Poems,  Saints

For The Maid

Statue of Joan of Arc, Domremy

One of the more tedious things I encounter when reading blogs is a blogger mentioning or quoting someone, then adding the disclaimer, “Now of course, I don’t agree with everything he/she writes, but this specific thing was profitable…”

This sort of thing strikes me as terribly unmanly. If one doesn’t have the courage to quote or share the work of a particular individual, one should probably just keep quiet. The whiny “Don’t judge me because I quoted someone or read a book by someone who doesn’t dot all of the eyes or cross all of the tees” is a sort of false-humility-cum-virtue-signaling, and I dislike it strongly. It’s the sort of thing that precedes the tearing down of statues and the rewriting of history, and I say the hell with it.

All this by way of introduction to a poem written by a very interesting fellow, the sort of fellow many people would only quote if they could disclaim in the eye-rolling manner described above. The website is here, and the poem I selected is dedicated to my patron saint, Joan of Arc. I found it pleasant and strong. Perhaps some of you will enjoy it.

~ S.K. Orr

La Pucelle [concerning Joan of Arc]

The white-archangel bloomed high along the lane, nodding to young Jehane
as she passed, 
gentil, complaisant.
A rill ran beside, lambent with summer rains, brown below but wan

above, washing with tourbillons1
the black woolly rocks. A grey heron, inglenooked in the brook’s yellow hay
eyed her, grimly 
conscient

of the sound of her sabots on the cakéd earth. Nearer still, the quail des blés2
bowed in hedgerows, hidden
among the stars-of-Bethlehem, 
la herbe-de-la-saint-Jean3, and la mauve-musquée.4

They hunched in their feathery pews, well-ridden
of their normal foxy fears. The virgin’s arrival stopped all chase and chasse5
’til the saints be bidden.

Her promenade closed when a dusky warbler brightly warned her of the coming crevasse.
She had sought this moraine
as the appointed place, a wild and wind-blown altar for an almost private mass.

The nimble maid of Lorraine
climbed right down, led by her fauvette ophée6, plumuled grey. He warbled
a trilling 
chant-montagne7

to bless this fourre-tout8 of the gods, this heap of stone, this mystery-slag unrivalled.
Nothing followed the pair
but the white flowers, turning now to asphodel with calyx lightly pebbled

and patches of campagnon-clair9
and clusters of 
conopode-dénudé,10 which Jehane did engarland like baby’s breath
in her still-long hair.

She removed the dented clogs for the final climb, her toes cheating death
with subtle purchase of the ledge.
At last she reached the bed, dry and sandy with white shale beneath.

Nearby, tufts of sedge
followed a fine line of water, fed in silvery webs along cavern walls
split like a long-drawn wedge.

The friendly warbler left her now, frightened by his own echoing calls,
replaced by a martinet pâle.
Far quieter, he patrolled with a balsam whisper, master of these low halls.

The little hirondelle11
encircled Jehanne, fashioning her a 
chaplet-en-air12 with his wind-sharpened wings,
an implied corolla of the dell

to protect her from all fées-rustique.13 Even so, the maid’s silent imaginings
attracted 
les dieux locaux,14
waiting through centuries for an honest intention. They prepared their hallowings

like a balefire row,
Michael, Catherine and Margaret in trinal apparition, musing the maid
into a rêve-bateau.15

The angels clothed her in boucassin-blanc16 and ciel-bleu,17 her collar of silk inlaid.
With essence of plum they laved
her hands, and about her feet a bough of 
musquet-des-bois18 curled and played.

In the folds of her dress ennaved
were long green needles of cedar and leaves of durmast oak, heavy with signs
that Orleans and Patay would be saved.

At last they cut the woodbines,
freeing Jehane from her bosky boat-of-dreams, and sent her back up to the real.
All that remained were the lines

in her memory, the clear etchings of battle and proof, of providence, signal and seal.
The maid was now of France,
her mind a book the angels would write, her body a sword they would anneal.

With a shy and backward glance
she wondered that Michael and the rest—waylaying her in that heathen deep—
should send her on the road to Rheims

from an enchanted gap of stone. Why not take her in church, or in devoted sleep,
under eaves where all Christendom lay?
Should she henceforth pray under sky and stars, under Sun and Moon, her soul to keep?

But the birds would not say.
Le moineau soulcie19 was silent; la tourterelle des bois20 only cooed and sighed,
awaiting the end of day.

So she walked back down her road, guarded by dogrose and danewort and pomme-epineuse.21
No Dauphin yet spoke of tests,
no Cauchon of trials; only the waking owl, crying in the fields like an earless muse,

warning nobly of the nests
of Englishmen, and of the fourberie22 of priests, and of the blood-singed brevity of all fierce
God-appointed quests.

But Jehane had no mind for the prophecy of owls, Merlin though he be. Let them pierce
her pellucid breast with a dart
or nail her to a Vieux Marché pyre: it would always be her sweet Jhesus who steers

her course and her innocent heart.
Accepting his summons might lead to bitterest pain, but denying would be far worse.
The maid must play her part.

by Miles Williams Mathis

1whirlpools    2of the wheat    3St. John’s wort    4musk mallow    5the hunt    6Orpheus’ warbler, the dusky warbler    7mountain song    8hold-all, junk pile    9campion    10naked cone-foot, St. Anthony’s nut    11swallow    12crown in the air    13field spirits    14the local gods    15dream-boat    16white fustian fabric    17sky blue    18lily-of-the-valley    19rock sparrow    20turtle dove    21thorn-apple    22treachery

4 Comments

  • Sean G.

    I have yet to meet anyone with whom I agree on everything. If I found such a person— THAT would be worth mentioning. I have noticed this trend, even when addressing the person directly: “I may not agree with everything you say, but I like your work!”

    Imagine adding that qualifier at home when talking to your wife, “I don’t agree with everything you say honey… but I love you so much!”

    • admin

      And that’s exactly IT, Sean. The “I don’t agree with everything this guy says” remark is a completely unnecessary one, because of the reality you pointed out. So why do people insist on preemptively qualifying their remarks when they mention something they read/heard/encountered that they enjoyed? I suspect it’s part virtue-signaling and part prophylactic. That way (they think), no one can pull up an example of the person’s work that might fall outside their little circle of orthodoxy and cause them any embarrassment. I call BS. We should be strong enough to express appreciation for something we like without worrying that someone will unearth a skeleton that will make us look like less-than-perfect scholars of the person whose work we dared to enjoy.

      As always, thanks for reading and commenting, Sean.

  • Bookslinger

    I used to hold your position. “If I say ‘A’, then you have no basis to claim that I said, or believe ‘B’.”

    But experience has led me to believe that “writing so as to not be misunderstood” is now as important as “writing to be understood.”

    I think the change came when “the unwashed masses” got online and began participating in online discussions. I blame AOL for that. AOL was the watershed.

    Better yet, the problem of unlearned people misconstruing the written word goes back farther:

    2 Peter 3:15 — “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”

    2 Peter 3:16 — “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

    So even Peter complained about unlearned/unstable people misreading things. But also, the part: “in which are some things hard to be understood” — could also be a dig, saying that Paul doesn’t write clearly or simply enough.

    • admin

      I have to confess that I have no idea what you’re talking about, Bookslinger. I don’t see how your comment relates to what I wrote, which makes me suspect you inferred something from my words that I didn’t write. You wrote “I used to hold your position,” but I have doubts that you understand my position.

      Your use of the word “unlearned” is very interesting. With my high school education, I count myself among the unlearned and the…how did you put it?…”the unwashed masses?” Perhaps someday, the uneducated cretins will be prevented from expressing their opinions online. There seems to be quite a bit of support for that sort of suppression and elitism in certain circles these days, so things may be looking up for you, sir.

      If I understand you correctly, you are confusing the written word with the Word of God. Be very careful there. Many “guardians of the faith” have wrecked themselves on those shoals.

      One of the nice things about having my own blog is that I can express myself in the manner I wish. And I don’t even have to have letters after my name in order to do so. Other people are free to read it or ignore it as they choose.