By Paul Leavoy
The Muse is mute when public men
Applaud a modern throne:
Those cheers that can be bought or sold
That office fools have run,
That waxen seal, that signature.
For things like these what decent man
Would keep his lover waiting?
Keep his lover waiting?
In A Model for the Laureate, poet and playwright W. B. Yeats expressed the notion that poetry has no place in public office.
Many believe parliamentarians to be locked firmly in an artistic void, and poets themselves find it difficult to write in a realm of duties and deadlines.
The doctrines of poetry and politics may be at odds, but the appointment of a poet laureate this fall should help raise the quality of debate in Parliament. If the poet is successful, he or she will set a high cultural benchmark of language well-used, and hopefully MPs will follow suit.
Certainly, when Senator Jerry Grafstein introduced his bill to create a Canadian poet laureate in 2000, he was disappointed by the lack of poignancy in debate.
“I couldn’t recall an instance in the last 20 years where a powerful speech was made in Parliament,” he said.
Many were initially bewildered by Grafstein’s proposal.
Consider one reaction to his introduction to the bill. After he spoke of the power and potency of poetry, the matter of translation was broached. Another senator, confused, raised his question thusly: “You said: ‘The power of poetry is potent.’ How can poetry be translated? It is written in the language it is written in. How would the power of poetry be potent if we were dealing with a translation, because then does it not lose its potency?”
A harmless question, but the senator overlooked the works of Virgil, of Dante, of Homer, of a canon of
European poets who have had their work translated admirably and influentially into the English language. And, of course, we cannot forget the Bible.
The question illustrates that the language of poetry may be alien to some in public office, but a poet laureate could change things.
If the poet is to be successful in raising the standards of excellence, their duties must be minimal.
The first British laureates had to fulfil specific obligations. They may have been asked to write a New Year’s ode or to celebrate a victory in battle.
Roger Nash, a poet and professor of philosophy at Laurentian University, helped Grafstein draft the bill. He sought opinions from poets from across Canada, and saw that the notion of the poet having to compose to deadline was emphatically frowned upon.
According to the bill, the poet’s duties will be few. The poet, for instance, may choose to sponsor poetry readings, give advice to the parliamentary librarian regarding the book collection and perform other similar functions.
But one clause might demand a second gaze from poets: The Parliamentary poet laureate shall “write poetry, especially for use in Parliament on occasions of State.”
One of the first English laureates, John Dryden, faced the sort of inherent difficulties in this when he attempted to elegize King Charles II after his death.
He described the corpse as a “senseless lump of sacred clay.” Not the sort of grand homage one would expect for the King who restored the monarchy.
Grafstein wants to assure poets that the bill is very accommodating of the erratic nature of the muse, remarking that if a poet chooses to remain silent in the aftermath of a global crisis, “then that in fact will be eloquent.”
The current American laureate, Billy Collins, assumed this stance until earlier this month when he finally honoured the victims of Sept. 11.
Nash adds that if the poet is required to compose a poem for an occasion of state, the incumbent may draw from pre-published selections to present a piece to Parliament without composing something new.
Parliamentary discussion these days seems to rely on simple language and awkward phrasing. But MPs shouldn’t have to confine themselves to basic language.
“Language in Parliamentary debate at its best can be highly imaginative and verge on the literary,” Nash says.
Christopher Levenson, a retired Carleton professor of literature, doesn’t think the appointment of a poet laureate will set a high cultural benchmark in the House.
“It’s not something they’re genuinely interested in,” he says. “Everybody says, ‘Oh poetry, how nice’ but they don’t want to be bothered with it, basically.”
However, as part of the League of Canadian Poets’ ongoing attempt to raise awareness about poetry, a Poems for Peace project was initiated last year. Susan McMaster headed the project, which presented a poem a day to MPs in their offices.
Many poets in the project were doubtful of a positive reception.
To their surprise, the majority of MPs were very enthused.
“Many were excited, offering quotes from their favourite poems and engaging in long, philosophical discussions,” she says.
By this example, the addition of a poet laureate who catalyses cultural discussion should inspire new standards of excellence and raise the calibre of debate in Parliament.
At the very least, it will give a voice to a poet in the country with more published poets per capita than anywhere else.
“All we need,” as Grafstein remarks, “is people to read the poems.”