The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-25
Was Lowell u critic.

ing the question with a fiat negative.
JOSEPH i. REILLY in Jnmcs Russell
LorCH as n critic putnams) formu-
latcs and cnforCcs with personal IL
lustration an excellent definition.
Lowell was an impressionist. The
rich variety of his writing about the
writing Of others led him into self
contradiction because his utteranccs
were not tested in "A common medium
of critical principle. Criticism Is OBJ
jective; Lowell could not clear his
judgment of personal likes and dis
likes. Some philistines will resent all
this; but 1t Is not dispraise Of their
idol. The author does not say that
what Lowell did was not worth doing,
was not well done. He might have
gone further in this direction without
going astray. and said things about
delightful dilcttantism. But what he
does. and all that he does. IL to prove
in workmanlike manner that in its
technical literary sense the title of
critic is not Mr.. Lowell's.
The climax of the demonstrate
comes in chapter on Penetration"
In a typical passage on Dryden Lowell
said: Was he. then. great poet?
Hardly, in the narrowest definition.
But he was a strong thinker who
sometimes carried common sense to
height where II catches the light of
diviner air. and warmed reason till II
had well niga the illuminating prop
crty of intuition. He sees.
among other things. that man who
undertakes To- write should first have
a meaning perfectly defined To him
self and then should he able to set II
forth clearly In the best words. This
is precisely Drydcn's praise. and
TO read him is as bracing as
a northwest wind In mind
and manner his foremost quality Is
energy. In ripcnesS of mind and bluff
heartincsS Of expression he takes rank
with the best. Ills phrase is always "A
short cut To his sense. lie
had the gift of the right
word. And If he does not like one
or two of the greater masters of song,
stir our sympathies by that indcfn-
able aroma so magical in arousing
the subtle associations Of the soul. he
has this IN common with the few great
writer's. that the winged seeds of his
memory and terminate there
Now. how docs this strike" the
critical author? In the first place.
II is all sound" enough. Dryden had
these qualities But are they distinc-
tive? 10 they explain him? lis the
poet thus designated John Dryden and
no one else? ." Is this enough to say
about the composer OF ST. CeCilia's
bay" The Hind and the Panther"
"Ahsaiom and AChitophcl"? And
especially. the lyrics in the dramas?
Or is IL not rather a record of cog
wheels and joints N a piece of ma
Chinery, without consideration of the
interplay Of parts, the coordination of
functions?
Perhaps Lowell recognized the de-
iicicncy IN his summary and intended
remedy when he added What
gave and secures for him this sinGu-
lar "m.ucncc" To put u in a single
word, I think that his qualities and
faculties were IN that rare combine
ton which makes character. This
gave flavor iu whatever he wrote.
very rare quality But. not quite
enough. m the critical view, to mark
Dryden off RON all the rest Of the
writing world Generic flavor" sub
divides .nto many specific navors
Prof. Reilly finds similar defect in
Luwells judgments of Keats. Chau-
Ger, Wordsworth. In fact. the defect
Is 80 uniform N nature that 1t may
be wondered If there is not m its
recurrence significance aside from
the catalogue of critical aNioms. When
Lowell wrote his papers on the elder
writers Of Great Britain formal cr.ti-
clsm was little dealt in by American
writers. Perhaps Whipplc had more
than the skin of Lowell in handling
the implements Of the art: hut Low
els papers are read to-day. and VIM
Pile Is q curiosity. Is the explanation
of II all perhaps To hc found in a con-
rlusion that Lowell is not read as a
sc'cntiti' critic. hut as an cssayist;
that II Is precisely the subjective ole
mcnt IN his "Critc.sm" that STAYS
warm" Possibly the phiiStines and
the critical analyst are both part
r'sht; We must keep and cherish
LoWclDS essays on old authors. but
we must not keep them in the case
labelled "Crticism"
Contrast is luminan,. To demon
strate what Lowell had not. tho es-
scntnl faculty Of "pcnctration." tho
author quotes Richard Holt Hutton's
essays ON Wordsworth. Hutton said:
w urdsWorth could detaCh his mind
from the commonplace series of i'm
prossions which are generated by COM
monpihre objects or events. resist and
often reverse tlc current of emotion
to which ordinary minds are liable.
and triumphantlN Justify the strain
Of rapture with which he celebrated
what "NrltcS either no feeling. ar
weary fcclin@ or painful feeling in tho
mass of unrctlcctuG men" So much
for the intellectual element sim NOR,
tronchanl, perhaps is this, Words
worth was almost n miScr in his re-
luctanrc to trench upon the spiritual
capital At his disposal" Did the
American critic really say nothing ;,
keen as that
Lowers ESSAYS lack the unity con-
forred by underlying dominant prin-
"iple; they confuse, by collocaling nm
related qualities, They flash and gilt
ter hut do not shine. He tickles the
Imagination but does not give il the
spur. lie does not cad his Pegasus
on halter If Prof Reilly VIII not
spare him tu his people as "A critic.
they are Willing To go elsewhere for
criticism and keep Lowers ESSAY.
simply as wcllspring of pure pleas