New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-04
POEMS IN TWO LANGCAGEG.
From me Satnrdnu Rerie,r.

From The Saturday Rer'er
One OF the many controversial points OF argument
in the Old school of academic criticism was the
question whether good literature can he written IN
"A tongue which Is not the writer's own. On the
whole, OpuOn. in the days when such subjects were
debated. appears to have been against the dea eX-
cep IN reference to the classical languages, especl-
ally Latin. The change IN the standards of crtI-
cism which Will probably be 10 pOSterity tine most
remarkable literary achievement OF this century
has left little reality IN such question as tins.
The modern critical least II he be OF the rght sort
looks at the work nrst, and does not trouble
himself 10 consider whether It ought To bc good Of
not until he has found out whether IL Is. ct pre-
Julice As everyone knows, dies uncOmmonly hard
anu there is probably stlll sIight remnant OF ~
existing IN this matter. some people, If they would
only acknOw ledge the truth, have an Underlined
jealousy of what they cannot do themselves. There
Is an innocent delusOn "a the minds oil most men
and women del u>iCn which was the subject OF
one of George Elots happest limitations of La
Bruyere. to the effect that they could write excel
lent poetry If they chose and bal nothing else to
do But then the poetry mast be IN their own
tongue. Confronted with something winch thew
know they cannot do. the sleeping hend Wlthlh
them wakes; at least this Is = be only ntellgl
explanation we have ever been able 70 hit upon o.
the extraordinary acerbty with which the average
British PhIistine regards the practice OF compost
ton IN Greek or Latin. To compositions Ia muderI
languages lie - more ndulcent. BUT even these
he Is wont 10 dismiss as tours de tire. Has any
body ever defined tours de tOrcc rs tours hen the
speaker feels he IL not d. fOrcc 10 accomplish Ii no.
body has, We maze the world Il present OF the copy
right OF tins mot
inst as the man who reads no language but his
own never, unless he De an altogether exceptions.
genius. attalns any thing IKE cathol2 power OF
appreciation or q full comm1nd OF criticism, so q
man no writes IN no language but his own rarely,
unless he Is equally exceptional, escapes the ten
deucy IL initiate more or less directly Ot course
born imitatOr-a literary thiueSe-u ne WlOlc rs
many languages as McIZOtanti knew, would SIMPLY
copy IN all OF them. But man of any originality
of thought acquites by the practice the same free
dom of movement that Is acquired by variety OF
bodily exercise. IGeucnmen, VINO, with all thelr
theoretical oye of liberty. are the yere,t slaves TO
convention IN all Europe, never see ihis.
Frenchman VIII tell YOU quite liaEey guar Il IT,"
months ont of France. even on. or IaT,, Is SUN
Gent 10 take the bloom oft his command OF spoken
French. IL would doubtless tollow that I'D WrJe
English poems would have at still more disastrous
eect written style. At any rate. II Is certainly
very seldom tr eel. Charles d'Orleaus ~ the only
consider bic man II letters IN French history who
ever did II. a. far as We remember and MS country
men not uulrequenty manifest their ulsapproFal OF
tne practice by not reprintlLg these aoertatOH5 IN
their editions of him. very tunny instance OF the
susniclon with which TIE practice regarded once
fell under orr notice. Mr. ~Wiunurnc lt is heedlrss
To say. writes IN various fore gn tongues. notably
IN French and Iu Greek. with alu 80 a. much Gle
eance and ldlosyncrasy as re does M Engh'h- Inc
French poems ia E0samond' and ChaSteiard
could hardly Dee better OF their kIn. Now ten years
ago there appeared certain iombrau de Iheo,
phIIe GaUtirr 10 which Mr.. cNluhUfue contributed
IN pOiylIut. 4 French reviewer who came across
tnis wa. evidently much shocked. The French
rhymes he was bound IN pollteucss To say were
" int-res-ant's. A1's IL h' iaudraiJ pas aDl'er
de &c ,y,temen There is an admirable and
BCrleigh-ilke udeduitcne-S al out TINS. NO uoupJ
tins system ought not 90 De abused; nag tieh we
are not aware of any system that ought 90 bee. As
TAI AS ami not abuse goes. II seem, 10 nave the
advautag- o, giving polish AND supplehe7S 10 tho
portIcal -tyleol the authors who exercise them
Sc yes in 10. a saving them from the danger OF
secondhand mlunerlsm and school imitation. ana
OF giving the indcunable quality known A. SCHOLAR
Illness % Their work. OF course ca what scott
would have called the Big Bow Wow theory Of
poetry-the theory winch viii have 1T that every
poet is 70 uan with mission who does but sing be-
cause nc muse. and whose inspiration oVerpoWers
HIM and makes him mere muuthpece-thls KIN /
of scholarly practice in expression is quite beneatn
consideration. What may Doe the worth OF II on the
criticism oi-lfe theory cannot say, Tor the e1-
cellrnt reason that after long study of Vi Arnold
celebrated dogma, with all po-s bic aid OF COM
mcutare-. CLOSES and sch0lil. we have honestly
come 90 he conclusion that 10 may be ranked WITH
t4voIite illustrative proposition Of TIE late -. =
Mills. AbIacadahTa IS a second Intention but
Oh the sup10s ZION that poetry is. at any rate IN
nluely-nue cases ont of p hundred. simply q most
cXu.-fte form OF literature which horroWs all pos
siLle grace- OF netrc lhy tim. rhyme an language
to Increase it's power OF su-restivey expressing
beautiful idets and images the value Of such pi1--
tee l, clear