Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-12-15
AN ENGLISH CRITIC ON AN AMERICAN
IDOL.

Mr.. Mathew Arnold has had the cOur-
age to strike blow at one of our liter.
airy idols. 1t has been reserved for him
to say that Emerson was neither a great
poet-in that he lacked directness, force
and unity in his work-nor yet a great
man of letters, because his style has not
the requisite evidences of good tissue.
He admits that Emerson has passages of
noble and pathetic eloquence and of
shrewd and felicitous wit, and crisp cpl
grams and exquisitely touched observa-
tons of nature, hut he is not to be classed
with the great writers with genius and
instinct for style, whose prose is, by
kind of native necessity, true and sound.
But, he added, that while Emerson is a
propounder of philosophy, he cannot be
called great philosophical writer. This,
because he cannot build, his arrangement
of philosophical ideas has no progress in
it, no evolution, and does not construct
philosophy. Then he proceeded to speak
Vi GuleIsOn az LIS u NC SSI4tLASO5 GNU
while he found him to be neither great
poet, great philosopher, nor great
writer, he declared that he is
like Marcus Aurelius, who, while
not great philosophy-maker, was the
friend and alder of those who would
live in the spirit. Emerson's secret was in
mis- temper-his serene, beautiful temper.
As Wordsworth's poetry, in his opinion,
is the most important work done in verse
in our language during the century, SO EN-
erson's essays are the most important
works done in prose- His work is much
more important, he said, than that of Car
lyle, and he added Happiness in labor,
righteousness and veracity-in the life of
the spirit; happiness and eternal hope
that was Emerson's gospel. But you have
two men who, in what they have written,
show this sanguineness in a case where
courage and hope are just, where they are
also infinitely important, but where they
are not easy. The two men are franklin
and Emerson" We cannot but think Mr..
Arnold has made mistake in this assault
1t is courageous, and all that, but it is not
justihable. No one has desired to exalt
Emerson above all other writers, nor yet
to class him as the greatest literary genius
Mr. Arnold assumed positions 20 destroy
~ g. b., g IS
Gle Mr.. Arnold's statement that while
Emerson is not great writer, his service
to the century has been greater than that
of Carlyle. Is the great writer only the
nan of Hottest style after all, instead of
the man of greatest accomplishment Are
we not to Judge writers, when we
would classify them, by the ser
vice they render their fellow,men If it
is true, as MIR. Arnold says, that Emerson's
essays are the greatest works in prose of
the century, WY should he dispute those
who would class him among great writers?
We submit, that to estimate greatness in
literary art by style alone is not the proper
standard of criticism. We are unable to
draw the distinction Mr.. Arnold insists
upon when he assais Emerson's philosophic
essays as lacking force and Wilderness, and
Immediately adds that Emerson is the
alder of those "who would live in the
spirit" Mr. Arnold tells us-and we
submit that the telling discloses its own
ontradiction-that " Emerson's insight is
admirable" and "his truth is precious.
He is the teacher of happiness in labor and
eternal hope, but despite this he says,
"his observation has not the disinterested
qualities of such masters as Montaigne, La
Bruyere and Addison" Then he adds,
"Emerson's observation is that Of a man
systematically benevolent as Hawthornes"
and here is INTERCEPTED criticism that
will not be taken kindly, nor should it be
las Hawthorne's observation in Our
Old Home is the work of man cha
grined." Mr., Arnold says that not with
the Millions and Platos and Spinczas can
we compare Emerson but we may ask
what American critic has undertaken such
COMPARISONS? Is not Mr.. Arnold again
building men of straw 1t is just possible
that Mr.. Arnold's critical spirit has shut
him out from true sympathy with Emer-
son.