Walt Whitman Quarterly Review

Front Matter, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, vol. 35, no. 1

Front Matter, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, vol. 34, no. 3/4

Whitman], [Walt

English

Life and Adventures of Jack Engle: An Auto-Biography

Back Matter, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, vol. 35, no. 1

Folsom, Ed

Walt Whitman: A Current Bibliography, Winter/Spring 2017

Front Matter, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, vol. 34, no. 2

Feder, Rachel

WWQR VOL. 34 NO. 2 (FALL 2016)
195
NOTES
PRACTICING INFINITY
IN A BRIEF ESSAY on “Whitman and the Idea of Infinity,” poet/critic 
James Longenbach triangulates Louise Glück, Emmanuel Levinas, 
and Walt Whitman in order to craft a definition of infinity in which 
the poet “must inhabit his desolation.”1 Reading “As I Ebb’d with the 
Ocean of Life” as “the most rivetingly existential account of infinitude 
in the English language[,]” Longenbach describes how, in the poem’s 
final sentence, Whitman becomes “a thing himself[,]” a thing that, 
like the things around him, is “a metaphor for something else” (146, 
147, 150). It’s a very modernist reading of Whitmanic infinity, the 
imagistic destruction of the self encoded in the very syntax of what 
Allen Ginsberg once called the Wordsworthian “nineteenth-century 
egoism” that Whitman “developed.”2 
I’m perfectly comfortable with Longenbach’s historical retro-pro-
jection. After all, the notion of counting up to or down from self-
hood—that is, the link between endless particulates and a belief in 
the continuity of the self—comes out of British Romanticism, which 
proffered several definitions of infinity (its aesthetics, its poetics) as 
crucial to Whitman as they were to modernism. I’ve written else-
where about Locke’s parallel arguments that the “endless addition . . . 
of numbers . . . is that which gives us the clearest and most distinct 
idea of infinity” and that “the identity of the same man consists . . . in 
nothing but a participation of the same continued life, by constantly 
fleeting particles of matter, in succession vitally united to the same 
organized body.”3 Locke posits infinity and identity as twin abstrac-
tions understood via counting—by counting anything, in the former 
case, and accumulating moments that one is oneself, in the latter. 
This and other Enlightenment-era definitions of infinity—forged at 
a moment when the very concept was in crisis—represent not only 
an intellectual-historical context for British Romanticism but also 
a system of poetics with transatlantic and continuing influence. In 
particular, the historically specific understanding of the relationship 
196
WWQR VOL. 34 NO.2 (FALL 2016)
between enumeration and infinity gives us a new purchase on the 
line and its centrality to modernist poetics, while at the same time 
bringing out the extent to which many nineteenth-century poems—
both British and American—may be said to anticipate that device. 
With its accumulation of line upon line, the blank verse of 
Wordsworth’s The Prelude approximates a Lockean enumerative 
framework in which repetition leads to a limited but real belief in self-
hood and in what transcends it. This proves a useful context within 
which to examine its conclusion:
Prophets of Nature, we to them will speak
By reason and by truth; what we have loved
Others will love, and we may teach them how:
Instruct them how the mind of man becomes
A thousand times more beautiful than the earth
On which he dwells, above this frame of things
(Which, ‘mid all revolutions in the hopes
And fears of men, doth still remain unchanged)
In beauty exalted, as it is itself
Of substance and of fabric more divine.4
If we take these closing lines at their (rather sentimental) word, then 
we have to figure out what it might mean for the poem to teach love, 
or to promise that love can be taught. Through the sometimes tedious 
acts of attention that make up the poem’s detail-by-detail, memo-
ry-by-memory tracing of personal development, the reader is led to 
obsess, to consider, and to try to understand the life story of a mind. 
Perhaps these seemingly endless acts of attention are in themselves 
a kind of love, or a mechanism of love (something akin to “that best 
portion of a good man’s life, / His little, nameless, unremembered 
acts, / Of kindness and of love”).5 Transfiguring these unremembered 
acts into lines (after lines), the long poem leads its readers through a 
form of love.
By suggesting that we might turn from this form of love to 
Whitman’s ecstatic poetics, I follow Joel Pace, who has argued that 
“Wordsworth’s role in American literature and culture has been under-
stated” and that contemporary critical readings of Wordsworth are 
“indebted to nineteenth-century America’s Wordsworth.”6 I note that 
WWQR VOL. 34 NO. 2 (FALL 2016)
197
Wordsworth’s poetic responses to infinity discourse encode their own 
repetitions, that Wordsworth was part of the literary-historical fabric 
for Whitman, and that the form of Song of Myself might be clarified in 
relation to The Prelude and in relation to Locke’s definition of infinity.7
At one moment toward the beginning of Song of Myself, Whitman 
adapts his long-line aesthetic to a theory of reading:
Have you reckon’d a thousand acres much? have you reckon’d 
the earth much?
Have you practis’d so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?8
Read in conjunction with Locke’s understanding of infinity as a tran-
scendent concept in which one can believe when one participates in the 
monotony of counting, in this brief excerpt, “get[ting] at the meaning 
of poems” follows reckoning grand spaces and practicing reading for 
“so long.” The word “reckon” combines description, enumeration, 
navigation, calculation, and “reason[ing] with one’s self” in order to 
“conclude from arguments.”9 Similarly, learning to read via practice 
is an act of repetitive expansion that allows one to figure out what was 
previously incomprehensible. 
 And yet, when Song of Myself asks, “Have you felt so proud to 
get at the meaning[,]” its tone is at once self-reflexive and in urgent 
mockery. The tonal duality hinges on an older definition of the term 
“reckon,” denoting a chain or fetter (OED). Read in this way, the 
poem compares “getting at the meaning” to fencing in a thousand 
acres or trying to restrain the earth entire; it also compares “thinking 
about” to “fencing in.” This chastisement asks the reader to open the 
mind to the poem as process, whether because meaning can no more 
be “gotten at” than the earth can be fettered, or because the very act 
of reading—the repetition of it, the daily quality of it—is the surest 
path to a poem’s message. If the mechanism of a poem, the flow of 
line upon line, elucidates the poem, then understanding a poem is 
nothing to be proud of. Every act of reading is an act of interpretation, 
of demystification. Similarly, the 1844 Webster’s Dictionary offers 
“To count; to number; that is, to tell the particulars” as a primary 
definition of “reck’on” while also noting the etymological connection 
198
WWQR VOL. 34 NO.2 (FALL 2016)
to “rule or govern.”So, as in Locke’s understanding of infinity, reck-
oning carries with it a sense of transcendent impossibility—one can 
no more count to infinity than rule the earth. 
Consider the following moment from Song of Myself, in which 
Whitman addresses questions of number:
It is time to explain myself—let us stand up.
What is known I strip away,
I launch all men and women forward with me into the Unknown.
The clock indicates the moment—but what does eternity indicate?
We have thus far exhausted trillions of winters and summers,
There are trillions ahead, and trillions ahead of them.
Births have brought us richness and variety,
And other births will bring us richness and variety.
I do not call one greater and one smaller,
That which fills its period and place is equal to any. (71)
Repetition leads to expansion here—not only theoretically but also 
in the poem’s explicit content. At the beginning of the section, an 
em-dash creates a tangible apposition between “myself” and “us,” the 
singular and the collective. In addition to the basic syntactic meaning, 
i.e., that the explanation begins with a call to stand, we see here that 
when the wish to explain “myself” is announced, the text typographi-
cally indicates that the collectivity can stand up; “let us” is interesting 
not only as an idiomatic representation of how one directs a group 
to which one belongs but also as a speech act in which permission is 
granted, in which “us” is “let,” permitted to pass, or set free. 
After the poem claims to “strip away” the known and “launch” 
every single being “into the Unknown,” a resonant image of counting 
to infinity chimes in counterpoint: “The clock indicates the moment—
but what does eternity indicate?” In this way, the poem’s clear state-
ment of its project—its claim to explain itself—can be seen not only 
as the pan-social standing up, stripping away of the known, and 
launching into the unknown that the poem narrates, but also as the 
WWQR VOL. 34 NO. 2 (FALL 2016)
199
question of what the sum of all time—the sum of all clocks ticking 
every moment—indicates. In the spirit of its theory of reading, Leaves 
of Grass explains itself via the question of what eternity indexes, or 
the idea of what ultimate repetition opens up.
By this token, we may notice anew that the section begins: “It is 
time to explain myself[.]” Flipping the syntax, we see that the algebra 
of this sentence also implies: “To explain myself is time.” In this way, 
the poem—and the expansive personality constructed within the text 
of the poem—equates itself with time, with the problem of the clock’s 
immediacy versus its tenuous relationship to eternity. Song of Myself 
here recapitulates its theory of reading and its overall project insofar as 
the poem, and “myself,” is at once the clock ticking the moment and, 
by extension, part of eternity. Thus, after a meditation on number, 
richness, and variety, Song of Myself concludes this meditation on 
“trillions . . . and trillions” by stating: “I do not call one greater and 
one smaller, / That which fills its period and place is equal to any.” 
Equality, an integral part of the poem’s greater project, is here defined 
in terms of discrete number. One is not greater or smaller as long as 
one fills up period and place, or time and space—it is the sheer number 
of things, then, that makes them equal. And so, as with counting to 
infinity, or, in a Lockean frame, counting to believe in infinity or 
identity, in Song of Myself the spontaneous, spiritual, transcendent 
monism follows from discrete “trillions” and “trillions,” from number 
leading to numberlessness, from the immense value of filling up a bit 
of space or a moment of time or the span of a sentence. With this in 
mind, perhaps we might ask whether Whitman’s long line often gets 
too much credit. Sure, it reaches out and out to take in everything, 
but perhaps sometimes, as in Song of Myself, it is the spillage of line 
upon line, the seeming trillions, the encoded practice of reading, that 
lets us believe in the long line at all.
University of Denver                                               RACHEL FEDER
200
WWQR VOL. 34 NO.2 (FALL 2016)
NOTES
1   James Longenbach, “Whitman and the Idea of Infinity,” in Walt Whitman, 
Where the Future Becomes Present, ed. David Haven Blake and Michael Robertson 
(Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2008), 147. 
2   Allen Ginsberg, “Allen Ginsberg Class on Walt Whitman and William 
Wordsworth,” Naropa Audio Archive, archive.org/details/naropa_allen_ginsberg_
class_on_walt.
3   John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Roger Woolhouse 
(New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 198, 299.
4   William Wordsworth, The Prelude (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1979), 482.
5   Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey, ll. 34-36, in Wordsworth and 
Coleridge, Lyrical Ballads (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 111-117.
6   Joel Pace, “Wordsworth and America: Reception and Reform,” in The 
Cambridge Companion to Wordsworth, ed. Stephen Gill (Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 2003), 243.
7   For an influence argument connecting Wordsworth and Whitman, see Richard 
Gravil’s Romantic Dialogues: Anglo-American Continuities, 1776-1862 (New York: 
St. Martin’s Press, 2000) as well as Kenneth Price’s analysis of his argument 
in Romantic Circles Reviews & Receptions ([Review of Richard Gravil, Romantic 
Dialogues: Anglo-American Continuities, 1776–1862] [September 2002], www.
rc.umd.edu/reviews-blog).
8   Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, deathbed edition (Philadelphia: David McKay, 
1891-1892), 30. Available on the Walt Whitman Archive (www.whitmanarchive.org).
9   All but the last of these denotations are from “reckon, v.” Oxford English 
Dictionary, 3rd ed. (June 2009). Online. The quoted denotation is from “Definition 
for RECK’ON” from the 1844 Webster’s Dictionary, available on the Emily 
Dickinson Lexicon (Brigham Young University), edl.byu.edu/webster.


Practicing Infinity

Review of&nbsp;Walt Whitman's Selected Journalism. Ed. Douglas A. Noverr and Jason Stacy

Buinicki, Martin T

Walt Whitman's Selected Journalism. Ed. Douglas A. Noverr and Jason Stacy [review]

Turpin, Zachary

Whitman in the Abstract

Back Matter, Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, vol. 34, no. 2

Not a member yet