In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[ 11 A review of Baudelaire and the Symbolists: Five Essays, by Peter Quennell London: Chatto & Windus, 1929. Pp. xii + 221. The Criterion: A Literary Review, 9 (Jan 1930) 357-59 Mr. Quennell has done for his generation what Arthur Symons did many years ago with his Symbolist Movement in Literature.1 I am not disposed to disparage Mr. Symons’s book; it was a very good book for its time; it did make the reader want to read the poets Mr. Symons wrote about. I myself owe Mr. Symons a great debt: but for having read his book, I should not, in the year 1908, have heard of Laforgue or Rimbaud; I should probably not have begun to read Verlaine; and but for reading Verlaine, I should not have heard of Corbière.2 So the Symons book is one of those which have affected the course of my life.3 Nevertheless, it was time that a new book on the same subject should be written, omitting, as does Mr. Quennell very rightly, Maeterlinck.4 Whoever reads the one book ought to read the other, certainly; but we are no longer in a flush of discovery: the poets of whom Mr.QuennelltreatsarenowasmuchinourbonesasShakespeareorDonne:5 the need is for what is called appraisal. The chief fault I have to find with Mr. Quennell’s book is the form, five essays. One anticipates – five essays, essays as Mr. Symons wrote them, starting afresh and with fresh enthusiasm on each author. But these are not really five essays; they are five chapters in one whole essay on a part of the great subject of Post-Romanticism.6 I found Mr. Quennell’s first essay, that on Baudelaire (the key poet not included in Mr. Symons’s volume, and a poet whom Mr. Symons has fumbled more badly than the minor successors )7 the least satisfactory on first reading. For there is a great deal more to be said about Baudelaire than Mr. Quennell has said. On the other hand, Baudelaire is so much greater a man than all of his successors, that he cannot be confined, as can they, within one essay. Therefore the difficulty of a scheme such as Mr. Quennell has adopted, is that a master like Baudelaire must be reduced to those aspects in which the least among his significant disciples can be profitably compared with him. Essays, Reviews, and Commentaries: 1930 12 ] With this reservation, – or making on Mr. Quennell’s behalf a statement which I feel he should have made for himself, – the essay on Baudelaire is an admirable study, and except for the studies of Laforgue and Mallarmé, really the best in the book. It is the first of a sequence of studies in the postmortem of Romanticism, and in the insurgence of something which can hardly be called classicism, but which may decently be called CounterRomanticism . The difficulty is that the minor men can be wholly, and even more than generously, confined within what can beyond question be called literary criticism; whereas any adequate criticism of Baudelaire must in­ evitably lead the critic outside of literary criticism. For it will not do to label Baudelaire; he is not merely, or in my opinion even primarily, the artist; and if I compared him with anyone in his own century, it would be to Goethe and to Keats – that is to say, I should place him with men who are important first because they are human prototypes of new experience, and only second because they are poets. I think that Mr. Quennell is not unaware of this, for in one of his best sentences on Baudelaire he says: He had enjoyed a sense of his own age, had recognised its pattern when the pattern was yet incomplete, and – because it is only our misapprehension of the present which prevents our looking into the immediate future, our ignorance of to-day and of its real as apart from its spurious tendencies and requirements – had anticipated many problems, both on the aesthetic and on the moral plane, in which the fate of modern poetry is still concerned. [64] This affirmation is, I believe, certainly true: it is this “sense of the age” that is important about Baudelaire, and is what he imparted, in varying fractions , to his minor successors. And a “sense of one’s age” implies some sense of other ages; so that Baudelaire’s sense of Racine is integral with his sense of his own age.8 Of course...


Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.