“In spite of the Deconstructionists who say that communication is not really possible, we most of us manage to honor stop signs, and we all honor the dollar sign, whether or not we are willing to admit it.”
In 1995, R.L. Barth published
The Golden Calf: Poems of Money, edited by the poet Turner Cassity and
Mary Ellen Templeton, a fellow librarian of Cassity’s in the Robert W. Woodruff
Library at Emory University in Atlanta. The subject is a rare one among poets –
so crass, after all, and so bourgeois. Contrast that absence with the ubiquity
of the quest for wealth in the novels of the nineteenth century, from Balzac to
Henry James and beyond. Even crime novels, whether pulpy or sophisticated, are frequently
driven by the desire for loot. The editors have found moolah poems by
thirty-three American and English poets writing between the sixteenth and
twentieth centuries, without including Ezra Pound’s crackpot ravings in the Cantos.
The statement at the top
is drawn from Cassity’s introduction. As ever, his tone is arch, erudite, almost
campy and very amusing. “[W]hile it has been easy to find poems about begging,
borrowing, and stealing, as well as gambling and privateering,” he writes, “it
has been very difficult to find poems about simply earning or making money.”
Many of us spend half our
lives earning money, and yet few poets show much interest in the subject. “Human
envy being what it is,” Cassity writes, “Erato and Mammon will probably never lie
down together in any degree of comfort, but no topics as central as avarice and
ambition can fail to engage a really serious writer, as the Renaissance, the 17th,
and the 18th centuries were well aware.” Several of the poets and
poems in C&T’s anthology are new to this reader. Take “Worldly Wealth” by the
Welsh poet Rowland Watkyns (1616?-64), with the subtitle “Natura paucis
contenta” (“Nature is satisfied with little”):
“Wealth unto every man, I
see,
Is like the bark unto the
tree:
Take from the tree the
bark away,
The naked tree will soon
decay.
Lord, make me not too
rich. Nor make me poor,
To wait at rich mens’
tables, or their door.”
Given that money is often
a pretext for comedy, some of the collected poems qualify as light verse. Take
Ebenezer Elliott’s (1781-1849) “On Communists,” written while Karl Marx, who
never held down a regular job and lived off the largesse of Friedrich Engels,
was still alive:
“What is a Communist? One
who has yearnings
For equal division of
unequal earnings;
Idler or bungler, or both,
he is willing
To fork out his penny and
pocket your shilling.”
Here you’ll find well-known
names too: George Herbert, Jonathan Swift, Herman Melville, Rudyard Kipling and
E.A. Robinson. Here is another poem by yet another non-job-holder, though not a
sponger like Marx, Emily Dickinson:
“Because ’twas Riches I
could own,
Myself had earned it --
Me,
I knew the Dollars by
their names --
It feels like Poverty
“An Earldom out of sight
to hold,
An Income in the Air,
Possession -- has a
sweeter chink
Unto a Miser's Ear.”
Cassity provides an “Afterword,”
his poem “A Dance Part Way Around the Veau d’Or, or, Rich Within the Dreams of Avarice.” It is collected in Hurricane
Lamp (1986) and The Destructive Element: New and Selected Poems
(1998).
2 comments:
In order to tell us that communication is not really possible, the Deconstructionists have to use the very language that they claim cannot be used to create communication. No wonder most of those guys are dead.
It seems to me that one can hardly write a novel without somehow mentioning the characters' wealth, even if that means their lack of it, and that this didn't begin (Tom Jones) or end (Buddenbrooks, Ulysses with the 19th Century. Genre novels--post-apocalyptic, war novels (some)--might do without it, perhaps because an apocalypse or military conditions will have reduced everyone to relative equality of means.
Post a Comment