We find it difficult to recall a single writer among all who have
written on the subject of poetry who has not evaded the attempt to
describe what is poetical as such, let alone a clear definition. And in
fact if any one begins a discussion upon poetry, regarded as an art,
without previously having investigated the nature of the content and
mode of conception appropriate to Art in its most general terms, he
will find it an extremely difficult matter to determine where we must
look for that in which the essential character of poetry consists. To
an exceptional degree is this failure to tackle this problem visible in
those cases where a writer takes as his point of departure the actual
execution in particular works of art, and seeks to establish, by means
of this connoisseurship, some general principle which he may apply as
relevant to every sort and kind of composition. In this way works of
the most heterogeneous character come to rank as genuine poetry. If we
once start from such assumptions, and then proceed to the inquiry by
virtue of what productions of this nature can be reasonably classed
together as poems we are at once confronted with the difficulty I have
above adverted to. Happily our own position here is not that of these
inquirers. In the first place we have by no manner of means arrived
at the general notion of our subject-matter through an examination
of any particular examples of its display; we have on the contrary
sought to evolve the actual constitution of the same by a reference to
the fundamental notion.[1] Agreeably with this it is not part of our
demand that everything in ordinary parlance regarded as poetry should
in our present inquiry fall into the general notion we have accepted.
At least this is certainly not so in so far as the decision whether any
particular work is or is not poetical is only deducible from the notion
itself. Furthermore it is unnecessary now to expound more fully what we
understand by the notion of poetry. To do this we should simply have to
repeat again the course of our inquiry into the nature of Beauty and
the Ideal as developed in general terms in the first part of this work.
The intrinsic character of what is poetical stands in general agreement
with the generic notion of artistic beauty and the art-product. That
is to say, the imagination of the poet is not, as is the case with
the plastic arts and music by reason of the nature of the _materia_,
through which they are reproductive, constrained in its creative
activity in many directions, and forced to accept many others of a
onesided or very partial completeness; it is on the contrary merely
subservient to the essential requirements and general principle of an
ideal and artistic presentation.
From the many different points of view applicable to our present
purpose, I will attempt to emphasize merely those of most importance,
as for example, _firsts_ that which relates to the distinction between
the _mode of composition_ employed respectively by poetry and prose;
_secondly_, that which contrasts a _poetical work_ as completed with
one of prose; and, _finally_, I propose to add a few observations
relative to the subjective faculty which creates, or, shall we say,
the _poet_ himself.