Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Auden on Bin Laden

By Eric McHenry
Posted Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001, at 11:30 PM ET
W.H. Auden

Last Wednesday I e-mailed W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939" to members of my family. Two days later a friend e-mailed it to me, having received it from another friend who was circulating it. On Saturday my mother told me that Scott Simon had read portions of it on NPR. And on Monday my wife, a prep school teacher, saw it lying on the faculty photocopy machine.

Tragedy sends people to poetry. "Suffering is exact," Philip Larkin wrote, but the vocabulary of consolation is loaded with abstraction and cliché, as anyone who has tried to write a sympathy note in the past week knows. Naturally, there's a certain comfort in pillowy, familiar phrases—"This too shall pass," "Our hearts are with you"—but living through a day like Sept. 11, and listening to all the subsequent cant from public figures and TV personalities, can leave people craving language that's as precise as their pain.

What's striking about "September 1, 1939," which Auden wrote in response to Germany's invasion of Poland, is how precisely it matches much of what happened last Tuesday, how weirdly prescient it seems. Of course, that's the point: Zealotry and violence are cyclical—"The habit-forming pain,/ Mismanagement and grief:/ We must suffer them all again." But those weren't the lines that brought me to my bookshelf last Wednesday, looking for the poem. The passages that had been playing through my head since I first saw the World Trade Center footage were more concrete and actually seemed more specific to the past week than to the poem's occasion. "Where blind skyscrapers use/ Their full height to proclaim/ The strength of Collective Man," and "Into the ethical life/ The dense commuters come." The poem, which is set in Manhattan, opens with the "unmentionable odour of death/ Offend[ing] the September night," something it could have done only figuratively in 1939, and the poem closes with a candlelight vigil: "May I [...]/ Beleaguered by the same/ Negation and despair,/ Show an affirming flame." Even when Auden is writing explicitly about Hitler, his language could hardly be altered to better fit the hijackers. Borrowing terms from Jungian psychoanalysis, he wonders "What huge imago made/ A psychopathic god." My Muslim friends, whose god is unrecognizable in the murderous theology of Osama Bin Laden, have spent the past week wondering the same thing. Ezra Pound defined poetry as "news that stays news," but even he may not have had this degree of fidelity in mind.

Coincidences aside, "September 1, 1939" stays news because it reveals a little more of itself with each reading. Last Wednesday, it gave me some of the emotional nourishment I had been needing, in the form of concise explanations ("Those to whom evil is done/ Do evil in return") and bold pronouncements ("There is no such thing as the State/ And no one exists alone [...]/ We must love one another or die"). By Thursday, though, it had unsettled me again. Those phrases, despite their rhetorical poise, are undermined by Auden's ambivalence and self-contradiction. Auden seems to doubt whether universal love can obtain in a world where "the error bred in the bone/ Of each woman and each man/ Craves what it cannot have,/ Not universal love/ But to be loved alone." And his poem is, as the critic John Fuller points out, "a parade of rhetoric designed to question the function of rhetoric."

A poem, of course, that offered only unambiguous answers to these sorts of questions would neither be news nor stay news. Poetry does justice to life by describing it, not by reducing it to more reasonable dimensions. So all of Auden's doubts and doublings-back only improve the poem—as far as John Fuller and I are concerned, anyway. Auden, apparently, decided that its ambiguities couldn't be reconciled with its declamatory tone. Rereading it shortly after its publication, he arrived at the line "We must love one another or die" and "said to myself: 'That's a damned lie! We must die anyway.' So, in the next edition, I altered it to 'We must love one another and die.' This didn't seem to do either, so I cut the stanza. Still no good. The whole poem, I realized, was infected with an incurable dishonesty—and must be scrapped."

He banished it from subsequent editions of his work, and I'm not sure, frankly, how it finally found its way back into print. I'm thankful it did. Its thematic ambiguity only strengthens the sense that it is the poem for our present pain. When Auden called it "trash which [he was] ashamed to have written," as Edward Mendelson observes, he was taking the poem "far more seriously—and taking poetic language far more seriously—than his critics ever did." By expressing such disappointment in a poem so great, by attaching such a profound sense of failure to it, Auden kept in play the possibility—by no means a certainty—that there are sorrows even the most well-chosen words can't reach.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Eric McHenry's book of poems, Potscrubber Lullabies, will be published this month.
Photograph of W.H. Auden © Jerry Cooke/Corbis.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:





[Notes from the Fray Editor: Beachbum comments on how the poem got back into print, here. The Fray team believes that in the 1960s W.H.Auden gave limited permission for the poem to be reprinted as a piece of historical interest, provided the editor also printed a disclaimer in which Auden gave his opinion of it.

Update, 9/24: W.H.Auden's literary executor, Edward Mendelson, very kindly came into The Fray, below, to explain why he felt able to republish the poem after Auden's death. Meanwhile, Fray workers and reader worked together to get the details of the earlier limited re-publication and the disclaimer Auden wrote: we told Beachbum (yes, again) where to look, and he reported back here with the information and the quotation: 'Mr W.H. Auden considers these…poems to be trash which he is ashamed to have written.'



We second Bedzomi's recommendation, below: the Brodsky piece is wonderful and illuminating. And we can add what Bedzomi wasn't sure of: it's in Brodsky's collection Less Than One. Steve Sailer has an interesting take here, bringing in Kipling too and memorably claiming that the "Gods of the Market-Place" in Kipling's poem Gods of the Copybook Headings is "believed to be a prescient reference to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page." All in all, a great Fray—check out all those checkmarks—and one that added value to the article.]





Auden began refusing permission to reprint "September 1, 1939" in the 1960's. He made an exception for Robin Skelton's Penguin anthology Poetry of the Thirties (1964) for the sake of the historical record.



After Auden asked me to be his literary executor in 1972, I asked him what policy he wanted me to follow concerning "September 1, 1939." He answered: "I don't want it to be reprinted during my lifetime." I understood this to mean that he did not want to profit from a poem that he had rejected, but that he did not necessarily want it banished from posthumous editions of his poems. (As he said to someone else--and I'm paraphrasing from memory--"It may be a good poem, but I shouldn't have written it.") After his death, I included it in the Vintage Books edition of Auden's Selected Poems and in a volume of his work written in the 1930's, The English Auden. It remains in print in both those volumes.



--Edward Mendelson



(To reply, click here.)





I have a dozen arguments with Auden's line breaks, his awkwardness and his punctuation in "Sept. 1, 1939"--and it still resonates as a powerful reaction to horror. Writers, as a rule, are the worst judges of their own work.



--R.T.Castleberry



(To reply, click here.)





I think Auden's disappointment in the piece was more likely to do with his own feelings of literary inadequacy within the poem. His usual strong grasp of his subject matter is lost here, his thoughts jumbled, trying to say too much and not quite getting to the words and thoughts he most wants, because his passion and fear blind him and, surrounded by New York, feeling thousands of miles from anyone who really comprehended the gravity of the situation--what it would mean in the long run for the entire world (The U.S. was not to feel the wrath of war until Pearl Harbor, though knowledge of the events that had taken place on Sept 1--so far away from Manhattan--may have reached the U.S., comprehension of the effects was limited). Surrounded by people who cannot understand, and unable to find the 'right' words to explain to them, Auden's frustration comes through on the page.



Then again, maybe he was just stinking drunk in that bar, scribbling inanities, and what embarrassed him was that we all think it high art. You never can tell with someone like Auden.



--Beachbum



(To reply, click here.)





I too, have been struck at how powerfully Auden's "September 1, 1939" resonates in our own time. For those interested in learning more about this poem, I highly recommend the appropriately named essay "September 1, 1939" by Nobel prize laureate and former poet laureate, Joseph Brodsky. His essay, actually a lecture he gave to poetry to students, goes through the poem line by line. This is particularly useful if you are wondering what the significance of Linz is, what an "imago" is, or who Diaghelev is.



--Bezdomi



(To reply, click here.)



(9/21)





Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton