XXI: EDWARD THOMAS[1]

The poetry of Edward Thomas affects one morally as well as æsthetically

and intellectually. We have grown rather shy, in these days of pure

æstheticism, of speaking of those consoling or strengthening qualities

of poetry on which critics of another generation took pleasure in

dwelling. Thomas’s poetry is strengthening and consoling, not because it

justifies God’s ways to man or whispers of reunions beyond the grave,

not because it presents great moral truths in memorable numbers, but in

a more subtle and very much more effective way. Walking through the

streets on these September nights, one notices, wherever there are trees

along the street and lamps close beside the trees, a curious and

beautiful phenomenon. The light of the street lamps striking up into the

trees has power to make the grimed, shabby, and tattered foliage of the

all-but autumn seem brilliantly and transparently green. Within the

magic circle of the light the tree seems to be at that crowning moment

of the spring when the leaves are fully grown, but still luminous with

youth and seemingly almost immaterial in their lightness. Thomas’s

poetry is to the mind what that transfiguring lamplight is to the tired

trees. On minds grown weary in the midst of the intolerable turmoil and

aridity of daily wage-earning existence, it falls with a touch of

momentary rejuvenation.

The secret of Thomas’s influence lies in the fact that he is genuinely

what so many others of our time quite unjustifiably claim to be, a

nature poet. To be a nature poet it is not enough to affirm vaguely that

God made the country and man made the town, it is not enough to talk

sympathetically about familiar rural objects, it is not enough to be

sonorously poetical about mountains and trees; it is not even enough to

speak of these things with the precision of real knowledge and love. To

be a nature poet a man must have felt profoundly and intimately those

peculiar emotions which nature can inspire, and must be able to express

them in such a way that his reader feels them. The real difficulty that

confronts the would-be poet of nature is that these emotions are of all

emotions the most difficult to pin down and analyze, and the hardest of

all to convey. In “October” Thomas describes what is surely the

characteristic emotion induced by a contact with nature—a kind of

exultant melancholy which is the nearest approach to quiet unpassionate

happiness that the soul can know. Happiness of whatever sort is

extraordinarily hard to analyze and describe. One can think of a hundred

poems, plays, and novels that deal exhaustively with pain and misery to

one that is an analysis and an infectious description of happiness.

Passionate joy is more easily recapturable in art; it is dramatic,

vehemently defined. But quiet happiness, which is at the same time a

kind of melancholy—there you have an emotion which is inexpressible

except by a mind gifted with a diversity of rarely combined qualities.

The poet who would sing of this happiness must combine a rare

penetration with a rare candour and honesty of mind. A man who feels an

emotion that is very difficult to express is often tempted to describe

it in terms of something entirely different. Platonist poets feel a

powerful emotion when confronted by beauty, and, finding it a matter of

the greatest difficulty to say precisely what that emotion is in itself,

proceed to describe it in terms of theology which has nothing whatever

to do with the matter in point. Groping after an expression of the

emotions aroused in him by the contemplation of nature, Wordsworth

sometimes stumbles doubtfully along philosophical byways that are at the

best parallel to the direct road for which he is seeking. Everywhere in

literature this difficulty in finding an expression for any undramatic,

ill-defined emotion is constantly made apparent.

Thomas’s limpid honesty of mind saves him from the temptation to which

so many others succumb, the temptation to express one thing, because it

is with difficulty describable, in terms of something else. He never

philosophizes the emotions which he feels in the presence of nature and

beauty, but presents them as they stand, transmitting them directly to

his readers without the interposition of any obscuring medium. Rather

than attempt to explain the emotion, to rationalize it into something

that it is not, he will present it for what it is, a problem of which he

does not know the solution. In “Tears” we have an example of this candid

confession of ignorance:

It seems I have no tears left. They should have fallen—

Their ghosts, if tears have ghosts, did fall—that day

When twenty hounds streamed by me, not yet combed out

But still all equals in their age of gladness

Upon the scent, made one, like a great dragon

In Blooming Meadow that bends towards the sun

And once bore hops: and on that other day

When I stepped out from the double-shadowed Tower

Into an April morning, stirring and sweet

And warm. Strange solitude was there and silence.

A mightier charm than any in the Tower

Possessed the courtyard. They were changing guard,

Soldiers in line, young English countrymen,

Fair-haired and ruddy, in white tunics. Drums

And fifes were playing “The British Grenadiers.”

The men, the music piercing that solitude

And silence, told me truths I had not dreamed,

And have forgotten since their beauty passed.

The emotion is nameless and indescribable, but the poet has intensely

felt it and transmitted it to us who read his poem, so that we, too,

feel it with the same intensity. Different aspects of this same nameless

emotion of quiet happiness shot with melancholy are the theme of almost

all Thomas’s poems. They bring to us precisely that consolation and

strength which the country and solitude and leisure bring to the spirits

of those long pent in populous cities, but essentialized and distilled

in the form of art. They are the light that makes young again the

tattered leaves.

Of the purely æsthetic qualities of Thomas’s poetry it is unnecessary to

say much. He devised a curiously bare and candid verse to express with

all possible simplicity and clarity his clear sensations and

emotions.... “This is not,” as Mr. de la Mare says in his foreword to

Thomas’s _Collected Poems_, “this is not a poetry that will drug or

intoxicate.... It must be read slowly, as naturally as if it were prose,

without emphasis.” With this bare verse, devoid of any affectation,

whether of cleverness or a too great simplicity, Thomas could do all

that he wanted. See, for example, with what extraordinary brightness and

precision he could paint a picture:

Lichen, ivy and moss

Keep evergreen the trees

That stand half flayed and dying,

And the dead trees on their knees

In dog’s mercury and moss:

And the bright twit of the goldfinch drops

Down there as he flits on thistle-tops.

The same bare precision served him well for describing the interplay of

emotions, as in “After you Speak” or “Like the Touch of Rain.” And with

this verse of his he could also chant the praises of his English

countryside and the character of its people, as typified in

Lob-lie-by-the-fire:

He has been in England as long as dove and daw,

Calling the wild cherry tree the merry tree,

The rose campion Bridget-in-her-bravery;

And in a tender mood he, as I guess,

Christened one flower Love-in-idleness....

On the Margin: Notes and Essays · 第 32 / 44 题