AMONG THE BOOKS

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 762, 20 July 1916, Page 3

AMONG THE BOOKS

REVIEWS AND NOTES

A WORD FOR BOWDLER. After all consideration shows that there is much to be said on behalf tof Thomas Bowdler, though there is much less to be said for bowdlerising. In delicately amending Shakespeare for a more genteel age and class, he did treat the Bard with reverence, which is more than can be said for Colley Gibber, and his mutilations. Thomas Bowdler was physician, traveller, philanthropist, and man of letters, who in the year 1818, published "The Family Shakespeare," and within a short time had given a new word to the language. As public taste moved on towards broader standards of literary propriety, the verb "to bowdlerize" suffered corresponding degradation. Bowdlerism was at first officious meddling with a text, then it was exaggerated squeamishness, then it became a sign of actual pruriency in the mind of the editor. Needless to say, our own liberal age has little mercy for what it might call the fine flower of Mid-Vic-torianism were it not that Bowdler's work was done 20 years before Victoria came to the throne. Too Much Blame. Present-day opinion is probably well represented by Richard .Whitcing, who speaks of him in the "Manchester Guardian" as one endowed with "a sense of smell for impropriety never perhaps equalled in the domain of letters." This is flagrant exaggeration even as an estimate of Bowdler's actual treatment of Shakespeare's text, not to speak of the specific purpose which the editor had in mind. It is not likely that very many of those who take it for granted that Bowdler was a man with an unhealthy imagination who played havoc with Shakespeare's text, have ever looked to see just how had his changes were. More than that, the impression is possibly widespread that Bowdler rewrote Shakespeare. Mr Whiteing speaks of the narrow escape we have had from "the fatuous attempt to rewrite every masterpiece of literature." And yet he quotes from Bowdler's title-page: "The Family Shakespeare: in which nothing is added to the original text, but those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read in a family."

Virginibus Puerisque. I "The Family Shakespeare" was an edition for the use of conscientious parents. "I can hardly imagine a more pleasing occupation for a winter's evening in the country," writes the editor, "than f,or a fattier'to read one of Shakespeare's plays to his family circle. My object is to enable him to do so without incurring the danger of falling unawares among words and expressions which arc of such a nature as to raise a blush on the cheeks of modesty or render it necessary for the reader lo oa-.isc and examine the sequel before he proceeds further in the entertainment of the evening." If today we feel no need of such safeguards for the blushing cheek of youth, the principal reason is probably that the habit of reading in the family circle is a dead institution, certainly the habit of reading Shakespeare aloud. That Bowdler knew something of psychology is indicated in the distinction he draws in his preface to "Othello" between this very act of reading in company and reading to one's self. "Othello" perplexed him greatly. He could remove "the multitude of indecent expressions which abound in the speeches of the inferior characters," but he could not edit the Moor himself without "altering his character" and "destroying the Tragedy." He therefore chose to deviate from his original principle rather than "materially injure a most invaluable exertion of the genius of Shakespeare." But if there should be parents who found the play not sufficiently correct for family reading, "I would advise the transferring of it from the parlour to the cabinet." It is hardly just to heap unqualified obliquy upon an editor \y,ho was addressing himself virginibus puerisque. Somehow Good. The popularity of "The Family Shakespeare" was immediate and sustained. There were four editions betwem 1818 and 1824, and at least five other editions in the next 50 years. Apparently, a balance ought to be i truck between the good Bowdler nl\v have done Shakespeare in winning him an audience and the harm he may have done in weakening Shakespeare. On this point, as we have intimated, posterity has assumed that Bowdler did his worst, without going to the trouble of looking into his text. Such an examination would show, on the one hand, "Hamlet" deprived perhaps of two dozen lines, and "Measure for Mea\sure" liberally pruned of its extraneous and stupid indecency, without apparent harm in the second play to the powerful scenes between Isabella and Angelo or Isabella and her brother, which alone have meaning to a modern reader. At any rate, it would be shown that Bowdler's hand fell lightest on those plays of Shakespeare which are most widelyread; and perhaps the much-abused editor would be found justified by that very test of survival. Time has jdone some bowdlerising on its own account; and it may be that educators and play producers have been unconsciously eliminating in the name of pedagogy or public appeal much more than Bowdler eliminated out of a supposed prurient fancy. A Poet's Praise. Naturally, if one wants to gel at the mind of Shakespeare— and il is very much the fashion to be getting

at the mind of an author—not a word of his text can be spared. Yet Bowdler has had his apologists. One of them "wrote:— "More nauseous and more foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative chil/ dren. It may well be, if we consider how dearly the.creator of Mamillius (in 'The Winter's Tale 1 ) must have loved them, that no man has ever done him such good service." This was not written in 1825 by Macaulay, but in the year 1891 by Algernon Charles Swinburne. If the author of "Laus Veneris" could stand for Shakespeare bowdlerised, there may be something to be said for the much-abused purifier. THE WAR AND BOOKS. An interesting conference on the effect of the war on the production and reading of literature from the point of view of the author, the teacher, the publisher and the bookseller took place in England recently at the annual meeting of the English Association at Bedford College.

Mr Walter <le hi Marc, speaking for the author, said that the first shock of the war had the effect of destroying imagination. Literature became merged in journalism, but gradually the abnormal resolved itself into the law of daily life. Poetry again became articulate in Rupert Brooke and in James Elroy Flecker. The war was destroying superficiality in the authors, and he believed that the public were reading with a deeper understanding. Mr S. B. P. Mais, of Sherborne School, who, from his place at the front, is still following with deep interest the attitude of his schoolboys, related that the favourite authors were now lan Hay, John Buchan and Bartimaeus. A test which had lately been applied to the boys to discover the course of their reading in authors; since 1800 revealed some curious results. Seventeen had read De Quincey, but not one Scott. Only one had read "Midshipman Easy." Five had read William Morris, two Charlotte Bronte, but none Peacock. Maurice Hewlett had no following at all, while Carlyle hail eight readers, Charles Reade six, Jane Austen one, Conrad 11, Browning 11, Trollopc none, and Tennyson one.

Better Taste Shown. A very catholic taste was shown in the trenches, but the men sometimes went rather astray in the titles. Thus Dumas' masterpiece was almost invariably referred to as "Monte Carlo," and a request for Herbert Gladstone's "Life of St. Paul" was puzzling till it resolved itself into Herbert Paul's "Life of Gladstone."

The public in general seemed to be reading more books and better books. Publishers, since the mysterious regulation of the paper supply by a beneficent Government, had acted with remarkable self-denial. They had not attempted to recoup themselves by passing on their losses to the readers, and it was only when the vanishing profits resulted in actual loss that they had raised the price of books very slightly. Mr J. G. Wilson, speaking for the booksellers, said that the public interest in Shelley showed an extraordinary revival. In the first days of the war nothing was read but war books. The public taste was certainly better. The old favourites —Miss Marie Corelli, Mr. Hall Caine, and Mrs Barclay—were no longer so much read, and Joseph Conrad had come into his own. An attempt had been made—with more or less success—by many of his customers to digest Henry James. The sale of Kipling had diminished considerably, and it was very certain that he had ceased to be the British soldier's author.

Hewlett's View

Some remarks made by Maurice Hewlett much earlier in the war, on this same subject of the war and literature, may be recalled as supporting Mr De la Marc's contention that superficiality is going and that people are reading better literature with a better understanding.

Mr Hewlett seems a little doubtful of the ultimate influence of war on literature, but one thing he positively asserts is that there can be no literature worthy of the name in the times of war, least of all a war like the present. Literature, he says, is the reflection of life, and the reflection of life to any artistic purpose can only be accomplished by tranquillity. He applies Wordsworth's analysis of poetry as "emotion remembered in tranquillity" to every kind of writing, and as leisure ortiind is absolutely essential to the right performance of it his hopes of great things now are small.

"Literature at large has not yet been stirred to the point of expression, and there is no saying when it will be, and if it will be," he says. In Mr Hewlett's view, the great nee|l of literature just now is for faculty rather than facility—the faculty of tears perhaps—and for ingenuousness rather than ingenuity. More heart is wanted. We are too hard up against pity and terror to season about it or to spin sophistry. What Mr Hewlett looks for later is a return to fundamental and simplified thinking, and if it takes places it will exhibit warfare as it really is—an absurdity.