While looking up something about the poet-critic J.V. Cunningham, I happened on a brief review of his collection The Judge Is Fury written by Robert Hillyer (1895-1961) and published in the June 28, 1947 issue of The Saturday Review. It’s worth quoting in full:
“This book should not be
dismissed briefly, for it is important. The poems excel in a field that today
other poets—except Frost, on occasion—have left untended: the epigram. The
verse is hard and classic. The wry analysis of emotion, the Platonic humor, are
akin to Santayana; the deftness of the cool and clipped syllables brings Landor
to mind. My only complaint is that Mr. Cunningham introduces identical rhymes
as lavishly as a French poet. He is too fine an artist to have done this
unintentionally, but the effect in English still sounds weak in my ear. Mr.
Cunningham’s book will probably not attract a large modern audience, but he
should have the satisfaction of knowing that he is carving —even if not always
with perfection—in stone, while so many of his contemporaries are still
dabbling in the sticky dough left from the Romantic popovers.”
That’s my idea of how to
write a capsule review. I wish more reviews were so pithy, with hardly
a wasted word. Everything is focused on the book, not on the author of the review.
Too many reviews are autobiographies sprinkled with token references to the
work at hand. The Landor reference is right on the money, though I’m not
certain I understand the Santayana comparison. The final sentence is amusing
and true.
Hillyer is a forgotten
footnote. He served as an ambulance driver in World War I with his Harvard
friend John Dos Passos. His Collected Verse (1933) won the Pulitzer
Prize. He taught at Harvard for twenty-six years and was a friend of Robert
Frost. If remembered at all, it’s for the Ezra Pound Affair. In the June 11 and
18, 1949 issues of The Saturday Review of Literature, he published two lengthy
articles – “Treason’s Strange Fruit: The Case of Ezra Pound and the Bollingen
Prize” and “Poetry's New Priesthood.” While under indictment for treason and hospitalized
in St. Elizabeth’s psychiatric hospital, the anti-Semite and Fascist sympathizer
had been awarded the first Bollingen Prize from the Library of Congress for The
Pisan Cantos. This is the poet who, while broadcasting for Radio Rome in 1943,
with the Holocaust well underway, declared: “I think it might be a good thing
to hang Roosevelt and a few hundred yids.” Pound is an early specimen of a type
common today: the artist who feels entitled, because he is an artist, to spout off about any subject, especially one he knows nothing about it.
In his articles, Hillyer
dismissed Pound’s book as a “vehicle of contempt for America” and as a mockery
of “our Christian war dead.” His objections were both moral and aesthetic. He
wrote that if the Cantos were judged a worthy poetic achievement, then “everything
we have known of poetry in the English language from Chaucer to Frost is not
poetic achievement.” No snobs are so violently snobbish as poets and their
enablers. Hillyer and his defenders were derided as middlebrows and philistines.
It would be nice to honor Hillyer as a worthy poet, but his gift was
middling and creaky. Here is his “Letters,”
which packs an old-fashioned sting:
“O that our living
literature could be
Our sustenance, not
archaeology! . . .
My scholar shall be
brilliantly forbidden
to dig old garbage from a
kitchen midden . . .
Far better Alexandria in
flames
Than buried beneath
unimportant names;
And even Sappho, glory
that was Greece’s,
Lives best, I
blasphemously think, in pieces.
That Chinese Emperor who
burned the books
Succumbed to madness shrewder
than it looks;
The minor poets and the
minor sages
Went up in smoke. The
great shine down the ages.”
1 comment:
'Popovers' – thanks for the new word, Patrick.
In England we call them Yorkshire puddings. 'Romantic Yorkshire puddings' definitely wouldn't work...
Post a Comment