THE ESSAYS OF A GIRL.

Evening Star, Issue 15075, 6 January 1913, Page 4

THE ESSAYS OF A GIRL.

Mr Edward Thomas, writing in the ‘ Daily Chronicle,’ says ; A hook of literary studies fell into my hands a few weeks ago bearing on the flyleaf a table of the contents and dates of composition, together with these words: “ Sarah Julie Mary Suddard, bom May 15, 1888, died May 29, 1909.” That the author died at 21. and was writing on. ‘ Astrophol and Stella’ and the versification of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ at 17, would pique the curiosity of the most rapid reviewer. But I preferred to read practically the whole of the book before reading this chronological table, or the note at the end; The ‘Keats, Shelley, and Shakespeare Studies ’ were written in English, the . Essays in English Literature ’ originally in French. The latter have been translated since the death of Mary Suddard. 1 bad been reading with continuous admiration. 1 went on with astonishment at the fact that this widely-read, sane, patient, and penetrating critic had not reached 21 before her work was over. —Personal.—• Some passages in the essays led me to suppose that tney had been delivered as critiques, and it was through the curiosity of the literary editor and the courtesy of the Cambridge Lmiversity Press that something more was discovered. This marvelions girl was of purely British parentage, but' was born m Brussels, and ne.ver saw England. Her early childhood wa’s spent in tiouth Germany, the greater and later part ot her Jife in Paris. She had an exoeptional memory. She had _ the power of work She was very sensitive to sound, and had in general a delicate perception like that of lveats. the poet of whom her knowledge is most intimate. She could read at the ago of three. She was priyately educated, and distinguished herself in French and English, hut studied also philosophy, history, astronomy, aesthetics, phonetics, German, and Spanish, and had a good general knowledge. She taught Mohere and Racine at a Paris high school for guns. In the year of her death she held the _ English Chair at the “ Lycee Jeanne d’Arc,” Clermont-Ferrand. 'she fell ill with scarlatina on hex 21st birthday, and died a fortnight later.

—Ripe Talents.— It is impossible in a short space to do justice to her talents, which were not a lew, and were highly developed and happily balanced. What is most remarkable is her combination ol cool and logical reasonableness and of extreme sensitiveness. Other critics may have had equal sensitiveness, but perhaps none has had in an. equal degree the very different qualities necessary to discriminate and to report on what, their sensitiveness has reached. Thus, in her first essays ehe is able—--1 o present a continuous account of the evolution of Keats's artistic mind, based entirely on his own confessions, and t old over again, as nearly as possible, in his own words. The diffused rays niignt. be tocussed to a round image by passing through the lens of a second mind. My sole ambition would be to furnish this lens. Here and in parts of her study of Rossetti s ‘ House of Life.’ and for several essays on JihelJey, she proves herself a fine and not a pedantic judge of style. She can be as subtie as others where they would be also dull and technical; she never fads to relate technique to temperament, character, experience. She had learnt, and that thoroughly, more of what constitutes an organic style than most critics dimly apprehend after half a lifetime. —Humor and Sense.— Bid. much as her ear taught her in studying Keats and Shelley, much as her calm. logical vision taught her in comparing lien Jonson and Shakespeare, and in discussing Swift s poetry and Wordsworth’s ‘ Imagination,’ the harmony of these powers with humor and good sense helps them to higher success than they could achieve alone and saves her from all appearance of one-fidcdiK-ss. Thus, her sympathy with Shelley is extraordinary, but it never carries her away. She submits to him without, losing the power at the right moment to use her own swift and light intelligence, and to use it with no trace, of vanity. Again, though she may go too far m treating ‘A lea sure for Measure ’ almost as an allegory as well as a clue to Shakespeare’s attitude towards Puritanism, the essay gives many examples of Le,r keenness and fairness, when it would have been easy and might, have seemed imperative to be a partisan. Yet another remarkable display is where she opposes a very different critic. Sir Sidney Lee, and attempts—with, success—-t-o show that “detachment from the realities of ordinary passion" is not “the central feature" of Sidney's sonnets; that they hide “ the sjory of a soul that suffers, struggles, gives way, and recovers." In other essays she follows Rossetti through the earlier portion of ‘The House of Life,’ and Swift through his house of death, as sure footed I y as she does Keats, but with less craftsman’s curiosity. Nowhere does she obtrude, herself, for her business is solely to clear away obstructions and to shed pure light. Yet everywhere is felt the presence of a clear and temperate spirit, colorless only in a good and rare sense, but with an inclination towards tho classic as opposed to the romantic, and, perhaps, also a- real prejudice in favor of Rossetti