THE POETIC LICENSE
To the Editor of The Idler.
Dear Sir: Your recent strictures upon a certain poem by John Masefield, and the general tenor of several other volumes of verse recently published, have moved me to address you upon a subject which holds considerable interest for me; and that, Sir, is the scope and legitimacy of what is commonly called “the poetic license”. To what does this license extend and by whom is it granted? Is there no way in which it may be regulated by law?
This matter of the poetic license is a source of continual annoyance to me. I find it invoked upon all occasions. I find that it is considered a sufficient answer to any criticisms or charges that may be brought against a poet. I am curious to know if there is any real authority for it; if it is not, in fact, a mere figment of the imagination,a polite fiction of letters invented by men of letters for the purpose of confounding the layman and depriving him of his natural right to pass an opinion upon all that he reads?
I confess I am no poet. This being so, I may be lacking in sympathy for the art, as some of my poetic acquaintances have averred. But I protest that a man need not be a poet to be a judge of poetry, any more than he need be a vintner to be a judge of wines, or a cook to be a judge of preserves. I may lack the finer ear of the poet when it comes to a question of complicated rhythms, but I am not lacking in an elementary knowledge of grammar, as some of our poets appear to be. I never could see any reason why a poet’s grammatical or orthographical errors should be condoned merely because he chooses to write in verse. We do not condone such defects in a prose writer, why then in a poet? It may be urged that the poet has a harder task than the prose writer; that it is more difficult to express one’s self in verse than in prose. No doubt it is, but is that any reason why incompetent writers should be excusedtheir errors? Or their laxness? Or their laziness? Why write poetry at all if they can not write it properly? Why not choose prose for a medium? There are men, no doubt, who find prose as difficult as most men find poetry, but do we therefore overlook their mistakes or their vagaries?
Sir, it appears to me that the leniency shown to verse writers in this respect has worked a great injury to the art of poetry. It has encouraged men to write verses, who were in no way fitted to write verses. It has led tyros to choose poetry rather than prose because in the former they feel more secure from the well-merited censure of their readers. It has degraded really good poetry to the level of very poor poetry by allowing virtue where there was none and by holding verses full of defects to be equal in merit with verses marred by no such violations of the common rules of grammar and orthography.
All this, Sir, was bad enough, but I was prepared to pass over it since it is a practise inauguratedand upheld by professional critics who will allow us laymen no word at all in the matter. But, Sir, when these poets attempt to extend their poetic license to clothing, to manners and to morals, I think they go too far.
Not long since, I ventured some remarks, not altogether complimentary, upon the personal appearance of a certain poet, or poetaster, as I prefer to call him, in the presence of a literary woman. “Oh, yes,” she replied. “There’s no denying it—heisa sloven. But really one of his spirituality could hardly be expected to be finicky about his clothing and that sort of thing.” Upon another occasion, I spoke harshly with regard to the manners of a well-known versifier, and I was rebuked for my hasty judgment with the assurance that the oddity of his conduct ought not to be ascribed to boorishness or rudeness, but to his poetic temperament. And, Sir, only yesterday, when I condemned the unbridled license and immorality of a recent book of poetry, I was informed that a poet could not be expected toview a moral question from the same angle as an ordinary uninspired mortal.
Sir, if these scribblers of verse are to be allowed any license, why should they not qualify for it as do pedlers, saloon-keepers and the like? Why not require them to prove their fitness for the business of writing poetry? Let them secure their license from the civil authorities, and let those licenses be revoked at the first indication of abuse of privilege.
As affairs now stand, any one who chances to possess a pen, a windsor tie and a wide-awake hat can pass himself off for a poet and can claim indulgence for his bad verse, bad manners and bad morals upon the plea of poetic temperament. Therefore, to insure the public against such imposture, I suggest that every poet be compelled, like every chauffeur, to wear his license in a conspicuous place, and that if he fail to comply with this requirement, he be immediately impounded.
This arrangement, I think, would operate as an effective check upon the too exuberant poetic temperament, and would also be an excellentthing for the public, for, Sir, if every poet were required, like every dog, to wear his license attached to a collar, the pound would soon be full of poets.
I am, Sir,P. Rose.