The Knickerbocker | Page 5

sounds, and seen the same sights. There is nothing
that is extraneous. He has given us an exact copy of his original, and
nothing more. Thomson, on the contrary, has not described a

thunderstorm as he saw it, but according to the effect that it produced
on his own mind. His epithets are rarely descriptive of the qualities that
exist in the objects to which they are applied. They have reference
rather to the emotions which their presence produces in himself. Thus,
in the first line, 'boding' is not a quality that can be predicated of silence.
To the feeling that the silence preceding a storm is wont to excite, the
epithet is properly enough applied. So with the expression 'dubious
dusk.'
In connection with these extracts, we will look at one taken from
SCOTT'S description of the scenery around Loch Katrine:
'Boon nature scattered free and wild, Each plant, or flower, the
mountain's child; Here eglantine embalmed the air, Hawthorn and hazel
mingled there; The primrose pale, and violet flower, Found in each
cleft a narrow bower; Foxglove and night-shade, side by side Emblems
of punishment and pride, Grouped their dark hues with every stain The
weather-beaten crags retain; With boughs that quaked at every breath,
Gray-birch and aspen wept beneath; Aloft the ash and warrior oak Cast
anchor in the rifted rock; And higher yet the pine tree hung His
scattered trunk, and frequent flung Where seemed the cliffs to meet on
high His boughs athwart the narrowed sky. Highest of all, where white
peaks glanced, Where glistening streamers waved and danced, The
wanderer's eye could barely view The summer heaven's delicious blue.'
The same remarks which we applied to Irving are applicable with some
little restriction here. With one or two exceptions, the epithets mark
attributes that exist in the subjects. Every one can see at a glance the
appropriateness of such terms as pale primrose, gray birch, and narrow
bower. They are not dependent for their effect upon any fanciful train
of associations which their names may excite.
If we compare the above extracts together, we arrive at certain results
which we shall briefly state. We will throw out of view for a moment
any pleasure which the rhythm may give us, as foreign to our present
purpose. Each of these writers is describing a scene from nature. Each
of them has the same object, to interest others by a representation of
those sights and sounds that interested themselves. Scott accomplishes

his purpose by presenting as exact a picture of nature as it is possible
perhaps for words to give. He does not tell us how he is affected by
what he sees, and looks upon neither directly nor indirectly. He does
not search for any resemblances that are not palpable, and founded in
the nature of things. All similes and metaphors which serve to express
his own emotions are carefully avoided. The whole is picturesque and
life-like in the highest degree, yet every circumstance is mentioned in
the cool, unimpassioned way in which we mention any common
occurrence.
Thomson accomplishes his purpose by portraying his own feelings; not
indeed in so many words, but by the use of those expressions, and by
those transitions of thought, which mark a state of emotion. The epithet
'boding,' to which we have referred, is an example. It is an indirect
disclosure of the mood of his own mind. At another time it is not
improbable that an epithet of a directly opposite meaning would have
been selected. The reader is affected by it, because by a law of
sympathy, we are affected by whatever reveals the presence of passion
in another. It influences us precisely as the tones of the voice of a
person in distress influence us. Both are expressive of emotion, and we
cannot remain unaffected by them.
This is the main source of the pleasure we feel in reading Thomson's
description. It conveys to us but a very indistinct idea of the subject
matter. Different readers, according to their mental peculiarities, will be
differently affected by it. He does not paint to the bodily eye, but to the
eye of the mind; and he will feel most pleasure who puts himself in the
same position as the poet, and sees with his eyes and hears with his ears.
Unless he can do this, he will derive but little gratification from the
perusal.
Less minute than Irving, and more picturesque than Thomson, Scott
will probably to most readers give more pleasure than either of them. In
conveying lively impressions of natural objects he is unsurpassed, but
he is scarcely less successful in inspiring the mind of the reader with
the same emotions that fill his own breast. There is ever between the
thought and its expression a perfect