English poetry -- 19th century -- History and criticism; Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901
Nothing is easier than for one age to be shallow and arrogant about the
spiritual and intellectual preoccupation of another. To active minds,
even the most cynical among them, life is such an urgent and absorbing
business, so desperately charged with significance, that it is easy
enough to suppose that contemporary methods of approach to it are the
only wisely chosen ones, and this particularly in contrast with those
of an immediately preceding age. I do not know that any critic of
to-day thinks that Homer was a liar or a fool because he believed, or
professed to believe, in the hierarchy of Zeus and the enchantment of
the Sirens, or complains that Shakespeare was a credulous ghostmonger,
or that Shelley, in holding that the world could be satisfactorily
governed by a quixotic political idealism, was only a little less inept
than Machiavelli, who thought that it could be redeemed by political
craft. We find no difficulty in accepting Homer and Shakespeare
(who, by the way, is just as likely to have actually believed in the
appearance of ghosts as not, and who made fairies real, when most
modern writers can do nothing but make them silly) on their own terms
in their relation to life. If we understand the functions of poetry we
are not the less moved by Milton’s description of the creation of the
world because we no longer believe that it happened in that way, and
I suppose there would be none among us found with temerity enough to
suggest that Milton himself did not believe it and that he was setting
his story down idly without conviction. In all these instances we
are willing to admit that it is not the creed that matters, but the
faith and passion with which it is held, and we will allow the poets
any conclusions they like so long as we are persuaded of their own
imaginative good faith. And yet this generosity is not always found
when the conclusions happen to be those of an age against which our own
lives are partly passed in reaction, and many honest critics who would
call Homer neither liar nor fool are misled into calling Tennyson both.
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