The times., 1899-09-03
Three Great English writer's.

Three Studies in Literature, by Lewis
E. Gates, is a small volume containing es-
says on jeffrey, Newman, and Arnold,
which originally appeared as introductions
to volumes of selections from these au-
thors. Teachers of literature will find this
book especially interesting and valuable.
It's style is lucid and finished, and the crit
icism of the three authors is just what
criticism OF great writer should be-a
thing which aids the reader to discover
what he would not see for himself.
The first essay sets one to rejecting on
the transitory nature Of human fame for
in all probability not one reader in a hun
dred viii know who Jeffrey was. Yet in
1909 his articles in the Edinburgh Re-
view were probably read by $4,000 think
ing people every month. Macaulay called
him more nearly universal genius than
any man of his time" Until the first half
of this century had nearly passed he was
the all but infallfble authority in England.
on all subjects connected with literature
1t seems as if in literature, as in hus-
bandry, certain amount OF fruit must be
allowed to go TO waste to add to the rich
ness of the soil; and Jeffrey seems TO be
an instance of the working of this rule.
OF course, oblivion is more likely to be
the fate of critics than of creative writer's.
since their work adds nothing new to the
world, but is only a sort OF intermediary
link between the great and the little man
But Prof Gates thinks that Jeffrey's
fame in his own time came largely from the
timely establishment of the "Edinburg Re
view, as well as from his own personal
cleverness. In other words, the publication
in which he wrote reflected and augmented
his brilliancy, as a reflector adds to the IL
Illuminating power of a lamp.
jeffrey was, however, more nearly the
In
who has yet attempted that work Prof.
Gates proves this in his analysis of the
man. He says:
His mind was conspcuously vivid and alert
swift to catch up and make its own new knowl-
edge, whether about books or life. He
had, in very high degree, the barrister's power
OF seizing comprehending, and controlling quick
ly and surely, vast mass of new facts. He could
''get up unfamiliar subject with an unsur-
passable readiness and completeness. His mas
terry OF his subject in a review-article seems
often like the successful barrister's knowledge
OF his brief; he knows whatever he needs to know
TO carry the matter in hand triunlphantly
through. Whatever the book or ques-
ton under discussion Jeffrey lifts it into the
region OF general principles, and is not content
with formal judgments OF literary worth, or
with random comments on special points He
is really bent on setting up "a free play of
ideas over the literature and the modes of life
that he eriticises, and on orienting his readers
as regards not only the special work under dis
cussion, but the whole field of art or study to
% which It belongs, & ona,,annaa Finally Jefrey's
amused, and through its briskness and audacity
its swift sparkle and gay bravado, its satire
and banter, its impetuous fullness and unfailing
wealth of fact and illustration, fairly captiyated
a public that was used to the humdrIm con-
ventional speech OF penny -a-lining critics There
is a fine vein OF mischief in Jeffrey that leads
continually to a very grateful ridicule of ped
antry, dullness and all kinds Of absurdity Even
the deyoutest Wordsworthian will, if he be NOT
an ngrained prig relish Jefery's railerv at the
expense of Wordsworth's occasional pompous in
eptitude.
1t might not be bad thing if Jeffrey
could appear in the literary world of to-
day. With one literary critic devoting his
time TO extravagant and indiscriminate
encomiums of books published by the
house which employs him, and another
ruthlessly condemning everything which
does not meet the approval of the Sunday
school associations, and too many others
joining the praise every book which reach
es a large enough sale to be given away
with pound of soap at the department
stores-truly, there seems to be room in
the world for a Jeffrey.
This critic was dogmatic, sometimes
conceited in his estimates, and of course
he made mistakes, being human. But at
any rate, he was original and he was un-
biased by anything but his own tempera-
ment.
far better known man than Jeffrey
was Cardinal Newman, who is the subject
of the next essay. There is one particular
sentence in it which contains the very
cream of the essay, and is as good sum-
ming up of Newman's methods as any
| thing could be:
Men must be inveigled into the acceptance
| of truth; they cannot be driven to accept it
| at the point of syllogism.
Carlyle thundered at people; Newman
coaxed them Both methods are effective,
| but they should be used at different times
| and on different classes of people.
The third and last essay is on Matthew
| Arnold, whose essays are perhaps better
| known than those CT any other English
| critic. Arnold's fame, however, rests more
| or less on the fact that he was not merely
a critic: he was creative. He gave men
| new point of view. God and the Bible"
and Literature and Dogma" are not sim
| ply criticisms; they are presentations of
| moral truth 1t is in his ethical, not his
| critical. writings that Arnold is greatest;
| and had he been less a critic of himself
| as well as others, he would have been a
greater man. His critical faculty spoiled