The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-31

writer, James Howell Friendship" said
he, lis the great chain OF human society.
and intercourse Of letters Is one Of the
less was thinking OF the revelation and
giving of self that letters imply. opening
the heart as a key does a door. as his IA
pandit episto.a pectus." This, too, was the
view which Dr. Johnson took when he
wrote to Mrs. Thrale that "a mans soul
lies naked in his letters" Yet he was con-
scious that this was not the whole story.
for he Enthusiastically observed in his
Life OF Pope that mo transaction offers
stronger temptations TO faliacy and sophis-
there is no doubt that the ' true stevenson.
the sincere friend and gallant spirit. 10
displayed in these delightful letters OF his.
French critic speaks OF them In the last
number OF the Revua des Deux Mondes as
correspondence should be.
For professional writer's, one would
think. there is special need OF expanding
in letters TO each other, or to a judicious
friend. They have so mary things 10 say
which they cannot say to the public.
Pearls often decorate a letter which simply
could not be cast before-well. the genteel
reading public. There are forms OF wicked
cleverness OF Irony, OF truth taught by
silent laughter. which would be wasted
upon the literal and unwinking deyourer
of print. and which require the written
page and 1T auoience. Then there are the
conventionalities. the humbugs generally
agreed upon, which must be observed I'm
decorous magazine, or book, but which
your tr1e letter writer finds delightful
freedom I'm disregarding or exposing In
private. This was long ago remarked by
Poe, who said that the confidential talk
and private criticism OF literary men was
vastly more illuminating than their public
utterance. The reason was that. In a cir
Gle OF friends, most OF all I'm a conversation
a deux, "A man could not take the trouble
to mold his countenance TO the lie" ex-
~s..l If In, riFf 1of-
tiers are the well I'm which he keeps truth
Stevensons letters. TO come back TO
them, frequently possess one thing I'm COM
mon with those OF the best writers--the at
Effectiveness of impromptu and unofficial
criticism. II Is getting TO be question IL
this is not the very best criticism We have.
The glancing judgment of Fftz Gerald's
letters. the happy insight in some OF
Keats's, Tennysons obiter dicta. Brown
ings keen deliverances in his letters. Lo-
wells overpius OF wit I'm his-where I'm
works Of formal criticism shall we nnd
their equal for inspiration and solace? IL
was a surprising thing In Matthew Ar
nolds letters that they were barren OF
criticism. You would have looked for much
OF IL in the critic by profession. Yet be-
yond the undisguised respect with which
he analysed his own poetical powers and
prospects there was little or nothing OF IL
10 catch and fix the attention. IL takes the
more spontaneous natures 20 overflow in
the unprecedented criticism which makes
the cut-and-dried article seem a poor and
juiceess AFFAIR. Stevenson had some de-
lightful splashes OF the former.
But the main thing II. as we said az the
start. that he gives Us one proof more that
letter-writing has survived. The formal
and stilted art may have passed away, but
the breath and JOY OF quick and CONT
Dental communication OF friend with
friend remain. IL sometimes seems as II no.
body but lovers kept up nowadays tho
practice OF close and full intercourse by
means OF letters. Certainly as long the
world has lovers, suffering like Shakespeare
| from a "separable spite" IL will have let
| tiers, and long and ieisurely ones. The
Prince OF Wales. who was later George ".
| did his twenty seven pages OF 'I-love-
| yous' 20 Mrs. Fitzherbert as the moot nat
ural thing In the world. and natural II con-
tinues 10 men IN his condition. But 10 get
| two large volumes OF letters. like Steven
sons, with never a love letter I'm the lot.
is grateful renewal OF hope In the per-
| sistence. even In our shorthand genera
ton. of lelsGreiy and self-reveaiins letter
writing.