Page:Literary studies by Joseph Jacobs.djvu/18

may be roughly described as the aesthetic and the psychological. The former goes straight to the literary products themselves, and seeks to determine their aptitude for exerting the specific literary emotions often reflecting the critic's own feelings in the rhythm and beauty of his language. This is the method of Lamb and Mr. Swinburne, and (in his best moments) Mr. Matthew Arnold. The other or psychological method looks rather to the literary producer, and endeavours to ascertain those qualities of the author's mind that would produce such and such results. Mr. Leslie Stephen pursued this method during his Hours in a Library, and Mr. Morley and Mr. Hutton afford other instances of its use.' I need scarcely say to which of these two methods the present essays belong. By natural bent, by training I have some claims to be an expert in psychology I belong to the psychological school. To be of the aesthetic school is only given to those who are something more than critics. They are the artists in criticism; nous autres must be content with being scientific, though even we may attempt to give such artistic form to our work as science allows. Each school has its province. I have tried to show above that the psychological method has a fit application at moments when we are thinking of the literary qualities of an author's mind rather than the literary effect of his works.