New-York tribune., 1876-12-23
MIR. JAMES ON "DAxIEL DBRoNDA.'

TURGUENIEP AND GEORGE ELIOT UNFAIRLY COM
PARED-AE AUTHORS LIBERTY TO TAKE AN UN-
DEVELOPED CHARACTER AND SHOW ITS GROWTH.
TO the Edttor Of The TytbanG
SIR: If you think there is truth in the fol-
lowing protest. beg you to nscrt IL in your letter col
umn admirer of "the hand behind the scenes"
In Daniel Deronda-"
No apology required when the air ia full Of ngs st
the author ono and all potent with the rdicule which
whatever the weight of the misse it s pastered npon
is the mud which makes It sure TO stick" II is With
pain that have seen the novelist James, In the Decom
ber Atlantic join the derders, for my conviction OF hs
genius dates back TO certain brief tales set in English
locale which long forced me 20 the admng inquiry
what manner OF man this was. II could not hon
esty say that his treatment has the power to be ur
ous should have call TO protest against 1t. But do
protest against il, and wish he had followed Words
worths ADVICE and given the time 1t took TO original
composition. lie has set the seal OF his merit TO erit
cis which breathes in spite OF the few Disgusting per-
fumes mixed In IT, strong odor Of condemnation and
Iidcue. Perhaps the most damaging way TO treat an
author is to hold him M and say he is
like some else Argument can be met by argument,
but what can meet thisi No author is too great TO
suffer under II. You say that Shakespeare is
not as rosy as Swmburne, you like; Shakespeare
help hiDse and have the satisfaction that those
who take their from you will fOrsake htm for the
other OF such character is the damaging contrast Of
Turgucnief against George Eliot, my mind the ost
Objectionable point of the article because it will be
cepted rs kind OF final literary judgment by many over
whom the "hafandhaf" Of Mr.. Jamess discrimina-
tons will slip entirely. "Turgueuef is poet, George
Eliot philosopher" says he. The distinction is just
But the justice passes into injustice when the critic
Whose function signs away his right TO personal chOce
selects tic poet aud holds him up against the phoso
pher The dialogstIc form chosen is shield against
responsibility. The distinction between criticism that
exists TO eli the mouths OF characters author wishes
to develop and the criticism for whose utelance Ger
tain characters created is all too easy. Nor prob
ably would Mr.. James claim IT, But osunot help pro-
testing that he has thrown into his scale critic the
weight Of his personal preference and that the result is
Injustice and harm deprecste the entire article and
look upon il seduction by brilliant Literary tempta
tion but rest my objection upon this feature Of It,
rs exceeding the legal privilege Of criticism TyI-
sucnief and George Eliot can no more be honestly
compared, than and /. mot deep the poet sees but
wide" says Arnold That is TurgGenief, and Lis gaze,
arrested at the surface strikes back with all the greater
vydness and of actual picture TO the eye Not such
is George Eliot Mini causas reTum" is the very key
note Of her nature Turguenief shows Us Inssarof a
completed character, swayed by two controlling and
tsave hutter two OF circumstance unconhicting
emotions: intense passion for woman Intense deyO
ton his country The attitude of his effort
IL is not inquiry. His conflicts as shown US external
Sickness, poverty; these confusing oppOncnts
strngng up of the to sterner outward resistance
such Is Inssaros simple unity that he could easily 30
transferred to canvas; clasping with Ellen to
his breast brandishng with the other the sword with
which he longs TO say the oppressos OF his country
find fault with this portrait Happy Tmguenief, from
whose brain springs this perfected conception ready for
transfer to paper, in a couple OF hundred pages"
But what is Derondai He is man yet In search of
the very meaning of his fc That the building OF his
character. in the struggle discover aud express that
meaning be compressed Into few pages IS absurd.
leave out entirely the much mOoted point whether
prefer the sc Of Jew the scent OF English aris-
tocracy. The mental process by which that preference
was evolved for Deronda is necessarily lengthy one,
aud must be shown by its exhibitor. Presentation in
the style Tcucf foreign TO the genius OF George
Eliot Her forte is not photography edncation,
does she ever show character by beginning with him
ready made nssaroff is fine copy. There lover
patriots the world, doubt not, who might sit for il
without change OF detail But George Eats work
reaches that higher grade that touches the true
Art 10 nce higher ideals than those which daily fs
woud naturally urgeus. Whether prefer c0ntempat-
ing completed character, examining it in its tona-
tive stages matter for our in liydl choice not
ter TO point contrast criticism. II the critic claims
right TO be unwilling should be rose, and peas
pear nor will earu that choice between them Is not
criticism but expression Of the aesthetic grade Of the
chooscr no plant dare grow in gardens that is
not plentfaIy protected by its thorns The unfay-
orablc by Tguenief not pertinent a hat is
the eonycrse It is the word which describes Mr. Jaess
injurious Of the illustration. That it 10 injurious ia
clear proof enough, the ayidity with which it Is seized
and tfic wit which perhaps only the froth flung OFF
by the critics impatient stecd he gave him full rem,
IS gathered up, poison Ia which the nibs Of thousand
Uuny pens VII dip that long to pierce the fair tame Of
George Eliot. ADELAIDE ALLNG.