Auden: One Circumlocution

[Marius Hancu]

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

[John O'Flaherty]

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"
>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?:-)

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".

--
John

[Marius Hancu]

On Jul 21, 3:29 pm, John O'Flaherty <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote:

> >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 assume "to-do" to mean "bustle, commotion." Possible?
>
> I would think it might mean everything that is happening.

> >Now, I am sighing at

> >"has its being as its own to be"
>

> 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".

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

[Don Phillipson]

"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
news:464c659mjk9nkfq5o...@4ax.com...

> >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?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[CDB]

Marius Hancu wrote:

> ---
> 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 agree; considering the rest of the poem, the physical universe.

>
> 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).

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"
> 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?:-)

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.

[John O'Flaherty]

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?
--
John

[John O'Flaherty]

I think, just unchanging, and as you say, independent of everything
that does change.

>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?"

It's getting to be really unusual language there, but I think you're
right.
--
John

[Marius Hancu]

On Jul 23, 3:19 pm, John O'Flaherty <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote:

>
> >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?"
>
> 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