I spoke “of criticizing SPENSER’S poem under the idea, not of a
classical, but _Gothic_ composition.”
It is certain, much light might be thrown on that singular work, were
an able critic to consider it in this view. For instance, he might
go some way towards explaining, perhaps justifying, the general plan
and _conduct_ of the _Fairy Queen_, which, to classical readers, has
appeared indefensible.
I have taken the fancy, with your leave, to try my hand on this curious
subject.
When an architect examines a _Gothic_ structure by _Grecian_ rules, he
finds nothing but deformity. But the _Gothic_ architecture has its own
rules, by which when it comes to be examined, it is seen to have its
merit, as well as the _Grecian_. The question is not, which of the two
is conducted in the simplest or truest taste: but whether there be not
sense and design in both, when scrutinized by the laws on which each is
projected.
The same observation holds of the two sorts of poetry. Judge of the
_Fairy Queen_ by the classic models, and you are shocked with its
disorder: consider it with an eye to its _Gothic_ original, and you
find it regular. The unity and simplicity of the former are more
complete: but the latter has that sort of unity and simplicity, which
results from its nature.
The _Fairy Queen_ then, as a _Gothic_ poem, derives its METHOD, as well
as the other characters of its composition, from the established modes
and ideas of Chivalry.
It was usual, in the days of knight-errantry, at the holding of any
great feast, for knights to appear before the prince, who presided at
it, and claim the privilege of being sent on any adventure to which
the solemnity might give occasion. For it was supposed that, when such
a _throng of knights and barons bold_, as MILTON speaks of, were got
together, the distressed would flock in from all quarters, as to a
place where they knew they might find and claim redress for all their
grievances.
This was the real practice, in the days of pure and ancient Chivalry.
And an image of this practice was afterwards kept up in the castles
of the great, on any extraordinary festival or solemnity: of which, if
you want an instance, I refer you to the description of a feast made at
_Lisle_ in 1453, in the court of PHILIP the good, duke of _Burgundy_,
for a Crusade against the _Turks_: as you may find it given at large in
the memoirs of MATTHIEU DE CONCI, OLIVIER DE LA MARCHE, and MONSTRELET.
That feast was held for _twelve_ days: and each day was distinguished
by the claim and allowance of some adventure.
Now, laying down this practice as a foundation for the poet’s design,
you will see how properly the _Fairy Queen_ is conducted.
——“I DEVISE,” says the poet himself in his letter to Sir W. RALEIGH,
“that the _Fairy Queen_ kept her annual feaste xii days: upon which xii
several days, the occasions of the xii several adventures happened;
which being undertaken by xii several knights, are in these xii books
severally handled.”
Here you have the poet delivering his own method, and the reason of it.
It arose out of the order of his subject. And would you desire a better
reason for his choice?
Yes; you will say, a poet’s method is not that of his subject. I grant
you, as to the order of _time_, in which the recital is made; for here,
as SPENSER observes (and his own practice agrees to the rule), lies the
main difference between _the poet historical, and the historiographer_:
the reason of which is drawn from the nature of _Epic_ composition
itself, and holds equally let the subject be what it will, and whatever
the system of manners be, on which it is conducted. Gothic or Classic
makes no difference in this respect.
But the case is not the same with regard to the general plan of a work,
or what may be called the order of _distribution_, which is and must
be governed by the subject-matter itself. It was as requisite for the
_Fairy Queen_ to consist of the adventures of twelve Knights, as for
the _Odyssey_ to be confined to the adventures of one Hero: justice had
otherwise not been done to his subject.
So that if you will say any thing against the poet’s method, you must
say that he should not have chosen this subject. But this objection
arises from your classic ideas of Unity, which have no place here; and
are in every view foreign to the purpose, if the poet has found means
to give his work, though consisting of many parts, the advantage of
Unity. For in some reasonable sense or other, it is agreed, every work
of art must be _one_, the very idea of a work requiring it.
If you ask then, what is this _Unity_ of SPENSER’S Poem? I say, It
consists in the relation of its several adventures to one common
_original_, the appointment of the _Fairy Queen_; and to one common
_end_, the completion of the _Fairy Queen’s_ injunctions. The knights
issued forth on their adventures on the breaking up of this annual
feast: and the next annual feast, we are to suppose, is to bring them
together again from the atchievement of their several charges.
This, it is true, is not the classic Unity, which consists in the
representation of one entire action: but it is an Unity of another
sort, an unity resulting from the respect which a number of related
actions have to one common purpose. In other words, it is an unity of
_design_, and not of action.
This _Gothic_ method of design in poetry may be, in some sort,
illustrated by what is called the _Gothic_ method of design in
gardening. A wood or grove cut out into many separate avenues or
glades was among the most favourite of the works of art, which our
fathers attempted in this species of cultivation. These walks were
distinct from each other, had each their several destination, and
terminated on their own proper objects. Yet the whole was brought
together and considered under one view, by the relation which these
various openings had, not to each other, but to their common and
concurrent center. You and I are, perhaps, agreed that this sort of
gardening is not of so true a taste as that which _Kent and Nature_
have brought us acquainted with; where the supreme art of the designer
consists in disposing his ground and objects into an _entire landskip_;
and grouping them, if I may use the term, in so easy a manner, that the
careless observer, though he be taken with the symmetry of the whole,
discovers no art in the combination:
In lieto aspetto il bel giardin s’aperse,
Acque stagnanti, mobili cristalli,
Fior vari, e varie piante, herbe diverse,
Apriche collinette, ombrose valli,
Selve, e spelunche in UNA VISTA offerse:
E quel, che’l bello, e’l caro accresce à l’opre,
L’arte, che tutto sà, nulla si scopre.
TASSO, C. XVI. s. ix.
This, I say, may be the truest taste in gardening, because the
simplest: yet there is a manifest regard to unity in the other method;
which has had its admirers, as it may have again, and is certainly not
without its _design_ and beauty.
But to return to our poet. Thus far he drew from _Gothic_ ideas; and
these ideas, I think, would lead him no further. But, as SPENSER knew
what belonged to classic composition, he was tempted to tie his subject
still closer together by _one_ expedient of his own, and by _another_
taken from his classic models.
His _own_ was, to interrupt the proper story of each book, by
dispersing it into several; involving by this means, and as it were
intertwisting the several actions together, in order to give something
like the appearance of one action to his twelve adventures. And for
this conduct, as absurd as it seems, he had some great examples in the
_Italian_ poets, though, I believe, they were led into it by different
motives.
The _other_ expedient, which he borrowed from the classics, was, by
adopting one superior character, which should be seen throughout.
Prince ARTHUR, who had a separate adventure of his own, was to have
his part in each of the other; and thus several actions were to be
embodied by the interest which one principal Hero had in them all. It
is even observable, that SPENSER gives this adventure of Prince ARTHUR,
in quest of GLORIANA, as the proper subject of his poem. And upon this
idea the late learned editor of the _Fairy Queen_ has attempted, but,
I think, without success, to defend the unity and simplicity of its
fable. The truth was, the violence of classic prejudices forced the
poet to affect this appearance of unity, though in contradiction to his
_Gothic_ system. And, as far as we can judge of the tenour of the whole
work from the finished half of it, the adventure of Prince ARTHUR,
whatever the author pretended, and his critic too easily believed, was
but an after-thought; and, at least, with regard to the _historical
fable_, which we are now considering, was only one of the expedients by
which he would conceal the disorder of his _Gothic_ plan.
And if this was his design, I will venture to say that both his
expedients were injudicious. Their purpose was, to ally two things, in
nature incompatible, the _Gothic_, and the classic unity; the effect
of which misalliance was to discover and expose the nakedness of the
_Gothic_.
I am of opinion then, considering the _Fairy Queen_ as an epic or
_narrative_ poem constructed on _Gothic_ ideas, that the poet had
done well to affect no other unity than that of _design_, by which
his subject was connected. But his poem is not simply narrative; it
is throughout _allegorical_: he calls it _a perpetual allegory or
dark conceit_: and this character, for reasons I may have occasion
to observe hereafter, was even predominant in the _Fairy Queen_. His
narration is subservient to his moral, and but serves to colour it.
This he tells us himself at setting out,
Fierce wars and faithful loves shall _moralize_ my song;
that is, shall serve for a vehicle, or instrument to convey the moral.
Now under this idea, the _Unity_ of the _Fairy Queen_ is more apparent.
His twelve knights are to exemplify as many virtues, out of which
one illustrious character is to be composed. And in this view the
part of Prince ARTHUR in each book becomes _essential_, and yet not
_principal_; exactly, as the poet has contrived it. They who rest
in the literal story, that is, who criticize it on the footing of a
narrative poem, have constantly objected to this management. They say,
it necessarily breaks the unity of design. Prince ARTHUR, they affirm,
should either have had no part in the other adventures, or he should
have had the chief part. He should either have done nothing, or more.
This objection I find insisted upon by SPENSER’S best critic[49];
and, I think, the objection is unanswerable; at least, I know of
nothing that can be said to remove it, but what I have supposed above
might be the purpose of the poet, and which I myself have rejected as
insufficient.
But how faulty soever this conduct be in the literal story, it is
perfectly right in the _moral_: and that for an obvious reason, though
his critics seem not to have been aware of it. His chief hero was not
to have the twelve virtues in the _degree_ in which the knights had,
each of them, their own (such a character would be a monster;) but
he was to have so much of each as was requisite to form his superior
character. Each virtue, in its perfection, is exemplified in its own
knight; they are all, in a due degree, concentrated in Prince ARTHUR.
This was the poet’s _moral_: and what way of expressing this moral in
the _history_, but by making Prince ARTHUR appear in each adventure,
and in a manner subordinate to its proper hero? Thus, though inferior
to each in his own specific virtue, he is superior to all by uniting
the whole circle of their virtues in himself: and thus he arrives,
at length, at the possession of that bright form of _Glory_, whose
ravishing beauty, as seen in a dream or vision, had led him out into
these miraculous adventures in the land of Fairy.
The conclusion is, that, as an _allegorical_ poem, the method of
the _Fairy Queen_ is governed by the justness of the _moral_: as
a _narrative_ poem, it is conducted on the ideas and usages of
_Chivalry_. In either view, if taken by itself, the plan is defensible.
But from the union of the two designs there arises a perplexity and
confusion, which is the proper, and only considerable, defect of this
extraordinary poem.