New-York tribune., 1901-08-18
A CLEVER ESSAYIST.
MR. PAULs TRIUMPH OVER HIS OWN
FAULTS

me Niheteenth Century" periodical takes FOR
the moment in the estimation Of the Uatcbful
critic, place more honorable perhaos than that
70 which he would assign IL after its freshness
had worn on. 1t is not book CT the first rank:
Il mas not the distinction inseparable from the
Work OF a truly great essayist like Sainte-Beuve
or Matthew Arnold. and sometimes achieved by
men or lesser critical power, like Symonds or
walter Pater. 1t is wholly without the personal
magic which makes a Montaigne or a Charles
Lamb the peer OF the creative masters. But II
Is the work oe a man who not simply knows
literature, but loves it; IL contains judgments
that are more often sound than freakish and
Nj Paul especially attracts attention by his
frequently felicitous exercise Of the art OF al
fusion. Furthermore-and this is a great point
he knows the difference between the essay and
every other form Of literature. addressing him
self to the reader with just the tone that is best
calculated TO win sympathy and maintain inter
est in literary discussion.
For the essayist is primarily the chief par
ticipant in a discussion. He may seem to dog
Matte, and when, happens in the case Of
Matthew Arnold, he is almost invariably right,
he might appear 10 establish dogmatism a. one
OF the major elements in this field Of letters.
BUt there is always the atmosphere Of liberal
talk in good essay; even the most forcibie
sertiOn wears also the air Of q suggestion. and
check Partly, We believe this is because the
essayist. dealing as q rule with matters already
trayerse9 on many a printed paee elsewhere.
leaves Us with a comfortable sense that there
are original documents and other authorities 10
which can appeal. diyertinE essay could
he composed the value 4 Pr judice in discus
sion of the sort to which VIC are alluding Does
d statement or point Of view provocative
of dissent do more than create the atmos-
There OF agreeable argument? II SO, il il in
d.spensable virtue. There are times when Mr..
Paul irciines Us To this view, as in the first Of
h.s essays. the one on The Classical Poems Of
TenUyson." This is throughout marked by
tacit acceptance OF the late laureate's equal
standing among the Immortals, which is bound
10 excite criticism among readers OF poetry
who are not headlong Tennysonians, but the DIFF
ference Of opinion can only give welcome edge
20 one's enjoyment on the other hand il the
next essay that on Matthew Arnold's Letters,
we are unpleasantly amazed 10 find Mr. Paul
saying that ii may be doubted whether he had
The supreme faculty Of judgment" and amaze
Inent deepens almost into distrust when, a little
further on, il develops that one thing in Arnold
at the bottom Of Mr Paul's doubt Is his placing
of Tennyson below Byron. Mr.. Paul finds eccen-
tricity in this; he thinks there must have been
something wrong with critic who could not ap-
rreciate the greatest poet of MS own age and
country" We rub our eyes al this bland eX-
altation Of Tennyson who's pre-eminence Is, 10
say the least debatable.
Teuuyson. despite the wisdom % some ot ms
aleervations on 4luman life, despite his occa-
eioral depth of spirituality and despite his eN-
lurSious into romance remains essentially The
poet Of the beautiful weI ordered garden where
BYRON takes his eagle flight through The cloud
u.ach of the mountain tops and over storm
tossed seas We az. loath to regard this as
matter II opinion. When Arnol1 wrote. in
Trivate letter i Go NOT think TeUnyson a great
and powerful spirit in any line as Goethe was
ID the line of mod IT'D thought Wordsworth iu
that Il contemplation. Byron even IN that OF
r.seion." he stated something very like a fact,
r.rtaiuy i is raised - tho diculfy of fact when
ia that he wrot.-aUd h. wrote much-on mod
.rn poetry is taken into consideration But u
a.. may risk az observation sa.orIne possibly
a. q docnatisin which We DO not intend, We
fsncv that the difficulty here is not solely preJu-
dice but q special iucapacity To deal with ques-
iious Of poetry Mr. Pauls limitation is dis
rllised IN the initial essay, L. which reference
has already been made wherein he has "a theme
on which no one. saturated as he Is IN classical
lr.rature could well go wrong But II comes
ott ,iyidlv when a. in The essay on Arnold
Le adds biased criticism To fumbling eAplica-
if,r. there are some sides of poetry which are
r,- ..Hplicabl-. and SO both interpreter and
critic Of poetry Mr.. Pau IS soon out OF has