The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill

Geoffrey Hill’s later work is increasingly concerned with the authenticity of the poet’s civic voice, and with the extent to which persuasive lyricism is at odds with the apprehension of moral truth. This concern provokes in his poetry a fierce, at times anguished obsession with the possibilities an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jack Baker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Edinburgh 2011-06-01
Series:Forum
Online Access:http://www.forumjournal.org/article/view/663
id doaj-a834bbc0e5f24662aeb908dc21fb2247
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a834bbc0e5f24662aeb908dc21fb22472020-11-25T02:53:00ZengUniversity of EdinburghForum1749-97712011-06-0112663The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey HillJack Baker0University of DurhamGeoffrey Hill’s later work is increasingly concerned with the authenticity of the poet’s civic voice, and with the extent to which persuasive lyricism is at odds with the apprehension of moral truth. This concern provokes in his poetry a fierce, at times anguished obsession with the possibilities and limitations of language. Hill’s determination to forge an authentic and autonomous idiom, even as he acknowledges the essential “otherness” and intractability of language, underlies the strenuous difficulty that has characterised his work from the publication of Speech! Speech! in 2000. But, whereas many of Hill’s peers, from John Ashbery to J.H. Prynne, revel in linguistic indeterminacy, the poet-figure in Hill’s recent work emerges as one who strives to resurrect language, to preserve its capacity for “eloquence and apprehension” against the destructive tendencies of the age (CCW 349). These semantic preoccupations inform a broader anxiety about the public role of a poet in the modern world. Can he still aspire to the status of Shelley’s “unacknowledged legislators”, or has this aspiration since been undermined by Yeats’ dictum that “[w]e have no gift to set a statesman right” (Shelley 233, Yeats, MW 72)? Hill’s own acknowledgement of his diminished influence is coterminous with his refusal to accommodate popular whim, so that the authenticity of his verse as public utterance derives precisely from its difficulty, its anti-materialism and its resilient heterodoxy.http://www.forumjournal.org/article/view/663
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jack Baker
spellingShingle Jack Baker
The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
Forum
author_facet Jack Baker
author_sort Jack Baker
title The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
title_short The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
title_full The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
title_fullStr The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
title_full_unstemmed The Burden of Authentic Expression in the Later Poetry of Geoffrey Hill
title_sort burden of authentic expression in the later poetry of geoffrey hill
publisher University of Edinburgh
series Forum
issn 1749-9771
publishDate 2011-06-01
description Geoffrey Hill’s later work is increasingly concerned with the authenticity of the poet’s civic voice, and with the extent to which persuasive lyricism is at odds with the apprehension of moral truth. This concern provokes in his poetry a fierce, at times anguished obsession with the possibilities and limitations of language. Hill’s determination to forge an authentic and autonomous idiom, even as he acknowledges the essential “otherness” and intractability of language, underlies the strenuous difficulty that has characterised his work from the publication of Speech! Speech! in 2000. But, whereas many of Hill’s peers, from John Ashbery to J.H. Prynne, revel in linguistic indeterminacy, the poet-figure in Hill’s recent work emerges as one who strives to resurrect language, to preserve its capacity for “eloquence and apprehension” against the destructive tendencies of the age (CCW 349). These semantic preoccupations inform a broader anxiety about the public role of a poet in the modern world. Can he still aspire to the status of Shelley’s “unacknowledged legislators”, or has this aspiration since been undermined by Yeats’ dictum that “[w]e have no gift to set a statesman right” (Shelley 233, Yeats, MW 72)? Hill’s own acknowledgement of his diminished influence is coterminous with his refusal to accommodate popular whim, so that the authenticity of his verse as public utterance derives precisely from its difficulty, its anti-materialism and its resilient heterodoxy.
url http://www.forumjournal.org/article/view/663
work_keys_str_mv AT jackbaker theburdenofauthenticexpressioninthelaterpoetryofgeoffreyhill
AT jackbaker burdenofauthenticexpressioninthelaterpoetryofgeoffreyhill
_version_ 1724727257737461760