New-York tribune., 1896-11-01

| with tho bulk Of his ma,erial-are men who have
| gone ont India carrying with them rroio"nu
| sense of the majesty OF Queen Victorias law All
the officers. and most OF tho mon, are dyed deep'
whether for good or for i'll, with the colors OF an
old civilization. Compare them with inc la"Iess
! inhabitants OF one of Bret Hartes camps; compare
| Mulvaney and his comrades with the ou'cas.s III
Poker Flat 4 whole Saif lies between them. More
+ than this the American types as We nave seen.
| struggled with condition OF things Jar remove"
| from any civilization. ancient or modern kp'ing
men fight painted heathcn as savage "a 'he 'ui""S
! Of the West: they climb some or the Widest noun
tain passes Of world; the jungle Is ono OF their
everyday experiences but from years end to year
end they confront a civilization not merely as ola
| as their own but infinitely older and productive
all the time of a distinction between life as they
live it and life Bret Hlrtcs gamblers ana miners
live IL that il as the distinction between bach anu
white
II viii be perceived that nothing invdlous lies
in this distinction. IT leaves 10 each OF the
authors his rightful erninence But 1t ought to
prevent the thoughtless Jumping together OF the
two which has been absurdly frequent, ana whch
few of those responsible for II could pretend 10 eN
plain or defend II they were cornered ana lorcen
~ gve the reasons for their contention The fact
would appear 10 be that, on the strcnSth OF 'hoso
legitimate rcscmbances between kipiihs ana 'iar,o
10 which allusion has been made above. thousahus
Of readers have mechanically bracketed them'
somewhat after tho fashion or those s'r""se So"'
who talk of Thackoray and Dickens as thoush
they made Il natural couple kiplinS ana iia''c
do not make a natural couple at all. Ihey nave
cultivated entirely different fields as mas peop
shown and while the attrbution OF certain good
prose qualities to them both holds good. their kinds
of prose are removed from one another py an I'M
measurable distance. one style Is as good as '"e
other for its special purpose; we wou'd not h"No
Bret Harte writing in any but his faiihar way
nor Kiping borrowing the dction OF his coh'eih-
huf
pointed out between the two. nevertheless ana 10
be remembered. whether they leave the reaner Il"
exclusive admirer OF one man or the othcr' hr'ny
stated. those differences amount to this: Inc
spccch of Bret Harte's men and women Is the
speech OF types once carefully Observed pu' i'a"'
IN converse as their observer wishes them 10.
Take the talk OF "a Mother OF Five. OF Barker
Luck" Of "Buger's Reputation II Is tood ''ih'
very good talk, but exactly half OF 1t we owe 10
Mr. Harte's originals the other half is due tn his
own descriptive powers and his own sense Oh
humor. There Is no Kiplng at all In Mulvaneys
discourse IL Is pure Mulyancy Doubt. II you hke'
that 30 picturesque narrator ever existed IN IN"
British Army out OF IT, While he holds the
barrac room floor the fact that ho had literary
creator goes clean OF mind. He is himself. lie
talks like himself And from Mulvaney to Mowsh'
from Mowgll to old Kaa. this individuality OF Ut
terance i5 invariably preserved
II II were a matter of words. or mere style, IN"
difference would be striking enough. But tlS dIi-
ference really strikes the very core OF tic queS
tion II leaves Bret IIarte recocctinS some aD-
sorbing stories OF Western life. and passing th.m
ON TO the reader with the skill OF consummate
narrator. 1t leaves Rudyard Kipling divinins i'm
aginatively other absorbing stories, TINS timo or
Indian life. and presenting them to the reader III
the pcrfecton Of mirrorcd things. Which Is the
more remarkable achievement whose is the moro
extraordinary genius? Let those argue tho Iucs-
,inn who care 10 do so. When II said OF the
characters OF Racine and Mo6rc that the FIRST
stirred tho spectator by saying fine things and tho
second stirred him without saying anything there
was left q margin Of choice Some people Ike to
he moved through direct appeal, Others prefer a
certain delicate suhtley and even dclibcration OF
approach Who shall say that ono il right. IN.
other wrong? The main point IS TO grasp tho "s-
scntal differences between two writer's or genius
who have unjusiiably been discussed 70 tie point
OF wearinoss as though they were literary twins.
The specific merits OF the books which have pro-
yoked our reference to those differences are. II
should hc added thoroughly characteristic. and
have kept tn. present analysis perfectly fair
basis "Rarkcr's Luck" 10 typical collection as
rich in huinor as any 81 the authors more familiar
volumes lie Introduces to no now figures or
such freshness as tho. who gave him his earliest
| aurels but his situations are as picturesque as
ever ard ono story especially. "In tho Tul's'
Illustrates his tragic vein its best. All Of tho
| tales I'm Mr. Killings volume pro old favoritcs.
| "The incarnation Of Krshna Mulvaney" * one Of
! Them and another IS the masterpoc" called Tho
Man who Wa." The Illustrations not all
that rnicht bc desired a competent illustrator Of
| klpling has vet 10 10 horn-hut they tho best
| that have bocn drawn yet and. on IA" whole. pro-
| vide II sympathetic and attractive accompaniment
| 20 the text.