'LORD M.
SIR,—It was a pleasure to read the well- balanced review of Lord M. by the winner of your second competition. Has Mr. Watson, howcycr, done justice to the artistic achieve* ment of the biographer ? In common with other reviewers Mr. Watson criticise! adversely Lord David Cecil's style or ' tone ' as he calls it—' Stracheyan smartness' is hi$ last word.
You will agree that in appraising a work of art the reviewer should take primary account of the intention of the artist. In this instance it may be argued that the biographer had deliberately thought himself into the character of Lord Melbourne, as an actor doe! when studying a part, and then has presented his interpretation by making use of language appropriate to his subject and describing people and events as Lord Melbourne would have done. This is far from the method of the Stracheyan school.
If this conjecture be right Lord David Cecil appears to have succeeded as a whole in th4 means he used to his end of portraying Lord Melbourne in his later years, although noW and again he seems to see rather through the eyes of Greville and Creevey than those of Lord Melbourne.—Yours faithfully,
ANNE GILCHRIST
The Studio, Hever, Nr. Edenbridgc, Kent
Previous page
