Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Hesperian student / (Lincoln [Neb.]) 1872-1885 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 10, 1886)
THE HESPERIAN. : The recent presentation of a Greek play at the Academy of Music in New York city is from a literary standpoint an event of unusual importance. Plays of this kind have often within the last few years, been enacted by the students of colleges and universities, but they were generally regarded as belong ing more partcnlarly to such institutions and weic therefore of less interest to the outside world. The present instance.how evcr, was an eflort to popularize Greek Drama, to present it before a mixed audience and to place it as nearly as possible on a level with the works of modern dramatists. The play chosen was a comedy of Aristophanes, '-The Achamians," the scene being laid at Athens during the Pelo poncsian War. It had been presented some months before by the students of the University of Pennsylvania with such marked success that they were induced to make the present venture. Probably few plays could have been selected which would throw light on a more important period. The aim of those who had the matter in hand was to present the play with all its proper accompaniaments and to make it as realistic as possible- Thus the stage was arranged so as to cxibit types of Grecian architecture, and one of the scenes represents a session of the Ekklesia. A play of this kind will not only leave a more lasting impression bat will afford a clearer conception of the real civilization at Athens than any idea which books as books can give. To have witnessed such a performance for a single evening u.uld probably be of more value to the student than days of cramming on the same subject. The faculty and students of the University of Pennsylvania have conferred a benefit upon themselves and the public in the pre sentation 01 this play, and it is to be hoped that their effort will not be the last of its kind. A more general movement of the same nature would tend to remove the well-grounded prejudice against the modern theatre, and to make that insti tution more of an educator than it is at present. Forthrough the theatre, which exerted such a marked influence upon the civilization of the Greeks, and through the plays which they patronized, much that is valuable may be learned of the life and character of this most fascinating people of antiquity. To admire is delightful. To admire wisely is welL But to admire unwisely is not well, however delightful. Those who admire Mr. Edwin Arnold's poetry admire unwisely." Such is the thesis of Mr. Win. Cleaver Wilkinson, defended in a little book whose name. "Edwin Arnold as a Poetizer and a Paganizcr," betrays its character. Accustomed to connect value in books with price, one meets a revelation in the lists of books now offered to the public in the cheaper libraries. They contain not only some of the choicest standard works, but newer writings equally interest. ing and of no small ability. Nor do they, as formerly, con tain only lighter literature; but works of genuine merit and true literary value find a place. Among this latter class is the work of Mr. Wilkinson. The motive for the writing was found, the author confesses, not so much in the character of Edwin Arnold's works as in the reception given to these works by the reading public, and their general effect, "quite out of proportion to any significance attaching to the poems by vir tue of their own intrinsic character." That the poems of Mr. Arnold have received notice, and exert an influence thus out of proportion to their real character, even the unskilled may perceive, and nowhere to my knowledge has this exaggerated influence been more happily characterized than in the words of Mr Wilkinson, " l"bere has entered the general mind an unconfessed, a half unconscious, but most shrewdly penetra tive misgiving that perhaps, after all, Christianity has not of right quite the exclusive claim, that it was previously sup posed to possess, upon the attention and reverence of man kind." Without venturing an opinion as to whether such an cficct is wholly harmful or not, it is doubtful if it could be better described in a single sentence. This exaggerated re sult our critic ascribes to the fact that the poems of Mr. Ar nold, and more especially The Light of Asia," were well calculated to hit the transient whim of Occidental taste" for Oriental subjects. But while ostensibly criticising Mr. Arnold and his writ sings, Mr. Wilkinson has extended his work, as it is naturalhc should, to a criticism of Mr. Arnold's subject, Budhism.The latter part of the work evinces thorough investigation on Mr. Wilkinson's part, and attains value as an ethical and philo tophical discussion of Budhism; a value which commends it so those who arc not content to fall into the general current of thought about things, neither thinking nor caring why. This critique had its inception in an examination and discus ion of Mr. Arnold's work by Mr. Wilkinson and a friend. His book is the expression of conclusions reached in that discus sion, and that expression is so frank and honest; while severe so good natured, that the sympathj of the reader is irresista bly aroused. The author is evidently influenced by no petty spite, but speaks the honest conviction of a man. He does not seek to build up his own reputation on the ruins of Mr. Arnold's notoriety, but speaks his mind against the work of an author who is in the heydcy of his popularity, and thereby runs the risk of being called old-fogyish and behind the times. Mr. Wilkinson's style is simple and direct, his choice of words excellent, and his reader cannot fail to grasp his meaning. He manifestly has genuine critical genius. Mr. Wilkinson's maxim is evidently "one thing at a time," and the logical divisions of his subject is a guarantee of the good faith of the writer. Anyone may throw together an un systematized mass of denunciation. Such statements do not necessitate proof.becausc they arc incapable of being unravel ed or subjected to searching tests. But the critic who care fully centers the attention of his reader on each division of his subject in tum, creates a necessity for proof, demonstrates at least his good faith and wins our confidence. In criticising the metric form of Mr. Arnold's verse and in holding him up to the ridicule and laughter of the reader for his crude and awkward versification, Mr. Wilkinson display s no little temerity. It is a bold position for a writer to assume in the face of such praise as Edwin Arnold has recehet f um acknowledged authorities, as the Contemporary T - v and AV10 Englander, ox from Oliver WTcndell Holmes in ,'nter national Reviezo, but our doughty critic flaunts defiance in the face of them all. With refreshing blunSnei he asserts that the lack of genuineness in Mr. Arnold's work "is be trayed in the undigested, confused, discordant character of the conception on which his poems arc generally constructed" and instances "The Three Roses," a minor poem by Mr. Ar nold, which he treats with withering but laughable sar casm. Certainly the reader may justly laugh when Mr. Wil kinson drags forth as example of bad grammar the following: "In all this earth there is not one. So desolate and so undone Who hath not rescue if they knew A bcartcry goes the whole world through." Or, to show how partial Mr. Arnold is to final accented 'er' and ing,' these: "Gaped on the sword plajvr and posturer, "But they who watched the prince at prize-givMrf," Or "And in the wood they undivickv died, BroaJ'sprezJtogideupon the free Hue road,"