Robert Graves, War Poems, edited by Charles Mundye Seren
2016
With the
centenary of the First World War comes an inevitable reappraisal of the poets
of that conflict. Graves’ position as a war poet has always been tenuous.
Although Goodbye to All That may be one of the indispensable prose works
about the war, Graves’ poems written during the war have never had many
advocates, even amongst those who admire his later poetry. It’s difficult to disagree
with Douglas Day’s assessment. The chapter in Swifter than Reason which discusses the poems printed here is
called ‘Juvenilia and the War’ and ends: ‘If Graves’ poetry of this period suffers
from the inevitable naiveté and enthusiasm of youthfulness, it is also hindered
by being attached to a worn-out tradition’.
Mundye is
well aware of the criticisms. If he doesn’t meet them head on, he argues a case
for the poet and his poems:
The poems themselves are expressive of contradiction,
often resolute, fearful, absurd, ironic, knowing, ignorant, and elegiac in
isolation and combination. Graves gives us reassurance and terror; friendship,
murder, and slaughter; graphic realism and escapist fantasy, and more and more
the sense of any simple division between such categories collapse, as they
slowly bleed into each other in intensifying and metapmorphosing nightmare
(p.45).
This
collection brings together, for the first time in one edition, all the poems
Graves wrote during the war and then those he wrote about the war in the course
of his long writing life. In doing so it gives a reader the chance to see those
poems as a coherent whole. Throughout his long career Graves was a great
reviser and deleter of his own poems. Mundye
prints them in their original form.
The book probably
isn’t going to elevate Graves into the canonical ranks of ‘War Poets’ but at
least it becomes obvious why that’s not going to happen. The poems record the
collision between a young man whose upbringing had not prepared him in any way and
the experience of that first fully mechanised war. Geoffrey Hill, in one of his
Oxford lectures has described the error of taking highly eloquent personal
testimony and generalising from it. But in Graves’ case, it is difficult not
see him as a representative of a public school generation who went from games
and prep and worrying about the legitimacy of same sex friendships to finding
themselves as junior officers in the trenches leading men much older and with
much more varied experiences.
Read in
sequence the first three collections, ‘Over the Brazier’, ‘Fairies and
Fusiliers’, and the hitherto unpublished ‘The Patchwork Flag’ are far more
disturbing than the more well- known poetry. They are the work of a painfully
young man. By all accounts, his own and successive biographers, Graves was an
awkward, unhappy school boy who didn’t fit in at Charterhouse school. If the
public school system was there to provide the empire with manly stalwart chaps,
Graves’ was a flawed product. Like many of his class and generation he went
straight from school to the army and joined up just before his 19th
birthday. He was (prematurely as it turned out) declared dead on his 21st.
Mundye gives the biographical information though without the details of the
intense complexities of Graves’ adolescence.
Some of the
poems printed in ‘Over the brazier’ were written while he was still at
Charterhouse school. They read like school boy poems. Edward Marsh, who Graves
was introduced to by George Mallory, himself an unhappy presence at
Charterhouse, said they read like poems from the 1860s. When Graves went to
France he took the everyman Keats with him. Some of the poems in ‘Over the
Brazier” were written in that book and the malign influence of Keats is evident
in some of the poems.
In ‘The Dying
Knight and the Fauns’, which Mundye suggests was written about 1910, the poet sees the dying knight:
Where the
weary woods were sighing
With the
rustle of the birches
With the
quiver of the larches…
It’s
formally good but the adjectives and adverbs are as heavy handed as the
sentiment, as in Jolly Yellow moon with its refrain:
And the
jolly yellow moon doth shine.
It took
Graves a while to get rid of the oh gosh and golly how lovely diction. But at
the same time, Graves’ technical control is there from very early on. Fairies and Fusiliers performs a strange
split: literally poems about Fusiliers and poems about Fairies. Presumably
Graves expected his fellow officers to read his poems. Sassoon wanted more
Fusiliers and less Fairies. He accused him of not feeling deeply enough. But I
think in this Sassoon was wrong.
For Graves
menace is never a character off stage waiting to make an entrance. The enemy in
the trench on the other side of no man’s land is not as dangerous as having to
live with yourself in a dug out. Menace is woven into everything. As Kersnowski
demonstrates in The Early Poetry of Robert
Graves, it tends to ripple through everything. By the time he wrote Poetic Unreason in the 1920s, Graves came to see that meeting that menace and dealing with the trauma it caused was the therapeutic function of poetry for the poet.
Mundye’s
introduction is good at identifying what is unique to Graves. The first poem in Over the Brazier, ‘The Poet in the Nursery’, describes a child
pulling down a book of nursery rhymes and becoming obsessed by them. At the
same time as the immature Graves pads his lines with unnecessary adverbs and
adjectives and inverts word order, some of the characteristics of his later verse
are already present:
The book
was full of funny muddling mazes
Each
rounded off into a lovely song
And most
extraordinary and monstrous mazes
knotted
with rhymes like a slave driver’s thong.
That final
simile might be a young man losing control of his matter for a rhyme, but the
abrupt contrast between ‘lovely song’ and ‘slave driver’s thong’ is an early
example of the way Graves acknowledged that what is terrifying and threatening can
also be attractive. And vice versa.
Part of the
reason for Graves’ absence from the pantheon of ‘War Poets’ is that his poems
don’t fit neatly into an ‘attitude’ which can be conscripted into someone
else’s purposes. As Mundye points out, he wasn’t a ‘protest poet’. His reaction
was much more varied. There are ‘anti-War
poems’. 'Armistice Day, 1918' is a good example. But he was proud of his regiment
for the remainder of his life. This was the man who told Wilfrid Owen to cheer
up and, criticised by Sassoon for being young and lacking depth of feeling,
responded that he was young. (Both quoted by Mundye.)
It’s
possible to argue that the poems of Sassoon and Owen describe the world they
saw for those that weren’t there. It’s a journalistic approach to the horror.
Graves on the other hand, records the effects of processing that horror. The
nightmares, the ghosts that appeared, the dead friends in the crowds. It’s too
neat a distinction to be pushed too far, but it’s workable.
“The
Patchwork Flag’ was never published, and its publication here might seem like
reason to buy the book. However, if you
think you’re going to read a hitherto unseen collection of Graves poems you’ll
be disappointed. Although Graves decided not try and publish the collection,
almost all the poems in it were later published.
On the
other hand, as Mundye argues, the poem that would have been the foreword to the
collection sums up Graves poetry at this time:
Here is a
patchwork lately made
Of antique
silk and flower brocade
Old Faded
scraps in memory rich
Sewn each
to each with featherstitch.
But when
you stare aghast perhaps
At certain
muddied khaki scraps
And Trophy
fragments of field-grey
Clotted and
stained that shout dismay
At
broidered birds and silken flowers
Blame these
black times; their fault, not ours.
They are a patchwork. Summing up the case for
his subject Mundye ends:
His Charterhouse poems in Over the Brazier are an unsuspecting gateway to hell: the
domesticity of his later patchwork metaphor is a brutal reminder of how early
family life for a whole generation was punctuated by shell-shock memory of
blood and fragmentation. As Blake before him, Graves explores both innocence
and experience, with the complex interconnectedness of the two bringing out the
terrors of the latter all the more clearly.
In
discussing the poetry written by men and women who lived through times most
people are grateful they never had to endure, there’s a humane tendency to shy
away from discussions of quality. It takes someone of the stature and bloody
mindedness of Yeats to say the unspeakable and point out that Owen’s poetry, as
poetry, is not always good poetry. Graves’ war poems, with a few exceptions, are not
well known because they are not memorable.
While Day probably over stated the case in the chapter mentioned above, his
judgement still seems broadly correct. These are a very young man’s poems and
they are written out of a tradition that was out of date before he was born.
If you have
any interest in Graves the poet the book is probably indispensable. Mundye’s
essay and notes are worth the price of admission. The book probably needs to be read against On English Poetry (1922) and Poetic Unreason (1925) which are Graves' attempts to achieve some kind of critical distance on his experience.
But if you’re not interested in Graves, then I don’t think the book stands alone as a collection of poems worth knowing. On the other hand, if you’re intrigued by the question: what would it have been like to be a young infantry officer in the 1st world war, then the unsettling patchwork of these poems offers an unsettling answer.
But if you’re not interested in Graves, then I don’t think the book stands alone as a collection of poems worth knowing. On the other hand, if you’re intrigued by the question: what would it have been like to be a young infantry officer in the 1st world war, then the unsettling patchwork of these poems offers an unsettling answer.