The 1942 edition of Who's Who, as indispensable as ever,
inspires me to certain reflections. In existing conditions the case for the rationing of ‘vanity, I submit, is unanswerable. And there is a great deal too much vanity in Who's Who. It is perhaps that admirable volume's only defect. Personages admitted to its select pages (3,452 pages this year, as against 3,488 last) supply their own autobiographies at what they consider an appro- priate length ; and some of them have very majestic ideas about what is appropriate in their own case. Surely the editors might have a point of view on this. A not -unserviceable yardstick offers itself. The Prime Minister, whose career has lacked neither variety nor distinction, occupies 51 inches of the latest edition. I suggest that anyone who desires to fill more space than that should be called on to show good cause why. Opening the volume purely at random, I observe that Mr. Wells Coates (can he show good cause?) occupies appreciably more. So does a gentle- man to whose spaciousness I have had occasion to refer before, who deems it necessary that the world should know that he is inter alia—very numerous aha—President of the Isle of Wight Branch of the Historical Association. (I am lecturing to my local branch of the Women's Institute myself this Week.) There are no doubt exceptions, notably in the case of well-known authors--e.g., Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells—whose publications, which it is very important to have recorded in a work of reference like this, carry them over the Prime Minister's limit. But there are not many of these. The surgery I suggest would make Who's Who less bulky and more serviceable ; Messrs. Black would be able to sell it at less than 7os.; and precious paper would be saved.
* * * *
Previous page
