with francis thompson we lose the greatest poetic energy since browning. his energy was of somewhat the same kind. browning was intellectually intricate because he was morally simple. he was too simple to explain himself; he was too humble to suppose that other people needed any explanation. but his real energy, and the real energy of francis thompson, was best expressed in the fact that both poets were at once fond of immensity and also fond of detail. any common imperialist can have large ideas so long as he is not called upon to have small ideas also. any common scientific philosopher can have small ideas so long as he is not called upon to have large ideas as well. but great poets use the telescope and also the microscope. great poets are obscure for two opposite reasons; now, because they are talking about something too large for any one to understand, and now again because they are talking about something too small for any one to see. francis thompson possessed both these infinities. he escaped by being too small, as the microbe escapes; or he escaped by being too large, as the universe escapes. any one who knows francis thompson's poetry knows quite well the truth to which i refer. for the benefit of any person who does not know it, i may mention two cases taken from memory. i have not the book by me, so i can only render the poetical passages in a clumsy paraphrase. but there was one poem of which the image was so vast that it was literally difficult for a time to take it in; he was describing the evening earth with its mist and fume and fragrance, and represented the whole as rolling upwards like a smoke; then suddenly he called the whole ball of the earth a thurible, and said that some gigantic spirit swung it slowly before god. that is the case of the image too large for comprehension. another instance sticks in my mind of the image which is too small. in one of his poems, he says that abyss between the known and the unknown is bridged by "pontifical death." there are about ten historical and theological puns in that one word. that a priest means a pontiff, that a pontiff means a bridge-maker, that death is certainly a bridge, that death may turn out after all to be a reconciling priest, that at least priests and bridges both attest to the fact that one thing can get separated from another thing—these ideas, and twenty more, are all actually concentrated in the word "pontifical." in francis thompson's poetry, as in the poetry of the universe, you can work infinitely out and out, but yet infinitely in and in. these two infinities are the mark of greatness; and he was a great poet.

beneath the tide of praise which was obviously due to the dead poet, there is an evident undercurrent of discussion about him; some charges of moral weakness were at least important enough to be authoritatively contradicted in the nation; and, in connection with this and other things, there has been a continuous stir of comment upon his attraction to and gradual absorption in catholic theological ideas. this question is so important that i think it ought to be considered and understood even at the present time. it is, of course, true that francis thompson devoted himself more and more to poems not only purely catholic, but, one may say, purely ecclesiastical. and it is, moreover, true that (if things go on as they are going on at present) more and more good poets will do the same. poets will tend towards christian orthodoxy for a perfectly plain reason; because it is about the simplest and freest thing now left in the world. on this point it is very necessary to be clear. when people impute special vices to the christian church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. the church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. the church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. the church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.

now, poets in our epoch will tend towards ecclesiastical religion strictly because it is just a little more free than anything else. take, for instance, the case of symbol and ritualism. all reasonable men believe in symbol; but some reasonable men do not believe in ritualism; by which they mean, i imagine, a symbolism too complex, elaborate, and mechanical. but whenever they talk of ritualism they always seem to mean the ritualism of the church. why should they not mean the ritual of the world? it is much more ritualistic. the ritual of the army, the ritual of the navy, the ritual of the law courts, the ritual of parliament are much more ritualistic. the ritual of a dinner-party is much more ritualistic. priests may put gold and great jewels on the chalice; but at least there is only one chalice to put them on. when you go to a dinner-party they put in front of you five different chalices, of five weird and heraldic shapes, to symbolise five different kinds of wine; an insane extension of ritual from which mr. percy dearmer would fly shrieking. a bishop wears a mitre; but he is not thought more or less of a bishop according to whether you can see the very latest curves in his mitre. but a swell is thought more or less of a swell according to whether you can see the very latest curves in his hat. there is more fuss about symbols in the world than in the church.

and yet (strangely enough) though men fuss more about the worldly symbols, they mean less by them. it is the mark of religious forms that they declare something unknown. but it is the mark of worldly forms that they declare something which is known, and which is known to be untrue. when the pope in an encyclical calls himself your father, it is a matter of faith or of doubt. but when the duke of devonshire in a letter calls himself yours obediently, you know that he means the opposite of what he says. religious forms are, at the worst, fables; they might be true. secular forms are falsehoods; they are not true. take a more topical case. the german emperor has more uniforms than the pope. but, moreover, the pope's vestments all imply a claim to be something purely mystical and doubtful. many of the german emperor's uniforms imply a claim to be something which he certainly is not and which it would be highly disgusting if he were. the pope may or may not be the vicar of christ. but the kaiser certainly is not an english colonel. if the thing were reality it would be treason. if it is mere ritual, it is by far the most unreal ritual on earth.

now, poetical people like francis thompson will, as things stand, tend away from secular society and towards religion for the reason above described: that there are crowds of symbols in both, but that those of religion are simpler and mean more. to take an evident type, the cross is more poetical than the union jack, because it is simpler. the more simple an idea is, the more it is fertile in variations. francis thompson could have written any number of good poems on the cross, because it is a primary symbol. the number of poems which mr. rudyard kipling could write on the union jack is, fortunately, limited, because the union jack is too complex to produce luxuriance. the same principle applies to any possible number of cases. a poet like francis thompson could deduce perpetually rich and branching meanings out of two plain facts like bread and wine; with bread and wine he can expand everything to everywhere. but with a french menu he cannot expand anything; except perhaps himself. complicated ideas do not produce any more ideas. mongrels do not breed. religious ritual attracts because there is some sense in it. religious imagery, so far from being subtle, is the only simple thing left for poets. so far from being merely superhuman, it is the only human thing left for human beings.