Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Browning's intellectual eagerness was in part at least the result of his method of education. It was, as Professor Phelps observes, "the elective system pushed to its last possibility. His father, a well-to-do banker with a penchant for versifying and drawing, and his mother, a spirituelle woman of quick sympathies and refined musical sense, brought their son up on the theory that the office of education is to minister to the tastes and interests of a lad as these reveal themselves. Consequently, after fourteen Robert never went to school, save for a little Greek instruction at the University of London, but was taught at home by his parents and tutors.

The road was kept constantly cleared in front of his growing interests. Thus when he began to show an interest in chemistry, he was provided with a private laboratory in the house. The back garden, in turn, was early transformed into a menagerie where birds, animals, and reptiles could be observed at leisure, and the lad thus early began to build up a knowledge of natural history that later contributed jerboas, auks, tortoises, newts, and Oriental spiders to his poetry. Music, drawing, modeling, poetry and fiction, languages, sciences, history, and philosophy, each ministered to his cravings, and for relaxation he was taught to dance, box, fence, and ride. He always retained, by the way, a fondness for dancing and some of his most spirited poems are tributes to horses that he loved.

But no other subject ever interested him so much as men and women, what they are like, what they do, and why they do it. All sorts and conditions of people troop through his poetry, and he ranges up and down the centuries trying to see the world through the eyes of the most diverse, from Caliban, the primitive man, making God in the likeness of his own mean and superstitious nature, to Lazarus, feeling again for the earthly path with the blinding light of heaven in his eyes.

Catholic as were his early interests, from the very first he showed a predilection for the arts, as his own inevitable field for creative expression. At two years and three months he painted a cottage and some rocks which ". was thought a masterpiece," using a lead pencil and black-currant jam-juice; at twelve he was seeking a publisher for a little volume of poems; and at fourteen he was writing settings for songs. At seventeen, with the sympathetic approval of his father, he formally committed himself to poetry.

The long years of public neglect, changing gradually to partial and then general recognition, the poet's romantic attachment to a kindred poet, Elizabeth Barrett, "a soul of fire enclosed in a shell of pearl," their elopement and rapturous married life in Italy, his brave acceptance of her death, his generous mingling with his fellows, these all are twice-told tales.

Browning secured a hearing in America well in advance of his acceptance by England, and he has always had a host of admirers on this side of the water. This is because he is like us when we are running truest to form. Like us in his buoyancy, his energy, his democratic interest in folk, and his persistent optimism.

William Morris (1834-1896) did more than any other Englishman of his generation to heighten pleasure through beauty. Fancy yourself in a room papered in Morris designs, with drapes of Morris textiles at the windows and hand-woven rugs on the floor, seated before a cheerful fireplace of hand-wrought tiles, reading one of Morris's own dreamy tales in an illuminated edition from the Kelmscott Press. Morris was indeed a man of remarkable versatility and of abounding energy, poet, artist, designer, craftsman, manufacturer; and he turned this fine energy and resource into many channels for what his biographer, J. W. Mackail, has happily termed "the reintegration of human life."

It was this same ardent desire to restore and enrich living that led him at the age of forty-nine to embrace socialism. In the words of Mackail, "He found himself forced reluctantly to the conclusion that hitherto he had not gone to the root of the matter;

that, art being a function of life, sound art was impossible except when life was organized under sound conditions; that the tendency of what is called civilization since the great industrial revolution had been to dehumanize life; and that the only hope for the future was, if that were yet possible, to reconstitute society on a new basis.”

Stocky in build, broad-shouldered and deep-chested, with rugged features, hair and beard tossing wavelike, and eyes of the sea's own depth, he looked like one of that band of roving vikings who, in The Earthly Paradise, spend a year on the fabled island of Atlantis, exchanging stories with the Greeks.

Morris was born in the confines of the old Epping Forest, and he spent much of his boyhood roving through this magic woodland, little changed since the medieval days, a wold where one half expects at any time to chance upon a knight, or yeoman from Robin Hood's band. It is this spirit of medieval enchantment that one finds in all of Morris's early verse.

In 1849 three boys, John Everett Millais, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and Holman Hunt, aged respectively nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one, contributed to the annual free exhibition three canvases — “Isabella" (a banquet scene from Isabella and the Pot of Basil), "The Girlhood of Virgin Mary," and "Rienzi Vowing to Avenge His Brother's Death," which caused the London of art to catch its breath and then to break forth in a storm of protest. These three lads, rebels from the Royal Academy School, were members of the new Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood which had set itself no less a task than to overthrow the accepted canons of painting. For the traditional eighteenth century pseudo-classical conventions of idealized prettiness and insipid sentiment they substituted detailed and faithful imitation of nature and subjects of spiritual or dramatic significance. They accomplished their end, for, whatever fault may be found with the mannerisms of Pre-Raphaelite art, it broke up traditionalism.

To the short-lived magazine which the Brotherhood published, Rossetti contributed My Sister's Sleep, and The Blessed Damozel. The former, written when Rossetti was only nineteen, is the very embodiment of the Pre-Raphaelite creed. The refined notation of sound, light, and color, the dramatic economy, and the superb burst of idealism at the close bespeak the highest genius. The Blessed Damozel is prophetic of the sublimated phrasing and the languid sensuousness which denote all of Rossetti's later art, whether with pen or with brush.

In 1851 Rossetti became engaged to Elizabeth Eleanor Siddal, a tall, willowy young woman with a wealth of coppery hair, but with a tendency to consumption. Her delicate health and Rossetti's scantiness of means postponed the marriage until 1860, and this was followed by her death from an overdose of laudanum in less than two years. In an agony of grief Rossetti placed his unpublished poems, including the sonnets of The House of Life, in the coffin. There they remained for seven years. These sonnets, the most teasingly subtle expression of brooding, ultra-refined moods, record the history of the poet's love. Rossetti would have been a more normal man if this engagement had not been so protracted, but literature would have been the poorer by the most sublimated erotic poems in the language, hovering though they are on the verge of morbidity. Rossetti's poetry was made possible by the fusion of choice Anglo-Saxon and Mediterranean blood. It is the quintessence of romance, compounded of the romance of the north and the romance of the south. The fine blue-grey eyes, the domed, Shakespearian forehead, and the full sensual underlip tell the whole story of the poet and of his art.

When Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837-1909) addressed François Villon as "Prince of sweet songs made out of tears and fire," he wrote his own epitaph. Last of the Victorian poets to cross the farther threshold of life, he had been the consistent arch-enemy of all that Victorianism conventionally implies. A passionate lover of liberty and justice, an unyielding rebel against the restraints that nature and society place upon

our humanity, he celebrated beauty and strength with a pagan recklessness wild as the winds and waves which he loved. Dionysus was his god and Aphrodite his goddess, and he joined their headlong votaries, scornfully defiant of those current deities who, as he felt, had despoiled life of youth and color and joy. Pay the price which a hostile fate requires, but let not its presageful shadow rob you of the moment. This defiance of accepted codes, of kings and priests, cost Swinburne the laureateship, to which his poetical gifts entitled him upon the death of Tennyson.

Yet he was an intense patriot, who believed that, underneath the conventions that seek to stifle it, the English spirit is essentially freedom-loving, and his last poems voice. his belief that England is, as of old, the safeguard of liberty.

In striking contrast to his characteristic defiance and restlessness, are the precious and infinitely tender poems of child-life, the pathetic hunger of age for the innocence and perennial purity and freshness of childhood.

No other English poet has approached Swinburne in the complexity and music of his verse and the command of forms from the simplest to the most intricate. He seems to have exhausted the possibilities in this respect, and free verse was the only alternative left to a new school which sought distinction.

Of Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894) his friend, W. E. Henley, has said it all in his oft-quoted sonnet:

"Thin-legged, thin-chested, slight unspeakably,

Neat-footed and weak-fingered: in his face

Lean, large-boned, curved of beak, and touched with race,
Bold-lipped, rich-tinted, mutable as the sea,
The brown eyes radiant with vivacity
There shines a brilliant and romantic grace,
A spirit intense and rare, with trace on trace
Of passion, impudence, and energy.
Valiant in velvet, light in ragged luck,
Most vain, most generous, sternly critical,
Buffoon and poet, lover and sensualist;
A deal of Ariel, just a streak of Puck,
Much Antony, of Hamlet most of all,

And something of the Shorter Catechist."

If ever a man had the right to pen An Apology for Idlers or to discuss life and death in terms of one another, that man was Stevenson, for he had learned how to turn fruitful idleness to richest account in after-periods of intense industry, and he played the sportsman's game of life with Death across the table for upwards of forty years.

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY

THE ROMANCE OF HISTORY

THE best historians of later times have been seduced from truth, not by their imagination, but by their reason. They far excel their predecessors in the art of deducing general principles from facts. But unhappily they have fallen into the error of distorting facts to suit general principles. They arrive at a theory from looking at some of the phenomena; and the remain

ing phenomena they strain or curtail to
suit the theory. For this purpose it is
not necessary that they should assert
what is absolutely false; for all questions
in morals and politics are questions of
comparison and degree. Any proposition
which does not involve a contradiction in
terms may by possibility be true; and if
all the circumstances which raise
ability in its favor be stated and enforced,
and those which lead to an opposite con-
clusion be omitted or lightly passed over,
it may appear to be demonstrated. In

prob

every human character and transaction there is a mixture of good and evil: a little exaggeration, a little suppression, a judicious use of epithets, a watchful and searching scepticism with respect to the evidence on one side, a convenient credulity with respect to every report or tradition on the other, may easily make a saint of Laud, or a tyrant of Henry IV.

This species of misrepresentation abounds in the most valuable works of modern historians. Herodotus tells his story like a slovenly witness, who, heated by partialities and prejudices, unacquainted with the established rules of evidence, and uninstructed as to the obligations of his oath, confounds what he imagines with what he has seen and heard, and brings out facts, reports, conjectures, and fancies, in one mass. Hume is an accomplished advocate. Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavourable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted; the contradictions into which they fall are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Everything that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for comment and invective; what cannot be denied is extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made: but this insidious candour only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry.

We have mentioned Hume as the ablest and most popular writer of his class; but the charge which we have brought against him is one to which all our most distinguished historians are in some degree obnoxious. Gibbon, in particular, deserves very severe censure. Of all the numerous culprits, however, none is more deeply guilty than Mr. Mitford. We willingly acknowledge the obligations which are due to his talents and industry. The modern historians of Greece had been

in the habit of writing as if the world had learned nothing new during the last sixteen hundred years. Instead of illustrating the events which they narrated by the philosophy of a more enlightened age, they judged of antiquity by itself alone. They seemed to think that notions, long driven from every other corner of literature, had a prescriptive right to occupy this last fastness. They considered all the ancient historians as equally authentic. They scarcely made any distinction between him who related events at which he had himself been present and him who five hundred years after composed a philosophic romance for a society which had in the interval undergone a complete change. It was all Greek, and all true! The centuries which separated Plutarch from Thucydides seemed as nothing to men who lived in an age so remote. The distance of time produced an error similar to that which is sometimes produced by distance of place. There are many good ladies who think that all the people in India live together, and who charge a friend setting out for Calcutta with kind messages to Bombay. To Rollin and Barthelemi, in the same manner, all the classics were contemporaries.

Mr. Mitford certainly introduced great improvements; he showed us that men who wrote in Greek and Latin sometimes told lies; he showed us that ancient history might be related in such a manner as to furnish not only allusions to schoolboys, but important lessons to statesmen. From that love of theatrical effect and high-flown sentiment which had poisoned almost every other work on the same subject his book is perfectly free. But his passion for a theory as false, and far more ungenerous, led him substantially to violate truth in every page. Statements unfavourable to democracy are made with unhesitating confidence, and with the utmost bitterness of language. Every charge brought against a monarch or an aristocracy is sifted with the utmost care. If it cannot be denied, some palliating supposition is suggested; or we are at least reminded that some circumstances

now unknown may have justified what at present appears unjustifiable. Two events are reported by the same author in the same sentence; their truth rests on the same testimony; but the one supports the darling hypothesis, and the other seems inconsistent with it. The one is taken and the other is left.

The practice of distorting narrative into a conformity with theory is a vice not so unfavourable as at first sight it may appear to the interests of political science. We have compared the writers who indulge in it to advocates; and we may add that their conflicting fallacies, like those of advocates, correct each other. It has always been held, in the most enlightened nations, that a tribunal will decide a judicial question most fairly when it has. heard two able men argue, as unfairly as possible, on the two opposite sides of it; and we are inclined to think that this opinion is just. Sometimes, it is true, superior eloquence and dexterity will make the worse appear the better reason; but it is at least certain that the judge will be compelled to contemplate the case under two different aspects. It is certain that no important consideration will altogether escape notice.

This is at present the state of history. The poet laureate appears for the Church of England, Lingard for the Church of Rome. Brodie has moved to set aside the verdicts obtained by Hume; and the cause in which Mitford succeeded is, we understand, about to be reheard. In the midst of these disputes, however, history proper, if we may use the term, is disappearing. The high, grave, impartial summing up of Thucydides is nowhere to be found.

While our historians are practising all the arts of controversy, they miserably neglect the art of narration, the art of interesting the affections and presenting pictures to the imagination. That a writer. may produce these effects without violating truth is sufficiently proved by many excellent biographical works. The immense popularity which well-written books of this kind have acquired deserves the

serious consideration of historians. Voltaire's Charles the Twelfth, Marmontel's Memoirs, Boswell's life of Johnson, Southey's account of Nelson, are perused with delight by the most frivolous and indolent. Whenever any tolerable book of the same description makes it appearance, the circulating libraries are mobbed; the book societies are in commotion; the new novel lies uncut; the magazines and newspapers fill their columns with extracts. In the meantime histories of great empires, written by men of eminent ability, lie unread on the shelves of ostentatious libraries.

The writers of history seem to entertain an aristocratical contempt for the writers of memoirs. They think it beneath the dignity of men who describe the revolutions of nations to dwell on the details which constitute the charm of biography. They have imposed on themselves a code of conventional decencies as absurd as that which has been the bane of the French drama. The most characteristic and interesting circumstances are omitted or softened down, because, as we are told, they are too trivial for the majesty of history. The majesty of history seems to resemble the majesty of the poor King of Spain, who died a martyr to ceremony because the proper dignitaries were not at hand to render him assistance.

That history would be more amusing if this etiquette were relaxed will, we suppose, be acknowledged. But would it be less dignified or less useful? What do we mean when we say that one past event is important and another insignificant? No past event has any intrinsic importance. The knowledge of it is valuable only as it leads us to form just calculations with respect to the future. A history which does not serve this purpose, though it may be filled with battles, treaties, and commotions, is as useless as the series of turnpike tickets collected by Sir Matthew Mite.

Let us suppose that Lord Clarendon, instead of filling hundreds of folio pages with copies of state papers in which the same assertions and contradictions are

« EelmineJätka »