LETTERS TO DELTA ON OLD AND CURRENT LITERATURE.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 3, 20 July 1910, Page 47

LETTERS TO DELTA ON OLD AND CURRENT LITERATURE.

(By

LIBRIS.)

No. 1. I am encouraged by your tolerance of my poor efforts at self-expression to write you how certain books and plays it have read of late have struck rhe. You, I know, are an admirer of Maurice ftdaeterlinck, with whose work I am hut lately acquainted, but of whose title to genius I am convinced. Maeterlinck is a Feminist of Feminists. “I have paver met” says Maeterlinck, a single jvoman who did not bring me something great.” And in this spirit, lie, I think, has conceived "Joyzelle,” (which I have just finished, and for the rare delight of reading, I have you to thank. “Joyzelle” is, 1 believe, Maeterlinck’s second feminine creation, after his marriage to Georgette le Blanc, who is the chief interpreter of his work, on ithe stage, and in the press. To use the words of James Huneker, Maeterlinck has created two distinct types of women, of which his heroines are variations—“the naive woman, a toy in the hands of fate; and the volitional woman, the woman who dares.” ’’Joyzelle” is a type of the woman who dares, and wins, through sheer, courageous love. You, I know, have read the play, and need no enlightening as to its story. To me it would seem that Maeterlinck wrote the play with the double motive of demonstrating his belief in pre-destiny, and also to show that there are no lengths to which a woman will not go for the sake of love. Though Materlinck believes in pre-destiny, he, I conceive, believes that destiny can be shaped, if

not averted, by a great love. This, some would say, has been demonstrated, indifferently well, perhaps, before, 'by lesser writers. But you will, I feel, allow that Materlinck’s demonstration overtops any other writer’s in originality, daring treatment, and transcendental purity of design and execution, whilst wholly human. But, on the top of reading “joyzelle,” I came across a splendidly written magazine article, (which, quoting from Madame Maeterlinck’s, “Later Heroines of Maurice Maeterlinck,” (lately published in “The Fortnightly Review”), declares her meaning of Joyzelle seems to be that “a woman is even justified in committing crime for love’s sake.” Here, if such is Madame Maeterlink’s meaning, I differ. Don’t yon? For while, in certain cases, in the strictly human sense, extenuating circumstances could be urged in favour of an individual who had committed a crime for love’s sake, there can never be any Teal justification in the spiritual, or the earthly, ideal sense. And we think M. (Materlinck had fully realised this,

both in “Joyzelle” and “Monna Vanna,” by, at the last moment, avoiding the supreme test, a test, I vow, no purely loving woman could survive, and live. Love, which is an attribute of the divine, never did, nor ever will, exact a sacrifice that carries within it the most deadly factor in love’s disintegration. Two New Modern Flays.

This idea of giving modern plays in full, as practised by the “Weekly Graphic,” is an admirable one, and educa-

tive, as well as more satisfying, as a refume often misleads. I read, though this source, with’painfully absorbing interest, Stephen Moffett’s controversial play, “ The Battle,” which is partly capitalistic, and partly socialistic in its trend. Before reading this, I had read pfr. John Galsworthy’s “ Strife,” which lias the detailation of the causes and tragic effects of “strikes” for raison

d’etre. It was impossible not to institute comparisons, outside “ style,”. in favour of Mr. Moffett’s play. Mr. Moffett suggests the only real remedy—- “ education.” Mr. Galsworthy, as usual, brings his readers surcharged with emotion, up ito a dead wall, on which is written “Compromise/* and, standing aloof., looks on with an expression on his face as inscrutable as that of the Sphinx. I cannot, for the life of me, though Mr. Galsworthy appeals to me as a few writers do, help resenting his unchanging attitude. With the imagination that perceives to the full not only existing evils, but the writer’s responsibility, and the power also to excite the reader’s imagination, he jars on me, by reason of his incapability to come into close grips with the human problem, and lend a living hand in its solution. There is something curious, don’t you think, in the fact that a great deal of the ill-goitten wealth of millionaire capitalists is being diverted, consciously or by suggestion, into those channels of the “ education ’’ that is to produce the rod that will eventually beat them out of existence? “ Man and Superman."

I have just dipped into the preface of George Bernard Shaw’s “Man and Superman,” and, so far, though I do not pretend to wholly understand him, have been intensely interested, and immensely diverted by the dry rogue’s subtleties and audacities. For he brackets Shakespeare with Dickens, and places Bunyan above either. I have not seen the “ Progress” since my youth, though I remember I thought it most delectable reading, appreciating even then, as I am sure 1 should now, the extreme simplicity of its

style. I shall certainly read it again. I am tempted to retail from the book’s (“ Man and Superman ”) preface, one of the best stories I have ever read about the late much misunderstood and underrated Charles Bradlaugh. But I will refrain, as 1 have sufficiently trespassed on your good nature. But more about G. B. S. next time.

Does a large nose always denote mental vigour and aggressiveness?