New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-01-06
POET AND CRITIC
How Swinburne and Churton
Collins Fell Out.

Andrew Lang, in The London Morning
Post
There are moments when man is in
cined to think that nobody with sense
OF humOr can be a poet, or a really great
man, or an influence for good in his
generation. For women one cannot be
so sure Had Sappho, had Miss Ros-
setti. a sense of humOr? These moments
Of doubt fall upon us after reading the
poems Of Milton, Shelley, Wordsworth
and Mr.. Swinburne, and perhaps the
biography of Mr.. Gladstone by my Lord
of Morley But a very brief interval II
reflection dispels the burden of our med
tations If Sappho had no humor,
Jeanne dare dubbed over with it, re-
member with pleasure passages OF hui
NOR in the literary works OF Mr.. GLAD
| stone Cromwell was full of his fun,
! though perhaps Lord Morley. in his life
of the great Protector. does not empha-
size the fact. 1t remains true that the
| four great English poets whom | have
named had no humOr of their own, but
Mr.. Swinburne had the keenest apprecia-
ton Of the quality in Dickens and the
| author OF the Bah Ballads" He also
wrote parodies of himself and some con-
| tempora ries but as sources Of mirth they
are not fruitful.
Only "A being destitute of humor could
| have missed the magnificent opening al
| fOrded to him by my friend the late Mr..
! Churton Collins, who himself | fear,
! overlooked his own chance OF enjoying
himself. The circumstances were i'm a
! high degree calculated to promote the
| hilarity Of the learned and of the two
| authors, If they had possessed any sense
of a joke. Mr.. Collins had reviewed a
| book. by an acquaintance, it appears,
| and he had done 1t after the manner OF
| MaCaulays criticism Of Croker's "Bos-
wells Johnson" Never, ii seems, was
| there book so irredeemably bad. The
/ author had said that some hero met an
| other in a lane and cut him down during
! the Great Rebellion. In fact, 1t appears
the SLAYER caught up his enemy and shot
| him My memory may be incorrect, but
! this, or something like it. is sample OF
| the errors denounced by Mr.. Collins.
| Next, people said that we ought not to
! pitch so heavily into books by our ac-
| quaintanCes. | would not do such q
! thIng--in the Macaulayesque style of in
vectve. hut | might adopt a tone OF ur-
bane banter, though our acquaintances
! do not like that even. However. Mr..
Collins publicly explained that he had
attacked the book, not the man; there
! was nothing extensively personal in his
! thunder. He had no better friend than
| Mr.. Swlnburne. and only a year earlier
! he had trounced Mr.. Swinburne as a
critic, IN The Quarterly Review" Yet
| Mr.. SWinburne Was as friendly as ever.
Now, it seems either that Mr., Swim
! burne never read the Quarterly" which
he hated and despised from its youth up
ward, or that the number had been Kept
ont OF his way by the affectionate craft
of those interested I'm his peace of mind
on reading Mr.. Colins's remarks he
procured the quarterly" and found that
the critical birch had been applied In the
manner of Macaulay, while now MIR. COL
Inns was praislng him for his manly in
difference To the rebukes of friend
! Now surely almost any man, after laugh
ing like a Homerlc god, would have
either asked Mr.. Collins To dine with
! him and share the joke, or, II he made a
public reply would have done 80 with
! gentle irony But Mr. Swinburne broke
| forth in passionate eloquence, first ours
| ing the Quarterly" for all It's old sins
and new crimes, and then letting Mr.
| Collins have II with both hands Now
was the opening for Mr.. Collins, who by
! this time should have seen the Joke and
handled 1t AS If he loved II. But though
no poet, he replied I'm the most bruising
manner. which the poet never forgave
| though Mr. Collins did forgive the min
strel.