262 Right Rev. W. Boyd Carpenter [March 15, 



critics ? And what interesting creature has led him to change his 

 mind ? Our reader examines more carefully. The poet is the same. 

 The dates of the Reviews are now examined. The dates of the 

 abusive article are in the early part of the century ; the kindly and 

 laudatory articles are less than a generation later. The reader is 

 more perplexed than before. Is there any fixed canon of poetry ? he 

 asks. AVas that good poetry in 1834 that was vile stuff in 1824 ? 

 If opinion can jump about in this style, how can any simple student 

 know how to direct his steps ? Poetry has been an art for thousands 

 of years. Do we know so little about it that we cannot apply any 

 fixed standard to estimate its value ? Is there no golden rod by 

 which we may measure it ? 



Here we open up a question too great to answer ; my time this 

 afternoon, my capacity at any time, is, I think, not equal to the task. 

 Nevertheless, lest you should think me cowardly, let me say one 

 word on theoretical conceptions of poetry. I have found them one 

 and all to be wanting. Tliey may be summarized in this way. Some 

 give us a vague definition which includes too much ; some, on the 

 other hand, attempt the would-be exact definition which usually 

 excludes some essential quality ; and, lastly, there is the descriptive 

 attempt, which of course does not define at all. 



When Milton tells us that poetry should be simple, sensuous and 

 passionate, he speaks of qualities which we can probably admit are 

 qualities indispensable to good poetry ; but he does not define poetry 

 any more than you define a man by telling us that he must have 

 form, reason and volition. 



When Mr. Swinburne tells us that poetry should possess imagina- 

 tion and harmony, we quite assent, but we feel that we are no nearer 

 a definition of poetry. 



As one who has expressed a dissatisfaction with attempted 

 definitions, perhaps I may be allowed to go further and express, 

 with much hesitation and deference, the doubt whether any true and 

 real definition of poety can be given. Let us put this in another 

 way. Can we ever define that which is in its nature beyond science ? 

 Within the limits of science we may and we must define ; but there 

 are regions in which science is a stranger. Science walks on two 

 feet ; but imagination has wings, and science, with rule and compass, 

 cannot follow her in her flight. We know that poetry, like imagina- 

 tion, has eyes which can pierce beneath the surface of things, and 

 wings that can lift her heavenward. But when we try to hold her 

 fast that we may make an inventory of her dimensions she escapes 

 from lis. That which has its home in heaven must ever elude the 

 grasp of earth. 



But if some demur to this view, perhaps they will l)e more in 

 agreement with me when I say that the definitions we quoted were 

 given by poets, and if anyone can give a definition of poetry, least 

 of all can the poet do so. The man of science may tell us how a 



