The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-02-11


ment Of Literature. They deceive then,-
selves, dou btless In their opinion OF tLem-
selves,and even in the reasons which they
give for their preferences. As they run
regardless after everything which
affected an air OF originality. they often
attach themselves 10 Ridiculous ks1
evanescent fashions OF taste; but, as they
ara always ssek ing some new thing, they
must also inevitably attach themselves
once In while to something which en-
oures, and so their help 10 not to be
wholly neglected. They could not, II
they would, held up for any length Of
time the false or the fragile, or anything
which had not within itself tho quality
of permauencc. But thoi- zeal although
ignorant, often helps to hasten the
triumph OF that which Is called to sur
vive. Their mistakes are OF little conse-
quence, and the noise they make about
their admirations sometimes proves use
full, when by good luck they chance to
hit upon really good thing to praise.
They have then, occasionally, o sooiologi-
cal utility. We should, Therefore, treae
them kindly, and, IL We cannot exactly
honor them We can at least forgive them.
But, after oil. why not honor them? 1
really believe that soino OF ths most for
tuDnto events in our. literature would
never have been brought about, or at
least far less quickly, had 1t not been for
the snops. For example, there was the
publication and refinement Of the French
language during the brst half of the
seventeenth century, the entrance of
natural and poltica sciences into litera-
ture in the eighteenth, the sentimental
and naturalistic movement instigated by
Jean Jacques, the evolution of romanti-
Gins followed by that of realism, which
Is now followed by that OF idealism, q
little mixed but still ideslsm wherein
we assist i'm our own oay and hour.
i have said that which distinguishes
snobs from other minds more submissive
and LACKING originality is the docility OF
vanity. Alas docs this really set them
in class apart? One can put vanity and
self-suniciency even into bowling the neck
to the yoke OF the past, even into wor-
ship of tradition and love OF routine.
They may be fund VINO are as proud OF
uciNHNihe VI hS
others Of pushing progress; and it is pos
sible to make ones self believed In the
one case as we'll as In the other.
After all, tradition is not established
or progress confirmed except by the
dociliiy and credulity of inferior
minds, ana by the influence of that
power of suggestion which is exercised
over them by a few superior minds; for
round these are ranged in two opposing
camps the snobs of novelty ana the snobs
OF habit, both very docile and perfectly
content TO be docile.
All this is all right. One can see IL
plainly enough by making the effort to be
sincere with ones self and to judge one's
self. We can find that some of our great
est admirations have rather forced them
selves upon us, that some book which has
given Us the greatest pleasure, or s::dons
us the most gooo, has not always resn
a famous, but perhaps, an almost un-
known book which hss spoken to US more
intimately and has penetrated further in-
to the core of our life. Now If every
body chose thus what a state of things,
what disorder, what anarchyl There
would be no more history of Literature, 1t
would not be possible not even conceivable
il the multitude did not believe in some
books on the word of a a few. This power
OF suggestion exercised over common
minds by the superintendents of intelli-
gence and IL you like by critics worthy :
of the name, often shows its influence
upon themselves also. Less criticism Is in
large measure sort OF suto-suggestion
and ] may almost say auto-snobpishness.
Man is so made that he can find cause
for vanity even in his admirations; he
plumes himself on adpiring for reasons
which are his own particular property
and then he admires himself for having
admired with so much originality. Even
The most loyal critic ia led into an exsg-
geration of all he feels of beauty in
writer and almost into invention of feel
ing. Whether dogmatic or impressionistic
the critics judgments ordinarily resem-
bic challenges wherein he takes per-
sonal pleasure. Nisard showed Ii as we'll
as Tsine-to name only the dead. Every
critic is more or less bis own dupe the
dupe of his theories and his ideas in
general which fslsity without his knowing
ii his special judgments Every critic
a fleets to see in a work that which others
do -set-see- and to be able to ssy like
! do not at all know IL OF hers are like me
But perceive therein hidden million