The New Fiction [pp. 345-354]

THE NEW FICTION. 349
The question in regard to works of fiction usually has a definite relation to the writings of Sir Walter Scott. But, because the magician can raise
mightier spirits than other magicians, is he, therefore, the less to be feared? No. While I have confessed that I have read him-read him entire-in
order to show that I speak from experience, I can
not but say that it would give me the keenest pain
to believe that my example would be quoted, small
as is its influence, after I am in the grave, without
this solemn protest accompanying it.
Now, it will be remembered that the terms of
the "solemn protest" are that it will be found
"at the day of judgment that the responsibility
under which "a writer like Scott (who is incriminated by name in the very passage in question)
labors, for having written novels, "would be
cheaply removed by the price of a world."
In writing of this order, which still represents
the opinions of large masses of serious people,
we come across the proper and natural contrast
with the view suggested by the passage quoted
from Mr. Meredith's new novel. It will be observed that in the adverse criticism just quoted
there is, in the first place, an utter blindness to
any kind of literary influence except that of the
didactic kind: Byron and Hume wrote things
which were very wrong, things adverse to just
impressions on the most solemn subjects; therefore their writings must do infinitely more harm
than good. Of the value of poetry like Byron's
in communicating impulse to the mind, in giving
a sense of largeness to life, and in suggesting innumerable by-paths which lead to nothing but
what is (on the more recent and liberal hypothesis) good, there is no sense whatever. The same
as to Hume. The real truth is, that a moderately intelligent use of Hume's admissions and
collateral sallies is one of the most valuable of
moral tonics. Recall that unhappy jeu d'esfrit
in which he goes out of his way * to emphasize
the moral aberrations of different men and different races, and the different verdicts which
have been applied to the same act in different
ages-recall that very disagreeable essay, and do
not forget the conclusion. Hume ends with an
enumeration of the particulars in which men
called good have in all ages agreed, and this
candid close undoes the mischief of what goes
before. "Behold, thou hast blessed them altogether." So far is pretty clear, and we are sure
of having carried moderately intelligent and liberal readers a good part of the way with us.
Btat this does not touch, except remotely,
what most concerns us. It shows, indeed, a
startling insensibility to the value of the pictorial
or dramatic manner of teaching, as opposed (in
* " A Dialogue," beginning, "My friend Palamedes."
literary form) to the didactic. But that is not
all. When we come to Sir Walter Scott, we are
fairly flung backward, unless we can, by habit,
by instinct, or by reflection, take the unfortunate
critic's point of view. One would think, notwithstanding Scott's shortcomings in the matter
of the Covenanters, it must have required authoritative supernatural illumination to entitle a
critic to lay it down that the guilt incurred by
the author of "Ivanhoe," "Marmion," "Waverley," would be "cheaply removed by the price of
a world." At first sight it would seem absolutely impossible that any human being of ordinary
mold could receive one drop of poison from
books like Scott's, unless he went very far afield
to gather the plant, and then spent a gQod deal
of semi-diabolical labor in distilling the venom.
Looking at the matter from the highest secular
standpoint, one might be tempted to say that no
human being had ever helped others to such a
large amount of innocent pleasure as Sir Walter
Scott, and that his novels would be cheaply acquired at the price of a world. But the matter
can not quite stop here; for we have at hand a
lecture, by an educated English divine, and of
later date still, in which the lecturer uses language about works of fiction quite as bad as any
that we have quoted, and goes on to depreciate
the character and brains of Scott, Fielding, and
others. They had " no particular pretension to
high mental power." Godwin's intellectual qualities are disposed of by the remark that he
"made but an indifferent Dissenting minister"
-a new crux for genius. It is a very shocking
thing that anybody should have read the story of
Jeanie Deans in Scott, and yet be ignorant of the
life of Marlborough! or have read "Tom
Jones," and yet be "ignorant of the real 7oneses *
(sic), the true and lasting ornaments of our country." This reverend critic then assures us that
"writers of fiction" are "morally unhealthy,"
and supports this by reminding us that "Defoe
was a bankrupt, and had been twice in Newgate," and that Sir Walter Scott was "placed in
painful circumstances." Lastly, lest we should
draw any inference in favor of fiction from the
innocent tenderness of the "Vicar of Wakefield," we are told that Goldsmith's "mode of
life and thoughts while writing it brought him
into distress." We are not exaggerating-the
words are before us. The argument, of course,
stands thus: Goldsmith was evidently unable to
write "The Vicar of Wakefield" without falling
into vice, such is the influence of fiction on its
producer, and we are bound to conclude that
upon the reader its influence will be similar.
Now, it is not to the purpose to say that all
* Inigo Jones and Sir William Jones.
TIHE NVEW FICTION.
349