Show curiosities of criticism chicago itier A writer fur for one of the art periodicals als las hat been at some trouble to gat gather lier under the head beat of t curios hits of Cr many of the con crip temporary craty opinions of the merit meriu d f old writ writer erti ed by men of ol 01 greater or destier note there ie is not so much that ie is curious about them however it is i hardly culi ous that meu men should estian ale ate differently ferent ly tile art that comes coules under their it is leiv aa curious baill that there should bri be exception al A dissing fam it common verdict there is i nothing extraordinary iu in wallers waller notion that Jar adibe lost is is a tedious poem or in his bia baying if juita its bength be becot not consid ered a merit it hath bath no other A all it minds winds even evert educated mauds nil lid sarc are not equally with thoeub of immortal biot poem m comparatively low people have ever read it through and many of abuse who have stir secretly etly confess portions oi of it were all but tirca tiresome oine chapman was rather hard on oil virgil aud and liger had not much focay to pay iu in u praise ot of rower and many wany theto were who had bad hut but a ai blighting regard of shakespeare thalo ins dot been a writer of note now afrula the time of the tile prophets who has uit had bad his detractor his critte bie his readers Vu jole pole dante I 1 0 U iu in bedlam allam li u kind of t luw ur or no bawor at all keale keas bh bahaley Aley bulwer buler and iu in our wa un li find other poet I 1 w ri 1 1 l aud wu ow t inoel ro roaul lit ril catl d I 1 hue of an art have been belen praised oil the oue hand and td at lit ou on the mothr made lauch of by one clique and utterly by another buch euch diversity ot of OpiL i liun among content morag antera 43 it 3 would be difficult indeed to determine the elie worth of uny any arti tie work or tiiu ut at ar untie work afre tre laere int re uc cep septable ible table us a criticism 1 two 01 opinion jillions as to the ile merit 11 1 t 1 0 or 1 beauty ol 01 a thing are not ze ait ot 1 criticism 1 ahey I hey wy not be critic Mil in at tit all burly it 11 was vas not critic itin when Gat gabiner itier us gertta 11 A that moliere wrote like u pig flinging of smart epithets couro wit ur or gro georg slanders is is aw u far removed moved irom froin critic istia as ia dog mati assertion is from argument li ar ence euce of opinion do not more wore prove llie file fallibility of human thau they the varieties e of natural nat urril or acquired tat 1 a DH crell ent generations think dif etan standards dards of oni ome not alwais being belog accepted as the standards of a lati laier r geuer alion it bir edward coke copie vard in declaring that bacotte Ba cotie deerve 4 not ito tu to be riad rad in ia echko ec hoop hoo but to bo bd freighted td in ili the hp of look mod ernthie ern thin kera while affe affecting cling arfa great reverence fur for the philosophic genius of a devote oud little time to nailing bis id works at and d those who have a loving fir for dante are as its u in as hen s d teeth tooth however likes ami aud dist dieikes di likes pre and I 1 while hilo they i h individual tastes and met et f rth per personal jonal opinion opinions do not conelli ute they inal may boar upa crit is 3 dot inan 0 opinion but one man i seblo led aud and fittl judgment criticism is U r rational not emotional is logical and dt simply asef tive and one gila mans criticism ia is not by any as good as a another the tile orilia roay way approve tip ve rem bably what ciul tic he dot uit ut like esou s lil or cun con itri ionin a spurious us thai that which is vitt t ly pleasing ii to bis his own senst lilii we but because all aorta of inn men give to all cortti of vita it alere ia not dot a 1 or stu t ti 1 ol 01 I critic crita 10 i ak waller aller t tj ri lara ia 1 i tel ted u 1 sa s1 mii ir i I 1 I 1 ikirt 1 i ja i n t it in lk I 1 li r 1 p il i uce ui awl ait t 11 va u 1 i 11 t i j for waller made no criticism critic iem 0 of the poem he ile simply did not find pleasure ili in reading it and that was enough lor for him lie ile did not trouble himself to dc demonstrate log icalla and reasonably 0 that ta it had no other merit than its length we can spy out true from the partene pr tene of ria by the help of reason criticism has premises pre mues argument and monc conclusion lusion and is is not an opinion but a it demonstration failing this thit if it amount amour to no more than a declaration influential in proportion to its it vigor mid anti the ab sence of investigation of its logic we are mt t convinced that moliere wrote hla u h pig aa because is lutier laid so the wa ivas fou lill in in that it lacked the evidence that the evidence that x pi pig can write rite this is is au all instance in stanco of asser assertion tiou that is 13 opinion but is is not criticism it is no easier to err in ia than thin tr to err in in a mathematical demou stra tion lion but if answers are not no t in I 1 a con coll with one another we know alera has been a e elip aigle in a dis bernable part of th the 0 pro in though he lie figurato figi figu iret rats rn ty the |