THE ADMIRABLE CRICHTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXI, Issue 13343, 23 January 1904, Page 6

THE ADMIRABLE CRICHTON.

’ The Admirable Crichton; it seems necessary to remind' this age that knows not H-.urison Ainsworth, was not a butler by profession. It has remained for Mr J. 'M. Barrio to degrade the prodigious scholar of the sixteenth century. The Crichton, who has become a proverb was almost everything he ought to have been, and one or two things which ho ought not to have been. Ho was a prodigy of learning. Ho was a Master of Arts at fifteen, and at twenty he was challenging the world of Paris to a disputation on any subject under the sun in “ any science, liberal art, discipline or faculty, practical or theoretical, nob excluding tho theological nor jurisprudential,” and that in any ono of twelve languages. Ho was a master of all sports and pastimes, was personally very attractive, and was accomplished as well as cultured. He threw dice, wrote Latin verse, and played the Into with equal facility, orated in Sclavonic, fenced ami sang with consummate! skill., There was nothing this brilliant young Scot could not do, and do well. Ho was equally at homo on land or in water, on horseback or on foot; and his facility with tho rapier was as great as his skill with the pen. He must actually have possessed many of tho virtues credited to him, for there is contemporary witness to his remarkable achievements. What virtues ho did not own tradition has granted him. He killed a truculent Italian duellist, and tradition has hailed him as the first swordsman of his day. Ho wrote passable Latin verses, and gave unquestionable proof of his knowledge! of languages. Tradition has credited] him with being a master of all Jiving tongues and some dead. ‘He was too diffusive ever to have made his mark in any special branch of scholarship, and too fond of 'play and sport to have been “solid” in his learning. He was killed by a man to whom he was offering an unnecessary apology. But he was. less than thirty years old when, he died, and his best work was certainly nob printed l , so that posterity can only judge him by contemporary, accounts. . r

It is to a Cromarty author, Sir Thomas Urquhart, that Crichton owes his popular reputation, and the epithet “ Admirable.” Urquhart collected, and perhaps invented, the most extravagant stories of this “ most exquisite jewel.” He tolls us how Crichton disputed against the finest scholars for nine long hours in the Paris incident, absolutely without preparation. Before the appointed time for the meeting the “ Admirable 'Scot” was engaging himself in “hawking, hunting, tilting, vaulting, riding of wellmanaged horses, tossing of tire pike, handling of the musket, flourishing .of the colours, dancing, fencing, swimming, jumping, throwing of the* bar, playing at tire tennis, baloon or long-catch, and sometimes at the house-games of dice* cards, playing

at tho chess, billiards, trou-ma'dam and other such like chamber-sports, singing, playing on the Into and other musical instruments.” How he found time for all these recreations, besides increasing his stupendous learning, Urquharfc does not indicate. It is a far cry from this hero to Mr Barrie’s butler. The of course, adopts only the name. Ainsworth’s novel goes further. And there is nothing in the name to suggest cither the purpose or the contents of tho stage play. It might bo\to the purpose to inquire how far an author is justified in deceiving his audience by tho adoption of an attractive but quite inappropriate title. In Mr Barrie’s case, it can hardly bo claimed that the butler is worthy of bis name. And 1 the study of the butler is not even tho main element of the comedy. It is said that the dramatist set cut to satirise the theory of tho equality of man. But he satirises an empty creed which never had a follower. Ho might just as well have abandoned tho pretence of wiving his play a purpose, and- devoted all his energies to the construction of an entertaining comedy. He wrecks an impossible butler on an impossible island, and ho might frankly have gone on accumulating impossibilities for the delectation of his audience. Bub he is weighted with the constant thought that his play is supposed to have a purpose, and tho book, which is

always threatening to b© brilliant in its dialogue, comes perilously near to being silly in its construction. .. Wo aro aware that it is heresy to write in' this strain about a great and prosperous writer like Mr J. M. Barrie. But we. are not compelled to take Mr Barrie’s plays as wo must sell our mutton, at the London valuation. It ought to be more widelyknown, perhaps, that tho ex-Kailyarder is at work establishing a new school of British comedy-. His latest effort, if w© may judge from Loudon report is constructively even more hopeless than “ Tho Admirable Crichton.” “ Little Mary,” wo aro told, has a stomach for a hero; We suppose that the colonial public will have to be educated to appreciate the subtleties of this class of -stage play. But enjoyment need not wait on a lull understanding. Wo can all enjoy Omar without knowing anything o* Ills symbolism, and similarly- Mr Barrie’s light plays may bo read on tho surface. If the managers would only admit that they have no- “ insides,” there would bo less public disappointment. Wo have never been able to regard “ What Happened to Jones ” as a problem play, and it is a little difficult to think of “ Tho Admirable Crichton” as a satire on anything. If the curtam ' would only fall with the servingmaid in the butler’s arms tho “ fantasy ” would be wholly- excellent. have marched a long way- from Janies Crichton, tho sixteenth century scholar, but that onlyshows how great a gulf there is between Mr Barrio's play and its name. Mr Barrie, in fact, has been guilty of misrepresentation of a hind ! too common ' in literarycircles. With Mr Kipling admitting that hei and Homer both took what they wanted in tho way of poetry-, and with Mr Hansmann masmiernding as a love-sick girl, and Mr Barrie and the rest using -descriptive titles which do not describe their hooks, it is" evident that literature and drama, too, are hr need of a revised code of ethics. Mr Barrio’s oSence is really uupardonabhq for ho has used a name which someone else would almost certainly -have wanted later on. Of course, there is always a possibility, remote no doubt, that Mr Barrie’s play may coma to bo forgotten.