THE ART OF PRAISE.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—I am not sure that I ought to cavil in the smallest degree at the review of my book on " Henry J. Wood " in the Spectator of March 26th, since the reviewer incidentally attributes to me at least two of the sovereign virtues of a biographer,—enthusiasm for my subject, and candour. At the same time, there are one or two considerations which seem to call for a reply. When your reviewer suggests that my projected series violates the canons of contemporary biography, I console myself with the knowledge that I am sinning in very respectable company. , In Germany, which is certainly in advance of us as regards musical litera- ture, there exist several series devoted to living musicians, which seem to supply exactly the requirements of an intelligent and inquiring musical public. In offering to British readers a similar series, I have no doubt whatever that I am continuing that " good service in the cause of musical enlightenment" to which "C. L. G-." kindly refers in his review. Again, his contention that biographies should not be written by personal friends involves the condemnation of many standard works of this class. I seem also to recollect several biographies of this description which have appeared too recently to have attained as yet to classic celebrity. The remainder of "C. L. G.'s " article embodies an. illogical indictment of the whole practice of contemporary biography,— illogical because, while condemning the eulogy of living men, lest it should turn their heads, or exasperate the minority of their disparagers, he admits that praise is permissible in an article or review, but becomes dangerous in book-form. Why, if a man has earned success, should it be more dangerous to speak of it between cloth boards than between the paper covers of a review ? At the conclusion of his article " C. L. G." seems to suggest that a man's fitness for biographical purposes might be fixed by a kind of " greatest age " competition. Who is to determine this eventful moment in a man's career? " C. L. G." is evidently of opinion that eighty is a more suitable age than thirty-four. But surely the question must depend on the degree of interest a man has awakened in the public mind. If he has attained greatness in his own line at thirty-five, why should it be necessary to wait until he is an octogenarian before having the courage to say so ? Nor is there anything unnatural in that future multiplication of biographies which " C. L. G." foretells with an alarmist's pen. In these days of rapid reading and rapid living a man may well have his biography written as often as he has his photo- graph taken, provided the public interest creates a demand for either article. Yet, for my publisher's sake, I trust no one will attempt a second Life of Henry J. Wood before he has reached the period indicated by the reviewer : the mystic age of forty-three.—I am, Sir, &c., ROSA.
52 Campden Hill Square, W.
NEWMARCII.
[Mrs. Newmarch does not convince us that " C. L, G." took up untenable ground, but we admire her boldness in not flinching from the prospect of men having their biographies written as often as they have their photographs taken. An awful picture rises up before us of the frequent street-sign in the city of the future : " Smith, High-Class Biographer. Our biographies invariably give satisfaction, and are executed with attention and despatch. Full-lengths of ladies and children a speciality. Special terms for annual biographies." Seriously, we do not desire to see the biographer put on the same level as the photographer.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
