Poetic Interpretation 155 



tlon on the subject-matter. It is unscientific. 

 The child could learn poetry by the yard, he 

 said, and yet not know how many toes the 

 bobolink has, nor the shape and size of its 

 wings. The pupil gains no comparative knowl- 

 edge of bird with bird. The poem is untrue. 

 The bobolink is not "drest" : he has no clothes. 

 He has no wife: he is mated, not wed. 



I could only reply that the bobolink's toes 

 have little relation to men's lives, however much 

 they may have to bobolinks' lives; but the 

 bobolink may mean much to men's lives. To 

 a man studying ornithology — and I wish there 

 were more — the toes are important; but I 

 am seeking a fresh and firmer hold on life. 

 I should rather know the song of the bobolink 

 than to know all about the structure of the bird; 

 of course, I should prefer to know both, if I 

 could. To be sure, I should study the bobolink 

 before I studied the poem; but I should want a 

 real bobolink, not a stuffed specimen. If I 

 were obliged to choose betsveen lessons on 

 stuffed bobolinks and the poem, I should take 

 the poem: there is more bobolink in it. 



