^{page 336 note 1} Mr. Wilenski expressly disclaims any intention of putting forward a general theory of art applicable beyond the special field Of painting. But the terms classical art and romantic art are used outside this special field, as well as inside it; and no explanation of their meaning can be ultimately satisfactory unless it is applicable to the whole extent of their usage.

^{page 338 note 1} It is relevant to point out that even unauthorized titles like “The Moonlight Sonata” attached by the public to works of Beethoven have their significance. They show that the romantic flavour of the music is widely recognized, and its significance in the main correctly apprehended by its hearers. People do not, as a rule, feel called upon to attach romantic titles of this kind to works of Mozart, but to works of Beethoven they do; and this fact is not accounted for by postulating in the hearers a strong “visualizing” faculty or the like. A person who knows his way about in music begins “visualizing” when the music asks him to begin; or rather, he begins, not visualizing (for that implies a concentration on one kind of sensuous material), but building up in his mind some kind of non-musical “subject” for the music to which he is listening.

^{page 343 note 1} Here lies the explanation of the practice of giving titles to works of art. Of titles given to musical compositions I have spoken above; but of titles generally, this may be said: that the title is a reference to something not explained by the work of art itself, not explicitly present in it. As such, it has two functions, one classical and one romantic; and in point of fact, though emphasis falls now on one function and now on the other, these functions actually coexist in every case. If a work of art were purely classical, it would be so completely self-explanatory that a title would be unnecessary except for purposes of reference; and “CEdipus at Colonus” may be used for these purposes as easily as “Book iii, ode 3.” The classical title, then, merely labels a work; the romantic title ("Ulysses deriding Polyphemus “ or “Stanzas written in dejection near Naples") explains it. Now, if the romantic element in art is overlooked, or regarded as a mere defect, romantic titles will be regarded as a confession of failure, an attempt to evade the consequences of the artist's inability to express himself. But if the romantic element is properly understood, the romantic title appears in its true light, as an indication of the dynamic character of the work which bears it. This work is not merely a formal and expressive whole: it has grown out of some germ, some impression received in the course of experience; and the romantic title, telling us what this starting-point was, puts us in a position to reconstruct the work of art for ourselves more easily than we could otherwise have done.