SCIENCE AA T D POETRY. 375 



character of the plant's colour and form, considering each 

 of its attributes as an element of expression, he seizes on its 

 lines of grace or energy, rigidity or repose, notes the feeble- 

 ness or the vigour, the serenity or tremulousness of its 

 hues. . . . Thenceforward the flower is to him a living 

 creature, with histories written on its leaves and passions 

 breathing in its motion. Its occurrence in his picture is 

 no mere point of colour, no meaningless spark of light. 

 It is a voice rising from the earth, a new chord of the mind's 

 music, a necessary note in the harmony of his picture, con- 

 tributing alike to its tenderness and its dignity, nor less 

 to its loveliness and its truth." 



Here Mr. Ruskin, in so far as he is detailing the happy 

 effects of association with nature, and of a study of natural 

 objects on the poet's and painter's mind, is both eloquent 

 and impressive. But to his assertion that the sole end and 

 aim of the botanist's study is merely that of finding a new 

 species, or of affixing a name, I for one must oppose a strong 

 denial. That "strain" of assuming the necessary oppo- 

 sition and antagonism of science and poetry, appears to 

 have " a dying fall," and but a weakly support in facts. It 

 seems to me that unless you maintain the absurd doctrine 

 that complete ignorance of natural objects is the best form 

 of poetic nurture, unless poetry and ignorance of nature 

 have met together and have kissed each other, you must 

 own that a knowledge of nature should rather aid the 

 poetic faculty, by extending your range of vision, by reveal- 

 ing new and hitherto unknown harmonies of nature, and by 

 teaching you to read the inner voices of nature, which are 

 all unknown to the mere surface observer. Peter Bell 

 and his primrose appears exactly to parallel Mr. Ruskin's 

 painter and the flower. I do not deny that there are 

 beauties of form, and delicacies of colour, which these 

 observers might appreciate, and through which the poetic 

 sentiment might be aroused. But I fail to see that the 

 mere surface-consideration of the flower is better fitted to 

 evoke " expression and emotion " than a knowledge of the 



