It’s always
fun to disparage lousy writers, in part because denigration presents more
opportunities for humor. But praise for good work is a moral obligation. Above,
Max Beerbohm is preparing to celebrate a writer whose name was unknown to me: Dixon
Scott. Beerbohm supplied the introduction to Scott’s only book, Men of Letters, published posthumously in
1916. He had died in October 1915 at Gallipoli, serving as a lieutenant in the Royal
Field Artillery. He died at age thirty-four not from wounds but from dysentery,
aboard a hospital ship, as did thousands of others. Some 58,000 allied soldiers
died on the Gallipoli peninsula along with 87,000 Ottoman Turkish troops. The
campaign was planned by Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, to knock
Ottoman Turkey, Germany’s ally, out of the war. It was a humiliating disaster for
England and its allies.
Scott was
born in Liverpool in 1881, attended that city’s university and worked as a
journalist. He wrote a weekly column about books for The Liverpool Courier, reviews for The Manchester Guardian and critical essays for The Bookman. In the introduction, Beerbohm
is writing more than two years before the Armistice:
“Many a
bereavement in this war will have been the more bitter for the knowledge that
the lost one had in him something that, in future days of peace, would have had
a great outcome, surely. Not the least tragic thought that besets men in 1916
is that the toll taken is, in the strictest sense, incalculable. Among the very
young lives laid down there may—we shall never know—have been a Shakespeare, a
Newton, a far greater than Mr. Pitt, a far
greater than whom you will.”
Scott’s
subjects are the luminaries of his day, some of whom remain our luminaries – Kipling,
Henry James, Chesterton, Beerbohm. Two years before his death, here is Scott
reviewing the twenty-four volumes of James’ “New York Edition,” while perhaps
aping the Master’s late prose:
“If the
style is the man, as people keep on saying, then Mr. James’s humility could be triumphantly
proved by simply analyzing a series of his sentences. Incessantly, on the one
hand, they are dowering the smaller acts, facts, or features with great
spreading pinions of imagery. As often, on the other, they are expressing the
subtlest apprehensions in terms domestic, idiomatic, colloquial—using a sort of
celestial slang. And the result of this intermarrying is prose of a superb strength
and suppleness, a prose probably unsurpassed since Shakespeare’s—and able, at
its highest moments of passion, when it is aflame with a beauty greater than
even that borne by the most self-avowed poetry, to maintain the serene carriage
of the estate to which it belongs, and deprecate any suggestion of a ceremony.”
Beerbohm
writes in the introduction: “When I began to read the proof-sheets of this
book, I noted for quotation passages that seemed to me specially brilliant in
their verbal felicity; but they were soon so numerous that I had to close my
list. At whatever page you open this book you will find some of those
felicities.”
No comments:
Post a Comment