GEORGE MEREDITH.
Art and artists are continually suffering at the hands of “belletristic triflers.” Phrase-making is the passion of the day; and as a falsity or a half-truth concerning literary matters is so much easier of utterance than the awkward whole truth, that demands lengthy qualifications, we seldom find the latter gaining in the race with glittering mendacities. It is not, for instance, the saner body of Matthew Arnold’s criticism that has been generally absorbed; it is his more or less questionable catch-words and airy brevities of characterization. These seem apt to the understanding because they fit so well the tongue; their convenience gives them their fatal persuasion. The world likes a criticism in little, a nut-shell verdict, something of intellectual color that can readily be memorized for dinner-table parlance, the vague generalization that conceals the specific ignorance. Macaulay’s “rough pistolling ways and stamping emphasis,” Scott’s “bastard epic style,” and the conception of Shelley as “a beautiful and ineffectual angel beating in the void his luminous wings in vain” have thus come to be solemn verities with many who care more to talk literature than to read it. A whilom gaiety of journalism served to convince the public that Whitman’s voice was a “barbaric yawp”; and consequently his “Leaves of Grass” is seldom glimpsed save in a spirit of derision. These are some of the unhappy results of our latter-day strain after “a pregnant conciseness” of language.
George Meredith like many of his predecessors has suffered much from the thumb-nail criticism of the day. His judges are apt to insist upon his mannerisms and to insist on nothing else. The generality of readers hearing so much about the “mereditherambic style” rest under the belief that this writer is a tripod of frenzied incoherence; that he lacks, especially as a poet, both style and substance. That this is far from being the truth about Meredith’s verse anyone who has read it with attention well knows. Not only does much of it fulfil the requisites of orthodox style, but it contains, even more than his novels, the vital convictions of his mind. Indeed, it is in his verse we come nearest the real teacher, as we come nearest the man in his relation to life at large—to the general scheme of things.
A realization of George Meredith’s poetical virtues by the reader of real literature is due a writer who has proved his claim to genius in a monumental series of novels, a writer who, while not acceptable to all, has yet many admirers that regard him as one of the strongest towers of modern thought. One can, however, scarcely hope for more than a limited acceptance of his poems; that he should be popular in the ordinary meaning of the word, as some poets are taken to heart by the sons of men, is indeed scarcely conceivable. Such popularity, which is after all an equivocal tribute for the most part, Mr. Meredith has never aimed to secure. His has been a life of remoteness from profane ambitions, a life steadfast to the standard early set for himself—a standard of the highest kind.
And yet, while Mr. Meredith may not exercise the attraction of many other poets for the general reader, few will deny that in his fruits of song one tastes the flavor of an original, deep-seeing mind; that there is in the character of many of his poems what well rewards the serious attention necessary to their complete comprehension. Difficult in part they may seem in the casual reading, owing to combined entanglement of rhetoric and ideas, but few who press their inquiry past the line of a first natural discouragement of perusal can fail totally to be affected by the spell they cast over the mind. Beauty there is unquestionably lurking beneath what seems often a wilful obscuration of theme. Coming here and there upon some apparently dry metrical husk of thought, there falls, as from some frost-bitten flower-pod, a shower of fairy seeds that lodge as a vital donation within the remembrance. Groping in the midst of a Meredithian mystery, even the less sensitive ear catches a ritornello of exquisite, wholly seductive sound. For it is not so infrequently that like his “The Lark Ascending.”
“He rises and begins to round,
He drops the silver chain of sound,
Of many links without a break,
In chirrup, whistle, slur and shake—”
The lark-note is not, however, the leading characteristic of Mr. Meredith’s muse, although quite within the scope of it. It is rather the lark’s joy in nature clothed with the more artificial vocalism of man. Mr. Meredith is pantheist in large measure when he attunes his lute-strings to the demands of Mother Earth. For him the gods of Greece do not live only in the pages of Lempriere, as most modern poets would have us believe, but they still maintain, albeit in more subtle form, their old supreme habitation in lawn and sylvan hollow, or mix with the familiar miracle of grey eve and rose-red dawn. In his verse Mr. Meredith hastens to undo the harness of that worldly wisdom that binds him in his novels. He re-baptizes himself to the graces of nature pure, rejoices in all that belongs to the idealism of primitive life. The poet can pipe as rustically as a faun when he is so minded. He can pay a moving tribute to young love and the romance of vernal feeling, as proved by that beautiful lift of minstrelsy, “Love in the Valley,” with its limpid, ecstatic meter, its delicious imagery and spiritual sweetness of thought; not to speak of many other lyrics of the same sort. These lighter pleasures and profits of George Meredith, together with his more serious efforts, like “Ode to the Spirit of Earth and Autumn,” a magnificent color-poem, uniquely accenting the bacchic abandon of October and trumpeting mightily the note of triumphant manhood, and “The Nuptials of Attila,” full of a haunting rush of language, ought to afford substantial relish to the general admirers of high art.