimi’s grove of trees down to size, so that we’re focused much more on the sound and movement of the babbling brook, which accounts for the beautifully flowing or dappled or mottled effect that to me is very characteristic of Keats’ odes. Just have a listen to the second stanza:
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
Isn’t that beautiful? There are so many interlocking sound patterns we could spend the whole podcast on this one stanza. We could look at the way the hypnotically regular metre combines with the rhyme scheme, and the use of assonance and alliteration, repeated vowel and consonant sounds; not to mention the use of enjambment, the syntax running over the line endings, and caesuras, breaks in the middle of lines, so that the lines seem to dissolve and form themselves again. A bit like reflections in a moving stream.
If we turn to what the speaker is saying, he’s basically arguing that the imagination, as expressed in the art on the urn, is better than reality:
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
So sweet as it is to listen to music, it’s even sweeter to imagine the ‘unheard’ melodies played by the pipes depicted on the urn. Because these are heard not by ‘the sensual ear’, but by the ’spirit’. And then we get this extraordinary passage, where he shifts from talking to the urn to addressing a ‘fair youth’ and a ‘bold lover’ who are depicted on it:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal
So he’s talking about the fact that the scene on the urn is frozen in time, which means the ‘fair youth’ can never stop singing the same song, the leaves can never fall from the trees, and the bold lover who is reaching out to the woman in front of him will never be able to actually kiss her, even though they are almost touching. All of which sounds like a decidedly mixed blessing. But he offers some consolation to the tantalised lover:
yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
So although he will never be able to touch her, he will love her forever, and her beauty will never fade.
And it’s tempting to agree with this, isn’t it? I mean, Keats is hardly the first poet to confront the problem of the passing of time, and the fading of love and beauty and all the other fleeting joys of life. And he’s offering art as a consolation, a way of preserving love and beauty, not just for a few thousand years, but ‘for ever’.
This reminds me of when I was small, looking at the pictures on my bedroom wall. I remember thinking that I wanted to go into the pictures, into the landscapes of the artists’ imagination. There was something weirdly magnetic about the worlds I could see but not enter. So I know how Keats feels about art as a portal to another dimension. Or as he put it in his ‘Ode to a Nightingale’, ‘magic casements, opening on the foam / Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn’.
And in the third stanza of ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, he paints a very rosy picture of the picture on the urn:
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearied,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy’d,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
So this is all very ‘happy happy joy joy’, as Ren and Stimpy would put it. In this eternal spring the leaves never fall, the music never stops, and the lovers are ‘For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d, / For ever panting, and for ever young;’. Unlike ‘breathing human passion’, that leads to broken hearts and burning foreheads and parching tongues.
But – and you knew there was a but coming, didn’t you? – there’s obviously a problem with this line of argument. Because it’s all very well to say the solution to the suffering created by the passing of time is to freeze time, by enshrining youth and beauty in an artwork. But of course, as soon as we start to think about the implications, it starts to feel a bit weird and unnerving.
Would you really want to be frozen for all eternity, about to kiss your beloved but never actually touching their lips? Isn’t that a version of the punishment of Tantalus, in the ancient Greek underworld?
So what Keats has done is to confront us with an existential paradox: on the one hand, when we think of everything and everyone we love, including ourselves, vanishing with the passage of time, it feels unbearable. But if we imagine taking even the most perfect moment in time, full of music and love and laughter, and freezing that in time to preserve it forever, that too feels unbearable. As a sermon on suffering, the Buddha would have been proud of this one!
And Keats himself seems to have second thoughts about all this in the final stanza, where he turns from talking to the figures carved on the urn, to addressing the urn itself once more:
O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
So ‘brede’ is a variation of ‘braid’, meaning the scenes of ‘marble men and maidens’ are wrapped around the urn. And it’s telling that he says the urn is ‘overwrought’ with the carvings. I think, on a literal level Keats is saying these scenes were carved over the surface of the urn; but that word also has more negative connotations, suggesting firstly that the artwork is a bit ornate, a bit overdone, and also maybe suggesting the feeling of being ‘overwrought’, overcome with anguish.
And then he says:
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
A cold pastoral doesn’t sound very idyllic, does it? And it’s at odds with his description of it as a warm springtime. But he’s explicit here that the chill comes from the association with eternity – the urn is teasing us out of thought, waking us from our reverie, to contemplate eternity. And what comfort is there in doing that? Human beings are creatures of time, and we are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of eternity, even when we try to imagine it as an endless paradise. As somebody once said, most of us would rather go to a lecture on heaven than heaven itself.
But in spite of this chill, Keats persists, presenting the urn not just as a symbol but as an oracle:
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’
So this is the point where the urn starts talking back, when the speaker imagines it speaking to future generations, and saying ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’.
It’s a pretty bold claim isn’t it? And there has been a lot of argument over the past two centuries about what exactly Keats meant by this, and whether there is any validity to the claim. It’s fair to say most critics agree that the words are beautiful, but not so many are convinced they are true.
These days of course, even the beauty part is suspect. To Keats and his contemporaries, it would have been self-evident that beauty was an important element of art and poetry. And in the late 19th century, this attitude reached its apex in the aesthetic movement, which espoused ‘art for art’s sake’.
But nowadays, beauty is regarded with suspicion in the poetry world. It’s seen as old-fashioned, self-indulgent, a luxury, and a distraction from the harsh realities of life. The pendulum as swung so far that in 2010, while I was on the board of Magma Poetry magazine, I remember Laurie Smith editing issue 48 on the theme of beauty in poetry, because as he wrote, ‘we wondered if it was still possible to write poems about experiences, people, objects or places that the writer finds beautiful’.
And the truth side of the equation is even more controversial. Because Keats’ urn is not just saying that beauty is important or desirable or a consolation for suffering. It’s proposing truth as epistemology, a foundation of knowledge – if something is beautiful, it’s likely to be true, and vice versa. And of course we can imagine all the trained philosophers throwing up their arms in horror at this.
Plus in the political sphere, the obvious danger with this kind of attitude is that it risks airbrushing uncomfortable realities out of the picture. Especially in a poem that was partly inspired by the Elgin Marbles! If the ode were in a museum, it would be a candidate for a plaque explaining the colonial provenance of its subject. It’s practically begging for a satirical poet to write a scathing takedown.
But you don’t have to be particularly woke to object to the proposition that ‘beauty is truth, truth beauty’. No one would accuse Philip Larkin of political correctness, but he took issue with the ‘Ode’, saying that a poem could be either beautiful or true, but not both. And he categorised his own poems as either one or the other.
He wrote a poem called ‘Essential Beauty’, which sounds pretty Romantic, and the title is actually from one of Keats’s letters, but it’s actually about the fake beauty of advertising billboards. One of the most beautiful and famous lines in Larkin’s verse is ‘what will survive of us is love’, at the end of ‘An Arundel Tomb’, another poem about a sculpture of a pair of lovers. Which again, sounds marvellously Romantic, but if you look closely at the syntax, then strictly speaking, Larkin’s poem is saying that this beautiful idea is ‘almost true’, but maybe not quite.
We’ve said several times on this podcast that we should be wary of taking poems at face value, as statements of the poet’s opinions. But in the case of ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, we do have strong evidence that the urn is speaking on Keats’ behalf: in a letter to his friend Benjamin Bailey, 18 months before the composition of the ‘Ode’, he wrote: ‘I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the Heart’s affections and the truth of the imagination. What imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth.’
But in the poem, even Keats doesn’t quite put his cards on the table. He puts the words ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’ in quotation marks and attributes them to the imaginary voice of the urn. So they take on the character of dramatic speech, rather than the author’s unfiltered opinion. So maybe Keats and Larkin aren’t quite as far apart as they seem.
Anyway. If you have a negative reaction to the ending of ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, I can probably understand why. As we’ve just seen, there are all kinds of reasons for dismissing it or criticising it.
And yet… it is a beautiful line, and a beautiful poem. And call me a Romantic, but I think once we decide that there’s no place for beauty in art, we’ve kind of given up. I can’t help responding to the beauty of the poetry and feeling its beauty is a key to some kind of truth, even if I would struggle to articulate it in rational terms. Fortunately for us, Keats has articulated it in poetic terms, so let’s have another listen and see what we make of it this time…
By John Keats
I
Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fring’d legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?
II
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!
III
Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearied,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy’d,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.
IV
Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead’st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of this folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e’er return.
V
O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’
John Keats was an English Romantic poet who was born in 1795 and died in 1821. He trained as a surgeon, but abandoned medicine to devote himself to poetry. Despite a brief literary career cut short by tuberculosis, Keats produced a remarkable body of work, including epic verse, sonnets, and a series of great odes, including ‘Ode to a Nightingale’, ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, and ‘To Autumn’. His poetry explores themes of beauty, love, and mortality with profound emotional depth, and his letters are also widely read and quoted for his observations on life and art.
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Ode on a Grecian Urn by John Keats appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.
Midlife
Midlife is available from:
The publisher: Measure Press
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: US
for R
Drink with me, old man — there’s no time
And no use trying to be good.
Our flesh was supple, our thoughts sublime,
And now death eats us alive, and should.
The gods aren’t missing any sleep
Over the altar lights we burn
To honor afterlives we keep
Pretending we might someday earn.
The king, the peasant farmer, even
You and I and everyone,
Can pick the suit we’d like to leave in
But not the day the tailor’s done.
So cowards survive the battlefield
And bullies fill the lifeboats first
And rich kids get their records sealed,
But some verdicts can’t be reversed.
Men say a river worms around
The grove where dead souls speak again,
But that black swamp has long since drowned
Both ferryboat and ferryman.
Your land, your house, your tender wife,
The plum trees planted by your hand —
You’ll leave them when you leave this life
For a ditch beneath a cypress stand,
And the man who takes your place will spill
Your choicest vintage wine onto
The white jacquard chaise longue you still
Believe somehow belongs to you.
Mark: Matthew, where did this poem come from?
Matthew: So this poem is a, I know a lot of translators, I always hesitate to say translation. It’s not a translation from Horace. It is an imitation or admiration of a very famous poem by the Roman poet, Horace, who was always writing to his friends saying, trying to offer some kind of consolation. I fell in love with Horace in my mid-20s in the pit of a really, probably one of the worst depressions of my life. And it was a book of poems that my friend, Ryan Wilson, also a poet, gave to me, the Odes of Horace, in this case translated by David Ferry, that I went to in that time. And I read and reread and he had marked pages with all of his favorites. And this was certainly one of them.
And what initially drew me to Horace, I mean, there’s a lot there to love. And my classicist friends tend to prefer other translations, but what I really found congenial about him was his willingness to address really bleak questions always with good cheer and a very level head.
I think some people think of Horace as a kind of a poet of conventional wisdom, and he does have a lot of conventional wisdom. In fact, all of his wisdom is pretty much conventional, but I don’t see these as poems with lessons or morals, so much as poems that are sort of human reminders, or even in their way, like letters to friends. When you reassure a friend, when you write to a friend or you speak to a friend about who’s having trouble, it’s not like you’re coming up with these pearls of wisdom for him. It’s not like you’re the one who coined there are plenty of fish in the sea, but it’s your role in part to be the one who is steady and who is reliable when their own life is tumultuous.
And Horace is, among many other things, as I said, among his many virtues, he has played that role in my life, even though he’s been dead for 2,000 years. So that’s broadly where this poem came from, and it is dedicated to Ryan, and it is addressing him, who has long been both a poetry friend and a drinking friend.
Mark: You’ve got quite a lot of classical references in your book Midlife.’ Are you able to read the original or is this purely via translation?
Matthew: Oh, I’m a total dilettante. I mean, I like having the en face, the facing translation where you can see both the original Roman or Greek in some cases and the English. I can pick up here and there snatches of Latin, but I certainly don’t know it at all. I have a lot of good friends who are very good classicists. And I like to read translations. I like to read translations of the same poems by lots of different people as well, which does help give you a slightly better sense of the original. But no, I am in no way a Latinist or a classicist really at all.
Mark: And his odes are numbered, aren’t they? Could you give us the number so if anybody’s listening…
Matthew: So this is 214, which is sometimes given the subtitle ‘To Posthumous’, which was a guy’s name in addition to being a word for us, posthumous meaning after the death of, after the burial of. And presumably posthumous then was the name of a guy who was born after his father died. I assume that’s what that name would have meant. But who knows?
Mark: So can you give us a quick sketch then of this Horace poem and what it meant to you before we then look at what you did with it?
Matthew: Yeah, I am very unoriginal as a poet in being obsessed with death. When my daughter was in fifth grade…
Mark: One of those things that never goes away.
Matthew: Right, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, when my daughter was, not in fifth grade, five, she had a show and tell at school and she had to tell the teacher. There’s something she had asked for specifically, but she said, ‘Well, it’s blue and it looks like an object. It looks like part of the human body.’ And the teacher said, ‘What does it do?’ She said, ‘Oh, it reminds you that you’re going to die.’ The teacher said, ‘Is it a memento mori? Is that what you brought to class?’ Which it was. So yeah, this poem is a memento mori. I mean, a lot of Horace’s, Horace is probably most famous in the culture at large for the two words ‘carpe diem’, ‘seize the day’, or in the original, ‘pluck the day’. And the advice of many of his poems, this one included, is whether implicitly or explicitly, we’re not going to be around forever. Enjoy what you have right now. And so it is a drinking poem. It is an invitation to drink and the closing image of it, which I have preserved with a little bit of embellishment for Ryan’s sake, because he has a white jacquard chaise longue he’s very proud of. And so I had to envision it getting wine spilled on it.
But the closing image is basically that, whoever inherits your property when you die, will inherit your vast wine cellar with all of this Caecuban wine, this precious wine. And he’s not just going to drink it. He’s going to be throwing a party and spilling it on the floor. Which is to say, why don’t you open a bottle for us right now? Because somebody’s going to eventually.
So I mean, I think that the broad outlines of the poem in which he enumerates, he gives more examples from mythology in his version, but he enumerates that all of our efforts to preserve our lives, all of our efforts to distract ourselves, all of our efforts to predict when we will die are all basically in vain. And lots of other people have attempted them before. And all of us end up in Kassetus, and one of the many deep black rivers down in the underworld. Hell for the Romans and Greeks was not hell for the way we imagine it, Christian, the people in Christianity and after Christianity imagined it. It was a little more universal and a little more gloomy, but not necessarily full of torment. Though they did have a spot for that, for the real bad guys.
Mark: Okay. And so he didn’t try and cheer his friend up. I mean, he’s not trying to take his mind off it. He’s confirming it and saying, ‘Yeah, this too shall pass.’ And that’s exactly why we should savour the moment.
Matthew: And I think that was part of what really appealed to me because I couldn’t… I mean, it was a time in my life when I came to him that I really just couldn’t stop in every second. For me, it’s like, I think about death every hour or so, but then it was, I think about death every minute. And so it was good to read something that did not look away, that didn’t come up with any pretences and that just said, all right, so let’s stare it right in the face and still open a bottle of wine.
Mark: Right.
Matthew: I named it ‘Drinking Ode,’ his original poems don’t have titles properly, they just have numbers. And it ends with wine and I believe it, I can’t remember, I may have put the wine in the beginning as well. I don’t know if that’s in the original, but the other real comfort this poem is of course about is friendship. That’s the chief consolation. The wine is here now, but the wine’s going to be here later if you leave it. We’re here now.
Mark: Yeah. Yeah, I love that.
Matthew: And so, yeah, this is my clumsy, stiff, American, heteronormative way to write a love letter to my friend, Ryan.
Mark: And it’s a lovely thing to do, I think. I mean, just picking up on your point just now about, I mean, I’ve suffered from depression myself. I used to be a psychotherapist, so I spent a lot of time talking to people dealing with depression. And I know from first and second-hand experience, looking in the face and saying, ‘Yeah, we’re not going to sugarcoat it.’ That can actually be very consoling in and of itself, because you’re not invalidating somebody’s feelings or their state of mind.
And once you do that, then other possibilities come to light. Like, I think it’s a lovely point that you make that it’s not just about the wine. Wine is really, way back in our civilisation, is really kind of a lubricant for friendship, a social experience. Because it would be a completely different experience if it was, ‘I’m going to sit here and drink this on my own’.
Matthew: Right, yeah. Yeah, I mean, and there’s a fine line between drinking so you can talk with a friend and having a friend over so you can drink. [Laughter] I mean, it’s a lubricant, it makes us less inhibited. I should also mention, I don’t drink anymore.
But yeah, the real occasion is the friend’s presence and the friend’s life. You know, in some ways, it’s a harsh poem because he’s basically saying there’s no escape. Everything you cherish will pass, or will pass from your hands into somebody else’s hands. And we’re all going to end up in the same place. But it is in a backhanded way. And the Romans were, in some ways, not unlike Americans in that they had a little bit of a constipated, stiff upper lip masculinity to them. But it is a way of saying, of celebrating that his friend is here. But all of the lines that say, ‘You will die,’ are also lines saying, ‘You’re alive.’ And I’m, and he’s, you know, and he’s, like, as much as he teases him, he’s writing to his friend, and this is his second book. I mean, he’d written his first book, made an impression. He knew this was not to throw away. He knew this was a significant thing, and he was dedicating it to his friend.
Mark: So that’s what Horace did, and that’s what Horace has meant to you. Now tell me a bit about how you approach this poem.
Matthew: Yeah. So you mentioned before we started recording that writing in form, that is writing, usually, when people casually say writing in form or writing formal poetry, I guess we mean with metre and rhyme, because there are plenty of other varieties in form, including in this book, in this poem, actually. I do spend a lot of time revising. I spend a lot of time tinkering and fiddling with lines. But even more than that, I spend a lot of time writing out drafts and then throwing almost all of them away. So I love reading old poems. I love sort of thinking big, complicated thoughts about poems and how they fit together and making plans and coming up with sketches. But in the moment of writing, I am very seat of pants.
And so this poem really just began with the first line, which is how most of my poems begin, and which is the line that is not really a rendering of any line in the poem, exactly. ‘Drink with me, old man — there is no time,’ which isn’t even right. Is that a sentence? What is that? It’s like two sentences, two independent clauses. I just put a dash in the middle because I didn’t know. But it felt like a thing that I would say to a friend. It felt true enough as an utterance. It doesn’t really scan, meaning that you can’t really make any good metre out of it when you try to break it down. But it’s eight syllables, and I thought, all right, well, the shorter the line of verse, the less it matters so much where the stresses go. [Laughter] You know? Like you have like, especially with the tetrameter and trimeter, they kind of, they get a little mushy at times.
And so eight syllables is roughly four beats. And so what if I just wrote this poem with four-beat lines and then this first line would fit? So that was really where it started. And as with most poems, I just gave it a try with the assumption that I would throw it away. And this is when I ended up hanging onto and tinkering with a good bit more.
In addition to Horace, one of my other great nerdy poetry loves is the also very uncool English poet, A. E. Housman, who wrote a lot of poems in short four-beat lines in quatrains, which is this poem is printed in a big column, but it’s written in quatrains, meaning little four-line units, it rhymed every other line rhyming. And which is, he wrote many, many, many poems in that form. He wrote about the most perfect little tetrameter quatrains that have been written in English. His poems are as effortless and spotless as pretty much it gets.
And something he did that I only noticed around the time I was working on this poem, which was also a time when I had this particular ode in my head, was he borrowed something from really, really old English poetry. Before we had proper rhyming and before we had even proper metre in Anglo-Saxon poetry, we were just sort of hammering out these thudding four-beat lines without metre in any regular sense. Sorry, it is regular. It’s not regular with the smooth regularity of post-Norman invasion poetry.
Mark: Well you’re not counting all the syllables in Anglo-Saxon verse.
Matthew: Exactly, yeah, you’re only counting the stresses.
Mark: And the syllables can go here, there and…
Matthew: Yeah, in a way, it’s a little closer to sprung rhythm or it’s a little closer to, it’s actually what it’s very close to in some ways is the prosody of, I mean, the metre, the syllable stress counting of rap, which is conventionally a four-beat line. And part of what is fun about rap is that you can fit as many syllables as you can say smoothly. It’s up to you to deliver it in a credible way, but you get four beats. And so however many syllables you can fit into those four beats and make it sound good, that’s what a line is. So it’s a little closer to that. And the thing that the Anglo-Saxons did, they didn’t use rhyme in a regular way. So rhyme links two lines or more together to each other.
They used alliteration to link a line to itself. So every line had two halves, as you know, and they would sort of staple those two halves together by having a stressed sound in either of them or more sometimes begin with the same letter sound. So they would have, there’s a line, oh, I don’t want to quote it because it’s copyrighted. But this is how they would link their lines together. And it’s something Housman does all the time, even though he also writes in these sort of pristine rhyming perfect, accentual-syllabic quatrains. He would often, the front end of a line and the back end of a line would have a stressed syllable that began with the same sound. And so he would sort of, his lines would be themselves stitched together with these little additional alliterative links, as well as having this sort of chiming, beautiful, series of quatrain rhymes.
Mark: And Horace does this too, doesn’t he? He’s got these, as I understand it, very tight, metrical units in his odes. That was fairly typical.
Matthew: The thing, yeah, so I, as a dilettante and a heathen, I like Horace in part for his tone and his management of argument. And by argument in poetry, it’s not at all like argument in a debate club. Logic is very secondary. It’s an emotional argument. My classicist friends, if I had to boil their love of Horace down to one word, it would probably be syntax. You know, Latin has very different grammar rules in English, of course. And what they often love most about Horace is the way that he arranges the order of the words. And he’s famous for these long sentences that you have to get all the way to the end of before you get the verb that makes it all make sense. And they cherish the way that he drops information out in this very deliberate way across the length of that long winding sentence. That is beyond my canon. That is something I don’t know.
Not knowing Latin, I’m a, I come to it in my barbarian way, liking the gist and the, yeah, he wrote very, an ode in the Horatian sense is a poem written in a series of regular stanzas. So he wrote these different units of lines and every unit would have the same metre, the same length number of lines. And it would sort of be the same unit on the page. And he would write the poem stacking a bunch of those in a row and they were all symmetrical. And that sort of formally was what he did as an ode. But ode has meant a lot of different things at a lot of different times.
Mark: And so you’ve clearly, you’re channeling that in your drinking ode. Does he also have this rather dark humour that you’ve got where you’ve got lines like, ‘Now death eats us alive?’ And ‘You and I and everyone, / Can pick the suit we’d like to leave in, / But not the day the tailor’s done’. And obviously the unforgettable chaise longue at the end. Has he got thatmordant humour or is that your kind of…?
Matthew: I think he does, I mean, he does at least as I read him having it. I mean, it is often making fun. I mean, he is a great, he’s like in the long tradition of poets and standup comedians and bards, he is great at simultaneously boasting and mocking himself. And he has poems in which he makes fun of what a bad soldier he was when he was a soldier. He famously, he had a tumultuous life early on. His father was born a slave and then sort of came to freedom. Slavery was very different in ancient Rome than it was in other parts of the world at other times. But he then joined the wrong side of the Roman civil war. He joined the Brutus side, lost. Supposedly ran away from that, was not a good soldier. But in losing, he then had all of his property and his father’s property confiscated.
And then later, because he was friends with Virgil and Virgil was friends with Maecenas, he became a favoured poet under Augustus. And so he sort of had his fortune taken away and then given back to him. And he famously was given a Sabine farm where he lived and loafed and wrote his poems. But he was always aware that things could turn.
He has a poem in which he, it’s a poem about how a tree almost fell on him. And he’s just cursing the tree with fury. He’s so mad at this tree. And he’s so mad at the person who planted this tree that almost fell and killed him. And then he imagines dying. And if he had died, he imagines he would have gone down to the underworld and he would have been listening to Sappho and Alcaeus, these ancient Greek poets he revered. And so the end of the poem is strangely wistful. I think he is very, yeah, very much a, he’s very attuned to life’s ironies and turns.
And this was, I should say also, in being a poem in part about my friend, Ryan, around the time… I was raised very conservatively and very Catholic and really lost my faith later in life than some people do. And around that same time, my friend Ryan converted to Catholicism. I mean, he was born Catholic, but he sort of, he had an adult awakening and he became a very devout Catholic. So we sort of traded places. And I think that has been part of how we’ve related to each other and talked to each other since then.
So he gave me this book and I was sort of giving it back to him in my pagan atheist hopeless way to his freshly believing and faithful and hopeful self. So yeah, that’s all, yeah, that tension and that awareness of change is certainly part of Horace and part of my own outlook. I’ll mention, the tailor line is in part a quiet teasing of Ryan who’s always been very particular about how he dresses and is a big believer in men should wear suits. When I’m around him, I tend to dress up more because I feel self-conscious. I want to look correct, but yeah, I had to give him a little grief over that.
Mark: But that’s, again, it strikes me that’s another nice thing that you’ve channelled from Horace is the spirit of friendship, the give and take, the exchange, the reaching out, the teasing, but at the same time the consoling. I mean, it strikes me as almost quite a British tone you’ve got here that it’s very dark and very humorous, but at the same time, there is consolation in there if you look at it.
Matthew: Oh, yeah, I believe so. I think that’s certainly, I think it may be more native to male friendship, though I think it not exclusively. Part of the friendship is playful abuse.
Mark: Well, it’s certainly very characteristic of male British friendship, I can say. So yeah, I found that very congenial. And there’s an interesting kind of just thinking about this in the context of the book as a whole. You’ve got this kind of, like I say, there’s a lot of classical references or classical games. Like there’s a hilarious one about the version of Achilles who didn’t go to the Trojan War.
Matthew: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mark: And we were talking about Auden before we got started. I think the tone and the way you handle it is very Auden-esque. You have a lot of anachronisms as well. You know that famous line in Auden, ‘Caesar’s double-bed is warm.’ I mean, of course he doesn’t have a double-bed, but in the Auden version he did and it kind of makes sense.
Matthew: Yeah, and the clerk is writing on the pink form, ‘I do not like my work,’ in that same, maybe in the same stanza.
Mark: That’s right, yeah, yeah, yeah. And you’ve got that kind of feel. And I really mean this as a very high compliment that it makes me think of that Auden-esque, urbane, classical, humorous, ironic, but also formally very accomplished. Was Auden, was he a presiding spirit for you or is this?
Matthew: Oh, I mean, I love Auden. He’s, yeah, I mean, I still think he’s responsible for, what I get grief for this, but I would argue is the most beautiful love poem of the 20th century, which is ‘Lullaby.’ The opening two lines are, ‘Lay your sleeping head, my love, / human on my faithless arm,’ which is just about as perfect as it gets. But yeah, I mean, I love, and I think ‘The Fall of Rome’ and ‘Shield of Achilles’ are two that stand out as being particularly present.
But I think for, you’re right about the anachronisms and the way I read the anachronisms or the kind of the inclusion in a way in both directions of new things, things that didn’t exist back in poems about old times or vice versa, that it is in part a way to make a joke, but it’s also in part, I think, a, it’s almost literary realism in the sense that if you write poetry, then you’re living with these guys. You’re living in the same, you’re sharing, that they know, at least some of them know, Horace certainly, says in one of his poems, ‘I’m building a monument more permanent than bronze.’ And, Dante was not shy about including himself in the among the circle of the immortal poet, there was only like four or five best poets in history. And he was like, oh yeah. When he walked into the room, they were like, ‘Oh, finally you’re here.’
So like, I mean, plenty of poets have called their shots. Shakespeare says, ‘So long as men can breathe, their eyes can see, so long lives this and this gives life to thee.’ So a lot of these guys knew that not only are they responding to poets who lived before them, but they’re speaking to poets who live after them. And even Eliot says that, you borrow from the tradition, but you also reorder the tradition every time you contribute to it.
So, I think of a, there’s a Spanish grad student I knew in, when I was in grad school, who, he walked into a bar, went to, of course we were always studying in bars. And I made some crack about, I said, ‘Oh, all of Ryan’s friends are dead.’ Meaning all of his friends are, you know, wore togas or fluffy collars, and Manuel’s response is, ‘They are not dead.’ Which I think is right. And it’s how I feel with all of these old guys, whether it’s Auden or Horace, who are, lived in radically different times, but they are both dead and they’re both very much alive.
Mark: And isn’t that a lovely thought to carry into, maybe we can hear the poem again and just think about that, because it’s a poem about the inevitability of death. And yet what you’ve just said is in a sense, they’re not dead at all.
Matthew: Yeah, that’s the, that is the, that is the simultaneously generous and egomaniacal promise of poetry. We want to preserve the things we love and we want to live forever. And we go to poetry, sometimes to… I think of Ben Johnson writing about his daughter’s death and, it’s not, it is once that, oh, sorry, not, well, his daughter, he has a beautiful poem about his daughter, but I was thinking of the poem about his son’s death, which is ‘a child of my right hand’, speaking of his son, Benjamin, which is the meaning of the word Benjamin. ‘Here lies Ben Johnson, his best piece of poetry’ that, you know, poetry is, yeah, I think writers, poets are, to some extent, always vampiric, always self-serving, but also, at our best, maybe have a service to offer out of love to the world that we encounter, however briefly and tipsily while we’re here.
Mark: I can’t top that, Matthew. That’s the perfect place to end. Thank you very much. Let’s hear the poem again.
Matthew: Great.
for R
Drink with me, old man — there’s no time
‘Drinking Ode’ is from Midlife by Matthew Buckley Smith, published by Measure Press.
Midlife is available from:
The publisher: Measure Press
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: US
Matthew Buckley Smith is the author of the poetry collections Midlife and Dirge for an Imaginary World. He lives in North Carolina with his wife and daughters, and he hosts the poetry podcast SLEERICKETS.
And if you haven’t heard Matthew’s podcast Sleerickets, I heartily recommend it. It’s a very insightful as well as funny treatment of what he calls ‘poetry and other problems’. He interviewed me on his podcast a couple of years ago, and we had a great conversation about poetic form.
MatthewBuckleySmith.com
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Mark McGuinness reads and discusses a passage about the Great Fire of London from Annus Mirabilis by John Dryden.
John Dryden
Mark McGuinness
By John Dryden
Such was the rise of this prodigious fire,
Which, in mean buildings first obscurely bred,
From thence did soon to open streets aspire,
And straight to palaces and temples spread.
The diligence of trades and noiseful gain,
And luxury more late, asleep were laid:
All was the night’s; and in her silent reign
No sound the rest of nature did invade.
In this deep quiet, from what source unknown,
Those seeds of fire their fatal birth disclose;
And first few scattering sparks about were blown,
Big with the flames that to our ruin rose.
Then in some close-pent room it crept along,
And, smouldering as it went, in silence fed;
Till the infant monster, with devouring strong,
Walk’d boldly upright with exalted head.
Now like some rich or mighty murderer,
Too great for prison, which he breaks with gold;
Who fresher for new mischiefs does appear,
And dares the world to tax him with the old:
So ’scapes the insulting fire his narrow jail,
And makes small outlets into open air:
There the fierce winds his tender force assail,
And beat him downward to his first repair.
The winds, like crafty courtesans, withheld
His flames from burning, but to blow them more:
And every fresh attempt he is repell’d
With faint denials weaker than before.
And now no longer letted of his prey,
He leaps up at it with enraged desire:
O’erlooks the neighbours with a wide survey,
And nods at every house his threatening fire.
The ghosts of traitors from the bridge descend,
With bold fanatic spectres to rejoice:
About the fire into a dance they bend,
And sing their sabbath notes with feeble voice.
Our guardian angel saw them where they sate
Above the palace of our slumbering king:
He sigh’d, abandoning his charge to fate,
And, drooping, oft look’d back upon the wing.
At length the crackling noise and dreadful blaze
Call’d up some waking lover to the sight;
And long it was ere he the rest could raise,
Whose heavy eyelids yet were full of night.
The next to danger, hot pursued by fate,
Half-clothed, half-naked, hastily retire:
And frighted mothers strike their breasts too late,
For helpless infants left amidst the fire.
Their cries soon waken all the dwellers near;
Now murmuring noises rise in every street:
The more remote run stumbling with their fear,
And in the dark men jostle as they meet.
So weary bees in little cells repose;
But if night-robbers lift the well-stored hive,
An humming through their waxen city grows,
And out upon each other’s wings they drive.
Now streets grow throng’d and busy as by day:
Some run for buckets to the hallow’d quire:
Some cut the pipes, and some the engines play;
And some more bold mount ladders to the fire.
In vain: for from the east a Belgian wind
His hostile breath through the dry rafters sent;
The flames impell’d soon left their foes behind,
And forward with a wanton fury went.
A quay of fire ran all along the shore,
And lighten’d all the river with a blaze:
The waken’d tides began again to roar,
And wondering fish in shining waters gaze.
This is an extract from a long poem by John Dryden called Annus Mirabilis, which covers the period 1665-66 and describes a series of naval battles between the English and Dutch fleets, followed by the Great Fire of London. The poem was published in 1667, just a year after the Great Fire.
Why did Dryden publish so soon after the event? And why was it called Annus Mirabilis, which means ‘a year of miracles’? Surely a year that included the destruction by fire of the capital city was more of an Annus Horribilis? Especially as it was also the year of the Great Plague of London – which for some reason, Dryden fails to mention in his poem.
Samuel Johnson claimed that Dryden called it a year of miracles, ‘because it was a wonder that things were not worse’. Which sounds like a pretty extreme case of seeing the glass as half-full rather than half-empty. But in fairness to Johnson, it’s a pretty accurate description of Dryden’s attitude. Later in the poem, when considering the aftermath of the fire, Dryden presents it as less of a problem than an opportunity:
Methinks already from this chymic flame
I see a city of more precious mould,
Rich as the town which gives the Indies name,
With silver paved and all divine with gold.
So on one level this is a thoroughly pragmatic framing of the situation, as a chance to ‘build back better’, with modern architecture and new commercial opportunities, that will pave the streets with silver and gold. And this was indeed what happened – the fire was a disaster in the short term, but it did clear out a lot of the old ramshackle medieval wooden houses which were then replaced them with modern buildings of brick and stone.
But this stanza uses the language of alchemy as well as the language of commerce – the ‘chymic flame’ was the chemical fire that alchemists believed would purify the contents of the ‘precious mould’, and produce not only gold but also spiritual transformation.
But why did Dryden take this stance, when so many of his contemporaries were grieving the loss of their property to the fire and their family and friends to the plague?
Because at this stage of Dryden’s career he was a confirmed Royalist, a supporter of King Charles II who had been restored to the throne in 1660, after the Civil War and the Interregnum, when England was effectively a republic. So he was determined to exonerate the King from any blame for the disaster, and certainly to counter Puritan suggestions that this was God’s judgment on the King and the established Church.
The scholar Edward Hooker pointed out that in the early 1660s a series of rebellious pamphlets was published, using the title Mirabilis Annus, describing ‘strange apparitions and prodigious events’ and prophesying the judgment of God upon the King and his Church, in order to stoke the fires of discontent among his majesty’s subjects.
Hooker argued that it was no coincidence that Dryden took the title of these pamphlets, Mirabilis Annus, turned it back to front and used it for his poem, Annus Mirabilis. He describes Dryden’s poem as ‘a piece of inspired journalism’, which was speedily published in the same format as the seditious pamphlets, and was therefore a part of the ‘pamphlet wars’ of the time.
So whether or not the poem helped to stave off a revolution, it is probably also no coincidence that in 1668, the year after he published Annus Mirabilis, John Dryden was appointed Poet Laureate to Charles II.
So the poem was political in origin, but I’m not reading it to you today because of that. I’m sharing it as a magnificent and memorable poetic description of a major historical event.
And I wish there was time to read you more of it, but it’s nearly 400 lines long, which is far too long for the podcast. But here is a link to the full version, so you can read the rest of it if you want to.
OK turning to the poem itself, it’s written in quatrains, four-line stanzas, in very regular iambic pentameters, tiTUM tiTUM tiTUM tiTUM tiTUM, and rhymed ABAB; in other words the first line rhymes with the third line and the second line with the fourth line.
At the time it was more fashionable to write in rhyming couplets, which we looked at a couple of months ago, in Andrew Marvell’s ‘To His Coy Mistress’, which was written around the same time. In fact couplets were so popular that Dryden felt obliged to explain his choice of quatrains in the Preface to Annus Mirabilis:
But in this necessity of our rhymes, I have always found the couplet verse most easy, though not so proper for this occasion: for there the work is sooner at an end, every two lines concluding the labour of the poet; but in quatrains he is to carry it further on, and not only so, but to bear along in his head the troublesome sense of four lines together.
In other words, he felt that quatrains gave him more room to expand on each thought. And he was very much working on the assumption that each quatrain should contain a single thought or scene, that was brought to a conclusion by a full stop, at the end of the stanza.
For instance, here’s the first stanza of the passage I’ve just read:
Such was the rise of this prodigious fire,
Which, in mean buildings first obscurely bred,
From thence did soon to open streets aspire,
And straight to palaces and temples spread.
So we can hear how the stanza contains a single thought, in this case also a single sentence, which is clearly and elegantly expressed, and then concludes with the full stop after ‘straight to palaces and temples spread.’
And notice how Dryden describes the progress of the fire in very balanced terms, starting in the ‘mean buildings’ of the poor and lowly, before spreading to the ‘palaces and temples’ of the high and mighty. This tendency to balance and order was very characteristic of Dryden and the other poets of his age.
Then the next stanza presents us with a new thought, and a new scene, which builds on the previous one, like small panels in a larger painting, or even a comic strip:
The diligence of trades and noiseful gain,
And luxury more late, asleep were laid:
All was the night’s; and in her silent reign
No sound the rest of nature did invade.
Once again, we find opposites brought into play and balanced out in the measured syntax; in this case, Dryden contrasts gainful employment, ‘The diligence of trades and noiseful gain’, with ‘luxury’, which in the 17th century meant ‘debauchery’, indulgence in illicit pleasures. Which is a rather convoluted way of saying that everyone was asleep, including those who had been working hard all day and those who had been drinking and carousing into the night.
And I don’t know about you, but when I hear these lines:
All was the night’s; and in her silent reign
No sound the rest of nature did invade.
I can’t help remembering:
’Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
There’s that same sense of anticipation, isn’t there? Because we know what’s coming next:
In this deep quiet, from what source unknown,
Those seeds of fire their fatal birth disclose;
And first few scattering sparks about were blown,
Big with the flames that to our ruin rose.
Then in some close-pent room it crept along,
And, smouldering as it went, in silence fed;
Till the infant monster, with devouring strong,
Walk’d boldly upright with exalted head.
So instead of the divine birth of Christmas, we have the ‘fatal birth’ of the ‘infant monster’. And of course the personification is very artificial and contrived, but I think it’s also very effective, we really do see the monster stand up and walk ‘boldly upright with exalted head’.
Then Dryden’s infant monster suddenly grows up into an adult criminal:
Now like some rich or mighty murderer,
Too great for prison, which he breaks with gold;
Who fresher for new mischiefs does appear,
And dares the world to tax him with the old:
So ’scapes the insulting fire his narrow jail,
And makes small outlets into open air:
There the fierce winds his tender force assail,
And beat him downward to his first repair.
It’s an odd phrase isn’t it, ‘rich or mighty murderer’? Why should a murderer be ‘rich or mighty’? But it’s wittily resolved in the next line:
Too great for prison, which he breaks with gold;
The suggestion is that if you’re rich and mighty, you can buy your freedom, ‘break’ out of prison ‘with gold’. And of course the joke here is that it’s the gold flames that are breaking this particular murderer out of prison.
There was also something of a cult of the heroic criminal among Londoners, as described by Peter Ackroyd in his book, London: The Biography. The most famous of the London jailbreakers was the thief and highwayman Jack Sheppard, who became a local celebrity fifty years after the publication of Annus Mirabilis, by escaping from Newgate Prison no less than six times. These lines might have been written for Jack Sheppard:
Who fresher for new mischiefs does appear,
And dares the world to tax him with the old:
Then the poem’s antihero encounters some resistance, in the shape of the winds that impede his progress:
The winds, like crafty courtesans, withheld
His flames from burning, but to blow them more:
And every fresh attempt he is repell’d
With faint denials weaker than before.
The ‘crafty courtesans’ were high-class prostitutes, associated with the ‘luxury’ of Charles II’s court. And this is a witty take on the old idea that the flames of desire can be fanned by refusal, such as the ‘faint denials’ of the courtesans. There’s also quite a rude pun in this stanza – if you didn’t spot it, then you may congratulate yourself on your virtuous character; if you did, then no sniggering at the back please.
OK moving swiftly on, as indeed the fire is doing by this point, we get this delightfully ghastly scene, on London Bridge, which is where the severed heads of traitors were displayed:
The ghosts of traitors from the bridge descend,
With bold fanatic spectres to rejoice:
About the fire into a dance they bend,
And sing their sabbath notes with feeble voice.
I have to say that compared to this, London Bridge is a bit boring these days. I’m guessing that ‘sabbath’ here refers to a witches’ sabbath, rather than the Judeo-Christian version. That seems to be the implication of the following stanza, where ‘our guardian angel’ looks at the scene in horror and flees, ‘abandoning [the city] to its fate’.
OK, so far Dryden has given us a high level view of the fire, ornamented with images of monsters and ghosts and angels, but now he zooms in on the people of London who are waking up to their fate:
At length the crackling noise and dreadful blaze
Call’d up some waking lover to the sight;
And long it was ere he the rest could raise,
Whose heavy eyelids yet were full of night.
The next to danger, hot pursued by fate,
Half-clothed, half-naked, hastily retire:
And frighted mothers strike their breasts too late,
For helpless infants left amidst the fire.
So fortunately for the people in the houses around him, a lover was awake, presumably about lovers’ business, and he shouted to wake ‘the rest’, ‘Whose heavy eyelids yet were full of night.’.
And then we get this charming glimpse of the waking citizens ‘Half-clothed, half-naked’ – logically, of course, this is tautology, saying the same thing twice, because if you are half clothed, then by definition you must be half naked. But poetically, it works so much better, doesn’t it? It somehow conjures up the confusion of a throng of bodies, or bits of bodies, in various states of undress, as they flee the fire.
And is it heartless of Dryden to casually wrap up the stanza with this image of babies left behind like forgotten possessions?
And frighted mothers strike their breasts too late,
For helpless infants left amidst the fire.
Or maybe it’s just a brutally abrupt description of the brutality of the fire?
Then Dryden continues the action, with this wonderfully precise description of the townsfolk awakening, with the commotion spreading from street to street:
Their cries soon waken all the dwellers near;
Now murmuring noises rise in every street:
The more remote run stumbling with their fear,
And in the dark men jostle as they meet.
Notice that there are no visual images in this stanza: Dryden evokes the scene using first sound, the ‘cries’ and ‘murmuring noises’, and then movement and touch, with people running, stumbling and jostling in the dark streets. It’s a subtle and skilful way of evoking the terror and confusion they must have felt, being woken by yelling voices and then running around in the crowded streets in the dark.
Then we get an artful simile, as Dryden compares the Londoners to ‘weary bees’ in a hive, who are roused to action when a ‘night-robber’ tries to steal their honey:
So weary bees in little cells repose;
But if night-robbers lift the well-stored hive,
An humming through their waxen city grows,
And out upon each other’s wings they drive.
This whole sequence gives us a remarkable high-level vista of the poor humans scurrying about their city. The point of view is like that of Gulliver towering over the tiny Lilliputians – in a poem published 60 years before Jonathan Swift’s famous Travels.
But not all of the Londoners are just running about in a panic. Some of them are leaping into action to fight the fire:
Now streets grow throng’d and busy as by day:
Some run for buckets to the hallow’d quire:
Some cut the pipes, and some the engines play;
And some more bold mount ladders to the fire.
And yes, that’s right, this is a description of an early fire engine. Peter Ackroyd quotes a contemporary description of ‘an Engine or Instrument’, which ‘with the help of tenne men to labor’, could pump more ‘than five hundred men with the helpe of Bucketts and laydels’. And I love the way this stanza concludes with the line:
And some more bold mount ladders to the fire.
So that the line ends, and the whole stanza ends, with the image of the silhouetted figure at the top of the ladder leaning out over the abyss of fire.
But alas, the fire-fighters’ efforts are ‘in vain’, according to the next stanza:
In vain: for from the east a Belgian wind
His hostile breath through the dry rafters sent;
The flames impell’d soon left their foes behind,
And forward with a wanton fury went.
It had to be a foreign wind, didn’t it? 17th century England was a very xenophobic and jingoistic place, so in the aftermath of his descriptions of sea-battles against the Dutch, it’s not surprising that Dryden can’t resist calling the east wind ‘a Belgian wind’.
And then we get the final magnificent stanza of today’s passage:
A quay of fire ran all along the shore,
And lighten’d all the river with a blaze:
The waken’d tides began again to roar,
And wondering fish in shining waters gaze.
The imagery here manages to be simultaneously daring, precise, horrifying and beautiful. He’s saying that as the fire spread rapidly along the shore of the River Thames, it became ‘a quay of fire’, ‘And lighten’d all the river with a blaze:’, which is a quite extraordinary metaphor.
And the effect is heightened by the contrast between the attributes we would normally associate with a stone quay – solidity, darkness, cold, steadiness – with the attributes of fire – light, heat, ephemerality, destructiveness. A normal quay is a haven for ships and a platform for commerce; this is a place of terror.
And if this image weren’t amazing enough, Dryden tops it with this startling change of perspective, where he give us a fishes’ eye view of the fire:
The waken’d tides began again to roar,
And wondering fish in shining waters gaze.
You know, Dryden has often been criticised for being too prosaic; Matthew Arnold famously dismissed Dryden and Pope as ‘prose classics’, but to me this is really remarkable poetry. There are lots of fascinating accounts of the Great Fire of London, but it takes a poet to wonder how it must have looked to the fish in the River Thames.
And I could go on, because Dryden does, at some length – he describes the progress of the fire, the King awakening and doing his best to save his subjects; the miraculous moment when God uses rain-clouds as a fire extinguisher; the scorched aftermath; and the vision of a modern city rising like a phoenix from the flames. So I do encourage you to have a read of the rest.
And before we hear Dryden’s account again, I’d like to read you some of Samuel Pepys’ famous description of the Great Fire of London, so we can see how the two writers took a very different approach to the same subject:
Sunday 2 September 1666
(Lord’s day). Some of our mayds sitting up late last night to get things ready against our feast to-day, Jane called us up about three in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City. So I rose and slipped on my nightgowne, and went to her window, and thought it to be on the backside of Marke-lane at the farthest; but, being unused to such fires as followed, I thought it far enough off; and so went to bed again and to sleep. About seven rose again to dress myself, and there looked out at the window, and saw the fire not so much as it was and further off. So to my closett to set things to rights after yesterday’s cleaning. By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down to-night by the fire we saw, and that it is now burning down all Fish-street, by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower, and there got up upon one of the high places, Sir J. Robinson’s little son going up with me; and there I did see the houses at that end of the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side the end of the bridge; which, among other people, did trouble me for poor little Michell and our Sarah on the bridge. So down, with my heart full of trouble, to the Lieutenant of the Tower, who tells me that it begun this morning in the King’s baker’s house in Pudding-lane, and that it hath burned St. Magnus’s Church and most part of Fish-street already. So I down to the water-side, and there got a boat and through bridge, and there saw a lamentable fire. Poor Michell’s house, as far as the Old Swan, already burned that way, and the fire running further, that in a very little time it got as far as the Steeleyard, while I was there. Everybody endeavouring to remove their goods, and flinging into the river or bringing them into lighters that layoff; poor people staying in their houses as long as till the very fire touched them, and then running into boats, or clambering from one pair of stairs by the water-side to another. And among other things, the poor pigeons, I perceive, were loth to leave their houses, but hovered about the windows and balconys till they were, some of them burned, their wings, and fell down.
This is terrific too isn’t it? And it’s completely different to Dryden’s approach. Instead of the big picture, Pepys give us the first-person perspective, of being woken up in the middle of the night and looking out the window, then getting up and going out into the streets and climbing up to a higher place to get a better view. And we get all the little details, of Pepys’ nightgown, and the names of streets, and glimpses of ‘poor people staying in their houses as long as till the very fire touched them, and then running into boats, or clambering from one pair of stairs by the water-side to another’. And those pigeons hovering ‘about the windows and balconys’ until their wings were singed by the fire.
By contrast, Dryden presents himself as an omniscient narrator, giving us a panoramic view of the city and the fire, zooming in on particular details and then zooming out again. Pepys gives us glimpses of real people, but the figures in Dryden’s account are more like a catalogue of types, carefully chosen, as we’ve seen, to balance out low and high status characters and give arepresentative sample of society – workers and merchants, revellers, murderers, courtesans, traitors, lovers, mothers, infants, and fire fighters.
Whereas Pepys gives us the breathless first-hand account, with all its vividness, Dryden is more artful, both politically, as we have scene, and also poetically. It’s an unashamedly artificial style of writing, where we sense that every element has been carefully considered and composed. Pepys is reporting the fire, but Dryden is using it, even wielding it – it’s as if the poem is narrated by a giant holding up a burning torch to reveal the ancient wooden medieval city of London, illuminating it for a few shining moments before it vanishes forever.
By John Dryden
Such was the rise of this prodigious fire,
Which, in mean buildings first obscurely bred,
From thence did soon to open streets aspire,
And straight to palaces and temples spread.
The diligence of trades and noiseful gain,
And luxury more late, asleep were laid:
All was the night’s; and in her silent reign
No sound the rest of nature did invade.
In this deep quiet, from what source unknown,
Those seeds of fire their fatal birth disclose;
And first few scattering sparks about were blown,
Big with the flames that to our ruin rose.
Then in some close-pent room it crept along,
And, smouldering as it went, in silence fed;
Till the infant monster, with devouring strong,
Walk’d boldly upright with exalted head.
Now like some rich or mighty murderer,
Too great for prison, which he breaks with gold;
Who fresher for new mischiefs does appear,
And dares the world to tax him with the old:
So ’scapes the insulting fire his narrow jail,
And makes small outlets into open air:
There the fierce winds his tender force assail,
And beat him downward to his first repair.
The winds, like crafty courtesans, withheld
His flames from burning, but to blow them more:
And every fresh attempt he is repell’d
With faint denials weaker than before.
And now no longer letted of his prey,
He leaps up at it with enraged desire:
O’erlooks the neighbours with a wide survey,
And nods at every house his threatening fire.
The ghosts of traitors from the bridge descend,
With bold fanatic spectres to rejoice:
About the fire into a dance they bend,
And sing their sabbath notes with feeble voice.
Our guardian angel saw them where they sate
Above the palace of our slumbering king:
He sigh’d, abandoning his charge to fate,
And, drooping, oft look’d back upon the wing.
At length the crackling noise and dreadful blaze
Call’d up some waking lover to the sight;
And long it was ere he the rest could raise,
Whose heavy eyelids yet were full of night.
The next to danger, hot pursued by fate,
Half-clothed, half-naked, hastily retire:
And frighted mothers strike their breasts too late,
For helpless infants left amidst the fire.
Their cries soon waken all the dwellers near;
Now murmuring noises rise in every street:
The more remote run stumbling with their fear,
And in the dark men jostle as they meet.
So weary bees in little cells repose;
But if night-robbers lift the well-stored hive,
An humming through their waxen city grows,
And out upon each other’s wings they drive.
Now streets grow throng’d and busy as by day:
Some run for buckets to the hallow’d quire:
Some cut the pipes, and some the engines play;
And some more bold mount ladders to the fire.
In vain: for from the east a Belgian wind
His hostile breath through the dry rafters sent;
The flames impell’d soon left their foes behind,
And forward with a wanton fury went.
A quay of fire ran all along the shore,
And lighten’d all the river with a blaze:
The waken’d tides began again to roar,
And wondering fish in shining waters gaze.
John Dryden was an English poet, playwright, and critic who was born in 1631 and died in 1700. He was one of the most influential figures in Restoration literature. His major works include Absalom and Achitophel, a political satire, and All for Love, a play inspired by Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. As England’s first Poet Laureate, Dryden played a key role in shaping the transition from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment in English literature, advocating for clarity, precision, and structure in written expression.
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post The Great Fire of London, from Annus Mirabilis by John Dryden appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Carrie Etter reads ‘Pregnant Teenager and Her Mama’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.
Grief’s Alphabet
Grief’s Alphabet is available from:
The publisher: Seren Books
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK | US
You eat and eat and tremble.
You tremble and eat, and your mother
watches you like a mouse a cat.
She swoops in like a bat.
You hope to be claimed:
she alights beside you.
Your hands turn palms up, apology.
Kangaroo, she plucks and drops you
into the warmth of her pouch.
What’ll I do? you think,
no need for speech.
Her tongue’s on your fur,
or her love’s your skin.
The year’s a crucible,
and here she is,
a doe who leads
her fawn to water and waits.
O, how she waits.
Mark: Carrie, where did this poem come from?
Carrie: Well, I think it was about a year and a half ago now, maybe two years ago. I was working on Grief’s Alphabet, the manuscript, and pulling together these poems I’d been writing since my mother died in 2011. And when I started to think through what the manuscript needed to look like, I had a lot of poems about the grief of her loss. But I realised, as the manuscript came together, that no one would understand what that loss meant to me unless I also portrayed my relationship with her and what she had been, what she meant to me as a mother, as my best friend, really. And so I had to write the opening section of the manuscript, which I call ‘Origin Story’, which is about our experiences together from the day I was adopted at two weeks old and all the way up to the last photograph I took of her and my last physically recorded memory of her before she died a few months later, unexpectedly.
So, of course, when I was thinking through that period of my relationship with her and important things we experienced together, one of the things, of course, that came up was my teenage pregnancy and trying to convey in a poem just how generous and supportive she was through that experience. I can imagine many another parent would’ve reacted very differently. But she was never anything but kind, supportive. She’s the least judgmental person I think I’ve ever known. And I think having had her, as having been adopted by her and my father is certainly one of the best things that ever happened to me and is part of the reason I turned out a poet to some extent because they always supported whatever I did, and that included poetry from a very early age and short story writing as well.
Mark: Yeah. So, that’s another thing that poets, you know, we’re not always guaranteed support for poetry.
Carrie: No, indeed, I’ve found very different reactions from different relatives and family members to my writing. But my mother, she was my first audience. I ran to her with my poems as an 11-year-old, 12-year-old, 13-year-old. She was the first person I took my poems to. And, indeed, once I started getting published I would send her, say, contributor copies for her. For those of you who aren’t poets, you may not realise that often we don’t get paid for our poems, but if there is a physical magazine, you’re always sent at least one copy, sometimes several copies of the magazine. So, in fact, when I was in Illinois last month, going through some old things, I found a huge tub of old contributor’s copies I had given her over the years and forgotten about.
And, indeed, there is another poem in the manuscript Grief’s Alphabet about writing my first poem and the necessity of the completion of that poem in some ways being running to and sharing it with her as though the poem was not finished until I’d shared it with her. So, there are a number of poems, like ‘Pregnant Teenager and Her Mama’ in Grief’s Alphabet, that record really difficult things like my father’s layoff, his injury and death, and so on that we went through together and that formed our relationship necessarily. There were a lot of hardships. There were also some moments of joy, I should say, as well in the manuscript. And, indeed, writing that first section, Origin Story, was in the end quite joyous because I understood even more keenly what I had in that relationship and how much it gave me.
Mark: And so she was your first reader. And a lot of writers talk about having an ideal reader in their head when they write. Would you say that she’s a part of that ideal reader? I mean, maybe obviously in this collection, but what about other collections?
Carrie: That’s really interesting because as I’ve been working on the book I’m editing, Claire Crowther’s Sense and Nonsense, I’ve realised that this collection is in some ways perhaps both my most personal and my most accessible. And I’m not sure that I would always… And maybe that was partly because I had her in mind as one of my readers that it turned out that way. And then my next collection with a very different focus that I’m imagining is much less personal and then perhaps would have a much different approach to accessibility and the degree of linguistic and formal complexity, because I’m not imagining her as a reader in the same way as I am in this book, as well as kind of imagining my family, who in the main do not read poetry unless they’ve been keeping it from me. I imagine that this is one that my sisters will actually open. They may come after me for saying that, but I think my books just stay on their shelves unopened for the most part. But, hopefully, this might be an exception.
Mark: Yeah. There are lots of ways to support a writer.
Carrie: Yes. And my family members coming to my events and showing interest in my work. And sometimes they’ve had me come… when my nieces and nephews were younger, they had me come and speak at their schools and things like that, and that’s always really lovely. I love taking poetry to young people in different ways.
Mark: You know, any of us who’ve studied poetry, we’re used to being advised to beware. If a poet says ‘I’ in the poem, it doesn’t necessarily mean the poet themselves is speaking. But this is the opposite of that because the poem is saying you. But even before I’d read the rest of the collection, I kind of picked up that the ‘you’ in this poem related to you, the writer.
Carrie: There’s something really wonderfully nimble about second-person point of view where you both invite any reader to step into the place of the addressee while at the same time being able to refer to a specific person. I think that’s part of the power of the second-person poems in Claudia Rankine’s Citizen that ‘you’ invites us to experience what racial microaggressions are like for ourselves even as we know we are not the ‘you’ to whom this in fact happened.
Mark: And as the poem progresses, ‘you’ fades into the background, and we get ‘she’ and ‘her’ for the mother. And so by the end, it’s the mother. And, in fact, she’s transformed into a doe as well. So, there’s that perspective shift as the poem goes on.
Carrie: One of the endorsements for the book that particularly pleased me was one that noted that, even though there’s a lot of me in this book, I myself am not the focus. The focus is very much on trying to show who my mother was, trying to understand and appreciate who she was. And there’s a line, in fact, at the end of another poem, ‘Lifelong I daughter,’ and this book feels like an act of daughtering.
Mark: Oh, what a lovely functional shift.
Carrie: Yeah. I mean, I love all the… You mentioned the doe, and one of the pleasures of writing this poem was the use of simile and metaphor, playing with the figurative language and broadening her capacity in who she was by her adopting all these different animal identities that seemed quite natural to her.
[Cat meows]
And as I was going to say that my cat walks into the room!
Mark: I was just going to mention the cat!
Carrie: Yeah. I hear he is squawking for us. [Laughter]
Mark: So, you’ve got a mouse, a cat, a bat, a kangaroo, a doe, and the fawn.
Carrie: It’s quite a zoo, isn’t it?
Mark: It is quite the zoo. Maybe you’d like to say something about that.
Carrie: I am in awe of figurative language at its best. I think of phrases like Dylan Thomas’, ‘A wall…’
[Cat meows]
Mark: It’s OK, animals are welcome today!
Carrie: Yes, indeed. Adding to our zoo. He uses the phrase, ‘A wall thin as a wren’s bone.’ Isn’t that beautiful?
Mark: Yeah.
Carrie: And I really wanted to play with that with this particular poem and do my best to make the figurative language work as well as I could to suggest the breadth of her mothering, that it takes on all of these different qualities beyond the human or broadens our sense of what the human is, perhaps.
Mark: I love that. And also what occurred to me when I was reading it was… This goes back to what you were saying about her lack of judgment. Because humans are very good at judging teenage mothers, and yet all the natural imagery just quite subtly suggests this is a natural process. There’s no judgment in the animal kingdom.
Carrie: That’s really a lovely insight. And, indeed, yes, it’s a way to implicitly suggest the absence of judgment in her behaviour. Well, that was not, I have to concede, part of my intention, but I love the fact that that’s part of the joy of readership, is the things that people find that work effectively in the poem that you weren’t conscious of in its construction.
Mark: That’s the magic of poetry, isn’t it? If it’s a real poem, then there’s always more in it, I think, than we’re consciously aware of when we write. I guess another thing it picked up to me it signaled was just the instinctive warmth and comfort. You know, ‘she plucks and drops you / into the warmth of her pouch’. What could be nicer than that? And ‘Her tongue’s on your fur’. I mean, it’s delightful, isn’t it?
Carrie: It is. She was very physically affectionate in that way, always ready to long warm, soft hugs. That physical affection, quick to say, ‘I love you,’ as well. She’s set a model for generosity and affection that continues to nourish me even with the loss of her.
Mark: Well, that really comes across in this poem.
Carrie: I’m so glad for that. I really hope to do her justice with the book.
Mark: And focusing just a little more on the form of the poem, I mean, how close is this to the original draft of the poem?
Carrie: That’s a really good question. I did take this to one of my workshop groups, and we raised some questions about…the phrasing around the bat changed. It became a little bit clearer but not a lot changed. I think one thing… So, while I am devoted to revision and always trying to reach kind of the best version of my poems that I can, and I read them aloud over and over again, try to make sure the sound is working to the best of my ability, sometimes I find that if an idea has stayed with me a long time before I draft it, then a poem close to finished comes out more easily. And so it’s those poems about an experience so many years ago now. We don’t need to say how long it’s been since I’ve been a teenager with my birthday later this month, but it’s been some years.
And I’ve often thought back to her handling of the revelation of my pregnancy, and the way she came to me, and the way we talked about it, and her gentleness and quiet, steady support in that exchange, especially as you see pregnant teenagers represented on television, and film, and novels so differently. The contrast brought into relief what I had. And so I think the fact that that memory is so strong, and I’ve revisited it so often, made this poem that little bit easier to get right in an earlier draft of the process. Other poems take 20 drafts. I think this was three or four. But, again, I think that’s very much to do with how long the poem lived with me.
Mark: So, I was about to say this poem had a long gestation, but then I realised what I was saying. [Laughter]
Carrie: Indeed, it did have a long gestation.
Mark: A mysterious creative process. Also as well, I think it’s probably true that your years of practice meant that it was relatively easy for you to draft it so quickly.
Carrie: Some poems come… So, the opening poem in the manuscript ‘Birthday as Adoption Day’ about the day that I was picked up from the hospital at two weeks old, I wrote at least 10 completely different drafts of that poem because I couldn’t get it right. I couldn’t find the right use of form and point of view that felt that I got the right vehicle. And so that took a lot more redrafting. And then once I found the right kind of version then even more tinkering after that. So, it varies widely, poem to poem, how many drafts it takes, how much editing. I do run everything by… The whole manuscript has been read by a number of fellow poets. And I have two wonderful workshop groups, one in London I don’t get to very often and one here in the Southwest that I visit more regularly, that are great for feedback on my work, as well as a fiction workshop group as well. So, I do a lot of workshopping.
Mark: And just looking a bit more closely at the opening, I mean, you’ve got…so ‘Pregnant Teenager and Her Mama.’ I mean, you put the pregnant teenager front and centre there, which is bold and provocative for the reasons we’ve just discussed. But you don’t say, ‘and her Mother,’ you say, ‘and her Mama,’ which sounds much more homely and familiar. So, you’ve got that kind of…it’s almost inviting the judgment but then the warmth coming right away.
Carrie: Yeah, I think that’s really important, that sense that this is someone…that if this pregnant teenager were to speak in this moment, that she would use something very familiar like that because of the intimacy of this exchange. I have a lot of different names for my mother that come throughout the book. In fact, the most common one, the name I called her from when I was very little, was Modie instead of Mommy. And Modie comes up a lot in the book, but if you have the poem by itself, someone would see Modie and not be sure whether I’m referring to a person’s name or my mother. So, it felt that I had to use Mama in this particular case so that immediately you read the title and you know what the relationship is.
Mark: Yeah. That’s that warmth. It’s like the whole poem in microcosm in the title. And then this wonderful opening where you’ve got so much repetition, ‘You eat and eat and tremble. You tremble and eat and your mother.’ That’s the first two lines. We’ve got four ‘and’s, which beginners would be warned off. You’ve got ‘eat’ repeated, ‘tremble’ repeated, and ‘you’ repeated, and yet, well, to me at least, it beautifully conveys that awkwardness and the helplessness of the teenager that this, ‘Well, I’m doing this and I’m doing, and I’m just…’ Sorry, I’m raising my hands here. [Laughter] You can’t see this, as it’s on the podcast.
Carrie: It’s true. I was voracious during that time. In my first trimester, I was so hungry, and I was trying to keep this pregnancy to myself. And I was so scared because I really wasn’t sure what to do. I believe in women’s right to choose, and I felt that way then. I did consider abortion, but I had decided to give my son up for adoption instead. And I’m very grateful… I don’t judge anyone for making a different choice, but I’m very grateful for what I’ve done, not least because I now have a relationship with my son. As you may know from my book, Imagined Sons, which I wrote before I found him, it was as painful as it was to give him up. I know I gave him a better life than I certainly could have provided at that stage in my life. And I certainly also didn’t want to bring that kind of hardship onto my own family either after all we’d been through. I mean, my father was still laid off at that point. And that was really not an option. So, adoption ended up being the right thing for me at that time, but it’s not something I would prescribe for anyone else.
Mark: Sure. Okay. And then we get, ‘She swoops in like a bat. / You hope to be claimed: / she alights beside you.’ Sorry, I’m not reading it as beautifully as you do. ‘And then your hands turn palms up, apology.’ So, it occurred to me that this is all gesture. There’s no speech. And later on, you say this, ‘What’ll I do? you think, / no need for speech.’ And, again, this is the animal thing, isn’t it? They don’t speak. But they express through action and gesture.
Carrie: Yeah. She comes and sits with me. And just from her posture and way of looking at me, I know there’s no judgment coming. I know she’s fully there to put her arms around me and hold me through this. And I can’t imagine what I needed more at that point than that uncritical, unjudgmental love, the greatest thing that a parent can give to a child.
Mark: And then I think this is the only non-animal image in the poem, is when you say ‘the year’s a crucible’, which, I mean…so I’m thinking we had Luke Palmer a couple of episodes ago, and he was talking about alchemy. And this is obviously an alchemical image of transformation. I mean, would you like to say anything about that?
Carrie: Sure. I suppose so in the midst of all of these animal images and the sense of this exchange within love, part of what makes that so powerful has been just how excruciating this experience has been for the speaker, for the you. And so it kind of steps out and provides a sense… You have context from ‘Pregnant Teenager,’ certainly. But ‘The year’s a crucible’ widens that out to being in high school and dealing with this, dealing with the father of this child, all of the hell that this experience has been. And so it’s a way of a intentional, sharp contrast between the positive animal imagery and the difficulty of the experience. And so this moment is a kind of a haven amid the larger endurance of one of the most difficult things I ever experienced.
Mark: Yeah. And then it leads into this really, for me, beautifully judged ending, ‘And here she is, / a doe who leads / her fawn to water and waits. / Oh, how she waits.’ It’s one of those endings that it’s not tying things up in a little bow. It’s not signalling too much to the reader, you know? I mean, and in a sense, I was thinking, ‘Well, it’s quite brave.’ You’re waiting for the reader to get it. Was there a decision to make about that, or did you just think, ‘No, that’s the ending?’
Carrie: No, although I have to say I have read a wonderful essay by Joy Katz called ‘Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye.’ It’s basically on the use of repetition in poems and on the sense that we overuse repetition. And this is a poem where I really indulge in repetition, particularly at the beginning and the end of the poem. I love repetition. I tend to think poets don’t do it enough.
Mark: It’s one of the great joys of poetry, isn’t it?
Carrie: Maybe it’s a difference between American and British contemporary poetry, but I tend to see, at least in my teaching, students underusing it.
Mark: In Britain or…
Carrie: Well, because Joy Katz is writing in an American context and quoting American poets overrelying on repetition. I have not done… I’m probably going to get myself in trouble here because I’m sure, as soon as this goes out, people are going to be sending me whole magazines…
Mark: Of course they are! [Laughter]
Carrie: …where every poem uses repetition, and that would be well deserved. But I really felt that the power of repetition at the beginning is to convey the tension, the nervousness of the speaker caught in this cycle she can’t break out of on her own, which is why she hopes to be claimed. There seems to be no way forward. And at the end, it’s the loving patience of a mother who will simply sit and listen. And, again, that sense of something offering up a kind of nourishment that only she can provide and simply waiting for the daughter to do the right thing for herself, whatever that turns out to be.
So, yes, I mean, there were… I think I had a version without the last line, but I was already working in tercets, so that might’ve been why, sorry, three-line stanzas, I should say, why it felt incomplete, but I also wanted to pay attention to the fact that it’s not just about what she did, but it’s the way she did it, that how, the emphasis on not simply listening, but listening with a sense of complete lack of judgment and support and calling attention to the rareness and specialness of that response.
Mark: Right. So, just the patience.
Carrie: That how, that ‘how she waits,’ that waiting with a kind of care. There’s a way when people are in difficulty that simply being there can be nourishing.
Mark: Absolutely. Well, talking of repetition, I think it’s time to hear the poem again. And, Carrie, thank you so much for sharing so generously about such a powerful and personal poem.
Carrie: Thank you for having me. I am happy it’s going to reach a wider audience.
You eat and eat and tremble.
She swoops in like a bat.
Your hands turn palms up, apology.
What’ll I do? you think,
or her love’s your skin.
a doe who leads
‘Pregnant Teenager and Her Mama’ is from Grief’s Alphabet by Carrie Etter, published by Seren Books.
Grief’s Alphabet is available from:
The publisher: Seren Books
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK | US
Originally from Normal, Illinois, Carrie Etter has lived in England since 2001 and teaches creative writing at the University of Bristol. Her poems have appeared in Boston Review, The New Republic, The New Statesman, The Penguin Book of the Prose Poem, Poetry Review, The Times Literary Supplement and many other journals and anthologies internationally. Her fifth collection, Grief’s Alphabet, is published by Seren Books. She also writes short stories, essays, and reviews.
CarrieEtter.com
Photo: Fabrizia Costa
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Pregnant Teenager and Her Mama by Carrie Etter appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘To His Coy Mistress’ by Andrew Marvell.
Andrew Marvell
Mark McGuinness
By Andrew Marvell
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
This is a seductive poem in every sense. It’s pretty up front about its seductive intentions – it’s in the voice of a 17th century gentleman, addressing a ‘coy mistress’, and entreating her to less careful of her ‘honour’ and to seize the pleasures of the fleeting day.
And the poem also seduced me, when I was leafing through my copy of Marvell’s poems and deciding which one to read for you on the podcast. I remember thinking, ‘I’m not going to do that one, it’s so well known, it’s too famous for its own good’.
It’s one of the most quoted poems in English, phrases like ‘time’s wingèd chariot’ and ‘world enough, and time’ are everyday figures of speech. And it’s been plundered for titles of not only novels and movies, but also episodes of Star Trek and Dr Who, not to mention the countless allusions to the poem by other poets, novelists and screenwriters.
But then I was leafing through the book and I read the first few lines, and I was drawn in, and found myself marvelling – if you’ll excuse the pun! – marvelling all over again at this poem. At its wit, its elegance, its darkness, and also its sense of the urgency and precariousness and preciousness of life. So here we go.
The idea that life is short and we should make the most of it while we can is hardly an original thought, and it’s found in some of the earliest recorded poetry, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Ancient Egyptian ‘Song of the Harper’, both of which date from around 2,000 BC.
By Roman times, ‘carpe diem’, meaning ‘seize’ or ‘pluck the day’, was a well-known phrase from the poet Horace, who wrote lots of verse on this theme. And in the 17th century, when Marvell was writing, it was a common theme, in poems such as Robert Herrick’s, ‘Gather ye rosebuds while ye may’ and Edmund Waller’s ‘Go, lovely rose’.
And boys being boys, many male poets have seized on the carpe diem motif as an attempt to persuade coy maidens to – well, to stop being coy maidens.
And ‘To His Coy Mistress’ is the exemplar of this kind of poem, balancing the conventions of courtly love with philosophical musings on time, death and eternity. Is it a profoundly metaphysical poem that meditates on the ephemeral nature of love and life? Or a shameless attempt to enlist high-falutin concepts in the service of carnal instincts? Well, if I’ve learned one thing from reading Marvell over many years, it’s not to jump to conclusions.
So the poem is written in three verse paragraphs, which correspond to three stages of an argument, which has been described as ‘If… But… Therefore…’, and which we can summarise thus:
IF we had ‘world enough and time’, then I’d love to take my time about wooing you.
BUT at my back I always hear / Times wingèd chariot hurrying near’ – in other words, life is short, so we don’t have time to be patient.
THEREFORE we should ‘tear our pleasures with rough strife / Thorough the iron gates of life’ — and tear each other’s clothes off before its too late.
And let’s give the poet his due, there is more than a grain of truth in this argument. None of us are here forever, so why not make hay while the sun shines?
But of course, just because we might be tempted to make some hay, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we’d want to do it with the nearest person to hand. But the speaker of the poem glides smoothly over this fact, and presents his ‘mistress’ with a binary choice: come to bed with me or regret your virginity for all eternity.
So what the poem presents us with is a syllogism, a technical philosophical term which has come to mean a specious argument, where the conclusion may sound plausible, but doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. And it’s all very well saying so, but it doesn’t really prepare us for the seductive power of the poem itself.
Let’s take the opening two lines, which posit the ‘if’ on which the argument of the whole poem depends:
Had we but world enough and time,
I can really hear the speaker’s voice here, as if we were overhearing him talking to the lady, strolling along in an elegant frock coat and wig, in the beautifully designed garden of an English country house. Marvell wrote lots of beautiful descriptions of such gardens in his other poems, so that every time I visit a country house, it feels like I’m inside a Marvell poem. So I can’t help picturing this poem being spoken on a leisurely walk among the flowers and quinces and pears and topiary, with an ornamental lake in the distance.
And the speaker’s tone is very relaxed, friendly, and charming – but also slightly mocking and ironic. And the statement sounds perfectly reasonable and plausible, until we take a closer look.
Had we but world enough and time,
So he’s saying, ‘If we had all the time in the world, your coyness, your modesty, your unwillingness to entertain my advances, would not be a crime’. And notice how he’s slipped that word ‘crime’ into the sentence, right at the end. He’s using the rhetorical technique of presupposition – talking about coyness as a crime, as if that were an established fact. Whereas in fact, it’s nothing of the sort – coyness and modesty were conventionally considered virtues, within the moral and gender norms of Marvell’s day.
And of course, the speaker knows this. And I think we can safely assume his mistress knows this too. so I don’t think we’re meant to take this at face value. It is transparently deceptive. But transparent deception is a paradox. So within two lines and one sentence, we’re already dealing with multiple layers of irony. He’s joking, but he’s also serious. And she knows this, and he knows that she knows this, and so on…
And Marvell is not just relying on his flimsy logic. He is bolstering his argument with all the cunning arts of poetry. Listen again:
Had we but world enough and time,
Can you hear that? That regular, lulling, hypnotic metre is iambic tetrameter, ti TUM ti TUM ti TUM ti TUM. He kicks it off with a reversed foot, TUM ti, ‘Had we’, as if he were stepping out at the start of his walk, and offering the lady his arm. And then it becomes as regular as a slow and steady walking rhythm:
Had we but world enough and time,
Notice how the full rhyme of ‘time’ and ‘crime’ create the illusion of clinching the argument, making it sound truer than true. And I think this illusion of conclusiveness is one reason for the growing popularity of the couplet form in the late 17th century and into the 18th century. This was the Age of Reason, when writers wanted to sound rational and convincing. They liked to wrap things up in a little neat bow, and couplets are a great way to do this. So much so, that I think they should almost come with an advisory warning – reader beware! This poem is not necessarily to be trusted.
Anyway. We’re only two lines in, and we’re already in danger of falling under Marvell’s spell.
So having kicked off by wishing he had all the time in the world, the speaker tells his mistress what he would love to do in that case:
We would sit down, and think which way
In this scenario, where time is no object, they will be free to pass their ‘long love’s day’ – what a beautifully languorous phrase – in the most extravagant fashion. In true courtly love style, he could ‘complain’, mope about in love, by the Humber estuary, in the city of Hull, where Marvell grew up and later served as a Member of Parliament. And all this while she could be far away in India.
He would love her from before the Biblical flood, a proverbially long time ago, until ‘the conversion of the Jews’, which 17th century Christians rather arrogantly assumed would happen just before the destruction of the world, on the Day of Judgment. In other words, the two of them could stretch out their courting from ancient times until the end of the world.
Next, we get this startling couplet:
My vegetable love should grow
There are a lot of weird images in Marvell, and ‘vegetable love’ is a prime exhibit, suggesting the slower timescale of the plant world compared to humans. And perhaps other things too.
Then we get another feature of courtly love poetry, which we’ve seen before, in Episode 50 about Christopher Smart’s Cat Jeoffry – the catalogue of the beloved’s attributes:
An hundred years should go to praise
But if the catalogue had been done a thousand times before – and rest assured it had, even by the 17th century – it can rarely have been done with such wit or such elegance, or with such naughty humour as that rhyme of ‘breast’ with ‘the rest’.
And then Marvell ends the first verse paragraph, the ‘IF’ section of the poem, by underlining his faux reluctance to ask her to hurry:
For, lady, you deserve this state,
And on the subject of witty rhymes, isn’t that a marvellously abrupt descent? From ‘state’ to ‘rate’? I guess it’s possible to read ‘rate’ as relating to speed, but the connotations of ‘price’ are hard to ignore; on the one hand he’s saying ‘you are a high class lady’, but it comes dangerously close to ‘high maintenance’, or even ‘high ticket’.
So he’s saying that of course she deserves this ‘state’, this absurdly protracted wooing. But what can he do?
But at my back I always hear
So we are now entering the BUT section of the poem, in the middle paragraph. Where he says he would love to wait, but time waits for no man – nor woman neither, as Hamlet would say. And time arrives in a splendid ‘wingèd chariot’, and I’m sure Marvell would appreciate the irony of that wonderful phrase granting immortality to this line about ephemerality.
And the swiftness of time means that the speaker and his mistress will soon be lost in the ‘Deserts of vast eternity’, a wonderful description of death that manages to be both a euphemism and horrifying.
Now strictly speaking, it’s nonsense to say ‘eternity’ lies ‘before us’, because eternity is outside of time, it has no beginning and no end. But as creatures of time, this is how it appears to us when we contemplate death. So I’m pretty sure Philip Larkin had these lines at the back of his mind when he wrote his devastating poem about death, ‘The Old Fools’.
Anyway. Faced with this memento mori, Marvell’s speaker does not, as we might expect, start to think about the state of his soul, or reach for philosophical consolation. No, he’s far more concerned that the two of them are in danger of missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for pleasure:
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
And once again, it’s really hard to describe the tone of this, there’s nothing else quite like it in English poetry. It begins with a genuine sense of mortality, and even mourning, with the poet’s ‘echoing song’ in the ‘marble vault’. But it’s flipped almost immediately into a blatant attempt to lure his mistress into bed. There’s a kind of macabre, mocking humour that at the same time is weirdly compelling.
And perhaps most weirdly of all, none of this stops this being a genuinely moving and thought-provoking poem about the transience of life. T. S. Eliot put it better than I can, when he described tone of this poem as an ‘alliance of levity and seriousness (by which the seriousness is intensified)’.
And there is at least one extremely rude pun in these lines, that I won’t dare to elucidate, even with my Apple Podcast explicit tag switched on. If you’re a Chaucer fan, you’ll know exactly what I mean; but if you are offended by crude language, then look away now.
OK, here are the final lines of the second section, the ‘BUT’ section:
The grave’s a fine and private place,
There’s a delicious horror to this, isn’t there? At a later date, this kind of thing would be called Gothic. And it partly works because of something I learned when I was a hypnotherapist, and that is negative suggestion.
So if I say, ‘Don’t think of a pink elephant’, what do you think of? That’s right! A pink elephant. Maybe you imagine an X crossing it out, but the pink elephant is there as an image in your mind, because there’s no way to picture the opposite of an image.
And so when Marvell writes, ‘But none, I think, do there embrace’, it conjures up the image of two dead bodies or skeletons embracing in the grave. Which is a pretty horrifying image. And I’m sure the speaker knows exactly what he’s doing here. He’s putting the frighteners on her, which makes the image even more dark and disturbing, within the world of the poem. But outside of that world, when we consider this as a piece of poetry, then it’s frankly superb. It’s no wonder these lines are so famous, and so widely quoted.
In the history of poetry, this feels like a mid-point, between the earlier Jacobean metaphysics of John Donne, and the emerging elegance of the heroic couplet, in poets including Marvell’s contemporary John Dryden and later on, Alexander Pope. So heroic couplets are written in iambic pentameter, slightly longer than the iambic tetrameter Marvell is using here. And Dryden and Pope have a comparable wit and eloquence to Marvell, but they don’t have the heart of darkness that we find at the centre of ‘To His Coy Mistress’.
And yet the poem doesn’t end with darkness, but with light. In the third and final section, the ‘THEREFORE’ section, Marvell’s speaker proposes a solution to the riddle of death:
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
We’re still young, he says, so ‘let us sport us while we may’. Which is a fairly conventionally poetic way of putting it. But then we get this slightly troubling comparison to ‘amorous birds of prey’. Now birds are nice and romantic, but why do they need to be birds of prey? It’s a bit disturbing, isn’t it? Especially when followed by the images of ‘devouring’ and the ‘slow-chapped power’ of the jaws of time. So in spite of his evident enthusiasm, it suggests at least an ambivalence about sex, and maybe an undercurrent of violence as well as desire.
And then the poem ends with this extraordinary image:
Let us roll all our strength and all
So Marvell was very far from being the first poet to wish the sun would stand still, so he would have more time with his lover. On this podcast, we’ve already heard John Donne asking the rising sun, ‘must to thy motions lovers’ seasons run?’. And Marvell’s contemporary, Robert Herrick, in his ‘Gather ye rosebuds while ye may’ poem, reminds ‘coy’ lovers that the sun’s ‘race’ will soon be run. But this is a very idiosyncratic treatment of the theme, even by Marvell’s standards.
At first, it’s not even clear that he’s talking about the sun. He invites his mistress to join him in rolling ‘all our strength and all / Our sweetness up into one ball’, which sounds like they’re going to make a giant snowball together. Then he wants to ‘tear our pleasures with rough strife / Thorough the iron gates of life’. So with the ball image still firmly in our minds, this conjures up a picture of the lovers pushing a giant ball through a pair of iron gates, which is frankly bizarre. It sounds like something out of James and the Giant Peach or Takeshi’s Castle.
As we have seen, Marvell’s verse abounds in disconcertingly strange imagery. And in his essay on Marvell, T. S. Eliot says he doesn’t always get away with it. But in this instance, I think he does. It’s ridiculous, but somehow it works, even though I can’t quite work out why. And it reaches a terrific conclusion:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
There’s an acceleration in that final line, which means the poem takes off, just as it looks like its running out of road. The ‘If’ and ‘But’ have been transmuted into ‘even though’. After spending 45 lines resisting the forward momentum of time and of the sun, the poem suddenly decides to gowith it.
And on one level, it’s a facile ploy, a part of the speaker’s transparent seduction technique. But at one and the same time, as we have seen, this frivolously erotic poem is also a genuine meditation on death. So I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to also read this ending as a joyful assent to life itself.
So, that is Andrew Marvell’s ‘To His Coy Mistress’. And if ever a poem was begging for a response, it’s this one, isn’t it? Because we never hear from the mistress herself, or even glimpse her, so it’s anybody’s guess what she made of it.
And inevitably, other poets have risen to the challenge, and written responses in the voice of the mistress. Annie Finch has a delightfully terse reply in her poem ‘Coy Mistress’, and A. D. Hope’s ‘His Coy Mistress to Mr Marvell’ is a take-down that is even longer than the original.
I’ll include links to both of those poems in the show notes on the website, and if you know of any other poems written in the voice of the Coy Mistress, I’d love to hear them!
But I don’t think it was an oversight that Marvell doesn’t include the Coy Mistress’s perspective in the poem, and it feels a bit too easy to dismiss this as chauvinistic disregard for her point of view. A poet as clever as Marvell would have been well aware that he’d presented readers with one half of a dialogue, and that we would naturally start to fill in the other half with our imagination.
Nowadays, we’re used to reading poems as if the ‘I’ of the poem is the same as the ‘I’ of the poet. And it’s certainly possible that the poem was inspired by a real woman Andrew Marvell knew. Even in that case, it’s pretty clear that the speaker of the poem sees courtship as a game, and his ambiguous tone suggests it’s finely balanced whether he’s playing to win, or simply for the fun of it.
And it’s also possible to read this poem as a dramatic monologue, written more for its effect on the reader, than to express a private passion. In which case, it’s hard to escape the feeling that this most subtle of poets is playing a delightful and disconcerting game with us.
By Andrew Marvell
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
Andrew Marvell was an English poet and politician who was born in 1621 and died in 1678. Many of his poems reveal surprising depths in relatively minor subjects, as in the seductive ‘To His Coy Mistress’, or his descriptions of gardens and pastoral scenes. Marvell served as Member of Parliament for Hull during the English Civil War and later the Restoration. The nimbleness required to navigate such changing times is reflected in the ambiguous tone of his ‘Horatian Ode Upon Cromwell’s Return from Ireland’. He served as Latin Secretary to Cromwell’s Council of State, alongside John Milton, and contributed a poem, ‘On Mr Milton’s Paradise Lost’ to the second edition of his friend’s great poem.
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Luke Palmer reads ‘Homunculus by the Shore’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.
Homunculus
Homunculus is available from:
The publisher: Broken Sleep Books
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: US
at the tideline with my father we are the only uprights
sea skidding white fur up the strand sea always arriving
coming to me and arriving at me like an eager dog
bringing all its versions the rotten smell of itself
my father digs with his big toe the sea goes through that
he says waves don’t break they go down
the hill of the sea is inside out waves roll up it
all the way to the top they end at my feet
my father swings me high over the waves
that go down forever down to the sea’s throat
belching out water the sea is a generous element
it will hold you up it will let you in
he plants my feet in the water the water sucks at them
like a hungry tongue I’m brought to the edge
teetering in two places at once against the flat world
wind stings the line of my lips salt in the corners of my feet
Mark: Luke, where did this poem come from?
Luke: So I’d already written quite a few homunculus poems before this one came along. The homunculus is the central character, I suppose, or voice rather of my first collection. And he’s the preformationalist child of an alchemist. 16th-century alchemists, as well as the philosopher’s stone, had this idea of this homunculus, this child born without sin that would also become the key to eternal life.
And so the homunculus, it’s Paracelsus’s homunculus, the infamous alchemist and firebrand figure of kind of pre-Renaissance thought, I suppose. And I wanted to kind of cast Paracelsus as a bit of a single father figure, I suppose, with this preformationalist sinless child.
And so the ‘Homunculus By the Shore’ poem came quite late, I suppose, in this sequence as just another way of looking at this relationship. What are the things that a father and a son would do together? So I kind of imagined them by the sea, in this instance, not a nice kind of seaside day. To me, it’s a kind of dreary, overcast, kind of February half term, let’s go for a walk on the beach, kind of sea rather than a kind of, you know, kiss me quick and lots of, you know, sun tan lotion and that kind of stuff.
So, yeah, the poem fits into a kind of a sequence, I suppose, of homunculus poems exploring this father-son relationship, and the son looking at the father and the father looking back at the son as this key to eternal life and living forever, I suppose.
Mark: Okay. So just so we’re clear, the homunculus has been created by the alchemist, brought into the world…
Luke: Yeah. Paracelsus’ recipe was that you take a human sperm and you grow it, for him, it was within a horse. You put it in a horse’s womb. The preformationalists thought that the human sperm, the male sperm is what contained all of the ingredients, I suppose, for a child. And for them, a woman was just where it grew. That’s just where you put it to bring it on, I suppose, like a seed.
And so for Paracelsus, this homunculus, his mother’s a horse. He’s grown inside a horse earlier on in the collection. And, yeah, so he’s born therefore, you know, without the need for sex or sin or anything like that. So he’s kind of immaculately conceived, this child.
Mark: Gosh. So there’s quite a lot of resonances for this. On the one hand, you’ve got all the theological father-son, immaculate conception stuff, and was artificial intelligence anywhere at the back of your mind as you were writing this?
Luke: I’ve played with AI before, just that I really enjoy the kind of the crazy logic of AI poems, I think. So that idea of something coming out of nothing is definitely, yeah, AI’s in the same ballpark, I think. And, yeah, that kind of creating something almost so unexperienced and naive as to be, I mean, I find the AI poems really funny, the strange connections that AI comes up with, completely when you’re just looking at words, almost completely divorced from semantics is a really interesting field to, to play around with. So there’s definitely that element is plugged in, I suppose, the idea of, yeah, a child who’s supposed to be, yeah, bringer of eternal life, but also is completely divorced from life itself, really.
Mark: Yeah. And yet it’s weirdly relatable, I mean, I think those of us who live near the sea can relate to standing there with a parent looking out at the sea. I’ll never forget taking our kids to the sea for the first time when they were really small and, you know, the look on their face, ‘What the hell is that?’
Luke: Indeed. Yeah. I think I do want it to feel very, very human, I think. And very, again, like I said, it’s not a special day out, it’s a dreary walk by the sea. One of the main inspirations, I think when I kind of came up with the idea was the Caspar David Friedrich picture, The Monk by the Sea. Which to me is a beautiful image of, you know, bleak seascape. And the image has almost no trunkage in it. There’s no verticals in it at all, apart from this tiny little monk who’s standing right on the foreshore against this huge, mostly sky, actually, there’s not a lot of sea in the picture, apart from some angry-looking kind of white waves and the kind of horribly cold looking North Sea.
But that bleakness, that isolation, I think that’s something that runs through the homunculus’s journey in the book and also in Paracelsus’s story as well, from what I’ve read about him, of just this feeling outcast, really. This being a figure that’s so kind of at the cutting edge of what he’s doing, the misunderstandings and his constant need, I guess, or constantly being asked to explain himself seemed to me to kind of push him way outside of society, I suppose.
And I guess this image of a father and a son standing by the ocean is them. They’re at the brink of something, I think they’re at the edge and that sense of, you know, quotidian, everydayness is kind of blended with, for me, at least, a real sense of them being out on their own, like, these are the only two creatures left in the world almost. And that painting was a really useful kind of visual touchstone, I guess, to try and to try and capture that.
Mark: Yeah. I’ll put a link to the painting in the show notes, and I mean, you’ve got that wonderful half-line, ‘We are the only uprights.’ It says so much, it’s so evocative. And so Paracelsus for us, you know, he’s kind of old fashioned, but at the time, what he was doing was kind of cutting edge and controversial, wasn’t it?
Luke: It was, and in particular, one of the things I really liked about going back through his old writings and interpretations of his writings is his idea of equivalence really, and his idea of how the world is structured and how people are structured. I mean, this is kind of before Renaissance, no one was really peeling people and looking at how we work.
So one of the things I really wanted to pick up on was the alchemist idea of inversion, the idea that something on the outside is reflected on its inside. And so here the sea takes that on, the idea that the sea is flipped in some way. And what happens if waves don’t come up through the sea? What happens if they’re on the way down? What happens if the sea is the same above as it is below?
And perhaps those isolated figures standing on the foreshore are looking for that mirror. They’re looking for that mirror image, something that can reflect themselves back and something that will hold them, that line about the sea being something that will hold you up. That kind of water is, you know, the buoyancy in water, but also you’re kind of entering it at the same time as being held by it. You know, there’s two things happening at once there, I suppose. So, yeah, that’s kind of going through the poem as well as the other poems, the homunculus poems in the book.
Mark: So, folks, when you see the text, the bits where the father is speaking are in italics. Are those direct quotes from Paracelsus, or was it you channelling him?
Luke: They’re not, no, they’re me channelling. There are a fair few epigraphs not for this poem, but there are a fair few homunculus poems that do come with epigraphs of Paracelsus’s words, but the italicised bits, they’re me.
Mark: But they do sound very authentic. And I think that’s the point where you, you know, at a first reading, okay, I registered the word homunculus, but you know, ‘at the tide line with my father’, I’m suddenly there with my father, or, you know, just imagining a normal father-child relationship. But it’s when he starts coming out with these theories about the waves going down and the hill of the sea being inside out, I’m starting to think, okay, this is a little bit different to the usual father-son situation.
Luke: Yeah. With my own children, I think there’s definitely, you take on this, I don’t know, this mantle for want of a better word, of, you know, I am the person through whom my children will learn about the world. But I guess what if your version of the world is so at odds with everyone else’s or with the world itself, that you know that, what if your version of the world is so at odds that you are struggling to explain it at every step of the way?
I suppose that you’ve got this child in front of you who is pure, perfectly good, and wonderful as they all are and then you are trying to bring them this complexity, I suppose, this whole range of the, you know, metaphysics of the world and how the world is put together and plugged in. I think, yeah, that’s something I as a father definitely deal with quite a lot. Yeah. So I think, yeah, Paracelsus here, or the alchemist, the father needed to be doing it too.
Mark: Yeah. I think my experience is, you know, the window of oracle-like authority, it doesn’t last that long! [Laughter] It doesn’t, but anyway you know, within the poem, the homunculus is this innocent narrator, so you get the sense that he, she, or it is swallowing this whole, this is what father says, and this is the way the world works.
Luke: Yeah, definitely. I think that later on, perhaps in the book, that there’s a few poems where the homunculus starts to sit a little bit at odds with the father. And there’s a little bit of side-eye, shall we say, later on. But at this point, yeah, definitely the homunculus is going for it kind of hook line and sinker and is being shown this wonderful, miraculous world by their, you know, firebrand half-mad dad.
Mark: And so, you know, I haven’t seen the whole collection yet, so I don’t know if there’s a moment where the homunculus comes to life for the father, but at what point did the homunculus come to life for you as a poet? You know, when you realise because you’ve got this whole sequence of poems about this character or persona.
Luke: So homunculus means… it doesn’t mean much apart from ‘little man’, I suppose. and the idea of a little man has been used in science, you know, for ages. I mean, nowadays, if you Google ‘homunculus’, you get an image of a little man or a little human whose parts are bigger or smaller, depending on their number of nerve endings in them, basically. So, homunculus being used as a model for the nervous system.
But the one that I first really fell in love with was the idea that the homunculus that sits in your head and I think it was one of Descartes’s ideas, the philosopher of kind of mind, I suppose, of the idea of that we have a small version of ourselves in our head that watches what we are doing. And to him, that was all about what consciousness is, I suppose, and he called it the Cartesian Theatre, this place in the head where a small version of yourself sits observing what you are doing and kind of casting judgment and kind of pulling the strings, I suppose.
I don’t know, a little bit like, I don’t know, like a creature in a Dalek, maybe. But that idea kind of got me started, I think with the homunculus and I kind of dialed it back to the earliest version I could find and just stopped at the alchemists because they were bonkers and it just sounded so much, there’s so much theatre there, so much fun to be had there, so much play to be had with the idea of a small person that you are creating out of nothing almost.
Luke: And also that weird desire, again, one of the reasons I think we go to history so much is as a reflection for what we’re doing at the moment, that strange desire to create something of yourself completely independently of anybody else, that idea that we self-repeat and the ideal perfect child is one that is just a repetition of you rather than it being anything kind of communal or a linking or a coming together. And that idea kind of, yeah, I stuck on that idea for a while thinking, yeah, what would that look like if, you know, having children was just infinite repeat rather than variety, it was just a case of copying yourself essentially.
Mark: And maybe that also relates to the artistic impulse to make something.
Luke: Yeah, I think, yeah, definitely. Yeah. the idea of, yeah, living beyond yourself, definitely that sense of, yeah, leaving something behind maybe that, you know, do you do it with children, do you do it with art? Finding a version of yourself that you can, yeah, pass on.
Mark: And, you know, for me, one of the drawbacks of writing, you know, short lyric poems of the kind that predominate these days is you get one, you get the idea, and then you’ve done it, and then you’ve got to wait. You know, it’s like waiting for a bus. You’ve got to wait for another one to come along. So what was it like having the homunculus in your poetic life, so to speak, so that maybe you knew there would be another, you know, he or she would be hanging around and you could play with it again and have another homunculus poem shortly?
Luke: It was lovely really, I really enjoyed it, just that constant, ‘Oh, I wonder what the homunculus would think of this.’ I think one of the things you hear as a poet more often than not is kind of people telling you, ‘Oh, you could get a poem out of that.’ Or, ‘That could be a poem,’ that kind of, you know, the expectation that, you know, you are constantly on, you are always looking like a magpie for that next thing to write about.
But having another angle to come at it from you know, that idea of telling it slant, you know, there are very, very, very good poems that kind of pick up on, you know, something that happened and use that as a jumping off point for a wider universal truth in that lyric tradition. But I think I wanted to try to do or look at things in a slight, I don’t know, maybe I was fed up with me and my way of looking at things and was looking for a way of shocking myself into a different perspective. And so this homunculus kind of came on as a bit of a gift really, as this creature, this thing that would have a very different perspective, or at least, yeah, a different perspective, a different take on what was happening.
Mark: And let’s think about the form of the poem. I mean, firstly, how typical is this form of the rest of the collection?
Luke: The homunculus poems all have this central margin, I suppose, this gap that runs down the middle. So it’s quite typical of the other homunculus poems in terms of how it looks on the page. The poem on the page is in four kind of equal standards, four quatrains, but with this split down the middle. And I think it’s probably more formal in that regard than some of the others. But the run-on lines, like I said, that central kind of marginated sculptural split, I suppose, that runs down the middle there. There’s a fair few poems that do that and I think I really enjoyed playing around with that.
About five, six years ago I started toying with a lack of, or very reduced punctuation in poetry, and this poem kind of ties in with that and, I guess, uses breath and space rather than that, I think that kind of probably came from many, many, many, many, many poets do it. But the one that really hit for me, I suppose, with Andrew McMillan’s first collection, it’s a physical collection that use these breath spaces to kind of let some light and let some air into the poem because I do tend to write quite densely in that the images do tend to pile up. And I really like layering sound on sound as well.
There’s a lot of repetition in the poem, there’s a lot of repeated phrases and sounds as well, particularly vowel sounds. And I think a way of really opening the poem up for me is just giving it that physical space on the page, splitting those lines and kind of, yeah, letting a bit more air and breath into it on the page as well.
Mark: Yeah. And we could really hear, you know, the gap in the middle of the line. We could hear that as you read it. I mean, for me, obviously, with this topic, it made me think of the sea and the waves and the details piling up the way the waves and the pebbles pile up on the shore.
Luke: Yeah. I think within each poem that central, you know, marginated blank space seems to do something else within each time I’ve used it. And here, definitely, that wave that one runs through the poem was a real, I like it when, you know, things that you are choosing, you know, methods that you choose that aid one element of your craft, of your poetry also have a knock-on impact on others as well. And whilst, yeah, that breath, that break was brought in as a sound feature originally, definitely on the page visually, it’s definitely doing that kind of wave-like seascape job this time, I suppose.
Mark: And you’ve got this wonderfully understated, but really quite unsettling ending.
Luke (from poem recording):
he plants my feet in the water the water sucks at them
like a hungry tongue I’m brought to the edge
teetering in two places at once against the flat world
wind stings the line of my lips salt in the corners of my feet
Mark: So we’ve got that, you know, father’s planting us carefully there, but the water, you know, the sea is sucking at it like a tongue. And he’s brought to the edge. You talked about Paracelsus being at the edge, but you know, every child is brought to the edge really at some point. And that flat world is quite a resonant phrase, isn’t it, in the context of the cosmology of the time?
Luke: Yeah. I think I was probably pulled back towards that painting again, towards The Monk by the Sea. And just that idea of if we are on this flat plane, this two-dimensional plane, you know, where will things catch, I suppose, the idea of what would be the instances, you know, those angles in which things might grab, in which things might get caught. And certainly that last line, you know, if we are on this flat landscape because that’s, I think, how I imagine them, the homunculus and his father standing against this very kind of ostensibly two-dimensional boardscape, I guess.
Mark: Right. That’s what it looks like…
Luke: Where do things catch? Where can things get in? And it’s just those small corners, I guess, you know, the line of a lip, the corner of a foot. I think that’s where I was probably going with that last bit, trying to anchor it in that image again. But yeah, then there is that, I think there a lot of the homunculus poems in with a, not quite a threatening tone perhaps, but definitely a sense of, I don’t know, maybe it is what the Romantics we’re talking about with the sublime, this idea of something huge and terrifying and, you know, awesome in the sense that, you know, it mutes you, it leaves you, you know, it leaves you cold, it leaves you, you know, wondering about your tiny little place in a gigantic world.
And so I think that’s definitely in there at the end of this one. And obviously, you know Caspar David Friedrich is something of a Romantic painter. Definitely his more famous pieces perhaps are those that definitely tie into that romantic tradition of the sublime and the hugeness of nature.
Mark: Absolutely. I once saw William Golding interviewed, I think he was on The South Bank show. And they had Golding sat on a rock at the edge of the sea, and Melvin Bragg was asking him questions. And at one point Golding said, ‘You know what? It’s actually really hard to talk because I’m just looking at the sea and everything just feels utterly insignificant, anything that I would say just next to the sea.’ And I love the way you evoke that feeling in this poem, you know, and it’s the classic walk by the shore on a winter’s day, and it’s not comforting, is it? It’s bracing.
Luke: It’s not, no, it’s not, it is bracing. And I think that’s probably why we do it so often, like kind of particularly this time of year when it’s stormy and it’s moody, and it’s big. And I think against that, yeah, maybe any attempts to explain, you know, why not have a sea that is upside down and waves are coming up from a place in the middle of the ocean that’s being belched out?
I mean, it makes no difference, does it, to the enormity of what’s in front of you. Whether it’s, you know, wind fetch across a vast amount of sea, or whether is some, you know, God pushing water up from the very base of the earth, it makes no difference to what’s going on at the surface. And that’s what we’re encountering is surface. And, yeah. And behind that could be anything, which is, you know, equally incredible and terrifying, I suppose.
Mark: Well, thank you, Luke. Let’s hear the poem again and contemplate that surface.
Luke: Sure.
Mark: And feel small again. [Laughter]
at the tideline with my father we are the only uprights
my father digs with his big toe the sea goes through that
my father swings me high over the waves
he plants my feet in the water the water sucks at them
‘Homunculus by the Shore’ is from Homunculus by Luke Palmer, published by Broken Sleep Books.
Homunculus is available from:
The publisher: Broken Sleep Books
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: US
Homunculus is Luke Palmer’s first full collection, released in early 2024 following two earlier pamphlets. His poems, described as ‘stark and beautiful’ and ‘meticulously woven’, have been widely published and anthologised. His work touches on many themes, most often parenting and children. He won the 2022 Winchester Poetry Prize for ‘Desire | Fathers’ and has taught on poetry and fatherhood for the Poetry School. Luke is also a critically acclaimed author of novels for young people and has been longlisted for the Carnegie Medal. He lives in Wiltshire with his young family.
LukePalmerWriting.com
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Homunculus by the Shore by Luke Palmer appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Sextain’ by William Drummond of Hawthornden.
William Drummond of Hawthornden
Mark McGuinness
By William Drummond of Hawthornden
The Heaven doth not contain so many stars,
So many leaves not prostrate lie in woods
When autumn’s old and Boreas sounds his wars,
So many waves have not the ocean floods,
As my rent mind hath torments all the night,
And heart spends sighs when Phœbus brings the light.
Why should I have been partner of the light,
Who, crost in birth by bad aspéct of stars,
Have never since had happy day or night?
Why was not I a liver in the woods,
Or citizen of Thetis’s crystal floods,
Than made a man, for love and fortune’s wars?
I look each day when death should end the wars,
Uncivil wars, ’twixt sense and reason’s light;
My pains I count to mountains, meads, and floods,
And of my sorrow partners make the stars;
All desolate I haunt the fearful woods,
When I should give myself to rest at night.
With watchful eyes I ne’er behold the night,
Mother of peace, but ah! to me of wars,
And Cynthia, queen-like, shining through the woods,
When straight those lamps come in my thought, whose light
My judgment dazzled, passing brightest stars,
And then mine eyes en-isle themselves with floods.
Turn to their springs again first shall the floods,
Clear shall the sun the sad and gloomy night,
To dance about the pole cease shall the stars,
The elements renew their ancient wars
Shall first, and be deprived of place and light,
E’er I find rest in city, fields, or woods.
End these my days, indwellers of the woods,
Take this my life, ye deep and raging floods;
Sun, never rise to clear me with thy light,
Horror and darkness, keep a lasting night;
Consume me, care, with thy intestine wars,
And stay your influence o’er me, bright stars!
In vain the stars, indwellers of the woods,
Care, horror, wars, I call, and raging floods,
For all have sworn no night shall dim my sight.
Last month Terrance Hayes read for us one of his ‘DIY sestinas’ – a mind boggling variation on an already fairly mind-boggling poetic form. So I thought it would be good to look at another sestina today, a more straightforward and conventional sestina, so that we can deepen our understanding of the tradition that Terrance is responding to and playing with, when he does his DIY version.
The word ‘sestina’ comes from ‘sesto’ in Italian, meaning ‘sixth’. A sestina is made up of six stanzas, with six lines in each stanza. And at the end of those lines we find the same six words in every stanza, with their order changing according to a set pattern.
So in the sestina we’ve just heard, those end words are, ‘stars’, ‘woods’, ‘wars’, ‘floods’, ‘night’ and ‘light’, which is why we’ve just heard them repeating over and over.
Then, at the end of the poem, we find an envoy, or envoy, with all six words appearing in a shorter stanza of just three lines. I once heard Seamus Heaney give a lecture where he described the envoy as the end words ‘doing a little lap of honour’ at the end of the poem.
As a verse form named after the number six you could say the sestina has a family likeness to terza rima, a form based on the number three, with interlocking triple rhymes, which we looked at in episodes 21 and 54, with poems by Selina Rodrigues and Percy Bysshe Shelley.
But instead of rhymes, the sestina uses these end words, those words that appear at the end of the lines, and the challenge for a poet is to incorporate the end words into a meaningful and coherent poem, and somehow making a virtue of the repetition, so that it doesn’t become boring.
And given all this repetition, it’s not surprising that the sestina has often been used to evoke oppressive, claustrophobic or obsessive states of mind. The 19th century French poet, Ferdinand de Gramont, described it as ‘a reverie in which the same ideas, the same objects, occur to the mind in a succession of different aspects, which nonetheless resemble one another, fluid and changing shape like the clouds in the sky’.
As far as we can tell, the sestina originated in 12th century Occitania, in what is now southern France, among the troubadours, who were basically medieval performance poets, composing and singing their own songs, mostly on the themes of courtly love and chivalry.
The troubadour usually credited with inventing the sestina is Arnaut Daniel, who lived at the end of the 12th century. Although, given that a lot of troubadour forms were based on folk songs, he may well have been elaborating on a previous model.
And it’s certainly possible to see the sestina as a form of country dance for words, with those six words lined up like a row of dancers, who follow a set pattern of movements before lining up again and bowing to each other at the end. And just like a country dance, it’s possible to perform it quickly and skilfully and joyfully, or to go through the motions and tread on each other’s toes in a way that’s painful to watch.
The 19th century English poet Edmund Gosse wrote a sestina about Daniel’s creation of the sestina, which begins:
In fair Provence, the land of lute and rose,
So according to Gosse, Daniel’s motivation in creating such an elaborate form was to win the heart of a lady who ‘was deaf when simpler staves he sang’. Which reminds me of the biological theory that the complexity of the human brain and human culture evolved as a kind of mating ritual that got out of hand, with men and women creating ever more elaborate and dazzling cultural artefacts and dinner party repartee in order to attract each other’s attention.
And there’s definitely something of the peacock’s tail about the sestina, it’s absurdly overblown and impractical, but at the same time undeniably arresting.
So there’s a romantic explanation for the origin of the sestina, but there’s also a professional one. troubadours were a competitive bunch, always vying to outdo each other with their artistry, and there were high profile troubadour contests with big prizes. So it’s not hard to see the complexity of the sestina as a strategy for outdoing your rival, who may well have rocked up to the troubadour slam with a less elaborate verse form.
So it’s no surprise that Arnaut Daniel turned out to be a real poet’s poet, admired and praised by his fellow writers long after his poems and songs had faded from popular memory.
Dante includes Daniel in his Purgatorio, where he describes him as ‘il miglior fabbro’, the best blacksmith, or craftsman. And we’ve just heard Edmund Gosse’s description, ‘Arnaut, great master of the lore of love’. A few years after Gosse, Ezra Pound was translating Daniel’s verse and describing him as the greatest poet of all time. So we can imagine how chuffed Pound must have been when he saw the dedication of T. S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land:
For Ezra Pound
And this mixture of competitiveness and mutual back-slapping is relevant to the sestina, because one criticism of the form is that it’s a ‘poet’s poem’ in the negative sense, where the formal and technical challenges take precedence over the actual effect of the poem on normal readers and listeners.
So it’s appropriate that there is more than one poet vying for the honour of having written the first sestina in English.
The first one to be printed in English was part of an eclogue in Edmund Spenser’s Shepheard’s Calendar, published in 1579. Although it’s possible that the sestinas in Sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia were written before Spenser’s, even though they were published later.
However… a lady called Elizabeth Woodville, who happened to be Queen of England as the wife of Edward IV, turns out to have written a kind of sestina way back in the 15th century, which only survives in a single manuscript.
Her poem was a variation on the sestina, with seven lines per stanza instead of six; the extra line came from repeating the first line of every stanza as the last line of the same stanza. And the first six lines of the first stanza provided the first lines of each stanza, which are of course repeated at the end of each stanza.
So if you’re feeling a bit confused by now, that’s normal! It’s probably even intentional – the sestina is clearly designed to dazzle, and right from the very first ones written in English, we see poets playing with the form, bending the rules in order to display their virtuosity.
This was certainly the case with Philip Sidney, whose Arcadia includes a double sestina, one after the other, using the same six end words throughout. And it has been noted that nobody wrote a decent sestina in English for about 250 years after Sidney, perhaps because they were intimidated by his example.
Then in the 19th century a few poets, including Gosse and Swinburne, picked up on the form and started playing with it. And it became seriously popular in the 20th century, where it became a staple exercise in creative writing courses, and sestinas were written by major poets including Ezra Pound, W. H. Auden, Elizabeth Bishop, Weldon Kees, Seamus Heaney and John Ashbery.
For today’s episode I thought it would be nice to choose a poem from the early days of the English sestina. I was tempted to do the Elizabeth Woodville one, it’s a brilliant variation on the form, but I decided that it wouldn’t really help me explain a form based on six-line stanzas to use an example with seven-line stanzas.
Then I thought about Spender and Sidney. Both the Shepheard’s Calendar and the Arcadia contain some excellent sestinas, and they are also great examples of Renaissance pastoral, a genre that depicts humans living in an ideal state of harmony with nature, with lots of meadows and gardens and shepherds and nymphs and so on. But I’ve already featured Sidney fairly recently, in Episode 58. and I’m obviously going to do Spenser’s Faerie Queene at some point, so I decided to find another poet.
And what did I find nestling near Sidney and Spenser in the Renaissance pastoral garden, but this delightful piece by the Scottish poet William Drummond of Hawthornden.
Unfortunately for Drummond, these days he is better known for his hospitality than his poetry. His most famous work is a record he made of his conversations with the poet and playwright Ben Jonson, when Jonson came to visit him for three weeks in 1618.
According to the critic Michael Schmidt, Jonson stayed long enough to drink Drummond’s wine cellar dry, which probably accounts for the juiciness of his gossip and the harshness of some of his opinions of other writers, as recorded for posterity by Drummond.
So Drummond is a great source of literary gossip from the period, but he was also a very learned and skilful poet in his own right, as I think today’s poem, ‘Sextain’, demonstrates.
His use of classical references and the ornate syntax, with lots of inversions and poetic diction, make it clear that he was writing with an educated audience in mind. So we can probably see what Jonson meant when he told Drummond, ‘his verses were too much of the schooles, and were not after the fancie of the time’. In other words, they were a bit old-fashioned, even in the 17th century. But it’s too Drummond’s credit that he faithfully recorded this criticism of his own work. And I do think this is an impressive poem.
So the scenario is pretty straightforward: the speaker of the poem, who sounds like an educated man not a million miles away from Drummond himself, is contemplating the passing of daytime and nighttime over a landscape and feeling desolate and despairing. And that’s about it.
And because he’s looking at the same features of the landscape and the sky, and circling round and round the same thoughts, and the same emotional territory, the sestina is the perfect form for doing this.
But in spite of my efforts to get as close as possible to the original, pure source of the sestina, when we look a little closer at the form, we can see that this isn’t a pure sestina. Because the end words actually rhyme – ‘stars’ with ‘wars’, ‘woods’ with ‘floods’, and ‘night’ with ‘light’. And allowing for historical shifts in pronunciation, and Drummond’s Scottish accent, we can safely assume that ‘stars’ and ‘wars’, ‘woods’ and ‘floods’ would have been full rhymes for him.
So, even this early on in the history of the sestina, we find yet another poet bending the rules, playing variations on the form even before it’s been properly established. Because of course, there are no rules in poetry, only patterns, and poets love to play with patterns and see what effects emerge from them.
While I was considering the end words, I remembered a comment Mimi Khalvati made years ago, when she taught the sestina, which is that very often, there’s one word out of the six that doesn’t seem to fit with the others.
For example, in Elizabeth Bishop’s sestina, which she called ‘Sestina’, the end words are: ‘house’, ‘grandmother’, ‘child’, ‘stove’, ‘almanac’, ‘tears’.
So which word jumps out of that list? – ‘house’, ‘grandmother’, ‘child’, ‘stove’, ‘almanac’, ‘tears’.
It’s almanac, isn’t it? All the others belong to the same imaginative world, a cosy domestic scene with a child and its grandmother warming themselves by the stove. ‘Tears’ does add a strong element of pathos, but it doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb the way ‘almanac’ does.
I mean, if you were given the task of writing a sestina based on those words, that’s the word you’d balk at, isn’t it? It would be fairly easy to conjure up a story using the words ‘house’, ‘grandmother’, ‘child’, ‘stove’, and ‘tears’. But then your eye would light on ‘almanac’ and you’d think, really? Do I have to? But of course Bishop had the skill to carry it off without it sounding strained, and it helps to mark the poem out as unmistakably hers.
OK let’s play the same game with Drummond’s ‘Sextain’. Here are the end words – which one sticks out?
‘Stars’, ‘woods’, ‘wars’, ‘floods’, ‘night’ and ‘light’.
It’s ‘wars’, isn’t it? It’s easy enough to describe a country landscape using ‘Stars’, ‘woods’, ‘floods’, ‘night’ and ‘light’. But where do the wars fit in? They don’t, do they? The pastoral was associated with peace and order in Renaissance literature, and wars disrupt this peace.
And of course that’s what the poem is about. A man surrounded by natural beauty, but who can’t appreciate it because of the wars in his heart and mind.
The Heaven doth not contain so many stars,
So he’s basically saying that nature does not contain so many wonders as the ‘torments’ of my ‘rent mind’, my torn mind, and the ‘sighs’ of my heart.
Now it might be tempting to look at the historical context and see if there were any specific wars going on at the time that Drummond might be referencing in the poem, but I think it’s pretty clear that the wars he’s talking about are figurative, states of mind rather than warring states.
Mostly, the word ‘wars’ suggests some kind of personal anguish, such as ‘love and fortune’s wars’, ‘Uncivil wars, ’twixt sense and reason’s light’, and ‘intestine wars of care’ (i.e. sorrow). There are also references to war in natural world, with Boreas, the god of wind, sounding his wars at the end of autumn, heralding the approach of winter. And later on we have, ‘The elements renew their ancient wars’.
So the conflict isn’t restricted to the speaker’s own ‘love and fortune’; the poem also locates conflict in the natural seasons and elements. The word ‘wars’ insinuates itself into the pastoral landscape like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
And Drummond uses all the tools at his disposal, including classical references, atmospheric description, and rhetorical exaggeration, to paint his picture of misery:
The Heaven doth not contain so many stars,
So according to Drummond’s logic, all the wonders of nature are not only negated by his misery, the more numerous and wonderful they are, the more they go to prove how much more miserable he is. And if you have ever suffered from melancholy, or tried to cheer up someone who is suffering from it, you’ll recognise this as a very accurate depiction of the kind of thinking it produces.
And this pattern, of evoking pastoral imagery only to negate it and twist it into proof of his unhappiness, continues in the second stanza:
Why should I have been partner of the light,
In other words, why should I have been born, only to be born under an unlucky star, never to have had a single happy day or night? And why wasn’t I born a creature of the woods or the seas, i.e. Some kind of bird or beast or fish, instead of ‘made a man’ who is subject to ‘love and fortune’s wars?’
And he carries on in the same vein throughout the poem, lamenting his fate with a combination of gorgeous natural imagery and convoluted syntax, peppered with references to classical gods – Boreas, Thetis, Phoebus and Cynthia. So it’s very much highbrow moaning.
And it’s not particularly obvious what he’s moaning about. We could cite circumstantial evidence – which is that, generally, this kind of melancholic pose was adopted at the time by disappointed male lovers. And the fourth stanza does seem to support this hypothesis, although if you blink you might miss the evidence:
With watchful eyes I ne’er behold the night,
Cynthia was another name for Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of the moon. So what he’s saying here is that ‘I can never behold the night, and the moon shining through the woods’ without ‘those lamps’ coming into my mind, ‘whose light / My judgment dazzled’, brighter than the stars. And then my eyes are flooded with tears.
So I’m guessing these ‘lamps’ are the eyes of a mysterious beloved – as we know by now, courtly love poets love to compare their ladies’ eyes to stars. So this seems to be a pretty oblique and romanticised and classicised reference to some kind of encounter with a lady who dazzled the speaker, but didn’t hang around.
And I guess your enjoyment of this poem, or maybe your patience with it, will depend on how much you share the 17th century taste for elegantly expressed melancholy. Personally I find it quite congenial. But hopefully we can at least agree that Drummond has done a superb job within the conventions of the genre.
It doesn’t really go anywhere, the speaker is just as depressed at the end of the poem as he was at the beginning. But that’s kind of the point of the sestina – there’s no escape, you’re stuck with the six end words and doomed to repeat them ad nauseam.
And circling back to Terrance Hayes and his DIY sestinas, we can see that his self-conscious artistry, extending the technical challenge, as he put it, ‘to make the obsessiveness somewhat ridiculous even’, is part and parcel of the sestina tradition, of taking the complex and making it even more complex – as Daniel probably did with a folk song, and as Woodville, Spenser, Sidney and Drummond did in their turn.
So one aspect of Terrance’s innovation is really a new phase of a very old tradition. But the DIY element also gives it an unusual twist, because he’s taking a form that was originally competitive and exclusive – a test of skill and a ‘poet’s poem’ – and made it democratic and inviting, giving us the words and inviting us to join the dance.
Drummond was at the other end of the spectrum, an ivory tower poet who literally lived in a tower, his ancestral home of Hawthornden Castle. But there’s plenty of room for both types of poem, in a form as capacious and flexible as the sestina.
And Ben Jonson may have drunk all of Drummond’s wine, but fortunately his poems survive, so let’s have another listen to ‘Sextain’, and savour its vintage melancholy.
By William Drummond of Hawthornden
The Heaven doth not contain so many stars,
So many leaves not prostrate lie in woods
When autumn’s old and Boreas sounds his wars,
So many waves have not the ocean floods,
As my rent mind hath torments all the night,
And heart spends sighs when Phœbus brings the light.
Why should I have been partner of the light,
Who, crost in birth by bad aspéct of stars,
Have never since had happy day or night?
Why was not I a liver in the woods,
Or citizen of Thetis’s crystal floods,
Than made a man, for love and fortune’s wars?
I look each day when death should end the wars,
Uncivil wars, ’twixt sense and reason’s light;
My pains I count to mountains, meads, and floods,
And of my sorrow partners make the stars;
All desolate I haunt the fearful woods,
When I should give myself to rest at night.
With watchful eyes I ne’er behold the night,
Mother of peace, but ah! to me of wars,
And Cynthia, queen-like, shining through the woods,
When straight those lamps come in my thought, whose light
My judgment dazzled, passing brightest stars,
And then mine eyes en-isle themselves with floods.
Turn to their springs again first shall the floods,
Clear shall the sun the sad and gloomy night,
To dance about the pole cease shall the stars,
The elements renew their ancient wars
Shall first, and be deprived of place and light,
E’er I find rest in city, fields, or woods.
End these my days, indwellers of the woods,
Take this my life, ye deep and raging floods;
Sun, never rise to clear me with thy light,
Horror and darkness, keep a lasting night;
Consume me, care, with thy intestine wars,
And stay your influence o’er me, bright stars!
In vain the stars, indwellers of the woods,
Care, horror, wars, I call, and raging floods,
For all have sworn no night shall dim my sight.
William Drummond of Hawthornden was a Scottish poet and the first laird of Hawthornden, who was born in 1585 and died in 1649. He studied at the University of Edinburgh and later traveled through Europe, gaining exposure to the intellectual currents of his time. The title of the volume of poems he published in 1616 gives a good indication of their style and mood: Poems: Amorous, Funerall, Divine, Pastorall: in Sonnets, Songs, Sextains, Madrigals. His prose writings include history and philosophy. Drummond’s home, Hawthornden Castle, containing his extensive library, became a literary haven, with Ben Jonson his most famous guest.
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post Sextain by William Drummond of Hawthornden appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Terrance Hayes reads ‘DIY Sestina: What Would You Ask the Artist?’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.
So To Speak
So To Speak is available from:
The publisher: Penguin
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK | US
Dear Painter, can you share how you made the blue we
Find in certain of your paintings? Sometimes I catch it
Throwing a Godish glow over everything in the eye
Of a storm covered in lightning. I fear without you
The color will not be seen again except perhaps inside us
Where the bones hold its mercurial shades in them.
Matisse, sir, did your brushes have the blues in them?
Where else might the remains be found? We
Sometimes find the color in denim when rain dampens it.
Once or twice, making love, when I closed my eyes
I found myself in a tabernacle of the hue you
Have left hanging on the walls around us.
Hello, GOAT, Master of the Show, I have very little use
For blueberries, blue jays, skies, sapphire & the hems
In the garments of policemen, but the lines we
See hand-painted on porcelain come close. I might use it
On a Ming vase or in cases of chaos or rapture & if I
Fell into darkness, I would gaze upon it & thank you.
Mid-fall, Icarus shows how a misstep expands behind you,
How one can come to a conclusion using the wrong calculus.
The man who covered his coins in honey before eating them
In “Gooseberries” also turned a distasteful blue. The ennui we
Wish to cover & uncover & free & contain. As in how hard it
Is to describe your own accent. As in the way The Bluest Eye
Has so much Blackness in it. If people born in a season of ice
Are usually crawling by summer, how much do you
Suppose that determines their general disposition? Above us
Are constellations a soul needs for guidance, the anthems
Of sawdust & approximation. As if in matters of our bodies we
Are the least reliable witnesses. You find upon exit
The tubes of desuetude painters used in the exhibit.
I was born for this moment because this is the moment I
Was born, you say. It is always the color of history. Can you
Share how you made the blues outlast & outline us,
How long did you swim or drown or float or swallow them,
Esteemed Ghost, Henri, if I may, ennui, Henri, ennui?
The first drawing Pablo Picasso made as a toddler,
With a single blue crayon on onionskin,
Made his father, an average painter, weep
And weep again showing the drawing to Picasso’s mother,
Who also wept. The drawing was said to have been lost
After the death of Picasso’s sister, Conchita, of diphtheria
When the family moved to Barcelona, but it
Reappeared years later somewhere you’d never expect.
To truly grasp any of Picasso’s later work you should know
Whether the sister’s death conjured a bird’s- & bull’s-
Eye view of loss & faith & if the experience
Instilled a constant mysterious feeling in him,
Whether everything that happens to the artist before
Age nine or ten or even before nine or ten a.m. influences
Whether an instrument is held like a tool or weapon.
Loss, like desire, is always in the eye
Of the maker & beholder. Picasso, of course, grew
To make many more haunted perceptive scenes,
But the stranger who found the drawing had no idea
Who’d made it, only that the lines in blue crayon
On onion paper conjured a mysterious feeling in him.
“It looks somehow like a perfectly drawn landscape,”
Said the neighbor, resting his wiry hand
On his garden fence, thinking the stranger showing him
A drawing in the middle of the day slightly stranger than
He’d thought before. Returning to his dirt when the stranger
Left, the neighbor felt something come over his eyes:
The quixotic quaking in all his blind spots
He spent the rest of his days trying to describe.
It was a depiction of the body’s geometries, the eye doctor
Replied when the stranger asked his opinion. He sent
The stranger home after an inconclusive eye exam & then
Went home to bed himself. The doctor closed his eyes
Around his tears & slept for six or seven days dreaming
Of nudes posing before a surgeon with a palette knife.
When the stranger got home & showed the drawing
To his wife, she said it was clearly a portrayal of liberty.
The artist marking the presence of God, she explained,
Pausing over the thickest of the lines, “and asking why
And which heartbreaks can conjure the opposite of faith
And time.” Her hair, the stranger noticed, was no longer
As it was when she was his bride. “Blind spots always leave
A stain,” the wife said after dinner, though the stranger
Had long put the drawing away. She kept trying to describe
What she’d seen. “How not to disappear completely,
She said, lying in bed while her husband, the stranger,
Saw the drawing burning in a nightmare. It was clearly a tale
About slaves. The artist was suffering a notion of color.
The wife cried herself to sleep that night & dreamed
She was being covered in waves of salt water & gold,
The ephemera of souls lost between African & American
Shores, a blue between the sky & shark parlor,
Lovely as the loveliest of the sisters to leap
Into the waters & live free as the bride of the sea.
Mark: Terrance, where did this poem come from?
Terrance: Well, I believe some years ago I was in France and I was at the Centre Pompidou? I can’t remember what that modern museum of contemporary art is. And there’s a…
Mark: Pompidou, yeah.
Terrance: Pompidou. There’s an amazing Matisse there. And it’s actually, not the one I’m thinking of in this poem. The painting that I’m thinking of is a collage, Icarus. But that piece that I initially saw in the museum, it was just such a striking blue that I just continued to follow that colour through all of Matisse’s work and inevitably wanted to write this poem about that particular colour of blue, which cycles throughout what’s happening in the poem.
And then after having written that poem in the form of a sestina, I began to meditate on Picasso’s blue because of the relationship between Picasso and Matisse, both in my own sort of interest in art, but also in art history. So, I thought it only fair to kind of also meditate on that part of it, but in a different sort of way, a looser, less formal way, which is, again, something about my understanding of the two artists.
Mark: And what is Matisse – I mean, I know you’ve written it in the poem – but, I mean, why did you home in on that blue, do you think?
Terrance: Well it was very much just an emotional, aesthetic response, which is why I say the piece or the colour that initially triggers the poem isn’t actually in the poem. The poem actually makes a direct reference to the Icarus piece cut out and that kind of blue, which I believe Matisse maybe even trademarked.
Mark: Oh, really? Like the Coca-Cola red?
Terrance: Yeah, that’s right. But it was just such a striking colour. I wanted to just think about it. And so part of it was a kind of a study in the colour blue. And so the sky, the dusk, denim, sapphire, rain, it becomes a meditation on blue, but it does start with where he got that blue from. Like, where did he see such a colour?
So, how about this? Even the title of the poem sort of goes right to, what would you ask the artist? Which sometimes I look at that title and think I probably should have called it something else, like, just ‘Studies in Blue’, ‘Two Studies in Blue’. But that really is the impulse of the poem is: where did you get this blue from? Matisse. I mean, that’s what it comes out of.
Mark: So, almost, like, the poetic form gave you the opportunity to have that conversation or to start that conversation with Matisse?
Terrance: Yes. The poetic form, because of his sort of… I think of it as a kind of prismatic form with these rules of six. So, it just meant that I was going to also meditate on at least six shades of blue as I thought about it, rather than sort of thinking about the primary stimulus. I was very much interested in letting the poem take this notion somewhere else. And the shape of the sestina, the obsessiveness of the sestina form allowed me to do something like that.
Mark: Okay. So, firstly, for folks who don’t know, could you just enlighten us about what a sestina is? And then also, I’m curious about, did you know from the beginning that this was going to be a sestina?
Terrance: Yes, I did. In this book, there are actually three of them. There are two that are meditating on paintings. One is on this South Carolinian painter, William H. Johnson. The other is actually on Octavia Butler, and it’s almost all visual.
Mark: Yes.
Terrance: It’s a fully visual system…
Mark: Yes. That’s extraordinary, that one.
Terrance: I mean we can talk about the actual historical form, which goes back to the troubadours, I believe it’s French. Or we might talk about it, just sort of the obsessive architecture of the form, which is six lines, six stanzas, six words repeating.
And then after you’ve done that six times, which is 36 lines, you will have a 3-line ending, which is almost like a kind of concluding envoy, what it’s typically called, and that would be just, you have to use all of the 6 words that have been kind of cycling through the poem in that concluding stanza. Is that clear? Do you follow what I’m saying? Should I tease that out a bit more?
Mark: Well, it’s clear for me, because I know what it is. I think…
Terrance: It’s a big, towering, obsessive, repetitive form that’s daunting because you have to figure out the way, for those that don’t know what we’re talking about here, because of the way you have to kind of incorporate these six words into it. So, I think it does require a little bit of ingenuity on the kind of basic premise. For me, I wanted to kind of up the ante and just sort of bend the form.
So, there’s several words or several notions that are repeating six times throughout the poem. So, I say, ‘Sir’, ‘master’, ‘painter’, ‘ghost’, ‘Matisse’, ‘Henri’. And of course, as I said, this sort of notion of blue. So, there’s actual… If you’re hearing the poem, I’m talking about blueberries, and blue jays, and the hem, and the garments of policemen, and denim, and rain. So, I’m deliberately using six different shades of blue cycling through the poem.
And finally, this will sound really, like, a total nerd comment for people who wonder where poems come from. I also wanted to repeat six pronouns in it. So, the pronouns are ‘I’, ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘it’, ‘them’, and ‘you’.
And a pronoun like ‘I’, I will say to everyone, this gets down to, like, the traditionalist versus the sort of experimentalist inside a form. For that ‘I’, the pronoun I, I sometimes will do ‘e-y-e’ as a kind of visual ‘eye’. So, I’m massaging all of the rules to kind of see where it will take me as I’m meditating on its colour.
So, yeah, it’s a pretty dense and complicated form. I wanted to both make it overwrought so that I could loosen it up, if that makes any sense. I wanted to kind of just make the obsessiveness somewhat ridiculous even.
Mark: Yeah. I mean, I really love the way you’ve captured the spirit of the form because it’s not just about the rules, is it? It’s the fact that you’ve got… So, in the traditional version, which is a bit easier, I think, than what you have done, you’ve got these six words, well, they end each line. There’s no escape from those six words. They’re always coming back. So, it can be very claustrophobic, very obsessive as you say.
Also, I love the word you used earlier, ‘meditative’. I hadn’t really thought about it in that sense. It could be contemplative, which is kind of less fraught and anxious, I think, than a lot of sestinas.
Terrance: I think I probably think of it that way. How about this for information? I started writing the sestinas in the April of the quarantine, April of 2020, because I was supposed to do an event at the… It wasn’t the Smithsonian, but it was a museum in DC, Phillips Collection, a fairly well-known museum in DC. They have a pretty good art collection.
And quarantine meant that I couldn’t be there physically so that even before I had shown up, I was very much thinking about the sestina form in the quarantine and in the museum as a place for meditation, as you say, certainly, as a way of not being able to kind of get around the art. And I was trying to underscore that obsessive-looking part of the artistic process. So, when things didn’t happen I did try to construct an additional form so that people could write it themselves, which is why the poem is called ‘Do-It-Yourself Sestina,’ because I had orchestrated a way where maybe we could even write them together in the space and then the quarantine happened. So, I never did the reading, but the people who would have been there still had access to the poems. And I imagine somewhere out there, they might’ve tried to write their own sestinas around art.
Mark: Right. I want to come back to the DIY aspect of it in a moment. But one thing I really want to just underscore here is, if you’re listening to this and you’re new to sestinas and your mind is feeling a bit blown, that’s normal because the sestina itself is hard enough. It’s claustrophobic. It’s constricting enough.
But what Terrance has done is made it even more challenging by adding… And if you go to the show notes on the website, you will see there’s a graphic. It’s like a chart: he’s got of the six end words, but he’s also got another three sets of six words that appear in the poem. And so he’s adding constriction on constriction. So, there’s that aspect of it. But it’s also really interesting to hear that you were writing it at a constricted time, claustrophobic time when people were in quarantine and lockdown.
Terrance: Yeah. So, the form maybe, again, it’s sort of how I think of most form. I think of the sonnet this way too, is that it’s a box that holds a lot of the chaos. You need a box in a time of – sort of, things seem a bit unsettled, you know, or claustrophobic.
So, I do think form, for me, I mean, it is a question sometimes over here in the States, people will say, ‘You’re a formalist.’ Some people will say, ‘You’re a confessional poet.’ And I think people can hear in the terms, even if you’re not familiar with those terms, you hear what they are. ‘You’re a kind of personal confessional poet. You’re a strict formal poet. You’re a Black arts poet.’ I hear all of these things. And I say in each case, the poem decides what I am the occasion decides what I am. So, in that example, of course, I’m suggesting, certainly, I needed the obsessiveness, the kind of going back to the sestina form because I had nowhere else to go. So, you wanted something to obsess over a bit. And it is true that obsession is a kind of meditation.
Mark: I love that phrase ‘For form as a box that holds the chaos.’ I mean, I came across your work first through the American Sonnets for My Past and Future Assassin, you know, which is all sonnets and it was all written during the time of the Trump administration. So, there was, as I understand it, quite a lot of chaos to be placed in that particular box.
Terrance: Sure. And of course, they show up in the most recent book because that chaos and that energy for the particular American sonnet, that energy is not gone. I don’t think I’ll ever write a whole book of American sonnets again, but some days it feels like all I can do is put all of the madness into a form of love, which is what I think that American sonnet does for me and the sonnet form as a principle, it feels like a very good place to go in an overwrought political climate, because it’s the opposite of that.
Mark: And again, just stay with the question of form in general, I’m really curious about your relationship to it because there is a trend, which I’m sure you’re familiar with on your side of the pond as much as ours to say that these traditional forms, they’re associated with patriarchy, with imperialism, colonialism, and so on. We should be leaving that behind, we should be breaking free of all of that. But that’s not the approach that you take, so I’m curious about your stance.
Terrance: I think so much of my philosophy is rooted in the principle of metaphor, which is always about bridging and never about cancelling. If you cut off half a metaphor, you don’t have anything there. So, I’m often thinking about bridging notion.
So, hence, I mean, we can talk about it in American sonnet, which is attaching that adjective American to it to allow myself to bend the rules inside of it and having that principle be the adjective makes the form, you know, the adjective makes it an American sonnet and not just a traditional sonnet. So, that modifier, if you think about that in most general principle of things, is a very interesting thing to me, even as Black, the modifier on my experience as a Black person is super interesting, but I will still say to you, it is still the modifier. I’m still mostly interested in the body, the individual, the perspective of one as opposed to kind of the generalizing effects of modifiers, but I do like to play with just that principle inside of form. What can I get away with here?
So, here in the sestina form, not only, obviously, multiplying the six words that are repeated, but especially what happens for me in the envoy, which is taking those three lines and turning them into tercets or multiple three line envoys, which is to say that the ending, which is a fairly acrobatic part of the sestina, you go through these six words and now you got to use them all six times in the final tercet. There was no way I was going to be able to do that with having about 18… I don’t know how many words I had here to use.
Mark: I see. I hadn’t thought about that.
Terrance: Instead I just was sort of thinking about what was I thinking about when I was writing it and let the envoy almost be an extension of the parallel thinking that sometimes happens when you’re writing, if that makes any sense. You’re thinking about one thing and that’s what the poem is about, but there’s these other ideas every time you look up from the page. So, for me, in this particular form, which is to say all of them have a kind of extended envoy principle, I’m sort of suggesting that really the form should open you up. You should be inside that form and then at the end of it, it should open you. And that freedom is what I’m trying to capture there with the Picasso extension.
Mark: Right. And so, again, just for people who’ve just heard it once and relative new to the form, all the stuff about Matisse that you read, that is within the classical sestina form. And then the envoy, instead of being the three lines where all six words appear, again, I once heard Seamus Heaney describe that as a lap of honour for the six words. You’ve kind of exploded the envoy and it goes pretty well as long or even longer than the original poem with this amazing story about Picasso’s first painting. At what point did you just decide, ‘Okay. I’m going to do that. I’m going to push past the usual boundary of the form?’
Terrance: Well, it really does come out of, I wouldn’t have been able to do it without thinking first about Matisse, or rather I should say, I shouldn’t assume that everybody thinks about this sort of dynamic between Matisse and Picasso, which, you know, anybody that’s studied a little bit of art history, which I majored in art in college and done the paintings of the covers of my book. So, I do live very closely to certain kinds of things in art.
So, for me people will say maybe Matisse is the classical, the most classical with his cut outs and his sort of formalities, maybe even his Frenchness of the last century of artists. And then some others would say the opposite end of that would be Picasso, more romantic, more naturalistic, and animalistic. So, I kind of live between those two spaces. It just depends on the day. I do like a shapely, straightforward, simplistic notion. So, Matisse gives us all sorts of things about modernism. We don’t get Apple without Matisse’s relationship to shape and colour, you know, the kind of principles.
And then Picasso, of course, is just wild, and a little unruly, and intuitive, and so I do think of those as my sort of spectrums. You probably could do that in music, you know, the wild musician and in the opposite pole. So, I do think they serve for me as examples of just moving between the intuitive and the formal, the classical and the romantic, just sort of working principle. So, certainly, as I was working on Matisse, I was naturally going to come to thoughts about Picasso because it just sort of happens that way in my mind.
Mark: And you’ve used the word ‘meditate’ several times to describe the sestina. And then you go into a narrative in the envoy. It’s a completely different mode of writing, isn’t it?
Terrance: Yeah. And again, we could talk about that as well, this notion of the lyric, the song impulse inside of poems and in the storytelling impulse inside of… And again, I think I’ve walked between those two spaces. I am very much interested in lyric, in saying the same thing again and again, and the circularity of feeling, but I’m also very interested in narrative, the beginning, middle, and ending, the kind of resolution of things. But again, if you hear what I’m saying to you, I do like to think of my toolbox as just full of every possible thing. And I’m more adding instruments to it all the time and experimenting with instruments rather than settling on one sort of toolbox, whether it’s the toolbox of being a formalist, or the toolbox of being a narrative poet, or the toolbox of…
So, I do, as much as I can say, let the impulse inside of the poem and the writing determine that. And ironically, I do think that those DIY sestinas, the do-it-yourself sestinas, are probably the best example of that principle of letting the poem tell you what it wants to be and how it wants to be. Even inside of the principle of a kind of rigorous form, you can still find a way out of that form if you’re sort of listening to yourself, if you’re sort of observing what the writing has already sort of done, the mathematical part of the sestina with those words that I think you can sort of think about it as you’re writing and you’re trying, ‘Can I write about what I was thinking about as I was writing?’ Those are some of the principles underway.
Mark: Yeah. And I mean, I think in a way, this is a microcosm of the book because there is a huge variety of styles, and subjects, and forms, even illustrations throughout the book. And can I ask a bit about the DIY aspects of this? Because it’s another modifier, isn’t it? You’ve got American sonnet, DIY sestina. So, that shouldn’t set us up to know this isn’t necessarily going to be the sestina as we know it.
Terrance: Yeah.
Mark: Where did that whole concept come from?
Terrance: Well I mean, I’m a professor at New York University here. And these days, I am mostly interested even when I’m going out giving readings and just sort of talking to people about writing for themselves. So, not so much presenting the book as a thing to be consumed, but maybe as a manual for writing as you would like. And so even with, I think, again, the DIY sestinas are extremely explicit with that because I’m actually laying out a graph that if you use it, you could write your own sestina. I’ve set it up in such a way that if you were just to read through the lines, you’d be beginning to get the sentences for your own sestina. So, I’m being a little bit tongue-in-cheek with that.
The book ends, actually, with a couple of again, propositions for sestina. So, they’re just only the graphs at the very back of the book. And you literally could write it, but I don’t include the envoy because, again, you won’t really know what the envoy will be until you’ve written the sestina. But I am mostly encouraging again, people to figure it out for themselves. I mean, I could give you a sort of an anecdote of something that’s coming up where I was invited to read at the Guggenheim Museum here. And I really was curious if I could do a workshop with the security guards and the staff, people at the museum. They still want me to read, so I guess, I will. But first, I will go in and we will do, like, maybe doing one of their lunch breaks.
I’m just going to have them do some writing about, like, ‘What does it mean? You work in a museum. You’re around all this art. Wouldn’t you have, like, some pointers or some ideas about maybe taking notes or just thinking about it? And who knows if you work at the museum for 15 years, you might have a couple of books in you?’ So, that is what I’m interested in, the notion that I can have people sort of, in every kind of aspect of life, think about the recording, the keeping track of your day-to-day experiences and how it’s not essays, which is mostly how people come to language in school. It’s not an essay. It’s not a sonnet necessarily, even though that could be useful. But just this idea that what I’m doing could be done for others. Others can do what I do, which is just the practice of writing. That’s all. Maintain a practice of writing.
Mark: And this is, I mean, it’s a wonderful kind of invitation. I mean, we could all look at, take that same grid, and write another sestina, couldn’t we?
Terrance: That’s right. That’s right.
Mark: It would be another version of ‘after’ Terrance Hayes.
Terrance: Right. And again, I would hope that inside of that, people would start doing what they see me doing in the poem, which is, again, taking liberties on what certain words are doing or where they should be. Even if I was to talk about that poem, if the audience can hear each word I say will be followed by, you know, it’s a six-line stanza. So, there’s the dear painter stanza, six lines, ‘we’, ‘it’, ‘I’, ‘you’. And then there’s Matisse stanza, ‘Hello, GOAT’. And then there’s ‘mid-fall, Icarus’. So, as soon as I get to the Icarus thing, I let go. So, I don’t really do ‘esteemed’, or ‘godish’, or ‘if I may’, or they’re coming in different places. So, what I would hope that as someone started to set out to write their own poem, they would be like, ‘Well, he’s already breaking rules,’ so you maybe wouldn’t wind up in the same place, but that, again, would be what I would hope would happen.
And so I think a form is a gateway, it’s a doorway. It’s not really a box. It’s a kind of a frame that you go through into maybe a room, but certainly not a box, not a cage. I think about the open spaces inside of that form that allow us to make discoveries. And that is how it’s extended to go back to your previous question about the sort of history of form and this idea of its usefulness. It is a thing to go through. I mean, form is a thing that we live with, so I say to my students, ‘If the speed limit…’ I don’t know how to convert to kilometres. ‘If the speed limit is… If it’s 75…’
Mark: Actually, we use miles. We use miles here in the UK.
Terrance: Okay. Okay. Good. So, it may be clear. If you’re going 70 miles…if the law says 70 miles per hour, maybe you could do 88. You follow what I mean? So, I’m talking about bending the rule, not fully breaking it because if you break it, you maybe don’t recognize it.
Mark: Yeah.
Terrance: But you do want to be able to recognize it, but the bending of form, and bending of rules, and bending of laws, everything, that is where we get evolution. That’s where we get synthesis. That’s where we really get growth and pressure. So, I’m always encouraging people not to obey the rules, but to figure out how to, you know, massage them.
Mark: I mean, it’s almost just like you’re giving us a poem in kit form here. It’s like something to play with. I love the idea of form as a gateway that you go through and it’s expansive. I mean, that’s how I experience it when I write in traditional forms. If it were just constrictive, I wouldn’t want to do it. It’s, like, here are some pieces to play with. And then when you get into the game, then the spirit of the game takes over.
Terrance: Yeah. We just don’t get that kind of opportunity early on with explication, and scansion, and even maybe history. And when I was in high school, between Langston Hughes, T. S. Eliot, and Shakespeare, all the things that we get in high school, and Huckleberry Finn. I did like Huckleberry Finn, but I liked Shakespeare. It would be Shakespeare, Twain, Hughes, and then Eliot in terms of what I remember from that experience.
And so I do know that form does do something for language. I mean, I think I must’ve known that in the 10th grade. So, I do think of poetry as essentially form. It’s figurative language. Figurative is form. And so to kind of separate it, even a notion of free verse, I do think like a paragraph is not a poem, you know what I mean? A prose poem, but the notion of free verse, even that notion of freedom is a little bit misleading and maybe it’s emotional freedom and the verse is still form. Do you know what I mean? It’s still the question of modifier. ‘Free’ is modifying ‘form’. And so form is still the primary concern of what we can do inside of this shape.
Mark: Amen. And I’m curious. Why leave the DIY aspect out there in the book? Because I love the idea of the chart, the table as a springboard for writing the poem, but a lot of poets would have hidden that. They would have kept it for the workshop. They would have just started with…what they would have printed in the book would be just the finished result. Why did you include it?
Terrance: Well, again, the book ends with, it’s a little bit of a discussion on the form at the very back of the book. And then at the very end, I think of these as two poems, it says, ‘Two Do-It-Yourself Sestina Starters.’ One is ‘DIY Sestina for Emmett Till.’ And then the second one is ‘DIY Sestina for Ghost Watching Yourself.’ And so, again, what I think I’m doing is setting up almost kind of, like, grid poems so that if you were to go through it, if I just read the first sort of revolving lines, ‘what kind of fear arms a white man’, which also will be ‘what kind of love arms a white man’, ‘how much love arms a Black man’, ‘how much love arms a Black woman’.
So, if you were to look at this poem, the columns are telling you what I’m sort of asking you to contemplate on. So, one column: ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘child’, ‘animal’, ‘mouth’, ‘ghost’. Another column is ‘a white’, ‘a Black’, ‘a hidden’, ‘a stripped’, ‘a whistling’, ‘a silent’. Another column is ‘fear’, ‘love’, ‘hunger’, ‘grief’, ‘blindness’, ‘courage’.
So, you can kind of see even by hearing the words that I would be throwing at you as a kind of scrabble, you know, here are your tiles. You can kind of see the general movement that you will be going into, remembering, as I said, that, like, what’s most interesting to me about the form and form is that it leads you to something else. But you can see where I would be asking you to sort of move.
But again, it’s almost conceptual there at the end. Do I really expect people to write those poems? Maybe not, but I think they could imagine just by the title, ‘DIY Sestina for Emmett Till,’ ‘DIY Sestina for the Ghost Watching Yourself,’ you can kind of imagine conceptually the poems that follow. And that also is a kind of do-it-yourself encounter if you follow me.
So, yeah, I do think even though when I’m reading the poems as in this experience, I don’t dwell on that. I never talk about the complexities of that graph or the sestina form up front. I usually will say, ‘Here’s a poem. This is Matisse, and then this is Picasso,’ because I do think it’s secondary and I do think it is showing intentionally what you asked, the kind of scaffolding that writers use, that we’re not always just pulling things out of nowhere. And in fact, that scaffolding is what we rely on to kind of get outside of ourselves. And so I’m intentionally showing that kind of notion. And again, implying that it’s something within all of our grasp, even if you’re not using words that I’m suggesting you use, you can see something about the kind of play involved with what we do.
Mark: Yeah. I guess, it’s adding another level of self-consciousness to what is already a very self-conscious form, isn’t it?
Terrance: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I’ve always liked bending the rules. Those six words are called teleutons. I’ve always like playing around with, as I said, the ‘I’, being also an ‘eye’, thinking that’s where I could get my real mileage. I think in that poem, ‘you’, I sometimes say is ‘youse’. So, I’m really bending the rules.
Mark: Yeah, that’s very American.
Terrance: Or even, you know, ‘we’. You heard this. I said, ‘ennui’ is from that pronoun ‘we’. ‘Calculus’ is ‘us’. So, ‘us’ is one of the pronouns. So, instead of saying ‘us’’, at some point, I say ‘calculus’.
So, people will maybe hear these words, but I do not want to focus on that in an initial reading. I’m not interested necessarily in a live reading of having people hear where the six words are repeating so much as having a kind of accumulative effect of meditation on blue. So, it’s nice to kind of think about it secondarily, but yeah, I’m mostly looking at those. The most exciting thing is that I got to ‘calculus’, not that I was staying with ‘us’. Do you know what I mean?
So, I had to bend the rule because that ‘calculus’ gives me an entirely new sentence that, you know, ‘missteps’ is the ‘wrong calculus’. Whatever that line is, it fully comes out of the form, not out of sort of just thin air, you know, even though I apprised that line. The ‘Gooseberries’ line, I wasn’t thinking I was going to be talking about Chekhov and ‘a distasteful blue’. But again, the combination of form and meditation on the colour allows for the surprise that I think we’re often chasing in our work.
Mark: And maybe we could just finish up by looking at the envoy a bit more and where you end up because it’s really quite extraordinary. You start off with the facts, what I assume are the facts about the Picasso’s first drawing, and then it seems to build and build and build into more fantastical and dreamlike, but also meaningful territory. Could you talk about that maybe?
Terrance: I really think that that… I mean with my writing process, I do revise a lot. I do go back over things. But in each case with these envoys, I really was just trying to remember things that had occurred to me over the meticulous crafting of the sestina part.
So, there’s a degree of math and Rubik’s cube and Scrabble that goes into kind of putting sestina together as I had arranged it. But through all of that, I just kind of kept coming back to this dynamic of what would it be like to have been the father of Picasso? And this is true, his dad was a painter. So, it’s a father-son question. It’s a question of influence. So, what would it be like to have gotten that very first drawing from your son?
We all think that the kids’ first drawings are amazing, but it’s Picasso’s! So, on that principle, it was a very simple principle, which is: what if you were Picasso’s dad, you were a painter, and you saw that your son was like, ‘Oh, my God, my son’s Picasso!’ You feel some kind of way about that.
So, it starts there, but it also becomes somewhere – and again, it’s really evolving in the poem in real time. As I said, like, can I make a poem be about what I was thinking about as I was writing the other poem? So, there really isn’t any real planning other than trying to remember the things that occurred and then letting the poem move, if that makes any sense.
So, after that premise, it really does become, ‘Well, what happened to that drawing?’ We do keep our kids’ drawings. ‘I wonder where that thing is.’ And so you hear the poem really literally figuring those things out.
Here’s something I’ll say to you about, like, the particular craft of that poem, something I did decide maybe in a draft or two later, was to not really say who these people were. So, I was interested in a sort of allegorical dimension. So, I don’t really say the name of the dude or where they are. He’s just a stranger. And it ultimately becomes the wife’s story too. And only towards the end does the wife say something that sort of suggests something about, like, race. She’s like, ‘It was about slaves.’
We still don’t know who these people are, though. We don’t know if it’s, like, a white couple in their twenties or the neighbours down the street or whoever they are. If they’re actually Black people, is this a Black man who found the painting and is showing it to the dentist and everybody else?
So, I deliberately was very interested in sort of letting blue be the primary colour, not really, like, white people and Black people or these people and that people, but also interested in that, obviously, the notion of the Middle Passage and that ultimate question of water at the end and the blue in the devil’s shark parlour. But that was a conscious decision to kind of get the allegorical feel into the poem and then let people decide.
Like, I do think sometimes as the maker of a poem, whatever you see them as, whatever you think the stranger looks like, whether you even think the stranger is a villain or not, as he sees the drawing burning in a nightmare, you know, he has a much more material relationship to it. He thinks it must be, it’s amazing. What is this piece? I mean, it is amazing. It’s Picasso’s first drawing. But he didn’t know that. He just knows there’s something magical about it and he’s trying to think about this in the process of poems or in a relationship to art. He wants somebody to kind of say, ‘Oh, yeah, it looks like a landscape.’
So, he’s searching for someone that’ll explain it to it. And his wife is like, ‘It’s something about God. It’s something about grief. It’s not anything that you can really nail down,’ and then letting her sort of carry the story out. That all comes out of the impulse of writing in a way that’s not typical for me. I typically do, as I said, I like to get to ten drafts or something of a poem before I know where I’m going. And I just wanted to allow for that freedom because I had been so rigorous with the Matisse part.
Mark: Yeah. I mean, I love the way it builds from one perspective to another. So, you’ve got Picasso, and then his father and his mother and his sister, and then the stranger who found the drawing, the neighbour, the eye doctor and his wife, and then it’s his wife’s dream by the end. So, it’s one perspective building on another.
And I love the way she says twice, ‘it was clearly’ something. And it’s – by this point, for me, at least the meaning is not entirely clear at all, but for her, it was really clear. And in her dream.
And then you get this extraordinary ending. It’s almost like the envoy to the envoy, the blue between the sky and the shark parlour. I mean, ‘Lovely as the loveliest of the sisters to leap / Into the waters & live free as the bride of the sea.’ On the one level, that is such a beautiful, poetic, blue image. But of course, it’s the utter horror of what happened.
Terrance: That’s right.
Mark: And you flip the notion of blue right round, you’ve got the beauty and the horror there right at the end. I don’t know. I mean, was that surprise to you that you ended up there or was that in your mind that that was where the poem was leading?
Terrance: It’s an interesting question because remember what I said about, like, the modifier of Blackness being very interesting to me as a maker of art. So, I think I was naturally going to get to something about, you know, the sea is always going to lead me to the Middle Passage because it’s been such a significant part of diaspora, such a significant part of, like, how we got here.
Whether that’s what she’s thinking is sort of the fun thing that the poem plays around because, like, who is she? What does it mean for a farmer’s wife in anywhere, to come to that conclusion to look at blue and fall asleep at night, and suddenly meditate on these women who jumped into the water rather than be slaves? So, any woman could think that. Does it make a difference if the woman who meditates on that is a Black woman, or a white woman, or a woman in her eighties, or a woman in her teens?
So, those kinds of things I do leave up to the artist, but, certainly, you know that is my… at the end of the poem, it would be me, obviously, curious, she’s like, you know, it’s about slaves, it’s kind of about this idea of who they are, but I still also am leaving that question for us to be like, ‘Well, who is seeing it? Who’s saying it? Who has seen it this way?’ I don’t know if I would answer that. I think I would let the writer, I mean, the reader fill that question in. I’ll let the reader decide who it is that thinks that.
But, yeah, where it comes from, I think it comes from my subconscious, I guess, and certainly, as I said, the colour blue just has all these different resonances in it. That seemed like a good place to go.
Mark: And you’ve got that very telling phrase just before the end, ‘The artist was suffering a notion of colour,’ which could be a description of the whole poem and the issues it brings up.
So, Terrance, thank you so much. That is an extraordinary journey you have taken us on.
Terrance: It’s been good.
Mark: Let’s have another listen to the poem and meditate again and see where we get to with it. Thank you.
Terrance: Okay. Well, great. Yeah, this has been good. I’m glad we could do this, Mark. This is why I come out to meet people like you, otherwise, I’m just going to be home writing poems, but it’s nice to come out and meet the readers and writers in the world. So, I’m glad this happened.
Dear Painter, can you share how you made the blue we
Matisse, sir, did your brushes have the blues in them?
Hello, GOAT, Master of the Show, I have very little use
Mid-fall, Icarus shows how a misstep expands behind you,
Has so much Blackness in it. If people born in a season of ice
The tubes of desuetude painters used in the exhibit.
The first drawing Pablo Picasso made as a toddler,
And weep again showing the drawing to Picasso’s mother,
When the family moved to Barcelona, but it
Whether the sister’s death conjured a bird’s- & bull’s-
Whether everything that happens to the artist before
Loss, like desire, is always in the eye
But the stranger who found the drawing had no idea
“It looks somehow like a perfectly drawn landscape,”
A drawing in the middle of the day slightly stranger than
The quixotic quaking in all his blind spots
Replied when the stranger asked his opinion. He sent
Around his tears & slept for six or seven days dreaming
To his wife, she said it was clearly a portrayal of liberty.
And which heartbreaks can conjure the opposite of faith
A stain,” the wife said after dinner, though the stranger
She said, lying in bed while her husband, the stranger,
The wife cried herself to sleep that night & dreamed
Shores, a blue between the sky & shark parlor,
‘DIY Sestina: What Would You Ask the Artist?’ by Terrance Hayes is from his collection, So To Speak, published by Penguin.
So To Speak is available from:
The publisher: Penguin
Amazon: UK | US
Bookshop.org: UK | US
So To Speak was concurrently released by Penguin in 2023 with Watch Your Language, a collection of visual and lyric essays. Terrance Hayes’ honours include the National Book Award for poetry, the Poetry Foundation Pegasus Award for Poetry Criticism and fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. He is a distinguished Silver Professor at New York University.
TerranceHayes.com
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post DIY Sestina: What Would You Ask the Artist? by Terrance Hayes appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘A Crocodile’ by Thomas Lovell Beddoes.
Thomas Lovell Beddoes
Mark McGuinness
By Thomas Lovell Beddoes
Hard by the lilied Nile I saw
Back in Episode 61 we looked at Herman Melville’s poem, ‘The Maldive Shark’, about the biological phenomenon of symbiosis in the relationship between a shark and the pilot fish that clean its body of parasites. And today we have a poetic treatment of another famous symbiotic relationship in nature, as described by generations of travellers – between the Nile crocodile and the trochilus, the white bird with a red beak, that hops into its mouth and cleans its teeth.
And this is another superb poem from a minor poet. No history of poetry is ever going to put Melville or Beddoes in the front rank of poets. Frankly, they’d be lucky to make the B team. But this poem, like ‘The Maldive Shark’, is an absolute delight.
Who could not love Beddoes’ gorgeous description of the crocodile?
Hard by the lilied Nile I saw
A duskish river-dragon stretched along,
The brown habergeon of his limbs enamelled
With sanguine almandines and rainy pearl:
Who could fail to admire Beddoes’ impressive powers of observation and his magnificently ostentatious diction: the ‘habergeon’, the hauberk or chainmail coat, of the crocodile is ‘enamelled / With sanguine almandines and rainy pearl:’. Apparently almandines are a form of iron garnet, of a reddish or purplish colour, ‘sanguine’, as Beddoes puts it.
And my inner etymologist can’t resist noting that the luxurious feel of this description is enhanced by the use of words with French origins – such as ‘habergeon’, ‘enamelled’, ‘sanguine’, and ‘almandines’ – and France, of course, would already have been strongly associated with the luxury industry in the 19th century, when Beddoes wrote this poem.
Then he follows up these first four lines with another four, where he zooms in to the detail of a baby crocodile asleep on the parent’s back.
And on his back there lay a young one sleeping,
No bigger than a mouse; with eyes like beads,
And a small fragment of its speckled egg
Remaining on its harmless, pulpy snout;
This is like David Attenborough, isn’t it? The knowledgeable voice directing our attention to the little detail of fragments of egg left after birth. And what delightful similes, comparing the baby croc to a mouse, ‘with eyes like beads’. Then we get that surprising adjective ‘pulpy’, applied to the baby crocodile’s snout, which the Oxford dictionary defines as ‘soft, fleshy, succulent’.
It is a little odd that Beddoes says that the baby is asleep on ‘his’ back; I don’t know much about crocodiles, but I’d expect it to be on the mother’s back, rather than the father’s. So we might be tempted to wonder whether Beddoes got close enough to the crocodile to be sure about this.
Next, in the ninth line of the poem, we get the speaker’s reaction to the baby croc:
A thing to laugh at, as it gaped to catch
The baulking merry flies.
Then we get the description of the trochilus, the white bird with a rosy-coloured beak, fluttering into the crocodile’s jaws and removing the leeches from its mouth:
In the iron jaws
Of the great devil-beast, like a pale soul
Fluttering in rocky hell, lightsomely flew
A snowy trochilus, with roseate beak
Tearing the hairy leeches from his throat.
Beddoes was a trained doctor, and here he makes artful use of the Latinate vocabulary that is associated with biology, in the name of the ‘trochilus’ and the use of ‘roseate’ to describe the colour of its beak.
And I can’t help noticing some parallels with Melville’s ‘Maldive Shark’, where he described the pilot fish venturing into the shark’s mouth and finding ‘An asylum in jaws of the Fates!’. Beddoes compares the white bird darting into the jaws of the crocodile to a ‘pale soul’, ‘fluttering’ and flying ‘lightsomely’, even in hell.
And the final lines of the two poems seem to echo each other. You may recall me enthusing about the wonderful lack of music in the last line of ‘The Maldive Shark’:
Pale ravener of horrible meat.
The final line of ‘A Crocodile’, is every bit as ugly and unmusical:
Tearing the hairy leeches from his throat.
So on a first reading it’s tempting to admire ‘A Crocodile’ as a brilliantly observed piece of nature poetry. But it turns out, it’s nothing of the kind.
Because, unlike Melville, who wrote about the sea from bitter first-hand experience, Beddoes is not writing from observation and memory. I can’t find any evidence that he ever went to Egypt. So he probably never saw a crocodile and he certainly never saw the trochilus tearing the leeches from its throat.
It looks like he found the crocodile in the pages of the ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, who wrote:
Since he has his living in the water he keeps his mouth all full within of leeches; and whereas all other birds and beasts fly from him, the trochilus is a creature which is at peace with him, seeing that from her he receives benefit; for the crocodile having come out of the water to the land and then having opened his mouth (this he is wont to do generally towards the West Wind), the trochilus upon that enters into his mouth and swallows down the leeches, and he being benefited is pleased and does no harm to the trochilus.
Herodotus, History, 2.68.4–5, translated by G. C. Macaulay
So what Beddoes seems to have done is to take the description and use it as inspiration for his poem, and embellish it with lots of plausible-sounding but fictitious details.
Re-reading the poem, even I noticed that crocodiles’ coats don’t really sparkle red and white, like almandines and pearls. And it’s less surprising that Beddoes describes the adult as a father rather than mother, once we realise he’s making things up.
And you know what? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Poets are supposed to use their imagination. It’s what poetic licence is for. And Beddoes has done a brilliant job of describing his crocodile, which is fabulous in every sense.
This poem reminds me of the artist Albrecht Dürer’s woodcut of a rhinoceros, from 1515. It’s one of the most famous animal illustrations of all time, and it’s gloriously inaccurate. Because, like Beddoes, Dürer had never seen the creature he depicted. His rhino was based on a written description and an amateur sketch from someone who had seen it in Portugal. So he had to wing it a bit, and made lots of anatomical mistakes. And thank goodness he did, because his rhino is one of the most charming creatures never to walk the earth.
And so is Beddoes’ crocodile. Who could resist that ‘brown habergeon of his limbs enamelled / With sanguine almandines and rainy pearl’? Or wish it to be more scientifically accurate? The fantasy is even more magnificent than the reality.
And the plot thickens, because according to modern science, the trochilus may well be a myth. Although the story of the crocodile patiently opening its mouth and letting the birds hop about and give its teeth a good clean has been recounted by many authors and travellers, from ancient times onwards, recent scientific investigation has tended to pour cold water on the idea of a genuine ‘cleaning symbiosis’, as the scientists call it.
For one thing, it’s hard to identify any particular species with the trochilus, although the sandpiper, the Egyptian plover and the lapwing have been put forward as candidates. And apparently there is not sufficient evidence of birds actually cleaning the crocodiles’ mouths for it to be accepted as scientific fact.
So we may have to consign the trochilus to same category as the yeti and bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Which is sad, really. I’d much rather live in a world where birds really do clean crocodiles’ teeth. But the good news is that in the timeless realm of poesy, they still do! Beddoes’ trochilus is alive and well inside his poem, so let’s have another look at it.
So your poetic antennae may have been twitching earlier, when you heard me talking about the first four lines, then the next four, then the change of direction at line nine… that’s right, this is another sonnet! What is it about sonnets that so many poets feel compelled to write them?
Well, one thing is the simplicity of the basic construction: eight lines, then six. One thing, followed by another. As Mimi Khalvati described it back in Episode 3, the octave is used to set the scene, then the sestet is where the director yells ‘action!’ and things start to happen. Or we get one perspective on things, one line of thought, followed by another.
In this case, the octave presents us with the crocodiles, laid out as if posing for their portrait:
Hard by the lilied Nile I saw
A duskish river-dragon stretched along,
The brown habergeon of his limbs enamelled
With sanguine almandines and rainy pearl:
And on his back there lay a young one sleeping,
No bigger than a mouse; with eyes like beads,
And a small fragment of its speckled egg
Remaining on its harmless, pulpy snout;
So the octave gives us the crocodile of the poem’s title, or rather both of them. If we were being pedantic, he should really have called it ‘Two Crocodiles’, instead of ‘A Crocodiles’. Then we get a response to the crocodiles, or rather three responses:
A thing to laugh at, as it gaped to catch
The baulking merry flies. In the iron jaws
Of the great devil-beast, like a pale soul
Fluttering in rocky hell, lightsomely flew
A snowy trochilus, with roseate beak
Tearing the hairy leeches from his throat.
The first response is the laughter, prompted in the speaker by the little crocodile trying to catch the flies.
The second response is that of the ‘baulking merry flies’. Isn’t that a great combination of adjectives? They are ‘baulking’, stopping short of, or swerving away from, the crocodiles, as they ‘merrily’ fly around them.
And the third response is that of the ‘trochilus’, which neither laughs nor baulks, but flies into ‘the iron jaws / Of the great devil-beast’, like a soul fluttering about in hell, and then, like a dentist getting down to business, starts ‘Tearing the hairy leeches from his throat’.
So contrast, as usual, is at the heart of the sonnet, and here Beddoes uses it skilfully to distinguish the crocodiles from the rest of us, the humans, insects and birds who have to reckon with their presence and their teeth.
If you recall the episode about ‘The Maldive Shark’, we saw how Melville used diction and rhythm to contrast the ‘phlegmatical’ shark with the ‘sleek little pilot-fish’; here Beddoes achieves a similar effect, by using the sonnet’s division into two parts to contrast the different species
‘A Crocodile’ is a bit of an odd sonnet though. It’s written in iambic pentameter, although the meter is a little rough and ready in places, starting with the first line, which is missing a foot, so it’s a tetrameter, it only has four ti TUMs instead of the pentameter’s five. And to get the third line to scan I had to use the slightly less common pronunciation, ‘haBERgeon’, instead of ‘HAbergeon’.
But the most remarkable thing about the sonnet is that it doesn’t rhyme: it’s a blank verse sonnet. So you may remember the mini-series I did on the podcast last year, about the development of blank verse, unrhymed iambic pentameter, from the drama of Marlowe and Shakespeare to the narrative poetry of Milton and Wordsworth. And I pointed out that blank verse is great for dramatic expression or telling a long story.
But I didn’t mention the sonnet, because until quite recently, unrhymed sonnets were almost as rare as crocodile’s tears. Rhyme is one of the first things we think about when it comes to the definition of the sonnet; different types of sonnet are associated very closely with different types of rhyme scheme.
But Beddoes doesn’t use rhyme at all. His sonnet is like the cat that walked by itself. And it does so in a plodding, prosaic, unmusical manner that is very much in keeping with the plodding crocodile and the hairy leeches in its throat. Like Melville, Beddoes seems to be relishing the monstrous side of his subject, and doing his best to evoke it in a language that is at once gorgeous and ghastly. ‘Florid Gothic’, as Beddoes once described his own writing.
Sadly, Beddoes also walked by himself for much of his life, and often found himself the slough of despond. He studied medicine in the hope of finding evidence of an immortal soul, and was disappointed in his quest. He also spent many years working on a verse drama, Death’s Jest Book, but never completed it or managed to have it staged. It’s generally considered an artistic failure. He eventually gave into despair and committed suicide in 1849, at the age of 45.
Part of Beddoes’ tragedy is that he seems to have been oblivious to his genuine achievements as a poet. Several aspects of his poetry, such as the lack of rhyme in this sonnet, anticipate trends that would become more mainstream in twentieth century poetry. And he has occasionally prompted admiration and imitation in more distinguished poets, such as T. S. Eliot, who ‘borrowed’ the phrase ‘lipless grin’ from Beddoes, and used it for a famous line in his poem ‘Whispers of Immortality’.
Just as Beddoes lived much of his life at the margins of polite and literary society, so his posthumous reputation has hovered at the edge of obscurity. The scholar Christopher Ricks described him as ‘always hanging by his fingernails above literary history’s oubliette’. The word ‘oubliette’ is an archaic term for a dungeon, of the kind that prisoners were said to be dropped into and left to starve to death. ‘Oubliette’ is of course from the French verb ‘oublier’, ‘to forget’; so it feels a particularly appropriate term to describe the fate of this obscure practitioner of the ‘florid Gothic’.
But on the basis of ‘A Crocodile’ and several other poems and passages from his verse drama, I think we should reach down a friendly hand, pull Beddoes up from the mouth of the oubliette, and invite him to come and join the party. So maybe we can offer him a seat, pour him a drink, and ask him to recite ‘A Crocodile’ one more time.
By Thomas Lovell Beddoes
Hard by the lilied Nile I saw
Thomas Lovell Beddoes was an English poet, playwright and doctor who was born in 1803 and died in 1849. Born into a literary family, Beddoes displayed a remarkable talent for poetry at an early age. His most ambitious work, the play Death’s Jest-Book, explored themes of mortality and the afterlife, reflecting his obsession with death. Although his career was brief, his style left significant traces in English literature, in the work of other writers including Swinburne and T. S. Eliot. Sadly, Beddoes’ life was marked by personal struggles, and he committed suicide at the age of 45, leaving behind a body of work that continues to captivate those with a taste for the eerie and the melancholic.
This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday.
You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app.
You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email.
The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman.
A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant.
You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms
Episode 72 Reddest Red by Z. R. Ghani Z. R. Ghani reads ‘Reddest Red’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: In the Name of RedAvailable from: In the Name of Red is available from: The publisher: The Emma Press Amazon: UK | US...
Episode 71 Ode on a Grecian Urn by John KeatsMark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ by John Keats.Poet John KeatsReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessOde on a Grecian Urn By John Keats I Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness, Thou...
Episode 70 Drinking Ode by Matthew Buckley Smith Matthew Buckley Smith reads ‘Drinking Ode’ and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: MidlifeAvailable from: Midlife is available from: The publisher: Measure Press Amazon: UK | US...
The post A Crocodile by Thomas Lovell Beddoes appeared first on A Mouthful of Air.
The podcast currently has 74 episodes available.
5,331 Listeners
407 Listeners
599 Listeners
371 Listeners
2,158 Listeners
277 Listeners
412 Listeners
472 Listeners
1,993 Listeners
1,149 Listeners
7,374 Listeners
12,994 Listeners
258 Listeners
120 Listeners
613 Listeners