The Portland daily press., 1886-06-11

that she is right when she adds that my in
SEPARATION would prove inadequate 10 the
task Of producing better novels than
those which George Eliot has given us. That
with the rest of the world.
But granting all this to be true, what tol-
lows? The fact that Coleridge did not and
could not. evolve one of Shakespeare's plays
or any play half SO good, dld not prevent ms
critical studies of those great masterpieces
from taking rank among the priceless and
permanent possessions OF English literature
Indeed. if only a mind capable OF writing an
immortal work were competent to critclse II,
where could we look for our eXpoauh9Gers, NOT
only of Shakespeare, but Oh Dante, opeiiSeI'
Milton and Goethe?
The imaginative power. OF the novellst anu
the poet is one thing; the analyuG power
which applies recognized rules 10 the NoilA
another has produced, ana thus discovers lss
excellences and defects, is quite another.
The comparison to be made in the case be-
fore us is not this between George Ellot's
abilities and those of her critic; it is one be-
tween the novels of George Eliot and the ac-
cepted standards Of artistic perfection winch
prevail in that department Of literary work
and the question is: Has the critic made
this comparison fairly and We'll?
Whatever degree OF merit the study OF
George Eliot and her heroines may possess
must depend on quite other qualities in the
author than those which would produce the
very work she has criticised. To act and to
Judge are wholly different functions, and
neither is necessarily dependent on the
other Because man has never made a pair
of shoes is no reason why he does not know
a good pair when he sees them.
Furthermore, we are told that the pessi-
mistic philosophy and scientific atheism
revealed in George Elot's works are likely
to last as long as the shay transcendental-
ism of the critic. The phrase quoted must
be intended to characterize the few simple,
direct statements which the book contains,
of that fundamental belief in God and inn
mortality which has been shared by the mass
of mankind, in all ages of the world, The
receiver gives no reason Tor this iona Dene1,
and we must leave her to enjoy the prospect
it unrollS
One might be tempted to employ the re-
viewers own logic against herself, and to
say that it is because she could not write
George Eliot and Her HeroineS that. she IS
incompetent to pass judgment upon it. The
incompetency exists, not because of that, but
because instead of applying principles she
resorts to personalities; instead OF treating
of the work. she belittles the worker; in
stead of examining the volume before her,
she passes to consider the volumes that have
not been written, and can not be.
Against such irrelevant-n0t to say lmper-
tinent personal criticism as this anonymous
writer puts forth under the semblance OF a
book reviewer, l may be permitted to set the
opinion of this work held by Edmund z.
Stedman of New York, whose recent volumes
upon the Victorian and American poets
prove him to be perhaps the ablest and most
philosophical critic of literature which
America has yet produced. He says OF
George Eliot and Her Heroines: mo more
artistic, concrete, logical and penetratiye
essay in literary criticism has been produced
of late whether by man or woman. 1t
is delight to have a noble subject treated
adequately and judiciously."
ABBA GooLD WooLsoN.