every man and woman who has not denied or falsified nature knows, or at any rate feels, that love, though the least “serious,” is the most significant of all things. the wise do not talk much about this knowledge, for fear of exposing its delicate edge to the stolid resistance of the profligate and unbelieving, and because its light, though, and for the reason that, it exceeds all other, is deficient in definition. but they see that to this momentary transfiguration of life all that is best in them looks forward or looks back, and that it is for this the race exists, and not this for the race—the seed for the flower, not the flower for the seed. all religions have sanctified this love, and have found in it their one word for and image of their fondest and highest hopes; and the catholic has exalted it into a “great sacrament,” holding that, with transubstantiation—which it{73} resembles—it is only unreasonable because it is above reason. “the love which is the best ground of marriage,” writes also the protestant and “judicious” hooker, “is that which is least able to render a reason for itself.” indeed, the extreme unreasonableness of this passion, which gives cause for so much blaspheming to the foolish, is one of its surest sanctions and a main cause of its inexhaustible interest and power; for who but a “scientist” values greatly or is greatly moved by anything he can understand—that which can be comprehended being necessarily less than we are ourselves?

in this matter the true poet must always be a mystic—altogether to the vulgar, and more or less to all who have not attained to his peculiar knowledge. for what is a mystery but that which one does not know? the common handicrafts used to be called mysteries; and their professors were mystics to outsiders exactly in the sense that poets or theologians, with sure, but to them uncommunicated and perhaps incommunicable, knowledge, are mystics to the many. the poet simply knows more than they do; but it flatters their malignant vanity to call him names which they mean to be opprobrious, though they are not, because he is not such a spiritual pauper as themselves. but poets are mystics,{74} not only by virtue of knowledge which the greater part of mankind does not possess, but also because they deal with knowledge against which the accusation of dunces who know the differential calculus is etymologically true—namely, that it is absurd. love is eternally absurd, for that which is the root of all things must itself be without root. aristotle says that things are unintelligible to man in proportion as they are simple; and another says, in speaking of the mysteries of love, that the angels themselves desire in vain to look into these things.

in the hands of the poet mystery does not hide knowledge, but reveals it as by its proper medium. parables and symbols are the only possible modes of expressing realities which are clear to perception though dark to the understanding. “without a parable he spake not” who always spake of primary realities. every spiritual reality fades into something else, and none can tell the point at which it fades. the only perfectly definite things in the universe are the conceptions of a fool, who would deny the sun he lives by if he could not see its disk. natural sciences are definite, because they deal with laws which are not realities but conditions of realities. the greatest and perhaps the only real use of natural science is to supply similes and parables for poets and theologians.{75}

but if the realities of love were not in themselves dark to the understanding, it would be necessary to darken them—not only lest they should be profaned, but also because, as st. bernard says, “the more the realities of heaven are clothed with obscurity, the more they delight and attract, and nothing so much heightens longing as such tender refusal.” “night,” says the inspirer of st. bernard, “is the light of my pleasures.”

love is rooted deeper in the earth than any other passion; and for that cause its head, like that of the tree igdrasil, soars higher into heaven. the heights demand and justify the depths, as giving them substance and credibility. “that he hath ascended—what is it but because he first also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” love “reconciles the highest with the lowest, ordering all things strongly and sweetly from end to end.” st. bernard says that “divine love” (religion) “has its first root in the most secret of the human affections.” this affection is the only key to the inner sanctuaries of that faith which declares, “thy maker is thy husband;” the only clue by which searchers of the “secret of the king,” in the otherwise inscrutable writings of prophet and apostle, discover, as keble writes, “the loving hint that meets the longing guess,” which looks to the future for the satisfying and{76} abiding reality, the passage of whose momentary shadow forms the supreme glory of our mortality.

the whole of after-life depends very much upon how life’s transient transfiguration in youth by love is subsequently regarded; and the greatest of all the functions of the poet is to aid in his readers the fulfilment of the cry, which is that of nature as well as religion, “let not my heart forget the things mine eyes have seen.” the greatest perversion of the poet’s function is to falsify the memory of that transfiguration of the senses, and to make light of its sacramental character. this character is instantly recognised by the unvitiated heart and apprehension of every youth and maiden; but it is very easily forgotten and profaned by most, unless its sanctity is upheld by priests and poets. poets are naturally its prophets—all the more powerful because, like the prophets of old, they are wholly independent of the priests, and are often the first to discover and rebuke the lifelessness into which that order is always tending to fall. if society is to survive its apparently impending dangers, it must be mainly by guarding and increasing the purity of the sources in which society begins. the world is finding out, as it has often done before, and more or less forgotten, that it cannot do without religion.{77} love is the first thing to wither under its loss. what love does in transfiguring life, that religion does in transfiguring love: as any one may see who compares one state or time with another. love is sure to be something less than human if it is not something more; and the so-called extravagances of the youthful heart, which always claims a character for divinity in its emotions, fall necessarily into sordid, if not shameful, reaction, if those claims are not justified to the understanding by the faith which declares man and woman to be priest and priestess to each other of relations inherent in divinity itself, and proclaimed in the words “let us make man in our own image” and “male and female created he them.” nothing can reconcile the intimacies of love to the higher feelings, unless the parties to them are conscious—and true lovers always are—that, for the season at least, they justify the words “i have said, ye are gods.” nuptial love bears the clearest marks of being nothing other than the rehearsal of a communion of a higher nature. its felicity consists in a perpetual conversion of phase from desire to sacrifice, and from sacrifice to desire, accompanied by unchangeable complaisance in the delight shining in the beauty of the beloved; and it is agitated in all its changes by fear, without which love cannot long exist as emotion.{78} such a state, in proportion to its fervour, delicacy, and perfection, is ridiculous unless it is regarded as a “great sacrament.” it is the inculcation of this significance which has made love between man and woman what it is now—at least to the idea and aspirations of all good minds. it is time that the sweet doctrine should be enforced more clearly. love being much more respected and religion much less than of old, the danger of profanation is not so great as it was when religion was revered and love despised. the most characteristic virtue of woman, or at least the most alluring of her weaknesses—her not caring for masculine truth and worth unless they woo her with a smile or a touch or some such flattery of her senses—is the prevailing vice of most men, especially in these times. this general effeminacy is the poet’s great opportunity. it is his pontifical privilege to feel the truth; and his function is to bridge the gulf between severe verity and its natural enemy, feminine sentiment, by speech which, without any sacrifice of the former, is “simple, sensuous, and passionate.” he insinuates in nerve-convincing music the truths which the mass of mankind must feel before they believe. he leads them by their affections to things above their affections, making urania acceptable to them by her pr?nomen venus. he is the apostle{79} of the gentiles, and conveys to them, without any flavour of cant or exclusiveness, the graces which the chosen people have too often denied or disgraced in their eyes.