TWO Walt Whitman and the Reader-in-Futurity
Whitman certainly began not as a poet interested in the invisible but rather as a poet of strong bodily response expressed in a daring language of physicality. In the 1855
Leaves of Grass he invents a poetry of far-reaching symbolic resource in its description of the conjunction of bodies, as in his strikingly original rendition of fellatio:
. . . What is this flooding me, childhood or manhood. . . . and the hunger that crosses the bridge between . . .
The cloth laps a first sweet eating and drinking,
Laps life-swelling yolks. . . . laps ear of rose-corn, milky and just ripened:
The white teeth stay, and the boss-tooth advances in darkness,
And liquor is spilled on lips and bosoms by touching glasses, and the best liquor afterward.
âThe Sleepersâ [LG 1855, lines 66â70; p. 726]1
It was his early intimacies with other bodies that made possible for Whitman that intimacy of voice so intoxicating to lovers, as he revels in the first-person plural âweâ that releases the sexual self from its physical loneliness. Bodily intimacy appears in the âwe twoâ of the 1860 Enfans dâAdam and Calamus poems, as Whit-man joins himself to another to become âwe two boys together clingingâ on the open road, or, more powerfully, the âwe twoâ who, when together, equal the whole created universe. âWe are Nature,â
says the speaker of himself and his lover, as they undergo, in theirsexual companionship,multiple metamorphoses into essences both inanimate and animate:
We become plants, trunks, foliage, roots, bark,
We are bedded in the ground, we are rocks. . . .
We prowl fangâd and four-footed in the woods, we spring on prey,
We are two clouds forenoons and afternoons driving overhead,
We are seas mingling, we are two of those cheerful waves rolling over each other and interwetting each other,
We are what the atmosphere is, transparent, receptive, pervious, impervious. . . .
We have circled and circled till we have arrived home again, we two,
We have voided all but freedom and all but our own joy.
âWe Two,How Long We Were Foolâdâ [p. 92â93]
This companionate physical intimacy is so necessary that without it, as another Calamus poem tells us, the poet fears he would not be able to write his poems:
I saw in Louisiana a live-oak growing,
All alone stood it and the moss hung down from the branches,
Without any companion it grew there uttering joyous leaves of dark green,
And its look, rude, unbending, lusty, made me think of myself,
But I wonderâd how it could utter joyous leaves standing alone there without its friend near, for I knew I could not.
âI Saw in Louisiana a Live-Oak Growingâ [p. 108]
Only after the physical fails does Whitman become a poet of intimacy with the invisible. Sometimes unable to secure, and always unable to sustain, actual sexual intimacy,Whitman is driven to invent an intimacy with the unseen; the poet is cast toward the lover-infuturity by the faithlessness of the lover-in-the-present. The heartbreak that generates an invisible lover to replace the visible one is seen most clearly in the 1860 lyric âHours Continuing Longâ [520], a poem suppressed by Whitman from all subsequent editions of Leaves of Grass. Forsaken by his actual lover, the speaker, distracted and ashamed, withdraws âto a lonesome and unfrequented spot, seating myself, leaning my face in my hands.â In these âsullen and suffering hoursâ he wonders âif other men have the like [hours] out of the like feelings?â As his misery seeks company, he reduces the number of men potentially resembling him to a single one:
Is there even one other like meâdistractedâhis friend, his lover, lost to him?
And that other conjectured man, also a forsaken lover, is then made into a reader of Whitmanâs own poem:
Does he see himself reflected in me? In these hours, does he see the face of his hours reflected?
Two forms of intimacy are conjured up hereâa subjective psychological one (âhimself reflected in meâ) and a more objective representational one (âIn these hours, does he see the face of his hours reflected?â).Whitman is not yet directly addressing this imagined other who might not only resemble him but become his reader, nor is he yet projecting this alter ego into a far-off future: the hope of finding an actual lover, permeating the 1855 Leaves of Grass, still lingers in the 1860 edition. Yet between those two editions, in 1857, Whitman wrote a poem,âFull of life nowâ [116], in which he admits, with resignation, that the reader-in-futurity is the mostlikely lover he will have. He contrasts himself âfull of life now, compact, visibleâ with the reader-in-futurity, who will at that time be the one who will be âcompact, visible.â On the supposition that two things equal to the same thingâbeing âcompact, visibleââare equal to each other, the poet can construct an identity-exchange within a topological temporality in which past, present, and future tenses intermix, and indicative, subjunctive, and jussive moods intertwine.âFull of affectionâ (the original reading),2 the poet speaks, imagining that his poems, after his death, continue to seek an envisaged comrade of the future who is in turn seeking them:
Full of life now, compact, visible,
I forty years old the eighty third year of the States,
To one a century hence or any number of centuries hence,
To you yet unborn these, seeking you.
When you read these I that was visible am become invisible,
Now it is you, compact, visible, realizing my poems, seeking me,
Fancying how happy you were if I could be with you and become your comrade;
Be it as if I were with you. (Be not too certain but I am now with you.)
The cost to the poet of finding an actual visible lover is the rendering of himself invisible.He becomes a ghost so that the camerado can become real. âFull of life nowâ bears three of the unmistakable marks of Whitmanian intimacy with the invisible: the poetâs direct remarks to an invisible addressee of future time (âWhen you read theseâ); the poetâs capacity to intuit his invisible listenerâs thoughts (âyou . . . seeking me, / Fancying how happy you were if I could be with youâ); and a faith in the mysterious power of poetry to convey presence (âBe not too certain but I am now with youâ), the presencepreceded by the ordaining power of the shaman: âBe it as if I were with you.âYearning toward someone who may not be born for some years or even hundreds of years hence is, as we have seen from the examples of Hopkins and Dickinson, a feeling not uncommon in lyric, but Whitman carries it further than any poet before or since. The problem is to give such a future listener tangible materiality on the page, and we will see Whitman experimenting with this task in many of the poems in Leaves of Grass.
Among the causes of Whitmanâs invention of a comrade-infuturity, one was, as I have said,Whitmanâs love-disappointments in life, and his fear that without companionship he would cease to write. But his messianic tendencies also played a part in drawing his eyes toward the future, as did his belief in scientific and evolutionary progress. Whitmanian intimacy with the invisible, because it is so overdetermined, takes on many tonalities. A forsaken lover, speaking to an ideal lover yet to appear, does not use the same tone as a messiah speaking to his future followers, or a teacher to pupils as yet unborn, or a scientist publicly proclaiming natural events to come.âOne of the roughsâ speaking from the open road to an envisaged camerado takes yet another tone.The fluid Whitmanian self becomes,when oriented toward a future listener, unusually expansive and porous, and one of the attractions of Whitmanâs intimacy with the invisible is the discovery of the many Whitmans it brings forth (âI am large. . . . I contain multitudes. . . . / I resist anything better than my own diversityâ
[âSong of Myself,âLG 1855, lines 1315â16; p. 347].
Whitman had begun his career as a balladeer and populist exhorter of others. But as he turned his gaze inward and discovered his true materialâhimself and his relation to the world and to languageâhe had to decide what tone to give the self-exposure he had promised in âYou Felons on Trial in Courtsâ (âI exposĂ©!â). Although he continued to resort, often enough, to either the homiletic tone of the preacher or the rhetorical tone of the orator,his genius was to prefer, to these more public modes of the pulpit and the rostrum, a private tone m...