In Blake and Yeats: The Contrary Vision (1956), Hazard Adams published as an appendix the text of a ‘typescript, in the possession of Mrs. W. B. Yeats’, '“Michael Robartes Fortells”—Unpublished Typescript Written for A Vision and Rejected'. It is also contained in ‘Michael Robartes: Two Occult Manuscripts’, edited by Walter Kelly Hood, in Yeats and the Occult (1975). The context indicates that it was written as a companion-piece to the Stories of Michael Robartes and his Friends, which first appeared with The Resurrection in a Cuala imprint of 1931. These stories, adapted and slightly expanded, appear as part of the prefatory material to AV B and are examined in The Fictions. The cast of characters is much the same as in the stories and the comments seem to be an elaboration on those that appear on AV B 52-53. The reference to Coole’s empty rooms places it after Lady Gregory’s death in 1932, and a letter from 26 July 1936 appears to refer to a piece very much like this one, which Yeats plans to write ‘To-morrow’ (see YO 216; L 859). The pages of the typescript are those given by Adams in Blake and Yeats 301-305, and the [sic]s are those given in his transcript although there are other irregular spellings.
[1] Daniel O’Leary was sitting by a window at Thoor Ballylea [sic], watching a yellow flooded river, when Hudden, Duddon and Denice walked in unannounced.       “We heard you were here,” said the first, “and have come from London to ask you a question.”       “Yeats sent me the key” said L’Leary [sic]. “Somebody told him that I wanted to spend a week or two within reach of Coole House that I might look into the empty rooms, walk the woods and grass-grown gardens, where a great Irish social order climaxed and passed away.”       “Have you the prophecy” said Dudden, “that Michael Robartes made at Albert Road? You wrote it out at the time. In London there are young men fresh from the Universities who perplex us. It is seven years since Michael Robartes disappeared into Arabia. Perhaps we are growing old.”       “Yes, that is it.” said Denice, smiling at Dudden, [2] “Even I am faithful to the past.”       “One night I brought in some London Journalist,” Dudden went on, “You began a Communistic argument; I said that the Proletariat was an abstraction and must disappear before the German and Italian conception of the State moulded by History yet transparent to reason and at last completely intelligible; then the Journalist derided the State, argued that nothing mattered but internationalism, democracy and disarmament.”       “Oh, yes, I remember.” said O’Leary. “Robartes talked of the next Cycle, forgetting that the Journalist was ignorant of our terms, of the influx at the second, third and fourth Phases, said that some Asiatic Nation would base its whole civilisation upon War, that its governing class would take care of the common people as our governing class could not or would not, that they might obey in War and be loyal in defeat. [3] That its Schools and Universities would combine some Asiatic philosophy with the latest results of that psychical research founded by William Crookes, preparing all to face death without flinching, perhaps even with joy. As according to their philosophy the dead will not pass to a remote Heaven, but return to the Earth, it will seem as though the soldier’s dead body manured the fields he himself would till. Furthermore, that they would subordinate class to class, that certain virtues created in leisure might descend to all; whatever music, dancings, painting, literature best served the perpetuation or perfection of the race or man’s ultimate deliverance. Yet the State would be but little in men’s minds, for the State as an idea, whatever definition we make of it, is but a degree less abstract than that of the Proletariat. Men’s minds will dwell upon some company of governing men whom, though they seem every man’s. even every base man’s very self, it is natural to call noble.”       “You are speaking from memory, I thought you had notes,” said Hudden.       “No, not of those words. When you had shown the Journalist out and gone to your beds, I asked Robartes if I might [4] put them down. He said, no, he made them up while talking and didn’t know whether they were true or not; he knew nothing of the next cycle except that it would be the reverse of ours. I begged him to say what we who took the gyres and cones as the framework of our thought might safely prophesy, and on that night and the two following, we sat late. I made notes and a few days later I wrote what I could remember. Here it is.” | ||
II | ||
“We know that our own life, or the year, or the civilisation must pass through certain changes, that we, or it, approach the prime, or have passed it, that this or that character must increase or decrease, but we cannot know the particulars. When we speak of the past, we can say that in Divina Comedia, or the Russian Revolution, expressed such and such a phase, but are misled the moment we try to imagine some future work of art or historical event.[5]
      “I will re-examine the Wheel. Every triad of phases is a separate Wheel. Whatever existence we think of, a Civilisation’s or an individual’s, it arises from the general mass, wins its victory and returns. All our morality is heroic, this falling back or falling asleep beings its gains with it though conventializes [sic], formalises, mechanizes. I reject Hegel’s all-containing, all sustaining, all satisfying, fresh wakefulness. I reject Marxian Socialism, in so far as it is derived from him.       “The general mass, call it Nature, God, the Matrix, the Unconscious, what you will, becomes unity when interlocked with some separating or subsiding existence; nor is it greater than that existence; the Will and Creative Mind of the one, the Mask and Body of Fate of the other, each dying, the others life, living the others death.       “The 22nd. phase of our civilisation has just passed, the Russian violence and the art and thought of our time, where even logic has compelled the isolation and exaggeration of a single element, represent the 23rd. phase, the first phase of the first Primary Triad; the Dictatorships in various parts of the world, including the Russian, are the approach of the 24th. Phase. So much we deduce from our general knowledge and from our Cones and symbols. [6] But after that we have nothing but our cones and symbols. From Phase 22. the Creative Mind and the Body of Fate ceased to be enforced, man more and more accepts, more and more thinks his Fate. The Creative Mind from the twelfth century has been like stretched elastic, like a swaying pot, now the elastic is released, the pot recovers equilibrium.       “The anithetical is creative, painful—personal—the Primary imitative, happy, general. It is this imitativeness in which there is always happiness, that makes the Movements of our time attract the young. The art and politics of the antithetical age expressed a long maturing tradition and were best practised by old men. That age has ended in the old political juglers of liberal Democracy. I insist upon the paradox, that the old age of our civilisation begins with young men marching in step, with the shirts and songs that give our politics an air of sport. Phase 24. will perform the taks [task?] of Augustus, but the end of our civilisation will differ from that of an antithetical civilisation; the imitation of those who seem to express most completely the mass mind, the [7] discovery of the mass mind in ourselves, will create a political system, more pre-occupied with the common good, more derived from the common people than that of Rome and later Greece. Yet as Phase 25 draws near, in thirty or sixty years—we have no means of fixing the date, nor will it be the same date everywhere—men will turn from the leadership of men who offer nothing reason can understand. They will return to women, horses, dogs, prefer to the political meeting, the football field or whatever thirty or sixty years hence may have taken its place. Some equivalent preference will overtake occupations that have no part in politics; for all thought, under the pressure of some practical necessity will seek unity but weary of all reasoned expressions of that unity. I do not say reason will die as the pot ceases to sway, the return to the normal requires reason. An Achilles will be no longer possible, but some Virgil at Phase 24 may celebrate whatever popularisation our civilisation permits for the perfect official, carrying out the plan of an Olympian Board of Works amid many perils, amid much self-conquest; may he not gaze from his boat’s deck on Dido’s Pyre; some Ovid of the films, at Phase 25. surpass even his [8] popularity by celebrating our common casual pleasures. Every event will compel man’s free acceptance of the external mask, objective man, life lived in common. Fate is multiple, particular, has as it were personality, but the Mask is always one.       “Merely personal distinction, as past times used the word, will be out of date, will no longer exist except in archaic studious circles, or as a pretension of the vulgar; the ugly will sting man to life because it rids him of the desire and hope he can no longer employ.       “I cannot say these things without hatred, I am an antithetical man, born in a still antithetical age, yet the men of that day, lacking our inequality, lacerations, artificialities, judged by any accepted standard will be happier than we are.       “Phases 24. and 25 must see the completion of a public ideal, its assimilation in the common civilisation, where all, whatever degree or rank or station remain, will live and think in much the same way. But at Phase 26. [9] will come, enforced by some intellectual necessity or change of circumstance impossible to foreknow, the knowledge of a form of existence, of a private aim opposite to any our civilisation has pursued. This knowledge affecting minorities, and organising their disgust, will create a turbulence, like that we see about us to-day, but moral and spiritual; the knowledge enforced upon Primary Minds of antithetical civilisation.*       *Note: In finding concrete events for the dates given me by my instructors, I considered that the historical chart was that of the Christian Era and what led to it. I considered this Era as a distinct cycle, different from those of Greece or Rome, but have the authority of my instructors for making it arise from that of Greece. We must consider the Roman cycle as two or three centuries later than that of Greece. I accept Schneider’s identification of Virgil, Ovid, Nero, Epictetus with certain logical developments of Roman thought and I name those developments Phases 24. 25. 26. 27. The personal exaggeration of Nero and his Court may be described as an antithetical vision of a Primary Ideal. In Epictetus that ideal is clearly seen, a Universal Being present in every particular person. A Primary Vision of an antithetical ideal might at Phase 26. be a moral and spiritual Nationalism, antinomean difference, personal in their final form, but first seen as differing ways of life. |
Go to ContentsGo to Site-map |