1
āAn aching pulse of melodiesā: Dante Gabriel Rossettiās poetic magnetism
A sense of power in love, defying distance, and those barriers which are so much more than physical distance, of unutterable desire penetrating into the world of sleep ⦠in his later work, makes him speak sometimes almost like a believer in mesmerism.
(Pater 1910, App 214)1
Anyone who wishes to write about the poetry of Dante Gabriel Rossetti and reads the extant criticism immediately becomes aware how certain specific critical scripts and trajectories present themselves as difficult to avoid. In many respects much criticism still reflects the critical concerns of Robert Buchananās notorious attack on Rossetti in the two versions of his article āThe Fleshly School of Poetryā (1871, 1872).2 Countering the favourable initial wave of criticism, which Rossetti had himself orchestrated by asking friends to review his work, Buchanan denied the mystical and symbolic content of the verse, insisting on its āfleshlinessā and earth-bound materiality, its narrow focus, and asserting that Rossetti as a poet was self-absorbed and narcissistic, ādescribing his own exquisite emotionsā, āa fleshly person, with nothing particular to tell or teach usā (Buchanan 1871 in Riede 1992a, 28, 29); āpoetryā, he declared, āmust deal with great issues in which all men are interested, not with the ādamnable face-makingā of Narcissus in a mirrorā (Buchanan 1872, 89). He also attacked what he called Rossettiās āgrotesque mediƦvalismā, his āaffectedā use of archaisms, the promotion of style and form over any real content or meaning, and a concomitant lack of sincerity (Buchanan 1871 in Riede 1992a, 31, 35, 31). Moreover the poet was chastised for apparently turning his private life into a literary commodity ā āa husband virtually ⦠wheeling his nuptial couch out into the public streetsā ā while there were hints that the poetry was also informed by his clandestine affair with Jane Morris: āthere is running rampant in English society a certain atrocious form of vice, a monster with two heads ā one of which is called Adulteryā (Buchanan 1872, ix, 4).3
Criticism from the mid-twentieth century onwards has reiterated many of these concerns, albeit in a more sophisticated way. The supernatural and mystical elements of Rossettiās verse have been downplayed or seen as superficial, critics preferring to concentrate on what they see as naturalistic detail rather than symbolism, even arguing that Rossetti resists symbolism, replacing it by perception and sensation. As John Holmes has recently pointed out, Buchananās charge of lack of meaning or sincerity has been turned about by those who celebrate what they see as Rossettiās absence or annihilation of meaning (Holmes 2005, 13ā14). With regard to āfleshlinessā, other commentators have focused on Rossettiās depictions of sex and sexuality, particularly in regard to his representation of women, arguing in some cases that his writing has a pornographic or misogynistic content. Rossettiās ānarcissismā, his projection of himself into doubles, reflections, into the Romantic epipsyche or female reflecting beloved, has become something of a critical commonplace, although there is often an undercurrent of censure that suggests there is something narrow, limited or self-absorbed about such projections. Inevitably and perhaps more understandably Rossettiās biography also haunts and informs many critical accounts, if in a diluted form. The picturesque, dramatic, and sensational events of his life are hard to resist, especially as there is now available a vast amount of documentation in the form of letters, annotations, commentaries, and memoirs that make it relatively easy to reconstruct particular contexts for specific poems and paintings. Rossettiās major work, the sonnet sequence The House of Life (1870, 1881), seems calculated to pique curiosity and arouse speculation about the personal events and circumstances that may have motivated the verse. Indeed Theodore Watts-Dunton, who, after Rossettiās death, was widely anticipated to be his biographer, remarked that any reader might know him āas intimately as it is possible to know any man whose biography is written only in his worksā (Watts-Dunton 1916a, 111).
Buchananās insinuations that personal history informed Rossettiās poetry were fairly quickly supplemented by the potent biographical legend of the reclusive, melancholy poet, who, following his breakdown, spent the last decade of his life virtually immured in his home at 16 Cheyne Walk. āMelancholy ⦠is the invariable shadow of high geniusā, wrote William Sharp with regard to Rossetti in an article of 1887 (Sharp 1912, 50). As David Riede writes, āin the years immediately following [Rossettiās] death it seemed as though nearly everyone who knew him rushed into print with memoirs and testimonialsā (Riede 1992a, 3). The principal accounts by Sharp and Thomas Hall Caine help make Rossetti into what we now recognise as a type of the sensitive Romantic or Post-Romantic poet, or what Frank Kermode in Romantic Image, his classic study of 1957, influentially described as āthe artist in isolationā, a figure who still dominates much early twentieth-century poetry. The isolation of Rossettiās later years was compounded by characteristics observable much earlier such as āa genuine lack of interest in passing eventsā (Gosse 1882, 724). He evinced little interest in politics and matters of the day. According to Sharp, āNor had Rossetti much sympathy with or knowledge of nature. The outer world of things appealed to him but slightly, finding as he did his world of imagination sufficientā (Sharp 1912, 64). In spite of critical accounts that suggest otherwise, the sharply observed natural detail that can be found intermittently in the poems and paintings is, for the most part, symbolic or instrumental (see Maxwell 1993).
Riede suggests that āmuch of Rossettiās influence on the aesthetes of the coming generation resulted from what seemed his exemplary, if painful, devotion to an ideal of beauty, his exemplary role as a new type of artistā (Riede 1992a, 7), and he cites Lionel Stevensonās opinion that Rossetti āāwas the first English poet who entirely fulfilled the public image of the poĆØte maudit ā manic-depressive in temperament, alienated from the mores of his time, sensually self-indulgent, and disintegrating under the influences of sex, alcohol, and drugsāā (Stevenson 1972, 77, cited in Riede 1992a, 7). Stevensonās take on the legend is itself recognisably more of a later twentieth-century response which emphasises sensuality, addiction, and disintegration, while the immediate post-1882 reminiscences tend to see Rossetti as more spiritualised, tortured by his past, but disabled principally by his unfortunate dependency on chloral. Notably the idea of the sensually degenerate poĆØte maudit receives a check from Jan Marsh, Rossettiās most recent biographer, who suggests that he most likely did not lose his virginity until the age of thirty, and that, owing to his hydrocele or testicular ailment, and perhaps impotency, his relationship with Jane Morris was probably unconsummated (Marsh 2005, 202, 351, 331). She also remarks that his later chloral dependency, although severe, never seemed to interfere with his creative life to any great degree, a view corroborated by Edmund Gosse and Rossetti himself (Marsh 2005, 488; Gosse 1882, 725).
This chapter makes no claims to avoid the biography in so far as it has a particular interest and investment in the mythic type of the hypersensitive isolated poet, a type it seems that Rossetti himself deliberately helped cultivate, in spite of having many antithetical traits and characteristics noted by his friends such as an uproarious sense of humour and a āmanlyā directness. This self-cultivated tragic aura lends a particular fascination to the verse from which it often seems inextricable. In āThe Song-throeā, Sonnet 61 in the 1881 House of Life, Rossetti himself had insisted that only deep emotion can generate affecting poetry: āBy thine own tears thy song must tears begetā (Rossetti 1911, 95). As Arthur Symons comments: āPart of what hypnotises us in his work is, no doubt, that sense of personal tragedy which comes to us out of its elaborate beauty: the eternal tragedy of those who have loved the absolute in beauty too well, and with too mortal a thirstā (Symons 1916, 206). The hypnotic effect that Symons notices is something routinely ascribed by early critics to both Rossetti himself and his writing. This effect is central to my discussion, which none the less aims to transcend mere biographical data to find ways of talking about Rossettiās poetry that restore to it something of the visionary capability once accorded it by the early critics. For, if Buchanan denied the mystical and symbolic content of the verse, criticism that followed Rossettiās death in 1882 would respond by once more reiterating the mystical and supernatural in his poetry. I refer here principally to monographs and essays by William Sharp (1882, 1887), Theodore Watts-Dunton (1883), Walter Pater (1883), F. W. H. Myers (1883), Arthur Symons (1904), and incidental but significant remarks by W. B. Yeats in a number of articles such as āSymbolism in Paintingā (1898), āThe Theatreā (1899), āThe Happiest of the Poetsā (1902), and āArt and Ideasā (1913).4 Buchanan himself would retract his charges in two poems, and, in a significant essay of reversal published in 1883, singled out Rossetti from among his contemporaries as āthe least objective, the least earthly, and the most idealā (Buchanan 1887, 153).5
Of all these responses the best is Paterās essay, originally written to preface a selection of Rossettiās poetry in Wardās English Poets (1883), in that he understands perfectly how Rossettiās verse manages to be simultaneously material and spiritual. No one seems to have noticed that this beautifully considered evaluation, still rightly thought one of the finest pieces of criticism on the poet (McGann 2000, 58), is actually a subtle, extremely cogent, point-by-point correction of Buchananās earlier charges. Pater stresses Rossettiās exacting, highly individualised but apposite style and vocabulary ā these are āno mere tricks of manner adopted with a view to forcing attentionā ā which marry āsincerityā to āa sort of grandeur of literary worksmanshipā (Pater 1910, App 206, 210). He reinstates the symbolic purpose of Rossettiās verse, explaining his use of āsensible imageryā, āconcrete definitionā, and āabstractionsā, and relates these to the practice of his precursor Dante (Pater 1910, App 207, 208). He re-emphasises Rossettiās central themes as Love and a beauty in which matter and spirit come together ā āall this, conceived with an abundant imagination, and a deep, a philosophic, reflectivenessā (Pater 1910, App 212, 213). Besides alluding to Swedenborgās perception of body and soul and the fact that Rossetti in his later work sounds āsometimes almost like a believer in mesmerismā, Pater remarks in his conclusion that Rossettiās work āwas mainly of the esoteric orderā (Pater 1910, App 214, 218).
Pater aside, the post-1882 critical reaction which emphasises Rossettiās mysticism does not seem to have cut much ice with later critics, who are unaware of its existence, ignore it, or, one assumes, regard it as a form of defensive special pleading. With some notable exceptions such as the Canadian scholar D. M. R. Bentley, critics interested in Rossettiās spiritual and religious influences and intimations are rare.6 Yet the mystical and symbolic Rossetti deserves reconsideration. There is still much to be said about his use of esoteric sources, including a neoplatonism only too familiar to him through his father Gabriele Rossettiās researches and through his own masterly translations of medieval Italian poetry in his The Early Italian Poets, later republished as Dante and His Circle (1861, 1874).7 F. R. Leavisās attack in The Common Pursuit on āRossettiās shamelessly cheap evocation of a romantic and bogus Platonismā (Leavis 1952, 47) shamelessly ignores what Pater recognised only too well when he effectively grouped together Plato, Dante, and Rossetti (Pater 1910, App 212; PP 135) for their fusion of material and spiritual, and saw that they were examples of what, borrowing from Rossetti himself, he calls āLoveās loversā (Pater 1910, App 212; PP 134ā6).8 F. W. H. Myers also emphasised Rossettiās Platonism in his 1883 essay āRossetti and the Religion of Beautyā, though, unlike Pater, he thought it was probably unconscious (Myers in Riede 1992a, 48ā9).
Henry Treffry Dunn, Rossettiās studio and household assistant, records Rossettiās interest in spiritualism and mesmerism, which included his participation in seances, and remarks that āHe was of a highly imaginative nature, and everything that appertained to the mystic had a strange fascination for himā (Dunn 1904, 55ā61, 55).9 Some of Rossettiās interest in mysticism probably stemmed from early influences. William Michaelās statement about his childhood home indicates its almost palpable atmosphere of arcana: āOur father, when writing about the Comedia or the Vita Nuova, was seen surrounded by ponderous folios in italic type, ālibri misticiā and the like (often about alchemy, freemasonry, Brahminism, Swedenborg, the Cabbala, etc.).ā He tells us candidly that the Rossetti children āwere assuredly not much tempted to take up one of his books to see if it would ādo to readāā (W. M. Rossetti 1895, 1.64), a disinclination which none the less may have been reversed as they grew older. The young Rossetti resisted his fatherās interests and later ridiculed his eccentric theories about Dante, but ended up by developing his own passion for the poet. As he writes in the Preface to The Early Italian Poets, āThus, in those early days, all around me partook of the influence of the great Florentine; till, from viewing it as a natural element, I also, growing older, was drawn within the circleā (Rossetti 1911, 283ā4). Rodger Drew, recalling Watts-Duntonās opinion, reminds us that Rossetti, in spite of his reservations about Gabrieleās bizarre and idiosyncratic symbolic system, would, like his sister Christina, inherit his fatherās āinnate obsession with symbolismā (Drew 2007, 146; Watts-Dunton 1916a, 186). Drewās own recent intriguing monograph The Streamās Secret: The Symbolism of Dante Gabriel Rossetti (2007) is a welcome attempt to establish Rossettiās esoteric sources, proposing that his symbolism has its roots in neoplatonism, medieval romance, and alchemy, and in the hermetic magical tradition that developed into Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. Drewās account is thoughtful and provocative, although one wishes that he had tried more strenuously to anchor his speculations to Rossettiās actual reading, as does Pamela Bickley in her fine article on Rossettiās influence on Yeats, where she assiduously notes his reading of Swedenborg, which āinforms āThe Blessed Damozelā and some of the House of Life sonnetsā (Bickley 2001, 84, 101ā2).
This chapter deals less with specific esoteric sources, fascinating though these are, and more with the visual, symbolic, and imaginative dimension of Rossettiās visionary writing. However, as part of this exploration, it draws attention to ideas and images of hypnotic, mesmer...