The Pro-War Poets: Politics, Poetics and Britain's Neglected Voices of the First World War
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Solomon, Harriet. “The Pro-War Poets:
Politics, Poetics and Britain’s Neglected
Voices of the First World War.” Webster
Review of International History 2, no. 1
(2022): 62-78.
The Pro-War Poets: Politics, Poetics and Britain’s
Neglected Voices of the First World War
Harriet Solomon
Department of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science. Email: h.solomon1@lse.ac.uk
Abstract
Popular memory of British World War I poetry is almost entirely confined to
discussion of an established canon of disillusioned pacifists. In a close
analysis of the works of overlooked poets such as Jessie Pope and Rupert
Brooke, this article seeks to elevate the voices of pro-war writers in order to
accurately depict variation in the 20th-century British literary scene. This
research will employ interdisciplinary theories of New Historicism to
illuminate the motivations (ranging from patriotic pride to capitalist gain) of
poets in support of the Great War. Having established the existence of this
genre of literature, an investigation will be made into the reasons for its
absence in modern memory. In the discussion of the pacifist editorial
orthodoxy of the 1960s and the role of government censorship, the roots of
Britain’s war poetry canon will be uncovered. Through the microcosm of
poetry, this article thus hopes to engage in a wider discussion on the cultural
consequences of the Great War and the dangerous ability of collective
memory to distort the reality of the past.
Keywords: Britain; poetry; World War I; New Historicism
Introduction
Before Wilfred Owen declared ‘Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori’ an ‘old lie’,1 the poets
of 20th century Britain held a very different sentiment.2 Today when modern audiences are
asked to recall the poetry of the Great War, it is these heartfelt proclamations of
disillusionment found on the tips of tongues, but the reality of the British literary scene, at
least during the conflict’s early years, was much more complex. Before there was ‘Futility’3,
there was, in fact, optimism. In close analysis of the works of key British poets, this article
seeks to elevate the voices of writers overlooked by contemporary discussion, providing a
more accurate and holistic depiction of 20th century cultural history. Adopting Stephen
Greenblatt’s New Historicist approach, attention will be drawn to the personal, historical, and
1
Wilfred Owen, Dulce et Decorum Est (1920), accessed 11 March 2022, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-
et-decorum-est.
2
Joyce Wexler, ‘Beyond Pacifism: Teaching World War I Literature from Left to Right’, Pedagogy, 17:3 (2017), 541.
3
Wilfred Owen, Futility (1918), accessed 4 April 2022, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57283/futility-56d23aa2d4b57.
© Harriet Solomon, 2022. This is an open access article under the 62
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
professional motivations of individuals such as Jessie Pope and Rupert Brooke. Through the
microcosm of poetry, this research thus hopes to engage in a wider discussion on the
cultural consequences of the Great War, demonstrating the breadth of ideological standing
in the literature it inspired. Drawing on Edward Bernays’s theories of propaganda, the
politicising effect of conflict on both the content of, and motivations for, artistic production will
be exemplified. From the sustenance of patriotic pride to the illumination of the practical
benefits of producing art in line with government policy, war played a significant role in
directing British poetry. While there is a tendency among readers and historians alike to
commend the ‘truth-telling’ Owen and dismiss his predecessors as warmongering liars
(assuming a pacifist approach has always been the norm), this perspective is anachronistic
at best. As preposterous as the contemporary gaze might suggest, in their own way, these
pro-war poets told the truth of their days.
In Tavistock Square, a green corner of Bloomsbury nestled within London’s urban
landscape, sits The Conscientious Objectors’ Commemorative Stone. Erected in 1994 to
memorialise the men and women of history who sought to resist military service, monuments
such as this one are hardly considered unusual in modern society. Finding itself in good
company alongside cinematic depictions of conflict’s horrific realities, and, most importantly
for the purposes of this research, canonical poetry such as that belonging to Wilfred Owen
and Siegfried Sassoon, Britain’s anti-war ideology is well-established. If there is little
scholarship analysing the voices of pro-war poets and their patriotic stance, however, efforts
to investigate the reason for their absence and the emergence of this dominant historical
narrative are even less convincing. As such, in addition to illuminating these silenced voices,
this article seeks to understand the reasons for their dismissal. Proceeding chronologically,
from increasing disillusionment among ‘soldier poets’ in 1916, to the pacifist editorial
orthodoxy of the 1960’s, the roots of Britain’s war poetry canon will be uncovered. While
some may question the value of such an investigation (having already illuminated the variety
in 20th century literature, uncovering the reasons for modern selectivity might seem
unnecessary), its importance is twofold. Not only does such research offer insight into the
evolution of British interwar literary culture, but it also illuminates a wider historical trend.
With modern curriculums encouraging the prioritisation of anti-war voices, their position as
the authority on First World War experience has been consistently reaffirmed, thus
highlighting the dangerous potential of collective memory to distort the reality of the past.
Contextualising: Method and Motivation
Before commencing any close reading of primary material, it is necessary to contextualise
this research, both in terms of its wider relevance in cultural history and its methodological
approach. While leading literary theorists including Paul Fussel have done much to spark a
discussion on the notion of propagandic literature in World War One, there is still work to be
done. The very notion of disenchantment (a term now synonymous with the poetry of the
Great War) suggests an ongoing process of decline; in order for this disintegration to be
possible, a degree of support must have existed prior.4 Although scholars such as Jane
Potter and Brian Bond have offered an admirable investigation into the nature of pro-war
poetry, this article seeks to go one step further. Delving beyond this existing historiography
and beneath superficial analysis of pro-war poetry as a genre lacking foresight, this research
uncovers the multitude of reasons that inspired a generation of voices to write in support of a
conflict once welcomed by much of British society. Careful to avoid anachronistic
declarations of jingoism, this essay thus sits in a wider historical context that recognises
popular support for war. As art and artists transformed into tools of propaganda, literature
was politicised. A phenomenon still visible to this day (take Boris Johnson’s allusion to
4
Andrew Frayn, ‘Social Remembering, Disenchantment and First World War Literature, 1918-1930’, Journal of War and
Culture Studies, 11:3 (2018), 195.
63Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
Tennyson’s ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ in his 2019 speech promising to ‘do or die’ with
regards to delivering Brexit),5 the impact of World War on the nature of British literary culture
is vast.
While this article will draw on several relevant methodological frameworks to achieve its
analysis, its foundation lies in Stephen Greenblatt’s theory of New Historicism. Existing in
direct challenge to traditional approaches that seek to distinguish between literary and
historical sources, New Historicism encourages examination of literature within its broader
contexts. In its recognition of literary documents as products of a specific historical moment,
as opposed to isolated works of art, Greenblatt’s theory will be used to identify poetry as a
mirror for social norms. In examining key poetic works as examples of primary historical
material, this investigation thus offers an interdisciplinary perspective.6 Based on the
longstanding idea that life feeds materials to literature,7 this article seeks to challenge the
distinction between literary foreground and political background, rightfully re-identifying 20th
century pro-war poetry as an indicator of societal perception.
Nationalism and English Society: A Matter of Duty
This research begins by delving immediately into the content of pro-war poetry. To evidence
the existence of a body of literature too-often disregarded by popular discussion, it is
necessary to discern the motivations of the men behind the pen, in doing so the prominence
of pro-war sentiment in 20th century poetry no longer seems quite so preposterous. First and
foremost, it is important to note that the ideas of nationalism and honour articulated in the
pro-war poems of World War One were far from original concepts. While discussion of the
cultural consequences of this conflict tends to focus on its unprecedented effects, there is
value in recognising the role it played in sparking a desire to look back. From the resounding
question of who will ‘earn the empire’s thanks’ in Jessie Pope’s ‘The Call’ (1915)8—Pope
was a leading pro-war poet now infamous for her rhetorical verse—to nationalistic
vocabulary like ‘a body of England’s breathing English air’ in the idealistic sonnet ‘The
Soldier’ (1914) by Rupert Brooke9, the frequency with which patriotic appeals to history and
nation featured in pro-war poetry is evidenced. Although this article’s New Historicist
approach favours a contextual perspective, there is merit in recognising that literature
demands a form of inquiry specific to its genre. Content analysis is a simple method of
literary criticism that counts the frequency of references across a text.10 The word ‘England’
appears a striking six times in Brooke’s fourteen-line poem and Pope’s persuasive
nationalism is highlighted consistently across her work in lines such as ‘who’ll give his
country a hand?’.11 Far more than a superficial exercise in summation, identifying these
frequencies serves to illuminate the prominence of a specific theme in both poems. In 1914,
the notion of a major war between international powers was unbeknownst to most British
people. On the other hand, ideas of glory and honour appeared timeless.12 From Rudyard
Kipling’s historic justification of conflict in his earlier colonial poetry (a theme continued in the
rallying calls to ‘stand up and take the war’ in ‘For All We Have And Are’),13 to the suitably
5
Benjamin Kentish, “Brexit: Boris Johnson urged to clarify ‘do or die’ claim after cabinet minister points out phrase refers to
suicidal army mission,” The Independent, last modified June 26, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-
boris-johnson-next-tory-leader-contest-do-or-die-rory-stewart-charge-light-brigade-army-mission-a8975901.html.
6
Stephen Greenblatt, The Power of Forms in the English Renaissance (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1982).
7
Paul Fussel, The Great War and Modern Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), preface IX.
8
Pope, Jessie. The Call (1915). Great War Literature, accessed 1 February 2022, https://www.greatwarliterature.co.uk/the-call-
by-jessie-pope.
9
Rupert Brooke, The Soldier (1914). Poetry Foundation, accessed 1 February 2022.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/13076/the-soldier.
10
Peter Burke, What Is Cultural History? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), 22.
11
Jessie Pope, Who’s for the Game? (1914), All Poetry, accessed 1 February 2022, https://allpoetry.com/Who%27s-for-the-
Game-.
12
Fussel, The Great War, 21.
13
Rudyard Kipling, For All We Have And Are (1915), Poetry Foundation, accessed 1 February 2022,
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57431/for-all-we-have-and-are.
64The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
‘English’ idea of Christian philosophy (Brooke’s 1915 poem ‘Peace’ draws on the notion of
religious conversion through combat in lines like ‘swimmers into cleanness leaping’),14 a
content analysis of these works serves to highlight pro-war poets’ appeal to the ideals of old.
Linking to Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities, literary references to
nationalistic honour can thus be understood as a unifying tool wielded by poets to create a
sense of nationhood in a society facing change. A prime example of Anderson’s
identification of the power of media in shaping an individual’s psyche towards the adoption of
a collective identity, pro-war poetry existed, at least in part, as a means by which community
might be constructed.15
It is necessary to understand this notion of nationalism in both its parts. Most obviously, in
recognising its capacity for unification, pro-war poets established their work on the
foundation of nationalistic sentiment in the hope that their content would inspire action in
their readers. With publications like The Times consistently printing editorials bearing titles
like ‘Lift Up Your Hearts’,16 leading figures like the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral William Inge
offering public readings of Rupert Brooke’s work on Easter Sunday (effectively anointing the
poet soldier a secular saint),17 and recruitment poems by the likes of E.A. Mackintosh calling
on ‘Lads’ to ‘go and help’,18 poets and society were joined in their desire to encourage action
through literature. It is when considering the idea of national duty from a poet’s perspective,
however, that its significance is most apparent. Beyond their desire to encourage enlistment
and support amongst the public with their sentiments, many poets understood the creation of
pro-war pieces as a method through which they too could serve their country. With 20th
century society elevating the likes of Robert Bridges (Britain’s poet laureate from 1913) to a
position of moral responsibility,19 professional and amateur poets alike sought an opportunity
to serve through literature. Demonstrated in Brooke’s consistent use of first-person in ‘The
Soldier’ (‘If I should die, think only this of me’),20 the poets of the Great War believed their
craft to be fulfilling a higher purpose. The patriotic language of honour and duty employed in
the works of Brooke, Mackintosh and Pope thus offer considerable insight into both the
motivations of pro-war poets, and the wider cultural consequences of the First World War.
Not only did conflict spark a tendency to draw on historic ideals in an attempt to unify, but it
also marked the politicisation of literature for both poets answering their own call to arms
with the wielding of a pencil, and the reader, now greeted with poetry written for a purpose.
Although this analysis alone cannot explain the existence of poetic works propagating an
ideology that is today considered immoral in its advocation of violence, it offers an important
starting point. In recognising the familiarity of virtues like honour and duty to readers and
writers alike, the evolution of literature into a force for articulating pro-war support in the 20th
century appears to be a logical progression.
Violence: A Path to Peace and a Poet’s Muse
Even when the existence of pro-war poetry is acknowledged, its content is often heavily
criticised. While much of this scrutiny is inspired by moral objection and thus offers a fair
commentary on the dangerous ability of literature to inspire violence (even the high diction of
pro-war poets patriotic call to arms might be considered a method of inciting barbarity), there
are others, academics like Paul Fussel included, whose criticism somewhat fails to
14
Rupert Brooke, Peace (1915), Poetry Foundation, accessed 1 February 2022,
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/13074/peace.
15
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), 6-7.
16
Ted Bogacz, ‘A Tyranny of Words: Language, Poetry, and Antimodernism in England in the First World War’, The Journal of
Modern History, 58:3, (1986), 646.
17
Santanu Daus, ‘Reframing First World War Poetry,’ The British Library, (2014), accessed 1 February 2022,
https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/reframing-first-world-war-poetry.
18
E. A. Mackintosh, Recruiting (1916), accessed 1 February 2022, https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/recruiting/.
19
Norma Compton Leadingham, ‘Propaganda and Poetry during the Great War’ (2008) Electronic Theses and Dissertations -
East Tennessee State University, accessed 1 February 2022, https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1966/.
20
Brooke, The Soldier (1914).
65Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
appreciate the realistic offerings of this sub-genre. In suggesting that poets such as Julian
Grenfell and Owen Seaman existed in a world of idealistic fantasy that shied away from the
truth of bloodshed, contemporary critics offer an unconvincing reading of their works. These
poets were often the first to acknowledge the violent nature of conflict, believing in doing so
they outlined a path to salvation—suggesting otherwise risks allowing modern hindsight to
form an inaccurate depiction of 20th century cultural history in Britain. Although critics like
Fussel are deserving of commendation for their dedication to illuminating the breadth in
British poetry, their work falters somewhat in the analysis of its the content. Through the
continued application of literary techniques, the following section of this article seeks to
address this oversight by adopting an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on the poems
as they stand, rather than the ‘imagined’ versions created by modern scholarship.
In adopting the content analysis method once again, the frequency with which violence is
referred to in pro-war poetry becomes apparent. In Jessie Pope’s ‘Who’s For The Game?’
(1914), the narrative voice acknowledges the brutal reality directly, asking ‘who knows it
won’t be a picnic—not much—yet eagerly shoulders a gun?’21 Similarly, in the poem ‘Pro
Patria’ (1915) by Punch Magazine Editor Owen Seaman, language such as ‘peril of the
deep’ and ‘warrior sons’22 seeks to illuminate the undeniable struggle involved in combat.
With references like these in mind, it seems that far from denying the violent nature of war,
these poets chose to glorify violence, hoping that in doing so they might provide a
justification for its horrors. Although numerous pro-war writers participated in combat
themselves (Julian Grenfell was a member of the 1st Royal Dragoons from 1910 onwards
and Rupert Brooke the Anson Battery),23 it is undeniably significant that the frontline
experience of many pro-war poets was limited. Grenfell, for example, missed the most brutal
mechanised slaughters that took place at Passchendaele towards the end of the war and
Brooke himself acknowledged that he was fortunate to avoid the worst of the brutality during
his time in Antwerp.24 As such, although existing scholarship might unfairly overlook pro-war
poetry’s acknowledgement of violence, it is not incorrect in its suggestion that these poets,
despite their recognition of it, did not truly know violence in the manner their anti-war
counterparts did. As such, the motivations for pro-war poets’ discussion of violence lies not
in their familiarity with it, but in their belief in its utility. Far from a desire to incite unnecessary
bloodshed, their works sought the offering of some form of salvation for soldiers on the
ground. In suggesting that violence not only had a purpose, but also provided a path towards
‘a shining peace, under the night’,25 pro-war poetry served both as propaganda designed to
recruit, and moral support for enlisted poets and public alike. With these bodies of work
adopting a rationalisation of conflict as an honourable necessity and ‘gallant sacrifice’,26 the
impact of war on the content and purpose of British literature is demonstrated.
Beyond an ideological belief in the honour of violence and the power of poetry in articulating
this, there is an important historical note to be made regarding the allure of barbarity for
artists in general. A notion explored by Modris Eksteins in his study of Igor Stravinksy’s 1913
ballet ‘Rites of Spring’, in drawing a connection between rebellious arts and shocking
outbursts of violence, Eksteins notes the undeniable attraction of horror for those engaged in
cultural production.27 Evidenced in the sensationalised plosives of Jessie Pope’s 1915 poem
‘Lads of the Maple Leaf’ (‘braved, and battled, and bled’)28 and the work of Julian Grenfell
(disturbingly vivid language such as ‘death moans and sings’ and ‘joy of battle takes him by
21
Pope, Who’s for the Game? (1914).
22
Owen Seaman, Pro Patria (1915), accessed 1 February 2022, https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/pro-patria.
23
Fred D. Crawford, British Poets of the Great War (London: Associated Press, 1988), 39.
24
Rupert Brooke, ‘Transcript by Mary Ruth Brooke of letter Rupert Brooke wrote to Russell Loines (25 December 1914),
accessed 4 April 2022, https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rcb-l-8-26-4-transcript.pdf.
25
Rupert Brooke, The Dead (1914), accessed 1 February 2022, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47294/the-dead-
56d227a2ea215.
26
Mackintosh, Recruitment, (1916).
27
Modris Eksteins, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989), preface.
28
Jessie Pope, Lads of the Maple Leaf (1915), accessed 1 February 2022, https://allpoetry.com/The-Lads-of-the-Maple-Leaf.
66The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
the throat and makes him blind’ is commonplace),29 during World War One, conflict became
a poet’s muse. Consider the presence of similar sensationalism in the works of even the
most ardent anti-war poets (take Owen’s ‘ecstasy of fumbling’ as an example),30 and the
phenomena of British literary fascination with violence is exemplified.31 This equally
disturbing and fascinating phenomenon serves to demonstrate two important points. First,
and in contrast to their dismissal as utopic idealists, pro-war poets embraced violence as a
tool for inspiration. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this well-established link
between barbarity and artistry sheds light on the similarities between pro- and anti-war
poetry in the 20th century. While most historians are preoccupied with their desire to
categorise and label, by taking into account the parallels between these differing genres; it is
possible to recognise a universal element in all conflict-inspired literature. In both their
glorification of, and obsession with bloodshed, these poems thus offer an insight into the
cultural consequences of the Great War on the perception and presentation of violence in
20th century British literature.
Propaganda, Practicalities, and the Poetic Profession
While the concept of literature as a propagandic tool has already been alluded to, such a
notion requires explicit attention. Moving beyond analysis of the poems themselves, this
section of the essay will draw on Edward Bernays’s theory of propaganda to illuminate the
practicalities at work in the creation of pro-war poetry. From the role played by elite
institutions in directing Britain’s leading poetic voices, to the influence of professional and
financial ambition in artistic production, pro-war poets existed as a small part of a much
larger propagandic machine.
Defining it as the ‘executive arm of an invisible government,’32 Bernays comments on the
unique ability of propaganda to recognise interlocking societal dynamics—touching a nerve
at a specific point, it succeeds in eliciting the desired response from its target audience.33
Despite this, before 1914, the idea of governmental institutions devoted solely to the
production of propaganda was a novel one.34 In order to understand the significance of this
for poetry and poets alike, it is necessary to draw attention to the position of literature in 20th
century society. 1914 represented a period of unprecedented literary earnestness. With the
mediums of film and photography still considered relatively new, it was the written word that
continued to dominate the cultural scene.35 In occupying such a pre-eminent position, when
the British government began to establish an outline for its propagandic tactics, it was the
support of leading poets and authors alike that was sought above all else.36 While this is
something of an unfamiliar concept for modern audiences for whom propagandic
responsibility resides in the realm of digital media or black and white press, in recognising
the different position occupied by the literary arts in the 20th century, the relationship
between poetry and pro-war ideology becomes apparent. Recognising the respect with
which these ‘men of letters’ were viewed by the British public, World War One thus sparked
a shift in governmental perception of literature and its potential political utility.
The War Propaganda Bureau was created by Charles Masterman in 1914. Often known by
its other name ‘Wellington House’ (a title owing to its location in Buckingham Gate, London)
29
Julian Grenfell, Into Battle (1915), accessed 1 February 2022, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47261/into-battle.
30
Owen, Dulce et Decorum est, (1920).
31
Daus, ‘Reframing First World War Poetry’, (2014).
32
Edward Bernays, Propaganda (New York: H. Liveright, 1928), 20.
33
Ibid., 28.
34
Stephen Badsey, ‘Propaganda: Media in War and Politics’ 1914-1918 Online, accessed 1 February 2022,
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/propaganda_media_in_war_politics/2014-10-08.
35
Leadingham, ‘Propaganda and Poetry during the Great War’, (2008), 6-8.
36
D.G. Wright, “The Great War, Government Propaganda and English ‘Men of Letter,’ 1914-1916,“ Literature and History, 7
(1978) 70.
67Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
this institution was to become largely responsible for British propaganda during the Great
War. Working alongside the Foreign Office News Department and providing financial support
for initiatives led by private individuals, this Bureau thus played a decisive role in determining
the position of literature in Britain’s propagandic machine.37 On the 2nd of September,
Masterman met with a group of twenty-five writers (Rudyard Kipling included) in order to
discuss the part they might play in assisting the war effort.38 While such an approach might
seem obvious when considering the well-documented politicised role of poets like Robert
Bridges, it is in determining the extent to which this reach (particularly its sponsorship of
private endeavours) influenced the works of other pro-war writers that the issue becomes
more complex. Discussion of governmental involvement in the production of propaganda
thus serves to illuminate a few key points. First, that despite their disturbing absence in
contemporary study of British war literature, it was pro-war poets that were considered the
pre-eminent voices of 20th century British society. Second, and as a result of this elevated
societal standing, it is necessary to consider the pro-war poems analysed earlier in this
article from a different perspective. In recognising the governmental influence at play behind
the scenes, the extent to which the work of pro-war poets was dictated by the supervision of
elite institutions is called into question. Having well-established that conflict had a lasting
impact on the politicisation of poetry, in illuminating the often-secretive activities of
organisations like Wellington House, it is possible to situate the pro-war sentiments of these
individuals in a much wider propagandic machine. Alongside their own personal, historical,
and ideological motivations, poets such as Rudyard Kipling and Owen Seaman were
influenced by their role as government-sponsored spokespeople.
In recognising the politicisation of pro-war poetry through its use as propaganda, it is also
possible to understand the link between the genre and commercialisation. The stereotype of
the ‘starving artist’ is a longstanding one and yet, perhaps owing to the inherently personal
nature of most war poetry, little recognition is given to the role of financial concerns in
dictating these artists’ craft. While it is true that leading British voices found themselves the
subject of positive government attention at the outbreak of conflict, for the community of
aspiring writers and amateur propagandists yet to establish their reputations, the reality was
quite different.39 Noting that any body of poetry that deliberately ignores the pulse of
contemporary society finds itself in a reduced form, John H. Johnston draws attention to the
practicalities involved in the creation of art.40 From aspiring poets like Stanley Young (whose
patriotic sentiments in ‘Boundless Love’ found him on the front page of the The Times in
1914),41 to up and coming cartoonists like Alfred Leete, amateur artists in 20th century
Britain witnessed first-hand the link between a pro-war ideology and the likelihood of
publication. In this, there is perhaps a distinction to be made between both the professional
and the amateur and more importantly, soldier poets serving on the battlefields and
propagandist home front writers seeking an unprecedented opportunity to exercise their own
poetic voice. While the poetry of both groups was inspired by a variety of personal and
professional motivations, those that already enjoyed the security of an established reputation
were able to exercise a degree of artistic flexibility. While Owen’s belief in a poet’s
responsibility to tell the truth is a noble one, for the generation of Great War poets struggling
to climb the ranks of an elite circle of intellectuals, such ideological freedom was more
problematic.
37
Badsey, ‘Propaganda: Media in War and Politics’, (2014).
38
Jain Anurag, ‘The Relationship Between Ford, Kipling, Conan Doyle, Wells and British Propaganda of the First World War’,
Electronic Theses and Dissertations – Queen Mary University of London, accessed 1 February 2022,
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30695558.pdf, 1.
39
M.L. Sanders, ‘Wellington House and British Propaganda during the First World War’, The Historical Journal, 18:1 (1975)
120.
40
John H. Johnston, English Poetry of the First World War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 5.
41
Stanley Young, Boundless Love (1914), in Bogacz, Ted, ‘A Tyranny of Words: Language, Poetry, and Antimodernism in
England in the First World War’, The Journal of Modern History, 58:3, (1986), 647-648.
68The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
1916-1918: THE ‘SOLDIER POETS’ - A Tale of Disillusionment
Having established the very real existence of this overlooked body of work, in doing so
illuminating the various motivations of the pro-war poets and succeeding in demonstrating
the breadth in the 20th century British literary scene, this section of the article will adopt a
different focus. If there is little scholarship offering an analysis of the content of pro-war
poetry, attempts to address the roots of this historical oversight fall only further short.
Proceeding chronologically, the roots of Britain’s anti-war poetry canon will be uncovered,
offering an important insight into the role of myth and memory in shaping our historical
understandings.
Perhaps the most well-documented explanation for the shift in Britain’s poetic sentiment is
the idea that as the war progressed, society simply came to realise the extent of its horrors.
For pro-war voices like Rupert Brooke and Jessie Pope that belonged to a generation with
very little prior experience of conflict, the First World War was an unprecedented event. As
such, this community of poets found comfort in historic ideals of religious service and
national duty, in doing so sparking patriotic support for British military activity in their writing.
The narrative goes therefore, that when individuals like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon
42
emerged on the literary scene, they did so with a degree of first-hand experience that their
idealistic predecessors had lacked. While earlier analysis has sought to demonstrate the
superficial nature of this conclusion (in reality, the motivations of pro-war poets varied from
financial gain to a fascination with violence), this tale of disillusionment cannot be entirely
overlooked. Although it is tempting to read ‘backwards’, identifying pacifist sentiment in the
works of these prominent anti-war voices from the very beginning, closer examination of
their poetry serves to demonstrate that their most ardent critiques emerged in 1917 when
war weariness was at its most pervasive in Britain. While this section of the article will not
engage in close analysis of anti-war poetry itself, (doing so would only serve to reinforce the
dominant historical approach it seeks to challenge), instead wider reference will simply be
made to its well-established reputation of realism, brutality and condemnation in order to
consider the reasons for its emergence.43
A point addressed by Britain’s previous Poet Laureate Andrew Motion, the body of war
poetry typically cited in modern conversation (anti-conflict classics like Owen’s ‘Anthem for
Doomed Youth’ or Sassoon’s ‘Suicide in the Trenches’), did not emerge until 1916 at the
earliest.44 Although Matthew George Walter’s distinction between ‘poet-soldier’ and ‘soldier
poet’ might seem inconsequential, it is in this clarification that the ideological shift in British
literature can be understood.45 Where the likes of Julian Grenfell and Rupert Brooke had
been poets first and foremost (an identity that prioritised the pursuit of literary success above
all else), Wilfred Owen and his peers saw themselves as soldiers. Unconcerned with
furthering their poetic careers, these men were free from the restrictions of national
propagandic standards, instead using poetry not as a form of literature, but a method of
reportage.46 Where pro-war idealists had expressed sentiments, anti-war poets engaged in
the art of description, in doing so producing graphic articulations of conflict so gruesome that
many struggled to find publishers until after the war had ended.47 Although it is true that
some pro-war poets had participated in combat, compared to the ‘flesh-witness’ experiences
of writers like Owen and Sassoon,48 their perspective was limited. While the latter felt
42
Fussel, The Great War, 12.
43
Ibid., 25.
44
Andrew Motion, ‘There is more to war poetry than mud, wire and slaughter’, The Guardian (2016), accessed 1 February
2022, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/09/andrew-motion-definition-war-poetry-widen-not-just-first-world-war.
45
Matthew George Walter, The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry (London: Penguin Classics, 2006) 9.
46
Ibid., 10.
47
George Guion Williams, ‘British Poetry of Two World Wars’, Rice Institute Pamphlet (1942) 368.
48
Yuval Noah Haari, ‘Armchairs, Coffee, and Authority: Eye-Witnesses and Flesh-Witnesses Speak about War, 1100-2000’,
The Journal of Military History, 74:1 (2010) 58.
69Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
complied to tell their horrifying ‘truths’,49 the likes of pro-war poet Robert Nichols (who had
only seen three weeks of quiet service) were largely unfamiliar with the violence involved in
extended participation in conflict.50
It is with this in mind that the shift towards anti-war poetry might also be understood as an
evolution in poets’ understanding of the importance of their work. Although the nature of their
ideology meant that these men were not afforded the same widespread distribution as their
pro-war peers, they remained convinced of the importance of their writing. With ‘Dulce et
Decorum Est’ described as a ‘loaded rifle aimed at cheering civilians’,51 anti-war poetry
existed as propaganda of a different kind; that which was designed to warn others of the
horrific realities of the First World War. In this, and in the vast body of literature that emerged
from 1916 lamenting British participation in conflict, the shift from the patriotic verse of 1914
towards the pacifist war poetry that remains dominant today is demonstrated. Although the
role of first-hand experience and moral obligation amongst soldier poets does not entirely
explain the absence of pro-war literature in modern scholarship, this tale of disillusionment
offers a starting point for uncovering the evolution of interwar culture.
THE INTERWAR YEARS: CONFLICT AND PSYCHOLOGY - Government Guilt and The
Desire for Unity
Although poetic disillusionment offers an explanation as to why anti-war literature became
more common towards the end of the conflict, this shift in poets’ perspective fails to address
why pro-war pieces have since been overlooked. While the evolution in sentiment among
those men suffering on the ground is a simple phenomenon to comprehend, such a
development does little to explain the anachronistic gaze of modern readership. In
accordance with Modris Eksteins’ belief that the history of culture ought to be as much an
account of the reader, as of the writer, this section seeks to demonstrate the role a
traumatised British society played in elevating the position of anti-war poetry.52 In the period
between 1918 and 1945, society experienced an ideological shift. In a trend that followed the
opposition of solider poets, British people began to lament the war with unprecedented
unanimity. As millions of families navigated an existence in a world now entirely unfamiliar
(from the impact of economic depression to the scars left behind by human loss), individuals
were forced to recognise the disconnect between their desire to return to normal, and the
reality of their new environment.53 Addressing this atmosphere of uncertainty, Sigmund
Freud notes that in the interwar period, an individual began to welcome ‘any indication’ that
might ‘make it easier for him to find his bearings.’54 While the patriotic verse of the early war
had done much to soothe a society facing combat, in the years that followed, people began
to seek a different kind of assurance. Desperate for a sense of solidarity following an
extended period of cultural dislocation and psychological trauma, pro-war poetry no longer
addressed the demands of the nation.55 No longer able to adopt rose-tinted glasses when
faced with the tragically tangible remnants of four years of warfare, such optimism on deaf
ears. Instead, British people began to find comfort in the cathartic and unifying qualities of
literature that recognised their suffering. A desire for empathy and relatability is an innately
human instinct. As the trope goes, a problem shared is a problem halved. Seeking both
recognition of, and support in their trauma, society yearned for artistry that acknowledged
49
Mohammad Riaz Mahmud, ‘The impact of the First World War on the poetry of Wilfred Owen’, IIUC Studies, 4:1 (2007) 26.
50
Williams, ‘British Poetry of Two World Wars’, 376.
51
Herbert Lomas, ‘The Critic as Anti-Hero: War Poetry’, Hudson Review, 38:3 (1985) 380.
52
Modris Eksteins, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989) 112.
53
Richard Bessel, ‘Post-War Societies’, International Encyclopaedia of the First World War, last modified December 5, 2017,
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/post-war_societies.
54
Sigmund Freud, ‘The Disillusionment of the War’, Thoughts for the Times on War and Death (1915), accessed 1 February
2022, http://www.panarchy.org/freud/war.1915.html.
55
Chris Rojek, ‘The longue durée of Spengler’s thesis of the decline of the West’, European Journal of Social Theory, 21:4
(2017) 422.
70The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
their lived experience. In this, the direct correlation between societal demand and the
popularity of poetry like Owen’s and Sassoon’s in the interwar period is demonstrated.
Recognising this shift in sentiment, and perhaps more importantly, having been forced to
deal with the catastrophic consequences of war since 1918, the British government also
played a role in the subversion of pro-war poetry in the interwar years. Having enabled the
destruction of 3.5% of Britain’s human capital and the allocation of 25% of the nation’s GDP
on conflict,56 those in power were faced with a deeply resentful society. Considering the role
of elite institutions like Charles Masterman’s Wellington House in sponsoring pro-war poetic
propaganda during the conflict’s early years, the British government needed to re-establish
their reputation to maintain their authority over a population now united in their
condemnation of war. Facing an unprecedented national trauma (that many felt had
reversed British ideologies of progress and moral standing), state actors embarked on
something of a ‘clean-up’ job.57 From the shift in 1917 towards propaganda targeting the
enemy abroad rather than encouraging conflict on the home-front, to the progressive decline
of government support for patriotic poetry,58 elite institutions began to focus their attention on
anti-war voices instead.
Linking to Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony (a Marxist conceptualisation based
on the idea of the ruling class curating culture from the ‘top-down’),59 the actions of the
British government in the interwar years are significant. In their attempts to salvage their
reputation and adopt a more pacifist ideological stance in-keeping with societal opinion, the
role of elite institutions in determining the longevity of anti-war poetry is highlighted. Just as
the government had been responsible for the success of poets like Rupert Brooke and
Jessie Pope in 1914, their subsequent desire to refigure their ideology following devastation
led to the silencing of these pro-war voices. Compounded by technological developments in
film and radio that witnessed increasing depictions of anti-war sentiment across a variety of
medias,60 the patriotic poets of the war’s early years were left behind. It is in this
technological advancement, governmental shame and wider psychological shift in society,
that the impact of the interwar years on the dominant historical narrative is demonstrated.
With a world in pursuit of unity, and those in power adamant to remain there, pro-war poetry
no longer served societal interests at any level.
1960s: PACIFISM – An Editorial Orthodoxy
Before 1939, Britain’s anti-war stance was becoming increasingly apparent, a shift in
sentiment that had begun to relegate pro-war literature to the inferior position it maintains in
modern scholarship. The outbreak of the Second World War stopped this progression in its
tracks. As Britain once again prepared itself for combat (both physically and mentally) the
poetic verse of Wilfred Owen and his peers no longer brought with it a comforting
acknowledgement of reality, instead it risked contributing to the impending sense of doom
already being felt across the Western world. While this had little positive impact on the
visibility of 1914’s pro-war voices (the propagandic literature of World War One was replaced
by a new wave of writing less controversial in its avoidance of glorifying combat), it did
constitute a pause in the creation of the dominant anti-war narrative this article investigates.
As such, it was not until the 1960s, with the renewed interest in peaceful ideology and
56
Nicholas Crafts, ‘Walking wounded: The British economy in the aftermath of World War I’, VoxEU, last modified August 27,
2014, https://voxeu.org/article/walking-wounded-british-economy-aftermath-world-war-i.
57
Adrian Gregory, The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008) 17.
58
M.L. Sanders, ‘Wellington House and British Propaganda During the First World War’, Historical Journal, 18:1 (1975) 140.
59
Walter L. Adamson, Hegemony and Revolution: Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory (Berkley: University of
California Press, 1980) 5.
60
Andrew Frayn, ‘Social Remembering, Disenchantment and First World War Literature, 1918-1930’, Journal of War and
Culture Studies, 11:3 (2018) 203.
71Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
subsequent editorial tendencies, that the hierarchy of First World War poets was
immortalised.
Although roughly fifty different peace organisations had been established in Britain following
the conclusion of the Second World War, it was Cold War events events in Vietnam and
elsewhere that promoted the rejuvenation of British pacifism. Drawing on a foundation of
socialist humanism, groups like the Peace Pledge Union and No-War Movement became
symbolic of British opposition to conflict, a microcosmic example of the peaceful sentiments
that were spreading across the globe.61 With conflicts in South East Asia persisting against
the backdrop of the fiftieth anniversaries of World War One, not only did events of 1960s
reinforce anti-war ideology, but they also sparked a renewed interest in the Great War
itself.62
It is when considering the editorial choices of the British literary scene in this period, that the
implications of 1960s pacifism on curating a selective memory of war poetry is
demonstrated. Just as interwar British governments had attuned their policy to societal
opinion (in doing so demonstrating a hegemonic approach to culture that saw the subversion
of pro-war voices), 1960s publishers recognised a demand for the peace-promoting poetry
of Wilfred Owen and his peers. Determining the perspective of the ‘soldier poets’ the most
authentic view of conflict (a result of their affirmation of 60’s ideology), revised editions of
classic anti-war works began to appear with increasing frequency.63 From I.M. Parson’s
thematically divided ‘Men Who March Away’ (1965) that progressed according to Owen’s
journey of disillusionment, to Cecil Day Lewis’s 1963 edition that declared in its introduction
Wilfred Owen’s role in ‘radically changing our attitude towards war’, publications in this
decade immortalised an anti-war perspective as the leading literary perspective. For a new
generation of readers interacting with British war poetry for the first time, this editorial
selectivity created a myth of universality that would go unchallenged for decades.64 A notion
explored by Jessica Meyer, the cultural afterlife of a historic event is as much shaped by
how it is remembered, as by the historical validity of that which provoked the memory in the
first place.65 Acting in accordance with world opinion, the orthodoxy with which anti-war
voices were prioritised in British publications in the 1960s cemented their position in the
literary hierarchy. With a society distanced from the First World War by decades of pacifist
sentiment and opposition to conflict, this renewed distribution of anti-war verse encouraged
the adoption of a misleading perception that saw pro-war poetry lost to history.
MODERN DAY: MEMORY – War Poetry and the 21st Century Curriculum
French historian Pierre Nora’s theory of ‘lieux de mémoire’ refers to significant entities that
have become symbolic of a specific historical idea. Although traditionally applied to physical
localities, such a tendency is largely a result of linguistics; the English translation of ‘loci
memoriae’ being ‘memory places.’66 As such, it is in fact entirely possible for Nora’s theory to
be applied to subjects of a more immaterial nature. While unconventional examples of
‘locations’, bodies of work like the 1960s anti-war anthologies discussed previously (and the
abundance of similar collections published since), can quite reasonably be understood as
sites designed to preserve the poetic memory of World War One. Although not an issue in
and of itself (arguably the very purpose of cultural production is commemoration of some
form), the problem lies in the disproportionate popularity of these anti-war voices in
61
Richard Davis, ‘The British Peace Movement in the Interwar Years’, French Journal of British Studies, 22:3 (2017) 3-4.
62
Walter, The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry, 18-19.
63
‘WW1: Has poetry distorted our view of the war?’ BBC Teach, (2021), accessed 1 February 2022,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/has_poetry_distorted_our_view_of_world_war_one/z6d8382.
64
Walter, The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry, 20-22.
65
Jessica Meyer, British Popular Culture and the First World War (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 5.
66
Pierre Nora, Preface to English Language Edition: From Lieux de Memoire to Realms of Memory (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998), xvii-xviii.
72The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
comparison to their patriotic peers. With the prominence of Wilfred Owen and the like only
growing as a result of their prioritisation in literary scholarship, modern audiences are
directed towards these sites of memory over and over again. Owing to this, the authority
claimed by both anti-war poets, and the contemporary editors responsible for the prefaces of
the anthologies in which they are featured, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As such,
although it was indeed the editorial decisions of earlier decades that originally solidified the
position of anti-war poetry, this biased approach to remembrance is ongoing. From the
entrenched appearance of Wilfred Owen in 21st century school curriculums, to the critical
acclaim anti-war voices continue to attract even in the modern literary scene, contemporary
commemoration has served only to reinforce the dominant historical narrative.
The reasons behind this are twofold. First and foremost, once a specific historical idea has
been preserved by socio-cultural memory, it is incredibly difficult to overcome. In spite of the
fact that before 1918, there existed very few examples of British war poetry, the transition of
world opinion since (a result of pacifist ideology and a shifting societal demand) is so
complete that modern audiences have forgotten a time in which poets like Owen and
Sassoon were little more than spokespeople for a liberal minority.67 Described by Dan
Todman as the ‘problem of imaginative inertia’, difficulty jumping from one vision of the world
to another is a basic human problem. With contemporary and historical memory working in
unison to elevate the position of anti-war poets to the status of modern mythology, the idea
that their voices (and theirs alone) represent 20th century war literature has been knotted into
the very fabric of British society.68
The disproportionate attention received by pro-war poetry is most apparent when
considering the literary curriculum taught in modern classrooms, an absence partly owing to
practicalities. With the acclaim surrounding anti-war verse so apparent that contemporary
readers now judge the value of all poetry against the voice of Wilfred Owen, even those rare
anthologies that have attempted a more representative selection are dismissed by a pre-
conditioned audience.69 As English departments around the country are forced to prioritise
texts they deem to be the most important, the myth-like acclaim and abundance of resources
surrounding anti-war voices have made them both the logical, and more accessible choice.
Leading educational figures like Andrew Bradford (the Chair of Examiners at OCR) have
commented that it is not the responsibility of schools to provide a ‘balanced picture of war’,
rather their role lies in directing students towards the most ‘interesting and vivid’ pieces.70 As
quantity is equated to quality (although undeniably impressive works of literature, it is the
simple excess of anti-war poetry analysis that has determined much of its popularity), both
the historical importance and equally commendable literary content of pro-war poetry have
been consistently overlooked. Consider this alongside the additional absence of women’s
writing, home-front literature and even poetry written by colonial soldiers, and the
troublesome role of collective memory in creating the misguided and dangerous historical
narrative this article has sought to undermine is demonstrated.
Concluding Remarks
Adopting a New Historicist approach that seeks to understand literature as a useful historical
source, this article has illuminated the impact of World War One on 20th century British
poetry. Elevating the voices of pro-war writers overlooked by contemporary discussion, both
the ideological range in Britain’s poetic scene, and the complex motivations behind the
creation of pro-war pieces is demonstrated. From the practical benefits synonymous with the
production of art aligned with government policy, to an appreciation for the unifying
67
Williams, ‘British Poetry of Two World Wars,’ 371.
68
Dan Todman, The Great War: Myth and Memory (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2007) xii.
69
Walter, The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry, 27.
70
‘WW1: Has poetry distorted our view of the war?’
73Webster Review of International History Vol. 2, No. 1
capabilities of patriotic sentiment and the artistic allure of violence, the inspiration behind
British war poetry was as varied as its content. Situated in a wider discussion on the cultural
consequences of the First World War and its politicising effect on both the nature and utility
of poetry, in drawing attention to the work of poets such as Jessie Pope and Rupert Brooke,
the benefits of an interdisciplinary perspective in the study of cultural history are
demonstrated.
The adoption of a chronological framework in historical analysis risks producing a simple
retelling of events. Although this article has at times reverted to descriptive tendencies, such
an approach succeeds in highlighting the development of the ‘myth’ surrounding British war
poetry. While first-hand experience of conflict changed the nature of the literature produced
by British soldiers from 1916 onwards, this tale of disillusionment was only the first step in
cementing the absence of pro-war voices from the historical record. Following the war,
British society’s psychological trauma led to a shift in literary preference towards poetry that
spoke to the extent of their suffering. Coupled with attempts by the British government to
salvage their reputation by redirecting their focus towards anti-war voices, the interwar
period marked an ideological turn. Reinforced by 1960s pacifism and its editorial choices,
anti-war poets were immortalised and distributed with an unprecedented fervour. With
modern readership only continuing to reinforce this disproportionate prioritisation in 21st
century classrooms, the misleading capabilities of collective memory are highlighted. As
such, this dominant narrative (that has succeeded for over a century in relegating pro-war
voices to unconventional and uncommon corners of historical scholarship), is best
understood as a culmination of events spanning over a century. It is only with a renewed
commitment to breadth, a desire to challenge dominant historical assumptions and a
genuine dedication to the recovery of forgotten voices that both modern literary and
historical scholarship can move towards a more reflective and representative analysis of 20th
century British war poetry.
74The Pro-War Poets of the First World War
Bibliography
Primary Material
Brooke, Rupert. Peace (1915),
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/13074/peace [Accessed 1
February 2022].
Brooke, Rupert. The Dead (1914), https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47294/the-
dead-56d227a2ea215 [Accessed 1 February 2022].
Brooke, Rupert. The Soldier (1914),
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/13076/the-soldier [Accessed 1
February 2022].
Brooke, Rupert. ‘Transcript by Mary Ruth Brooke of letter Rupert Brooke wrote to Russell
Loines (25 December 1914), https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rcb-l-
8-26-4-transcript.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2022].
Grenfell, Julian. Into Battle (1915), https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47261/into-
battle [Accessed 1 February 2022].
Kipling, Rudyard. For All We Have And Are (1915),
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57431/for-all-we-have-and-are [Accessed 1
February 2022].
Mackintosh, E.A. Recruiting (1916),
https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/recruiting/ [Accessed 1 February 2022].
Owen, Wilfred. Dulce et Decorum Est (1920),
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est [Accessed 1 February
2022].
Owen, Wilfred. Futility (1918), https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57283/futility-
56d23aa2d4b57 [Accessed 4 April 2022].
Pope, Jessie. Lads of the Maple Leaf (1915), https://allpoetry.com/The-Lads-of-the-Maple-
Leaf [Accessed 1 February 2022].
Pope, Jessie. The Call (1915), https://www.greatwarliterature.co.uk/the-call-by-jessie-pope/
[Accessed 1 February 2022].
Pope, Jessie. Who’s for the Game? (1914), https://allpoetry.com/Who%27s-for-the-Game-
[Accessed 1 February 2022].
Seaman, Owen. Pro Patria (1915), https://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/pro-patria
[Accessed 1 February 2022].
Young, Stanley. Boundless Love (1914). In Bogacz, Ted, ‘A Tyranny of Words: Language,
Poetry, and Antimodernism in England in the First World War’, The Journal of Modern
History 58, no. 3 (1986): 647-648.
Secondary Material
75You can also read
