This book is the work of those marked by history. It contains poets whose lives were shaped by
insurmountable forces, thrown off course, even – at worst – destroyed. Some of these poems were composed at an
extreme of human endurance, on the brink of breakdown or death; all bear
witness to historical event, and the irresistibility of its impact.
To William Meredith, the [poet’s engagement with the world
is a matter of conscience, for “the imperfections of society . . .
can only be responded to militantly,
by poet and reader.” As he saw it, the distinctive experience of life in the
twentieth century, with its perils and pitfalls, obliged him to act as a
dissident: it was, he said, “the most urgent
role at a time like ours.” Readers play their part in this process: Carolyn
Forche argues for witness as “a mode of reading rather than of writing, of
readerly encounter with the literature of that-which-happened, and its mode is
evidentiary rather than representational – as evidentiary, in fact, as spilled
blood.” If the function of the reader is to encounter ‘the literature of
that-which-happened,” that of the artist is to testify – one to which writers
are compelled by their relation to words. Forche observes that ‘poetic language
attempts a coming to terms with evil and its embodiments, and there are appeals
for a shared sense of humanity and collective resistance. These principles
provide the basis of this book.
Although the concept of witness is the product of the last
century, and hitherto applied to the writers of that time, this volume argues
it is found elsewhere. Indeed, there is no lack of it in the canon. Why should
that be? In part, it bears out Forche’s contention in her introduction to Against Forgetting, that the concentration
of contemporary poets on the realm of the personal, almost to the point of
myopia, is peculiar to recent times. Prior to that, poets commonly discussed
experiences shared by the larger community in which they lived.
There is another reason. The experiences that compel our
poets are frequently beyond the containing power of language. Forche quotes
Paul Celan: language “had to go through its own responselessness, go through
its horrible silences, go through the thousand darknesses of death-bringing
speech.” The connection between the
outside world and a work of art that testifies to its atrocities is unclear
and, to a large extent, unknowable. The initial response of the imagination is
silence, language seems inadequate to the task of articulating fully our reactions to the
extremes of experience.
It might be argued there is little new in this for the
poetry of witness, despite its theoretical origins in the discourse of the
twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, has always been the means by which the
imagination has articulated its response to war, imprisonment, oppression, and
enslavement. Like Celan, we argue that, of all genres, poetry is best suited to
the task. We refer to its ability to accommodate the sublime, the ineffable,
that of which we cannot speak. This is admittedly a Romantic argument and,
perhaps for that reason, its application to poetry predating the French Revolution
might be thought irrational. Yet preromantic poets come as close to discussing
emotions beyond verbal formulation as their successors, not the least in the
case of Wyatt’s “Sighs are my food,” written during what he had every reason to
expect would be his final imprisonment, or Surrey’s “The storms are passed,
these clouds are overblown,” composed within days, perhaps hours, of his
beheading.
Poetry of Witness foregrounds the historical context inhabited
by the author, obliging us to consider the manner in which it impinged on his
or her vision. We have pondered at length the case of William Blake, witness to
the riots of June 1780 when, over the course of nearly a week, tens of thousands
of protestors stormed through London. The Gordon Riots, so-called after their
instigator, the anti-Catholic agitator Lord George Gordon, began with the
destruction of the Catholic chapels of the Sardinian and Bavarian embassies.
Rioters then besieged the residences of eminent Catholics. More than a hundred
houses were destroyed; the mob to effective control of a number of roads and
attacked London Bridge, the Sessions House at the Old Baily, and the Bank of
England.
Blake was walking toward Newgate at around 6:30 p.m. on the
evening of Tuesday June 6 when he encountered a group of rioters on their way
to the nearby prison to which several of their number had been committed over
the weekend. He watched as they proceeded, in a methodical manner, to demolish
the building with pickaxes and sledgehammers. Within an hour, more than three
hundred inmates were free, but the jail was torched before all were out of
their cells, and the frantic screams of those inside were heard as they roasted
to death. Fragments of red-hot metal shot into the darkening sky as huge pieces
of masonry collapsed to the ground. Some protestors clambered onto the
structure, perching precariously on window ledges that had yet to crumble.
Others caroused in the street, as they broke open wine and liquor found in
cellars used by the prison governor, while blacksmiths removed fetters from the
ankles of newly freed prisoners.
As historians have long argued, the Gordon riots were
motivated less by religious bigotry than by inequalities of income and social
class, and Blake was aware of that. The protagonists were working people –
small shopkeepers, pedlars, craftsmen, apprentices, discharged soldiers and
sailors, waiters, and servants –whose actions were directed against the
property of the wealthy (merchants, manufacturers, and other professionals),
the most obvious example being Lord Mansfield’s house in Bloomsbury, torched
along with his “rich wardrobe,” “superb” furniture, and library of over one
thousand books. As one historian observes, the riots manifested “a groping
desire to settle accounts with the rich, if only for a day, and to achieve some
rough kind of social justice.” An additional motive was their opposition to the
American war, now five years old (which explains the large numbers of sailors
among them).
The only
authoritative account we have of Blake’s involvement emphasizes his
disinclination to be there. In the first major biography of then poet, Alexander
Gilchrist wrote; “suddenly, he encountered the advancing wave of Blackguardism,
and was forced (for from such a great surging mob there is no disentanglement)
to go along in the very front rank, and witness the storm and burning of the
fortress-like prison, and release of its three hundred inmates.” Every
biography is a product of its historical moment, and Gilchrist’s is no
exception. By the early 1860s, when he was writing, radical causes were in
temporary retreat, Chartism having been crushed out of existence as decisively
as the campaign for Parliamentary reform four decades earlier. Regardless of
the evidence, Gilchrist could not allow it to be thought that Blake was party
to the collapse of civil law in central London.
While it is most unlikely Blake would ever have fought
alongside an anti-Catholic mob, it is conceivable he sympathized with at least
some of their actions. The destruction of an ancient prison in the heart of
London, horrific though it may have been, must have stirred the man who would
write, “Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of
Religion,” and declare fellow feeling for “the captive in chains & the poor
in prison.” Blake was the same generation as many of the rioters, having completed
his own apprenticeship less than a yearn before. He must have understood their
grievances; if so, he was not alone. The army refused to fire on them, aware of
the sailors among the crowds. Urged by John Wilkes to raise the posse comitatus, the Lord Mayor declined.
Nor would the Court of Aldermen lift a finger to suppress them.
Whatever his feelings about what he witnessed, we can be
sure Blake would never forget the sights and sounds of that evening, which
brought him as close as he would ever get to a full-scale revolution – a subject
that recurs throughout his writings. G.E. Bentley Jr. observes that
Images of ‘burning’, “fire”,
“flames”, and “rage” in his poetry and in his picture of “Fire” are likely
related to the scenes he saw during the Gordon riots, and from them one may
construct a description of the riots: “all rush together in the night in wrath
and raging fire”, “a mighty multitude rage furious” “in flames of red burning
wrath”, “Albions mountains run with blood, the cries of war & of tumult”, “Above
the rest the howl was heard from Westminster launder &louder”, and “Around
St James’s glow the fires”; from Westminster “Eastward &Southward
&Northward are circled with flaming fires”, “In thunder smoke & sullen
flames & howlings & fury & blood”, “in dungeons circled with ceaseless
fire”; “All is confusion, all is tumult”. Blake’s visions of apocalypse come
partly from personal experiences.
Bentley’s observation underlines the value of Forche’s ideas
to the way in which we think about writers and their work. In recent decades,
Blake has been appropriated by those who encounter him as a mythmaker or cryptographer,
with the result that his art is rendered cerebral, the plaything of
intellectuals. Poetry of witness reminds us that Blake’s art grew out of his
life. It argues that, at the point at which the artist confronts extremity – whether
imprisonment, torture, or warfare – his vision is altered irrevocably, turning
utterance into testimony. Blake was not the same after his encounter with the
Gordon Rioters. Perhaps he reveled in the spectacle of Newgate in flames and
followed the mob over successive days, watching as one institution after
another was reduced to ashes. It taught him what anarchy and destruction looked
like. He knew the terror and excitement that came from watching the world burn
down – and, as Bentley argues, those feelings pass into the mainstream of his
work. . .
The poems in this book are acts of resistance. Some of our
authors defy injustice to the extent of incurring the wrath of those willing to
impose the ultimate sanction of death; some face risks, whether on the
battlefield or in the forum of public debate, with the outcome not in an
afterlife but in the here and now; all testify to the impress of extremity. Our
reading of their work carries its own responsibility – not solely that of
understanding the world from which it came, nor of comprehending how dearly
such utterances are bought, but also that of being receptive to its burden.
That the poet bear witness to extremity is the requirement
by which we have measured our judgments. By “extreme,” we refer to experiences
that are the result of societal injustice, the depredations of the state, or
sins of omission – specifically war, imprisonment, torture, and political
oppression of various kinds. The fundamental argument of this book is simply
and clearly articulated: each poet earns his or her place in “dialectical
opposition to the extremity that has made witness necessary.” Such
sensibilities are not the product only of recent times, but a perennial feature
of human history –for the imagination has always been on trial. Poetry of Witness
presents some of the finest works to emerge from that tradition, arguing they
rank alongside the greatest in the language.
Throughout the chronological period we have surveyed (1500-2001), women writers are exceptional, in more senses than one. Cultural norms prior to the Second World War were so uncongenial that their existence is a minor miracle. Deprived of an education equal to that of their male counterparts, most females were considered suitable as housekeepers and mothers, but not writers, and definitely not intellectuals. Society decreed that a woman who read books –other than romantic novels, that is –had abrogated her correct purpose of being an airheaded, beautiful, and (if she was lucky) marriageable. Worse still, one who wrote poetry was a freak, fit for display but not other purposes . . Those who did publish verse were expected to paraphrase passages of the Bible or address abstract Deities such as Hope or Charity. They were not expected to discuss contemporary figures in any context other than commemorations of, for example, the king’s birthday, far less to analyze contemporary politics. It is hardly surprising, therefore, than many in the eighteenth century believed women had no business commenting on slavery; the act of opposing it was unacceptable, and that of criticizing it in a poem contemptible. Women poets who contravened such taboos did so at risk, aware they were vulnerable to accusations that their engagement with politics left them ‘unsexed,’ stripped of femininity. This was a male construct, and perhaps only a male reviewer would have ridiculed an author to the extent of making potential readers ashamed of being seen with a copy of her work; of calling on publishers to boycott her; and, at his most ruthless, of denouncing her as a prostitute, as happened to Mary Wollstonecraft and Helen Maris Williams.
ReplyDeleteThe ferocity of male reviewers attests to the scale of the perceived threat. For this reason we regard those women courageous enough to have engaged in political debate through poetry as activists. A heroic couplet may indeed comprise an act, a deed, a blow struck for a cause- sufficient to turn its author into a target. Whether we speak of martyrs, bluestockings or Communists many of the women in these pages were motivated by their willingness top denounce religious or political injustice, an act for which there is always a price to be paid.