The times., 1901-05-26

always have thought Byron or the
Italian opera unsatisfactory, but 1t re-
quired the weight of a consensus OF
other peoples judgments in the same
direction to make you altogether hXed
and happy in your decision For one
thing, the critical sense changes with
age. At fourteen we deem Lana
Rookh a great English classic. At
seyenty-fivc, very likely, we snail
have settled down to steady perusal
of Job and Solomon, content with their
eloquent inConCluSiVeneSS y healthy
criticism, however bids us take into
account the experiences of men at all
times of life-young men, middie-aged
men, old men-and submit ourselves
somewhat to their tastes. 1t is,
after all, the old books, the undoubt-
edly excellent books, which need to be
championed. Most people are lazily
content to give superiority Its due or
praise, but what is needed is a critic
who shall spur them to the only truly
laudatory action possible-that is, to
read. Sponsors rank among English
poets is high and incontestable The
critic must make people read The
Faerie Queene.' How few even we'll
read people do that The critic must
show that The Faerie Queene' Is at
least as important. as interesting as
productive of pleasure, as the ephemeral
things upon which we spend ourselves
in vain. Mere superiority of knowl-
edge, it is evident is net the only adj
vantage the critic should possess. He
must be an enthusiast. To scrape
away at mile posts, found in York
shire or on the Rhine, until the time
worn figures appear; to declpher them
and show their meaning: to connect
these mutilated and abbreviated words
with the manifold and throbblng lie
of imperial Rome, hundreds Of leagues
away and 2 600 years agO-thiS sort OF
work demands faith and a degree OF
glorious madness which is akin TO gen
ius. Such is the office of the literary
critic"
The irreverent might say that some
times this same literary critic discovers
treasures akin in character to that IA
nous find of the Pickwick Club. on which
was the inscription "Bilst Umpshi
Smafk," but that is a matter of opinion.
The author goes on to say Of Sainte-
Beuve:
Many persons on reading the
'Causeries' are disappointed to find so
little indication of system, OF rather
of u system. This rs not criticism
they eXclaim, this is history. if you
VIII, but not criticism. They are quite
right. 1t is not criticism as a German
professor would understand the term.
1t is not a philosophy of literature The
'Causeries' are quiet, familiar, unpTe-
tending talks. and rather gossipy, as
the word indicates A little
modest guidance, some reconstftu-
ton Of the milieu, the explanation
VI GtllttNllltS, anu Ailt pDllllAS OuL
of few details of beauty which
might otherwise escape observation
this is usually the proper extent of q
critics duties 1t is tiresome to be
told just how and why we should be
impressed. A doctrinnaire never ap-
pears so small, nor his system so fool
ish as in the presence of a clear,
strong, simple man of genius. Such
was Sainte-B -Beuve's theory and such
his practice.
HE has been much criticised for his
habit Of making an authors PERSONAL
ity and life a basis for judging his
works. And at first sight this appears
a proceeding of doubtful wisdom. But
let US see how ne conducts the in
vestigation. He assumes that into a
novel or poem or a drama an author
does throw his own personality, and
that books are actions. 1t would be q
waste of time, therefore, not to go
direct to the heart of an authors life,
if we can, rather than shut ourselves
up to the consideration of only one
phase of his activity"
The chances are, at any rate, that after
reading this chapter people will want to
read Sainte-Beuve, so that Prof. Harper
viii have achieved what is, in his opin-
on, the end of criticism.
He does not rate Balzac so highly as
some other critics have, considering him
me of those authors who fall under the
iamnation of the check book, which is
worse than DEATH" but he is careful to
explain that in his opinion there were
-wo sides to Balzac's nature, the artistic
and the commercial: that when the ar
-istic side was uppermost he produced
works of genius, but when the commercial
side predominated or the artist in him
grew weary, he produced trash in much
greater quantities If this be so-though
many people will deny that it is-Balzac
imply shared the failing of many other
authors, including perhaps Shakespeare
himself; for nothing is more certain than
hat some of the plays published under
he name of Shakespeare We're not en-
irely his work, and If they had been,
would be unworthy of him. (lNew York:
'haries Scribner's Sons. s1.25)