 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Auden: One Circumlocution
Hello: --- One Circumlocution by W.H. Auden Sometimes we see astonishingly clearly The out-there-now we are already in; Now that is not what we are here-for really. All its to-do is bound to re-occur, Is nothing therefore that we need to say; How then to make its compromise refer To what could not be otherwise instead And has its being as its own to be, The once-for-all that is not seen nor said? [...] p. 475 ---- I think that "out-there-now" is the universe/the world as around us. I am surprised that: "what we are here-for" is not "what-we-are-here-for" I mean if one starts to put hyphens, why not cover the whole expression? This seems to be our unique/individual purpose (my reading). I assume "to-do" to mean "bustle, commotion." Possible? The "once-for-all" seems to be related by the commentators to the Christian concept for the eternity in the moment, something borrowed from other thinkers. Now, I am sighing at "has its being as its own to be" How would you read it, in general and in this particular context? I look at it as: "has its essence to own/control and to live through it" however, I'm not sure if that's accurate at all, and even so, what it would mean?:-) -- Thanks. Marius Hancu >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >I mean if one starts to put hyphens, why not cover the whole >expression? >This seems to be our unique/individual purpose (my reading). Maybe, or maybe it's just not his focus in writing the poem. >I assume "to-do" to mean "bustle, commotion." Possible? I would think it might mean everything that is happening. >The "once-for-all" seems to be related by the commentators to the >Christian concept for the eternity in the moment, something borrowed >from other thinkers. It seems awfully parochial to identify that concept as "Christian", even if the poet himself did so. >Now, I am sighing at >"has its being as its own to be" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >however, I'm not sure if that's accurate at all, and even so, what it >would mean?:-) I read it as Has its being as its own [to be] a tautology - has its existence as itself. I'm surprise that there's not a hyphen in "to-be", the way they're sprinkled else-where, but I still think it's meant to be contrasted to the foregoing "to-do".  SignatureJohn > >The "once-for-all" seems to be related by the commentators to the > >Christian concept for the eternity in the moment, something borrowed > >from other thinkers. > > It seems awfully parochial to identify that concept as "Christian", > even if the poet himself did so. This prompts the question: when either a poet or commentators identify a concept as Christian, what other circumstances than the "parochial" are available to illuminate it? SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> >The "once-for-all" seems to be related by the commentators to the >> >Christian concept for the eternity in the moment, something borrowed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >identify a concept as Christian, what other circumstances than the >"parochial" are available to illuminate it? I'm not sure I understand the question - do you mean, what other words could be used to convey my meaning? I intended meaning 3 from AHD: narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial. If you mean that you don't think the identification is parochial, then I'll explain why I think it is so: "Eternity in the moment" is a very general sort of concept, based on the existence of time, and human perception of it in a paradoxical way. Why would it be identified with one particular religion, rather than any or all of them, or outside of a religious context entirely? SignatureJohn > >Sometimes we see astonishingly clearly > >The out-there-now we are already in; [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I would think it might mean everything that is happening. > >Now, I am sighing at > >"has its being as its own to be" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not a hyphen in "to-be", the way they're sprinkled else-where, but I > still think it's meant to be contrasted to the foregoing "to-do". Would this mean "it's self-consistent" with no interference with the "to-do" around us? Perhaps. How about, later in the same poem: ---- [the power of the poet] Tell for the power how to thunderclaps The graves flew open, the rivers ran up-hill; Such stage importance is at most perhaps. --- "is at most perhaps." could this mean "is at best possible?" Thanks. Marius Hancu >> >Sometimes we see astonishingly clearly >> >The out-there-now we are already in; [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >"to-do" around us? >Perhaps. I think, just unchanging, and as you say, independent of everything that does change. >How about, later in the same poem: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >could this mean >"is at best possible?" It's getting to be really unusual language there, but I think you're right. SignatureJohn > >How about, later in the same poem: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's getting to be really unusual language there, but I think you're > right. Well, at least we have some kind of agreement:-) Thanks. Marius Hancu > --- > One Circumlocution [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I think that "out-there-now" is the universe/the world as around us. I agree; considering the rest of the poem, the physical universe. > I am surprised that: > "what we are here-for" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expression? > This seems to be our unique/individual purpose (my reading). Maybe. There's also the literal reading: we are not here to see the physical universe clearly, because its "to-do" need not be spoken of (by poets), since it will reoccur. > I assume "to-do" to mean "bustle, commotion." Possible? Yes, probably all the necessities of the out-there-now. > The "once-for-all" seems to be related by the commentators to the > Christian concept for the eternity in the moment, something borrowed > from other thinkers. God (in the non-anthropomorphic sense) immanent in the universe? > Now, I am sighing at > "has its being as its own to be" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > however, I'm not sure if that's accurate at all, and even so, what > it would mean?:-) Maybe "has its existence as its reason for existing (in contrast with us, who have something to do that we are here-for, even if we have heard only what that is not). I like John's point contrasting "to be" with "to-do", and I think "to be" is also an answer to Hamlet's question. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.