New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-21
LESLIE STEPHEN.
MIC CHARACTERISTICS AS AN EssAYIsT

The essayist. There is no one In the younger
generation who bears the remotest resemblance
10 any Of the distinguished essayists OF the past
and contemporary taste does not seem 10 De ID
the least disturbed by this fact In France the
ajenified tradition Of Sainte- Beuve is upheld 10
a certain extent by NJ. Brunetiere, but we nave
heard French poet of the rising school OBJ
s.rve with complacency that he and ms COM
rades found the author of the "Causeries du
Iundi" excessively old-fashioned, and 1t Is OBJ
vious to any that the really popular critics
are whimsical men like Anatole France or LIE
ma,tre The deaths Of Matthew Arnold. John
Addington Symonds and Walter Pater ieft the
English field almost exclusively IN the posses
sion OF pretentious and superficial hacks IKE
Saintsbury Of sentimental dabs'ers Ike Ahce
Meynen and Of mpressionists like MT Hehiev'
Ohio have transformed the essay into something
II was never meant to be. Between the essays
~ these writer's and such work Mr.. Leslie
Stephen produces, practising the methous OF the
old school there is a great gulf fixed. Where
his Young contemporaries are pleased TO be IN
dvjdual'--as they call the is content to main
tain that respect fol- authority which marks the
true scholar His impressions count but they
do not take the first place. He is neither acs-
demic nor pedantic He simply prefers to test
his nroblems by q wide experience of letters,
fortified by instinct. rather than by instinct
alone. In word. he substitutes intellect for
temperament The result, 1t happens, Is
never comparable to the result achieved by Ar
mold for example; 1t is never brilliant and
sometimes it is disappointing; but 1t is usually
Interesting and in these days of pseudo wisdom
II is very comforting.
So that we may the sooner put them behind
Us let US turn first to Mr.. Stephens deficiencies.
They are summed up in the fact that he Is not
q man of genius. The great essayists from
Montaigne down have had this quality. which
accounts alike for the imaginative reach OF De
Quincy and for the exquisite judgment OF Ar
mold MI Stephen fails to perceive 1t In the
latter, or at least, correctly to interpret its
operations for he observes that Arnold. when
he turned to criticism. was primarily poet
He finds weakness in the tendency Of that crti-
cism TO be subjective. and he talks about Ar
nold's intuition. his ineness Of perception. his
rare instinct, as though these things were some
how a little specious, q little inferior 10 the
pedestrian qualities Of mere man OF reason.
The truth is that II We speak OF Arnoids IN
stinct we are only fastening on one phase OF ms
nature Instinct with him meant the co-oroi-
mating power Of genius; ii did not imply that MS
likes or dislikes happened to be just ii meant
49,
thing criticised which writer's ike Mr.. S'epheH
must slowly dsengage by laborious processes
We are all disposed to think well OF our OWL
mental habits and to question those Oh o'he's
who are differently constituted MI SiePheh u
one OF the most modest Of men. yet ne laIis ihte
something like this error He ccnfesses his in
,.roritv admits the Phstinism with whicf
Arnold would perhaps have charged hln ou
no cannot follow all the movements OF the lat
ters mind-ergo. he feels II is not 'ui'e VII"
the mind Of the perfect critic ought 10 De- MI
Stephens limitations are Clearly hoica'eu oS
the illustration. What he can see ara hahoie liz
can interpret; but. not being man OF genius
he cannot successfully explore beyond certain
point Rarely does he take from ms thefhe some
far-reaching inspiration. lie sticks 10 MS text
and one goes TO him more conhoehUy ioi 'n'
nortrait OF particular character than loi
u,ide speculation. He cares for the type II
the individual but he tells you more about the
latter than about the former Thus he is eXcelleh
N The first paper Of his second volume, The story
NJ Scctt's Ruin" which traverses sCcclnctly arc
UNANIMOUSLY a particular episode in particular
rfe. Inn. when We turn to the essay on 'Nationa
piograrbv" An essay in which we look TO him tt
he =, his best we find neither the freshness MOI
tho denth we expected. We get no new ideas
IN tho other hand We are made TO realize by
,hie manor WHY the "Dictionary Of National Ri
ogranhv'' is such an excellent work; we perceive
,ha, tic editor worked on lines OF the soundes
sense and presently the suggestion comes
Reconnaissance is Mr.. Stephens strong point.
7, &c common-sense so pure. so energetic anc
SO admirably expressed that 1t very near!
1890. fo- thoeo drawbacks to which we have