Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (611 page)

This is a dilution of the magnificent image —

“Time in advance behind him hides his wings, And seems to creep decrepit with his age. Behold him when past by!  What then is seen But his proud pinions, swifter than the winds?”

Again:

“A requesting Omnipotence?  What can stun and confound thy reason more?  What more can ravish and exalt thy heart?  It cannot but ravish and exalt; it cannot but gloriously disturb and perplex thee, to take in all
that
suggests.  Thou child of the dust!  Thou speck of misery and sin!  How abject thy weakness! how great is thy power!  Thou crawler on earth, and possible (I was about to say) controller of the skies!  Weigh, and weigh well, the wondrous truths I have in view: which cannot be weighed too much; which
the more they are weighed, amaze the more; which to have supposed, before they were revealed, would have been as great madness, and to have presumed on as great sin, as it is now madness and sin not to believe.”

Even in his Pindaric odes, in which he made the most violent efforts against nature, he is still neither more nor less than the Young of the “Last Day,” emptied and swept of his genius, and possessed by seven demons of fustian and bad rhyme.  Even here his “Ercles’ Vein” alternates with his moral platitudes, and we have the perpetual text of the “Night Thoughts:”

   ”Gold pleasure buys;    But pleasure dies, For soon the gross fruition cloys;    Though raptures court,    The sense is short; But virtue kindles living joys; —

   ”Joys felt alone!    Joys asked of none! Which Time’s and fortune’s arrows miss:    Joys that subsist,    Though fates resist, An unprecarious, endless bliss!

   ”Unhappy they!    And falsely gay! Who bask forever in success;    A constant feast    Quite palls the taste,
And long enjoyment is distress
.”

In the “Last Day,” again, which is the earliest thing he wrote, we have an anticipation of all his greatest faults and merits.  Conspicuous among the faults is that attempt to exalt our conceptions of Deity by vulgar images and comparisons, which is so offensive in the later “Night Thoughts.”  In a burst of prayer and homage to God, called forth by the contemplation of Christ coming to judgment, he asks, Who brings the change of the seasons? and answers:

“Not the great Ottoman, or Greater Czar; Not Europe’s arbitress of peace and war!”

Conceive the soul in its most solemn moments, assuring God that it doesn’t place his power below that of Louis Napoleon or Queen Victoria!

But in the midst of uneasy rhymes, inappropriate imagery, vaulting sublimity that o’erleaps itself, and vulgar emotions, we have in this poem an occasional flash of genius, a touch of simple grandeur, which promises as much as Young ever achieved.  Describing the on-coming of the dissolution of all things, he says:

“No sun in radiant glory shines on high;
No light but from the terrors of the sky
.”

And again, speaking of great armies:

“Whose rear lay wrapt in night, while breaking dawn Rous’d the broad front, and call’d the battle on.”

And this wail of the lost souls is fine:

         ”And this for sin? Could I offend if I had never been? But still increas’d the senseless, happy mass, Flow’d in the stream,
or shiver’d in the grass
? Father of mercies!  Why from silent earth Didst thou awake and curse me into birth? Tear me from quiet, ravish me from night, And make a thankless present of thy light? Push into being a reverse of Thee, And
animate a clod with misery
?”

But it is seldom in Young’s rhymed poems that the effect of a felicitous thought or image is not counteracted by our sense of the constraint he suffered from the necessities of rhyme — that “Gothic demon,” as he afterward called it, “which, modern poetry tasting, became mortal.”  In relation to his own power, no one will question the truth of this dictum, that “blank verse is verse unfallen, uncurst; verse reclaimed, reinthroned in the true language of the gods; who never thundered nor suffered their Homer to thunder in rhyme.”  His want of mastery in rhyme is especially a drawback on the effects of his Satires; for epigrams and witticisms are peculiarly susceptible to the intrusion of a superfluous word, or to an inversion which implies constraint.  Here, even more than elsewhere,
the art that conceals art is an absolute requisite, and to have a witticism presented to us in limping or cumbrous rhythm is as counteractive to any electrifying effect as to see the tentative grimaces by which a comedian prepares a grotesque countenance.  We discern the process, instead of being startled by the result.

This is one reason why the Satires, read
seriatim
, have a flatness to us, which, when we afterward read picked passages, we are inclined to disbelieve in, and to attribute to some deficiency in our own mood.  But there are deeper reasons for that dissatisfaction.  Young is not a satirist of a high order.  His satire has neither the terrible vigor, the lacerating energy of genuine indignation, nor the humor which owns loving fellowship with the poor human nature it laughs at; nor yet the personal bitterness which, as in Pope’s characters of Sporus and Atticus, insures those living touches by virtue of which the individual and particular in Art becomes the universal and immortal.  Young could never describe a real, complex human being; but what he
could
do with eminent success was to describe, with neat and finished point, obvious
types
, of manners rather than of character — to write cold and clever epigrams on personified vices and absurdities.  There is no more emotion in his satire than if he were turning witty verses on a waxen image of Cupid or a lady’s glove.  He has none of these felicitious epithets, none of those pregnant lines, by which Pope’s Satires have enriched the ordinary speech of educated men.  Young’s wit will be found in almost every instance to consist in that antithetic combination of ideas which, of all the forms of wit, is most within reach of a clever effort.  In his gravest arguments, as well as in his lightest satire, one might imagine that he had set himself to work out the problem, how much antithesis might be got out of a given subject.  And there he completely succeeds.  His neatest portraits are all wrought on this plan.  “Narcissus,” for example, who

“Omits no duty; nor can Envy say He miss’d, these many years, the Church or Play:
He makes no noise in Parliament, ‘tis true; But pays his debts, and visit when ‘tis due; His character and gloves are ever clean, And then he can out-bow the bowing Dean; A smile eternal on his lip he wears, Which equally the wise and worthless shares. In gay fatigues, this most undaunted chief, Patient of idleness beyond belief, Most charitably lends the town his face For ornament in every public place; As sure as cards he to th’ assembly comes, And is the furniture of drawing-rooms: When Ombre calls, his hand and heart are free, And, joined to two, he fails not — to make three; Narcissus is the glory of his race; For who does nothing with a better grace? To deck my list by nature were designed Such shining expletives of human kind, Who want, while through blank life they dream along, Sense to be right and passion to be wrong.”

It is but seldom that we find a touch of that easy slyness which gives an additional zest to surprise; but here is an instance:

“See Tityrus, with merriment possest, Is burst with laughter ere he hears the jest, What need he stay, for when the joke is o’er, His
teeth
will be no whiter than before.”

Like Pope, whom he imitated, he sets out with a psychological mistake as the basis of his satire, attributing all forms of folly to one passion — the love of fame, or vanity — a much grosser mistake, indeed, than Pope’s, exaggeration of the extent to which the “ruling passion” determines conduct in the individual.  Not that Young is consistent in his mistake.  He sometimes implies no more than what is the truth — that the love of fame is the cause, not of all follies, but of many.

Young’s satires on women are superior to Pope’s, which is only saying that they are superior to Pope’s greatest failure.  We can more frequently pick out a couplet as successful than an entire sketch.  Of the too emphatic “Syrena” he says:

“Her judgment just, her sentence is too strong; Because she’s right, she’s ever in the wrong.”

Of the diplomatic “Julia:”

“For her own breakfast she’ll project a scheme, Nor take her tea without a stratagem.”

Of “Lyce,” the old painted coquette:

“In vain the cock has summoned sprites away; She walks at noon and blasts the bloom of day.”

Of the nymph, who, “gratis, clears religious mysteries:”

“‘Tis hard, too, she who makes no use but chat Of her religion, should be barr’d in that.”

The description of the literary
belle
, “Daphne,” well prefaces that of “Stella,” admired by Johnson:

“With legs toss’d high, on her sophee she sits, Vouchsafing audience to contending wits: Of each performance she’s the final test; One act read o’er, she prophecies the rest; And then, pronouncing with decisive air, Fully convinces all the town —
she’s fair
. Had lonely Daphne Hecatessa’s face, How would her elegance of taste decrease! Some ladies’ judgment in their features lies, And all their genius sparkles in their eyes. But hold, she cries, lampooner! have a care; Must I want common sense because I’m fair? O no; see Stella: her eyes shine as bright As if her tongue was never in the right; And yet what real learning, judgment, fire! She seems inspir’d, and can herself inspire. How then (if malice ruled not all the fair)
Could Daphne publish
,
and could she forbear
?”

After all, when we have gone through Young’s seven Satires, we seem to have made but an indifferent meal.  They are a sort of fricassee, with some little solid meat in them, and yet the flavor is not always piquant.  It is curious to find him, when he pauses a moment from his satiric sketching, recurring to his old platitudes:

“Can gold calm passion, or make reason shine? Can we dig peace or wisdom from the mine? Wisdom to gold prefer;” —

platitudes which he seems inevitably to fall into, for the same reason that some men are constantly asserting their contempt for criticism — because he felt the opposite so keenly.

The outburst of genius in the earlier books of the “Night Thoughts” is the more remarkable, that in the interval between them and the Satires he had produced nothing but his Pindaric odes, in which he fell far below the level of his previous works.  Two sources of this sudden strength were the freedom of blank verse and the presence of a genuine emotion.  Most persons, in speaking of the “Night Thoughts,” have in their minds only the two or three first Nights, the majority of readers rarely getting beyond these, unless, as Wilson says, they “have but few books, are poor, and live in the country.”  And in these earlier Nights there is enough genuine sublimity and genuine sadness to bribe us into too favorable a judgment of them as a whole.  Young had only a very few things to say or sing — such as that life is vain, that death is imminent, that man is immortal, that virtue is wisdom, that friendship is sweet, and that the source of virtue is the contemplation of death and immortality — and even in his two first Nights he had said almost all he had to say in his finest manner.  Through these first outpourings of “complaint” we feel that the poet is really sad, that the bird is singing over a rifled nest; and we bear with his morbid picture of the world and of life, as the Job-like lament of a man whom “the hand of God hath touched.”  Death has carried away his best-beloved, and that “silent land” whither they are gone has more reality for the desolate one than this world which is empty of their love:

“This is the desert, this the solitude; How populous, how vital is the grave!”

Joy died with the loved one:

         ”The disenchanted earth Lost all her lustre.  Where her glitt’ring towers? Her golden mountains, where?  All darkened down To naked waste; a dreary vale of tears:
The great magician’s dead
!”

Under the pang of parting, it seems to the bereaved man as if love were only a nerve to suffer with, and he sickens at the thought of every joy of which he must one day say — “
it
was
.”  In its unreasoning anguish, the soul rushes to the idea of perpetuity as the one element of bliss:

“O ye blest scenes of permanent delight! — Could ye, so rich in rapture, fear an end, — That ghastly thought would drink up all your joy, And quite unparadise the realms of light.”

In a man under the immediate pressure of a great sorrow, we tolerate morbid exaggerations; we are prepared to see him turn away a weary eye from sunlight and flowers and sweet human faces, as if this rich and glorious life had no significance but as a preliminary of death; we do not criticise his views, we compassionate his feelings.  And so it is with Young in these earlier Nights.  There is already some artificiality even in his grief, and feeling often slides into rhetoric, but through it all we are thrilled with the unmistakable cry of pain, which makes us tolerant of egoism and hyperbole: