What do you think?
Rate this book


428 pages, Paperback
First published August 22, 1990
Late in the year, just at the time of the publication of When We Were Very Young, Milne was enraged by a letter from the Bishop of Gloucester in The Times, written on board the Cunard liner RMS Berengaria, complaining because he could no longer afford to keep three gardeners. No wonder, he said, that there is so much unemployment when everyone is pricing themselves out of the market. The Bishop also bewailed the way the lower classes wasted their money. Milne adopted a highly satirical tone in his reply:
It is refreshing to find that the higher clergy are as human as ourselves, and one sympathizes with the Bishop of Gloucester's feeling that if his income tax were lower, and if he could employ three gardeners for the price of two... not only would he himself be happier, but that a reflected glow of happiness would probably spread itself over the rest of the community. We have all felt like this from time to time; we have felt, as does the Bishop, that less taxes for us and harder work, longer hours and lower wages for others, is the only rational solution of the country's difficulties. For some cold-blooded economist to argue with his lordship on these matters would be neither profitable nor kind
But upon one point in his letter I ask for further enlightenment. He writes of the wealth which, by the lower classes, is squandered on 'the pictures' and charabancs as 'economically an unprofitable employment of labour'. From one of our spiritual instructors this is a little surprising.
What does he hold to be the reason of our existence - the provision for each other of bread and boots, or the development of our souls? Agriculture, he insists, is a 'profitable' employment of labour, presumably because the product of it is not 'wasted' - it helps to keep us alive? But why are we keeping alive? Apparently in order to make boots and build houses for each other - good, profitable employment. Profitable employment in short, is employment which benefits the body; unprofitable employment, squandered money, is that which is devoted to the soul. Strange teaching for a Bishop! The pictures and charabancs, poetry and painting, the view from Richmond Hill, and the silence of a Cathedral, a concert and a day in April, these things, like education, were admirable when the country was wealthy; but now, with the wages of gardeners what they are, money spent on them is money wasted. Is this indeed what the Bishop wishes us to believe? and are there never moments when he understands that 'pictures and charabancs' are not merely profitable, but the only profitable things in life? I seem to remember a text...'Man does not live by bread alone.'
Mr William Shakespeare, whose well-meaning little costume play Hamlet was given in London for the first time last week, bears a name that is new to us, although we understand, or at least are so assured by the management, that he has a considerable local reputation in Warwickshire as a sonneteer. Why a writer of graceful little sonnets should have the ambition, still less conceive himself to have the ability, to create a tragic play capable of holding the attention of a London audience for three hours, we are unable to imagine. Merely to kill off seven (or was it eight?) of the leading characters in a play is not to write a tragedy. It is not thus that the great master-dramatists have purged our souls with pity and with terror. Mr Shakespeare, like so many other young writers, mistakes violence for power, and, in his unfortunate lighter moments, buffoonery for humour. The real tragedy of last night was that a writer should so misunderstand and misuse the talent given to him.
For Mr Shakespeare, one cannot deny, has talent. He has a certain pleasing gift of words. Every now and then a neat line catches the ear, as when Polonius (well played by Mr Macready Jones) warns his son that 'borrowing often loses a man his friends,' or when Hamlet himself refers to death as a shuffling off of this mortal coil'. But a succession of neat lines does not make a play. We require something more. Our interest must be held throughout: not by such well-worn stage devices as the appearance of a ghostly apparition, who strikes terror into the hearts only of his fellow-actors; not by comic clowning business at a grave-side; but by the spiritual development of the characters. Mr Shakespeare's characters are no more than mouthpieces for his rhythmic musings. We can forgive a Prince of Denmark for soliloquising in blank verse to the extent of fifty lines, recognising this as a legitimate method of giving dignity to a royal pronouncement; but what are we to say of a Captain of Infantry who partly finishes off a broken line with the exact number of syllables necessary to complete the iambus? Have such people any semblance to life at all? Indeed, the whole play gives us the impression of having been written to the order of a manager as a means of displaying this or that 'line' which, in the language of the day, he can 'do just now'. Soliloquies (unhampered by the presence of rivals) for the popular star, a mad scene for the leading lady (in white), a ghost for the electrician, a duel for the Academy-trained fencers, a scene in dumb-show for the cinema-trained rank-and-file - our author has provided for them all. No doubt there is money in it, and a man must live. But frankly we prefer Mr Shakespeare as a writer of sonnets.
Milne wanted to make his position quite clear. He said of his first collection: it 'is not the work of a poet becoming playful, nor of a lover of children expressing his love, nor of a prose-writer knocking together a few jingles for the little ones, it is the work of a light-verse writer taking his job seriously, even though he is taking it into the nursery.' Milne's technical skill is admirable. It is his dextrous use of rhythm and rhyme that makes his children's poems lodge in the head, and this was what he most wanted. He said once in a preface addressed to young readers:
Now you know of course that verses have rhymes in them; but even more important than the rhymes is what is called 'rhythm'. It is a difficult-looking word, but what it means is just 'the time that the verse keeps'. Every piece of poetry has a music of its own which it is humming to itself as it goes along, and every line, every word, in it has to keep time to this music. This is what makes it difficult to write poetry; because you can't use any words in any order as long as its sense and grammar, but you have to use particular words in a particular order, so that they keep time to the music, and rhyme when you want them to. If you can find words which keep time to the music, and which are just the words you want to say, then the verses which you write are verses which sing themselves into people's heads, and stay there for ever, so that even when they are alone and unhappy they have this music with them for company.