The sun., 1891-06-21
SOME NEW BOOKS.


sense q misnomer since the author does nc
discuss the most distinguished men OF letter
in the period named. None OF the thirtee
papers Ia allotted to Byron. Shelley. or Kest,
Coleridge Wordsworth southey. or Tennyson
TO Macsulay or Carlyle. Mr.. saintsbury's at
tention IN devoted rather TO such minor poet
as Crabbe. Moore. Hogg. Leigh Hunt, snt
rraed, and to such prose writer's as sidne!
Smith, jeffrey Hazlitt, Peacock. Wilson. d,
Quincy. Lockhart. and Barrow. 1t is jus
because, however. these writer's arc not IL
the first rank that study OF their intelleo
tual quality and achievement has. in some de-
gree. the charm OF novelty. This attraction Il
particularly felt in the papers on Crabbe. Haz
lit, and Wilson. and 1t is no doubt on those
that most readers will prefer to linger.
We should mention that in an introduc
chapter Mr.. Saintsbury has made q useful
contribution toward definition OF criticism,
or ut least toward tho perception that the
word is indennnble. He has fairly stated the
various meanings which the word has borne
in tho minds Of English and French experts.
and he has given reasons. which ore strong. II
not conclusive. for the signlfcntion which ho
would give the term. 1t will be remem bered
that Mr.. Goodwin Smith has asserted that the
province OF criticism seems now limited to tho
saying OF fine things. and there is no doubt
that tho remark expresses tho prevailing prac-
tics. II not tho accepted theory OF tho art.
Others contend TINT the new criticism should
be above all things scientific" on tho ground
that Rsthetic.. as we'll as moral and social prin-
ciples. must DO readiusted in accordance with
the teachings OF tho Darwinian philosophy.
In the sfaee OF Darwin. however. Dir. Saints
bury insists that with beauty. science has alb.
soutely nothing to do. and that you will ask
the scientist in vain to tell you why some
dozen OF tho simplest words. arranged by one
man In one fnshion. mako permanent add
tion. to the delight OF tho world. while other
words. differently arranged by others. do not.
Other varieties. or sub-varieties OF criticism,
receive some notice in Mr.. Saintsbury's intro
duction. He refers. for instance. to the critic.
perhaps OF all critics the most popular. who
simply uses his subject as a sort Of spring.
board on which to display his personal grace
and agility. Allied to him is a second kind.
who founds on his subject elaborate descants.
making 1t the theme OF complicated variations.
And finally there is tho purely impressionist
critic, who endeavors to show tho impression
which the subject has produced on him. The
impressionist comes nearer to fulfilling Mr..
6aintsbury's conception OF criticism. although
an expression Of personal liking scarcely con-
stitutes q judgment. Obviously. II the crtiu
does not know much. his impression may
not be worth much. Judgment implies com.
parison. and comparison, OF course. wide. II
not exhaustive knowledge. It is considera-
tion OF this fact that leads Mr.. Saintsbury to
deal somewhat harshly with Mr.. Howells's
essays in criticism. He thinks that the dis
tinGuished novelist has not read enough and
does not know enough for the part upon which
he hns lately ventured. I'VE have at this mo-
ment" says the author Of these papers. IAN
awful example Of an exceedingly clever
writer who has commenced critic. dlsdainins
this preparation Ii. e.. the preparation OF wide
and careful readingl Here Is q clever man,
q very clever man. an excellent. though OF late
years slightly depraved practitioner in one
branch OF art. who suddenly and without
preparation takes to another and becomes
spectacle to men and angels. hope that We
shall one day have q collection of Mr.. Howellss
critical dicta on novels and other things: they
will be ono of the most valuable. one Of the
most terrible OF books. as showing what hap
pens whom man speaks without knowledge.
To read what MY. Howells says OF Thackeray
Is almost m illiberal education. The reason
OF the error 10 quito obvious It Is simply that
the clever American does not know: he has
not sufficient range OF comparison" CrIti-
cism. a. Mr.. Saintsbury himself understands
1t. and endeavors to produos 1t. is indeed
q long and difficult art for its end is moth
sort Of copspectus Of all literature. as q good
atlas. thoroughly conned. provides a man with
a conspectns Of the orJis terraru,n. II critical
knowledge Is to be thus defined, the life of
Methuselah and tho mind OF Shakespeare to- |
gethor could hardly take the whole OF It for
their Joint province. Nor is all-embraciDg
erndltion. as Mr. Saintsbury admits. without
dangers peculiar to itself. The man OF com.
prehensive learning will be apt to lack the ex-
II. A.
lectual arstocracy. the fervor and rapture OF |
nsthetic passion. He will deal very cautiously
in superlatives. and his Communications. when |
he gives them. will sometimes have to more
gushing persons an almost ludcrous mir OF
underst tatement.
Whether The critic and the reviewer-two
things by n o means synonymous-arev valuable
members OF society or useless membranes.
is a question which Mr.. Snintsbury docs not
undertake 10 answer: he leaves the decision
to the world at large which apparently is in
10 hurry to make 1t. One thing. however. he
secs clearly. namely. that there are certain
things which NO critic, whether major or minor.
can perform. At tho present epoch. at all
events. he cannot with positive certainty sell
or prevent the sale OF book.
The most striking thing In tho paper on
Crnbbe Is the comparison OF that writer with
T.Ie. When the reaction against the poetry
of tho age OF Anne was at its height 1t was
not unusual to henr Pope and Crabbe classed
together as authors OF netrlcal prose. Such
did GROSS injustice 10 the author
Of tho Rape OF the Lock-" The difference
between Crabbe and Pope was pointed out
long ago by Hazlitt. who said that Crabbe
would describe merely what was there."
whereas In Pope there would be an appeal to
The Imagination, and you would see what was
passing in a poetical point OF view Not of
course from the viewpon. OF n rhapsodist like
Shelley. hut not from tho view point OF prose
writing either. Crabbo's constant fault is that
he IL pictorial rather than postc. and 1t is
wen moro exact to say that he Is Photographic
rather than pictorial. One perceivos Mt once
hat Crabbe's verse is measured prose II
one tests 1t by tho maxim that the
yre Ia winge instrument aud must
transport There is no wing In Crabbe and no
because there Is no music. But be-
,ause Crabbe does not satisfy tho deeper deti-