A HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LITERATURE.* MR. LARKINS dedicates this work
to the Principal and Students of King's College, and states that his object in writing it is " to supply in a cheap, concise, and learnable form what is really necessary to enable any one to acquire a tolerable knowledge of the history, rise, progress, and authors of our English Literature." Although disclaiming entire originality, and forming a modest estimate of his critical ability, the writer considers that he has produced a book which will prove of essential service to students. We think that he is mistaken, and that Mr. Larkins has ventured upon a task for which he is wholly disqualified. His style is slovenly and ungrammatical, his criticisms are loose and feeble, and he has not even taken the trouble to test the accuracy of his statements.
We make no special objection to the author's division of Eng- lish literature into five periods, but we submit that the student should understand clearly why the division is made, and be able to appreciate the connection between the history and the literature of each period. This is not done, is scarcely, indeed, attempted, for the introductions which precede the divisions are utterly insignificant, and read like a few random paragraphs snatched from the Pictorial History of England, or from some other respectable compilation. Besides this division into periods, the Handbook is divided into three sections, to one of which belong the Prose writers, to a second the Dramatists, and to a third the Poets. This arrange- ment has given rise in some instances to a tedious repetition and a loss of valuable space. For example, among the Prose writers we read under the heading of "Robert Southey," " The last forty years of his life were spent at Greta Hall, near Keswick, Cumber- land. Latterly he was without reason, in consequence of a stroke
• A Handbook of English Literature. By William George Larkins. London: George Routledge and Sons. 1867.
of paralysis. Like Johnson, he lived from ' hand to mouth ' until a pension placed him above the fear of want," &c., &c_ But Southey was a Poet also, and so we meet with him again in another place, where we are doomed to read the same remarks.
The Handbook contains a catalogue of authors in. the order of their deaths, their principal works are printed in conspicuous type, and then folloW the remarks of the compiler, or the opinions noted by inverted commas which other critics have expressed. The criticisms so far as they are original are sometimes incompre- hensible, and generally common-place. They show neither power of thought nor delicacy of perception, but are for the most part vapid. generalities, worthy of the feeblest portion of our daily press_ The student would gain nothing by being told that Shakespeare is a great dramatist, Lord Bacon a great philosopher, and Sir- Walter Scott a great novelist, but the pages of the Handbook abound with platitudes which are quite as foolish and assertions- equally trite. What, to give a few examples, can the reader learn about Occleve from the statement that his verse is not of the highest order, that is to say, that he is not a Milton or a Spenser, which the reader probably knew before ? what of Cowley by the laconic statement that " his prose is simple, but sterling?" what of Barrow by the remark that his works are written with care, and give evidence of study and thought? what of Sir Thomas Browne by the assertion that "his writings are cumbrous and pedantic, but good ?" what of Devonshire Herrick from reading that• "though scarce a vestige of the nobler feelings that should actuate the true poet are to be found in him, still some of his verses are replete with tenderness, and moralize in a pleasing strain ?" and what of the Pleasures of Imagination by the observation that " it possesses great vigour and power, and is in advance of the age in the poetical genius which it displays?" Mr. Larkins avers that Keats gave promise of great excellence, and had he lived would have given evidence of the possession of rare powers. We thought that the author of Hyperion had given some evidence of the kind before he died, and that in the precious volume he has left behind him there is something more than the promise of excellence. But the author of this handbook is apparently unable to distinguish between one of the finest geniuses of the century and such pleasing versi- fiers as Kirke White or Robert Bloomfield, for while allowing that the poetry of the former is not of the highest class, he gives him credit for writing poems of the most charming kind ; and of the Farmer's Boy he observes that it has obtained great reputa- tion, displays great poetic talent, and is full of passages of great beauty. On the whole, we incline to think that Mr. Larkins prefers the Farmer's Boy or Beattie's Minstrel, which he warmly praises, to the Hyperion, which is not praised at all, or to the Eve of St. Agnes, although it is said to be full of rich description, and to possess a great charm of romance.
In the notice of the Earl of Clarendon, the writer remarks that his History of the Rebellion " is not distinguished by great excel- lence of style." Be it so. If this is the opinion of Mr. Larkins, he does rightly to express it ; but then what does be mean by asserting a few lines further on that " whatever defects, whether of matter or manner, may be alleged against this work, the style is so attractive, has such an equable, easy, and dignified flow, that it can never cease to be popular ?" '['here is one little word of which the writer makes very curious use. Of L. E. L.'s lmprovisatrice he says, " This is her principal production, though her first and many other productions appeared in the Literary Gazette." Again,—" Though a poet of striking worth, Southey was a remarkable writer of English prose," and again,—" Though a humourist of the very highest character, Hood wrote some poems which may be regarded as among his most valuable writings," as. if it were singular that a good poet should write good prose, or that a fine humourist should also be a poet !
We have said that in the notice of each author Mr. Larkins prints in capitals the works which he considers most worthy of the student's attention. We turn to Shakespeare, and find four comedies mentioned as the best, one of which is Love's Labour Lost, while Twelfth Night has no place in the category. We turn to Milton, and find no mention of Lycidas ; to De Foe, and are struck by the omission of the History of the Plague ; to Sheridan and read a list of six plays, but The Rivals is not in the list ; to Wordsworth, and look in vain for the Ode on Immortality, for Laodamia, for Peter Bell, or for the Old Cumberland Beggar, which are surely amongst the most striking and characteristic of his poems. Moreover, Wordsworth is pre-eminent as a writer of sonnets, a fact which is not mentioned in the Handbook. Mr. Larkins cannot plead want of space as an excuse for this important omission, since he makes room for a silly quotation iu which we are told that the Lake Poets found in their own deep hearts a musical
echo of the song of the lark, and " shaped into words the swelling of their inward faith."
Among the critical judgments pronounced in the volume there are several which will surprise and amuse the well informed reader. We are told that the Masque of Browne, author of the Pastorals, often as a work of art approaches perfection ;" that Mackenzie has more pathos than Sterne ; that much of Tristram Shandy is absolute nonsense ; that Thomson is remarkable for purity of diction, and " was possessed of a true poetical, but not an imaginative genius ;" that the poems of Mickle, who wrote the ballad that charmed Scott and suggested Kenilworth—and also one of the loveliest songs in the language—are almost destitute of poetical excellence ; that the Life of Napoleon is Hazlitt's best work (would it not be nearer the truth to say that it is his worst ?) that Hooker's noble treatise, the Ecclesiastical Polity, is " an advance on the generality of English theological composition " ! and that the poems of Samuel Rogers " lack somewhat of energy," which is true, and "possess the power of touching the finer sensibilities," which, if it be true also, is not worth the saying. Does not all poetry worthy of the name influence the emotions and elevate the soul ? which is, we suppose, what Mr. Larkins means when he talks about the finer sensibilities.
If we are struck by the writer's incapacity as a critic, we are still more surprised at his inaccuracy as a compiler. It may always be said in criticizing criticism that the reviewer is liable to err as well as the writer whose merits or demerits he undertakes to consider, but there can be but one opinion as to the imperative necessity of correctness in the compiler of a handbook. Mr. Larkins is, no doubt, on the whole, more frequently accurate than inaccurate ; but he has a weakness for making mistakes, and whenever the chance of com- mitting a blunder occurs he is almost certain to avail himself of it. The printer's errors in the book are legion, and the grammatical errors are frequent, so that it is scarcely possible to open any page without detecting some omission or commission. Take a few instances of carelessness or ignorance for which the author must be held responsible. It is not true that Ben Jonson wrote a play called the " Epicine," or another called " Cataline," or a third called " Leganus ;" Paley never produced a book on " The Prin- ciples of Moral and Political Economy," nor did Soame Jenkyns write a treatise on the internal evidences of the Christian religion. Jeremy Taylor's great work on casuistry is not known as " Doctor Dubitantium ;" nor did we ever hear before that Steele composed a comedy called the Sober Lover, or that Horace Smith's best poem is an Address to a Nunnery. It is not true that Frances Burney's Evelina is said to have been 'written when she was but fifteen years old, and even the current report that she wrote it at seventeen is utterly without foundation ; it is not true, at least, if we may trust Swift's own account, that his giddiness arose from a cold caught in the garden at Moor Park ; neither is it true that the poet Cowper was placed under the care of Dr. Colton, or that Kirke White was assisted by Mr. Capel Sofft. Mr. Larkins revives the foolish report that Keats was killed by an article in the Quarterly, he makes the extraordinary assertion that the incident which suggested the Rape of the Lock was described with much more beauty in the original form " than in the elaborated poem which afterwards appeared," and the extraordinary blunder of confounding Don Juan with Childe Harold, observing that the former poem "is written in the Spenserian stanza." Some of the errors we have pointed out are what are known as printer's literals, but they are errors which might have been avoided had the writer given the most ordinary attention to the revision of the proofs. Surely in a Handbook of English Literature such attention is no more than readers have a right to claim.
1Ve have said enough to justify our assertion at the outset that this handbook is not one which can be honestly recommended. Indeed, we should have passed it by with the indifference which it merits, were it not that it is dedicated to a Professor of Litera- ture, that it is expressly designed for students, and that it pro- fesses to supply a want which most students may have felt. Un- fortunately the book does not fulfil the object of the writer.
Previous page
