It was Stephen Fry who said of the sonnet: "The ability to write them fluently was, and to some extent still is, considered the true mark of the poet". How true; to expect each poet to write an epic is too much; and to be able to write a haiku is too trivial; and to write free verse is nothing; but in the strange and seemingly limitless flexibility of the sonnet form poets can demonstrate the most complex – and, contrariwise, most simple – thoughts and emotions, as well as delineating almost every shade of human experience. Looking back over the last five hundred years of the English language almost all the truly great poets have produced memorable sonnets whose impact has been lasting and profound. And as well as the sonnet speaking in its own individual voice, we have whole collections of them, most notably Shakespeare's 154 (although if we include sonnets appearing in his plays, there are more), wherein the work begins to assume epic proportions as a kind of narrative emerges in which topics and themes are explored in relentless precision and beauty. Certainly, I regard the ability to construct a sonnet of beauty as second only to writing epic poetry in the canon of English literature.
We have, then, Sonnets for Christ the King by Joseph Charles Mackenzie. Currently the work is in audio book form, although I have been privileged to see an advance electronic copy; it comprises 77 sonnets in all. What to make of this? How good are they? Where does Joseph Charles Mackenzie stand in the pantheon of poets?
First, a digression. The number – 77 – is important. Indeed, every detail is important to true poets. Those of a quick disposition will have noticed that the number 77 is half that of the number Shakespeare wrote: 154. And Mackenzie uses the Shakespearean structure rather than the Petrarchan. Albeit obliquely then, there is already a vaunting claim to be heard. But more than that, for the spiritual poet numbers always assume massive significance. The sonnet in its two most important incarnations in the English language – the Petrarchan and the Shakespearean forms – is always 14 lines long (ignoring for the matter of this analysis aberrant forms such as the Meredithian sonnet – 16 – and the Curtal (Hopkins) – 7, and such like). 14 is 2 x 7 and 7 is the perfect number. Being the perfect number is no accident, but why is 7 the perfect number? It is the perfect number because it is the sum of 4, which represents the Earth and all that is in it, the four corners, the four cardinal points, and Heaven, the divine Trinity. It is the harmony and addition of the two, representing completion. (And for those left wondering, why is there 8 and 9, then 8 is an upside sign for mathematical infinity and represents the Resurrection – the new life beyond the current Heaven and Earth. Jesus is usually described as being resurrected on the third day on which he rose again, but the third day considered from the beginning of the week in which the Passover occurred is also the 8th day. The number 9 represents the re-harmonisation of all things as symbolized in the Ascension of Christ).
Moreover, numerologically speaking, 14 and 77 are both, reduced to their single digit, 1 + 4 = 5 and 7 + 7 = 14 = 1 + 4 = 5. The sonnet structure and the number within the sequence are represented by the number 5 This, theologically, represents 'grace' – hence the day of Pentecost: 5. When the Spirit descends. What Mackenzie is doing is revealing the descent of the Muse as an act of grace within the structure of the poem. He is also referring to an older tradition, too, whereby the Spirit of God is feminine: as in Wisdom (Proverbs Chapter 8) who was "at the beginning of His way, Before his works of old". In other words, so far as we can use human language to describe the inexpressible, Wisdom – the Spirit of God – was no created 'thing', but She was with Him "from everlasting I was established, From the beginning …" and She it is who is the Christian equivalent of the Muse. These numbers are important, then, and we see them in various structural ways within the poem; too much to explore in detail now, but for example, the last 14 sonnets (Sonnets 64-77) are all entitled 'First [then 1-14] Station' followed by a brief description of what each station entails. So there is in Mackenzie's work not a random rag-bag of poems but an architecture – a cosmos if you will – that attempts to reflect the bigger cosmos of which we are all a part.
The collection, Sonnets for Christ the King, contains, I think, some of the best sonnets, and so poetry, published since World War 2 that I have read. His work is actually quite, quite brilliant, yet quirky and strange too! Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that he is able to write poetry which is entirely discursive, and yet it still be poetry. We are so used to post-modern poets writing cryptogrammatic verse with obscure imagery, recondite diction, and indulgent, complacent solipsism that we can hardly believe it when someone says clearly what they want to say and tells it like it is – at least like it is for them. But the beauty of this great poetry is, even if we don't agree, don't share his theology, the poet in him gets to us emotionally. There is simply so many wonderful lines and ideas in this collection.
The first thing to get, then, is that this poetry is highly devotional; Mackenzie is clearly a devout Christian and Catholic, and the fundamentals of these two highly interrelated positions permeate the whole collection. If this were purely a fundamentalist text – banging a simplistic drum as it were – that would be off-putting to the casual reader. But this is not: this is true poetry because bound up in it is the emotional resonance by which real poetry disarms the critical intellect. A good example would be in Sonnet 6, one of my favorite 7 of the 77 we have. Called 'El Castillo Interior', the poem explores the inward, spiritual journey in a series of bold Images, beginning with a castle with 'seven rooms … lit'. Each room provides its own challenge: 'In one room serpents, in another wars,' until finally we come to a room of prayer, and there at the center he concludes with this amazing couplet:
And there in the center, where I lie dead,
To Love my very being says, 'I Thee wed'.
That – that – is so simple, so paradoxical, so profound; a cri de coeur when all human resource fails, and the soul cries out. And what it cries, of course, entirely justifies the archaic 'Thee', as it invokes the language of the wedding service. This is a poem that repays many, many re-readings.
And on the subject of 'many', many poets disappoint with their endings; they start well, have something interesting to say, but somehow can't get to a satisfying conclusion. Not Shakespeare's sonnets, though, and not Joseph Mackenzie's: his sonnets specialize in superb concluding couplets that could almost be standalones, so aphoristic and powerful are they. Here are three good examples:
Sonnet 11: Song of the Magi
We followed in the fullness of the night,
And found the fragile Origin of light.
Sonnet 35: Adventus 3
And you shall understand that all along,
The cries I filled the desert with were song
Sonnet 58: Ego Sum – and here I must give the preceding quatrain because – frankly – it is too exciting to omit:
I do not know why some men cannot see,
Or why they kill what they pretend to love;
I only know that this great verb, 'to be ,'
Can only enter thought but from above,
And pray, with sorrow's cloth upon my head,
That I shall not be found among the dead.
This leads on to a consideration of Mackenzie's attitude to the Christian story; and it is one that I consider the nearest approximation we can get to the 'truth'. Namely, that the whole narrative is both literal and mythical at the same time. To be literal but not mythical is to limit its application; to be mythical but not literal is to circumscribe its power. We see this plainly in not just the specifically Christ-bits of the narrative, but in all the other Biblical and theological allusions he makes.
Take Sonnet 62: Ennui.
Had Adam never turned his mind away
From Life, or genuflected to mere dust …
This clearly treats the Garden of Eden story as both literal and mythical: it recognises what virtually all early cultures recognised, that at the beginning humanity was involved in some aboriginal calamity which is why, unlike the gods, we die. It's why the early civilizations believed not in progress but regress; that the Golden Age was long gone and now we lived in an age of iron. Religion – religions – is the only, and necessary, appropriate response to that calamity. But Mackenzie see the Eden story as only a poet can: instead of the 'fruit', now we have Adam turning 'his mind away' (and notice the brilliant line break which mimics the turning) from 'Life' – not stuffy old God . And then the genius word 'genuflecting' – Latinate, obscure, perfect – by way of contrast with all the other simple words: Adam effectively genuflected his own thinking – distorted it in other words – and the choice of diction here precisely mirrors that dire choice he made back then. In our choice of words – since they express or represent our choice of thought – we live or die. This level of writing is onomatopoeic or mimetic not only in diction but in structure and cast of thought, which is why it is so compelling.
And to elaborate just a moment on that fact, the choice of Shakespearean sonnet form is perfect for dialectics: thesis, antithesis, with a structural concluding couplet often providing the explosive, unexpected and illuminating synthesis. From the big architecture to the sonnet form, down to each loving line Mackenzie has crafted.
So, on the topic of lines, here are some beauties that I must share:
Sonnet 25: Ode to Autumn
"O rich intoner of our Mother's grief"
Sonnet 28: Regnum Meun Non Est De Hoc Mundo
"And maggots stop the purchased mouth of praise"
Sonnet 38: The Adoration of the Shepherds
"The barn was warm though human hearts were cold"
I could go on, but I think my drift is clear: this is major poetry by a major poet, although it is so un-mainstream, anti-secular, purely devotional one cannot see the chattering media ever embracing. But what of its faults?
No whole work of poetry is perfect in its entirety; as Pope commented, 'even Homer nods'. And to put this in context, Gerard Manley Hopkins is one of my favorite poets, and I regard some of his lines and complete poems as some of the greatest in the English language; but there are passages in Hopkins where he gets carried away by his own metrical theories, by his super-ingenious cleverness, and by the sheer infelicity of lexical choice. So, in case I am thought to be too uncritical of Joseph Mackenzie's collection there a number of small – not for me important – elements that slightly jar. One, is the occasional penchant for archaic diction: mayst, 'tis, which I would not myself recommend. Also, his use and sprinkling of foreign languages, especially but not only, Latin, tends to make his work appear more highbrow and elitist than it really is. Others may complain of his use of big abstractions, signified with capital letters, like Love, Beauty, and Truth. Plato has indeed returned, and the modern world won't like it, for like Pontius Pilate they like the question 'What is truth?' better. But these are minor caveats to my way of thinking; the poetry is a gold mine of multiple treasures, and anyone studying what Mackenzie is doing will learn a massive amount, quite apart from experiencing some absolutely beautiful poetry.
Finally, let me urge Mackenzie to get this book out as a hardback! I know he likes the oral tradition, but I cannot be alone in preferring to read a good-feel hardback book. And so that only leaves me to say, please go and access your version of this great work. It took forty years at least after Hopkins' death for his work to be appreciated, so let's hope Mackenzie gets due recognition long before that fact. Find him at: https://mackenziepoet.com
