of differences of a Sainte-Beuve with the elevation and insight and sense of unity of an Emerson . It might be prudent to add of this critic in particular what Emerson has said of man in
general, that he is a golden impossibility . But even though the full attainment of our standard should prove impossible, some progress might at least be made towards tempering with judg
ment the all-pervading impressionism
of contemporary litera
ture and life.” 11 Must then the student of the periodical press sit idly down and say that as regards criticism it availeth not for the purposes of the historian ? This conclusion does not necessarily follow from
the foregoing brief statement of varying theories of criticism ; it
does follow that no part of the press demands a more careful analysis than do all the component parts that make up its body of criticism , no part stands in greater need of caution before accepting it without question .
A large part of the criticism of the press has always dealt with literature. The first English literary periodical appeared as far
back as 1680, but it seems to have been scarcely more than a catalogue of books appearing from month to month. It was The History of the Works of the Learned that, for England, in 1699, ushered in the era of literary criticism , and it is of interest
and profit to note its platform : “ We shall be very sparing of our Censures , as remembring our Province is that of Historians and not of Criticks: But at
the same time, when any Books are published relating to our Civil Constitution or the Established Religion , and are so much expected from us, we hope freedom may be allowed us to express our own Sentiments, so far as to show , that we are not Promoters
or Incouragers of Works that tend to make Innovations in either. 11 The Masters of Modern French Criticism , p . 392. The author in this work gives a list ofone hundred and thirty-four critics , with characterizations of many and the chief events in their lives, together with the titles of the works of each . The “ list makes no claim to complete ness ” but is " aimed to record with some fulness the works of the more important writers who are primarily literary critics. ” — The Masters of
Modern French Criticism , pp . 395- 419. J . E . Spingarn gives a chronological table of the chief critical works of the
sixteenth century. - A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance , pp . 332- 333
