^7 



1891.] u ' [Bache. 



all that may appeal to one within the present accepted canons of 

 good taste, and beyond, even if it be unfamiliar, for genius is ever 

 enlarging the bounds of taste. The canons of good taste at a 

 given moment of time represent but the evolutionary point of 

 general human advance, beyond which one cannot proceed sanely 

 by leaps, but led by genius, may enter untrodden space beyond. 

 Except the fundamental, there are no absolutely fixed canons of 

 good taste in art but the academical, and they are constantly in- 

 vaded, for the grand jury of the world is always in session to 

 decide upon works of art, and its decision is final. The life of 

 the individual artist may pass away unrecognized and unrequited, 

 but the span that the longest life compasses is short in com- 

 parison with that which may be for all time. To attempt to de- 

 fend the greatest author at every point, to find no blemish even 

 in obscurity, to make human imperfection flawless, is mistaken 

 zeal. One of the most conspicuous marks of genius is the 

 inequality of its productions. Look for confirmation airywkere, 

 amid many cases that might be cited, to Goethe, to YictorHugo. 

 In a single work, Wilhelm Meister, are to be met palaces and 

 huts, jostling each other. What a great gulf divides L'Homme 

 qui Bit from Notre Dame de Paris. Compare George Eliot's 

 Bomola, gem of the purest water, with Daniel Deronda, and 

 thence descend in our survey to the depths of ineffable dullness 

 in The Impressions of Theophrastus Such. Truly, there is dif- 

 ference in kind between these, making intimate comparison be- 

 tween them impossible ; but it is purely between degree as 

 limited by kind as kind that I am instituting the comparison. Is 

 each production of these authors as good of its kind as is another 

 by the same author of a different kind , within its kind ; and is not 

 one wholly unworthy of another ? that is a fair consideration. 

 Within the very same kind, however (let us put the question to 

 a crucial test), shall we, out of love for Shakespeare, say that 

 even he is always equal to himself? Instance any men and women 

 of genius, and it can easily be shown, if they produced much, 

 that side by side with great performance lies what was beneath 

 their greatness to produce, if it go no further (but it does go 

 much further) than such lapse where even Homer nods. Yainly, 

 because we love an author, would we claim for him equality in all 

 his creation. If so attempting, we really seek to strip him of one 

 of the characteristics that shed, not lustre, but a side-light, on the 

 title to his fame. 



PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXIX. 135. H. PRINTED JUNE 5, 1891. 



