Letter from Fleeming Jenkin, Edinburgh, to W. E. Henley, 1881 May 19 : autograph manuscript signed.

Discussing, at length, the nature of criticism; saying "There are two or three points I should like you to consider - one is the nature of criticism - its possible development, utility, etc - My diatribes (see MA 1617.253), ultimately sprang form your articles in our Times (including Romeo & Juliet) You in print in those articles stalk around & say this is good, this is bad - and you don't say much more - It is the record of a personal impression - Now when is the record of personal impression interesting? First of all among friends always - It is devilish funny to hear every ones impression - if it only is honest - a real impression, not a mere echo of newspaper critics - secondly the personal impression of very remarkable people is not only interesting but worth recording, worth printing - I am interested in knowing what Frederick the Great thought of Gerard Dow; but I am firmly of opinion that the mere personal impression even of a tolerable judge is not worth printing - Your answer to my painting indictment against you is 'Tu quoque' - never was an answer less applicable - chatting in an armchair I let anyone who cares to listen hear all my admirations & contempts - But I would never go down into the great waters of the world & hulloo out my personal preferences & call them right & others wrong - Now that was what put my back up - on double grounds - First the sin against the duty of natural respect & reverence for the best artists of the day - merely from that point, to have a fellow patronisingly telling millions that there is nothing interesting in such & such a picture, makes one ask oneself - who is this chap? But secondly from the conviction that remarks of that kind are not criticism & would be unworthy of a critic even if he were writing of a Holl of something much smaller - In private call Millais a quack - vulgar, uninteresting - say he can't colour draw or paint has no artistic faculty - and you will interest me - I will not call you conceited or ignorant or any other bad names...I will do just the same myself - But when you have the chance of affecting the opinions of a large number of people who do not know you, then I protest you should criticize & not merely record a personal impression - So far as I see, criticism in print, useful criticism, or rather useful critical articles are of three kinds - first the sign post species - This is a mere news giving article - in this the writer tells the public what sort of entertainment is going on in such a theatre, what sort of pictures are being exhibited, so that each section of the public may know whether it is the sort of thing it would like to hear or see - This is what the daily newspaper wants & more or less gets - When I read my Times or Scotsman, I know roughly the sort of play [illegible] is & what sort of exhibition the Grosvenor is - this is a humble but useful article - Secondly comes the Literary article - In this the reader is supposed to have read his newspaper & to read the critical article for its literary merits - In these what judgments are given are motivé - they depend for their weight on their intrinsic merit - This is the French Feuilleton at its best, from Diderot downwards - Anecdote, wit, good writing form the staple & where the impression really is personal a thousand artifices employed to conceal it - a reminiscence of a conversation on the subject with Ingres or Delacroix or Berlioz is a very common & vulgar way of covering the personal judgement...'I am nothing says the critic but you see I am familiar with the daily conversation of all the great masters & the [illegible] is impressed - Thirdly comes the criticism of the teacher - the sort of criticism I suggested to you in my few remarks on your musical abilities - Ruskin has done work of this kind - at this moment I cannot call to mind any one else living...but even here the record of the personal impression is worthless the peculiarity which gives the charm or raises disgust has to be picked out specifically & so written about as somehow or other to call up in the mind of the reader the feeling which the critic felt;" discussing, at length, the meaning of the word artist and artistic; asking "By the way why do you suppose I don't like Millet - any etchings of his I have seen have been precious good - I said his Turkey farm was bad & I stick to it - (Don't you see how desperately flat your attack on my claim to absolute knowledge falls? Don't you see how easy I let you down about the blind man & the optics...I have not sent Colvin a play and I am exceedingly sorry that he knows of my effort - I am indeed - I wish you or Louis would ask him to keep his counsel very close - I am horribly annoyed at this - for he is a centre for diffusion of knowledge - As to his literary criticism I do not know much about it - If there had been no Saintsbury I might have sent Colvin a copy - but so far as I can see, Saintsbury is a better judge of the sort of things I don't care for then Colvin is - a saner simpler judge - and it is his business...I do not know that I shall ever write anything in verse - probably not - I am too much penetrated by the hellish difficulty of it - but just in case of being tempted to sup by the devil I thought I'd have a long spoon ready - Besides the little introduction to prose which I have had made me curious to look behind the scenes at poetry and see what queer devices were employed to produce the effects I admired so much - I shall read a lot of literature about it - I am plodding away through Dr. Guest - a sane sort of person - I see he does not know everything and in one place he comes a howling cropper - Imagine a man who has a good ear for verse & great knowledge scanning a whole lot of lines this fashion;" quoting from a metric analysis of a line of poetry and adding "and Guest is not an ass - I shall believe in Lewis when I see him - oh, Damn it about Colvin / I am vexed."