New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-16

world is not that of a scientist or .
metaphysician, but that Of poet OF
sngularly fecund and facile magma
ton; who endowed Italy with her Ian
guage; who inspired the founder OF
English poetry TO do his work. and
who dealt triumphantly with themes
so transcendent that only one OF All
the worlds great poets that have fol
lowed him has ventured TO approximate
them. We cannot recall meeting, IN
either so concise or in far greater COM
pass, with an analysis of Dante and
his philosophy more keen. more com
prehensive and more confident in It's
authority than in this little volume OF
Professor Fletcher's. To the scholar
it presents Dante as Ruskin once de-
clared him: The central man Of all
the world, representing in perfect bal
ance the imaginative, moral and intel
lectual faculties, all at their highest"
But to the average lay reader the de-
tailed analysis Of the symbolism OF
Dante's mysticism will, we fear. be
much like the proverbial caviar TO the
general"
Indeed, in one respect the author
causes his admiration of the mystic
theologian TO do injustice to the I'M
aginative poet. Dante's Satan, he says,
"is more the ogre of a fairy tale than
Millions tragic rebel, majestic even in
his downfall. Gigantic, hairy, mex
pressive, tapping his bat wings such
an arch fend lacks altogether
the tragic spirit. which even Goethe's
Mephistopheles shows when he turns
on Faust with the naughty, bitter
might of prince of hell" But 1t is
in that very detail that Dante shows
his superiority % Milton. 1t has been
the one serious reproach of Paradise
Lost" that it portrays Satan as alto
gether too fine and heroic figure; at
any rate, TO accord with the theology
which processes to regard him as the
impersonation of all evil and as devoid
of all good. Surely, then. he must be
lacking in dignity. in courtesy, in per-
sonal grace and charm. and be utterly
kideous. repulsive and loathsome; even
as Dante depicts him. Yet on the
whole this convenient little volume is
a treasure mine of erudition. attrac-
lively written, and worthy of hearty
commentator to all who would make
a minute and esoteric study OF the
illustrious Florentine.
Professor Brooks goes as We have
said pretty nearly to the opposite ex-
IRENE. His volume is chiefly filled
with n synopsis of the Commedia-
Hell, Purgatory and Heaven-in fluent
and accurate prose, with occasional
quotations from the best poetical
translations. This is unquestionably
informing 10 those who have never
read Dante and who wish TO know
what it is all about" and it therefore
makes the volume of great practical
utility. In not few places, too, the
prose is instinct with some degree of
poetic charm. Still, it is prose and not
the magic terra rima with its marvel
lous embroideries; and no prose rem
dering of poem can ever make US
know Dante fully as-what Boccaccio
called him-"that singular splendor of
the Italian race" What this volume
does quite successfully is TO enable us
&c do what the author recommends US
to do first Of ALTO read the Com
media for the story and TO get &C
ouainted with the characters. Ii will
also assist us materially to do the next
| thing-to read il as an exposition OF
the moral laws which govern human
( life. But after that there will still re-
main, quite untouched, the reading OF
/ il as one Of the very greatest poems
and most perfect works of imaginative
! literary art that man has ever created
Worthy of much commentator, too
/ is the brief predatory essay, in which
/ Professor Brooks sums up what we
/ know Of Dante's life, and LUMINOSITY
/ describes the character of his times
! the circumstances of his career anC
the story of the writing Of the Com
media. This useful work could scarcely
be done better than it is done here
/ Yet at the end of the volume, and OF
b these two volumes, we are left wonder
/ ing how much or how little we really
do know Of Dante after all. Is the
Vita Nuova photographed And the
| Banquet? Are all the illusions in the
Commedia to be taken literally? Was
I BoccaciO an accurate biOgrapher? And
Leonardo Bruni? Charles Eliot Nor
ton wrote Of our far greater knowl-
edge of Dante, as q man, than of Homer
or Shakespeare. He was right, since
of Homer we know nothing and of
Shakespeare little, while of Dante we
know, supposedly, far more than q
little. Yet what proportion of our sup
posed knowledge is fact and what fc-
tion it is impossible to say. A few