AT THE PEN’S POINT

Southland Times, Issue 20538, 14 July 1928, Page 1 (Supplement)

AT THE PEN’S POINT

REALLY, MR POPE!

(By

The Wasp).

Discussions with Mr Pope, I find are delayed by his fondness for cataloguing and his enjoyment of misunderstanding. To both I submit with the tolerance I can never eradicate from my patient self because the first invariably gives the Intellect of Wellington the chance to display the breadth and length of his reading, and the other draws him to the firmer ground of facts, whereon his ultimate slaughter can be more sanguinary. Mr Pope’s habit of cataloguing, a George Jean Nathan characteristic by the way, can be passed over, so that we may attend to controversial denials of this wonderful fellow. It will be necessary, of course, to deal with these before taking up some of his reaffirmations and his additional examples of Papal wisdom, a duty demanding, quotation. My Wellington friend, who invariably speaks ex cathedra and with a voice that implies his acceptance of the doctrine of infallibility, writes that he did not say: (1) That Delius was of the same rank as Beethoven. (2) That Delius was a “first-class musician who had essayed the opera form.” (3) That Holst was of the same rank as Beethoven or even as Delius. (4) That Holst was a “first-class musician who had essayed the opera form.” (5) That Delius’s “A Village Romeo and Juliet” was not an opera at all. (6) That “Carmen” was anything but an opera with a “first-class libretto and a good musical score.” Let us see, therefore, what the aggrieved Mr Pope did say:— The truth, of course, is that the opera form attracts only the fourth and fifth rate. Wagner is the only first-class composer to have materially concerned himself with it and even while he was frittering away his time at the hopelers task of attempting to make something of the medium his genius was escaping into its proper paths, so that fortunately we can substitute an instrument for the voice and enjoy his best pieces in the concert hall. Beethoven wrote only one opera, it has been said to “stand almost alone in its perfect purity, in the moral grandeur of its subject, and in the resplendent ideality of its music.” And it is never performed. Verdi wrote only one opera which definitely attracts musicians. It is “Falstaff,” and it is scarcely ever produced. Mozart, by the consent of everyone, has distanced every other tvriter in the medium in the few attempts which he made. Yet how often do we hear “Don Giovanni,” or “11 Flauto Magico” ? When the biggest modern men wish to express themselves they turn to the oratorio form as Elgar in “The Apostles” and Franck in “The Redemption.” It is only recently that Holst started to play with opera, and when Delius’s “A Village Romeo and Juliet” was revived in 1920 London critics were unanimously of the opinion that it was not an opera at all. The truth is that Mr Pope either does not know what he writes about or does not know what he has written. To his denials [ one to four, the answer is found in the I paragraph I have quoted. Beginning with his statement that the opera form attracts only the fourth or fifth rate, he proceeds to declare that Wagner was the only firstclass composer “to have materially concerned himself with opera.” Then follow references to Beethoyen, Verdi, Mozart, Franck, and Delius, and if Mr Pope reads what he has written carefully he will find that his implications give him the alternative of putting five of this septet in as first-class composers or “fourth or fifth rate.” Denial No. 5 gives us part of the Pope method. He implies that I accused him of I saying Delius’s “A Village Romeo and ! Juliet” was not an opera at all. Now this I is what appeared under my name in reference to this Delius business:— I suspect his presence [in the list with the other composers] to be due to the fact that according to the critics, whom Mr Pope reads avidly, Deliue, though he thought he wrote an opera, did nothing of the kind. The clever Mr Pope is so used to mixing himself with the critics that he finds it hard to say whether a reference to them is or is not a reference to his own writings. Now for denial No. 6: Mr. Pope in the first article fathered the statement:— The works which are most popular today were written by gentlemen whose inspiration was not equal to more than two or three numbers for a three or four hour performance. Will Mr Pope say that “Carmen” is not one of the most popular of the operas to-day? He includes it in the dozen operas of an average opera season (his added “make it richer than most” reveals more than Mr Pope suspects), and the statistics will put Bizet’s work beyond Mr Pope’s denial of its right to be considered one of the most popular works of to-day. At a later stage the Wellington brain gives it a “first-class libretto and a good musical score”, but this does no more than convince us of Mr Pope’s sublime disregard for consistency or his complete inability to appreciate the implications of what he has written—a weakness found in people who use big words they do not understand, , and those who press into their own service the ideas of others. These matters are fairly explained now and I don’t think Mr Pope has any ground for complaint. The misunderstandings are wholly on his side—he did not know what he was writing. And for a further clearing of the field, let me notice three other “inaccuracies” charged to me by my Capital friend. I am supposed to have said:— (1) That Mr Pope knows little of opera, but has read much. (2) That Mr Pope and I exchanged a few thrusts on the subject of the drama. (3) That Mr Pope is a terrible young man. Let us take the second point first, since the other two are related. I wrote in answer to Mr Pope’s first article on the opera: These gentle admonitions, of course, are aided by my recollections of Mr Pope’s curious and incautions misstatements about the appearance of the writings of H. L. Mencken in The Nation (of New York), when he and I tilted at each other on some wholly unimportant subject—Mr Pope’s views on some aspect of the drama, I think. You will notice my cautious “I think”: but also I hope the striking difference between us. I remember the misstatement of fact; Mr. Pope counters with the irrelevancy that it- was not the drama we discussed. Now I come to think of it, it may have been literary criticism, but Mr Pope has better reasons for remembering that exchange than I have—he was caught in the lie. Returning to one and three, Mr Pope finds inaccuracy in my statements that he is a “terrible young man” and that he

"knows little of opera”. To these he replies “with great solemnity, there is no word of truth.” To buttress his denial he furnishes biographical details more amusing than interesting I confess, but doubtless satisfying to Mr Pope who does not want to be called “young” or “terrible”, and who stoutly believes that because some misguided but enthusiastic people tried to induce him to go into opera or on to the concert platform, he knows more than a little of opera. If Mr Pope were nearer maturity he would know that these urgent protestations, this production of inconclusive evidence gave the proof I require. I am not troubled by Mr Pope’s years, the prowess of his grandfather, the music of his home, the misdirected enthusiasms of his teacher. But I am concerned with what he has written on the subject of the

opera. I know he will pardon me, if in concluding this introductory to a further examination of his peculiar writings, I say that after weighing with great solemnity all the evidence produced, I sec no reason for retreating from the stand I have taken in No. One. The proof of the extent of Mr Pope’s readings on opera is his frequent use of the opinions of others, and the other part is provable by his statements, against which his listed opportunities for acquiring knowledge do not count. If it will make things easier for Mr Pope, however, I will abandon all or part of No. Three. I will not say that he is a terrible young man, or a terrible man or a young man. For that concession, I hope to secure the indulgence of the Editor to put at the bottom of this article. (To be continued).