ii a. xii. DEC. 4, 19154 NOTES AND Q UEBIES.
451
0n
The Cambridge History of English Literature.
Edited by Sir A. W. Ward and A. B. \\aller.
Vol. XII. The Nineteenth Century. I. (Cam-
bridge University Press, Qs. net.) THE wide range of this ' Cambridge History of Literature,' now approaching completion, is one of its chief merits. It is a positive mine of close- packed materials for the student, and so much has come within the view of the editors in the nineteenth century that they have decided to devote three volumes to it, though they do rot include living persons.
The volume before us, ranging from Sir \V alter Scott' to 'Scholars, Antiquaries, and Biblio- graphers/ for the most part deliberately reduces biography to a minimum, and loses thereby some useful, if not essential illumination of the writings considered. For the period 1780-1830, serious students already have Prof. Elton's ' Survey of English Literature ' (1912), which, though much narrower in scope than the ' Cambridge History,' is o far as aesthetic criticism is concerned, a formidable rival. At present the University Press is, like other educational institutions, hampered by the war, and various arrangements have had to be altered. We attribute to this cause the absence of several cross-references which -would have added to the utility o f the
Dr. T. F. Henderson leads off with ' Sir Walter Scott,' and brings out well, as one would expect from his learning, the position of Scott as a keen searcher after old lore and a reviver of the past. We cannot help thinking, however, that with Dr. Henderson the historic interest is more than the aesthetic. He sees, of course, that the novels are the fine flower of Scott's genius, though he pays a welcome tribute to his power in the lyric. But we miss criticism which we expect in detail of the former. We think, for instance, that ' The Antiquary ' should have been specially mentioned as one of Scott's foremost successes, and that the question whether the third volume of ' The Heart of Midlothian ' is an anticlimax was worth consideration . The wonderful touches of romance in ' Redgauntlet ' are more to us than-.its his- torical inaccuracy. Twice this volume mentions Bouth's famous advice about verifying references. On p. 21 " Turnbull " ( ' Redgauntlet ' ) should be " Trumbull." Scott's position in fiction as the Great Unknown is not considered, but it has led to some interesting casuistry, and has, perhaps, affected the practice of later writers in denying the authorship of their works. We express our astonishment at the absence of appreciation of the ' Familiar Letters ' and the ' Journal, gifts of recent times for which every man of letters should be grateful.
Prof. Moorman's ' Byron ' is a capable essay, showing ample research and discrimination. At the end he might have discussed the question : Is the modern neglect of Byron justified ? Prof. Herf ord has dealt with both Shelley and Keats, and here notably we miss biography which would, we think, have been illuminating. The criticism offered is just and well expressed, but the writer has forgotten to give us the title of the poem discussed on p. 64, and we have to wait for it till p. 67. We are not sure that " the pellucid
purity of Greek speech " (p. 89) means much ; and
the epitaph Keats made for himself did not
speak of " one who had writ in water." It was
" one whose name was writ in water." We think
Keats Ihad in his mind ' King Henry VIII.*
IV. ii. 45 :
Men's evil manners live in brass : their virtues
We write in water.
Prof. Moorman speaks of Keats as responding "with reserve" to Shelley's cordial overtures of friendship. We see the utmost frankness in the letter Keats wrote to his brother poet in the August of 1820, and we should call it cordial iff its recognition of advice as well as in the advice it returns.
Prof. Saintsbury is not so difficult to read as usual in his learned dissertations on ' Lesser Poets, 1790-1837,' and ' The Landors, Leigh Hunt, De Quincey.' He is particularly good on the latter group, though he starts by denouncing biography as unnecessary. We should have thought it worth while to say that early training at school gave Landor his classical bent, and that De Quincey's juxtaposition to the " Lakers " enabled him to write an account of them masterly in its concealed depreciation.
Prof. Howe's view of Hazlitt seems to us a little timid in its dependence on other scholars, and ends with a quotation from Henley already used in part. Mr. Harold Child's Jane Austen ' is an admirable chapter, full of discernment, and furnished with just as much biography as is needed. Surely Mr. Collins differs from the main run of Jane Austen's characters in being a grotesque. Critics might, we think, gain by a closer examination of the style of her novels ; but that has not yet been made. In his detailed comments Mr. Child pleases us vastly.
Another well-written chapter is that on. ' Reviews and Magazines,' by Mr. Arthur Elliot, sometime editor of The Edinburgh Review. We suggest that the Scott of the duel with Christie should be called " John " to separate him from the author of ' Waverley,' and that on p. 162 a quotation has not been verified. The full refer- ence is to Lang's ' Life of Lockhart,' vol. i. pp. 247-8, where " writer " is "critic," and
preference for" is . " preference of." We do not place the ' Noctes ' so high as Mr. Elliot, and we do not think Jeffrey deserved his reputation as a critic. Mr. A. Hamilton Thompson, unlike his colleagues, has treated Lamb mainly on biographical lines. The change is welcome.
Archdeacon Hutton is at once lively and judicious on ' The Oxford Movement,' and is able to bring out its relations to earlier theology. We cannot, however, agree that Manning's "work is negligible as literature." Sir A. W. Ward is obviously at home in the extensive field of 4 Historians,' and his judgment is to be trusted. It is expressed in a rather elaborate form, and tends to paraphrase which is not always illumina- ting. Is it easy to gather, for instance, that the last words of the chapter refer to a monograph on George Fox ?
One of the excrescences from the main theme is Sir J. E. Sandys's long and comprehensive chapter on ' Scholars, Antiquaries, and Biblio- graphers.' As he mentions that Person owed much to Bentley, we rather wonder that he does not note concerning the ' Letters to Travis ' that Porson had seen Bentley's now lost dissertation on the theme there considered. Blomfield's views
