ℓ. 2

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is highlighted in red, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

5 revisions
Jannyp at Jul 11, 2020 07:03 PM

ℓ. 2

[Left side]
is what you are continually doing. If
your canon is propounded as a paradox
(though you hate paradoxes, I
believe) it has no brilliancy, if as
a deliberate belief I call it remarkably
weak. Surely it is a shallow thing, because
there are bad, narrow-minded,
irritating and feeble critics, to forbid
the possibility of fine critics arising.
Why not, on your grounds, disbelieve
in the poets, because Nahum and
tate, Pye, Dr. Watts, Dr. Johnson, Eliza
Cook and Close, the king of Bonny's
laureate, have supposed themselves so?

[Right side]
Is there no majesty in judgement?
You have not far to look for a man
whose whole powers have been devoted
to criticism, powers which
in their line are perhaps equal to
those of the men whose works he criticises.
Now Ruskin is a critic whom
you admire. Criticism, I own is a rare
gift, poetical criticism at all events,
but it does exist. You speak
with horror of Shaksperian criticism,
but it appears to me that among Shakspere's
critics have been seen instances of genius,
of deep insight, of great delicacy, of
power, of poetry, of ingenuity, of everything
a critic should have. I will
instance Schlegel, Coleridge, Charles
Lamb, Mrs. Jameson. While I attack
your canon, remember that no one

ℓ. 2

[Left side]
is what you are continually doing. If
your canon is propounded as a para-
dox (though you hate paradoxes, I
believe) it has no brilliancy, if as
a deliberate belief I call it remarkably
weak. Surely it is a shallow thing, be-
cause there are bad, narrow-minded,
irritating and feeble critics, to forbid
the possibility of fine critics arising.
Why not, on your grounds, disbelieve
in the poets, because [Rahum] and
tate, Pye, Dr. Watts, Dr. Johnson, Eliza
Cook and Close, the king of Bonny's
laureate, have supposed themselves so?

[Right side]
Is there no majesty in judgement?
You have not far to look for a man
whose whole powers have been devot-
ed to criticism, powers which
in their line are perhaps equal to
those of the men whose works he criti-
cises. Now Ruskin is a critic whom
you admire. Criticism, I own is a rare
gift, poetical criticism at all events,
but it does exist. You speak
with horror of Shaksperian criticism,
but it appears to me that among Shakspere's
critics have been seen instances of genius,
of deep insight, of great delicacy, of
power, of poetry, of ingenuity, of ev-
erything a critic should have. I will
instance Schlegel, Coleridge, Charles
Lamb, Mrs. Jameson. While I attack
your canon, remember that one one