It is now time to say a word about Lanier's theory of art, especially the art of poetry.His views upon the formal side of poetry have already been noticed in the consideration of his `Science of English Verse', and hence receive no further comment here.
That Lanier keenly appreciated the responsibility resting upon the artist, appears from `Individuality', where he tells us,"Awful is art because 'tis free,"1and,"Each artist -- gift of terror! -- owns his will."2But he accepts the responsibility reverently and confidently:
"I work in ******* wild, But work, as plays a little child, Sure of the Father, Self, and Love, alone."31 `Individuality', l.62.
2 `Individuality', l.76.
3 `Individuality', ll.89-91.
Again, the province of poetry is pointed out, as in `Clover':
"The artist's market is the heart of man;The artist's price, some little good of man;"1and in `The Bee':
"Wilt ask, `What profit e'er a poet brings?'
He beareth starry stuff about his wings To pollen thee and sting thee fertile."2In `Corn',3 too, the "tall corn-captain" "types the poet-soul sublime."1 `Clover', ll.126-127.
2 `The Bee', ll.40-42.
3 `Corn', l.52 ff.
But it is in his prose works that Lanier has treated the matter most at length, and to these I turn.In the first place, he insists that to be an artist one must know a great deal, a statement that would appear superfluous but for its frequent overlooking by would-be artists.Hence he is right in warning young writers:
"You need not dream of winning the attention of sober people with your poetry unless that poetry and your soul behind it are informed and saturated with at least the largest final conceptions of current science."That Lanier strove to follow this precept, we have abundant evidence in his life and in his works; and I think that, if we remember his environments, we must wonder at the vastness, the accuracy, and the variety of his knowledge.As additionally illustrative of the last, I may add that Lanier invented some improvements for the flute, and made a discovery in the physics of music that the Professor of Physics in the University of Virginia thought considerable.
`Gates', p.29.
See `West', p.23.
