Swinburne’s
“From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free”
I like better so far as the music of it is concerned; and fully as well, perhaps, as far as ideas go. There is something rather conscious and posing in Mr. Trench’s effort. And you see why I think of him when I read Rupert Brooke. There is the same memento mori, the same hopelessness of outlook. It seems a pity to me, when a man can write as well as Brooke does in The Hill and in that exquisite sonnet beginning “Oh! Death will find me, long before I tire of watching you,” that he should waste his time on stupid, unpleasant cynicisms like Wagner and that Channel Passage, in which he doesn’t know which pain to choose—nausea or memory. I believe an Englishman can’t achieve just the right degree of mockery and brutality necessary for such an effort. Take Heine, if you will—(I’m a Heine enthusiast); he could do it with supreme artistry. Do you remember the sea poems—especially the one where he looks into the depths of the sea, catches sight of buried cities and sees his lost love (“ein armes, vergessenes Kind”)? It finishes with the captain pulling him in by the heels, crying, “Doktor, sind Sie des Teufels?” Heine can touch filth and offer it to you, and you are rather amused—as at a child. But Englishmen are too self-conscious for anything of that sort. You are shocked and ashamed when they try it, feeling in a way defiled yourself by reading. It irritates me, and I wish Mr. Brooke would stop it, right away. He’s too worth while to waste himself.
The Feminist Discussions
Do you know the story of the man, elected by some political pull to a judgeship in Indiana, who, after listening to the argument for the plaintiff, refused to hear anything further. “That feller wins,” he said decisively. On being told that it was customary and necessary to hear the defendant’s side also, he duly listened, with growing amazement. “Don’t it beat all?” he said, pathetically, at the close; “now the other feller wins.”
In much the same frame of mind I read the articles that are appearing in the current magazines on the subject of feminism and militancy. Edna Kenton’s in The Century is the only one that is content to give one side of the case. Decidedly, you will say on reading it, “That feller wins.” The Atlantic prints an admirable article by W. L. George on Feminist Intentions, and follows it hastily with a rebuttal by E. S. Martin (Much Ado About Women), fearing, I imagine, lest it would seem to be bowing its venerable head before new, profane altars. Life gets out a really excellent suffrage number, sane and logical and reasonable, and has followed it up ever since with all the flings it can collect against suffrage, militancy, or feminism in any form. A recent amusing instance of this is a letter by one Thomas H. Lipscomb, who signs himself, alack! A Modern Man, and adds that his name is legion. Judging by the terror in the communication Mr. Lipscomb’s modernity goes back as far as the Old Testament Proverbs, and the womanly ideal he so passionately upholds is in all respects the one the writer of this particular proverb acclaims. I have heard it used as a text so often, and have had it grounded into the very framework of my being so consistently, that it seems almost strange and irreverent to regard it with an alien and critical eye. And yet—just see what is expected of the poor thing: She
Seeketh wool and flax and worketh willingly with her hands.
Bringeth her food from afar.
Riseth while it is yet night and giveth meat to her household;