would no longer constitute the dividing line between him to
prison for them, we may, since he has lectured upon us, obtain what benefit we can from observations which lose, Ministerialists and the Opposition ; it is even possible that at the result of taking it out of the way would be toerhaps, something of their force when we remember that he never was in England before, and does not, by his send some Unionists back to the Liberal camp. own We are not, indeed, as much impressed as Mk. Browning admission, know a word of English. Still, genius mayenable a man to admire Shakespeare, as M. Zola did, with. by the advantage to the country of making General Elec- tions less frequent: In the modern Liberal, dislike of out having read a line he ever wrote ; and it is quite con- Dissolutions is curiously combined with a theoretical pre- °dyable that a man may have something to say worth hearing ference for shorter Parliaments. For ourselves, however, about a national journalism, which is to him, nevertheless, we see no harm in a fresh appeal to the country when- a sealed book. The advantages or disadvantages of im- ever there is fair reason to suppose that the House of personality in newspapers, moreover, do not depend upon Commons no longer represents it accurately. Still, to the language in which the avowed or hidclei author delivers upset a Ministry for a single blunder, involves a con- his opinions, and M. Zola therefore, despite the profundity of siderable waste of time and energy, and if the blunder his admitted ignorance, is entitled to be heard. He knows, at could be remedied without entailing this consequence, it least, what personality and impersonality have done for the would be a practical gain. With the Referendum it journalists of his own land. What he says is much of it correct, would be remedied, because Ministries would only have and is all of it curiously characteristic. It is quite true, as M. to resign when they were defeated on a direct vote Zola says, that English journalism is not like French journal ofconfidence. From this would follow one very real ism, "a brawl in which the great interests of the community advantage. The supporters of a Minister in the con- are lost sight of amidst abominable personal squabbles ;" and stituencies would be released from the obligation which it is equally true, though he only implies it, that this is now rests on them of swallowing, as best they may, every in great measure due to its impersonality. Our people, it measure that he chooses to offer them. It is scarcely is true, are not so dominated by the desire for distinction doubtful that at this moment this relief would be keenly as the French, and can live happily without that " des felt by some, perhaps by many, Liberals. They are not so licions celebrity " which M. Zola considers the fitting reward much opposed to Home-rule as to be willing to see Mr. Gladstone banished from office, rather than that the Bill of a life of effort ; but still, if every man signed his articles, should be carried. What they want is to keep Mr. Glad- every second man would begin to think of himself and stone, but to throw this particular measure overboard, his reputation, to hate or like his rival, and to forget the As it is, they are powerless to give effect to their wishes, community in his eagerness to press forward his own per. They must take both or leave both. But is there any sonality to the front. 'It is I,' he would exclaim, 'I who am necessity for this Siamese twinship ? None at all, if we fighting the battle of the Union, or of the Irish, and not that had the Referendum. The Ministerial majority would rival of mine either in the same paper, or over the way !' This remain, but the national majority would be strong enough is the temptation of all politicians but the highest ; and it to reverse its decision on one particular point. Would not would be the temptation also of all journalists, except the few this be a more satisfactory result for the Liberal Party to whom the victory of their ideas, not that of themselves, is than a General Election, in which the Bill could only be the first object of ambition. That of itself is the truest defence defeated by turning out the Ministry which is responsible of impersonality in journalism, not the one which M. Zola has for it ? brought to the front, the corporate weight of the anonymous So far, we have spoken only of the benefit which, under writers. That corporate weight may, and does, lend additional certain circumstances, the party in power might derive effect to their work ; but then that effect may just as well be from the Referendum. But the nation at large would evil as good, and very often is. The information or the . equally be a gainer. It will be conceded, we imagine, that thoughts in the Times have twice or ten times the impact as a general rule no measure ought to become law which they would have if they were signed, but then a malig- is not really desired by a majority of the electors. Now, nut or an ignorant statement in the Times has twice the operation of the existing Parliamentary system marat the impact too. A corporation can be a bad agency as any moment make this rule inoperative. To refer once more well as a good one in politics, as in anything else ; and it is to contemporary affairs, it is quite possible that the Liberal majority at the next Election—if there is one—may contain from the other side, the suppression not of individuality, but many persons who are not really anxious to see the Home- sonality of English journalism deserves M. Zola's praise. of the hungry desire for individual repute, that the imper- rule Bill become law, but are content to accept it as part of The political writer among us wants to influence his readers, the price they pay for keeping the Liberal Party in office. Consequently,. ll become law, though the majority of the the nation will be condemned to see the not to exalt himself, and if be suffers from temptation at all, Home-rule Bt suffers rather from too much readiness to speak, not indeed as the public thinks—that is an anachronism, a description of a electors in the United Kingdom are all the time opposed to it. With the Referendum, this majority would have period which died with Mr. Delane—but as his paper thinks its way. Mr. Gladstone would remain in office, and carry the public, if it were wise, would think. It is only by im- such of his Bills as are acceptable to the country at large ; pressing readers who know nothing of him that he can make , but the defections from the Liberal Party, on the question himself important in the office, and personal vanity and of Home-rule, would be numerous enough to secure the the interest of the reader therefore pull together towards defeat of the one measure, which ex hypothesi is not accept- the same result,—good, solid work. That must be good for any able to the country at large. On the assumption—per-wholly for a certain journalism ; and in our own, makes up haps rather a violent one—that all politiciansare sincerely heaviness and want of literary distinction, which are its anxious that the real wishes of the nation should find, drawbacks, and which have, we think, of late years tended to expression in the Statute-book, this state of things is increase. We will not say that the most successful journals surely preferable to that which now exists, among us are often quite curiously tame ; but it is certain that we have not among us just now—it may be partly from accident—the writing of 1848. A "DELICIOUS CELEBRITY." So far, we are fairly with M. Zola, though we think the THERE is something a little inconsistent—not to say a conduct which justifies his praise is due to the reason he little hypocritical—in punishing a publisher for trans- implies in his censure of the French Press, and not to the lating a French author, and then receiving that author himself one he puts forward in his praise of the English ; but in his with unusual honours, with meetings of the representative remarks on criticism, we find ourselves at variance with journalists of the country, and entertainments in the City him altogether. He seems to think anonymous criticism something of an absurdity. Frenchmen, he protests, would never look at it. How, then, do they ever get a new critic P He is, when he begins, as unknown to them as if he did not sign his name, not to mention that, in at least one case out of three, he never signs it at all, but adopts a literary name, as actors and actresses adopt a name for the stage. What does the public lose from the imper- sonality of a critic Something, no doubt, when the subject is a book of information, for the name may show that the critic is specially entitled to pass judgment on his author, This ease, however, is rare, the rival explorer, or traveller, or man of science being usually lacking in impartiality ; and if the subject be literature, what is the loss the public sustains from anonymity P Cannot there be judgment in the anonymous writer, or originality, or that attention to form, the lack of which we frankly acknowledge is too often the opprobrium of English criticism P A man is not blind because he wears a mask, or ignorant because he does not sign his article as he would his will. His impartiality is likely to be increased, for he is not exposed to that literary hatred, which is at least as bitter as the odium iheologicum, while he need not yield so visibly or completely to the claim of friendship. As a matter of fact, in this country literary criticism is both personal and unsigned ; and, on the whole, we should say that, allowing for a name or two of positive literary distinction, the unsigned criticism was decidedly the brighter of the two. M. Zola says that in France "in criti- cism, as we understand it, there is a creative function, which distinguishes it from a mere summary or report." Very true of the better criticism, and very finely said ; but then, what has that to do with a nation s appreciation of impersonal work P Cannot creative art have merit unless we know the artist's name P Would M. Zola deny merit to every piece of Greek sculpture of which the carver's name has been for- gotten, or declare a great picture meaningless because it happened to be unsigned P Is the name of the poet the only test which Frenchmen of his intellectual rank apply to poetry P The truth is, the French realist believes that, to exhibit his full strength, the artist in words or in marble needs the stimulus of personal appreciation, of what he is pleased to call "delicious celebrity." That, he openly says, is neces- sary to give him individuality, passion,—even power. Is it ? We can fully believe that M. Zola knows his countrymen, and that, as regards them, his verdict is a correct one ; but that does not prove that it is correct of all mankind. There are men in England, and probably in Germany, in whom fear of what he calls "delicious celebrity "—which means much talk in drawing-rooms—is the great restraining influence on their oreative faculty, to whom the publicity of the street is almost loathsome, who will never do their best unless they are certain that it will never be known they did it. That applause of the crowd which M. Zola deems such a stimu- lating force is, to some men at least, a bewildering noise, in which they lose half their power of thinking and all their serenity of temper. M. Zola may deem such a con- dition of mind impossible, and doubtless it is so to the Parisian ; but it is not so to the Londoner, who five times out of ten, in all departments of life, prefers greatly to remain be- hind the screen, and even if he is ambitious, thinks with Lord Beaconsfield, that the secret sway of Europe would be worth more than a throne. There is something positively nasty in the idea that criticism, being part of literature, cannot be good or original without the stimulus of "delicious celebrity,"— that is, the applause of men who may or may not be competent to judge. We cannot conceive a greater pleasure than to send a great thought among mankind without one's name, to watch it working, and to know that the personality of its author would never be more discussed than the personality of the author of a Psalm.
The true puzzle in this question of anonymity is, that the arguments hardly apply to the case of books. The author of a book in almost every instance signs his name. The reason for the infrequence of anonymity in serious books, however, is, we fancy, either that the name has a definite relation to the value of the work, as in all books of exploration and most books of history, or that the publisher cannot afford to lose the advantage of previous success, or that the author does not think that a book will bring his personality so dis- tinctly forward as continuous writing for the public does. Even here, however, M. Zola's argument breaks down, for so little is "delicious celebrity" a needful whip to exertion, that the greatest writer of fiction of the century taxed his ingenuity and strained his conscience, to keep his personality from public comment. To men who think with M. Zola, Sir Walter Scott must seem a legendary personage.
Previous page
