New-York tribune., 1896-01-14

By George Saintsbury. second series Tp. iA'
423 Imported by Charles Scribner's sons
1t Is not yet easy to call Mr.. Saintsbury by MS
new title Of professor His work has been too
various in its themes ana too wide In the scope
OF learning displayed to suggest professorship
The only thing about it to wsrrant such sug-
geston is its soldity. 1t IS rarely picturesque
but II is attractive for It's candor and trustwor-
thness When MI Santsbury goes counter to
prevalent opinion. as he does In tins Voiume loi
example. with reference 70 Southey, he usually
gives convincing reasons 1t has been the GUS
tom Of late TO deprcciate Southey. not merely on
account of those writings which his contempora-
res dislil;ed but in those matters whlch 'es-
tilted to his excellence. Mr.. Saintsbury opposes
the popular tendency. lie does not care hihlseil
for southev's English Eclogaes. but ne thinks it
something to say IN their favor that they were
the obvious originals of Tennyson's English
Idyls" 1t is for him only one of the merits OF
the Devils Walk" and "Al for Love- that IN
them originated the plan of the "1ngoldsby
Legends" Not that Southey was wholly without
O. predecessor He had learned something from
Monk Lewis But. after all. Southey gave more
than he received and to his ballads ana netlcal
tales Scott owed something, and Byron great
deal more than he would ever have confessed Oi
course. Mr.. Saintsbury admits that many Things
especially IN Southeys poetry must be rejected
For his own part he has never been able TO read
"Modoc" through and he admires at distance
the charms Of "Roderick" and "Thalaba. But
'.The Curse OF Kehama" IS TO him as to some
Others one Of the significant works OF English
literature He calls It really great without any
comparatives or allowances. But there are cav
1l,ers who would like to reserve that word
s'great' for a half dozen 50 OF works that have
stood the test Of time. 1t will be well enough TO
confer II widely. when. as Person said Homer
and Virgil are forgotten" For Southey's prose
writings so fsr as they are known. Mr.. Saints
bury has only praise lie filings with right good
will a word OF contempt at that pedantc folly
which is always repeating itself that persons,
at best qualified to add fOotnotes Of correction
and amplifcation" t. "The Life of Nelson have
presumed in recent days t. speak of II with dis
respect" Even In the affair Of Coleridge Mr..
saintsbury takes Southey's part against the COM
paratively mild censure of the late James Dykes
Campbell
In another case that Of Fanny Rurney. Mr..
Saintsbury takes ground in favor of fate and
against the author. \ great deal Of sympathy
has been expended early and late on the author
Of "Evelina' and Cecilia because she had to
be FOR some years one Of Queen Charlottes robe
keepers. She did not want the place and Mr.
Saintsbury makes up for the omissions Of others
by bestowing a little sharp Censure on that silly
man." DIR. Burney. whose wish made his daugh-
ter miserable for Eve years But the sympathy
extended TO Fanny Barney has usually taken for
granted that these five years Of burdensome life
with ROYALTY were 70 he blamed for the decay
Of genius betrayed In her later novels. Bu;
Mr. saintsbury maintains that the young lady
had written herself out before she became
Nine dArblay, ever before she became Assistant
Keeper Of the Robes and Victim in Chief to that
"intensely faithful OLD cat, Mrs. Schwellenberg.
lie holds that wha. vigor she had as novelist
was shown in "Evelina." and that even Cecilia
was a task which she forced upon herself rather
than a thing gladly done. 'In other words
saws Mr.. Santsbury. Miss Burney wrote Eve
lima because she had mind to do so she wrote
Cecilia because she made up her mind 70 do
So" This is not merely his own impression He
eppeals to distinct avowals by Nine dArblay In
her DIARY" that she felt herself written out,
though she gave no sign OF attributing her liter
ary languor TO an enforced association with
kings and queens and other unstimulating human
creatures. Her mind had turned 10 unromantic
J things and the Diary was the product Of these
changed mental conditions Mr.. Saintsbury Is
willing to break lance in defence Of the whole
"Diary" He does not find 1t tiresome anywhere.
There are those, however who content with
less than the whole.
The ESSAYS in this volume look like suggestions
for the period to which they belong But 1t will
take many more studies Of individual writers to
fll the outlines thus indicated. There Is no pos
siblty OF grouping the authors here treated,
even in pairs. except in cases where the critic
treats a theme and It's individual exponents as
fully as he ever expects 10 treat them He may
never recur to the three humorists. Cook. Barham
and Maginn and there is nobody else Of the same
period TO be considered with them. But the
essay on Hood suggests Praed and there is no
separate study OF Praed in this volume. The eX-
animation Of Cobbetts writings opens the way 10
whole body Of what might be called applied lit
erature" in the sense that one speaks of 'appllcd
in distinction from pure mathematics. The
studies Of Southey and Landor are suitable parts
in a plan for reviewing the whole pOetcal Htera-
ture Of the period, and the analysis OF Miss Fer
rier's novels, though ii Is little Ike trying TO
raise the dead. is a necessary chapter In English
fiction The paper on English songs. particu-
larlv on Campbell is a valuable excursus. But
the only complete work in the list is the elaborate
essay on THE Historical Novel" As to this por
ton of the scheme which imagine Mr.
there Is nothing more to do. Additional details
are unnecessary. But then this whole study Of
the historical novel is only one chapter in the
history OF English fiction.
EARLY NEW-YORK PRINTERS.
SKETCH OF PRINTERS, AND PRINTING (i,, IN
COLONIAL NEW-YOItK. BY Charles X. Hide
burn, with Numerous illustrations. PIP, xiv. ls9
DOdd Mead * CO.
This book fine example Of the De Ninne
Press. will be priced not only for its beauty. for