American literature -- History and criticism; English literature -- History and criticism; World War, 1914-1918 -- Poetry
She liked to discuss people better than books or politics or
principles, although she never shrank from these. But it was what
she said about human beings that kept her interlocutors hanging on
her lips. She made extraordinarily searching strictures on persons,
without malice, but without nonsense of any kind. Her own
favourites were treated with reserve in this respect: it was as
though they were put in a pen by themselves, not to be criticised
so long as they remained in favour; and she was not capricious,
was, on the contrary, conspicuously loyal. But they always had the
impression that it was only by special licence that they escaped
the criticism that every one else was subjected to. Lady Dorothy
Nevill was a stringent observer, and no respecter of persons. She
carried a bow, and shot at folly as it flew. But I particularly
wish to insist on the fact that her arrows, though they were
feathered, were not poisoned.
Light was thrown on the nature of Lady Dorothy's wit by her
correspondence. She could in no accepted sense be called a good
letter-writer, although every now and then brilliantly amusing
phrases occurred in her letters. I doubt whether she ever wrote one
complete epistle; her correspondence consisted of tumultuous,
reckless, sometimes extremely confused and incorrect notes, which,
however, repeated--for those who knew how to interpret her
language--the characteristics of her talk. She took no pains with
her letters, and was under no illusion about their epistolary
value. In fact, she was far too conscious of their lack of form,
and would sign them, "Your incompetent old friend"; there was
generally some apology for "this ill-written nonsense," or "what
stuff this is, not worth your reading!" She once wrote to me: "I
should like to tell you all about it, but alas! old Horace
Walpole's talent has not descended on me." Unfortunately, that was
true; so far as literary expression and the construction of
sentences went, it had not. Her correspondence could never be given
to the world, because it would need to be so much revised and
expanded and smoothed out that it would no longer be hers at all.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account