PRUNING THE GOLDEN BOUGH.
.[To THE Emma or sae ".Eirsomoa."]
Sut,—The editing of a paper would be an impossible task if it were open 4-o correspondents to canvass the opinions of reviewers. Misstatements as to fact are another matter. But sometimes the border line between statements and opinions is hard to define, and I venture to avail myself of this un- certainty to submit a mild protest against some remarks in a notice of a work on psychology which appeared in a recent issue of the Spettator. The reviewer regrets the defective exposition shown in certain works on this and kindred subjects. mentioning amongst others Frazer's Golden Bough,and suggests that .it would be a good thing if they could be rewritten -by a'` stylist," such as Mr. Chesterton, Mr. Wells or Mr. Shaw. The immense wealth of illustrations in Sir James Frazer's works may possibly deter some readers, but to deny him the gift of exposition is a staggering charge. Even more startling is the suggestion that his narrative could be improved by being translated into the Chestertonian, Wellsian, or Shavian dialects. Sir James Frazer may not be a "stylist," but he is, beyond dispute, the master of a lutid.and noble style. Has the reviewer, I wonder, ever -read-that moving and beautiful passage in which he pays homage to the generosity of the University of Cambridge, or, in .a different vein, the charming fantasy prefixed as an introduction to his edition of Addison's Essays? The word "distinction"..has -been overworked for many years, but if any living writer possesses the quality which it connotes, it is Sir James-Frazer, and it is precisely the quality which has been denied to Mr. Shaw and Mr. Wells, richly endowed though they both are in many other respects. Serenity and reverence, again, which are eon,spicuous in Sir James Frazer's writings, are conspicuously .absent from the nimbi outfit of his proposed revisers. Mr. Chesterton is a brilliant, delightful, and intermittently sane and genial writer, but, in view of his theological opinions, the suggestion can hardly be treated seriously. I would almost as soon see Mr. William Le Queux entrusted with the task of -rewriting Mr. Conrad as let Mr. Chesterton loose on Sir James Frazer. A simplified version or summary of a long and learned work may be a valuable educational instrument. The best person to make it, however, is the author, or one of -his disciples. Made by a writer differing radically in temperament, out- look and style the thing would be a sheer monstrosity. It may be that I have taken a light-hearted-exuberance on the part of your reviewer too seriously, :but I cannot help thinking that it was inspired by the modern cult of vivacity, the passion for " brightening" everything from cricket to metaphysics, which disregards the -wisdom of the ages as enshrined in the two sayings : Res severe est rerun gaudiusn and xaXer& icaXd With apologies for quoting from the dead languages.—I am,
Previous page
