New-York tribune., 1919-01-18
Sound Criticism
An Eminent Authors Studies
IN Authorship

r,Goucb. Royal svo. FD ~ G. r' T I'H T"t-
The letter OF literary criticism
kllleth, but the spirit maketh alive.
unfortunately. criticism, when it fills
a volume, Is generally literal rather
than spiritual; and as a consequence
almost the only man who will thank
YOU for recommending or giving
to hlm such work is he who is trou-
bled with Insomnia. Now and then,
however, there comes TO hand d vol
une OF criticism which IS vividly and
vitality spiritual, and when it reaches
us we thank God and take courage.
Sir Arthur QuillerCouch has written
enough books of his own, in prose and
verse, and therefore has been himself
subjected to enough criticism to war
RANT MN now IN setting Mp as a critic
OF others. He has. because of his de-
serts, been generally so well spoken
of by critics that itis natural that he
should himself be tmore inclined TO
lau utatory than to damnatory comment.
And ever since the days Of 1.-The Splen-
did Spur" he has been writing books
so enhancing in their interest that it
was quite certain that his essays in
criticism would be as readable as the
books which they discussed.
volume are miscellaneous addresses
and articles in periodicals. They are
therefore, little less formal in tone
than they might have been if prepared
expressly and consecutively for a book
indeed, they are written in the intense
ly human, sympathetic and Interests
gripping style of his best romances;
albeit with fidelity to fact and a de-
llperatlon and sobriety OF Judgment
not surpassed by the most dry-as- dust
OF all the unread scolds. Above all
are practical. They eschew and abom-
mate all the weird "cancns" which have
made some schools of criticism so un-
mltlgable bore Thus, he is discuss
ing "classical" and romantic" ltera-
ture:
These romantic" and
".classical ARE still epithets, ad-
Jectives by which we qualify real
things. But when we convert
our epithets into abstract nouns
"classlclsm," "romanticism" i would
point out to you with all the solem-
nlty at my command that we are at
once hopelesslv lost: lost because
we have advanced a vague concept to
the pretence of being a thing; hope
!essly lost, because we have removed
our concept out of the range of the
thinQ; which is not only what mat
ters, but the one and single test of
our secondary notions "The plays
the thl10.' Hamlet" !" "Lyeidas" or
THE Cenci" is the thino, Shake
speare, Milton, Shelley did not write
classlclsm" CT "romanticism. They
wrote "Hamlet." "Lycidas," "The
Cenci." Gentlemen, | would | could
persuade you to remember that you
are English. and to go always for
the thing, casting out of your vocab-
ulary all such words as tendencies"
"lnf1uences,' ''revivals," "revolts"
"Tendencies" did not write "The Can
terbury Tales; Geoffrev Chaucer
wrote them. 'Infuence" Gid not
make "The Faerie Queen; Ed
mund Spenser made it, as a man
called Ben Jonson wrote "The Al
chemist" man called Sheridan
wrote The Rivals" man called
Meredith wrote "The Egoist."
All things considered. I advise that
it may help our minds to earn an
honest living if we dismiss the
terms classical" and 'romantic" out
of our vocabulary for while.
Yes, we thank God and take courage
and we wish that there were a Sir Ar
thur Quiller-C Couch to be a Lecturer OF
English literature in every American
college and university.