THE CRITICAL STANDARDS OF HENRY JAMES 
 
 A Study of His Change from the Moral to the Aesthetic 
 in Criticism, Together with the Reasons for the Change 
 
 By 
 
 THEODORE WAYLAND DOUGLAS 
 
 A. B. Miami University, 1918 
 
 THESIS 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH 
 IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS, 1922 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS 
 

 
 * f 
 
 
 'i^*' 
 
 
 
 '^nrr 
 
 \V 
 
 -» TI.I -,v , '’5,,-Mtf 
 
 ’*> . , ‘^i- 
 
 
 
 VJ . ■ 
 
 
 tv: 
 
 /,;...4-/.“>:* .•*?••, ,c 
 
 V k '. . 
 fc. /ct 
 
 .mvvm ^ 
 
 
 
 fSioM - 2 >d ? ; ttb*4> to A/^ s? 
 
 
 . i 
 
 \ -■*< 
 
 
 PW 
 
 '•■ -■ ■■'; , 'j;-' 
 
 lit' u ' 
 
 ■^4 
 
 v^ 
 
 >i •», 
 
 * ■■ 
 
 .,, I 
 
 ’ '■; -yr'** 
 
 '-'''P’S '■ '■“' 
 
 aJ 
 
 
 • ‘ ^ A*' 
 
 ^ ^-<:. 'MfpHWte V / <’\"-f'- 
 
 *■ ^ vf ^#^T^^•:^'■^|[>.^;t^^^^lXi■ *4!^ , . 
 
 • t, • ■' '.V ■ -■•''•>■ HI 
 
 , , V ; f»i uai 7 iSV,-? ?7 W 
 
 • ' . . !fc^i 'H<i :* " 'y .)'■ ■ '■ 
 
 f.i- 
 
 V • 
 
 
 V i 
 
 1W>V « . 
 
 *), ^ /v-v ..-.'.i 
 
 '* '■ ■^ ■ P' » ‘ .. ■/ 
 
 5 '■ ii^ • • ■ • ' - . 
 
 ' ..,.\f 5;-"* 
 
 
 
 .'Is! 
 
 . >1,' .{T'>. 
 
 fc-'; I • 'J , ' 
 
 ' 'liiJsP 
 
 ■■ , ' , 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ■ -» J. 
 
 
 "-' flf*i.,.i' ', ._ 
 
 
1 
 

 
 to n i J *> ’} <>■ y;t i"3 H 3 V I vf'U ■’ ?*'ifl 
 
 ■\:,w '• ■' 't. ■\'^‘\\ii>^mumMi£if' v V-' 
 
 
 it-' 
 
 i > 
 
 .. £mK)' " 
 
 X.-. .•vGs 
 
 , M 
 
 .1 
 
 I* ■ ..®’'i:' 
 
 /1.< 5l‘MH-i <JiiM/"i)i'^ii^ffr^^l,n T/.H7' •(W;'M^V<|i'>i^l TlpUIillti ‘V^i»"^' '^S 
 
 rs 
 
 
 - - . 3i> 
 
 I K 
 
 r‘i ^ ' * r:, 
 
 '■ i'X .. j- ,„v. ■ — ■■ ■■ y- >« , ^' ..■,,,'j|j 
 
 - v« 
 
 e/lt 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter I Introductory 1 
 
 Chapter II The School of Morals and the 
 
 Aesthetic School 8 
 
 Chapter III Henry James as a Moralist 17 
 
 Chapter IV lhases of Aestheticism 3E 
 
 Chapter V Transition 41 
 
 Chapter VI Part I:- James's Desertion of 
 
 the School of Morals 57 
 
 Part II:- James's Aestheticism 68 
 
 Chapter VII Later Essays 83 
 
 Bibliography 104 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2016 
 
 Bfi'S'.;: 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalstandardOOdoug 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 "The critic's first duty in the presence of 
 an author’s collective works is to seek out some key to 
 his method, some utterance of his literary convictions, 
 some indication of his ruling theory. The amount of 
 labor involved in an inquiry of this kind will depend 
 very much upon the author. In some cases the critic 
 will find expressed declarations; in other cases he will 
 have to content himself with conscientious inductions." 
 
 With these words Henry James approaches a 
 study of George Eliot, and it is with this method in 
 mind that I approach a study of Henry James. 
 
 It is in the essays more than in the novels 
 and short stories that one finds expressed James's basic 
 convictions. If one had only the novels and stories 
 to judge from, he would have to content himself with 
 conscientious inductions, as many of the commentators 
 on James have already done, with more or less success. 
 
 Mr. W. C. Brownell gives a large part of his 
 essay on James to wondering what James's philosophy is 
 
lo Cii j;snib a’ol;Ti‘r;i 
 
 „ , IT ^ 
 
 0^- ^©3i i(©&a Oit a;!: ek*ion^^v£M<sLI.Oct na 
 
 
 _>v 
 
 !ta fo^ma §>HT ,\i■^O0^is ^ii/2;o 'nrjh4tfl 
 
 ■ ^ ' ^.'? - ■' . ■ '■'' ' ^ 
 
 ^notjftS CXivt ba}:( iiidi Tto 
 
 _ _ '■ V..;i r "a 
 
 ' 
 
 ^■•oitlio »d:t %dax5o ftwoo /il ^ . m^ja ifo,«ia;> 
 
 I > 
 
 iC'.. 
 
 Ti-hf od 00640 ^odJ’O Ai :«f‘Ot^a%rtXoa* 6£^j^ 
 
 ■V- : ;TV *■’. .. .'i 7^1»; ,f *•“•!• MOf 
 
 ’•.aaoitozi.6ttJ; ,8»o/.;J;jBojloi&noo tfiiiv He^mXH »vV 
 
 :•?!! ' . r‘ ' ' — 
 
 lj^-»lft- \ 
 
 4 a^rfoaO'tCfqa aeo^l 
 
 1 
 
 , >, . '■ * yf^ 'tjjr * ai-iB 
 
 ni £Q/(l!eci 0 Xd^ ei iZ bna 
 
 •aonuiV 
 
 rtno%;to^ A|doj«iiqcr:fl g. ^a^ni ' 'Itiaiffl , .,r!|F 
 
 K 
 
 aX»vo4 &4tf nX oartJ Wfi= of aJt .tl 
 
 otaatf a’tiofljat; ^aa^oixpce a6iI^!t eiio '^otTO^'p 
 
 o.eiiota. 6n«- sX»voji »ri* ijXao M «do..H^ iaho,)!i%lrnap 
 
 M ^ iiQ '”' ^ ,' Vi' ' 
 
 d^t^f XtmmW Q^- a4 
 
 / ' , ■ >,'s -(t** ■ ”'■* 
 
 ViOiat^i-mcfo ait^ i;o s« V«»'->t»oaJbitX vtesWsf'nsiaSnOQ, 
 
 I Tf* ..',■ .■■■“.> . -'.S.'. 
 
 ,i!^a'i -aa<>ocum,.BaoX tc *m^rf^^w iio; 
 
 i?. , .a.irf w JsBH>a’X«I a'sevia XX9;wo‘t«j,.p 
 
 at •'^^oacrxrf.q d^Bitw o?:^»oto*S.^iKy, /j^So 
 
 .i,r« 
 
 k y 
 
 > -l»*'TlV.. V ,., , ’ 
 
 
 LSiiIk' ''.'a'a^' JLilrt 
 
2 
 
 and to drawing certain inductions rather from what he 
 refrains from saying than from what he says. Mr. 
 Brownell says that taste plays a large part in James’s 
 philosophy, that it is a cultivated indifference based 
 upon a subconscious moral fastidiousness; and he com- 
 plains that James assumes the universality of his faith 
 
 1 
 
 and therefore does not take the trouble to outline it. 
 
 The first two inductions are affirmed in James's critical 
 essays, insofar as they may be taken to be definitions of 
 
 1. Brownell, W. C.: American Prose Masters ; U. Y.; 
 Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909. p.363. But what this 
 philosophy is, it is idle to speculate. Tt is doubt- 
 less profound enough, and though one does not argue 
 
 introspection of Mr. James's temperament, unless, 
 
 indeed, his work betray an effore to esacpe it, as the 
 
 nuisance it may easily become, he could doubtless 
 
 sketch it for us if inclined, and very eloquently and 
 even elaborately draw out for us its principles and posit* 
 
 ions. But he has no interest whatever in doing so 
 
 no interest in giving us even a hint of it. One may 
 infer that taste |)lays a large part it it, the taste that 
 some philosophers have made the foundation and standard 
 
 of morals, the taste, perhaps, that prevents him from 
 
 disclosing it. He has the air of assuming its univers- 
 ality, as if, indeed, it were a matter of breeding, a 
 mere preference for "the best" in life as in art, a sys- 
 tem, in a word, whose sanctions are instinctive, and so 
 not strongly enough or consciously enough felj? to call 
 for emphasis or exposition. Ho manifestation or quality 
 or incarnation of "the besf'evokes his enthusiasm. That 
 it "may prevail" is the youngest of his cares. His ohil- 
 osophy appears in the penumbra of his performance as a 
 cultivated indifference, or at ipost a subconecious basis 
 of moral fastidiousness on which the superstructure that 
 monopolizes his interest is erected. 
 

 
 i ^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 i’. Q 
 
 erf Tftrftai: ecoi^oxfi^rri nt£f^zoo :siaitf3zJb Aiiji 
 
 • “JM .e^ 4 « »rf Bjo.tl aoiijf | 0 QTlt afll 4 i^:©ir 
 
 
 I . ’f P ' 'I* ' 
 
 at trMii esiol « s^alq r^aa XXtxiwota 
 
 fiOBerf eoadta^Ubai hifi^Avti'Xoo 0 :Xt ,'iiS<i080lt 
 
 <S* 
 
 -fsoo baa r©noui^Gi;oloiamood[tta a rfocia 
 
 !sr 
 
 >'■ f 
 
 V" T 
 
 r ^ 
 
 airf^lo ^^tllaaTfeTXujj orf^ eeLToei^B acwat ;^orf* BAlaiq i 
 
 X ' _ ' ^ t- S':.!»,,, ' t' '•;; 
 
 .^1 */tlf;f«A *r/rWA »»4 .. ‘' V«' ; .. . '^f.' 
 
 »^1 taXX^ac 6i ©Itflaoi^ _orfrf orfa^ bik^JE) ©toleicerf^’ bad 
 
 M\if 
 
 leoX^^Z'fo 3 *e© 4 ii 48 ^ ni Aim^rilSjSJa &ia a/tYJXrfoai>ai gwif ;r«Txi ©rf® 
 TO oftoi^-tane/) 6 (i o^ vierfa^ ©tf talQaal 
 
 i^i^” 
 
 
 
 ;?j‘Si5^2BL«jsjs^2taa. .? ’.'? •.» 
 
 W' 
 
 »' pi.',' 
 
 alrft i£rfw*' 5 iS^ 
 
 -!^rf 0 CiJ& ai XT 
 
 
 '' • d 0 i tt ^ te/irfiioa b-oXi^nKO ^''\!j^. 
 
 th W f» ^ ^ Mx ,m, dk A ' # & * ^. ' A. 4 .A: « - * - A ,-r '' ^ . Mx klRn ^ 
 
 IW 
 
 ' ♦ ^ ■— f**-«r ^ V* ft. w V* \j|rfl i/ 
 
 ©jfisXwoeTja ox »(aZ ut^t ,fU '^oaaltrfq * 
 
 l^j oxTsia Xoa «©oX ©no rf^oxtt )Jxxa ,xfyjOAfr ftn»otO'^q ‘a«eX‘ 
 — ^XfloraaieqBitX e ‘ao(uaVjkV&jto xi^WlrqL»;^ia. | 
 
 
 - I 2 * eicot^o aa 'iatJerf evZrf ,j^e©HAjt 
 
 I. ^80^70000 6X000 erf- iftittrjoftrf ^Xiaao „itf;jsMn jX eorfaBina 
 
 J* f,iw ‘Cllneopoii? \5tfY baa ,AanlXo«t tX eu tot rfoXerf$ 
 
 TBOq fino seX^iortX’tv[ sXl eoj toX' iito ^a*ih ^fpj|Xofi}i[t)rfaXe rfoY'e 
 aX ^ere;f4uff> XaeieXaX oa aarf. orf iorf .B40X 
 -^4. 'i*. aeve;6y;3tiX^Xa rfX iso'ietfftiVoa v'i? 
 
 b0abcafa bitti not^ai^fwolt ©rfif eftBci ©t A rf QiorfqoaoXXrfa'^eflWja 
 
 ra^arf-ieq; ,9^la^ erft .eXatoir'Xo 
 
 -a^ov*m» »#“i Xo tUb orf^ 8i>rf< e’i '* ,;M; yijtieo'XoaX''JI> ■' 
 
 a ,^Uedid Xo 0 oie^ ft ,boabat Jt b« ,«^XXa, ;i 
 
 ?? ^^serf.orf^” io\ ooflInoXeTii ei»« 
 
 04 Xna '•vX^'ofr^Brfl «^<>X;*o&ji8 ooorfw ,bi'aw a aX ..'noT ' 
 
 .. (TRi/ea#; '^Xa^oXiiafioo to rfsoono.VXstrfotrfa, toa 
 
 •aoX;fi«0(ix<^ TO eXajarfqiaijk- tdX ' 
 fffL »xrf 3ej'ov#*'^aerf odJ^ lo rfo'XjfrfataoitXr tO' 
 
 -Xi»io eXH >00100 Qlxf ^0 ^Qoijxujo^ orfj alr!’'**XXov'OTCT 3j> 
 
 o 00 oo^ffito!i:to<t iXrf. lo eirfan/ami orftf ai oioooqi '^aoao 
 aXoad.fiooXooaoorfas a jaoiji fa -xa , bat Msvinad . 
 
 kol^ no sBaael^o'X6Xtfoa^^ Xoiofb 1o' --f 
 ■-'i.'Eunm •' if-;ae^'o»tB,.ax ;faexotnX 314. aeairX^oqoaow ® 
 
 ' '_j!l?' "' ' ' '^'i^ '•■ '’^3 
 
 
 .'j 
 
 'i/,, 
 
 
 
 >'X 
 
 
 ( „.ii 
 
 ■ ■■ r • 
 
 .■'i/ilsilVi' 
 
 *>. (.. 
 
 
 "r 
 
 
 t 
 
- 3 - 
 
 phases of aestheticism; but the third errs in the democ- 
 racy of its viewpoint. It seems to me that, using the 
 same data from which Mr. Brownell drew his conclusions, 
 one might more surely conclude that James felt that his 
 viewpoint was not universally attainable than that it was 
 universally acceptable. It was one of those things 
 
 which one has, or one does not have, like table manners; 
 
 and after a certain age nothing can be done about it. 
 Considering this view of it, one is not surprised that the 
 hope that it may prevail is, as Mr. Brownell expresses it, 
 "the youngest of his cares.” Henry James lived to 
 outgrow his public; he made no attempt to drag it along 
 with him, but rather contemptuously accepted its dining- 
 
 and -wining him, lionizing him, and refraining from read- 
 1 
 
 ing him. 
 
 In her book on Henry James, Miss Rebecca West 
 refers to the critical essays which appeared from time 
 to time in T he North American Review , The Atlantic 
 Monthly , The Nation , and other preiodicals in the sixties 
 
 1. For an exposition of this attitude see James *s story 
 in the first volume of The Yellow Book, Vol. I. April 
 1894. p. 7. The Death of The Lion. 
 

 
 
 r~r-J«J 
 
 •■ t, 
 
 "rr. 
 
 -oonap oxft f>Tiat erf^ ;Toc^ : 4 ns^oi^o/{;rQ«ji lo 
 
 ^4^ 5 ^iQii il'AiJT 0 itt o 4 " ais^ra .^ixi O'-iWjg^ !»■■' 'i^oari' 
 
 V /. 
 
 uraiB ♦xSSt doitlvr 
 
 0^' **v t ' f 
 
 aid aattat S'AjI*? ofeuXocoo ititoai Jfxl^ini ino 
 
 »» i? .; 
 
 L^'‘- 
 
 a-aa .-ti s^:r^asii,t ^iXfii'iorJt.Aw t»n ^ 4 W 'anXoiiwaiT^: 
 
 b -i* 
 
 l 3 
 
 
 
 eaoxf? *^o oiso &ew % 1 ’JE ^ \^Xi 94 ^©viruf 
 
 'vS'''; 
 
 la'idnctam dXdat tfoft aoo-j& ai-to jo ,<3 j^ oao doisi ;0 
 
 * . r. . ^‘- {j '!i .L ‘^' •■■''* ^ »i' '" 1 &''" 
 
 • TX itfiods axJ0X« at) nao ^uil/f^-pa 934s iiia;»*x»jS a totta Pad't 
 O ' " V 
 
 i>aai*xq*ui 6 ton 9 l ^0 ,.ti: %o weXv ,Bi 4 ^ Batina />XeaoO 
 
 
 ■:t 
 
 ,uX ataao-T^y^ia UaffaoT^l ea ,ai™Xlavat< 3 i ,tl cfarft 9(^d%W, 
 
 OS’ Aarii: ^,0 ^aeMuor vw 
 
 ■' 'H- ‘ vj ., 
 
 a'i Olf !^(|ia6*^a Oft oXdfi! f*d ;0iXCfWii4 BfXrf 
 
 . I 
 
 ■. ^••' 
 
 -bijdx ^cfO*il B^laiai1«T ^4ifi ,ffilif B^lJtl^ioJi ,©|ff B^|aiw*“l>jn4i 
 
 X 
 
 .< < 
 
 
 
 iX^sa;?. aooa4»^I e«xy .aaciat t^naK' a-i> iioocf "i©d larl 
 omXt tto'it 4 «i 4 v a^aaaa Xaoi^il© ©d^ 01 eialai'^ 
 
 ' ■ t‘' ' ' ■■ 4 
 
 . ygiyttfi rji’&x\a>ai d ajK? ai J 
 
 Kl' ‘ IJBIr * krJi 
 
 (0 '(d 
 
 Batsxt9 9s(t uX toXaoX 6 oiftt<i le/Uo b09 ‘ 
 
 wm^m^ i' '. 
 
 ^To;^8 ■©♦eopiati aea Btohxu ctld^ 1:o AOl^iad^xa «a lo-S !? 
 XXt<?A .1 »XoV^,3foafi v?::|Xa,jf odT to oaufXor a'aiXt .ad# 
 
 ... X^S ■«■ '.« AM M. ^ . .^ . ' •. _.L_ . Jl . . ■ *• 
 
 .«g’J Off? 10 4J«»g>^:-'^T ,cr 1 ... 
 
 , i?. 4 
 
4 
 
 and Seventies as a dress rehearsal, a "necessary preface 
 
 1 
 
 to th4 literary life." But this practice, which he kept 
 up throughout almost all his literary life, was much more 
 than a dress rehearsal. In these essays which Miss West 
 dismisses with a light allusion to the stage we find that 
 key to his method, that utterance of his literary convic- 
 tions which James said is essential to a true understand- 
 ing of a writer. I doubt if a better method could be 
 found of determining a writer's philosophic basis and 
 critical school than following through certain represent- 
 ative essays of his criticism of his contemporaries and 
 noting passages which display these bases most fully. 
 
 If his views are clearly expressed, the sum total of 
 James's ideas about other writers of his own time should 
 show exactly where he stands in the literary development 
 of that time, and also the standards by which he judged 
 his own work and that of his contemporaries. 
 
 1. West, Rebecca: Henry James ; London; Nisbet and 
 Company, Ltd. 1916. p. 22. He also went through a 
 necessary preface of the literary life by reading proofs 
 of George Eliot's novels before they appeared in The 
 Atlantic and reviewing. The profession of literature 
 differs from that of the stage in that the stars begin 
 instead of ending as dressers. 
 

 I I tiii^ 1:„4 
 
 a "f 
 
 
 
 Ilf:; 
 
 
 I 
 
 ti i 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 
 ♦ - 
 
 . <kti^ > 
 
 
 eo«ta*xq n mi^ib & a^a aal^^avoA Jhxs' 
 
 ®ri rfoidw .ooi^tmtq at*i^ cr^^J *%aliX c»i 
 
 ^ ' '21 ' 
 
 ••roir aoam onw ,»nx BIX |i« Xa<>ii.U'4,';raolj%ii $r 
 
 &alM ifoWw a^fiaaa a'eiwlcr lU ^ 
 
 Anil d# oxfi o;t noi^Xf4 ^^Jtir A^Aimibi Wi. 
 
 a i I'.,, 
 
 
 -oivnoa,^Vx«t»^XX airt lo ©aiMsto^lij ((J'aff-r , airf ot ^w£ 
 
 ■i-* ^ '" 'V . 
 
 > ^ -Afi8;>8*xetmn ®uxt a o;T Xaii-n#388 ai lilat x£oirfw anoit 
 
 ’'a“‘ • ' j^; '■^' 
 
 iPil icf Aloon fkoJJetu la^iod a 11 ^rfnoA I iierjliw' jty lo sai 
 
 O' ' ' ’": ;-l'- '* ' ^ >■' ' iPi 
 
 » Ana «X-aa^ t>iffqo8oXii££f a'lta^ixw a ^nialntnuafi lo AcjbAI 
 
 ^ ■ u ^’ ’ ',1 ---, • 
 
 -inaatTqst niaiiao /f^jcoiri^ nadJ ioorfon i^joi^Xio ^ 
 
 . »D ' , . ' ' V' P. ' 
 
 a»Xia*ioqaieJtaoo al^ aliX lo ^.eTi^a 
 
 -'V ■ 
 
 fM\ 
 
 ■ij 
 
 «>2X£al jlaoffl aeaatf aaaiit \^aX<t^e lb 4oX^ ■ aang .. aa i ii out 
 
 lo Xa^ot ana erf^ ,Aa«a6'x<ixe ^Xi§.»iD aiA'SwalV airf 
 
 0 a,’ ^'" 'j 
 
 -ii 
 
 AXffoiia amit mro ai4 lo si»>liTr inotfa aaaAX a*e»aaU 
 
 
 
 JneioqoXaTiA c'x^'iaiiX erfsf (jjt^;efoflaJa ©ii ^X^oax© wq4® 
 
 Aajjlwjt ricirfw aAxalHfwta e»X;l ooi^ finj? ,©»ii lo> 
 
 
 f ' 
 
 .BeiiaxpqfflBifioo eXrf lo iJ34^ Ani» iCxow awo'-elxf 
 
 
 > . J ’ ' 
 
 ■E. 
 
 :a©fggi;^wi|0g :oOdotf©$i ,i,o©W'' 4 
 ■.sa -a .dxex ,xkk<imO 
 
 B g^f0*uli Jnow oaXOi.®jr 
 
 %<S «1U' r.ToxaS-lX lo ©oolotq t{iOaa»ooa 
 S£l Aetisoqqa oxolod ,aX»tOfl j^'JoUZ o^iosX) lo 
 a^rfJd'ronX Iq Aoie««16Ta ©JlT *a«Xw©X,r©Tfti^voi jn^ 
 8X0#a^^i(W!l aJt Bfft I lo ai^„ 
 
 gjj •■■?',, •atiiiBoxA, an b«^XM©:_ 1 o Oaojlaiit 
 
 
 •*5. 
 
 . ,.a 'V’/v' V:'^ ■ 
 
 A’iiii X'ifiA : •• ■ tii: ■' ''lii , 
 
 'Aviki 
 
 iif 
 
 
 
5 
 
 The results of this research show that Jam-es 
 
 f 
 
 had a definite philosophical and critical theory which 
 he followed in his judgment of the literary works of 
 the times* and that this basis may be definitely deter- 
 mined by a study of his essays. But no man, unless it 
 be Carlyle, can remain entirely unchanged by his contacts 
 with the world at large; and if he be changing at the 
 same time he is writing, the change in point of view *ill 
 be shown in his writings. What Henry James eventually 
 became, what he finally represented in American criticism, 
 are things well known and universally established. The 
 ultimate aestheticism of James has been discussed by 
 various writers, and the statements about it range from 
 the rather faltering hypotheses of Mr. Brownell that 
 James *s standards were chiefly standards of taste and 
 cultivated indifference, and Miss Rebecca West’s light 
 discussion of James's "fling" in The Yellow Book and the 
 
 influence on him of the decadent aestheticism of the 
 
 1 
 
 " fin de siecle" movement of the Naughty Nineties, to 
 
 1. West, Rebecca: Henry James ; London; Nisbet and 
 Corar>any, Ltd. 1916. pp. 80-84. 
 
r 
 
 
 
 ■f, 
 
 *’* * 'I'mijt^ tf i y'n ■ ■ > „ .|^I« aifci ir i ' i 
 
 7,, ^ ' ' ^.l.f.v! 
 
 f? ’ 
 
 ^..v 'liKj 
 
 > ,■ 
 
 I 
 
 
 ' II 
 
 ,^ 3 i®!a 
 
 r 
 
 -.h . 
 
 !i' 1 
 
 
 3 JWJ axis 
 
 ^ Sa ■ , 
 
 1 
 
 rfoirfw ’^r^oadtf Xaoilfito ha& lKaUiq(y^^>lMq^JLn^^ 
 
 ■So aiXiow to ^iiaic^Aia fll ^dSifi 
 
 -isJ^eA x^m ait9JiiS sXdtJ Xiia ,iawiJh ox(^ ' 
 
 ^ t 8 B»X % oat'i c a ;i^i 7 a 
 
 m ' . "-^ ■ . . ^ : 
 
 924 & %<s &dalm> 
 
 B^oatfcoo alrf b^aadosiit alii»i aao .aX^XiaO ea 
 
 da ^ni^ottdo «d art 3ri i>na da Miow oifd’'4dX^ ' 
 
 rXXt welv 1.0 dnloq xil a^^oada od^ »X ®/f sHraj^d afijaa 
 
 TC-fiAcdoat# a«w!u |io©a iiufW ©14 flX;'‘iWxfa »d 
 
 ,pfnt<fX^ lio tiX J&8dd©9#Y50"i i^XXiiflXl ©d d9fiw ,aniaoid 
 
 -rm ■ ’’’ ^ ■ , 
 
 8rfT •i^BiCaXXdfitdoa TtxXefiTovXjia M« xmoxiaC IX©w a^xStd e^A> 
 
 
 '■SHW- 
 
 4:^ 
 
 'Vt 
 
 I •»» , -' ' ■■ U -^, . . ‘ ,1 
 
 fc 8 « 9 aa»X& aaax aa 4 3 ott} 4 &l lo akiiotjaddnaa id^sciXdxa 
 
 S 
 
 nott e>3iii*i dx dddda adcaiaadBjrA ©4?.^jna VBTddX'rw 8JiioX*itW^ 
 
 • - l-v • T' B r 
 
 daXd .til lo «ea 9 ;iiX<>rfirf jjdXTodXat toddat'' ad#'‘ 
 
 . _ . ^ ' iM 
 
 i* 
 
 Ad© adaad lo ©AtaAdJid^e itiaido atuw BAtaA^iAiXa a*tto«jal 
 
 * 1 . _ p«i ' % ^ 
 
 (fdSXX »’d»af AooadAH aailll litta AaA^aTldXj/o k 
 
 ■‘ .Ai j* ■* • ' 
 
 
 
 I, 
 
 «f» Jtw jtoQ.g *ntx«r e^ ai "gniri- et'iaah\^e iiolMiiioarf 
 #tfd ©aXoXdtwfdaJMi d/ioA«o®J^' Add Iq cJtd a<ii ©ofiaiiX!tij 4 ; 
 07 >e8l7»dill 8UX to 7ii$mvm **aXooXri ©A » 
 
 
 tfjgm 
 
 
 
 IjC dk tUft^ 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 ' f 
 
 Aatooodag .daaV .x 
 
 
 
 ( , 
 
 Ad© dadAiU { aXibaosT ga^^, 
 
 w •ii''’^ ‘AX^X, .Add, .-cfui/finoO 
 
 ■ :.: : „ ' ’I , :M 
 
 - :i»- :mm ' 
 
 «s ' ;■ i, 'f*^ * 
 
 . ^■ ’■ y., ^ ^ .^, . .,. , j , i,u^ ■ I,, .. , j . . u, — 
 
 
 
 .t 
 
 
 I 
 
6 
 
 Mr. Stuart P. Sherman's statement that "he adored beauty 
 
 1 
 
 and absolutely nothing else in the world." 
 
 If .Tames had been uniformly consistent in his 
 point of view, if he had arrived at his final standards 
 before he began to write and had hold them to the end, a 
 study of his critical theory would amount to nothing more 
 than pointing out a few characteristic examples and draw- 
 ing a general conclusion as to the degree of his aesthet- 
 icism. But the problem is by no means as simple as that. 
 There is a marked duality in James's critical writings. A 
 constant struggle in the critic between a natural aesthet- 
 icism and the inculcated principles of Victorian morality 
 
 what Mr. Spingarn calls "the faded moralism of the 
 
 older types of criticism" appears in his critical 
 
 reviews, a struggle in which the aesthetic finally gains 
 
 1. Sherman, S. P.;0n Contemporary Literature ; N. Y.; 
 Henry Holt and Company^ 1917'. "Aesthetic Idealism of 
 James", p. 234. The thing which James hoped chiefly 
 that his critics would some day recognize is not that 
 he was a great stylist, or a learned historian of man- 
 ners, or the chief of the realists, or a master of 
 psychological analysis. All these things have been 
 noted and asserted by various more or less irreligious 
 strollers through that cathedral-like edifice to which 
 we have likened his works. The thing which he as 
 high priest solemnly ministering before the high altar 
 implored someone to observe and to declare and to ex- 
 plain is that he adored beauty and absolutely nothing 
 else in the world. 
 
]i 
 
 %iuu9iS (8’aeun:o4C ;^*I^;ta.' .tM 
 
 ** »iiIior orfs^ iiX ^eSvk ^n|4iois ^c^To^Ioadfax J&rui'^ 
 
 nlft kx tit$x^l&aoi> xXm9t.t(w no^tt b/u' «o^iat tX 
 
 ubt^bnt^B^ ImU\ aid !::i lo f 
 
 B » 6as *4^ of atodf hloti bad finis efl£i*snr xs^ aesecf ©4 
 
 ^ • 
 
 .•toifl ^.ni/t^on o^ fiXuow jiio^Xiid #Xif ^o ^.5' jj j'a 
 
 -WB’ifi tun^ oolqezaxo oUeii^XoaiBiio twil ^'a'%jio gcltnio^ 
 
 “fod^aosi eixl oa'rgBfi aif of sioUutlonots Xansinf^hS'^gxii . 
 
 
 84 fXqffiXa Qi) 8H/KMQ ioa \ 
 
 \d aXe-jOBldniq; u^f fti^ ' 
 
 *•■ .1. ?ii; 1 . 1 . ,j 
 
 A taserljitw XaolJiTO ni 'i^XlXibuiS' ^oiixjatii a ■a4''6%$dH 
 
 • tadfaba l&^ujtan na^aovfatS fX eXa^fii^-Q ^ttadfan^o^^ 
 
 riBl*i0^oi7 1:0 c©Iqioni*jq bafa^y.Cooal adf Jbiui ifloXal 
 
 •iJpy- llO &4.X8U 0*l£l^^Xqa «"fM i^isiiW"-* -*• 
 
 Xsoicflto otd al ar&aqqB^^^J^.^mtpXfX’xo tc ti9(ixf tefiXo 
 
 :p' 
 
 sfiXa^ XXXaaH oXfadfaoa adf dpXdw nX oi^ss^'ttfa o ,'r-jw8iv§T 
 
 iag^L^._--. 
 
 4 .y .« :uillai&:tx^ N^woqg e^gap ;.f' 
 
 to QiaXX.u;oiil ■ 
 
 0 5iX4 fXn3 > 
 
 jX^®Xrfo 5»qorf aam% doidw :^aiii& bdf „&e3 »q 
 
 A H«» ■■ V” T'Z . 1 tm-A- *#»a *"89taau;,.. • 
 
 f H":- Is* 8840^ »08^1 ocXa^^ooftt 'X^fi dino8 fiXoo<r“aoXiX'3[o ei4 jrarfS’ 4 > 
 
 -88XB l:o iL«i 10^814 6©aiE«&X o ' to d am ed 
 
 ^0 19 ta am a t(> ,^5l8iXJ»ttt arfsr lo Ybldo bdt io ,aiaa . 
 ap«4 «va4 33Al4(t aaadf ribi *aXa%lma XuoXBOXorfoisea 
 suoXslXoTti aaoX to axom amJita'r fiatf’iftaaa bna befoa 
 '70X4W of ftpxiifio ®3£iX‘''tB3fi©ififao fadi d'kootdf. siaXXoifai 
 5* ^^5! *c4tow ttX4^©ao4iX arad 8w\. 
 
 WXa d^^d o4;f ©io5o4 .^uiitd^aZiiiiit xSnmaXpa jaatiq 4^X4"*. .' . 
 ~X9 0^ fififo otoXeoJb of byw ayioodo of adoos^a BotoXqaiX" ■ ' 
 tX&^0Xo84« j&mr bo-idha ©4 «X at^Xq. ' 
 
 ■j^ ‘J^Xtcow o4X aX ®gX Ov. 
 
 
 
a complete ascendency. 
 
 When Henry James started his critical writing, 
 there was no more perfect Victorian. He stood out 
 Quixote-like against the literary world, armed with the 
 dignity of his twenty-two summers and a matriculation in 
 Harvard Law School, the foe of all literary creations 
 which would not fit comfortably into the stuffy company- 
 parlor of the Puritan conscience. When his literary 
 career closed with his death in 1916, James was the 
 supreme example of pure aestheticism in American letters. 
 When the change began, how long it continued, and what 
 were the various circumstances outer and inner which 
 brought it about, are the matters which I shall attempt 
 to determine in this investigation. 
 

 
 *«■". ^,1 <^ii»»>ii,fi^|^(|}. 
 
 '*"■ 
 
 ) > 
 
 & I ' 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 t-1’ *■ 
 
 ©;teX^ffloo « 
 
 .^al^iiw XiJ©2^i.ic aid 6©^t4?8 aiwi^l \ ;^i ft* T^/Or 
 
 ^470 &ooi8 •a^liQto^V ©tc^ bfi saw ojtdif 
 
 I ^ ^ 
 
 •rfl drflw At>mj3 ,M^cw '^-r/i*£o3‘tX ©&'t e;tJX^a?oxiaP 
 
 ■bS -L' /!■ 'T'-* 
 
 -iT* 
 
 IL ■* 
 
 al aoi^-BiaciliXiMi a bxui a’£®jnftu^awt-t^ft8w;r aid to 
 
 BaottAo-iQ ^fi^TaSlX i Xi? 1^0 a-n f Wx' iVxjuvi 
 
 11 
 
 I 
 
 -^n«<i«co 0?ai icfileJ’^oiraoo l^Xjjow^jlpidw 
 
 '{Tuie^iX aJLrf a? 5 if»v ^ ^<.8O0*iDiixio© utmiyjj^ ©eft lo 'xoXia<x 
 
 
 «i 
 
 
 j|, 
 
 ®rf;t fiftK BBml ,dxe/ ai rf^xstjt airf dUIw AoaoXo if?exeo 
 aT©;f^ftX nBOi-TBtuA jala fi^I oX^Bdii aoj9 lo oX<^,Bf^o 
 
 ^i»rfw ^0<s .A®imi;fnoo s«oX wcat ©8o»rfo 04t^''uo/ff 
 
 iioX<j?r ^oitAX fifta iftdTjt’O ooofU5*tanjj/oTXc sjuoX’iair ©A!f ©*i©w^ 
 lqo«n« XXa/fa 1 xlaX-fw ^rs ,tu6dA n rf'rfa» 9 'i 4 
 
 •n9i^/?3iiaB7cU sietd iii ©aXimej'ji;& q;f 
 
 
 
 .=-'V* !' "w"' 
 
 “ ' /V 'J^' 
 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE SCHOOL OP MORALS AND THE AESTHETIC SCHOOL 
 
 How does literature justify itself? Is the 
 object of literature pleasure or profit? These ques- 
 tions have been befor the public ever since literature 
 came into existence. Differences of opinion oh these 
 questions are at the bottom of many of the differences 
 between the various schools of criticism. 
 
 Plato banished the poet from his ideal repub- 
 lic, presumably because the poet did not add anything 
 to the general good, because his product was useless. 
 Why, then, is the poet, the writer? Is the produc- 
 tion of literature a waste of time? If not, what 
 good does it do? 
 
 There were two factions in the argument. The 
 oldest faction, the one which has carried the classical 
 tradition of letters down the ages, is the S chool of 
 Morals , represented first by Plato and Horace, and then, 
 in English literature, by Sir Philip Sidney, Ben Jon- 
 son, John Milton, Alexander Pope, Thomas Carlyle, add 
 many others. This faction held that literature is 
 justified only insofar as it serves as a pleasing method 
 of teaching people and inculcating in them higher moral 
 

 
 ii St, •'«■ f' ;i 
 
 ? ■-■ . .;/»:<• 
 
 5 - O 
 
 11 
 
 JOOH^e oi»aH?eaA jikt mx ejufioja ^do *i:aoioa 
 
 ^ 11 ? ^ 
 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 A ..* P, 
 
 eoais t®v» oiXci/f| 9 -i;f ^ 
 
 a* 3 *xX^ Ho ftolol^o ^0 fiOoosto^liCr • 0 p 4 r»;^aJt 3 c® o^d ftoioo 
 fl® 0 £jftiot^ie) to ^;i 4 u; to fa. anhittaBstsf 
 
 e a .«aJtoiJl*jtt to trxoofioft fctwfiit. 8 v ed:f%b&w^9<f 
 
 -(i«q®-i I«ei)l altf most t® 0 <j :!^cJjrs 2 iUi<f v *;-* 
 
 0 :.:'m.._, 
 
 aaX(ft\;aa Abfl ^on fylj> too<i 9^^- o«Wfao®tf '^Itfainsratm /on 
 
 . '■ « ,>- .A' ?' 
 
 .e«tX«a4 8*iw ^owAoiq airf e»fioao»cf ,bo<^^ Xatoae^^ ©4^**o> 
 
 
 
 -t.cfiO*T(T ©dt it TioJMivr o^fj ,{f®oq ©iXt al .flwft 
 
 jfiMfw ,^<a tl‘ foGit to etfia6i»f 4 toTatutoJiX to nolti^l 
 
 ,:Oh"'tJ OOOO MOS 
 
 -srfT 
 
 • tu©aui^'ta od;t ni ectonoat o'st;^ ©nwrr j?ri[© 4 t 
 
 I a. 
 
 XfloieaaXo erft aajl iXoI r ,txottcat jaeKoi 
 
 Xoorfog ©ifl al «f/;t noitXiiaii 
 
 ,?'C 
 
 Nr a 
 
 •T, 
 
 ;s9(<S J>^ .oofitoH 6 iW 0 ^ 0 X 5 tatlt ^atruo^oi^tii . aXaioH .' 
 
 
 -not itod ,^c»0Oxa <I1IX4«1 ^xa ,®t 4 tai 0 JlX*daii 8 fla n| f 
 6tB ,oX^TTaO aaaiorft ,Ovioa i©i)it»xoX4 .fiotXXM mfot ;ao« 
 
 ■'TP ■ , . if 
 
 a 
 
 flX iXad aoiioat aJult , .a^edto t 
 
 
 fiorfta« gaXaa&Xq sa^aa aov^tsa tatoiaX 'tfilao fioXtXtaift 
 
 ^ XoTooi 'x®4;^X4 m/0 ai saX(faoXi^onX -6/fo ©X^o^({ ^ajWoaat to 
 
 «r' V 
 
 
9 
 
 principles. The other view, that of the Aest hetic 
 School , was that literature gives pleasure to the in- 
 tellectual human being, and that this fact is a suf- 
 ficient justification for its existence. This school 
 figured somewhat in the humanistic revival of the Re- 
 naissance and in the rationalistic naturalism of the 
 latter part of the last century and the first of this, 
 but it did not receive complete expression in literary 
 criticism until the time of Shaftesbury. 
 
 In 1498 Valle translated Aristotle into 
 Italian, thus bringing in the "sugar coated pill” idea, 
 the claim that the poet (and in all these discussions 
 the word poet was used as a generic term to include 
 all writers of literature) was a teacher, and that his 
 poetry was merely a means of teaching pleasingly. There 
 were further variations of the idea. Aristotle said 
 that the poet was a better teacher than the historian 
 because the poet relates what might have happened, the 
 universal truth, while the historian has to tell mere 
 particulars. In the eighteenth century John Dennis 
 developed the same idea from the Po e tics as a basis for 
 
i | i j ^ ■ m 
 
 arfT »a«X<jloxxl:t<| 
 
 -nX 9d& 0^ «txjsaoXg[ e*vi^ JTailtf. ajaw »Xootfofi 
 
 -taa A Bjt toat &:jU JioM flaaiWrf X^^ToalXe^ 
 
 Inorfoa a!d§is a;fl -so^ noX^aoltltTaut :^calan 
 
 \ -♦ 
 
 -oil axfcf iaviviT nI^sIUMKud «J Tadw&ts<ye J5®*ucr3ii j 
 •xfjT lo nulXA'To;i‘4A tti V » llCAnolvaT aift «Jt taa aot^oaaliui 
 ,Qldir to tSTll bitB ta^X 9 Ai to 9ts%. 
 
 ; .j ' J. ^ 
 
 XiBtaftX at nolii'cKstq.xo etolqmoo’ ovXbooi bib ti )aA ^ 
 
 ■X 
 
 - & ■-_' '# " 
 
 to eiaXt w(a Xl;^j?tfl iC8ioXtfXto!i 
 
 otftZ BX^o^aiiA baHiitBaatt aJJuV 8ew fd 
 
 t Asl^X ”XXt<x b9iB9Ci Tn^Q** 0i(S XX.I 
 
 WAoifiaAoaiXk tsajfif I£a al b£iii\ ?aoQ $AS tadt ttXaXp Bifjf 
 o^ioni o^ ja*t®^’ oXionos a a-a t&^u saw #eov^ iiow oAt 
 
 : 1 \ ’■■ ^ ^ 
 
 alrf tadi brta ^ifarfoaat a &aif ( •xfif!taio«/XX to arroti-Tw XXafl 
 
 ' ' 0 
 
 oitrtT •^X^oXaaoXq ^Xiioao^ to aii8<Kfi a ijjl oiraflj aavr '^ts^iftoq 
 
 JMA3 aX^od’tt|x& •aoJbX adf *to eAOijfaliwv Torf^'jjJl •‘tow 
 
 '4: 
 
 noiiotalrf orfJ tmAi^ •xadunaA ^9;tAoA s &J»w taoq AadS 
 orft ,6©a®qqBrf ararf d|rfgiX« Jiaiw B«tfttiot">eoq oeneoad v 
 
 ■ . , _ .5^^/ ; 3 
 
 aiani XXei ojf ajirf ^xai‘l0^^8il^ oXirfv ,AiTMit XnaicaYlnM ^ 
 
 ' '’■< ■ 
 
 aAol ri^aao^rfgXo adt al m .axaluoli-iaq, 
 
 ■ ^ 
 
 'lot bIqbA b aa faojjroQ^ adA cwit aabX »maa aAA 6oqoXovoi>- 
 
 ' . Wi uu l ■ I * ■ ] ' i ii | < 
 
 ■■'«„ 
 
 I -Ml" 
 
 t ■ ■ 
 
 
 M >m 
 
 ',4 
 
 i|".H'ip;iUP!'"^"“ t~ ~''rt i|pi n T r i i • ri iiiw ifli ii n,. 
 
 ,<..>^,'11 
 
 Smi 1 (■ «-'T' aJi 
 
 '• •' li:Jl'lM^., V 
 
 I, f, 5 
 
 ;i, 
 
 
 
10 
 
 1 
 
 morality in criticism. Girondo Cintio said that 
 the poet's chief purpose was to condemn vice and praise 
 virtue. In 1558 Minturno said that the poet teaches 
 virtue and must be virtuous himself, anCidea which, 
 when later added to the Puritan ideal of letters, was 
 strikingly brought out in Milton's writings and held 
 also by Ben Jonson, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. By 
 1566 the idea of the poet as a moral teacher had been 
 carried over from the Italian into Prance by Jacques 
 Pelletier. 
 
 Philosophical and apologetic criticism of 
 literature began in England with Sir Philip Sidney's 
 Defense of Poesie in 1683, although this was not pub- 
 lisher until 1595, and in the matter of publication 
 was preceded by Harrington's Apology for Poetry which 
 was published in 1591. Daniel's Defense of Rhyme 
 followed shortly after in 1603. These were brought 
 forth by Puritan attacks on the stage and attacks of 
 classicists on English versification. The part of 
 them which has to do with justifying the existence of 
 literature follows the Italian models, basing the right 
 
 1. Dennis, John: Grounds of Criticism in Poetry ; 1704. 
 
 For if Poetry be more philosophical, and more instruct!'^ , 
 than History, as Aristotle is pleas'd to affirm of it, 
 and no man ever knew the nature of Poetry, or of Histoay , 
 or of Philosophy, better than he did, why then that Art, 
 or rather that Artifice, with which a great many Writers 
 of Verses and Plays debauch and corrupt the people, is a 
 thing to which Poetry is directly contrary. 
 

 "T-- 
 
 
 tyi 
 
 *w 
 
 ; ' '^ ■' ' ' 1 / ■ .. 
 
 'te " M ‘ I 1^ 
 
 fwWte* 
 
 
 ■■ ' ‘ J ' 
 
 " ^: 
 
 j ^T7* 
 X 1.^ Vi 
 
 • OX - 
 
 hiM oliaXO obUpjlQ 
 
 ri!' 
 
 ^ s(l 3 
 
 •caiotiMio «i 
 
 9 ala»r<r btji &0X7 ftia«Jf»noo oi « 4 # ©^ociTjict to-trfo o*^«‘Oq. tiit 
 
 ;i' 3 ^ 
 
 GerfoJiatf toocr eri;^ toAt blna i^6a| ol 
 
 ;s “ : ' - ^ 
 
 ,:(oxAw aobi -a» ,yiitamXd ;»jP4ij4iiv »d tsxnsB ftiitt 0tf^al7pSP 
 
 ^ii'X9;f;r9X J:o lee&l ri^:f toJbiiM loJiiX ntifw 
 
 ftC»rf Ciag eisfiX^l%w^*4xoJlJ:ii ai ^!i^tioi<f i£X^ici3CX7^a 
 
 ' f 
 
 Z^i .B^DX^taXon hi"^ xtod oaX# 
 
 
 A«ad Md ^Bdona^ faTOW ^ ea ^ooi^ f>d? lo a»fii td;» dddX, 
 
 ^ ■ V '“■ ' h 
 
 BoSftytjaZ Boxrari ci^/ti ntalX^iJ- »ei^ motit tevo beX-rtno ‘= 
 
 
 ti • '- 
 
 lo tiwXol^iio oiJc^ioXoqa Snaj TrtuXdfXOa^Xirf^ 
 
 Q'v;ojtl»XC qXXIrfU iJ£ d.tiw aX oiu^c^ib^IX 
 
 ~(S^q too. BBw BidX A:^oii^S.A ,S8dX xil ' U: caai 
 
 '*' r 
 
 noi;raoXXrfoq 'to X5^tm orfi ni i>na .aft^X .Xi^mr-tBrfaXx; 
 
 ■w r 
 
 rtoixfy 10^ .i^oXoqA «’ao^BxiX s*i,aif' :^<X j 6 Bi>eoBiq j^»^,j 
 
 '* iiJ- “ jf 
 
 ^0 oax^o'lBsZ u’Xe'inaCE «XeaX dl i^BffsfXitfq 8«w 
 
 Xd;%iiOTd e^ew BBBd® •^QdX fti i«^ia ^XJTOda /»owo>XXot'^ 
 
 ^0 aj^oaX^a X)xi« a^a^’a odtf aoi 03to<r;fta aatJJtaq «(f rf;tio!t 
 
 Mk ■ > , * 
 
 « ■ ■ ^ 
 
 lo ^'zaq ©rfT ‘XKjX^aoXlXaiBy risxx^a ao aJaloiaaaXo, 
 
 \Q Bono^aixe tiiif dxxy ob pH aad doldvr mpiiS -^-p 
 
 3| , -^ ' 'li ?- 
 
 QdH ^nXeaX .aXe^Off nallatfl orf^ swoXXot B^itai6;TXX; 
 
 -i': ' 
 
 
 w iri;iio?u\oi 
 
 ;mfo^ ‘.’ 
 
 J:o fli'fXn® o:t ft’aaBXq ei BX^o^eitA aa .^toitaXH -i* 
 , 10 TO ^'T'jXacvq Jq wqcoI 'tb'^o oara on i>njj * 
 
 ft rmmkjif tr^L 1 BL. ^ ^ .k. . . jr ^ ^ ^ 
 
 .i-’xA ^nrfX ntdjr ^54lr ;ftiA o 4 aadJ /^dqoaoXXrt^ to to 
 
 Tcnaaj Xat«a « ifoXdw ddiw ^ooitiO’iA ai&ri;t toddaT to 
 
 ,BXqoo<| BdJ tqift’ioa hap dpupd^b a^alH bap aoeteV to 
 .;tBtcrftoo ‘fXtfoott^ a,l 'ctd-BOli-dJiildWiToy j^nlaj 
 
 **^*'ni II ' r 'W~' 'I ' II— i'll 11 Wiil|r|ll>iiliWitiii|>!'i ■ iHiir— ---— - i. - - - 
 
 M I ii» «i "g;i >)t« i ii|i j |j| n^ ii , i j ^ 
 
 
11 
 
 of literature to exist either on its pleasing or its 
 instructive qualities. The matter chiefly of inter- 
 est to this inquiry is that even as far back as the 
 end of the sixteenth century the Puritans were attack- 
 ing literature and making its backers account for it 
 in terms of the practical good to be gained from read- 
 ing it. The answer that the writers made to the 
 Puritans was in every case that literature teaches, 
 and that its purpose is to teach. That it pleases 
 was considered merely an added advantage in instruct- 
 ing by this method. The Puritans were constantly 
 attacking immorality in literature. Later in the 
 development of the controversy the faction which opposed 
 the Puritan demand for instruction in literature develop- 
 ed the aesthetic idea of art for art’s sake, beauty for 
 beauty's sake, which gave them a philosophical basis 
 for objecting to the necessity of moral teachings in 
 works of art; but this aesthetic opposition to morals 
 was not fully developed until the nineteenth century. 
 
 In 1605 Bacon's Advancement of Learning opposed 
 the idea of the writer as teacher. He declared in the 
 second book that the fable had been written first and 
 

 
 iliVi* I Ti'JUBiiif'ai 
 
 
 a-:. 
 
 o 
 
 »'l mi 
 
 
 
 
 ■U rfr *i—> V -iT jlt wilIrt i W,*i.«.L^:.ii^JlB» if^^ 
 
 ■V 
 %'• 
 
 aSt 10 
 
 \ 
 
 ?y 
 
 ■ . %- f . j . 
 
 aoXq aJJ: no tadsxe ^bXxo oX la 
 
 -TaJfli to ijXtPlrfo aiiCt • a '® ltJXi ^^^ a ^ i ^ o « i?«nX 
 
 8 i 3 3 io 8 tf i »% aa ca^e al viiXi ; rr > a 2 airft ^aa 
 
 
 -^oaSta aiew off ; ^ la^finao fi ; ffiaa:^xia &df tg Ma 
 
 ^ i’v ' 
 
 Ji lot :^ noo&oij niaiowtr ati btta t>ia it nit ^ll 
 
 
 -fcaai »oil 60i3jto7i ntS oX boos i-ioX'^oaiq ajcf^ to'-aan*; al 
 
 arfw o ; irbnm aib^Iiw arf;J lawo.oa ad'X sal 
 
 , 6 edontt tiaXnmtl r fa/is oaao xiart al saw aiiai ' i ' UJ ^ 
 
 .'■ , **• ' ■ V '‘ v . l '' ' 
 
 aasaaXc| tJt taXT .rfooo^ o; aX oaQqijjq ^exi lAdt lr^ 
 -^owiXafii ai oso!faar£>6 rus/^iXaiofli AoiobiaapOi aaw 
 
 ©low fl£ia;tXufq ©45! “'.iod^otp aX4t xd 
 wt-:f ni lotfa^ .ai:iXoioXlX nl i^XXaiojffJCl gaijCaaXJa ® 
 fcaao^qo rfolrfw aoXtf’o.st tAl %aitrfOTla6o tiLd lo XaofoqoX'aveJb 
 
 R 
 
 Vi 
 
 gv 
 
 4 '<1 
 
 qcXavoib oittXBiibi^lX 4 i mtloml’inX ia % ixtaaseb 04 # 
 
 lot ^^uaotf ,©il4a «i’iri/tot Xia to «o6X 'oXXo4i^©Ofl orfj bo 
 
 alaacT (aoiriqoaoXi.iq a oviks 4oi.*fw ,'akm t \lUBAd' 
 
 at «siU4oao^ iaiom to ^^XartOoan tdt Oyf saX^oott^O >ot 
 
 
 aiaioiB oX aoJt ^ jtsoq'qo Di ; f © 4 : f 8 oa alifg ^ ^orf jXxo tg aiiow 
 
 
 -4 
 
 .%iudMo /ftaooXea4a add tlToa d»q.aXtfob xXLsst toa ojow 
 
 uf ' ’ -,?’'■*■• 
 
 bopoaoo snlai3o4 &r,tfaiu^afiybh a*aooa€ 9X)dX al ^ j* 
 
 
 0.54 aX fcaiaXoob 00 ..locCooo^ aa igtliw ©44 to aojbl tdi 
 ftna trjilt ao 44 Xiw 0004 Xwsrf oXdat orf4 4 a 44 ifootf bnoooa 
 
 ■ i mi ' .'MtiV 
 
 15 
 
 Vr 4 ' 
 
 ':' a .™ -J x ^' 
 
12 
 
 the moral found afterwards, and that the purpose of 
 
 1 
 
 poetry is to take the mind to an ideal world. This 
 idea was exemplified in many of the writings of the 
 Romanticists of the eighteenth and nineteenth cent- 
 uries. 
 
 But in Every Man in His Humour Ben Jonson 
 exalts the revered name of poet and declares that the 
 poet must be a good man in order to write good poetry. 
 
 And so through eveny period of English literature we 
 find exponents of both sides of the question, the 
 original, age-old question whether the purpose of lit- 
 erature is to please or to instnuot. On the one side 
 we find a definite School of Morals testing all liter- 
 ature by the lesson it teaches, the good it does; and 
 on the other the Aesthetic School claiming that if lit- 
 erature gives pleasure it justifies its existence in a 
 world which contains all too few pleasures of any sort. 
 
 The difference, then, is fundamental. Other differences 
 of opinion and theory on matters other than the original 
 justification of literature differentiate classicists 
 from romanticists, humanists from naturalists, and so on, 
 but these differentiations are not pertinent to the matter 
 
 1. Bacon, Francis: The Advancement of Learning ; Book II: 
 
 The source of poetry is to be found in the dissatisfaction 
 of the human mind with the actual world, and its purpose 
 is to satisfy man's longing for a more perfect greatness, 
 goodness, and variety than is to be found in the nature of 
 things. Reason doth buckle and bow the mind into the 
 nature of things. 
 
I 
 
 I' 
 
 
 
 
 
 r( I W oiit ‘liHlilftlrfl ^ii Iiiiill f 
 
 - SI - 
 
 J 
 
 J 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^.0 B«oqx»<i ,alnafiid.tta 2>mro^ lAtom ^At 
 
 I % S' ■'■ 
 
 airfT .Www nj» Mim adt aiU^ o^ aJ: ^tiysoq 
 
 oda^ to ftrft to lEXiiiiD aX fioiliXqmaxa aa«r ao 6I 
 
 
 
 -ariBo d;“jaeeir(»n!tt fine daateadsjlte ®cfa to-#a^alottneiflo 5 i^^ 
 
 ■I. . -■" • 
 
 
 aoarto'S nefl lijotiigg Hi : oi^ceM ^teva nl XatL 
 
 tAX XaA^ aaTaXoeJb hs\A il'^oq to moan fioto’^ai oda aifl-sst 
 
 i ''■— *« 1 * 
 
 C'lsl’eoq 600 ^ otfiiw oX lefino 0 I p-\m Xkhos b^bO 
 
 Bw eietfano^iX dsiigna to fioinoq ea, fioA 
 
 eris .aoiiaeop Oiia to aofiia 44’otf to a^fnanoqxa 
 
 -liX to" oeoq'wq ecC^' iert;fo/fw /lOi j’asuj;^ fiXo-o^ ,Xaai^*rO^ 
 
 I- .<'■■., 1 
 
 :zig^ 
 
 i: 
 
 M 4 '' S 
 
 •ti« ♦oo »xt^ no ^ 10 iwis&Iq 
 
 
 ^rd.iXS Xl» 3nit8oq IffT o M to Xooiff ^^ A X>nil ow 
 
 fine ;B9ob SL fioo^ odi .aedoaoji' SL ooaa#I siC| atiii’e 
 
 _ '. If 
 
 -:fiX ti ^aifq snlaleXo Xoo4 qS ul ^ oA octi lOd^o #dt 00 
 
 
 f 
 
 A ni tOAdXBixo Bi’l 3 BitI*re 0 i^ 3*1 eojcf^^eeXq BAvi:g ate tana 
 
 'HP' 
 
 II 
 
 ^108 ^flA to aaTvaaerq wfftt do3 Xfa ealeqaoo doidw Altow 
 
 m 
 
 Bftononettifi taif^O '’‘♦X«J 0 aaafi»ot al , 0 oiI 3 ' ,«o 0 «i»lttfi odT 
 
 |j 0 i!jX*iO eri3 xsedq idd3o ate^^^aro 00 ^TOodO’ fi’oe notniqp to 
 
 o^^aioIoaoXo o^-aitnaiottlA oi^Jaio^XX to aoXt&ol\X^piflt 
 
 ,no 06 fine ,&tAllA'vtXm asotl: n^^aiitomed .a^aioXtoeiuoi «no,it 
 
 tf 
 
 9 dt 0^ /(.qeonlJiriq, 300 ata anoI^elpnotottJlfi ooodl qod ^ [j 
 
 
 31 
 
 III itooa 
 
 0 OI tcalBliAABzE -iT 
 
 v M ^j p g. :<alooet^ ^oooaE >X 
 -ji. <Mj eir^i^ooq to Ao^seoa ,od^ 
 oaoq’ieq atl Aaa , AItow.' XjSi 0 ^oa A^Mw balta oaiw'A oAS lo 
 
 
 .eooitaftotg loetioq otom a tot adi^noX a *00x2 otf- at 
 
 to ©t^3^ ori3 0I finecrt ».<f 0/X »i 0 axI 3’ \c^oXiav fi/iA ,aaoafioos 
 
 odq o30i fiaxpi »dq wofll to oXafojJd d^'ofi aobaoH .a^aicf^ .j; 
 ®> IB, “ .O'! 30 id^. to 
 
 . r g' r r*" n" i, — i" ' . ii ni ii B ' in , 
 
 j -• t. ■*. V. 
 
13 
 
 in hand. On the question of the purpose of literature 
 there are but two sides, that of the School of Morals 
 which claims that literature is to instruct, and that 
 of the Aesthetic School which claims that literature is 
 justified only insofar as it pleases. 
 
 There is one interesting parallel which I 
 should like to point out before I leave the matter of 
 history and get back to Henry James, who at different 
 times in his life represented each of the two schools, 
 moral and aesthetic. 
 
 After the restoration of the Stuart line, in 
 the reigns of Charles II and James II, England went 
 through a period of reaction against Puritanism, a per- 
 iod of hilarious riottusness and vice made beautiful by 
 court trappings which, was weakly paralleled at the end 
 of the nineteenth century by the aesthetic naturalism 
 and moral perversion of the ”fin de siecle" school of 
 Oscar Wilde, et al. The fundamental ideas of the 
 two movements seem to be much the same. There was the 
 same feeling of irresponsibility, the feeling that the 
 whole movement was the end of a cycle, the mad rush 
 after enjoyments that might at any moment be snatched 
 away. The Cavaliers of the courts of Charles and James 
 
I ™ 
 
 jtIjiq- oU lo ^0 ,eof>lB Qwtf liad eia 
 
 X ^ 
 
 
 I 
 
 S'7- 
 
 'i 
 
 { 
 
 5na ^^ou-KTurti o^ &t oioJaieJii eaiiali) doldw 
 
 
 Bl tiwlaiairy b«!.«X» cfolrfw I o o n o a o ii^ w 
 
 .BBaaaXq tf-1 aa •ialoBfiX^^J*'*o 
 
 I dotdTN iBlIaiati »R7 si B-torfl ;,!« il / v 
 
 :i, 6l»or(B ■ir.%§V.€!‘i 
 
 
 ?.• 
 
 Iku 
 
 ^0 to 4 ;#'s(s: Oder &vjit5.r : e-xolfrrf OJ oXJki 
 
 \ '•* 
 
 tnaiotll/i j'B orfw , .tnnL eTe^ M« v^o^Bixff f , 
 
 ♦ ■5l6o*fo« owjT ^0 iloo® fiotnipao'xq^B'r ©tX| aid al aecri^ 
 
 •t* ’-. jfc. . « 
 
 •■ii 
 
 (•\. 
 
 V ' s’ 
 
 .©XiorfJ'BOB b/Ui X«to«r|^‘^v 
 
 nl , onlX"- XifKiUS Oder /lu no/^stf)<^a»>t oder vTom'#'^™'^ ' 
 
 a 
 
 taow ,^JI Bfi*(ftCf^ 6o0 II ioXxodO t(> odT 
 
 
 ^ fi ■ ■" 
 
 -^•q A ,ai8JtJtJ3^i*xc9[ ^or.le^a £P>leroaoi lo frolioq o dBflCJ'Wt? ’SSh^. 
 
 %d XalJ:^UJ^d ofiafn boX’j^ Siia aapnosj&^otz ai#qlialtd J^l 
 
 6ao edt <fB frolBliatoq \tJXac-w aaw/tft>Xdw ssflXqq'ia'stf ^ino? 
 
 oltexftaoa odd’ tjrf 'inrerjcioo d^noo^^oflin edit to 
 
 A 
 
 to Xoorfoa ^oioele all** odt to aotujevxoq Xaiora ftaa 
 
 odt to SAohi lai'siBicabAiJt edT .la &e ,o6XI7f- tbobO 
 
 ed^ bj!W Biod!!! 
 
 ♦ oflias BdX doom ed of inooa jatflttinovoo ow^ 
 
 Oder tadf B^XXool: Oder ^^ermdXaaoqBoira ^o saXXeot mse 
 
 Q 
 
 daut Amm e^t ,eXo^o a Ito &no od^ aaw^itiiemovom elodw 
 
 Tif 
 
 bedoitoRa ed eroemoo 'igaa ^a, etadeT^ oernocj’^oln© toeTla 
 
 
 G#«»aL bna c^oltadO oerxiioo ori^ “io aielXaraO wfT 
 
 
 /" ;'»KvyV^' 
 
 ',;' ’i V ■»; '± 
 
 V 
 
 '• t i 
 ii 4'^ 
 
 
 
 ■> w Hwmu . * ' . ■! ■ 'w t' i , mm m 
 
 
 jTtRrt 
 
 
 i i 'T ? »* a iBes»' i i'"‘g r 
 
14 
 
 had a double motive for their excesses; they felt the 
 position of the royal house which countenanced their 
 debauches to be not the most firm, and they were making 
 up for lost time, extracting from the present penance 
 for the wasted years of pleasureless Puritanism. 
 
 The playhouses, which had been closed throughout 
 the Cromwell regime, were opened to plays more openly 
 immoral, more shockingly lascivious than any of their 
 modern brothers, the nearly-censored Broadway bedroom 
 farces. Certain of the wiser of the court writers 
 foresaw the inevitable results of the carnival of immoral- 
 ity and sought to cast an occasional sop to the still 
 numerous Puritans by references to the instructive value 
 of their plays. Richard Congreve gives the best single 
 example of the two-faced nature of the morality cant in 
 The Way of The World . He points out in the preface that 
 he shows vice with the hope that the persons seeing it on 
 the stage will learn to shun it; and he addsesses his 
 iedication to Madam Bennet, the keeper of a notorious 
 brothel, with the suggestion that she become a patron 
 of the arts. 
 
 The natural reaction from this sort of thing 
 
erfJ 'S»ci4- xXdriS' to^ eriiToffl •IdifoA a bad 
 
 V -- ‘‘Lj^ 
 
 X, o 
 
 *tleii^ bBoa&neSfusoo iuldw BQuod 1 mx,qx Bd^ lo Aoid'laoa 
 
 ^ \ ' V X|. 
 
 ejBxr ^o/f? bnn taoff. «4d: &cf ^ 8aiioua<faf *■ 
 
 •< 
 
 .1 'i 
 
 Boti&HBq, ;faaa8iq ©rftf osotl ,6iai^ ^aol lol qxi 
 
 ' 4 , 
 
 ^XnBtl'w^ aaaXa'tuaaaXq J.d 01^©^ 
 
 
 tno!i^O'irl& j&§aol9 is^ed barf rfolrf^ ♦a5^§icrf5;aXq adT.' 
 
 V"' J •’^' ■* 
 
 ^ ^fnaqO 9**0ffl ai5;iiXq Qit baia^qo ct»w , I CmcoaxO arfiJ 
 
 ■■ v' , Jj _ I ;■ 
 
 iXBds IB ’5H*S nafU aifOir/oaflX 6iom ;X*aon«Bl 
 
 1 f* ■' 
 
 BiGO'ibatf TywbabTtfi j^oioaaeo-’iX'ioan ©d^’ ,ei&d^ci?f niabotii 
 
 .1 ™ — T 
 
 ai93’in» ^•xiioo adtf ‘Xo nla^te0.r x 
 
 ’T . 
 
 -X4<TO«OTi ^0 iBvXnriao sddr to aXdiS^lvoai Bdf T^iatJtot ^ \ 
 
 i‘, ^'i ' ■ ■ ' '• 
 
 XXJ^’ti Bd’J qoa XanoXajRooo a»^leao ^td^juoa biiB %tl 
 
 .« ,.(1 
 
 aaXav evX^diiilsal arftf soor^oiatai %4 ansii^xjuq 8ao*idffiofl***fv 
 
 V '. _ • * 
 
 »>X3ffXa tfead ad^ a»?Xj| avaxs^o-O .bxadoXH ^ to' ^S 
 
 ■ 'ii* aw 
 
 nl ;tnac. xtlXaicm adS* to ata^tfoin J&»oat-.owt ad;X to eXqaaaca 
 
 '■ fT' 8' 
 
 ^adt aoAtfnq tda ci tao atnXoq aH w.'X-.to '.’> 
 fio tl ^oittaa aiioan^aq Bdi #qod add^^'dJiMw. aoiv aworialiaiiri 
 
 a id BBBBBnbbB f^pd boB ;ti rntda ot A'laaX XXiw,^eMjft^a adtf’ 
 auoi*xo^ofl a to leqeajC edi . taaaaa imbpa^ ps aol^tapibohc 
 
 • ^ '*' !&: f .1. ' '■ 
 
 ao.*itaq a eacoed »da ^ad^J’ aoXt©©3sna^odd' 4,^Xw ^XiwiiToncf 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 .ayia ari;X to 
 
 3nXd;X to ;Tioa aXri^X roqit aoi^oaei Xaia;rafl edT 
 
 
 » jli, 
 
 « 
 
 •/? 
 
 
 . >1" 
 
 tit* 
 
 
 
 
 
 I - 
 
 ‘^yi;-r ; ' ^ » "!j^n.Lf. 'y-^ 
 
 ■4 
 
- 15 - 
 
 was a Puritanical outburst against literature by Jeremy 
 1 
 
 Collier. He attacked the stage, playwrights, and the 
 whole art of writing. Then it was again up to the r 
 writers to justify the existence of literature. Hryden 
 admitted that he had gone astray, and said that he would 
 write clean literature from that time on. Others took 
 up the defense of literature in general. The reaction 
 was what was to be expected, the Aesthetic School defying 
 Collier and refusing to make sermons out of plays, the 
 School of Morals differentiation between the abuse of 
 the literary art in the immoral plays and the right 
 use, that of teaching moral lessons. 
 
 There followed an increase in the strength 
 of the School of Morals . It grew in the reign of 
 William and IJary; it fed upon the work of the numerous 
 societies for the improvement of manners and morals, 
 one of which was led by Queen Anne; and by that token 
 of royal favor it took on a tone of nationalism which 
 made it appear to represent the 'royal and aristocratic 
 taste in literature. It became particularly active 
 in the period of the Tory reaction of Wordsworth, South- 
 ey, and Tennyson; and it so characterized much of the 
 
 1. Collier, Jeremy: A Short View of the Profanehess and 
 Immorality of the Stage . 169§^ 
 

 
 •MJ. 
 
 
 -rt-i*^'^ n'' ^'i-riT ii ff # 'rlPr im h ai^ r v . 
 
 (P. 
 
 
 ■ p-rs if--.T| 
 
 ^•» : ia d )ali ti ^u 
 
 
 i^' 
 
 •fl 
 
 IV I i V 
 
 
 - ax - 
 
 % 
 
 .1 
 
 zmQ'iBl ^if ta-wd&uo l&olA^^iTuj<i b saw* 
 
 *^4>/fa fciiR ♦d^iiaiTif^flXq '^«toIXXoCL ^ 
 
 ^ _ '-s. I'A * '' *^‘ 
 
 
 t odi* Ost ^xi xri*i90 ji nedT to ^is tiodw 
 
 
 noi)^<I .»*tw^aio4iI to oofvo^^«ixo ©d^ Qt aiaJX-xw 
 
 «S? I ‘'^\: • f 
 
 ibfuow ©/f bian Xca pm'^ fiarf ®rf ;^4d^ Z^a^^XjaAn 
 
 JlOQi fl’ierf^o . .oc 6tti^ tao*i\ f»isji$^^fi£’ obpXo oJl-iw 
 
 noitoapT^ orfT .Xaiea©^ nx e-Eji:^flaecMX4to oB^iotefi '©rf;r 
 
 ' fl.' ,13 . ■ . 0 ■ 
 
 
 
 loOiioS oxf;f , 5 oXoofj[xo pd. cf f^BW tiijdw a«w 
 
 
 
 odX iS^Xq to tJJb &uo&zp*i 03 (aai oj sdtejiftoi i5<xa toXJU^oO' irij 
 
 - ■ .' ■■’t , < *. Vv .n 
 
 to P60da Piit txoow^ftf 8. 
 
 ,xi io! 
 
 eXX fiaa ^'C^Xq iaiorai: od^t* itl 'ciat©#!! odt 
 
 
 
 »xiO&aeX Xaioci 16 larfx ,e9n 
 
 
 'IS 
 
 .rfif^xiatXa edX tti oaaoioni na A^itoiXol ©toifl 
 
 1S;J^ 
 
 aJ it*i?U. lo Xoodyl erid- 10 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 lo 03! 81 edf ni woi^g ;tl 
 
 ■ I :^' ' ■ ' E,* . 
 
 Bx/oiowwfl *dX lo Jilow ©ij^ naqu Jiol li ^na.umXXIXW 
 
 *. ' ’* '.Ji.' 
 
 ,8Xai0ffl baa a-tPiuiam I0 ^fttin©voi;(iaiX odX 10I selj^dioOa 
 
 *'. , ■)■ 
 
 fl©;fol fBdt %d i>ita ;b£uxA 06»ap ijd XoX «sw rtoldw lo ©no 
 
 '' ''R -,-*''fi , 
 
 rfoiiiw daXXoxioi^aa lo aaoj b ho lioo^ Ti loval Xa^jOi lo 
 
 u 
 
 oxXaioo^eXiA bti& Xa^oilodl ^noaoiqoi o^**iaeqqa li ©ibam 
 
 ’i-if 
 
 evXtfoa xXiaXooXiTaq ©aiuood iM ^ tC-xxjdaiolXX ai ©Itia^ 
 
 9 
 
 •dJuoK ,ilJ‘iowaftio?; to aoid'oaoi i^ioT eifj* lo Jboiieq' ©rfl at 
 
 r ^ 'ii 
 
 odl lo doirra i)©slit»XoaiMo oa il M«>:fUo«'cn0dT Aaa 
 
 e '■ '/. ‘ it, 
 
 —>■» — "■ii'iii . '»i.*iiM<Wwi» «» 
 
 it 
 
 '>^4 
 
 1 ,0 ypir diodfi A i^jcioiox .loiXXoO *X 
 
 .agax ^ ‘ 
 
 . 1 ' T " .ill 
 
 k .i. 
 
 
 ;.>Mi 
 
 J . J . , * ■‘. 
 
 •w 
 
 
- 16 - 
 
 critical and creative writing of the Victorian period 
 that the terra Victorian when applied to literature has 
 becorae synonyraous with moralism. The aesthetic 
 reaction of the Naughty Nineties came naturally after 
 such a period just as the mad cycle of Charles II and 
 James II followed after the rigid restraints of the 
 narrow Purttanism of the Commonwealth. 
 
 The basic principle of the School of Morals 
 is aptly epitomized in the second published work from 
 the pen of Henry James, published in the North American 
 Review in January 1865> a critical review of Harriet 
 Elizabeth Prescott's A zarian, An Episode . 
 
 "There is surely no principle of fictitious 
 
 composition so true as this, that an author's paramount 
 
 charge is the cure of souls, to the subjection, and if 
 need be to the exclusion of the picturesoue. " 
 
 Upon this rule may be based all the criticism 
 of the School of Morals from the time of Aristotle to 
 the present. 
 
I 
 
 > '* * ■OOli 
 
 
 i ' i 'W i . i i i r' *,fci .iii.iMiiaAi>)w Mfc 
 
 {i^'i'ofoXy &d^ lo 5YJt^«eT[o Jbiuj Xaol^iio 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . W fT 
 
 50/: •iiJ^«Tta3‘XX c? ij9dw n^^iTiotojy 9d& 
 
 '» 
 
 ol^eriiaBQ ^i2’ itJiw ei^omT^noiCPic® etnooad 
 
 “x©^^ XUa%u(t3(i 6aao ati^dxiiM to ^aoitfoaet 
 
 IP’aeiTt/wfO to oXp\jt>^()^ o 5 ^ ^eii^ holxoq a dotin 
 
 to dtrtloTXoo'i d0wor.Xol, 21 80/n«t. r'l „ 
 
 -"C^X8O’?r:•0fi!»oO to wotuio^' 
 
 •‘i' ' . i, 
 
 I 
 
 t? to oXqXofiXitf oi&ad 0rfT 
 
 ^ ■ ‘■rw 
 
 a»oi*i iiow iwclQXldoq baooBi, 3®aiaoifiqe^tq« al 
 
 fl 83i»xdn!A 841 di ^0l^«lX(^i/q .aocol to flOq 
 
 , s.. .Si _ ;■ ' ' 
 
 if0ii78li to w*Xvoi X/ioXJ'isp « ^'ionnal aXj'WiYSg 
 
 •■!!ASJS.ilS ocfosixa ® 
 
 ,«u 
 
 saoitiioit to ©Xqioaix'^ oct sx 
 
 'm.' 
 
 
 JnoooBifld B'-rorfJofl m ifcj — ,eW» »a «.a,i os aottHociBoo 
 
 A .5 
 
 tX X)nfl .iioiixootcJj-ja mij- oi ,aJsjqa to atitp ady oi a^-rMa 
 
 " .©ooQo'toioiq »jXX to rtOXQifXoJco o4,X oy tti baan 
 
 ^ a ■ 
 
 moioXJiio fd^ ££a baaad ocf •z^ifi qXoi '9JtjU ao<^V 
 
 od oX;Xo^8irtA to ojci;X edl tcoit aX/^^ci: to -XocxfoS o/i:t.tQ 
 
 
 i ^-p^y >i' y 
 
 i r * 4M n 
 
 ._ . r.'^’,SS '’'' *’. K.rr/ 
 
 r ^ ;' ^/- „ » jlil, ,(r’' ' 
 
 'kite'll.- '* ■■^- ' -,' ■ ' ■'* ’^* 11 ' 
 
 ■’"■■ '♦'; ^ IT "''^4 ‘-i’' f v ‘, 
 
 I "’'. ..-. 
 
 ’~' i>- - .* iLLjhtLji* _ . 
 
 ' MU ' wmi BHI 
 
 O'noao'xqt- ady 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 HEimy JAMES AS A MORAJ.IST 
 
 In plunging into the juvenilia of a great 
 author and bringing forth to the cold ^aze of a crit- 
 ical eye the absurdities, the crudities, the incon- 
 sistencies which might otherwise have lain decently 
 buried beneath the monumental pile of excellent later 
 productions of the author, one is tempted to clear 
 oneself once for all of the charge of muckraking by 
 doing as Mr. Ford Madox Hueffer did in his study of 
 
 the same author to state at the beginning in clear 
 
 terms that he considers the author the greatest writer 
 
 of the century, and then to go about his fault-finding 
 
 1 
 
 with a clear conscience. If it were not for the fact 
 that Henry James’s connection with the School of Morals 
 is best shown in his earliest writings when he was a 
 moralist and nothing else, if it were not that the change 
 in him from moralist to aesthete takes place soon after 
 
 1. Hueffer, Ford Madox: Henry James ; N.Y.; Dodd, Mead, 
 and Company, 1916. "Introduction’^ p. 9. Let me say at 
 once that I regard the works of Mr. Henry James as 
 
 those most worthy of attention by the critics, that 
 
 Mr. James is the greatest of living writers, and in 
 consequence, for me, the greatest of living men. 
 

 
 
 
 ;■ 
 
 ' /f\ »* 
 
 K 
 
 I- > 
 
 in msAiiO 
 
 
 il 
 
 wtf*- 
 
 T8l«iA5K3ll A &4 em-t 
 
 JR 
 
 Fy 
 
 
 IE 
 
 ik 
 
 Lfii- 
 
 1 ^-RR 
 
 4^ 'to /jiXinoTi/t <>tt^ ofai al j 
 
 -4irto to »sAg Woofiarf^ rfitioi bm ladtn^ 
 
 r & .’i#' 
 
 •nooni t)iS^ ©xft ,»f(^ a^« X 4 »oX 
 
 nX«Z »v<so »elwi 9 ;I 3’6 {foXrlitr dfXonf^eio |^- 
 
 torf*:! txi6X.fo3Xfi to aXia X«tnb«5C/ao<a irfj* rfd’aoaarf AaX-oirf 
 
 fP?-' '''a -y, 
 
 Z»«j^^oe;t c| aixo ,iox^ix/a s7i;^ to anoX^opOOni 
 
 i r:*-^ 
 
 to tgiArto to ;Xa %o1 ®o/ip IXoaetw^ 
 
 X 
 
 to zhii^fQ aiii fli fixfi *xfctl:wiH tOi^iiSi fc-to'^ .*eU 9a 'anloh '■ 
 
 h ''"' ' '' ’ W sra?' 
 
 *xj®oXo xsZ ^nlna^^Bii ©{(j ©jtjs^e o^h--tof(iijii emoa odi^ 
 
 'xoJXtw ^»o;^a&T 3 ®rit adi aa«&tBfioo',»ii aanej^ 
 
 M-- 
 
 3fliJbitlt-i’Xi»at al/1 tooda og 69 nedf brji ad9 to 
 
 ^ X 
 
 tToiSt ’lot doxi o^ew 91 21 tOonoXo&xtoo laaXo » xfdiv 
 
 ;aXdiQH _tp Xoo'rto^ aii9 d9lv aoi(^oaiii3oo n^asctaX, ctAftH 9ad9 
 a aaw »a nerfit Bipijiw |8BiXiae aW ai awoifa iaed ei 
 
 
 ogxjA^p afCt 9ad9 ioa ^raw 91 ti ,oaXo giUriJoiijjifiia i-aXXaioii 
 
 ■d"' 
 
 *som nooa apolq dgKa9 a^edSBaa o9 stella^om moit miX nl 
 
 ... ^ . 
 
 k''> 
 
 ti* '.' ■ 
 
 
 , 6 d»M ,Aioa J.x.a g-xfiioff :xoAaM Mio*? ,ii)ttooU ,X 
 
 9s xJiB »m 9»d »<? .axex .viioqfioO J&xm 
 
 a» ooisi^ti ^CtQaH .tM to ad’tow axif fcidgoi 1 ^jsrfd aatto 
 ««rfd--^,aoidito ©d;f croi;t/!^a<fdd d^aom aeo^a^ ‘ ' 
 
 ni hna ;tnadiw s^iZvXI to dpa;ro«ig odd 8X. a .tU . X. 
 ^ to d'aaaaoiig offa ^Qta TOt loooajjpoaixoo 
 
 a' 5 ^ 
 
 . #= » - 
 
 '< 
 
 CfjJ 
 
 
 
 i ..^ . 
 
- 18 - 
 
 he first breaks into print with his critical reviews, 
 
 I should leave the preliminary essays untouched and 
 
 go at once th that point where one could best observe 
 
 the change in critical standards from the moral to the 
 
 aesthetic. If James had really followed the entirely 
 
 uneventful course which is ascribed to him by certain 
 
 1 
 
 of his biographers, he would probably have remained a 
 moralist for a much longer time than he did. But as 
 the change in his critical standards appears within a 
 year from the time when James's articles began appear- 
 ing in periodicals, I shall consider them from the very 
 first in the order of their appearance, until the change 
 to the aesthetic is unmistakable. 
 
 Anyone who has not experienced that exquisite, 
 delicious, almost wicked thrill of exaltation upon receiv- 
 ing for the first time money, real money, for certain 
 literary productions later to appear in print will wonder 
 at the space Henry James gave in No tes of a Son and Brother 
 
 1. Miss Rebecca West particularly. She seems to think of 
 James as a most clam-like sort of person, uninfluenced by 
 anything which went on around him. Her strange idea is 
 based on the fact that his injury kept him from doing 
 anything, but she overlooks the fact that a person who is 
 continually observing has his powers of observation so 
 sharpened that he is influenced by things around him more 
 than is the busy man who is continually doing things. 
 

 
 
 A ^--f --.-r- ■! »aii' - 1 
 
 -mm'..^ 
 
 rnStd^ . JfMm 
 
 . r 
 
 - BI - 
 
 A 
 
 ,awoiven ^aoXi'i'ip. oijcf ct^iw oJttX 33 £iJPtd 
 
 hna ff®dox’c^iUf a'^Aai® ^xaAXKjXX6^*x^ fcXuorfa 
 
 6fV*i6otfo iJljyoo fmO aTftrfw XiiXO(|[ ^jtd^ (SI ©ono wjq 03 
 
 ■Si • T . 
 
 ©4^ o^r Xaioflx ©4^ " ^.T^f a-^iaboaiTa X^pX^iio «?inadO '©xl^ 
 ^X‘>iX^n.t ©fft tswriXol liflHfti b&d sewal. ,,' 
 
 BliUtac 7d (5ld 0* Iifttfi-xoBB si doliSw ©aii^do^Xul^XiByemi 
 
 X - IT' .,•’ 
 
 u JbenJtiitsBTi evad xXdBdcicq ,a"rediBi20Xc(^ai£i lo 
 
 BB :trt£ .Wib ©A Afld^ ©cjI-J 'Js^oI rioiila a\'xoi 4'aXXiB'toc: 
 
 
 w ai^KK 
 
 »;l<ra •i^nsbnata XaoX^iio aid 
 
 ;-ta€qqa ©©Xoi^ia o’f.©Dis\ .Ww amti- ed^ iflO-xi i»n ^ 
 
 
 eiS^ woi^ werft le&iaiioo XXada I , aXao IbolTOtj oX 3 ®^^ 
 
 
 ©^fierfo XX^ftJJ .©OBaiBatsitia liorlJ to T»f>io 
 
 .©Xda^tBJuXmejfl 8l oi;t^M^^8©a &di ot 
 
 I 
 
 •V.l‘ 
 
 I 
 
 
 ,edl8iopx® &©onoiioqxe aad odw ©oo^jdA 
 
 ¥ii ♦*' 
 
 X 1! ■ 
 
 .. 7 l*noi no<Iii aoJiai«JWO 10 Ul^dJ ftoioiW teoaUa .aflOioiXofi 
 
 kiX 
 
 alB^x90 lol .^cefloin Xafi .t^aobi ©®I^ ©dt io5 3*i l 
 
 loiinow XUw Jiili-i ai ia0fj;qo ot tataX 9aoitb«X«)!Eq ;iaidtXX 
 
 •I . ' _ ^ ’ • 
 
 ^ ^edtotd hoj9 co£ ^ ni avas *©ioaX >£tn©a ©ooqa^^ ^ 
 
 ^0 itatdt ot oraeto ®/^S .^Xialaoltiaq taeW aooodeH eeXlC -X*i 
 
 iaocouXlxsififl .wfiToq to tioa ©XXX-itujXo ^ao© a 
 
 8 i 49 M 9 ? 3 fiatta *i©H '©Xd fixiooia no Jaaw £oidw 
 * . . ^ t •♦■r.a'^ aH* ho Lsaatf 
 
 l©J>^ 97»tUHTaw T.T>« *^*vwv*« i" T r Jj. f' 
 
 ar^« 07 l 
 
 OflW 
 
 ■1 oSfHoaiW a ladJ Joul »iiJ aiooX-?6*o ede Wd .SiilfiJitM 
 00 a9ttav\es49 to a^eiroif old aarf 
 ftom Hid Wiaoia aanXi'» ?<> daoaiwjXld^ aX *d 
 
 .sj^otat 3itXai ^XXi\Brtlfnoo «X odw am ^»oa ©rit bI aaai 
 
 
 U ! ■ idO ' - ’V * 
 
 
19 
 
 to his recollections of his first essay; and a further 
 
 consideration of the literary quality of this product 
 
 may tend to cast some doubt upon the competence so 
 
 highly praised by James of Charles Eliot Norton, the 
 
 1 
 
 editor who bought and printed the essay. There is 
 practically nothing in the first critical review to which 
 
 1. Janies, Henry: No tes of a Son and Brother ; N. Y. ; Charles 
 Scribner’s Sons, 1914. pp. 464-405. I see before me, in 
 the richi'the many colored light of my room that pverhung 
 dear old Ashburton Place from our third floor, the very 
 greenbacks, to the total value of twelve dollars, into 
 which I had changed the cheque representing my first earned 
 wage. I had earned it, I couldn't but feel, with 
 
 fabulous felicity, a circumstance so strangely mixed with 
 the fact that literary composition of a high order had, 
 at that very table where the greenbacks were spread out, 
 quite viciously declined, and with the air of its being 
 once for all,* to "come” on any save its own essential 
 terras, which it seemed to distinguish in the most invidious 
 manner conceivable from mine. It was to insist in d.11 
 
 my course on this distinction, and sordid gain thereby 
 never again to seem so easy as in that prime handling of 
 my fee. Other guerdons, of the same queer, the same often 
 rather gceasy complexion followed; for what I had done, to 
 the accompaniment of a thrill the most ineffable, an agit- 
 ation that, as I recapture it, affects me as never exceeded 
 in all my life for fineness, but go one beautiful morning 
 out to Shady Hill at Cambridge and there drin^ to the lees 
 
 the offered cup of editorial sweetness? none ever again 
 
 to be more deliciously mixed. I had addressed in trembling 
 hope my first fond effort at literary criticism to Charles 
 Eliot Norton, who had lately, and with the highest, bright- 
 est cpmpetence, come to the rescue of the North American 
 Review, submerged in a stale tradition and gasping for 
 life, and he had not only published it in his very next 
 
 number the interval for me of breathless brevity but 
 
 he had expressed the liveliest further hospitality, the 
 gage of which was thus at once his welcome to me at home. 
 

 
 •MLttiml^mmm 
 
 - yMKiiii 
 
 - e/ - 
 
 Tarf^Ttf^ a baa ;x-aaa6 ^eiil Blrf l:o ajnoi^oeXXooei alx( o^ 
 
 V 
 
 io^abo^H ai.ix io /,*xaia?iX 9ti^ to aoi^aiobianoo 
 
 t* \ ^ — 
 
 08 aoaoiagrooo ©a;^ roqi; i^rfi/ob smoa ^aao bno^ \5affl 
 
 »rf^ .oo^Tott iott!^ eoX'xarlO to aomal., ’^cf baalai^j . 
 
 X 
 
 ei o^OiXT .'^aaa© batfliiti baa Sthwod odw to^Ibo 
 
 ‘ " 'JS 
 
 rfolcfw 0^ woivoT Xaol^lio fein orftf JiL ^XXaoi^oaiq B 
 
 - ' 4 — 
 
 8©XTa?iO j .X ,H ; iod?oiE fe;;a ao8 a to aoJ og ;^'txiaH. .aeo**al 
 jsl ,©ffl OTOtccf ©'as' T"' ‘^' '. '^i(" •rl^i fQnoEi a’i©acfX*to8 
 
 anoiTavq moo'i to d-rl.^iX: boioXoo -niJd ©rf^T Moxi ax(:t 
 ”5iov ©ff^ .looxt Mxif^ xoo mott ©oaX*l uo^-ujdifsA LIo xa®b 
 O^xii .aTsXXoft ©vX©<vt lo ©aXav Xato:J orfj o^. , Bifoadhaoiair 
 boa^ao jaiXt \cm yxX^n^aa'iqti sai©iio oxt^ Jboaaario beif, X ifalriw* 
 rf^’Xa .Xeot lao* tf'rbXooo T bema© * bad I .e^jow 
 
 baxx^ ^Xe:gxia’x;t8 oa &£>rta^axr^ 7 0*2X0 a «%^Xoi’Xft suoXadat 
 ,baiY table d^Xfi a to^'^oisTiscaffiOO ';tato:MX ^ad» Joatjerf# 
 
 5 J f^po baotqa ot©a ajJoadii©»ti od^ ott^w aXoa^ '{tov ta 
 
 ^nbad nfl to tia arid ridiw bitii .bsnXXaab ^XaJdOioW adiop 
 XaXdaoaeo ijwc adi ©yaa ^aa no ’’onoo’’ od *XXa. tol aono 
 sooXbiy^i ^»«ot3 arid ai tfaix/^idsib ot -teape^ dt riotriw .sonad . 
 
 daJsaX OB'?# dl •anixa mott oXriavXaonoo tomuwo*^ 
 »fitf6taifd nias bibtoa bxia ,xxoidoriXdaXb ©irid jno aa*iiioa ^flj . 
 to ^atXbXLari smitq darid nX aa ’{Ba© oa (ti®oa od nio^© toTsn ® 
 aadto oca© ©rid ,t®oiip »nib8 arid to ,Qnobt©x’s teridO .©at’ 
 od ,anob bari I dariw tot ;b©wjXXot noXxaXqmoo v;«o©«3 tarfdat 
 ’•dig'© iJ© »aXdattaiil dsoot arid XXJiifrid a to dnoaiXrtaqfObaoa ©rid 
 babaaoxe^taira/i aa am adoott© ,dl ©'lad^aost X ©a . dorid , xiolda 
 gnlnto0 Co^ldijaari ©ao og dori ,aaanaaXt tot ©tXX XXa ai 
 saeX ©rid od ^nXtft otaffd bna ©gbitripaO da XXXH ibariS od doo 
 nXsga ta\r© euon — fs^andome XaltodXbo to qbo batotto_ ©rid 
 gAlXrinatd nX boaaatbba bari X •bexlDi ^XajdOloXXab ©totn ori od 
 eeftrirfO od msioldXto ^tritodlX da dtotta b«ot datit 1^10 aqori 
 -drigltd .d’eariglri ©rid ridiw boa ,^X©daX bari oriw .aodtoU doixai 
 naoXtamA ridtoK arid to aooaot ©rid od ©woo ,aon©d6qc3qo da© 
 tot gnXqatig boa coXdlbatd ©Xad© a nl bogtnfflrijja ,7folraa 
 dxoti '^tav airf nX dl berislirix/d ^Xno doii bari arf^^bna ,atlX 
 dod-— *idlvetri <88eXridaatcf to em tot Xavtednl arid-*— -toricuiti 
 arid ,v;dXX8dXi©ori tarfdtot daelXoTlX arid boaaetqxa bari erf 
 • 0>*uori da ojB od eaot'Xair 8<lri aono da aorid saw riotriiir to, ^gag 
 
20 
 
 one may point as an indication of the underlying force 
 
 which was to develop into a style of terse comment, keen 
 
 analysis, and biting humor. The essay begins and ends 
 
 1 
 
 off the subject. In the beginning the reader is called 
 upon to marvel at the great amount of fiction which an 
 apparently busy man can read, and at the end he is hope- 
 lessly mixed up in Henry James's own ideas about the value 
 of Sir vValter Scott's fiction. The only relevant remark 
 which might be classed as criticism is the question as to 
 Mr. Senior's justification for including in his book an 
 essay on the work of one of his relatives. 
 
 In his second essay we find the first example 
 of the richly suggestive figures of speech which so thick- 
 ly stud the pattern of James's critical essays, scintillalB 
 throughout his works, and mark the unsigned reviews as 
 indubitable products of James's pen. I have already 
 quoted his remarkothat the paramount charge of a writer 
 is the cure of souls. He enlarges the idea in an 
 attack on the use of artificial imagery. 
 
 "But her primary intention completely disappears 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Hassau W. Senior's Essays on Fiction . 
 North American Review, October 1665. 
 

 
 . &- . . ^ a r .■ ■ ’ :^«i ii MfTi- fc»nAj 
 
 pasi i .- .mtc 
 
 V 
 
 - OS - 
 
 0 !>fci erf^ to aoxy^oiiiai Ud ea ^aicq ^oa oco 
 
 noe;( ^S'rtamBoo t'j'ieJ 5 o a oJxa qoXevel^ aan doldw 
 
 \ 
 
 aiwta ^na aal^jed ^asp.o ^loawrf Lria- ,«laqXan« 
 
 A&XXao ttl iBfiaei 9.U 6dit nl ^o 
 
 03 hoJL^oi^ lo tfot»Ofild <faeia leviaai oj aoqw 
 
 “sqpri 3i erf /^ci) erf;f ijas ,i!>a8T ^aurf ^X^netaqqa " 
 
 wjlrfv etf:? SiiOfSd aa&M /«ro 3*{ie«»^ tTJi©S ni qii Jbexio ^luaix 
 
 i 1 1 
 
 rf'iaa&'i itaav^ifin rXnd erfT 
 
 k i! 
 
 a'^^ooa iBlXjsW iX 2 lo 
 
 ' V 'J' 
 
 oj 9a ftol^senQ odt ai msiixi^iic an ceBsafo ed Irf^Xa d&idw 
 
 fla iteoti aid nX, ^nXftirfDnX lol noXtaqX^Xjejat a^Tainpa .iM 
 
 
 .aorl^^atei ei f eoq io 3t5ow orf^ np qaeae 
 
 
 sXqiaaxB erf^ 6^i!fc ©'.? ftnooea aid nl 
 
 ‘ . ' 
 
 ,• f' 
 
 -j£oi<fX,.oa ctflirfw rfosBqe a»*i.i 5 (X*i: cXrfolit erfX lo, 
 
 #fXXiXnloa ,3viiaBd Xiioitr-t* 8’.jRffinT» tfco nxeXXaq erf^ M/Xa 
 
 B8 SWUXVBX fisn^iamj i-raa l>nu .ajfxow^'eirf diiPiCe^/oirfd r^i 
 
 9TJid X .i3B<f Q^fi^rjor, to 9touifo*iq BitfaXicfjiJixtl 
 
 « 
 
 xoXXtw a lo Bgaacfo xnaomB-jiiq a£(d JarfX jfxafljpi alif fta^onp 
 
 L>i 
 
 nB ni sb 5X arft aogtaXfio oH 
 
 • aXnoB lo BTJJO Brft ai 
 qx» 30 ffii laioilijrin lo eeju erfi no ^las^Xa 
 
 axoBqqnalO qXeXBXqmoo nQiXneXnl 'sfxaffllxq x«rf Xxitt" 
 
 vQoX^pX? |io a^a;>ag s^'roineS- .7 iraaBaQ lo WbXvbi Oen^feianrf ^X 
 
 ‘do&X x©do 7 oO'^,*reiirea naolxaffiA xfXioKl 
 
 ^ fv' 
 
 -T J - H BP i ! 
 
 
 
 f^'l , . 
 
 1 %-, 
 
21 
 
 beneath the thick impasto of words and images. Such 
 is the fate of all her creations: either they are still- 
 born, or they survive but a few pages; she smothers them 
 with caresses. ” 
 
 Hr. Ford Madox Hueffer quotes a sentence from 
 James’s essay on Baudelaire which claims that it is non- 
 sense for a poet to be a realist, and Mr. Ezra found 
 agrees with Hueffer in the conclusion that such a state- 
 ment from such a source is enough to make one despair of 
 1 
 
 human nature. In this essay on Miss Prescott's Az arian 
 there is a similar remark. 
 
 "We would gladly see the vulgar realism which 
 governs the average imagination leavened with a little 
 old-fashioned idealism." 
 
 I doubt if Mr. Hueffer and Hr. Pound are right 
 in their assumption that James was an utter realist. This 
 is one of the things in which James did not make appreciable 
 change in his progress from moralism to aestheticism. True, 
 
 1. Vide: Pound, Ezra: I nstigations ; H. Y.; Boni and Live- 
 right, 1920. Ch. II "Henry James.'* p. 124. "For a poet to 
 be a realist is of course nonsense," and, as Huedtfer says, 
 such a sentence from such a source is enough to make one 
 despair of human nature. 
 

 
 '• .”? 
 
 I- 1' 
 
 '.. z 
 
 r. 
 
 t ' i 
 
 , xa - 
 
 k 
 
 tfayf? 6aa oAiow to oJgf^aaJ 'Jlold^ d^a&nBd 
 
 -XXtJa 9*iB ^t^ii3‘ *fd^lis ittaoiSM-oio tod IXa to o^at •dJ ajt 
 
 L ^ ^ 
 
 coffX ^'jod^offis adn ;Bdsaq vret a fud avlvtjja to ,ntod r’ T 
 
 «> 
 
 >' ” .oosBotao (iJ jtw 
 
 RV'^tt eof^daoa a ae^foap tottoaH xofta« b^io^i .tK 
 
 -noa 3l Si aioiaXo doldw atlaXeHEruafi. no a'ao^eat* 
 
 6n;}ot| ats2i ♦tlf 5na ,TaXXaot « od oJ a tot oaaoa 
 
 
 -o^fai^a a dooa 4:1117 no X^Ioaop aX t&ltoffH d7Xw ae&t^«- 
 
 to tla}ael> ano aitair? 4^7 dsnone ni aotaos a rioaa toott 7a tu 
 
 X -- 
 
 • Ota Jan aaemd X] 
 
 n^XtarA a'77ootjOt1[-.aaxii ao v.bhbb aldi nl . 
 
 • «• 
 
 .dtaeot taXXflJlo a' al o-ied^ 
 
 d'>;dw aallaai tajjX/JV eri7 00 a bXucw .... '- 
 
 .» . >' • 
 
 OXX7JX a d71“# i>en«vaaX AoXlaal;ai^X e^atava ©d7 aatevos 
 
 A 
 
 ".fl*i.XlAnAX X)«aot.'i3at-6Xo 
 7d^lt Ota bano<i ,tM bna tatloaH .tM tX 7<ixioJb I Uf;; 
 
 aldT .7eXfa«t tet7a aa saw eo<rjAl 7ad7 n9X7<itcoe»a tlerf7 aX 
 oXdaXootqqa orfao 7oa hXi> aenat, daldw ni e^aid^ ori7 to eao al 
 ,euif .(BEloi7fid7aoB 07j, ffialXatow mott asotgot^ aid al e^aado 
 
 ‘fv, 
 
 *9VlJ. baa i.tod ;»y .H ;a aol 7 a 7 ii: 7 tn!t :atsa ,fiaL05 :eilT .X 
 07 7&oq a to^‘» .4^^S . cy'^’CaoSaV'^aH” II .dO ,0S6^ .7dBlt ^ 
 
 .ei^t^a teltoffS sa ,£aa ^.oaaoanon oataoo'to el 7alXaot a ad ' 
 oao otCooi o 7 d^oaa ai aouoa 4 doaa joott eoaotaaa a doao 
 
 .C2 
 
 uV' 
 
 ’#■ 
 
 9tju7aa oaccad to tia^ood 
 
 .7 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
22 
 
 in the end he was hy no means a representative of that 
 moral idealism which Messrs. Hueffer and Pound seem to 
 consider the only idealism; hut he substituted an 
 aesthetic idealism which should not be confused with 
 realism. 
 
 In this essay on Azarian , however, the moral- 
 ity of the idealism shown would suit both Hueffer and 
 Pound. ’’This bad habit of Miss Prescott's is more than 
 an offense against art. Nature herself resents it. It 
 is an injustice to men and women to assume that the 
 fleshly element carries such weight.” 
 
 The third essay, a review of T. Adolphus 
 
 1 
 
 Trollope's Lindisfarn Chase , looks with Homeric discon- 
 tent upon "these degenerate days" because so many novels 
 of the present do not contain weighty morals. 
 
 "The only definite character we are able to 
 assign to the book is that of an argument against educat- 
 ing English youth in Paris. A paltry aim, the reader may 
 say, for a work of these dimensions. He will say truly: 
 
 1. Unsigned review of T. Adolphus Trollope's Lindisfarn 
 Chase , a Novel ; The North American Review, January, 1865. 
 
ss • 
 
 AS 
 
 
 
 lo a anaois on \;d anw od An# odd nX 
 
 od otqs Jwi£/oq 0u4 isljloyH .fltuao'l* doldiTm^aoAl Taio^- 
 
 •j 
 
 OB badn?id»<fo« od ?a<f‘ ;aelXaeJ!>i ^ino odd loAiaaoo 
 
 tiddw J^oanlnoo ocT d*>a AXnode rfoldw maiXaoAi oldorfdaea 
 
 .fisXXaoi 
 
 i'" »' ■'■ 
 
 ■’Jj . -■■ 
 
 
 -Xaif/B odd ^id^owoif no v:®***^ aXdd nl* ^ 
 
 Any lolltoifH ddod dtOB A^;^otr nwod« a«ii*5t?AX odd lo /tdl 
 
 ' "'. V ' 
 
 niJdt etoa sX #*Jdooab«t1 bhIU lo Jidad Aid eidT”"*'- \AfWO^ 
 ?X .ii adaoaot IXosiod oii/da^ *i'i» d^nXn:^ eano*tlb na 
 
 ^ odd dadd ootusda od c.toiU 3 wf find adjn od eoidsu^xiX: nn aX 
 
 ** .ddgiow'^oya goiixfijo dnomoXo ^Xdooll 
 
 - ' -fri 
 
 t*' ■ ’ . V 
 
 and^CnAA .T to woivo*: a .'caefcsa b^idd'odT 
 
 -xio&aXA otTOflioH ddiar ai(ooX , »aj?4 Q niatsXAniJ a'e^oXXoiT 
 
 > 
 
 Blbvtn \;aair» oa oaaaooif "b^joA oda*i#ae;3ei} oeadd’’ noqJB dnod 
 
 .alB-rois ^dd^iow niadnoo don 6A dnoaoiq odd to 
 «■ A"r 
 
 od oftfa Qxa ow lojoaiado odiniteA ^Xno ’#d2^ ‘ 
 
 -daojyAo dsnib^ij dneoiw^in *na to diirfd aX dood add od n^laaa 
 
 %m. toAooi odd .mXa ^tdXjJQ I .aiua*! nX ddwo^ daiXsnS ^X 
 
 4 
 
 iX^uxi XXXw oiT .anoIaneinXA' ©aoiid to dioir a loV V^aa 
 
 ——————— ■ I -- r^" 
 
 * 3 ’f^^ 04 A£^Xd a^oqoXXoit axrdqXoAA -T to wolvoi AoflijXantJ. .X 
 .(idtiS .t'taoda'l ,woXye5i nnoXicofflA dddoH edt } Xe>vog a , oaii^O. 
 
23 
 
 but from such topics as this is the English fiction of 
 the present day glad to draw its inspiration.” 
 
 The January 1865 issue of The North American 
 Review is enriched by three critical essays by Henry 
 James, and the trio is most uncompromisingly moral. I 
 have mentioned two. The third, a review of Mrs. A. M. 
 
 G. Seemuller's E mily Chester is particularly interesting 
 in that it gives the moralistic handling of the latter 
 nineteenth century theory of instincts. James is 
 irate, bitter, scornful. He minimizes the strength of 
 the naturalistic philosophy, and says that the absurdity 
 of the theory nullifies its pernicious tendencies. 
 
 "The author makes the action of her story rest, 
 not only exclusively, but what is more to the point avow- 
 edly upon the temperament, nature, constitution, instincts, 
 of her characters; upon their physical rather than upon 
 their moral sense. It is an attempt to exalt the physical 
 sensibilities into the place of monitors and directors, or 
 at any rate to endow them with supreme force and subtlety. 
 
 It is very common nowadays for young novelists to 
 
 build up figures minus the soul. There are two ways of 
 
 eliminating the spiritual principle. One is by effect 
 
"io coiloil: ai am aotqo^ doua aoTl itiirf 
 
 B 
 
 atfi waife ot hmli^ iaJb taaaaiq odi* 
 
 , V 
 
 :^vidt>sUk dfion adT lo euaeJt 3d8I <iexmaL . - 
 
 y:%n9lt ^d XaoitlTO soTdi JNdoitiie ,«Jt we ir eg 
 
 I .laifen ^tr^nXaJtmoniaoonja t«oc el ol*it erf# baa ♦3tiaat» 
 
 m 
 
 .:* ,A .3tU ^o waive*! a orfT?': ow# tenoi#ne« evad 
 
 a«i#;,©’xe?«t ^Xt«Xxfoi#*i«q al TceJaarfO e 'toliwflieda .0 
 
 Tffl##aX oif# lo saXIJbaarf oi^BlXaion erf# eevl-^ d'arf# iji 
 
 s * ^ ■ 
 
 ai aemaXi ,iO#oRi#ani lo ciocul#- i^iainto rfd;iee;tenin 
 ^0 ^iftsiAilaiflS oH .XB!tft*too« ,iel#id ,e#aii 
 
 ^^iftiijsda erf# iierf^ a^aa Jbfta .xdq^'aoX iiq oi#«Xiao0#xift erf# 
 
 • feoiocahne# ajuoXoin'io<( ati aeJt^iXXwa erf# io 
 
 ft; 
 
 ,#tei ’^Oiis lerf lo xxc'iJoa ©rfdr aojtRjr iorf#aa erfl’* . i ' 
 
 , "i ' •■ ■ ’ ■ ' 
 
 -wov^ JoiOsi erf# od eio« si #arf^» #j 5 frf .^XevlauXe^e ^Xao ^oa 
 ia#onX#8XfX t , e'TB^an , itxje/iu^ie^Bej’ erfi notja ^ba 
 
 noqtJ narf^ ie/WAi XaoXi^rfq tierf# fiOjjB ;gie#sBiarfo -^[erf 
 Xaois^(y^erfx #Xax© o# ^qiaejf#A iia^ai #X. ^taaea Xovco *!ierl# 
 to ,8to#oeTX6 bfxa ciD^xaom lo ooftXq erf# Qtni aei^iXirflaxieQ 
 .iCieX#rfaa rfaa ©ptol ecaetqus rf#i» aarf# wo#ne o# o#a*x ^aa #a 
 0 # a#3lievoii j^xuro^ *iol e^B^awoc uomtfoo *^tcy el 
 lo ex&n a*r# eta eterfT .Xxioa nrf# ax/nifl^ adiBgll qfi rfXiad 
 3 -toelle xtf aX oxiO .eXqloniiq, erf? sai^aaipiXe 
 
 ( 
 
24 
 
 ually diluting it in the description of outward objects 
 another is by diluting it in the description of inter- 
 nal objects. In either case the temperament is the 
 nearest approach we have for the soul. 
 
 "There is hardly a page in v/hich the author does 
 not insinuate her conviction that, in proportion as a person 
 is finely organized, in so far is he apt to be the slave 
 
 of his instincts the subject of unaccountable attractioi s 
 
 and repulsions, loathings and yearnings. We do not wish 
 to use harsh words; perhaps, indeed, the word which is in 
 our mind is in these latter days no longer a harsh word. 
 
 But if the author of Emily Chester is immoral, it is in 
 making her irresponsible. But the absurdity of such a 
 view of human nature nullifies its pernicious tendencies'. 
 Beasts and idiots act from their instincts; educated men 
 and women, even when they most tfiolate principle, act 
 from their reason, however perverted, and their affections, 
 however misplaced." 
 
 One can almost see in the contrast between these 
 three essays and the first abortive attempt the stabilizing 
 influence of James's feeling that he was attached to the 
 staff of the North American Review, not a free-lance trying 
 
II 
 
 ! 
 
 f 
 
 1. 
 
 
 5.t^^£ro io aoUqt-ionub otf^ ui arLta'tflljb ’;XX«i 
 -xB^al tp Ji0l^4iT0«86 BXii ni Si ^al^BXiJb 5^«-t iwld’orua--- 
 H ^ 8ifj el «rfi ®bjio al Xen 
 
 .Iii03 edi* lol: everf »w doeo’iqqfl ^aeia^n 
 
 o©0Jb todJv^ oAi doLiar ft;t a^aq a ,^XJ&ied al ^lerlT’* «*v. 
 
 coateq a ea aoU'roqp'xq til noltvi^nBo iBd ot&tJtilaal Ion 
 
 oerMa BtfX aa 6^ iq^n ad 8t oa ni ,Jbesina:Sio itXaail: al 
 e aXrffl^ru/ooiam; !^o axf;r— -8to£iii8ni"8irf K6 
 
 rf8la ^on ofc at f>na a^irf^aoX .saoialaqai fina 
 
 t?: ^ ' - : ' 
 
 nl al dQidit l^'inw oi<^ ,<)oo6aX ,Qqsif*ioq ;ftl»'xow daijatf* oott ol 
 
 i® . ♦ 
 
 .5io«f a le^r.ul on ^xsb eaad^ ai al 6olat mo 
 
 « • , ■ 
 
 ill al dl .Xoioffci ai leiaqdC .:Xia^' io tBdlruA odl 11 tua 
 
 8 Xopa lo odJ l//d •ftXdlcixoqaa’iii^ T©d ^nldaia 
 
 .8t)loa®f>ixoi apololniaq ell aall:! atnliin mmd ^o wolv 
 
 » 
 
 nan bB^uoabb Jelonllapl Tlodl mo'i^ loa alolJ&l fioa alaaod 
 108 ,oXqloat^q elaioit laoia iftiil nodw nova ,no0ot btiB 
 , snolloolta ilodl 6na .fiol'ioT^aq tovowod .noeaei *xl«dl oo-xl 
 
 -T 
 
 *’ " •l>006iq8im *tev0wod* 
 
 696dl oooFlod IsBilnoo oril al e&s laocila n^o anO * v 
 
 ‘ ^ ,7- 
 
 ^nlalXldoj'j odi Iqicoltd dviliocfa Jail'S aifj ftna O'^Aeae oeidj 
 odJ oJ &8r(oaJJa aaw ®d JaiiJ j}£iiX>5t?'i a'oeioa^ So oonooXSnl 
 3fll*XiJ oocar-aBnit a ion , ^eirbSl nmltomJL Aitod So SSisja 
 
 ;. i 
 
 ■ hMJi 
 f *• 
 
 f. 
 
85 
 
 to gain acceptance for unrequested manuscript. It is 
 significant that immediately after his interview with 
 Charles Eliot IJorton which resulted in his position he 
 should publish three reviews in one issue, all calculated 
 to raise the tone of that magazine from the stale tradit- 
 ion in which James said it was "gasping for life.” 
 
 After this January issue James stayed out of 
 print until the American edition of Matthew Arnold's 
 Essays in Criticism was published. Then in the, July 
 issue of S he North American Review he reviewed these 
 essays. James was considerably influenced by Matthew 
 Arnold's essays, although he remarked conservatively that 
 Arnold had a reputation for”a charming style, a great 
 deal of excellent feeling, and an almost equal amount 
 of questionable reasoning." He liked particularly 
 the idea that criticism deals with fundamental truths 
 and leaves their application to the reader. 
 
 "It is the function of criticism to urge the 
 claims of all things to be understood. Qur national 
 genius inclines yearly more and more to resolve itself 
 into a vast machine for sifting, in all things, the 
 wheat from the chaff. American society is so shrewd, 
 that we may safely allow it to make its own application 
 
( 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 
 k!i 
 
 
 iVKtii 
 
 
 
 " i*!' 
 
 - * 
 
 . ^■ 
 
 el iX >t^^iti>auixam fr^itsawaoixio 'lo'^ ooinj^rqaooa cias oJ 
 
 5 • 
 
 •It.tw wraJtTMoJfti efd i€»n.6 iaaollinaia 
 
 *«* ^ ^ 
 ed x50i:tiaoq sxrf 4Si isaJXxiaai rfoiifv w>yioJf ijol^a eaX-iAdO 
 
 Apd'alJxoX/j*} ria .aasal cd 5 ;:i awaXrai riaiXrfxjq BliiOda 
 
 eiJiDa eritf r.oit artJt«a^i«n Veiif io enoi wiS aaiai ol 
 
 T:o!i aa# bfsa atunMl rfoiitlr ci ,noX 
 
 ^>1^. Ijxo X)6taXa ^04«ali axrtal’ lalfW latlA *t 
 
 ■* 1'=' 
 
 «s. 
 
 wajf^ti'U !to ao/ti^o njiol'iemA Xltfcb JnJtiq 
 
 < 
 
 .o.rfJ ni ao.iT . exlslitfoq aaw ^ttXolt; iD nt 
 
 li 
 
 i 
 
 aaa^^^ be^Blrei- est >r6}yg>|iL rui5px*x»inA fft^otl e.;'X lo airsai 
 ^d daoneuIlAX 'jJLcfrioAXaitoa uaw fidcaL .RTpaasa 
 tariJ ’CXav Ilf aVrBSftoa i^OAiaisei o«X ,d^8u8Q e'6XontA 
 
 a ^el^Ts sjaXntJUfo a”iol i\pi^a^juciet a J6arf MoniA 
 7n»ac‘3 Xa«f9 ^^sofflia ae dxta .^niX&e^ toailaoxa lo Xatfi 
 
 ts 
 
 ^XiaXaoiifiaq baitXX ofl ” .^joJtxidaaei ©Xdiixioitfaejp to 
 edtait XiK^aBir^bcuj\' ritfXw aXaoX Keiot^ttv SbH^ asAX eilt 
 
 >r- 
 
 ||ft .7BAao*r arfJ oX QoiJaoXIqqa ■xiarfJjaaraoX Ana 
 
 arfif e^ia oX «aXt>i;fi’xo to noliomil otL;l at JI” ^ 
 Xni^oi^aa idO •bQotatobas ©d cd a^xiirl^ ila ta^mXaXo 
 
 tXaa^l »Tlo8ot od «ioi hoM eiom ’;£Xt«».''); aenlXonl^aaXnBa 
 
 * ., ■ • 
 
 / <»iii ,ai^tdt XXa ai .galdtio tot e.^tJiioaoT'^aav'a odnX 
 .'JwftTdt- oe el ^Jotooa naoi-ieai. arfd oo^t i'aadw 
 
 noX JaoJXqqa awD a^l eiLam ot tt 'ssrol ^ taa \{x«n ©w ltadt|^ 
 
26 
 
 of the truths of the study. Only let us keep it supp 
 plied with the truths of the stidy, and not with the 
 half-truths of the forum. Let criticism take the stream 
 of truth at its source, and then practice can take it 
 half-way down. When criticism takes it half-way down, 
 practice will come poorly off.” 
 
 In the same issue of Th e Uorth American Review 
 James reviews Louisa M. Alcott*s Moods . He complains 
 that the book does not have a moral, and that the author 
 does not understand human nature. "This story (of 
 husband, wife, and lover) has been told so often that 
 an author's only pretext for telling it again is his con- 
 sciousness of ability to make it either more entertaining 
 or more instructive; to invest it with incidents more 
 dramatic, or with a more pointed moral. Her book, is, 
 to our perception, innocent of any doctrine whatever. 
 
 The two most striking facts with regard to Moods are the 
 author's ignorance of human nature, and her self-confi- 
 dence in spite of this ignorance." 
 
 It is worthy of note that in this criticism 
 James toys with the aesthetic idea that literature may 
 
> a < g <i - .I ’wi II r i TT ic~ in . i. 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 -»qu 8 ^£nO 
 
 -dS- 
 
 i' ©xi^ to arftfoi? eri^ to 
 
 exf^ xlJiw :fon »OB , zht;ta s4tf to xia^iw xjoJtlq p, 
 
 jEUfli^a ftrff ttTLBtf asiot^Mto i-Bj. .mwiot W# to 1*' 
 
 ejfaJ iiflo ©oiioxAnq norfJ J&xia .Bozsjoa ail d^fo’ii to 
 
 
 .cnvofc ti ae^teiT msioX^iTo fiertV .ovofi' '{i»w-tXxttf 
 
 Q 
 
 j, .tto ^lOOq ocloo XXlw ©oX^oa'X^j; 
 
 ATOiAie 1 fc^ioXtcrJl dJi^g ©x(g to •oaal emaa udi al 
 
 .. fn 
 
 f-* 
 
 1 “' 
 
 axiiaXci^iDOo oK . gtl>QOt 3 , 3 ^??ooiA aaJtoovX awoiToi. aomis^ 
 
 ^orftaa exf;^ t«AB , Xaaoic a ©vad ^cn eeoh ©ria^i^arf^ 
 
 r » 
 
 10 ) \:*XOtf« Bids” 
 
 .©Twd^fja xiiwuiri trtaJsieftnjj Jon «©oaM> 
 ;j ‘ ' _ jP^ic^. 
 
 taxij xioJ’to os feXo^ fioBO aaxt (idvoX fias ,etiw fJbiutd^iUd f 
 
 -aoo elxf ii flXaa-o iX gxiUieJ 'xot tscoia'iq Ajino a’lorf^oa na 
 anifliaiit^Tto sToro Tou(ifi» ii n>ix>ra o^_ 'ciiiXUfl* to a&onaaoloa ' '• ■ 
 aioflj ataeJbioxil djfiw iX ii^ovai oi leviJoi/TO^aal eiom *so 
 ,8i,?(oo<l icH .XiJncom ,OB?dXo*i ©to© a' iI^Xw io 
 .^ ev&iiidw aniT^oolf Ajaa to Jnsoonai .aoliqeo’xsq^'tao , 0 ;^ 
 odir 87/1 aoool i Qf i> 7 / 5^87 d^Xw ®ioat ^BidXiia ^sotn vOw;r orfT, 
 -Xtfloc-tlfO ‘xarf ^xKi *OTOJiic nanuirf to oo/us^oxta^ aWorfXjuB 
 
 " *oaajo7onsi aidX to eiiqa ai eoa^b 
 fliai&iiXio sldif nl o^oii to zd^'zow al <fl ^ ^ 
 
 »T 
 
 07i/Xa78XiX BBbX oliediaea 8x1^ rf^Xw aoiiial 
 
 V 
 
 ■a# 
 
 
 
 
 
 V'.' ‘X*( 
 
 VwihAi? u 
 
27 
 
 be justified by its ability to entertain; but he leans 
 very strongly to the moral side. He differentiates, 
 too, between the author and her book by remarking that 
 in spite of the fact that the hook has no moral Miss 
 Alcott ’’sympathises throughout her book with none but 
 great things.” 
 
 1 
 
 In T he Noble School of Fiction , published in 
 the first issue of the New York Nation , James gives his 
 view of muscular morality, sanitary sanctity, the Kings- 
 ley brothers, and Christian Socialism in general. Several 
 of his remarks merit repetition, especially the last of 
 the list, which shows that James demanded truth in every- 
 thing which he called beautiful. 
 
 ”Mr. Henry Kingsley may be described as a reduced 
 
 copy of his brother. In him we see the famous muscular 
 
 system of morality presented in its simplest form, dis- 
 engaged from the factitious graces of scholarship, 
 
 In the muscular faith there is very little that is divine, 
 
 because there is very little that is spiritual. 
 
 There is, nevertheless, in his novels, and in his brother’s 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Henry Kingsley's novels; The Nation, 
 July 6, 1865. 
 
ariBPl 3d oif pfi \d etf ^ 
 
 ^(t3t3idflBy3i%lb 6R Xl+TOUt 0f(^ 7%6V^ 
 
 ^'tl^TrtiTfc'x .;cf jfood id.i Jbtfto lorf^joa ed^ ae©w;^©d ,oo;t jf 
 eelK la'tom on aarf jfcod 3dS tadif^doix't 3 df to r»tiqa ni 
 tiid snoft n^iw jfnod lerf yjiodscoufl ftoairWaqai^t’’ ;t^ooJ4 
 S=-.-5fcw ” .a^nid^ ■ ^'daTs 
 
 . i i ' L ^‘ 
 
 X 
 
 cU hPdfiHdiKt : ad!ttol% If lootioQ aXdog ©d T ol ' ;4lffi- 
 atrf aavi^ aaoif»;l :(*xoT vreB odf to enaal ^oxlt 3 xii ^ 
 
 -ft:3cXX 9ii^ x'l^ilfiaa , i^Xlaiottr, tcaluoanw to f 
 
 Xatoveg .:rTen©^4 oi iraXiaiooS nai^faitdO Xnua ,aied^oid ^aX ^ 
 
 ' t/i * ■ 
 
 ^0 78sX 3si3 \;;XXa to«i{£ta ♦/toiJi^eQait ^ii^c aj^maja'x^aXd to 
 -^*tov5 ni difUTij haonaao6 aenoii 7ad3“ '^voda cfpidw ,daXX sdS ^ 
 
 '4 j». fcoliao ati douiw s^tdt Si,,'’ 
 
 doodboj a aa iadltoadfi od Xj3£u ^laXO'^nX^ 
 
 >^Xnc«n(n aoomet odt aea eu* nxd r4 ipdtord aid to zi9o' 
 
 '-aib ftaiot JaoIqoilB aJi nl naifaosariEij^ ^tiXaiom lo xaejaTja 
 
 .(jXiiaittXodoa aeoaTg atioi^riJoal ©d^^ roi!fc i:og4>^© 
 
 .•nlTfft ax dadd ^Iddll at eiodj drf’iat ^raXxjoanxf ocf;r al» j 
 
 GI 
 
 tXao^iiiqa aX dAdi olid IS /jisv^aX oiad^ oea^oad 
 e'*t©d^oid eld nt l»Aa .aiavofl cid xji ,6a*X<^dtieT»n ,ai eiadT 
 
 443W 
 
 .aol^aVt adT ;ai«yon e^'^aXas^ai^ ^inaH T:o waivoi 6003X0^0 .X 
 ' ^ .5081 ,6 zlal 
 
28 
 
 as well, a great deal which we might call beautiful, if 
 it were not that this word always suggests something that 
 is true; a great deal which we must, therefore, be con- 
 tent to call pretty.” 
 
 In the last sentence of the above quotation we 
 see that James is still the complete moralist, that he 
 will not recognize beauty apart from truth, and that he 
 considers truth separate froDi and above that which the 
 aesthete would call the abstract beautiful. In the 
 next issue of Che Nation James repeats the idea, and 
 opposes the tendency of realism with the statement that 
 fiction should not detract from the glory of human nature. 
 
 "We do not expect from writers of Mr. Trollope fs 
 school (and this we esteem already a great concession) 
 that they shall contribute to the glory of human nature; 
 
 1 
 
 but we may at least exact that they do not detract from it." 
 
 2 
 
 T he SchPnberg-Cotta Family gives a new twist to 
 the claim that books which are written with a particular 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Anthony Trollope's Miss Mackenzie ; 
 
 The Uation, July 13, 1866. 
 
 2. Unsigned review of Sunday School fiction. The Nation, 
 September 14, 1865. 
 
■ ''i -0, 
 
 - 8Q - 
 
 1 - 
 
 
 ^ I *** 
 
 ow avldv 'tmiiV « .IXeil qa 
 
 V 
 
 -^aJd:femo9 «jo& 3 Haa av*awX-a z>iow eirf? don ©tow dl 
 
 fk * 
 
 V 
 
 -noo oJ , ©‘xo1:o'toxi? , dan/Q ©w iioithf XaoJ^. dA&rE3^ ;©i;‘td 
 
 ” ‘^Cddotq iXao'od dned^^ * 
 ow noXda;*oi;p ©roda add 'to eaflodn©a "^deoX odd ftl ‘ 
 
 ©d dadd ,dai£aton eroXqaoo ©dd, XXXda al a©flt©l. dndd oosl^Xi 
 
 * - f 
 
 ad darfd ,ffdaT? ss^t\ diaqa ^doaod eiiiaaooei doxi XXlw||i^^ 
 
 add dolifiT d^iifd nv-ocfa on>) strj^% 8d«iag©a ddxitd atefiienoo 
 
 .: ,^v .’ .‘’ I 
 
 . faVifdnas't doaidadn add lX«o fcijiow ©dorfdaofi^ 
 
 ©rid -iX 
 
 Ki. 
 
 ijr.n ,©ofil o:{d adi^0<J©l noXdaH rrif iQ ©nasi dx©n 
 
 dnrfd dnofOAdada srid ridi?r cfluriX^oi It* <foitoi)nGd arid asao^qo 
 
 
 .©•xaden oACi/ri 'to arid e«J7t dM7d»i> don bXuotSs noidoll/;’. 
 
 45#q-'XXoi2 .7U 1<5 8T«dliwr (wo'i*i d09is:» don of'”* ./' 
 
 * ^ 
 
 ^noiaaooooo dBoi® a aioedo© aw a)/id X»n>^V XoOrioe ' 
 
 < ;P7Tjd4«i oficai/ri to prid od adnriitdnoo ^«rid darid 
 
 .dd pjoit doaidari don oJE> ^orid da»id dooxo danoX da \tni 3 ©w d^ri 
 
 •ii 
 
 
 
 s , 'k, 
 
 Od ddX?rd wen n aavd^ /iddqO-!«t7egringrioSi aifg j ^ '*'* 
 
 ^aJDoidTAq xj ridiw aeddi^w ota rioXriw ajfoori darid mlaXo arid 
 
 4 VW 
 
 ■ <rJ' f jr If/V-® 
 
 : ^^rifXoriK eaXM a’eqoiXoT? '^noridijA. to weiTsi 6oa»ian?, .X' 
 - <■ 'i ^,; .a^9X .€X '^XnX .aoIdaR ariT 
 
 :f,. 
 
 .noidoH ariT 
 
 •noXdoit ioorio8 ^aJbrtJiS to woItoi itan^iaiiU .S 
 
 i«riB9dqo2 
 
 ■•' ^ 'I# 
 
 ii 
 
 
 ' ■ 
 
 i' sjfkri & 
 
 t) 
 
 V' 
 
 ■S'";- jis^v 
 
 
 “ii. 
 
 1 
 
 .» 
 
 ■ >1 ;g -* »ii tpwygr 
 
 V. t 
 
 
29 
 
 moral in mind are not good fiction. James becomes even 
 more moral than the defenders of Sunday School fiction. 
 
 "These books of Sunday reading frequently 
 
 contain, as in the present case, an infusion of religious 
 and historical information, and thay in all cases embody 
 a moral lesson. This latter fact has been held to render 
 them incompetent as novels; and, doubtless, after all, 
 it does, for of a genuine novel the meaning and lesson 
 are infinite; and here they are carefully narrowed down 
 to a special precept.” 
 
 1 
 
 Passing over the next two essays, which add 
 nothing to our inquiry into James’s moralism or aesthet- 
 icism, we come to a criticism of Edmond Scherer's works. 
 James preferred Edmond Scherer to Sainte-Beuve because 
 of his positive morality. 
 
 "We find, and this is the highest praise, it 
 seems to us, that we can give a critic, none blit? a moral 
 unity: that is, the author is a liberal. 
 
 "It is from this moral sense, and, we may add, 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Anthony Trollope's Can You Forgive 
 Her? The Nation, Seotember 28, 1865; and an unsigned 
 review of Mrs. A. B. T. Whitney's The Gayworthys, a 
 Story of Threads and Thrums ; The North American Review, 
 October 1865. 
 

 
 . 'i 
 
 P’l 
 
 J 
 
 ■ "T 
 
 .r ^ 
 
 V- m 
 
 - es . 
 
 neve BaKOoe<^efsrKa^^ 60o^ ton eia i>fljtin ni Xa'xOB l| 
 
 • cioI^oIa rcM^nS lo 4.*i&iin£>1e^iii Jaioot d*xc3^^^ 
 
 ^abnaSk ^o 8>[oo(f esexlT^ . 
 
 ' ■ 
 
 BuoX^iXeT ^0 nOitiB'tni .aeaa J^noneicq e:(j nl ea ,nia^noo 
 
 ^QdBio 385*46 ai *5arti- 64 b .npi^a/no^i X^olio^aXrf Jbnk 
 
 * i> ^ 
 
 i86n»i 6XorC nesJ sari -ifta^aX af^T .00M8X Xatom a 
 
 ^Xia .aseX’XiXuofc ,/^fia ;aXeyon aa ^ne^’onnooAl: Icitriit 
 
 K 
 
 a 
 
 uosaeX 6niS ^aXobo© 6t{tt Xevojp: ectuu©^. e 1:o lol ,8eo6 
 
 ■S' li 
 
 ftv?o6 is’/roiTac TcXXo^tetao ^^a -^eri^ eieri beta .-d^xtilnl om . 
 
 ^ d . ■ 
 
 *‘.;ttI»oeiq XaXodqa a o^ 
 
 it 
 
 66a i(oiriw ,3Tta ;ai ow^ ^xor. orit -xavo ^^Xoaafl^ 
 
 --©rf#a ®4 TO malXaTon a'aeral a?nX 'Xiiapki tao oi ^nld^ofl 
 
 * ^ 
 
 j§Jtow 3*Te*x8rfo€ 6noo5E lo staioixiio a oi 6«oo ®w ,maloX 
 •a^aoed 87w©fl.~oXAla8 6^^ TfcTatfoS tbosjbU XoTTaieTq 38cia( 
 
 ^Hl^l ) •^tiXaioa «?vi^X3oq alri 
 .oaloTq i^seri’^irf eri^ b 1 aXrii bo& ,6ni^ '* *^3 
 
 iBTom ^ <4Jd Btioft ,oUlTo a eria naa w ;^ariif o^ aoeoa 
 
 .,XaT9diX a aX Tori^faa erix 
 , 66« »w fdne .eanaa Xstow aids »6t 1 ei ^I” 
 
 
 ^yAr’rol .rolC aaO b‘»<pXXotT ^iAOriixxA lo weXTo/^enalanU ll 
 »8a^A3/tD AB iaa ;d06X .33 Totfcis^cidd .aoXlaQ sriT ^’TOfl 
 iL_i,qrf^ywigaO a'^en^irilf .T ,(t ./. .aTX( lo weZT^ 
 ,weXv8r. AdoXTBiaA rfJTOW oriT baa aABairf? 
 
 .a&"§r le 
 
 i 
 
 V 
 
 
 j 4 w“. 
 
 "y M 
 
 r j * vy ytjf 
 
 I4i 
 
 
 " W — »J ’ 
 
30 
 
 from their religious convictions, that writers like 
 Scherer derive that steadfast and delicate spiritual 
 force which animates, coordinates, and harmonizes the 
 mass of brief opinions, of undeveloped assertions, of 
 conjectures, of fancies, of sentiments, which are the 
 substance of this v/ork. 
 
 ”We pBefer M. Scherer to M. Sainte-Beuve 
 because his morality is positive without being obtru- 
 sive; and because, besides the distinction of beauty 
 and ugliness, the aesthetic distinction of right and 
 wrong, there constantly occurs in his pages the moral 
 distinction betweem good and evil; because, in short, 
 we salute in this fact that wisdom which, after having 
 made the Journey round the whole sphere of knowledge, 
 
 returns at last with a melancholy Joy to morality. 
 
 We can pay no higher tribute to his critical worth 
 thaii by adding that he has found means to unite the 
 keenest logisral penetration and the widest theological 
 erudition with the greatest spiritual tolerance.” 
 
 In The nation of IJoveraber 9, 1865, James 
 again expresses the melancholy Joy of morality in a 
 scurrilous attack on the character of Miss Braddon. 
 
0« - 
 
 
 »?(il ,Qaolistrciot^ euoJtalift'S ’ dboiI 
 
 Sh\3 ta/i5.6a3i^a jpd^^Trri^ob 
 
 add f baa ,iidJ'iHiibTfloo .ao;^;imlita doldw ©oio^ 
 
 ' .' . f 
 
 .aaoi;t*tbatiB bt^qaltvobaa Ito ,340iai(io lelid !to easis 
 
 •^rf,? eia rfoidw ,sjfioml^;i©a !to .aaioaal: lo .aeTU^oatnod 
 
 fc. ^5{ ..ificw alA^ lo toaatBdaa 
 
 ovnBil’-BSalx%Sf .K 0^ ta'iitdpQ .M idlaa^i *W'' •- 
 
 u 
 
 •W17C10 sriliao? al inXd'ion aid' *»ac«oecf 
 
 Z^tiacA io xioir^vftij^sib ad^ aobiaed , eauaoed bna :avla i 
 
 CP 
 
 bru5 uoi;^oaU©ifi oltfariTaea ©dt .©aeaiXso baa 
 
 Caiofa de?^aq aid rj a*xdeoo ^X^iio^anoo a*x©d^ .^noiw 
 ,^t0i<3 nl 4 03iiao©d jXxve biia boo^ raadwlod nol;?onllaiJb 
 
 K. 
 
 * 
 
 3jflXv4d To^r'ia .doidw giobair/ d’ari^ a Wcr ai ©tj;;Xfla ew 
 
 , a^beXffQrjndi^lco ©rrarfqa oXodw od3’ bmici ^eaiiiot arijl afian^ 
 
 — •'j^iXaiow 0^ "jot xIodoaBlaa: a ASIw ^aal tfu anujlei 
 d^iow Xaoillio Bid ojf ©Jadl*j;f on «iao ©W >' 
 
 odtf 9^ttai olf 8fL8oa bnjjol aad od tfad^^^nibba 4<f aad# 
 XnoiBoXood}’ d’aeblw odjf 6no adi^ai^one>i Xai>i;goI c^asnaed 
 '' .aonaiaXo^ I..ajMiiqa yeolne^s edl' rf^lw nol^ tbirid 
 
 ' i * 
 
 satcdl ,ad8X rtedinaTat* to noiiy^ili ad’]! nl ^ ^ 
 
 Q fil ^#lXaioxo to %Ql '^CodonaXacB exf^, eeaaotqxa nWcga^ 
 • nobbs'id aalM to lad^o-aiiido adj no doav^a enoIi*xT 0 oa 
 
31 
 
 With the most delicate of innuendo and the most caus- 
 tically polite periods of barhed sarchasm James tears 
 Miss Braddon's book to pieces, and fills his review 
 with subtle slurs on the character of the author which 
 make one feel that in this case he put the anonymity of 
 the article to good account. The sum total of his 
 criticism seems to be in the question as to how the 
 author knew so much about race-trach gamblers, fast 
 society, and the denizens of the demi monde . 
 
 ’’Miss Braddon is the founder of the sensation 
 
 novel. With people who are not particular, therefore, 
 
 as to the moral delicacy of the author, or as to her 
 
 intellectual strangth. Miss Braddon is very naturally 
 1 
 
 a favorite." 
 
 W'e are now approaching a transition in James's 
 writings. The next few essays show his changing stand 
 ards and lead directly to the point where he considered 
 literature from the aesthetic standpoint only. Perhaps 
 a more extended view of various phases of aestheticism 
 is necessary before a proper consideration of James's 
 aestheticism can be undertaken. 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Miss Braddon' s Aurora Floyd . 
 
’'ill 
 
 -mAo bne CfliieWiifii tJ-nolXeJb ^apa orid* rf^iW 
 
 STisec* iiomZ 0©d:iad 'io 9t lXoq 'cllaol^ 
 
 ft’&ivai «iil nirrj: bcfa .a&paiq o^ iCood'a *rioZ>i)B*iii eaiir^ 
 tCoIiiT? Torfyjfa Ad7 TdJt>BZAdo dd^ ao aiuXa eX;Ttfiis d^iw 
 Jo ^tlia^^tysus cd:t ♦«q »/f aftso afdJ al tadt^ Xaol eao sjtapj 
 axd Jo Xoto4 ci«a .^ojioo(fW boQ^ eloUia odj “ 
 
 arf;^ wod o? 4i«i notSsaat> odi /:! pti of anaaa tneioJ^iTO * 
 
 . s' ' '■' ‘ ^ 
 
 drfiii .ataldoiasi Xo ^nodA doir» c» V9i!tX.*i0d;>x/# 
 
 ?■ ■■ii i-' « 
 
 yajjffni:! iaa6 arf^ Jo opaalnefi od^ bcA ,%J9tooB , 
 
 aoU^3!We Jo tebaaoj ad^ aX noJbbAjfl aeiii** , ' Bsi 
 
 "i 1 
 
 ,oiola*x3XJ iTalaolJ-jaq ton ora odv olqcoq d^Xl .Xaroa 
 
 ^ ' J 
 
 'iod oi aa %a , toiiXisa ad? lo "C(*Aolltb larota oiCX oj $a * 
 
 <1 
 
 ^XXdiajr^in qrev bJ, noJ^fcaifl Xautoeilo^cl' 
 
 ‘ '• ”.o^iiOTat a 
 
 . ' - V. • ^ - 
 
 B'Baauil nl ttoiXlnaaxX a 3 aidDaoi«i-|a won aro tH ■; 
 
 tasvta 3ai^rtado aid vroda b%c^,b 9 wcl odj 
 
 r \ 
 
 A&«J&lfi0Oo ad atadw iaXoq odS oif ^(too'tlb b&oX baa abim 
 
 BqAii JB*! .'{Xno Snitqbnji^ . obt&iisaon ©d^ cttoil eixi^dTatlX 
 aialoiJail taaa Jo eoBAdq a^oXtav ^o w©iV beitaa^xa atpiB a 
 6*a©tna<i Jo aotifa^abietsoo laqoT^ a ajolad ^*xaeasoaa ai 
 
 •itaXa^tiobiii:; ocf oao maXaiXed^aaa 
 
 ij 
 
 » ta£Ol^ ^15XC j. 
 
 u 'doB.Ua*xtt aaXTi Jo walrar Aon^gXajdU f.X 
 
 ' Vo 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 PHASES OP AESTHETICISM 
 
 In a previous chapter I have dealt with the 
 School of Morals and the Aesthetic School from one point 
 of view only, namely, their difference concerning the 
 original justification of literature. The School of 
 Morals claims that literature is justified only insofar 
 as it instructs, teaches a moral lesson, and uplifts 
 mankind. The Aesthetic School claims that literature 
 is justified hy the fact that it is pleasing, and that 
 no matter how moral it may be, it is not good literature 
 unless it is pleasing. Obviously these two schools 
 of criticism have a wider scope than that which I have 
 outlined. After defining their fundamental difference 
 of opinion, each school sots out to define its limits 
 and the extent of its applicability. The moralist tells 
 what is moral and what is immoral, and prhases certain 
 demands as to the kind of moral teaching to be included 
 in various literary productions. The aesthete defines 
 aestheticism, divides and subdivides, squabbles with 
 other aesthetes as to shades of difference, and generallj^ 
 
 splits hairs until to quote from Miss Rebecca Wast's 
 
 book on Henry James there are "no longer any hairs to 
 
• lli 
 
 'IS* ^ ' 
 
 ■!■> a mm 4» 
 
 53— *1 
 
 I". 
 
 K 
 
 '$ 
 
 # « 
 ■*%: 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
 •..1 
 
 . ^’ ■ ■■*.1 
 '•£'\ t...j.- 
 
 .'I' 
 
 j 
 
 VI 
 
 \ 
 
 iceioiCiiiiTafiA '^Q^ emxm 
 
 o-f(t ifj^w ;Tiad£ bvail I 'sa^'^*£l') a^olvoiq a a 1 
 > 
 
 ^oioq ono ap-i^ LowioZ oX^frCfls aA aifj fcoa 
 
 ©i*(^ sniatpofljao ooiiaio3,ii& , ..x&tcLaa .'jXno weir lo 
 
 if'Tofar,! viXtto al ^•L.;^a^©nX gaiaX<) 
 
 sjf'iii.ixj ,?TOuoaX l\sxcm a aa.’ioas^f , a^o0*x;t3iQi jtl stB' 
 
 BiviQ'tB:yi£ pi*d4 amlaip icpf fuB oiJ en iaa^ »rfX 
 
 r— — — ^ 
 
 trarfj; fcns .^o/aaaCq ol ti tzdt ;foat oil^ fiamtaxrt al 
 
 a’lu^aiaXiJ ^00:9 ton ai dl ,sd XaToA wod ’itt^no oa 
 
 alooiioa OTid aaad:? '^XanoivifO ",sfl^8«aXq al tf-i eseXmi 
 #vjicr 1 dolftff dadd ii&rii aqoos *iaoXw a av/wf aaloftfio to 
 lajiiemalmot Tlerfl gni:iiitej!> lotia .J>»aXXt«o 
 •difftlC *3^i onXt*I> ot Jao adoe loodos. doaa .aoialqo to 
 uXiod' t«iXa*£oa ad!2 .^dXXidaoligqfl ai'i to* Xnadx© #dX i>aa 
 
 ~ •■ Tji ■■ . . 
 
 ciXaJioo saaadTq J5^ .Xaionuni si tadw bao Xaioa aj ^Brfw 
 
 ©d 0^ anidoeod laioo to ftnijf ed^r oJ aa sXnaaoA 
 
 % ’ 
 
 a'&B:TtB 09 ©dT >8AO.ldQp£o*xq aaoX'iav oJt 
 
 £i ' •- 
 
 A'JIt! BBlddiUlffS .aafilTiidwa i^rtc soAXvl^ ,a8loi;ferfd4fta 
 
 ^XaiA^iO^ 5nii .©onaiattlft to so&ada o^ aa aedairfdaoa nerfdo^ 
 
 ;< 
 
 B’S^a#? «o6©d©:J aaiU caont ©doap oi---Xldrto aiiad ed’lX'qa 
 05 aiiad igna ie:%coI on” exa anodd-— a©«a^ ^xnoH no jIooA 
 
23 
 
 split and his mental gestures become merely the making 
 
 1 
 
 of agitated passes over a complete baldness." 
 
 Out of the mass of hair-splitting literature 
 on the subject certain basic facts wan be gathered into 
 a fairly workable theory of aesthetic criticism. 
 
 Aesthetic criticism, or rather aesthetics, of 
 which aesthetic criticism is only a part, has been 
 variously described as a science with a definite body 
 of rules and laws, and an intangible, indefinable 
 feeling. Probably a mean point between the two extremes 
 will come close to the truth of the matter. Some defin- 
 ition is certainly possible; but since most of the laws 
 proposed by students of aesthetics are emphatically 
 denied or else ignored by other students equally learned 
 in the subject, aesthetics could hardly be called a sci- 
 ence now, though it might develop into one. 
 
 Aesthetic experience is differentiated from 
 other kinds of experience in several ways. It is 
 commonly spoken of as an enjoyment, an exercise and 
 
 1. Wset, Rebecca: Henry James ; London; llisbet and Com- 
 pany, Ltd. p. 116. 
 
- es - 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 eitJO^<?tf eaTLi/ta^j X/>^a«t3 aid X>£i4 JiXqa 
 
 ’’ • .irsoftfilecl 0 w*sJ^iA.‘oo a ifiTO fialad’i^a lo^ 
 
 GxoJ^iieJiX 5^nl»*raiX^8-ii/3£t tq asafii lo <fuO 
 oifli ©d <4tf® aioal: ol&jud o^ajioo i^oe^dns ad^ no 
 
 .tasioi;il'to olfeJSata to '^lood^ eXd^tov 
 
 to »aol?orI«fGfiii nsila'/Ji^ to .wnloi^ltr, oliedieoA 
 
 aoopcf^aari 3 ;!ao oi^artiacM rioirCw 
 
 yj&otf §ilcttoi>' a ifSl's/ ao«teibB a se liedltoaaib 'ifaaottiiY 
 oXoanite^n; .aldl^nE^fli na Lnn ,awaX Axsa seTii'x to 
 
 •rr 
 
 ao*W5tJ^e )Vf7 odd* tiosw^ad twioq aoarc a '^icfadoi^l .^ixiXoot 
 -iiitsf) e«id3 .toJd'ao dds to rfic-ii edS ot ®dj/o eaioo fllw 
 
 eu-'X edJ to Jacio aoAia itid JoXdfi^aoq cXiJiatioo al noJti 
 - ^riaoiiTad^in!# BTLB ^otjedseea to a^ofwio \;tf fidaoqotq' 
 A*uta«i ’ciXaup® ttd^obOiJifa TfiXi’c Odtoniji oaX® 5 ela®jb 
 -ioa a f)®XX#o ®i/ ^X&^Ad i)Ii/o<5 po.ts^offj'aof, ,itp9t(foe edi ni 
 
 .1 
 
 • ®iio otf/iJ qor«v®j& tfX d^E^wotfi »won ®oae 
 
 Bott b®iaiiit«i®ttio 'Hi eorteltoqsi® 
 
 
 ..f, 
 
 
 at il ♦5\;aw"'Xa*t®r*^B at oonei'xeqx® to aOxxijC i®d^o 
 fcria ®Biot®x® no ,tfxi®m^otno xus ea to nooCoqe \rXaoauoo 
 
 -tnoO imiB t®dailt ;nG&noJ ; 8®ma^ gtu®K | ;aoo®d6H ,&oeH \£ 
 
 idxx .q .Ai»Li,'Cxioq 
 
 ■iflJI' • 
 
 Mj 
 
 
 > wa " »J ■ 
 
 ~ ' '~ r'*~ ~iy ii TT II n n m iw m ijumi h i i . 
 
 Sf 
 
54 
 
 cultivation of feeling. In aesthetic enjoyment capa- 
 bilities of enjoyment attain their fullest and most 
 perfect development. 
 
 The aesthetic value of an object consists in 
 its possessing certain characteristics by which it affects 
 us in a certain desirable way, to draw us into the mood 
 of enjoyable aesthetic contemplation. These character- 
 istics, called "aesthetic qualities" have nothing to do 
 with the usefulness or moral character of the object 
 under consideration. Kant postulates that aesthetic 
 enjoyment must be disinterested, that when we regard 
 an object aesthetically we must not be in the least 
 concerned with its practical significance or value. 
 
 There are three forms of beauty: sensuous 
 
 beauty; 2, beauty of form; 3, beauty of meaning or 
 expression. The fully rounded aesthete enjoys all 
 three of these kinds of beauty to the limit. 
 
 Through a long succession of loose thinking 
 on the subject there has come to be some historical 
 basis for the belief that there is a fundamental 
 wuarrel between beauty and goodness, between morality 
 and aesthetic enjoyment. Rationally there is no such 
 

 'V i.irJi 
 
 , 1 * t ^ 
 
 ^iXeel 5o aolSsrltlsjo 
 
 “ ^iS •• 
 
 -ii<luo 5 fii 9 flr\(ot,n 9 al 
 
 7BOG5 tone ' 1-9 85li“lXid 
 
 ^yflQaqoXftvoft ^oalieq 
 
 Jii 84it^9iiof toe^tfo xijrt ^0 till AT oitfaK^Bea oitT 
 
 8 ^o 0 ^^a tt rfotrfw 80i ic-i :^aiaaoa8oq aJl 
 opoai act? oif'ax wB*ri) «^w eltfaiiaefi nla^ieo 4 ni 90 
 
 -*iaT3/j"teiio^936(<I ' .coIiTuIiiattrioo oilodifaea elrfa^ot/so ^o 
 
 * ' ^ ^ 
 
 Ob oS ^MtQsi 9Vfid **6iXa'iX4op beXXao . 90 U 8 X 
 
 er(i lo -xa^panado -aioEi to aaafiiwlaaju dVxw 
 oi>#a^;^uo4 ^4^7 Ba^/ila^faoq jtlqX .noi:faTBfiigftop 
 
 it 
 
 Aio^ai §w iia^fu , bo^bozo^^Jtnib 9 (f ttaua ^xtaoi^o t^xia 
 
 JesoX axf^ nl ad Jo« Italia aw ^XXaoX^©ii;‘ 8 aa ^oetdo aa 
 .oaXav TO oonaoi^Xo^Xa XttoiToarq a;ti rf^Xw ian'xooaoo 
 
 V 
 
 Bflooeaaa 4 X .r^d’OBad^' lo aazoy aai4X ©tu ©lerfT 
 
 10 ^ijtaaoi io )j;J‘w4iJd ,5 ;ui4o^ lo ^c4!Jsaad ,S ;^Xo 4 ad 
 XXb 8 '(ot,Of ato:tsa»a bohJMsoz X-^X 0 !fc art? >t 0 Ol 34 aiqx 4 
 -XifljXX e,di 0 ^ tJ^aad ito aOdiX aaa:fj to &oz4^ 
 
 I ' , ’■ _. 
 
 ^IXnXrfx oaooX to aotaaooosja ^oI o droid's 
 Xaotiotsiil MR 08 ad oX eaioo aad aiadx Joa^doe odi ao 
 Xa^rnojaafim/t 4 aX aiodw XadX la|Xetf erfx io!t aXaad 
 t^\MXaioEf''flaowXod ^aBofithoo^ baa '^doaed tioows^od Xo'iTjutw 
 
 ia 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 r~ 3 < 
 f -d 
 
 f ^ 
 
 
 J ^ 1 
 
 
 1" 
 
 . 'j 
 
 1' ^ 
 
 ir ,. 
 
 
 1 
 
 B 
 
 Af' ■• 
 
 f 1 
 
 » J 
 
 1 I 
 
 H 
 
 i ] 
 
 P i t 
 
 f.Pt 
 
 
 LiJ 
 
 h 
 
 1 1 , 
 
 
 Uv.^ 
 
 If* ] 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 f'VC 
 
 1 i 
 
 LT 1 .r/1 
 
 1, 1 
 
 >, ? i\ 
 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 A' i 
 
 4 
 
 f 
 
 P • 
 
 ■$>'■ 1 
 
 t 
 
 ■1 
 
 Af 
 
 r 
 
 lioca on 9i oi94^_^A5XX^>fidX^a^ 'Xaer^otno olXaxfXQea f^rra 
 
 li: 
 
 m 
 
 '\>. ' ■ 
 
 
 •(y 
 
 rt?""‘ 3 u i M», iy>r 
 
 
 
 bis 
 
35 
 
 quarrel. Those who maintain that there is overlook the 
 fact that the difference of opinion lies in the different 
 ways in which beauty has been defined. It is entirely 
 
 possible for the moralist to enjoy the aesthetic quali- 
 ties in external objects to the full; but the fact that 
 so mapy immoral men have confined their activities to 
 aesthetic enjoyment has put aesthetic enjoyment into 
 disrepute in the judgment of certain unthinking moralists. 
 
 Aesthetic morality is based upon a definition 
 of the good in terms of the beautiful. Shaftesbury’s 
 Characteristics is saturated with aesthetic morality. 
 Shaftesbury’s idea is that there is a law in nature 
 apart from revelation, a law of natural beauty which man 
 would follow if he could find it. The organ which 
 combines the laws of nature and finds the underlying law 
 of beauty is taste. Shaftesbury lays emphasis on ridicule 
 as a test for truth, because, according to his standards, 
 nothing but the beautiful is true, and ridiclue will 
 uncover the lack of beauty in the thing discussed. Addison 
 and Steele based their moral lectures on taste and used 
 ridicule as a weapon. 
 
 The aesthetic morality v;hich was phrased by 
 
• • T ^ p" ' i 'fv ■ 
 
 *‘-=»^-'>’- -r- ^ -- — 
 
 ■ ♦ 1i 
 
 ■- ii itiTiT. -nmnrf 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Lh 
 
 I 
 
 - as - 
 
 Blit ‘iOOX’XOV'O si 819£f^ ^a.i^ ^^ia^Ui 8 CI odvt 8 fiOf(T .l 8 m«np n| 
 
 'Si ™ 
 
 jft&te'liif) odii (il eoiX ApXniqo to 8oi^©i9l^X> ed& itadS Jofit 
 ^loilin© ei i»I .fettr.lteft rioftu «*if ctotdw ai' B^swi" 
 
 -iXai)p ojiS ^ota© iBiXeiora ©rtt lot eXrfiaaoq 
 
 u 4 ir Jurf ;TXat fidt o 9 8 ^o®t<^o Xeaie^xe nl QtX^ 
 
 oJ aaXitivxJoa ilen'd* dsaitnoo ©vW iieca laiomi. oa 
 
 e, 
 
 otfai yiroir^Owafi ci^edJ’UBB Jwq('£U5rf ^afjax;otao ai^erii’aao 
 
 .fttfsiiatoal sniJiaXiUmi to ©rf^ ai ©;t;jq«tali) 
 
 aoUinlts£ a noqiJ fioaad! el * 4 ^iifl*£om ol^eKffaaA 'i- 
 
 
 3 ’v;'xx;aee?!t#irfS to ean»# ni 6oos 9£ft- to 
 
 • «■ 
 
 S'! 
 
 
 nl vat a b 1 oierf;! XaSJ al awJbl a'^iadaenarffi 
 Gea dcl4w '^c:^aaod tp vbI ^ ,ncijfaXavai ffloit JtBqa 
 
 /^oiiiw aa:&^o■ arf5 *^l f^aXt muo^b od ti woixol bXaov 
 
 !•>•? 
 
 war odJ aAnlt iusa to awa^ ©dj a©flldaio« 
 
 ©IriolMi ao alftftit?pno a'CaX ^•xx/d8©7tBrtS' .©tfeal 1 ^fj£(9<S to 
 *aj^ia6na3’a aid laaibioaod .©akaotd. .rf^atd :fQO^ a «a 
 
 IXiw auIolfitT boa al XatitaaeJ i>ftj Jod oaldton 
 
 noalbPA ‘Sjnid? adf nl ^tuaed lo <t>al^edd xarooms 
 
 basa^ baa ePaaP' no aexad’ooX Xaiom ilorl^ Jboaad ®Xe»d8 Atia 
 
 .^oqjaev n ba oXaoXbli 
 
 Ztf Htvv doirfw \^StiBioa olJeddaaa edT 
 
 
 
 1 ' 
 
 « 
 
 4 
 
36 
 
 Shaftesbury in the sesenteenth century is restated in 
 the nineteenth century by Ruskin. Ruskin presents 
 the extreme tendency to identify the aesthetic with the 
 moral perception. He divides beauty into six types: 
 
 1, infinity, the type of divine incomprehensibility; 
 
 2, unity, the type of divine comprehensiveness; 3, 
 
 repose, the type of divine permanence; 4, symmetry, 
 
 the type of divine justice; 6, purity, the type of 
 
 divine energy; and 6, moderation, the type of govern- 
 1 
 
 ment by law. Ruskin combined the effects of a 
 Puritan ancestry and early training with an aesthetic 
 education in the arts. There was nothing immoral 
 about Ruskin. But the fact that he defined good in 
 terms of beauty instead of defining beauty in terms of 
 good made him the direct aesthetic ancestor of a line 
 of which he would have been heartily ashamed. 
 
 Ruskin said that intensity of feeling measures 
 the superior man. 7/alter Pater follov/ed Ruskin with 
 the natural corrolary to this statement, that the well 
 
 1. Ruskin, John: Modern Painters ; Vol. II. "Of ideas oiff 
 Beauty. " 
 

 ni ai aJt znjaa^tladQ 
 
 ^i'Ctoe&iq ctlHanH .A^iiaiufr ijd i{)iij;rQeo 6d?< 
 
 0di diTlw oii!9d^oo-rt edi ^^'iJ:;^itfiJ&Jt ^ofioftfidd' »raei^x« edt 
 oJi^l X7i3QQ<J eebtvib -floilqeoie^. Xaiom 
 
 I It 
 
 axjivXii ^o aq\;^ arf> i^^lflllni ;,! 
 
 >'r 
 
 ,5 jsacnuvxanedeiccxaofl oaiv^Xi to ©d^ .^c;^iax^ \ 3 
 
 •» ’4V* • 
 
 ' ,, A 
 
 , .TXXatfuts^B ,b : asnonfiC'toq ©rriTXfc to oq^^" od^ ‘*,oaoq©i 
 
 to oqx7 bd) ,5 ;©oitf©;«t ©aivii) lo aift 
 
 '* ■" 
 
 'ftiavo^ \6 bqz^ , aoX^O'iafioin ,d bfia ;^3T©na aalTllt 
 
 I - 
 
 a to ai^oalta oc£y ^©aiOaoQ ni5(o;/2, *w«I ijd Jean 
 
 *»4 “■ ' 
 
 7“ 
 
 oltdffJ8D4» aa gr.iiiiaiO ^Xiaa &«c TC-tlaaona ca^lTCt 
 
 Idiofini o‘ttfl'3 .QJia adtf nl nolXooiiJi© 
 
 a 
 
 oi 6005 i>»nite6 ad ^aJ^^ ^oat otiif 7uS >nt7LwSi ttaoda 
 
 r , - ‘ «l 
 
 to /Tl '^Xj/aoti to 6j»©taAi )£J^aed to aato^ 
 
 -I. ' ^ 
 
 er-iX 0 to lo^aeoa^ ojt^t&rfta^A ^’Ofi"xI6 eifJ aid sJbaii f>ooa 
 
 a * ' 
 
 .£>ainad8a T^xx^iaad naaa cvjnd blvow erf rioidw to 
 ©axosaaia snilaot to tBstt t>laa aiifaoC 
 
 ritiir rtlrfajufl dawuXXot ‘xacTa^ lo^XaW .nata loixaqoa ad^' 
 XXaw edJ tadi ,vda*ao;fflJa aXdi^ o^ ^TaXotToo Xa'io^an edl 
 
 -k^. r , 1 ' ^ 
 
 >0 uaa&i tO” .11 .XoY ; ->io Ortij>Si a*rtiioU :ndoL ,nidau15^‘*I 
 
 .^^Oisea 
 
37 
 
 spent life is the one which applies this superior intens- 
 ity of feeling to the largest number of experiences. His 
 ideal was intensity of sensation. "To burn always with 
 this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstacy, is 
 success in life." 
 
 Pater’s heir is Oscar Wilde with his search 
 for the bizarre, Oscar Wilde doing time in prison because 
 he recognized no limitations in his search for the novel 
 in experience, even planning to "get religion” so that 
 there might not remain even that form of emotional thrill 
 foreign to his experience. And last of all, I suppose, 
 comes Wilde's French counterpart, Baudelaire. 
 
 Such a succession gives rise to s few general 
 conclusions. The general tendency of aestheticism is 
 toward an over-emphasis of the ability to enjoy sensa- 
 tions in which aesthetic appreciation is involved. The 
 overworking of the aesthetic sensibilities brings about 
 a kind of aesthetic ennui which must be dispelled by a 
 search for strange experiences where the strangeness 
 keeps the aesthetic appreciative faculty aler^;. The 
 search for the new sensation becomes a search for the 
 bizarre, and degenerates into moral decadence. Thus 
 

 
 iiUcsaBaHr: 
 
 I 
 
 ¥‘ - 
 
 ''S, * - 
 
 -axv5^txi^oi*r6vjjo8 aiilt aaiXqqa ffoidv? enb al s!til ^acqa 
 
 8lB .affw:8j[*ifrcj[xa to ladnmn taagiaC sjfJ od ^nliaa^k to 
 d!^ivr 8^:i!wXi5 ini/d 0 ?** jnoXd’Jiafloe to ^diaaa^nl saw XaeAl 
 
 ei ,\:ca.y€.‘>6 sXrf^ ,enail ojCII-wo^ .ftuaif airf? 
 
 ' f' 
 
 •’.©tJtX at aesooi/B 
 
 rfoTfl®e IW tfaoaO al iXwi e’?xoJ“a^' ’ V B 
 
 aauaoarf oo^it^ ni 5 6ri’'ir xaoeO .anasltf 5k/^iot < 
 
 XoTon ojf;l xot -ioxuBs slri ni anoitc^iMil oa fcoslniocaT ed 
 titdx OS tB3” 0^ ^irutraXil aevo. , aoABlTWi^xa ni 
 
 Xriiffd lA«oitor.rd to rniot ft»y» /tlaiasi toa- 
 
 l 4 i 
 
 ' 1 
 ./^AOiiwas I , XXa to XbrI 6rtA .donalioqjco aid o;l n^iotot 
 
 >87XaX9i>na& , J*r«t'A®Xni/oo dotta*!!, a *oAXlW aoflioo 
 
 • f» *• 
 
 Xai9dS3 srot a oX aaiT SBvXa ftol^a&ooua a douS •^, 
 
 , 92 inaloi^od^rata to ^bnsJb^toX XManag. edT .aAoisxiXoRoo 
 -BBAds 00 ^oiilde ©do to alBadqfnb-’rovo oa ^tbwoO 
 
 •dT .5 wvXo7a 2 »1 flolOBlDBif-qe olO®dOa#a jdoldw ai aao2o 
 
 T ■ 
 
 Oaoda Qjjcifd 6o2bX2!|2di5Aou ODTc^dOsaa edO to ^aidiowiovo 
 
 
 -IS 
 
 V I 
 
 4i‘ 
 
 c OaiX#q«jfi -♦d ^ oaa<B doXrfw ipcco oXOeriOaoa to OaXrf a r. 
 
 aaoao'Saa't^^a odt anedF adt^aiiiBcpce o^oatcta lot doxaea 
 
 1 ■'* 
 
 odT .(txolB ijXXyoat^ »v2JlaJtooiqqa olted;laoa adt aqoad 
 
 *1 ' ' ' ■ ■ ' 
 
 Bfft Tot dcxsfta a aoaioodd ooXitaaoBa won add xot doiaaa^' 
 .ooae^aoeli Xaxo/B otff(2 aadaiaao^el) Ofia .oxxasld 
 
 aariT 
 
 
38 
 
 the tendency to force aesthetic appreciation to work 
 overtime and to keep it supplied with new sensations 
 to work on brings about the split between moralism 
 and aestheticism. A critic may be purely aesthetic 
 and yet be moral. But when he justifies conduct 
 which is wrong when judged by the moral standards of 
 right and wrong by the claim that it is necessary to 
 the aesthetic fitness of things, he has departed from 
 his moralism and followed the aesthetic argument to 
 its irrational conclusion. The fact that Henry James 
 did this stands not as a proof that he had turned to the 
 Aesthetic School of criticism. He based much of his 
 criticism on aesthetic standards before that event. 
 
 But it does serve as conclusive proof that he deserted 
 morals entirely and finally "adored beauty and absolute- 
 ly nothing else in the world." 
 
 The aesthetic standpoint may be taken as a 
 basis from which to work toward anything in human 
 experience. There is aestheticism in art, aesthetic- 
 ism in religion, even aestheticism in politics. The 
 critic is concerned mainly with the latter two of the 
 three kinds of beauty, beauty of form and beauty of 
 
itlOw 0 ^ olf9d^Q6h eotol od“ ^oaeJbxwf^ odi 
 
 '''v 
 
 3AOiy/\3fif>3 vofi dJlvf i>«ifqqoa ftseaf ot JbOiS aoi;f 7 »YO 
 
 j 'l /C. . . ^ 
 
 niai:i47Cr> ^jjodB a^nJtTil no'i^ow 
 
 • .7 
 
 oi^orfjBoa cXaiffq od old’iTO A .ineioi^oifJBea 
 tau^Od aallt^axjt ©rt nerfw ^ij£T atf d*e^„5ne 
 
 *lo Qbt»baa$ti. Ia7Ct9 oif;f '({d iiogfettt ^*i9dw ^ 07 W si xloiifVr 
 0^ r.iaaaBoea ai /nialo o.it guotw dna 
 
 aad ei( ^o aaea^il oi^edVaaa * ' 
 
 - - ^ 
 
 03 3no!jm:%tii oxJedJaaa fsawdiXot 6na m tla jom Bid 
 
 aok'ia^ \t*snaHi:,^a£C^ ?ca‘i ©dT •nolsaXonoo XaiioJt;f 877 X ' s^Xk 
 
 ti 
 
 odt 0^ <ft4d ©d ladtf’ lootq'a sa Jofl’^sAnale eXff^.JbXi ^ 
 2 id to doum ©ff- •aaXoltluo "to : oioZ ol3Bd^^' 
 
 " •tnovo 3bH3 970led abiobncxa dXd’edTfa#© no aiaioX^lYo 
 'te^TfSofe ©cf ^arfj looTit ©TleuXonoo ea ©77©a aaoJb :fX 
 -Gifdioada ^iXariXt j&na Yls^X^ae aXaioci 
 
 '’.OX70W odd fix ©aXe^’hnldiofli ^X 
 a ua td dAioqAoad® ixdedtaoa edi ^ 
 
 >>' 
 
 fta^d nl J&xawo^ i^ow-od dolXw eXsad 
 
 »c 
 
 -oiderfdaaa ,d%o n| {naloldartdaoa oX oiodT .ooxsal^oqxe . 
 
 ■« 1 ' '■ 
 exfT .loXdiXoq ni fflaXoXdoddaoA nor© .noX^lX©? aX loaX 
 
 \ 
 
 add lo 05fd 7©JdaJ add ddiw \£alsua boaiaonoo aX oXdXio 
 
 *0 ^di/aod dxua iirxo^ \q ^daaad .^ddaad Tto ai)XiXd aoidd 
 
 
39 
 
 meaning or expression. His treatment of sensuous 
 beauty depends upon whether he recognizes morality 
 as well as aesthetics as a standard or whether he 
 discards morality altogether. For instance, two 
 years after James had definitely passed over to the 
 Aesthetic School in criticism we find him, in a re- 
 view in which he compliments William Morris most 
 highly on his appreciation of the beauty of form, 
 praising him also for "modesty of the imagination" 
 
 1 
 
 and criticising Swinburne for lack of that quality. 
 
 We have abundant examples of the appreciation 
 of the beauty of form in Henry James's works, his 
 critical reviews after 1866, his reminiscences, and 
 the voluminous prefaces to the collected edition of 
 his novels; and James is also an example par excellence 
 of the third, appreciation of the beauty of meaning or 
 expression. 
 
 It is not necessary or pertinent to our in- 
 quiry to go into all the phases of v/hat is known as 
 the science of aesthetics. Insofar as this science 
 applies to literary criticism, it is confined to an 
 
 1. A review of William Morris’s The Earthly Paradise ; 
 The Nation, July 9, 1868. 
 

 ' *'1^ oli r J 
 
 '^voon^Q 1:0 slH •xioloQotqxo lo ^nlriMa 
 
 * 1 . 
 
 ^JjtX^Tom aesin^^oooi otf larfi/ertw /iocfv-a^ofj[ai) 
 
 “T ''^■ 
 
 #ri Tort^o.fw '10 a sa aolirsd^aea aa XXew aa 
 
 . ^ 
 
 0«rJ ,90ca;r!sni loT ••xaiftagalXa. ^j-iXaioa abTaoalJEi 
 •c?;T oJ lore Jboaaaq ^XtJtXoXlaJb ijarf aoma^ axaa^ 
 
 , ■ 'A_ l» 
 
 -ei a nX ,uilK ftaXt aw oaXoii^X'io ni o.f og o.t;taiitee^ 
 i'soro eltToU auaXXIl*^ a^noaiiXqpoo oii irfir jiJt woiv 
 
 ,fli'iol lo ariJ !to xioX^aXoei^qa airf £io^^Xrf 3 lxf 
 
 "at/ilaaX’iafni eil^ lo io^ oaXa mlti 
 
 ^ -j . " ■• '■f'' 
 
 :tXXai;p tmlt lo ;(aaX lot anxadalwfi ^niaioX^Xio bca 
 
 **' ■'• aJ 
 
 lA 
 
 noidalooTqtja arfd lo aaXqinaxo ^oaJ^auda evad »f 
 
 aiii ,aif^o»r 8’3o«ei; v;ifloH nX ptol^lo Tjdaaod arfd "lo ^ 
 ,ao?>neDaXaiflidt nXd .doaX'^aX’la aWoXvei Xaol^lTo 
 lo noXd'XXto jQO^oeXXoo wfd’ oi aeoaloiq oao^^ijnoXov orfJ |^ 
 <>_t>neXX»axa xa<^ •X-isaxa na oaXa aX a^iauL hm jaXevon aid 
 
 I 
 
 *yo 3/iinaanj lo ^^aaod oxlJ lo floi^aXoatqqa ,biXdX adX lo 
 
 .noXaeaiqxe 
 
 -ai *100 od Jaeittd-xaq lo ^tooBoooa Xon si 3*1 vjj , 
 
 aa nwocjl ^X iadvt lo aeeailq adi Xia o^oX 03 v;iXxfp 
 
 i 
 
 = »oaoX&8 aXiXt aa *ial:oaaI ^eoXdadxaea lo eoaeXoa oi(d 
 aa 0(T aoaXlnoo aX XX ^meXoXdXio iia-^aUX on aoiXqqa 
 
 — - - — - - _ ‘ ' *V qj" « 
 
 ♦•Q giaata^ zSiin^aZ »d? «V«X*jioU mllliw lo iraXvaT A .X 
 
 «8d8X ,e ^Xai .aolXaK orf® 
 
40 
 
 abstract appreciation of one of the three kinds of 
 beauty. 
 
 I have mentioned Oscar Wilde's statement in 
 De Profundis that he intended to be converted because 
 he wanted to feel that sort of a thrill. There is in 
 this statement an aesthetic approach to Christianity 
 which is closely paralleled in an essay of Henry James 
 which was published thirty-nine years before it. It 
 is in this essay that James shows his complete change 
 to the aesthetic in criticism. I shall consider 
 the aesthetic approach to Christianity more fully in 
 the next chapter which has to do with James's trans- 
 ition from the School of Morals to the Aesthetic 
 
 School. 
 
lo' oAjTijf ©©ifltf ic; ©ao Ico noJt^j 3 io 6 ncq< 3 .«) ;^oaT^Bcfa^ 
 
 V . j 
 
 cl J‘svoKn^A^£i e'ebXi^ ’XjBo^Q j>agp.t;^n&a; evjd tf 1 , , 
 
 esBeob't acJi&vnoo ©d oJ ’oxi 
 
 lU ai .XIjtTxi^ fi r©«l o^ i>»^aaw ed 
 
 •?;dinaiJ-atixro o& rfoaoitfqa oiV®rfaa©a iia diio««^ata sirfd* 
 
 , A . - [fe. 
 
 a©tiV 3 >Vr ’juieH *© *4^986 /i.a ai X»dX 0 iraTJ 5 q ’jXesoIo al doldw 
 
 r 
 
 11 si£t0ss fierfailduq saw dpldw^ 
 
 ®3n«fie o^oIrjiDo© aXii awoda^BeinB^ ^add' \tBaa© airi^ ai ai 
 t86ioaou Haifa I .aaioidiio ai oiieddasa wCdUod 
 ■ ai aTtoff ^j*iuaii«itfiO o^ rfoaoTqqi oidodiiseB aai 
 
 '•^iaaid a'aeiviaL iC^iv ojb oif aoxl ifoltfw ‘x&dqoxfo fxaci 
 
 pi Jatfjt'aaA ods Bia^xoi! ^0 Xoc*xtoS ^©i{tf aioil nol^dt 
 > - v> AVei V - Xporifl ':, 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 TRANSITION 
 
 It was Walt Whitman who first shook Henry 
 James out of the satisfied composure of his moralistic 
 criticism and made him think in terms of aesthetics. 
 
 His influence was not sufficient to turn James com- 
 pletely to aestheticism in criticism, hut he was the 
 first, though not the largest, contributing factor. 
 
 Whitman's blatant vulgarity had long been a 
 thorn in the side of the aristocrat of American letters. 
 Many a time in the long evenings of literary conversa- 
 tion in the remarkable James family Whitman's verse 
 was torn to pieces and held up to ridicule. As far 
 back as the spring of 1861 we find William James writ- 
 ing about Whitman in this fashion: 
 
 "You ask me 'why I do not brandish my toma- 
 hawk and, like Walt Whitman, raise my barbaric yawp 
 over the roofs of all the houses. ' It is because I 
 am not yet a 'cosmos' as that gentleman avowedly is, 
 but only a very dim nebula, doing its modest best, 
 no doubt, to solidify into cosmical dimensions, but 
 
F r 
 
 < I 
 
 a .^.6 
 
 
 ■■■ V Vfiij 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ‘l 
 
 
 ' u»« 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 V ' 
 
 Bpif lettMT ^ X 
 
 J ,.. 
 .1 ’ * . 
 
 
 ' j- 
 
 .A 
 
 'CttieR TFcorfa o:iit omn&ld'X tXsW eaw ^-I ‘ 
 
 « 
 
 ui^alX^^ioiD Bid ^0 e'lflaoxBioo Pd^ to lire etmat 
 
 .aoi^ed^aoa to diC'ioJ at ^d obata bita.oiaioid’iio 
 
 f..i 
 
 ■-000 ovfflal atilt oJ Jiistoiltob Jon saw sor-SoXto);' aXfl 
 
 I..1 iii 
 
 orij Qfsw od ix/cf ,ii:?iio tJitc oi maioi^odiaoa \;Xod^eX(i 
 .Toioat ^itfjyrfiTjrnoo edi- ;foa d:^odt ,*8iit » 
 
 IP B- 7 
 
 8 a^ed ^noX oad ^^^Itar^iav itao^a/d e'naiQdidW 
 .sm^deX flauiieniA to ia*ruoT 2 i*t« ©rit to o^ii odd^ ai aioA^ 
 
 jji • r» 
 
 |i 
 
 Iff 
 
 
 -^a-iff-rroo 'i^rarrediX to «s/iia&v© '^uoX »d^ nt ecrid’ s ^osK^ 
 
 »Bt©r B*rtivndidl7 ^Xiaist sensC eX^odiasioi orf^ ni xsoi^ 
 
 lat bA .©XnoiAii od <jxi jOXod /;na aooaia od d'XOtf aaw 
 
 a 
 
 -^l*n» ooioa!i lOBiXXilP Aait 6w Xd8X tp ^iiqa odd* aa*^?Foatf ^ 
 
 I* 
 
 :xioid3£t aid? ai aosutiifW daotfa ^ai 
 -acxod* ijffl rtaiAita^d j^oa^ob I ’^tEw* eta aCaa ‘aoiT*’ SB 
 
 ciwa^ oi^atftatf 'xm oeiai .aoradirfW tXat «>fiX ,&ob dwad 
 
 i? 
 
 I osaaoed al tl ' •aocaod odd XXa to atooi odd’^Tev’O 
 
 ,ai ^frowoTB naaiaXdaea darid aa' VeVaisoo* a do^ doa oa 
 
 X 
 
 ,d8od dastoo! sdi ^aioA .aXadoii mib i^^xev a ^Xxip dad 
 
 ,1 - • f 
 
 dad .anoianemXA laoiniBoo odai \;tiAiXoa od ,ddaoA on 
 
 
 1 » < • 
 
 ‘ .;L . a 
 
 
42 
 
 an * awful sight' of time and pains and patience on the 
 
 1 
 
 part of its friends.” 
 
 When Whitman published Drum Taps in 1865, 
 
 Henry James was filled with disgust at the vulgarity 
 
 and egotistical posturing of the author. He gave 
 
 vent to his feelings in a review which will be known 
 
 2 
 
 as long as Whitman is studied. The basis of James's 
 criticism is purely aesthetic. His claim is that two 
 of the three kinds of aesthetic beauty had been fear- 
 fully and intentionally outraged in Whitman's book, 
 
 beauty of form, and beauty of expression. 
 
 On the subject of form James says the follow- 
 ing: "Mr. Whitman's primary purpose is to celebrate 
 
 the greatness of our armies; his secondary purpose is 
 to celebrate the greatness of the city of New York. He 
 pursues these objects through a hundred pages of matter 
 which remind us irresistibly of the story of the college 
 professor who, on a venturesome youth bringing him a 
 theme done in blank verse , reminded him that it was not 
 
 1. James, William: Letter to Mrs. Tappan. Reprinted 
 in Henry James's Notes of a Son and Brother ; N. Y. ; 
 Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. p. 233. 
 
 2. Mr. Walt Whitman , an unsigned review of Drum Taps ; 
 The Nation, November 16, 1865. 
 

 Wi 1 
 
 
 7i 
 
 
 k 'Sr 
 
 V 
 
 r J 'r 
 
 '!. > 
 
 M.. 
 
 4' . 
 
 - fW* - 
 
 
 &tit no 931501 ona IsctiBa buB oal^'^o *;fd;gla oa 
 
 ^ ' I 
 
 ” .8l>noXilk^^I io 
 
 ,3dSX nl a<ii;T bo^alXtfjio nsfli;^iirB norU ■ ^ 
 
 ^^lT 4 | 3 lx/v erf^ tfs d^lw aaw otml v:*xxieH 
 
 
 ^xiwoinC 3d iXlw rfoidw ureiTti a ni e^iXeo^ 3lri o^.lnor 
 
 3 
 
 8'HO/Tuii; ^0 fol^saa orf? .feolMla aJbKiara3?i£{« ea yioi bb . 
 ow? 3’8<^^ 3l islaXo 3iH '^XetiJn al .OBiplifiio 
 
 -Taei aoorf letl ^^osod aiinld ooiritf erf;f lo 
 
 — ,A'ood «'aBodl*n^ fxi da;Sa3^ijo ^UMOl^nodni Jbna 
 
 •ooi^Boiqxo ^:o ^JxJ30d iiu} ^fTioi to T^;tnaod 
 
 -woXXo^ od;t ay^o aemat, miol to ^t^etiSsia eiff ftO 
 
 0 
 
 -#^«*idoX0o oJ bX ftaoqix/t ^^a«lTq a*nessit^J:dW .*xU" 
 
 
 •'gnX 
 
 8i oaoq’xnq 'Oai&nooofi ai»i isoX^ito to BBoniaeig ori^ 
 
 oH 
 
 atioY* voU to '{^io orftf to Boon^aei^ odd' o^aidoXoo ot 
 
 
 •rotdam to so^gsq Xoi^oi/fi a rii^oxtld* o;^ootdoilo8odd’ aeoa<u(^ 
 
 o/ia* to 5C^o.^« to ^^Idi^eifloa-ii'^so i^nlaioa doidw 
 
 a mlxf ^jt^nlrtcT -A^'ao^g omoBoiJiJaov a no ,Of(w loaaotoiq 3 
 
 ton 3fiir darf;^ fluid bobnltoot ,ootov iCnaXd ni ondd occuf;}^ 
 
 iiotfoii'loS .naqqaT »«tM o;^ imaiiXiW ,^oma.^ .X 
 
 ; *’X .R ; TOdw'c>^g joB flog a to aoj^cU e'aecal* ^lija^ai 
 .cct. .q ,ano2 a'lendl'i^oS BBfiJsxiO 
 
 ; j;i«Y gQTg to weivoT fconilean na .uaw^rixlV tfXair »iJl ; 
 
 .adSI ,6X 3sdffl5rot ' . no! d'alTidT 
 
 t.a 1 
 
 
 ■V 
 
 •f^ 
 
43 
 
 customary in writing prose to begin each line with a 
 capital. The frequent capitals are the only marks 
 of verse in Mr. Whitman’s writings. There is, for- 
 tunately, but one attempt at rhyme. We say fortuna- 
 tely, for if the inequality of Mr. Whitman's lines 
 were self-registering, as it would be in the case of 
 an anticipated syllable at their close, the effect 
 would bo painful in the extreme." 
 
 Speaking directly to Whitman on the same 
 subject, he says: "But all this is a mistake. To be- 
 come adopted as a national poet, it is not enough to 
 discard everything in particular and to accept every- 
 thing in general, to amass crudity upon crudity, to 
 discharge the undigested contents of your blotting- 
 book into the lap of the public. You must respect 
 the public which you address, for it has taste, if 
 you have not. It delights in the grand, the heroic, 
 and the masculine; but it delights to see these concep 
 tions cast into worthy form. It is indifferent to 
 brute sublimity. It will never do for you to thrust 
 your hands into your pockets and cry out that, as the 
 research of form is an intolerable bore, the shortest 
 

 ■■I aST» 
 
 
 
 ■V'^. f 
 
 
 fr 
 
 - - 
 
 535 . ' -' 
 
 B £f^iw ©niX rfoijo flised os eaoi^ xii ^ixa«od’8jio 
 
 ■ ’" z 
 
 •iBSIqBo 
 
 ft^XBic odS osB olBSIqBo Saoiij^ii adf 
 
 ■a^aiSlrw d^oJuaShi^ ci ea%or 
 
 M 
 
 W T » < 
 
 4 r 
 
 
 ^lOt , aX ©leaT 
 
 -aiuo^^a^ *32;«8 eW ‘aurcxi*! Sa SqxQSSa ©no torf .^Xo^finxiJ 
 a©ffiX Q’jijBflr?X/(W *tJ4 e:ts li jo^ .^Xo^ 
 
 ■5- ' ■* _ ' ' 
 
 lo 0380 orf^ ni »'d f)Iao% ft aa , 5 jai 7 oJaX 30 'i-lXoa oiow 
 ,^. - loello orf!^ ,OB0Xo ilff€S Sa oIdaXl'C^ beS&qloiSaa ob 
 
 ’’.ftCToi^^o Blit ill laialaq otf oXaow 
 £>m<w orij no nmB^rJffwf o^* ^X^^ootlX) :ajQi3C30q2 ^ 
 
 -oX o7 a at alcit XX a tad*' la^&s ed ttapldse 
 
 *! *■"■■■ fe i 
 
 0 ^ rt^ono Son si SI .Sboj ienoiSaci a sa beSqqbe'aatool ^ 
 
 -^•xov© ^qoooa oJ l>xuj i«XnoiX*cja^ nl '%ciJiixsor% b'lBoaXb »«. v 
 
 i/¥ji ^ 
 
 os ,xfibsszo aoqa lajwaa o^’ '';Xaioi ®3 al 'snidf 
 
 "t. \ -sfli^.toXd to aSnatnoo baitaasibaa adt assadoatb. ‘ 
 
 tfooqaoi Saum t/oY *9ild:sq pds to qal adS oSal dood 
 
 ' ' ' . 
 
 ft t| t9S&4S aad Ji lot tsaetbija nox dotdw oiXduq<' adS 
 ©icicle edS ,Jt)nai 3 edS nU sSd^gllab SI .Sou ovad uo^' 
 -qooats o&edS oas ot asd^iXod Ti torf ;9nUxtoaam odt baa 
 oS taaro^tx^ai ^Bi ft .anot x^Srow oiai daao t aapit 
 taxncdS oS stoq lOt olb'^xoven^XIl*? St ^\^imXXc(n« etnid 
 
 ©rtx C 3 tSadS sao ^to Jbao stoistoQq 6 ?fll af mAif xoo^ 
 
 1 i 
 
 taeX^oritt adS ,oiod oIda*i9XoSiti aa ai lOTOt to fioiBoaei 
 
 fi 
 
 
 ti .M 
 
 fo j i mi wi fj r ■ /i »'an<» aga il ^ 
 
 ^ ‘ h 4 * 
 
44 
 
 and most economical way for the public to embrace its 
 
 idols for the nation to realize its genius is in 
 
 your own person.” 
 
 He says further that Whitman outrages the 
 sense and taste of the public ”on theory, wilfully, 
 consciously, arrogantly”, and that no triumph, how- 
 ever small, is won but through the exercise of art, 
 and this volume is an offense against art. 
 
 Note particularly that in this turn to aes- 
 theticism as a standard for criticism James has in no 
 way forsaken his moral principles. There is no con4 
 flict of right and wrong, good and evil; it is all a 
 matter of outraged taste. Not until James wilfully 
 'justifies an act that is wrong by the statement that 
 the act was necessitated by taste does he truly turn 
 away from moralism. Walt Whitman presented no such 
 conflict to the mind of James; there was no such decis- 
 ion to be made. But within a year from the time he 
 wrote his criticism of Whitman he did make that choice, 
 
 and the cause was not in the field of literature. 
 
 1 
 
 In his criticism of Dickens we find James still 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Our Mutual Friend ; The Nation, 
 December 21, 1865. 
 
eoAiTdrari o) oildu.j drtj- o!: -^^.v i ^^ .j-rncov Taoiu 6.^3 
 
 ni 3l 3ji esil wi Cif iiotJ/m erf? 'lOl — 'iXoJil 
 
 fiv.o tjyo^ 
 
 1 . * 
 
 erfw ^©njji^oo an-*? 'ie.iL'rij!i 3^38 eH 
 
 , ,,;ioori? no” o^Irfoc) orf? *ko ?Rfl? axij eaaea 
 
 -••'Cl , .'jlqnr.’i'in on 2>i a /’ iX^ne'AO'X'i-'^ , ’ClauoXoaaco 
 
 lo . f J rf^tiJO'Lf? ?ifrf now at ,-Ii:..:a lovo 
 
 . ‘T.n r, 0 : iillo an 'ii ©tnijX^'V airf? rfaa 
 -•iG^ cj -in? nx :X 13 riJr>i?*raq rfoT*^ 
 
 ^ . s 
 
 -fli Bii.S ; I ? . ' 0 3 03 IC8ij)X?8rf? 
 
 -r'OG GXi ai o*io i i . g - C<..' i g;u‘ icf Ibinm airf ne'^flaic^L 
 
 i oi ?i ;ri7'o Di r. l-o^:. ,'snoTW 5fxo jrfai^ 1:0 Join 
 
 «“,T.e> Xrrirni hL r d^jjo to io??aai 
 
 Jnofroynta \,:i<jz'n t' Tnif? ?03 na . o:^i?8a4i 
 
 DX:.i* . , 1 ? an o?c}i ? ,;.5 .vn^ o?i G«>-. aaw Ic-o erf? 
 
 rfoyn on i)e?nen6itt lijifli;; ixfV» ?:sW ’.r.jjLi4 ici:: inoi’t %nws 
 
 rf'jifft or: an.? oion? ;8e*.u;:. I 0 rfaloi erf? c»? ^.•ii'taoo 
 
 o:f -^rf.t .^6'i^ lae^ a nirf?]?. ?nrf .ehci^ -^d 0 ? aoi 
 
 . u. tij.'i? eXiixa I>it tjrf nsr:?lrfTT \o a:siol?iio eirf oJoiw 
 
 . oTi/Joie? » f lo 1'lolt erf? n; ^on aaw {i'joao nit? jbfia 
 X 
 
 Jbni'. ► ./. aneitoia ^0 aJrf nl 
 
 . noi?3td ertT ; .bne j X 3 ^ ? :• ' i t n O lo welvc/i jben^io./ ' .1 
 
 .coUl ,IS leon-ooed 
 
45 
 
 a moralist* He demanded philosophy in the author so 
 that humanity might be uplifted by his productions. 
 
 "Mr. Dickens is a great observer and a great 
 humorist, but he is nothing of a philosopher. Some 
 people may hereupon say, so much the better; we say, so 
 much the worse. For a novelist very soon has need of 
 a little philosophy. A story based upon those ele- 
 
 mentary passions, in which alone we seek the true and 
 final manifestation of character, must be told in a 
 spirit of intellectual superiority to thd>se passions. 
 That is, the author must understand what he is talking 
 about. The perusal of a story so told ifl one of the 
 most elevating experiences within the reach of the 
 human mind. The perusal of a story which is not so 
 told is infinitely depressing.. and unprofitable." 
 
 James's attitude towards Anthony Trollope was 
 
 one of condescending toleration. This quotation from 
 
 a review of The Bolton Estate is typical of his treat- 
 1 
 
 ment . 
 
 "We do not make these remarks in a tone of cora- 
 
 1. Unsigned review. 
 
 The nation, January 18, 1866. 
 
r 
 
 r 
 
 f 
 
 ( 
 
 1 • 
 
 I 
 
 V. 4 ^ 
 
 • V?} 
 
 i 
 
 - - 
 
 08i nX \;r{qo3oXifiq f>ei>flatceJb &H 
 
 ..'r-v' 
 
 .J-aXIaioB a ^ 
 
 anol:yoo60"tq alii >5(1 i>©l^ilqxi ed.;lif9lm «^lnaci0ii 
 
 l^a©*;^ a bna i»%'tosdo s sX saejloicr , 
 
 emoS .-reilqoa'3Xi.4dq a yjlxfi’on aX '«il .Xalioaiurf 
 
 o& ow ©iff jfoOfB 08 t'^a» floqi/oiod qan elqqeq 
 
 
 1:0 Xo9f! 9«if xioba qie« :rallovofl -oeiow erfX Aoamf^ 
 
 -oXe eaoil? coqjtr ataat^ yfio^s "A — .^rfqoaoXInq eXXtlX a 
 
 <? » 
 
 fcna ©Jiitd ocHf ie^e ow »i:ioJa doliftr ni .anoXaaaq ci^Nl 
 
 Q nl J6Xoi ocf tQut« ,*xdJwmlo lo xsolX«^a©lixj«in faaXl 
 
 
 anoXdasq eadrf^ oS ^^liol'xaqjoa Xi^JicroelXeXiiX XXiXqs 
 
 e> 
 
 Snla£Iad' aX erf Jartw dnatatobiitj’ doiiro lorftoa »rf#^ ,aX JailT 
 
 
 exfX lo occ al Mot oe ‘ciote a io Xasifioq od!? ,» .tooda 
 
 A. . 
 
 . :f 
 
 fdt !to cfoaoT exit nXdtiw eeocoXneqxq i^alf&rale taoa 
 oe ton iii doXffw \^tota a Xaao’xoq #x(f ..Hixiiw fiafflod 
 
 ’ [f 
 
 "" .©Xdatxitoiq^ bn?. 3^sa©iq«b ^Xetlnilnl «1 J&Xot 
 
 t %r .iW'« . 
 
 8rtw aqoXXoTc'I? v^orftnA ab'snwot obutltJa e'^aamai; 
 
 Motit nplXatono alxTT »noXta'r©Xot gnlXn&oeebnoo to 
 
 -teait aiif to Xablq'xt aX notXeS erit to woXvei 
 
 .tnoni 
 
 -me O' to enot b nl ajf'rame't eaarft e^Uffl ton ob eW” 
 
 — 
 
 t ^ 
 
 U^J. . aHS ' M 
 
 • ddar ,01 x"^mJTijk% .nolteH edT .woXyot benglentJ 
 
 m 
 
 ^ ’■/■ /■'/ 
 5 
 
 
 xfV 
 
 •^ar rjw $$ 
 
 ■ . 
 
 ti , 
 
 
46 
 
 plaint. Mr. Trollope has been before the public long 
 enough to have enabled it to take his measure. We 
 do not open his books with the expectation of being 
 thrilled, or convinced, or deeply moved in any way, and, 
 accordingly, when we find one to bo as flat as a Dutch 
 landscape, we remind ourselves that we have wittingly 
 tralrelled into Holland, and that we have no right to 
 abuse the scenery for being in character." This is 
 neither moralism nor aestheticism; it is ennui . 
 
 Another aesthetic review of the same sort as 
 
 that of Whitman's Drum Taps is James's review of Swin- 
 
 1 
 
 burne's Chastelard . The poem is objectionable to 
 James because it lacks the form which is essential to 
 good poetry. Here again we have the aesthetic demand 
 for form and symmetry. 
 
 "A dramatic work without design is a monstros- 
 ity. We may rudely convey our impression of Chaste- 
 lard by saying that it has no backbone." 
 
 The characteristics of the English nation as 
 
 1. Unsigned review. The Hation, January 18, 1866. 
 
If. 
 
 
 
 >^*Tayrrti' 
 
 
 
 ''■ f',*# 
 
 fe fc* - - 
 
 nt 
 
 
 - ‘ ^.. 
 
 ^ # 
 
 V 
 
 yiol oiXdirq &dT eio'tecf hood S£id efoXIoiT .tK •i/UBSq 
 
 S ■ 
 
 oK .eiosijon! old osiat ocf JJt i>dXdaQr od" ^30000 
 
 ' 3fiierf xo nol:t^itoqzb orf^ riiTiir aafoocf’'8irf noflo toa^ob 
 .bciB <icfl nJt bovoa 10 .^^onirhoo 10 
 
 >i , t? 
 
 hoiuKl a aa otf ot «ao i)flXi-8w aadw ,^l3iiiAit08oa4 
 
 mti 
 
 ^X^niT^iit Bvarf aw J'aeii' a«vl 69 txjo baXmnx oyt ,oqaoBAafli ^ 
 
 
 
 ox Xri^XT oa oTarf ew xaifx Jbfts ^iJXialloH oxni baXIofaiX 
 
 H V 
 
 «X girfT ** ,*io)6kiiido ni ^oitcT Tt^ieodoa. eifX odocfa' 
 
 j* ^ . ' 'll 
 
 * ; 0 aioiXa:fXa©a ion roalXaioa iftSxioa 
 
 I ; ■ ^ 
 
 B« X^oa amas orfx Xo wcirei qXXwdXao# lerfXoaA, < J' 
 
 ' -fliwfi Xo wwiv^i a‘3©Bsal »1 sa-^T :ctuia «*naioXicfW io Xisifx' 
 
 T i 
 
 J..-JI " * “ • 
 
 ox oXaanoiXow^cfo ai t2«oq ®r(T*^ « &iaZaXa[flrf ^ b* ecvia4 
 
 ox XaXXnc/aa® ai iXbia'w OToi erfX aatoal XX oavnoetf eeaunT* 
 
 
 oXXodXawij arfx ©rarf ®w 0X03^ oieH .\;iXooq 5003 
 
 * ^ I • .^iXBosn^a baa artolfc io^ 
 -aonXanoffl a ei 113X8 Xifo 4 XXw dZiow oXXanaifi A” t /M 
 
 ta T X; 
 
 -wXafutO IL0 floXaabiqrni 100 ^ovnoo ^dli>0i 0% g r^^cXX | 
 
 
 •* .enocf^oBcf oa aaif Xi XarfX ^aX^aa ^ccf f>iaX * 
 
 
 «a nolXaa rfaXX^nA otfX lo-iabixaiiaXoaiado #47 j| - j j 
 
 I !'ii 
 
 
 teipir 
 
 .363rX ,8,f *5i^nJBli^',cioXXBJl oiJT .w©Xtot ^®n 3 i 8 nU .X 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 '.fl 
 
 kw-aieswrrip 
 
 T i' i » *‘ .<m jj] i j r 
 
 '• S ' y. 9 j 
 
47 
 
 Shown in Hereward^the Last of the Enp:lish appealed 
 strongly to James. In a review in The Nation January 
 25, 1866, he said that Hereward was a masterpiece and 
 Kingsley a genius. 
 
 "Hereward is a masterpiece. We have never 
 been partial to Mr. Kingsley's arrogance, his shallow- 
 ness, his sanctified prejudices; but we have never 
 
 doubted that he is a man of genius. By as much as 
 
 he is insufferable when he dogmatizes like a schoolboy 
 upon the characteristics of his nation, by so much is 
 he admirable and delightful when he unconsciously ex- 
 presses them." 
 
 The Nation of February 1, 1866, we find 
 James treating a "Sunday" book very respectfully; but 
 before the end of his review he lapses into a banter- 
 ing style which shows some change from his former un- 
 compromising, unsmiling moralism. 
 
 "Little girls, we suppose, will read it and 
 like it, and for a few days strive to emulate Grace 
 Leigh. But they will eventually relax their spirit- 
 ual sinews, we trust, and be good once more in a fash- 
 
 1 
 
 ion less formidable to their unregenerate elders." 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Mrs. E. R. Charles's Wi nifred 
 Bertram. 
 
K 
 
 i. 
 
 :i ■ 
 
 i 
 
 
 ii>li>iinp« iiii'iii jTJiitMBfc 
 
 29 
 
 m 
 
 
 - - 
 
 £)DiBeqqa riaiXyai srij- ic xapjC. y^J'.lHin-veTca ni nwoxfs 
 
 \ ■ /r ., 1 >• ’m* 
 
 $41^ ni imlvcA ^ al ot- icXsnon^a ' 
 
 
 f>rta a SBW 6xi^yoag»H ftiaa -aii ,3d0X 
 
 ^ .B'ijino:^ £ ^eis^niX > 
 
 T07©ft?^evjad eW .ooeiq*ierfo«j' s' al ^iswsi©H* 
 
 TO *' 
 
 -TOOfiaite aM , oons^o-rts .nl-! oJ Isid’-rsq naatf . 
 
 naven evaxf ©y ^rad :89©ifjyt. ®tQ helliitoass aid ,aa®a^ **.4! 
 
 
 aa rfciifli as — .ajin®^ to asm ^ 81 arf ^e^dxJOJCi e>l^ 
 
 ' ^ S . ; 
 
 ‘v;orfXooxfo9 a sjilX aesiifarasot «d sarfw ©Xcfana'ilaaOT el ed 
 
 
 '-■ <• 
 
 ei rfosrtj 08 ■^d ,noi;^0n al*-( lo «oil 8 ino;rosiaxlo aii^ noqa 
 
 . ft.1 ^ i 
 
 -re ^lawoloanoono a.i norfw Xx/!!:dd?jlXsJ& Jbna eXdailffli)a ed , 
 
 • #>• • w • - ^ 
 
 
 .J . _jLi 
 
 ^ , ”.flierft aesaeiff 
 
 ’ B 
 
 
 i'W 
 
 « 
 
 ©w ,oO&I »X ^jisnicfoS la fftol;^stt od? nl 
 
 ji^Xfflltooqeon tjtov stood o aemal 
 
 -•r^trnBd s oJTnl aesqai erf wolven atif lo 6ce eii^ eioled 
 
 K 
 
 -na •xoiBiol aid iroil e^nado eino<a awoda rtolrfw eX^jd'a ^ni 
 
 .meiXaiOffi ^filXliffemj ,;^leiinoiqnoo 
 
 &03 i'i Ikset XXlw .eaoqqas ©y ,aXiig 
 
 eosTm) ed'sXams evli^s B%ab vt\ a iol Ana ,1-i edlX^ 
 
 m 
 
 -tltlqa ilerid xsXei ^/Xsatoov© XXlw ^©d^ ^*aa -d^loX 
 
 -dasl a nl eioio eono Jboo^j ©d Jwfsa »J'8a*£d^ ew .awenla'Isa 
 X .. „ '■ --' - • 
 
 '*.8706X0 od/jioiio^a^na ^ledl oi' ©Xds^lciTOl aaeX.flfil 
 
 •*"' ■ ’ " — Ill ' ii (^ ---. ... ,i,w' 
 
 ' r*' 
 
 iSTUnl li a'eeXtsdD -K .a .87li lo woiTei den^laay .X . 
 
 ~ mil ''' 
 
 
- 48 - 
 
 It is somewhat a relief to the student of 
 James to observe the change from the original unsmil- 
 ing championship of the "Sunday books" in The SchOn- 
 berg-Cotta Family . He is none the less moral, but 
 he has found his sense of humor. 
 
 James published two reviews in Tha Hat ion 
 in the issue of February 22, 1866. The first; a re- 
 view of Mrs. Gaskell's Wives and Daughters , praises 
 the author for making the story so real to the reader. 
 
 He says it is powerful, delicate, humorous, and pathetic. 
 The other is a review of Henry D. Sedley's Marian Rooke , 
 and in it James defends his country from the attack of 
 an unsympathetic American. 
 
 "So divinely disinterested a hostility was 
 never inspired by a mere interest in abstract truth. 
 
 A tour of the United States in midwinter, with a fatal 
 succession of bad hotels, exorbitant hack-drivers, im- 
 pertinent steamboat clerks, thankless female fellow- 
 travellers, and terrific railway collisions, might 
 possibly create in a generous British bosom a certain 
 
- | -y# I i iiro 
 
 I 
 
 
 - 8> - . ... •'u ^ 
 
 ^ .0 -J . 
 
 'to tuii OJ a 
 
 'litet/ui Xiiiii-^tncj sd^ moil a^fr»td»t) •>fi1'^QS^p94o“^ot ftoin^ 
 -^tjnr!o8 atlT ni **3ifa>od ed^ lo qlrfaxtoi^roado ^ni 
 
 ?a«f ,X/now earaf ad^ &non nt oH 
 
 
 ‘■iv; 
 ■:’.k i 
 
 
 
 • toaati lo 9«jA^a ei4 t>nxiol ajad 9dJ 
 
 ■ '^ .' m *JT' 
 
 
 •■'■« . ■ '_•> a 
 
 . - < 
 
 r xoiTigt, ai awelyvrf or*'=J>a*{£XIdqQ raaraaCi i>< 
 
 '.1 
 
 .-1 
 
 '' 1 I*! 
 
 ,;y, -41 A f Sa’ii'l aX!? .di^fiX ,SS to oi!084 Hi &■> }^' 
 
 E ,' .'• .. 
 
 aaala'iii ,t rae>tdv;^g aav^i e^’IXejCaa^) Id woiv g»u 
 
 0d'3 e> X«oi oa \;io^3 oii^ BtUSism iol lodi’Oi) oritf' ’ 'j » 
 
 ■ '■ , ' - -i’ '‘' ^ t i -i 
 
 .oi;todii5fi Iwra rSi^oiosiatf . o^aoJ^XaJ^ , loiidwo^ ei av#a> oH 
 
 B’^XfteS .a ^1/xaH xV waivai b al xosita odt' filg 
 
 ) :"■ ■ 
 
 to vfostfta >odj moit v*i;^awe?o tid a^netoj^ aaoial ;M^al baa / 
 
 -' ^ .naoXiamA o,^^ei{^aq«^8n«n^ 
 
 i^lXltegd a ijeiao'toJniait -zXeatTiXj 06 " 
 
 .dsaxf ^osnytads ttJL '{feef tJal 010 a a t>aiiqaAX xevajn 
 
 I • I 
 
 ^ ditivif , tosraXwfcXci of ee;ta^8 ba^Iatj'adS to iao^ A 
 
 ' • . ' • y. 
 
 -ftti ,8i0yXif>-}ioaif ?fiBirXtriox 0 ,aX»^orf tad to noXeeoooua 
 
 f ^ ' ’ »' r V 
 
 , -wrcXXot aXimet aaoX:jifujd^ .sjfioXo XAOtfnusi^o ^naxiiJ^iaq 
 
 %iswSitn onxtie^ bap .BiaXXeraitf 
 
 I ju ' k 
 
 Q flioaOd. rfa fifXiG axioiano;^ « a1 oSbbxo '^Xtfiaeoq 
 
 _ X 
 
 .;lfr'k^^:JFKd * -T 
 
 H~ J '*"» ' . T t ' 
 
- 49 
 
 lusty personal antipathy to our unmannerly democracy, 
 a vehement and honest expression of which could not 
 fail to make a chapter of picturesque and profitable 
 reading. But it takes an emancipated, a disfran- 
 chised, an outlawed, or, if you please, a disappoint- 
 ed American to wish us to believe that he detests us 
 simply on theory.” 
 
 One wonders whether in this passage James was 
 not giving his charitable view of American Notes and 
 the American parts of Martin Chuzzlewit . 
 
 The next work of James shows again that he 
 had not yet departed from the School of Morals in crit- 
 icism. There is an interesting comparison of Miss 
 
 Braddon, whom he had recently attacked, with Mrs. D. 
 
 1 
 
 M. Muloch Craik. Still, one can see in this review 
 
 that James was not at all blind to the appeal of the 
 less moral of the two writers. 
 
 "There is something almost awful in the 
 thought of a writer undertaking to give a detailed 
 picture of the actions of a perfectly virtuous being. 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Mrs. Craik' s A Iloble Life ; 
 Nation, March 1, 1866. 
 
 The 
 
W: 
 
 
 
 . - ^> - 
 
 ♦ 'Co«'Xs*ofnVft *txjo 0 ? Ximoateq ^^siiX 
 
 rfon i4l.#oo ,loi<iV to «oi«a*-xqx.p ^v^QeaoSnBaX^xiettefldv S' 
 T»r(iii^no'ii| t)£ia B s^m oi Xi«t 
 
 -natt|Jd a .AatfaqIofjafiJe tta' oa>U«r iSS .^Xfeaoi K 
 B^,9A0^lq BC-; ti aa ’'.fioaldp . . 
 
 93 H7sair#i> BvaXXa<( i»i»/ fl/iOliewA. I»e 
 
 ■ . .\'l » ir- ■"•’^Tcoe/i^ jioX-^^mta 
 
 »ow aa<ra-« o^»s^q elrfjf ni Qia:&xiow pgO ^ 
 
 _ iscjs mApyi to waXv oXdsiX’iAdc. aZri ..aaiyXsTJoc 
 
 toXjri4ij. ftiioltafA edy 
 
 :s5 
 
 .V ‘ ’/ 
 
 oS Bwoj<a ae;aa^ to %zpW^:x9ti w(T 
 
 
 
 -XiiO al j|Ja?vi^ l3 XoQrfog p£f^ noTt i>oa '**y 
 
 .ttfiK lo coal^/vqkoo g/viasb'ie^’iji 114 sZ eTorf® .maZol ^ 
 
 • C .alls efjiw , ftaiCsa^d^a <Zi/At*P9i' 6iid ed aiodw .aob^aifi' 
 etld& mt fl®a hj*o »fto .aTZsiO i-(o«>Xj9li .U 
 
 erfj to Iaaq<[4 edt JbiiXXtf lis Jjb 
 
 i'^^i ' ^ ' *B-x»#iiw Olif tn^r-io iBiPm aaoX 
 
 arU Al X0tWB ^ttPiBXa ^lA;^a«oa al o^aS!P*< ^ 
 
 belX^.tBb B ©vl^ 0^^ ^nijfBtTobfUf *r©;^iTir « to.,Xcf^off^ 
 
 ■y * ' 
 
 »^/U©ii ■Mioif^’ity ^-Cd^ofelieq b to ©Aoltoa ©rfd" to ©ut/tfoiq ' 
 
 ^ \sm — :% 
 
 4 B’jCiS'tO .aijdl ta irolvo-x b©nsl8o0 »X 
 
 .aaei ,x ioiasi ^Aoitaa 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■**«■ ' j -yi( ( *»»yi* j <i»g? ■ ■ m 
 
50 
 
 Miss Muloch is kindly, somewhat dull, pious, and 
 
 very sentimantal she has both the virtues and the 
 
 defects which are covered by the untranslatable French 
 word, honnete * Miss Braddon is brilliant, ingenious, 
 and destitute of a ray of sentiment; and we would never 
 dream of calling her honn^te . And, as matters stand at 
 present, to say that we prefer the sentimental school 
 to the other, is simply to say that we prefer virtue to 
 vice. " 
 
 Sven more moral is James's discussion of a 
 
 1 
 
 translation of the works of Epictetus. He says that 
 in the ordinary acceptance of the philosophy the taint 
 of Epictetus is the taint of slavery, but that there is 
 a way in which he can be approached to some advantage. 
 
 "That no gain can make up for the loss of 
 
 virtue is an old story, but Epictetus makes it new*- 
 
 This is good Stoicism; and to bear it well in mind is 
 neither more nor less, for us moderns, than to apply 
 Epictetus. " 
 
 Two other reviews come before that one in 
 which the change in James from the moralist to the 
 
 1. Unsigned review of Thomas Wehtworth Higginson's 
 edition of The Works of Epictetus ; The North American 
 Review, April 1866. 
 
i 
 
 t 
 
 ' 
 
 ' 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 m ::m mm' 
 
 Aik^ I «||%| ■ 
 
 '’'ii 
 ■ ,''■ .ij 
 
 
 'W 
 
 y* 
 
 - oa - 
 
 haa ,9Uo,}^ .IXi^b 0aiiw6troa ,vj;jbiii:C aJt rfooI.jjM aail9 
 
 nHt hoB ditQd sad oita-^-.-Iatf'flawi^naa^ %tsv 
 
 eia«^dXafi*Ji^i 3 w «> 4 ? JEiaievt^o eta doltim 83 ^ 1 ®^ 
 
 raxI,oiii 8 ^fi^ f^ASlIXiTd al asiU * " » o 3 .J^tcott 
 
 toV**v bXif^w &w ■‘biia le ,;a*x a to o^;Df^it0O& ^xia 
 
 3-a AxioUfi ateJiTaw «a . ’ . o?4iiflo/f ^erf 3 aliX«o to maoii 
 
 loodna Xa^48fiU:tao8 afix TOtOT<X 'nW Xartd y|aa oX .inoaotq ^ 
 
 V ' ^ ■ ’ '■ "*>)p^ 
 
 ot owXliv -latatq «w Xoxli i;ao o;^ t^qaia ei: ,Toifxo orfx b> «> ' ' 
 
 
 riDlsaiioaiA ^^aeioat el Xatofti' etow aovH 
 
 / ^ 
 
 ' 1 
 
 XarfX oft .SiiXtf^oiqJi.to ®d(x to nolXji^eflai«t 
 
 i> 
 
 f(ria’X oij %Ji(^03o£ld^ to ^’OnaXiovojs^ erfX cJt 
 aii Xa.f^ Xi/a- to edJ aX aaXeXolqfi to 
 
 .6‘5joXaeTAa tofs oX Aodo^oiqi^a otf oao •»ri doldw tit a. 
 
 to - 680 X ’erfX tot fid 0d9fP‘ n»o on XariT'’ ** 
 
 — -.won Xi ;r'usf ,^:^oXo Afo aa a I ouXiiv 
 
 Hi ta.lm ol rc%w Ji. x&od OX :‘Oa ;ffl®ioioX8 Aooa al^tirfT, 
 
 ; !‘--a I • 
 
 oX Aadx , ,'J{J^^0olCl fid •sot_,oa©i ion eiooj idrfXJten 
 
 N I 
 
 ^ ".aBJMofcr _ 
 
 = '(i«£ M 
 
 Jtt nao XOitX ototsO 9cftoo s^eXvoi leriXo owT* Xff 
 
 orfX oX laoit oas^l« ci- t^nMo oifx rfotlifjf ' 
 
 .>Miii •>- 
 
 •| » 
 
 ) rl." 
 
 
 
 4»’^3X.X4a-iH rfXio^^XjftoW aaworfT to ^tatrart iBo^lentl .X » 
 
 aaoiieaiA rfxioH ad? : pij;tBtrJaa npltXbo 
 
 .SoSx /w 8 l 7 aH 
 
 
 "a WM igg ^* -gr q^a » 
 
 t ' i 
 
 
 
- 51 - 
 
 aesthete may be judged complete. Between the time 
 he published his review of Brum Taps and the time 
 when he showed unmistakably that the last trench had 
 been won by the aesthetes and moralism had been given 
 up, James shifts from one side to the other, depending 
 upon the subject matter of the various books he review- 
 ed. But there had been no conflict on the question 
 of right and wrong. His aestheticism was still of 
 the sort that is quite consistent with morality. The 
 change will be easily discernible. 
 
 The two essays which come before the change 
 are more or less unimportant; they add little or nothing 
 to our investigation. One is a review of Victor Hugo's 
 Les Travailleurs de la Mer in which he compliments Hugo 
 in general but remarks upon a decline in his abilities. 
 The other is a review of George Eliot's Felix Holt, the 
 Radical . He says that the merits of the book are 
 
 immense, but that there are examples of compromise in 
 
 1 
 
 it which reduce its value as a work of art. 
 
 1. Victor Hugo's Last Novel ; Unsigned review. The 
 Nation, April 12, 1866. 
 
 George Eliot's Felix Holt, the Radical ; Unsigned review. 
 The Nation, August 16, 1866. 
 

 I 
 
 ■ r i . C i . j T juak j . - ji. v i 
 
 I 
 
 r . • 
 
 iK 
 
 W '!*■■ 
 
 ,1 ■ ' 
 
 r’ V 
 
 
 &8SLi no#ivtoS 
 
 
 ► c»d \;ao 
 
 di? fwt wo i 701 »ii- 
 
 * 5r.1 
 
 6jirf 4toa4ijr er(;f jsftfasto-Qtxiuii/ |)e‘9^a<f8 oj xieflir 
 
 c^Vx§ ij^rl (C18 klaxon 4xSf3i srfif now Qtod 
 
 iT^K^o ajiie ^no moil: eiTlrlda a^mati .qj» 
 
 «^o<f st;oZ»r*iv to do©t<to0 ©dtf noqa 
 
 rt''* 
 
 1 j 
 
 col? 3 oa|» oHd 110 Joillxjo^ oa- iwv^tl tjofl eie 47 Jad 
 to rri/8 meioicTad^'aoa ttifi 
 orf£ 
 
 .?^ao-sw 6 fia ^dnJt:i la 
 
 '.Vi - 
 
 rtdi^ (fffflJ^olBiiOo otXxip 3 i .'Tisrij' IndaLlsd^ 
 
 *•- ^ .'^' 
 
 .©Idlaiiijoeia ^IXsb% ad XXiw a^aado 
 ai;otAd igiBo^ dolitw 
 
 Or ' 
 
 10 9l3ifJ:t dfia 4 ®itd ;d^aa^io^saiiia ae©X to etooi ©t« 
 
 o’oj^? todoiV to w«iv#t, ij ej^ ,«nO^' tao od ,.,^' 
 
 oj^r^ odrts»iBlX<i«oo #ji doldw ni t ell jX ©i?, a tirol ^lavatg 
 
 aid ai anlXosii a aov^ii aaltaioet datf Xateae^ ai 
 t£lX — t-t.X<|Jif giXa*^ a’^oIXSf’ a^toeO -Ip waivat m ai tadlo odil! ,' 
 
 f " *■ ' ■ 
 
 ©te .'XoPd ©d^ to ajtitoai odd tf'ad^'a^aa ©H . ' ic 
 
 qX ^^aitnotqooo to ao/qsucta ©•x© ©larfa ^ad^'^dxrd .©BnamiUh’ 
 
 • 3-to to dtpw a 3ft osiX^v e/1 ©oadfet doidwj^i a 
 
 
 ,<!*■ 
 
 ■■vap 
 
 
 
 .w«jT*T 6 *ij,ieua 6 rX 8 y<?g ja^ia’oyH ,_i 
 
 . , ' «" ,. ^ »d 33 X ,Sx i:tqA .aolJalt 
 
 wslvet fiiin^UnC ; X,is tb Ba cut} .yXoflj^fol ■i’ . »oiiK o 
 
 “ ,noi^« 
 
 
 • ip'yj v»f 
 
 4\4 ,, 
 
 
 nr'- 
 
 * -V. 
 
 . ti ‘ ( 
 
 —1 
 
5E 
 
 I have mentioned the aesthetic approach to 
 Christianity, an approach which is usually found in 
 connection with Catholicism rather that with Protest- 
 antism because of the many aesthetic appeals in the 
 Catholic faith and rituals. The next two examples 
 from James's reviews are an interesting study because 
 the first shows nothing of the aesthetic, while the 
 second, which is about the same author, reveals the 
 aesthetic reaction to Catholicism. 
 
 The aesthetic turn to Catholicism be^an in the 
 nineteenth century with Chateaubriand. In 1802 Chateau- 
 briand attempted to bring about a Catholic reaction in 
 the atheistical age of Kapoleon and Voltaire. The ap- 
 peal was made to the historical nationalists. The sub- 
 stance of his argument was that Catholicism lends itself 
 marvellously to effusions of soul. It is a mistaken 
 notion that Catholicism is barbarous, he said, that it 
 is of the Middle Ages, that it retards civilization. 
 
 What we ought to do is prove that the Christian religion 
 is the most poetic, the most human of all religions. The 
 modern world owes everything to it. It is as poetic as 
 paganism. Chateaubriand compared Hades with Hell, gods 
 with angels, for the beauty of the legends surrounding 
 
o? jaeA ©tta trarf I 
 
 ^ . 4^ >> ^X^awfoJ 0£ rfoi/(w 4oao^qq^ ti a ,^ ^iaal^aizriO 
 
 -J3fv0t«" xart^nr mialXr^it&O a'tflw^ol^odiuioo 
 
 »4»* 4' i BXaa^qa %am »dt .to, esjjaaad inaX^aa 
 
 r > ■ - S ■ - , 
 
 'JAjtlffltfT.e ow^ txaa &iif -aSAoJit baa difiat oJlXo4#ap 
 
 ' ' ^ ‘ . i'4 ■ ' " 
 
 •fl«aoa4 a^iitaatetai r-B a^'asvmati moil 
 
 ar.j aliiiw , oitoJJaaa ex£4 to 7»/j244oa awcrfe ?ailt »4;j 
 - *0 ' - , . *"■ 
 
 ♦flj 8 Xa**V 0 T .tOfifOB ejBoe >d^ taoda aJt ifoX4w ,l>aoood 
 
 • 1 •iJJSloilorfJ’aO .03 nclfdaa^ oiSajdiB&a 
 
 9dJ Jti flawed maloilodftO cit aia:t oXtadfaaa edT ' 
 
 - ■ ' ' ' ■ j| . . 
 
 ■aacdadr) ^nf al .5ixaX j4oe»3iSA'0 dtlw 43iiea3B£^n 
 
 ni uQld^BbX dlXoddaO a 3poda gn/Kjf o4 fcaJqcja^Ja ^nalitf 
 
 , i' ' ‘ , 
 
 -qa ©fft .aiiaiXoV afiA ixo4)I<^.iaH to o:h« X4oi;faie43a od;f 
 -dua ftrfT •a^atijoiolioa tavi^^taid adt oi atsuo «aw Xaaa 
 tX»a31 Bbnui amiifXXoddaO iadd eaw 3Qd;rur^ia etd to eotiaVd \ 
 ao^Afsla a ciX ji *Xuoa to anoiaatto ot ^iiWoXXevtaic ^ 
 di x»i(t ,1103 ad ,avor 0 drad al «axoixo5'jfa0 dadf ctoldoa 
 
 r- 
 
 .aolitaalXivio abtaSit; :U djufJ .ao;^ eX62>iK %43 tp al 
 aol^lXot aai3eiiX& 3a4^ avoTiq; al oJb o3 ^ilyi/o ow ladf 
 adV tfSaolgllai XXa to a&mj. dsoa axfl ,ol;^ooq Ioobi al 
 
 ‘ I 
 
 ea olOaoq. aa 5l *4i ol ■finl44^*rovo aawo bXiow maJ&dfB 
 
 dl in as/a^H Jbdiaqffiiod i^alrufDiaata4iO «iQ0ina^aq 
 SflU^iWOTii/o axiia^oX add to add lolt ,8Xesaa 441 r 
 
53 
 
 1 
 
 them. 
 
 In 1863 Renan wrote about the same aspect of 
 2 
 
 Catholicism. He was a skeptic. He had lost faith 
 in revealed religion, but ho had preserved his delight 
 in the aesthetic aspects of Christianity. He felt 
 that the highest praise for Jesus v/as that he satisfied 
 the aesthetic sense. Seligion, with Renan, had taken 
 refuge in the senses and had become an attribute of lit- 
 erary aesthetic enjoyment. 
 
 This attitude toward Christianity has become 
 widespread since Renan's time. An example of the fail- 
 ure to distinguish between religion and aesthetic re- 
 ligiosity is-seen in William Hosier's book. The Promise 
 of the Christ Age in Recent Literature , published in 
 1912. Another example, which I have already mentioned, 
 is Oscar Wilde's D e Profundis , published in 1905. Wilde 
 says his epicureanism led him to the feet of Christ. De 
 Profundis is filled with a delicate aesthetic apprecia- 
 tion of Christ, after the manner of Renan. 
 
 In The Ration of December 14, 1865, James re- 
 views Eugenie de Guerin's Journal , which had just been 
 
 1. Chateaubriand: Genie de Christianism. 1802. 
 
 2. Renan: Life of Jesus. 1863. 
 
^ •. -WrtW n - i ^ A 
 
 ' >, , ■’ • 
 
 •*-#■*•* ^ - « . .i - i^ ' . iM r I li V i i^„r , v h jj t 4 4^si\r >i 
 
 V I 
 
 !» 
 
 - ee . 
 
 ,> 
 
 . * * , 
 
 «fj 
 
 . '■; 
 
 
 
 to ^^-OTW o«noK Sd8X ol 
 
 9 
 
 iUtaf <f«or ftjj ‘ a •mQlotXosli^aO" 
 
 jSs 
 
 aM fiovTa^eT't^*^ ad ,aolSJtiei boXaovei «X 
 
 
 ^tiXTfdLO at&o^Sia oi^torlifs®® o4i oX 
 
 N 
 
 bdttHUaa erf J^urf^ s«>’ eaX^iiq’ tacrf^lrf erf:f ;farf«r 
 
 neaCr.^ ,n.^<j:erf ./’ol^^UeS' .asnea olcTeriir-ieA erf^ 
 
 I 
 
 -ifiX ^0 aa eiioearf duirf j&cte ®rfi aX e^lQ*! ? 
 
 ^ 
 
 T •yii«j5irv;otflo oi^erf^eea 
 
 eiif0r#9rf aerf »r3‘j'/iet^4iiTrfO biewc;^ eJbjCi5W;^a eirft, * , , . <{ 
 
 
 
 “* 1 1 al ? “^0 ^J^CTa-T^ n 4 •voilS epaia l>ai>ii;i^ 0 ei^iw 
 
 'iL 
 
 0 -‘I 
 
 -oT iylf$d^9eM bha no Jt^iX 91 tiBtwfod rfaXxijiaitail) ot euir 
 . "■ ■•• . ® ' ■ v;, 
 
 .-Sof-a o' teieel! jofiUrxir (si r.eaa,«l >jnsox^X 
 
 .li fcorfhfXatr^i . ftTutf^ToXtU cfgfrooliX ni & ^ :-->x -;rfo 
 
 .boaol^fipr. ;^a-v*ifai i ifolXv/ .oX^diaJir;® torf^foflA .SX€X 
 
 .5CQX a 1 ftarfatXrfi^q , a i bxixf 'to B q a ••Ml v; -seoaO el S 
 
 .' 'A 
 
 l_ rft-T. 
 
 ^ .#eiirfO Ic loo'r oii^ pif miff JboX ojatni»e^ol<jo eirf - 
 
 'A • 
 
 -Alootqqa 0 it 9 /i^ 3 ji e^ilolXoA A rf^lir \eXXli 8 l 3 i/>AA% 0 lf- 
 
 =?: ./leae^ lo Vta«#sKr orf^ ,j'BiirfO lo* rrOlt 
 
 iv 
 
 -or a»! 0 ^l ,dd€l ,IX 10 dm oe^ ip noJt^ai: erfT nI 
 
 ' w 
 
 ■'IjSH 
 
 :^I 
 
 cot?rf ftarf rfolrfw ,X£Ai£ 0 l B’fiiieAC eJb 8 la©si/£ ewoiT , >^ , 
 
 ■ ^8X xrfO eb elJtofc i^rLQlirfi/e&^iiiiO ,1 * 
 
 ,■^- 
 
 t f *1 
 
 lo el^ :^pid^ .2 * 
 
 '•AvSi#' *i- ■*’*’ ^ ’^'■ 
 
 *.'■.' ■:<' 
 
 ’ - •y- 9 "' V -j ir MU ^ 
 
 i •* A 
 
 I 1 y ■ . ' i'* . 1 ' 
 
 /'/ 
 
 
54 
 
 published in English translation. There is in this 
 review nothing of the aesthetic. He compliments 
 the book more for its piety than for its style. 
 
 "Her style loses much in translation. It 
 is probable, however, that the book will be accepted 
 
 for its piety, Her peculiar merit is that, without 
 
 exaltation, enthusiasm, or ecstacy, quietly, steadily, 
 and naturally, she entertained the idea of the Divine 
 Goodness. " 
 
 Turning now to The Nation of September 15, 
 1866, we find James’s review of Eugenie de Guerin’s 
 Letters written from an entirely different point of 
 view. His recognition of the fact that a thing which 
 is "fundamentally repulsive" has "incidental charms" 
 is purely aesthetic. Ho delights in the aesthetic 
 aspects of this example of pure Catholicism much as 
 Renan would. 
 
 "So complete a spiritual submission, so com- 
 plete an intellectual self-stultification, would bo 
 revolting if there were a matter of choice. It is 
 because they are a matter of authority and hecessity, 
 things born to and implicitly accepted, that the reader 
 is able to put away his sense of their fundamental re- 
 pulsiveness sufficiently to allow him to appreciate 
 their incidental charms. It is the utter consistency 
 

 
 » _ . 
 
 dftU-^aii at Aodklldaq [i 
 
 oii^ 5 o 3 fli 4 Joi> weJfcyoT 
 
 . ' li' 
 
 * i 
 
 Pit 6 1 etofHJ 
 vUaC<ai^S4W’Oo ftH 
 
 s^i tol niirtiJ - <i Ttaotf p>dt 
 
 ■ tX* •neX^4Xa.\iJi;r fli d.o&ar eeaoX aX'cXa i«H** ^ 
 
 ' •-' , : *#'V' 
 
 ^»?a»ooa ad iXi« jfootf ©45 Ja4J ,:%Br9rtQif .©Xdadotq sX 
 ^ ■ 
 
 ^yodttw ex Xiieis TdlIi;»o©o aXX 
 
 y "tt^‘ 
 
 ,'^Aidesitv t^XifoXi;^ ,^Qei]^eo© to .meeXai^ddfoe ,noXXdwXA?ca 
 T'^ ftanlaXietn© ©4a ,^IXaT«5aa ftxxi 
 
 IT ’fp R«-- y..-v 
 
 « • f .*‘*i! ’ ^ _ 
 
 t * * ‘ V » 
 
 ■'li 
 
 • ir 
 
 f- » 
 
 ■|‘N 
 
 
 t^*X t©<iiE?oXcefi to jioXTgK exf^ ox voa '^aXozoJt * 
 
 Wi - ' 
 
 $*att»ii^ ©0 $lho^u:t to wolvai e'e^EeV j&ftXl ©W ,do3X 
 
 to Xetoq taatetlXft , ^X©i < 5 rve rtoJXltw 
 
 t(oX4w ^atHS a XadX Xoat oivX to floxxxa^oosi alH *v^lv 
 
 I «i t- * \ 
 
 ^SiQtetfo ia5fi©LXonX** eo4 '*avXsXjjT|&t ’^XX«i5n©flui0mi*t'* el 
 
 ai ci 85 ^ 4 ^iXox> ©K i.oii'odJeoe '^axiiq sX 
 
 feifi *** rfooffl sieXoXXodXaO o^nq, to o/qa»xo eid^ ,to ajoaqee^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 • AXiiOw Jianefl • 
 
 -®oo oe ,Jjoi88imda8 XeaXitl^a a «?#X^c»o oa" , 
 
 ’ 
 
 ed fiXi/ow ,aoid*«onitfju^a-lX©& Jau;^oaXXoJGi ne & 7 #Xq^ii J 
 
 • ooXodo to lot taw 3 oiew ot©dt tX ^itXoT©!x 
 
 N ^'.s V^. 
 
 aX XX 
 
 .^tXaeoooG X>na ■^tXiorftna to tettaiQ a ota ^edX ©Gdaoed 
 
 le&ast fdx jtedX ,^oXqeooa ’cXtXoXXqiajE fiaa oX^ otod sp^idX 
 
 :<'V> 
 
 -©t tXodt 
 
 to eanee Bid xbwb taq pt oXcfa ai; 
 
 0 tal 4 ip»iqqa ot wXd woXXa oX ixItnaXoittaa aa^iioyXaloq 
 
 ^OGfX»i«ftOo ZB'lJiJ ©fit fli tl .aanado XatnafiXonX •siedt '-■ 
 
 
 ’ "'. T iiig^ II j i iji L ,i )» .>» mi* ' Ju m I 
 
 t 
 
 M «'■ . 1 */ 1 / I • 
 
55 
 
 of Mile, de Guerin's faith, the uninterruptedness of 
 her spiritual subjection, that make them beautiful. 
 
 A question, a doubt, an act of will, the least shadow 
 
 of a claim to choice these things would instantly 
 
 break the charm, deprive the letters of their invalu- 
 able distinction, and transform them from a delightful 
 book into a merely readable one. That distinction 
 lies in the fact that they form a work of pure, unmit- 
 igated feeling . " 
 
 Here we have James the aesthete. His change 
 from the moralist school is complete. He stands be- 
 fore this example of complete subjection fearful lest 
 any move on the part of the subject to free herself 
 from a condition fundamentally repulsive may spoil 
 the aesthetic beauties of the incidental charms, as 
 a scientist might stand before some rare specimen of 
 butterfly he had pierced with a pin, fearful lest its 
 struggles to free itself should damage the beautiful 
 colors on the wings. The fact that James recognizes 
 that the spectacle is fundamentally repulsive only 
 adds to the repulsiveness of his own admiration. 
 
 But James was to give an even more startling 
 

 ■’f f 
 
 
 
 ■* V»iJ T »yi3 ■,.*^, 
 
 .4 * ‘^, ^ 
 
 " ** V <t»'^S 'li . 1 1*. Ki*] 
 
 W 
 
 7. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 'to asiof^^^^ia^iojo ,dsw^ a’aj^ioiJG fh tOJUU, to 
 
 ' *» .''fl * ' •' 
 
 roDjda 
 
 ^“00 xis (d^iCf^Oi) A ^noilAAup A 
 ^S^miBtaL biiiotr naoirti 039rt;^«->- 6piQ4t^ tt mX^io a to 
 
 “5> 
 
 ^tiXAynl 'io orf^ ^imtario trf^ :^9i}s. 
 
 *v- 
 
 a flOTt motfX aiiotanaiJ' fcna .rtoi^ofsiJeJli) oXda 
 
 •\ r.mQ Li on I lb ind'l .o«i) ©icfabeo-i tlotam o o^Toi jtoocf 
 
 V-- 
 
 o;^Affo mlH 
 
 -Jlmnz; ,oii/ ; to jCicour a otto\n^ct>^ii tMdr ioi^t niti^aJ; j»JtX 
 
 I , 
 
 " Aota^x: 
 
 ^ - ’'■ - 1 
 
 • d|on;t(iS0 0f[‘j %e>cu8C. oW aisH. ^ | 
 
 -3d 9JuUta oH .oioX*i«oo BJ fQQiiofi ,4Zilfai0f9 ^/tiraoit^ 
 
 > '■ / ’’ ^ 
 
 JoOi Istt'taot nolio3lflii3 ojoliiaosi to? #Xq[riaxo aldi »TOt 
 tloe^od oait oi ^ootOas to itaq oii) no ovoco 
 Xio^a im fvtaln^ai ^XXo^naraAftot^ci^lMoq o ma.tl 
 «fl ,«ttr*iA4o Xo;fa«67snX to eaivpa^d oiSudiQoa tdi 
 to M^Uo«|A 0 TA 1 ‘acoa aiotod Jboa^a Jif^lnj XsJtXaoXoa a 
 
 114 
 
 I'j 
 
 S};?f 
 
 rS 
 
 
 9?i ? 0 «X Xijtiaut .niqr a Aoo'te'Xfi bad ad xlttaiiad ‘ 
 
 IbtUuaad adi o^maJ> i>iao4B tXea^^ii o«.it od aaXsa^AtJe V 
 
 ^•;ji/fgoo*i Bernal doat orfT adi ao aioloo 
 
 /ty lax ii fiat xl I aiaooiabtxnt bX •loa^oaqa ^adi 
 •aottaitmba nwo 8X4 to ee»ondvXo'Xo^joi stfd aibba 
 mtiixnin e'loa aava na otXs o» baw aetnal 
 
 t 
 
 . , ■ 
 
 Jr ' 
 
 Elk'? 
 
 Iiti !?4'J ' A 
 
 i* ■• 
 
 W i »j 4 ■ 'Wi p e ' t» H M . 1 . -L J-,W ?I M i ti^ ‘ -i.i^IJt:j ' ,i) r 
 
 i« * 
 
56 
 
 example of his change to aestheticism and desertion 
 of the School of Morals , evidence in his writings 
 which concerns itself with matters more important 
 than literary judgments and amounts to moral turpitude. 
 
 I have shown how James changed from moralist 
 to aesthete, and when the change became apparent. In 
 order to show why it happened, I shall have to gO'^Tather 
 thoroughly into the history of events which took place 
 while James was writing the reviews which have been 
 discussed in these chapters, and the aesthetic influences 
 in the fields of art and literature which contributed to 
 the change . 
 
i 
 
 
 ■ ^'’'Z-% 
 
 , / - 
 
 7 ^ 
 
 « wr. 1 “* 
 
 
 . >,S' ^ 
 
 ' 4 : fai 
 
 - ad - 
 
 bn® dS^oXitfkild^sotk oJ" v^AAili) sJtxi '^0 oX(j[rn®jc® 
 a:^i;fXiv eirf nl eoiioi)iv9 , a ^^>TfoM Irta-X-o^^ &/{» l©!j 
 ^ns^-xo^ffii fliom 0 ie;T^jo» /fJiw tXaetfl, Bxnaoaoo d'oldw 
 • abo^lqrwu XaiOBj oi" acnutfomc hna oS^ett^bai cibA^ 
 
 ■■ -. '■> ' . V 
 
 * i ' ' V' 
 
 ^ * JalXaiOjO oioil f>o;^i.irfo aeiniiv wod r.worfa evaif I ' ' * 
 
 ni .^nataqq® »icao©d eiansrfo orf^ at)ifw bna od 
 
 ?*■ 
 
 Torfjfli OB dtf’ »vad XX^e I ,Aofl»qq«d worfa o^ loftto,, 
 
 &03fQ jCoo^ rfoirfw atnavo ^o ’^lodalit orfj o^ni ^cXrfBwoidrfd 
 
 
 need evoii xfoldw awoXvei erfl eaw aonsal eXixfw' 
 
 seoxiouX'^ni cX^odlaoia edjf iiiia la^o^qario^ asaify "ai bsaaiioaib 
 
 •& 
 
 0^ b9SiidXt3noo lioldw aijo^atedix bna di« lo aMei’t'arfj ,nX 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 PART I:- JAJ.ffiS'3 DESERTION OP THE SCHOOL OP MORALS 
 
 One of the influences which figured largely 
 in James's change to aestheticism was his early deser- 
 tion of the School of Morals . His aestheticism would 
 probably have developed without the added impetus of 
 this change; his early training and the aesthetic in- 
 fluences of art and literature which surrounded him in 
 his youth would probably have been sufficient, but 
 without this desertion of morality the change to aes- 
 theticism might have been considerably delayed. The 
 moral crisis, borught about by events which occurred 
 while he was writing his early critical reviews, left 
 him without a moral philosophic basis and pointed 
 directly towards aestheticism as a standard fbr actions. 
 This fact may be brought out by a consideration of the 
 historical events which occurred between 1865 and 1868 
 and James's reaction to these events. 
 
 Miss Rebecca West declares that an injury which 
 Henry James sustained in 1861 while assisting in putting 
 
y; ' ■ 
 
 « * » 
 
 ■ ■' i1 
 
 ♦ '*>< 1 1 . 
 
 i!k't In, 
 
 
 IV s:mA2(y 
 
 ’ * i i- 
 
 ^0 aaoH^a «K) aoi?aa^ s'sMav.-:! tha^ 
 
 r-^- ' - j ■ 
 
 V; •'-•*■■. 
 
 ^oaiaX ifoidw aoowojonni erf^ W »aO 
 
 V 
 
 -leasb 'i^'XAo siri sjbw (naioltf’erf;^0»a oJ eB^jsrfo a^aeaial aX 
 
 
 Aiuow cialoila/f;tao 43 aiH .W nol! ![p iooit^ QdS lo noi^' 
 
 ^0 Hvi^ciad bBSiba adi tf»Q<Uiw AeqoXevtf) ovBxi ^Xtfacfoiq :5 ; 
 
 -«1 oijaritfaaa &/W- Aita ^XT4je slrf ; 63 a^<>. 3 J:ii;f 
 
 xii Rilrf .6»AAiioT3fiia .loi/ffr BtujAiotXl baa^tii to aooRoait 
 
 tycaiort^a nsad ovad \tXd4do‘jq AjLuow dJuo% eid 0 
 -a»a oy odt itlXnroa: to RoIfiaBob aid& wdXiw 
 
 erfT .fie^aXaA ^XXciaAXaaoo ased ovjad ydBiaj maXoiyodyii' 
 
 • ^ ^f'^i 
 
 ABifuooo rfoiriw aXaevb tfaodii^dBatod ", alaiio Xoioi* ‘ 
 
 "Wsi ,aw#lv9*i XcplyXio '\ 5 Ita 9 aid aow ©d aXidw 
 
 > * X<' ES 
 
 SyeSaloq bna sisecT oidqosoXXdq Xaioa & XaodXlTt aid 
 .aaoUoR *n&4 5taAiiada a aa mBioidedyBaa aliia^oy ^iiyoe-xiA 
 odd noldai»f)i8nos a ^d ^ao dd3apid od x^m doal aidT 
 
 8d3I b«a dS3X n©9wdad i‘et*tuooo doldw adaeye Xaoi*roda"id 
 
 I. ' " 
 
 «adaeve oaedd ox noidoBBi a'aecca^ Jbna 
 doldn dadd ee-iaXoeA daeW aooadaH aalM 
 
 .V 
 
 ST!.!ddoq fli Bnidaiaaa aXidw Xd8I al Aeaiadajjs 8e»aX ',;ijnpH 
 
 t -T'A 
 
 iw.a>* ' n 'HU 
 
 , 1 
 
 <>• 
 
 ■ ruilj- ' I. . ■ ■■■II . I ^ ^ II I , | j -,yM«» 
 
 tt ..I 
 
58 
 
 1 
 
 out a fire changed the whole course of his genius. 
 
 Her opinion is that if he had hot been kept from 
 active participation in the Civil War he would have 
 been fascinated by the American scene and would have 
 made this the subject matter of his writings. This 
 romantic estimate of the effect of active participa- 
 tion in war can hardly meet with acceptance. On the 
 contrary, it is almost certain that any close contact 
 with the sordid materialism of war would immediately 
 have disgusted one who was finally driven to more con- 
 genial surroundings in Europe by the ugliness of the 
 American scene. But the fact that there was a war 
 and a period of reconstruction undoubtedly did have 
 its effect on Henry James, and perhaps the injury, too, 
 for it served to detach him from the action of the 
 scene and allow him to observe more fully. If a par- 
 ticipation in the war could have brought home to James’s 
 
 1. West, Rebecca: Henry James ; London; Nisbet and 
 Company, Ltd. 1916. pp. 19-20. In 1861 the Civil War 
 broke out, and, had it not been for an accident the 
 whole character of Mr. James’s genius would have been 
 altered. If he had seen America bu the light of 
 bursting shells and flaming forest he might never have 
 taken his eyes off her again, he might have watched her 
 fascinated through all the changes of tone and organi- 
 zation which began at the close of the war, he might have 
 been the Great American Novelist in subject as Vfell as 
 in origin. 
 
I 
 
 Bid 'to 667XJOO sXocfw 6o3ita£fo eiJti b JiJo 
 {BO’t'l SqB3[ R 9 ad tori i)dri Sd 3i floJtiilqo teil 
 
 ovari bX;iow eri XiviO orft rii aoitaqioji^iaq oriJoa 
 5vari ftXaow boa onooa /♦aci'xsmX ©rft botaitioaal nood 
 
 -anioitiaq avtsoa Ito tob'i'io' ©cft^o btawitae oitoamqt 
 
 ^XatfliAotraii hXsiom law lo raaXXal^etafli bifi^oa orit- rftiw 
 •fioo B'tOBi Qi ciav.l’ih Qtyft bfiir ©no botaa^aX^ ©vari 
 
 -laq a II *^iXjat!l onoar avieedo oJ inlri-woXIa bxia ene^ 
 
 e’soiaai; ot oiao/1 tri^oid svjori bXaoo ai noitaqio^t 
 
 nasd ©Tiw{ bXaow ealaa^ e’aomal istoartario olOiXir 
 
 ^0 trfsii orit arf aoitcomA. neee bad «ri . ibo-iotXa 
 avari 'lovQfl drf^lin eri. taeiol: B^Xiran Jbna aXXbria si*X^'8ifld 
 lod borfatflfr ©vad tri^Xm eri .flXasa.ieri *3t5:o e«^e aXri flojUtf 
 kaa onct lo oeanado odd XX* d^oozdt baUaiaanl. 
 ©▼art 7;t»laT eri ,’raw ©rft lo ©aoXo erit ta xusaed rfoidw aoltaa 
 Bii Xloir QA to9{daa /li taiXovoH asoXiacjA, taaiO e4t'a»ed , 
 
 ortt nO >9o/iBtq©ooa 4tXw toecp ^Ibiad xtao ibw ai aoXt 
 
 » ■• <■ » '♦> ■'^ * 
 
 roAwOoo ©&oXo tjarit niatiao tao/nXa ©i tx .^laitnoo 
 
 «dt 'to ctooaXXa^^ orit 0 oqoiua ai aanXbm/OTiija Xalata 
 
 X’ , 
 
 ©Viirt bi5 TjXbotdyoimw AcXtwj'i^noxje’x boitVq a bxia 
 
 V 
 
 ©rit io ooXtoa ©rit ooi^i istA dcatob ot bev*!©© tx ‘toi 
 
 ril ' .qo' 
 
 loX aoad ton ti 
 
 • dxex <btX , :aaqad0 
 barf ,bft8 ,tiTO eXoqd 
 
59 
 
 consciousness a fuller understanding of the moral 
 values of the struggle, it might have effected a 
 change in him, hut as James failed to react to the 
 more definite moral issues of the reconstruction 
 period, it would not be safe to assume that the war 
 would have that result. 
 
 There were two incidents of major importance 
 around which all the moral issues of the war were 
 centered, and James failed to see the moral side of 
 either spectacle. The one was Abraham Lincoln’s 
 death, and the other was Andrew Johnson's administration 
 and the unsuccessful attempt to impeach him. 
 
 When Andrew Johnson succeeded to the Presidency 
 on the death of Abraham Lincoln, April 15, 1865, he 
 ebdeavored in the administration of his office to re- 
 construct the Union on the lines laid down by Lincoln. 
 
 He imposed three conditions on the Confederate States 
 with which they must comply before they should be en- 
 titled to representation in Congress, the repeal of 
 their ordinances of secession, the abolition of slavery 
 and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the 
 

 
 3T 
 
 ... -6*.. 
 
 ■■ ' 'r^^i fiT' 
 
 i T xf Z'if*m' • ‘ ' . ‘ "tLiit I ■ 
 
 T MUm. ' 
 
 
 e 
 
 - 9a - 
 
 fi 
 
 eitJ io isiXu* Q sdfrnsiioloQcrao ' 
 
 •.5j * 
 
 d l)d;toeilB tirii.'i lo aoj[;Xai/' ■.] 
 
 ^ '^c-t 
 
 t>d«t ot j-caoi 0? ,'joXiJJtt ai>au5^ sa ^u€ .tflrfVl «T4xuwio’ 
 
 *^' -V * X» 
 
 /^0X;»‘0iJi;t9noaei lo sewaei Xaioia ©tinXlo^ \*id’» 
 
 "£»T ap:i/H»a ojf o3t^ stf ioa bXuow 
 
 ..♦ -.'I 
 
 • ^^lisei iodt &Y&d fiXuovr ^ 
 
 H 
 
 oosiB^ioqal iot;jBJO !to a^B&fcionx or^t aiow aiorfT 
 
 e ■ ** 
 
 1' 
 
 6t€?r *!av lo QttS'X&l^la-xom axfif XXo rioiii^r btmciB 
 lo al^iQ Xa*xoiG ooa o? fiaXXji^ uaizraL btiB ,i^aTd^fl6a 
 
 a’n^t pnJtJ ararfettfA i.aw eao exlT 
 
 aXeai'Oeqs *i8/f*i© k 
 
 E?v'" 
 
 noiifxn^aimcba e'noamlol iroTdnA ea# led^fo orf^ 1>(U ' rfJaeB' 
 
 '' ' xioaeqoX od’ ^qiaoit^a Xii^aua&oiiaaa axfj fiiia 
 
 • - ■&i * , < 
 
 edi i>a&de&oae aoersaXo!^ woiJ^oA'aerfW 
 erl ,5081 ,3X XXtqA ,/iXooniJ mudjudA to d&sob sdt na 
 
 D 
 
 -•T 0^ aanio 6X4 noX^aiMiaiiRAa odt nl beiovjBaJbflfB 
 
 - * ( 
 
 .cXooflXI nwoj) SflaiX edt ao ftoiaTJ ©4;f ^oaidaiioo 
 
 I i 
 
 BetaiR o^arobBtaoO arfj ao aaotjJbpoo (^o’xdj^boaoqail ell 
 •00 od 'bSsiods ifQAiX . Biolad ^Iqisoo ifaaffl rioX4w. 4^iw 
 
 *' j 
 
 lo Xaeqai erf;t nX aoi^a;^ftaaDlq©l o^ boiJ’id’ 
 
 ^*x©yoX8 io noXXiXdtfa ©4j .noihaeoea aeonaniJbio 
 
 . , i! ■' . • ■ 
 
 edi- baa ,dnei^n&aix difacotaldJ eds tO' aoltqoba odt bka 
 
 > A* 
 
 
 
 I," 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 i 
 
60 
 
 repudiation of their State debts incurred in the war. 
 
 When these conditions were complied with, Johnson 
 claimed that the Southern States were entitled to rep- 
 resentation in Congress. But Congress ignored the 
 moral obligation to allow the Southern States represen- 
 tation in accordance with the program originated by 
 Lincoln and made various other restrictions upon the 
 readmission of the representatives. It was on this 
 moral issue, whether the United States government had 
 not committed itself to the readmission of the Southern 
 States, that Johnson split with Congress. 
 
 Throughout his administration from this time on 
 Johnson was at swords points with Congress, which had a 
 two-thirds Republican majority and was therefore able to 
 override his veto. But Congress was not satisfied 
 with this power. Under the leadership of the unscrup- 
 ulous Thaddeus Stevens the House of Representatives 
 arranged a plot to bring Johnson within the power of 
 Congress and get rid of him once for all. It passed 
 a law restricting the right of the President to demand 
 the resignation of his Cabinet members. Johnson wished 
 to test the constitutionality of this law; so he dismissed 
 
i 
 
 -1 rfl- * 1 -aanT.' - ■■ :s 3 a» «.■■.■ -y >-> 
 
 j{j- 
 
 t* 
 
 , f ^ p 
 
 
 
 - Od - 
 
 J* 
 
 
 
 .ifiw 9dt Hi toimoai <j;rda6 aiTBitS :iXtd3 lo aoitaij^qe-x 
 noaii^i; ftolX^tuci) ot»w aoDl^xanoo 0aarft*^ne;fW 
 
 -qai otf fiaX^ltno aiov mail jyoa baeiaXo. 
 
 . . ^ ' M ■ ' .j ■ 
 
 etfy DOToflTgx eadTROoO i’l/a ai noi^atf'aeaa'r 
 
 ■* 4'' 
 
 -naaorrsfa^ 3©^a;ra tned^aoe »rf?. rr JUa o# aol^sgiXdo Xaioo 
 
 ■> ^ 
 
 irf fflsTSo^rq exf^ ritlw t>oa«dT0ooa nl nol^aii 
 
 V] h; 
 
 drier nriqa aaol^olijraaT *iftri<ro ^jsolhav atarc bna aXoonXJ 
 
 Hl:iT no eaw » •«t<vX^aJjiaaa'iqo*i noiaaiinitad'x 
 
 ^arf ;fnomn*rdvo3 S!?34:f8 «ri^ •terirW .aasaiViai* 
 
 fl'ferl^Dofi sri^ !to coiaeimJ&aoi ‘arii* tl9e>i riet^iWoos’^oo 
 
 .aaei^naO rf#iw d^lXqB hoexufoL jarieT ,aeta^8^^ 
 
 no oal^ slrij” (noil noiJai^XnXffiia kid ^xrori^no-iriTr 
 
 a ftari riolrivi? ,aaaty\oO ri^iw analog abioWs ta aaw Waarfol B^V;^ 
 ?i - .. 'S 
 
 0^ oXria eio!!:eierief airsy bca ic^lio^af^naoJtXcfi;q»a ab’xirier-ov^ f i' 
 
 j • 
 
 
 bailai^aa eton saw Bsoi^rioO ' Juft a. .oet&v^aXri ebl-tiovo 
 
 9 i" 
 
 -qwtoami orfJ ^0 qirfefebaoX orij labnU .latraq alrit At tit 
 
 aavl Ja^neeaTqaH. io o^aoK odt anovotii nijBbbAA*i^‘ oaoXu 
 
 ‘ lo Ttewoq oift itXrierXv noanrioU oX ^^oXqf^ a t;o;^fia!<‘ia 
 
 ^ ' ' f/ 
 
 baasaq .XXb ^lol aono airi lo bit bna aaa^t^riO 
 
 ijnameb o;y 3*flafeXaait ari^ lo ^ri^i-x oAS aaJttroli;yaet wal a 
 
 bdrielw Aoonrio^/ • .aiadaoxn tfanirinO^airi lo noleran^iaoT oAt 
 
 Baasicalb ari^o>» ;wsX alriJ’ lo ‘^^^iXano{;ynd“i;raxioo' aril laai ol 
 
 a . .A.' ••■■ <-■■'■ p.'; . '.; 
 
 ■f : 
 
 
 
 
61 
 
 Stanton, the Secretary of War, and appointed General 
 Grant in his place. Thereupon Stevens forced through 
 the House of Representatives a resolution impeaching 
 Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 The fact that Johnson's impeachment was a mere 
 political suhterfufee without any basis of right was a 
 matter of common knowledge. He was entirely within 
 his rights in doing the only thing which could have 
 brought the question of the constitut ionality of the 
 Tenure of Office law before the Supreme Court. But 
 the opposition to Johnson was not moral; it was based 
 upon two things, political expediency on the one hand 
 and aestheticism on the other. 
 
 Aside from the fact that Johnson was an entire- 
 ly honest man, a fact instantly apparent to a student 
 
 1 
 
 of the political events of his period, it would be hard 
 to find any man in public life at the time of the Civil 
 War less fitted to fill the office of President. Con- 
 trasted with the calm forcefulness of Lincoln, Johnson's 
 
 1. The history of this period may be found in detail 
 in James Ford Rhodes's History of the United States 
 from the Compromise of 1860 to the Pinal Restoration 
 of Home Aule at the South in 1U77. 7 Vols. 
 
 H. y. , Macmillan. Volumes V and Vl are given over to 
 the Johnson administration. 
 

 Mm metV: 
 
 
 . . ^ ■ ; ; ■ -. ■ , ' ■■ llF'rJ 
 
 iitnAiii'.^; te4.ii..aa.nsjj>t 
 
 
 ,r'^ 
 
 It'S, .'l■.,^4»■ 
 
 
 
 >' 
 
 ;o, 
 
 7JI 
 
 ‘V'S 
 
 » Xd • 
 
 jl 
 
 ^ Ia*t«flo2^v^o^aXo<j<i3 feiio ,'3«'5 %o V!,'£^^oioe3 sti^ .noi'ABi'fi 
 
 - T'* ' ' ^ 
 
 rC^otrfi AetJioi- t2n©v^:r8 ,aatX‘*m»rfT\ . .o»«Xq -airf ni taaiXL ^ 
 * aai/loapqflji £!Ol;rirXQdO'X a aevX5B^n©6e'tq>H lo saaoH orf^ ^ 
 
 • tin fcnia aonvXio r(3lxf tcoI rioarwCot 
 
 •=> ‘ '■ ■’■ '■ -«Ti • , 
 
 ©•roin fi aaw ^nandoixoiiml a 'aoanA'oI. tiiriJ an'T ‘\ i^ ^ 
 
 ' a aaw t-o siead 50a tf-worftf’Xw XaDljUIoff 
 
 " ft 
 
 ^[^rXftxe SAW aS «G3i&dX^roxi^ no;i«raoo \ 
 
 
 
 BVa.X 6S4JOG daldn ^Xd& x^ao vfiis ni atd^ir sltC , 
 
 H '* * 
 
 to ^(TXXaaoX^uiMtfaftoo &iS^ to noX^»0o<> ofTj 
 
 (J'sa rXujoO omBsqpS od^f ©lottd wai •oittC) to aionaT^ 
 fcaaad aaw JX .'Xa^oio tfoa ai4w aoBMd<y,k;i^i XipX^^i8oqqo 
 
 taed oao adX ftO ^oaetbBqxa XaoitXioq- .asnldt owX noqol^i’/ 
 
 
 
 >f h- 
 
 .tadXo AO^maiolXafftBoa fcaa iSi 
 
 W 
 
 1 
 
 -eiiXfto ^ flijw ooanrfoT* ijroat woit ©IjiaAii, / 
 
 Ifl 
 
 V . ■*" 
 
 - ^"'XnaAytt a- ot tflooaqqa troat 0 »aBin Jsoaorf 
 
 od »6oi*xoq aXd to sjTaev© XaoX^tXoq odt to^ 
 
 XlTiO erfx to ofljXX’ ©fix ©tlX oiidaq kX iieoi ^na JbnXt oif 
 -noo '.tao©lB6‘rt to eoXtto edd Hit oX aaoX^tfaW 
 
 B*^jaoam;or1 ,nXoonX«X to a^BaXataofxot calBo ©d-t djXiw 
 
 ktfl 
 
 
 XiateZ) ai fiaaot «d ' J&oXtt&q aXda' to ^lOd^aXrf erft ♦! 
 
 »a5tats hfftXaU ©tf^r 1 q ^^tqXsXH a'aefioriH Jbto'J aemaV at 
 iioJ sflHo^caii Xifeaxt^ ©rij 0^ ^d^l' to ©Os&iKxioiooQ ©dx no*xt’ 
 
 .iToW .vrai’ior'a’ift^ ©irfTFS^ijiiH edi<;Tnre' 
 
 Of 18V0 flovia 0^ rT*^n«*T*itf(f«5Xfl7 ,,aaXj!!iffioSr7-T’^ 
 
 •aoiXaiXBinlmbM aoandol odd 
 
 ■"■■■- . , 
 
 >i. I'i 
 
 lit 
 
 
 ■ .’g-. T I- " -i ’ » g1 Km ' - ' i T S’ JJW . 
 
62 
 
 hotheaded utterances, his complete lack of taste and 
 a sense of propriety, his habits of intemperance , even 
 his personal appearance shocked the nation deeply* 
 
 It was on the aesthetic side that Johnson made 
 himself repugnant to the nation. It was not what he 
 did but the way he did things that made him objectionable. 
 When Thaddeus Stevens and the more radical Republicans 
 attacked him for his policy of reconstruction, Johnson 
 could have held the support of all the more moderate 
 Republicans if he had maintained a dignified silence. 
 Instead he gave utterance to angry remarks of the 
 gravest impropriety and possible danger. 
 
 At the end of the term of Congress in the 
 summer of 1866 Johnson and Congress took their quarrel 
 to the country. The next two weeks, from August 28 
 to September 12, 1866, presented to the citizens of 
 the United States an unparalleled sight, the spectacle 
 of the Chief Executive traveling from one city to another 
 accompanied by a disorderly rabble of fellow- drunkards 
 alobbering forth between hiccoughs vituperative abuses 
 to shouting and hooting mobs who drowned his speeches 
 with insults and contumelious abuse. "He alluded to 
 
’T- 
 
 
 ■ ’:K 
 
 Jf ' 
 
 > t 
 
 ‘1(^3 
 
 hOA lo ^o&i sitfL^saoet aid ,^©onei»Jtfx/ h 9 h^&d:^o(i 
 
 
 ft^v# *9ani)^»qiaod’£tl l:o alld«d cld^ \ ^laiggoig, id. oaues b 
 
 40llan «rfy Z>t>£o9da*^B.*>AB'iaBqqs iBapaiBq aid 
 
 eduni nd^d|{oO ladl bAIh el^adl's&B &dv no hutk tl, 
 
 ^ .npllan ©drf- a3" l/iBn»iiqoi ilearal'd_ 
 
 Ir 
 
 ©ri t&dyr' Son waw ;tl 
 orcfaaol(fo©tcf<^ oftara jadl agnidtf Oti ed yin odtf tud bib 
 
 sxiaolXcfaqBA XBolPa-t b’so/d edi fcca aadvt'l'cl auaftPadT aBdW 
 
 li 
 
 no.aruto^ ,flOilowt.Taao.:'©T io ,^o1Xoq 'ild Toi told AojioJiJd'B * 
 
 1 
 
 sjBTBJ^oit! BTOiB Ji 0 io iToggi/a ed^ Wad ovad^BXuoo. 
 
 . ' ^■:^ 
 
 .oofielie ftaliin^ifi a fianla^nlscii had ad il aoeotXdxJqafi 
 
 odd lo adiiifflST ^jisiib od o^a\Bdd^ ad iBo^anl 
 .lo^aP oXdlaapq l>ofl 'itBligoiqinl jfaavai^ 
 idif a 1 BaBT^noO io aney odl bno sdi' lA 
 leu'XADp liedd 'AooS aaoT^oO i»n« aoando^ ddSI lo leraaifla'^’ 
 
 V .... 
 
 8S moil .8d«dw owl edT .?{ilxuioo odl ol 
 
 'ws 
 
 io Riiealtlo odl ol 6 »lil© 08 tq, ,dPSi ,Si’ iBdiuo^jqeB ol’ 
 
 eXoaloaqa ®dl ,ldsla l^aXoIXsiagm . ab selate bodInU odd 
 
 •i ‘ i 
 
 iBdlonB 01 oxjo ffloii ^llovail. ©vllwoBxa ieldO, adl io 
 
 8 6*XBil£i0TA-woXX®i ip aXddai '4|i©p*ioaili> a ^d Pelnaqmooo^ 
 
 
 sftanda avitfi;i®qx/ilr sdi^ooaid naowlad dlioi snliaddoXa 
 
 fiodoBoqa Bid benwo'X-b odw sdom anllopd Una gdlluoda ol 
 
 ® .’JP 
 
 01 i>#/>nXXa ©H'^ ‘oavda eoolX&mi;lnop oop alXi/Qal dilw 
 
 ■ ■■ ■ "•■ 
 
 rmmtmdnmtlr> 
 
 jJr- 
 
 OBBMMMBHttR; 
 
 
 ft. ■ 
 
63 
 
 Christ, Judas, Moses, Thaddeus Stevens, Wendell Phillips, 
 and Charles Suniner, in a manner v;hich would have been 
 
 1 
 
 blasphemous and vituperative even in a stump speaker.” 
 
 No such Presidential progress had ever been known. The 
 people, who demanded dignity above all things in their 
 President, stood aghast at the sight; and the demand 
 was raised for the removal upon any pretext whatsoever 
 of a President who so shocked the aesthetic sensibilities 
 of the citizens. 
 
 It was this stumping tour, known as Johnson’s 
 
 "swinging around the circle” from a phrase reiterated 
 
 in each of the speeches, which led directly to Stevens's 
 
 arranging the impeachment proceedings. ’ The tour 
 
 itself was characterized in the articles of impeachment 
 
 2 
 
 as a "high crime.” Johnson had made himself utterly 
 disgusting to the aesthetic sense of the nation. A 
 large part of the approval aroused by the obviously 
 unjust proceedings of impeachment was an example of 
 pure aestheticism in politics. 
 
 1. Rhodes. Vol. V. p. 619. 
 
 2. The Nation said of it: "Probably no orator of ancient 
 or modern times over accomplished as much by a fortnight fs 
 speaking as LIr. Johnson has done." September 27, 1866. 
 

 '' 
 
 ■il? 
 
 
 ■w ■k , 
 
 A 
 
 ’>‘1 ■ 
 
 <id -- 
 
 
 .aqixrirf^ Xthta&H ,anevt(fC scoOAsfiT <'^aaoM «siBhi)tf ,;faiix(0 
 
 need ©vad ftinow rfoldw 'roana.m o hi soli^O 
 
 ".*to?{jaaqa qnu/^8 a nX neve 07i era's eq o t |r .Jbna aaoraedqaaXcf 
 
 eifT .iTWoniC need isve Aijd aaoTSOiq, Xal^rneftiaeif rCona oH 
 
 ^ ' VI O ' ■ ■ ■’’ 
 
 Tlodx flX f-fii evpda ^jric^Xb BofiiiaffleX^ odw ,8lqo»q-o| 
 
 bnaineb erf^ fcna j^rfaia odeT ^aarf^a 5ooxa ,dne6Xaei9 
 
 A 
 
 tovecatarfw ^xete-xq ^na noqii Xavodst tdt lot fiePlai aaw 
 
 aeieriXidXanea oiefedXsea ed^ fiejfoorfe oa odw ^nebiaei^ a lo 
 
 t ■ ’ a • 
 
 , .ont/sli’io hsLit lo 
 
 a'noando^ sa nwomt ,Ttro^ Jdiiqnnta hbr 
 
 ♦j 
 
 j&oXaiePidi eaai/fq a rooi’i "eXoiio ad? Muo'sa i^nl^nXiii*’ 
 
 ■S' 
 
 a'anereS-a od TcJl^^ee-iii l>eX doldw .aedoseqa Btlt ;ioae' ixxt: 
 
 mjrA ' 
 
 ■i , . ^ ^ ■*■’- 
 
 - laoX ©rfl .a^liDeeeoiq JoeUrfeeeqdi edJ :jnlT^oftTtn 
 
 faemdoB^qmi J:o aeXoXJifi ed;r «i desXio^oaiado saw iXeaerx 
 
 •A ^ 
 
 ^CXieerXi/ '^XeaicXd ©ban J&ad coaiidoL ’’■.©fnl'xo jf:s|lrf^ a sa 
 
 A •nolXan edf eeneB oid'enereea edX oiT ^aleTan^eXJI) 
 
 h' , m. 
 
 qXawolvdo ed;r \cd beaaoia Xavo'xqqa ed^ i^naqt ' egiaJC 
 
 
 Ja 
 
 lo 'elqciaxe ne im ^aefflueaeqciX \o egtjlijeoooiq f&ultm 
 
 “ "• iJ:M' - 
 
 • ' .oci^iXoq ril malol^edefasa ©mq 
 
 
 
 .C»Xd, «q .V .XoV .aefiodH .1 ' 
 
 
 S' tXneioaa 1:b leva's o on ^IdadoiH" ;^i lo JbXaa noi tf'aU 
 
 ----- — -w— AW •# a«rTw w a y *^ 1 wae ^ , • «a 
 
 aJ^dgXneT'iiol a -^d daum aa feedalXqajoooa iDve aeiai^ a'leboe id 
 
 .ddSI » VK -.ledifloerceS **.eaob oad noandot .i2 aa gxilifaoqal J 
 
 v ■ *'- 
 
 
 
 
 ,:Vv/ -5 
 
 I.' a.t''^f'jw~ 
 
 ■ <W. < M»r - — 
 
 a 
 
 
 
64 
 
 The assasination of Lincoln and the impeachment 
 trial of Johnson were moral crises in the life of the 
 nation. Let us see how James reacted to them. First 
 there is the tragedy of Lincoln's death. 
 
 "The streets were restless, the meeting of the 
 seasons couldn't he hut inordinately so, and one's own 
 
 poor pulses matched at the supreme pitch of that fusion, 
 
 for instance, which condensed itself to blackness round- 
 about the dawn of April 15th: I was fairly to go in 
 shame of its being my birthday. These would have 
 
 been hours of the streets if none others had been 
 
 when the huge general gasp filled them like a great 
 earth-shudder and people's eyes met people.! s eyes with- 
 out the vulgarity of speech. The collective sense of 
 
 what had occurred was of a sadness too noble not to 
 somehow inspire, and it was truly in the air, that, 
 whatever we had as a nation produced or failed to 
 
 produce, we could at least gather round this perfection 
 
 1 
 
 of a classic woe." 
 
 Add to this purely aesthetic appreciation of 
 a sensation, the following reaction to Andrew Johnson. 
 
 1. James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother ; N. Y.; 
 Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. p. 430. 
 

 
 II ~ii . 
 
 
 
 r:: I- 
 
 'tf 
 
 
 E 
 
 • ■ V 
 
 
 vJt 
 
 
 Jaoflirfo«®qo3^«rfJ i)na alooald to nol^jeraisaaaa orfT i ^ 
 
 9 di to etiX orft ni sesito’ o^ev aosadoL to laiit ! 
 
 
 O' . ' “E 
 
 •fliodt ot boJoaoi 06;sa^ wed eta qjj ittd 
 
 .aoX^Afi 
 
 /' ^ 
 
 5 , 
 
 .d^aefj e’nioont*! to ed^- si ©isriJB' 
 
 tdf to -gniJoem o4i ,aeol$ 0 ti titw aftt^cTs odT” *Jj 
 
 ixwo B ' sflo Ofla ,08 ^Xcs-JAiii dipfli iitd t<t i'nJblvoo snocifioa 
 
 /loisat tfsdt to iioiiq oflBsiqjya ed;f i£----fierio^ 80 J aoslirq looq 
 
 ^ . -■ . , '*H. 
 
 “Odfloi BS&o^oaXcf ot tXoaii ijosijoimoa rloldw , o^jnaisxiiMot 
 
 .•i y S ; 
 
 fti oa 05 -^Xiiat aaw I :d53X XitqA to iiwMb ©dJ -Jx/oda 
 
 eved Moow oeerfT ,jb! aniod ati to ©itiads 
 
 Aoad t>sd STod^o onoo ti s5©ei5a ed& to a^taod need 
 
 5a«T3 a ©diX msdJ bSlXl^ qaa.:t XaioAoa ©:^d odd nedw ^ 
 -ddiw so'^e a^oXqoeq do/o at^a a'oX^qooq 6rta tooJbude-ddiae 
 -to ©sjtoa svidooXXoo oriT--- .dooaqst to duo 
 
 od doti alcfoa do$ aaoni>a8 e to ciaw fcs'XTtsooo bad dadwiv 
 
 . * -’f “ily -iff 
 
 ,tddd,iia odd aX v;Xd*td aaw, di dca .oiiqaol wodeiuoe 
 
 i • ^ B §L 
 
 Od fjoXiat rto boox/Aoiq aoidan 4J ea bad ow lovodadw 
 
 
 *‘i 
 
 floldoetioq sldd 6nf;oT loddag daaoX da OXnoo ew .eox;fcoiq 
 
 X 
 
 ! , . ' ^ , "»eow oiaaaXo a to 
 
 to aoidalooTcqqa oldoddaoa ^Xoiaq aidd od bbA ^ 
 
 ‘di 
 
 .floondoL vreibflA od noidoaei afliwoiXqt ®dd ,aoidJ 38 n©» a 
 
 
 f 
 
 { jiX 
 
 
 
 rv th= 
 
 ;*X .a ; iodXoia -baa noa a t o aedoU :vwoH ,8©m«i;>.I 
 
 tq .)M^?X ,aaoi a’leadiioS aaXiadO 
 
- 65 - 
 
 "True enough, as we were to see, the immediate 
 
 harvest of our losg was almost too ugly to he borne 
 
 for nothing more sharply comes hack to me than the tune 
 
 to which the ^esthetic sense', recoiled in dismay 
 
 from the Sight of I/Ir. Andrew Johnson perched on the 
 
 1 
 
 stricken scene." 
 
 So strong is James's feeling of aesthetic 
 disgust that he philosophizes about the probable crimes 
 the people must have committed to bring such a calamity 
 upon them. It is quite picturesquely after the Greek 
 and Homan tradition, but scarcely convincing. 
 
 "We had given ourselves a figure-head, and the 
 figure-head sat there in its habit as it lived, and we 
 were to have it in our eyes for three or four years and 
 to ask ourselves in horror what monstrous thing we had 
 
 done. It was in vain to say that we had deliberately 
 
 invoked the 'common' in authority and must drink the 
 wine we had drawn. " 
 
 Why was it vain, and what was the difference 
 between the commoner Lincoln and the commoner Johnson? 
 
 1. Idem pp. 430-451. 
 

 I t**' 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • dd - 
 
 'Wi' ,see ew g* , 
 
 ool gaorJis euw to taevia^L BT 
 
 •'0 ^ , . . 7 f 3 .. ■ ^ - 
 
 tiuJi ttds'amti tta i(bM<f a^mcto »ioffl ^td^on lot ^ 
 
 ixi — , ’ooaea ed$ it-sidif o^ 
 
 » 
 
 orii no WoT*(i woiiitui .i:j to ^d%Xii od^ mo-it 
 
 V *.♦ 
 
 
 ** .fȣieoa nostoit^a 
 
 clj^adjawn to^ ,»/ j 1 I a’ao^fmt «i: o8 
 
 R-^^fci'io ®Xdadoi.i ^riioda orf Jarf 3 ^, ^aa 8 »if> 
 
 ^tliwXeo M iioiie T)Hl^o cJ ioj^fiiriooc ©Vo/i 3 'i2bi ©.fqoi^'^jl;^ 
 
 '^eo'ftJ od^ -tod-ta '^t 6 »^s©TtJtoXq «! noqj/ 
 
 ' < * ♦ ^ ; *'* 
 
 .^ionlvnoo ^X©oxB 03 fu 4 nomoH &na 
 
 ©dt bcM , tdfrt-oTOBit © sevXajimo «© 7 X 8 Xji^ ©T?*’ ^vi , 4 ' 
 , 6 o 7 lX XX 1 ^ 9 © X^Xdad * Xl ni^ ©‘x©ii^ ;fQQ csad^oiii^Xt 
 
 --n ♦ 
 
 fiira ’W#ot 10 ©••ttfx -jot ao^e luo ni ti evad ei ©itw 
 
 O' .L iTr 
 
 Sstf ^w.’^jkXMX lutOT^ODOti jf.'rfwf loiiod ni BovXbbtfio ^sa ot 
 
 
 tXoir*i 6 dXXtJ) b 4 d 9 W Jjuii .;©a oiT ^lav Ai aaw XI---- .ono 6 , 
 
 ©fix jlxtXi^ 7300 5flo ^;X^*IOdXJWS x?i' 'noraaroo'* •rid' bQiLo'Tui * 
 
 w 
 
 
 .nwoifi fc «4 ©w. fifllw ♦ 
 
 AOfiOTOttil} orfd 'iow ta/fw J&as ,fjia7 dJ saw ^dV / *’SJ| *^i®j 
 
 ,>11 
 
 ?xioaariol ,i*-noflx4oo ariJ 6na nXootfjid*^i©noitinoo ©rid nsawdori' r* * 
 
 4t 
 
 ..TiiX^-OC^ ’.(jq fia©M .1 
 
 
 *v^:''.’i ' wT ;!ij 
 
 ■— — »yr ,r. <^i n ^’» xy i 
 
 
 uq ' w H l ^ L ‘ . p • — r>t^ 
 r ■ ii t diill A: £ J 
 
66 
 
 To James the difference lay in the fact that Lincoln's 
 
 "mould- smashing mask" was "precious for representation, 
 
 and above all for fine suggestional function, in a degre 
 
 that left behind every medal we had ever played at strik 
 1 
 
 ing," while Johnson's profile was lost to the engraver 
 because of a bulbous plebeian nose and a lower profile 
 which resembled an inverted wedge of cheese. 
 
 So far, James’s aesthetic shudders were 
 purely his own affair: he had not attempted to base 
 on them any actions. But consider his reaction to 
 the impeachment. 
 
 "What, however, on the further view, was 
 to be more refreshing than to find that there were 
 excesses of the native habit which we truly couldn't 
 bear? so that it was for the next two or three years 
 fairly sustaining to consider that, let the reasons 
 publicly given for the impeachment of the official in 
 Question be any that would serve , the grand inward 
 logic or mystic law had been that we really couldn't 
 go on offering each other before the nations the con- 
 sciousness of such a presence. That was at any rate 
 
 1. Idem. pp. 431-432. 
 
Hi'* 
 
 
 i'Vi 
 
 V 
 
 .'A *• 
 
 - dd ■- 
 
 n 'fiXooiijtJ^^atf? jfoct eds ax eonti'r^l^ixij’ e4jr aomisi oT ^■ 
 
 ^i;Cl^i*tf‘ft©8eT:q»i lol ejuolooKi” Bcw Sfrlrfgaina-Wooa" 
 
 tot'^eJb 8 ni ,aolfomj\ Jt-ano/ j« 93 :^« 90X1 ^o1 ith ovoda has 
 
 -tlxra 1DV9 5icuf 9W iADort i’jovc i>flXi<©d i'Arfd * -i», 
 
 X - 
 
 levA^^n* ©rfd o^ ^ffoX «at» ©XiloT^qf eXXrfw 
 
 oX11:o^q TBWoX a baa ^dofi'riAiftdaXiy-Ayodiftd a lo aaoaoed 
 
 saoBdc lo 5&iK&val ca JbaX<^<uea#^ rfoirfw, 
 
 ©lew a*s#l>i5uj3<a oX&tdShOQ B*«oP/»t ,*141: oS 
 eaafif ot i»®dq«i>i;fa ftarf ©ft' i>l4.tla flWo ai/< 
 
 i 
 
 Up 
 
 o^.ftoi^oAot al/1 *r^fti?jaoo 
 
 flf*l » ^ 
 
 8ftOXd«4 fto ^,;>':r^ I 
 
 •r.‘ 
 
 dftpsuioao.qiiiX erfd’ 
 
 V • 
 
 ' •- 
 
 HAW ,w#i^ leiiJiftl ertJ co ,i©v0«rc»4 , itArff ” 
 
 ' (a i.v 
 
 0*101? ©ttrit SAdi ftftXl OiX HHill,. ^,irf«oT:l©i dioAJ ed od 
 
 ,, , . V-. 
 
 f % i.J 
 
 d’ni)XftOc ztait t%' liold^ ftdsd 9vX$afi cdX "Jo aoseaoza 
 
 aiii©'4 aaiif^ rco owt tx&U odd to1 tt Jfari: oa Taaod 
 
 ■:m- 
 
 aii o^AOT eeU .^adJ- toManoo p;r >a ini ij.deuiB T4XTial . ,| 
 
 . ■ ' To ; ' *''1'' 
 
 gJ S.etoirto lo it otnaji^if»<^ »rfa:_/ioT«^9Tt» ^XoUdu<| 
 
 J&tawfti 1)0473 ad^“ , »V7© 
 
 tarid dd i : : i ^raaog ^- 
 
 .i: 'iTr^if^y 'fi^\ 
 
 ^’afiXftoo \;XXa 61 ftoad Aad wai oi^a^oi 70 , oi^oX' 
 
 -BOO ftdJ anoJL^ftll(.6^ii• ®*toled leddo 4oao 3fti7»ll:o no 03 
 
 0^41 yia to saw i^xlT ••oftaair^q a ijoaa lo aapnedoiaa 
 
 I 4-.J^V 
 L-m.^ 
 
 
 S)'*f.’ 
 
 ■i*i. 5- 
 
 ^PWUJW" j n- 
 
 ,('» ■ 
 
 ■ I M ^ I iy <W |^ II| 
 
 ■ SSi'^XSi* i*qq ♦1BB.6I wX 
 
 • ‘ •. ■ ■•■■"■ . «■' 
 
 
 . j^ 
 
 ifi] 
 
 U 
 
67 
 
 the style of reflection to which the humiliating case 
 1 
 
 reduced me." 
 
 He is condemned with his own words. Nothing 
 more need be said on the subject. The point of paramount 
 importance to the student of James’s critical standards, 
 however, is that just at the time James was recovering 
 from the aesthetic thrill of rallying round the classic 
 woe he put his aestheticism first into print in his 
 attack on Walt Whitman. And exactly during the period 
 when Johnson was giving his best interpretation of the 
 vulture perched on the stricken scene, at the time, I 
 mean, when he was arousing the demand for his impeachment 
 by his disgraceful "swinging around the circle", James 
 was giving literary evidence of the fact that he had 
 deserted morality entirely and chosen the high window 
 of aestheticism for his only outlook on life by writing 
 his aesthetic and entirely immoral appreciation of 
 Mile, de Guerin's Letters , which was printed the day 
 
 after Johnson returned to the White House. 
 

 ■ jtr a. 
 
 , • .^ - _ ■^wWm 
 
 : jt" '' 
 
 i£< 
 
 r;;, V 
 
 '7^ 
 
 Ti 
 
 r /r. 
 
 r 
 
 <t 
 
 if* 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 
 (y 
 
 - Vb - 
 
 ^ - • - *' pa 
 
 dJMo r:^.‘^JtClcwil ##1^ rfoifjw os Aol^oilk©^ lo ©X^^e erft 
 
 .: X. . • . . 
 
 V ^ .60 ti^silox^ 
 
 J.< 
 
 ' *. 
 
 ^l£f3‘OU uiilow Hwo 6i4i •iXS'iw £6f)ipnJbooD al ©S ), 
 S:uiomTjiq to (fnlon «kt 6^^ no id i^66xi ©loa 
 
 ^ ‘ I 
 
 ,obt&bnoS9 tBOttl’io a’afejft^l, \o ^aebaSf) odt oS eotiJsStottaU 
 
 L* ^ a'P 
 
 ^OJiitoT^ai sar aeato!; so SvJ-t si, .loyowod ' 
 
 iJleaaXo »/{s bcipi't gfii\,ii.i*i jo iXJtirf^ oi^ofixoea oti^ tno^l 
 
 siff fit Xrtiii.*! maiotsofistoif ‘jirf Ssiq, od oovf 
 
 fioiicq nHS %lSobif» tcik tlaW act ij>9^ So , 
 
 erft te Hoi^ad’ftTifte^fsl S&tO old goiTjt^ eow aQa/iftoU aexiw 
 ; otts So .60808 nodoMe .odt no fcsxioiofi etbd'Inv 
 
 tneiT!f(oa 6 qf»<ff eid baomob oxfy yiitiia*r« Sot* oil nedfr ,xta 8 (aV ' ^ 
 
 |oauj^ ."tlOTio 9dS bsisjoia yil^ntrta^ XBt*o»%T^alb aid:^%d 
 
 bad 80 Sadi odS to aonoolvo II eaw^ ^ ^ 
 
 *■■ - M 
 
 wobalw d^id acts (ta&ocfo bdo zXbiiStia' xSiIJ^oa^MtStoaeb^^^ 
 salSiTvr ^cf §Ui no iooixflo %ino eid lol isaxoi^ad^aea lo 
 lo noi^aio8«c((ia XoiOBHoi ^nil olderfiieofl old 
 
 ^£b edS bBSnl*tq;^aafr doidw .orosSotX c’aTisaO 6*' .8Xm , . r". ^ 
 .608oH o^idK tdi ol bodjifS^i noondoV laXla 
 
 -I ■'>■ 
 
 xiS^ 
 
 » 
 
 ■< ; ‘ 4. » t < '*i 
 
 •m 11 P j ^ _ 
 
68 
 
 PART II:- JAI^IES»S AESTHETICISM 
 
 Henry James's aestheticism was the logical 
 result of his religious and philosophical line of de- 
 scent and the artistic and literary aestheticinf lu- 
 ences in his early training. 
 
 In three generations the James family went 
 through that course of philosophical development which 
 can he traced in a number of parallels through the de- 
 velopment of thought in Hew England from Puritanism 
 
 to an intense moralism which held less of the fear of 
 hell-fire, thence to Transcendentalism, mysticism, and 
 finally aestheticism. The divisions are substantially 
 three. The mind is first concerned chiefly with ho^es 
 of Heaven and fear of Hell; then it is centered on a 
 rigid morality on earth; after which the idea of Hell 
 dies out, transcendental ideas of universal goodness 
 come in to weaken the claims of strict morality, and 
 finally, with no Hell on which to base the demands of 
 morality and no morality on which to base philosophy, 
 adrift on a sea of doubt, the mind turns to other stand- 
 ards on which to base belief and actions. It takes only 
 the urge of environment to bring aestheticism into this 
 line of succession. 
 
ihsa 
 
 R 
 
 
 "♦• r, ^ 
 
 IT 'WvR.' ^ y ■ 
 
 ' ' ft^nJSW ■O’*' ■iir' rftff' « n afiMi'ii. 
 
 
 
 ?v#; 
 
 >:.»i,TrTr 
 
 ■V'< . 
 
 >, '■ ■ 
 
 :ii 3 
 
 ^ I 
 
 T 1 
 
 '■i: ' 
 
 - aa - 
 
 8 ’ 5 rUi 4 ^ -:.n IKA 5 
 
 ii 4 vr fiu»iui^»rt;rso 3 ^ a*tt«i/saL ^txjea ' < 
 
 \ * *'' * 
 
 -»a ^0 PAlI X 4 »airl<jf& 8 olX 4 <i itnsy aXrf lo 
 
 oiisnjfd^i r.T^t^^ii facj* oJt^si^ta oi(;t lja« (fnaoa 
 
 
 t^£id« «lrf aX atpa^ 
 
 ^ , 1 ' 
 
 '^ilfiiis'i a»f 0 <al> adi Bnol^«^ 3 nt>B aaxdd' etl 
 iioirifr Tldvyd X-&i?i((t{oaoXXXq Ic wSlflOP 
 
 ■■Jaf' 
 
 -•h . T o£sj£Xf>x«(i io xarfmyS ni ©d ha© « 
 
 itV| 2 ,T.;;f ixnr'^ fttOXl- - W 9 U ZJi ^0 dPQloqoiPV 
 
 $0 'i,6©^ ®iT? *to Bti®/ l>X6(t Hottift foasiXaxofli Od ' 
 
 6 na ,c« 2 oX^a^<a .netla^fteSiia^stujxT oX eoi^add /exXt-/X 0 xl 
 
 t V 
 
 
 '.V*' ' ' * * ' ^ ' 
 
 ^(.'i 9 lo 4 ’t®d^o»a ^XXanXl 
 
 XXX^A JCBXldjya ®xa B 2 uoXslvXi& ®d 2 
 aaqoiX rf^tiw 5 ®fix 9 Qnop Xexll hi W|ii odT 
 
 Boxcfd 
 
 3 t 
 
 ^ o fto ^ex®arA<?c> «X ii niwli jXiaH lo xail oob fl»T«da/lo 
 
 ■ ■ .j • ’ * 
 
 XX®H to aoti off^ rfoldw teita :4Xii»e no '^^iXaxoa 
 eaottbopB Xa&ifv!?m ^:o aasbi Xd!rfi®bn®o8nitxd , iwQ floib " 
 
 bofl toixie to aaiaio odd ija^iaaw o4: ai emoo '* 
 
 ■M. ' ■ , V ’■ ,v w- (* 
 
 lo abnarrab^erfi' jjOad ot doidw no XIoK oa rf;fiw ,^XXflnil ' 
 
 .^■fqoooXid^ ooitf od hoi.Xir no ^iiXaxoca on bnn '((i'iXaxoiQ 
 
 -bnado^xadio ox aixxod bniic odd .X0A»ofi to^aoa a no Xtixba 
 
 ’lino aaXciX X2 ^•anoXXoa bn^ toiXod osad oi^doldft no vbxa ' 
 
 aidd oXni,~ tnaXoitodX’aaa BnX*id oX xnocjaoxivna to ®Bxxr 
 
 .noiaaaooi/ei to onXJ 
 
 J; 
 
 
 • ' V 
 
 (J-. . 
 
 
 ■ If -, ._ . »ii |, T | .; m Bp.^ ^ , Ml, I 
 
 rt'* ■' ■* ■ - ^ 
 
 " * * “ awi ' in ' !i!t _,j ji, ' . 
 
 'i£M. 
 
 .€. 1 ft , 
 
 -I^III y PI III J. y «.. . i. r*? :^ 
 
69 
 
 Henry James’s grandfather, William James, was 
 
 1 
 
 a Prespyterian of the strictest kind. It affected 
 
 him so much that in his old age he became estranged from 
 
 two of his sons because of their defection from what he 
 
 2 
 
 considered the only true faith. 
 
 Henry James, Sr. , represents the second step 
 in the development. Much influenced by mysticism and 
 transcendentalism, he built up for himself a personal 
 religion and philosophy different from all known creeds 
 
 1. The Literary Remains of Henry James (Sr.) Ed. William 
 James. N. Y. ; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1884. pp. 152-15S 
 Our family at all events perfectly illustrated this common 
 vice of contented isolation. Like all other families of 
 the land it gave no sign of a spontaneous religious cul- 
 ture, or of affections touched to the dimensions of uni- 
 versal man. In fact, religious truth at that day, as 
 
 it seems to me, was at the very lowest ebb of formal 
 remorseless dogmatism it had ever reached, and offered 
 nothing whatever to conciliate the enmity of IckK unwilling 
 hearts. When I remember the clergy who used to frequent 
 ray father’s house, which offered the freest hospitality 
 to any number of the cloth, and recall the tone of the 
 religious world generally with which I was familiar, I 
 find my memory is charged with absolutely no incident 
 either of manners or of conversation which would ever 
 lead me to suppose that religion was anything more to 
 its votaries than a higher prudence . 
 
 2. The Letters of William James , Edited by his son. Boston 
 Atlantic Monthly Press; 1920. p. 4. Theological difference 
 
 estranged him from two of his sons, William and Eanry, — 
 
 and though the old man became reconciled to one of them 
 
 a few days before his death, he left a will which would 
 have cut them both off with small annuities if its 
 alaborate provisions had been sustained by the 0ourt. 
 
^ . 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 i ! 
 
 ’ lu^w 
 
 1 .^ 
 
 
 - - 
 
 Si 
 
 8 AW , 0 dC 3 aL rBMIXlf , '^ineH 
 
 ^ X ^ , “ ■ V-! - . 
 
 ‘AfliJC rf0.o,^o^i;ra #rfj lo A 6 li»^i% 09 i^ 4 
 
 /nottl 4n\iso<>d'^ eir ^30 iSXo aiu oX j'j^.rfoiim os sniit^ 
 
 s. 
 
 «o*xl ^:c %Qxiaot^ sjsob siil lo owt 
 
 
 .{<^ 1 m 1 : ed 4 , ;Xao* orf^ i&oieJbXaAOo 
 
 'IstB &iion>«Q ,i,t BiJats^o'i , .<16 V'inoJI 
 
 ' '.T 
 
 
 
 Afu» m^»ioltfs\czn ;<f /)«o«wfXtfii .yj'.sm^oXovo^ ©r(j a 2 
 
 oVii-wi A ^ot -jc yx^jaU oJ ,msXXis;^nB^r: 6 QaaBtijS^^ 
 
 sijoeio X/j» ^AO’iO^iXJb ^<ioaoiirfq 6 ft« aol^XXoi 
 
 r.iUfU " ^ 
 
 '" ’ ' ' **"* * -****’• ■ '■«■««' » - ‘ 
 
 w .. 
 
 
 KatUl^ JjS ^.1^) jfTafrtt 'fo ggimnsK ;\ .-( #itg : .i r ' •.' 
 
 nofiJToo te».t 7 ‘*<i 4 #ili :X^')eiiftq sJagys XX4 ta 55 b ' ^ ' ' ^ 
 
 10 eiftUaial le;. »a XXa .(foXX^Xoai feeyao^aoo to ooXv ‘ , 
 
 -Isju aao»ft4^r |^w4 4 to rrqiB oh eves i>^£ ad f 
 
 -Ina TO snQianoaiiX orfi' oJJborfoaocT aaoi^oot^s to ,%o 
 
 aa . ;oi> Sadt Ju h>cx^ rtOoi^XfOT , 704*1 al « , .ctoa IcBnev' 
 M* yRowoX >2767 erf7 th eaw .em 07 a*Ti#eg 
 
 DOTotlv Xwta ,.b**7o«t>7 I’ovOf bah 7X aaXt^cjsoh BaoXostoJ»07 
 wtt to ‘27X.-agfi »rf7,r otalXiofioo o7 taratM^ naid^oa 
 -cao^oit Ovt Bosh orfif ’ 23 T»Xo &h 7 7 odw«ib»yx 1 aerfir .«77jibh 
 ^7|Xatfiqeod 7i#07t ehir beiotto hoXtl«r ,OBooh 5’7#h7at. -Mj 
 •u7 '*> cho:t bd* IXsoai bno ,h70Xo orf7 to ^otfoutii ’//m 0 ^ 
 
 I .-xaingwi riolrffT hJlw •^iXaioaog bXiow aooiaXXoT . 
 
 dcablbhX on xtatuiiwda diiiv bo^^aKo ’^TOmec ’{OvBiiit 
 i*7i bXxjow hoiffw xsoXtoa^evxioo to 70 BTBrxhiun to lojfhxo 
 oh atom nolalXoi hahh oaoqqga oh &m baoX 
 
 --^©onobmq Tohaih a n«hh aoi^ahov ahi 
 • • " ‘ 0. •■ « ■ 
 
 
 
 •> 
 
 ;nohao 5 .0O8 aXd %d betlhZ oUJilliy to^ahhoJ 
 
 eocr».«llii,X«oivofer,r£T .t oif^ 
 
 bits suiXJtX¥~~- ,arioa sih to oirh «oitt aid be^ninh^© 
 »i»hh to ono oh boXi;ohoo©7 omaoch xuic? bXo ehh h^jj/oxlh baa 
 h^bow daJjiw XXXw a htaX oh ,hhnab sih ©lotod o^aJb w*t b 
 '- ..w^'t' ' 5 rX aoihinmifi 11:^8 hhXw-lto rihod wahh hno ©vijh 
 • 7 jooO 9di 'cd bani 0 haxre\n©ed bah onotaiTOiq ohaTodaXa 
 
 "■ « LJJ ! l I ' * J ' j'il i l Ji-JI M i ji p 
 
- 70 - 
 
 but based to a large degree on ideas gleaned from his 
 
 correspondence with Ralph Waldo Emerson and from his 
 
 deep studies of the writings of Swedenborg. He made 
 
 1 
 
 no attempt to urge his views on his sons, a result, 
 perhaps, of the unpleasant recollection of the contin- 
 ual attempts of his father to force Presbyterianism 
 
 on him, and Henry and William grew up without the 
 
 2 
 
 slightest religious influence except the occasional 
 partial explanations drawn from their father by direct 
 questions. 
 
 1. James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother ; N. Y. ; 
 Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. pp. 159-160. Nothing 
 could have exceeded at the same time our general sense 
 
 for our good fortune in never having been, even 
 
 when most helpless, dragged by any approach to a faint 
 jerk over the threshold of the inhabitable temple, (of 
 his father's faith) It stood there in the center of our 
 family life, into which its doors of fine austere bronze 
 opened straight; we passed and repassed them when we 
 didn't more consciously go round and behind; we took 
 for granted vague grand things within, but we never 
 paused to peer or penetrate, and none the less never 
 has the so natural and wistful, perhaps even the so 
 properly resentful, "Oh I say, do look in a moment for 
 manners if for nothing else.'" called after us as we went. 
 
 2. Idem. p. 170. no directness of experience ever 
 
 stirred for me; it being the case in the first place 
 that I scarce remember, as to all our young time, the 
 crossing of our threshold of any faint shade of an 
 ecclesiastical presence, or the lightest encounter with 
 any such elsewhere . We knew in truth nothing what- 
 ever about them and they remained for us such 
 
 creatures of pure hearsay that when in my late teens, 
 and in particular after my twentieth year, I began to 
 see them portrayed by George Eliot and Anthony Trollope 
 the effect was the disclosure of a new and romantic 
 species. 
 
~ — 
 
 «14 fio ®oTaJ»j& «8t«X jb ot beeacT tad 
 
 \ -- ■• JL 
 
 a Li iftoU no3i6«na obtoV rttilaS ri^iw eoDoinoq8©*!Too 
 
 pfinm dH 
 
 .-aTOcfnisiaw;. V) qaei 
 
 ^ ^ Tl^ I 
 
 ,7Xiieen a ,aaoa iio 4wei.v oLtf egtit ot tqai^tta oa 
 
 ‘ . . f V 
 
 -fliJnoa^erf^ ^o x;o^t«ftX too^'i ewiJ lo ,ac{ar(ve^ 
 
 
 
 o«lcjii*Li 5 cfB»ri ao*to1 0^ 'laisar :\lji 'lo at<i09ttB (asj 
 
 
 edj ixioriiiw qo «oa.l IXiR Lfja wneH 6xia ,aXtf no 
 'I . S 2 
 
 Irnoiinauu i- aoxe #ofi»i#rtJii Jaoii^iXa 
 
 ^ ' t " '■>:' '" >5 ' 
 
 li^dt a^irsb yuo^tna/ji^a 
 
 aaoa.i ._ 
 
 * aova ,nfta(f |^7/ari lavan ai e/te^ioi £003 uao ^o5-~-- 
 Jciat a 0^ xaj» ){d liogaai^ .aaeXqXorf taota naif#’ 
 
 xo I «iXqfi6^ *)Xdji^idi}aAt odi .li«o ^XodaoniL edt tovo 3 (i6t 
 mo ^0 tninoo al rradi' J&obla cTi a'laiitai aid 
 
 aiuo'id eiaieoa oxin to eioob ejx flcidw »oLfll .«tiX 
 
 io 
 
 ©w noifw fflori;^ baoeaqai bna l»© 98 a>.{ ovr B^aeqo 
 
 Hoot bw ibntdi»o OiiB btwoi oa ^iBuotoanos oiort 
 
 lovexi ow tad .atdttvr aanid?, inets'ooaiir Ladn^s lot 
 
 • ' ^ •• w I 'w ^ ^ iw V ^ M*Qr ^ * w -% 
 
 iflvan aaal i»Ki aoon ,otjBit6noq 10 lisq ot oeanaq 
 o« Qdt navo aqAfliaq baa ianjiBtx oa adt aaj 
 
 io\ tftsttoffl a pL 3foo.X Ob ,raa I d0»* . rAJltnaaoi ^Xioffota 
 wtnaw aw aa ao latta bOiX$o "leaXa anidtoa lot tL amaiijMi 
 
 tavo aonoi’Toqxo lo apaatoo^ib on — .0^1 .q .tdebl .3 
 ijooXq t«ia arft n'i oriao od^' 302 ad ti ;em lot boiiits 
 
 iidt ,onlt 3(tno^ ii/b Xta ot <m 4 .lodflaffloi ©biBoa I’ tsdt 
 
 va j>i ^ A A tk mJF ^ ^ I . . . 4 a. -■.«« V- 
 
 LA. 
 
 abarfa txiiat ^na to bXodi^oiAt li/o lo atiLaaoio 
 taa;fri^L odt m .^ofladorrq XaoJttaalaoiooo 
 -t^jfw yjAirftofl dtiiit jii wonX . alp •'*•••' oiodwaaXo' dooa ^as 
 doi5B---0i/ lot bohiamoi '^adt beta — modt taoda lave 
 rOctaat lU nadw todj ^dataad cmq lo aamtaaio 
 
 UJ#itfno«» im teju tfjpeifjaq al ha» 
 •^OXXatT ^rt^. ^otJM 931OSO nrf ®erf3 eas 
 
 0Xrr'aiT#«yi.’br .{ wan a to omaornn^fs om • 
 
 0X7r/aiT4|n.;b, .{ wan a to omaoXoaio »dd aaw apotte ©it ^ 
 
 <: r ■ .aaxooaa t 
 
 •f s T J tr-itr vuiiif <• ^ - -III 'Tifaat iiidfahAiii%fjj>igt,^ ^ ^ 
 
 
 *y : la p a r^ g^ ’ ' - J ag * - 
 
71 
 
 Hot only did Henry James learn nothing of his 
 father's religion, which was to him a closed temple into 
 which he never ventured, but he was kept free from all 
 religious contact, the bad impression made upon Henry 
 James, Sr., by the "number of the cloth" who were con- 
 stantly enjoying the hospitality of his father's house 
 keeping him from offering a similar religious contact 
 to his sons. The result was that, although he gained 
 
 from his father a basis of morality which is shown in 
 his earliest essays, he was entirely unreligious, even 
 somewhat bored by the consideration of abstract ideas 
 of any sort. Since this morality had no firm found- 
 ation of religious principles to make its mandates 
 peremptory, it is not surprising that it did not with- 
 stand the test of the Johnson spectacle, towards which 
 all his early training urged him to react aesthetically. 
 
 In 1665 the James family went abroad, to spend 
 four years travelling about over Europe, stopping in 
 Switzerland, Germany, and Prance. Their ostensible 
 purpose was to give the boys, William, Henry (then twelve 
 years old), and Wilky, the advantage of Swiss education. 
 It is characteristic of the family that they spent sev- 
 

 t; » - - -it Mp^, ^ ^"iTrrn 
 
 iw . «fc. t «. 4 i — l i t. «i - i '» ... r >t. W - ‘'^i 
 
 ai 
 
 ^ : 
 
 T‘ ' t '?' 
 
 
 
 
 ■ J 
 
 , iv - 
 
 liia to 5ni^;Tofl sn^ii aanvfi^ \;Xho X©U 
 
 o^ci eXq<’8i#.^e80lo 8 fflirf ^ ajr«? fc^ieri^fjal 
 
 rX8 aoi'^ t'- Tf 8^ Aii imS , ‘««!*u/taev^oi^ rloi4w'^;^ 
 
 %xnfi1{ no^i^ 8A*ff aoittsoiqinl , to^J/!Oo auoi^lle-i 
 
 ’fsop ot^T o4w ’’iftolo 8rf;f to tarfKi/n” o4? ^cf , -iS «t®aal 
 
 V fT 
 
 eaifoff a'leXtfet «14 to ^nixot«e 
 
 , .i 
 
 ^oiitxioo ««oi\iie*i tflihiila e ^rtiis>tt7 WJit mid 
 
 ' -r *1 ' ■ ^* , ■' ,. 
 
 &aaf<»3 tt'v^orfXXc- .tfvfi ^Xiraoi .e/^oa ’^ld oi ,* J| 
 
 •t» 
 
 nl n^roiia ajt d&filf? to a ladXal po.it 
 
 fiovw ,«uolRiX»mi/ nam »xt ,>?;coaso ^aaXIxca alrf 
 
 - ! ^ V 
 
 - ' *r 
 
 mA9bt 104tXado tp ooltoi&ftlanpOf 'adt oaiotf Xadwomoe!. 
 
 y ■J3 
 -•'/ 
 
 -5tti/ot tnxt Oil Jba4 <;XiXBiow HLdt 9unl& , ,tioa ’^aa to 
 ^ <4©^«0aBm RJl P3C4ffl oX aftXqXoaiiq aapl^lXei to aot^a ^ 
 
 _2V * ' "I 
 
 -dJXw ;fOo X>l& ^aslt ^^alaXiquya ^on aX ^X ,*C'ioXqfflei6*i 
 doXdvt aPtowoj ,®foac-op^8 tioeodoX to Jopt sd^ 
 .’^X|8ai^ed7Boa o^ etd >M2XnXoi^ '<iioo -lid XXa 
 
 ' ■ ' ’> ® ' \i ’ 
 
 6flo<l9 OX .JbBOtdP Xnoir 8omst» «dX SQdX rsl kJ 
 
 ni 8niqqox8 .oqoujS isvo xoorf^j |^aiXX®v8iX atao^ laoi 
 
 oldXaoeXso tXoffi .poaBi*! Paji . iaaiD'XfrC , Z)afiXiesitXw8 
 
 %il»wX AodX ) ■;ia©H .iisaXXXXW ,3\;gcf odt otXs oX sow eapqioq 
 
 .ooXXjso4J!h» lisiirS to s^aXABifOo edt ,^X1W bnJt\{bXo sioi^ 
 
 • S9 
 
 -Toa Xi^ipqs '{OffX Xarft \;Xi0Uit odX <to oiXsXisxoBt^dp 
 
 .(t- 
 
 hfu 
 
 ffl. 
 
 f ■ 
 
 ■•t*' 
 
 ■iiii 
 
 
72 
 
 eral years wandering about before actually getting to 
 the Swiss schools at all. William James followed a 
 course in the Academy, while Henry spent perhaps the 
 most unpleasant months of his existence trying to 
 master the first rudiments of mathematics in the Insti- 
 tution Rochette, a preparatory school which specialized 
 in scientific training. In a short time Henry was 
 given up as hopeless, and the rest of his time in 
 Eurppe was spent in amassing impressions. 
 
 He developed a theory of impressions, a sort 
 of creed by which he justified his complete absorption 
 in the search. "To feel a unity, a character and tone 
 in one's impressions, to feel them related and all 
 harmoniously colored, that was positively to face the 
 aesthetic, the creative, even, quite wondrously, the 
 
 1 
 
 critical life and almost on the spot to commence author." 
 
 Again, he says, "Impressions were not merely all right 
 
 2 
 
 but were the dearest things in the world." And, "Never 
 
 did I quote strike off, I think, that impressions might 
 
 3 
 
 themselves ^ science." 
 
 1. Notes of a Son and Brother; pp. 24-25. 
 
 2. Idem. p. 25. 
 
 3. Idem. p. 26. 
 
m 
 
 9 m ti}QfS£i ^miT^baavt atas^ isi« 
 
 Bk 
 
 e fcct^oXXol 8e0a^,ia»i“iIiW .xXi^ tii a^q/Xoa aelvS 9 d^ 
 9d* aqa;(*tBq ^fiaqn ^tir,8r( aXXttw ,^‘ti>4oA e/1^ ni aaiiioo 
 0? ooftntslxe airf ifnaBaaTqxui ^sqia 
 
 -ts^rJt 6?{i s\i (toltm^A^Am to oJnaflil&i/i' arfit 
 
 , A' 
 
 £»9sXX«la®qe rfvirtw Xeorfoe i-rdXe*x)jqo^ a , oJXaKooH aoiitttt 
 
 »s- Tto 
 
 «av '^‘inaR awl? a ftl .■gfiiniaij cm^niioa at 
 
 •; ‘i ' 1 
 
 ni 9(oi^ aiii ^o tsat £<ui .aaoXaqod na pi aavjt^ 
 .aii^jtdae'tqDi ^gaiutiiacia n,* ^atq« aew tqqiaS 
 
 E’r 
 
 
 itYOfl a ,»aol4e«^qfei l^*> TCTot>rt;f a eH / ;,^ 
 
 aclfqwdB .a^atqmob atirf 6»X!tt98ai *wl at,X£fw %d ftaa-o ^o 
 
 
 6 
 
 aao^ br.a loiOaiMo & . {tfiaa a laoi oT” \dotaa 9 idt tU 
 Ba 8 AaXnlai aicrfj x#9i oJ^.aftolcJaa-rqjtoi a'»Ag ni 
 oxf^ eoa* Om ^XBTi^iaoq aa^f ifBdt .Laaafoo ^Xaaoiaofnxaxf ■ 
 »rf^ ,%Xnaoibaoif a^iap .nova ,®viqaoao adt .oi^srfistfa 
 .torf;fi/a •onarciBoo o? toqa ©ri^' go ifecioXa ArU otiX iaoi^iio . 
 
 ■A ■' ’ Jl*' ' ■'?' 
 
 XXa ^Xoiam for, ot«w aaoiaaeiiijol” .a^aa erf /ata^'^ 
 tav9\r,bal ^ ".Wiow erfc^. «i s^irf^ . Jaeiaeft^erf? eiew ,^utf 
 
 anoiaeoiqmi tadt .rfairf^'i odMe ttoup i bib 
 
 S 
 
 ^ .eaneioa aevlet cnerf^ 
 
 ■Vs^' 
 
 
 ..'Xi' 
 
 .as-;iS .qq' ; gexfxoid Jbna uae a Ic ft&;fqJp -.X 
 s -ci3 .g 
 
73 
 
 Four of the most fromative and impressionable 
 years of his life were given up to "pasting" different 
 flavors of impressions in Europe. There was no plan 
 of education; each of the boys went in for the kind of 
 schooling which pleased his fancy, and emerged immediate- 
 ly whenever his fancy changed. It was a singularly 
 personal sort of education for Henry James. He follow- 
 ed his interests wherever they led him, and his interests 
 were in carrying away from each country a feeling of the 
 artistic unity of its many different impressions. This 
 sort of education was peculiarly adapted to developing 
 in James the artistic and aesthetic feelings which he 
 was later to apply to art and finally to literature. 
 
 The next step in his aesthetic development 
 was the study of art, a study to which he was brought 
 by his habit of becoming interested in whatever his 
 elder brother was doing. The family was in Paris in 
 1859, and it was quite characteristic in them to de- 
 cide to leave the f ountain-head of artistic knowledge 
 and return to America in order to give William a chance 
 to study art. It was, however, quite a natural step 
 
 1. Idem. p. 62. I alone of all the family perhaps made 
 bold not to say quite directly or literally that we 
 went home to learn to paint. People stared or laughed 
 when we said it, and I disliked their thinking us so 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 - - 
 
 d 
 
 
 «/<fanoJtfia*^ej;ifll 6i*« evi;rawo’xl iaoc # 4 ^ to Txfot 
 
 I * 
 
 iTflcimjtB 0? aorla ^ lo aiBez 
 
 , . ■ . • ■ 
 
 XIAJ 4 on oierf? al onoldsot^i io ciotb^I 
 
 to Anijf=>or{5 lot nt ^;it>w bco'^ o£l*r -o *Cojt»ai^ ;no|;tBoiiJ!>o to 
 -BtcIfcBtrmi AtTirjsmB hoB .^ooBt. 6jtc£,23^^ei5Siq (fcltfw ^fliiooxfoB 
 
 . X-^tBfiiigniB B aaw tl. .^B 3 j^x?i 2 io «irf ’si^Tenod^y ^ 4 ! 
 
 s,. 
 
 -woiXot bH .BW’at i^Tr.BR tot nci^43ouij?y to TtOd X^oaioq ‘^' 
 
 j ■* - • 
 
 aXxf bjxii ,rali boX tfvatsrlw n^i!©te;fni aXrf lye 
 
 ©4^ to snXteet a icttf’XJ^iOo de^jo i^iott x;B-^a ^ni^ttao ni ate*r 
 Bl fT .^ftoieaenqflii tf-netettiX^ (;;£ujai atfl to pXJaiXtA ^ 
 
 ’ P • '■ 
 
 •§/U«ioX»^o,r/ pj OetqB^B x-JtaXXttoeq 3Bw'o©itBojffJie to tioa 
 
 jv en 4olriw’ a^ritXeot oi^oiitBea X>njti oX7$ti xfs ecfiJ ©9x041^ aXi^ 
 
 > ^ , ' V T , ' ■ t ,. 
 
 ..Pli/tJitetXX ^XXanit oxia ttu oi oX total 
 
 * Vi- f 
 
 tB©<*ioXevob oitfaiXtssB sirt oX .leJ^u txen orfT 
 
 ,-i, - • 
 
 aatf o4 xloXrfw ol v;ante .b to ;^£>ijtfa exit aaw. 
 
 .. >£ 0 
 
 Biff teTfttaxXw oX X*eX«eiotixi anXcioood to tiOarf aid id , 
 
 ■if. '! 
 
 'it- 
 
 .)? 
 
 At 6it3*l nX. 8BW o:fT .^loJS) saw toxltottf teJ^Xe 
 
 -oB of (3jwft Ai oXtaXteXoBtado etijjp aaw tx 5fte ea6X 
 
 es^ioXwofld oiXaXttB t"o *B#xf-nXBtxu>ot edx 07aeX ot.,oBXo /pi . 
 
 ootiado 0 cuiiXX^W. ovls ox teBto aI tioXifo/nA oX ATuXet Bius 
 
 qete XBtdXBA a oXXap' ,tdvdwod ,«awjtl 
 
 I H ip>l»ti 
 
 
 .!hf0,^^BxiXB*^oX 
 
 1^^.: 
 
 oBan eqBdteq 'CXX«fit oxfX XXa to onoia I .Sd .q .m»BI .'X 
 evr tadX ijXXflx®tiX to qXXootXB eXX4p oS ton Wod 
 Botf^aX to BetaXa eXqoe^ ,X4XBq oX ataeX OX ^g!od Xneer Vi 
 sa s^iinxdx txodx &03txr3X6 1 Bob ,xX Bias aw florfw 
 
 e ■ --.'i* 
 
- 74 - 
 
 for it brought V/illiam and Henry under the tuition of 
 William Hunt, who was as Parisian in his painting as 
 
 1 
 
 anyone in Paris and was besides a friend of the family. 
 
 Henry James spient the next few months in the 
 
 studio of William Hunt dabbling in art and spending 
 
 his spare hours in a perusal of the Revue des Deux 
 
 Mondes . Ko very great attempt was made to make an 
 
 artist of him; he was simply allowed to wander about 
 
 the studio, making occasional sketches of plaster 
 
 models, and absorbing artistic impressions. These 
 
 impressions were less of art than of the artistic life 
 
 in general and of artists. He developed an interest 
 
 in the life of the artist which was reflected in his 
 
 early stories about artists and artistic studies. For 
 
 2 
 
 William Hunt himself he had a great admiration. 
 
 1. Idem. p. 61. The particular ground for our defection 
 which I obscurely pronounced mistaken, was that since 
 
 William was to embrace the artistic career our return 
 
 to America would place him in prompt and happy relation 
 to William Hunt, then the most original of our painters 
 as well as one of the most original and delightful of 
 
 men. But never surely has so odd a motive operated 
 
 for a break with the spell of Paris. 
 
 2. Idem. p. 83. It was impossible to me at that time 
 not so to admire him that his just being to such an 
 extent, as from top to toe and in every accent and 
 motion, the living and communication Artist, made the 
 issue, with his presence, quite cease to be of how one 
 got on or fell short, and become instead a mere self- 
 sacrificing vision of the picturesque itself, the con- 
 stituted picturesque or treated "subject", in effic- 
 ient figure, personal form, vivid human style. 
 
vj ^ • T. 
 
 
 r 
 
 ± ih -- lA,f r ; 4 .. irv - j ^ ^|. ^ 
 
 lifitS 
 
 A’a t ii - jiia : i't • — , 1 -: - - ^-- 
 
 i] 
 
 
 3 
 
 r . 
 
 
 
 - ^? - 
 
 
 ^ /■' 
 
 0({7 ^*rflflH meiTUW itd^uoid it tol ' 
 
 oa uld al aa ti^Tr odw ,?miK ittaJtlliW ^ 
 
 8if/ a apliXseo «i^w aX enozaa,, 
 
 . 
 
 rif 
 
 
 e>i;t al «rl3*iiow w»l ^x»a cTft->oa a®a»jati^^4Tn^H 
 
 3Ait^A9tia fciia jxl ^air<fdi*b <i£u/R nusiJClJW !kc> oiiijid^o 
 gx/'f<r siTYsg So Is^^«i;|■^8 i»i ^*ororf BT^qa airt 
 na Qt o5affl sbp ffen^ o4C 
 
 i^nodi! ie6i?ijw o;^ fcawoXX^ ^qinia maw oxf ;cUxi l<> ^ai^-xa 
 
 i ? 
 
 ‘ lolCBiq So ftedotoie XanoXa^ooo Brtiitiwi .olto^a orfi 
 
 (* KiT 
 
 r .« AOitbsiq/oX oXtfeXcrii / 
 
 I ; oSii oicrol^tf Dtfi So ti/uiS So aoei bibw aAoXoaoiqffli 
 'ietiotfci Do^oXoreii eH .a;Tot^%a So^icra Xaieije^ ai^' ’ 
 
 / *v 
 
 Bid nJ 6o/oBXSB-t aim doldw faX^-tu »dt So oSiX erid nX 
 
 ;*1 , ' .; 
 
 'toj .a»x,6aSa oX?ai^^a i>on 8;^ai^^ >xiodA aeiib^e {Xwo 
 
 jif 
 
 13FS 
 
 •aol^^otiaiAo a tad arf SXoemid ^n«H ffioXiXl? 
 
 4 —^* — ^ 
 
 
 aoidoeSoft too ioS fcaooij^ lalaol^iAf edT -Id .(j .mo^I .X 
 Bottle ^ 4 ^^ sgra .tto^«^at85 iaonoonow 'cfBTooodo X rioixtir ■ 
 
 ma^at txio ^ooiao aHf BOjrxoiBo o^ saw ttijlXXlW " 
 
 aoiJiHti tna Jqaoiq nl arid eoslq iflsj0w aoliasaA oif 
 
 ?ooci erfJ ttoxfX ,JnaH mallXi^f otf 
 xO XttSJa^iXofi Xoai^Ato deoai oxCi So ono ea XXo# ea 
 asXaidqo BWX^fomia ^.6o oa aad ’iXeii/a iBYsa 
 
 .aXiaf So rjfaqo arfS' rfXiw ilao«xd a loS 
 
 
 7MdX' da k>a ox oXdi^aoqjpfi aaw XI .^>a .q ♦oe6l .a 
 tt4 ifoi/8 oX salBd XsiiC^ Blxi XadX mid attmba ot oa Xoa 
 baa XaeooajciiVB oi baa sox od qpd woiS aa ,XaeX« 
 #ax eottw ,jRi.^TA aoixaolaiifflmoo Xna ^alvli odx .aoidorn 
 eao woo So 00 ox eacso a&ljop ^eottoeoiq aid dXlw ,bobs 1 
 iwoXsfll Ottoqocf bfia ,Xicda XioS ’-xo ao Xoa 
 .!«?! Mpajtfljoi, 9,'fj io aoiair 8nt»m»;-aa 
 
 tiSSo ni , Xoa{dtte ^oXaatX ja oapao'tjjXolq i>eXaXlXa 
 .OXjjX*^ ttOrtud ilvlT ,c«6S XttAoatto^ Xaoi. 
 
 l 3 
 
 .1 i,V -i 
 
 
 
 
 t - | ii _ . i r * ji ' 
 
 ■ x'/i . ; liKi .' i ^ vXj ' f'i 
 
 ;» 
 
- 75 - 
 
 Artistic and literary influences blended 
 imperceptibly together in a kind of aesthetic unity 
 which left no break between the two as James turned 
 his attention from art to literature. His months 
 of drawing in the studio of William Hunt gave him 
 a feeling for art and an interest in the artist as 
 a subject which was easily turned into material for 
 his literary creations. James says of this trans- 
 ition from art to literature after he had discovered 
 that he could never be more than a very mediocre artist, 
 "Therefore if somewhat later on I could still so fondly 
 hang about in that air of production (in the studio) 
 
 it was altogether in the form of mere helpless 
 
 admirer and inhaler, led captive in part by the dawn- 
 ing perception that the arts were all essentially one 
 
 and thtt even with canvas and brush whisked out of my 
 
 1 
 
 grasp I still needn’t feel disinherited.” 
 
 This idea of the unity of the arts he owed 
 to Ruskin, the influence of whose Modern Painters 
 James received both at first and second hand, through 
 reading, and through association with Charles Eliot 
 Horton. Indeed it may easily be shown that James was 
 
 1. Idem. p. 97. 
 

 
 
 
 .Jh, a. Ji», 
 
 w. 
 
 « ■ T" 
 
 
 W'r^ 
 
 
 / 
 
 .-.i. 
 
 ■- 
 
 w 
 
 }■ ' >. 
 
 
 HjI’ l 
 
 (0 
 
 
 - ar - 
 
 6e^^rf adPUoxiX’kftJt lim 6iiaXX^A 
 
 • * 
 
 '{Jtfta oXto^xfctepA ^o js al 
 
 • opcwst. QQ o«rJ' BfiX rst 30 »r 4 dd on' t^oX rfoJliflr 
 
 r,a;(;^^oa aiH *i*tiftf'at€»tU o^ caoi^ noX^na^Ja alxJ 
 
 'aXrf dvag Xmitf onilpw lo oijtoa QrfX?;ni ^iw«-i6 Ic 
 
 
 8 d OiiX ixl ^a«‘ia#nX ne i>iw Jia lol ^jcUlaat a 
 
 *£ 0 ^ XaX'iaXact Pfffll eaw cfoXifw ® *'j ' 
 
 o' • f.-^l 
 
 -anaiX aXriJ s^tjot fietnel 
 
 
 anoxxnoto ^Tmoxii oiif 
 
 ' ,."if 
 
 ^aT»voo«ifl ftnrf art laXla eToxatai-XX oX mo-j^ n6iJX 
 
 *3 
 
 XeXXt«’»-x^ift«)^ ,rte 7 ^ e-!Qffl acf lavon Wnoo oi Xarttf' 
 
 * . ' .a _ » 
 
 X^btiQ^ OQ ilX^a 6iuoo X no *18X31 wartwomos 3tX &*xoidi®rtT** 
 folfti/Xa nX) noXaoatoTq Xo lia Xnn'X nX Xnorta 
 
 a 
 
 *Vi 
 
 w ' 
 
 
 8®8X(iXt.rt eiaa Xo oioX ortx nl'^TartXeaoXXa aaw XX — 
 
 -nwafi :{d a^Bq oX avfXq'ao AeX «ieiartai ijoa 'x»Tj:fi:X>a 
 
 S 3 - "' . ■ 
 
 •no '^lXaXv'*no8«e iXxi idiftn qXto Xarfa noiXqeoiOff <ga/ 
 
 ' ' ' ^'•■' '■ ■•■ S , 
 
 X« iv Xoo A8)£3 X^v neuirt Xtia aavnao KXIw rtovs dariX fcna 
 '*.:»oXXio.rtt(XaXft i*ot i’ftXeon |XXXa I<qrX<« 
 
 • ; j. j,' ” 
 
 »4 axio ortX ^0 ;;aXno orJX l-o^aoXi alifT * - 
 
 ^?aX-gXaf t A*5eX )Q>i aaortw lo BoapaX^ni ertX .nilaoff oX 
 rtj^OTdX ft/ioooa Xna XaiXt Xn rtxorf fjerXeooT aosuaX 
 
 XoiXS •oX'XJRrtO, riXi«*’ AoiXisXooaen rf^aofltriX iiinw ,3XfI£jioi 
 
 •noXioil 
 
 •ar. n^ml’itAdt imorta atf i^Xiaao '^ea Xi/ Xteirnl 
 
 f* _ .fij; 
 
 y I » t 4 j 
 
 
 y;- 
 
 .V^ .q .flioj^i ,X 
 
 ' ' I . 
 
 f 
 
 C 
 
 ^ .a .' 
 
 B^fsteferxe^n-* 
 
 
76 
 
 completely saturated with Ruskin and that his develop- 
 ment in aesthetic ideas was largely due to his famil- 
 iarity with Ruskin' s ideas. Certain descriptive 
 passages in Travelling Companions « a story James pub- 
 lished in The Atlantic Monthly in November and December 
 of 1870, are exactly in the style of Ruskin 's Modern 
 
 Painters . and the subject matter of the story is the 
 
 1 
 
 result of James's interest in artists as a type. 
 
 1. The following two examples from Travelling Compan- 
 i ons will serve to show how greatly James was influenced 
 by Modern Painters ; 
 
 Those who have rambled among the marble immen- 
 sities of the summit of Milan Cathedral will hardly 
 expect me to describe them. It is only when they have 
 been seen as a complete concentric whole that they can 
 be properly appreciated. It was not as a whole that 
 I SBw them; a week in Italy had assured me that I have 
 not the architectural coup d'oeil . In looking bach 
 on the scene into which we emerged from the stifling 
 spiral of the ascent, I have chiefly a confused sense 
 of an immense skyward elevation and a fierce blinding 
 efflorescence of fantastic forms of marble. There, 
 reared for the action of the sun, you find a vast 
 marble world. The solid whiteness lies in mighty 
 slabs along the iridescent slopes of nave and transept, 
 like the lonely snow-fields of the higher Alps. It 
 leaps and climbs and shoots and attacks the unsheltered 
 blue with a keen and Jpyous incision. It meets the 
 
 pitiless sun with a more than equal glow; the day 
 falters, declines, expires, but the marble shines 
 forever, unmelted and unintermittent . You will 
 
 know what I mean if you have looked upward from the 
 Piazza at midnight. With confounding frequency, 
 too, on some uttermost point of a pinnacle, its 
 plastic force explodes into satisfied rest in some 
 perfect flower of a figure. A myriad carven statues, 
 known only to the circling air, are poised and niched 
 beyond reach of human vision, the loss of which to 
 

 
 i' 
 
 f 
 
 V 
 
 
 ■mS<V Biitfc -i-’iij -rrrii.Ml 
 
 ‘=>*kMB£sgid&: 
 
 
 if;-'r*r:: 
 
 
 
 , ' - - at 
 
 V , i'* ' 
 
 fliS-'ii/H Aj’Jtur ^Xo^ 0 Xt^(SOo^' , 
 
 -XXfjwi aZ/( tub xIi^,^iaS B&nr s/^si>I oXloffi^Qsa ixX ^coai 
 
 ■'•f 
 
 'S 
 
 f '» > 
 
 ovXjqiToaal) ciaXi®o .‘iib 9 ^i 6 *nnj 3 i 7 a c^XiaX 
 
 -diiq Bwcali \;*xo?& i» t g l4^.aiqroo 0 X ovaiT ni QB^eadclj , ^ 
 
 indceoea 6ne iBtfaiavog- hi" jgrrt; fmil< oi& A^I 7Ji- »4T ni XtedsH 
 
 
 ■■n . 
 
 ATsfcoW lo e/i;) oxa ,0V8X lo 
 
 ■■' u* 
 
 •d^ al tcioXt *10 erfX oaa 
 
 *•: ' \ 
 
 .«q^j « ea BUU'iB ni f a 'seael .1 q {Mua®<x 
 
 I ' ■ -f 
 
 ■T— 
 
 - r-g/>gLggP mi U »CTt »aXqfi 7 r 3 te art ^fliwoXXo^ «r(T .X 
 
 ^eDfiaiiTTni iSWawSv nro/< »vi&a xXlw oj 
 
 -ceftwi td:f SAOiSiS oaofJF*^?* 
 
 \^lbzad,UXm iAibQdtMO c&im J.Q ttimaa edf lo soi^ia." 
 
 eTjMi nm/fw ;ffto 9l BCfXioaaij »oi toecxa 
 
 fuo •Xdifir oitjaeonoc ataXqoioo A aa neta adod 
 
 aXow'r a g/j i-oa aiar ^ietaloa^ona ^Xtoaotcr ed 
 
 Bi9^bB70B8a bjiti ^Xdi^l aX 3(aow a ;aiedd.w»a X 
 
 *2 I XA'.tatfoojiffoTa ed^ Soa p 
 
 9aX«»i7e adJ noil avr noinV oTnJt. eaaoe ao 
 
 •oaaa ftaaatfioa^ f) *^XloXrfo ovad I ,Jnaoa/j orfj >o XAilqa 
 
 K 
 
 ^aiaaXio aoTeit a btzb aoXJaveXa eaae >sDX £l 8 lo 
 
 ,oie*XT .eXdiAtn lo ainc l oX^aatiUBl lo flioaaoooTOXlla 
 
 i^T ^ aol;roA lol Aeiabt 
 
 >C7.t|X» al eeil aiioaandw AXloa adT • .AXtow aXrfififfl 
 ,jqreanait orca jlo eoqoXa inaoaabm srfj^*^aoXa adaXa 
 f.- aAXoil-woaa ^Xeaol orf* aiix 
 
 D«,?ieJXOrfaju; pd& aitty&^tB Aoe ajoorfa &aa edmiXo aqaaX 
 
 > aflo^qt bcKH tiBed a xCdJw oaXrf 
 
 V^o ®dl ,»0X^ Xaapo aarfd a^ 06 ^ mja ttaaXXS“Xq 
 
 aealrfa aXdi^ oxiX dod .aaiiqzo .aoaXXoaA ,8'iotX«a 
 XXiw aoi fjoc ^bb^Ufftasw ,‘sov‘o'xol 
 
 6dt fy^Aftqp kAdooI tytad li auem X ^Bciw woroT 
 
 .XoooapaT:! ^XPiu/olaoo dJXW asaaiq 
 
 wnos ao ,ood 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 TK 
 
 ^ai'ttXJaa ocTni ao&oiqxo ©oiol oidaix^> |™ 
 Aainai A .o-xnail a lo ^ewoll ;foel^ >‘?i 
 
 Ps.#^ ■. f f “•'U"*. ** » iv 'lOlfOJLI 7091^90 ♦*.* 
 
 I>«oioq »ia .7la 8iUioU« eilj, o» -jXno rwon5^ 
 Ot iJoXriw to aeoi otfj .aoiaXr m>ofl<j to dojjet fiaojotf*’^™ 
 
 'li 
 
 »' 
 
 
 
 ri 
 
 itk/iHr 
 
 1 (' 
 
77 
 
 John La i'arge was an influence both artistic 
 and literary which followed after, and was for some 
 time concomitant with the influence of William Hunt. 
 He was the other interesting person at Newport. An 
 artist and a very well educated man, he brought the 
 intensity of his interest in things artistic and lit- 
 erary to bear upon Henry James so that for some time 
 the whole course of James’s reading was determined by 
 
 Note cont'd. mortal eyes is, I suppose, the gain of 
 
 the Qhurch and the lord. Among all the Jewelled 
 shrines and overwrought tabernacles of Italy, I have 
 seen no such magnificent waste of labor, no such glo- 
 rious synthesis of cunning secrets. As you wander, 
 sweating and blinking, over the changing levels of the 
 edifice, your eye catches at a hundred points the 
 little profile of a little saint, looking out into 
 the dizzy air, a pair of folded hands praying to the 
 bright immediate heavens, a sandalled monkish foot 
 planted on the edge of the white abyss. And then, 
 beside this mighty world of the great Cathedral . itself , 
 
 you possess a view of all green Lombardy, vast, 
 
 lazy Lombardy, resting from its Alpine upheavals. 
 
 Within the church, the deep brown shadow- 
 masses, the thick-tinted air, the gorgeous composite 
 darkness, reigned in richer, quainter, more fantastic 
 gloom than my feeble pen can reproduce the likeness of. 
 Prom thd)se rude concavities of the dome and semi-dome, 
 where the multitudinous facets of pictorial mosaic 
 shimmer and twinkle in their own dull brightness; from 
 the vast antiquity of innumerable marbles, incrusting 
 the walls in roughly mating slabs, cracked and polish- 
 ed and triple-tinted with eternal service; from the 
 wavy carpet of compacted stone, where a thousand once- 
 lighted fragments glimmer through the long attrition 
 of idle feet and devoted knees; from sombre gold and 
 mellow alabaster, from porphry and malachite, from 
 
 long dead crystal and the sparkle of undying lamps, 
 
 there proceeds a dense rich atmosphere of splendor 
 and sanctity which transports the half-stupefied trav- 
 eller to the age of a simpler and more awful faith. 
 
rtJod’ toA 0 j 3 l^ni na ajiit 031^*1 %£ ^irfol j 
 
 vt-.'jcr aaw 6 c 3 liewcX<iol rfoirfw i>aa 
 
 • JtiyS ealiXiT* ^^jrioooAOO aml^ 
 
 iiA .ifioqw*;! fa aofiieq saw^aH 
 
 •/li‘ ^ 43 J 907 (f erf jiiaoi X£ow x’lav is 
 
 ^ -V 
 
 oitatf'ta ni airf to^t^iatie^ia 
 
 ^fTOe Yoi ftfif 0 ^ ae/Tiii^ ^'SBeJi jxoqjj laed of ^TAie 
 ^rf beaidixe^frt saw jaXSaat a 'aau*aTi ea-xiroo eXorfw e:i.f 
 
 ^0 pelf .^BojxnsL 1 ,ai cr^e layiotn b*faoo eJoK 
 
 erfd* / X« ^oiaA, . I^tol arf^ br.a rfoiorfO edcf 
 ^▼r J. I ivcrajj to 9elodft*redfl;t ‘td^ijoiwTevo taa seiil'xrfa 
 -oX'4 florf#* on .lorffli to odJfiiMr ^neoltin^aa rfoua.oa aeea' 
 ,'te'>nair »o*c 3^. .a^eToos'^nr^tciio’ to ^Xeerf^niCB anoli 
 erf^r to sXeveX erfi leTo .^faTCfltXcf Jjae Bisi^aows 
 
 Orf;^ e^niOii taifcaod a Oddo^ao o^;© xdo^ ,ooltlie 
 Jini: too .tnlae ol^tii a^to oXitoni aXttiX 
 
 e :t ot cioaarf X»#Wo'X to . liaq a^.iXo erft 
 
 toot ftal/no« fiel/oAoxsa a ,a/i#vaerf otUXJ&d.niqi trfalirf 
 
 .ncrft fi£U .batjda otlrfw erft to 036s exit no 'HjaaX^'i 
 , ^leatl , Xn’ifj>3AtnO toex3 erft to A4t<5w i^tiigiiin airft eibisea ' 
 , taar--»-t ,^i)*?3d»ooJ 411^3:3 xXa to woXv a see^istoq co*i 
 .dXBVoerfqXJ OAlqXi. eti JBO^t B»llt001 ,V5M»rfC!0X 1£»BX' 
 
 4 / 
 
 f -woMrfa owo-^rf qee^ frft .xfo^do edt’AirfttI 1 ,, 
 
 •tiaoqaioo 80003103 orft ,iia J&etait-ifoirft odt ^soseois 
 oit^atmjt oiom .•xotnJtwp .‘lerfoit Ai JbeaBiot .eaeroCxiii 
 .TO 88«floaUX oiit oojjfeoiqeT aao noq oXrfeetMCia narft raoolB 
 ,8flio^-ifliOB i>A8 effiOJb orft to 98ltlv8oaoo eJbtoi eeorft 001*? 
 
 oiaoQAj- Xaiiotoiq to ateoat aaoajtiisjflflua Pdf orodv 
 s/oott j 888/tt03X,id ‘X XoJb AV/0 lierft sil oljUffws 5ns lemniiiiJB 
 BnitamoaX .aprSdzm eX^fA'i'^mcnl to ^txapitao tost- erft 
 -daiXoq dua Xedoxno .nddlo SAitaai \^X 1X3001 nX aXlAw erft 
 orf? wont ivoivies Xsaiete dtiw ietnit-oX'.iiit 5ns Jbe 
 -oorfo 5xis8A0rft £. ©lerfii «88ot8 5etocn|flioo to teqiso y^smt 
 / iQXtXitts -^aoX erft rf^ooirft i&aunXX^ atneinsatt AetrfalX 
 BiU fiXOB oicfsroa looit ;aeoiu[ 5etoT8ji 6as toot oX5X to' 
 ^tt .otirfoAXsci dna xtdqtoq aont ,i8taerfaXii woXXom 
 ^aipmjt to ‘'eXTfisqa edt 5ns Xats'4^0 5seB.ft«oI 
 TO^ieXqa to aredqaomfa rfoii eeneh a sJbeeooitt ••xorft 
 
 attoqoflsit rfoirfm t^Xto^a 5as 
 • rftlst Xx/tw#i 8iO»i 5 as leXqmXs s to 83a exit ot leXX® *' 
 
 .'1 , r , 
 
 A it 
 
 m m l i Pi p i | 8 
 
 mik t h \ 1 1 i '{.1 
 
 i « fV 
 
78 
 
 him. James says of him, "He was really an artistic, 
 an esthetic nature of wondrous homogeneity; one was 
 to have known in the future many an unfolding that 
 went with a larger ease and a shrewder economy, but 
 never to have seen a subtler mind or a more generous- 
 ly wasteful passion, in other words a sincerer one, 
 
 1 
 
 addressed to the problems of the designer and painter." 
 
 But although his influence in the field of art 
 
 paralleled that of William Hunt, and he probably served 
 
 to make more strong James's interest in the artist type, 
 
 John La Farge's influence on James was more in the field 
 
 of literature that of art. In the first place, his was 
 
 the guiding hand which led James through the mazes of 
 
 2 
 
 the Revue des Deux Mondes , a periodical from which at 
 
 1. Notes of a Son and Brother ; p. 91. 
 
 8. Idem. pp. 86-87. I well recall ray small anxious 
 foresight as to a reouired, an indispensable provision 
 against either assault or dearth, as if the question 
 might be of standing an indefinite siege; and how a 
 certain particular capacious closet in a house we were 
 presently to occupy took on to my fond fancy the likeness 
 at oncw of a store of edibles, both substantial and 
 succulent, and of a hoard of ammunition for the defense 
 
 of any breach the Revue accumtlating on its shelves 
 
 at last in serried rows and really building up beneath 
 us with its slender firm salmon-colored blocks an alter- 
 native sphere of habitation. But the point for the 
 
 moment was that one would have pushed into that world 
 of the closet, one would have wandered and stumbled 
 about in it quite alone if it hadn't been that La Farge 
 was somehow always in it with us. 
 

 
 E 
 
 I :' 
 
 ! tV 
 
 _- 3? - 
 
 ms ijj£Xa®i mw ,oH** >£slii to aaoua^' •ajiri 
 
 ' t 
 
 8£'^ •iJ'p.'t&Gqw to oi^erli^cs'^fla IT- . 
 
 a 4 * ' 
 
 :fsult ^ioXoliia cjR s4J '«UL_js»roflaC svaii ot^ ||r 
 
 f;;o .«^fliOfiooe esaa a ’Jitiw ;tn»w 
 
 -aiiot«W3 Mft •iota 10 ictln' toJtfrfaa a xiaaft ovad leTon ^ 
 
 
 ^ ,«f!o loteonia- 0 a Mow iwfjc xu .fioiaaaq lai&^aow 
 
 bUB *t€m^iMB^ to axtteldoTq tt(^ o:f- btaBttrfihB 
 
 - a I 
 
 ^la to AioXt #d4' nJ old Kat/orftfla d-jj5 
 
 iai'iA ot j Hi" a’eemot .^aou^ oioo oaX^' otf 
 
 fcXsXt b/( 9 at #toffl aaw ttOxaX so aoa^/rffai iL'6^^at ad rtrfot» 
 
 
 N 
 
 liv 
 
 SLOW Hlr( ,¥»r>% nl .7ix> to^ 0TM7tMiJXX to 
 
 to a^caci ad- d^iooirf?’ ooaijQti f^e-X doitfw Onad ^Lii>Xa^ odii 
 
 S 
 
 ifaida iroit XflotOoIioq a .aabnoit eiivei? od^ 
 
 TT- 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 , ,-, ■ - '' 'J 
 
 ••T5‘ .q x j^rexfioye lenrrd'flcC <t to *^o;ro1il .X 
 
 •fc- w i je" 
 
 
 ttwoixda XXsff.H \yn XXaoat XXov I .t3-d9 .crq .aaOI .!! 
 noXaiToiq eXcfi^aixoqaXMl aa ,Ooih»iei e IrfjUaeiot 
 
 nrrt ^ f B n >/4 %• r Or. J ^ _ fc. — '5» . _ ■■ . 1 . . r" . 
 
 noXXaoxTp oi^ ti aa ,d?ijs?»b lo ?I^ae«a iprfifie 
 
 n Mrtrf fiMM . ’ - . * o 
 
 a wod baa iogoXa iujr.§BlJCidBte to o’tf :fdsi« 
 
 f JofcoXo'^eyoXoxjqtto raluol^xaq, altsiiBo 
 
 B9Btia%tl adf Offot odr no jfoojf ^qoood. ot ^iXinf^ii^iq 
 
 Jbna lAl’^iiB^aduB dSod (SeXxfXito to oioXa 8 tc aono ifa 
 coxxotoo orit lot xtoX^XdOfl'iEO to biaorf a to Jbno ^iaaXxiavsfQ 
 tifiylaUa adt no BxxXtf^aXAmoooa oiivoH edf — doasitf -^xta to 
 d^noaoO qx? '^iilhiXui zli&Bt bna &wox boixasa al teox 
 •TO^Xa tta 9^00 fo OoToXoo-xsoiiXa© oriAt ToOnoXa o^X d^iw dsj 
 o4^ loV i’nloq 0 rf»? ^afl^-'--rnoX^8jJtdftd to oiodqo ovlJofl 
 nXio'^^iiat oXni Oodnoq - avad OXi/ow ono Xarf^ ASOw tnowott 
 >oXq)jurd'3 bxsa Oot8i>iuw svad OXaow ono ,;f«aoXD oHt tO 
 al -it&iif noeO O'obad tx ofloia aXiop OX cjt ^notfa 
 
 "84? dJXX»f 7-i nX^a^sawXa wodamos aow 
 
 
 "*.i 
 
 I 
 
 :;i ' . 
 
 
 *1 
 
 
 
 ‘ ^ ' ^^ ^W*^ ^.■ ' 'JS^W’ i y "' ff.La ‘ 
 
 « . f 
 
- 79 - 
 
 that time James was gathering nearly all his literary 
 impressions. La Farge’s influence on James's literary 
 taste was important both in its scope and in its inten- 
 sity. The following paragraph from Hotes of a Son 
 and Brother will show where their interests turned and 
 how deep an impression La Farge made on James. 
 
 "He had been through a Catholic college in 
 Paryland, the name of which, though I am not assured 
 of it now, exhaled a sort of educational elegance; hut 
 where and when he had so miraculously laid up his stores 
 of reading and achieved his universal saturation was 
 what we longest kept asking ourselves. Many of these 
 depths I couldn't pretend to sound, but it was immediate 
 ^nd appreciable that he revealed to us Browning for in- 
 stance; and this, oddly enough, long after Men and Women 
 had begun (from our Paris time on, if I remember) to 
 lie upon our parents' book-table. They had not divined 
 in us as yet an aptitude for that author; whose appeal 
 indeed John reinforced to our eyes by the reproduction 
 of a beautiful series of illustrative drawings, two or 
 
 three of which he was never to surpass and more than 
 
 he was to complete his highly distinguished plan for 
 the full set, not the least faded of his hundred dreams. 
 Most of all he revealed to us Balzac; having so much 
 to tell me of what was within that formidably-plated 
 

 V { 
 
 9? - 
 
 
 Bid S£b SttX’s»rf?«3' saw aomal Bmxi^Bdt 
 
 •riiidc* *^ 9^«»GUsl ;,o osnwanni q'Vi^uH al *oaoU8«iqol 
 a/i fii twui ^^-{Ot)3 ' nl ^aaitiojjjaki Bom otBBt 
 
 S41woXIo;i"mT ’ ^^tln 
 bf*ayus stutBieiiiil tl^X^enarfif w^rfa lliw r^wrf^ipna iMta 
 • samali co efaaw aJ AoX«fce*x«^.ol na qeaX> wo^ g 
 
 fl t o^aJXoo olIorfiTii') r; "(Sdod bpd •fT'^ 
 
 li, 
 
 A^*xifa«a ion mu 1 rf^oxl^ ,ioJ4?r'^o acnaa odi 
 
 t-* Aj 
 
 joiiCABwIt X.onotJAoifi>a tp ^to« a btlmixB ,w.on 1 q 
 
 sef^o^r-i c^Xrf qu 6iaX ^laaoippaiiia p© hBd ttf sBdm bna aiailw 
 
 ©JiW aoliniatBi^, XBBTBf truj 6ld >JbBvt>idoj3 bna^^fiXbBO’t "to 
 
 '-4 > 
 
 ©aerjt to XnnU .©»yXo8‘o;o JaaBnoX ©w tadrr 
 
 BiJMboml ©AW tl tUQ .bayoa' Xjf»3©iq i^nhivCo I,eiXq©fc 
 
 bo ot S©Xfiov®*i Qif 3©/f^ ©T<f0loa*:^(qA on^. 
 
 i 
 
 haB non toitB ?j<ioX ^cXifJ^p ;g*d3' J&aa ;»ona;f3 
 
 • ‘ < . 
 
 OX riddin©ffl0‘x I ,fto oaii slua^ rsto Bo-il» i\ftafrf Aaifr 
 
 ^©0iYix> ioa bBd~ .©IcfaX^-aCoptf 'BicexAq ipo aoq© eiX. 
 
 )*^4 
 
 V *^i' 
 
 X6©qq© ©aofCw itoidiau Xsifl lolt .©ftotXX'q© hb Xs^^sa ap xiX 
 
 
 aotiotfhotqoi pdi a©^© -wo ox Oeo'toioiaV orfoi JJeoi>al 
 
 *' ■'i' 2_'. - 
 
 TO owx ,agfliwat6 PVlimitenlXl lo qoXt®c XiJlXXx/«od a Ito 
 
 0 a/{X — 5a©qTjja oX t«vbxi asw orf rfoXdw “to weii^^ ^ 
 
 TPt xiAlq ^oxiexifan'xxeXfi XiXiialft' 8ixC^ oXaXqmoa oX eaw orf 
 .emAOljfe ^©ticijrf ©Xtf lo bobnl X©e©X o4X Xon ., Xoa XXift adX 
 itopffl 09 BfiXYAfl joasXafi esj oX JbbXaeydi ®i( XXa lo XaoM 
 
 bAXAXq-iiXdAibimTol; XsfXX aldilTf aew Xurfw to cmd XXoX oX 
 
 
 i4' 
 
 
 
 ■J 
 
 " V I ■ 
 
 
 sauf * 
 
- 80 - 
 
 door, in v/hich he all expertly and insidiously played 
 
 the key, that to re-read even after long years the 
 
 introductory pages of Eugenie Grandet, breathlessly 
 
 seized and earnestly absorbed under his instruction, 
 
 is to see my initiator's youthful face, so irregular 
 
 but so refined, Ifiiok out at me between the lines as 
 
 1 
 
 through blurred prison bars. " 
 
 In 1865 Henry James wrote his first literary 
 
 review and sent it to Charles Eliot Horton, the editor 
 
 2 
 
 of the Horth American Review . The review was received 
 with favor and published in the next number of the mag- 
 azine, the October issuer and James was invited to 
 Shady Hill to meet Charles Eliot Horton and make plans 
 for future articles of the same sort. James was im- 
 mensely impressed by this invitation and the interest 
 shown in him, and the meeting of the two men marked 
 
 the beginning of a friendship which had a large influ- 
 
 3 
 
 ence on James's writing. 
 
 1. pp. 92-93. 
 
 2. For a full account see Hote 1, p. 19. 
 
 3. James says of it, in Notes of a Son and Brother , pp. 
 405-406, "I was to grow fond of regarding as a positive 
 consecration to letters that half-hour in the long library 
 
 at Shady Hill, for what did I do again and again, through 
 
 all the years, but handle in plenty what I might have 
 called the small change of it?" 
 
I 
 
 It 
 
 
 fi. 
 
 iiAA \sX4tfi^0 J^a srf rfaXA'w aX ,iooi> 
 tt'saoi5;,.3noX itjpTO j^-api’-e.i fjidjf , c®^ 
 
 ^X&atX/ir^Ae'x J ^oJoAJioitfiX 
 
 - * ' j ' 
 
 ,noi^All-r;^aAl exi i)e^xce<ffi :.l?^«/naa JSaslo© 
 
 
 T«Xtf 3 ^in 4 03 8*'xoJ4Xilcl sea o;^ aX 
 
 .ief 
 
 »a dtAiX wli^ Aoowtfml ow ^jis .i> 9 ti "t 6 i o# 
 
 ■•^ I 
 
 
 t y 
 
 J 
 
 ' ^ ' V.^IH ^ ^ X'i Tli f Cf:. hl^OZd^ 
 
 ^CxeiaJii ^atjt*i el4 ©^o-;m rtnoii ad8I al 
 
 w' - •' ' "i/yi 
 
 ■ 'iQ 7 tba Md 7 ,iiQ 7 io% JoXiS eax^aitji 7 t 4aoa wlvet 
 "? ' 2 , i -^- ' ' 
 
 fieviao&T^ dm MT ^ »ia.4Ta” A 3oXa-rL/> ©d^ to 
 
 -3flm 4^? larfwmo ’4xtc ©r?^ o.i /jcdaxidaq fias lov.at rf^iw 
 
 U 
 
 o 7 Bjfw iifttsal ^>n» joaaaX ledo^oQ , 6 df ♦ ©nisa 
 
 y t 
 
 O^Xq 93 (m l>iui oo^-Toa ^oWl a 9 lwi 0 7 aej> o 7 ^£>«0 
 
 -ci ^aw aaiaa;, .^700 ©6^46 ad 7 to atlolftti oiaV^l lot 
 J8©78l(li ©x(^ 6R4 noX;KQJxVAi aXdi^ >{4 i>9Sa67^(lli *{^XS8A0BI 5 ir: 
 
 btn{‘xm Afim out »d 7 to fciia al xiwode 
 
 •aXtat ©staX a iad dxflitw qixlaono I '{t . a to 34X0/1X904 oil4 
 
 •aai^iTi? 8-*Booujt flo pono 
 
 
 
 'iiir 
 
 w 
 
 .se-so .q<i .X 
 
 LTV 
 
 .^X .li ,X odhoil eoa Ooi/ocoa XXot a 70t 
 
 ■-V 
 
 •4 
 
 •M .ttmas bpM noS B to eetoK til ,»V to Q,,g aenaV^S t 
 adiiti 5 a©'i to Wl roi« 04 »aw I" ,dCM^-' 40 ^ 
 lU iA0j(-tXi4iX eiajvrex o^' aolXAioea/tOo . 
 
 ,{^Um baa oUgfi oX> X IjiJ!) ^arfw 7pt---,XIia'«harfS 4a 
 ©V4yf i^ifvjXtn I 3ar{w nt exiia4 4 a 4 gaiAp-^ ©44 XXo M 
 
 "ftfX to ©SAA^Q IXfiffif ad4 JieXXao^- ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 « i ■ j. 
 
 ■ •- s *'''' v *' j » j T - 'r» »fcii 
 
 •-r^“ 
 
 . ’■ l- ’ tw i x 
 
 .', i.ik 
 
 ' '•(* ,. 'kj 
 
 
 M 
 
 D.ii 7 
 
81 
 
 Charles Eliot IJorton was an aesthetic influ- 
 ence almost equal to that of James's own knowledge of 
 and saturation in the ideas of Ruskin. He stood for 
 some time in the position of guide, philosopher, and 
 friend to the young James, and there is no way of es- 
 timating with any accuracy the degree of his influence. 
 
 It is certain that this influence was great, and that 
 it served to deepen the effect and hroaden the appli- 
 cation of James's already developed Euskinism. Horton 
 was a close friend of Huskin' s, and he had made an 
 exhaustive study of Modern Painters and applied the 
 theories to all phases of criticism in the fields of 
 art and literature. Ruskin wrote about him as follows: 
 "And thus I became possessed of my second friend, after 
 Rr. John Brown, and of ray first real tutor, Charles 
 Eliot Horton. In every branch of classical literature 
 he was my superior, knew old English writers better than I 
 
 much more, old French; and had active fellowship and". 
 
 close friendship with the then really progressive lead- 
 ers of thought in his own countryra Longfellow, Lowell, 
 and Emerson. 
 
 "All the sympathy and all the critical subtlety 
 of his mind had been given, not only to the reading, but 
 

 ■ i' ^ 1 ' iiiv'i 
 
 ^VT.1 
 
 ti 
 
 ij 
 
 ( 
 
 L 
 
 ■y . 
 
 - ra - 
 
 
 -un^i rust a»w no^aoi; toU^ ee^zadO ^ 
 
 to osfiioIwoiLi irwo to ot XAupe JootciB soao 
 
 -T E?T" "l 4 A ■' — 
 
 •lOl X>oo »0 ®H .aii£l*«S lo a*'>6Z Jiltf ni ii0i>B;ai3;os baa 
 b£La ,iDrfqo8oXlrfq .eOty^ i;o «oit'aoij. oHt ni qaob 
 
 
 -;jB, *tot=ijBw on ai oiarf? uajjo'c ot bnoiH 
 
 I <Kj 
 
 ♦ Bitf to oe^jefe -Sna ri^tw r^jtU^fxiisZ^ 
 
 A' 
 
 Ana ,3r0fti^ baw iZarfir. ala^Too. al 
 
 -ZXqfZia 04^ nafrAo^tf li/iis Afoatla orfJ iS9jao/> o^Ab^via® j-l 
 no^tzott a'aoaitw to upitoo ♦ 
 
 an oAad ftflwl ecf ^ao ,« ’a lo finoi'it euoXo A. aaff 
 
 odt ^eZ^ii^a 6jio a-i&taXa<t Q’t>>lt<^i ,! to 
 
 ft ... -. ■* * ‘ * 
 
 t«; M^XdZt arf;f nl msiolJ-i’tO to paeariq xi« o;r aottoaiit 
 !«v7oXXot 80 old ?aotfa a^oTw aiSau£ bfm tia 
 
 la^t/i bfioo^ <c® to fcooQoaaoq ocjaoad X BB.iSf, ftnA" 
 
 X«»i iTO%Xt td.&na ,nwo^a n;fol ,i<t. 
 
 0 :- 
 
 5 »'; 
 
 t- 
 
 
 -I 
 
 . oxoJxtio^lX XooXeaoXo to xfoiiH'iO yc^f^vb al . .aol^infl foil'd, 
 X flod^ siotXw dalXnsid bXo a®n:l,.,«Olieqiia ^ a^w erf 
 
 
 
 
 btM <ild 9 W 0 XXet ovX;^oj 5 bod Oaa ^rfoaort'^ OXo i,eTotii xfoit/c--- 
 ♦^seX eviaaoi^Oiq 'jiloei am^ ed^ dtiw qideOaeXit eaoXo 
 .XXowod ,woXX«tBflO^,.in^‘i 7 ftxjoo nwo aid fli to'.Ato 
 
 "J ^ ‘noo-icmg Jbrfli' 
 
 *>v 
 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 iBotyiiO orft IXb Xao ^3‘4qfli\;f» edX XXA* 
 
 X.01I erfj i^o^i ,novl.;^ aeecf i>ari Vniw sXrf to , = 
 
 ^ w 
 
 j 3 
 
 
 './ ■' ,’.’M 
 
 'I ' . itr ilW. - ■ li> n I 
 
 >r 
 
 «-¥-r 
 
 il 
 
 riM- 
 
 . I V' ■, V 
 
 g. ' tf »- aaK « " ' « tt ' j 
 
- 82 - 
 
 to the trial and following out of the whole theory 
 
 of Modern Painters ; so that, as I said, it was a 
 
 very real joy for him to meet me, and a very "bright 
 
 1 
 
 and singular one for both of us 
 
 The influence of Charles Eliot Norton is 
 the last of those which I should class as formative 
 influences, that is to say, the influences which 
 were actively in operation before James had given 
 written evidence of the fact that he was purely 
 aesthetic in his critical theory. Later influences, 
 Matthew Arnold and Walter Pater, for instance, tend 
 to change the style of his aestheticism, but they do 
 not figure in its origin. 
 
 1. Ruskin, John: Praeterita; London; George Allen and 
 Sons, 1910. 2 Vols. Vol.III. pp. 77-79. 
 
I 
 
 TT 
 
 
 jt ’V 
 
 . ‘'-V. | 4 
 
 r - 26 - 
 
 "* I '• 
 
 zroBdS dio^ni^ «xt^ 'to ^ae erf^ 
 
 a *hv il ,bl£M I aa oa 
 
 S.t^i'XiS ;io-/ a i»j»B ct \b 1 l 4 t loax ,, 
 
 -X ' e '.r, / 
 
 ‘*.--,^154 Ic fC^od ©/so xaXvJgiUe 6oe 
 
 ■ . ? ♦- ' . . ‘ 
 
 ' rro^^ovi ♦Oii:; ©©riii.^CO to o^fiaaXtoi ©4*D 
 
 , ■ ' \ ' ■' i. y 
 
 aVi fiiBixot -*33 Tq ^lobrfe I Koixfw ©aoiXt to d-aaX arft 
 
 
 <oiilw . vOfi oj aX .aaoAei/Il/vX 
 
 /loejexoiro.RX ©xw 
 
 
 %X9i»U «»w -!rt iAdS JOat^aiT^ to #ooeMv©vni;firXxw 
 
 , x^aono/jItM *T*ixa -fAOBdi ‘Si^nXJijo hU til dtJBdiat>Js , \ .. 
 
 .^;.aoJaal x 01 \' 5 i>Ja^ J^XoaxA wqd^ifail sif'?' 
 
 00 X® '^aif ,«i^aioid^©if;fQ9a a.JjX to dyna46 Ot 
 
 -ai^Xto dtl ni ©xu^Xl 
 
 '■v:^ V 
 
 . V 
 
 I 4 . i 
 
 • / I 
 
 "%^4 / ' 
 
 • ■ j <•;, 
 
 ?i'«W « 
 
 =* ♦' *sj 
 
 ■ I'P* 
 
 
 
 ^nA noifi ;aobQo»X; ajixfry©ax2 ;m(oXi ,ai 3 foJu^' .X 
 
 .?T-VV .III .X6V V#Xo7 .O-Xei .aiioB f 
 
 * » ■ •' ■ • r-' 
 
 A* i 
 
 {, 
 
 
 
 ’' ■W Br» C * Ut» : j ' l| '; 
 
 •n i:t 
 
 i 
 
 .. . >Al 
 
 t.w 
 
 ,/ ■.'■ '-.VI,# 
 
 ■ ■ ■r* ";" ■ !.« ■■'■ 'I 
 
 i 
 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 LATER ESSAYS 
 
 Although this study is directed chiefly toward 
 a consideration of the origin of James’s standards, the 
 changes, and the formative influences, it will be well 
 to round out the investigation by considering James’s 
 aestheticism as shown in certain of his later essays. 
 Seldom after the time of his aesthetic reaction to 
 Lincoln and Johnson did James strike a purely moral note 
 in his critical essays; there was always a touch of 
 aestheticism, so that we conclude that James conceived 
 of conduct as aesthetically agreeable or disagreeable 
 rather than as ethically right or wrong. I shall 
 take up one at a time various essays, touching upon each 
 decade of his life, and consider the aesthetic standpoint 
 from which they were written. 
 
 The first book of essays-which James published 
 
 1 
 
 was French Poets and novelists . This was published in 
 1878, a year before James’s study of Hawthorne appeared in 
 the English Lien of Lwtters series. Ezra Pound says that 
 
 1. James, Henry; French Poets and novelists ; London, and 
 N. Y. ; Macmillan and Company, 1893. 
 

 * 
 
 iiv P4o?<ij)u:o, 
 
 eU 82 a KZ7U, 
 
 ■t 
 
 ‘ H ‘ ,*‘‘^ El 
 
 Atatod- xiy^ifio t©dof»til) rl ;^J^1« ^irfd* if^'dcftlA ’ *n| 
 
 »j '■ ' •' • —. •■ • ' 
 
 9d^ ,Bb*inba^iH >ii' 2 fiinoT# isii^tlisr-e^fa* lo noid’aViil^iafioo a 
 
 j > 
 
 X/w »<{ XXXw ifJ? •, arfd ibina ,aor;^Bx{o 
 ^rtJriirftimndo icd ^oU^i$t:^ao 7 ^;X or(^ d-ad haltpj o^ 
 
 Ill » 
 
 aX mso4a aa maiol^an^Qaa 
 
 od fto/toiiin ^c ©arid arfj* ledla mofiXafi 
 
 . V '• ^ 
 
 ©don ImoBi a biJi* adetLM bcm HlcoalJ, 
 
 't^V 
 
 lo rXoflOd 1 ^ B^swla 9 j$tr &^n.:i- ^a^G^a*^ X^oXdito aid nt 
 • , . • ‘ 
 6i»7iaoco& Bsjttdt, tadd o5aXonoo ©tT* da^d on ,maioidaddeea 
 * , •’ « ,.^ 
 •»Xifaoa*j^^ex& rso ©fdao^'i^a iCXiw>iderfia©a aa doajbaoo to 
 
 if- . ' ’ 
 
 
 , XXwfa t 10 dft'aii 'xiTUoiild© aa*n«dd lerfdax ;.Sl/ 
 
 ’ ' ’ *‘^ ■ u> 3 
 
 rfoa® floqi# ^aMouod .a^aei© aooXtriv ©mid o dii ono qo ojfad ' 
 
 diUoqBAada oXdarfdaoy ©rfd xBjblanoo ina ,«til bX/< lo ©BaooJi\ 
 
 ,(S .-:^‘ • ■%'■ 
 
 »Afl,tdXiw ©low ^offd rloXfiw- ffloit ,/f, 
 
 bodelXffjjq aortali ifo|a'w a-piase to :<oO</ daiit ori? 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 t! ■ 
 
 
 Hi BodalXcioq a^w eld? , 9^&JIftroK btus adoo^ aaw 
 
 ■ 1 ' ■ fai ^ 
 
 4 «. 
 
 fii Beiasqito oaipitdwaH to ^B^rda a’oe«jeC oiototf ,QV8X 
 
 a' 
 
 darfd Aisa -jBeXioa tijiddwU 16 n' 9 ilMlIyi£i Ji sd& 
 
 
 - -'Ht 
 
 bile ,Qfybsx&d ; adaiX& 7 oH Btta 3 d©o*l doni^^ t^nmK , 8 oaat .X^ 
 
 NS'eK ftoa naX XiaoaM ; *X .«! 
 
 »«%i« 
 
 
 J W -J gw j 
 
 SS» 
 
84 
 
 this book is disgustingly fikll of Puritan morality. 
 
 A very careful perusal of its contents fails to reveal 
 any of it. Indeed morality is conspicuously absent, 
 almost indecently so in places. The illustrations 
 given hereafter are typical of the whole book. 
 
 Consider, for example, the sharp contrast 
 
 between James's vulgarly stated curiosity about the 
 
 1 
 
 adventures of Miss Braddon which would qualify her to 
 write about the race-track and his ironical but complete 
 acceptance of the peccadilloes of Alfred de Musset, which 
 he justified on the grounds that they resulted in good 
 literature . 
 
 "Alfred de Musset's superfine organization, his 
 exaltations and his weaknesses, his pangs and his tears, 
 his passions and his debaucheries, his intemperance and 
 his idleness, his innumerable mistresses (with whatever 
 pangs and miseries it may seem proper to attribute to 
 them ) , his quarrel with a woman of genius, and the scandals, 
 exposures, and recriminations that are so ungracefully 
 
 bound up with it all this was necessary in order that we 
 
 should have the two or thdee little volumes into which 
 his best is compressed. It certainly takes a great 
 
 1. Vide ante p.31. 
 

 
 
 
 - - 
 
 .^fXatOo rtc^i^nn^ lo XXift aX, ^oorf ®i 43 
 
 XaevtJi c''^hX!b 1 a^hottuoo eli XAiUiioq A 
 
 j^Uosda t«TaifOiioi<jaxsoo ai lo^ijaA 
 
 oAoi^aTtuiilXl .V DwjX^ o<i ;faoaIa 
 
 .jCootf aXO^w eit^ to sie nevljs 
 
 
 Xli 3 t^aoo citBda %tif7 tc" .-ia^inao? 
 
 k •* 
 
 affX ^xroda tXi 80 l‘t^^ 3 ^ tOJa-’a cftdW^atf 
 
 ■', ■ - . *. •' s,e> . 
 
 iijp ^ oi i*£..^tilaiip 6 XiJow noji^aift aslH *ti estirlaoTAa 
 
 )•• I ^ .w • , , H- ' • 
 
 I . ‘i ■ 'v ' • - - ■ '2 ' 
 
 (^tqaon tOfS tauXtxQii aid ftf»« otff^ 5iJAito 
 
 .- ■■ ■ • ' , ' • ■^ . 4 ^.iiATf 0 ?- 
 
 ifoltfw ,^ 0 si 0 lC 0 t aattlA *5 tiecXXl^eyoa;^ ax 0 to’aoaa;^q,§p&« 
 
 ftoog nl letXfl^a^i d'ar..* aftnoo^^; e»*ft ao DoitiXaat M“ 
 
 
 i) 
 
 .1 
 
 ‘ \ 
 
 r - ■< • - • 
 
 . sialat^tH 
 
 ,noi;fe?Xna^"io 0 RJtiav*U 8 a'i^aanii BA kbtXtX* 
 
 , 3T«e3* sM Aiw «Xf( ,eona®a^dw tfJtrf taa eapl^Btlaao ^ 
 
 ^ y, '''' 
 
 An«^ eojtaTe^ffiolfti aiH ,aoXieaoi3fidcA nXxi pna saotAsa^ aiil ^ ^ 
 
 a ' '^.:.,v ' Vix 
 
 Tev 0 jdif*f nXiy) Moaa^ti^^tiXtti oXdaiOfiUi nf’A aXiC .aa^afXAl «Xd 
 
 ■» -i. 
 
 oi aJxrtfXa^^rt o;r id«|o^vi tnoea 'saxn ?J silnaalw 5Aa 
 
 
 '■ '.^iV 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 .aXahcaoa orf^ Ana x^mco^' a Xeiiaop slrf . 
 
 ■ I I ‘ * ''L * , • ji ; 
 
 ’^Ili/^aoaiyux 00 Ata dadd anoXdaitlititoav Aaa .aoud^o^iea 
 
 _ ’■f'- ife 
 
 ow Jad^ nt \iaaa©oen^,aaw ald^ XXa — rt^Xw hiu/od X 
 
 rfiiXdw otrtJ BamoXot aend^^ro owt odi ovad bXn'oda 
 
 ' . , ■' ;■ • V 1 * 
 
 ' • ■ ^ " '■ - - ^ 
 
 taota A lodiivX ^XnlatfiA^J . deapf aqiooo al ;fa6d aid 
 
 ^ I 3 i — 
 
 ©iaa ©AiV «X 
 
 -IS- 
 
- 85 - 
 
 deal of life to make a little art! In this case, 
 
 1 
 
 however, we must remember, that little is exquisite.” 
 Except for the expression of a doubt as to 
 the adviseableness of his choice of subjects, James 
 has no condemnation for Baudelaire, and much praise 
 for_ his artistry. Here we have expressed again that 
 appreciation of incidental charms in a thing fundament- 
 ally repulsive which we noted in James’s review of 
 
 2 
 
 I.niei de Guerin's Letters . The following excerpts 
 from his essay will reveal the artist's point of view. 
 
 "His great quality was an inordinate cultiva- 
 tion of the sense of the picturesque, and his care was 
 for how things looked, and whether some kind of imag- 
 inative amusement was not to be got out of them, much 
 
 more than for what they meant and whither they led and 
 
 3 
 
 what was their use in human life at large.” 
 
 "A good way to embrace Baudelaire at a glance 
 
 is to say that he was, in his treatment of evil, exactly 
 
 what Hawthorne was not Hawthorne, who felt the thing 
 
 4 
 
 at its source, deep in the human consciousness. ” 
 
 1. French Poets and Novelists ; p. 30. 
 
 2. Vide ante pp. 54-55. 
 
 3. French Poets and novelists ; . p. 59. 
 
 4. Idem. p. 61. 
 
* • . , ■ . rT“j jBm 
 
 <1 1 Hlf i t^ifrr -Irl - 
 
 
 '>yH 'T' 1 
 
 /■ ' - ftfi - 7 .j 
 
 ,o«4>9 aitus nT ^ J a pii^ ot ylU lo XfieA 
 
 ' . ' „ ' .* 
 
 ** .♦WaiwpTrf* Ki o-ilJlI , *igt:jgt>m{)i^aog »v ,i9rpyr<i4 
 
 ot © 3 s iti/t'ob 4 *td aei"iBo*tq!i::tj loTt 
 
 I* i 
 
 ^Dipdt, ,%io 9 ^clfla 2 <i affXo/iD nld. <» 2 »©neX£J«e?*Xv^.J 3 ? odiX 
 
 |V- 
 
 rfoiio ,o*U»I$Ju$j$fi lat ftodi^rja 9 j&floo cn b 4 x£ 
 J 4 f(? -'-da © 1 ( 1*9 ©Yiirf pw toi 
 
 k 
 
 3 nMJ a ni an’tjjiifo lBwiw 6 J;ofvi l?o noXj^«u©©i\f;i 4 
 
 Woi?©! a*e#pjit oA pw tiolilv f^vXsXi?i©i IT. 
 
 ‘i ’2 ' r V ^ 2 K^'’'"v 
 
 -[^ntroXfol wfl ^’^XioaO ©%.©£I| 4 i i< 
 
 • '< • I ^ . * • 
 
 .aii'lv X*©V*»i Xi*iw ^aea© aXxC moil 
 
 ?.171 V^, ■ ' j ' 1 ''’ 
 
 -arXX£ 6 o cXAnXMfciiX tiA aa»r Xatii ' slH*’ 
 
 oaw ©7 jao eid ]>«« ,e«p8&iff^oiq *to oaxie^, adl' to ' 
 
 , , -3AWX to tol>£ emo'i loiiJotfw Mb .ioiooi worf lot*^' ’ 
 
 ^ ^ ' ' '' ' j- 
 
 xfojffl ,«©/(? to ^izc ^Oa ©d Oil ^oij' Bftw. Xnaai&aiimm 
 
 
 6na beX ^QiU radildw a-ae X«b©i 7 s^oxfl itid^ lOt n<*rfX »iorf , 
 
 ^ ' ' »-■'■ 
 
 ^ ©tXX aaawtf nX ©a.o iJ fitfX a-ar ^ 4 dw ’, HJ-f 
 
 r '*»'M’v-‘iT' ' 
 
 9on4X3 a )a aitxiv'oXiuAd ©oaic/iiio- oil 44© J&003 1 * ‘ 
 
 '^XXoAxB yiir© to aijl Hi i«,ai3t bd tart^ oi al 
 
 ' ' ’ , • -, '\'-sS 
 
 ' '■ ■Iji^l I JTM 
 
 ^cildi ^’Xat Oif© , oo[io 4 tfwatH“-“i‘oxi# a^w oxiioilXiiaH Jariw 
 
 E 3 ^ ' -‘ ■ 
 
 ” .asoASiloXosaoc iiowj 9 i 1 o^fi «i q&e^ ,©0100$ 
 
 ' - ■ »' - 
 
 b 
 
 
 :i 
 
 i 
 
 
 »bfJ .;{ : ^tsiX^QK AiU . ied^ ifpy 
 
 V .da-i*a .qq o^xt»o.© 61 / .3 
 
 »*?d ‘1 : feiifliiXevog X»itd eieo^L rionsiT .«r 
 ' •' ‘J* .Xd .ttOkfii .A 
 
 " d ^ 
 
 rv^¥t*a^ 
 
 
 r^err 
 
86 
 
 "Moreover his natural sense of the superficial 
 picturesqueness of the miserable and the unclean was 
 
 extremely acute. The idea that Baudelaire imported into 
 
 his theme was, as a general thing, an intensif ication 
 
 1 
 
 of its repulsiveness, hut it was at any rate ingenious." 
 
 Ivan Turgenieff influenced James considerably 
 in his creative writing. James admired him for his 
 aesthetic appreciation of sensations both of life and 
 of religion. An interesting note in the following 
 appreciative statement is that about Turgenieff’ s 
 feeling for the passion and beauty of religion. 
 
 "Imagination guides his hand and modulates 
 his touch, and makes the artist worthy of the observer. 
 
 In a word, he is universally sensitive. In suscept- 
 ibility to the sensuous impressions of life to colours 
 
 and odours and forms, and the myriad ineffable refine- 
 ments and enticements of beauty he equals, and even 
 
 surpasses, the most accomplished representatives of the 
 French school of atory-telling; and yet he has, on the 
 other hand, an apprehension of man's religious impulses, 
 of the ascetic passion, the capacity of becoming dead 
 
 1. Idem. p. 62. 
 
- T** "ii ~nf »T« • mJ* IN.'- 
 
 •■aar-« ic*-i<^., 4 m »< i ^ i iii y*i i irf i ft ; ;j ii,. ' ,^ 
 
 ■ ■, I ’ ■TS' ' 
 
 V- 
 
 , ' ■■■> \ f 
 
 ■% 
 
 - AO - 
 
 r*. 
 
 btsfdU XetaSs^a aid, XdrooioSl" ^ * 
 tiLB 0£di^t^(? iat b.^'t 'to 
 
 $tiL ^BdS *s9hi .od^jjoM ^SsniBj^x^ 
 
 p*o£Jnolllsn.9Siil tin ,;^i^S 4 i8i.A , flair aid 
 
 Vt 
 
 . iuolita^ni eiflx \jxu3i. ?« aevr }9t e&l tci 
 
 * -ii iv.' - f': 
 
 1 1 V 
 
 Wki 
 
 
 ng V '. i' ' 4 , ra 
 
 iild 'ipl: puff /i^'ilaba ovlitat'xo §Itf nl 
 
 a . ^■ 
 
 5fii>. elXi 7o d^otf .mo/^3fl4if^a . olaaioflXqqfl 
 
 rM'"" 
 
 ^.tJie^XXol fii fl^oo OA. s .noiSlXflX Y5 ;‘ 
 
 s*ll»iai>axuT ^;/odo 4^^" avlitBj:har<iqe 
 
 'i(^ 
 
 
 ti- C 
 
 .not'^Zfoz lo tfw tvpiud^iq to% eat 
 
 ■ ‘ ' ' . • '. "t" 
 
 . ^Ou*aX;j6oci i>mi tnad :ii*4 
 
 orft fldx- iQjiaffl Vriis ,doi/o4 eiii * *^,v: 
 
 -tfqsoJOB rtj •6ylflifiiiAtke, 'jl .’jt ©rf ,Axoiflfl flX. 
 
 i • ■ ^ 
 
 miqloo OX---01IX io idOX^Mdxqtsfl eaoimiiflii i^di o^ ^iUtdi ' y^\ 
 -•flitfli eidBy'iftiii bBlTxa edit bate .asudtot tne aiuo^o had 
 
 Ufl7fl iftA ,BXiiHpe od-^-'-'^ydiiUd 1t"o d#nBiB6ol;frio i>nfl fltfafla v 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 lo •fVltflJaeabiciex J5e4(Urft<flOos)fl ^soto »A3 ,»e9rjim^ah 
 
 Pdf lie ,ted eti 3e% t>ti& ;:5aiXXflJ.-^xo;^a 'id Xoodoa dorti-x'5 
 
 8eaXi:,gmi a’naflc^o aolaaodflTqqfl aa .X^ruirt aadto v j 
 
 baaP ^meoett: te ■:31eeqae ed3 .aoleahq ui;raofl4 . edirlo 
 
 kk 
 
 
 
 
 
 .q ^ipoOI .’X 
 
87 
 
 to colours and odours and beauty, never dreamed of 
 in the philosophy of Balzac and Flaubert, Octave 
 Feuillet and Gustave Droz Let us add, in con- 
 
 1 
 
 clESion, that his merit of form is of the first order.” 
 
 Religion, then, we must assume, meant to James 
 nothing more than a sort of complementary passion to 
 the sensuous, a capacity of becoming dead to colors, 
 odors, and beauty, in other words a kind of negative 
 aesthetic thrill. 
 
 One of the most important, as well as the 
 longest, of James's literary essays was Na thaniel 
 Hawthorne . which was published in 1879 in the English 
 Hen of Letters series. This is a book comprising 
 almost two hundred pages of history, biography, and 
 criticism. In it James shows that his admiration 
 for Hawthorne is based on the latter's ability to 
 make picturesque literary capital out of the Puritan 
 conscience, and incidentally reveals himself as an 
 expatriated American and an utter snob. 
 
 It is quite reasonable that one who depended 
 to such an extent upon the richness of impression 
 and association to be gathered from his surroundings 
 

 L^«W.J.- 'J '-,:.lA::ap:ap- ■ »-| , tr,n | -a- | Tr"T Jil I| |>'T • ' --» 
 
 
 
 f »i 
 
 'I. 
 
 
 ejs- 
 
 H'^ 
 
 •f 
 
 ' \ . 
 
 ^ ; - !'■■' 4)l».i ^ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 ■ 4' 
 
 ►'■s. 
 
 ' ior* n«T©*i 2?c* e^ixfQbo bfiua <*t«oXOo ot ' 
 
 ♦ <»vi>toO ,5‘T6iToar; tftiA wft ni-^ 
 
 -fwt) rti .Abe sii baa tfa/Xla»'3 |^, 
 
 ".Tab-io tfc-rn dftX ex id* *?effJ^^;noiatXo . 
 
 aoi'ftl of faeem .•roiibab ,ta^m i.w .attf?* ’*1 fc?'- 
 
 pf noi*a«': vcfa^nafflaiqisio f«3 a r.ad'jt; 4'icw.^td^oa *? 
 
 V.,'- '" " ' ’ ^ 
 
 %,%nf Xoo of i-aeA lo a * 
 
 d. •■ ' V ■■ - '( 
 
 ©vX^a^an to AaX:^ a eA*r<;«r nX , ^Xaj&ea b:tj^,a*roAo jaf;^ 
 
 V ^ .XX^t^O’ ^’‘Tad^eoa 
 
 eift> aa IX aw a** ,^na^7oq4ii feom. a,U to 
 
 aaw B^saajgiaia^it! 0 'aojttft to .XaegaoX 
 dBtihPJA art? tiX 9t*6X ni r*9/fBXXcIij^ saw rtoinw •AfG5d£E^ 
 
 . ;^aXiq»ao aiood a ai sirtT i^ultccc *n o??aJ ■■^o^ ^. 
 
 Arwi /^(jATgottf ,^o? 9 Xrt to aaga:! fioiAmjd ow? ?«6wXa 
 naXXoilcJAa slri ?Jirt? aworta eo^iwXi ?X ul j,.tnaXol?'X'io 
 
 ^ * n 
 
 oT' jitlXioa a*io.*?aX art? no Asoatf 8X5euiort?waH not ^ 
 
 ffc * ^ 
 
 n£?.'*tf;<C ttrf? to ?ao Xa^X<jr«o ^•ra’ya^iX ©wpaoTa^ox^^ aiA-Q^' 
 
 r \lf (■* 
 
 ‘ ! ’ ■-*? ' .' A ' ’ 
 
 aa ^a tX&8dlif sXatva*} ^sX-TaJnoAfoal 5aa ,ooxiaio^oo ' ■; , 
 
 
 % « 
 
 V ' 
 
 
 • do;^N idffu aa beta naol’iainA Ao?al'x?i«jxa , ^ ■ 
 
 LoAijoqoA ortw eno ftXrfaaOaast stiwp aX* ?“1 
 
 i 
 
 ‘rtOXaaoTqfljl to ©aoadoXi «r{?'’no 0 a l?o:a?xo na rtoar o*X 
 
 ^ j_, 
 
 n^oiAmioirfifa alrf .tu^it AeiortXa^’ ort of nplfetooepe Aiii-V 
 
 J 
 
 ♦ f u 
 
 
 ^ t "■i ’fi 
 
 /W. 
 
 '■■'A .* 
 
 
 
 
 -L- i y .l ltf I 
 
 ■ ^4t ' "ii, rn • . •• v r &ifin '^ jt ' LZ-V tt^'- '*'’ 
 
88 
 
 should feel keenly the poverty of Hawthorne’s external 
 lifd, the decidedly unliterary influence of the small 
 Hew England town and the monotony of every-day adventure. 
 James expresses this feeling in the following paragraph. 
 
 "One might enumerate the items of high civil- 
 ization, as it exists in other countries, which are 
 absent from the texture of American life, until it 
 should become a wonder to know what was left. Ho State, 
 in the European sense of the word, and indeed barely 
 a specific national name. Ho sovereign, no court, 
 no personal loyalty, no aristocracy, no church, no 
 clergy, no array, no diplomatic service, no country 
 gentlemen, no palaces, no castles, nor manors, nor old 
 country-houses, nor parsonages, nor thatched cottages, 
 nor ivied ruins; no cathedrals, nor abbeys, nor little 
 Herman churches; no great Universities nor public 
 
 schools no Oxford, nor Eton, nor Harrow; no literature, 
 
 no novels, no museums, no pictures, no political society, 
 
 no sporting class no Epsom nor Ascot! Some such list 
 
 as this might be drawn up of the absent things in the 
 American life of forty years ago, the effect of which 
 upon an English or a Erench imagination, would probably. 
 
i f 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 5£: 
 
 .’■* 
 
 A ‘ 
 
 « 
 
 ' !, 
 
 'W 
 
 
 -!> ' 
 't ' 
 
 • IB - 
 
 jfj 
 
 Xaait^t) ^ A^n-ioatwdfi Iq ^^Jioroq .^Xi/orft 
 
 IXArnn ^0 »O0*i»X’kBi ,dtiX 
 
 , lo 'iAOaonOi’T orf.? iioa (wot iinaXsAS 
 
 ^iiii(4XXe*X ^/{& aX snli©©?: ggtrX^ anuAfnqxe SffSAJi 
 
 -ZlTtl^ lo eoeiX erfi utfAier^A^ dflO’^*=» 
 
 
 ( tJ 
 
 ■» ©ta ffffiifvt .oeXitdwac ftl Xi sb .npi^aal 
 
 ... 4 •» ■ ■ • • * 
 
 i 
 
 . 'I 
 
 Ti?’, ^ " Xi:^Aii ,«itX ftaoixejnA lo ert^. m'fl ^naada 
 
 o’X ssv Xiviw wosL^,,A^: z^iuiom a Pciooatf ,i>Xt/oil« 
 
 t:retatf feaafefiX ftmj ,Xiaw Jo ob«os «aaqQxi;a b 1 
 
 .1 ■ Jy 
 
 .t^raoo oa .jj^gldievoQ 
 
 00 ,Hoifui{o 00 .^oaiooJoXia OA^,‘i^XaxoX XftnpBjog oo i» 
 
 a' -r ;0 
 
 ..( . 
 
 'C'ljcistoc OA ,OGX«iaa on ,\jcn^ on f^toXo □ 
 
 ♦ 5*100^ *roa .a&X'^aap ort .aoaaXa^^ Pa .aaoioX^AeB ‘ 
 
 ^9dot/u(;^ too .3eBPA08ii*g ton ^aaa^oiX-^iifaaoo 
 aXX<^XX ton ,a^«cf(fa tPn tfi'XdtAaif^ao on jaxiXoT AelyX toa 
 
 oi^rfnq I’oc 4«iPletdvXn'U JaoiB {0fl4oti/<fo neancoH 
 ^stn^a-teiflX Oil ;wo'tiaB ion ,no^a ion ».UiotxO on— -eXoo^oa 
 ,i:;t6iooa XaoX^tXXoq on >,9«T0tpXa .annoAufii on ,aXovoxi oni' 
 Jail rfooa ©noS !Jocf*jv ion on — '••oaXo B^iJioga ga 
 
 ei(i UX’ TA0«(f|» orfJ 3:0 qn nwaisA od Jpgim eirfi aa 
 
 doXtfw io. Joftlta dAx ^oga ata«^ 'to otiX nao loaiX 
 
 .’^XtXadon^ feXoo*?' .nolJaijigfw^ii tfoaoiB a to 
 
 J 
 
 
 -‘-♦V s‘ 
 
- 89 - 
 
 as a general thing, be appalling. The natural 
 remark, in the almost lurid light of such an indict- 
 ment, would be that, if these things are left out, 
 everything is left out. The American knows that a 
 
 good deal remains; what it is that remains that is 
 
 his secret, his joke, as one may say. It would he 
 cruel, in this terrible denudation, to deny him the 
 consolation of his national gift, that ’American 
 
 1 
 
 humour' of which of late years we have heard so much.” 
 
 It is not surprising, I say, that James, with 
 
 all his love for things that are surrounded, entwined, 
 
 ivy-covered, and enriched with associations of all kinds, 
 
 should have leaned toward the European rather than the 
 
 American view of the denuded condition of American life, 
 
 and that he should have given this pseudo-Ruskinian 
 2 
 
 account of it. It is most picturesquely Jamesian, 
 
 and it is not for this that I have characterized him 
 as a snob. It is quite reasonable that anyone should 
 prefer the schloss on the Rhine to the ice-house on 
 the Hudson. The following little bit of superiority. 
 
 1. James, Henry: Hathaniel Hawthorne ; H. Y. ; Harper 
 and Brothers, 1879. pp. 42-42. 
 
 2. Compare Ruskin’s refusal to come to America because 
 he would not go to a country toich had no castles or 
 ivied ruins. 
 

 
 
 * 
 
 k 
 
 
 J 
 
 - P8 - 
 
 |»tf liSIda^S B SB 
 
 -■ ' r:j ' "- 
 
 a& doj^^ ^0 t|fsix MV»I ii> ,iiaaoi 
 
 rATutfift «dt 
 
 ,^110 n»i 9Z6 Bgnlrit #9«rf;f tt etf Mao« ^Jaaa 
 
 A tiwooTf juiCf^iiiMr^A aHT < 5 j»o *T^aX inx 
 
 \4 ^;4X twxfjr — aniafl:' *1 l Ji ^adir~f8fti#«sai Iaai> ^ooTi 
 
 , / -C >• S ' I .. •.. ® 
 
 -©d ftXiii^ tl. .'jaa (too aa ,o7(pl aid ,^Bi.op/a^Bt4< 
 
 11 
 
 •rfX (ii^{ tAob lU'.Xaoip 
 
 
 
 H 4t 
 
 iwioii9«A' laAoitax*, eJb^ Ico aoitTiiXoa&ioo 
 
 
 
 iVj ‘ 
 
 ..XojJtt 09 ayai en btjbo^ 9,'JxVl lo '*saOiHOri W * 
 
 4jw(j. ,%b9 i ' too'-ai 
 
 .feaalWft© , fcoXfuapi^^ OTJB Mil;t »^nlr(;r avol elff 
 
 E< ji( 
 
 /f> ' • *1^. 
 
 .al^itiA iXfl aaol^aiooeaa d^iw ^odoi^e i^na. *, J&aieivoo-'iyX 
 
 ©rft nad;f zbA^bz fjoaqoTi/ft ©dX ^laworf' ©vjaii bXuQda 
 
 !!:il 
 
 *5 
 
 V.t' 
 
 ciit!>l’iBOiA j^tttlULOp Qdif troiv 
 
 ftaini3Cajjfr-.9^*ii90^, Astd^ xioYi'^j ayacj fifnoria ©d" j>n» 
 
 '■ ‘ S ■■•:- 
 
 ,caii»©/rj8^ ’^X0;ipaexi:idrai.£ ni fl 
 
 • ^0 ^’njjoooa 
 
 ' ' V ' 
 
 Bild ftaaXie^^cujnarfoi ari^4 ^ ^lyf'cr aX4^ rpl ^oA at ^X-Aba 
 
 }*'i 
 
 k , ,' 
 
 J^XjPdAt^ ^no^Af Xarft, oitfATO&a©! ©JXup ©i 3*1 .(fo£i8 A ea 
 
 Ai> 0AaO4~«Ol < OdiX 0^^ &C.UIH ©4^ do 
 
 foe wf;f ^telQtttiv 
 
 , aizoXz9qm U ytif sX^nx j^ZwoIIoV a4'5 .noai»AE.odt) 
 
 ”. I '***?*■'■ ■ ’• ' ■ 
 
 
 ;,f ,n } 6sixPiiifwBU SBlaady'sM ;xzn»S .aamali .5, 
 
 ^ .sioiWotxd bo4' ^ 
 
 ©atiaoBd AoXTSjtLV o^ oehoo XBsAia-t a^AiXsAH AkTra-iaioO .3 ’ 
 10 a»X^^i60 OA XAit doXrtit ^i^Aaoci a Otf o;? ?Xoa AXjjow ©4 ' 
 
 * .acUwi tiBiti’ 
 
 n ' v «iy » r»w t r 
 
 '■>i< '• V. 
 
90 
 
 however, is of a different color. 
 
 "We are told by Mr. Lathrop that there existed 
 at Salem, during the early part of Hawthorne's life, 'a 
 strong circle of wealthy families', which 'maintained 
 rigorously the distinctions of class,' and whose 'enter- 
 tainments were splendid, their manners magnificent. ' 
 
 This is a rather pictorial way of saying that there 
 
 were a number of peo]ile in the place the commercial 
 
 and professional aristocracy, as it were who lived 
 
 in high comfort and respectability, and who, in their 
 small provincial way doubtless had pretensions to be 
 
 exclusive. Into this delectable company Mr. Lathrop 
 
 1 
 
 intimates that his hero was free to penetrate." 
 
 Of course Mr. Lathrop 's phraseology invited the 
 
 attack, but one is inclined to turn upon James his ovm 
 
 incredulous comment about the "divinely disinterested 
 
 2 
 
 hostility"of Henry D. Sedley, and inquire what unsung 
 episode in the life of the young social climber is 
 enbalmed in this paragraph, what house of provincial 
 
 Hew England aristocracy was closed to him in his 
 
 Cambridge period, perhaps by’’ the too late (1789) 
 
 arrival in America of his Irish grandfather. 
 
 1. Hathaniel Hawthorne ; p. 45. 
 
 2. Vide ante pp. 48-49. 
 

 rfci .*11 . . 1^1 
 
 
 
 •> ,,, 
 
 V 
 
 
 oe - 
 
 nfoXoo Tnri^.$tilt> A 1[0 ai ,i6vewod 
 
 * H 
 
 fri 
 
 l9^6lx« OTSff:f qo’ii(;^Ad •*\-4 '»xa_sW’ j 
 
 - M'' 
 
 jp' ,011, s*«fl7qri:^v78H 'to ^%A^l ijp.C 'aa BZiiliiD ,510X83 »a. 
 
 j&onla^AiOic ' sfoldir ,*a#XXiipal igH jj. sow* lo oXoiio gcoiiita 
 
 . ^ ' w" ^ 
 
 -Toita 6 «* QBOji'A ^Aa ', 88 a|o lo »inoi Jtft ' 4 X 4 iioi 03 lT* 
 
 <. t • . . ‘V 
 
 ' .tnoolllr-ji'^s; 8 aojia 40 rloKs? e'lftv aifloicAlA^ *. 
 
 ' ‘ , r., 
 
 XAlO'icin>iO(& orf?~-~ooA(^ fit oXii([c>«*i lo *i 8 <flf^u;rt\ 3 - 0 iow 
 
 0-jo?? it »Q . cvAjpQsfairr/[AaoJB9et6Tf^MA ' rr 
 
 'ilBdi at ,,o,X» buis ,t? ^xol$joo ni “ 
 
 * '. > 
 
 »ff osr Bflt Isftoitttisi I>£ui ficoX^cTwoA, tc«;v X^ioalro-iq' IXama, , 
 
 ! ^ ' I 
 
 .ovlQuXox® 
 
 ‘ .1?-; ‘iAu^iaioo (^£dA^i9iaI>‘B2iii citiX 
 
 A ** oi OB’!! BBW o'f^t( airf tmi hA&mXioJi 
 
 oAi ^c^oloowji'irfij e'XPitxtry ./i 34 ^h-tdci lo 
 
 
 nwo sirf BfMsat, noqti a-iai oi-bQaUoal al ®ng ixsd\HoAfH 
 
 
 ' AM&oio^oJtatZifii odt ^aotfA ir.BtsenaouBaoIsjLBztaJ: 
 
 3 
 
 tbJiaasi i£ufw B'ttjupnt bna .’{oiaod .vl/^ineR lo'*^;r;,Xiitaorf 
 
 
 al locfmiXtt Xalooa lo ollX orfl AI oAo^qo 
 
 XalonlYO*?^ 10 ©a^Orf lorfw oMi aX AomlArfae . 
 
 Ali( ni---cilA oX AodoXo a*?? viOAAoOiralTa Xoaljc^S 
 
 ; ^ ’>K -i- 
 
 (C3'(JI) 4t0X ooi cdi — -aqi)/C*i&q l^olioq ogAI idiraOi 
 
 ‘A/ 
 
 • tarflAlLnoi? rfa|iX aid lo oQlWiA aX Xavx-iW, ^ 
 
 ■ 7 .SZ 
 
 v..f I 
 
 v ' j > r 
 
 " J 
 
 I 
 
 
 • 61 ‘ .q ; &QAOtttyAU XqlftAX^&K . 
 
 YV*: 
 
 4 
 
 
 vTl 
 
 .Cl'-OX* .ii'U,o?Aa 
 
 — ir ' r <ii— I - li in i ri Tinw||ii>jMi ' i Tii i i iii i.i ~~ 
 
91 
 
 James’s appreciation of Hawthorne is purely 
 aesthetic; his admiration is chiefly aroused by the 
 fact that Hawthorne colored his narratives v/ith the 
 Hew England consciousness of sin without being bound 
 by it personally. 
 
 ”This"’is the real charm of Hawthorne's writing 
 
 this purity and spontaneity and naturalness of fancy. 
 
 For the rest, it is interesting to see how it borrowed 
 a particular colour from the other faculties that lay 
 
 near it hov»r the imagination, in this capital son of 
 
 the old Puritans, reflected the hue of the more purely 
 moral part, of the dusky, overshadowed conscience. The 
 conscience, by no fault of its own, in every genuine 
 offshoot of that sombre lineage , lay tiinder the shadow 
 of the sense of sin . This darkening cloud was no 
 essential part of the nature of the individual; it 
 stood fixed in the general moral heaven under which 
 he grew up and looked at life. It jjrojected from 
 above, from outside, a black i^atch over his spirit, 
 and it was for him to do what he could with the black 
 patch. There were all sorts of ways of dealing with 
 it, Hawthorne's way was the best, for he contrived 
 

 
 fulX ^>#611014 ^Il»i.i<o iU qoiit^^lmba ^id ;oJt:feifJaea , 
 &M iitlw B0vi^3iijua -M ^^D'todt^U^Bdt ^^obX ' 
 
 : *"', 'i; ^ ,‘" ■ 
 
 food'^lw nifr lo ^a«4i^f».^j&«aoo J!u)al^xi^;i^e|l, 
 
 ' ■ ”\ ’/ * ' , " 
 
 ■' xtf.i 
 
 * H' I 
 
 ^n ^J’irpr fl ’aaao.lJhrjoK I:© ijfi'i 
 
 .^;oxtdl \o aasnlaiii^aa ,^rta *;J!jt aija?aoqa J'gS^- sXrf^f--- 
 
 d*iro^zQd fi wQd 099 o;f ^&fiOi9;tql fU lintr ©4i io'Cl 
 
 {?' 'j. ., 
 
 Baia-Xiioo'S: ‘tafito arfcf b)0’i\ uto^XtXf •xeiJiitQt^Si^ :a , 
 
 , . i , 
 
 to floa sJfctt# cii *n; I \tod — Jl .laaxj 
 
 >» , - fC . < I 
 
 ' '. 'wV L»i 
 
 Ki^%jjq 0^<n§ 0dt %o 9usi ed'X t^fovXl^ai / J&io.,ecfi^ 
 
 
 ©rfT .oontlo«i/ioi? jb(»woJ^ii£$8%oVO ,x^aiib edJ^ Xp .liaqt -fotom , 
 
 onlxinov ^lavo al ‘.awo a^i 1o oa <© 0 fi&i 08 G 0 ^ v 
 
 woPm4q odt leftaji 'CJ3X ,o:^jioi\Xl ©ntdfiKya :?aricf to ^oosCetlo, '• 
 
 »j . * . ■ • ■ ‘‘ * ' ■ ■ .; 
 
 oa ixooXo ■•iaXn^iitiib aifi^*2 n|G lo ©aa^# ^io 
 
 ' ' ' ■ ■ V — ■ ■ 
 
 H' iXydiblrlhajt 9dt pxitian ©d3*-to 
 
 Xotoiio^iail t ;nX tpicXT^Ptn ’ 
 
 ' . '1 ' '■ 
 
 £B07t ft^lfoetoT-j tfl •olil -boafooi Jtwta q«‘w©*s^ a/l,;i 
 ,^?iiqa ai.i x©v0 rfotfaq 'Ao&ld q ,s$>l9^up fiioit f&rOdB 
 K'&oX4 wtx diliT ilyoo od tftrlw o* o^ nl/f loX^aam ^1 Mb^j 
 
 '■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .' ■ . ■ e -:4 
 
 (Wlw.gni^si ^0 aitin i»'afioa Jie o»w sis/!? _ .cfojB^j^' 
 
 I 
 
 Xw^yXiiao^^ «;t lol , tfa^cT.AdJ' $^v xb^ a'fta'xod^vr.a|l^---.Ti 
 
 
92 
 
 Toy an exquisite process, best known to himself, to 
 transmute this heavy moral burden into the very sub- 
 stance of the imagination, to make it evaporate in 
 the light and charming fumes of artistic production. 
 
 nothing is more curious and interesting thaii this 
 
 almost exclusively imported character of the sense 
 of sin in Hawthorne's mind; it seemed to exist there 
 
 merely for an artistic or literary purpose. His 
 
 relation to it was only, as one may say, intellect- 
 ual; it was not moral and theological. He played 
 with it, and used it as a pigment;, he treated it, as 
 
 the metaphysicians say, objectively. He speaks of 
 
 the dark disapproval with which his old ancestors, in 
 the ease of their coming to life, would see him trif- 
 ling away as a story-teller. But how far more dark- 
 ly would they have frowned could they have understood 
 that he had converted the very principle of their own 
 
 being into one of his toys.' ’<7hat pleased him in 
 
 such subjects was their picturesqueness, their rich 
 duskiness of colour, their chiaroscuro; but they were 
 
 not the expression of a hopeless, or eVen of a predom- 
 
 1 
 
 inantly melancholy, feeling about the human soul." 
 
 1. Nathaniel Hawthorne; pp. 56-59. 
 

 ) j * 
 
 ■Vj-j «'■ 
 
 I' 
 
 , •: ‘is, 
 
 a' 
 
 i- . V 
 
 
 - .^5 
 
 >j?»2 .,. ' . :‘| 
 
 ' 4 ;-' . .‘^w - r. »,'?,; 
 
 •*■■ ( 
 'I'l'* t 
 
 
 <L’/ ' ^4. ; 4*1' , cii'.Aknf , 4% 
 
 'S'':, •/ ■ , 
 
 h. 
 
 ’i 'j^ " ’ ' i.'fK.'AfT 
 
 ' ■ '-S V ■ ' ’ , ; ; ' 'J' „ ,p '■ .j . 
 
 [ Xrotal'l J6s.'.| JJ^W ''* ■ 
 
 iJ i ••. ’ J ’• "■ , :, ' - ' .. 
 
 '• ' i' •' . •. .•*."■ . '•*•■' ^,- .' 
 
 I V '.V ' ft/Arf * ;i.t4 » ^ 
 
 ■ ■ ’ '" ' ■ . ^ '' -,^ i‘ ’"^'’j'^'' 
 
 - ,i-i t* ; 4 ' , «i-ir-4 y*.'%.^' ■ ' oUs ' 
 
 : , • • . '• 'V^- : ^ V \ 
 
 ’ 1 
 
 , Xc.; f p A 4 I t ’■ ' (y%^ji;.3c«*\j2 •* % 
 
 ^ . • ;. • - ;,> ■" < 'V^i' ' ' 4 ., ’’‘r' ^ 
 
 -■' ' ' • ■■ ■■ "■ •' '.'«fe ■ ' ' ■ . 
 
 > ^;X(»,f; ajp.fTM '.^ 
 
 i,' ’ ^'4 '">/•■■' " 'V"'; 
 
 ^ 't vi'*V '- - ■ ■ ‘ 
 
 .;X ;''j3SL‘, '.?4 
 
95 
 
 In 1888 James published Partial Portraits , a 
 series of essays on literary subjects chiefly reprints 
 of articles published in various magazines in the five 
 years before their appearance in book form. Three 
 samples from this collection will serve to show the 
 tenor of the whole work. 
 
 James seemed always to be interested more in 
 
 the form and style of a vnriter than in his morality. 
 
 Even when morality is clearly evident, James bases 
 
 his praise on the form rather than the content. Take 
 
 1 
 
 for instance the essay on Robert Louis Stevenson. 
 
 "The subject is endlessly interesting, and 
 rich in all sorts of provocation, and Mr. Stevenson 
 is to be congratulated on having touched the core of 
 it. I may do him injustice, but it is, however, here, 
 not the profundity of the idea which strikes me so much 
 as the art of the presentation the extremely success- 
 
 ful form. There is a genuine feeling for the perpet- 
 ual moral question, a fresh sense of the difficulty of 
 being good and the brutishness of being bad; but what 
 there is above all is a singular ability in holding 
 
 1. James, Henry: Partial Portraits ; London; Macmillan 
 and Company, 18881 pi 169. ’‘Robert Louis Stevenson" 
 first appeared in The Century Magazine April 1888. 
 

 i-isistli^i . 
 
 (f 
 
 v.rfn 
 
 
 S': 
 
 
 \ .i',. > ■ 
 
 Ipr:'”-'^ |c 7 vr« 
 
 
 * i> '***'.’'* • .' '," ■ ^'' 
 
 7 vt'Tkt-'/ 
 
 'V . .• • ” 7 , 1 ^ ^ oe : y Adi 
 
 
 
 
 (i. 
 
 O j^y • ' *» O;* i A ><n' * <i^i| ' '. • >^ 
 
 ♦ 4 ': 'i I \I »6 t c' 1 < « 
 
 
 i<«jl^iofii 
 
 ,i- .-f p 
 
 *t 
 
 ’!' ' ' ,‘'»y<| ■*\- - . J,^, 7 >v.. ■ 
 
 iv,r jtJt; J :• . , x« .n: 4tr/; J5--.1 tfil w ^...tfi- 
 
 : ' ^ A'-j ' ■ • ■•.■■ V;^*w|H ■’* l•■.'^•• •’ 
 
 <rs ry'fi ,i , 
 
 /ufif .intifi h'f^4 . •. ^‘ . 
 
 f 
 
 .*>1 
 
 
 
 — ■ -z. ^ 
 
 .IS' 
 
 &• ■•I'f M*:uft-r. \;CW9;^'P-''e? 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 » 
 
 l\ J 
 
 Ii,hf 0 ,; Van^jiKAt 
 
 ■■'^’ ’iirS ^ p'sa^ * ' f t^v* >1^ V X!» 
 
 > I 
 
 v» 
 
 v*'; " 1 . 
 
 '■15 
 
 
 .., „ .JH 
 
 >;Ai^.^i.;i, .'^' Mr;: 
 
 ■' ' ' '■: '‘; •, ' . 1 ,^'.' 
 
 • ‘iL 
 
 . >. ' ■' .*£ 54 . " fi J ' ^ • ' 4 . • ^ 
 
 
 
 i X'J , ^9chH^f4p\<i ^44'iPi^ 
 
 '••■' ,V‘- y.;fV L< - • 7 ! "‘ - "', '.^ .v^Y-v ■ -V '■< ’'•■•JWiSl 
 
 •'^ :;. -' i'^- ' ' 
 
 !Tlt, 
 
 [«J 
 
 viMI 
 
- 94 - 
 
 the interest. I confess that that, to my sense, 
 is the most edifying thing in the short, rapid, con- 
 centrated story, which is really a masterpiece of 
 concision. " 
 
 1 
 
 The same thing is said of Alphonse Daudet. 
 
 "Like most of the French imaginative writers (judged, 
 at least, from the English standpoint) he is much less 
 concerned with the moral, the metaphysical world, than 
 with the sensible. We proceed usually from the former 
 to the latter, while the French reverse the process. 
 Except in politics, they are uncomf ortahle in the 
 presence of abstractions, and lose no time in reducing 
 them to the concrete. But even the concrete, for them, 
 is a field for poetry, which brings us to the fact that 
 the delightful thing in Daudet's talent the inveter- 
 ate poetical touch." 
 
 The last article in the collection is an essay 
 on the art of fiction. This is very Ruskinian in its 
 identif ication and unification of all the arts, and it 
 is very aesthetic in its statements of the purpose of 
 the novel. I shall quote from a number of his para- 
 graphs. 
 

 alt ^ :iti 
 
 
 ^'•'‘‘■j?- .$'^■'■*56'^ 51^ ji-.u. 'i( '.J-: ■, ; ^ ji i'i'4 x ,<;iw'j®f|lw»/'%it«^^ 
 
 •k- ii>LJ‘ vlwi ' ''* . 7 ..'.. ®-.' , 
 
 //iV ’..•iwffl 
 
 f t 
 
 <r. 
 
 wjif 
 
 ^ ‘f 4 M" A ;*i 
 
 ^ :,v. ' ■ . ^‘1 ‘ 
 
 ‘ ^ » ua ? y ; A?.t ' 4 ^ Ai I .* < 
 
 ‘ • Ia; .${( --/j >& '‘ifi^j^lk^h^" 
 
 '! f '■' y ■ t ' ' *' ' ' ■'' ' ' '> '1 f 
 
 ;&-ivn:c4 co'xli' » u^;' ,, 
 
 .ws- •• ■> , ■ ,r '.a;. ■•^. ^ _,' M 
 
 j*r^nrr'£.i -''tf 
 
 • a.' ^ vixi •.yi^'i^. ,a^:t fUW K>‘^ 
 
 ni y-i; 'U:Si0Xf4a^^f^^sf 
 
 ■’ , I, . , ' , I ■ ''x; . •■ ■ ; .. # . -I , ■ 
 
 IV^ 
 
 "'j-H ‘ 
 
 ./ ( 
 
 l^-il 
 
 
 v»/'-'yss!'^ .’ -'?y, , '■!»<- <-' 
 
 '■' '^asna i?« /j ilfp^yh' ^ ’"'? 
 
 ■ , * ‘'i.' /''#il^ ''/ '■■ ' y 
 
 S' ' ' ^1 ’X • ‘'.''V V ■• ':^^ S^'lPI 
 
 ;,/; ' ^ Air’jisfPli ' V^--KRS 
 
 WSimwIm ■ v: ■: . HKWp. :>* -Ji y <" ■.; >. v^i.; .St'/^,.i 
 
 
95 
 
 "The only reason for the existence of a 
 novel is that it does attempt to represent life. 
 
 When it relinquishes this attempt, the same attempt 
 that we see on the canvas of the painter, it will 
 have arrived at a very strange pass. It is not 
 expected of the picture that it will make itself 
 humble in order to he forgiven; and the analogy 
 between the art of the painter and the art of the 
 
 1 
 
 novelist is, so far as I am able to see, complete.” 
 "The only obligation to which in advance 
 we may hold a novel, without incurring the accusa- 
 
 2 
 
 tion of being arbitrary, is that it be interesting.” 
 The following is an interesting discussion 
 of morality in relation to the novel. 
 
 "Will you not define your terms and explain 
 how (a novel being a picture) a picture can be either 
 moral or immoral? Ii^ou wist to paint a moral picture 
 or carve a moral statue; will you not tell us how you 
 would set about it? We are discussing the Art of 
 
 1. Idem. p. 278. "The Art of Fiction” was first publish- 
 ed in Longman’s Magazine in September 1884. 
 
 2. Idem. p. 284. 
 
i>- » * • 
 
 :i. 1 ) iipiaiiA 
 
 I ^ 
 
 » . .■! A^'-< ' ' .' 
 
 ^ , ; ■' ' ♦■. * ’ ” V 
 
 
 
 
 4%-^ *i -> 
 
 » '* * , '■ >>i-^ 
 
 
 ■.'-V , , ., \ ; .' /•.’?■? . 'vji^ I 2 
 
 
 ■*■' . I. 
 
 ‘,^01 
 
 vt. ’ v’ 4M' _ 
 
 * f"ii :^ut<t:*it'tftiiA -^^'' ..If All’ 
 
 .rw i 'ff 
 
 • . 4 ’■j;x<. ito/v p-T t^‘. ;> ‘f. 
 
 
 A: . 1' jj" ., ’^^* ■*< A 
 
 5k, .;-1^4<:4!>‘i i«'?’4' vS^4 ' ,'^ 
 
 V'." ' . ^r' ' ''•*m’‘£f'?‘i 
 
 „ . ■ ' .( 'k - ..•.», ..*5!a^, 
 
 \ ■? 
 
 fc • ^..y.evi 
 
 
 
 
 f' ’riinw 
 
 ^ “ ((E? 
 
 y ■' '^ 4 ^ 48' i. f ■.'^ . ''•' <* '■ 
 
 ^f?S7t’ 
 
 wm^iyMimmmimiefi:, 
 
96 
 
 Piotdion; questions of art are questions (in the widest 
 
 sense) of execution; questions of morality are quite 
 
 1 
 
 another affair . " 
 
 Between 1888 and 1893 James wrote a series 
 
 of literary essays which he published in 1893 in 
 
 2 
 
 B ssays in London and Elsewhere . The most important 
 of the essays in this book are "James Kussell Lowell" 
 and"Criticism" , the first written in 1891 and the sec- 
 ond in 1893. 
 
 It is interesting to note how James placed 
 
 Lowell's style above his morality. The following two 
 
 quotations will illustrate the point. 
 
 "His poetical performance might sometimes, 
 
 no doubt, be more intensely lyrical, but it is hard 
 
 to see how it could be more intensely moral I mean, 
 
 3 
 
 of course, in the widest sense of the terra." 
 
 "It was in looking at him as a man of letters 
 that one drew closest to him, and some of his more fan- 
 atical friends are not to be deterred from regarding 
 his career as in the last analysis a tribute to the 
 dominion of style. This is the idea that to ray sense 
 his name most promptly evokes; and though it was not 
 
 l.Idera. pp. 404-405. 
 
 2. Harper and Brothers Publishers, H.Y. 
 
 3. Essays in London and Elsewhere; p. 61. 
 
il' 
 
 ►V. A «JL '’jf- ▼ . r.„ ’V'iBr* 'iiii . :/l *• 
 
 V xAft.tHM/ii.;:} < ■ji» v't'J. ^Of'K?' :po«»oi5a' 
 
 j|l^‘/;; <~r. ,:t*/ -loliC 
 
 \ Jt. ^ 
 
 ^i( ' ^ ,> . Jj^ 
 
 ■ .'%'i 
 
 
 
 •■ . \ :. 
 
 .. - *' ,. ? . 'V ' '"'' , Ty? ’*'' ^ jHE'f*'' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '■,,.4, i(0^v,«)W8‘». .W?, ■ n'st, 
 
 ,.’-■( jwf -.* . ■ 1 . '' r i 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 '^1 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 rodJ! 
 
 ■j' /•,.;■ Vi, S’? V 
 
 ffj';; ' '■ * -■'i'-r' , . I'/ ' t’’^ ' "'■' 
 
 
 W f -.0 iV 
 
 
 I '.^ I 
 
 
 $.iifcirf59i 
 
 ,j9i(4 -- — *• 'i*.. - »i, .. VOMl 
 
 tji; J •!-"f ’’ 
 
 r 
 
 t'. ' 
 
 5:' ■• iA<3t «:t.ij’- 
 
 L,'V .: ■■■■ ?y^' 
 
 ^{*<0} 
 
 
 ^'■tc 41-5 i ' ' 
 
 si> 
 
 . 1 i.''i' ii ' i« ' • w 
 
 ¥>l 
 
97 
 
 by any means the only idea he cherished, the unity of 
 
 1 
 
 his career is surely to he found in it." 
 
 Before turning to the essay on criticism, let 
 
 us consider a part of the essay on Gustave Plauhert. 
 
 There are three sentences here which may he taken as 
 
 an answer to Mr. Brownell, telling him in James’s own 
 
 words why the hope that his philosophy might prevail 
 
 2 
 
 was "the youngest of his cares." The reason, too, 
 is purely aesthetic, the idea of individual standards 
 of appreciation, the aristocracy of feeling. 
 
 "Wlhy feel, and feel genuinely, so much about 
 
 c 
 
 'art', in order to feel so little about its priv^elege? 
 Why proclaim it on the one hand the hoyl of holies, only 
 to let your behavior confess it on the other a temple 
 open to the winds? Why he angry that so few people 
 care for the real thing, since this aversion of the 
 many leaves a luxury of space?" 
 
 The essay on criticism shows somewhat the 
 large influence that Matthew Arnold's ideas had on 
 James. It contains chiefly the idea of the sacer- 
 
 1. Essays in London and Elsewhere ; p. 45. 
 
 2. Vide ante p. 2. Note 1; and p. 3. 
 
 3. Essays in London and Elsewhere ; p. 149. 
 

 
 
 ,. '\ ■ ";® v,;!'/ ■ 
 
 :■; y ';‘';vt.«iw 
 
 'V,\. 
 
 .'<ii * 
 
 
 
 ': 1 1 
 
 I'll- 
 
 * .. ,- ,k-. 
 
 fc 
 
 <’ ' \' 1 '-' 
 
 ' iX* , te' rr . 
 
 . ■ •"m • ’ V. ■ ■• - 
 
 5 a " 
 
 I <Sl] 
 
 fUil 
 
 ^ f ', '^*‘ . ’ ', V ' y ' , ^ I 
 
 'I 'STk. t J.^i V X "'X *jfc Vi) 5 a i f V ■ no'' y * » g ■ c*rf ;^ ' •^rj, . ' 4'i^r» ^;; -gii’'' 1 p u t ii u ^lO 
 
 '■''> .. li ’ X 
 
 
 nxi 
 
 
 ' ' Ti ‘ ' 'tiS 30 VH 'P 
 
 ;X 
 
 ■I ' 3 r Afi? 0 i *rt' 6rti i o ‘ f-dr fe-*' # Ji'oiyiJi 
 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 I * *■ 1 ■* 1 '^ • .w._ AWiJi 
 
 StXh i^ I \4lytffif on , \U-Hu- Xi';;e? 
 
 V r.'i.;: 
 
 ,» : •li'x.' =»;t 4 . • 9 ( 'M?.! OV .' 'i^- 
 
 ^ ’4/^*0 "ix>. t'0,i ^4,ia ' 
 
 
 •■'V .■ '' 
 
 
 
 w ' ttrf? 
 
 >5 
 
 
 '■. 4 irX^ 0 t^.T 'wo^ c,G 
 
 ' ' *'•;' ’ A- '■ ' ...’',-t^'-v-> ■-'S js^cwviii 
 
 ., ji. yr V. t 43 -«sMi, '• •;. 
 
 V , 
 
 "ci* ' ' ' 
 
 
 i j 
 
 
 ^*’*‘i»* . 0 '■ *^^' 1 ' ' '’ 14 ^'i^EHii 
 
 . ■ r !' • . 4 v'‘. ■'. « •/•. ' ■ ■■ . ■ v'' .,^'» 
 
 7 : 
 
 , Slif-ii"' 
 
 , I. " '.’t/-- . ■■« 'V; ‘■^!F’’’&S-*‘,i:'. , TB 
 
 M®*. : '..I ,«l 
 
96 
 
 dotal nature of the office of critic, the idea expressed 
 in his essay on Matthew Arnold that the critic should 
 take the stream of truth at its source. 
 
 "In this light one sees the critic as the real 
 helper of the artist, a torch-bearing outrider, the 
 
 interpreter, the brother. When one thinks of the 
 
 outfit required for free work in this spirit, one is 
 ready to pay almost any homage to the intelligence that 
 has put it on; and when one considers the noble figure 
 
 completely equipped armed cap k pie in curiosity and 
 
 sjTnpathy one falls in love with the apparition. It 
 
 certainly represents the knight who has knelt through 
 his long vigil and who has the piety of his office. 
 
 1 
 
 For there is something sacrificial in his function." 
 
 James's affection for Balzac and all his works 
 
 was, I believe, based on an aesthetic admiration for 
 
 one who could "burn always with hard, gemj-like flame." 
 
 In 1905 James published a book containing two lectures, 
 
 2 
 
 The Question of Our Speech , and The Lesson of Balzac . 
 
 The first of these lectures deals with the American 
 habit of ignoring the tone qualities of language, and 
 
 1. Idem. p. E64. 
 
 2. The Question of Our Speech ; Boston and N.Y. ; Houghton 
 Mifflin Company, 1905. 
 

 A 
 
 juiK^m ', ’>,.*#2^, V..; ,*e/Jll4<i^il^. W' t’UlifJ 
 
 . •' .. .. . , il:';,;^ , ; . >,M ■■:«Kr 
 
 !f y I 
 
 . ^ T;. Cvi\ 1 , :51a? ♦ .■ {*t ^..>Vo’C:|‘^i’;i|,ifi 'VCl -y .\y' 
 
 
 V \ 
 
 .'i. ^ '■’ . y 
 
 -0^^ a/'. -aij? 
 
 ^ «iCJ t0 'J AM': 
 
 
 t' 
 
 '/■ ' *.;'^*| '■ 4 •'■'''• ' “ ,' '/ it ' '■ JLi- 
 
 L;T* , ^ ■' ‘ '> ‘ *’ ‘ ' T^:-''T'j: : ' ■- . ' ,;t,olt■^ljf>^ ■’ ■■ 
 
 L'ih ‘i^ i- ■■ ’^'' ^ '' \ : : ' ■ ■ / S'WIBttC'"' ' 
 
 - ' >« 'i I >\ '* ~9 
 
 r^a f:\umiii USIA ;4..I \ 
 
 f‘_=L-' 
 
 if 
 
 ‘^' M ^' • ^ ' * -1 ‘ |P , ■'-.♦\ V ^ Mft' ■ 
 
 'V* y^' > „.^ • '■''!. '^ ’’ ' ?^.!., ' '^ • •/ ?y — 'i‘ '' *<.r^ j 
 
 
 •01 
 
 
 
 
 ^ F f f • ' .^, ♦• ,• 
 
 •'.9T0n 4atf-,aii (>&» ' 
 
 . fflj ^'- ' ' J!^‘ - '•’ ’* ' 
 
 
 ^ , f , 
 
 
 ’■i 
 
 
 
 it 'V 
 
 t , L> •^- 
 
99 
 
 the second draws the moral of intensity from the 
 works and life of Balzac. One may conclude from., 
 a study of this essay something about the extent of 
 the influence of Walter Pater on James. The follow- 
 ing paragraph is a good summary of the whole essay. 
 
 "That is how we see him, living in his garden, 
 and it is hy reason of the restless energy with which 
 he circulated there that I hold his fortune and his 
 privelege, in spite of the burden of his toil and the 
 brevity of his immediate reward, to have been before 
 any others enviable. It is strange enough, but what 
 most abides with us, as we follow his steps, is a sense 
 of the intellectual luxury he enjoyed. Balzac's lux- 
 
 ury, as I call it, was in the extraordinary number and 
 
 length of his radiating and ramifying corridors the 
 
 labyrinth in which he finally lost himself. What it 
 comes back to, in other words, is the intensity with 
 
 which we live and his intensity is recorded for us 
 
 1 
 
 on every page of his work." 
 
 Among the last of James's writings is an essay 
 on Rupert Brooke, which was published as the introduc- 
 
 1. The Question of Our Speech ; "The Lesson of Balzac” 
 
 pp. 6^-86. 
 

 rm. :rmfW wwwr^ . 
 
 
 i 
 
 '/•JJT • •»« 
 
 ‘■■"fT’t .'r' 'M' 
 
 ■■*- , ‘ 1 ' I'vr , 'ft, 
 
 T',' 
 
 .'.'fiHtW'S' \ 
 
 Li.'E' '■"y jj(X 
 
 
 j(^ i 
 
 ; , 
 
 ir4 
 
 -JU' -.4 -sii'vl.t %nM‘ tr 
 
 3 *, 
 
 
 tcit. .®'-4 '^' lyini'^'x*^.- t>HAX4o>n 
 
 j9i» !• 
 
 ■ ' ■!'> 3 " — -' ■ : 
 
 iM S(), Ao’ijtoo* ^'itfl'f w» ■i»"^ 'V’ijta,'aR 
 
 fSlw ‘ - , '*^,.''J| 
 
 * r 
 
 f ‘ t ' ' ' V * ^ 
 
 ov':'J».'}i ft(Kj3'_ov.„;i: '.Ht 
 
 -i . ' '■‘‘'■■'Vl^ ■'*' '' 3 niiWniWi‘^r 
 
 '•' 'i- ' ♦ ■■’ i , \ r"'*. >,’‘f»^/.. . ',. ' / 
 
 ""iHSB r *•■ *i' ' Z . ■ 'Jfl^ -VI 
 
 r” -wgfell ' i^t3>TSi- -i * /5;4)^fX ‘ 
 
 wi' 4 lk‘' ■' ‘ . ‘ AH ■-' 
 
 
 ', i 
 
 
 
 ?,v • ' • ■• ^ , ■ . . 
 
 
 *' ■• '.i'fi 
 
 
 •F- ;■ <. i:."A A'; *>' f. 
 
 
 I- i-fl 
 
 '■■'.I* 
 
 
 ■ “T’" — »'7^— 'i ™ ■ 1^ « 1 1 ' IJ-f- 1 ■ *^ipi»'‘ • 4** ^^g Q T M <>♦ # ■ ■■ ! M 
 
 -■ „ -.. *(, - ' "' i A /i ■ 
 
 ;£] 
 
 iSf» iff i- ‘A- JfwSr ‘Ofty 
 
 8?lii<:'MlliTO liL ■ ' ■ 
 
 
 
100 
 
 tion to a collection of Brooke's letters in 1916. 
 
 In this essay we find the final expression of that 
 
 aestheticism which had been James’s philosophic basis 
 
 since 1886. The form it takes in this essay casts 
 
 an interesting light on the whole life of the author. 
 
 It might he called the resultant of all the major 
 
 forces which had moulded James's life. From early 
 
 boyhood James was intensely interested in things that 
 
 had what he called "associations.” Outside things, 
 
 his surroundings, his associates, the"tone" or "flavor" 
 
 of whatever country he happened to be in, affected him 
 
 as great influential factors. He was interested in 
 
 tracing the effects of country and national traditions 
 
 on writers. The first evidence of this interest shown 
 
 in his critical writings is found in his review of 
 
 2 
 
 Hereward the Last of the English , in which he said 
 that Kingsley was admirable and delightful when he 
 unconsciously expressed the characteristics of his 
 nation. The last evidence of this interest is in 
 his treatment of Brooke. 
 
 1. Letters From America by Rupert Brooke with a preface 
 by Henry James; N.Y.; Charles Scribner *s Sons. 1916. 
 
 2. Vide ante p. 47. 
 

 A?;;. •|::.:- 
 
 r.i»>i 
 
 
 
 
 rr: 
 
 
 'i' ■>»,«• ^ •••>ij~*-t<6SI kas 
 
 •r*t''i‘ 
 
 -1 ' 
 
 ^m;z% . ,:}^ti ■ ;. ’ 
 
 \ 'f . A-i 
 
 .• *J * 'i \ 'M«, ,* .4. 
 
 - 1 . ‘ • '’ I ' ’ ■^ ■ - ' ' .t 
 
 , >]|5 1 -1 i ^?C>, ' t i .t^ jf 0^0 
 
 ■ 4 » ■' " J*/'- '«! - *“■■'' 
 
 :^P:' 
 
 ‘'‘-'OyAn*"' t 
 
 
 '61 
 
 
 ^ J i f f ? V ' :■ 9 * ' $ _ , .1 •* c X i '< '; ^ 
 
 ' . 7 ■■ Vi •• '.■•■ \ ' ”V '"'*•' ’. ' 'P' ♦,'^./- >’ ) i 2' 
 
 . ... V'. .P.'" ■ ' ■■'•v>vV ; ’ -..(V..:', ■ / ' i ' 
 
 ■ V'. 
 
 ■1/ ' •i^'- # ■■ » <miw n a tim i ■ 
 
 ► it^r • ja . 
 
 , v*V»rt'4.^ 
 
 ***<:■ I ! ,1^ , ‘-^ f 
 
 ■')(S i^Mil^)is#7^'V?.a 
 
 . W' ' ' i ,. * (f';4' ■ 1^ 'V 
 
 tV eiS 
 
 { ■ ‘ I- '. ••■'*' V'..'' - 1-*«‘ ' ri, 
 
 
 1^: 
 
 
 
 
 
 rT .^./^• 
 
101 
 
 There was no high moral appeal to James in 
 
 the life and death of Brooke; he did not feel any 
 
 great exaltation in the fact that the poet had shown 
 
 high idealism in answering the first call of his 
 
 country, nor any regret that his genius had been 
 
 snuffed out by his untimely death. On the contrary, 
 
 his interest in Brooke was in the fact that Brooke was 
 
 a complete, fully rounded representative of the modern 
 
 1 
 
 product of the English tradition of culture, and he 
 expressed a ghoulish satisfaction that death had con- 
 cluded the episode because that event made the whole 
 so beautifully poetic. 
 
 "He had never seemed more animated with our 
 newest and least deluded, least conventionalized life 
 and perception and sensibility, and that formula of 
 his so distinctively fortunate, his overflowing share 
 in our most developed social heritage which had already 
 
 1. Letters from America ; Introduction; pp. xiii-xiv. 
 What it first and foremost really comes to, I think, 
 is the fact that at an hour when the ci1?ilized peoples 
 are on exhibition, quite finally and sharply on show, 
 to each other and to the world, as they absolutely 
 never in all their long history have been before, the 
 English tradition (both of amenity and energy I nat- 
 urally mean), should have flowered at once into a 
 specimen so beautifully producible. 
 
i ^, T . j ' . A’fe 
 
 1 
 
 " ,’ . ' •AfciJ, tt.'i ' ■ '.,.;i*i . '3<>«JM . ,Hll 
 
 ^""■'' nLi '; • 
 
 ? I ' V ' 
 .<■1 
 
 03 V 
 
 »'S 
 
 \« ,'-\m ■ '■'^■^ U -_- 
 
 ;ms ; ac 3 ' nr-v /'/ it >' 
 
 til* 
 
 
 
 n ’- M ; '/ S'l ttt 
 
 ■ W "” ' 1 ^' 
 
 «■ 
 
 .• N '. 
 
 
 
 
 ' 'i 
 
 *'■. . .<N I ■•< ' : • • ‘k ' ,i , 
 
 l-fl * iT « ^ ^;i 4 u \: (, .|3 
 
 « , ^ -w *.' j . ' ;,*'^>,; 2 | LEti *?'- 
 
 |^,'‘u0i&'H’ rwtfin ^-j if >* . AS. ..•*'« f ^ .. lV . . .' .> u . r .^ >. X. . .< ^ ^ ^ k.'*'!^ k _A /JMHm) Jl 
 
 4 M 
 
 ,t,-.#^. n.’fv' r-.r a/^Vx ’ ;T:i.i6^WfU'''iif« 
 
 C^f!d ‘?£^r4f^^ -tieu-'T fTOi* ifiL^ 
 
 '• * ,< • '• ■’’• ‘^' j '' i .^'. ... ' I '. II *-.. 
 
 .'• ^^':l 
 
 
 IS . , '' wma ^. 
 
 : r ’ ■;.';' iQ .. -^. 7 ■/ #■ f < t ^^ ts ,**. '’■'•'■• 
 
 [ i ^- ■^'^' '•■. • i _ ^ ‘ 'i < f 'n >. ■ T ‘ 
 
 
 .Vi-Xjp'i ^ b?' . ti ■ j ^'>ii(S iitjfnl, ^^i«S^J»!woi^ . .f' ."?3 ’^■3^ 
 
 m.A .•'irf aih ^ 
 
 ^ Ov , .ifttS ■ i » tJ ^ 
 
 r»^r 
 
 
- 102 - 
 
 glimmered, began with this occasion to hang about him 
 
 1 
 
 as one of the aspects, really a shining one, of his fats." 
 
 The idea seemed to be that the most complete 
 representative of a dying social order, that order 
 represented by the unlimited expansion of pre-war days, 
 could do nothing more sublimely poetic than gracefully 
 die with the dying order. The following develops the 
 idea more fully. 
 
 "Everything about him of the keenest and bright- 
 est (yes, absolutely of brightest) suggestion made so 
 for his having been charged with wvery privelege, every 
 humor, of our merciless actuality, our fatal excess of 
 opportunity, that what indeed could the full assurance 
 of this be but that, finding in him the most charming 
 object in its course, the great tide was to lift him 
 and sweep him away? Questions and reflections after 
 the fact, perhaps, yet haunting for the time and for 
 
 the short interval that was still to elapse when, 
 
 with the sudden news that he had met his doom, an 
 irrepressible 'of course, of course.'' contributed its 
 note well-nigh of support. It was as if the peculiar 
 
 1. Idem. pp. xxxix-xl. 
 

 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 f ^'* 
 
 wJaiCi-n;^aU^ ■ <i r*ilii 1 n>. ».-,.i 
 
 k,k ' 
 
 ’ ' . ' < i ' 
 
 l.t'-r. ' 
 
 ■r '■ 
 
 h, ' ri, ^^ 
 
 tjv A ^ “■ ' * V/''V'«4|Mwi 
 
 ■ I 
 
 i *iV* ■■■, 1 ; i f 'A-V •■]•■■ i ' “ ^ • * 
 
 f KA3 (^»- ft ^ -h 4 y I • f H:* 
 
 '. i, '■ 'V , ., ' t^*’ »'-'.,Kt 
 
 jj^; " .i;, ■'./■: r 
 
 » l?l . ‘ ■ I I in(- -1 « 
 
 L.V< tliU7 ^ p ' 
 
 iT 
 
 i?(lSli'''^''<iS- *iCf (k*^-** 
 
 'N‘* r 
 
 T ' ‘ "'7' ..■»<■♦ -*!3i/i' ■‘JX•:'^ .rr;,^ 
 
 
 1 f> 
 
 tAv. ;yj-; * u . «•>/ ttf). I^Q.r I;p|l*P' 
 
 • ’ . y ■ i « ’.' V. - 
 
 • ' . ■' i‘ .; ' / '' '■ .1 ' ' 
 
 1 I 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 l»iwr iubuQ^y *.j(, 0 
 
 .n--«nso 
 
 
 k‘i • 
 
 'iTj a. .fit tjy^, " 
 
 V' 
 
 ■iji 
 
 
 ^ mn rr 
 
 tQ ': ;‘:icirp.'*' V 
 
 W, 
 
 ■ ■> 
 
 ■ • ' •. •» 'V , >:■’•••■ /• 
 
 '■' '^*4 ' - ' I 'I'S''-'' '■*. 
 
 rci*i C :i/i . :».]xt ft' ^ 
 
 1 ■ •' - '‘'M '/■' ' ■' '"’' •( 
 
 lona tfnfi\\f4y4tfti- .n*:y,Uj 
 
 <T.a • 'c ■•' 
 
 y*' fj.v: '• .r>k«lv. 4.<>v:» 
 
 . -.w . ■• ■ ■■■ ;.. • • •> ‘ ■ 4. 
 
 ATfi; '£)6 
 
 if(?0.i5itj|, ®,T^' 
 
 - •» ' '!\;) 
 
 ' ■^•'^-r -rifi' ' -.-B*' ••A'J A/f 
 
 r r 
 
 ^ T."- '» .... L«r;! A- V 
 
 ■^a»^jjpQ?'® -ii ' .k»K .|x 
 
 ' S. ■ 
 
 
103 
 
 richness of his youth had itself narked its limit, 
 
 so that what his own spirit was inevitably to feel 
 
 about his 'chances’ required, in the wondrous way, 
 
 1 
 
 the consecration of the event." 
 
 Thus we have in this last essay, written in 
 the year James died, the final culmination of James's 
 aestheticism in an essay showing the author entirely 
 unstirred by the inspiring moral spectacle of a young 
 poet making the supreme sacrifice for his ideals of 
 patriotism and democracy, hut expressing great aes- 
 thetic satisfaction at the coincidence of the death 
 of the "perfect specimen" with the downfall (as he 
 thought) of the civilization that produced him. 
 
 1. Idem. p. xl. 
 

 "WIW 
 
 \i ■,* 
 
 r. 
 
 ^ su 
 
 », V ^ ■',(>. 1 '> ;■ \ 1 / ySu VJ 4*1 
 
 u> > ‘?''^ 'J' ^ *■ ■ ' ‘ 
 
 9:.u\\ ■;-■ SjU'J.OT. ■ » i;,.i..V ' vj? 
 
 'W 
 
 , t / T ^ f .*i . ‘ ^ 
 
 < \, ■ " '■’ . •' *\ Ili . 
 
 , 
 
 w 
 
 N -’'^ . ■ ■’'' ' ■ M '■ . ' 
 
 )jl>,v - C> ‘w^XCtf? 1*' \>'1V n > , ii^o’ j'i;»iajS 
 
 ‘ ' ^ X > ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 liX V - ?*^o. »j^ir »,i i Vi-’H ttif •? ‘.li !;•( 
 
 ' *,? f , ', ’ ■ * ' ft'i ' ' ■^’' 
 
 ' •«' .t:' y* 
 
 fV 
 
 
 '■--'’■•■, ’ *=*; ' l ' r '•' ■ »<'•■ '“ • ' ,. - ■■'■'■^ ■ . 
 
 »' , ’ ■'. "r !■ ' Y ■ I’ 
 
 <iK Ai r » i . -A <><!*» i 
 
 • 
 
 
 ^' / ■ ■ ' ' ■' ''■ t •■'■' ' ’■ - f ' A '' 
 
 'f \,J ' Ai v»t > ^ ‘ r*>i ■ 
 
 ’i' 
 
 
 9* tV- ‘ 
 
 ■ - ♦ ^ ' x '.'" ""■■• J ; i . ■ - ,, > 
 
 ■ g ^ vA ^ r £ ip ^ ::.- v ;: ui ' ,^UnP 
 
 I 
 
 
 pi? / 
 1 jL 
 
 ■ill 
 
 ajri ^/.» ,|^*(«; > V ml 
 
 
 ,,.-j 
 
 
 ft 
 
 M , ' 
 
 V\ ' ' i.v/t.’f, ^ 
 
 ' ' ■-*'» iLa , 2 ' 4 i '‘ ^ V - •'• U * T . 
 
 »>,to '.If i ■ 
 
 r***: 
 
 I ’ Vt / 
 
 n 
 
 
 . )ir 
 
 1 ^ 1 ' 
 
 . '^! 
 
 '":. i . i ;' /■ 
 
 
 
 
 r -ji ^, .-yV v«?.«a' XI,' 
 
 
 .11 
 
 \ tJi 
 
 •v\ I ■“ i 
 
 ' 1*1 
 
 
 
 - ' ■ A " .. y »^‘.' ' /ii 
 
 r Wm * ‘ii 
 
 i-' 
 
 ws -' ' ‘ 
 
 »4 • 
 
 
 'Vi-UL'/l 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 M \ir 
 
 <'A 
 
 •5 ■■ .'! i ' ’^ i ' ‘ - -'^ lii ^^* ^ i ' t 
 
 rt “ fryrt ' y r ' g't wy 
 
 
- 104"- 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 I. Bibliographies 
 
 C ambridge History of American Literature . Vol. IV. 
 pp. 671-675. 
 
 Phillips, Le Roy. Bibliography of the Writings of 
 
 Henry James . 1906. Boston and H.Y. Houghton, 
 Mifflin Company. This book is divided into 
 three parts as follows: 
 
 Part I:- A complete record of James's var- 
 ious publications from 1864 to 1906, with de- 
 scriptions of first editions, American and 
 English, and noticed of all subsequent edit- 
 ions. 
 
 Part II:- Contributions to books, and a 
 translation. 
 
 Part III:- Contributions to periodicals, with 
 a complete record of the reappearance of all 
 such contributions in books and collections. 
 Cary, Elisabeth Luther. The Hovels of Henry James . 1905 
 Chronoligical list by Frederick A. King. 
 

 ?l, , 
 
 V-.,. , 
 
 I, ■ 
 
 ’. ' I '’<• ^ .■?i 
 
 ■ " ^ ’ '’ V .. -< ^ , ■ . ..•( ’j}! 
 
 ^ H Ik 
 
 S ../•». .. ^ 
 
 
 
 
 .' " i.' 
 r .■*•* ’.» 
 
 V C‘ ^ 
 
 \< tf • ^ -. 7 . ■ ••■^»a .!’ 
 
 ^'4 ^tJ4ivJ^/V r<i r^otX •tl-t'Jf 
 
 # ■•■V. •-» . -f. 
 
 ’ > ’ 
 
 V I 
 
 ; MSrt>AUOCr , ;H(i/ 41^ •; .:^'' ^b'\S-^(!/^ ' 
 
 • -^ ' S9 *'tw 
 
 -II^T ^:o A 
 
 -0/? '/WOr oO' i'dSX 
 
 r»ni} 3 :o efa'f^<r‘^Toa''^ 
 
 
 < I 
 
 
 r: 
 
 •V. , - .*' ■' ', { ‘i\i 
 
 ; X j '■'''«•**■ ‘f’ ’ftAdiY* 
 
 ' ;*'■■ , ’ ... ‘U'-Y.iV J V: ' 'W 
 
 ♦ ' '■ it' '-•) 
 
 •| t l.'i 
 
 
 dtih ■ ^ ^: «f' 
 
 > ''■f' " 
 
 
 
 ii>' -ixx^ 
 
 Vl , / Av 
 
 "1C 
 
 }' 
 
 £Ia “to e'f*tfl!ii|j^^ 
 
 •i. t 
 
 . 
 
 . jfco A'i w# i if 
 
 c -5.: j, .iiȣ2!i;'U!:sJdEL!i&.^ ' . ./ui3''.*| 
 
 . ■ :■: 7 w t,y ^ •■ •./.*■ r.‘rj*r " •»•. ^ 
 
 -i Tfo i'tf S' »-/tt ' 
 
 '“" 
 
 I 
 
 i'Ux 
 
 ,.[ ; i' 
 
 ^ -J- 
 
 ■•'> -Yi'': 
 
 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 Mi:' 
 
 Miiif 
 
 E)W' I' 
 
 tiifa^»y**-r'-''' ft ‘y*t^ ^ r j.y i( i i j ii yte 
 
 hJa.4 / ' h ' i' ’ ii’^A 
 
 
 
 
105 
 
 II* Golleoted Works 
 
 Collection of Novels and Tales. 14 Vols. London 1883. 
 
 Hovels and Tales. Hew York, 26 Vols. London 
 and Hew York, 1907-17. Uniform edition, London, 
 1915-16. 
 
 III. Separate 7/orks 
 (Critical and descriptive writings only) 
 
 Transatlantic Sketches . Boston, 1875. 
 
 F rench Poets and Novelists . London, 1878. 
 
 Hawthorne . (English Men of Letters.) London, 1879. 
 
 Portraits of Places . London, 1873. 
 
 Notes on a collection of Drawings by M. George du Maurier, 
 London, 1884. 
 
 A Little Tour in France . Boston, 1885. 
 
 Partial Portraits . London and New York, 1888. 
 
 Catalogue of a Collection of Drawings By Alfred Parsons, H. I . 
 
 With prefatory note By Henry James. London, 1891. 
 Picture and Text . 1893. 
 
 Essays in London and Elsewhere . London, 1893. 
 
 English Hours . Boston and New York, 1905. 
 
 The Question of Our Speech. The Lesson of Balzac. Two 
 
 Lectures. Boston and Hew York, 1905 
 

 
 'f' 'iV*'".' 
 
 
 
 - aji - 
 
 .1 i,*' 
 
 
 i:. 
 
 
 
 , f 
 
 
 .^' 4 ^ 0 <rXXoQ ' ^ 3 ^ ,i* ^ 
 
 vv. 
 
 
 . .>10 y .? f to J ItayCiK o Xo 0| :-? 
 
 VA^yfet* • .siev 3 ^ JLrtii 
 
 
 
 J * J 
 
 ^r' (•. •<nfl.t ,!3 ,rj'-TOSr ,iTO'i^'<r'>a ’ ^;.i ' ‘1 
 
 ' • * I ‘W" .‘L 
 
 ', •__ ■=>- T«?i 
 
 "'y; - ' '■' 
 
 
 
 y-i 
 
 a:?ioV. ^.'‘ V 
 
 ^ ' '^'J ’ ;.c-' ■" ' 
 
 (v,:ao' uH'-- y,'‘ . 
 
 , * I fi .^*1 in .^'A ' 
 
 ^ ..sroi^t-y * ‘ ‘ 
 
 
 • >:}73l .fto^Hio/- .ytn^Xllvdlf i).nis at^oiSyiotit 'T i 
 
 . •■ ‘H ^ ' ■)■. I , ™«)'*** 
 
 Vdo.tiU/a { .aiio>f ./<iU /■ , , (ygiotl'fm 
 
 t < \ 
 
 »y- .T, 
 
 K 
 
 VI 
 
 ^.ad 8 j .iiot«,d 
 
 ■ fHtaX /JiroT * 
 
 , f^: 
 
 *■ ' '■. .''’f “., ' ^'V;‘: ' ' • ,-*N» . ,. , ■ ^ 
 
 y.iCiisvw 
 
 ’ vii 
 
 •«.M. .. » . 
 
 •■ * ^ t ' * ' -. r : 
 
 Ihs' 
 
 .,f 
 
 . r 0 >&m^ .o-toi 
 
 ^ ^ ■ if •' "■ ‘ '■ ,.;i' — — 7 ;yy— 
 
 ' Vl 'S^OfeC- tiifi K^^i^ygi 
 
 , rj . ^/ ■ ' -m ‘ i' "■'■"^^\!r '■ ' 
 
 ayy,yi 5 £ga^gfi^g'^j^ 5 .., 
 
 it • ■■ 
 
 
 ■,,'-f} y '''^: *1 
 
 ■•■‘ I'-.V/. -.«vi ■ s'- -ii^ «** 
 
 ' "n, 'Va ■ '.iSM'itoJP f 
 
 ^y■ i. , r tV.h'j '. ,: 4 .‘i 3 
 
 L.--“‘*.. .»’ -' •- 
 
 .'lW*^IW; -'• *>!', IT. •** w^j«. 9* * W-Uf <«y 'f U fc> 1 .. l a ' i > 
 
- 106 - 
 
 Views and Reviews, Now First Collected . Introduction 
 by Le Roy Phillips. Boston, 1908. 
 
 Italian Hours . New York and London, 1909. 
 
 The Outcry . New York and London, 1911. 
 
 A Small Boy and Others . New York and London, 1913. 
 
 Notes of a Son and Brother . New York and London, 1914. 
 
 Notes on Novelists . New York and London, 1914. 
 
 The Middle Years . London and New York, 1917. 
 
 The Letters of Henry James , Selected and edited by 
 
 Percy Lubbick. London, New York, 19E0. 2 Vols. 
 
 IV Uncollected Contributions to Books and Recent Magazines. 
 
 Walter Besant and Henry James. The Art of Fiction . 
 
 Boston, 1885. 
 
 The Odd Number. Thirteen Tales by Guy de Maupassant . 
 
 Translated by Jonathan Sturges. An Intro- 
 duction by Henry James. 1889. 
 
 Alphonse Daudet: Port Tarascon. The Last Adventures 
 of the Illustrious Tartarin . Translated by 
 Henry James, with an introduction.. New York 
 and London, 1892. 
 

 
 i ri . : a te artfr ^ - i ^^ 1 1 r 
 
 ,;. - ^ 
 
 T» I I 
 
 ‘ ;r 
 
 VM 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 >xk. . _ .it -t •'l.<).( , r* ^ 
 
 I 
 
 <1‘3 
 
 If^' 
 
 ■ ^ ♦ fT > .' : 
 
 I ■'• .*'! . , ‘j f atiiir.^fc' ^ tt«H : i, 
 
 .'ie 
 
 '*-*■- fei ^*-rv— •.,' *i :■> v 
 
 i;^‘ 
 
 '™“ It. ^ '■ ’ ‘ \ ■ 
 
 W.-J'ivj :r; n f. g, ^s' yM'’ ‘ i. .:ac'& ' 
 
 ! 
 
 ' ‘' V' - > ^ 
 
 . Jit': X WJ: V^r ,-i^ dt<s%w 
 
 ,t: t W#il' '■ |>^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 , f'ivl* \va^ Se- 8 i:oX-a(.>^ 
 
 ►ff Xf5f?.Xe?^ ,a 
 
 • ^.rftt-V r . .’wVX.i . jitt.O i* *» >n ^ “ s-f .f 
 
 -% ; 
 
 
 <1 
 
 4. 4se4P%yi oTiJ» bj(.ooe <idf 4j5[o^ iVugitino^i lol'ocUIXoi 
 
 f I " ..Jk! . ' ' - . • • 
 
 '*♦" 
 
 
 «/TL-v i 7 .’.. 
 
 ■ Lv .k/3i)® ' I»:r c 
 
 ^ • ■■- . . ■ .w‘ ^'V;.A. •> y-'M .: 
 
 
 
 
 •' ' .^ . •’ '’ 'l, ' ■ •' '”• ‘^‘ ’’ _ '.■•■ . .*■! ' ,v •i'f 
 
 • ' . _ -,k. ^ . ■ -. ' ' ■ 
 
 ■'U .1 ■»> •• ■'^v T | ’ :rj.v^]g»-||| 
 
 X'titrt** 
 
 /.,■ -V *t,.' .fli"./ ' i*»J 
 
 ( •■'t ^ -’’ ^ '■ .it .. ^ ' '■ -^^ j 
 
 >trA'* ' 
 
 f. ' • ' li — 
 
 w 
 
 U^*hS 
 
 
 '•5*1 
 
 3?'::i?X’|Pdu; ♦ .c»oXt)r^» 
 
 'a' . ^ I ' 
 
 \ ' ." I 
 
 ix 
 
 
 J irv’ t tsx < 
 
 *" ■ ' fi." 
 
 
 r.J *'(4iW 
 
 » 
 
 ■;:^M 
 
 
 
 ■ii^«-:''isll ; :i,'4' ! « 
 
 
 •♦' • — t.‘f“ ,'t*’*^ S’*mfrnt* 
 
 
 i4« 
 
 'e#r 
 
 ^■>F 
 
 K* 
 
 'J'«l 
 
 
 -=•*1 
 
 
- 107 - 
 
 Wolcott Balestier: The Average Woman * A biographical 
 sketch by Henry James. London, 1892. 
 
 Hubert Crackenthorpe : Last studies . With an apprecia- 
 tion by Henry James. London, 1897. 
 
 Library of the World's Best Literature Ancient and 
 
 Modern . Charles Dudley Warner, editor. 30 
 Vols. 1897. "Hathaniel Hawthorne," Vol. Xii. 
 "James Russell Lowell," Vol. XVI. "Ivan 
 Turgenieff," Vol. XXV. 
 
 Pierre Loti: Impressions . With an introduction by 
 Henry James. Westminster, 1898. 
 
 The Universal Anthology . Edited by Richard Garnett. 
 
 London, Hew York, Paris, and Berlin. 1899. 
 "The Future of the Hovel," pp. xiii-xv. 
 
 The Vicar of Wakefield , with an introduction by Henry 
 James, 1900. 
 
 The Novels and Stories of Ivan Turgenieff . With an 
 introduction by Henry James. 1903. 
 
 American Literary Criticism , Selected and edited by 
 
 7/illiam Morton Payne. New York, London, and 
 Bombay, 1904. "Sainte-Beuve . " (revised from 
 the article in The North American Review, 
 «^anuary, 1880. 
 
f 
 
 
 
 f V 
 
 V'. 
 
 r »i w > ' ip > l y t y w ** i t ^ \ 
 
 -'a 
 
 rffw 
 
 f?p‘v’^n'/’.<^.i .,. f‘'i r.if; 
 
 
 •' ■ •■< 
 
 f 3 
 
 
 
 -; vo^ , - 
 
 - ii4i 
 
 a 
 
 " '•" v^f 'I'. ■< 
 
 ..l>'4^<. 1. ij 
 
 ■ * ' ( 
 
 ‘ p s > ;} .. . t'M' ’ , e>*rjt> ; j , J.V - 
 
 *■ '■ '^1^ i;. „ 
 
 flJ 
 
 /•-■■» a: • - » i i f i-a ' r , ■ > 
 
 I -t.>^ fSiW-”'’' .t«) . v\i ■ ’^' •■’ I ’ 
 
 in? 
 
 -rian {^oC 
 
 it • '. / •# . 
 
 ■' A T ■'■ . *■ ^, ^ "^ , ■ 
 
 ..L:: »£»>■ '1-194 if 
 
 • i I 4 ‘ * • ^ , Jr^ 
 
 “ t . r ‘ 
 
 #•» .•— 
 
 ■7\'S, ,.,*<;V •'. ' ;»iroJ(, J fShSK/. p.tia).'>i''’» ■-'— *<S_ "’' 
 
 J •■ 
 
 "'* ■ ' .pr^' .;oy ".■tvoWmi’’* 
 
 i.J.0 
 
 
 t tis i ' ; / ^ 
 
 I ' ' ‘,v '. , \';'^: ■•■ ,’ [*jhiKTii—miT-: 
 
 U. ^ V A . k^KSU^M/ JIL 
 
 
 ■■ -M.t.? .Vtus'r. - . «6;>,^W5 ■■iayXo ffj^A . 
 
 , t - '^,;i’C ,^'Tip ' , •; yfyX'pl y . • 
 
 r r », • • 
 
 •.™ r 
 
 ♦^X-i X 
 
 •«■^i Ji '^If 
 
 w; ,"- ^ ^ t\ ' - '''v^tJ ■/‘kl ,_. „ 
 
 <1- (ftf. 
 
 (• ’ ,!(4' ... -' ’W ! * ,' { ,'yMI "'• J 
 
 • 'vO^^i ' •' p’’ v;’<^ ■■ miIkB ■-'I'i 
 
 ■O^i ,' • ' .“'4J'%.tt^' “ '“’ y;,'<S'‘i^‘!i t'ir ,jpo 
 
 > ■ ■. . " "#s^.- ' •. I 'ipy ’ ' • ij 
 
 .ooMo>. 
 
 WiV ■■ ' ^'. 1 ir.r f- ■■.' 7 ••.>'1 \a||jp ';„.y;* . " ^. ■ 
 
 |ffi ' '■_ ♦ 44^(10^ *-tsi’79'’^ ’ orft ' ti . ' J!y 
 
 I , ■'! p I ■: 
 
 mW^-<\ ■ '^' ' 'i 
 
 
 
 I »4 
 
 rV, a \ 
 
 Jil 
 
 
- 108 - 
 
 Letters from America tiy Rupert Brooke , with a preface 
 by Henry James, Hew York, 1916. 
 
 V. Biography and Criticism 
 
 Hapgood, Herman; Henry James. Literary Statesmen 
 and Others . Chicago and Hew York, 1897. 
 Harkins, E. P; Henry James. Little Pilgrimages 
 among Men who have Written Pampas Books . 
 
 Boston, 1902. 
 
 Burton, Richard: Bjornson, Daudet, James: A Study 
 
 in the Literary Time-Spirit . Boston, 1903. 
 Preston, Harriet W: The Latest Hovels of Howells and 
 James. Atlantic Monthly , January 1903. 
 
 Howells, W. D: Mr. Henry James’s Later Work. Horth 
 
 American Review . January 1903 and April 1906. 
 Croly, Herbert: Henry James and His Countrymen . Lamp. 
 Pebruary 1904. 
 
 Cary, Elisabeth L: Henry James. Scribners October 1904 
 " " ” The Hovels of Henry James; A Study . 
 
 Hew York and London, 1905. 
 
 Conrad, Joseph: Henry James: An Appreciation. Horth 
 
 American Review . January 1905 and April 1916. 
 

 f ■ 1 
 
 ‘ ' TT _ '’ r' -V' 
 
 
 ' ' f*- 
 
 '■■ ' .'■ t; 
 
 ’i- 
 
 
 a 
 
 I,.v 
 
 ■ ■ -■- . ^ ■•‘*.' ■ ' .;-T < '■’ 
 
 :',r r.T% -'ViTi . ji} 
 
 
 i>'ms> 
 
 T7 
 
 ^ t 
 
 .{tf -T' ,thos;>,'iiii' '.aVnni 
 
 f I r 
 
 r<' 
 
 i2J 
 
 r« 1 0 i T i VO' .Imi >r vV 
 
 
 
 * . , V Ml * 
 
 fj-JJ •■* '•*. • Mo 
 
 , « • , ■ -V '\'m 
 
 - ^ .tp i, ■ ,. ■^ 4»f. 4 ' , 4 
 
 .'lar 
 
 ’Atm 
 
 •oiTiq^ »»r^y 
 
 
 
 
 ■.-.I.''.; i%Mvr-a’. .e'Mffil, *V 
 
 ,. ' ' ■ ',v : -v.Ttm !,, 
 
 vl/tiO ' ^ns»- .Q.ti£s>W' 
 
 •■ ' ' - ■ ,r * ‘I '4j|/y;' 
 
 r r ) 0 • v*i w 0 ^ * ' ' 
 
 aicitij til 'V 4^ '. t M^tSypU ; 
 
 ll-' 
 
 -■• «'V, / , 
 
 • c / - 
 
 .‘l" 
 
 r^)4- 
 
 
 %"X^-0/J i i,:^ 
 
 j ,, \si.' ;„ /s -.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kxi 
 
 ,:*L^L Tivv^, 
 
 . d tii; j:iri ff •“*.■' , f'fl 
 
 I^’^‘ ^ ‘7yllr l ■’ ^ ‘*<l*< , ' I ' . ' 
 
 % 
 
 a ,.' 
 
 v'l 
 
 MI* 
 
 ’;f , 
 
 f I' -* ! ^ <t ! l { ! lt JL" '^ < ‘ . *y in i . l* ^ >«ii i » } i; .»»^yj p;i > ; j .> > i _ »i j t ^ i 
 
 
 
109 
 
 Elton, Oliver: The Novels of Mr. Henry James. Modern 
 Studies . London, 1907. 
 
 Gill, W. A: Henry James and His Double. At lantic 
 Monthly , October, 1907. 
 
 Brownell, W.C; Henry James. American Prose Masters . 
 New York, 1909. 
 
 Fullerton, Morton: The Art of Henry James. Quarterly 
 Review, April, 1910. 
 
 Lee, Vernon: The Handling of Words: Meredith, Henry 
 James. English Review , June 1910. 
 
 Gretton, M. S: Mr. Henry James and His Prefaces. 
 
 Contemporary Review. January 1912. 
 
 James, Henry: A Small Boy and Others . 1913. 
 
 Hueffer, Ford Madox: Henry James . London, 1913. 
 
 Macy, John: Henry James. The Spirit of American 
 Literature . 1913. 
 
 James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother . New York, 
 London, 1914. 
 
 West, Rebecca: Henry James . London, 1916. 
 
 Phelps, William Lyon: Henry James. The Advance of 
 t he English Novel . 1916. 
 
 Canby, H. S: Henry James. Harper's Weekly . March 
 
 25, 1916. 
 

 
 f-5 V < 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 I.' 
 
 
 ' >, y '■■■ k .?* u 
 
 ' ^ m • nil ^1 t-»*. , 
 
 ^ I • , xi^S<> .tiofe N> f rj™» 
 
 ■■ c .an.^T^,ai ,£r®Ictis 
 
 ::v 
 
 •/ ' 
 
 ■, i‘ 
 
 , ' ■ , '. ■ . ^ -feOV^ ,.<101 n,»£ 
 
 /• ■ . • ■^p »v ■ ^<i,yv ' , »i V ■• 
 
 •» ‘ , ’*.*■' ■(?* ••* ' : “■ '.\^,.v’ ' <v-. — ,J 
 
 
 ’•} 
 
 ,. -lit 91)*; .>vi n.'ii flail ''.-fi; r/xv »' ''-ij tt: -U ■. ! 
 
 •visr jj; 
 
 ' • '-f'- ' . ‘0 MO^, ^.fioH : fl9,6a)i -liiai , -. 
 
 ,. ' 'J j'' ■ •' iiy. »'<i' ^ ' 
 
 ■ i' ' '?• .‘I-I' i; • ■■ ’ ■iS 
 
 .atoc w»? ’-intmie <IIP I'JOflsB 
 
 .3'«t ' vioirtLt ••flOflVifs'S'''. 
 
 B' 0 -i.ajt ^ t '. JOjHa!; .nwB^, i^-uni Jja .jj '.yasi'" 
 
 ' ' ' . r’ '.• a. 4!'A» iyii ■ V' ■ .'■ . 
 
 
 ' f' 
 
 . Iv. il 
 
 
 a'' 
 
 ■ . . , , ■ - ' ' *.■ ‘-4 . •■! 
 
110 
 
 Randell, Wilfrid, L: The Art of Mr. Henry James. 
 
 Fortnightly Review . April, 1916. 
 young, Filson: A Bundle of Violets. English Review , 
 April, 1916. 
 
 The World of Henry James. L iving Age . April 22, 1916. 
 (From The Times . ) 
 
 Leach, Anna; Henry James: An Appreciation. Forum , May 
 1916. 
 
 Walbrook, H. M: Henry James and the English Theatre. 
 
 Nineteenth Century^ July, 1916. 
 
 Lubbock, Percy: Henry James. Quarterly Review . July 
 
 1916. Living Age . September 16, 1916. 
 
 James, Henry: The Middle Years . London and New York, 
 
 1917. 
 
 Freeman, John: Henry James. Moderns: Essays in Liter- 
 ary Criticism . 1917. 
 
 Sherman, S. P: The Aesthetic Idealism of Henry James. 
 
 On Contemporary Literature . New York, 1917. 
 Wyatt, Edith: Henry James. Great Companions . 1917. 
 Bosanquet, Theodora: Henry James. Fortnightly Review , 
 
 June, 1917. 
 
, j ■ -Sa 1 
 
 '♦ 7 . j* »>'•• 
 
 1 -s:, 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 
 U ^ ♦ ■'• 
 
 s .' w. 
 
 ■' ' :. 
 
 TV"- ^ 
 
 , - - *’1 
 
 V- 1. *. ''■ 'f. 
 
 
 ' . ♦, * ' 
 
 K 
 
 
 - - 
 
 S.. . . • 
 
 
 ’: o 
 
 S|' V 
 
 fi ' i- vfc < ''■" ■' .;wj ' --fli *jis< 
 
 ^ ' ' .: * :?'i ;i?l! » . ^<(81 
 
 
 
 ♦: 
 
 J . . 
 
 ■ ti, , Jf', ^ .ii'nA VJ' 
 
 * *■ * ' ki ' ** I ^ 
 
 . tt^ ;, 4 »dn 4 wt.(W^'- 
 
 -r , . ,'v / ''•« . .-^• 
 
 '•> 
 
 I • # . 4«> 
 
 "• - » -' *■ 
 
 i ‘ 
 
 S 1 .i 
 
 
 ■IT- K 
 
 .n*r^> 9 .'Cr e.-f^ ^£vxi 
 
 .MGI , ::it\ 
 
 ' '''•> 
 'i' 
 
 ;; 
 
 
 
 
 [;’ :. 1 ^ 7 ^, V • ■ -®' » Vvyilk iv;' 
 
 V«impa>-;< .a»«V '//^.r :«.-t^ .nj9'j-»r*t' i 
 
 I ' • , uW 
 
 ijf CT^ 
 
 ■ ' ' '‘‘ r ' ‘ i", ’ ‘<^‘.j 
 
 ■ ' ■' ' 
 
 • - .V' **' •• •< '-j, "■; .^ • ,'i ■ . 1^ 
 
 t,:^; 
 
 '/• 
 
 r 7 
 
 v.A\ 
 
 •£?ffl3!f^S£fe^S»iai ;•«!»•? tW*B 
 
 i.- '‘^n i ■■' ^ ."■ ;'LA' ■* a«#u v 
 
 r.-. , 1' , , ;. ,'i'"* ' '.-V{W .,'s,ut ■■'iWW 
 
 i.w« • v’-i"--' ■■■>*■*? ’ ■ ' ■ &f '■' 
 
 . ;'|j 1 |^ ■ i-'! . 5 »fe 
 
 
 J MZkj 
 
 ” ■• ,.,®|||“ 
 
 / 
 
 
 Ur t - * ' * ^( ; * i! f " ■a ^r^^!; -;a 5 g»» 
 
 f .1/ • . . 
 
 itt 
 
 
 
 
 
Ill 
 
 Beach, J. W: The Method of Henry James * New Haven, 1918. 
 Follett, H. T. and W; Henry James. Some Modern Novelisls ; 
 
 Appreciations and Estimates . 1918. 
 
 Hackett, Francis: Horizons; A Book of Criticism . 1918. 
 Gilman, Lawrence. Henry James in Reverie. North 
 American Review . January, 1918. 
 
 Note:- This bibliography is selected for the 
 student of the critical standards of Henry James. The 
 bibliography collected and published by Le Roy Phillips 
 contains a complete list of Henry James's writings, their 
 first publication, and all republications, from the begin- 
 ning in 1864 to 1906. The Cambridge History of American 
 Literature gives a complete list of publications up to 
 1918. I have included in this bibliography only the 
 critical writings of Henry James, and such other books as 
 may be important in tracing the artistic influence of 
 Ruskin, etc. , and the list of biographical and critical 
 works about Henry James.