The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-10

i
speeialism of modern science has also in.
| Vaded fiction. and some authors find c
county. or a parish. wide enough for the
| work of lifetime. The district has its
| dialect, and who can reprove it wher
spoken by the creatures of Mr.. Barrie and
MIR. Crockett? This kind of fiction is the
result of our desire to learn Through nov
eis) about the lives of all sorts and con
ditions of men. Enfin, the whole scope
OF mortal existence is now the farragc
libelli of the noyelists. who range from
prehistoric man to Bethnal Green; from
Thrums to Central Africa. There is not
the same eagerness to read history, which
James III regarded as more instructive
and quite as amusing" My heart is here
with King James, and confess to gaining
more entertainment from Carlyle's Fred
erick the Great" than from most novels.
The earlier historians, from Scott 10
Carlyle. Macaulay, and Froude. placed
the human interest in the first rank They
conceived that history had to do with hui
man beings of passions caprices moods,
loves, and hates, dwelling in a world OF
interesting costumes, arms. architecture.
ideas, and beliefs. Thus Carlyle, with
much research, created his Cromwell or
his Frederick, as Scott created his Queen
Mary, his Louis XI, his James VI, or his
Cromwell in Woodstock" who is not too
remote from Carlyle's. For these rea-
sons Scott, Froude, Carlyle. and Macau-
lay really are amusing" as well as in
structive historians. When institutions
and constitutions had to be described
they were placed in separate compart-
ments, as in the works of Hallam and
Bishop Stubs. Historians studied MSS.
of course, but 1t was not held that only
the imprinted was the valuable, that a
new survey of known matter was abso-
lutely valueless.
In the end of the century we have his
tory which is not "as interesting as a
novel dixie that of Prescott, Motley
Froude and Macaulay), but very far from
gay. Novelty of research is, quite just
ly, insisted upon Though research is as
old as Hemingburgh, and was much adj
vanced by Gibbon, Carter, Rymer Wal
pole, Tyler and so ON till, by natural
error, every scrap won from wilderness
of charters is valued beyond its deserts.
The human interest is frowned upon;
of forces, political and social,
are treated in preference to personal
character and adventure. Meticulous ac-
curacy is insisted upon, till nervous stu
dents are actually afraid to publish. Even
Mommsen, greatest of original students,
is regarded as frivolous, even Curtius as
popular by the modern school. 1t is
natural to man to run into these excuses
Of reaction. Froude is not often accurate,
Macaulay has prejudices, even Mr.. Free
man was not sound about knights Fees
and about a certain palisade. Now the
public does not care about knights Fees
n about the Manor, much; nor even about
the obscure early history of civic insti-
buttons. In fact, even references to au-
thorities frighten away part of the pub
ic, whose timidity do not applaud The
'esuits of our frivolity and of the porten-
.ous gravity of some modern historians
s that, since Mr.. Green scarcely any
writer of history is read except for exam
nations. AS long as historians declare
often with perfect TRUTH that their own
works are not literature, but something
.ar more awful and solemn, namely
cience, history must be unpopular. But
We are only waiting for man of genius
IS accurate as the most meticulous, and !
S interesting as the agree: bly, irreSpon- |
ible Froude. OF science an. not 10 treat, |
% / am dispensed from remarks on our |
cientihc modern historians. 1t is, Ger
ain that in collecting and printing and |
documents the age in all !
ountries has shown praiseworthy indus
ry. while Mr.. Parkman in America, like
ur mid-century historians, was not too |
cientifc to be readable.
OF theology, except when recommended |
y the art of a Newman or a Jowett. |
iothing is here to be said; though l could
heerfully say a good deal, especially
bout Biblical criticism. But that is sci
nee, though scarcely of the sort of sci
nee which has been defined as organized
ommon-sense The poetry of the late
in ENGLAND CT no Of |
sossetti, William Morris, Matthew Ar
old, and Mr.. Swinburne. Ii is tinged. in
he former, with medievalism deriving
rom the Italians and Chaucer; while in
Ir. Swinburne, every conceivable literary
from the Greeks to Baudelaire
rom the Eiizabethans to Victor Hugo, |
lakes itself abundantly conspicuous.
'hese poets, younger than Matthew Ar
old. are not much influenced by Words
'orth, though by Shelley Mr.. Swinburne
as influenced. On the other hand. Mr..
rnold was modern, academic, hetero-
OK Wordsworth, and often truly de-
Shtful poet.
He stood much aloof from the contem-
orary literature of his day, and his let
.rs prove that he was no fervent adj
irer even of Tennyson or Browning His
wn poetry has been to many, as to my
If, full of delightful passages, whether
q wrote of the oxford countryside or of
'ordsworth's hills. of the shorn and
lrceled OXus" or of the moaning sea
on Dover beach He was our great !
i modern elegiac poet; a master of the |
irge. OF the living again. no criticism !
IN be offered we only note the names
Id real if very various merits, of Nr.
ebert Bridges. Mr.. Watson, Mr. David
n, Mr.. Dobson, Mr.. Benson, Mr.. Thomp-
N, Mr.. Henley, Mr.. Gosse, Mr.. Stephen
hillips, Mrs Marriott Watson, Mrs. Mey-
IL. Mr.. kipling. "a nest of singing
rds." 1t would be impertinent and, in
ed, perilous to draw invidious distinc ;
)ns,' as the undergraduate said about !
e major and minor prophets; nor is il
+ this century to sift the poetic sheep !
ON the goats. who, in an age that reads
tie poetry, are greatly suiis. : much !
rise.
rhe unassuming and decried art of criti- Z
;m remains. Essays are of no one age, l
ere are similar eXcellencies in every
cd essayist since MOntaignc. We have !
Hazlitt. Lamb, or Leigh Hunt. but we
d Mr.. Stephenson and Mr.. Pater so I'M Q
e in all but conscious interest in style, I
d "reminiscences of the best models. In a
ed, essay writing is almost an unprac-
ed art, as the public has no use for it e
V more than for the letter II on the {
ndwich boards fairly bad novelist o
n live, to an appallingly bad novelist a
t workhouse unfolds its awful doors. In a
erary criticism Mr.. Arnold stood alone 4
his -, and Mr.. ArnOld's literary In Z
me. 1t is known, surprised, when stated. Q
Commissioners of Income Tax; not by 7
affiuence. OF living critics 1T would be I
the highest degree dangerous to say !.
I'D. though many words, both of praise r
d dispraise. might be said OF a person U
reckless character. That with obvious .
,eptions) most critics are men intimate y
familiar with what is best, from Homer L
Mr.. Stephen Phillips, few students o
uld venture to aver. That we flor am l o.
the least of all critics. and not worthy Ia
be called a critic?) are entirely devoid a
ignorance. personal bias. likes. dislikes. {,
judices, pet diversions, Incidence, We 10
not so blindly conceited as to MAIN 81
n. We have been taught by many CEN pl
les of creative geniuses, from Theocri- u
to the latest protesting popular novel; ~
a rafnge In .iconfassion ara a,,oid- is