some distinct association with the thorn-flowers,
in which case he would have brought out the image
full and separate, and not merely thrown it in as
a make-weight to “thorn”—and
this is the great reason why epithets are, nine times
out of ten, mistakes in song and ballad poetry; he
never would have thought of “departed”
before he thought of “joys.” A very
little consideration of the actual processes of thought
in such a case, will show the truth of our observation,
and the instinctive wisdom of the older song-writers,
in putting the epithet as often as possible after
the noun, instead of before it, even at the expense
of grammar. They are bad things at all times
in song poetry, these epithets; and, accordingly,
we find that the best German writers, like Uhland
and Heine, get rid of them as much as possible, and
succeed thereby, every word striking and ringing down
with full force, no cushion of an epithet intruding
between the reader’s brain-anvil and the poet’s
hammer to break the blow. In Uhland’s
“Three Burschen,” if we recollect right,
there are but two epithets, and those of the simplest
descriptive kind: “Thy fair daughter”
and a “black pall.” Were there more,
we question whether the poet would have succeeded,
as he has done, in making our flesh creep as he leads
us on from line to line and verse to verse. So
Tennyson, the greatest of our living poets, eschews
as much as possible, in his later writings, these
same epithets, except in cases where they are themselves
objective and pictorial—in short, the very
things which he wants you to look at, as, for instance:
And into silver arrows break
The sailing moon in creek and cove.
This is fair enough; but, indeed, after laying down
our rule, we must confess that it is very difficult
to keep always true to it, in a language which does
not, like the Latin and German, allow us to put our
adjectives very much where we choose. Nevertheless,
whether we can avoid it or not, every time we place
before the noun an epithet which, like “departed
joys,” relates to our consciousness concerning
the object, and not merely to the object itself; or
an epithet which, like “flowery thorn,”
gives us, before we get to the object itself, those
accidents of the object which we only discern by a
second look, by analysis and reflection—(for
the thorn, if in the flower, would look to us, at
the first glance, not “flowery,” but “white,”
“snowy,” or what you will which expresses
colour, and not scientific fact)— every
time, we repeat, this is done, the poet descends from
the objective and dramatic domain of song, into the
subjective and reflective one of elegy.