Write and Get Paid Use our content
  • Sign up
  • ‎What is Shvoong?‎
  • Sign In
    Sign In
    Remember my username Forgot your password?

Summaries and Short Reviews

.

Languages
Shvoong Home>Books>Poetry>The Oxford Book of Christian Verse Summary

.

The Oxford Book of Christian Verse

Book Review by: B L Levens    

Original Author: Donald ed. Davie
The Oxford Book of Christian Verse
780 wds.
What is Christian verse? As a poet and a believer I find
few people asking this question, yet it needs to be asked. Reading Donald Davies’s the New Oxford Book of Christian Verse, one might assume that for Mr. Davie deciding which poets and poems are Christian is easier than picking ripe tomatoes. He devotes most of his space to great poems and hymns that have under girded the faithful for centuries, the work of Herbert, Vaughn, Watts, Cowper and the Wesley’s. Yet, these choices mask the difficulty of the question, particularly as faced by a contemporary poet who considers him or herself a Christian. Must my work also include direct invocations? And what poets should one read? What poems from the English-American tradition, apart from the no- brainers mentioned above, would be classifiable as Christian? How do you classify, for example,” Dover Beach"? Davie doesn't include it, but isn't Arnold's Victorian-progress-is-whipping-up-on-the-faith tone grounds for raising a question about such a classification? Browning writes about bishops and friars, but Bishop Blougram and Fra Lippo Lippi aren't included. The more difficult aspects of the question center on guidelines for a Christian ars poetica. Are there rules a Christian poet should abide by to feel that his work is pleasing to God? Can I write about strip joints? Should a Christian poet ponder homosexuality as a theme? Last, the quaestio difficillisima adroitly handled by that Dr. Spock of Theology , Thomas Aquinas: how can the poet be sure his work lifts up that is doesn't bring the reader down? As we try to define Christian poetry, the usual literary resources, those Michael Jordan’s of the world of theory, will offer little help. Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, Greimas, Kristevea, Jakobson, Fish, de Mann--all raise questions that will keep theory junkies salivating for decades, but ultimately, to a contemporary Christian poet, such questions may be unimportant. For that poet the question may simple be: is my work pleasing to God?
Davie sets forth two specific points for inclusion in his anthology: poems were chosen because they deal with Christian doctrine; others were chosen because they treat the Biblical narrative in such a way as to enlighten doctrine. Once these requirements are in place, the choosing becomes easier and more painful, at once. These exclude most of Dylan Thomas--whose work, replete with Christian symbolism--sheds no light on doctrine. They leave out all of Shakespeare and Auden. And the one poem I thought would be the sine qua non for modern Christian poetry, "The Four Quartets", is omitted. Davies’s justification for such stringent criteria is interesting. Simply put, without these tight controls the entire corpus of pre-modern English poetry prior to Hardy would have to be allowed admittance on the grounds that all poets from Chaucer to Hardy wrote in a Christian society in which they considered themselves active participants. True, some artists took liberties. After Marvell penned "To His Coy Mistress" may we assume, following Davies’s lead, that the poet realized his sin, repented and promised God not to attempt to seduce anyone else via a poetic syllogism? Probably not, since that would assume that all poets from the pre-modern era were devout. What Davie is saying is that these poets lived in a society that rarely questioned the principles it stood upon. Should we, as believers and readers of poetry, consider "Mistress" sinful? Can we admire its wit, marvel at its gallant levity and still adjudge it to embody sinful suggestions? Elliot thought it one of the best and we know the kind of moral strictures he placed upon himself.
At this point many readers are probably wincing. The word "sophistication" or the lack thereof is circling round inside their heads with all the nasty viciousness this word can entail. If we have learned anything in academia in the lastred years it is this: do not presume to judge. Must we be so tacky? How would you feel telling your friend who teaches freshman Comp. Lit. next door that you feel uncomfortable teaching "Mistress" because you fear the poem might nudge some hitherto timid freshman to go right out and seduce via iambic tetrameter? Do we even care about such things? Are we presenting literature in a moral vacuum--as many current critics would advocate--because we are afraid of losing our status, our credibility, and our jobs?
As we move forward into the conflicted world ahead—Christian vs. you fill in the blank--a world in which the church may come to be identified with Noah's arc, are we going to be compelled to ask such frustrating questions of poems we have loved, have memorized, and have taught others to admire?


Published: May 27, 2006
Please Rate this Review : 1 2 3 4 5
Add your comment Translate Send Link Print
Next Summary

Bookmark & share this post

Read best seller reviews

.