Nothing could indeed be further from our intentions than to enter the lists against the so-called Parnassian ideas. At a time when intimate confessions seem to be the most sought-for things in literature, we have reason to value every appeal to the dignity of the artist. But it is only a confusion of ideas which can lead any one to think that this dignity would be in any way infringed by the adoption of an emotionalistic art-theory. We have been especially anxious not to be misunderstood on this point, and this is the only reason why in the preceding chapters we have taken so much pains to disentangle the psychology of feeling, especially the relation between simple feeling and emotions. The word feeling, as it is used colloquially, generally involves only the fully formed emotions, especially those which are painful. Owing to this narrow and inadequate usage, every one who speaks of the importance of feeling for art exposes himself to the accusation of sentimentalism. But it is sufficient to point out, with regard to such misconceptions, that even pride, joy, elation, and all the other pleasurable states, may be quite as emotional as any sorrow or melancholy. The poem of Leconte de Lisle, quoted above, may therefore, in spite of all that the author himself may have objected against such an interpretation, be considered as an expression of feeling. And we can in the same way point out that in every one of the most orthodox Parnassian poems some emotional state has been expressed by the poet and conveyed to the reader. It is only by virtue of this element that the poems of this school have attained to their high poetical quality.