Critical Essays E-Book

Ford Madox Ford

• Herausgeber: Lives and Letters
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Seitenzahl: 811

Beschreibung

In 1911 some of D.H. Lawrence's poems and his story Odour of Chrysanthemums found their way, without his knowledge, to the desk of the editor of the English Review, Ford Madox Hueffer (later Ford). Ford was astonished and invited Lawrence to meet him, which the poet did with superb reluctance. Ford reinvents the meeting in 1937, recalling how, 'He had come, like the fox, with his overflood of energy - his abounding vitality of passionate determination that seemed always too big for his frail body.' Ford included the work in the English Review, talked up the new writer, and handed on his first novel, The White Peacock, to Messrs Heinemann. It is hard to understate the impact that Ford had on the literature of his age. His work as a magazine editor alone ensures him a place in the annals of Modernism; his patronage, his successful as much as his squandered aid - to Lawrence, Wyndham Lewis, Hudson, Pound, Conrad, Joyce, Stein, early Hemingway, Cummings, Rhys and others remembered and forgotten - is a huge chapter of literary history. As well as being an enabler, he was also a great critic, with the ability to read the present and re-read the past with independent vision. Series Editor: Bill Hutchings

Leseprobe

Contents

Title Page

Introduction by Richard Stang and Max Saunders

Note on the Text

Acknowledgements

The Evolution of a Lyric (1899)

Creative History and the Historic Sense (1903–4)

The Collected Poems of Christina Rossetti (1904)

A Literary Causerie: On Some Tendencies of Modern Verse (1905; on Sturge Moore)

Literary Portraits from The Tribune

III. Mr John Galsworthy (1907)

VIII. Mr Joseph Conrad (1907)

[X, but says VIII]. Maxim Gorky (1907)

IX [sic: should be XI]. Mr Dion Clayton Calthrop (1907)

XIV. Mr Maurice Hewlett (1907)

From XXIII. The Year 1907

XXIV. The Year 1908

XXVII. Mr Charles Doughty (1908)

Shylock as Mr Tree

Essays from The English Review

The Unemployed (1908)

Review of George Saintsbury, A History of English Prosody (1909)

The Work of W.H. Hudson (1909)

Algernon Charles Swinburne (1909)

George Meredith OM (1909)

Review of C.F.G. Masterman, The Condition of England (1909)

Joseph Conrad (1911)

D.G.R. (1911)

Essays from The Bystander

A Tory Plea for Home Rule (2 articles; 1911)

Pan and The Pantomime (on Shaw; 1912)

Literary Portraits and Other Essays from The Outlook

I. Mr Compton Mackenzie and Sinister Street (1913)

VI. Mr John Galsworthy and The Dark Flower (1913)

VII. Mr Percival Gibbon and The Second-Class Passenger (1913)

XII. Herr Arthur Schnitzler and Bertha Garlan (1913)

XXIII. Fydor Dostoevsky and The Idiot (1914)

XXV. Monsignor Benson and Initiation (1914)

XXVI. Miss Amber Reeves and A Lady and her Husband (1914)

XXVIII. Mr Morley Roberts and Time and Thomas Waring (1914)

XXXI. Lord Dunsany and Five Plays (1914)

XXXIV. Miss May Sinclair and The Judgment of Eve (1914)

XXXV. Les Jeunes and Des Imagistes (1914)

XXXVI. Les Jeunes and Des Imagistes (Second Notice) (1914)

XXXVIII. Mr W.H. Mallock and Social Reform (1914)

XXXIX. Mr W.B. Yeats and his New Poems (1914)

XLII. Mr Robert Frost and North of Boston (1914)

France, 1915 (continued) (1915)

Sologub and Artzibashef (1915)

A Jubilee (review of Some Imagist Poets) (1915)

On a Notice of Blast (1915)

‘Thus to Revisit’, Piccadilly Review, 1919

I. The Novel (Gilbert Cannan, Time and Eternity; Virginia Woolf, Night and Day)

II. The Realistic Novel (Dostoevsky, An Honest Thief; George Stevenson, Bengy)

III. The Serious Books (Max Beerbohm, Seven Men; W.H. Hudson, Birds in Town and Village)

V. Biography and Criticism (Henry Festing Jones, Samuel Butler; Wyndham Lewis, The Caliph’s Design)

Letter to the Editor of The Athenaeum (1920)

An Answer to ‘Three Questions’ (1922)

A Haughty and Proud Generation (1922)

Ulysses and the Handling of Indecencies (1922)

Mr Conrad’s Writing (1923)

Literary Causeries from the Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine

II. Vill Loomyare

III. And the French

VIII. So She Went into The Garden … (on Joyce; 1924)

Essays from the transatlantic review (1924)

Stocktaking: Towards a Revaluation of English Literature

II. Axioms and Internationalisms

[III. but headed] II. (continued)

IV. Intelligentsia

IX. The Serious Book (continued)

X. The Reader

From a Paris Quay (II) (1925)

The Other House (review of Jean-Aubry’s Joseph Conrad; 1927)

Cambridge on the Caboodle (on Forster; 1927)

Thomas Hardy, OM Obiit 11 January 1928

Elizabeth Madox Roberts by Ford Madox Ford (1928)

On Conrad’s Vocabulary (1928)

Review of Josephine Herbst, Nothing is Sacred (1928)

Review of Sinclair Lewis, Dodsworth (1929)

Mediterranean Reverie (on Pound; 1933)

Hands Off the Arts (1935)

Men and Books (on Conrad; 1936)

Observations on Technique (1937)

Ralston Crawford’s Pictures (1937)

The Flame in Stone (on Louise Bogan; 1937)

None Shall Look Back (on Caroline Gordon; 1937)

Statement on the Spanish War (1937)

Index

About The Author

Also by Ford Madox Ford from Carcanet

Copyright

Introduction

The purpose of this volume is to bring together essays very few of which have been republished in books before. Because Ford wrote critical essays all his writing life – well over five hundred periodical contributions have been discovered – it seemed to the present editors that it would make sense to allow the general reader access to the best of them, especially now that Ford enjoys a rather general recognition as a major twentieth-century author.

Perhaps these essays will send the reader to Ford’s many books of criticism, such as Thus to Revisit, Portraits from Life, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, The English Novel, and The March of Literature; and to the essays in collections such as Sondra Stang’s A Ford Madox Ford Reader, Frank MacShane’s Critical Writings of Ford Madox Ford, Brita Lindberg-Seyested’s Pound/Ford, Martin Stannard’s Norton Critical Edition of The Good Soldier. Work now in print was not included in the present volume since it seemed wasteful to use the limited space available to us reprinting material easily accessible.

The essays are arranged chronologically. They span nearly forty years, covering most of Ford’s publishing life, from his formative collaboration with Conrad to his last years. Three phases predominate, however, and they correspond to the three phases of his greatest creative intensity, when he was not only prolific, and at his best, as a critic, but was also writing his best fiction. From 1907 to 1910, when completing the Fifth Queen trilogy and writing A Call, Ford was producing weekly reviews for the Daily Mail and The Tribune, then writing for the magazine he founded and edited, The English Review. From 1913–14, while writing his best pre-war novel, The Good Soldier, and into 1915, he contributed weekly essays to The Outlook. Then in the mid-1920s, while working on his post-war masterpiece Parade’s End, he founded and wrote for a new magazine, the transatlantic review, as well as writing for other periodicals, and producing one of his best books of critical reminiscence, Joseph Conrad.

These essays, most of which give us Ford’s response as a reader to work just published, will perhaps help us to understand why Pound claimed in 1914 that Ford was ‘the best critic in England, one might say the only critic of any importance’, and Marianne Moore that Ford’s reviews ‘were of inestimable value to me, as method’.1 Few people today have heard of most of the books Ford reviewed in the pages of The Tribune, The Outlook, The Daily Mail and other newspapers and magazines. His portraits included writers we no longer read or whose names are only familiar to us from literary histories: Hall Caine, Mrs Mary E. Mann, Maurice Hewlett, Charles Doughty, Lord Dunsany, W.H. Mallock. Many of the books are clearly period pieces not likely to be exhumed. But because Ford asks the right questions when confronting a new work by a contemporary, these reviews of now forgotten books and the larger questions about writing they raise make them worth rescuing.

Interspersed with these are a large number of reviews of more significant figures: Shaw, Pound, Anatole France, Joyce, Wells, Bennett, Galsworthy, Conrad, Hardy, Schnitzler, Gorky, Dostoevsky, Yeats, Frost. In both categories, one reads Ford’s reviews for what he tells us about literature and its relation to a given time, and in doing that he communicates to us his distinctive note – genial and serious, civilized; if sometimes quirky, wrong-headed, and mildly outrageous. Clearly, it is immensely valuable to have the immediate response of an intelligent contemporary, especially one like Ford, who was at the same time reshaping the literary landscape.

Indeed, if all the literary portraits from The Daily Mail, The Tribune, and The Outlook were published as a group, it would provide a great source for understanding the literary situation of that time: the literary diary of one of the great minds of modern literature, showing how the modern movements (Impressionism, Imagism, Vorticism, Modernism) appeared in the cultural milieu of early twentieth-century London.

He was not necessarily interested in ‘judicious’ criticism. Rather, his instinct as a critic was bold and excessive – to follow wherever the friction between the work and his temperament might take him. Always deeply engaged, always vital, his writing tended to proceed by leaps, even overstatement, never to provide a final judgement on the work he was discussing, but to arouse a response in his reader, to provoke thought rather than foreclose it. His deliberately sweeping statements were not meant to be taken literally, but he did want to be taken seriously. Hence, he was never cautious and did not mind being shocking. As he said in The English Novel,

what I am about to write is highly controversial and [… the reader] must take none of it too much au pied de la lettre. I don’t mean to say that it will not be written with almost ferocious seriousness. But what follows are suggestions not dictates, for in perusing this sort of book the reader must be prepared to do a good deal of the work for himself – within his own mind.

On some of the sweeping statements of that book, he said the reader must object ‘as violently as possible: then, in reaction, thinking it over he will probably find there is something in what I say’.2

For Ford, the purpose of his criticism was to force the reader to be open to new impressions. The great enemy of art, as he saw it, was received opinion, stock responses, following conventions for conventions’ sake. To lose touch with reality – with the world outside of one’s self – would be to forestall the kind of reaction he had to reading for the first time the first Lawrence story he saw, ‘Odour of Chrysanthemums’. In Portraits from Life he gives a marvellous vignette of that exemplary close-reading.3

His criticism is never systematic, theoretical, abstract, academic. He hated systems and the systematizing mind, the kind of mind he thought of as Prussian, resulting in the kind of work then emanating from German universities, as he hated language which loses touch with the spoken word, poetic diction, conventional language, academic jargon. (The parallels with Wordsworth’s famous preface to Lyrical Ballads are striking.) For him all writing had to be an individual rendering of what an individual really perceived. Even though he claimed to have hated Ruskin as one of the bearded Victorian greats who made his childhood miserable, Ruskin stated Ford’s credo as clearly as anyone:

… the greatest thing the human soul does in this world is to SEE something, and tell what it SAW in a plain way. Hundreds of people can talk for one who can think, but thousands can think for one who can see. To see clearly is poetry, prophecy, and religion – all in one.4

Seeing clearly is what most of us do not do most of the time. It follows that when an artist sees clearly, and communicates to us his vision, something in our world has altered: our world has been transformed. According to Ford, in Provence, ‘the authentic note of the great poet is to modify for you the aspect of the world and of your relationship to the world’, and in his introduction to Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, he develops this idea:

a writer holds a reader by his temperament. That is his true ‘gift’ – what he receives from whoever sends him into the world. It arises from how you look at things. If you look at and render things so that they appear new to the reader you will hold his attention [….] You have had a moment of surprise and then your knowledge is added to. The word ‘author’ means ‘someone who adds to your consciousness’.5

Thus the artist must be an individual with an individual manner of seeing, an individual temperament, yet he is also part of a larger whole, which Ford liked to call ‘the Republic of letters’, which with the other arts is ‘the only real civilizing agency at work today’. After the First World War, which ushered in an increasingly bleak world marked by nationalism, militarism, mindless technology and ‘technocrats’, and totalitarianism, he wrote: ‘beautiful talents are the desperate need of these sad months and years when we tremble on the verge of a return to barbarism…’6 In the transatlantic review he explained why, in a passage reminiscent of Matthew Arnold’s definition of culture as the humanization of man in society:

the Arts […] make you understand your fellow human being: they may indeed make you understand your fellow brute beast. In either case in the train of comprehension come sympathy and tolerance and after subjecting yourself for some time to the influence of the arts you become less of a brute beast yourself.

This is the only humanising process that has no deleterious sides since all systems of morality tend to develop specific sides of a character at the expense of all other sides.7

Ford was clearly influenced by the aestheticism of the 1880s and 1890s. He writes of ‘that high, fine pleasure’ of poetry; and his great pleasure in reading comes across powerfully.8 Yet at the same time he always thought of art as communication. ‘An art is the highest form of communication between person and person’9 – again a Wordsworthian ideal, that of the poet as ‘a man speaking to men’. He is at his best as a reader of other writers – responding to their temperaments, their perceptions, their language, their art – rather than as a theorizer.

Sondra Stang, who sadly did not live to finish this project which she began, should have the last words. She wrote of Ford’s unusual preference for Christina Rossetti’s verse over that of her brother Dante Gabriel:

Her achievement was that, looking at life around her, she wrote in the ‘clear pure language of our own day’, unlike her brother Dante Gabriel, who had given the ‘numbing blow of a sandbag’ to the art of writing in English, ‘digging for obsolete words with which to express ideas forever dead and gone’.

Whether or not Ford was fair to either of the Rossettis, and whether or not Christina’s poetry was significant for the twentieth century, Ford’s preference should be understood as a moment in the gradual clarification of his own aesthetic. Readers looking for a judicious and disengaged point of view, that of an ideal literary historian, perpetually contemporary with them, have of course found Ford’s criticism disturbing, and his attack on the nineteenth-century English novel (or ‘nuvvle’, as he called it to distinguish it from what he considered was the genuine article, the Continental novel) has probably done its share in alienating readers. Ford’s judgements were highly personal, often overstated, and deliberately outrageous, but behind them was an unwillingness to corroborate an aesthetic that had already had its day. How he read other writers and how he theorized about his own writing all had to do with his forward-looking momentum: the writer must represent and interpret his own age and look toward the future.10

She also explained (in the notes she left for her selection, some of which have been incorporated into this introduction) how Ford’s criticism can give us a most refined – and at the same time realistic – sense of what art is, what it can do for human life:

Beyond their generosity and their grace, the pieces collected here contain the just pronouncements of a serious writer practising his craft and passing on to other [readers and] writers what he has clarified for himself, passing on to his readers what the work before them reveals to him. In these modest and often trenchant statements, Ford writes about the relation between language and literature, between temperament and writing; he defines for us what style is; and finally, he reminds us, if we are in any danger of forgetting, why we go to fiction, to poetry, to painting.

1 Pound, ‘Mr Hueffer and the Prose Tradition in Verse’, Poetry, 4 (June 1914), 111–20; The Complete Prose of Marianne Moore, Patricia C. Willis (London, 1987), p. 593.

2The English Novel (London, 1930), pp. 24–5, 26–7.

3Portraits from Life (Boston, 1937), pp. 70–74. Published in Britain as Mightier Than the Sword (London, 1938); see pp. 98–103.

4Modern Painters, Vol. III, part 4, chapter 16.

5Ford Madox Ford Reader, ed. Sondra J. Stang (Manchester, 1986), p. 252. Ford reiterates this idea in It Was the Nightingale (London, 1934), p. 69, when he defines the artist as ‘the man who added to the thought and emotions of mankind’.

6Thus to Revisit (London, 1921), p. 15.

7 ‘Stocktaking. IV’, transatlantic review, 1:4 (April 1924), 169–70.

8Thus to Revisit, p. 129.

9The March of Literature (London, 1939), p. 4.

10 Sondra J. Stang, Ford Madox Ford (New York, 1977), pp. 20–1.

A Note on the Text

The essays in this volume come from a wide range of periodicals, all using different conventions of layout and punctuation. These have been converted to the Carcanet house style. Topical information (such as details of publishers and prices) have been removed. However, journalistic sub-headings have been retained. Typographical and other obvious errors have been silently corrected. Spelling and transliterations have been standardized. Ellipses of three or four dots represent Ford’s own. Editorial ellipses are indicated by three asterisks. Editorial footnotes are given in square brackets.

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the following for their help in the preparation of this volume: the late Janice Biala; the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King’s College London, and in particular Harold Short and Pam Jones; Susan Fox of New York City; the staff of the Washington University Library; Will Harris; Elena Lamberti; Leslie Verth; Hamish Whyte; Joseph Wiesenfarth; and Susan Hacker Stang. The greatest debt we owe is to Sondra Stang, who began this project and was working on it at the time of her death in 1990.

The Evolution of a Lyric

The baby was being put to bed in the room over the head of the writer of lyrics. He was pacing up and down the border of his carpet. He could hear the nurse crooning a lullaby that had hushed to sleep little negroes out in Louisiana.

‘Hang it all!’ he said; ‘the kiddy ought to have a lullaby of her own.’ One’s own baby is something precious to one; so are one’s own lyrics; and ‘Sweets to the sweet,’ they say; therefore, things precious to the precious. 1

He went to the window and looked out. It was falling dusk. Shadows were creeping up the hedgerows, the red rays of the sun fell aslant along the downs that closed round the farm. On the terrace above the stockyard the flowers were passively awaiting the oncoming of the night. The great white poppies were folding their petals together. High overhead the pigeons were circling round and round, the flush of the sunset irradiating their breasts and the inner sides of their wings. The writer of lyrics sat down at his desk, and began to scrawl upon a scrap of notepaper. The negro melody was running in his head.

‘Poppy heads are closing fast,’ he wrote, and then paused. What next? Ah! the pigeons – the child liked the pigeons, and the word began with a ‘p’. A little alliteration does no harm.

‘Pigeons wing their –’ No; that was no good. ‘Pigeons wing’ is wretched. Pigeons – pigeons – what do pigeons do? Ah! –

‘Pigeons circle home at last’ – the line wrote itself almost. So did the next three words, with the tune to help them:

‘Sleep, baby, sleep.’ Anything will do here – anything. But what is it to be? A bat cried outside. Yes – yes – the bats – ‘The bats are calling.’…

He looked out of the window again. The round beds on the terrace were bordered with hearts-ease – blue and yellow hearts-ease, and hearts-ease so dark that they were almost black—so black that the darkness could make very little difference to them.

‘Pansies’ he wrote – another ‘p’. He was rather doubtful about so much alliteration, but still ‘pansies’ is pretty, and then … ‘Never miss the light.’ The next line suggested itself, because, even if pansies can do without light, babies can’t. ‘But sweet babes must sleep at night.’ A glance out of the window had caught the settling down of the white shrouds of mist:–

‘sleep, baby, sleep, the dew is falling.’

That was a whole verse. But this only stood for the chorus of the tune. There was the body of the melody to be attended to. It was a terrible task, and cost a week’s wrestling. To begin with, the melody opened on the second note of a bar and ended on a slur that called for a ‘female rhyme’. At last he got as far as: ‘We’ve wandered all about the downs together’, but the rhymes to ‘together’ are all hopelessly hackneyed and necessitated for the third line: ‘But now, good-bye, good-bye, dear summer weather’, a line that might be good enough for a song translator. Besides, it was the beginning, not the end of summer. At last, for ‘downs together’ ‘upland fallows’ suggested itself, and, after that, the verse wrote itself. That made: one four-line verse and one sestet. There was as much again to do. Curiously enough, this time it was not the four-line, but the chorus verse, that gave the trouble. Before it was finished it looked like this:

‘You may slumber in your cot’ (scratched out).

‘Ducks’ heads underneath each wing’ (scratched out).

‘Warm beneath their mother’s breast’ ‘Little chicks have gone to rest’} (vigorously erased)

‘Sleep, baby, sleep, the moon is rising, risen’ (erased).

‘Little mice have stolen out, on the sea the lights shine out’ (erased)

‘Hoping pussy’s not about’ (scratched out).

But at last – after fourteen days’ work – the thing was done. You will observe that each line cost nearly a whole day. On the morrow, a fellow-writer – a prose man – but one of the great ones of the earth, one of those who receive fifteen guineas per 1,000 words, looked in and picked up the fair copy.

‘Ah,’ he said, ‘if I could reel off little things like that and get half a guinea apiece – as you do – I’d soon be a millionaire.’ The writer of lyrics looked at his finished production. It ran:

    We’ve wandered all about the upland fallows.

         We’ve watched the rabbits at their play,

    But now good-night, good-bye to soaring swallows,

        Now, good-night, good-bye, dear day.

Poppy heads are closing fast, pigeons circle home at last;

    Sleep, baby, sleep, the bats are calling;

Pansies never miss the light, but sweet babes must sleep at night:

Sleep, baby, sleep, the dew is falling.

   Even the wind among the whisp’ring willows

       Rests, and the waves are resting too.

   See, soft white linen; cool, such cool white pillows

      Wait in the darkling room for you.

All the little lambs are still, now the moon peeps down the hill;

   Sleep, Liebchen, sleep, the owls are hooting;

Ships have hung their lanthorns out, little mice dare creep about:

  Sleep, Liebchen, sleep, the stars are shooting.

He groaned: ‘“Ships have hung their lanthorns out” is the only line that doesn’t make me feel ill – all the rest is rubbish.’ And he sat down to rewrite the lyric from end to end.

Outlook, 3 (22 April 1899), 387–8.

1 [The lyric in question was later re-published as ‘Lullaby’ in From Inland (1907) and Collected Poems [1913], p. 99.]

Creative History and the Historic Sense

Mr A. F. Pollard has written a book on Henry VIII1 & Professor Goldwin Smith reviews it in the North American Review.2 Professor Smith’s article is mainly an attack on Henry & the late Mr Froude: immediately afterwards there appears in the Fortnightly Review Mr W.S. Lilly’s article on the last named historian.

Froude thought Henry was a marvellous instrument of Providence in the evolution of the Church of England, Professor Smith thinks that Henry was not a ‘high bred gentleman’, Mr Lilly thinks that the late Mr Froude was congenitally incapable of speaking the truth. (Mr Lilly is secretary to the Catholic Association of Great Britain.) Someone else says that ‘The proper place among the diseases of the mind for this wanton insolence may be found by anybody who has the patience & the spare time to read the works of Mr Lilly’.3 On such lines & in such tempers do we approach creative history & its heroes.

MM. Bouvard & Pécuchet, before they began their never finished Dictionary of Accepted Ideas, studied the works of Professors to find Truth. They attacked for instance the subject of literary style; they discovered Marmontel groaning over the licence that Homer allowed himself & Blair, an Englishman, lamenting the violence of Shakespeare. Bouvard found the disagreements of Professors so confusing & so distracting… ‘ces questions le travaillèrent tellement qu’il y gagnait une jaunisse’. After much reading the works of Professors & others on the question of the personality & the Times of Henry VIII it is difficult to escape the fate of Bouvard. It is at least refreshing to consider the point of view of one simple minded & aloof. A question was set in an examination paper: ‘Who was your favourite historical character & why?’ A schoolboy answered: ‘Henry VIII, because he was the only one that had more wives than children’.

This has a frivolous sound but actually that answer is a symptom serious enough: it represents the net value of History as it is taught today, in so far as it touches the time of Henry VIII.

That schoolboy, seriously considered, voiced practically the general view. The matter of the wives is a very insignificant detail of a whole reign, long, tortuous in its intrigues, extremely difficult to follow in its very broadest outlines: before ever one is able to descend to the king’s psychology & motives. Yet that matter has obsessed all our historians: it obsessed Mr Froude; no doubt it obsessed the first Defender of the Faith himself. It obsesses Professor Goldwin Smith to the point of hysteria; it ‘intrigues’ to this day the whole of Catholic Europe & as much of Protestant England as thinks of sixteenth-century history. It can not, apparently, be got away from.

Immediately after reading Professor Smith’s article I discussed the whole personality of Henry with three ex officio leaders of public opinion of today. Their joint, net, opinion was that he was a ‘lover’. Professor Smith however calls Henry a ‘human tiger’ who could not feel love. Yet Marillac the French Ambassador says (Letters & Papers, vol. xvi, 12) that Henry was ‘so amourous of the Queen, Katharine Howard, that he could not do enough for her’ & Chapuys, Charles V’s ambassador, says (Ibid, vol. xvii) that he thought Henry had his death at her execution he looked so ill after. Froude says that it was a pity Henry could not have lived in a world without women, to which Professor Smith gallantly but quite inconsequently retorts: ‘Would Mr Froude have found it a pleasant world?’ But Jerome Cardan, a professor with his eyes on the stars, accounts for the poor king’s matrimonial misfortunes which he had witnessed & lamented, thus: ‘Venus being in conjunction with Cauda, Lampas partook of the nature of Mars: Luna in occiduo cardine was among the dependencies of Mars & Mars himself was in the illstarred constellation Virgo & in the quadrant of Jupiter Infelix’. Mr Froude calls this ‘abominable nonsense’ whilst Henry himself remarked: ‘Happy those who never saw a King & whom a King never saw’.

Cardinal Pole in the revised version of De Unitate Ecclesiae accuses Henry of having debauched the sister of Anne Boleyn before divorcing Katharine of Aragon. Froude calls Cardinal Pole an arrogant, loquacious & ineffectual traitor. But Professor Smith says he was broadminded & exactly the reverse of everything that Froude called him. Pole says of himself that at the age of thirty-six he had long been conversant with old men & had long judged the oldest men too young for him to learn wisdom from. On the other hand he freely acknowledges that this remarkable wisdom was the gift of the king who had specially fostered his education. He wrote a book for the king’s private reading intended to turn the king back to the Old Faith & away from Anne. He swore to the king that no one had seen it after he had submitted it for the approval of the Vatican authorities. It contained such passages as: ‘Your flatterers have filled your heart with folly, you have made yourself abhorred amongst the rulers of Xtendom…. Rex est partus Naturae laborantis, populus enim regem procreat’. It astonished him that this failed to convert Henry & he travelled all Europe over seeking to raise a crusade against his king.

Froude accordingly calls Pole a fool, an evil genius, a narrow & odious fanatic, & a traitor to the Instrument of Providence. But Professor Smith excuses this treachery with: ‘surely without any religious fanaticism any man might well object to seeing the Church, the unity of which all Xtians prized, rent in twain in order to satisfy a tyrant’s lust’.

Henry however had been able to satisfy his lust with Anne, not to mention her sister, without rending the church in twain, for according to both Pole & Professor Smith Anne had been his mistress for years before the divorce. (Professor Smith speaks of Henry’s ‘brutal behaviour in openly installing his mistress as Queen designate at her side’.) The king had also, according to them both, ‘certainly’ enjoyed her sister. Mr Froude however thinks it unlikely that in that case Henry, his people & his Parliament could have been so ‘cynically heartless’ as to demand his separation from Katharine on the ground of incest. Professor Smith however considers the charge ‘certainly proved’: for, in the Act of Parliament, 28 Hen. VIII cap. 27, illegitimate unions are decreed to bring persons within the degree of consanguinity of marriage. Charles V’s view of the matter was (he was telling Wyatt, Henry’s ambassador, that he could not prevent Spanish preachers uttering these slanders against Henry): ‘Preachers will preach against myself whenever there is cause; that cannot be hindered; kings be not kings of tongues. And if men give cause to be spoken of they will be spoken of’. Thus Charles supported freedom of speech. On the other hand, the Queen of Navarre said to the Papal Nuncio at about the same time: ‘Say you that the King of England is a man lost & cast away? I would to God that your master the Pope, & the Emperor, & we here did live after so good & godly a sort as he & his doth.’

Thomas Cromwell’s portrait by Holbein, says Professor Smith, ‘is a softened version of the subject’! It is not ugly enough. His authority for this is Mr Merriman, who wrote in 1902. And: ‘For thorough paced villainy Cromwell had no peers. Who besides him has ever deliberately set down his criminal intentions in a memorandum book: “Item, The Abbot of Glaston to be tried at Glaston & also to be executed there with his accomplices. Item, to see that the evidence be well sorted & the indictment well drawn…. Item to send Gendon to the Tower to be racked. Item to appoint preachers to go through the realm to preach the gospel & the true word of God”.’ Yet Cardinal Pole, whom Professor Smith so much admires, was setting down in memoranda in books, & crying to all the princes in Europe, that his own king must be taken upon the field of battle & his entrails torn out & burnt before his face. And Pole too would have sent preachers with the true word of God throughout this realm.

The late Mr Froude found Cromwell a mighty minister & a consummate diplomatist, skilfully balancing the Powers one against another & crushing out seditions with a strong but necessary & beneficent hand… until Henry began to frown on him. Then immediately, Cromwell’s bringing about the diplomatic marriage with Anne of Cleves becomes ‘stooping to dabble in the muddy waters of intrigue’. When he was in the Tower Cromwell wrote: ‘Most Gracious Lord, I never spoke with the Chancellor of the Augmentation & Throgmorton at one time. But if I did I am sure I never spoke of any such matter & your Grace knows what matter of man Throgmorton is.’ But Froude says this denial ‘was faint, indirect, not like the broad, absolute repudiation of a man who was consciously clear of offience’. Cromwell was accused of having said before the Chancellor & Throgmorton that he would fight against the king sword in hand if the king reversed his policy. Cromwell of course had hanged many men on hearsay evidence of informers like Throgmorton, & Marillac puts the matter: ‘Words idly spoken he had aforetime twisted into treason: the measure which he had dealt out to others shall now be meted out to him.’ And this was practically the view of the Council that condemned him. Froude however says that Henry was forced to execute Cromwell because ‘the illegal acts of a minister who had been trusted with extraordinary powers were too patent to be denied’. Professor Smith accounts for it all by: ‘The king feared those under whose influence he had been & could not bear to let them live.’ The King of France & Cardinal ‘Du Bellay’ were of opinion that Cromwell fell because he wanted to marry the Princess Mary, no doubt with a view to the succession: ‘insomuch as at all times when any marriage was treated of for the Lady Mary he did always his best to break the same’. It should be remembered that the fondest desire of the Cardinal & Francis had been a French marriage for Mary.

Thus each man may see in the case of Henry VIII what he most desires to see, Professor Smith seeing that it is almost needless to add Cromwell was corrupt, & ‘accumulated wealth by foul means’. Yet in the nature of the case the only proof of this is the accusations of his enemies, for Cromwell was not even tried. The case against Anne Boleyn rests perhaps on no better evidence. She was at least tried & – Froude urges – found guilty by the greatest peers of the Realm, her own father being amongst them. Yet in her case, tho’ not in Cromwell’s, Professor Smith can see that nothing was proved against her… because he desires to prove that Henry was a human tiger.

I propose to sum up very briefly my views of Henry, to add one more to the small collection of bizarreries of judgements here adduced. (I had studied the matter for some years & had got together all the materials for a life of this king & I had written my first chapter when Mr Pollard forestalledme with his book, which for that reason I refrain from commenting upon.) Henry to me was a man very much of his age. He was of course a Tudor & a king: this made him unreasonable, ungovernable, with the horrible suspicions of a high solitude & a great craving for a companion he could trust. But it was in the nature of the policies of that day to be tortuous & in their very basis unscrupulous. Deceit was a recognized factor in public life & Henry employed all his trusted companions in endless intrigues that were based on sheer deceit. Taking this king & these things together it needs very little knowledge of psychology to see that his career must be one of passionate attachments reacting towards still more passionate suspicions. He employed these persons to deceive, he trusted them; sooner or later he must have the thought in his mind: These persons are deceiving me. And, that being the case in a Court circle, grounds for that belief could never be long wanting. Anne Boleyn & Katharine were as inevitably doomed to suspicion as Wolsey & Cromwell. He was a king & by every scheme of ethics of his contemporaries the fitting penalty for deceiving him was death. If we accept Professor Smith’s view of Henry as an insensate human tiger there were certainly no high-bred gentlemen in Europe of that day. It was a world of tigers.

It naturally was not, being only a world with other ideals from those of XXth century England & North America. ‘Tue la’ is still the hardly ethically or legally condemned remedy for matrimonial infidelity of the great Latin races & of by far the greater portion of the population of the globe. Very possibly Henry ‘lusted’ after other women as soon as he tired of one & very possibly too that helped him to desire the divorce of Katharine. But very possibly it did not. It must be remembered too that in those days what Schopenhauer called ‘Christo-Germanisch Dummheit’, the idea that women were to be more tenderly treated than men, had hardly been evolved & Henry was quite within his ethical scheme & the scheme of his contemporaries when he swept women as well as men out of his way by execution. The legal penalty for high treason was burning in the case of women & Henry was very essentially a child of his age. Populus enim regem procreat, as Pole said.

He was in fact not much more monstrous than his people but his people had given him more scope. And monstrous as we may account his treatment of Katharine of Aragon, judged by our own standards, it was as nothing to the treatment of that very unfortunate lady by Henry VII, the king whom so humanitarian a person as More eulogized.

But if it be Pharisaism to call Henry a human tiger it is blind Hero Worship to call him an instrument of providence or even a particularly great king. He was certainly a very hard worker but otherwise he was little more than a very obstinate opportunist. If he escaped ultimate disaster it was only on account of the utter incapacity & irresoluteness of his fellow rulers in Christendom. To a person with any imagination it is little less than maddening to follow the proceedings of Charles V during the great rising in the North when Henry was absolutely at his last gasp before the Catholic rebels. Of policy he had none & his mind was always fixed on the most meticulous details of his day’s chicanery. He detested Protestantism & he forced it upon the world, he held public debates with heretics & when he failed to convince them he had no better remedy than to let them be burnt for beliefs which, two years later, his opportunism forced him to tolerate. Upon the whole he increased the prestige of the Crown very materially but he did it in such a way that as soon as the personal power of the Tudors went from the Throne the Throne lost that power of packing juries & parliaments which was essentially the secret of his government.

Heavy, threatening, jealous & craving for that sympathy that is admiration, he made an immense splutter in Christendom. But he did not direct any tendencies: he merely changed them in a time when change was in the air.

If we regard him personally he seems, I think, a tragic figure as every suspicious man born to great power must be. Temperamental jealousy & suspicion are the greatest of all the plagues of the flesh, since jealous man is incapable of believing the most material proofs of innocence and perpetually torments himself very horribly for reasons that come out of his own being, & I am strongly inclined to believe that he must have been what today we call a neurotic subject, at any rate in his later years. The times were very complicated & the daily work that he had to get through was very great. Merely to read today & to keep in mind all the separate threads of events in the Calendars of Letters & State Papers, merely to follow them very much at one’s leisure is a sufficiently great undertaking. But to have been buried deep in the very belly of the events, to have trembled for one’s throne, for one’s dynasty, one’s land, one’s personal honour & very certainly for one’s soul, to have been certain of only one thing… that there was no man one could trust: all that must have meant a strain constant, increasing & maddening. I am not in the least inclined to doubt that Henry may really have believed his marriage with Katharine cursed by God. He was a superstitious man in a superstitious age & all her sons died at birth. It is possible even that he believed the adulteries of Anne & Katharine Howard were the successive revenges of Providence for his breaking up the Church & that this rivetted in his mind the belief in their adulteries. His precautions for keeping his son alive were those of a man in a panic & there is no doubt that, had he lived, he would have sought reconciliation with the Pope. A letter to Charles V asking for his intercession was actually drafted but never sent. You have only to look at his portrait to see that his life was not very merry.

The fact is that any study of Henry & his times must be a pathologic one. To approach them in any ex parte spirit… to approach any period of revolution, any revolutionary figure, or indeed to approach any figure or any period in a partisan spirit, is to do no more than to convince men who already agree with you or to give a picture of yourself to anyone who may happen to be disinterested. One or two foreign historians of distinction have assured me that the distinguishing defect of their English confrères is their insularity… their being exclusively preoccupied with the affairs of England. And when we look at the wideness of research of German professors the charge seems comparatively correct, though I suppose we may point to Robertson & Gibbon, not to mention the researches of Mr Martin Hume in the archives of Simancas or the delightful South American studies of Mr Cunninghame Graham. But the insular tendency is traceable to our inborn habit of regarding History as a branch of polemics. It is obvious that in that case our polemics will bear upon points that most nearly touch ourselves & that we shall find those points in our own history.

And the English public does not want impartial history. It asks for ethical points of view, ethical ‘leads’; just as it can not understand ‘the use’ of impersonal fiction. Consequently only the political tract ‘pays’ & we have phenomena like the histories of Hume, Macaulay & Froude; that amusing skit, Professor Smith’s article, & articles of similar, less exaggerated, but less amusing types.

The polemic is of course very stimulating & very exhilarating when it is well done: at its best it promotes thought, at its worst it provides a human document, casting light upon the workings of its writer’s mind. But it reduces History to a battlefield, rejoinder following rejoinder, so that the course of historic study remains perpetually in the same groove until it vanishes altogether in mere meticulousness or personal abuse.4

On the other hand the writing of impersonal history is a difficult matter, because the suppression of self is difficult. Yet in spite of the fact that the public does not want impartial writing & of the race habit of regarding History as polemics we have a powerful & industrious school of ‘scientific’ historians, a comparatively new growth in England. The State subsidizes great historical works & Lord Acton has left behind him as a memorial a gigantic enterprise of historical projection. Thus as far as research goes impersonal History is practicable in England. Unfortunately for the projection of these researches, meticulousness & the habit of rejoinder distinguish the Scientific Historian as well as the Polemical. And these things tend to destroy the sense of proportion which is really the Historic Sense. If one reads works of the type of Mr Round’s Commune of London one discovers that the greater part of them is given up to the battleaxing of opponents over matters that, relatively speaking, are not of much more importance than the authenticity of a disused postage stamp. It is almost nothing more than a manifestation of the collector’s habit.

This phrase is of course too violent & is hitting below the belt, for very obviously it is Mr Round’s business, as it is one of his supreme qualities, to strengthen the minutest links of his chains as he goes along. But to devote too much space to mere controversy & to leave selection entirely out of a work is to make one’s work comparatively useless as projection, though as research it may be supremely useful. Lord Acton on the other hand made little use of the controversial battleaxe, his habit of research was almost incredible, but he was so essentially rather the reader than the writer that he left practically nothing behind him except his tradition. It is in the spirit of this tradition that the committee of Scientific Historians to which I have referred is now engaged in putting pens to paper.

But as soon as they have begun to write – as soon as they have begun that projection of materials which is Creative History – they have, according to their own earlier ideals, slipped down hill and they confess that it is impossible to write without ‘points of view’. In the journal which to the public at large represents the Scientific Historian this reaction is marked enough. Thus today one may read in its columns the query whether Mazarin is not more vividly portrayed in Dumas’ Vingt Ans Après, than in what purports to be a serious historical work under review &, on the same page, in a review of Mr Roby’s Roman Private Law there appears: ‘Certainly an author who does not reverence the functions of imagination in history is not likely to make much of the origins of ancient institutions’. Thus we have the pendulum shewn in its swing back towards the Historical Novel. It is in fact quite possible to be impersonal in research; it is frankly impossible as soon as it comes to projection. Even in his prefaces to the Calendars of Letters & Papers (I remain for purposes of unity within the reign of Henry VIII) Dr Gairdner commits himself to such a sentence as: ‘Sane men it would seem, did not covet martyrdom.’ And later on he has a paragraph commencing in the old polemic way: ‘We have heard it said in times past & sometimes in our own day, that…’ & going on to combat what he had heard said. (Letters & Papers, Hen. VIII, vol. xvi).

I do not of course condemn Dr Gairdner as intemperate, but it seems to me that, if counsels of perfection prevailed at the Record Office, the Master of the Rolls should reprove Dr Gairdner… which would be absurd. Yet that reductio ad absurdum should add one more to the proofs that absolute detachment in historic writing is an impossibility. And it gives the pendulum one kick further back towards the Historical Novel of the type of Salammbô or the Education sentimentale. Or even, horrible to think, it may swing once more towards works like Vingt Ans Après, or Windsor Castle.

History conceived as an exact Science is an impossibility because even the minutest of financial accounts is made by human means, coloured by human views or liable to the slips of human pens, & as soon as your historian has gathered his materials together the devil of theorizing enters into him. One might say, a priori, that to get to know history one is safe in studying the accumulations at the various Record Offices of the world, yet Froude did this with fatal results. He went there with preconceived notions & preconceived notions are the death of the historic sense. Without that last the writing of history becomes as worthless as the writing of advertisements. For, in essence, such an article as Professor Smith’s is a form of self advertisement … not an odious one or in any way a reprehensible one, but still a form. When Professor Smith looks at the portraits of Henry’s queens he says at once that these ‘do not indicate that His Majesty’s sense of beauty was very keen’. This ‘advertises’ Prof. Smith’s taste at the expense of Henry’s, leaving quite out of account the fact that the aesthetic sense is a matter of associations & that ideals of beauty can never be fixed. It is in fact an attempt to force the writer’s personality & standards upon the world. The possession of the historic sense would make this impossible: it may drive the writer to want to know what type of beauty was then dominant, it might even drive him to ask why; it would at any rate cause him either to attempt to understand these matters or to leave them alone. But it would certainly prevent his ever trying to force his private preferences upon the world at the expense of his subject. It would do this in ethical matters as in aesthetic, in the domain of religious as of national feelings. For the possession of the historic sense makes first of all for comprehension. It implies an immense tolerance, an immense understanding, possibly an immense pity or possibly an immense contempt for one’s kind.

One of these last will be the writer’s ‘point of view’, essentially true or essentially false according to the standard of the reader. But it will be innocuous because it will be the product not of a doctrinaire spirit but of temperament. It will warp the presentations of character all one way or all another way, it will select no one type for praise & no other for blame. It will be honest.

In the domain of History there is no such thing as Time. She deals either with those who are dead or those who will soon be as dead as the men who fought before Troy. De mortuis nil nisi bonum5 is an idiotic & harmful motto, but it recurs with a pleasant ring when one is reading Froude’s blackening of Pole or Professor Smith on Thomas Cromwell. For these men, if one thinks of them at all, become alive once more, once 12 Critical Essays more strive, once more err, die & enlist one’s feelings in their opposing struggles, failures & inevitably tragic deaths.

The Scientific Historian is a private worker, he collects matter as another man collects mezzotints, he may annotate texts or refute errors. But the moment he emerges from these retreats it is his duty to be a creative artist, it is his business to evolve from his dry bones a picture of an era, of an individual, or of a type. And being thus a creator, he should be above his creations to the extent of checking both his preferences & his dislikes. Let him set his Henry on his feet & put into his mouth the words he really did utter; let him make Charles move once more & once more speak to Wyatt; the cry of the common people may sound through their voluminous protests to the Privy Council. Let the gossip of Marillac be set against the gossip of Chapuys: the most outrageous of Henry’s dialectical outpourings against the most outrageous of Luther, of Bucer, of Pole, of Latimer, of Shaxton, of Jerome & of the Anabaptists, let the Creative Historian set their most noble utterances & deeds against their most noble. Let his writing be ‘documented’ down to the bottom, colloquial of the vernacular, & above all let it be interesting. He may leave his readers to draw their own morals.

It may be objected that such a work of art would be in technique a work of fiction. One replies: ‘Why not?’ For in their really higher manifestations History & Fiction are one: they are documented, tolerant, vivid; their characters live & answer & react one upon another each after his own sort. Fiction indeed, so long as it is not written with a purpose, is Contemporary History & History is the same thing as the Historic Novel, as long as it is inspired with the Historic Sense… the Historic Novel with a wide outlook upon peoples & upon kings. What was Tacitus but a novelist (Mr Tarver would say a novelist with a purpose) or what is the following passage but incomparable History:

Il connut la faim, la soif, les fièvres et la vermine.

Il s’accoutuma au fracas des mêlées, à l’aspect des moribonds. Le vent tanna sa peau. Ses membres se durcirent par le contact des armures; et comme il était très fort, courageux, tempérant, avisé, il obtint sans peine le commandement d’une compagnie.

Au début des batailles, il enlevait ses soldats d’un grand geste de son épée. Avec une corde à noeuds, il grimpait aux murs des citadelles, la nuit, balancé par l’ouragan, pendant que les flammèches du feu grégeois se collaient à sa cuirasse, et que la résine bouillante et le plomb fondu ruisselaient des créneaux. Souvent le heurt d’une pierre fracassa son bouclier. Des ponts trop chargés d’hommes croulèrent sous lui. En tournant sa masse d’armes, il se débarassa de quatorze cavaliers. Il défit, en champs clos; tous ceux qui se proposèrent. Plus de vingt fois on le crut mort.6

[1903–4], ed. Sondra J. Stang and Richard Stang, Yale Review, 78:4 (Summer 1989), [511]–524.

1Henry VIII by A.F. Pollard, London, Goupil & Co.

2 ‘A Gallery of Portraits,’ by Goldwin Smith, DCL.

3Daily Chronicle, 1 June 1903.

4 Cf. Mr Lilly or Mr Froude.

5 [Speak nothing but good of the dead.]

6 ‘La Légende de Saint Julien l’Hospitalier’. [‘He knew hunger, thirst, fevers, and vermin. He became inured to the din of battle, to the sight of the dying. The wind tanned his skin. His limbs were hardened by their contact with armour; and hecause he was very strong, brave, temperate, shrewd, he easily obtained the command of a company.      When the battle started, he would spur his soldiers on by brandishing his sword. With the help of a knotted rope, he would climb over the walls of citadels at night, swinging in the gales, while sparks of Greek fire stuck to his armour, and boiling oil and molten lead poured from the battlements. Often the blow of a stone shattered his shield. Bridges, overloaded with men, crumbled under him. By swinging his mace he got rid of fourteen horsemen. In single combat he defeated all who challenged him. More than twenty times he was presumed dead.’]

The Collected Poems of Christina Rossetti

To appear in the familiar livery of the Standard Edition, if it isn’t a canonization for a poet, is as nearly as possible to be beatified.1 It is to be singled out and given, as it were, the chance to show what miracles may be worked by invoking him, what cures wrought in his name – how, long, in fact, his ‘bell’ will ring. It is a step upwards in the hagiology, but it is, also, to be put very decidedly on trial. It gives us, I mean, something to think of when the best work of a newly ‘collected’ poet is presented to us suddenly in a type, and on a page, where most plain men are accustomed to find The Tempest.

It is like seeing a wall-painting taken from the painter’s studio and set into its niche in a great hall. ‘Values’ readjust themselves, details drop into place or stick out, and you are set thinking: Will this last and be reverently taken care of, or will the dust finally settle on to a thing grown dull, until it flakes from the wall and is forgotten?

In the case of Christina Rossetti, the image is that of a mosaic rather than of a fresco, since hitherto the tendency has been to regard her as the poet of what some one has called small-gemmedness. Ever since the appearance of ‘Uphill’, in 1861, small fragments of her verse have been floating in the air, as it were. Almost every person at all lettered has carried about with him some little piece. You will find one man who retains with intimate pleasure some small phrase, like, ‘Beneath the moon’s most shadowy beam’; others have not forgotten a stanza or so of, ‘When I am dead, my dearest’; some have by heart nearly the whole of:

Does the road wind uphill all the way?

        Yes, to the very end.

Will the day’s journey take the whole long day?

         From morn to night, my friend.

And I know that a great many more, not literate at all, do constantly read favourite verses of her religious poems. At any rate, up and down the land there have been treasured for many years these small and gem-like fragments. Now, at last, the mosaic fits back to the wall, and the whole figure can be seen.

She lived her whole life behind a veil. She had not any literary contacts that counted very much. Upon the whole, in early days, she was a dark horse, not very much valued, if well loved, in a circle brilliant, buoyant, and, as youth will be, noisy in a fine way. She must have been often enough in the room with several great personages at one time. But it was natural that in such a roomful she should not make much noise. Her brothers and their distinguished companions troubled mostly about abstract ideas, they made movements, and such large things. In abstract matters she was not singularly intellectual: indeed, we may say that she was not intellectual at all. She had strong and settled faiths that simply could not be talked about, and she had above all a gift that was priceless; a faculty for picking up, like a tiny and dainty mouse, little precious crumbs of observation that were dropped unnoticed by people who, in argument, assailed each other with tremendous words. Mr Ruskin, for instance, considered that her verse was hardly worth publishing.

In those tremendous contests of young lungs of genius, whilst Ingres’ works were being called filthy slosh, Van Eyck’s tremendous, Michael Angelo’s Last Judgment simply comic, and Delacroix a perfect beast; whilst Academicians were being damned, and Primitives belauded; whilst, in fact, the P.R.B. was still, as is the way with romantic youth, hammering the Universe to its pattern, Christina’s voice simply did not carry. No doubt she learnt lessons, But you may imagine her sitting still, bright-eyed, smiling in the least, observing very much, and quite content to write one of her little poems next morning on the corner of her washstand.