New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-09-13
BROWNING;S OBSCURITY.
Mr.. 1Hdrew Lang's "reminiscences
From Longman.s Magazine.

From LOngmans Magazine
People keep asking why Mr. Browning was
obscure. Probably. in part. because h.
could not help it. his letters among his private
friends not translucent. Again. he took II
for granted that the reader was familiar with
many matters of which the reader had never
heard in his blameiess life; that ne knew Wh.it
mUreN is. for example: namely. a nSh armed
with sharp priCkleS and Kind or long bedk,
from which" (the beakD "a purple dye VAS
obtained Again. Mr.. ChestertOn justly re-
BrOwning's mind and, these being habItudl
with him, he took 1t for granted that they were
perspicuOus 20 others. Thus. to take Mr.. Ches-
tertOn's fanCiful example. 4 poet might think
that religious excitement was a Kind of evil
intoxcation Cthe poet being rather an assl.
and that churches were in reality taVerns.
He might also. like Mr.. Carlyle and others.
believe in Puritanism without its theology, and
might ultimately write, You VIII not get the
goddess Puritan into your white tdverns. IhiS
would be mIgnifCeutly lucid 70 the poet. but.
taking q goddess Puritan 70 mean a Tusty
ToTrnkfns lin Woodstock. we readers would
say that YOU could readily get him into any
kind OF tavern However for all these reasons,
Mr.. Browning was not Hcid-eVen when he
really wrote pOctry-tO the general
I once was privileged To see Mr.. Browning IN
a temper y new poem OF MS was reviewed ~
a historian of our literature, gentleman OF
uuimpeaCh1b honor Ions extract was
printed. and pronounced to be uninteligihl'.
Mr.. Browning showed me the extract. ana
could make nothing of 10. But the reason WIS
that the piece badly msprnted What
Mr. Browning had not written was first attrlb-
uted to him. and then unfdvorably criticised
OF course. this is the everyday practice OF
reviewers You state your opinions; you MS
claim other opinions; and then the opinions
which YOU diScIairn are attributed to you ami
assaiIed. 10 certainly is annoy ing. because the
public reads the review and never looks at The
book. as you. the author, nave Oeen written
down an ass. SIR. Browning, naturally furi-
GUS could not be induced TO see that the mis-
prints had not been introduced on purpose by
the reviewer. To il obvious that. BY
a visual Authorization. the critic had read an1
copied out the wrong words.
/ did this myself lately. Reading an historical
MS. printed by the Historical Manuscripts
Commission I read. and copied down in
notes the words. MIR. France, silyerSnith
For reasons here seemed to be an historical
discovery But Il friend pointed out to me that
the real words Mr.. Prime, silversrnlth.
quite another affair. Mr.. BrOwning's reviewer
had been halIucinsted in the same way, prob
ably through expectant belief that the poet
would write nonsense. But l could not get
the poet to things in this light.
Mr. Browning came to his perfection IN the
Dramatic Lyrics OF 1872. The year when Ten
nysOn also. as Fitzgerald said, reached MS
acme. In these there Is no "arrogahtIy inter
lectuaI character as Mr. Chesterton remarks
7 do not know that the Cavalier Tunes are
Splendid var chants" they do not haunt the
memory like some other cavalier songs. How
ever. they, and many pieces that 1o-IoWs az
straightforward poetry. with 10 InessIse %
the age" a thing that Is my aversion can
not agree with Mr.. ChestertOn that MI brOwn-
fug's is the finest love poetry In the world.
because ID talks about window paneS, gloves
ans garden walls Most love poetry does that.
and girdIes and rings and windows abound IN
Tannvson and ovid. and Rudnus. and every
where. Shakespeare. Sappho. L"Veiace. CatuI-
Ius and a Red Indian squaw tutme unknown
have written just as fine love songs as MT
browning Nobody has ever excelled Loveiice
To say that Mr.. Browning is the greatest or
love poets is to make much too high claim
We remember.
When love with unCOnfned wings.
IF to be absent we're TO be
Away from the.
Tail II a