Modern Love and Poems of the English Roadside, with Poems and Ballads

by George Meredith

7. Virago: a domineering, manlike woman

  8. Carmagnole: a popular revolutionary song, dance, and rallying cry

  9. William Edmonstoune Aytoun is credited with popularizing the name.

  10. Etna: a volcano in Sicily

  11. The Cenci, 2.2.108–11.

  12. involution: In biological discourse, a retrograde process of development, the opposite of evolution, degeneration; more generally, it is used to describe being turned in or entangled.

  13. Ecclesiasticus: Deuterocanonical biblical work, accepted in the Roman Catholic canon, also called the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, XXXVII.14

  14. pernickitieness: being overexacting about details; fussiness

  15. “Bothwell” (1856) is a dramatic monologue set in the sixteenth century by poet and parodist William Edmonstoune Aytoun. To characterize this well-received poem as Spasmodic is particularly (though perhaps pointedly) odd, since Aytoun’s parody of the rapturous reviews of the work of the Spasmodists, as well as his 1854 Firmilian, or The Student of Badajoz: A Spasmodic Tragedy (a brilliant parody of Spasmodic poetry itself) are usually credited with killing serious interest in the productions of the so-called Spasmodic school.

  16. Lovell Beddoes is a doctor and poet associated with the Spasmodic school. He committed suicide in 1849, distressed about his poetic career.

  17. bacchante: a female follower of Bacchus, god of wine and intoxication, often portrayed in states of violent, erotic frenzy

  18. James Montgomery (1771–1854), a British poet.

  19. “Festus,” by Philip James Bailey (1816–1902), was initially published anonymously at Bailey’s father’s expense in 1839. It went through several editions, getting longer each time.

  20. Job 10:21.

  21. ex cathedra: Latin; literally “from the chair”; used to denote a teaching authority

  22. Psalm 2:4.

  Henry James, from “Charles Baudelaire” (1876)1

  This essay is a response to a debate in the pages of the Nation about the relationship between aesthetic and moral value. Henry James (1843–1916), an American novelist and literary critic, took the controversy (gesturing toward it in the essay’s opening paragraph, which we’ve omitted) as a launching point for a nuanced meditation on the question at the heart of Hallam’s, Arnold’s, and Massey’s essays: What ought to be the proper subject for poetry, and why? James’s critique of Baudelaire’s choice of subjects resonates with the early critical responses to Meredith’s “Modern Love” and the “Poems and Ballads,” which were attacked for their focus on sin and misery. See also Baudelaire’s poem “Causerie” in the “Other Poetry” section of “Contexts,” which follow.

  [Baudelaire’s] celebrity began with the publication of Les Fleurs du Mal,2 a collection of verses some of which had already appeared in periodicals. The Revue des Deux Mondes had taken the responsibility of introducing a few of them to the world—or rather, though it held them at the baptismal font of public opinion, it declined to stand godfather. An accompanying note in the Revue disclaimed all editorial approval of their morality. This of course procured them a good many readers; and when, on its appearance, the volume we have mentioned was overhauled by the police, a still greater number of persons desired to possess it. Yet in spite of the service rendered him by the censorship, Baudelaire has never become in any degree popular; the lapse of twenty years has seen but five editions of Les Fleurs du Mal. The foremost feeling of the reader of the present day will be one of surprise, and even amusement, at Baudelaire’s audacities having provoked this degree of scandal. The world has travelled fast since then, and the French censorship must have been, in the year 1857, in a very prudish mood. There is little in Les Fleurs du Mal to make the reader of either French or English prose and verse of the present day even open his eyes. We have passed though the fiery furnace and profited by experience. We are like Racine’s heroine, who had

  Su se faire un front qui ne rougit jamais.3

  Baudelaire’s verses do not strike us as being dictated by a spirit of bravado—though we have heard that, in talk, it was his habit, to an even tiresome degree, to cultivate the quietly outrageous—to pile up monstrosities and blasphemies without winking, and with the air of uttering proper commonplaces.

  Les Fleurs du Mal is evidently a sincere book—so far as anything for a man of Baudelaire’s temper and culture could be sincere. Sincerity seems to us to belong to a range of qualities with which Baudelaire and his friends were but scantily conversant. His great quality was an inordinate cultivation of the sense of the picturesque, and his care was for how things looked, and whether some kind of imaginative amusement was not to be got out of them, much more than for what they meant and whither they led, and what was their use in human life at large. The later editions of Les Fleurs du Mal (with some of the interdicted pieces still omitted and others, we believe, restored) contain a long preface by Théophile Gautier,4 which throws a curious sidelight upon what the Spiritualist newspapers would call Baudelaire’s “mentality.” Of course Baudelaire is not to be held accountable for what Gautier says of him, but we cannot help judging a man in some degree by the company he keeps. To admire Gautier is certainly excellent taste, but to be admired by Gautier we cannot but regard as rather compromising. He gives a magnificently picturesque account of the author of Les Fleurs du Mal, in which, indeed, the question of pure veracity is evidently so very subordinate that it seems grossly ill-natured for us to appeal to such a standard. While we are reading him, however, we find ourselves wishing that Baudelaire’s analogy with him were either greater or less. Gautier was perfectly sincere, because he dealt only with the picturesque, and pretended to care only for appearances. But Baudelaire (who, to our mind, was an altogether inferior genius to Gautier) applied the same process of interpretation to things as regards which it was altogether inadequate; so that one is constantly tempted to suppose he cares more for his process—for making grotesquely-pictorial verse—than for the things themselves. On the whole, as we have said, this inference would be unfair. Baudelaire had a certain groping sense of the moral complexities of life, and if the best that he succeeds in doing is to drag them down into the very turbid element in which he himself plashes and flounders, and there present them to us much besmirched and bespattered, this was not a want of goodwill in him, but rather a dulness and permanent immaturity of vision. For American readers, furthermore, Baudelaire is compromised by his having made himself the apostle of our own Edgar Poe. He translated, very carefully and exactly, all of Poe’s prose writings, and, we believe, some of his very valueless verses. With all due respect to the very original genius of the author of the Tales of Mystery, it seems to us that to take him with more than a certain degree of seriousness is to lack seriousness one’s self. An enthusiasm for Poe is the mark of a decidedly primitive stage of reflection. Baudelaire thought him a profound philosopher, the neglect of whose golden utterances stamped his native land with infamy. Nevertheless, Poe was vastly the greater charlatan of the two, as well as the greater genius.

  Les Fleurs du Mal was a very happy title for Baudelaire’s verses, but it is not altogether a just one. Scattered flowers incontestably do bloom in the quaking swamps of evil, and the poet who does not mind encountering bad odors in his pursuit of sweet ones is quite at liberty to go in search of them. But Baudelaire has, as a general thing, not plucked the flowers—he has plucked the evil-smelling weeds (we take it that he did not use the word flowers in a purely ironical sense), and he has often taken up mere cupfuls of mud and bog-water. He had said to himself that it was a great shame that the realm of evil and unclean things should be fenced off from the domain of poetry; that it was full of subjects, of chances and effects; that it had its light and shade, its logic and its mystery; and that there was the making of some capital verses in it. So he leaped the barrier, and was soon immersed in it up to his neck. Baudelaire’s imagination was of a melancholy and sinister kind, and, to a considerable extent, this plunging into darkness and dirt was doubtl
ess very spontaneous and disinterested. But he strikes us on the whole as passionless, and this, in view of the unquestionable pluck and acuteness of his fancy, is a great pity. He knew evil not by experience, not as something within himself, but by contemplation and curiosity, as something outside of himself, by which his own intellectual agility was not in the least discomposed, rather, indeed (as we say his fancy was of a dusky cast), agreeably flattered and stimulated. In the former case, Baudelaire, with his other gifts, might have been a great poet. But, as it is, evil for him begins outside and not inside, and consists primarily of a great deal of lurid landscape and unclean furniture. This is an almost ludicrously puerile view of the matter. Evil is represented as an affair of blood and carrion and physical sickness—there must be stinking corpses and starving prostitutes and empty laudanum bottles in order that the poet shall be effectively inspired.

  A good way to embrace Baudelaire at a glance is to say that he was, in his treatment of evil, exactly what Hawthorne was not—Hawthorne,5 who felt the thing at its source, deep in the human consciousness. Baudelaire’s infinitely slighter volume of genius apart, he was a sort of Hawthorne reversed. It is the absence of this metaphysical quality in his treatment of his favorite subjects (Poe was his metaphysician, and his devotion sustained him through a translation of “Eureka!”) which exposes him to that class of accusations of which M. Edmond Schérer’s6 talk about his feeding upon pourriture7 is an example; and, in fact, in his pages we never know with what we are dealing. We encounter an inextricable confusion of sad emotions and vile things, and we are at a loss to know whether the subject pretends to appeal to our conscience or—we were going to say—to our olfactories. “Le Mal?” we exclaim; “you do yourself too much honor. This is not Evil; it is not the wrong; it is simply the nasty!” Our impatience is of the same order as that which we should feel if a poet, pretending to pluck “the flowers of good,” should come and present us, as specimens, a rhapsody on plum-cake and on cologne-water. Independently of the question of his subjects, the charm of Baudelaire’s verse is often of a very high order. He belongs to the class of geniuses in whom we ourselves find but a limited pleasure—the laborious, deliberate, economical writers, those who fumble a long time in their pockets before they bring out their hand with a coin in the palm. But the coin, when Baudelaire at last produced it, was often of a high value. He had an extraordinary verbal instinct and an exquisite felicity of epithet. We cannot help wondering, however, at Gautier’s extreme admiration for his endowment in this direction; it is the admiration of the writer who flows for the writer who trickles. In one point Baudelaire is extremely remarkable—in his talent for suggesting associations. His epithets seem to have come out of old cupboards and pockets; they have a kind of magical mustiness. Moreover, his natural sense of the superficial picturesqueness of the miserable and the unclean was extremely acute; there may be a difference of opinion as to the advantage of possessing such a sense; but whatever it is worth, Baudelaire had it in a high degree. One of his poems—“To a red-haired Beggar Girl”—is a masterpiece in the way of graceful expression of this high relish of what is shameful:

  Pour moi, poëte chétif,

  Ton jeune corps maladif,

  Plein de taches de rousseur,

  A sa douceur.8

  Baudelaire repudiated with indignation the charge that he was what is called a realist, and he was doubtless right in doing so. He had too much fancy to adhere strictly to the real; he always embroiders and elaborates and endeavors to impart that touch of strangeness and mystery which is the very raison d’être9 of poetry. Baudelaire was a poet, and for a poet to be a realist is of course nonsense.10 The idea which Baudelaire imported into his theme was, as a general thing, an intensification of its repulsiveness, but it was at any rate ingenious. When he makes an invocation to “la Débauche aux bras immondes,”11 one may be sure he means more by it than is evident to the vulgar—he means, that is, an intenser perversity. Occasionally he treats agreeable subjects, and his least sympathetic critics must make a point of admitting that his most successful poem is also his most wholesome and most touching: we allude to “Les Petites Vieilles”—a really masterly production. But if it represents the author’s maximum, it is a note which he very rarely struck.

  Baudelaire, of course, is a capital text for a discussion of the question as to the importance of the morality—or of the subject-matter in general—of a work of art; for he offers a rare combination of technical zeal and patience and of vicious sentiment. But even if we had space to enter upon such a discussion, we should spare our words, for argument on this point wears to our sense a simply ridiculous aspect. To deny the relevancy of subject-matter and the importance of the moral quality of a work of art strikes us as, in two words, ineffably puerile. We do not know what the great moralists would say about the matter—they would probably treat it very good-humoredly; but that is not the question. There is very little doubt what the great artists would say. These geniuses feel that the whole thinking man is one, and that to count out the moral element in one’s appreciation of an artistic total is exactly as sane as it would be (if the total is a poem) to eliminate all the words in three syllables, or to consider only such portions of it as were written by candlelight. The crudity of sentiment of the advocates of “art for art”12 is often a striking example of the fact that a great deal of what is called culture may fail to dissipate a well-seated provincialism of spirit. They talk of morality as Miss Edgeworth’s13 infantine heroes and heroines talk of “physic”14—they allude to its being put in and kept out of a work of art, put in and kept out of one’s appreciation of the same, as if it were a colored fluid kept in a big-labelled bottle in some mysterious intellectual closet. It is in reality simply a part of the essential richness of inspiration—it has nothing to do with the artistic process, and it has everything to do with the artistic effect. The more a work of art feels it at its source, the richer it is; the less it feels it, the poorer it is. People of a large taste prefer rich works to poor ones, and they are not inclined to assent to the assumption that the process is the whole work. We are safe in believing that all this is comfortably clear to most of those who have, in any degree, been initiated into art by production. For them the subject is as much a part of their work as their hunger is a part of their dinner. Baudelaire was not so far from being of this way of thinking as some of his admirers would persuade us; yet we may say on the whole that he was the victim of a grotesque illusion. He tried to make fine verses on ignoble subjects, and in our opinion he signally failed. He gives, as a poet, a perpetual impression of discomfort and pain. He went in search of corruption, and the ill-conditioned jade proved a thankless muse. The thinking reader, feeling himself, as a critic, all one, as we have said, finds the beauty perverted by the ugliness. What the poet wished, doubtless, was to seem to be always in the poetic attitude; what the reader sees is a gentleman in a painful-looking posture, staring very hard at a mass of things from which we more intelligently avert our heads.

  Notes

  1. Henry James, “Charles Baudelaire,” Nation (27 April 1876): 280–81.

  2. Les Fleurs du Mal: French, “The Flowers of Evil”

  3. su se faire . . . jamais: From Racine’s Phaedra: A Tragedy in Five Acts, 3.3: “put on a face that never blushes.”

  4. Pierre Jules Théophile Gautier (1811–1872), a French poet, novelist, dramatist, literary and art critic.

  5. Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–1864), an American novelist and short story writer.

  6. M. Edmond Schérer (1815–1889), a French literary critic, theologian, and politician.

  7. pourriture: French, “rot” or “decay”

  8. Pour moi . . . douceur: “For me, puny poet, / Your young sickly body, / Full of freckles / Has its sweetness.”

  9. raison d’être: French, “reason for existing”

  10. Cf. Massey’s “Poetry—The Spasmodists,” which advocates a realist approach to poetry

  11. la Débauche . . . immo
ndes: French, “debauchery, with filthy arms”

  12. “art for art”: art for art’s sake, the English translation of the French l’Art pour l’Art, a phrase often attributed to Gautier and associated with the idea—and the movement inspired by the idea—that art need not have a moral or utilitarian function

  13. Maria Edgeworth (1767–1849), an Anglo-Irish novelist.

  14. physic: medicine, medicinal preparation

  Gerard Manley Hopkins, “Author’s Preface” (1883)1

  The following two selections from Gerard Manley Hopkins’s (1844–1889) prose offer a clear picture of the difference between “running rhythm” and “sprung rhythm,” and make a strong claim for the positive value of reading poetry aloud. Oddly enough—given the density of his prose—Hopkins, like Wordsworth, believed that poetry ought to correspond to the rhythms of natural speech. Hopkins’s poems, by representing the work of poetic inspiration upon the brain though rhythm, unconventional syntax, puns, ellipses, neologisms, repetition, and compound words, allow readers to access what he considered to be the distinctive design that constitutes the dynamic identity of another being. Understanding poetic form is thus paramount to appreciating Hopkins’s verse as he intended it. In the “Author’s Preface,” which follows, Hopkins frames his idiosyncratic practices of scansion, the metrical analysis of verse. In the following letter to friend and fellow poet Robert Bridges, Hopkins discusses the challenges of poetic intelligibility and expresses his intention that Harry Ploughman “be a vivid figure before the mind’s eye.”

  The poems in this book2 are written some in Running Rhythm, the common rhythm in English use, some in Sprung Rhythm, and some in a mixture of the two. And those in the common rhythm are some counterpointed, some not.

  Common English rhythm, called Running Rhythm above, is measured by feet of either two or three syllables and (putting aside the imperfect feet at the beginning and end of lines and also some unusual measures, in which feet seem to be paired together and double or composite feet to arise) never more or less.