Matthew Arnold, in his essay on _The Function of Criticism at the Present Time_, gave an answer to this question. "It has long seemed to me," he wrote, "that the burst of creative activity in our literature, through the first quarter of this century, had about it, in fact, something premature.... And this prematureness comes from its having proceeded without having its proper data, without sufficient materials to work with. In other words, the English poetry of the first quarter of this century, with plenty of energy, plenty of creative force, did not know enough. This makes Byron so empty of matter, Sh.e.l.ley so incoherent, Wordsworth even, profound as he is, yet so wanting in completeness and in variety." The statement that this poetry "did not know enough" means, of course, for Arnold, not that it lacked information, reading, ideas of a kind, but that it lacked "criticism." And this means that it did not live and move freely in an atmosphere of the best available ideas, of ideas gained by a free, sincere, and continued effort, in theology, philosophy, history, science, to see things as they are. In such an atmosphere Goethe lived. There was not indeed in Goethe"s Germany, nor was there in the England of our poets, the "national glow of life and thought" that prevailed in the Athens of Pericles or the England of Elizabeth. That happiest atmosphere for poetry was wanting in both countries. But there was for Goethe "a sort of equivalent for it in the complete culture and unfettered thinking of a large body of Germans," a culture produced by a many-sided learning and a long and widely-combined critical effort. It was this that our poets lacked.
Now, if this want existed, as Arnold affirms, it may not have had all the importance he ascribes to it, but considerable importance it must have had. And as to its existence there can hardly be a doubt. One of the most striking characteristics of Wordsworth"s age is the very unusual superiority of the imaginative literature to the scientific. I mean by the "scientific" literature that of philosophy, theology, history, politics, economics, not only that of the sciences of Nature, which for our present purpose are perhaps the least important. In this kind of literature Wordsworth"s age has hardly an author to show who could for a moment be placed on a level with some five of the poets, with the novelists Scott and Jane Austen, or with the poetic critics Lamb, Hazlitt, and Coleridge. It has no writers to compare with Bacon, Newton, Hume, Gibbon, Johnson, or Burke. It is the time of Paley, G.o.dwin, Stewart, Bentham, Mitford, Lingard, Coleridge the philosopher and theologian. These are names worthy of all respect, but they represent a literature quite definitely of the second rank. And this great disproportion between the two kinds of literature, we must observe, is a peculiar phenomenon. If we go back as far as the Elizabethan age we shall find no parallel to it. The one kind was doubtless superior to the other in Shakespeare"s time, possibly even in Milton"s; but Hooker and Bacon and Taylor and Clarendon and Hobbes are not separated from the best poets of their day by any startling difference of quality;[2] while in the later periods, right down to the age of Wordsworth, the scientific literature quite holds its own, to say no more, with the imaginative. Nor in the Germany of Wordsworth"s own time is there that gap between the two that we find in England. In respect of genius the philosophers, for example, though none of them was the equal of Goethe, were as a body not at all inferior to the poets.
The case of England in Wordsworth"s age is anomalous.
This peculiarity must be symptomatic, and it must have been influential.
It confirms Arnold"s view that the intellectual atmosphere of the time was not of the best. If we think of the periodical literature--of the _Quarterly_ and _Edinburgh_ and _Blackwood_--we shall be still more inclined to a.s.sent to that view. And when we turn to the poets themselves, and especially to their prose writings, letters, and recorded conversation, and even to the critiques of Hazlitt, of Lamb, and of Coleridge, we cannot reject it. a.s.suredly we read with admiration, and the signs of native genius we meet with in abundance--in greater abundance, I think, than in the poetry and criticism of Germany, if Goethe is excepted. But the freedom of spirit, the knowledge, the superiority to prejudice and caprice and fanaticism, the openness to ideas, the atmosphere that is all about us when we read Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, we do not find. Can we imagine any one of those four either inspired or imprisoned as Sh.e.l.ley was by the doctrines of G.o.dwin?
Could any of them have seen in the French Revolution no more significance than Scott appears to have detected? How cramped are the att.i.tudes, sympathetic or antipathetic, of nearly all our poets towards the Christian religion! Could anything be more _borne_ than Coleridge"s professed reason for not translating _Faust_?[3] Is it possible that a German poet with the genius of Byron or Wordsworth could have inhabited a mental world so small and so tainted with vulgarity as is opened to us by the brilliant letters of the former, or could have sunk, like the latter, to suggesting that the cholera was a divine condemnation of Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation and the Reform Bill?
But if we accept Arnold"s statement as to the intellectual atmosphere of the poetry of Wordsworth"s time, a question will remain. Was he right in regarding this atmosphere as the sole, or even as the chief, cause of the fact (if it is one) that the poetry does not fully correspond in greatness with the genius of the poets? And before we come to this question we must put another. Is the fact really as it has just been stated? I do not think so. The disappointment that we feel attends, it seems to me, mainly our reading of the long poems. Reviewing these in memory, and asking ourselves how many we can unreservedly call "great,"
we hesitate. Beyond doubt there is great poetry in some of them, fine poetry in many; but that does not make a great whole. Which of them is great as a whole? Not the _Prelude_ or the _Excursion_, still less _Endymion_ or _The Revolt of Islam_ or _Childe Harold_, which hardly pretends to unity. _Christabel_, the wonderful fragment, is a fragment; so is _Hyperion_; _Don Juan_, also unfinished, becomes more discursive the further it proceeds, and in spirit is nowhere great. All the princ.i.p.al poets wrote dramas, or at least dramatic pieces; and some readers think that in _Manfred_, and still more certainly in _Cain_, we have great poems, while others think this of _Prometheus Unbound_ and _The Cenci_. But if as to one or more of these we a.s.sent, is our judgment quite confident, and can we say that any of them _satisfy_ us, like some works of earlier times? We are thus satisfied, it seems to me, only when we come to poems of smaller dimensions, like _The Ancient Mariner_, or _The Eve of Saint Agnes_, or _Adonas_, or _The Vision of Judgment_, or when we read the lyrics. To save time I will confine myself to the latter.
Within this sphere we have no longer that impression of genius which fails to reach full accomplishment. I would go further. No poet, of course, of Wordsworth"s age is the equal of Shakespeare or of Milton; and there are certain qualities, too, of lyrical verse in which the times of Shakespeare and of Milton are superior to that of Wordsworth.
But if we take the better part of the lyrical poetry of these three periods in the ma.s.s, or again in a representative selection, it will not be the latest period, I think, that need fear the comparison. In the original edition of the _Golden Treasury_, Book I. (Wyatt to Shakespeare) occupies forty pages; Book II. (the rest of the seventeenth century) sixty-five; Book IV., which covers the very much shorter period from Wordsworth to Hood, close on a hundred and forty. "Book I.," perhaps most of us would say, "should be longer, and Book IV. a good deal shorter: some third-rate pieces are included in it, and Wordsworth is over-represented. And the Elizabethan poems are mostly quite short, while the Nineteenth Century poets shine equally in the longer kinds of lyric. And Mr. Palgrave excluded the old ballads, but admitted poems like Coleridge"s _Love_ and Wordsworth"s _Ruth_ (seven whole pages). And in any case we cannot judge by mere quant.i.ty." No; but still quant.i.ty must count for something, and the _Golden Treasury_ is a volume excellent in selection, arrangement, and taste. It does, I think, leave the impression that the age of Wordsworth was our greatest period in lyrical poetry. And if Book I. were swelled to the dimensions of Book IV., this impression would not be materially altered; it might even be deepened. For the change would force into notice the comparative monotony of the themes of the earlier poetry, and the immensely wider range of the thought and emotion that attain expression in the later. It might also convince us that, on the whole, this more varied material is treated with a greater intensity of feeling, though on this point it is difficult to be sure, since we recognise what may be called the conventions of an earlier age, and are perhaps a little blind to those of a time near our own.
Now the eminence of Wordsworth"s age in lyrical poetry, even if it is not also a pre-eminence, is a significant fact. It may mean that the whole poetic spirit of the time was lyrical in tendency; and this may indirectly be a cause of that sense of disappointment which mingles with our admiration of the long poems. I will call attention, therefore, to two or three allied facts. (1) The longer poems of Campbell are already dead; he survives only in lyrics. This is also true of Moore. In spite of fine pa.s.sages (and the battle in _Marmion_ is in certain qualities superior to anything else of the time) Scott"s longer poems cannot be cla.s.sed with the best contemporary poetry; but in some of his ballads and songs he attains that rank. (2) Again, much of the most famous narrative poetry is semi-lyrical in form, as a moment"s thought of Scott, Byron, and Coleridge will show. Some of it (for instance, several of Byron"s tales, or Wordsworth"s _White Doe of Rylstone_) is strongly tinged with the lyrical spirit. The centre of interest is inward. It is an interest in emotion, thought, will, rather than in scenes, events, actions, which express and re-act on emotions, thoughts, will. It would hardly be going too far to say that in the most characteristic narrative poetry the balance of outward and inward is rarely attained.[4] (3) The same tendencies are visible in much of the dramatic writing. Byron"s regular dramas, for instance, if they ever lived, are almost forgotten; but _Heaven and Earth_, which is still alive, is largely composed of lyrics, and the first two acts of _Manfred_ are full of them.
_Prometheus Unbound_ is called "a lyrical drama." Though it has some very fine and some very beautiful blank verse pa.s.sages (usually undramatic), its lyrics are its glory; and this is even more the case with _h.e.l.las_. It would be untrue to say that the comparative failure of most of the dramas of the time is princ.i.p.ally due to the lyrical spirit, but many of them show it. (4) The strength of this spirit may be ill.u.s.trated lastly by a curious fact. The ode is one of the longest and most ambitious forms of lyric, and some of the most famous poems of Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Keats are odes. But the greatest of the lyrists, who wrote the Odes to Liberty and Naples and the West Wind, found the limits even of the ode too narrow for his "flight of fire." If _Lycidas_ and _L"Allegro_ and Spenser"s _Epithalamion_ are lyrical poems, and if we are not arbitrarily to determine that nothing shall be called lyrical which exceeds a certain length, _Adonas_ will be a lyrical elegy in fifty-five Spenserian stanzas, and the _Lines written among the Euganean Hills_ and _Epipsychidion_ will be lyrics consisting respectively of 370 and 600 lines.
It will however be agreed that in general a lyrical poem may be called short as compared with a narrative or drama. It is usual, further, to say that lyrical poetry is "subjective," since, instead of telling or representing a story of people, actions, and events, it expresses the thoughts and feelings of the poet himself. This statement is ambiguous and in other ways defective; but it will be admitted to have a basis in fact. It may be suggested, then, that the excellence of the lyrical poetry of Wordsworth"s time, and the imperfection of the long narratives and dramas, may have a common origin. Just as it was most natural to Homer or to Shakespeare to express the imaginative substance of his mind in the "objective" shape of a world of persons and actions ostensibly severed from his own thoughts and feelings, so, perhaps, for some reason or reasons, it was most natural to the best poets of this later time to express that substance in the shape of impa.s.sioned reflections, aspirations, prophecies, laments, outcries of joy, murmurings of peace.
The matter of these might, in another sense of the word, be "objective"
enough, a matter of general human interest, not personal in any exclusive way; but it appeared in the form of the poet"s thought and feeling. Just because he most easily expressed it thus, he succeeded less completely when he attempted the more objective form of utterance; and for the same reason it was especially important that he should be surrounded and penetrated by an atmosphere of wide, deep, and liberal "criticism." For he not only lived among ideas; he expressed ideas, and expressed them _as_ ideas.
These suggestions seem to be supported by other phenomena of the poetry.
The "subjective" spirit extends, we saw, into many of the longer poems.
This is obvious when it can plausibly be said, as in Byron"s case, that the poet"s one hero is himself. It appears in another way when the poem, through its story or stories, displays the poet"s favourite ideas and beliefs. The _Excursion_ does this; most of Sh.e.l.ley"s longer poems do it. And the strength of this tendency may be seen in an apparent contradiction. One of the marks of the Romantic Revival is a disposition to subst.i.tute the more concrete and vivid forms of narrative and drama for the eighteenth century form of satiric or so-called didactic reflection. Yet most of the greater poets, especially in their characteristic beginnings, show a strong tendency to reflective verse; Coleridge, for example, in _Religious Musings_, Byron in the first two cantos of _Childe Harold_, Sh.e.l.ley in _Queen Mab_, and Keats in _Sleep and Poetry_. These are not, like the _Pleasures of Memory_ and _Pleasures of Hope_, continuations of the traditional style; they are thoroughly Romantic; and yet they are reflective. Scott, indeed, goes straight to the objective forms; but then Scott, for good and evil, was little affected by the spiritual upheaval of his time. Those who were deeply affected by it, directly or indirectly, had their minds full of theoretic ideas. They were groping after, or were already inflamed by, some explicit view of life, and of life seen in relation to an ideal which it revealed or contradicted. And this view of life, at least at first, pressed for utterance in a more or less abstract shape, or became a sort of soul or second meaning within those appearances of nature, or actions of men, or figures and fantasies of youthful imagination, which formed the ostensible subject of the poetry.
Considered in this light, the following facts become very significant.
Wordsworth, now about thirty, and the author of many characteristic lyrics, on returning from Germany and settling at Grasmere, begins to meditate a long poem. He tells us in the _Prelude_ of the subjects he thought of. They are good subjects, legendary and historical, stories of action, not at all theoretical.[5] But it will not do: his mind "turns recreant to her task." He has another hope, a "favourite aspiration"
towards "a philosophic song of Truth." But even this will not do; it is premature; even Truth (I venture to suggest) is not inward enough. He must first tell the story of his own mind: the subject of his long poem must be Poetry itself. He tells this story, to our great gain, in the _Prelude_; and it is the story of the steps by which he came to see reality, Nature and Man, as the partial expression of the ideal, of an all-embracing and perfect spiritual life or Being. Not till this is done can he proceed to the _Excursion_, which, together with much reflection and even argumentation, contains pictures of particular men.
"This for our greatest"; but it is not his history alone. The first longer poem of Sh.e.l.ley which can be called mature was _Alastor_. And what is its subject? The subject of the _Prelude_; the story of a Poet"s soul, and of the effect on it of the revelation of its ideal. The first long poem of Keats was _Endymion_. The tendency to the concrete was strong in Keats; he has been called, I think, an Elizabethan born out of due time; and _Endymion_, like _Venus and Adonis_, is a mythological story. But it is by no means that alone. The infection of his time was in him. The further subject of _Endymion_ is again the subject of the _Prelude_, the story of a poet"s soul smitten by love of its ideal, the Principle of Beauty, and striving for union with it, for the "wedding"
of the mind of man "with this goodly universe in love and holy pa.s.sion."
What, again, is the subject of _Epipsychidion_? The same.
There was a Being whom my spirit oft Met on its visioned wanderings, far aloft In the clear golden prime of my youth"s dawn.
The poem is all about the search of the poet"s soul for this ideal Being. And the _Sensitive Plant_ is this soul, and the Lady of the Garden this Being, And _Prince Athanase_ is the same soul, and if the poem had been continued the Being would soon have appeared. Is it not an astonishing proof of Sh.e.l.ley"s powers that the _Cenci_ was ever written?
Sh.e.l.ley, when he died, had half escaped--Keats, some time before he died, had quite escaped--from that bewitching inward world of the poet"s soul and its shadowy adventures. Could that well be the world of what we call emphatically a "great poem"?
2.
Let us review for a moment the course of our discussion. I have been suggesting that, if our pleasure and glory in the poetry of Wordsworth"s age is tinged with disappointment, this does not extend to the lyrical poetry; that the lyrical spirit, or, more generally, an inward or subjective tendency, shows itself in many of the longer works; and that their imperfection is partly due to it. Now, let me suggest that the atmosphere of adequate "criticism" which Arnold misses in the age and its poetry, while doubtless it would have influenced favourably even the lyrics, and much more the larger works, could hardly have diminished the force of that tendency, and that the main difficulty lay _there_. But, before developing this idea further, I propose to leave for a time the English poetry of Wordsworth"s age, to look beyond it, and to ask certain questions.
First, granted that in that age the atmosphere of "criticism" was more favourable in Germany than in England, how many long poems were produced in Germany that we can call without hesitation or qualification "great"?
Were _any_ produced except by Goethe? And, if we admit (as I gladly do) that he produced several, was not the _main_ reason simply that he was born with more poetic genius than any of his contemporaries, just as Dante and Shakespeare and Milton were? And again, with this native genius and his long laborious life, did he produce anything like as many great poems as might have been expected? And, if not, why not? I do not suggest that his general culture, so superior to that of his English contemporaries, did not help him; but are we sure that it did not also hinder him? And is it not also significant that, in spite of his love of new ideas, he felt an instinctive dread of the influence of philosophy, in the strict sense, as of something dangerous to the poetic modes of vision and creation?
Secondly, if we look beyond the first quarter of the century to the second and third, do we find in Europe a large number of those emphatically great poems, solid coherent structures of concrete imagination? It seems more than doubtful. To confine ourselves to English examples, is it not the case that Tennyson is primarily a lyrical poet, that the best of his longer poems, _Maud_ and _In Memoriam_, are lyrical, and that the most ambitious, the narrative _Idylls of the King_, is, as a whole, not great? Is the _Ring and the Book_, however fine in parts, a great whole, or comparable as a whole with _Andrea del Sarto_ or _Rabbi ben Ezra_? And is any one of Browning"s dramas a great play? What these questions suggest is that, while the difficulty about the long poem affects in an extreme degree the age of Wordsworth, it affects in some degree the time that follows.
Its beginnings, too, are traceable before the nineteenth century. In fact it is connected with essential characteristics of modern poetry and art; and these characteristics are connected with the nature of modern life, and the position of the artist within that life. I wish to touch on this huge subject before returning to the age of Wordsworth.
Art, we may say, has become free, and, in a sense, universal. The poet is no longer the minstrel of king or n.o.bles, nor even of a city or country. Literature, as Goethe foretold, becomes increasingly European, and more than European; and the poet, however national, is a citizen of the Republic of Letters. No cla.s.s of subject, again, has any prerogative claim on him. Whatever, in any time or place, is human, whatever has been conceived as divine, whatever belongs even to external nature, he may choose, as it suits his bent or offers a promising material. The world is all before him; and it is a world which the increase of knowledge has made immensely wide and rich. His art, further, has a.s.serted its independence. Its public exhibition must conform to the law; but otherwise it neither asks the approval nor submits to the control of any outward authority; and it is the handmaid of nothing. It claims a value for itself, as an expression of mind co-ordinate with other expressions, theoretic and practical; satisfying a need and serving a purpose that none of them can fulfil; subject only, as they too are subject, to the unity of human nature and human good. Finally, in respect of the methods of his art the poet claims and enjoys the same freedom. The practice of the past, the "rules" of the past (if they existed or exist), are without authority for him. It is improbable beforehand that a violent breach with them will lead him to a real advance, just as it is improbable that such a breach with the morals or the science of his day will do so. But there is no certainty beforehand; and if he fails, he expects blame not because he innovates, but because he has failed by innovating.
The freedom of modern art, and the universality of its field, are great things, and the value of the second is easily seen in the extraordinary variety of subject-matter in the longer poems of the nineteenth century.
But in candid minds most recitals of our modern advantages are followed by a melancholy sense of our feebleness in using them. And so in some degree it is here. The unrivalled opportunities fail to produce unrivalled works. And we can see that the deepest cause of this is not a want of native genius or of acquired skill or even of conscientious labour, but the fact that the opportunities themselves bring danger and difficulty. The poet who knows everything and may write about anything has, after all, a hard task. Things must have been easier, it seems to us, for an artist whose choice, if his aim was high, was restricted to a cycle of ideas and stories, mythological, legendary, or historical, or all together, concerning beings divine, daemonic, angelic, or heroic.
His matter, as it existed in the general imagination, was already highly poetical. If not created by imagination, it was shaped or coloured by it; a world not of bodiless thoughts and emotions, but of scenes, figures, actions, and events. For the most part he lived in unity with it; it appealed to his own religious and moral feelings and beliefs, sometimes to his patriotic feelings; and he wrote, painted, or carved, for people who shared with him both his material and his att.i.tude towards it. It belonged usually to the past, but he did not view it over a great gulf of time with the eye of a scientific historian. If he wished to robe it in the vesture of the life around him, he was checked by no scruples as to truth; and the life around him can seldom, we think, have appeared to him repulsively prosaic. Broad statements like these require much qualification; but, when it is supplied, they may still describe periods in which perhaps most of the greatest architecture, sculpture, painting, and poetry has come into being.
How different the position of the artist has now become we see at a glance, and I confine myself to some points which specially concern the difficulty of the long poem. If a poem is to be anything like great it must, in one sense, be concerned with the present. Whatever its "subject" may be, it must express something living in the mind from which it comes and the minds to which it goes. Wherever its body is, its soul must be here and now. What subject, then, in the measureless field of choice, is the poet to select and fashion into a body? The outward life around him, as he and his critics so often lament, appears uniform, ugly, and rationally regulated, a world of trousers, machinery and policemen. Law--the rule, however imperfect, of the general reasonable will--is a vast achievement and priceless possession; but it is not favourable to striking events or individual actions on the grand scale.
Beneath the surface, and breaking through it, there is doubtless an infinity of poetic matter; but this is inward, or it fails to appear in impressive forms; and therefore it may suit the lyric or idyll, the monologue or short story, the prose drama or novel, but hardly the long poem or high tragedy. Even war, for reasons not hard to find, is no longer the subject that it was.
But when the poet turns to a subject distant in place or time or both, new troubles await him. If he aims at complete truth to time and place the soul of the present will hardly come into his work. Yet he lives in an age of history and science, and these hamper as well as help him. The difficulty is not that he is bound to historical or scientific truth, for in principle, I venture to say, he is free. If he _can_ satisfy imagination by violating them he is justified. It is no function of his to attain or propagate them; and a critic who objected, say, to the First Part of _Faust_ on the ground that it puts a modern spirit into the legend, would rightly be laughed at. It is its triumph to do so and yet to succeed. But then success is exceedingly difficult. For the poet lives in a time when the violation of truth is _prima facie_ felt to be a fault, something that does require justification by the result.
Further, he has himself to start from a clear consciousness of difference between the present and the past, the spirit and the story, and has to produce on this basis a harmony of spirit and story. And again, living in an age of a.n.a.lytical thought, he is likely--all the more likely, if he has much greatness of mind--to be keenly interested in ideas; and so he is exposed to the temptation of using as the spirit of the old story some highly reflective idea--an idea not only historically alien to his material, but perhaps not very poetical, or again not very deep, because it belongs to him rather as philosopher than poet, while his genius is that of a poet.
The influence of some of these difficulties might readily be shown in the Second Part of _Faust_ or in _Prometheus Unbound_, especially where we perceive in a figure or action some symbolical meaning, but find this meaning deficient in interest or poetic truth, or are vexed by the doubt how far it ought to be pursued.[6] But the matter is more easily ill.u.s.trated by the partial failure of the _Idylls of the King_. We have no right to condemn beforehand an attempt to modernise the Arthurian legends. Tennyson"s treatment of them, even his outrage on the story of Tristram, might conceivably have been justified by the result. And, indeed, in the _Holy Grail_ and the _Pa.s.sing of Arthur_ his treatment, to my mind, was more than justified. But, in spite of countless beauties, the total result of the _Idylls_ was disappointing, not merely from the defects of this or that poem, but because the old unity of spirit and story was broken up, and the new was neither equal to the old nor complete in itself. For the main semi-allegorical idea, having already the disadvantage of not being poetic in its origin, was, as a reflective idea, by no means profound, and it led to such inconsistency in the very centre of the story as the imagination refuses to accept.
Tennyson"s Lancelot might have wronged the Arthur who is merely a blameless king and represents Conscience; but Tennyson"s Lancelot would much rather have killed himself than be systematically treacherous to the friend and lover-husband who appears in _Guinevere_.[7]
These difficulties belong in some measure to the whole modern time--the whole time that begins with the Renaissance; but they become so much clearer and so much more serious with the advance of knowledge and criticism, that in speaking of them I have been referring specially to the last century. There are other difficulties not so closely connected with that advance, and I will venture some very tentative remarks on one of these, which also has increased with time. It has to do with the kind of life commonly lived by our poets. Is there not some significance in the fact that the most famous of our narrative poets were all three, in their various ways and degrees, public men, or in contact with great affairs; and that poets in earlier times no less must usually have seen something at first hand of adventure, political struggles, or war; whereas poets now, for the most part, live wholly private lives, and, like the majority of their readers, are acquainted only by report with anything of the kind? If Chaucer had never been at Court, or seen service in the French war, or gone on emba.s.sies abroad; if Spenser had not known Sidney and Raleigh and been secretary to Lord Grey in Ireland; if Milton had spent his whole life at Horton; would it have made no difference to their poetry? Again, if we turn to the drama and ask why the numerous tragedies of the nineteenth century poets so rarely satisfy, what is the answer? There are many reasons, and among them the poet"s ignorance of the stage will doubtless count for much; but must we not also consider that he scarcely ever saw anything resembling the things he tried to portray? When we study the history of the time in which the Elizabethan dramas were composed, when we examine the portraits of the famous men, or read such a book as the autobiography of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, we realise that the violent actions and pa.s.sions which the dramatist depicted were like the things he saw.
Whatever Shakespeare"s own disposition was, he lived among these men, jested with the fellow-actor who had borne arms abroad and killed his man in a duel at home, conversed with n.o.bles whose heads perhaps were no great way from the block. But the poet who strolls about the lanes or plods the London streets with an umbrella for a sword, and who has probably never seen a violent deed in his life, or for a moment really longed to kill so much as a critic, how is he to paint the vengeance of Hamlet or the frenzy of Macbeth, and not merely to thrill you with the emotions of his actors but to make them _do_ things that take your imagination by the throat?
3.
a.s.suming, now, that (even if this last idea is doubtful or unimportant) there is some truth in the suggestion that the difficulties of the long poem arise largely from the conditions described, and especially from the nature of the intellectual atmosphere which the modern poet breathes, let us return to Wordsworth"s age in particular. In that age these difficulties were aggravated in a quite exceptional way by special causes, causes responsible also in part for the unusual originality and intensity of the poetry. In it we find conditions removed to the extremest distance from those of the poet who wrote, in the midst of a generally accepted social order, for an audience with which he shared traditional ideas and beliefs and a more or less traditional imaginative material. It was, in a word, a revolutionary age, in the electric atmosphere of which the most potent intellectual influences were those of Rousseau and (for the English poets) of G.o.dwin. Milton"s time was not in the same sense revolutionary, much less Shakespeare"s. The forces of the great movement of mind in Shakespeare"s day _we_ may formulate as "ideas," but they were not the abstractly conceived ideas of Wordsworth"s day. Such theoretical ideas were potent in Milton"s time, but they were not ideas that made a total breach with the past, rejecting as worthless, or worse, the inst.i.tutions, beliefs, and modes of life in which human nature had endeavoured to realise itself, and drawing airy pictures of a different human nature on a new earth. Nor was the poetic mind of those ages enraptured or dejected by the haunting many-featured contrast of real and ideal. But the poetic mind in Wordsworth"s age breathed this atmosphere of revolution, though it was not always sensitive to the influence. Nor is it a question of the acceptance or rejection of the "ideas of the Revolution." That influence is clearly traceable in all the greater writers except Scott and Jane Austen. It is equally obvious in Wordsworth, who hungered for realities, recovered from his theoretic malady, sought for good in life"s familiar face, yet remained a preacher; in Byron, who was too shrewd, sceptical, and selfish to contract that particular malady, but who suffered from the sickness from which Goethe freed himself by writing _Werther_,[8]
and who punctuates his story in _Don Juan_ with bursts of laughter and tears; and in Sh.e.l.ley, whose "rapid spirit" was quickened, and then clogged, by the abstractions of revolutionary theory.
But doubtless Sh.e.l.ley is, in a sense, the typical example of this influence and of its effects. From the world of his imagination the shapes of the old world had disappeared, and their place was taken by a stream of radiant vapours, incessantly forming, shifting, and dissolving in the "clear golden dawn," and hymning with the voices of seraphs, to the music of the stars and the "singing rain," the sublime ridiculous formulas of G.o.dwin. In his heart were emotions that responded to the vision,--an aspiration or ecstasy, a dejection or despair, like those of spirits rapt into Paradise or mourning over its ruin. And he wrote, not, like Shakespeare or Pope, for Londoners sitting in a theatre or a coffee-house, intelligences vivid enough but definitely embodied in a definite society; he wrote, or rather he sang, to his own soul, to other spirit-sparks of the fire of Liberty scattered over the dark earth, to spirits in the air, to the boundless spirit of Nature or Freedom or Love, his one place of rest and the one source of his vision, ecstasy, and sorrow. He sang _to_ this, and he sang _of_ it, and of the emotions it inspired, and of its world-wide contest with such shapes of darkness as Faith and Custom. And he made immortal music; now in melodies as exquisite and varied as the songs of Schubert, and now in symphonies where the crudest of Philosophies of History melted into golden harmony. But the songs were more perfect than the symphonies; and they could hardly fail to be so. For a single thought and mood, expressive of one aspect of things, suffices, with its melody, for a lyric, but not for a long poem. That requires a substance which implicitly contains a whole "criticism" or interpretation of life. And although there was something always working in Sh.e.l.ley"s mind, and issuing in those radiant vapours, that was far deeper and truer than his philosophic creed, its expression and even its development were constantly checked or distorted by the hard and narrow framework of that creed. And it was one which in effect condemned nine-tenths of the human nature that has formed the material of the world"s great poems.[9]
The second and third quarters of the century were not in the same degree as the first a revolutionary time, and we feel this change in the poetry. The fever-heat is gone, the rapture and the dejection moderate, the culture is wider, the thought more staid and considerate, the fascination of abstractions less potent, and the formative or plastic impulse, if not stronger, less impeded. Late in the period, with Morris, the born teller of tales re-appears. If, as we saw, the lyrical spirit continues to prevail, no one would deny to Browning the full and robust sympathy of the dramatist with all the variety of character and pa.s.sion.
Yet these changes and others are far from obliterating those features of the earlier generation on which we have dwelt. To describe the atmosphere of "criticism" as that of a common faith or view of the world would be laughable. If not revolutionary, it was agitated, restless, and distressed by the conflict of theoretic ideas. To Arnold"s mind it was indeed a most unhappy time for poetry, though the poetic impulse remained as yet, and even later, powerful. The past was dead, but he could share neither the soaring hope nor the pa.s.sionate melancholy of the opening century. He was
Wandering between two worlds, one dead, The other powerless to be born, With nowhere yet to rest his head.
And the two greatest poets, as well as he, still offer not only, as poets always must, an interpretation, but a definite theory of life, and, more insistently than ever before, of death. Confidence in the detail, at least, of such theories has diminished, and with the rapid advance of the critical sciences the poets may prophesy less than their predecessors; but they probe, and weigh, and deliberate more. And the strength of the "inward" tendency, obvious in Tennyson and Arnold, may be clearly seen even in Browning, and not alone in such works as _Christmas Eve and Easter Day_ or _La Saisiaz_.
Objective and dramatic as Browning is called and by comparison is, he is surely most at home, and succeeds most completely, in lyrics, and in monologues divested of action and merely suggestive of a story or suggested by one. He too must begin, in _Pauline_, with the picture of a youthful poet"s soul. Dramatic the drama of _Paracelsus_ neither is nor tries to be: it consists of scenes in the history of souls. Of the narrative _Sordello_ its author wrote: "The historical decoration was purposely of no more importance than a background requires; and my stress lay on the incidents in the development of a soul: little else is worth study." Even if that is so, great narrative poems are not written thus. And what Browning says here applies more or less fully to most of his works. In the end, if we set aside the short lyrics, his best poems are all "studies" of souls. "Well," it may be answered, "so are Shakespeare"s tragedies and tragi-comedies." But the difference is great. Shakespeare, doubtless, is little concerned with the accuracy of the historical background,--much less concerned than Browning. But his subject is not a soul, nor even souls: it is the actions of souls, or souls coming into action. It is more. It is that clash of souls which exhibits not them alone, but a whole of spiritual forces, appearing in them, but spreading beyond them into the visible society to which they essentially belong, and into invisible regions which enclose it. The thing shown, therefore, is huge, multiform, ponderous, yet quivering with an inward agitation which explodes into violent bodily expression and speaks to the _eye_ of imagination. What specially interests Browning is not this. It is the soul moving in itself, often in its most secret windings and recesses; before action or after it, where there is action at all; and this soul not essentially as in its society (that is "background" or "decoration"), but alone, or in relation to another soul, or to G.o.d. He exhibits it best, therefore, in monologue, musing, explaining, debating, pleading, overflowing into the expression of feeling or pa.s.sion, but not acting. The "men and women" that haunt the reader"s imagination are not so much men of action as lovers, artists, men of religion. And when they act (as for example in _The Ring and the Book_, or the dramas) what rivets attention, and is first recalled to memory by their names, is not the action, but its reflection in the soul of the doer or spectator. Such, at least, is my experience; and in the end a critic can only offer to others his considered experience. But with Homer and Shakespeare and Milton it is otherwise. Even with Dante it is otherwise. I see not souls alone, but souls in visible att.i.tudes, in outward movement, often in action. I see Paolo and Francesca drifting on the wind: I see them sitting and reading: I see them kiss: I _see_ Dante"s pity:
E caddi come corpo morto cade.
4.
I spoke of Tennyson and Browning in order to point out that, although in their day the intellectual atmosphere was no longer "revolutionary," it remained an atmosphere of highly reflective ideas representing no common "faith" or way of envisaging the world, and that the inward tendency still a.s.serts itself in their poetry. We cannot pursue the history further, but it does not appear that in the last forty years culture has advanced much, or at all, towards such a faith or way, or shows the working of new semi-conscious creative ideas beneath the surface of warring theories and opinions. Only the younger among us can hope to see what Arnold descried in the distance,
One mighty wave of thought and joy Lifting mankind again.
And even when, for them or their descendants, that hope is realised, and with it the hope of a new great poetry, the atmosphere must a.s.suredly still be one of "criticism," and Arnold"s insistence on the necessity of the best criticism will still be as urgently required. It must indeed be more and more needed as the power of half-educated journalism grows. How poetry then will overcome the obstacles which, therefore, must in some measure still beset it, is a question for it, a question answerable not by the reflections of critics, but by the creative deeds of poets themselves. Accordingly, while one may safely prophesy that their long poems will differ from those of any past age, I have no idea of predicting the nature of this difference, and will refer in conclusion only to certain views which seem to me delusive.
It must surely be vain for the poet to seek an escape from modern difficulties by any attempt to withdraw himself from the atmosphere of free and scientific culture, to maintain by force simplicity of view and concreteness of imagination, to live in a past century or a sanctuary of esoteric art, whether secular or religious. Whatever of value such an attempt may yield--and that it may yield much I do not deny--it will never yield poems at once long and great.
Such poems, we may allow ourselves to hope, will sometimes deal with much of the common and painful and ugly stuff of life, and be in that sense more "democratic" or universal than any poetry of the past. But it is vain to imagine that this can be done by a refusal to "interpret" and an endeavour to photograph. Even in the most thorough-going prose "realism" there is selection; and, to go no further, selection itself is interpretation. And, as for poetry, the mirror which the least theoretical of great poets holds up to nature is his soul. And that, whether he likes it or not, is an activity which divides, and sifts, and recombines into a unity of its own, and by a method of its own, the crude material which experience thrusts upon it. This must be so; the only question is of the choice of matter and the method of treatment.
Nor can the end to be achieved be anything but beauty, though the meaning of that word may be extended and deepened. And beauty in its essence is something that gives satisfaction, however much of pain, repulsion, or horror that satisfaction may contain and overcome.