American essays; Literature -- History and criticism
The choice, the refined, the cultured, belong to one class of
excellencies: the qualities of Lincoln and Grant belong to another
and more fundamental kind. Arnold himself had distinction,--he had
urbanity, lucidity, proportion, and many other classic virtues,--but
he had not breadth, sympathy, heartiness, commonness. The quality of
distinction, an air of something choice, high-bred, superfine, will
doubtless count for less and less in a country like ours. In literature
and in character we are looking for other values, for the true, the
vital, the characteristic. There is nothing in life or character more
winsome than commonness wedded to great excellence; the ordinary
crowned with the extraordinary, as in Lincoln the man, Socrates the
philosopher, Burns or Wordsworth the poet. Distinction wins admiration,
commonness wins love. The note of equality, the democratic note, is
much more pronounced in Browning than in Tennyson, in Shelley than in
Arnold, in Wordsworth than in Milton, and it is more pronounced in
American poets than in English. In times and for a people like ours,
the suggestion of something hearty and heroic in letters is more needed
than the suggestion of something fine and exquisite. Distinction is
not to be confounded with dignity or elevation, which flourishes more
or less in all great peoples. A common laboring man may show great
dignity, but never distinction. Dignity often shone in the speeches of
the old Indian chiefs, but not distinction, as the term is here used.
The more points at which a man touches his fellow man, the more
democratic he is. The breadth of his relation to the rest of the
world, that is the test. Sainte-Beuve was more truly a democratic
critic than is Brunetière. The democratic producer in literature will
differ from the aristocratic less in his standards of excellence than
in the atmosphere of human equality and commonness which he effuses.
We are too apt to associate the common with the vulgar. There is the
commonness of a Lincoln or a Grant, and there is the commonness of the
lower strata of society. There is the commonness of earth, air, and
water, and there is the commonness of dust and mud; the commonness
of the basic and the universal, and the commonness of the cheap and
tawdry. Grant’s calmness, self-control, tenacity of purpose, modesty,
comprehensiveness of mind, were uncommon in degree, not in kind. He
was the common soldier with extraordinary powers added, but the common
soldier was always visible. So with Lincoln,--his greatness was
inclusive, not exclusive.
III
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account