EEOENT PHASES OF LITEKAEY CRITICISM 111 



•was quite right in saying that a criticism that esti- 

 mates literary products according to absolute stand- 

 ards, that clings to the past, that cultivates the 

 academic spirit, that is exclusive and unsympathetic, 

 may justly be callbd aristocratic ; and that a crit- 

 icism that follows more the comparative method, 

 that adheres to principles instead of to standards, 

 and lays the stress upon the vital and the character- 

 istic in a man's work, rather than upon its form 

 and extrinsic beauty, is essentially democratic. 



No doubt the ideal of the monumental works 

 of antiquity is essentially anti-democratic. It was 

 fostered by an exclusive culture. It goes with the 

 idea of the divine right of kings, of a privileged 

 class, and is at war with the spirit of our times. 

 The Catholic tradition in religion and the classical 

 tradition in literature are as foreign to the spirit of 

 democracy as is the monarchical tradition in poli- 

 tics. They are all branches from the same root. 

 The classical tradition begat Milton, but it did not 

 beget Shakespeare, the most marvelous genius of the 

 modern world. To the classic tradition, as it spoke 

 through Voltaire, Shakespeare was a barbarian. In- 

 deed, Shakespeare's art was essentially democratic, 

 how much soever it may have occupied itself with 

 royal and aristocratic personages. It is as free as an 

 uncaged bird, and pays no tribute to classic models. 

 Its aim is inward movement, fusion, and vitality, 

 rather than outward harmony and proportion. A 

 Greek play is like a Greek temple, — chaste, severe, 

 symmetrical, beautiful. A play of Shakespeare is, as 



