Part 4 (1/2)

Historically stating it, then, we should say: ”The lake was sounded from the walls of the Castle of Chillon, and found to be a thousand feet deep”

Now, if Reynolds be right in his idea of the difference between history and poetry, we shall find that Byron leaves out of this statement certain _un_necessary details, and retains only the invariable,--that is to say, the points which the Lake of Geneva and Castle of Chillon have in common with all other lakes and castles

Let us hear, therefore

A thousand feet in depth below

”Below”? Here is, at all events, a word added (instead of anything being taken away); invariable, certainly in the case of lakes, but not absolutely necessary

The massy waters meet and flow

”Massy”! why ood word, but it is assuredly an added detail, and expresses a character, not which the Lake of Geneva has in common with all other lakes, but which it has in distinction from those which are narrow, or shallow

”Meet and flow” Why meet and flow? Partly to make up a rhyme; partly to tell us that the waters are forceful as well as eful as well as deep Observe, a farther addition of details, and of detailsto Reynolds's definition, of ”heavy ination”

So far the fatho are not fathom lines If the lake was ever sounded from Chillon, it was probably sounded in metres, not fathoms This is an addition of another particular detail, in which the only compliance with Reynolds's require an inaccurate one

From Chillon's snohite battlement

Why snohite? Because castle battlements are not usually snohite

This is another added detail, and a detail quite peculiar to Chillon, and therefore exactly the e

”Battlement”! Why battlement? Because all walls have not battlements, and the addition of the term marks the castle to be not merely a prison, but a fortress

This is a curious result Instead of finding, as we expected, the poetry distinguished from the history by the omission of details, we find it consist entirely in the _addition_ of details; and instead of being characterized by regard only of the invariable, we find its whole power to consist in the clear expression of what is singular and particular!

The reader ation for himself in other instances He will find in every case that a poetical is distinguished froue, but ht, therefore, at first appear that our author's comparison should be simply reversed, and that the Dutch School should be called poetical, and the Italian historical But the terenerality of Dutch painting; and a little reflection will show us, that if the Italians represent only the invariable, they cannot be properly compared even to historians For that which is incapable of change has no history, and records which state only the invariable need not be written, and could not be read

It is evident, therefore, that our author has entangled hi this idea of invariableness as for a distinction between poetical and historical art What the fallacy is, we shall discover as we proceed; but as an invading army should not leave an untaken fortress in its rear, we o on with our inquiry into the views of Reynolds until we have settled satisfactorily the question already suggested to us, in what the essence of poetical treath, as we have seen, it certainly involves the addition of specific details, it cannot be simply that addition which turns the history into poetry

For it is perfectly possible to add any number of details to a historical statement, and to make it more prosaic with every added word As, for instance, ”The lake was sounded out of a flat-bottoarden, and was found to be a thousand feet nine inches deep, with a muddy bottom” It thus appears that it is not the multiplication of details which constitutes poetry; nor their subtraction which constitutes history, but that thereeither in the nature of the details the them, which invests them with poetical power or historical propriety

It seee that we should need to ask the question, ”What is poetry?” Here is a e have been using all our lives, and, I suppose, with a very distinct idea attached to it; and when I aive a definition of this idea, I find ular, I do not at present recollect hearing the question often asked, though surely it is a very natural one; and I never recollect hearing it answered, or even atteeneral, people shelter themselves under metaphors, and while we hear poetry described as an utterance of the soul, an effusion of Divinity, or voice of nature, or in other ter like a definite explanation of the character which actually distinguishes it from prose

I come, after sogestion, by the irounds for the noble emotions”[39] I mean, by the noble emotions, those four principal sacred passions--Love, Veneration, Admiration, and Joy (this latter especially, if unselfish); and their opposites--Hatred, Indignation (or Scorn), Horror, and Grief,--this last, when unselfish, beco Compassion These passions in their various co,” when they are felt on noble grounds, that is, on great and true grounds Indignation, for instance, is a poetical feeling, if excited by serious injury; but it is not a poetical feeling if entertained on being cheated out of a small sum of money It is very possible the manner of the cheat nation; but the feeling is nevertheless not poetical unless the grounds of it be large as well as just In like etic admiration may be excited in certain minds by a display of fireworks, or a street of handsorounds of it are false, and therefore ignoble There is in reality nothing to deserve adunpowder, or in the display of the stocks of warehouses But ad of a flower is a poetical feeling, because it is impossible that this manifestation of spiritual power and vital beauty can ever be enough admired

Farther, it is necessary to the existence of poetry that the grounds of these feelings should be _furnished by the i, that is to say, mere noble emotion, is not poetry It is happily inherent in all hu the name, and is found often to be purest in the least sophisticated But the power of assees as will excite these feelings, is the power of the poet or literally of the ”Maker”[40]

Now this power of exciting the eination, and on its choice of those ies which, in combination, will be most effective, or, for the particular work to be done, ether impossible for a writer not endoith invention to conceive what tools a true poet will make use of, or in ay he will apply the out by theht to possess, or ever do possess, any _definite_ character Generally speaking, poetry runs into finer and more delicate details than prose; but the details are not poetical because they areout an affecting result For instance, no one but a true poet would have thought of exciting our pity for a bereaved father by describing his way of locking the door of his house:

Perhaps to himself at that moment he said, The key I must take, for my Ellen is dead; But of this in my ears not a word did he speak; And he went to the chase with a tear on his cheek[41]

In like ether ireat painter may make poetical by his use of them to excite noble emotions: and we shall, therefore, find presently that a painting is to be classed in the great or inferior schools, not according to the kind of details which it represents, but according to the uses for which it employs them

It is only farther to be noticed, that infinite confusion has been introduced into this subject by the careless and illogical custo poetry as consisting in a noble use, whether of colours or words Painting is properly to be opposed to _speaking_ or _writing_, but not to _poetry_ Both painting and speaking are methods of expression Poetry is the employment of either for the noblest purposes

This question being thus far determined, we may proceed with our paper in the _Idler_