Gerard Manley Hopkins: Oddity and Obscurity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PART II Gerard Manley Hopkins: Oddity and Obscurity A version of Clare’s ‘I Am’ appeared in The Spectator in 1865. Hopkins copied it into his notebook. Hopkins’s interest in the poem does not sig- nal that Clare had anything other than a local infuence on Hopkins’s poetry, but it is a token of the two poets’ shared concern with the trib- ulations of personality as a source of creative life.1 Hopkins is among the nineteenth century’s most individual writers about individuality. He expressed his sensitivity to his distinctiveness in language which is in itself distinctive.‘[H]uman nature, being more highly pitched, selved, and dis- tinctive than anything in the world’, must have been created by a being even more individual, he argued in some well-known retreat notes. This truth, says Hopkins, only becomes more evident when I consider my selfbeing, my consciousness and feeling of myself, that taste of myself, of I and me above and in all things, which is more distinc- tive than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnut leaf or camphor, and is incommunicable by any means to another man (as when I was a child I used to ask myself: what must it be to be someone else?). Nothing else in nature comes near this unspeakable stress of pitch, distinctive- ness, and selving, this selfbeing of my own: nothing explains it or resembles it, except so far as this, that other men to themselves have the same feeling.2 It is hard to say whether the recognition made in this famous passage is comic or tragic, humanising or isolating. The urgent rhythms of Hopkins’s prose (pitch, distinctiveness, and selving, this selfbeing) strain to conceptu- alise an individuality that remains ‘unspeakable’; they speak of an effort to 112 Part II: GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS: ODDITY AND OBSCURITY give voice to personal peculiarity that is at the heart of Hopkins’s artistic endeavour, even as it runs up against the feeling, again fruitful of comedy and tragedy, that such peculiarity may be ‘incommunicable by any means to another man’. ‘[E]very true poet’, Hopkins wrote in a letter of 1878, ‘must be original and originality a condition of poetic genius; so that each poet is like a species in nature […] and can never recur’; ‘The effect of stud- ying masterpieces is to make me admire and do otherwise’, he maintained a decade later, with an eye—half rueful, half insistent—on his own ‘singu- larity’.3 Hopkins’s principal aesthetic concern was with ‘inscape’: ‘species, or individually-distinctive beauty of style’, as he explained it to Coventry Patmore.4 Hopkins’s own coinage, the term suggests in itself the creative pressure Hopkins’s singular sense of the world placed on his language. As Stephen Spender puts it, Hopkins was ‘forced by the intensity of his lived experience and the pressure of surrounding life to invent new forms and a highly individual idiom’.5 Intensity of perception is mirrored by individu- ality of style. ‘[P]oetry must have, down to its least separable part, an indi- vidualising touch’, Hopkins told Patmore,6 where ‘touch’ catches fnely Hopkins’s effort to endow poetic language with personal brilliance, but also the countervailing concern to make that individuality felt. Hopkins did not assert his individuality with the same embattled vig- our as Clare did. Where Clare’s effort to ‘create the taste by which he was enjoyed’ warred with cultural stereotype, Hopkins’s anxieties about his ‘right to song’ were often self-directed: though Hopkins’s Catholicism marked him as an outsider, his priesthood meant he was less concerned than Clare to see himself as ‘a poet’—and often actively concerned not to.7 And Hopkins found his voice more suddenly than Clare. What for Clare was a forlorn struggle to be heard on one’s own terms was in Hopkins’s case an abrupt and brilliant realisation of what those terms were: ‘I had long had haunting my ear the echo of a new rhythm which now I realised on paper’,8 Hopkins wrote to his friend R. W. Dixon in 1878, remembering the composition of The Wreck of the Deutschland two years previously. Hopkins was conscious of the poem’s audacity: he recalled to Dixon that the Catholic journal The Month ‘dared not print it’; and even sympathetic readers were troubled by the force of its originality: Robert Bridges compared the poem to ‘a great dragon folded in the gate to forbid all entrance’ in his 1918 edition of Hopkins’s poems.9 The writ- ing’s audacity and its individualism go in hand. Jill Muller has argued that in itself Hopkins’s ‘decision to join the Church of Rome was an action of self-defnition through dissent’,10 and The Wreck continues that act of Part II: GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS: ODDITY AND OBSCURITY 113 self-defnition into the poetic sphere. It stands at the head of Hopkins’s mature output as a poem which announces his distinctiveness as a writer; but that announcement is made not—as in Clare—through a forthright assertion of poetic authority, but rather as an unignorable feature of the language, and through a submission of poetic will to God. In the opening stanzas of The Wreck, Hopkins portrays a loving sur- render which is also the discovery of an authentic voice. The stanzas enact Hopkins’s search for a language which speaks with a depth ‘truer than tongue’ (l. 11); one is let in on the discovery of a voice drawn from the heart of his being. The poem’s rhythms draw us into a turbulent inner life, capturing ‘[t]he swoon of a heart that the sweep and the hurl of thee [i.e. God] trod / Hárd dówn with a horror of height’ (l. 14–15).11 Hopkins’s alliteration sees the ‘h’ of ‘heart’ dragged through a train of physical buffetings (‘hurl’, ‘Hárd’, ‘horror’, ‘height’) as the momen- tum of the anapaests careers into the bunched emphasis of ‘trod / Hárd down’. But the writing rebounds with an awed sense of the heart’s resil- ience, spiritual rightness, and creative force: The frown of his face Before me, the hurtle of hell Behind, where, where was a, where was a place?— I whirled out wings that spell And fed with a fing of the heart to the heart of the Host.— My heart, but you were dovewinged, I can tell, Cárrier-wítted, I am bóld to bóast, To fash from the fame to the fame then, tower from the grace to the grace. (l. 17–24) Spiritual and poetic discovery fuse.12 ‘I whirled out wings that spell’ means ‘I sprouted wings for a short time’ but the construction is awk- ward, and you can also hear in the line a claim about the spreading of poetic wings, as Hopkins learns to ‘spell’ out a sense of his unique self- hood. What is remarkable about Hopkins’s voice is the way its peculiar uniqueness seems so spontaneously achieved. The impression of ‘truth- fulness’ depends upon rhythms which sustain close contact with the heart’s seemingly spontaneous and self-motivated energy. To speak of ‘a fing of the heart’ leaves it uncertain whether it is Hopkins or his heart that is responsible for the ‘finging’: yes, it was ‘My heart’ that ‘fed’ 114 Part II: GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS: ODDITY AND OBSCURITY to fnd God under such pressure, Hopkins says wonderingly, but it was ‘dovewinged’, ‘Cárrier-wítted’, apparently under the command of some- thing other than conscious will; and the movement of the verse, fuelled by its currents of alliteration and internal rhyme, seeks harmony with this inner life. Hopkins speaks with a seeming impulsiveness which accords with the way the heart, as Hopkins wondered in a later, more serene poem: To its own fne function, wild and self-instressed Falls as light as, life-long, schooled to what and why. (‘The Handsome Heart’, l. 7–8) Again Hopkins marvels at the way individual character manifests itself innately, admiring a ‘wildness’ that doesn’t go awry; and the workings of the verse exhibit the same ‘self-instressed’ qualities, their rhythms springing off an iambic norm at ‘own fne function’ and singing with tro- chaic buoyancy in the second line. The voice, in both instances, owes its ‘truthfulness’ to an exemplary marriage of craft and spontaneity; it seems to discover itself as it goes, as though, in James Milroy’s words, it had ‘its own selfhood’.13 Hopkins speaks, it might be said, with his heart in his mouth. He wrote energetically about ‘human ^spoken^ utterance’ as ‘the natural performance and delivery belonging properly to lyric poetry’ (the dele- tion suggests Hopkins’s sense of the intimacy of ‘human’ character and voice). ‘[T]ill [poetry] is spoken it does not perform, is not itself’, he explained to his brother Everard. ‘Sprung rhythm’, in emphasising the spoken accents latent on the page, ‘gives back to poetry its true soul and self’,14 he argued; and the energy and intricacy of Hopkins’s rhythms ensure their precise responsiveness to his own ‘true soul and self’. ‘[T]o presume to have captured in poetry the native character of spoken rhythm is to presume to have captured at least some of the native char- acter of its speaker’, as Joshua King has said.15 Hopkins’s rhythms aim for ‘an emphasis as much brighter, livelier, more lustrous than the regu- lar but commonplace emphasis of common rhythm as poetry in general is brighter than prose ^common^ speech’.