« PreviousContinue »
without learning it, but not in vain for the mind of his race.
manity by the analytic process. The critic is the historian who records the order of creation. In vain for the maker, who knows
The critic is beneath the maker, but is his needed friend. What longue could speak but to an intelligent ear, and every noblo work demands its critic. The richer the work, the more severe should be its critic; the larger its scope, the more comprehensive must be his power of scrutiny. The critic is not a base caviller, but the younger brother of genius. Next to invention is the power of interpreting invention ; next to beauty the power of appreciating beauty.
And of making others appreciate it; for the universe is a scale of infinite gradation, and, below the very highest, every step is explanation down to the lowest. Religion, in the two modulations of poetry and music, descends through an infinity of wures to the lowest abysses of human nature. Nature is the literature and art of the divine mind; human literature and art the criticism on that; and they, 100, find their criticism within
criticism, except the reproductive; that we have only to say what the work is or is to us, never what it is not. But the mo ment we look for a principle, we feel the need of a criterion, of a standard ; and then we say what the work is not, as well as what it is; and this is as healthy though not as grateful and gracious an operation of the mind as the other. We do not seek to degrade but to classify an object by stating what it is not. We detuch the part from the whole, lest it stand belwcen us and the whole. When we have ascertuined in what degree it manifests the whole, we may safely restore it to its place, and love or ad. mire it there ever after.
The use of criticism, in periodical writing is to sist, not to stamp a work. Yet should they not be “ sieves and drainers for the use of luxurious readers,” but for the use of earnest in. quirers, giving voice and being to their objections, as well as stimulus to their sympathies. But the critic must not be an infullible adviser to his reader. He must not tell him what books are not worth reading, or what must be thought of them when read, but what he read in them. Woe to that coterie where some critic sits despotic, intrenched behind the infallible “ We.” Wo to that oracle who has infused such soft sleepiness, such a gentle dulness into his atmosphere, that when he opes his lips no dog will bark. It is this attempt at dictatorship in the reviewers, and the indolent acquiescence of their readers, that has brought them into disrepute. With such fairness did they make out their statements, with such dignity did they utter their verdicts, that reader grew
all 100 submissive. He learned his lesson with such docility, that the greater part of what will be said at any public or private meeting can be foretold by any one who has read the leading periodical works for twenty years back. Schol. ars sneer at and would fain dispense with them altogether; and the public, grown lazy and helpless by this constant use of props and stays, can now scarce brace itself even to get through a
their own sphere.
The critic, then, should be not merely a poet, not merely a philosopher, not merely an observer, but tempered of all three. If he criticise the poem, he must want nothing of what constitutes the poet, except the power of creating forms and speaking in music. He must have as good an eye and as fine a sense; but if he had as fine an organ for expression also, he would make the poem instead of judging it. He must be inspired by the phi. losopher's spirit of inquiry and need of generalization, but he must not be constrained by the hard cemented masonry of method to which philosophers are prone. And he must have the organic acuteness of the observer, with a love of ideal perfection, which forbids him to be content with mere beauty of details in the work or the comment upon the work.
There are persons who maintain, that there is no legitimate
Then the partisan spirit of many of these journals has made it unsafe to rely upon them as guide-books and expurgatory indexes. They could not be content merely to stimulate and suggest thought, they have at last become powerless to supersede it.
From these causes and causes like these, the journals have lost much of their influence. Thero is a languid feeling about them, an inclination to suspect the justice of their verdicts, the value of their criticisms. But their golden age cannot be quite past. They afford too. convenient a vehicle for the transmission of knowledge ; they are too natural a feature of our time to have done all their work yet. Surely.they inay be redeemed from their abuses, they may be turned to their true uses. But how?
It were easy to say what they should not do. · They should not have an object to carry or a cause to advocate, which obliges them either to reject all writings which wear the distinctive traits of individual life, or to file away what does not suit them, till the essay, made true to their design, is made false to the mind of the writer. An external consistency is thus produced, at the expense of all salient thought, all genuine emotion of life, in short, and all living influence. Their purpose may be of value, but by such means was no valuable purpose ever furthered long. There are those, who have with the best intention pursued this system of trimming and adaptation, and thought it well
the world, calculating the effect to be produced by each of his smooth sentences, to some earnest voice which is uttering thoughts, crude, rash, ill-arranged it inay be, but true to one human breast, and uttered in full faith, that the God of Truth will guide them aright.
And here, it seems to me, has been the greatest mistake in the conduct of these journals. A smooth monotony has been at. tained, an uniformity of tone, so that from the title of a journal you can infer the tenor of all its chapters. But nature is ever various, ever new, and so should be her daughters, art and literaturc. We do not want merely a polite response to what we thought before, but by the freshness of thought in other minds to have new thought awakened in our own. We do not want stores of information only, but to be roused to digest these into knowl. edge. Able and experienced men write for us, and we would know what they think, as they think it not for us but for them. selves. We would live with them, rather than be taught by them how to live; we would catch the contagion of their mental activity, rather than have them direct us how to regulate our own.' In books, in reviews, in the senate, in the pulpit, we wish to meet thinking men, not schoolmasters or pleaders. We wish that they should do full justice to their own view, but also that they should be frank with us, and, if now our superiors, trcat us as if we might some time rise to be their equals. It is this true manliness, this firmness in his own position, and this power of uppreciating the position of others, that alone can make the critio our companion and friend. We would converse with him, se. cure that he will tell us all his thought, and speak as inan to man. But if he adapts his work to us, if he stilles whut is dis. tinctively his, if he shows himself either arrogant or mean, or, above all, if he wants faith in the healthy action of free thought, and the safety of pure motive, we will not talk with him, for we cannot confide in him. We will go to the critic who trusis Genius
and best to
" Deceive their country for their country's good."
But their country cannot long be so governed. It misses the pure, the full tone of truth; it perceives that the voice is modu. lated to coax, to persuade, and it turns from the judicious man of