60 ON SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 



decision of judges, so in criticism the code of taste was formed 

 by the dicta of eminent experts. 



To this primary conception of criticism, a second has been 

 recently opposed. It is contended that the critic should 

 resign his pretensions to the judicial ermine. He must drop 

 the ferule of the archididascalus, and assume the humbler 

 pointing-rod of the showman. It is not his function to pro- 

 nounce from the bench on what is right or wrong, to acquit or 

 to condemn, to apply canons and extend the province of 

 orthodox taste by enforcing laws. On the contrary, he ought 

 to be content with studying and displaying the qualities of 

 things submitted to his intellect and senses. He must unfold 

 the 'virtues' of the works of art with which he has been 

 occupied. He must classify and describe them, as a botanist 

 the plants with which he has to do. In a certain sense, he 

 may also take rank among creators by reproducing the 

 masterpieces of poet or of painter with engaging rhetoric, or 

 by eloquently exhibiting his own sensibilities in animated 

 prose. 



Thus we have already two distinct conceptions of the critic 

 as judge and as showman. These depend on radical and 

 fundamental points of difference in our interpretation of the 

 term. They are harmonised, to some extent, in a third and 

 still more modern conception. According to this, the critic 

 is neither a mere judge nor a mere showman. He must 

 become the natural historian of art and literature, must study 

 each object in relation to its antecedents and its consequents, 

 must make himself acquainted with the conditions under 

 which the artist grew, the habits of his race, the opinions of 

 his age, his physical and psychological peculiarities. Only 

 after having conscientiously pursued this method, may he 

 proceed to deliver judgments ; and these will invariably be 

 qualified by his sense of relativity in art and literature. 



We have now three conceptions of the critic as judge, 

 as showman, and as scientific analyst. The first corresponds 

 to what may be termed classical criticism. It prevailed in 

 modern Europe till the close of the last century. The revo- 

 lutionary spirit of that epoch called the magisterial authority 



