Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

least, show of reasoning on common principles, or any attempt to justify the decision by clear and cautious argument. The unknown critic is supreme; his word the law. The Edinburgh, the Quarterly, or the North American Review, spreads her broad and dark wings over the whole body of her critics; and beneath their shade, the most puny presumes to mimic the airs of a giant. Many an opinion has been maintained in a Review which the author would not have run the risk of publishing in his own name. Even the great Aristarchus of North Britain, himself, loses much authority when emerging from the anonymous stronghold in his proper person. Many a decision received as the authoritative voice of the very Delphi of criticism, hardly resisted by a murmur, bent to as the arbitration of a god, has afterward been wofully shorn of its glory, contracted in its dimensions, and treated with a contemptuous every-day familiarity, when found to be only the private opinion of Lord Jeffrey, Mr. Smith, or Mr. Macaulay.

Notwithstanding, these Reviews, and others of a similar nature, have great excellencies, and upon the whole have done good service to the cause of literature. For they are sometimes correct. And when that is the case, although the correct may not be more than a tithe of the false, there is good done, inasmuch as by their number and their diversity of interests and views, they furnish a counterbalance to each other's errors; and the truth, once defined and spoken, remains, while

the false, exposed, and in the course of time rightly estimated, molders away.

This, however, does not answer the present question. Through what means can one make himself acquainted with the principles of criticism, that he may not fluctuate from one whim to another of his own, or depend for his opinions on the mere say so of an unknown reviewer?

It is obvious that the works which have pleased many generations, must have been composed according to the principles on which men are pleased. The careful study of such works will therefore supply us with the knowledge of many such principles. From this source the most eminent critics have drawn their precepts. For example, Aristotle drew the rules of epic and dramatic poetry from the works of Homer and Sophocles. But whence did those eminent poets learn the rules which Aristotle collected from their works? Or did they write at random, and find mankind ready to receive their whims for laws? Some, for a time, might be weak enough to do so; but that centuries of thinking men should admire without a cause is inconceivable. Why did not Aristotle draw his rules from Chœrillus instead of Homer? The great critic had observed that Homer was most admired, and culled as precepts those features on which especially approbation dwelt. But Homer must have discovered the force of those principles before he composed in accordance with them. He therefore is to be esteemed as the real discoverer. The

intuition of genius, as usual, led the way, and criticism followed to define and classify.

Instead then of relying upon the bare authority of some eminent critic, whoever wishes to maintain his spiritual independence, will examine such works of permanent character for himself, and make use of the critic's rules only to guide and aid his investigations, not to stop them.

By thus carefully studying the works of approved writers of old time, one may deduce and feel the force of the most eminent laws of good writing; but he must beware of adopting the notion that ancient authors have observed and embodied every correct principle of art. Such is the doctrine of a set of pedants, who call themselves critics of the classic school; but would not be a logical inference, even had no hand wielded the pen since ancient times. Many fertile minds have recently discovered other, though not contradictory methods of conferring æsthetic delight. True, the martinets of criticism have endeavored to prove, that we ought not to be pleased with anything but obedience to ancient rules. In spite, however, of their proof, men will occasionally derive very high enjoyment from qualities of which Aristotle never conceived; and that without any disparagement to the great Stagyrite.

The rules given by Aristotle for epic and dramatic poetry, are properly only the rules of the works of Homer and Sophocles, and all other poems dealing

with similar material, and having the same object. But if a poet employs other materials, and aims at some new effect, the old rules will be found insufficient. They must be modified, or another principle discovered, which can be found only in that field whence Homer and Sophocles drew-that is, in nature and the heart of man. But, as we have seen, every writer, who would arrive at eminence, must produce something new either in matter or manner. Hence, every one who would be extensively useful, must draw the principles of his art from nature, his own heart, and experience, as well as from the practice of his predecessors. The rules derived from the experience and practice of successful authors, especially those of ancient times, are exceedingly valuable in guiding to proper sources, and right methods. It is to be presumed that the opinions harmoniously adopted by the best minds of the civilized world, for two thousand years, were not formed lightly, nor without good reason. And inasmuch as they were themselves drawn from nature, they must be well calculated to direct attention back to nature. But nothing valuable could be produced by following rigidly the baldness of the letter. The productive laws are to be found within our own hearts, and in the relations existing between ourselves and the external world. These are not created, but only illustrated by the practice of the good artist, and stated in the precepts of the just critic.

It may look like discouragement to tell the writer of the present day that he must make the same investigation for himself, which the author of three thousand years ago made; but there is no way of avoiding the task, consistent with success. At the same time, having now more helps and experiments before him, higher results may be attained by genius of inferior degree.

From the same point of view, the critic will learn that his ancient rules are not good for everything; that Aristotle or Quintilian, however excellent, is not a panacea for every literary ill, and that his own hastily formed notion is not to be taken for law: that instead of assuming an immovable position, away back on the fortifications of antiquity, or launching inconsiderate decisions from behind the entrenchments of a Review, it is his business to follow faithfully the footsteps of genius, and aid its onward progress.

And these remarks, if true in respect to literature, are, for the same reason, applicable to art in general. The new phases of humanity which are continually coming into view, demand correspondent features in art, and forbid repose in the quiet repetition of excellencies already attained. The style of Phidias has many a lesson for modern times, but Michael Angelo would not have been the world-renowned, had he learned no other. And nature is still teeming with ripening beauties, which art has not yet gathered in. Whoever aims at the highest excellence, therefore,

15

« AnteriorContinuar »