93. Wall, Imprint of Gender, 50. She too observes that the reader, like the lady, holds the book. As noted above, however, I take issue with her observation that the lady primarily serves to figure coterie exchange.
94. I quote The Works of Michael Drayton, ed. J. William Hebel, Bernard H. Newdigate, Kathleen Tillotson, 5 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1931–1941).
95. Devotional poetry of the period does, of course, assume many other forms as well. Some texts represent a generalized speaker participating in communal devotion or marking an event widely celebrated by others; such as Jonson’s “Hymne on the Nativitie of my Saviour”; others substitute for a single voice a dialogue, a chorus, or both, such as Marvell’s “Dialogue Between the Resolved Soul, and Created Pleasure.”
96. For a useful summary of the debate about Donne’s poem and the case that the speaker’s role is priestly, see Theresa M. DiPasquale, Literature and Sacrament: The Sacred and the Secular in John Donne (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1999), 90–96.
97. Schoenfeldt, Prayer and Power, 104–110.
98. This interplay is a central argument throughout Bell, Elizabethan Women; although she sometimes posits a closer connection between diegetic and nondiegetic readers than I would, her study offers valuable evidence of the social interactions I, too, associate with the audiences of early modern lyric.
99. Gémino Abad, A Formal Approach to Lyric Poetry, 73–93; as I indicate elsewhere, although its reliance on the methods of categorization of the Chicago School sometimes limits the value of this study, in other passages its capacious approach to lyric is a useful corrective.
100. See, e.g., Terry G. Sherwood, Herbert’s Prayerful Art (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), 67–69; Strier, Love Known, 127–133.
101. Targoff, Common Prayer, esp. Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2.
102. The issue of penitence is, of course, complicated by how we read the final two lines; it is an issue tangential to my argument here but discussed acutely in, e.g., Helen Vendler, The Poetry of George Herbert (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 132. Vendler’s distinctions on the same page among what she terms judgmental, narrative, and spoken times also support the distinction for which I am arguing.
103. John Carey, John Donne: Life, Mind and Art (London: Faber and Faber, 1981), 51; John Donne, The Divine Poems, ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), xxvi; this edition is cited whenever I quote Donne’s religious poetry.
104. The shift in these pronouns is also discussed in Anthony Low, Love’s Architecture: Devotional Modes in Seventeenth-Century English Poetry (New York: New York University Press, 1978), 53–54.
105. On the amalgamation of personal and more general concerns here, see esp. A. B. Chambers, Transfigured Rites in Seventeenth-Century English Poetry (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992), 10–11.
106. Donne, Letters, 32–33.
107. Donne, Divine Poems, xxviii.
108. Chambers, Transfigured Rites, 5–11. Similarly, a central argument throughout Part II of R. V. Young’s Doctrine and Devotion in Seventeenth-Century Poetry: Studies in Donne, Herbert, Crashaw, and Vaughan (Woodbridge, England: D. S. Brewer, 2000) is that private devotion and public worship are linked in many ways. The relationship between meditative poems and public worship in Herbert’s poetry is analyzed in McColley, Poetry and Music, esp. 149–153.
109. Paul Alpers, What Is Pastoral? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 80–81.
110. Paul Alpers, “Pastoral and the Domain of Lyric in Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender,” Representations, no. 12 (Fall 1985), 94–95.
111. I cite The Poems of Aemilia Lanyer: “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum,” ed. Susanne Woods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Woods’s decision to gloss the pronoun in 207 as “the Countess of Cumberland’s” (138), though an understandable response to the expository needs of a reader, risks directing attention away from the implications of the confusion.
112. Compare William Waters’s acute demonstrations throughout Poetry’s Touch of how direction of address in lyrics relates to the thematization of address.
113. See, e.g., Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), Chapter 7; Paul de Man, “Lyrical Voice in Contemporary Theory: Riffaterre and Jauss,” in Lyric Poetry, ed. Hošek and Parker.
114. Steven Winspur, “The Pragmatic Force of Lyric,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 42 (1994), 143; also see two essays by Ralph W. Rader, “The Dramatic Monologue and Related Lyric Forms,” Critical Inquiry 3 (1976), 131–151; “Notes on Some Structural Varieties and Variations in Dramatic ‘I’ Poems and Their Theoretical Implications,” Victorian Poetry 22 (1984), 103–104.
115. Vendler, Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 2, 18.
116. On recent discoveries about mirror neurons, see “Cells That Read Minds,” New York Times, first page of Science Times, national edition, January 10, 2006.
117. Marotti, Manuscript.
118. Bell, Elizabethan Women. Wendy Wall (Imprint of Gender, esp. 38–50) also acutely traces interactions with the mistress, who, she argues, tropes the active reader; unlike Bell, however, Wall positions these exchanges as counters for homosocial coterie relationships.
119. David Schalkwyk, Speech and Performance.
120. Lynne Magnusson, Shakespeare and Social Dialogue: Dramatic Language and Elizabethan Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
121. Andrew Welsh, Roots of Lyric: Primitive Poetry and Modern Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), Chapter 7; Richard Schechner, “Magnitudes of Performance” in By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual, ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 38–41.
122. Mark W. Booth, The Experience of Songs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), esp. 14–17; yet Booth’s admission on page 17 that disapproval of the song interferes with that identification could also be adduced to support my point about the limits on identificatory voicing.
123. Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 219.
124. Stephen Owen, Mi-Lou: Poetry and the Labyrinth of Desire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 15.
125. Bell, Elizabethan Women, 59–60.
126. Roland Greene, Post-Petrarchism: Origins and Innovations of the Western Lyric Sequence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 5–14.
127. I thank Patricia Rosenmeyer for useful comments on this and many other issues connected to classical lyric.
128. Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 271.
129. Marshall Brown, “Negative Poetics: On Skepticism and the Lyric Voice,” Representations, no. 86 (Spring 2004), 120–140.
130. On fort-da, see esp. Chapter 2 of Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, cited here from The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. James Strachey et al., Vol. XVIII (London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1955).
131. Wall, Imprint of Gender, esp. 42–50. Wall also notes the effects of holding the book (46–47), though her analysis primarily stresses the power of the reader.
132. John Donne, The Elegies and The Songs and Sonnets, ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).
133. For a different but compatible analysis of Herrick’s responses to rebirth through nature, see Achsah Guibbory, The Map of Time: Seventeenth-Century English Literature and Ideas of Pattern in History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 152–159.
134. Throughout this chapter all citations are to The Poetical Works of Robert Herrick, ed. L. C. Martin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
135. Jonson’s titles are acutely discussed a number of times in Ferry, Title, though she primarily focuses on the self-assertion involved in his first-person titles (see esp. 46–49).
136. Collected Poems of Sir Thomas Wyatt, ed. Kenneth Muir a
nd Patricia Thomson (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1969).
137. William Shakespeare, Complete Sonnets and Poems, ed. Colin Burrow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 450.
138. Paul Alpers, “Learning from the New Criticism: The Example of Shakespeare’s Sonnets,” in Renaissance Literature and Its Formal Engagements, ed. Mark David Rasmussen (New York: Palgrave, 2002), 132.
139. Helen Vendler, Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 188, suggests that the poem implies two lawsuits, with the speaker as plaintiff in the first and as both defendant and plaintiff in the second; but it is at least as likely that the poem implies that positions change within the same legal action.
CHAPTER 3: THE CRAFT OF PYGMALION
1. Paul Celan, Collected Prose, trans. Rosemarie Waldrop (Riverdale-on-Hudson, NY: Sheep Meadow Press, 1986), 25–26.
2. William Waters, Poetry’s Touch: On Lyric Address (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 159–161.
3. On touch in lyric, see esp. Susan Stewart, Poetry and the Fate of the Senses (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), Chapter 4.
4. Throughout this chapter I cite John Donne, The Elegies and The Songs and Sonnets, ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).
5. In The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne: A History of the Plain and Eloquent Styles, 2nd ed. (1967; rpt., East Lansing, MI: Colleagues Press, 1990), 301, Douglas L. Peterson cites the poem as an instance of its author’s practice of presenting, then undercutting, fashionable attitudes; his approach is a valuable corrective to the still-widespread practice of adducing biographical explanations for changes and contradictions in Donne’s stance towards love.
6. John Carey, John Donne: Life, Mind and Art (London: Faber and Faber, 1981), 180.
7. Also telling is the way “sigh” (19) relocates what had seemed to be anti-Petrarchism on the borders of Petrarchism, demonstrating the contiguity of those movements.
8. Nor, for that matter, should we see as normative the skeptical distancing that Marshall Brown’s revisionist argument posits; his argument, though acute and powerful, is an overcorrection (“Negative Poetics: On Skepticism and the Lyric Voice,” Representations, no. 86 [Spring 2004], 120–140).
9. Jonathan Bate, Shakespeare and Ovid (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 200.
10. Deixis is discussed in ways germane to this chapter at several points in Jane Hedley’s Power in Verse: Metaphor and Metonymy in the Renaissance Lyric (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988); see esp. 31–34.
11. The Poems of John Keats, ed. Jack Stillinger (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978).
12. Lawrence Lipking, The Life of the Poet: Beginning and Ending Poetic Careers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 181.
13. For fine readings of the poem which include these and other debates, see Timothy Bahti, Ends of the Lyric: Direction and Consequence in Western Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 89–94; Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 153–154; Lipking, Life of the Poet, 180–184.
14. Brooke Hopkins, “Keats and the Uncanny: ‘This living hand,’” Kenyon Review 11 (1989), 28–40. On this response, cf. Susan J. Wolfson, The Questioning Presence: Wordsworth, Keats, and the Interrogative Mode in Romantic Poetry (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), 368.
15. On the range of paratexts, see Gérard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Lewin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
16. I cite Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Books VII–IX, 4 vols., trans. H. E. Butler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–1924), Vol. 3 (1921), VIII.iii.61–62. Future references appear in my text. For a useful overview of the concept of energia and Sidney’s use of it, see Neil L. Rudenstine, Sidney’s Poetic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), Chapter 10.
17. George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, ed. Baxter Hathaway (1906; rpt., Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1970), 155.
18. Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry, ed. Geoffrey Shepherd (London: Nelson, 1965), 137.
19. OED, s.v. “betray.”
20. See, e.g., Emil Staiger, Basic Concepts of Poetics, trans. Janette C. Hudson and Luanne T. Frank, ed. Marianne Burkhard and Luanne T. Frank (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), esp. 68. In apparent reaction against models of Erlebnis, Käte Hamburger insists on the immediacy of this form—but attributes it to her contention that lyric, unlike the other two modes, is experienced as a direct statement made by a real subject, not as fictive (The Logic of Literature, rev. ed., trans. Marilynn J. Rose [Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1973], 271).
21. Culler, Pursuit of Signs, 149.
22. On deixis, see Stewart, Poetry and the Senses, esp. 154–156, 221–222; Roland Greene, Post-Petrarchism: Origins and Innovations of the Western Lyric Sequence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), esp. Chapter 1.
23. Sidney, Apology for Poetry, 100.
24. I cite The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed. Roger Ingpen and Walter E. Peck, Vol. 7 (New York: Gordian Press, 1965), 117, 136.
25. For one of the most influential statements of this position, see Paul de Man, “Lyrical Voice in Contemporary Theory: Riffaterre and Jauss,” in Lyric Poetry: Beyond New Criticism, ed. Chaviva Hošek and Patricia Parker (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). Also cf. Karen Mills-Courts’s deconstructionist analysis of the interplay between incarnation and representation in poetry (Poetry as Epitaph: Representation and Poetic Language [Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990]).
26. W. R. Johnson, The Idea of Lyric: Lyric Modes in Ancient and Modern Poetry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 31.
27. See, e.g., Sharon Cameron, Lyric Time: Dickinson and the Limits of Genre (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).
28. See esp. Anne Ferry, The Title to the Poem (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996); William W. E. Slights, Managing Readers: Printed Marginalia in English Renaissance Books (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001); Evelyn B. Tribble, Margins and Marginality: The Printed Page in Early Modern England (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993).
29. Compare Culler’s observation that “This living hand, now warm and capable” acknowledges the fictiveness of its own claims; his use of the term “mystification” for its workings is, however, revealing (Pursuit of Signs, 154).
30. Stewart, Poetry and the Senses, 309.
31. Allen Grossman with Mark Halliday, The Sighted Singer: Two Works on Poetry for Readers and Writers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), ix.
32. Theodor W. Adorno, “Lyric Poetry and Society,” Telos 20 (1974), 56–71.
33. Mary Thomas Crane, “What Was Performance?” Criticism 43 (2001), 43.
34. Joel C. Kuipers, Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 2.
35. [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium, trans. Harry Caplan (London and Cambridge: William Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1954), 405.
36. George Gascoigne, A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, ed. G. W. Pigman III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 216. Subsequent references to this volume appear within my text.
37. Ferry, Title, esp. 11–19.
38. On Renaissance practices of framing, see Rayna Kalas’s unpublished doctoral dissertation, “Frames, Glass, and the Technology of Poetic Invention” and an essay by the same author, “The Language of Framing,” Shakespeare Studies 28 (2000), 240–247. These arguments appear in revised form in Kalas’s book, Frame, Glass, Verse: The Technology of Poetic Invention in the English Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007).
39. For this reading of the opening psalms, see James Limburg, “Psalms,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman et al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), Vol. 5, 524. Also compare John Hollander’
s related but different point that emblem books prefigure titles (Vision and Resonance: Two Senses of Poetic Form, 2nd ed. [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975], 221–222).
40. On the reflexiveness of the psalms, cf. Harold Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 118–120.
41. For a useful discussion of this and related beliefs, see A[lex] B. Chambers, “‘Good-friday, 1613. Riding Westward’: Looking Back,” John Donne Journal 6 (1987), 193–194.
42. On this type of framing and its implications, see Rayna Kalas’s. “Frames.”
43. Augustine, St. Augustine on the Psalms, trans. and ed. Dame Scholastica Hebgin and Dame Felicitas Corrigan, Vol 1 (London and Westminster, MD: Longmans, Green, and The Newman Press, 1960), 207. Subsequent page references appear in parentheses in my text.
44. See Louis Martz’s influential study of the Ignatian meditative tradition, The Poetry of Meditation: A Study in English Religious Literature of the Seventeenth Century, rev. ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). Also see A. D. Cousins, The Catholic Religious Poets from Southwell to Crashaw: A Critical History (London: Sheed and Ward, 1991); the issue of immediacy is discussed on 32.
45. Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), Chapter 5.
46. Joseph Hall, The Arte of Divine Meditation (London, 1605), 3.
47. I am indebted to Alexandra Block for many useful insights into the eucharistic debates.
48. Debora Kuller Shuger, Habits of Thought in the English Renaissance: Religion, Politics, and the Dominant Culture (1990; rpt., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), esp. 90.
49. Jonathan Culler, “Apostrophe Revisited,” paper delivered at the 2001 Modern Language Association convention in New Orleans. I am grateful to the author for making his work available to me prior to publication.
The Challenges of Orpheus Page 39
