Dear All,
Members will know that I print out and file in the Kipling Library all
discussion on the Jiscmail forum. Of course, I am as guilty as any of
replying to a point “off list”, and it is clear that questions are
often answered fully in this way, and lost to the rest of the group.
Kipling Headley’s current topic is a difficult one. I remember, when I
first joined the Society, Craig Raines’s summation of Kipling’s
(Rudyard that is) views on Israel and the Jews. He said, while
discussing “Controversial Questions” (Kipling Journal, September 2002)
“The Jews: Here Kipling cannot be defended.”
He examined the unpublished verse “The Burden of Jerusalem”, and
concluded (as others have done) that its moral, as opposed to “its
burden”, is that Israel’s perceived problems are rooted in Abraham’s
cowardice. Remember that the verse under discussion was originally
prefaced with Genesis XVI verse 6, where Abraham’s avoidance of his
responsibilities is contrasted with his wife’s fierce certainty:
“But Abram said unto Sarai, "Behold
thy maid is in thy hand. Do to
her as it pleaseth thee." And
when Sarai dealt hardly with her
she fled from her face.”
In other words (mine, of course), his criticism was of the British
Mandate, in much the same way that “Take up the White Man’s Burden”
was intended to bring the United States to awareness of
responsibilities over the Philippines.
However, my point is that this discussion should be as open and
recorded as members feel able. Kipling H. describes the verse as a
“suppressed masterpiece”. We could spend time in a scholarly way,
probing this view, noting that only verses 1 and 14 are recorded in
Harbord, since these are the two quoted by Carrington (Rudyard
Kipling: His Life and Work, Macmillan,. London, 1955, page 498), or
spotting the variations in spelling (Ashmael for Ishmael) in the
versions available. Alternatively, we could examine the changes in the
Middle East since Rudyard was in Jerusalem in March 1929, and the
intentions of the original verse (to the tune of a “bawdy old song”,
says Carrington).
This is a poet whose words can still be used, sometimes too
conveniently, to summarise our feelings about Afghanistan,
politicians, generals, even women (!) Your opinions on this
particular example would be very worthwhile.
Members of the list may be interested in this “reference”:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/kipling2.html
With regards,
John
|