Recently I noticed that Márton Koppány had made a favorable comment about my “Tribute to the Arts & Humanities.” It came at a good time for me, because I had great doubts about the poem. On the one hand, parts of it –the divisor and the quotient—seem to me stupendously good. Too good, almost, because I’d hate for them to be wasted on a poem that had any substantial flaws. My remainder is a safe one, trying for nothing special, so not in danger of screwing up the poem.
I was bothered quite a while by the dividend, though: “the bliss-blessédest portions of/ humankind’s long journey upward.” A minor problem for me was my giving in to political correctness by using “humankind” instead of “mankind,” a word that sounds better to me, and as far as I’m concerned is more correct. Actually, the best word for the context would be simply “man.” One syllable. That there are those who would feel excluded by my use of that word would not bother me. Why should I want people like that on my side? The problem, though, is that “man” is contaminated—for it now carries connotations even for those sane about its participation in the generic “he” that deflect one out of full appreciation of the poem as a whole, or would be in danger of doing that.
A larger problem with the passage was its describing the arts & humanities (which I hope is clearly what it speaks of) as “the bliss-blessédest (yeeks, I see that I had the accent mark in the wrong place!) portions” of human life. Perhaps “bliss-blessédest” will seem too grandiloquent (it did, for me, for a while), but—hey—it’s a poem. What finally made me abandon the passage, though, was the assertion that the arts & humanities were more blessed by bliss than any other human undertaking, which wasn’t fair to basketball—or, from some points of view, science. I argued to myself that science was equal to the arts & humanities, but due to its brilliance-blessédness, not its bliss-blessédness. Still, it finally made most sense to me to avoid arguments about which portions of life really produce the most bliss (even if I were the only one who’d ever bring one up). So: I now have “the bliss-blesséd principalities/ the muses rule.”
I’ve left my sub-dividend product alone although I feel many will find it hypergushful. “More lovely than the fairest morning sunlight” seems blamelessly hyperbolic to me, but “more holy . . . than the fairest morning sunlight?” Well, it’s sincere: using “deserving reverence” as my definition of “holy,” I can’t think of anything more holy than the affirmations our pursuit of beauty can lead to—although morning sunlight’s way of saying “life is good” comes close.
I believe that ultimately the universe is holy—a kind of over-soul—and essentially benevolent albeit helplessly so. In other words, I don’t hold it responsible for the existence of pain—and am grateful how low a percentage of existence is marred by it.
.








