New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-10-28

nate enthusiasm for books of the day. For
Mr.. Mais it is bliss in these times of whole
sale publishing TO be alive. Never was
England 50 vocal nest Of singing birds
I. There were never so many astonishingiy
great novelists. Even the theatre, though
it be for the moment under revue cloud
---occulted ty the rosy mists of the Venus
berg-was yesterday repertory Of great
names, and after the war (for Mr.. Mais
enjoys the books which are going to be
written as well as those which are already
with us) VIII again concern itself with the
grand realities as in the days Of Barker
and Galswcrthy.
Nor is Mr.. Mais alone enthusiastic con-
corning his contemporaries. The modern
reviewer must love the classics as well as
the neo-classics; otherwise how could our
centenaries be celebrated with so punctual
an exultation? The modern reviewer, to
give him his due, really thinks Shakespeare
and Swift and Jane Austen as worthy OF
our admiration Cat the proper time) as
Mr.. Bennett or the late o. Henry. Homer
also was a genius and Milton, like Mr.
Masefeld. wrote immortal lines. Not even
the dead need feel neglected N these en-
4 thusiastic days. We will not weary the
reader with Mr.. Maiss opinions. Suffice
it that he exuberantly peppers his pages
with clad illusions to books Of every age
and kind. and that he obviously loves them
all and. so far as we can ascertain, loves
them all equally well.
He confirms a suspicion which we have
, long held concerning the fate of Shake
sneare. saw. or Bunyan if they were sud
denly to appear among us to-day. These
great ones would not die of neglect or
no killed by the critics. They would be
accented as original writer's of great genius
along with Mrs. Wilcox and Sir James
parrie- Orr criticism has ceased to suf-
fer from the paralyzing judgment OF
jeffrey II suffers instead land pray
heaven that it be not worse afthcuonD
from the desolating catholicity of taste
| which gorges indifferently upon Blake and
Miss Coreli. upon Goldsmith and Mr.. 4. f.
BENSON. Most people know the story OF
the candidate for reviewing honors who In
recommending himself stated that his spe-
k,ialtv was iuvective-general invectlve.
YThat story has unhappily lost its point
and is no longer relevant. The necessary
Gift today is not general invective but gen
eral appreciation.
The old critic who brought to bear upon
contemporary literature taste tempered
bv tn classics, who had definite standards
and exactea them, has become legend.
There is a favor about him If Fee-faw-
FUN or WHO Killed John Keats? There
are no standards to-day. The critics are
merely required to like what other people
like. and the critic who likes such matter
best is the best critic.
THERE is a good as well as a bad rea-
son for this state Of things. The
good reason is that criticism has ceased to
be formal. The romantic critics have
taught us that forms and metres do not
make poets and novelists, but that poets
and novelists make forms and metres. No
critic after Lamb or Coleridge could go
about his business quite in the fashion
OF DRYDEN or Johnson. We hesitate to
STAY poet to-day simply because his lines
\ dc not scan or because his rhymes are
uncertain. The modern critic is nervous
of applying the rules of art, and has even
limited an occasional doubt Of their ex-
istence. This makes the critic modest
and careful-which is no bad thing. But
unfortunately criticism has not only ceased
to be formal 1t has also ceased to be
discriminating is quite another
matter.
DRYDEN made some bad mistakes in APP
plving the seventeenth century formal
discipline to sixteenth century literature.
A schoolboy is able to make fun of Dry
\ denis preface TO "The Tempest" as i'm
proved by himself and d'Avenant- But
4 DRYDEN if he were alive to-day would
make short work of many established
literary regulations Swollen with the
rank mist they draw" from the lavish
J praise of the reviewers. For Dryden had
the power to distinguish. His mere lit
erary common sense would have told him
there was something wrong in using ex-
actly the same language in approaching
Keats or Swift as in approaching Mr.
/ Walter de la Mare or Mr.. Gilbert Ches-
n terton.
" One Of the blunders of modern criti-
oism is to assume that because criticism
has ceased to be formal it has ceased to
be difficult The old formal criticism was
really absurdly simple as compared with
y tbe task Of the modern appreciator. II
is true it required scholars, prosodists
Hand grammarians for its practitioners
men who had studied literature and knew
the rules.
But literature can be studied and rules
can be mastered, whereas the modern critic
n Is apparently required to tell the false
IL = - -.