onable definition. Pater's well-known saying that
"Romanticism is the addition of strangeness to beauty" is fair; and
yet, since strangeness in art can result only from imaginative
conception, it amounts to nothing more than the truism that romantic
art is imbued with personality. Hence Stendhal is right in saying that
"All good art was Romantic in its day"; _i.e._, it exhibited as much
warmth and individuality as the spirit of its times would allow.
Surely Bach, Haydn and Mozart were real characters, notwithstanding
the restraint which the artificialities of the period often put upon
their utterance. On the other hand, work at first pronounced to be
romantic establishes, by a universal recognition of its merit, the
claim to be considered classic, or set apart; what is romantic to-day
thus growing to be classic[175] tomorrow. It is evident, therefore,
that the terms interlock and are not mutually exclusive. It is a
mistaken attitude to set one school off against the other, or to prove
that one style is greater than the other; they are simply different.
Compositions of lasting worth always manifest such a happy union of
qualities that, in a broad sense, they may be called both romantic and
classic, _i.e._, they combine personal emotion and imagination with
breadth of meaning and solidity of structure.

[Footnote 173: For a more complete historical account see the article
"Romantic" in Grove's Dictionary and the introduction to Vol. VI of
_The Oxford History of Music_. _Rousseau and Romanticism_ by Professor
Irving Babbitt presents the latest investigations in this important
field.]

[Footnote 174: Some very sane comments may be found in Pratt's
_History of Music_, pp. 427, 501, 502.]

[Footnote 175: "A _classic_ is properly a book"--and the same would be
true of a musical composition--"which maintains itself by that happy
coalescence of matter and style, that innate and requisite sympathy
between the thought that gives life and the form that consents to
every mood of grace and dignity, and which is something neither
ancient nor modern, always new and incapable of growing old."

Lowell, _Among My Books_.]

Beginning, however, with Schubert and Weber--the two first
representatives of the romantic group--there is a marked novelty of
content and style; and if we drop the terms and confine ourselves to
the inner evidence of the music itself, we note a difference which may
be felt and to a certain extent formulated. To t