Part 7 (2/2)

This is not, nor could it for a e of passion It is simple falsehood, uttered by hypocrisy; definite absurdity, rooted in affectation, and coldly asserted in the teeth of nature and fact Passion will indeed go far in deceiving itself; but itpassion, not the si Coe in Wordsworth, in which the lover has lost his rave been laid, When thus his e, from behind yon oak, Or let the ancient tree uprooted lie, That in some other way yon smoke May ed bough, Headlong, the waterfall , sweet streae to be moved, if not alistening: but hat different relation to the ony, the soul cries out wildly for relief, which at the same moment it partly knows to be iue iive relief even to a less sore distress,--that nature is kind, and God is kind, and that grief is strong; it knows not hat _is_ possible to such grief To silence a streaht think it could do as h to illustrate thethe pathetic fallacy,--that so far as it is a fallacy, it is always the sign of a morbid state of mind, and comparatively of a weak one Even in the n of the incapacity of his huht to bear what has been revealed to it In ordinary poetry, if it is found in the thoughts of the poet hi to the inferior school; if in the thoughts of the characters ienuineness of the e necessarily _soree of weakness in the character

Take two most exquisite instances from master hands The Jessy of Shenstone, and the Ellen of Wordsworth, have both been betrayed and deserted Jessy, in the course of her arden's flowery tribes I stray, Where blooht in us,” they say, ”For we are spotless, Jessy; we are pure”[71]

Compare with this sohing to herself, ”Why do not words, and kiss, and solee, And nature, that is kind in woood, And fear of Hie,-- Why do not these prevail for hutiiveness sweet To grant, or be received; while that poor bird-- O, come and hear hih a lowly creature, One of God's simple children that yet know not The Universal Parent, _how_ he sings!

As if he wished the firive back to him the voice Of his triumphant constancy and love; The proclamation that he ht”[72]

The perfection of both these passages, as far as regards truth and tenderness of iination in the two poets, is quite insuperable But of the two characters iined, Jessy is weaker than Ellen, exactly in so far as so appears to her to be in nature which is not The flowers do not really reproach her God meant them to comfort her, not to taunt her; they would do so if she saw thehtly

Ellen, on the other hand, is quite above the slightest erring emotion

There is not the barest filhts She reasons as cal of the bird suggests to her the idea of its desiring to be heard in heaven, she does not for an instant adht

”As if,” she says,--”I know heof the kind; but it does verily see the rest of the poehout consistent in this clear though passionate strength[73]

It then being, I hope, now made clear to the reader in all respects that the pathetic fallacy is powerful only so far as it is pathetic, feeble so far as it is fallacious, and, therefore, that the dominion of Truth is entire, over this, as over every other natural and just state of the hu hich this prefatory inquiry became necessary; and why necessary, we shall see forthwith

[52] Three short sections discussing the use of the terms ”Objective”

and ”Subjective” have been o of this chapter

[53] Holmes (Oliver Wendell), quoted by Miss Mitford in her _Recollections of a Literary Life_ [Ruskin] From _Astraea, a Poee_ The passage in which these lines are found was later published as _Spring_

[54] Kingsley's _Alton Locke_, chap 26

[55] I admit two orders of poets, but no third; and by these two orders I mean the creative (Shakspere, Homer, Dante), and Reflective or Perceptive (Wordsworth, Keats, Tennyson) But both of these e is different; and with poetry second-rate in _quality_ no one ought to be allowed to trouble h of the best,--th of a life; and it is a literal wrong or sin in any person to encuiespseudo-poets, ”that they believe there is _soood in what they have written: that they hope to do better in tiood, there is no good If they ever hope to do better, why do they trouble us now? Let theeously burn all they have done, and wait for the better days

There are fewcould not strike out a poetical thought, and afterwards polish it so as to be presentable But men of sense know better than so to waste their time; and those who sincerely love poetry, know the touch of thethem after him Nay, ood, inasmuch as it takes away the freshness of rhyood thoughts; and, in general, adds to the weight of human weariness in a hts likely to come across ordinary reater enerous,to remember and point out the perfect words, than to invent poorer ones, ith to encumber temporarily the world [Ruskin]

[56] _Inferno_, 3 112

[57] _Christabel_, 1 49-50

[58] ”Well said, old round so fast?”--[Ruskin]

[59] _Odyssey_, 11 57-58

[60] It is worth while co the way a similar question is put by the exquisite sincerity of Keats:--

He wept, and his bright tears Went trickling down the golden bow he held

Thus, with half-shut, suffused eyes, he stood; While frohs hard by With solemn step an awful Goddess came, And there was purport in her looks for hian to read Perplex'd, the while melodiously he said, _”How cam'st thou over the unfooted sea?”_

_Hyperion_, 3 42--[Ruskin]

[61] See Wordsworth's _Peter Bell_, Part I:--

A primrose by a river's bri more