2m
IjITKUAUY CtUTIOlS.M.
Vol.. vrr,
this class Hint dictates tliu stylo of litera
ture for tin public. It is this class of lit
crary critics that moulds public opinion.
Thoycnre for no writings hut their own,
which are generally of an inferior type.
Yet out of these they have tried to form a
standard, which, as often as set up, the
public has pulled down. Every hook is
open to their fiendish machinations. They
seem to think that unless- they can find
some fault they are not eriticH. They are
too jealous to give reward where it is de
served. They are slaves to their own prej
udices. Nor are they content in tinding
fault with the writings of the present day.
They fall upon the master-pieces of antiq
uity. They will ridicule the style of Ho
mer and Virgil.
They will show you how, if Demos,
theucs had dillerently arranged his chain
of argument, the calamities that befell
Greece would never have happened. They
will show how Cicero might have written
more elegantly, and Macaulay could have
made his criticisms more effective. It is
this class of ciities that has ever been
working against a standard in American
literature. They cannot make the stand
ard themselves, nor will they allow it to
be established by others.
Their manner of criticism is indeed ri
diculous. They first attack the substance
of an article. It matiers not how true the
theory, something has. been misstated
They do not forget to rail at the author for
holding such opinions, but correct him by
suggesting their own. They then attack
the rhetorical structure. They cite you to
the vagueness of certain passages, and in
form you how the various topics of the
discourse should be introduced, and how
the argument adduced should be arranged.
He shows how the figure of speech may
be varied, and how a dill'erent arrange
ment of words may be more effective.
Such is the course of fault-llnding that the
critic of the second class pursues with ev
cry article that comes in his way. Wheth
er it is just remains to be seen.
As men have difl'ercd in opinions, in re-
ligionaud politics, so have they differed in
the manner of expressing those opinions
Macaulay writes in one style, Irving in an
other, and Addison still in another. If
human nature changes, it none the less
dllVers. One will write without the least
emotion; another, in the height of his
imagination pictures the scene in bril
liant color. The one will use the simple
prose; the other the poetic diction. What
one will detest, the other will admire.
Sentences that would appear ridiculous to
the prose writer, would he charming to
the poetic fancy. The one will write with
energy; the other will sacrifice energy for
the sake of beauty. Hut energy and beau
ty are two requisites of style, and the rela
tion in which they are used determines the
stylo. Hut energy and beauty of language
are used by no two alike, since every writ
er has used a different shade of their col
or, and that shade has formed his own pe
culiar style.
He who admires a landscape or the
grandeur of nature, writes not as lie who
cannot appreciate that beauty or that grand
eur, and before the latter can write like the
former he must become a man similar to
him, moved by the same fancy, and arous
ed by the the same passions. Or as Spen
cer says: "To write like a Hacon, a man
must think and reason like a Hacon."
But Hacon stands alone in his style of
writing, hence no writer has ever thought
or reasoned like him. So on every topic,
men differ on some question connected
with it. These dillerenl shades of opinion
have given rise to di tie rent forms of ex
press ion, or dill'erent styles of writing.
To say, then, that there is but one style
of writing is false. If this be true, what
;s the attitude of the critic of the second
class? Hy his constant criticism, lie has
no standard. Criticism with him, then, is
merely a matter of opinion. His opinion
is his standard for criticism, and his opin
ion is derived from his .style of writing.
And since he criticises all others because
they do not conform to that style, he takes
for granted that there is but one stylo,
v.
I
r .
r
t.
VkI