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
Portentous melody of what giants wasting
Near death, on what a mountainous eminence
Still, in the proud contempt of consequence,
The wine of life with jubilation tasting.
The figure of St. Francis has been created and recreated in art; like
those of Nero, Philip II., and Mary Stuart. With the mythical who
are but names we can do what we will; Lear and Hamlet Shakespeare
could cast in the sublimest mould; with the historical we are tied by
the historical, and few are great enough to come through the sieve.
Poets have attempted and failed to make great characters of Becket,
of Wolsey, of Strafford, and Charles I.; their degree of failure has
varied, but they have failed as certainly as Keats would have failed
with King Stephen. The material was not there. Cromwell and Frederick
the Great at least equalled Philip II. in achievement, and excelled him
in intelligence. But Carlyle's two heroes were no true heroes for an
artist; we are too uncertain about Cromwell's inner man, his direction;
for all his battles he could cast no colour over his surroundings; and
as for Frederick there was no tragedy about him--that was left for
his neighbours. A great Cromwell, in one sense, would be an invented
Cromwell; and we cannot invent a Cromwell because of the documents. But
Philip II., the intense, narrow, laborious, dyspeptic bigot, sitting
in a cell of his great bleak prison on the plateau, trying to watch
every corner of the world, and contriving how to scourge most of it; he
was contemptible, full of vices, a failure, but there was that in him
which has compelled the gaze of poets in seclusion from the seventeenth
century down to Verhaeren and Verlaine. He had a virtue in excess.
There was a touch of sublimity about him. The setting counts for much;
monarchs are on pinnacles. But where is Philip IV., except for his
horse-face on the canvases of Velasquez? Where even, as against the
man he beat, is William the Silent, who waged a great fight against
odds and died by the dagger; but was a cool Whig, excessive in nothing
but self-control? He is scarcely alive; but Satan, as Milton saw him,
reigns in hell. We must have splendour of a sort. The normal man loves
a conflagration, though he will lend a hand in putting it out; and if
he is putting it out the inmost heart of him will rejoice if it be
a large fire and there are very few firemen. Vivid force, moral or
non-moral, must be there; a Borgia, though he be as wicked as a Nero,
cannot compete with him before the imagination; he was commonplace and
sordid and there is no response to him.
Such passages and such people kindle us in the records of the past.
How, from this point of view, will the last five years, crowded and
full of strife, look when we are the materials for art?
* * * * *
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