“WHO’S WHO.”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21544, 16 January 1932, Page 10

“WHO’S WHO.”

From the selectiveness of “ Who’s Who ” there appears to be no opportunity to appeal. The judgment of its publishers is final and absolute, and the 1932 edition suggests that candidates for inclusion are submitted to an eligibility that is as severe, as impartial, and, to the uninformed, as inexplicable, as when the original Mr Black, eighty-four years ago, first constituted himself the arbiter of greatness in his day. “ Who’s Who ”is no respecter of wealth or of notoriety. True, it admits to those who are allowed within its portals a degree of latitude, descending to mention their tastes and prejudices if they so desire, and permitting a certain expansiveness on the part of a few artists and authors; but the fact that it is tolerant of the whims of its chosen ones affords no reason for those in outer obscurity to think they might slip between the pages when Messrs A. and C. Black are not looking. Benito Mussolini has the entree, and is permitted to chant his euphonious list of recreations, but many foreign princes and potentates are not mentioned; Miss Ethel M. Dell discloses as much of her private life as she considers necessary, but Herr Remarque has apparently not been asked to join the legion of the elect; Mary Pickford discusses her family name of Smith, her matrimonial alliances, but her step-daughter-in-law, who is reputed to be the most popular of kinema actresses, receives no mention. Even more interesting than the omissions from “ Who’s Who ” are the inclusions, which very often allow the reader to indulge in diverting if unprofitable speculation upon the owners of the names. Mr Stanley Baldwin, it is discovered, is in point of the space required in which to relate his accomplishments, one of the most modest of the Baldwin clans, and he does not enlighten us even concerning his recreations. But possibly pipesmoking would come under the heading of vices, on which subject “Who’s Who ” is incurious, even if it welcomes Mr A. P. Herbert’s admission that he plays skittles. Again, the writing of potted autobiographies has led some people into curious declarations. One well-known cartoonist asserts that he is the son of a distinguished army man and a Miss Every, while Mr Ramsay MacDonald reticently gives his parentage as “ s. of J. MacDonald, of Lossiemouth.” The Sitwell brothers, who might have been pardoned for mentioning the scholastic advantages of an education at Eton and Oxford, dismiss attendance at these seats as irrelevant, Osbert claiming to have received his education during the holidays, while Sacheverell is “mainly self-educated.” Mr Ben Tillett, on the other hand, dwells with pride upon those early years when he served in a brickyard at the age of eight, was a “ Risley ” boy for two years, spent six months on a fishing smack, and engaged in divers other occupations. He must, however, give pride of place to Maxim Gorky, who was successively painter of ikons, peddler of kvass, scullery-boy, gardener, watchman, and baker’s apprentice, while the Sitwells are challenged by Israel Querido, who is, he says, entirely self-taught. Whether the sociologist could draw any conclusions from the recreations of the persons in “ Who’s Who ”is doubtful. For the most part those who divulge their sources of amusement mention pastimes common to the rest of mankind — fishing, shooting, golf, motoring, and so on. Certain general observations might be made, as, for instance, on the partiality of gentlemen in Orders for cycling, and of learned professors for walking and boating, but the significance of these choices is probably economic. It is, however, refreshing to find a very fierce and famous soldier revealing “ delphiniums ” as his mild recreation, and a sedate art critic confessing that in his 77th year he still finds his greatest delight in “pulling the legs of advancing years.”