Allen Tate Books

I agree with Landess in the preface. This book is poorly researched. It doesn't show us the depth or breath of the man. It would not even be poor historial fiction and is horrid as a biography. It's one strong point is Tate's abilitity to show the Southern feeling on their state rights being violated; along with the comparison of Indian rights being viloent by the North.

In reading the book Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of piety, heroism, chivallry, and a true champion of American values. That is to say, General Jackson was a fighter for freedom and the homeland: something which is highly regarded in today's day and age. Tate expressed this idea even when he wrote it 76 years ago. Therefore, I strongly reccomend this book to all who value the American ideal: the fight for freedom.

In reeading the book Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of piety, heroism, chivallry, and a true champion of American values. That is to say, General Jackson was a fighter for freedom and the homeland a value which is highly regarded in today's day and age. Tate expressed this idea even when he wrote it 76 years ago. Therefore, I strongly reccomend this book to all who value the American ideal: the fight for freedom.

Allen Tate wrote "Stonewall Jackson" in 1927 with the intent of restoring some historical reality to the fading memory of the War for Southern Independence. He accomplished his goal, but the book seems better in retrospect as a whole than it did while reading it page by page. Tate used what to me was an odd, choppy style of writing that slightly complicated the story he was telling. He clearly admired Jackson, and after reading his book my admiration and knowldge of Jackson have improved. Stonewall Jackson is one of America's great heroes for good reason. Even members of the Union Army cheered him when the opportunity presented itself near Fredericksburg. As Tate points out, Jackson was a man of principle on and off the battlefield. From his impoverished childhood to his ever-improving performance at West Point there was no way to foretell the height of fame Jackson would gain in the War for Southern Independence. His performance in the War with Mexico was limited to garrison duty for the most part. When in battle he distinguished himself, but other officers had shown more brightly for a longer period of time in more battles. Tate reveals the eccentricities of Jackson in subtle ways that leave you wondering what was going on in Jackson's head. He clearly baffled the forces sent against him in the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, but many of his own soldiers were equally baffled. It took some time for his subordinates to develop a deep and abiding respect for General Jackson, but after he lead them to numerous victories against superior forces the bond was established that lasted until his untimely death. One of the great contradictions in Jackson's life was his steadfast Christian beliefs contrasted with his unrelenting will to destroy the enemy on the battlefield. For example, Tate mentions an exchange between Jackson and his chief surgeon when the surgeon inquired, "How shall we ever cope with the overwhelming numbers of the enemy?" After a long pause Jackson replied, "Kill them, sir! Kill every man." It was that strength of will that helped make Jackson the hero that he was and is. His loss at Chancellorsville to "friendly fire" was one more nail in the coffin of the Confederacy. It is, perhaps, inevitable that one should speculate about events at Gettysburg had General Lee had his "right arm" leading a Corps. This book gives the most plausible answer to what Jackson meant at the moment of his death when he said, "Let's cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees." Curiously, the answer is at the start of the book, not the end. Allen Tate wrote a good book about a great man that is well worth reading.

By reading the book: Stonewall Jackson, by Allen Tate, I have furthered my belief that this was a man of great piety, heroism, chivallry, and freedom. He fought for all these things in his time, yet in our time freedom and the fight to preserve it and the Homeland seem to be of the most importance. The fight for freedom has always been an American ideal, and Tate did an excellent job in depicting how one man committed his whole life to it during the War of Northern Aggression. I stongly reccomend this book to all who desire to reap the truth, and who hold dear the Homeland.

[T]he dominating structure of a great civilized tradition is certain absolutes . . . by which people live, and by which they must continue to live
until in the slow crawl of history new references take their place.
-Allen Tate, Liberalism and Tradition

Man is a creature that in the long run has got to believe in order to know, and to know in order to do.
-Allen Tate

During his lifetime, Allen Tate was considered by no less an authority than T. S. Eliot to be the best American poet of his generation. Yet today, the only one of his poems we really recall is Ode to the Confederate Dead, and even that has a whiff of impropriety about it. He wrote two well regarded biographies, but they're of the Confederate heroes Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis. He was also considered an outstanding critic, but criticism has a pretty short shelf life, as each generation discovers authors anew. He was also a participant in and a founder of important literary movements--the Fugitives, the Agrarian movement, and the New Criticism. Yet there's a a certain stench about the politics of these groups, their celebration of Southern ideals sitting ill with the subsequent Civil Rights era. And if Mr. Tate's ambiguous position in regard to race weren't enough to doom him in modern eyes, he was also no gentleman in his treatment of his wife, the fine writer, Caroline Gordon, to whom he was apparently quite flagrantly unfaithful. Add to it all the unfortunate fact that regard for the Confederacy and the Ante-Bellum South has been co-opted to some extent by white supremacists and other idiots and it's surely no surprise that Mr. Tate's reputation has fared poorly.

With all this as baggage, the reader who comes to The Fathers, Mr. Tate's only novel, expecting some kind of gothic version of Gone With the Wind must be forgiven. Instead, while it is fairly Southern gothic, what Mr. Tate offers is a far more complex portrait of a young man, Lacy Buchan, who is torn between the world of his father, Major Lewis Buchan, representing the stereotypical Southern aristocracy, but paralyzed into inaction by the war, and George Posey, Lacy's brother-in-law, a modern man (for example, a capitalist) whose lack of ties to the chivalric tradition lead him to behave in an undisciplined fashion, eventually resulting in tragedy. Lacy's struggle then is to find a middle way, one that learns from and honors the traditions of his father, but which is capable of moving forward into the modern age that George presages, or perhaps into a better future, because tempered by tradition.

The novel is a tad opaque and overwrought for my tastes, but well worth reading.

GRADE : C+

This novel is one of the best written in the United States. While it will delight conservatives for its tender and moving picture of a culture whose traditions and habits are being destroyed, readers of all political stripes will enjoy reading the Greek like tragic victory/fall of the utilitarian 'hero' of the novel. His story is that of modernity, and thus of us all.

This is a tremendous work; I cannot fathom why it is not well known outside literary circles unless it is because it was the only novel of its poet/critic author. The style in which it is written is beautiful. The first person narrator gracefully tells a profound story which (to me) leaves lingering mysteries and does so without "trying too hard" or pretention. The story and the style in which it is written fuse into a haunting masterpiece. I have never sought a literary profession; however, I think that anyone who does so would learn a great deal from this book.

I was alerted to this book through a Washington Post "rediscovery" book review of neglected, but worthwhile books of the past. As a long time resident of Alexandria, Virginia, I was intrigued by its promise of a local setting. The author makes excellent use of Old Town Alexandria, and local Northern Virginia settings. (Alexandria, Virginia was a Union held city in a state which became the Confederate capital, and was the scene of the first Union fatality of the war.
The author's use of actual surviving communities and even street names from Alexandria and nearby Fairfax County was quite interesting to this reader, though the actual story itself is a bit obtuse, and occasionally more literary than enjoyable.
A quoted reviewer's comparison to "Gone With the Wind"is not totally accurate. The setting is indeed the Civil War and a protagonist does bear some characteristics with Rhett Butler. But "Fathers" is certainly not the rousing adventure-love story of GWTW and may disappoint those who expect it to be.

This is quite simply the best novel ever written set in and around the Civil War.

I was so thrilled to find this book on Amazon, because after I read it, I wanted to give it to at least three people I know who are struggling. Though the obvious audience for Julie's book is those who are grieving, I think her healing words can speak to anyone who has experienced a crisis. Her best take-home message? The response to the question many ask...."Was this (tragedy/situation) God's will?" Julie answers this question definitively in a theologically sound way. She delivers great insight for pre-Christians, new Christians and those who have walked with the Lord for many years. Your investment of time and money will be well-spent on this short but powerful book.

This book is well written and insightful... everyone, Christian or not, should read this book! All of us will have burdens in this life- the Bible tells us this- so Julie Ann teaches us how to "be prepared". I especially like the chapter entitled, "Faith is like a car". We have to keep the car in top form so it will perform when we need it to. Our faith needs to be maintained in that way, too, not just when the crisis comes. As difficult as losing her husband must have been, Julie Ann has allowed God to work through her and be a shining light that exemplifies His glory. Well done!

This book opens with a title essay 'On the Man of Letters in the Modern World'. I found this essay particularly heavy going. Tate has essays on Poe, Keats, Dickinson, Yeats Romanticism, Donne, Elizabethan Satire, Pound. As I usually take great pleasure in reading critical literary essays I was surprised at how much difficult I had with the essays in this work.

"The Horror, the Horror" - Joseph Conrad

So much of modern American poetry is self-indulgent; semi-obscure, purposely confused, overly complicated, essentially tonal, and mood pieces rather than art involving substance and depth. Perhaps this is why there is an ever-shrinking audience for it and why the only lively and enthusiastic discussions on such matters take place in staid and boring academic literary journals and poetry magazines that nobody reads or in back rooms and dark corners of downtown book stores.

This approach to poetry by poets is often a hidden disdain for the readership, and their more common place yet elegant self-referential excess of construction, imagery, metaphor and message perhaps make poetry now the art form of the elite "artistes" of academia and folks amongst the great hoi polloi who - so wanting to like poetry so wanting to see it revived and reinvigorated wait patiently for another Whitman or Poe or the like - to the poets themselves, just don't "get it" and never can or will.

Say that you like poetry, and the response will invariably be "but, why?"

Poems that tend to drive wedges between the reader and the form itself and that are so confused in their approach that loyal fans think it means one thing while the auteur believes it means quite something else in the opposite direction - is the mark of an art form in decline. There continues a small coterie of poetry fans who still buy poetry books and talk about poets and keep the flame alive like the readers in Fahrenheit 451 who hid their books at risk of imprisonment and worse. So we wait for a Poe, another John Ashberry, and others of superb quality, but we get Allen Tate's "Ode to the Confederate Dead" instead with its pompous odious misdirection disguised as tribute.

Tate's "Ode" is really neither about Confederates nor really about the dead. Additionally, it is also not "original" in the literal sense. Henry Timrod, sometimes described as the "Confederate Poet laureate" wrote an "ode" poem that actually was a tribute to the Confederate dead unlike Tate's which was not, whether by accident, malfeasance, or design we'll never know. Titled "Ode: Sung on the Occasion of Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead at Magnolia Cemetery, Charleston, S.C., 1867 Timrod's poem is short, emotional, sad, honest, and most likely deeply meaningful to any audience hearing it read (or for those reading it themselves). It is not at all obscurantism like Tate's homage to Timrod written much later, and foisted upon us as a tribute to the Confederate dead rather than simply a appalling failed poem by a famous poet.

Tate's Ode is not a tribute, it is simply a failure. Oft-read by caring folks as a tribute to Confederates long gone, it is a mistake. According to one Williamson County, TN website, "It remains, the works of Robert Hicks and Madison Smartt Bell notwithstanding, the most important piece of literature to come out of Williamson County." This is utterly absurd. Randall Jarrell, and David Donaldson, both Vanderbilt colleagues of Tate's are superior poets. As a partisan for southern remembrance, having written several biographies of Confederate heroes (Jackson and Davis), Tate seems to have the requisite qualifications to have penned a great tribute poem for the Confederate dead, appropriate for graveside readings. But if he did, this is not the poem. Great artists can create bad art and it happens all the time.

According to the Williamson County website mentioned above, Tate was inspired to write the Ode after a 1926 visit to the McGavock Confederate Cemetery at the Carnton Mansion which played itself an important role during the Battle of Franklin. There are almost 1500 Confederate dead in that cemetery many in mass graves that are marked only with a state designation as "125 Texas soldiers buried here" etched into a granite column. It is no insult to Tate personally to say that this is a bad poem. Contrast it with "Lee in the Mountains" or Lowell's "For the Union Dead" and you will see why. Or read Timrod's original "Ode". Timrod's rings and sings true, Tate's Ode does neither basking in its own glow and of little moment outside of its own internal context.

Tate's poem is overdone and internally confused so that his use of powerful words that ring to everyone with any sense of respect and affection for Confederate heroes would think that they are reading or hearing a tribute - but it just isn't so. Even great poets from Vanderbilt's famous "Fugitives" can misfire now and then. Tate's Ode is a clear miss, much more than a misfired poem.

Mention of battle names and "Stonewall" in several lines does not a Civil War poem make. Tate clearly took this poem exceedingly seriously and that adds to the shame of it as it is simply exceedingly bad. Those hungry for meaningful poetry about the Civil War have long heaped praise upon this conglomeration of unfortunate metaphors and falling leaves outside graveyard crypts. It's the use of the Civil War "code words" that have made this poem so famous, and so mistakenly lauded as brilliant.

I am not the only one who feels this way. Certainly in the minority on this issue, it is good to know that I am in good company. Donald Davidson, a colleague of Tate's at Vanderbilt and the author of the beautiful and authoritative "Lee in the Mountains" used harsh words to describe Tate's "Ode to the Confederate Dead". In a letter to Tate, Davidson didn't mince any words when he said, "Your poetry, like your criticism, is so astringent that it bites and dissolves what it touches." But this is just the beginning. Great poets can be savage critics, and when they criticize each other - yipes, watch out!

"You have decided that the opposite sort of poetry (say, an expansive poetry) can no longer be written in an age where everything is in a terrible condition. But this attitude does not merely lie behind the poetry; it gets into it, not in the form of poetry but of aesthetics, so that poem after poem of yours becomes aesthetic dissertation as much as poetry. ... [W]hen you deal with things themselves, the things become a ruin and crackle like broken shards under your feet. The Confederate dead become a peg on which you hang an argument whose lines, however sonorous and beautiful in a strict proud way, leave me wondering why you wrote a poem on the subject at all, since in effect you say (and I suspect you are speaking partly to me) that no poem can be written on such a subject...

The poem is beautifully written. ... But its beauty is a cold beauty. And where, O Allen Tate, are the dead? You have buried them completely out of sight - with them yourself and me. God help us, I must say. You keep on whittling your art to a finer point, but you are not whittling yourself. What is going to happen if the only poetry you can allow your conscience to approve is a poetry of argument and despair. Fine as such a poetry may be, is it not a Pyrrhic victory?"

I've often found myself asking the same question that Davidson did so many years previously, why did Tate write this poem nominally about the Confederate dead when they are so glossed over? Why choose the Confederate dead as the title? It's a bait-and-switch, typical of bad art.

There are so many failures in this poem that discussing them all could fill a book, which is not my desire. As a poem it's a mish-mash confabulation of unfortunate images and metaphors utterly out of sync and described confusedly, without context and with little respect of history or reality. This poem doesn't sing, it scrapes itself across the blackboard of the mind making that abysmal irritating screeching sound so familiar to every school child all the while!

Observe the poem as someone who appreciates the sacrifices of American soldiers in past wars; think about how this poem would sound read over the graves of heroes - and be appalled...

"Unfortunate" is merely the most kind word to use here, but not at all the most accurate. Read the following section from Tate's Ode, and ask yourself if the imagery is all wrong, confused, negative, insulting, grotesque.

"What shall we who count our days and bow
Our heads with a commemorial woe
In the ribboned coats of grim felicity,
What shall we say of the bones, unclean,
Whose verdurous anonymity will grow?
The ragged arms, the ragged heads and eyes
Lost in these acres of the insane green?
The gray lean spiders come, they come and go;"

The above bizarre cacophony of images of the rotting dead, and gray spiders (Confederate spiders... huh?) and unclean bones is but only part of the many assaults upon the reader by Tate. How can Confederate bones in a poem supposed by so many to be a tribute be unclean? The bones of our American war dead, Confederate and Union, cannot be unclean! Tate's imagery is vile.

These are not the words of commemoration of loss or sadness or of appreciation. This is no veneration appreciation of the sacrifices of the Confederate dead! These are words that reduce the dead to their very bones and shiver their accomplishments out of context from their lives so that the only thing remaining in the poem to mark their lives are the Confederate gray spiders to be trodden under foot and screamed at by little girls and old women.

Observe the Civil War code words in the following lines in this also muddled and bizarre section, these are the source of this poem's longevity and also the source of so much misunderstanding:

"Turn your eyes to the immoderate past,
Turn to the inscrutable infantry rising
Demons out of the earth they will not last.
Stonewall, Stonewall, and the sunken fields of hemp,
Shiloh, Antietam, Malvern Hill, Bull Run.
Lost in that orient of the thick and fast
You will curse the setting sun."

There is false mystery here, and fake sentiment. Confederate infantry is not "inscrutable". The dead at Franklin are there because of a specific historic event, the battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864. Confederate infantry are not demons. "Demons"? Did Tate actually suggest here that Confederate infantrymen are "demons"?? This is misery and absurdity rolled all together into an abysmal ball thrown at people on dark and sad occasions thinking that they are giving tribute/paying tribute to lost heroes but are instead indulging a poet his awful and unfortunate mistake of a poem. Why on earth would "I/you" curse the setting sun? Should I curse the setting sun for all the horrible Confederate losses during the war or do I curse the setting sun because I am sad at the deaths of brave men resting in the cemetery? No, in Tate's twisted-up version the men are not resting at all in the cemetery, they are "rising" - oh, you know, like gray spiders.

"Turn your eyes to the immoderate past,
Turn to the inscrutable infantry rising
Demons out of the earth they will not last."

Can anyone listening to a recitation of this abysmal monstrosity of a poem truly believe that it is a tribute to dead Confederate soldiers when they are described as "gray spiders", and "demons"? No!

Never has a more unfortunate mess been foisted upon a caring public so desperate for ways to honor the bravery of their forebears. Tate's poem "ode to the Confederate Dead" is not the way. This poem should be rendered asunder and banished into the black holes of obscurity where it belongs. Mind you, this is not a condemnation of all of Tate's work merely this one poem so wrongly portrayed as an appropriate commemoration of Confederate dead (even read at Confederate cemeteries!) while it is not all such a thing.

A poem can fail for so many reasons. Davidson was so right when he wrote, "The poem is beautifully written. ... But its beauty is a cold beauty. And where, O Allen Tate, are the dead? You have buried them completely out of sight - with them yourself and me." The poem reads "well" as do most poems written by an accomplished poet such as Tate. But it is cold, and heartless.

There is no care for the Confederate dead here, in fact they don't even appear in the poem but as demons and spiders. The heroes are converted to the ugliest of images, and the sacrifices and losses ignored, while the poet plays his literary games with metre and rhythm and names of battles - clearly meaningless to him, but hooks for the audience like a bad ABBA tune's irresistible hook.

But I do not care a whit about Tate's internal poetics or his "music", I want a Civil War poem that is an Ode to the Confederate Dead, a tribute and appreciation. This is the manner that this poem has always been sold to me through my life, having been read at Civil War events with the direst and humblest of tones. But I've been sold a bill of goods and been cheated throughout my life and now the truth needs to be told so that future generations are not so abused as I have been by this wretched poem.