LITTLE LEADERS UNIT. OF CALIF. LIBRARY. LOS ANOFI ** LITTLE LEADERS BY WILLIAM MORTON PAYNE CHICAGO WAY fcf WILLIAMS 1895 COPYRIGHT BY WAY AND WILLIAMS MDCCCXCV TO MY OLD FRIEND AND FELLOW-WORKER FRANCIS FISHER BROWNE WHO HAS DONE MORE THAN ANY OTHER MAN TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF LITERATURE IN CHICAGO 2132234 PREFACE. THE contents of this little book consist of a series of papers reprinted from The Dial,' in which periodical, scattered through the past three years, they first did duty as editorial articles. The title now given to the collec- tion is thus accounted for, as well as the use of the plural pronoun, which it seemed best to retain. The papers make no pretence of doing more than touch the skirts and fringes of the great subjects with which they are con- cerned, and whatever readers they may reach are asked to bear this fact indulgently in mind. They are repro- duced substantially as they appeared, with but trifling alterations. Two of them, it should be added, have been incorporated into the introduction of the book ' English in American Universities,' edited by their au- thor, and very recently published. CHICAGO, November i, 1895. CONTENTS. LITERATURE AND CRITICISM. SONNET Ej Blot til Lyst. pAG LITERATURE ON THE STAGE 13 THE IBSEN LEGEND 23 THE CULT IN LITERATURE 31 THE LITERARY WEST . 40 THE WRITER AND His HIRE 49 THE CRITIC AND His TASK 56 TOUCHSTONES OF CRITICISM 6x ANONYMITY IN LITERARY CRITICISM ... 71 POETRY AS CRITICISM OF LITERATURE ... 81 THE NEGLECTED ART OF TRANSLATION . . 90 EDUCATION. SONNET The Higher Aim. A FEW WORDS ABOUT EDUCATION .... 101 THE APPROACH TO LITERATURE 109 THE TEACHING OF LITERATURE 117 DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION 127 THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN SPEECH .... 136 THE USE AND ABUSE OF DIALECT .... 146 x. CONTENTS Continued. PAGE READING AND EDUCATION 155 SUMMER READING 163 THE SUMMER SCHOOL 169 AN ENDOWED NEWSPAPER 178 IN MEMORIAM. SONNET Conservation. ALFRED TENNYSON 189 ERNEST RENAN 200 HIPPOLYTE ADOLPHE TAINE 209 GUSTAV FREYTAG 220 JOHN ADDINGTON SYMONDS , 429 CHRISTINA GEORGINA ROSSETTI 237 JOHN TYNDALL 246 THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY 255 OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES 264 WILLIAM FREDERICK POOLE 270 LITERATURE AND CRITICISM ' EJ BLOT TIL LYST.' [These words, meaning 'Not for pleasure only,* are inscribed above the stage of the Royal Theatre at Copen- hagen.] NOT merely for our pleasure, but to purge The soul from baseness, from ignoble fear, And all the passions that make dim the clear Calm vision of the world ; our feet to urge On to ideal far-set goals ; to merge Our being with the heart of things ; brought near The springs of life, to make us see and hear And feel its swelling and pulsating surge : Such, Thespian art divine, thy nobler aim ; For this the tale of CEdipus was told, Of frenzied Lear, Harpagon's greed of gold; And, knowing this, how must we view with shame Thy low estate, and hear the plaudits loud That mark thee now but pander to the crowd ! LITERATURE ON THE STAGE. THERE has been of late, both in England and America, one of the periodically recurrent out- bursts of criticism and discussion of the English- speaking stage, its present degradation, and its possible future redemption. Attention has been called, in all possible tones of indignation, to the old familiar facts ; to the evils of the ' star ' sys- tem, to the alarming prominence of the spectac- ular element in dramatic production, and to the insistence of the public upon being amused, at whatever cost of the artistic proprieties. That all these evils exist, and many more, is evident to the most casual observer. The theatrical records of London, New York, and Chicago, alike give evi- dence of a noble art degenerated into a mere amusement, and of the almost complete severance of literature from the stage. But talking about these evils is not likely to prove effective in re- moving them. The talking will be done by a few earnest people, and the unthinking masses 14 Little Leaders will give, as before, the sanction of their support to the dramatic monstrosities that chiefly occupy our stage. Discussion of the subject but sup- plies, after all, a new illustration of the homely saying that l a watched pot never boils'; in other words, the kingdom of true dramatic art, like a certain other kingdom, cometh not with observ- ation. The great periods of the art, when liter- ture securely trod the stage, did not result from a deliberate and reasoned conclusion that such art was a desirable possession, but were the sponta- neous product of a heightened national conscious- ness seeking for adequate expression. Such ex- pression was found in the ages and countries of Pericles and of Louis Quatorze, in the period of Spanish history that culminated with the glories of Calderon and Lope de Vega, and at the time of that vast expansion of the English spirit which produced Marlowe and Webster and Shakespeare. We may well wonder what manner of men they were who flocked to their rude theatres in ' the spacious times of great Elizabeth,' and shared, with no adventitious spectacular allurements to serve as a fillip, in the pure intellectual delight offered by c The Tempest ' or l A Midsummer Literature and Criticism 15 Night's Dream/ As Mr. Symonds says, c There remains always something inscrutable in the spon- taneous efforts of a nation finely touched to a fine issue.' The stage of to-day certainly does not give us, in England and America, any indication of 'a na- tion finely touched to a fine issue.' The play- wright, not the poet, the contriver of puppets, not the creator of characters, occupies the higher plane of our existing dramatic art, while the lower plane is hopelessly given over to the buffoon, who acts after his kind. The situation is much better upon the continent of Europe, for there, at least, the stage has an unbroken and dignified tradition. If it can boast few living writers of great distinction, it still preserves its character as a school of con- scientious acting, of correct diction, and of accu- rate enunciation. As a conservator of the national speech the Theatre Fran^ais is as important and influential a body as the Academic Franchise, while a similar function is fulfilled by the theatres of many German cities and of the Scandinavian capitals. To realize what this means, we have only to imagine the derision that would greet the proposal to decide some disputed question of En- 1 6 Little Leaders glish style or pronunciation by reference to the practise of the stage in any English or American city. The explanation of this difference is, of course, largely political. The chief European governments have always held the stage to be an educational institution, and, as such, a legitimate object of government support. The noble motto of the Danish national theatre has been made the working rule of the government-aided European stage. The Theatre Francais permits no week to pass without performance of some work by Corneille, Racine, or Moliere ; the court theatres of Austria and Germany as frequently produce the plays of Lessing and Schiller, of Goethe and Shakespeare. But in no theatre of the English- speaking world is the presentation of Shakespear- ian drama thus made a matter of fixed weekly or even monthly recurrence. Germany pays more reverence than we do to our own dramatic poet, to the chief glory of all dramatic literature. One might suppose that this neglect of a great art would have long since led to the disappearance of the drama from our literature. But the essen- tial vitality of the dramatic form, and the inherent fitness of our English speech to assume that mode Literature and Criticism 17 of expression, have given us, in spite of all dis- couragements, an almost unbroken succession of noble dramatic poems. Although our century refuses to witness stage productions of the great works of English dramatic literature, and although they are denied the support of even the reading public, they are still produced in numbers, for the instinct of the poet well knows the value of dra- matic expression, and he will not abandon it, how- ever the public may scorn the product of his labors. Such poems as 4 The Cenci ' of Shelley and the c Count Julian ' of Landor, or the plays of Browning and Mr. Swinburne, had they been written by Frenchmen or Germans, would not have had to wait long before taking their proper places in the classic repertory of the stage. And the greatest poet of our own age, had he not been English, would have obtained more than a grudg- ing recognition, as fitted for stage purposes, of but one or two of the magnificent series of his histor- ical and romantic dramas. Had a German poet written * Harold ' and * Becket,' or a French poet written 4 The Foresters,' these works would have had more than a cold succes cTestime, for they would have reached a public quick to recog- 1 8 Little Leaders nize literary excellence in the drama, and prompt to express its approval of noble workmanship. In excellent dramatic work of a rank lower than the first, our nineteenth century literature is also rich, and to a degree which few readers and no mere theatre-goers suspect. Such plays as Sergeant Talfourd's ' Ion ' and Dean Milman's l Fazio,' both of which once had a precarious tenure of the stage, well deserve to be revived ; the dramatic poems of Sir Henry Taylor, Richard Hengist Home, and Westland Marston,are infinitely more deserving of attention than nine-tenths of the plays actually produced upon our stage. But they would be caviare to the general audience, hopelessly dull in appreciation of style, and trained to prefer buf- foonery to comedy, melodrama to tragedy, or, at the very best, sentiment to passion. The almost complete severance of literature from the English stage is clearly enough shown by the fact that the dramatic works of Tennyson have never succeeded in gaining a foothold there. If a still more striking illustration is wished, it can be furnished by the experience of the Shelley Society in its attempts to produce c The Cenci.' According to English law, only licensed plays Literature and Criticism 19 may be publicly produced. An unlicensed play may be given private performance, a term which means that no money shall be taken at the doors of the theatre, but which is otherwise so conven- iently vague that any such performance, arranged in the best of faith, may be undertaken only at considerable risk of violating the law in some un- suspected way. 4 The Cenci,' we must add, the greatest English dramatic poem of the century, has been steadily refused a license by the English authorities, although several applications to legal- ize its performance have been made. In 1886, the Shelley Society gave a private performance of 4 The Cenci ' in a London theatre, in presence of perhaps the most distinguished audience that recent years have seen collected for any purpose whatever. But the outraged dignity of the cen- sorship was prompt to act, and the manager of the theatre in question was allowed to continue his lease only on condition of never thereafter lend- ing his stage for the production of an unlicensed play. In the centennial year of the birth of Shel- ley, the Society wished to commemorate the oc- casion by a repetition of the l Cenci ' perform- ance, but found it impossible either to get the 20 Little Leaders play licensed for public representation, or to find a manager willing to risk lending his theatre for the private performance contemplated. So the plan was abandoned, and a fresh victory scored for the hosts of the Philistine. When matters reach such a pass as this, it cer- tainly behooves the friends of literature to see if something cannot be done to rehabilitate the stage. It is not a little significant that an Independent Theatre should have been organized in London a few years ago, and that some of the more thoughtful literary men of this country should, at about the same time, have united to establish in New York the Theatre of Arts and Letters. The still older Theatre Libre of Paris, and the more recent Theatre de 1' CEuvre, might at first seem to deserve mention in this category, but cer- tainly have not resulted from a similar necessity, for French dramatic art needs no such encour- agement. But the London and New York or- ganizations adopted what is probably the best method, in a country the genius of whose institu- tions hardly admits of a stage subsidized by the government, for the furtherance of an important and neglected cause. The untimely collapse of Literature and Criticism 21 the Theatre of Arts and Letters seems to have resulted rather from bad management than from any fault of the underlying principle. Its pro- gramme, and the names of the men who stood sponsors for its plans, promised a serious aim, and the employment of methods consistent with both the dignity of literature and the best dramatic tra- ditions. The most valuable work done by the Independent Theatre of London was the produc- tion of several of Dr. Ibsen's dramas of modern society, which certainly represent a tendency in dramatic art deserving of encouragement. Its production of Webster's l Duchess of Malfy ' was another step in the right direction, reminding us that the century which has partly neglected Shakespeare has totally neglected the other men of that great race of Elizabethans above whose level it required the stature of a Shakespeare to tower. The later organization known as the Elizabethan Stage Society, whose object is the presentation of Elizabethan plays under sixteenth century conditions, has also undertaken a work of great educational importance. Last of all, we may mention the recent performance, under the auspices of the English Department of Harvard 22 Little Leaders University, of Jonson's c Silent Woman.' The success of this experiment was such as to encour- age other colleges to similar undertakings. Both in England and America, we have for many years had the l Greek Play' and the 'Latin Play,' as occasional features of college work ; is not the 4 English Play ' quite as deserving of attention, even from a strictly educational standpoint ? Literature and Criticism 23 THE IBSEN LEGEND. ONE of the most curious chapters of literary history is that which deals with the greatest of Roman poets as he appeared to the imagination of the Middle Ages. The Master Virgil of me- diaevalism stands out as a vivid enough figure, exerting a marked influence upon the current of mediaeval thought ; yet how unlike the personality of the Mantuan as he appears to us, with our fuller knowledge of classical times, and the truer intellectual perspective of our view. It was a singular refraction, indeed, that shaped the out- lines of the poet into the distorted figure of the wizard, a strange limitation of outlook that in so literal a sense made of his name a word with which to conjure, while blind to his genius and its true significance. Books have their fates, runs the Latin saying, and presumably their authors no less. But never was the fate of bookman more ironical than that of the poet of the l JEneid' and the c Fourth Eclogue,' envisaged, a thousand 24 Little Leaders years after his death, as an allegorist and a won- der-worker. It is a far cry, in more ways than one, from Virgil to Dr. Ibsen, and there is but a single fact that could lead us even for a moment to couple their names. That fact is the prevalence and seemingly continued growth, at least in England and America, of an Ibsen legend, grotesquely divergent from the truth, and calculated to make of the Norwegian poet and dramatist a figure as unlike his real self as Master Virgil was unlike the poet who chiefly made glorious the Augustan Age. Our newspapers, and even some of our serious organs of opinion, afford frequent indica- tions that the popular consciousness holds Dr. Ibsen to be the poet of gloom, of the morbid aspects of character, of the seamy side of life and the unsavory among human relations. A Ger- man sensationalist, long discredited, but whose latest work has recently been getting much atten- tion, finds in Dr. Ibsen a conspicuous illustration of what he calls Entartung. A typical news- paper article just now under our eye, an article of the better sort and evidently written in all seri- ousness, calls him l grim ' and ' egotistical,' speaks Literature and Criticism 25 of his ' icy indifference,' his l dank philosophy,' and his l intolerable pessimism.' No one who does much reading in current criticism can have failed more than once to come across even the suggestion that he deliberately panders to the lower instincts of human nature, that he revels in what is revolting and unclean. Anyone who has read the writings of Dr. Ib- son, and who knows something of the aims and ideals that they embody, rubs his eyes in wonder- ment when he meets with such epithets and opin- ions as have just been mentioned. But when amazement at the misconception has a little abated, he is apt to ask himself if there is any possible way of accounting for the origin of opin- ions so grotesque, unless, indeed, he summarily sets them down as adding another to the many existing illustrations of the essential irrationality of the majority of minds. The last count of the indictment above outlined may safely be left to shift for itself. There is no shred of evidence for it, and no sane mind could for a moment seriously entertain the suggestion. Nor is it with- out reluctance that we so far consider the poet's ' icy indifference ' as to recall the infinite tender- 26 Little Leaders ness of l Brand ' and ' Peer Gynt,' or illustrate his l dank philosophy ' by the passionate idealism of l Love's Comedy ' and l Emperor and Galilean.' The reader is to be pitied, indeed, who is not stirred to the depths of his soul by the agonies of Brand as child and wife are taken from him one after the other, or by that vision of the c third kingdom ' which, in the story of Julian, casts its mystical glamour over the last struggle of dying paganism, and which might have been inspired by the choruses of Shelley's 4 Hellas.' The last of these illustrations leads us to the subject upon which more than a word or a refer- ence is needed. Of all the charges commonly made against Dr. Ibsen, that of pessimism is probably the most persistent. This is not sur- prising when we consider the ignorant way in which that term is bandied about by most people, yet here, if ever, the accusation calls for an ener- getic protest. Pessimism is both a mood and a philosophical doctrine. Whatever standing it has, considered in its latter aspect, it owes to the au- thority of Schopenhauer, who, by logic convinc- ing at least to himself, thought he had demon- strated the soul of things to be evil, believed Literature and Criticism 27 irremediable suffering to lie at the root of con- scious existence. To this doctrine the whole of Dr. Ibsen's work is tacitly but resolutely opposed. He never presents to us the gloomy side of life without suggesting the possibility of something better, rarely without indicating the way out of what seems an impasse to the soul of little faith. So far from preaching evil as irremediable, he con- stantly ascribes it to lack of knowledge, infirmity of vision, and weakness of will. If there is any one trait dominant above all others throughout his writings, it is the persistent note of an ideal- ism unshaken by ' The absurdity of men, Their vaunts, their feats,' an idealism as absolutely opposed as anything well can be to the philosophical doctrine of pessimism. If Dr. Ibsen is to be styled a pessimist in this sense, it must be in the company of all the satir- ists, ancient and modern, who have scourged the vices of mankind, and all the moralists who have discerned the good life and sought to bring about its realization in fact no less than in dream. Of pessimism as a mood it may be said that Dr. Ibsen exhibits it as it has been exhibited by 28 Little Leaders greater men than he, from Homer to Tennyson, by a large proportion, in fact, of the greatest poets that have ever lived. This merely means that he does not, like such men as Browning and Emer- son, deliberately exclude from his view a large share of the facts of human life, that he is not content to build for himself a fool's paradise and dwell therein. He is not to be deluded by * The barren optimistic sophistries Of comfortable moles,' and endeavors, according to the light that is in him, to see life steadily and see it whole. Like all writers of the second or third rank, he has his limitations, and his vision is defective; but to describe his prevalent mood as pessimistic, or even as cynical, is grossly to pervert the truth. The principal reasons for the current miscon- ception of Dr. Ibsen's fundamental attitude to- wards life may be briefly set forth. In the first place, much of his work is satirical, and this fact, combined with his power of expressing the white heat of indignation, naturally makes many people think that only one at heart a cynic could find so much to condemn in the conduct and the ideals of his fellow-men. In the second place, his work Literature and Criticism 29 is nearly all dramatic in form, and dramatists always suffer from a more or less unconscious identification with the characters of their own creation, however objectively conceived. Last of all, and most important as far as the English- speaking public is concerned, he unfortunately first became known, and is still chiefly known, by means of a group of his least characteristic and enduring works. Most people get their whole notion of him from a group of three or four plays which deal with extremely narrow and specific social problems, which are utterly inadequate to convey his essential message, and which embody no suggestion of the high poetic energy with which his really great work is charged. It is not altogether surprising that the c Ibsen legend ' should find credence with readers who know only 4 A Doll Home,' l Ghosts,' ' Hedda Gabler,' and 1 Solness.' To such, and to all who would know what Dr. Ibsen really stands for, we proffer the advice to read c Brand ' and 4 Peer Gynt,' those masterpieces of robust social philosophy and high ethical aim. Their invigorating moral atmos- phere has the tonic quality of which our flabby civilization is most in need ; their lofty idealism 30 Little Leaders may well put to shame our opportunism, our half- heartedness, and all the paltry conventionalities by which our lives are misshapen. And we ven- ture to say that whoever once takes those works to heart will hardly thereafter describe their au- thor as a pessimist, or talk glibly of his 4 icy in- difference ' and his c dank philosophy.' For such readers, at least, the 4 Ibsen legend ' will be at once consigned to the limbo to which grown-up men and women relegate the nursery tales and pious fables that were literally accepted in child- hood, but that cannot impose upon the rational- ized adult intelligence. Literature and Criticism 31 THE CULT IN LITERATURE. THE great poets are all dead now, and appear- ances indicate that the twentieth century will be- gin its course undominated by any commanding figure bequeathed to it from the literature of the nineteenth. No Goethe will loom above that new horizon as in the early dawn of the present century ; no Scott is likely to brighten the morn- ing clouds of the new era with the radiance of his genius. We cannot, of course, make any such predictions with absolute confidence that the fu- ture will justify them, for the individual manifes- tations of genius are as incalculable as are the flashings out of new stars, or the appearance within the solar system of unfamiliar cometary visitors ; but we cannot, on the other hand, set aside the manifest lesson of literary history, the lesson that all great creative periods must end ; that, viewing the whole course of thought, such periods are but few and far apart in the annals of mankind. And, however ingeniously theories of 32 Little Leaders environment and ripeness for intellectual activity may explain the creative epochs of the past, no such theory is likely to receive formulation suffi- ciently precise to make it an accepted organon for the uses of forecast. The creative period of German literature would have ended abruptly with the death of Goethe had not the genius of Heine given it fitful renewal of life for another quarter-century. In France, the modern creative period was clearly over when Hugo died. And in our own litera- ture, it seems almost equally clear that the death of Tennyson has closed the Victorian age of let- ters, an age prolonged beyond the limits of most such periods of intellectual expansion, and one that, if our assumption be just, has 4 made a good end.' What may be expected to follow the period thus terminated ? Whatever the literature to whose history we turn, we receive the same an- swer. After the creative age comes the age of reflection, the age of interpretation and analysis, of grammatical and rhetorical subtleties, of form- ulations and classifications, of scientific and imi- tative work. It was so with Greece and Rome, Literature and Criticism 33 with fifteenth century Italy, with seventeenth cen- tury France and Spain, with post -Elizabethan England and post-Goethean Germany. That it will be so with the coming age, for France and the English-speaking nations, is a proposition at least as reasonable as many historical inductions that pass unquestioned. But if we are passing into such an age we need not look upon it altogether with dismay. Those who live in such an age are far from conscious that theirs is a period of decadence. Intellectual activity seems to be heightened rather than de- pressed. Works of all sorts are produced and find no lack of readers. The Alexandrians thought the ' Argonautica ' quite as good a poem as the c Odyssey,' and the Florentines were doubt- less perfectly sincere in their admiration of Pol- iziano. For those whom the Zeitgeist does not deceive, there remain for study and enjoyment the great works of the past, and there are enough of these for the lifelong contentment of any ra- tional soul who finds his way to them. The art of criticism flourishes, but, although stiffened into a body of dogmatic precept, often enough goes hand in hand with genuine appreciation. It is not 34 Little Leaders true that, properly to enjoy literature, an age must produce literature of its own. If the coming gen- eration of English letters were to prove one of sterility, the wise should have slight cause for regret. It will be a long while before our race outgrows the ideals of Shelley and Wordsworth and Tennyson ; some of them, it is to be hoped, neither our race, nor mankind, will ever outgrow. Indeed, the prospect of new masterpieces in un- interrupted succession would be rather appalling than otherwise. We should despair of catching up, and the works made classical by the infalli- ble test of time would suffer more neglect than they do now. The real interests of culture almost demand such breathing-spells as, by a natural law no less beneficent than mysterious, follow upon the periods that have exhausted themselves in giving expression to the struggles of the spirit in its ascent from ' the sloughs of a low desire.' But the critical and reflective age has its dangers, and chief among them is the encouragement it gives to the ascendency of the cult. The literary cult has two principal forms : it appears as the unintelligent (because unsympa- thetic) worship of a really great writer, or it takes Literature and Criticism 35 the shape of laudation, both undue and uneven, of a writer of only secondary importance. In the first case, it converts the object of its adora- tion into a fetich, worshipping it as such rather than as a living spiritual force. In the second case, it raises a private altar for the exclusive use of the elect, and develops in its adherents a sort of intel- lectual priggishness, as satisfactory to them as it is amusing to others. A great deal of the mod- ern study of Homer and Dante and Shakespeare illustrates the first form of the literary cult ; the second form receives illustration at many hands, the devotees of Browning and Mr. Meredith, of Baudelaire and M. Verlaine, of Dr. Ibsen and Count Tolstoi, offering a few of the later exam- ples. We have said that the cult of such writers as these takes the shape of a laudation that is both undue and uneven. It is upon the second of these characteristics that stress should principally be laid, for the most astonishing feature of the Browning or the Baudelaire or the Ibsen cult is its deliberate neglect of the really great qualities of these men, and the emphasis given the acci- dental and inartistic aspects of their work. No- 36 Little Leaders bier poetry than may be found in the work of Browning hardly occurs in English literature, but the work of the Browning societies would not often lead us to suspect its existence. Baude- laire touched with a master hand some of the deepest chords of human feeling, but those who magnify his name are apt to fix our attention upon the charnel - house elements of his verse, and almost make us sympathize with the recent sug- gestion of M. Brunetiere, that the proposed statue of the poet should be placed at the mouth of a sewer. Dr. Ibsen, in his deeper moods, speaks with an ethical fervor that seems to his readers the very bread of life, but those who sing his praises in the public ear only ask us to admire the trivialities or the morbid features of his analy- sis of modern society. It is not surprising that a writer like Mr. Frederic Harrison, having, to begin with, but little sense of humor, should allow his indignation at such critical antics to get the better of amusement, and indulge in the follow- ing outburst : ' I know that, in the style of to-day, I ought hardly to venture to speak about poetry unless I am prepared to unfold the mysterious beauties of some unknown genius Literature and Criticism 37 who has recently been unearthed by the Children of Light and Sweetness. I confess I have no such discovery to announce. I prefer to dwell in Gath and to pitch my tents in Ashdod ; and I doubt the use of the sling as a weapon in modern war. I decline to go into hyperbolic eccentricities over unknown geniuses, and a single quality or power is not enough to rouse my enthusiasm. It is possible that no master ever painted a buttercup like this one, or the fringe of a robe like that one ; that this poet has a unique subtlety, and that an undefinable music. I am still unconvinced, though the man who cannot see it, we are told, should at once retire to the place where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.' To the first form of the literary cult, the form which attaches itself to a really great name, our attention is called by a letter from Friedrich Spiel- hagen, on the Goethe-Schiller cult in Germany, published not long ago in the New York c Na- tion.' The cult in question has been going mer- rily on for more than half a century, and Herr Spielhagen tells us, in substance, that it has been fruitful enough in science, but hardly at all in literature. 'I consider,' he says, 'as being two very different things, learned inquiries about the acts of a hero of gen- ius, and the noble, broadening influence and effect of these actions on the life and blood, so to speak, of his 38 Little Leaders country. The most painstaking and ingenious commen- taries on the "Iliad" and "Odyssey" were indited at Alexandria, a whole library was filled with them, and yet Homer's sun set, and not all this flattering learned art could start it on its course again. I fear that much the same thing might be said of our Goethe-Schiller cult. The old text holds good here : " By their fruits ye shall know them." Where, I ask, are the fruits in our art and literature which have ripened in the Goethe-Schiller sun ? Where do we find in our poetry of to-day Goethe's delicate and sure feeling for the beautiful in form ? where his really living in the things which he describes ? where Schiller's flights of fancy which wafted him high above the mean and vulgar, "which enslaves us all"?' The true cult of a great poet is very different from the form that is commonly practiced. When the day of that cult dawns, to quote once more from Herr Spielhagen, l it will be understood that always mutatis mutandis one must do as Goethe and Schiller did. Till that day comes, let the disciples of Goethe and Schiller go on spreading wider and wider their silent influence. But, while they keep alive the sacred fire, let them have a care not to weaken their cause by crying, " Lord, Lord." For nothing is worse than publicly proclaiming one's self high-priest Literature and Criticism 39 of the Father in Heaven and then sacrificing to Baal.' These words permit of a far wider appli- cation than their author gives them, for they indi- cate the eternal distinction between the true cult and the false in the domain of literature. 40 Little Leaders THE LITERARY WEST. MR. LOWELL'S famous essay l On a Certain Condescension in Foreigners ' is in need of a sup- plement. c A Certain Condescension in East- erners ' is a theme that calls for treatment in sim- ilar vein ; but the pen rusts that alone could have dealt with it adequately, that alone could have bestowed upon it the measure and quality of genial satire that it deserves. For many years past the attitude of Eastern writers towards literary activ- ity in the West has been similar to that once as- sumed by Boston towards New York, and by England towards the United States. It has been an attitude of condescension, of patronizing coun- sel, of mild surprise that a region so far removed from the centre of the intellectual system should venture to have such things as literary aspirations. 1 But you are so very far away,' was the naive remark recently made to a gathering of American scholars by a foreign guest who was trying to be complimentary, but who could not refrain from Literature and Criticism 41 coupling surprise with admiration. Most Eastern explorers who brave the passes of the Alleghany Mountains, and find their way to the intellectual frontier settlements of the Mississippi Valley, re- turn to their homes with a tale from which the element of wonder is rarely missing. Every now and then some weekly paper or monthly maga- zine of the Atlantic coast devotes an article to Western literature, and, whatever the aspect it selects for treatment or the writers it singles out for fame, the accent of encouragement is always marked. This display of provincialism is amusing enough to all but the few who live in the intellectual cor- ners where it originates ; but it has one feature which has not been given the prominence that it deserves. As far as condescension goes, with its patronizing implications, the classical essay already mentioned may possibly be thought to cover the ground, for, mutatis mutandis, its criticism is ap- plicable to New England narrowness as well as to Old England insularity. But the phase of the matter which seems to call for particular com- ment, and upon which Lowell hardly touched, is that illustrated by the kind of literary production 42 Little Leaders which, in both cases, attracts the attention of the elder community to the work of the younger. Americans are not a little diverted when they notice the sort of thing upon which European critics of our literature are wont to seize as typ- ical of our intellectual activity. l Your country- men,' says Richard Grant White, in the charac- ter of Mansfield Humphreys, speaking to his English fellow-traveller, c even the intelligent and kindly-intentioned, are so stung with a craze after something peculiarly American from America that they refuse to accept anything as American that is not extravagant and grotesque. Even in literature they accept as American only that which is as strange and really as foreign to the tastes and habits of the most thoroughbred Americans as it is to them.' To this propensity of the European we must in large measure attribute the astonish- ing transatlantic vogue of Poe and Whitman and Mr. Harte. Excellent writers all three, and cer- tainly among the foremost that this country has produced ; yet it is to their accidental character- istics, rather than to their display of the qualities common to all good literature, that they in great part owe their reputation abroad. To quote once Literature and Criticism 43 more from the writer above mentioned, the for- eign critic is constantly putting to our literature such a question as this : ' Where is that effluence of the new-born individual soul that should em- anate from a fresh and independant democracy, the possessors of a continent, with a Niagara and a Mississippi between two vast oceans ? ' And the foreign critic, finding this l effluence of the new-born individual soul ' to emanate very per- ceptibly from such a writer as Whitman, seizes upon him as a typically American product. To the sane student, of course, these characteristics of Whitman that so impress the foreigner are the husks of his genius ; they are in themselves intol- erable, but we put up with them because of the fitful flashes of imaginative style that find their way through these uncouth wrappings. But the foreigner takes the envelope for the substance ; while for the American literature that is merely good, according to the accepted and immutable standards of literary workmanship, he has but scant recognition. This peculiar attitude of the foreign critic toward American writers is closely paralleled by the attitude of the East toward the West ; and 44 Little Leaders this brings us to the special subject of our remarks. When an Eastern writer undertakes to discuss the literary activity of the West, he almost invari- ably falls into the error of the foreign critic, and singles out as noteworthy and typical the writers whose work evinces some sort of eccentricity. It may be badly written, it may be grotesque, it may be vulgar it frequently has all three of these characteristics, but it is original, it is piquant, it satisfies the unholy yearning for the new thing. Some composer of dialect doggerel, cheaply pathetic or sentimental, gains the ear of the public ; his work has nothing more than nov- elty to recommend it, but the advent of a new poet is heralded, and we are told by Eastern critics that the literary West has at last found a voice. Some strong-lunged but untrained product of the prairies recounts the monotonous routine of life on the farm or in the country town, and is straight- way hailed as the apostle of the newest and con- sequently the best realism. Some professional buffoon strikes a new note of bad taste in the columns of the local newspaper, and the admir- ing East holds him up as the exemplar of the coming humor. Some public lecturer, sure of Literature and Criticism 45 the adulation of his little coterie of followers, estimates or interprets the literature of the world in accordance with whatever vagaries occupy his unregulated fancy, and the surprising announce- ment is made that a great creative critic has arisen in our midst. Skilled in the arts of self-advertise- ment, these men are quick to enlarge the foot- hold thus gained ; their reputations grow like snowballs : they come to take themselves as seri- ously as they are taken by others ; and the peo- ple of real culture and refinement, whose num- bers are so rapidly increasing in the West, have to endure the humiliation of being represented, in the minds of a large proportion of their fellow- countrymen, by men who are neither cultured nor refined. In the meanwhile, hundreds of men and women throughtout the West are engaged in producing literary work too excellent to be obtrusive, work that conforms to the recognized standards of all serious writing, work that scorns to be effective at the cost of style and modera- tion and good taste. But if the average Eastern reader be asked who, in his mind, are the repre- sentative writers of the West, he will name per- sons indignantly repudiated, for the most part, by 46 Little Leaders Western readers of intelligence and discrimina- tion. The selection will doubtless be made in good faith, and the fault will not be his ; it will be the fault of the newspapers that have supplied him with the information, of the careless critics who make it a matter of faith that whatever is Western must needs be wild. A heavy respon- sibility rest with these critics both for the part they play in giving notoriety to scribblers who offend against art, and for their persistent failure to recognize the really praiseworthy work done by Western writers. We do not claim that this work is as yet very great in amount, or that much of it deserves very high praise ; but we do claim that it is respect- able both in quality and quantity, and that both of these facts are to a considerable extent ignored by Eastern writers. We expect that the West will make a large contribution to American liter- ature during the coming ten or twenty years; and, if ever sane criticism is needed, it is at such a time. But the criticism we get tends to discour- age honest workmanship and to encourage what is extravagant and meretricious. Above all, it is time to have done with the notion, forced upon Literature and Criticism 47 us with wearisome iteration by certain writers, both Eastern and Western, that the West is now developing, or ever will develope, a distinctive lit- erature of its own. The West and the East are peopled by the same sort of men and women, and their work, when it deserves the name of litera- ture at all, has, and will have, the characteristics common to all good writing in the English lan- guage. The distinction between East and West will never be other than an artificial one ; even now, many of the best writers of either section came to it from the other. If the national centre of literary activity follows the Westward path of the centre of population, as seems probable, it will carry with it the accepted literary tradition, before which all crude local growths of tradition will be forced to give way. The coming literature of the West may be largely Western in its themes, but it will never be Western in its manner, as certain blatant rhetoricians would persuade us. Except in their relation to choice of subject-mat- ter, the terms Eastern and Western, Northern and Southern, have absolutely no literary meaning in a country all of whose parts have a common speech. The same standards apply to all the lit- 48 Little Leaders erature written in the English language, whether produced in England or Australia, in Canada or the United States. Still more closely do they ap- ply to the literature produced in different sections of our country, and it is an unfortunate application of local patriotism, whether Eastern or Western, that seeks to create a distinction where none should exist, or that, in its endeavor to create such a distinction, ignores the necessary unity of a national literature, and attaches undue weight to the accidental qualities of its particular mani- festations. Literature and Criticism 49 THE WRITER AND HIS HIRE. THE notion that literary work should not be done for pay, that it should be exempted from the com- mercial conditions under which man ordinarily does service to his fellows, is one that frequently finds expression (and sometimes most unexpect- edly) among professional men of letters. It has more than once proved an obstacle in the path of the London Society of Authors, and has prob- ably been among the causes that have thus far prevented an effective similar organization of the literary workers of our own country. Mr. Wal- ter Besant has done yeoman service in combat- ting this idea among Englishmen, but it seems to have something of the hydra's vitality, and the severance of one head is but the signal for an- other to rear its crest. A recent deliverance upon this subject occurs in c Scribner's Magazine,' and is of peculiar interest as expressing the opinion of a writer who is no less shrewd in the manage- ment of his business affairs than accomplished as 50 Little Leaders a man of letters. Mr. Howells (for he it is to whom we refer) has a weakness for the paradox- ical, and it is not always safe to take him quite as seriously as he reads. But his recent discus- sion of the literary life in its business aspect is prefaced by certain opinions which, allowing for an evidently whimsical element in their state- ment, still seem to embody the doctrine that it is ignoble to write for pay. Mr. Howells is, indeed, careful to say that, under existing conditions, a writer is bound to take pay for his work ; but he vaguely intimates that existing conditions are all wrong, that there is something essentially degrad- ing in a writer's acceptance of compensation for his work, and that in an ideal state of society the man of letters would somehow be taken care of without sharing in the contentions of the market- place. We are inclined to think that Mr. Howells has not gone far enough in his analysis of the problem. The man of letters is, like other men, whether Jew or Gentile, c fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer.' In a Literature and Criticism 51 word, the man of letters lives, and must have the means of subsistence. Shall he live by his pen or shall he find other sources of revenue, and leave to his hours of leisure the cultivation of litera- ture ? Many men of letters, doubtless, have taken the latter course ; much of the best literature has been produced under such conditions. The very best literature will get itself written under the most adverse form of these conditions. When, once in the centuries, a man has it in him to pro- duce a ' Don Quixote ' or a l Divine Comedy,' he will follow the star that lights his soul to the accomplishment of its divine purpose. Mr. How- ells thinks that Milton was overpaid for his c Par- adise Lost,' and doubtless he was, in the sense that the bookseller's paltry stipend did nothing to strengthen the motive that impelled to the composition of the epic. But we must remem- ber that literature consists of more than the su- preme masterpieces ; that the minor masterpieces are serviceable in their way ; and that the work of the honest journeyman is not without its uses. That the pursuit of literature should be relegated to the spare hours of men who earn their living otherwise, is a principle hardly to be defended, 52 Little Leaders and Mr. Howells certainly does not mean to have us take that view. The application of such a principle would spare us many worthless books, no doubt ; but it would also deprive us of much work, helpful in its generation, that we could ill do without. But if, on the other hand, literature is a legiti- mate profession, an occupation to which it is well that many men should devote their best energies and their entire lives, there seems to be no good reason why it should not fit into the general scheme of society and share in the advantages of its economic organization. That organization may at present work in a way very unsatisfactory to the ethical sense, but not even Mr. Howells will deny it to be better than the barbarism which it has superseded, and to represent a necessary stage in the evolution of the civilized life. Mr. Howells seems to think that the ideal society of the future will somehow take charge of the lit- erary artist and care for him as for a public bene- factor, that it will provide him with maintenance in the Prytaneum. It is here, we think, that the analysis is defective. Under anything like the existing social organization, such public main- Literature and Criticism 53 tenance would merely shift the burden of the artist's support from his own special public to the public in general. He would still be paid for his work, having merely a new paymaster, probably less intelligent than the old one. But under the socialistic organization that Mr. Howells prob- ably has in mind, we can see no reason why the artist should be singled out for special considera- tion. The honest ditch-digger is a public bene- factor no less than the honest poet, and, if there be anything ignoble in the acceptance of pay for honest work, it is equally degrading to the man- hood of both. All work, whether it be the dig- ging of ditches or the writing of epics, is service done by man to his fellow-men. There are but two things that need concern the worker : let him take heed that the work be worth doing, and that it be serviceably performed. The real de- gradation, whether in literature or in any other form of activity, lies either in the doing of work that is essentially worthless, or in the doing of any kind of work for other than its own sake. With the literary worker, the greater danger of degradation comes from the second of these causes. While we must admit the principle to 54 Little Leaders be legitimate, the frank acceptance of literature as a commercial product, to be bought and paid for at the market rates, does result in attracting to the literary profession a large number of workers who have no higher aim than that of turning the profession of writing to the greatest possible pe- cuniary account. But the moral to be drawn from this state of things is precisely the same as that to be drawn from any other occupation. Work for the mere purpose of gain is always ignoble, no matter what sort of work it may be. Upon this point, Mr. Ruskin has given us the whole ethical doctrine, has interpreted the law and the prophets, in his lecture on c Work.' ' It is physically impossible for a well-educated, intel- lectual, or brave man to make money the chief object of his thoughts ; just as it is for him to make his dinner the principal object of them. All healthy people like their dinners, but their dinner is not the main object of their lives. So all healthy-minded people like making money ought to like it, and to enjoy the sensation of winning it : but the main object of their life is not money ; it is something better than money. A good soldier, for in- stance, mainly wishes to do his fighting well. He is glad of his pay very properly so, and justly grumbles when you keep him ten years without it still, his main notion of life is to win battles, not to be paid for winning them. So of clergymen. They like pew-rents, and baptismal Literature and Criticism 55 fees, of course j but yet, if they are brave and well- educated, the pew-rent is not the sole object of their lives, and the baptismal fee is not the sole purpose of the bap- tism ; the clergyman's object is essentially to baptize and preach, not to be paid for preaching. . . . And so with all other brave and rightly-trained men ; their work is first, their fee second very important always, but still second. But in every nation, as I said, there are a vast class who are ill-educated, cowardly, and more or less stupid. And with these people, just as certainly the fee is first, and the work second, as with brave people the work is first and the fee second.' In a word, every man toiling with hand or head has the twofold ethical responsibility of choosing his work well and of doing it well. But in the special case of the literary toiler, the es- sence of doing well is to be sincere, truthful, and lofty of aim. If his work be done in this spirit, he need feel no shame in accepting, or even in stipulating for, its just reward, whether he be a journalist or a historian, a novelist or a poet. And if the time ever comes when all work is done in this spirit, we shall probably discover the existing social organization, based upon private contract and the utmost individual freedom, to be the real Utopia of which impatient idealists have been dreaming throughout the ages. 56 Little Leaders THE CRITIC AND HIS TASK. 4 WE read far too many poor things,' said Goethe to Eckermann, 4 thus losing time and gaining nothing.' In similar vein and at greater length, Schopenhauer gave vent to this characteristic out- burst : ' The amount of time and paper their own and other people's wasted by the swarm of mediocre poets, and the injurious influence they exercise, are matters deserv- ing of serious consideration. For the public is ever ready to seize upon novelty, and has a natural proneness for the perverse and the dull as most akin to itself. Therefore the works of mediocre poets divert public attention, keep- ing it away from the true masterpieces and the education they offer ; acting in direct antagonism to the benign in- fluence of genius, they ruin taste more and more, retard- ing the progress of the age. Such poets should there- fore receive the scourge of criticism and satire without indulgence or sympathy, until led, for their own benefit, to apply their talents to reading what is good rather than to writing what is bad. For if the bungling of the in- competent so aroused the wrath of the gentle Apollo that he could flay Marsyas, I do not see upon what the me- diocre poet can base his claim to tolerance.' Literature and Criticism 57 In such comment as we have just quoted there is a vein of bitterness not altogether to the taste of our complacent and easy-going modern age, so zealous in bearing witness to its democratic faith that it grudges recognition of any aristocracy at all, even of one as imprescriptible as that of genius. Live and let live, give every man his due and a little more, credit the intention rather than the performance, are some of the formulas in which the modern spirit of comfortable optim- ism finds expression. When literary production is the subject of criticism there are many motives at work in the interest of leniency or excessive generosity. Leaving entirely out of the question the unabashed puffery, regulated by counting- room conditions, that parades as criticism in so many of our newspapers ; taking into serious ac- count only the critical writing that is, as far as conscious purpose goes, honest in its intent ; this work is still often weakened by influences too insidious in their action to be distinctly felt, yet giving it a tendency which, in view of the larger interests of the reading public, is undoubtedly per- nicious. The critic deficient merely in knowl- edge heeds too closely the warning example of 58 Little Leaders the early critics of Shelley and Keats, of Words- worth and Tennyson, and casts his anchors to windward, hoping thereby to save his reputation from the scorn in which theirs stands pilloried. The critic whose defects are of the heart rather than of the intellect, who is too amenable to social influences or of too kindly a disposition to give the work under examination the character he knows it to possess, softens the outlines of truth (often quite unconsciously), and produces a distinctly false impression. In either case the public is served to its detriment rather than to its profit. The critic's paramount duty is, of course, his duty to the public, and every personal or private in- fluence whatsoever must be resisted by him from the moment that its presence is felt. All this is not easy, and yet it may be done by a writer who has both knowledge and honesty. If a book has little or no value, the fact must be clearly and firmly stated, no matter what the au- thor under discussion may feel. This assign- ment to its place of a new book need not be done with the traditional brutality of the Quarterly reviewer, although even that would be better than the insipidity of the twaddle that so often passes Literature and Criticism 59 for criticism, and that is obviously enough in- tended to win the good opinion of the author as well as so to hoodwink the public that its good opinion shall not be forfeited. How few critics there are who, recognizing the worthlessness of books, are yet ready, in Milton's phrase, to l do sharpest justice on them as malefactors ' ? In fact, the sin of the Quarterly reviewers was not so much brutality as ignorance. Their attitude was hopelessly provincial, and they sought to conceal their limitations by the vigor of their in- vective. After all, a new book is bound to show an adequate reason for its being ; if no such rea- son exists, the fact cannot be too soon discerned and stated. A new book is an attempt to divert the attention of readers from those already in their possession ; it is an impertinence unless it bears a sufficient warrant. Books of knowledge must be multiplied with the advance of science, and their warrant is found in new facts and in the more perfect formulation of old ones. What Mr. Ruskin calls t books of the hour ' are war- ranted by the special interests of the hour. ' We ought to be entirely thankful for them, and en- tirely ashamed of ourselves if we make no good 60 Little Leaders use of them.' With books of these classes, the task of the critic is simple. He must seize upon their elements of novelty or of timeliness, and must determine whether or not they accomplish their purpose. With books that pretend to be additions to lit- erature proper with poems, plays, and novels his task is different. He must be alert to detect new notes of song or of passion, but if only fee- ble echoes reward the search he must make the fact perfectly clear. Of the books of belles-lettres published during a given year, it is certainly safe to say that nine out of ten should never have seen the light, that in at least this fraction of the total number there is neither wit, nor invention, nor grace of style, nor harmony of numbers, in any redeeming measure. And the critic who per- suades his readers that acquaintance with these empty books is more desirable than acquaintance with the recognized masterpieces that it is de- sirable at all in view of the real literature waiting to be read is careless of his responsibility and false to his trust. There is, after all, but one standard in litera- ture, and that is the highest. The great writers Literature and Criticism 61 not only offer us boundless delight in themselves, but they provide us with a touchstone for the testing of all spurious metal. In a certain sense, it is the critic's business to make his readers inde- pendent of criticism, just as the physician's aim must be to make his patients independent of medi- cine. And the reader who has formed his taste upon good models does not need the critic's serv- ices except for occasional guidance. But the readers who need those services for instruction, in these days of insignificant or worthless books profusely multiplied, are still many ; and the critic who sets up as absolute any merely relative stand- ard of excellence, who describes the work of tal- ent in terms only applicable to the work of genius, who praises the echo of noble literary work with- out clearly indicating its derivative character, who does not frequently renew his own strength by draughts from the fountainheads of literary in- spiration, the work of this critic can be the source of no real helpfulness, and can only expect to share the speedy oblivion awaiting the books that it seems for a moment to magnify into com- ponent parts of permanent literature. 62 Little Leaders TOUCHSTONES OF CRITICISM. WE believe it was Emerson who once said that he was always glad to meet people who recog- nized the immeasurable superiority of Shake- speare over other poets. The feeling has doubt- less been cherished by many a reader besides; for, after all, what test of the sane outlook upon life, the deep sympathy with its manifold phases, the discriminative faculty that knows the ring of the precious metal from the base not in literature alone, could be equal to this ? To know the great poets, and to be sure that they are the great poets, not from mere passive acceptance of the traditional appraisement, but from reasoned and sincere conviction, this is one of the most de- sirable of possessions ; for it betokens a well- ordered imagination, a just balance of the intel- lectual and emotional elements of the inner life, a capacity for the highest of all possible artistic satisfactions. A clever simulation of this attitude is sometimes encountered, but it cannot long de- Literature and Criticism 63 ccive the elect. It is sure to unmask itself in relations of anything like intimacy, to fall back upon pilfered formulas obviously hollow as far as the one who flaunts them is concerned, to be caught napping when some peculiarly vital point is at issue, to betray by some trick of intonation, or gesture, or facial expression, the insincerity of the pretended appreciation. Yet even this pretence of comprehension is not always to be condemned. If it be made merely for the sake of conventionality, not much may be urged in its favor ; but if it result from the humility of a judgment confident that the estimates reinforced by successive generations must somehow be right, from the conviction that failure to perceive all the beauty that a clearer vision has discerned must be attributable to one's own spiritual defect, and from the determination to assume the proper initial attitude and patiently wait for enlightenment to come, then it is hardly chargeable with hypocrisy, and merits sympathy rather than disdain. In such a case, we aver, at least, the attitude in question is more becoming, to say nothing of its being more hopeful, than that of the out-and-out Philistine, who raises his stri- 64 Little Leaders dent battle-cry to some such effect as this ' I do n't know anything about poetry, but I know what I like ' and then proceeds to descant upon the beauties of some scribbler who does not de- serve serious consideration at all. This sort of outburst is familiar enough to everyone who un- wisely speaks of literature in the presence of peo- ple who get their intellectual sustenance from the sensational periodical of monthly or daily publication, or from the paper-covered fiction of the newstand, and politeness usually forbids the only sort of reply that is adequate to the occa- sion. The advice needed by a person of this type is, in Mr. Frederic Harrison's phrase, that 4 he should fall on his knees and pray for a clean- lier and quieter spirit,' but it must be left un- spoken, and a smile of pity is the only permissible substitute. Undoubtedly the best general evidence that one is possessed of the cleanly and quiet spirit to which Mr. Harrison so feelingly alludes is afforded by a real pleasure in the accepted mas- terpieces of literary art, or at least in a consider- able number of them. The reader whose joy in Shakespeare and Dante, in Virgil and Tennyson, Literature and Criticism 65 in Homer and Shelley, in Goethe and Cervantes, is genuine and perennial, is entitled to feel some confidence in his judgment of the moderns, as yet unclassified and unranked ; to him, literature is no trackless forest, but a familiar well-travelled highway, provided with sign-posts and landmarks. The great names of literature are touchstones which teach us unerringly to know the good from the meretricious, even among the slightest produc- tions of the hour. For it is a mistake to assume that because the major poet is so immeasurably removed from the minor poet each must be judged by the standards of his own class. The hope- less confusion of perspective that results from this assumption is only too familiar to readers of current criticism. How often do we find some insignificant poetaster of the day characterized in terms that would give us pause were they applied to one of the master-singers of the world. How many l new poets ' have been noisily heralded during the last twenty years, only to be consigned to forgetfulness a few months later. These crit- ical extravagances are extremely unfortunate, for they bewilder the seeker after the beautiful, lead- ing him into many a will-o'-the-wisp-haunted 66 Little Leaders morass, besides tending to bring all criticism into disrepute. They are probably responsible in large measure for the amazing opinion, to which recent years have given considerable currency, that crit- icism has no business to be anything more than a subjective record of the critic's impressions, an unreasoned enumeration of his likes and dislikes. But however prevalent such an opinion may become among the superficially-minded, genuine criticism, based upon the fundamental principles of art, is not likely to abdicate its function, any more than genuine economics is likely to abandon its scientific and rational procedure because of the subjective semi-emotional discussion that now in so many quarters usurps its name. And what- ever the special method that criticism may choose to pursue, it will never forget that literary art ex- ists, that its fundamentals have the sanction of the centuries, that any marked departure from those fundamentals is almost sure to be an indi- cation of decadence or degeneracy, and that ap- proved literature provides an almost infallible touchstone by which to test the value of the lit- erature yet on trial. The best criticism is that which we get from those writers whose knowl- Literature and Criticism 67 edge of the great poets is widest, and whose sense of their excellence is most unfailing. To narrow this suggested method from the general to the particular, we may say that Matthew Arnold's plan of keeping within memory's reach a few carefully selected examples of faultless diction, for purposes of comparison, is hardly to be improved upon. Arnold was entirely right in saying that to recognize the 4 grand style ' by this sort of touch- stone we do not need to be able to define it, and he might have added that no kind of a definition would help anyone to recognize it who, when brought into its presence, could remain uncon- scious thereof. What he says of the 'grand style ' is equally applicable to the other types of style which literature embodies. Symonds suggested a similar test of lyric excellence when he said that 1 a genuine liking for "Prometheus Unbound" may be reckoned the touchstone of a man's capacity for understanding lyric poetry.' And as Arnold tells us that the reader who does not intuitively recognize the l grand style ' in Milton's l Stand- ing on earth, not rapt above the pole,' etc., can expect no other answer than l the Gospel words : Moriemini in peccatis vestrisj so Symonds tells us 68 Little Leaders that * if a critic is so dull as to ask what " Light of Life ! thy lips enkindle " means, or to whom it is addressed, none can help him any more than one can help a man whose sense of hearing is too gross for the tenuity of a bat's cry.' Perhaps a word may be said, in closing, of an- other sort of touchstone, one having no objective value to speak of, yet subjectively of considerable interest to many of us. There are several pretty tales going about of life-long friendships formed and cemented by a common love for FitzGerald's 1 Omar.' Akin to these in their suggestion is the beautiful story of the Sicilians and their love for Euripides, the story which Browning has immor- talized in the first adventure of Balaustion. Al- most everyone who is widely read in literature takes to his heart of hearts some poet, as often as not of inferior rank, whose message is yet of such a nature as to make the strongest possible appeal to the individual idiosyncrasy. Such a poet becomes, to the one whose heart he has reached, a sort of touchstone to be applied to the rest of mankind, a test of the sympathies that must underlie real intimacy. But it should not be forgotten that this personal appeal to a few Literature and Criticism 69 individuals here and there does not warrant them in reckoning their poet among the great singers of the world. We should not confuse the sub- jective standards of criticism with the objective ones, strong as is the temptation so to do. Even the sanest and most experienced critics do not always escape this confusion. Victor Hugo, for example, means a great deal to Mr. Swinburne personally, and so Mr. Swinburne, presumably writing what he intends for objective criticism, bestows deplorably extravagant praises upon the poet. On the other hand, Matthew Arnold, not liking some things about Shelley, is impelled to register the opinion that his prose is better than his poetry. It is hard to say which of these two vagaries is the more disheartening. If such men are capable of such lapses, what may we hope of lesser critics ? One thing, at least, is clear. It cannot be asserted too frequently or too insist- ently that the likes or the dislikes of a critic have nothing to do with criticism, if the term is to be taken intelligibly. The argument, c This work is good because I like it, and this other work is not good because I dislike it,' is nothing more than childish dogmatism, and quickly leads to 7O Little Leaders some such reductio ad absurdum as has been illus- trated. In any objective sense, no merely per- sonal preference, however strongly felt, is to be reckoned among the touchstones of genuine crit- icism. Literature and Criticism 71 ANONYMITY IN LITERARY CRITICISM. THE question of responsibility for criticism is one of the most difficult with which the literary pro- fession has to deal. Should it be signed or un- signed, personal or impersonal ; should it express the opinion of an individual or of an organ ? The question has been ably and amply discussed from both points of view, and both systems (in English- speaking countries, at least) have been found to work well in practice. In behalf of the principle of anonymity it is argued, first, that criticism has increased weight when put forth with all the au- thority of a paper or review that has gained the confidence of the public ; second, that by this method alone is untrammelled criticism, free from personal obligations or reservations, to be secured. Upon these two leading arguments the case for anonymity rests ; others are occasionally brought forward, but examination shows them to be either of a derivative nature or of minor importance. 72 Little Leaders In behalf of the criticism for which personal responsibility is assumed, we are told, first, that all such criticism really is the work of individuals, and that it is unworthy to pretend that it is any- thing else ; second, that intentional unfairness is less likely to be displayed when authorship is avowed than when it is concealed ; third, that injustice is done to the critic himself when the periodical to which he contributes assumes all the credit for his work, and that this assumption re- acts upon the work, tending to make it colorless and weak. It is hardly necessary for us to say, in so many words, that the arguments for personal responsi- bility seem to us the weightier, since we have, from the start, adhered to the practice of publish- ing signed criticisms of all the important works reviewed in l The Dial.' While granting that the impersonal system has some advantages, it seems to admit of still more abuses. The nature of these abuses has been succinctly set forth by Mr. Besant in a recent article. He says : ' I should rejoice to see the custom of signing criti- cisms in literature and art become general, for several reasons. First, because it would instantly, I believe, de- Literature and Criticism 73 molish the flippant smartness and insolence with which some papers allow their columns to be disfigured smart- ness which disguises the fact that the critic knows nothing of his subject ; it would force the writer at least to read the book ; it would put an end to the reviewing of books in the batch ; it would make the young critic anxious to advance his own name as a writer who can deliver care- fully considered judgment in the courteous language of a gentleman ; this language he would study to preserve in his work, or to learn if he had never learned it ; and it would enormously raise the position and status of a critic in the eyes of the editor, as well as those of the read- ing public. That it would also rapidly advance the capable critic in his own profession may be taken for granted.' For these reasons, and for others of a similar character, we think it desirable that the author- ship of literary criticism should, as a rule, be acknowledged. There is, however, one abuse connected with the system of signed reviews that requires a mo- ment's consideration. When this system is in use, the temptation is strong to secure the names of well-known writers, regardless of their fitness for the work. We have far too much of this misdirected effort, both in the sensational press of the day and of the month. Some periodicals of 74 Little Leaders the sort in question even display title-pages or tables of contents in which the names of their contributors appear in heavy-faced type, while the subjects of the contributions are printed in the most modest and inconspicuous of characters. In fact, one of the greatest vices of our periodical press is this willingness to appeal to the public ear by means of names rather than by means of serious and competent discussion. When the sub- ject considered is subordinated to the personality of the man who writes about it, we have reached something very like a reduct'io ad absurdum of the system. At all events, we have shown how a system, excellent in principle, may be condemned by its own excesses. On the other hand, the anonymous system too easily lends itself to con- cealment of the poverty of the resources at the command of a review. When criticism is to be unsigned, there is an increased difficulty in ob- taining criticism of the best quality, and editors will sometimes succumb to the temptation af- forded by the fact that, however inefficient the work offered them may be, it must share in the general prestige of the periodical in which it ap- pears. As regards the two abuses just considered, Literature and Criticism 75 the one appears to be no more probable or dan- gerous than the other ; in either case, the abuse in question will not be chargeable to any editor who accepts the responsibility of his position. In other words, the editor who is determined to pre- sent his readers with serious and honest criticism will refuse to publish incompetent work, whether it come baited with a well-known name or bear no name at all. When we consider the influence upon the writer himself (assuming him to be competent) of the knowledge that his work is to be signed or unsigned, it seems to us that the argument for personally acknowledged criticism is much the better. It is so easy for the anonymous critic to be unfair, to allow his work to be colored by a personal prejudice against which it is impossible for the reader to be on his guard. The best of the anonymous reviews show occasional exam- ples of very uncritical prejudice, which, as a rule obvious enough to the expert in such matters, is entirely unperceived by the average reader. Sometimes, indeed, the prejudice is so deftly con- cealed as to impose upon the very elect. That this evil is greatly lessened when criticism is ac- 76 Little Leaders knowledged should be apparent enough. There are cases, no doubt, in which the reviewer who is to sign his criticism will fail, for personal rea- sons, to speak out his whole mind, and an occa- sional work may, in consequence, receive a more generous measure of praise than it deserves. But this evil appears to us of minor importance when compared with the evil of prejudice protected by anonymity, and unrestrained by any sense of per- sonal responsibility. Without going as far as Schopenhauer, when he calls anonymity the * shield of all literary rascality,' we may find a certain satisfaction in his vigorous denunciation of the system. ' It was introduced under the pretext of protecting the honest critic, who warned the public against the resent- ment of the author and his friends. But where there is one case of this sort there will be a hundred where it merely serves to take all responsibility from the man who cannot stand by what he has said, or possibly to conceal the shame of one who has been cowardly and base enough to recommend a book to the public for the purpose of put- ting money into his own pocket. Often enough it is only a cloak for covering the obscurity, incompetence, and insignificance of the critic. It is incredible what impu- dence these fellows will show, and what literary trickery they will venture to commit, as soon as they know they are safe under the shadow of anonymity. ' Literature and Criticism 77 There is much force in this, and there is pith in the author's further suggestion that a man should be answerable for what he writes, l at any rate with his honor, if he has any ; and if he has none, let his name neutralize the effect of his words.' Thus we see that one of the two leading argu- ments for anonymity does not seem, upon care- ful examination, to be well based. The other argument that criticism bearing the authority of a review has greater weight than that which bears but the authority of an individual might be dismissed with the question : Why should criticism have any greater weight than attaches to the authority of its writer ? But there is really more than this to be said upon the subject. A critical periodical should be more than a mere collection of essays. It is a pitiful theory that regards a review as a mere dumping-ground for all sorts of opinions. A review should stand for something; it should represent sane intelligence upon the subjects with which it is concerned ; it should march in the vanguard of thought. M. Zola, who has recently, in his address before the London Conference of Journalists, stirred up the 78 Little Leaders question of anonymity, goes astray at this point. His plea is for personal responsibility in criticism, and is excellently urged, but he attempts to make an unreal distinction between political and liter- ary criticism. He expresses the opinion that political discussion should be impersonal, and adds : ' At the same time I confess that if I recognize the necessity for anonymity in political matters, I am none the less surprised that it can exist in literary matters. Here I entirely fail to grasp the situation. I refer espe- cially to articles of criticism, judgments pronounced upon the play, the book, the work of art. Can there be such a thing as the literature, the art of a party ? That disci- pline, average opinion, should prevail in politics is cer- tainly wise. But that a literary or artistic production should be adapted to suit the views of a whole party, that a scythe should be used to cut down everybody to the same level, that all should be mixed up in a common herd, in order to politely please your public, this I consider to be dangerous to the intellectual vitality of a nation. This sort of regimental criticism, speaking in the name of a majority, can only end in producing a mediocre, color- less literature.' The mistake here is in the assumption that im- personal discussion, whether political or artistic, must be partisan. But it cannot for a moment Literature and Criticism 79 be admitted that either the one or the other is necessarily partisan, except in the sense that it must take the part of knowledge against ignorance, of intelligence against dulness, of sanity against eccentricity, of rationality against irrationality. We do not decide against anonymous literary crit- icism because of its assumed tendency to become partisan, or to express average opinion it cannot well be the one, and ought not to do the other but for the far more cogent reasons above set forth and also recognized by M. Zola elsewhere in his address. It must be remembered that a critical review has to deal with all sorts of subjects, not only with belles lettres, but with history and sci- ence and philosophy as well. The word parti- sanship has no meaning when applied to so wide a range of interests. Recurring once more to the main argument for anonymity, we would say, finally, that the criti- cism which is published in a review of high char- acter and recognized authority does receive added weight from that very fact, if signed no less than if unsigned. We do not believe that the addition of a signature detracts from the authority of the criticism, and we are sure that it adds to the 8o Little Leaders reader's confidence in the sincerity of the writer. If the name of the writer is well known, his opin- ion comes with the added authority of the review in which it appears ; if the name is not well known, the importance to be attached to the opinion will be measured, not by the obscurity of the writer, but by the confidence which the editorial conduct of the review inspires. In a word, when critical articles are signed, there is at least no loss of weight, and there may be a distinct increment of gain. The last editions of the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica ' and of * Chambers's Encyclopaedia ' are the better and the more authoritative from the fact that their chief contributions are acknowl- edged. c The Fortnightly Review,' with its signed articles, quickly gained a higher prestige than had been enjoyed by the anonymous quar- terlies. If c The Athenaeum ' and l The Satur- day Review ' and ' The Nation,' following the example of c The Academy ' and 4 The Dial,' were to adopt the system of signed criticisms, they would probably exert a deeper influence than they do at present, and would certainly command a more unreserved confidence from their constitu- ency. Literature and Criticism 81 POETRY AS CRITICISM OF LITERATURE. WE have heard much (something too much in- deed ) of poetry as a criticism of life, since the time when Matthew Arnold, in his essay on Wordsworth, started that famous phrase on its career. Its inadequacy has been pointed out by many critics since, and it is now, we should say, definitely relegated to the limbo of half-truths that fascinate for a time by virtue of their novelty, but that speedily become discredited. Probably the most convincing of the many protests it evoked was that of the writer who urged that, so far from being a mere criticism upon life, the greatest poetry is life itself, in direct transcription. But, while we must regard as whimsical the no- tion that poetry is nothing more than criticism, even glorified criticism, we may freely admit that there is to be found in poetical literature a large element critical of life and of many other things as well. Among those other things, literature 82 Little Leaders itself is of considerable importance ; and we here wish to say a few words about the treasures of literary criticism that are among the precious gifts brought us by the poet. In this age of the multiplication of anthologies, it has for many years been to us a matter of surprise that someone did not prepare a volume of 4 Poems of Poets,' to go with the c Poems of Places,' the c Poems of Books,' the c Poems of Nature,' and the many other special collections. Within the last year or so, the want has been supplied, after a fashion, by two independent col- lections ; and the lover of poets, as well as the owner of dogs and the smoker of tobacco, is now provided with his own anthology of favorite pieces. There is still room for a better collec- tion than has yet been made, but the needs of a deserving class of readers have at least received recognition. It has often been urged that the critic of any art should be at the same time an adept in the practice thereof. This view doubtless rests upon a misconception, being analogous to the view that no one can intelligently read a foreign lan- guage without speaking it as well. In the case Literature and Criticism 83 of the language, as is sufficiently obvious, the process by which one acquires its use for reading is essentially unlike the process by which one learns to speak it. To speak psychologically, the nexus of associative tracks worn by much reading of French or Latin is one thing, and the nexus worn by much speaking of a foreign tongue quite another. To be more exact, we should perhaps say that the associative stimulus, while going over the same nerve-track in any particu- lar case, takes one direction in the case of read- ing, and the reverse direction in the case of speech. Because the passage from word-symbol to concept is easily made, it by no means follows that the passage from concept to word-symbol will present no difficulty. A similar situation, although a far more complicated one, is presented when we compare the practice of literary com- position with its criticism. But it is nevertheless true that the reader of a foreign tongue is better prepared to get its full significance if his associa- tions have been trained to work freely in both directions ; and it is likewise true that the critic of literature who has made literature himself is, ipso fafto, in some respects better equipped to 84 Little Leaders understand just what has been accomplished by his fellow workers. Only we must not go so far as to say that creative power brings with it the critical faculty ; the former may indeed add something to the effectiveness of the latter, but the intuitional character of the one is still per- manently differentiated from the reflective char- acter of the other. That the poets are capable of writing good prose criticism of their art, it needs no argument to show. We think at once of Lessing and Goethe, of Voltaire and Hugo, of Shelley and Coleridge, and of fifty others. We are now concerned to call attention to the fact that some of the most acute and sympathetic criticism of the poets that we have is to be found in poetry itself. Since English literature best illustrates this fact, although other literatures might profitably be adduced in further support of it, we shall be content with En- glish examples alone. The good work of poet- ical criticism was begun by Chaucer, who labored under the disadvantage of having no fellow-poets of his own speech to sing about, and who was thus compelled to find subjects for his l House of Fame ' and other critical ventures in the great Literature and Criticism 85 names of classical antiquity or of contemporary Italy. From Chaucer's time to the present, the work has gone merrily on, and the last of our great poets has written more good poetry about his fellow-singers than we owe to any of his pre- decessors. The contemporaries and immediate followers of Chaucer had at least one English poet to pan- egyrize ; and so Gower, and Occleve, and Lyd- gate, to the best of their mean powers, paid trib- ute to their master. Even to-day, do we not feel some thrill of sympathy when we read Occleve ? O maister dere and fader reverent, My maister Chaucer, flowre of eloquence, Mirrour of fructuous entendement O universal fader in science, Alias ! that thou thyne excellent prudence In thy bedde mortel myghtest not bequethe What eyled dethe, alias ! why wolde he sle thee ? ' When we come down to the Elizabethans, we find the poets rioting in versified criticism of one another. Shakespeare is a notable exception to this rule, and in the one case in which he dis- played enthusiasm for a contemporary, and spoke of ' the proud full sail of his great verse,' he for- got to tell us whom he meant. There is a good 86 Little Leaders deal of log-rolling, and no little malice, in all this personal poetry (such things have been known in later times, even in our own), but many of these tributes strike a note of sincerity, and display an insight for which we must ever cherish them. How true, for example, is Drayton's familiar de- scription of Marlowe : c His raptures were all air and fire '; and Barnfield's of Spenser : c Whose deep conceit is such, as passing all conceit, needs no defense '5 and Jonson's of Shakespeare : * He was not for an age but for all time.' It is curious to note, as we work down the centuries, how the taste of each age is reflected in these appreciations of poets by poets. In the sev- enteenth century, Milton and Dryden, indeed, as we might naturally expect of the two greatest men of their age, showed an understanding of Shake- speare's supremacy that leaves nothing to be de- sired ; but the lesser men of the time clearly pre- ferred the lesser Elizabethans, or the decadent artificers among their own contemporaries. The poets of our so-called Augustan age usually re- ferred to the great English classics in a perfunc- tory sort of way, and gave them but a grudging recognition. It is very amusing to find Addi- Literature and Criticism 87 son, with all the airs of the Superior Person, saying of Chaucer that ' In vain he jests in his unpolished strain,' and of Spenser, that he < In ancient tales amused a barbarous age,' writing on the other hand of 4 Great Cowley then, a mighty genius,' and going into rhapsodies over that ' har- monious bard,' the c courtly Waller.' Equally amusing contrasted citations might be made from Pope. It was only in the later eighteenth cen- tury, with Collins and Gray, that poetry acquired a saner outlook upon itself, and began to grope back toward the old truth that art is better than artifice. The nineteenth century is so rich in the hom- age of poet to fellow-poet, that an essay, rather than a paragraph, would be needed to do it jus- tice. Wordsworth's sonnet to Milton, Shelley's 'Adonais,' Keats's 'Chapman's Homer,' Landor's sonnet l To Robert Browning,' Mrs. Browning's 'Wine of Cyprus,' Rossetti's l Dante at Verona,' Arnold's ' Thyrsis,' Tennyson's ' Alcaics,' and Mr. Swinburne's sonnets on the Elizabethan dramatists, are a few of the countless examples that will occur to every reader. And we would call particular attention to the fine critical quality 88 Little Leaders of the mass of work which these poems so imper- fectly represent. Their writers have good rea- sons for the faith that is in them ; they do not merely eulogize, they illuminate as well. If this were not so, the present article would have no excuse for existence. We do not know where in prose to find better criticism than Words- worth's of Milton : ' Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea ; Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,' or Lander's of Browning : Since Chaucer was alive and hale No man has walk'd along our roads with step So active, so inquiring eye, or tongue So varied in discourse,* or Arnold's of Goethe : * He took the suffering human race, He read each wound, each weakness clear ; And struck his finger on the place, And said : " Thou ailest here, and here! " * or Mr. Swinburne's of Dante mourning over a country recreant to its mission and dead in spirit : ' The steepness of strange stairs had tired his feet, And his lips yet seemed sick of that salt bread Wherewith the lips of banishment are fed ; Literature and Criticism 89 But nothing was there in the world so sweet As the most bitter love, like God's own grace, Wherewith he gazed on that fair buried face.' We hope that someone will undertake the preparation of an enchiridion of poetical criticism more comprehensive than has yet been attempted, a collection of the best things that have been said in the poetry of half a dozen modern litera- tures about the best poets of the whole world. Such a collection would be of the greatest value to the student of literary criticism, and would deserve to stand on the shelf beside the l Poetics ' of Aristotle, the treatise of Longinus, the impas- sioned pleas of Sidney and Shelley, and the essays of Coleridge, Arnold, and Pater. 90 Little Leaders THE NEGLECTED ART OF TRANSLATION. THESE closing years of the nineteenth century have made us more cosmopolitan, in many re- spects, than we ever were before. The world has shrunk for us in several ways ; as a mere matter of geography, the greater part of it is within easy reach \ politically and socially, the sense of human solidarity is growing all the time ; and in intellectual affairs it is safe to say that no voice having a real message to deliver is likely to wait long for appreciative listeners. Neglected genius seems to have become a thing of the past, and we now suffer instead from a tendency to exalt with undue precipitancy to the ranks of genius every questionable and imperfectly real- ized talent that appears upon the intellectual hor- izon. In literature particularly, we are alert as never before to catch the new note, to seize upon and exploit the new thing. Let a poet, or nov- elist, or essayist but raise his head in any corner Literature and Criticism 91 of civilization, and, if his message be not purely provincial in its application, he will soon find him- self translated into the tongues of the aliens, and his thoughts will find lodgment upon their lips. Nay, if the message be but a provincial one after all, it is not unlikely to incur the same fate, such has become our curiosity concerning all our fel- low-men, such our insatiable demand for the new type and the local coloring. This linking together of the literatures by trans- lation is particularly noticeable among the peo- ples using the German, English, and French lan- guages, and, as an intellectual tendency, has fol- lowed the order just named. Germany was the leader in the movement, and throughout most of the century, has been seizing with omnivorous appetite upon whatever was most notable in the literary product of other countries. Not only has she assimilated the productions of such peoples as the Hungarians, the Scandinavians, and the Slavs peoples closely associated with her either politically or ethnically but also those of the English and French, the Italian and Spanish. The works of Jokai, CEhlenschlager, and Push- kin first found a large foreign audience among 92 Little Leaders the Teutons ; Dante, Calderon, and Voltaire early became theirs by right of conquest, and the Shakespearian permeation of German literature is so familiar a fact as hardly to need mention. The English people, on either side of the At- lantic, have followed the Germans, although at a distance, in thus welcoming the foreigner to their hearth, and we all know the good work of Car- lyle and Coleridge, in the English case, and of the Concord group of plain livers and high think- ers, in our own. France, maintaining longer than Germany or England her self-sufficient attitude, has more recently fallen into line, and the most desperate efforts of chauvinism have failed to pro- tect her frontiers from the invasion of the alien writer. Indeed, the proposition that new converts are the most zealous of all, is well illustrated by the eager enthusiasm with which the Frenchman is nowadays taking up the foreigner and his works. The distinction is very marked, for example, be- tween the polite curiosity with which Ampere explored Scandinavian literature for the informa- tion of Frenchmen half a century ago, and the genuine interest which is taken by Frenchmen of to-day in the works of the great Norwegians. Literature and Criticism 93 In our own country, while cordial recognition of the established names of foreign literature has not been lacking since mid-century, we have, until very recently, been slow to seize upon the work of new writers. Tourguenieff, for exam- ple, had long been naturalized in France and Ger- many before he was discovered by America. Dr. Ibsen had done the greatest and most enduring part of his work twenty years ago, but the voice of the student here and there among us who had discovered him was that of one crying in the wilderness. A few contemporary Germans and Frenchmen, somewhat capriciously selected, were known to our readers ; others, equally important, were not known at all. As for the contemporary Italian, or Spaniard, or Pole, or Russian, his name was, with hardly an exception, meaningless to us. Most of us who studied the history of foreign literatures were content to stop with the dawn of the century ; of active modern tendencies in the world of foreign letters we had not the least no- tion. The rapidity with which, of late, nous avons change tout cela, is a little surprising. The past few years have brought before our eyes, in be- 94 Little Leaders wildering succession, an array of contemporary writers from all parts of the civilized world. Nov- elists and dramatists, essayists and poets, of the most diverse nationalities and ideals, compete for our attention. Not only do the new works of the older literatures crowd upon us, but the new literatures of Canada, Australia, Greece, Portu- gal, and Spanish America as well. Now most of these new claimants for attention require conver- sion into our vernacular before we may become acquainted with them. And this fact leads us to the real consideration of the present article, which is, briefly, that the art of translation, so far from keeping pace with its practice, lags painfully be- hind. The more translations we get, the worse they seem to be. Time was when a translation was at least apt to be a labor of love, conscien- tiously and sympathetically performed. At pres- ent, it seems a sort of scramble to be first in the field. A novel by a popular foreign author is almost sure to get before our public in a transla- tion so wooden, so unidiomatic, so essentially ignorant, as to be a mere travesty of the original. One who has occasion to examine many of these productions is only too often reminded of the sort Literature and Criticism 95 of translation that was suffered by Bottom, and is surprised beyond measure when he comes upon a version which is not an utter perversion. We do not here speak of the ethical question, so often ignored by those who deliberately alter or curtail the text of their originals, but merely of the lack of intelligence and capacity nearly always dis- played by translators of contemporary literature. The simple fact is that the qualifications of. a translator are set far too low, both by his em- ployer and the public. The long-suffering pub- lic, of course, has to take what it can get, is too apathetic to demand better workmanship, and easily grows accustomed to the hack-work that dulls the taste and deadens the literary sensibility. As for the employer, the publisher, he finds a ready sale for the cheap product, and hence does not offer the compensation that good work ought to bring. Of course he has a moral responsibility in the matter, but he is not likely to care for that when his pocket is concerned. Any young per- son with a smattering of French or German and a dictionary to help him out, feels competent to become a translator, it never occurring to him that the cultivation of an English style is the first 96 Little Leaders requisite of all; while the average publisher shows that he accepts this view by refusing to pay for translations any sum that a competent workman, the real master of two languages, can possibly accept. Of course, honorable exceptions to this rule may be found here and there, and equally of course good translations will now and then come from persons actuated, not by self-interest, but by a delight in good workmanship for its own sake. But the conditions that fix the existing standard of translation are still mainly of the hard commercial kind, and, until they are in some way modified, the standard will remain low. It is possible that the art of translation may rise from its present disrepute, but the process will be slow. Cause for hopefulness may be found in two facts. The first of these facts is that the Copyright Act of 1891 for the first time gave the foreign writer some measure of control over the American publication of translations of his work. He has it in his power to secure an adequate translation, and to preempt the market for it. Unfortunately, he does not always know a good translation from a bad one, and even if he does, may find it difficult to arrange for what he Literature and Criticism 97 wants. Possibly he may come to learn by ex- perience how immeasurably his reputation suffers from blundering translations, and take measures to secure himself against them. The other cause for hopefulness is in the fact that an immense expansion has taken place of late years in the modern language departments of our educational institutions. The languages of Europe are pur- sued in the scientific and literary spirit by an in- creasing number of students every year. These students will make most of the translations that will be read by the coming decades. It is not too much to believe that their better methods and fuller knowledge will make itself felt more and more as the years pass, and that their efforts may cause a marked elevation in the current standard of literary translation. EDUCATION THE HIGHER AIM. Oh beati que' pochi che seggono a quella mensa ove il pane degli Angeli si mangia. Con