Acknowledgments
Myprimarydebtistothestudentsinthevariousseminarsonlovepoetry Ihavetaughtovertheyears.Manyoftheideasandreadingsinthisbook weredevelopedduringthoseclasses,whichwereajoytoteach.Iam extremelygratefulalsotoStefanieMarkovitsandMarionThain, firstfor theinvaluableadvicethattheyofferedasanonymousreadersforOxford UniversityPress,andsecondfortheirwillingnesstoforgothatanonymity, whichallowedmetocallonthemforfurtherassistance.Iamdeeply indebtedtothemboth,aswellastoJacquelineNortonatOUP,whohas encouragedmyworkonthisprojectsinceitsinception.
IbeganwritingthisbookduringasemesterofleavefromColumbia Universityandcompleteditduringanother,andIwishtothankColumbia foritssupport,aswellasmymanycolleaguesintheEnglishDepartment whohaveofferedhelpfulsuggestionsalongtheway.Inparticular,Iam gratefultoMatthewMargini(alsoanotablememberofthe first-named groupabove)forhislearnedandextremelyusefulcommentsonChapter4, andtoJimAdamsforgenerouslyreadingtheentiretypescriptwhenitwas complete.
PortionsofChapter2were firstpublishedin “ComeBeMyLove:The SongofSongs, ParadiseLost,andtheTraditionoftheInvitationPoem,” PMLA 128(2013).AportionofChapter3appearedinRussMcDonald, NicholasD.Nace,andTravisD.Williams(eds), ShakespeareUpClose: ReadingEarlyModernTexts (Arden,2012).Mythankstotheeditorsfor permissiontoreprint.
Mydeepestobligationofallistomyfamily.Tomyparents,Billand AntoinetteGray,Iamforevergrateful.Thelovetheyhavegivenme throughoutmylifeisofadifferentkindfromthelovethatistreatedin thisbook,butitisthegroundandbasisofall.Wereitnotforthat,Iwould neverhavewrittenthis.EmmettGray,whomadehisappearancebetween Chapters4and5,cannotbesaidtohavecontributedmateriallytothe writingofthisbook exceptintheveryrealsenseofgivingmethe greatestpossibleincentiveto finishit,soIcouldspendevenmoretime withhim.Finally,tomywife,ShiraBacker,Iwouldexpresshowmuch Iowe,inthisasineverythingIdo.ButIcannotpossiblyexpressit,and youknowitalready.
Excerptsfrom “DichtungundWahrheit,” from CollectedPoems byW.H. Auden,reprintedbypermissionofPenguinRandomHouseLLC.
“ThreeValentines,” from Poems byElizabethBishop,publishedby Chatto&Windus,reprintedbypermissionofTheRandomHouse GroupLimitedandFarrar,StrausandGiroux.
“AgainstLovePoetry,” from AgainstLovePoetry:Poems byEavanBoland. Copyright©2001byEavanBoland.UsedbypermissionofW.W. Norton&Company,Inc.,andCarcanetPress,Ltd.
“NeverAgainWouldBirds’ SongBetheSame,” excerptsfrom “TwoLook atTwo,” and “West-RunningBrook” from ThePoetryofRobertFrost,ed. EdwardConneryLathem.Copyright©1923,1928,1969byHenry Holt&Company;copyright©1942,1951,1956byRobertFrost; copyright©1970byLesleyFrostBallantine.Permissiongrantedby HenryHolt&CompanyandTheRandomHouseGroupLimited.All rightsreserved.
“Love,” from MirrorsofAstonishment byRachelHadas,RutgersUniversity Press,1992.Copyright©1992byRachelHadas.ReprintedbypermissionofRutgersUniversityPress.
“ TheSkunk ” and “ APostcardfromIceland ” bySeamusHeaney. Copyright©1979,1987bySeamusHeaney.Reprintedbypermission ofFaberandFaber,Ltd,andFarrar,StrausandGiroux.
“ForanAmorousLady,” copyright©1939byTheodoreRoethke;from CollectedPoems byTheodoreRoethke.UsedbypermissionofFaberand Faber,Ltd,andofDoubleday,animprintoftheKnopfDoubleday PublishingGroup,adivisionofPenguinRandomHouseLLC.Allrights reserved.
Excerptsfrom TheInventionofLove,copyright©1997byTomStoppard. UsedbypermissionofFaberandFaber,Ltd,andofGrove/Atlantic,Inc. Anythirdpartyuseofthismaterial,outsideofthispublication,is prohibited.
“LoveSong(Sweepthehouseclean...)” byWilliamCarlosWilliams, from TheCollectedPoems:VolumeI,1909–1939,copyright©1938by NewDirectionsPublishingCorp.ReprintedbypermissionofNewDirectionsPublishingCorp.andCarcanetPress,Ltd.
Introduction
Love,writesPlato,turnsanyoneittouchesintoapoet.1 Butwhy?Whatis theconnectionbetweenloveandpoetrythatleadsustoassociatethemso closelywithoneanother?Forloveisnotmerelyatopicthatmanypoems happentoaddress.Ratherthereexistsanunderstanding,sharedacross differentperiodsoftheWesternliterarytradition,thatapoemistheform ofexpressionmostnaturallysuitedtolove.
ByloveImeanspecificallywhatisusuallycalledromanticoreroticlove, thetypethatisimmediatelysuggestedbytheterm “lovepoetry.”2 Such lovediffersfromotherforms loveofGod;loveofone’sneighbor;lovefor one ’schildren;friendship inanumberofkeyparticulars.Itischaracterized,inthe firstplace,byexclusivity:eroticloveisdirectedtowardasingle personandseeksthesameinreturn.Henceitofteninvolvesjealousy. Moreover,sinceitdiffersfromdivineorfamilyloveinbeingbasedon choice itisneversimplyagivenbuthasadistinctbeginning,aswellasthe ever-presentpossibilityofanend eroticlovealwayscontainssomeelementofdoubt.Italsoincludesasexualorphysicalelement,howevermuch thataspectmaybesublimatedintodifferentforms.Andperhapsasa consequence,itischaracterizedevenmorethanotherformsofloveby irrationalityandbyextremesofemotion,bothpleasurableandpainful.3
1 ThusAgathoninthe Symposium: “Thegodissoskilledapoetthathecanmakeothers intopoets:onceLovetoucheshim, anyone becomesapoet” (196e);seePlato, Symposium, trans.AlexanderNehamasandPaulWoodruff,in PlatoonLove,ed.C.D.C.Reeve (Indianapolis:Hackett,2006),55.
2 Thereareofcoursegreatpoemsaboutdivinelove,familylove,andfriendship noris italwayspossibletodistinguishthesefromthetraditionoferoticlovepoetry,anymorethan itispossibletodistinguishabsolutelybetween eros, agape,and philia.Forthemostcomplete accountoftheseoverlappingcategoriesandofthehistoryofWesternthoughtsurrounding them,seeIrvingSinger, TheNatureofLove,3vols(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1984–7). “Erotic” isaproblematicterm,sinceitcarriesconnotationsthatseemto overemphasizethephysicalaspectsofaloverelationship.Nevertheless,Ihavepreferredit to “romantic,” whichinvitesconfusionwiththeRomanticmovementandtheparticular conceptionoflovethatitintroduced.
3 ForthisdefinitionIhavedrawnonmanydifferentaccountsoferoticlove,butseein particularRobertC.Solomon, Love:Emotion,Myth,andMetaphor (Buffalo:Prometheus Books,1990): “Romanticlove,unliketheloveofGod...isessentiallysexual,secular,
2 TheArtofLovePoetry
Insayingthatpoetryisnaturallysuitedtolove,Idonotmeantosuggest thatitisuniqueamongtheartsinthisregard.Variousprosegenres,for instance,arealsofamouslysuccessfulinexpressing,representing,and evokingfeelingsoflove stories,novels,essays,plays.(Ireturntothe associationbetweenloveanddramainChapter1.)Perhapsmostnotable inthiscategoryareletters:severalaspectsofepistolarydiscourseaffiliateit tobothloveandpoetry.Likeeroticlove,alettertendstobedirectedtoa single,specifiedother,whoseabsenceitinherentlybothrecognizesand seekstoovercome.Likelyricpoems,lettersarethereforeoftenwritten largelyorwhollyinthesecondperson anintimateformofdiscoursethat distinguisheslettersfromotherprosegenresandhelpsmakethelove letter,likethelovepoem,suchastandardgenre.4 Andmanynon-literary artformsarelikewiseintimatelyassociatedwithlove,including,aboveall, music.Ifmusic,inShakespeare’swords,is “thefoodoflove,” thatis becauseitseemstoworkmoredirectlyandprofoundlyontheemotions thananyotherart.5
Butpoetrylieshalfwaybetweenproseandmusicandcombinesthe advantagesofboth.Poetryaddstoproseaphysicaldimension,anexploitationofthesheerbodilypleasuresoflanguage:thesensuousnessof rhythm;thesatisfyingcouplingofrhyme;thegratificationthatinheres
personalandalwaystentative,tenuous,nevercertain” (p.xxvi;seealsopp.13–15).Manyof thesecharacteristicsarealsonamedbyHarryG.Frankfurtin TheReasonsofLove (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004),includinglove’sparticularityanditsriskor uncertainty althoughnotethatFrankfurtspecificallydeniesthateroticloveprovidesa goodexampleofthelovehedescribes(pp.43–7,62).
4 Ontheeroticsofletter-writing,seeRolandBarthes, ALover’sDiscourse,trans.Richard Howard(NewYork:HillandWang,1978),157–9;AnneCarson, ErostheBittersweet (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986;repr.Champaign:DalkeyArchivePress, 1998),91–101;andLindaS.Kauffman, DiscoursesofDesire:Gender,Genre,andEpistolary Fictions (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1986),17–27.Seealsothediscussionof Horace’ s ArtofPoetry inChapter1.Onthecentralityofsecond-personaddresstolyric poetry,seeJonathanCuller, TheoryoftheLyric (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2015),186–243.Lovelettersarenotalwaysinprose,ofcourse:thereisalongtraditionof epistolarylovepoetry,datingbackatleastasfarasOvid’ s Heroides.Butmypointisthat lettersinherentlycarryeroticconnotations,justaspoemsdo.
5 WilliamShakespeare, TwelfthNight 1.1.1;allquotationsfromShakespearereferto TheRiversideShakespeare,2ndedn,ed.G.BlakemoreEvans(Boston:HoughtonMifflin, 1997).Becauseeroticlovedependsonthepossibilityof “changeunfoldinginlivesandin time,” itisfarlessstronglyidentifiedwiththevisualarts,whicharecomparativelylimitedin theirabilitytorepresentanunfoldingnarrative;seeRichardTerdiman, “CanWeReadthe BookofLove?” PMLA 126(2011),472–82,p.478.Onthesubjectofloveandvisualart, seeAlexanderNehamas, “TheGoodofFriendship,” ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety, 110(2010),267–94.As objects oferoticattraction,bycontrast,worksofvisualarthavethe greatadvantageofexistingasuniqueinstances;hencetheprevalenceofthemythof PygmalionandGalateainallitsincarnations.Otherartformslikewiserelatetoloveeach inadifferentway.
simplyinthephysicalarticulationofwords.Allofthesemaybepresentin prose,buttheyarecentraltopoetry,whichisthusabletosuggestformsof intimatecommunicationthattranscendthelimitsofeverydaylanguage. Atthesametime,poetryismorespecific,andinthatsensemorepersonal, thanmusic.Musicmaybethemostuniversalartform,themostcapableof conveyingfeelingsbeyondthereachoflanguage.Butitsveryuniversality putsmusicatoddswiththedemandsoflove.Iferoticloveischaracterized byitsfocusontheindividual,thenlanguageforallitslimitationshasthe advantageovermusic,whichisillsuitedtoconveyaparticularstoryor evenaspecifiableemotion.ThusStendhal,inhistreatise OnLove (1822), atonepointbeginstoexpatiateontheeroticeffectofmusic: “Ijust realizedtonightthatmusic,atitsbest,putstheheartinexactlythesame statethatitexperiencesinthedelightfulpresenceofthebeloved.” Buthe immediatelycorrectshimself.Musiccommunicatesnotlove,heconcludes,butonlyanunspecificintensitythatreinforceswhateverthe listenerisalreadyfeeling: “theeffect[is]simplytomakemereflectmore vividlyonwhatisoccupyingmythoughts.”6
RobertBrowninghighlightsasimilarprobleminhisdramaticmonologue “ASerenadeattheVilla” (1855).Thepoem’sspeakerdescribesthe variousmethodsheusedtowoohisbelovedashestoodbeneathher windowthenightbefore:
Whattheycouldmywordsexpressed, Omylove,myall,myone! Singinghelpedtheversesbest, Andwhensinging’sbestwasdone, TomyluteIlefttherest.7
Theprogressionseemsintuitive:thespeaker’smessageoflovebeginsin speech,thenrisestosong,andclimaxesinpuremelody.Yetthishierarchy isundercutbytherestofthepoem.Musicisanimprecisemedium; howeverexpressivethespeaker’slute-playingmayhavebeen,ithasfailed tocommunicatecertainbasicpointsofinformation,includinghisidentity.Thepoemthereforebegins,ironically,withthespeaker’shavingto explain, “ThatwasI,youheardlastnight” (l.1).Thewordsoftoday’ s poemarenecessarytocompletetheeffectoflastnight’smusic,to personalizeit.W.H.Audenframestheproblemthus:
6 Stendhal, Del’ amour,ed.PatrickPoivred’Arvor(Chaintreaux:ÉditionsFranceEmpireMonde,2009),60;mytranslation.AllfurtherquotationsfromStendhalreferto thiseditionandarelikewisemytranslations.
7 “ASerenadeattheVilla,” ll.16–20;allquotationsfromBrowningreferto ThePoems, ed.JohnPettigrewandThomasJ.Collins(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1981).
IbelieveIcouldproduceapieceofmusicwhichwouldexpresstoalistener whatImeanwhenIthinktheword love,butitwouldbeimpossibleforme tocomposeitinsuchawaythathewouldknowthatthislovewasfeltfor You (notforGod,ormymother,orthedecimalsystem).Thelanguageof musicis,asitwere,intransitive.8
Myaimisnottostageacontestbetweendifferentformsofart, however,butsimplytosuggestwhypoetryinparticularissogenerally andconsistentlyassociatedwitheroticlove.Ihavementionedsomeofthe mostevidentpointsofcontact(poetry’ssensuality;itsmingledtranscendenceandspecificity),andinwhatfollowsIwillreturntothese,alongwith manyothers.But firstitisworthconsideringapossibleobjectiontothe veryquestionIamposing.InGrahamGreene’snovel TheHeartofthe Matter (1948),acharacterremembershaving “readsomewherethatlove hadbeeninventedintheeleventhcenturybythetroubadours.”9 Greene’ s characterisrecalling,broadlybutnotinaccurately,theprovocativethesis forwardedatthestartofC.S.Lewis’shighlyinfluentialstudy TheAllegory ofLove (1936).Lewiscontendsthatcourtlylove,asrepresentedand expoundedbythepoetsofmedievalFrance,hadnorealprecedenteither inliteratureorinpracticebut “appearsquitesuddenly” intheirpoetry.10 Hethenfurtherclaimsthatthefeelingsoflovethatpeopleexperience todayarealltraceabletothissinglesource thatis,thatwhatwethinkof aslove,atleastinitsmostsalientaspects,wasanewconceptinthe eleventhcenturythathassincebeendiffusedandbecomethoroughly internalized.11 Ifweacceptthisclaim,thenouroriginalquestionis obviouslyansweredinadvance.Poetryisassociatedwithlove,theargumentgoes,becauselovewasintroducedbypoets;theconnectionisa purelyhistoricalone.
Lewis’sthesisattractedmuchnoticewhenitappeared,asevidencedby Greene’scasualreferencetoitadozenyearslater.Itfellinwiththe
8 W.H.Auden, “DichtungundWahrheit(AnUnwrittenPoem)” (1959),sectionV,in CollectedPoems,ed.EdwardMendelson(NewYork:ModernLibrary,2007),648.As Browning’spoemsuggests,itisnotalwayspossibletodistinguishbetweenpoetryand music,sincetheyoftenmeetintheformofsong.AnumberofthepoemsIdiscussmay originallyhavebeenaccompaniedbymusic,nowlost;onthetopicofthismissingmusical dimension,seeTedGioia’swide-ranging LoveSongs:TheHiddenHistory (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2015).
9 GrahamGreene, TheHeartoftheMatter (NewYork:Viking,1948),237.
10 C.S.Lewis, TheAllegoryofLove:AStudyinMedievalTradition (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1936),2.
11 “WearesofamiliarwiththeerotictraditionofmodernEuropethatwemistakeitfor somethingnaturalanduniversal...butaglanceatclassicalantiquityorattheDarkAgesat onceshowsusthatwhatwetookfor ‘ nature ’ isreallyaspecialstateofaffairs,whichwill probablyhaveanend,andwhichcertainlyhadabeginningineleventh-centuryProvence” (Lewis, TheAllegoryofLove,3).
contemporarystructuralisttendencytoviewapparentlyinstinctivebehaviorsasculturallydetermined.AnditreceivedreinforcementfromDenisde Rougemont’simportanttreatise LoveintheWesternWorld (1940),which similarlytreatsloveastheproductofaculturalinheritancecenteredin medievalProvence.12 Butcriticsalsobeganalmostimmediatelytodispute Lewis’sclaim,pointingoutaccountsofloveverysimilartothoseofthe troubadoursinmuchearliertextsandinliterarytraditionsunconnectedto thatofmedievalEurope.TimHancockprovidesanexcellentsurveyof thesereactionsandofsubsequentdebatesaboutthenatureoflove,in whichheshowsthatthinkersinrecentdecades,includingnotonly philosophersandliterarycriticsbutsociologistsandevolutionarybiologists,haveincreasinglyreachedconsensusthatloveisnotamedievalor evenWesterninventionbutawidespreadandsurprisinglyconsistent phenomenon.13 Fewscholarsoflovetodaywouldtraceitalltothe troubadours.Andyet,forallits flaws,Lewis’sargumentretainsitsinterest assomethingmorethanjustahistoricalcuriosity.Evenifitistruethat lovebegetspoetry,asPlatosuggests,italsoremainstrue,asLewisclaims, thatpoetryoftenreturnsthefavor.Theaffiliationbetweenloveand poetry,inotherwords,mayhaveitsrootsincertainsharedattributes, butithasbeensustainedbycenturiesofself-reinforcingculturalpractice. Tounderstandlovenecessarilyinvolvesaninquiryaswellintothehistory ofpoetry.
Thisbookthereforeexploresthenatureofbothloveandpoetryby examiningtheassociationsbetweenthem,inherentandinherited.Itis intendednotasacomprehensivehistoryofWesternlovepoetry atopic toolargeforanysinglebook butasaninvestigationintothemeaning andfunctionofdifferentforms,tropes,andimagesemployedbypoets acrossthecenturiestoexpressordescribelove.IneachchapterIconsider
12 DeRougemont’sclaimsareinasenselessprovocativethanLewis’s,inthathesees courtlylovenotasanewinventionbutastheexpressionofanancient(Manichaean)lineof thought,whichsprangtonewlifeamongtheCathars.Inanothersense,however,de Rougemont’sthesisisthemorecontentiousofthetwo,tracingmostofthepoetryand discourseofloveinWesternculturetothesecretpersistenceofhereticalbeliefs.SeeDenis deRougemont, LoveintheWesternWorld,trans.MontgomeryBelgion(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983;originallypub.1940as L’AmouretL’Occident).
13 SeeTimHancock, “TheChemistryofLovePoetry,” CambridgeQuarterly,36(2007), 197–228,pp.197–205.AsHancockremarks,thinkingaboutlovehascounteredthetrend ofmostrecentsociologicalthoughtbybecomingincreasinglyessentialist.Forother responsestoLewis(who,Hancockpointsout,himselflatertemperedhisownclaims), seeJ.B.Broadbent, PoeticLove (London:ChattoandWindus,1964),18,38–41;Jon Stallworthy(ed.), ABookofLovePoetry (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1973),21–2; andespeciallySolomon, Love:Emotion,Myth,andMetaphor,53–65.IrvingSingerdisagrees withLewis’scentralclaimbutalsopartlyconcedesitsvalue;seeSinger, TheNatureofLove, i.47–8;ii.21–36).
poemsfromanarrayofdifferentperiodsandliterarytraditionsinorderto achieveasfullaspossibleanunderstandingofthestructuresthatthey share.Numerousstudiesalreadyexistofindividualauthorsorerasoflove poetry;mydebttotheseworksisrecordedinthevariouschaptersand theirnotes.Buttherehavebeenveryfewattemptstoestablishanintegral theoryoftheenduringrelationbetweenpoetryandtheexperienceof eroticlove.14
Myapproachinthisstudymayraiseaseriousconcern:namely,that love(tosaynothingofpoetry)isahighlyvariableconcept,theunderstandingofwhichaltersradicallyfromagetoage;clearlylovemeans somethingquitedifferenttoSappho,toPetrarch,toEmilyDickinson, andtoPabloNeruda.Itmayseemextremelyinadvisablethereforeto examineworksfromsuchdifferenterassidebyside.Certainlyithas becomeextremelyrare.Historicism,forsolongnowthedominantmode inliterarystudies,tendstoworksynchronically,focusingonthedistinctive characteristicsofademarcatedperiod.Whenworksofcriticismwithawider historicalscopedoappear,theyusuallymovechronologically,tracinga literarydevelopmentorlineofinfluence.Butcriticshavebeenverywaryof analysisthatmovesinamorefreelytranshistoricalmanner,forfearoffalling intothetrapofanachronismorofimposingaspeciousunitythatignores historicaldifference.
Thesequalmsareunderstandable,buttheyarealsoreadilyanswerable, andtheyshouldnotstandinthewayofaparticularlyfruitfulmodeof criticalinquiry.Tobeginwith,thereisnoreasontothinkthatacomparativeviewmustbeanessentialistone thatitimpliestheassumption ofanunchanging,universalunderstandingoflovesharedbyallthese writers.Whatitdoesassumeissufficientsimilaritybetweenthemtomake comparisonworthwhile.Akiss(totakethesubjectofChapter3)mayhave verydifferentimplicationsforCatullusinthe firstcentury BCE thanitdoes forBenJonsoninseventeenth-centuryEnglandorforSaraTeasdalein twentieth-centuryAmerica.Butthereremainsenoughofafamilyresemblanceinthesepoets’ conceptionsofkissing,andofpoetry,thattheyall choosetocommunicatetheactofkissinginverse,makinguseineach caseofsimilarstrategies.15 Itthereforeseemsworthwhiletoreadthese
14 Specializedstudiesoflovepoetrydoofcourseofferinsightsofamoregeneralnature aswell,oftenquiteexplicitly.IwouldsingleoutinparticularAnneCarson’sbrilliant Eros theBittersweet,whichfocusesonarchaicandclassicalGreekliteraturebutalsoproposes broadertheoriesoftherelationbetweenwritinganderoticdesire.
15 Itaketheterm “familyresemblances” fromLudwigWittgenstein,whousesitto denotecharacteristicsthatallrecognizablybelongtoaconceptandcollectivelydefineit,yet nooneofwhichisabsolutelyrequisitetothatconcept;seeLudwigWittgenstein, PhilosophicalInvestigations,trans.G.E.M.Anscombe(NewYork:Macmillan,1953),32(§67).
workstogether,attendingtotheirdifferencesbutwithaparticulareyeto theresemblancestheydisplay.Justastheacknowledgedabsenceofa universalstandardofjusticeorbeautyhasnotpreventedthinkersinthe fieldsofethicsandaestheticsfrominquiringintothenatureofthosetwo concepts,andintotherelationbetweenthem,16 sothevaryingdefinitions ofloveshouldnotdeterusfrominvestigatingthebroaderrelationof poeticstoerotics.
Thegreatbenefitofsuchjuxtapositionalcriticismistorevealtheoften surprisingcontinuitiesandsimilaritiesthatexistamongworksfromawide varietyofcontexts.InthechaptersthatfollowIhavethereforesoughtto offerasbroadasamplingaspossibleofWesternlovepoetry.17 Evensoit hasnaturallybeenimpossibletorepresentmorethanasmallselectionof languagesandperiods,andIhavenecessarilyendedupconcentratingon thoseIknowbest.ButIhavetriedtoincludeasufficientlydiverserangeof examplestobeabletobegindrawinggeneralconclusions.Iamconscious thattherestillremainimbalancesanddisproportionsinmyselectionof examples,generallyreflectiveofthebiasesoftheliterarytraditionasa whole.ThemajorityofpoetsandspeakersIdiscuss,forinstance,aremale; moreofthem,bothmaleandfemale,describeheterosexualthanqueer formsofattraction.Butitisworthnotingthatexpressionsoferoticlove oftendisplayremarkableconsistenciesacrossgendersandsexualities,as acrosstimesandplaces.AsThomasGouldwrites,inhisdiscussionof Plato’shomosexualmodeloflove,thebehaviorsanddiscoursesassociated withlove “areactuallyhardierthansuchdetailsas,forinstance,whichsex” theloversshouldbe.18 Thisisnotinanywaytodenythedistinction
Ontheimportanceofstudyinggenreoutsidethearbitraryrestrictionsofliteraryperiodization,seeCuller, TheoryoftheLyric,3–4,89–90 thoughnotethatCullerspecifically resiststheuseoftheconceptoffamilyresemblancesindiscussinggenre(pp.44–5).
16 IamthinkinghereparticularlyofElaineScarry, OnBeautyandBeingJust (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1999),especiallytheconcludingsection(pp.86–124).The findingoffamilyresemblancesfeelsevenmoreintuitiveinsuchacomparativestudy;what Scarryproposesisnotatotalizingdefinitionofeitherbeautyorjusticebutagroupof attributesthattheyshareandthatsuggestadeepandperhaps(sheposits)evencausal connection.
17 IhavelimitedmystudytoWesternpoetryonlybecauseIamnotfamiliarenough withothertraditionstobeabletodistinguishwhatmaybesingularinanygivenpoemfrom whatisrepresentative. “Western” itselfisanotoriouslyimpreciseterm;Iincludethebiblical SongofSongs,forinstance,whichgrowsoutofanancientNearEasterntraditionoflove poetry,butwhich,becauseofitscanonicalstatus,hasexertedanenormousinfluenceonthe literatureoftheJudeo-ChristianWest.
18 ThomasGould, PlatonicLove (NewYork:FreePressofGlencoe,1963),28;quoted inMollyMyerowitz, Ovid’sGamesofLove (Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1985), 26.Likewise,JeanneHeuvingobserves: “Whilethereareimportantdifferencesintheways thatlovepoetryhasbeenwrittenoverthecenturies...therearemanycommonalities.” Notably,Heuvingclaims,poetryaboutloveischaracterizedbyitsfocusontheotherin
betweenmaleandfemale,heteroandqueerexperiencesofdesire,but merelytoaffirmonceagainthepossibilityoftakingthedifferencesinto accountwhileexaminingtheelementsthatrecur.
Lovepoetryisacapaciouscategorythatcomprisesallpoeticgenres,and thisbookdrawsexamplesfrommanytypesofverse,includinglonger narrative,dramatic,anddidacticpoems.Thegreatmajorityofthelove poemsIdiscuss,however,arelyricpoems.Thenatureoflyrichaslong beenatopicofscholarlydebate,whichhasonlyintensifiedinrecent years,assomecriticshavecalledintoquestionthevalidityofthenotion of “lyric” asapoeticgenre.19 Buttheconceptandthetermremainuseful todesignateanimportantcategoryofpoemsthat,asJonathanCuller persuasivelydemonstratesinhiscomprehensive TheoryoftheLyric,consistentlyfeatureanumberofdistinctivecharacteristics,evenifnoone characteristiccanbeconsidereddefinitiveoruniversallyapplicable.FollowingCuller(amongothers),therefore,Iusethetermlyrictoreferto short,non-narrativepoemsthattypicallyincludecertainrecognizable elements:theyareoftenwritteninapresenttensethatcaststhepoem lessasamimeticrepresentationthanasaspeechact,aniterableevent;they tendtoforeground,evenmorethanotherpoems,thenon-semantic elementsoflanguage,suchassoundandrhythm;andtheyfrequently focusonthe firstandsecondperson.20 Allofthesecharacteristics,especiallythelasttwo theforegroundingoflanguage’ s “nonrational” elementsandthedistinctiveconcentrationon “I” and “ you”—contributeto
preferencetotheself: “loveinvadesor floodsthesubjectwithaninfusionofothernessthat supplantsthesubject’susualegoisticmooringsandchangeshisorherorientationtoward othernessitself.” SeeJeanneHeuving, TheTransmutationofLoveandAvant-GardePoetics (Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,2016),36.
19 NotablyVirginiaJacksonhassuggestedthatourcurrentconceptionoflyricdatesonly fromtheRomanticperiodanddependsmostlyonamannerofreadingpoetry(and literaturemoregenerally)thatbecameprevalentinAnglo-Americancriticisminthelater nineteenthandtwentiethcenturies;seeVirginiaJackson, Dickinson’sMisery:ATheoryof LyricReading (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005).Jacksonoffersvariationson herargumentinshorterformin “WhoReadsPoetry?” PMLA 123(2008),181–7,andin “Lyric,” inRolandGreeneetal.(eds), PrincetonEncyclopediaofPoetryandPoetics (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2012),826–34.OntheothersideofthedebateisMutlu KonukBlasing,whowrites: “Thelyricisafoundationalgenre,anditshistoryspans millennia.... ‘Historicizing’ thelyricasessentiallyalate-eighteenth-andnineteenthcenturyEuropeaninventionineffectuniversalizesahistoricallyandgeographicallyspecific modelofasubject” (MutluKonukBlasing, LyricPoetry:ThePainandPleasureofWords (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007),4).SeealsotheessaysinMarionThain(ed.), TheLyricPoem:FormationsandTransformations (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2013),whichconsiderthehistoryofEnglishlyric,beginninginthesixteenthcentury,as partofalong-standingandcontinuoustraditionifnotaconsistentone.
20 Thislistroughlycorrespondstothreeofthe “fourparameters” thatCulleroffersas characteristicoflyric(thefourthbeinghyperbole);see TheoryoftheLyric,33–8.
makelyricthevehicleofchoiceforlovepoets.21 AsCullerputsit, “love poetrycaneasilystandasparadigmaticforthelyrictradition.”22
Thechaptersthatfollowworkcumulativelytosetoutsomeofthe centraltropesoflovepoetryandtheirimplications.Chapter1,whichlays thefoundationfortherest,considerstherelationbetweenloveandpoetry byexaminingdifferenttheoriesofeach.ItbeginswithHorace’ s Artof Poetry andOvid’ s ArtofLove,whichgiveverysimilaraccountsoftheir respectivesubjects.Bothphenomenaaresaidtoinvolveacounterpointing ofcontradictoryforces:impulseandartistry,spontaneityanddeliberate craft.Theparallelisnotpeculiartothesetwowritersbutpersistsinthe workofthinkersacrossverydifferentperiods.ThustheRomanticsof theearlynineteenthcentury Stendhal,WilliamWordsworth,Percy Shelley describeasimilarbalance;bothpoetryandlove,intheir accounts,consistofatwo-stageprocessinwhichmomentaryinspiration isfollowedandfulfilledbyself-consciousreflection.Thesedualities find theirultimatemodelinPlato,particularlyinthe Phaedrus,whichdescribes loveasaneffectofsimultaneousdisorientationandrecognition.Thesame dichotomyisfundamentaltopoetry,notablythroughpoetry’suseof meter,withitsrelianceonrecognizablepatternandoriginalvariation, andmetaphor,withitsemphasisonbothsimilarityanddifference.
Chapter2differsfromtheothersinfollowingalargelychronological trajectoryasitdescribestheinvitationpoem,agenreoflovepoetrywithits rootsinthebiblicalSongofSongs.Thechiefpurposeofthechapter, however,isnottooutlinealiteraryhistorybuttoexplorehowthe invitationpoemreflectsonmajorquestionsthathavealwayssurrounded thenatureoflove,includingsomeofthosealreadyraised.Doesloveentail recognitionorfreshdiscovery,acompletionoftheselforadisruptionof itscontours?Isloveprimarilyaninstinctivepassionoraculturalpractice? Theinvitationpoem,withitsdisplacementoferoticdesireontoan imaginedlandscape,negotiatesthesepossibilitiesthroughitsfusionof inwardandoutward,homecomingandexile,intimacyandalienation.The traditioninitiatedbytheSongofSongsaltersoverthecenturies,aspoets includingChristopherMarloweandCharlesBaudelaire,amongmany others,highlightdifferentpointsofcontactbetweenthepoeticanderotic imagination.Theinvitationgenre,Iargue,canthusbeseenasanarchetypalformoflovelyric,encompassingandemphasizingsomeofthe centralparadoxesthatlinklovetopoetry.
21 Blasingusestheterm “nonrational” (LyricPoetry,2)inpreferenceto “irrational,” whichwouldaffirmlogicasthenormfromwhichlyricdeviates,whereassheconsidersthe featuresoflyriclanguage(rhythm,sound)tobeprimary,astheyareinlanguageacquisition.
22 Culler, TheoryoftheLyric,207.
Chapter3concernskissing,whichhasalways figuredprominentlyin thelovepoetrytradition.Apoemisthenaturalcorrelativetoakiss.Both areoralpleasures;botharesimultaneouslysensualandspiritual,providing satisfactioninthemselveswhilealsosublimatingorsubstitutingformore intimateformsoferoticcontact.Aboveall,bothreflectmanyofthe contradictionsthatclusteraroundlove.Likeapoem,akissatonce communicatesandinterfereswithcommunication;itisbothdiscrete andunbounded;itrepresentsbothunionandseparation.Takingasits central figuretheRenaissancepoetJoannesSecundus,whoseneoclassical Basia (Kisses)haveexertedalastinginfluence,thechapterconsidersthe differentstructuresthatpoetshaveconsistentlydeployedtocommunicate theexperienceofakiss,includingnotonlyrhymebutsuchtropesas chiasmus,parataxis,andpolyptoton,allofwhichhelp figureforththe erotictensionsinherentintheactofkissing.
Chapter4focusesonpoetry’suseofanimalstoexplorethecomplexities oflove.Animalsfeatureinpoemsasdirectobjectsofloveorerotic fascination,asinCatullus’ addresstohismistress’ssparrow,oraslovers themselvesandthusmodelsforhumanrelationships,asinGeoffrey Chaucer’ s TheParliamentofFowls,orinvariousother,more figurative capacities,asinElizabethBishop’ s “Loveisfeatheredlikeabird.” Althoughcreaturesofallkindspopulatelovepoetry,birds,asthese examplessuggest,arethemostubiquitous.Thematingbehaviorsof birds,atonceinstinctiveandhighlypatterned,offeranaturalparallelto thecombinationofimpulseandpredeterminedstructurethatcharacterizesbothloveandpoetry,asChapter1describes.And,whilethesame couldbesaidofotheranimals,birdsemploysongasakeycomponentof theircourtshipandsoreflecttheworkoflovepoetry.Afocusonbirdsand otheranimalsalsooffersthepoetscopetocelebratetheroleofsexualdesire inlove.Yetanimals,intheirmingledfamiliarityandalienness,ultimately appealtolovepoetslessasdirectmodelsthanassignsoferoticuncertainty,queerness,andinconclusiveness.
Incontrasttokissingoranimals,marriage,whichformsthesubjectof Chapter5,isfarmorerarelyrepresentedbylovepoets,atleastintheirlyric poetry.Lyric,withitsbrevity,itsintensity,itsrelianceongapsand significantsilences,seemsideallysuitedtoaparticulartypeoflove whatStendhalcallspassionatelove,typifiedbynovelty,absence,uncertainty.Butmaritallove,powerfulthoughitmaybe,lackstheseparticular qualities.Lyricsthataddressmarriagetendthereforetobeeitherwedding poems(epithalamia),whichstopshortonthethresholdofmarriage,or elegiesforalostspouse,whichbeginwheremarriageendsanderotic distanceisreimposed.Yet,ifthepleasureandevenpurposeofmarriagelie indiscoveringfreedomandself-realizationwithinstrictlyprescribed
limits,thenlyriccouldjustaswellbeseenasthegenremostsuitedto maritallove.Thischapterexaminesthetraditionofmarriagelyricthathas developed,forthemostpart,inrecentcenturies,astheidealofloving, companionatemarriagehasspread.BeginningwiththeworkoftheVictorianpoetandtheoristCoventryPatmore,whoseseminaltreatiseonmeter illustratesthesameidealsofregularityandvarietythatmarkhispoems aboutmarriage,thechapterrangesfromAnneBradstreettoSeamus Heaney,RachelHadas,andothercontemporarypoetsofmaritallove. TheConclusionisbrief,notbecausethereisnothinglefttosaybut becausethereissomuch.Thepointsofcontactbetweenloveandpoetry areendless,asarethepotentialtopicsforinvestigation.Thesechapters offerasample,astartingpointforreflectingonthecapacitiesofpoetryto expressandtoshapeourexperienceaswellasourunderstandingoflove.
Ournaturalreactionwhenconfrontedwithsomethingthatwe findbeautifulisacomplexorevenself-contradictoryone.The firsteffectofbeauty, writesElaineScarry,isthat “Itseemstoincite,eventorequire,theactof replication....Beauty,asbothPlato’ s Symposium andeverydaylifeconfirm, prompts...begetting.”23 Apersonstruckbythebeautyofanobject,anidea, oranotherperson,isseizedbythedesiretoreproduce,describe,analyze,orin somewayperpetuatewhatheorsheperceives.YetScarryalsoremarksthat beautyproducesanimpressionofperfectsingularity. “Thebeautifulthing seems is incomparable,unprecedented”;it “fillsthemind” withwhatshe calls “the ‘neverbeforeinthehistoryoftheworld’ feeling.”24 Clearlythere existsaninherenttensionbetweenthesetworesponses theneedto findor produceanequivalenttothebeautifulobject,andtheconvictionthatthe objectcanhavenoequivalent,thatitsbeautyisbydefinitionunique. Whenitcomestolove,whichasPlato(amongmanyothers)observesis closelyrelatedtothesenseofbeautyandoftenarisesfromit,thattension reachesthelevelofparadox.25 Ontheonehand,asRichardTerdiman remarks, “Peoplelovebeinginlove,andwhentheyaretheytalkandwrite
23 Scarry, OnBeautyandBeingJust,3–4.
24 Scarry, OnBeautyandBeingJust,22–3.
25 Inthe Symposium (210a–212a)DiotimatellsSocratesthatatrueloverbeginsby appreciatingthebeautyofhumanbodies(PlatoonLove,71–3).In TheBookoftheCourtier (1528)BaldesarCastiglione,echoingPlato,writesthat “loveisnothingbutacertaindesire toenjoybeauty” (BaldesarCastiglione, TheBookoftheCourtier,trans.CharlesS.Singleton (NewYork:Anchor,1959),336).SeealsoTroyJollimore, Love’sVision (Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,2011),67–72,onthelover’stendencytoseethebelovedasbeautiful.
aboutitwithanexpansiveintensity.”26 Whispersandtextmessagesas muchaspoemsandnovelsattesttotheinherentneedofloveto find alanguage.Fewthingscausealovermoredistressthanbeingforbiddento speak(orwrite)ofandtothebeloved.Ontheotherhand,thisdiscursive impulseiscounteredbyadeep-rootedconvictionthatloveisineffable thatcommonlanguagelackstheresources toexpresstheuniqueparticularity ofthelover’sexperience.AsTerdimansays, “Love insistson representation; love blocks representation....Solovecan’tspeakanddoesspeak.”27 The problemisintractable;itarisesnotsomuchfromculturalconventionsthat maydeemitinappropriatetodeclareone’sloveasfromasensethatwords themselvesaresimplyinappropriatetopassion.
Ofalltheparadoxesthatcharacterizelovepoetry,thisisthemostbasic: lovebothrequireslanguageandrenouncesit.Lovepoetrytherefore succeedsbydisplayingitsownfailure.Othertypesofpoetry,suchas elegy,alsoregularlyunderscoretheinsufficiencyoflanguage;butinlove poetrythefailureofwordsisnotaconcessionbutaclaim,afoundation ratherthanavanishingpoint.Consider,forinstance,Sonnet54ofPhilip Sidney’ s AstrophilandStella (1591):
BecauseIbreathenotlovetoeveryone, Nordonotusesetcoloursfortowear, Nornourishspeciallocksofvowedhair, Norgiveeachspeechafullpointofagroan, Thecourtlynymphs,acquaintedwiththemoan Ofthem,whointheirlipslove’sstandardbear: “What,he?” saytheyofme, “nowIdareswear, Hecannotlove;no,no,lethimalone.”
Andthinksostill,soStellaknowmymind. ProfessindeedIdonotCupid’ sart; Butyoufairmaids,atlengththistrueshall find, Thathisrightbadgeisbutwornintheheart; Dumbswans,notchatteringpies,doloversprove; Theyloveindeed,whoquaketosaytheylove.28
26 Terdiman, “CanWeReadtheBookofLove?” 478.InthewordsofJeanneHeuving: “Throughoutdifferentepochs,poetshavetestifiedtothesynergisticrelationsbetween beinginloveandwritinglove.Whilebeinginloveleadstopoetrywriting,writinglove poetryintensifieslove,causingpoetstowritemorepoetry” (TheTransmutationofLove,1; seealsopp.36–51,wherethesesynergisticrelationsareexploredindepth).
27 Terdiman, “CanWeReadtheBookofLove?” 472,478.
28 AllquotationsfromSidneyinthischapterreferto TheOxfordAuthors:SirPhilip Sidney,ed.KatherineDuncan-Jones(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1989).
The finalline,whichmarksthemidpointofSidney’ssequenceof108 sonnets,involvesmultiplelevelsofparadox.29 Takenjustonitsown,the linepresentsanobviousconundrum:adeclarationoflovethatdeniesthe validityofsuchdeclarations.But,takenincontext,attheendofa Petrarchansonnet(andinthemiddleofafull-dressPetrarchansequence), Astrophil’saffirmationofaninnerfeelingthatdefiesdisplayisdoubly ironic,sincebySidney’stimethelovesonnetwasalreadythemost codified,mostconventional,andthusinasensemostpublicformof discourseimaginable.EvenSidney’swittyuseofconventionalformto rejectconventionisitselfarecognizableconvention.30 Manysonnetsuse thesameploy;indeed,thewholePetrarchantraditionisbasedonthe ironicjuxtapositionofpredeterminedstructureswithwhatareallegedto bespontaneouslyoverflowingfeelings.
YetPetrarchanloveisnotthereforefalseordisingenuous tothe contrary.Alllovespeechisconventional,becauselanguageitselfisconventional.Ifaloverweretouse “neverbeforeinthehistoryoftheworld” languageinanattempttoexpresstheuniquenessofhisorherfeeling,the resultwouldbegibberish.Theloverhasnochoicebuttouseapublic mediumforprivateends.31 ThePetrarchanresponsetothisdilemmaisto emphasizethelimitationsoflanguageratherthantryingtoignoreordeny them.Sidney,forinstance,foregroundstheinescapabilityofconventionat everyturn.Hissonnetpresentsastarkdichotomy theoctavedescribing loveasacodifiedpublicdemonstration,thesestetloveasanunspoken privateexperience onlytorevealtheoppositiontobeunsustainable.The linemarkingtheturnbetweenthetwopartsisparadigmatic: “Andthinkso still,soStellaknowmymind.” The firstclausedismissesthe “courtly nymphs” oftheoctave,withtheirfaithinsuperficialrhetoric,whilethe secondintroducesStella,withherapparentlyunmediatedaccesstothe speaker’sinnerthoughts.Yetthelineitselfmakesuseofthehighlyconventionalrhetorical figureofchiasmus(thinksostill soStellaknow),witha
29 Notethatitisnotthemiddlelineofthevolumeasawholebutonlyofthesonnets, since AstrophilandStella,likePetrarch’ s Canzoniere,alsoincludesanumberofotherpoems ofvaryinglength.
30 “ThereisnothingmorequintessentiallyPetrarchanthananattempttogobeyond Petrarchism” (ReedWayDasenbrock, ImitatingtheItalians:Wyatt,Spenser,Synge,Pound, Joyce (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1991),17).FormoreonSidney’suseof Petrarchanconvention,includingtheconventionalclaimofexpressivefailure,seeHeather Dubrow, EchoesofDesire:EnglishPetrarchismanditsCounterdiscourses (Ithaca,NY:Cornell UniversityPress,1995),99–119.
31 Onthe “competingdemandsofintimacyandaudience” inlovepoetry,seeChristopherMartin, PolicyinLove:LyricandPublicinOvid,Petrarch,andShakesepeare (Pittsburgh:DuquesneUniversityPress,1994),whichconsiders “thepoet’sdoublenecessityfor acceptanceandseparation,publicrecognitionandprivacy” (pp.5,7).
phoneticreduplicationatitscenterthatblurstheverydistinctionitistrying todraw.Moreover,thesestetcontinuestoaddress,notStella,butthesame publicof “fairmaids” asbefore.And,whiletrueloveisnowsaidtobe located “intheheart” ratherthan “in[the]lips,” itisstill “ worn ” asan outward “badge,” justascourtlyloversaresaidto “bear” itasa “standard.”
ButSidney’slinesareallthemoremovingfortheirconsciousselfcontradictions.Inthe firstplace,theirinsistentuseoftraditionaltropes paradoxicallyproducesasenseofardor.Therhetoricpresentsanintensifiedversionofthebasicloveparadox: Language (thesonnetimplies) can onlyproduceclichéslikethese,becauseitisnecessarilybasedoncommon understanding;myloveisunlikeanyother;IknowthereforethatIcannot expressitrightly andyetIcannothelptrying.Theeffectisoneofbothselfawarenessandcompulsion.Atthesametime,byforegroundinglinguistic andliteraryconventions,Sidneyisabletoforegroundaswellhisoriginal useofordeparturefromthoseconventions.Thisprincipleunderliesall poetrytosomeextent,buttheeffectismaximizedinaworkso filledwith conventionalforms.Thustheturninline9maybeironicallycountereffective,aswejustnoted,becauseitmakesuseofachiasmus(“thinksostill, soStellaknow”)toabjurerhetoricaldisplay.Butitisalsohighlyeffective, becausetheinexactmatchbetweenthetwoouterelementsofthisparticular chiasmushighlightsthecrucialdifferencebetweenwhatothersmay “think” andwhatStellamust “know.” Thisisaminorexample,butitnevertheless suggeststhegreatappealofpoetryasamediumforlove.Poetryismore readythanotherformsoflanguagebothtoacknowledgeitsindebtednessto commonformsandtodrawattentiontoeventhemostminutevariations. Thelovercanthusgranttheinsuperableoppositionbetweenloveand languageand,inpart,supersedeit.
NotalllovepoemsarePetrarchansonnetsorrelysoheavilyontheselfconscioususeofconvention.Buttheyallentailthesameinherentirony, whichgivesrisetothemanyparadoxesdescribedinthefollowingpages. Loveisaprivate,inwardexperience,yetwithanirrepressiblecentrifugal tendency;itisaformofself-exposurethatneverthelessresistsexpression. Inpoetry,especiallylyricpoetry ashared,publicmode,butwithabent towardsingularityandsilence love findsits fittestform.
