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.