daffodils in one poem is supplied in the other by the sea. And yet,
despite this latter fact, if one reads _Enoch Arden_ immediately
after _The Daffodil Fields_, it seems to be without salt. It
lacks flavour, and is almost tasteless compared with the biting
condiments of the other poem, prepared as it was for the sharper
demands of twentieth-century palates. We like, as Browning thought
Macready would like "stabbing, drabbing, _et autres
gentillesses_," and Mr. Masefield knows how to supply them. Yet I
am not sure that the self-denial of Enoch and the timid patience of
Philip do not both indicate a certain strength absent in Mr.
Masefield's wildly exciting tale. Of course Tennyson's trio are all
"good" people, and he meant to make them so. In the other work Michael
is a selfish scoundrel, Lion is a murderer, and Mary an adulteress;
and we are meant to sympathize with all three, as Mr. Galsworthy
wishes us to sympathize with those who follow their instincts rather
than their consciences. One poem celebrates the strength of character,
the other the strength of passion. But there can be no doubt that
Enoch (and perhaps Philip) loved Annie more than either Michael or
Lion loved Mary--which is perhaps creditable; for Mary is more
attractive.

One should remember also that in these two poems--so interesting to
compare in so many different ways--Tennyson tried to elevate a homely
theme into "poetry"; whereas Mr. Masefield finds the truest poetry in
the bare facts of life and feeling. Tennyson is at his best outside of
drama, wherever he has an opportunity to adorn and embellish; Mr.
Masefield is at his best in the fierce conflict of human wills. Thus
_Enoch Arden_ is not one of Tennyson's best poems, and the best
parts of it are the purely descriptive passages; whereas in _The
Daffodil Fields_ Mr. Masefield has a subject made to his hand, and