New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-24

there ought to be a vital antagonism between
the estimate Of Wordsworth among his unregen-
crate contenporaries OF whom Jeffrey stands as
sign and symbol and that which prevails now.
There is such an antagonlsm." say the WORDS
worthians Not at ALL" replies Professor Mimic.
There is nothing but little confusion In literary
history" Then he turns his readers back 10 the
criticism Of those times to show that the maicon-
tents only included few lyrics in their censure
The vague impression that all Wordsworths
poetry was received with a howl OF derison ana
ridicule' by the literary conservatives al the CT
OF the last century Is contrary u the lacr Inc
hOwl--Vhich as gentle a warning as BulIF
Bottoms best effort until Wordsworth became
aggressive in his own defence-was directed al
mos; exclusively against three ballads-"Inc
Idiot Boy" "Goody Blake" ana The Thorn.
The test. then Of an actual revolution in poetic
taste dating from the publication of the Lyrical
Ballads must be The modern appreciation or
these three poems. Professor Mimic asserts
roundly that the taste for them still remains to
be created. They seem just as trivial and puI-
poseless as they did to Wcrd9w) rtns :coH-
ing contemporaries But then perhaps the reVo-
luton dated from the publication Of The EXcu'-
son," and Jeffrey's comment, This viii never
do" Again Professor Mimic answers in the Mega
tive People ne SAYS speak III Of Jeffrey but
they do no; read The Excursion" becausc the
Dulk Of !; IS positively Unreliable. The c7nclu-
sion. then. is that waile Wordsworth was great
force in literature, he was So not by those ec'cn-
triciies which violated all tradition. but b. Tho
les1 startling works which marked pha7' -. the
gradual transition from the old to the new. from
the formal perfection which a living thing in
Pope and dead absurdity in H2yey. 10 he per-
lection Of form seen in the great posts Of the We
torian Age. Another Ink by which Professor
Mimic binds Wordsworth to his time h" finds in
COler;dgc. He argues that Only after acquaiNt-
ance with Coleridge did Wordsworth disco n fis
own distinctive individual genius. This il the
same az to say that he came thoroughly 10 him
self only after contact with personality saturat-
ed with bookishness Even In Wo-lswOrth's
nature-worship the critic finds traces Of Cowper.
The level Ouse" he adds. Flowed through a
hatter Landscape than the Derwent and there
was fire and a majesty IL Wordsworth's strong
or spirit that we look for in vain in the gentle
Cowper But tho direction Of their feelings was
the same: the rhythm of their verse had much in
common; Wordsworths touch Was lNn9!ad at
Cowpers."
The examples given suffice TO snow how the
author worked on. his hypothesis % literary eyo-
the Augustan period or Of tn" opening nine
teenth century. 1t was less difficult - make out
a case than with Wordsworth or the Scottish
lyrcists If the question be- asked wfo tho
central figure is in this schan OF r'o"arr his
tory the answer again VIII be one to stGrtle
those who take their opinions Oh trust. il haa
long been the custom to decry Pope H1i Pope
is the cornerstone Of Professor M!ntos structure
He was the mpersOnation ~ tho spirit ~ his
age ana therefore disclosed the tendencies 10y
which it influenced the ages that followed. either
by subdulng them by provoking antaSoIisn
To recall men to the study of Pope t. good
service IN any case, especially at a time ike the
present. when great poets have all departed ana
the world stands waiting for the rise ~ new con-
stellations. Much dulness may have u b" en-
dured in the Interval. and thorough s'Ify OF
Pope might save even dUiness from dogrl latiOn,
where the delicate refinements Of the Ecsi re-
cent times would only intensity It Toe rhyred
heroic couplet Is still a good burden bearer.
Turning from particular names to the GENE q.
aspect Of this book. it may be sad that sug-
gestiveness is its marked characteristic II Is not
a history Of literature in the Georgian period be-
cause it lacks completeness, but !; is valuable
contribution TO that history. one who does not
agree with the author will. nevertheless and him
a good guide TO the questions upon which second
swers that may be open TO revision