« PreviousContinue »
thick coat to wrap myself up in, and sang me two or three country songs, that I thought rather pretty. In this way I got to Lubeck by sunrise, and coming across my fellow sufferers left with them for Hamburg.
Here found waiting for us twenty thousand roubles, which the Emperor Nicholas, who happened at the moment to be on his way to Berlin, had sent by one of his equerries. There was
a meeting of the male passengers, at which it was decided that this money should be handed over to the women. Our generosity did not really put us to much inconvenience, as at that time every Russian who came to Germany was
credit. Alas! those golden days are over !
The sailor, to whom I had promised the enormous sum of money in my mother's name if he saved my life, came and asked me to carry out my agreement. As I was not quite sure of his identity, and as in any case he had done nothing at all for me, I gave him one thaler. He took it, and thanked me warmly.
As for the poor old cook who had shown such an interest in the salva. tion of my soul, I never saw her again; but, whether she burned whether she was drowned, I am quite sure that she has a special place set apart for her in Paradise.
CRITICISM AS AN INDUCTIVE SCIENCE.1
THE word “critic," in general par- opinion bring sustenance or refreshlance, may almost be called a term of ment, or aught save unhealthy inflareproach. It is seldom to be found in tion, to any human soul ? Should we literature save in the wake of some not be better employed in hewing contumelious epithet. “Carping," "en- wood and drawing water, than in vious," malignant," venomous," delivering æsthetic judgments which these are a few of the adjectives which to-day inflict pain or nourish vanity, seem to belong to criticism as naturally and are certain to be reversed with
“green” to grass or gracious scorn to-morrow? to Royalty. Shakespeare speaks of If such questionings as these have "stubborn critics, apt for deprava- vexed the soul of any one who purtion,” and it is the basest of all his sues the “ dreadful trade" of criticism, characters who announces himself as let him turn to Mr. R. G. Moulton's “nothing if not critical."
book, "Shakespeare as a Dramatic told, on the one hand, that critics Artist,' where he will find them anare men who have failed in the arts swered, and that with an emphatic upon which they vent their spleen; affirmative. But along with condemand on the other, that their utterances nation comes a way of escape. Against are inept because they have no prac- judicial criticism, as he calls it (the tical experience of these very arts. phrase is something of a tautology) We may try to console ourselves with Mr. Moulton brings a crushing indictthe reflection that artists are not ment. It is partly a survival from likely to sing the praises of critics, the twilight times of the Renaissance; any more than
schoolboys can be partly an evil outgrowth upon literaexpected to glorify the rod, which, ture due to the baneful influence of nevertheless, plays a salutary and journalism. But, if the critic will not dishonourable part in their deve. repent in time and conform to the lopment. Yet we cannot banish from laws of inductive science, there is our heart of hearts an occasional
hope for him yet. He is not tremor and faltering. We ask our- “judge” but an “investigator." He selves whether, after all, the best of must come down from the bench and criticism be not a futility or an imper- find his place in the laboratory. He tinence. Great art it can make no is not to praise or dispraise, to accept greater; small art and mere bungling or to reject; but to note, register, may safely be left to the tender classify. He has nothing whatever to mercies of time. Are we not merely do with taste; when garbage comes adding to the “ babblings and brab- under his notice, he must simply hold blings" of a world already full enough his nose and study it as an instance of empty noises? Are we not making of the laws of putrescence.
“ Differourselves a thorn in the flesh to many ences of degree” do not come within artists, a stimulus to none? Fine his ken, but solely • differences of words butter no parsnips, and can vain kind.” The judicial critic stands to
the inductive scientist as the astrologer 1 'Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist ; a (do we not talk of “judicial astroPopular Illustration of the Principles of Scien- logy”?) to the astronomer. tific Criticism,' by Richard G. Moulton, M.A., late Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge
Mr. Moulton admits, critical science University. (Extension) Lecturer in Litera
is in its infancy ; but ere long, he preture. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1885. dicts, the critic will give up his foolish
likes and dislikes, and devote himself page of his book and find the with true scientific impartiality to his following example :task of mere investigation. In his moments of relaxation the botanist
“Let the question be of Ben Jonson.
Judicial criticism starts by holding Ben may prefer the rose to the burdock;
Jonson responsible for the decay of the English but the science of botany is concerned Drama. Inductive criticism takes objection with no such trivial, nay invidious,
to the word decay' as suggesting condemdistinctions.
nation, but recognises Ben Jonson as the
beginner of a new tendency in our dramatic It is not my intention to travesty, history. But, judicial criticism insists, the or in any way misrepresent Mr. object of the drama is to pourtray human Moulton's position. He is a writer nature, whereas Ben Jonson has painted not who deserves respect. His studies of
men but caricatures. Induction sees that this
formula cannot be a sufficient definition of the certain of Shakespeare's plays are full
drama, for the simple reason that it does not of subtlety and suggestion, and render take in Ben Jonson ; its own mode of putting his work a really valuable contri- the matter is that Ben Jonson has founded a bution to Shakespearean criticism, if
school of treatment of which the law is
caricature. But Ben Jonson's caricatures are not to inductive science. But these
palpably impossible. Induction soon satisfies studies are sandwiched between an itself that their point lies in their impossiinitial “plea for an inductive science bility ; they constitute a new mode of pourof literary criticism,” and a final traying qualities of character, not by. resem
blance, but by analysing and intensifying survey of dramatic criticism as
contrasts to make them clearer. Judicial inductive science,” which call for very criticism can see how the poet was led astray ; serious investigation. His book has the bent of his disposition induced him to received the academic stamp which
sacrifice dramatic propriety to his satiric belongs, in the eyes of the public, to a
purpose. Induction has another way of putting
the matter ; that the poet has utilised dramatic work issued by the Clarendon Press. form for satiric purpose ; thus by the He avows that it is intended partly as fertilisation of two existing literary species an educational manual, and from his
he has added to literature a third including
features of both. At all events, judicial position as a University Extension
criticism will maintain, it must be admitted, Lecturer it seems likely to find its that the Shakespearean mode of pourtraying way, as a work of some authority, is infinitely the higher ; a sign-painter, as into the hands of young persons.
Macaulay points out, can imitate a deformity Therefore, it
of feature, while it takes a great artist to bring
out delicate shades of expression. Inductive process of investigation should be
treatment knows nothing about higher or attempted without loss of time.
lower, which lie outside the domain of science. If Mr. Moulton's contention is Its point is that science is indebted to Ben false, it is fatally false. Professing
Jonson for a new species ; if the new species
be an easier form of art it does not on that to attack arbitrary dogmatism in account lose its claim to be analysed.” literary judgments, he is fostering a dogmatism yet more destructive, be- Already we seem to be on the track cause its first dogma asserts that it is of Mr. Moulton's fallacy. The opponot arbitrary. If this be so, there is sition in the above extract is not danger that the studious youth of this between “judicial criticism” and “inrealm may be misled into assuming a duction,” but simply between æsthetic mistaken attitude towards literature and historical, or analytic, criticism ; in general and Shakespeare in par- in other words, between appraisement ticular. Mr. Moulton's principles of and classification. It is quite true criticism, if they fall in fruitful ground, that before we can profitably appraise must produce either inductive scientists a work we must classify it, and try to or intolerable prigs; and the chances, attain the proper historical point of I think, tend in the latter direction. view from which to regard it; but it
What, in the first place, does Mr. is a most inconvenient laxity of lanMoulton understand by inductive
guage to apply the term “induction” criticism? We turn to the second to the process by which we arrive at
that point of view. Here is an ex- or lower, which lie outside the domain ample of the slough into which Mr. of science.
of science. Its point is, that science Moulton's principles, logically applied, is indebted to the Post-Office for a tend to betray us :
new species. It
be remarked in Let the question be the ‘Post-Office passing that the late PostmasterDirectory.' Judicial criticism starts General has written poetry, whereas by holding that it is not literature at Shakespeare never wrote a Postall. Inductive criticism takes objec- Office Directory;' whence it might be tion to any such limitation of “litera- argued that a larger endowment goes ture.” It recognises in the ‘Post-Office to the production of the Directory' Directory' a phenomenon differing in than to the composition of Hamlet.' kind (not in degree) from ‘Hamlet,' But such an argument is not strictly from 'Sartor Resartus,' from 'Box scientific, and savours, in fact, of and Cox,' and from · Bradshaw's Rail- exploded judicialism. way Guide'; but sees no reason to But I would not have Mr. Moulton exclude it from literature. But, judi- accuse me of treating with flippancy cial criticism insists, the object of a theory of such grave import. I literature is to be read, not to be would rather attempt, in all seriousturned-up; whereas no one ever read ness, to show firstly, that criticism the ‘Post-Office Directory.' Induc- cannot be a science in any strict, or ! tion replies, that no one ever read a even convenient, sense of the word; great many of the books which no secondly, that when Mr. Moulton gentleman's library should be with- thinks he is proceeding inductively out; and that if the ‘Post-Office Direc- he is in reality doing nothing of the tory' is not read, the · Peerage,' which
sort. evidently belongs to the same class, Mr. Moulton goes to the whole is read with pleasure and profit by circle of the sciences in his search for thousands. But, says judicial criti- analogies—to astronomy, to zoology, cism, literature implies grammar. to botany, to physiology. But is there Induction sees that this assertion the smallest actual analogy between will not hold, for the simple reason literature, or rather between art in that it would exclude the Post-Office its widest sense which includes liteDirectory'; its own mode of putting rature, and the subject matter of any the matter is that the Post-Office has one of these sciences? The astronofounded a school of treatment of which mer, the zoologist, and their fellows, the law is facta non verba, facts with- deal with objective facts, or, if this out verbs. Besides, the ‘Post-Office seems to beg a metaphysical question, Directory' is not ungrammatical; with phenomena which produce idenwhereas Shakespeare often is. Judi- tical impressions on the senses of all cial criticismo complains that the ‘Post- normally constituted men. All science Office Directory sets forth no logical proceeds on the assumption of an sequence of events or train of thought. agreement as to the facts which it Induction soon satisfies itself that the classifies and interprets. A Fuegian point of the ‘Post-Office Directory' savage, looking into Darwin's microlies in its illogicality; it establishes a scope, would see exactly the same new mode of "piercing through the objects as Darwin himself. He would body of the suburbs, city, court," not notice them less and interpret them by description or analysis, but by differently; but the picture on his streets and squares. At all events, retina would be precisely similar to judicial criticism will maintain, it that on Darwin's. Deny this, and must be admitted that the Shake- you deny the possibility of science. spearean mode of pourtraying man- If half mankind questioned the existkind is infinitely the higher. Inductive ence of the sun at midday-asserted, treatment knows nothing about higher that is to say, that they could not
perceive any object in the heavens of zoology! Surely not. Statue, picwhose appearance was uniformly ac- ture, and play have their whole existcompanied by certain sensations which ence, as works of art, in the perceptions disappeared on its disappearance of a certain number of men (relatively astronomy and physics would collapse few) who agree to call themselves cullike soap-bubbles. If any race, or tured. Apart from the cultured sense, nation, or sect, or party declared that they are so many portions of stone, apples, instead of dropping to the canvas, or paper.
Criticism des ground, appeared to them habitually with their relation to certain ideas to fly off into space, the theory of in the percipient mind; a relation gravitation would be utterly upset. which millions are incapable of estiScience is science only in so far as it mating at all (the ideas and the deals with phenomena beyond the perceptive power being absent), and reach of opinion. The inferences which no two people estimate alike. drawn from these phenomena may Even in the seemingly non-imitative be far as the poles asunder, but the arts we deal not with objects but phenomena themselves must be be- with relations. In this respect, inyond dispute. Carlyle considered the deed, there is no distinction between theory of evolution a culminating
imitative and non-imitative; a statue example of human folly, and if he by Phidias, and a song by Schumann, had spent ten years in Professor Hux- alike appeal to us in virtue of their ley's laboratory that opinion might relation to one or both of two concephave remained unchanged; yet as to tions—our idea of truth, and our idea the visible and tangible facts of each of beauty. How far these two ideas dissection and experiment, the scientist coincide, or ought to coincide, this is and the anti-scientist would have been not the place to inquire ; what we absolutely at one. Even in a deduc- have here to note is simply that tive science like geometry, whether
art has no existence save in the we hold its axioms to be intuitive or variously perceived relations of cer. empirical, it is certain that no man's tain phenomena to these variouslysenses ever contradicted the assertion conceived ideas. "A jest's prosperity that things which are equal to the lies in the ear of him that hears same thing are equal to one another. it,” and what is true of humour is Science, in short, bases itself on facts true of all other forms of artistic on which all mankind agrees, or, given attraction. “ Was there ever such proper means of observation, would stuff as Shakespeare?” asked George certainly agree. It may not always
It may not always the Third ; and most educated persons distinguish between such facts and the are agreed that his remark shows an inferences it draws from them, and undeveloped idea of truth, or beauty, may put forward these inferences as or both.
Yet we cannot say that he though they were the fundamental was wrong in the sense in which we facts themselves. Nevertheless, should hold him to be wrong had he certain number of fundamental facts declared the earth to be flat. The must exist, separable by a just analy- rotundity of the earth can be demonsis from all inferences and assump- strated to any sane man; it is a fact tions; otherwise we may have a body quite independent of any one's concepof doctrine, but no science.
tion of truth, beauty, or anything What, now, is the subject-matter else. But the greatness of Shakeof criticism? Art, no doubt, in all speare cannot possibly be demonits manifestations-statues, pictures, strated to any one. If all Englishmen poems, plays, novels, songs, sympho- had the royal frankness of George the nies. But are these things its subjects Third, nine out of ten of them would in the same sense in which stars are be found to hold his opinion, and to the subjects of astronomy or animals be impervious to all argument to the