I'd like to respond to the two previous posts on the Spender autograph. First, I agree with Anjona on her observation that the layout and structure of the autograph suggests that before page 41, Spender intended for his autograph to be read by others, perhaps as a gift or as a collection of poems to share. I noticed that he discontinues the text in prose on the left hand pages after "The Confession of the Monk Struck Blind by Lightning." Page 42 has no introduction for "Song"; likewise, the subsequent poems do not have introductions. So it does seem like Spender's intention for the use and audience for his autograph shifts at this point.
It is also interesting to note that the texts in prose are written in the third person--they are narrative accounts that provide some kind of context for the poem on the opposite page. Presumably, the unnamed man who arrives in the town is the author of these poems, and that man is Spender himself. But why write them in the third person? Such narration in the prose passages creates a story-like quality when reading the first few poems, but the last bit of prose on page 22 provides no story or observations by the unnamed man and dryly notes the dates on which the verses were written. Spender's disinterest in continuing the narration of the unnamed man and the shift to a passing comment on dates further suggests Spender's change in mind as to the use of this autograph (from something to share to a private journal or collection of drafts).
Like Deborra, I transcribed "Consolation of Dust"-- though with a few differences which I will point out at the end.
The Consolation of Dust
1
If I have followed thee across the seas,
And kissed the mountains, thy rich-swelling breast,
And loved thy hair the clouds, thy breath, the breeze
Thy body the dark East, thy soul the West;
2
If in the ragged Eden of my mind,
Thy golden light has shattered all the lust;
If in a woman, in a book, a friend,
I have pursued thee through the ash and dust
3
Most vivid, O most brilliant, most divine,
Love, virtue, light, and art, and all my toil,
Oh earth of beauty, wilt thou then be mine
And lift me from thyself and from thy soil?
4
…Then I will die thy lover, cruel god!;
But in thy dazed and self-reflective ease,
Thou still must hear a Dust beneath thy sod
Living thy passionless eternities.
July 23
71
First, a few notes:
-In stanza 3, second line, "Love, virtue," replaces the crossed out "Women, and"; in the third line, "earth of" replaces the crossed out "changing"
-In stanza 4, first line, "Then" replaces the crossed out "No"; in the second line "self-reflective ease" replaces "self-reflected love"
My transcription differs from Deborra's in a few ways. I noticed that the poem is actually on page 71, not page 77. It does look like "77," but the previous poem is on page 69 and the next on 73. In stanza 1, second line, I have "rich-swelling" as hyphenated, and in the third line, I have a comma after "breath." In stanza two, last line, I read "ash and dust" not "dark and dust." In stanza 3, last line, I have a question mark after "soil." In stanza 4, first line, I have an ellipse preceding "Then." In the third line of the same stanza, I have "Dust" not "dust"--it looks like it is capitalized in the autograph.
Also, I also want to note that in the last stanza, third line, the last word is difficult to read-- at first, I thought it read "sad," but that doesn't make sense given the context of the line since it seems like a noun and not an adjective should go there. Deborra's "sod" seems correct, and works much better than "sad"!
It is also interesting to note that the texts in prose are written in the third person--they are narrative accounts that provide some kind of context for the poem on the opposite page. Presumably, the unnamed man who arrives in the town is the author of these poems, and that man is Spender himself. But why write them in the third person? Such narration in the prose passages creates a story-like quality when reading the first few poems, but the last bit of prose on page 22 provides no story or observations by the unnamed man and dryly notes the dates on which the verses were written. Spender's disinterest in continuing the narration of the unnamed man and the shift to a passing comment on dates further suggests Spender's change in mind as to the use of this autograph (from something to share to a private journal or collection of drafts).
Like Deborra, I transcribed "Consolation of Dust"-- though with a few differences which I will point out at the end.
The Consolation of Dust
1
If I have followed thee across the seas,
And kissed the mountains, thy rich-swelling breast,
And loved thy hair the clouds, thy breath, the breeze
Thy body the dark East, thy soul the West;
2
If in the ragged Eden of my mind,
Thy golden light has shattered all the lust;
If in a woman, in a book, a friend,
I have pursued thee through the ash and dust
3
Most vivid, O most brilliant, most divine,
Love, virtue, light, and art, and all my toil,
Oh earth of beauty, wilt thou then be mine
And lift me from thyself and from thy soil?
4
…Then I will die thy lover, cruel god!;
But in thy dazed and self-reflective ease,
Thou still must hear a Dust beneath thy sod
Living thy passionless eternities.
July 23
71
First, a few notes:
-In stanza 3, second line, "Love, virtue," replaces the crossed out "Women, and"; in the third line, "earth of" replaces the crossed out "changing"
-In stanza 4, first line, "Then" replaces the crossed out "No"; in the second line "self-reflective ease" replaces "self-reflected love"
My transcription differs from Deborra's in a few ways. I noticed that the poem is actually on page 71, not page 77. It does look like "77," but the previous poem is on page 69 and the next on 73. In stanza 1, second line, I have "rich-swelling" as hyphenated, and in the third line, I have a comma after "breath." In stanza two, last line, I read "ash and dust" not "dark and dust." In stanza 3, last line, I have a question mark after "soil." In stanza 4, first line, I have an ellipse preceding "Then." In the third line of the same stanza, I have "Dust" not "dust"--it looks like it is capitalized in the autograph.
Also, I also want to note that in the last stanza, third line, the last word is difficult to read-- at first, I thought it read "sad," but that doesn't make sense given the context of the line since it seems like a noun and not an adjective should go there. Deborra's "sod" seems correct, and works much better than "sad"!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI noticed my error about the page number when I looked at the manuscript this afternoon and changed it just now. Good work noticing all of our differences. I will look again and see if I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteVery good description of the autograph, Bernadette. I agree with everything, except the reading of "ash" for "dark" (I do think there's a notable vertical line that establishes the "d"). The comment on p. 22 doesn't seem aligned with the othe prose insertions; it really does mark a new beginning, as does the poem "The Confession of the Monk.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the photocopy we have here to see what I think about our differences in the transcriptions. I do see a tiny dot that makes "rich-swelling" hyphenated. I did not see that before. Mine does have a comma after breath as does yours. That question mark after soil is interesting. I thought that there were just stray marks there. They don't look exactly like a question mark; and yet, I think that you are right. I missed the ellipse, but it is there. I think that "dust" in the last stanza has been corrected to be a little "d," if you look closely, you can see both. But since dust is not capitalized elsewhere in the poem, wouldn't it make more sense to keep consistent?
ReplyDelete