Both
Macaulay and her cousin are funny, animated, well-read people, deeply
civilized. The pleasure (a favorite word of Macaulay’s) of their company will
remind some readers of the six-volume Lyttelton/Hart-Davis
Letters, though Macaulay and Johnson are less amusingly vicious,
confessional and given to gossip. Their literary talk goes in both directions. In
1953, Johnson asks his cousin if she is familiar with Musophilus, or a General Defense of Learning (1599) by the poet and
historian Samuel Daniel. She dutifully checks out a copy from the library,
reads it and replies on Nov. 16:
“How
sane it is! Every merit except poetry and clarity, don’t you think, for
poetical or clear it isn’t. But eloquent and moving, and oh what good sense!”
In
her next letter, dated Dec. 2, Macaulay resumes her discussion of Daniel and
launches a celebration of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English poetry and
prose:
“As
regards his poetic gifts I rather agree with Ben Jonson, who said he was `an
honest man, but no poet’ and with Michael Drayton, who thought that his manner
better suited prose. Ben Jonson, of course, disliked his anti-Latinism, and was
probably prejudiced. But as to Tudor English, surely he had many splendid
models…The great and smaller poets, the great musical translators, such as
North, Philemon Holland, Florio, the travel writers collected by Hakluyt,
Sidney, Tyndale and Coverdale, Cranmer, Hooker, the racy Latimer, Nashe and the
romance-writers, Bacon—what models to choose among!”
Indeed,
add Burton and Browne and a few others, and you’ve described the pinnacle of
literature in English. Daniel, alas, ranks among the “smaller poets” described
by Macaulay, though Yvor Winters favored his sonnet “Beauty, sweet love, is like the morning dew.” And three years ago Clive James championed this verse
from Daniel’s “To the Reader”:
“And
howsoever be it, well or ill
What
I have done, it is mine owne, I may
Do
whatsoever therewithal I will.
I may pull downe, raise, and reedifie.
It
is the building of my life, the fee
Of
Nature, all th’inheritance that I
Shal
leave to those which must come after me.”
James
goes on to say, and he might be speaking of Macaulay’s work, and of his own,
and of yours and mine, we can only hope:
“Unless
we are scholars of the period, we might have small knowledge of [Daniel’s] work
in general, but this one stanza is quite likely to have got through to us. It
is often quoted as an example of how there were poets much less important than
Shakespeare who nevertheless felt that they, too, might be writing immortal
lines to time, and were ready to drub any popinjay who dared to suggest that
they weren’t. But clearly the stanza did not get through to us just because of
the story it tells or the position it takes. It got through by the way it
moves. Within its tight form, it is a playground of easy freedom: not a
syllable out of place, and yet it catches your ear with its conversational
rhythm at every point.”
1 comment:
P.K.
What a wonderful twisty-turny ride through this entry. Thank you for the corridors out to Daniel's sonnet(s), and to the Clive James essay, and for the generosity before the ending quotation.
"Reedifie" - what a great word.
Cheers!
B.R.
Post a Comment