The Press Saturday, December 19, 1925. A Gigantic Memorial.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18569, 19 December 1925, Page 16

The Press Saturday, December 19, 1925. A Gigantic Memorial.

That proposal from Spain, o£ ■which we had word by cable last week, to erect a gigantic monument to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza at a cost of a« million sterling, may seem to some the product of an American reporter's holiday, but there is nothing impossible in its birth. The Continent loves gestures like this. The English do not put up expensive memorials to their literary giants or their characters. No visitor to England, British or foreign, carries away any striking impression of memorials to Shakespeare, or to Dickens. There is, it is true, the Scott Memorial in Edinburgh, but that is not England. Nothing approaching a million has ever been raised for a Shakespeare memorial in his native land. Had it this sum the committee appointed to promote a national theatre as a memorial could proceed with the work, but as things arc the project halts quarter or half way. In Europe, however, they like spending great sums on such objects. They appreciate outward and visible signs of national homage. Art is in the blood and calls for expression. According to the message about this Spanish memorial, it is hoped to raise large sums in America, but it would not be a surprise if Spain, a poor country, put England to shame in the money it subscribes to honour its most famous writer.

There are two points—apart from the size of the figures—to notice abont this proposal. One is that Don Quixote belongs to the world to an extent not surpassed in all literature. Of books that belong to the 'whole body of civilised mankind there are very few, and "Don Quixote" is one of them. We may say, indeed, that it is the most popular novel or romance ever written. It is not only that it has been translated into every language, but that its central figure conveys something to educated men'the world over. Millions who have not read the adventures of Don Quixote recognise his figure, or at least know -what is meant by the word "quixotic." Quixote is one of the great foojs of literature, and the world has taken him to its heart. He is, however, much more than a fool; he is a gallant gentleman. Professor H. J. C. Grierson says of him in his interesting war-time study of the book, that he has the courage of his class, the courage of those who have been taught to think of cowardice as impossible for them, but also the courage of the Spanish saint and martyr. Yet he is madman too. He combines all the forms of madness which Shakespeare records —the lunatic's, the lover's, and the poet's. But in his madness is the stuff of which all idealists are made, the building of belief upon imagination and desire, and the pursuit of ideals with no thought of self. "This I can declare for myself, " says Don Quixote, " that since I have been " a knight-errant, I have become valiant, civil, liberal, affable, patient, a " sufferer of toils, imprisonments, and "enchantments; and though it be so "little a while since I saw myself " locked up in a cage like a madman, " yet I expect by the valour of my arm, " Heaven favouring, and Fortune not " opposing, in a few days to see my"self king of a realm in -which I may "display the gratitude and liberality " enclosed in this breast of mine." Is this very different in spirit, asks Professor Grierson, from the Christian spirit as expounded by St. Paul? The Professor traces the influence of " Don " Quixote " in English literature. Fielding was profoundly impressed by the book, and saw its deeper significance. Parson Adams is a " muscular, absent- " minded Don Quixote." The chapter ■where Adams is stranded, and in certain expectation of help appeals to the vicar of the parish, illustrates the resemblance. "It is sufficient to say that " Don Quixote was not more mistaken " when he took sheep for knights and " windmills for giants, than was Parson "Adams when he took for granted "that a Christian pastor would wel"come an opportunity for laying up " treasure in a better place than any " this world affords." Thackeray and Dickens both wrought in the Quixotic spirit What is Mr Pickwick but another Don Quixote? "His soul will " never starve for exploits or cx- " eiteraen'ts who is wise enough to be " made a fool of," says Mr Chesterton of Pickwick. "He will make hMself " happy in the traps that have been "laid for him; he will roll in their

"nets and sleep. ... It is the

" hospitality of circtunstancc. With "torches and trumpets like a guest, "the greenhorn is taken in by Life " and the sceptic is cast out by it." The other point to be noticed about this proposed memorial is the propriety of commemorating an author through his characters. For often a character is much more vivid than its creator. Wo have a much clearer vision of Hamlet than of Shakespeare, of Mr Micawber than of Dickens, of Colonel Newcome than of Thackeray. The figure of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens makes a much" better memorial to the genius of his creator than would a statue of Barrie. The Americans are putting up a memorial representing Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, an admirable idea, for what better monument could there be to the achievement of Mark Twain than a representation of this vitally alive pair? Cervantes himself is little but a shadow. Very few people have any idea of his appearance. Don Quixote, however, is very much alive. The name at once calls up the long, thin, melancholy figure of the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance. So no more arresting memorial to Cervantes could be erected than a statue of the character in whom his immortality resides.

The Gaming Law. It is difficult to sec how the Magistrate could do other than convict the "Wellington newspaper which was prosecuted for breaking that section of the Gaming Act which prohibits the publication of information concerning dividends on horse-races. It is still more difficult to see, however, that the newspaper's offence can have done any injury to any person or infringed any sound principle or run counter to any public interest. This is to say that the statutory command which was disobeyed has no foundation in reason or in common sense, but is tyrannical, arbitrary, stupid, and aselcss. What is more, everybody knows this, with the exception, perhaps, of a handful of innocent creatures who have been persuaded that the publication of dividends in the newspapers will increase " the gambling evil." Publication would perhaps not affect " the gambling evil" one way or the other, but if it affected the volume of betting at all, it would decrease it, by demonstrating to those who do not go to races that dividends are as a rule moderate, and that the odds are strongly and steadily against one's making money at the races. As a matter of fact the majority of racegoers do not expect to make money. They know they will often lose and hope <hey will sometimes -rc-ra, and they are satisfied if they do not always lose. A few foolish people bet more than they can afford, and actually think they can find betting against the field profitable, but there is almost no social institution, no social custom, no piece of social apparatus, against which a case as strong as the case against betting cannot be made. There is positively nothing to be said for .the prohibition of the publication of dividends, and there is much to be said against it. Nothing stronger requires to be said than that it is idiotic to forbid the newspapers to publish what the law otherwise compels the racing clubs to publish to tens of thousands three miles away and cannot prevent from being published by and to everyone interested from Auckland to Bluff. But there is also the impropriety of forbidding newspapers to print harmless facts of general interest. Many people wonder why this silly prohibition has been maintained in spite of the conclusive case against it which has been established over and over again inside and outside Parliament. The reason is that hitherto the Parliamentary friends of the bookmaker —chiefly the Labour Party—have been able in conjunction with those perhaps well-intentioned but absurdly misinformed members who represent the "social reformers"," to make a substantial amendment of the gaming laws too difficult for the Government to spend time upon. These social reformers have been told over and over again that they are the joy and the darlings of the professional gambler, who without them would be forced to look for some other way of earning, a living. But they arc rather obstinate and arrogant people, and some of them would be sorry to put the bookmaker out of business, feeling - that his presence helps them in their campaign against the Turf. We shall be disappointed and surprised if the new Parliament does not show that it is capable of making those amendments in the gaming laws which have hitherto been obstructed by this curious combination of professionals—the professional gamblers and the professional opponents of racing.