The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-09-11

Ynrities of his way Of writing plays, anu
| the superiority of his over the WY shot
| other men. But, then. VINO hno"S .nI
| shis in Shakespeare was wnoly lno IL
strength. and that, had he lived under snc
| temntation of editorial checks IN Nlree d
ures for n few pages over a great MAINS
ovcn he would have preserved ms aap,,,,ta
| oblc reserve on questions Vi 'nSRh ie
Witbont this temptation, number oil IlS
"esteemed contemporaries, very oonSihh
orohle creators. too, did not scruple W puD
Ish strict theories by al tne ilellns ~, 80
TO them, and TO make the plas " 'Oi'
tract for popularizing tne uoh Ia not
Really The difference In question IL no'
II Zines but of individuals The cTe ni
o. 81 fac',Ity works effectually only IN am
~ .,ith the critical. Every arust -
ons S,,,nd somewhat with both, and noue
Sn.D ,,'St have his theories, bis set OF prih
~ 49,, =" V'hetber his theories, his set oI
ry;rc;nIos shall become dogma WIN
KIN thing of itself TO proclaim anu
f t for. will depend on the relaIlttie
s'rencth Of the two faculties IN eacn mn,
.;dna1 If the predominant faculIy pc
Wv, VIZ arootive the critical serving 1t rs
hrnbIo and scarcely noticed guide' you
ebaII have few or no words from tne ar
,ief as 20 method. If, on the other manu.
the critical be the predominant one
method will acquire in the artist esteem
n corresponding performance. -
Sometimes. where the intellectual force
10 nrcttv evenly apportioned between the
two faculties, they set up sort or rolh-
tiOn of the sovereignty each noiuins su
premacy by turns. 1t is by the grace o1
some such accommodation as TINS tnae
we have instances Of artists VINO hVlu any
urge theories to the point of mania ana
NJ
order. Fielding, for example, turned 10
writing novels under the supremacy. not
of the creative. but of the critical 1aculty,
intending at first nothing but criticism on
Richardson. Under the returning sway
of the other faculty. the creative, thls
criticism took the form Of fable, ana
Fielding set out to make IN Joseph An,
drcws" a simple burlesque OF fameia'
But the creative faculty coming, with the
progress of the work, into almost exclusive
dominion. criticism Of Richardson was
lost sight of. and Joseph Andrews be-
came. instead Of & joke and glbe, an
independent and original creation. But
il still bears traces, and others OF Field
ings novels bear traces. OF the contlct Oh
the two faculties in him. He obtruded
discourses on method that, while interest
ing. are strictly a blemish in artistic por-
trayals.
a vet more striking example is Words
worth. Under the full supremacy OF the
creative faculty. he produced poetry OF
such excellence that he is ranked among
the first five or six poets Of modern times.
But this is scarcely fourth Of the whole
body of his production; and the rest Is so
tainted by theory run mad as TO be
almost yalueless, and in parts positively
ludicrous With such instances rs these
To keep us IN heart we need not grow
homeless before any present disposition
of the creative artist 10 aid his notions:
Ii is clear that he may be very much Of
n dogmatist, and still remain capable, OF
supreme creation; though his being dog
matist must, as far as it goes, be always
hindrauce to him.-Scrbner's Magazine
for September