1
TheTerrainacrossTexts:PoemsEliding/GuidingPoems:
PeterRiley’sSmallSquarePlots
PeterLarkin
I.
SmallSquarePlotsihaslongbeenformeoneofPeterRiley’smostintriguingsmallpress
pamphlets,notonlythroughitsdistinctivetechniqueoffindingnewlyricsbyover-writing
themacrossfugitiveBritishpoemsofthe1940s,butbecauseofthetrenchantminimalism
ofthetitle.Theoriginalprojecttomakeupto700oftheseseven-syllableseven-linepoems
bytheyear2000wasnottoberealized,sowhatwehaveisasortoftorsoprojectedagainst
itsownmacro-septimalhorizonorsyllabichaven.Whyseven?Onehomophonicrootof
“sept”givesusalsotheideaofanenclosureorpartition,inshortaplot.
TonyBakerremarksthatmuchofRiley’sworkcanbe“readasapalimpsest,ifby
palimpsestismeantwritingwhatiswrittenover,oroutof,somepre-existingworkor
occasion”ii.InthinkingaboutSSP,Idonotwanttoretracetheexactrelationbetween
source-textandRiley’screativereductionofit(thoughIshalldothisinpart)somuchas
considerwhatisimplicatedinthisdiscreetgestureofover-writingsoastoresettheplot.Is
toover-writetoplaceanearliertextinsharperfocusbyallowingasiphoningpara-ormetatexttofloataboveit?Canthereevenbeanelementofactivecancellationofonetextby
another,andifsodoesitalwaysflowonlyintheonedirection?Istheonlywayinwhichto
encountertruthfullya“dead”poemtobeckonitbacktowardsone’sown“voice”(asa
principleofestrangedselection)?Thiscentrifugalgestureofre-speakingaforgottenpoem
asitneversoundedonitsowntermsallowsthesource-poemtoglowattheinter-textual
horizononceagainasamarginorthesaurus.Italsodramatizeshowany“voice”emerges
fromachorusofhalf-dismantledbutnotbanishedoreventarnishedearliervoices,whose
ownoriginsremainobscureorinchoatebuttoadegreepurifiedorfilteredbythisvery
process.Theyaretobere-emplottedwithintheminimalplotstheycanoccupynow,which
isalsoareparativescenarioforanypresentvoice.IshallalsoreadSSPbymeansof
fragmentaryechoesfromExcavations,atextthatwasbeingworkedonataboutthesame
time,treatingitasaninterpretativeratherthanliteralsource-textforthemotifsofminimal
plotsingeneral,sothatthemorecapacioustextcanbecomeitsownspeciesofcollageallegoryfortheslighter,squarerone.
II.
Itisnocoincidence,ofcourse,thatallthepoemsRileyhasselectedtooverwritearecentred
aroundthe1940s.Ashehimselfexplains:“ThepointisthatthesewerewrittenwhenIwas
inthemidstofmyworkonNicholasMoore,whichinvolvedcombingthroughallthe1940s
literarymagazinesIcouldgetmyhandson,mostlyinlibrariesorinmybooksellingstock.I
thinkanumberofSSPpoemswerebasedonpoemsInoticedwhiledoingthis,someof
whichmayremainuncollected,andmostofwhichhavefloatedaway...Thewholeproject
wasmeantasahomagetotherichnessofBritishpoetryfromabout1938to1948,aclimate
inwhichpeoplewhowrotelittleandarenowcompletelyforgottenwereenabledtoproduce
quitesubstantial,richlytexturedpiecesatleastoccasionally,orpoemsworthdwellingon”iii
IhadoriginallyassumedthatSSPconsistedoffairlystrictpermutationsoftextualmaterial
1
2
fromtheoriginalpoems(suchwastheinstigationofmyownSpiritoftheTreescyclein
outrightimitationofSSP),butinfactRileyhasusedamuchlightertouchthanthis,sothat
someofhissyllabicrenditionscanbe“aboutthepoetinquestion.”Insomecaseshe
acknowledgestakingaverydistancedviewoftheoriginaltext,“writingfromitsremote
implications”or“startingattheendofthepoem.”SomeotherpoemsinSSPsimply
“floatedawayfromtheoriginaltextundertheirownimpetus”iv.Wecanestablishthatoverwritinghereismatterofahighlyvariabledensityofincorporation,whichalsoincludesan
elementofspontaneouslift-offintroducingnewmaterialoverandabovethestricter
recompositionIhadoriginallyenvisaged.Thismakesidentifyingmanyofthesource-poems
tricky,andRileyhasemphasizedthatmostwerefugitivesdrawnfromliterarymagazinesof
theperiodandoftenuncollectedsubsequentlywhichpassedthroughhishandsbefore
beingdispersed.vHowever,withhishelpIhavetracedtwosourcesdefinitivelyandhadtwo
furthersuspectsconfirmed.However,beforeturningtothesesources,thereisaneedto
revisitRiley’simpassioned(andattimesmissionary)involvementwithhis1940’spoetic
forebears,aninheritancehehastakenpainstorediscoverandunearth.
ItiswellknownthatRileybefriendedthebeleagueredNicholasMooreinthelatter’s
lastinvalidyearsandeditedaretrospectiveselectedpoemsentitledLongingsofthe
Acrobats(1990).Rileyhasalsopublished,notonlyaccountsofhispersonalinvolvement
withsuchwork,butwhatareintendedaslongoverduere-evaluationsofwritingthathe
feelsconstitutedanessentiallynormativedevelopmentwithinBritishpoetryoftheperiod,
notaneccentricdead-end.AsRileysummarises:“Intheearly1940sanumberofBritish
poets...werewritingadenselymetaphoricpoetryinaheavilystressedmetricsandatoneof
stagedpersonaldeclarationoverafictivearena,resultinginconstructswhichcouldbeof
challengingdifficulty”vi.Rileyidentifiesthistechniqueas“multiplemixedmetaphorwithout
grounding”inwhich,thoughmorerarely,“syntaxitselfcomesunderthreat,orcomes
apart”.WhatRileydubsapost-DylanThomasmannercametobeknownas“New
Apocalypse”thoughRileyhimselfprefersa“NewRomantic”labelwhichforhimseems
alargerandvaguertermcoveringwhatmanypoetsandartistsweredoingduringthe1940s
whichindulgedsymbolic(orsymbolist)figurationsandavoidedtheprosaic.Itcouldbeseen
asleadingstraightintolater1950santi-rationalistoranti-secularpoetry.NewApocalypse
wasagenuinemovementwithaprogramme,howeverdisputed,theimpetusofwhichseems
tohavepushedpoetslikeHendryandCooketoextremeproceduresintheyearsimmediately
around1940,thoughitinvolvedotherpoets,suchasMoore,whoiftheyagreedtothe
programmeatall,didnotseeitasnecessitatingthesuper-figurisedorpost-Thomasstylein
poetry.vii
HendryandCooke,aswellasMoore,providesource-poemsforSSP.Afurtheraspectof
“NewApocalypse”whichRileyiskeenlyalivetoisitshistoricgroundingandassuchitsrole
asatest-bedforlaterexperimentalisms:
Thereisaninference,too,ofthepoetryasaresponsetohistoryinthepresenttense,tothe
currentsituation,figuringthehorrorsofthesubconsciouswhichgeneratethehorrorsofwar.
Itisnolongerthehumanbiologyornervoussystemassuchwhichthepoetryengageswith,
butitsaberrationorperversioninatheologicallyfallencondition.Wemayinfactlocatehere
anoriginarysiteofoneofthegreatunprovendogmasofmuchcontemporaryexperimentalist
poetry:thatthereisaninversecausativeconnectionbetweenbrokenordistortedlanguage
2
3
andabrokenordistortedbodypolitic,andthatbyperpetuatingtheoneyoudefythe
other”.viii
Here,RileyincludesnotonlyDorianCookeandJ.F.HendrybutalsoThomasGood(who
alsosourcesSSP)whileatthesametimeemphaticallymappingthe1940sontothe
strategicpoeticsoflaterfigureslikeJ.H.Prynne,JohnWilkinsonandKestonSutherland.
Rileyhasruefullytoacknowledgehowshort-livedthemovementprovedtobe,sothatby
the1950s“itcouldbesaidtobeindisreputeandlargely(forciblyornot)‘forgotten’”.Riley
sees“TheMovement”whichquicklybutdefinitively,itwouldappear,alteredthecourseof
Britishpoetryasthe:
1950sattitudethattherewasonlyroomforonekindofpoetry,aspecialisedanditselfquite
extremekind,whichattemptedtoexcludenotonlytheSohoavant-gardistsbutamiddlegroundwhichinevitablyrestoreditselfintheformofpeoplelikeTedHughesandGeoffrey
Hill,inare-assertionofmetaphorandspirituality”.ix
Thestorydoesn’tentirelyendthere,however,asRileydiscernsnotonlyapaththatgoes
acrossthewaterstotheNewYorkpoetsO’HaraandAshbery(inwhosecityDylanThomas
died)butevenanaffinitywiththepoeticmethodsofPaulCelan.
Focusingnowonactualorlikelyinter-textualchannelsdiscernibleinSSP,thesource
oftheninthpoememergesasW.S.Graham’s“SoontobeDistances”firstpublishedinan
issueofPoetryin1942–itselfanevocativetitleinviewofRiley’sownDistantPointsthat
wastobecomethefirstinstalmentofExcavations.13wordsinGraham’spoemrecurwithin
Riley’s:“I”,“move”,“slowly”,“stumble”,“between”,“bar”,“voice”,“know”,“with”,
“weight”,“prints”,“on”and“sand”.Thereisalsoonetransformation:“warnings”becomes
“mornings”.Onecanspeculatewhethertheremightalsobeconfigurationsofsheer
coincidenceherethatdrawinotherpoemsoftheperiodaspseudo-sourcesevenifthey
werenotsoliterally(manyoftheoverlappingwordsareextremelycommonones),andifso,
whatsortofphantasmicrelationshipwouldthatimply?Whereverclustersofwordsfrom
differenttextsoverlap,apparentlyachievinga“fit”fromthereader’sperspective,thereis
alwaysthepossibilityofdivagationaswellaschannelling,andthisisnolessapartofRiley’s
ownnon-systematicexcursionsthroughthismaterial.IntheGrahampoemwefind“Soon
tobedistanceslockedsound/Inthedayoftravel”whichdevelopsto“WhatIlearnturns
barriertovoice.”Riley’sreworkingwouldseemtoscouraninter-terrainconnectingthetwo
texts,sothatweread:
Imoveslowlyandstumble
throughthespacesbetweenroads.
Abaropensinthevoice
ofnooneIknow.(SSP,9)
A“bar”clearlyderivesfromGraham’s“barriertovoice”buthereopensuptothe
connotationofsomesortofmeasure(musical?)aswellasanobstruction,evenatypeof
decoration,nottospeakofaslyreferencetoGraham’sloveofholdingforthinpubsaftera
day’swriting.“Barrier”alsoindicatesdifficulty,resistance,andasRileyobservesaboutthe
poeticsofthisperiod:
3
4
atthisparticularjunctureofmid-CenturyBritaintheimaginativespacetowhichthereader
gainsaccessis,perhapsforthefirsttime,imbuedwiththefeaturesofabarrier,bywhichthe
figuresoflanguage,whileretainingtracesoftheirrepresentativefunction,become
themselvesobjectsofattentionperformingtheirownactsandcreatingtheirowntheatre
withoutbecomingfixedassymbols”.x
Moreimmediately,thisdistancingandpoisedunknowingseemssomethingequallyshared
betweenpresentandpastpoetinaterracedinter-subjectivity.
SSP’ssixthpoemisdrawnfromNicholasMoore’stextentitled“Poem(forPriscilla)”
firstpublishedin1940andreprintedinAWishinSeason,Moore’sdebutantcollection
broughtoutbytheFortunePressin1941.RileyacknowledgestwopoemsinSSPderiving
fromMoore,andhissensitivitytoMoore’sownplacewithinthepoeticsofthe1940sis
acute.Rileynotestheearlierpoet’s“centralconfidence[that]didn’tneedtoapplyto
Thomasforanything,assayingthatpublic,declamatorytoneandtheancestralrhythms
thatgowithit,obviouslyverymuchintheairatthetime,thoughinacompletely,perhaps
‘classical’(andsoappropriatelyanonymous)manner,withinadecorumwhichwassubject
tosuddenundermining”xi.WhileinMoore’ssource-poemwefind“Thefirstideaofresting
founditsplace”inRiley’srecompositionweget“Inthefirstideaofrest/wastrafficand
distant/war”whichagainoffersitselfasanobliquecommentontheterrainconnectingand
disaffectingthetwotexts:thenecessarystruggletowriteintothesource-textbutalsothe
exemptionswhichcomefromwritingafterandacrossit.Rileydubshis“secondidea”a
“cushioncalleddespair”wheretheoriginalcouldhope“itissafewithinthiscushioned
place.”Riley’sphrasesechowhatmighthaveinformedMoore’sownimaginedproleptic
commentaryonwhatitisliketobeinvolvedinthesmallsquareplothispoemwasto
become.Fromwithinthatlatter-daycompressionRileyisactuallytracing,ofcourse,the
plangenttragedyofMoore’sowndisappointmentsandnumbinginvisibility.Thegrasped
hopeofatemporarilyself-definingrespiteintheearlierpoemsucceedsinthelatertoan
intimateidentificationoftotallosswithanexactlackofdisruption,cushionedbywhatis
itselfadespair.
ThetenthSSParisesoutofatextbyStephenCoatesbaldlyentitled“Poem”and
beginningwiththephrase“Nowtheexcitementofthisday”whichwaspublishedinhisFirst
Poemsof1943xii.Littleisknownofthispoet,buthisworkturnedupinPoetryLondon,in
CambridgePoetry:1940andinthemoreretrospectivePoetryfromCambridgeinWartime
(1946).AyearlaterhepublishedhisSecondPoems(1947).Riley’srevisiontakes17words
fromCoatesinacompactionthatnowfeelsmoreironicalthanvaledictory.Whereasinthe
earlierpoem“theexcitementsofthisday/Drawittoitswarmclose”thelatertextrenders
thisas“Dayclosesinamadrush/togetthesmalllettersright”whichbroachesanother
indirectcommentaryontheshuttlingcontrivancesinvolvedinthemeta-poemitself.The
fraughtcommercebetweenthetwotextswillbuyoutsuchaphraseas“Thefatcommercial
andtheusualroads”andrepeddleitas“beautifuleyesfatcommerce”,sounderscoringthat
therearenousualroadsbywhichtoattainsucharecompositionalfabric.Coates’s“Totake
thejourneytothenewexperience”issuckedbackintotheverbalshoweroftheearlier
poemwhichRileyrecombinesbyaccountingforthecostofsuchatrans-migrationas“sharp
wordsandluggagelabels/meetinginthewindystreet.”
Thefinalinter-terrainIplotisthatbetweenthefourthpoeminSSPandRonald
Bottrall’s“MovingDepths”whichwasincludedinthe1945AtlanticAnthologyforwhich
NicholasMoorewasoneoftheeditorsxiii.Rileyaffirmsthathissyllabicequivalenthereisin
factlargelyaboutBottrallhimselfratherthanbeingafreervariation.So,wheretheBottrall
4
5
textreads“Itmaybeaskedwhatlovehaslearnedbyknockingatthedoor”,Riley’spoem
comments:“Lovewantstogetinathim,desperately,makinghimreal/andlasting,akept
promise.”“MovingDepths”hadclimaxedwith:
Beneaththefaceofenamelledsloth
Quiveringlifebreaksfromcapsuleandsheathintolight-winged
dragonishgrace
OncethishasmadeitswayintoRiley’stextarathermoreungainlyzoologicaltransmutation
isenacted,nodoubtsayingsomethingaboutBottrall’sheadstrongexperienceitselfbutalso
fulfillingwhatcanhappenwhenahibernatingtextualchrysalisisallowedtobreakout.The
SSPpoemcanowna“keptpromise”lightlyderivedfromtheBottrallpoembutwhatarrives
is:“thechrysalisopened/andahairybearstrolledout.”Bottrall’spoemspeaksofpiecing
“theintricateedgesintoasolidsquaretosolveandsalve”whileinRiley’shandsasmall,not
solid,squarebecomesanunself-justifyingcompactnessratherthantheratifiedpact
envisagedintheearlierpoem.
III.
InowwanttomaptheSSPsequenceontothemuchlarger,butonlyalittleless
palimpsestic,Excavationsprojectxiv.Rileydescribeshisproseparagraphsas“meditationson
19th-centuryexcavationreportsoftheuncoveredcontentsofprehistoricburialmounds”in
BronzeAgenorthernEngland(5).TheprimarysourcesareJ.R.Mortimer’sFortyYears’
ResearchesinBritishandSaxonBurialMoundsinEastYorkshire(1905)andWilliam
Greenwell’sBritishBarrows(1877).Thepresenceofthesourcematerialismoreovertthan
inSSPashereitisitalicisedthoughnotnecessarilydeliveringanexacttranscription,and
Rileynotesthatatleast10%ofitfollowstheanarchicprincipleofbeinganythingelseit
wantstobe(6).Therearealsofragmentaryquotationsfrom16thand17thcenturylyrical
poetry,butwhichmightalsoincludeanythingfrommedievalsongstoHousman.Tom
LowensteinremarksonRiley’s“excavationofaparticularandpreviouslysubmergedlife.
Anonymousasitremains,thislifeisunearthed,broughttoourviewandwarmedbythe
imaginativecounterinhumationofthepoet’sregard–eventhoughthisregardremains
incommunicabletotheanonymousdead”.xvLowensteinalsocommentsona“processof
unpickingandconvergence,disintegrationandconsolidation[asitis]re-enactedinthe
collaboratingyetmutuallydiscordantelementsinthepoem”andseesthisasattheheartof
Riley’smeditativeprocedure.xviManyoftheseobservationscanbetransferredtoaccount
forwhatishappeningwithinthestarkercontainmentsofSSP.InExcavationsitself,asinthe
Bottrallpoem,thereistalkofcapsules,asina“compactcremationcapsule”(153:original
italics)ormoreexactly“fullofstatic,allthemessageswrenchedtoacapsule”(170).This
textcanhelpsoundoutbywayofechoiccommentaryhowSSPretrievesasetofintimacies
andlocalitiesacrossthedistinctivemicro-grainingofdistances–sucha“grain”beinga
factorofattentioninthewillingnesstoredistributeonetexttowardsanotherbutsoasto
endupwithaverydifferentspeciesofcoalescence,ora“directional”co-ordinationasthe
morearcheologicalExcavationsmightunderstanditintermsofhowburialconfinements
alignorsquareup.InSSPthiswillrelatetohorizonsofall-absorbingcontingencybutin
termsoftheparadoxicalcapacityofsucharesiduetoofferthepresentitselfasanemergent
lyricalinclusion.SSPdealswithpoemsdeadandburiednotjusttoexhumethembuttore5
6
burytheminanevensmallerplotasatransmissionoftheirnon-resurrection.Thisisnot
nowausterelyintermsofanabsencereinforcedbutashowtheseleastfindingsactively
quiveraslessthantheiroriginalself-achievementsbutarebecomingpositivelycompressed
(notmerelysuspended)beyondthemselves.Theybecometheactive,interveningscarcity
oftheirownhalf-lives.
Excavationsitselfcanbereadasachaoticallycompletedis-occupationinsongwhich
rejuvenatesthehorizonsofthatchaos,orasLowensteinastutelyobserves,isawayof
musing“unknowinglyontheinchoate”xvii.Whatisre-absorbedintoanearthdisorderedby
suchresidualemergencebecomesitselfriotousinrobustde-selectionconstitutingasortof
lyricalsmudgeorlumpenmudofthenuminous.InhisTheGiginterview,Rileyspeculateson
an“ununderstoodthingwhichisretainedinthetext’smindandcompletedorextendedor
revisedonanotheroccasion”xviii.Excavationscanfurnishuswithacollagefabric
commentingonwhatisimpliedinhowSSPbothelidesandguidesearliertextsthrougha
processofinventive“dia-carceration”intermsofdynamicrecontainments.Excavations
knowsthatwhatis“squaredinhisownframe”(13)provokes“painsofsuccessiontightly
crouched”(17:originalitalics)whichare“spokenintononentityandascriptedremnant”
(36),as“eventhenothingwebecomemaybecompactedorthinned”(87)giventhatweare
“nevermoreathomethanhoveringaboveonadailyproblemoftransfer”(89).Theresultis
thatthe“restofthesyntaxisomitted”(92)as“thepainsoflessnessfall/intotheground”
(109)while“Lyricisournomadwedding...Itthievesitsvocabularyfrommemory”(119).
Excavationssummarisesitallbyintoning“Claimandloss,itallgoeswrittenintothefuture
soslightly”(135)andalsorecordshow“Theaccuracyoftheseartiststerrifiesme”(74).Here
wefindthedeclaration“Itooheadforaclosedspace”(108)andifthereisanyentryinto
eternity,itwillbeas“carryingasmallbagofpivotaldetails”(122).Distance,whichisalways
aterrainfilteringitselftoitself,“turnsontherim,neitherselfnorotheristheworld”(146).
Distancemaintainsanoftentroubledcontact,asortofroughhandlingandbeinghandled
by,butitclaimsitsownlyricalintactnesseveninthemidstofsuchtextualengineering:
“Thussafeinthefoldofsong,noreductionistcouldgetyounowyou(couldnotbefurther
reduced)andthelanguagebecomesstrictlyapplicable”(160).
IV.
MauriceMerleau-Ponty,accordingtoDavidMorris,affirmsthatthediversityofbeingis
“engenderedbysomethingregional,rootedinplacebymeansofa‘hollow’inbeing”ora
“generativeopennessendogenoustothespreadofbeing”xix.AsMerleau-Pontyhimself
specifiesfurther,“nothingness(orrathernonbeing)ishollowandnotholeThereisno
nichtigesNichts[ienullnothingness]”xx.Thiscanbeaparadoxical“‘lakeofnon-being’,a
certainnothingnesssunkenintoalocalandtemporalopenness”,anditisnothinglessthan
thesensible“thathollowsitselfout”xxi.Eachpartofthesensibleistornupfromthewhole
but“comeswithitsroots,encroachesuponthewhole,transgressesthefrontiersofthe
others”xxii.Diversityasunequalandinadequatetoitselfarisesbyvirtueofnotallbeing
givenwithinaplenum,anditisthisnot-allofgivennesswhichMerleau-Pontyidentifieswith
the“transspatial”,orwhatis“betweenelements”aspartofan“envelope-phenomenon”not
reducibletoitsgivenelements.xxiiiDiversityisthereforereciprocalwithplace,orwiththose
terrainswhicharenotconceptualisedasabstractlytransportableacrossexchangeable
localitiesxxiv.Excavationsitselfleansintohollowness,withits“separatehollowsatrightanglestotheworld”(42:originalitalics)andpronounces“Hollowsintheearth,thesecrets
6
7
ofourheartsdeclaimed”(65:originalbold).Therecanbefound“ahollowinthesurfaceof
wish”(153)ortherewillbea“‘slighthollow’intheOriginalGroundSurface”(167).Voice
itselfsoundswhen“speakinganameintothehollowwheredesirepreparesafinalbed”
(171)oralittlefurtheronthepoeminvokeswhatis“setintoitshollows,calcined,palled
scriptonpreparedground”(181).Thisisawritingthatwillidentify“ahollowinsociety”with
its“boundlessdespairatthesilenceofboundlesslove”(167).Hollowness,thoughless
explicitly,figuresinSSPalso,mainlyintermsofanot-all-giventransspatialthatrevealsthe
terraintobenegotiatedbytheover-writingitself.Thesearepoemsoftextualrelation,
however,notreducibletoanypurenotionaleffectoftextuality.SSPemergesasa
revisionaryretractioninthemidstofnegotiatingsuchatract:whatistakenfromthe
originaltext(evendissolvingtheoriginaltextsothatsomemoreprimordialclusterof
materialcanre-experienceitsvariousformationsanddeformationsalongthewayas
simultaneous)isthenon-autonomousbirthofanewpoem.Thesource’sremotesecondary
handlingisaconditionnotofradicalnoveltybutofshadowingthenon-plenumofasource
towardsalyricalnow,whereonlyaretractivedifferenceremainsbutonesettingoutits
presentplace:“thensinginghasagoodroom–/inpraiseofpersons,tasteoftomb.”(SSP
12).
Distanceemergesasrelationminusconventionaltransmission,or“betweenreedsand
writtenreeds”(SSP7)withinanadmissionofoverlaywherebyanon-plenumisalsoaform
ofsharing,notonlydriftingfromplacetoplacebutconstitutingthelyricgrainof
transectionfromwithinthisparticularplotofplace:“Oloveisrestlessthereand/callslimb
fromlimb”(SSP7).Priortextsmayhavebeenactivelypulverisedbutoncetheybecome
“re-perished”(ie,notrestoredorpreservedassuch)theyarerelievedfromanymore
nondescriptperishingoutsidetheframeworkoflyricitself:
hidden
meaningfloatsinthehedgeand
flapspastmyearlikeaghost(SSP1)
Thetransspatialiswhateverruns“chatting/toafurtherfallentown”(SSP11)and,
throughoutSSP,Riley’sachievementistohavebeenabletocreateatightlywovenspace
forwhatisnotallpresent:
wheresteadfastly
Iamhollowedagainstmy
inventionsinaslowtongue
rememberingwell,truly,
friendlywithfear(SSP11)
AsRileynotesinthinkingaboutW.S.Graham,“theventureoutmeetsitsreturnasa
thingalreadyknown,beyondsuccessorfailure,asthepoet’sperceptsaredeliveredbackto
himbythepoemasunknowns,andheceasesfromthestarttobethepersonwholivedthe
event”.xxvThereismuchherethatappliesequallytotheentireventureofBritish1940s
poetryincludingitslifeleachingoutsideitsownstatusashistoriceventwithinRiley’spoetic
writings.PeterRileyhimselfleavesuswithanaptcommentonwhatSSPbringsabout
throughthe“events”enshrinedinitsownsource-texts,howevermuchhewasnotthinking
ofhisownworkwhenhecametowrite:“Anauthorialdistancefromtheeventremains
ingrainedinthewriting,asanemblemofthegift,anactdonefortheworld,asanaddition
toit”xxvi.
7
8
Appendix:PeterRiley’sIdentificationsoftheSource-PoetInitialsinSmallSquarePlots
1. CWG=CharlesWreyGardiner
2. DN=DouglasNewton
3. JFH=J.F.Hendry
4. RB=RonaldBottrall
5. JGMcL=J.G.MacLeod
6. NM=NicholasMoore
7. TS=TomScott
8. DC=DorianCooke
9. WSG=W.S.Graham
10. SC=StephenCoates
11. AR=AnneRidler
12. NM=NicholasMoore
13. TG=ThomasGood
i
Peter Riley, Small Square Plots (Sanderstead: Grille, 1996). Hereafter identified as SSP in the text and the
poems have been given consecutive numbers, though they were unnumbered as such in this unpaginated first
edition. The 12 poems were reprinted, with the addition of a final, unsourced one, in The Day’s Final Balance:
Uncollected Writings, 1965-2006 (Exeter: Shearsman, 2007).
ii
Tony Baker, “A Démarrage, a Letter and a Postscript, Concerning (Mostly) Peter Riley’s ‘Alstonefield’,” in
The Poetry of Peter Riley, The Gig, 4-5, November 1999-March 2000: 183.
iii
Peter Riley, Email message to author, December 30, 2011.
iv
Riley, Email message.
v
Riley, Email message.
vi
Peter Riley, “Thomas and Apocalypse”, http://www.aprileye.co.uk/thomas.html, accessed March 27, 2013.
vii
Riley, “Thomas and Apocalypse”.
viii
Peter Riley, Review of New Collected Poems, by W. S. Graham, ed. Matthew Francis, Jacket 26,
http://jacketmagazine.com/26/rile-grah.html, accessed March 27, 2013.
ix
Riley, “Thomas and Apocalypse”.
x
Riley, “Thomas and Apocalypse”.
xi
Riley, Review.
xii
Stephen Coates, First Poems (London: The Fortune Press, [1943]), 25.
xiii
Atlantic Anthology, ed. Nicholas Moore and Douglas Newton (London: The Fortune Press, 1945).
xiv
Peter Riley, Excavations (Hastings: Reality Street, 2004). Page references given within the text.
xv
Tom Lowenstein, “Excavation and Contemplation: Peter Riley’s ‘Distant Points’” in The Poetry of Peter
Riley, The Gig, 4-5, November 1999-March 2000: 187.
xvi
Lowenstein, “Excavation and Contemplation”, 188-9.
xvii
Lowenstein, “Excavation and Contemplation”, 191.
xviii
Keith Tuma, “An Interview with Peter Riley,” The Poetry of Peter Riley, The Gig, 4-5, November 1999March 2000: 26.
xix
David Morris, “The Place of Animal Being: Following Animal Embryogenesis and Navigation to the Hollow
of Being in Merleau-Ponty,” Research in Phenomenology, 40 (2010), 188.
xx
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, ed. Claude Lefort; trans. Alphonzo Lingis (Evanson,
IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968), 196.
xxi
Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, 201, 210.
xxii
Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, 218.
xxiii
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Nature: Course Notes from the College de France (Evanston, IL.,Northwestern
University Press, 2003), 213.
xxiv
Morris, “Animal Being”, 189 et seq.
xxv
Riley, Review.
xxvi
Riley, Review.
8