Song of Myself: Section 19- Everyone At Table: Between The Mad Hatter's Tea and The Last Supper

It was truly a coincidence that this episode was uploaded in time for the Easter holidays.

Happy Easter to those who celebrate!

This is the meal equally set, this the meat for natural hunger,

It is for the wicked just the same as the righteous, I make

appointments with all,

I will not have a single person slighted or left away,

The kept-woman, sponger, thief, are hereby invited,

The heavy-lipp’d slave is invited, the venerealee is invited;

There shall be no difference between them and the rest.

This is the press of a bashful hand, this the float and odor of

hair,

This the touch of my lips to yours, this the murmur of

yearning,

This the far-off depth and height reflecting my own face,

This the thoughtful merge of myself, and the outlet again.

Do you guess I have some intricate purpose?

Well I have, for the Fourth-month showers have, and the mica

on the side of a rock has.

Do you take it I would astonish?

Does the daylight astonish? does the early redstart twittering

through the woods?

Do I astonish more than they?

This hour I tell things in confidence,

I might not tell everybody, but I will tell you.

Everyone is at table for the meal equally set, everyone including you lovely listener. Before the attendees is the meat for natural hunger . Meat is a significant type of food and in some cultures, like my own in Southern Africa, meat is considered to be a meal on its own but also what qualifies a dish with various food groups as a “real” and nourishing meal. In a more literary sense meat symbolises sustenance, furthermore affluence, vitality and strength. This meat is for a natural hunger; Whitman brings out a primeval aspect in this description. Natural hunger which is one of our primary needs next to sleep and shelter.. The wicked and righteous are at table, the thief, the sponger (meaning someone who lives at the expense of others) , the kept-woman (which is a woman involved in an extramarital affair), the heavy-lipped slave and the venerealee all are all invited.

There shall be no difference from them and the rest.

I wanted to draw an analogy from the mad hatters tea party from Lewis Carol’s Alice in Wonderland and the Last supper as found in biblical literature and somewhere in the sweet middle lies Whitman's meal/table. It's a fledgling of an ideaso it may be a little bit all over the place.

The scene of the mad hatter in the book Alice in Wonderland presents a chaotic arrangement; after sliding down the rabbit hole Alice approaches a large table set under a tree where she comes across the Mad Hatter and the March Hare having tea with their elbows resting on a sleeping dormouse. What ensues is dialogue of eccentric proportions between Alice, the March Hare, the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse. Let me read you some.

The table was a large one, but the three were all crowded together at one corner of it: “No room! No room!” they cried out when they saw Alice coming. “There’s plenty of room!” said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large arm-chair at one end of the table.

“Have some wine,” the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. “I don’t see any wine,” she remarked.

“There isn’t any,” said the March Hare.

“Then it wasn’t very civil of you to offer it,” said Alice angrily.

“It wasn’t very civil of you to sit down without being invited,” said the March Hare.

“I didn’t know it was your table,” said Alice; “it’s laid for a great many more than three.”

“Your hair wants cutting,” said the Hatter. He had been looking at Alice for some time with great curiosity, and this was his first speech.

“You should learn not to make personal remarks,” Alice said with some severity; “it’s very rude.”

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”

“Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles.—I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud.

“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least—at least I mean what I say—that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

“It is the same thing with you,” said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn’t much.

The tea party stands out for its lack of order and what’s more, its lack of time. The Mad Hatter is said to have had a falling out with the character Time and so the concept of real, moving, passing time is non-existent and tea-party is trapped in an indefinite space

I find there to be timeless quality at Whitmans table; all the characters and personas present are enduring ones. The righteous are enduring and the wicked are enduring; the kept-woman, sponger, thief, heavy-lipp’d slave and venerealee are enduring. This coincides with the sharing of atoms discussed in section 7; we never really die for our life experiences, our personalities live on as atoms. These atoms were here before us being taken up by other people who have since died and these same atoms or matter will be assumed by someone else when we die- So goes that analysis.

After the line There shall be no difference between them and the rest.

Whitman begins describing This moment:

This is the press of a bashful hand, this the float and odor of

hair,

This the touch of my lips to yours, this the murmur of

yearning,

This the far-off depth and height reflecting my own face,

This the thoughtful merge of myself, and the outlet again.

I mentioned at the start that you, lovely listener, and myself are seated at Whitmans table the moment the section begins. He notes our presence; ours is the bashful hand that presses. As another analysis so beautifully described it .

Whitman’s very words seem to look up from the page and see our hair, see our lips forming the words (like a kiss, lips upon lips), murmuring the poem’s message of unity, our face reflecting Whitman’s face through the face of the page.

This the thoughtful merge of himself, and the outlet (you and I) again. So once more comes this timelessness; all readers of all ages of Whitman’s work are at his table and he interacts with them, now with us, with his observations.

Now onto the last supper; I think the parallel lies in the social significance of the highlighted attendees at Whitman’s meal; some are more unsavoury figures and some more favourable. And I’d say the same is similar with the disciples present at the last supper. The narration in the Synoptic gospels record that

Jesus sent two of his disciples to prepare for the meal and met with all the disciples in the upper room. He told them that one of them would betray him. After blessing bread and wine and giving it to them to eat and drink, Jesus told them that it was his body and his blood of the Covenant.

Here’s a lighthearted speed-run of the disciples at the table

Andrew: the first apostle and who at times was in shadow of his more outspoken and ear-cutting brother of the apostle Peter. He was also slightly older than his master.
Bartholomew/Nathaniel: was noted to be philosophical and practical dreamer but harboured some prejudice towards his master’s home of Nazareth.
James the elder: Older brother to the apostle John and part of Jesus’ inner circle
James the less: Not much was written about him, but his mother’s name was also Mary.
Peter: Bold, passionate, talkative, and well known to be erratic and impulsive… something about an ear?
Philip: grew up Hellenist and was said to be a Jew who looked Greek. not the best at public speaking but exceptionally good with social work
John: Brilliant, calculated, 3 or 4 named after him; had survival skills and a knack for writing apocalyptic literature.
Simon (the zealot): which should tell you everything- a debater and subsequently impulsive speaker, militantly against greek culture and roman rule but knew how to live it up/have fun.
Thomas, doubting tom; was a fishman with little education and had a very disagreeable and quarrelsome disposition; however his journey in discipleship seemed to quell that very well.
Judas the Greater: Not greatly mentioned he only has one quote but worked alongside the apostle Philip.
Matthew/Levi: former tax collector and people’s person- eventually gave up his possessions for the cause.
Judas Iscariot:an industrialist, the most educated of the lot and brought up with a silver spoon in his mouth. All that knowledge and wealth culminated in a fatal decision.

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.

22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”

23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Not long after this Jesus would go to be known as a redeemer and here I draw another parallel. By now we know the guests at Whitman’s table; people of all stripes just like the 12 disciples at the last supper. And as Jesus is present as the redeemer, Whitman reveals the redeemer quality of himself. Note that I’m not being irreverent, it's all just conjecture, but the gist of what Whitman expresses is that all things are redeemable and furthermore all things can inspire.