and must be, an arbitrary distinction. All Poets, all men, have some
touches of the Universal; no man is wholly made of that. Most Poets are
very soon forgotten: but not the noblest Shakspeare or Homer of them can
be remembered _forever_;--a day comes when he too is not!

Nevertheless, you will say, there must be a difference between true Poetry
and true Speech not poetical: what is the difference? On this point many
things have been written, especially by late German Critics, some of which
are not very intelligible at first. They say, for example, that the Poet
has an _infinitude_ in him; communicates an _Unendlichkeit_, a certain
character of "infinitude," to whatsoever he delineates. This, though not
very precise, yet on so vague a matter is worth remembering: if well
meditated, some meaning will gradually be found in it. For my own part, I
find considerable meaning in the old vulgar distinction of Poetry being
_metrical_, having music in it, being a Song. Truly, if pressed to give a
definition, one might say this as soon as anything else: If your
delineation be authentically _musical_, musical not in word only, but in
heart and substance, in all the thoughts and utterances of it, in the whole
conception of it, then it will be poetical; if not, not.--Musical: how
much lies in that! A _musical_ thought is one spoken by a mind that has
penetrated into the inmost heart of the thing; detected the inmost mystery
of it, namely the _melody_ that lies hidden in it; the inward harmony of
coherence which is its soul, whereby it exists, and has a right to be, here
in this world. All inmost things, we may say, are melodious; naturally
utter themselves in Song. The meaning of Song goes deep. Who is there
that, in logical words, can express the effect music has on us? A kind of
inarticulate unfathomable speech, which leads us to the edge of the
Infinite, and lets us for moments gaze into that!

Nay all speech, even the commonest speech, has something of song in it: