New-York tribune., 1880-06-20
c1aIosITIEs OF CRITICISM.
r,or, Tns ysntrsman's Msganss.

From The GcpatM0ns M6goEDo'
Wa ara SORRY to find the great name OF IT. Jonn.
son among those who have made themselves c1nf
spcuOuS spn a By their
Is to sex whS %hsSg Lay JoSnson ais
and Is not examining ihe writngs Of thoss rho
shock bis DFeSdiIpss jSd pss ss is s IN InG sps
1Is Of ths most Dt tnp precious which English
lite iiterature re- possesses. and we feel it. sToSs fsr,
SsnslsBs s,STss to a'fs 81 @e
c5ssrTss hsgss the snSnss: snS E:
Concludes misera6ly lprossic critique with .tns
words "No man could have fancled tnas ne IVisa ~
LyshIdsss y.hdas with pleasure had no n0' AA'"
II was favorite theory of Byron's IN saas s1. al
really great poems Pssa%S be- nSotes Soms instances
but generazes it must be presumed from 1 III -,
case, as most Of the cases cited by nun Ia, AZ. IN n
to the os
certain coaousions about the future Of nnIt TL1et
from his first attempts and it is extremely ncus
Writer 1Sr at bis intrinsic value. Horace Walpols
as shrewd and penetrating critic as eyer hyHeot Ht
Ra %sI SsEpsEs "a ss pfSE1sd VIZ should %s raS %Es VIII
Macauiay s that they were Hume, Fielding s%oIless'
JOSsona &as T. al sSsS people wsrs
8st sd wHEta %dra SatS a Wa hiE
Charles Hanbury Williams, MIR. soame Jenyns, ny 50 MI;
pack Of scrbblers only one OF whom Is ndsra RnGma
to cRPessszyeaand Rnssyeaae ]:
rem Ga%4 0hE %Esn as as R9sda
appeared i Dsgw u s hs BEING Ssa
AFTER T'I,U psrusing Sfom Jones" pronounced Fielding
to be Rsasom spS smo
10 be- ia vagabOnd Scott who writes nonsense Ten
thousand strong" An accomplished woman an nss
the taste for his works had come in with the rage
for coffee so with the rage for coffee would the taste
In Tfs Edinburgh RerieO for October 1907 VIII
The beautiful "Ode Of the Daisy" Is very nat an9
6S SSnraotsed aai rs The msgosnt Ode
on the ntimations Of Immortality" Which Whs haS ls
according to NJ Matthew ArnSla 9 nosry sne ngs has
Teaehed wat9hT %ark IS hsre descSed syond doubt
the most illegible and unintel eligible part OF ING
publication Of which the reviewer % Sah tha nnsrb
Ose s'f 70 W WDutv6 The critic merely condescends to
observe that it is piece IN WHICH the Sity VEN EN-
is D"S Ssfa Syf st9paso and
nosterons to be absolutely lncredible-was reached
BY The Edinburgh Reuiew for September ons ieiS o.
England with tho slightest relish for poetry Tn9 1
cannot the exquisite loyeliness VINO 90 not Iee
the neaSe chaTR Of would swG be NO.
exaggcration to say that they rank among anon e tne
most purely ethereal works which m, have ever ever
emanated from the genius OF Imam man tbem tbat fns
| ode the Pains o. Sleep" In 1916. Now Tor tho
critics of the North. ,,,, 10 ch.;s..ho,,
wGa n is and ldtSr
and the Pains Of ssep las one o1 xbcb sni mGs tSs
press has lately been guilty and one Oh ine ts
experiments that has ever been made on the
or the IN enS Sa hs OF Genius
With this one exception" the critic is alludlng to
the passage. q Alas they had been friends In
the publication before: (which would be reckoned
poetry or even sense, were 1T found In the corner
Of newspaper or upon the wndow OF an cr;tons
believe, belle penned by William HazIitt.s Now as
Haztt Is aiiO%ea " can Te Boast e It Is extremely
! difficult to account for such malignant oonquity;
All who have lived to see Charles Dickens run out
his Courso--who have been privileged to n hai az a.
| they appeared, the successful revelations OF tnat
| brilliant. thet benefcent luminary whose rays
have warmed and gladdeped milliOnsEwl perhaps RI Es
country welcomed him, and what they
prophesiedl concerning HIM: Having made up our
it remains =, add word or two as to his
| durability, of which many warm admirers are
already beginning to doubt not it must be owned,
they are reviewing "Piokwick1 cara much
inferior to the former ones aud indications are not
| wanting that tho particular vein OF huinor whcn
has hitherto yielded so much attractive metal. is
worked ont.", Then comes an edifyns discussion as
| to whether Dickens be O man OF true genius
whether in fact no Is not oyerrated; On the whole
the reviewer is of opinion that Mr. Dickens ken - writ II
prophecy he concludes: I" If Mr.. Dickens persists
much longer IN this course it 5e4uires% INC no gts OF
tells itSlisten and tremble =. Mr.. Dickens has
risen like rocket. and lie will come down ike
How impossible 1t is for contemporaries to judge
correctly of each other Is illustrated very
| oip In he
lie expressed 1t as his deliberate opinion that Sir
Walter Scott the greatest poet OF his time atteI
| SIR Walter he placed in order OF merit. Saumel
Rogers, whom no modern critic would hesitate to
pronounce the feebest aud )st Insignificant poet
If poet. indeed he can be caled-of those days
After Rogers came. according TO- his Lordship;
Campbell and first bclow Campbell. Southey, mex!
| Wordsworth. and finally Coleridge. Keats and
Shelley he does not to pGtss nsrar 20 a
Rogers NAV we'll be doubted but certain u is
that he often implied as much 1t Is sn5 1GtGToms Mton
and il is notorious that in his later years he placed
Crabbe far before Wordsworth.