The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-11-08
OUR LITERARY BUDGET.
Yha Demand Among Foreigners for an
american Literature
VIEWS OF WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS
He Attacks the Hyporcriticism Of Europeans
nal Literary Spirit IN the Unitdd States

From time TO time thore comes voice
across the sea asking US IN varied terms oi
reproach and entreaty why We nave not I"
national literature. AS we understand TINS
voice. a national literature would be some
thing very becoming and useful TO Us as
people. and il would be no more than ID que
the friendly expectation of the English W.T.
nesses Of our restitution who have denied
from the beginning that we ever could have
national literature: and approved 1t.
The reasons which they still address to our
guilty consciousness IN demanding national
literature OF us are such and 50 many That the
American who reads their appeals must
be very hardened offender II he does
not at once inwardiy resolve to d. al
he can 20 have one. + or our own part we
scarcely know how & keep our patience with
the writers who have as yet failed 10 supply
u with IT, We are personally acquainted
with dozen Americans who could any 0ne
Of them give Us national literature, If ne
would take tie pains n fact. we Anow OF
some fngshmen who could produce q very
fair national literature for us. All they would
have to do would be - write differently IRON
those American authors whose orks have
failed 10 embOdy national literature o. IN
mistakable nationality. But with literature
this OF them and we should not hope or help
from Inglish writers except IN the form o.
advice aud censure. We ought 10 30 very
glad % have 50 much Int whether We are
glad or not we are likely e. have H. Tor there
is nothing mean about Lngllshmcn when u
comes 70 advice and censure. and II we can
not get them 20 make a national literature Tor
Us we had better learn from item how 60
make it ourselves. We DO not understand the
observers of our literary poverty % deny that
in certain qualities and cOlCrs We nave already
something national in literature. Perhaps II
they were 70 extend tho field OF their know
ledge little in the direction Of their specula-
lions they might discover that We had
something moro positive than these colors |
and ouall ties. hut 1t never was neCes- |
ssry for Engis hmen % know anything Of !
American affairs before writing about them. |
Here aud there an fuglsLman. like Mr.. |
Bryce taxes the trouble % inform himself. !
but We do not fancy he is the more accept |
able or edifying ID has cOuntrymen on that |
account and the fact remains that he really |
need not do IT, IN treating of American |
literature the English critics great Gualifca-
zion il that he should he master OF the fact |
that Mr. Walt. Whitman Is the only Ameri-
can who writes ike Mr.. alt Whitman. 10
must be owned that the English
critic works this single qualification
very hard. ne makes it go e
long way but we d. not blame him for his
thrifty use of it and we should be sorry 90
quarrel with the simple economy of the in
ference chat We have not q national literature
Al the proportion that VIC do not write like
BIZ. Whitman. N this viii sorve the turn Of
the English writer with the English public
why should he be ut any greater pains IN the
matter If We were To allow ourselves to
handy words with our betters. we think we
might make suggestion IN the interest Of
general criticism which would perhaps adj
vantage them. In the first place we should
Ike 20 invite observation L the fact
bat for all aesthetic purposes the American !
people are not Il nation. but a condition.
They are the old, weil-knOwu AnglO-SaXOn |
race. affected and modified by the infusion Of |
other strains. but not essentially changed by
these apd not very different from the En-
Rilsn at home except III their political envir-
oIfnent. and the vastness OF the scale of their
development. Their literature. so Tar rs they /
have produced any, is American nglish lit
eTsture Just as 5he English literature IS En-
yllsh- uropean. and 10 is as absurd 10 ask {
hem TO have q literature wholly their own
IS To ask them 10 have language wholly !
neir own. IN fact. We have noted that
where orr language docs differ from
hat OF the mother English or grand i
mother English the critics who wish '
s to have "A national literature are not partic-
Ilarly pleased. They call our differences :
Americanisms and they are afraid of their
ecoming. the language of the whole race.
hey ought TO be very careful. then. not 70 |
hide us too severely Tor our lack OF O national j
literature. IL ever we should turn 20 and !
ave one. there might be serious risk of It's !
ecoming the literature of the whole race I
here is no great danger of an event so morti- !
ylng at present and we merely intimate its a
possibility as IA warning to our critics not b. g
ress us TOO hard. II things should ever come v
0 that pass we notify them that not only viii {
he American pariance become the English !
language. but il viii be spelled according to
'oah Webster. The traveller viii have to Y
imp along on one J, and the man of honour n
5lll no longer point with the pride Of long b
escent 70 the Norman-freuc u in his last Z
yilable. In the meantime We wish 10 ask O
ur critics II they have not been looking for is
american literature IN the wrong p.ace. or. b
Q use an American expression which is n
imost Il literature In it-ef. whether thev II
ave not been barking up the wrong tree. Ii o.
ppears to MS that at this slage of the pro- l.
ceilings there IS no such thing as nationality v
the highest literary expressions but there d
univorsallty. humanity which 10 very
luch better. William Dean Howels. in
Iarper Magazine for November 81