Peter O'Leary,
Depth Theology.
University of Georgia Press: Athens, 2006.
1.
Visiting
her religion's historical center, the
distinguished Jewish novelist, Tamar Yellin, wrote:
"Jerusalem lay
sleeping on the ashes of her seventeen destructions. Houses were
built upon
houses; ruins tottered on a foundation of ruins. Sometimes there
were earth-tremors
and the ruins collapsed down into each other like an ancient
honeycomb." (1)
From "the
miraculous birth of St. Ambrose with a swarm of bees around his
infant mouth, that the bee attendance portends the gift of
honeyed speech, a golden tongue, a promise of nourishing words,"(2) Perhaps
this is a good place to begin to consider a poet who
has taken the central nourishing myth of the West into his heart,
and to
reflect on it in a language whose tain can be seen in its face
as a "discontinuous
light, a mirror's
broken surface. Blood
of two mourning doves glazes
the cut plane. A history of breakage
is the history of the unconscious. (3)
Some poets write
on the edge of the mind's abyss, where they dream
of a center, a supernatural numinous force pulling them in.
Others slide down awake. In Depth
Theology, his second book of poems, Peter O'Leary writes: "We've
spent millennia chasing the outward world, hapless / experts
at exploring it. We need now to look inside." (3) The
wound that never seems to heal. The tear between who I
am and who I am not,
between "inside" and "outside," more
phenomenological than physical, bleeds
again.
A
former student of O'Leary said, "It was hard not to want
to know exactly what he knew."(4) For
that, you would have to
be not just a believing Catholic, but an enthusiastic
one, and perhaps have
a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School. However,
it is not so simple, as O'Leary
is a brilliant
scholar, adroit not only in theology and Church
history, but also of literary history and contemporary poetics,
and whose
spiritual breadth ranges from the Tibetan Buddhist Milarepa
to the Sufi Al-Hallaj.
To get a sense of
the complexity and convolutions of O'Leary's mind—folded
like the contortions of the frontal cortex—, here's
a quote from a recently published essay of his: "The peculiar
power of a truly apocalyptic poetry
is its
expression of
the vitality of a God all in all, beyond history but knowable
somehow in it,
who does
not yet
exist,
but who pulsates a profound,
irrefutable influence from an unforeseen future obliquely but
entirely recognized in an exegetical totalization of language."(5)
This erratic circumambulation
of the Ineffable makes me think once again of the Zen Master
who said, "Anything
I could say would miss the point."
What
would the Throne that held me clasp with, or utter?
Nothing. He's bodiless, voiceless. Same with the salamandrine
Cherub, fire-breather whose cry is more fumarole than
noise.(6)
Here
the poet approaches the environment with a vision of
a cherub as
speechless lava. Although he counsels looking
inward, which would mean letting go of the endless stream of
words and images that constantly flow through the mind; or perhaps
C.G. Jung's "active
imagination;" or,
Allen Ginsberg's "...calm breath, a silent breath, a slow
breath breathes outward from the nostrils"(7)—O'Leary's
poems continue to keep the mundane world in
view.
Cathedrals,
for Xavier, dreadful as dark forests.
Not for the organ roar of room but the habit of
waking in them accursed. The people in their
similitudes, the gurgle of phlegm in their throats.(8)
Dante entering "a
forest dark,"
Longfellow's translation. "The
Lord of Birds," O'Leary writes, "reads
plover prints like a young
poet
reading
the Cantos,"(9) Birds
flock throughout this book. But, for now, I'm wondering whether
he means Dante's Cantos or Pound's. Pound
because a young poet is more apt to read him than Dante. Which
brings up the question" How many young poets will
read O'Leary?
He
brings this up
himself in an essay on the poetry of Frank Samperi, "an
obscure, experimental American
poet of the twentieth century who wrote out of an explicitly
Roman Catholic
vision of the universe."(10) He
goes on to say that "Samperi mainly emulates Dante,
who looked through
the communal vision of a medieval Catholicism, out of
which his own vision emerged." He
questions who the audience could be for a poet
"who writes out
of the abstractive useless?," reminding me of
Thomas Merton's
thought: "The man who dares to be alone can come
to see that the 'emptiness' and 'uselessness' which the
collective mind fears and condemns are necessary conditions
for the encounter with truth."(11)
Although Merton was a monk,
as soon as he received permission, he took the hermit's
path.
"So which is it,
then?," O'Leary asks.
"Does the poet
immerse himself in spiritual language toward eventual 'reexamination
of
experience'
as that which substantiates the spiritual path in
poetry? Or does the poet fix his eye on the unfixable,
immutable, always-hidden God beyond the Ptolemaic universe he
imagines himself in? The point
is,
you can only do one or the other. You can’t do both."
(10)
O'Leary seems to
have written his long essay on Frank Samperi in order to
articulate, if not justify to himself, his writing religious poetry
in a world that is basically secular, by which I mean the community
of Western poets and critics. So it is almost predictable that
he would conclude the essay where he began, by asking himself
the question: "What
will make the new poem both thoroughly Catholic and completely
American,
reflecting the spiritual essence of both? Toward that unknown,
I turn my attention Thither."(10)
Or, as the late Robert Creeley liked to
say: "Onward!"
2.
In an informative
review of Depth Theology, Chris Glomski wrote that, "'The
Collected Poems of Sigmund Freud,' a poem
that appears in a section of the
book called Theopathic Anxieties, is
one of the central poems in the collection, and one
that links up to an important sense of the phrase 'depth
theology,' about which O’Leary offers this gloss
in his copious 'Notes and Acknowledgments' at
the back of the book:
'Eugen Bleuler,
the Swiss physician who was Carl Jung’s director
at the Burghölzli Mental Hospital, is generally
credited with coining Tiefenpsychologie —’depth
psychology’—for
describing a psychology of the unconscious. I take
depth theology, then, to be a religious knowledge
of
the unconscious.'"(12)
According to Archetypal
psychologist James Hillman,
"This move (by
Bleuler) shifted attention from the activity of taking things
apart to the
vision of seeing them in depth. The
new field was now on different ground,
one that was less physically scientific, because less oriented
toward
analytic reduction into parts, and more metaphysically philosophical,
because the reduction now aimed toward more profound understanding."(13)
In other words, psychotherapy
was no longer completely based on Freudian grounds, which clung
to a medical model, but now also took more metaphysically
oriented turn, even though
Jung, too, hoped for a nod from the scientific community. However,
what I see in O'Leary's work is not "aimed toward a more profound
understanding"
of the psyche. His immense erudition
and lexiconical fireworks seem to mainly take off from the temporal
lobes. Surely the human psyche is larger
than its "spiritual" emulations!
3.
The poem
I feel is most telling of O'Leary's path is titled, "Fear of
the Innermost Body within the Body That We Call the Heart," which
appears in the very center of the book. Does it strike
sparks; still better, shatter some holy
vessels?
It begins by
continuing the title with "is fear of God." If
I'm reading his intentions right,
and
I'm not a theologian, opposed to the Hebrew traction of fearing
Yahweh, "the inner thunder of earlier kings," While Christ, "the
innermost body," shouldn't
be feared but
embraced. In any case, from here, he enters a tunnel in which "lives
a / naked person, bent with disease & old age: corrupted rottenness,
worn-out
putrefaction of the thunderbird he exists, scaled
with mites & sores of lice. The little
fear that drives him.
As said above, birds,
and other metaphors of flight, appear throughout this book, from "headless
songbirds"
to "the hummingbird voice
box in its gluey linen." The woodpecker, with its attachment
to oak trees sacred to the Druids, among others, who rose in the
Neolithic to the status of a Thunderbird
that creates
storms with its massive wings, and carries messages between the
spirit
worlds, is prevalent in shamanic societies. For example, the Cowichan
People of British Columbia have a myth in which thunderbirds are
shapeshifters, morphing into human form by removing a mask and
blanket
of feathers. So that when the poem continues,
"This sickly thunderbird tended by a sickly keeper broods
/ over an egg," I see one being in two sticky forms.
Now inside the egg,
the fetus is "yolk & protein;" but after it's hatched, it will
"feed on worms & darkness." And, "It will learn
to
fly on cavernous sound waves amplified
through the tunnels, &—.
The poet stops.
Tired of "simpleton's allegory." Then, with a burst
of adrenaline he suddenly realizes what
he really wants to say. "Here it is: the tunnels are aortae;
the caves ventricles &
auricles;"
the heart is a little
bird, you are the old & sickly one.
The poem is the oracle. Thunder is the nerves, hormonal
alacrity & siege. God in me is an endocrine...
I am stunned
by the power of these words shot directly into the bloodstream
by a god who "has snared his most secret body in my central nervous
system
spread with the most perfect fear. Who
scatters the deer in the woods? Flushes woodcocks
from the hedges?"
It is Pan, who did
not die, as Plutarch misreported, but, as Hillman says, was
"repressed."
"Pan still
lives, and not merely in literary imagination. He lives in
the repressed which returns, in the psychopathologies of instincts
which assert themselves, as Roscher indicates, primarily
in the
nightmare and its associated erotic, demonic and panic qualities."(14)
Pan, O'Leary adds,
is "like a swarm of bees...like a tempest of allergens—pollens,
spores, molds—sifted from the leaves...Pan / is
God's aspect." While, to Hillman,
the "new
shepherd, Christ, with his new means of management" was followed
sheepishly, and because of this, "Nature no longer spoke
to us—or
we could no longer hear."(14)
O'Leary ends his
poem echoing an oracular Woody Woodpecker balancing on the Internet's
invisible wires: "That's all (folks).
Anxiety / in the information. Its news / is
God."
It's
a brilliant poem, and indeed generates sparks, but no fire
hot enough to burn away the hedges Christianity has
grown around itself. Instead, it's author leads us
downward, into a tunnel where we hear
echoes of our own voices, the same tunnel our civilization
has been stuck in for thousands of
years,
dreaming of seeing a Light at its end.