Week 700: X Agosto, by Giovanni Pascoli

This week a famous Italian poem by Giovanni Pascolo (1855-1912), written in memory of his father Ruggero who was killed by an assassin on August 10th, 1867 while on the way home from market with gifts for his children. August 10th is San Lorenzo’s saint’s day. Giovanni was eleven at the time. The incident, together with later bereavements, was to haunt Giovanni all his life and infuse his work with a deep recurrent sadness: in one poem he likes his father to a fallen oak tree but here he compares him to a swallow returning to the nest.

San Lorenzo: the night of San Lorenzo was traditionally associated with falling stars, which Pascoli likens to tears falling from heaven as it weeps for the evil below.

I can’t quite make up my mind about this poem. I think the idea of falling stars being the tears of heaven is not an image that works well in this secular age, and the extended symbolism of the swallow may strike the English reader as a bit heavy-handed. On the other hand there is still enough restraint and pathos here to make it one of Pascoli’s most moving and memorable poems.

The translation that follows is my own.

X Agosto

San Lorenzo, io lo so perché tanto
di stelle per l’aria tranquilla
arde e cade, perché sì gran pianto
nel concavo cielo sfavilla.

Ritornava una rondine al tetto:
l’uccisero: cadde tra i spini;
ella aveva nel becco un insetto:
la cena dei suoi rondinini.

Ora è là, come in croce, che tende
quel verme a quel cielo lontano;
e il suo nido è nell’ombra, che attende,
che pigola sempre più piano.

Anche un uomo tornava al suo nido:
l’uccisero: disse: Perdono;
e restò negli aperti occhi un grido:
portava due bambole in dono.

Ora là, nella casa romita,
lo aspettano, aspettano in vano:
egli immobile, attonito, addita
le bambole al cielo lontano.

E tu, Cielo, dall’alto dei mondi
sereni, infinito, immortale,
oh! d’un pianto di stelle lo inondi
quest’atomo opaco del Male!

Giovanni Pascolo

August 10

San Lorenzo, I know why so many stars
Fall blazing through the calm air
To leave their traces like sparkling tears
In the hollow dome of the sky.

A swallow was returning to her nest:
And they killed her: she fell among thorns;
In her beak she was bearing an insect:
The meal for her little ones.

And now she is there, lying as if crucified,
Proffering that grub to the far off sky;
While her nest waits in the shadows, and the sound
Of its cheeping grows fainter and fainter.

Just so a man was returning to his home
And they killed him: he said: Forgive me;
And in the open eyes remained a lament:
He was bringing two dolls as a gift.

Now in the lonely house
They wait, and wait in vain
While he, astonished, lying still, points out
The dolls to the far off sky. 

You, Heaven, from the height
Of infinite, serene, immortal worlds,
Oh, send down starry tears to drown
This impenetrable atom of Evil!

Week 699: XXXII, by Philip Larkin

This week’s offering is the last poem in Philip Larkin’s first collection, ‘The North Ship’, first published in 1945 and then republished in 1966 after the appearance of ‘The Less Deceived’ and ‘The Whitsun Weddings’. This particular poem did not in fact appear in the original collection, not having been written until 1947, but did appear in a 1951 pamphlet ‘XX poems’. It was added to show the young Larkin at that time in transition between the influence of W.B.Yeats and one far more suited to his temperament, that of Thomas Hardy.

The poems in the ‘The North Ship’ are for the most part, as Larkin himself recognised, not very good: far too derivative of Yeats and quite lacking in what Seamus Heaney was later to call Larkin’s ‘Shakespearean felicity’. Elizabeth Jennings, reviewing the book, said somewhat inexplicably that it was good to know that the young Larkin could write so well; I thought that on the contrary that it was good to know that the young Larkin could write so badly: it gave the rest of us hope for the possibility of a radical improvement.

But the last poem in the book is a different kettle of fish, a definite foreshadowing of what was to come: precise in its evocation of an outer world while at the same time forensically honest in its examination of the poet’s inner world. Larkin appears to have spent the night with a woman, a night that while it might not have qualified for a place in what he later called ‘fulfilment’s desolate attic’ apparently fell short of expectations. ‘I thought: Featureless morning, featureless night.’ (Seems a bit ungallant, but let it pass).

And yet, the morning after triggers in him something he thought he had lost, the impulse to poetry, his ‘lost lost world’, and his euphoria at this leads to a rush of affection for the woman, ‘easily tipping the balance towards love’. Of course, all this is not entirely creditable: one’s affection for other human beings should not vary like a weather-vane according to the state of one’s poetic inspiration, but at least he is honest enough to recognise this tendency in himself, which in turn leads him on to the self-questioning last stanza where he meditates on the problem that was to preoccupy him all his life, that of reconciling his need for other people with the solitary demands of his art, that he retuns to in other poems such as ‘Wants’: ‘Beyond all this, the wish to be alone’, and the morbidly funny ‘Vers de Société’.

XXXII

Waiting for breakfast, while she brushed her hair,
I looked down at the empty hotel yard
Once meant for coaches. Cobblestones were wet,
But sent no light back to the loaded sky,
Sunk as it was with mist down to the roofs.
Drainpipes and fire—escape climbed up
Past rooms still burning their electric light:
I thought: Featureless morning, featureless night.

Misjudgment: for the stones slept, and the mist
Wandered absolvingly past all it touched,
Yet hung like a stayed breath; the lights burnt on,
Pin-points of undisturbed excitement; beyond the glass
The colourless vial of day painlessly spilled
My world back after a year, my lost lost world
Like a cropping deer strayed near my path again,
Bewaring the mind’s least clutch. Turning, I kissed her,
Easily for sheer joy tipping the balance to love.

But, tender visiting,
Fallow as a deer or an unforced field,
How would you have me? Towards your grace
My promises meet and lock and race like rivers,
But only when you choose. Are you jealous of her?
Will you refuse to come till I have sent
Her terribly away, importantly live
Part invalid, part baby, and part saint?

Philip Larkin

Week 698: Memory, by G.K.Chesterton

This week’s poem is a bit of an oddity in the Chesterton canon. G.K.Chesterton is normally a fairly straightforward poet, with the only obstacles to understanding likely to be topical references in his more polemical pieces to events or public figures long forgotten. But this one has taken me a fair bit of figuring out, and I still cannot claim to understand the last stanza, which I nonetheless find quite haunting. I’ll put my notes, for what they’re worth, at the end.

Memory

If I ever go back to Baltimore,
The City of Maryland,
I shall miss again as I missed before
A thousand things of the world in store,
The story standing in every door
That beckons on every hand.

I shall not know where the bonds were riven,
And a hundred faiths set free,
Where a wandering cavalier had given
Her hundredth name to the Queen of Heaven,
And made oblation of feuds forgiven
To Our Lady of Liberty.

I shall not travel the tracks of fame
Where the war was not to the strong;
Where Lee the last of the heroes came
With the Men of the South and a flag like flame,
And called the land by its lovely name
In the unforgotten song.

If ever I cross the sea and stray
To the City of Maryland,
I will sit on a stone and watch or pray
For a stranger’s child that was there one day:
And the child will never come back to play,
And no one will understand.

G.K.Chesterton

Notes:

‘where the bonds were riven / And a hundred faiths set free’. Maryland was originally founded by Lord Baltimore (Cecil Calvert) as a refuge for religious liberty, a colony where Catholics, Protestants, and others could worship freely. The Maryland Toleration Act (1649) was one of the earliest laws protecting Christian religious freedom in the New World. So ‘the bonds were riven’ means that people were freed from the old religious restrictions of Europe.

‘the wandering cavalier’ i.e. Lord Baltimore, who actually named the state in honour of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I. But Chesterton chooses to take the name as being for the Virgin Mary, who in the Catholic faith has many titles, hence ‘her hundredth name’.‘Lee the last of the heroes’. Referring to General Robert E. Lee, leader of the Confederate armies in the American Civil War. He invaded Maryland in 1862, hoping that the state would join the confederacy.

‘and gave the land its lovely name in the unforgotten song’. This refers to ‘Maryland, My Maryland, a Confederate poem/song written by James Ryder Randall, which was the state song until 1921.

‘the stranger’s child’. When I first read the poem I took this to be Chesterton himself, but this makes no sense, since there is no record that Chesterton ever visited Maryland at all, and certainly not as a child. So I find this whole stanza perplexing. Perhaps the most likely interpretation is that the child represents the young country itself, symbolising a lost innocence that can never be recaptured. This may well be something of an idealisation of America’s past, but it must be remembered that Chesterton was seeing things, as he always did, from the viewpoint of a devout Catholic. I also find it confusing that the poet appears to be rather romanticising the Confederacy. I know of course that the American Civil War was not solely or even primarily about slavery, but even so I would have thought anything to do with that institution would have been anathema to the humane and freedom-loving Chesterton.

So, all in all a bit of a puzzle poem, and yet plaintively memorable.

Week 697: If I Could Tell You, by W.H.Auden

I see this villanelle by W.H.Auden as a triumph of form over substance where the virtuosity of rhythm and rhyme scheme lend the poem a gnomic quality that suggests a profundity of thought which proves rather elusive on close inspection. ‘The winds must come from somewhere when they blow’ is on the one hand a line that I find quite haunting but on the other hand is uncontroversial to the point of banality and doesn’t get you very far on the meteorological front. ‘Perhaps the roses really want to grow’ – perhaps, but it seems doubtful that volition as we understand it comes into it, it’s just what roses do. ‘Suppose all the lions get up and go’ – hang on, what lions? go where?

I take it that the poet is expressing a frustration at the unknowability of the future, which may reflect the state of things when the poem first appeared in 1940, soon after the outbreak of World War II, and that this frustration is compounded by his inability to communicate his feelings for another person. But perhaps it is best not to strive too hard for a literal meaning in this poem, but instead to view it as a rather beautiful poetic Rorschach test that lets you project on to it your own meanings and emotions.

If I Could Tell You

Time will say nothing but I told you so,
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
The vision seriously intends to stay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

Suppose all the lions get up and go,
And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
If I could tell you I would let you know.

W.H.Auden