A Poet of PassionnPeter Alexander: Roy Campbell: AnCritical Biography; Oxford UniversitynPress; New York.nby Gregory WolfenSouth African-bom poet Roy Campbellnelicited two very diflferent kinds ofnresponse during his life. Here are twonrepresentative samples. From areviewofnCampbell’s first book of poetry, ThenFlaming Terrapin: “We have spun…nback to an exuberant relish of the sheernsonority and clangour of words, wordsnenjoyed for their own gust, and flungndown to fit each other with an easy rapturenof phrase.” The other kind of reactionnto Campbell may be seen in a laternessay by Stephen Spender, where he callsnCampbell “an infiimous slanderer … anliar, a gross slanderer, an empty-headednboaster, acoward,abullyandaFascist.”Itnis a real tragedy that Spender’s opinion isnstUl the conventional wisdom aboutnCampbell 25 years after the poet’s deathnin a car accident. Peter Alexander’s biography,nbecause of its own half-heartednessnin the face of accumulated antagonismnto Campbell, won’t do much tonalter the status quo.nCampbell is a sort of test case, a litmusnwhereby a critic’s attitudes toward politicsnand religion, and the ideological upheavalsnof the 20th century, can be determined.nCampbell is thus like his friendnWyndham Lewis: both men spumed thenarmchair socialism and sexual deviancenof the Bloomsbury Group, both temporarilynbecame lascists and remained supportersnof Franco’s regime ia Spain, and bothnaccused the British left of having expUcitiynand implicitly sold out to communistntotalitarianism. Campbell, however,nbecame an even more outrageousnfigure by penning long, hyperbolic satiresnin heroic couplets against Blooms-nMr. WolfeiseditorofThelnteTcoHe^tenReview.nlOinChronicles of Culturenbury and the Auden generation, by embracingnRoman Catholicism and thenCatholic cultures of Provence and Spain,nand by glorifying himself as a machonman-of-action in the Hemingway mold.nLike many artists, Campbell created anpersona behind which he could hide hisnego; in addition, he constantiy addednbmshstrokes to the caricature othersnhad drawn of him. But neither he nornthey were fair to the spirit and poetic sensibilitynof Roy Campbell. Many criticsntreat Campbell as a self-destmctive psychiatricncase who was his own enemy.nThey never consider that the utterlynpoliticized and radicalized state ofnEurope between the world wars mightnhave been the real enemy. By denyingnthe disease of Western culture, the already-infectedncritics naturally attributenthe illness solely to Campbell.nThe gravamen of the charges levelednat Campbell is that his personality was dividednand contradictory, capable of violencenand mystical peace, insecure andndeeply loving, drunken and devout.nPeter Alexander, though he stmggles tonbe fair to Campbell, takes the Freudiannway out. Early on, Alexander explainsnthat Campbell’s love/hate relationshipnwith his father is the key to the poet’sn”seemingly contradictory behaviour innlater years.”nnnIt helps to explain… his natural anarchynand his attraction, during the earlyn1930’s, to the orderliness of the Europeanndictatorships. It explains both hisnearly anti-clericalism, and his laternadherence to the authoritative teachingsnof Roman Catholicism. And it explainsnboth ids hatred of regimented’nmodem life, and his happiness in thenBritish Army.nWith a poet’s whole life interpreted innthree sentences, one wonders why thenremaining 200 pages are necessary.nAlexander’s use of the phrase “seeminglyncontradictory” indicates that he isnambivalent about his own explanation,nbut he never pauses to search out an imderlyingnunity in Campbell’s life. To ancertain type of mind (Chesterton’s, fornexample), the presence of such an arraynof contradictions within a single personalitynwould hint at the existence ofnparadox, one difiicult to explicate, but nonless deeply tme for that. In feet, there is anunifying thread miming throughoutnCampbell’s life which no one has everntraced. Much of Campbell’s sensibilityncan be understood in terms of his childhoodnand youth in turn-of-the-centurynSouth Africa. He acquired early a prowessnin hunting that would lend itself laternto distorted bragging. More importantiy,nthe young Campbell developed an intensenlove for the bushveld and its animalninhabitants. This intimacy with naturenhad nothing of the deracinated SierranClub idealization about it, but partook ofnthe more ancient role of man as hunternand steward of nature. A healthfiil sensuousnessnpervades Campbell’s poetry, notnonly in African and Provencal poems liken”The Zebras” and “Estocade,” but in thenmystical language of his translation fromnSt. John of the Cross. Whereas a writernlike D. H. Lawrence, who was raised in anmining town, could idolize the thuddingnsexual power of a jungle he never knew,nCampbell’s sensuality grew out of directn