New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-23
LITERARY HISTORY.
IT'S MATERIAL IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY.


CENTURY.
4 HISTORY OF NINETEENTH CENTURY LII, LIT
ERATURE. G7@-l@5) By G eorse H i,aSa,,,2c
N he University OF Edinburgh. Octave. pp
XII Az. New-York and LONDON ''''"'''""
CO. ,.
LTEKAKYl, , CAENX rT!!Y Contributions Toward =
ITdrnrv History OF the Period Edl'sd . ~ w, W.
RoeerisOn Nisol NJ Al Al * lL Icnd doa HoiicT
e stoughton. New-York: Dodd. Mead CO.
documents are the life blood Of history. That
Tho force Of this observation depends upon the
character Of the documents and upon the way III
which they are handled. should be 50 obvious az
% renlirc no discussion. But the DOCKS "o''"
above raise an interesting question as 10 the po''
of view essential in the premises what are VIZ
documents Of literary history? Literature 'he
most fitting answer would seem 70 De- i'' w,
unexpected significance which may Dc "''"O"''
70 If according TO the historians turn VI "'''''' -
concisely shown in the present instance
Of the writer's responsible for the volumes "'r''
review appears to have true cohcep""" - WV
character u literary history. MT Sa'h'so"' -
for example aludes cursor!ly u the ''"0'''"
against the influence o. Carlyle. Ana 'n'''' -
NO., No., q history u thought" h. continues
.1,s,.,d IF being a history Of the verDaI "N''eH-
stone ~ thought IT would be possible ana '"''
os,iny 10 explain this reaction ana 70 forecast
the certain rebound from H. IL "ou'1 10 u"
,erestIng TO know Just where literary h's'o'''''
draws the line between thought ana 'h' WI O''
exnression Of IT, and just why his once H'"u'"
include the cataloguing OF one and exclude 'n'
INTERPRETATION Of the other. Mr Saintsoury does
rot make this plain .
Aprt.
So much good work has been zone ny W.
Saintsbury that the character OF ms oooN 81" Wv
English literature OF the century ~ 'h'i 0"S mp
s,rnr,s,ne. The latest volume from his hand Is
one Of the most lamentabe examples OF HchihIeu
Matchmaking that ever appeared with ut'e-
-. .,,,,,o.s,iv. Of great Things No rnetaphys-
Gal ouibble can relieve the author from inc
l,,..,'o -, having abandoned all serious response
huitv in the passage to which reference has been
I'D above He may assert that he has
,, ,ared - sum up each writer lying Win
In tho chronology Of his book and that he has
even shown the relation Of one man 10 the next
a uu, nc has done this SO sup,rhcially that
bis conclusions carry no great weight. the mag
,,at,op ~ the reader Is rot knded, there Is lit
II. within the covers Of the volume that merits
the destination OF history. MIR. Saintsbury has
not written a history at oil. lie has put To-
gether. ih more or less compendious FORM a
quantity Of fairly consecutive paragraphs
sometimes pages on the line OF writer's b'bh-
ming with men Ike Blake and Burns ending
with men like Patcr and Ruskin. AS he takes
I'D each poet or prose writer he states the titles
OF his works tells little about them ana what
he thinks Of them. points out what he considers
their relative positions to be, and passes on 10
the next individual with regret tina, he cannot
say more
Merely as n scheme Mr.. Saintsburys book
promises well. To have done what he has just
been described doing might seem 10 assure
10 the reader a history sufficient In scope. But
a scrapbook would do just as well If some intel
ligent editor were to take the task Of compiling
1t upon himself. The writer Of a literary history
needs the faculty Of coordination In a high state
OF development and Mr.. Saintsbury has not that
faculty save In the smallest measure. In his
chronology he Is sound, but that is compare
lively small matter. The main point In liter
airy history Is that chronology should be the elo-
auent record Of an intellectual development. and
that a writer should be considered as a sentient
link In one unbroken chain. The diversity Of our
literature during the nineteenth century appears
to render this impossible. but the appearance is
misleading. From Blake to Mr. Ruskn the
literature Of England has been held together by
q strain Of SUFFICIENTLY which compels the his
torian. II he is adequate to his task to put him
self at once In sympathy with the personalities
In his field. to let them spcak through him. To
bring them close 10 his reader az living figures
and not names tackled to this book or that
upon which he Uhe hstorlan) has this or thar
opinion. 1t Is in his failure TO do this that Mr.
Saintsbury reveals thS looseness Of his hold upon
documents. his insensibility TO their true char
acter as historical data.
He has a purely literary cast of mind IJtera
ture for him is good or bad. and h.
judges II, with critical faculties so care
fully trained that he can. as rule teu
the bad from the good But IL is. nevertbe.
less, unduly specialized function which bs
exercises He says himself that he believes q
process of literary comparison. to be
! the strongest, the safest, the best engine NJ
literary criticism. altogether" and the mpres.
sion he leaves is that skilful comparison and
very little else has served him as a touchstone
| The documents Of literary history COR him arc
| things to be compared and then pgeon-holsd
They are more than this for the true critic
They are things of burning life or Of vita1,t;
so low that they only need few more vears IN
the solitude of library corners In which IN die
from sheer hamilton. Whether potent or dvipg
the material of literary history Is for the com.
petent historian material for his Imagination
substance TO be thrown into the furnace of his
thought. and there wrought into the whole
which his constructive genius inspires as the
logical outcome OF his study
Sainte-Beuve in France and Matthew Arnold
in England. for all their academic tendencies
were the great opponents OF this kind of LIZ.