• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

University of Kentucky UKnowledge Literature in English, North America English Language and Literature 1981 The Republic of Letters in America: The Correspondence of John Peale Bishop and Allen Tate Thomas Daniel Young Vanderbilt University John J. Hindle Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Young, Thomas Daniel and Hindle, John J., "The Republic of Letters in America: The Correspondence of John Peale Bishop and Allen Tate" (1981). Literature in English, North America. 35. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_english_language_and_literature_north_america/35 I've done nothing to deserve gratitude; I saw some fine work, said it was fine, and thereby only did my simple duty by the republic of letters (which is the only kind of republic I believe in, a kind of republic that can't exist in a political republic). Allen Tate to John Peale Bishop, 1933 This page intentionally left blank THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS IN AMERICA The Correspondence of John Peale Bishop & Allen Tate ' ,..., .... ~_,. Edited by Thomas Daniel Young & John J. Hindle THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bishop, John Peale, 1892-1944. The republic of letters in America. Includes index. 1. Bishop, John Peale, 1892-1944-Correspondence. 2. Tate, Allen, 1899-1979--Correspondence. 3. Authors, American-20th century-Correspondence. I. Tate, Allen, 1899-1979. II. Young, Thomas Daniel, 1919- III. Hindle, John J., 1946- IV. Title. PS3503.I79Z483 1981 811' .52'09 [B] 80-5186 ISBN 978-0-8131-5541-8 AACR2 Publication of this book has been assisted by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Copyright © 1981 by The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Berea College, Centre College of Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Club, Georgetown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville, and Western Kentucky University. Editorial and Sales Offices: Lexington, Kentucky 40506 For Arlease & Joan This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS Acknowledgments viii Introduction 1 1929-1934 11 1934-1939 109 1939-1944 155 Chronologies 222 Index 227 Manuscript poems appear on pages 176-177 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors wish to express their gratitude to all those who have con­ tributed to the publication of this correspondence, especially the fol­ lowing: the staff of the Firestone Library of Princeton University for their courtesy and helpfulness in locating and retrieving manuscripts; Professors Emerson Brown and Jean Leblon of Vanderbilt University for their assistance in identifying troublesome references; Donna Stin­ son and Louise Durham for their patience, timeliness, and attention to detail in the preparation of the manuscript; the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University for research grants that materially enhanced the quality of the edition. To Jonathan Bishop and the late Allen Tate go our deepest thanks for their permission to publish the correspondence. INTRODUCTION Few writers of the twentieth century have been so profoundly dedi­ cated to the vocation of letters as was Allen Tate. A young English poet publishing his first poem in an obscure little magazine received from Tate a few days after the poem appeared a letter of commenda­ tion and detailed comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the poem. Moved that an established man of letters would devote so much attention to the work of a novice, this young poet (Geoffrey Hill) pursued his craft with increased diligence and confidence. It is clear, as Lewis P. Simpson has pointed out, that Tate felt that one of the responsibilities of the man of letters was the restoration of an age of faith at a time when science was becoming a dominant force in every area of human thought and activity. Quite early in his career he realized that the artist in the materialistic economic pattern of the American system was working against society, not with it, so he endeavored to set up a literary community, what Simpson calls "an idealized community of alienation." To accomplish this purpose Tate deliberately set about a campaign to establish a "Republic of Letters in the Modern World" by unifying writers and would-be writers around the concept that they composed a community set against an alien world. The unceasing and ever-important task of the artist, he reiter­ ated, following the leadership ofT. S. Eliot, one of his acknowledged "masters"-the other was John Crowe Ransom-was that of con­ fronting the "dissociation of sensibility" as the dominant cultural phenomenon of his age. The poetic community had the dual func­ tion, he argued, of making the world aware of the cultural crisis it faces and of preserving the health and vitality of the language. In an attempt to establish and maintain a vocation of letters, Tate undertook a voluminous correspondence with a broad range of writers-some virtually unknown, some well established-in En­ gland, America, and France. Among the persons with whom he corresponded regularly over long periods were T. S. Eliot, John Crowe Ransom, Donald Davidson, Robert Penn Warren, Cleanth Brooks, Herbert Read, Andrew Lytle, and Robert Lowell. Less fre­ quently he exchanged letters with Peter Taylor, Geoffrey Hill, Ken- 2 INTRODUCTION neth Burke, Howard Nemerov, Randall Jarrell, Ernest Hemingway, Archibald MacLeish, Malcolm Cowley, Edmund Wilson, and many others. As Radcliffe Squires has observed, however, the tone of Tate's correspondence with John Peale Bishop is different from that of all the others. Although there are exceptions-particularly in letters to Andrew Lytle--Tate's letters to his other correspondents tend to form a definite pattern: those to Donald Davidson, on the plight of the artist in the modern world and on their shared interest in Agrar­ ianism; those to John Crowe Ransom (though few of these sur­ vive), on the details of operating a literary quarterly and on the de­ velopment of a theory of literature as a means of cognition; those to Edmund Wilson, on interpretations of individual works of art and on the functions of literature in a democratic society. The letters to Bishop were more personal, and, as Squires has noted, to both men they were a source of strength: To look through their correspondence is to discover how fully each trusted the other, and how fresh their friendship stayed. Their criticism of each other's work was never the usual harmless compliments which old friends seem to deliver al­ most as a reflex action. It was careful criticism; they often suggested specific emendations of words or lines to each other. Upon occasion they wrote "companion pieces," poems which were variations on one of the other's poems and themes. Tate was introduced to Bishop in a New York speakeasy by Ken­ neth Burke in September 1925. Three years later, while Tate was in Paris on a Guggenheim fellowship, Robert Penn Warren came over from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and Bishop joined the two for a night on the town, coming in from his home in Orgeval, about twenty kilometers outside the French capital. The three had a memorable evening together, sampling the wine in some of Bishop's favorite cafes and concluding the celebration over a bottle of Scotch in Tate's apartment. Sometime around midnight, Bishop responded to a request that he read some of his poetry. Although Bishop had been writing verse for many years-he published one volume, Green Fruit, shortly after his graduation from Princeton, and collaborated with Edmund Wilson on another, The Undertaker's Garland-and although he was a close friend of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ar­ chibald MacLeish, and Edmund Wilson, his literary career had come to a standstill. His literary friends often asked him to read and com­ ment on their work, but they apparently regarded him as a man with an assured income (his wife's family apparently was fairly wealthy) who merely dabbled in the arts. The incisive and complimentary commentary on Bishop's poems by Tate and Warren had a stimulating Introduction 3 effect. About five years later he wrote Tate that "it was from that eve­ ning" that he decided he was talented enough to pursue a career in the arts. Not only was there a noticeable increase in Bishop's output in poetry but in fiction as well. Almost immediately he published a poem in the New Republic, a short story in Vanity Fair, and won the 1930 Scribner's short story prize of $5,000 for "Many Thousands Gone." In 1931 a collection of his short stories appeared. His letters to Tate, after they began corresponding regularly in 1929, reflect Bishop's increased confidence in his abilities as an artist, almost in direct ratio to the serious, careful, and helpful commentary that were always accorded the poems or stories he had sent to Tate. What proved tonic for Bishop, however, proved even more salu­ tary for Tate. Although Tate was deeply engrossed in the Agrarian movement, and his letters to his friends in Nashville were filled with details of this movement-projects proposed and rejected, comments of various critics weighed and analyzed-his letters to Bishop barely mention Agrarianism and never in any detail. The verses he sent Bishop were always perceptively and wisely scrutinized. Bishop gave detailed criticism of meter, rhyme, diction, and structure. Compari­ son of the versions of the poems Tate sent Bishop with those pub­ lished demonstrates quite clearly how much Tate profited from Bishop's suggestions.

Load more

  242

Copy Link