and just encouragement of poetry is one thing and an exceptional honouring of an individual poet is another. I am not too old to remember when it was supposed, generally throughout England, that the PoetLaureate had himself invented the tale of King Arthur and his Knights!

But, in truth, the Contempt of poets and poetry is by no means modern. Plato says: "There is a quarrel of long standing between Philosophy and Poetry, and we must not make a serious pursuit of Poetry in the belief that it grasps truth and is good." He considered that proof was required that Poetry is "not only pleasurable, but also profitable in its bearings upon governments and upon human life, before it ought to be admitted into the State."1

The proposal was to expel poets from the Ideal State: "It is probable," writes Plato, in another place, "that if a man should arrive in our city, so clever as to be able to assume any character and imitate any object, and should propose to make a public 1 Plato's Republic, pp. 352-353

display of his talents and his productions, we should pay him reverence as a sacred, admirable, and charming person; person; but we should tell him that in our state there is no one like him, and that our law excludes such characters, and we should send him away to another city after pouring perfumed oil upon his head, and crowning him with woollen fillets."1 Truly an admirable kind of poet-laureateship, when used with discretion!

But to apply the taboo to Poetry is a far greater compliment to it than to ignore it or be ignorant of it, for at least it acknowledges its power and influence. Nowadays people depreciate it who have never studied it, and have not even mastered the right mode of reading it; or they choose to use it as a diversion, and thence conclude that it is incapable of any greater importance. "You know," said Walpole, "how I shun authors,

1 Plato's Republic, pp. 91-92. I am, however, well aware of the modifications of Plato's meaning maintained by Professor Jowett. See Republic of Plato, 3rd edition, pp. clvii-clxv.

and would never have been one myself if it obliged me to keep such bad company. They are always in earnest, and think their profession serious." 1 Such an opinion is simply immoral. Why should not authors. be serious? or rather, how dare they be anything else?

Very serious indeed is literature to many, from the bread and butter point of view, as it was to poor Goldsmith. "You and I have very different motives for resorting to the stage; I write for money and care little about fame," said Goldsmith sorrowfully to Cumberland.2 But above and beyond the question of what good a man's profession may be to him, what good can he be to his profession, or his profession to his country, unless he is serious in it?

William Hazlitt had a different explanation of artistic enthusiasm: "The same reason," he says, "makes a man a religious enthusiast that makes a man an enthusiast in

1 Life and Times of Oliver Goldsmith, by J. Forster, vol. 1, p. 139.

2 Ibid, vol. 11, p. 302.

any other way—an uncomfortable mind in an uncomfortable body. Poets, authors, and artists in general have been ridiculed for a pining, puritanical, poverty-struck appearance, which has been attributed to their real poverty. But it would perhaps be nearer the truth to say that their being poets, artists, &c., has been owing to their original poverty of spirit and weakness of constitution. As a general rule, those who are dissatisfied with themselves will seek to go out of themselves into an ideal world. Persons in strong health and spirits who take plenty of air and exercise, who are in favour with their stars,' and have a thorough relish for the good things of this life, seldom devote themselves in despair to Religion or the Muses.” 1

This might be called A Remedy against Poetry; but it is at least conceivable that "a thorough relish of the good things of this life" may tend to deaden strenuous effort of any kind, except the effort to get them; though I confess I have yet to meet the

1 The Round Table, p. 62.

poet who has not a very lively appreciation of them.

Hazlitt, however, must not be taken too seriously. Yet I think very much the same idea prevails now, though not expressed in the same way. The great majority of people esteem poets much as domestic fools were esteemed-motley creatures, meant to make sport and increase the relish of the "good things." Even poets themselves seem inclined to take the same view of their art. "There is nothing in life so much exaggerated as the importance of Art," says a modern poet; and he adds, "that of course all depends on the eye of the beholder." 1 It does, indeed! For if the poet has not the eye to perceive the dignity and responsibility of his profession, would he not be much more honestly and happily employed in digging potatoes?

On the poor in spirit a certain blessing was once pronounced; but if we want the opinion of one who certainly cannot be so

1 Prose Fancies, by Richard Le Gallienne, pp. 162-163.