The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-11-30

the dan gers Of the process itieh. the Can
ger~ Of vagreness, of desultorir eos. OF dile'-
tanti5m But he has the root Of the matter
in him He knows that art exists to give
pleasure. ard. when liz says, i am pleased
! with this, lc Insists on strong reaSois be-
ing River 10 show that he ought rot To lie 80
He admits. also-ray. il sis,s or-La'ufe'
variety. Individuality He will cor non senr
| 10 man out Of his .erscs. ard refCtes TO le 80
| connoisscured 10y any. while he will give COCO
reasois for his own ard others pleasure
| These are the marks Of the true ard catho-
| lie crit icism; and Dryden Las them
| ~.
| After surveying such minor Engllsh
and Scottish critics belonging to the MD
eighteenth century as Harris, Blair, Names
and Campbell, our author devotes nineteen
pages to the great English critic OF the
period, to wit, DR.. johnson. He begins
by conceding that johnson was IN mos'
things Tory by nature. his Toryisin being
condtio Toned. first, 10y that very strong
bent toward a sort Of transcende ntai s"'P-
ticism which many great Tories nave
shown secondly. by the usual peculiar.
ties Of social circumstance and meh'ai
| constitution, and, lastly, by the state OF
England ia his time. state which II "ouio
be outside the scope OF the work before us
10 discuss. Johnson's view OF literature
was In part determined by these general
influences. and in part. also. by specia'
impinging currents. Johnson, par'iy'
though probably not wholly. In consequence
Of his ncarsieh tedness, was entirely IN
sensible 10 the beauties Of nature: he made
fun Of prospects; he held that "one biade
OF grass is like another" he liked human
society in its most artificial form-tha'
! provided by towns clubs, parties. In the
second place. his ear was only less deficient
than his eye. Mr.. Saintsbury would not
attribute much importance TO the fact
that he did not care for music in the scien-
tific sense in Johnson's case, however,
il il clear that In poetry only an extremely
regular and almost mat Il, NAUTICAL beat OF
verse had any chance Of appreciation
! Thirdly, he was widely read Ia The Latin
Classics, still more widely in the artificial
/ revived La,in OF Ii. Renaissance and the
seventeenth century. l.ns widely IN Greek
Fourthly. he was. for "A man 40 much given
| to reading. not very WIDELY read. either
in medieval Latin or in the earlier divisions
Of the modern languages our author,
indeed, deems It probable that OF these last
he knew little or nothing. Filthy, the
greatest poet in English Immediately before
Johnson's time DRYDEN. and the greatest
| poet in English during his youth and early
manhood Pope. had been representa-
tives, the latter wholly, the former mainly,
OF 4 certain limited theory of English verse.
| Sixthly the critical school in which he had
been brought up was strictly neo-cassic;
seventhly, and lastly. such rebels to con-
vention a. appeared in his time were chiefly
men whom he regarded with unfrendiy
/ dislike or with friendly contempt. Whether
| these reasons go far enough or not, John.
| sons general critical attitude never varies
in the least. In our authors opinion, it
| was formed quite early, and doubtless APP
ared in those dimly known contributions
to periodical literature which helped him
to live during his dimly known first twenty
\ years in London. We have. il is true. no
single treatise from johnson, as in the cases
| Of Dante and Longinus, and no pair Of
| treatises, as ia the case of Aristotle. to go
upon, But. in the four great documents,
| THE Ramb err" "Ras sslas," the shake.
peare pr, fac !" and the Lives" we have
his theory OF criticism presented in the two
| first rigorous and peremptory, in ia, Pref
| ac,," curio,isy uncerta ain, while in the Last
We find it condi, toned by differences which
allow him somewhat freer play ond permit
hun at times to make a few concessions.
! though at others he is more pugnacious
and arbitrary than before.
| Among the papers in the Rambler we
| are especially concerned with those treating
Of certain aspects Of Millions poetry and
| especially versifcation. Our author points
out that, in the examination of Milton,
johnson shows himself unCompr oinising
on the nature OF English prosody. The
heroic measures Of the English language. F"
he says, may he properly consider ed
| as pure or Mixed" they are pure when
| the accent rests on every second syllable
through the whole line" In other words,
purity" is refused to anything but the
strict iambic decasy liable johnson goes
| further; the, strict iambic deCasylable
is not only purity" and -the completest
harmony possible" but it ought TO be
exactly kept in distichs." and in the last
line Of VERSE; paragraph. Nevertheless.
| for variety's sake, the mixed measure
is allowed; though ii always injufes the
| harmony Of the line considered by itself /"
1t makes us appreciate the harmonious"
| lines better. Even this exceedingly grudg-
| ing, and in strictness, illogical license il
limited TO the substitution of other dis
syllable feet for the pure lamb In the
next paper johnson passes to -elision. I"
! by which he means evidently not taking
even the possibility Of a trisyllabic foot
into consideration such case a. wisdom
TO folly 1t nourishment to wind This
| license, he says, is now disused in English
poetry. and he adds some severe remarks
on those who would revise it, He even
| objects to the redundant ending in heroic
poetry. In third paper he comes to
pulses; and lays down the rule that the
English poet, in connecting one line with
| another, il never to make full pause at
| less than three syllables from the beginning
or end Of a verse he adds that in all lines
II is best 10 pause at the fourth or sixth sy-
liable. He concludes his discussion Of Mil
ton with a criticism of Samson Agonsts "
| partly on its general character as an Aris-
toteian tragedy-he decides that il has a
beginning aud end. but no middle -and
partly on details Mr. Saintsbury points
out that these papers show no animus
against Milton There are even express
sons of admiration for him which NAV
be called enthusiastic, But they DO show
that the critic was not in range with his
author Almost every one Of his axiom-
and pos,ulates is questionable" OF the
| remaining critical papers in the Rambler