Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BY SARAH COLE
Now, the war, at any rate on the Western Front, was waged by
Battalions, not by individuals, by bands of men who, if the spirit were
right, lived in such intimacy that they became part of one another. The
familiar phrase, a happy Battalion, has a deep meaning, for it
symbolises that fellowship of the trenches which was such a unique and
unforgettable experience for all who ever shared in it, redeeming the
sordidness and stupidity of war by a quickening of the sense of
interdependence and sympathy.
B. H. Liddell Hart, 19331
Sarah
ELH 68Cole
(2001) 469500 2001 by The Johns Hopkins University Press 469
friendship does not so much threaten the family and civilian society as
improve them, providing a moral guide-post for an implicitly inferior
home culture.
Liddell Harts image of a devastating war redeemed by the intimacy
nourished among its combatants became something of a cultural
commonplace during and after the war. Yet, his assertion that masculine
comradeship provides the only sustaining relation in a time of moral and
physical degradation appears to sweep aside tensions that ordinarily
inhere in such relationstensions involving the body, the individuals
conflict with the group, the troubled relation of tradition to modernity.
In what follows, I shall take seriously Liddell Harts suggestion that male
relations appeared to offer those who fought the possibility of restruc-
turing and revaluing principles of social order. I propose that the
crushing problem of male intimacy functioned to coalesce and crystal-
lize a number of discourses surrounding masculinity and the male body
in the First World War period, but that it could not ultimately resolve
the contradictions inherent in the different visions of male unity that the
war generated.2
My argument about the war has two central points. First, in an
analysis of masculine intimacy that works to unravel the complex knot of
ideas surrounding male relations, I hope to demonstrate that comrade-
ship did not function as the culture demanded, and that this failure
generated a particularly resonant form of anger and bewilderment. In
the official dogma of the war, comradeship was meant to sustain the
soldier, to provide the possibility for heroic action, to redeem the
horrific suffering that the war endlessly inflicted. Yet the crucial fact of
the war was that it destroyed friendship. Thus the bracing imperative to
organize and stabilize masculine intimacy became a futile enterprise,
desperate and debilitating. It is this tragic paradox about the impossible
demands for intimacy during the Great War that fueled both popular
and canonical writers and continued to engage the post-war imagina-
tion.3
Accordingly, my second overarching point is that the figure of the
bereaved male friendwhose very being is constituted by the loss of
war matesbecomes the wars representative par excellence, and that
post-war disconnection and disillusion will thus be articulated specifi-
cally in terms of the creation and loss of powerful male friendships. War
writers created an icon who ceaselessly asserts, in Siegfried Sassoons
words, my killed friends are with me where I go, and it is this voice
with its close ties to the isolated men populating the works of such
figures as Conrad, Forster, Woolf, Eliot, and Lawrence, and its broad
No, he said finally. I dont suppose I have anyone, whom I can call a
friend. I like the men, on the whole, and I think they like me . . . I have
one or two particular chums, of course, and in some ways, you know,
good comradeship takes the place of friendship. It is different: it has its
own loyalties and affections; and I am not so sure that it does not rise on
occasion to an intensity of feeling which friendship never touches. It
may be less in itself, I dont know, but its opportunity is greater.
Friendship implies rather more stable conditions, dont you think? You
have time to choose. Here you cant choose . . . At one moment a
particular man may be nothing at all to you, and the next minute you will
go through hell for him. No, it is not friendship. The man doesnt matter
so much, its a kind of impersonal emotion, a kind of enthusiasm, in the
old sense of the word.13
Army life which brings together men of very different types and by
forcing them to life in close contact with one another very often causes
a feeling of comradeship and friendship to arise, in too many cases
breaks up the friendship before it has well begun . . . To the many men
to whom these relationships with their comrades mean much, the
feeling comes that it is useless to make friends in the army. They are like
travelers coming to an inn for a night, meeting strangers there, spending
an evening over the fire in the enjoyment of mutual sympathy and in the
discovery of common pleasures and interests, feeling their hearts
warming and a kindling desire to know more and to see more of these
new found friends. Then the morning comes; each must go his own way;
they part.21
Feet plodding in each others unseen tread. They said no word but
to direct their immediate next coming, so close behind to blunder, toe
by heel tripping, file-mates; blind on-following, moving with a singular
identity.
Half-minds, far away, divergent, own-thought thinking, tucked away
unknown thoughts; feet following file friends, each his own thought-
maze alone treading; intricate, twist about, own thoughts, all unknown
thoughts, to the next so close following on.25
For all his interest in the way war makes bodies to suit its needs, Jones
remains powerfully Cartesian. The word thought, repeated five times
in the passage, provides the key to the mens individuality; it is a mans
thoughts that are own and unknown, even as the endless file of
bodies seems almost to dominate and appropriate the self. In the
I begin with Robert Nichols, whose widely read Ardours and Endur-
ances made him one of the most celebrated of the soldier-poets during
the war years.29 Nichols represents a style of poetry that functioned, in
part, to convey an understandable idea of the war to noncombatants,
and his poems are thus replete with images of fearless, noble, self-
sacrificing comrades. His usage of comradeship, like his treatment of
other standard war themes, tends towards an integrative model, where
male bonding fits into a relatively conventional narrative of heroic
idealism.30 In Fulfilment, for instance, Nichols adopts a familiar
strategy of establishing a contrast between heterosexual, romantic love
and the superior love of comrades in war. The closing lines of the poem
firmly reject the poets past adoration of a woman in favor of a de-
personalized image of the dying soldier: Was there love once? I have
forgotten her. / Was their grief once? grief yet is mine. / O loved, living,
dying, heroic soldier, / All, all, my joy, my grief, my love, are thine!31
The contrast between the impoverished status of heterosexual love and
the saturated intimacy of men in war provides the culmination of the
poetic trajectory. Moreover, in these lines, as in the poem more
generally, Nichols establishes what he views to be the most valorous
form of male fellowship: it is comradeship, rather than friendship, since
the loved, living, dying, heroic soldier is a corporate being, a figure for
an anonymous assembly of individuals, a composite entity whose body is
both ever-dying and constantly being replenished.
If Fulfilment seems to posit the possibility of a collective being,
both individual and abstract, who might reconcile the conflict between
rival forms of male bonds, elsewhere Nicholss verse forces an eruption
in this conflict. His poems must work to accommodate disparate
loyalties, attesting to an uneasy sense that competing models of male
companionship abutrather than sustainone another. The tension
between intimacy and impersonality underlies Boy, a lyric that takes
the figure of the killed youth as a vehicle for a rumination on the
meaning and value of being a soldier. The poem utilizes the verb to
frienda relatively common trope in war poetryemphasizing the
way language is defamiliarized and reconstituted by the intimacies of
war.32 To friend indicates at the syntactic level what we also discover
thematically: language itself works to address the urgent need to
imagine new and untested types of friendship.
The poem begins, In a far field, away from England, lies / A Boy I
friended with a care like love, and then goes on to depersonalize the
In shifting from friendship to mutual soldiering, the men retire their most
basic identitysignified by the namein favor of an impersonal and
shared form of identification. Although such a move is clearly connected
with a culturally recognized ideal of self-sacrifice (which Nichols highlights
in the next stanza, describing the soldier as the Martyr of a nation), the
poet nevertheless insists that only fellow soldiers can recognize one
another. Nichols asserts an absolute compatibility among soldiers, a
mimetic and complete form of mutual constitution, in comparison with
their distance not only from civilians, but also from concepts, like the
nation, shared by a wider body. Even in death, the soldier remains cut
off from those for whom he allegedly gave his life, so that [d]ying, his
mangled body, to inter it, / He doth bequeath him into comrade hands.
Despite the soldiers apparent fulfillment, the rejection of friendship
has its costs: Lonely he is: he has nor friend nor lover, / Sith in his body
he is dedicate . . . / His comrades only share his life. Comradeship is
supposed to help protect the individual from bereavement, but here to
subscribe to comradeship over friendship and love is, paradoxically, to
accept isolation. Of course, in invoking the stoic, invincible, yet lonely
hero, Nichols recalls a familiar icon in western literature. At the same
time, the poem posits a causal connection between loneliness and the
loss of friendship, and it is this conjunction that most powerfully marks
Boy as a partial challenge to much of the wars consolatory literature.
Because soldiers are endlessly reproducible, they provide a form of
ready-made identity that in war is both necessary and terrifying. Nichols
thus utilizes the idea of the soldier in part to function like Joness file
friend, representing a relational form that provides a measure of
identity and solace at the same time that it remains impersonal and
structural, forcing the man precariously in the direction of alienation.
Finally, Nicholss soldier figure, though disdaining self-promotion
and perhaps even language (Deeds are his flower), is imbued by the
poet with an aura of intense moral authority. His superiority over other
Like Owen and Nichols, Sassoon sets the relations of war against civilian
conventions, both literary and social. The Arthurian model of romantic
warrior hero is replaced by a violent, antisocial combatant, who takes
pleasure in the very destructiveness that has created him. Nevertheless,
488 Modernism, Male Intimacy, and the Great War
as Adrian Caesar argues in his piercing critique of the war poets,
Sassoons poem reconstitutes a number of traditional values associated
with both Christianity and militarism.44 The final couplets elevation of
revenge and religious absolution is chilling in part because it recalls
the very language of heroic war that Sassoon purports to abhor.
However, rather than follow Caesar in condemning Sassoons ostensi-
bly anti-war poem for its absorption of military standards, I want to
stress the relation between the poems violent narrator and his killed
friends, for it is in the conjunction of friendship and alienation that
Sassoon locates the crux of his poetic consciousness. The use of the
word killed, in place of more conventional terms like dead or
fallen, has the effect of emphasizing the moment of violent death,
maintaining a sense of immediacy in loss. The men who have died are,
for the speaker, always being killed, always in the act of crossing the life
/death divide that, as Eric Leed has argued, became dangerously fluid
during the war. The Poet as Hero takes as a premise the impossibility
of mourning during the war; yet instead of attempting to forget his dead
mates, the combatant persistently relives the moment of lost friendship,
carrying with him an increasing weight of intimacy that cannot be
relinquished.45
The poem paints a fearsome picture of a New Man, for whom lust
and senseless hatred are legitimized by the outrage of wrecked
intimacy, and whose passionate desires and ecstacies are entirely
motivated by war. Moreover, the poem proclaims its own moral legiti-
macy: if there is absolution in my songs, it is not solely because the
poet has suffered, but more specifically because he has become the
mouthpiece for his killed friends. The speakers voice thus obtains
absolution from a continued connection with a host of dead male
friends, much as comradeship was often said (in more conventional
writing) to redeem the suffering of war. If impersonal comradeship
had worked to sanctify not only male relations but the war itself, here
intimate friendship takes on the mantle of legitimization, but the
difference is marked: when personalized male intimacy becomes the
centerpiece of emotional existence and poetic justification, the figure
who emerges carries with him an unbearable load of pain (since, as we
have seen, friendship exists in war only to be destroyed), a self-
consciously alienated attitude, and a voice of self-justification that will
brook no opposition.
The Poet as Hero stridently asserts a new poetic consciousness for
the soldier who has been created by the loss of friends; in other poems,
this figure seems less a promoter of a confident, new style than a
The opening image of the men leaning together, with a suggestion both
of pathos and caricature, conjures up familiar pictures of knots of
soldiers in postures of careless intimacy. It is an image that powerfully
excludes the viewer, who cannot partake of their silent sign system, and
it thus establishes a problem of distance not only for the former troops,
but also between reader and subject. Relatedly, the impasse of inex-
pressibility, which has been a major theme in war literature, profoundly
characterizes the hollow men, whose dried voices . . . are quiet and
meaningless. Their ineffectual whispers become an expression of sad
futility, a symbol for both the specific plight of war veterans, and, at the
same time, for the universal inadequacy of language, a familiar modern-
ist fixation.
Eliot captures in these opening lines the paradox of war intimacy, as
the men remain both absolutely interconnected and absolutely alone. If
the hollow men cannot be conceived as individuals outside of their
corporate existence, they nevertheless radiate an intense self-absorp-
tion, represented by the inadequacy of their speech, the failure of their
actions (paralysed force), and their slow erasure from human memory.
Eliots poem grapples with the complexity of war intimacy, which at
times seems purely structurala byproduct of the sheer assembly of
bodiesyet is also constitutive of individuality itself. The men in the
poem are formed equally by their proximity to one another and by the
extreme power of their own depleted interiority. Hence, the poems
imagery oscillates between eyes, where one expects to find the locus of
individual experience (The eyes are not here / There are no eyes here
. . . Sightless, unless / The eyes reappear [51-52, 61-62]) and linked
bodies (In this last of meeting places / We grope together / And avoid
speech / Gathered on this beach of the tumid river [57-60]). Eliots text
moves back and forth between oppositional states of alienation and
intimacy, stressing the impossibility of achieving the kind of stability in
friendship for which poets like Owen had striven.