Views and Reviews: Essays in appreciation: LiteratureHenley, William Ernest
History
Views and Reviews: Essays in appreciation: Literature
Henley, William Ernest
English literature -- History and criticism; Literature -- History and criticism
Fruits fail, and love dies, and time ranges; and only the whippersnapper
(that fool of Time) endureth for ever. Moliere knew him well, and he
said that Moliere was a liar and a thief. And Disraeli knew him too, and
he said that in these respects Disraeli and Moliere were brothers. That
he said so matters as little now as ever it did; for though the
whippersnapper is immortal in kind, he is nothing if not futile and
ephemeral in effect, and it was seen long since that in life and death
Disraeli, as became his genius and his race, was the Uncommonplace
incarnate, the antithesis of Grocerdom, the Satan of that revolt against
the yielding habit of Jehovah-Bottles the spirit whereof is fast coming
to be our one defence against socialism and the dominion of the Common
Fool. He was no sentimentalist: as what great artist in government has
ever been? He loved power for power's sake, and recognising to the full
the law of the survival of the fittest he preferred his England to the
world. He knew that it is the function of the man of genius to show that
theory is only theory, and that in the House of Morality there are many
mansions. To that end he lived and died; and it is not until one has
comprehended the complete significance of his life and death that one is
qualified to speak with understanding of such a life and death as his who
passed at Khartoum.
ALEXANDRE DUMAS
His Components.
The life of Dumas is not only a monument of endeavour and success, it is
a sort of labyrinth as well. It abounds in pseudonyms and disguises, in
sudden and unexpected appearances and retreats as unexpected and sudden,
in scandals and in rumours, in mysteries and traps and ambuscades of
every kind. It pleased the great man to consider himself of more
importance than any and all of the crowd of collaborators whose ideas he
developed, whose raw material he wrought up into the achievement we know;
and he was given to take credit to himself not only for the success and
value of a particular work but for the whole thing--the work in its
quiddity, so to speak, and resolved into its original elements. On the
other hand, it pleased such painful creatures as MM. Querard and 'Eugene
de Mirecourt,' as it has since pleased Messrs. Hitchman and Fitzgerald to
consider the second- and third-rate literary persons whom Dumas
assimilated in such numbers as of greater interest and higher merit than
Dumas. To them the jackals were far nobler than the lion, and they
worked their hardest in the interest of the pack. It was their mission
to decompose and disintegrate the magnificent entity which M. Blaze de
Bury very happily nicknames 'Dumas-Legion,' and in the process not to
render his own unto Caesar but to take from him all that was Caesar's,
and divide it among the mannikins he had absorbed. And their work was in
its way well done; for have we not seen M. Brunetiere exulting in
agreement and talking of Dumas as one less than Eugene Sue and not much
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account