I sifted through shells on a Florida beach one afternoon last week.   It was just like that beach has been on many other occasions: wind, waves foaming up around me, salt in the air, grit mixing with sunshine on my face.   And shells in all colors: tiny, smooth coquinas, with purple shadings or orange stripes, and larger scallop shells, rose and white.  I made a sand castle and tiled its top with scallops, but a wave came under it, and it caved in, so then I smoothed a place and paved it with scallops.  Doing such things makes me feel very alive — it might be the joy of manipulating raw materials that we discussed in my college aesthetics course — but it could also be because I did the same sorts of things when I was five years old.  Or perhaps the two are related. 

In any case, there I was, and, being me, I started thinking about poetry.  Ted Hughes’ poem “Relic,” to be exact.  Dr. McAllister’s interpretation of the poem’s first stanza was “When you walk on the beach, you’re walking on dead things.”  The poem talks about a washed-up jawbone, and the continual eating that takes place in the natural world.  The end of the second stanza says:
                                                                              ” … Jaws
       Eat and are finished and the jawbone comes to the beach:
       This is the sea’s achievement; with shells,
       Vertebrae, claws, carapaces, skulls.”
So, there in the midst of my youthful joy in sea shells, I suddenly realized they were all simply the dead castings of a devouring sea.   With sand under my fingernails and salt in my hair, I prepared to fall into poetic gloom.   Then I thought a bit further, and fell not.  

Digging amongst all those dead shells, I had found live shells also.  Live coquinas, that, once unburied, immediately began digging down and down.   (If you hold them in a handful of damp sand you can feel them trying to bury themselves in your palm.)   The live shells, though very beautiful, are not readily visible.  They do not adorn the water-line with colors; to stick them to sand castles or carry them home in your pockets would kill them.  When they are dead, though, they come to the top, and can be sifted and piled; they can pave a tiny sand-path, adorn a damp sand-hill, get lost in the bottom of the beach-bag. 

Is it a stretch to tie the beautiful death of sea-shells to the death to which Christ has called us?   We have been called to lose our lives; indeed, we “have died, and [our] life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ who is [our] life appears, then [we] will also appear with Him in glory” (Colossians 3:3,4).   Hidden with Christ … to appear with Him in glory.   Beautiful?  Yes, because He makes us so. 

In any case, there upon the beach, this is what I thought.  Perhaps, Ted Hughes, the sea is never satisfied, perhaps it is full of death.  But I am promised satisfaction; I am promised life.   I need not be gloomy upon the beach.

4 thoughts on “

  1. Derrick says:

    A poem, that is not too far unrelated, which I wrote down, thinking of earthly romance — but every time I read it, think more of heavenly romance . . .

    “My river runs to thee:
    Blue sea, wilt welcome me?

    My river waits reply.
    Oh sea, look graciously!

    I’ll fetch thee brooks
    From spotted nooks, —

    Say sea,
    Take me!”

    Which reminds me, I haven’t read Emily Dickinson in a while. Or any poetry. That could very well be why I haven’t been feeling very poetic of late.

    On another note, the first symbolic relationship I thought of, in terms of giving up one’s life for something better (which is not exactly the right arrangement of words: “for something to become more perfect,” maybe? Maybe?), was not that of a Christian, but that of Christ. In calling us to be imitators of Him, he is not calling us do something awful (not in the 21st c. sense of the word), but to reflect something beautiful He did, like the seashells do (though I’m not sure they want to, just like we don’t often want to).

    I appreciate that you bracket the inferred words. I do that, too. They do indicate inference a lot better than italics do.

  2. Derrick says:

    Mmm. And then I submit Eastman in response to the conclusion of the first paragraph. And I think he would agree.

  3. Edwin McAllister says:

    Nott: have you read Blake’s poem “Mock On, Mock On, Voltaire, Rousseau”? Though the two thinkers would seem to have very little to do with one another, Blake connects them through their philosophic naturalism / materialism. It does all kinds of interesting things with the metaphor of sand – (BTW: You’ll be happy to know that the users of the website I copied the poem from graded this poem a 7/10. You rock, Blake!)

    Mock On, Mock On, Voltaire, Rousseau

    Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
    Mock on, mock on; ’tis all in vain!
    You throw the sand against the wind,
    And the wind blows it back again.
    And every sand becomes a gem
    Reflected in the beams divine;
    Blown back they blind the mocking eye,
    But still in Israel’s paths they shine.

    The Atoms of Democritus
    And Newton’s Particles of Light
    Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
    Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s