New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-26
0bs Neap'Wnrk 0ribrnae.
ILLUSTRATED SUPPLEMENT-.
SUNDAY. MARCH &c 1905.

poet Says Mr.. Francis Coutts-Whom we con-
feSs we do not know how to describe in his
literary capacity save a writer Of minor
poetry-"it is not said of Wagner that he is
minor because he is not so great as Bach, nor
of Sullivan because he is not so great as Wag-
ner." He is indignant because one reviewer
has dared to maintain that ''the antithesis of
minor poetry is not great poetry, but simply
poetry" MIR. Coutts's blood is up "Sir" he
declares to the Editor of 1.-THE Spectator" in
which the offending remark was printed,
verses that are not poetry are not worthy of
review at all, even by minor reviewer" etc.
Our protesting poet has his sympathizers one
of whom observes, with sublime authority, that
people who use these Words minor poetry
require to be told that by their very use they
mark themselves out as absolutely unqualified
to criticise poetry at all. The real lover of
poetry would not speak Of Gray as minor poet
as distinct from Milton. It is just as ridiculous
TO speak of Mr.. Stephen Phillips or Mr.. w. b
Yeats as a minor poet in relation to Wordsworth
and Tennyson" This is delicious But the
whole episode is, indeed, very funny. We won
der if Mr.. Coutts and his friends really imagine
that a reform in the Technology Of criticism
would turn their minor poetry into poetry.
Mr. Francis Watt who used to be associated
with the late w. e. Henley, in the palmy days
Of 1.-The Scots Observer" prints In the London
Outlook some memories Of his old friend
They are interesting as throwing light on a
theory of editorship which, If 1t did not make
l1enleys paper success had, nevertheless. a
great deal to recommend it His standard of
editing, we are told, was high and thorough.
Every part had to be done the best possible:
even the four line review Of schoolbook pol
lshed dd ungeIns. His cancellations were dras-
TIC; Wild legends were af1oat OF q two col
uInn review reduced to two lines; of articles so
altered that their nominal author failed to spot,
his own work" Mr.. Watt remarks that all this
meant enormous labor and excessive irritation
but he adds this imperious editor gave gener-
ously to his contributors. MANY borrowed
plume was sported by another bird, and that
before the very eyes and with the full consent
OF the only begetter.' His was the phrase de-
scribing the Observation-Disclosures form of
Scots literature as the 'Kailyard School This
prefaced another mans work, and it was no
blame to the other man that he got credit for
one of Henley's best hits" His friend grants
that he had limitations, but says that these in
creased his strength. He had no silly conceit
he was not bumptous, but he had the most sin
scere open, frank admiration Of his own
achievements "An American publisher had put
forth poem OF Tennyson, poem of Brown
ing. poem Of Henley in tiny volume. .
! found the booklet lying his study table and
glanced through it. You are in good company
1 said. They are was his instant and sure
reply l think he was rightp'
The quarrel between wood engraving and the
process block is glanced at in 1.-The King' by
that veteran journalist Mr.. Frederick Green
wood. He is, Of course stanch believer In
the inalienable distinction Of art mo photo
gravure," he says, "can equal a good etching,
meZZotint line engraving nor can the best of
the process docks compare with mas
terly wood engraving" But we are glad to see
that Mr.. Greenwood has no patience with those
for whom process block is contemptbIe
While he admits that it can produce bad effects.
he notes that every form of pictorial illustra-
ton can be hideously bad, and adds: 'sThat the
process block is a comparatively cheap product
even at its best, is SO much the better tuhen If
Is at its best 1t is the cheap and nasty which
Is odious; and though all the superior criticism
Of the time were to say that this is a true de-
scription of the new process altogether, should
answer No." The truth is that to condemn the
process block simply because it is sometimes
abused would be like condemning the automo-
bile because some people do all they can to
make that Invaluable machine nuisance
Could anything serve better than the process
block to illustrate a book like Through Town
and Jungle" which we review today? The IL
lustraton reproduced gives a sufficient answer
to the question