_The Nostalgia of Mr Masefield_
Mr Masefiled is gradually finding his way to his self-appointed end, which is the glorification of England in narrative verse. _Reynard the Fox_ marks we believe, the end of a stage in his progress to this goal.
He has reached a point at which his mannerisms have been so subdued that they no longer sensibly impede the movement of his verse, a point at which we may begin to speak (though not too loud) of mastery. We feel that he now approaches what he desires to do with some certainty of doing it, so that we in our turn can approach some other questions with some hope of answering them.
The questions are various; but they radiate from and enter again into the old question whether what he is doing, and beginning to do well, is worth while doing, or rather whether it will have been worth while doing fifty years hence. For we have no doubt at all in our mind that, in comparison with the bulk of contemporary poetry, such work as _Reynard the Fox_ is valuable. We may use the old rough distinction and ask first whether _Reynard the Fox_ is durable in virtue of its substance, and second, whether it is durable in virtue of its form.
The glorification of England! There are some who would give their souls to be able to glorify her as she has been glorified, by Shakespeare, by Milton, by Wordsworth, and by Hardy. For an Englishman there is no richer inspiration, no finer theme; to have one"s speech and thought saturated by the fragrance of this lovely and pleasant land was once the birthright of English poets and novelists. But something has crept between us and it, dividing. Instead of an instinctive love, there is a conscious desire of England; instead of slow saturation, a desperate plunge into its mystery. The fragrance does not come at its own sweet will; we clutch at it. It does not enfold and pervade our most arduous speculations; no involuntary sweetness comes flooding in upon our confrontation of human destinies. Hardy is the last of that great line.
If we long for sweetness--as we do long for it, and with how poignant a pain!--we must seek it out, like men who rush dusty and irritable from the babble and fever of the town. The rhythm of the earth never enters into their gait; they are like spies among the birds and flowers, like collectors of antique furniture in the haunts of peace. The Georgians s.n.a.t.c.h at nature; they are never part of it. And there is some element of this desperation in Mr Masefield. We feel in him an anxiety to load every rift with ore of this particular kind, a deliberate intention to emphasise that which is most English in the English country-side.
How shall we say it? It is not that he makes a parade of arcane knowledge. The word "parade" does injustice to his indubitable integrity. But we seem to detect behind his superfluity of technical, and at times archaic phrase, an unconscious desire to convince himself that he is saturated in essential Englishness, and we incline to think that even his choice of an actual subject was less inevitable than self-imposed. He would isolate the quality he would capture, have it more wholly within his grasp; yet, in some subtle way, it finally eludes him. The intention is in excess, and in the manner of its execution everything is (though often very subtly) in excess also. The music of English place-names, for instance is too insistent; no one into whom they had entered with the English air itself would use them with so manifest an admiration.
Perhaps a comparison may bring definition nearer. The first part of Mr Masefield"s poem, which describes the meet and the a.s.sembled persons one by one, recalls, not merely by the general cast of the subject, but by many actual turns of phrase, Chaucer"s _Prologue_. Mr Masefield"s parson has more than one point of resemblance to Chaucer"s Monk:--
"An out-ryder, that loved venerye; A manly man to ben an abbot able...."
But it would take too long to quote both pictures. We may choose for our juxtaposition the Prioress and one of Mr Masefield"s young ladies:--
"Behind them rode her daughter Belle, A strange, shy, lovely girl, whose face Was sweet with thought and proud with race, And bright with joy at riding there.
She was as good as blowing air, But shy and difficult to know.
The kittens in the barley-mow, The setter"s toothless puppies sprawling, The blackbird in the apple calling, All knew her spirit more than we.
So delicate these maidens be In loving lovely helpless things."
And here is the Prioress:--
"But for to speken of hir conscience, She was so charitable and so pitous, She wolde weepe if that she sawe a mous Caught in a trappe, if it were ded or bledde.
Of smalle houndes had she, that she fed With rosted flesh, or milk, or wastel bread, But sore wepte she if oon of hem were ded Or if men smote it with a yerde smerte: And all was conscience and tendere herte."
Ful semely hir wympel pynched was; His nose tretys; hir eyen greye as glas; Hir mouth full small, and thereto soft and red, But sikerly she hadde a fair forhed."
There is in the Chaucer a naturalness, a lack of emphasis, a confidence that the object will not fail to make its own impression, beside which Mr Masefield"s demonstration and underlining seem almost _malsain_. How far outside the true picture now appears that "blackbird in the apple calling," and how tainted by the desperate _bergerie_ of the Georgian era!
It is, we admit, a portentous experiment to make, to set Mr Masefield"s prologue beside Chaucer"s. But not only is it a tribute to Mr Masefield that he brought us to reading Chaucer over again, but the comparison is at bottom just. Chaucer is not what we understand by a great poet; he has none of the imaginative comprehension and little of the music that belong to one: but he has perdurable qualities. He is at home with his speech and at home with his world; by his side Mr Masefield seems nervous and uncertain about both. He belongs, in fact, to a race (or a generation) of poets who have come to feel a necessity of overloading every rift with ore. The question is whether such a man can hope to express the glory and the fragrance of the English country-side.
Can there be an element of permanence in a poem of which the ultimate impulse is a _nostalgie de la boue_ that betrays itself in line after line, a nostalgia so conscious of separation that it cannot trust that any a.s.sociations will be evoked by an unemphasised appeal? Mr Masefield, in his fervour to grasp at that which for all his love is still alien to him, seems almost to shovel English mud into his pages; he cannot (and rightly cannot) persuade himself that the scent of the mud will be there otherwise. For the same reason he must make his heroes like himself.
Here, for example, is the first whip, Tom Dansey:--
"His pleasure lay in hounds and horses; He loved the Seven Springs water-courses, Those flashing brooks (in good sound gra.s.s, Where scent would hang like breath on gla.s.s).
He loved the English country-side; The wine-leaved bramble in the ride, The lichen on the apple-trees, The poultry ranging on the lees, The farms, the moist earth-smelling cover, His wife"s green grave at Mitcheldover, Where snowdrops pushed at the first thaw.
Under his hide his heart was raw With joy and pity of these things..."
That "raw heart" marks the outsider, the victim of nostalgia. Apart from the fact that it is a manifest artistic blemish to impute it to the first whip of a pack of foxhounds, the language is such that it would be a mistake to impute it to anybody; and with that we come to the question of Mr Masefield"s style in general.
As if to prove how rough indeed was the provisionally accepted distinction between substance and form, we have for a long while already been discussing Mr Masefield"s style under a specific aspect. But the particular overstrain we have been examining is part of Mr Masefield"s general condition. Overstrain is permanent with him. If we do not find it in his actual language (and, as we have said, he is ridding himself of the worst of his exaggerations) we are sure to find it in the very vitals of his artistic effort. He is seeking always to be that which he is not, to lash himself into the illusion of a certainty which he knows he can never wholly possess.
"From the Gallows Hill to the Kineton Copse There were ten ploughed fields, like ten full-stops, All wet red clay, where a horse"s foot Would be swathed, feet thick, like an ash-tree root.
The fox raced on, on the headlands firm, Where his swift feet scared the coupling worm; The rooks rose raving to curse him raw, He snarled a sneer at their swoop and caw.
Then on, then on, down a half-ploughed field Where a ship-like plough drove glitter-keeled, With a bay horse near and a white horse leading, And a man saying "Zook," and the red earth bleeding."
The rasp of exacerbation is not to be mistaken. It comes, we believe, from a consciousness of anaemia, a frenetic reaction towards what used, some years ago, to be called "blood and guts."
And here, perhaps, we have the secret of Mr Masefield and of our sympathy with him. His work, for all its surface robustness and right-thinking (which has at least the advantage that it will secure for this "epic of fox-hunting" a place in the library of every country house), is as deeply debilitated by reaction as any of our time. Its colour is hectic; its tempo feverish. He has sought the healing virtue where he believed it undefiled, in that miraculous English country whose magic (as Mr Masefield so well knows) is in Shakespeare, and whose strong rhythm is in Hardy. But the virtue eludes all conscious inquisition. The man who seeks it feverishly sees riot where there is peace. And may it not be, in the long run, that Mr Masefield would have done better not to delude himself into an identification he cannot feel, but rather to face his own disquiet where alone the artist can master it, in his consciousness? We will not presume to answer, mindful that Mr Masefield may not recognise himself in our mirror, but we will content ourselves with recording our conviction that in spite of the almost heroic effort that has gone to its composition _Reynard the Fox_ lacks all the qualities essential to durability.
[JANUARY, 1920.
_The Lost Legions_
One day, we believe, a great book will be written, informed by the breath which moves the Spirits of Pity in Mr Hardy"s _Dynasts_. It will be a delicate, yet undeviating record of the spiritual awareness of the generation that perished in the war. It will be a work of genius, for the essence that must be captured within it is volatile beyond belief, almost beyond imagination. We know of its existence by signs hardly more material than a dream-memory of beating wings or an instinctive, yet all but inexplicable refusal of that which has been offered us in its stead.
The autobiographer-novelists have been legion, yet we turn from them all with a slow shake of the head. "No, it was not that. Had we lost only that we could have forgotten. It was not that."
No, it was the spirit that troubled, as in dream, the waters of the pool, some influence which trembled between silence and a sound, a precarious confidence, an unavowed quest, a wisdom that came not of years or experience, a dissatisfaction, a doubt, a devotion, some strange presentiment, it may have been, of the bitter years in store, in memory an ineffable, irrevocable beauty, a visible seal on the forehead of a generation.
"When the lamp is shattered.
The light in the dust lies dead-- When the cloud is scattered The rainbow"s glory is shed.
When the lute is broken, Sweet tones are remembered not..."
Yet out of a thousand fragments this memory must be created anew in a form that will outlast the years, for it was precious. It was something that would vindicate an epoch against the sickening adulation of the hero-makers and against the charge of spiritual sterility; a light in whose gleam the bewildering non-achievements of the present age, the art which seems not even to desire to be art, the faith which seems not to desire to be faith, have substance and meaning. It was shot through and through by an impulse of paradox, an unconscious straining after the impossible, gathered into two or three tremulous years which pa.s.sed too swiftly to achieve their own expression. Now, what remains of youth is cynical, is successful, publicly exploits itself. It was not cynical then.
Elements of the influence that was are remembered only if they lasted long enough to receive a name. There was Unanimism. The name is remembered; perhaps the books are read. But it will not be found in the books. They are childish, just as the English novels which endeavoured to portray the soul of the generation were coa.r.s.e and conceited. Behind all the conscious manifestations of cleverness and complexity lay a fundamental candour of which only a flickering gleam can now be recaptured. It glints on a page of M. Romains"s _Europe_; the memory of it haunts Wilfred Owen"s poems; it touches Keeling"s letters; it hovers over these letters of Charles Sorley.[14] From a hundred strange lurking-places it must be gathered by pious and sensitive fingers and withdrawn from under the very edge of the scythe-blade of time, for if it wander longer without a habitation it will be lost for ever.
[Footnote 14: _The Letters of Charles Sorley_. (Cambridge University Press.)]
Charles Sorley was the youngest fringe of the strange unity that included him and men by ten years his senior. He had not, as they had, plunged with fantastic hopes and unspoken fears into the world. He had not learned the slogans of the day. But, seeing that the slogans were only a disguise for the undefined desires which inspired them he lost little and gained much thereby. The years at Oxford in which he would have taken a temporary sameness, a sameness in the long run protective and strengthening, were spared him. In his letters we have him unspoiled, as the sentimentalists would say--not yet with the distraction of protective colouring.
One who knew him better than the mere reader of his letters can pretend to know him declares that, in spite of his poems, which are among the most remarkable of those of the boy-poets killed in the war, Sorley would not have been a man of letters. The evidence of the letters themselves is heavy against the view; they insist upon being regarded as the letters of a potential writer. But a pa.s.sionate interest in literature is not the inevitable prelude to a life as a writer, and although it is impossible to consider any thread in Sorley"s letters as of importance comparable to that which joins the enthronement and dethronement of his literary idols, we shall regard it as the record of a movement of soul which might as easily find expression (as did Keeling"s) in other than literary activities. It takes more than literary men to make a generation, after all.
And Sorley was typical above all in this, that, pa.s.sionate and penetrating as was his devotion to literature, he never looked upon it as a thing existing in and for itself. It was, to him and his kind, the satisfaction of an impulse other and more complex than the aesthetic. Art was a means and not an end to him, and it is perhaps the apprehension of this that has led one who endeavoured in vain to reconcile Sorley to Pater into rash prognostication. Sorley would never have been an artist in Pater"s way; he belonged to his own generation, to which _l"art pour l"art_ had ceased to have meaning. There had come a pause, a throbbing silence, from which art might have emerged, may even now after the appointed time arise, with strange validities undreamed of or forgotten.
Let us not prophesy; let us be content with the recognition that Sorley"s generation was too keenly, perhaps too disastrously aware of destinies, of
"the beating of the wings of Love Shut out from his creation,"
to seek the comfort of the ivory tower.
Sorley first appears before us radiant with the white-heat of a schoolboy enthusiasm for Masefield. Masefield is--how we remember the feeling!--the poet who has lived; his naked reality tears through "the lace of putrid sentimentalism (educing the effeminate in man) which rotters like Tennyson and Swinburne have taught his (the superficial man"s) soul to love." It tears through more than Tennyson and Swinburne.
The greatest go down before him.
"So you see what I think of John Masefield. When I say that he has the rapidity, simplicity, n.o.bility of Homer, with the power of drawing character, the dramatic truth to life of Shakespeare, along with a moral and emotional strength and elevation which is all his own, and therefore I am prepared to put him above the level of these two great men--I do not expect you to agree with me."--(From a paper read at Marlborough, November, 1912.)
That was Sorley at seventeen, and that, it seems to us, is the quality of enthusiasm which should be felt by a boy of seventeen if he is to make his mark. It is infinitely more important to have felt that flaming enthusiasm for an idol who will be cast down than to have felt what we ought to feel for Shakespeare and Homer. The gates of heaven are opened by strange keys, but they must be our own.
Within six months Masefield had gone the way of all flesh. In a paper on _The Shropshire Lad_ (May, 1913), curious both for critical subtlety and the faint taste of disillusion, Sorley was saying: "His (Masefield"s) return (to the earth) was purely emotional, and probably less interesting than the purely intellectual return of Meredith." At the beginning of 1914, having gained a Scholarship at University College, Oxford, he went to Germany. Just before going he wrote:--
"I am just discovering Thomas Hardy. There are two methods of discovery. One is when Columbus discovers America. The other is when some one begins to read a famous author who has already run into seventy editions, and refuses to speak about anything else, and considers every one else who reads the author"s works his own special converts. Mine is the second method. I am more or less Hardy-drunk."