"
This is especially seen in his lectures on the English Novel,
where he is often carried far afield from the general theme.
In his lectures on "Shakspere and His Forerunners", he was so often troubled
with an embarrassment of riches that he did not endeavor to follow
a rigidly formed plan.
A more serious defect, however, was his lack of catholicity of judgment.
He had all of Carlyle's distaste for the eighteenth century;
his dislike of Pope was often expressed, and he went so far
as to wish that the novels of Fielding and Richardson might be
"blotted from the face of the earth." His characterization of Thackeray
as a "low-pitched artist" is wide of the mark. As Lanier
had his dislikes in literature and expressed them vigorously,
so he over-praised many men. When he says, for instance,
that Bartholomew Griffin "will yet obtain a high and immortal place
in English literature," or that William Drummond of Hawthornden
is one of "the chief glories of the English tongue," or that Gavin Douglas
is "one of the greatest poets of our language," one wonders to what extent
the "pleasant peril of enthusiasm" will carry a man.
One may be an admirer of George Eliot and yet feel that Lanier
has overstated her merits as compared with other English novelists,
and that his praise of "Daniel Deronda" is excessive.
Such defects as are here suggested should not, however, blind the reader
to some of Lanier's better work. The history of criticism,
especially of romantic criticism, is full of just such unbalanced judgments.
Pages:
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307