Sunday, May 29, 2016

On a poem by Elizabeth Deborah Brockman


By John Kinsella

Below is a poem by Elizabeth Deborah Brockman:

On Receiving From England a Bunch of Dried Wild Flowers.

Pale Ghosts! of fragrant things that grew among
The woods and valleys of my native land,
Phantoms of flowers I played with long ago:
Here are the scented violets I sought
In their cool nooks of verdure, and the bells
That fringed the mountain crag with loveliest blue;
Here are the flushing clusters of the May,
The dainty primrose on its slender stem;
And the forget-me-not—all faint and pale
As those dim memories of home that haunt
The exile’s wistful heart in banishment.

                    I look around and see
A thousand gayer tints; the wilderness
Is bright with gorgeous rainbow colouring
Of flowers that have no dear familiar names.
I see them closing ere the dews of night
Have touched their waxen leaflets: close they fold
Their tender blossoms through the darkened hours,
And will not open, though the fractious winds
Should wrestle with their roots and strain their stems.
They waken not until the softer airs,
Breathed from the rosy lips of early morn,
Come whispering, “lo! the lordly sun is nigh.”

But in my hand these frail memorials
Lie closely pressed; a slight electric link,
By which thought over-passes time and space,
To other hands that plucked them: other hands
That never more to any touch of mine
Shall thrill responsive. Blessed be those hands
With prosperous labours, fruitful through long years,
Of all life’s truest, tenderest charities.

            E.
(Western Australia, 15th September, 1868)

‘I look around and see’. There’s a wilful effort in this, a forcing of the self beyond the casual formulaic, the poetic gesture to keep the poem flowing. A narrative device, sure, but also an acceptance of a different embodiment in place. That in the poem, and in the poet, many stories of belonging and exclusion crisscross, and try to coalesce. In the neatness of the poem, we might be led to believe that prosody’s ultimate purpose is to package these contradictions. Certainly the poet wants to write ‘verse’, but it’s only to contain the rough edges and disruptions of writing in a space that challenges and contradicts colonial manners, the imposition of the ‘civilised’ on day-to-day life. What makes this poem different is where and when it was written. And why.

Just over thirty years after this poem was written, we read ‘Willy Willy: The Boulder Bard’ in his ‘Ode to Westralia’, noting of Western Australia (pre Federation):

Land of Forests, fleas and flies,
Blighted hopes and blighted eyes,
Art thou hell in earth’s disguise,
Westralia?

Art thou some volcanic blast
By volcanoes spurned, outcast?
Art unfinished — made the last
Westralia?

Wert thou once the chosen land
Where Adam broke God’s one command?
That He in wrath changed thee to sand,
Westralia!

Land of politicians silly,
Home of wind and willy-willy,
Land of blanket, tent and billy,
Westralia.

Home of brokers, bummers, clerks,
Nest of sharpers, mining sharks,
Dried up lakes and desert parks,
Westralia!

Land of humpies, brothels, inns,
Old bag huts and empty tins,
Land of blackest, grievous sins
            Westralia.


The sense of Western Australia (massive as it is), being the ‘end of the earth’, and in this something perversely to be celebrated, was a dominant tone in verse written out of the colony.

In terms of the brutalities settlers committed on the indigenous peoples of the region, most of the newspaper verse found in early colonial papers is overtly racist, often hate-filled. Moral defence as attack? But one did find a register of guilt even if it was rendered in the ‘noble savage’ sense with touches of ‘local colour’ (this is an American term, not an Australian one regarding context and period, but the irony serves the bereftness of the situation). The poet ‘Acaster’ in ‘O’er a Native’s Grave’ (1871), writes, contesting the given bigotries of the colonial press and community:

Poor child of earth – The rising sun,
That tips the hills with mellow ray,
No more shal’t rouse thee from thy sleep,
Or cheer thee on thy lonely way.

No more with spear, and weapons rude,
Shal’t thou roam thro’ the woodland dell,
No more midst festive scenes shall sing
The wildsome songs you loved so well.

So, considering the poem I have chosen by the early ‘settler’ poet of Western Australia, Elizabeth Deborah Brockman, we might think of where it came from. It may not be as overtly original as much other European poetry of the period, but it was extremely unusual to come out of the ‘bush’ of Western Australia at the time. Written at Seabrook, the property on which Brockman lived with her husband and children near the colony’s earliest inland town of York, it encapsulates the sense of loss and disconnection ‘settlers’ often felt in their ‘strange’ new place.

Brockman migrated with her parents to the Swan River Colony from Edinburgh where she had been born in 1833. She was seven years old. Living on a property known as Glen Avon (which I often pass, travelling from Jam Tree Gully to the town of Northam), by the Avon River, she led a bookish life and became one of the earliest and certainly most accomplished settler poets, publishing as ‘E.’ in the local church magazine. I have written a lot about Brockman, investigating colonial subtexts in her writing (there is only a small book of poems published after her death in 1914), women’s right in the colony, religious obsession and security, depression, and most importantly, I think, the fact that Brockman lived on land that had been stolen from the Noongar people, the traditional owners and custodians of country.

These subtexts are obscured in the poems, but through reading letters, journal entries (by other parties), prose commentaries in the Church of England magazine, and other snippets discovered in historical archives, one gets the typical picture of both a predictable exploitation of indigenous people and religious patronising. But I also argue there is something more than a sense of superiority and possibly guilt eating away at the edges of the sense of belonging and alienation in her poetry; that in those local flowers that have ‘no dear familiar names’, there is an acknowledgement that access is something that has to be granted, that it can’t just be taken. The flowers from ‘home’, the Old Country, she receives in the mail, sent by ship and taking six months to reach her, are the dried residue of an old life, a life of her childhood, of a country that is no longer hers. They act as symbols of the absent present, triggers of memory, signatures of her own history (and that of her colonial family) and of those left behind in the Old Country. They are dead but look (fragilely) alive, they are almost living memorials, or maybe simulacra of themselves, and her ‘othered’ self. They are signs of what she might have been. As Pierre Nora observes, ‘Memory is a perpetually actual phenomenon, a bond tying us to the eternal present; history is a representation of the past.’ [Nora, Pierre 1989. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. –Representations 26: 7-25]

But the poet is also an alien in this stolen land, and for all her effort to become one, to become the place she now lives in, she can’t entirely. She is isolated by distance and by unbelonging. She is permanently temporary, and when she loses family to death or returning to England (or Scotland), the loss is doubled is spiritual and conceptual ways. The cost of this to her is immense, and to those who have been dispossessed, and though discovering this poem as a young person was an epiphany to me, especially having spent so much of my life in the region out of which she wrote, it also represents the crisis of writing poetry as a non-indigenous person in the place I know as ‘home’. Brockman says:

I look around and see
A thousand gayer tints; the wilderness
Is bright with gorgeous rainbow colouring

This wilderness is her angst and her security. In the alienation is her poetry, but also her desire for conformity. She is both recognising her non-belonging and trying to counter it. Those ‘gayer tints’ include wildflowers and trees, from donkey orchids to the blossom of York gums and wandoos, which I know so well.

Many years ago I wrote an essay on Brockman that begins:

The case of the Western Australian poet, Elizabeth Deborah Brockman, who wrote the bulk of her poetry in the 1860s, is unique. A poet of depth, grace, subtlety and controlled anger [now I’d see this as melancholy, and not a barely visible ‘anger’], her work carries a spiritual content akin to Emily Dickinson’s [now I also see this differently — the struggle to be what one is not, determination to subscribe to the manners of the Church and contingent social interactions, the struggle with depression and frequent physical isolation in a more seemingly hebephrenic way in the poems while rebelling against it; Brockman’s torments are all below the surface of her poems], and a formal approach and language-resonance that might remind the modern reader of Elizabeth Barrett Browning. These tonal signifiers are fused with an appreciation of the local, and a ‘transcendent’ sense of spatiality, linguistic and geographic hybridity, and ‘nature’. Despite being isolated in bush rural areas in the years after the founding of the Swan River Colony (1829), Brockman kept up with modern literature through regular consignments of books from the “old country”. There is no doubt she was familiar with the work of Barrett Browning (whose Poems were published in 1844 and were fantastically popular)...

And as background:

In the colony, poetry — much of it doggerel, though with the occasional gem — featured in the various newspapers that came with the ‘settlement’ of what is now known as Western Australia. Papers such as the Swan River Guardian (1836-1838), Inquirer (Perth, 1840-1901) Herald (Fremantle, 1867-1889), and Sun (Kalgoorlie, 1898-1929) were vehicles for the development of a State and regional literary consciousness. It wasn’t until 1873 that the first book of original verse by a Western Australian poet was published, Henry Clay’s Two and Two.

It’s this connection, in what is formulaic in her verse (the ‘dew’), and the oddness of its circumstances of production, that interests me still. In the last stanza of the poem, Brockman talks of the delicate dried flowers as being ‘frail memorials’, an echo of the markers of death of the colonists in their often-isolated graves, and the memory of markers in the Old Country. What is built is tenuous. More: the markers of memorialising are not visible to the casual observer, as they involve the deaths of those whose land is stolen, and the lost graves of those who died in ‘exploring’ and colonising. No word in this poem can be read within the conventions of English-language verse; every word, as ‘pat’ as it seems, comes with a contextual kick. Those who are in the Old Country are as the dead, as she is dead to them. The stolen land is haunted by misdeeds and her loss of connection is a haunting, too. She doesn’t overtly say this, but all colonial poetry, especially that written in such profound social and cultural isolation, tends towards such complexity. The electric link is more Frankenstein than a polite shudder of a genteel religious lady. Her religion is a buffer and buffers can dissolve so easily. The last few lines of affirmation and well-wishing are reassurance, not a polite homily.

When her family collected her work after her death, the small book came with an interesting preface. I quote a couple of extracts here:

Elizabeth Deborah Brockman, the authoress of this small book of verse, has just reached the close of her long and beautiful life. She passed away at her residence at Cannington in her 82nd year. She was the eldest daughter of Lieutenant Frederick William Slade, and was born in Edinburgh in 1833. When she was in her seventh year, her parents hearing much of the new settlement in Western Australia, caught the spirit of adventure and decided to join the small band of colonists there, and to find a new home for their young children in the land of the Southern Cross.

and:

It was during these years that she wrote her poems. Some time in the early sixties, she met and formed here a great friendship with the late Archdeacon Brown and his wife. The latter was a daughter of the Rev. A. Mitchell, and the former was at that time Rector of the Parish of York, and editor of the Church Magazine. It was in accordance with his wish, and under his encouragement, that she allowed her verses to be published in his magazine under the nom de plume of “E.” Some years later, an uncle of hers in Edinburgh, perchancing to see the Church Magazine, was much struck with the beauty of the poems, and, collecting them, re-published them in pamphlet form for family circulation.

Mrs. Brockman was of a cheerful and buoyant disposition, but at this time of her life, grief for the loss of her much loved relations, and the many trials and difficulties insuperable from the rearing of a young family — in those days of early colonial settlement — had for a time greatly injured her health, which for some years was very precarious. Her poems were the children of heartache and solitude, and a deep note of sorrow runs through most of them, but her strong religious convictions and the firm faith in God which upheld her through all the trials of her life, is the key note of every one.

This might not be one of the greatest poems in the language, and it does fit a template of similar poems written out of the colonies with a longing for the absent family and the markers of the Old World, but it is different because of where it comes from and when it was written in that place. Context is everything, sure, but it’s even more than everything here. It’s a counter to the rules she lived by, the patterns of behaviour she chose to observe and uphold. No glittering poet’s-fame for her: just a connection with her own alienation reconfigured into an expression of the loss she certainly felt but also helped create.

In some ways, this is a tragic poem of chronic depression, the crisis of the colonial subject and the subjectivity of being a ‘poetess’, and of searching for consolation where no consolation was or could be morally available. It is a poem, to my mind, of what I’d call temporariness and schism in belonging. What is ‘lost’ is permanently lost. Old memorials are the false memorials over the killing fields of the colonised land.



Friday, May 27, 2016

Rilke — Lullaby

By Tracy

So many Rilke poems when translated into English become more sugary or saccharine than they are in Rilke's German. Frequently he will use an odd, twisted, offbeat or unexpected image that I find converted in some published translations into something altogether more stale or predictable than in the original.

Of course all translation involves loss, and changes are inevitable. But you have to wonder why translators of poetry are so often prepared to lose what is most knotty, individual and memorable in a poem. I think of that approach as "smoothing-out", and I would even prefer to read translations that "fail" in other ways if they nonetheless strive to convey the poem's peculiarities.

In many English versions of this poem, "Lullaby", the striking image of the eyelids being lowered disappears altogether...


Rainer Maria Rilke

Lullaby


When one day you’re lost to me
will sleep still come to you, unless
I’m there above you, like branches
whispering from a linden tree?

Unless I’m there keeping watch
and lowering words almost
like eyelids upon your breast,
upon your limbs and your mouth.

Unless I’m there to lock you, close
you up alone with what’s yours
like a garden with a mass
of lemon balm and star anise.


                           trans. Tracy Ryan




Friday, May 13, 2016

The Case of Mrs Danvers



by John Kinsella


Have just finished reading Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca. I want to talk about Mrs Danvers because I feel few people really ‘get her’. Let me state immediately that I am not interested in whether or not Rebecca is ‘popular’ fiction or not. It is fiction. It is skilfully written. It has something to say. Popular is neither here nor there, and nor is it a sin! Tristram Shandy (which I have been rereading very, very carefully), was also popular in its time and still has some grip on a readership (in fact, try reading Pynchon and most other innovative novelists from the twentieth century writing in English without subtexting the metatextual play and deflationary tactics — appropriate word given Uncle Toby’s fixation/s — of Sterne’s masterpiece).

Also, I think it neither here nor there if this book is considered (or marketed as!) ‘women’s romantic literature’. I find it an amazingly gender-analytical book; du Maurier has as profound an understanding of aspects of ‘male character’ as anyone else (male or female). Maybe this is unsurprising, given the gender problematics of her grandfather’s writing as embodied in Trilby, and her notorious and seemingly doting relationship with her eminent actor/stage-manager father (and the roles he played?). The males star in her family pantheon. And she shows specifically an understanding of the male gaze (the performative female in bohemian artistic circles as well as in societal circles of the time). Which takes me indirectly where I want to go.

A ‘famous bi-sexual’ (ha! what is this? surely we are all-sexual, or to some extent self-selecting in sexuality, if we bother considering ourselves), du Maurier had a long-term and much protected (by her) marriage to a military man and courtier. She also had many relationships with women. She was compelled not only by desire in life, but by exploring the nature of desire in her texts. She was also a writer who dissected addiction in many forms: in alcoholism (her brilliant portrait of ‘Wild Johnny’ in Hungry Hill, for example), sex, and probably most vitally (and why she gets stuck with reductive labels), the obsessive need not only to find love but to have it constantly reaffirmed and validated (the unnamed narrator of Rebecca obsesses over this — the lack of it far more unfulfilling and even tragic than the lack of physical touch). And it is in this context — addiction and desire — that we make contact with the notorious Mrs Danvers.

Mrs Danvers has been made an icon of suppressed lesbian sexuality perhaps because expressions of lesbian identity in Hollywood during the period of the Code were obfuscated and suppressed (see The Celluloid Closet). Hitchcock’s (quite astonishing) interpretation of Rebecca into film has given rise to Mrs Danvers iconicity in this sense. Mrs Danvers’s self-punishment when Manderley burns, her going in the flames of lust and passion and fire of Rebecca’s haunting of the world of the living, the living who could not reach her Wuthering Heights-like standards of freedom and free will (though we hear much of Rebecca ‘riffing’ off Charlotte’s Jane Eyre and the fragmenting of the ‘madwoman in the attic’ motif/reductionism, it is to Emily Brontë’s overwrought relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff that we should liken it.)

Of course, Maxim de Winter is an inversion of Heathcliff; but neither is he exactly Edgar. (Curiously, as Tracy points out, Laurence Olivier played both cinematic Heathcliff and de Winter roles in succession: in Wyler’s 1939 Wuthering Heights and then in Hitchcock’s 1940 Rebecca). Nor Mr Rochester for that matter. He is a pastiche of maleness du Maurier encountered in the civilised world of her marriage, offset with the bohemian loucheness of her upbringing. A privileged upbringing in which men have powers and can be shown to be fools as well. Mrs Danvers celebrates Rebecca’s playing with men and despising them for their weaknesses. But this does not mean Mrs Danvers is driven by a (barely?) suppressed sexual desire for Rebecca. Her desire is altogether less obvious.

We read that Mrs Danvers practically raised Rebecca. What did this straight-laced woman with the skeletal face and withering stares want with a wild-at-heart girl like Rebecca? Rebecca is du Maurier’s Frankenstein’s monster (Others have indirectly connected Mrs Danvers to Frankenstein, whether monster or doctor, being unclear – see Berenstein, 1998, as Tracy draws to my attention, though I have not read it yet). And it’s to Mary (and Percy) Shelley that we might look for further clues (more of this in another entry). The ‘evil’ of Frankenstein’s monster is a reflection of the world around it, of its inhumanity. I have an old saying, ‘Shit in, shit out’. And the people, in fear, threw much shit at the monster, symbol of all desire for progress and the willingness to sacrifice spiritual ethics in its pursuit. Science taking on God. And thus it is with Mrs Danvers’ creation of Rebecca, who is everything Mrs Danvers is not. I sidetrack here to note that readers establish the second Mrs de Winter as the ‘opposite’ to Rebecca, that she is a either a pale shadow of Rebecca or everything Rebecca was not; that the second Mrs de Winter is underformed in the same way Rebecca was almost overwrought.

Rebecca is Mrs Danvers’s revenge on an out-of-control disordered world (as Tracy suggests, something like Miss Havisham’s ‘creation’ of Estella in Great Expectations). It is her class struggle and gender struggle embodied in the subjectivity of the female identity: unfettered desire, the trappings of vanity that are tossed off without care when done with, though household arrangements and decor are meticulous, as part of the (artificial) role-play of ‘perfect wife’ while beneath, hell reigns in the ‘marriage’. But as much as these ‘attributes’ of femininity are ridiculous constructs of the patriarchy, so is Rebecca a surface for Mrs Danvers’ inner turmoil. She wishes to breaks the bonds of her own constraint — genderwise, sexually, and class-wise. This does, of course, have sexual inflections in terms desire in Mrs Danvers (the touching and smelling of the clothes of the dead, and so on), but it’s more onanistic than that. To love the construct of Rebecca is to love her own creation. Rebecca is never a ‘real’ character in the book, and only given to us through stories and conversations and the narration of vested interests: a ‘good’ Rebecca is certainly not desired by the murderer, Mr de Winter, nor by the supposedly bland second Mrs de Winter, lusting for all-that-Manderley-is-dressed-up-as-‘love’ (other than wanting to be a successful as Rebecca, to take her place as mistress of Manderley — but not be her); a case of protesteth too much, methinks — the narrator’s mock humility is surely supposed to make us feel nauseated!

Hitchcock’s Mrs Danvers’s supposed suicide in flames that she has lit offsets Rebecca’s supposed use of murder to suicide: her youthful, energetic world-encompassing have-it-all self can exist in nothing but perfect form. Rebecca’s terminal illness defines her own end, but more than that, defines the end Mrs Danvers wants to her perfect monster, and herself. We also read a lot about ‘twinning’ in Rebecca (see, for example, Sally Beauman’s ‘Afterword’ in the Virago Modern Classics edition of 2015), but this destruction of one’s own twin is truly the crux of the work. In du Maurier’s novel we read, early in the book, after the ‘gothic’ opening dream-sequence (sorry, most dreams are ‘gothic’!), of the narrator wondering as to the whereabouts/life of Mrs Danver ‘now’ — that is, in the existence post-Manderley being burnt to the ground. Her constant prolepsis, her constant positing of what people might think of her and what they might say and what they might do, which sets the reader up for a hypertext which is really betrayal of the ‘real’ — a pile of ‘red herrings’ as they say — is imploded in this ‘real-time’ contemplation. From the beginning we know a ‘Mrs Danvers’ has been vital to the story, and that she is alive. Rebecca is finally ‘defeated’ by the narrator’s becoming aware and maturity and baptism by fire (remembering she is telling her story from the post- period and constructing her ‘innocence’ in the light of experience), but Mrs Danvers clearly is not ‘defeated’ and has not been (and will not be). But Mrs Danvers is Rebecca. The book is cyclical, and the beginning is a reflection on the end, and the end, left open in itself: Mrs Danvers has cleared out her room and is nowhere to be seen, and then we know Manderley, viewed from a hill, a glow in the sky that is not the Northern lights, is not a false dawn, is burning.

This is the incineration of all that was supposedly Rebecca — but it never was, if we follow the narrator’s words regarding Rebecca’s wild double life in London and Mr de Winter insisting on the separation of states: he tolerates if it’s kept in London, but once it comes to Manderley for the help to see, she has broken the covenant, the contract of marriage having been shown as a farce five days after that first marriage. The incineration was the rebirth of a Mrs Danvers who, we might think, must start again and make yet another Rebecca, another monster, possibly with the aid (again) of Rebecca’s incestuous lover-cousin, Favell, who has (unresolvedly) threatened de Winter with revenge; that he would eventually see ‘justice’ served. Favell is part-Rebecca, and the tool used by Mrs Danvers to unmask yet other features of hypocritical masculinity.

Does all of this make Mrs Danvers a suppressed lesbian, frustrated by circumstance and desire for a young woman (and originally a girl), bursting to reveal her ‘true’ sexuality? Are we to believe maybe that she has conducted at least a clandestine (vital to the book), vicarious or even direct sexual-physical intimate relationship with Rebecca, that she was Rebecca’s true love and vice versa? It’s possible of course, but I don’t think so. (Of course, queer readings of even the film have been more subtle, sophisticated and subtextual than this; I am not contesting them, and in fact deeply respect them.)

Mrs Danvers is asexual on an obvious behavioural level in the narrator’s construct, in who the narrator perceives her to be, or, rather, who she wants us to think she is. She also needs Mrs Danvers to be given permission to hate the monster Rebecca. The second Mrs de Winter can only grow by emasculating the feminine, to work the paradox of Mrs Dr Frankenstein. It’s a web of deceit, as the cliché goes, and deconstructs throughout the text. But Mrs Danvers is also the embodiment of all-sexuality: of desire and destruction where love is thwarted and damaged and burnt. She loved Rebecca as she loved herself. Hitchcock seemed not to ‘understand’ this, or was prevented from doing so by the Code, and punished her, no doubt to the delight of many in its early (and later) audiences!




Friday, April 8, 2016

Du im Voraus -- Rilke translation

By Tracy

This poem is already well-known in English translation, so I am adding my version to the many. It reminds me in some ways of Emily Dickinson's "A Loss of Something Ever Felt I", which David Musselwhite once said to me was the ultimate "lost object" poem.
























Rainer Maria Rilke

Du im Voraus


You, my beloved lost in advance, my never-appeared,
I don’t know which notes you prefer.
I no longer try, when what’s coming billows over me,
to recognise you. All the great
images in me, scenery learned at a distance:
towns and spires and bridges and un-
suspected turns in the roads
and the immensity of those countries
once traversed by gods:
grows to its meaning in me,
your meaning, elusive one.

Oh, the gardens you are,
oh, I saw them with such
hope. An open window
in a country house — and you nearly
stepped toward me, thoughtful. Alleys I found —
you had just gone along them,
and sometimes the shopkeepers’ mirrors
were still dizzy with you, and gave out, afraid,
my too-sudden image. — Who knows if the same
bird did not ring out through us
yesterday, separately, in the evening?

                                                    trans. Tracy Ryan


Thursday, April 7, 2016

Windows

By Tracy

Windows everywhere. Here is a little poem about windows, specifically Drehkippfenster or tilt-and-turn windows, though the photos show many other kinds. Tilt-and-turn are apparently the most common type of window in Germany











Tilt-and-turn


The windows are uncountable
yet plural. On every outdoor
town-view, they dominate – also
singly, from inside, loom over us.
Hold threads under tension, a frame.
Edgy magic, they might unhinge,
fall inward. We tilt them back to air
the room for want of fan or vent,
releasing vapours, our humours.
Out there, commingled.
They gauge the day, admit
street-sound, anonymous.
No veil, this pane, no projection
of hymen, fantastic intactness;
it was always already open.
Not for turning your back on.
Nor for dreaming you live in
another’s life. Rather for keeping
charge like custodia fenestrārum,
alone in a crowd, turning this blind
eye as I hoist or lower the sail.

                                      (Tracy Ryan)




















The poem is also engaging indirectly with aspects of the window-ideas in poems by Mallarmé and Baudelaire, as well as the (I think) misguided use of the hymen in de Man and Derrida.

I've also developed an interest (or further developed a very old, long-held interest) in the various kinds of dormer windows, some of which you can see in these photos.


























"Custodia fenestrārum" in the poem is making a kind of play on custodia oculorum or custody of the eyes, which is enjoined in monastic (and general religious) life — I use it not because of any empathy with the prudery of those who tout this term nowadays, but because of the sense that when living in a densely populated place (unfamiliar to a rurally-based Australian!), windows are more acutely potential sites of failure to respect privacy — in all directions.



Monday, April 4, 2016

Vegan Lima Bean Patties

By Tracy

Ingredients
One medium onion, diced
240g cooked lima beans
Canola oil for frying
Chilli or other seasoning
Floury potatoes, 2-3 medium
1-2 tbsp nutritional yeast
3 tsp egg replacer 

Fry onion with chilli or other seasoning and set aside to cool.

Put potatoes on to boil (this will not take long for floury potatoes; don’t let them boil too long or they dissolve).

Mash the potatoes with the nutritional yeast. Fluff the egg replacer with a few teaspoons of water till it clumps, then mix into the potato mash. (Otherwise it’s too dry, but you don’t want it runny either.)

In a large bowl, mash lima beans with a fork until they form a fine paste. These beans mash very finely and don’t require a food processor.




Stir in the fried onions, and then combine the potato mash with the bean mash until evenly distributed.

Form into patties and fry for 3-5 minutes each side.




I didn’t use coating, as they crisp and brown by themselves, but if you like a crunchier texture you could use vegan corn crumbs.




The patties here look golden because I used German egg replacer, which contains turmeric – you could add turmeric separately.

Good for sandwiches, or as a meal with salad or cooked vegetables.