New-York tribune., 1900-07-08

what criticism can give-for definite and funda-
! mental principles for adequate characterza-
! uon. for the intuition and the revelation, the
/ penetrant flash Of thought and phrase
Few critics have been really less "disinter-
/ eSted' few have kept their eyes less steadily
/ upon the object"
/ It would be difficult. we think. to utter any OBJ
servations on Matthew Arnold more banaI than
these; and in his dealings with the poetry Pro
/ fessor Woodberry discIoses the same faulty.
OF Arnold in his poeticaI pictures Of nature he
! can only say that he is Interested through the
eye primarily and not through his emotions
adding the extraordinary comment that 1t is
characteristic Of his temperament, also. that he
! reminds one most often Of the painter in water
colors.' The essay on Arnold is in short,
disastrous a failure that really puzzled
to find an explanation of it. The explanation
. is offered unconsciously in the first sentence of
the authors essay on Bunyan. He says: The
word an.Us is often used to conceal a puzzle
which the critic. through defects of analytic
power OF sympathetic insight is unable TO
solve" Professor Woodberry here shows a
curious ignorance of the fact that it is just his
analytic power and sympathetic insight which
enables the critic to realize that genius is an in
soluble mystery, and that however he may
strive to interpret it, he can never reveal its
secret altogether explain its ingredients. 1t
is just in proportion to his attitude toward
genius that critic justifes his right to speak
about it Professor Woadberry's attitude IS,
confess. beyond US His whole book is a tacit
confession of limitations. That which he can
see and handle ne writes about in an agree
able manner The moment ne tries TO estimate
a writer who cannot be measured by rule OF
thumb he is lost Thus he remarks Of Landor's
'IdyIs that the cultivated viii never tire Of
them. the people viii never care for them
which is true enough-but he does not shrink
from the hypothesis Of the PhiItstine that the
admirers Of the poet have made it sign Of
refinement to be charmed Iy him, a proof of
unusually good taste to praise him" and by
their very divergence in opinion from the crowd
seem to claim uncommon sensihiHues- as
though these admirers We're practising kind
of cheap insncerity What ne does not seem
to even remotely apprehand $ that Lander was
a man Of genius and that it is the genius in him
which appeals TO those who love him He de-
yIores the discursive character Of Landor's writ
ines forgetfuI Of the fact that TO be discursive
was condition Of Landor's personal and lit
erary individuality Ii is IS though we We're to
blame Robert Herrfck because he never wrote
a system cf philosophy in five hundred cantos
Professor Wocdberry's judgment is # dubious
value. as, for example, in hs rejection Of Byron
but what We regret most in this volume Is the
absence of sympathy, Of imagination and Of
humor The last quality is perhaps most fla
grautIy missing fr. the authors treatme mt Of
the Harriet Westbrook episode in SheIey's life.
but throughout all these pages We are conscious
Of what he loses in losing the salt Of all writing
A little humor would have saved him from
many Of his mistakes. We would not have SO
keen a feeling Of regret in considering Professor
Woodberry's essays if it We're not that they
have for all their nsensihility, SO many good
qualities They show wide reading. they reflect
the taste that is acquired 10y cultivation and
they are written in a smooth and dignid-d style.
Sometimes. as in the essay Crabbe,
writer we'll within the authors scope, they are
serviceable But, on the whole, We cannot feel
that IN writing about Makers Of Literature
Professor Woodberry shows himself qualified to
tell US how literature is made.
Alr Francis Adams would be more effective if
he We're not to use a colloqualism of the day
SO very smart" 1t is all very well to question
the superiority of Teanyson: better men than
Mr.. Adams have doubted the claim of the late
Laureate to be ranked among the immortals.
Many Of us too can sympathiz- in the attempt
is bad in the writings Of Mr.. kiplirg BUT MI.
Adams goes at his icanocIastic enterprise with
too much Ieyity. with too much of that cock
sureness" which is the sign manual Of youth.
Some Of these days the author of Essays in
Modernity'' may give us a cr=dttable volume.
because he thinks for himself and certain
amount Of vivacity is never unweIconl4 In