The London Mercury, Vol. I, Nos. 1-6, November 1919 to April 1920Various
General
The London Mercury, Vol. I, Nos. 1-6, November 1919 to April 1920
Various
English literature -- Periodicals; London (England) -- Periodicals
But in the midst of this unstable luxuriance voices of protest
were to be heard, reactions against the main romantic current were
discernible. Each in his own way and in his own sphere, Donne and
Ben Jonson protested against the exaggerations of the age. At a time
when sonneteers in legions were quibbling about the blackness of
their ladies' eyes or the golden wires of their hair, when Platonists
protested in melodious chorus that they were not in love with "red and
white" but with the ideal and divine beauty of which peach-blossom
complexions were but inadequate shadows, at a time when love-poetry had
become, with rare exceptions, fantastically unreal, Donne called it
back, a little grossly perhaps, to facts with the dry remark:
Love's not so pure and abstract as they use
To say, who have _no mistress_ but their muse.
There have been poets who have written more lyrically than Donne,
more fervently about certain amorous emotions, but not one who has
formulated so rational a philosophy of love as a whole, who has seen
all the facts so clearly and judged of them so soundly. Donne laid down
no literary theory. His followers took from him all that was relatively
unimportant--the harshness, itself a protest against Spenserian
facility, the conceits, the sensuality tempered by mysticism--but the
important and original quality of Donne's work, the psychological
realism, they could not, through sheer incapacity, transfer into their
own poetry. Donne's immediate influence was on the whole bad. Any
influence for good he may have had has been on poets of a much later
date.
The other great literary Protestant of the time was the curious subject
of our examination, Ben Jonson. Like Donne he was a realist. He had
no use for claptrap, or rant, or romanticism. His aim was to give his
audiences real facts flavoured with sound morality. He failed to be
a great realist, partly because he lacked the imaginative insight to
perceive more than the most obvious and superficial reality, and partly
because he was so much preoccupied with the sound morality that he was
prepared to sacrifice truth to satire; so that in place of characters
he gives us humours, not minds, but personified moral qualities.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account