The one quality that I share with the immortal William Cobbett is that I’m not in the least bothered by inconsistency. I think it’s important for people to change their minds and this is why I preface most of the writing here with a ‘provisional’ and ‘tentative’ disclaimer. I have to report that whilst sunbathing this afternoon (newly discovered pastime), I started on the above sequence with the intention of paying it some attention instead of my previous dive-by reading.
A couple of years ago I went on at some length about how irredeemably bad the Oraclau collection was because it’s rhymes were both forced and wrong-footed. In fact I thought it was so bad that it shouldn’t have been published, even though Hill has a line somewhere vowing to make his readers wince. I’d now like to retract this and confess my prior knee-jerk and unwarranted prejudice.
Up until now, I thought that Sir Geoffrey and I agreed on one fundamental point: the teaching of creative writing is a Very Bad Thing indeed. I now discover that we may agree on the Poetry problem. More than ever I have to state that what follows is exceptionally tentative and subjective and heavily influenced by my tendency to over-read when someone appears to agree with me.
A central plank of the Bebrowed position re the Poem is that it has for centuries been far too poetic, far too in love with its own lyrical flow. I’ve made this argument before and no doubt will do so again but today’s speculation is whether Hill might (approximately) agree.
I have several items of evidence, each with specific flaws but, like a good conspiracy theorist, this isn’t going to get in my way. I have to admit that I’ve only just started to pay attention to Expostulation having previously flicked through it, alighting on poems that caught my eye. This was a mistake, I should have remembered that it isn’t helpful to read Hill in a piecemeal way. I’ve now started at the beginning and have noticed that ‘themes’ keep recurring and being expanded upon. One of these is the nature of The Poem. This is the end of the seventh poem in the sequence:
In stark of which, demand stands shiftless. Words Render us callous the fuller they ring; Stagger the more clankingly untowards; Hauled to finesse in all manner of wrong: Which is how change finds for us, long-lost one. Oratory is pleading but not pledge; Such haphazard closures of misfortune Played by commandment on mechanic stage.
There are several things that I want to pull out from this. The first is this fuller ringing that render us callous. Words that ring in this way might be read as overly ornate or used for effect rather than content. It would therefore seem that this is a reasonable piece of evidence until we start to wonder about who ‘us’ might be. As with The Triumph of Love’s view of poetry as a “sad and angry consolation” it is unclear whether this refers to the readers or the poets, or both. With regard to this passage I’m currently voting for the poets because the poetic bag of tricks can be used with great cynicism and more than a little dishonesty, I believe that this ‘fits’ better with the finessing of all manner of wrong.
The second verse’s assertion about oratory is another, perhaps more tenuous, piece of evidence that I’d like to rely on. The pleading / pledging juxtaposition is worth some thought. I’m currently reading this to indicate that ‘strong’ poetry involves the commitment of the self to something, almost a formal commitment whereas the oratorical flummery that makes up most of The Poem is an act of persuasion rather than a statement of fealty.
My third piece of evidence is one of the sequences two dedications, it is Kate Lechmere’s 1914 observation of Pound reading aloud: “Such a voice seemed to clown verse rather than read it”. Now, clowning has been a strong element in much of Hill’s work since The Triumph of Love and my re-consideration of the Oraclau sequence is because it may be an extended clowning with a more serious purpose. This may be to undermine the poetic and the tricks that it has by producing bad poems with even worse rhymes. Incidentally, I think it might be urgently essential to get the clown back into The Poem.
My penultimate item is this from the end of Poem 9:
Justice is song where song is primitive As with poetics. Elsewhere more complex Denouements, if folly can stay alive; Innocence, if machination strum lax.
I’m not going to dive into the Hillian syntax of the last two lines but simply point to the observation that justice is song where The Poem is primitive i.e. before it got carried away with itself. There’s also something here about the honesty of the primitive poem. Isn’t there?
My final link comes from Hill’s introduction to his Annunciations which was published in the Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse from 1962:
I want to believe in: that poetry makes its world from the known world; that it has a transcendence; that it is something other than the conspicuous consumption (the banquet) that it seems to be.
What I say in the section is, I think, that I don’t believe in the Word. The fact that I make the poem at all means that I still believe in words.
So, a degree of consistency, if I’m correct, going back over fifty years. I hope that the above has established a hint, if nothing more, of a sincere attempt to upturn at least part of the status quo, to make us wince (as he says elsewhere) in order to push us out of inertia, dumb acceptance, complacency. I do however need to have another look at Oraclau.
It’s interesting to me, that “Oratory is pleading but not pledge” line. This is exactly (or so it seems to me) Philosophy’s argument against the sophists. As Barbara Cassin points out, in spite of this condemnation, Philosophy has spent 2500 years resurrecting sophism to condemn it, because, she asserts, philosophy is only philosophy because it asserts that it is not its Other. Her point is not to redeem sophism for Philosophy, but to keep them in dialectical tension. I wonder if Hill, in spite of what he says about not believing in the Word, needs it as *his* Other?
This throws open a much bigger can of worms. I think you’re right about the sophists but Hill’s relationship with philosophy is tied in with his faith and theology. Expostulations develops the mystical aspect that’s seems to have been becoming more apparent in the last ten years. Am now going to have another look at Gabriel Marcel as the 20th century philosopher that gets the most mentions.
Very stimulating. Clowñing? Folly is both ethos and persona. Hill’s distinction in belief between the Word and words ís profered in that spirit. It is a false and catholic distinction. It may however indicate a fault line in Hill’s bedrock.
Yes, but it’s fascinating to see how much wavering/oscillation has gone on in the last 52 years, I’ve now looked at Marcel and intend today to explore here the mystical thread that seems to have added a further fault line in the last ten years- Marcel talks about the broken world which has always been broken and condemns our ‘functional’ lives in quite a Hillian way.
I have been reading Kearney’s Anatheism. That would be a place to start in reading Hill theologically, which I agree is what must be done. I’ll be doing this at poetryandbeing.com
Pingback: Geoffrey Hill, mysticism and Gabriel Marcel | Bebrowed's Blog