POETRY

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25953, 5 November 1949, Page 3

POETRY

Visions from Piers Plowman. Taken from the poem of William Langland and translated into Modern English by Nevill Coghill. Phoenix House. London. 143 pp. [Reviewed by J. C. GARRETT] When, some years ago, H. W. Wells’s translation of PIERS PLOWMAN was published by Sheed and Ward, an able introduction was provided by Nevill Coghill, who is widely known as an exponent of the poem’s meaning. Now Mr Coghill has himself appeared in the role of translator, though with a quite obviously different purpose. The Wells version gave the poem in its entirety, and by conflating the three major texts, attempted to present all that was best in Langland, without, however, jfhirking the less palatable and digressive theological passages. Coghill has restricted himself to the rather more congenial task of rendering some of the brilliantly visionary and satirical bits, in the belief that these alone have significance or interest for the general reader. The result is a .judiciously chosen anthology held together by not too obtrusive editorial comment. Yet this observation is made in no carping* spirit. The translator, deeply convinced of the genius of Langland, is inspired by the missionary purpose of making the great poem accessible to those who are daunted by fourteenth century English; he has attempted, with rather more success than Wells, to convey both the movement and prophetic fervour of the original. It is no easy task. Alliterative metre, even when it is freely handled, as, say, by W. H. Auden, is full of difficulty, and the path of the translator is strewn with pitfalls. He is occasionally forced into awkward compromises to preserve the alliteration; and archaism creeps in, a noun is forced to do duty as a verb, an echo of literal translation insists on being heard. But these faults are rare in the Coghill version. It may not be as close to the original as Wells’s is. but it has a more spirited and rhythmic delivery. Much of Langland’s passion and vehemence is transmitted, and the deliberate use of homely modern diction preserves Langland’s rugged harmony.

The poem as it stands in modern dress is no crib for students, but neither is it a free adaptation; Coghill is too good a scholar to be a mere impressionist. Langland’s dream of this world, beset by sin, roguery, and social injustice, yet capable of redemption, comes before us with all its original emphasis. And. what is more remarkable, the faculty of vision in Langland, that ability to recognise in the humblest object of experience an eternal significance, shines through its modern version. This is Coghill’s real achievement, which he accomplishes, not merely by providing in an appendix a lucid explanation of the allegorical method of the poet, but by demonstrating it in practice. The decision to include plates from artists who. though thev did not know Piers Plowman, shared a similar quality of imagination, was rather arbitrary. The illustrations from Blake are actually less nertinent than the one from Samuel Palmer, but no visual embellishment was necessary: Langland’s faculty of vision needs no pictorial demonstration.