The Arkansaw traveler., 1885-11-14
WALT WHITMAN.

|
 | Walker Kennedy, in North Amer, Review l Ten or twelve years ago read in an English magazine review ofWalt Whit 4 mans Leaves of Grass" It contained several selections from the book which
 induced a feeling of utter bewilderment s Since that time have read sundry other compositions of the "good gray poet, !" . and always the effect has been the same As one stumbies through the uncou,h chants, the mixed metaphors, the hirsute style, the ragged similes, and the ricke,y grammar oi the :" Leaves of Grass" he begins 10 feel that he is lost in a wild jungle, and must trust to luck to get out The ordinary compass will avail him naught. The poet must be judged by none of the received standards.
 In a recent issue of New York jour nal, Walt Whitman casts a backward glance on his own road. Even in this sketch, 1t is no easy task to divine what he is driving at. His vaeueness of style and elusiveness of thought pervade even this prose article in which he endeavors to set forth some of the motives and the ories involved in his "Leaves." Criti- cism on that extraordinary production has taken the shape of indiscriminate eu- logy, or has confined itself to a condem.
 aation of the glaring vulganty of the
 book. This general arraignment of the
 work for its immortality has probably
 been the cause of its sale. Let n be an-
 nounced that the author has expunse
 from 1t all the ppseemly passages, and | hA l.
 Walt Whitman has been chanting his own praises so long, aud has made such noisy claims for his writings, that cliti- cism of his Leaves may not be un- timely. There is still considerable curi- osity about him and his book, and some sort of settled opinion should be reached and verdict pronounced upon the worth of his alleged poems. In his latest aI.i- cle Mir. Whitman says:
 Many consider the expression of poe ty and art to come under certain inhexi-
 bic standards, set patterns, fixed and inn movable, like iron castings. To the high est sense, nothing of the sort As, in the theatre of to- day, each new actor of real merit tor Hamlet or any eminent role) recreates the persons of the older dra- ma, sending tradition to the winds, and producing new character on the stage tho adaptation, development, ncarnatlon, Of his own traits, idiosyncrasy, and en- vlronment,-' there being not merely one good way of representing great part, but as many ways as there are great act tors, ,'-so in constructing poems"
 There are certain inhexible standards for fine art and poetry as well as for the stage. and the wings of genius have never Jagged because of them. An actor re- creates HamleI by his personal magnet
 ism, his subtler grasp of Shakespeare's meaning, his finer mastery Of motives un- derlying the character, and his ability to project an animated, picturesque DOT uaiture upon the sensibilities of the audi ence. Suppose, however, he undertook
 to play the part in cutaway coat, plug hat, corduroy trowsers and green stock. ings; suppose he interpolated modern gags in the soliloquies, or recited ITO be or not to be r" while standing on his head He would be original, but intol- erable. However great might be his genius, however 6ercely he might cast stage traditions to the winds, there are certain standards he could not destroy
 He would have to preserve the dignity of the character, its psychological prom inence. it's intensity, and its morbid intel- lectuality. In literature it is the same. Standards of some kind must ballast the writer, or he may go on to Ursa Major. There are two kinds of literature,-prose aud poetry; and, as Monsieur Jordan says, everything written is either one or the other. Unless some kind of metrical ar- rangement is observed by a writer, then his production is prose. Emerson Is al- lowed to diverge widely from ordinary rhythm, but no one doubts that he has written poetry. Whitman claims that his Leaves are poems, using the word m the old Greek sense, probably. It is hard to admit that tine "Leav.r ate ether prose or poetry. Nothing but a pufgatory of their own is adapted to their Inception. They are literary mermaids, without the legendary interest associa- ted with those hydrologic characters.
 But MT. Whitman says mo one will get at my verses who insists upon re- viewing them as literary performance, Or attempt at such performance, or as aiming mainly toward art or sstheticism. hope to go on record for something Notwithstanding better, nImay dare to say so." No one is likely to insist that the poet aimed very sedulously at art but if Leaves of Grass" is not literary performances, what is it? It is surely not a scientific leatise nor passage of music. It is 2 literary work, and when MT. Whitman does not want it judged as such he ap- pears in the part of the man endeavorips z