NOTES

New Zealand Tablet, 10 April 1919, Page 27

NOTES

Longfellow It is customary for some supercilious would-be literary persons to dismiss Longfellow with a, pitying smile as R he were on a plane beneath their intelligence, let Lafcad 10 Hearn used to say that the man who has not loved Longfellow as a boy is unlikely to appreciate poetry or to have an opinion about it worth while heariug. Andrew Lang was another first-rate critic who loved Longfellow and wrote warmly in praise of his verse. Kipling and J. H. Shorthouse have testified to his marvellous knowledge of the sea. Fitzgerald could read him with delight for the sake of the stories he told so beautifully, so humanly. His metrical translation of (ho poets’ poet. Dante, is by far the best we have. Do not mind the hyper-critics and-the supermen. Read your Longfellow and revel frankly and honestly as your heart will dictate in his inspiration. He is always pure, always sound and sane, always beautiful. And for the man in the street these things count more than the highest flights of Pegasus among the clouds, To a boy born and bred beside a highway to the sea, to one whose young dreams were filled with tall ships and white sails and with the ebb and flow ol tides, no verse will ever again mean so much as Longfellow’s— I remember the black wharves and the ships And the sea-tides tossing free; And Spanish sailors with bearded lips, And the beauty and mystery of the ships, And the magic of the sea.”

Criticism Granted that the English writers who can seize the secret of a book as the French can are few, the majority who cannot need rules for guidance in the art of reviewing. Robert Lynd offers a few helpful suggestions in liveryman. A Sainte-Beuve, or a Taine would be above learning from him, as would also a Barry ora Lionel Johnson, but for the average critic the hints are sound guidance enough. He holds that a reviewer ought to aim at portraying a book, that his remarks ought to be an answer to the question, “What is the book like?’ In the effort to answer rightly the critic is proved. He must not treat of the book as an academic thing unconnected with life; “he must not make literature as dull as stuffed birds.” The personality and the message ol the author must be revealed to the reader. It is sometimes said that lazy critics avoid their duty by quoting extracts from the author and that this ought to be condemned. Mr. Lynd does not' think so. He holds that the talent for selecting good passages is one of the prim© gifts of a good reviewer and that proper quotation is by no means the mark of an indolent journalist. His opinion is certainly in accordance with his conception of the critic’s business, for nothing will so much help one to get a true idea of a book as judicious extracts. Few will disagree with Mr. Lynd when he says that “the perfect review is the review that introduces to a book those who would it, and enables those who would not enjoy it to steer clear of it.”

Prohibition Professor Salmon tells us that 126 gallons of wine were miraculously made out of water by Christ at the Marriage Feast of Cana, the Saviour thus endorsing the custom of drinking wine to gladden the heart and <-0 iv in la tue kindlier emotions of the soul. Prohibition would condemn Him for that, Prohibition would remove

from the Bible all reference to the use of wine a Prohibition Bible would read somewhat in this way: “Eat of this -bread and drink of this narcotic poison” ; “take a little of this poison for your stomach’s sake”; “narcotic poison gladdens the heart of man.” In a word, the Prohibitionists would substitute the Koran for the Bible and turn us all into Mohammedans. They would reform not only us but even our Lord Himself. Why not. reform the things that need reform? Why not tackle the plunder of the poor by a rich man’s Government, the immorality which is the result of schools that boycott God, the lack of reverence for parents, and the evil, language too common in public places ? Apparently these things demand common sense in reformers. The “ Reign of Saints” Oliver Cromwell selected for his Parliament men distinguished -rather fox- fanaticism than fox* common sense and principle. They were to make a distracted country into a Garden of Eden : they were to banish sin and frivolity. They had good intentions but they were a pack of simpletons. Cromwell thus sums up the result of trying to legislate morality into a people : “I will not tell you a story of my own weakness and folly. . . . The issue was not answerable to the simplicity and honesty of the design. ... I am now more, troubled with the fool than with the knave.'” Puritan efforts to introduce the Reign of Saints by law never succeeded in doing more than introducing sourfaced fanatics, gloomy, cruel, heartless ranters. The fanatics of the past are gone ; Prohibitionists are their lineal descendants. What was good enough for Christ is not good enough for them. He tolerated and used wine although He condemned drunkenness and excluded drunkards from the Kingdom of Heaven. Prohibitionists tacitly claim to be wiser and more perfect than He was. Their attitude is little short of blasphemous. Whither ? Henry VIII. enacted that since many evils “have happened as well to the souls as to the bodies of men” from gluttony, our Lox-d the King, desiring the common profit, commands that no man shall be served with more than two courses. Taxes have been put on windows. Gold ornaments have-been forbidden. It was ordained that no furniture should be used other than that made by axe and saw. These sumptuary laws have been repealed by the common sense of the people, as all sumptuary laws must be in time. Such laws are the result of the victory of fanaticism and ignorance over common sense and they cannot last. But the danger is that if the people sleep there is no knowing whither the wowsers will lead them. Adam Smith says of such sumptuary laws that “it is an impertinence and presumption for governments to pry into private life.” This is exactly what Prohibitionists want the Government to do. A Prohibitionist and impertinence are almost convertible terms. Prohibition is beyond the normal functions of legislation. It is tyranny and impertinence. It is an offensive and outrageous criticism on the practice and the example of Christ. No Christian ought to support it under any consideration.