Ravenous all the line for speed.
An image occurs to him, the image of a runner, who, as we say, "devours"
the ground. Thereupon he translates this image into his own dialect, where it becomes intensely vivid if it can be caught in pa.s.sing; only, to catch it in pa.s.sing, you must go through two mental processes at once. That is why he cannot be read aloud. In a poem where every line is on the pattern of the line I have quoted, every line has to be unriddled; and no brain works fast enough to catch so many separate meanings, and to translate as it goes.
Meredith has half the making of a great artist in verse. He has harmony without melody; he invents and executes marvellous variations upon verse; he has footed the tight-rope of the galliambic measure and the swaying planks of various trochaic experiments; but his resolve to astonish is stronger than his desire to charm, and he lets technical skill carry him into such excesses of ugliness in verse as technical skill carried Liszt, and sometimes Berlioz, in music. Meredith has written lines which any poet who ever wrote in English would be proud of; he has also written lines as tuneless as a deal table and as rasping as a file. His ear for the sweep and texture of harmonies, for the building up of rhythmical structure, is not seconded by an ear for the delicacies of sound in words or in tunes. In one of the finest of his poems, the _Hymn to Colour_, he can begin one stanza with this ample magnificence:
Look now where Colour, the soul"s bridegroom, makes The house of heaven splendid for the bride;
and can end another stanza thus lumpishly:
With thee, O fount of the Untimed! to lead, Drink they of thee, thee eyeing, they unaged Shall on through brave wars waged.
Meredith is not satisfied with English verse as it is; he persists in trying to make it into something wholly different, and these eccentricities come partly from certain theories. He speaks in one place of
A soft compulsion on terrene By heavenly,
which is not English, but a misapplication of the jargon of science. In another place he speaks of
The posts that named the swallowed mile,
which is a kind of pedantry. He chooses harsh words by preference, liking unusual or insoluble rhymes, like "haps" and "yaps," "thick" and "sick," "skin" and "kin," "banks" and "thanks," "skims" and "limbs." Two lines from _The Woods of Westermain_, published in 1883 in the _Poems and Lyrics of the Joy of Earth_, sum up in themselves the whole theory:
Life, the small self-dragon ramped, Thrill for service to be stamped.
Here every word is harsh, p.r.i.c.kly, hard of sense; the rhymes come like buffets in the face. It is possible that Meredith has more or less consciously imitated the French practice in the matter of rhymes, for in France rarity of rhyme is sought as eagerly as in England it is avoided.
Rhyme in French poetry is an important part of the art of verse; in English poetry, except to some extent at the time of Pope, it has been accepted as a thing rather to be disguised than accentuated. There is something a little barbarous in rhyme itself, with its mnemonic click of emphasis, and the skill of the most skilful English poets has always been shown in the softening of that click, in reducing it to the inarticulate answer of an echo. Meredith hammers out his rhymes on the anvil on which he has forged his clanging and rigid-jointed words. His verse moves in plate-armour, "terrible as an army with banners."
To Meredith poetry has come to be a kind of imaginative logic, and almost the whole of his later work is a reasoning in verse. He reasons, not always clearly to the eye, and never satisfyingly to the ear, but with a fiery intelligence which has more pa.s.sion than most other poets put into frankly emotional verse. He reasons in pictures, every line having its imagery, and he uses pictorial words to express abstract ideas. Disdaining the common subjects of poetry, as he disdains common rhythms, common rhymes, and common language, he does much by his enormous vitality to give human warmth to arguments concerning humanity.
He does much, though he attempts the impossible. His poetry is always what Rossetti called "amusing"; it has, in other words, what Baudelaire called "the supreme literary grace, energy"; but with what relief does one not lay down this _Reading of Life_ and take up the _Modern Love_ of forty years ago, in which life speaks! Meredith has always been in wholesome revolt against convention, against every deadening limitation of art, but he sometimes carries revolt to the point of anarchy. In finding new subjects and new forms for verse he is often throwing away the gold and gathering up the ore. In taking for his foundation the stone which the builders rejected he is sometimes only giving a proof of their wisdom in rejecting it.
1901.
ALGERNON CHARLES SWINBURNE
I
It is forty-four years since the publication of Swinburne"s first volume, and it is scarcely to the credit of the English public that we should have had to wait so long for a collected edition of the poems of one of the greatest poets of this or any country. "It is nothing to me,"
Swinburne tells us, with a delicate precision in his pride, "that what I write should find immediate or general acceptance." And indeed "immediate" it can scarcely be said to have been; "general" it is hardly likely ever to be. Swinburne has always been a poet writing for poets, or for those rare lovers of poetry who ask for poetry, and nothing more or less, in a poet. Such writers can never be really popular, any more than gold without alloy can ever really be turned to practical uses.
Think of how extremely little the poetical merit of his poetry had to do with the immense success of Byron; think how very much besides poetical merit contributed to the surprising reputation of Tennyson.
There was a time when the first series of _Poems and Ballads_ was read for what seemed startling in its subject-matter; but that time has long since pa.s.sed, and it is not probable that any reviewer of the new edition now reprinted verbatim from the edition of 1866 will so much as allude to the timid shrieks which went up from the reviewers of that year, except perhaps as one of the curiosities of literature.
A poet is always interesting and instructive when he talks about himself, and Swinburne, in his dedicatory epistle to his "best and dearest friend," Mr. Watts-Dunton, who has been the finest, the surest, and the subtlest critic of poetry now living, talks about himself, or rather about his work, with a proud and simple frankness. It is not only interesting, but of considerable critical significance, to know that, among his plays, Swinburne prefers _Mary Stuart_, and, among his lyrical poems, the ode on Athens and the ode on the Armada. "By the test of these two poems," he tells us, "I am content that my claims should be decided and my station determined as a lyric poet in the higher sense of the term; a craftsman in the most ambitious line of his art that ever aroused or can arouse the emulous aspiration of his kind."
In one sense a poet is always the most valuable critic of his own work; in another sense his opinion is almost valueless. He knows, better than any one else, what he wanted to do, and he knows, better than any one else, how nearly he has done it. In judging his own technical skill in the accomplishment of his aim, it is easy for him to be absolutely unbiased, technique being a thing wholly apart from one"s self, an acquirement. But, in a poem, the way it is done is by no means everything; something else, the vital element in it, the quality of inspiration, as we rightly call it, has to be determined. Of this the poet is rarely a judge. To him it is a part of himself, and he is scarcely more capable of questioning its validity than he is of questioning his own intentions. To him it is enough that it is his.
Conscious, as he may rightly be, of genius, how can he discriminate, in his own work, between the presence or the absence of that genius, which, though it means everything, may be absent in a production technically faultless, or present in a production less strictly achieved according to rule? Swinburne, it is evident, grudges some of the fame which has set _Atalanta in Calydon_ higher in general favour than _Erechtheus_, and, though he is perfectly right in every reason which he gives for setting _Erechtheus_ above _Atalanta in Calydon_, the fact remains that there is something in the latter which is not, in anything like the same degree, in the former: a certain spontaneity, a prodigal wealth of inspiration. In exactly the same way, while the ode on Athens and the ode on the Armada are alike magnificent as achievements, there is no more likelihood of Swinburne going down to posterity as the writer of those two splendid poems than there is of Coleridge, to take Swinburne"s own instance, being remembered as the writer of the ode to France rather than as the writer of the ode on Dejection. The ode to France is a product of the finest poetical rhetoric; the ode on Dejection is a growth of the profoundest poetical genius.
Another point on which Swinburne takes for granted what is perhaps his highest endowment as a poet, while dwelling with fine enthusiasm on the "entire and absolute sincerity" of a whole section of poems in which the sincerity itself might well have been taken for granted, is that marvellous metrical inventiveness which is without parallel in English or perhaps in any other literature. "A writer conscious of any natural command over the musical resources of his language," says Swinburne, "can hardly fail to take such pleasure in the enjoyment of this gift or instinct as the greatest writer and the greatest versifier of our age must have felt at its highest possible degree when composing a musical exercise of such incomparable scope and fulness as _Les Djinns_." In metrical inventiveness Swinburne is as much Victor Hugo"s superior as the English language is superior to the French in metrical capability.
His music has never the sudden bird"s flight, the thrill, pause, and unaccountable ecstasy of the very finest lyrics of Blake or of Coleridge; one never wholly forgets the artist in the utterance. But where he is incomparable is in an "arduous fulness" of intricate harmony, around which the waves of melody flow, foam and scatter like the waves of the sea about a rock. No poet has ever loved or praised the sea as Swinburne has loved and praised it; and to no poet has it been given to create music with words in so literal an a.n.a.logy with the inflexible and vital rhythmical science of the sea.
In his reference to the "clatter aroused" by the first publication of the wonderful volume now reprinted, the first series of _Poems and Ballads_, Swinburne has said with tact, precision, and finality all that need ever be said on the subject. He records, with a touch of not unkindly humour, his own "deep diversion of collating and comparing the variously inaccurate verdicts of the scornful or mournful censors who insisted on regarding all the studies of pa.s.sion or sensation attempted or achieved in it as either confessions of positive fact or excursions of absolute fancy." And, admitting that there was work in it of both kinds, he claims, with perfect justice, that "if the two kinds cannot be distinguished, it is surely rather a credit than a discredit to an artist whose medium or material has more in common with a musician"s than with a sculptor"s." Rarely has the prying ignorance of ordinary criticism been more absurdly evident than in the criticisms on _Poems and Ballads_, in which the question as to whether these poems were or were not the record of personal experience was debated with as much solemn fury as if it really mattered in the very least. When a poem has once been written, of what consequence is it to anybody whether it was inspired by a line of Sappho or by a lady living round the corner? There may be theoretical preferences, and these may be rationally enough argued, as to whether one should work from life or from memory or from imagination. But, the poem once written, only one question remains: is it a good or a bad poem? A poem of Coleridge or of Wordsworth is neither better nor worse because it came to the one in a dream and to the other in "a storm, worse if possible, in which the pony could (or would) only make his way slantwise." The knowledge of the circ.u.mstances or the antecedents of composition is, no doubt, as gratifying to human curiosity as the personal paragraphs in the newspapers; it can hardly be of much greater importance.
A pa.s.sage in Swinburne"s dedicatory epistle which was well worth saying, a pa.s.sage which comes with doubled force from a poet who is also a scholar, is that on books which are living things: "Marlowe and Shakespeare, aeschylus and Sappho, do not for us live only on the dusty shelves of libraries." To Swinburne, as he says, the distinction between books and life is but a "dullard"s distinction," and it may justly be said of him that it is with an equal instinct and an equal enthusiasm that he is drawn to whatever in nature, in men, in books, or in ideas is great, n.o.ble, and heroic. The old name of _Laudi_, which has lately been revived by d"Annunzio, might be given to the larger part of Swinburne"s lyric verse: it is filled by a great praising of the universe. To the prose-minded reader who reads verse in the intervals of newspaper and business there must be an actual fatigue in merely listening to so unintermittent a hymn of thanksgiving. Here is a poet, he must say, who is without any moderation at all; birds at dawn, praising light, are not more troublesome to a sleeper.
Reading the earlier and the later Swinburne on a high rock around which the sea is washing, one is struck by the way in which these cadences, in their unending, ever-varying flow, seem to harmonise with the rhythm of the sea. Here one finds, at least, and it is a great thing to find, a rhythm inherent in nature. A mean, or merely bookish, rhythm is rebuked by the sea, as a trivial or insincere thought is rebuked by the stars.
"We are what suns and winds and waters make us," as Landor knew: the whole essence of Swinburne seems to be made by the rush and soft flowing impetus of the sea. The sea has pa.s.sed into his blood like a pa.s.sion and into his verse like a transfiguring element. It is actually the last word of many of his poems, and it is the first and last word of his poetry.
He does not make pictures, for he does not see the visible world without an emotion which troubles his sight. He sees as through a cloud of rapture. Sight is to him a transfiguring thrill, and his record of things seen is clouded over with shining words and broken into little separate shafts and splinters of light. He has still, undimmed, the child"s awakenings to wonder, love, reverence, the sense of beauty in every sensation. He has the essentially lyric quality, joy, in almost unparalleled abundance. There is for him no tedium in things, because, to his sense, books catch up and continue the delights of nature, and with books and nature he has all that he needs for a continual inner communing.
In this new book there are poems of nature, poems of the sea, the lake, the high oaks, the hawthorn, a rosary, Northumberland; and there are poems of books, poems about Burns, Christina Rossetti, Rabelais, Dumas, and about Shakespeare and his circle. In all the poems about books in this volume there is excellent characterisation, excellent criticism, and in the ode to Burns a very notable discrimination of the greater Burns, not the Burns of the love-poems but the fighter, the satirist, the poet of strenuous laughter.
But love and wine were moon and sun For many a fame long since undone, And sorrow and joy have lost and won By stormy turns As many a singer"s soul, if none More bright than Burns.
And sweeter far in grief and mirth Have songs as glad and sad of birth Found voice to speak of wealth or dearth In joy of life: But never song took fire from earth More strong for strife.
Above the storms of praise and blame That blur with mist his l.u.s.trous name, His thunderous laughter went and came, And lives and flies; The war that follows on the flame When lightning dies.
Here the homage is given with splendid energy, but with fine justice.
There are other poems of homage in this book, along with denunciations, as there are on so many pages of the _Songs before Sunrise_ and the _Songs of Two Nations_, in which the effect is far less convincing, as it is far less clear. Whether Mazzini or Nelson be praised, Napoleon III. or Gladstone be buffeted, little distinction, save of degree, can be discerned between the one and the other. The hate poems, it must be admitted, are more interesting, partly because they are more distinguishable, than the poems of adoration; for hate seizes upon the lineaments which love glorifies willingly out of recognition. There was a finely ferocious energy in the _Dirae_ ending with _The Descent into h.e.l.l_ of 9th January 1873, and there is a good swinging and slashing vigour in _The Commonweal_ of 1886. Why is it that this deeply felt political verse, like so much of the political verse of the _Songs before Sunrise_, does not satisfy the ear or the mind like the early love poetry or the later nature poetry? Is it not that one distinguishes only a voice, not a personality behind the voice? Speech needs weight, though song only needs wings.
I set the trumpet to my lips and blow,
said Swinburne in the _Songs before Sunrise,_ when he was the trumpeter of Mazzini.
And yet, it must be remembered, Swinburne has always meant exactly what he has said, and this fact points an amusing contrast between the att.i.tude of the critics thirty years ago towards work which was then new and their att.i.tude now towards the same work when it is thirty years old. There is, in the _Songs before Sunrise_, an arraignment of Christianity as deliberate as Leconte de Lisle"s, as wholesale as Nietzsche"s; in the _Poems and Ballads_, a learned sensuality without parallel in English poetry; and the critics, or the descendants of the critics, who, when these poems first appeared, could see nothing but these accidental qualities of substance, are now, thanks merely to the triumph of time, to the ease with which time forgets and forgives, able to take all such things for granted, and to acknowledge the genuine and essential qualities of lyric exaltation and generous love of liberty by which the poems exist, and have a right to exist, as poems. But when we are told that _Before a Crucifix_ is a poem fundamentally reverent towards Christianity, and that _Anactoria_ is an ascetic experiment in scholarship, a learned attempt at the reconstruction of the order of Sappho, it is difficult not to wonder with what kind of smile the writer of these poems reflects anew over the curiosities of criticism. I have taken the new book and the old book together, because there is surprisingly little difference between the form and manner of the old poems and the new. The contents of _A Channel Pa.s.sage_ are unusually varied in subject, and the longest poem, _The Altar of Righteousness_, a marvellous piece of rhythmical architecture, is unusually varied in form. Technically the whole book shows Swinburne at his best; if, indeed, he may ever be said not to be at his best, technically. Is there any other instance in our literature of a perfection of technique so unerring, so uniform, that it becomes actually fatiguing? It has often foolishly been said that the dazzling brilliance of Swinburne"s form is apt to disguise a certain thinness or poverty of substance. It seems to me, on the contrary, that we are often in danger of overlooking the imaginative subtlety of phrases and epithets which are presented to us and withdrawn from us in a flash, on the turn of a wave. Most poets present us with their best effects deliberately, giving them as weighty an accent as they can; Swinburne scatters them by the way. Take, for instance, the line: