Philip Harvey
This is the fifth in a series of pieces about the book in poetry
released at this blogspot.
Davis McCaughey once said, “As we become more technically
competent, perhaps to deal with means, the threat to our coherence is in the
definition of ends and how to get there. Librarians must constantly remind the
rest of us that not all communication is of the same kind. What is appropriate
for the commercial world may be utterly confusing for the humanities, to which
the skill of librarianship fundamentally belongs.” His words were delivered to
the Australian and New Zealand Theological Library Association in Melbourne in
2000 at a joint session of librarians, biblical scholars, and theologians. Given
at a time when silicon first seemed a serious threat to wood pulp, McCaughey’s
appeal to the book struck a note of warning not just about our need to value the
printed book, but to value it in the face of technological change. Over ten
years later, his words have not lost any of their prescient
effect.
At the session Davis McCaughey read poems by T. S. Eliot and the
Polish-American poet Czeslaw Milosz (1911-2004), saying their words remind us
that “what is at stake is humanity, or if you like, members of the human race,
thinking, talking, writing in the presence of God, and on the way doing so in
the presence of their fellow members of the human race. To be aware of this they
need libraries.” Our understanding of the world as a finite place is constantly
being challenged by the seemingly infinite publication of books, past, present,
and future, that extend our imaginations outside the finite. Theological
librarians, perhaps more than most, are brought into a regular awareness of the
most important conversation we can have, the conversation about God. The Eliot
poem was one of the choruses from ‘The Rock’. The Milosz poem was ‘And Yet the
Books’:
And yet the books will be there on the shelves, separate
beings,
That appeared once, still wet
As shining chestnuts under a tree in autumn,
And touched, coddled, began to live
In spite of fires on the horizon, castles blown
up,
Tribes on the march, planets in motion.
“We are,” they said, even as their pages
were being torn out, or a buzzing flame
licked away their letters. So much more durable
than we are, whose frail warmth
cools down, with memory, disperses, perishes.
I imagine the earth when I am no more:
Nothing happens, no loss, it’s still a strange
pageant,
Women’s dresses, dewy lilacs, a song in the
valley,
Yet the books will be there on the shelves, well
born,
Derived from people, but also from radiance,
heights.
The opening words speak for the rest, in miniature, like a
summary, as happens in some poems. “And yet the books …” They say that whatever
happens in this life, there will be books on the shelf still, to recall what has
passed and to recollect what was said. Milosz even calls books “separate
beings”, i.e. separate from us in our lives and from the authors who wrote them.
The books exist to tell us their story, which come to us as existences in their
own right. Even the authors are separated from the books they create once the
words are complete. They go out into the world with their own meanings and
messages. “We are”, they assert, beings that deliver their own experience into
the present of the reader.
When I read this poem I wonder about the connotations of the
Polish word for ‘chestnuts’. How unusual
in a poem of such spare, forceful claims to find a beauteous analogy in which books are
“still wet as shining chestnuts under a tree in autumn.” While we picture old bound books in brown
leather and admire their copious quantities, Milosz seems also to be connecting
the trees themselves with books. This shouldn’t be a surprise. The word ‘book’
in English derives from the word for ‘beech’, linking it directly to the tree
from which the paper products were made. (Theories even circulate that the
letters of the alphabet in some cultures are a mnemonic for the sequence of the
trees as they flower through the year.) I think the poet is reminding us of the
book’s connection with the earth from whence it sprang, and of human
relationship with the very wood of the physical books we read. The books
themselves have come alive through nurture.
The boldest claim in the poem is that books are “so much more
durable than we are.” Not only will books outlive their creators and readers,
they will outlive all of us. There are those who say that everything is subject
to mutability, animate and inanimate, but we know what Milosz is saying: the
book will be read when we are no longer walking the Earth. This is a reason why
people write books in the first place, some even think they bestow immortality.
It is unquestionably a reason for libraries. This is especially so in
theological libraries, where books are not discarded but remain there to be
rediscovered, witnesses to the thoughts and revelations of those who have gone before.
Witness, in fact, is a theme of this poem. The catastrophe
described in the centre of the poem is part of the experience of the poet, who
grew up in Lithuania but lived through the Second World War in that aggrieved
city, Warsaw. Virtually everything perished before his eyes. He became a Roman
Catholic and lived the second half of his life mainly in the United States,
escaping the cultural control of the Soviet Bloc. It is worth noting in the
context of this poem that as well as writing poetry and essays, Milosz
translated the Psalms into Polish. He himself is a witness, so it is explicable
that he identifies this role also in the books that he sees on the shelves of
libraries. Their survival is as much a matter of amazement as his own human
survival, as worthy of respect and wonder. Life itself will always be deserving
of wonder (“it’s still a strange pageant”) even if we will never make sense of
it all, and we have the books. He even calls them “well born”, as though
individual beings brought into the world with their own lives to
lead.
The closing words place the poem in the realm of the Psalmist.
They open new possibilities, arrest our desire for closure. Books for Milosz are
“derived from people”, to be sure, but are also derived from “radiance” and
“heights”. We can make many things of these two impressive words, standing there
like towers or gates or roads at the end of the poem. For me, “radiance” is the
light that fills us with insight and leads us toward truth; “heights” are those
possibilities we can see and may go towards, even if we may never reach the
mountains, or need to. They stand there too, I would suggest, for what Davis
McCaughey means in his talk in 2000 by “the presence of God.”
Davis McCaughey’s address to ANZTLA (‘The library and
theological studies: an indivisible marriage’) can be read in full in The ANZTLA
Newsletter, No. 41, August 2000, pp. 21-24. ‘And Yet the Books’ is found in
Czeslaw Milosz, ‘The Collected Poems 1931-1987’ (Penguin, 1988, p.
485).
Good thoughts. I like what you had to say, especially about nature and the connection between it all. Very insightful!
ReplyDeleteLeaving Cert unseen poem 2016 HL.....did not understand. Now reading this I think that I might just have scraped some marks. THanks
ReplyDeleteWith reference to the poem 'And Yet The Books', it appears to me to make the point that poems, stories and books in general will remain fresh and clear and will endure regardless of time and events, unlike our lives which fade and sadly are only too mortal. So a poem in an enduring book will be as new and fresh to a new reader many years after the author has passed on. e.g. Jane Austin and Cyril Abraham.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase about 'wet and shining chestnuts' I found puzzling but then I remembered that long long ago there was an old idiom of a 'hoary old chestnut' -
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+hoary+old+chestnut
So it seems to me that the author was using the new chestnuts to illustrate the permanence of books which will always remain fresh and new and not become old hoary chestnuts. Mmm, not too sure about that.
However there is an irony here in that the idiom 'old hoary chestnuts' has fallen into disuse and it is doubtful if a young person would connect the reference to a shining new chestnut to the old idiom, hence the meaning of a book can fade with time and changing language. So did the poet deliberately put in the irony ? As the poem appears to have been written in 1986 I suspect it was.