in new forms."1 Now notice the great significance of these distinctions. "All men are in some degree impressed by the face of the world even to delight." That is simply another way of saying that every one of us-in potentiality at leastis in some degree responsive to the unsyllabled or inarticulate Poetry of Nature some of us even to delight. But now pay very particular attention to the expansion of the saying: "Others

have the same love in such excess that, not content with admiring, they seek to embody it in new forms." Herein we have the legitimate rise of articulate Poetry. Those who are not content with admiring Nature those who have such excess of genuine love for Nature that they are constrained to express it through letters-those are the Poets. This embodiment or expression of their esthetic enthusiasm is articulate Poetrythe voiced Poetry of human utterance as distinguished from the voiceless Poetry of Nature herself. It will now be our task to determine, if possible, and discuss some of the elements or principles of this articulate Poetry. In my first chapter I tried to show to what an alarming extent esthetic criticism is vitiated by uncertainty, vagueness, and even contrariety of doctrine. I now wish to make out that, notwithstanding the appalling confusions and contradictions to be found in

1 See also 'The Natural History of Intellect and other Papers,' p. 118. Much as I wish to think well of Human endowments at large, I have some doubts of Emerson's "all men," except in potentiality. The higher faculties of some persons may almost have perished through sheer lack of nurture, just as the most valuable denizens of the botanical kingdom tend to die out unless they be cultivated. In the fine words of Plutarch, they may be said to suffer the holy Lamp of Minerva to go out for lack of oil." I have noted some such cases in the preceding chapter, pars. 23, 24. It is unpleasant but not surprising to read that Darwin lost his interest in poetry and the arts. We must cherish our faculties, or they may go to ruin.

present and past criticism and theories of criticism, it is yet possible to lay down some more or less definite criteria by which the esthetic quality of any work may be more or less accurately judged.

3. A more or less accurate science of criticism is possible. On this question, the possibility of a science of esthetics, Sir Joshua Reynolds thus expresses himself in one of his Discourses: "The main scope and principle of this Discourse is to demonstrate the reality of a standard in Taste as well as in corporeal beauty; that a false or depraved taste is as well known, as easily discovered as anything that is deformed, misshapen, or wrong in our form or outward make; and that this Knowledge is derived from the uniformity of sentiments among mankind, from whence proceeds the knowledge of what are the general habits of Nature, the result of which is an idea of perfect beauty." He also notes that besides this beauty of truth, which is formed on the uniform, immutable, and eternal laws of Nature, and which of necessity can be but one, there are likewise apparent or secondary truths proceeding from local or temporary prejudices, fancies, passions, or accidental connection of ideas." 1 Herein we have a strong pronouncement of Sir Joshua's belief that there is a science of Art. I think that he is right in his views, and I am also convinced that, within certain limits, there is a science of poetical and literary criticism. If there be no science of criticism, criticism has no right to exist. If you wish any enterprise (whether secular or sacred) to be of solid worth you must

66

1 'Discourses,' Vol. i. p. 435. Dugald Stewart records a curious instance of this kind in the case of Burns, who continued to read certain mediocre verses with which he had been familiar in his youth Iwith a degree of rapture beyond expression." Burns took notice of the fact himself. See Blackie's edition of Burns, Vol. i. p. 165.

H

import science into it. (It is especially incumbent upon all theologians and preachers to pay devout attention to this doctrine.) 1

4. But certain refinements in Poetry and Art are beyond the scalpel of criticism.-At the very outset, however, I wish to speak a word of caution. I believe that certain poetic elements-the fine witchery of poesy-may be quite beyond the scalpel of articulate criticism; that certain refinements of poetical movement and accent and rhyme, and even of thought and imagination, may be found to lie beyond the possibility of scientific appraisement; that whilst capable of being felt, such qualities may scarcely admit of being communicated. In connection with sculpture, John Ruskin writes a finely discriminating passage very applicable to our present subject. The difference in accuracy, runs the passage, 66 between the lines of the Torso of the Vatican (the Master' of M. Angelo) and those in one of M. Angelo's finest works could perhaps scarcely be appreciated by any eye or feeling undisciplined by the most perfect and practical anatomical knowledge. It rests on parts of so traceless and refined delicacy that, though we feel them in the result, we cannot follow them in the details. Yet they are such and so great as to place the Torso alone in art, solitary and supreme; while the

1 Generally speaking, the clergyman has yet to learn that he is an ass in so far as he is not trying to be scientific. He no longer consults the stars about scurvy in the body; he knows that scurvy in the body is best assailed by scientific methods; but he still hugs the delusion that scurvy in the Soul can only be remedied by super-scientific or preter-scientific expedients! He has yet to learn that the Common Sense-that is, the Scientific Sense, is the most sacred witness available in the tremendous Cause of the Divine versus the Diabolic. Let it be understood that the Common Sense is simply that sense in which all responsible persons are agreed as soon as they understand each other. This doctrine should be remembered in dealing even with children. With fine discernment Juvenal wrote :

"Reverence to children as to Heaven is due."-Sat. xiv.

finest of M. Angelo's works, considered with respect to truth alone, are said to be only on a level with antiques of the second class, under the Apollo and Venus-that is, two classes and gradations below the Torso. But suppose the best sculptor in the world, possessing the most entire appreciation of the excellences of the Torso, were to sit down, pen in hand, to try and tell us wherein the precious truth of each line consisted, could any words that he could use make us feel the hair's-breadth of depth and curve on which all depends? Or end in anything more than bare assertions of the inferiority of this line to that, which, if we did not perceive for ourselves, no explanation could ever illustrate to us; and so it is with all truths of the highest order. They are separated from those of average precision by points of extreme delicacy, which none but the cultivated eye can in the least feel, and to express which all words are absolutely meaningless and useless." He then adds: "But it stands to reason that the men who in broad, simple, demonstrable matters are perpetually violating truth will not be particularly accurate or careful in carrying out delicate and refined and undemonstrable matters; and it stands equally to reason that the man who, as far as argument or demonstration can go, is found invariably truthful, will in all probability be truthful to the last line and shadow of a line." 1 Now the case of Poetry and

1 'Modern Painters,' Vol. i. pp. 434-5, also p. 322 (1897). In the same spirit as Ruskin, Goethe writes: Only a portion of Art can be taught, but the artist needs the whole. He who is only half-instructed ever errs and talks much. He who knows it all is content with performing, and speaks little or late. The best is not to be explained by words. The spirit in which we act is the highest matter.”—“ Meister's Apprenticeship,' Bk. vii. chap. 9. Needless to say, almost, "Rules will never make either a work or a discourse eloquent. They can seldom produce a single beauty, but they may banish a thousand faults."-Goldsmith, Works,' Vol. vi. pp. 57-60.

Literature at large is, in respect of refinements and subtleties, analogous, I believe, to that of Statuary; therefore all I contend for in the criticism of Poetry is the possibility of establishing certain more or less definite canons or principles by which any poetical work may be more or less accurately appraised; by which Shakespeare may be more or less definitely shown to be Shakespearian, and Phillips more or less definitely Phillipian. If this cannot be done, it is quite obvious that there is nothing approaching a science of literary criticism. Nay, it would show that such a science is impossible; and consequently that all talk about Poetry as Poetry is mere gabble and fatuity. Heaven forbid that this should necessarily be the case! Poetry, I repeat, must conform to laws, or there can be no science of Poetry.1

5. The first requirement of any poem is that it shall depict Nature, make it clear to our apprehension, and arouse such emotions within us as might

1 Professor Saintsbury writes: "There is what is most delightful of all to the true lover of poetry and literature, the delight of finding out how much it is impossible to account for. For to this we always come; and in this, I believe, consists the greatest and most lasting enjoyment of every kind of beauty. If you ever could find out exactly why it is beautiful, the thing would become scientific and would cease to be interesting. But you cannot, and so there is at once the joy of possession and the ardour of the unattained."- Corrected Impressions.' According to this view the main delight of noble poetry and literature is to find in it an eternal conundrum! But I fancy he might not be indisposed to correct this impression. See his remarks on Carlyle's 'French Revolution' cited below, par. 24. Aristotle says: "Scientific Knowledge is possessed when we know the necessary connection between a thing and its causes."- Posterior Analytics,' Bk. i. chap. ii. Hamilton defines it as a knowledge of effects in their causes and of causes in their effects. Such a knowledge of anything should rather add to than detract from its interest. I hope that the Solar System did not become less interesting after Newton's great discovery, and that the human body is not less interesting since Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood!