New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-18
from the Anglo-Saxon point of view-to debase

from the AnglO-Saxon point Of vlew-to deoase
and coarscn instead Of 10 elevate.
For it is not enough 10 say that the sole pur-
pose Of fiction is 10 interest the reader III mus'
interest the reader, no d0Ibt, or 1T Will not pe
read: Int il has responsibilities as well as prlNi-
lcges If t is TO he regarded purely as arr, then 10
is dOuby bound TO maintain a high ethical stand
ard for art and ethics are inSeparaolc, ana 1haV
which is bad morals is also bad art. Ihcre Is n
realism which by telling everything pollutes the
mind. There is a realism which, while not less
candid, cniorccs by Us exposures the usllness OF
vice. and strengthens fhe mind. lola is the most
striking example Of the one. and Balzac oil inc
G. The pursuit of science without regard 10
etircs must always result in brutallzlng the
dev0tpc in fiction, and it is necessarily bad art,
inasmuch as ethics enter into human life at all
points and cannot be ASSOCIATED from 1t, any
more than the atmosphere can he dlssocmted from
a landscape There is another consideration
which is perhaps unduly sighted. IL is that OF
immoderat, concessions to foreign influence in
fiction To take a familiar Illustration, ii may be-
said that French Naturalism has proceeded
naturally in its proper habitat from national
antecedents and tendencies. But what has it in
common with the national antecedents and ten
denotes of England and America? II may be, as
less moral than elsewhere. That, however. is not
the point chiefly concerned The real question is
as to the hcalthful development of national
literature and that development appears TO be
incompatible with dependence upon an exterior
and radically different civilization for methods oil
treating the phenomena of life, their ethics ana
significance. No one probably believes that the
Code Napoleon could he profitably adapted to the
needs of Englishmen or Americans; but many APP
pear 10 think that the Code lola. the 'odc
Bourgct or the Code Maupassant, may be in
troduced to the great improvement OF our hction'
Mr. Thompson tells us that in the treatment OF
love in fiction may not hope TO compete win
the French nOvcliSts; that the AnSlo-SaAon lntel-
lect, with its austcrc and Puritanic training ana
inheritance is unable TO represent grand pas
sion in action. 1t may be so, and yet we are
inclined to think that with little reflection
very noble and sufficient catalogue of the kind
could be drawn from English anu American iic-
ton. But it is true enough that this fiction Is
wanting in the description of illicit love, and the
hiatus seems 10 vcx certain American and English
novclists rather surprisingly. A few, indeed, have
FASTENED To fill the gap, and not with the happieSt
results Yet surely the demonstration that high,
pure and enduring love may he entirely COM
patible with conventional virtue and dccOrum IS
worth the making and surely such a dcmonstra-
ton is better art than can be found In all TIE
" cnFOnlQuPS ScInndlcu>cS ana all lnP SCdbIOhS
romanccs Of the Naturallstc school. il is quite
possible to 90 too far in liberalism. This fault
had landed in the psntentlary not few good
fellows" whose views had expanded to SUCH an
extent that they lost all sense of distinction be-
tween "meum and "teum.' similar excess
has so affected some modern novcllsts that inc
public are becoming doubtful whether the terms
" naturalistic' and nasty" are not synonymous
But if fiction, to be vital, must truly represent
the zeitgeist"-the national genius Also and
cspccially-any endeavor n eng-aft upon the
N-nc fo whereof
here spoken. must either 60 counter TO the gen
eral tendencies. and so fail Of assimilation. or II
must shadow forth change in The national
spirit and the national ethics of which all that
can be said is that
at is not. and it cannot come 10. god'
Mr. Thompson, in his ingenious and carefully
reasoned essay. takes views of the philosophy OF
fiction with which find ourselves III the main
accordant We have noticed one or two points
on which we differ from him. but there is ample
room and verge enough fer partial dissent IN nc SO
review by citing beautiful passage from his
hook. which, in itself sufficiently vlndicates the
soundncss of his philosophy.
The only true theory Of the novel Is that
which places the artistic foremost But the truly
great artist is he who has the noblest and best
ideals These can alone exist in mind broad
ing funess Of moral sentiment possessing n
tender sympathy with human wants. and an nm
quenchable faith in the eternal and immortal.
not, indeed. as defined by formulas and creeds.
but everything, incxhaustible source OF
creative power. in the exercise OF which man: by
labor and aspiration, nav participate. Then
over and beyond the dismal prospect OF the
worlds woe rises always the vision of the heavens
we would construct and which when we mt mp
our eyes to their glorics draw MS unto them.
II is in the presence Of soul forever seeing
such visions that we behold the great artist.
When in the Medicean Chapel we gaze upon the
four "ineffable figures" that symbolic together
the WEAKNESS and the hope of humanity. the
sleep and the resurrection, the dawn following
the darkness. stand in awe, thinking not OF
the incompleteness Of the work Realism IL is.
but it is "transfgurcd realism" and 90 forth
admiring and fearing. knowing that have
been face to face with the work Of sublime cr"a-
tive genius understanding that it is such because
il takes hold of the imperishable, links one soul
TO the divine. and speaks to us with that voice
Of power whose utteTanccs, as Sophoces says,
"are not OF to-day nor Of Yesterday, and no
man can tell whence they came"