G. K. Chesterton
The Victorian Age in Literature
UUID: d78fb8fa-0b7a-11e5-972f-4fc950d1ab4a
This ebook was created with BackTypo (http://backtypo.com)by Simplicissimus Book Farm
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
INTRODUCTION
A
section of a long and splendid literature can be most conveniently
treated in one of two ways. It can be divided as one cuts a currant
cake or a Gruyère cheese, taking the currants (or the holes) as they
come. Or it can be divided as one cuts wood—along the grain: if one
thinks that there is a grain. But the two are never the same: the
names never come in the same order in actual time as they come in any
serious study of a spirit or a tendency. The critic who wishes to
move onward with the life of an epoch, must be always running
backwards and forwards among its mere dates; just as a branch bends
back and forth continually; yet the grain in the branch runs true
like an unbroken river.Mere
chronological order, indeed, is almost as arbitrary as alphabetical
order. To deal with Darwin, Dickens, Browning, in the sequence of the
birthday book would be to forge about as real a chain as the
"Tacitus, Tolstoy, Tupper" of a biographical dictionary. It
might lend itself more, perhaps, to accuracy: and it might satisfy
that school of critics who hold that every artist should be treated
as a solitary craftsman, indifferent to the commonwealth and
unconcerned about moral things. To write on that principle in the
present case, however, would involve all those delicate difficulties,
known to politicians, which beset the public defence of a doctrine
which one heartily disbelieves. It is quite needless here to go into
the old "art for art's sake"—business, or explain at
length why individual artists cannot be reviewed without reference to
their traditions and creeds. It is enough to say that with other
creeds they would have been, for literary purposes, other
individuals. Their views do not, of course, make the brains in their
heads any more than the ink in their pens. But it is equally evident
that mere brain-power, without attributes or aims, a wheel revolving
in the void, would be a subject about as entertaining as ink. The
moment we differentiate the minds, we must differentiate by doctrines
and moral sentiments. A mere sympathy for democratic merry-making and
mourning will not make a man a writer like Dickens. But without that
sympathy Dickens would not be a writer like Dickens; and probably not
a writer at all. A mere conviction that Catholic thought is the
clearest as well as the best disciplined, will not make a man a
writer like Newman. But without that conviction Newman would not be a
writer like Newman; and probably not a writer at all. It is useless
for the æsthete (or any other anarchist) to urge the isolated
individuality of the artist, apart from his attitude to his age. His
attitude to his age is his individuality: men are never individual
when alone.It
only remains for me, therefore, to take the more delicate and
entangled task; and deal with the great Victorians, not only by dates
and names, but rather by schools and streams of thought. It is a task
for which I feel myself wholly incompetent; but as that applies to
every other literary enterprise I ever went in for, the sensation is
not wholly novel: indeed, it is rather reassuring than otherwise to
realise that I am now doing something that nobody could do properly.
The chief peril of the process, however, will be an inevitable
tendency to make the spiritual landscape too large for the figures. I
must ask for indulgence if such criticism traces too far back into
politics or ethics the roots of which great books were the blossoms;
makes Utilitarianism more important than
Liberty
or talks more of the Oxford Movement than of
The Christian Year.
I can only answer in the very temper of the age of which I write: for
I also was born a Victorian; and sympathise not a little with the
serious Victorian spirit. I can only answer, I shall not make
religion more important than it was to Keble, or politics more sacred
than they were to Mill.
CHAPTER I
THE
VICTORIAN COMPROMISE AND ITS ENEMIESThe
previous literary life of this country had left vigorous many old
forces in the Victorian time, as in our time. Roman Britain and
Mediæval England are still not only alive but lively; for real
development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing
life from them, as from a root. Even when we improve we never
progress. For progress, the metaphor from the road, implies a man
leaving his home behind him: but improvement means a man exalting the
towers or extending the gardens of his home. The ancient English
literature was like all the several literatures of Christendom, alike
in its likeness, alike in its very unlikeness. Like all European
cultures, it was European; like all European cultures, it was
something more than European. A most marked and unmanageable national
temperament is plain in Chaucer and the ballads of Robin Hood; in
spite of deep and sometimes disastrous changes of national policy,
that note is still unmistakable in Shakespeare, in Johnson and his
friends, in Cobbett, in Dickens. It is vain to dream of defining such
vivid things; a national soul is as indefinable as a smell, and as
unmistakable. I remember a friend who tried impatiently to explain
the word "mistletoe" to a German, and cried at last,
despairing, "Well, you know holly—mistletoe's the opposite!"
I do not commend this logical method in the comparison of plants or
nations. But if he had said to the Teuton, "Well, you know
Germany—England's the opposite"—the definition, though
fallacious, would not have been wholly false. England, like all
Christian countries, absorbed valuable elements from the forests and
the rude romanticism of the North; but, like all Christian countries,
it drank its longest literary draughts from the classic fountains of
the ancients: nor was this (as is so often loosely thought) a matter
of the mere "Renaissance." The English tongue and talent of
speech did not merely flower suddenly into the gargantuan
polysyllables of the great Elizabethans; it had always been full of
the popular Latin of the Middle Ages. But whatever balance of blood
and racial idiom one allows, it is really true that the only
suggestion that gets near the Englishman is to hint how far he is
from the German. The Germans, like the Welsh, can sing perfectly
serious songs perfectly seriously in chorus: can with clear eyes and
clear voices join together in words of innocent and beautiful
personal passion, for a false maiden or a dead child. The nearest one
can get to defining the poetic temper of Englishmen is to say that
they couldn't do this even for beer. They can sing in chorus, and
louder than other Christians: but they must have in their songs
something, I know not what, that is at once shamefaced and rowdy. If
the matter be emotional, it must somehow be also broad, common and
comic, as "Wapping Old Stairs" and "Sally in Our
Alley." If it be patriotic, it must somehow be openly bombastic
and, as it were, indefensible, like "Rule Britannia" or
like that superb song (I never knew its name, if it has one) that
records the number of leagues from Ushant to the Scilly Isles. Also
there is a tender love-lyric called "O Tarry Trousers"
which is even more English than the heart of
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!