Skip to content

Of the ‘pathetic fallacy’.

By John Ruskin.

NOW, THEREFORE, PUTTING these tiresome and absurd words1 quite out of our way, we may go on at our ease to examine the point in question,–namely, the difference between the ordinary, proper, and true appearances of things to us; and the extraordinary, or false appearances, when we are under the influence of emotion, or contemplative fancy; false appearances, I say, as being entirely unconnected with any real power or character in the object, and only imputed to it by us.

For instance–

The spendthrift crocus, bursting through the mould
Naked and shivering, with his cup of gold.

This is very beautiful, and yet very untrue. The crocus is not a spendthrift, but a hardy plant; its yellow is not gold, but saffron. How is it that we enjoy so much the having it put into our heads that it is anything else than a plain crocus?

It is an important question. For, throughout our past reasonings about art, we have always found that nothing could be good or useful, or ultimately pleasurable, which was untrue. But here is something pleasurable in written poetry which is nevertheless untrue. And what is more, if we think over our favourite poetry, we shall find it full of this kind of fallacy, and that we like it all the more for being so.

It will appear also, on consideration of the matter, that this fallacy is of two principal kinds. Either, as in this case of the crocus, it is the fallacy of wilful fancy, which involves no real expectation that it will be believed; or else it is a fallacy caused by an excited state of the feelings, making us, for the time, more or less irrational. Of the cheating of the fancy we shall have to speak presently; but, in this chapter, I want to examine the nature of the other error, that which the mind admits when affected strongly by emotion. Thus, for instance, in Alton Locke,–

They rowed her in across the rolling foam–
The cruel, crawling foam.3

The foam is not cruel, neither does it crawl. The state of mind which attributes to it these characters of a living creature is one in which the reason is unhinged by grief. All violent feelings have the same effect. They produce in us a falseness in all our impressions of external things, which I would generally characterize as the “pathetic fallacy.”

NOW WE ARE in the habit of considering this fallacy as eminently a character of poetical description, and the temper of mind in which we allow it, as one eminently poetical, because passionate. But I believe, if we look well into the matter, that we shall find the greatest poets do not often admit this kind of falseness,–that it is only the second order of poets who much delight in it.4 Thus, when Dante describes the spirits falling from the bank of Acheron “as dead leaves flutter from a bough,”5 he gives the most perfect image possible of their utter lightness, feebleness, passiveness, and scattering agony of despair, without, however, for an instant losing his own clear perception that these are souls, and those are leaves; he makes no confusion of one with the other. But when Coleridge speaks of

The one red leaf, the last of its clan,
That dances as often as dance it can,6

he has a morbid, that is to say, a so far false, idea about the leaf; he fancies a life in it, and will, which there are not; confuses its powerlessness with choice, its fading death with merriment, and the wind that shakes it with music. Here, however, there is some beauty, even in the morbid passage; but take an instance in Homer and Pope. Without the knowledge of Ulysses, Elpenor, his youngest follower, has fallen from an upper chamber in the Circean palace, and has been left dead, unmissed by his leader or companions, in the haste of their departure. They cross the sea to the Cimmerian land; and Ulysses summons the shades from Tartarus. The first which appears is that of the lost Elpenor. Ulysses, amazed, and in exactly the spirit of bitter and terrified lightness which is seen in Hamlet,7 addresses the spirit with the simple, startled words:–

Elpenor! How camest thou under the shadowy darkness? Hast thou come faster on foot than I in my black ship?8

Which Pope renders thus:–

O, say, what angry power Elpenor led
To glide in shades, and wander with the dead?
How could thy soul, by realms and seas disjoined,
Outfly the nimble sail, and leave the lagging wind?

I sincerely hope the reader finds no pleasure here, either in the nimbleness of the sail, or the laziness of the wind! And yet how is it that these conceits are so painful now, when they have been pleasant to us in the other instances?

For a very simple reason. They are not a pathetic fallacy at all, for they are put into the mouth of the wrong passion–a passion which never could possibly have spoken them–agonized curiosity. Ulysses wants to know the facts of the matter; and the very last thing his mind could do at the moment would be to pause, or suggest in anywise what was not a fact. The delay in the first three lines, and conceit in the last, jar upon us instantly like the most frightful discord in music. No poet of true imaginative power could possibly have written the passage.9

Therefore we see that the spirit of truth must guide us in some sort, even in our enjoyment of fallacy. Coleridge’s fallacy has no discord in it, but Pope’s has set our teeth on edge. Without farther questioning, I will endeavour to state the main bearings of this matter.

THE TEMPERAMENT WHICH admits the pathetic fallacy, is, as I said above, that of a mind and body in some sort too weak to deal fully with what is before them or upon them; borne away, or over-clouded, or over-dazzled by emotion; and it is a more or less noble state, according to the force of the emotion which has induced it. For it is no credit to a man that he is not morbid or inaccurate in his perceptions, when he has no strength of feeling to warp them; and it is in general a sign of higher capacity and stand in the ranks of being, that the emotions should be strong enough to vanquish, partly, the intellect, and make it believe what they choose. But it is still a grander condition when the intellect also rises, till it is strong enough to assert its rule against, or together with, the utmost efforts of the passions; and the whole man stands in an iron glow, white hot, perhaps, but still strong, and in no wise evaporating; even if he melts, losing none of his weight.

So, then, we have the three ranks: the man who perceives rightly, because he does not feel, and to whom the primrose is very accurately the primrose,10 because he does not love it. Then, secondly, the man who perceives wrongly, because he feels, and to whom the primrose is anything else than a primrose: a star, or a sun, or a fairy’s shield, or a forsaken maiden. And then, lastly, there is the man who perceives rightly in spite of his feelings, and to whom the primrose is for ever nothing else than itself–a little flower apprehended in the very plain and leafy fact of it, whatever and how many soever the associations and passions may be that crowd around it. And, in general, these three classes may be rated in comparative order, as the men who are not poets at all, and the poets of the second order, and the poets of the first; only however great a man may be, there are always some subjects which ought to throw him off his balance; some, by which his poor human capacity of thought should be conquered, and brought into the inaccurate and vague state of perception, so that the language of the highest inspiration becomes broken, obscure, and wild in metaphor, resembling that of the weaker man, overborne by weaker things.

And thus, in full, there are four classes: the men who feel nothing, and therefore see truly; the men who feel strongly, think weakly, and see untruly (second order of poets); the men who feel strongly, think strongly, and see truly (first order of poets); and the men who, strong as human creatures can be, are yet submitted to influences stronger than they, and see in a sort untruly, because what they see is inconceivably above them. This last is the usual condition of prophetic inspiration.

I separate these classes, in order that their character may be clearly understood; but of course they are united each to the other by imperceptible transitions, and the same mind, according to the influences to which it is subjected, passes at different times into the various states. Still, the difference between the great and less man is, on the whole, chiefly in this point of alterability. That is to say, the one knows too much, and perceives and feels too much of the past and future, and of all things beside and around that which immediately affects him, to be in any wise shaken by it. His mind is made up; his thoughts have an accustomed current; his ways are stedfast; it is not this or that new sight which will at once unbalance him. He is tender to impression at the surface, like a rock with deep moss upon it; but there is too much mass of him to be moved. The smaller man, with the same degree of sensibility, is at once carried off his feet; he wants to do something he did not want to do before; he views all the universe in a new light through his tears; he is gay or enthusiastic, melancholy or passionate, as things come and go to him. Therefore the high creative poet might even be thought, to a great extent, impassive (as shallow people think Dante stern), receiving indeed all feelings to the full, but having a great centre of reflection and knowledge in which he stands serene, and watches the feeling, as it were, from far off.

Dante, in his most intense moods, has entire command of himself, and can look around calmly, at all moments, for the image or the word that will best tell what he sees to the upper or lower world. But Keats and Tennyson, and the poets of the second order, are generally themselves subdued by the feelings under which they write, or, at least, write as choosing to be so; and therefore admit certain expressions and modes of thought which are in some sort diseased or false.

Now so long as we see that the feeling is true, we pardon, or are even pleased by, the confessed fallacy of sight which it induces: we are pleased, for instance, with those lines of Kingsley’s above quoted, not because they fallaciously describe foam, but because they faithfully describe sorrow. But the moment the mind of the speaker becomes cold, that moment every such expression becomes untrue, as being for ever untrue in the external facts. And there is no greater baseness in literature than the habit of using these metaphorical expressions in cool blood. An inspired writer, in full impetuosity of passion, may speak wisely and truly of “raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame”;11 but it is only the basest writer who cannot speak of the sea without talking of “raging waves,” “remorseless floods,” “ravenous billows,” etc.; and it is one of the signs of the highest power in a writer to check all such habits of thought, and to keep his eyes fixed firmly on the pure fact, out of which if any feeling comes to him or his reader, he knows it must be a true one.

To keep to the waves, I forget who it is who represents a man in despair desiring that his body may be cast into the sea,

Whose changing mound, and foam that passed away,
Might mock the eye that questioned where I lay.

Observe, there is not a single false, or even overcharged, expression. “Mound” of the sea wave is perfectly simple and true; “changing” is as familiar as may be; “foam that passed away,” strictly literal; and the whole line descriptive of the reality with a degree of accuracy which I know not any other verse, in the range of poetry, that altogether equals. For most people have not a distinct idea of the clumsiness and massiveness of a large wave. The word “wave” is used too generally of ripples and breakers, and bendings in light drapery or grass: it does not by itself convey a perfect image. But the word “mound” is heavy, large, dark, definite; there is no mistaking the kind of wave meant, nor missing the sight of it. Then the term “changing” has a peculiar force also. Most people think of waves as rising and falling. But if they look at the sea carefully, they will perceive that the waves do not rise and fall. They change. Change both place and form, but they do not fall; one wave goes on, and on, and still on; now lower, now higher, now tossing its mane like a horse, now building itself together like a wall, now shaking, now steady, but still the same wave, till at last it seems struck by something, and changes, one knows not how,–becomes another wave.

The close of the line insists on this image, and paints it still more perfectly,–”foam that passed away.” Not merely melting, disappearing, but passing on, out of sight, on the career of the wave. Then, having put the absolute ocean fact as far as he may before our eyes, the poet leaves us to feel about it as we may, and to trace for ourselves the opposite fact,–the image of the green mounds that do not change, and the white and written stones that do not pass away; and thence to follow out also the associated images of the calm life with the quiet grave, and the despairing life with the fading foam–

Let no man move his bones.

As for Samaria, her king is cut off like the foam upon the water.12

But nothing of this is actually told or pointed out, and the expressions, as they stand, are perfectly severe and accurate, utterly uninfluenced by the firmly governed emotion of the writer. Even the word “mock” is hardly an exception, as it may stand merely for “deceive” or “defeat,” without implying any impersonation of the waves.

IT MAY BE well, perhaps, to give one or two more instances to show the peculiar dignity possessed by all passages, which thus limit their expression to the pure fact, and leave the hearer to gather what he can from it. Here is a notable one from the Iliad. Helen, looking from the Scaean gate of Troy over the Grecian host, and telling Priam the names of its captains, says at last:–

I see all the other dark-eyed Greeks; but two I cannot see,–Castor and Pollux,–whom one mother bore with me. Have they not followed from fair Lacedaemon, or have they indeed come in their sea-wandering ships, but now will not enter into the battle of men, fearing the shame and the scorn that is in Me?

Then Homer:–

So she spoke. But them, already, the life-giving earth possessed, there in Lacedaemon, in the dear fatherland.13

Note, here, the high poetical truth carried to the extreme. The poet has to speak of the earth in sadness, but he will not let that sadness affect or change his thoughts of it. No; though Castor and Pollux be dead, yet the earth is our mother still, fruitful, life-giving. These are the facts of the thing. I see nothing else than these. Make what you will of them.

Take another very notable instance from Casimir de la Vigne’s terrible ballad, “La Toilette de Constance.” I must quote a few lines out of it here and there, to enable the reader who has not the book by him, to understand its close.

“Vite, Anna! vite; au miroir!
    Plus vite, Anna. L’heure s’avance,
Et je vais au bal ce soir
    Chez l’ambassadeur de France.

“Y pensez-vous? ils sont fanes, ces noeuds;
    Ils sont d’hier; mon Dieu, comme tout passe!
Que du reseau qui retient mes cheveux
    Les glands d’azur retombent avec grace.
Plus haut! Plus bas! Vous ne comprenez rien!
    Que sur mon front ce saphir etincelle:
Vous me piquez, maladroite. Ah, c’est bien,
    Bien,–chere Anna! Je t’aime, je suis belle.”

“Celui qu’en vain je voudrais oublier …
    (Anna, ma robe) il y sera, j’espere.
(Ah, fi! profane, est-ce la mon collier?
    Quoi! ces grains d’or benits par le Saint-Pere!)
II y sera; Dieu, s’il pressait ma main,
    En y pensant a peine je respire:
Frere Anselmo doit m’entendre demain,
    Comment ferai-je, Anna, pour tout lui dire?…

        “Vite! un coup d’oeil au miroir,
                Le dernier.–J’ai l’assurance
            Qu’on va m’adorer ce soir Chez l’ambassadeur de France.”

Pres du foyer, Constance s’admirait.
    Dieu! sur sa robe il vole une etincelle!
Au feu! Courez! Quand l’espoir l’enivrait,
    Tout perdre ainsi! Quoi! Mourir,–et si belle!
L’horrible feu ronge avec volupte
    Ses bras, son sein, et l’entoure, et s’eleve,
Et sans pitie devore sa beaute,
    Ses dix-huit ans, helas, et son doux reve!

        Adieu, bal, plaisir, amour!
            On disait, Pauvre Constance!
        Et l’on dansa, jusqu’au jour,
            Chez l’ambassadeur de France.14

Yes, that is the fact of it. Right or wrong, the poet does not say. What you may think about it, he does not know. He has nothing to do with that. There lie the ashes of the dead girl in her chamber. There they danced, till the morning, at the Ambassador’s of France. Make what you will of it.

If the reader will look through the ballad, of which I have quoted only about the third part, he will find that there is not, from beginning to end of it, a single poetical (so called) expression, except in one stanza. The girl speaks as simple prose as may be; there is not a word she would not have actually used as she was dressing. The poet stands by, impassive as a statue, recording her words just as they come. At last the doom seizes her, and in the very presence of death, for an instant, his own emotions conquer him. He records no longer the facts only, but the facts as they seem to him. The fire gnaws with voluptuousness – without pity. It is soon past. The fate is fixed for ever; and he retires into his pale and crystalline atmosphere of truth. He closes all with the calm veracity,

They said, “Poor Constance!”

NOW IN THIS there is the exact type of the consummate poetical temperament. For, be it clearly and constantly remembered, that the greatness of a poet depends upon the two faculties, acuteness of feeling, and command of it. A poet is great, first in proportion to the strength of his passion, and then, that strength being granted, in proportion to his government of it; there being, however, always a point beyond which it would be inhuman and monstrous if he pushed this government, and, therefore, a point at which all feverish and wild fancy becomes just and true. Thus the destruction of the kingdom of Assyria cannot be contemplated firmly by a prophet of Israel. The fact is too great, too wonderful. It overthrows him, dashes him into a confused element of dreams. All the world is, to his stunned thought, full of strange voices. “Yea, the fir-trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying. ‘Since thou art gone down to the grave, no feller is come up against us.'”15 So, still more, the thought of the presence of Deity cannot be borne without this great astonishment. “The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.”16

But by how much this feeling is noble when it is justified by the strength of its cause, by so much it is ignoble when there is not cause enough for it; and beyond all other ignobleness is the mere affectation of it, in hardness of heart. Simply bad writing may almost always, as above noticed, be known by its adoption of these fanciful metaphorical expressions as a sort of current coin; yet there is even a worse, at least a more harmful condition of writing than this, in which such expressions are not ignorantly and feelinglessly caught up, but, by some master, skilful in handling, yet insincere, deliberately wrought out with chill and studied fancy; as if we should try to make an old lava-stream look red-hot again, by covering it with dead leaves, or white-hot, with hoar-frost.

When Young is lost in veneration, as he dwells on the character of a truly good and holy man, he permits himself for a moment to be overborne by the feeling so far as to exclaim–

Where shall I find him? angels, tell me where.
You know him; he is near you; point him out.
Shall I see glories beaming from his brow,
Or trace his footsteps by the rising flowers?17

This emotion has a worthy cause, and is thus true and right. But now hear the cold-hearted Pope say to a shepherd girl–

Where’er you walk, cool gales shall fan the glade;
Trees, where you sit, shall crowd into a shade;
Your praise the birds shall chant in every grove,
And winds shall waft it to the powers above.
But would you sing, and rival Orpheus’ strain,
The wondering forests soon should dance again;
The moving mountains hear the powerful call,
And headlong streams hang, listening, in their fall.18

This is not, nor could it for a moment be mistaken for, the language 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 it must be a strong passion, not the simple wish of a lover to tempt his mistress to sing. Compare a very closely parallel passage in Wordsworth, in which the lover has lost his mistress:–

Three years had Barbara in her grave been laid,
When thus his moan he made:–

“Oh, move, thou cottage, from behind yon oak,
    Or let the ancient tree uprooted lie,
That in some other way yon smoke
    May mount into the sky.
If still behind yon pine-tree’s ragged bough,
    Headlong, the waterfall must come,
    Oh, let it, then, be dumb–
Be anything, sweet stream, but that which thou art now.”19

Here is a cottage to be moved, if not a mountain, and a water-fall to be silent, if it is not to hang listening: but with what different relation to the mind that contemplates them! Here, in the extremity of its agony, the soul cries out wildly for relief, which at the same moment it partly knows to be impossible, but partly believes possible, in a vague impression that a miracle might be wrought to give relief even to a less sore distress,–that nature is kind, and God is kind, and that grief is strong; it knows not well what is possible to such grief. To silence a stream, to move a cottage wall,–one might think it could do as much as that!

I believe these instances are enough to illustrate the main point I insist upon respecting the 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 most inspired prophet it is a sign of the incapacity of his human sight or thought to bear what has been revealed to it. In ordinary poetry, if it is found in the thoughts of the poet himself, it is at once a sign of his belonging to the inferior school; if in the thoughts of the characters imagined by him, it is right or wrong according to the genuineness of the emotion from which it springs; always, however, implying necessarily some degree 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 most touching complaint says:–

If through the garden’s flowery tribes I stray,
Where bloom the jasmines that could once allure,
“Hope not to find delight in us,” they say,
“For we are spotless, Jessy; we are pure.”20

Compare with this some of the words of Ellen:–

“Ah, why,” said Ellen, sighing to herself,
“Why do not words, and kiss, and solemn pledge,
And nature, that is kind in woman’s breast,
And reason, that in man is wise and good,
And fear of Him who is a righteous Judge,–
Why do not these prevail for human life,
To keep two hearts together, that began
Their springtime with one love, and that have need
Of mutual pity and forgiveness sweet
To grant, or be received; while that poor bird–
O, come and hear him! Thou who hast to me
Been faithless, hear him;–though a lowly creature,
One of God’s simple children that yet know not
The Universal Parent, how he sings!
As if he wished the firmament of heaven
Should listen, and give back to him the voice
Of his triumphant constancy and love;
The proclamation that he makes, how far
His darkness doth transcend our fickle light.”21

The perfection of both these passages, as far as regards truth and tenderness of imagination in the two poets, is quite insuperable. But of the two characters imagined, Jessy is weaker than Ellen, exactly in so far as something 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 them rightly.

Ellen, on the other hand, is quite above the slightest erring emotion. There is not the barest film of fallacy in all her thoughts. She reasons as calmly as if she did not feel. And, although the singing of the bird suggests to her the idea of its desiring to be heard in heaven, she does not for an instant admit any veracity in the thought. “As if,” she says,–”I know he means nothing of the kind; but it does verily seem as if.” The reader will find, by examining the rest of the poem, that Ellen’s character is throughout consistent in this clear though passionate strength.22

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 human mind, we may go on to the subject for the dealing with which this prefatory inquiry became necessary; and why necessary, we shall see forthwith.

This excerpt is published in The Fortnightly Review to accompany “The Janus Face of Metaphor” by Alan Wall and the republication of “Metaphor and the Pathetic Fallacy” by Roden Noel.

NOTES (citations in Vol. III begin at note 52):

  1. Three short sections discussing the use of the terms “Objective” and “Subjective” have been omitted from the beginning of this chapter–which is the twelfth from Modern Painters, vol. III (via Project Gutenberg).
  2. Holmes (Oliver Wendell), quoted by Miss Mitford in her Recollections of a Literary Life. (Ruskin.) From “Astraea, a Poem delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Yale College”. The passage in which these lines are found was later published as “Spring”.
  3. Kingsley’s Alton Locke, chap. 26.
  4. 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 must be first-rate in their range, though their range is different; and with poetry second-rate in quality no one ought to be allowed to trouble mankind. There is quite enough of the best,–much more than we can ever read or enjoy in the length of a life; and it is a literal wrong or sin in any person to encumber us with inferior work. I have no patience with apologies made by young pseudo-poets, “that they believe there is some good in what they have written: that they hope to do better in time,” etc. Some good! If there is not all good, there is no good. If they ever hope to do better, why do they trouble us now? Let them rather courageously burn all they have done, and wait for the better days. There are few men, ordinarily educated, who in moments of strong feeling could 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 the master’s hand on the chords too well to fumble among them after him. Nay, more than this, all inferior poetry is an injury to the good, inasmuch as it takes away the freshness of rhymes, blunders upon and gives a wretched commonalty to good thoughts; and, in general, adds to the weight of human weariness in a most woful and culpable manner. There are few thoughts likely to come across ordinary men, which have not already been expressed by greater men in the best possible way; and it is a wiser, more generous, more noble thing to remember and point out the perfect words, than to invent poorer ones, wherewith to encumber temporarily the world. (Ruskin.)
  5. Inferno, 3. 112.
  6. Christabel, 1. 49-50.
  7. “Well said, old mole! can’st work i’ the ground so fast?”–(Ruskin.)
  8. Odyssey, 11. 57-58.
  9. It is worth while comparing 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 from beneath some cumbrous boughs hard by
    With solemn step an awful goddess came,
    And there was purport in her looks for him,
    Which he with eager guess began to read
    Perplex’d, the while melodiously he said,
    “How cam’st thou over the unfooted sea?”
    Hyperion, 3. 42.–(Ruskin.)

  10. See Wordsworth’s Peter Bell, Part I:–

    A primrose by a river’s brim
    A yellow primrose was to him,
    And it was nothing more.

  11. Jude 13.
  12. Kings xxiii, 18, and Hosea x, 7.
  13. Iliad, 3. 243. In the MS. Ruskin notes, “The insurpassably tender irony in the epithet–’life-giving earth’–of the grave”; and then adds another illustration:–”Compare the hammer-stroke at the close of the (32d) chapter of Vanity Fair–’The darkness came down on the field and city, and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart. A great deal might have been said about it. The writer is very sorry for Amelia, neither does he want faith in prayer. He knows as well as any of us that prayer must be answered in some sort; but those are the facts. The man and woman sixteen miles apart–one on her knees on the floor, the other on his face in the clay. So much love in her heart, so much lead in his. Make what you can of it.” (Cook and Wedderburn.)
  14. The poem may be crudely paraphrased as follows:–

    “Quick, Anna, quick! to the mirror! It is late,
    And I’m to dance at the ambassador’s …
    I’m going to the ball …
                        “They’re faded, see,
    These ribbons–they belong to yesterday.
    Heavens, how all things pass! Now gracefully hang
    The blue tassels from the net that holds my hair.

    “Higher!–no, lower!–you get nothing right!…
    Now let this sapphire sparkle on my brow.
    You’re pricking me, you careless
    thing! That’s good!
    I love you, Anna dear. How fair I am….

    “I hope he’ll be there, too–the one I’ve tried
    To forget! no use! (Anna, my gown!) he too …
    (O fie, you wicked girl! my necklace, this?
    These golden beads the Holy Father blessed?)

    “He’ll be there–Heavens! suppose he takes my hand
    –I scarce can draw my breath for thinking of it!
    And I confess to Father Anselmo
    To-morrow–how can I ever tell him all?…

    One last glance at the mirror.
    O, I’m sure That they’ll adore me at the ball to-night.”

    Before the fire she stands admiringly.
    O God! a spark has leapt into her gown.
    Fire, fire!–O run!–Lost thus when mad with hope?
    What, die? and she so fair? The hideous flames
    Rage greedily about her arms and breast,
    Envelop her, and leaping ever higher,
    Swallow up all her beauty, pitiless–
    Her eighteen years, alas! and her sweet dream.

    Adieu to ball, to pleasure, and to love!
    “Poor Constance!” said the dancers at the ball,
    “Poor Constance!”–and they danced till break of day.

  15. Isaiah xiv, 8.
  16. Isaiah lv, 12.
  17. Night Thoughts, 2. 345.
  18. Pastorals: Summer, or Alexis, 73 ff., with the omission of two couplets after the first.
  19. From the poem beginning ‘T is said that some have died for love, Ruskin evidently quoted from memory, for there are several verbal slips in the passage quoted.
  20. Stanza 16, of Shenstone’s twenty-sixth Elegy.
  21. The Excursion, 6. 869 ff.
  22. I cannot quit this subject without giving two more instances, both exquisite, of the pathetic fallacy, which I have just come upon, in Maud:–

    For a great speculation had fail’d;
    And ever he mutter’d and madden’d, and ever wann’d with despair;
    And out he walk’d, when the wind like a broken worldling wail’d,
    And the flying gold of the ruin’d woodlands drove thro’ the air.

    There has fallen a splendid tear
    From the passion-flower at the gate.
    The red rose cries, “She is near, she is near!”
                    And the white rose weeps, “She is late.”
    The larkspur listens, “I hear, I hear!”
                    And the lily whispers, “I wait.”        (Ruskin.)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *