Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

will never betray his disciple into wasting his substance in riotous Barmecidal feasts. am apt to believe," he says, "that the complaints one sometimes hears of the neglect of our older literature are the regrets of archæologists rather than of critics. One does not need to advertise the squirrels where the nuttrees are, nor could any amount of lecturing persuade them to spend their teeth on a hollow nut." It is to be feared that Mr. Lowell has too much confidence in the instinct of his squirrels, but this sentence (from the essay on Spenser) was written before the day of Wordsworth societies and Shelley societies, and Browning clubs and Kipling clubs.

Some of my judicious friends reproach me with putting an extravagant estimate upon Lowell. So I should like to corroborate myself with the opinion of a critic whose judgment weighs. Such a critic I find in Edward FitzGerald, the translator of Calderon and Omar Khayyam. Intimate with the best writers and thinkers of his time, he delighted in telling them all exactly what he thought of their works. The candor of the following passage from a letter of his to Mr. Lowell cannot be questioned. He had mentioned to Mr. Norton and to Mr. Lowell himself that he admired the Essays with certain reservations. One of these, with reference to the "Moosehead Journal," was: "I did not like the Style of it at all; all too clever by half."" In October, 1877, FitzGerald wrote to Mr. Lowell as follows:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

easily blow away if you should ever care to do so. Only

pray understand (what I really mean) that, in all my

[ocr errors]

remarks I do not pretend to the level of an original Writer like yourself: only as a Reader of Taste, which is a very different thing you know, however useful now and then in the Service of Genius. I am accredited with the Aphorism, Taste is the Feminine of Genius.' However that may be, I have some confidence in my own. And, as I have read these Essays of yours more than once and again, and with increasing Satisfaction, so I believe will other men long after me; not as Literary Essays only, but comprehending very much beside of Human and Divine, all treated with such a very full and universal Faculty, both in Thought and Word, that I really do not know where to match in any work of the kind. I could make comparisons with the best: but I don't like comparisons. But I think your Work will last, as I think of very few Books indeed."

Yes, Mr. Lowell's prose work will, quoad criticism, bear comparison with the best, and

some of it is likely to last. But his poetry? Certainly it has done noble service in its day. For my own part, I will acknowledge that I fear I like it too well to be a good judge of it. But I am inclined to agree with FitzGerald in what seems to have been his tacit opinion, that the poetry is not Mr. Lowell's most permanent contribution to literature. This with the exception of a few pieces, one or two of which I have already mentioned. What does Mr. Lowell himself think? The "Prefatory Note to the Poems" (Vol. VII.) concludes with these pathetic words: "As we grow older, we grow the more willing to say, as Petrarca in Landor's Pentameron says to Boccaccio, We neither of us are such poets as we thought ourselves when we were younger.' This is dated the 9th of May, 1890.

[ocr errors]

What are some of the reservations touching the essays, which FitzGerald withholds in the letter quoted above? Doubtless they were either criticisms of detail such as any reader may make for himself, or else they are met by Mr. Lowell's explanation that the greater part of the literary essays were originally written as lectures. He adds: "This will account for, if it do not excuse, a more rhetorical tone in them here and there than I should have allowed myself had I been writing for the eye and not for the ear." Criticisms of detail might be multiplied, but they are beyond the scope of the present review. As, however, we are dealing with a writer for whom so much is claimed, of whom it is asserted that he need not fear comparison as a critic with the best, it may not be amiss briefly to suggest, in conclusion, one or two of the more serious limitations of Mr. Lowell's ers which such a comparison reveals.

pow

As a literary critic, then, Mr. Lowell lacks philosophy, he lacks system, he lacks science. He belongs to the impressionist school of Coleridge and Hazlitt and Lamb, rather than to the more positive school founded by SainteBeuve and continued on one line by Matthew Arnold and on another by M. Taine. Mr. Lowell is singularly exempt from the tyranny of the Zeitgeist; he is remarkably innocent of the evolutionary tendency which has invaded every department of human research. Of course a powerful mind develops a philosophy of its own; and Mr. Lowell's astonishing talents and equipment, his broad comparative view of the whole field of literature, his rare poetic gift, and his generous enjoyment of the work of others, give unique value to all his judgments and obiter dicta. In particular it is to be noted

that his quick and delicate sympathy always moves under the escort of a vigilant sense of humor, which recalls him from those extravagances into which unattended sympathy is so prone to run. But what I chiefly wish to remark is that any advance one may note in the criticism of Lowell beyond that of Coleridge, for example, or of De Quincey, is due far less to a more scientific method than to the personality of the critic. He seems to have learned little from Sainte-Beuve, to whom he was doubtless introduced after his own method was formed. This is a great pity, for Sainte-Beuve could have taught him much, as he taught Matthew Arnold and the whole present generation of brilliant critics in France. Had Mr. Lowell brought his splendid powers to an inductive criticism such as that now practised in France by Taine and Brunetière, the results must have been of the highest interest. This he might have done had he in early life become imbued with the more scientific method of SainteBeuve.

In truth, however, Lowell, although fourteen years Sainte-Beuve's junior, was a much less modern man than that master-critic. Paradoxical as the assertion may seem, Lowell, with all his genius, lacks originality. This is why he has made so little mark upon the thought of his age. For all his acute judgments and brilliant epigrams, he has left the art of criticism much where it was when he took up the fallen mantles of Coleridge and Hazlitt. That he did not leave it in precisely the same place is principally due to the subtle invasion of the time-spirit, which no one escapes. Compared with Sainte-Beuve, who effected, almost singlehanded, a memorable revolution in the art of criticism, Lowell appears ineffectual indeed. Compared with Buckle or with Taine, incomplete as their attempts at induction may have been, his influence seems slight. Compared with Matthew Arnold, whose doctrine and practice move in such consistency and harmony, how small a place does Lowell fill in the history of culture! What stream of new and fresh ideas did he set in motion and cause to prevail, as Arnold confessedly did?

I had intended to discuss the limitations by reason of which Mr. Lowell's sagacious and pure political addresses and essays have had so little influence with his countrymen at large. Why, with powers so much more various and dazzling than those of any other American writer, I make no exception,-is he less a national favorite than any other of our six or

eight greatest names? A partial answer may be sought in the fact that he has something of the same scholarly inaccessibility and Bostonian perpendicularity which made the greathearted Sumner disliked. Mr. Lowell thinks Goethe cold, but one cannot fancy the master of Elmwood putting so hospitable a legend under the engraving of his fine old mansion as that which Goethe wrote for the picture of his humbler house at Weimar.* Mr. Lowell understood profoundly the great, the ideal side of Lincoln's character, yet it is probable that Lincoln would have had as little personal sympathy with Lowell as he had with Sumner. Do you know," said he, "Sumner is my idea of a bishop.' of a bishop." Lincoln and Grant understood each other, and the people understood them. But they could not understand such men as Sumner, Motley, and Lowell, nor can the people. Such is the price "the gentleman and scholar scholar" pays for his privilege of caste. But upon this it were ungracious to dwell.

66

Finally, I cannot but express very great disappointment that the fine essay on Gray, which appeared some years since in the "New Princeton Review," should not have been included in this definitive edition. Perhaps Mr. Lowell will yet delight us with another volume or two. He is said to be writing the life of Hawthorne, and this is well enough; but why does he not comply with the reasonable demands of FitzGerald and other friends, and add to his gallery the portraits of Cervantes, Calderon, Molière, Fielding,—and De Quincey? He has given us sketches of Fielding and Cervantes, but no finished picture.

MELVILLE B. ANDERSON.

*I roughly translate as follows:-
Why stand the folk without and stare?
Are not door and gateway there?
If they'd enter bold and free
One and all should welcome be!

THE FOUNDING OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE.*

The honored historian of the great revolutionary epoch has undertaken to trace and record the mighty movement that has given to the world a united Germany. His previous studies have been an excellent preparation for this important work, and the high regard in which he is held has gained for him oppor

*THE FOUNDING OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE BY WILLIAM I. Based chiefly upon Prussian State Documents. By Heinrich Von Sybel. Translated by Marshall Livingston Perrin. In five volumes. Volume I. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.

tunities for studying the movement that are absolutely unique. The archives of Prussia and of several of the smaller states have been opened to him, and we may rely upon his statements of fact. A reading of this volume assures us that his interpretations of facts may also be depended upon, for we recognize the judicial temper in his treatment of them. Without concealing his own opinions-and he was himself a part of that which he portrays he is equally ready to see the mistakes of his own party or state, and to recognize the merits of his opponents. No one, for example, could show more clearly the wretched vacillation and quixotism of the benevolent Frederick William IV.; yet we can see that the author had for the King the same tender feeling that all had who came under his influence.

But the days of the Confederation are even more disconnected from the feelings of present Germany than are the days before 1860 from our own, for their struggle has not left behind it any such tremendous disturbing force as our negro problem with all its phases of trouble. The historian himself says: "The times of the old Bundestag are behind us, and they form a closed chapter of our past history. We are able to talk as dispassionately about Königgrätz as about Kollin and Leuthen." In this spirit he has written this work; that the Germans themselves recognize its merits is shown by their enthusiastic reception of it.

The first book, which fills a third of this volume, is entitled "Retrospect," and gives a summary account of German history to the outbreak of the revolution in the early part of that annus mirabilis, 1848. The special topics are the rise of Prussia to a rivalry with Austria, the results of the Napoleonic wars upon Germany, the workings of the Confederation of 1815 as dominated by Prince Metternich, and the beginnings of a national feeling.

With the outbreak of the revolution in Germany, in electric sympathy with the outbreak in Paris, the narrative becomes minute, and the rest of the volume tells the events of but little more than two years, the attempt to form a real national government after that upheaval. The story of that futile effort is of fascinating interest and great value to the student of politics. It is necessarily complicated, for there were many petty states manœuvring each for its own advantage. though it is somewhat hard to follow in its frequent transitions from court to court, it has much to interest the general student of history

But

or of man. No one can understand the present conditions in Europe without a knowledge of that stormy period.

It is a striking change that the last halfcentury has brought about in Germany,-that from an apparently incorrigible individualism, inbred by the training of centuries, to a united and vigorous nationality. The Empire has been made possible only by the partial selfeffacement of the beloved dukedoms and principalities, at whose expense it has gained its great powers by their voluntary bestowal. So thoroughly disintegrated was the land with its multitude of petty absolutisms, so completely had it resisted the tendencies that elsewhere united the federal states into strong nations, that it was hard to imagine any power or influence that could fuse those of Germany into But even while we wondered, the thing was done, the consummation of the longings of the few generous and patriotic souls was attained, and Germany stood forth among the nations a noble object for the devotion of a united German people. There seemed to be no such thing as German national feeling until far into the present century, and it must be accounted one of the many indirect blessings of the tremendous upheaval of a hundred years ago, through its later effects, the risings of 1830 and 1848. In Germany, that national feeling tended toward unity, as in heterogeneous Austria the same feeling tended toward separation.

one.

We can see in German history, as shown in this volume, much to remind us of our own sad experience under our Confederation. Here was the same extreme individualism in the states that had grown out of the old isolated colonies, the same jealousy of a central government due to historical reasons, the same determination not to sink state identity in any powerful national organization. And the way out was much the same in both cases,-through confusion, selfish quarrels, anarchy. We emerged sooner from the darkness, for we had no Prussia and Austria contending for supremacy, and no absolute monarchs with power to thwart the wishes of the people when once they had discovered where their interest lay.

The reasons for the failure of the revolutionary movements of 1830 and 1848 are readily seen from this narrative. The patriot leaders failed to realize the fundamental truth in politics, that any institution to be stable and lasting must grow out of the life and thought of the people. These leaders were doctrinaire philos

ophers, men who, without experience of free government, drew all their ideas from books, from the ancient writers and those of France, and from their own enthusiasms. It seemed to them that all their political institutions must be immediately changed and conformed to those of England or the United States, then the shining models of freedom. If popular discontent put these leaders in power, the bewildered people were unable to work the strange and complicated machinery put into their hands, the experiment failed, and a reaction brought back the despot, and with him more of relief to the people from their perplexity than of sorrow for their failure.

The rise of Prussia is one of the marvels of modern history. Though her course has been checkered with humiliation and disappointment, and not unstained by selfish aggression upon her weaker neighbors, it is perhaps no worse than that of her great neighbors. And the little state has grown in a hundred years to a power that has enabled her to humble the old and proud empires of France and Austria, and sit the arbiter of Europe. This story of the rise of Prussia, of the jealousy of Austria towards this troublesome neighbor, growing as the latter grew in strength and influence and ambition, of the desperate struggle of the old leader to maintain her position by wrecking every attempt at German unity that would exclude her non-German appendages, and of her success down to the fatal war of 1866,-this story is full of interest.

CHARLES H. COOPER.

ANDERSON'S EDITION OF BACON'S ESSAYS.*

This is the only edition of Bacon I have ever seen which looks as though one would take pleasure in reading it through at a single sitting. No other would be likely to appeal so strongly to the person of literary proclivities and refined taste, who reads merely for the pleasure it yields or to acquire certain general notions of an author, his style and times.

Many have been and are the editions of Bacon's Essays besides those contained in his collected works. Out of these we may choose four with which to compare the one before us. Whately treats Bacon as a homilist treats a book of Scripture. Whately is a

* THE ESSAYS OR COUNSELS OF FRANCIS BACON. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes, by Melville B. Anderson. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.

moralist, and he seeks texts on which to hang discourses. The discourses contain abundance of sound ethical teaching, no doubt. The thoughts are the thoughts of an educated man ; the tone is dignified; the language correct. We may even concede that the observations are, in the main, just. What then? Merely this: that after reading awhile one beginsunless he rebels outright to look at the world through the eyes of Whately, rather than those of Bacon; the impression gradually deepens that the editor lacks the gift of self-effacement,-in short, the reader ends by persuading himself that, instead of getting a deal of sack to his bread, he is getting an intolerable deal of bread to his sack. Lucky is it for the editor if the reader never formulates the thought that the bread is not only plentiful, but uncommonly dry!

There is another kind of edition, designed for the student in school and college. This has an extended introduction; good, numerous, and sufficiently copious notes; information of various sorts contributory to the attainment of an independent opinion concerning Bacon's character and views. For this species Abbott's edition may be allowed to stand.

Still another is represented by Wright's issue in the Clarendon Press series. Unlike the last-named, the text of this is not modernized, but retains the eccentricities of the old spelling and punctuation, and a use of capitals which reminds one of German, though less consistent. Wright's may be called the scholar's condensed edition. It deals much in variants, in Latin renderings of the English of the Essays, and in references to parallel passages in other works of Bacon's. Its illustrative notes, in so far as they point out the sources of Bacon's thought or diction, are usually mere citations, unavailable without access to a considerable library, unless the reader is so learned as to carry a library in his head. Wright's edition is for classical scholars of leisure and for other editors.

Lastly may be instanced the edition of Reynolds, which has just appeared. This is a generous octavo, with notes and notes,-notes at the foot of the page, and notes at the end of each essay. The foot-notes are devoted rather to verbal difficulties, the terminal notes rather to parallels and the explanation of allusions. The type is large, the paper good, and—justly enough-the price high. Reynolds's may be called the library edition, not unadapted to the person of general information and culture, but

framed with an eye to the scholar, and sure to be prized by him, whether he is near an extensive library or not.

Different from all these is Professor Anderson's setting of the Essays. It was meant to be different, and it is. The foundation of our confidence in any edition is the assurance that it has a good text; in other words, that we have the author's speech as he meant to leave it to the world, or as he would desire that it should be presented to us. This means literal faithfulness at one extreme, and at the other the exercise of common-sense. In some cases, fac-similes of an original are serviceable, or editions which are virtually such. In others, the essentials may be rigorously preserved, while everything accidental with reference to the peculiar purpose of the edition will be ignored. The peculiar cutting of the type is always thus accidental; so is its size. Where Where the needs of the scholar do not require the retention of the old punctuation, the latter is often more negative than accidental; it is a positive hindrance to the apprehension of the meaning. The Elizabethan spelling varies from lawless to obstructive. Regarded as unfamiliar, and therefore "quaint," it may af ford pleasure to minds of a retrospective cast, or peculiarly susceptible to the charm of association; it may even be insisted on by those who think nothing delightful that can be shared by many; but it is doubtless true that the anarchic spelling of three hundred years ago may and does stand in the way of wide popularity, and consequently of a general diffusion of the wisdom contained in such pages as these.

Professor Anderson has produced for us a sound text; that is, so far as I have examined, he gives us the words that accredited scholars assure us are Bacon's, but in modern spelling. His punctuation is lucid and usually convincing, though occasionally he resolves an ambiguity by re-punctuation when perhaps it had been better to allow the reader a choice of renderings. A specimen may be adduced from Essay XXVI. Thus he reads, "It is a ridiculous thing, and fit for a satire to persons of judgment," etc. Wright's edition has, "It is a Ridiculous Thing, and fit for a Satyre, to Persons of Iudgement." Now perhaps the latter is what Bacon meant to say; namely, that to persons of judgment, and not to others, it is both ridiculous and fit for satire. The conservative course, allowing choice of readings in the perusal, might here have been preferable (omitting

both commas would answer as well). But it is safe to say that such instances are few, and it is only fair to admit that the edition of 1612 sustains Anderson's punctuation.

The notes err neither by excess of number nor of length. If this be a fault, it is a good one in an edition designed for reading. True it is that Bacon's book is of the "few" that are" to be chewed and digested,” and that in order to the full assimilation more help may be needed. But we must bear in mind that this edition is for the reader, not specifically for the student; and for the mere reader the notes are perhaps frequent enough. Then they are at the foot of the page, where they will least interrupt the course of the reading; and, I repeat, they are brief. Latin quotations are well translated, and whatever is offered is worthy of being received with confidence. There is no shallow philologizing nor ignorant darkening of counsel.

The Introduction contains only twenty-nine pages, all told, including the useful and suggestive Dates Relative to Francis Bacon and his Contemporaries. The divisions of the Introduction are: Original Editions and Dedications; Recent Editions; The Present Edition; The Form; Literary Style; Bacon and Shakspere. One merit of the Introduction, and not the least, is its freedom from verbiage. In this day of much euphuistic spinning of filmy daintiness, glistening and iridescent when struck at a proper angle by the light, but mostly doomed to be swept into oblivion by some well-directed broom of criticism, or left hanging in forgotten corners where brooms have no need to penetrate, the man who says simply and clearly what he sees and what he means deserves the encouragement of general applause. Bacon himself would have applauded such a one. I quote concerning him from one of Anderson's quotations: "In the composing of his books he did rather drive at a masculine and clear expression than at any fineness or affectation of phrases, and would often ask if the meaning were expressed plainly enough, as being one that accounted words to be but subservient or ministerial to matter, and not the principal." Golden words these, and worthy to be committed to memory by every writer who aspires to live for posterity.

Not more than once or twice are Anderson's own pages disfigured by such a conceit as this (the italics are mine): "The student who would broaden his intellectual horizon cannot afford to keep his eye forever fixed upon the

« PrethodnaNastavi »