Poetic Difficulty and Epistemic Authority: On Some Recent Trends in Analytic Philosophy of Poetry

| 123 John Gibson Poe ic Di icul y and Epis emic Au ho i y On Some Recen T ends in Analy ic Philosophy o Poe y1 Abs ac 1 The esea ch o his pape was conduc ed as pa o he esea ch p ojec Knowledge, Pe cep ion, and he P o- spec s o C i icism , unded by he Temple on Religion T us . I hank Alan Golding and And eas Elpido ou o help ul discussion o many o he ideas p esen ed he e. Wha e e an analy ic philosophy o poe y is, one achie es a sense o i by explo ing he de- ba es ha anima e i , which is likely all ha cons i u es i s iden i y as a ield. To gi e a sense o wha is ›analy ic‹ abou hese deba es, I ex- plo e wo opics ha enlis poe y o app oach issues o gene al in e es in co e a eas o ana- ly ic philosophy: meaning and he sel , wi h pa icula emphasis on mo i a ing a concep o meaning-as-abou ness. I will sugges ha , con- a y o common p ac ice, we ough o app oach hese wo deba es as implici ly linked, since his helps b ing o ou a en ion a ma e ha should be mo e cen al o con empo a y philosophy o poe y: a s a emen o how ly ically-media ed sel -images ell us some hing in e es ing abou he ela ionship be ween language and pe son- hood. Tha is, I ou line how hese ecen deba- es can help shed ligh on wha philosophe s like o call he ›cogni i e alue‹ o poe y, which is o say, i s abili y o communica e, h ough poe ic o m i sel , o ms o unde s anding o he wo ld and human p edicamen . 1. In oduc ion Few dis inc ions in philosophy a e as po en ially misleading as ha be ween ›analy ic‹ and ›con inen al‹ philosophy. The e a e con ex s in which i is help ul o in oke his dis inc- ion, o ins ance when one needs o dis inguish, in a e y b oad s oke, he philosophical mo emen s ha lou ished especially in 20 h cen u y Ge many, Aus ia, and F ance – phe- nomenology, exis en ialism, c i ical heo y, and so on – om he s yle o concep ual ana- lysis and app oach o logic, language, mind cha ac e is ic o he lineage ha uns om F ege h ough Russell o he ea ly Wi gens ein (c . Humph ies 1999; Glendinning 2006, Kiel-UP • h ps://doi.o g/10.38072/2751-9821/p16 124 | POEMA 2.2024 Rohol 2017, and Le i 2023). The la e is ce ainly analy ic, and i was pa o a b oade mo emen ha is s ill widely ep esen ed in philosophy depa men s in he Anglophone wo ld, hough, no e, also in Ge many, Aus ia, and F ance. When philosophe s e e o hei wo k as ›con inen al‹ o ›analy ic‹, hey a e a leas cas ing an image o hemsel es as inhe i o s o some and no o he s o hese mo emen s. Bu beyond ma king he s ands o 20 h cen u y philosophy one was educa ed in and is likely o e e ence in one’s wo k, as well la gely supe icial di e ences in s yle and sensibili y, he dis inc ion says ema kably li le. I does no , o ins ance, ell us any hing p ecise abou wha a philosophe wo king in ei he › adi ion‹ is inclined o hink abou he na u e o language, a , mind, o eali y. No does i cas a cla i ying ligh on he kinds o e hical, poli ical, o aes he ic alues one’s heo ies a e likely o champion. 2 All his is o say ha o e ing a s a emen o ecen wo k in analy ic philosophy o poe y, e en a highly selec i e such as his, is a complica ed a ai . Wha e e an analy ic philoso- phy o poe y is, one achie es a sense o i by explo ing he deba es ha anima e i , which is likely all ha cons i u es i s iden i y as a ield. 3 To gi e a sense o wha is ›analy ic‹ abou hese deba es, I ha e chosen wo opics ha enlis poe y o app oach issues o gene al in- e es in co e a eas o analy ic philosophy: meaning and he sel , wi h pa icula emphasis on mo i a ing a concep ion o a cha ac e is ic o m o poe ic meaning as abou ness. One o he easons a o any so ma e s o philosophy is because i o en challenges ou heo ies o accommoda e pa icula ly complex ep esen a ions o he human si ua ion and adical o ms o exp ession. Ly ic poe y is ex emely help ul he e, since i s way o ashioning an image o a ly ic I ou o language ha a ely beha es as ou heo ies o meaning equi e calls on us o expand ou unde s anding o he na u e and limi s o meaning i sel . He e I limi mysel o mo i a ing a sense o he key ques ions on which hese wo deba es ocus. I will sugges , con a y o common p ac ice, ha we ough o app oach hese deba es as implici ly linked, since his b ings o ou a en ion a ma e ha should be mo e cen al o con empo a y philosophy o poe y: a s a emen o how ly ically-media ed sel -images ell us some hing gene al abou he ela ionship be ween language, pe sonhood, and a wo ld ha is p esumably ex e nal o each o hem. Tha is, I ecommend a way o seeing 2 I is ue ha he ela ionship be ween pos s uc u alism and pos wa analy ic philosophy was ma ked by p ac iced indi e ence o ac i e hos ili y, depending on he oom; and his is in pa esponsible o he an agonis ic sense o he analy ic/con inen al dis inc ion ha will be amilia o mos con empo a y philosophe s and li e a y heo is s. Bu ha is a di e en s o y, and i is one ha mis ep esen s he ac ual mood and landscape o con empo a y philo- sophy isibly. 3 Two olumes ha gi e a good sense o he shape o ecen deba es in analy ic philosophy o poe y a e Philosophy and Poe y: Midwes S udies in Philosophy (F ench e al. 2009) and The Philosophy o Poe y (Gibson 2015). Fo a sense o he igu es (and ep esen a i e wo ks) ha ha e helped shape he con empo a y deba e, see Budd 1996, Eld idge 2008, de Gaynes o d 2017, Jollimo e 2009, Koe he 2022, John 2013, Lama que 2009 and 2015, Lepo e 2011, McG ego 2014, Ribei o 2007 and 2009, Simecek 2019, and Zami 2018. These philosophe s end o engage wi h a pa icula se o con empo a y Anglophone schola s o poe y, wi h igu es such as Cha les Al ie i, De ek A idge, Ge ald B uns, Jona han Culle , O en Izenbe g, Ma jo ie Pe lo , Susan S ewa , Helen Vendle , Robe Von Hallbe g mos no iceable among hem ( his lis o cou se e eals much abou he sensibili ies and in e es s o he philosophe s o poe y who ead hese schola s). Gibson: Poe ic Di icul y and Epis emic Au ho i y | 125 how hese ecen deba es shed ligh on wha philosophe s like o call he ›cogni i e alue‹ o poe y, which is o say i s abili y o communica e, h ough poe ic o m i sel , o ms o unde s anding o he wo ld and human p edicamen . 2. The Ques ion o Poe ic Meaning Conside an en icingly ague ques ion ha will be amilia o e e yone who wo ks on poe y: wha is poe ic meaning? Always linge ing in he backg ound o his ques ion is he p oblem o he abled ›di icul y‹ o poe y. This di icul y has o do wi h poe y’s gene al willingness o lean in o opaci y, pa adox, ambigui y, p o isionali y, polysemy, poly ocali y, and comp ession (o hough , o meaning, e c.), which o en ende s meaning in poe ic con ex s a des ina ion one mus s uggle o each. O cou se no all poe y will pu sue his di icul y in ensely o a all, and se ing up he p oblem his way e eals a mode nis p e- judice in a o o he a an -ga de and expe imen al. Bu he philosophical issue conce ns how poe y can, when i wishes, make his di icul y p oduc i e. In poe y ha pu sues i , his di icul y is ypically expe ienced as ele a ed – an exp essi e and a is ic achie emen – and i o en seeks o p o oke a po en ially libe a o y expe ience o meaning in his di - icul y, which is e y much unlike ou expe ience o hese o ms o di icul y in e e yday con ex s, in which we ypically ind ou sel es a emp ing o esol e a he han exul in he ea u es o language ha p esen a challenge o in e p e a ion. Indeed, poe y has shown ha i can es ablish a po ion o i s claim o no jus he o ical bu epis emic au ho i y h ough his di icul y. Tha is, poe s who make his di icul y p oduc i e in an especially success ul way accomplish a goal ha s ikes us as a once a is ic and cogni i e: hey ge language jus igh and, in so doing, ge he wo ld igh , oo (I e u n o his no ion o epis emic au ho i y in he nex sec ion). The philosophical p oblem is, o cou se, speci ying wha we mean by ›meaning‹ in such poe ic con ex s and alongside his abled di icul y. We should immedia ely dismiss wo in e p e a ions o he ›wha is poe ic meaning?‹ ques ion. On a seman ic in e p e a ion, one migh ake he ques ion o in i e us o explo e a dis inc kind o meaning ha poems gene a e, a kind ha is poe ic jus as o he kinds migh be li e al, hema ic, conno a i e, o igu a i e. Bu i is highly unlikely ha poems gene a e a sui gene is kind o meaning (see Lama que 2009; Jollimo e 2009; and Gibson 2023); and, a any a e, he ques ion o meaning in poe y is gene ally ega ded o be philosophically in e es ing because o he in e ac ion o a g ea a ie y o kinds o meaning and he chal- lenge o wo king h ough hem in o de o a icula e he sense and signi icance o a poem. In wo king h ough his, he eade encoun e s imagis ic, me apho ic, a ec i e, p osodic, p oposi ional, aes he ic, symbolic, and, a imes, u e ly li e al a ie ies o meaning, and no con empo a y philosophe (o li e a y heo is ) o no e hinks ha in addi ion o hese kinds we will ind a dis inc ly poe ic species, ce ainly no one ha is uniquely exp essi e o he meaning o a poem, i such a hing he e is. 126 | POEMA 2.2024 On a second in e p e a ion, he ques ion migh be in e p e ed aes he ically ins ead o se- man ically. Tha is, one migh ead he ques ion as in i ing an explo a ion o he a ie y o con ex s – e e yday as well as poe ic – in which na u al language achie es a ce ain deg ee o ›poe ici y‹, wi h he idea o poe ic meaning now ende ed as a desc ip ion o a pa icula aes he ic employmen o language, o ins ance one ha is melli luous, sugges i e, ende , g ace ul, o wha e e colloca ion o aes he ic p edica es one’s heo y a o s (see K iegel 2023 o such an app oach). The e migh be alue in such an app oach, bu i clea ly has li le o do wi h he philosophical p oblem o meaning in poems, which is ha dly coex ensi e wi h he b oade issue o when we expe ience a use o language – any – as displaying he kinds o aes he ic p ope ies we should be inclined o call, indi idually o conjunc i ely, po- e ic. Many poems, especially since mode nism s epped on he scene, will eschew p ecisely such posi i ely cha ged aes he ic employmen s o language, o en on e hical, poli ical, o indeed a is ic g ounds, and his is jus one ob ious ejoinde o he olly o hinking ha he ques ion o poe ic meaning is essen ially an aes he ic one. The a is ic labo o poe s such as Rilke, Elio , S ein, Oppen, Celan, Pla h, Ashbe y, La kin – o men ion ob ious examples om a sca e ing o mode n adi ions – is en i ely mis ep esen ed i we cas hem as luxu i- a ing in language in he manne he aes he ic in e p e a ion o he p oblem sugges s. Su ely hei ly ics bea an a ay o aes he ic p ope ies; bu he sc u iny o hem does no amoun o a sc u iny o challenge o unde s anding hei o en adical ac s o meaning-p oduc ion. In ac , he aes he ic in e p e a ion o he p oblem simply igno es meaning as a poe ic p oblem. A his poin , a hi d in e p e a ion o he ques ion becomes a ac i e, one which does a much be e job o cap u ing he in e es ing philosophical issue. Call i a c i ical in e p e- a ion o he ques ion o poe ic meaning (see Gibson 2006 and 2011). On a c i ical in e p e- a ion, we sub ly change he ini ial ques ion om he gene al one o wha poe ic meaning consis s in o a mo e ocused explo a ion o he unique ways ly ic poems aise ques ions o meaning and call on dis inc ly c i ical capaci ies o answe hem. This app oach does a much be e job han he seman ic and aes he ic models o making sense o he so-called di icul y o poe ic meaning and i s a is ic a o dances. I o e s a c i ical model o poe ic meaning in bo h an in e p e a i e and cons i u i e sense. In espec o he in e p e i e sense, his app oach asse s ha when a emp ing o un- angle he ques ions o meaning a poem aises, we a e equi ed o become, in e ec , c i ics who d aw upon no (jus ) linguis ic compe ence as such bu a ese oi o skills and ools ha a e i educibly c i ical in na u e. This explains a po ion o he idea ha poe ic mean- ing is di icul in a pa icula ly exing way, since he compe encies one mus ha ness a e no cul i a ed and exe cised h ough ou me e exposu e o he seman ic and p agma ic dimensions o e e yday language use. The capaci y o exe cise hem equi es accul u a ion in ou c i ical p ac ices hemsel es and wha hey a o d: an awa eness o he his o y o poe y, he poin o speci ic poe ic mo emen s, he s anding p ojec s o gi en poe s, and he assemblage o philosophical, aes he ic, a is ic, poli ical, and social conce ns ha anima e all o hese. The second sense in which his app oach is c i ical de elops his poin . Gibson: Poe ic Di icul y and Epis emic Au ho i y | 127 In espec o he cons i u i e sense, he idea is he mo e in e es ing and con en ious one ha he abili y o poe y o p oduce a leas some o i s cha ac e is ic kinds o meaning is co-cons i u ed by he c i ical p ac ices ha a ise a ound ou poe ic p ac ices, and ha i is only by i ue o si ua ing ou sel es in hese p ac ices ha we can expe ience many poems as ully en iched wi h meaning (see Gibson 2011, 2016a, and 2017). Jus as we migh say ha my abili y o bea mo al p ope ies such as › ep ehensible‹, › us wo hy‹, o ›sel less‹ will in ol e a s o y no solely o my indi idual beha io bu , c ucially, o hose social p ac ices ha sus ain he sense and applica ion condi ions o such e ms, he idea he e is ha o unde s and how poems come o bea nuanced o ms o meaning o en equi es ha we look no only a hei seman ic and aes he ic su aces bu , addi ionally, a he much b oade cul u e o poe ic p oduc ion in which poems a e p oduced, ead, and in e p e ed. This cul u e, in u n, in o ms pe cep ion and imagina ion such ha we can come o see in poems wha would o he wise emain obscu e o wholly una ailable. To use Dan o’s amous ph ase, his c i ical cul u e cons i u es an »a mosphe e o a heo y«: a se o inhe i ed ideas ha includes no only concep ions o he na u e and poin o poe y bu all hose ea u es o social and cul u al eali y ha anima e he conce ns o poe ic p oduc ion and i s c i icism a a gi en junc u e in poe y’s na u al his o y (Dan o 1964, 580). These p ac ices a e in pa sense-making p ac ices, and he claim is ha hese p ac ices play an ineliminable ole in e- alizing cha ac e is ic o ms o poe ic meaning and hus making hem a ailable as possibili- ies o sha ed poe ic expe ience. C i icism, in he expansi e sense his idea mo i a es, is ha egion o he a wo ld ha gene a es hese ideas and his » heo y«, and hese o en unc ion as esou ces we d aw upon when we come o see s uc u ed o ms o meaning in poems. This is no a all he silly an i- ealis claim ha c i ics a he han poe s endow poems wi h meaning. I is he mo e ambi ious one ha ou c i ical p ac ices in pa coo dina e he ela ionship be ween eade s and poe y and ha his pe mi s poems o bea o ms o mean- ing ha ypically canno be gleaned om he mani es ace o he ex s in which hey a e deli e ed, ce ainly no i aken in isola ion om hese p ac ices. O cou se, poe y p eda es i s c i icism, and no one sane would de ise a heo y ha sugges s i is he o he way a ound. The claim he e is he sensibly his o icized one ha as poe y e ol es, new possibili ies o poe ic meaning e ol e, oo. And when we ind ou sel es wi h poe ic p ac ices ha display he a ie ies o ›di icul ‹ meaning explo ed he e, we mus ha e ecou se o a concep ion o c i icism ha can illumina e he condi ions o his meaning’s possibili y. The e is a social dimension o he p oduc ion o cha ac e is ic kinds o poe ic meaning ha equi es eade s, au ho s, and c i ics o cons i u e a cul u al p ac ice, and i is in pa by i ue o access o he »a mosphe e« o ideas ha his p ac ice gene a es ha we can answe ce ain o he ques ions o meaning a poem aises. Le me explain. We need a mo e speci ic e m o a han ›meaning‹ o cap u e his idea, one ha is a plausible candida e o he cha ac e is ic o m o meaning ha unc ions as a des ina ion in ou in e p e i e s uggles. A e m ha has ecen ly become popula in analy ic philoso- phy is ha o ›abou ness‹. A i s mos gene al, abou ness unc ions o pick ou he sha ed 128 | POEMA 2.2024 subjec ma e o a g ea a ie y o sen ences ha exp ess hei meanings di e en ly ye appea o add ess a common opic (Yablo 2014). I s poin o o igin in con empo a y aes- he ics is Dan o’s in luen ial a emp o de ine a in e ms o embodied meaning (Dan o 2000). The e one o his p e e ed examples is a wo k o abs ac pain ing – Male ich’s Black Squa e (1913) – in which we come o see ha a whi e can ass wi h bu a black squa e on i s su ace can s ill embody meaning, since o i we should be mo e inclined o say ha i is abou no hing han ha i isn’ abou any hing a all (Dan o 2000, 132–133). In ecen analy ic philosophy o a , he no ion o abou ness is o en used wi hou being ully he- o ized, hough he gene al eeling is ha his is e y much on he ho izon. The sense o abou ness I wish o mo i a e can be cha ac e ized simply. C i ical s a emen s o abou ness a icula e he b idge han uns be ween poems and he egions o ac ual cul u al, poli ical, psychological, and a is ic eali y ha a poem s i es o ashion in o an objec o a en ion. The idea is ha pa o wha any c i ic who is conce ned wi h meaning will do is make mani es he pa e ns o abou ness sugges ed by a poem, he esul o which is ypically a s a emen o how a poem o e s i s eade s an image o o pe spec i e on he wo ld beyond he poem, a any a e on some egion o human in e es we ake a poem o place be o e us. 4 Conside Louis Zuko sky’s Ca ullus cycle (1958–1969), which ce ainly canno be said o p oduce su ace meaning. He e is his a emp (1969) a #70 o Ca ullus’ o iginal: Newly say dicke ed my lo e ai my own would ma y me all  whom bu me, none see say Jupi e i she pe ed. Dicke ed: said my lo e ai could be o could dicke ed a man oo  in wind o we apid a sc ibble epo ed in wa e . 5 I we a e inclined o elega e he poem i sel o he s a us o nonsense, we can blame he ulga pa o ou sel es ha hinks we only ha e meaning when sen ences culmina e in well- o med p oposi ions, asse ions, desc ip ion, and o he s aigh o wa d and pedes i- an ways o communica ing a sense. As a c i ic will show wi h ela i e ease, Zuko sky’s Ca ullus is endowed wi h a dis inc o m o a is ic abou ness, and i s ana chic language 4 See Wol 2023, who makes he idea o an implied wo ld- iew essen ial o he accoun o »ly ology« he ad ances. Talk o a poem’s implici o implied pe spec i es on o images o he wo ld cap u es essen ially he same idea ha Wol ’s heo y is a e , and he a gumen he e is ha ›s a emen s o abou ness‹ a e he p ecise speech ac h ough which c i ics make hese ea u es o a poem mani es . Dammann, Gibson, and Schellekens (unpublished) a emp o o e a philosophical model o hese claims. 5 Zuko sky, 2006, 51. Ca ullus’s o iginal eads (Ca ullus 1951, 193): Nulli se dici mulie mea nube e malle quam mihi, non si se Iuppi e ipse pe a . dici : sed mulie cupido quod dici aman i, in en o e apida sc ibe e opo e aqua. Gibson: Poe ic Di icul y and Epis emic Au ho i y | 129 is no a ba ie o bu an ing edien o i . In he Ca ullus cycle, Zuko sky › ansla es‹ he sequence o owel sounds and no seman ic con en o Ca ulus’s o iginal poems, and pa o his pu pose in doing so is o e eal some hing abou he na u e o poe y i sel – his is he egion o eali y on which his Ca ullus poems wishes o cas a ligh – by demons a- ing ha he p oduc ion o sound and no he linguis ic elabo a ion o an idea o imp es- sion is su icien o he p oduc ion o poe y. In his way Zuko sky in ac does elabo a e an idea, hough i is a poin exp essed no h ough an ac o poe ic decla a ion bu in ge- ne a ing a o m o abou ness he con en o which exp esses some hing impo an abou he ole o sound, eeling, and o m in poe ic expe ience. In o he wo ds, by looking a ac s ha unde w i e he c ea ion o his poem and in e es s o i s au ho – ac s ha a e made a ailable h ough ou access o c i ical cul u e i sel – we acqui e in o ma ion ha pe mi s us o asc ibe a deg ee o communica i e de e minacy o a poem ha does no , in a pe ec ly o dina y sense, say any hing a all. Ye once in possession o a s a emen o i s abou ness, he poem can be expe ienced as bea ing a poin , a pu pose, and so a kind o meaning. Abou ness pe mi s us o cap u e meaning e en when he seman ic su ace o a poem e els in nonsensicali y. And his is why i is always a ma k o obli iousness o say o a poem ha exul s in ana chic language ha i is nonsense. Unlike e e yday nonsense, which we expe ience as he absence o a communica i e p ojec , in poe ic con ex s e en nonsensical language can be p oduc i e o meaning. In sho , e en i i is ue ha a poem’s language is nonsensical, i is a ca ego y e o o claim ha he poem is he e o e nonsensical . These s a emen s o abou ness become, again, in e nal o ou expe ience o a poem by s uc u ing ou expe ience o a poem’s communica i e dimension and opening up o app ecia ion pa e ns o meaning ulness in i s o m ha would o he wise emain inacces- sible. I igno e he e he exed ques ion o wha legi imizes such s a emen , whe he hey a e de easible, and whe he poems admi o mul iple, pe haps con adic o y s a emen s o abou ness. Deba es on he epis emology and me aphysics o in e p e a ion in he 1980s and 1990s deal wi h his, and, i one wishes, hey can be ehea sed he e. I ake i as ob- ious ha c i ics do a icula e abou ness, ha eade s expe ience abou ness as in e nal o a poem, and ha s a emen s o abou ness a icula e he ypically eal a ai s a poem u ns in o an objec o ega d, which can conce n e e y hing om philosophical, social, and his o ical ma e s o he na u e o poe y i sel , as Zuko sky makes clea . C i ics elici hese s a emen s o abou ness h ough a en ion o he elemen s o a poem ha aise ques ions o meaning, wi h meaning in his con ex be e unde s ood no as linguis ic signi ica ion bu a is ic signi icance. Images, ac ions, o mal inno a ions, modes o enuncia ion, emo ional eno , s yles o add ess, as well as wo ds, ph ases, and sen ences aise ques ions o mean- ing ulness in his sense, and s a emen s o abou ness a e, on his model, hei cu ency o a icula ion. The impo an poin is, as i was o Dan o, ha abou ness a icula es con en in a way ha a exceeds wha is exp essly gi en o app ecia ion by an a wo k’s su ace. We can be ealis s o cons uc i is s o ela i is s o plu alis s – and much else besides – 130 | POEMA 2.2024 abou abou ness and i s ways o asc ibing signi icance and sense o all hese elemen s. The claim he e is ha howe e one app oaches hese issues, wha I ha e said gi es con en o he no ion o abou ness whose me aphysical and epis emological s a us we deba e. I a o a ealis eading ha accep s a heal hy plu alism ega ding poe ic abou ness, bu ha is nei he he e no he e o he a gumen o his pape (see Gibson 2017). I mus be acknowledged ha , in many cases, a poem’s seman ic su ace comes e y close o a icula ing i sel he o ms o abou ness a c i ic is inclined o asc ibe o i , in which case he ole o c i icism in he p oduc ion o meaning will ob iously be dimin- ished. We see his when a c i ic claims – o gi e an ob ious example – ha Wo dswo h’s The Wo ld is Too Much wi h Us is abou bela edness and mode ni y as disenchan men , and o e s as suppo he poem’s a imes s aigh o wa dly philosophical modes o ad- d ess such as, »Ge ing and spending, we lay was e ou powe s;— / Li le we see in Na u e ha is ou s; / We ha e gi en ou hea s away, a so did boon!« (Wo dswo h 1807, 122). Though no e ha wha makes he poem abou hese hings and no some hing else is as much an e ec o he imagis ic o ce o i s igu a i e elabo a ions as i s philosophical dec- la a ions: »This Sea ha ba es he bosom o he moon; / The winds ha will be howling a all hou s, /And a e up-ga he ed now like sleeping lowe s; / Fo his, o e e y hing, we a e ou o une« (see Gibson 2023). As I said abo e, he issue is he in e ac ion o a g ea many a ie ies o meaning in a poem, some o which will be linguis ic, o he s mo e pain e ly in na u e, o he s s ill symbolic o conno a i e. Bu on his c i ical model, none o hese plays a p i ileged ole, and all a e en anchised as po en ial sou ces o abou ness. Wha we see in excellen examples o poe y c i icism is ha hese s a emen s o abou - ness a e g ounded in p ope ly poe ic ma e ial: in a poem’s igu a ions, allusions, images, abs ac ions, cesu as, in e ex ual e e ences, and syn ax. Each wo k o c i icism s a es in i s own e ms, indi ec ly a leas , how a poem’s ›di icul y‹ is made p oduc i e, and s a e- men s o abou ness a e one way o doing p ecisely his. In his espec , wo ks o success ul c i icism demons a e how abou ness is de i ed om poe ic ma e ial, and hus he na u e o abou ness is decla ed h ough examples o ac ual c i ical pe o mances. The heo y o abou ness is hus bes seen as desc ip i e and no no ma i e, inso a as i is a hypo hesis abou wha c i ics, on occasion a leas , do, and no an elabo a ion o an ideal whose na- u e can be speci ied in ad ance o p ac ice . Gibson: Poe ic Di icul y and Epis emic Au ho i y | 131 3. Di icul Poems and Messy Sel es Pe e Lama que has made a compelling case o he a is ic and aes he ic ole o di icul y in poe ic expe ience (Lama que 2015). He a oids he p oblems o he aes he ic in e p e a- ion o poe ic meaning by ecas ing i as a ques ion o , in e ec , alue: So […] why do we alue he complexi y – he di icul y – o (some) poe y when we spu n i elsewhe e? The answe a i s simples is: because i is pa o he poe y game ha in poe y we a end o he ineg ainedness o language, i s ex u es, and in icacies, i s opaci y, in con eying hough -p o- cesses, and we ind alue in he expe ience i a o ds, in p ecedence o e he mo e humd um no ms o communica ion, such as anspa ency he impa ing o in o ma ion, and he assump ion o pa aph asabili y. (Lama que 2015, 36) In o he wo ds, and in he ocabula y jus de eloped, we ake sa is ac ion in he o en ex- ao dina y way a poem deli e s abou ness h ough hose o mal and exp essi e elemen s ha demand c i ical in es men o be expe ienced as ully en iched wi h meaning. The alue he e is he alue o a ha d-won encoun e ha epays ou e o s. I a poem aises a ques ion o meaning, expe iencing how answe s o hese ques ions a ise ou o he ma e o a poem and i s mode o p esen ing abou ness can gi e ise o an o en sublime – his is my e m and no Lama que’s – expe ience o he a is ic p oduc ion o meaning. Lama que helps us o see when he no ion o he aes he ic should be in oked in ou accoun o poe ic meaning-p oduc ion, and i is o desc ibe he alue o he expe ience he eby a o ded. In addi ion o he sublime, any numbe o aes he ic p edica es may apply he e, depending on he poem; and so we ha e an in ui i e ounda ion o an accoun o he s uc u e o cha ac- e is ically aes he ic o ms o imme sion in he poe ic c ea ion o meaning. In conclusion, I wan o sugges ha his aes he ic accoun will be incomple e i we can- no say some hing mo e subs an i e abou he con en o hese meanings so ha we may explain why we ca e abou a ending o hei poe ic p oduc ion. While he e a e ce ainly poems ha migh con ey banal meanings an as ically – F ank O’Ha a a imes s ikes me as doing jus his – su ely in many cases he cogni i e quali y o he meaning ma e s o ou expe ience. Indeed, i abou ness in pa exp esses how a poem makes some egion o wo ldly conce n in e nal o ou expe ience o a poem, i is in ui i e o hink ha i is also in pa he quali y o he con eyed insigh , c udely pu , ha we expe ience as aluable. Some hing like his is cen al o Jona han Culle ’s claim ha ly ic poe y is a o m o epi- deic ic discou se: »public poe ic discou se abou alues in his wo ld a he han a ic ional wo ld« (Culle 2015, 119). Culle models he ly ic I on a oice ha s i es o speak on he wo ldly side o he di ide ha uns be ween ou wo ld – howe e we wish o make sense o his idea – and he pu ely imagined wo lds ha esolu ely ic ionalizing heo ies will insis is all ha poe y b ings o ou a en ion. The no ion o abou ness, as ou lined he e,