New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-03
DICKENS.
Andre50 Lang ON the NoUeList and
One of His Critics.
From The London Morning Post.

From The London Morning Post.
Mr.. Matthew Arnold maintained that he
was not q Wordsworthian. though man was
a more ardent admirer now and then he was
even an imitator. Of Wordsworth. He meant,
probably. that he was not an injudicious and
exclusive adTnirer who sWOre by all Of Words
worth. and by nothing else. We may appreciate
Burns, without being ''coTnmon BurnsiteS" who
often know little of the works Of their dol and
whose loyalty. like that of Squire Western,
mainly confines itself 10 drinking heaIths and
abusing the saner critics Of the beloved object.
Mr.. Lord, writing on Dickens in The Nine
tehlh century, certainly proves himself no
common or even uncommon Dickensite. and
though he processes TO love that great genius
ne olssembleS MS love- almost TO the pro-
verbal extent Of kicking him downstairs His
prose style is as bad as can be- on reflection
Mr.. Lord may easily call 10 mind living authors
worse than that Of Dickens. and is bad with a
figh, uniform. and sustained effort from cover
10 cover. Surely this cannot be said of Dickens.
MhOse style IS Only bad IN gold and Vermilion,
IN occasional patches Of purple, and TRADES Of
pialk verse The narrative and much OF the
olalogne, are, l think. in very commenda BILE
style, and certainly the grammar never startles
US, as occasionally in Thackeray nor arnuses by
It's sportsmanlike insouciance. as in Scott. What
is the matter for example. with the style in the
opening chapters OF Great Expectatfons'p
When Dickens rose with his subject he did
OF course. often rise much above any terrestrial
topic; IN snort. IN our friends style there are
dowery conponents' 'Howls the sublime - and
neither Longinus nor Burke recommended the
sublime howl the author 10 become fntovf-
Gated with his own Yerbosity. Like other men
more apt than he 10 pay attention TO stvle
Dickens had his hours Of excitement and infia-
ton; like other men. from Carlyle to Mr. Pater
he had his pet mannerisms. but IL IS wild work
Il grant that his prose style is as bad as pos
sible." Next. let II be granted that his senti-
mental passages are nauseating." We must al
low for changes IN taste regards sentiment
Now men enjoy that OF Sterne, now that OF
Dickens now that of Senancour We are by way
OF being very stoical; We were not so IN 1S40-'7O
and the tide Of time may go back again. Dickens
did not understand women" Who does under
stand women I think that TO understand
women is almost unmanly TO understand and
express them many Of the gyn9cologists OF
modern fiction do may be scientific Il doubt it,
but Is decidedly naUseating. We cannot general
ize Some men understand some women,
and vice versa II Scott understood women he
was much too manly Ito give this woman away
In MI Hewlett4s Queens QUAR- (Which ap-
pears IN ''The Pail Mall Magazine'D he under
stands Queen Mary, but does so, I think. rather
too deliberately. Peeping Tom OF Coventry no
doubt understood Godiva for a moment better
than tho rest OF the townsmen. but l confess
that I do not enjoy the results Of such EXTREMELY
close observation. which brought his doom on
Chastelard. Her majesty. Father Holt said
Of Charles II, may be allowed now and then TO
be private in the tree and invisible 10 loyal
eyes. Perhaps Mr.. Stevenson 70 some extent
understood women, but his astonishing picture
n The giEl falling Il love il Weir az aArnlStnn'