Thequestionofafinalcriterionfortheappreciationofartisonethatperpetuallyrecurstothoseinterestedinanysortofaestheticendeavor。
Mr。JohnAddingtonSymonds，inachapterof’TheRenaissanceinItaly’
treatingoftheBologneseschoolofpainting，whichoncehadsogreatcry，andwasvauntedthesupremeexemplarofthegrandstyle，butwhichhenowbelievesfallenintolastingcontemptforitsemptinessandsoullessness，seekstodeterminewhethertherecanbeanenduringcriterionornot；andhisconclusionisapplicabletoliteratureastotheotherarts。\"Ourhope，\"hesays，\"withregardtotheunityoftasteinthefuturethenis，thatallsentimentaloracademicalseekingsaftertheidealhavingbeenabandoned，momentarytheoriesfoundeduponidiosyncraticortemporarypartialitiesexploded，andnothingacceptedbutwhatissolidandpositive，thescientificspiritshallmakemenprogressivelymoreandmoreconsciousofthese’bleibendeVerhaltnisse，’
moreandmorecapableoflivinginthewhole；also，thatinproportionaswegainafirmerholduponourownplaceintheworld，weshallcometocomprehendwithmoreinstinctivecertitudewhatissimple，natural，andhonest，welcomingwithgladnessallartisticproductsthatexhibitthesequalities。Theperceptionoftheenlightenedmanwillthenbethetaskofahealthypersonwhohasmadehimselfacquaintedwiththelawsofevolutioninartandinsociety，andisabletotesttheexcellenceofworkinanystagefromimmaturitytodecadencebydiscerningwhatthereisoftruth，sincerity，andnaturalvigorinit。\"
I
Thatistosay，asIunderstand，thatmoodsandtastesandfashionschange；peoplefancynowthisandnowthat；butwhatisunpretentiousandwhatistrueisalwaysbeautifulandgood，andnothingelseisso。Thisisnotsayingthatfantasticandmonstrousandartificialthingsdonotplease；everybodyknowsthattheydopleaseimmenselyforatime，andthen，afterthelapseofamuchlongertime，theyhavethecharmoftherococo。Nothingismorecuriousthanthecharmthatfashionhas。
Fashioninwomen’sdress，almosteveryfashion，issomehowdelightful，elseitwouldneverhavebeenthefashion；butifanyonewilllookthroughacollectionofoldfashionplates，hemustownthatmostfashionshavebeenugly。Afew，whichcouldbereadilyinstanced，havebeenverypretty，andevenbeautiful，butitisdoubtfulifthesehavepleasedthegreatestnumberofpeople。Theuglydelightsaswellasthebeautiful，andnotmerelybecausetheuglyinfashionisassociatedwiththeyounglovelinessofthewomenwhoweartheuglyfashions，andwinsagracefromthem，notbecausethevastmajorityofmankindaretasteless，butforsomecausethatisnotperhapsascertainable。Itisquiteaslikelytoreturninthefashionsofourclothesandhousesandfurniture，andpoetryandfictionandpainting，asthebeautiful，anditmaybefromaninstinctiveorareasonedsenseofthisthatsomeoftheextremenaturalistshaverefusedtomaketheolddiscriminationagainstit，ortoregardtheuglyasanylessworthyofcelebrationinartthanthebeautiful；someofthem，infact，seemtoregarditasrathermoreworthy，ifanything。Possiblythereisnoabsolutelyugly，noabsolutelybeautiful；orpossiblytheuglycontainsalwaysanelementofthebeautifulbetteradaptedtothegeneralappreciationthanthemoreperfectlybeautiful。Thisisasomewhatdiscouragingconjecture，butI
offeritfornomorethanitisworth；andIdonotpinmyfaithtothesayingofonewhomIhearddenying，theotherday，thatathingofbeautywasajoyforever。HecontendedthatKeats’slineshouldhaveread，\"Somethingsofbeautyaresometimesjoysforever，\"andthatanyassertionbeyondthiswastoohazardous。
II
Ishould，indeed，preferanotherlineofKeats’s，ifIweretoprofessanyformulatedcreed，andshouldfeelmuchsaferwithhis\"BeautyisTruth，TruthBeauty，\"thanevenwithmyfriend’sreformationofthemorequotedverse。ItbringsusbacktothesolidgroundtakenbyMr。
Symonds，whichisnotessentiallydifferentfromthattakeninthegreatMr。Burke’sEssayontheSublimeandtheBeautiful——asingularlymodernbook，consideringhowlongagoitwaswrote（asthegreatMr。Steelewouldhavewrittentheparticiplealittlelongerago），andfullofacertainwell—manneredandagreeableinstruction。Insomethingsitisofthatdrolllittleeighteenth—centuryworld，whenphilosophyhadgottheneatlittleuniverseintothehollowofitshand，andknewjustwhatitwas，andwhatitwasfor；butitisquitewithoutarrogance。\"Asforthosecalledcritics，\"theauthorsays，\"theyhavegenerallysoughttheruleoftheartsinthewrongplace；theyhavesoughtamongpoems，pictures，engravings，statues，andbuildings；butartcannevergivetherulesthatmakeanart。Thisis，Ibelieve，thereasonwhyartistsingeneral，andpoetsprincipally，havebeenconfinedinsonarrowacircle；
theyhavebeenratherimitatorsofoneanotherthanofnature。Criticsfollowthem，andthereforecandolittleasguides。IcanjudgebutpoorlyofanythingwhileImeasureitbynootherstandardthanitself。
Thetruestandardoftheartsisineveryman’spower；andaneasyobservationofthemostcommon，sometimesofthemeanestthings，innaturewillgivethetruestlights，wherethegreatestsagacityandindustrythatslightssuchobservationmustleaveusinthedark，or，whatisworse，amuseandmisleadusbyfalselights。\"
Ifthisshouldhappentobetrueanditcertainlycommendsitselftoacceptance——itmightportendanimmediatedangertothevestedinterestsofcriticism，onlythatitwaswrittenahundredyearsago；andweshallprobablyhavethe\"sagacityandindustrythatslightstheobservation\"ofnaturelongenoughyettoallowmostcriticsthetimetolearnsomemoreusefultradethancriticismastheypursueit。Nevertheless，IaminhopesthatthecommunisticeraintasteforeshadowedbyBurkeisapproaching，andthatitwilloccurwithinthelivesofmennowoverawedbythefoolisholdsuperstitionthatliteratureandartareanythingbuttheexpressionoflife，andaretobejudgedbyanyothertestthanthatoftheirfidelitytoit。Thetimeiscoming，Ihope，wheneachnewauthor，eachnewartist，willbeconsidered，notinhisproportiontoanyotherauthororartist，butinhisrelationtothehumannature，knowntousall，whichitishisprivilege，hishighduty，tointerpret。\"Thetruestandardoftheartistisineveryman’spower\"already，asBurkesays；Michelangelo’s\"lightofthepiazza，\"theglanceofthecommoneye，isandalwayswasthebestlightonastatue；Goethe’s\"boysandblackbirds\"haveinallagesbeentherealconnoisseursofberries；buthithertothemassofcommonmenhavebeenafraidtoapplytheirownsimplicity，naturalness，andhonestytotheappreciationofthebeautiful。Theyhavealwayscastaboutfortheinstructionofsomeonewhoprofessedtoknowbetter，andwhobrowbeatwholesomecommon—senseintotheself—distrustthatendsinsophistication。Theyhavefallengenerallytotheworstofthisbadspecies，andhavebeen\"amusedandmisled\"（howprettythatquaintolduseofamuseis!）\"bythefalselights\"ofcriticalvanityandself—righteousness。Theyhavebeentaughttocomparewhattheyseeandwhattheyread，notwiththethingsthattheyhaveobservedandknown，butwiththethingsthatsomeotherartistorwriterhasdone。Especiallyiftheyhavethemselvestheartisticimpulseinanydirectiontheyaretaughttoformthemselves，notuponlife，butuponthemasterswhobecamemastersonlybyformingthemselvesuponlife。Theseedsofdeathareplantedinthem，andtheycanproduceonlythestill—born，theacademic。Theyarenottoldtotaketheirworkintothepublicsquareandseeifitseemstruetothechancepasser，buttotestitbytheworkoftheverymenwhorefusedanddecriedanyothertestoftheirownwork。Theyoungwriterwhoattemptstoreportthephraseandcarriageofevery—daylife，whotriestotelljusthowhehasheardmentalkandseenthemlook，ismadetofeelguiltyofsomethinglowandunworthybypeoplewhowouldliketohavehimshowhowShakespeare’smentalkedandlooked，orScott’s，orThackeray’s，orBalzac’s，orHawthorne’s，orDickens’s；heisinstructedtoidealizehispersonages，thatis，totakethelife—likenessoutofthem，andputthebook—likenessintothem。Heisapproachedinthespiritofthepedantryintowhichlearning，muchorlittle，alwaysdecayswhenitwithdrawsitselfandstandsapartfromexperienceinanattitudeofimaginedsuperiority，andwhichwouldsaywiththesameconfidencetothescientist：\"Iseethatyouarelookingatagrasshoppertherewhichyouhavefoundinthegrass，andIsupposeyouintendtodescribeit。Nowdon’twasteyourtimeandsinagainstcultureinthatway。I’vegotagrasshopperhere，whichhasbeenevolvedatconsiderablepainsandexpenseoutofthegrasshopperingeneral；infact，it’satype。It’smadeupofwireandcard—board，veryprettilypaintedinaconventionaltint，andit’sperfectlyindestructible。Itisn’tverymuchlikearealgrasshopper，butit’sagreatdealnicer，andit’sservedtorepresentthenotionofagrasshoppereversincemanemergedfrombarbarism。Youmaysaythatit’sartificial。Well，itisartificial；butthenit’sidealtoo；andwhatyouwanttodoistocultivatetheideal。You’llfindthebooksfullofmykindofgrasshopper，andscarcelyatraceofyoursinanyofthem。Thethingthatyouareproposingtodoiscommonplace；butifyousaythatitisn’tcommonplace，fortheveryreasonthatithasn’tbeendonebefore，you’llhavetoadmitthatit’sphotographic。\"
AsIsaid，Ihopethetimeiscomingwhennotonlytheartist，butthecommon，averageman，whoalways\"hasthestandardoftheartsinhispower，\"willhavealsothecouragetoapplyit，andwillrejecttheidealgrasshopperwhereverhefindsit，inscience，inliterature，inart，becauseitisnot\"simple，natural，andhonest，\"becauseitisnotlikearealgrasshopper。ButIwillownthatIthinkthetimeisyetfaroff，andthatthepeoplewhohavebeenbroughtupontheidealgrasshopper，theheroicgrasshopper，theimpassionedgrasshopper，theself—devoted，adventureful，goodoldromanticcard—boardgrasshopper，mustdieoutbeforethesimple，honest，andnaturalgrasshoppercanhaveafairfield。
Iaminnohastetocompasstheendofthesegoodpeople，whomIfindinthemeantimeveryamusing。Itisdelightfultomeetoneofthem，eitherinprintoroutofit——somesweetelderlyladyorexcellentgentlemanwhoseyouthwaspasturedontheliteratureofthirtyorfortyyearsago——andtowitnesstheconfidencewithwhichtheypreachtheirfavoriteauthorsasallthelawandtheprophets。Theyhavecommonlyreadlittleornothingsince，or，iftheyhave，theyhavejudgeditbyastandardtakenfromtheseauthors，andneverdreamedofjudgingitbynature；theyaredestituteofthedocumentsinthecaseofthelaterwriters；theysupposethatBalzacwasthebeginningofrealism，andthatZolaisitswickedend；theyarequiteignorant，buttheyarereadytotalkyoudown，ifyoudifferfromthem，withanassumptionofknowledgesufficientforanyoccasion。Thehorror，theresentment，withwhichtheyreceiveanyquestionoftheirliterarysaintsisgenuine；youdescendatonceveryfarinthemoralandsocialscale，andanythingshortofoffensivepersonalityistoogoodforyou；itisexpressedtoyouthatyouareonetobeavoided，andputdownevenalittlelowerthanyouhavenaturallyfallen。
Theseworthypersonsarenottoblame；itispartoftheirintellectualmissiontorepresentthepetrifactionoftaste，andtopreserveanimageofasmallerandcruderandemptierworldthanwenowlivein，aworldwhichwasfeelingitswaytowardsthesimple，thenatural，thehonest，butwasagooddeal\"amusedandmisled\"bylightsnownolongermistakableforheavenlyluminaries。Theybelongtoatime，justpassingaway，whencertainauthorswereconsideredauthoritiesincertainkinds，whentheymustbeacceptedentireandnotquestionedinanyparticular。
NowwearebeginningtoseeandtosaythatnoauthorisanauthorityexceptinthosemomentswhenheheldhisearclosetoNature’slipsandcaughtherveryaccent。Thesemomentsarenotcontinuouswithanyauthorsinthepast，andtheyarerarewithall。ThereforeIamnotafraidtosaynowthatthegreatestclassicsaresometimesnotatallgreat，andthatwecanprofitbythemonlywhenweholdthem，likeourmeanestcontemporaries，toastrictaccounting，andverifytheirworkbythestandardoftheartswhichweallhaveinourpower，thesimple，thenatural，andthehonest。
Thosegoodpeoplemustalwayshaveahero，anidolofsomesort，anditisdrolltofindBalzac，whosufferedfromtheirsortsuchbitterscornandhateforhisrealismwhilehewasalive，nowbecomeafetichinhisturn，tobeshakeninthefacesofthosewhowillnotblindlyworshiphim。Butitisnonewthinginthehistoryofliterature：whateverisestablishedissacredwiththosewhodonotthink。Atthebeginningofthecentury，whenromancewasmakingthesamefightagainsteffeteclassicismwhichrealismismakingto—dayagainsteffeteromanticism，theItalianpoetMontideclaredthat\"theromanticwasthecoldgraveoftheBeautiful，\"justastherealisticisnowsupposedtobe。Theromanticofthatdayandtherealofthisareincertaindegreethesame。
Romanticismthensought，asrealismseeksnow，towidentheboundsofsympathy，toleveleverybarrieragainstaestheticfreedom，toescapefromtheparalysisoftradition。Itexhausteditselfinthisimpulse；
anditremainedforrealismtoassertthatfidelitytoexperienceandprobabilityofmotiveareessentialconditionsofagreatimaginativeliterature。Itisnotanewtheory，butithasneverbeforeuniversallycharacterizedliteraryendeavor。Whenrealismbecomesfalsetoitself，whenitheapsupfactsmerely，andmapslifeinsteadofpicturingit，realismwillperishtoo。Everytruerealistinstinctivelyknowsthis，anditisperhapsthereasonwhyheiscarefulofeveryfact，andfeelshimselfboundtoexpressortoindicateitsmeaningattheriskofovermoralizing。Inlifehefindsnothinginsignificant；alltellsfordestinyandcharacter；nothingthatGodhasmadeiscontemptible。Hecannotlookuponhumanlifeanddeclarethisthingorthatthingunworthyofnotice，anymorethanthescientistcandeclareafactofthematerialworldbeneaththedignityofhisinquiry。Hefeelsineverynervetheequalityofthingsandtheunityofmen；hissoulisexalted，notbyvainshowsandshadowsandideals，butbyrealities，inwhichalonethetruthlives。Incriticismitishisbusinesstobreaktheimagesoffalsegodsandmisshapenheroes，totakeawaythepoorsilly，toysthatmanygrownpeoplewouldstillliketoplaywith。Hecannotkeeptermswith\"JacktheGiant—killer\"or\"Puss—in—Boots，\"underanynameorinanyplace，evenwhentheyreappearastheconvictVautrec，ortheMarquisdeMontrivaut，ortheSwornThirteenNoblemen。HemustsaytohimselfthatBalzac，whenheimaginedthesemonsters，wasnotBalzac，hewasDumas；hewasnotrealistic，hewasromanticistic。
III
SuchacriticwillnotrespectBalzac’sgoodworkthelessforcontemninghisbadwork。Hewilleasilyaccountforthebadworkhistorically，andwhenhehasrecognizedit，willtroublehimselfnofurtherwithit。Inhisviewnolivingmanisatype，butacharacter；nownoble，nowignoble；nowgrand，nowlittle；complex，fullofvicissitude。HewillnotexpectBalzactobealwaysBalzac，andwillbeperhapsevenmoreattractedtothestudyofhimwhenhewastryingtobeBalzacthanwhenhehadbecomeso。In’CesarBirotteau，’forinstance，hewillbeinterestedtonotehowBalzacstoodatthebeginningofthegreatthingsthathavefollowedsinceinfiction。ThereisaninterestinglikenessbetweenhisworkinthisandNicolasGogol’sin’DeadSouls，’whichservestoillustratethesimultaneityoftheliterarymovementinmenofsuchwidelyseparatedcivilizationsandconditions。Bothrepresenttheircharacterswiththetouchofexaggerationwhichtypifies；butinbringinghisstorytoaclose，BalzacemploysabeneficenceunknowntotheRussian，andalmostasuniversalandasaptasthatwhichsmilesuponthefortunesofthegoodintheVicarofWakefield。ItisnotenoughtohaverehabilitatedBirotteaupecuniarilyandsocially；hemustmakehimdietriumphantly，spectacularly，ofanopportunehemorrhage，inthemidstofthefestivitieswhichcelebratehisrestorationtohisoldhome。Beforethishappens，humannaturehasbeenlaidundercontributionrightandleftforactsofgenerositytowardstherighteousbankrupt；eventhekingsendshimsixthousandfrancs。Itisverypretty；itistouching，andbringsthelumpintothereader’sthroat；butitistoomuch，andoneperceivesthatBalzaclivedtoosoontoprofitbyBalzac。Thelatermen，especiallytheRussians，haveknownhowtoforbeartheexcessesofanalysis，towithholdtheweaklyrecurringdescriptiveandcaressingepithets，toletthecharacterssufficeforthemselves。Allthisdoesnotmeanthat’CesarBirotteau’isnotabeautifulandpatheticstory，fullofshrewdlyconsideredknowledgeofmen，andofagoodartstrugglingtofreeitselffromself—consciousness。ButitdoesmeanthatBalzac，whenhewroteit，wasundertheburdenoftheverytraditionswhichhehashelpedfictiontothrowoff。Hefeltobligedtoconstructamechanicalplot，tosurchargehischaracters，tomoralizeopenlyandbaldly；hepermittedhimselfto\"sympathize\"withcertainofhispeople，andtopointoutothersfortheabhorrenceofhisreaders。Thisisnotsobadinhimasitwouldbeinanovelistofourday。Itissimplyprimitiveandinevitable，andheisnottobejudgedbyit。
IV
Inthebeginningofanyarteventhemostgiftedworkermustbecrudeinhismethods，andweoughttokeepthisfactalwaysinmindwhenweturn，say，fromthepurblindworshippersofScotttoScotthimself，andrecognizethatheoftenwroteastylecumbrousanddiffuse；thathewastediouslyanalyticalwherethemodernnovelistisdramatic，andevolvedhischaractersbymeansoflong—windedexplanationandcommentary；that，exceptinthecaseofhislower—classpersonages，hemadethemtalkasseldommanandneverwomantalked；thathewastiresomelydescriptive；
thatonthesimplestoccasionshewentabouthalfamiletoexpressathoughtthatcouldbeutteredintenpacesacrosslots；andthathetrustedhisreaders’intuitionssolittlethathewasapttorubinhisappealstothem。Hewasprobablyright：thegenerationwhichhewroteforwasdullerthanthis；slower—witted，aestheticallyuntrained，andinmaturitynotsoapprehensiveofanartisticintentionasthechildrenofto—day。AllthisisnotsayingScottwasnotagreatman；hewasagreatman，andaverygreatnovelistascomparedwiththenovelistswhowentbeforehim。Hecanstillamuseyoungpeople，buttheyoughttobeinstructedhowfalseandhowmistakenheoftenis，withhismediaevalideals，hisblindJacobitism，hisintensedevotiontoaristocracyandroyalty；hisacquiescenceinthedivisionofmenintonobleandignoble，patricianandplebeian，sovereignandsubject，asifitwerethelawofGod；forallwhich，indeed，heisnottoblameashewouldbeifhewereoneofourcontemporaries。Somethingofthisistrueofanothermaster，greaterthanScottinbeinglessromantic，andinferiorinbeingmoreGerman，namely，thegreatGoethehimself。Hetaughtus，innovelsotherwisenowantiquated，andalwaysfullofGermanclumsiness，thatitwasfalsetogoodart——whichisneveranythingbutthereflectionoflife——topursueandroundthecareerofthepersonsintroduced，whomheoftenallowedtoappearanddisappearinourknowledgeaspeopleintheactualworlddo。Thisisalessonwhichthewritersabletoprofitbyitcanneverbetoogratefulfor；anditisequallyabenefactiontoreaders；butthereisverylittleelseintheconductoftheGoetheannovelswhichisinadvanceoftheirtime；thisremainsalmosttheirsolecontributiontothescienceoffiction。Theyareveryprimitiveincertaincharacteristics，andunitewiththeircalm，deepinsight，anamusinghelplessnessindramatization。\"Wilhelmretiredtohisroom，andindulgedinthefollowingreflections，\"isamodeofanalysiswhichwouldnotbepractisednowadays；andallthatfancifulnessofnomenclatureinWilhelmMeisterisverydrollysentimentalandfeeble。Theadventureswithrobbersseemasifdreamedoutofbooksofchivalry，andthetendencytoallegorizationaffectsonelikeanendeavorontheauthor’sparttoescapefromtheunrealitieswhichhemusthavefeltharassingly，Germanashewas。Mixedupwiththeshadowsandillusionsarehonest，wholesome，every—daypeople，whohavetheairofwanderinghomelesslyaboutamongthem，withoutdefinitedirection；andthemistsarefullofaluminositywhich，inspiteofthem，weknowforcommon—senseandpoetry。
WhatisusefulinanyreviewofGoethe’smethodsistherecognitionofthefact，whichitmustbring，thatthegreatestmastercannotproduceamasterpieceinanewkind。ThenovelwastoorecentlyinventedinGoethe’sdaynottobe，eveninhishands，fullofthefaultsofapprenticework。
V。
Infact，agreatmastermaysinagainstthe\"modestyofnature\"inmanyways，andIhavefeltthispainfullyinreadingBalzac’sromance——itisnotworthythenameofnovel——’LePereGoriot，’whichisfullofamalarialrestlessness，whollyalientohealthfulart。Afterthatexquisitelycarefulandtruthfulsettingofhisstoryintheshabbyboarding—house，hefillsthescenewithfiguresjerkedaboutbytheexaggeratedpassionsandmotivesofthestage。Wecannothaveacynicreasonablywicked，disagreeable，egoistic；wemusthavealuridvillainofmelodrama，adisguisedconvict，withavastcriminalorganizationathiscommand，and\"Sodyeddoublered\"
indeedandpurposethathelightsupthefacesofthehorrifiedspectatorswithhisglare。Afatherfondofunworthychildren，andleadingalifeofself—denialfortheirsake，asmayprobablyandpatheticallybe，isnotenough；theremustbeanimbecile，tremblingdotard，willingtopromoteeventheliaisonsofhisdaughterstogivethemhappinessandtoteachthesublimityofthepaternalinstinct。
Theherocannotsufficientlybeaselfishyoungfellow，withalternatingimpulsesofgreedandgenerosity；hemustsuperfluouslyintendacareerofiniquitoussplendor，andbeswervedfromitbynothingbutthemostcataclysmalinterpositions。Itcanbesaidthatwithoutsuchpersonagestheplotcouldnotbetransacted；butsomuchtheworsefortheplot。
Suchaplothadnobusinesstobe；andwhileactionssounnaturalareimagined，nomasterycansavefictionfromcontemptwiththosewhoreallythinkaboutit。ToBalzacitcanbeforgiven，notonlybecauseinhisbettermoodhegaveussuchbiographiesas’EugenieGrandet，’butbecausehewroteatatimewhenfictionwasjustbeginningtoverifytheexternalsoflife，toportrayfaithfullytheoutsideofmenandthings。
Itwasstillheldthatinordertointerestthereaderthecharactersmustbemovedbytheoldromanticideals；weweretobetaughtthat\"heroes\"and\"heroines\"existedallaroundus，andthattheseabnormalbeingsneededonlytobediscoveredintheirseveralhumbledisguises，andthenweshouldseeevery—daypeopleactuatedbythefinefrenzyofthecreaturesofthepoets。Howfalsethatnotionwas，fewbutthecritics，whoareapttoberatherbelated，neednowbetold。Someofthesepoorfellows，however，stillcontendthatitoughttobedone，andthathumanfeelingsandmotives，asGodmadethemandasmenknowthem，arenotgoodenoughfornovel—readers。
Thisismoreexplicablethanwouldappearatfirstglance。Thecritics——andinspeakingofthemonealwaysmodestlyleavesone’sselfoutofthecount，forsomereason——whentheyarenoteldersossifiedintradition，areapttobeyoungpeople，andyoungpeoplearenecessarilyconservativeintheirtastesandtheories。Theyhavethetastesandtheoriesoftheirinstructors，whoperhapscaughtthetruthoftheirday，butwhoseroutinelifehasbeenalientoanyothertruth。ThereisprobablynochairofliteratureinthiscountryfromwhichtheprinciplesnowshapingtheliteraryexpressionofeverycivilizedpeoplearenotdenouncedandconfoundedwithcertainobjectionableFrenchnovels，orwhichteachesyoungmenanythingoftheuniversalimpulsewhichhasgivenusthework，notonlyofZola，butofTourgueniefandTolstoyinRussia，ofBjornsonandIbseninNorway，ofValdesandGaldosinSpain，ofVergainItaly。Tilltheseyoungercriticshavelearnedtothinkaswellastowriteforthemselvestheywillpersistinheavingasigh，moreandmoreperfunctory，forthetruthasitwasinSirWalter，andasitwasinDickensandinHawthorne。Presentlyallwillhavebeenchanged；theywillhaveseenthenewtruthinlargerandlargerdegree；andwhenitshallhavebecometheoldtruth，theywillperhapsseeitall。
VI。
Inthemeantimetheaverageofcriticismisnotwhollybadwithus。
Tobesure，thecriticsometimesappearsinthepanoplyofthesavageswhomwehavesupplantedonthiscontinent；anditishardtobelievethathisuseofthetomahawkandthescalping—knifeisaformofconservativesurgery。Itisstillhisconceptionofhisofficethatheshouldassailthosewhodifferwithhiminmattersoftasteoropinion；thathemustberudewiththosehedoesnotlike。Itistoolargelyhissuperstitionthatbecausehelikesathingitisgood，andbecausehedislikesathingitisbad；thereverseisquitepossiblythecase，butheisyetindefinitelyfarfromknowingthatinaffairsoftastehispersonalpreferenceentersverylittle。Commonlyhehasnoprinciples，butonlyanassortmentofprepossessionsforandagainst；andthisotherwiseveryperfectcharacterissometimesuncandidtothevergeofdishonesty。Heseemsnottomindmisstatingthepositionofanyonehesupposeshimselftodisagreewith，andthenattackinghimforwhatheneversaid，orevenimplied；hethinksthisisdroll，andappearsnottosuspectthatitisimmoral。Heisnottolerant；hethinksitavirtuetobeintolerant；itishardforhimtounderstandthatthesamethingmaybeadmirableatonetimeanddeplorableatanother；andthatitisreallyhisbusinesstoclassifyandanalyzethefruitsofthehumanmindverymuchasthenaturalistclassifiestheobjectsofhisstudy，ratherthantopraiseorblamethem；thatthereisameasureofthesameabsurdityinhistramplingonapoem，anovel，oranessaythatdoesnotpleasehimasinthebotanist’sgrindingaplantunderfootbecausehedoesnotfinditpretty。Hedoesnotconceivethatitishisbusinessrathertoidentifythespeciesandthenexplainhowandwherethespecimenisimperfectandirregular。Ifhecouldonceacquirethissimpleideaofhisdutyhewouldbemuchmoreagreeablecompanythanhenowis，andamoreusefulmemberofsociety；thoughconsideringthehardconditionsunderwhichheworks，hisnecessityofwritinghurriedlyfromanimperfectexaminationoffarmorebooks，onagreatervarietyofsubjects，thanhecanevenhopetoread，theaverageAmericancritic——theordinarycriticofcommerce，sotospeak——isevennowvery，wellindeed。Collectivelyheismorethanthis；forthejointeffectofourcriticismistheprettythoroughappreciationofanybooksubmittedtoitVII。
ThemisfortuneratherthanthefaultofourindividualcriticisthatheistheheirofthefalsetheoryandbadmannersoftheEnglishschool。
Thetheoryofthatschoolhasapparentlybeenthatalmostanypersonofglibandlivelyexpressioniscompetenttowriteofalmostanybranchofpoliteliterature；itsmannersarewhatweknow。TheAmerican，whomithaslargelyformed，isbynatureveryglibandverylively，andcommonlyhiscriticism，viewedasimaginativework，ismoreagreeablethanthatoftheEnglishman；butitis，liketheartofbothcountries，apttobeamateurish。InsomedegreeourauthorshavefreedthemselvesfromEnglishmodels；theyhavegainedsomenotionofthemoreseriousworkoftheContinent：butitisstilltheambitionoftheAmericancritictowriteliketheEnglishcritic，toshowhiswitifnothislearning，tostrivetoeclipsetheauthorunderreviewratherthanillustratehim。
Hehasnotyetcaughtontothefactthatitisreallynopartofhisbusinesstodisplayhimself，butthatitisaltogetherhisdutytoplaceabookinsuchalightthatthereadershallknowitsclass，itsfunction，itscharacter。Thevastgood—natureofourpeoplepreservesusfromtheworsteffectsofthiscriticismwithoutprinciples。Ourcritic，athislowest，israrelymalignant；andwhenheisrudeoruntruthful，itismostlywithouttruculence；Isuspectthatheisoftenoffensivewithoutknowingthatheisso。Nowandthenheactssimplyunderinstructionfromhigherauthority，anddenouncesbecauseitisthetraditionofhispublicationtodoso。Inothercasesthecriticisobligedtosupporthisjournal’sreputeforseverity，orforwit，orformorality，thoughhemayhimselfbeentirelyamiable，dull，andwicked；
thisnecessitymoreorlesswarpshisverdicts。
Theworstisthatheispersonal，perhapsbecauseitissoeasyandsonaturaltobepersonal，andsoinstantlyattractive。Inthisrespectourcriticismhasnotimprovedfromtheaccessionofnumbersofladiestoitsranks，thoughwestillhopesomuchfromwomeninourpoliticswhentheyshallcometovote。Theyhavecometowrite，andwiththeeffecttoincreasetheamountoflittle—digging，whichrathersuperaboundedinourliterarycriticismbefore。They\"knowwhattheylike\"——thatperniciousmaximofthosewhodonotknowwhattheyoughttolikeandtheypassreadilyfromcensuringanauthor’sperformancetocensuringhim。Theybringastockoflivelymisapprehensionsandprejudicestotheirwork；
theywouldratherhaveheardaboutthanknownaboutabook；andtheytakekindlytothepublicwishtobeamusedratherthanedified。Butneitherhavetheysomuchharminthem：they，too，aremoreignorantthanmalevolent。
VIII。
Ourcriticismisdisabledbytheunwillingnessofthecritictolearnfromanauthor，andhisreadinesstomistrusthim。Awriterpasseshiswholelifeinfittinghimselfforacertainkindofperformance；thecriticdoesnotaskwhy，orwhethertheperformanceisgoodorbad，butifhedoesnotlikethekind，heinstructsthewritertogooffanddosomeothersortofthing——usuallythesortthathasbeendonealready，anddonesufficiently。Ifhecouldonceunderstandthatamanwhohaswrittenthebookhedislikes，probablyknowsinfinitelymoreaboutitskindandhisownfitnessfordoingitthananyoneelse，thecriticmightlearnsomething，andmighthelpthereadertolearn；butbyputtinghimselfinafalseposition，apositionofsuperiority，heisofnouse。
Heisnottosupposethatanauthorhascommittedanoffenceagainsthimbywritingthekindofbookhedoesnotlike；hewillbefarmoreprofitablyemployedonbehalfofthereaderinfindingoutwhethertheyhadbetternotbothlikeit。Lethimconceiveofanauthorasnotinanywiseontrialbeforehim，butasareflectionofthisorthataspectoflife，andhewillnotbetemptedtobrowbeathimorbullyhim。
Thecriticneednotbeimpoliteeventotheyoungestandweakestauthor。
Alittlecourtesy，oragooddeal，aconstantperceptionofthefactthatabookisnotamisdemeanor，adecentself—respectthatmustforbidthecivilizedmanthesavagepleasureofwounding，arewhatIwouldaskforourcriticism，assomethingwhichwilladdsensiblytoitspresentlustre。
IX。
Iwouldhavemyfellow—criticsconsiderwhattheyarereallyintheworldfor。Thecriticmustperceive，ifhewillquestionhimselfmorecarefully，thathisofficeismainlytoascertainfactsandtraitsofliterature，nottoinventordenouncethem；todiscoverprinciples，nottoestablishthem；toreport，nottocreate。
Itissomucheasiertosaythatyoulikethisordislikethat，thantotellwhyonethingis，orwhereanotherthingcomesfrom，thatmanyflourishingcriticswillhavetogooutofbusinessaltogetherifthescientificmethodcomesin，forthenthecriticwillhavetoknowsomethingbesideshisownmind。Hewillhavetoknowsomethingofthelawsofthatmind，andofitsgenerichistory。
Thehistoryofallliteratureshowsthatevenwiththeyoungestandweakestauthorcriticismisquitepowerlessagainsthiswilltodohisownworkinhisownway；andifthisisthecaseinthegreenwood，howmuchmoreinthedry!Ithasbeenthoughtbythesentimentalistthatcriticism，ifitcannotcure，canatleastkill，andKeatswaslongallegedinproofofitsefficacyinthissort。ButcriticismneithercurednorkilledKeats，asweallnowverywellknow。Itwounded，itcruellyhurthim，nodoubt；anditisalwaysinthepowerofthecritictogivepaintotheauthor——themeanestcritictothegreatestauthor——
fornoonecanhelpfeelingarudeness。Buteveryliterarymovementhasbeenviolentlyopposedatthestart，andyetneverstayedintheleast，orarrested，bycriticism；everyauthorhasbeencondemnedforhisvirtues，butinnowisechangedbyit。Inthebeginninghereadsthecritics；butpresentlyperceivingthathealonemakesormarshimself，andthattheyhavenoinstructionforhim，hemostlyleavesoffreadingthem，thoughheisalwaysgladoftheirkindnessorgrievedbytheirharshnesswhenhechancesuponit。This，Ibelieve，isthegeneralexperience，modified，ofcourse，byexceptions。
Then，arewecriticsofnouseintheworld？Ishouldnotliketothinkthat，thoughIamnotquitereadytodefineouruse。Morethanonesoberthinkerisincliningatpresenttosuspectthataestheticallyorspecificallyweareofnouse，andthatweareonlyusefulhistorically；
thatwemayregisterlaws，butnotenactthem。Iamnotquitepreparedtoadmitthataestheticcriticismisuseless，thoughinviewofitsfutilityinanygiveninstanceitishardtodenythatitisso。
Itcertainlyseemsasuselessagainstabookthatstrikesthepopularfancy，andprospersoninspiteofcondemnationbythebestcritics，asitisagainstabookwhichdoesnotgenerallyplease，andwhichnocriticalfavorcanmakeacceptable。ThisissocommonaphenomenonthatIwonderithasneverhithertosuggestedtocriticismthatitspointofviewwasaltogethermistaken，andthatitwasreallynecessarytojudgebooksnotasdeadthings，butaslivingthings——thingswhichhaveaninfluenceandapowerirrespectiveofbeautyandwisdom，andmerelyasexpressionsofactualityinthoughtandfeeling。Perhapscriticismhasacumulativeandfinaleffect；perhapsitdoessomegoodwedonotknowof。
Itapparentlydoesnotaffecttheauthordirectly，butitmayreachhimthroughthereader。Itmayinsomecasesenlargeordiminishhisaudienceforawhile，untilhehasthoroughlymeasuredandtestedhisownpowers。Ifcriticismistoaffectliteratureatall，itmustbethroughthewriterswhohavenewlyleftthestarting—point，andarereasonablyuncertainoftherace，notwiththosewhohavewonitagainandagainintheirownway。
X。
Sometimesithasseemedtomethatthecrudestexpressionofanycreativeartisbetterthanthefinestcommentuponit。Ihavesometimessuspectedthatmorethinking，morefeelingcertainly，goestothecreationofapoornovelthantotheproductionofabrilliantcriticism；
andifanynovelofourtimefailstoliveahundredyears，willanycensureofitlive？Whocanenduretoreadoldreviews？Onecanhardlyreadthemiftheyareinpraiseofone’sownbooks。
Theauthorneglectedoroverlookedneednotdespairforthatreason，ifhewillreflectthatcriticismcanneithermakenorunmakeauthors；thattherehavenotbeengreaterbookssincecriticismbecameanartthantherewerebefore；thatinfactthegreatestbooksseemtohavecomemuchearlier。
Thatwhichcriticismseemsmostcertainlytohavedoneistohaveputaliteraryconsciousnessintobooksunfeltintheearlymasterpieces，butunfeltnowonlyinthebooksofmenwhoseliveshavebeenpassedinactivities，whohavebeenusedtoemployinglanguageastheywouldhaveemployedanyimplement，toeffectanobject，whohaveregardedathingtobesaidasinnowisedifferentfromathingtobedone。InthissortI
haveseennomodernbooksounconsciousasGeneralGrant’s’PersonalMemoirs。’Theauthor’soneendandaimistogetthefactsoutinwords。
Hedoesnotcastaboutforphrases，buttakestheword，whateveritis，thatwillbestgivehismeaning，asifitwereamanoraforceofmenfortheaccomplishmentofafeatofarms。Thereisnotamomentwastedinpreeningandprettifying，afterthefashionofliterarymen；thereisnothoughtofstyle，andsothestyleisgoodasitisinthe’BookofChronicles，’asitisinthe’Pilgrim’sProgress，’withapeculiar，almostplebeian，plainnessattimes。Thereisnomoreattemptatdramaticeffectthanthereisatceremoniouspose；thingshappeninthattaleofamightywarastheyhappenedinthemightywaritself，withoutsetting，withoutartificialreliefsoneafteranother，asiftheywereallofonequalityanddegree。Judgmentsaredeliveredwiththesameunimposingquiet；noawesurroundsthetribunalexceptthatwhichcomesfromtheweightandjusticeoftheopinions；itisalwaysanunaffected，unpretentiousmanwhoistalking；andthroughouthepreferstoweartheuniformofaprivate，withnothingofthegeneralabouthimbuttheshoulder—straps，whichhesometimesforgets。
XI。
CanonFairfax，’sopinionsofliterarycriticismareverymuchtomyliking，perhapsbecausewhenIreadthemIfoundthemsolikemyown，alreadydeliveredinprint。Hetellsthecriticsthat\"theyareinnosensethelegislatorsofliterature，barelyevenitsjudgesandpolice\"；
andheremindsthemofMr。Ruskin’ssayingthat\"abadcriticisprobablythemostmischievouspersonintheworld，\"thoughasenseoftheirrelativeproportiontothewholeoflifewouldperhapsacquittheworstamongthemofthisextremeofculpability。Abadcriticisasbadathingascanbe，but，afterall，hismischiefdoesnotcarryveryfar。
Otherwiseitwouldbemainlytheconventionalbooksandnottheoriginalbookswhichwouldsurvive；forthecensorwhoimagineshimselfalaw—
givercangivelawonlytotheimitativeandnevertothecreativemind。
Criticismhascondemnedwhateverwas，fromtimetotime，freshandvitalinliterature；ithasalwaysfoughtthenewgoodthinginbehalfoftheoldgoodthing；ithasinvariablyfosteredandencouragedthetame，thetrite，thenegative。Yetuponthewholeitisthenative，thenovel，thepositivethathassurvivedinliterature。Whereas，ifbadcriticismwerethemostmischievousthingintheworld，inthefullimplicationofthewords，itmusthavebeenthetame，thetrite，thenegative，thatsurvived。
Badcriticismismischievousenough，however；andIthinkthatmuchifnotmostcurrentcriticismaspractisedamongtheEnglishandAmericansisbad，isfalselyprincipled，andisconditionedinevil。Itisfalselyprincipledbecauseitisunprincipled，orwithoutprinciples；anditisconditionedinevilbecauseitisalmostwhollyanonymous。Atthebestitsopinionsarenotconclusionsfromcertaineasilyverifiableprinciples，butareeffectsfromtheworshipofcertainmodels。Theyareinsofarquiteworthless，foritistheverynatureofthingsthattheoriginalmindcannotconformtomodels；ithasitsnormwithinitself；itcanworkonlyinitsownway，andbyitsself—givenlaws。Criticismdoesnotinquirewhetheraworkistruetolife，buttacitlyorexplicitlycomparesitwithmodels，andtestsitbythem。Ifliteraryarttravelledbyanysuchroadascriticismwouldhaveitgo，itwouldtravelinaviciouscircle，andwouldarriveonlyatthepointofdeparture。Yetthisisthecoursethatcriticismmustalwaysprescribewhenitattemptstogivelaws。Beingitselfartificial，itcannotconceiveoftheoriginalexceptastheabnormal。Itmustaltogetherreconceiveitsofficebeforeitcanbeofusetoliterature。Itmustreducethistothebusinessofobserving，recording，andcomparing；toanalyzingthematerialbeforeit，andthensynthetizingitsimpressions。Eventhen，itisnottoomuchtosaythatliteratureasanartcouldgetonperfectlywellwithoutit。Justasmanygoodnovels，poems，plays，essays，sketches，wouldbewritteniftherewerenosuchthingascriticismintheliteraryworld，andnomorebadones。
Butitwillbelongbeforecriticismceasestoimagineitselfacontrollingforce，togiveitselfairsofsovereignty，andtoissuedecrees。Asitexistsitismostlyamischief，thoughnotthegreatestmischief；butitmaybegreatlyamelioratedincharacterandsoftenedinmannerbythetotalabolitionofanonymity。
Ithinkitwouldbesafetosaythatinnootherrelationoflifeissomuchbrutalitypermittedbycivilizedsocietyasinthecriticismofliteratureandthearts。CanonFarrarisquiterightinreproachingliterarycriticismwiththeuncandorofjudginganauthorwithoutreferencetohisaims；withpursuingcertainwritersfromspiteandprejudice，andmerehabit；withmisrepresentingabookbyquotingaphraseorpassageapartfromthecontext；withmagnifyingmisprintsandcarelessexpressionsintoimportantfaults；withabusinganauthorforhisopinions；withbaseandpersonalmotives。
Everywriterofexperienceknowsthatcertaincriticaljournalswillcondemnhisworkwithoutregardtoitsquality，evenifithasneverbeenhisfortunetolearn，asoneauthordidfromarepententreviewer，thatinajournalpretendingtoliterarytastehisbooksweregivenoutforreviewwiththecaution，\"RememberthattheClarionisopposedtoMr。
Blank’sbooks。\"
Thefinalconclusionappearstobethattheman，oreventheyounglady，whoisgivenagun，andtoldtoshootatsomepasserfrombehindahedge，isplacedincircumstancesoftemptationalmosttoostrongforhumannature。
XII。
AsIhavealreadyintimated，Idoubtthemorelastingeffectsofunjustcriticism。ItisnopartofmybeliefthatKeats’sfamewaslongdelayedbyit，orWordsworth’s，orBrowning’s。Somethingunwonted，unexpected，inthequalityofeachdelayedhisrecognition；eachwasnotonlyapoet，hewasarevolution，aneworderofthings，towhichthecriticalperceptionsandhabitudeshadpainfullytoadjustthemselves：ButIhavenoquestionofthegrossandstupidinjusticewithwhichthesegreatmenwereused，andofthebarbarizationofthepublicmindbythesightofthewronginflictedonthemwithimpunity。Thissavageconditionstillpersistsinthetolerationofanonymouscriticism，anabusethatoughttobeasextinctasthetortureofwitnesses。Itishardenoughtotreatafellow—authorwithrespectevenwhenonehastoaddresshim，nametoname，uponthesamelevel，inplainday；swoopingdownuponhiminthedark，panopliedintheauthorityofagreatjournal，itisimpossible。
Everynowandthensomeidealistcomesforwardanddeclaresthatyoushouldsaynothingincriticismofaman’sbookwhichyouwouldnotsayofittohisface。ButIamafraidthisisaskingtoomuch。Iamafraiditwouldputanendtoallcriticism；andthatifitwerepractisedliteraturewouldbelefttopurifyitself。Ihavenodoubtliteraturewoulddothis；butinsuchastateofthingstherewouldbenoprovisionforthecritics。Weoughtnottodestroycritics，weoughttoreformthem，orrathertransformthem，orturnthemfromtheassumptionofauthoritytoarealizationoftheirtruefunctioninthecivilizedstate。
Theyarenoworseatheart，probably，thanmanyothers，andthereareprobablygoodhusbandsandtenderfathers，lovingdaughtersandcarefulmothers，amongthem。
Itisevidenttoanystudentofhumannaturethatthecriticwhoisobligedtosignhisreviewwillbemorecarefulofanauthor’sfeelingsthanhewouldifhecouldintangiblyandinvisiblydealwithhimastherepresentativeofagreatjournal。Hewillbeloathtohavehisnameconnectedwiththoseperversionsandmisstatementsofanauthor’smeaninginwhichthecriticnowindulgeswithoutdangerofbeingturnedoutofhonestcompany。Hewillbeinsomedegreeforcedtobefairandjustwithabookhedislikes；hewillnotwishtomisrepresentitwhenhissincanbetraceddirectlytohiminperson；hewillnotbewillingtovoicetheprejudiceofajournalwhichis\"opposedtothebooks\"ofthisorthatauthor；andthejournalitself，whenitisnolongerresponsibleforthebehaviorofitscritic，mayfinditinterestingandprofitabletogivetoanauthorhisinningswhenhefeelswrongedbyarevieweranddesirestorighthimself；itmayevenbeeagertoofferhimtheopportunity。Weshallthen，perhaps，frequentlywitnessthespectacleofauthorsturningupontheirreviewers，andimprovingtheirmannersandmoralsbyconfrontingtheminpublicwiththeerrorstheymaynowcommitwithimpunity。Manyanauthorsmartsunderinjuriesandindignitieswhichhemightresenttotheadvantageofliteratureandcivilization，ifhewerenotafraidofbeingbrowbeatenbythejournalwhosenamelesscritichasoutragedhim。
Thepublicisnowofopinionthatitinvolveslossofdignitytocreativetalenttotrytorightitselfifwronged，butherewearewithouttherequisitestatistics。Creativetalentmaycomeoffwithallthedignityitwentinwith，anditmayaccomplishaverygoodworkindemolishingcriticism。
Inanyotherrelationoflifethemanwhothinkshimselfwrongedtriestorighthimself，violently，ifheisamistakenman，andlawfullyifheisawisemanorarichone，whichispracticallythesamething。Buttheauthor，dramatist，painter，sculptor，whosebook，play，picture，statue，hasbeenunfairlydealtwith，ashebelieves，mustmakenoefforttorighthimselfwiththepublic；hemustbearhiswronginsilence；heisevenexpectedtogrinandbearit，asifitwerefunny。Everybodyunderstandsthatitisnotfunnytohim，notintheleastfunny，buteverybodysaysthathecannotmakeanefforttogetthepublictotakehispointofviewwithoutlossofdignity。Thisisveryodd，butitisthefact，andIsupposethatitcomesfromthefeelingthattheauthor，dramatist，painter，sculptor，hasalreadysaidthebesthecanforhissideinhisbook，play，picture，statue。Thisispartlytrue，andyetifhewishestoaddsomethingmoretoprovethecriticwrong，Idonotseehowhisattempttodososhouldinvolvelossofdignity。Thepublic，whichissojealousforhisdignity，doesnototherwiseusehimasifhewereaverygreatandinvaluablecreature；ifhefails，itletshimstarvelikeanyoneelse。Ishouldsaythathelostdignityornotashebehaved，inhisefforttorighthimself，withpetulanceorwithprinciple。Ifhebetrayedawoundedvanity，ifheimpugnedthemotivesandaccusedthelivesofhiscritics，Ishouldcertainlyfeelthathewaslosingdignity；butifhetemperatelyexaminedtheirtheories，andtriedtoshowwheretheyweremistaken，Ithinkhewouldnotonlygaindignity，butwouldperformaveryusefulwork。
XIII。
Iwouldbeseechtheliterarycriticsofourcountrytodisabusethemselvesofthemischievousnotionthattheyareessentialtotheprogressofliteratureinthewaycriticshaveimagined。CanonFarrarconfessesthatwiththebestwillintheworldtoprofitbythemanycriticismsofhisbooks，hehasneverprofitedintheleastbyanyofthem；andthisisalmosttheuniversalexperienceofauthors。Itisnotalwaysthefaultofthecritics。Theysometimesdealhonestlyandfairlybyabook，andnotsooftentheydealadequately。Butinmakingabook，ifitisatallagoodbook，theauthorhaslearnedallthatisknowableaboutit，andeverystrongpointandeveryweakpointinit，farmoreaccuratelythananyoneelsecanpossiblylearnthem。Hehaslearnedtodobetterthanwellforthefuture；butifhisbookisbad，hecannotbetaughtanythingaboutitfromtheoutside。Itwillperish；andifhehasnottherootofliteratureinhim，hewillperishasanauthorwithit。
Butwhatisitthatgivestendencyinart，then？Whatisitmakespeoplelikethisatonetime，andthatatanother？Aboveall，whatmakesabetterfashionchangeforaworse；howcantheuglycometobepreferredtothebeautiful；inotherwords，howcananartdecay？
ThisquestioncameupinmymindlatelywithregardtoEnglishfictionanditsform，orratheritsformlessness。How，forinstance，couldpeoplewhohadonceknownthesimpleverity，therefinedperfectionofMissAustere，enjoy，anythinglessrefinedandlessperfect？
Withherexamplebeforethem，whyshouldnotEnglishnovelistshavegoneonwritingsimply，honestly，artistically，everafter？Onewouldthinkitmusthavebeenimpossibleforthemtodootherwise，ifonedidnotremember，say，thelamentablebehavioroftheactorswhosupportMr。