THE ENGLISH NOVEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15504, 10 January 1914, Page 4 (Supplement)

THE ENGLISH NOVEL.

CRITICISM CRITICISED.

Ax addition to the literature of criticism upon the English novel has been made by Professor George Saintsbury. The summing up of. the .volume by an, English critic is an interesting example of criticism criticised. Professor Saintsbury, he says, reveals two qualities which are peculiarly welcome in historical criticism. His keen, enjoyment ( of his subject is very infectious, and his analyses are lifelike. He has the courage to dwell upon what might be considered trifles in order to illustrate a point of real significance; and has more than once chosen unexpected examples in tracing a tendency. His skilful descriptions in detail of some quite unfamiliar characters and plots at .once illuminate tbe course of history and compel our,acceptance of his interpretations. At the same time, he is particularly happy in summarising. .He cap carry us across a century without missing a point; he. makes all clear, convincing, .and complete. He is never inconsistent, .and does not push his parentheses into the front place. .' ; ..;."..

Moreover his criticism is always applied to the, true test. There can be no'aoubt that, as he insists from the beginning, the proper- function-of novelists is to ! "tell "a story.." From, the .earliest romances, through Scott to we must ultimately judge fiction by its power to inter* est and absorb the imagination in the creation of characters, who are doing something, whether adventurous or domestic, which has some actual relation to real life. Mere analysis of emotion, mere photography of manners, mere 'discussion,: oi philosophy or declarationvOf dogma can never make live fiction. This, point of view will; go/a long way towards' ensuring constant sanity and soundness of judgment, while retaining pre-eminence .-for:.'■•• the < acknowledged masters. ■ -.-.' ■. ';■?: -•; •'• '-..•'.'.--•«, '.':'

And the second .dogma, almost involved herein, has been expressed by our ; critic for all time in one phrase; ••'The great point of Gulliver is that, like Defoe's work, though in not quite the same way, it 'is interesting— it takes hold of the reader and gives him- its peculiar pleasure. When a work of art does this, it is pretty near perfection." ' - '

." Whether or 'not we' accept Professor Sain'tsb'ury'B opinions in every detail is a small 'matter.. He has j piloted us safely over the main lines; 'and-' we can only admire .him. for the courage ,with which; he: ; proclaims and. supports tbo personal tastes,- which are the "salt of criticism, "': He has discovered the actual" foundlitions" of fiction 'ill. romance. He has traced: it«: rise from Euphuism, .through Bunyan and Defoe, to the '' four wheels.of the r. novel Kichardson, "Fielding, Smollett; "Sterne. •',. He has epitomised . the "eighteenth century novel". -to Jane Austen and'' Scott. 1 "The successors. to Thackeray," the Hidl-Victorian .novel, and the decadent "fiction; of I yesterday". '. are described with refreshing vigour and independence. '■', He does cut up his periods with ;f any pedantic exactness; wherefore they serve admirably to illustrate growth and indicate development. ... -. f . ' \ 'However, Professor Sairitsbury-is not al- , ways conventional,- and, in many cases we can follow hut", cheerfully outside the beaten track....-The.'."nice . distinction" between stage and[novel dialogue, illustrated in Swift's?Pol\te Conversation,, is. eminently worth making^.. The ? whole-hearted . applause of Charles Kingsley and the sympathetic appreciation of Alias Xongeare unexpectedlywelcome. .We respect .the courage -which declares that the secrets of Merediths style, however" brilliant \ their constant achievement, are an actual barrier to our enjoyment, which should qualify, and riotj heighten, our praise.. la our judgment, on : the . other hand, there •is a subtle conservatism,' drawn from his'outlook*on j real -. life, ', in his . unfavourable comparisons between tie novelists of "yesterday" and the mid-Victorians; arid we find him.extraordinarily blind to the exquisite .perfection of Cranford. That marvellous piece of work is .not. perhaps a-regular novel; but it is hard indeed to understand how anyone so catholic-minded as our critic can seriously describe "Miss Matty and- the rest" as "mere Types.of amiable country-townishness." He recognises, indeed, that Miss Austen " would have treated them much less lovingly," but will not acknowledge the full significance of, this, admission. For it is here, and here alone, that the greatest of our women novelists was actually beaten on her own ground.' Mrs. Gaskell had her moment of inspiration, and used it for the making of a masterpiece. It would seem almost, indeed, as if there were some inherent lack of sympathy between Professor Saintsbury and the feminine touch, despite his proud claim "to be an Austen Friar, a iinight (or at least squire) of the order of St. Jane," since he expressly declares that the " question of 'Lingo'" was "the weakest point" in the author of Emma; pronounces Miss Barney ''much more unequal and more generally commonplace" than Mrs. Inchbald; and Belinda "far superior" to Evelina. To us, indeed, his whole attitude towards Johnson's favourite is incomprehensible, possibly because we have read "Camilla" and " The Wanderer" with profit, finding therein certain undoubted originals of characters and phrases in Jane Austen. He might per haps have mentioned" Tho Little■ Duke" while applauding Miss Yonge, and certainly "Kidnapped" would help to place R. L. Stevenson, but these are only minutiae, scarcely generous, of criticism, and with one word of appeal for a more accurate index in future editions we have done.