APPROPRIATING HOPKINS Fennell Jr., Francis L. Renascence ...

®
APPROPRIATING HOPKINS
Fennell Jr., Francis L.
Renascence; Summer2005, Vol. 57 Issue 4, p323-332, 10p
Marquette University Press

Francis L. Fennell, Jr.
APPROPRIATING HOPKINS
APPROPRIATING in the title of this article could of course have several
meanings, some less than creditable. Briefly, the intent here is to
refer to a process, in this case the process by which a reader —
sometimes but not always — absorbs, makes use of, takes over, what he
or she reads, so that afterwards the writer's words become part of the
general furniture of the reader's mind, part of his or her ways of looking
at, and of being in, the world.
Appropriation is one of the most theorized but least discussed aspects
of reading, perhaps because it seems so subjective and personal. Yet many
readers, especially general readers, would acknowledge it as the aspect
they most value and most want to be able to say something about. My
purpose in this article is to bring theory and general practice together. The
implied argument will be that bringing them together in the way I describe
suggests a whole realm of new possibilities for criticism — in this case, a
new way of reading Hopkins, and of reading him with both the intent and
the effect of bridging the now-almost-unimaginable gap between
academic discourse and the lived experience of the educated general
reader. So the plan here is twofold: first to summarize briefly some
important theorizing about appropriation; and then to discuss and
illustrate three of the many avenues to and dimensions of appropriation as
they apply to the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins.
APPROPRIATION is something that readers have always done and have
always been willing to articulate. For proof one simply needs to go
back to the well-known example of Augustine putting his fmger on a Bible
passage and finding his life transformed. There are countless other
examples through time of the power of written words to change lives.
Alberto Manguel's A History of Reading documents the many methods of
— and values assigned to — reading that have developed over time and
among different cultures. Yet in all times and cultures there is the
conviction that reading matters, that appropriation can be tested on the
pulse of experience.
In fact, to discuss appropriation in Hopkins, as this essay will do
shortly, is simply to carry on a practice with which the poet himself was
intimately familiar. In Hopkins's first letter to his mentor and fellow poet
Richard Watson Dixon, for example, he describes his earlier encounter
REN 57.4 (Summer 2005)
323

RENASCENCE
with Dixon's book of poetry entitled Christ's Company in the following
way:
I was curious to read it, which when I went to Oxford [as a
student] I did. At first I was surprised at it, then pleased, at last I
became so fond of it that I made it, so far as that could be, a part
of my own mind. (1)
Repeated readings until the words became "a part of my own mind,"
although only "so far as that could be": Hopkins, like many before and
after him, knew something about, and was willing to testify to, both the
power and the limitations of appropriation.
But formal theorizing about appropriation is a more recent
phenomenon, and at least in our day it might be said to begin with
Heidegger. (Of course Heidegger denied what he did was theorizing, so if
one prefers one can call it his "thinking about" appropriation.) In the essay
"The Way to Language" Heidegger makes the distinction between
speaking and what he calls "Saying." Saying is a form of showing, it is the
way language evidences its designs on us. Saying presumes — demands
— listeners:
We ... listen to language in this way, that we let it say its saying
to us. No matter in what way we may listen besides, whenever we
listen to something we are letting something be said to us, and all
perception and conception is already contained in that act. In our
speaking,... we [then] say again the Saying we have heard. (124)
In other words, we are not the same people after the Saying as we were
before. If we have listened or read carefully, botb our perception[s] and
conception[s] bave been changed. It is a kind of owning of what we have
read, an owning for wbicb Heidegger provides a name:
This owning ... we call Appropriation .... Appropriation, seen
as it is shown by saying, cannot be represented either as an
occurrence or a happening — it can only be experienced as the
abiding gift yielded by Saying. (127)
Ultimately, appropriation makes buman beings feel at bome in tbe
universe.
Heidegger goes on to argue in tbe essay "Words" tbat tbis
Appropriation or Saying manifests itself especially in poetry, wbicb
makes poetry the father of pbilosopby, or ratber of pbilosopbizing:
324

FENNELL
If we listen to the poem ... we then let the poet tell us, and let
ourselves be told together with him, what is worthy of the thinking
of a poetic being. To let ourselves be told what is worthy of
thinking means — to think. (155)
And in tum tbis reciprocal relationsbip between poetry and tbinking "aims
to call forth tbe nature of language," be says in an essay on Georg Trakl
(161). So complete is tbe claim wbicb Trakl's poetry bas on us tbat it
transcends historical circumstance, becoming a singing of poet's soul to
listener's/reader's soul so tbat botb can sing, in perfect harmony, of
mankind's destiny — "tbat is to say, [it] saves mankind (196)."
A more contemporary source of tbeorizing about appropriation is Paul
Ricoeur. For Ricoeur we are wbat be calls "bearers of and dwellers in a
world," and at tbe very limits of tbat world it is possible for tbere to be
some kind of superimposition of tbe world of tbe poet onto our world.
Wben we read, be says.
It affects our capacity to see what we overlook in our ordinary life.
It's Proust who says in Time Recovered, Time Regained that the
reader is the reader of himself when he reads a book. So, in fact, I
am taught by the work of art to read myself in terms of the work
of art.... [W]hat 1 call myself, the self of myself, is in fact the
pupil of the works ... of literature, works of culture which I read,
which I loved, which I understood. And therefore it's kind of a
deposit, a treasure of all these experiences. (454)
All reading, tberefore, is in tbe present time, even if tbe text was written
centuries ago.
Criticism too is in tbe present time. For Ricoeur literary bermeneutics
bas a tbreefold task, i.e. to understand, to explain, and to apply, and it is
tbis last — application — tbat gives tbe wbole reading process its end and
tberefore its raison d' etre. A text, be argues, deploys a range of effects to
engage tbe reader, so tbat "new evaluations, bitberto unbeard-of norms,
are proposed by tbe work, confronting or sbaking current customs" (410).
Put sbortly, tbe work can disrupt, and by disrupting teacb. Readers are
never passive victims of a coercive autbor; so tbe task for criticism is to
discern botb wbicb texts manage to overcome tbe inevitable distancing
tbat comes witb a second or tbird reading and bow tbey exert tbat power.
Since application (appropriation) is tbe end, it deserves to be — but
usually is not — one of tbe primary foci of literary criticism.
Appropriation, wbile it is rarely discussed professionally, really is at tbe
beart of wbat scholars do and wby tbey do it.
325

RENASCENCE
Reading, because its disruptive effect exposes us to otber ways of
being in tbe world, can lead to radical self-questioning and perbaps
ultimately to action. And of all tbe possible kinds of reading one could
undertake, for Ricoeur just as for Heidegger, tbe most radical selfquestioning
comes from poetry. As tbe poet projects bis or ber world and
tbe reader moves toward it, tbe reader finds tbat tbe horizon is everreceding.
Tbe meanings are simply inexbaustible, tbe poem's
polysemanticism defeats all attempts to make it fully coberent, fully
known. Tberefore it is poetry tbat is most likely to be dangerous,
rebellious, counter-cultural, and tbe best modem poetry as a consequence
must be difficult, says Ricoeur, "because it often bas to recreate tbe
syntax, sometimes tbe words, to bring tbe words back to tbeir etymological
meaning, or to a kind of fanciful etymology" (449). Sucb claims allow
Ricoeur to develop an aestbetic, one wbicb privileges some of tbe qualities
we most often associate witb Hopkins: tbe writers, be says, "who most
respect tbeir readers are not tbe ones wbo gratify them in tbe cheapest
way; tbey are tbe ones who leave a greater range to their readers to play
out the contrast [between a poem's irresistibility and its untenability]"
(402). Defined in this way Hopkins is the most respectful of poets.
Now what migbt tbis mean when we apply it to readers of Hopkins?
Are there ways of studying bow readers bave appropriated bis poetry,
bave let bis world superimpose itself on theirs? Scholarly discourse on tbe
poet is for tbe most part silent on tbis question. So, in tbe remainder of tbe
essay I want to sketcb tbe dimensions of a possible response, but to do it
by looking at some readily available but less-frequently-considered
evidence, the kinds of tbings not usually discussed in critical discourse on
Hopkins. Tbe focus will be on tbree types of evidence: evidence from indepth
interviews with a single reader; evidence from extended allusions;
and fmally evidence from tbose wbo bave commodified tbe poet and bis
work. Tbe most tbat can be done in a sbort article is to offer a prolegomenon,
a preliminary description of a method wbicb, if applied more
extensively to a larger body of evidence, migbt yield some important new
views.
First tbe single reader, one wbo is not an academic but wbo knows and
loves tbe poetry. Wbat might we leam from taking seriously tbe reported
experience of tbis "general" reader?
I will use, as an example of wbat we can leam, a person I met a few
years ago and tape-recorded at some lengtb. His name is Craig O'Brien;
be is an executive cbef wbo runs bis own business in soutb-central Obio.
As a teenager be leamed to love Hopkins's poetry wben be was compelled
to read it by bis father as "punishment" for choosing not to go to cburch
326

FENNELL
on Sunday. Limitations of space make it necessary to consider just two
illustrative passages from O'Brien's comments on Hopkins.
First, consider O'Brien on tbe desire for interpretive clarity and on
wbat Ricoeur calls tbe polysemanticism of poetry:
In parts of Hopkins's poetry I don't understand what he's referring
to .... How do I handle these [parts]? I don't feel dumb; what I'm
happy with is that some of them over time become clear because
they become internal. I like to think I get a lot of it eventually. As
I age and read different things, bits of Hopkins will pop up and it's
like, "Oh!" I'll go back and, I couldn't tell you, the 50"^ reading?
The 100*^? I don't know, and it'll pop up and become clear to me
in a very different way. You know, there is too something about
reading poetry that I like, and that is — and I hope this doesn't
sound too strange — the mantric fact of reading poetry, letting the
flow of the words be what they are in and of themselves. You
know, sometimes the words are simply soothing in and of
themselves — sometimes they have validity and worth just
because they sound good and I don't always have to know what
everything means.
Tbat response is valuable in at least two important ways. First, it demonstrates
a deligbt in ambiguity: tbe reader is comfortable witb semantic
uncertainty, bas no itch for closure, tmsts tbat meanings will cbange over
time and witb multiple readings — "tbe SO"" reading? Tbe lOO'"?" — but
also trusts tbat gradually, in some cases at least, a clarity of meaning will
emerge. Even tbis later clarity must be qualified by tbe important clause
"because tbey become intemal." In otber words, poems are not appropriated
because tbey bave become clear; rather tbey are clear because they
bave become appropriated. At tbe very least, wbere Heidegger and
Ricoeur imply causality, O'Brien indirectly proposes a reciprocity
between understanding and appropriation.
Second, O'Brien's response gives credence to Hopkins's own claim
tbat just reading bis poems aloud would allow us to resolve — or resolve
not to resolve — half tbe interpretive puzzles tbat so vexed Bridges and
Hopkins's otber contemporaries. O'Brien calls it "tbe mantric effect," a
Hopkinsian coinage wbicb captures perfectly tbe incantatory power of
verse to inculcate as well as ecbo sense. "Tbe flow of words" througb tbeir
sound lets tbe words be "wbat tbey are in and of tbemselves," so tbat once
again tbe desire for closure, for interpretive certainty, becomes secondary.
One need not "know wbat everything means" to enjoy, appreciate, and
appropriate. Tbis last conviction and pracfice O'Brien would sbare witb
the poet bimself: Hopkins, in one of bis letters to Bridges, confesses to
327

RENASCENCE
being "not over-desirous tbat tbe meaning of all sbould be quite clear,"
urging Bridges to try The Wreck of the Deutschland again by reading it
aloud so that "stanzas sbould be left in tbe memory and superficial
impression deepened." Tbe result would be liking some "without
exhausting all. I am sure I have read and enjoyed pages of poetry tbat
way." (50) Besides implicitly doing away witb Coleridge's theory of the
organic wbole, this resistance of botb Hopkins and O'Brien to tbe desire
for interpretive surety fits very well with Ricoeur's claim tbat tbe best
poetry must be difficult, must refuse tbe opportunity to please the reader
cbeaply.
Next, consider O'Brien on appropriation itself, even tbough of course
the word is not one he would use:
I fmd it restorative to sit down and read the work of an old friend,
because by now they are friends to me, these poems. The words of
the poems work — they're restorative, they're comforting, they are
also challenging in the sense that every once in a while I'll read
some words in a different way than I ever saw them before
.... Like anybody, you live your life and certain things are
important to you; they become woven into the fabric of your life,
and then woven into the fabric of your consciousness. Hopkins is
woven deeply into the fabric of my consciousness. When I look at
things, you know, to name something is to in a sense own it. It is
not at all uncommon for me to [internally] balance a sentence
spoken by somebody else with lines from Hopkins. He's part of
that vocabulary of phrases that helps me understand things, i mean
it's not at all uncommon, on a beautiful morning, for me to see a
bird and think "I caught this morning morning's minion . ..." A
simple phrase, but minion's kind of a cool word, not in common
usage, and you have that alliterative thing going on. It's fun, I like
it. I very much use the vocabulary of Hopkins as part of the woven
fabric or texture of my own intemal dialogues and monologues.
Notice the claims bere. First, poems can be antbropomorpbized. Tbey are
friends. One connects to friends througb trust, affection and esteem. One
knows tbem well and finds in them an ally, a sympatbizer. As friends tbese
poems bave work to do. Tbat work can vary, as tbe work of friends often
does — sometimes it is to comfort, at otber times it is to cballenge, often
it is to restore a balance tbat bas been upset.
Tbis last testimony is ratber remarkable. O'Brien bas committed to
memory dozens of pbrases from Hopkins's poetry and be says be uses
tbem as a kind of intemal monologue, a way of bearing a Saying tbat
perbaps ecboes or perbaps contradicts wbat is being spoken by someone
else ("restorative — comforting — challenging"). Poetry becomes a
328

FENNELL
coping mecbanism in tbe best sense of that term. Hopkins's lines form
"part of tbat vocabulary of pbrases tbat belps me understand tbings," i.e.
eacb pbrase becomes the poetic equivalent of a word, and tbe words taken
together comprise a vocabulary tbat allows one to feel balanced, at bome
witb friends — it is Heidegger's "gift," Ricoeur's "deposit" and
"treasure." No sentimentality bere, but ratber a clear recognition of wbat
buman beings seek in tbe face of tbe void.
Secondly, tbe work of tbese "friends" gets accomplisbed by words,
words tbat unfold tbeir meanings only slowly, over time, and tbat bave an
effect best conveyed by the metaphor of cloth or fabric: tbe "woven fabric
or texture" of intemal dialogues and monologues ultimately constitutes
"tbe fabric of [one's] life." In this linguistic tum, words become tbe
necessary cause of tbat selving process wbicb eacb of us acknowledges is
our life. O'Brien's experience would amplify Heidegger's tribute to
"owning" and "soul-saying" in and tbrougb language, and also Ricoeur's
claim tbat a reader tbrougb tbis activity can toucb "tbe self of myself." Yet
O'Brien also implies tbat botb reason and experience force a recognition
tbat words are not a sufficient cause of the fabric of one's life, i.e. sucb
fabric is made up of, but is not wboUy constituted by, tbe vocabulary of
pbrases one intemalizes.
THIS article can only begin to mine tbe possibilities tbat come out of
conversations with readers like Craig O'Brien. It is necessary,
bowever, to move on to evidence of another kind of appropriation, tbe
kind implicit in certain types of textual allusions. I bave written elsewbere
of some of tbe more unusual allusions to Hopkins (31-42), but bere tbe
focus is on one somewbat more extensive example.
Tbe example in question is tbe novel Middlewatch, written by tbe
Canadian novelist Susan Kerslake and publisbed in 1976. In tbat novel a
mral schoolteacher named Morgan on a fine spring day takes a picnic
luncb to a knoll overlooking tbe Atlantic ocean and finds tbere a sevenyear-old
orpban girl named Sibbi. Sibbi bas been raised by a
single-minded and incommunicative older brother in an isolated cabin in
tbe bills; she bas had no education, can barely speak, yet bas been drawn
down from tbe bills to tbe scboolhouse and to this knoll by a hunger for
words botb spoken and written, for communication, for some form of
Heidegger's Saying. Morgan offers Sibbi luncb, and afterwards asks "May
I read you sometbing?" "Read?" sbe asks, not knowing wbat be means.
Yes, he tells ber, read from tbis book be bas brought witb him. Tbe
question creates a pivotal moment for Sibbi, because it suggests tbe
possibility of a Saying sbe bas been waiting for:
329

RENASCENCE
She sat up, on the brink of something, every fibre inside as taut as
tinsel. Her whole being, all her senses pinpointed themselves in
spite of herself on the simple act of his taking the book into his
hand and opening it to expose the creamy pages splattered with
print. She was hovering like a moth before tiie flame. (71)
Tben Morgan — "not saying it out of his own bead," as Sibbi observes —
begins to read, and wbat be reads, printed in its entirety in wbat we read
(i.e. tbe book in our bands), is Hopkins's sonnet "Spring." Wben be
finisbes, Sibbi says just one word — "Again!" — and tbe cbapter ends.
A number of appropriations can be inferred from tbis passage. For
Sibbi tbese words represent first of all tbe miracle of reading. Tbe
splattering of print on tbe creamy pages becomes a Heideggerian Saying,
toucbes tbe mind and tbe beart as surely as tbe words spoken in conversation.
Secondly, tbere is tbe miracle of tbe sound of Hopkins's words, tbe
incantatory effect — wbat Craig O'Brien calls tbe mantric effect — tbey
can bave. As witb any powerful mantra, tbere can be only one wisb —
"Again!" And a tbird miracle is surely tbe way tbese words capture spring
itself, capture the lovely spring day Sibbi is experiencing, so that — to use
Ricoeur's terminology — tbere is some kind of superimposition of
Hopkins's world onto Sibbi's world, some kind of affecting of ber
capacity to see wbat sbe migbt otherwise overlook or not be able to put
into language.
Tbis superimposing of Hopkins's world onto bis own, this relishing of
tbe representative power of words, is sometbing tbat Morgan presumably
shares witb Sibbi. After all, be is tbe one who bas brougbt along a book of
Hopkins's poetry on tbis magnificent spring day, and be is tbe one wbo
bas chosen to begin reading witb tbis sonnet. (Altbougb throughout tbe
novel Morgan is constantly said to be reading, only in tbis one instance are
we told wbat be reads and by wbom.) But be seems clearly to be appropriating
Hopkins in anotber way, because be chooses tbese words as tbe
words most likely to break tbrougb to a cbild, most hkely to reacb ber in
ways tbat transcend logic or interpretive clarity. Tbey are poem, not essay;
tbey are best beard, not read, a notion witb wbicb Hopkins could resonate.
But after all, Morgan and Sibbi are botb characters in a novel. Wbat
Morgan reads to Sibbi is wbat an implied narrator says be reads, and
tberefore wbat author Kerslake bas "decided" he will read. Surely tbe
octet of tbe sonnet, with its clear application to the weeds "long and lovely
and lush" and tbe blue sky "all in a msb witb richness" around tbem, must
bave been appropriated by tbe autbor at some point in order to best convey
the effect of tbis scene on these characters. But it is tbe autbor too who
knows — and wbo must bope tbat we as alert readers will also know —
bow devastatingly apt are the words of tbe sestet about tbe cloying and tbe
330

FENNELL
clouding of innocent minds in girls and boys. Because tbe stmcture of
Middlewatch depends on altemating chapters, witb tbe even-numbered
ones sucb as tbis showing tbe innocent young Sibbi as sbe sbyly begins to
come to tbe scbool and slowly awakens to tbe life-giving power of words,
wbile tbe odd-numbered ones show tbe devastating effects on an older
Sibbi of borrific physical and mental abuse, presumably from ber brother.
Sibbi is, quite literally, stmck dumb. Morgan takes her in and tries to
restore ber in mind and body, but sbe is a vacant — literally an un-Saying
— sbell. Tbis juxtaposition of cbapters creates an especially poignant
moment when, rigbt at tbe beginning of tbe cbapter tbat follows upon tbe
one ending witb Sibbi's "Again," we see Morgan take ber once more to
tbat same hilltop in spring, tbinking "it would be a good idea to come
bere, [because]... sbe migbt remember." Tbe experiment fails: "today sbe
was only a leaf, cool, dry, apart, at tbe end of somewhere, in a sbade be
couldn't fatbom" (73).
Atbird and very brief final example of appropriation is one tbat shows
tbe term in its purest and simplest sense, one tbat barkens back to tbe
more discreditable meanings of tbe word alluded to at tbe beginning of
tbis essay. Because Hopkins can be appropriated in tbe sense of
commodified: be and bis words can be made into products that sell.
Tbere is, after all, tbe Penmaen Press, and Tbe Windhover,
Incorporated, also a private press, and tbe Hopkins Bookstore. Tbose
names are respectful tributes and cause no discomfort. A little more questionable
is tbe decision by tbe religious magazine Living Light to advertise
one of its fall numbers under tbe title "Hurrahing in Harvest." First comes
tbe quotation of two lines from tbe sonnet. Tben — excerpting from tbe
blurb wbicb follows tbe quotation — comes tbe pitch: "As summer fades
into fall, tbe seasonal cbange signifies tbat barvest time is at band. Wbat
bas been carefully sown and nurtured tbrougb tbe past montbs [by our
writers and editors] is now mature, ready to be gathered in." Tbe ultimate
gleaning is not of the Saviour but of profits from sales of tbe magazine.
But tbe prize for crass appropriation — maybe tbe word "bijacking"
is better — must be awarded to the Abbey National bank in tbe U.K. Two
years ago Abbey National came out witb a new investment opportunity
aimed at tbe very rich. Tbe name tbey gave it was tbe Inscape Fund. A
coincidence? Not at all — tbeir website gives Hopkins full credit for tbe
term, and says tbat be meant by it tbe unique inner quality or essence of
an object. Beginning witb tbis definition, the website goes on to align tbe
term witb tbeir financial offerings: "Tbis [title] is particularly relevant to
our service, wbicb is designed to belp tum an individual's [financial]
331

RENASCENCE
dreams into reality." Tbe Saying (of poet to reader) bas now become a
Reacbing (into tbe reader's pockets or purse).
But if appropriation bas its darker side, tbe argument bere is tbat a
lively attentiveness to appropriation in all of its forms, even tbe darker
ones, yields considerable fmit for tbe understanding of, and discourse
about, a remarkable poet. For Hopkins as for others, scbolarly work bas
fulfilled a (narrowly constmed) positivist agenda remarkably well: tbere
are excellent critical editions, publications of correspondence and
notebooks, leamed commentaries, painstakingly researcbed biographies.
Academic discourse has also theorized in a wide variety of ways and then
even more frequently applied tbe theories, so that we bave studies tbat are
feminist, deconstmctive, queer, new bistoricist, Foucaultian, postcolonial,
Marxist, and so on. Ultimately sucb studies can be — often are — a large
but unacknowledged evasion. Scbolarly readers are no different from any
otber readers. We too bear tbe Sayings of our texts, experience tbeir
dismptive effects and tbeir polysemanticism, end up sometimes owning
(appropriating) tbem. But those experiences we rarely speak about and
even more rarely write about; tbey bave become, out of fear about what
our colleagues migbt say or tbink, tbe real "love tbat dare not speak its
name." General readers like Craig O'Brien do not sbare, in fact tbey are
astonished by, our timidity. We bave mucb to leam from listening to and
studying tbese readers, and it is time tbat we, patiently and bumbly, begin.
I am convinced tbat for criticism tbis is tbe way forward, tbis is "tbe one
tbing needful"; and in tbis essay I am trying, ever so hesitantly, to point
tbe way.
Works Cited
Fennell, Francis. "Familiar Hopkins: The Popular Use of His Poetry." Hopkins Quarterly
22 (Winter-Spring 1995): 31-42.
Heidegger, Martin. On the Way to Language. Trans. Peter D. Hertz. New York: Harper and
Row, 1996.
Hopkins, Gerard Manley. The Correspondence of G.M. Hopkins and R. W. Dixon. Ed. C.
C. Abbott. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1935.
—. The Letters of Gerard Manley Hopkins to Robert Bridges. Ed. C.C. Abbott. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1935.
Kerslake, Susan. Middlewatch. Toronto: Oberon P, 1976.
Manguel, Alberto. A History of Reading. London: Penguin, 1996.
Ricoeur, Paul. Reflection and Imagination: A Ricoeur Reader. Ed. Mario Valdes. Toronto:
U of Toronto P, 1991.
332