THE TEST OF THE GREAT WRITER

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1716, 18 January 1905, Page 65

THE TEST OF THE GREAT WRITER

Than Charles Lamb (writes Mr Herbert W. Tompkins, in the ‘‘Gentleman’s Magazine") few English writers enjoy a more sure immunity from adverse criticism. To point my meaning, I may revert once again to Stevenson. He, I take it, was at once a shrewd theorist and a facile exponent of uue arts of literary style; he spoke with authority when he advised others how to write. His most sedulously elaborated utterance on the subject of style was contributed to the “Contemporary Review." How many of the canons there laid down are observed, except casually, by Lamb? Hardly any; and perhaps the question and answer suggest one of the few ultimate tests of the durable quality of authorship, for a great writer, in the last resort, is one who can violate with impunity those written and unwritten laws which the novice violates at his peril. Is Shakespeare an exception to this rule —or v.arivle, or D l © Quineey, or Macaulay ? The faults of M«.cauiay—his rhetorical reiterations, his distasceiul similes, his lack of spirituality—have been laid bare by such critics as Cotter M orison, Leslie (Stephen, Lord Acton, and Mr John Morley. The staunchest admirer of the Essays or History has no reply to offer; the charges are so obviously true, so free from such bias as is often displayed by smaller men. But we still read the Essays and History, and are likely to do so. It is thus with Lamb. We admit, with Hazlitt, that Elia is “tenacious of the obscure and remote" but we accept that obscurity and remoteness with surprising satisfaction. We know how frequently his preferences are dictated by mere whim rather than by the ordered reason ; as Hazlitt again puts it, ‘‘lt is hard to say whether Sc. John's Gate is connected with more intense and authentic associations in his mind, as a part of old London v. a■ 1, or as the frontispiece Dime out of mind) of the “Gentleman’s Magazine." But the associations which he loved are loved by us, however oddly they may be suited or for whatever reason he cherished them; nor do we relish his essays the less because he is often as wayward and discursive as L\- 1 . a ncey. In others words, he is above critic, sm : lie is a maker rather than ah obse. •. r c l literary law. Wee to him who aspire.- to make the laws of Elia his own ! He wi: find ihat he has elected to shoot with a

very strong bow. Lamb’s more obvious shortco.nings were engendered by ins virtues. He was too kind a friend to be a sound critic where tlie Avri tings of his friends were concerned. After a reperusal of mp.nv of his letters I have asked myself whether, after all, there can be any entirely impartial criticism of the writings of those Avith Avhom the critic has broken bread. If such criticism were possible, Ave might have looked for it from Lamb. But, in point of fact, Ave have to say that Lamb's critical sagacity never failed except Avhen he passed judgment on the Avritings of friends Avho were dear to him —as so many were. On such occasions, very frequently, he lavished praise which did honour to his heart rather than his head. A like amiable weakness is at times apparent in his judgments ox Art.