Evening star., 1934-05-22

There has been much speculation
as to why Charles Dickens did not
want his version of the New Testa-
ment-just published, after so many
years, as a beautiful small book-to
see the light of print.
There have been many answers,
Dickens giving one himself by stating
that he did not care for the criticism
which would follow on his views. But
as these views are largely those Of
Luke, this explanation must be taken
with grain of proverbial salt.
No, the real reason, we believe, is
that the great writer knew better
than any one else that one under
takes a difficult task, indeed, when he
attempts to rewrite the New Testa-
ment.
When he composed the Life of Our
Lord" for his children he was at the
height of his writing career, the peer
of English writing men. His name
was household word wherever Eng
liSh was spoken.
AS a writing man he had no real
contemporary comparison to face-so
why should he openly aim at target
WHICH lie IlOJ 11ll
y X x
THE Life of Our Lord" as pub
lished in book form this month, will
be added to thousands upon thou
sands of sets of Dickens"
Despite the falling off in the sale
of sets" since the World War,
Dickens has continued to sell in that
form, for the same reason as always,
that those who like Dickens" like all
Of him.
And that is why, too, this new
booklet-it is scarcely more than
that-which is some 80 years old, will
receive the approval of all Dickens
lovers
1t is given to but few men, after
they are gone, 10 come back to earth
in tangible form to renew the Chris
tian hope and faith of millions Of
people.
This now is the happy fate Of
Charles Dickens.
Despite the sophistication of this
age, there are countless thousands of
persons, in all walks of life, who will
find an uplift in the page of The
Life of Our Lord"
And this will be all the surer since
it sticks so closely to the gospels, par
ticularly that of st. Luke. Dickens,
as an artist, knew that he could not
hope to better the New Testament, so
he did not try, but simplified it as one
would do for little ones.
In doing this, Of course, he removed
from his own version the very rugged
sublimlty of the original, and We be-
lieve 1t was for this reason, and none
other, that he always spoke strongly
against the publication of this little
work
He was a proud writing man, who,
though he spoke of Christian humility,
had little of it. He did not like COM
parison, even with Thackeray, and did
not care to put himself into position
where his work could be compared
with a writing of the most sublime
order.
The dramatic publication of this
little book, so long after its writer had
died. its publication in daily news
paper style, then weekly. and finally
as a book, was all as he would have
preferred it il he had ordained its
printing. And perhaps, in the back Of
his mind and at the bottom of his
heart, he knew it would be published
some day. and maybe even wished it,
because whatever he did-in the writ
ing line-he did we'll.
The little book is now before us, and
constitutes a precious piece of Dick
ensiana. All of us who have sets of
Dickens must put it in the row, as a
matter of duty No set of Dickens,
from now on, will be complete without
it. The letters, detailing his personal
affairs, have nothing to do with this