1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<!-- Produced by Distributed Proofreaders for Project Gutenberg -->
<!-- http://www.pgdp.net/ -->
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>The Lyric - An Essay by John Drinkwater
</title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {margin:7%; text-justify}
* { font-family: Times;}
P { margin-top: 2em;
font-size: 12pt;
text-align: justify;
margin-bottom: 2em; }
H1,H2,H3,H4,H5 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-variant:
small-caps }
HR { width: 52%; }
// -->
</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<pre>
The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Lyric, by John Drinkwater
#2 in our series by John Drinkwater
Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.
Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Title: The Lyric
An Essay
Author: John Drinkwater
Release Date: February, 2006 [EBook #9850]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on October 24, 2003]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LYRIC ***
Produced by Thierry Alberto and PG Distributed Proofreaders
</pre>
<center>
<h1>THE LYRIC</h1>
</center>
<h2>AN ESSAY BY JOHN DRINKWATER
</h2> <br>
<br>
<h3>1922</h3>
<br>
<hr style="width: 35%;">
<br>
<h2>CONTENTS</h2>
<h3> <a href="#I">What is Poetry</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#II">The Best Words in the Best Order</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#III">The Degrees of Poetry</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#IV">Paradise Lost</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#V">What is Lyric</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#VI">The Classification of Poetry</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#VII">Lyric Forms</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#VIII">Song</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#IX">The Popularity of Lyric</a><br>
<br>
<a href="#X">Conclusion</a><br>
</h3>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="width: 35%;">
<br>
<br>
<h2><a name="I"></a>WHAT IS POETRY?</h2>
<br>
<p> If you were to ask twenty intelligent
people, "What is the Thames?" the answer due to you from each
would be—"a river." And yet this would hardly be matter
to satisfy your enquiring mind. You would more probably say, "What
do you know of the Thames?" or, "Describe the Thames to me."
This would bring you a great variety of opinions, many dissertations
on geological and national history, many words in praise of beauty,
many personal confessions. Here would be the revelation of many minds
approaching a great subject in as many manners, confirming and contradicting
each other, making on the whole some impression of cumulative judgment,
giving you many clues to what might be called the truth, no one of them
by itself coming near to anything like full knowledge, and the final
word would inevitably be left unsaid.</p>
<p> The question, "What is poetry?"
has been answered innumerable times, often by the subtlest and clearest
minds, and as many times has it been answered differently. The answer
in itself now makes a large and distinguished literature to which, full
as it is of keen intelligence and even of constructive vision, we can
return with unstaling pleasure. The very poets themselves, it is true,
lending their wits to the debate, have left the answer incomplete, as
it must—not in the least unhappily—always remain. And yet,
if we consider the matter for a moment, we find that all this wisdom,
prospering from Sidney's <i>Apology</i> until to-day, does not strictly
attempt to answer the question that is put. It does not tell us singly
what poetry is, but it speculates upon the cause and effect of poetry.
It enquires into the impulse that moves the poet to creation and describes,
as far as individual limitations will allow, the way in which the poet's
work impresses the world. When Wordsworth says "poetry is the breath
and finer spirit of all knowledge," he is, exactly, in one intuitive
word, telling us how poetry comes into being, directing us with an inspired
gesture to its source, and not strictly telling us what it is; and so
Shelley tells us in his fiery eloquence of the divine functions of poetry.
But poetry is, in its naked being and apart from its cause and effect,
a certain use of words, and, remembering this simple fact, there has
been one perfect and final answer to the question, "What is poetry?"
It was Coleridge's: "Poetry—the best words in the best order."</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="II"></a>THE BEST WORDS IN THE BEST ORDER</h2>
<p> This is the fundamental thing to be remembered
when considering the art of poetry as such. The whole question of what
causes a poet to say this or that and of the impression that is thence
made upon us can be definitely narrowed down to the question "How
does he say it?" The manner of his utterance is, indeed, the sole
evidence before us. To know anything of a poet but his poetry is, so
far as the poetry is concerned, to know something that may be entertaining,
even delightful, but is certainly inessential. The written word is everything.
If it is an imperfect word, no external circumstance can heighten its
value as poetry. We may at times, knowing of honourable and inspiriting
things in a poet's life, read into his imperfect word a value that it
does not possess. When we do this our judgment of poetry is inert; we
are not getting pleasure from his work because it is poetry, but for
quite other reasons. It may be a quite wholesome pleasure, but it is
not the high æsthetic pleasure which the people who experience
it generally believe to be the richest and most vivid of all pleasures
because it is experienced by a mental state that is more eager and masterful
than any other. Nor is our judgment acute when we praise a poet's work
because it chimes with unexpected precision to some particular belief
or experience of our own or because it directs us by suggestion to something
dear to our personal affections. Again the poet is giving us delight,
but not the delight of poetry. We have to consider this alone—the
poet has something to say: does he say it in the best words in the best
order? By that, and by that alone, is he to be judged.</p>
<p> For it is to be remembered that this
achievement of the best words in the best order is, perhaps, the rarest
to which man can reach, implying as it does a coincidence of unfettered
imaginative ecstasy with superb mental poise. The poet's perfect expression
is the token of a perfect experience; what he says in the best possible
way he has felt in the best possible way, that is, completely. He has
felt it with an imaginative urgency so great as to quicken his brain
to this flawless ordering of the best words, and it is that ordering
and that alone which communicates to us the ecstasy, and gives us the
supreme delight of poetry. It should here be added that poetry habitually
takes the form of verse. It is, perhaps, profitless to attempt any analysis
of the emotional law that directs this choice, nor need it arbitrarily
be said that poetry must of necessity be verse. But it is a fact, sufficiently
founded on experience, that the intensity of vision that demands and
achieves nothing less than the best words in the best order for its
expression does instinctively select the definitely patterned rhythm
of verse as being the most apt for its purpose. We find, then, that
the condition of poetry as defined by Coleridge implies exactly what
the trained judgment holds poetry to be. It implies the highest attainable
intensity of vision, which, by the sanction of almost universal example,
casts its best ordering of the best words into the form of verse. Ruskin
wrote, with fine spiritual ardour—</p>
<p> "... women of England! ...do not
think your daughters can be trained to the truth of their own human
beauty, while the pleasant places, which God made at once for their
schoolroom and their playground, lie desolate and defiled. You cannot
baptize them rightly in those inch-deep founts of yours, unless you
baptize them also in the sweet waters which the great Lawgiver strikes
forth for ever from the rocks of your native land—waters which
a Pagan would have worshipped in their purity, and you worship only
with pollution. You cannot lead your children faithfully to those narrow
axe-hewn church altars of yours, while the dark azure altars in heaven—the
mountains that sustain your island throne—mountains on which a
Pagan would have seen the powers of heaven rest in every wreathed cloud—remain
for you without inscription; altars built, not to, but by an unknown
God."</p>
<p> Here we have, we may say, words in their
best order—Coleridge's equally admirable definition of prose.
It is splendid prose, won only from great nobility of emotion. But it
is not poetry, not the best words in the best order announcing that
the feeling expressed has been experienced with the highest intensity
possible to the mind of man. The tenderness for earth and its people
and the heroic determination not to watch their defilement in silence,
have been deeply significant things to Ruskin, moving him to excellent
words. But could they be more strictly experienced, yet more deeply
significant, shaping yet more excellent words? Blake gives us the answer:</p>
And did those feet in ancient time<br>
Walk upon
England's mountains green?<br>
And was the holy Lamb of God<br>
On England's
pleasant pastures seen?<br>
<br>
And did the Countenance Divine<br>
Shine forth
upon our clouded hills?<br>
And was Jerusalem builded here<br>
Among these
dark Satanic mills?<br>
<br>
Bring me my bow of burning gold!<br>
Bring me my
arrows of desire!<br>
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!<br>
Bring me my
chariot of fire!<br>
<br>
I will not cease from mental fight,<br>
Nor shall
my sword sleep in my hand,<br>
Till we have built Jerusalem<br>
In England's
green and pleasant land.<br>
<p> It may be suggested that, for their purpose,
Ruskin's words are perfectly chosen, that as a direct social charge
they achieve their purpose better than any others that could have been
shaped. Even if we allow this and do not press, as we very reasonably
might, the reply that merely in this direction Blake's poem working,
as is the manner of all great art, with tremendous but secret vigour
upon the imagination of the people, has a deeper and more permanent
effect than Ruskin's prose, we still remember that the sole purpose
of poetry is to produce the virile spiritual activity that we call æsthetic
delight and that to do this is the highest achievement to which the
faculties of man can attain. If by "the best words" we mean
anything, we must mean the best words for the highest possible purpose.
To take an analogy: if we say that a democratic government is the best
kind of government, we mean that it most completely fulfills the highest
function of a government—the realisation of the will of the people.
But it is also a function of government to organise the people and—although,
just as we may think that Blake's poem finally beats Ruskin's prose
on Ruskin's own ground, we may think, too, that the government that
best represents the people will finally best organise the people—it
may quite plausibly be said that in this business an aristocratic or
militant government will, in an imperfectly conditioned civilisation
(such as that of the world to-day), excel a democratic government. Nevertheless,
we still say with an easy mind that a democratic government is the best
government, without qualification, since it excels in the highest purpose
of government. Clearly Coleridge implies, and reasonably enough, an
elaboration such as this in his definition—the best words in the
best order. To say that Blake and Ruskin, in those passages, were giving
expression to dissimilar experiences is but to emphasise the distinction
between prose and poetry. The closest analysis discovers no difference
between the essential thought of the one and the other. But Blake projected
the thought through a mood of higher intensity, and, where Ruskin perfectly
ordered admirable words, he perfectly ordered the best words. It is
the controlling mood that differs, not the material controlled. Hence
it is that still another mind, starting from the same radical perception,
might transfigure it through a mood as urgent as Blake's and produce
yet another poem of which it could strictly be said that here again
were the best words in the best order. We should then have three men
moved by the same thought; in the one case the imaginative shaping of
the thought would fail to reach the point at which the record and communication
of ecstasy become the chief intention, and the expression would be prose;
in each of the other cases the shaping would pass beyond that point,
and there would be two separate moods expressed, each in the terms of
poetry.</p>
<p> One further qualification remains to
be made. By words we must mean, as Coleridge must have meant, words
used for a purpose which they alone can serve. Poetry is the communication
through words of certain experiences that can be communicated in no
other way. If you ask me the time, and I say—it is six o'clock,
it may be said that I am using the best words in the best order, and
that, although the thought in my mind is incapable of being refined
into the higher æsthetic experience of which we have spoken, my
answer is, if Coleridge was right, poetry. But these are not, in our
present sense, words at all. They have no power which is peculiar to
themselves. If I show you my watch you are answered just as effectively.</p>
<p> That there is no absolute standard for
reference does not matter. All æsthetic appreciation and opinion
can but depend upon our judgment, fortified by knowledge of what is,
by cumulative consent, the best that has been done. There can be no
proof that Blake's lyric is composed of the best words in the best order;
only a conviction, accepted by our knowledge and judgment, that it is
so. And the conviction is, exactly, the conviction that the mood to
which the matter has been subjected has been of such a kind as to achieve
an intensity beyond which we cannot conceive the mind as passing, and
it follows that there may be—as indeed there are—many poems
dealing with the same subject each of which fulfills the obligations
of poetry as defined by Coleridge. For while the subjects of poetry
are few and recurrent, the moods of man are infinitely various and unstable.
It is the same in all arts. If six masters paint the same landscape
and under the same conditions, there will be one subject but six visions,
and consequently six different interpretations, each one of which may,
given the mastery, satisfy us as being perfect; perfect, that is, not
as the expression of a subject which has no independent artistic existence,
but as the expression of the mood in which the subject is realised.
So it is in poetry. All we ask is that the mood recorded shall impress
us as having been of the kind that exhausts the imaginative capacity;
if it fails to do this the failure will announce itself either in prose
or in insignificant verse.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="III"></a>THE DEGREES OF POETRY</h2>
<p> The question that necessarily follows
these reflections is—Are there degrees in poetry? Since a short
lyric may completely satisfy the requirements of poetry as here set
down, announcing itself to have been created in a poetic or supremely
intensified mood, can poetry be said at any time to go beyond this?
If we accept these conclusions, can a thing so slight, yet so exquisite,
so obviously authentic in source as:</p>
When I a verse shall make,<br>
Know I have
pray'd thee,<br>
For old religion's sake,<br>
Saint Ben,
to aid me.<br>
<br>
Make the way smooth for me,<br>
When I, thy
Herrick,<br>
Honouring thee, on my knee<br>
Offer my lyric.<br>
<br>
Candles I'll give to thee,<br>
And a new
altar,<br>
And thou, Saint Ben, shall be<br>
Writ in my
Psalter,<br>
<p>be said to be less definitely poetry than <i>Paradise Lost</i> or in
any essentially poetic way below it? The logical answer is, no; and
I think it is the right one. In considering it we should come to an
understanding of the nature of lyric, the purpose of this essay. But
first let us see how far it may be justifiable.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="IV"></a>PARADISE LOST</h2>
<p> It is commonly asserted and accepted
that <i>Paradise Lost</i> is among the two or three greatest English
poems; it may justly be taken as the type of supreme poetic achievement
in our literature. What are the qualities by virtue of which this claim
is made, and allowed by every competent judge? Firstly there is the
witness of that ecstasy of mood of which we have spoken.</p>
His praise, ye Winds, that from four quarters blow,<br>
Breathe soft or loud: and wave your tops, ye Pines,<br>
With every plant, in sign of worship wave.<br>
Fountains, and ye that warble, as ye flow,<br>
Melodious murmurs, warbling tune his praise.<br>
Join voices all ye living Souls. Ye Birds,<br>
That, singing, up to Heaven-gate ascend,<br>
Bear on your wings and in your notes his praise.<br>
Ye that in waters glide, and ye that walk<br>
The earth, and stately tread, or lowly creep,<br>
Witness if I be silent, morn or even,<br>
To hill or valley, fountain, or fresh shade,<br>
Made vocal by my song, and taught his praise.<br>
<p> This note of high imaginative tension
is persistent throughout the poem, and that it should be so masterfully
sustained is in itself cause for delighted admiration. But to be constant
in a virtue is not to enhance its quality. Superbly furnished as <i>Paradise
Lost</i> is with this imaginative beauty, the beauty is as rich and
unquestionable in the few pages of <i>Lycidas</i>; there is less of
it, that is all. And who shall say that it is less ecstatic or less
perfect in the little orison to Saint Ben? You may prefer Milton's manner,
but then you may, with equal reason, prefer Herrick's, being grateful
for what Keats announced to be truth, in whatever shape you may find
it. In any case we cannot, on this ground, assign a lower place to the
poet who could order those words "religion's," "Saint
Ben," "Psalter" and the rest of them, with such inspired
good fortune. And yet we know that <i>Paradise Lost</i> is a greater
work than this little flight of certain song, greater, too, than the
poet's own elegy. There is an explanation.</p>
<p> Of all the energies of man, that which
I will anticipate my argument by calling the poetic energy, the energy
that created Herrick's song and the distinguishing qualities of that
passage from Milton, is the rarest and the most highly, if not the most
generally, honoured; we have only to think of the handful of men who
at any time out of all the millions can bring this perfect expression
to a mood of the highest imaginative intensity, to know that the honour
is justly bestowed. So splendid a thing is success in this matter that
failure, if it is matched with a will for sincerity and intelligence
of purpose, will often bring a man some durable fame. But the energies
of man are manifold, and while we rightly set the poetic energy above
the rest, there are others which are only less rare, and in their most
notable manifestations yielding to it alone in worthiness of homage
which will, indeed, often be more generally paid. Such an energy is
the profound intellectual control of material, as distinct from profound
emotional sensitiveness to material; the capacity for ordering great
masses of detail into a whole of finely balanced and duly related proportions.
Cæsar and Napoleon had it, marshalling great armies to perfectly
conceived designs; Fielding had it, using it to draw a multitude of
character and event into the superbly shaped lines of his story; the
greatest political leaders have had it; Cromwell had it, organising
an enthusiasm; Elizabeth, organising a national adventure.[1] Again,
there is the energy of morality, ardently desiring justice and right
fellowship, sublimely lived by men who have made goodness great, like
Lincoln, sublimely spoken by men who made sermons passionate, like Ruskin
and Carlyle. To take one other instance, there is the highly specialised
energy that delights in the objective perception of differentiations
of character, the chief energy of the deftest wits such as Samuel Johnson
and the best comic dramatists.</p>
<p style="margin:
6%"> 1:
It may be necessary to point out that while the poetic energy does not
include this architectural power, the intellectual co-ordination of
large masses of material, it does, of course, include the shapely control
of the emotion which is its being. It is, indeed, difficult to see precisely
what can be meant by the suggestion that is often made that the emotions
can ever be translated into poetic form wholly without the play of intellect.
If the emotion is intense enough for the creation of poetry at all,
it will inevitably call up the intellectual power necessary to its shaping,
otherwise it would be ineffectually diffused. Mr. John Bailey, in his
masterly if sometimes provoking essay on Milton says, in the midst of
some admirable remarks on this subject, "It has been said by a
living writer that 'when reason is subsidiary to emotion verse is the
right means of expression, and, when emotion to reason, prose.' This
is roughly true, though the poetry of mere emotion is poor stuff."
I would suggest that poetry of emotion, in this sense, does not and
could not exist. Bad verse is merely the evidence of both emotion and
intellect that are, so to speak, below poetic power, not of emotion
divorced from intellect, which evaporates unrecorded.</p>
<p> Any one of these energies, greatly manifested,
will compel a just admiration; not so great an admiration as the poetic
energy, which is witness of the highest urgency of individual life,
of all things the most admirable, but still great. If, further, we consider
any one of these energies by itself, we shall see that if it were co-existent
with the poetic energy, the result would be likely to be that, in contact
with so masterful a force, it would become yet more emphatic, and so
a thing arresting in itself would become yet more notable under its
new dominion. And so it is. Fielding's architectural power is a yet
more wonderful thing in Sophocles, where it is allied to poetic energy;
Ruskin's moral fervour is, for all its nobility, less memorable than
Wordsworth's and Ben Jonson defines character more pungently than Sheridan.
These energies remain, nevertheless, distinct from the poetic energy.
When, however, a poet is endowed not alone with his own particular gift
of poetry, but also with some of these other energies—of which
there are many—his work very rightly is allowed an added greatness.
It is so with <i>Paradise Lost</i>. Of the three energies other than
the poetic that I have mentioned, Milton had rich measure of two and
something of the third. No man has ever excelled him either in power
of intellectual control or in moral passion, and he was not without
some sense of character. Consequently we get in his great poem, not
only the dominating poetic quality which is the chief thing, enabling
the poet to realise his vision (or mood) perfectly, but also the spectacle
of a great number of perfectly realised visions being related to each
other with excellent harmony; we get, further, a great moral exaltation—again
perfectly realised by the poetic energy, and we get, finally, considerable
subtlety—far more than is generally allowed—of psychological
detail. From all these things, the architectonics, the zeal for justice
and the revelation of character, we get an added and wholesome delight
which gives Milton's work a place of definitely greater eminence than
Herrick's song in the record of human activity. In effect, Milton besides
being a poet, which is the greatest of all distinctions, becomes, by
possession of those other qualities, a great man as well, and I think
that this is really what we mean when we speak of a great poet. Without
his poetic faculty, although he would fall in the scale of human distinction,
which is not at all the same thing as renown, below, say, so humble
a personality yet so true a poet as John Clare[2], Milton would still
be a great man, while Herrick without his poetry would be indistinguishable
from the crowd. And the great man is as clearly evident in Milton's
poetry as he is clearly not evident in Herrick's.</p>
<p style="margin:
6%"> 2:
It may be asked: "Do you really think that a poet who has left
no other record of himself than a page or two of songs, even perfect
songs, can claim a greater distinction than a great man who is not a
poet?" Let me say, once for all, that I do think so. To have written
one perfect song is to have given witness and the only kind of witness
(in common with the media of other arts) that is finally authoritative,
that at least one supremely exacting mood has been perfectly realised;
that is to say, one moment of life has been perfectly experienced. And
since, with our human conception, we can see no good or desirable end
beyond the perfect experience of life, the man who proves to us that
he has done this, no matter though it has been but for a moment, is
more distinguished—that is, more definitely set apart in his own
achievement—than the man who, with whatever earnestness and nobility,
has but proved to us that he desired this perfection of experience,
even though the desire is exalted by the most heroic altruism.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="V"></a>WHAT IS LYRIC?</h2>
<p> And so we have Milton and Herrick, both
poets, the one a great man, the other not. It is a wide difference.
Great men are rare, poets are rarer, but the great man who is a poet,
transfiguring his greatness, is the rarest of all events. Milton is
one of perhaps a dozen names in the history of the world's literature,
Herrick—still with a fine enough distinction—one of something
under two hundred in the history of our own. And yet they are left on
equal terms in the possession of the purely poetic energy. Milton's
achievement outweighs Herrick's, but for the reasons that I have mentioned,
and not because poetry grows better by accumulation or because it is
possible to prove, or even to satisfy any considerable majority of good
judges, that—</p>
Ye have been fresh and green,<br>
Ye have been
filled with flowers,<br>
And ye the walks have been<br>
Where maids
have spent their hours.<br>
You have beheld how they<br>
With wicker
arks did come<br>
To kiss and bear away<br>
The richer
cowslips home.<br>
You've heard them sweetly sing,<br>
And seen them
in a round:<br>
Each virgin like a spring,<br>
With honeysuckles
crown'd.<br>
But now we see none here<br>
Whose silvery
feet did tread,<br>
And with dishevell'd hair<br>
Adorn'd this
smoother mead.<br>
Like unthrifts, having spent<br>
Your stock
and needy grown,<br>
You've left here to lament<br>
Your poor
estates, alone,<br>
<p>is inferior, in specifically poetic quality, to</p>
Weep no more, woeful shepherds, weep no more,<br>
For Lycidas, your sorrow, is not dead,<br>
Sunk though he be beneath the watery floor;<br>
So sinks the day-star in the ocean bed,<br>
And yet anon repairs his drooping head,<br>
And tricks his beams, and with new-spangled ore<br>
Flames in the forehead of the morning sky.<br>
<p> We come, then, to the consideration of
this specific quality that distinguishes what we recognise as poetry
from all other verbal expression. Returning for a moment to <i>Paradise
Lost</i>, we find that here is a work of art of which the visible and
external sign is words. That it has three qualities—there may
be more, but it is not to the point—architectural power, moral
exaltation and a sense of character, each of which, although it may
be more impressive when presented as it were under the auspices of the
poetic quality, can exist independently of it, as in <i>Tom Jones</i>,
<i>Unto This Last</i>, and <i>The School for Scandal</i> respectively;
that there remains a last and dominating quality, which is not related
to intellectual fusion of much diverse material, as is the first of
those other qualities, or to the kind of material, as are the other
two, but to extreme activity of the perceptive mood upon whatever object
it may be directed, remembering that this activity is highly exacting
as to the worthiness of objects in which it can concern itself. We find,
further, that this is a quality which it has in common not with <i>Tom
Jones</i> or <i>Unto This Last</i>, but with a thing so inconsiderable
in all other respects as those songs of Herrick's. And in each case
we find that the token of this quality is a conviction that here are
words that could not have been otherwise chosen or otherwise placed;
that here is an expression to rearrange which would be to destroy it—a
conviction that we by no means have about the prose of Fielding and
Ruskin, admirable as it is. We find, in short, that this quality equals
a maximum of imaginative pressure freeing itself in the best words in
the best order. And this quality is the specific poetic quality; the
presence or absence of which should decide for us, without any other
consideration whatever, whether what is before us is or is not poetry.
And it seems to me, further, that what we have in our minds when we
speak of lyric is precisely this same quality; that lyric and the expression
of pure poetic energy unrelated to other energies are the same thing.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="VI"></a>THE CLASSIFICATION OF POETRY</h2>
<p> It is not yet the place to discuss the
question of lyric forms—to consider what kind of thing it is that
people mean when they speak of "a lyric." First we must consider
the commonly accepted opinion that a lyric is an expression of personal
emotion, with its implication that there is an essential difference
between a lyric and, say, dramatic or narrative poetry. A lyric, it
is true, is the expression of personal emotion, but then so is all poetry,
and to suppose that there are several kinds of poetry, differing from
each other in essence, is to be deceived by wholly artificial divisions
which have no real being. To talk of dramatic poetry, epic poetry and
narrative poetry is to talk of three different things—epic, drama
and narrative; but each is combined with a fourth thing in common, which
is poetry, which, in turn, is in itself of precisely the same nature
as the lyric of which we are told that it is yet a further kind of poetry.
Let us here take a passage from a play and consider it in relation to
this suggestion:</p>
<p>CLOWN. I
wish you all joy of the worm.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Farewell.<br>
<br>
CLOWN. You
must think this, look you, that the worm will do his kind.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Ay, ay; farewell.<br>
<br>
CLOWN. Look
you, the worm is not to be trusted but in the keeping of wise people;<br>
for indeed there is no goodness in the worm.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Take thou no care; it shall be heeded.<br>
<br>
CLOWN. Very
good. Give it nothing, I pray you, for it is not worth the feeding.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Will it eat me?<br>
<br>
CLOWN. You
must not think I am so simple but I know the devil himself will not
eat a<br>
woman; I know that a woman is a dish for the gods, if the devil dress
her not. But, truly, these<br>
same whoreson devils do the gods great harm in their women, for in every
ten that they<br>
make the devils mar five.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Well, get thee gone; farewell.<br>
<br>
CLOWN. Yes,
forsooth; I wish you joy of the worm.<br>
<br>
<i>
Re-enter</i> IRAS.<br>
<br>
CLEOPATRA. Give me my robe, put on my crown;<br>
I have Immortal longings in me; now no more<br>
The juice of Egypt's grape shall moist this lip.<br>
Yare, yare, good Iras; quick. Methinks I hear<br>
Antony call; I see him rouse himself<br>
To praise my noble act; I hear him mock<br>
The luck of Cæsar, which the gods give men<br>
To excuse their after wrath; husband, I come:<br>
Now to that name my courage prove my title!<br>
I am fire and air; my other elements<br>
I give to baser life. So; have you done?<br>
Come then, and take the last warmth of my lips.<br>
Farewell, kind Charmian; Iras, long farewell.</p>
<p> I have chosen this passage not because
of its singular beauty, but because it is peculiarly to our present
purpose. In the first place, Shakespeare, by using both prose and verse—which
he by no means always does under similar circumstances—makes a
clear formal division between what is poetry and what is not. It is
all magnificently contrived drama, but down to the Clown's exit it is
not poetry. The significance of the Clown does not demand of Shakespeare's
imaginative mood that highest activity that would force him to poetry.
The short dialogue has great excellence, but not this kind of excellence.
The fact that it occurs in what we call a poetic drama does not make
it poetry; its fine dramatic significance does not give it poetic significance.
We are living in a world of dramatic poetry, and yet we have here a
perfectly clear distinction between the drama and the poetry, since
we definitely have the one without the other. Then, when Cleopatra begins
her farewell speech, we have the addition of poetry and a continuance
of the drama. And this speech illustrates perfectly the suggestion that
the quality which is commonly said to be exclusively lyric is the quality
of all poetry. It illustrates it in a particularly emphatic way. For
not only is it unquestionably poetry, but it is also unquestionably
dramatic. Very clearly the poet is not here speaking out of his own
actual experience; it is a woman speaking, one who is a queen: who is
wrecked upon the love of kings: who knows that she is about to die a
strange and sudden death. So that if the impulse of the poetry in poetic
drama were essentially different from the impulse of lyric, if the personal
experience which is said to be this latter were something differing
in kind from the experience which is the source of what is called dramatic
poetry, then here is a case where the essential difference could surely
be perceived and defined. It cannot be defined, for it does not exist.
It is a fallacy to suppose that experience is any the less personal
because it is concerned with an event happening to someone else. If
my friend falls to a mortal sickness my experience, if my imaginative
faculty is acute, is as poignant as his; if he achieves some great good
fortune, my delight is as vigorous as his. And if I am a poet, and choose
to express the grief or pleasure as if it were his concern and not mine,
the experience does not become one whit less personal to me. You may,
if it is convenient, call the result lyric if I speak as though the
experience is my own and dramatic poetry if I speak of it as being his,
but what you are really saying is that in the one case I am producing
pure poetry, and in the other I am producing poetry in conjunction with
dramatic statement. The poetic quality is the same in either case. Cleopatra's
speech is notable for two things: its dramatic significance, which is
admittedly contrived by Shakespeare, and its poetry which springs from
an intensity of experience which is clearly, unless we juggle with words,
Shakespeare's and not Cleopatra's. The fact that the material upon which
the poet's mood has worked has not been confined to some event that
has happened to himself but has included the condition of an imagined
being does not alter the radical significance of his experience or influence
the essential nature of its product. The poetic energy may operate on
many things through a million moods, but the character of the energy
is immutable. And when we speak of lyric, thinking of the direct and
simple activity of this energy unmodified by the process of any other
energies, we shall, if we get our mind clear about it, see that we mean
pure poetry, and we shall recognise this poetry as being constant in
its essential properties in whatever association we may henceforth find it.</p>
<p> If it is allowed, as, for the reasons
I have attempted to set out, I think it rightly may be, that the purely
poetic energy is not a variable quality, that of any given expression
of a man's mental activity it can definitely be said that it is or is
not poetry, there remains one question to be answered,—Can one
poem be better than another, if both are truly poems? Or can one poet,
by reason of his poetry, be better than another poet by reason of his?
Is Keats, for example, a better poet than Suckling? Every good judge
of poetry, if that question were put, would be likely to answer without
hesitation—Yes, he is. And yet the answer, although the reason
for it may be found and, in a sense, allowed, does not in any way discredit
the principle that has been defined. With a passage from each of these
poets at his best before us, let us see what we find. This from Keats:</p>
Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!<br>
No hungry generations tread thee down;<br>
The voice I hear this passing night was heard<br>
In ancient days by emperor and clown:<br>
<br>
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path<br>
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for
home<br>
She stood in tears amid the alien
corn;<br>
The same that oft-times
hath<br>
Charm'd magic casements, opening on
the foam<br>
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.<br>
<p>And this from Suckling:</p>
Why so pale and wan, fond lover?<br>
Prythee, why so pale?<br>
Will, when looking well can't move her,<br>
Looking ill prevail?<br>
Prythee, why so pale?<br>
<br>
Why so dull and mute, young sinner?<br>
Prythee, why so mute?<br>
Will, when speaking well can't win her,<br>
Saying nothing do't?<br>
Prythee, why so mute?<br>
<br>
Quit, quit, for shame! This will not move;<br>
This cannot take her.<br>
If of herself she will not love,<br>
Nothing can make her:<br>
The Devil take her!<br>
<p> The poetic energy in Keats is here entirely
undisturbed. I do not mean that it is not united to any other energy—though
here it happens not to be—as in poetic drama, where it is united
to the dramatic energy and is still undisturbed in its full activity,
but that it is here freely allowed to work itself out to its consummation
without any concession, conscious or unconscious, to any mood that is
not non-poetic but definitely anti-poetic, in which case, although unchanged
in its nature, it would be constrained in a hostile atmosphere. Keats's
words are struck out of a mood that tolerates nothing but its own full
life and is concerned only to satisfy that life by uncompromising expression.
The result is pure poetry, or lyric. But when we come to Suckling's
lines we find that there is a difference. The poetic energy is still
here. Suckling has quite clearly experienced something in a mood of
more than common intensity. It does not matter that the material which
has been subjected to the mood is not in itself very profound or passionate.
Another poet, Wither, with material curiously like Suckling's to work
upon, achieves poetry as unquestionable if not so luxuriant as Keats's.</p>
Shall I, wasting in despair,<br>
Die because a woman's fair?<br>
Or make pale my cheeks with care<br>
Because another's rosy are?<br>
Be she fairer than the day,<br>
Or the flowery mead in May—<br>
If she think not well
of me<br>
What care I how fair she
be?<br>
<p> To object that there is an emotional
gaiety in this which is foreign to Keats is but to state a personal
preference. It is, indeed, a preference which is common and founded
upon very general experience. Most of us have, from the tradition and
circumstance of our own lives, a particular sympathy with the grave
and faintly melancholy beauty which is the most recurrent note in fine
poetry throughout the world, but this does not establish this particular
strain of beauty as being in any way essential to poetry. It is related
to an almost universal condition, but it is a fertile source of poetry,
not one with the poetic energy itself. It would be absurd to impugn
a man's taste because he preferred Chaucer's poetry, which has scarcely
a touch of this melancholy, to Shelley's, which is drenched in it, as
it would be absurd to quarrel with it because he obtained strictly imaginative
pleasure more readily from<br>
<br>
Shall I,
wasting in despair<br>
<br>
than from<br>
<br>
Thou wast not born for death, immortal
Bird!<br>
<br>
His preference merely shows him to belong to a minority: it does not
show him to be insensible to poetry. For Wither's mood, by the evidence
of its expression, although it may not be so universal in its appeal
nor so adventurous in design, is here active to the degree of poetry
no less surely than is Keats's. And yet, while it would be an error
of judgment to rate Wither below Keats (by virtue of these illustrations)
in pure poetic energy, it would, I think, be quite sound so to rate
Suckling by the witness of his lyric. For while Wither's mood, in its
chosen activity, is wholly surrendered to the poetic energy, Suckling's
is not. It is contaminated by one of those external activities which
I have spoken of as being hostile to poetry. Although he perceives his
subject with the right urgency, he is unwilling to be quite loyal to
his perception. He makes some concession to the witty insincerity of
the society in which he lives, and his poetry is soiled by the contact.
It is not destroyed, not even changed in its nature, but its gold is
left for ever twisted in a baser metal with which it does not suit.
What we get is not a new compound with the element that corresponds
to poetic energy transmuted, but an ill-sorted mixture, while Keats
gives us the unblemished gold. We are right in proclaiming his the finer
achievement.</p>
<p> Keats and Wither will serve as examples
with which to finish our argument. In spite of all that has been said
Keats takes higher rank as poet than Wither? Yes, certainly, but not
because the poetic energy in him was a finer thing than the poetic energy
that was in Wither. It was more constant, which is a fact of no little
importance; its temper appealed to a much more general sympathy, a circumstance
which cannot be left out of the reckoning; it touched a far wider range
of significant material. These things give Keats his just superiority
of rank, but they do not deprive Wither, at his best moments, of the
essential quality which is with Keats, as with all poets, the one by
which he makes his proudest claim good. Nor need it be feared that in
allowing Wither, with his rare moments of withdrawn and rather pale
perfection, this the highest of all distinctions, we are making accession
to the title of poet too easy. It remains the most difficult of all
human attainments. The difference between the essential quality in those
eight fragile lines and that in such verse as, say:<br>
<br>
Oft. In the stilly night,<br>
Ere slumber's chain
has bound me,<br>
Fond memory brings the light<br>
Of other days around
me,<br>
<br>
may be so elusive as to deceive many people that it does not exist,
but it is the difference between the rarest of all energies and a common
enough sensibility.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="VII"></a>LYRIC FORMS</h2>
<p> While, therefore, the term "lyric
poetry" would in itself seem to be tautological, and so to speak
of lyric forms is, strictly, to speak of all poetic forms, there are
nevertheless certain more or less defined characteristics of form that
we usually connect in our mind with what we call "a lyric"
(or, even less exactly, "lyric poetry") which may be said
to be a poem where the pure poetic energy is not notably associated
with other energies—with a partial exception to which reference
will be made. In examining these characteristics nothing will be attempted
in the way of a history or an inclusive consideration of particular
forms which are known as lyric, but only, as far as may be, an analysis
of their governing principles.</p>
<p> To say that a lyric (using the word henceforward
in its particular sense) is generally short is but to say that poetic
tension can only be sustained for a short time. Poe's saying that a
long poem is a sequence of short ones is perfectly just. What happens,
I think, is this. The poetic mood, selecting a subject, records its
perception of that subject, the result is a lyric, and the mood passes.
On its recurrence another subject is selected and the process repeated.
But if another energy than the purely poetic, the energy of co-ordination
of which I have spoken, comes into operation, there will be a desire
in the poet to link the records of his recurrent poetic perceptions
together, and so to construct many poems into a connected whole. Any
long work in which poetry is persistent, be it epic or drama or narrative,
is really a succession of separate poetic experiences governed into
a related whole by an energy distinct from that which evoked them. The
decision that the material used at one occurrence of the poetic mood
shall be related to the material used at the next is not in itself an
operation of the purely poetic energy, but of another.</p>
<p> The present purpose is, however, to consider
the general character of forms used by poets when they choose to leave
each successive record of poetic experience in isolation. I have said
that any translation of emotion into poetry—it might be said,
into any intelligible expression—necessarily implies a certain
co-operation of intellectual control. If we take even a detached phrase
so directly and obviously emotional in source as:<br>
<br>
I die, I
faint, I fail!<br>
<br>
it is clear that the setting out those words is not merely an emotional
act. But intellectual control of this kind is not identical with that
intellectual relating of one part to another of which we have been speaking,
which we may call co-ordination. Of all energies, however, the co-ordinating
energy is the one with which the poetic energy is most instinctively
in sympathy, and it is in this connection that I made a partial exception
when I said that a lyric was a poem where the pure poetic energy was
not notably associated with other energies. When a poet writes a poem
of corresponding lines and stanzas or in a form of which the structural
outline is decided by a definable law—as in the sonnet—he
is in effect obeying the impulse of the co-ordinating energy, and the
use of rhyme is another sign of obedience to the same impulse. It so
happens that this energy, next to the poetic energy, is the most impressive
and satisfying of all mental activities, and while poetry may exist
independently of it, the fact remains that it very rarely does so. A
very curious fallacy about this matter has sometimes obtained support.
The adherents of what is called free verse, not content, as they should
thankfully be, if they can achieve poetry in their chosen medium, are
sometimes tempted to claim that it is the peculiar virtue of their manner—which,
let me say it again, may be entirely admirable—that it enables
the structure of verse to keep in constant correspondence with change
of emotion. The notion is, of course, a very convenient one when you
wish to escape the very exacting conditions of formal control, and have
not the patience or capacity to understand their difficulties, and that
it is professed by many who do so wish is doubtless. But there are other
serious and gifted people, loyally trying to serve a great art, who
hold this view, and on their account consideration is due to it. But
it is none the less a fallacy, and doubly so. In the first place, the
change of line-lengths and rhythms in a short poem written in "free
verse" is nearly always arbitrary, and does not succeed in doing
what is claimed for it in this direction, while it often does succeed
in distressing the ear and so obscuring the sense, though that is by
the way. It is not as though given rhythms and line-lengths had any
peculiar emotional significance attached to them. A dirge may be in
racing anapæsts, laughter in the most sedate iambic measure; a
solemn invocation may move in rapid three-foot lines, while grave heroic
verse may contain the gayest of humours. In a long work, indeed, variety
of structure may be used to give variety of sensation to the ear with
delightful and sometimes even necessary effect, though—in English,
and I am always speaking of English—it cannot even then be used
with any certainty to express change of emotion. But in a lyric the
ear does not demand this kind of relief. With many of us, at least,
it accepts and even demands an unbroken external symmetry. The symmetry
may be externally simple, as in, say, the stanzas of <i>Heraclitus</i>:<br>
<br>
They told me, Heraclitus, they told me you were dead;<br>
They brought me bitter news to hear, and bitter tears to
shed.<br>
I wept as I remembered how often you and I<br>
Had tired the sun with talking and sent him down the sky.<br>
<br>
And now that thou art lying, my dear old Carian guest,<br>
A handful of grey ashes, long, long ago at rest,<br>
Still are thy pleasant voices, thy nightingales awake,<br>
For Death, he taketh all away, but them he cannot take,<br>
<br>
or intricate, as in:<br>
<br>
Blest pair of Sirens, pledges of Heaven's joy,<br>
Sphere-born harmonious Sisters, Voice and Verse,<br>
Wed your divine sounds, and mixt power employ<br>
Dead things with inbreathed sense able to pierce;<br>
And to our high-raised phantasy present<br>
That undisturbed song of pure content,<br>
Aye sung before the sapphire-colour'd throne<br>
To Him that sits thereon<br>
With saintly shout and solemn jubilee;<br>
Where the bright Seraphim in burning row<br>
Their loud-uplifted angel-trumpets blow;<br>
And the Cherubic host in thousand quires<br>
Touch their immortal harps of golden wires,<br>
With those just Spirits that wear victorious palms,<br>
Hymns devout and holy
psalms<br>
Singing everlastingly:<br>
<br>
in either case there is a formal and easily perceptible relation between
one part of the structure and another, and this relation is a positive
help to us in understanding the plain sense of the words, while its
presence does not involve any loss of emotional significance which its
absence would supply. The truth is—and here is the second and
chief objection to the claim that we are discussing—that the poetic
mood, which is what is expressed by the rhythm and form of verse and
may very well be called the emotion of poetry, is not at all the same
thing as what are commonly called the emotions—as happiness, despair,
love, hate and the rest. Its colour will vary between one poet and another,
but in one poet it will be relatively fixed in quality, while these
other emotions are but material upon which, in common with many other
things, it may work. And being a relatively fixed condition, it is,
for its part, in no need of changing metrical devices for its expression,
and to maintain that the "emotions," subjects of its activity,
should have in their alternation a corresponding alternation of metrical
device is no more reasonable than to maintain that other subjects of
its activity should be so treated; it is to forget, for example, that
when Shakespeare wrote:<br>
<br>
Fear no more the heat o' the sun,<br>
Nor the furious winter's
rages:<br>
Thou thy worldly task hast done,<br>
Home art gone and ta'en
thy wages:<br>
Golden lads and girls all must,<br>
As chimney-sweepers,
come to dust,<br>
<br>
it was his subject-matter that changed from line to line and not the
poetic emotion governing it, and to say that he ought to have made the
metrical and rhythmic form of the first line in itself suggest heat:
of the second, rough weather: of the third, work: of the fourth, wages:
and of the fifth and sixth the death of golden lads and girls and of
chimney-sweepers respectively, all things manifestly very different
from each other, and things which, if it were the function of verbal
rhythms and metres to do this sort of thing at all, could not with any
propriety have the closely related equivalents that they have here.
No; to ask for this kind of effect is really to ask for nothing more
valuable than the devotional crosses and altars into which a perverted
wit led some of the seventeenth-century poets to contrive their verses
in unhappy moments, or Southey's <i>Lodore</i>, in which there is a
fond pretence that verbal rhythms are water.[3] It is just as difficult
to explain why verbal rhythms will not perform this function as it is
to explain why the moon is not a green cheese.</p>
<p style="margin:
6%"> 3: Most poets will
occasionally use onomatopoeia with success, but this is a different
matter, and even so it is quite an inessential poetic device. One might
sometimes suppose from what we are told, that Virgil's chief claim to
poetry was the fact that he once made a line of verse resemble the movement
of a horse's hoofs.</p>
<p> But while it is true that the function
of the rhythm of poetry is to express the governing poetic emotion,
and that, since the emotion in itself is fixed rather than changing,
it will best do this not by mere irregularity, but by flexible movement
that is contained in an external symmetry, it does not follow at all
that the subject-matter which the poetic emotion is controlling, be
it the "emotions" or anything else, cannot hope for expression
that catches its peculiar properties. To do this in poetry is the supreme
distinction not of rhythms, but of words. The preponderance of the five-foot
blank-verse line in the work of, say, Shakespeare and Milton, is so
great that we can safely say that their rank as poets would not be lower
than it is if they had written nothing else. Clearly their constancy
to this metre was not the result of any technical deficiency. Even if
Milton had not written the choruses of <i>Samson Agonistes</i> and Shakespeare
his songs, nobody would be so absurd as to suggest that they adopted
this five-foot line and spent their mighty artistry in sending supple
and flowing variety through its external uniformity, because they could
not manage any other. They used it because they found that its rhythm
perfectly expressed their poetic emotion, and because the formal relation
of one line to another satisfied the instinct for co-ordination, and
for the full expression of the significance of their subject-matter
they relied not upon their rhythms, but upon their choice of words.
The belief that when a poem is written there is one and only one metrical
scheme that could possibly be used for that particular occasion is an
amiable delusion that should be laid aside with such notions as that
the poet makes his breakfast on dew and manna. Once the poem is written
we may feel indeed, if it be a good one, that any change in the form
is impossible, but when the poet was about to write it we may be sure
that he quite deliberately weighed one form against another before making
his choice. It may even be true that he will sometimes find the shape
of his poem running to his tongue as it were unbidden, but this certainty
of selection is really in itself the result of long and, perhaps, subconscious
deliberation. The point is that the chosen form must in any case express
the poetic emotion, but that its particular election is a personal whim,
wholly satisfactory in its result, rather than a divine necessity. <i>The
Ode to the West Wind</i> and the <i>Stanzas written in Dejection</i>
are both superb poems, but who shall say that Shelley might not have
written the former in the short-measured nine-line stanzas and the latter
in his <i>terza-rima</i>, and yet have embodied his poetic emotion as
completely as he has done? It need hardly be added that it does not
follow that, because a simple metrical outline may easily and justly
be chosen, it can easily be used. So plain a measure as the six-line
octo-syllabic stanza may be the merest unintelligent jog-trot, or it
may be:<br>
<br>
I wander'd lonely as a cloud<br>
That floats on high o'er vales and
hills,<br>
When all at once I saw a crowd,<br>
A host, of golden daffodils;<br>
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,<br>
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.</p>
<p> We may now consider this question of
the subject-matter and its expression in words. When the poet makes
his perfect selection of a word, he is endowing the word with life.
He has something in his mind, subjected to his poetic vision, and his
problem is to find words that will compel us to realise the significance
of that something. To solve this problem is his last and most exacting
difficulty, demanding a continual wariness and the closest discipline.
When Homer nodded, another man's word came to his lips, and when that
happens the poet may as well be silent. No poet has been wholly blameless
of this relaxation or escaped its penalties, but it is by his vigilance
in this matter that we measure his virility.</p>
<p> I suppose everyone knows the feeling
that sometimes calls us to a life where we fend and cater for ourselves
in the fields and rivers, such as William Morris knew when he shot fieldfares
with his bow and arrow and cooked them for his supper. Shakespeare knew
it too, in the mind of Caliban, and his business was to realise this
subject-matter for us in such a way that it could not possibly escape
us in vague generalisation. Its appeal to our perceptions must be irresistible.
He can do it only by the perfect choice of words, thus:</p>
I'll show thee the best springs; I'll pluck thee berries;<br>
I'll fish for thee and get thee wood enough.<br>
<br>
* *
* *
*<br>
<br>
I prithee, let me bring thee where crabs grow;<br>
And I with my long nails will dig thee pig-nuts;<br>
Show thee a jay's nest, and instruct thee how<br>
To snare the nimble marmoset; I'll bring thee<br>
To clustering filberts and sometimes I'll get thee<br>
Young scamels from the rock.<br>
<p>Every word sings with life, and the whole passage shows perfectly the
function of words in poetry. The peculiar delight which we get from
such a passage as this comes, I think, apart from its fundamental poetic
quality, from the fact that the subject-matter is of such general interest
as constantly to tempt incomplete perception to inadequate expression.
Consequently when we get an expression which is complete our pleasure
has an added surprise. "Show thee a <i>jay's</i> nest"; it
is strangely simple, but it is revelation. Or let us take a case where
the subject-matter is one of the emotions of which we have spoken; the
emotion that marks the pity of parting at death:<br>
<br>
I am dying, Egypt, dying:<br>
<br>
the use of that one word, Egypt, should answer for ever the people who
think that the subject-matter of poetry is to be expressed by rhythm.</p>
<p> Thus we have rhythm expressing the poetic
emotion, or intensity of perception, and words expressing the thing
that is intensely perceived; so, as the creed of the mystics shows us
beauty born of the exact fusion of thought with feeling, of perfect
correspondence of the strictly chosen words to the rhythmic movement
is born the complete form of poetry. And when this perfect correspondence
occurs unaccompanied by any other energy—save, perhaps, the co-ordinating
energy of which I have spoken—we have pure poetry and what is
commonly in our minds when we think of lyric. If it be objected that
some of my illustrations, that speech of Caliban's for example, are
taken from "dramatic poetry" and not from "lyric poetry,"
my answer is that it is impossible to discover any essential difference
between those lines and any authentic poem that is known as "a
lyric." The kind of difference that there is can be found also
between any two lyrics; it is accidental, resulting from difference
of personality and subject-matter, and the essential poetic intensity,
which is the thing that concerns us, is of the same nature in both cases.
Any general term that can fitly be applied to, say, the <i>Ode to The
West Wind</i> can be applied with equal fitness to Caliban's island
lore. Both are poetry, springing from the same imaginative activity,
living through the same perfect selection and ordering of words, and,
in our response, quickening the same ecstasy. Although we are accustomed
to look rather for the rhymed and stanzaic movement of the former in
a lyric than for the stricter economy and uniformity of Caliban's blank
verse, yet both have the essential qualities of lyric—of pure
poetry.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="VIII"></a>SONG</h2>
<p> It may be protested that after all the
peculiar property of lyric, differentiating it from other kinds of poetry,
is that it is song. If we dismiss the association of the art of poetry
with the art of music, as we may well do, I think the protest is left
without any significance. In English, at any rate, there is hardly any
verse—a few Elizabethan poems only—written expressly to
be sung and not to be spoken, that has any importance as poetry, and
even the exceptions have their poetic value quite independently of their
musical setting. For the rest, whenever a true poem is given a musical
setting, the strictly poetic quality is destroyed. The musician—if
he be a good one—finds his own perception prompted by the poet's
perception, and he translates the expression of that perception from
the terms of poetry into the terms of music. The result may be, and
often is, of rare beauty and of an artistic significance as great, perhaps,
as that of the poem itself, and the poet is mistaken in refusing, as
he often does,[4] to be the cause of the liberation of this new and
admirable activity in others. But, in the hands of the musician, once
a poem has served this purpose, it has, as poetry, no further existence.
It is well that the musician should use fine poetry and not bad verse
as his inspiration, for obvious reasons, but when the poetry has so
quickened him it is of no further importance in his art save as a means
of exercising a beautiful instrument, the human voice. It is unnecessary
to discuss the relative functions of two great arts, wholly different
in their methods, different in their scope. But it is futile to attempt
to blend the two.</p>
<p style="margin: 6%"> 4: His refusal
is commonly due to lamentable experience. If a Shelley is willing to
lend his suggestions to the musician, he has some right to demand that
the musician shall be a Wolf. The condition of his allowing his poem
to be used and destroyed in the process is, rightly, that something
of equal nobility shall be wrought of its dust.</p>
<p> As far as my indifferent understanding
of the musician's art will allow me I delight in and reverence it, and
the singing human voice seems to me to be, perhaps, the most exquisite
instrument that the musician can command. But in the finished art of
the song the use of words has no connection with the use of words in
poetry. If the song be good, I do not care whether the words are German,
which I cannot understand, or English, which I can. On the whole I think
I prefer not to understand them, since I am then not distracted by thoughts
of another art.</p>
<p> If then from the argument about the lyric
that it should "sing," we dismiss this particular meaning
of its adaptability to music, what have we left? It cannot be that it
peculiarly should be rhythmic, since we have seen that to be this is
of the essential nature of all poetry—that rhythm is, indeed,
necessary to the expression of the poetic emotion itself. It cannot
be that it peculiarly should be of passionate intensity, since again,
this we have seen to be the condition of all poetry. In short, it can
mean nothing that cannot with equal justice be said of poetry wherever
it may be found. To the ear that is worthy of poetry the majestic verse
of the great passages in <i>Paradise Lost</i>, the fierce passion of
Antony and Macbeth, the movement of the poetry in <i>Sigurd the Volsung</i>,
"sing" as surely as the lyrics of the Elizabethans or of
<i>Poems
and Ballads</i>. Poetry must give of its essential qualities at all
times, and we cannot justly demand that at any time it should give us
more than these.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="IX"></a>THE POPULARITY OF LYRIC</h2>
<p> Poetry being the sign of that which all
men desire, even though the desire be unconscious, intensity of life
or completeness of experience, the universality of its appeal is a matter
of course. We often hear people say, sincerely enough, that they feel
no response to poetry. This nearly always means that their natural feeling
for poetry has been vitiated in some way, generally by contact, often
forced upon them, with work that only masquerades as poetry, or by such
misgovernment of their lives as dulls all their finer instincts. Unless
it be wholly numbed in some such way, the delight of poetry is ready
to quicken in almost every man; and with a little use it will quicken
only to what is worthy. And lyric being pure poetry, and most commonly
found in isolation in the short poems which are called lyrics, these
will make the widest appeal of all the forms in which poetry is found.
For while sympathy with the poetic energy is almost universal, sympathy
with most other great energies is relatively rare. The reason, for example,
why twenty people will enjoy Wordsworth's <i>Reaper</i> for one who
will enjoy <i>Paradise Lost</i>, is not because <i>Paradise Lost</i>
is longer, but because it demands for its full appreciation not only,
in common with <i>The Reaper</i>, a sympathy with the poetic energy,
which it would obtain readily enough, but also a sympathy with that
other energy of intellectual control which has been discussed. This
energy being, though profoundly significant, yet far less so than the
poetic energy, the response to it is far less general, and many readers
of <i>Paradise Lost</i> will find in it not only poetry, which they
desire but faintly, while in <i>The Reaper</i> they will find poetry
as nearly isolated from all other energies as it can be.</p>
<br>
<h2><a name="X"></a>CONCLUSION</h2>
<p> To summarise our argument, we find that
poetry is the result of the intensest emotional activity attainable
by man focusing itself upon some manifestation of life, and experiencing
that manifestation completely; that the emotion of poetry expresses
itself in rhythm and that the significance of the subject-matter is
realised by the intellectual choice of the perfect word. We recognise
in the finished art, which is the result of these conditions, the best
words in the best order—poetry; and to put this essential poetry
into different classes is impossible. But since it is most commonly
found by itself in short poems which we call lyric, we may say that
the characteristic of the lyric is that it is the product of the pure
poetic energy unassociated with other energies, and that lyric and poetry
are synonymous terms.</p>
<br>
<br>
<hr style="width: 35%;">
<br>
<br>
<pre>
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Lyric, by John Drinkwater
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LYRIC ***
This file should be named 8tlyr10h.htm or 8tlyr10h.zip
Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, 8tlyr11h.htm
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 8tlyr10ah.htm
Produced by Thierry Alberto and PG Distributed Proofreaders
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.
Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.
Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg
These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.
Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
eBooks Year Month
1 1971 July
10 1991 January
100 1994 January
1000 1997 August
1500 1998 October
2000 1999 December
2500 2000 December
3000 2001 November
4000 2001 October/November
6000 2002 December*
9000 2003 November*
10000 2004 January*
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
We need your donations more than ever!
As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.
As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
In answer to various questions we have received on this:
We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.
While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.
International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.
Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109
Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
We need your donations more than ever!
You can get up to date donation information online at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
***
If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:
Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com
Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
We would prefer to send you information by email.
**The Legal Small Print**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.
To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.
THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
*EITHER*:
[*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);
OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us know your plans and to work out the details.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com
[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
</pre>
</body>
</html>
|
