The might of the night subsided: the tyranny kindled in darkness fell.
The line comes rearing like a wave, and has fallen and raced past us before we have properly grasped what is imaginatively fine in the latter clause. Presented to us in the manner of slower poets, thus:
The tyranny Kindled in darkness fell,
how much more easily do we realise the quality of the speech which goes to make this song.
And yet there is no doubt that Swinburne has made his own moulds of language, as he has made his own moulds of rhythm, and that he is apt, when a thought or a sensation which he has already expressed recurs to him, to use the mould which stands ready made in his memory, instead of creating language over again, to fit a hair"s-breadth of difference in the form of thought or sensation. That is why, in this book, in translating a "roundel" of Villon which Rossetti had already translated, he misses the nave quality of the French which Rossetti, in a version not in all points so faithful as this, had been able, in some subtle way, to retain. His own moulds of language recur to him, and he will not stop to think that "wife," though a good word for his rhyme scheme, is not a word that Villon could have used, and that
Deux estions et n"avions qu"ung cueur,
though it is perfectly rendered by Rossetti in
Two we were and the heart was one,
is turned into a wholly different, a Swinburnian thing, by
Twain we were, and our hearts one song, One heart.
Nor is "Dead as the carver"s figured throng" (for "Comme les images, par cueur") either clear in meaning, or characteristic of Villon in form. Is it not one of the penalties of extreme technical ability that the hand at times works, as it were, blindly, without the delicate vigilance or direction of the brain?
Of the poems contained in this new volume, the t.i.tle-poem, _A Channel Pa.s.sage_, is perhaps the finest. It is the record of a memory, fifty years old, and it is filled with a pa.s.sionate ecstasy in the recollection of
Three glad hours, and it seemed not an hour of supreme and supernal joy, Filled full with delight that revives in remembrance a sea-bird"s heart in a boy.
It may be that Swinburne has praised the sea more eloquently, or sung of it more melodiously, but not in the whole of his works is there a poem fuller of personal rapture in the communion of body and soul with the very soul of the sea in storm. _The Lake of Gaube_ is remarkable for an exultant and very definite and direct rendering of the sensation of a dive through deep water. There are other sea-poems in the two brief and concentrated poems in honour of Nelson; the most delicate of the poems of flowers in _A Rosary_; the most pa.s.sionate and memorable of the political poems in _Russia: an Ode_; the Elizabethan prologues. These poems, so varied in subject and manner, are the work of many years; to those who love Swinburne most as a lyric poet they will come with special delight, for they represent, in almost absolute equality, almost every side of his dazzling and unique lyric genius.
The final volume of the greatest lyrical poet since Sh.e.l.ley contains three books, each published at an interval of ten years: the _Midsummer Holiday_ of 1884, the _Astrophel_ of 1894, and the _Channel Pa.s.sage_ of 1904. Choice among them is as difficult as it is unnecessary. They are alike in their ecstatic singing of the sea, of great poets and great men, of England and liberty, and of children. One contains the finest poems about the sea from on sh.o.r.e, another the finest poem about the sea from at sea, and the other the finest poem about the earth from the heart of the woods. Even in Swinburne"s work the series of nine ballades in long lines which bears the name of _A Midsummer Holiday_ stands out as a masterpiece of its kind, and of a unique kind. A form of French verse, which up to then had been used, since the time when Villon used it as no man has used it before or since, and almost exclusively in iambic measures, is suddenly transported from the hothouse into the open air, is stretched and moulded beyond all known limits, and becomes, it may almost be said, a new lyric form. After _A Midsummer Holiday_ no one can contend any longer that the ballade is a structure necessarily any more artificial than the sonnet. But then in the hands of Swinburne an acrostic would cease to be artificial.
In this last volume the technique which is seen apparently perfected in the _Poems and Ballads_ of 1866 has reached a point from which that relative perfection looks easy and almost accidental. Something is lost, no doubt, and much has changed. But to compare the metrical qualities of _Dolores_ or even of _The Triumph of Time_ with the metrical qualities of _On the Verge_ is almost like comparing the art of Thomas Moore with the art of Coleridge. In Swinburne"s development as a poet the metrical development is significant of every change through which the poet has pa.s.sed. Subtlety and n.o.bility, the appeal of ever homelier and loftier things, are seen more and more clearly in his work, as the metrical qualities of it become purified and intensified, with always more of subtlety and distinction, an energy at last tamed to the needs and paces of every kind of beauty.
II
"Charles Lamb, as I need not remind you," says Swinburne in his dedicatory epistle to the collected edition of his poems, "wrote for antiquity: nor need you be a.s.sured that when I write plays it is with a view to their being acted at the Globe, the Red Bull, or the Black Friars." In another part of the same epistle, he says: "My first if not my strongest ambition was to do something worth doing, and not utterly unworthy of a young countryman of Marlowe the teacher and Webster the pupil of Shakespeare, in the line of work which those three poets had left as a possibly unattainable example for ambitious Englishmen. And my first book, written while yet under academic or tutoral authority, bore evidence of that ambition in every line." And indeed we need not turn four pages to come upon a mimicry of the style of Shakespeare so close as this:
We are so more than poor, The dear"st of all our spoil would profit you Less than mere losing; so most more than weak It were but shame for one to smite us, who Could but weep louder.
A Shakespearean trick is copied in such lines as:
All other women"s praise Makes part of my blame, and things of least account In them are all my praises.
And there is a jester who talks in a metre that might have come straight out of Beaumont and Fletcher, as here:
I am considering of that apple still; It hangs in the mouth yet sorely; I would fain know too Why nettles are not good to eat raw. Come, children, Come, my sweet sc.r.a.ps; come, painted pieces; come.
Touches of the early Browning come into this Elizabethan work, come and go there, as in these lines:
What are you made G.o.d"s friend for but to have His hand over your head to keep it well And warm the rainy weather through, when snow Spoils half the world"s work?
And does one not hear Beddoes in the grim line, spoken of the earth:
Naked as brown feet of unburied men?
An influence still more closely contemporary seems to be felt in _Fair Rosamond_, the influence of that extraordinarily individual blank verse which William Morris had made his first and last experiment in, two years earlier, in _Sir Peter Harpdon"s End_.
So many influences, then, are seen at work on the form at least of these two plays, published at the age of twenty-three. _Fair Rosamond_, though it has beautiful lines here and there, and shows some antic.i.p.ation of that luxurious heat and subtle rendering of physical sensation which was to be so evident in the _Poems and Ballads_, is altogether a less mature piece of work, less satisfactory in every way, than the longer and more regular drama of _The Queen-Mother_. Swinburne speaks of the two pieces without distinction, and finds all that there is in them of promise or of merit "in the language and the style of such better pa.s.sages as may perhaps be found in single and separable speeches of Catherine and of Rosamond." But the difference between these speeches is very considerable. Those of Rosamond are wholly elegiac, lamentations and meditations recited, without or against occasion. In the best speeches of Catherine there is not only a more masculine splendour of language, a firmer cadence, there is also some indication of that "power to grapple with the realities and subtleties of character and of motive"
which Swinburne finds largely lacking in them. A newspaper critic, reviewing the book in 1861, said: "We should have conceived it hardly possible to make the crimes of Catherine de" Medici dull, however they were presented. Swinburne, however, has done so." It seems to me, on the contrary, that the whole action, undramatic as it is in the strict sense of the theatre, is breathlessly interesting. The two great speeches of the play, the one beginning "That G.o.d that made high things," and the one beginning "I would fain see rain," are indeed more splendid in execution than significant as drama, but they have their dramatic significance, none the less. There is a Shakespearean echo, but is there not also a preparation of the finest Swinburnian harmonies, in such lines as these?
I should be mad, I talk as one filled through with wine; thou G.o.d, Whose thunder is confusion of the hills, And with wrath sown abolishes the fields, I pray thee if thy hand would ruin us, Make witness of it even this night that is The last for many cradles, and the grave Of many reverend seats; even at this turn, This edge of season, this keen joint of time, Finish and spare not.
The verse is harder, tighter, more closely packed with figurative meaning than perhaps any of Swinburne"s later verse. It is less fluid, less "exuberant and effusive" (to accept two epithets of his own in reference to the verse of _Atalanta in Calydon_). He is ready to be harsh when harshness is required, abrupt for some sharp effect; he holds out against the enervating allurements of alliteration; he can stop when he has said the essential thing.
In the first book of most poets there is something which will be found in no other book; some virginity of youth, lost with the first intercourse with print. In _The Queen-Mother_ and _Rosamond_ Swinburne is certainly not yet himself, he has not yet settled down within his own limits. But what happy strayings beyond those limits! What foreign fruits and flowers, brought back from far countries! In these two plays there is no evidence, certainly, of a playwright; but there is no evidence that their writer could never become one. And there is evidence already of a poet of original genius and immense accomplishment, a poet with an incomparable gift of speech. That this technical quality, at least, the sound of these new harmonies in English verse, awakened no ears to attention, would be more surprising if one did not remember that two years earlier the first and best of William Morris"s books was saluted as "a Manchester mystery, not a real vision," and that two years later the best though not the first of George Meredith"s books of verse, _Modern Love_, was noticed only to be hooted at. Rossetti waited, and was wise.
The plays of Swinburne, full as they are of splendid poetry, and even of splendid dramatic poetry, suffer from a lack of that "continual slight novelty" which great drama, more than any other poetical form, requires.
There is, in the writing, a monotony of excellence, which becomes an actual burden upon the reader. Here is a poet who touches nothing that he does not transform, who can, as in _Mary Stuart_, fill scores of pages with talk of lawyers, conspirators, and statesmen, versifying history as closely as Shakespeare versified it, and leaving in the result less prose deposit than Shakespeare left. It is perhaps because in this play he has done a more difficult thing than in any other that the writer has come to prefer this to any other of his plays; as men in general prefer a triumph over difficulties to a triumph. A similar satisfaction, not in success but in the overcoming of difficulties, leads him to say of the modern play, _The Sisters_, that it is the only modern English play "in which realism in the reproduction of natural dialogue and accuracy in the representation of natural intercourse between men and women of gentle birth and breeding have been found or made compatible with expression in genuine if simple blank verse." This may be as true as that, in the astounding experiment of _Locrine_, none of "the life of human character or the life-likeness of dramatic dialogue has suffered from the bondage of rhyme or has been sacrificed to the exigences of metre." But when all is said, when an unparalleled skill in language, versification, and everything that is verbal in form, has been admitted, and with unqualified admiration; when, in addition, one has admitted, with not less admiration, n.o.ble qualities of substance, superb qualities of poetic imagination, there still remains the question: is either substance or form consistently dramatic? and the further question: can work professedly dramatic which is not consistently dramatic in substance and form be accepted as wholly satisfactory from any other point of view?
The trilogy on Mary Queen of Scots must remain the largest and most ambitious attempt which Swinburne has made. The first part, _Chastelard_, was published in 1865; the last, _Mary Stuart_, in 1881.
And what Swinburne says in speaking of the intermediate play, _Bothwell_, may be said of them all: "I will add that I took as much care and pains as though I had been writing or compiling a history of the period to do loyal justice to all the historic figures which came within the scope of my dramatic or poetic design." Of _Bothwell_, the longest of the three plays--indeed, the longest play in existence, Swinburne says: "That ambitious, conscientious, and comprehensive piece of work is of course less properly definable as a tragedy than by the old Shakespearean term of a chronicle history." Definition is not defence, and it has yet to be shown that the "chronicle" form is in itself a legitimate or satisfactory dramatic form. Shakespeare"s use of it proves only that he found his way through chronicle to drama, and to take his work in the chronicle play as a model is hardly more reasonable than to take _Venus and Adonis_ as a model for narrative poetry. But, further, there is no play of Shakespeare"s, chronicle or other, which might not at least be conceived of, if not on the stage of our time, at least on that of his, or on that of any time when drama was allowed to live its own life according to its own nature. Can we conceive of _Bothwell_ even on the stage which has seen _Les Burgraves_?
The Chinese theatre, which goes on from morning to night without a pause, might perhaps grapple with it; but no other. Nor would cutting be of any use, for what the stage-manager would cut away would be largely just such parts as are finest in the printed play.
There is, in most of Swinburne"s plays, some scene or pa.s.sage of vital dramatic quality, and in _Bothwell_ there is one scene, the scene leading to the death of Darnley, which is among the great single scenes in drama. But there is not even any such scene in the whole of the lovely and luxurious song of _Chastelard_ or in the severe and strenuous study of _Mary Stuart_. There are moments, in all, where speech is as simple, as explicit, as expressive as speech in verse can be; and no one will ever speak in verse more naturally than this:
Well, all is one to me: and for my part I thank G.o.d I shall die without regret Of anything that I have done alive.