New-York tribune., 1902-05-11
3br Nelu'llork 9rlbnolr,
I.IsTRArED SUPPLEMENT.
SUNDAY, MAY II, 1902.

81 NIDA1, MAI II, lJp-
The announcement that the story which the
late Stephen Crane left unfinished is to be com
pleted by Mr. \. + W. Mason, the author OF
Miranda of the Balcony" causes us to wonder
once more just why this sort of thing should
happen. 1t is altogether probable. to be sure,
that Mr. Mason viii do the worl, we'll He has
before this acted as colI1bcrator. ana with
much more distinguished writer than Mr. Crane
Mr. Andrew Lang. L. Wit. He has shown that
he understands ana can successfully practise
one of the most difficult Of all the arts. Ills
own books have almost invariably been oil
merit But is III" question, where the Compie-
ton of Mr. Cranes novel is concerned, one OF
doing the work well or Ill: Is it not rather a
question rs to whether the work should be done
ut all: No matter how >kilful the craftsman
may lac who il called in 10 finish the book of
dead man. the result is bound to be of doubt
ful value. Mr.. Qucr couch finished the late
Robert Louis StcycnSons uncomplctcd novel
"St. Ives and he acquitted himself Of his
task with sympathy and tact. But is the con
tirmcd Stcycusonian really grateful for his in
tcrvcntion? \ diSintcrcsted reader is not likely
to feel much interest, to say nothing of pleasure,
in the added portion. No matter how interest
ing MI Cranes book may hc when it leaves
Mr. Masons hands it could not help but be,
in the very nature of things, ambiguous
souvenir of the American author.
IIySterical and unthinLing enthusiasm some
times seems to entrench an author in Il very
firm position, but in good time the reaction
always sets n In audng to this fact last
Sunday said that week longer passes
without a voice being raised somewhere in de
fence of the highest standard. Proof of this
reaches us from across the sea, where writer
i'll The Quarterly Review" has been turning
his attention to the of Mr.. Stephen Phil
lips. So much has been said in prepOsterous
eulOgy of this writer that it has seemed if
English criticism had quite lost its head. But
'The Quarterly" has no illusions on the sub
ject. 1t says, for example: Mr.. Phillips has
laid the paper, the sticks and the Goals neatly
III the CRATE, where they remain, in undsturbed
order, awaiting the flame that never wakens
them into light or heat" The critic goes into
details, Nothing that is said by Herod might
not we'll be said by Mariamne nothing that
is said by either Marianne or Herod might
not better be said by a third person" OF
'Paolo and Francesca" it is remarked that it
"secms at first sight to be more nearly IL work
of art than Ulysses because it has nothing
quite 50 bad as the prologue in heaven" The
poets characters, told pass and the
scenery is changed, and nothing that
they have done has moved us and nothing that
they have said has moved us; ana we can
always discuss the acting and the staging"
Mr. Phillipss work is characterized in short
as neither original poetry, nor genuine as
drama" These views as our readers well
know, have been already stated in The Trib-
une; but the point to which we would cspe-
cally refer is that they indicate recovery in
England of that critical sanity which for a
time seemed to have disappeared.
The Baconian hypothesis has for few
months caused so much excitement in the pub
lie prints that on the old principle of averages