The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-07-30
Books and Authors
A ToPLoFTicAL CRITIC,

In Littel's Living Age for July IS Is
reprinted a Somewhat peculiar criticism
from the Church Quarterly Review upon
the stories about India, written by Rud-
yard Kipling and Mrs. Flora, Annie Steele.
Both these authors are generally regarded
as decidedly we'll Informed as to the peo
pie of India and to present fairly accur-
ate icture Of their peculiarities and com
monalities. The Quarterly reviewer, how
ever. calls in question their ability to in
troduce westerners to these people, and
even charges Mrs. Steele and Kipling with
never getting beyond the lowly peasants,
women of bazaars. courtesans, caravan
drivers, horse dealers, soldiers, etc. He
hints that neither author was ever in the
home of well-born Hindu people and
writes blindly and ignorantly when allud-
ing to Hindu. homes Of the better class.
Probably the reason less has been said of
the home life of this kind, is because the
retirement of the women keeps them from
the public gaze and their lives furnish
very little to write about except misery.
Indeed the good English women. who are
permitted to visit and converse with the
women Of these better homes, say that
they come in contact with a most un-
happy kind Of life, destructive of all high
ambition. It Is no wonder, therefore, that
Kipling prefers to- portray such a life as
little Hin" presents on the road with
the lama, the horse dealer, Balu, the ped
lar, and others. The reviewer seems to
haye expected too much from these Eng
fish raconteurs of incidents in India. ~ He
says: -"Of the real India, the reserved IN
dia,r the. India behind closed doors, the
mystic, subtle minded, courteous, digni-
fed, perhaps disdainful India,-the India
to whom a thousand years are as but a
day-of this they know little or nothing,
tho both get, occasionally, a, glimpse, an
ocr,f~ fj>r, %,,rv -
ments and houses and habits of this kind
Of Indian and they go .hopelessly wrong;
they try to follow the workings OF the In
dian mind, and they are guilty of gross,
IT, unconscious, misrepresentation - {. He
says Mrs. Steele can't even describe cor
rectly the dress of a Hindu lady and Kip
ling blunders in attempting to describe an
Indian palace. This is interesting. Mrs.
Steele has lived long enough in India and
has such large acquaintance among the
''better classes,'' that she ought to know
If the reviewer Is right when he asserts
| that, If a woman lets her white veil fall
in billowy curves like a, cloud about her
feet she will inevitably be nude. How
did the sapient reviewer find this out,
while Mrs. Steele does not seem to have
observed a case of 1t: - =.
Suppose Kipling and Mrs: Steele had
devoted their books to stories of the "In-
Ola DeHlHu CloSeu uOOTS, where are the
mystics, the subtle minded, courteous,
dignifed 1isdainful natives, instead OF
taking India of the open door; India in
| the highway, in the bazaar; on the farm
| in the homes Of the people; travelling by
| rail or caravan: making love and in all
Indian moods Of jealousy, envy, hatred; in
tragedy and comedy,-how stupid would
have been those stories Of a fat monot-
onous life and mystical formalfties! Sc
| minute is the fault finding OF the reviewer
that he rebukes Kipling for speaking OF
the rustic of silk dress, suggesting that
India silks do not rustic as they have no
cotton in them and rustling silk is evil
dence that such silk Is of shoddy make
Yet it is perfectly possible that many
| shoddy silks are worn in India. Both
Kipling and Mrs. Steele will, no doubt
survive the critical assaults Of the Quar-
| terly reviewer. ...s : -. -. -, !.