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。