coleridge, who had little technical knowledge of any art but that in which, when he was himself, he supremely excelled—poetry—had nevertheless a deeper insight into the fundamental principles of art than any modern writer, with the sole exception of goethe. and this is one of his many fruitful sayings: “all harmony is founded on a relation to rest—on relative rest. take a metallic plate and strew sand on it, sound an harmonic chord over the sand, and the grains will whirl about in circles and other geometrical figures, all, as it were, depending on some point of sand relatively at rest. sound a discord, and every grain will whisk about without any order at all, in no figures, and with no point of rest.”

without pretending to be able to trace this principle of rest to more than a very limited distance, and in a very few examples, i think it{38} is worth notice in a time when art generally is characterised by a want of that repose which until recent times has especially “marked the manners of the great.” look through the national gallery, and few pictures will be found which would not add a grace of peace to the house they were hung in, no matter how wild the subject or passionate the motive. step into an academy exhibition, and there will scarcely be discovered a dozen canvases in a thousand which, however skilful and in many respects admirable they may be, would not constitute points of unrest, if they were in daily and hourly sight. it is the same with nearly all modern poetry, sculpture, and architecture; and if it is not true of music, it is because music absolutely cannot exist without some reference to a point or points of rest, in keynote, fundamental strain, or reiterated refrain.

it might at first be supposed that, in a picture, this point should be that on which the eye should repose in order to bring the remainder into focal proportion; and this is true with regard to those painters who paint on the theory that the eye is fixed, and not roving in its regard. but this theory has never been that of the greatest times of art. crome, constable, and gainsborough’s landscapes do not fade off from a certain point on which the eye is supposed to be fixed; yet{39} there will usually be found some point, generally quite insignificant in matter, on which, indeed, the eye does not necessarily fix itself, but to which it involuntarily returns for repose.

the most noteworthy remark to be made about this point of rest is, that it is not in itself the most but the least interesting point in the whole work. it is the punctum indifferens to which all that is interesting is more or less unconsciously referred. in an elaborate landscape it may be—as it is in one of constable’s—the sawn-off end of a branch of a tree: or a piece of its root, as it is in one of michael angelo’s pieces in the sistine chapel. in the dresden “madonna” of raphael it is the heel of the infant. no one who has not given some thought to the subject can have any idea of the value of these apparently insignificant points in the pictures in which they occur, unless he tries the experiment of doing away with them. cover them from sight and, to a moderately sensitive and cultivated eye, the whole life of the picture will be found to have been lowered.

in proportion to the extent and variety of points of interest in a painting or a poem the necessity for this point of rest seems to increase. in a lyric or idyll, or a painting with very few details, there is little need for it. it is accordingly in the most elaborate plays of shakespeare that we find{40} this device in its fullest value; and it is from two or three of these that we shall draw our main illustrations of a little-noticed but very important principle of art. in king lear it is by the character of kent, in romeo and juliet by friar laurence, in hamlet by horatio, in othello by cassio, and in the merchant of venice by bassanio, that the point of rest is supplied; and this point being also in each case a point of vital comparison by which we measure and feel the relationships of all the other characters, it becomes an element of far higher value than when it is simply an, as it were, accidental point of repose, like the lopped branch in constable’s landscape. each of these five characters stands out of the stream of the main interest, and is additionally unimpressive in itself by reason of its absolute conformity to reason and moral order from which every other character in the play departs more or less. thus horatio is the exact punctum indifferens between the opposite excesses of the characters of hamlet and laertes—over-reasoning inaction and unreasoning action—between which extremes the whole interest of the play vibrates. the unobtrusive character of kent is, as it were, the eye of the tragic storm which rages round it; and the departure, in various directions, of every character more or less from{41} moderation, rectitude, or sanity, is the more clearly understood or felt from our more or less conscious reference to him. so with the central and comparatively unimpressive characters in many other plays—characters unimpressive on account of their facing the exciting and trying circumstances of the drama with the regard of pure reason, justice, and virtue. each of these characters is a peaceful focus radiating the calm of moral solution throughout all the difficulties and disasters of surrounding fate: a vital centre, which, like that of a great wheel, has little motion in itself, but which at once transmits and controls the fierce revolution of the circumference.

it is obvious, as i have indicated, that a point of rest and comparison is necessary only when the objects and interests are many and more or less conflicting; but the principle is sometimes at play in forms and works in which we should scarcely have expected to find it. an armlet, or even a finger-ring, gives every portion of the nude figure an increase of animation, unity, and repose. the artistic justification of the unmeaning “burthen” of many an old ballad may probably be found, at least in part, in the same principle; as may also be that of the trick—as old as poetry—of occasionally repeating a line or phrase without any apparent purpose in the repetition.{42}

of course the “point of rest” will not create harmony where—as in most modern works—its elements are absent; but, where harmony exists, it will be strangely brought out and accentuated by this in itself often trifling, and sometimes, perhaps, even accidental accessory.