Paying Homage

“Homage to a Government” is a poem written by Phillip Larkin. As a poem it is open to multiple interpretations due to questions in tone, style, and the meaning of references or allusions. Two major interpretations of the poem contradict in meaning but have strong evidence in the text for their argument. Understanding both these interpretations allows a reader to understand the conflicted nature of events being described and reevaluate personal thoughts and feelings about similar issues.

Knowing something about the literary climate of the author helps reinforce an interpretation that the poem is clear and means literally what it says. The “Movement” was a term used to describe poets who rejected the multilayered and experimental forms of the modernist movement, a return to a clearer diction and style. This poem starts, “Next year we are to bring the soldiers home / For lack of money, and it is all right” (1-2). This can mean exactly what it says, war is expensive and it is all right to stop paying for it. There is no need to know the specifics of where the soldiers are coming home from as there always seems to be violence somewhere in the world. He continues “Places they guarded, or kept orderly, / Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly” (3-4). This points out the unnecessary expense of these soldiers as it asks the question of why can not these places be guarded and protected by the people there. This sentence does not need any deep analysis of its possible implications to be a meaningful statement. The first stanza is clear in its endorsement of the Government bringing soldiers home to save money and leave people in the world to take care of themselves.

The second stanza continues this endorsement. “It's hard to say who wanted it to happen / But now it's been decided nobody minds” (7-8). In a democratic or republican governmental system it can be difficult to trace a policy to its origins. It could be a reaction to popular sentiment or a promise made during a campaign or an idea of someone in power. Regardless of its origins this troop recall has become policy and as such is accepted. He finishes this thought with the lines, “The soldiers there only made trouble happen. / Next year we shall be easier in our minds” (11-12). The troops were not solving any problems by being stationed so far from home and were costing the people at home monetarily and likely emotionally. When they get home life will be easier as there will be more money spent locally and less duress of separated families and direct involvement in a violent cause. Support for this new policy is clear to understand as it will allow people to feel more at ease in the world.

In the final stanza this clear support of the new policy continues. “The statues will be standing in the same / Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same” (15-16). The physical world is unchanged by the movement of the soldiers. The world where they were stationed and the world they are returning to will remain the same despite the change in locale. The world is not impacted at large by the policy of governments. He continues, “Our children will not know it's a different country” (17). Not only is the physical world not impacted, but the social world that children inherit, the traditions and customs of the rising generation likewise will remain unchanged. Children growing up will not realize their soldiers used to be involved in the situations of the world. He concludes, “All we can hope to leave them now is money” (18). This line might be pragmatic, but that does not deny its accuracy or meaning. Children do not really need to know their fathers are fighting throughout the world, they need the stability and physical things that money provides. The action of the government in recalling its troops is supported in this poem as it reflects on how the place they are in will be better, the lives at home will be easier, and the children will benefit.

This interpretation is clear and meaningful. It needs no special skill to understand or apply in the life of the reader. It resonates and elucidates thoughts that can be hard to articulate. However there is equal evidence that the poem means almost exactly the opposite. In seeing and understand the implications of many of the phrases and connections a more negative interpretation is reached.

Larkin uses repeated phrases to add more dire implications. The phrase “is all right” (2, 6, 10) is repeated three times throughout the poem. All three times it follows a statement that describes a morally debatable issue, “For lack of money” (2), “Instead of working” (6), and “The places are a long way off, not here” (10). The need to add the defense of these things being alright implies that they are not alright, or that their correctness is open to question. In line two he is not questioning the idea of bringing soldiers home, but he implies a question of the reason that the government is low on funds necessitates ending involvement in a foreign affair. In line six he is not disagreeing with the idea of having more money available at home, but implies a disagreement with having more money so that people do not have to work. In line ten he is not disputing that the conflict is somewhere removed from himself or the local world, but he implies a dispute in the idea that because it is far away it loses importance or meaning. This repeated phrase adds a layer of implication to the poem, in which a criticism of the planned action is found. He is not directly critical of the conclusion to bring the soldiers home, but definitely implies a criticism of the reasons for doing so.

In the second stanza he continues to use phrases to add a strong implication that the people are kept uninformed or mislead is made. He begins with “It's hard to say” (7) in reference to who wanted this. He implies that he nor no one he specifically knows thought of this idea. It is not something that people wanted, but as “it's been decided nobody minds” (8). This means that after the fact no one is willing to argue, however it also implies that it was decided that no one could mind. The decision was made, and the consensus forced. He continues with this implication, “from what we hear” (10) about the soldiers actions. There is an implication of no direct contact with these soldiers, the truth of their actions is not clear to him. All he knows is what he has been told. He has been told that they not accomplishing their mission and so they should come home. The conclusion to this implication lies in “Next year” (12) as this leads to the realization that for now people are not happy with this action, people do not support it, but as it has been made no argument can defeat it and time will force acceptance of it. Again Larkin uses phrases next to his positive statements to cast doubt on their validity.

He does not only use short phrases to connote these implications, but sometimes complimentary statements or sentences. The first two lines of the final stanza are written to imply a negative response to the governments actions. “Next year we shall be living in a country / The brought its soldiers home for lack of money” (13-14). This implies that the governments actions not only affect now, but the future, and that their reason for action is insufficient. The obvious tone and pedantic message carry this implication forcefully. He uses this same style in the final two lines and sentences of the poem. “Our children will not know it's a different country. / All we can hope to leave them now is money” (17-18). Here the implication matches the overarching implication of the entire poem. He is disparaging the idea that money should be an overriding factor in the decision making of what international policies a country should endorse, and what domestic ones they should support. The future children will not know how the world could be difference, they will only know the world they grow up in. It is not good when all a people can leave their next generation is money. Through implication Larkin is strongly opposed to the reasons the government has for recalling their soldiers.

Two contradictory interpretations have been elucidated. However in understanding both they work together for a fuller understanding of Larkin's message. He agrees with the idea of bringing the soldiers home and not being involved in the wars of the world. War is violent and destructive, and no matter the moral claims made on it still ends with chaos and tragedy. He disagrees with the reasons he has been given or that he lists for this end. Money should not be the reason to end their involvement. Whatever reason there was for beginning they are not sufficiently resolved by the loss of income. As a reader the question is forced, what conflicts is our society involved in, should we continue to stay involved, and do we have a better reason for being involved or ending involvement then money.

Work Cited:

Larkin, Phillip. “Homage to a Government.” The Norton Anthology: English Literature Eighth Edition Volume 2. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2006. 2571-2572. Print.