Naturally, I love my children. A little less naturally, I find that I
also love a particular five-year-old I never met, who died in the
Holocaust almost unnoticed.
Anthony Hecht (1923 -2004), the late U.S. Poet
Laureate, memorialized this child in his masterly sestina, “The Book of
Yolek” (from his 1990 collection The Transparent Man, reprinted in his
Collected Later Poems).
[The sestina, an intricate verse form created by
13th-century Provençal troubadours, is a thirty-nine-line poem
consisting of six six-line stanzas and one three-line envoi (or
“send-off”). The six end-words in the first stanza are repeated in a
prescribed order as end-words in each of the subsequent stanzas. The
concluding envoi brings together all six of the end-words. — Editor]
Hecht told little
Yolek’s story simply, hauntingly, and timelessly. He
accomplished this partly through the choice of his
sestina’s end-words:
“day,” “to,” “meal,” “home,” “walk,” and “camp.” These
six simple words carry connotations both innocent and
dark. Critics have noted and praised
this duality, as well as Hecht’s unpretentious language
and restrained voice of moral authority.
But overlooked within the otherwise transparent
lines is another layer of meaning, a hidden
meaning that may take your breath away. Hecht chose his
end-words not only for their poignancy and dual
connotations.
He chose them also for
their final letters: y,o,l,e,k, and p. Taking advantage of the
sestina’s repeated-end-word structure, he placed these six letters at
the end of each stanza’s six lines, secretly spelling Yolek’s name. In
the style of many Jewish liturgical poems of remembrance, Hecht created
a name-acrostic at his poem’s right-hand margin. He did this with a
solemn and loving purpose. He sought to bury the boy as honorably as he
could.
Hecht read
about Yolek in the 1940s. He published the sestina in 1982, after
forty years with the memory. The poem’s end-words, the bones of every
stanza, couldn’t have been chosen late in the compositional process.
Like the memory, the composition hinged on the name. The “p” has a
related significance, suggesting the Hebrew letter peh. On a traditional
Jewish gravestone, a peh appears at the upper right, standing for
the Hebrew word poh, meaning “here.” The decedent’s name appears
further
down. Painfully absent from our world, Yolek is hauntingly present in
the sestina’s lines. With the name as a starting place, Hecht gave Yolek
a resting place.
The sestina form’s strict pattern of
word repetition was first employed to communicate a lover’s unremitting
devotion. The six terminal words, deployed in a varying and prescribed
order, create echoes usually heard as romantic. Hecht instead crafted
his sestina to communicate unremitting grief and mourning, as well as
love.
In the year before he died, Hecht and I
exchanged several letters. His responses were gracious but evasive. The
graciousness came as no surprise
after contemplating the poem itself, along with several published
interviews with him and the essays in his collections Melodies
Unheard and Obbligati. Nor did the evasiveness really
surprise me, considering the subtlety of the sestina’s construction and
the evident sacredness of the memory.
“I’m deeply
touched by your very kind letter,” he wrote, the handwriting revealing
(to my eye) a steady mind and unsteady hand. “Like you, I have children
who, but for the good fortune of the time and place of their birth,
might have perished like Yolek.”
He would write
nothing explicit about the acrostic. I’ve deferred writing about it
myself, not wanting to desecrate a sacred memory with unsacred
commentary. But we can’t know the poem’s full power without speaking of
the buried name.
Below is Hecht’s sestina; below it is my tribute to him. In Hecht’s poem, the acrostic is most easily
seen in the envoi, where Yolek’s name is spelled from top to bottom,
right to left, using the final letters of the end-words. Every time I
read it, it’s like meeting the ghost of the poor child, unknown yet
beloved. 