13.07.2015 Views

R,CHARD MONCKTON MILNES was born in the year - OUDL Home

R,CHARD MONCKTON MILNES was born in the year - OUDL Home

R,CHARD MONCKTON MILNES was born in the year - OUDL Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The Women Poets of <strong>the</strong> 'Seventies 119may be so; his estimate does not alter, but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>creases,<strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>ir value is of a pretty low order.As well be frank about it. There is scarcely a voice among<strong>the</strong> whole bevy of <strong>the</strong>m dist<strong>in</strong>guishable from ano<strong>the</strong>rvoice. It is not until we come to Alice Meynell's Preludes—and who now th<strong>in</strong>ks of Alice Meynell as a poet of <strong>the</strong>'seventies?—that we can feel any revival of literary pride<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sex.Indeed one is tempted to ask, as one wades throughIsabella and Menella, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re <strong>was</strong> any <strong>in</strong>herentreason why those women should not have written betterpoetry. I came across a crush<strong>in</strong>g phrase, written by adist<strong>in</strong>guished man of letters a propos of no less a personthan Christ<strong>in</strong>a Rossetti. 'Everywhere else', he says, <strong>the</strong>exception be<strong>in</strong>g Gobl<strong>in</strong> Market,' she is, like most poetesses,purely subjective and <strong>in</strong> no respect creative'. That, Ithought, <strong>was</strong> a hard say<strong>in</strong>g; but I wondered how muchtruth <strong>the</strong>re <strong>was</strong> <strong>in</strong> it, not as applied to Christ<strong>in</strong>a, but to<strong>the</strong> women poets as a general pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. These women <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> 'seventies, for <strong>in</strong>stance, with <strong>the</strong>ir elegant or devotionalpieces; <strong>the</strong>ir wordy and portentous moralis<strong>in</strong>g;<strong>the</strong>ir dreary narrative poems; <strong>the</strong>ir descriptive pieceswhich rem<strong>in</strong>ded one of noth<strong>in</strong>g so much as a <strong>was</strong>hy and<strong>in</strong>different water-colour—what <strong>was</strong> essentially wrongwith <strong>the</strong>m? Was it lack of education? No, for educationnever made a poet. Was it lack of leisure? No, itcerta<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>was</strong> not that. Was it discouragement? No, forby <strong>the</strong> 'seventies literature <strong>was</strong>, as I have said, a respectableoccupation for women. One must conclude,quite simply, <strong>the</strong>n, that it <strong>was</strong> lack of talent? Apparentlyone must. It <strong>was</strong> of course possible to argue that womenhad only just begun to emerge from <strong>the</strong> muffled andsubjected state <strong>in</strong> which nature and men had kept <strong>the</strong>m;but that <strong>the</strong>ory, although consol<strong>in</strong>g, broke down immediatelyas one remembered <strong>the</strong> earlier women whose

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!