Old and New Masters — 09 - Ch.5.ii - Keats: 2. The Matthew Arnold View

2. THE MATTHEW ARNOLD VIEW

Matthew Arnold has often been attacked for his essay on Shelley.

His essay on Keats, as a matter of fact, is much less sympathetic and penetrating.

Here, more than anywhere else in his work, he seems to be a professor with whiskers drinking afternoon tea and discoursing on literature to a circle of schoolgirls.

It is not that Matthew Arnold under-estimated Keats.

"He is with Shakespeare," he declared; and in another sentence: "In what we call natural magic, he ranks with Shakespeare."

One may disagree with this--for in natural magic Keats does not rank even with Shelley--and, at the same time, feel that Matthew Arnold gives Keats too little rather than too much appreciation.

He divorced Keats's poetry too gingerly from Keats's life.

He did not sufficiently realize the need for understanding all that passion and courage and railing and ecstasy of which the poems are the expression.

He was a little shocked; he would have liked to draw a veil; he did not approve of a young man who could make love in language so unlike the measured ardour of one of Miss Austen's heroes.

The impression left by the letters to Fanny Brawne, he declared, was "unpleasing."

After quoting one of the letters, he goes on to comment:-- One is tempted to say that Keats's love-letter is the love-letter of a surgeon's apprentice.

It has in its relaxed self-abandonment something underbred and ignoble, as of a youth ill brought up, without the training which teaches us that we must put some constraint upon our feelings and upon the expression of them.

It is the sort of love-letter of a surgeon's apprentice, which one might hear read out in a breach of promise case, or in the Divorce Court.

Applied to the letter which Arnold had just quoted there could not be a more foolish criticism.

Keats was dogged by a curious vulgarity (which produced occasional comic effects in his work), but his self-abandonment was not vulgar.

It may have been in a sense immoral: he was an artist who practised the philosophy of exquisite moments long before Pater wrote about it.

He abandoned himself to the sensations of love and the sensations of an artist like a voluptuary.

The best of his work is day-dreams of love and art.

The degree to which his genius fed itself upon art and day-dreams of art is suggested by the fact that the most perfect of his early poems, written at the age of twenty, was the sonnet on Chapman's Homer, and that the most perfect of his later poems was the _Ode on a Grecian Urn_.

His magic was largely artistic magic, not natural magic.

He writes about Pan and the nymphs, but we do not feel that they were shapes of earth and air to him, as they were to Shelley;

rather they seem like figures copied out of his friends' pictures.

Consider, for example, the picture of a nymph who appeared to Endymion:-- It was a nymph uprising to the breast In the fountain's pebbly margin, and she stood 'Mong lilies, like the youngest of her brood.

To him her dripping hand she softly kist, And anxiously began to plait and twist The gestures of the nymph are as ludicrous as could be found in an Academy or Salon picture.

Keats's human or quasi-human beings are seldom more than decorations, but this is a commonplace decoration.

The figures in _The Eve of St. Agnes_ and the later narratives are a part of the general beauty of the poems; but even there they are made, as it were, to match the furniture.

It is the same in all his best poems.

Keats's imagination lived in castles, and he loved the properties, and the men and women were among the properties.

We may forget the names of Porphyro and Madeline, but we do not forget the background of casement and arras and golden dishes and beautiful sensual things against which we see them, charming figures of love-sickness.

Similarly, in _Lamia_, we may remember the name of the serpent-woman's lover with difficulty; but who can forget the colours of her serpent-skin or the furnishing of her couch and of her palace in Corinth:-- That purple-lined palace of sweet sin?

In Keats every palace has a purple lining.

So much may be said in definition of Keats's genius.

It was essentially an aesthetic genius.

It anticipated both William Morris and Oscar Wilde.

There is in Keats a passion for the luxury of the world such as we do not find in Wordsworth or Shelley.

He had not that bird-like quality of song which they had--that happiness to be alive and singing between the sky and the green earth.

He looked on beautiful things with the intense devotion of the temple-worshipper rather than with the winged pleasure of the great poets.

He was love-sick for beauty as Porphyro for Madeline.

His attitude to beauty--the secret and immortal beauty--is one of "love shackled with vain-loving."

It is desire of an almost bodily kind.

Keats's work, indeed, is in large measure simply the beautiful expression of bodily desire, or of something of the same nature as bodily desire.

His conception of love was almost entirely physical.

He was greedy for it to the point of green-sickness.

His intuition told him that passion so entirely physical had in it something fatal.

Love in his poems is poisonous and secret in its beauty.

It is passion for a Lamia, for La Belle Dame sans Merci.

Keats's ecstasies were swooning ecstasies.

They lacked joy.

It is not only in the _Ode to a Nightingale_ that he seems to praise death more than life.

This was temperamental with him.

He felt the "cursed spite" of things as melancholily as Hamlet did.

He was able to dream a world nearer his happiness than this world of dependence and church bells and "literary jabberers"; and he could come to no terms except with his fancy.

I do not mean to suggest that he despised the beauty of the earth.

Rather he filled his eyes with it:-- Hill-flowers running wild In pink and purple chequer-- and:-- Up-pil'd, The cloudy rack slow journeying in the West, Like herded elephants.

But the simple pleasure in colours and shapes grows less in his later poems.

It becomes overcast.

His great poems have the intensity and sorrow of a farewell.

It would be absurd, however, to paint Keats as a man without vitality, without pugnacity, without merriment.

His brother declared that "John was the very soul of manliness and courage, and as much like the Holy Ghost as Johnny Keats"--the Johnny Keats who had allowed himself to be "snuffed out by an article."

As a schoolboy he had been fond of fighting, and as a man he had his share of militancy.

He had a quite healthy sense of humour, too--not a subtle sense, but at least sufficient to enable him to regard his work playfully at times, as when he commented on an early version of _La Belle Dame sans Merci_ containing the lines:-- And there I shut her wild, wild eyes With kisses four.

"Why four kisses?"

he writes to his brother:-- Why four kisses--you will say--why four?

Because I wish to restrain the headlong impetuosity of my Muse--she would have fain said "score" without hurting the rhyme--but we must temper the imagination, as the critics say, with judgment.

I was obliged to choose an even number, that both eyes might have fair play, and to speak truly I think two apiece quite sufficient.

Suppose I had said seven, there would have been three and-a-half apiece--a very awkward affair, and well got out of on my side.

That was written nearly a year after the famous _Quarterly_ article on _Endymion_, in which the reviewer had so severely taken to task "Mr. Keats (if that be his real name, for we almost doubt that any man in his senses would put his real name to such a rhapsody)."

It suggests that Keats retained at least a certain share of good spirits, in spite of the _Quarterly_ and Fanny Brawne and the approach of death.

His observation, too, was often that of a spirited common-sense realist rather than an aesthete, as in his first description of Fanny Brawne:-- She is about my height--with a fine style and countenance of the lengthened sort--she wants sentiment in every feature--she manages to make her hair look well--her nostrils are fine--though a little painful--her mouth is bad and good--her profile is better than her full face, which, indeed, is not full but pale and thin, without showing any bone--her shape is very graceful, and so are her movements--her arms are good, her hands bad-ish--her feet tolerable--she is not seventeen [nineteen?

]--but she is ignorant monstrous in her behaviour, flying out in all directions, calling people such names--that I was forced lately to make use of the term _minx_; this is, I think, not from any innate vice but from a penchant she has of acting stylishly.

I am, however, tired of such style, and shall decline any more of it.

Yet before many months he was writing to the "minx," "I will imagine you Venus to-night, and pray, pray, pray, pray to your star like a heathen."

Certain it is, as I have already said, that it was after his meeting with Fanny Brawne that he grew, as in a night, into a great poet.

Let us not then abuse Keats's passion for her as vulgar.

And let us not attempt to make up for this by ranking him with Shakespeare.

He is great among the second, not among the first poets.

VI