The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-10-08
M. swiubur~e'. Now Poem.

No nation needed IL NO much"
Mr.. Swinburne's Now Poem.
Mr.. ALGERNoN CHARLES SwINBURNE has
added another to the proofs OF his prominence
among living English singers by his narrative
poem. Ttistrdm Of Lyonesse london Chatto
& windus The story Of Tristram and Iseult
fills place In the old Arthurcan legend well
nigh large that occupied by the more
familiar tale Of Launcelot and Guinevere
Indeed so conspicuous figure is Trstram in
the prose version OF the history OF King Arthur
and his Round Table. compiled by Sir Thomas
Mallory, that the reader is often left in doubt
whether he be not the real hero Of the ro
nance. The doubt seems to have been shared
by many personagcs Of the story. who often
discuss the question whether Tristram or
Launceot DO the better knight. and tho author
himself valves an answer to the inquiry by in
forming us that Tristram was the bigger man.
but that Launcelot was better breathed."
That the Princess OF Ireland. Iseult. who was
married to Mark. King Of Cornwall was OF q
beauty surpassed by Arthurs Queen alone. Is
also proclaimed indisputable by the chroncler.
and there is n striking paralelsm in the re-
lations Of these ladies to their lords. and in the
circumstances under which they became I'M
faithful 1t was perhaps the similarity OF the
theme to the central subject OF his Arthurean
cycle that led Mr.. Tennyson. who has repro
duced Sir Thomas Mallory's narrative ex-
tenslveiy and so closely. 10 refrain from treat
ing the story OF Iristram ana lseuit. or per
haps he judged that English readers had al
ready been mace sumciehtiy acquainted win
the history OF these lovers oy the euitioh OF an
Old English metricai romance prepared by Sir
Walter Scott. and by Mr.. Matthew Arnolds
presentation Of certain episodes in their story.
Whatever may have been his motive. 1t remains
true that Mr.. Tennyson loft unworked one OF
the richest VEINS OF Arthureah romance ana
ieit 10 MT. Swihpurhe TASK which mas caiieu
iorth one OF the most powerful ana iustrous
exhipitiohs OF MS genius.
1t has been pointed out by those who are
familiar with the work OF Sir Thomas Mallory
that In large degree the ldyls OF the King
may truthfuly be described as merely mctrical
paraphrases OF the mediGva! narrative. The
fact that they are written in blank verse, and
arc thus iree from the tenlpta'iohs 10 u
Vergehce whlch rhyme wouiu nave ihposeu'
may explain 'he author ais'hciiha'ioh 10 me
exercise Oh orisiha' INVENTION IL nus also oeeh
reiharkeu WIN !us'ice that Whi,e MT iehhy-
son CONFORMS 10 'he iet'er Oh DIT Ihomas
SiH'iorys teNt so"heWn"' too 'ah"'y ior one
VINO does not avow himseii translator. ne IN
fuses on the other hshu' spirN whohy amen
70 that OF tho ineuleVai author. me haoits'
the manners. the IDEAS which he ascribes 10
day. ana even the SIN OF Launceiot
ana uuiheVere' ana i's enect upon themselves
anu tue Ming whohh they nave wrohseu' hre
portrayed III terms anu coiors an" from point
OF view LOT which there Is scarcely any warrant
IN the original history. 80 tnat Mr. lehhysoh
mas been placed by some cautious critics In the
following dilemma: either he intended to put
forth MS ldyis as original poems. perfectly
attuneo 70 modern thousht ana emotioh' 10
whlch the ancient iegehd shouiu nave merely
onered sutStratum OF SUGGESTION or else ne
meant TO present them as faithful interpreta-
lions Oh chronicles. whlch even IN the rude
simplicity OF their medihVal garp are iuii OF
pathos and OF beauty. In the former case what
rlght had ne TO reproduce word Tor WORD 30
many uesoriplNo passases' IN 'ne na,'er no"
cou'u nc Iecohci.e WIN ms am oi hueh'y ,he
ea.ine1 Vi '''o 'oAo anu atmosphere Vi h's
oilka
III Mr. swlhpurhe errs AT all In MS treatment
OF inc irstram myth' IL Is scarcely IN the same
direction. Hels sihgu,ariy iaithtul TO the spirit
OF the old romance ana In the purely descriptive
portions OF MS WORK II Is easy, as we snail