‘others have come before you’ The effect of the War on this dead soldier’s relationship with his lover, a reminder
ofa First World War poetic concern, is simply one element among many within
thesexualcompassof‘Vergissmeinnicht’. Blending homo- and hetero-eroticism,
Douglas explores the complexity of coupling even on a formal level, with the
inconstancy of the rhyme scheme presenting different pairings ofaandbrhymes
instanzas1,2,and3beforesettlingintoamoreregularababpattern in the final
three stanzas. It is pertinent that the loot discovered by Douglas’s persona is ‘the
dishonoured picture of [the dead German’s] girl’, so that in taking this ‘spoil’, the
persona claims not only the dead soldier but also his lover: the poem’s sexuality is
thus resistant to categorization.
The persona’s lack of pity for his victim, and the interposition of Steffi between
observer and observed, leave little space for camaraderie. Instead of mourning the
loss of a beautiful boy, and finding consolation in thoughts of the similarity between
observer and observed, Douglas’s persona reaches a more pragmatic and infinitely
less comforting conclusion. The degradation of the dead soldier, despite his lover’s
attempts at idealized permanence, is presented with the emphasis on the visual, as
photographic evidence. By engaging our vision, Douglas shows us the battlefield’s
truth, a truth which ultimately has no regard for the division between lover and
warrior. If the homoeroticism of such poets as Owen and Sassoon establishes
an idealized love for one’s comrades, Douglas’s eroticism refuses to acknowledge
love as a consolatory defence against a brutal killing: ‘death who had the soldier
singled|has done the lover mortal hurt.’
The homage paid to the First World War soldier-poets by the poetry of Lewis, Jar-
main, and many of their contemporaries is indicative of their awareness of a sense of
tradition. The details may change according to context and individual philosophies,
but the sentiments espoused frequently resemble those conveyed in the poetry of
1914–18. The mythology which emerged from that conflict is sustained as the poets
integrate features of the iconography visible in the work of poets such as Owen,
Sassoon, and Rosenberg, men whose responses to their wartime experiences are
repeatedly charged with having ‘transformed’ the role of the war poet.^70 Seemingly
reluctant to challenge their preconceived role, many poets of the Second World War
avoidedtheanxietyofinfluenceexperiencedbyDouglasbybeing unafraidofaccusa-
tions of tautology.^71 Douglas, in contrast, makes no secret of his ambivalent relation-
shipwiththepast,andalthoughhemakesexplicithis attempts atdisconnection,heis
unable to deny completely his links with his predecessors; simply by being a soldier-
poet of the Second World War he becomes part of a specific genre. That Douglas
is not selective about the iconography—the eroticism of his poetry, for instance,
sets him apart from his contemporaries—implies an unconscious, internalized
(^70) See Andrew Motion, ‘Afterword’, in Matthew Hollis and Paul Keegan (eds.),101 Poems Against
War 71 (London: Faber, 2003), 136.
See Douglas, ‘Poets in This War’, 352.