New-York tribune., 1910-11-09
Literary .Nesess draT Criticism

tenor Of this article OF his. despite
marks of dissent, we set somehow
new sense of his sympathy for his great
leaders great rival.
Incidentally he has some very inter
esting things to say on the general sub
joct Of political biography. From a man
of his experience. both in public affairs
and i'm one of the most difficult of all lit
erary arts, it is good TO have such OBJ
servations as those which follow:
Nobody who has not tried can know how
hard il is TO make an adequate book out
of the biography Of a contemporary states
man. II is perhaps hardest of all in the
case Of a Parliamentary statesman. one
who knows the experiment has SAID thaI
and maneuvres u party. like the mama
that fed the children OF lSrael IN the
Wilderness. lose SAVIOR and nutrlment ON
the second day Stanhope'S Pitt ana
Parkei's Peel and Graham" for in
stance, are admirable pieces OF conscien-
tiouS and buSinesslike work. Stu, * not
insists that nearly all the really great
biographies are biographies Of men OF let
terS. and that great soldiers ana states
men are rather integral parts OF history
than individual men? (Waiker's "Litera-
ture of the Victorian Era. 92D. VINO
would not. if the alternative were forced
upon hlm. cleerIullA give up an lile politi-
cal biographies just named. and score
besides, in exchange. for instance, for
TreVelyan's Life of Macaulay.' where the
material was both abundant and so rich,
hut where il might have been so easily
spoiled in the hands of a biographer with
less right feeling and Judgment less Of a
ripe and highly trained scholars knoUl-
edge, less of a free and unselfish style?
Guizot ranks far the highest among those
who in our time have both played con-
spicuous part, whatever else we may say
nf IN 70 err DTF1n n
and made serious contributions 10 historic
knowledge. Theirs, also. again, was a
Shrew1. diligent. unsparing and patriotic
statesman. but his famous history OF Con-
sulate and Empire is hardly more than
glorious pamphlet in a score OF volumes.
Lamartine was born poet: but his Giron-
0inS. where. as Alexandra Dumas said, he
raised history 10 the dignity of fiction.
helped to make a revolution. ana then
neither he nor the revolution knew what @
TO do with one another. Italian rather than
French was the core of DiSraeh as pubic
man. and his scattered maXims tor sue
cess, in Spite OF sentimental or irOnic dress
ing. are in substance very like Guicciardlnl
OF the political condottlere.
BaEehot. that rare Judge alike of men ana
books and Lombard Street said of Dis
raeli: He was the best representative tIat
the Republic of Letters ever had in Parlla-
ment. for ne made his way by talents
especially hv a fascination of words-esSen-
italy literary. Men more famous in
thought and books have. no doubt, had
seats in the House Of Commons. Greatest
of them ali. G1bDOn sat Ghere 1OT eient
sessions. though after a fieeting illuSive
hope prudence condemned him to acquleSce
in the humble station of mute. The
mighty Burke sat there Addison sat there
and Steele until with the insolent and un
manly sanction of a majority he vas
turned out. Macaulay, Grote, CorneWall
Lewis, Macaulay's biographer, all sat there
and did useful service.
one of the soUndest critics of Disraeli s
novels. with a humoristic eye for their
eNtraVa ganceS, incongruitieS and hummery,
still finds attraction enough in them TO
say, I wish that Disraeli could have stuck
TO his novels instead of rising to be Prime
Minister of England and asks his readers
10 lament this degradation into Prime
Minister of the promising novelist who had
written "Contarini Fleming" But, then,
Leslie Stephen brings his issue to a head
by the bold confession that he would rather
have written Hamlet" than defeated the
Spanish Armada. or Grays "Elegy'' than
stormed the Heights OF Abraham. or the
Waverley novels than have won Waterloo.
The reader may remember the intercourse
of Scott and Canning with Wordsworth
when they visited the Lake country in 1925.
Wordsworth, says Lockhart was ahSurdy
arrogant beyond conception. evidently
thinking Canning and Scott together not
worth his thumb Such comparisons are no
doubt idle and ungratefUl. but was Can
ming really worth Wordsworth's thumb?