[lit-ideas] Re: Tuesday Hermeneutics
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:14:50 -0700
J. L. Speranza:
In a note to David Ritchie this morning you wrote, "I hope you can do
better than L. "Helm" Helm, who, when I offered my heart-felt
interpretation, all he said was that it was 'beyond' what he meant, and that
his creation being too recent, he felt unable to cope with an exegesis of
it."
In general, if a poet can agree to an exegesis of his poem -- that is, if he
can agree that X is what it means, then he probably should have written X in
prose. If it can be reduced to prose without anything left over, then it
shouldn't be a poem.
On the other hand, if someone explicates a poem and sees something the poet
didn't intentionally put there, that doesn't mean it isn't there. A poet
must be responsible for all the ambiguity in his poem. He needn't be
consciously aware that some interpretation is going into his poem as long
as, later on, he can listen to the interpretation and agree that it is
there. And if he decides like Frost did in regard to several of his poems
that subsequent interpretations were silly and far-fetched, perhaps he
should see in those interpretations a problem with poems that are so general
they can mean almost anything. I recall reading Frost's commentary on some
interpretations of his "Mending Wall." He scoffed at all the
interpretations he has read and said he had an actual occurrence in mind.
He seemed to reject what was beyond what he intended as he wrote the poem.
I don't think such a rejection is legitimate.
You asked about the reference. Sun Tzu is being used for all sorts of
things nowadays - business strategy, for example. I allowed for some
ambiguity in citing that reference.
So yes, I use the imagery of a battle, but I hope for it to be seen as
battle-lite. You wrote, "Now the implication of 'doing battle' is that
there will be deaths -- on possibly both sides. And I will be more than
curious to know what historian, war-tactician, or politician said that."
Churchill? Bush?" What you wrote would be true if I had in mind Churchill
or Bush, but I had in mind Sun Tzu who initially wrote very generally on the
Art of War - so generally in fact that his precepts are being used for a
wide variety of purposes - many not involving deaths, and I would be
disappointed if that particular ambiguity (deaths) were to be clearly shown
in the poem.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Lawrence Helm
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:53 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sunday Poem
L. Helms seems to quote:
>"To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of
>excellence."
Indeed he does: This quote is from Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter three:
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html
As for your comments, taking the poem beyond what occurred to me in the mere
writing of it: Perhaps it is still too fresh, having just written it this
morning, to examining broader implications.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:30 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sunday Poem
Excellent poem, Lawrence Helm
>"To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of
>excellence."
This sounds _very_ interesting. I was wondering, is it from some quote I can
find in the Loeb Classical Library (I'm collecting those many volumes) More
on this below.
>What is this?
>Cloaked as she was
>And frowning - How
>I wondered could
>I find out what
>Or why without asking;
>So I did. What?
>Which of course
>Made it worse.
>She took implements
>From her purse
>And used them tactically.
>I tried to recall Sun Tzu
>But it was all a blur.
>I looked about
>Frantically for cover.
>She stood strategically
>Blocking the door
>Dabbing at tears
>With a tissue.
>I was doomed.
I think, foreigner as I am, I get the main gist. The female enemy is
desplying a 'tactic' (Gk. 'taktika', related to Latin 'positio'). I wonder
when that verb gained a military (not just 'army') connotation.
Then the poet uses the same female 'enemy' (obviously in the _offensive_,
attacking role) as displaying _strategies_. Here the etymology is clearer.
It's from Gk. 'strategos', 'an army (or a navy) general. This strictly
relates to what the classics (or was it Napoleon -- or the Prussians)
referred to the "art of war" -- where 'art' was understood in pretty much
the same way as the 'seven liberal arts'.
So the point is that the enemy is in the offense (or defense? displaying
items from the purse strategically -- they say 'war' is always a chain
reaction of action and reaction).
And following the epigraph, the other point is that no battle has been
_offered_ or done, thus, there has been no 'victory' or 'doom' _in the
field_, but just with _diplomacy_.
And it is here where I think L. Helm's displays this level of paradoxical,
poetic imagery. When we speak of 'enemy' we usually think it in terms of
'doing battle' for which, the 'art of war' declares, we have to 'declare'
war. Note that the epigraph mentions 'enemy's _army_', not just 'enemy',
where the 'army' is the display of force _prepared_ to do 'battle'. There
is subtlety in the use of 'subjugate' (cognate with Anglo-Saxon, 'yoke' I
would think) -- and 'excellence', which I take to come from the Greek source
of the epigraph, as being a translation of the Achillean (via Peleus)
concept of 'arete'.
>"To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of
>excellence."
Yet, I'm questioning the dictum. If held as a desideratum, it will be
welcome by the pacifists. But I was recently reading about the appeal (in
the construction of that thing we call 'masculinity') that war has. One big
exception is Mrs. Thatcher, and, masculinity 'studies' have a problem with
her. But here is what I read from G. Dawson's book on 'soldier heroes'. He
is recollecting the "Falklands War" (England -- or UK -- against Argentina).
A 'war' which has never been 'declared' incidentally, making it the
sneakiest of events):
"Of particular interest to me was the INTENSE FASCINATION and EXCITEMENT
[which Dawson later explains in terms of Kleinian sublimation] generated for
men AND BOYS by *the military side of the war*." (p. 3).
It's not easy to see what Dawson really means, but in another context, when
he is explaining the 'wars in India', she retrieves a comment from one
'history teacher':
There seems to be an 'educational' side to 'war'. If we are having war in
Rajastan, and Bihar', then the educational side to it is that the fellow
countrymen will be made aware of where those places are, and put "Rajastan"
and "Bihar" on the map. This obviously applies to the "Falklands". Dawson
writes:
"[War narratives -- where the enemy is subjugated with doing battle in some
exotic land or even on the Channel, or even in the fields of Leicester for
the War of the Roses. JLS] adopt an expressly _educational_ stance. J. S.
Banks offers his [war narrative] "in the hope of interesting young readers
in ..." that part of the world were the battle was being done. F. M. Holmes
notes the "fast passing away' of 'popular ignorance and indifference'
concerning world geography. L. Taylor, addressing boy readers, suggests they
find [the battle sites] on the map."
Then there is the case of armour and swords and everything that D. Ritchie
has studied with detail. Armour almost _makes_ a warrior (cf. Iliad and the
lost of Achilles's identity when he allowed Patroclus to _wear_ his armour
-- and cfr. the madness of Ayax when he failed to win the armour on
Achilles's death).
L. Helms seems to quote:
>"To subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of
>excellence."
Now the implication of 'doing battle' is that there will be deaths -- on
possibly both sides. And I will be more than curious to know what historian,
war-tactician, or politician said that." Churchill? Bush?
My favourite Churchill quote of recent, is "I will make them [it's not clear
who 'they' are] learn English, have Latin as a rigour, and Greek as a
treat'. I love the idea of a Greek treat (or trick).
Happy Halloween.
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
_____
See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>
and Make AOL Your
<http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> Homepage.
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Tuesday Hermeneutics
