SECTION 183.

CRITICISM.

One of the prime objects of education is to foster the taste for reading and to cultivate a discriminating appreciation of the best books. Accordingly, every educated person needs the power to express his judg ment of what he reads. Such a judgment is called a criticism (from a Greek word meaning "to judge "). Almost all book reviews fall under the head of criticism.

Though one usually knows in a general way what one's opinion of a book is, it is often by no means easy to put this opinion into appropriate words.

Perhaps the quickest means of defining one's impression of any book is to compare it mentally with another book of a similar nature. Suppose, for example, you wish to express your opinion of Hawthorne's "House of the Seven Gables." If you call before your mind George Eliot's "Silas Marner," which likewise deals with the inherited effect of wrong-doing, you see at once that Hawthorne portrays far subtler and less tangible characteristics of human nature; and that, though his people seem real, yet they do not quite belong to the workaday world that we know. This observation makes you note the constant play of fantasy and imagination which so often brings Hawthorne's stories to the verge of poetry, and your criticism is well begun.

You may often use such a comparison in the actual expression of your judgment, - that is, in your criticism of the book; for it is sometimes easier to explain what

a thing is by showing what it is not. Dr. Johnson, one of the greatest of English critics, was fond of this method. Here is what he wrote in discussing the poetry of Alexander Pope :

If the flights of Dryden are higher, Pope continues longer on the wing. If of Dryden's fire the blaze is brighter, of Pope's the heat is more regular and constant. Dryden often surpasses expectation, and Pope never falls below it. Dryden is read with frequent astonishment, and Pope with perpetual delight.

Your comparison, however, should not be forced or farfetched, nor should it be carried out in wearisome detail.

In writing your criticism, make plentiful reference to the facts of the book, in order to back up your general assertions. If you can quote a few passages, so much the better; for then you may be sure that your reader will understand the grounds of your opinion. A general statement, not thus supported by quotations or specific references, may apply to so many books that it gives the reader no individual idea of the particular work which you are criticising.

Do not confuse criticism with faultfinding. Almost any one can point out some blemish in even the greatest work; but such carping seldom serves any useful purpose. If, on the other hand, you can suggest the power of a work or indicate its beauties and excellences, you may add to your reader's enjoyment and appreciation of good literature.

Before you try to express your opinion of a book, be sure that you understand the author's purpose. Do not pass judgment on Dickens's "David Copperfield" as if you thought he had tried to write an exciting story of

adventure, or on Longfellow as if he ought to have written in as martial and stirring a strain as Sir Walter Scott. Let your estimate include an appreciation of the author's aim.

Finally, remember that criticism is not a bare statement of personal preference. The mere assertion that Dickens is your favorite author, or that you like Longfellow better than Bryant, is about as profitable as the remark that blue is your favorite color, or that you do not like tea so well as coffee. It may interest your personal friends, but it can hardly concern any one else. What your criticism should do is to analyze your impression, to point out what is admirable in your author, and perhaps in part to define the means by which this admirable effect is produced. In this way criticism is analogous to the explanation of a character (p. 231); for it aims to select and make evident those traits and qualities that give a book individuality and make it different from any other.

TO THE TEACHER. — Criticism is a very advanced form of composition. It may therefore be too difficult for pupils in this grade. If it is found desirable to attempt it, the teacher may prepare the way by bringing out diversities of opinion in a class-room discussion, and by insisting on the separation of mere differences of taste from differences of judgment. Then each pupil may write out his own judgment, supporting it by constant reference to the work in hand. Such practice connects itself closely with the study of literature. The same principles apply to the expression of taste and judgment in other branches of the fine arts. Criticisms of painting, of sculpture, of architecture, or of music are of the same nature as criticisms of literature. In each case the judgment must be based on knowledge and sympathy, and should be expressed with moderation and a fine sense of proportion. Above all things, the pupil should not be required to attempt impossible things. He should not be allowed to waste his time in arranging ten American poets in the order of their eminence, or other such futile tasks.

SECTION 184.

ARGUMENT AND EXPLANATION.

In many cases there is no substantial difference between argument and explanation; and even in cases where there is a difference, this does not alter the fact that every argument must be founded on an adequate explanation of the subject in hand.

For example, suppose you think that the afternoon session of your school ought to be given up, or, on the contrary, that the long morning session should be divided into a morning and an afternoon session. In either case you can best make other people agree with you by explaining clearly and forcibly the disadvantages of the present system and the advantages of the system which you favor.

The main distinction between explanation and argument is a difference of purpose. An explanation aims to impart knowledge or to make a subject clearer. An argument aims to establish or change the opinion of the hearer or reader, or, it may be, to persuade him to act in a particular way. In an argument, we assume a difference of opinion among reasonable men, and endeavor to bring them all over to our own side of the case; in an explanation, we assume that there is only one view of the subject, and set forth that view impartially.

TO THE TEACHER. - The distinction here made between explanation and argument is as sharp as the facts warrant. No formal definitions are attempted, for such definitions must be so qualified that they are rather a hindrance than a help to the beginner, and the adept does not need them. Argument seldom occurs in an unmixed form. Explanation and argument run into each other, like explanation and description, or description and narration (see pp. 164, 190). For a detailed treatment, which would be out of place in this book, Baker's "Principles of Argumentation" may be consulted.

SECTION 185.

THREE KINDS OF ARGUMENT.

Arguments may be divided into three main classes, according to the nature of the questions with which they deal: (1) arguments of fact, (2) arguments of theory or principle, and (3) arguments of policy.

An argument of fact aims to establish or disprove an assertion as to a definite occurrence or state of things. Thus the following propositions might be argued, pro and con, as questions of concrete fact:

The Allerton Bank was robbed by Thomas Ackers on March 3, 1886.

King Alfred was born in the year 902.

The Trojan War actually took place.

Richard Roe paid John Doe five hundred dollars on the tenth of last April.

Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese.

An argument of fact is commonly addressed to persons who are assumed to be impartial. It appeals to their reason and common sense, not to their interests or prejudices. It deals with concrete questions of human knowledge and experience, which, if there is evidence enough available, may always be determined beyond a reasonable doubt.

An argument of theory or principle, like an argument of fact, is addressed to the reason of its audience and not to their feelings or interests. Unlike an argument of fact, however, it aims to establish or disprove, not a concrete matter of human experience, but either a general law or principle which explains a large body of isolated