My Poets

The author and publisher have provided this e-book to you for your personal use only. You may not make this e-book publicly available in any way. Copyright infringement is against the law. If you believe the copy of this e-book you are reading infringes on the author’s copyright, please notify the publisher at: us.macmillanusa.com/piracy.

CONTENTS

Title Page

Copyright Notice

Dedication

Epigraphs

1. PROEM IN THE FORM OF A Q&A

2. MY CHAUCER / KANKEDORT

3. MY IMPASSES: ON NOT BEING ABLE TO READ POETRY

4. MY ELIZABETH BISHOP / (MY GERTRUDE STEIN)

5. MY WALLACE STEVENS

6. MY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS

7. MY MARIANNE MOORE

8. MY H.D.

9. MY TRANSLATED: AN ABECEDARY

10. MY LOUISE GLÜCK

11. MY FANNY HOWE

12. MY POETS I: AN INTERLUDE IN THE FORM OF A CENTO

13. MY EMILY DICKINSON / MY EMILY DICKINSON

14. MY SHELLEY / (MY ROMANTICS)

15. MY POETS II: AN ENVOI IN THE FORM OF A CENTO

Works Consulted or Remembered and Further Reading

My Acknowledgments

Permissions Acknowledgments

Also by Maureen N. McLane

Copyright

IN MEMORY OF BOPR, 1996–2011

SWEETEST BOY,

SWEETEST SPIRIT OF THE AIR:

For every house is incomplete without him and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.

Oh! there are spirits of the air.

(PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY)

I cannot paint / What then I was.

(WILLIAM WORDSWORTH, TINTERN ABBEY)

What I am saying now isn’t said by me.

(OSIP MANDELSTAM, HE WHO FINDS A HORSESHOE)

Let me indulge the American habit of quotation:

(EZRA POUND, LETTER TO WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS)

1.

PROEM IN THE FORM OF A Q&A

How long have you written poetry?

    Since then—’tis Centuries—and yet

    Feels shorter than the Day

    I first surmised the Horses’ Heads

    Were toward Eternity—

Why do you read poetry?

    I caught this morning morning’s minion.

Why do you read poetry?

    Batter my heart.

Why do you read poetry?

    I have wasted my life.

Why do you read poetry?

    Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour!

What is the first poem you remember?

    She sailed away one sunny summer day

    on the back of a crocodile …

And then?

    ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

And then?

    Anyone lived in a pretty how town …

And then?

    The great light cage has broken up in the air,

    freeing, I think, about a million birds.

And then?

    I sang in my chains like the sea.

Why poetry?

    Where there is personal liking we go.

Why poetry?

     Poetry sheds no tears such as Angels weep, but natural and human tears; she can boast of no celestial Ichor that distinguishes her vital juices from those of prose; the same human blood circulates through the veins of them both.

Why poetry?

    Poetry is connate with the origin of man.

Why poetry?

    Of all things of thought, poetry is closest to thought.

Why poetry?

    The immortal Mind craves objects that endure.

Why poetry?

    The poem is sad because it wants to be yours, and cannot.

Why poetry?

     We’ve lived quietly among the stars, knowing money isn’t what matters.

Why poetry?

    A day is not a day of mind

    Until all lifetime is repaired despair.

Why poetry?

                                                                        … since

    our knowledge is historical, flowing, and flown.

Why poetry?

    A need for poetry.

Why do you write poetry?

    I am a native in this world

    And think in it as a native thinks.

Why do you write poetry?

     Because existence is willy-nilly thrust into our hands, our fate is to make something—if nothing else, the shape cut by the arc of our lives.

Why do you write poetry?

Odi et amo.

Why do you write poetry?

    My purpose here is to advance into

    the sense of the weather.

Why do you write poetry?

    I sing to use the Waiting.

2.

MY CHAUCER / KANKEDORT

I. M. JULIA BRIGGS

Was Troilus nought in a kankedort?

Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, II. 1752

Isolate, peculiar, rare, obsolete, it surfaces in the language only once, according to the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. Kankedort: speculatively defined as a difficult situation by Larry D. Benson, editor of The Riverside Chaucer; further glossed in the OED as a state of suspense; a critical position; an awkward affair.

A lonely word whose definition can be inferred only from its single, immediate context in Chaucer’s poem: Troilus awaits his beloved, Criseyde, who is being led by her uncle Pandarus to Troilus’s room for their first love-meeting. Pandarus—who throughout the poem behaves like unto his name, serving as pander, go-between, near-pimp of Criseyde. Here, at the very end of Book II, the lovesick Troilus awaits his long-sought love and nervously considers how to declare his passion:

And was the firste tyme he shulde hire preye

Of love; O mighty God, what shal he seye?

(II. 1756–57)

Was Troilus nought in a kankedort? Was he not at a difficult, critical moment, that abyssal moment before erotic disclosure? Was he not worrying about the right words to say, the right words to elicit the right response, the lover’s answering love, the body perhaps then pledged, then possessed? It’s only humans as far as we know who can use words to get bodies together. The word as the body evanesced in a breath, a breath bearing intelligible sound. What shal he seye? What does he say?

Lo, the alderfirste word that hym asterte

Was, twyes, Mercy, mercy, swete herte!

(III. 97–98)

Language is fossil poetry, Emerson declared in his essay The Poet (1844); some poetry becomes the amber in which the delicate fossils of a language are embedded. Was Troilus nought in a kankedort?

A dream of a common language, Adrienne Rich imagined, a difficult dream. Kankedort falls out of this dream. Words become obsolete, languages die, texts the tombs of the dead only some learn to reanimate. Kankedort: A hapax legomenon, to invoke a technical term of the Greek grammarians, themselves interested especially in those words that appeared only once in the Homeric corpus. Kankedort a hapax in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde but also in the English language itself. The OED marks kankedort as not only rare but obsolete.

You find yourself in a difficult situation.

You’re asked to choose a word that has meant something to you, an invitation that lends itself to thoughts of the exceptional word, the unusual word, of a word that lodged itself like a mystery, a word that gathered around it associations so personal and ramifying that the word itself becomes the sign of an epoch not only in Troilus’s life but in yours. There are words that the dictionary deems rare, obsolete, slang, obscene: lexicographers can debate such classifications and have. There are words that are rare for the general and words that are rare for you, words that are obsolete in the language and those that are obsolete for you: Christian; fuck-wad; wife. That your mind runs this way, running aground on the reef of kankedort, of dulcarnoun (Troilus and Criseyde, III.931), of spatchcocked, onomastics, and other such shoals, shows your tendency toward verbal fetishism, or more precisely lexical fetishism: one could ponder the depths of the commonest words—thing, or think (as Wordsworth does, incessantly); love, kind (see Shakespeare); the overwhelming power encoded in the humblest parts of speech, prepositions or articles, through which every basic relation shines forth. On. With. Together. Toward. Between. The the (Wallace Stevens).

To focus on the word is to focus on a part of speech; yet no one I know ever spontaneously spoke the word kankedort. Perhaps only Chaucer himself ever spoke the word kankedort. He was charting his way through one of the four major dialects then jostling for the privilege of ascending into a more standard Englysshe: Chaucer’s Englysshe will beat out John Gower’s, and that of the Ancrene Wisse, and other fourteenth-century variants then available on the island of Britain. If you concentrate, you can almost read Chaucer without a gloss, even if contemporary English—whatever that might be—is your only language.

what shal he seye?

What should I say of kankedort other than the word constellates a time, a time of reading, a time of slow dawning and changing, of delicate then desperate realizing over many months and belatedly that I was in a kankedort; I was sick with love; I was in love with another; I knew not what to do; I did almost nothing; I found myself at dulcarnoun, at my wittes end; I almost did something bold; I didn’t; then I did; then the plot changed, or its true drift was revealed—if only in retrospect.

Myn owen swete herte.

Kankedort.

The harsh Teutonic consonants surfacing amid Chaucer’s romance syllables, his rhyme words more typically the elegant courtly polysyllables of a Norman French: mischaunce; purveiaunce; daliance. Kankedort seems to leave Romance languages behind, calling up that other register of an emergent English, drawing upon Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic wells. It is striking that when Criseyde later finds herself at … wittes end, in a dilemma, she invokes a technical term from medieval Latin, itself derived from Arabic: I am … at dulcarnoun, she declares—dulcarnoun a term that seems to arise from a crux in geometry. It was always mixing, appropriating, bedeviling, this Englysshe.

The woman with whom I read Troilus and Criseyde and through whom I discovered kankedort died recently; she is beyond worldly care; I could hope that like Troilus her

… lighte goost ful blissfully is went

Up to the holughnesse of the eighthe spere

(V. 1808–1809)

but that such metaphysics would falsify what I took to be her enthusiastic embrace of this single palpable world. After his death Troilus is stellified—that is, he is turned into a star, circling in the heavens, now stoic, now amazed to ponder human folly:

And in hymself he lough right at the wo

Of hem that wepten for his deth so faste.

(V. 1821–1822)

Before she died she told a friend she planned to return as an owl. I can imagine her like Troilus surveying this litel spot of erthe, though she would be willing, unlike Troilus, to perch on merely earthly branches.

3.

MY IMPASSES

ON NOT BEING ABLE TO READ POETRY

In 1985 I took two poetry classes. I was a freshman in college and signed up for a class Professor Helen Vendler was offering (and still does) in the core curriculum: Poems, Poets, Poetry. This was a large lecture class of some three-hundred-plus students; never did I meet Vendler (that is, until many years later). I also took a required freshman writing class, the dreaded expository writing (Expos); I signed up for a poetry section taught by the poet, memoirist, and art critic William Corbett.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood …

I have been faithful to both in my fashion.

With Vendler things were clear, if intricate, sailing: the poems were rigged tight, perfect vessels expertly anthologized under the Norton name, beautifully read in her beautiful voice, three poems per class illuminated, the light of her intelligence shining through them, drawing their movements on the surface of the receptive mind. What I recall: her reading of Keats’s To Autumn, the way the numerous gnats are still descending in her voice; her reading of Yeats’s The Circus Animal’s Desertion, the sublime descent into the foul rag and bone shop of the heart; her patient unweaving and reweaving of the brilliant sorrowful virtuosic strands of Milton’s Lycidas; her casual but incisive way with a line, a fact, an insight. Who knew that funeral customs included the strewing of flowers, that photograph could be etymologized as light-writing, that this was a point of entry into Lowell’s Epilogue? One understood that Vendler was remote from Pound, friendly to Eliot; that she adored Donne and Keats and Yeats and humored Allen Ginsberg like a kindly aunt; that she revered Lowell and Bishop, who had been her friends; that a rose in English smelled and sounded and sang like no rose in any other language. Ther is no rose of swych vertu. Poetry was untranslatable, unparaphrasable, and yet each week she accomplished before us virtuosic paraphrases. There was the thing itself, the poem compellingly read; there was a pause; and there was analysis—a dwelling on, a dwelling in, the fairer house than prose.

If Vendler’s course represented the apogee of a certain form of exegesis, William Corbett’s high-voltage poetry course quickly revealed the limits of close reading, or at least of my close readings.

Let us broaden the frame.

If it’s true that a poem can plausibly sustain and indeed survive several interpretations, it is also true that a poem may elicit any number of bad readings.

I can tell from my misgivings when listening to some students’ interpretations of poems, or when revisiting my own readings or those of some critics, that in some precinct of my mind I retain the fantasy of the Platonic reading of a poem, against which all instantiated readings are mere shadows flickering on our shared, half-illumined cave. At other times, possessed of the urge to shout That’s just wrong! Wrong Wrong Wrong! I have had to wonder whether I don’t secretly harbor a scientist’s—or at least a Popperian’s—view of the matter, treating critical readings as verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses.

There are many ways of not getting it. And many ways of getting it can look, years or decades or centuries later, like a symptomatic way of not