New-York tribune., 1899-12-17

dents" or entirely unprofcssional lovers OF good
literature?
In reviewing "Stalky & Co." it seemed to us
legitimate and. in fact, imperative, 10 describe
the heroes - Of that lamenable book as little
Uoolgans We scarcely expected. however,
that the epithet would ever be applied as ME-
Robert buchanan applies it in speaking OF MT
Kiplings utterance i'll general. Wrltihg SUI
phurous attack upon that author in The Con
temporary" Mr.. Buchanan gives his article the
startling tile of THE Voice of The llooligan.
and he seeks to justify the phrase by exhibit
ing the subject of his remarks in the very worst
light. Some little sympathy he inspires. "Stliky
& CO." is a severe dose for the admirers OF Mr.
Kipling to swallow The most drastic things
said about it they can only approve. But when
Mr. Ruchanln talks about Mr.. Kipllng as Il
writer who in his single person adumbrates. l
think. all that is most dcplOrablc, all that is
most rctrogradc and savage, in the restless and
uninStructcd IIooliganiSm Of the time, he IS
talking ridiculously. Years ago, in his famous
assault upon The FlcShy School Of Poetry
that is to say. upon the English Prc-Raphacl-
itcS-hc showed into what errors a man may fall
when he lacks the sense Of humOr. In this at
tempt at writing down Mr.. Kipling he falls
into the same errors, for the same reason. y
sense of humor means, among other things,
sense of proportion. ana Mr.. buchanan has al
lowed his estimate of Mr.. Kiplins's work TO be
distorted and rendered grotcsquc simply through
looking at the elements in it he dislikcs ana at
nothing else. \ reaction against Mr. Kipling
has been expected. and in 'Stalky & Co." he
himself seems to invite and excuse it. But if
.,I Z h,.i
mistaken Shrill abuse only hurts the man who
uttrrS it, 1t would be pleasant TO think that the
wide dcnunciation of 'Stalky X Co." led the
author To think twice before he further inn
peril, his reputation for staying power" but
when hc is 50 crasSly undercsrimatcd as in Mr.
Buchanan's article he can afford to smile.
%---
MIR. f. f. Benson. in an ingenious defence Of
the gentle art of plagiarism sets forth some eX-
cclcmt plltitudcs. ''J'nintelligcnt theft" he de-
ciar,S is pla siarism; critical theft is not i'll
consistent with tie truest originality" He
cites the case of Shakespeare. who transmogri-
fled in his plays the motives he found in Italian
novels. This is the sort of plagiarism that OBJ
viously needs no defence 1t means simply the
adoption Of a theme. We fancy no dramatst
Of to-day is ever blamed for anncXing subject
from Il predecessor ] ne ElEllSn CTliNS are
Guplauding Mr. stephen Phips's "paoo and
Francesca" which takes from Dante IA subject
that dozens of writers have also borrowed at
different times. But if do not need Mr..
Bcnsun'S observations on this phase of the sub
jcct. there is certainly occasion for what he says
about the Stylc-Stcaler" Let him, this adviser
taCity urges. go on Stcaling-that is IN say.
let him avoid aS he would the plague "A sOulleSs
imitation of De Quincy, for example. but let
him also, 10y all means. profit by the works of
that literary craftsman as much and as often
as possible. II we are To make Il fetch of
originality, what is 10 become of that effect
upon literature which every master of style is
supposed TO exert? There is plagiarism and
there is plagiarism. The writer with "A con
science knows where the difference lies. And
he is none the worse if sometimes hint of
Iome great writer steals into his work.