Dr. Johnson divided critics into three classes—those who know the rules and judge by them, those who know no rules but judge entirely by natural taste, those who know the rules but are above them. This has been true in all ages, and sufficiently disposes of Mr. Worsfold's hypothesis about the stages through which criticism has passed. All that can be said is, that at certain times there has been a tendency, determined of course by the character of the particular age, towards the predominance of a particular critical method and of particular points of view. Further than this it would be perilous to go. It has been the task of the present age to develop each of these methods to the full, and the most authoritative critics of the last twenty years might easily be ranged under one of those classes.
The soundest and most valuable part of Mr. Worsfold's book is the part dealing with the criticism of the last few years. His chapter on Matthew Arnold, in particular, is admirable, and his remarks on the functions of criticism at the present time, deduced as they have been from Wordsworth, Arnold and Ruskin, are in a high degree instructive and interesting. In pointing out that criticism should not confine itself merely to the investigation of technical excellence, and to all that is implied in the doctrine of Art for Art's sake, but should recognise that there are limits beyond which the artist should not exercise his technical skill, he recalls us to principles which it is well that criticism should not forget. We quite agree with him that there is now an increasing tendency to recognise these limits, and to lay most stress on the interpretation of the ideal element in literature and art. That is certainly the modern note. We have expressed our reasons for dissenting from Mr. Worsfold's historical view of the evolution of criticism, but his book is full of interest, and will amply repay the attention of serious readers. It is a book which does not deserve to be lost in the crowd.
FOOTNOTES:
[38] ὁ δε κατ' αυτην την φυσιν του πραγματος ὁρος, αει μεν ὁ μειζων μεχρι του συνδηλος ειναι καλλιων εστι κατα το μεγεθος. ὡς δε ἁπλως διορισαντας ειπειν, εν ὁσω μεγεθει κατα το εικος η το αναγκαιον εφεξης γιγνομενων συμβαινει εις ευτυχιαν εκ δυστυχιας, η εξ ευτυχιας εις δυστυχιαν μεταβαλλειν, ἱκανος ὁρος εστιν του μεγεθους. (Poet., vii. 7.)
WOMEN IN GREEK POETRY [39]
[39] Antimachus of Colophon and the Position of Women in Greek Poetry. By E. F. M. Benecke.
The editor of this book cannot be congratulated either on his competence or on his discretion. To hurry into the world a work which is not merely a fragment, but which cries for revision, suppression, and correction in almost every page, is a literary crime of the first magnitude, and deserves the severest castigation. Of the author of the work, who appears to have been a young man of some attainments and of much promise, we desire to speak with all gentleness; we wholly absolve him from blame, for we have no right to assume that he would himself have given to the world what his editor admits was intra penetralia Vestæ, and what we hope and believe he would himself have committed emendaturis ignibus, had he arrived at years of discretion. But the dissemination of error is no light thing, especially in relation to subjects which are of great interest, and, from an historical and literary point of view, of great importance. When we think of the many amiable and industrious tutors at Oxford and Cambridge who, unless they are put on their guard, will unsuspiciously fill their note-books with the nonsense of this volume, and impart it, by degrees, to the listening credulity of youth, we feel we have no alternative but to perform a plain, if painful, duty. We repeat, we absolve the author from all blame; the sole culprit is the editor.
That Solomon was the author of the Iliad, Poggio the author of the Annals of Tacitus, and Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays, are hypotheses scarcely less monstrously absurd than the thesis propounded in this volume. Mr. Benecke's main contentions are "that a pure love between man and woman seemed to the early Greeks" (that is, to those who lived before the latter end of the Peloponnesian War) a sheer impossibility; that "in extant Greek poetry there is no trace of romantic love poetry addressed to women prior to the time of Asclepiades and Philetas"; that "in the works of these writers this element suddenly appears not in the nature of an experiment but as a leading motive"; that the appearance of this element was due to the influence of Antimachus, "who was the first man who had the courage to say that a woman was worth loving, and who may thus be regarded as the originator of the romantic element in literature." As we have not space to refute this nonsense in detail, we will give some examples of the way in which it is supported. First come misrepresentations and blunders. To emphasize the degradation of women, passages in translation are twisted and perverted almost beyond recognition.