When I took the two poems from Nathalia’s mother,
and promised to read them, I had seen none of the press
notices of Miss Crane’s talent. Being only a quasi-journalist
I seldom read the newspapers. I am extremely
skeptical of infant prodigies, and the poems of Nathalia’s
that I have since seen most quoted in newspaper articles
about her are just what you would expect. They prove
nothing except that she is a little girl with a lively fancy.
Certain poems in this first collection, however, seem to
me to prove something more.
Some long time ago in Scotland there was a little girl
named Marjorie Fleming, and to-day a twelve-year-old,
Helen Douglas Adam, the daughter of a Scotch parson
and his wife of Dundee, is her successor overseas to the
juvenile purple. Miss Adam has now been published
both in England and America. Yet the best poems of
hers that I have read do not seem to me to possess such
individuality or such maturity of melody and diction as
Miss Crane’s best poems. Then there is our own Hilda
Conkling, whose mother is a distinguished American poet,
and who writes in free verse and has published several
volumes of poems. Hilda is a real poet. But she has
never grappled with and conquered certain problems of
poetic structure from which Miss Crane, by sheer instinct,
seems to have wrested occasional victory.
I took the two poems from Nathalia’s mother; and
first I read The Blind Girl. I came upon the two verses:
In the darkness who would answer for the color of a rose,
Or the vestments of the May moth and the pilgrimage it goes.
Oh, night, thy soothing prophecies companion all our ways,
Until releasing hands let fall the catalogue of days.
These lines and the meditation from which they spring
were the spontaneous phrasing and the natural meditation
of—a child of ten. That in itself, I think, is sufficiently
remarkable.
In the darkness who would cavil at the question of a line,
Since the darkness holds all loveliness beyond the mere design.
Strange insight for a comparative infant!
In her lighter moments—and, naturally, there are a
great many—Nathalia’s “heart is all a-flutter like the
washing on the line”; she “could not stain romance with
monetary fee”; and, when she has sat upon a bumble-bee,
she knows “the tenseness of humiliating pain.” Many a
grown humorist might envy the freshness of such amusing
phrase.
There is much laughter and nonsense in this book—that
of a rather romantic little girl with a quick eye and ear
and a pert fancy. But there is, as I have intimated,
more than that.
Cloud-made mountains towered
Beckoning to me;
Visionary triremes
Talked about the sea.
There were strings of camels
On the Tunis sands.
There were certain cities
Holding out their hands.
Here the thing we call poetry asserts itself. The instinct
for remarkable phrase and striking figurative expression
is either inborn or it is not. Facility with rhyme and
metre is not nearly so remarkable. But when a child can
write, as in the poem My Husbands,
I hear in soft recession
The praise they give to me;
I hear them chant my titles
From all antiquity.
it is almost uncanny. Here is, if you like, a somewhat
derivative diction, but here also is true poetry by every
test.
He showed me like a master
That one rose makes a gown:
That looking up to Heaven
Is merely looking down.
Well, I not only wonder how she has learned simple
finality of phrase so quickly; I also wonder whether she
can possibly realize the philosophical implications of her
best poems.
As for imagery, Nathalia’s angels hearing “the hurdy-gurdies
in the Candle-Maker’s Row” is an example of
her fancy that quickens into imagination. She sees the
Oriental bees flying “in golden convoys to the mountains
of the moon,” she quizzically presents the pathos of The
Dinosaurs’ Eggs; she has “steered by stars that sorrowed,
with the moonlight in our wake”; she sees Berkley
Common
Like a manuscript, all yellow, and with many things deleted,
Yet a manuscript completed, with embellishments most rare,
Berkley Common lies forgotten, with its fields of everlasting,
And the sunlight on the windows of the empty houses there.
As to exactly what she is trying to say in The
Symbols, I am in doubt, but it is hard to forget the
Talmud stalking like a rabbi in a gown.
On the one hand, with Nathalia, we have simply a
rhyming gift turned to amusing descriptions of certain
fairly ordinary episodes and characteristics of life that
interest every healthily alert young lady. On the other
hand, we have the beginnings of a poet with a true ear
for rhythm, an eye for the color of words, and a fancy
that often rises into the realm of imagination. I only
hope that the young lady will continue to enjoy all the
ordinary incidents of her existence as much as she has
heretofore, and to perfect her technique in her spare
moments. It needs perfecting. It is hardly to be wondered
at that her work is still in the experimental stage. She
is not yet “the youngest of the seers,” nor yet “released
from fetters of ancestral pose,” but there is undoubtedly
conquest of poetic beauty “waiting down the years” for
her—“revisions of the ruby and the rose,” as she puts
it. Read the first two verses of The Vestal and marvel
that a young lady of Nathalia’s age should be able to
master without effort such a perfectly Emily Dickinsonian
idiom. This is no copy; it is something that even Emily
Dickinson would not have been at all ashamed to have
written. And that is a good deal to say.
Now as to prophecies, who can make them? Frankly,
I have not the slightest idea how Miss Crane’s gift may
develop. I only know that she has given signs of astonishing
precocity as a young poet. Her parents have wisdom
and they will see that she is not spoiled. Her gifts will
simply develop according to her experience of literature
and her experience of life. It is a very ticklish thing to
endeavor in any way to direct so young a gift. It will
find by instinct its own nourishment; that is my belief.
Meanwhile, to Nathalia, good luck on the difficult
road!
William Rose Benet
New York City, May, 1924.