The immeasurable joy that a pup feels upon spying the perfect stick—though is not every stick perfect?—to seize it between the teeth, to trot about in triumphant exaltation, to preen and prance, to clench and cherish it as though gold, or life itself, were held within the jaws, precious beyond all things. If only I could delight in anything with such unfeigned enthusiasm—as that stick, its discovery, its seizure, its hold.
Ah, to find such rapture in the ordinary! To greet the world not with suspicion but with wonder, to see in the roughness of bark and the scent of earth a treasure beyond price. She asks no meaning of the stick, no purpose beyond the play; she does not weigh its straightness nor lament its splinters. She exults simply because it is there—because it can be grasped, borne, and shared with the wind.
And when I feign to take her most prized possession from her, she does not crouch defensively nor guard it with wounded pride. She startles not in fear, nor suspects deceit, but spies instead an opportunity for play—for spirited contest, for joyous fun. A game of keep-away, of chase, of tug-of-war, of tag. The stick becomes not a treasure to hoard, but a bond to share, a spark of communion between kindred souls who, for a moment, forget the hierarchy of species and simply are. How effortless her wisdom seems: to turn every threat into invitation, every grasp into dance. What the world calls possession, she calls participation; what we call loss, she calls laughter.
Laugh I must too, for in her play I am carried back to youth—when a stick could be anything the heart desired: a sword flashing against unseen foes, a spear cast toward the sky, a knight’s lance, a shepherd’s staff, a trumpet summoning invisible armies, a conductor’s baton commanding the symphony. How endless were the shapes of imagination then! She reminds me of what I once possessed without knowing its worth—the gift of invention, the sacred power of play.
And so I laugh, though a tear is not far behind, for the years slip away like autumn leaves on the wind, and I remember what it was to live so lightly. She, in her wisdom, has become my teacher—her joy a gentle rebuke to my solemnity, her play a sermon on the holiness of delight. If ever there is grace to be found, it is in such simple acts: a stick, a chase, a glint of sunlight on the grass, a heart unburdened by purpose. Perhaps salvation lies not in grand design, but in this—to love a stick as though it were the world, and to find, in that loving, the world made whole again.
A skipping stone, chosen with care by human hand, breaks the still glass of lake serene; for stones remember what time forgets, and in their flight, recall all the more.
What does it remember? The molten cradle of its birth beneath the sea, the mountain’s shattering rise from the deep, the patient sleep in riverbed and shore. The warmth of the palm that cast it forth, the whisper of air between each skip— and how, in falling, it becomes again what it has always been: stillness beneath all motion.
The em dash—now ever present in my writing—was, for the better part of my life, a non-entity. For several obvious reasons.
First, though it may have appeared in my handwritten script, I scarcely distinguished it from an ordinary dash or hyphen; the length of line between words was inconsequential in my already indecipherable and increasingly illegible hand. In truth, I long remained unaware of its proper name, or of the distinctions of nomenclature that punctuation ascribes to the several lengths of line between words.
Second, my earliest years of composition were spent at the typewriter. There, whether composing at the typewriter or transcribing handwritten script at the typewriter for submission and review, I knew only the dash—or the double dash—a generally unattractive contrivance, with space-dash-space between words when some pause seemed warranted. Better, I thought, a semicolon, a colon, or perhaps parenthetical for the offset thought.
And then came my first decades at the computer, where a stilted admixture of bureaucratic and legalistic form constrained me: such mandated style allowed no room for such expressive gestures. The dash—any dash—was a rarity in the acceptable prose of the office.
But in retirement, in the rediscovery of prose and poetry and possibility, I learned how easily the ungainly dash could be replaced by its elegant cousin—the em dash. And so I was converted: from endless parentheticals, unsightly space-dash-space, and other intrusive devices, to this versatile and dashing stroke. Poets and novelists know its power—and so, it seems, to the consternation of creative writers everywhere, does artificial intelligence.
Nabataean temple ruins at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan. The temple may have been dedicated to the goddess Atargatis (see McKenzie et al. 2002; Almasri 2019).
When the Rains Come
When the rains come … the dust shall become mud, When the rains come … the mud shall become mire, And the feet of the proud shall sink to the ankle, And their words shall cling like clay to their tongues.
When the rains come … the roofs shall tremble, The cisterns shall overflow their stone mouths, And the low places shall remember the sea, Calling out to the deep from which they were torn.
When the rains come … the idols shall dim, Their painted eyes veiled in silt and silence, And the temples shall weep through broken eaves, For their gods shall not answer from the thunder.
When the rains come … the earth shall be heavy, And the hearts of men heavier still; The widow shall draw her shawl to her face, And the child shall forget the taste of dry bread.
When the rains come … we shall huddle together, Beholding the waters erase our names from the doorposts, And none shall boast of his harvest, For the river shall take what it wills, Bearing all things toward the forgetting sea.
When the Sun Is Restored
When the sun is restored … the waters shall fade, When the sun is restored … the mire shall break and sigh, And the earth shall stir beneath the plough, Breathing again as if reborn.
When the sun is restored … warmth shall come first, A balm to the chilled and the shivering earth; Green shall rise from the broken furrows, And the people shall bless the light.
When the sun is restored … the fields shall swell, The ears grow heavy, the vines bend low; And laughter shall echo in the threshing floor, Till the grain lies fuller than the granaries can hold.
And in the noonday brightness the sparrows fell silent, For they knew the hour would not endure.
When the sun is restored … the rivers shall dwindle, The soil yawn open like a parched mouth, And famine shall creep from the roots of plenty, Taking the firstborn of abundance.
When the sun is restored … the hearts of men shall fail, Their tongues cleaving to the roofs of their mouths; And the widow shall weep no longer, For her tears have been taken by the wind.
When the sun is restored … we shall gather at the well, Staring into its empty throat, And all shall return to dust, For from dust were we raised, and to dust we descend; And we lift parched hands, as if exalting to heaven for rain, That the circle may begin again.
When the Silence Falls
When the silence falls … the people shall gather, Not in joy nor mourning, but in stillness; And the priests shall stand before the altar, Their hands empty of offerings.
When the silence falls … the incense shall not rise, For no prayer shall remain upon our lips; We have cried out in the rains and cursed in the drought, And now we have no words to give.
When the silence falls … the children shall ask, “Why do we come to this place?” And the elders shall have no answer, For the stones themselves have forgotten their purpose.
When the silence falls … the priests shall look upon each other, And see their own faces as through water; They shall remember the prayers they learned as boys, And wonder if the words were ever heard.
When the silence falls … we shall see what we have built— Altars worn smooth by our hands, Bowls that held grain and oil and blood, All the bargaining of our fathers with the sky.
When the silence falls … no voice shall descend, Neither blessing nor judgment from above; And we shall know that we stand alone, Between the rain we fear and the sun we cannot bear, Waiting in the house we made for a goddess Who has not spoken in living memory.
Amor, che ‘ncende il cor d’ardente zelo, di gelata paura il tèn constretto, et qual sia più, fa dubbio a l’intelletto, la speranza o ‘l temor, la fiamma o ‘l gielo.
Love that lights ardent zeal in the heart, constrains it also with an icy fear, and leaves the mind uncertain which is greater, the hope or the fear, the flame or the frost. — Francesco Petrarca, Canzoniere 182
I. The Divided Heart
Few poets have so perfectly distilled the contradictory essence of love as Petrarch. In four lines, he sets the human heart ablaze and in the same breath subdues it with frost. Love, that “ardent zeal,” becomes inseparable from the chill of fear; the intellect, summoned to arbitrate between hope and terror, finds itself immobilized in doubt. The flame illuminates even as it freezes.
The quatrain serves not merely as an emblem of courtly love but as a mirror of the reflective soul—the soul that, once conscious of its passion, cannot help but analyze it. Every act of self-awareness introduces distance; every act of comprehension tempers immediacy. To understand what one feels is already to stand outside the feeling. Thus, the Petrarchan heart is forever divided: inflamed by emotion, yet cooled by the very intellect that seeks to grasp it.
Statue of Petrarch on the Uffizi Palace, in Florence
II. Petrarch’s Paradox—Flame and Frost
In Canzoniere 182, Amore is no mere sentiment but a force of cosmic ambivalence—a sacred fire that binds as much as it liberates. The heart, seized by ardente zelo, is at once inspired and constrained by gelata paura; passion and dread are inseparable twins. But what gives the poem its enduring power is the final turn: fa dubbio a l’intelletto—it makes the intellect uncertain.
This uncertainty is not simple indecision; it is the very mechanism by which passion becomes reflection. The lover’s flame, examined, begins to cool—and that cooling assumes distinct forms.
First, love cools by comprehension. The instant it is understood, passion becomes object rather than subject. The flame is enclosed in glass: it still glows, but it no longer burns.
Second, love cools by doubt of itself. Reflection turns inward, questioning its own authenticity: Is this love true, or merely imagined? In this moment, feeling erodes under the acid of self-consciousness.
Third, love cools by doubt of the beloved. The intellect, unable to sustain idealization, wonders whether the object of devotion merits such intensity. The beloved becomes an emblem—not a person of flesh and breath, but a mirror of perfection that no reality can equal.
Fourth, love cools by doubt of the lover’s worthiness. The heart fears it is unworthy of its own longing. Humility becomes paralysis, and passion folds inward upon itself.
These four modes of cooling form the architecture of Petrarch’s inner world—the endless oscillation between fervor and fear, adoration and self-doubt. He writes not to resolve this tension but to dwell within it. Each sonnet is a chamber where flame and frost coexist, where thought is both confessor and executioner of feeling.
III. Dante and the Alchemy of the Intellect
Dante offers a luminous counterpoint. In La Vita Nuova and the Paradiso, intellect and love are not adversaries but allies; the mind becomes the means by which love ascends. L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle—the love that moves the sun and the other stars—does not cool but sanctifies. In Dante, the intellect transforms passion into vision—the earthly beloved into divine wisdom. The flame does not die; it becomes light.
Consider the climactic moment of Paradiso XXXIII, where Dante’s vision finally encompasses the divine mystery. His intellect, far from diminishing his love, becomes the very instrument of its perfection. He describes how his desire and will are turned like a wheel by the love that moves the sun and the other stars. Here, understanding completes rather than constrains. The mind does not freeze the heart; it liberates it into comprehension of the Eternal. Beatrice herself, who began as an earthly beloved, becomes through the intellect’s mediation a guide to the Beatific Vision. Her smile, growing ever brighter as they ascend through the spheres of Paradise, finally becomes too radiant for mortal sight—not because love has cooled, but because it has been refined into pure illumination.
Petrarch inherits Dante’s vocabulary but not his cosmos. His world is one step further from heaven, one degree cooler. Where Dante’s intellect completes love by raising it to the eternal, Petrarch’s intellect contains it, interrogates it, doubts it. He lives in the afterglow of revelation—the warmth still present, but the fire withdrawn. As the Paradiso closes, Dante’s vision resolves into the final harmony of understanding and desire—l’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle—the line that unites intellect and love in a single act of divine motion. Petrarch cannot reach this synthesis. His flame flickers in the middle distance, neither extinguished nor transcendent.
IV. The Modern Inheritance—Reflection and Alienation
From Petrarch descends the long lineage of reflective melancholy that characterizes the modern mind. His was the first great experiment in self-conscious passion—the attempt to inhabit feeling and analyze it at once. After him, love and thought could no longer coexist in innocence; the very act of awareness altered the nature of what was felt.
Montaigne and the Essay of the Self
Montaigne inherits this disposition and turns it into method. In his Essais, feeling is no longer confessed in the lyric key but dissected in the prose of observation. The heart becomes a field for inquiry, and what was once sung becomes tested, weighed, compared. It is telling that Montaigne quotes Petrarch approvingly: “He who can say how he burns with love, has little fire.” (Chi può dir com’ egli arde, è in picciol fuoco, Canzoniere 137). The aphorism might well serve as Montaigne’s motto, for he, too, knows that passion explained is passion already cooling.
His genial skepticism marks the first full tempering of Petrarch’s flame: affection survives, but only as reflection. The essay replaces the sonnet as the vessel of interior life; emotion, distilled into thought, becomes the study of itself. In Montaigne, we see the completion of a transformation begun in Petrarch—the lover becomes the anatomist of his own heart, and the page becomes not a transcript of feeling but a laboratory for its examination. The warmth of passion is not extinguished but transmuted into the steady light of self-knowledge.
Wordsworth and Emotion Recollected
Wordsworth, centuries later, restores emotion to poetry, yet only by containing it within the frame of recollection. His famous dictum—”emotion recollected in tranquillity”—is itself a Petrarchan paradox, though less tormented. He admits that to write of passion is to have already survived it. The poet stands at a contemplative distance from his own fervor, translating immediacy into memory, fire into afterglow. What once consumed now instructs.
In the Prelude (XII), Wordsworth describes the “spots of time” that preserve the intensity of past experience, yet the very act of preservation requires temporal remove. The flame of immediate experience has cooled into the steady glow of retrospective understanding. Wordsworth does not lament this cooling as loss; rather, he discovers in it a new kind of beauty—the beauty of consciousness reflecting upon its own depths.
Eliot and the Fragments of Feeling
By the time we reach T.S. Eliot, the process is complete. In The Waste Land, the flame is nearly ash. His lines of “memory and desire” register not passion itself but its echo—reverberations in a chamber long since emptied of direct experience. Emotion is mediated through quotation, irony, and allusion; the self no longer speaks but curates its fragments.
Consider the hyacinth girl passage, where memory itself fails to sustain emotion: “I could not / Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither / Living nor dead, and I knew nothing.” The speaker recalls a moment that should have been transcendent—arms full of flowers, hair wet—but the recollection brings only paralysis, a kind of death-in-life. Even memory cannot resurrect the feeling; it can only gesture toward its absence. The modern condition is not the absence of feeling but its overexposure, its reduction to artifact. The poem becomes the museum of emotion, its vitrines polished and sterile. Where Petrarch’s flame still flickered with real heat, and Wordsworth’s embers still glowed warm, Eliot presents us with the cold remains—fragments shored against ruins. Where Petrarch doubts his own worthiness to feel, Eliot doubts feeling itself. The circle has closed; intellect now governs even absence.
The Progressive Abstraction
Between Montaigne’s self-observation, Wordsworth’s recollected emotion, and Eliot’s fractured memory, one can trace the progressive abstraction of the human heart. Each represents a further remove from Petrarch’s immediacy: what began as a dialogue between love and intellect becomes a monologue of intellect about love. The warmth remains, but it is remembered warmth—the lingering heat of stones long after the fire has gone out.
And yet, in each of these figures, the Petrarchan spark persists. Montaigne’s curiosity, Wordsworth’s reverence for inward life, Eliot’s yearning for spiritual coherence—all descend from that first poet who dared to make consciousness itself his subject. The flame may cool, but its light passes on, refracted through centuries of minds still haunted by the desire to feel purely and the impossibility of doing so once thought begins.
V. The Cooling of the Flame—A Personal Reflection
It is impossible, for some temperaments, to escape this inheritance. Emotion arises, and almost immediately the mind begins to interpret it—weighing, contextualizing, seeking its meaning. In doing so, it drains the warmth from the moment even as it preserves it in memory.
To intellectualize emotion is to betray and to honor it at once. The betrayal lies in the loss of immediacy; the honor lies in the act of remembrance. What the heart cannot sustain, the mind attempts to eternalize. The flame cools into an image—but in that cooling, it endures.
Perhaps the intellect is not the enemy of passion but its afterlife. Every poem, every meditation, every recollection is a small resurrection of a feeling that once burned uncontrollably. The fire itself is gone, but its light remains, steady now, capable of illuminating others.
This is the paradox Petrarch teaches: that the lover who cannot stop thinking destroys the ecstasy of love but gains, in its place, the wisdom of love. To understand one’s passion is to lose it; yet without understanding, it would pass unnoticed, leaving no trace but ashes.
VI. The Light of the Ashes
Petrarch’s quatrain ends in uncertainty, but not in despair. His is not the extinguished flame, but the tempered one. Love and fear, hope and doubt, flame and frost—these are not enemies but necessary contraries. The human soul, poised between ardor and intellect, must learn to bear the tension rather than resolve it.
In the end, intellect does not annihilate feeling; it refines it. The cooled flame still gives light. That light—pale but enduring—is the radiance of thought born from passion, the steady glow of what once burned brightly.
We live by such embers. To love is to burn; to remember is to cool; to think is to preserve. Between these three acts, the heart makes its pilgrimage from fire to frost to flame again—each transformation both loss and grace.
Northcoast Antiquarian 