Literary Views and Reviews

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29246, 2 July 1960, Page 3

Literary Views and Reviews

AN AMERICAN SCHOLAR VIEWS BUTLER AND “EREWHON” ,

IReviewed by

A. C. BRASSINGTON]

The Cradle of Erewhon. Samuel Butler In New Zealand. By 'Joseph Jones. Melbourne Univ. Press. pp XII and 224. This book has been admirably printed by the University of Texas Printing Division, and just as admiribiy bound in Australia by the* Melbourne University Press, Parkville, Victoria. Numerous illustrations and an excellent critical all add to the pleasurd of the reader. Such a format the original and readable text of Professor Joseph Jones, Professor of English in the University of Texas. We in Canterbury are indeed fortunate in our . American cousin; and if we feel'that we ourselves have neglected publication in this field of research, we may find consolation in -the thought that the job has been so admirably done for us, and on a scale beyond our local resources. There are seventeen illustrations; sixteen pages of appendices, which reprint for the first time four* extracts from “The Press” of 1863, which possibly were written by Butler, and which are in any! case of interest; and also a list and description of eight paintings by Butler, located in New Zealand. There are very full documentary notes on the text, and a comprehensive index. This book is more than a study of Jjamuel Butler in Canterbury. It is indirectly a social study of ourielves, done by a writer with acute powers of observation and a most engaging sense of irony. Oui}. Texan friend has shown in this, book a penetration which conges from nearness to the colonisihg plough, and which appeals at once to oiir understanding. If illustration is required, a comparison with the chapter on New Zealand in Philip Henderson’s “Samuel Butler—The Incarnate Bachelor” will make the point at once. As Professor Jones points out, such statements as Henderson’s, apropos of the possibility of Butler’s being killed and eaten by cannibal Maoris if he had been shipwrecked on the North Island on his way back to England in 1864 .“would be hooted at in New Zealand by Maori and pakeha alike.” Professor Jones says in his introduction; “Had Butler stayed home there would have been no ‘Erewhon* and the world would lack one of its great satires. It would seem, therefore, that rather close attention should have been paid to the milieu out of which so remarkable a book emerged. New Zealand, notwithstanding its obvious bearing upon Butler and his books, has received less notice than it deserves.” Professor Jones sets £)ut to remedy this lack of notice, and his book is partly an to explain and to interpret to the world the background to Butler’s life in Christchurch and at between 1860 •nd $864. ? - To do this it is necessary to convey some impression of the rugged grandeur of the mountains, the loneliness > and isolation of “Mesopotamia,” the extraordinary nature of the Canterbury settlement, and the curious if not unique circumstances of life in Christchurch—the squattocracy, the snobocracy, the freedom and the Victorian restrictions of the place and period. Much therefore has been inclined which in the strictest sense is not relevant to Butler, but which is necessary to explain to overseas readers the surroundings in Canterbury in which Butler worked, both as sbeepfhrmer and journalist, and which is essential also to make Professor Jones’s point, that "Erewhon” was here conceived and cradled; that the combination of physical and cultural enviroment acted in a unique way upon Butler’s mental creative processes; and that a comprehension of the Canterbury scene is therefore of the greatest assistance in understanding how "Erewhon” came to be written. In the face of this task, the author has elected to give all the facts which he has been able to gather. Some passages in the book may seem to local readers to state the obvious, or to be irrelevant; but the general .framework of the book is

sound. Where guesswork occurs. Professor Jones gives all the facts upon which he found his statement, so that the reader may use

his own judgment. It is indeed a task—as the author says “I am aware that whoever meddles with Butler is likely to more hares than he can chase.” The author grapples skilfully with such difficult questions as Butler’s relationship with his father; his later rejection of his book "A First Year in Canterbury Settlement”; his relationship with Charles Paine Pauli; and his general neglect of New Zealand after he had left this country. As to this last point. Professor Jones says “Butler in later years said or wrote so little about his New Zealand sojourn that he might be suspected of suppressing it for some special reason, particularly in view of his attitude toward “A First Year.” Mrs Godley, however, ac-. cording to the testimony of her granddaughter, was similarly taciturn: “Looking back, I cannot recall that she ever spoke much of her New Zealand experiences. They were stored in her mind; but she disliked talking of herself, and seldom did so, except for very special reasons ... It seemed almost impossible to asspciate her with the primitive life—to . use their friend Mr Fitz Gerald’s words—‘one the shores of a scarcely inhabited island’.”— “Letters from Early New Zealand pp. XVHI-XIX.” Professor Jones says: “The most picturesque and exciting time of Samuel Butler’s life was the part that he wanted least known. During the New Zealand days themselves, to be sure, he showed little enough of the feline instinct for concealment that later became so prominent a trait in his character. . . .

Because he strove so mightily to win and preserve the reputation of sage rationalist, he was compelled to suppress the romantic that was in him. Was it compatible with a position of sage rationr/lty that he had begun his career as a colonial? It was not; therefore he chose to let people believe that he had really not begun it thus; that the New Zealand years were a freakish interlude of no lasting significance." Butler owed a great deal to his intellectual contacts in Christchurch, although it must be conceded that his full mental development could not have taken place had he remained here. As Professor Jones says, ' “Christchurch liked a man of intelligence with literary pretensions, for the reason that all the leading citizens were men of intelligence and not a few had literary abilities if not pretensions. Until quite recent years, the story of literature in New Zealand has been one of potential talents too often submerged in practical affairs—the usual pattern in new areas.” Butler’s membership of the Christchurch Club, the agitation over the Lyttelton tunnel, the opening of'the railway to Ferrymead, and the work done for “The Press” are all well covered in this book. As the. author says in his preface: “It is to be hoped that someqke on the ground may undertake the considerable task of rounding up the miscellaneous Butleriana that must still exist there, with the aim of studying definitively Butler’s reputation in the land that had so much to do with his entry into the world of letters.

There are Some errors of detail in this book, and the author has had to do his best with the illustrations available to him. • Yet minor matters in no way detract from the merit of the over-all picture—indeed the question remains in this reviewer’s mind. “Who but ar Outsider could have carried out the task of interpretation?” It is, after all, a case of seeing ourselves as others see us. Professor Jones has shown convincingly that' Butler’s life and thought can better be understood by those who can inform themselves as to his life in the formative years in Canterbury, which Professor Jones calls “The Cradle of Erewhon.” He. rightly stresses the importance of “The Press” to Butler’s literary career,, “As on of “The Press” coterie, Butler proved himself capable of standing up to a vigorous marshalling of ideas even as he had stood up to the mustering of recalcitrant sheep.” The chapter on the “Ethnology

of Erewhon,” in which Professor Jones deals with the Maoris and their influence On Butler, is original and stimulating and must be studied all the more so because one’s first impulse is to reject some of the author’s inferences. This reviewer still-cher-ishes a private belief, founded on inadequate grounds, that the Erewhonian statues were found up Forest Creek and that there is no need to go to Easter Island with Professor Jones. There are many other points which arouse interest;, and most of them afford more than ample cause for argument. Professor Jones, as a lone pioneer, shoots quickly and inquires later. That «e is at times trigger happy goes without saying. At the end of the day he has a full bag/ with perhaps something illicit:— but still very sporting! It was in Christchurch that Butler met Charles Paine Pauli, an Oxford man employed on the editorial staff pf “The Press.” Butler was then twenty-eight and Pauh three years younger. As is well known, Butler gave Pauli financial assistance to return to England for the cure of a mouth-and-throat infection, and not only accompanied him home but kept him a time in his rooms at Clifford’s Inn. For some thirty years Pauli accented a regular monthly allowance from Butler, until Pauli’s death in 1887. Professor Jones Is content to comment, "suspicion: easily weaves dark webs around so curious an association, but the only facts we have are noncommittaL” Professor Johes is of course familiar with Malcolm Muggeridge’s attack on this relationship in his book “The Ernest Atheist” published in 1936, and perhaps the state of opinion even now precludes a frank public discussion of this aspect of Butler’s life. Butler’s homosexuality is however of great importance in understanding many aspects of his life and the development of his ideas. It may explain a certain neglect of Butler in "Christchurch for many years after he left. As Charlotte Godley wrote in 1851, “In a Colony, one comes across such curious people; it seems very ungracious to say so, but unconsciously one becomes almost a little afraid of newcomers, unless one knows something about them”—a remark still valid in Christchurch today. . Professor Jones copes perceptively with Butler’s relations with his father. He attempts to answer the question “Why did Butler later repudiate ‘A First Year in Canterbury Settlement’?” This book is accounted one of the best ever written about early Canterbury. It is a good book. Why was Butler so ashamed of it? Here again the ghost of Pauli intrudes—and we must remember Professor Jones's admonition against starting Butlerian hares. “The.CradiSPof Erewhon” is a pioneering venture. The author does not claim complete accuracy m every detail although the book contains curious information which will delight and surprise local readers. It is the work of a scholar with a keen sense of humour and the , rare power of evoking past Stenes. Headers must be grateftil to Professor Jones, to the Fulbright Foundation andto the University of Texas ' for a book which for Butleriaps! ik'rissiHitial, and even for Butler’s •'nice, people” a stimulus and a challenge.