PN Review Print and Online Poetry Magazine
Most Read... Rebecca WattsThe Cult of the Noble Amateur
(PN Review 239)
Mark FordLetters And So It Goes
Letters from Young Mr Grace
(aka John Ashbery)

(PN Review 239)
Henry Kingon Toby Martinez de las Rivas
(PN Review 244)
Eavan BolandA Lyric Voice at Bay
(PN Review 121)
Vahni CapildeoOn Judging Prizes, & Reading More than Six Really Good Books
(PN Review 237)
Tim Parksin conversation with Natalia Ginzburg
(PN Review 49)
Next Issue Peter Scupham remembers Anthony Thwaite in 'Chimes at Midnight' Sinead Morrissey spends A Week in Gdańsk Rebecca Watts talks with Julia Copus about Charlotte Mew Boris Dralyuk and Irina Mashinski evoke Arseny Tarkovsky and his translator Peter Oram Frederic Raphael sends a letter to William Somerset Maugham
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
PNR 250 Poetry Archive Banner
Monthly Carcanet Books
PN Review New Issue

This report is taken from PN Review 227, Volume 42 Number 3, January - February 2016.

reads Emily Dickinson’s ‘Just once! Oh least Request!’

A Personal Reading
Thomas Kinsella

Just Once! Oh least Request!
Could Adamant refuse
So small a Grace
So scanty put,
Such agonizing terms?                 5
Would not a God of Flint
Be conscious of a sigh
As down His Heaven dropt remote
‘Just Once’ Sweet Deity?

Line 1: A passionate prayer for the satisfaction of a desire repeatedly denied, the tone hopeless.

lines 2/3: Rhetoric: denial would be unthinkable. An instance offered: Earth’s hardest matter rejecting so slight a mercy...

Line 4: humbly asked...

Line 5: ...out of such painful need.

Lines 6/7: A second instance offered – but with rejection accepted in the image: a god of absolute hardness, hearing – and not answering – the faintest, most resigned of prayers.

Lines 8/9: A dramatic visual image of the rejection: the prayer – a thing of substance, embodied in the two opening words of the poem – falling away from an unanswering god and dropping through his remoteness back to the pleading voice.

Line 9: Sweet Deity. Not the god of lines 6 and 8 – the deity introduced as an instance in the prayer’s hopelessness – but the being to whom the prayer is addressed.

In summary: an intense statement of an abject and hopeless request for the slightest satisfaction of an emotional need repeatedly denied – a need, in the tone of the poem, satisfied ordinarily for others. The nature of the need not given. The negative evidence – not ...

Searching, please wait... animated waiting image