The most representative of the anthologies is that edited by Martin Stephen. Never Such Innocence features poems by a total of one hundred and thirty-two identifiable individual poets, and one hundred and forty-five of the poems by these poets do not appear in any other anthology surveyed.50 Stephen notes that he has 'taken the opportunity of including some poems by well-known authors that do not normally feature on an editor's checklist'.51 This remark, to a certain degree, bears out Peter Widdowson's observation that '[t]here is a way in which an editor's anticipation of the reader's expectation of the presence of certain poems in a selection ensures that they will indeed be there'; if a poem which the editor anticipates the reader will expect is omitted, an explanation is often given for the omission.52

Of the well-known poems by the well-known poets which Stephen omits, Owen's 'Strange Meeting' has already been mentioned. Stephen describes it as 'a very famous poem' which is 'also a clumsy technical exercise in half-rhyme', hence its omission in favour of 'Spring Offensive'.53 Similarly, Stephen prefers Sassoon's 'more reflective and traditional monologue poems' to his '"hammer-blow" satirical poems', finding the former 'much more moving' than the 'graffiti-daub' of the latter.54 Stephen admits that the 'element of personal choice cuts both ways', so that he includes poems which he 'personally find[s] disturbing': his example is Newbolt's 'Vitaï Lampada', whilst he omits certain poems which to him 'do not seem to [. . .] always reflect what was strongest and most lasting in an author's work'.55 Stephen also omits the poetry of Grenfell and Aldington, because 'their relatively small number of major poems have achieved wide coverage elsewhere', together with David Jones' In Parenthesis, both because it is 'extremely well known', and because Stephen feels it 'suffers in extract' - a view not shared by Gardner, Silkin, Featherstone, or Roberts.56

Featherstone's anthology 'focuses on the importance of war poetry for an understanding of British culture rather than just the British experience of war'; thus his choice of poets 'emphasise[s] other issues than front-line experience of battle'.57 As a result there is 'a substantial selection of Ivor Gurney's work'.58 Similarly, Featherstone includes five poems by ordinary private soldiers and three poems by H. D., whose work is 'hardly ever read as war poetry', a point borne out by her omission from Reilly's anthology of women's poetry Scars Upon My Heart (Virago, 1998).59

Roberts notes that '[t]housands of poems were written during the war'.60 He says that in

selecting 'essential' poems [he has] tried, first, to include most of the poems which are widely regarded as amongst the greatest; second, to include poems which, because of their quality or because they struck a deep chord with their contemporary readers, became famous. 61

Amongst these poems Roberts includes McCrae's 'In Flanders Fields', Brooke's '1914' sonnet sequence, and Seegar's 'Rendezvous with Death' (also known as 'Rendezvous'). Roberts claims that these few poems are essential because 'they would be found in any good anthology of First World War poetry', which implies that the anthologies by Parsons, Hussey, Stephen, Featherstone and Hibberd and Onions are not good since they all exclude McCrae's poem.62 Similarly, Seegar's 'Rendezvous' is only included by Gardner, Silkin and Black, besides Roberts himself.

Roberts does include a section in his anthology for poems written by those 'living in Britain [ie on the Home Front] including many women poets'.63 He goes on to state that he 'inevitably concentrated on what seems to [him] to be "the greatest and the best" poetry' (rather like Silkin and his 'excellence'), although Roberts has also included 'some lesser, though rewarding, poetry, and some which has an interest for the light it throws on situations, beliefs and attitudes'; examples of which, according to Roberts, are poems by Bridges, Newbolt, Watson and the Begbies.64

Looking back at an early post-war anthology, the editor, Jacqueline Trotter, states in the foreword to Valour and Vision that

[t]he intention of this Anthology is to present the poet as the historian, and to illustrate the different aspects and phases of the war by contemporary poetry. [. . .] Just as the war was not confined to the professional fighter but entered into the life of nearly every man, woman and child, so this collection is not restricted to poets of unquestioned standing. [. . .] Wherever a poem appears to strike a true note or express a living emotion, it has not been rejected on account of failure in form, but allowed a place among others to which the highest literary standard can be applied.65

Thus, for at least one contemporary anthology editor, literary excellence mattered less than history, and combat experience mattered less than the ability to 'express a living emotion', when selecting which poems to include in an anthology. The only other restriction which applied was that of copyright permission: Trotter was unable to get permission from John Masefield to include his poem 'August, 1914' - the first anthology which does include it is the Hibberd/Onions anthology of 1986.66 Trotter notes that with this one exception 'all the most famous war poems are to be found' in Valour and Vision.67

Discussing poetry by civilians, John Press (writing about modern English verse) notes that Rudyard Kipling 'more than any other poet of his generation, both understood and shared the bitter contempt felt by the fighting soldier for the men in high places', such as war profiteers, politicians and civilians in 'cushy jobs', all of whom appeared completely indifferent to the agony of the men in the trenches.68 Press reflects that Kipling's always 'formidable talent for hatred' was 'sharpened by grief' at his only son's death in action in 1915, and some of his most savage invective can be found in his war poems.69

Still on the subject of civilians, the response made by women in the form of poetry to the First World War is still a largely 'neglected part of the huge literature inspired by the war', as Nosheen Khan observes.70 Catherine Reilly's anthology is an attempt to address this neglect.71 Khan, along with Campbell and Parfitt, believes that a 'war poetry which does not include the depth and range of female reaction [to the First World War] cannot claim to tell the "truth" of war'.72 In a similar fashion to the poetry of their male counterparts, women's poetry 'encompasses a variety of responses to war, ranging from the fervently romantic and heroic to deeply realised expressions of revulsion and outrage.' 73 Restricted by their non-combatant status from directly experiencing warfare, women poets were wholly dependent on newspaper reports and hearsay for their knowledge of life in the trenches.74 Very few women poets attempt to visualise the atmosphere and activities that were peculiar to the Front; the complexities of trench life falls so far outside their range of experience as to make it virtually impossible for even the most imaginative poet to visualise the scene.

In her Preface to Reilly's anthology, Judith Kazantzis raises 'with bewilderment the near-as-maybe non-presence of women in modern Great War anthologies.' 75 She goes on to note that Reilly has 'retrieved intelligent and vigorous poetry and verse of scorn and denunciation, well in line with the modern dislike of Great War heroics. These poems, whether light or grimly satirical, are the mirror images' of those by poets such as Owen and Sassoon.76 Kazantzis wonders whether 'the insensibility to date [to] women's poetry on the Great War [. . .] stem[s] from something quite deep in the patriarchal mind - the folk memory that nurses th[e] "white feather" image along'.77 She also asks whether there is 'among men, not excluding editors of war poetry anthologies, the atavistic feeling that war is man's concern, as birth is women's; and that women quite simply cannot speak on the matter' ? 78

Claire Tylee notes that generally war is still conceived of by men as belonging to an exclusively male zone of cultural experience.79 She goes on to say that if there is an assumption that physical combat between males is natural, and even desirable, and if war is taken to mean 'armed conflict' then women cannot easily write about war as they would be 'specifically excluded from direct acquaintance with it'.80 However, as Tylee observes, if the war is defined as 'a state of hostility between human beings', and a way of life in which such a state of hostility not only exists and is taken for granted (promoted even), then women not only know about it, they can write about both this state and its consequences.81 As with the term 'war poetry', much depends upon the definitions being used, and therein lies the problem. The manner in which 'war' or 'war poetry' is defined is generally decided by men - be they historians, literary critics or anthology editors. It is noticeable that of the ten anthologies surveyed, eight are obviously edited by men - E. L. Black is also a man although there is no indication of this fact, nor is there any indication as to whether the unnamed editor of the Penguin 80th anniversary anthology is male or female.

Reilly notes in her Introduction that of the 2225 British individuals - both men and women, combatants and non-combatants - who wrote verse about the Great War, 'at least 532 were women'.82 She goes on to state that the 'present collection is the result of curiosity as to why the work of most of the 532 women poets traced in [her] bibliographical study should have apparently faded into oblivion'.83 Reilly says that only three women - Fredegond Shove, Alice Meynell and Charlotte Mew - are frequently 'represented in modern anthologies of First World War poetry'.84 In fact, four women are frequently represented in the ten anthologies I surveyed.85 In Reilly's anthology there are seventy-nine women poets represented by one hundred and twenty-five poems, many of whom 'were or became well known in various spheres' - predominantly in the world of literature and journalism.86

Her view seems to be that such women poets ought to have an equal place in the mainstream anthologies; it is a view which is becoming more widely held than it was 20 years ago.87

Appendix 2 offers a selection of some of the poems which I would choose to include in an anthology of First World War poetry.

Bibliography

(This essay has been written by Michèle Fry, 2000 and it is copyright.)

http://www.sassoonery.demon.co.uk/criticalcomm3.htm