A Poem Where Silence Talks Louder, Meaning Retires, and the Lines Try Not to Mean… Anything
ABS Believes:
Some poems don’t want to be understood. They want to stand in the corner looking timeless and mysterious.
Poetry isn’t supposed to explain. It’s supposed to haunt.
MacLeish: The Poet Who Gagged the Poem and Called It Art
Archibald MacLeish wrote Ars Poetica not as a tutorial—but as an anti-tutorial. Think of it as the ultimate poetic mic drop: 24 lines explaining why poems shouldn’t explain anything. A poem about poetry that’s so self-aware it might implode under its own paradox.
While Horace’s original Ars Poetica was an instruction manual, MacLeish’s version is that quiet rebel in the back of the class muttering, “Whatever. Just feel it.”
Lines 1–4: The Poem as a Fruit-Filled Mime
“A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit…”
That’s right. MacLeish opens by telling us a poem should be like an orange—round, quiet, and basically just there for you to experience.
“Palpable and mute”? Imagine a poem that makes you feel something without ever needing to introduce itself. Like love. Or a tax audit.
“Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb…”
So now the poem is also a historical coin—silent, worn, but heavy with meaning. Basically: poetry should be the thing that feels like it has a past but refuses to give you the Wikipedia entry.
Lines 5–12: Sensory Overload and Metaphorical Mushrooms
“A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs…”
We’re not moving. This poem sits in poetic stillness while life fumbles forward. Like that one old record that still feels fresher than your Spotify playlist.
“Leaving, as the moon releases
Twig by twig the night-entangled trees…”
It’s all visual. All touch. MacLeish wants poems to be things—not say things.
“A poem should be equal to:
Not true.”
There it is. The intellectual grenade.
MacLeish says truth is overrated. Poetry isn’t a fact—it’s a feeling. It shouldn’t argue. It should shimmer and vanish before you can dissect it.
Lines 13–24: Final Philosophy with a Side of Smug Mystery
“A poem should not mean
But be.”
This is the line that launched a thousand seminar debates and fried the brain of every overzealous literature student trying to “explain” a poem.
MacLeish ends the poem by denying the entire academic-industrial complex of literary criticism.
You want to write about how a poem “means”? He says, Please don’t. Just let it be. Like a sunset. Or a jazz solo. Or your unread copy of Ulysses.
Modern Reactions & ABS Eye Rolls
“A poem should be dumb as old medallions…”
Translation: It’s okay if your poem just sits there looking pretty. It’s not a podcast.
“A poem should not mean but be.”
Modern paraphrase: Don’t ask questions. Just vibe.
“Equal to, not true…”
Try putting this on your resume: Emotionally resonant, factually ambiguous.
Why This Poem Still Sips Wine in the Corner and Refuses to Explain Itself
Because some poems deserve to be felt, not footnoted.
Because trying to define beauty often destroys it.
Because mystery ages better than meaning.
And because silence—when crafted by a poet—is still a voice, just in velvet.
The Literary Scholar folds the scroll without commentary, without moral, without resolution—because this poem told us not to. And we, reluctantly, obey.
Signed,
The Literary Scholar
Where meaning is optional, but elegance is mandatory
Where poems whisper, not shout
Share this post / Spread the witty word / Let the echo wander / Bookmark the brilliance