New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-01-01
THE BRONTES AS POETS:
A DEFlNITIVE REVIEW
The Collected Verse Of Charlotte. Emily, Anne and
Branvvel Bronte-Emily the Only rue Poet
=BranwelLs UnfuIhled Promise.

Under the title of "Bronte Poems
Hr. Arthur c. Benson has edited Sc
lection from the poetry of Charlotte,
Emily, Anne and Brsnwell Bronte,
which Is published in this country by
G. P. Putnam's Sons. Parts of an early
review Of the book in the London "Na-
ton" are given here.
In his introduction to this volume
Mr. Benson says: at may frankly be
confessed that the interest Of the poems
is entirely centred on the work OF En-
lily. If it had not been for the genius
which her work Enthusiastically displays,
the poetry OF the other three would
have sunk into oblivion If this is
so, We may very reasonably ask why
nearly half the book should be given
up TO this other negligible work: why
Emily genius should have 10 carry
,his dead weight about with il, because
the dead weight happens to be The
property Of her relations. And dead
weight it unquestiouably is. OF Bran
veil we shall have word to say later,
but Of both Charlotte and Anne he
plain fact is that they were not poets
at all. The verse of both has GER
tain biographical interest, and speaks
truly enough Of the sincerity of char
acter of two women who did work OF
lasting distinction in another form Of
literature. For this reason it is not
insignificant, but it Is already easily
accessible to those who wish TO con-
suit it for these values, and We see
no good reason for reprinting it in ?
book for which the only occasion can
be its poctical quality. In all the pages
devoted TO Charlotte and Anne's
verse. there is not a line mat has the
unmistakable favor OF poetry. There
would appear to be an exception on
page l6, in the poem beginning
Gods of the old mythology
and definitely marked by sombre po-
etc imagination throughout its six
teen lines. It is here printed as Char
lotte's work, but there is an editorial
note saying, "This poem has been IN
some collections attributed to Emily
BrontG." 1t was first printed under
Mr.. Shorter's editorship in Emily's col
!ected poetry in 1910, and VIC do not
know that it has been reprinted since,
nor does Mr.. BENSON give any authority
for this new attribution. BY every in
ternal evidence it is clearly Emily's;
if Mr.. Benson can make good Char
lotte's claim 10 it, he establishes Tor
her moment OF genuine poetic in
spiration such a. never revisited her.
All this is not in any way to detract
from the fine gifts that made so mem
orsble contributions TO the Enghsh
novel. but merely to guard against the
danger evident from the plan OF such
volumes as the one before as OF allow
ing these gifts TO lend other activities
AL authority that their own scnieve-
ment does not warrant When We say
thst Ruskin and Carlyle made very
poor lob of their attempts to write
poetry VIC do not bellttle their noble
powers. and we can still be wholly
grateful for Jane Eyre while saying
that there is no reason, other than those
already mentioned, for printing Char
lotte Bronte's verse. il mas 1ons
Of the emotional pressure that forces
itself into rhythmic pattern Of EXPIRES
sion, no trace Of the perfect selection
and ordering of words that are the
tokens of complete imaginative expe-
rience. nor has it even any share OF
the metrical precision and polish that
gave so much eighteenth-century verse
il. own distinction without giving u
the higher character OF poetry. u not
only does not move US; IL does not give
u. the pleasure that comes Of witness
ing expert accomplishment. In Anne's
verse there is an occasional note OF
family charming righteousness. but 1t
Is rare, and her claim TO poetry IS a.
little real "a Charlotte's.
OF q great deal of Emily Brontet
verse very much the same thing must
be said as Of that of her sisters. IT
bears III. stamp Of character as clearly,
and her character was the rarest and
most impressive Of them all. But IN
doing this it does no more than con
finn. without notably emphasizing
facts which have been evident from
every word that has been written %
her from the tim. Of Charlotte's let
tiers. Again, We have 70 keep our
minds clear as to our demands. In
pressive and heroic character is Of in
estimabls value in the worlds bust
ness. but if Emily's work did no more
than bear witness TO such character
her distinction would be far com
moner thing than It actually IS. And
there is much Of her verse that does
hardly anything more than tins. We
say hardly. since there IS often. even
in her poorest work. an undeveIoped
bu. not wholly unIntere TING instinct
Tor rhythmic individuality. Inc II
stinct Is not very adventurous. not SUI
fcjeutly so. we think. 20 JUSTIFY MI.
pcnson'e remark that many Of Emily ;
poems are bound to appeal most ylyldly
IN those who have technical under
standing Of the craft Of poetry Most
OF Fmily's verse is not particularly IN
teresting 10 the student OF poetic teen
nioue. but il has just touch OF myth
mic independence and chiefly IN the
nrsctice Of packing line so as 10 give
|. an added fulness and rapidly while
attaining the exact stress value. II IS
~ course. a device common enough m
Tnglish poctry, but its use does show
. care for the capacities OF verse not