New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-10-14
FANNY AND 'TILDA.
SOME EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL GIRL
tSHNLSs
Andrew t,ne. IN Murray's Marazinc.

Andrew Lang in Murfsy's Macsznc
ON reading Mr.. Ro1-evcts sr.lcs IN this Magazine
Iasi nlonrn. MS III, resting sri,l, on hec.n Sr,
eism America tn n'n OF ko SOC = cn.s n
saddeucd by tho thou ht our Inter ali0nai il'-
ness. Ii IS the cid sor OF ram, lucers anu nsr
ienl lida over agar u, Sa s'oss Hsebsm avs
not between two unierbrod young women. Ou. ~ ".
tween two nations OF The sam spescn 90. or ns
MOI vcnsurng 10 nnd any iAaid WIN r' ,.s ~
essay IN particular. II IL only the general presish
SD ri Of s,a shncss nncc ard denancu, ina, ses
so dcplorab-e. OTTER nations can celse eS'n s1usr
Ever, patiptc Ens hni.n agrees 81 DO, any wal Win
ann '@ our nav oar policy These are serous
matters, ana tn, clticsIn II ucn'nsn., pu hsn ibe
In ce o's 'F-enchsn dcl IN, IN thavan as ar b.st
linz OF fence legion 0f isrge-noo'ep, s"u
lons-,oothcd n.llsh Indies drawn up on our shor
les we say that IS one I'll OF the British islr,
though We have others. though We IT, ~, P .n
see how to improve thsse 10 ati'e I ,sa,, ens
and ly moved sometimes we even hugh ~ INC !Vh,,
wli Is against ourselves But ui,, nappi . III.
critic or tho SUBJECT OF criticism Thea bcIh SIDES
get shhl, snd angry. and undroIed, no,n PIT fbey
are culver M To Their acute and eager nreer nfls.
Perhaps IL Is Our fsalt chiefly We arc n,ssry
Also wc Lecp tcmpcS better. anu th1, - ,.,nr
suHcrably provoking ndced Il Is wIos .,, inlna
very much and that h the literary Englshihi1,h -
nueel Of dsns,et Amciesn a. s,scs ;e sI awsys
having shots =, our poor nglsh literature. our poets
ARD n0v Th BRITISH ' pn nHe" does not real their c
csm very much, and do~ not care ou' W. n'c'I ~
persons read H. and make disagr came IeIno., 10
these smcntts, our side scofes Ia'ner tA9 h', h
freely. We are Tilda was unto fanny, IN ,ns
strife already alluded TO, so II seems 10 ne VIC
keep our ntile tcmpcrs better In a cu'ng ron M
Chicago journal, Cor example road YIN pam 1ns,
81 a presunpiuous yourslncr that The Tines cnee
said something unkind OF Mr. Hawthorne and some
and the : s'es British Reviewers viii be gieaHy
guilty thereof Good IIeaye1,, K c ssIsd Mr.
owen yong aud plcsumptuous Mr. Lowell .ns was
yourg thcnnc Is s1s yHmmg p ~ se hs mas even
have fecn pr,sumpiuous. II h was, admit that
am quite on his side, lar as Pope goes iopo was
re,vc ,ornaIist in this country taking the trouble
to hunt up what dead old American scrlnes may
English literary divine vino had JUST le CTi9os
the essential Just ca OF this verdict. may u nor ..
set OF Ia, far ss fore o. laneIase godo al, th"se
tin.s matter to sensible MN, women o. Children an,,
70 not critics employ pretty severe terms , aoOut
Authors uS 81 'h nas MeT and for or aners
ore used to &c. tho most uhknd hlncs about hm ana
MS ss IN n, wb, ma q our comparative freedom
from temper which puts US Ihins OF nc 81 bs viz
-iuai Fanny sGreers in the Interna'iona. schoo 1r
composition For. IN the hf-t pa; rS fayorite
/ u
character In felton, would fam be numbered sinong
her Knights and wear her becoming colors Ba ~,
Iefch Of On Individual as II It we're Intended for an
ugly csrIcature of all American ma'denhooa' NJ, IT.
r. Miller. as bad American, ana SO Iornn; ,atcb
has AM English reviewer out OF ihe C , e. Sea
I'm pelindar or for any Of her soung women. ma
any orc called Miss Broughton bsa patIo,' .
IT,, IN tts ewes Of surrounding nations or course
not sara type Of jolly Young MR. nor Thaonbe
| Gsniier saws. we NAV easily have too much Miss
Daisy r Miller was Ear more SENSITIVE sha cnS bsr
hailed by her inappreciatlve cOuntrymen a. erline
Now we are very guilty on this SIDE OF me va
80 we NAV claim the advantage We DO not care
taif so uueh ard that IS what makes us so proy9Kng
that fave cesSlonally TIED to be so myself per-
| haps unsucccsstuly. 49,. $50 4, Eng
land would give up making any comments OF :ah'ca,,
rsn utera,ure, manners, or social habits. We can
spasl Without MGhs @ahns What recognized
II praise we praise The wfons ls This know,
for have tried ineffective but hearty u a nm
praise Mark Twain As one Ei inc SI WHO now use
he English language Yet ta's humble appres'snpn
has not Scy are To not as proud Of Mark could
wish on tho other hand II chance TO describe tne
msiley Of bad Ruskin and Indifferent Bret liarte
s az Of literary dlsauprobaon. The fact IS that
60 hsre NC do not know what IS thu correct tins
0,tSer "a current American literature or society
sdn,ire American authors whom American cIl,.s
/ denise. We have never heard OF authors "hom ,ne
more serious American reviews which ought 70 hnoM
dis,ncueh by their applause II IS the same thne %
nnatc i'm America There they appreciate Ehgish
writer's who are not have not yer become popn en
.idcrable fmnor) prophets OF our OVID altogether We
81 not mind this much in our I'm" native bumpuous
20 NJ wa . faucy We know best But one can easily
cor4rs NAT 10 an American man OF letters. English
nraisn ~ countryman of his whom he does not cd
| miro seems another proof OK cur insuiar''J'