Languages are more to us than systems of thought-transference.  They are invisible garments that drape themselves about our spirit and give a predetermined form to all its symbolic expression.  When the expression is of unusual significance, we call it literature.[194] Art is so personal an expression that we do not like to feel that it is bound to predetermined form of any sort.  The possibilities of individual expression are infinite, language in particular is the most fluid of mediums.  Yet some limitation there must be to this freedom, some resistance of the medium.  In great art there is the illusion of absolute freedom.  The formal restraints imposed by the material—­paint, black and white, marble, piano tones, or whatever it may be—­are not perceived; it is as though there were a limitless margin of elbow-room between the artist’s fullest utilization of form and the most that the material is innately capable of.  The artist has intuitively surrendered to the inescapable tyranny of the material, made its brute nature fuse easily with his conception.[195] The material “disappears” precisely because there is nothing in the artist’s conception to indicate that any other material exists.  For the time being, he, and we with him, move in the artistic medium as a fish moves in the water, oblivious of the existence of an alien atmosphere.  No sooner, however, does the artist transgress the law of his medium than we realize with a start that there is a medium to obey.

[Footnote 194:  I can hardly stop to define just what kind of expression is “significant” enough to be called art or literature.  Besides, I do not exactly know.  We shall have to take literature for granted.]

[Footnote 195:  This “intuitive surrender” has nothing to do with subservience to artistic convention.  More than one revolt in modern art has been dominated by the desire to get out of the material just what it is really capable of.  The impressionist wants light and color because paint can give him just these; “literature” in painting, the sentimental suggestion of a “story,” is offensive to him because he does not want the virtue of his particular form to be dimmed by shadows from another medium.  Similarly, the poet, as never before, insists that words mean just what they really mean.]

Language is the medium of literature as marble or bronze or clay are the materials of the sculptor.  Since every language has its distinctive peculiarities, the innate formal limitations—­and possibilities—­of one literature are never quite the same as those of another.  The literature fashioned out of the form and substance of a language has the color and the texture of its matrix.  The literary artist may never be conscious of just how he is hindered or helped or otherwise guided by the matrix, but when it is a question of translating his work into another language, the nature of the original matrix manifests itself at once.  All his effects have been calculated,