_We are accustomed these later years to think of Mr. James as novelist rather than literary essayist and he has been cited by a recent writer as an author of fiction who becomes a critic on occasion and, he also adds, that his analytical system of novel writing excellently fits him for the office of critic; but, on the contrary, the papers in this volume seem to show that his early self-training as a critic has been the preparation for the creation of his characters in fiction._
_The true lover of Mr. James's work feels the same delightful sense of intimate discovery in touching these early papers that an artist does in finding a portfolio of early sketches by a beloved master whose developed power and strength is known to him. There is the recognition of the characteristic touch even here--the insight, the thought within a thought, (more lately the despair of privileged psychologic athletes), the mystery of seeing--not what is apparent to the outward eye but what we fancied we concealed successfully within our inmost selves. There is the extraordinary sense of his having put on paper what we really thought--what we now think--that gives us more faith than ever in our artist who is expression for us who feel, but who are yet dumb._
THE POETRY OF WILLIAM MORRIS I. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JASON 63 II. THE EARTHLY PARADISE 71
THE POETRY OF GEORGE ELIOT I. THE SPANISH GYPSY 113 II. THE LEGEND OF JUBAL 138
TENNYSON'S DRAMA I. QUEEN MARY 165 II. HAROLD 196
CONTEMPORARY NOTES ON WHISTLER VS. RUSKIN I. THE SUIT FOR LIBEL 207 II. MR. WHISTLER'S REJOINDER 211
Originally published in _The Atlantic Monthly_, October, 1866.
This essay was written in 1866 before _Middlemarch_ or _Daniel Deronda_ had appeared. The former work was published in 1871-72 and the latter book in 1876. It was afterwards discussed at length by Mr. James in "Daniel Deronda: a Conversation," originally contributed to the _Atlantic Monthly_, December, 1876, and reprinted in 1888 in _Partial Portraits_.
The critic's first duty in the presence of an author's collective works is to seek out some key to his method, some utterance of his literary convictions, some indication of his ruling theory. The amount of labour involved in an inquiry of this kind will depend very much upon the author. In some cases the critic will find express declarations; in other cases he will have to content himself with conscientious inductions. In a writer so fond of digressions as George Eliot, he has reason to expect that broad evidences of artistic faith will not be wanting. He finds in _Adam Bede_ the following passage:--