New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-07-10
OLE Netp;pork G4ibmste
SUNDAY, JULY 10, 1910.

Mr.. Brander Matthews is a little i'll at ease
with the regulations of John Ruskin, Thomas
CARLYLE and Samuel Johnson. He thinks those
famous figures occupy pedestals to when they
are not altogether entitled, and he belleveS that
it can do no harm to inquire into their Chains |
upon our admiration. Modestly however, ME- |
Matthews refrains from laying about him with |
any assumption of authority. Writing In Inc
Century Magazine" he shelters himself behind
"The Devils Advocate and merely offers some
suggestions as to what that functionary may
saw about the three writer's in question when
he settles down to his inevitable task. And yet,
is it really inevitable? Mr. Matthews Is right
of course, in asserting that in every generation
we have to revise the verdcts rendered by the
generations that went before and it is surely
worth while to ask, now and then, whether
certain writer's in very truth entitled to be
termed great But it is also worth while,
when you embark upon an iconoclasdc cam
paign to make yourself very well acquainted
not only with the idols you propose to smash
but with the actual state Of opinion about them
we wonder if Mr.. Matthews has quite prepared
himself on either point
He is troubled about Ruskin's contributions
to the theory of the fine arts 1T is perhaps
scarcely too much to say" he remarks, that
those who are most intimately acquainted with
these subjects hold that, although Ruskin could
talk beautifully, he did not know what he was
talking about" Is Mr. Matthews quite sure
that those who most intimately acquainted
with these subjects" always know what they
are talking about when they speak of Ruskin
with contempt? Has he inquired as to whether |
the painter whose education has stopped at the |
Reorganization Of half dozen masters Of tech |
nque is prepared to estimate Ruskin without |
prejudice. or, indeed, to estimate him at all? |
THE Devils Advocate, we are told, could read |
to the court many a passage from Ruskin'S |
writings which would prove that he had very
bad manners We do not doubt it But while |
hold brief for Ruskin and are, in fact !
fully aware of the crushing charges that could |
fairly be brought against him, we submit that |
the only rational way to get at his essential |
value is to test, not his manners, but his ideas
Mr. Matthews does not convey the impression
that he has patiently examined and sifted these
He may be quite right in Suspectng that Ruskin
is not immortal-we are not arguing that point
but even in brief magazine article the man
who is drawing up brief for the Devils Ad-
vocate to ought to put into it more evil
dence than can discover in this one
1t is the same with Mr.. Matthew's indict-
ment Of Carlyle. 1t is all very well to recall
that individuals 'unforgivably contemptibe'
reference to Lamb, the small traits that he |
possessed, his insolence and so on, but we want
something more than that, we want q searching
analysis Of his work Again we are quite I'M
moved by Mr.. Matthew's observation that the
works of Johnson remain almost unread EXCEPT
by special students. Everybody has known that
for long tme-though may note by the
way, that those special students find quite
CROUCH good stuff in the works aforesaid to
place higher value upon them than Mr. Mat
thews would attribute to them. But the crucial
flaw In this promising but, ON the whole.
curiousy Ineffective essay, lies in the fact that
it assails the wrong idols The Devils Adyo-
cate is scarcely needed where Ruskin. CARLYLE
and Johnson are concerned. for the very simDIe
reason that while there are hero worshppers
Enccling blindly before the three. the world at
large is not by any means in state OF igno-
rance rs regards any one member Of the group
Criticism has been busy for years over these
cases, and he must be an exceedingly naive
reader who goes through his Ruskin or his
Carlyle making no reservations or turns from
Boswell to JohnsOn's own writings without
knowing just what he Is going to miss. Mr.
Matthews quotes the saying of Nisard I'VE
must measure the glory Of authors by the number
Of those who benefit by their works." and then
goes on to say, III we apply this measurement
TO johnson. his glory is seen to be mserably
diminished. since an authors works can benefit
only those by whom they are read" We won