<h3><b><SPAN name="2._The_Matthew_Arnold_View"></SPAN>2. The Matthew Arnold View</b></h3>
<p>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:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>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.</p>
</div>
<p>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
<i>Ode on a Grecian Urn</i>. 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:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>It was a nymph uprising to the breast<br/>
</span><span>In the fountain's pebbly margin, and she stood<br/>
</span><span>'Mong lilies, like the youngest of her brood.<br/>
</span><span>To him her dripping hand she softly kist,<br/>
</span><span>And anxiously began to plait and twist<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>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 <i>The Eve of St. Agnes</i> 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 <i>Lamia</i>,
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:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>That purple-lined palace of sweet sin?<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>In Keats every palace has a purple lining.</p>
<p>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 <i>Ode to a Nightingale</i>
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:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span class="i11">Hill-flowers running wild<br/>
</span><span>In pink and purple chequer—<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>and:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span class="i11">Up-pil'd,<br/>
</span><span>The cloudy rack slow journeying in the West,<br/>
</span><span>Like herded elephants.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <i>La Belle Dame sans Merci</i>
containing the lines:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>And there I shut her wild, wild eyes<br/>
</span><span class="i2">With kisses four.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>"Why four kisses?" he writes to his brother:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>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.</p>
</div>
<p>That was written nearly a year after the famous <i>Quarterly</i>
article on
<i>Endymion</i>, 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
<i>Quarterly</i> 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:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>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 <i>minx</i>; 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.</p>
</div>
<p>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.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />