The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-03-04
REVIEW OF THINGS LITERARY.

| To these add
| g. w. Stevens.
William Tirebuck.
The two latter names were not quite
made" and In thus comparing them with
the three placed before them one gains a
hint of What the phrase Ito make name
really means.
10 make a name, To have so wrought that
ones name stands for new fact, 10 have
raised upon the earth so lofty a pillar oil
achievement that from the top tharsof We
may write our names across the hea ;ens
TO have been so great soldier that Naro-
leon is as great name as War; so great a
poet that to say Homer is as thoueh you
said nightingale; so indesiructibly individual
that your name becomes new verb and a
necessary adjective: to so arrange your life
that after you are dead men must use the
verbs boycott" and "macadam." ana even
in certain emergencies go on using the nouns
'guillotine' and "anti-macasssr' To eur
viye even as a patent pill Well, mock as
you please at certain names. some potent
human virtue, we may be sure. goes 20 tie
making OF even nickname.
The three names first mentioned are all
and each of them so we'll made, every letter
Of them stoutly and significantly driven home,
that the mere mention of them says aImos.
hi that Is TO be said. John Rlskn:" II
We are little vague as to the precise some
thing he stood for IN modern thought per-
haps the vagueness corresponds vita the
brilliant nebulosity of his achievement. Xus-
kin was indeed rather nebula of genius than
forcible planet.
In many ways Matthew Arnold's deserIp-
ton OF Shelley, Beautiful AMI Ineffec tai
angel beating in the void his luminous wings
In vain" applies far more forcbly to Rus
kin. Shelley was not Observation-Disclosures the
moon is Intellectual. Shelley stood, and will
always stand, for something nobly rebellious
and purifying In human nature. lie was
fact-a fact, you may say, OF gossamer and
moonshine, but still fact. am not sure
but that Ruskin missed being a fact. HIS
great eloduence OF expression was so dis
counted by the sentimentality Of his reac-
tionary thought. One must suspect that the
man who could oppose machinery as he did
is not really deep or practical thinker, but
Is in fact merely crank with genius for
verbal expression. Unfortunately however,
when writer has chosen to make his books
of such debatabe subject matter. the more
literary expression Is apt TO lose In interest
ones disinclnatlon to fantastic art criticism
and hobbyish political economy, be too art
to make us Indifferent to the skill and beauty
with which they are presented
b y
should think that Rusi<in Is least read
at the present moment Except as guide
to italy, Of any great Nineteenth century
writer. His chief gift was that of fluent
descrlptiveness. He was great wator-co
painter In words. But was great water color
however accomplished, is nearly elways lack
ing in magnetism. Ruskn's writing, witht<all
its charms, lacks that something which i'm
peis US to read 1t again. He has meant
great deal to the generations over which his
long life has extended, and his name will
stand on that account as art critic prose
writer, fanciful economist.
But the future is not likely to read him.
The present, even, does not read him His
message has erratically fortified his period,
but It contains no seminal potency for the
future, and his style has no sufficient en-
chantment to compel any one 10 read him
for its own sake But. nevertheless, the name
John Ruskin" is ineffaceaby written across
the Rocky Mountains of time.
~
James Martineau, though the object OF
beautiful devotion and veneration within a
small circle OF somewhat dry religious minds,
and though, indeed thinker" in the pre-
else sense OF that term-perhaps unsurpassed
in our time-s, think, likely to live less for
all those long years OF work that ne dd--he
was nearly 95-than for the personality that
the living OF that strenuous, disciplined life.
The doing of that work, brought to so fas-
cinating or forcible a perfection.
No one who has seen his noble thought
lined face will think me merely fancirul or
trivial when say that perhaps the work of
his that remains last!ngly and inluentially
done is Just the perfectis OF that wonderful
old face. As some faces are made of the
beauty OF holiness. some OF the beauty of
strength, SO DR.. Martineau's face was the
embodiment of the beauty of thought. l con-
Tess TO never having read a style like one OF
the profoundly reasoned books In which he
formulated his Unitarian metaphyslcs-Ineta-
physics, Unitarian or otherwise, / regard as
mostly waste OF human time-but / could
have looked on his face all day.
Cardinal Newmans face was similarly |
beautiful, but there was a certain Roman
sweetness in it which gave 1t a couch Of
weakness. OF the two, think Martlncad's
was the greater face. 1t was very logely
face. too. Newman's had something OF an
acclesiastic domesticlty about it. lie srlllcs !
sweetly at you out OF the peace Of AZ. as
sured haven. Martneau is lonely tb.nfor
to the end.
I always think that the supreme irsiapce
Of that universallzation of pa,soaai name
which is fame is to be found in the name OF
Robert Burns. for perhaps Ills fame provides
the only example of man whose maize end I
the name Of his country are one. Tho Land
Of Burns is synonymous with Scotland, ana
even the postpfhce would recognize II as an |
address. Perhaps r. ID. BllcS n5fo was the
only English writer who has achieved ary-
thing OF that particular kind OF Kama owing
to his famous novel. Devon IA row, and has
long been, the country OF Lorna Doone =
II is years since read Lorna poone.' but
from what / recall of its atilos hero. lis
sweet out-of-doors freshness, and III. htau-
tiful purity Of young love that 5reathes
through it. think 1t Is probably one ef the /
few modern novels one might venture 10 resd |
again Unfortunately, since ono read X, it |
has been spoiled for US with such multitude