New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-07-23
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
ESSAYS IN CRITICISM.

ner's Sons.
This volume contains critical essays upon Crabbe,
Hogg Sydney Smith. Jeffrey, Hazlitt, Moore Lfigh
Hunt Peacock Wilson, De Quincy, LocKhar''
Praed and Barron. together with an Introductory
paper on "The Kinds Of Criticism" we ma
Mr. Saintsbury at his best in these appreclations,
the interest and penetration of which are well
matched by their temperatures and eievauon oi
tone. II there is q Earring note ii proceeds from
the sometimes rather undue expression OF that
conservatism which his enemies might prefer 10
call Toryism and which seeks outlet in declara-
lions of fncompatibility and lack of sympathy Win
many lines of tendency which belong rather 10
the spirit of the age than TO purely radical motives
Still il is not to be regretted and is indeed o1teh
highly necessary, that men able to think ana u
express thought clearly and strongly, should from
time to time question sharply the dominant
movements of the age, should challenge ten
credentials, so TO speak, and should thus orush
away the fog Of easy credulity which freqoenuy
usurps the place of reason in giving weight 10
new and untried departures. Nor is there any
unntness. but rather the reverse in this extension
of criticism by a critic of literature TO ethics
notifies and life in its more extended manifesto
tions For the critic of literature, if he has pre-
pared himself for his functions as, according 10
Mr.. Saintsbury, every such critic should prepare
himself is even above most other men in posltlon
70 test and prove new movements of thought In
all directions. -"
The Introductory essay in this volume, On the
Kinds Of Criticism" embodies the writer's theory
as TO what criticism should and should not be,
and il deserves to be read very carefully, es-
pecially by professed critics, for, though the
standards set up in it are high, perhaps too high
to be attained by the majority, it would assuredy
be well for modern criticism if the effort to reach
them were more general, nay, even If the i'm
portance and desirability of them, merely, were
more widely recognized. Some idea OF the nature
of Mr. Saintsburys doctrine may De gathered from
the following brief citation: The test ques-
ton" he SAYS, as / should put it, of the value
of criticism is, What idea of the original would
this critic give a tolerably Instructed person
who did not know that original Z" And again,
How far has this critic seen steadily ana seen
whole the subject which he has set himself to
consider? How far has he referred the main pc
culiarities of that subject to their proximate
causes and effects? How far has he attempted TO
place, and succeeded in placing, the subject in
the general history of literature, in the particular
history Of it's own language, in the collection OF
authors of its department? How lar, In
short, has he applied what / may perhaps be eX-
cused for calling the comparative method in lit
erature to the particular instance have read very
famous, and in their way very accomplished eX-
ampes of literature ostensibly critical, in which
few if any of these questions seem TO have been
even considered by the critic lie may have said
many pretty things; he may have SHOWN what
clever fellow he is; he may have in his own
person contributed good literature TO swell the
literary sum. But has he done anything to aid
the general grasp OF that literary sum, TO place his
man under certain lights and in certain aspects,
with due allowance for the possibility of other
aspects and other lights? Very often l think it
must he admitted that he has not"
What Mr. Saintsbury has to say upon the
French demand-most strongly put by the late
NJ Hennequin-for scientific" criticism also
strikes eminently just. Science is one thing
criticism is quite another The first depends upon
the unifcation of facts the second deals with
mental phenomena, physical and temperamental
effects and literary sgniicances to none Of which
can the tests of the crucible and the balance be
applied. But the readers OF Mr. Saintsbury's es
says will doubt best appreciate his critical
theory in observing his own application OF IT.
His method here pursues certain uniformity.
He prefaces each study of an author with bio
graphical sketch, for the purpose Of individually
ing the subject Then he assumes the function
of advocatus daboi" and sums up all the defects
of his author. Having thus liberated his mind, he
proceeds to anayze the authors works, to point
out their beauties and eXcellences, to compare
its proper place in literature. The general
suit of this method is to impart very high de-
gree Of interest to the essays. The particular
impression left upon the average mind is certain
not to be uniform, but are little afraid that,
in at least some instances the apparent disaccord
between the arguments of the critic, writing as
devils advocate, and his opinions delivered from
the purely critical point of view may have
tendency TO confuse.
OF course the reader OF such volume of criti-
cism will be largely influenced in his opinion of
its judgments by his preexisting views of the
writers whose position and merits are discussed.
We confess to having found ourselves so often
in full sympathy with the views of Mr.. Saints
bury that it becomes difficult TO consider them
with complete impartiality. Especially is this
the case with regard to Hazlitt, Sydney Smith,
Crabbe Moore, Leigh Hunt Wilson and Barron
The essay upon the last named is delightfully."- SYM
pathetic, and should send many a reader to the
library for the works of one of the most agreed BILE
writers Of the century, even though it has to be
admitted that he is comparatively little known.
Hazlitts literary standing is CALAMITY supported
by Mr. Saintsbury, and here too he has engaged
in proper and necessary work of rehabilitation
The essay on Peacock is less sympathetic to u.s.
Peacock's wit and quaintness are undeniable but
1t seems TO us that there is room for question
as to his general interestingness We should be
Inclined TO say that his letter qualities are often
Overlaid with differences and divagation as
partially TO obscure them and as to produce Ger.
tain effect Of heaviness. But there are special
tastes to be developed in the study of authors so
outside of all rule as Peacock, and one may well
be dident in the expression Of opinion concern
ing them. That the general public have found him
difficult is unfortunately proved only too clearly
by the virtual shelving of him these many years
That he deserves rehcarng may be regarded as
established by Mr.. Saintsbury's and sound
judgment; though whether a collected edi-
ton of his works would find market to-day is
question the determination Of which must be left
20 the publishers
IL as Mr. Sainfshnrv reminds ns il hog haor