truth of form, a masterly technique and a melody and charm which do not characterize the shorter poems. As a specimen of profound psychological insight "Maud" deserves comparison even with the products of Shakespeare's intellect; while the vigor of style, the felicity of diction, and the strength, nobility and purity of conception with which each Idyll of the King is impregnated, bear eloquent testimony to the splendor of a genius which was still far from its zenith when first "Ulysses" and its companion pieces sprang into being.

The College of the City of New York.

FELIX GRENDON.

WASHINGTON IRVING'S PLACE IN AMERICAN

LITERATURE

Washington Irving is properly accorded the first place among the pioneers in American literature. Born shortly after the surrender of Cornwallis to Washington and being the first American writer to exhibit the real, vital spirit of literature, Irving may not inappropriately be called the father of the American republic of letters. Some few critics, it is true, claim this distinction for Charles Brockden Brown, but manifestly without sufficient reason. For the talented Philadelphia romancer never lived to fulfill the promise of his youth and is known chiefly to a few scholars and students of our early literature, whereas Irving's name is almost a household word in America, and his works are still eagerly perused by the great English-reading public and by the scholars alike. Had Brown not been hurried to a premature grave by that dread scourge consumption, he would have accomplished, no doubt, far more than the few morbid and immature novels and miscellaneous essays which he bequeathed as a legacy to the world, and would have left behind him a more enduring name in the field of letters. But in literature as in every other sphere of human activity, men must be judged by actual achievement, not by promise. So Brown's claim to the honor of being the founder of American literature may be dismissed with the Scotch verdict "not proven.'

Unlike his rival Brown/Irving as a writer was perfectly healthy and normal, free from all objectionable idiosyncrasies. Though his physical constitution was never robust, his temperament was that of an optimist. He looked habitually on the bright side of life, and his works reflect, in a remarkable manner his sunny disposition. There is nothing gloomy or pessimistic in his pages. Unlike his contemporary Poe, he is entirely free from the morbid, the weird and the uncanny. Irving, however, did not possess that virile creative imagination which was Poe's most conspicuous characteristic. Irving's plumet could never reach the depths of horror which the imaginative genius of Poe sounded again and again, in his grotesque and weird tales. Irv

ing's constructive faculty and his analytical faculty as well were unquestionably inferior to Poe's. The author of "Knickerbocker" could not have written such a gruesome, analytical tale, for example, as the "Gold Bug," the "Murder of the Rue Morgue," the "Black Cat," or such a weird, supernatural tale as the "Fall of the House of Usher," "William Wilson," or "Ligeia." A story of this character was altogether out of keeping with Irving's taste and feelings, even if it was not beyond the range of his imagination to conceive. On the other hand, Poe, chiefly because of his undeveloped sense of humor, could never have produced such a delightful, pathetic and humorous tale as the inimitable "Rip Van Winkle." Nor would the author of "The Raven" have been content to treat the legends of the Hudson in the simple, whimsical, humorous and charming manner of Irving, without recourse to the grotesque and supernatural. But it is not my purpose to make a comparative study of Poe and Irving.

Irving's early career contained but slight promise of his subsequent success as a man of letters. He at first intended to enter the profession of law, and was, in fact, admitted to the bar; but law was not congenial to his taste. While in a law office, he began to show some indication of his literary bent by writing squibs for the Morning Chronicle, under the pen-name of "Jonathan Oldstyle." But his failing health soon compelled him to abandon his sedentary life in a law office, and he spent two years in foreign travel. Upon his return to New York he undertook, in co-operation with his friend James K. Paulding, the publication of a semi-monthly journal Salmagundi. To this periodical Irving contributed a number of breezy, humorous papers, in the Addisonian style, on the foibles and fads of society. This vivacious and entertaining magazine, which was designed, as the editors expressed it, "simply to instruct the young, reform the old, correct the town, and castigate the age," proved to be a shortlived venture and was abruptly suspended after the twentieth number.

With the publication of "Knickerbocker's History of New York," however, Irving leaped at once into fame and was hailed on both sides of the Atlantic as the coming American author. This bold venture proved an immediate success, and paved the

way for a cordial reception by the English literati when Irving visited the Old World, for the second time, in 1815. The illusion that the author of "Knickerbocker" created by his art and skill was so complete and realistic that some accepted the history at its face value as the bona fide production of a certain Diedrich Knickerbocker. Moreover, some of the old residents of Dutch descent strongly resented the bold and free manner in which the suppositious historian had handled the revered and hallowed traditions and legends of their sturdy ancestors. But the pervading good-natured satire and broad rollicking humor which brightened the pages served to convince the observant reader that the book was fiction, not history, and was evolved from the fertile imagination of some very clever writer.

"Knickerbocker's History of New York" was a happy conception and was largely indebted for its success to the author's characteristic abundant sense of humor. It was this quality that redeemed the burlesque from mere caricature in execution and stamped it an artistic production. The book was written in the vein of Swift, but the satire lacked the sting and bite which the famous Dean of St. Patrick's generally infused into his work. Irving's satire is of a mild type, and his prevading humor robs it of its sting, causing the victim to be amused, not exasperated, at his own foibles. The portraits of the old Dutch governors are sketched with evident pleasure and ease by a hand altogether untrammeled by literary traditions. The freshness and buoyancy of the narrative and the whimsical, charming style combine with the rollicking humor to make the book quite without a parallel in English literature. It is, however, but just to observe that the first few chapters which, by the way, are the product of the collaboration of his brother with Irving, appear somewhat stilted, pompous and pedantic and make the unhappy impression that the authors were feeling their way and were not yet sure of their footing. But the illusion cast over the reader later, as he progresses, makes him forget the weakness of grip which the authors show in the opening chapters. Each of the old Dutch governors of New York is depicted with such minuteness of detail and with such a vividness of incident and with such a mock seriousness of style withal, as they were in turn confronted with

the various problems of state, that the narrative is invested with an air of reality and might readily be taken, on first blush, as veritable history. All in all, the fanciful idea of this piece of historical burlesque and its clever execution seem a stroke of genius, and the result is a masterpiece of humor, unsurpassed in American or English literature. Small wonder that Sir Walter Scott was delighted with the book and laughed heartily over it as he read it aloud to his family. And the world has not yet ceased to read it with interest and zest and to find in it a never-failing source of entertainment and pleasure.

Strange to say, after the manifest "hit" Irving had made in the "first heir of his invention," he did not regard the success of "Knickerbocker's History of New York" as marking out a literary career for himself and pointing his way to fame and fortune. He looked upon the venture rather as a jeu d' esprit than as a serious literary effort indicating the bent of his genius. It was not till the failure of his firm in England, in 1818, where he and his brother had engaged in the hardware business that he decided to adopt literature as a profession. Then for the first time only does Irving seem to have reflected upon the possibilities that a literary career held out to him. His mind once definitely made up, he addressed himself to his literary pursuits with an ardent, unswerving devotion and spurned all offers, however tempting and remunerative, both at home and abroad. Only in one or two instances, years after, when he was no longer a stranger to fame or fortune, did he deviate from his set purpose and consent to accept a diplomatic post at London and subsequently at Madrid.

At thirty-six Irving settled down to literary work in London, and the first product of his labors was the famous "Sketch-Book.” Though resident in the British metropolis, his heart was in America,- on the historic and picturesque Hudson along whose banks, in his earlier years, he had so often roamed and hunted game, in quest of health. Despite the oft-repeated charge of lack of patriotism, Irving is a brilliant illustration of Horace's dictum, Cœlum, non animum, mutant qui trans mare currunt. The "Sketch-Book" is distinctively American, racy and smacks of the soil. The old legends of the Hudson are here clothed