The New York herald., 1922-05-07
immortality and the Critics

and Will react as na1vely-that is TO
say as morally-as in 1891. Then
the critics of the day will have fur
nished another pool with fish for Mr..
Archer's skillful rod, and no plea of
'praising Ibsen" will avail to save
them from the deridings of the on
coming generations to whom this
new figure will have become as re-
spectacle as the revered author of
Ghosts" The critics Of 1891, doubt
less to man, praised" the Brontes
whose reviewers have been preserved
to unenviable fame by the Bronte
cults. but what matter. What mat
ters it that the Interpreters of art"
in 1891 neither understood a new and
powerful force nor tried to under
stand 1t. Ignorant, they were shocked
and, ignorant, condemned.
III.
The quick reversal of the Ibsen
verdict should have made them
wary, but no. Within a few years
they turned about and laid angry
hands on "Jude the Obscure" and
Tess of the d'Urbervilles." 1.-The
Turn Of the Screw" and what
Maisie Knew" made the critics won-
der audibly what Mr.. James was
thinking about. We all remember
what happened at first and at last to
Mrs. Warren's Profession" AL
most as much moral passion was
spent on Mrs. Glyn's Three Weeks"
as on Ghosts" which only goes to
show that, morally speaking. the eye
teeth Of discriminating criticism have
not yet been cut, "A bad story bad
ly told" could have disposed Of that
little book and nine-tenths Of its
sales. ID. III. Lawrence has come in
for heavy-handed treatment since
his Sons and Lovers" appeared. His
Women In Love-" printed privately
and fairly widely reviewed, deserves
documented catalogue Of critics
whenever a real criticism on IL may
chance TO appear. No one yet seems
10 have discovered what Il is all
about" "Jurgen" Is the latest in
stance Of the irony Of criticism as IL
is 1t was suppressed. but not by
the critics. Most Of them agreed in
pronouncing it a charming. fascinat-
ing collection Of fairy tales. intro
ducing as novel mythology as Lord
Dunsany had created for his odd
people. One critic. and In a distin-
guished column. intimated that here
at last was something new for the
nursery. This. for whatever il does
or doesn't prove about the muddled
state Of morals!
1t is. Of course. the deepest curse
resting on the inherent morality
OF the English novel that IL appeared
just about the time that women and
girls were avidly learning to read.
They began and they have remained
the vast majority of that public
which has determined so silently
and so. all powerfully the trend of
Anglo-Saxon fiction. 1t is the Sec
ond curse that the writing of
novels, taken over in the infancy of
the art by trammelled women, has
| remained SO largely in women's
hands. who write for women's judg.
ments. There may be protest against
this blanket generalization, but LET
II stand. firmly backed by another.
They. like men novelists, are writing
for their public, and their public is
largely feminine one. 1t might al
most be called a public of Old Girls
and Young Girls, if we use the ado
lescent noun as defining the temper
of their minds when they face oD
the printed page what we always
mean when We speak of The 1forali-
ties.
At that have a feeling that the
assimilative power of the girl
mind is rather underestimated.
Like Mr.. Howell's Lady of the
Aroostook" 1t wants to know" and
am told that the complaints against
immoral literature received by the
masculine heads of the Vice Society