SOME POEMS ABOUT INSECTS
One of the great defects of English books printed in the last century is
the want of an index. The importance of being able to refer at once to any
subject treated of in a book was not recognized until the days when exact
scholarship necessitated indexing of the most elaborate kind. But even now
we constantly find good books severely criticized because of this
deficiency. All that I have said tends to show that even to-day in Western
countries the immense importance of systematic arrangement in literary
collections is not sufficiently recognized. We have, of course, a great
many English anthologies,--that is to say, collections of the best typical
compositions of a certain epoch in poetry or in prose. But you must have
observed that, in Western countries, nearly all such anthologies are
compiled chronologically--not according to the subject of the poems. To
this general rule there are indeed a few exceptions. There is a collection
of love poetry by Watson, which is famous; a collection of child poetry by
Patmore; a collection of "society verse" by Locker-Lampson; and several
things of that sort. But even here the arrangement is not of a special
kind; nor is it ever divided according to the subject of each particular
poem. I know that some books have been published of late years with such
titles as "Poems of the Sea," "Poems of Nature"--but these are of no
literary importance at all and they are not compiled by competent critics.
Besides, the subject-heads are always of much too general a kind. The
French are far in advance of the English in the art of making anthologies;
but even in such splendid anthologies as those of Crépet and of Lemerre
the arrangement is of the most general kind,--chronological, and little
more.
I was reminded to tell you this, because of several questions recently
asked me, which I found it impossible to answer. Many a Japanese student
might suppose that Western poetry has its classified arrangements
corresponding in some sort to those of Japanese poetry. Perhaps the
Germans have something of the kind, but the English and French have not.
Any authority upon the subject of Japanese literature can, I have been
told, inform himself almost immediately as to all that has been written in
poetry upon a particular subject. Japanese poetry has been classified and
sub-classified and double-indexed or even quadruple-indexed after a manner
incomparably more exact than anything English anthologies can show. I am
aware that this fact is chiefly owing to the ancient rules about subjects,
seasons, contrasts, and harmonies, after which the old poets used to
write. But whatever be said about such rules, there can be no doubt at all
of the excellence of the arrangements which the rules produced. It is
greatly to be regretted that we have not in English a system of
arrangement enabling the student to discover quickly all that has been
written upon a particular subject--such as roses, for example, or pine
trees, or doves, or the beauties of the autumn season. There is nobody to
tell you where to find such things; and as the whole range of English
poetry is so great that it takes a great many years even to glance through
it, a memorized knowledge of the subjects is impossible for the average
man. I believe that Macaulay would have been able to remember almost any
reference in the poetry then accessible to scholars,--just as the
wonderful Greek scholar Porson could remember the exact place of any text
in the whole of Greek literature, and even all the variations of that
text. But such men are born only once in hundreds of years; the common
memory can not attempt to emulate their feats. And it is very difficult at
the present time for the ordinary student of poetry to tell you just how
much has been written upon any particular subject by the best English
poets.
Now you will recognize some difficulties in the way of a lecturer in
attempting to make classifications of English poetry after the same manner
that Japanese classification can be made of Japanese poetry. One must read
enormously merely to obtain one's materials, and even then the result is
not to be thought of as exhaustive. I am going to try to give you a few
lectures upon English poetry thus classified, but we must not expect that
the lectures will be authoritatively complete. Indeed, we have no time for
lectures of so thorough a sort. All that I can attempt will be to give you
an idea of the best things that English poets have thought and expressed
upon certain subjects.
You know that the old Greeks wrote a great deal of beautiful poetry about
insects,--especially about musical insects, crickets, cicadas, and other
insects such as those the Japanese poets have been writing about for so
many hundreds of years. But in modern Western poetry there is very little,
comparatively speaking, about insects. The English poets have all written
a great deal about birds, and especially about singing birds; but very
little has been written upon the subject of insects--singing insects. One
reason is probably that the number of musical insects in England is very
small, perhaps owing to the climate. American poets have written more
about insects than English poets have done, though their work is of a much
less finished kind. But this is because musical insects in America are
very numerous. On the whole, we may say that neither in English nor in
French poetry will you find much about the Voices of rickets, locusts, or
cicadæ. I could not even give you a special lecture upon that subject. We
must take the subject "insect" in a rather general signification; and if
we do that we can edit together a nice little collection of poetical
examples.
The butterfly was regarded by the Greeks especially as the emblem of the
soul and therefore of immortality. We have several Greek remains,
picturing the butterfly as perched upon a skull, thus symbolizing life
beyond death. And the metamorphosis of the insect is, you know, very often
referred to in Greek philosophy. We might expect that English poets would
have considered the butterfly especially from this point of view; and we
do have a few examples. Perhaps the best known is that of Coleridge.
The butterfly the ancient Grecians made
The soul's fair emblem, and its only name--
But of the soul, escaped the slavish trade
Of earthly life! For in this mortal frame
Ours is the reptile's lot, much toil, much blame,
Manifold motions making little speed,
And to deform and kill the things whereon we feed.
The allusion to the "name" is of course to the Greek word, _psyche_, which
signifies both soul and butterfly. Psyche, as the soul, was pictured by
the Greeks as a beautiful girl, with a somewhat sad face, and butterfly
wings springing from her shoulders. Coleridge tells us here that although
the Greeks likened the soul to the butterfly, we must remember what the
butterfly really is,--the last and highest state of insect-being--"escaped
the slavish trade of earthly life." What is this so-called slavish trade?
It is the necessity of working and struggling in order to live--in order
to obtain food. The butterfly is not much of an eater; some varieties,
indeed, do not eat at all. All the necessity for eating ended with the
life of the larva. In the same manner religion teaches that the soul
represents the changed state of man. In this life a man is only like a
caterpillar; death changes him into a chrysalis, and out of the chrysalis
issues the winged soul which does not have to trouble itself about such
matters as eating and drinking. By the word "reptile" in this verse, you
must understand caterpillar. Therefore the poet speaks of all our human
work as manifold motions making little speed; you have seen how many
motions a caterpillar must make in order to go even a little distance, and
you must have noticed the manner in which it spoils the appearance of the
plant upon which it feeds. There is here an allusion to the strange and
terrible fact, that all life--and particularly the life of man--is
maintained only by the destruction of other life. In order to live we must
kill--perhaps only plants, but in any case we must kill.
Wordsworth has several poems on butterflies, but only one of them is
really fine. It is fine, not because it suggests any deep problem, but
because with absolute simplicity it pictures the charming difference of
character in a little boy and a little girl playing together in the
fields. The poem is addressed to the butterfly.
Stay near me--do not take thy flight!
A little longer stay in sight!
Much converse do I find in thee,
Historian of my infancy!
Float near me; do not yet depart!
Dead times revive in thee:
Thou bring'st, gay creature as thou art!
A solemn image to my heart,
My father's family.
Oh! pleasant, pleasant were the days,
The time, when, in our childish plays,
My sister Emmeline and I
Together chased the butterfly!
A very hunter did I rush
Upon the prey: with leaps and springs
I followed on from brake to bush;
But she, God love her, feared to brush
The dust from off its wings.
What we call and what looks like dust on the wings of a butterfly, English
children are now taught to know as really beautiful scales or featherlets,
but in Wordsworth's time the real structure of the insect was not so well
known as now to little people. Therefore to the boy the coloured matter
brushed from the wings would only have seemed so much dust. But the little
girl, with the instinctive tenderness of the future mother-soul in her,
dreads to touch those strangely delicate wings; she fears, not only to
spoil, but also to hurt.
Deeper thoughts than memory may still be suggested to English poets by the
sight of a butterfly, and probably will be for hundreds of years to come.
Perhaps the best poem of a half-metaphorical, half-philosophical thought
about butterflies is the beautiful prologue to Browning's "Fifine at the
Fair," which prologue is curiously entitled "Amphibian"--implying that we
are about to have a reference to creatures capable of living in two
distinctive elements, yet absolutely belonging neither to the one nor to
the other. The poet swims out far into the sea on a beautiful day; and,
suddenly, looking up, perceives a beautiful butterfly flying over his
head, as if watching him. The sight of the insect at once suggests to him
its relation to Greek fancy as a name for the soul; then he begins to
wonder whether it might not really be the soul, or be the symbol of the
soul, of a dead woman who loved him. From that point of the poem begins a
little metaphysical fantasy about the possible condition of souls.
The fancy I had to-day,
Fancy which turned a fear!
I swam far out in the bay,
Since waves laughed warm and clear.
I lay and looked at the sun,
The noon-sun looked at me:
Between us two, no one
Live creature, that I could see.
Yes! There came floating by
Me, who lay floating too,
Such a strange butterfly!
Creature as dear as new:
Because the membraned wings
So wonderful, so wide,
So sun-suffused, were things
Like soul and nought beside.
So much for the conditions of the poet's revery. He is swimming in the
sea; above his face, only a few inches away, the beautiful butterfly is
hovering. Its apparition makes him think of many things--perhaps first
about the dangerous position of the butterfly, for if it should only touch
the water, it is certain to be drowned. But it does not touch the water;
and he begins to think how clumsy is the man who moves in water compared
with the insect that moves in air, and how ugly a man is by comparison
with the exquisite creature which the Greeks likened to the soul or ghost
of the man. Thinking about ghosts leads him at once to the memory of a
certain very dear ghost about which he forthwith begins to dream.
What if a certain soul
Which early slipped its sheath,
And has for its home the whole
Of heaven, thus look beneath,
Thus watch one who, in the world,
Both lives and likes life's way,
Nor wishes the wings unfurled
That sleep in the worm, they say?
But sometimes when the weather
Is blue, and warm waves tempt
To free oneself of tether,
And try a life exempt
From worldly noise and dust,
In the sphere which overbrims
With passion and thought,--why, just
Unable to fly, one swims!
This is better understood by paraphrase: "I wonder if the soul of a
certain person, who lately died, slipped so gently out of the hard sheath
of the perishable body--I wonder if she does not look down from her home
in the sky upon me, just as that little butterfly is doing at this moment.
And I wonder if she laughs at the clumsiness of this poor swimmer, who
finds it so much labour even to move through the water, while she can move
through whatever she pleases by the simple act of wishing. And this man,
strangely enough, does not want to die, and to become a ghost. He likes to
live very much; he does not yet desire those soul-wings which are supposed
to be growing within the shell of his body, just as the wings of the
butterfly begin to grow in the chrysalis. He does not want to die at all.
But sometimes he wants to get away from the struggle and the dust of the
city, and to be alone with nature; and then, in order to be perfectly
alone, he swims. He would like to fly much better; but he can not.
However, swimming is very much like flying, only the element of water is
thicker than air."
However, more than the poet's words is suggested here. We are really told
that what a fine mind desires is spiritual life, pure intellectual
life--free from all the trammels of bodily necessity. Is not the swimmer
really a symbol of the superior mind in its present condition? Your best
swimmer can not live under the water, neither can he rise into the
beautiful blue air. He can only keep his head in the air; his body must
remain in the grosser element. Well, a great thinker and poet is ever
thus--floating between the universe of spirit and the universe of matter.
By his mind he belongs to the region of pure mind,--the ethereal state;
but the hard necessity of living keeps him down in the world of sense and
grossness and struggle. On the other hand the butterfly, freely moving in
a finer element, better represents the state of spirit or soul.
What is the use of being dissatisfied with nature? The best we can do is
to enjoy in the imagination those things which it is not possible for us
to enjoy in fact.
Emancipate through passion
And thought, with sea for sky,
We substitute, in a fashion,
For heaven--poetry:
Which sea, to all intent,
Gives flesh such noon-disport,
As a finer element
Affords the spirit-sort.
Now you see where the poet's vision of a beautiful butterfly has been
leading his imagination. The nearest approach which we can make to the act
of flying, in the body, is the act of swimming. The nearest approach that
we can make to the heavenly condition, mentally, is in poetry. Poetry,
imagination, the pleasure of emotional expression--these represent our
nearest approach to paradise. Poetry is the sea in which the soul of man
can swim even as butterflies can swim in the air, or happy ghosts swim in
the finer element of the infinite ether. The last three stanzas of the
poem are very suggestive:
And meantime, yonder streak
Meets the horizon's verge;
That is the land, to seek
If we tire or dread the surge:
Land the solid and safe--
To welcome again (confess!)
When, high and dry, we chafe
The body, and don the dress.
Does she look, pity, wonder
At one who mimics flight,
Swims--heaven above, sea under,
Yet always earth in sight?
"Streak," meaning an indistinct line, here refers to the coast far away,
as it appears to the swimmer. It is just such a word as a good Japanese
painter ought to appreciate in such a relation. In suggesting that the
swimmer is glad to return to shore again and get warm, the poet is telling
us that however much we may talk about the happiness of spirits in
heaven--however much we may praise heaven in poetry--the truth is that we
are very fond of this world, we like comfort, we like company, we like
human love and human pleasures. There is a good deal of nonsense in
pretending that we think heaven is a better place than the world to which
we belong. Perhaps it is a better place, but, as a matter of fact, we do
not know anything about it; and we should be frightened if we could go
beyond a certain distance from the real world which we do know. As he
tells us this, the poet begins again to think about the spirit of the dead
woman. Is she happy? Is she looking at him--and pitying him as he swims,
taking good care not to go too far away from the land? Or is she laughing
at him, because in his secret thoughts he confesses that he likes to
live--that he does not want to become a pure ghost at the present time?
Evidently a butterfly was quite enough, not only to make Browning's mind
think very seriously, but to make that mind teach us the truth and
seriousness which may attach to very small things--incidents, happenings
of daily life, in any hour and place. I believe that is the greatest
English poem we have on the subject of the butterfly.
The idea that a butterfly might be, not merely the symbol of the soul, but
in very fact the spirit of a dead person, is somewhat foreign to English
thought; and whatever exists in poetry on the subject must necessarily be
quite new. The idea of a relation between insects, birds, or other living
creatures, and the spirits of the dead, is enormously old in Oriental
literature;--we find it in Sanskrit texts thousands of years ago. But the
Western mind has not been accustomed to think of spiritual life as outside
of man; and much of natural poetry has consequently remained undeveloped
in Western countries. A strange little poem, "The White Moth," is an
exception to the general rule that I have indicated; but I am almost
certain that its author, A.T. Quiller-Couch, must have read Oriental
books, or obtained his fancy from some Eastern source. As the knowledge of
Indian literature becomes more general in England, we may expect to find
poetry much influenced by Oriental ideas. At the present time, such a
composition as this is quite a strange anomaly.
_If a leaf rustled, she would start:
And yet she died, a year ago.
How had so frail a thing the heart
To journey where she trembled so?
And do they turn and turn in fright,
Those little feet, in so much night?_
The light above the poet's head
Streamed on the page and on the cloth,
And twice and thrice there buffeted
On the black pane a white-winged moth:
'Twas Annie's soul that beat outside,
And "Open, open, open!" cried:
"I could not find the way to God;
There were too many flaming suns
For signposts, and the fearful road
Led over wastes where millions
Of tangled comets hissed and burned--
I was bewildered and I turned.
"Oh, it was easy then! I knew
Your window and no star beside.
Look up and take me back to you!"
--He rose and thrust the window wide.
'Twas but because his brain was hot
With rhyming; for he heard her not.
But poets polishing a phrase
Show anger over trivial things;
And as she blundered in the blaze
Towards him, on ecstatic wings,
He raised a hand and smote her dead;
Then wrote "_That I had died instead!_"
The lover, or bereaved husband, is writing a poem of which a part is given
in the first stanza--which is therefore put in italics. The action proper
begins with the second stanza. The soul of the dead woman taps at the
window in the shape of a night-butterfly or moth--imagining, perhaps, that
she has still a voice and can make herself heard by the man that she
loves. She tells the story of her wandering in space--privileged to pass
to heaven, yet afraid of the journey. Now the subject of the poem which
the lover happens to be writing inside the room is a memory of the dead
woman--mourning for her, describing her in exquisite ways. He can not hear
her at all; he does not hear even the beating of the little wings at the
window, but he stands up and opens the window--because he happens to feel
hot and tired. The moth thinks that he has heard her, that he knows; and
she flies toward him in great delight. But he, thinking that it is only a
troublesome insect, kills her with a blow of his hand; and then sits down
to continue his poem with the words, "Oh, how I wish I could have died
instead of that dear woman!" Altogether this is a queer poem in English
literature, and I believe almost alone of its kind. But it is queer only
because of its rarity of subject. As for construction, it is very good
indeed.
I do not know that it is necessary to quote any more poems upon
butterflies or moths. There are several others; but the workmanship and
the thought are not good enough or original enough to justify their use
here as class texts. So I shall now turn to the subject of dragon-flies.
Here we must again be very brief. References to dragon-flies are common
throughout English poetry, but the references signify little more than a
mere colourless mention of the passing of the insect. However, it so
happens that the finest modern lines of pure description written about any
insect, are about dragon-flies. And they also happen to be by Tennyson.
Naturalists and men of science have greatly praised these lines, because
of their truth to nature and the accuracy of observation which they show.
You will find them in the poem entitled "The Two Voices."
To-day I saw the dragon-fly
Come from the wells where he did lie.
An inner impulse rent the veil
Of his old husk; from head to tail
Came out clear plates of sapphire mail.
He dried his wings; like gauze they grew;
Thro' crofts and pastures wet with dew
A living rush of light he flew.
There are very few real poems, however, upon the dragon-fly in English,
and considering the extraordinary beauty and grace of the insect, this may
appear strange to you. But I think that you can explain the strangeness at
a later time. The silence of English poets on the subject of insects as
compared with Japanese poets is due to general causes that we shall
consider at the close of the lecture.
Common flies could scarcely seem to be a subject for poetry--disgusting
and annoying creatures as they are. But there are more poems about the
house-fly than about the dragon-fly. Last year I quoted for you a
remarkable and rather mystical composition by the poet Blake about
accidentally killing a fly. Blake represents his own thoughts about the
brevity of human life which had been aroused by the incident. It is
charming little poem; but it does not describe the fly at all. I shall not
quote it here again, because we shall have many other things to talk
about; but I shall give you the text of a famous little composition by
Oldys on the same topic. It has almost the simplicity of Blake,--and
certainly something of the same kind of philosophy.
Busy, curious, thirsty fly,
Drink with me and drink as I;
Freely welcome to my cup,
Couldst thou sip and sip it up:
Make the most of life you may,
Life is short and wears away.
Both alike are mine and thine
Hastening quick to their decline:
Thine's a summer, mine's no more,
Though repeated to threescore.
Threescore summers, when they're gone,
Will appear as short as one!
The suggestion is that, after all, time is only a very relative affair in
the cosmic order of things. The life of the man of sixty years is not much
longer than the life of the insect which lives but a few hours, days, or
months. Had Oldys, who belongs to the eighteenth century, lived in our own
time, he might have been able to write something very much more curious on
this subject. It is now known that time, to the mind of an insect, must
appear immensely longer than it appears to the mind of a man. It has been
calculated that a mosquito or a gnat moves its wings between four and five
hundred times a second. Now the scientific dissection of such an insect,
under the microscope, justifies the opinion that the insect must be
conscious of each beat of the wings--just as a man feels that he lifts his
arm or bends his head every time that the action is performed. A man can
not even imagine the consciousness of so short an interval of time as the
five-hundredth part of one second. But insect consciousness can be aware
of such intervals; and a single day of life might well appear to the gnat
as long as the period of a month to a man. Indeed, we have reason to
suppose that to even the shortest-lived insect life does not appear short
at all; and that the ephemeral may actually, so far as felling is
concerned, live as long as a man--although its birth and death does occur
between the rising and the setting of the sun.
We might suppose that bees would form a favourite subject of poetry,
especially in countries where agriculture is practised upon such a scale
as in England. But such is not really the case. Nearly every English poet
makes some reference to bees, as Tennyson does in the famous couplet--
The moan of doves in immemorial elms,
And murmuring of innumerable bees.
But the only really remarkable poem addressed to a bee is by the American
philosopher Emerson. The poem in question can not be compared as to mere
workmanship with some others which I have cited; but as to thinking, it is
very interesting, and you must remember that the philosopher who writes
poetry should be judged for his thought rather than for the measure of his
verse. The whole is not equally good, nor is it short enough to quote
entire; I shall only give the best parts.
Burly, dozing humble-bee,
Where thou art is clime for me.
* * * * *
Zigzag steerer, desert cheerer,
Let me chase thy waving lines;
Keep me nearer, me thy hearer,
Singing over shrubs and vines.
Insect lover of the sun,
Joy of thy dominion!
Sailor of the atmosphere;
Swimmer through the waves of air;
Voyager of light and noon;
Epicurean of June;
Wait, I prithee, till I come
Within earshot of thy hum,--
All without is martyrdom.
* * * * *
Thou, in sunny solitudes,
Rover of the underwoods,
The green silence dost displace
With thy mellow, breezy bass.
* * * * *
Aught unsavory or unclean
Hath my insect never seen;
* * * * *
Wiser far than human seer,
Yellow-breeched philosopher!
Seeing only what is fair,
Sipping only what is sweet,
Thou dost mock at fate and care,
Leave the chaff, and take the wheat.
This is really the poetry of the bee--visiting only beautiful flowers, and
sucking from them their perfumed juices--always healthy, happy, and
surrounded by beautiful things. A great rover, a constant wanderer is the
bee--visiting many different places, seeing many different things, but
stopping only to enjoy what is beautiful to the sight and sweet to the
taste. Now Emerson tells us that a wise man should act like the bee--never
stopping to look at what is bad, or what is morally ugly, but seeking only
what is beautiful and nourishing for the mind. It is a very fine thought;
and the manner of expressing it is greatly helped by Emerson's use of
curious and forcible words--such as "burly," "zigzag," and the famous
expression "yellow-breeched philosopher"--which has passed almost into an
American household phrase. The allusion of course is to the thighs of the
bee, covered with the yellow pollen of flowers so as to make them seem
covered with yellow breeches, or trousers reaching only to the knees.
I do not of course include in the lecture such child songs about insects
as that famous one beginning with the words, "How doth the little busy bee
improve each shining hour." This is no doubt didactically very good; but I
wish to offer you only examples of really fine poetry on the topic.
Therefore leaving the subject of bees for the time, let us turn to the
subject of musical insects--the singers of the fields and
woods--grasshoppers and crickets.
In Japanese poetry there are thousands of verses upon such insects.
Therefore it seems very strange that we have scarcely anything on the
subject in English. And the little that we do have is best represented by
the poem of Keats on the night cricket. The reference is probably to what
we call in England the hearth cricket, an insect which hides in houses,
making itself at home in some chink of the brickwork or stonework about a
fireplace, for it loves the warmth. I suppose that the small number of
poems in English about crickets can be partly explained by the scarcity of
night singers. Only the house cricket seems to be very well known. But on
the other hand, we can not so well explain the rarity of composition in
regard to the day-singers--the grasshoppers and locusts which can be
heard, though somewhat faintly, in any English country place after sunset
during the warm season. Another queer thing is that the example set by
Keats has not been imitated or at least followed even up to the present
time.
The poetry of earth is never dead:
When all the birds are faint with the hot sun, etc.
In this charming composition you will have noticed the word "stove"; but
you must remember that this is not a stove as we understand the term now,
and signifies only an old-fashioned fireplace of brick or tile. In Keats's
day there were no iron stoves. Another word which I want to notice is the
word "poetry" in the first line. By the poetry of nature the poet means
the voices of nature--the musical sounds made by its idle life in woods
and fields. So the word "poetry" here has especially the meaning of song,
and corresponds very closely to the Japanese word which signifies either
poem or song, but perhaps more especially the latter. The general meaning
of the sonnet is that at no time, either in winter or in summer, is nature
silent. When the birds do not sing, the grasshoppers make music for us;
and when the cold has killed or banished all other life, then the house
cricket begins with its thin sweet song to make us think of the dead
voices of the summer.
There is not much else of note about the grasshopper and the cricket in
the works of the great English poets. But perhaps you do not know that
Tennyson in his youth took up the subject and made a long poem upon the
grasshopper, but suppressed it after the edition of 1842. He did not think
it good enough to rank with his other work. But a few months ago the poems
which Tennyson suppressed in the final edition of his works have been
published and carefully edited by an eminent scholar, and among these
poems we find "The Grasshopper." I will quote some of this poem, because
it is beautiful, and because the fact of its suppression will serve to
show you how very exact and careful Tennyson was to preserve only the very
best things that he wrote.
Voice of the summer wind,
Joy of the summer plain,
Life of the summer hours,
Carol clearly, bound along,
No Tithon thou as poets feign
(Shame fall 'em, they are deaf and blind),
But an insect lithe and strong
Bowing the seeded summer flowers.
Prove their falsehood and thy quarrel,
Vaulting on thine airy feet
Clap thy shielded sides and carol,
Carol clearly, chirrups sweet.
Thou art a mailéd warrior in youth and strength complete;
Armed cap-à-pie,
Full fair to see;
Unknowing fear,
Undreading loss,
A gallant cavalier,
_Sans peur et sans reproche_.
In sunlight and in shadow,
The Bayard of the meadow.
The reference to Tithonus is a reference of course to a subject afterwards
beautifully elaborated in another poem by Tennyson, the great poem of
"Tithonus." The Bayard here referred to was the great French model of
perfect chivalry, and is sometimes called the last of the feudal knights.
He was said to be without fear and without blame. You may remember that he
was killed by a ball from a gun--it was soon after the use of artillery in
war had been introduced; and his dying words were to the effect that he
feared there was now an end of great deeds, because men had begun to fight
from a distance with machines instead of fighting in the old knightly and
noble way with sword and spear. The grasshopper, covered with green plates
and bearing so many little sharp spines upon its long limbs, seems to have
suggested to Tennyson the idea of a fairy knight in green armour.
As I said before, England is poor in singing insects, while America is
rich in them--almost, perhaps, as rich as Japan, although you will not
find as many different kinds of singing insects in any one state or
district. The singing insects of America are peculiar to particular
localities. But the Eastern states have perhaps the most curious insect of
this kind. It is called the Katydid. This name is spelt either Katydid, or
Catydid--though the former spelling is preferable. Katy, or Katie, is the
abbreviation of the name Catherine; very few girls are called by the full
name Catherine, also spelt Katherine; because the name is long and
unmusical, their friends address them usually as Katy, and their
acquaintances, as Kate. Well, the insect of which I am speaking, a kind of
_semi_, makes a sound resembling the sound of the words "Katie did!" Hence
the name--one of the few corresponding to the names given to the Japanese
_semi_, such as _tsuku-tsuku-boshi_, or _minmin-semi_. The most
interesting composition upon this cicada is by Oliver Wendell Holmes, but
it is of the lighter sort of verse, with a touch of humour in it. I shall
quote a few verses only, as the piece contains some allusions that would
require explanation at considerable length.
I love to hear thine earnest voice,
Wherever thou art hid,
Thou testy little dogmatist,
Thou pretty Katydid!
Thou mindest me of gentlefolks,--
Old gentlefolks are they,--
Thou say'st an undisputed thing
In such a solemn way.
* * * * *
Oh tell me where did Katy live,
And what did Katy do?
And was she very fair and young,
And yet so wicked, too?
Did Katy love a naughty man,
Or kiss more cheeks than one?
I warrant Katy did no more
Than many a Kate has done.
* * * * *
Ah, no! The living oak shall crash,
That stood for ages still,
The rock shall rend its mossy base
And thunder down the hill,
Before the little Katydid
Shall add one word, to tell
The mystic story of the maid
Whose name she knows so well.
The word "testy" may be a little unfamiliar to some of you; it is a good
old-fashioned English term for "cross," "irritable." The reference to the
"old gentlefolks" implies the well-known fact that in argument old persons
are inclined to be much more obstinate than young people. And there is
also a hint in the poem of the tendency among old ladies to blame the
conduct of young girls even more severely than may be necessary. There is
nothing else to recommend the poem except its wit and the curiousness of
the subject. There are several other verses about the same creature, by
different American poets; but none of them is quite so good as the
composition of Holmes. However, I may cite a few verses from one of the
earlier American poets, Philip Freneau, who flourished in the eighteenth
century and the early part of the nineteenth. He long anticipated the
fancy of Holmes; but he spells the word Catydid.
In a branch of willow hid
Sings the evening Catydid:
From the lofty locust bough
Feeding on a drop of dew,
In her suit of green arrayed
Hear her singing in the shade--
Catydid, Catydid, Catydid!
While upon a leaf you tread,
Or repose your little head
On your sheet of shadows laid,
All the day you nothing said;
Half the night your cheery tongue
Revelled out its little song,--
Nothing else but Catydid.
* * * * *
Tell me, what did Caty do?
Did she mean to trouble you?
Why was Caty not forbid
To trouble little Catydid?
Wrong, indeed, at you to fling,
Hurting no one while you sing,--
Catydid! Catydid! Catydid!
To Dr. Holmes the voice of the cicada seemed like the voice of an old
obstinate woman, an old prude, accusing a young girl of some fault,--but
to Freneau the cry of the little creature seemed rather to be like the cry
of a little child complaining--a little girl, perhaps, complaining that
somebody had been throwing stones at her, or had hurt her in some way.
And, of course, the unfinished character of the phrase allows equally well
either supposition.
Before going back to more serious poetry, I want--while we are speaking of
American poets--to make one reference to the ironical or satirical poetry
which insects have inspired in some minds, taking for example the poem by
Charlotte Perkins Stetson about a butterfly. This author is rather a
person of note, being a prominent figure in educational reforms and the
author of a volume of poems of a remarkably strong kind in the didactic
sense. In other words, she is especially a moral poet; and unless moral
poetry be really very well executed, it is scarcely worth while classing
it as literature. I think, however, that the symbolism in the following
verses will interest you--especially when we comment upon them. The
composition from which they are taken is entitled "A Conservative."
The poet, walking in the garden one morning, sees a butterfly, very
unhappy, and gifted with power to express the reason of its unhappiness.
The butterfly says, complaining of its wings,
"My legs are thin and few
Where once I had a swarm!
Soft fuzzy fur--a joy to view--
Once kept my body warm,
Before these flapping wing-things grew,
To hamper and deform!"
At that outrageous bug I shot
The fury of mine eye;
Said I, in scorn all burning hot,
In rage and anger high,
"You ignominious idiot!
Those wings are made to fly!"
"I do not want to fly," said he,
"I only want to squirm!"
And he drooped his wings dejectedly,
But still his voice was firm:
"I do not want to be a fly!
I want to be a worm!"
O yesterday of unknown lack!
To-day of unknown bliss!
I left my fool in red and black,
The last I saw was this,--
The creature madly climbing back
Into his chrysalis.
Of course the wings here represent the powers of the mind--knowledge,
reason, will. Men ought to use these in order to reach still nobler and
higher states of life. But there are men who refuse to use their best
faculties for this end. Such men are like butterflies who do not want to
take the trouble to fly, but prefer the former condition of the
caterpillar which does nothing but eat and sleep. As applied to certain
forms of conservatism the satire is strong.
Something may now be said as to poems about spiders. But let me remind you
that a spider is not an insect. Scientifically it has no relation to the
great family of true insects; it belongs to the very distinct family of
the arthropoda or "joint-footed" animals. But as it is still popularly
called an insect in most European countries, we may be excused for
including it in the subject of the present lecture. I suppose you know
that one of the scientific names for this whole class of creatures is
Arachnida,--a name derived from the Greek name Arachne. The story of
Arachne is interesting, and everybody studying natural history ought to
know it. Arachne was a young girl, according to the Greek story, who was
very skilful at weaving. She wove cloths of many different colours and
beautiful patterns, and everybody admired her work. This made her vain--so
vain that at last she said that even the goddess of weaving could not
weave better than she. Immediately after she had said that, the terrible
goddess herself--Pallas Athena--entered the room. Pallas Athena was not
only the goddess of wisdom, you know, but especially the goddess of young
girls, presiding over the chastity, the filial piety, and the domestic
occupations of virgins; and she was very angry at the conceit of this
girl. So she said to her, "You have boasted that you can weave as well as
I can; now let me see you weave!" So Arachne was obliged to sit down at
her loom and weave in the presence of the goddess; and the goddess also
wove, far surpassing the weaving of Arachne. When the weaving was done,
the goddess asked the girl, "Now see! which is the better, my work or
yours?" And Arachne was obliged to confess that she had been defeated and
put to shame. But the goddess was not thoroughly satisfied; to punish
Arachne, she touched her lightly with the distaff, saying, "Spin forever!"
and thereupon Arachne was changed into a spider, which forever spins and
weaves perishable films of perishable shiny thread. Poetically we still
may call a spider Arachne.
I have here a little poem of a touching character entitled "Arachne," by
Rose Terry Cooke,--one of the symbolic poems which are becoming so
numerous in these days of newer and deeper philosophy. I think that you
will like it: a spinster, that is, a maiden passed the age of girlhood, is
the speaker.
I watch her in the corner there,
As, restless, bold, and unafraid,
She slips and floats along the air
Till all her subtile house is made.
Her home, her bed, her daily food,
All from that hidden store she draws;
She fashions it and knows it good,
By instinct's strong and sacred laws.
No tenuous threads to weave her nest,
She seeks and gathers there or here;
But spins it from her faithful breast,
Renewing still, till leaves are sere.
Then, worn with toil, and tired of life,
In vain her shining traps are set.
Her frost hath hushed the insect strife
And gilded flies her charm forget.
But swinging in the snares she spun,
She sways to every wintry wind:
Her joy, her toil, her errand done,
Her corse the sport of storms unkind.
The symbolism of these verses will appear to you more significant when I
tell you that it refers especially to conditions in New England in the
present period. The finest American population--perhaps the finest
Anglo-Saxons ever produced--were the New Englanders of the early part of
the century. But with the growth of the new century, the men found
themselves attracted elsewhere, especially westward; their shrewdness,
their energies, their inventiveness, were needed in newer regions. And
they wandered away by thousands and thousands, never to come back again,
and leaving the women behind them. Gradually the place of these men was
taken by immigrants of inferior development--but the New England women had
nothing to hope for from these strangers. The bravest of them also went
away to other states; but myriads who could not go were condemned by
circumstances to stay and earn their living by hard work without any
prospect of happy marriage. The difficulty which a girl of culture may
experience in trying to live by the work of her hands in New England is
something not easily imagined. But it is getting to be the same in most
Western countries. Such a girl is watching a spider weaving in the corner
of the same room where she herself is weaving; and she thinks, "Am I not
like that spider, obliged to supply my every need by the work of my own
hands, without sympathy, without friends? The spider will spin and catch
flies until the autumn comes; then she will die. Perhaps I too must
continue to spin until the autumn of my own life--until I become too old
to work hard, and die of cold and of exhaustion."
Poor sister of the spinster clan!
I too from out my store within
My daily life and living plan,
My home, my rest, my pleasure spin.
I know thy heart when heartless hands
Sweep all that hard-earned web away;
Destroy its pearled and glittering bands,
And leave thee homeless by the way.
I know thy peace when all is done.
Each anchored thread, each tiny knot,
Soft shining in the autumn sun;
A sheltered, silent, tranquil lot.
I know what thou hast never known,--
Sad presage to a soul allowed--
That not for life I spin, alone,
But day by day I spin my shroud.
The reference to the sweeping away of the spider's web, of course, implies
the pain often caused to such hardworking girls by the meanness of men who
employ them only to cheat them--shopkeepers or manufacturers who take
their work without justly paying for it, and who criticize it as bad in
order to force the owner to accept less money than it is worth. Again a
reference may be intended to the destruction of the home by some legal
trick--some unscrupulous method of cheating the daughter out of the
property bequeathed to her by her parents.
Notice a few pretty words here. The "pearled" as applied to the spider's
thread gives an intimation of the effect produced by dew on the thread,
but there is also the suggestion of tears upon the thread work woven by
the hands of the girl. The participle "anchored" is very pretty in its use
here as an adjective, because this word is now especially used for
rope-fastening, whether the rope be steel or hemp; and particularly for
the fastening of the cables of a bridge. The last stanza might be
paraphrased thus: "Sister Spider, I know more than you--and that knowledge
makes me unhappy. You do not know, when you are spinning your little web,
that you are really weaving your own shroud. But I know this, my work is
slowly but surely killing me. And I know it because I have a soul--at
least a mind made otherwise than yours."
The use of the word "soul" in the last stanza of this poem, brings me back
to the question put forth in an earlier part of the lecture--why European
poets, during the last two thousand years, have written so little upon the
subject of insects? Three thousand, four thousand years ago, the most
beautiful Greek poetry--poetry more perfect than anything of English
poetry--was written upon insects. In old Japanese literature poems upon
insects are to be found by thousands. What is the signification of the
great modern silence in Western countries upon this delightful topic? I
believe that Christianity, as dogma, accounts for the long silence. The
opinions of the early Church refused soul, ghost, intelligence of any sort
to other creatures than man. All animals were considered as automata--that
is, as self-acting machines, moved by a something called instinct, for
want of a better name. To talk about the souls of animals or the spirits
of animals would have been very dangerous in the Middle Ages, when the
Church had supreme power; it would indeed have been to risk or to invite
an accusation of witchcraft, for demons were then thought to take the
shape of animals at certain times. To discuss the _mind_ of an animal
would have been for the Christian faith to throw doubt upon the existence
of human souls as taught by the Church; for if you grant that animals are
able to think, then you must acknowledge that man is able to think without
a soul, or you must acknowledge that the soul is not the essential
principle of thought and action. Until after the time of Descartes, who
later argued philosophically that animals were only machines, it was
scarcely possible to argue rationally about the matter in Europe.
Nevertheless, we shall soon perceive that this explanation will not cover
all the facts. You will naturally ask how it happens that, if the question
be a question of animal souls, birds, horses, dogs, cats, and many other
animals have been made the subject of Western poems from ancient times.
The silence is only upon the subject of insects. And, again, Christianity
has one saint--the most beautiful character in all Christian
hagiography--who thought of all nature in a manner that, at first sight,
strangely resembles Buddhism. This saint was Francis of Assisi, born in
the latter part of the twelfth century, so that he may be said to belong
to the very heart of the Middle Ages,--the most superstitious epoch of
Christianity. Now this saint used to talk to trees and stones as if they
were animated beings. He addressed the sun as "my brother sun"; and he
spoke of the moon as his sister. He preached not only to human beings, but
also to the birds and the fishes; and he made a great many poems on these
subjects, full of a strange and childish beauty. For example, his sermon
to the doves, beginning, "My little sisters, the doves," in which he
reminds them that their form is the emblem or symbol of the Holy Ghost, is
a beautiful poem; and has been, with many others, translated into nearly
all modern languages. But observe that neither St. Francis nor any other
saint has anything to say on the subject of insects.
Perhaps we must go back further than Christianity to guess the meaning of
these distinctions. Among the ancient races of Asia, where the Jewish
faith arose, there were strange and sinister beliefs about insects--old
Assyrian superstitions, old Babylonian beliefs. Insects seemed to those
early peoples very mysterious creatures (which they really are); and it
appears to have been thought that they had a close relation to the world
of demons and evil spirits. I suppose you know that the name of one of
their gods, Beelzebub, signifies the Lord of Flies. The Jews, as is shown
by their Talmudic literature, inherited some of these ideas; and it is
quite probable that they were passed on to the days of Christianity.
Again, in the early times of Christianity in Northern Africa the Church
had to fight against superstitions of an equally strange sort derived from
old Egyptian beliefs. Among the Egyptians, certain insects were sacred and
became symbols of divinity,--such as the beetle. Now I imagine that for
these reasons the subject of insects became at an early time a subject
which Christianity thought dangerous, and that thereafter a kind of
hostile opinion prevailed regarding any literature upon this topic.
However, to-day things are very different. With the development of
scientific studies--especially of microscopic study--it has been found
that insects, far from being the lowliest of creatures, are the most
highly organized of all beings; that their special senses are incomparably
superior to our own; and that in natural history, from the evolutional
standpoint, they have to be given first place. This of course renders it
impossible any longer to consider the insect as a trifling subject.
Moreover, the new philosophy is teaching the thinking classes in all
Western countries the great truth of the unity of life. With the
recognition of such unity, an insect must interest the philosophers--even
the man of ordinary culture--quite as much as the bird or any other
animal.
Nearly all the poems which I have quoted to you have been poems of very
modern date--from which we may infer that interest in the subject of
insects has been developing of late years only. In this connection it is
interesting to note that a very religious poet, Whittier, gave us in the
last days of his life a poem upon ants. This would have seemed strange
enough in a former age; it does not seem strange to-day, and it is
beautiful. The subject is taken from old Jewish literature.
KING SOLOMON AND THE ANTS
Out from Jerusalem
The King rode with his great
War chiefs and lords of state,
And Sheba's queen with them;
Comely, but black withal,
To whom, perchance, belongs
That wondrous Song of Songs,
Sensuous and mystical,
Whereto devout souls turn
In fond, ecstatic dream,
And through its earth-born theme
The Love of Loves discern.
Proud in the Syrian sun,
In gold and purple sheen,
The dusky Ethiop queen
Smiled on King Solomon.
Wisest of men, he knew
The languages of all
The creatures great or small
That trod the earth or flew.
Across an ant-hill led
The king's path, and he heard
Its small folk, and their word
He thus interpreted:
"Here comes the king men greet
As wise and good and just,
To crush us in the dust
Under his heedless feet."
The king, understanding the language of insects, turns to the queen and
explains to her what the ants have just said. She advises him to pay no
attention to the sarcasm of the ants--how dare such vile creatures speak
thus about a king! But Solomon thinks otherwise:
"Nay," Solomon replied,
"The wise and strong should seek
The welfare of the weak,"
And turned his horse aside.
His train, with quick alarm,
Curved with their leader round
The ant-hill's peopled mound,
And left it free from harm.
The jewelled head bent low;
"Oh, king!" she said, "henceforth
The secret of thy worth
And wisdom well I know.
"Happy must be the State
Whose ruler heedeth more
The murmurs of the poor
Than flatteries of the great."
The reference to the Song of Songs--also the Song of Solomon and Canticle
of Canticles--may require a little explanation. The line "Comely but black
withal," is borrowed from a verse of this song--"I am black but beautiful,
oh, ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of
Solomon." In another part of the song the reason of this blackness is
given: "I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me." From which we
can see that the word black only means dark, brown, tanned by the sun.
Perhaps you do not know that as late as the middle of the eighteenth
century it was still the custom in England to speak of a person with black
hair and eyes as "a black man"--a custom which Charles Lamb had reason to
complain of even at a later day. The tents referred to in the text were
probably tents made of camel-skin, such as the Arabs still make, and the
colour of these is not black but brown. Whether Solomon wrote the
so-called song or not we do not know; but the poet refers to a legend that
it was written in praise of the beauty of the dark queen who came from
Sheba to visit the wisest man of the world. Such is not, however, the
opinion of modern scholars. The composition is really dramatic, although
thrown into lyrical form, and as arranged by Renan and others it becomes a
beautiful little play, of which each act is a monologue. "Sensuous" the
poet correctly calls it; for it is a form of praise of woman's beauty in
all its details, as appears in such famous verses as these: "How beautiful
are thy feet in shoes, O prince's daughter; the joints of thy thighs are
like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman. Thy two breasts
are like two young roes that are twins which feed among the lilies." But
Christianity, instead of dismissing this part of the Bible, interpreted
the song mystically--insisting that the woman described meant the Church,
and the lover, Christ. Of course only very pious people continue to
believe this; even the good Whittier preferred the legend that it was
written about the Queen of Sheba.
I suppose that I ought to end this lecture upon insect poetry by some
quotation to which a moral or philosophical meaning can be attached. I
shall end it therefore with a quotation from the poet Gray. The poetry of
insects may be said to have first appeared in English literature during
the second half of the eighteenth century, so that it is only, at the
most, one hundred and fifty years old. But the first really fine poem of
the eighteenth century relating to the subject is quite as good as
anything since composed by Englishmen upon insect life in general. Perhaps
Gray referred especially to what we call May-flies--those delicate ghostly
insects which hover above water surfaces in fine weather, but which die on
the same day that they are born. He does not specify May-flies, however,
and we may consider the moral of the poem quite apart from any particular
kind of insect. You will find this reference in the piece entitled "Ode on
the Spring," in the third, fourth, and fifth stanzas.
Still is the toiling hand of care:
The panting herds repose:
Yet hark, how through the peopled air
The busy murmur glows!
The insect youth are on the wing,
Eager to taste the honied spring,
And float amid the liquid noon:
Some lightly o'er the current skim,
Some show their gaily-gilded trim
Quick-glancing to the sun.
To Contemplation's sober eye
Such is the race of man:
And they that creep, and they that fly,
Shall end where they began.
Alike the Busy and the Gay
But flutter through life's little day,
In fortune's varying colours dressed:
Brushed by the hand of rough Mischance,
Or chilled by Age, their airy dance
They leave, in dust to rest.
Methinks I hear in accents low
The sportive kind reply:
Poor moralist! and what art thou?
A solitary fly!
Thy joys no glittering female meets,
No hive hast thou of hoarded sweets,
No painted plumage to display:
On hasty wings thy youth is flown;
Thy sun is set; thy spring is gone--
We frolic, while 'tis May.
The poet Gray was never married, and the last stanza which I have quoted
refers jocosely to himself. It is an artistic device to set off the moral
by a little mockery, so that it may not appear too melancholy.