At no time in the history of literature have the critics been able to
agree upon a definition of poetry. And the recent popularity of _vers
libre_ and _imagisme_ has made the definer's task harder than ever
before. Is rhyme essential to poetry? Is rhythm essential to poetry? Can
a mere reflection of life justly be called poetry, or must imagination
be present?
I put some of these questions to Edwin Arlington Robinson, who wrote
_Captain Craig_, _The Children of the Night_, _The Town Down the River_,
_The Man Against the Sky_ and _Merlin: A Poem_. And this man, whom
William Stanley Braithwaite and other authoritative critics have called
the foremost of American poets, this student of life, who was revealing
the mysterious poetry of humanity many years before Edgar Lee Masters
discovered to the world the vexed spirits that haunt Spoon River,
rewarded my questioning with a new definition of poetry. He said:
"Poetry is a language that tells us, through a more or less emotional
reaction, something that cannot be said.
"All real poetry, great or small, does this," he added. "And it seems to
me that poetry has two characteristics. One is that it is, after all,
undefinable. The other is that it is eventually unmistakable."
"'Eventually'!" I said. "Then you think that poetry is not always
appreciated in the lifetime of its maker?"
Mr. Robinson smiled whimsically. "I never use words enough," he said.
"It is not unmistakable as soon as it is published, but sooner or later
it is unmistakable.
"And in the poet's lifetime there are always some people who will
understand and appreciate his work. I really think that it is impossible
for a real poet permanently to escape appreciation. And I can't imagine
anything sillier for a man to do than to worry about poetry that has
once been decently published. The rest is in the hands of Time, and Time
has more than often a way of making a pretty thorough job of it."
"But why is it," I asked, "that a great poet so often is without honor
in his own generation, where mediocrity is immediately famous?"
"It's hard to say," said Mr. Robinson, thoughtfully regarding the
glowing end of his cigar. "Many causes prevent poetry from being
correctly appraised in its own time. Any poetry that is marked by
violence, that is conspicuous in color, that is sensationally odd, makes
an immediate appeal. On the other hand, poetry that is not noticeably
eccentric sometimes fails for years to attract any attention.
"I think that this is why so many of Kipling's worst poems are greatly
overpraised, while some of his best poems are not appreciated. _Gunga
Din_, which is, of course, a good thing in its way, has been praised far
more than it deserves, because of its oddity. And the poem beginning
'There's a whisper down the field' has never been properly appreciated.
It's one of the very best of Kipling's poems, although it is marred by a
few lapses of taste. One of his greatest poems, by the way, _The
Children of the Zodiac_, happens to be in prose.
"But I am always revising my opinion of Kipling. I have changed my mind
about him so often that I have no confidence in my critical judgment.
That is one of the reasons why I do not like to criticise my American
contemporaries."
"Do you think," I asked, "that this tendency to pay attention chiefly to
the more sensational poets is as characteristic of our generation as of
those that came before?"
"I think it applies particularly to our own time," he replied. "More
than ever before oddity and violence are bringing into prominence poets
who have little besides these two qualities to offer the world, and some
who have much more. It may seem very strange to you, but I think that a
great modern instance of this tendency is the case of Robert Browning.
The eccentricities of Browning's method are the things that first turned
popular attention upon him, but the startling quality in Browning made
more sensation in his own time than it can ever make again. I say this
in spite of the fact that Browning and Wordsworth are taken as the
classic examples of slow recognition. Wordsworth, you know, had no
respect for the judgment of youth. It may have been sour grapes, but I
am inclined to think that there was a great deal of truth in his
opinion.
"I think it is safe to say that all real poetry is going to give at some
time or other a suggestion of finality. In real poetry you find that
something has been said, and yet you find also about it a sort of nimbus
of what can't be said.
"This nimbus may be there--I wouldn't say that it isn't there--and yet I
can't find it in much of the self-conscious experimenting that is going
on nowadays in the name of poetry.
"I can't get over the impression," Mr. Robinson went on, with a
meditative frown, "that these post-impressionists in painting and most
of the _vers libristes_ in poetry are trying to find some sort of short
cut to artistic success. I know that many of the new writers insist that
it is harder to write good _vers libre_ than to write good rhymed
poetry. And judging from some of their results, I am inclined to agree
with them."
I asked Mr. Robinson if he believed that the evident increase in
interest in poetry, shown by the large sales of the work of Robert Frost
and Edgar Lee Masters and Rupert Brooke, indicated a real renascence of
poetry.
"I think that it indicates a real renascence of poetry," he replied. "I
am sufficiently child-like and hopeful to find it very encouraging."
"Do you think," I asked, "that the poetry that is written in America
to-day is better than that written a generation ago?"
"I should hardly venture to say that," said Mr. Robinson. "For one
thing, we have no Emerson. Emerson is the greatest poet who ever wrote
in America. Passages scattered here and there in his work surely are the
greatest of American poetry. In fact, I think that there are lines and
sentences in Emerson's poetry that are as great as anything anywhere."
I asked Mr. Robinson whether he thought the modern English poets were
doing better work than their American contemporaries. At first he was
unwilling to express an opinion on this subject, repeating his statement
that he mistrusted his own critical judgment. But he said:
"Within his limits, I believe that A. E. Housman is the most authentic
poet now writing in England. But, of course, his limits are very sharply
drawn. I don't think that any one who knows anything about poetry will
ever think of questioning the inspiration of _A Shropshire Lad_."
"Would you make a similar comment on any other poetry of our time?" I
asked.
"Well," said Mr. Robinson, reflectively, "I think that no one will
question the inspiration of some of Kipling's poems, of parts of John
Masefield's _Dauber_, and some of the long lyrics of Alfred Noyes. But I
do not think that either of these poets gives the impression of finality
which A. E. Housman gives. But the way in which I have shifted my
opinion about some of Rudyard Kipling's poems, and most of Swinburne's,
makes me think that Wordsworth was very largely right in his attitude
toward the judgment of youth. But where my opinions have shifted, I
think now that I always had misgivings. I fancy that youth always has
misgivings in regard to what is later to be modified or repudiated."
Then I asked Mr. Robinson if he thought that the war had anything to do
with the renascence of poetry.
"I can't see any connection," he replied. "The only effect on poetry
that the war has had, so far as I know, is to produce those five sonnets
by Rupert Brooke. I can't see that it has caused any poetical event. And
there's no use prophesying what the war will or will not do to poetry,
because no one knows anything about it. The Civil War seems to have had
little effect on poetry except to produce Julia Ward Howe's _Battle
Hymn of the Republic_, Whitman's poems on the death of Lincoln, and
Lowell's 'Ode.'"
"Mr. Robinson," I said, "there has been much discussion recently about
the rewards of poetry, and Miss Amy Lowell has said that no poet ought
to be expected to make a living by writing. What do you think about it?"
"Should a poet be able to make a living out of poetry?" said Mr.
Robinson. "Generally speaking, it is not possible for a poet to make a
decent living by his work. In most cases it would be bad for his
creative faculties for a poet to make as much money as a successful
novelist makes. Fortunately, there is no danger of that. Now, assuming
that a poet has enough money to live on, the most important thing for
him to have is an audience. I mean that the best poetry is likely to be
written when poetry is in the air. If a poet with no obligations and
responsibilities except to stay alive can't live on a thousand dollars a
year (I don't undertake to say just how he is going to get it), he'd
better go into some other business."
"Then you don't think," I said, "that literature has lost through the
poverty of poets?"
"I certainly do believe that literature has lost through the poverty of
poets," said Mr. Robinson. "I don't believe in poverty. I never did. I
think it is good for a poet to be bumped and knocked around when he is
young, but all the difficulties that are put in his way after he gets to
be twenty-five or thirty are certain to take something out of his work.
I don't see how they can do anything else.
"Some time ago you asked me," said Mr. Robinson, "how I accounted for
our difficulty in making a correct estimate of the poetry of one's own
time. The question is a difficult one. I don't even say that it has an
answer. But the solution of the thing seems to me to be related to what
I said about the quality of finality that seems to exist in all real
poetry. Finality seems always to have had a way of not obtruding itself
to any great extent."
_LET POETRY BE FREE_