Now when you look at these little prayers, when you read them over and observe how pretty they are, you will also observe that they make little pictures in the mind.  Can not you see the fish gliding over the black border under the dark level of the water, to the net of a hundred fishers?  Can you not see the “dear king of the wood,” with his hat of leaves and his beard of moss?  Can you not also see in imagination the wild creatures of the forest with their snouts of many shapes, with their fur of all kinds?  But in Anglo-Saxon poetry you will not find anything like that.  Anglo-Saxon Rune songs create no images.  It is this picturesqueness, this actuality of imagery that is distinctive in Finnish poetry.

In the foregoing part of the lecture I have chiefly tried to interest you in the “Kalevala.”  But aside from interesting you in the book itself as a story, as a poem, I hope to direct your attention to a particular feature in Finnish poetry which is most remote from Japanese poetry.  I have spoken of resemblances as to structure and method; but it is just in that part of the method most opposed to Japanese tradition that the greatest interest lies.  I do not mean only the use of natural imagery; I mean much more the use of parallelism to reinforce that imagery.  That is the thing especially worthy of literary study.  Indeed, I think that such study might greatly help towards a new development, a totally new departure in Japanese verse.  In another lecture I spoke as sincerely as I could of the very high merit in the epigrammatic forms of Japanese poetry.  These brief forms of poetry have been developed in Japan to perfection not equalled elsewhere in modern poetry, perhaps not surpassed, in some respects, even by Greek poetry of the same kind.  But there can be no doubt of this fact, that a national literature requires many other forms of expression than the epigrammatic form.  Nothing that is good should ever be despised or cast aside; but because of its excellences, we should not be blind to the possibility of other excellences.  Now Japanese literature has other forms of poetry—­forms in which it is possible to produce poems of immense length, but the spirit of epigrammatic poetry has really been controlling even these to a great degree.

I mean that so far as I am able to understand the subject, the tendency of all Japanese poetry is to terse expression.  Were it not well therefore to consider at least the possible result of a totally opposite tendency,—­expansion of fancy, luxuriance of expression?  Terseness of expression, pithiness, condensation, are of vast importance in prose, but poetry has other methods, and the “Kalevala” is one of the best possible object lessons in the study of such methods, because of the very simplicity and naturalness with which they are followed.