MR. COVENTRY PATMORE’S ODES
To most of the great poets no greater praise can be
given than praise of their imagery. Imagery is the natural language
of their poetry. Without a parable she hardly speaks. But
undoubtedly there is now and then a poet who touches the thing, not
its likeness, too vitally, too sensitively, for even such a pause
as the verse makes for love of the beautiful image. Those rare
moments are simple, and their simplicity makes one of the reader’s
keenest experiences. Other simplicities may be achieved by lesser
art, but this is transcendent simplicity. There is nothing in the
world more costly. It vouches for the beauty which it transcends;
it answer for the riches it forbears; it implies the art which it
fulfils. All abundance ministers to it, though it is so single. And
here we get the sacrificial quality which is the well-kept secret
of art at this perfection. All the faculties of the poet are used
for preparing this naked greatness— are used and fruitfully spent
and shed. The loveliness that stands and waits on the simplicity of
certain of Mr. Coventry Patmore’s Odes, the fervours and splendours
that are there, only to be put to silence— to silence of a kind
that would be impossible were they less glorious— are testimonies
to the difference between sacrifice and waste.
But does it seem less than reasonable to begin a
review of a poet’s work with praise of an infrequent mood?
Infrequent such a mood must needs be, yet it is in a profound sense
characteristic. To have attained it once or twice is to have proved
such gift and grace as a true history of literature would show to
be above price, even gauged by the rude measure of rarity.
Transcendent simplicity could not possibly be habitual. Man lives
within garments and veils, and art is chiefly concerned with making
mysteries of these for the loveliness of his life; when they are
rent asunder it is impossible not to be aware that an overwhelming
human emotion has been in action. Thus Departure, If
I were Dead, A Farewell,
Eurydice, The Toys, St.
Valentine’s Day— though here there is in the
exquisite imaginative play a mitigation of the bare vitality of
feeling— group themselves apart as the innermost of the poet’s
achievements.
Second to these come the Odes that have splendid
thought in great images, and display— rather than, as do the poems
first glanced at, betray— the beauties of poetic art. Emotion is
here, too, and in shocks and throes, never frantic when almost
intolerable. It is mortal pathos. If any other poet has filled a
cup with a draught so unalloyed, we do not know it. Love and sorrow
are pure in The Unknown Eros; and its author
has not refused even the cup of terror. Against love often, against
sorrow nearly always, against fear always, men of sensibility
instantaneously guard the quick of their hearts. It is only the
approach of the pang that they will endure; from the pang itself,
dividing soul and spirit, a man who is conscious of a profound
capacity for passion defends himself in the twinkling of an eye.
But through nearly the whole of Coventry Patmore’s poetry there is
an endurance of the mortal touch. Nay, more, he has the endurance
of the immortal touch. That is, his capacity for all the things
that men elude for their greatness is more than the capacity of
other men. He endures therefore what they could but will not endure
and, besides this, degrees that they cannot apprehend. Thus, to
have studied The Unknown Eros is to have had a
certain experience— at least the impassioned experience of a
compassion; but it is also to have recognised a soul beyond our
compassion.
What some of the Odes have to sing of, their author
does not insist upon our knowing. He leaves more liberty for a
well-intentioned reader’s error than makes for peace and
recollection of mind in reading. That the general purpose of the
poems is obscure is inevitable. It has the obscurity of profound
clear waters. What the poet chiefly secures to us is the
understanding that love and its bonds, its bestowal and reception,
does but rehearse the action of the union of God with humanity—
that there is no essential man save Christ, and no essential woman
except the soul of mankind. When the singer of a Song of Songs
seems to borrow the phrase of human love, it is rather that human
love had first borrowed the truths of the love of God. The thought
grows gay in the three Psyche odes, or attempts a gaiety—
the reader at least being somewhat reluctant. How is it? Mr.
Coventry Patmore’s play more often than not wins you to but a slow
participation. Perhaps because some thrust of his has left you
still tremulous.
But the inequality of equal lovers, sung in these
Odes with a Divine allusion, is a most familiar truth. Love that is
passionate has much of the impulse of gravitation— gravitation that
is not falling, as there is no downfall in the precipitation of the
sidereal skies. The love of the great for the small is the
passionate love; the upward love hesitates and is fugitive. St.
Francis Xavier asked that the day of his ecstasy might be
shortened; Imogen, the wife of all poetry, ‘prays forbearance; ’
the child is ‘fretted with sallies of his mothers kisses. ’ It
might be drawing an image too insistently to call this a
centrifugal impulse.
The art that utters an intellectual action so
courageous, an emotion so authentic, as that of Mr. Coventry
Patmore’s poetry, cannot be otherwise than consummate. Often the
word has a fulness of significance that gives the reader a shock of
appreciation. This is always so in those simplest odes which we
have taken as the heart of the author’s work. Without such
wonderful rightness, simplicity of course is impossible. Nor is
that beautiful precision less in passages of description, such as
the landscape lines in Amelia and elsewhere. The words are
used to the uttermost yet with composure. And a certain justness of
utterance increases the provocation of what we take leave to call
unjust thought in the few poems that proclaim an intemperate scorn—
political, social, literary. The poems are but two or three; they
are to be known by their subjects— we might as well do something to
justify their scorn by using the most modern of adjectives— and
call them topical. Here assuredly there is no composure. Never
before did superiority bear itself with so little of its proper,
signal, and peculiar grace— reluctance.
If Mr. Patmore really intends that his Odes shall be
read with minim, or crochet, or quaver rests, to fill up a measure
of beaten time, we are free to hold that he rather arbitrarily
applies to liberal verse the laws of verse set for use— cradle
verse and march-marking verse (we are, of course, not considering
verse set to music, and thus compelled into the musical time).
Liberal verse, dramatic, narrative, meditative, can surely be bound
by no time measures— if for no other reason, for this: that to
prescribe pauses is also to forbid any pauses unprescribed.
Granting, however, his principle of catalexis, we still doubt
whether the irregular metre of The Unknown
Eros is happily used except for the large sweep of the
flight of the Ode more properly so called. Lycidas, the
Mrs. Anne Killigrew, the Intimations,
and Emerson’s Threnody, considered merely for their
versification, fulfil their laws so perfectly that they certainly
move without checks as without haste. So with the graver Odes— much
in the majority— of Mr. Coventry Patmore’s series. A more lovely
dignity of extension and restriction, a more touching sweetness of
simple and frequent rhyme, a truer impetus of pulse and impulse,
English verse could hardly yield than are to be found in his
versification. And what movement of words has ever expressed
flight, distance, mystery, and wonderful approach, as they are
expressed in a celestial line— the eighth in the ode To
the Unknown Eros? When we are sensible of a
metrical cheek it is in this way: To the English ear the heroic
line is the unit of metre, and when two lines of various length
undesignedly add together to form a heroic line, they have to be
separated with something of a jerk. And this adding— as, for
instance, of a line of four syllables preceding or following one of
six— occurs now and then, and even in such a masterly measure of
music as A Farewell. It is as when a sail suddenly
flaps windless in the fetching about of a boat. In The
Angel in the House, and other earlier
poems, Mr. Coventry Patmore used the octosyllabic stanza perfectly,
inasmuch as he never left it either heavily or thinly packed.
Moreover those first poems had a composure which was the prelude to
the peace of the Odes. And even in his slightest work he proves
himself the master— that is, the owner— of words that, owned by
him, are unprofaned, are as though they had never been profaned;
the capturer of an art so quick and close that it is the voice less
of a poet than of the very Muse.
INNOCENCE AND EXPERIENCE
I shall not ask the commentators whether Blake used these two words in union or in antithesis. They assuredly have an inseverable union in the art of literature. The songs of Innocence and Experience are for each poet the songs of his own separate heart and life; but to take the cumulative experiences of other men, and to use these in place of the virginal fruit of thought— whereas one would hardly consent to take them for ordering even the most habitual of daily affairs— is to forego Innocence and Experience at once and together. Obviously, Experience can be nothing except personal and separate; and Innocence of a singularly solitary quality is his who does not dip his hands into other men’s histories, and does not give to his own word the common sanction of other men’s summaries and conclusions. Therefore I bind Innocence and Experience in one, and take them as a sign of the necessary and noble isolation of man from man— of his uniqueness. But if I had a mind to forego that manner of personal separateness, and to use the things of others, I think I would rather appropriate their future than their past. Let me put on their hopes, and the colours of their confidence, if I must borrow. Not that I would burden my prophetic soul with unjustified ambitions; but even this would be more tolerable than to load my memory with an unjustifiable history.
And yet how differently do the writers of a certain kind of love-poetry consider this matter. These are the love-poets who have no reluctance in adopting the past of a multitude of people to whom they have not even been introduced. Their verse is full of ready-made memories, various, numerous, and cruel. No single life— supposing it to be a liberal life concerned with something besides sex— could quite suffice for so much experience, so much disillusion, so much déception. To achieve that tone in its fulness it is necessary to take for one’s own the praeterita (say) of Alfred de Musset and of the men who helped...