| 39
Pe e Lama que
Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value
Abs ac
1 This pape was o iginally published in John Gibson (ed.). The Philosophy o Poe y. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess, 2015. 18–36. I is ep oduced wi h pe mission o Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
2 This choice o example is ai ly a bi a y bu i seems sui ably ypical o a ce ain s yle o mode n poe y, i well
illus a es he kind o di icul y ha in e es s me, and i was selec ed as among he ›bes B i ish poe y‹ o 2011.
This pape – i s published wi h Ox o d Uni-
e si y P ess in 2015 –
1
a gues ha poe y is
cons i u ed by a p ac ice, which is g ounded
in con en ion-go e ned expec a ions among
poe s and eade s. To w i e a poem is o engage
he p ac ice and in i e (one hopes also ewa d)
ce ain kinds o in e es s and esponses among
eade s; o ead a poem ›poe ically‹, seeking i s
poe ic alue, is o deploy he ele an in e es s
and esponses he eby making app op ia e de-
mands and one hopes achie ing he alued ex-
pe ience on o e . 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 ocesses, and
we ind alue in he expe ience ha a o ds, in
p ecedence o e he mo e humd um no ms o
communica ion, such as anspa ency, he im-
pa ing o in o ma ion, and he assump ion o
pa aph asabili y.
1.
I is cha ac e is ic o a ce ain kind o poem – no ably he sho ly ic – o comp ess language
in such a way ha esis s ini
ial easy comp ehension. Examples abound. Conside he wo
opening s anzas o a ecen poem, Wa es, by Giles Goodland (Lumsden 2011, 36):
2
The sea is a misunde s anding
we ha e o go h ough in o de o make sense,
like he wo d o a loss o a wo d.
I lea es a sense o ha ing le ,
Th ough which silence leaks.
Kiel-UP •
h ps://doi.o g/10.38072/2751-9821/p12
40 | POEMA 2.2024
Wha wa es a e eopening nigh ly is
he senseless appa a us o an eye.
I you li e in a house made o hough
you nod in he silence he sea makes.
This comp ession o meaning is undoub edly a ma k o , bu is no peculia o, mode n o
mode nis poe y. I can also be ound in o he pe iods including he nine een h cen u y. This
is he beginning o Alge non Cha les Swinbu ne’s poem He ha (Quille -Couch 1931, 974):
I am ha which began;
Ou o me he yea s oll;
 Ou o me God and man;
I am equal and whole;
God changes, and man, and he o m o hem bodily; I am he soul.
On he ace o i w i ing o his kind is puzzling. The wo ds hemsel es a e no echnical
o obscu e, he subjec ma e no especially econdi e, a leas in he o me poem, ye he
meaning is di icul o g asp, he syn ax i egula , he e is no ob ious poin ( o in o m, o
ad ance knowledge), and s anda d discu si e no ms o cla i y a e bypassed. Ne e heless,
such w i ing is immedia ely ecognizable as poe y and o en admi ed, no in spi e o , bu
because o he seman ic complexi y i exhibi s.
My p incipal ques ion is his: why should w i ing o his kind ha is dense, complex
and esis an o eady unde s anding ha e alue, speci ically poe ic alue, when in o he
con ex s i migh be censu ed o i s wan on lack o cla i y? Why does poe y license, e en
encou age, such comp ession o meaning?
The e a e o cou se ce ain s ock answe s o hese ques ions and i migh be hough
hey a e su icien : o example, ha he complexi y o poe ic language simply e lec s he
complexi y o he hough s and emo ions being exp essed; o ha he complexi y es s on
he ac ha poems cha ac e is ically use me apho and igu a i e speech; o simply ha
poe s like o play wi h language, push i o i s limi s, explo e i s possibili ies, ha ’s wha
poe s do. The e’s u h in all o hese answe s, wi hou doub , bu none o hem qui e ex-
plains why such uses o language should be highly alued. Pe haps poe s do push language
o i s limi s – and use me apho mo e han usual – bu wha is he alue in ha ? Why
should eade s ge pleasu e om ha ing o s uggle o unde s and poe y? And is i eally
he case ha complex language in poe y is always he exp ession o complex hough s?
Giles Goodland, quo ed abo e, w i es his abou his poem Wa es:
S aying a a beach chale wi h he kids, I was playing wi h he idea ha he
humou s in he eyeball ha e a simila composi ion o seawa e , and I ead
somewhe e ha his is a elic om ou e y dis an e olu iona y pas . We
Lama que: Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value | 41
all ca y a li le bi o ocean wi h us, and use i o look wi h. This combined
wi h being on a beach wi h my child en and hinking abou he a ious
meanings o wa es. Sound also is e y impo an in he poem and I allowed
mysel o ge ca ied away wi h some sligh ly ou ageous sound-alike wo ds
and ph ases [...] Some hing abou he sea always seems o loosen me up in
my use o wo ds [...] So I le he wo ds play a ound, as he child en we e
doing, in my no ebook. Language is like he sea, as a whole i is o mless,
bu i can o m localised shapes called sen ences o e en poems. The poem
ends wi h he child en, and ha eeling o ha ing he g ound pulled unde
you when a wa e olls back in o he su . Si ing on he beach wa ching
hem, I go he idea o he poem: we a e like wa es, we ca y sea wi h us,
gene a ion a e gene a ion. (Lumsden 2011, 126–127)
The hough i sel – abou eyes and sea wa e – is in iguing bu ha dly complex and he
ci cums ance o child en playing on a beach seems no o demand seman ic con o ion.
The s ock answe s, hen, seem only o ein o ce he u gency o he o iginal ques ion. Fo
Wa es is a pleasing poem, un o ead and epea , no o e ly p o ound, no pe haps one o
he g ea wo ks, bu ypical in i s complex wo d-play. He e a e he las ew lines:
Poe-lipped polyps lens and ense
o sense he same body inside his one.
Thei homeland is b ine, he gull-lulling g eys o i s wa es.
Lip- ead he sea olling in pain. See
such child en i sucks like a swee .
The pebbles a e an ic unde hem.
We hea and enjoy wha he poe calls he »sligh ly ou ageous sound-alike wo ds and
ph ases«. Bu mo e needs o be said o explain poe ic alue han appeal o wo d play alone.
2.
To ge mo e deeply in o he discussion i will help o e lec on ou supposed commonpla-
ces abou poe y. These p o ide a clea e ocus, a leas a a philosophical le el, in o he
na u e o poe ic meaning and i s alue.
1. The Expe ien ial hesis. The co e alue o a poem lies in he expe ience(s) he poem
a o ds when ead as a poem.
2. The He esy o Pa aph ase hesis. The p ecise meaning o a poem is unpa aph asable.
42 | POEMA 2.2024
3. The Fo m-Con en Uni y hesis. The o m o a poem is indi isible om i s con en .
4. The Seman ic Densi y hesis. Poe ic language a o ds a peculia kind o ›seman ic
densi y‹.
Each o hese heses is closely connec ed o he o he s; in a sense hey a e mu ually sup-
po i e. Fu he mo e, as o en epea ed commonplaces, hey seem o possess mo e han a
g ain o u h. Bu o cou se hey need a g ea deal o unpacking. All a e puzzling om he
poin o iew o s anda d heo ies o meaning. Wha should be so peculia abou poe ic
language ha , unlike nea ly any o he usage, i should be esis an o pa aph ase? Pa o
he answe no doub lies in he Expe ien ial hesis bu ha i sel is p oblema ic because i
is no ob ious why any piece o discou se should be alued p ima ily o he ›expe ience‹ i
a o ds a he han, say, he p oposi ion(s) i exp esses o he in o ma ion i con eys. And
wha kind o expe ience is a issue? The supposed indi isibili y o o m and con en will
only make sense when he ideas o › o m‹ and ›con en ‹ a e ampli ied bu i would be a
ma ked peculia i y o poe ic usage – again se ing poe ic language apa om o he usages
– i i should be he case ha in poe y how some hing is said should be so in eg ally ela-
ed o wha is said ha he e should be only one possible way in which a ce ain con en
could be exp essed. I he Seman ic Densi y hesis is igh – ha poe ic language somehow
gene a es a dep h o meaning no ound in o he linguis ic modes – hen his oo needs
explana ion. A e all, mos o he ›de ices‹ cha ac e is ic o poe y a e amilia elsewhe e:
me apho , simile, image y, alli e a ion, onoma opoeia, hyme, epe i ion, e c.
We need o ill ou he heses and explo e how hey a e ela ed. The Expe ien ial hesis,
ha he alue o a poem lies in he expe ience(s) he poem a o ds, is de ended by A. C.
B adley in his 1901 inaugu al lec u e Poe y o Poe y’s Sake. B adley a gued ha »an ac u-
al poem is he succession o expe iences – sounds, images, hough s, emo ions – h ough
which we pass when we a e eading as poe ically as we can« (B adley 1926, 4). Taken li e -
ally, ha is a s ong claim as i appea s o iden i y a poem wi h a succession o expe iences;
i i is a genuine iden i y claim, an on ological claim, i seems on he ace o i implausible.
3
Howe e , B adley quali ies his ema k by saying he is no »aiming he e a accu acy« o o -
e ing a »de ini ion o poe y« and he Expe ien ial hesis as I p esen i is no a hesis in on-
ology, a he a hesis abou alue. This oo is he co e o B adley’s iew, o he expe ience
o eading poe y, he s a es, »is an end in i sel , is wo h ha ing on i s own accoun , has an
in insic alue … poe ic alue is his in insic wo h alone« (B adley 1926, 4). So he alue o
a poem, i s poe ic alue, is o B adley he in insic alue o he expe ience he poem a o ds.
A simila iew is expounded by Malcolm Budd: »wha ma e s in poe y is he imagina i e
expe ience you unde go in eading he poem, no me ely he hough s exp essed by he
wo ds o he poem« (Budd 1995, 83).
3 Howe e , he idea ha he iden i y o a wo k is essen ially bound up wi h esponses o he wo k has been de ended
by o he s. De ek A idge, o example, iden i ies a li e a y wo k wi h an e en o eading (c . A idge 2004, 59).
Lama que: Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value | 43
Wha mo e can be said abou his expe ience? Can any hing subs an ial be said abou i ,
in abs ac ion om pa icula cases? The i s poin o make is ha he expe ience o each
poem is unique o he poem: no wo poems a o d quali a i ely he same expe ience, a
leas a he le el o speci ici y which he ele an expe ience demands. No doub he e a e
sha ed gene ic expe iences associa ed wi h poems on b oadly simila hemes o in simila
poe ic s yles. Bu ha is no he le el o gene ali y a which poe ic alue lies.
Second, he expe ience in ques ion is he expe ience o eade s, no he expe ience o
poe s hemsel es. Poe ic alue does no eside in he quali y o any psychologically eal
s a e o mind mani es ed in a poe as ei he he cause o subjec o a poem. Whe e a poem
exp esses an emo ion i is he exp essed emo ion i sel – exp essed in jus his o m – ha
is he subjec o an a en i e eade ’s expe ience and hus he sou ce o he poem’s alue.
Thi d, he expe ience is no ma i e: no any expe ience ha a poem elici s in a eade
can be conside ed an app op ia e measu e o he poem’s alue. Fo Budd he ele an
expe ience in ol es »in e ac ing wi h [ he wo k] in wha e e way i demands i i is o be
unde s ood« and mus be »imbued wi h an awa eness o (all) he aes he ically ele an
p ope ies o he wo k« (Budd 1995, 4). No doub , qui e legi ima ely so, he e will also be
mo e pu ely subjec i e expe iences ( esponses) leading o subjec i e judgmen s o alue.
Howe e a ional o dispassiona e we a e in ou judgemen s i would be absu d o expec
ha we all enjoy he same poems. Bu a judgmen o he poem i sel should, as a as
possible, be g ounded in he expe iences ha he wo k elici s on i s own e ms, oo ed in
i s own objec i e p ope ies.
Fou h, he expe ience is mul i- ace ed; i is no jus , i a all, a sensa ion o eeling o
pleasu e, no is i o be classed as a sui gene is ›aes he ic expe ience‹. Wha we shall see
la e is ha i is an expe ience o a subjec h ough a mode o p esen a ion. I in ol es, as
B adley ema ked, such elemen s as »sounds, images, hough s, emo ions« and i is a em-
po al p ocess, no a s a e. I is a p ocess o hough , cons ained by he linguis ic medium
ha gi es i bo h i s cha ac e and i s iden i y.
We shall come back o he Expe ien ial hesis when we ha e explo ed he h ee o he
heses. I is signi ican ha in highligh ing expe ience in ela ion o he alue o poe y he
hesis places poe y na u ally in he con ex o o he a s. Tha expe ience should be p omi-
nen in accoun s o music, pain ing, ilm, sculp u e o dance is no especially ema kable.
Bu poe y is a language based a and language is indissolubly associa ed wi h meaning,
so an impo an shi has occu ed when a hesis on he alue o poe y makes no explici
e e ence o meaning and indeed highligh s expe ience o e meaning. Ou o he heses, on
pa aph ase, o m and con en , and seman ic densi y, do seem mo e di ec ly connec ed o
meaning bu i will be a heme o he a gumen o ollow ha an o e emphasis on meaning
can be misleading in cap u ing wha is o alue abou poe y.
The He esy o Pa aph ase hesis, ha he p ecise meaning o a poem is no pa aph as-
able (i.e. exp essible in o he e ms), is a commonplace abou poe y, in he sense ha
lip-se ice is paid o i in gene al e lec ions on he subjec , bu is ne e heless con o e sial

44 | POEMA 2.2024
unde close examina ion. The e a e hose who simply deny ha esis ance o pa aph ase
is an in eg al o e en in e es ing ea u e o poe y. Pe e Ki y, o example, has a gued ha
o he mos pa pa aph asing poe y does no p esen an insupe able p oblem once we a e
clea on a »c i e ion o success« (Ki y 1997, 104). We mus no , he insis s, se such a c i e-
ion un easonably high, so high in ac ha i couldn’ possibly be ul illed. Signi ican ly,
he sugges s ha one such c i e ion is oo high and un ul illable, namely ha pa aph ase
cap u e he expe ience ha he poem a o ds.
No one who se s ou o say in p ose he con en o wha a poem says in
poe ic o m in ends as he goal o he ask o p o ide an al e na i e way o
expe iencing he poem. And o aul he in e p e e o ailing o do wha is
no he poin o in e p e a ion in he i s place is plain nonsense.
(Ki y 1997, 105)
Th ee b ie p elimina y commen s on his.
4
The i s is ha Ki y is eadily conceding ha
he e is indeed a ele an expe ience uniquely associa ed wi h he poem ye , on his iew,
i is no o be iden i ied wi h he poem’s con en , no in any essen ial way connec ed o
in e p e a ion. The second is ha Ki y is associa ing pa aph ase wi h in e p e a ion, as i
he goal o in e p e a ion is o pa aph ase a poem’s meaning. Tha assump ion needs o be
challenged o i is a om clea ha a good in e p e a ion o a poem seeks simply o say in
o he wo ds wha he poem i sel says. Poe ic in e p e a ion, I sugges , is be e concei ed
as a way o encou aging, enhancing o de eloping p ecisely he expe ience a poem a o ds,
as desc ibed in ou discussion o he Expe ien ial hesis. The hi d poin is ha Ki y, in
se ing apa pa aph asable con en , on he one hand, and expe ience, on he o he , is all-
ing in o jus ha dualism ha Clean h B ooks, who coined he exp ession He esy o Pa a-
ph ase, wa ned agains : a dualism be ween some kind o ›s a emen ‹ ha he poem makes
and he eloquence, o beau y, o cla i y wi h which i does so (c . B ooks 1968, 160). In ac
B ooks is qui e happy o concede jus he kinds o loose pa aph ase ha Ki y de ends: » he
poin is [...] no ha we canno desc ibe adequa ely enough o many pu poses wha he
poem in gene al is ›abou ‹ and wha he gene al e ec o he poem is«. Indeed he allows
ha »[w]e can e y p ope ly use pa aph ases as poin e s and as sho -hand e e ences« as
long as »we know wha we a e doing and ha we see plainly ha he pa aph ase is no he
eal co e o meaning which cons i u es he essence o he poem« (B ooks 1968, 160). Tha
so-called »essence«, o B ooks, esides only in he o al »s uc u e« o he poem and canno
i sel be cap u ed in o he o mula ions.
Philosophe s o language a e igh ly wa y o claims o unpa aph asabili y. The hough
ha he e could be only one way in which some hing could be said goes agains basic
p inciples o seman ics, including wha E nie Lepo e (a e Donald Da idson) has called
4 Fo u he discussion, see Lama que 2009.
Lama que: Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value | 45
»seman ic innocence«, he idea, a i s simples , ha »wha an (unambiguous) wo d means
i means e e ywhe e i occu s« (Lepo e 2009, 181). The He esy o Pa aph ase iola es
seman ic innocence o he ex en i holds, as Lepo e pu s i , ha »wha he wo ds o a
poem mean is con ingen upon whe e in a poem hey occu « (Lepo e 2009, 182). Lepo e,
howe e , ingeniously o e s a de ence o he He esy o Pa aph ase while e aining seman ic
innocence. To do so he in oduces he idea o hype in ensionali y, which claims he e a e
»linguis ic en i onmen s in which eplacing an exp ession wi h i s synonym changes mean-
ing«. The p ime example in na u al language is quo a ion. Lepo e illus a es his as ollows:
»bachelo « is he i s wo d in »bachelo s a e unma ied men«
»unma ied man« is he i s wo d in »bachelo s a e unma ied men«
The o me is ue, he la e alse, ye »bachelo « and »unma ied man« a e synonymous.
He goes on:
Likewise, y eplacing »sheen« wi h »lus e « in Cole idge’s poem The Rime
o he Ancien Ma ine (1797):
And h ough he d i s he snowy cli s
Did send a dismal sheen;
No shapes o men no beas s we ken
The ice was all be ween.
The change su icien ly al e s he hy hm and hyme o b eak he bind
be ween he lines, and he eby al e s he poem i sel . Since synonym sub-
s i u ion in a poem can change me e o hyme, e c., and he eby change
he opic, poems oo c ea e hype in ensional con ex s. The igh conclusion
is no ha exp essions ca y unique meanings inside and ou side o poems.
(Lepo e 2009, 195)
Behind he idea ha poems c ea e hype in ensionali y, indeed a pa ial explana ion o
ha idea, is a u he claim ha »poe y, like quo a ion, doesn’ suppo subs i u ion o
synonyms because i ha bou s de ices o being li e ally (pa ly) abou hei own a icu-
la ions« (Lepo e 2009, 195). Because a poem is »pa ly cons i u ed by i s own a icula ion
[...] i is no e-a iculable in ano he medium« (Lepo e 2009, 193). Lepo e’s sugges ion is
ingenious and, i co ec , has he me i o aking some o he mys e y ou o he seman ics
o poe y. Howe e , wha he accoun does no do is answe ou ini ial ques ion abou he
alue o he comp ession o meaning in some ly ic poe y. Why should i be o alue o
a o d an in insically aluable expe ience ha a poem should be somehow abou i s own
a icula ion? I his is jus ano he way o saying ha pleasu e can be had in a ending o
46 | POEMA 2.2024
he modes in which hough in poe y is p esen ed hen so be i , o ha is su ely igh ,
bu he e seem o be addi ional ac o s a wo k because he e is no pa icula pleasu e o
be had in he hype in ensionali y o quo a ion. And is i ue ha poems a e e en pa ially
abou hei a icula ion? Tha seems doub ul in i sel , qui e apa om he wo y ha i
doesn’ explain hei alue. Wha a poem is abou , I will sugges , is i s ineg ained con en
iden i ied by, ce ainly, bu no equi alen o, i s pa icula mode o a icula ion.
O he philosophe s ha e appealed o me apho o explain unpa aph asabili y in poe y.
Two lines o hough a e e iden he e. The i s says ha i is in he na u e o li e o po-
e ic me apho s o be inexhaus ible in hei conno a ions so no p ecise li e al equi alen is
possible. The second, ollowing Da idson, denies he e is any such hing as me apho ical
meaning so he e is no hing, as i we e, o pa aph ase. Wha a me apho means is simply
wha he wo ds mean in hei li e al applica ion and he es is me ely e ec . Nei he iew
is especially illumina ing abou he supposed unpa aph asabili y o poe y. Pe haps he
di ec ion o explana ion is he w ong way ound. Migh i no be ha an adequa e heo y
o me apho could bene i om an accoun o he alue o poe y a he han he alue o
poe y being explained h ough a heo y o me apho ? The idea ha me apho is inexhaus -
ible migh be ue in some cases bu he na u e o , and cons ain s on, ha inexhaus ibili y,
i ele an he e, will only be de e mined in he ligh o some wide concep ion o poe y
and i s aims. As o he Da idsonian accoun o me apho , i migh seem in p inciple p om-
ising in he con ex o poe y i only o i s ocus away om meaning and i s admission
o non-p oposi ional elemen s in esponses o me apho . Howe e , he e is an un uliness
in elying exclusi ely on uncons ained e ec s which is no ue o he kind o no ma i e
expe iences demanded by poe y.
So wha emains o he He esy o Pa aph ase hesis? A one le el he esis ance o poe y
o pa aph ase ollows simply om he hough ha i ma e s in poe y, mo e so han in
o he o ms o language use, exac ly how some hing is exp essed. The o m o exp ession
is no dis inc om wha is exp essed, a poin we shall e u n o. The idea ha he e migh
be some o he way o saying p ecisely wha he poem says con adic s he e y na u e o
poe y which is o d aw a en ion o, gi e salience o, i s modes o exp ession. Tha is he
u h behind he hype in ensionali y iew.
The Fo m-Con en Uni y hesis, ha he o m o a poem is indi isible om i s con en ,
expands on, bu is no iden ical o, he He esy o Pa aph ase hesis. The la e migh be
ue bu no he o me . Resis ance o pa aph ase, in a milde e sion, migh be judged jus
a con ingen ac abou he complexi y o poe ic language; he less complex a poem he
mo e open i is o pa aph ase. Bu i o m-con en uni y is ue hen unpa aph asabili y is
no con ingen bu necessa y o i pa aph ase cap u es con en , and con en is indi isible
om o m, hen o m oo mus be e ained. Tha is hype in ensionali y again. A. C. B adley
a ely men ions pa aph ase bu a gues explici ly o o m-con en uni y: » his iden i y o
con en and o m [...] is no acciden ; i is o he essence o poe y in so a as i is poe y«
(B adley 1926, 15).
Lama que: Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value | 47
Clea ly o assess he Fo m-Con en Uni y hesis he ideas o › o m‹ and ›con en ‹ mus
hemsel es be cla i ied. Tha in i sel is no s aigh o wa d gi en he mul iple ways he
e ms a e used. Howe e , i is ai ly clea wha kinds o ea u es coun as o mal in poe y:
hyme, me e, hy hm, alli e a ion, epe i ion, e c. The ›e c‹ migh be di icul o cash in bu
some p elimina y poin s abou indi isibili y can s ill be main ained. One is ha o m-con-
en uni y in poe y is holis ic: he con en o he whole is indi isible om he o m o
he whole. Bu (holis ic) o m-con en uni y does no imply ha o any indi idual o mal
ea u e i is legi ima e o ask wha ea u e o con en i is equi alen o, e en i a ough
and eady accoun migh be a ailable o he con ibu ion made o he whole by each o
he pa s. Also i would be w ong o hink o › o m‹ in he ele an sense jus as he sum
o indi idual o mal ea u es. Fo m-con en uni y is s onge han ha in insis ing ha he
o al su ace con igu a ion o a poem is indi isible om i s o al con en . This is mo e like
wha B ooks means by »s uc u e«. To al con en , wha e e ha migh mean, is in a sense
supe enien on he s uc u al base.
The idea o ›con en ‹ is equally p oblema ic. In he ligh o he Expe ien ial hesis i
should no au oma ically be iden i ied wi h meaning. Pe haps be e is o hink o i in
e ms o ›abou ness‹, while ecognizing ha abou ness is in e es - ela i e.
5
Speci ica ions o
wha a poem is ›abou ‹ come in deg ees o ineg ainedness acco ding o he in e es s se ed
in making he speci ica ion. In some con ex s i migh be enough o say o Giles Goodland’s
poem ha i is abou wa es o he ocean o a day ou a he sea o a hypo hesis abou eyes
and seawa e . Bu hese desc ip ions do no do jus ice o ineg ained con en . Ul ima ely
he mos ineg ained speci ica ion o he con en – he › o al‹ con en – is ha which inco -
po a es he p ecise o m in which he con en is p esen ed: in o he wo ds he poem i sel .
This le el o ineg ainedness is an icipa ed in hype in ensionali y and in he He esy o Pa a-
ph ase. The in e es se ed a his le el is an in e es in he poem, as B adley would say, › o
i s own sake‹. I is a his le el, bu only he e, ha con en becomes indi isible om o m.
Fo m-Con en Uni y now akes on a di e en complexion. I need no be hough a
me ely con ingen ac abou (some) poems ha hei con en is indi isible om hei o m.
Fo m-con en iden i y is no some hing ha one disco e s in a poem bu a he some hing
one demands o a poem when b inging o i a ce ain kind o in e es : an in e es in he
poem o i s own sake. This is no o deny o he kinds o in e es in a poem which migh
ocus on mo e abs ac ed ea u es o con en o indeed o m. One migh , o example, be
in e es ed in commonali ies ac oss poems, pe haps me ical o hema ic simila i ies.
5 This idea is also de eloped in Lama que (2009).
54 | POEMA 2.2024
sough a e unde ele an modes o a en ion when he poe y game is engaged. The de-
ini i e expe iences a e no sensa ions o e en emo ions – he e is no de e mina e phenom-
enology o poe ic expe ience ac oss all gen es ( he e y idea is absu d) – bu a e p ocesses
o hough p ecisely shaped by he o m-con en uni ies ha a e hei ocus o a en ion. O
cou se he e migh be accompanying emo ions o sensa ions in pa icula cases bu hese
a e con ingen and con ex -dependen . So, e u ning o ou ini ial ques ion, why do we al-
ue he complexi y – and di icul y – o (some) poe y when we spu n i elsewhe e? The an-
swe 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 ocesses, and we ind alue in he expe ience ha 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.
11
11 I am g a e ul o audiences a Bi kbeck College and he Uni e si ies o S i ling, Essex, and Yo k o cons uc i e and
help ul eedback on his pape .
Re e ences
A idge, De ek. The Singula i y o Li e a u e. London:
Rou ledge, 2004.
Bea dsley, Mon oe C. Aes he ics: P oblems in he Philos-
ophy o C i icism. 2
nd
ed. Indianapolis: Hacke , 1981.
B adley, A.C. »Poe y o Poe y’s Sake«. Ox o d Lec u es
on Poe y. London: Macmillan, 1926. 3–34.
B ooks, Clean h. »The He esy o Pa aph ase (1947)«.
The Well W ough U n: S udies in he S uc u e o Po-
e y. London: Me huen, 1968. 157–176.
Budd, Malcolm. Values o A : Pic u es, Poe y and Mu-
sic. London: Penguin, 1995.
Collingwood, R.G. The P inciples o A . Ox o d: Cla en-
don P ess, 1947.
Hollande , John. The Nigh Mi o : Poems. New Yo k:
A heneum, 1971.
Ki y, Pe e . »On he Uni y o Fo m and Con en «. Philos-
ophies o A s: An Essay in Di e ences. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1997. 84–119.
Ki y, Pe e . »Pa aph asing Poe y ( o P o i and Plea-
su e)«. Jou nal o Aes he ics and A C i icism 69.4
(2011): 367–377.
K ei man, No man. Dancing in he Da k. New and Se-
lec ed Poems. Edinbu gh: Clydesdale P ess, 2010.
Lama que, Pe e . »The Elusi eness o Poe ic Meaning«.
Ra io 22.4 (2009): 398–420.
Lama que, Pe e . »Wi gens ein, Li e a u e, and he
Idea o a P ac ice«. B i ish Jou nal o Aes he ics 50
(2010): 375–388.
Lepo e, E nes . »The He esy o Pa aph ase. When he
medium eally is he message«. Midwes S udies in
Philosophy 33.1 (2009): 177–197.
Lumsden, Roddy (ed.). The Bes B i ish Poe y 2011.
London: Sal Publishing, 2011.
P ess, John. The Cheque ’d Shade: Re lec ions on Ob-
scu i y in Poe y. London: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess,
1963.
Quille -Couch, A hu (ed.). The Ox o d Book o English
Ve se 1250–1900. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess, 1931.
Wo dswo h, William. »P e ace o Ly ical Ballads
[1800]«. Roman icism: An An hology. Ed. Duncan
Wu. 3
d
edi ion. Ox o d: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
495–506.

Lama que: Seman ic Fineg ainedness and Poe ic Value | 55
Au ho
Pe e Lama que
Uni e si y o Yo k (UK), Depa men o Philosophy,
p. .lama que@yo k.ac.uk
Open Access
This pape is published unde he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion–Sha eAlike 4.0 In e na ional license (
CC BY-
SA 4.0
). Please no e ha indi idual, app op ia ely ma ked pa s o he pape may be excluded om he license
men ioned o may be subjec o o he copy igh condi ions. I such hi d pa y ma e ial is no unde he C ea i e
Commons license, any copying, edi ing o public ep oduc ion is only pe mi ed wi h he p io consen o he
espec i e copy igh owne o on he basis o ele an legal au ho iza ion egula ions.