The Trial of Charles Steward

WILLIAM G. CARPENTER is the author of Eþandun (Beavers Pond Press, 2020), which depicts King Alfred’s struggle with the pagan Danes in 878 AD.  Available from Amazon, Itasca Books Distribution and www.williamgcarpenter.com

This is an excerpt from a poem-in-progress on the English Civil War. Previous sections have been published in Expansive Poetry On Line and The Brazen Head. [1] 

The Trial of Charles Steward

A-riding through the rain on miry roads,
Harrison fetched the king to Windsor Castle,
where Hamilton met him, kneeling in the mud. 
That very day, the Commons formed a committee
to stipulate how to proceed against him. 
When Charles shunned Feilding-Denbigh’s last-ditch offer –
his crown for bishops’ lands and the royal veto –
the army council stripped him of his state
and let him dine alone and read his Shakespeare. 
The Commons passed, and sent the Lords, a bill
for a High Court of Justice for to try him. 
The Lords denounced the Commons’ treason charge
as lawless and absurd.  Said Feilding-Denbigh,
named a judge, “I’d rather be torn in pieces
than take part in so infamous a business.” 
Whence the Commons espoused the army’s notion,
originating, plainly, with the Levellers, 
that the people being the source of all just power,
its acts alone were law, sans king or Lords. 
 
Late-coming Oliver eschewed the Council,
meeting instead with Widdrington and Whitelocke,
with Lenthall and Rich-Warwick, to explore
ways other than the officers’ Agreement. 
He asked the Duke of Hamilton at Windsor
to say who had invited him to invade –
Charles, LG Browne, remains of the Eleven? 
No answer was forthcoming from the Scot. 
O.C. disliked fixing a term for Parlament
and thought Charles might be spared, his trial deferred
till after those of other malefactors,
Hamilton, Rich-Holland, Goring-Norwich,
Owen, Lingen, Dyve, and Hastings-Loughborough. 
As ever, Cromwell waited on the Lord. 
 
But when Charles rebuffed Feilding-Denbigh’s mission
as envoy of a clutch of glorious peers –
and the Commons and the army rose together
in calling for the trial of the tyrant –
then Oliver discerned the hand of God
in His clear witnessings and dispensations,
albeit the Holy Ghost had not yet singed him. 
He mused, when added late to the committee
charged to draft the ordinance for the trial,
“Only the greatest traitor in the world –
the greatest rebel – would dare carry on
a plan to try the king for capital crimes. 
But God’s providence has cast us upon it –
myself can but submit.  God bless your counsels,
though I am not provided to give mine.” 
 
The act to frame the High Court of Justice
(which Rushworth called an ordinance of attainder)
alleged a wicked design by Charles Steward
to raze our ancient laws and liberties
and in their place to plant an arbitrary
and tyrannical state – the which design
Charles Steward had maintained with fire and sword,
levying war against the Parlament,
wasting the public wealth, and murdering thousands. 
Some seven score MPs and officers,
citizens, City magistrates, and lawyers
were named to be commissioners and judges. 
 
Fifty or so attended the first meeting
(the Lord General’s last) in the Painted Chamber. 
Fewer met next session, and the next,
and fewer still the next, when Serjeant Bradshaw
declined, at first, the unwanted dignity,
unwanted but rewardful, of Lord President. 
Cooke, Aske, and Dorislaus would draft the charges –
Steele had fallen suddenly, sadly ill. 
Despite the fervor for a large indictment
reaching back to James’ suspicious death,
the court kept out the bulk of Charles’ misdoings,
save those of substituting will for law
and levying war against the Parlament.
 
Harrison and Peter led the train
that ferried Charles in bitter cold from Windsor. 
The trial commenced in vast Westminster Hall
sub Second Richard’s oaken hammer beams,
where Strafford had been tried, and years before,
Frances Howard, Essex’ sometime countess,
for murdering Sir Thomas Overbury. 
Led in by Hacker’s thirty halberdiers,
Charles eyed the Lord President where he sat
in crimson chair, behind a crimson cushion,
and eyed the great sanhedrin of commissioners
to either side, on rows of scarlet benches. 
A mace and sword lay on the Turkey carpet
that decked the table where the clerks awaited. 
Charles turned to view the gentry in the galleries,
Axtell’s musketeers, the thousand groundlings,
then settled on the velvet chair provided,
and rose, and sat again.  Silence commanded,
Bradshaw declared the Commons had empowered
that court to make inquisition for blood. 
 
When Cooke commenced to speak, Charles sought to stay him,
rapping him on the shoulder with his stick –
a harmless battery – whose silver head
fell to the floor, beyond poor Herbert’s reach. 
Charles stooped to fetch it.  Cooke preferred the charge,
which a clerk then read, from Charles’s fell design
to substitute his private will for law,
to the dire raising of his wind-blown standard
at Nottingham, to the great fights at Edgehill,
Brentford, Caversham, Gloucester, Newbury, Cropredy,
Bodmin, Newbury, Leicester, and Naseby Field,
where many thousand free people were slain,
to the mad outbursts of the present year. 
Charles listened sternly, till he scoffed aloud
at “tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public
enemy to the Commonwealth of England.” 
Bradshaw then demanding Charles’s answer,
Charles held the ground he’d seized from the beginning –
that court had no authority to try him. 
 
Repeatedly, the court asked Charles to plead
guilty or not guilty to the charge –
this, repeatedly, he refused to do. 
Repeatedly, he asked whence came their power –
repeatedly was told, the people of England. 
This Charles Steward sturdily denied.
First, no earthly court could try a king,
his crown having come to him from God. 
He reigned not by consent but by descent,
lawful descent, above a thousand years. 
Second, no law provided for such trial
by Parlament – the Commons being none,
lacking king and peers and judicial powers. 
To answer, to submit to usurpation,
was counter to his duty as their king. 
The court, said Bradshaw, overruled his demurrer,
and barred him from persisting in such reasons. 
“Show me the court where reason is not heard,”
said Charles.  Bradshaw said, “The Commons of England.” 
That second day, he ordered Charles’ default. 
 
Despite default, the court chose a committee
of colonels and MPs to hear the witnesses. 
Some thirty testified that day and Thursday,
including gentlemen and husbandmen,
a yeoman, and men standing for the trades
of ironmonger, painter, maltster, weaver,
cordwainer, barber-surgeon, vintner, scrivener,
and soldier.  They had seen the king himself
in helmet, armor back and front, sword drawn
at or near the several battlefields
where thousands on both sides had spilt their blood. 
He’d countenanced the cruelty of his men
in plundering and cutting on their prisoners. 
Later, whilst he treated on the Isle of Wight,
he’d schemed to bring an Irish host to England. 
The witnesses avowed their depositions
in open court held in the Painted Chamber. 
Thus Charles was not judged solely pro confesso,
as men had been in the old Star Chamber days. 
 
The court reconvening to sentence Charles,
he asked for leave to address both his Houses
in the Painted Chamber, as much concerning peace. 
Bradshaw was scarlet-gowned for the day’s business
and wore as before his high-crowned, steel-lined hat. 
Charles too was covered, as all times before. 
Bradshaw said twas but a more delay
and denial of the forum’s jurisdiction,
but Charles denied denying jurisdiction,
though owning he could not acknowledge it. 
 
“Have we hearts of stone?” asked Colonel Downes,
seated back of Bradshaw, “are we men?” 
Downes’ neighbors on the bancs, Cawley and Walton,
and O.C. just below, essayed to calm him,
but Downes stood up and asked for an adjournment,
which Bradshaw ordered, leading the commissioners
to the Court of Wards.  There O.C. and others
angrily chided Downes for “a peevish man”
who “knew not that the court now had to do
with the hardest-hearted man that lived on Earth.” 
Said Cromwell, “He would fain save his old master.” 
Downes went apart and wept.  The court returning,
Bradshaw said twould brook no more delays,
and answered Charles’ objections to its powers. 
 
Briefly, the king’s deeds spoke not of peace. 
Nor were our kings superior to the laws
that often-summoned Parlaments enacted,
the king’s task being to administer justice. 
The people kept the right to bridle kings,
as peers had nobly done in the Barons’ Wars,
every nation furnishing suchlike precedents,
including Charles’s native land of Scotland. 
His grandmother Mary was set aside,
as in England, Edward Two and Richard Two. 
The people set them up and took them down –
the people, not descent, made English kings. 
Truly, Charles was a tyrant and a traitor
who’d fouled the land by shedding guiltless blood. 
Bradshaw prayed the Lord might mend his heart
and make him sensible of his miscarriages,
then, refusing further to hear from Charles,
who all along had disavowed the court,
ordered the clerk (Broughton) to read the sentence:
 
which was that Charles Steward be put to death
by the severing of his head from his body. 
The whole court rose to acknowledge the sentence. 
Charles was led out.  No rioting erupted,
save calls for “Justice!” and “God save the king!” 
Two ladies had cried out against the trial,
one of whom was said to be Lady Fairfax. 
Charles rode in a sedan chair back to Whitehall,
hid from view by soldiers lining King Street. 
No force of reformadoes rose for him,
no turbulent apprentices from London,
nor those who’d marched to disband Fairfax’ army,
nor those who’d risen up against the excise,
nor those who loved the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
On Sunday he was carried to St. James’s,
where Juxon preached and prayed with him all day,
the king excluding others from his presence. 
Cromwell would not have judged him so hard-hearted
had he seen with what feeling he gave his daughter,
when the children visited him on Monday,
his Hooker, Andrewes, and Laud contra Fisher. 
 
“Remember” was the king’s last word to Juxon
up on the freezing platform outside Whitehall. 
He’d likewise urged Elizabeth to remember
his last words to his sons and to his lady. 
Glancing at the sword, he’d said in court
he did not fear “the bill” – he now made good
that piece of bravery.  Charles had always dared
to plant one footstep, then the next – to face
the thunder of the guns, the gusting lead,
and the blind, smoking countenance of Mars
transpierced by stabbing red and yellow fires. 
Before he stepped from James’s Banqueting House,
he took a bite of manchet and some claret. 
 
High above the Parlamentarian troopers
who held back the crowd from the black-draped scaffold,
Charles made his last defense to those nearby,
the colonels, clerks, and executioners,
styling himself anew the people’s martyr,
defender of their wealth and liberties,
who had defied the tyrannous usurpers –
he who’d raised forced loans and so-called ship money,
who’d jailed his Parlamentary opponents,
dissolved the Houses for eleven years,
who’d mutilated Bastwick, Prynne, and Burton,
persecuted godly folk in their churches,
and lastly levied war against the Houses,
scheming to bring in foreign arms to best them. 
 
When the bright axe from the Tower struck its blow –
unlike the flurry needed to quell Mary –
one cried aloud, “Behold the head of a traitor!”
A huge groan, twas said, broke from the crowd,
as if Dagon had crushed them in the temple –
so sunk were they, were we, in fond idolatry,
illumining one small, obstinate prince
with borrowed glimmers from our Lord and King. 
Hacker’s troopers swiftly cleared the streets. 

[1] “Parlament” was Milton’s preferred spelling, as being more faithful to the word’s Late Latin origin. Steward is not a spelling error.

Battles royal

The statue of King Alfred at Winchester Image: Shutterstock

Eþandun Epic Poem

William. G. Carpenter, Beaver’s Pond Press, 2021, 252pp

LIAM GUILAR finds much to admire in an ambitious new epic of Alfred, but fears it misses the mark

Eþandun1 is a narrative poem which tells the story of King Alfred’s actions between the Danish raid on Chippenham in midwinter 878 AD and his victory at the battle of Edington about six months later. It advertises itself on its cover as ‘Epic Poem’2.

The orthodox version of literary history is that since the 19th century there has been a ‘lyricization’ of poetry in English. At the beginning of that century poetry was still the main vehicle for narrative, but it was gradually supplanted by the prose novel, until fictional narrative in prose became so common that ‘prose novel’ sounds tautological and ‘lyric’ became the default mode for poetry.

Edgar Allan Poe wrote

I hold that a long poem does not exist. I maintain that the phrase, “a long poem,” is simply a flat contradiction in terms.

People who may not have read his argument and might have gagged on some of his examples of ‘true poetry’ accepted his claims.3 At the beginning of the twentieth century the most influential poets wrote long poems but avoided narrative. Despite the continuing popularity of narrative fiction in print and digital media, critics of the stature of Hugh Kenner and Marjorie Perloff were happy to announce that plot is obsolete (Kenner)4 and narrative is undesirable (Perloff).5 Post modernists, stuck up their theorised cul de sacs, invented ‘weak narrativity’ which stripped of its verbiage seems to mean telling a story by deliberately not telling a story.6 The idea that poetry is just another form of entertainment became a heresy.

There’s an element of truth in this potted narrative; it couldn’t be a critical orthodoxy if there weren’t, but poets have gone on writing book length narrative poems in blank verse, strict stanza forms, free verse, or sequences of diverse poems, and in doing so they have moved across most of the existing fictional genres.

One consequence of this historical development is that modern publishers often seem clueless when it comes to promoting a book-length, narrative poem. Eþandun is a good example. It’s an historical novel. The writer has done his research. He knows the period and he has invented a story full of incident and drama that fits within a fixed, historically accurate time frame. We might dispute the credibility of the story, but that’s part of the pleasure of reading historical fiction.

It seems highly unlikely that Alfred hid in Guthrum’s camp disguised as a Welsh bard,7 even less likely that he became his unofficial adviser, staged a fake séance and debated religion with him. Carpenter’s battle at Edington is a miraculous victory for a vastly outnumbered English army. It was not regarded as miraculous by contemporaries. Anglo-Saxon armies had been trashing Danish armies for decades; the men of Devon destroyed one that same winter and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, our major source for the battle, simply records both the raid on Chippenham and the victory at Edington. The personal combat between Alfred and Guthrum seems a definite mistake, historically implausible and anti-climactic, even if the end of Virgil’s epic is ghosting in the background.

But a reader could dispute those parts of the story while enjoying them, with the added pleasure of encountering incidents he or she wouldn’t have imagined. This is fiction, not history and fiction requires incident and drama. Carpenter’s story is full of both.

What percentage of the vast audience for Game of Thrones, Vikings, The Last Kingdom, Lord of the Rings etc. care about the quality of the prose they’re reading? Would they be put off if the lines didn’t go all the way to the right-hand margin? They could enjoy Eþandun and learn about the history of the period while they were doing it without worrying about the quality of the verse. There’s a vast audience out there, but the publisher sticks ‘Epic Poem’ on the cover and that means the book will be shunted into the poetry section, if there is one, where its natural readership will not find it. Put ‘Epic Poem’ on the cover and the book is reviewed by poetry editors instead of fiction reviewers.

The dust jacket reflects the publisher’s confusion. What does it tell a prospective reader about the book?

The title, Ethandun, spelt Eþandun seems needlessly pedantic. It’s not a famous battle like Hastings. Since most potential readers haven’t heard of it, aren’t going to know the sound value of the thorn (þ) and are going to be confused by the similarity between the a and d in the chosen font, it also seems needlessly uninformative.

If you don’t know what an Eþandun is, the cover picture doesn’t help. It shows a generic ‘couple in the past’. If this is supposed to be Alfred and his wife, the latter is missing for most of the book, and when they do reunite, in the last chapter, Alfred’s loss of an eye has been stressed so often that the fact that he has two in the picture seems incongruous.  

Still seeking enlightenment, one reads the quotes on the back of the dust jacket. Typically, for a narrative poem, there is a failure to give an overview of the story. The only information states:

It is 878 AD. In the struggle between Christian Saxon and pagan Dane, whose endurance, loyalty, and strategy-whose God or gods-will prevail?

878 is not a well-known date. If you, reading this, know its significance, you belong to a very, very small group. If on the other hand you know the date, then you know Alfred won. Suggesting there’s any doubt seems counter-productive. Hidden away on the front flap of the dust jacket is a succinct summary of the book. It ends, however, with a piece of strange and highly inaccurate hyperbole: “Eþandun paints Western Christendom in its darkest hour”.

As so often, the choice of approving quotations is also strange. There are two:

Eþandun is a work of genius, of true poetry, and also a staggering piece of historical scholarship. It is utterly original in concept and execution

This tells a potential reader nothing about the poem. As a statement it relies on the reader’s unwillingness to stop and consider it. It’s hard enough to define ‘poetry’ but what is ‘true poetry’? Certainly not the same ‘true poetry’ Poe was promoting. The phrase turns up on a baffling variety of poetry books and should be banned, unless the user is willing to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean. Nor is this a “staggering piece of historical scholarship”. I can’t imagine many historians being staggered by a three-page bibliography.

The second quote is even stranger:

Carpenter’s Alfred is a wannabe medievalist’s delight. We don’t know much about the king who united Britain, but through Carpenter’s eyes, we imagine him.

If this is “a wannabe medievalist’s delight” should the genuine variety steer clear?

“We don’t know much about the King who united Britain.” This is very true. Surprisingly little is known about Athelstan who did ‘unite’ Britain, but he was Alfred’s grandson and this book is not about him, but about Alfred, who didn’t even unite England. We also know more about Alfred than about any other Anglo-Saxon king.

Carpenter knows most of what is known. One of the most striking aspects of this book is that Carpenter achieves that very rare thing: a story set in the ninth century, where the characters’ frame of reference is ninth century. It’s very impressive. It has nothing to do with ‘wannabe medievalists’. But the book’s main strength is also its major weakness. The research hasn’t been integrated into the fabric of the poem. It sits on top of it, calling attention to itself.

On the run from the Danes, Alfred and his retainers are watching them ransack a religious institution, spitting babies on spears and molesting the religious. Alfred’s companion, Octa, wants to leap to the defence of the weak and persecuted.

Can I behold such wickedness’ he murmured

as Athelred’s successor gripped his wrist.

‘You can behold’ said Alfred, ‘and you will’8

Alfred’s response is terse and dramatic and suits the situation. It’s also believable. But then Alfred, who is also Athelred’s successor, launches into a 41-line speech, referring Octa to a list of historical situations that may have been much worse than the one they are in. This is not an isolated example. It’s a major stylistic characteristic of the text. Carpenter’s Alfred, like his narrator, has the irritating habit of launching into an historical disquisition at every possible opportunity. The story stops. Alfred speaks. At length. He sounds like a boring pedant. His retainers could have been forgiven for shanking him just so they could eat their meals in peace.

Before the climactic battle, Alfred makes a speech to his gathered troops. In Carpenter’s version of events, this is a desperate moment. He only has 318 fighting men. The model for such speeches in English poetry is Shakespeare’s Henry V. As a piece of ruthless, self-serving rhetorical manipulation Henry’s speech before Agincourt is perfect. But not one of Henry’s imaginary bowmen would have failed to understand everything he said.9

Carpenter’s Alfred says all he needs to say in 16 lines and then launches into a history lesson, piling up the examples which include King Ahab’s levies, Matathias’ son, Oswy, Abraham, the council at Nicea, a piece of erudite Greek symbolism courtesy of the Venerable Bede, and some typological exegesis surrounding Melchizedek, with the Spartan Leonidas thrown in at the end for good measure. We don’t know much about the men who made up the Wessex levies at Edington, but they would have been baffled rather than inspired.

The ghost of G.K. Chesterton’s The Ballad of the White Horse haunts any poet who attempts the story of King Alfred. Chesterton didn’t claim his story was historically accurate, and he used various ballad-like forms to give his poem an incantatory, dream-like quality. Carpenter opts for blank verse and his handling of this is deft, providing him with an unobtrusive, sometimes elegant vehicle for his narrative. Unfortunately, he breaks this with heavily alliterating lines that sound like fake medieval verse. Perhaps this delights ‘wannabe medievalists’ who have never encountered the real version. It’s difficult to imagine any Anglo-Saxon composing the clumsy equivalent of “Begged to buy his butchered boardmate’s blood.” (p. 46)

Old and Middle English alliterative verse was a flexible and sophisticated way of organising a line and offered subtle possibilities in rhythm and emphasis.10 It’s very difficult to do in modern English for a variety of reasons. Carpenter has wisely decided not to use it. He opts instead for general alliteration, using it heavily at certain parts of the narrative. Imposed on blank verse this can be disastrous. The drummer is tapping ten or eleven beats and lightly stressing every second one, then suddenly the bass player has decided to stress any random combination of beats. The lines begin to sound ominously like tongue twisters.

Both bled, both blew, hearts hammered in both breasts

As cupbearers brought them bread and beer11

When the alliteration is linked to Carpenter’s habitual circumlocution12 and used to describe combat, the result is confused:

…and Wulf went in forthwith. Poor Wulf was fined

a foot, but soon the Somersetan swung

south of Sigewulf’s stroke, which, Sherbourne’s shield,

discerning, drove his troll wife down the troll road

cleared by the killer’s ward as careful Alfred

aimed his edge and nicked the bristled neck. Wulf

lobbed his limb at the snout, Sigewulf struck

brawn, and the bitch chomped the carl’s calf (p. 13)

It’s true that heroic poems from Y Gododdin to ‘The Battle of Maldon’ detail the deaths and deeds of individuals in combat. But the original audiences probably knew the participants, or had heard of them, and were familiar enough with combat to be fascinated by the blow by blow accounts. The descriptions are rarely, if ever, confusing. In the 21st century those conditions don’t apply. “Poor Wulf was fined a foot” sounds needlessly precious and unnecessarily vague: “lobbed his limb at the snout” bordering on parodic. I do not know what “discerning drove his troll wife down the troll road” means.  

Is Eþandun Epic Poem an epic poem? The answer depends on your definition of epic and defining epic is an entertaining critical game, if you enjoy such things. The arguments have produced a small library, like the larger one attempting to define lyric. The standard critical manoeuvre is to survey contending definitions of epic from Aristotle onwards, and then pick whichever one allows the critic or writer to do whatever they were always going to do. Like the attempts to define lyric, the game has little pragmatic value.

Eþandun is certainly a long poem that wants to be taken seriously but it raises the more interesting question of whether or not it is possible, in the 21st century, to write, “A war epic in the tradition of Homer and Virgil”, which is the claim on the inside of the dust jacket.

David Jones was probably the last person to achieve this, with In Parenthesis. He was describing a war his readers had fought in. Christopher’s Logue’s War Music is the positive answer to the ‘war poetry’ part of that question. But Logue wasn’t trying to out-Homer Homer. Then is not now, and he built this into his poem, using all the techniques available to a modern English poet.

Virgil’s audience were trained in the use of weapons, and accepted combat as a natural part of their lives. Martial skill was admirable. No one living today has fought in a Dark Age battle. That might be the crucial difference between a Roman aristocrat who has fought in the Empire’s wars listening to the final combat in the Aeneid, and a modern audience reading that passage or Carpenter’s imaginary combats.

For the original audiences of Homer and Virgil, the past was a very different place: gods interacted with humans while larger than life heroes stalked about the earth. In the 21st century we split history, which is (hopefully) evidence-based and factual, from a thing called fiction which is a culturally sanctioned form of lying. The split is very recent, certainly post-medieval. Today we dispute the ‘historicity’ of the Trojan war. If it happened, then it didn’t happen the way it does in the Iliad. We look for evidence it might have happened, framing its possible causes in terms of economics and expansionist politics.

Virgil and Homer were creating poems that sprung from a shared belief in the truth of their stories, built on a shared knowledge of the past. It’s almost impossible for a modern reader not to read the Aeneid as a form of historical fiction – a high-class Roman Marvel Comic with suited superheroes and bickering gods. The suspension of disbelief we’ve learnt from reading and watching fiction automatically takes over. For the original audience this was the foundation story of Rome.

A poem written in the tradition of Virgil would have to negotiate the fact that most people no longer believe gods walk on the earth.; or that victory in battle proves that God prefers your cause to your defeated enemy’s; or that sword swinging killers are sufficient role models for the problems of the world adults live in. Heroes of the superhuman stature of Aeneas or Achilles belong now in the world of fiction and are diminished by this. There was a King Alfred, and he was bound by all the contingent forces of his place and time and essential humanity. He was extra-ordinary. But if we admire Alfred as an historical figure, it’s not because he won a battle, but because of his reforms after Edington. They are hardly material for a dramatic war poem in the style of Virgil.

Carpenter’s Alfred is not the historical man. Nor is he a believable representation of that historical man. However, fiction has requirements history will not provide. Eþandun is historical fiction: entertaining and thought provoking even when it is at its most implausible. Virgil was not writing fiction.

  1. The title, with a modernised spelling would be Ethandun. The place of the battle is usually given as Edington []
  2. ‘Eþandun Epic poem’ on both dust jacket, copyright and title page. Eþandun on the book’s spine and cover []
  3. Poe, E.A. (1846) briefly in ‘The Philosophy of Composition’. http://www.eapoe.org/works/essays/philcomp.htm and in more detail in (1850) ‘The Poetic Principle’. http://www.eapoe.org/works/essays/poetprnd.htm. Poe’s attempt to define ‘True Poetry’ comes in the penultimate paragraph of this latter essay []
  4. Kenner, H. (1951) The poetry of Ezra Pound, p. 262 []
  5. Perloff, M. (1985) The dance of the intellect: studies in the poetry of the Pound tradition, p.161 []
  6. See for example Brian McHale’s (2004) The obligation toward the difficult whole. and the same writer’s contribution to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory.in the entry for ‘Narrative in Poetry []
  7. Like the story of the burnt cakes, the story of Alfred visiting the Danish camp as a harper first appears in the 12th century []
  8. p.51 []
  9. In Old English, Byrhtnoth’s speeches to the Viking messenger in ‘The Battle of Maldon’ is a less well known, but historically more appropriate, example of direct, effective, dramatic speech []
  10. Essentially a line with four stresses. Three of the beats are stitched together with alliteration. The last beat rarely carries alliteration []
  11. P.210 []
  12. I counted ten ways in which Alfred is named in the poem before I stopped counting []