Part 9

To drop metaphor: there are certain spheres of literary activity in which the circulation of mutual puffery by this clique or by that clique can do comparatively little harm to any one or to anything. There are some subjects on which every reader is not only perfectly competent to form his own judgment, but is pretty certain to do so. He may amuse himself by seeing what the critics have to say, and he may be induced by them in the first instance to turn to the book which is in question, but he is practically unaffected by any opinions unless they happen to coincide with his own. Such is the case with books of travel, with novels, and, as a rule, with poetry. Here the arts of the log-roller are as harmless as the frolics of whales with tubs. No one takes what he sees seriously except those who are engaged in the pastime. If Mr. A cannot give the general public what it appreciates, nothing that Mr. B can say will cajole that public into believing that it has what it has not. Mr. C and Mr. D may vociferate, till they are hoarse, that “Mr. E is the subtlest and most discriminating critic that the English-speaking world has ever known”; but if Mr. E’s eulogies of Mr. C’s verses and of Mr. D’s novels are not corroborated by the general reader’s independent judgment, the fame of Messrs. C and D will not extend beyond their clique. If in poetry or prose fiction trash succeeds, as it undoubtedly does, it succeeds not because of the skill with which it has been puffed, though this may be a factor in its success, but because it hits the popular taste. The public is seldom deceived except when it wishes to be deceived. Log-rolling has much to answer for: it loads our bookstalls with nonsense and rubbish, it impedes the production of sound literature, it degrades the standard of taste, it degrades the standard of aim and attainment, and indirectly it is in every way mischievous to literature. But we very much question whether in the case of publications which appeal directly to general readers, and are within the scope of their judgments, the fortune of a book is in any way affected by the arts of the log-roller. Amusement mingled with impatience is probably the prevailing sentiment when Mr. C and Mr. D are loud in each other’s praises. We remember the amœbæan strains of Hayley and Miss Seward in Porson’s epigram:--

_Miss Seward_: Tuneful poet, Britain’s glory; Mr. Hayley, that is you.

_Mr. Hayley_: Ma’am, you carry all before you; Trust me, Lichfield Swan, you do.

* * * * *

_Miss Seward_: Ode, didactic, epic, sonnet; Mr. Hayley, you’re divine.

_Mr. Hayley_: Ma’am, I’ll take my oath upon it, You yourself are all the nine.

Or, in a less good-natured mood, we may perhaps recall with a certain satisfaction Pope’s cruel but pathetic picture of the minor log-rollers of his day:--

Next plunged a feeble but a desperate pack, With each a sickly brother at his back. Sons of a day! just buoyant on the flood, Then numbered with the puppies in the mud.

But there are certain subjects and certain spheres in which the arts of the log-roller, if equally contemptible, are not quite so harmless.

During the last fifteen years the Press has been teeming with books designed to circulate among readers who are seriously interested in _belles lettres_ and criticism. Some of them have appeared as volumes in a series, some as independent monographs and manuals, and some in the humbler forms of editorial introductions and notes. Among them may be found works of really distinguished scholars, and works in every way worthy of such scholars; and it is no doubt works like these which have given credit and authority generally to publications of this kind. The popularity of these productions has been extraordinary, and their manufacture has become one of the most lucrative of hackney employments. Nor is this all. Their professed purpose is the dissemination of serious instruction, is to become text-books in literary history and in literary criticism; and, as text-books on those subjects, they have made their way, or are making their way, not merely into our public libraries, but also into the libraries of nearly every educational institute in England. Indeed it would not be too much to say that if, among general readers, about eighty in every hundred derive almost all they know about English literature, both historically and critically, from these volumes, in our schools and colleges, the average number of those whose studies are and ought to be independent of them is yearly diminishing. It is of these text-books and of the responsibilities incurred by those who produce and circulate them that we wish to speak.

We have already commented on the distinction which must be drawn between what is best and what is inferior in the publications to which we have been referring; and, in truth, the difference is one not of degree but in kind. As our desire is, in Swift’s phrase, to lash the vice but spare the name, we shall not specify the works which we have selected as typical of log-rolling in relation to education. Till we saw them we had no conception of the lengths to which this sort of thing has run. Ostensibly the works before us are critical and biographical monographs designed to become text-books for students of English literature; they may be more correctly described as complete epitomes of the art of puffery. The writers begin by assuming that the objects of their ludicrous adulation--who are, like themselves, contributors of the average order to current periodicals, and the authors of monographs similar to their own--are by general consent critics of classical authority. The most deferential references are made to them in almost every page. Now it is “Goethe and Mr. So-and-so have observed,” or “Coleridge has remarked, but Mr. So-and-so is inclined to think,” etc. Sometimes it assumes the form of a sort of awful reverence, as “Mr. So-and-so is a little uncertain, but surely he more than hints,” or “Mr. So-and-so, as we all know, was once of opinion, though he has recently found reason to alter,” etc. We saw not long ago in the notes to a certain edition of a classical author: “Socrates and Mr. X---- _of Trinity_ have observed,” etc. Occasionally this homage expresses itself--and this is more serious--in the form of long extracts from Mr. So-and-so’s writings. Nothing is more common in works like these than to find critics and writers of classical authority either completely ignored, or, if cited at all, cited only in the connection which we have indicated. That the gentlemen who are the subjects of this grotesque flattery either have paid or will pay their friends in kind may, of course, be taken for granted. Thus one factitious reputation builds up another, and one bad book ushers in twenty which are worse.

Macaulay has an amusing passage in which he has collected the names of those who, according to Horace Walpole, were “the first writers” in England in 1753. It might have been expected that Hume, Fielding, Dr. Johnson, Richardson, Smollett, Collins, and Gray would at least have had a place among them. Not at all. They were Lord Bath, Mr. W. Whithed, Sir Charles Williams, Mr. Soame Jenyngs, Mr. Cambridge, and Mr. Coventry; in other words, a clique of politicians and men of fashion of the very titles of whose writings even a reader tolerably well read in the literature of those times might excusably be ignorant. We are not exaggerating when we say that this system of strenuous and well-directed mutual puffery is, in our own time, leading to similarly perverted conceptions about the relative position of those who owe their celebrity to these ignoble arts and those on whose fame Time’s test has set its seal, not merely on the part of the general public, but on the part of those who are responsible for the books introduced into schools and educational institutes. We will give an illustration.

At a meeting held not long ago, for the purpose of prescribing books for a Reading Society, the choice lay between some of Johnson’s Lives, Select Essays by Sainte Beuve, and Select Essays by Matthew Arnold on the one hand, and on the other certain books typical of the literature of which we have been speaking. The debate which ensued was very amusing. A member of the committee, a gentleman of conservative temper, strongly urged the claims of Johnson, Sainte Beuve, and Arnold, on the ground that it was the duty of the Society to encourage the study of what was excellent and of classical quality, especially in criticism; that it was not merely the information contained in a book which had to be considered, but the style, the tone, the touch; that the monographs proposed as an alternative could scarcely be regarded as of the first order, either in expression or in matter, for he had observed, though he had only glanced at them, several solecisms in grammar and several inaccuracies of statement; and he concluded by adding that other writings of these particular authors with which he happened to be more familiar had not prejudiced him in their favour. Upon that, another member of the council, who had been busily conning the Press notices inserted in the monographs in question, pleaded their claim to preference. “Dr. Johnson,” he remarked, “was no doubt a great man in his day, but his day had long been over; no one read him now. Sainte Beuve and Matthew Arnold might be classical and all that, but they were not up to date.” He could not talk as an expert on literary matters, and therefore he would not contradict what the former speaker had said, “but there could be no doubt that Messrs. So-and-so,” the authors of the monographs in question, “were very big men--bigger men, I should think (glancing at the Press notices in his hand), than Sainte Beuve and Matthew Arnold. At any rate, everybody has heard of them; and,” he continued, “listen to this.” He then proceeded to read out some of the notices, adding that it was difficult, if he might say so without offence, to reconcile what his friend, the preceding speaker, had said with what was said in these notices. He was a little staggered--for, though a simple, he was a shrewd man--when the very remarkable similarity between Mr. A’s eulogies of Mr. B and Mr. B’s eulogies of Mr. A was pointed out to him, and when, in reference to anonymous testimony, he was reminded that one voice may have many echoes. It was generally felt, more especially as Mr. A or Mr. B had, we believe, more than one acquaintance among the committee, that the debate was taking rather an embarrassing turn. The question was then put to the vote, and the monographs were carried by a majority of three to one.

What occurred at this meeting is occurring every day, variously modified, wherever the choice of books is in question, whether in public libraries or in educational institutions. A literature, the sole credentials of which are derived from those who produce and circulate it, is gradually superseding that of our classics. We seem in truth to be losing all sense of the essential distinction between the writings of the average man of letters and those of the masters.

OUR LITERARY GUIDES

III. BOOKS WORTH READING[20]

[Footnote 20: _Books Worth Reading._ A Plea for the Best and an Essay towards Selection, with Short Introductions. By Frank W. Raffety, London.]

Were it not for its melancholy significance, this would be one of the most amusing books which it has ever been our fortune to meet with. Of Mr. Frank W. Raffety we have not the honour to know anything, except what we have gathered from this little volume and from its title-page. But he must be a singularly interesting gentleman. His enthusiasm for books, his portentous ignorance of them; his strenuous desire to improve the popular taste by pleading for the best, his instinctive tendency to make in all cases for the worst; his sublime intolerance of everything in literature which falls short of excellence, his more than sublime indifference to the commonest rules of grammar and syntax in expressing that intolerance; the _naïveté_, the frankness, the recklessness with which he displays his incompetence for the task which he has undertaken--in these qualifications and accomplishments Mr. Raffety is not perhaps alone, but he has certainly no superior.

Mr. Raffety aspires to guide his readers through the chief literatures of the world. Now the task of a reviewer, who has a conscience, is not always a cheerful one, and we confess that, when we had generally surveyed Mr. Raffety’s work, we resolved to amuse ourselves by trying to discover of which of the literatures, to which Mr. Raffety constitutes himself a guide, Mr. Raffety is probably most ignorant. It is a nice point. Let our readers judge. We will begin with Mr. Raffety and the Classics. Of Theognis, the most voluminous of the Greek Gnomic poets, it is said that “only a few sentences”--Mr. Raffety is presumably under the impression that Theognis wrote in prose--“quoted in the works of Plato and others survive.” “The Greek Anthology,” we are astounded to learn, “is by Lord Neaves” and “is one of the best volumes in the A.C.E.R. series.” What Mr. Raffety no doubt means is, that Lord Neaves is the author of a monograph on the Greek anthology, as he certainly was. With regard to Herodotus, Mr. Raffety has evidently got some information not generally accessible. His _History_, we are told, “is a great prose epic.... The second book is of the most interest. In other works are the histories of Crœsus, Cyrus,” etc. It would be interesting to know what other works besides his _History_ Herodotus has left. Of the _Prometheus Bound_ of Æschylus Mr. Raffety gives the following interesting account. It contains, he says, “the story of Prometheus and his defiance of Jupiter, who condemned him to be bound to a rock, where he died rather than yield.” We exhort Mr. Raffety, before his work passes into a second edition, to consult his Classical Dictionary.

Of the translations recommended by Mr. Raffety we should very much like to get a sight of the translation of Pindar by Calverley, of the joint translation of the same classic by Messrs. E. Myers and A. Lang, and of the joint translation of Thucydides “by Jowett and Rev. H. Dale, 2 vols.” Of Herodotus, of Æschylus, of Sophocles, of Pindar, of Polybius, of Demosthenes, what are, by general consent, esteemed the best translations are not so much as mentioned. Latin literature fares even worse in the hands of our guide. Mr. Raffety appears to know no more about Catullus than that he was a writer of epigrams. Such trifles as the _Attis_, the _Peleus and Thetis_, the Julia and Manlius marriage song, the _Coma Berenices_, the love lyrics and threnodies he does not condescend to notice. In “guiding” his readers to translations of Lucretius and Juvenal, Munro’s version of the first in prose and Gifford’s version of the second in verse--which Conington pronounced to be the best version of any Roman classic in our language--are not so much as referred to. Nor, again, in the case of Plautus and Terence, are the excellent versions of Thornton and Coleman noticed. Tacitus, who is oddly described as “the foremost man of the day,” an estimate which might have pleased but which would certainly have surprised him, chronicled, we are told, “the foundation of the Christian religion.” Mr. Raffety’s assurance on this point will probably disappoint inquisitive readers. Equally surprising are the portions of the work dealing with the modern literatures. In the course of these we learn that “the _Nibelungen Lied_ is the oldest drama in Europe”; that the _Areopagitica_ and the _Defence of the People of England_ are Milton’s best prose writings--Mr. Raffety apparently not being aware that the second work is in Latin, and that if he means the first _Defence_, it is anything but one of the best of Milton’s writings. We are also informed that Dryden was most valuable as a translator from the Greek and Latin; Dryden’s versions from the Greek begin and end with paraphrases of four Idylls of Theocritus, the first book of the _Iliad_ and the parting of Hector and Andromache from the sixth, and are notoriously the very worst things he ever did.

Sometimes Mr. Raffety fairly takes our breath away, as when he informs us that Gray’s tomb can be seen in the little churchyard of Stoke Pogis “with the _Elegy_ written upon it.” Can Mr. Raffety be acquainted with the length of the _Elegy_ and with the proportions of a tombstone? Chaucer, we are informed, wrote some poems in Italian. We should very much like to see them, and so probably would Professor Skeat, for they appear to have escaped the notice of all Chaucer’s editors. Swift’s _Tale of a Tub_ was written, we are told, “against the teaching of Hobbes!”

It is indeed impossible to open this book anywhere without alighting on some most discreditable blunder or absurdity. Thus we are informed that Macaulay’s essay on Burleigh treats of the time of James I.--Burleigh, as we need hardly say, dying nearly five years before James came to the throne, and Macaulay’s essay having no reference at all to James I.’s time. “There is,” says Mr. Raffety, “no more stirring lyric than _The Cotter’s Saturday Night_,” a remark which shows that Mr. Raffety does not know what a lyric poem is. But to look for blunders in Mr. Raffety’s pages would be to look for leaves in a summer forest. His critical remarks and biographical notes are truly delightful. We wish we had space to quote some of them. Of their general quality the following profound remark is a fair specimen:--“Dante requires study, and an endeavour after appreciation.” Mr. Raffety is always anxious to conduct his readers by short cuts and to save them trouble. Macaulay’s _Essays_, for example, should be read before his _History_; “they will be more easily tackled,” he says, “than the _History_ in the first instance.” But on the subject of Gibbon Mr. Raffety is adamant, being fully of the late Professor Freeman’s opinion--“Whatever else is read, Gibbon must be read.” How Gibbon is to be read, or why Gibbon is to be read, or in what edition he should be read, Mr. Raffety does not explain.

Now, what possible end can be served by books like these, except to misguide and misinform? Here is a writer, who certainly leaves us with the impression that he cannot read the Greek and Latin classics in the original, setting up as a director of classical study, and pronouncing _ex cathedrâ_ on the merits of translations of these classics. His knowledge of the modern literature is, as is abundantly manifest, though we have neither space nor patience to illustrate, equally insufficient and unsubstantial, and yet he undertakes to initiate and guide the inexperienced in these studies. This book is presented to the public in a most attractive form, being excellently printed on excellent paper, and will naturally be taken seriously by those to whom it appeals. It is for this reason that we also have felt it our duty to take it seriously. And, as we believe that every bad book stands in the way of a good one, we can promise Mr. Raffety, and writers like Mr. Raffety, that we shall continue to take them seriously.

THE NEW CRITICISM[21]

[Footnote 21: _Retrospective Reviews._ A Literary Log. By Richard Le Gallienne. 2 vols.]

Nearly two thousand years ago Horace observed that, though every calling presupposed some qualification in those who followed it, and a man who knew nothing of marine affairs would not undertake to manage a ship, or a man who knew nothing of drugs to compound prescriptions, yet everybody fancied himself competent to commence poet. Qualified or unqualified, at it we all go, he complains, and scribble verses. But times have changed, and those who in Horace’s day were the pests of poetry, with which they could amuse themselves without mischief, have now become the pests of another kind of literature in which their diversions are not quite so harmless. Where the poetaster once stood the criticaster now stands. The transformation of the one pest into the other, where they do not, as they often do, become both, is easily accounted for, and as Dr. Johnson has so excellently explained it, we cannot do better than transcribe his words. “Criticism,” says the Doctor, “is a study by which men grow important and formidable at a very small expense. The power of invention has been conferred by nature upon few, and the labour of learning those sciences which may by mere labour be attained is too great to be willingly endured; but every man can exert such judgment as he has upon the works of others, and he whom nature has made weak and idleness keeps ignorant may yet support his vanity by the name of critic.” But criticasters and their patrons have improved on this--for “he whom nature has made weak and idleness keeps ignorant” may, in our time, not merely support his vanity, but support himself.

Till we inspected the volumes before us, we had really no conception of the pass to which things have now come in so-called criticism. The writer sits in judgment on most of the authors who have, during recent years, been before the public. He passes sentence not merely on current novelists, poets, and essayists, but on some of our classics, and on books like the late Mr. Pater’s _Lectures on Plato and Platonism_ and Dr. Wharton’s edition of _Sappho_. To any acquaintance with the principles of criticism, to any conception of criticism in relation to principles, to any learning, to any scholarship, to any knowledge of the history of literature and of the masterpieces of literature, either in our own language or in other languages, he has not the smallest pretension. Nor does he allow this to be gathered simply from the work itself, where it is, needless to say, abundantly apparent, but with a _naïveté_ and impudence which are at once ludicrous and exasperating he glories in his ignorance. Literature and its interpretation are to him what the Bible and its interpretation were to the ranting sectaries of Dryden’s satire. In its explanation knowledge and learning were folly, nothing was needed but “grace.”

“No measure ta’en from knowledge, all from grace, Study and pains were now no more their care, Texts were explained by fasting and by prayer.”

So to our critic knowledge and learning are of equal unimportance--nay, equally contemptible--and all that is needed to take the measure of Plato and Wordsworth is, in his own words, “the capacity for appreciation.” With this very slender outfit he sits down to the work of criticism, to enlighten the world _de omni scibili_ in literature, from the lyrics of _Sappho_, “the singer, a single petal of whose rose is more than the whole rose-garden of later women singers,” to “the statesmanlike reach and grasp” of Mr. E. Gosse’s essays.