PN Review Print and Online Poetry Magazine
News and Notes
The PN Review Prize 2017 - Now Open!
ENGLISH PEN: time to join!
English PEN relies on the support of its members and subscribers. read more
Most Read... Kei MillerIn the Shadow of Derek Walcott
1930–2017

(PN Review 235)
David Herdin Conversation with John Ashbery
(PN Review 99)
Daniel Kaneon Ted Berrigan
(PN Review 169)
Henry Kingon Geoffrey Hill's Oraclau/Oracles
(PN Review 199)
Kate BinghamPuddle
(PN Review 236)
Alejandro Fernandez-OsorioPomace (trans. James Womack)
(PN Review 236)
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
Gratis Ad 1
Gratis Ad 2
Next Issue Meet Michael Edwards at the Brasserie Lipp David Herman reads Milosz's life Sumita Chakraborty's five poems Judith Wilson's encounter with Giovanni Pascoli Simon Armitage revives Branwell Bronte

This item is taken from PN Review 235, Volume 43 Number 5, May - June 2017.

Letters
NICOLA HEALEY writes: In Ruth Hawthorn’s review of Letter Writing Among Poets, ed. Jonathan Ellis (EUP), in PN Review 233 (January–February 2017), Hawthorn praises Anne Fadiman’s ‘reclamation of Hartley Coleridge’ through her contribution to this book. I wanted to point out – without wishing to be invidious – that this is slightly misleading. There have already been significant scholarly advances in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in recovering the life and works of Hartley Coleridge, namely by the late Earl Leslie Griggs, Andrew Keanie, and me. More recently, critics including Robin Schofield and Joanna E. Taylor have published revisionary articles on Hartley. In her chapter, Fadiman states that ‘Hartley has been the subject of only one [book] since 1931’ (p. 97) (i.e. Keanie’s 2008 study, though she does not credit him here). Not only does this rather dismiss the work of present-day Hartley Coleridge scholars, it isn’t true: my monograph, Dorothy Wordsworth and Hartley Coleridge: The Poetics of Relationship, a development of my doctoral thesis, was published in 2012 by Palgrave Macmillan.

Fadiman makes some engaging and astute points, though the title of her chapter, ‘The Oakling and the Oak: The Tragedy of the Coleridges’, does unfortunately collude in the diminution of Hartley. She also repeats some well-worn and/or contentious tropes of Hartley that recent critics have worked hard to demystify and to move away from, in order to refocus attention on to his writings and the complex reasons for his marginalisation, and thus clear a space to recapture his lost reputation ...


Searching, please wait... animated waiting image