_ There is a word, a "name of fear," which rouses terror
in the heart of the vast educated majority of the English-speaking race.
The most valiant will fly at the mere utterance of that word.
The most broad-minded will put their backs up against it.
The most rash will not dare to affront it. I myself have seen it
empty buildings that had been full; and I know that it will
scatter a crowd more quickly than a hose-pipe, hornets,
or the rumour of plague. Even to murmur it is to incur solitude,
probably disdain, and possibly starvation, as historical examples show.
That word is "poetry."
The profound objection of the average man to poetry can scarcely
be exaggerated. And when I say the average man, I do not mean
the "average sensual man"--any man who gets on to the top of the omnibus;
I mean the average lettered man, the average man who does care a little
for books and enjoys reading, and knows the classics by name
and the popular writers by having read them. I am convinced
that not one man in ten who reads, reads poetry--at any rate, knowingly.
I am convinced, further, that not one man in ten who goes so far as
knowingly to *buy* poetry ever reads it. You will find everywhere
men who read very widely in prose, but who will say quite callously,
"No, I never read poetry." If the sales of modern poetry,
distinctly labelled as such, were to cease entirely to-morrow
not a publisher would fail; scarcely a publisher would be affected;
and not a poet would die--for I do not believe that a single modern
English poet is living to-day on the current proceeds of his verse.
For a country which possesses the greatest poetical literature
in the world this condition of affairs is at least odd.
What makes it odder is that, occasionally, very occasionally,
the average lettered man will have a fit of idolatry for a fine poet,
buying his books in tens of thousands, and bestowing upon him
immense riches. As with Tennyson. And what makes it odder still
is that, after all, the average lettered man does not truly dislike poetry;
he only dislikes it when it takes a certain form. He will read poetry
and enjoy it, provided he is not aware that it is poetry.
Poetry can exist authentically either in prose or in verse.
Give him poetry concealed in prose and there is a chance that,
taken off his guard, he will appreciate it. But show him a page of verse,
and he will be ready to send for a policeman. The reason of this is that,
though poetry may come to pass either in prose or in verse,
it does actually happen far more frequently in verse than in prose;
nearly all the very greatest poetry is in verse; verse is identified
with the very greatest poetry, and the very greatest poetry can only be
understood and savoured by people who have put themselves through a
considerable mental discipline. To others it is an exasperating weariness.
Hence chiefly the fearful prejudice of the average lettered man
against the mere form of verse.
The formation of literary taste cannot be completed until
that prejudice has been conquered. My very difficult task
is to suggest a method of conquering it. I address myself exclusively
to the large class of people who, if they are honest, will declare that,
while they enjoy novels, essays, and history, they cannot "stand" verse.
The case is extremely delicate, like all nervous cases.
It is useless to employ the arts of reasoning, for the matter
has got beyond logic; it is instinctive. Perfectly futile to assure you
that verse will yield a higher percentage of pleasure than prose!
You will reply: "We believe you, but that doesn't help us."
Therefore I shall not argue. I shall venture to prescribe
a curative treatment (doctors do not argue); and I beg you
to follow it exactly, keeping your nerve and your calm.
Loss of self-control might lead to panic, and panic would be fatal.
First: Forget as completely as you can all your present notions
about the nature of verse and poetry. Take a sponge and
wipe the slate of your mind. In particular, do not harass yourself
by thoughts of metre and verse forms. Second: Read William Hazlitt's essay
"On Poetry in General." This essay is the first in the book entitled
*Lectures on the English Poets*. It can be bought in various forms.
I think the cheapest satisfactory edition is in Routledge's
"New Universal Library" (price 1s. net). I might have composed
an essay of my own on the real harmless nature of poetry in general,
but it could only have been an echo and a deterioration of Hazlitt's.
He has put the truth about poetry in a way as interesting, clear,
and reassuring as anyone is ever likely to put it. I do not expect,
however, that you will instantly gather the full message and enthusiasm
of the essay. It will probably seem to you not to "hang together."
Still, it will leave bright bits of ideas in your mind.
Third: After a week's interval read the essay again. On a second perusal
it will appear more persuasive to you.
Fourth: Open the Bible and read the fortieth chapter of Isaiah.
It is the chapter which begins, "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people,"
and ends, "They shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk
and not faint." This chapter will doubtless be more or less
familiar to you. It cannot fail (whatever your particular *ism*)
to impress you, to generate in your mind sensations which you recognise
to be of a lofty and unusual order, and which you will admit
to be pleasurable. You will probably agree that the result
of reading this chapter (even if your particular *ism*
is opposed to its authority) is finer than the result of reading
a short story in a magazine or even an essay by Charles Lamb.
Now the pleasurable sensations induced by the fortieth chapter
of Isaiah are among the sensations usually induced by high-class poetry.
The writer of it was a very great poet, and what he wrote
is a very great poem. Fifth: After having read it, go back to Hazlitt,
and see if you can find anything in Hazlitt's lecture which throws light
on the psychology of your own emotions upon reading Isaiah.
Sixth: The next step is into unmistakable verse. It is to read
one of Wordsworth's short narrative poems, *The Brothers*.
There are editions of Wordsworth at a shilling, but I should advise
the "Golden Treasury" Wordsworth (2s. 6d. net), because it contains
the famous essay by Matthew Arnold, who made the selection.
I want you to read this poem aloud. You will probably have to hide
yourself somewhere in order to do so, for, of course, you would not,
as yet, care to be overheard spouting poetry. Be good enough
to forget that *The Brothers* is poetry. *The Brothers* is a short story,
with a plain, clear plot. Read it as such. Read it simply for the story.
It is very important at this critical stage that you should not
embarrass your mind with preoccupations as to the *form* in which
Wordsworth has told his story. Wordsworth's object was to tell
a story as well as he could: just that. In reading aloud do not pay
any more attention to the metre than you feel naturally inclined to pay.
After a few lines the metre will present itself to you. Do not worry
as to what kind of metre it is. When you have finished the perusal,
examine your sensations....
Your sensations after reading this poem, and perhaps one or two
other narrative poems of Wordsworth, such as *Michael*, will be
different from the sensations produced in you by reading an ordinary,
or even a very extraordinary, short story in prose. They may not be
so sharp, so clear and piquant, but they will probably be,
in their mysteriousness and their vagueness, more impressive.
I do not say that they will be diverting. I do not go so far
as to say that they will strike you as pleasing sensations.
(Be it remembered that I am addressing myself to an imaginary
tyro in poetry.) I would qualify them as being "disturbing."
Well, to disturb the spirit is one of the greatest aims of art.
And a disturbance of spirit is one of the finest pleasures
that a highly-organised man can enjoy. But this truth can only be
really learnt by the repetitions of experience. As an aid
to the more exhaustive examination of your feelings under Wordsworth,
in order that you may better understand what he was trying
to effect in you, and the means which he employed, I must direct you
to Wordsworth himself. Wordsworth, in addition to being a poet,
was unsurpassed as a critic of poetry. What Hazlitt does for poetry
in the way of creating enthusiasm Wordsworth does in the way
of philosophic explanation. And Wordsworth's explanations of the theory
and practice of poetry are written for the plain man.
They pass the comprehension of nobody, and their direct, unassuming,
and calm simplicity is extremely persuasive. Wordsworth's chief essays
in throwing light on himself are the "Advertisement," "Preface,"
and "Appendix" to *Lyrical Ballads*; the letters to Lady Beaumont
and "the Friend" and the "Preface" to the Poems dated 1815.
All this matter is strangely interesting and of immense
educational value. It is the first-class expert talking at ease
about his subject. The essays relating to *Lyrical Ballads* will be
the most useful for you. You will discover these precious documents
in a volume entitled *Wordsworth's Literary Criticism* (published by
Henry Frowde, 2s. 6d.), edited by that distinguished Wordsworthian
Mr. Nowell C. Smith. It is essential that the student of poetry
should become possessed, honestly or dishonestly, either of this volume
or of the matter which it contains. There is, by the way, a volume of
Wordsworth's prose in the Scott Library (1s.). Those who have not read
Wordsworth on poetry can have no idea of the naïve charm
and the helpful radiance of his expounding. I feel that I cannot
too strongly press Wordsworth's criticism upon you.
Between Wordsworth and Hazlitt you will learn all that it behoves you
to know of the nature, the aims, and the results of poetry.
It is no part of my scheme to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's"
of Wordsworth and Hazlitt. I best fulfil my purpose in urgently
referring you to them. I have only a single point of my own to make--
a psychological detail. One of the main obstacles to
the cultivation of poetry in the average sensible man
is an absurdly inflated notion of the ridiculous. At the bottom
of that man's mind is the idea that poetry is "silly."
He also finds it exaggerated and artificial; but these two accusations
against poetry can be satisfactorily answered. The charge of silliness,
of being ridiculous, however, cannot be refuted by argument.
There is no logical answer to a guffaw. This sense of the ridiculous
is merely a bad, infantile habit, in itself grotesquely ridiculous.
You may see it particularly in the theatre. Not the greatest dramatist,
not the greatest composer, not the greatest actor can prevent an audience
from laughing uproariously at a tragic moment if a cat walks across
the stage. But why ruin the scene by laughter? Simply because
the majority of any audience is artistically childish. This sense
of the ridiculous can only be crushed by the exercise of moral force.
It can only be cowed. If you are inclined to laugh when a poet
expresses himself more powerfully than you express yourself,
when a poet talks about feelings which are not usually mentioned
in daily papers, when a poet uses words and images which lie
outside your vocabulary and range of thought, then you had better
take yourself in hand. You have to decide whether you will be on the side
of the angels or on the side of the nincompoops. There is no surer
sign of imperfect development than the impulse to snigger
at what is unusual, naïve, or exuberant. And if you choose to do so,
you can detect the cat walking across the stage in the sublimest
passages of literature. But more advanced souls will grieve for you.
The study of Wordsworth's criticism makes the seventh step
in my course of treatment. The eighth is to return to those poems
of Wordsworth's which you have already perused, and read them again
in the full light of the author's defence and explanation.
Read as much Wordsworth as you find you can assimilate,
but do not attempt either of his long poems. The time, however,
is now come for a long poem. I began by advising narrative poetry
for the neophyte, and I shall persevere with the prescription.
I mean narrative poetry in the restricted sense; for epic poetry
is narrative. *Paradise Lost* is narrative; so is *The Prelude*.
I suggest neither of these great works. My choice falls on
Elizabeth Browning's *Aurora Leigh*. If you once work yourself
"into" this poem, interesting yourself primarily (as with Wordsworth)
in the events of the story, and not allowing yourself to be obsessed
by the fact that what you are reading is "poetry"--if you do this,
you are not likely to leave it unfinished. And before you reach the end
you will have encountered *en route* pretty nearly all the moods of poetry
that exist: tragic, humorous, ironic, elegiac, lyric--everything.
You will have a comprehensive acquaintance with a poet's mind.
I guarantee that you will come safely through if you treat the work
as a novel. For a novel it effectively is, and a better one than any
written by Charlotte Brontë or George Eliot. In reading, it would be well
to mark, or take note of, the passages which give you the most pleasure,
and then to compare these passages with the passages selected for praise
by some authoritative critic. *Aurora Leigh* can be got
in the "Temple Classics" (1s. 6d.), or in the "Canterbury Poets" (1s.).
The indispensable biographical information about Mrs. Browning
can be obtained from Mr. J. H. Ingram's short Life of her
in the "Eminent Women" Series (1s. 6d.), or from *Robert Browning*,
by William Sharp ("Great Writers" Series, 1s.).
This accomplished, you may begin to choose your poets.
Going back to Hazlitt, you will see that he deals with, among others,
Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Pope, Chatterton,
Burns, and the Lake School. You might select one of these,
and read under his guidance. Said Wordsworth: "I was impressed
by the conviction that there were four English poets whom I must
have continually before me as examples--Chaucer, Shakespeare,
Spenser, and Milton." (A word to the wise!) Wordsworth makes a fifth
to these four. Concurrently with the careful, enthusiastic study
of one of the undisputed classics, modern verse should be read.
(I beg you to accept the following statement: that if the study
of classical poetry inspires you with a distaste for modern poetry,
then there is something seriously wrong in the method of your development.)
You may at this stage (and not before) commence an inquiry into
questions of rhythm, verse-structure, and rhyme. There is, I believe,
no good, concise, cheap handbook to English prosody; yet such a manual
is greatly needed. The only one with which I am acquainted is
Tom Hood the younger's *Rules of Rhyme: A Guide to English Versification*.
Again, the introduction to Walker's *Rhyming Dictionary* gives
a fairly clear elementary account of the subject. Ruskin also
has written an excellent essay on verse-rhythms. With a manual
in front of you, you can acquire in a couple of hours
a knowledge of the formal principles in which the music of English verse
is rooted. The business is trifling. But the business of appreciating
the inmost spirit of the greatest verse is tremendous and lifelong.
It is not something that can be "got up." _