THE ART OF WISE CRITICISM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 65, 17 March 1936, Page 10

THE ART OF WISE CRITICISM

Tempered Discipline Needed

JT IS INTERESTING to find that two writers separated by such widely differing states of mind as that of the seventeenth century and the twentieth should yet agree that the genuine critical spirit seems to be in abeyance. It is true that their method of approach to the subject is from entirely opposite points of view. Sir Thomas Blunt, writing in 1G92 deplores the fact that the majority of readers give themselves mental indigestion because they read indiscriminately, without taking time to meditate upon, or to assimilate what they read. Miss Rebecca West, on the other hand, writing only last year, maintains that the bulk of the leisured classes not only do not meditate, but do not even read at all. The result in both cases is the same. The art of criticism, that “adventure among masterpieces”, as Anatole France has well called it, is apparently practiced only by a select few, and the majority loses thereby one of the greatest pleasures of study and observation. The immediate result in the present day, of this lapse, seems to be that professional criticism has narrowed its scope. Instead of being devoted to 44seeing the object as in itself it really is,” at? a well-known writer has expressed it—that is, embracing the subject as well as the expression of the subject the modern critic devotes himself solely to the dissection of the art of the expression. For instance, a recent writer on this point states explicitly that criticism has nothing to do with the morality of the subject criticised, and that “no modern critic of authority tests literature by the standards of ethics.” It is merely the method or the manner that is brought under the critical microscope. This particular development may well be a natural outcome of the fact that French criticism, which still holds its own as past master in this art, owes its origin to the action of Cardinal Richelieu, who in formalising the informal meetings of French men of letters into L’Academie Francaise, narrowed the scope of the critical faculty by the imposition of strict rules and regulations for its functions. English criticism seems always to have followed a wider course. Matthew Arnold, for instance —still a name Of weight among critics—considers a period of active criticism in all departments of thought to be the precursor of a period of great creative activity. His touchstone of true criticism is that it is obedience to the instinct prompting it “to know the best that is known and thought in the world,” and further that it is a free play of the mind on all subjects that it touches, and among those subjects he specifics religion and morals, science and politics, ns well as literature. This certainly seems to bring some measure of true criticism within the scope of any intelligent student of human affairs, and would immeasurably increase the interest of all observation and reading. Not onlv so, but it would

seem to be in line with the methods of a critic of great repute, for did not St. Paul say, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” Milton in the Areopagitica, that great plea for liberty of thought, has a striking phrase which may well be applied to this point. “The light which we have gained was given us not to be ever staring on, but by it to discover onward things more remote from our knowledge,” and, further, he speaks of this same liberty as “The nurse of all great wits.” After all, do not all human activities live and progress by virtue of criticism, the search after the right values of whatever is presented to the consideration? It may be passionate and partisan as in politics and religion, or contemplative as in literature, or academic as in art, but that which evokes no criticism seems to be devoid of activity. It is unfortunate that the scope of the word has been narrowed by mistaken usage to convey to the majority merely the habit of fault finding; at least that appears to be true of the English-speak-ing people. It is possible that the high standard of criticism set for the French by L’Academie Francaise may have pr»> served a more just appreciation of the faculty among French people, but whether French or English the fact is that most people prefer to have their opinions made up for them rather than think them out for themselves. It'would be interesting to see what would be the effect on the adolescent of the present generation if, more generally, in their college curriculum some study of the art of criticism was included, as indeed it is to an extent in certain schools. Would it, for instance, tend to counteract the restlessness of the present age, and its intense desire for speed and constant movment? Or might it, on the other hand, have the effect of damping the enthusiasm of youth, one of whose greatest charms is the tendency to see a swan in every goose that claims attention at the moment? Lowell has said that “A wise scepticism is the first attribute of good, criticism,” and sceptical youth is certainly too apt to see and to exaggerate the weak points and to overlook the good. A consideration of this ami kindred points always seems to revert to one basic fact, which is that if one has :< fixed principle as the foundation of thought and judgment, a just appreciation of values tends to form itself naturally. This appreciation, in spite of what modern critics may say, certainly embraces the ethical as well as the artistic aspects of the subject. Scepticism is a negative, disheartening quality, whereas a wise ami just criticism should always be positive, broad in its views, large in its outlook and moderate in its condemnation. To cultivate such a critical sense would immediately enhance the pleasure and profit of all mental activities in whatever direction they are exercised, and provide that most essential quality of all education—a tempered discipline.