MR. COTTERILL ON THE STUDY OF POETRY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " (SPECTATOR:1 ‘Sfa,—To be denounced for heretical views on the subject of poetry is a serious matter. I will not add to my offences the arch-heresy of questioning a critic's infallibility, but will accept the general verdict which your reviewer has pronounced with such kindly reluctance on my volume of lectures. Nor against certain rather severe remarks on a "catholic taste," and kindred subjects, wilt I enter any protest, though, perhaps, I may be permitted to suggest that two prospects may be bounded by very different, though equally extended, horizons ; and that, when wo pity our friend for his "limited range " of vision, we are often entirely ignorant of the limits of his view, -except in our own direction. There are, however, in the article several misstatements and misunderstandings, and of these I trust you will kindly allow me to correct three.
Firstly, I am wholly innocent of what your reviewer rightly calls the "singular remark" that "Christianity quenched man's love of truth." What I said is that " Christianity quenched man's thirst for truth ;" and I venture to think that, taken with its context, the remark is both intelligible and justifiable.
Secondly, the writer has (possibly through my fault) failed to notice that I do not use the expressions "poetic allegory" and " allegorical poem " as synonymous. It seems to me that we may call every real existence in nature or art an " allegory," -as being the representation of an idea in a natural or artistic -form. In this sense of the word, not only " Christabel," but every true poem, is au allegory. A so-called " allegorical work of art," on the other hand, I have, clumsily enough, defined as one " which does not, by its mere existence as an artistic crea- tion, represent an idea, but which artificially, by means of -external traits, reminds us of some inartistic form, through which we are accustomed to receive the idea in question." Of all poems known to me, " Christabel " is the one which, per- haps, least merits the epithet " allegorical," but which, at the same time, is a true "poetic allegory." In this case, therefore, the accusation of inconsistency is founded on a misunderstand- ing, and in not a few other cases a similar explanation might be offered.
Lastly, in spite of my intense admiration for his exuberant fancy, his melodious verse, and his tender pathos (by the way, when are we to hear the last of that poor " murdered man ?"), I am so unfortunate as to be unable to find in Keats a " mean- ing " such as I find in Homer, in lEschylus, in Dante, and in many other poets, not excluding Shelley. Is it conceivable that any one who has so patiently waded through the dreary " itera- tions" of these lectures can suspect me of missing in Keats or finding in Shelley a " didactic " meaning ? To explain, or rather to intimate—for it is not directly explainable—the nature of this " meaning " is the purport of the volume ; and as this purport is " far from obvious " to the reviewer, I can only wonder at the leniency with which I have been treated.—I am, Sir, &c, [Mr. Cotterill has pointed out an error in our review of his book. Love of truth is a misprint. What he writes is that Christianity quenched man's thirst for truth. We venture to think, however, that where there is the love, there must also and always be the thirst. Under the writer's secondly, it would have been well if he had quoted his exact words ; but we admit that in either case, he has expressed himself clumsily enough. The last paragraph of the letter is open to-the same objection, and the reader who cares sufficiently for the subject can test the truth of our remarks by comparing them with the volumes.
Spectator.]
Previous page
