Ralph Vaughan Williams’ The Lark Ascending (1914)

You could call this a “two for one” this week in that the poem that inspired Ralph Vaugh­an Williams’ mas­ter­ful piece for vio­lin and piano, The Lark Ascend­ing, is itself a mas­ter­piece. Writ­ten by poet George Mered­ith in 1881, and hav­ing the same title, it was a paean to the sky­lark and its song. Siegfried Sas­soon called it “a sus­tained lyric which nev­er for a moment falls short of the effect aimed at, soars up and up with the song it imi­tates, and unites inspired spon­tane­ity with a demon­stra­tion of effort­less tech­ni­cal ingenuity…one has only to read the poem a few times to become aware of its per­fec­tion”. For those whose appetite is whet­ted by Sassoon’s praise, the poem is at the foot of this blog; how­ev­er, today let’s look at the beau­ti­ful music it inspired.

Vaugh­an Williams was one of England’s great com­posers. Influ­enced by Tudor music and Eng­lish folk­song, he com­posed every­thing from operas, bal­lets and choral pieces to cham­ber music and sym­phonies, spread over six­ty years, and is a sta­ple of the British con­cert reper­toire. He con­tin­ued to com­pose in his sev­en­ties and eight­ies, pro­duc­ing his last sym­pho­ny months before his death at eighty-five in 1958.

Vaugh­an Williams loved poet­ry and was a keen read­er of the great Vic­to­ri­an poets. The com­poser’s sec­ond wife, Ursu­la, her­self a poet, wrote that in The Lark Ascend­ing Vaugh­an Williams had “tak­en a lit­er­ary idea on which to build his musi­cal thought…and had made the vio­lin become both the bird’s song and its flight”. It’s not hard to detect the allu­sion in the music.

Although com­plet­ed in 1914, the pre­miere of The Lark Ascend­ing wasn’t until 15th Decem­ber 1920 at the Shire­hamp­ton Pub­lic Hall (giv­en by lead­ing British vio­lin­ist of the time Marie Hall and the pianist Geof­frey Mend­ham). Rather like the Edwar­dian era itself, as viewed ret­ro­spec­tive­ly from the oth­er side of the Great War, it seems to reflect nos­tal­gia for a part­ly mytho­log­i­cal lost age of inno­cence.

Although most per­for­mances these days are orches­tral ver­sions, some have recre­at­ed the orig­i­nal ver­sion for vio­lin and piano only, includ­ing this exquis­ite per­for­mance by Finnish vio­lin­ist Kree­ta-Julia Heikkilä, with Jaan Ots on the piano, at the Helsin­ki Cham­ber Music Fes­ti­val 2019.

He ris­es and begins to round,
He drops the sil­ver chain of sound
Of many links with­out a break,
In chirrup, whis­tle, slur and shake,
All intervolv’d and spread­ing wide,
Like water-dim­ples down a tide
Where rip­ple rip­ple over­curls
And eddy into eddy whirls;
A press of hur­ried notes that run
So fleet they scarce are more than one,
Yet chang­ing­ly the trills repeat
And linger ring­ing while they fleet,
Sweet to the quick o’ the ear, and dear
To her beyond the hand­maid ear,
Who sits beside our inner springs,
Too often dry for this he brings,
Which seems the very jet of earth
At sight of sun, her musci’s mirth,
As up he wings the spi­ral stair,
A song of light, and pierces air
With foun­tain ardor, foun­tain play,
To reach the shin­ing tops of day,
And drink in every­thing discern’d
An ecsta­sy to music turn’d,
Impell’d by what his hap­py bill
Dis­pers­es; drink­ing, show­er­ing still,
Unthink­ing save that he may give
His voice the out­let, there to live
Renew’d in end­less notes of glee,
So thirsty of his voice is he,
For all to hear and all to know
That he is joy, awake, aglow,
The tumult of the heart to hear
Through pure­ness filter’d crys­tal-clear,
And know the plea­sure sprin­kled bright
By sim­ple singing of delight,
Shrill, irreflec­tive, unrestrain’d,
Rapt, ring­ing, on the jet sustain’d
With­out a break, with­out a fall,
Sweet-sil­very, sheer lyri­cal,
Peren­ni­al, qua­ver­ing up the chord
Like myr­i­ad dews of sun­ny sward
That trem­bling into ful­ness shine,
And sparkle drop­ping argen­tine;
Such woo­ing as the ear receives
From zephyr caught in chor­ic leaves
Of aspens when their chat­ter­ing net
Is flush’d to white with shiv­ers wet;
And such the water-spirit’s chime
On moun­tain heights in morning’s prime,
Too fresh­ly sweet to seem excess,
Too ani­mate to need a stress;
But wider over many heads
The star­ry voice ascend­ing spreads,
Awak­en­ing, as it wax­es thin,
The best in us to him akin;
And every face to watch him rais’d,
Puts on the light of chil­dren prais’d,
So rich our human plea­sure ripes
When sweet­ness on sin­cere­ness pipes,
Though nought be promis’d from the seas,
But only a soft-ruf­fling breeze
Sweep glit­ter­ing on a still con­tent,
Seren­i­ty in rav­ish­ment.


For singing till his heav­en fills,
’T is love of earth that he instils,
And ever wing­ing up and up,
Our val­ley is his gold­en cup,
And he the wine which over­flows
To lift us with him as he goes:
The woods and brooks, the sheep and kine
He is, the hills, the human line,
The mead­ows green, the fal­lows brown,
The dreams of labor in the town;
He sings the sap, the quicken’d veins;
The wed­ding song of sun and rains
He is, the dance of chil­dren, thanks
Of sow­ers, shout of prim­rose-banks,
And eye of vio­lets while they breathe;
All these the cir­cling song will wreathe,
And you shall hear the herb and tree,
The bet­ter heart of men shall see,
Shall feel celes­tial­ly, as long
As you crave noth­ing save the song.
Was nev­er voice of ours could say
Our inmost in the sweet­est way,
Like yon­der voice aloft, and link
All hear­ers in the song they drink:
Our wis­dom speaks from fail­ing blood,
Our pas­sion is too full in flood,
We want the key of his wild note
Of truth­ful in a tune­ful throat,
The song seraph­i­cal­ly free
Of taint of per­son­al­i­ty,
So pure that it salutes the suns
The voice of one for mil­lions,
In whom the mil­lions rejoice
For giv­ing their one spir­it voice.


Yet men have we, whom we revere,
Now names, and men still hous­ing here,
Whose lives, by many a bat­tle-dint
Defaced, and grind­ing wheels on flint,
Yield sub­stance, though they sing not, sweet
For song our high­est heav­en to greet:
Whom heav­en­ly singing gives us new,
Enspheres them bril­liant in our blue,
From firmest base to far­thest leap,
Because their love of Earth is deep,
And they are war­riors in accord
With life to serve and pass reward,
So touch­ing purest and so heard
In the brain’s reflex of yon bird;
Where­fore their soul in me, or mine,
Through self-for­get­ful­ness divine,
In them, that song aloft main­tains,
To fill the sky and thrill the plains
With show­er­ings drawn from human stores,
As he to silence near­er soars,
Extends the world at wings and dome,
More spa­cious mak­ing more our home,
Till lost on his aër­i­al rings
In light, and then the fan­cy sings.

George Mered­ith
Ralph Vaugh­an Williams

Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca (1942)

In 1942, Hol­ly­wood churned out over 500 movies, most of which, nat­u­ral­ly enough, you will have nev­er heard of (unless you hap­pen to be a pro­fes­sor of Film Stud­ies spe­cial­is­ing in the for­ties, which is unlike­ly). When they were mak­ing Casablan­ca in that year, nobody was think­ing that this was going to be the movie that would become an endur­ing clas­sic still appear­ing near the top of “great­est ever movie” polls eighty years lat­er. What makes Casablan­ca so great?

You already know the syn­op­sis: it’s set in 1941 in Vichy-con­trolled Casablan­ca just before Pearl Har­bor and Amer­i­ca is stalling about enter­ing the war. The Ger­mans’ hold is tight­en­ing, and everyone’s fates are uncer­tain. Every­body is want­i­ng to get out before it’s too late. Against this back­drop, Amer­i­can ex-patri­ate Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bog­a­rt) runs a night­club and gam­bling den, Rick­’s Café Améri­cain. He also has pre­vi­ous as a fight­er in the Span­ish Civ­il War, so he’s no slouch, and he knows a lot of peo­ple. He has also come by two “let­ters of tran­sit”, valu­able and authen­tic doc­u­men­ta­tion that would allow the bear­ers to make their escape through Ger­man-occu­pied Europe.

Rick’s for­mer lover, from when they met in Paris dur­ing the fall of France, Isla Lund (Ingrid Bergman), walks into his club. Her hus­band Vic­tor Las­z­lo is a linch­pin in the Czech resis­tance; they need those doc­u­ments to escape to Amer­i­ca and con­tin­ue his work. When Isla con­fess­es that she still loves Rick (she’s no hussy though: when they’d met in Paris she had thought her hus­band dead) we come to the nub: Rick’s moral dilem­ma is to decide between his love for Isla and the good of the world. He makes the right choice, and at the end of the film (sure­ly this is no spoil­er) sends Isla and Las­z­lo off, with their papers, to fight the good fight.

Let’s talk cin­e­matog­ra­phy; it’s full-on film noir by Michael Cur­tiz. The use of light and shad­ow is used to dra­mat­ic effect: the moral­ly torn Rick is often seen half in light, half in shad­ow. Las­z­lo, the bright hope for the future, is almost always in full light. Isla’s flaw­less and pearles­cent skin is accom­pa­nied by eyes sparkling impos­si­bly by the use of tiny lights. The venet­ian blind is a handy way to cast prison bar-like shad­ows on the pro­tag­o­nists.

The nar­ra­tive is eco­nom­i­cal; there is no detail that doesn’t mat­ter to the plot, no scene that is wast­ed. Sure, there’s corn (more corn than Kansas and Iowa com­bined, said its screen­writer Julius Epstein) but it’s Hol­ly­wood, what do you expect? And sure­ly it’s no coin­ci­dence that so many clas­sic lines were thus spawned: “Here’s look­ing at you, kid”, “We’ll always have Paris”, “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine”. I know that you already know that the line “Play it again, Sam” was nev­er actu­al­ly said, so we need­n’t men­tion that!

But let’s look at that clos­ing scene when Rick sucks up his per­son­al loss and deliv­ers that clas­sic part­ing speech to Isla, to the emo­tion­al orches­tral accom­pa­ni­ment of As Time Goes By. It is pret­ty mar­vel­lous stuff, isn’t it?

Bog­a­rt and Bergman

Franz Kafka’s The Castle (1924)

You know a writer has made their mark when their name ends up becom­ing used as an adjec­tive: Dick­en­sian and Orwellian spring to mind of course, but we also occa­sion­al­ly see Sha­vian to describe George Bernard Shaw’s didac­tic com­mit­ment to social pur­pose, Well­sian to describe a futur­ism rem­i­nis­cent of H G Wells, or Tolkienesque for any­thing with elves or wiz­ards in it. My favourite is Kafkaesque, which describes a night­mar­ish bureau­crat­ic dystopia, a famil­iar theme to any­one who has tried to sort out a non-stan­dard trans­ac­tion with Pay­Pal.

Franz Kaf­ka (1883–1924) was born into a Ger­man-Jew­ish fam­i­ly in Prague and is wide­ly regard­ed as one of the major fig­ures of 20th cen­tu­ry lit­er­a­ture. His work typ­i­cal­ly fea­tures char­ac­ters fac­ing sur­re­al­is­tic predica­ments and face­less bureau­crat­ic pow­ers, and thus Kaf­ka explores themes of alien­ation and exis­ten­tial anx­i­ety. Few of his works were pub­lished in his life­time, and all his best-known works such as Die Ver­wand­lung (The Meta­mor­pho­sis), Der Process (The Tri­al), and Das Schloss (The Cas­tle) were pub­lished posthu­mous­ly. In fact, Kaf­ka had instruct­ed in his will that these unpub­lished works be destroyed but, for­tu­nate­ly for pos­ter­i­ty, his friend and execu­tor Max Brod ignored his wish­es.

I read The Cas­tle as a young man trav­el­ling the world and spend­ing lots of time in con­sulates procur­ing visas, and I remem­ber being hooked. For­tu­nate­ly, although I spent many an hour in con­sular wait­ing areas, my own expe­ri­ence of bureau­cra­cy nev­er matched that of “K.”, the unfor­tu­nate pro­tag­o­nist who arrives in a vil­lage and strug­gles to make head­way with the shady author­i­ties who gov­ern from the cas­tle on the hill.

K. spends much of the nov­el try­ing to secure a meet­ing with Klamm, the elu­sive offi­cial who might – just might – be able to stamp the nec­es­sary forms and obtain for K. his hoped-for res­i­den­cy in the vil­lage. Sad­ly, K. is frus­trat­ed at every turn, not least by Klamm’s gate­keep­ing sec­re­tary, Momus.

The nov­el was unfin­ished at the time of Kafka’s death from tuber­cu­lo­sis in 1924, though Kaf­ka appar­ent­ly told Max Brod that K. would con­tin­ue to grap­ple with the cas­tle author­i­ties until his death: they would noti­fy him on his deathbed that his “legal claim to live in the vil­lage was not valid, yet, tak­ing cer­tain aux­il­iary cir­cum­stances into account, he was per­mit­ted to live and work there”. A suit­ably iron­ic con­clu­sion.

 
Franz Kaf­ka

Giotto’s Scrovegni Chapel Frescoes (c.1305)

Before Raphael was Michelan­ge­lo, and before Michelan­ge­lo was Leonar­do, and before Leonar­do was Bot­ti­cel­li, and before Bot­ti­cel­li was Giot­to. Giot­to di Bon­done (c. 1267 – 1337) was a painter and archi­tect from Flo­rence dur­ing the Late Mid­dle Ages, work­ing before the great flour­ish­ing in the arts known as the Renais­sance. The 16th cen­tu­ry art his­to­ri­an, Gior­gio Vasari (inci­den­tal­ly, the first man to use the term Renais­sance in print), in his Lives of the Painters, cred­its Giot­to with break­ing tan­gi­bly away from the preva­lent Byzan­tine style and ini­ti­at­ing “the great art of paint­ing as we know it today, intro­duc­ing the tech­nique of draw­ing accu­rate­ly from life”.

His two great mas­ter­works were the design of the cam­panile at Flo­rence Cathe­dral, and the dec­o­ra­tion of the Scroveg­ni Chapel in Pad­ua. A third may well be the famous fres­coes in the Upper Basil­i­ca of Saint Fran­cis in Assisi, though this is dis­put­ed: sad­ly, giv­en the peri­od, many fea­tures of his life are hard to sub­stan­ti­ate.

Vasari tells some sto­ries about Giot­to that sound decid­ed­ly fan­ci­ful. Accord­ing to him, Giot­to was a shep­herd boy, dis­cov­ered by the great Flo­ren­tine painter Cimabue draw­ing pic­tures of his sheep on a rock. They were so life­like that Cimabue approached Giot­to and asked if he could take him on as an appren­tice. Anoth­er sto­ry recounts how Giot­to drew a life­like fly onto one of his master’s paint­ings and laughed when Cimabue tried sev­er­al times to brush the fly off. Yet anoth­er tells how the Pope request­ed to see an exam­ple of his artis­tic skill and Giot­to sim­ply sent him a per­fect cir­cle he had drawn in free­hand.

Fan­ci­ful sto­ries aside, there’s no doubt­ing the achieve­ment of the Scroveg­ni Chapel fres­coes. The sub­ject mat­ter is not unusu­al for church dec­o­ra­tion in medieval Italy, being cen­tred on the lives of the Vir­gin Mary and Christ, but the style for the day was sen­sa­tion­al: solid­ly three-dimen­sion­al, with faces and ges­tures based on close obser­va­tion, and the char­ac­ters clothed in gar­ments that hang nat­u­ral­ly and have form and weight. The expan­sive use of ultra­ma­rine blue pig­ment is remark­ably effec­tive: when you look at the chapel as a whole, it seems awash with blue (albeit fad­ed with time, sad­ly).

I’ll fin­ish with anoth­er sto­ry that’s prob­a­bly apoc­ryphal (but who knows?). The great poet Dante vis­it­ed Giot­to while he was paint­ing the Scroveg­ni Chapel and, see­ing the artist’s chil­dren flit­ting around, asked (rude­ly) how a man who paint­ed such beau­ti­ful pic­tures could have such plain chil­dren. Giot­to, who, accord­ing to Vasari was always a wit, replied, “I make my pic­tures by day, and my babies by night”.

Giotto 1
Giotto 2
Giotto 3
Giotto 4

Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Years ago I read The Sev­en Pil­lars of Wis­dom, the remark­able account, by T E Lawrence, of his expe­ri­ences while serv­ing as a liai­son offi­cer with rebel forces dur­ing the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks between 1916 and 1918. It’s a rol­lick­ing, rip-roar­ing tale, to say the least, replete with desert skir­mish­es, blow­ing up of trains and high-octane adven­ture but also much psy­cho­log­i­cal strug­gle, with Lawrence hav­ing to ame­lio­rate frac­tious trib­al enmi­ties in order to unite the Arabs against the com­mon ene­my. Then there is Lawrence’s own emo­tion­al tur­moil in bal­anc­ing his divid­ed alle­giance between the British Army, and its ulti­mate inter­ests, and his new-found com­rades with­in the desert tribes. The sto­ry was clear­ly ripe for an epic film to be made about it.

Suit­able, then, that cin­e­mat­ic heavy­weights Sam Spiegel and David Lean would be involved in the 1962 film ver­sion of these events,  Lawrence of Ara­bia, and an array of big-name, depend­able act­ing tal­ents: Peter O’Toole (in the title role, of course), Alec Guin­ness, Jack Hawkins, Antho­ny Quinn, Omar Sharif, Antho­ny Quayle, Claude Rains (along­side sev­er­al hun­dred extras). Actu­al­ly, Peter O’Toole hadn’t been the first choice for Lawrence: Albert Finney had been cast but was fired after two days for unknown rea­sons; Mar­lon Bran­do, too, had been offered the role; and both Antho­ny Perkins and Mont­gomery Clift were con­sid­ered. How­ev­er, O’Toole’s screen test and per­haps his resem­blance to the real-life Lawrence edged it for him. With his blond hair and pierc­ing eyes, he cer­tain­ly looked good on screen: Noël Cow­ard quipped: “if you’d been any pret­ti­er, the film would have been called Flo­rence of Ara­bia”.

The movie was helped tremen­dous­ly by the com­bi­na­tion of Super Panav­i­sion 70 cin­e­matog­ra­phy with the incred­i­ble back­drops afford­ed by the deserts of Jor­dan, along with a suit­ably majes­tic score by Mau­rice Jarre. It won sev­en Oscars, and is recog­nised as one of the great­est and most influ­en­tial films in the his­to­ry of cin­e­ma. Let’s take a look at Lawrence enter­ing the desert for the first time…


Peter O’Toole as Lawrence

Rudolph Valentino in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921)

The rise to star­dom of the orig­i­nal Hol­ly­wood “Latin lover”, Rudolph Valenti­no, is a remark­able one. I’m pret­ty sure nobody who knew him in his child­hood could have had the slight­est inkling of what lay in store for him: he was born in 1895 in Castel­lan­e­ta, at the top of the heel of Italy, to a cap­tain of cav­al­ry in the Ital­ian army and a French moth­er. Although even as a boy he was known for his excep­tion­al looks, he did poor­ly at school, squeezed a cer­tifi­cate out of agri­cul­tur­al col­lege in Genoa, and couldn’t find work. As with so many oth­ers, he depart­ed for the Unit­ed States, and was processed at Ellis Island in 1913, aged 18.

Rodol­fo, as he was then (real name: Rodol­fo Alfon­so Raf­fael­lo Pierre Fil­ib­er­to Gugliel­mi di Valenti­na d’An­tonguel­la), sought work bussing tables at var­i­ous New York restau­rants. He was fired sev­er­al times, but even­tu­al­ly one skill that he did have – danc­ing – secured him work as a “taxi dancer” (hired to dance with cus­tomers) at Maxim’s Restau­rant-Cabaret. He befriend­ed a Chilean heiress there and became entan­gled in some­thing of a scan­dal which moti­vat­ed him to leave town, join­ing a trav­el­ling musi­cal which took him to the West Coast.

It was on the West Coast that things start­ed hap­pen­ing for Rodol­fo; he was encour­aged to seek screen roles and his “exot­ic” looks led him to win bit parts in sev­er­al movies. His big break, though, came when he won a lead role in the 1921 silent movie, The Four Horse­men of the Apoc­a­lypse, which became a com­mer­cial and crit­i­cal suc­cess and cat­a­pult­ed him to star­dom. He was mar­ket­ed as the “Latin lover” with a new stage name, and the movies The Sheik, Blood and Sand, The Eagle, and The Son of the Sheik all fol­lowed, each one cement­ing Valentino’s rep­u­ta­tion and star qual­i­ty.

He soon became the arche­typ­al sex sym­bol of the silent movie era, along­side the fair-com­plex­ioned, all-Amer­i­can male leads Wal­lace Reid and Dou­glas Fair­banks Junior, as well as the oth­er con­tem­po­rary hearththrob mat­inée idol of for­eign extrac­tion, Tokyo-born Ses­sue Hayakawa (who decades lat­er would appear as Colonel Saito in The Bridge on the Riv­er Kwai). Valentino’s sta­tus as a cul­tur­al icon was sealed in 1926 by his ear­ly death from peri­toni­tis, aged just 31. Mass hys­te­ria ensued, and indeed the events of Valentino’s funer­al are a sto­ry in them­selves (100,000 lined the streets to pay their respects, but so much dis­or­der broke out that 100 mount­ed NYPD offi­cers were need­ed to restore order).

Here is a mon­tage of Valenti­no footage in var­i­ous pub­lic­i­ty shots and off-screen sce­nar­ios – if your only image of him is in cos­tume and make-up (per­haps as “the Sheik”), then you might find this quite com­pelling and worth view­ing to get an insight into the “real” Valenti­no and why the women swooned…feast your eyes!

Rudolph Valenti­no

Francisco Queirolo’s Escape From Deception (1754)

In the his­toric cen­tre of Naples lies the San­severo Chapel, a for­mer church con­vert­ed into a fam­i­ly bur­ial chapel by the noble di San­gro fam­i­ly in 1613. In the 1750s, Rai­mon­do di San­gro, the Prince of San­severo, com­mit­ted the last years of his life to dec­o­rat­ing the chapel with great works of art. He had already had a rich life of enquiry and exper­i­men­ta­tion in the sci­ences and was well-known for his inven­tions as well as a deep involve­ment with alche­my and Freema­son­ry. How­ev­er, since Rai­mon­do had had run-ins with the Inqui­si­tion and had elect­ed to destroy his sci­en­tif­ic archive before his death, it is his artis­tic lega­cy that remains.

In par­tic­u­lar, he com­mis­sioned three sculp­tors to pro­duce a mar­ble sculp­ture each, name­ly Anto­nio Corradini’s Veiled Truth, Guiseppe Sanmartino’s Veiled Christ, and Francesco Queirolo’s Escape from Decep­tion. By good judge­ment or good luck – or, some said, by the mys­te­ri­ous pow­ers of the occult – Raimondo’s choice result­ed in all three sculp­tures turn­ing out to be amaz­ing mas­ter­pieces of exquis­ite skill.

Let’s look at just one of them. The Release from Decep­tion by Genoese sculp­tor Francesco Queiro­lo shows a man’s emer­gence from a fisherman’s net, guid­ed by an angel hov­er­ing above a globe as he untan­gles the man from the net. Every piece of this incred­i­ble sculp­ture is carved out of mar­ble, includ­ing the care­ful­ly craft­ed knots in the net draped around the fig­ure of the fish­er­man. The scene depict­ed is both bib­li­cal and alle­gor­i­cal, the net sym­bol­is­ing sin, world­li­ness or wrong-think­ing, and the angel help­ing the man to see the error of his ways.

The idea of one man, with his mal­lets and chis­els and rasps and rif­flers, strug­gling with one block of mar­ble to “free the form trapped inside the block”, as Michae­lan­ge­lo used to describe it, is a com­pelling one. I myself have only fleet­ing­ly passed through Naples, but if I ever return, I shall be seek­ing out the San­severo Chapel; I’d like to see this “in the flesh”, so to speak!

Sylvia Plath’s Daddy (1962)

High above the Calder val­ley in West York­shire lies the vil­lage of Hep­ton­stall, and in its church­yard lies, rather incon­gru­ous­ly, the grave of famous Amer­i­can con­fes­sion­al poet, Sylvia Plath. Hers is a wretched tale of depres­sion, end­ing ulti­mate­ly in her sui­cide in Feb­ru­ary 1963, but her lit­er­ary lega­cy is a pow­er­ful one, albeit only ful­ly recog­nised posthu­mous­ly (she won a Pulitzer Prize in 1982, twen­ty years after her death). The major­i­ty of the poems on which her rep­u­ta­tion now rests were writ­ten dur­ing the final months of her life.

Plath had arrived at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty from her native Mass­a­chu­setts and had already won awards for her poet­ry when she met young York­shire poet Ted Hugh­es in Feb­ru­ary 1956. By June they were mar­ried. They moved to the States for a cou­ple of years before return­ing to Lon­don, where Sylvia had her daugh­ter Frie­da, and lat­er Tawn­ton in Devon, where her son Nicholas was born. In July 1962, she dis­cov­ered that Hugh­es was hav­ing an affair and the cou­ple sep­a­rat­ed.

Plath had already expe­ri­enced dif­fi­cult prob­lems with her men­tal health and had already under­gone elec­tro­con­vul­sive ther­a­py by the time she’d met Hugh­es. The sep­a­ra­tion pre­cip­i­tat­ed an even-fur­ther down­ward spi­ral. She con­sult­ed her GP, who pre­scribed her anti-depres­sants and also arranged a live-in nurse to be with her.

The nurse was due to arrive at nine on the morn­ing of Feb­ru­ary 11, 1963, to help Plath with the care of her chil­dren. Upon arrival, she found Plath dead with her head in the gas oven, hav­ing sealed the rooms between her and her sleep­ing chil­dren with tape, tow­els and cloths. She was 30 years old.

I have select­ed this poem, Dad­dy, read aloud by Plath her­self. Its theme is her com­plex rela­tion­ship with her Ger­man father, Otto Plath, who had died short­ly after her eighth birth­day. It is haunt­ing and dis­turb­ing, with dark imagery and the expres­sion of an inscrutable emo­tion­al trau­ma that we can only guess at. Plath’s ren­di­tion of her poem, with its dis­qui­et­ing mul­ti­ple use of “oo” vow­el sounds, gripped me, when I first heard this, all the way through to its raw and bru­tal con­clu­sion.

You do not do, you do not do   
Any more, black shoe
In which I have lived like a foot   
For thir­ty years, poor and white,   
Bare­ly dar­ing to breathe or Achoo.

Dad­dy, I have had to kill you.   
You died before I had time——
Mar­ble-heavy, a bag full of God,   
Ghast­ly stat­ue with one gray toe   
Big as a Frisco seal

And a head in the freak­ish Atlantic   
Where it pours bean green over blue   
In the waters off beau­ti­ful Nau­set.   
I used to pray to recov­er you.
Ach, du.

In the Ger­man tongue, in the Pol­ish town   
Scraped flat by the roller
Of wars, wars, wars.
But the name of the town is com­mon.   
My Polack friend

Says there are a dozen or two.   
So I nev­er could tell where you   
Put your foot, your root,
I nev­er could talk to you.
The tongue stuck in my jaw.

It stuck in a barb wire snare.   
Ich, ich, ich, ich,
I could hard­ly speak.
I thought every Ger­man was you.   
And the lan­guage obscene

An engine, an engine
Chuff­ing me off like a Jew.
A Jew to Dachau, Auschwitz, Belsen.   
I began to talk like a Jew.
I think I may well be a Jew.

The snows of the Tyrol, the clear beer of Vien­na   
Are not very pure or true.
With my gip­sy ances­tress and my weird luck   
And my Taroc pack and my Taroc pack
I may be a bit of a Jew.

I have always been scared of you,
With your Luft­waffe, your gob­bledy­goo.   
And your neat mus­tache
And your Aryan eye, bright blue.
Panz­er-man, panz­er-man, O You——

Not God but a swasti­ka
So black no sky could squeak through.   
Every woman adores a Fas­cist,   
The boot in the face, the brute   
Brute heart of a brute like you.

You stand at the black­board, dad­dy,   
In the pic­ture I have of you,
A cleft in your chin instead of your foot   
But no less a dev­il for that, no not   
Any less the black man who

Bit my pret­ty red heart in two.
I was ten when they buried you.   
At twen­ty I tried to die
And get back, back, back to you.
I thought even the bones would do.

But they pulled me out of the sack,   
And they stuck me togeth­er with glue.   
And then I knew what to do.
I made a mod­el of you,
A man in black with a Meinkampf look

And a love of the rack and the screw.   
And I said I do, I do.
So dad­dy, I’m final­ly through.
The black telephone’s off at the root,   
The voic­es just can’t worm through.

If I’ve killed one man, I’ve killed two——
The vam­pire who said he was you   
And drank my blood for a year,
Sev­en years, if you want to know.
Dad­dy, you can lie back now.

There’s a stake in your fat black heart   
And the vil­lagers nev­er liked you.
They are danc­ing and stamp­ing on you.   
They always knew it was you.
Dad­dy, dad­dy, you bas­tard, I’m through.

Sylvia Plath

John Betjeman’s The Subaltern’s Love Song (1941)

Sir John Bet­je­man (1906–1984) was Poet Lau­re­ate from 1972 until his death in 1984, though both poems that I dis­cuss here in this blog were writ­ten way back in 1937 and 1941 respec­tive­ly. He was a life­long poet but also a jour­nal­ist and TV broad­cast­er and some­thing of an “insti­tu­tion” in Britain, pop­u­lar for his bum­bling per­sona and wry­ly com­ic out­look. He was known for being a staunch defend­er of Vic­to­ri­an archi­tec­ture, and he played a large part in sav­ing St Pan­cras rail­way sta­tion (and many oth­er build­ings) from demo­li­tion.

Indeed, Bet­je­man bemoaned all that he saw slip­ping away in the wake of the indus­tri­al­i­sa­tion of Britain. The town of Slough had acquired up to 850 new fac­to­ries just before the Sec­ond World War and was the epit­o­me of all that he saw wrong with moder­ni­ty, the “men­ace to come”. His poem Slough begins:

Come, friend­ly bombs, and fall on Slough!
It isn’t fit for humans now

Some­what harsh, per­haps. On the cen­te­nary of Betjeman’s birth in 2006 his daugh­ter Can­di­da Lycett-Green apol­o­gised to the peo­ple of Slough on his behalf and said that her father had regret­ted writ­ing the poem. He may well have regret­ted pick­ing on a par­tic­u­lar town but I doubt that his sen­ti­ments had changed regard­ing the chang­ing urban archi­tec­tur­al land­scape.

The first poem of Betjeman’s I came across was arguably about anoth­er world in the process of being sub­sumed by the march of progress and the Sec­ond World War. The Subaltern’s Love Song is a gen­tle poem reflect­ing the mid­dle-class cul­ture of Sur­rey at the time it was writ­ten in 1941. The sto­ry is imag­ined, though the muse of his poem was very real: Miss Joan Hunter Dunn worked at the can­teen at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Lon­don where Bet­je­man was work­ing. He was so tak­en by her that he was inspired to write the poem, imag­in­ing him­self as a sub­al­tern (a junior offi­cer in the mil­i­tary) in her thrall through­out a breath­less series of sum­mer activ­i­ties that ends in their engage­ment.

Eleven qua­trains of flow­ing ten-syl­la­ble iambic rhythm tell the unfold­ing sto­ry of the imag­i­nary love affair, and it does it with wit and sparkle. Let’s leave aside the fact that its writer was mar­ried at the time!

Miss J.Hunter Dunn, Miss J.Hunter Dunn,
Fur­nish’d and bur­nish’d by Alder­shot sun,
What stren­u­ous sin­gles we played after tea,
We in the tour­na­ment — you against me!

Love-thir­ty, love-forty, oh! weak­ness of joy,
The speed of a swal­low, the grace of a boy,
With care­fullest care­less­ness, gai­ly you won,
I am weak from your love­li­ness, Joan Hunter Dunn

Miss Joan Hunter Dunn, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn,
How mad I am, sad I am, glad that you won,
The warm-han­dled rack­et is back in its press,
But my shock-head­ed vic­tor, she loves me no less.

Her father’s euony­mus shines as we walk,
And swing past the sum­mer-house, buried in talk,
And cool the veran­dah that wel­comes us in
To the six-o’clock news and a lime-juice and gin.

The scent of the conifers, sound of the bath,
The view from my bed­room of moss-dap­pled path,
As I strug­gle with dou­ble-end evening tie,
For we dance at the Golf Club, my vic­tor and I.

On the floor of her bed­room lie blaz­er and shorts,
And the cream-coloured walls are be-tro­phied with sports,
And wes­t­er­ing, ques­tion­ing set­tles the sun,
On your low-lead­ed win­dow, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn.

The Hill­man is wait­ing, the light’s in the hall,
The pic­tures of Egypt are bright on the wall,
My sweet, I am stand­ing beside the oak stair
And there on the land­ing’s the light on your hair.

By roads “not adopt­ed”, by wood­land­ed ways,
She drove to the club in the late sum­mer haze,
Into nine-o’clock Cam­ber­ley, heavy with bells
And mush­roomy, pine-woody, ever­green smells.

Miss Joan Hunter Dunn, Miss Joan Hunter Dunn,
I can hear from the car park the dance has begun,
Oh! Sur­rey twi­light! impor­tu­nate band!
Oh! strong­ly adorable ten­nis-girl’s hand!

Around us are Rovers and Austins afar,
Above us the inti­mate roof of the car,
And here on my right is the girl of my choice,
With the tilt of her nose and the chime of her voice.

And the scent of her wrap, and the words nev­er said,
And the omi­nous, omi­nous danc­ing ahead.
We sat in the car park till twen­ty to one
And now I’m engaged to Miss Joan Hunter Dunn.

John Bet­je­man

J B Priestley’s An Inspector Calls (1945)

A whole new gen­er­a­tion of kids study­ing GCSE Eng­lish are dis­cov­er­ing J B Priestley’s 1945 play, An Inspec­tor Calls. It seems to be every­where at the moment: as well as being on the syl­labus in schools, the Nation­al Theatre’s pro­duc­tion of the play was doing the rounds again nation­al­ly when the lock­down hit. Sad­ly, I just missed out on that, hav­ing seen the poster too late, but I did find a DVD of the 1954 film for a quid in a char­i­ty shop, and snapped it up.

You may well be famil­iar with the sto­ry: set in 1912 in a well-to-do north­ern Mid­lands house­hold, in a soci­ety divid­ed by class dis­tinc­tion, we find the Bir­ling fam­i­ly assem­bled in cel­e­bra­tion of their daugh­ter Sheila’s engage­ment to Ger­ald Croft. The patri­arch, Arthur Bir­ling, is feel­ing pleased with him­self, as his busi­ness is doing well and he is on an upward social tra­jec­to­ry, improved even more by the social stand­ing of the Croft fam­i­ly into which Sheila is mar­ry­ing. Their evening, how­ev­er, is inter­rupt­ed by the arrival of Inspec­tor Goole (“Poole” in the film ver­sion).

The Inspec­tor, played mas­ter­ful­ly by Alis­tair Sim in the 1954 film, has some ques­tions for all the mem­bers of the fam­i­ly and Ger­ald Croft, in turn, con­cern­ing a girl who has just com­mit­ted sui­cide in the gris­ly man­ner of drink­ing bleach, a sign of her des­per­ate men­tal state. It becomes appar­ent that each per­son has had some involve­ment with this poor girl, albeit in a vari­ety of dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances, and each has played some part in her descent and degra­da­tion. The unfold­ing of the sto­ry­line is sub­tle and we the audi­ence are grad­u­al­ly drawn in as details are revealed and it dawns on us that every­one present has some con­nec­tion.

Telling­ly, the char­ac­ters react dif­fer­ent­ly to Inspec­tor Goole’s rev­e­la­tions. The old­er ones refuse to accept their respon­si­bil­i­ty; the younger ones — Sheila in par­tic­u­lar — approach an epiphany. Priest­ley lays bare the self-impor­tance of the old­er gen­er­a­tion of the Bir­lings with­out flinch­ing. It is a bril­liant decon­struc­tion of the human con­di­tion.

Here is Alis­tair Sim (bet­ter known per­haps for his cross-dress­ing com­e­dy per­for­mances in the St Trini­an’s movies) in a char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly com­pelling scene from the film.

J B Priest­ley

Commentaries on excellence in art, music, film, and literature