NOTES

New Zealand Tablet, 31 October 1918, Page 26

NOTES

Text and Commentary A friend of ours .recently remarked how tiresome were the innumerable commentaries and studies which were supposed to throw more light on Shakespere, and how vain the ingenious attempts to explain what he meant by this word or that when he probably meant nothing at all and was only anxious to fill up a line. It is true that we have too much of that sort of writing, and that the world would be no poorer if half such stuff were burned. Indeed if all of it went up in smoke one good result would be that many who are fond of reading would be more likely to know what Shakespere said than what Haslitt or Dowden said he meant to say ; and that surely would be a gain. How is it that the majority of readers will be interested in a magazine article on. whether Hamlet was fat or thin, or on how many knocks were heard in Macbeth, while they can hardly find time to read the plays themselves ? It is not, at any rate, a sign of universal culture. Better far were it to read the original than to waste time over a light causerie such as one is likely to find in one of T. P. O’Connor’s numerous light literary ventures. Week by week we come upon literary articles about Scott and Thackeray. They must be read widely or they would not be written. But how many modern readers have read Thackeray or Scott well enough to have such a knowledge of them as to make the criticism worth reading. For if a criticism is of any value it must be able to throw more light on the text ; and if we do not bother knowing the text it is sheer waste of time to read criticisms at all. A Plea for the Classics Therefore in the name of common sense let us begin to read rationally. Let us give the commentators a rest and go back to the originals. It is common sense ; for we all are ready to grant that what Shakespere or Scott had to say is better worth knowing than what men vastly inferior to them have to say about what they said. Go into any book-store nowadays and see for yourself what sort of stuff modern literature is. How many of the books that fill the windows—to sell at an enormous and unwarranted profit, as is in keeping with the “patriotism” of the times, —are worth reading at all ? And of those that are worth reading how many are left severely alone while' Garvice flourishes and Chambers or Kipling fattens ? Let us go back ; let us ask for the old books again. There are so many of them, now neglected, that are so well worth while reading—so many of them that most of us have never read. To be extravagant is at present fashionable, and therefore the dear, worthless books sell; to be economical is reasonable, and therefore the wise man will buy the cheap books which are cheap because they have lived long and stood the test of time. To us a cheap edition is always something of a recommendation. A book that has gone through many editions is the one you will find sold for a fair price ; dear books often never see a second edition, and not rarely do not deserve to see a first. Now recall the names of a few of the really great masters of English and reflect how many of them you are familiar with—Shakespere, Dryden, ton, Addison, Goldsmith, Sheridan, Burke, Keats, .Scott, Shelley, Byron, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Browning, Dickens, Thackeray, George Eliot, and a

score more. When you have done with them you cannot do better than read the new Irish writers in order to save your soul from the Materialism and Utilitarianism of the English. Pearse, Kettle, Yeats, “A.E.”, Sheehan, and Plunkett are ’the purest and best of the moderns. Alas ! such is the way of modern justice that most of them are dead while the vile Carson is “the man whom the -king delights to honor.” Pitfalls in Diction Matthew Arnold tells us that We forget because we must And not because we will. It is necessary for most of us to keep refreshing our memories on even elementary subjects to prevent us from falling into ridiculous mistakes over which some wide-awake sciolist will bray in triumph. For one thing, we easily fall into the habit of using in writing words which we hear frequently and which we know to be wrong. The wrong words seem to make the deepest impression. Probably that is why the Chinaman could swear before he could say “Good morning.” Here are a few mistakes one may easily make in writing, lb is enough to call attention to them to make us more careful. Admit must not be used for confess: alley is not synonymous with say; alone is not only, and should never be used as if it were; alUmotive means a choice between two things, not three or more: and , after the verb to try, or before the relative, is often misused. Beware of expressions like and which. Audience is improperly used for spectator* ; an audience listens, spectators see. Distinguish clearly between map and can. For example: You may swim if you ran. “We sold it cheap'' is correct; “lie sold it cheaply'’ is affected. Mutual does not mean common: notwithstanding Dickens, “Our Mutual Friend" is wrong. A committee may be ('unrobed but not convened. Demean refers to behavior or demeanor : it does not mean abase or lower. High and tall need attention: a building described as the “highest in the world” may be thousands of feet lower than a mountain hut. Do not use healthy for wholesome, last for latest , leant for teach, lie for lay , minus for without, one another for each other, neither . . . or for neither . . . nor, proposition for proposal, purpose for propose, raise for rise. You may say “I reckon,” meaning guess, in conversation, but in writing it is banned. Retire for yo to bed, reside for live, are affected. Size up, show up, some for somewhat , state for say, are vulgarisms and ought to be shunned. On Titles In a new book by Arnold Bennett there are some very shrewd, hard sayings with regard to titles. Lately a lady, not a hundred miles away, refused to accept one; and most people thought more of her for doing so. The writer in the Catholic Times who suggested that Sir Edward Carson should get the 0.8. E., and that in his case, it ought to be made very plain that the words meant “Order of the Bad Egg,” is perhaps before his time. If titles are given a little more numerously on the present lines they will automatically come to have a meaning somewhat of that sort. But to come back to Bennett: here is his view; John —l want to get at the bottom of this titles business. I’m hanged if I can understand it. What strikes me as an unprejudiced observer is that titles are supposed to be such a terrific honor, and yet the people who deal them out scarcely ever keep any for themselves. . . Culver —What is the first duty of modern Governments ? John—? To govern. Culver My innocent boy ! The first duty of a Government is to live. It has no right to be a Government at all unless it is convinced that if it fell the country would go to everlasting smash. . . Only the simple-minded believe that Honors are given to honor. Honors are given to save the life of the Government. . > When the Honors List is full of

rascals, millionaires, and—chumps, you may rbe quite sure that the Government-is dangerously ill. They then discuss same of the names. -in the List of Honors as criticised by a paper: . - Culver The next is —Ul.ivaut, .munitions manufacturer. Let me see ( Reads ) “By the simple means of saying that the cost price of shells was eighteen shillings and ninepence each, whereas it was in fact only ten shillings and ninepence, Mr. Joshua Ullivant has made a fortune of two million pounds during the war. He has given a hundred thousand pounds to the Prince of Wales’s. Fund, a hundred thousand to the Red Cross, and a hundred thousand to the party funds. Total net profit on the war, not counting the peerage now conferred on him, which it must be admitted was a just reward for his remarkable business acumen, One million seven hundred thousand pounds.” Culver Another prominent name is Orlando Bush. . . (Reads) “Mr. Orlando Bush has written a historical sketch, with many circumstantial details, of the political origins of the present Government. For his forbearance in consenting to withhold publication until the end of the war Mr. Bush receives.a well-earned Knighthood.” Mrs. Culver- But surely there are some nice names on the List. ( ulcer- Of course. There have to be some nice names for the eako of the psychological effect on the public mind, on New Year’s Day. The public looks for a good name or for a name it can understand. So that with about five or six decent names you can produce the illusion that alter all the List is really good . Mrs. Culver —Arthur, why do decent people take Honors?

I'ulcer —[ll tell you. Decent people have wives, and their wives lead them by the nose. That’s why decent people take Honors,