I stopped at the door to the room.
I could not give away the rest of his shoes.
I stood there for a moment, then realized why: he would need shoes if he was to return.
The recognition of this thought by no means eradicated the thought.
I have still not tried to determine (say, by giving away the shoes) if the thought has lost its power.
On reflection I see the autopsy itself as the first example of this kind of thinking. Whatever else had been in my mind when I so determinedly authorized an autopsy, there was also a level of derangement on which I reasoned that an autopsy could show that what had gone wrong was something simple. It could have been no more than a transitory blockage or arrhythmia. It could have required only a minor adjustment a change in medication, say, or the resetting of a pacemaker. In this case, the reasoning went, they might still be able to fix it.
I recall being struck by an interview, during the 2004 campaign, in which Teresa Heinz Kerry talked about the sudden death of her first husband. After the plane crash that killed John Heinz, she said in the interview, she had felt very strongly that she needed to leave Washington and go back to Pittsburgh.
Of course she needed to go back to Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh, not Washington, was the place to which he might come back.
The autopsy did not in fact take place the night John was declared dead.
The autopsy did not take place until eleven the next morning. I realize now that the autopsy could have taken place only after the man I did not know at New York Hospital made the phone call to me, on the morning of December 31. The man who made the call was not my social worker, not my husbands doctor, not, as John and I might have said to each other, our friend from the bridge. Not our friend from the bridge was family shorthand, having to do with how his Aunt Harriet Burns described subsequent sightings of recently encountered strangers, for example seeing outside the Friendlys in West Hartford the same Cadillac Seville that had earlier cut her off on the Bulkeley Bridge. Our friend from the bridge, she would say. I was thinking about John saying not our friend from the bridge as I listened to the man on the telephone. I recall expressions of sympathy. I recall offers of assistance. He seemed to be avoiding some point.
He was calling, he said then, to ask if I would donate my husbands organs.
Many things went through my mind at this instant. The first word that went through my mind was no. Simultaneously I remembered Quintana mentioning at dinner one night that she had identified herself as an organ donor when she renewed her drivers license. She had asked John if he had. He had said no. They had discussed it.
I had changed the subject.
I had been unable to think of either of them dead.
The man on the telephone was still talking. I was thinking: If she were to die today in the ICU at Beth Israel North, would this come up? What would I do? What would I do now?
I heard myself saying to the man on the telephone that my husbands and my daughter was unconscious. I heard myself saying that I did not feel capable of making such a decision before our daughter even knew he was dead. This seemed to me at the time a reasonable response.
Only after I hung up did it occur to me that nothing about it was reasonable. This thought was immediately (and usefully notice the instant mobilization of cognitive white cells) supplanted by another: there had been in this call something that did not add up. There had been a contradiction in it. This man had been talking about donating organs, but there was no way at this point to do a productive organ harvest: John had not been on life support. He had not been on life support when I saw him in the curtained cubicle in the emergency room. He had not been on life support when the priest came. All organs would have shut down.
Then I remembered: the Miami-Dade Medical Examiners office. John and I had been there together one morning in 1985 or 1986. There had been someone from the eye bank tagging bodies for cornea removal. Those bodies in the Miami-Dade Medical Examiners office had not been on life support. This man from New York Hospital, then, was talking about taking only the corneas, the eyes. Then why not say so? Why misrepresent this to me? Why make this call and not just say his eyes? I took the silver clip the social worker had given me the night before from the box in the bedroom and looked at the drivers license. Eyes: BL, the license read. Restrictions: Corrective Lenses.
Why make this call and not just say what you wanted?
His eyes. His blue eyes. His blue imperfect eyes.
and what i want to know is
how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death
I could not that morning remember who wrote those lines. I thought it was E. E. Cummings but I could not be sure. I did not have a volume of Cummings but found an anthology on a poetry shelf in the bedroom, an old textbook of Johns, published in 1949, when he would have been at Portsmouth Priory, the Benedictine boarding school near Newport to which he was sent after his father died.
(His fathers death: sudden, cardiac, in his early fifties, I should have taken that warning.)
If we happened to be anywhere around Newport John would take me to Portsmouth to hear the Gregorian chant at vespers. It was something that moved him. On the flyleaf of the anthology there was written the name Dunne, in small careful handwriting, and then, in the same handwriting, blue ink, fountain-pen blue ink, these guides to study: 1) What is the meaning of the poem and what is the experience? 2) What thought or reflection does the experience lead us to? 3) What mood, feeling, emotion is stirred or created by the poem as a whole? I put the book back on the shelf. It would be some months before I remembered to confirm that the lines were in fact E. E. Cummings. It would also be some months before it occurred to me that my anger at this unknown caller from New York Hospital reflected another version of the primitive dread that had not for me been awakened by the autopsy question.
What was the meaning and what the experience?
To what thought or reflection did the experience lead us?
How could he come back if they took his organs, how could he come back if he had no shoes?
4
On most surface levels I seemed rational. To the average observer I would have appeared to fully understand that death was irreversible. I had authorized the autopsy. I had arranged for cremation. I had arranged for his ashes to be picked up and taken to the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, where, once Quintana was awake and well enough to be present, they would be placed in the chapel off the main altar where my brother and I had placed our mothers ashes. I had arranged for the marble plate on which her name was cut to be removed and recut to include Johns name. Finally, on the 23rd of March, almost three months after his death, I had seen the ashes placed in the wall and the marble plate replaced and a service held.
We had Gregorian chant, for John.
Quintana asked that the chant be in Latin. John too would have asked that.
We had a single soaring trumpet.
We had a Catholic priest and an Episcopal priest.
Calvin Trillin spoke, David Halberstam spoke, Quintanas best friend Susan Traylor spoke. Susanna Moore read a fragment from East Coker, the part about how one has only learnt to get the better of words / For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which / One is no longer disposed to say it. Nick read Catullus, On His Brothers Death. Quintana, still weak but her voice steady, standing in a black dress in the same cathedral where she had eight months before been married, read a poem she had written to her father.
I had done it. I had acknowledged that he was dead. I had done this in as public a way as I could conceive.
Yet my thinking on this point remained suspiciously fluid. At dinner in the late spring or early summer I happened to meet a prominent academic theologian. Someone at the table raised a question about faith. The theologian spoke of ritual itself being a form of faith. My reaction was unexpressed but negative, vehement, excessive even to me. Later I realized that my immediate thought had been: But I did the ritual. I did it all. I did St. John the Divine, I did the chant in Latin, I did the Catholic priest and the Episcopal priest, I did For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past and I did In paradisum deducant angeli.
And it still didnt bring him back.
Bringing him back had been through those months my hidden focus, a magic trick. By late summer I was beginning to see this clearly. Seeing it clearly did not yet allow me to give away the clothes he would need.
In time of trouble, I had been trained since childhood, read, learn, work it up, go to the literature. Information was control. Given that grief remained the most general of afflictions its literature seemed remarkably spare. There was the journal C. S. Lewis kept after the death of his wife, A Grief Observed. There was the occasional passage in one or another novel, for example Thomas Manns description in The Magic Mountain of the effect on Hermann Castorp of his wifes death: His spirit was troubled; he shrank within himself; his benumbed brain made him blunder in his business, so that the firm of Castorp and Son suffered sensible financial losses; and the next spring, while inspecting warehouses on the windy landing-stage, he got inflammation of the lungs. The fever was too much for his shaken heart, and in five days, notwithstanding all Dr. Heidekinds care, he died. There were, in classical ballets, the moments when one or another abandoned lover tries to find and resurrect one or another loved one, the blued light, the white tutus, the pas de deux with the loved one that foreshadows the final return to the dead: la danse des ombres, the dance of the shades. There were certain poems, in fact many poems. There was a day or two when I relied on Matthew Arnold, The Forsaken Merman:
Childrens voices should be dear
(Call once more) to a mothers ear;