In his November 2010 lecture delivered as Oxford Professor of Poetry, Geoffrey Hill tested the idea that poetry might constitute a form of perjury. He acknowledged that ‘this is a deeply pessimistic view: many would say anachronistic’. Showing that language is an imperfect and even fallen medium which presents moral hazards to its users was not, however, the session’s most challenging proposition. More confronting was the suggestion that poetic language belongs to the category of perjury in particular, rather than to a more general category of ‘the lie’ or ‘the misleading remark’. Perjury is not simply lying but lyingunder oath: in Hill’s equation, poetry becomes oath-bound utterance. If, as he puts it later in the lecture, his ‘opinions on the matter of poetry … are decidedly peculiar’, it is because of this suggestion that poetic language bears such juridical weight. Whether poets might assume unspoken oaths; whether, more broadly, poetic speech necessarily holds civic consequences, is an urgently explicit question in his current work and one of the tensions animating both the context and the content of Broken Hierarchies: Poems 1952–2012.
Read the rest of this article by subscribing to ABR Online for as little as $10 a month. We offer a range of subscription options, including print, which can be found by clicking here. If you are already a subscriber, enter your username and password in the ‘Log In’ section in the top right-hand corner of the screen. If you require assistance, contact us or consult the Frequently Asked Questions page.