New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-06-07

ranged as in a state gallery. when
pass in some quarters for authentc
records and interpretations. They are
enthusiastic kit-kats. dashed OF in the
Jolly. smoke laden airs. OF some care
free studio and the summer lightning
that PLAYS over them through the tall,
unwaShed window is not 10y any means
unfavorable to the effect they MAKE.
There are moments when the illumi-
mating fash. strong, pure, and going
straight to the important point, gives
us an insight into the subject worth
volumes of high erected argument. Ana
yet there are other moments in when.
even granting the insight, we are con
strained TO ask If the affair is worth
while. Is the question debatable?
Perhaps. But on Mr. Huneker's deb
OMAR refusal TO ask 1t of himself at
all. and on the rather unfortunate re-
action of a COmplaisant point OF view
upon his criticism. we hardly need To
pause in any dubiety. Surely. in crit
cism, there are values. There Is d
quaint Cand the quainter because I'M
conscious) testimony to this in the
printing at the back of the book II
a Belated Preface" to the author
"Egoists," volume of essays pub
lished three years ago. II appears that
the work was ''rudely twitted' then
for tits lack of general ideas, so Mr..
Huneker takes the trouble now 10 eX-
plain why ne does not believe in them.
Frankly. we think that he might as
well explain why he does not believe
in the law OF gravitation. But of tnat
doubtlessly hide bound and academic
| observation we cheerfully make him a
present just I'm passing The really in
| teresting and delightful thing is the
/ tacit confession that Mr.. Huneker
makes. in the mere writing Of this
preface. Of his subsection TO the in
exorable power Of those same general
! ideas.
What is this retort upon his review
ers, superfluous enough since ii only
reiterates what is writ large upon
every page of "Egoists," but an admis-
sion that not even the most indepen-
dent of thinkers can go on living I'M
/ troubled in his own little ivory tower ?
! Sooner or later the sounds Of the outer
world will creep in and the ears OF the
/ hermit will tingle. Sooner or later the
! things he hears will stir him TO emerge,
with a reply. Defiant though that re-
ply may be- its being made at all IS
! evidence OF the profound solidarity Of
the intellectual world. Men who really
think cannot go on forever developing
the process within the limits Of their
own arbitrarily defined field. They can
not emulate the squirrel in his revolv-
ing cage. They cannot eat their cake
and have it too. They must come out
into the fray and readjust their think
ing under the pressure OF new and. we
may not inaptly say, general, ideas.
/ Matthew Arnold was no pedant when
! he talked Of the obligation Of the critic
' TO know the best that had been
thought and said in the world. He was
not advocating independence upon aca-
demic formula. He was merely point
ing out one way Of strengthening and
freshening the mind. What Mr.. Hume
ker fails to see is that IN his terror OF
, general ideas, which he seems to re-
! gard as a kind OF capitalization Of
mechanical thought, he is forced back
upon another extreme. Like the artist
who is obsessed by fear of using his
| Imagination. trembling lest he produce
! IAN anecdote in paint" he is alarmed
/ before the prospect Of having anything
! in art or literature conclusvely settled.
! He praises the art Of pyrotechny, as
we have seen, for Its inability TO eXr
press ideas, above all, didactic ideas. w.
/ He praises Walter Pater for the same
! thing: He never tries to prove any
/ thing, a relief in these days Of cruel
/ didacticism." What, after all, is this
| cruel didacticism that Mr. Huneker is
always fleeing? Verify. no man pur-
/ sueth. The criticism that would pay
some attention TO the best that has
/ been thought and said in the world has
! no intention of casting out George
! Moore because he is not precisely Ike
/ Fielding or Thomas Hardy. 1t does
not reject a Matisse simply and solely
4 as an antithesis to a Titan. II does
not test the music Of Wagner in the
( light of the composers relations with
Mathilde Wesendonck. why should
we complain" exclaims Mr. Huneker
over that episode in musical history.
precious possession in Tristan und
Isolde? This is the pagan view OF the
situation, not the ethical one" Yes?
But why drag in the point at all? Why
not consider the love affair, like the
music, in and for itself; or at least. if
we must relate the two. dispense with
/ philosophizng about views" ethical
! or pagan?
Mr.. Huneker, we fear, would not do
| this thing. for he could not, being too
much in the thrall OF his own ideas,
which, whatever they are, decidedly
are not general" IT lessons the value
OF his book-and il is. perhaps,
scarcely requisite now for us to affirm
our faith in literary values-but it does
| not lessen its charm. on which paradox,