Morning journal and courier., 1883-04-16
Criticism, Right and Wrong.

distinguished critic has recently laid
 down principle which has been cited with
 approval, and perhaps with no more appro-
 val than it deserves when rightly underst ood
 But, like other wide maxims, it may be mis-
 interpreted, and requires some emendation We ought not, it is said, to blame writer for not being a different person. Stated in
 that absolute way, this amounts almost to saying that we ought not to blame at all To say that man is stupid, or wanting in imag- ination or logic, is clearly to blame him for not being man of greater talents, poetical
 and philosophical; and yet criticism would
 be limited indeed if we were not permitted to lnslnuate little reflections of that kind
 The function of the critic, indeed, is prima-
 rily that of the scientific reRsoner He has
 to say as we'll as he can what a
 man is-what, that is, are the qualities spec
 ially manifested in his works-and to say
 this equally whether the qualities be good or
 bad or, in other words, whether the state ment implies praise or blame. In saying
 what man is, we necessarily say what he is
 not; and it is simply a matter of conven-
 fence whether we use the negative or the positive mode of speech. To state in what
 degree he possesses particular quality is to say how far he falls short of some men and how far he exceeds others. The man of sci. eLOs caftaoS deser1Us D monkey without say. ing expressly or tacitly that his brain is greater than the reptiles and less than the mans. It matters not whether the critic measures upward from the zero point of ab- solute stupidity or downward from the boil ing point of genius. It is true, indeed. that there are limits to the convenience of the negative mode of description. It would be
 very roundabout way of describing mon- key to point out that he differs and how he differs from g mushroom. We mark only the peculiarities which distinguish him from the class with which he may be possibly con FNIrr laI k<- NG L resemblance. And the analogy may go so
 far as to illustrate the absurdity of insisting
 upon the facts that Newton's E.Principia'' shows no dramatic power and that ''Hamlet
 throws no light upon the principle of gravi-
 tation. This, however, takes us very little
 way, and would not, for example, prevent us from asserting that MT. Tennyson as dra-
 matist is scarcely the equal of Shakespeare. We may, however, apply the maxim more literally. Every writer, let us say, belongs to some class and aims at some particular kind of excellence. If we admit his aim to be legitimate, and the class to which he be- longs to be not simple nuisance, it follows that we should judge him by the correspond ing tests. We should not only refrain from treating the poet from the scientific point of view, but we must also admit that poetry it. self admits of many different measures.
 One poet is didactic, another purely sesthet
 ic; one is only playful, another is solemn,
 earnest and so forth and it is absurd to ap-
 ply in one case the standard which is appli-
 cable in another. This is no doubt true, and
 1t is the frequent neglect of the truth which
 most frequently brings the critic within dan
 ger of our maxim. Undoubtedly it is neces- sary to any soundness of judgment that the two questions should be distinguished. We may consider either the end or the success
 with which the given end is attained, and by confusing the two we are frequently guilty
 fnsr Are on1 Bronte were two admirable writers. Each had her own qualities, and each achieved 8 great success in her own line Now, it would
 be very improbable kind of criticism
 which should dwell upon the absence from each of the qualities of the other which blame Miss Austen for want of Miss Bronte's passion, and Miss Bronte for want of Miss Austen's exquisite balance and delicate hu- nor. It would be unproftable because it
 would be insisting upon self-eVident propo- sition, as in the famous case of the dogs
 meat man being no gentleman. The only useful criticism is that which recognizes the essential difference of the aim, and considers each writer under the rules appropriate to her class.
 There are as many different types of art in literature as there are of men. They do not differ simply as better and worse; for 1t is desirable, on every ground, that there should be many types; and 8 society is so far the better as it is rich in types. all of which must be regarded as equally legitimate. It is de- sirable to have poets and men of science also 1; philosophers and simple, pious souls without philosophy energetic and meditative men, and steady going people of business. It would be- therefore, absurd to complain that man should belong to one of these types, and equally absurd to propose that his work should not vary according to his qualities A catholic tolerance of many varieties of thought fzaI s- Sol 4<,k to the political and religious controversialist. A man, therefore, is not blamabIe simply as belonging to one of the legitimate types, nor when we have acknowledged its legitimacy IS there any sense in finding fault with him for not exhibiting 8 different set of qualities. This may be fairly (though not quite accu- rately) expressed in terms of criticism by saying that we should not blame man for not being abler than he is. Granting the aim, (which, again, must be generally grant ed). the only useful kind of criticism is that which shows how far he has attained it un- der all the necessary Limitations which it i'm poses. It cannot of course, be denied that there are some aims which are intrinsicalIy bad. Anyone who consciousiy or uncon- sciously is helping to degrade literature, to make 1t an instrument for pandering to sem suality or malice, deserves all that critic can give him for not being other than he is. He should bs made something other as soon as possible, and in default of that. silenced or endowed with fools cap. We may al- low of moral neutrality, but direct immoral ity is hateful whether it calls itself aesthetic or not for it is a proof that the swine. in stead of keeping harmlessly 1n h1s sty IS straying into the sacred precincts, and IS ur- gently in want of the lash. If we do. not blame him for being pig, we may at least scourge him for being pig in the wrong place.