What follows is a version of the brief paper I was going to give at the York University Jones conference in July. The reason for putting it here is that recent surgery (last week) prevents any long distance travel and various other normal activities for the next couple of months. So, whilst wallowing in abject self pity, here it is.
In Parenthesis a heartbreakingly beautiful account of the days leading up to and including the first day of the Somme offensive on July 1st in 1916. According to our foremost military historian, Michael Howard, it is also one of the greatest ever accounts of warfare.
Before beginning, I'd like to acknowledge Tom Dilworth's account of the very close parallels between IP and David Jones' personal experience of the war, a proximity I'll return to more than once as we progress.
Regular readers will know that I'm a fan of the documentary poem but I'm suggesting that that this is more, that IP transcends this particular Poetry Mode and spills over into a thing both more specific and, at the same time, universal. I'm fully aware that this doesn't make any kind of sense but (please) bear with me. As well as being a fan on the Poetry Mode, I'm also a devotee of the documentary film because great factual films bring with them a sense of immediacy and exactness that both moves and fascinates me.
In his Preface, Jones sets out his two main aims, the first being to memorialise his fallen comrades and the second to give an account of the period leading up to the mechanization of warfare that, as he saw it, coincided with the slaughter on the Somme:
This writing has to do with some things I saw, felt and was part of. The period covered begins early in December 1915 and ends early in July in 1916. The first date corresponds to my going to France. The latter roughly marks a change in the character of our lives in the infantry on the West Front. From then on things hardened into a more relentless, mechanical affair, took on a more sinister aspect. The wholesale slaughter of the later years, the conscripted levies filling the gaps in every file of four, knocked the bottom out of the intimate, continuing, domestic life of men, within whose structures Roland could find, and, for a reasonable while, enjoy, his Oliver. In the earlier months there was a certain attractive amateurishness, and elbow-room for idiosyncrasy that connected one with a less exacting past.
The are the opening lines of Jones' preface and I'm suggesting that it might be useful to take him at his word. It's a writing that
Other David Jones pages.
This writing proceeds by way of narrative, by telling the story of its protagonist, pte.John Ball, as he makes his way from the English parade ground to the first day of the battle. The focus is almost entirely on the internal relationships within Ball's company, the men's responses to each other and the events going on around them. In this way Jones' captures and conveys a specific and personal kind of reality. Now, I know very little about the Great War, only a little more than the consensus cultural view of a senseless slaughter that didn't achieve anything for either side. I am therefore in no position whatsoever to assess the accuracy or otherwise of this story. What I have done is noted how it has affected me and my perspective on these events. The first thing to be said is that this tired old cynic continues to be emotionally stirred up and that his view of the quotidian existence of these men has changed dramatically.
Because of the reported conversations and behaviours, I feel as if I know all of these characters and yet throughout the story I know that many of them are going to die. During the first reading i attempted to maintain some kind of manly distance from the characters but still managed to be heartbroken and emotionally mangled for them, as living and breathing individuals, as they fell. In terms of my perspective, that's changed on both the event and on the priorities I give to historical trends and the bigger perspective in general.
In terms of the event, I now understand that WWI wasn't four years of continuous and relentless hell, that there were periods of respite and recuperation to be had whilst behind the trenches, that the main thing that kept men going was their camaraderie and resolve, even though they didn't hold the officer class in any great regard. The second is the importance of personal experience in the scheme of things, as in it is of little use knowing and understanding the causes of and the general progress of things without an at least equal understanding of the effect of these on individual lives.
I've written before about the physical awkwardness and effort involved in getting to and living in the front lines but here I want to think about this in terms of documentary, of this 'having to do with'. This brief extract is from Part 3, Starlight Order which deals with the Company moving at night towards the forward positions:
And sleepy-eyed see Jimmy Grove's irregular bundle-figure, totter upward labouringly, immediately next in front, his dark silhouette sways a moment above you - hedropsaway into the night - and your feet follow where he seemed to be. Each in turn labours over whatever it is - this piled brokenness - dragged over and a scared hurrying on, the slobber was ankle-deep where you found the road again.
And this as the troops near their destination:
The night dilapidates over your head and scarlet lightning annihilates the nice adjustments of your vision, used now to, and cat-eyed for the shades. You stuimble under this latest demonstration, white-hot nine-inch splinters hiss, water-tempered, or slice the cross-slats between his feet - you hurry in your panic, which hurrying gives you clumsy foothold, which falling angers you, and you are less afraid; you call them bastards - you laugh aloud.
Before we proceed, theere is a note to 'Jimmy Grove's' but I don't understand it (the notes don't always 'work'). Whatever this may refer to, I don't think my ignorance in any way detracts from the jaw-dropping brilliance of the above. Incidentally 'hedropsaway' isn't a typo, it's how it appears in the 2010 Faber edition.
Reading part 4, I'm on this road with these men, I'm struggling with them, I'm aware of the immediacy of danger and equally scared by the annihilating lightning. I'm sucked in by the use of 'you' and carried along by the quicknesses of the rhythm and the exquisite use of language. All of these convey to me the most convincing 'having to do with' warfare that I have ever read. Of course, this is a subjective and personal view but I'm happy to argue for it against other contenders for the above reasons.
Jones' is also keen to describe aspects of life behind the trenches and there is one passage concerning a local couple who run a bar serving the troops during their days of respite. This is from Part 5, Squat Garlands for White Knights:
She bolted the door for the night and when it was morning Jacques said that the Englishman's guns had kept him awake. She said that it was a pleasant morning, and the first in June. He said it was time the English advanced, that they were a stupid race, anyhow. She said they were not. He would like to remind her of the Pastoral, for which she laughed a long time, with: Vah, vah, and her head wagging with: La - la, la, and her finger pointed, with: Tawny-tooth go watch the priest, and, Bent-wit. She said that the war was lucrative, and chid him feed the fowl, and smoothed her pinafore: sometimes the Siege Artil- lery came in during the morning, If there wasn't a shoot on.
There are many conversations in IP but this is the only one between non-combatants and thus the only one that is likely to have be supposition rather than direct experience. The Preface addresses the issue of the authentic thus:
Each person and every event are free reflections of people and things remembered, or projected from intimately known possibilities.
I'd argue that this rationale and these components embody the very best documentary form in every genre from Lanzman's Shoah to the accounts of Eamon Duffy and Vanessa Place. I'd also like to observe that, as a close and attentive Jones reader, I have yet to encounter any aspect of dishonesty, as in things done exclusively for effect, or artifice in his work.
To return to these two and their conversation, the perspective is new to me in that I haven't read an account of those who lived in proximity to these horrors and went on as, best they could, with their 'ordinary' lives. What I find particularly efficacious here is the casual, almost incidental, discussion of what I would consider to be terrifying and murderously destructive events. Both the artillery barrage (described with vivid clarity by Jones elsewhere) and an 'advance' are given this everyday tone. Again, I don't empirically know if this is accurate or not but it does seem to me to be as close a 'projection' of the real that we are going to get.
This is also achieved by the Pastoral joke, the stupidity argument and the general observation that the war was an economic opportunity for those who chose to stay near the fronts. People talk like this, conversation is generally good-humoured and the subject under discussion tends to jump around a bit.
There a couple of possible quibbles that spring to mind and the first of these relates to genre. It could be argued that IP is a memoir or a personal history rather than a documentary, that the events describe an aspect of Jones' life or an account of that period immediately before the descent into mechanised 'wholesale slaughter'. It might also be argued that poetry-wise that it's an extended elegy for the first half of 1916. In response, I'll quote again from the preface:
None of the characters in this writing are real persons, nor is any sequence of events historically accurate. There are, I expect minor anachronisms, e.g. the suggestion in Part 4 of a rather too fully developed gas-defence system for Christmas 1915. The mention of 'toffee-apples' (a type of trench-mortar bomb so shaped) at perhaps too early a date.
That appears to me to be a clear refutation of the history argument. There is the last part of the above where Jones indicates his awareness of two inaccuracies and provides these to show that he either is arguing for the history reading or he is indicating that this is not his primary task. Given the preceding disclaimer, I'd go for the second option. This extract follows on from the 'intimately known possibilities' quote provided above:
I have only tried to make a shape in words, using as data the complex of sights, sounds, fears, hopes, apprehensions, smells, things exterior and interior, the landscape and paraphernalia of that singular time and of those particular men.
I'd like to think that this diminishes the memoir argument as especially by the careful 'using as data the complex' which would seem to enhance my case as this again is an essential part of the documentarist's task.
The other supporting point is Jones' sketch map of the relevant front lines that was included in the first Faber edition of 1937 but criminally excluded from the recent reprint. I only know about this object because I have a copy of John Matthias' Selected Works of David Jones. I would reproduce it here but my scanning skills are less than brilliant and some of the names are faint and barely legible. However, there are two dates, '24.12.'15' and '9.9.16' , a scale ('1.10000') and no man's land clearly marked out, together with the complex of trenches behind the front line.
I accept that these are by no means conclusive and that I may be making this argument because I want IP to be documentary. I'm less convinced by the argument that we shouldn't take Jones' Preface at face value. IP was 20 ye4ars in the making and our poet will have been fully aware of how an attentive of this frame would inform and perhaps direct readers' approach- it certainly did for me.
In conclusion, I'm writing this on the morning of July 1st 2016, exactly a century since these men walked (walked) into that place of unnecessary slaughter. I'm not usually a fan of military commemoration for all sorts of reasons but I'd like to end with the fate of Mr. Jenkins, the 21 year old officer in charge of John Ball's platoon:
Mr Jenkins half inclined his head to them - he walked just barely in advance of his platoon and immediately to the left of Private Ball. He makes the conventional sign and there is the deeply inw3ard effort of spent me who would make response for him, and take it at the double. He sinks on one knee and now on the other, his upper body tilts in rigid inclination this way and back; weighted lanyard runs out to full tether, swings like a pendulum and the clock run down. Lurched over, jerked iron saucer over tilted brow, clamps unkindly over lip and chin nor no ventaille to this darkening and marked face lifts to grope the air and so disconsolate; enfeebled fingering as a paltry strap - buckle holds, holds him blind against the morning. Then stretch still where weeds pattern the chalk predella -where it rises to his wire- and Sergeant T.Quilter takes over.