Thursday, October 21, 2021

Translation of Poem by Vladislav Khodasevich, "Джон Боттом," "The Ballad of John Bottom's Arm"

 

Vladislav Khodasevich

(1886-1939)

 

Джон Боттом

 

1

Джон Боттом славный был портной,
    Его весь Рэстон знал.
Кроил он складно, прочно шил
    И дорого не брал.

 

2

В опрятном домике он жил
    С любимою женой
И то иглой, то утюгом
    Работал день деньской.

 

3

Заказы Боттому несли
    Порой издалека.
Была привинчена к дверям
    Чугунная рука.

4

Тук-тук - заказчик постучит,
    Откроет Мэри дверь, -
Бери-ка, Боттом, карандаш,
    Записывай да мерь.

5

Но раз... Иль это только так
    Почудилось слегка? -
Как будто стукнула сильней
    Чугунная рука.

6

Проклятье вечное тебе,
    Четырнадцатый год!..
Потом и Боттому пришел,
    Как всем другим, черед.

7

И с верной Мэри целый день
    Прощался верный Джон
И целый день на домик свой
    Глядел со всех сторон.

8

И Мэри так ему мила,
    И домик так хорош,
Да что тут делать? Все равно:
    С собой не заберешь.

9

Взял Боттом карточку жены
    Да прядь ее волос,
И через день на континент
    Его корабль увез.

10

Сражался храбро Джон, как все,
    Как долг и честь велят,
А в ночь на третье февраля
    Попал в него снаряд.

11

Осколок грудь ему пробил,
    Он умер в ту же ночь,
И руку правую его
    Снесло снарядом прочь.

12

Германцы, выбив наших вон,
    Нахлынули в окоп,
И Джона утром унесли
    И положили в гроб.

13

И руку мертвую нашли
    Оттуда за версту
И положили на груди...
    Одна беда – не ту.

14

Рука-то плотничья была,
    В мозолях. Бедный Джон!
В такой руке держать иглу
    Никак не смог бы он.

15

И возмутилася тогда
    Его душа в раю:
"К чему мне плотничья рука?
    Отдайте мне мою!

16

Я ею двадцать лет кроил
    И на любой фасон!
На ней колечко с бирюзой,
    Я без нее не Джон!

17

Пускай я грешник и злодей,
    А плотник был святой, –
Но невозможно мне никак
    Лежать с его рукой!"

18

Так на блаженных высотах
    Всё сокрушался Джон.
Но хором ангельской хвалы
    Был голос заглушен.

19

А между тем его жене
    Полковник написал,
Что Джон сражался как герой
    И без вести пропал.

20

Два года плакала вдова:
    "О Джон, мой милый Джон!
Мне и могилы не найти,
    Где прах твой погребен!.. "

21

Ослабли немцы наконец.
    Их били мы как моль.
И вот – Версальский, строгий мир
    Им прописал король.

22

А к той могиле, где лежал
    Неведомый герой,
Однажды маршалы пришли
    Нарядною толпой.

23

И вырыт был достойный Джон,
    И в Лондон отвезен,
И под салют, под шум знамен
    В аббатстве погребен.

24

И сам король за гробом шел,
    И плакал весь народ.
И подивился Джон с небес
    На весь такой почет.

25

И даже участью своей
    Гордиться стал слегка.
Одно печалило его,
    Одна беда – рука!

26

Рука-то плотничья была,
    В мозолях... Бедный Джон!
В такой руке держать иглу
    Никак не смог бы он.

27

И много скорбных матерей
    И много верных жен
К его могиле каждый день
    Ходили на поклон.

28

И только Мэри нет как нет.
    Проходит круглый год –
В далеком Рэстоне она
    Всё так же слезы льет:

29

"Покинул Мэри ты свою,
    О Джон, жестокий Джон!
Ах, и могилы не найти,
    Где прах твой погребен!"

30

Ее соседи в Лондон шлют,
    В аббатство, где один
Лежит безвестный, общий всем
    Отец, и муж, и сын.

31

Но плачет Мэри: "Не хочу!
    Я Джону лишь верна!
К чему мне общий и ничей?
    Я Джонова жена!"

32

Всё это видел Джон с небес
    И возроптал опять.
И пред апостолом Петром
    Решился он предстать.

33

И так сказал: "Апостол Петр,
    Слыхал я стороной,
Что сходят мертвые к живым
    Полночною порой.

34

Так приоткрой свои врата,
    Дай мне хоть как-нибудь
Явиться призраком к жене
    И только ей шепнуть,

35

Что это я, что это я,
    Не кто-нибудь, а Джон
Под безымянною плитой
    В аббатстве погребен.

36

Что это я, что это я
    Лежу в гробу глухом –
Со мной постылая рука,
    Земля во рту моем".

37

Ключи встряхнул апостол Петр
    И строго молвил так:
"То – души грешные. Тебе ж –
    Никак нельзя, никак".

38

И молча, с дикою тоской
    Пошел Джон Боттом прочь,
И всё томится он с тех пор,
    И рай ему невмочь.

39

В селенье света дух его
    Суров и омрачен,
И на торжественный свой гроб
    Смотреть не хочет он.

1926

 

d

 

Literal Translation

 

John Bottom

 

John Bottom was a great tailor,

All of Reston knew him.

He cut his cloth smoothly, he sewed soundly,

And did not overcharge.

 

In a neat little house he lived

With his beloved wife,

And worked all day long,

Now with a needle, now with an iron.

 

Orders were brought to Bottom,

Sometimes from afar.

A cast-iron hand

Was screwed to the door.

 

Knock-knock, a customer knocks,

Mary opens the door,

“Bottom, get your pencil;

Measure it and write it down.”

 

But once . . . Or did it only

Kind of seem that way?

[It was] as if the iron hand

Knocked harder.

 

Eternal damnation to you,

Year 1914!

Then to Bottom came,

As to all others, his turn.

 

And all day long the faithful John

Said his goodbyes to faithful Mary,

And all day long he gazed from all sides

At his little home.

 

Mary was so dear to him,

And the little house was so fine,

But what could be done? For all the same

You couldn’t take them with you.

 

Bottom took with him a photo of his wife

And a lock of her hair,

And within a day a ship

Had taken him over to the continent.

 

John fought bravely, like them all,

As duty and honor demand,

But in the early morning hours of February 3

A piece of shrapnel hit him.

 

The shrapnel pierced his chest,

He died that same night,

And that fragment of a shell

Tore off his right arm.

 

Having beaten back our guys,

The Germans scurried back to their trenches,

And in the morning John was carried away

And laid in a grave.

 

We found a dead arm

Some mile or so from there,

And placed in on his chest …

Only one problem: the wrong arm.

 

That hand was that of a carpenter,

All callused. Poor John!

No way he could hold a needle

With such a hand.

 

Then his soul in paradise

Spoke up indignantly:

“What do I need with the arm of a carpenter?

Give me back my own!

 

“With that hand I cut cloth for twenty years,

To any kind of style!

On it [the arm] I had a ringlet of turquoise,

Without it I’m not John!

 

“Let’s say I was a sinner and scoundrel,

And that carpenter was a saint,

Still it’s just utterly impossible

For me to lie here with his arm!”

 

So went on John with plaintive cries,

Up in the blessed heights.

But his voice was drowned out

By a choir [singing] angelic praise.

 

Meanwhile his wife

Wrote a letter to the colonel,

That John had fought like a hero

And had disappeared without a trace.

 

The widow wept for two years:

“O John, my dearest John!

I cannot even find the grave

Where your remains are buried!”

 

At last the Germans weakened.

We beat them to a pulp.

And then came the Treaty of Versailles, a harsh peace,

The king made them sign it.

 

And one day to that grave

Where lay our unknown hero,

A lot of field marshals came

A mob of officers in full dress uniforms.

 

And worthy John was exhumed

And taken off to London,

And with fireworks, the flapping of banners

Was buried in an abbey.

 

And the king himself walked behind the coffin,

And all the people wept.

From up in heaven John was amazed

To be so esteemed.

 

He even began, at least a little,

To take pride in his fate.

One thing saddened him though,

That one misfortune—the arm!

 

That hand of the carpenter

Was all calloused. Poor John!

In such a hand no way he could ever

Hold a needle.

 

And many grieving mothers

And many faithful wives

Came each day to bow down

At his grave.

 

And only Mary never came,

A whole year passed;

In far-away Reston she

Went on shedding tears:

 

“You’ve abandoned your Mary,

O John, cruel John!

Alas, even the grave is not to be found

Where your remains are buried!”

 

Her neighbors told her to go to London,

To the abbey, where alone

Lies an unknown, common to all

Father, husband and son.

 

But Mary wept, “I don’t want to!

I’m true only to John!

What do I need with a generic, nobody’s husband?

I’m John’s wife!”

 

John saw all this from the heavens

And murmured his plaints again.

And then he decided to

Appeal to the Apostle Peter.

 

And so he said, “Apostle Peter,

I’ve heard rumors that

The dead can go down and visit

The living in the midnight hour.

 

“So open your gates a crack

And let me at least somehow

Appear as a ghost to my wife

And just whisper to her,

 

“That it’s me, it’s me,

Not somebody, but John

Who is buried in that abbey

Beneath the tombstone of the Unknown.

 

“That it’s me, it’s me

Who lies in that lonely grave,

And with me a hateful arm,

And earth in my mouth.”

 

The Apostle Peter rattled his keys

And sternly said:

“There’s sinful souls down there;

No way you’re allowed, no way.”

 

And silently, feeling deeply saddened,

John Bottom went away,

And since then he languishes all the time,

And cannot stand paradise.

 

In the Kingdom of Light his spirit

Feels grim and oppressed,

And he doesn’t care to look

Upon the triumphant spectacle of his grave.

 

d

 

Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie

 

The Ballad of John Bottom’s Arm

 

John Bottom was a tailor fine,

In Reston known as such.

He cut cloth well, he stitched in line,

And did not charge too much.

 

He made his home a tidy house,

There lived his loving wife withal,  

And through the day at peace with spouse

He plied his needle, iron, awl.

 

From far and wide to him they came

With things to sew, restore.

A hand of iron, his badge of fame,

Was fastened to the door.

 

Knock-knock, a client at the door,

And Mary sees him in;

“Bottom, dear, here’s one more chore,

So get to pinning, measuring.”

 

But once . . . such fancies we ignore,

(It only seemed that way?),

The knock of iron hand on door

Presaged and augured skies of gray.

 

May you be damned and go to hell,

Infernal 1914 year!

Conscription loomed, its axe then fell,

On Bottom as on others near.

 

And all day long the faithful John

Said his goodbyes to Mary true,

And all day long he gazed upon

His home and hearth with woeful rue.

 

So dear to him this house and grounds,

So precious Mary sweet,

But when the bugle call resounds

You march to their drumbeat.

 

He took a photograph of wife,

A lock of her fair hair,

And then a ship bore off his life

To France and battle’s blare.

 

John fought the good fight, fearlessly,

He fought for honor, dutybound,

But in the murk on 2/03

A random shell his body found.

 

The shrapnel pierced him through the chest,

And ripped away an arm,

He lay with mortal wound in breast;

That night he bought the farm.

 

The Krauts entrenched repulsed our fight,

Though we were staunch and brave;

We bore John off at morning’s light

And laid him in a grave.

 

Some kilo off, plus just a bit,

We found an arm that random lay;

Along with John we buried it,

The wrong, mistaken amputee!

 

A joiner’s hand on that arm were,

In calluses, o woe!

No way poor John with such a paw

Could plie a needle, sew.

 

And then his soul in heaven grim

Waxed sore indignantly:

“What use to me a joiner’s limb?

Give me the arm that goes with me!

 

“For twenty years with that same hand

I cut and measured fabric fine!

A turquoise ringlet my armband,

That hand’s what made me genuine!

 

“Let’s say I was a reprobate, to sin a devotee, 

And that same joiner was a saint,

That his arm’s mine it still can’t be,

No way that’s fair, it ain’t!”

 

So wailed our John his plaintive woes

Up in his new home on Cloud Nine,

But angels’ songs in glory’s throes

Drowned out his grievous whine.

 

And meanwhile faithful Mary wrote

To John’s C.O. on Victory Day, 

Said John had fought “his best,” unquote,

And vanished then, gone M.I.A.

 

For two years did the widow rave,

“O John, who went a-soldiering,

I cannot even find the grave 

Where your dear flesh lies moldering.”

 

At last the Germans’ gumption ceased,

We beat them to a yeasty pulp,

And at Versailles they signed the peace,

Although the terms made them gasp-gulp.

 

And one day to that forlorn grave

Where lay our hero inconnu,

A coterie of big brass came

A hotshot, decked-out retinue. 

 

And worthy-of-the-honor John

Was disentombed, back home transferred;

With much to-do (the king looked on), 

In abbey his remains interred.

 

As I just said the king was there,

And all the hoi polloi a-blubber.

As John looked down from heaven fair,

He thought, All this for one poor bugger?

 

A touch of pride lit up his brain,

At least a modicum, could be,

But still one fact caused him much pain:

That wrong, fallacious amputee!

 

The joiner’s hand was calloused, tough,

O woe is he, poor John!

A needle in a hand so rough

No way he’d ever lay hands on.

 

And many were the mothers sad,

Many were the wives so true

Who came each day in anguish clad

To bow down at his grave with rue.

 

But Mary through a whole long year

To that famed abbey never came;

In far-off Reston, Lincolnshire,

She wept, bereavement did declaim.

 

“Oh, John, cruel John, you’ve left your love,

O woe is me, your Mary true!

For all I know, poor mourning dove,

Your grave could be in Timbuktu!”

 

“To London,” said her neighbors, “go,

To abbey where the Unknown lies;

A soldier, though he’s named ‘John Doe,’

Is each combatant concretized.”

 

But Mary cried, “That’s not my loved one!

To John alone, my John I’m true!

What’s he to me, some unknown someone?

I’m Johnny’s wife while skies are blue!”

 

From his perch high on Cloud Nine’s heights

John watched his wife with sympathy.

That’s when he thought it meet and right

To plead his case at Peter’s knee.

 

He said to him, “Apostle Pete,

They say that we ’neath heaven’s bower

Can visit earth, our dear helpmeet,

Converse with her at midnight hour.

 

“So let me squeeze through your front gate

And then I’ll somehow find a way

To visit her in ghostly shape

And whisper one thing, if I may,

 

“That I’m the one who’s there, it’s me,

Her own dear John beneath that stone,

In Londontown, on abbey lea,

In sepulchre that’s marked ‘Unknown.’

 

“That I’m the one who’s there, it’s me

Who molders in that grave sans mirth,

With vile arm beside my knee,

And mouth stopped up with sand and earth.”

 

His keys he rattled, did dour Pete,

To John with frown he sternly quoth:

“On earth of turpitude it reeks; 

You’re not allowed down there, by troth!”

 

Pete’s verdict hit poor Johnny hard,

In sorrow deep John slinked away,

And since that time his soul feels charred,

And Paradise is sheer dismay,

 

Although he dwells in heaven’s light,

To bleakness is his soul a slave,

And never does he cast his sight

Down on the glory of his grave.

 

d

 

 

Translator’s Comments

(U.R. Bowie)

 Here we have one more poem on the theme of amputated arms, which seemed to be much on the mind of Khodasevich in the 1920’s. See (on this blog) my commentary and translation, “The Ballad of the One-Armed Man With Pregnant Wife.”

 The poem “John Bottom,” although not designated a ballad, seems more deserving of that title than two others given the title “Ballad”: the one about the one-armed man with pregnant wife and the one I’ve translated as “Orpheus Ascendant.” Another translator titles the latter as “The Ballad of the Heavy Lyre.”

 Of these three ballads “John Bottom” is also the one that best fits in the category of light verse. Its irony, simple rhymes and common meter seem to be suggesting, “I am not to be taken seriously.” Perhaps the oddest thing about this poem is its ending.

 Khodasevich leads us to believe that such a bagatelle might have a happy ending, but such is not the case. The reader, at least one reader (me), is left feeling disappointed, and a bit heavy-laden when the thing ends with (1) John’s never managing to let his true love and wife Mary know that he is the one buried in the tomb of the unknown soldier, and (2) John’s attempts to redress his grievance in the next world (his having been buried with the wrong amputated arm) proving fruitless.

 On the whole, the poet’s obsession with the theme of amputated limbs comes out looking rather grim and morbid. The writer of fiction is the god of his works, but omniscient Khodasevich is not a very benevolent and caring god when it comes to poems about men with missing arms. In “The Ballad of the One-Armed Man With Pregnant Wife” his narrator’s attitude toward the one-armed man in the cinema is less than generous, to put it mildly, and in “The Ballad of John Bottom’s Arm” he treats the theme with light irony but ends the tale on a sour note.

 

 


 

Thursday, October 7, 2021

Book Review Article, René de Saint-Denis, "The Songs and Laments of Loōmos"

 





Book Review Article

René de Saint-Denis, The Songs and Laments of Loōmos, Laocoōn Press, 2021, 128 pp.

 

With his Loōmos book the author attempts a presentation of art as an integrated whole. As the subtitle tells us, “Text, drawings, paintings, music and sculpture” are included here. We read the words of the book, but, simultaneously, we interact with everything else. We, of course, do not interact directly with the sculptures by Saint-Denis—here we must be content with their visual representations. Nor do we hear the actual music, as this is not an audiobook. But the final section, “Songs and Laments,”—four separate pieces comprising a total of fourteen pages—consists entirely of musical notations.

Therefore, in order to “hear” the music of the final section you have to be a musician yourself, able to read the notes provided on paper. The author may have considered publishing an audiobook, or including a CD of the final section with this paperback. But then again, given certain unique and avant-garde features of Loōmos, he may have deliberately intended the final section not to be played. So as to achieve something like what the composer John Cage created when he wrote his famous composition consisting of silence. All the musicians sit in stillness on the proscenium, holding their instruments, while the conductor stills his baton and all his gesticulations. The “music” consists of isolated coughs and throat-clearings from the audience, plus a few car horns blowing and ambulance sirens from the outside world.

At any rate, this is a book of fiction with words, so we read it, but we soon discover that it is to be read in ways not congruent with the normal ways of reading a story for the plot or the sense of the text. The book has, in essence, no plot, and the sound of the words is sometimes more important than their meaning. Therefore, the reader rather drifts through the text, communing simultaneously with the graphic imagery (the paintings, drawings, sculptures on pages facing the text).

In the foreword R.G. Skinner explains how everything is integrated into one harmonic whole. “[The] images often serve as a subtext, or an alternate text running parallel with the literal text. In this sense the work is also a kind of Emblem Book, in which the illustrations serve as emblems or allegories of the text, commenting on them and creating a larger context of association and meaning. In that there are characteristically single symbolic episodes, they relate more to an unfolding situation, than to a consecutive narrative.”

The scope of the project, the broadness of its intent, is suggested by epigraphs to each of the individual sections. For example, the page following the foreword includes epigraphs from Hesiod, Tennyson and Chateaubriand. To cite only the last of these: “Our heart is a defective instrument, a lyre with several chords missing, which forces us to express our joyful moods in notes meant for lamentation.” Quickly skipping forward from the age of antiquity into the twentieth century, such epigraphs (and thoughts in the text) skim across, and sometimes delve deeply into the whole tradition of Western philosophy and thought.

As for the text itself, it describes the wanderings of a man named Loōmos, born, apparently, in Greece, but exactly when we do not know. Inhabiting, for the most part, no specific place or time, he has devoted his life to musing and philosophizing. Here’s how the story begins (p. 3): “Beneath a brooding sky Loōmos walked beside the Aegean, near his birthplace from long ago, watching the birds play in the marsh grass, and the bees hover in amongst the rosehips. He was content to move slowly about the dunes, looking around him as he went and from time to time thinking about his life and the things he had seen and thought. [paragraph break] In his lonely youth he studied philosophy, the sciences, and mathematics, so that he might understand his place in the Universe.”

This is pretty much what the central—almost only—character does for the whole rest of the book. This first page also suggests some of the difficulties involved in reading the text. Here are mentioned, e.g., “the aporias of the Megarians,” and “the Paradox of the Liar.” Then comes a disquisition on numbers: “just as the sequence 0,1,2 . . . can never be completed in the sense that it has no last member, the sequence . . ., -2,-1,0 cannot be completed in the sense that it has no first member, . . .” From this we go on to “a logical paradox, much like Xenophanes’, which pitted the ideas of infinite space and timelessness against those of finite space and time.”

That’s a lot to digest on one page, and only a reader who is something of a polymath could cope with all the personages and ideas mentioned. Take aporia. Look it up.  In rhetoric, an aporia is “a professing, or matter about which one professes, to be at a loss what course to pursue, where to begin, what to say, etc.” Look up “Megarian” and you learn that this pertains to Megara, a city in Ancient Greece. The Megarian School was “a school of philosophers established at Megara by Euclid, a disciple of Socrates, who taught that the good is one, and is the only true being.” Xenophanes was an “Eleatic philosopher, noteworthy for his emphatic (perhaps pantheistic) monotheism.”

None of this really get us very far, unless (the reader suspects) one has a Ph.D. in classical literature or philosophy. At times we drown in references to real or imagined personages. See, e.g., p. 30, the list of sages come down from time immemorial, whom Loōmos decides to study: “Oreastos, Xertis, Crosos, Practos, Zenaster, Reoem, . . .” etc., etc.—this goes on much longer than one would hope. My trusty spell checker on the computer puts red lines under all these names. Don’t know for sure, but I suspect that some of these characters may even be fictitious, and that the long list for effect is the most important thing here.

Sometimes it seems as if the author were inviting the reader to research the many names dropped in the book. As if to say, “Here they are. What, you don’t know who they are, the great thinkers of the Western (and sometimes Eastern) world? If not, look them up!” Another possibility: by drowning us in the mention of great men and great ideas—which men and ideas we have never heard of—the author is reinforcing one of the central ideas of the book: that human thought goes round and round but never really gets anywhere.

Logic is flawed, as Loōmos discovers early on. The Logicians founder in the very logic they hold up as a beacon, wondering “if it were not more a matter of infinite regress, a stalemate in a heretical game” (41). Philosophy is suspect, and words are nebulous in their meanings. “But if logic is defined as a theory of words, as opposed to a theory of meanings, and words can be manipulated without reference to meaning, then discussion of his [Loōmos’s]thought was futile, his words impenetrable, his questions sham, his doctrines false, his ontology illusory, for perhaps he was, in truth, a Poet, and not a Philosopher” (6).

But whether poet or philosopher, Loōmos is destined to operate through use of the human brain, which itself uses, or attempts to use faulty logic and faulty words. This is self-evident at the beginning of the book. The modus operandi of Loōmos—thinking, philosophizing, trying to make sense of things through manipulating words—is on shaky grounds. But he never falls silent, and the esoteric references continue: “the gods merely saw images of insoluble equations, or irrational numbers, of Ptolemaic epicycles inscribing a fiction as illusory as the dialectics of Zenon of Elea, those stark, sunlit days on the Tyrrhenian Sea.”

So mathematics, as the author implies here, also is a dead end. I’m reminded of the recent book by Benjamín Labatut, When We Cease To Understand The World, which describes—in semifictional terms—the travails of the great physicists and mathematicians of the twentieth century, such as Karl Schwarzschild, Alexander Grothendieck, and Werner Heisenberg, who were constantly on the verge of mental breakdown as they wracked their brains to understand how the universe operates.

Like these men, Loōmos is, for the most part, lost in the loneliness of the deep thinker. Throughout the whole book he wanders about as solitary pilgrim, walks along with words, concepts, notions, hand in hand with thinkers of the past but isolated from his fellow human beings. At one point he mentions “withdrawing into the turpitude of my aloneness.” Could be that the silent music that shows up in the final section is emblematic of the failure of words for Loōmos, and for the whole human race.

His basic predicament is perpetual loneliness, due to his “dark and humorless nature” and his eternal hopeless striving for knowledge. There is nothing of the light touch about Loōmos, and since he is basically humorless—as is the entire text of the book—he, and the reader, can hope for no relief in passages leavened by humor. Some relief, however, is provided by the beautiful illustrations placed on pages facing the text. For the most part these paintings are not directly relevant to the matter at hand. An exception comes when the text mentions “a young girl kneeling before a woman dressed in white,” and the painting on p. 34 shows us that girl and the woman in white. The conversation here, between the woman—a kind of pseudo guardian angel—and the girl, calls into question belief in a loving God. This is reinforced by the epigraph from Jean Paul: “God is dead! The sky is empty . . . . Weep! Children, you have no more father!”

Few conclusions are evident, or even possible. “Loōmos slowly began to reach certain conclusions, which he tried to formulate in everyday language,” but this, of course, goes against the grain of the whole book’s style. “As he consolidated his thoughts, he sensed the inadequacies of placing his ideas in ordinary language.” That, maybe, is a key sentence in the book as a whole, where the language, steeped in the lushness of Romanticism, is far from ordinary. And this: “He was aware of his turgid language, but found that, at present, it best expressed his ideas.”

For the reader of this book it soon becomes obvious that there are things more important than the literal meanings of words in passages: the feel and sound of those words, their interaction with the graphic art surrounding them and with the silent music of the final section. One can quote numerous passages in which words appear to abandon their thrall to meaning; looking to make much sense of such passages gets you nowhere.

“The Angels would recoil, and mime those parabolas through which Mind sought to merge with the celestial spheres, and in that way give form to the elemental opposites; for as the gods stood over and above the Fates, the Angels would remain to further enforce the emulation or immolation in the name of ‘received’ truths” (25).

“Rapt attention was paid to the entrance made by the Temptations, a bouncing-off or reverberation following certain tendencies established at a time mired in superstition, and anticipating Thomist ideology stolen piecemeal from Averroës and Maimonides, who borrowed in turn from pre-Socratic effusions via Plato and a recalcitrant Aristotle” (33).

“When at last alone again, balanced precariously between the abyss and the teeming gardens of Dionysus, Loōmos felt a transcendent madness in response to this enraptured solitude. Then the gods began appearing singly and in pairs, giving rise to rumors of a Heaven lost to hopelessness; and, in temporary residence, their defilements fed one upon the other in increased ratio to the good desired from their encroachments. The Sun rose again and contrasted sharply with these febrile offerings, rantings which, from the mouths of gods, were savored as rare obloquy” (65).

d

The Songs and Laments of Loōmos probably fits best into a long tradition of experimentation in Western literature—especially since the Age of Modernism began (late 19th and early 20th centuries). Impossible to grasp, the exact sense in passages such as those cited above spills over into something like trans-sense. The trans-sense, or trans-rational movement in Russian literature of the early twentieth century was probably inspired by avant-garde literary movements in France and Germany. Dadaism, e.g. was an important influence for the Russian Futurists, and probably also for René de Saint-Denis. “The works of French poets, Italian Futurists and the German Expressionists would influence Dada’s rejection of the tight correlation between words and meaning” (quote from Wikipedia article on Dadaism). Modernist art prefers multiple viewpoints and discontinuous narratives. Sometimes artists prefer obscurity to lucidity. Unity is mistrusted. So it is with Saint-Denis.

In an article on trans-sense literature, called ZAUM, the Russian critic Viktor Shklovsky cited the 19th century poet Fet: “Oh if only one could express/One’s soul without words.” Shklovsky’s article continues as follows: “Thought and speech cannot keep up with what an inspired man experiences; therefore, the artist is free to express himself not only in ordinary language (concepts), but also in a personal language, a language that has no precise meaning (that is not ossified), that is trans-sensible.

“Ordinary language restricts, free language allows freer expression. Worlds die, the world is always young. The artist has seen the world anew and, like Adam, gives to everything its name. The lily is wonderful, but the word lily [lilia in Russian] is ugly; it is worn out and ‘raped’ So I name my lily euy and the original purity is restored.” Shklovsky cites examples of experimentation that wrenches language out of its norms from many different writers, such as this one from Kingsley Amis, to be read in a Texas drawl: “Arcane standard Hannah More. Armageddon pierced staff.” Meaning: I can’t stand it any more; I’m getting pissed off.

The Russian Futurist poets—most prominently Velimir Khlebnikov and Aleksei Kruchenykh—wrote entire poems in incomprehensible (trans-rational) language. Their aim was to “liberate sound from meaning to create a primeval language of sounds.” Of course, their “tampering” with language caused a furor in their time, and they were accused of babbling nonsense. People with meat and potato brains screamed, “This is bullshit!” Meat-and-potato-head readers of René de Saint-Denis today, no doubt, will voice similar sentiments.

One more quote from Shklovsky’s article (which is available in English translation online): “Some people assert that they can best express their emotions by a particular sound language that often has no definite meaning but acts outside of or separately from meaning, immediately upon the emotions of people around them.” A good deal has been written since the early 20th century on this sort of thing. William Empson, e.g., in his Seven Types of Ambiguity, has mentioned “the doctrine of pure sound,” which assumes that speech sounds in themselves have meaning. Artists steeped in Modernism sometimes use obscurity as a conscious strategy. That want to avoid having their works consumed and digested too easily. Everyday language is suspect, as it can no longer be a medium for truth. Having grown stale and threadbare, the language of the quotidian must have violence wreaked upon it—only by suffering violence can it yield something novel, something of value.

Writers doing similar things in our time keep popping up. Take Joy Williams. In a recent article in The New Yorker (Sept. 27, 2021), Katy Waldman writes that reading the short stories of Williams is “like climbing an uneven staircase in a dream.” Her stories “offer a dark provisional illumination, and they make the kind of sense that disperses upon waking.”

“She [Williams] seems especially attuned to the psychoanalytic distinction between ‘manifest’ and ‘latent’ content—the smoke versus the fire beneath it. In ‘The Farm,’ from 1979, a woman utters words as ‘codes’ for other words, terrible words.”

“One of the strangest parts of reading Williams is the jumpiness of her language, a feeling that her nouns and verbs, no matter how meticulously ordered, might be arbitrary, a ‘code’ for things impossible to say.” Here we are reminded, once again, of René de Saint-Denis, although his literary style is not characterized by ‘jumpiness’ and little resembles that of Joy Williams. Williams practices what Katy Waldman calls a kind of “hallucinogenic realism.” The hallucinations of René de Saint-Denis—if that’s what they may be called—are far from realism, are, in fact, more akin to Romanticism.

The style of writing in the Loōmos book recalls the lushness of the Romantic school; more likely it comes, however, out of the Neo-Romantic school (Modernism, Symbolism) that was born as a rebellion against the stark, unadorned Realism that preceded it. Throughout the whole book that features him as central character, Loōmos ambulates through the verdure of perpetual opulent and sumptuous language—but language whose meaning is less important than its lushness.

As Waldman is led to assert through her reading of Joy Williams, “If a new story is possible it will require an entirely different language; the current one has been desecrated with the climate.” This recalls Shklovsky’s mention of how words have been used, “raped.” Food for thought. As the climate worsens, as we continue raping the natural world and the human race descends toward an Armageddon of its own making, is the only legitimate language left for literary writers one of experimentation—one practiced by avant-garde belletrists such as Williams and Saint-Denis?

Maybe more and more frequently we will encounter literary movements such as the recently founded “Poetry of Extinction.” Writers belonging to this movement make it their task to write “audio-poetry” that embodies the sounds of extinct animals. Most recently they have produced—reproduced in poetic form—sounds emitted by the ivory-billed woodpecker as recorded in 1935. This “poetry,” plus photographs and videotapes, are all that we have left of the ivory-billed, a woodpecker (related to the pileated) who was once the largest woodpecker resident in the U.S.A. The last confirmed sighting of the ivory-billed was in 1944.