The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-09-24

We give this only from an American
source. The scholarly literary Dial, OF
Chicago. says finely:
Hardly since The Scarlet Letter
and The Marble Faun' have we had
fictive work so spiritual in essence and
adorned with such delicate and lovely
embroiderings OF the Imagination.
There are descriptive passages so ex-
Quisitely wrought that the reader lin
gers over them to make a possession
forever"
Professor George Saintsbury. the
very eminent English literary author
and critic, has published a volume on
''Sir Walter Scott" Of Some $50 pages.
Like all he writes, it has a real inter-
est and value. He is not one Of thai
tribe Of latter-day critics who under
take to d~epreciate Scott, who really
had a most robust mind and a creative
genius beyond any dozen Of the writer's
who aspire to rival the great master.
Professor Saintsbury does not exagger-
ate SCOTS qualities in the least. He
rather undertakes, for we put a higher
claim for him than that made by one of
the sanest. soundest, most widely read
critics Of our time, or any other. for
that matter. He tells one thing that
rebukes the parrottings Of some recent
deriders who set up a scream that Scott
was not historical in his romances, took
liberties with facts ESQ did Shakes
peare) and, therefore. was unreliable
and did not fill the bill OF a genuine
historical romancer. Very Door, alb
surd stuff that. The professor said that
he was pleased at a reply he got when
speaking Of 1.-THE Tales Of a Grand
father" written when his genius was
in decay. We quote:
II was pleased, but not at all sur
prised when, some year or SO ago. l
asked a ~professed historian, and one Of
the best living authorities on this par
ticular subject, what he thought of the
general historical effect Of SCOTS work,
find him answer without the slightest
hesitation that 1t was about the sound
est thing putting mere details aside,
that exists on the matter" u
The little critics ought to stop try
ing to criticize Scott and Shakespeare
until they first understand them. Scott
was, of course, a careless writer, but
not half 80 much so as the master mind
Of all the centuries, the Oceanic"
Shakespeare. Here is an interesting
passage, only a part of what Professor
Saintsbury says on the subject Of
SCOTS carelessness in his novels and
in his best poems:
He himself, not out of pique or con
ceit, things utterly alien from his ma
ture, still less III Of laZineSS, but, as l
believe, what is a genuine, n what is
more, a correct self-criticism, has left
in his private writings repeated ex-
pressions of his belief hat revision and
correction in his case not only did not
cases, likely to do it positive harm,
that the spoon was made or the horn
spoiled Ito adopt his country prOverb)
at the first draft, and once for all. I
think this was a correct judgment, and
I do not see that it implies any in
feriority on his part = We may
yield to no one in the delight Of trac-
ing the exact correspondence of StrOphe
m antistrOphe in a Greek chorus, the
subtle vowel music of a Latin hymn or
a passage of Rossetti's. But I cannot
see why, because we rejoice in these
things, we should demand them of all
poetry,o or why, because we rejoice in the
faultless construction of Fielding or the
exquisite finish of Jane Austen as nov
elist, we should despise the lOoser
handling and more sweeping touch OF
Scott in prose-"