New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-04
SAMUEL BUTLER
a Note of Moderation Among
Many Enthusiasts

Reviewing John F. Harris's study Of
Samuel Butler: The Man and His
Work." in the current issue Of the
London "Bookman," George Sampson
maintains the critical attitude which
has been absent from nearly all the
recent appropriations of the author OF
"Erewhon" and "The Way Of All
Flesh" He says in part:
Mr.. Harriss book on Samuel Butler
is a credtably enthusiastic study. 1t
is certainly better than Mr.. Gilbert
Cannans, though, really, that is not
saying very much; still, covering, as
it does, much the same ground in much
the same manner it has an air of being
rather superfuous. Butler is steadily
finding his appropriate readers, who,
in general, are not the kind OF per-
sons urgently in want of guidance or
instruction. What is needed about
Butler is not further explanation, but
further information. We want his life
and letters on the same generous scale
as his own biography Of his own grand
father. We want, in short, more OF
him, not more about him.
Now Mr.. Harris, with all his en-
thusasm, cannot give US any fresh IN
formation about his hero. The half
hundred pages of Mr.. Testing Jones's
biographical sketch contain more ma
terial for an understanding Of Butler
than the volumes of Mr.. Harris and
Mr.. Canaan added together. True, Mr..
Harris does not claim 10 tell US any
thing new, and he is entitled to object
to any criticism that "slates" him for
failing 10 do what he has made no
pretence of attempting. ! hope he Will
acquit me OF any such intention. ! am
not trying TO be severe; | am merely
trying to Indicate that his book, what
ever its excellence, is a book about
Buffers books and not about Butler
It's critical value, however, is not
very high. 1t is piece of enthusiasm
rather than a piece of criticism. ! can
not recall n single sentence in which
Mr. Harris ventures TO differ from his
hero or to recognize the existence of
any truth outside Buffers view. Re
ferring 70 Buffers quarrel with Oar
win, he reproaches Grant Allen and
Romanes and Ray Lancaster with being
such complete disciples Of their master
that they would not admit the posi-
bility of his ever being wrong. Mr..
Harris is Just such a Butlerite as these
others were Dsrwinians. He should be
charitable 10 kindred spirits and learn
something from their too much zeal.
Darwin and Butler are just milestones
on the great road. The Butlerite Of
to-day will ultimately be as obsolete as
Al NJ. ,soy Of after
all, Charles Darwin really was great
man, even though Samuel Butler did
write some delightful books against
him.
Mr.. Harris's righteous indignation
makes him little credulous about But
lers early lack of popularity.
The neglect of Butler by his own gen
Grafton was, of course, deplorable, but
it does not prove or imply any organ
lied suppression. Ii proves, II II
proves anything, just this, that the
world OF books was rolling round IN the
same old way. Butler was that rare
thing. a really original writer, and the
scandalous indifference OF mankind TO
contemporary originality is the Oldest
story in literary history. Conspiracy,
in one sense, there was and always Will
be-the instructive protective herdlng
of us dull fellows together against INC
slings and arrows Of outrageous genius.
But that is natural and common, not
particular to Butler
1t will appear, then, that Mr.: harris
Is q good disciple; but his attitude OF
Difference makes him take too seriously
some of his masters utterances-on
STYLE. for instance. Buffers protested
indifference TO style in general and MS
own in particular always strikes me as
a little like those modest self-depreel-
ations that we advance in the hope OF
having them contradieted. Did
Butler (who, of course, condemned
Stevenson really think that style is
some sort of horid ornament super
posed upon plain matter? Did he think
that striving for style was merely Ike
using some kind Of scented soapg by
the way, however indifferent TO style
Butler may have been, don't think ne
would have liked some of Mr.. Harriss
sentences for instance: ut Is
only, then, looked upon as a humorist'
with humor an integral part OF his
makeup, that we can hope to under
stand Butler"
To look upon Butler IS hunorlst IS
certainly much more healthy tnAn 70