[Joseph Figliolia]

In Heaney’s poem “An afterwards,” an unknown “she” places poets in the ninth circle of Dante’s inferno, the one saved for traitors. The unknown “she” remarks that for “backbiting in life,” poets will be forced to gnaw the necks and heads of those they “backbite” in hell. This punishment seems particularly apt because backbiting involves slandering an absent individual. For this reason, in hell, the poet is locked in a gruesome embrace for eternity with the object of their slander. One of the more obvious questions raised by placing the poets in this circle is who are they guilty of betraying? The poem seems to offer two suggestions: one’s family, and one’s nation. The “she,” who seems to be a proxy for Heaney’s wife, who asks ” why could you not, oftener in our years/Unclenched, and come down laughing from your room/ and walked the twilight with me and your children?” Consumed with his egocentric craft, the poet neglects familial obligations. Another suggestion is that the poet, or Heaney, is guilty of betraying his catholic heritage by using poetry to play devil’s advocate between the catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland. While imagining himself being gnawed by another, he is told by the man ” You weren’t the worst. You aspired to a kind/ Indifferent,  fault on both sides tact.” Despite a sense of comfort in these words, Heaney the poet is nevertheless punished for his ambivalence. To me, I couldn’t help but think of Yeats’ words in the “second coming,” “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Heaney, in this case, is guilty of falling into the former category.

[Deven Coulter]

I think you are correct in interpreting the poem in viewing the poet as betraying both his family and his political group, potentially Heaney’s Catholic roots if we view the speaker as the poet himself. However, I think it is a bit harsh to state that Heaney is one who lacks all conviction. Conversely, in “Field Work,” I think he is attempting to make his poetry more politically motivated.

This poems seems to explain why Heaney’s poetry may have remained neutral for the earlier part of his career. The speaker likens the poet to Count Ugolino, whose family was imprisoned and starved to death because of his political actions. It is also said that Ugolino ate his children after they died of starvation, after being driven insane by hunger. When recognizing that a horrific fate could have fallen on the poet’s family had he taken a stronger political stance, the wife’s complaints seem absurd. However, she does admit to him, “You weren’t the worst.” It seems as if the choice to be neutral was difficult for Heaney, but choosing nonpartisan poetry, and accidentally neglecting his family in the process, seems like the better of two evils. It also seems as though this choice was intentional, and therefore full of conviction.

[Author]

Posts