Poetic Versus: Conflicting Great War Poems - eScholarship

PoeticVersus:ConflictingGreatWarPoemsBy

JonathanRobertLarner-Lewis

Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe

requirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophyin

English

inthe

GraduateDivision

ofthe

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Committeeincharge:

ProfessorKentPuckett,ChairProfessorCharlesBlantonProfessorJamesVernon

Fall2017

1

Abstract

PoeticVersus:ConflictingGreatWarPoemsby

JonathanRobertLarner-Lewis

DoctorofPhilosophyinEnglish

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

ProfessorKentPuckett,Chair

ThisdissertationisacloselookatpoemswrittenduringtheGreatWarbyThomasHardy,EdwardThomas,andWilfredOwen.Idescribehoweachdeployspoetry’sformalresourcestoengagetheaffective,cognitive,spiritual,andpoliticalproblemsthewarproducesforthem.Iarguethatstrategiesofpoeticdoublingallowthemtoaddress—ifnotquiteassuage—theeffectsofthewarthattroublethemthemost.Eachpoemmanifeststhisdoublingindifferentways,butthetacticofdoublingispervasive.Ultimately,Iarguethatthisdoublingisequallyaneffectofthewar’sincessantproductionofantagonisticculturalforms,andoflyricpoetry’sfundamentalabilitytoaccommodateinternaloppositionattheformallevel.Theintrinsicambivalenceofpoeticformmakesitaparticularlyeffectivediscourseforexaminingwar’ssocialandpoliticalcontradictions. ThisunifyingthemeofformaldoublingorwhatIcallthe“poeticversus”—doubletimeframesinHardy,doubleidentitiesandlocationsinThomas,andtwoormoreopposingverbalregistersinOwen—isacarefulinstantiationofIsobelArmstrong’sinfluentialfigureofthe“doublepoem.”ItrackexamplesofhowpoemsformallyenactthekindofdoublenessArmstrongdescribes—howtheyenactasecond-ordercommentaryontheirownprimaryexpression.Doublingisabroadbutaptnameforthestrategiesbywhichthewar’sdisturbancesandantagonismsaretransferredbetweenthepoem’sdoublelevelsofengagement,whetherconceivedasformal/social(RaymondWilliams),literary/political(CarolineLevine)orexpressive/epistemological(IsobelArmstrong).

TheprominentformsofdoublingIidentifylineupwithtenetsofliberalpoliticalthoughtthreatenedbythewar:Hardy’stroublewithtimeistiedtoabeliefinrationalhumanprogressthatthewarrendersincreasinglydifficulttomaintain.Thomas’sdualidentities,inlightoftheeconomicforcesthatultimatelyforcedhimtoabandonwritingforasoldier’ssalary,aretraceabletoacrisisofalienationunderlyingliberalism’sbasisintheindividual.Owen’sprojectofincorporatingvoicesofinheritedculturaltraditionandauthority,onlytoexposethemastheveryoriginsofthewar’sdepredationsisacritiqueofliberalismcastasapersonalbetrayal.DrawingoncriticalworkbyWilliamEmpsonandPaulFussell,Iidentifyacomplexformofironyasthecrucialintellectualandaffectivestancewhichpoeticdoublingenables,astancethatbecomesanincreasinglyimportantculturalsurvivalstrategyasthewarpersists.

1

PoeticVersus:ConflictingGreatWarPoems

Introduction

Thewell-bredcontradictotherpeople.Thewisecontradictthemselves.—OscarWilde

I.WaronChristmas

Let’sbeginwithahymn:

Christmas:1924

‘Peaceuponearth!’wassaid.Wesingit,Andpayamillionprieststobringit.AftertwothousandyearsofmassWe’vegotasfaraspoison-gas.

1924ThefirstfeelingonegetsfromreadingthisacerbiclittlelyricbyThomasHardyisthatnothingmoreneedstobesaid.It’sbrutal,perfect.ItutterlygibbetstheAnglicanpulpit,thegulliblesingersinthepews(us!),andthatfatuousmodernfaithintechnologyandscientificprogress.Rhyming“mass”with“gas”isthecoupdegrace.We’realldead.

Andyet…rightbehindthatisafeelingisthatHardyisnotquitedonewithus.Herehehascraftedaneatmodernhymnintraditionallongmeter(iambictetrameter);thesettingperfectlyfitsthesetting,asitwere.Butinsteadofopeningusuptograce,itsnapsshutlikeanastylimerick.Clearlyoffensewasmeant,givenandtaken.Andyetagain,itisunlikeHardytobemerelyblasphemousfornoreason;he’sironical,fatalistic,sure,butrarelysoplainlybitter.Theremustbesomethingelsegoingon.Ilooktotheinterestingredundancyinthefirstlineof“said”and“sing.”Whytheshiftimmediatelyfromthepassive-voicedpasttensetothefirst-personplural—who“said”andwho“sing[s]”?Ialsolooktothepoem’sbadmath.EvenaccountingforJesus’sownministries,we’rehalfacenturyshortof2000,giveortake.Thereis,then,avaguelymillenariantendencyhere,whichunderminesthefirmhistoricityofthepoem’sredundantdatinginitstitleandpostscript,andwhichisperhapskintothemoreexplicitpropheticmodethatweseeinotherHardypoems.Somaybewestillhavealittletimeleft.Whichbringsmetothatlastlineagain:“We’vegotasfaras…”Yes,thisisastraightforwardtravestyoftheliturgy,whichconveysclearlyenoughthatwe’vegoneinthewrongdirection,thatthosewhowouldargue“poison-gas”andthewaritselfwerenecessarystepstowardsglobalharmonyarewicked,stupidorboth.Butthereisalsoburiedthere,beneaththathardtopcrustofirony,asensethatwemustkeepgoing.Keepsinging“Peaceuponearth”together,eventhoughourownrecenthistorymakesuslookstupiddoingit.Thesurfaceironyofthispoemiseversoslightlyundermined.We’refacedwithadoublenegative:Priestsandtheirpeacetalkaremocked,butindustrialwarfareisrepudiated,evenmorestrongly.Thereisliterallynomore

2urgentcallforpeaceonearththanpoison-gas(untilnukes).ThepoemhasnofaithinAnglicanauthority,yetitretainssomesmallfaithinhavingfaith.Besides,it’sChristmas!Itisthatspecialtimeeachyearwhenwestepoutoftheflowofourdailylives,singsongstogether,trytobecharitableandkind,andpledgetodobetternextyear,inhopethattheworldmaydothesame.Thishymnbeginsbyexcoriatingemptyritualsandtraditions,yetsomehow,despiteitself,endsupreinforcingtheirnecessity.Thepoem’santagonistisnotthepriest,butthepoemitself.

HereI’veexpendedalmost500wordsonthesefourlinesandhaven’teventouchedonHardy’sintimatelife-longrelationshiptochurchmusic,ortohislateliteraryfriendshipwithSiegfriedSassoon,whoseinfluenceseemsalloverthispoem—notjustinitsparticularlypointybrandofirony,butalsoitsslideintoself-contradiction—indeed,“Christmas:1924”couldbereadasHardytryingouta“SassoonPoem”andproductivelyfailing.AndI’dliketoconnectthispoemtotherestofWinterWords,thethrenodicposthumousvolumethatisunderrepresentedinHardycriticism;ortoHardy’scounterintuitiveoptimism,aka“evolutionarymeliorism”—famouslyifawkwardlysetforthinthe“Apology”toLateLyrics—whichurgentlycallsforpoetrytoprovidean“alliancebetweenreligion”andscientific“rationality”(thispoemsetsitselfagainstboth,butthat’sinterestingtoo).ButI’llstopthere,becausewemustmoveon.Butthispoem,likeChristmas,willcomebacksoonenough.

ThisdissertationisaverycloselookatsomepoemswrittenduringtheGreatWarbyHardy,EdwardThomasandWilfredOwen.Idescribethewayseachdeployedpoetry’sformalresourcestoengagesomeoftheaffective,cognitive,spiritual,andpoliticalproblemsthewarproducedforthem.Ultimately,Iarguethatstrategiesofpoeticdoublingallowedthemtoaddress—ifnotquiteassuage—theeffectsofthewarthattroubledthemthemost.Eachpoet—indeed,eachpoem—manifeststhisideaofdoublingindifferentways,butthetacticofdoublingispervasive.Ultimately,Iarguethatthisdoublingisequallyaneffectofthewar’sincessantproductionofantagonisticculturalforms,andoflyricpoetry’sfundamentalabilitytoaccommodateinternaloppositionattheformallevel.Theintrinsicambivalenceofpoeticformmakesitaparticularlyeffectivediscourseforexaminingwar’soverwhelmingcontradictions.Thisintroductionwillproceedfirstwithadescriptiveandcontextualaccountofmyformalistcriticalmethod.ThenIbrieflylayoutamoredetailedaccountoftheconceptofpoeticdoubling,andwhyitisnotreducibletomereironyorambiguity.Ithencitetworecentliterary-criticalexemplarsthathelpsituatemyarchiveandargumentbetweenthemajordisciplinarylinesofVictorianandmodernistliteraturesandtheproblematicminorclassificationsof“GeorgianPoetry”and“WarPoets.”Finally,Ibrieflysummarizemychapters,touchingoneachpoet’scentralconcernsinregardstothewar,andthepoeticstrategiestheyusetoaddressthem.II.FormalistVersus

Thisisanunabashedlyformalistproject.Itisformalist,though,intwosensesoftheword,whichdifferbutdonotconflict.RaymondWilliamsusefullyaccountsforabasicdualitybuiltintotheveryterminKeywords,firstbytrackingasplitinthedevelopmentoftheroot“form”whichinEnglishcomestomeantwonearlyoppositethings:“(i)avisibleoutward

3shape”;and/or“(ii)anessentialshapingprinciple.”Thefirstsense,asin“mereforms,”andtheinexorable“formversuscontent,”leadstothederisivetoneof“formalist”whenusedtodescribetheearly20thcenturyRussianschoolofthatname,1alongwiththemidcenturyNewCritics,andothercriticalschoolswhichallegedlyattemptedtocordonofftheindividualartworkfromitshistoricalcontext,andtheaestheticgenerallyfromthesocialandpolitical.(Nevermindthatanysuchcordonwouldbeapotentlypoliticalform.)BeforeIgoontoclaimIamnotthatkindofformalist,IfirstwanttoadmitthatIam.

Because,Iamaboveallcommittedtoapracticeofsustained,inductiveclosereadingsofindividualpoems.Mostofmyreadingsareofalengththathasbecomeunfashionable,andafairportionofthatlengthiscomprisedofacarefulaccountofformalpoeticeffects,includingmeter,rhymeandothersoundeffects,andlineandstanzashapes.Istrivealwaystoaccountfortheeffectseachofthesehaveonthepoem’scontentandcontext,onitsotheroverlappingforms,andultimatelyonthereaderaswell.BecausethepoemsIexamineareshorterlyrics,theyaspiretounityandcompletion,andthisaspirationishonoredinmycriticalpracticewithacorrespondingbidforcomprehensiveness.Inthis,myformalistmethodologymaylookabitoldschool,thoughIconcurwithmanycritiquesofformalismthatholdanynotionoftotalityinarttobebothillusoryandideologicallysuspect.Intheend,inadditiontobeingquitedifficult,itissimplylessinterestingtotrytosituateapoemaboveorapartfromitssocialandhistoricalcontexts.Thoughitisveryinterestingindeedwhenthepoemitselfaspirestothatkindofdetachment.Howandwhydosomepoemsmakeabidforseparationfromthethingsoftheworld,fromtheflowofhistory?Whenthatbidinevitablyfails—asthe“PeaceuponEarth”songfailsin“Christmas:1924”—inwhatcanwelearnfromitsfailure?TheseareamongthefurtherquestionsIstrivetoaskofpoems,onceIhavecrediblyclassifiedasmuchoftheirarchitectureandarmatureasIcan.

ThiskindofbroaderquestionsquareswiththesecondkindofformalismtowhichIsubscribejustasreadily.Williamssuggeststheterm“socialformalism”fortheworkofthoselaterformalistswhoincorporatedtechniquesfromMarxistcriticalpractice,andwhich

askedabouttherealformation(form[ii])ofawork,whichrequiresspecificanalysisof itselementsinaparticularorganization…involvingextensionfromthespecificformtowiderforms…ofconsciousnessandrelationship(society).2

Thisaptlydescribesthesenseinwhichmyreadingsarealwaysonthehuntinthepoemsfor“wider”social,politicalandhistoricalideasdepictedandunderstoodasforms.Indeed,hereWilliamsdescribessomethingverylikehisowncriticalproject,whichheoutlinesatsomelengthinTheLongRevolution:

Thetheoryofculture[is]thestudyofrelationshipsbetweentheelementsinawholewayoflife.Theanalysisofcultureistheattempttodiscoverthenatureofthe

1Muchinthewaypeopletotheirpoliticalright—andleft—oftenusepoorlyunderstoodtermslike“liberal”and“socialist”asslursagainstthosetheyaccuratelydescribe.2Keywords,139,parenthesesanditalicsintheoriginal.

4

organisationwhichisthecomplexoftheserelationships.Analysisofparticularworksorinstitutionsis,inthiscontext,analysisoftheiressentialkindoforganization,therelationshipswhichworksorinstitutionsembodyaspartsoftheorganizationasawhole.Akeywordinsuchanalysis,ispattern:itiswiththediscoveryofpatternsofacharacteristickindthatanyusefulculturalanalysisbegins,anditiswiththerelationshipsbetweenthesepatterns,whichsometimesrevealunexpectedidentitiesandcorrespondencesinhithertoseparatelyconsideredactivities,sometimesagainrevealdiscontinuitiesofanunexpectedkind.(67)

Thevalueofthisdescriptionisinthewayitpatientlydrillsdownfromthe“wholewayoflife”allthewaytotheindividual“work”throughthe“relationships”and“patterns”whichconnectandorganizepartwithwholeateverylevelalongtheway.This,tome,isthebestwaytothinkoftherelationshipbetweenpoeticformsatthemicrolevelandhistoricalandpoliticalformationsatthemacro:notasmetaphorsorrepresentationsofeachother,butaslinksateitherendofachain,orbetteryet,aweb,toborrowapotentfigurefromThomasHardy:“Thehumanracetobeshownasonegreatnetworkortissuewhichquiversineverypartwhenonepointisshaken,likeaspider’swebiftouched”(Life182).3

Theworkoftheformalistthen,isnotinnamingorarranginghypostaticforms,butintrackingpatternsofmovementandrelationshipbetweenvariouspartsandwholes.ItisalsoimportanttonoticeinWilliams’sformulationthattherearetwodifferentkindsof“relationships”availableforanalysis:thosewhichlink“elements,”(“worksorinstitutions”)andthosewhichlink“patterns,”whichItaketocorrespondtofirst-andsecond-orderanalyses.MyformalistcriticalpracticereenactsthewholefocusingmovementoftheWilliamspassageinreverse—twice:firstbyputtingindividualelementsofasingleworkintorelationshipsandpatterns;thenstartingagainfindingrelationshipsandpatternsbetweenmultipleworks,finallyworkingoutfromthosetotheorganizationsandinstitutionsinwhichtheywereconceived,trackingthepatternsofsocialandpoliticalactivitywhichmovethemall.Theformalist’swork,inotherwords,hasonlyjustbegunwhentheyaredonewiththepoem.

WhatwealsofindinWilliamsisanemphasisnotjustonartasonelinkintheweb,butasaparticularlyimportantoneforsharedconsciousnessandsharedexperience,ashedescribeshere:

Artreflectsitssocietyandworksasocialcharacterthroughtoitsrealityinexperience.…Ifwecompareartwithitssociety,wefindaseriesofrealrelationshipsshowingitsdeepandcentralconnexionswiththerestofthegenerallife…Wefindalso,incertaincharacteristicformsanddevices,evidenceofthedeadlocksandunsolvedproblemsofthesociety:oftenadmittedtoconsciousnessforthefirsttimeinthisway.(91)

3TheHardyquotecontinuesinawaywhichishelpfultounderstandinghisstrangePlatonicabstractions“Spirits,Spectralfigures,etc.”severalofwhichwewillencounterinChapter1:“TheRealitiestobethetruerealitiesoflife,hithertocalledabstractions.Theoldmaterialrealitiestobeplacedbehindtheformer,asshadowyaccessories.”

5This,forme,isahighlycompellingaccountofthecritic’sothertask:togetat“unsolvedproblemsofsociety”whichmayonlyjustbecomingvisibleinthe“characteristicforms”ofonekindofartatoneparticulartime.Accordingtothismodel,poetrymightbeabletotellusthingsaboutahistoricalmomentthatotherartformsmaynot(andviceversa).Oneneednotdiverttoodeeplyintogenretheorytoseethatdifferentartformshavedifferentqualitiesandcapabilities—“formsanddevices”—whichgivedifferentviewsoftheculturethatproducesthem.AusefulconceptualtermthatWilliamsoffersforwhatoneseekswhileplumbingart’s“deepconnexions”istheappositelyformal“structureoffeeling.”Definedinpartas“awayofthinkingandliving…aparticularorganizationoflife”—itisacomplexandlabileconcept—indeedWilliamsinsistsitmustbetoaccommodatetheconstantlychangingnatureofasociety’s“livedexperience”—because“itoperatesinthemostdelicateandleasttangiblepartsofouractivity”and“itisonitthatcommunicationdepends”(69).Inotherwords,inseekingthiselusivebutpervasivestructure,wearelookingfortheverypatternsthatconstituteculture.

Thewaytobeginlookingforaformsofundamentalthatittendstowardsinvisibility,istolookforitscomponentformsthataremorediscreteandreadyathand.Anexampleofa“structureoffeeling”wemightextractfrom“Christmas:1924”isapervasivedisenchantmentwithchurchandstateandtheidealstheysupposedlyupheld,apainfulmalaisethatexistsnotjustinthepoet’smind,butdeepinthecultureofinterwarEngland.Butofcoursewecannotclaimtohavefounditbysimplypositingthatitoughttobethere.Wemustreconstructitinductivelyfromthepoem’smanydiscreteforms,asintheuseof“millions,”whichissimultaneouslytoospecificandtooabstract,countingthepriestsandwhat“wepay”theminthesametermsonemightcountthecasualtiesofwarorthecostsofrebuildingEurope.Orinthewayrhyming“mass”to“gas”uncomfortablyforcestogetherthemostunlikeculturalcategories,perhapsevenpunningonamasswhichweighsusdownwhereitshouldliftusup;orthewaythepoembeginsinpeacefulsongandendswithasarcasticquip.Noneoftheseconstitutethewhole“structureoffeeling,”buttheyareamongitsconstitutiveparts,andwhenwefindcompatiblepartsinotherculturalexpressionsfromtheperiod,wecanbegintoperceivethelargerpattern.

ThoughIembraceWilliams’stermsandaspiretoalignmyoverallprojectwithhis,Ithinkmyownmethodoffersbothasimplificationandashiftofemphasis.WhereWilliamsiswillingandabletosurveyvastswathesofliteraryandotherculturalmaterials,Idrasticallynarrowmyscope,hopingthatbysuchfocus,inbotharchive(afewpoemsbyafewpoetswritteninafewyears’span)andmethod(closereadingforpoliticalvalencesofformaldevices)Icanbetterunderstandthespecificrelationshipsbetweenthoseformsandthe“structureoffeeling”theyexpress(hereafterIwillstopputtingthisterminquotes).Inthisfocusingofmethod,Ifindmyselfinsolidaritywithaburgeoningcadreoflike-mindedacademicswhomayormaynotidentifyas“newformalists”andsomeofwhoseworkIdiscussatgreaterlengthbelow.Theirshasbeenarecurrentandbasicallysuccessfulefforttoridformalismofthe“negativeassociations”stillclingingtoitin1973whenWilliamswaslimningitsuseintheacademy.

CarolineLevineoffersarecentandparticularlycogentrearticulationofaby-nowfamiliarcycleofdivisionandreconciliation,thistimearoundconceivedasariftbetween“formalist”and“historicist”methodologies(herterms,whichstandinreadilyforwhatevermetonymsarethoughttobepresentlyatodds:aestheticsversuspolitics,textversus

6context,FormalistversusMarxist,etc.etc.).4Thoughshetendstooverstatethedegreeofherinterventionandinnovation,Levineoffersanelegantandusefulsetoftermswithwhichtoanalyzeformsandformalrelationshipsacrossdisciplinaryandconceptualdivides.Aimingto“expandourusualdefinitionofforminliterarystudiestoincludepatternsofsociopoliticalexperience”(2),sheoffersthefollowing,whichishardtodispute:“allshapesandconfigurations,allorderingprinciples,allpatternsofrepetitionanddifference”(3).Fromthisteeminginfinityshehelpfullyextracts“wholes,rhythms,hierarchiesandnetworks”asparticularlypervasiveformswhicharerelativelyeasytoidentifyasthey“collide”andoverlapinliterature,politicsandsociallife,whicharethemselvesallforms“nestedinsideoneanother”(16).

Forinstance,intheHardypoemwemightlookattheway“wepaymillionsofpriests”suggestsnetworksofbothtaxationandecclesiasticaladministration,whicharecollidingdestructivelywithotherformsliketheologicaltraditionorindustrialproduction.Orperhapswemightdiscussthewaythecollidingrhythmsofhymnandclippedmodernlyricdiscreditbothinturn,leavingusunsettled;orthewaytheliturgicalcalendar(akindofrhythm)whichculminatesinChristmasisinpainfulconflictwiththehistoricalmeasureinscribedbytheoutgoing“1924,”aclearreferencetotheten-yearanniversaryofthewar.

Inadoptingaspectsofherproposedmethod,IadoptLevine’sconvenientlybroaddefinitionof“form.”Obviouslythisgivesonealotofrope,butIalsoshareLevine’sandothers’sensethatthosepoliticalformswhichareembeddedin—orevendisguisedas—someotherkindofformareparticularlyworthwatchingoutfor.Assheputsit:

[I]tistheworkofformtomakeorder.Andthismeansthatformsarethestuffofpolitics.…thepoliticalisamatterofimposingandenforcingboundaries,temporalpatterns,andhierarchiesonexperience…thereisnopoliticswithoutform.(3)

Levine’scaseisbotheasierandhardertomakethanmyown:easier,because,likeWilliams50yearsbeforeher,sheincorporatesahugeanddiversesetofexamplesintoherbook,movingbetweencategoriesandarchiveswithanadmirable,ifattimesalarming,assurance;harderbecausefewculturalformsofanykindareasmanifestlyformalandplainlypoliticalaswarpoems.

Indeed,apreeminentexampleofreadingforandthroughthekindsofsociopoliticalformsthatLevinedescribes,whichaptlyillustratesmypoint,arethenamesofthesubchaptersthatorganizePaulFussell’sineluctableTheGreatWarandModernMemory.Someofthemostsalientinclude“IronicAction,”“TheEnemy,”“TheaterofWar,”“RidiculousProximity,”“AdversaryProceedings,”and“TheVersusHabit”(thislastwhichIhavehijackedformyproject’stitle).5Withthese,theformalandfigurativelabelingof

4Levineofferssimplifiedandunderstandablyself-servinginstitutionalhistoriesofformalismversusMarxism(11–16)andnewhistoricism(24–37);Williamsdoesaknottierversioninthe1986lecture“TheUsesofCulturalTheory”(InThePoliticsofModernism,163–176).5SeeespeciallyFussell’schaptersI,III,andVpassim.Hedefines“TheVersusHabit”thus:“onethingopposedtoanother,notwithsomeHegelianhopeofsynthesis…butwithasensethatoneofthepolesembodiessowickedadeficiencyorflaworperversionthatitstotalsubmissioniscalledfor”(79).Thepunon“verses”isaperversionallmyown,whichIattempttojustifybelow.Andthepunon“salient”inthissentencewasatotalaccidentthatIleftinforanyWWIbuffsoutthere.

7sociopoliticalconceptsstructuresthediscussionofsimilarandadjacentconcepts.ThoughFussell’sbroad-rangingculturalhistorycanonlyaffordtopayscantattentiontopoeticform,hisorganizingthemesandconceptsareasusefulanexampleofLevine’sconvergenceofliterary,socialandinstitutionalformsasanysheprovides.IwholeheartedlyshareLevine’sopinionthat“whatliterarycriticshavetraditionallydonebest—readingforcomplexrelationshipsandmultiple,overlappingarrangements”oughttobeappliedto“theconflictingformallogicsthatturnouttoorganizeanddisorganizeourlives”(23).Fussell’senduringlyrelevantstudyshowshoweffectiveamethodthatcombinesbroadculturalanalysiswithcloseattentiontoformaldiscursivepatternscanbe.

Anotherwayofdescribingmyproject,then,istosaythatwarpoemsareformalandpoliticalinsuchobviousways,thatmytaskismerelytodescribepreciselyhowthesetworegistersinteract.ReadingastridentlyprogressiveElizabethBarrettBrowningpoem,“TheCryoftheChildren,”Levinesays:“BarrettBrowningsuggeststhatpoetry,withitscapacityfortensions,inversions,andironies,isideallysuitedtotherepresentationofadividedandhypocriticalnation”(640).Iwouldaverthat,accordingtoafewofEngland’spoets(nottomentionafewofitsculturalhistorians),ithasrarelybeenquitesodividedorhypocriticalasitwasduringtheGreatWar.Andifdivisionsandhypocrisieshavegoneforthandmultipliedsincethen,theywereneverquitesopoeticizedastheywereinthosebloodyyears.

III.PoeticVersus

Intheostensiblypersonalformofthelyricpoem,thepoetsIexaminetookupsomeofthemosturgentpoliticalquestionsoftheirtime.Inthissense,thepersonalandthepoliticalarealwaysintensioninthesepoems—“colliding”asLevinehasit—occasionallyasantagonists,butmoreoftenasimbricatedconceptswhosebeginningsandendsareinvisible.Thesweepinglycomplexsociopoliticalsituationofthisglobalempireatwar,alliedwithoneofitsancestralfoesagainstanotherrisingindustrialpowerthattomanyEnglishmenseemedmoreculturallykindred,isdistilledintosmall,intimatepoeticengagementswhichmostlykeep“theenemy”outofview,oriftheyincludehim,treathimlikeafamiliar.Inthisgeneralsenseoflargeforcesputintosmallforms,thesepoemsmayallbereadas“versionsofpastoral”inthetermsofWilliamEmpson’sclassictreatment.Empsonprovidesasortofnegativedefinitionofpastoral,asitsformalconventionsmigratethroughotherliterarymodes(towhichI’lladdwarpoems).6Themostfundamentaloftheseconventionsis“theprocessofputtingthecomplexintothesimple”(23).Anditisclearenoughhowanylyricthattakesonpoliticalorhistoricalconcepts(aswarpoemsdo,almostbydefinition)mustemploythisprocess.Thesheerformalcompressionthatshortlyricsentail,alongwiththeirfrequentapproximationtoanindividualhumanconsciousness,meanstheywillalmostalwaysinvolvethekindofdistillationthatEmpsondescribes,thoughgeopoliticscertainlyprovideaspecialchallenge.ItisworthnotinghowthisprocessresemblesbothLevine’s

6Fusselldoesincludeafinesectiononwarpoemsaspastoral,butheusestheterminanarrowersenseof“naturepoem”or“poemaboutshepherds,”missingthechancetoconnecthisfundamentalironytoEmpson’s.Seechapter7,especially235–243.

8andWilliams’spracticesofrelatingbroadsocialprocessestodiscreteartisticforms.Inthissensepastoralisanearlyandenduringmethodologyforlayeringthesociopoliticalontothepoetic,andsoworthinvokingexplicitly.ThereareatleasttwootherimportantaspectsofEmpson’sworkthatwillalsoberecurrentlyimportanthere.

Forone,pastoralisquiteobviouslyconcernedwithclass.AsEmpsonhasit,“pastoralthough‘about’isnot‘by’or‘for’”thepeople(6).Therelationsofcomplextosimple,then,oftenalignwiththerelationsofhightolow,andpastoral,somewhatcounter-intuitively,ismeanttoevokeasenseof“solidaritybetweentheclasses.”Ofcoursethis“solidarity”hasalwaysbeenfromtheperspectiveoftheeconomiceliteandtheintelligentsiatowardstherurallaborer,notviceversa.Buttheformisconsistentacrosstime,evenasitreliesonincreasinglyelaboratearrangementstocomeoff.Goingbacktoitsclassicalandearlyrenaissanceorigins,Empsonsays:

Theessentialtrickoftheoldpastoral,whichwasfelttoimplyabeautifulrelationbetweenrichandpoor,wastomakesimplepeopleexpressstrongfeelings(…themostuniversalsubjects,somethingfundamentallytrue…)inlearnedandfashionablelanguage.(11)

Thisisinevitablythestructureofmuchwarpoetry,withthestereotypicalrurallaborerreplacedbythemoresociallyambiguousfigureofthesoldier,whoisnotalwayspoororsimple,andwhoevenatthelowestlevelisnominallyheldinsomeesteem.However,thepervasivenotion,whichcomestousfrompastoral,thatthesoldiermayhavebetteraccessto“strong,universal,fundamentalfeelings”(cf.Williams’sstructureoffeelings)thananoncombatantisafundamentalassumptionmadebyjustabouteverywarpoem,andindeed,ofmostdiscourseaboutwarfromsoldiersandciviliansalike.Evenwherethesoldierlyworldviewisascribedtoahostiletribalornationalisticideology(inthemorenegativesenseoffalseconsciousness),itisstilloftenheldtobemorestronglyanddeeplyfeltthanshallowercivilianmores.ItdoesnotnegatethisclasselementthattwoofthepoetsIexamineweresoldiers,because,ofcourse,theywereeducatedofficers,andinthistheirpoeticbidforsolidaritywithmeninthelowerranksisaspastoralasitgets.

Andif,contraEmpson’s“oldpastoral,”allthreeofthepoetsIexaminemakeeffortstohonorandincorporatethe“simpler”(read:lower)languageofthesoldierintotheirpoems,thesearestillliteraryproductsdestinedforbooksandmagazineswithahigherclassofreaderinmind.InfactthereisaninterestingprocessIwilldiscussinmychapteronOwenbywhich“trenchtalk”doesbecome“fashionable,”inlargepartthankstosuchpoetry.Thisclashofdiscoursesisrelatedtoanotherimportantdisruptiontothepastoraltraditionbythesepoets,specificallytothatdubiousdesirefor“beautifulrelations”betweentheclasses.Insteadofdignifyingthelowerordersbylendingthemloftywordsandfeelings,mostofthepoemsIexaminereversethattrajectory,usingcausticlanguageandimagerytodragthemorefortunatereader/observer,safeathome,downintothetrenchestoexperiencethesoldiers’affliction.EventhecivilianHardyparticipatesinthissadisticaesthetic,forinstancebybringing“poisongas”tochurch.Yetitisatestamenttotheflexibilityandpersistenceofpastoral(andEmpson’sanalysis)thateventhiscanstillbereadasawayofconferringdignityonthewretched,despitethedistinctlysouredclassrelations.Thereisareflexive,concurrentresultofbringingthereaderintothetrenches

9thatalsobringsthesoldieroutandup,intotherespectablecompanyofpoetry’shighculturaltradition,andthisreflexiveactioniscruciallyrelatedtothenotionofdoublingthatIwillgoontoelaborate. Thefinal,andperhapsmostimportantpointofconnectionIwanttomakewithEmpson’spastoralhastodowiththecomplexdoublenessofironyitself.Helaysthisoutinhischapteron“DoublePlots”inElizabethandrama,whereinacomicsubplot,withlower-ordercharacters,oftenclownsorservants,shadowsthemoreseriousmainplotofcourtlyintrigueorromance.Inagreatmanyexamplesheshowsthatthepastoraleffectobtainswherethelowisennobledbyanalogyandproximitytothehigh,evenasthelaughterandbawdinessemergingfromthedomainofthelowservestodeflatetheheroismandglamourofthehigh,bringingittoearthandmakingitmorerelatabletoasociallydiverseaudience.Thereisironyenoughbuiltintothisreflexiveexchange,whoseresemblancetotherelationshipbetweenbattlefieldandhomefrontjustdiscussedshouldbeclear:butthatisnotwheremytruckwithEmpsonstops.Hegoesontopositthevitalimportanceofthelowlypuntothiselaboratesocial-aestheticprocess:

[V]erbalironiesinthecomiccharacters’lowjokescarryonthethoughtofbothplotsoftheplay…onesourceoftheunityofaShakespeareplay,howeverbrusqueitshandlingofcharacter,isthiscoherenceofitssubduedpuns.(39)

Hefollowsthiswithabravurareadingofarepeatedpunontheword“general”inTroilusandCressida,whichactivatestheplay’sfundamental“comparisonbetweenthepersonandthestate,betweenapersonalsituationandapoliticalone”(42).Itisthusatthelowestleveloflanguagethatthedoubleplotcoheres,andsinglewordsthatnotonlyhavedoublemeanings(andin“general”nearlyopposite—thesingularmilitaryheroversusthemultitudeswhoheleadsanddefends)butdoublefunctions(lowlaughterandloftyidentifications)arethelinchpinsthatholdthecomplexformtogether.Thesimpledualityofthepungivesaccesstothemorecomplicatedduality—adoubleduality—ofirony.Empsonelaborateslater,discussingSwift’selaborateandsustainedironicpostures:

Thefundamentalimpulseofironyistoscoreoffboththeargumentsthathavebeenpuzzlingyou,bothsetsofsympathiesinyourmind,bothsortsoffoolwhowillhearyou;aplagueonboththeirhouses.Itisbecauseofthestrengthgivenbythisantagonismthatitseemstogetsosafelyoutsidethesituationitassumes,todecidesoeasilyaboutthedoubtwhichitinfactaccepts.(62)

Thisdoublyantagonisticirony,whichallowsitsrecipientto“getsafelyoutsidethesituation”Iwillargue,isthemostimportantwayinwhichthewarpoemsIexaminecarryonthepastoraltradition.Itistheonlywaythesesmallpoemsareabletoholdandcommunicatethestaggeringlycomplexandquiteoftenhorrifyingfeelingsengenderedbythewarinsuchawaythattheydon’tcompletelyunravelthepersonfeelingthem.Thisisnot,Ishouldstress,thesimpleironyofSassoon’santi-church/government/militarybrasspropagandapoems(effectivethoughtheyare),noreventheinfamouslypessimisticironyofearlyHardy,wherethehopesofsimplepeopleareneatlycrushedbyfate.Theheightsanddepthsofironyittooktosurvivethewar(evenforthosewhodidn’tquite)wasmore

10profoundthanthese,andindeedisbestdescribedbyEmpsonasthe“strengthgivenby[the]antagonism”ofsayinga“plagueonboththeirhouses.”ThoughthedoublingIdiscoverinthesepoemsisnotidenticaltothisirony,thisisoneofitsmostcommonandpotenteffects,thisfeelingthatonemustopposeallofittokeeponeselftogether. I’llsaythen,thatitisbywayofEmpsonthatItakemypermissiontouseapunasmyproject’stitle;butperhapsmoreimportantthereisthenodtoFussell.Hisworkshowsushowandwhypoetryandwar—each,butespeciallyincombination—confrontuswithaminefieldofunfortunateusages,doubleentendres,anddodgy,darkhumor.IfIhavesurrenderedalreadyinthebattleoftryingtokeepmylanguagefreeofwarpuns,Iwillstriveinsteadtobeself-consciousandpurposefulintheiruse,aswithEmpson’s“general.”OnewayIdosoistocatalogueandaccountforthewaysinwhichwarinvadeslanguageasacrucialaspectofmybroadercriticalmethod.Fussellhimselfhastwoindispensiblesectionsaboutthiscultural-linguisticphenomenonofinvadingforms.7Aftercautioningthatwemustavoidassumingeverythingthatcomesafterthewarissomehowaboutthewar,hegoesontoaverthat“somespecialwaysthemodernworldchoosestoputthingsdoappearprofoundlyaffectedbythesenseofadversaryproceedingstowhichthewaraccustomedthosewhofoughtandthosewhohadnot”(105).AndlaterhegivesseveralconvincingexamplesofhowweareallinheritorsoftheGreatWar’s“specialdictionandsystemofmetaphor,itswholejargonoftechniquesandtacticsandstrategy”(187).IfollowFussellinthis,andthoughIamkeenlyinterestedinthoseparticularwordsandphrasesthatemergedfromthetrencheswithnewcurrencyandunfortunatesubtexts(“thetrenches”foremostamongthem)Iamevenmorekeenonthosemoreabstractformalandconceptualhabits(“ways…toputthings”;“techniques,tacticsandstrategy”)whichwerethewar’sbequesttothelanguage.TheseconceptuallegaciesofthewarareoftenthecentralformsthatactivatethepoemsIexamine.Indeed,theFussell-inspiredpuninmytitleisafairwarningofthisstudy’sgeneralobsessionwithantagonisticforms—andformalisms—disinterredbythespecificdisturbancesoftheperiodspanningtheturnofthecenturytotheendofthewar.Tosharpenthismetaphor,thewardoesnotcreatetheseforms,butituncoversandexposesthemaseitherparticularlyusefuloruselessforaddressingitseffects.War’sdistinctformsdisseminatethroughouttheculture,begettingnewformsordeployingoldformsinnewways(ploughsharesandswords,linesandtrenches,etc.),whichprovideespeciallyintenseexamplesofwhatformalconceptscanandcannotdo.

InadditiontoFussell’spersistentinfluence,IamindebtedthroughouttoMeredithMartin,whocautiouslyidentifiesasa“newformalist”intheintroductiontoTheRiseandFallofMeter,herpainstakingstudyof“historicalprosody”inandaroundtheGreatWar.Martin’sbookisbasedaroundacompellingcentralquestion:“askinghowandwhymeterwasonthemindsofsomanypoetsinatimeofnationalinsecurity,andhowthisinsecurityandinstabilityareinherent,now,inanydefinitionordiscussionofmeterinEnglish”(14).BecauseIamentirelyconvincedbyherassertionthat“meter,asadiscourse,wasdeeplyimbeddedinculturalpoliticsandinstitutionsofthestate,”Ihopetoextendherhistorically

7See“ThePersistentEnemy,”105–113;“Survivals,”187–90.Fussell:“Onereasonwecanuseatermliketacticssoreadily,literallyorinmetaphors,isthattheGreatWartaughtittous”(187).

11preciseformalinquiryintoabroaderengagementwithpoeticforms.Iam,forinstance,justasinterestedintheideasandrelationshipsarrangedthroughrhymesandstanzasasIamintheideologicalvicissitudesofmeterwhichMartintrackssoably.

Soinsteadoffocusingonthehistoricalandculturalcontextsofasingleaspectofpoeticform,asMartindoes,mymethodistofocusatlengthonindividualpoems,emphasizingwhattheirvariousformalaspects,eachinturnandallincombination,cantellusabouthowwarinflectedthethoughtandpracticeofthepoet,hisreaders,andtheirsharedlivedexperienceoutsidethepoem.Anotherwaytosaythisisthatbecauseinheritedpoeticformsareinherentlyconservativephenomena—theyalwayslookbackwardstotraditionandprecedent(e.g.classicalorAngloSaxonmeters,balladorsonnetforms,allusionstopoeticpredecessors,etc.)—formisalsotheplacewhereenergiesofprogressanddisruptioncanbemostreadilyobserved.HereIhavelapsedintoanothermetaphorthatIwanttomakemoreexplicitandpurposeful:poeticformislikealocation—similartoalibraryoramuseum.Itisakindofarchivewherepreviousculturalformsareconserved,andtowhichartistsmaygotofindformsforideastheytoowanttosustain,butequallyforideastheywanttoupdate,disrupt,ordestroycompletely—likeHardyopeninguphishymnal.Inthissense,literaryformisunavoidablypolitical;itisaplacewhereanindividualcanconfrontmoreorlesspowerfulinheritedculturalstructures(cf.Levine’s“orderingprinciples”)andmakethechoicebetweenobedienceanddissent.Thisisnotnecessarilyabinarychoice,mindyou:inartisticpractice(ifperhapslesssoinpoliticalpraxis)thereisplentyofroombetweenthosetwopoles.Formiswherethetraditioninheresandispassedforward,butalsoaplacewhereitcanbecomevulnerableandstarttotearloose;assoonasunderlyingculturalstructuresbecomerecognizedassuch,theyopenthemselvesuptosubversivedestabilization.

Therefore,eventhoughmostpoeticformsaremanifestationsofconservativeculturaltraditions,elite,evencourtly,conventions,andanoverwhelminglypatriarchalinheritance(notwithstandingtheSapphicoriginsoflyric),itdoesnotfollowthatthemereuseofaparticularpoeticformintendsanyspecificpoliticalbeliefonthepartoftheauthor,lessofthecultureitself.8Anyform,likemeter,isfirstofallanabstractentity,whichunderliesbutisnotidenticaltothematerialthatitgivesform.Inthiswayitmanagestobebothpoliticallysignificantandpoliticallyneutralatonce.Letmeofferacrudebutexpeditiousexample:Imagineapoemonastirringpatrioticthemewritteninlock-stepmarchingtrocheeswithnice,cleanballadicrhymesthatallresoundtothattheme—someearlyKiplingwouldbeperfect,thoughthislinefromNewboltwillalsoserve:“Youthatmeantofightitout,wakeandtakeyourloadagain.”Nowimagineapoemwiththesameexactrhythm,perhapsevenmoreexactinglyregular,andwhichusesnotjustthesamerhymescheme,butthesameexactrhymewords;butthissecondpoemisanuncouthandanarchisticparodyofthefirstpoem,alongthelinesof:“Youwhosigneduptodieforus,pleaseriseandtryagain.”Inthisexaggeratedexamplewecanseethewayinwhichformismorelikeastage(toswitchmetaphorsagain)onwhichideologiesandsentiments(patrioticornot,inmyexample)canbeconvenientlyobservedinactionthanitisitselfthe

8LevinerecountsthecriticalhistoryofpoliticizedsuspicionandoppositiontoNewCriticalobsessionswithunified,boundedwholes(24–37).LikewiseMartin’smainargumentisthatmeterhashistoricallybeenemployedinserviceofdiverseandopposedconceptionsofnationandtradition.

12expressionofanyparticularideology.9Formisabsolutelywheretheactionis—it’sthefieldofplay—soyouneedtobeableseethefieldclearlytofollowtheaction.

AllofthereadingsthatfollowbeginwithanassumptionthatthepoemathandistryingtosolveaproblemeitherprecipitatedorintensifiedbytheGreatWar—thatthesepoemsarethemselvesbasicallytools,equallycognitiveandcultural,atworkonideasthataren’tquiteworking.MyunderstandingoflyricpoemsandofwhattheycanandcannotdoowesmuchtoAllenGrossman’sSummaLyrica,whichheopensbydefining“‘thepoem’asanobjectofthoughtandasaninstrumentforthinking…thinkingasitmayariseinthecourseofinquirydirectedtowardspoeticstructures”(207).AlthoughthereisaplaintautologyinGrossman’sformulation(whichIdon’tthinkhewoulddisavow)—thatapoemismostusefulforthinking“towardspoeticstructures”—butIthinkhemeans“poetic”and“structures”asLevinedoes,inanexpansiveandmultifariousway,whileby“thepoem”hemeansjustthat,thethingonthepage.Therefore,thisconceptionoflyricisactuallynicelycompatiblewithLevineandWilliams’smoreexplicitlysociopoliticalpractice,wherebythestructuresweseeworkinginpoetryareusefulcounterpartsforstructureswefindelsewhere.Acriticalreadingofapoemmustthereforeidentifywhichsocialorpoliticalproblemsthepoemisengaging.Thisisnotbecausethepoemsolvestheproblems(theyrarelydo,evenwhentheyclaimto,whichisalsorare)andevenlessthatreaderscansolveanyanalogousproblemforthemselvesbyextrapolatingfromthepoeticattempt.Ratheritisjusttosaythatacriticalreadingofapoemmustfirstrecognizethateverypoemisalreadyengagedinacriticalreadingofitsownculture,muchasweseeinWilliams’sformulations.

OneofthereasonsshortlyricpoemsaresousefulforthekindofbroadlysyntheticformalanalysisthatWilliamsandLevinesuggest—andthatIamembarkingonhere—isthatallthepartsofapoemrelatetoalltheotherpartsinawaynotoftentrueofthemorelinearconstructionofprose.Whichistosaythat,thoughpoemsareoftencarvedintoconvenient,aphoristicbits—indeed,oftenlendthemselveswellto,orevendemandsuchcarving(manypeoplewithlittlepatienceforpoetrycanquotealittlebitofKeats,Yeats,orKingJames,whethertheyknowitornot)—thisisnotaneffectivewaytodeploythemifthegoal,asitishere,istoseekthebroadinsightstheycanofferintothedeterminingformsofthecultureandsocietyinwhichtheywereproduced.Itisnotthatwemustlookatallthepartstounderstandthewhole—theveryconceptofwholesisconstantlyunderminedbythepoems—butratherthatallthepartsmoveandworktogether.Again,returningtoWilliams,wemightsaythatwearelookingfor“patterns”and“livingprocesses”not“fixedandseparableobjects”(118).Onecan’tseeapatternbylookingatonlyoneiteration,norfollowcomplexprocesseswithaglance.Poemslovetobequoted,onecanassume;buttheyvastlyprefertoberead.

9ItrytohenceforthusethisslipperyterminwhatRaymondWilliamscallsits“neutral”sense:“thesetofideaswhicharisefromagivensetofmaterialinterestsor…fromadefiniteclassorgroup”(KeyWords156–7).

13IV.VictorianVersus

Ihavelimitedmyselftoaprimaryarchiveofpoemswrittenintheintervaloflate1915throughlate1917withonlyafewpoemsoutsidethatinterval(including“Christmas:1924,”)usedforaspecificcomparison.Ihavelimitedmyinterpretiveconclusionstopositinghowthesepoetswerethinkingaboutwarinpoetryandaboutpoetryinwar(i.e.whattheythinkpoetrycantellusaboutwarthatotherdiscoursescannot,andwhatisdifferentaboutwritingpoetryduringwartimeversusanyothertime—ifindeedthereisanyothertime)andwhatwemightlearnaboutthe“livedexperiences”andstructuresoffeelingspecifictowartime.Ifinditparticularlyinterestingtoreadpoemsaboutthewarwrittenwithoutitsendinsight,whentheworldstillseemedtobeviolentlybreakingintopieces,withnohintyetofhowtheymightbeputbacktogether—anactivitywhicheventhebleakestofpostwarculturaloutputwouldhaveinfrontofit.Indelimitingmyarchiveinthisway,IamparticipatinginyetanotherinterpretiveactthatIfeelisimportanttoacknowledge—whichwillinturnanswerthequestion,“whythesepoetsandnotothers?”Again,wecanturntoRaymondWilliamsforasearching(ifnotquitesuccinct)discussionofthisphenomenon,whichhecalls“theselectivetradition”:

Insocietyasawhole,andinallitsparticularactivities,theculturaltraditioncanbeseenasacontinualselectionandreselectionofancestors.…Wetendtounderestimatetheextenttowhich[this]isnotonlyaselectionbutalsoaninterpretation.Weseemostpastworkthroughourownexperience,withoutevenmakingtheefforttoseeitinsomethinglikeitsoriginalterms.Whatanalysiscandoisnotsomuchtoreversethis,returningaworktoitsperiod,astomaketheinterpretationconscious…torelate[it]totheparticularcontemporaryvaluesonwhichitrests;andbyexploringtherealpatternsofthework,confrontuswiththerealnatureofthechoiceswearemaking.(74)

My“particularactivity”ofcourse,isliterarycriticism,andIhavetriedtocarefullycontextualizemymethodassuch,andwillcontinuetodosoinwhatfollows.Butmy“selectionofancestors”isamoredifficultquestiontoaddress. Tobeginwith,theeraof“totalwar”andtheinterrelatedphenomenaoftechnologicallyadvancedcommunications,globalmarkets,andinternationallaw,whichareallemergentintheperiodinquestion,arestillfundamentalcharacteristicsofourcontemporaryexperience.Inthissensemychosenancestorsarefairlyclosekin.AndwhilerecognizingandinsomewayssharinginthesociopoliticalpressuresandproblemsItrackthroughoutthepoemsisonereasonIhavechosenthem,thatstilldoesn’tadequatelyaccountforthefactofthissomewhatunconventionalgroupingofthreepoets,whocrossdisciplinarylines,asagroupandindividually.Ihaveselectedthreepoetswhoexhibitprofoundambivalenceaboutwar,nationalismandviolenceintheirpoetry,viewswhicharenowherereducibletosimpleacceptance,noropposition,butshotthroughwithshiftingallegiances,conflictinginheritances,andambiguouspersonalfeelings.Thatthereis,inmyattractiontothesepoets(ormoreaccuratelytothesepoems,asIhavecarefullyexcludedagreatmany),anuncannysenseofself-recognition,offellow-feelingacrosstime,analloyofangerandpity,empathyandirony,dissentandresignation,mustbeacknowledgedasthe

14firstconditionofmycriticalactivity.Anotherwayofsayingthisisthatmotivatingthisprojectisanintimaterecognitionofthestructuresoffeelingmadeavailablebythesepoems,andthatisreasonenoughtotrytodiscoveritsoriginsandcomposition.Towit,Idonotfeelscandalizedoroffendedby“Christmas:1924”inthewayHardyclearlymeantmanyofhiscontemporariestofeel;Irecognizeitssenseofangryexasperationinthefaceofstateviolenceanditsdenialand/orsocialacceptanceasintimatelymyown.Itisasifsomeoneelseconstructedmyownfeelingsforme100yearsago.Itisnaturaltowanttoknowhowthathappens,andif,indeed,IfeelwhatIfeelbecauseitwasconstructedinthoseformsatthattime.

Allthreeofmypoetsaredeeplyinvestedinoverlappingquestionsofnationalbelonging,literarytradition,andorganicand/orgeologiccyclesoflifeanddeath.Thesesubjectscometofeellikeacutecrisesduringthewar,andassuchthepoetsrecasttheminpoeticformssotheycanworkontheirpersonalresponses.Iftheyoccasionallygesturetowardsbroaderpoliticaland/orculturalsolutions,itisnotnecessarilybecausetheybelievepoetryitselfisapotentpoliticalforce(thoughbothOwenandHardydooccasionallycourtthisnotion:Hardywithhisventuresintothepropheticmode,andOweninhismanifesto-like“Preface,”whichIexamineatlengthinhischapter)butbecausethefantasyofmakingacontributiontowardsculturalhealingorpoliticalcourse-correctionisitselfaformofprivateconsolation.Inmostcasesthough,thesepoetsareacutelyawareofhowpreciouslittleapoemcandoinaneraofviolentpoliticalupheavalandmassivematerialdestruction,andthepoemsreflectthispainfulawarenessinvariousreflexivepostures.Thepoemsactivelyinternalizethewarandpersonalizeitseffectsevenastheyexpresstheirownsenseofpowerlessnessinthefaceofitsoverwhelminginfluence.

MyarchiveandmyargumentsarealsostrungbetweentwoinfluentialcriticaltextsthatIwishtoacknowledgeanduseasjumpingoffpoints.TheseareIsobelArmstrong’sVictorianPoetry:Poetry,PoeticsandPolitics(1993),10andVincentSherry’sTheGreatWarandtheLanguageofModernism(2003).BothstudiesarecardinalexamplesofthekindofhistoricallyawareclosereadingthatIaspiretoandLevineprescribes.Itshouldbeclearthatmythreepoetsconstituteanawkward—butnotentirelyimpossible—fitforeitherofthesebooks’owndelimiteddomains.MypoetsareneitherVictoriannormodernistinthedisciplinarysenseofeitherword,yetallthreeevinceimportantaspectsofboth.ThesensethattheyareallthreetoolatetobeVictorian,andyettooVictoriantobemodernistispartofwhatmakethemsointerestingtomeasagroup.Andthewaritselfplaysnosmallpartintheirliteraryhistoricalawkwardness,becausethetwoyoungermenhadthemisfortunetodieinit,whileHardysubversivelykeptoutlivingsuccessiveculturalandhistoricaleras.Despitewritinginthe20thcenturyanddisplayingmanyofthetendenciesandpreoccupationsofmodernism(notleasttheveryfracturedandself-reflexiveuseoflanguagethatmybroadterm“doubling”pointsto)allthreeengagedinexplicitlypost-Romantic,highlyformalpoeticmodessuchthattheyarenotcustomarilygroupedwithmodernism’savant-garde.NeitherVictoriannormodern,theymayalsobeboth,productivelyunderminingthesecategoriesbyrevealingtheirshiftingborders.

10Armstrong’saggressiveuseofrepetitionandalliterationinherverytitleis,tomyear,aninspirationalbitofmetacriticism.

15

Thereis,ofcourse,atermconspicuouslymissinghere,whichIwanttoacknowledgebeforedispatching.“GeorgianPoetry”issometimesusedtodescribepoetrywritteninEnglandfrom1910untilthemid1920s.Italsoreferstoaseriesoffiveanthologiespublishedfrom1912–1922,twoofwhichcameoutinthewaryears.Thesesoldquitewellatfirst,andgatheredsomerenownforthegroupofpoetsfeatured,whothreatenedforamomenttobecomeaprominentavant-gardecoterie.RobertRoss(whose1965treatmentisstilltheonlyacademicmonographontheGeorgians)assertstheywere“inrevoltagainstHumanism…Academism…thedeadhandoftheRomantic-Victoriantradition”andweredeterminedtorepresent“reallifeinreallanguage”(22).EdwardThomashimself,dutifullyreviewingthefirstvolume,whichincludedseveralofhisfriendsfromLondonliterarycircles,faintlypraisedthemostly“narrativeormeditativeverse[which]showsmuchbeauty,strength,andmystery,somemagic—muchaspiration,lessdefiance,norevolt.”Hegoesontopinpointoneofthevolume’srecurrentthemes,anassociationwhichhasclungtothemeversince:“manysidesofthemodernloveofthesimpleandprimitive,asseeninchildren,peasants,savages,earlymen,animals,andNatureingeneral.”11Inaword:pastoral—thoughofanattenuatedvarietynotablylackingintheself-awarenessanddouble-edgedironythatEmpsonfindsthere.Thomaswasnotyetwritingpoemshimselfwhenhepennedthisreview,andthelukewarmaestheticatmosphereofhisownsocialgroupmaybepartlywhy.Thomas’sdullestpoems(whichtooshow“muchbeauty”)wouldnotbeoutofplaceintheanthologies,butthepoemsthatwouldgoontoearnhimposthumousfamearetooconflicted,self-conscious,andsemanticallycontorted—nottomentionambivalenttowardregularrhyme—tofitinreadilywiththisgroup.LikeThomas,onecanadmiretheGeorgians“cleanerandsparerlineandnewlyidiomaticaccent”withoutwantingtojointhegrouporwriteatlengthaboutthem.

IamtryingnottosuccumbtothegeneralcriticaldrifttowardstheGeorgians,inwhich,asSherrytellsus“intheinterestsofdramaticliteraryhistory,andinthesimplifyingbinariesofretrospect,Georgianismisoftenpresentedasareactionaryoppositiontotheconvention-dismayingtemperamentofmodernism”(36).Buttobesureitispartlythishalf-wronginstitutionalbiasagainsttheethosoftheanthologiesthatpreventsmefromusingtheterminmyproject.ThereisalsothefactthatnoneofthethreepoetsIdiscussappearedinanyofthefiveanthologiesandthatthetwomostenduringnamesfromthoseanthologies,RupertBrookeandD.H.Lawrence,aremoreoftenassociatedwithothergroupsanyway.AllofthispointstowardsaclearinstantiationofWilliams’s“selectivetradition”:Thatwedon’tcounttheGeorgiansamongourculturalancestorsispartlyanaccidentofthewardisruptingtheirrise,andpartlyduetheoutsizeculturalsuccessofvariouscontemporarieswhobettercapturedpost-warstructuresoffeeling.Sowhile“Georgian”maybeaperfectlyaccuratehistoricallabelformyproject,itisaestheticallyunbefitting.TwotermsfromThomas’sreviewhitonwhatismostlacking:“defiance…revolt.”ThepoetsandpoemsItakeupareallinconstantrevolt,ifnotagainstpoetictradition,thancertainlyagainsttheirownthoughts.

Thisproject’sunifyingthemeofantagonisticformaldoublingsorwhatIcallthe“poeticversus”—doubledtimeframesinHardy,doubleidentitiesandlocationsinThomas,

11HisreviewwaspublishedintheDailyChronicle14Jan.1913andreprintedinGeorgianPoetry1911–1922:TheCriticalHeritage.Ed.TimothyRogers.London:Routledge,1977.66–67.

16andtwoopposingverbalregistersinOwen—isneitherahappyaccidentnoranoverlystrenuousmanipulationofmyinterpretivefindings.ItisratheracarefulinstantiationofArmstrong’sinfluentialtheoryofthe“doublepoem.”This,thecentralconceptofhermonumentalstudy,issoinformativeofmyownreadingmethodthatitwarrantsaselectivesummaryhere.ShebeginsbyconvincinglymakingthefamiliarcasethatVictoriansconceivedofthemselvesasboth“belated”and“intenselyhistoricized”—existinginahistoricalcontinuumbroughtto“aconditionofcrisis…fromeconomicandculturalchange”attheinflectionpointsofdemocracy,technology,science,religion,printculture,andthearts.(3–6)Shethenpositsanartisticresponsetoallthischangeandself-awareness,whichismutableandreflexiveinkind.Thisisthedoublepoem,“quiteliterallytwoconcurrentpoemsinthesamewords…[which]turnsitsexpressiveutterancearoundsothatitbecomestheoppositeofitself,notonlythesubject’sutterancebuttheobjectofanalysisandcritique”(12).Armstronggoesontodescribethedoublepoemas“adeeplyskepticalform,”which“drawsattentiontotheepistemologywhichgovernstheconstructionoftheselfanditsrelationshipsandtotheculturalconditionsinwhichthoserelationshipsaremade…Itisanexpressivemodelandanepistemologicalmodelsimultaneously”(13).ItisnotacoincidencethatthisdoublestructurealignssowellwithLevine’stwooverlappingsensesoftheword“form”:onenarrowlyaestheticandcontainedwithinthepoemandtheimaginaryself(poet/speaker)thatitsutteranceposits,theothermuchbroaderandencompassingallthesystemsandstructuresthatsurroundthatpoemandthatperson.AsArmstrongputsit:“Inapost-revolutionaryworldinwhichpowerissupposedlyvestedinmanyratherthanaprivilegedclass,thedoublepoemdramatizesrelationshipsofpower.Inthetwofoldreading,struggleisstructurallynecessaryandbecomestheorganizingprinciple”(16).Thisinternalizedoppositionbythepoemofthepoliticalsituationwhichformsitsconditionsofexpressionisthe“struggle”towhichmy“poeticversus”refers.EverypoemIexamineinthisprojectwouldqualifyasadoublepoemundertheseterms,becauseeverypoemdescribesorpresupposesbothanindividualthreatenedbythewar(“expressivemodel”)andasetofvalues,systems,communityandculture(“epistemologicalmodels”)whicharethreatenedinkind.Thestructureofeachpoem—itsforms—depictthedynamicinwhichthesecoterminousthreatsareregisteredandcontended.Doublingendsupbeingabroadbutaptnameforthestrategiesbywhichthewar’sdisturbancesandantagonismsaretransferredbetweenthepoem’stwolevelsofengagement,whetherconceivedasformal/social(Williams),literary/political(Levine),expressive/epistemological(Armstrong),personal/politicaloranyotheranalogousparingthatbestfitsapoem’sspecificconcerns.Forinstance“Christmas:1924”doublesitself,aswehaveseen,byfirstregisteringasasavageparodyofAnglicanbadfaith,butthenlettingakindofsecularhopeforredemptioncreepbackininitssubtlerhetoricalhedginganditsinabilitytocompletelyabandonthebeliefthatsongsareworthsingingandwereallycandobetterthan“poison-gas.”IntheendHardy’spoemisthemosteffectivecritiqueofitsowndarkworldview.TheVictoriandoublepoemsurvivesthewarinfineform.

ThusmyprojectispreciselythekindofopportunitytotestArmstrong’sgleefullyprovocativeassertionthat“sinceVictorianpoetryisthemostsophisticatedpoeticform,andthemostpoliticallycomplex…itisproperthatVictorianpoemsshouldgenerateprinciplesforreadingthepoetryofthepasttwo-hundredyears”(21).MypoetsonlymissedbeingVictorianbyadecadeortwo,butArmstrong’sstrongshotacrossthebowis

17explicitlyaimedatmodernism’smythicallyproportionedself-regardanditsinsoucianceor“silenceaboutVictorianpoetry”—abodyofworkwhichsheclaimsanticipatedmanyofthemodernists’purportedinnovations.“WheretheVictoriansstrivetogiveacontenttothese[political,sexual,epistemological]problemsandtoformulateaculturalcritique,themodernscelebratetheeliminationofcontent.(7).Idon’tshareArmstrong’sopinionofliterarymodernism’srelativevacuity,nordoIwishtowadeintothefraughtanddisputedwatersbetweenscholarlysubfields,otherthantokeepafootineach—butIdofinditusefultotrackhowmypoetsparticipateinbothVictorian“culturalcritique”laidoutinArmstrong’stermsandamodernistaestheticofdetachmentandfracture.ThatmypoetsveerbetweenthetwomodesmightbeseentoundermineorconfirmArmstrong’sdivision,straddling,astheydo,theVictorianandmodernisteras.

Mynotionofformaldoublinginthesepoets,however,isnotidenticaltoArmstrong’s“doublepoem”:Rather,IwouldsaythatthedoublingsItrackareexamplesofhowpoemsformallyenactthekindofdoublenessArmstrongdescribes—howthesepoemsenactasecond-ordercommentaryontheirownprimaryexpression.Armstrong’scriticalstructureoverlapsinastrikingwaywithVincentSherry’sinfluentialaccountofliterarymodernism—especiallystrikinggivenArmstrong’sgoadingminimizationofthemodernism.IammuchconvincedbySherry’sgenealogyofhighmodernism’spoetics(Pound,Eliot,Woolf)astheaestheticmetabolizationofthetortured,rationalistrhetoricofterminalEnglishLiberalism(Asquith,Grey,George)asthelattertoreitselfapartjustifyinganunderhandedentryandincreasinglycatastrophicimplementationofthewar.AsSherryhasit,“thebodyofworkthatthemodernistswillevolveattainsagooddealofitssignificanceintheexceptionitpresentstothemainstreamstandardsofliberalmodernity”whichwereputthroughsuchstrenuouscontortionsjustifyingthewar(52).IbelievemyprojectanditsconstellationofpoemsoffersarelatedgenusofthesamespeciesofSherry’selaboratelyformalnotionofa“body”ofevolvingliterarywork.TheotherformalconceptIamdrawntoinhisformulation(oneofSherry’smostconciseinaprolixmultitude)is“exception.”BothSherry’smodernsandmywarpoets(and,Iamsuggesting,Armstrong’sVictorians)registertheirexceptionstocertainideologicalformsininventivere-presentationsofthelanguage,concepts,andformsthattheycritique.

WhilemypoetsandmyprojectarenotasdeeplyinvestedinparliamentarypoliticsandpublicrhetoricasSherry’s,myperceptionoftheinteractionbetweentheaestheticformsandpoliticaldiscourseparallelsSherry’sinthesensethatallthreeofthepoetsIaddressengagemainstreampolitical,historicaland/orculturalideasbyshowinghowthewar’sbroadmaterialandideologicalwreckagedestabilizedandindeed,oftenfullydelegitimizedthoseconcepts.Again,itisprimarilyintheformalpoeticregisterthatthesepoetscanshowtheseoldformsbreakingdownandalsotherewheretheytrytoformulateappropriateresponsestothisepochalrupturethatareatoncepersonal,aestheticandpolitical.Sherryablyhighlightsanacuteareainwhichaestheticandpoliticalformscollidedwithexceptionalideologicalforceandadisproportionatelyinfluentialculturalaftermath.ThepoetsItakeupevinceastructurallysimilarcollision,thoughperhapswithmorediverseinputsandmorediffuseeffects.ThisisinpartbecauseeachwasinhiswaystillbeholdentovariouscoreliberalidealsinwaysinwhichSherry’smodernistspurportnottobe.

18

Indeed,itisstrikingthateachofthespecificformsofdoublingItracklinesupquitewellwithoneofthecrumblingpillarsofliberalthought:Hardy’sobsessionwithtime’sconflictingformsistiedtoacorebeliefinrationalhumanprogressthathefindsincreasinglyhardtomaintain.Thomas’sunstabledualidentity,andeventheeconomicforcesthatultimatelyforcedhimtoabandonwritingforasoldier’ssalaryarebothtraceabletoacrisisofalienationunderlyingliberalcapitalism’sfirmbasisintheindividual.12Finally,Owen’sprojectofincorporatingvoicesofclassicaltraditionandpoliticalauthority,onlytoexposethemastheveryoriginsofwarandsoldiers’sufferingis,initsway,anevenmoredevastatingcritiqueofliberalismthanthemoreabstractandplayfuldressingdownitgetsfromSherry’smodernists,becauseitisamorepersonallyfeltbetrayal.

Thoughmyprojectisultimatelynotcenteredontheirpersonalpolitics,itisworthnotingthatallthreeofmypoetswereraisedinthelowerandmoremarginalreachesoftheexpandingmiddleclass(sonsofastonemason,andtworailwayclerksrespectively)beforearduouslytransformingthemselvesintoliterarymenagainstgreateconomicodds.13Hardy’slifelongaffection(condescendinganddefeatistthoughitwasattimes)forhonestlaborersandbootstrappingruraltradesmen,andtheothertwopoets’contactasofficerswiththelower-orderrankandfilemeanttheywerefundamentallysympathetictothesufferingofthewar’sprimaryvictims.14Allthreeshowstrongundercurrentsofpopulismandsocialsolidarityintheirwork,evenastheythemselvesascendvarioussocialladdersintotheculturalelite.Asliberalrationalismfallsawaybeneaththeirfeet,abandoninggoodmentothekillingfields,thesepoetsbeginusingconservativepoeticformstoexperimentwithradicalpoliticalideas(aninterestingcounterpointtoPoundandEliot).JustasSherry’smoderniststrytorescuetheculturefromwar’sdevastation,mypoetstrytorescuesocialconscienceafteritsevacuationfromthepublicsphereduringliberalism’sdescent.But,tobesure,asinbothSherryandArmstrong’smodels,anythingresemblinganideologicalstanceinthepoemsisimmediatelysubjecttocritiquebywayofthereflexive,doublingstructuresofpoeticform.Intheend,inpoetryatleast,formalwaystrumpspolitics,andideologiesleft,rightorliberalneverstandfixedorunopposed.V.PoetsVersus

MyfirstchapterexamineshowThomasHardy’swarpoetryextendsandcomplicateshiscareer-longengagementwiththecontradictorynatureoftimeitself—especiallyintwoofitsmostmediatedanddiscursivemanifestations:historyandpoeticmeter.Icomparethreepoemsfromthe“PoemsofWarandPatriotism”in1917’sclimacticcollectionMomentsofVisionandthencomparethesetoapoemabouttheBoerwarfromthe“WarPoems”groupwhichopens1901’sPoemsofthePastandPresent.Myownretrospectivemovementinthis12StanSmith’saccountofThomasasa“SuperfluousMan”caughtbetweenerasandallegiancesisparticularlygoodonthissubject(11-59).13ThoughThomasattendedOxford,he“failedtogetthecollegefellowshipthatwouldhavesavedhimfromgenteelpoverty”forcinghimto“slaveawayasaliteraryhack”andconstantlyfretaboutmoney(Smith18).14Iacknowledgethatsoldiersinmanycasesoughttobeclassifiedasperpetratorsaswellasvictims;yetthebasicoppositionofsoldier-victimtopolitician-perpetratorisoneofWWI’smostenduring“forms.”

19chapterismotivatedbyananalogoustendencyinHardytouseeventsofcontemporaryupheavalasoccasiontolookbackintoanequallyunsettledpast.Heemployspoetry’sostensiblystabilizingformalresourcestoexamineandcounteractthedistressingvagariesandinconvenientrepetitionsofhistoryandmemory.Hardyemployspoetryasatimekeepingmeasureintheseexplicitlyhistoricalpoems(situatedastheyarewithspecificwartimedates),evaluatinghumanactivityagainsttwodifferenttime-scalesinasingletextandallowingtheresultingcontradictionsanddisturbancestomanifestasformalinfelicities.ThoughforreasonsofspaceandfocusIdonotsystematicallycompareHardy’swarpoemstosomeofhismorefamoustime-obsessedpoems,suchastheelegiac“Poemsof1912–13”orhishistoricalepicTheDynasts,ItrytomakeitclearhowHardy’sconceptionsoftimearecomplicatedandchangedbytheGreatWarinparticular,whileatthesametimeacknowledgingtheoverallpersistenceofhispoeticpreoccupationwithtemporalityaslimnedbypreviouscritics.Hardyinfamouslytakessuchalongviewofhistorythatentireepochsappearvanishinglyinsignificant,nevermindindividuallives;yetherecoupssomeoftheseinfinitelosseswherepoetry’smediatingcapabilitiesrefusethemorecoercivetendenciesofhistoricalandnarrativemodes,andhecaninsertasmallcountervailingmeasureofhope.

MysecondchaptertakesupthepoetryofoneofHardy’sgreatadmirersandpoeticinheritors,whowasalsohispredecessorinthetragicandliteralwaywhichtheGreatWardisturbedtime’sprocessionbykillingoffagenerationofmenbeforetheirelders.EdwardThomascametopoetrylate,in1914attheageof36,afteraprolificbutonerouscareerasafreelancecriticandwriterof“countrybooks.”HeenlistedinJuly1915aftermuchhemandhaw,volunteeredforfront-linedutyinJanuary1917andwaskilledbyashellatArrasinApril.Ifindinseveralofhispoemsamotivatingtensionbetweentwoalternateselves,thefirstadiffident,melancholymanofletters,thesecondadisciplined,patriotic,ifrelativelyresignedsoldier.Theformerisalienated,anxious,andsearching—thelattersosureofhisplacethatheiscontenttodiethere.Neithercharacterisplainlyautobiographicalnorcleanlydifferentiatedfromtheother,andbotharetreatedwithrestraintandempathy.Inopposingthesealternateoralternatingselves,Thomasdramatizesasetofformalizedrelationshipsbetweencivilianandsoldierandbetweeneachandhisnation.NationandnationalisminThomas’spoemsarenotstakedonempireorevenculture(thoughinlettersandcriticismhedoesattimesself-consciouslyembraceanidealizedliterarytraditionasthestuffofEnglishness)butratheronafiercelocalismandloveoftheruralcountryside.15The“poeticversus”inThomas’spoems,inadditiontopittinghistwoimaginaryselvesagainsteachother,ispitchedbetweenthisnostalgicloveofanalreadylostlandscapeandakindoffront-boundfatalismthatwouldreduceitalltodirtandashes.Informalterms,Thomas’swartimepoemsshowapersistentdoublingatthelevelofsound,imageandsyntaxwhichreifiestheoppositionsofsoldier/civilian,countryside/battlefield,England(home)/France(front),past/present,etc.Ultimatelythisdoubling,andthehauntedpoeticswhichitproduces,devolvesinThomasintoatendencytowardsobsessiverepetitionthatunderminesanycontinuitiesofferedbyhistoryoridentity,leadingtoamodeofdeath-obsessedentropythatIlinktoFreud’scontemporaneousconceptofthedeathdrive.

15SeeLongley,(18)andSmith,chap.IV.

20

MyfinalchapterrereadsthecanonicalcombatpoemsofWilfredOwen,alsofindingthereafundamentalformaldoubling.InOwen’scase,thepoemisasitewheretwoopposingdiscoursesorlinguisticregisterscontend.Oneofthetwoisalwaysaformofculturalinheritanceortradition(asintheLatinof“DulceetDecorumEst”)orelseakindofofficialorauthoritativelanguagehandeddownfromEngland’spowerstructures:thesediscoursesarethoroughlyandbrutallycontradictedbythefirst-handexperienceofthefront-linesoldier.Owen’srepresentationofpoliticaland/orjournalisticcantisnotascompletelydigestedandrefashionedasinSherry’smodernists;itsformaloppositiontoanopposingdiscourseiswhatprovidesthecriticalenergyofhispoems.ThevariousgapsandcontradictionsbetweentheseconflictingdiscoursesareregisteredinOwen’selaborateformaltechniques,whichforceantagonistsintoanuncomfortablecontiguityinthespaceofthepoem.IarguethatthisisneveradialecticalsynthesisorcompletionforOwen,butratherawayofemphasizingviolence,disjunctionandhypocrisyinawaythatforcescivilianreaderstoconfrontrealitiestheymightotherwisebespared.Owen’spoetryallowsforformalunity,butneverideologicalunity;orperhapsmoreaccurately,hisstrategicallyunsuccessfulattemptsatformalunityforegroundthehiddenfailuresofanyattemptatanideologicalunitythatmightjustifythewar. Thesewarpoemsareasmultivalentandreflexiveasthemindsthatproducedthem,andiftheycanreliablytransmitanything,itisthestructuresoffeelingthatemergefromnewformationsconstructedbycreativemindsreflectingonhistoricalfactsthatexceedandshattertheboundariesofinheritedforms,likeself,culture,historyandnation.ReturningtoWilliams’saccountofart,andmovingalittlepastwhereweleftit,wecancatchatemptingglimpseofwhatisbeyondtheseendlesslyrecursive,reflections:

Wefind incertaincharacteristic formsanddevices,evidenceof thedeadlocksandunsolvedproblemsofthesociety:oftenadmittedtoconsciousnessforthefirsttimein this way. Part of this evidence will show a false consciousness designed topreventanysubstantial recognition;partagainadeepdesire,asyetuncharted, tomovebeyondthis.(91)

Ilookdeeplyintothesepoems,examiningeverypart,findingevidenceoftheunprecedentedproblemstheGreatWarbroughttoBritishsociety,butalsonewideasabouthowitmight“movebeyond”theseandemergebetterinsomesmallbutmeaningfulways.Inpoliticalterms,thismightregisterasfrustratinglyslow,incrementalreform(therevolutionislong,afterall)butincriticalterms,thereisaradicalfreedomtoexploringtheformalrelationshipsandpatternsofthepoemsinthisprobing,unhurriedway.Itbringsusnowherenearsuchanuntenabletotalityas“PeaceuponEarth,”butthatisbecausewedon’tfindabetterworldready-madesomewhereoutthere,webuilditbythesocialexchangeofforms—“wesingit”intoexistencelinebyline,versebyverse..

21

Chapter1

TheLongDash:Hardy’sWarTime

Theagesliveinhistorythroughtheiranachronisms–OscarWilde

I.DoubleTime

Afewmonthsaftermyson’sbirth,ononeofourfirsttentativeoutingstogether,Iranintoanacquaintanceoutsidethecaféinoursmalltown.ImusthavelookedjustasaddledandfatiguedasIfelt,becauseaftercongratulatingme,thisfellow,whocanoftenbeseenaroundtownwranglingfiveorsixtowheadedwildlingsofhisown,volunteeredthisbitofencouragement:“Justremember,thedaysarelong,buttheyearsareshort.”Thetender,counterintuitivewisdomofthislittlebonmotfromamanlocallyknownmoreforhisblunderinghyper-masculinityalmostbroughtmetotears(asalmostanythingcouldinthoseheadydaysofemotionalamplificationandsleepdeprivation).Weekslater,Iwassittingdowntoworkafterscanningthenews(Syria,Yemen,Charlottesville)andaThomasHardypoembroughtbacktheadage’scurious,simultaneousdilationandcontractionoftime,itsparadoxicalfigureofalonger—indeed,oftenendless—interval(theday)containedwithinoneshorterandmorefleeting(theyear).

Longnightscanbeparticularlyenervating,forHardyasfornewparents: Phantasmalfears, Andtheflapoftheflame, Andthethroboftheclock, Andaloosenedslate, Andtheblindnight’sdrone,Whichtiredlythespectralpinesintone!16

ThisisthefirstofthesevenRomannumeraledstanzasof“ANewYear’sEveinWarTime”whichappearsneartheendofthesequencetitled“PoemsofWarandPatriotism”asubsectionofHardy’smassive1917collectionMomentsofVision.Thesceneinitiatedhereisalong,anxious,sleeplessnight.Idon’tthinkmyownassociationofthisintervalwithnewparenthoodistotalsolipsismeither,asthepoem’sopeninglines“Phantasmalfears,/Andtheflapoftheflame”andthetitle’sstatedcontextof“WarTime”clearlycallupColeridge’s“FearsinSolitude”and“FrostatMidnight”asveryobviousreferents.Thefamous“flutteringstranger”andthe“thinblueflame,”atthebeginningof“Frost,”isdirectlyinvokedinHardy’sfirsttwolines.Apeacefullysleepinginfant(thatimprobablebitofpoeticlicense)featuresprominentlyinbothofColeridge’spoems,notmerelyasasymbolofinnocencetocontrastwithworldlyconflictandadultdisillusionment,butalsoasafigureofhopeforafutureinwhichthepoet’s“filialfears”might“bevain.”Thebabeisthekeeperof“farotherlore…infarotherscenes”thanthoseavailableinthe“dim”and“evil”present16Hardy,548.Theotherpoemsinthischaptercanbefoundat543,91,542.

22era.Symbolically,theinfantistheinchoateideaofabetterfuture,whichthepoetintimateshemaynotlivetosee.ThechildlessHardyoffersasignificantlydarkerversionofhistoricalprogressandthe“YoungUnknown”inhispoem.Inthemeantime“Phantasmalfears”isstillastrikinglyaptdescriptionofwhatrunsthroughafather’smindintheweehours,wheretheonlythingmoredisquietingthanthedroneofcryingisuttersilence.Ineachofthesedilatednighttimes,Coleridge’s,Hardy’sandmyown,thebackgroundnoiseofdistantwarhauntsthecomparativeserenityofdomesticity.Anaggingquestion—Whatkindofworldhavewebroughtyouinto?—istheinternalizedmanifestationofpoliticaldisquiet.Disturbingly,thepeacefulhomeisthegroundonwhichwarinscribesitsforms,andsleepingchildandquiethousecannothelpbutbecomethenegativesignsofsocialdisintegrationandinternationalhostility.InHardy’spoemwecantrackhowthisinvasiveprocessisenactedintheformalregister.

Thefirststanzainitiatesthepoem’sbasicforminwhicheachstanza’sfivelinesrhymewiththecorrespondinglinesfromtheotherstanzas;onlystanzasIandVIIcontainasixthlinethatcompletesarhymingcouplet:abcde(e).Ibalkatcallingthisarhymeschemebecauseitisveryhardtoheararhymethatisseparatedfromitspairbymorethanafewlines,letalonefivelinesandastanzabreak.Hardyemploysasubtlydifferentstrainofrepetitionhere,whichlookslikerhyme,butsoundslikesomethingelse.Thepoemindeedissofullofunnervingsounds,indeedisaboutthosesoundsinsuchacrucialway,itisasifHardydoesnotquitewantthereassuringfamiliarityinherentinrhymetosmoothoutalltheflapping,throbbing,knocking,droningandmoaning.Yethestillwantstodrawontheformal,thematicandculturalcorrespondences—distantechoes,aslightlyestrangedsameness—whichrhymeprovides.Thisisperhapsthestrongestofthepoem’sstrategiesforinvokingwar’sgradualinvasionofthedomesticspace.Quickly,butincrementally,thehomeyhearthandtheclockarereplacedbytheflamesand“shock”ofwarsabroad.Thearbitrarysonicassociationsofrhymewordsallowthisexchangeof,insideforoutside,privateforpublic,peaceforwar,tooccurbitbybit,untilimaginary“fears”beentransformedintodirepoliticalrealities. Hardy,unlikehisRomanticforebear,hasnosleepingchildonwhichtofocushisanxieties,andsohistwentieth-centuryspeakerin“ANewYear’sEve”beginsthisdarknightextremelyisolatedandself-enclosed,aswecansee(orhear,really)instanzaII: Andthebloodinmyears Strummingalwaysthesame,

Andthegable-cockWithitsfitfulgrate,Andmyselfalone.

Thisiswherethepoem’ssonicbarragereallygetshumming,addingadarkertonetothealreadyforebodingscene.Thefearfulphantasmsarenotjustswirlingaboutthetreesandthehouse:theyaredeepinhishead.Theexternalsoundsofthefirststanza—issuingfromflame,clock,roof,windandpinesinturn—arequiteliterallyechoedbytheinternal“strumming”of“bloodin[his]ears.”Thisechoresoundsintheanaphoric“And[s]”,whichcontinuefromthefirststanza,nowatalongerinterval,andinthenowvisible(butnotaudible)rhymewords,mostofwhicharriveinaslightlydiminishedform(fears/ears;

23flame/same;clock/cock).Thestanzaitselfisalsoabbreviatedbyoneline,asifthenightisclosingin,andthespaceofthepoem—thehouse,butalsotheheadspaceofthespeaker—becomesmoreclaustrophobic.HerewemightrecallLevine’susefulconceptofboundedwholeswhoseborderscollidewitheachotherindestabilizingways—thestormthreateningthesafeenclosureofthehouseforewarnsanexternalthreattothespeaker’sself-enclosedmind. Theline“Strummingalwaysthesame”subtlysoundstheformallogicofthepoem.Likefivestringsstruckagainandagain,thefiverhymesoundsofthispoemresoundonceineachstanza,“alwaysthesame”butdifferenteachtime.Theeffectismorelikea“blind…drone”thanthegratifying,bouncingrhythmcreatedbymoretraditionalforms(suchasHardy’snumerousvariationsontheballad)whereinrhymesoundsprovideareassuringunderlyingstructureforthevariablemelodiesofmoreorlessmetricallines.ForHardy,anaccomplishedamateurmusician,astrummingsamenessbecomesthetonalbackgroundformoresubtlydivergentinterruptions,justasthemetricsofthislinegivethelietothesamenessitproclaims:Thisisoneofahandfuloflinesscatteredthroughoutthepoemwhichcarryanextrabeattothepoem’sregulartwo(STRUMMingALwaystheSAME).Theoddtrimetricallineisa“fitful”recurrence,periodicallydisruptingthethrob/strumoftheotherwisesteadydimeter,whichevokestheheartbeat-likerhythmof“thebloodinmyears”(tha-thumptha-hump).Justasthatdeeplypersonal,internalrhythmisrepeatedlydisturbedbyoutsidesoundspressinginonthehouse,andbythehouse’sfalteringstructuresdisturbingitslonelyresident,so,byrepeatedlyaskingthereadertoaccommodatetwosyllablesbetweenstresses,Hardyintroducesaliteralarrhythmiaintohisiambics.Analogously,itisthepurportedregularityoftheclock’stickingthatisdisturbedbytheinterruptivetendenciesofthisparticularpoem—allitsrepetitivestructures,whethercomfortingordisquieting,arethreatenedbyuntimelyinterruptions.Itisthisbroader,moreabstractsenseoftemporaladversity—twodifferentconceptionsoftimedisturbingandsubvertingeachotherthroughoutthepoem—thatIwillgoontoclaimisthecentralstructureoffeelinginHardy’swartimepoetrymoregenerally.

Asfarbackas1961,SamuelHynesidentifiedtemporalityasoneofthefundamentalelementsofHardy’spoetry:

Inalmosteverycase…thepointofviewofthepoemisnotthemomentinthepast,butapresentfromwhichthepastcanbeviewedironically,sadly,nostalgically.Boththethemeandthestructureareprovidedbytime.(50–1)

Irony,sadness,nostalgia:thisisaplausiblelistofalltheunderlyingmodesthatHardycriticismhasattributedtothepoemsintheyearssinceHynes,noneparticularlysurprising.Likewise,thoughitispleasinglysuccinctanddiscomfortinglysimilartothefundamentalclaimaboutdoublinginthischapter,thesecondstatementaboveisalsonotoverlyrevealing.Time,afterall,“structures”mosthumanexperiences,andthereforeisalsoanexceedinglycommonthemeinculturalforms.WhatismoreinterestingforourpurposesinHynes’sformulation,however,isthenotstructureofthepoems’perspective,butitsretrospectiveaction,wherebyadiscrete“momentinthepast”recurs,disturbingtheprogressofanongoingpresent.

24

AnothermajorHardycritic,DennisTaylor,intervenedexactly20yearslaterwithanevocativedescriptionofasimilarstructure,firstdepictingaHardy-likefiguredriftingoffwhilesketchinginan“oldchurch”untilheisstartledtobyhispencilfallingtothefloor:

ThisisacentraltypeofexperienceinHardy’spoetry.Ashemeditatesabouttheworld,theworldchangesaroundhimandintrudesonthemeditation.…Whathappensinthecourseofafewminutesisthemodelforwhathappensinthecourseofyears. (xi)

Taylor’spunninguseofwordslike“type”and“model,”alongsidehismoreexplicitcontrastingoftimeframesisclosertowhatIproposetobethefundamentalstructuringofHardy’spoems,yetIwillarguethateffectsthatwaringeneralandtheGreatWarinparticularhaveonHardy’s“meditations”areexceptionallyintrusive,andrequireadifferentmodelfromthemainbodyofHardy’spoetry.Itisnotjust“theworld”thatchangesthroughtime,asinTaylor’sversion:timeitselfischangedbywar.

Morerecently,JeffBlevinshasproducedausefulaccountonHardy’sintellectualinterestinshiftingculturalconceptionsoftime,uptoandincludingEinsteinianrelativity.HefirstnotesHardy’stendencytoopposewhathecalls“artificial”or“railway”time,measuredandadministeredbypublicclocks,withanincreasinglywellunderstood“organic”or“celestial”timemarkedbythemovementsofheavenlybodiesandtheirearthlyrecorders—chieflysundials,paganholidays,scientists,andofcoursepoets(607-8).ThisisafineexampleofLevine’sproductivelycollidingforms,withtheintriguingwrinklethattimeisoftenconceivednotjustasrhythm,butalsoasembodiedwhole(asinnarrativesandtypologies,butalsosundialsandclocks)andevenasanetworkinthewayitcanenactunifyingsimultaneityacrossgeopoliticalspaces(thinkrailwaytimetablesorbankholidays).Blevins’sdichotomymapsfairlywellonto“ANewYear’sEve”andthepoem’soppositionbetweenthesteady“throboftheclock”andthemoreunrulyspectralformsthatarrivewiththeNewYear.HisreadingofaclusterofearlyHardypoemsremarkstheirprobingoftimeinrelationtotheironic“disappointedexpectations”oftheirunluckyhumansubjects,forwhomhazy,idealizedmemoriesofthe“lostpast”and/orrosyexpectationsofthe“envisionedfuture”occludeaclearlivedexperienceofthepresent.Inthesethereisalwaysan“excludedmiddle”—oftenquiteliterallyintheformofagapbetweenstanzas—inwhichcriticaleventsoccur,unseenbythereader,andbecomeknownonlyinironicretrospect.Blevins’readingsareconvincing,especiallywheretheyofferupcontemporarysourcesforHardy’sthinkingabouttimeasaculturalconceptcirculatingintheearlypoems.Butwhilethisaccountmayhelpestablishtheintellectualsubstrateforpoemslike“ANewYear’sEveinWarTime,”itcannotquiteaccountforthisparticularpoem’smorespecificjuxtapositionbetweenearlyandlate,betweenthewaitingforandthemissingofmidnight,asitwere.Here,thereisnolostintervalbetweenaperiodofeagerwaitingandoneofdeflatedregret,andcertainlynotimetoreflectuponprivateemotions;ratherthewholepoemtakesplacewithinanemptyintervalfromwhichpersonalfeelings(beyondfear)areexcluded,leftinthestateofdissociateddispassiondescribedby“theblindnight’sdrone,/Whichtiredlythespectralpinesintone.”Hardy’sconceptionof“WarTime”thenoffersadifferentaccountthepoet’srelationshiptountimelydisruptions,and

25thereforedemandsanewschemabeyondtheemptygapbetweentheemotionsattachedtoearly-andlateness.17WecansayprovisionallythatHardyisnowmoreinterestedinexploringthelargergapwarcreatesbetweenpersonalandhistoricaltimeframes.

Tofurthergaugetheseconflictingtemporalstructureswecanreturntothepoemathand,rememberingthe“throboftheclock”fromthefirststanza,whichrecursinamoredisturbedanddisturbingforminthethird:

ThetwelfthhournearsHand-hidasinshameIundothelock,Andlisten,andwaitFortheYoungUnknown

MidnightonNewYear’sEve,thisarbitrarypointwhen,asecond,hour,day,monthandyearallpurporttochangeatonce,istheperfectmomentforthispoemabouttime’sstrangedilations,ortouseahistoricallyappropriateterm,itsrelativity.Anticipationisartificiallymagnifiedatthisoverdeterminedmoment,whenwehopetofeelamomentousshiftintheworldandinourselves…andalwaysfindbothdisappointinglythesamewhenthatmomentpasses.In“WarTime,”thereisasuperaddedsenseofparadoxinwhicheveryyearfeelsinterminable,yetalsodangerouslyaccelerated.Allofthisanticipationanddisappointment,hopeandfear,isbuiltintoHardy’scleverimageoftheclockwithits“Hand-hid,asinshame”(i.e.nearthestrokeofmidnightthelongerminutehandconcealstheshorterhour).Nevershyofthepatheticfallacy,Hardyisclearlydisplacinganemotionfromhispoeticalteregointohisgrandfatherclock(thoseautomaticallyanthropomorphicoldmen—therewerethreeinHardy’shouseMaxGate).Whyshame?Fromtheclock’sperspective—whichwewerealreadywelcomedtoimagineinthefirststanza’suncannilybiological“throb”—thereistheembarrassedadmissionofbeingpowerlesstoeffectmeaningfulchangeintheshortterm,despitealwaysbeingblamedforlarge-scaledepredations.Fromthespeaker’sperspective,asfromanyhalfwaysoberNewYear’sEvereveler’s,thereistheperhapsmildershameoftherepressedawarenessthatachildishdesireforinstantchangeisalwaysdisappointed.

Anotheraspectofthispoem’stemporalformreifiestheoldsawof“historypassingoneby”:Atafewminutestomidnight(asateveryhour,butneverquitesodramatically)theshortslowHourwaitspatientlyforitsmeetingwiththebigger,fasterMinute,justasHardywaitsathisgatefortheunknownrider.Then,beforetheslowandthefastmanifestationsoftimecanreconcileoralign,themomentpasses.Hardytakesthisquirkofthemechanicalactionofaclockandturnsitintoafigureforlifeitself,andmorespecificallyforthewaytheindividualwaitsforhischancetoparticipateoratleastwitnesstheactionofhistoricalchange,butbythetimehecanseethechange,hehasmissedhischancetoparticipate—history“speedson”andheislefttowaitagain(andagain),repeatingthis17Anexceptiontothiswhichratherprovestheruleisthelovelybutcomparativelyinertanduncharacteristicallyunironic“BeforeMarchingandAfter,”writtenexplicitlyasanelegyforHardy’scousinkilledinthewar.ItcoheresquitepreciselytoBlevins’sstructure—deathoccursoffstagebetweenstanzas2and3.Thoughitalsofeaturesaclockandmidnight,itsoveralltoneofdecorumandreverencemakesitanillfitformyfocusonantagonisminthischapterandproject.

26circularprocess.InHardy’sclockwehaveaconsummatefigureforillustratingLevine’stemplateofcolliding,incommensurateforms.Intheclockwetrytoencodeandenclosenotjustthesmallrhythmsofthebody,withheartbeatspassinglikeseconds,butthelargerrhythmsofyears,eras,history—timeitself.Thepoemillustratestheultimatefailureoftheclocktocontainalltheserhythmsorsuccessfullyoverlaythemontoeachother,evenwhiletimerepeatsitselfintheeventualreturnoftherefrain.

Sowhy,ifthespeakerissobesetwithboth“fears”and“shame”doeshe“undothelock,”invitingintheveryworldthatthreatenshisself-security?Surelyheknowsatsomelevelthatnothinggoodcancomethroughthatdoor.Yethereweare:we“listen,andwait”alongsidethespeakerforthatmysteriousharbingerofchange,the“YoungUnknown.”ThisspectralfigureowessomethingtotheconventionalanthropomorphismoftheNewYearasaninfant,andalsorecallsColeridge’ssleepingbabe;butthisisadarkerkindofpresencethaneitherofthose.WemightmoreproductivelycompareHardy’s“YoungUnknown”withthemanyotherghostlyvisitorswhoarrive(orjustasoftenfailtoarrive)throughouthispoems,butfornowlet’smaintainthemysterythispoempresents:Wedon’tknowwhoiscoming,orwhy.

Acrucialtemporalshiftoccursinthegapbetweentheslow,drawn-outtimeframeofthefirstthreestanzas,whichisevokedasakindofdullsuspension(“drone…tiredly…alwaysthesame…alone…listenandwait”)andtheheadlongpaceofthenextthree.UnlikethepregnantstanzagapscentraltoBlevins’sreadingsoftheearlierpoems,inthisgaptimedoesn’tdisappear,itjustspeedsup.Atlastavisitordoesapproach,butheisdefinitelynotayouthfulheraldofbetterdaystocome:

Inthedarktherecareers– AsifDeathastridecame Tonumballwithhisknock– Ahorseatmadrate Overrutandstone

Insteadofadrollytophattedbaby,herecomes“Deathastride”;insteadof“AuldLangSyne,”wegetRevelations.Death’snumbing“knock”isoverriddenbythesoundofhis“horseatmadrate”whichincreasesthepaceofthispoem,eventhoughtheroughbutregularpatternofmixediambsandanapestsremainsbasicallyunaltered.Hardymanagestoturnadroningdimeterintoagallopingoneprimarilywithimagery,aneattrick.Hedrawsclevermetapoeticalattentiontothiseffectwiththeline“tonumballwithhisknock”:justastheknock-knock/tic-tockdroningofthemeterwasthreateningtolullor“numb”usintoakindoftrance,itjerksusawakewithitsnew“madrate”—thoughthemeteritselfdoesn’tchange.

Thepassageoftimehasacceleratedinanalarmingmanner,butonlyinthemind(thespeaker’sandthereader’s),theclockcontinues“‘tic-toc’/Withoutcheck.”Yetdespitetheintensifyingpacethatcomeswiththisarrivalthereisstillaprevailingsenseinwhichnothingmuchtranspiresinthispoem’sstrangelydilatinginterval.Theaccretiveanaphoraofthefirsttwostanzas(“And,And,And)”iscounterpoisedtoanegativerepetitioninstanzaV:

27 Nofigureappears, Nocallofmyname, Nosoundbut‘Tic-toc’ Withoutcheck.Pastthegate Itclatters–isgone.These“No”ssimultaneouslyaffirmandnegatethespeaker’sexpectations.Inonesensehewasclearlyawaitingsomething,perhapshopingitmightbeauspicious(hencethetentativeunlockingofthedoor)butmorelikelyexpectingsomethingdire(thisisaHardypoemafterall).Instead,hegets…nothing.“Nofigureappears”andthemomentquiteliterallypasses.Theanticipation,thelonelywaiting,whichmadetimeseemmorecapacious,morefullofpossibility,isforeclosed,andthe“tic-toc”oftheclock,whichhadhadbeeninternalizedasabuilding“throb”ora“drone”resumes“withoutcheck.” Thispoemoffersonevisionoftimeinwhichitisonlyafaultyandmistakenhumandesirethatinflatesthesteady,indifferentintervalsofclock-timewithasenseofspaceandpossibility;onlyintenseattentiontoamoment’spassingwillrevealthismismatch,thegapbetweenhumanexpectationsandtheinhumanforcesthatdeny(orgrimlyfulfill)them.Thefinalstanzaexpandsthisrealizationintotherealmofhistory,renderingthedifference(reallyanindifference)betweentheclocktimeofthepoemandthe“WarTime”ofitstitle.UptothispointthepoemcouldbeaboutanyratherdarkNewYear’sEve.Butatthemomenttheunseenhorseman“careers…pastthegate”withoutnoticingorreturningthespeaker’sregard,when“theOldYearhasstruck”(heretheclock’spainful“throb”isendowedwithasharper,moreprecisekindofviolence)andthe“scarceanimate”NewYear“makesmoan”morelikeaghostorawoundedmanthanlikeanewbornchild,wecanbegintounderstandwhatdistinguishes“WarTime”fromothertimes.Timebecomesaimaginaryfigurethatisnotsomuchneutralorindifferenttowardshumansuffering,butanactiveparticipantinitscreation. Thenotionofbeingpassedbyanddisregardediscrucialhere.Theapocalyptichorseandrider,sodireandimpressiveintheirconception,arelikeapassingrumorwhichpoetstrainsandfailstocomprehend.Forthecivilianathome,“WarTime”isstructuredbyafeelingofuselessnessandirrelevance.Thismayalsohelpexplaintheoddsenseof“shame”fromthethirdstanza.Thespeakerfeelsafurtiveeagernesstoglimpsethefearfulmountedfigureonhorseback(Death?War?History?),butheknowsatsomelevelthatheistooshelteredinhisstatelyhometotrulyencounterthisphantasm—orratherthatitwillonlybea“pale”specter,withnoneofthevisceralrealityitbringstoaEuropeanbattlegroundthatistrulyaflame.“WarTime,”accordingtothispoem,isatimeofshameandestrangementforcivilians.AsHardy’sunevenversionofapopularsoldiers’songputsit,thevalorousbeating“heartofhearts”ofthenationtravelsabroadwiththeyoung“menwhomarchaway”with“faithandfirewithin”them,leavingbehinduneasycountryhearths.Atleastthatishowitfeelstomateriallycomfortablebutanxiousoldmenintheirgabledhomesamongthepines,sofarfromtheaction.Hardyisparticularlyalerttothisclass-andgeneration-boundproblematicofwar.Heisreadytoadmitthatwarundoeshisabilitytoseeclearly(“Nofigureappears”)ortoplayhisrole(“Nocallofmyname”)andthisundermineshisabilitytowritewiththecustomarywisdomofhisageandstation. Thetentativenessintroducedbythepoem’ssimiles—“Hand-hidasinshame,”“Asif

28Deathastridecame”—increasestoanoutrightadmissionofignoranceinstanzaVI:“Whatrideritbears/Thereisnonetoproclaim”—whichinturngiveswaytoamoreovertequivocationinthefinalstanza: Maybethat‘MoreTears!– MoreFamineandFlame– MoreSeveranceandShock!’ IstheorderfromFate ThattheRiderspeedson TopaleEurope;andtiredlythepinesintone.(myitalics)Thespeakeradmitsthathedoesnotknowthetrueimportofthesedirefigures,whicharereallymorelikeobscurephantomsthantheyareobservableevents.Yeteveninthiszoneofunseeablefiguresandunknowablefutures,thespeakergivespropernamestothesespecters:thepreponderanceofcapitalizednounsinthisfinalstanzabringsonasmallarmyofpersonifications,whichjoinupwiththedarkpresenceof“Deathastride”fromstanzaIVtosuddenlyoverpopulatethepoem’sheretoforelonelysetting.TheobliqueallusiontothebookofRevelationsinstanzaIVisalsomademoreexplicitherewiththefigureof“Famine”andtheoddinclusionoftheword“pale”—usedheretodescribenotDeath’shorse,but“Europe”itself. Iwanttofocuson“pale”foramoment,becauseIthinkitbearsmoreweightinthepoemthanitmayseemtoatfirst.Intryingtoanswer“whyisEurope‘pale’—Isn’titDeath’shorsethat’spale?Isn’tEuroperatherinflamed?”—wemayuncoveranotherimportantfacetofHardy’sthinkingaboutwarandespeciallytheroleofnationalism,aconcepttowhichheisopenlyambivalent,attimesevendismissive,inthe“PoemsofWarandPatriotism.”18Firstofall,inusingthegeneralterm“Europe,”Hardysimultaneouslyerasestheborderstherein(oratleastrefusesforthemomenttopicksides)whilealsoemphasizingEngland’soutsiderstatus.Still,why“pale”?Amoreconventionalwartimeclichéwouldbealandscapeeitherliterallyorfiguratively“red”withblood.Ononelevel,wemaybesimplyaskedtoimagineapersonifiedEuropeaspalewithdread;orperhapsevenmoregruesomely,literallydrainedofblood.Alandeither“scarceanimate”ordeadalreadyisanimagewhichrecallsamorefamousNewYear’sEvepoem,“TheDarklingThrush”wherein“theland’ssharpfeaturesseemedtobe/TheCentury’scorpseoutleant.”Anotherreadingmightofferthispoem’s“Europe”asoneamongthemanyotherunseenspecters,a“pale”ghostlyfigurewhosesufferingisbeyondthespeaker’sken.Thisinturnactivatesthesecond,whollyappropriatepoliticalmeaningoftheword“pale”:The“pale”isalsoaliteralpolethatmarksthebordersofpoliticaljurisdictionsincolonizedlands(especiallyperenniallycontestedIreland).ThewarinEuropeis“beyondthepale”inthesensethatitistakingplaceoutsideEngland’sjurisdiction,yetitisdecisivelyconcernedwiththebordersofothersovereignpowers.Thismixingandworryingofliteralandfigurativebordersisindeedalreadypartoftheformallogicofthepoem,asthespeakeris

18“ThePityofIt”discussedatlengthbelow,appealstoolderculturalaffinitiesthannation;“OftenwhenWarring”depictsadefiantactofcompassionbetweenenemysoldiers;and“HisCountry”hasanoutrightinternationalistmessage.

29quiteconcernedwithhisownprivateboundaries(asin“thelock,”“hisknock”and“pastthegate”).Thenotionofaborderispresenteveninthetired“pines”whichprovideanimportantalliterativepairto“paleEurope”thatgivestheconspicuouslylonglastlineitsstructure.The“spectralpines”out“pastthegate”arewherethespeaker’sdomesticspaceendsandthefearfulphantasmsofWarandFateswirlthreateningly.19

Theverbatimrepetitionoftheword“flame”referringthesecondtimetothefiresofwarinsteadofthehearthisalsooneofthepoem’scrucialformaleffects.Thisrepetitiondrawsmoreattentiontotheclassconsciousnessthathasbeenlingeringinthebackgroundofboththepoemandmyreading.Thereisaburiedcommentonbourgeois(dis)comfortinthispoem,whichrecallsustoEmpson’snotionofthepastoralmode.Tojuxtaposethecozyhearthandgrandfather-clockedparlorofaslate-roofed,statelygatedandgabledmanseinDorsettothefiresofwaronthecontinentispoliticallyprovocative,evenifunwittinglyso.ItiscertainlypossiblethatHardy,inincludingallthisarchitecturaldetailwasmerelybeinghisdescriptive,professionallytrainedself,butthefactremainsthatittouchesanervethatwillrecurnotonlyinhisownpoetryaboutthewar,butevenmorestronglyinthepoetswhoexperiencedtheflamesoutsidethegate,beyondthe“pale,”asitwere.“FamineandFlame”iseconomicsandpoliticsbyothermeans;therealizationloomsthatexportingwarunderwritesaffluenceandeaseathome.Shameandguiltemergeatthesiteofdomesticcomfortandplenty,wherewar’sphantasmscalltomindthedestituteconditionselsewhere.20GoneistheinterruptivenatureofretrospectionofferedbyHynesandTaylor,replacedinthepainfulpresentof“WarTime”byanadversarialandinterruptivesimultaneity. TwocrucialformsforunderstandingHardy’scomplexvisionofwar,timeand“WarTime”emergeattheendofthispoem.First,wesharetheperspectiveofthishaplessandpowerlessobserver,afearful,tentative,modernprophet,whohazardsapredictionondistanteventsheknowshecannotinfluence.Itisimportanttonotethatcontramostcriticism(nottomentionconventionalwisdom)onHardy,thisobserver’sstancetowardstheseeventsisnotironic.Expectationsarenotconfoundedordisappointed,butrathergrimlyfulfilled.Thevaguelypersonified“Fate”attheendofthispoemisnotanarchironistwhorevelsinthedramaticoverturningofhopesanddreams;ratherthisisaFatewhoissuesrote,Haig-likeordersformoreofthesame—“Tears…Famine…Flame”etc.Itshouldbesaidthatthistoneofresigned,defeatistpessimismwithnowordofhopeorvictorywouldhavebeenafairlycutting-edge,subversivepositionforaprominentBritishwritertoprofferinlateDecemberof1915(“1915–1916”isthedateappendedtothepoem,muchmoreonwhichinamoment)thoughdecidedlylesssoinlate1917whentheMomentsofVisionwasactuallypublished.21Hardyassumesthevoiceofalatter-dayprophet,hearkeningbacktoancienttextswhilecarryingforthontheapocalypticnearfuture,inatonethatconspicuouslylacksthefieryenthusiasmofhispredecessors.

19FromtheLife:“Sometwoorthreethousandsmalltrees,mostlyAustrianpines,wereplantedaroundthehousebyHardyhimself,andinlateryearsthesegrewsothicklythatthehousewasalmostentirelyscreenedfromtheroad”(178).Thetreesthemselvesarefrom“paleEurope”!20Hardyaddressestheeconomicsofthisgeopoliticalmomentmoreexplicitly(iflesspoetically)inotherpoemsinthisseries:“OntheBelgianExpatriation,””CryoftheHomeless,”andthepreciselytitled“AnAppealtoAmericaonBehalfoftheBelgianDestitute.”21SeeHynes,chapters4–7aboutthechangingmoodsathometowardsthewar’s“progress.”

30 Inaddition,andsomewhatincontradiction,tothis“tired,pale”updateonancientprophecy,Hardy’sisalsoavoiceofmodernrelativism.Thispoemhasmanystrands,butonewayofsummarizingitwouldgo:“Inwar-tornEuropetimeisgallopingforward‘atmadrate’while—atthesametime—hereinsleepyDorset,timeismoaning,droning,tic-tockingtiredlyalong.”Thefinalreturnoftherefrain“tiredlythe[spectral]pinesintone”isawayofshowingthateffectivelynothinghashappenedduringthisintervaloffire,furyandwar.Thereisastrongsenseinwhichtherelativeprogressoftime’screep–march–gallophaseverythingtodowithone’spositioninrelationtotheflashpointof“Shock[and]Flame”—tothespotwherehistory’slightning-likeviolence“hasstruck.”

InHardy’snew,darkervision,historyisnolongeranarrativeofprogressivehumanimprovement,butacyclemarkedbyregularbutunwelcomerepetitions(“fears/flame/clock…Tears/Flame/Shock!”).Thepunontheword“order”inthefinalstanzaisakeytothishistoricalschema.“[T]heorderfromFate”isnotjustacommandformorewar—itisademandfor“order,”asinstructureandpattern.UnfortunatelyFate’s“order”isnotpeaceandlightbutrecurringintervalsofwarandflame.Inthisfinalstanzathepoem’sinaudibleabcderhymeschemereassertsitself:firstasdiscussed,withtheidenticalword“flame”fromthefirststanza;andsecondbybringingbackasaclosingrefrainmostofthefirststanza’ssupernumerarysixthline.Thisistackedonafter“TopaleEurope;”withthesemi-colonmarkinganotherkindofthresholdbetweenthecapitalizedplague-likeabstractionsandthebrick-and-mortarspaceofthepoem.Thediminishedreturnoftherefrain—sansspecters,stilltired—iswhatattendsthisgrimvisionoftheimmediatefuture.Repetitionisthestrongestindicationofthespecificdualtemporalitythatthispoemdescribes,andwhichIwillcontinuetoargueisthecrucialfeatureofHardy’smostaffectingwarpoems.Inthesixinterveningstanzasbetweenthetworefrains,onlyamomentofthespeaker’slifehaspassed,yetanother“OldYearhasstruck”asHardyputsit.Butinsteadofbringingavisionofhope,orevenanynewschangeatall,“theNew”onlyoffersadull“moan”ashistoryclatterson.Thetiredintonationof“thepines”returnsustothepoem’sintenselylocalbeginning,totheruralregionsafefromEurope’sinferno,tothedraughtyhouse,to“thebloodin[the]ears”ofthespeaker.The“madrate”ofhistoryiscontrastedtothetiringpersonalexperienceoftime.Thenightislong,whiletheyearsarevanishinglyshort.

Thatfinalrefrainisnotquitethepoem’slastline,however.Afteranotherlinebreak,weread,insmallerprint:“1915–1916.”OnlyareaderunfamiliarwithHardywouldoverlookthisfigureasmerelyadutifuleditorialdatingofthepoem.Todosowouldbetoentirelymissthepoem’sargumentabouthistoryassurelyasitsspeakermissesseeingFate’srider.Bothareattheverycenterofthepoem’svisionoftime,evenasneitheris,strictlyspeaking,inthepoematall.Thehistoricalfigure“1915–1916”ostensiblydenotesabriefbutrelativelysignificantintervalofhistoricaltime.Notjusttwofulltripsaroundthesun,buttworemarkablyeventfulonesfromaBritish-Europeanperspective.Allofwhichisjusttosaythatthisspanoftwowar-tornyearsfigureslarge.Thisiswhen“HomebyChristmas!”became“Williteverend?”22Itisthisoutsizemomentousnesswhichdemandstheinclusionofthedateinthefirstplace,ademandsignaledbythepoem’stitle.

22SeeHynes(101),andEksteins(143);thoughperFussell,Hardymayhaveagainbeenaheadofhistimehere.InJanuary1916,Haig&co.hadonlybegunplanningtheill-fatedSommeattack(12,71–4).

31

Hardy,itshouldbesaid,appendeddatestomanypoemsthathavenoneofthisexplicitlyhistoricalemphasis;likewisehewrotenotafewoccasionalpoemswhichareevenmoreclearlylinkedtoaspecificeventthanthispoem.23Yet,withthisparticulardate,somethingissubtlyamiss.Firstofall,readasarange,itisanullset.Thereisnothing—notimeatall—betweenthetwoyears.ThelongdashdenotesonlythatbriefestmomentdescribedinstanzaVwhen“Nofigureappears.”Toputitdifferently,theentirepoemtakesplaceintheemptyintervalofthatdash;itisthatemptinessthatcomprisesthepoem’sstructureoffeeling—theerasureofhumanprogressduring“WarTime.”

Myreadingofthisdateasthecruxofthepoemisindebtedtoa2014articlebyKentPuckett(anearlyversionofwhichIheardasatalkin2012)called“Hardy’s1900,”inwhichhegamelyconsidersthequestion“whathappenswhenwetreatthedateaspartofthepoemproper—astext,notparatext?”NotingthatHardydatedmanyofhispoemswithconsiderablecare—thoughwithnotablylittleconsistency—Puckettgoesontosay“ThedateisanoddlysignificantpressurepointinHardy’spoetry;itisoftenbothanindexandanargument”(59).PucketttakesashisprimaryexamplethemercurialdatingofoneofHardy’smostfamouspoems,“TheDarklingThrush,”whichalsotakesontheoverdeterminedtemporalityatthechangefromonecalendaryear(indeed,fromonecentury)toanother.PuckettshowshowinthisparticularpoemtheambiguousandcontesteddatingofthenewcenturyoccasionsHardy’spoeticfixationon“Time’sawkwardness”:I’daddthatitisnottimeitselfthatisawkward,butratherthesehumanattemptstocontainit,whichalwaysinvolveoverlayingtwoawkwardlyincompatiblestructures.Puckettgetsatthiswhenheconcludes“Hardyshowsthatthehumandesiretoknowwhenthingswillbequalitativelydifferentreachesitslimitwhenmeasuredagainsttheother-than-humanexperienceofthetimenecessarytoseethatdifferencethrough”(71).ThisisausefulanaloguetotheproblematicIamexploringhere,exceptforthenot-insignificantdetailthatthefatal“order”thatcomprises“WarTime”andfrustratesourspeaker’s“desiretoknow”cannotaccuratelybeconstruedas“other-than-human”—warissovexingtoHardypreciselybecauseitismadebyhumansagainsthumans.Wewillneedmoresubtletemporaldivisionsthan“human”and“other-than-human.”

Thatdashbetweenyears—adurativeratherthanpunctualpieceofpunctuation—comesupinPuckett’sarticleaswell,notinreferencetoHardybuttotwodifferenttextsofthesameperiod.ThefirstreferstothedateattheendofConrad’sLordJim:

[The]dash,denotingakindofembodied,embalmedleapbetween1899and1900,sayssomethingsignificantandcompressedaboutthetimeofthenovel.LordJimisaboutinhabitingthetimeoftheleap,andthepseudoparatextualsign,“September1899–July1900,”figurestheleapwithsurprisingeconomy.(63–64)

WhileIwanttomakeasimilarclaimforthedashattheendof“ANewYear’sEve”—namelythatthedashitself“figures”thebrieftimeframeofthepoemina“significant”(i.e.morethananextrinsicormerely“paratextual”)way—thatthelongdashis,inasense,an23Oftheformer,forinstance,thefirst20poemsin1898’sWessexPoemsbeardatesfromthe1860sand’70s,ostensiblytheyearsoftheircomposition,andallthe“PoemsofPilgrimage”in1901’sPoemsofthePastandPresentaredutifullydatelined.OfthelatterIhaveinmindespecially“V.R.1819–1901"theepitaphforQueenVictoria,andthearmisticepoem“AndThereWasaGreatCalm.”

32exegesisofthepoem—Ineedtodoitwithinanevenmorecompressedspace.Conrad’sdaterepresentsacomparativelysignificantrange(11monthsinclusive),whereastherangeIamexaminingis,well,naught.Puckett’ssecondexamplecomesfromanillustrationonthecopyrightpageofTheWonderfulWizardofOz:

TheWoodmanstandsalwaysalmost—butonlyalmost—readytomarkthesamedifferencethatthedateofLordJimembodiedandelidedwithitsdash.Thespacebetweenthedifferentlysignificantyears1899and1900isleftsuspendedasachopthatcouldbutdoesnotfall;theedge—theevent—thatwouldmarkthedifferencebetweenonetimeandanotherremainscuriouslydulled.(64)

Iwanttocarryforwardthisnotionofaliteraryeventas“theedge…betweenonetimeandanother”intomyreadingsofHardy’svariouspoemsabout“WarTime.”Puckett’splayfulexplorationoftheprinteddatethathoversontheedgebetweentheexegeticandthediegeticgivesusavaluableorientationpointforthewayHardyusespoeticformstoseverhumaneventsofffromaninhumanversionoftime.

We’veseenherehowwithinasinglepoemHardyengagesmultipleformalstrategiestoaddresstheproblemsofdefiningandenduring“WarTime”foranindividualisolatedbyandinsulatedfromitseffects.RecallingtoWilliams’sLongRevolution,wecanperceivehowthecontradictorystructureoffeelingsofthelongdashmightdenotethelivedexperienceofwartimeassimultaneouslytooslowandtoofast,tediouslyinconsequentialandincomprehensiblysweeping.Wecannowmoveontoobserveinadifferentpoemfromthesameserieshowtheconceptofwartimeisbroadenedandredefinedbeyondtheindividual’sexperienceofbeingleftoutofit.

II.EndTimes

ThereisanotherformrecalledbyHardy’sappendingofyearstoindifferentcatastrophicevents(MorefamineandFlame):thatancient(butneveroutdated)methodofhistoricalrecordkeeping,theannal.HaydenWhite’smemorabletreatmentofitinrelationtohistorical“narrativity”(whichitnotablylacks)isusefulforconsideringHardy’stakeonwartime.Whitedescribestheratherimpersonalandopaquestructurewhichhassubsequentyearslistedinonecolumnandmemorableevents—mostlybattles,badweather,failedharvestsandnotabledeaths—intheopposite,withnoclearrelationshiptoeachotherandmanyunnervinggaps:

[T]heannalist’saccountcallsupaworldinwhichneediseverywherepresent,in

whichscarcityistheruleofexistence,andinwhichallofthepossibleagenciesofsatisfactionarelacking,absent,orexistunderimminentthreatofdeath.…Whatislackinginthelistofevents…isanotionofasocialcenterbywhichtolocatethemwithrespecttooneanotherandtochargethemwithethicalormoralsignificance. (15)

ThisisaprettygooddescriptionofHardy’saccountsofwartimeaswell,thoughtheformal

33choicesofthepoetgivehimmanymoreoptionsforevokingrelationshipsandpatternswherenonearereadilyapparent,or,perhaps,forputtingthestrikinglackofpatternintorelationshipwithitsformalopposite.Inthisway,thepoet’staskismuchlikethehistorian’s:constructanewformthatinjectsagencyandsignificancetothedesperatechaosoftheannals.ForHardy,thewarhassentEuropebackintime,intoasituationof“imminentthreat”appropriatetotheannals’impassivearrangement,andpoetryisawayofresistingthatarrangement,inpartbyitsincorporation.

“War’sannals”aredirectlyinvokedinoneofthemostfamousandleastunderstoodofHardy’swarpoems.Anotherwisesuccinct,evenlapidarylittlepiece,itsunwieldytitleisaprimeexampleofHardy’stendencytoconflatetimesoftroubleandtroubleswithtime.Iwilldiscussbelowwhycriticscannotquitedecideifthispoem’soutlookonhumanhistoryisuncharacteristicallyhopefulorexceptionallyapocalyptic,butfirsthere’sthefulltextof“InTimeof‘TheBreakingofNations’”:

I

Onlyamanharrowingclods Inaslowsilentwalk

Withanoldhorsethatstumblesandnods Halfasleepastheystalk

IIOnlythinsmokewithoutflame

Fromtheheapsofcouch-grass;Yetthiswillgoonwardthesame

ThoughDynastiespass.

IIIYonderamaidandherwight

Comewhisperingby:War’sannalswillcloudintonight

Eretheirstorydie.1915

BeforeIapproachtheimportantdifferencesbetweenthispoem’sdoubleconceptionoftimeversusthatin“ANewYear’sEveinWarTime”I’llnoteseveralconspicuousformalsimilaritiesbetweenthetwopoemsthatmakethemobviouscompanionpieces:firstofcourse,theword“Time”inthetitle;thentheromannumeraledstanzas,whichmadeacertainamountofsenseinthelongerpoemcontainingreferencestobothclocksandRevelations(sevenseals,etc.),butinthismuchshorterpieceseemoddlyexcessive;also,thesignificantyearsattheendofbothpoems.Bothpoemsincludeobliquereferencestobiblicalprophecies,andthefactthatthispoem,whichcomesearlierinHardy’ssequence,referencesanOldTestamentprophecy,andthelaterpoemRevelations,isasignificantstatementonHardy’sattentiontothewar’sapocalyptic“progress.”Bothemployphantasmalimageryandapseudo-biblicaltypologywiththeirverydifferentbutequallycentralimageryofhorsesandflames(indeed,theysharethe“flame/same”rhyme)to

34explorehowwarunsettleshumanconceptionsoftime.Yetdespiteallofthesesimilaritiesthetwopoemshavenearlyoppositeorientationstowardshistory:In“NewYear’sEve,”war’s“horseatmadrate”disruptsandoccludesthepersonalexperienceof“thethroboftheclock.”In“BreakingofNations”“war’sannals”disappearbehindaclose-upviewofquotidianlife.

Hardy’smodernizedrenditionofthepropheticmodeisagoodplacetobeginthisinquiryintohishistoricalpoetics.ThephraseinthetitleiscitedtoJeremiah51:20,thoughitisnotadirectquote.HereisthatversefromtheKJV:

Thouartmybattleaxeandweaponofwar:forwiththeewillIbreakinpiecesthenations,andwiththeewillIdestroykingdoms;

ThespeakerhereisJeremiahventriloquizingGod,thoughitishardtosayforcertainwhether“thou”inthispassagereferstotheprophethimselfortoIsrael(aka“theportionofJacob”[Jer.51:19])morebroadly.Inanyevent,Hardyborrowsmorethanjusthisawkwardlyembeddedtitlephrasefromtheprophet:theseveralversesimmediatelyfollowingthatcitedcontainalonglistoferstwhilepairswhichGodwillalso“breakinpieces,”including:“thehorseandhisrider…thechariotandhisrider…manandwoman…youngandold…theyoungmanandthemaid…theshepherdandhisflock…thehusbandmanandhisyokeofoxen…captainsandrulers”(Jer.51:20–23).Then,afewverseslater,duringadetaileddescriptionofthesiegeofBabyloncomesthis:“thepassagesarestopped,andthereedshaveburnedwithfire,andthemenareaffrighted”(Jer.51:32).SoitisnotjustthetitleandthemeHardyhasappropriatedfromtheprophet,butnearlyallofthepoem’simagesandfiguresaswell.Propheticandpastoralformscollidehereinacombustivesynthesis. OnecrucialdeparturefromtheBiblicalsourceisthatHardy’spoematfirstseemsdeterminedtokeepitspairsintact—the“husbandman”andhishorse,andthemaidandherman—perhapsofferingahintofthe“socialcenter”whichWhitetellsustheannalslack.JeremiahdescribesasituationinwhichBabylon’ssinsagainstIsrael(i.e.thedecadent,idolatrousnationversusthefavored)bringaboutthedestructionofitsfundamentalunitsofnaturalandculturalreproduction(i.e.agriculture,courtshipandmating)whereasmostcriticalreadingsoftheHardypoemstresshisinsistencethattheseelementsofhumanculturewillendure“thoughDynastiespass.”ThefailuretoaccountforthiscrucialdifferencebetweenHardy’supdateandtheancienttextisthesourceofwhatIwillargueisthewidespreadmisreadingofthispoem.Forinstance:TimArmstrongclaimsthepoemfocuseson“atimewhichisbothspecificandcontinuing,arepetitionofthecherishedsame”(106);whileEdnaLongleyclaimsthat“Hardysegregatesarchetypicalnarrativesfrom‘War’sannals’”(301)—Iwillarguethathedoesnotsegregatethematallbutanalogizestheminadeeplytroublingway.EvenRaymondWilliams,usuallyaparticularlyincisivereaderofHardy,andnotonetoacceptpastoralnostalgiaatfacevalue,saysthispoemasserts:“thepersistenceoflandworkthroughwhatseemthedistantaccidentsofhistory”(258).Thesesuspiciouslyoptimistictakesonthispoemoughttomaketheveteran

35Hardyreaderwary,blithelyoverlookingthefundamentalapocalypticismmadeplaininthebiblicalreference.24 Indeed,itisawillfullyobliviousreadingwhichaversthat“this”inthephrase“thiswillgoonwardthesame”standsforsomethinglike:“picturesqueandpeacefulpastoralactivity”;orthatthe“story”thatsurvives“War’sannals”issomethinglike:“loverswanderandwhisperhappilyamongthefields.”Everydescriptorofthemanandhorsefrominthefirststanzapointstosomethingotherthanserenity.Thesefiguresareasbeatendownastheharrowedgroundthey“stalk”:theyare“slow,”“silent,”“old,”stumblingand“halfasleep.”Thispairisnotatpeace.Granted,theyareasgeographicallyremotefromthekillingfieldsofEuropeastheshelteredspeakerin“ANewYear’sEve”;yettheyaremarkedlynotsafeandsecure.Indeed,thisisathoroughlymodernpastoral:theprivilegedobserverisnotcharmedtoeasebyhissimpleviewonagriculturallabor,butrathersubtlymenacedbyacomplexhistorycontainedtherein.

Iftheheavilyloadedterm“harrowing”fromthefirststanzaweren’tindicationenoughthatthereismoregoingoninthispoemthanapleasantpastoraldeferment,the“smokewithoutflame”ofthesecondstanzaoughttoclueusintothefactthatHardymeansnottosegregatebuttoanalogizeagriculturalactivitywithitsconcurrentpoliticalstrife,andindoingsotoactivatemoreofthepropheticreferencethanameretitle.TheburningofthereedsinJeremiahisnotjustanotherdayonthefarm,buttheaftermathofavengefulclearingofthefieldsbeforeasiegeofthecity—Hardy’s“heapsofcouchgrass”(adeeplypersistentweedoftentornupbytheharrow)inthisallusivecontextshouldcertainlybereadasanominoussign.“Smokewithoutflame”portendsaworseconflagration,muchasthe“flapoftheflame”inthefireplaceof“NewYear’sEve”returnsas“moreFamineandFlame”inthefieldsofEurope.

OnlyDennisTaylorhasgiventhispoemapropercriticaltreatment.Heusesitasathematicbookendtoalongchaptertitled“Hardy’sApocalypse”whichconvincinglylinksHardy’spoemsofpersonallossandmemoryofthe19thcenturytohislatermeditationsontheviolentdepredationsofthewar-torn20th.Taylorrefusestotakeatfacevalueanoft-quotedassertionfromtheLife(whichHardyghostwrote)thatthepoemisastraightforwarddepictionofan“exhumedmemory”ofwhathefeltwhileviewingjust“suchanagriculturalincident”in1870duringtheFranco-PrussianWar,amemoryofwhichresurfacedin1914.Hardyendsthisobliquemusingonmemory,poetryandhistory:“Query:wherewasthatsentimenthidingitselfduringmorethanfortyyears?”(378)Taylordoeswelltounearththeclearlinkbetweenthe1870incidentand1914:attheformerdatehewascourtinghisfirstwifeEmma,andatthelatterhehadjustpublishedthefamouselegies,“Poemsof1912–13”aboutambivalentinteractionsbetweenthememoriesofthathappytimeandEmma’sratherdourghost.Taylorgoesontolistalloftheother“elements[ofthepoem]whicharedifficulttoexplain”awayaspleasantpersonalfeelingsorquotidianactivitieswhichsurvivethedestructionofdynasties.ThefirstTaylormentionsisthemostimportantandglaring,inexplicablyignoredbysomanycritics:

24Hardyofcoursefamouslyrejectedthe“pessimist”chargeoftenleveledathim,pleadingforamorenuancedunderstandingofhisphilosophicalstance,whichhetermed“evolutionarymeliorism.”Ihumblyaccepthistermwhilewonderingifhedoesn’tprotesttoomuch.SoIusetheterm“optimistic”hereadvisedly:morecolloquiallyandlessrigorouslythanHardymightlike.Seethe“Apology”toLateLyrics(557).

36

1) theharrowingofclodswhich,inthecontextofJeremiahquotedinthetitle,suggestsabiblicalharrowingofsoulsandthepopularnotionoftheharrowingofhell. (89)

Indeed,thefactthatHardychose“harrowing”astheactivityforhismaninsteadofanynumberofother“agriculturalactivities”iscrucial.Thetwinnedquestionsthepoemforcesustoaskrightfromitsoutsetare:isthisadestructiveorregenerativeactivitywearewitnessing;and,isitametaphorforsomethingelse?Wewouldnothavethesameinterpretivedilemma,ifthemanwereplanting,orevenfurrowingthefield.Thepreparationofanewcropwouldplainlysuggesttherestorativeandpromising,future-orientedmindsetmostcriticssowishtoseehere.Butthatword“harrowing”anditsindicationofbreakingupandflatteningoutinthecontextofthepoem’sdemandingtitleevokesadarkerwartimevisionofclearingthefields,asTaylorrightlyalertsus. Ofcourse,onemightobjectthatifthispoemtrulyrecreatesamemoryunearthedfromHardy’sdeeppast(evenforthewizenedpoet-sage,forty-oddyearsishalfalifetime)thenthefield-wiseHardymeansnothingby“harrowing”otherthanwhathesaw.Indeed,inthisreadingtheword“Only,”whichgivessuchanemphaticchargetothefirsttwostanzas,isHardy’swayofstressing(inbothsenses)thatthereisnometaphortoseehere,“Onlyaman…withanoldhorse.”Indeed,thistensionbetweenthewilltointerpret,thedesiretoallegorize(asJeremiahcertainlydoeswithallhis“breaking[s]inpieces”),andtheequallystrongdesiretoseethingsforwhattheyare,justaspresentedtothemind’seye,isthepoem’sclearestdoublingeffect.Weareforcedtoaskourselvesagain,everytimewereadit,isthisaliteralormetaphorical“harrowing”?

Inourattempttountangletheseduelingreadingswemightbeginagainwiththepoem’stitle.Itisthepoem’smostexplicitmentionof“Time,”bothinitsapparentreferencetothecurrenteventsofthewar(reaffirmedbythedateatthebottom)andinitscountervailingallusiontotheoldtestament.Sotheword“Time”referstotwotimesatonce,twoscenes,twomomentsseparatedbyseveralmillennia.Italso,then,invokesasenseoftimelessness,orafeelingofbeing“outoftime”orseparatedfromtimeinthehistoricalsense.Thereisalso,itshouldbesaid,somethingpurposefullydifficultandunsettlingintheverymechanicsofthetitle,withitsawkwardlydoublepreposition(of/of),anditsparentheticaltitlewithinatitle.Thisawkwardness,thoughitreaffirmsthecommontropeofsuchinHardycriticism,isnotreducibleordismissibleassuch.Whichistosay,theembeddednessofthebiblicaltitleinHardy’stitleisoneofthemanywaysinwhichthepoemdeformsanddetersanyhistoricalnarrativewhichwouldelevatethe“Nations”currentlyatwarintoapositionofprimacyor“moralsignificance”.Hardyforcesthereadertodisentangle“Time”and“Nation[s]”fromarecalcitrantdiscursiveform,andthenrepeatsthisprocess,inaway,byexcludingthesetwotermsfromthepoemthatfollows,whichforcesthereader,again,totrytofigureoutexactlyhow(andif)theyfitandwhat(andif)theymeaninthisshiftingandambiguous,literalandfigurative,fieldofforms.

“Time”onlyfiguresinthefirststanzaintworeticentadjectives:“slow”and“old,”appliedtothemanandhishorse,respectively.Thepair’sprogressastheybreakupthe“clods”istherebyheldincontrasttothemorefrantic“BreakingofNations”simultaneouslytakingplaceelsewhere.Asingleimageandsentenceishaltingly,almostleisurely(althoughsurelythat’sthewrongwordinthislaboringcontext)extendedoverfourlinesinthisfirst

37stanza,reifyingtheslow,stumblingpaceoftheharrowers,andthetimelessspaceinwhichtheiractiontakesplace.Again,theeffecthereisambivalent:thetitlelocatesusinaspaceofconflictandviolence,whiletheimageryandactivityofthefirststanzaimmediatelycontradictsthiswithanatmosphereofquotidian,somnambulant,banality.Onlythewords“harrowing”and“stalk”hintatthepoem’smenacingbackgroundofhumanslaughter.OtherwisewehavebeenconfusinglyrelocatedfromthebattlefieldsofcontemporaryEuropetoarawandmostlyemptyagriculturalfieldthatcouldbejustaboutanywhereandanytime.

Itisironicthatthispoemaboutbeing“InTime”ismetricallyashambles.Thefirststanza’smeasure“stumblesandnods,”especiallyat“oldhorse,”butbasicallyresolvesintocommonmeter:4343/abab.25Butthesecondstanzabecomesmarkedlymoredifficulttoresolve,startingwithitsfirstline“Onlythinsmokewithoutflame”whichhasonlythreestresses—notaprobleminitself—“shortmeter”lines(threestresseswithanimplicitrest)arealsoprevalent—thoughitisrelativelyunconventionaltoswitchbackandforthmid-stream.Theproblemreallyemergeswiththenearlyunscannablesecondline:“Fromtheheapsofcouch-grass;”—thatfinalhyphenatestronglyresistsaniambicrise,leavingtheequallyawkwardoptionsofaclosingspondeeoratrochee.Thetrocheeisparticularlydifficultbecauseitwouldbetheonlyfalling-stresslineending,whichwouldunderminethesteadyrhythmoftheend-rhymes,thepoem’smostconsistentlygroundingformalfeature.Aspondeeherecreateslessofaproblemintheory,unlessyoubelievewithTaylorthatthislineshouldonlyhavetwostresses,inwhichcaseyou’veresolvedyourselfintoanabsolutelyuntenablefourslacksyllablestobegintheline,whichtheprominent“heaps”obviouslyrebuffsinanycase.Thuswearelefttoresolvealinewhichcouldequallyplausiblybesaidtohavetwo(heaps,grass),three(From/heaps/grassorheaps/couch/grass)orfourstresses(From/heaps/couch/grass),withnoneoftheseoptionssoundingjustright,thanksto“couch-grass”whichforcesonetorushandstumbleagain.ThethirdandfourthlinesofstanzaIIacceptthreestressesmoregracefully,thoughthethirdneedstwoanapeststodoso.Indeed,Icanmakeastrongcasethatthepoemscans4343inthefirststanza,3232inthesecond,and3343inthethird(tryreadingthislastwithoutstressing“Come,”“War’s”or“Ere”andyou’llseehowanybidforregularityfails).

Whyisthemetricalawkwardnessofthispoemworthyofsuchattention,whenawkwardnessisoftenheldtobeHardy’spoetry’smostdefiningcharacteristic?Partlybecausethelapidaryformandpropheticregisterseemtodemandsomethingmoresure-footed(unlikethehorse).Butalsobecausethepoemappearstobeotherwisesopreciselypatternedwithrepeatedwordsandparallelconstructionsbetweenthethreestanzas,whoseromannumeraldesignationsalsoproclaimamoreformalkindofform.Note,forinstancetheanaphoricuseof“Only”morphingintothenearanagram“Yonder”tobegineachstanza;theprepositionalphraseineverysecondline;theparallelpositionsofrelatedwordslike“silent”and“whispering”andphraseslike“willgoonward”and“willcloud25IfinditnearlyimpossibleacceptDennisTaylor’sclassificationof3232,evenallowingforapurelyaccentualmeterwithsomefour-syllablefeet.Ido,howeverwelcomeTaylor’sothertantalizingsuggestionaboutthispoem’sform:“[Itstitle]probablymeansthatthepoem’ssettingiswartime.Butthereisanotherpossibility,thatthepoemiswritteninthe‘time’ortempoofahymn,ofwhich‘TheBreakingofNations’isthetypicallyabbreviatedtitle”(90).Thismysterious(nonexistent?)hymnwhichHardyclumsilyattemptstoresetforthe20thcenturyisanirresistiblechimera.

38into.”Thisisalltosaythatinapoemwhosecentralclaimandconceptisthatformsandevents“goonwardthesame”(myitalics),itfeelsoddthatthemetricalline,modeledontheeverreliablerepetitionsofhymnmeter,shouldfalter,shiftandfallapartinthisway.ItisperhapsunproductivetowonderwhatHardy“means”byhisformalinfelicities(thoughwecansafelyassumetheyarenotaccidentsinthecarelesssense),buthereitseemsaparticularlyfairandnaggingquestion.Inapoemnominallyaboutthefundamentalrepetitionsthatmarktime,thisunreliabilitybespeaksakindofcheekinessorironythatthepoemotherwiseresists.RecallingEmpson’sassertionoftheimportanceofthepuntopastoral’sironicdualregister,thefieldofthispoem,from“harrowing”onwardisplainlyscatteredwithverbalclodswhichwecan’thelpbuttrytosmoothout,andsoourstumblingearnsthedignityofhardwork,evenifitis,atbase,unsettlingtoseepunsinapoemaboutwar.

Toreturntothecontradictoryphrase“Onlyaman,”evenasitinsistsonhisordinary,unremarkablenature,itisolatesthefigurefromhissurroundingsandrendershimemblematic.Therefore,wemustbereadytounderstandthiswalkingfiguresimultaneouslyasaliteral,materialbodyandasasymbolorbiblicaltype.Heisancientandarchetypal,alaborerscrapinghislivingfromtheearth.Andimportantly,heisnotjustthetypeofinnocentAdamexiledfromEdentobecomea“tilleroftheground”:heisalsothetypeofCain,notatillerandakiller.Hardyhintsattheportentofthisfigurewith“Halfasleepastheystalk,”whichevokesthedeepexhaustionofthelabor,tobesure,butalsoadangerouslackofawarenessorresponsibility,withtherhyme’smovefrom“walk”to“stalk”alsobearinganedgeofmenace.26

So,recallingIsobelArmstrong,wemustreadthisdoublepoemintwowaysatonce.First,asacomfortingsalvetothewoundsofwar,whichaversthatthosefundamentalhumanactivities—cultivatingtheland,romanticcoupling,telling“stor[ies]”—willcontinuedespite“Dynasties’”and“Nations’”and“War’s”repetitiveanddestructiveactivities.Simultaneouslywebegintosensethatanyinnocenceorrefugeavailableinthepastoralsceneisanillusion.Eventhehumbleplowmanisapotentialkillerinhis“halfasleep”breakingupoftheground.Theactivityoftheplowtoquiteliterallydelineatethelandforitsfutureuse,isherealignedwiththedrawingofnationalborderswithswordsandfire.

Themetaphorofwarasthe“plowingunder”ofyoungmenwasespeciallysalienttothetrenchesofWWI,andinthisanalogy,theplowmanmustalsobereadasoneoftheheedless“oldman”sleepwalkingthroughhiscomplicitroleintheviolence.ThiscreepingsensethatallisnotinnocentandwellinHardy’srurallandscapeisechoedinthesecondstanza,wherethe“thinsmoke”ofburning“heapsofcouch-grass”canbereadbothasaquaintsensoryimageofthecountrysideandanotheruncannymetaphorformassdestruction,recallingtheperverselyoptimisticsenseof“moralhygiene”atthebeginningofthewar(thinkofRupertBrooke’syouths“intocleannessleaping”).27

“Yet,”thewordexactlyatthepoem’shalfwaypoint,isanotheroneofveryfewwhichexplicitlyindicatetime.Itappearstofinallysettheseagriculturalactivitiesagainsttheirconcurrentpoliticalanalogues.Butisthatsettingincontrastorparallel?“Yet”istheperfect26The“sleepwalker”hasbecomeafavoredfigurefordescribingtheheedlessmarchoftheEuropeanpowerstowar.Hardyseemsprescientaseverinthesematters.27Hynesisparticularlygoodonthisperverseculturalnotionofthewarasawelcome“purgation”or“disinfectant”foradecadentGeorgianEngland;see12–19.

39wordforHardy’sconflictingversionsoftime,becauseitcanmean“nevertheless”(yetshepersisted),“upuntilnow”(worstyet),or“goingforward”(worseandworseyet).Hardy’s“Yet”grammaticallyopposes“Only,”whichinturnwoulddelimittheplowingandburningofthefieldstothecurrentmomentandthematerialworld.Butitalsocaneasilybereadtoactivatethehigher“prophetic”registerofthoseimages.Nothingiseveronlywhatitseemswhenwefirstseeit,claimsthenewlyfarseeingspeaker,lookingupfromthepastoralscenetothethickersmokecloudsonthehorizon.

Atlastwecometothepoem’sfinalandmostmysteriousstanza.InHardy’sretellingofthepoem’soriginstory,hewascourtinghisfuturebridewhenhefirstobservedthe“incident”andfeltthe“feeling”thatthenreemergedin1914.Whichmeans,inonesense,the“maidandherwight”herearenoneotherthanHardyandEmma.Butevenacceptingthebiographicalatfacevaluedoesnotmakethepoem’scontortedchronologyanyeasiertoalign.Indeed,the“story”ofHardyandEmmahadcometoitssadconclusionbeforethecurrent(in1914)warbegan.Hardy’sfamed“Poemsof1912–13”aboutthatrelationshipwerepublished1914’sSatiresofCircumstance,andarefulloflucidmemories,ghostlyreturns,andapocryphaldating(asinappendingyearstopoems,notmakinglove—thoughthattoo).Theromanticcouplehere,then,isalsoafadingmemory,oneman’sviewofhisownpast.Their“story”livesonbecausethefigures“yonder”areghostsofformerselves.

WhilethecriticscitedabovedopaylipservicetoJeremiah,theyaresoeagertoemphasizeafinalnoteofconsolation,theyfailtomentionthatJeremiah’s“youngmanandthemaid”arealsobroken“inpieces.”InhisverseHardyhasreversedthebible’sorderofmaleandfemaleandaddedapossessivepronoun—a“maidandherwight,”whichsubtlydiminishesthissecondfigure.Andwhatexactlyisa“wight”?AccordingtoTaylor,Hardyrespondedwithashrugwhencontemporaryreviewsofthepoemtookissuewithhisuseofthe“archaicword”(90).TheOED’sdefinitionisvagueandvariable,designatingalmostanyanthropomorphicfigure,livingorsupernatural;itoccupiesroughlythesamesemanticspaceas“creature”or“being”(seeOED1a&b).Hardy’s“wight”mightwellbeayounglover,butheknewthewordmoreoftenreferstoanotherworldlyorotherwiseunenviablebeingthanitdoestosomeoneintheirprime(itisusuallypairedwithadjectiveslike“unlucky”“simple”or“poor”;seeOED2a).28Likewise,thewordrhymesprominentlywith“night”inthephrase“cloudintonight”(orinanimportantvariant“fadeintonight”).Sothese“whispering”figuresarenotsoyoungandlivelyastheymayseem;thepoememphasizestheirfadedtimelessness.Sothesenseof“wight”asaghost-likefiguremaymakemoresensewhenwethinkofthiscoupleasnostalgicphantomsofyouth,mademoreofmemoryanddesirethanfleshandblood.

Onefinaltantalizingpossibilityfor“wight”:TheOEDsaysthatinthe17thcenturyitwasespeciallycommontousetheword“wight[s]”toreferto“thefourbeastsoftheApocalypse.”ThesechimericalfiguresemergeinRevelations4–6,forwhichthesackingofBabyloninJeremiah51isanobvioustypologicalpair,withtheirsimilarlyominoushorsesandridersauguringthedivinedestructionofearthlydynasties.Inchapter6wemeetthebeasts’mostculturallyfamousmanifestations,theFourHorsemen,whoemergefromthe28Indeed,thisishowHardyusesthewordelsewhere,where“fellow-wights”areoldfriends,somedead,rememberedfondly,asin“Ditty”(17)and“FriendsBeyond”(60);orweakmenasin“TheBride-NightFire”(71)and“TheSubalterns”(121);orromanticallydeceivedmenasin“TheSupplanter”(177)and“AConversationatDawn”(371).

40firstfourofthesevenseals.Behinddoornumbertwo:“Andtherewentoutanotherhorsethatwasred:andpowerwasgiventohimthatsatthereontotakepeacefromtheearth,andthattheyshouldkilloneanother:andtherewasgivenuntohimagreatsword.”ThisisthefigureconventionallycalledWar,anditseemsthatHardyhasasortofattenuatedversionoftheseportentsinmindinthispoem.The“oldhorsethatstumblesandnods”andhisdrabplowmanareHardy’ssymbolsofdestruction.Inthisreading,theyarenotfiguresofenduringhumanactivitiesthatsurvivethewar:theyarethewar.

Thistypological-apocalypticreadingiscomplicated—butnotnegated—byacouplefacts:the“manharrowingclods”isnotmountedliketheFourHorsemen;andthe“wight”whosebiblicalechoI’mreachingforhereisadifferentmanentirelyinthepoem.ButIthinkthatitissafetosaythatHardyisnotaimingforpreciseallegoryorbiblicaltypology,butratheramodernpropheticvoice,moremodestandearthboundthanJeremiahorJohninPatmos.Butthereisstillformoftypologyatworkhere,withtheeternalreturnoftheplowmanandhishorse,theclearingofthefield,andtheanonymouscoupleintheireternalyouth.Theserustictypesintheirworldlyrhythms“willgoonwardthesame/ThoughDynastiespass.”Thisistosayboththattheyareignorantofnationalpolitics—they’llgoondoingwhattheydo—andthattheytranscendthem—theygobeyondtheend.Ifthecouplearetrulycarefreeinlove,theirignoranceisbothtouchingandtragic.Butagain“wight”injectsuneaseintothepoem:heis,eveninhisyouthfulprime,alreadyaghostlycreature,preemptivelydoomed,perhapsboundforEurope.Inanycasetheseminorhumanstoriesaretoo“slow[and]whispering”toregisterin“War’sannals.”

Thecrucialchoicethispoemoffersusisnotbetweenthepeacefulpeopleandthewarringdynasties,butbetweenannalsandstories,i.e.twoconflictingwaysoforganizingandrecordingthepassageoftimeintotext.“ANewYear’sEveinWarTime”setthedomesticclockagainstFate’s“order”andshowedhowtheslowcreepoftheformerdoesnotreconcileeasilywiththefatalhasteofthelatter.Whitedescribestheannals’specialpreoccupations:“Everywhereitistheforcesofdisorder,naturalandhuman,theforcesofviolenceanddestruction,whichoccupytheforefrontofattention”(14).Inthispoemtheattentionisfocusedonforcesofsocialandtheculturalreproductioninthecoupleandthefarmworkerrespectively.True,weareleftwiththenaggingfeelingthatthesemaystillbemerefiguresfortheapocalypticgoings-on.Butthepoemgivesusthechoice.Wecanreadhistoryasitiswrittenintheannals:ablankseriesofevents,mostofthemharrowing,manyutterlycatastrophic,allconnectedindifferentlyunderthesignoftheyears.Or,wecanreadhistoryas“theirstory”:anarrativearcheldtogetherbythehumanbeingsatits“socialcenter”andthefictivepromise,asWhitehasit,ofamoralresolution.Itseemsnaïveinitspoliticalcontext—thebreakingofnations—andinthisHardycannilypredictstheperennialcriticalmisreadingofthispoem.Andyethehasalsosympatheticallyunderwrittenthatmisreadingastheonlywaytosurvivehistory’scontinuingdepredations.Thisobviouslywishful,willfullyignorantstyleofreadingisitselfakindofdoublestructureoffeelinginherenttowartime—theshorteningoftheglancetoonlywhatisrightinfrontofus,orextendingittowhatevermightbebeyondthewar.Thatitissolegible,soirresistibleinlatterwartimesproveswe“goonwardthesame.”

41III.BackinTimeThewishthattheintimate,personal“story”ofa“maidandherwight”mightprovidesomeformofmoralconsolation(howevermomentary)toholdagainst“War’sAnnals”andmightevenprovideaccess(howevertemporary)toadifferenttemporaldimensionwhichcouldsupersedethe“BreakingofNations”istheexactsubjectofanotherfineHardypoem.ToreaditwewillhavetodistortchronologyabitbymovingbackfromtheGreatWartotheBoerWar,andtoHardy’sfirstseriesof“WarPoems”from1901’saptlytitledPoemsofthePastandPresent:

AWifeinLondon(December1899)

IShesitsinthetawnyvapour ThattheThames-sidelaneshaveuprolled, BehindwhosewebbyfoldonfoldLikeawaningtaper Thestreet-lampglimmerscold.Amessenger’sknockcrackssmartly, Flashednewsisinherhand OfmeaningitdazestounderstandThoughshapedsoshortly:He–hasfallen–inthefarSouthLand.… II‘Tisthemorrow;thefoghangsthicker, Thepostmannearsandgoes: AletterisbroughtwhoselinesdiscloseBythefirelightflicker Hishand,whomthewormnowknows:Fresh–firm–pennedinhighestfeather– Page-fullofhishopedreturn, Andofhome-plannedjauntsbybrakeandburnInthesummerweather, Andofnewlovethattheywouldlearn.

Thispoemisoftenoverlooked,hidingasitdoesbetweenthemorecanonical“DrummerHodge”whichprecedesitintheseries,andthemoreexpansiveandfantastical“SoulsoftheSlain,”whichfollowsit.Fewcriticsmentionitotherthantomarkitas“asimpleexampleof…Hardy’sironicstructure”(Hynes44).Itstwo-partironyseemstooneatforfurthercomment,andsothepoemistooobvioustoread.Butheldupagainstothermorestrident

42“WarPoems,”thisoneemergesasasubtleandcomplexexaminationofpreciselythekindofconflictedtemporalitywehavebeenpursuingsofar.

Anelaboraterhymepatternisestablishedinthefirststanzathatwillobtainthroughout:abbabwiththearhymesfeminine.Metrically,thisisbasicallyathree-beatballadlinewiththequirkthatlinethreehasfourbeatsandlinefourhasonlytwo.Thiscontrastbetweenshorterandlongerlineswhicheachleapoutfromtheirsurroundingscomestobearonthepoem’s“story,”whichalsoturnsonacontrastbetweenonemessagethatistooshortandcomestoosoonandanotherthatistoolongandarrivestoolate. Itbeginswiththefoggyatmosphericsofthefirststanza,whichimmerseusintheLondonstreetsasevocativelyasanydescriptionofthehillsandlanesofWessexeversentusthere.The“tawnyvapour”floatingofftheThamesfillsthelinesofthefirststanzajustassurelyasitfillsthe“lanes”andthe“dazed”mindofshewho“sitsin”it(thoughwelearninstanzatwothatsheissafelyindoors).Thisshiftingandlayeredconfusionbetweeninsideandoutside,subjectandobject,becomesanimportantaspectofthissupposedly“simple”poem.Thefogcreatesanunmooringpatheticfallacy,asittakesoversubjectstatusfromtheunidentifiedwoman,suchthatthepronoun“whose”feelsindecisive,conflictedbetween“She,”the“vapour”oreven“thelanes.”Allthreesharethis“cold”submersioninthebrain-like“webbyfoldonfold.”Thelightofthesyntacticallybelated“street-lamp”failstoilluminate:asreaders,wearethoroughlylostinavague,unsettlingeventide;thisfeelingofdisorientationisthefirstofthepoem’sseveraleffectivecouplingsbetweenthedescriptiveandexpressiveregisters. Thesecondstanzashocksusoutofourtrancewhenthe“messenger’sknockcrackssmartly.”Thedimlightofthelampisdisplacedbytheharsh“flash”ofbadnews:herhusband“hasfallen–inthefarSouthLand.”Thisisacrucialmoment,becauseitssudden“flash”(presumablyintheformofatelegram)fromabroadlocatesusinatechnologicallymoderntimeframe.Thedisorientingspeedwithwhichthe“news”(whichisalwaysbad—thisisHardyafterall)cannowtraversetheglobe“dazes”thewife’sunderstandingeventhough(orperhapspreciselybecause)itsmessageis“shapedsoshortly.”Theincommensurabilityoftheimmensedistancetravelledandtheshorttimecreatesagapin“meaning”sounnavigablethatthepoemcompletelyelidesthewife’sexperienceofgrief. InsteadoftearswegetmoreLondonweather:“’Tisthemorrow,thefoghangsthicker.”Aday’stimepassesinstantaneouslyinthegapbetweenthefirstnumberedsectionandthesecond,thesamestructureBlevinsnotedinearlyHardylyricsofdisappointedromance.Therepetitionofthepoem’sfirstimageinthesecondstanzaestablishesaformalparallelismthatpersiststhroughnearlyeveryline.The“messenger”instanza2isechoedby“thepostman”ofstanza3;the“firelightflicker”offsets“Thestreet-lampglimmerscold”;thepersonalletter“penned”in“Hishand”opposestheimpersonaltelegraphdroppedunceremoniously“inherhand.”Finally,andperhapsmoresubtly,theimaginary,wished-for“jauntsbybrakeandburn/Inthesummerweather”ofthefinalstanzaironicallyinvertherfrigidsolitudeinthe“Thames-sidelanes”whose“tawny”(i.e.,industriallydiscolored)fogginessopposehis“Fresh–firm”lines. The“simple”two-partironyofthispoemisthatthesharpnewsofhisdeathnegateseveryaspectofhiswarmandhopefulletter.Buttheinverted,untimelystructureofthewife’sexperience—rendersthistoo-obviousironyconsiderablymorecomplex.Thatthecarefullyhandwrittenletter(“inhighestfeather”)arrivesafterthetelegram,andits“lines

43disclose”(orreopen)thepainfulnewsafterithasalreadydazedthewife’sunderstandingisironic,sure,butalsooddly,inconvenientlycomforting.Itisofcoursetragicandcruelthatshemustexperiencehisdeathtwiceinthisway,buttheremaybesomeconsolationinhisKeatseanafterlifewhenshereadsthe“Page-full”of“Hishand.”Thereisnoindicationatallthatsheshareswithpoetandreaderthebitterironythatmightdevaluethislattercorrespondence.Quitethecontrary,thefactthatthepoemendsonan(ironic,tobesure)up-note“ofnewlovetheywouldlearn”provesthattheslower-moving,moretraditionalformofcommunication—theloveletter—willsurelyoutlivethemoderntechnologicalformthatoutpacedit.Iftherewassomethinginevitabletohisdeathinaforeignwar,thereisanopposinginevitabilityofferedhere,tentativelyperhapsandsurelyconcealedbehindafogof“simple”irony,butpowerfulnonetheless:loveandhopearestrongerandwilloutlastthecynical,emptyshocksofmoderncommunicationsandimperialwarfare.Thelarger,morecomplexironyhere,obscured,asitwere,bythesimpler,isthatloveitselfcanoutlivethelover’sdeath.Asconsolationgoes,itmaynotbemuch,butitsprofound“meaningdazestounderstand.”

Again,wecanreadthispoemasaformallycomplexexpressionofconflictingtimeframes,andalso,borrowingLevine’sterms,asacollisionbetweendifferentrhythmsandnetworks.Theslowerpersonalformoftheloveletteriseclipsedbythefastimpersonaltelegraph,thetechnologicalmarvelwhichconnectstheempire’sviolentlycontendedoutpostswithitsfoggylamp-litcenter.Theseadvancednetworksdisturbandinfringeonboththedomesticspaceofthewifeatherhearth(thatever-presentVictorianform,theseparatesphere,ofwhichLevineoffersseveraldestabilizingreadings)andonthelongstandingrhythmsofcommunicationinwriting.Thetwo-day,two-stanzatimeframeofthepoem,withitspervasiveparallelism,setsaframeforthesecollidingforms.Butthecounterfactualfutureofthefinalstanza,whichhasbeenforeclosedbywaritself,isthefinalword.Hardy’sironicalstructureisnotsimplehere,forinsuspendingthefeelingof“hopedreturn”betweenmemoriesofthepastandvisionsofthefuture,hegivesustheformalresourcestosurvivethepresent.Thereisasimilarironicandparadoxicalstructureoffeelingtothisasto“Christmas:1924”writtentenyearsafterthenextwar,opposingcomfortinglyslow,oldforms(mass)anddistressinglysudden,newforms(gas):Nevergiveupthehopeforabetterfuture,eventhoughitisobviouslyalreadytoolate.

I’llofferonefinalreading,becauseitisapoemwhoseconcernsarestrikinglysimilartowhatwe’veseensofar,butwhoseformsarebizarreanddistinct.ThispoemreturnsustotheGreatWar,butalsoattemptstotakeuseverfurtherbackintime,toanepochwhen“Anglo-Saxon”describednotwarlines(withthedashastheversus)butanewlyunifiedculture.Italsofeaturesatleastelevenpunsbymycount:

ThePityofIt

IwalkedinloamyWessexlanes,afarFromrail-trackandfromhighway,andIheardInfieldandfarmsteadmanyanancientwordOflocallineagelike‘ThuBist’,and‘Erwar’,

‘Ichwoll’,‘Ersholl’,andby-talksimilar,

44

Nighastheyspeakwhointhismonth’smoongirdAtEngland’sveryloins,thereuntospurredBygangswhoseglorythreatsandslaughtersare.

ThenseemedaHeartcrying:‘WhosoevertheybeAtrootandbottomofthis,whoflungthisflameBetweenkinfolkkintonguedevenasarewe,

‘Sinister,ugly,luridbetheirfame;Maytheirfamiliarsgrowtoshuntheirname,Andtheirbroodperisheverlastingly.’

April1915Herewehaveasmanycollidingformsasonecouldeverwant:networksoldandnew(“lanes”versus“rail-tracks”and“highways”);wholenationsandtheirlanguages,(EnglishandGerman);enemiesaplenty,butalso“kinfolk”and“familiars”;landscapes(“fields,”farms”);andstrangelydisembodiedbits,(“loins,”“bottom,”“heart”andtongues).Importantly,fewoftheseformsarespecificordiscrete—theyrunintoeachotheralternatelyasidealsandmaterialforms,metaphorsandliteraldenotations.TheyarealljustbarelyheldtogetherbythatfamousLatinateimporttoEnglish,thesonnetform,whichHardyemployedrelativelyrarely.29Andofcoursewehavepunsaplenty,whollyappropriatetoadeeplypastoralpoemabouttheinherentdualityoflanguageitself.Themostobvious,ifperhapsnotthebestofthese,is“war”(l.4)whichdoesnotdenoteitsmosturgentcontextualreferent,butrathertheGerman“was(tobe)”—translatingtheglobalconflictintoastateofbeing.30 Thatthispoemisalsofundamentallyabouttimemaynotbequiteasobviousasinotherswehavelookedat,despiteitsfinalword:“everlastingly.”ButIwanttoargueitispreciselytime’sinscrutabilityandincompatibilitywithotherimportantformalcategories—especiallynationsandlanguages—thatisat“rootandbottom”ofthispoem’sstrangelament,whichpitswhatis“ancient”againstwhatishappening“thismonth”;knowledgeversusrumor;historyversusthenews.WecometounderstandthatwhatHardyhatesaboutthiswarisnotjustthelossofyounglife,butthelossofoldwaysoflife,bothin“local”communitieswhomustsurrendertheir“ancient”affinitiesforthoseofthemorerecentandabstractnation,whilesimultaneouslylosingtouchwiththatnation,whichseemstoalsobeatwarwithitsownoriginsandideals.OnerecallsagainRaymondWilliams’seffortsinTheLongRevolutiontorecoupresidualsocialformsagainsttheliberalnation’scleavingoffoftheindividual.Butwe’vegottenaheadofourselves,startingattheend,asitwere.

29ThankstoTaylorweknowonly38ofthe1000-oddpoemsweresonnets;Itisnoteworthytherearefiveorsix(countingthehybrid“AppealtoAmerica”)inthisseriesontheEuropeanwar(1988,52)30Othercandidatesinclude:“locallineage”inthesamestanzawith“rail-tracks,”“highways”and“lanes”;“similar”withtwosimilarmeanings;thebasicphilologistjoke“root”;alongwith“familiars”notreferringtocognates.Butthewinnermaybe“Pity”itself,whichshiftsinmeaningfromdisappointment,tocompassion,toanunfortunatepitilessnessbytheendofthepoem.

45

Firstawordonphilology:HardywasdeeplyinvestedinthishighVictorianpursuit,notjustinplumbingthedialectofhishomecounty,Dorset,alongsideitsphilologicallyastutedialectbardWilliamBarnes,butalsointhebroaderhistoryandtheoryoflanguageacrossBritainandEurope.DennisTaylorgivesthedefinitivetreatmentofthissubjectandhisinsightisatthebaseofmydiscussionhere.Hememorablyarguesthat:

AwkwardnessinHardyisthelinguisticequivalentofinterruption;31itmarksthemomentswherethelanguageisunderpressure.…HardyisfascinatedbythesefaultlinesinatemporarilystandardEnglishwhich,infact,isatthemercyofhistory.”(1993:28)

Despitethefactthat“ThePityofIt”isoneofHardy’smostawkward,faulty,andself-consciouslyhistoricalandphilologicalpoems,itbarelywarrantsamentioninTaylor’sbook.Perhapsthisisbecauseitsdialectwordsarenotintegratedwithartfulawkwardnessintoitsstandardidioms,butinsteadheldapartasnotablyforeign;orperhapsthewholepoemisjustalittletooonthenoseforTaylor.Still,hisfigureoflanguage“atthemercyofhistory”isparticularlyapthere,especiallywhenwemarryitwithFussell’saccountofthewar’shostiletakeoverofEnglishvocabularyandusage. Thewholepoemisheavilystuddedwithearthy,curtAnglo-Saxonwords—walk,loam,field,gird,spur,gang,heart,root,bottom,folk,tongue,brood,word—or“wordsofAnglo-Saxonorigin,”Ishouldsay,becausethereisactualAnglo-Saxonspokenheretoo.Butappropriatelyforthetheme,therearealsoplentyofLatinateformslayeredin—pity,ancient,lineage,similar,glory,flame,sinister,fame,familiar,name,perish.ThesplitherebasicallyhewstothestandardreceivednotioninEnglishthathigherconceptscomefromLatinandlowerthingsfromGerman;theratiointhispoem,thoughdefinitelyskewedtowardstheAnglo-SaxonsubstrateofHardy’sWessex,isnotactuallyallthatextreme.Hardyismakingapointabout“lineage,”butheisstillbasicallyspeakingastandardizedmodernEnglish,especiallyinthefirststanza,wherehiselocutionishigh-standard,withpoeticismslike“afar”and“manya”settingupthecontrastwiththebaserstuffhefindsin“loamylanes.”

However,therearetwomomentsinthepoemthatareparticularlyvexedinregardtoEnglishoriginsandworthlookingatmoreclosely.Firstistheoddlyredundantphrase“inthismonth’smoon”whichputstheGermanic“moon,”(fromMond)nexttotheLatinate“month”(frommensis)tonogoodend,otherthanperhapstointimatehowtheirrelationshipismutuallyconstituted—i.e.themonthisanabstractmeasurementoftimemadewiththerealmoon.ThetwowordsshareanIndo-Europeanroot,andsothereisagestureperhapstowardsthefundamentalindivisibilityofthelanguage.Butthefactremainsthatitisavacuousphraseinthelinewherethepoemstartstogetespeciallyawkward.Comparedtothewistfulbutquitecogentfirststanza,thesecondreadslikeabadtranslation.Onefeelsthepressureoflanguageshearingapartatthehandsofhistory,justasTaylordescribes.

31“Interruption”wasalsothecentralfigureofthefirstofTaylor’sthreeindispensibleHardymonographs,Hardy’sPoetry:1860–1928,whose“oldchurch”sceneIquotedabove.

46

Asecondoverdeterminedjuxtapositionofadifferentkindcomeslateratline12.Theline“Sinister,ugly,lurid,betheirfame”seemslikeamissedopportunity.ThehighrhetoricaltoneofthelineanditsthreeLatinatewordsareoddlyandunattractivelyinterruptedby“ugly,”whichhasNordicorigins,butcouldpassforAnglo-Saxon.“Ignominious”wouldhavebeenagreatchoice(andanothernicepun)tokeeptheLatinstreakaliveacrossthewholeline,slylysendingupthosewhowouldignoretheirown(Germanic)ancestry.Ithinkthisjarringseriesshowsthat,despitethepreponderanceofaggressivewordplayinthepoem,Hardywasactuallyactivelytryingtoavoidovercommittingtothetemptingbuttooneatanalogybetweenwarringlanguagesandnations.Becauseultimately,hewishestopreservetheancientkinshipsubsumedintheverystructureofEnglish,notputitinanymoreperil.RatherthanshowhowEnglishmightlookifitsGermankinshipweredeniedandpurged,heshowshowimpossiblesuchaprocedurewouldbeonsuchadeeplyhybridizedformation.

Let’sreturntoline6,whichbeginsunpromisinglywith“Nigh”andgetsprogressivelystrangerfromthere,andisfollowedbytwomorelinesalsoundeniablyandintensely“underpressure,”eachphraseundergoingtorturousinversionsinordertoendwiththeirverbsàl’allemand.AllofthisseemstoputtheEnglishlanguage(“England’sveryloins”)undersomevaguethreat.But,thethreat,asitturnsout,doesnotcomefromtheGermany.Taylorveryuncharacteristicallymisreadsthispoeminhisfirstbookwhenheclaimsitexpresses“angeragainsttheGermanperpetrators”—thoughhisbroaderpointstandsupwellthat“ThePoemsofWarandPatriotism”havea“confusedobject[of]indignation”(1981,125).Indeed,itisthatverysevereconfusionaboutwhoexactlythese“gangswhoseglorythreatsandslaughtersare”thatobviatesanynationalistfeelingsatallinthispoem.ItisundeniablytheGermanswho“gird/AtEngland’sveryloins.”(Averystrangemisuseofanalreadystrangephraseitmustbesaid—Ihadpreviouslyassumedonecouldonlygirdone’sownloins.Inanycase,ifEnglandisgirdingforbattle,aren’t“they”doingherafavorhere?)Butitisaltogetherlessclearwhoisspurringwhom“thereunto”saidgirding.These“gangs…whosoevertheybe/atrootandbottomofthis,”couldequallybeGermanorEnglishjingoists—government,militaryorcivilian—Austro-Hungarianhotheads,BosnianorSerbianrebels,presumptiveRussians,oralloftheabove.32Theimprecisionofthepoemherespeaksdirectlytothegeopoliticalchaosattheoriginsofthewar.Lineshadyettobedrawnclearly,andoldforms(empires)andnew(nationstates)werecollidingapace.

Then,atthevoltaofthisalreadyconfusedsonnet,wegetaparticularlyconfusing—andparticularlyHardyesque—changeofvoice:“ThenseemedaHeartcrying:”Whoseheart?Cryingfromwhere?Hardy’sspeakergoesfromthealreadyslightlydisembodiedexperienceofhearingunattributed“by-talk”inthe“fieldandfarmstead”andvague“threats”fromabroad,tohearingthisstrident,floatingHeart-voiceloftmulti-generationalmaledictionsatunknownperpetratorsonbehalfofbothGermansandEnglishmen—“kintonguedevenasarewe.”Hardyavailshimselfofthesestrangespectralvoicesoftenenough,andthisoneseemsrelatedthebothpropheticmodewehaveseenatworkintheotherGreatWarpoems,andtosimilarlypiercingvoicesinpoemslike“Cryofthe

32ModrisEksteinshasaparticularlygoodsectionaboutthecrowdsbayingforbloodinthestreetsofBerlin,spurringtheKaisertodeclarewar.(57–61)

47Homeless”and“IMetaMan”fromthissameseries.Butevenifitisinthevenerablebiblicaltraditionofthestill,smallvoicefromtheflames,itsfinalproclamationiswhatdoublesthisunwieldyexampleofthedoublepoem,ironizingandunderminingeverythingthatcamebeforeit:“Maytheirfamiliarsgrowtoshuntheirname/Andtheirbroodperisheverlastingly.”Strongwords,completelyatoddswiththeanti-warrhetoricthatprecedethem.Indeed,thepoem’sstateddistastefor“gangswhoseglorythreatsandslaughtersare”giveswaytothisglorifiedthreatofslaughteruntoextinction.Hatebegetshate,violence,violence,ondowntheline“everlastingly”istheconclusionhere:butitisnotablethatthepoemitselfisnotabletoextractitselffromthecycleitcritiques.Indeed,this“Heartcrying”beginsasthevoiceofliberalempathyfortheother,andendsupcallingfornothinglessthantheexterminationofitsideologicalenemies—muchliketheself-cancelingvoiceoftheEnglishliberalestablishmentasitsoundedthecalltowar.

WeseeinthispoemacharacteristicpoeticstructureofHardy’s,whereeachstanza(assumingasestet)presentsasubsequenttimeframe—past(“ancientword”),present(“thismonth”),todistantprophesiedfuture(“perisheverlastingly”[cf.“eretheirstorydie”])—astructurecleverlyreproducedinthetensesoftheGermanicverbformsheardas“by-talk.”Butasintheotherpoemswe’velookedat,theattempttoarrangethesetimeframesintoameaningfullinearstructurebreaksdownasincompatibleformscollide.Thedivisive“threats”(includingtheHeart’s)thatarethecontemporarylinguafrancaofthepoliticalrealmdrownsoutthefamiliar“by-talk”thatpreservedancientlineageandkinship.Theonlyfuturepossiblefromthisarrangementisoneinwhich“familiars”shuneachother’s(shared)namesuntodeath.WhatthispoemaddstoHardy’sstrugglewithtemporalformsisanextralayerofself-consciousnessaboutlanguageasthatverystructurethattries(andfails)togiveformtotimeashistory.Thiscomplexviewoftimeisinformedbytheparadoxicalstructureofphilologyitself,whichlookstothepastprogressionofalanguagetounderstanditsevolvingpresent—thewholefieldofinquiryconceivedwithinacharacteristicallyVictorianrationaloptimismaboutthefuture.“ThePityofIt”documentsthedeathofthatoptimism,therealizationthatintellectualandscientificprogresshasbroughtusuptothehorizonofitsownextinction.

Thewaythisdisruptionintimesevershumancommunitiesfromtheirpastisrelatedtothepoem’sironicmoralinsightthatprophetswhocryforrighteousrevengearenomorerighteousthanthosetheyexcoriate,andneverhavebeen.Thecryingheartisthestrange(foreign)voicefromwithinthatcarriesforththecontradictorystructuresoffeeling,whichsuggestthattosurvivehistory,humancommunitiesmustbestructuredasbothwider(andolder)andnarrower(andmoreimmediate)thanthenation;thatourenemiesareourfamiliarsandviceversa.Thisisaself-consciouslyblasphemousposition—thatthereisnoholystruggle,onlyarepetitionofpastsins—thatprogressleadsbackintodarkness.Thisobtainsinthesomewhatridiculousdoubleoxymoroninthelastlineofthispoem:abrood,bydefinition(ifitisbreeding)cannotbeperishing.Andnothingcanperisheverlastinglyanyway—youperishonce,andthenyou’redone.Wearelefttopuzzleoveranonsensicalformthathasus(forultimatelywe“flungtheflame”onourselves)reproducingonlytogoextinct—endlessly.ThisisthecomplexstructureoffeelinginsomanyofHardy’swartimepoemsputintothesimpleformofasillythreat.Elaborateparadoxicallinguisticandtemporaldeviceslikethisonetryinvaintodiverthistory’sfatalprogress—ourendlessracetowardourownends—thelongdashtodeath.

48

InallthesepoemsHardyopposessweepinglyglobalforcestothelocal,personalformstheythreatentosubmergeanderase.Thisendlessstruggletorecordthesmallerhumancostsoflarge-scalechangesalertsustoapersistentunderlyinghumanismfundamentaltoHardy’sworldview,whichisunderconstantthreatbyhisenthusiasmforthosemodernknowledgesystems(geology,economics,thehighercriticism,telegraphy,philologyjusttonamethefewwe’vetouchedonhere)thatinvariablydiminishindividuallivesandtheintimatesocialworldsinwhichtheytranspire.TheGreatWar,aswediscussedintheintroduction,severelyunderminedthespecificallyliberalhumanistcoreofaVictorianworldviewlikeHardy’s,andsointhesepoemswearewitnessingthecomplexandconflictedstructureoffeelingthatemergeswhenonetriestorescueandreconstructhumanismfromtheashesofliberalism.Ineverycasewe’veexamineditisatthelevelofformalpoeticswherethedeepdifficultiesandcontradictions—butalsothepossibilities—ofthisprojectinhere.ForHardyinparticularitistheinfiniteductilityoftimeinitsvariousconceptualmanifestationsthatpoetrycanactuponinitstransmissionoffleetinghumanexperiencesintomorethemoredurable—butstillever-changing—socialformsoflanguage.Aswemoveontootherpoetswewillseetimeandlanguagepersistasthesubstrateformsofthepoeticstrugglebetweentheindividualandsocietyinwartime,whileintroducingacriticalfigurethatisnotablyabsentinHardy:thesoldier.33

33Tobefair,soldiersfeaturein“TheMenWhoMarchAway,”“BeforeMarchingandAfter,”and”OftenWhenWarring”andseveraloftheBoerWarpoems.Butthattheymostoftenappearasghostlyabsences—eithergeneralized,geographicallydistant,oralreadydead—ratherprovesmypoint.“OftenWhenWarring”isapoignantexceptionthatdoesnotquitefitthischapter’spurview.

49

Chapter2

SoldiersEverywhere:EdwardThomas’sDoubles

ThereissomethingtragicabouttheenormousnumberofyoungmeninEnglandatthepresentmomentwhostartlifewithperfectprofiles,

andendbyadoptingsomeusefulprofession—OscarWilde

I.Soldiers’ClothesOn8May1915,twomonthsbeforehefinallyenlistedintheArtist’sRiflesattheageof36afteroverayearofdeliberation,EdwardThomascontributedashortpieceofreportagetotheNewStatesmantitled“SoldiersEverywhere.”34Thiswasoneofhislastpiecesofpaidprose;thewarhadlargelydriedupthemarket,especiallyinhisspecialties:poetryreviews,naturewriting,andliterarybiography.ThomashadalreadywrittenafewsimilarcommissionedpiecesfortheEnglishReviewin1914,including“Tipperary”and“England,”ellipticalmeditationsinwhichtheauthorsubsumeshimselfintochaoticandambivalentwartimetalkinEnglishpublicspaces.“SoldiersEverywhere”beginslikethis:

Therailwaycarriagewasalmostpackedbytwosailorslyingatlengthupontheseats,soberandtiredout.Imanaged,however,toslipintoonecorner,bythedoor,andayoungfarmerintotheother,andsowetraveledsomedistance.Ateachstation,wheneversomeonewasabouttoenterthecarriage,thefarmerwinkedandjerkedhisheadtowardsthesailors;ifnecessary,headded:‘Bestleavethemtohavetheirsleepout.’Thusthesailorswerenotdisturbed.

Althougheverythingseemsgenialenoughhere,thereissomethingoddlydisquietingaboutthese“twosailorslyingatlength”whilequotidianciviliantravelersmakepainstoletthemrestinpeace,apantomimeofdeathandavoidancewhichcan’thelpbutsuggestunderlyinganxietiesaboutthewarthenenteringitssecondyear.AndthoughwehavenoparticularreasontodoubttheveracityofThomas’sencounterwiththefarmer,itisexceedinglyconvenientthatthesesleepingmenareflankedbytwononcombatantsoftherurallaboringandintelligentsiaclassrespectively.Thefarmerfeedsthem,andhissolidarityissymbolizedherebyhistouchingparentalprotectivenessofthesailors’sleep.Theliterarymanmerelyobserves,hisfurtive“slip”andsubsequentsilenttestimonyintimatingasubtlesenseofguilt;inanycase,neitherwishesto“disturb”them.Thisplacid,almosttenderscenesoongiveswaytoamuchmoreuncomfortableone:

Atabigstationthesailorsleftthetrain.Twosergeantsofregularscameinandsatinoppositecorners.Abulkycattle-dealerinagreasybox-clothovercoatsatbetweenoneofthemandme.AnArmyMedicalprivateandaciviliansatontheotherside,andinthefourthcorneragreatbroadoldman,whosaidnothing.Theplatforms

34ReprintedinALanguagenottoBeBetrayed:SelectedProseofEdwardThomas,Ed.EdnaLongley,(Manchester:CarcanetNewPress,1981)241–3.

50

werecrowdedwithsoldiers.‘Soldierseverywhere,’remarkedthecattle-dealer,lookingoutsidewaysoverhisspectacles.‘It’sallright.IftheGermanEmperorcouldseewhat’sgettingreadyforhim,hewouldn’tsmileagain.Themanmustbemad!Isaidsorightatthebeginningofthewar.There,look!there'ssomeyoungones!’

Thomascarefullysituatesandenumeratesthediversepassengersofthecarriageinagridofopposites:twosoldiers,twonondescript“civilian[s]”(includingtheauthor),themedicandthecattle-dealer,andinhisownseparatecorner,the“broadoldman”whowelaterfindoutisaBoerWarveteran.Allthesediverselyrepresentativemen(nowomentobeseen,broadlytrueofThomas’spoetry,withaveryfewstrainedexceptionsthatprovetherule)arebroughttogetherinthatquintessentiallymodernpublicspace,thetraincar,apictureoftenuousBritishpluralism.ButThomas,asinallhiswartimework,can’thelpbutprobesmallcracksinthepatrioticfaçade,whichappearassoonasthesoldiersspeak:

Hereoneofthesergeantsspoke.Hewastryingtopersuadeaninjuredthighintoacomfortableposition.Hewaswretched.Hisgreyeyesseemedincapableofseeingthingsexceptastheywere.‘Ifyouknew,’saidhe,‘whatIknow,youwouldn’tliketoseethoseyoungones.Theywillgetkilledmostlikely.Wedon’twantmanyoftheirsortinthetrenches.Theycan’tkeepstillandsmoke.Theyaretooexcitedandrestless,andkeepbobbingabout,andtheygetshot.Anddon’tyoumakeamistake:ifsomeofthesemenweretogooutnow,theGermanswoulddieoflaughing.’‘That’safact,’saidtheothersergeant.‘Soldier’sclothesdon’tmakeasoldier.’‘Quitetrue,’saidthecattle-dealer,disconcertedbutgladtohaveageneralizationtoagreewith.Fromthatpointonheagreedwitheverythingthesergeantsaid,untilhefellasleep…

Thistenseandbitterexchangedepictsaworrisomeriftbetweensoldiersandciviliansthatwouldbecomeacentralthemeoflaterwarpoetry.35Thefirstsergeantcannotabidetheinanejingoisticchatterofthecattle-dealer,whoseprofessionencodesasharpironyintothisscene,especiallyinhisappraisingeyeforthe“youngones”herdingtheplatforms.Wherethecattle-dealerseesbrightyoungTommiesheadingofftogiveittotheKaiser,thesergeant,“incapableofseeingthingsexceptasthey[are]”seesyoungcattlebeingledtoslaughter.ThomasanticipatesOwen’sfamous“AnthemforDoomedYouth”(“Whatpassingbellsforthesewhodieascattle”),whichhewouldnevergettheopportunitytoread.Notonlydoesthecombatants’livedexperiencedividethemfromtheirciviliancounterparts,butithasmadethemcynicallydismissiveofyoungrecruitsaswell.Thesergeant’swoundedthighisalsoasourceofalienationinthisscene,thoughnotbetweenmen,butwithintheone,whomust“try…topersuade”partofhisownbodytodosomethingagainstitswill.Asimilarformalrelationshipofreluctantparttofractiouswholeobtainsinnearlyeveryaspectofthispiece.Thesecondsergeantthengoesonabitofarant:

Thewar,hesaid,washell.Nobodywhohadbeenoutthereoncewantedtogoasecondtime.Itwashell:therewasnootherwordforit.Afteranintervalthered

35Fussellisfoundationalonthis,inhissection“TheEnemytotheRear”(86–90).

51

crossonthearmoftheRAMCman—ameek,quietyoungman—rousedhim.‘Whatdidyoujointhatfor…wasittoshunthebullets?’Theyoungmanhadabadvoice,and,whatwithnervousness,madenoaudiblereply.Butthesergeantdidnotmind,hewassetgoingnow.Heannouncedthatitwaseveryman’sduty—everyman’s—togoandhaveatasteofit.Theupperclasseshaddonetheirduty.Thepoorclasseshaddonetheirduty.Butthemiddleclasseshadnot.Theyoughttobemadetogo.Varicoseveins!Sprains!Hehadgotsprainsinbothlegs.Thecivilianwhowantedtoagreewithhim,amanwithhalfamouthfulofteethlikeagates,said:‘Yes,andteethtoo.Youdon’tshootwithyourteeth.That’swhatIsay.’‘Butyoueatwithyourteeth,don’tyou?’saidthesergeantwithhisgrin.Hewasnotgoingtohaveanyinterruption.

Thisexchangeisparticularlyinterestinginitsfrankdiscussionofclass.IfwerecallEmpson,wecanobservethepastoralmodeatworkhere,includingthedubiousbidforclasssolidarity,andtheconcentrationofacomplexsocietyintothe(relatively)simplespaceofthetraincar.Butthepastoralimpulseisharshlyrebuffedinbothcases;classdivisionsbiteback(with“teethlikeagates”)andsimplicityisfracturedintoantagonisticcrosstalk.Thomasisexperimentingwithanewformofcounter-pastoralhere,whichhewillworkthroughhispoetry,andwhichbettercapturesanemergentwartimestructureoffeelinginwhichliberalmiddle-classattitudesofempathyandindividualityareunderassaultbythewar’stotalizingdemands.AnastutereaderofEmpsonmightcounterthatpastoralalwaysalreadyincludedthecapacityforitsowncounter-reading,notleastthroughitscentralstructuringirony.Whilethatisundoubtedlytrue,whatmaybenovelhereisthewaythelower-classspeakerisallowedtotalkbackandsetthetermsofrelationship.Thesergeantcontinues:

‘Ihavedonemyshare,’hecontinued.‘IwaswoundedintheBoerWar.IwaswoundedontheMarneinthiswar.Ihavedonemyshare,andothersoughttodotheirs.’

Thewoundedsergeantlookedathim,butonlyreadjustedhisthigh.Thegreatbroadoldmanlookedathim,andmoreover,didnottakehiseyesoffhim,which,Ithink,wasthereasonthesergeantbegantofeelthebit,andpossiblywhyhegotoutatthenextstation.‘Iwasasoldierbeforehewasborn,’saidtheoldman.‘Somepeopledon’tknowwhentokeeptheirmouthsshut…amanwithnomoresensethanhe’sgotwillnevermakearegimentalsergeant.Heoughttobeonthestage.’

Anewdivideopenshere,notthatbetweensoldiersandcivilians—thoughthesergeant’swordsdefinitelywidenthatone—butratherthenotoriousgenerationgap.The“broadoldman”itturnsout,isofapreviousvintageofprofessionalBritishsoldiery,andhelooksdownonthestridentsergeantjustasthesergeanthadlookeddownontheyoungrecruits.Unliketheidealmilitaryhierarchythatmaintainsdisciplineandorder,hereweseeahierarchythatdividesthenation.Theoldmanalignssilencewithdignity,andinhisremarkabout“thestage”reducestheyoungersoldiertothecomicreliefinwar’stragicdoubleplot,whichdoomshighandlowalike.Justascrucialtothejournalist’sdepictionofallthissocial

52tensionishisownresoundingsilence.Unlikethechastenedcattle-dealer,thedemeanedmedic,andthetoothlesscivilian,thejournalistisabletoconcealhimselfinhisdetachedpointofview,escapinganyrecriminationotherthanhisown.Thesceneconcludesstrangely:

Bythetimewewereallstandinguptogetoutattheterminusthecattle-dealerwoke,and,seeingthesoldiersontheplatform,saidasbefore:‘Soldierseverywhere.It’sallright.’

Thecattle-dealergetsthelastword,anditisnothingmorethanadullrepetitionofthegratuitousobservation(andthearticle’stitle)whichearnedhimthesergeant’srebuke.Thomasformallyhighlightsthisrepetition,whichinonewaynegatesthevolatileexchangethatitbrackets,atleastintheobliviousmindofthecattle-dealer.Italsodrawsattentiontoapreponderanceofrepetitionsthroughoutthearticle,mostprominentlyinthesergeant’sownstutteringstyle—“thewarwashell…itwashell”“everyman’sduty—everyman’s”(“duty”thenrepeatstwicemore)and“Ihavedonemyshare.”Thoughitseemsthatthecattle-dealerhasignored(orsleptthrough)theentireencounter,hisneedtorepeathimself,despitehisdressingdown,provesthereisastrongbutfalteringforcebehindthedesiretofeel“It’sallright.”Thisforce,andthestrangecomfortsofverbalrepetitioninthefaceofdistress,willbekeytoourreadingofThomas’spoems,whichbegantosuddenlypourfromhispenrightaroundthetimehepublishedthispiece. Anotherformalaspectofthispiecetonoticeisthepreponderanceofpairs.Twosleepingsailors,twobittersergeants,twoquietcivilians,twoBoerwarveterans,allsetinopposition.Granted,opposingpairsmaywellbeasimplecoincidenceoftherailcarseatingexperience,butThomashighlightsthis(andrepeatsit)inawaywhichmakesitfeelsignificant.Again,wewillfollowthisformalhabitthroughoutthepoems,butfornowitmaysufficetosaythattheonlyfigureherewhoseemstohavenopairorpartnerinthescene,onlyhisownisolatingperspective,isthewriterhimself,keentorecordthissocialexchange,butsomehowunableorunwillingtojoinin.DrawingonLevine’stermsofcollidingforms,notehowthecollisionsamongthehierarchiesofclassandoccupationhereareforciblycontainedandalignedbythetraincaranditsprogresstoasingle“terminus”atwhichthefractiousnessmustendandwhere“asbefore”thereare“soldierseverywhere.”

Inearly1915Thomaswasstillacivilian,arespectablemiddle-classmanofletters.Butithadbeenapenuriousandpunishingpursuitforhimformanyyears,andwiththewaritbecameabsolutelyuntenable.Economichardshipwasnottheonlyreasonheenlisted,buthislettersshowveryplainlythattheneedtosupporthiswifeandthreechildren—andhisdesiretobefreeofthem—waspivotal;byJuly1915hehadbecomeasoldier.Heeventuallygaveupacushyjobteachingmap-andcompassreadinginKenttojointheRoyalArtilleryinFrance. HereistheentryforMarch28,1917,inthesmallleather-boundwardiaryrecoveredfromhisbodyafterhewaskilledbytheconcussionofashellonApril9:

FrostyandclearandsomeblackbirdssingingatAgnyChateauinthequietofexhaustedbattery,everyonejusthavingbreakfastat9.30:allverystillandclear:butthesemorningsalwaysverymisleadinganddisappearingsothatonemightthink

53

afterwardstheywereillusive.Planeshumming.Inhighwhitecloudaeroplanesleavetrackscurvinglikeroughwheeltracksinsnow—IhadadreamthismorningthatIhaveforgotbutMotherwasindistress.Alldayloadingshellsfromoldposition—satdoingnothingtillIgotdamnedphilosophicalandsad.Thorburndreamt2nightsagothatamaidwascountingforksandspoonsandheaskedher‘Mustanofficerbepresent.’LettertoHelen.Tiredstill.(168)

Thomas’sdailyentriesfromJanuary1—April8followareliablepattern:recordingtheweatherandbirdsong,hislocation,thequalityofhissleep,hisduties(orgallinglackthereof,asinthisentryandanotherfromMarch9:“Iamfedupwithsittingonmyarsedoingnothingthatanybodycouldn’tdobetter”),lettersreceivedandsent,conversationswithfellowofficers(orhisbatman,Taylor,whoseinadvertentwitticismsgetrecordedwithslightlymoreaffectionthancondescension),andeveningactivities,includingwhatsongswereonthegramophoneorwhathewasreading(usuallyShakespeare’ssonnets).Thewritingisclippedandnote-like,asifpreparatorytoafullerliteraryaccount,whichisalsoperhapswhyThomasinsistedhiswifekeepallhislettershome.36Obviouslythataccountwasprecludedandweareleftwithonlythesefugitiveforms. Ireproducethisentrybecauseitisparticularlylyrical,butalsoentirelytypical,containingavitalpictureofseveralcrucialformalelementsthatstructureThomas’spoetry:fineobservationofthenaturalworldsetforebodinglyagainsthumanandindustrialincursions;oddpairingsandunlikelyechoes(blackbirdssinging/planeshumming);a“misleading”calmthatportendsviolence;dreamscenesthatbeganalysisalongside“illusive”realitiesthatrefuseit;thestarkcontrastbetweensoldierlywork(alldayloadingshells)andspirituallyharrowinginactivity;finally,apervasive,wearysadness.AllofthisisfilteredthroughThomas’snewbutoddlyfamiliarpersona:thecapablemilitaryofficer.

Earlierin1916,whilestillinofficertrainingatHareHallinEssex,hehadwrittenRobertFrost:“YesIwear2stripesorchevronsonmyupperarmnow–notontheskinbutonthesleeve,”andlaterinthesameletter,“Goodbyeandtrytoimaginemeasmoreofasoldierthanthislettersounds.”ThesewrycommentsshowthatThomasconceivedofsoldiersasmenmerelydressedandimagineddifferently,ratherthanasfundamentallydifferentkindsofmen.The“skin/sleeve”distinctionisbothanoffhand(upperarm)jokeandaseriousefforttoclingtoindividualidentitywhilebeingsubsumedintothemartialapparatus.Italsorecallstheadagefrom“SoldiersEverywhere”that“Soldier’sclothesdon’tmakeasoldier”—Thomas’sanxietyaboutwearingtheuniformispalpable.Likewisehissuggestionthatonecanreceiveanunsoldierlyletterfromasoldier,andyetalsobeableto“imagine,”andeveninasensetohearthe“sounds”ofasoldierinthevoiceofawriteriscrucialtoThomas’sformal,aestheticizedunderstandingofwhatasoldieris.Inhislettershomefromcamp,andlaterfromFrance,heisconstantlyopposingthesenewandoldidentities—thedoomedanddepressedhackwriterofhispast,andtheeasygoing,competentsoldierofthepresent—asiftheyweretwodifferentmen.Hoveringbehindthispersonaltransformationisanothertakingplacesimultaneously,onetowhichFrostinparticularwouldhavebeenalert:Thomas,quitesuddenlyinlate1914,beganwritingthe

36ThisissuggestedbyR.GeorgeThomas,whoeditedboththecollectedpoemsthatincludethewardiary,andtheselectedletters.

54poetrythatwouldearnhimposthumousfame,ransackingandrenouncinghisvoluminousproseoutput(naturewriting,literarycriticism,histories,biographies,travelguidesandanunfathomableamountofreviews),whichwouldalmostcertainlyhavebeenforgottenbyposterity.Allatonce,atarelativelylateage(Thomaswas36in1914;oldforasoldier,ifnotnecessarilyforapoet),Thomasfoundhimselfradicallyrenegotiatinghisrelationshiptothewrittenword,theBritishstate,andhisownidentity,allatonce.Thischapterwillcontinuetotracktheparalleltrajectoryofthesenegotiations,focusingonhowtheformaltechniquesofthepoetry—especiallypersistentpatternsofrepetitionanddoublingofsounds,structureandimagery—expresshisambivalentunderstandingofthesemomentouspersonalandpoliticalchanges. Thomasoftenseemstobeintwoplacesatonceinhispoems:meditativelymovingaboutthecountrysideofsouthernEnglandandWales,whilealsodistractedandpreoccupiedbythenewsfromLondonandEurope,especiallythefatalisticthoughtthat“allroadsleadtoFrance.”Weseethisreversedinthewardiaryentry,whichcan’thelpbutpersistinoldcountryhabits,watchingtheskyandidentifyingbirds,lookingcarefullyforbeauty,evenwhereithasbeenobliterated,listeningforthesongsdrownedoutbyplanesandshells.Mostoftenthesetensejuxtapositions,betweennatureandculture,homeandabroad,lifeanddeath,obtainnotbycontrastingtwoseparatethoughtsorimages,butwithinasinglepoeticutterance,likethediary’shaiku-like“Inhighwhitecloudaeroplanesleavetrackscurvinglikeroughwheeltracksinsnow.”Thereisalso,inthesedoublepoems(asinthejournalentry,withits“illusive”imagery,dreamnotes,andexhaustedending)arecoilfromwakinglife,attimesmoreorlessexplicit,butalwayspullingattheedgesofthelines,anexistentialfatiguethatconflatesdeathandsleep.“Tiredstill”mightmeanpersistentlytiredordeadtired. Withthesetendenciesinmind,let’sapproachtheshortpoem“APrivate,”startedin1915,sixmonthsbeforeThomasenlisted,andasfaraswecantellhisfirstpoemtoexplicitlymentionthewar: Thisploughmandeadinbattlesleptoutofdoors Manyafrostynight,andmerrily Answeredstaiddrinkers,goodbedmen,andallbores: ‘AtMrs’Greenland’s’HawthornBush,’saidhe, ‘Islept.’Noneknewwhichbush.Abovethetown, Beyond‘TheDrover’,ahundredspotthedown InWiltshire.Andnowatlasthesleeps MoresoundinFrance—that,too,hesecretkeeps.37Thepoemopenswithasubtleactofrhetoricaldoubling.Wearepresentedonemanwithtwoidentities:“APrivate”instantlybecomes“thisploughman”inthefirstline.Thisquickshiftfromindefinitearticletothedeicticpronounandfromtheanonymityoflowestranktothelowlybuttime-honoredoccupationofploughmansetsuptwocompetingtimeframesandtheirconcurrentworldviews,thebefore-and-afternotofdeathbutoftheman’senlistment(1915beingtooearlyforconscription).Thisdoubledtimeframeisrepeatedand

37Thomas50.Theotherpoemsinthischaptercanbefoundinthisvolumeat64,80,120,79,99,105.

55reinforcedintherestoftheline:“deadinbattle”inthepresent,“sleptoutofdoors”inthepast.Theprivateisdead,theploughmanhasslept.Theyarethesameperson,yes,buttheyarealsotwodifferentcharactersinthepoem,oneanabsentstranger,theother,hispredecessor,avividandfamiliar(ifunforthcoming)presence.Thesetwotimeframescoincidewithtwoviewsoftheprivate/ploughman,onedistant,general,anonymous,onelocal,specificandpersonal. Thepoem’sdeceptivelysimpleformechoesthisdoubledstructure.Itcomprisestwoquatrainswithtworhymeseach—ababccdd—yetthelinesthemselvesandthepoem’stwohalvesbleedintoeachother,withnearlyeverylineenjambedintothenext—eventhecommasendinglines4and5propelthereaderintothenextlinemorethantheymarkapause,asthefirstdividestheploughman’sstatementawkwardlyinhalf,andthesecondgeneratesreaderlyanticipationforwhatis“Abovethetown.”Theresultofthissyncopationoflineandsentenceendingsisatensionbetweenourdesirefordoubling—inpairedrhymesoundsthatendthelines—anditsslyretractionintothegrammarofthesentences.Carryingtheploughman’sansweroverfromthefourthlinetothefifthaccomplishessomethingsimilar,astherhymeschemesuggeststwobalancedhalveswhiletheploughman’sutterance,nestedinthespeaker’snarration,runsthemtogetherintoasingleunit.Thepoemdoublesitselfinotherwaysaswell,as“This”and“inbattle”ofline1areparalleledby“that,too”and“inFrance”inthefinalline.Thepoembeginswithapresenttenseabsence:“Thisploughmandeadinbattle,”thenpassesthroughtheabsentpast“inWiltshire,”beforereturningtoatruepresenttense“wherehesleeps…hesecretkeeps.”Thereisasubtlepoliticalthrusttothiswholestructure,asitisnothisrecentdeathinbattleorhisstatusasasoldierthatmakesthisploughman’slifeworthrecordinginverse,butratherhisprioridiosyncrasiesasaWiltshirepub-goer.His“private”identityhasbeenerasedbythenationalpoliticalformation,whilebeingpreservedasalocal,socialform. Whichisnottosaythisploughmanwasnecessarilylovedorrespectedinhislifetime:hisrelationshiptohislocalcommunityseemstohavebeenslightlyapart,asevincedbyhischaracterizationofhisinterlocutorsas“staiddrinkers,goodbedmen,andallbores”andthemischievous,evasivenatureofhisanswer.Yes,thereisakindofmutualaffectionencodedintheconcernofhisfellows,andthe“merry”toneofhisbanter,butthereisalsocontempt:it'snoneoftheirbusinesswhereheslept—they’reallboresanyway.Ifthereisanassumedsenseofcommunityamongthoseatthepub,heldagainstthebureaucraticanonymityofmilitarylife(anddeath)inthepoem’stitleandfinalline,thenthereisalsoaclearclassdividewithinthatcommunity,between“goodbedmen”andmenwhosleepunderbushes.Rurallifeingeneralandourploughmaninparticularareaffectionatelyparticularized,butnotatallidealized.Indeed,those“frosty”nights“outofdoors”areonlyenviableincomparisonwithapresumablyviolentdeath.38 RaymondWilliamsoffersanaccountoftheploughman’ssocialtypeinhischapteron“IndividualsandSocieties”inTheLongRevolution.Hecontraststhestatusof“members,subjects,andservants”allofwhomorientthemselvestowardsthepowerstructuresoftheirsociety,to“rebels,exilesandvagrants,”three“modesofnonconformity”which“modernindividualism”offerstothosewhowishtorefusecoercivesocialorganization.Our

38Itshouldbenoted,however,thatasinthispoem’sobviouspredecessors“DrummerHodge”andBrooke’s“ASoldier,”violenceiskeptconspicuouslyabsentfromthepoem.

56“ploughman”isavagrant,notbecausehesleepsoutside—Williams’scategoriesarenotaboutsocioeconomicstatus,butaboutstructuralrelationshipsbetweenindividualsandsociety.Thevagrant,then,issomeonewho“staysinhisownsociety,thoughhefindsitspurposesmeaninglessanditsvaluesirrelevant…hismaximumdemandisthatheshouldbeleftalone.”Thevagrantdoesnotholdfirmtomoralprinciplesastherebelandtheexiledo—noteventheprincipleofdefiantself-assertion,aswecanseeintheploughman’sutterdisinterestinsharinghiswhereabouts.“Theeventsthatothersinterpretas‘society’aretohimlikesuchnaturaleventsasstormorsun”recallinghisnights“outofdoors”(115–6).Andfarfromgainingthecovetedstatusof“membership”byjoiningthearmy,ourploughmanendsupbecominganothervictimofhistoryinitsguiseasacatastrophicnaturalevent. Bysleepingoutsideandrefusingtoanswerquestions,ourploughmanshowsabitofgood-natureddisdainforthemorecomfortablemembersofhisnativecommunity,adisdainhesurelycarriedintohissecondlifeasasoldier.Butwhatexactlydoesheadmitwithhischeekyresponse?“AtMrsGreenland’sHawthornBush…Islept.”WhoisMrsGreenland?EdnaLongley,annotatesheras“apersonificationthatprefigures‘Gaia,’”andventureson,“Thomasmayalsoelegisetheploughman’seasyconnectionwiththeearth,inallitsweathers,whichwarhasseveredandtravestied”(175,sic).Thisreadingreachesabitoutsidethepoemforitstravesty—Thomashasmanypoemsplainlyaboutecologicaldestruction,thisisnotoneofthem—butitalsocontains,perhapsaccidently,anicefigureforwhatisatstake:An“easyconnectionwiththeearth”—intheformofacasualburial—iscertainlybeingironicallyelegizedin“APrivate.”Theearthyploughman’sdeathisrenderedlightlybythispoem.Ifinhislifehecommunedmorereadilywith“MrsGreenland”thanhisfellowvillagers,indeathheissimilarlyeasygoing.ThewholepoeminthiswaycanbereadasafiercelyironicvariationontheAnglican“dusttodust”withnoneofthetranscendentconsecrationofBrooke’s“Soldier”oreventhesecular/organictransubstantiationofHardy’s“DrummerHodge.”Theploughman,afteralifeledsoclosetotheearththatevenhisfamiliarsfoundhimalittlelow,readilyreturnstothesoil.Thepoemlowershim,butitalsocommemorateshim.Itsspeakerissomehowbothclosertotheploughmanthanhisneighbors(thankstothedeictic“This”),butalsooddlydistant,withaperspectivethatmanagestoroamsimultaneously“inFrance”withthedeadmanand“abovethetown…inWiltshire.”ThisisafineexampleofThomas’snewpastoral,whichnotonlycomplicatesclasssolidarity,itrefusesasingleidentifiableperspectiveonitsruralsubjects,whoseostensiblesimplicitycanneverbereliablylocated. IcanfindnocorroborationsforLongley’sidentificationof“MrsGreenland,”butifthefigureisindeedakindoffairyqueen,orevenjustafictionallandownerwhosepropertylinestheploughmanhadnocompunctionincrossing,thenthisirreverencemightbeakeytohisidentityandtohisdeath.Heenjoyedhavingsecrets,enjoyedkeepingonesmallthing“private”eveninthe“public”spaceof“TheDrover.”Thecentralsentence“Noneknewwhichbush”showsthathewasabletomaintainthismodestmysteriousness,whileremainingalltoofamiliar.Thisisnotacontradiction,butasimplestatementofhowlittleonecantrulyknowone’sneighbors:whathappens“Beyond‘TheDrover’”staysbeyondTheDrover.Thewarbringsmodernurbanalienationtotheemptyingruralcountryside,andthisisoneofthemostfrequentandprofoundstructuresoffeelingmadeavailablebyThomas’spoetry.

57 Astothe“HawthornBush,”itisalsoatoncefamiliarandspecific,opaqueandanonymous.Thehawthornisatraditionalhedge,commonthroughoutNorthernEurope.Soinonesenseitisasunremarkableasaploughman.Andyettheploughman’sspecificityregardingplantspeciesdoescountforsomething.Thomasisalwaysfastidiousinhisidentificationoffloraandfauna,thatspecificityitselfamodeofrespectforthenaturalworld.Andifthereisabitofmiddle-classhobbyismandruralnostalgiainthismode,aswiththebenightedGeorgians,thereisalsoanhonestattempttoconnectwiththevanishinglandscapesandpopulationsthepoetloved.Intheploughman’svoicethis“HawthornBush”showsalocalknowledgeandaffinitythathasbeenerasedbyhisdeath.Thishomelinessisalsofoundinthephrase“Abovethetown,/Beyond“TheDrover”,ahundredspotthedown/inWiltshire.”Identifyingthepub,“thedown,”andthecountyalladvancethislocalattentiveness.But“ahundredspotthedown”alsosimultaneouslybearsthepoem’selegiacsenseoferasure.Ifwerememberbacktoitsopeninggambitoftwotimeframesandtwomodesheldimmediatelyproximate,thenthephrases“InWiltshire”and“inFrance”meanweoughttobealertforacounterpartordoubleforthehundredbushes.Ifourploughmansleptunderone,andnowhesleepswiththedead,thenthese“hundredspot[s]”becomemarkersnotjustofWiltshire’sfertility,butalsoofFrance’sincreasingbarrenness.Thatis,ifthepoemexistsinanabstractspacebetweenFranceandWiltshire,togglingbackandforthsothateverythingisdoubled,thenthebushesrepresentjustasmanysecret,privategraves.“Ahundredspotthedown”thenbringstomindnotjustthepicturesquelyunpopulatedlandscape,butalsotheviolentlydepopulatedone,litteredwithbodiesinsteadofbushes.ThisshadowNoMan’sLand,eitheroverlainonorhiddenbeneathaplacid-seemingruralEnglishlandscapeisacrucialfeatureofThomas’spoemsthatwewillcontinuetotrack. Ialludedtothispoem’selegiacmode,whichisestablishedbythedeictic“This,”asifthespeakerisstandingoverthebodylookingatit,eventhoughitisirrevocablylostsomewhereinFrance,andtheprivate’sprimaryactivityisdisappearance.Inasensethepoemexiststodotheworkofmourningandremembrancethattheprivate/ploughmanhasbeendenieddyinginsomeforeignfield.Sowho,exactly,doesmourning?ThespeakerhasmoreintimacywiththedeadmanthanthoseheleftbehindinWiltshire,butstillsharesnofinalaccesstohis“secret”—neitherhisfinalrestingplacenorhiselusiveidentity,alsolost“inbattle.”Thecontrastbetweenthedrollyinconsequentialsecretsoftheman’slife(i.e.wherehesleptafterhisbenders)andthedarkconsequenceofhisdeath(where,andwhy,hedied)issetupsothatthewrongonereceivesemphasis.He“merrily”keepssecretsasanegativeexpressionofindividuality,butthefinal“secret”isnolongerhisprerogative,butratherasignofthewillfulignoranceandindifferenceoftheforcesthatturnploughmenintoprivatesandthencarelesslyinterthemoverseas.Thissenseofdehumanizationhauntsthepoem.Butbeforewefallintotheobvioustrapofsimpleaffectionfortheploughmanand/orpityforthesoldier—that“oldpastoral”mode—wemustalsotakeseriouslythesuggestionthat“atlasthesleeps/Moresound.”Thoughthereissomethingoftheopiaterhetoricofelegyinthisphrase,theconventionaldesiretoimaginehimenjoyingindeaththerestheneverknewinlife,thereisalsoaproblematicsenseofreliefthathediedasoldier.Ifitistruethat“nowatlasthesleepsmoresound”itmaynotbejustbecauseheisdead,butalsobecausehefoundthepurpose(orperhapsjustthepaycheck)inFrancethathenolongerhadinWiltshire.Thispossibilityoffersasecondpairing—ofthelostidentity

58oftheanonymoussoldier,withtheequallyelusiveidentityofhisclose-but-distantdouble,thepoet—onethatwillreturnasthecentralstructuringrelationshipinaremarkablenumberofThomas’spoems.II.Soldiers’Dreams Thestructuringparallelismbetweensleepanditseternaldouble,death,willreturninotherpoemsasawayofbridgingtheliteralandmetaphoricalgapsbetweenpeacetimeandwartime,Englandand“France,”andcivilianandsoldierlyidentities.Recallforamomentthetwodreamsnotedinthewardiary:“IhadadreamthismorningthatIhaveforgotbutMotherwasindistress....Thorburndreamt2nightsagothatamaidwascountingforksandspoonsandheasked‘Mustanofficerbepresent.’”Inbothofthesethesoldieranxiouslyinteractswithafigurefromhiscivilianpast,themother/maid,whomhecannothelp.TheelusivenessofThomas’sforgottendreamandthebanalityofhisfellowofficer’sbothhighlightasenseoffutilitythatbothisandisn’tthedomainofthesoldier—thatis,theofficerissupposedtobeactiveandhelpful,butinbothdreams,asofteninhisadministrativeroleinthewareffort,heisoftenpassive,useless,acounterofforksandspoons,unabletohelpthose“indistress.”

AnotherThomaspoembuiltaroundasimilarcomplexofdoubledforms—socialvagrancy,indoors/outdoors,soldier/civiliandoubles,elusivesleep,andfrustratedempathy—istheoftenanthologized“TheOwl.”ThispoemwaswrittenfivemonthsbeforeThomas’senlistment,andonecantraceanethicalmomentumtowardsthatdecision: DownhillIcame,hungry,andyetnotstarved; Cold,yethadheatwithinmethatwasproof AgainsttheNorthwind;tired,yetsothatrest Hadseemedthesweetestthingunderaroof. ThenattheinnIhadfood,fire,andrest, Knowinghowhungry,coldandtiredwasI. Allofthenightwasquitebarredoutexcept Anowl’scry,amostmelancholycry Shakenoutlongandclearuponthehill, Nomerrynote,norcauseofmerriment, ButonetellingmeplainwhatIescaped Andotherscouldnot,thatnight,asinIwent. Andsaltedwasmyfood,andmyrepose, Saltedandsobered,too,bythebird’svoice Speakingforallwholayunderthestars, Soldiersandpoor,unabletorejoice.

59Thisbeginswithabriskcountrywalk(orperhapsabicycletour,whichbothHardyandThomasoftenenjoyed)anditsroughbutsteadyiambicpentameterandregularballadrhymescheme,abcb,alongwithitssettingatthecountryinn,locateitfirmlyinthemodernEnglishpastoraltradition,alaLyricalBallads.Itmaintainsitsentropicmomentumnotjustthroughmeter,butthroughaseriesofphrases—“DownhillIcame,”“thenattheinn,”“asinIwent”—whichkeepthepoemmovingforwardineachstanza,evenasitsspeaker’sthoughtstakeafewjogsback(aswiththepastperfectinline4,discussedbelow).Thisruralidyllturnsdarkquickly,however,asthecomfortofitssteadyrhythmandpeacefulsettingareactivelyunderminedbyastrategyofcomparisonintimatelyrelatedtothecharacteristicdoublingwe’vebeentrackingsofar. Anerosiveforceofrepetitionandmorbiditythateatsawayatthespeaker’swell-beingbeginsinthefirstline,where“yetnotstarved”wantstoinvertto“notyetstarved”—whyevenincludethegrimsuperlativeto“hungry”here?Thephraseonlyservestointroduceamorbidthoughtintoanotherwisepleasantscene,andthe“yet”turnsanunnecessarycomparison(hungry≠starved)intoaterminalprogression(hungry=>starved).Thisinauguratesaseriesofworryingcomparisons.Foreverypleasure,comfortandadvantagethespeakerexperiences,heishauntedbyitsinversion,ofsomeoneexperiencingequalandoppositepainandprivation.Thethree“yet[s]”setthisup:thespeakeris“hungry,”“cold”and“tired”yeteachofthesewillbeassuagedonceheis“underaroof,”asheknowshewillbesoon.Herepeatedlyundercutshisownbasichumanneedswiththenagging“yet”thatbetrayshisprivilege.“Proof”hereseemstomeananinternalresistancetotheelementsthatechoestheimpermeabilityofitsrhymeword“roof”—andthoughThomashimselfwasnotadrinker,the“heatwithin”hisspeakerheremightalsobeawarmingnipofsomethinghighin“proof.”Thespeakeriswellprovisioned,yetanaggingcountercurrententersintothepoemwiththepastperfecttense—duringhiswalktheprospectiveofrestundertheroofofaninn“hadseemedthesweetestthing”butnowthepoem’sadmissionofcontrarystatesbeginstovitiatethatsweetness,andthisprocesscontinuesthroughoutthepoem. Thisfirststanza’slistofprivationsandprivileges,alreadyrepetitive,arerepeatedagaininthefirsttwolinesofthesecondstanza:“ThenattheinnIhadfood,fire,andrest,/Knowinghowhungry,cold,andtiredwasI.”Hesaiditwouldhappen,thenhesaysithappened—thespeakeradvancesbuthislanguagereverts,asifcaughtinaloop.Theword“knowing”isoddhere.Justasinthefirststanzathe“yet”seachfunctionedaspivotsbywhichthespeakerminimizedhisownneeds,here“knowing”functionsasahingewhichopposesallofthoseneedswiththeirfulfillments,anddividesthetwo“I”softhisstrangelyconstructedsentence.Thesentence,ineffect,hastwoverbphrases:“hadfood,fire,andrest”and“was[]hungry,cold,andtired”andtheseareyokedtoeachotherandtotheirdoubledsubject“I”bythegerund—“knowing”thesestatesleadstotheirreversal,butalsototheirrepetition(fromthecorrespondinglistsinthefirststanza).Inknowingone’sownneeds,andinsatisfyingthoseneeds,the“I”ofthispoembecomesestrangedfromitself.The“I”thatneedstransformsintothe“I”thatfeeds,andthepreviouslyneedy“I”islookedbackupon.Intheprocess,thesecondpronounispushedouttotheendofthelineandsentenceinaparticularlyawkwardinversion.Theopeningupofadistancebetweenthesetwoidentities,firstformally,thenconceptually,becomesthecentraloperationofthepoem.

60 Inthemeantime,furthersoundingthisdistance,anothervoiceentersthepoem:“Anowl’scry,amostmelancholycry.”ThisallusivequotationputsthepoemexplicitlyindialoguewiththeLyricalBallads,especiallythe“mostmelancholybird”of“TheNightingale”(thatphraseitselfaquotationfromMilton’sIlPenseroso),andalsotheansweringowlsin“ThereWasaBoy.”ThomasatfirstseemstorejectColeridge’sclaimfrom“TheNightingale”that“Innaturethereisnothingmelancholy,”butitisworthlookingcloseratthesurroundinglinesfromtheearlierpoem: ‘Mostmusical,mostmelancholy’bird! Amelancholybird?Ohidlethought! InNaturethereisnothingmelancholy.

Butsomenight-wanderingmanwhoseheartwaspiercedWiththeremembranceofagrievouswrong,Orslowdistemper,orneglectedlove,(Andso,poorwretch!fill’dallthingswithhimself,AndmadeallgentlesoundstellbackthetaleOfhisownsorrow)he,andsuchashe,Firstnamedthesenotesamelancholystrain:Andmanyapoetechoestheconceit;PoetwhohathbeenbuildinguptherhymeWhenhehadbetterfarhavestretchedhislimb

Thomasisinfactoutinghimselfasaversionofthis“night-wanderingman”—the“poorwretch”ofapoetwhobelieves“allgentlesoundstellbackthetaleofhisownsorrow.”AndsoheisnotcontestingColeridge’sclaimaboutnomelancholynature,butratherthelesserclaimthat“stretch[ing]hislimb”alleviatesmelancholy.Also,despitethequotationandsimilartheme,weoughttorememberthatThomashasswappedthenightingale’ssongforan“owl’scry.”Thenightingale’s“gentlesounds”maynotbemelancholy,butthisdarkernocturnefromAthena’sbirdofknowingoffersamuchless“musical”utterance. Theowl’svoicebringsthesensethat“thenight”svaguethreathasbeensafelyshutoutand“escaped.”Yetitsdoubled“cry”—so-calledtwiceinoneline—isalsotheechoofthedoubled“I”withwhichitrhymes,soitisquiteplainlyathingthepoethas“fill’d…withhimself.”Unabletoenjoythesatiationofhisownneedsandthesafetyofthisroofforreasonsthatemergeinthefollowingstanzas,heisalsounabletohearbeautyinthebird’ssong.Instead,itsoundsplaintive,andeven,asthespeaker’spsycheturnsinonitselfeverfurther,accusatory.Theowl’ssongevolves,inthreestanzas,fromaninarticulate“cry”to“plain…telling”to,finally,adeclamatoryvoice—“speakingforall.”Thisrhetoricalevolutiontracksthespeaker’sincreasingunderstandingofthesocialsourceofhisownprivateunease. Thethirdstanzaisbuiltonyetmorerepetition,whichreturnsthespeaker’smindtoitscold-hungry-tiredstate,evenashisbodyrestssafelyindoors.Eventhoughthespeakerhasarrivedsafelyattheinn,theowl’scrypullshimbackouttothecolddarkhill—“Shakenoutlongandclearuponthehill”soundsmorelikeanalarmthanthemellowhootofanowl.“Nomerrynotenorcauseofmerriment,”isanotherinternalrepetitionlikedownhill/hill,and,cry/cry,(cf.therepetitivesergeantfrom“SoldiersEverywhere”)whichrevealsthe

61speaker’sincreasinglyrecursivethoughts.“Thatnight,asinIwent”alsorepeatsandrevertstoanearliermomentinthepoem—he’salreadygoneintotheinn,“hadfood,fireandrest,”barringoutthenight,yethereturnstothatmomentofentrywhenheleftimagined“others”behind. Inthefinalstanza,thegrammaticalinversions(“saltedwas…”)andthesuddenlyceremonioustone(“speakingforall…unabletorejoice”)completethepoem’sdourtransitionfromafolksylyricalballadaboutgrabbingabiteattheinnintoaphantasmalinternalizationofwar.Thesalthereisbothsavoryandspoiling;itintensifiesthetasteofhisfoodtothepointofruiningit.Thateffectrepeatsinhis“repose”whichis“sobered,too,bythebird’svoice.”Hecan’trelaxandenjoyhimselfdespitehavingallhisanimalneedsmet,becausehearsthe“voice”ofwar’spoliticalandeconomicvictims,“soldiersandpoor.”Theadvocatingowl’s“speaking”istheculminationoftheverbs“knowing”and“telling”oftheprevioustwostanzas,andshowsthecoming-to-consciousnessofthepoem’sownspeaker,whograduallyshedshissolipsistic“knowing”forafull-fledgedpenetrationby“thebird’svoice/speakingforall.”Thisgeneralizingmovement,itshouldbeclear,isnotbasedontheactualsoundtheowlmakes,butthesenseofguiltthathasovertakenthespeaker’smindandspoiledwhatshouldhavebeenagoodnight’srest. Sleepingsafelyinwartimeisakindofnightmareforthecivilianspeaker,becauseheishauntedbythethoughtofsoldierswhoguaranteehiscomfort,alongwiththepoorwho“layunderthestars,”liketheploughmanfrom“APrivate.”Indeed,inthispoemthespeakertipshishand,showingthatheisinfactonethose“goodbedmen…underaroof.”Butinsteadoflookingaskanceatthosewho“sleepoutofdoors,”likethe“bores”at“TheDrover,”thisspeakeris“sobered”bytheirplight,andtheybecomeforhimapreoccupyingabsence.Thoughhedoesnotencountertheminperson,heconjurestheirimage,whichhauntshimawake.Hedoesn’tjustimaginethem,heidentifiescompletelywiththem—theycompletelyovertakehisthoughts,bywayoftheowl’srepresentativevoice,suchthatheisjustas“unabletorejoice”astheyare. StanSmithconvincinglyarguesthatthesourceofThomas’semotionalstruggles,whichbothmotivateandcastapalloroverhisart,washis“symptomaticdestiny”astheconsummaterepresentativeofahistoricalandculturalcrisisof“middleclassindividualismunderstrain,facedwiththeprospectofitsownredundancyin…anewera,struggling…tounderstandthefluxinwhichitistogodown.”(19)ThiscanserveasapreliminaryfoundationasweattempttolimnThomas’spoems’structureoffeeling.Certainlythisparticularpoemtakestheperspectiveofamiddle-classindividualundergreatpsychicstrain.Hespoilshisownpastoralsojournbyobsessingovertheparadoxbetweenhisidentificationwith,andseparationfrom,theworkingandsoldieringclasses.Further,bylumpingthesetwogroupstogether,ThomasconceptuallyoverlaystheEnglishcountrysidewiththetrenchesofthecontinent,aformalrelationshipherepeatsthroughoutthepoems.Heconstructsanimaginaryencounterwithhiscountrymen,whoaretoobrave,poor,orfarfromhometoenjoytheirownpastoralspace.Iftheycan’thaveshelterandsafety,hewon’teither.Thispoemdetailsanexperienceofwhatwemightcallpathologicalempathy,whenone’sownfeelingapparatusisutterlyoverwhelmedanddestabilizedbythesufferingofothers. Itisconstructivetocomparetheformalstructuresanddynamicsofthispoemtoanalmostexactlycontemporaneousdocumentofthestruggletoexplainwithmetaphorswhat

62thehumanminddoeswithsuffering.Inthe1915article“TheUnconscious”SigmundFreudaddedan“economicpointofview,”tohis“topographicalanddynamic”conceptionsofthemind’sstructures,which“endeavourstofollowoutthevicissitudesofamountsofexcitation”orquantifyandtrackthepsychicenergieswhichdrivetheconsciousandunconsciousmind(581).Thomas’spoemisutterlypervadedbypsychicenergyandentropytransformedintoimageryofmotionandstasis.Fromthekineticenergyof“downhill”and“shaken,”tothemanycaloricdeficitsandyields(foodandhungerfeatureinthreeoffourstanzas),thefire,heatandcold,activityandfatigue,restandrepose—thispoemisafigurativecombustionengine.Addtothisthepoem’sfocusonin-and-outmovement,transmissionandexchange—bodiesmovinginandoutofshelter,and“thenight”“barredout”evenastheowlscryforcesitswayin.Thepoemisclearlyworkingoutatheoryofenergyandexchangethatissimultaneouslypsychic,socialandmaterial.ThisisnottosayThomas’senergeticconceptisidenticaltotheFreudianeconomicfactor,whichisitselfcharacteristicallydynamic,variable,andvague,butratheraparallelattempttoconceiveofemotionandidentityinenergetictermsisatworkinbothwriters,andsoexplanatoryterminologyandstructuresprovidedexplicitlyassuchinFreudcanrendersomeofThomas’smoreimplicitstructureseasiertoread.39 Despiteattaining“food,fire,andrest”thespeakerstillfindsavoidinhimself(“nomerrynote,norcauseofmerriment”)whichheproceedstofillwiththesufferingofthose“unabletorejoice.”Theirtroublesenterhimthroughtheowl’scry,whichchangesoverthecourseofthreestanzasfroma“melancholy”patheticfallacy,toa“plain”note,beforefinallybecominga“sober”politicalappeal“forallwholayunderthestars.”RememberingColeridge’schargethatthemelancholypoet“fill[s]allthingswithhimself,”andaddingadoseofFreud’seconomicfactor,wecanimagineascenarioinwhichthedisplacementofhisnarcissisticenergies—hispersonal,unproductivemelancholy—ontothe“owl’scry”inthesecondstanzaleavesavacuumreadytobefilledwiththeneedsanddesiresofothersinthefinalstanza.Thisstructurecohereswiththepoem’sprogressionfromhungertofullnessandcoldtowarmth,andthespeaker’srepetitive“I/cry”givingwaytothe“voice”of“all.”ItalsofindssupportinaremarkfromanotherofFreud’sfamouswartimeessays“MourningandMelancholia,”whichdescribestheaffectivedisorderThomasreadilyadmittedhimselfhaving:

Thecomplexofmelancholiabehaveslikeanopenwound,drawingtoitselfcathecticenergies…fromalldirections,andemptyingtheegountilitistotallyimpoverished.Itcaneasilyproveresistanttotheego’swishtosleep.(589)

Inthepoemtheprocessofegoimpoverishmentisexpressednotjustinafeelingofphysicalemptiness,butthroughapsychicidentificationwith“soldiersandpoor.”Likewisethe“drawingtoitselfcathecticenergies”isafinedescriptionofthewaytheowl’scrypiercesthespeaker’sshelterand“repose”andproceedstoimposeacomplexofguiltandcommiserationthatmustarisefromthespeaker’sunconsciousneeds(whichistosay,39EdnaLongleymakesalimitedbutconvincingargumentforThomasasafundamentallypsychoanalyticpoet,notingthatitwasintherapywithGodwinBaynes(acollaboratorandEnglishtranslatorofJung)wherehelearnedtoabstracthimselffromhis“isolatedselfconsideringbrain”andtreathismelancholyas“psychodrama”tobedetachedlysublimatedintowriting(13–14,21).

63again,wearenotmeanttobelievetheowlactuallyspeaksinlanguage,butthatitevokesthesethoughts).AsintheFreud,sleepbecomesimpossible. Ifweconceiveofthespeaker’ssatedandexhausteddesiresasquantitiesofenergy,thenwemightseehowthemelancholicinarticulate“cry”imposedontheowlbytheisolated,guilt-riddenselfistransformedintocapaciousthesocio-political“voice”ofanentireclassoflessfortunatepeople.It’sthesamesoundheardbythesamesilentspeaker,butasthespeaker’segoisemptiedandbeginstoconcentrateor“cathect”energyfromoutsidesources,thesound’spolarityisreversed.Theemptycrybecomesafulfillingspeechwhenthelistenerisnolongerfocusedonhisattenuatingego,andreplacesitshollownesswith“all…soldiersandpoor.”Despiteallhiscomfortsandadvantagesinthepoem(orperhapsbecauseofthem),Thomas’sspeakerishauntedbydoubleswithwhomheidentifiesandwhosestrugglehesubstitutesforhisown.InThomas’scasetheobverseprocessofradicalidentificationwithanother—maybeacause,maybeaneffectofthisprocess—isself-alienation(recallthe“tiredwasI”line).Hebeginstosuspecthisdoubleisthetruer,betterself.III.Soldiers’Work ExpandingtothebroaderpatternofrepetitionanddoublesinThomas,webegintoseehowitisnotjustsounds,wordsandfigureswithinsinglepoemsthatare“redoubledandredoubled”(toquoteWordsworth’sowls)inthepoems,butthemesandfiguresthatrepeatacrossseparatepoems.Theploughmanwho“sleptoutofdoors”in“APrivate”returnsin“TheOwl”inthemoreabstractbutequallyaffectingformof“allwholayunderthestars,/Soldiersandpoor.”Bothpoemsidentifyandcollapsethesetwocategories,“Soldiersandpoor,”intoone,thenopposethatcategorytothespeaker’sprivilegeandsafety.TogetabettersenseforhowThomas’sdoublingworksacrosspoemsinadditiontowithinthem,wemighttakeuptwopairsofpoemsthatareexplicitlylinked—doublepoems—onepairthroughtheirsharedtitle“Digging”;theotherpairedbymeansofaspecificpoeticformandacorrespondingconceptualstructure.Here’sthelatterpair: InMemoriam(Easter,1915) Theflowersleftthickatnightfallinthewood ThisEastertidecallintomindthemen, Nowfarfromhome,who,withtheirsweethearts,should Havegatheredthemandwilldoneveragain. TheCherryTrees Thecherrytreesbendoverandareshedding Ontheoldroadwhereallthatpassedaredead, Theirpetals,strewingthegrassasforawedding ThisearlyMaymornwhenthereisnonetowed.

64Writtenayearandamonthapart,thefirstinApril1915andthesecondinMay1916,thesepoemsareobviouslyvariationsonasharedthemeandform,echoingeachotheracrosstheyearinwhichThomasenlistedandbeganhistraining,justastheyarethemselvesaboutakindofecho,whichdiminishesabeautifulinstance—the“flowers”and“petals”—intothemournfulabsencesinthe“never”and“none”oftheirlastlines.Inboth,flowersthatmightconventionallysymbolizepromiseandrenewalareironicallyrepurposedtomarkdeathandloss,muchlikethehawthornsin“APrivate.”Bothpoemsconsistofasinglesentencestretchedacrossfourlinesrhymedabab.TheyarealsoamongoftheveryfewpoemsinThomas’sentireoeuvrewhichdonotcontainthepronoun“I”;theybothimplyasinglespeakerintheirobservationalviewpoints,butthelossestheylimnandthemourningtheyenactarebroadlysocialthroughgeneralizingformslike“themen”“all/none.” “InMemoriam”evokesanotherdouble,invokingTennyson’sfamouselegywhilereversingitsmethod.Insteadofinnumerablequatrainscommemoratingasingledeath,Thomasdeploysasinglequatraintocommemoratecountlessdeaths,andinsteadofthefamousenclosedabbastanzathatopensaconceptualspacebetweenrhymes,thismorepedestrianababformsnapsfirmlyshut,resolvingintodefeatedsilence.Tennysonslowlyaccumulatesversesofincrementaltheologicalquestioningandhard-wonconsolation;Thomasmovesquicklyfromplantlifetohumandeath.ThisisyetanotheriterationofThomas’smodernizationofthepastoralmode,fitfortheindustrializedscaleofdeathbroughtbytotalwar—complexintosimple—millionsofdead:fourlines. Thepoemalsomanagesasubtledigatreligiousconsolation:unliketheoriginalEasterheroics,thesemendon’triseand“willdoneveragain.”Thomas’s,“Eastertide”—thetermstretchesthedayintoaseasonandgivesitgravitationalpull—offersnotregeneration,butfalsepromisesandtotalloss.Thetwosituatingphrases,“nightfallinthewood”and“Nowfarfromhome”refernotjusttotherespectivelocationsofthespeakerandtheabsentmenbrought“intomind,”butalsoserveasdoubleeuphemismsfordeathinadistinctlypaganregister.Thesemenhavenot“gonehome”totheirsavior,they’vecrossedoveradarkHadeanchannel. The“flowers”alsodoubleasthemarkersoffallenmen,likethehundredhawthornsin“APrivate,”they“callintomind”deadsoldiers,whoarealso“leftthickatnightfallinthewood”—notthisEnglishwood,butitsdarkercounterpartoverseas.Andaswe’vealsoseenbefore,Thomascollapsesseveraldifferenttimeframesintothetightspaceofalineortwo:Thehistorical“Now”of“(Easter1915)”withitsenclosingparentheses,enfoldsboththeforeclosedfutureof“willdo”andtheseveredpastof“neveragain.”Therhymes“wood/should”(withthepunon“would”)and“men/[never]again”reinforcethedoublefigureofatimeofloss(Eastertide/wartime)asalossoftime(shouldhave/neveragain);thewar’sownrepetitioustimelinerobsthemenandtheirsweetheartsofboththefutureandthepastwheretheyshouldhavebeentogether,repopulatingtheearth.The“flowersleftthick”arethoroughlyironizedtorepresentwasteinsteadfertility.Insumthepoemisadevastatingepitaphforyouth,whichcategoricallyexcludesanysenseofheroismorsacrificeinitsgnomicreferencetothewar.Thewarheremanifestsonlyasculturalwaste,whichspoilstheexperienceofnaturalbeautybycoming“intomind”whereitisnotwanted.

65 Ayearlater,Thomasrevisitsthisformwithafewinterestingdifferences.Themetaphoroflossshiftsfromcourtship(“sweethearts”)tomarriage,fromApriltoMay,andinsteadofinthewoods,thelaterpoemtakesplace“ontheoldroad.”Thepunningredundancyof“allthatpassedaredead”ismoredirect,resigned,andcynicalintone,andcomesearlierinthequatrainthantheawkward,lateinversionofthefirstpoem’s“willdoneveragain,”suggestingthatdeathisamorefamiliar,lessuncomfortablesubjectforthepoetoneyearlater.Asforthedeadthemselves,themorespecific“men”and“theirsweethearts”ofthefirstpoemhaveevacuatedtotheabstractpronouns“all”and“none”inthesecond.Ageneralizedstructureofabsenceandlosshasbecomemorefamiliartothepoetthantheintimatesocialformsithassuperseded. Thepossessivepronoun“Their”inlinethreeisforcedtododoubledutybythelinebreak.The“petals”belongobviouslytothe“ben[t]over”treesbutalsoto“allthatpassed,”theirmultitudinousdeathsrepresentedbythe“shedding”and“strewing”actionsofnature.Theemotionescalatesinthissecondpoemfromtenderregrettoironicoutrage,asinsteadofthesomber“nightfall”andEaster’ssuggestionoflifeindeath(albeitironicallyreversed),theobsequiesof“TheCherryTrees”takeplaceonan“earlyMaymorn”perfectlysuitedforawedding.Thisamplificationisalsovisibleintheironicrhymes,where“shedding/wedding”and“dead/wed”aggressivelyunderminetheforceofculturalregenerationwithastrongeropposingentropy.Thecentralrhymesound“-ed-”isrepeatedinallfourlines,thesyllable“wed”twice.Thispoemnotonlyrepeatstheconceitofitspredecessor,itdoublesdown. Whatelsehaschangedfromthefirstpoemtothesecond,from1915to1916?Forone,themoresocialformsof“home”andone-on-onecourtshipgatheringflowersinthewoodshavebeenreplacedwiththemorebroadlyculturalformsofthe“road”andthe“wedding.”Weddingsaccrueformal,legal,andreligioussignificancesontopofthebasicreproductiveprocess,transformingsexintoculture—botharedestroyedhere.Likewisethe“oldroad,”thoughitisfamiliarandcomfortinginitsway,alsoimpliescommerce,transmissionandtheurbanizingRomanlineagemorethanthesymbolicliminalspaceof“thewood”fromthefirstpoem.Thoughtheearlierpoem’svisionoflosswasgenerationalanddiffuse,itwasalsomoreplacidandprivate.Thelaterpoem’slamentfeelsedgierandmorepoliticized.Thefinalline—“ThisearlyMaymornwhenthereisnonetowed"—withitspunon“mourn,”ismuchmoreexplicitinitschargeofculturalfailureandpoliticalfolly.Thevoiceofthispoem,whichproclaimswithanarchauthorityreminiscentofHardy,says:“Wehaveswappedfuneralsforweddings,wehavecluttered“theoldroad”whichoughttoconveyustothegoodspacesofhomeandcommunity,andwearenowcarelessly“shedding”and“strewing”ournation’syouth.”Ifnotforthedateinitstitle,firstpoemofthispairmightstillbereadasagenericlamentforpassingtimeandlostyouth,withthewarlurkinginthebackgroundbutnotnecessaryforthepoem’sfunction.Whilerelinquishingflowerycourtshipissurelyregrettable,itisnotonlyafeatureofwartimebutofallmaturity.Nosuchahistoricalreadingispossibleforthesecondpoem,withitsmoreexplicitreferencetomassdeath.Eventhewaythetrees“bendover”asifinpainrevealthispoem’smoreaggrievedstancetowardshistory.Anationwith“nonetowed,”hasceasedtoprogressandisonanotherkindofRoman“road”—thepathofself-inflicteddeclineandfall.

Thistacticofdoublingapreviouspoem,ofrepeatingitsformsanditsthemes,whileintensifyingitsnegativeaffect,isawayforThomastoregisterthetensionbetween

66ideologicalstasisandpoliticalchangefrom1915to1916.Thepoethasnotchangedmuchinhisopinionofthewar’seffects—ontheeerilyemptycountryside,andonhisownmournfulstateofmind—buthehasmovedawayfromeuphemismandsubtlety.TheemergentstructureoffeelingThomasisrelayinghereasthewarcontinuesitsharrowingcourseshiftsfromanostalgic,almostwistfulregretintoamuchmorehardeneddespair.Thesecondsetofdoublepoemsregistersadifferentprogression,lessanemotionalintensificationandmorelikeadeeperinternalizationofwar’sdisruptiveeffectsintotheverystuffoflanguageandthought.Here’sthefirst“Digging”:

TodayIthinkOnlywithscents,—scentsdeadleavesyield,Andbracken,andwildcarrot’sseed,Andthesquaremustardfield;

OdoursthatriseWhenthespadewoundstherootsoftree,Rose,currant,raspberry,orgoutweed,Rhubarborcelery;

Thesmoke’ssmell,too,FlowingfromwhereabonfireburnsThedead,thewaste,thedangerous,Andalltosweetnessturns.

ItisenoughTosmell,tocrumblethedarkearth,Whiletherobinsingsoveragain

SadsongsofAutumnmirth.Thisdeceptivelysimpleaccountofsensoryexperienceisyetanotherpoempredicatedondoubling,bothinitstechniqueand—moreobliquelyperhaps—initscontent,aboutthewaywartimeformsadarkcounterparttoquotidianlife.Themetricalformofthepoemisapportionedtosuggestthissecondsense:eachofthefourquatrainsisbuiltoftwolongerfour-stresslinescontainedbytwoshorterlinesofthreestresseseach.Thefirstlinesofeachstanzafeeloverloadedinbothsignificanceandrhythmbecause,astheypacktheirthreeemphaticbeatsintoonlyfoursyllables,theyalsoeachinitiateweightysentencesthatarethenenjambedintothefollowinglines,whichproceedtounfoldthepoem’swealthofnaturaldetail.Thisstructure,functioninglikeaninternalizedcallandresponse,createsasenseoftensionandmomentuminapoemthatmightotherwisereadlikeagardenseedcatalogue.Theevenlinesareendrhymed,theoddlinesarenot,buteverystanzahasapreponderanceofinternalrhymes,slants,andrepetitions,suchthatalmostnowordinthepoemstandsalone,withoutanechosomewhereelse.Someoftheseechoesservetointensifythesoundswithinalineorstanza,withdoublealliterationslike“scents/scents”(2),“root/rhubarb;rose/raspberry”(6–8),“smoke’ssmell”(9),”bonfire/burns”(10),“sings/songs”(15—16).Otherssoundacrossstanzastosuggestmoreabstract

67correspondences,like“carrot/currant”(3,7),“seed/-weed”(3,7),“dead/dead”(2,11),“smell,too/Tosmell”(9,14).Allofthissonicdoublingleadsustothekindofabstract,conceptualdoublingthatthepoemwantsustoengageinwithoutitsexplicithelp.Ourattentionisinevitablydrawntowordsthatdenoteonethinginthepoem’sapparentpastoralcontext,butseemliketheymustalsorefertosomethingelse,somewhereelse.Wordslike“Digging…dead…mustard…spade…wounds…smoke…burns…dead…waste…dangerous…dark…sad”seemtobeliftedfromanotherpoem—aboutafigure“digging”trenchesandgravesinsteadofgardenbeds.RecallingPaulFussell’s“PersistentEnemy,”thispoemborrowslanguagefromthelexiconofwartointimateacommentaryonhowpoliticalviolencepervadesandinfectsthelanguageofallpeopleinitsrange.Itusesthecoverofgardeningtocultivateastructureoffeelingthatisnotjustvaguelyominousbutdecidedlymorbid. Iinclude“mustard”inthelistof“doubled”wordsforitsobviousevocationofthehorrificchemicalweaponthatfeaturessoprominentlyinaccountsofWWI.ButIshouldaddthatinlateApril1915whenthispoemwaswritten,gaswasonlyjustbeginningtobeusedroutinelyasaweaponontheWesternfront,andmustardgasinparticularwouldn’tcomeintocommonuseuntilitsinfamousdebutatYpresin1917.Yetthedebateabouttheproprietyofchemicalwarfarewaswellunderway.40Still,thefactthatthenameofthisspeciallypiquantbututterlycommonplantwouldlatertakeonsuchanappallingassociationshowsexactlyhowstructuresoffeelingmovegraduallyandunconsciouslyacrosstime.ThatwarthusinfectsthelanguagewhichpervadesThomas’spoemshasmuchtodowiththeposthumousfametheybroughthim.HebecameapowerfulpoetofwarwithouteverhavingbeenaWarPoet,perse,preciselybecauseofthetalenthehadforlettingtheshadowofhistoricaleventsdarkenhispoemswithoutoverrunningthemcompletely:thispoemisoneoftheconsummateexamplesofthistechnique.Thomasshowshowwarhauntsourlanguageevenwhenitisnotpartofourpersonallivedexperience. Andoddly,inthispoemitisthepredominanceofscentswhichdothiswork;ratherthanrootingthespeakerinthehere-and-nowofsensoryexperience,theyallowhimto“think”acrosstheliteral(geographic)andfigurative(psychological)gapsbetweenhimandotherdiggerselsewhere.Unlikesightortouch,smelloftenindicatesphysicalabsenceratherthanpresence,andoftenactsasawarning,anindicationofsomethingunseenbutnearby.Likewise,smellisconventionallyassociatedwithmemory,withpastthoughtsandassociationsthatreturn,ghost-like,withthescentsthatfirstaccompaniedasince-forgottenexperience.Noneofthisisexactlyexplicitinthepoem,butitgivesusanideaofwhatthinking“onlywithscents”(withoutsense)mightmean.Hoveringabovetherealmofmaterialthings,andjustoutsidethementalspaceoftheself-consideringspeaker,therearescents,associationsandmemories,onlybarelycommunicable.Thissupraverbalrealmdrivesthecascadingparataxisofthefirsttwostanzas,whereleaves,weeds,trees,berries,herbsandrootsminglewithoutanyapparentorderorusevalue.We’reofferedplantsatthebeginningoftheirlifecycle(“mustardseed”)andattheirend(“deadleaves”)andeverystageinbetween,foodstuffsandpoisonssidebyside.Atonceonefeelsconfidentlysituatedbythisspecificity,yetalsomadeuneasybyitsformlesspreponderance.Thatis,thefloraareatonceconfidentlyspecificandmeaninglesslymixedtogether;thethoughtsthatthey

40SeeEksteins,161–4,andTrumpener,passim.

68mightfertilizeareopaque,justoutsidetherealmofthesociallycommunicable.Whatexactlyisthisspeakersodesperatenottothinkorsay? Butifweareleftmostlywithouttherelationshipsormeaningsamongthesesmells,weareprovidedwithsomespatialandtemporalmarkersthatmightsituateus.First,literally,is“Today,”awordthatestablishesthepoemasmoreimmediateandintimatethansomeoftheotherswe’velookedatwhichwanderthroughhistoryandmemory.Thatimmediacypersistsinthepoem’sreliablepresenttense.Next,althoughweareplacedinapastoralspacebythefirststanza,andpossiblyanautumnalonewith“deadleaves,”itisnotuntilthesecondstanza’sopening—with“Odoursthatrise/whenthespadewoundstheroot”—thatweseetheactivityofthepoem’stitle,remindingusthatthespeakerisindeedworkinginthedirt.Theverbs“rise”and“wounds”reversethepassiveseepofthefirststanza’s“dead…yield,”andintroduceavaguelyreligiousregister.“Odoursthatrise”from“wounds”howeversuggestsphysicaltraumaandthenoteofsepsisisreinforcedbythedisruptingpresenceof“goutweed”inalistthatwouldotherwisemakealovelysalad.Thisisnot,inotherwordsahealthygarden.Somethingisrotten. Thispoem’sprocessofturningorganicdecayintoanexistentialthreatreachesitsapotheosisinstanzathree’s“bonfire,”anintensifiedechoofHardy’ssmoking“couch-grass.”“Smoke’ssmell”isasoftenportentousasitishomely;likewisea“bonfire”isasoftendestructiveasitiscelebratory.Thesetroublingdoublesensesareagainthecentralstructuringformofthepoem,withanaccumulatingatmosphereofmenaceaswepassthrough“thedead,thewaste,thedangerous”beforewecanreachthedubious“sweetness”ontheotherside.Indeed,toaccess“sweetness”wemustfirstdigandburn.Thisconflagration,morethananyofthepoem’sotherolfactoryimages,reeksofwar. Inthepairoffour-linepoemsdiscussedabovewesawthatThomasexplicitlyassociatedbotanicalimageslikeflowersfallingtothegroundwiththe“waste”ofwar.Inthispoemthisassociationissimultaneouslymorevagueandmoreinsistent.Here“Youngmen”deadorinperilareneverexplicitlynamed,noraretheprocreativeculturalprocesseslikecourtshipandmarriageplacedunderthreat;yetthepoemstillmanagestoconveymorepotentialviolencethanthepassive,ruefullamentsof“InMemoriam”and“CherryTrees.”Partofthishastodowith“Digging”’sstrategyofaccumulatingmenacebitbybit,inclippedimagesandphrases,“deadleaves…spadewounds…smoke’ssmell…”whichindependentlymightfeelrelativelyinnocuous,ifalittlebleak,butinseriesinvokeanaccumulatingatmosphereofdread.Thispoemgainsmuchofitspowerofforebodingpreciselybyitsrefusaltonamethesourceofitsthreat. In“TheOwl”itwaswalking,eating,andespeciallysleepingwhichtheciviliancouldnotenjoywhilehisbeleaguereddoublesweresuffering;hereitisdigging,gardening,workingtheland(recallingtheploughmanaswell),whichtakeonadifferent,darkertenorinwartime.Butthisdarknessisalsooddlyalluring.Thenotionofbeingburnedawaytonothing,likeboththesuggestivelyladenpileofyardwaste—“thedead,thewaste,thedangerous”—andthelegionofwardeaditcan’thelpbutevoke,isevokedwiththephrase“alltosweetnessturns”whichrecallsBrooke’sregrettable“intocleannessleaping.”Theirresistible“sweetness”ofannihilationisfoundalsointhebreakdownoftheinnovativeprojectof“thinkingwithscents”asthatoldpoeticstandby,birdsong,interruptsthepoem’solfactoryregister.Itisnotclearwhetherthespeakerisactuallyhearingthefamiliarandrepetitive“sadsongs”oftherobin,because“Itisenough/tosmell”suggestshemightbe

69shuttingouttheconflicting“Sadsongsofautumnmirth”toremaininhistrance-likestateof“sweetness.”Butifthebirddoesnotinterruptthespeaker,itstillinterruptsthepoem,complicatingitwithaconfusingpatheticfallacy.“Itisenough”alsosoundsalmostlikeconsolation,evenfulfillment,suchthatonemightfooloneselfintothinkingforamomentthiswasjustapoemaboutoneman’sloveofworkinginhisgarden.Andforamomentitisthatpoem.Butinthesamemomentitoscillatesbacktoitsdarkestpoint:“tosmell,tocrumblethedarkearth”istofallfacefirstintothatearthandbeburiedinit(orworseyet,leftunburied,amotifwewillfindinOwen’spoemsfromthefront).Itshouldnotsurpriseusthatthepoem“digging”endsinakindofgrave,withanotherthrenody:“therobinsingsoveragain/SadsongsofAutumnmirth.”Thebirdherebearsambivalentwitnesstothisseasonofdeathanddying.Hersongisrepetitive,inevitable,“sad,”butalsosomewhatbemused.“Autumnmirth”isnotjustastrangehappinessthat’soutofseason,itisautumnalhappiness,awrywelcomeintodeath’s“darkearth.” AndrewMotionclaimsofthispoemthat“whatappearstobedestructiveispurgative”(163)andthatThomasmaintainsa“balanceofdeath’sattractionsandlife’sdemands”whichonlygiveswayinlaterpoemstothe“chillingcertaintyofannihilation”(132).Ihavetriedtoshowthat,onthecontrary,the“certaintyofannihilation”isalreadypresenthereasawarmingconsolationtothecoldbrutalityof“life’sdemands.”Webegintonotice,inThomasthat“death’sattractions”aremoredominantthanlife’s,thatindeedpoetryisthespacewheretheimageofdeathastheplaceofrestisanunderlyingfactorinhisrepeatedidentificationwithsleepingsoldiers.WhatisstrikingandcounterintuitiveisthattheseimagesbegintolightenThomas’smoodconsiderably. Thesecondpoemcalled“Digging”takesupitsspadeexactlywhereitspredecessorended,indarkearthandsadmirth,whileinvokingwarandhistorymuchmoreexplicitly,andwithlightertone: Whatmattermakesmyspadefortearsormirth, Lettingdowntwoclaypipesintotheearth? TheoneIsmoked,theotherasoldier OfBlenheim,Ramilies,andMalplaquet Perhaps.Thedeadman’simmortality Liesrepresentedlightlywithmyown, Ayardortwonearerthelivingair Thanbonesofancientswho,amazedtosee AlmightyGoderectthemastodon, Oncelaughed,orwept,inthissamelightofday.Thesametitleandtherepetitionof“mirth”inthefirstlinelinksthetwopoems,alongwiththeimagesofspadeandsmoke.Bothpoemsmediatebetweenthe“matter”of“darkearth”andthelightnessof“livingair,”tothinkabouttheinterminglingstatesoflifeanddeath.Yetthispoeticdoubleisaverydifferentkindofexploration.Foroneitismuchlooserinformandlighterinmood,beginningwithitspunningopeningquestion“Whatmatter[?]”Thereisanuncharacteristicinsouciancehere,whichsuggestsashiftinattitudetowardstheconflictedselfanditsemotionalimpasses(“tearsormirth?”).Thequestion’stonesuggeststhatthereis,infact,no“matter”tothesefeelings,andthatfinallylettinggooftheirholdon

70themindisaseasyas“lettingdowntwoclaypipesintotheearth.”Thisrhymeistheonlyoneinthepoem,anotherconventionletgo.Butaligning“mirth”and“earth”isalsoawayofplacingasimplepleasurethere,likethepleasureofsmokingapipe.The“twoclaypipes”arethenturnedfrommere“matter”intometonymsfortheirsmokers,both“intotheearth,”onealiveanddigging,theotherlongdead,hisbodyalsoturnedtomereclay.Clayandwords,asthenames“OfBlenheim,Ramilies,andMalplaquet”placethedeadsoldierinhistoricalbattlesalongsidetheDukeofMarlborough,onwhomThomashadjustdrudginglygroundoutacommissionedbiography.41ThesebattlesintheWarofSpanishSuccession(1701–1714),namedasspecificallyastheyare,seemliketheymustbesignificant.OnemightofferthehistoricalironythattheywereallfoughtinalliancewiththePrussiansagainsttheFrench.OrthatRamiliesisinFlanders,MalplaquetnearYpresandMons,andthatallthreelocaleshavebeentradedbetweenwarringnationsrepeatedlysinceThomas’sanonymous“soldier”foughtthere.ButeventhisactivityofhistoricalreclamationrevealssomethingaboutThomas’snewinsouciantmode,wherebymomentousbattlesofthepastarereducedtomerenames,destinedtobecheapenedbyhackhistorianslikehimselfandsoontobereplacedbyothernames,inanendlesschain.AndthenThomasusesthelightlydropped“Perhaps”tofurtherunderminethesignificanceofthesenames,exposingthewholeconstructionasmerespeculation. Butoneinterestingfactdoesremain,whichlinksthispoemsignificantlytoitspredecessorandyetchangesthestakesconsiderably.WhereasthefirstpoemclearlytookplaceinanEnglishgarden(“rhubarbandcelery”),theplace-namesheresuggestourdiggermaynowbeonthecontinent,hisownpipeandspadepartofhisnewsoldierlyparaphernalia.42Indeed,theidentificationwith“asoldier”ofthepastisquitedirect,“Thedeadman’simmortality/Lieslightlyrepresentedwithmyown”—acomplexyetsimpleconstructionofdoubleness.Neithermanistrulyimmortal,obviously,buttheir“representation”inthe“pipes”andinthepoemplacesthemsidebysideonatimelinethatismuchlongerthanthatinThomas’shistorybook.“Lies”alsotakesadoublemeaninghere:thankstoitspositionatthelinebreakthewordalsosuggestsuntruths,perhapsurgingaskepticstancetowardsconceptslikehistoryand“immortality”whicharealso“representedlightly”inthepoem’srhetoric. Thelinesofthispoemfunctionlikethelayersofanarchaeologicaldig,movingfurtherbackintimewitheachdownwardstep,whileholdingvasttimespansinsuchtightproximitythattheybegintointermix.The“twoclaypipes,”articlesofpleasureandleisure,arealighterarchaeologicalsignifierthanthesoldiers’weaponsorboneswouldbe.Buttheirsuggestivediscovery(orplacement,asitwere)alsogoadsthedigger“ayardortwo”deeper,untilheimaginesthe“bonesofancients.”Thisiswherethispoemcrossesoverfromlightlywhimsicaltodeeplystrange.Thelayeringof200yearsofrelativelyrecenthistorygiveswaytoawildspeculativevisionofhunter-gatherersand,reachingevenfurtherback,totheprimordialepochofcreationmyths,whenthrough“amazed”ancient41InalettertoFroston3May1915Thomaswrote:“Youareenjoyingthisperiod…ifyouweren’tyououghttobe,becauseyouarenotwritingaboutMarlborough.”Andlater:“IfindIcan’twrite[poetry]…there’sMarlboroughbehindandMarlboroughbefore”(110)42Tobeclear(andhistorical),ThomashimselfwouldnothavebeenonthecontinentinJuly1915whenthispoemwaswritten.Buthehadenlisted,andsohewritesasasoldierhereanditissignificantthathisspeaker/diggermaybeinFrance.

71eyeswesee,“AlmightyGoderectthemastodon.”Themoststrikingandsurprisingaspectofthispoem,then,isnothow“lightly”itlooksatwarandsoldiersfromadeephistoricalratherthanshallowpoliticalperspective,butratherhowquicklyitmovespastwarandpoliticsaltogether,usingthemonlyasabriefway-stationonajourneyintoaprehistoricalphantasmagoriaintenlinesorless. Thomas’spoetrysorarelyventuresintothetheologicalrealmthatitisworthlingeringamomentonthestrangeappearanceof“AlmightyGod”lateinthispoem.Thereverentamazementofthe“ancients”isheldincontrasttothelightercuriosityofthedigger,whosesenseofawehasbeendulledbyhismodern,compartmentalizedknowledgeofthelayeringandlengtheningofthepastofferedbyhistory,archaeology,geology,andtheology,suchthatherespondswith“whatmatter?”Andyetthemonotheisticepithetisequallyincongruouswiththe“ancients”andtheir“mastodon,”suggestingabitofepochalconfusion,andperhapsanotherhintofmodernirreverence.Thomasbetrays(inbothsenses)hisknowledgeofarcheologyandthefossilrecordasawayofundermining,quiteliterally,theculturalformationsoftheIronAgeandeighteenthcenturygeopolitics.“AlmightyGod”wouldmostcertainlynotbeonthelipsofStoneAgemen(atleastnotinasmanywords),sobyplacingitthereThomasslylysignalsourtendencytoseewhatwewantinthepast,toandrestructureitasareflectionofourselves.Wecan’tknow,ofcourse,thethoughtsoremotionsoftheancientsfromtheirbonesalone,sounlesswecanunearthsomeoftheirownrepresentations,werelyonourownimaginaryreconstructions.ItcomfortsThomastoimaginethese“ancients”experiencingtheaweandreverencethathenolongerfeels. Inthepoem’slastlineThomasclearlyexposesthisnarcissisticperspectivism.Byponderingwhetherthe“ancients”“laughed,orwept”hereturnsustothe“tearsormirth”oflineone(andoftheprevious“Digging”poem).Despitediggingintoprehistorictimes,heremainsstuckinhismindinthepresent,inarepetitiveloop.Aflatteningofhistoryoccurs“inthissamelightofday”suchthatmastodons,dynasticbattlesandmodestclaypipesall“lie”together,their“matter”anunreliablerepresentationofthelivestheyoncetouched.“Thissamelightofday”hasasimilarlevelingqualityas“alltosweetnessturns,”reducingthedetailedparticularsofthepoemtoanundifferentiated,unmeaningmass.Butthisisnotafailureofthepoemsomuchasitsbasicstrategy—tothinkabouthowtimesothoughtlesslyerasesstrongemotions,singlelives,famousbattles,andgiantanimalsalikeintothesamematter/clay/earth.Thislong,slowreturntoorganichomogeny,spedupbypoetictechnique,isnottragedybutaseductiveentropy.Repetition,onceagain,isthebestmeansofarrivingbackwhereonebegan. Thoughthesecond“Digging”featuresmanyofthefunctionsofrepetitionandreturnwe’veseenelsewhere,thispoemalsoseems,initsbrightertone,tohavefoundadifferentaffectivemodeandformalstrategy,stillbuiltondoublesandrepetitionsoffamiliarimagesandforgottenthings,butwithadifferentstructureoffeeling.Tolimnthissubtleshift,itwillhelptoreturntoFreud.BeyondthePleasurePrinciple(1920)wasinpartanefforttoexplainthedescentandregressionofFreud’sbelovedhighEuropeancivilizationintotribalaggressionsandwar.Init,Freudpusheshistheoriesaboutman’srepetitioncompulsionpastasimplepleasurablereturntopastexperiences,intoanunconsciousmentalstrategythatoverridesthepleasureprincipleanditspressuresonthelivingorganismtodevelopandprogress,leadingeventuallytoanaggressiveinstinctturnedinward—theinfamous

72deathdrive.The“livingorganism”atthecenterofFreud’sconstructionisasimplifiedbiologicalprecursorofwhatlaterbecomesthewholecentralnervoussystem(whichFreuddoesnotdifferentiatefromthemind).Thatis,“laterbecomes”inFreud’stextandinhistheoryasitevolvesbeforeoureyes,butalsolaterinthelifecycleandtheevolutionofthe“livingorganism,”whichstandsinforalllifeformsorganicandmental.Freud’sflexible,metaphoricaltreatmentoftime,alongsidehiscommitmenttocarefullyarticulatedbutconstantlyevolvingmodels—inaword,hisformalism—iswhatmakeshimsuchaseductivepartnerfordiscussingpoems,especiallythesepoemssovitallyconcerned,ashewas,withEurope’sself-destruction. Hebeginshisdiscussionofthedrivesimagining“themostsimplifiedpossibleform…anundifferentiatedvesicleofasubstance…susceptibletostimulation,”graduallyaddinglayers,literalandfigurative,materialandtheoreticalinturn,untilhearrivesatamodelforhumanconsciousnessthatsatisfieshisemergingtheory.AlongthewayFreudwaversbetweentreatingthisur-organismasanactualbiologicalformand/orasformalmetaphorforvariousfunctionsofthemind,orthemindinitsentirety.Iamsuggesting,first,thatFreud’sprocessoflayeringresemblesThomas’sin“Digging”inthesensethattheolder,moreprimitiveforms(“thebonesofancients…themastodon”)arenotsupplantedbythenewer,morecomplexforms,butpersistwithinandalongsidethemandcanserveasmodelsforunderstandinghigherorderfunctionsandfeelings.Samematter,sameclay,sametearsandmirth,justadifferent(butanalogous)setofformalarrangements.Thomas’sjourney“intotheearth”andbackintimeisalsosimultaneouslyajourneyintohisownconsciousness,anattempttothrowofftheanxietiesofitshighest,mostcomplexformandgetbacktoanearlieraffectivestateofamazement,laughterandtearsthatfeelslikeithasdisappearedintoanancient(andmostlymetaphorical)past. Freud’sdesiretotalkaboutthemind’sprocessesbywayofsimple,primordialformsishiswayofprogressingtowardanew“dual”arrangementofthedrivesormentalenergies,thatcouldaccountforthedisturbingtendencyhehadobservedinpatients,includingtraumatizedveteransofthewar,tocompulsivelyrepeatunpleasurableandevenself-destructivethoughtsandacts.Ifonecanimagineasimpleorganismthathasjustmadethejump,asitwere,frominanimateorganicmattertoindividuated,animatelifeform,thenonecanimaginetheemergentmomentofFreud’snewtheoryofthedeathdrive:

Thetensionwhichthenaroseinwhathadpreviouslybeenaninanimatesubstanceendeavouredtocancelitselfout.Inthiswaythefirstinstinct(drive)cameintobeing:theinstincttoreturntotheinanimatestate.(46)

Freud’selaboratespeculativescenarioresultsinanewdualisticstructureinwhichlifeanddeathenergiesarebothconstantlyatworkinthemind/organism,andthishelpstoaccountforforceslikeaggression,self-harmandtheinexorableattractiontodeath.Thelatteraswe’venowestablished,isarecurringforminThomas’spoemsandespeciallyinhismasterpiece“Rain,”whichcombinesmanyoftheformalandthematicaspectswe’vebeendiscussingintoaclimacticcrescendo:

Rain,midnightrain,nothingbutthewildrainOnthisbleakhut,andsolitude,andme

73

RememberingagainthatIshalldieAndneitherheartherainnorgiveitthanksForwashingmecleanerthanIhavebeenSinceIwasbornintothissolitude.Blessedarethedeadthattherainrainsupon:ButhereIpraythatnonewhomonceIlovedIsdyingtonightorlyingstillawakeSolitary,listeningtotherain,EitherinpainorthusinsympathyHelplessamongthelivingandthedead,Likeacoldwateramongbrokenreeds,Myriadsofbrokenreedsallstillandstiff,LikemewhohavenolovewhichthiswildrainHasnotdissolvedexcepttheloveofdeath,IfloveitbetowardswhatisperfectandCannot,thetempesttellsme,disappoint.

Thispowerfulpoemwashesawaytheambivalenceandguiltofitsprecursor“TheOwl”annihilatingtheseparationbetweentheshelteredselfandothersoutside.The“bleakhut”ofThomas’sofficertrainingcampiscoldercomfortthantheroofandfireattheinnof“TheOwl,”yetitallowshimcloseraccesstothe“wild”entropicforcesofnature.This“cleaner”speakerwas“bornintothissolitude”andlikeFreud’ssimple“livingorganism,”longstoreturntothesimplicityofdeath.Weagainfindthespeakerkeptawakeagainbythoughtsofothers.Butinthispoemthesecounterpartsaremuchcloser,becausetheundifferentiatedsoundoftherain,unlikethe“clear”piercingtoneoftheowl’scry,washesawaydistanceanddifferencesoeffectivelythatthespeakeridentifiesnotjustwiththose“whomonce[he]loved”butevenwith“thedeadthattherainrainsupon.”Hereitisthe“perfect”delugeratherthanthe“plain”songoftheowlthatprecipitatesthisradical“sympathy,”butagainittakesadynamicforceofnaturetodrivea“solitary”humanfromhisself-enclosure,towardempathyforthedeadanddying. Thispoem’srushofblankverseismoreintenseandunequivocalthantheneatlybalancedquatrainsof“TheOwl”andtheotherorganizedstanzaformswe’veexamined.Eventheuncharacteristicregularityofthesyllablecountworkscounterintuitivelytowipeawayanyrhetoricalstructure.Thisisarushoflevelinglanguage,notameasuredargument.Themanyenjambmentsandadditiveclauseskeepthepoemflowingforward,withtheonlytruestopbeforetheendattheword“solitude”inline6,whichworksasareinforcementratherthanareprievefromthepoem’ssteadygloom.Andthoughthepoemhasnoendrhymes,italsoemploysthenowfamiliartacticofaseriesofrepeatedandnearlyrepeatedwords—“rain(x8),”“solitude/solitary,”“still”“dead/death”“brokenreeds,”and“love(x4)”—whichbuilditsdirge-likerhythm. Metaphorandimagerytooare“dissolved”bythedrivingrain,whichofcoursebeginstoresemblethedeathdrive,thatatavistic“loveofdeath”which“isperfect”initsinhumanprecognitivepower.Whereas“TheOwl”hadthe“downhill”rhythmofwalking,thispoememploysunnerving,eddyingrepetition,asinitsoddlyrecirculatingimageof“coldwateramongbrokenreeds,/Myriadsofbrokenreeds”—oddinpartbecauseitishard

74totellexactlywhatthissimilerefersto,sandwichedasitisbetweentwo“like[s]”thefirstofwhichseemstoattachto“sympathy”andthelattertothespeaker.Notjustsympathybut“Helpless”sympathyisthefascinatingifconfusingtenorforthemetaphoricalvehicleof“coldwater”madeevenmoretroublingbythefactthatalltheotherwaterinthepoem,thetorrentialrain,seemstobeitsmostliteral,materialcontent.Thuswetrytounderstandhowcoldwater“amongbrokenreeds”islikesympathyand/orhelplessness“amongthelivingandthedead”—perhapsakindofreflectivemediumthatoffersreferentialimagesbutnosteadyingground.Then,justasthereader’smindtakesonthisfigure,thesecondsimileforcesustoconsiderhowthespeakerisalsolikethe“myriadsofbrokenreedsallstillandstiff.”Sothelivingandthedeadarealike,awashinsympathythatdoesnothingbutreflectthepainandlossitsurrounds. Whereasearlier“soldiersandpoor”and“men/Nowfarfromhome”werefigureswhoshamedandalienatedthespeakerfromhimself,herethe“myriads”(whichreadsdoublyasmyreeds,echoingtherusticmakerofsongsalreadynamedtwice)aremore“likeme”(thespeaker)—“dissolved”inthesame“coldwater,”asubstanceofexhausted,disorderedaffect(with“nolove…exceptloveofdeath”).Andthoughthisisagrim,soddenstate,itisfreeoftheambivalenceandanxietythatupsetearlierpoemslike“TheOwl.”Insteadofapainfulseparationfromimaginarysufferers,herethespeakersurrendershimselfpainlesslyintothem,reversing“Solitary,listening”intothechiasmic“thusinsympathy.”ItisasubtlerepudiationofThomas’sotherfecklessspeakers,asherethespeakerachievesakindofself-determinationandstrength,muchlikethestrangelyaffectingdeterminationofFreud’s“livingorganism”driven“tocancelitselfout”evenasthepressuresof“decisiveexternalinfluences…obligethestillsurvivingsubstancetodivergeevermorewidelyfromitsoriginalcourseoflife”(46).Thespeakerturnshisbackonthesocialformsandpeople“whomIonceloved”andsurrenderstoa“loveofdeath”which,unliketheambitionandanxietyofthesocial,“cannot…disappoint.” Why,ifdeathistheultimategoalandcomfort,anditsopenandeasefulembraceproducesthefinestpoems,doesThomasexpendsomuchpoeticenergyelsewherelamentingit(asintheflowerpoems),ironicallygrievingit(“Aprivate”)andelaboratelytransfiguringitsprocesses(“Digging”)?Freudoffersinsightheretooashedescribeshowhistheoreticalorganismpersistsinself-preservationand“strugglesmostenergeticallyagainstevents(dangers,infact)whichmighthelpittoattainitslife’saim[ofdeath]rapidly.Suchbehaviorishowever,preciselywhatcharacterizespurelyinstinctualascontrastedwithintelligentefforts”(47).Wecanthusthinkof“Rain”asnotconstructedbytheintellectbutsetinmotionbythedrives,itsintenserushofnonlinearlanguageflushingawaytheculturalformsthatneedlesslycomplicatethepoet’sunconsciousdesiretoescapelanguage’ssociallimitsandjointhepeacefullysilentdead. Thecivilianpersonainallofthesedoublepoems,observesanddescribeshisobservationsfromthesecond,simultaneousperspectiveofthedeadordyingsoldier,until,in“Rain,”heannihilatesthatdifference.ItwillbeusefultorecallthedescriptionofIsobelArmstrong’s“doublepoem”here,inwhichthepoem“drawsattentiontotheepistemologywhichgovernstheconstructionoftheselfanditsrelationshipsandtotheculturalconditionsinwhichthoserelationshipsaremade.”Thomasattemptstogiveformtothedegenerationofhissenseofpersonalidentityandsocialrelationshipduring“theculturalcondition”ofwartime.Hislanguageisdriventowardsoblivionbyhisowndouble

75experienceofthewar,whichfirstdestroyshiscivilian,artisticidentity,andthen,asheactivelyanticipates,hissoldierpersonaaswell.Heintuitsthathissoldier’sworkistostopstrugglingtoconstructhimselfamongsocialandculturalformsandtosurrenderhisbare,organiclifeformtotheviolent,impersonalforcesofhistoricalchange.Hecannotclearlyarticulatetheknowledgeofthisseconddoubledperspective,becauseitssourceisbydefinitionoutsidehislivedexperience,butheispainfullyawareofitsdestabilizingeffectsonhisself-expression.Inthesepoems,doublingandrepetitionarenotmerelyformaleffects,buttheverbalsignsofthepoet’slossofcontroloverhisownlanguageandfeelings.Warhaspermeatedalldiscourse,andamongitsgreatesthorrorsisitsundeniableattraction.Thepoetisdrawntowards“whatisperfect,”notlanguagebutitsobviation,notcommunication,buttheunmediatedformlesscommunionofdeath.

76

Chapter3

DeadLetters:WilfredOwen’sAgonisticPoetics

Ifonetellsthetruth,oneissure,soonerorlater,tobefoundout.–OscarWilde

I.TrueLiesHereisapoemWilfredOwenwroteinEnglandin1918,awaitingredeploymenttoFrance: TheLetter WithB.E.FJune10.DearWife, (Ohblastthispencil.‘Ere,Bill,lend’saknife.) I’minthepinkatpresent,dear. Ithinkthewarwillendthisyear. Wedon’tseemuchofthemsquare-‘eaded‘Uns. We’reoutofharm’sway,notbadfed. I’mlongingforatasteofyouroldbuns. (Say,Jimmie,spare’sabiteofbread.) Theredon’tseemmuchtosayjustnow. (Yerwhat?Thendon’t,yerruddycow! Andgiveusbackmecigarette!) I’llsoonbe‘ome.Youmustn’tfret. Myfeet’simprovin’,asItoldyouof. We’reoutinrestnow.Neverfear. (VRACH!Bycrumbs,butthatwasnear.) Mothermightspareyouhalfasov. KissNellandBert.Whenmeandyou– (Eh?Whatthe‘ell!Standto?Standto! Jim,give’sahandwithpackon,lad. Guh!Christ!I’mhit.Take‘old.Aye,bad. No,damnyouriodine.Jim?‘Ere! Writemyoldgirl,Jim,there’sadear.)43Themostobviousandimportantthingtosayaboutthispoemisthatitisbuiltfromtwoseparate,nonliteraryregisters—asoldier’shandwrittenletterandhisvernacularspeech—setinchaoticjuxtaposition.Itbeginsasaletterbutendsasapoem,apoemwhereintheepistolaryandoralmodesareinterspersedbutmarkedlyunblended.Onewaywecanseeitisinfactapoemandnoteitheroftheothertwocommunicativeactswhoseformsitincludesisthatitrhymesregularly.Thestylisticchoicetosettheostensiblyspoken

43Owen114.Otherpoemsinthischaptercanbefoundinthisvolumeat192,117,151,167,112,135.

77portionsofthepoemoffinparenthesesalsodrawsextraattentiontotheirpurelytextualstatus,assomethingonlyareaderismeantto“hear,”otherwiseoutsidetheflowofthemaintext.Dependingonyourperspectivethismakestheparentheticalportionofthepoemeithermoreorlesspoeticthantheotherpart—morepoeticbecauseitisakindofdirectaddress,akintoadramaticmonologueoralyricalmodeoverheardbythereader(thereaderofthepoem,notthefictionalintendedofthefictionalletter);lesspoeticbecausethesoldier’sinterjectionsarepresentedasactsofcoarseandspontaneousexpressionincontrasttothemorethoughtfulandcircumspectletter,thelatteracommunicativeactwhichmorecloselyresemblessittingdowntocomposeapoem.Inaway,itispreciselylyricpoetry’sconstitutivelyambiguousstatusbetweenspeechandwritingwhichthispoeminvokesandinterrogatesinitsmanicbackandforthbetweenthetwo.Thefactthatthesoldiermusttoggleviolently,schizophrenicallybetweentheliesandtruthshemusttelltotry(andultimatelyfail)toprotecthimselfandothersistheprinciplethatsurviveshisdeathattheendofthepoem,andgivesusourfirstpictureofacrucialstructureoffeelinginOwen’spoems.

Itisimportanttonotethatneitherhalfofthispoem,neitheritswrittennoritsspokenportion,isparticularlylyricalorpoeticinthetraditionalsense,thatistosayinthehighRomanticandDecadentidiomsinwhichOwencustomarilyworkedbeforehis1917stayattheCraiglockhartmilitaryhospital.Indeed,theletterhomeportionofthispoemisstereotypicallydullandcommonplace,fullofemptyconventionsandnotablylackingindescriptionoremotionalexpression.Thespokenportion,ontheotherhand,isnonpoeticintheoppositedirection,comprisedofthoughtlessoutburstsandroughtalknotquitefitforthepage.Yetsomehow,whenboundtogetherbymeterandrhyme,thesetwounpoetichalvescompriseapoem,whoseliterarystatusemergesfromtheironicgapsbetweenitsconflictingparts.ThisisnotamongOwen’smostfamousorelegantpoems,anditisamongseveralwhoseglaringdebttoSassoontendstoovershadowtheirrelativemerits,butitmaybeoneofthebestpoemsbywhichtoapproachtheproblemofhowwarpoetry,asaposthumously(anddubiously)definedgenreuntoitself,wasabletonegotiatedifficultformalandrhetoricaltreatiesbetweenitsforebearsanditssurvivors,betweenitslongculturalinheritance,itscataclysmicsocio-historicalmoment,anditsrelievedbutguilt-riddeninheritors.Morelocally,thisparticularpoemexhibitsadistinctivedouble-voicednessthatisoneofOwen’smostimportantanddistinguishingpoeticstrategies.Thepoetandthesoldierwriteentirelydifferentkindsoflettershome—oneaimstocomfort,theothertoafflict—evenwhentheyarethesameletter,evenwhen,asinArmstrong’sfigureofthedoublepoem,theysharetheexactsamewords. PaulFusselloffersausefuldiscussionofthe“OtherRank’sLetterHome”asagenreuntoitself,soencrustedinconventionsandclichés(manyimposedbyofficialcensorship)thattheletterscametoserveanentirelydifferentpurposethaninterpersonalcommunication:“Thetrickwastofillthepagebysayingnothingandtoofferthemaximumnumberofclichés.…Whatpossiblegoodcouldresultfromtellingthetruth?”(182).Itisnotableherethat“tellingthetruth”isnotjustaninconveniencetobeavoided,butanimpossibility.Indeed,Fussellnotes(chastisingafewhistoriansontheway),whethercensoredornot,lettershomefromWWIaredecidedlynotareliablesourceof“factualtestimonyaboutthewar”(183);whichistosay,theywereusuallycomprisedentirelyofeuphemismsandlies.Owen’sfictionalletter-within-a-poemcertainlyfitsthisdescription:

78everylinewritten(asopposedtothespokenparentheticals)containseithercarelessassumptions(“Ithinkthewarwillendthisyear”)oroutrightlies(“We’reoutofharm’sway,notbadfed”).Indeed,theletter’sonlyplainlytruthfullineliesrightatitscenter:“Theredon’tseemmuchtosayjustnow.”Thepoemrevealshowthewarisdoingviolencenotjusttomen’sbodies,buttotheirsocialrelationships,theirabilitytocommunicate,andtotheirverylanguage.Kindplatitudesandtermsofendearmentarerepeatedlyinterruptedbyoathsandexclamations(andtheunintelligible“VRACH!”whichItaketobeeitheraninarticulateoutburstorthesoundofashellorbullethittingnearby).Withoutblendingorreconcilingtheminanyotherway,Owenintegratestheseinterjectionsintothepoeticform:Sixofthepoem’s12rhymesbridgethealternatingwrittenandspokenmodes,andwhentheydo,theyputcontradictingdiscoursesintoprovocativeproximity:“Wife/knife;badfed/biteofbread;justnow/ruddycow!;mycigarette/mustn’tfret;neverfear/thatwasnear!;meandyou/standto!”Ineverysinglecaseacomfortingwordorphraseorientedtowardsthedomesticsphereisrhymedwithamortalhazardofthetrench.Thesonicsimilarityofrhymehereactuallyservestoexaggeratethedifferencebetweenthepoem’stworegisters,givingthelietoanynotionthatpoetrymightcivilizeordomesticatewar,orevenbringhomeitstruthtoanoncombatantaudience.Thepoembeginsandendswiththeword“Dear,”perhapsawayofindicatingitwasneverfinished,neversent,adeadletter.

Thepoem’sfinalline—theletterwithiniscutshortbeforeitcanbesignedoff—“Writemyoldgirl,Jim,there’sadear”revealshowfamilialandromanticintimaciesarebeingbothprecludedandreplaced.The“hit”soldier’sfinalwords—“there’sadear”—arespokentoJimaboutwritingthewife,butthetermofendearmenthoversambiguouslybetweenthetwomodesandthetwointimates.Who,exactly,is“dear”inthatsentence,wherebytheactofwritingisaffectionatelypassedonatthemomentofthesoldier’sdeath?Thismoment,withitsunsettlingmixtureofintimacyandisolation,beautyandhorror,andthetotalfailureofallformsofexpressiontocaptureitappropriately,isanotherformalleitmotifweseethroughoutOwen.Death’snewproximityenables—maybeevenrequires—alternativeformsofintimacy.

Thealreadyvacuouscontentoftheletterwithin“TheLetter”isfurtherunderminedbyitsconstantinterruption,firstbythequotidianannoyancesoftrenchlife(dullpencil,badfood)thenbyshellingandattack.Onepointthepoemmakesclear,isthatanytextthatsurvivesthetrenches,evenifitisamessofcomfortingfalsehoods,willstillnecessarilybeatruthfulrecordofviolenceanddeath’scapriciousness.Andifatexthassurvived(aswithEdwardThomas’sjournalandletters),it’sallthemorelikelyitswriterhasnot.Andwhetherhehassurvivedor,asinthiscase,hasn’t,hewillquiteliterallynotbethesameman.Thefactthat“Jim”willhavetofinishanddelivertheletterorcompletelyreplaceitwithhisown,underlinestheexpendableandeasilyreplaceablenatureofthelinesoldier,aninterchangeabilitythatcorrelateseerilywiththereplacingandshufflingofphrasessuchas“inthepink”and“I’llsoonbe[h]ome,”whichseemtofeatureineveryletterfromeverysoldier,eventhoughthehealthandreliefthosephrasesdenoteactuallydescribeveryfewofthem.44Tofunctionproperlyandefficientlythemilitarymustbeanoverarchingformalwholethatcanbefilledwithreplaceable,interchangeableparts.Theextenttowhichthisis

44Thisinterchangeabilityalsoobtainsintheway,ashere,Owencanwritea“Sassoonpoem”(brutal,colloquial,ironic),orSassooncanwritean“Owenpoem”(elegiac,homoerotic,incongruouslybeautiful).

79alsotrueofpoetryitselfisoneofthemajorthemesofthischapter.Poetryisfundamentallyformalinnature:itsshapesandconventionscanremainrecognizableandeffectiveforcenturieswhilepoetsandtheirindividualconcernscomeandgo—doesthissomehowmakepoetryparticularlywell-suitedtothecontextofwar?Orissomethingliketheoppositetrue?Arewarpoemssomehowdiminishedbytheirhopelessrepetitions?Thedifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenaletterhomeandawarpoemareasgoodaplaceasanytostartinonthesequestions. Fussellaversthattheletterhome’s“pervasivestyle[of]formulaicunderstatement”isamanifestation—perhapsevenacrucialorigin—of“BritishPhlegm,”northerncousintotheFrenchsangfroid,wherebyeverysituationwithapotentialforhorror,oremotionalandphysicalpainisrhetorically“toneddown”toamereinconvenience.“Theeffectislesseuphemisticthanironicandcomic”(181),buttheresultisthatthosenotinonthejokenevercometounderstandwhatisreallygoingon.Fussellcontinues:

Ironically,thereticencewhichoriginatedinthewriters’sympathyforthefeelingsoftheiraddresseeswasdestinedinthelongrunsimplytowidenthechasmofincomprehensionwhichopenedbetweenthem.(183)

Iwouldarguethat,infact,toestablishandreifythatgapistheverypurposeofthisstyle,notjustintheubiquitouslettershome,butperhapsevenmoresointhepoemsthatdrawonandrepurposethislinguisticstrategy,notinordertomaintaincloserelationshipswiththecivilianworld,butrathertoactivelydissolveandreplacethemwithanexclusivelymasculine,soldierlysocialnetwork.Thewar’sinfamousall-pervasiveironyinthiscontextisnotanincidentalbyproduct,butatruefoundationofitspractitioners’self-protectiveandreconstructivesocialmission.Soldiershadtocontinuouslyrebuildnewspacesforthemselvesfromthewreckageoftheoldworld;ironyisperhapsthemostnotable,butcertainlynottheonlyforminthiselaboratenetworkofdefensivepositions.45 Iftheletterhomedidn’t(indeed,oftencouldn’t,bylaw)conveyaccurateorpreciseinformationaboutthefront-linesoldier,andiftheyoftenhadn’tmuchelsetosay,whatpurposedidtheyserve?Onesimplifiedbuttrue-enoughanswer,perFussell,istheyweremeanttocomfortanddistracttheirrecipientsinEnglandfromthedarkfactsonthegroundacrossthechannel.Conversely,themostfamousprotestpoemsofSassoonandOwenservetoafflictthecomfortable,toholdtotheirfacesthetruthsfromwhichtheywishtobespared.Thepoems,inthissense,reversethepolaritiesoftheletter,deployingakindofweaponizedironytoundermineorexplodetheuntruthsofalltheofficiallysanctioned,censored,andsanitizedmodesofcommunication,especiallyletters,journalism,andpoliticalrhetoric.Andonesimplebutpotentwaytoaccomplishthistaskistorewritethoseformsthemselvesinawaythatthrowstheirabsurditiesandinsufficienciesintotheharshflare-lightofthetrenches.Thisiswhyapoemlike“TheLetter”thoughitlackstheimagisticbeautyandlyricalartistryofOwen’sfinest,isstillaneffectivelittlepieceofordinance.Itdeployssmalljokesthataremorecausticthanfunny:Thewriterwhotactlesslysays“blast45AsIwarnedintheintroduction,itisexceedinglyhardtoavoidcrossingbackandforthbetweenmetaphoricalandliteralregisterswhendiscussingtheliteraryendeavorsoftrenchsoldiers.ButwhenIsurrendertotheserhetoricalhabits,Iamfallinginlinenotjustwithinnumerablecriticalforebears,butthesoldiersthemselves,whorecognizedthetrenchesforthehideouslyliteralizedmetaphorstheywere.

80thispencil”andattacksitwitharepurposed“knife”islaterquiteliterallyblastedwhiletryingtowrite.Hisinanepredictions“thewarwillendthisyear”and“I’llsoonbe‘ome”endup,forhim,comingtragicallytrue.Thephrase“I’mlongingforatasteofyouroldbuns”issuchagroan-worthydoubleentendre,it’sawonderitmadeitpastthearmy’s(orthepoet’s)censors,andyet,itisnotquitesodrollwhenfollowedbythereal-timerequest,“spare’sabiteofbread”—heisnotsomuchhungryforwifelysuccorasheisliterallyhungry.Thephrase“halfasov”isfunnytoo,becausetheword,likesomanyinthepoem,isalreadycutinhalf,leavingevenlessforitsneedyrecipient,andthesovereignhimselfhasalreadytakenawaythebetterpartofthisman’sworth. ThisbringsustotheissueofOwen’sawkwardandinconsistentattemptatthedemoticinthispiece.DouglasKerrdiscussesthisfaultinWilfredOwen’sVoices,notingthatthe“speechoftheranks”wassomething“Owenmusthavebeenveryfamiliarwith,[as]aplatooncommander[who]hadtoreadandcensorallhismen’sletters.”Yetthispoem,“inasurprisingsolecism,confusestheconventionsofwrittenandspokenlanguage”(213).ButwhileKerrisrightthatthereiscertainlysomethingungainlyinthewaypartsofthispoemarepunctuated,wemustrealizethatinanimportantsense,adisorientingmixtureof“writtenandspokenlanguage”ispreciselythecentralprincipleofpoem’sconstruction.So,whatinthispoemmayseemlikesloppiness,oranindecisivestyle,speaksrathereloquentlyofthewaythetrenchesmadeproperusageandpoeticprecisionquaintrelicsofaprewarpast.Owen’sother-ranksventriloquismhereisnotanexerciseinaccuracy,butinawkwardempathy.ThemainefforttowardscapturingthevernacularhereseemstobetosimplylopoffalltheH’sfromthebeginningofwords,thoughafewareleftinexplicablyunharmed(“harm”“half”“hand”and“hit”).46There’ssomedodgygrammar(“Theredon’tseemmuchtosay”…“Meandyou”),somesaltyoaths(“blast,”“bycrumbs,”“Christ!”“Damn”)andageneralboorishnessthatfeelsslightlycondescendingcomingfromtheofficer-poet,evenasitlocatesthereaderinthetrenchwiththemen.RecallingEmpson’sformulations,anattemptatsolidarityispartoftheworkofpastoral,anditsimperfectapplicationrevealsitsstatusasanaestheticform,collidingwiththealreadyconflictedpoliticalformationofclassrelationswithintheranks.

Ourrelationshiptothepoem’sauthoriscomplexlylayeredontotherelationshipbetweenthefictionalwriterandreaderwithinthepoem’sdiegeticspace,giventhatthissoldierissoclearlymarkedasbelongingtoalowerclassandlowerrank.Itbecomesallthemorecrucialthatweareaskedtoidentifywithhim,feelaroughaffectionforhim,andeven,asreader,toimaginativelyoccupythespaceofhisaddressee,togglingbetweenthepositionsofhis“DearWife”andhistrenchmates.Inthisway,weareforcedtoexperiencehisdeathtwice,asfirsthandwitnessandsecondhandreport.Thisdoubledintimacyanddoubledlossisperhapsoneofthestrongesteffectsofthepoem,whichcutsitswordsandphrasesandregistersupinsomanydifferentways,thatthepartsmustnecessarilybegintoadduptoagreaterwhole—thefragmentationofdiscoursesbecominganewdiscourse,thepointofwhichistomakeustrulyseeandfeelthetragedyofthissoldier’sdeathinaway

46Itisfun,ifnotentirelyproductivetospeculateastowhy:oftheseexceptions,allbut“half”wouldbecomedifferentwordsentirelyiftheywerecontracted,with“harm”and“hit”providingparticularlyconfusing—andthereforeinteresting—alternatereadings:“We’reoutofARM’sway”;“Christ!I’mIT.”

81thathisdistantandshieldedwifecannot,anymorethanhisfatalisticanddesperatelypreoccupiedfellowsoldiers.

Owen’sfinalcuthereisthesharpestofall,asthesoldier’slastwrittenphrase“Whenmeandyou—”issevered,apromiseleftnotonlyunfulfilled,butunpromised.Hislasteffortatmaintainingacivilianrelationshipistellinglycutshort(althoughhis“DearWife”maystillgetasecondshot,asI’lldiscussbelow).Inthemeantime,thechaosofthepoem’slastfivelinesisdeliveredinarapid-firestringofsinglesyllables,amixtureofgruntsandoaths,desperatecommandsandrequests.Onlytheoddlyspecificword“iodine”standsouthereasamultisyllabicintrusionfrommedicaldiscourse,anditsdismissiverejection—“Damnyouriodine”—servesasameasureofthefutilityofcaringforothersinthetrenches.TheChrist-like“Jim”whoearliersharedaEucharistic“biteofbread,”withourwriter(orperhapsrefusedto),isnowrebuffedwhenheoffersahealingbalm.Butthespiritualsubtextofthismomentisundercutfurtherbyyetanothercheappun,as“iodine”soundstoomuchlike“I’madyin’”totakeseriously,ratifyingFussell’sassertionthatsoldiers’lettersworkbetterascomedythanhistory.

GoodJim’sfinalactofgracewillbetotakeupthewriter’s“blastedpencil”andoffer—whatexactly?Somekindofbelatedcomforttohis“oldgirl”?Onedoesn’tenvyJimthetask.Andyet,futileanddesperateasitmayseem,thisfinalrequestmakesabidfortrue,unironicmercy,theonlyhintofanythatthispoemoffers(notcountingitscomfortinglies).Justasthewriterwasforcedtoexchangehiswife’sbunsforJim’sbread,shemaynowreceiveJim’scomfortingvoiceinplaceofheroldman’s.Perhapswecanbeforgivenforhoping,giventhepoem’sownirreverence,anditsobviousromantictriangulation,thatthetwosurvivorsmighthititoff,andprovidesomerealcomfortandmaybeevenaffectiontoeachotherinsomeunforeseeablepost-warfuture.Theharshlogicofinterchangeableformsextendsfromthemartialrealmtothemarital.Evenifitisn’tJimwhocomfortshismate’s“oldgirl”it’lllikelybesomeotherbloke.Ultimately,theciviliansurvivorofthispoemmayreceivecompassionandrecompense,butalwaysonlyathersoldiers’expense.Wemustlookbeyondthehorizonofthepoem(andthewar)forourconsolation,butthepoem,likeHardy’s“Christmas,”verysubtlyurgesustokeeplooking. ThisambivalencetowardsconsolationisoneofseveralofprovocativeparallelsbetweenthisminorpoemandOwen’sfamous“Preface.”Botharedeadletters,posthumousfragmentsthatneverreachtheirdestinations,yetseemtoincreaseintheirauthorityandgravitybymeansofthedeaththatinterruptsthem.Owendiedbeforehecouldfinishthe“Preface”andseehispoemsintoprint;“TheLetter”hasitswriter/speakerkilledbeforehecanfinishandpostit.Bothdepend,therefore,onaproxy,orexecutor,todeliverthem:dearJim,intheonecase,andaseriesoffellowsoldier-poetsintheother.47Bothpiecesalsoblendandconcealtheirpoeticswithprose,The“Preface”overtly(“AboveallIamnotconcernedwithPoetry”),thepoemmorecovertly,aswe’vediscussed,initsuneasyformalintegrationoftwononpoeticregisters.Yetbotharefundamentallybuiltonconventionalpoetictechniques:the“Preface”includesasonorouslypatternedlist(“deeds…lands…glory,honor,might,majesty,dominion…power…War”)andisquiteclearlylineatedasa

47FromthebiographicalnotethatopensJohnStallworthy’sThePoemsofWilfredOwen:“Sassoon’seditionofthepoemswaspublishedin1920,EdmundBlunden’sin1931,C.DayLewis’sin1963,DominicHibberd’sin1973”(i.)

82seriesofgnomicsentencesandshortparagraphs—thekindoffreeverseorprosepoetryjustbecomingavailabletoEnglishpoets,butwhichOwenwasstilltoomuchofatraditionalisttoembraceopenly.“TheLetter”ontheotherhand,employsregularrhymeandanextendedsonnet-likestructure,48bothofwhichtechniqueselidetheobviousgapsbetweenthespeaker’sletterandhisspeech,forgingapoemfromunpoeticfragments.Theviolentjuxtapositionandforcedproximityofthesoothinglieswrittenhomeandtheharshtruthsspoken(nay,blurted)inthetrench,togetheradduptoaroughbutrecognizablepoetry.Inisolation,neitherhalfwouldconstituteapoem.Butincombination,thewarpoemisforgedwhenthetenderletterandtheroughspeech,thedomesticandtheregimented,Englandandthetrenches,twoopposingsitesofintimacy,arebroughtawkwardly,forciblytogether,throughrhymeandlineation,intoathird,inconvenientlyintimatespace.ItispreciselythiskindofmultifariousnessOwenisinvokingwhenheinsistsintheprefacethathispoemsare“notconcernedwithpoetry”andaremadeonlyof—andfor—“pity”and“warn[ing].”Finallythefamouscompressivefigure“thePoetryisinthePity”functionsasaroughexampleofOwen’ssignatureconsonantalpararhymesandurgesustolistenforpartialrhymeselsewhere:“honour…power…War.”Inotherwords,the“Preface”functionsasaprimerforOwen’spoemsandhispoetics,thelatterfunctionratherghostlyandimplicit.

OnethingOwenseemseagertomakeclearisthathispoemscannotandshouldnotbereadascapital-HHistory.Itisnot“theletter”ofhis“book”thatwillsurviveto“warn”(butnotconsole)futuregenerations,butperhaps“thespiritofit”—andthatvaguespirithassomethingtodowith“Poetry”(capitalP)and“truth”(smallt).Owen,andhisimaginedfuturereadersareclearlystillcaughtupinanoldrivalrybetweenpoetryandhistory,artandtruth,inwhichthesidesarenotsodiscerniblyseparateaswemightlikethemtobe.Indeed,thetautology“truePoetsmustbetruthful”issoproblematicthatittroubleseveryreadinginthischapter.Ifwelookbackat“TheLetter”weseethattruthisexplicitlyabsentfromtheformalized,genericlanguageoftheletterhome,butitbecomesavailabletoandthroughthepoemwhenthatdiscourseissetupbesidetherougherlanguageoffear,hunger,violenceandsufferingthatthesoldiersmusttalkamongthemselves.Owen’sreconceivedpoetryemergeswheretruthandliesviolentlycollide,andcometorestinthesamespace.ThispoeticsofcollisionbecomesamoreconsistentanddiscernableformulainOwen’slater,moreassuredpoems.

Anotherformalelementthatthe“TheLetter”andthe“Preface”shareistheirratherstrangeuseofparentheses.Intheformer,theysetoffspeechtranscribed(bywhom?)fromthesoldier’swrittenword.Inthelattertheyseemtocontainafewcomparativelyunfinished,informalthoughts,whoselanguageandmessageisnotnearlyascarefullyconsideredoraphoristicallyexpressedaswhatprecedesthem.Inbothtextsparenthesesseemtotrytokeeptworegisters,twovoicesoreventwoidentitiesofasingleperson,quarantinedoff.Thesaltylanguage,rawneediness,andtenseanxietyofthesoldier’strenchpersonacannotbeallowedtomixwiththeemotionallydistant,butupright,reassuringman48Thepoem’sformcanbereadtwoways:eitherasfourquatrains—rhymedaabb,cdcd,eeff,gbbg—andasestet(rhymedhhiibb)comprisedofthefinal,severedlineoftheletterplusthefinalfivelinesofpanickedspeech;orasfivequatrainsandafinal,dyingcouplet,whichrepeatsthebbrhyme—andtheword“dear”—bothforthethirdandlasttime.Itendtothinkthesestet,evenwithitsthreecoupletsinsteadofamoretraditionallyelaborateinterlockingscheme,coheres.Aprolixsonnet,then.

83whowriteshiswife.Likewise,Owen’sstern,reproachful,war-wisesagepersonacannotassimilatethedubious,over-eager,ambitious,evensomewhatplayfulyoungpoetwhowrites:

(IfIthoughttheletterofthisbookwouldlast,Imighthaveusedpropernames;butifthespiritofitsurvives—survivesPrussia—myambitionandthosenameswillhaveachievedfresherfieldsthanFlanders.…)[ellipsesOwen’s]

Thisstatementisclearlynotasartfullycomposedastherestofthe“Preface,”andthereforeitcanbereadasprovisional,evenextraneous,andwiththeparentheses,somehowsubordinate,akindofafterthought.Yet,becauseitsurvives,wemustreaditalongsideitspithierpreamble.Andsomehow,perhapsbecauseitstoneismoreconversational,itcarriesanairofgreaterauthenticity,oratleastgreatersincerity—analogoustowaytheparentheticalspeechin“TheLetter”comparestoitsneighboringprose—itsoundsmorecredible,moretruthful,eventhoughitisaplainadmissionthatinformationhasbeenwithheld.

SamuelHyneswritesofthe“Preface”:“[Owenknew]thetruthaboutwarwasamatteroflanguage—andespeciallyofthewordsthatyoudidnotuse”(183).Hynesisreferringprimarilytothehigh-historicalvaluesthatOwenlistsintheprefaceaswhatheexcludesfromthepoems.ButwhatelseisOwentryingnottosayinthislate-lingeringfragment?Howdoestheparenthetical’srelativereticenceadjusttheclimacticstatementofthe“Preface”whichimmediatelyprecedesit:“ThatiswhythetruePoetsmustbetruthful”?Which“propernames”were/areomittedfromhispoems?Andwhatarewetodowiththeopposedcategoriesof“theletter”and“thespirit”whichseemtoreverttopreciselythekindoflegalandtheologicalmodesofreadingthatthefirstparofthe“Preface”dismisses?Anyguidancethe“Preface”mighthaveofferedforreadingthepoemsissurelyunderminedbythisoddaddendum.

ItistruethatthereareveryfewpropernamesofpeopleinOwen’spoemsbeyond“Jim”in“TheLetter,”andaveryfewplacenames.49Instead,forthemostparthedeploysalong,ghostlysuccessionofintimatelydescribedbutotherwiseanonymous“he”and“him”s,“boys”and“lads”—veryoccasionally“men”—whopopulateanddepopulateanundifferentiatedstringofmuddyanddarkdug-outs,holes,trenchesandtunnels.Odd,then,thatthe“Preface”itselfcontainstwopropernames—“Prussia”and“Flanders.”Perhaps,intheirspecificity,theyservetoillustratetheimplicitpoint:thatthebroadpropernamesthatdenotechanginggeopoliticalspacesaredecidedlyoutsidethenarrowpurviewofthetrenches.Itsoundsoddtocontemporaryearsthatinsteadofthenamesofnationsthathavecometobeassociatedwiththewar’sWesternFront—Belgium,France,Germany—Owenusesthenamesoftwomedievalprincipalitieswhosebordersandsovereigntywerecontestedandinflux.Withthephrase“fresherfieldsthanFlanders”heironicallyinvokesJohnMcCrae’sfamouspoem,whoserousing,Patrioticfatalism(“deeds…glory…honour”)hadcertainlybeguntoseemstaleanduntruthfulby1918.Byreferencing“InFlanders

49There’salso“Bill,”owneroftheknife,andapresumablydifferent“Jim”whogoesmadin“TheChances.”There’s“Somme”and“Cérisy”in“HospitalBarge”alongwithafewothershereandthere:“AtaCalvaryneartheAncre,”“ShadwellStair,”“Canongate,”and“PrincesStreet.”

84Fields”intheprefaceforaplannedvolumeofhisownpoems,Oweniscooptingitspopularitywhilerejectingitsethos.Andbyusingtheterm“Prussia,”theadministrativeseatandcenterofmilitarycommandforBismarck’sascendantGermanEmpire,Owenisunderliningpreciselythekindofconcernover“might,majesty,dominion”thathissoldier-centeredpoemsreject.50Oddly,Owen’sattempttotonehisrhetoricdowntoapurertruthseemstobackfirehere,ortorequiremoreenergythanhehaslefttoexpend.The“Preface”petersout,exhaustedand,initsexhaustion,itbecomesasabstractasthosepaeansto“honourandglory”whichitaimstodiscredit.Andinincludinginhisstatementthepropernames,rhetoricalfeaturesandabstractvaluesofthediscourseshewishestorejectandreplace,heisalsoadmittingthattheycannottrulybeavoided.Todefiantlyrejectthemistoactivelyengagethem.

ThisfinalportionofthePrefaceadmitstothesameproblemFussellpointsoutwith“TheOtherRanks’LetterHome”;namelythatamoreofficialandofficiousstyle,amoreconventionalform—suchasacapital-P“Preface”—cannottellsimpletruthsinasimpleway.Conventionalformsproceedbyeuphemismandomission,pavingoverdetails,particulars,individuals.Inthissense,anddespitewhatthe“Preface”attemptstoclaiminitsfirsthalf,thepoemsthemselvesarenotnecessarilyamoretruthfulandexpressiveantidotetoanofficiallyapprovedHistory(oracensoredletter)butratherasimilarexerciseindressingupamessytruthassomethingmorereadableandrecognizable,ifnotablylessagreeable.

Themainbodyofthe“Preface”setsupseveralprovocativepairs—PoetryandWar,Poetryandpity,Poetryandconsolation,Poetryandtruth—andthentriestoasserttheirrelationshipthroughsheerrhetoricalforce,strongindicativestatementsofidentityornonidentity.Whetherthesestrongstatementssucceedinrenderinganythingclearisupforquestion,andthetautologicalrelationshipswe’vealreadyidentifiedcertainlyleadtodoubt.Theparentheticalportionofthe“Preface”setsupanotherdifficultpair,“theletter”and“thespirit,”buttheselegalistictermsarecouchedinasubjunctivemodethatrenderstherelationshipandcontentofthewordsinsecurefromthestart.Itisperhapsthiscreepingsubjunctivemood,thisfundamentaldoubtaboutwhatwillandwon’tsurvivethewar,thatbeginstoshowthefissuresunderminingOwen’sstrongerstatementsaswell.Iftheletterlasts;ifthespiritsurvives…TheseIfsrecasttheentireprefaceinamoodofdoubtandskepticismwhilesimultaneouslylettinglanguage’ssonicfeatures—hereaconspicuousalliteration—distractfromtheconceptuallaboritattempts.ItisasifOwentheofficeristryingtocommandproperpity,clarityandthelogicalstructureofthelaw,whilemildlyinsubordinateOwenthepoetisjustplayingaroundwithwords.Werealizebelatedlythattheformsof“ThePreface,”meanttoleadusawayfrom“heroes”and“honour”towards“pity”and“truth”wereattheirbasesimplyapatternofsounds,withlikelettersleadingtolikeconcepts,with“poetry”and“pity”merelythemostalike.Thepoetryinthe“Preface”ultimatelyunderminesitsauthorityonthepoetry.

50Theuseof“Prussia”hereisalsoareminderthatthiswasnotaconfrontationbetweensmalldiscreteEuropeancountriesbutratherbetweensprawlingempires,withalltheirconstituentpartsexpectedtofightanddieforawholetowhichtheirsenseofbelongingwasnodoubtcontentiousandwide-ranging—PrussiatoGermanyasEnglandwastogreaterBritain.

85II.OldLies

Ifthe“Preface”isoneofOwen’smostfamousandquotablestatementsaboutpoetry’suneasyrelationshiptotruth,itissurelysurpassedinthatregardbythefinallinesof“DulceetDecorumEst,”whichmercilesslyexposethejingoisticmisuseofHorace’sOdesbypatrioticpoetsandrhetoriciansbackinEngland.HavingtrackedOwen’sartfultautologiesinthe“Preface,”(“truePoetsmustbetruthful”)itisinstructivetomoveontohislessambiguousstanceon“TheoldLie”:

BentDouble,likeoldbeggarsundersacks,Knock-kneed,coughinglikehags,wecursedthroughsludge,TillonthehauntingflaresweturnedourbacksAndtowardsourdistantrestbegantotrudge.Menmarchedasleep.ManyhadlosttheirbootsButlimpedon,blood-shodAllwentlame;allblind;Drunkwithfatigue;deafeventothehootsOftired,outstrippedFive-Ninesthatdroppedbehind.GAS!GAS!Quick,boys!—anecstasyoffumbling,Fittingtheclumsyhelmetsjustintime;Butsomeonestillwasyellingoutandstumbling,Andflound’ringlikeamaninfireorlime…Dim,throughthemistypanesandthickgreenlight,Asunderagreensea,Isawhimdrowning.

Inallmydreams,beforemyhelplesssight,Heplungesatme,guttering,choking,drowning.IfinsomesmotheringdreamsyoutoocouldpaceBehindthewagonthatweflunghimin,Andwatchthewhiteeyeswrithinginhisface,Hishangingface,likeadevil’ssickofsin;Ifyoucouldhear,ateveryjolt,thebloodComegarglingfromfroth-corruptedlungs,Obsceneascancer,bitterasthecudOfvile,incurablesoresoninnocenttongues,—MyfriendyouwouldnottellwithsuchhighzestTochildrenardentforsomedesperateglory,TheoldLie:DulceetdecorumestProPatriaMori

Owen’smostfamouspoemisalsohismostbrutallyconfrontational,andquiteprobablyhisbest,notleastbecauseitcleverlyproclaimsitsformalprincipleofconstructionfromthestart:AsMeredithMartinpointsoutinhervaluablereadingofitsmetricalforms,“Bentdouble”describesnotjusttheburdenedsoldiers,butOwen’sinnovativetakeonthesonnet,

86inwhichhereflectstwosetsoffourteenlinesaroundacentralcouplet,whichrepeatsthelastwordofthefirstsonnet:“drowning.”Thelinealsotherebymarksareflectivedividebetweenstatesofwakinganddreaming,betweentheWesternfrontandhomefront,betweenthesoldier’sbitterirony,andthecallowoptimismofhiscivilian“friend.”Butthedescriptionofthebentmenisnotjustaformalmetaphor;itisalsoaportrayalofrealclassdifferencesexacerbatedbythewar.Thepoemaimstoshowhowthewarhasmade“oldbeggars”ofyoungmenbyforcingthemprostratebeforetheheavymaterialandmachineryofwar-andstatecraft.Thesemenarebeingbowed,notennobled,bytheirburdens,theirmovements,andtheirenvironment.

Theadjective“haunting”describesnotjusttheforeboding“flares”inline3butthewholescene,includingthementhemselves,who,strippedofconsciousness(“asleep”),clothing(“blood-shod”)andtheirsensualconnectiontothepresent(“blind…drunk…deaf”),appearinthepoemlikeshadeswhohavecrossedoverprematurelytothelandofthedead.Thistentativemovementbetweenworlds,andthediminishingdifferencebetweenthoseworlds,persiststhroughtherestofthepoem.Ifthelivingsoldierslookandmovelikeghosts,thedyingsoldierbehaveslikeone,returningagainandagaintothepoet’sdreams:“Heplungesatme”;itispreciselythisnightmarethatthepoetwishestoconferonhiscivilianreadership,andthevehicleofthistransitivehauntingisthepoemitself.Thisisagoodexplanationforwhyitsimageryissointense,insistentandunpleasant:Itsdetailsarenotmeanttoimpressorentertainus,buttoappallandassaultus,overandover,notjustwhilewereadthem,butastheyrecurinourmemories.

Letusfocusforamomentontheinterestingdetailofthe“tired,outstrippedFive-Nines.”Thisuseoftechnicalterminology,warjargon,namingthingsbynumericaldimensions,isakindofsoldierlyshibboleth,usedtomarkandmeasureinlanguagethegapbetweenpoetandreader.Thepoetnamestheseinhumanagentsofharminanumericregister.Sothenwhyaretheseparticularshellsanthropomorphizedas“tired,outstripped”iftheyareclearlyliveenoughtodeliveraloadofgaswithalively“hoot”?Perhapstheyare“tired”becausethesoundtheymake,justliketheirnumericaldesignation,hasbecomesobanalandfamiliartothesoldiers.Thepoem’sfirst-personpluralspeakershavebecomenumbeventothethingstowhichtheyshouldbemostalert.Theshellsare“outstripped”because,inoneofthewar’scruelestinversions,theshell’ssoundisoftenprecededbythethingitself.Bythetimethey’veheardit,it’salreadyarrived.51Thissenseofasoundtoolatetoalertisalsoafittingfigureforthepoemitself,whoseformalizedwarningscan’thelpthoseactuallyindanger.Itisalsonotablethatthenumbers5–9addtofourteen,andthereforecompriseanodd(literally,mathematically)counterparttothepoem’sother“numbers”the8–6stanzaicarrangementofthefirstsonnet,andtothetensyllablesofeachline.Itisasifthepoetisadmittingthattheseparticularnumbersdon’tquitefitintothesonnet,buttheyarriveanyway,violentlyblowingtheevenlybalancedcompositiontopieces.Finally,byincludingwarjargoninthepoeminthisway,Owenagainforciblyinductsthereaderintosoldierlyspacesfromwhichtheywouldotherwisebeexcluded.

51There’sagreatpassageinGraves’sGoodbyetoAllThatdescribingthiseffect,andthefactthatseasonedofficers“learnednottoducktoariflebulletbecause,onceheard,itmusthavemissed”(96):Yousimplydon’theartheonethathitsyou.

87

Wesharethesedozingsoldiers’harshwakeupafterthefalserestofthepoem’sfirstturn,assaultedbythefamousninthline’sfour-beatexplosion“GAS!GAS!Quick,boys!”Callingthislineoutleavesthereaderbreathlessandalittlechokedbythefourglottalstops“G-G-Q-ck”(whicharethenneatlyechoedinline16“guttering,choking”).Andthereisasimilarlymimeticeffectinthedrunkenkineticsoftheinternalrhymesandgerundsofthesestet:“fumbling…clumsy…someone…stumbling…flound’ring…under”—wefeelthedesperatefailuresofactionincrisisinthisgutturalmuddleofwords.Andthen,assuddenlyasthegasshells’arrival,therecomesanotherlinebreak,aliteralandfigurativefissure,whichexistsnotjusttextually,betweentheendofthefirstsonnetandthehinge-likecouplet,butconceptuallyandchronologically,betweentheintensepresenttenseofthebattlefieldanditsdelayedanddissociatedtraumaticaftermath.Thelinebreak’salreadydisruptivegapismadetodoconsiderableextraconceptualworkhere.

Thegap—“AGapinHistory”—istheorganizingformalconceptofSamuelHynes’sseminalAWarImagined,whichheusestodescribeaseriesofculturalrelationships,includingthosebetweenyoungandold,combatantandcivilian,butespeciallybetweenpre-andpostwarculture.Hynesspeaksofthisgapasthecentralfeatureof“TheMythoftheWar”whichpost-warartistsusedtodistancethemselvesfromitperpetrators:

Thesenseofagapinhistory…poetsandnovelistsrendereditinimagesofradicalemptiness—asachasm,oranabyss,oranedge—orinimagesoffragmentationandruin,allexpressingafractureintimeandspacethatseparatedthepresentfromthepast.”(xiii)

Owens’spoemsalsolocateimmensepowernotjustin“images”ofgapsandnegativespaces,butintheirliteralpresenceonthepage,and“DulceandDecorumEst”istheconsummateexampleofthistechnique.Thepoem’sfirstturnis,aswe’veseen,filledwithviolenceandsurprise.Itmarksarapidchangefromonestatetoanother,fromtheoctave’sresigned,beaten-down“fatigue”tothesestet’sdesperateflurryofalarmandaction.Itboastssixfranticgerundsinitssixlines:“fumbling…fitting…yelling…stumbling…flound’ring…drowning.”Ofthese,onlythe“fitting”ofthehelmetscanbereadasapurposefulandsuccessfulact,andeventhen,thesuspensefultrope“justintime,”withitsfalsenoteofrelief,issubjecttothesamebitterironyastherestofthepoem.Oneman’scompetenceonlyearnshimtheprivilegeofwatchingeverygrotesquedetailofanother’ssuffering.Anotherfigurativegapopens,ascriticalastheviolentlinebreakofthefirstturn:thespacebetweenthelivingandthedying,asthinasthe“mistypanes”ofcelluloidinthegasmask,butasvastasthe“greensea”betweenthedrowningandthe(temporarily)saved.Thatgapisreproducedinthespacebetweenthepoem’sfirstsonnetandthesecond,thelatterofwhichisinverted,coupletfirst(althoughthecoupletdoesnotrhymeinternally,butratherwiththelasttwolinesofthefirstsonnet)suchthatitactsasakindofmirror,wherebythewarexperienceisrepeatedfirst“inallmydreams”andthen,afteranothergap,in“somesmotheringdreams”ofpatrioticciviliancommentators,backhomeinEngland.ThisiswhereOwen’sgapcomesclosesttoHynes’s:theunbridgeabledivisionbetweenthosewhoexperiencedthewarinpersonandthosewhomerelyreadaboutitlater.Hewantstovividlyrecreateanexperienceforothers,whilesimultaneouslydepicting

88theimpossibilityofthatveryactofcommunication.Oneparticularlyusefulformforthisincommensurabilityisthedream.

Theplightofthegassed“maninfire”(thepoemneveractuallygrantsusorhimthecomfortofhisdeath,butsuspendsusinthedepthandintensityofhissuffering)repeatsadinfinitum,“Inallmydreams”(myemphasis),atruemiseenabyme.Thehorrorrepeatsitselfbywayoftwonewandonerepeatedgerundsofline16:“guttering,choking,drowning.”Thisendless,repetitiveexperienceiscenteredinthetwolines,butspillsacrossthebracketinggapsofthelinebreaksintothepastoftheeventitselfandthefutureofhissurvivingcountrymen.Thelines:“Ifinsomesmotheringdreamsyoutoocouldpace/Behindthewagonthatweflunghimin”beginsanunflinching,evensadisticdescriptionoftheman’sslowtorturebytheaftereffectsofthegas,with“smothering”shiftingfromthememoryofthedyingsoldierintothecurseddreams.Thepurposehereistoshameandinflamethereader,tomakeusflinchandthentoholdamirroruptoourflinching.Owen’seditor,JonStallworthy,claimsthe“you”isJessiePope,theauthorofpatrioticchildren’sbooksandjingoisticversetowhomthepoemwasoriginallydedicated;butOwen’sdecisiontoremovethatdedicationdecisivelyinvokesamoregeneralized“you,”unidentifiedotherthanbythefactthey(we)canonlydreamofthewar’shorrors—i.e.,they(we)arethosewholackdirectsensoryaccesstosoldiers’acutesuffering,andwhoareculturallyimplicatedin“theoldLie”ofclassical,patrioticfatalism.The“children”whoaresubjecttotheseLatinateliesareadirectcounterparttothe“boys”calledoutinthesestet,whothemselvesarearegressiveincarnationofthe“men”marching“asleep”oftheopeningoctave.Owenemphasizesanunderlyingchildishnesstothewholeaffair,bothinthehelplessnessofthesoldiersandinthecluelessnessofthecivilians.ThisreaffirmshisnowfamousmessagethattheschoolboyLatinfromHorace,withitsemptyabstraction,isnotonlyaninsidiousmediumfortellingone’schildren(andbyextension,oneself)comfortingliesaboutdeathandvalor,butitisalsopartlytoblameforboys’dreamsofwar.Languageitselfsharestheculpability.

Thereareno“innocenttongues”inthislinguisticfield—theLatinrootsbegetanEnglishemergency,whichsubsumesbothlanguagesintoinarticulate“gargling.”Sotothetrenchtalkandemptyepistleof“TheLetter,”wecanaddthreemorerepurposedlinguisticregisterstothelistofsourcesforOwen’scollagistpoems:military-technicaljargon(“Five-Nines”),inarticulatesounds(“coughing,”“hoots,”“guttering,choking,”“gargling,”towhichwemightretroactivelyaddthe“VRACH”of“TheLetter”),andtheschoolboyLatinandother,related“oldlies”ofEnglishandEuropeanculture.Andifthesumofallthesesparepartsendsupbeingpoetry,theothernamefortheforcethatbindsthemtogetheracrosstheirmanygapsis,ofcourse,irony.Fussellfamouslycalls“mortalirony”the“appropriateinterpretivemeans”forunderstandingthewar,andthesetermshaveremainedoneofthebasicstartingpointsforinterpretingWWIpoetry.52Thispervasiveironyis,Ithink,intimatelyrelated,andatmoments,identical,toHynes’sequallyfundamental“gap.”Ironylivesinthegapsofthesepoems,andsowemustreadthosegapsextremelycarefullytounderstandhowtheyundermine,contradictandmultiplythemeaningsofthewordsthatsurroundthem,rememberingEmpson’sformulationofthemuch-needed“strength”onegainsfrom“antagonism…tobothsides.”Neithersoldiernorcivilianoccupiesapositionof

52Pp.3–4,andchapter1passim.

89strengthinthispoem—botharecomplicitinthebuyingandsellingoflies.Butonlyonediesforit.

ThefigureofthedreamsocentraltothispoemisworthparsingfurtherbecauseitrecursthroughoutOwen’soeuvre(recallingtoo,thecentralityofdreamstoEdwardThomas).Despitethelinebreaksandchronologicalgapsthatseparatethefirsthalfofthepoemfromthesecond,thereisnocleandistinctionmadebetweenthegrittywakingrealityofthesoldiersatthefrontandthefantasticalorterribledreamsofcivilians.Onthecontrary,thesoldiers’realitytakesplaceinanatmosphereofgauzy,dreamlikephantasmagoria,thankstotheirextremefatigue,whichblursanddullstheedgesofthematerialworld,aswellasintheatmosphericandperceptualdisruptionscausedbythegasandmasksrespectively.Therealityofwarinthefirstsonnethasallthetrappingsofabaddream,wheremovementiseithersluggishlydifficultorfranticallyineffective,formsobscuredinthe“misty…thickgreenlight.”Conversely,the“dreams”ofthesecondsonnetaremarkedbytheirlucidity,bothintheunflinchingdescriptionofthegassedsoldier’sagoniesandthefrank,accusatoryturnattheend,whereby“TheoldLie”issosharplyexposed.Inthispoem,war’srealityisdreamlike,anddreamsaredisturbinglyrealistic.Thisstrategyofpoeticinversionormirroring,thejuxtapositionofbaddreamswithequallybadrealities,isyetanotherwaythatOwendeployspoetry’sformalresourcestoattackthewar’scontradictions.

Thewar’sironicrepudiationoftheheroicandpatrioticexpectationspeoplehadforitisnotjustthethemeof“DulceetDecorumEst,”butalsoitsstructuralprinciple.Whichistosayalso,thatthethemeandtheformofthepoemactivelyelidetheironicgapsbetweenhomeandfront,thewaythatthethoughts,desiresandexperiencesofeachspaceandstateofmindcontradictandcounteracteachother.Pain-bluntedperceptionsobscurethewar’srealitiesandanexcruciatingclaritymarksitsdreamsandmemories,aninversionthatisyetanotherexampleofafundamentalirony.Thepoemconveysthiscontradictorysetofconditionstoapublicwhohasnotexperiencedeitherside,andwhowantsdesperatelytoclingtoamoralclaritywhichcanonlybemaintainedbyignoringthewar’srealities:Owen’simpossibletaskistoclarifywhatcan’tbeseenandobscurewhatseemssoclear.Nowonderthe“Preface”trailsoffinconfusion…Thepoemcomesmuchclosertofulfillingthispoliticizedpoeticmission,ofdemocratizingthewar’ssufferinganditspity,anachievemententirelystakedonitsmanipulationsofthesonnetform,whosemultipleturnsareusedtotransferpainsuccessivelyfromsoldiertopoettocivilianaudience.

Itwillbeinstructivetocomparethispoemto“TheParableoftheOldManandtheYoung,”anotherofOwen’sinnovativevariationsonsonnetformwhichalsorepurposesantraditionallanguageofauthority—inthiscasebiblicalinsteadofclassical—toundermineitsinvocationinperverseanddishonestjustificationsofthewar.Theconflictingregistersofcantandironichonestyareinreverseproportionandpositiontotheirarrangementin“DulceetDecorum”andinsteadofthatpoem’spowerfulmoralrhetoricandassaultingrealism,thispoem’sethicalforceisproducedbyamoredirectlyironicformaljuxtaposition:

TheParableoftheOldManandtheYoung

SoAbramrose,andclavethewood,andwent,

90 Andtookthefirewithhim,andaknife. Andastheysojournedbothofthemtogether, Isaacthefirst-bornspakeandsaid,MyFather,

Beholdthepreparations,fireandiron,Butwherethelamb,forthisburnt-offering?ThenAbramboundtheyouthwithbeltsandstraps,Andbuildedparapetsandtrenchesthere,Andstretchedforththeknifetoslayhisson.Whenlo!AnAngelcalledhimoutofheaven,Saying,Laynotthyhanduponthelad,Neitherdoanythingtohim,thyson.Behold!Caughtinathicketbyitshorns,ARam.OffertheRamofPrideinstead.Buttheoldmanwouldnotdoso,butslewhisson,AndhalftheseedofEurope,onebyone.

Thisstrangesonnetboastsanextracoupletafteritsfirst14lines,whichthemselvesarenottraditionallydivided.ButthisallowsOwentodeployanothereffectiveliteraryjuxtaposition,betweenbiblicallanguage,traditionalpoeticform,andamoderndestabilizationofeachthatisbothirreverentanddevastatinginitsway.Thispoemisyetanotheractivatedbyatreacherousgapfilledtothebrimwithirony.ThegapislikeHynes’sgenerationgapbetweenfathersandsons,butalsoonebetweenancientandmodernculturalpractices,ethicsandwaysofthinking.Thedarkest,sharpestironyhere,ofcourse,isthatthebiblicalobedienceandforgivenessthatonemightassociatewithanoldergeneration,whomighthewmoretowardsscripturalcodesintheirpersonalbehavior,isundercut,rejected,andsavagedbypreciselythosemen,whochoosetheirownprideandpoweroverthemercyandobedienceofferedintheBible.InturningtheBibleagainstpatriarchy,inturningbiblicalrhetoricagainstthepowerfulmeninsuchaclearandbrutalway,thispoemshowshowironyandviolencearetwosidesofawarringnation’scoin.Theyareoppositesmadeforeachother,andeachrendersmercyirrelevant.

AnotherformalmanifestationofOwen’sassaultontraditionhereisinhisuseofimperfectandirregularlydistributedrhymes,deployedonlywhentheywillbeeerilyeffective,asinthefirstinstance“together/…Father”apairingthatsetsuptheviolationtocome.Thesetwofiguresareinfactheld“together”notbyfilialvalues,butonlybythewartimeindifferenceofagetowardsyouth.Theentreatiesofthesonto“MyFather”arenotmerelyleftunansweredbutcompletelyunheard—thefatherinthispoemisdisturbinglysilent,adumbandunstoppableforceofpureviolencefreedfromallreasonandjustification.Thereaftertherhymesbecomeevenmoreslant,with“son”vaguelyechoedin“iron,”“heaven”and“horns.”ThisteasingresistanceofthesonnetformisonewaythatOwenopensupagapinthispoembetweenwhatisandwhatshouldbe,whatweexpectandwhatwegetinstead,toourhorror.Weseeasonnetinpentameter,andsoweexpectendrhymes—insteadwegetterseblankverse;wealsoseea“parable”inanobviouslybiblicalveinandsoweexpectredemptionordivineintervention—insteadwegetsenselessslaughter.Butthisgrimconclusion,inafinal,ironicaltwistoftheknife,arrivesintwo

91neatlyrhymedlinesofiambicpentameter,thetypicalunitofbothEnglishwitandclassicalepicinEnglishtranslation.Hereitseparatesthebrutallycontemporaryhistoricalconclusionfromitsbiblicalpreamble.Thisscripturalalmost-sonnetisleftopenandunfinished,followedbyasuspensefulgapwhereafteratraditionalbiblicalformmightthenofferGod’smercyanddeliverance.Owenretractsthispromiseandoffersonlyabjectbrutalityinstead,implicatingnotjustoneEnglish“oldman,”buttheentirestructureofEuropeanauthority.

ThisisoneofOwen’smostpotentexamplesofHynes’s“MythoftheWar”—thatpersistentnarrativethatlatergenerationswouldtellthemselvesaboutitsculturalandhistoricalsignificance:The“chasm…orabyss”betweentheoldandtheyoung;thebetrayalandsacrificeofthelatterbytheformer.Forourpurposesitisimportanttostresshowthisgapisrepresentedbyaliteralgapinthepoetictextonthepage.Thesonnetends,butthenafteragap,itendsagain,notinredemptionbutinmassdeath.ButthereisadisturbanceinOwen’smethodthatupsetstheneatdivisionsandoppositionsthatsocharacterizeHynes’s“MythoftheWar.”53InsomanyofOwen’spoems,mostfamously“DulceetDecorumest”itistheoverrelianceonancientrhetoricandmythsofvalorandsacrificethatledtotheoldergeneration’sdisregardforthoseactuallivesbeingwastedontheirwarfronts.Inthiscasethereisadoublebetrayal,adeeperhypocrisybywhichtheethicsandstructureofanancienttext(inthiscasetheOldTestament)areviolatedandmodernizedtocatastrophiceffect.InsteadoflearningthelessonofmercyorrestraintfromtheAbramandIsaacstory,the“oldman”oftheupdatedtextrevertstoanatavisticlogicofslaughter,completelydeaftotheinfluenceofthosecivilizingcovenantsbetweenGodandman,letalonethosebetweenmanandman.Indeed,thedeafnessandsilenceoftheoldmaninthispoemisitsmostterrifyingfeature;heiscompletelyimmune,notjusttothereasonablequestioningofhisson,buteventothedirectcommandofthe“Angel…outofheaven.”Thisstunningsilenceistheotherstrikinggapinthispoem.

Insteadofanelaborate,romanticizedjustificationofwarbywhichculturalauthoritiessilencedissentordebateontheconflict,Owenoffersusnothingatall,aholeinhumandiscoursesoutterlyunnervingthatitconstitutesitsownkindofpower,adestructiveforcethatcannotbeshamedorreasonedwith.Inrepresentingthisinarticulateviolence,thesilentgaponthepagebetweenthesonnetandtheexcessivecoupletisthemostpowerfullineinthispoem.Thefiercefinality,thesnappingshut,ofthatfinalrhymemimicsthedumbbrutalityoftheoldman’sact.Whereasthelinesprecedingthecoupletreachedandgropedforrhymesandanswerstoquestions,nottomentionanyavailablemeanstoavoidtheimpendingslaughter,therhymingcoupletisdecisiveandbayonet-sharp.Therewrittenbiblicalstoryheredoesnotcastforwardintimealessonortypologyforfuturebelievers,butratherabruptlyseversthebondbetweenpastandpresent.

Justasthewar’sharshironyrenderedHorace’srhetoricwhollyinsufficient,evenridiculous,herethefoundationalmythologyoftheBibleisrepurposedandrepudiated.Ontheonehanditisusedtoviolateitsownostensibleprinciples,ofmercy,obedience,redemption,etc.Ontheotherhandthatveryviolationshowsakindofself-contradictorynostalgiaforatimewhenthoseprinciplesstillappliedtocultureandbehavior.Pastand

53ItshouldbesaidherethatHyneshimselfworkstoshowthecracksandcontradictionsinthepervasive“Myth”;hestressesthatitisaretrospectiveconstruction,notahistoricalfact.

92presentvaluesandtheirmodesoftransmissionreachforeachotherinthispoem,buttheyfailtoconnectacrosstheprecipitousgapofcontemporaryviolence.Owenonceagainshowsinheritedformsfailingtoapplytothemoderncatastrophe,andyetthatveryfailure,andtheunfathomablegapitleavesinunderstanding,comesclosertoanaccurateaccountingofthewar,theactionofthedoublepoem.Thispoemillustratesnotjusttheindifferenceandbrutalityofoldmen,buttheveryfailureoftheculturaltouchstonesthatcreatedtheminthefirstplace.

III.SmilingLiesThatOwenisunabletoreconcilehispoems’fundamentalformaloppositions—betweenlettersandspeech,highLatinandtrenchtalk,parableandangryoath—isafundamentaltruthbehindhisemergentstructureoffeeling.Thelivedexperienceofthewarrepudiatesalltherhetoricaleffortstogiveitanymeaningatall,leastofallethicaljustification.ThisofcourserecallsustoVincentSherry’sformulationofmodernists’rhetoricalconfrontationwithEnglishLiberalism,thoughOwenbeginsandendshisconfrontationwithpoliticalrhetoricfromaliberalhumanistposition,perhapshopingtorehabilitatehisownliberalworldviewafterthewar’stotalassaultoneverythinghumanhasexhausteditself.HereisanOwenpoemwhichexplicitlytakesonpublicrhetoricintheformoftheDailyMail’sbelligerentpropaganda,andallowshissoldierstheopportunitytorespond—anopportunitywhichtheydonotquitetakeup,exceptinpained,silentirony:

Smile,Smile,Smile

Headtolimphead,thesunk-eyedwoundedscannedYesterday’sMail;thecasualties(typedsmall)And(large)VastBootyfromourLatestHaul.Also,theyreadofCheapHomes,notyetplanned,‘For,’saidthepaper,‘whenthiswarisdoneThemen’sfirstinstinctswillbemakinghomes.Meanwhiletheirforemostneedisaerodromes,Itbeingcertainthewarhasjustbegun.Peacewoulddowrongtoourundyingdead,–ThesonsweofferedmightregrettheydiedIfwegotnothinglastingintheirstead.Wemustbesolidlyindemnified.ThoughallbeworthyVictorywhichallbought,WerulerssittinginthisancientspotWouldwrongourveryselvesifweforgotThegreatestglorywillbetheirswhofought,Whokeptthisnationinintegrity.’Nation?–Thehalf-limbedreadersdidnotchafeButsmiledatoneanothercuriouslyLikesecretmenwhoknowtheirsecretsafe.

93

(Thisisthethingtheyknowandneverspeak,ThatEnglandonebyonehadfledtoFrance,Notmanyelsewherenow,saveunderFrance.)Picturesofthesebroadsmilesappeareachweek,AndpeopleinwhosevoicerealfeelingringsSay:Howtheysmile!They’rehappynow,poorthings.

Thispoemhighlightstworelatedgapsinexperience,betweenthoseathomeandthoseatthefront;andamongthelatter,betweenthelivingandthedead.Thefigureofbothisirony,themeaningfulgapbetweenwhatissaid(orwritten)andwhatisactuallytrue.Itissignificantthatthe“wounded”arereading“Yesterday’sMail”becauseitrevealstheyareatashortbutsignificantremovefromtheircountryanditsnews,eventhoughtheyarethenews.Thisgapisnarrowbutdeep,astheyreadwordsmeantforsomeoneelse,somewhereelse,whereintheythemselvesareeither“(typedsmall)”orabstractedininflated,andmostlyposthumousterms.

Thequietoutrageandtheironicsmilesaroundwhichthispoemisbuiltarrivefirstwiththeexcessivecapitalizationof“VastBooty,”“LatestHaul,”andthen,inapurposefullyjarringshiftinsubjectandregister,“CheapHomes,”allofwhichhighlightthegovernmentroleinperpetratingandprofitingfromthewar’selidedhorrors.These“large”emphasesstresshowquicklytheMail,acheap,populardailypaperwhichbecameajingoistpropagandaraginthelead-uptothewar,wantedtopaperoverthecasualtylist,andhowinsultingthisistothewounded,whoclearlyfeelexcludedfromthepatrioticfirst-personpluralofthearticle.Theyare“themen”whose“firstinstincts”arebeingdiscussed,yettheyarealso“thesons”whowere“offered”and“havedied”with“regret.”Who,exactly,isdiscussingandventriloquizingthesemenastheyreadin“sunk-eyed”passivity?Lines5–17areinthepompous,propagandisticvoiceof“thepaper”whichisperhapsuniquelycapableofanutteranceasfatuousastheline“Peacewoulddowrongtoourundyingdead,”butthenthepointofviewshiftstoonethattakesinthesoldiersthemselves.

Thispoem,similarto“TheLetter”withwhichwebegan,isacollage-likecombinationofanonpoetictext(thepaper’s)withtheinternalvoiceofsomewoundedsoldiers,boundtogetherbyanelaborateandrelativelyregularrhymescheme.ThefirsttworhymingquatrainstaketheabbaformoftheInMemoriamstanza.Thenexttwogoaa’aa’(wherethe’indicatespararhyme)andccccrespectively,therhymebecomingmoreinsistentanddistracting.Asin“TheLetter,”wearemadetowonderattheeffectandthestatusofpoetryandrhymeitself:whywouldthepaperrhyme?Doeschoppingbadjournalismintorhyminglinesmakeitpoetry?Againtheanswers,suchastheyare,seemtoemergeintheironiceffectscreatedbythegapbetweenthetwomodes(journalisticandlyric)andvoices(officials’andsoldiers’).Thespaceofthepoemallowsthesetwoentitiestoconverseinawaytheyaredecisivelynotpronetoin“reallife.”Astherankandfilereadwhatpassesforjournalismin“TheMail,”they,ineffect,readaboutthemselvesinsomeoneelse’svoice—andrejectthelikeness.Thepoem’selaboratedouble-voicednessallowsustoseefrommultipleperspectivesthevariouspartsofthestateapparatuslookingatitselfandnotlikingwhatitsees.Neitherthepressnorthesoldierscanaffordsuchself-awarenessontheirown,butthroughthedoubleformwecanenjoyanexternalcriticalvantagepoint.

94

Astothatform:Everylineinthispoemcarriespreciselytensyllablesexcepttheawkwardandexcessiveline23:“ThoughallbeworthyVictorywhichallbought,”alinewhosemurkygrammardemandsrepeatedreadingstowhichitremainsstubbornlyandironicallyunrewarding,contraitsremunerativetheme.Tobringittoaccountwemusttellinglyelide“Vict’ry.”54Otherwisethisregularpentameterundergirdsthesocialintercoursepromisedbyajournalism.Onlyafewlinesherethough,approachanythinglikemetricalregularity,iambicorotherwise,largelybecausesomanyfeatureobtrusiveinitialtrochees(“Yesterday’s,”“Also,”“Meanwhile,”andthedubious“Peace”),multisyllabicfantasiesandabstractions(“aerodromes,”“indemnified,”“integrity”)andtheseverallineendingswithequallyweightedpairs(“yetplanned,”“allbought,”“eachweek,”“poorthings”).Oneoftheresultsofthismetricalstutteringistoreifythedisjunctivereadingexperienceofthe“wounded”whohave“fledtoFrance”consuminglanguagewrittenbyandfortheincreasinglyforeign-seemingtribebackhome,whoveryobviouslyviewthe“casualties…whofought/Whokeptthisnationinintegrity”asaforegoneabstraction.Inreturn,thewoundedviewthatotherabstraction—“Nation?”—withincreasingsuspicion.ItisOwen’scheekyironythatitisthepoetwhobringstruthandaccuracytobearontheweakandharmfulabstractionsofpublicrhetoric,andnotviceversaasamorePlatonicconventionmighthaveit.Journalismhassacrificeditsclaimtomeasuredobjectivityinthecourseofitsfailuretoaddressandaccountforthesoldiers’experiencewhileiteasestheconscienceofitscivilianaudience.

Inthispoem,thedailynewspaper,thatcommunal,communicativeorganofthenationstate,isproofpositivefortheseparticularlyalienatedreadersthattheyhavebeencutoutofthebodypolitic,abloodysacrificeto“greatestglory.”55Indeed,thepaperitself,withitseconomics-inflectedlanguageoflossandrevaluation(“offered”“indemnified”“worth[y]”“bought”)istheverymechanismbywhich“sons”arereducedto“pictures,”andsmallprint.Inotherwords,itisnotjustwarandthestate,butalsomassmedia,whichreducementothingsinordertoinsurean“undying”futurethatelidesthosecasualties.Onlypoetrycanrestoreanaccountoftheselosses,andeventhen,onlyinadeeplyironic,unremunerativemanner,outsidethereadymarketofpennypapers.Thesoldiers’lossisthecivilians’profitinvariousliteralandfigurativeways.Thesoldiersconfrontthisbleakiniquitywiththeirowngenreaffinity,singingfatalistic,ironicversesliketheonethatgivesthisdecidedlyunlyricalpoemitsname.56

Thesmilingpicturesofthedead,andthesoldiers’songsinvokedinthispoemtakeonanevenharsherironyinrelationtothebiting“Epilogue”ofthepoem“S.I.W”:57

Withhimtheyburiedthemuzzlehisteethhadkissed,Andtruthfullywrotethemother,‘Timdiedsmiling.’

54ThankstoDanBlantonforpointingoutthisfittingdetail.55BenedictAndersononthedailynewspaper:“Whatmorevividfigureforthesecular,historicallyclocked,imaginedcommunitycanbeenvisioned?”(35)Thesesoldiersareremovedenoughtoseethroughthefictionofthe“massceremony.”56Stallworthyincludesitsopeningverseinanote:“What’stheuseofworrying?/Itneverwasworthwhile,/Sopackupyourtroublesinyouroldkit-bag/andsmile,smile,smile”(168).57Mycringeworthypunonthepoem’sfinalimagewasunintended,butsoapt,Iguiltilyleaveitin.

95

The“self-inflictedwound”hereisexpandedbeyondthesuicidesordangerousbidsfor“blighty”thattheterminitiallydenoted.Forwearemeanttoseeinallofthesepoemsthatitisnotjustwoundedsoldiers,butanentirecultureself-harmingwithitstorturedusesoflanguage.Inthispoem,Tim(itseemsimportanttousehis“propername,”sopointedlydeployedinthepoem’slastline)ishauntedbytherhetoricofhishawkishfatherandfretfulmother.“Deathbeforedishonor”isthecredoheimbibes,anditultimatelypoisonshimduringthe“reasonedcrisisofhissoul.”Hissuicideisshameful,butreasonable,muchlikethesoldiers’cuttingly“truthful”butoddlycompassionateletterto“themother.”Thekillingjokeistheonlyrationalforminanirrationalsituation,whereeveryoneagreestotellandhearwhicheverlieswillallowthemtogoon.Theletterfromthefellowsoldierstothemother,withitswickedwhitelie,offersaconcreteexampleofOwen’sabstractassertioninthe“Preface”:“thetruePoetsmustbetruthful”:theycheekilyslanttheunspeakableintosomethingthatcanbesaidoutloud. Irony,repression,therelentlesscounteractionofpropagandaandthehypocrisyofpublicrhetoric,andthesomewhatnovelmodeofpoetrymeanttoshameandattackitsaudience—theseareallfamiliaraspectsofthenow-canonical“WarPoets”andthepoliticallyandpedagogicallyconvenientbutunfairandinaccuratehomogenizationoftheiroutput.Butwhatwehaveaddedtothisoldstoryisthewayinwhichthisfamiliarcriticalnarrativetakesplacenotsomuchthroughthecontentofthesepoems,butintheirformalexecution.Oweninparticularmanagesacritiqueandrepudiationofconventionalideasandtheirreceivedformsinandthroughformandespeciallyinthewayheusespoeticeffectstocombinemultiplenonpoeticregisters,pittingthemagainsteachother(puttingtheversusinverses)inatransgressivediscoursethattriestobreakthroughculturaldeadlocksintoahard-wontruth.IV.DeepLies

Anothermulti-voicedpoemwithaskewedrelationshiptothenewspaperisthephantasmal,“Miners,”whichalsofeaturesadisquietinggapbetweenthepastandpresent,andprovidesaninterestingcomparisontoColeridgeandHardy’shearthsaslociofliberalguilt.ThisalsohappenstobeoneofOwen’smosteffectiveexperimentsinpararhyme,thatinherentlydoubleformwhichallowsapoemtocommentironicallyonitsownstatusasasetofliteraryconventions:

Therewasawhisperinginmyhearth,

Asighofthecoal,Grownwistfulofaformerearth

Itmightrecall.

IlistenedforataleofleavesAndsmotheredferns,

Frond-forests,andthelow,slylivesBeforethefauns.

96

Myfiremightshowsteam-phantomssimmer FromTime’soldcauldron,Beforethebirdsmadenestsinsummer, Ormenhadchildren.Butthecoalsweremurmuringoftheirmine, AndmoansdownthereOfboysthatsleptwrysleep,andmen Writhingforair.AndIsawwhitebonesinthecinder-shard, Boneswithoutnumber.Manythemuscledbodiescharred, Andfewremember.Ithoughtofallthatworkeddarkpits Ofwar,anddiedDiggingrockwheredeathreputes Peaceliesindeed.Comfortedyearswillsitsoft-chaired, Inroomsofamber;Theyearswillstretchtheirhands,well-cheered Byourlife’sember;Thecenturieswillburnrichloads Withwhichwegroaned,Whosewarmthshalllulltheirdreaminglids, Whilesongsarecrooned;Buttheywillnotdreamofuspoorlads, Leftintheground.

Wemightcallthispoemanightmarepastoral,whichendsinhorrorafterwatchingthecomplexemergeunbiddenfromthesimple,andwhereinabidforsocialsolidarityendsinamassgrave.Thereisanexcessivequalitytothispoem:notthattheitshorrorisinappropriatetoitstopic(quitethecontrary)butratherthatthediscussionappearstospinoutofthespeaker’s(andthepoet’s)control.Thislossofcontrol,Iwillargue,isduetothepoem’schaoticmixingofdiscourses,whichisperhapslessapparentonthesurfacethantheotherpoemswe’velookedatsofar.Attheriskofunderminingmyargumentwithyetanotherpun,I’llaverthattheformalconflictinthispieceoccursunderthesurface. Stallworthy’seditorialnotetellsusthatonJanuary14Owenwrotehismother“WroteapoemontheCollieryDisaster:butIgetmixedupwiththeWarattheend”(113).ThedisasterinquestionwastheMinniePitexplosioninHalmerendthatkilled156miners,whichOwenreadaboutintheDailyNews.Soanewspaperreportistheshadowsourceof

97thepoem’sdescentintoitsowninternalhorrors.Onealsohastowondertoo,ifSusanOwenappreciatedherson’spunonthehowhehimselfgot“mixedupwiththeWar,”thatmorepersistentdisaster.

Itbegins,however,inadeceptivelycomfortableplace:afiresidereveriesoftenedby“whispering”and“wistful[ness]”,andthepleasant,onlyslightlyslantedrhyme“hearth/earth.”Itinvokesageologicalratherthantheologicalpast,partofadesiretoimagineaneutralprehistorybeforemanandwar,goodandevil;hetriestoconjurefromthe“sighofthecoal,”a“taleofleaves/Andsmotheredferns,”aliterallyandfigurativelycondensedpastoralEden,“Beforethefauns…Beforethebirdsmadenestsinsummer,/Ormenhadchildren.”Thepoemtriestoconstructaquaintlyscientificvision:agentlemanlyappreciationoftheorganicprocessthattransformsalltheplantsandcreepingthingsintothesubstancethatisfueltoourownwarmthandourdomesticreveries.Onecanalreadyanticipatehowthesediscoursesofscientismandgeologicaltimemightbedisruptedbypresentviolence. Indeed,theprimordialdreamdoesnotcohere,andtheverywordswhichostensiblysummonitallowapointedlyhistoricaluneasetoemergeinstead:the“steam-phantoms”which“simmer”and“Time’soldcauldron”inthethirdstanzainauguratethepoem’smovementintoakindofdarkandunbiddenséanceofcontemporarysuffering.Insteadofdinosaursandferns,thecoalconjuresupminersandsoldiers.Inthesemomentsthereisanechoofthesamegenerationalconflictenactedsovividlyin“TheOldManandtheYoung.”Thespeaker’syearningforavisionofatime“beforemenhadchildren”hintsatsomethingsinisteroratleastundesirableinthiserstwhileuncontroversialgenerationalprocess.Something,itseems,hasbefouledtheinnocentpastoralmomentwhen“birdsmadenestsinsummer,”andthenatural,neutralbiologicalactofreproductionhasbeenreplacedbyculturalritualsmoreoccultandinfernal. Thebiologicalandgeologicalimagesoftheopeningstanzas,whichattempttoavoidthefiresofwar,arequicklyconsumedbyaneconomicandpoliticalconflagration,astheproletarianexperienceofthemen(andboys)whominedtheburningcoalsubsumethe“formerearth”underthepresentearth,withallitsattendantviolenceandinjustice.Indeed,thefourthstanza’salliterativequartetof“murmuring…mine…moans…men”bespeaksabrandofradicalsolidaritythatmightatfirstseemsomewhatsurprisingfromaculturallyelitist,upwardlymobileofficerlikeOwen,andyetmaybeavailabletohimasapoeticfantasypreciselybecauseofthissocialgap.Thewar,weknow,hadawayofcleavingoldclasslines,realigningsoldierwithsoldier,officersandmen,againstthesafelyensconced“oldmen”sofarbackbehindthelines,especiallythoseworthiesingovernment,clergy,mediaandbusiness,whoseoverlappinginterestsprolongedthewarfortheirowngain.Indeed,Owen’squickmovetoidentifyactualcoalminerswith“allthatworkthedarkpits/ofwar”showsthatsufferingisapowerfulunifyingforce,andthatworking-classsufferingwasbeingdemocratizedupward,asitwere,inthehellish“cauldron”ofthewar.Thereisalsoapotentechoofthe“beggars”andtheunforgettablegassedmanfrom“DulceetDecorumest”inthispoem’sburied“men/writhingforair.”

ThefifthstanzaisthedeepestcircleofwhathassosuddenlybecomeaterrifyingDanteanvision:

Isawwhitebonesinthecinder-shard,

98 Boneswithoutnumber. Manythemuscledbodiescharred, Andfewremember.Theselinesaretheclearestcluethattheminddepictedinthispoemisprofoundlydisturbed.Itisonethingtothinkofminersasoneburnscoal—anyreasonablyimaginative,sensitiveliberalmindmightdothat.Itisanotherthingentirelytoenvisionunnumberedburningbodiesintheashesofthefireplace.Atthispointthereverie’sconceitbecomesanightmarishmetaphor,withatorturedintensitythatismorePoethanColeridge.Andifthedetailof“muscledbodies”seemsstrangeornonsensicalhere(firsttherewasnothingleftbutbonesandash)wecankeepinmindnotonlythatitsensuouslyunitesthehardworkingandpredominatelyyouthfulsoldiersandminers,butalsothat“muscledbodiescharred”contraststhematicallyandsonicallywiththelinetwostanzaslater:“Comfortedyearswillsitsoft-chaired.”Inotherwords,Owenismarkedlyopposinghardandsoftbodies,youngandold,deadandalive,because,inyetanotherofthewar’scruelinversions,indolentoldmenwilllongsurvivetheable-bodiedyoungwho“moan”and“groan”undertheburdensoftheirfathers’war. Yetdespitetheatmosphereofhorrorandangerinthispoem,itisstrangelyabstractedandreticentwhenitcomestoidentifyingitsenemies.Insteadofspecifiedorstereotypical“oldmen”tocondemnandresent,thepoemoffersusonlytheoddlyanthropomorphized“years”and“centuries”—Hardyesquefigureswhichdenyourdesireforanobjectforouroutrage,probablytothedetrimentofthepoem’ssentiment,butperhapstothebenefitofitscomplexlylayeredsenseofhistoryandsolidarity.Byfailingtoexplicitlycondemnonedemographichere,Owensucceedsinremindingusthatthelivelihoodofallfuturegenerationsarepredicatedontheworkand(oftenviolent)deathsoftheirancestors.Thisistherulenotjustofhumanhistoryaspresentedinthispoem,butoftimeitself,reachingbackintothePrecambrian.Whatisupforcriticismisnotthiscycleitself,butthewillfulignoranceofthecomfortable,“[who]willnotdreamofuspoorlads/Leftintheground.”Thatistosay,thepoemcensurestheculturalfailuretoengageinactsofimaginationlikethepoemitself. Thispoemalsoinitiatesanotherironicconflictbetweenitsspeakerandhisownwords;forthoughheisresentfulasheimaginesfuturegenerationssittinginfrontoftheirfires“notdream[ing]”(muchliketheaddresseeof“DulceetDecorumest”)of“uspoorlads”hehassimultaneouslyelidedandreplacedtheveryminershehopedtorememberwithanonymoussoldiers,anddirectlyidentifiedhimselfwiththe“comfortedyears”whoenjoytheluxuryignoranceofthesufferingandsacrificefromwhichtheybenefit.Thereisastrongsenseofsurvivor’sguilthere,whichhastheoddeffectofaligningthespeakerequally(andparadoxically)withboththesufferingdeadandthecomfortablyalive.

JahanRamazani,aspartofafinereadingof“Miners”inPoetryofMourning,articulatesthepoet’sambivalentpositionandtheresultinginstabilitiesaroundguilt,blameandimplication:

ForOwen,theaudienceisoftenguilty,thedeadpersoninnocent,andthepoetsplitbetweenthetwopoles…Aspoet,Owenisimplicatedinthespaceofmiddle-classleisure,andheisataninevitableremovefromthedeathshemourns.Asvictim,heis

99

oneoftheexploitedandoppressed,buttomaintainthisstance,hemustevadehisownindirectconfessionthatheusesthedeadforpoeticgain.(81)

Thisisanaptdescriptionoftheradicalinstabilityofspeaker’sroleinthepoem,butitfallsshortinthattryingtolocatethepoet’s“stance”betweentheinnocentandguilty“poles,”undersellinghowcompletelythespeakeridentifieswithbothgroups.Thepoemisnotasafespacebetween“middle-classleisure”andthe“exploitedandoppressed”butamanic,confusedtackingbackandforthbetweenthem.Theshiftfromthesecondtothefirstpersoninthefinaltwostanzascollapsestheseparationbetweenthenewsfromhome,thehorrorsofthefront,andthepoem’saudience,drawingalldownintothepitbeneaththeflames.

AswesawinHardy,wardoessomeofitsworstdamagetothefundamentalprocessesoftime,reversingtherolesofoldandyoungsothatthelatterbecomethegroupclosertodeath,wiserandmoreexperiencedinitsways,andlessabletoevenimagine—nevermindsurvivetowitness—theameliorativefuturebywhichtheLiberalexecutorsofwarjustifyitscontinuance.Thispoemworksbywayofthisdestructivereorderingoftime,examiningwithoutsolvingthecontradictoryspacesitopensup.Byrenderingoldmennaïveandchildishintheirignoranceofwar’strueresults,andyoungmenold,intheirunwantedwisdomandproximitytodeath,andbythrowingbothintothesamerecriminatoryfiresofthepoem’sself-contradictoryforms,Owenbeginstodrawtheshapeofastructureoffeelingforthewarbuiltonanexcruciatingironythatcannolonger“getsosafelyoutsidethesituation”asEmpsonsuggests.Owentrapsusintwoterriblepositionsatonce.

Thepreciseuseofpararhymeinthispoemsupportsitsunstableconceit.Thecoalinthefireinitially“recall[s]”anancientpeaceable“formerearth”—butnotexactly.Somethingseemsslightlyoff,andthequatrainwiththeominousrhymes“summer/simmer”and“cauldron/children”iswherethemismatchbetweenthespeaker’sdesireforpeaceandtherealityofwarbeginstoemergebetweentheslippageofsimilarwordsandconcepts.Thispatternofrhymeswhichsubtlyrepudiatetheirpredecessorspersiststhroughthepoem,forinstance“amber/ember”contraststheluxuryandstasisof“soft-chaired”roomswiththehard“charred”stateofthesoldiers,andthe“mine”isthesiteoftheinfernaltransubstantiationofthese“men.”Thereisanuneasiness,evenaperversitytothisrhymingpractice,whichrefusesandrepudiatesthecomfortofaesthetictraditioninamanneranalogoustothispoem’srepudiationofbourgeoisdomesticcomforts.Thisconversionofformandcontentculminatesinthepoem’sfinalsestet(indeed,wehaveyetanotherreapportioningofthesonnetformhere,withtheitsextendedoveralllengthoffsettingitsradicallyrestrictedlines),whichcounteractsthepotentialcomfortsof“dreaminglids”and“songs…crooned”with“burn[ing]loads”and“poorlads”who“groaned”andwere“leftintheground.”Inthisway,therhymewordsthemselves,andespeciallytherepeatedrealizationsthattheyarenotquiterhymes,areusedtospoilanybidforconsolation.

Againweseehowaspecializedgestureofformalpoetics—inthiscasepararhyme—istherhetoricalgroundfromwhichOwenisabletoconceptualizepoliticalargumentsthathisstatusasamiddleclassofficerandproudEnglishchauvinistwouldotherwiserenderunutterable.Thepoem’sdoublinglanguageallowsOwentoconjureupashadowself,who

100isabletosaythingsthatthespeakerisnotquiteable,todeliveramessageheisnotreadytohearhimself.Thisistheeffectofpararhyme,withitssimultaneousandacceptanceandrejectionofpoetictraditionandallthedeephistoryandculturalassumptionsburiedinitsforms.

Itwillbeworthwhiletolookatanotherpararhymedpoeminwhichthespeakerinvokesagriculturalandgeologicalprocessestoconfrontamoreintimatekindofinassimilabletruth,thedeathofalovedone,wheretheloveitselfcannotbenamed.

Futility

Movehimintothesun– Gentlyitstouchawokehimonce, Athome,whisperingoffieldshalf-sown. Alwaysitwokehim,eveninFrance, Untilthismorningandthissnow. Ifanythingmightrousehimnow Thekindoldsunwillknow. Thinkhowitwakestheseeds– Wokeoncetheclaysofacoldstar. Arelimbs,sodearachieved,aresides Full-nerved,stillwarm,toohardtostir? Wasitforthistheclaygrewtall?

–OwhatmadefatuoussunbeamstoilTobreakearth’ssleepatall?

ThissonnetparticipatesinasimilartransubstantiationtoHardy’s“DrummerHodge”andThomas’s“Digging,”intothegeologicallayersofdeep-historicaltime,whilealsorecallingtheanonymousobsequiesof“APrivate.”Butitbeginsmoreintimately,withthegentlehandlingofthebodyofasoldierwhoappearstohavediedinhissleep.Thespeakercarriestheknowledgeandauthorityofadevotedseniorofficer,whichwecanobserveinboththeimperativemoodofthefirstlineandinhisfamiliarreferencetothesoldier’ssleepinghabits“athome.”Butthesteadyingfamiliarityofthisvoicequicklygrowsstrange,withthemagicalthinkingof“ifanythingmightrousehimnow,”andthephrase“kindoldsun,”whichissotonallyinappropriatethatitmustbereadaseithersarcasticor“fatuous.”

Thepoembeginssomethinglikeapubliceulogy,withitsspecificpositivememoriesofthedead,beforelapsing(orturning)intoaprivate,internalizedlament.Lines3and4haveninesyllables(butstillonlyfourstresses)soinasensetheyflirtwithpentameter,approachitsvolubility,itscapacitytoexplainandexpound,butthenthepoemproceedsbyamodeofwithholding,subtractingsyllablesfromsubsequentlines,andwiththemthepotentialto“rouse”someoneintoconversation.Ifthereisanythingthat“thekindoldsun”does“know”—aboutthesoldier’spast,oraboutanswerstothethreequestionsofthesecondstanza—wedon’tgettohearit.Thepoemisnowhereadialogue,butonlyafitful,lonely,self-enclosedhybridofhymnandsonnet.Theinitiallyauthoritativevoiceofthe

101speakergrowslessandlessassured,untilitbecomesclearheisonlytalkingtohimself,lobbingimpossible,slightlyunhingedquestionsintothevoid.

Atthispointthesonnetsplitsintwo,anditisworthlookingcloseratthisunconventionalform.InsteadofthetraditionalEuropean8–6,ortheEnglish4–4–4–2,thissonnetsplits7–7.Andthoughthereisnoparticularreasonwhytheturncan’tarrivealineearlyinasonnet,itdecisivelyupsetstheform’straditionalproportions,whereanextendedexplorationisresolvedinamoresuccinctanddecisivesummation.Ratherthanmorebalance,the7–7arrangementhereactuallyyieldsakindofindecisivenessorunanswerability.Inthegapoftheextralinebreakbetweenthetwohalves,theintimacyandspecificity(“thismorningandthissnow”)ofthefirststanzaislost,asifthesoldier’sbodywasleftandforgottenasthespeaker’sdistracted—perhapsrepressive—trainofthoughtascendsintoabstraction.Thepoem’svoicefaltersasitreachesacrossthisgap—wemightevencallitatrenchoragrave—andinsodoingitabandonsthespaceofspecialpersonalknowledgeandfloatsintoarealmofanalmostcosmicuncertainty.Italsoabandonsanypretense,howeverhollowitmighthavebeen,thatthesleeperisstillalive.Hope,optimism,thedesiretoclingtolife:alldisappearintothatgap.

Inadditiontotheevenlysplitseven-linestanzas,theformhereisalsonotablefor“missing”stressesandarhymeschemethatisbothsimplerandmorecomplexthanmostsonnets.NeilCorcoranhasnotedthepoem’s“abbreviatedlines,itsrefusalofpentameter”(93);butwhileheaccuratelynameswhattheyarenot,hestopsshortofdescribingwhattheyare.Bothstanzasbeginandendwiththree-stresslinesthatsurroundmoretraditionaltetrameterlines—buteventhosehaveaterseandreservedfeelcomparedtothemoreconversationalpentameterofsomanysonnets.Thoughthepatternisalittleoff,invertedinasense,thealternationoftetrameterandtrimeterlinesrecallsaballad,ormoreperhapsmoreaptlyhere,hymnmeter.AndwhileCorcoranalsolikensthe“openinginstruction”ofthepoemtothe“initiationofapastoralritual”I’dsaywearemoreintherealmofasubvertedAnglicanfuneralrite,with“clay”and“earth”insteadofdust-to-dust(nodustintheperpetualmudoftheWesternFront).Inyetanotheroftheinfernalinversionsofthetrenches,thebodyisdisinterredatdeath,raisedupoutoftheearthforonelastmomentinthesun.

Therhymesfollowasimilarlogicofrefusal,inthattheyrecyclesimilarsoundswithoutactuallyengaginginanythinglikethecomfortablerepetitionof“true”rhymes.Asin“Miners”thesearefineexamplesofthe“pararhymes”Owenbecameknownfor,whichrepeatsoundsofeitherthevowel(asin“sun”and“once”)ortheconsonants(asin“sun”and“sown”)oftheirpredecessors,butneverboth,andsoneverquite“rhyme,”inthestrictsenseoftheword.Theeffectisofakindofslidingandslurringfromlinetoline,acontinualthwartingofexpectations,whatKerrcalls“abrokenpromisetoreturn”(295).Owen’stechniqueherecutsdirectlyagainstWordsworth’sboldassertionin“ThePrefacetoLyricalBallads”(1802)that,“morepatheticsituationsandsentiments…thosethathaveagreaterproportionofpainconnectedwiththem,maybeenduredinmetricalcomposition,especiallyinrhyme,thaninprose”(306).Inthisformulation,meterandrhymehaveananestheticeffect,noteliminatingpain,butimprovingthereader’sabilitytoendureit.Owen,ontheotherhandusesthepararhymetotwisttheknifeofgriefandblame,ashetweakshisformstoapproximate—butultimatelyviolate—acceptedpractices.Ifrhymesoothes,pararhymepiques,drawingextraattentiontowhatisunfitting,disappointing,or

102downrightwrong.Owenalsocleverlydeploysanagram(asin“sown”and“snow”)andsubtraction,(“snow”and“now”)tocreatesightrhymesandfalserhymesthatcontributefurthernotesofsubversiontothepoem.Thekindofgrimplayofthispoetictechniqueismostvisibleinthefinalthree(para)rhymesofthefirststanza,whichjustbarelysuppressadesperatecryof“no,no,no…”

Thesecondstanzaengagesinanoddmixofaweanddisappointmentwiththecapabilitiesofthesun.Ithonorsandaccusesthatlightsource,which“wakestheseeds”and“claysofacoldstar.”Thestarinquestionisearth,andsoweareparticipatinginanotherjuxtapositionofunfittingdiscourseshere,ofoldtestamentcosmogonyandnewscience,andthecategoryerrorhere(thesunisastar,theearthisnot)isevidenceofthemismatch.Thencomethedesperate,impossiblequestions.Thesoldierisgonefromthepoem,reducedtoparts—“sides”and“limbs”—andthespeakeraskstoknowwhy,knowingverywellhecan’teverknow.“Wasitforthis”58—thispointlessdeathinatrench—thatthesunwentthroughallthattroubleofraising“theclay”inthefirstplace?Indescendingbackinto“mereclay”thedeadsoldier’sbodyrepudiatesthesun,renderingitsmagic“fatuous.”The“toil”and“break(ing)earth”ofthefinallinesrecallthe“fieldshalf-sown”ofline3,leavinguswithanimageofunfinishedworkandwastedtime,ofworkthatmightaswellneverhavebeenbegun.Thepoemtoo,hasthefeelingofsomething“half-sown”withitstoo-shortlines,unfinishedrhymes,unansweredquestions,andtheemptytrenchcuttingitintotwohalvesthatdon’tquiteanswertoeachother.Ifindeed,itbeginsasatenderfuneralrite,itendsasaratheraimlessrant.Aimlessinthesensethatitsangermissesthemark;similartotheanthropomorphized“years”and“centuries”in“Miners,”the“fatuous”sunbeamsbearthebruntofaholyragethatcouldeasilyhavebeenmoreaccurately(i.e.politically)directed.Butthiswandering,distractedangerisnotsomuchaflawofthepoemasitisitsfundamentalcondition.Thespeakerhereisconstitutionallyunabletoassignblameforthepointlessdeathofhisfellowsoldier,forahostofreasonswecanwellimagine(patriotism,camaraderie,obedience,andtheneedtojustifyone’sowncontinuedfight).Insteadheflailsaboutinanabsurd—indeed,slightlyunhinged—patheticfallacy.

RamazaniandNeilCorcoranhavesingledout“Futility”asoneofOwen’sbestpoems,respectivelycallingit“morepersistentlyevocativeofabjectloss”andpraisingthe“exactintensity”ofits“subvertedelegyandhomil[y]”:buttomeitseemsmosteffectiveintransmittingonlythisdestabilizingsenseofunresolvedandaimlessanger,whichiseitherthecauseorresultofaninabilitytoproperlymourninthecontextofmassdeathandtheinescapableawarenessone’sownimpendingoblivion.59Thetwounresolvedpoeticregistershere,firstthegentle,intimateaffectionandthenthefutilecosmicanger,aretwoespeciallydiscordantexamplesofthemanycompetingvoiceswhichwe’veseenOwen’spoetrysetinconflict.Bycombiningtheminasonnetthathassplititselfinhalf,withouteitherhalfresolvingoraugmentingtheother,Owenhasagainshownhowhispoetrycanonlytry—andonlyfail—toaccountforthewar’seffects.Thefutilitywhichthepoemregistersisnotsomuchanassertionofpoliticaloutrageasitisanexpressionofexistential—andformal—exhaustion.

58Anotherecho/repudiationofWordsworthhere:“Wasitforthis”isalsothequestiononwhichthefirstbookof“ThePrelude”turns.59SeeCorcoran,93,andRamazani73–5.

103

Coda

Formaldoubling,internalantagonism,andstrongironyarepervasiveinthesewartimepoemsandintheculturalandpoliticalstructuresthatweretheircontext.Tostopthere,though,wouldbemerelytoconfirmwhatisalreadywellknownandwidelyclaimed,notleastbyPaulFussell,whoproclaims“Iamsayingthatthereseemstobeonedominatingformofmodernunderstanding;thatitisessentiallyironic;andthatitoriginateslargelyintheapplicationofmindandmemorytotheeventsoftheGreatWar”(35).WhatFussellcallsa“dominatingformof…understanding,”IidentifywithRaymondWilliams’s“structureoffeeling.”Toexplainhowandwhythisepochalironicmodeisconstructedinpoeticformspecificallyistheprimaryfocusofthisstudy.

Poemswritteninthemiddleofthewarwillnecessarilyhaveadifferentstructureoffeelingthanpoemswritteninitslead-uporafteritsend.Duringthewar,therearenostableculturalforms;everythingisprecariousorunderoutrightthreatofextinction,butespeciallythosesociopoliticalformationsbasedonprinciplesofliberalism,whichevenavowedliberals(andLiberals)seemtoundermineorabandonatmomentsofcrisis.Thesethreepoetsemployvariationsontraditionalpoeticformtoexaminethisfeelingofradicalculturalinstability.Hardyinterrogatesthefailureofhistoryasameasureofhumanprogress.Thomasconfrontstheemptinessoftheindividualasalocusofsocialcohesion.Owenexposespredominantinheritedsourcesofmoralauthorityasuselessandrotten.Bywayoftheseendangeredforms,allthreepoetscometoquestiontheconceptofthenationitself,exposingitasadangerouslyantisocialformation.

Poetryisthemeansbywhichtheythinkthroughwhatisatstake,tryonvariousformsoflossandseewhat,ifanything,mightbeleftafterwards.Forallthree,acomplexor“double”irony,andrelatedconventionsofthepastoralmode,arethemostusefulstrategiesforlimningtheserealandimaginarylosses,becausetheyallowthemindtosimultaneouslyoccupytwosidesofanunfathomabledivide—betweenfaithanddespair,butalsothedividebetweensocialclasses—thosewiththepowerandprerogativetoobserveandexertcontrol,andthosewhoareobservedandcontrolledinturn.AsEmpsondescribesit,thecomplexironyofpastoraldoesnotopposesincerity,itopposesopposition—bysaying“aplagueonboththeirhouses…itseemstogetsosafelyoutsidethesituation.”Ofcoursethatsafetyisillusory,orrather,imaginary.Itisrealforthemind,butnotforthebody.Thesepoemsofferakindofstrengthinthefaceofdoubtanddespairforwhichirony—andpoetry—ismoreusefulthanfaithorknowledge.Inwartime,ironyisnotmerelyanaestheticstrategy,itisasurvivalstrategy.

104

WorksCitedAnderson,Benedict.ImaginedCommunities.NewYork:Verso,1991.Armstrong,Isobel.VictorianPoetry:Poetry,PoeticsandPolitics.London:Routledge,

1993.Armstrong,Tim.HauntedHardy:Poetry,History,Memory.Basingstoke:Palgrave,

2000.Blevins,Jeffrey.“ThomasHardy’sTiming:PoemsandClocksinLate-Nineteenth-

CenturyEngland.”VictorianPoetry52:4(Winter2014):591-618.Campbell,Matthew.RhythmandWillinVictorianPoetry.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,

1999.Coleridge,SamuelTaylor.TheMajorWorks.Oxford:OxfordUP,1985.Corcoran,Neil.“WilfredOwenandthePoetryofWar.”InTheCambridgeCompanion

toTwentiethCenturyEnglishPoetry,ed.NeilCorcoran.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,2007.

Eksteins,Modris.RitesofSpring:TheGreatWarandtheBirthoftheModernAge.

Boston:HoughtonMifflin,2000.Empson,William.SomeVersionsofPastoral.NewYork:Norton,1938.Freud,Sigmund.BeyondthePleasurePrinciple.NewYork:Norton,1961(1920).———.“TheUnconscious”inTheFreudReader,ed.PeterGay.NewYork:Norton,

1995:572–584.

———.“MourningandMelancholia”inTheFreudReader,ed.PeterGay.NewYork:Norton,1995:584–589.

Fussell,Paul.TheGreatWarandModernMemory.Oxford:OxfordUP,1975.Graves,Robert.Good-byetoAllThat.NewYork:Anchor,1985.Grossman,Allen,withMarkHalliday.TheSightedSinger.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins

UP,1992.Hardy,Thomas.TheCompletePoems,ed.JamesGibson.London:Macmillan,1976.Hardy,ThomasandHardy,Florence.TheLifeofThomasHardy.Ware:Wordsworth

105

Editions,2007.Hollis,Matthew.NowAllRoadsLeadtoFrance:TheLastYearsofEdwardThomas.

London:Faber,2012.Hynes,Samuel.AWarImagined:TheFirstWorldWarandEnglishCulture.NewYork:

Atheneum,1990.———.ThePatternofHardy’sPoetry.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,

1961.Kerr,Douglas.WilfredOwen’sVoices:LanguageandCommunity.Oxford:OxfordUP,

1993.Levine,Caroline.“StrategicFormalism:TowardaNewMethodinCulturalStudies.”

VictorianStudies.48:4(Summer2006):625–57.

———.Forms:Whole,Rhythm,Hierarchy,Network.Princeton:PrincetonUP,2015.Levinson,Marjorie.“Object-LossandObject-Bondage:EconomiesofRepresentation

inHardy’sPoetry.”ELH73(2006):549–580.Martin,Meredith.TheRiseandFallofMeter:PoetryandEnglishNationalCulture,

1860–1930.Princeton:PrincetonUP,2012.Motion,Andrew.ThePoetryofEdwardThomas.London:Hogarth,1980.Owen,Wilfred.ThePoemsofWilfredOwen,ed.JonStallworthy.London:Hogarth,

1985.Puckett,Kent.“Hardy’s1900.”MLQ75:1(March2014):57–75.Ramazani,Jahan.PoetryofMourning:TheModernElegyfromHardytoHeaney.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1994.Ross,RobertH.TheGeorgianRevolt1910–1922:RiseandFallofaPoeticIdeal.

Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUP,1965.Sherry,Vincent.TheGreatWarandtheLanguageofModernism.Oxford:OxfordUP,

2003.Silkin,Jon,ed.ThePenguinBookofFirstWorldWarPoetry.London:Penguin,1981.Smith,Stan.EdwardThomas.London:Faber,1986.

106Taylor,Dennis.Hardy’sMetresandVictorianProsody.Oxford:Oxford,1988.———.Hardy’sPoetry:1860–1928.NewYork:ColumbiaUP,1981.———.Hardy’sLiteraryLanguageandVictorianPhilology.Oxford:OxfordUP,1993.Thomas,Edward.TheAnnotatedCollectedPoems,ed.EdnaLongley.Tarset:

Bloodaxe,2008.———.ALanguagenottoBeBetrayed:SelectedProseofEdwardThomas,ed.Edna

Longley.Manchester:CarcanetNewPress,1981.Tomalin,Claire.ThomasHardy.NewYork:Penguin,2007.Trumpener,Ulrich.“TheRoadtoYpres:TheBeginningsofGasWarfareinWorld

WarI.”TheJournalofModernHistory47:3(Sep.1975):460-480.White,Hayden.“TheValueofNarrativityintheRepresentationofReality.”Critical

Inquiry7:1(Fall1980):5–27.Wilde,Oscar.“PhrasesandPhilosophiesfortheUseoftheYoung,”TheArtistasCritic:

CriticalWritings.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982:433–4.Williams,Raymond.TheCountryandtheCity.Oxford:OxfordUP,1973.———.TheLongRevolution.Llandysul:Parthian,2001.(1961).———.ThePoliticsofModernism.London:Verso,1989.Wordsworth,William,andS.T.Coleridge.LyricalBallads.NewYork:Routledge,

1991.