Thomas Hardy and Irish Poetry

Brearton, F. (2014). Thomas Hardy and Irish Poetry. The Yellow Nib, 9(Spring 2014), 40-58.

Published in:The Yellow Nib

Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:21. Feb. 2020

[‘I’ir‘i’rT

,u)v

Nii,I

I[“H

AN

Ba

EA

IITO

N0xii’

tiMA

SII

All I’V

AN

I)In

isiI I’(

I ST

aYI

FhA

NH

I,K

iIll’

IIN

‘I’JIOM

AS

IJAB

DY

AN

DIR

ISHP

oE

TR

y

I [‘hereI

mcm

ito

bei-br

a!!(hut,

(hicN

ew

Year :

Lie

Ichard

yeountn’.

Lvchq

atean

dhoarfrost

countr;

Inscare/i

rifedark//rn,’

(brush.—

Seamus

Heaney,‘L

inkedV

erses”

Inhis

1929w

arm

emoir

Goodbye

toA

l!T

hat,R

obert

Graves

oilers

a

pen

-portrait

ofT

hom

as1-lardy,

basedon

avisit

hem

ade,w

ithhis

wife

Nancy

Nicholson,

tol-iardy’s

Dorch

esterhom

e,M

axG

ate,in

the

sum

mer

of1920.

The

sketch

isailèctio

natcly

draw

n,

but

Graves

isnot

aboveserving

hisow

nends

too:

Iw

rote

out

areco

rdof

theco

nversatio

nw

ehad

with

him.

He

welcom

edus

asrep

resentativ

esof

the

post-w

argen

eration.

I-Ic

saidth

athe

livedsuch

aquiet

lifein

Dorch

esterth

athe

feared

hew

asalto

geth

erbeh

ind

thetim

es.1-Ic

wan

ted,

forin

stance,

to

knoww

heth

erw

ehad

anysy

mpath

yw

ithth

eB

olshevikregim

e,

andw

heth

erhe

couldtru

stthe

Morn

ing

l’usesacco

unt

ofthe

Red

Terror.

[...jI-ic

askedw

heth

erI

wro

teeasily,

andI

saidth

atth

is

poemw

asin

itssixth

draft

andw

ouldpro

bab

lyhe

finishedin

two

more.

‘Why!’,

liesaid,

‘1have

nev

erin

my

lifetak

enm

ore

than

three,

orperh

aps

four,drafts

fora

poem.

Iam

afraidof

itlosing

itsfreshness.’

...

lietalked

ofearly

literaryinfluences,

and

said

that

hehad

noneat

all,for

liedid

not

come

ofliterary

stock.[..j

Ellis

tastein

literature

was

certainly

most

unex

pected

.O

ncew

hen

Law

rencehad

ven

tured

tosay

som

ethin

gdisp

aragin

gag

ainst

Hom

er’sIliad

,he

pro

tested:

‘Oh,

but

Iad

mire

theIliad

greatly.

Why,

it’sin

theA

larm/on

class!’...)[...]

Inhis

opin

ion

vcrs1/lire

IP

uI,lishedin

[lieIrish

Tim

es,10

Deccm

l,er2000.

‘ruepoem

was

latersh

orten

edand

rew

ritte

nto

liecoilie‘M

idnightA

nvil’in

D/strirt

and

Cirek

(211(11,).

1401

L

could

com

eto

noth

ing

inE

ngla

nd.

‘All w

ecan

dois

tow

riteon

the

oldth

emes

inth

enew

styles,but

tryto

doa

littlebetter

than

those

who

wen

tbefore

us.’2

The

sting

isin

theparen

thetical

tailofth

ispassage,w

hichin

ciden

tally

ispatro

nisin

gto

ward

sW

alterS

cottas

well

as1-lardy:

this

isclassic

and

classicalpublic

school/O

xbrid

ge

snobbery

tow

ards

what

is‘other’

atits

worst.

Also

implicit

here

isthe

know

ingness

ofthe

Great

War

survivor,attu

ned

tothe

modern

politicalzeitgeisL

setag

ainst

the

unco

mpreh

endin

gold

ergen

eration,

who

stillread

thenew

spap

ers

with

some

degreeof

trust.

That

gen

eration

istreated

inG

oodbyeto

All

That

with

some

hostility

,and

new

spap

errep

ortag

eis

subjected

toironic

scrutiny:H

ardy’squestio

nab

out

theM

orningP

ostshow

sa

more

ben

ign

hum

our

atw

ork,but

itis

stillm

ock

eryfor

allth

at.T

he

represen

tation

ofF

iardyhere

isone

of(liereaso

ns

Sassoon

and

Graves

foughtso

bitterly

inth

eafterm

athof

the

publicatio

nof

Goodbye

foAl!

That.

Sassoon

complained

toG

ravesin

1930th

at‘T

herew

astoo

much

ahouty

ou

and

toolittle

about

[Hardy’si

greatn

ess.T

hepictu

reof

him

inyour

bookis

mislead

ing,

becau

seit

shows

hissim

plicity

with

out

hisim

pressiv

eness.

Also

youhave

gotthe

Marm

ion

anecd

ote

wrong.

Iw

asth

erew

henit

happened’.G

ravesresp

onded

with

characteristic

arrogan

ce:‘I

adm

iredH

ardy

asa

good,co

nsisten

t,tru

thfu

lm

an;I

do

notb

elieve

ingreat

men.

Itreat

every

one

asan

equalunless

theyprove

them

selves

inferior’.O

nem

ight

havem

uchsy

mpath

yth

erefore

with

Sassoon’s

lastlettero

nthe

subject

toG

raves(a

letterwhich

effectively

mark

sthe

end

ofth

eirfrien

dsh

ip)

when

hew

rites‘I

wish

you’dbro

ken

yourru

le,fo

ronce,

andreg

arded

TI-I, asy

oursu

perio

runtil

youfound

that

youw

erehis

equal.’3

It’seasy

todism

issth

isas

mere

squab

blin

g,

akind

ofsq

uab

blin

g

that

Hardy’s

writin

gand

reputatio

ntran

scend.

But

there

isa

thread

here

pulledby

oth

erw

ritersand

criticsin

ways

which

haveaffected

—and

contin

ue

toaffect

—under’staT

ldingof

Hardy’s

prohleand

influence,both

iiithe

English

tradilion,

andin

thecritically

more

neg

lectedarch

ipelag

icco

ntex

t,notab

lyin

Ireland.

As

Donald

Davie

2R

uhiertcrav

es,Good-b

yeto

AllT

hu((b

,ndim

:Jonall,an

cape,

1929),374-5,376,3?H-9.

:155

toB

C.?

Feb

1920;H

Glo

55,2

0Feb.

1920;S5

to110,2

Mar.

19211.111B

rokent;,,aqes’

.celecu,tL

etterso

fR

obertG

raves1914-1946,

ed.P

aulO

’I’rey(L

ondon;I lulchiins,in,

1982),198,201,204.

[4?]

riI

Viii.,,w

No,

IFH

AN

IIBE

AB

TO

NO

N’i’I IO

MA

SI IA

OI,y

AN

I)Iii

isilI’o

Erl,y

I

once

observ

ed,

‘affection’for

Hard

ythe

poet

isoften

‘ruinously

shot

thro

ug

hw

ithpro

tectiven

ess,even

condescen

sion.

Flardy

isn

ot

thought

ofas

anin

tellectual

force.’4G

raves’spen

-portrait

ofH

ardy,

thevery

factof

hisreco

rdin

gthe

conversatio

n,

mig

ht

bein

terpreted

asliterary

adulatio

n,

but

itread

srath

erm

ore

asan

thro

po

log

ical

curio

sity—

FJardy

asth

estran

ge

unw

orld

lycreatu

resp

run

gilliterate

andA

ntaeu

s-like

fromthe

soil.‘G

ood’,‘consistent’,

‘truthful’are

adm

irable

qualities:

butone

mig

ht

asw

elladd

‘mediocre’,

‘uncritical’

(inthe

pejo

rative

sense

ofnot

knowing

‘good’literatu

refrom

‘bad’),

naIve, andhave

done.

‘l’hreeyears

later,in

hisin

fluen

tialstu

dy

New

Bearin

gs

inE

nglish

Poetry

(19S2),

FR

.L

eavisdraw

son

Graves’s

mem

oir

torein

force

his

own

judgem

ent

on1-lardy:

Hard

yis

anaïve

poet

ofsim

ple

attitudes

andoutlook,

[..jH

ew

as

betray

edinto

nohero

icp

ostu

res.H

efelt

deeplyan

dco

nsisten

tly,

heknew

what

heE

dtand,

inhis

best

poems,

com

municated

it

perfectly.B

utth

erew

aslittle

inhis

techn

iqu

eth

atcould

hetaken

upby

younger

poets,and

developedin

theso

hitio

nof

their

own

pro

blem

s.H

isorig

inality

was

notof

the

kindth

atgoes

with

a

highdegree

ofcritical

awareness:

itw

ent,indeed,

with

anaïve

conservatism.

‘Inhis

opinion’,rep

orts

Mr

Robert

Graves

inhis

sup

erbau

tobio

grap

hy,

Goodhye

toA

llT

hat,‘vers

lthrecould

come

tonothing

inE

ngland.,,’[,..j

The

main

impulse

behindhis

verse

istoo

comm

onlythe

mere

impulse

tow

riteverse:

‘Any

littleold

song,w

illdo’.

ashe

says.A

nd,often

tothe

liltof p

op

ular

airs, with

agaucherie

compounded

ofthe

literary,the

colloquial,the

baldly

prosaic,the

conventionallypoetical,

thepedantic,

andthe

rustic,

liein

du

striou

slyturns

outhis

desp

onden

tanecdotes,

his‘life’s

littleironies’,

andhis

meditations

upona

determ

inistic

universe

andthe

cruelaccident

ofsen

tience.[...]

That

thesetting,

explicitor

implied,

isgenerally

ruralis

apoint

ofcritical

significance.H

ardy

was

aco

un

trym

an,

andhis

broodingm

indstayed

itselfhabitually

uponthe

simple

pieties,the

quietrhythm

s,an

dthe

imm

emorial

ritualo

frustic

life,It

isvery

largelyin

terms

ofthe

absenceof

these,or

ofany

Donald

R,vie,

Tinirnus

liar’s!3’unit

British

i’oem’

(London:

Routledge

&K

eganP

aul,

equivalent,th

atthe

enviro

nm

ent

ofthe

modern

poetm

ustbe

describ

ed?

New

Bearin

gs

famously

advocates

Eliot’s

aesthetic

inop

po

sition

to

what

Leavis

seesas

thed

efun

ctm

odes

ofilard

y,

orof

Georgian

verse:

Hopkin

sis

rescued

fromthe

nin

eteenth

centu

ry,

and‘felt

tobe

a

con

temporary

’;”b

ut

the

realdrive

ofthe

bookis

toargue

that

Eliot’s

isthe

‘stron

gorig

inality

’th

at’trium

ph

[sjover

traditio

nal

habits’,th

at

‘inhis

work

by1920

English

po

etryhad

made

anew

start’.’L

eavis

alsocom

esto

thisbold

conclusion:‘It

doesnot

seemlikely

that

it will

everagain

bepossible

fora

distinguishedm

indtu

be

formed...on

the

rhythms,

sanctionedby

natu

reand

time,

of ruralculture.tm

As

Edna

Longley

observes,‘in

Leavis’s

versionof

emerg

ent

modern

poetry,E

liothas

ou

t-man

oeu

vred

Yeats’, and

inN

ewB

earin

gs

we

can

also‘glim

psethe

hegemonic

advanceof

T.S.E

liot’scritical

dicta’,”

Eliot’s

consisten

tnegativity

towards

Hardy

isof

relevancehere

too,In

After

Strange

Gods,

Eliot

beratesH

ardyfor

hislack

ofeith

er

‘institutionalattachm

ent’(the

Church)

or‘objective

beliefs’.‘H

e

seems

tom

e’,E

liotgoes

on,‘to

havew

rittenas

nearlyfor

thesake

of

“self-expression”as

am

anwell can; and

theselfw

hichhe

hadto

express

doesnot

strikem

eas

aparticu

larlyw

holesome

oredifying

matter

of

comm

unication.H

ew

asindifferent

evento

thep

rescripts

ofgood

writing:

hesom

etimes

wrote

ov

erpov

eringly

well,

but

always

very

carelessly’)0I-l;irdy’s

novelshave

‘anote

offalsity’, stem

ming

fromhis

‘deliberatelyrelieving

some

emotion

ofhis

own

atthe

expenseof

the

reader’)’A

spoet,

hefares

littleb

etterat

Eliot’s

hands.In

aC

riterion

editorialcoinciding

with

Yeats’s

70th

birth

day

,E

liotobserv

esth

at

Yeats’s

‘influenceupon

English

poetry

hasbeen

greatand

beneficial;

uponkish

poetryit seem

sto

me

tohave

beendisastrous. A

nd.., thisis

just

what

youshould

expect.F

ora

greatE

nglishpoet

tohav

ea

great

5E

R.

Leavis,

Nei,’

Jk’aring.cin

English

Poetry

(1)32:L

ondon:P

enguin,I’Jo:o,47—

H, 49—

50.

6Ibid.

142.

7lb

id.6

2,7

0

SIbid.

71-2.

9E

dnaL

ongley,l’eulsundA

h,,krnI’oeln’

(New

york

:C

ai,,I,ndge(II’,2013),

11’).

10T.S.

Eliot. zlflrr

St range

GarTh: A

l’ru,,ercfAZ

orkrnU

.n’s;

(bin

drin

:F:,I,er,

19

39

,54

.

IIIbid.

56.

197:1),5.

I 42I

[43]

‘[,,i

Yci,i.o

wN

mI

Fn,N

UR

EA

BT

ON

ON

‘tHO

MA

SII A14I)Y

ANI)110511

POE

TR

YI

influencein

England,

hem

ustbe

considerablyrem

ovedin

time:

for

aliteratu

recan

befertilised

byits

own

earlierperio

ds

asw

ellas

by

contem

poraries

fromoutside’.

Ifth

isalread

yneg

atesany

possible

1-tardy—influence

onE

nglishpoetry,

thepoin

tis

then

made

explicit

inthe

following

com

pariso

n:

‘Of

theab

solu

tegreatn

essof

anyw

riter,

men

livingin

thesam

eperio

dcan

make

only

acru

de

guess.B

utit

should

beap

paren

tat

leastth

atM

r.Y

eatshas

been

andis

thegreatest

poet

ofhis

time.

Thom

ashard

y,

who

fora

fewyears

hadall

thecry.

appears

nosçw

hat

healw

aysw

as,am

inor

poet:’2

II

Leavis

couldn’tpred

ict(lie

futu

re—

witn

esshis

investm

ent

inR

onald

Bottrall

overW

.H.

Auden

—th

ough

likeall

canon-m

akers

hetried.

(I-usco

nclu

sions

relating

topoetry

andru

ralcu

lture,

forin

stance,

arem

ore

questio

nab

lein

theJrish

traditio

n—

ofw

hichm

orean

on;

similarly,

Eliot’s

views

onY

eatsand

English

poetry

leaveopen,

if

inad

verten

tly,

therev

ersepossib

ility—

1-lardy’sbeneficial

influ

ence

onIrish

poetry.)Y

etat

thetim

e,and

inthe

decad

esfollow

ingthe

publicatio

nof

Neit’

Bearings,

both

Leavis’s

argum

ents,

andE

liot’s

hab

itual

hostility

tow

ards

1-lardy’sw

ork

weresu

fliciently

influ

ential

to

affect,adversely,1-lardy’s

criticalstan

din

g.

They

were

alsosu

fficiently

extrem

eto

helppro

mpt

the

anti-m

odern

istbacklash

inE

nglan

dof

the1950s

—a

backlashw

hichitself

hasa

knock—on

effecton

Hardy’s

reputatio

n.

Ifafter

death

,the

poet,as

Auden

famously

saidin

his

elegyfor

Yeats,‘[becom

es]his

admirers’,

then

I-[ardy’sad

mirer

Larkin

hasalso

conditio

ned

criticalpercep

tions

ofhis

precu

rsor

—and

not

perh

aps

entirely

inthe

way

hein

tended

.It

isa

criticalco

mm

onplace

tosay

that

Larkin,

betw

eenhis

firstand

second

collections,T

heN

orth

Shij

in1945

andT

heL

essD

ecejveIin

1955,‘found’

hisow

nvoice

byex

chan

gin

gY

eats’sinfluence

forl-lardy’s.

‘Ispent’,

hew

ritesin

1965,‘three

years

tryingto

write

likeY

eats,not

becau

seI

likedhis

perso

nality

orundersto

od

hisideas

but

out

ofin

fatuatio

nw

ithhis

inusic...[IJtis

aparticu

larlypoten

tm

usc..an

dhas

ruin

edm

anya

better

talent.

[-.1E

verynig

ht

aftersu

pper

befo

reopen

ing

my

large

dark

green

man

uscrip

tbook!

usedto

limber

upby

turn

ing

thepages

ofthe

1933plu

m-co

loured

Macm

illanedition....

When

reaction

came

12T

h.

EIio

I’Ed,Iu

rjal’,i’h

cCrfterh

,,,vol.X

IVno.

LV

II(July

1935),612.

[thro

ugh

readin

g1-lardy’s

poem

s],it

was

undram

atic,co

mplete

and

perm

anen

t.’”H

ardy’sdistan

cefrom

am

etropolitan

‘centre’appeals

toa

poet

who

writes

ofhis

own

‘needto

beon

the

perip

hery

ofthings’.

What

healso

learns

froml-lardy

is,he

saysin

1982,‘not

tohe

afraidof

theobvious’)’

Lark

intakes

some

ofth

eterm

sby

which

Leavis

critiques

I tardy,and

mak

esof

them

acase

fora

rather

difl’erent‘b

earing’

illE

nglish

poetry

.

Asked

forhis

views

on

poetry

in1955,he

pro

duced

the

follo

win

g(now

noto

rious)

statemen

t:‘A

sa

guid

ingprin

ciple

Ibeliev

ethat

cveiy

poem

must

beits

own

solefreshly

createduniv

erse,and

therefo

rehave

no

belief

in“trad

ition”

ora

comm

onm

yth—kitty

orcasual

allusionsin

poems

tooth

erpoem

sor

poets...”

Leavis

onth

eoth

erhand,

even

ifso

metim

esand

mislead

ingly

associated

with

the

New

Criticism

,

didnot

believethe

poemw

asits

own

self-containeduniv

erse;he

is

the

great

advocateof

the

great

traditio

n;

andallu

siven

essis

atth

e

heart

ofE

liot’s1920s

enterp

rise.D

ismissal

here

ofthe

‘comm

on

myth—

kitty’(co

ntra

Eliot’s

endorsem

ent

ofthe

‘mythical

method’

in

Yeats

and.!oyee)

isalso

adism

issalof

aY

eatsian‘anim

am

undi’,th

at

‘storehouse’of

symbols,

orof

Yeats’s

later‘V

ision’.[-tardy

may

he

readas

conscrip

tedhy

Larkin

—the

Lark

inw

hopro

fessed,

however

mislead

ingly

,to

spurn

what

is‘foreign’

—on

nationalgrounds

too,

againstthe

Irishand

Am

erican(‘international’)

voicesof Y

eats,Joyce,

Eliot

andP

ound.W

hatis

‘other’is

rejectedin

thein

terestsof

navel-

gazin

gat

am

icroco

smic

Englan

d:

wheth

er

that

‘Englan

d’

finds

its

centre

inD

orch

esteror

1-lullreally

doesn

’tm

atter,as

longas

it’shot

Berlin,

Dublin,

Paris

—or

evenL

ondon.

So

Lark

hi

‘rescues’

I-tardy

from

Elio

tand

Leav

isfo

ra

newgen

eration.

But

hedoes

soill

oppositio

nal

term

sth

at

don’t

accurately

reflect

Hard

y’s

rela

tion

topoets

such

usY

eats,or

indeed

reflectth

eco

mplex

phiy

of

influ

ences

iiiL

irkin’sow

naesth

etic.It

isas

much

acritical

com

monplace

now

topoin

tout

that

Yeats’s

inilu

ence

persists

in

Lark

in’s

work

.1-T

ardyan

dY

eats,rath

erthan

onedisplacing

theother,

13I’bilip

U’ rk

in.fleqis (red

1l’rUirnj:

fis,rell,mc,,iis

I’ic,e.ci 9,5—

I ‘JR2(I.

nidon:

Faber,

1983)29.

14II,id.55.(,7.

ISIbid.

79.

I 44I

l4l

I Ti

IKY

ja, M)\V

NIH

IFH

JI.NB

UK

AIrI0

NO

N‘I’IIO

MA

SlIn

iioi

AN

DIn

isoI’OK’rRY

I

represen

ttw

inpoles

ofL

arldn’saesth

etic,co

mplem

entary

figures

onto

whom

liepro

jectsdifferen

tasp

ectsof

adivided

self.l3ut

this

is

not

howL

arkinchose

toview

them

atterin

theH

ardy

affirmatio

ns

foundso

hab

itually

inhis

criticalw

ritings

fromthe

1950sto

the

early

1980s,and

theex

istence

ofth

iskind

ofY

eats-Hard

yoppositio

nis,

onthe

whole,

alsohow

Donald

Davie

reads

thesitu

ation

inthe

early

1970s.In

Thom

asH

ardy

and

British

Poetry

(1973)D

aviesets

out

the

powerful

thesis

that

‘inB

ritishpoetry

of

thelast

fiftyyears

(asnot

in

Am

erican)

them

ost

far-reachin

ginfluence,

forgood

andill,

hasbeen

not

Yeats,

stillless

Eliot

or

Pound,

not

Law

rence,but

Hardy’.

Itis

an

influence,he

concedes,th

atnot

allpoets

areprep

aredto

acknowledge.

notab

lyin

thecase

ofIrish

,S

cottish

and

Welsh

poets‘w

hodo

not

care

tobe

indeb

tedto

such

anin

transig

ently

English

poet

as1-Tardy’.

Yet

while

Davie,

byco

ntrast,

rightly

poin

tsto

ward

sH

ardy’sin

fluen

ceon

Austin

Clarke

andoth

ers,lie

alsoarg

ues

that

Hardy

‘hasthe

effect

oflocking

anypoet

whom

liein

fluen

cesinto

the

world

ofhisto

rical

contingency,a

world

ofspecific

placesat

specifictim

es’,”w

ithth

e

conseq

uen

ceth

at:f-tardy

appears

tohave

mistru

sted,

and

certainly

Leads

oth

er

poets

tom

istrust,

theclaim

sof

poetry

totran

scend

thelin

ear

unro

llingofreco

rded

time.

This

isat

onceH

ardy’sstren

gth

andhis

limitatio

n;

andit

setshim

irreconcilab

lyat

oddsw

ithfor

instan

ce

Yeats,

who

exerts

him

selfrep

eatedly

totran

scend

histo

ricaltim

e

byseeing

itas

cyclical,so

asto

leapabove

itinto

arealm

that

is

visionary,m

ythological,and

(insom

esen

seor

tosonic

deg

ree)

eternal.

Itouglit

tobe

possib

lefo

ranyread

erto

adniire

anddelig

ht

inboth

I-Tardy

andY

eats,if

onlybecau

seso

much

ofthe

finest

Yeals

isco

ncern

edw

iththe

effortof

transcen

den

cerath

erth

an

theach

ievem

ent

ofit.

But

forany

poet

who

findshim

selfin

the

positio

nolch

oosin

gbetw

eenth

esetw

om

asters,the

choicecan

not

hefudged;

there

isno

roomfor

comprom

ise.’7

As

[orY

eatshim

selfon

the

subject

ofF

lardy—

whom

hem

etin

1912,

diningw

ithH

enry

New

holt

atM

axG

atean

dpresen

ting

Hard

yw

itha

Royal

Society

ofLiteratu

regold

medal

—his

occasionalco

mm

ents

are

not

enco

urag

ing,

evenifh

edid,

alongw

ith42

oth

erpoets,

contrib

ute

16D

avie,T

homas

Hard

yan

dB

ritishP

oetry,3—

4.

I?Ibid.

4.

ahan

dw

rittenpoem

in1919

tom

ark1-Iardy’s

79thbirth

day

,°yeats

readL

ionelJo

hnso

n’s

The

Art

of’ Thom

asJ-Iardj’

in1894

(astu

dy

of

thefiction;

Hardy’s

firstvolum

eof

poem

s(lid

notap

pear

until1898)

andobserved:

‘Ifeel..,th

atth

ereis

som

ethin

gw

rongab

out

praisin

g

1-Tardyin

astyle

som

uchbetter

than

hisow

n.

Iw

ish[L

ionel]had

written

instead

ofD

ante

orM

ilton’.’9A

sL

ouisM

acNeice

notes,w

hen

itcom

esto

thepoetry.

Yeats

‘conveniently’forgot

about

hard

yan

d

Housm

anw

hen

itsu

itedhim

2”—

more

particu

larly,

onem

ightadd,

when

hew

ishedto

iden

tif’th

etren

ds

and

failingsof

modern

poetry

andasso

ciateth

ose

trends

with

Englan

drath

erth

an1relan

d.

Yeats’s

argum

ent

that

Irishpoetry

‘moves

ina

differen

tdirectio

nan

dbelongs

toa

differen

tsto

ty’

isa

necessary

distan

cing

of

him

selffrom

Eliot

andm

odern

ism.

InY

eats’sin

troductio

nto

the1936

Oxford

Book

of’

Modern

Verse,ifH

ardydoes

conicoff b

etterth

anE

liot (who,according

toY

eats,‘p

roduced

his

gre

;iteffe

ct...b

ecause

heh;,s

describ

edm

en

andw

omen

that

getout

ofbed

orin

toit

fromm

erehabit’),

the

brief

men

tion

ofH

ardy

isa

lessth

anrin

gin

gen

dorsem

ent,

andhis

achiev

emen

tco

mpares

unfav

ourab

lyto

Synge’s:

InIrelan

d,

[there]

stilllives

almost

undistu

rbed

thelast

folk

traditio

nof w

esternE

uro

pe.,.b

ut

thereactio

nfrom

rheto

ric,from

allth

atw

asprep

ense

andartificial,

hasforced

upon...w

ritersnow

andagain,

asupon

my

own

earlyw

ork,a

facilech

arm,

atoo

soft

simplicity.

InE

nglan

dcam

elike

temptatio

ns.

TIzeS

hropshireL

ad

isw

orth

yof

itsfam

e,but

am

ilefu

rther

and

allhad

been

marsh,

Thom

asI-Tardy, th

ough

hisw

ork

lackedtech

nical

accom

plish

men

t,

made

thenecessary’

correctio

nth

rough

hism

asteryof

the

imperso

nal

objectivescene.

John

Synge

bro

ughth

ackm

asculin

ity

toIrish

versew

ithhis

harsh

disillusionment...12

18S

eeR

alphP

ile,T

homas

Hardy:

The

Gzm

rdrdL

iji’(L

ondon:I’icailor,

201)6),441.

19W

.l3.Y

eatsto

Olivia

Sh:ikespe;ir,

oA

ug

ust

1891.7’),e

Letters

ofiV

B.

hats,

cd.A

llan

Wade

(London:

Ilup

ertI lart-D

:,vis.1954),

235

20L

ouisM

acNeice,

The

I’oetryof

1KB.

Yeats

(1941;L

ondon:K

ibt’r,1962), 87.

21W

,B. Yeats,

‘Modern

Poetry: A

liru:idcast’,E

ssaysm

ii!ntr(ictoetw

ns(D

ublin:G

illand

Macm

illan,1961) .5O

b-7.

22W

ItY

eats,‘lnL

,’oduction’,T

heO

xfi,n!B

ookoj’iltodern

Verse

(Oxford:

clircndi,n

Press,

1936),p.xiih,

xxi

146l[4

7]

Ill.

Ifall

thism

ight

seemto

reinfo

rceD

avie’sarg

um

ent

forirreco

ncilab

le

ditreren

c’sbetw

eenY

eatsan

d1-lardy,

Davie’s

contem

porary

,D

enis

Donoghue,

hasp

ainted

ad

ifferent

pictu

re(D

aviean

dD

onoghue

were

based,respectively,

atT

CD

and

UC

Din

the19505).

Co

ntrib

utin

gto

‘AY

eatsS

ymposium

’fo

rth

eG

uard

ianin

1989,m

arkin

gthe

fiftieth

ann

iversary

ofY

eats’sdeath

,D

onoghue

observesthat:

Increasingly,it

seems

unsatisflicto

ryto

thin

kof

Yeats

inrelatio

n

toM

odern

ism;

or,to

beprecise,

inclose

associatio

nw

ithP

ound

and

Eliot.

[,.jR

eleasedfrom

these

affiliations,Y

eatsnow

seems

am

ajor

poet

with

inthe

largeco

ntex

tof

post-ro

man

ticpoetry;

heis

closer

toH

ardy

andS

tevensth

anto

Eliot,

Pound,

Joyce,or

-W

yndham

Lew

is.[fl,]

I-Icseem

sto

bea

poet

com

parab

leto

Hard

y

foracco

mp

lishm

ent

andscale;

likeH

ardy

agreat

poet

oflove

and

death

andth

eoth

erp

erenn

ialthem

es.13

Donoghue’s

ph

rasing

is(‘seem

s’)ten

tative,

but

toasso

ciateY

eats

most

closely,not

with

intern

ational

modern

ism,

but

with

apoet

once

seenas

theq

uin

tessence

ofa

pro

vin

cialE

nglishness,m

arks

asea-

change.A

ndth

atsea-ch

ange

pro

bab

lyow

esso

meth

ing

toth

ew

orkof

Irishpoets

vh

o,

frontthe

1970s-IOSO

sonw

ards,have

assertedH

ardy’s

relevanceto

modern

Irishpoetry.

Inth

atco

ntex

t,w

em

ightrecall

the

reviewby

AN

.W

ilsonin

the

Spectato

rin

1982of

Motion

andM

orrison’sT

heP

eng

uin

Book

of

Contem

poraryB

ritishP

oetry:Y

eats,1-lugh

MacD

iarmid

and

Dylan

Thom

asall

wro

teE

nglish

poetry.B

ritishpoetry

sounds

about

asap

petisin

gas

Traveller’s

Fare

onB

ritishR

;nl.T

hisB

ritishbusin

essw

asstarted

bythe

BB

C

when

they

beganto

floodthe

airw

ithpro

gram

mes

andvoices

from

North

ernIrelan

d.

.jS

eamus

1-leaneyis...described

solem

nly

as

‘them

ost

importan

tnew

poet

ofthe

last15

years,and

the

one

we

veryd

eliberately

put

firstin

ou

ranthology’.

‘Importan

t’is

thegiv

e

away

word

here.N

oone

canserio

usly

preten

dth

atH

eaney

isa

particu

larlyg

oo

dor

interestin

gpoet.

He

certainly

isnot

inthe

same

classas

Yeats,

with

whom

hehas

been

com

pared

.H

eis

nothalf

as

goodas

Geoffrey

Fullor

‘redF

lughes.Y

etfor

some

reason

hew

as

23

‘AY

ealsS

ym

posiu

m’,

Gu

ardian

,27Jan

.igso,

25-6.

taken

upby

the

Su

nday

-new

spap

erdons...since

when

hisquietly

min

or

accom

plish

men

tshave

been

smo

thered

inself—

importance,

hisow

nand

that

of hisad

mirers.

IfH

eaney

is‘m

ajor’, whatw

orddo

youuse

tod

escribe

Word

swo

rth?

At

hisbest,

Hean

eyw

ritessu

b

Paterian

pro

se-po

ems,

with

theru

rallife

ofU

lsteras

histh

eme.

But..J-Ieaney

hasn

oth

ing

whatev

erto

say.2’

A.N

.W

ilsonon

Hean

eyin

1982,in

one

ofthe

worst

instan

cesof

gettin

git

wrong,

israth

errem

iniscen

t,in

itsessen

tials,ofE

R.

Leavis

onH

ardy

in1932

(althou

gh

Wilson’s

delib

eratelyprovocative

mud

slinginghere

isafar

cryfrom

Leavis’s

con

sidered

scho

larship

).B

oth

Hard

yan

dH

eaney

arem

inor

poets

ofm

inor

accom

plish

men

ts,w

ith

rural

lifeas

ath

eme

(‘provincial’isn’t

said,bu

tit’s

there),

mean

ing

ineffect,

they

have‘nothing’

tosay

totoday’s

world.

Itstrjk

es.som

e

chord

stoo

with

Eliot’s

observ

ation

that

1-lardyhad

allthe

cry’,th

at

hisrep

utatio

nhad

been

over—inflated.

When

Leavis

observ

edth

atth

erew

as‘little

in[ilard

y’si

techniq

ue

that

couldhe

taken

upby

you

ng

erpoets

anddeveloped

inth

eso

lutio

n

ofth

eirow

nproblem

s’he

may

havehad

ap

artialpoin

t,in

asm

uchas

itis

Hardy’s

subject—m

atterand

aesthetic

positio

nin

gm

oreth

anhis

techn

iqu

eth

atin

fluen

ceth

eIrish

poetic

traditio

n.

Yet

what

Leavis

couldnot

foresee

was

theem

ergen

ceofa

cultu

ralco

ntex

tin

North

ern

Ireland

that posed

particu

larpro

blem

sfor

poets

—the

vio

lent collision

oftrad

ition

and

modern

ity;

theelegist’s

needto

speakout

andyet

theguilt

indoing

so;the

redefin

ition

(Ifthe

suppo

sedp

eriphery

as

anaesth

etic(and

inN

orth

ernIrelan

dpolitical)

centre;

theneed

to

reinven

tan

dyet

retaintrad

itional

forms

—in

thead

dressin

gof

which

Flardy

couldserve

asexem

plar.N

orcould

Leavis

foresee

that

itw

ould

oncem

ore

bepossible

onceagain

fora

reputatio

nand

am

indto

be

formed

‘onthe

rhyth

ms...o

f rural

culture’.

‘iheterm

sby

which

Leavis

dism

isses1-lardy

asa

negligibleinfluence

—a

‘countryman’

writin

gab

out

‘rusticlife’

with

asu

pposed

ly‘naïve’

formal

conserv

atismand

an‘outsider’

status

—are

theones

which

now

seemto

confirmhis

imp

ortan

ce.(N

otleast,

theeco

criticaldeb

atesof

rcccnty

earsserve

toreo

rient

them

aticp

riorities.)

The

rural,

thelocal,

them

anip

ulatio

nof

traditio

nal

rhy

thm

s—

these

areall

theth

ings

24A

.N.W

ilson,A

Bloodless

Miss’, Sprctaior,

27N

ovember1982,

28-’).

I ‘rIlEuIow

NmI

IF

uAN

BR

EA

IITO

NO

NI’Im

oMA

sllA

ImI,Y

AN

DIn

isi,l’C

)ETiiYI

1481[4

9J

that

give1-Jeaney

the

‘international’purchase

which

forL

eavisw

ould

havebeen,

ironically,one

ofthe

measu

resof

greatn

ess.It’s

Leavis’s

‘metro

politan

’stan

ceand

hisasso

ciation

ofvers

librew

ithorig

inality

that

now

lookrath

erdated,

not

Hardy.

And

Leavis

alsooverlooks

the

areaw

here

hard

yhelps

tored

efine

agen

refor

hisin

herito

rs,w

hich

isas

elegist.A

sJah

anH

amazani

argues,in

hisstu

dy

ofm

odern

elegy

fromH

ardy

toH

eaney,1-lardy

‘reinvig

orates

theelegy

byhelp

ing

tosh

iftits

psychicbases

fromth

eratio

nalizin

gco

nso

lations

of

norm

ative

grief

tothe

more

inten

seself-criticism

sand

vexatious

ofm

elanch

olic

niourning’Y5

‘Where

Yeats

linkshis

mourn

ing

work

to‘a

disap

pearin

garisto

craticvision’,

Hard

y‘associates

his...v

itIa

threaten

edru

raloutlook’2’:

inth

atsen

sehe

isan

importan

tin

fluen

ce

fora

contem

porary

gen

eration,

repelled

byY

eats’sau

tocratic

politics

ifnot

byhis

forms.

Ram

azaniarg

ues

convincinglyth

atH

ardy’s

elegiesan

ticipate

those

ofY

eats,E

liotand

Pound,

that

heis

a‘key

transitio

nal

figure’w

ho‘presages

theten

sion

inm

uch20th

centu

ry

poetry

betw

eenthe

elegiacand

theanti—

elegiac’Y’

The

inten

sities

ofthe

North

ernIrish

experien

ceover

the

lastfour

decades,a

siteof

contested

mem

ory

and

space,w

ithits

tensio

ns

betw

eenreligious

traditio

nand

secularity

,have

bro

ught

elegyin

toparticu

larfocus.

The

Great

War

pro

test-elegy

offersone

model

forN

orth

ernirish

poets;

andbeh

ind

itis

Hardy’s

Poem

sof

1912-13.(O

neof

the

poem

sA

.N.

Wilson

derid

es—

Heaney’s

‘Casualty’

—is

inan

obviousrh

yth

mical

dialoguew

ithY

eats,m

ore

particu

larlyw

ithY

eats’s‘T

heF

isherm

an’;

but

itsspeaker’s

guiltin

the

mourn

ing

pro

cessalso

owes

som

ethin

gto

Hardy,

asdo

it.srh

yth

ms

ofru

rallife.)

Radical

interm

sof g

enre,

Hard

yis

also‘both

conserv

ative

andrad

ical

inm

attersof

form’:

he‘adheres

toth

em

eteredline

but

roughs

up

pro

sodic

and

syntactic

polish;he

appro

priates

Rom

antic

dictio

n

but

fashio

ns

many

jarring

locu

tions’?

There

areech

oes

here

ofJ.M

.

Synge’sex

pressed

needfor

verseto

he‘brutal’,

orlater

of1-leaney’s

desire

to‘take

theE

nglishlyric

andm

akeit

eatstu

f[that

ithas

nev

er

25.Iahan

Itanmzani,

Poetry

qfA

toeirnuiq:77w

Modern

Lieg;’ fro

mhard

yto

lkw

wy

(Chicago

md

London:U

niversityof C

hicagoi’ress,

1994),5.

26Ibid. I’d.

27Ibid.

34.

28Ibid.

36.

eatenbefore’.2”

Like

Hardy.

North

ernIrish

poetshave

come

under

fire

for

their

adheren

ceto

traditio

nal

form

san

dyet

havealw

ays

rejected

atoo—

easyasso

ciation

ofex

perim

ental

formw

ithanti—

hierarchical

politics.

And,

not

least,H

ardy

asthe

poet

of

place

playsan

importan

t

rolein

the

aesthetic

dev

elopm

ent

ofH

eaney

,L

ongley,or

Pau

lin.

I icriticshave

perh

aps

been

slowto

pickup

on

Hardy’s

presen

cein

the

contem

porary

Irishpoetry

scene

(anotab

leexcep

tionisT

araC

hristie’s

article,‘S

eaniu

sH

eaney

’s1-lardy’

from

2004).

this

isnot

necessarily

true

of

the

poets

them

selves.

Torn

P:iulin’s

firstcritical

book

isT

homas

Hard

yT

heP

oetrya

Perception

(1975),based

onIns

grad

uate

thesis.

Itbears

them

arks

ofhis

friendsh

ipw

ith(and

men

torin

gby)

Douglas

Dunn,

both

ofw

homstu

died

at1-lull,

overlap

pin

gw

ithL

arkin’stim

e

aslib

rarianth

ere.In

thein

troductio

nto

the

hook,P

aulin’sco

ncern

is,in

part,

todifferen

tiatehis

work

from

,an

dquarrel

with

,D

avie’s

1973T

homas

Runty

and

British

Poetr’.

Davie

com

esunder

lirefor

insu

fficient

appreciatio

nof

Douglas

Dunn’s

work

,an

dfor

anxieties

that

aren’t

Hard

y’s

pro

blem

hut

Davie’s

(what

Pau

lindetects

ashis

‘dissatisfactio

nw

itha

confu

seden

tityco

mposed

ofIlard

y’s

poetry

,

English

suburb

ansp

rawl,

and

certainB

ritishpoets’),3

liealso

rescues

Hard

yan

dL

arkin

from

Davie’s

critique

of

their

limited

horizo

ns,

and

indoin

gso

(aselsew

here

inth

ebook)

opts

forco

nip

arison

with

Yeats

on

sonic

fundam

ental

prin

ciples,

insp

iteof

their

obvio

us

differen

ces:

When

Davie

criticizesIlard

yan

dL

arkin

for

mlreq

uen

tlybreak

ing

into

,‘w

ithout

mean

ing

toan

dw

ithout

noticin

g’,

imag

iliative

levels

that

Tom

linso

nco

ntin

ually

inhab

its,w

eought

tohe

aware

of just

how

thin

the

airup

there

canbe.

Yeats,

who

isItardy’s

opposite,

knew

thisi”

Paulin’s

study

alsoco

mes

ata

time

when

hew

asw

ork

ing

on

his

first

collectio

n,

AS

tateof Ju

stice,publish

edin

1977,poem

sw

hose

tone,

idio

m,

and

form

sare

familiar

enough

toth

ose

who

know

Dunn’s

early

poetry

,or

Larkin’s

work.

‘1nish

keel

Parish

Church

’ev

iden

cesth

edeb

t

toboth

:S

tandin

gat

the

gate

befo

reth

eserv

icestarted

,

29Q

uoledin

Neil

C,irco

rap,

l’oetsof

itt,nh’roIrelan

d(C

ardill:

Un

iversily

ofW

iies

I’tess,19’19).

177.

30Tion

Pan

Iii,T

homas

Ilurdj’:T

he‘‘,,‘in’

oJPerr’t’ption

(Lon

dim:

Mm

mii

in.I 975),

6.

‘diIbid.

10.

[‘i’iicY

ai.u,w

NmI

JI

FR

AN

IIR

EA

RT

ON

IN‘lii n.M

,‘sIlA

BI)y

AN

IiIRIS’I I’ocray

I

I 5°

I[1

F[lii

F\‘L

i.iA),’

Niii]

jP

)ET

RY

Inth

eirS

undaysu

its,the

Barrets

talked

togeth

er,

Sm

iledshyly

at

the

visito

rsw

hopacked

thech

urch

Insum

mer...

[...1T

hen

,before

thereco

gnitio

ns

and

thetalk,

There

was

anen

orm

ous

sightof

the

sea,

Asilen

tw

aterbeyond

society.

In1986,

Thom

asH

ardy:T

heP

oetry

of

Perception

was

publish

edin

a

seconded

ition,

with

anew

intro

ductio

n.

This

time

Paulin

begins,not

with

Grigson,

butby

ecum

enically

associatin

gH

ardy

with

Hopkins,

andthe

positio

nin

gof

thew

orkon

Hard

yhas

com

pletely

changed.

I’aulinis

nolo

nger

tinkerin

garo

und

theedges

ofD

onaldD

aviean

d

British

poetry;this

isa

new’funky’

Hard

yfor

Ireland

inthe

1980s,and

fora

‘new’

Toni

Paulin.

Both

Hopkins

andH

ardy.lieargues,

‘holdto

an

aesthetic

of “cunnin

girreg

ularity

”and

aimfor

apoetry

ofsynco

pated

textu

rerath

erth

anm

elodio

us

ven

eer.F

orthem

,the

hig

hest

formof

poetic

languageis

rapid,ex

tempore,jazz-lik

eand

funky.3

ZB

othare

associated

with

aG

othictrad

ition.

That

traditio

n‘is

north

ernan

d

conso

nan

taland

itsro

ots

arein

thepeople

ratherth

anin

theco

urt.T

he

Gothic

poet

writes

poem

sth

athave

africative,

spiky,spoken

texture...

[with

ajpopulist

delig

ht

inrough,

scratchy

sounds...’.T

hro

ugh

such

writers,

heargues.

‘literaryE

nglishhas

beenperio

dically

refreshed

by

anA

ntaeus—like

contact

with

theearth’.33

Furth

ermore,

Hard

y(like

Paulin

him

self?)is,

inthis

reading,an

ti-(British

)estab

lishm

ent:

Imperialist,

racist,reactio

nary

,sex

ist..Ten

nyso

nis

inbrillian

t

com

man

dof

adead

language.[...1

Hard

ybelongs

outsid

ethis

institu

tional,

officialreality.

He

grew

upin

aru

ralso

cietyw

here

mostp

eople

spokedialect

andw

herc

illiteracyw

asnorm

al.[...]A

sa

writer,

Hard

yw

ascau

ght

betw

eena

pro

vin

cialoral

cultu

reofsong,

talk,legend,

anda

metro

politan

cultu

reof

prin

t,political

pow

er

andw

hatlin

guists

usedto

termR

.l’....And

when

Hard

yasserted

that

a“certain

pro

vin

cialismof

feeling”w

asinvaluable

ina

writer

andset

that

ideaag

ainstA

rnold

sidea

ofcultu

re—

anidea

hostile

to

pro

vin

cialism—

hew

asreferrin

gto

am

odeof

feelingth

atis

bound

32‘lO

inl’nulin,

Thom

asliar,?3’:

lie,i’

oetr

’ofP

eire

pt/rm

(2nded.

London:

Macm

illan,

1086),3.

:slIbid.

3-4.

inw

ithsong,

dialect,physical

touch,natu

ralhum

ankin

dness

and

whathe

terms

“crudeen

thusiasm

”.1-Ic

doesnot

mean

provincialin

theC

hek

hovian

sense

ofstilledam

bitio

nand

anxiousm

ediocrity.

Partly

the

revisio

nof

thein

troductio

nhere

bringsit

into

linew

ith

Paulin’s

chan

ged

political

thin

kin

gin

the1980s,

asa

(pro

testant)

repuhlican

concern

edw

iththe

‘Language

Question’

inIrelan

d,

about

thepolitics

ofU

lster—Scots

andIrish

languageuse.

The

Paulin

ofa

poemsuch

as ‘offthe

Back

of;mL

orry’from

Lthert

Tree

(1983),w

ith

its‘g

ritty/so

rtofp

rod

baro

que/I

must

return

to/lik

em

yown

boke’,

hastrav

elledsom

ew

ayfrom

‘InishkeelP

arishC

hurch’.In

changing

theterm

sof

thedeb

ateab

out

1-lard)’.P

aulinsep

arateshim

selffrom

the

Anglo

centricity

ofthe

Dav

ie/Lark

inaxis.

And

1-lardybeco

mes

a

fellow

-travellero

nth

isjourn

ey.

‘Funky’

languageH

ardy,dialect,song:

these

allco

nnect

toP

aulin’sow

nlanguage

preo

ccupatio

ns

inU

lster;

the

‘north

ernG

othic’obliq

uely

evokesan

Anglo—

IrishP

rotestan

t

gothictrad

ition

fromE

dgew

orth

toS

toker.H

ealso

assertsthe

margin

againstthe

‘centre’,a

post-co

lonial

reinvig

oratio

nof

adying

English

traditio

n:

1-lardy,‘outside’

thisim

perial

andin

stitutio

nal

centre,

thus

beco

mes

thebedfellow

ofY

eatsan

dJoyce,

asof

lleaney

and

Paulin

—th

ose

who

took,as

Joycehas

itin

AP

ortrait

of/h

eA

rtistas

aY

oung

Maim

,the

languageth

atw

asnot

‘theirs’,and

yetm

adeit

their

own.

To

setH

ardy’s‘provincialism

’ag

ainst

Arnold’s

isto

echoP

atrick

Kavanagh’s

celebratio

nof

the‘parish’

asthe

‘universe’.It

isalso

to

conscrip

t1-lardy

forthe

back

lashag

ainstA

rnold

inIrish

Stu

dies

inthe

1980s, where

Arnold

comes

under

firefor

hisattem

pt,

inO

nthe

S/tidy

of

Celtic

Literatu

re(1867)

at,as

Seam

usD

eanehas

it,‘killing

home

ruleby

kin

dness’.”

Since

Arnold’s

bookpro

mpted

Yeats’s

defenceof

Ireland

andits

traditio

ns

inth

e1902

essay‘T

heC

elticE

lemen

tin

Literatu

re’,P

aulin’snew

Hard

yis

alsoth

erefore

arath

erunlikely

ally

ofW.B

.Y

eats. He

draws

outthe

linksfu

rther:

Flardy’s

linesdraw

pro

foundly

onth

efolk

imag

inatio

n.

and...th

at

imag

inatio

noverrid

esth

egreat

divisionbetw

eenlife

anddeath

—

itlo

catesthe

resurrectio

nin

theself-d

elightin

gw

ildness

ofsh

eer

rhyth

m.A

ndth

isrcsem

bles

Yeats’s

remark

that

passio

nate

rhyth

m

preserv

esan

dtran

sform

sperso

nal

emotio

nby

liftingit

outof

histo

ryinto

the

realmof

‘impersonal

med

itation’.[...J

Ultim

ately,

34See

forexam

imple

theargum

entsin

Seam

usD

e;ine,‘A

rnold,B

urkeintl

theC

elts’,

Oft/c

Rem

/rats

(London:

Faber,[985).

7-27.

I 52I

[53J

Hardy

isclose

toY

eatsin

theco

nn

ection

which

liem

akesb

etween

vocalrh

yth

mand

mystery...[...]

rt’5as

ifthe

muse

visitshim

only

when

helearn

sto

rejectthe

instru

inen

taiwill

(rhy

thm

sof’choice’)

fora

more

intu

itive,

‘rougher’type

of versew

hichis

rootedin

rural

speech,the

Dorset

accent

andth

eform

allyvery

sophisticated

dialect

verseof

William

Barnes.

This

canonly

bedisco

vered

thro

ugh

asu

rrend

erto

natu

ralm

agicand

sup

erstition

,th

rough

acreativ

eid

leness

rather

than

aforcing

amb

ition

?s

Where

Larkin’s

own

creative

pro

cessreq

uired

theartificial

separatio

nof

1-lardyand

Yeats,

Paulin’s

requires

their

artificialyoking

together.

Wh

ether

ornot

these

senten

cesare

wholly

convincing,it’s

notab

leth

atth

eylitter

ad

escriptio

nof

1-Tardyw

ithY

eatsianterm

inolo

gy

andq

uo

tation

—‘the

great

division’,‘resu

rrection

,‘self-delighting’,

‘Ant;ieus-like’,

‘mystery’,

‘naturalm

agic’(w

hichis.

forY

eats,in

‘The

Celtic

Elem

ent

inliteratu

re’,Ireland’s

‘ancientreligion’).

Iv.

Wh

ether

puttin

gth

eU

lsterinto

lA/essex

orthe

V/essex

intoU

lster,th

iscriticism

stand

sas

testamen

tto

Hardy’s

cultu

ral(and

political)

significancefor

theN

orth

ernIrish

writer

ata

particu

larm

om

ent

inhistory.

‘I’hatsignificance

isalso

true,

ina

difleren

tw

ay,for

Michael

Longley

andfor

Seam

usH

eanev.L

ongley’s‘P

oetry’,from

The

I Vealh

erin

Japan

(2000),

tracesthe

linkbetw

eenH

ardy

andthe

poetsof

theW

esternF

ron

t—

among

them

Edw

ard‘l’hom

as—

whose

influence

perv

ades

Longley’s

own

work

too:‘W

henT

hom

asI-T

ardydied

hisw

idowgave

Blunden

/As

mem

ento

ofm

any

visitsto

Max

Gate

/H

istreasu

redcopy

ofE

dward

Thom

as’sPoem

s.’F

orL

ongley,I-T

ardyas

lovepoet

suhtly

infects

Longley’s

own

marital

lovepoem

s;his

‘Mayo

Monologues’

crossK

avanagh’sinfluence

with

1-Tardy;and

asone

ofthe

ou

tstand

ing

elegistsof

hisg

eneratio

n,

forw

homthe

Great

War

pro

test-elegy

looms

largein

hisow

ndev

elopm

ent,

1-lardy’srefig

urin

gof

elegyaffects

Longley’s

own

practice,

evenif

atone

remove.

For

1 leaney,as

Tara

Christie

persu

asively

den

ion

stnttes,

his‘fifty-year

engag

emen

tw

iththe

works

ofT

hom

as1-lardy

hasplayed

acen

tral,com

plex,and

eveiy

-chan

gin

grole

inF

leaney’spoetic

vision’.It

is,she

argues‘perhaps

becau

seI-lard

yen

tered1-leaney’s

imag

inatio

nso

early

35Paul

in,

77, on

uis

forth

’,2nd

ed.,9,10—

il.

on,because

hisinfluence

was

soin

timate

lyan

dseam

lcsslyblen

dcd

into

Hean

ey’s

poetic

visio

nfro

mits

outset,

that

Hard

y’s

presen

cein

Hean

ey’s

po

etryhas

gone

largely

unn

oticed

,F

or

Hard

yhas

nev

ernot

been

ap

artof

Heancy.’3’

For

Heaney,

Ilardy’sparish,

likeK

avanagh’s,m

akesits

own

imp

ortan

ce:the

two

poets

con

nect

forhim

inth

efo

rmatio

nof

his

own

aesthetic,

andin

hissen

sing

ofplace.

‘Ialw

ays’1-leaney

says.‘felt

som

ethin

gfam

iliarab

out

Hard

’slan

dscap

e,and

indeed

ahout

the

figuresin

hislandscape’?7

(InS

teppingS

tones,Ilean

eyrelates

how,

onm

eeting

Kavanagh,

‘Ieith

erco

mm

end

edT

hom

ashard

yor

asked

what

hehim

selfth

ou

ght

ofH

ardy,b

ut

hew

ason

tom

elike

ash

ot

—

susp

ectedI

was

mak

ing

toonifty

alink

betw

eenone

“cou

ntry

”p

oet

andanother...’.

)W

hilst

alectu

rerat

Queen’s

Univ

ersityB

elfastin

thelate

1960s.H

eaneytau

ght

aseries

ofun

derg

radu

atesem

inars

on

Thom

as1-lardy.

The

settext

listw

asas

follows:

The

Retu

rnof/lie

Nativ

eT

heM

ayor

ofC

asterbrrdgeT

heIV

oodlandersT

essof

theD

’Urben’ille.c

Selected

Poem

s

I-Thrill’cL

ovePoem

s,ed.

Carl

Weber

The

semin

arson

1-Tardyw

ere‘to

beco

ncern

edw

iththe

following

topics’:1.

Chara

cte

rand

plo

tin

Hardy’s

No

vels:

dete

rmin

ed

orsclf—

determ

inin

g?

2.S

ufferingin

then

ovels:sco

urg

eursalv

ation?

3. The

poetry:cu

lmin

ation

ofllard

y’sv

ision

?”

Th

ete

xts

are

givenin

chro

no

logical

ord

erof

pub

lication,

hut

The

Return

oft/ic

Nativ

eto

ppin

gthe

listis

serendip

itous

here.In

‘The

36T

arnC

hrislie,‘S

ealnusI leanL

y’sIlardy’.

The

Recorder

vol.17

no.I

(Sum

mer

2004),

118—I’)

37Q

uotedin

Christie.

119.

38D

ennisO

’Ijriscoll,Steppinq

Stones:

Interi’ieii.vn

it/iS

eamus

Ih’u

ner

(London:

Niber.

20(18).73.

39T

bis

infun

ii aton

isfrom

ad

iscarded

lypewriILea

sliceI

kR

aa

boxin

ani(lice

in

Queen’s,and

foundby

Dr

Eanm

nnI lughes

inthe

curlyI 990s.

laingrateful

toIJr

Ilughes

furdraw

ingm

yatten

tion

loit,

aodfor

sight

,if(lie

han

dout.

[‘l’ia:Y

ci.u

nv

Nil]

FI

I’OE

TR

YI

I 54I

t TIiK

Yi-j.i,otv

Nin

jI’oFriji

I

Birthplace’,

fromS

tation

L1ancl

(19

84

),one

ofth

ree‘tribute’

poem

s

toH

ardy,th

epoet

remem

bershow

,th

irwyears

previously,he

‘read

untilfirst

light//fo

rthe

firsttim

e,to

finish

/T

helietu

rno

fthe

Native’.

Ifth

ereis

apolitical

resonan

ceto

this

—given

1-leaney’sco

mm

ents

onK

avanagh’sconfidence

inhis

parish

asa

means

ofbrin

gin

g‘the

sub

cultu

reto

cultu

ralpow

er’4°—

there

isalso,

inthe

finallines

ofthe

poem,

anasto

nish

ing

sense

ofhom

ecom

ing

forH

eaney

inF

iardy’s

fiction:’!heard

/ro

osters

anddogs,

thev

erysam

e/a

sif lie

hadw

ritten

them’.

Elsew

here,he

describ

eshow

I-Tardy’s‘T

heO

xen’w

aslearn

t‘by

heart

earlyon

the

words

“barto

n”

and“coom

b”seem

edto

takem

e

faraw

ayand

atthe

same

time

tobrin

gm

eclose

toso

meth

ing

lurk

ing

insidem

e.T

hen

there

was

thephrase,

“their

strawy

pen”,w

hichhad

ad

ifferent

familiarity,

itbro

ught

thebyre

andthe

po

etrybook

into

alignment.’4’

A’d

ifferent

familiarity

’m

ight

encap

sulate

Hardy’s

appearan

cein

two

poems

fromS

eeingT

hings(1991),

‘Lightenings

vi’and

‘vii’.In

them,

we

finda

Hardy

who

makes

senseto

I ieaney,w

ho,like

himself,

isa

poet

whose

roots

crossw

ithhis

reading, whose

rural

back

gro

und

inall

itssen

suo

us

imm

ediacy

isthe

fou

nd

ation

onw

hichlie

will

later‘sing’

the‘perfect

pitch’ofliim

sellO

nce,as

achild,

outin

afield

ofsheep,

Thom

asH

ardy

preten

ded

tobe

dead

And

laydow

nflat

among

their

dain

tyshins.

Inth

atsniffed—

at,bleated—into, grassy

space

lieex

perim

ented

with

infinity.

This

mig

ht

seemto

hea

versio

nof

the

natu

ral,u

nso

ph

isticated,

gro

unded

1-lardy,derid

edby

Leavis

andE

liot,celeb

rated,

conversely,

byH

eaney,and

along

way

fromP

aulin’sgritty,

funky,political

Hardy.

Nev

ertheless,

I leaney

here

createshis

own

Hard

ytoo,

andfor

differen

tends.

I leaney’sI tard

yis

alsoa

visio

nary

poet,ex

perim

entin

g

with

‘infinity’,andthe

poem,

as‘L

ighteningsvii’

thenshow

s,finds

the

visio

muy

ambitio

nin

1-lardyin

part

becau

seit

misrem

enih

ersthe

1(1S

caniusIlean

cy,

inR

euillnq(tic

Future:

irictiiV

ritersin

Con,’erxoiiun

i,’itliM

ike

Aturphy

(I)ublin:L

illiputI’ress,

2000),

54—5.

4)S

eamus

I leanec

ii ien’i ,‘ww

it,J

Iirown,

hitheO

wir: Inh

‘n’ic

iIcw

ithP

oet.v

fmn

11wN

orthofIreland

(I ni

md:

Snlaw

nI’ul,Iis hi ng,

20

02

),77.

anecd

ote

(infact,

‘liew

ent

down

onall

fourso

ugh

tthe

creatures

faceto

face’.)A

sT

araC

hristie

poin

tsout,

Hardy’s

childhood,th

rough

them

isremem

berin

g,

thu

sm

erges

with

Heaney’s

own,

inw

hich

Hean

eyw

ouldvisit

the

cattle-shed

,to

sitor

stand

qu

ietlybeside

thesebig

peacefulbeasts,

wo

nd

ering

ifth

eyw

eretaking

anyheed

of

me

ornot’.42

Sim

ilarly,‘T

heB

irthplace’,w

hileretu

rnin

gI T

ardyto

Insorigins,

alsom

akeshim

resonate

ina

newco

ntex

t,S

ection

1is

obliq

uely

evocativeof Y

eats, with

the‘stir’

of Hardy’s

‘reluctan

theart’,

asit echoes

earlyM

ahontoo, th

eM

ahonof’T

heS

tudio’or

‘Courtyards

inD

elft’(‘T

hedeal

tablew

here

hew

rote,so

small

andplain,/

the

singlebed

adream

ofdiscipline...’).

The

linebreak

after‘T

hatday,

we

were

likeone’

mo

men

tarilyim

pliesthe

two

poets’affinity,

onlyto

transfo

rmthe

speak

erinto

a(suffering)

character

inone

ofI-tardy’s

novels:‘like

one/

ofhis

trou

bled

couples,sp

eechless/

until

hespoke

forthem

’. The

poemallow

s‘1-lardy’

(Hardy

thenovelist,

alsothe

Hard

y

of‘T

heV

oice’)to

articulate

Ileaney,all

thew

hilesp

eakin

gboth

toand

forI-Tardy,

l-ieaneysim

ultan

eously

creating

ach

aracterof

hisow

n.

Aid

theopen

ing

ofsectio

nI]

I—

‘Everyw

herebeing

no

wh

ere/

who

canprove

/one

placem

ore

than

another’?’—

isnot

som

ucha

den

ial

ofspecificity

but

areco

gn

ition

that

Hardy.

likeH

eaney

afterhim

,

has‘proved’

aparticu

larplace,

beit

‘Wessex’

orA

nah

orish

,ag

ainst

thosew

how

oulddism

issit

asin

significan

t—

toth

eex

tent

that

itcan

become,

atleast

forliean

ey,

anim

agin

edrealm

—‘[u

jtterlyem

pty’.

ashe

hasit

inthe

‘Clearances’

sequen

ceof

The

lieu’

Lante

rn(1987),

‘utterly

asource’,

InE

dna

Lo

ngley

’sB

/urn/axeB

ookof

20

th-C

entu

ryF

oe/n

’(2

000),

Hard

yan

dY

eatsstan

dat

the

beg

innin

gof

thecen

tury

.T

hevery

first

poemin

that

anth

olo

gy

—1-Tardy’s

‘‘flieD

arkling‘1’hrush’

—defines

both

acentury’s

endand

itsbeg

innin

g,

andis

evokedby

Hean

ey

inhis

own

‘millennium

’poem

qu

oted

asep

igrap

hto

thisessay.

Longley’s

open

ing

remark

son

I-Tardyen

capsu

latethe

shap

eof critical

recog

nitio

now

edon

bo

thsides

ofthe

Irishsea:

‘Thom

asH

ardy

anticip

atesevery

crossro

ads

ofm

od

ernpo

etryin

theB

ritishisles.

1-Ic

stand

sb

etween

folk—traditions

andliteratu

re;region

andm

etropolis;

Ch

ristianity

andthe

post—D

arwinian

crisiso

ffaith;

Victo

rianand

mo

dern

con

sciou

sness;

prose—fiction

andpoetry;

“things[th

atigo

42S

eech

rislie,‘Scam

nusIleancy’s

Hardy’.

131-2.

5°I

t 57]

[ 1’i.i.ow

Ni

flJ

onward

thesam

e”and

modern

war.’4’

Itis

apparen

t,even

looking

brieflyat

hisreception

inE

nglandan

dIreland,

that

Hardy

isdiffereifi

thingsto

differentpeople:

Eliot’s

Hardy

isnot

Larkin’s,

orP

aulin’s,

orH

eaney’sH

ardy.In

standingat

a‘crossroads’

hetends

inm

ultiple

directions.,and

thedanger

isth

atin

beingat

onceeveryw

herehe

is

fullyap

preciated

nowhere.

Yet

more

positively,the

cLosing

lines

ofH

eaney’s‘L

ighteningsvi’

might

serveas

metap

hor

forH

ardy’s

reaching‘outw

ard’iii

ternis

ofinfluence,

asivell

asbeing

return

edto

hisproper’

‘place’in

thecriticism

ofm

odernpoetry:

that

stirhe

caused

Inthe

fleece—hustle

was

theoriginal

Of

aripple

that

would

traveleighty

years

Outw

ardfrom

there,to

bethe

same

rippLe

Insidehim

atits

lastcircum

ference.

43E

dnaL

ongley,ed.‘17w

lllooduxeflon1

of20thC

’entu,’l’ocfryfn,m

uran

iaantI Ireland

fl’arset:his

,I:,xe,2000),

25.

I 58I

r