LITERARY GOSSIP.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14830, 22 November 1913, Page 9

LITERARY GOSSIP.

The announcement that Mr G. K. Chesterton is about to join the ranks of playwrights with a new play at the Little Theatre is indeed rare news (says the "Standard"). "G.K.C." has often crossed swords with "G. 8.5 .,, on the usual literary battle-grounds, and evou wrote his biography I In fact, it M largely admitted that in originality of thought and expression he is Bernard Shaw's only rival among "our-timers. . But to challenge the author of "Androcles and the Lion," "Man and Superman," and other Buper-plays on his own ground is a liberty fraught with great promise and prospects for tho English stage.

A series of very curious coincidences is revealed in a letter addressed by Mr Edwin Pugh to the literary papers as follows:— li ln fairness to myself I would like to point out that my book The Snoilcrs'—now on sale in a cheap edition—was published before Mr Rex Beach's "Snoilers' —also on sale' in. a cheap edition; and, to prevent further complications, that my book 'The Stumbling Block was published before Mr Forman's- 'Stumbling Block.' Of Mr Bernard Capes's. recentlyrpublished story, 'Tony's Drum' —my best-known book is entitled 'Tony Drum'—l can only say that here is an instance of the long arm of coincidence being in danger of dislocation."

A few odes of Horace, a short etory by Anatole France, a chapter or two of D'Annunzio, and a titvle Italian or Spanish—these are an average day's reading for Miss- Braddon, who has entered her seventy-seventh year. Her first novel appeared in 1861). Since then Miss Braddon has produced, on an average (the "Mail" says) one novel every eight months, and she is now at work with much energy and pleasure on her seventy-fifth book. Miss Braddon, who is the widow of Mr John Maxwell, tho publisher, is the mother of Mr W. B. Maxwell, whose novel, "Tho Devil's Garden." was recently "banned" by tho libraries. "'My mother." says Mr Maxwell, "has read my book, and I rejoico to say that in spito of this her friends can discern no deterioration of character. ,.

"This book is a piece of nnro devilment," says the author of "The Littleness of Greatness," Mr Sydney J. Endacott. "So it is, but it will give any literary person who picks it up a quarter of an. hour of real amusement," is the comment of the "Spectator." (: Mr Endacott has strung together all the false criticisms he conld get hold of which great men of letters have made upon each other—criticisms, that is, which are at variance with the mature judgment of the world, and a few of which reveal jealousy, prejudice, and an almost wilful failure to understand. Horace Walnole likened Dante to a 'Methodist parson-in Bedlam.' Tho criticism is as witty as representative, and as trenchant as any false criticism can be. It expresses tbo sincere though mistaken thought of a thousand clear heads. . . . There are a number of

young Philistines also who will bo hugely delighted! to read what George Meredith eaid about Temrreon. Of tho 'Holy Grail' he wrote, 'Why, this stuff is not the muse, it's musery.' He calls tho 'Idylls of the King' 'yards of Stnen-drapery for -thb delight of ladies.' The criticism is piercing, it makes a rent in a thing of beauty which can never be mended. Meredith did not understand Tennveon or 'the proud full-sail of his great verse.' The feeling, however, was mutual. Mr l»nda.cott was evidently not aware tha Tenny-

eon once said that "readiug Meredith, was like waving tiirougn glut , , 5 AVhatever made George iieredkh call -Muthew Arnold v <iandy I&aiaJi' FWhat Tolstoy said of Shakespeare ihrows an interesting Jght upon the mind of that great Ku&>iau genius. His conclusions are simply He speaks of Tho lempest, , ■Cynibeluus' .and •Twelfth Night' as 'senseless dramatised talcs.' Ho has nothing better to say of 'King Lear' than that it is •absurd." a production to evoke 'aversion and •weariness.' "

Sir James Barr's statement in a recent lc-eturo ou eugenics that Sterenson -would have written better if he had not suffered from consumption, and thut tho best minds, as a whole, are in the best bodies, has been strou£ly contested. A London publisher told a representative of the "'Standard" that one of the most promising of tho younger-Knglish novelists often suffers twehro hours on end from neuritis before he consents to take the soothing drugs necessary to enable him to resume work. 'This is only a modern instance, of what has been common to all literary history," ho said. <c lfc seems as if iiigh literary talent usually goes with, or is iniDoded by. some physical disorder. WThetber it is tho character of tho work that induces it or not, too, authors who hare no physical complaint often complicate themselves by some moral disorder. Their genius works in odd moments, aud the rest of the timo they arc either ruining their own health or suffering from nn illness congenital to them. Nevertheless, Sir James Barr can give tio sound roawTi for supposing that they would write better if they were less liable to these painful distractions. They would probably write more, because they would have more time, and they might ko»p up a more consistent excellence. But why should it be assumed that a physical frailty, which is intermittent in its action, diminishes tho excellence of the work done when tho sufferer is relieved from it? In fact, on the whole, I should say that rjiswused authors gained from * their diseases, not. indeed, as artists, except whjre the disease is allied to madness and opens the brain to odd visions, but as character?. It is wide experience, whether indncod by disease. or not. work-ins; on a fin» temperament, which improves it, and in the artist comes out ultimately in the form of expression. The worM does not lese bv'men of gonitis with ailments, but it gains by them. 3

Apropos of tho discussion of Dickens's names in tho columns of the Press ft has beeu remarked (says Mr W P James in tho "Evening Standard") that modern novelists have abandoned the enstom of inventing significant names, and the abandonment has been regarded as a mark of progress in art. bigniUcant names, in fact, aro only appropriate and admissible in allegory and comedy. They become inappropriate the moment tho aim is to be realistic. In allegory the personages are virtues and vices, and properly bear their designations on their foreheads. Iliven names like those which so delighted Stevenson—Mr Lingerafterlust or Mr Facing Both Ways-r-are in place. Comedy is a stage further removed. Hie Comic Spirit, says Meredith, has not a thought of persuading you"to believe in him. The fertile field of significant names in our old comedies aro part of the fun, and servo th© purpose of dramatic irony. Accordingly, in tho novel the right or wrong usage of significant names depends on the aim of the # novelist and the character of his notion. • When the novel employs or approaches the spirit and method of allegory or comedy or satire, the significant name may be used with effect or, at least, without offence. Meredith, who was a very conscious writer, was no doubt well aware of this when he christened his Egoist Sir "VVilloughby Pattorno. This is equally without doubt the reason why Thackeray so habitiially indulged his remarkabfe bMII in this direction.

Mr Edmund Gosse says that Mr Galsworthy, and Mr Maxwell, the novelists,' seem to be.effected by an excess of esteem for "authors" as authors. Ihere appears to be in the minds of each of them," ho says, "an idea of the intellectual equality of writers, which, x thank to bo a mere humanitarian fallacy. Mr Galsworthy's scheme of appealing to a sort of Parliament of people who publish books strikes mc as most unfortunate. "What, except an unsound sentiment of trade unionism, can persuade us to regard the great mass of persdns who publish novels—for thaf is what Mr Galsworthy means by 'authors'—as capable of forming a just opinion on tho subject of the censorship of books? Let us clear our minds of cant. There are a yery few intelligences of the highest order, perhaps ten or twelve in a single generation, who give to the facile trade of story-telling a dignity, a purposo, a sincerity, which raises it in their instances to a level with the best poetry, the best history, the best philosophy and biography. - But these elect spirits are a handful, and their voices, m such a plebiscite as Mr Galsworthy suggests, would be out-numbered tenfold by those of tho frivolous, the venal, and the insipidly sentimental majority. What wo need to fight for is tho right to offer to a more restricted pnbhc tho ripest fruits of intelligence, to guard most iealously those liberties of the Press which our fathers painfully won for us. I cannot admit that the mere fact pf writing a book and -persuading a publisher to print it gives every ignoble scribbler the authority to defy, public opinion."

Ten"volumes of the Waverley edition of Dickens have appeared with introductions to each novel by writers of today—"Hard Times," Mr Bernard Shaw; '-Oliver Twist," Mr A C Benson; "Bleak House," Mr Galsworthy • worthy; "Our Mutual Friend." Mr De Morgan ; "David Copperfield," Mr Hall Caino, and so on. Mr Shaw finds in "Hard Times" evidence of Dickens's conversion to the views of the sociologists and socialists. Mr Do Morgan tries to raise t»ie relative position of "Our Mutual Friend" in the estimation of readers,_ bufc certain of tho other "introductions" invite ironical comment. As regards two of them, the "Athenaeum" is decidedly caustic. "The chief purpose served by Mr Galsworthy's introduction to 'Bleak House' (it remarks) seems to bo to inform us wliat was his own reading in fiction up to the age of 30. Aβ to the introduction to 'David Copperfield,' we can only say we think the publishers might have spared us the futility of reading Mr Hall Caine's estimate of Dickens's work. His highest tribute to the great author is a statement that he taught mep 'that God is still present in their lives,' and manifests Himself 'among all sorts and conditions of people, however poor or ignorant or despised.' For one thing, we doubt whether either Dickens or Mr Hall Caino would acknowledge as God what the other calls by that name. Ifc is amusing to wondei what Dickens himself would have said of his 'intrcfci ducers'; and maybe it is as well for some of them that the receiving of communications from the_ dead continues to bo a matter of difficulty."

Now that the ivorks of practically ail the -world's well-known authors, ancient and modern, aTe obtainable in sixpenny or shilling editions, it is possible to get somo idea, of tho proportion of poular favour which each one enjoys. The ' 'Chronicle" has lately collected some facts to d-ecido the question, •'Which are tho best sellers F' and the results aro certainly interesting. In "Everyman's Library/ of which between ten and eleven millions have already been sold, the dozen best sellers havo proved to he: —Lamb's "Tales from Shakespeare," Palgravo'e "Golden Treasury," Blackmare's "Lama D00ne., ,, Dickens's "David Copperfield," Shakespeare's Works, "The

Literary and Historical Atlae of Europe*.' , ■ Scott's "Ivanhoe," Anderson's Fairy Talcs, Kingsley's "Westward Ho!" Robert Browning's Poems, Tennyson's Poems, and Il«adw's "The Cloister and the Hearth." Turni<n<: to Nelson's "sevenponnks," we find Mr H. G. Wells's 'Kipps," heading the list, and followed by "Lady Audley's Secret," "Micah Clarke," ''The Prisoner of Zenda." and "The Four Feathers." Of Cassell's "People's Library," some 2.250.000 copie.% have been sold, the best sellers being "Treasure Islund," "King Solomon's Mines," "Thw Seven Lamps of Architecture,' , "The 'Litt'e Minister," and Shakespeare. In the ••"World's Classics," published by the Oxford University Press, the order is Tennyson, Matthew Arnold, Robert Browning, Mrs Browning, and Keats. The sale of "Bohn's Library" reaches a hiijh future, and in the new shilling edition the demand has been keenest for "Gulliver's Travels," Motley's "Dutch Republic," Sir Richard Birrtoifs "'Pilgrimage to Mecca*" a.nd Lamb's Essays.