ENGLISH REVIEWS. CONCERNING "FOREIGNERS."

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 09, 11 January 1908, Page 12

ENGLISH REVIEWS. CONCERNING "FOREIGNERS."

Mr. Andrew Lang gossips thus pleasantly in the New York Evening Post: — It is not easy for foreigners to estimate the influence of this or that literary periodical in an alien land. I shall take it for granted that the citizen of the United States is a "foreigner" in England ; though as Sir Leslie Stephen said while contemplating a photograph of Prof. Brander Matthews, "iie does not look like a foreigner." To take another example : One of the many second-sighted men in Glencoe, in the middle of last century, used to see a certain piece of land covered with soldiers in a uniform unknown to the British army. "We are to be invaded and' conquered," he was wont to say, on the strength of his visions, "but the men I see do not look like foreigners. It will be an American invasion!" When tha volunteer movement began, the local contingent mustered and drilled on the ground which the visionary invaders had occupied, and in the quiet uniform which they had seemed to wear. f hese instances hint that we do not regard Americans as "foreigners," though, S they like it, we may gratify them with the title. The foreigner who prompts my remarks is the editor of the North American Review, with his note, "As Our Cousins Behold us," in j-he October number of his magazine. He distrusts English professions of friendship to our cousins, his fellow-countrymen ; to him they have "sounded ho\low and insincere." Now I do not myself believe in passionate and lasting affections between any two nations. If their interests become antagonistic they will be much less than friendly ; and, at best, they are as critical of each other as girls : that is, their journalists and public writers are. It is silly, it is girlish, but such is human nature. We spar with each other about the American accents — there are many — and about the British accents, which are like the sandb of tho sea for multitude. We wrangle about idioms and neologisms ; even about national skill in cookery. But I can honestly say that, for all I know, Americans, collectively and individually, are, in our country, "tho most favoured nation", of foreigners. As a Scot I may prefer "our ould allies" of fair France, thanks to historical sentiment, but the public is not historical, and Ts not with me. Meanwhile the editor of the North American Review tjiinks that "the fan-ous Saturday Review" 19 "secretly cherished," because it expresses our "true spirit," a spirit of, "selfishness 'and enmity." The Saturday Review, as far as I am aware, has long ago ceased to be "famous," I never read it, and do not know what spirit it expresses ; I have not seen a copy of it in any house for many years. This may be a ' mere accident, or the "cherishing 1 ' was secret ; but the Saturday Review began to droop its wing after a ten years' flight, and, about 1868, was correctly described by a popular critic as "a little not so much read as it used to be." Itp "fame 1 " was acquired in 1856-186&, or, thereabouts ; and, while I was a- contributor, about 1875-1890, its decline in influence was only too conspicuous — perhaps that was by my fault/ 1 do not Jcnow that it was worse written than it had been in its prime, but "the gambol had been shown," and no longer amused the public. Perhaps the paper was too scholarly for a new generation ; but the nqw generation said that it wus too dull, and the political tone, was disliked. Finally the family of the founder parted with the paper ; the old staff was scattered, and the Spectator, I believe, flourished in its turn. As has been remarked, I do not see the Saturday Review in the houses wheue, of old, it was a welcome guest; and concerning its qualities and opinions, I can offer no criticism^ as I know nothing/ Still, I do not 'think that it can be regarded, as typical of .British opinion, or o.f any large section of British society. 'Of old it mainly represented some kinds of Oxford men, and perhaps those \rhQ were known as "Tho Trinity Sniffers," and a section of the High Church party ; and Professor Freeman, and those wlio disliko Dickens. Famous foT 'vi while, the Saturday was, but it never was or wished to be, popular. ' ' In - the same way, whep the editor of tho North American Review calls the Academy "a m ell-known and representative literary periodical," I cannot agree, with him. The Academy arose, early in the seventies, with a design to be a much more severe and erudite Athenaeum; it was then published by Mr. MuiTay : It was never a success, never "caught on 1 ' ; and was not more popular than that austere and valuable oi^an of the learned La Revue Critique. Mr. Murray dropped the Academy ; I fqrget 'who took it up, and after long services to persons interested in the Hittites and othef severe topics dear to me, a series of efforts to make - the Academy popular appear to have proved unsuccessful. A* one time it was amusing, by dint of its misprints, culminating "Hlien it could not spoil its own name, and called itself the Acadamy, or.^ at least spelled "academy" "acadamy," In the spring of the present year the [paper again changed 'hands ; showed much regietful interest in the 'late author of "Lady Wjnderaere'a Fan,' 1 and began tt» publish articles impinging on religious, educational, and social questions, charging etrongly against Nonconformists and the bourgeoisie. I do not think the paper can be styled "well known" ; a glance at its advertisements does not encourage the belief that it is popular and if it is representative it represents a peculiar school of literary people, and of leljgious persons.