CONTENTS THE SACRED WOOD THE PERFECT CRITIC I "Eriger en lois ses impressions personnelles, c'est le grand effort d'un homme s'il est sincère."-Lettres à l'Amazone. C OLERIDGE was perhaps the greatest of After Coleridge we have Matthew Arnold; but Arnold-I think it will be conceded-was rather a propagandist for criticism than a critic, a popularizer rather than a creator of ideas. So long as this island remains an island (and we are no nearer the Continent than were Arnold's contemporaries) the work of Arnold will be important ; it is still a bridge across the Channel, and it will always have been good sense. Since Arnold's attempt to correct his countrymen, English criticism has followed two directions. When a distinguished critic observed recently, in a newspaper article, that "poetry is the most highly organized form of intellectual activity," we were conscious that we were reading neither Coleridge nor Arnold. Not only have the words " organized" and "activity," occurring together in this phrase, that familiar vague suggestion of the scientific vocabulary which is characteristic of modern writing, but one asked questions which Coleridge and Arnold would not have permitted one to ask. How is it, for instance, that poetry is more "highly organized " than astronomy, physics, or pure mathematics, which we imagine to be, in relation to the scientist who practises them, "intellectual activity of a pretty highly organized type? "Mere strings of words," our critic continues with felicity and truth, "flung like dabs of paint across a blank canvas, may awaken surprise . . . but have no significance whatever in the history of literature." The phrases by which Arnold is best known may be inadequate, they may assemble more doubts than they dispel, but they usually have some meaning. And if a phrase like "the most highly organized form of intellectual activity" is the highest organization of thought of which contemporary criticism, in a distinguished representative, is capable, then, we conclude, modern criticism is degenerate. The verbal disease above noticed may be reserved for diagnosis by and by. It is not a disease from which Mr. Arthur Symons (for the quotation was, of course, not from Mr. Symons) notably suffers. Mr. Symons represents the other tendency; he is a representative of what is always called "æsthetic criticism" or "impressionistic criticism." And it is this form of criticism which I propose to examine at once. Mr. Symons, the critical successor of Pater, and partly of Swinburne (I fancy that the phrase sick or sorry" is the common property of all three), is the "impressionistic critic." He, 66 if anyone, would be said to expose a sensitive and cultivated mind-cultivated, that is, by the accumulation of a considerable variety of impressions from all the arts and several languages-before an object"; and his criticism, if anyone's, would be said to exhibit to us, like the plate, the faithful record of the impressions, more numerous or more refined than our own, upon a mind more sensitive than our own. A record, we observe, which is also an interpretation, a translation; for it must itself impose impressions upon us, and these impressions are as much created as transmitted, by the criticism. I do not say at once that this is Mr. Symons; but it is the "impressionistic " critic, and the impressionistic critic is supposed to be Mr. Symons. At hand is a volume which we may test.1 Ten of these thirteen essays deal with single plays of Shakespeare, and it is therefore fair to take one of these ten as a specimen of the book: Antony and Cleopatra is the most wonderful, I think, of all Shakespeare's plays. and Mr. Symons reflects that Cleopatra is the most wonderful of all women: The queen who ends the dynasty of the Ptolemies 1 Studies in Elizabethan Drama. By Arthur Symons. |