1891.] [Bache. all that may appeal to one within the present accepted canons of good taste, and beyond, even if it be unfamiliar, for genius is ever enlarging the bounds of taste. The canons of good taste at a given moment of time represent but the evolutionary point of general human advance, beyond which one cannot proceed sanely by leaps, but led by genius, may enter untrodden space beyond. Except the fundamental, there are no absolutely fixed canons of good taste in art but the academical, and they are constantly invaded, for the grand jury of the world is always in session to decide upon works of art, and its decision is final. The life of the individual artist may pass away unrecognized and unrequited, but the span that the longest life compasses is short in comparison with that which may be for all time. To attempt to defend the greatest author at every point, to find no blemish even in obscurity, to make human imperfection flawless, is mistaken zeal. One of the most conspicuous marks of genius is the inequality of its productions. Look for confirmation anywhere, amid many cases that might be cited, to Goethe, to Victor Hugo. In a single work, Wilhelm Meister, are to be met palaces and huts, jostling each other. What a great gulf divides L'Homme qui Rit from Nôtre Dame de Paris. Compare George Eliot's Romola, gem of the purest water, with Daniel Deronda, and thence descend in our survey to the depths of ineffable dullness in The Impressions of Theophrastus Such. Truly, there is dif ference in kind between these, making intimate comparison between them impossible; but it is purely between degree as limited by kind as kind that I am instituting the comparison. Is each production of these authors as good of its kind as is another by the same author of a different kind, within its kind; and is not one wholly unworthy of another? that is a fair consideration. Within the very same kind, however (let us put the question to a crucial test), shall we, out of love for Shakespeare, say that even he is always equal to himself? Instance any men and women of genius, and it can easily be shown, if they produced much, that side by side with great performance lies what was beneath their greatness to produce, if it go no further (but it does go much further) than such lapse where even Homer nods. Vainly, because we love an author, would we claim for him equality in all his creation. If so attempting, we really seek to strip him of one of the characteristics that shed, not lustre, but a side-light, on the title to his fame. PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXIX. 135. H. PRINTED JUNE 5, 1891. Bache.] [May 15, Mankind is subject to epidemic crazes of anticipation, admiration and repudiation. The Mississippi Scheme and the South-Sea Bubble, blown to hugest dimensions by the breath of millions, sailed upward until burst by continued puffs of praise. Within a very short period Brown-Séquard, who did not even claim that which the public attributed to him, was raised heavenward, then dropped to earth. Koch was most wisely moderate in statement; all to no purpose when the imagination of the public set sense aflame. Even tulips, two centuries ago, and orchids, but yesterday, have each had with the proverbial dog their little exalted day; that of the dog, as no longer individual, but collective in popular admiration, reigning at present throughout the whole Anglo-Saxon world. In what an unæsthetic general atmosphere of judgment of excellence we live we must perceive upon reflection that, through jaqueminots, la France, and other types, it took fashion at last to find out, and that but lately, the beauty of the rose. But this especially modern development of factitious rapture is not in the real interest of anything good, least of all in that of cultivating popular taste for art. The best interests of that cultivation lie in appreciative recognition of greatness, though careful discrimination and frankest acknowledgment of imperfections as well as merits in a work of art, while at bottom thankfulness is felt for the gift that has been added to the sum of blessings. It is not ennobling to kiss with equal fervor the clay feet and the golden brow of our idol. Gladly let us welcome him among our household gods; remembering, however, that after all, he is human, but all the more lovable for being so. Let us avoid lauding his imperfections, as did Mr. Moulton, when he claimed merit even for the obscurity of Browning, because, as he said, it arises "from excessive sight." The defense is inadmissible; for art depends upon perspective, upon rigid selection, involving therefore exclusion, converging upon finest limitation, resulting in ideal form evolved from void. He who in literature strives at any time to include, or does inadvertently include, in the treatment of a theme, more in quantity or in quality than its development can symmetrically combine, has not then successfully raised the sleeping angel from the block of marble. Virgil, with excessive requirement of his own exquisite skill, well understood the demands of the highest art, when he willed that at his death the work which he had not yet published should perish; for he 1891.] [Bache. as well as others of the ancients knew well, as the French of modern times know and strive to practice, that it is in perfection of form that literary as well as all other art chiefly and almost wholly resides; and in literature, unlike other art, which is limited, form includes color, and even the "concord of sweet sounds," and all else that, from delicacy to robustness, through human strength and weakness, appeals to the wide range of affections in the responsive heart of man. Whoso likes, in poetry or prose, unformed, elusive idea, that sparkles evanescently with promise but half-redeemed in uncoördinated thought, either enjoys the contemplation of his own profundity, not the author's work, or else is himself so much poet or reasoner that, from fitful gleams of light, as one may think out a whole heaven, inspired by the droning from a stupid pulpit, he shapes to suit his fantasy what, not the bard nor other writer, but his unconscious self lends to the satisfaction of his soul. In either case is self-analysis wanting, which would prove to such misguided beings that works which so inspire are not of art, but of art's inchoate suggestion; a pleasant sketch perchance, but not the finished picture, in which they themselves complete the task; for although in literature the delicately, not the mathematically expressed idea, combines the finest finish with its form, it is also true that in it all should ever tend from airy nothing, not thither to revert, or never issue. Admirably Browning says: "Fancy with fact is just one fact the more ; But, just as in all literary art the djerid, fancy, is needed truly to bind fact together in all-inclusive bond, so also in all literary art is needed the first of facts, the djerid, form, to "bind the loose," in parts and whole, as one without a break." 66 A Sketch of the Life of Dr. Gouverneur Emerson. By W. S. W. Ruschenberger, M.D. (Read before the American Philosophical Society, May 15, 1891.) Descriptions of the peculiar attainments of members of the American Philosophical Society, and of their labors to increase and diffuse knowledge of truth of any kind, are interesting features in the Society's annals. For such reason it has long been a practice to have prepared a suitable notice or memoir of every resident member soon after his death. At the close of his life Dr. Emerson had been a member of the Society more than forty-one years. He was warmly interested in its welfare, and took a more or less active part in its proceedings. Notwithstanding his worthiness of it, a tribute to his memory in the Society has not been recorded. Just after his death, in 1874, it was suggested that I should prepare a notice of him. Inquiry at the time led to the belief that materials for a suitable memoir could not be easily obtained. Even among his intimate friends, Dr. Emerson was notably reticent about himself, never indulged in reminiscences of his past experience: in fact, his associates knew nothing of his life or career. Recently, however, his near kinsmen have kindly opened sources of information, and now, after long delay, a sketch of his life and work, in sufficient detail for estimation of his character and measurement of his usefulness while living, is respectfully submitted. Emerson is an ancient English surname and probably not hereditary. The Emersons of Delaware sprang from a respectable English parentage, and were among the early colonists of Penn's province. They were all farmers, and proprietors of their farms. The grandfather of the subject of the following sketch, Gouverneurfamiliarly called Govey-Emerson, his wife Sarah, born Manlove, and their six children, were received into membership of the Duck Creek Meeting of the Society of Friends in 1757.* His youngest son, Jonathan, born July 17, 1764, married Ann Bell in 1794.† They had seven children, *Records of Duck Creek Meeting, Kent county, Del. † Genealogical Note.-Gouverneur Emerson married Sarah Manlove, 1746. Issue-Jacob, b. 1751; m. Sarah Stout. Manlove, b. 1759; m. Susan Blundell. Jonathan, b. 1764; m. Ann Bell. Robert Bell m. Mary O'Brien of Ireland. Issue-Henry, Robert, Thomas, John, Mary, Agnes, Lucy. Henry, m. Elizabeth Lewis. John, m. Mary Lewis; issue-Ann, Margaret, Mary, Lucy, Eliza L., Stephen. Ann (Bell) m. Jonathan Emerson. Issue-Gouverneur, Sarah (died), Mary, Susan B., Manlove (died) and Ann Eliza. |