New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-24
RECOLLECTTONS OF A READER.
BY CHARLES T. CONGDON.
XXI.
THE WORK OF THE CRITIC.

THE WORK OF THE CRITIC.
LANDoR's CHALLENGE TO CRITIcs-BUTLERs DEfI-
NITIoN-A FABLE FOR CRITICS BY L'EsTRANGE-
NAPOLEON BoNAPARTg AS A LITERARY CRITIC
CRITICISMS OF LITTLE wORTH-CARLYLE ON THE
OPERA.
Mr. Walter Savage Lander, being once specially
and personally exasperated against the critical de-
partment of literature, offered hot penny roll
and pint Of stout for breakfast TO any critic who
could write one Of his Imaginary Conversations"
Butler, the author Of Hudibras," in his usual
sharp way defined q critic TO be o mountebank
that is always quacking of the infrm and diseased
parts Of book TO show his skill" When he adds
that the critic never commends anything but in
opposition to something else" he hits exactly that
see-saw style which many critics regard as judicial
adopt because apparent candor will lend force 10
their ccnsure. The business of a critic is to taste
for those who are too indoent too incompetent
TO taste for themselves. In literary millennium he
would be quite unnecessary and, morally speaking
he ought to bo even in this imperfect time. 1t is
necessary. however to mark the distinction be-
tween a critic and q fair and intelligent reporter
IL is the business of the latter to tell the public
precisely as possible what il in the book, what is
not in il which should be there, and with how much
skill it has been manufactured. The critic has q
higher duty. He deals with the subject matter of
the work in hand He tests il by wcll-established
laws lie considers its accuracy when its accuracy
IS important. II he condemns. he does so from 10y
atty TO acknow lodged standards and not from any
lOw love Of giving pain, from any wish TO make an
exhibition of his own knowledge, or out of any
envy, jealousy or uncharitablcness. He does not
insinuate what he dares not say. He does not
wound under pretcnce of cvty. He does not
dismiss with a sheer that which may have been the
IL. l.. ~ A u. r
hopes. lie does not take advantage Of his position
to fost upon the world ls ignorance. AZ if it were
the profoundcst knowledge. lie does not, even in
his least work, disregard the moniions of con
science, forget that il is possible TO be at
critic and 4 gentleman. He does not damn with
faint praise nor assent with civil lccr" He is
neither the tool Of coteric the mouthpiccc of
q clique He does not belittc his business but
does all largely and with kindly dignity. lilo sells
his writing, but he does not sell his soul.
La Bruycrc remarks that there is criticism
which corrups both the writer and the reader. The
habit Of hunting for faults is the poison Of him who
INDUCES in that low sport. The finest things have
no longer any charm for lum. He caters TO the
taste Of those who remember best and quote con
stantly 1outs and jeers. Such criticism is a trade
and not a science. Sir Roger L'Estrangc, in one of
his Fables tells dro story of "A pragmatical
smattercr and severe fault-indcr who printed
book under the title of Notes upon Several
Famous Authors The main drift Of the discourse
was only 20 expose the regulations of a great many
excellent men. under the prctext of writing Obscr-
vatons upon their errors. The writer carried his
book To q certain great man. who soon saw the drift
Of IT, and sand TO him: $50 yOu 10 my
steward and ask him for four bushels Of wheat. the
best hc lay his hands on. 1t must be well
4 ., .f...fl
thoroughly winnowcd. Pick out all the chat as
clean fingers make it. put it in a bag, and
then bring it TO me- The man brought the chat
and the nobleman babe him try what he could get
for it. and take the money to himself Alas said
hc. "pcoplc will give nothing for chan" "Why
then. says the other Try If you can make n friend
with it, But that would not do neither for nobody
would thank him for II" he said. Very good says
the great man. and what is the difference between
trash M book and trash in a bagV Considering
the general opinion that It is the business Of critic
TO discover only chat perhaps this quaint story is
worth the space which it occupies.
There h an interesting story told Of Napoleon's
literary criticism, for which the world has not
given him much credit. When hc was al Erfurt
be- summoned Goethe 10 meet him. The talk Of
cour>c. WIS Of books. The conqucror began 10y
declaring Notalrcs Mahomct" to De- a bad piece
particularly m 10, portrait Of the Prophet Tho
conversation then turned upon Wcrthcr.' which
Napoleon todd Go,thc that hc had rad seven times
having taken ID with him to Egypt He then
pointed ont passage. and asked Goethe why he
bad written 800: % va, contrary To nature. Goethe
replied that Dr. did not know that tie objection had
ever been made h,forr hut that he found il per-
fcctly iu-t Though the great poet answered in this
county way. thr same objection had been made ~
., L D.. . W.rtI.r'.
choly. which bead. HIM 10 suicide, instead Of pro-
cccdinr ~oc., from frustrated love. complicated
hy his frustrated ambition" Lcwcs remark, that
fcrd.r thought tn, fault in art. Napoleon
thought u contrary nature; and strange 80 say.
Goethe agreed with both. and altered his work in
Obedience 10 licrders criticism though he forgot all
about II when Napoleon brought once more the oh
lection forward Bat Lewcs adds that Goethe was
right n the first instance. Jerusalem. the prototype
Of Wcrthcr was suffering both from frustrated love
and frustrated ambition; and what Goethe found
him that hc made him. The anccdotc,' says
Lewcs. affords a plqnant commentary on tho
value Of criticism: three men illustrous as
Napoleon, Goethe and lIcrder, pointing to par
ticular treatment Of subject contrary Ia Art
and contrary to Nature the treatment being all tho
while strictly in accordance with NATURE
If one wishes to know how much the criticism
even OF Solhc uiHlhr diA'' h - i'''lS ""iAh ana
how little of real art or science there Is IN the busl
ness Of fault-iindiug he must study the whole
matter in literary history. Sometimes We meet
with an example which IS astonishing. When
Goldsmith brought ont his play of " She Stops To
Conquer "a comedy which charmed several gen.
crations Of play gocrs and still charms great many
readers Horace Walpolc wrote of il that it was
the lowest of all farccs, that il very vulgar
the dialogue gross the wittciSms forced the
whole plan and conduct totally improbable .;
while not one character says a sentence that is
natural This was the criticism of a peft-mGitTe,
4 1 L. L.