ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901)
HARRIETT JAY BOOK REVIEWS
3. Through the Stage Door (1884) to Robert Buchanan (1903)
The Spectator (15 December, 1883)
Through the Stage Door: a Novel. By Harriett Jay. (F. V. White.)—This is a regrettable book. The coarse vices of bad men are not material whereof women should weave their fictions. If they know anything about the matter by experience in their own families, they ought to conceal that sad knowledge; if they have to draw on their imagination for the facts, they render themselves unpleasantly ridiculous. The “Mr. George” of Miss Jay’s novel, who is a married Duke, and the relation to him of two of the female actors in the story, are exceedingly repulsive features of a novel which has no attractive ones. The writer does her work so carelessly that she makes Mr. Fane, the father of her heroine, when he wants to escape the sounds of household contention, “stuff his fingers into his ears, and continue his writing;” describes a room as “luxuriantly furnished,” and a young lady as being “fully as elated as if she had known, &c.,” writes of “invitations pouring in fast and furious” on a fashionable young man, who is blest with “an overflowing card-basket,” and of young ladies’ “drinking down” champagne. The very vulgar company of this novel is, however, preferable to its fine company; a lady who intercepts letters, and bribes her nephew to ruin the reputation of her brother’s betrothed wife; and another lady who tells her husband that she is sure their expected guest “will come to their house in the finery of a street- walker,” are much more offensive persons than the Fane family. The latter are not at all original; we have met them in many trashy novels, in which grave and gallant English gentlemen—mostly military—select their wives from “the juvenile lead;” although it must be admitted there is something remarkable about Miss Lottie. It is not every young lady who figures in tights of whom it can be said, “The necessary stage training had added to her manner a naïveté which she might not otherwise have possessed.” We have hitherto regarded stage training as a potent corrector of naïveté.
The Academy (15 December, 1883)
A Christmas Rose. By Mrs. Randolph. In 3 vols. (Hurst & Blackett.)
Miss Jay has taught her readers to look for vigorous work at her hands, so that her very merit is to blame if this latest book of hers causes some disappointment to her readers. It is far from dull, is even bright and easy, but it lacks the strength and freshness we naturally expect from her; nor is it written from the inside. The story is slight, being that a wealthy and middle-aged officer falls in love at the theatre with a good and pretty actress of burlesque, Lottie Fane, and desires to make her his wife; but, after he has won her conditional assent, mischief is made, with the object of parting them, by his sister and a half-adopted ward of his, whose interest it is that he should not marry. The usual intercepting of letters is the main agency employed, and all the latter part of the tale is occupied with the trouble which comes in consequence, and the means taken for setting it right. The theatrical portions, though cleverly sketched, do not seem derived from first-hand knowledge; and the self-contained little heroine and her kindly, but boisterous, sister are the only characters which are not mere lay figures. And the Camden Town household, with a meek, industrious, kindly little father, much put upon by his gloomily majestic wife, whose tragic utterances are constantly snubbed by her younger daughter, while the elder consoles their father, is almost a transcript from the Wilfer family in Our Mutual Friend. Miss Jay has originality enough not to need the help of plagiarism, and no one would take such well-known goods wittingly; but the resemblance is so close that unconscious memory must have been at work when she was writing that episode of her story.
The Graphic (19 January, 1884)
At a time when everything relating to the stage is of such supreme interest as it is, Miss Harriett Jay’s “Through the Stage Door” (3 vols. : F. V. White and Co.) must be considered eminently well-timed. The inner life of the stage, painted by a successful actress, claims a popular value of its own, independently of the literary merits safe to be found in any work by the authoress of “The Queen of Connaught” and “The Dark Colleen.” Considered merely as a novel, we do not think that “Through the Stage Door” is nearly equal in merit to Miss Jay’s studies of modern Irish life and character. It is in the serious portraiture of strong passions among appropriate surroundings that she most excels, and something of the unreality of the stage attaches to the persons and situations of her new theatrical novel. Possibly, however, this was to some extent indispensable, especially as she has preferred to deal with her subject lightly.She has certainly not fallen into the grotesque and common error of idealising the still little known world that lies behind the scenes, nor is her picture likely to attract young ladies and gentlemen who are smitten with the taste of the hour. Her heroine, Lottie Fane, and Lottie’s lively sister, Carrie, illustrate possibilities of combining innocence and good sense under the most adverse circumstances; but then these adverse circumstances are dwelt upon no less strongly. Of course the heroine’s charm is brought out all the more effectively by force of contrast not only with the difficulties of her domestic and public life, but with the household of the man whom she is so fortunate to obtain for her lover, and finally for her husband. Miss Jay holds the balance evenly throughout, between whatever reasons have in any period injured the stage in social estimation and those dull and stupid prejudices which go far to keep the stage from vindicating itself, and gaining the full recognition bestowed upon other arts so freely. In short, the novel admits the due amount of right and wrong on both sides of the question, and amply shows how much more human interest attaches to the life of the stage as it really is than to those monstrous illusions hitherto given to the world as theatrical novels. That actors and actresses are just men and women is a piece of knowledge which is still uncommon; and Miss Jay’s interesting and able story will help to promulgate this truth.
The Spectator (2 February, 1884 - p.23)
Through the Stage Door. By Harriett Jay. 3 vols. (F. V. White and Co.)—We are inclined to think that this is the best, as it is certainly the pleasantest, story that Miss Jay has yet given to the world. It is true that there are some very disreputable people that figure in it, and places described, “the Belladonna Club,” for instance, which young women, not to say young men, had best know nothing about; but the effect of the book generally is good, and its tone sound and wholesome. Carlotta and Caroline Fane, daughters of a family which has been for generations connected with the drama, are two actresses in burlesque. Carlotta is the heroine of the story, and Caroline plays the second part. The love-affairs of the latter move smoothly enough. She is engaged to a comic singer at music-halls, a very worthy young fellow, we are glad to hear, and marries him. She is a very intelligent and determined young person, with a temper of her own, as all good women, it is said, have. Carlotta’s fortunes are much more complex. A certain Colonel Sedgemore, a man of good family and fortune, falls in love with her. His family naturally object. How they scheme against her, and how the scheming ends, is told here in a very lively story, which we have read with much pleasure, and can recommend anyhow to older readers. The two sisters are a pair of as good, honest girls as ever were described in a novel, and are amusing withal. Amusing also in another way is the tragédienne, their mother, a humble follower of Mrs. Siddons; and Mr. Fane, also a professional man, bnt who has not risen beyond the height of prompter, till, indeed, the growing fame of his daughters, who rise from burlesque to Shakespeare, brings him elevation. Mr. Fane astonishes us on p. 16, when he, “stuffs his fingers into his ears and continues his writing;” but he turns out to be nothing more than the ordinary “heavy father,” only excellently well described. Through the Stage Door may seem frivolous beside grave works of fiction that deal with Irish difficulties, but it is a great deal more readable.
The Standard (4 February, 1884 - p.3)
WAITING FOR THE VERDICT.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD.
SIR,—In the Spectator of December 15 appeared a review of a novel from my pen entitled “Through the Stage Door,” containing the following severe strictures:—“This is a regrettable book. The coarse vices of bad men are not material whereof women should weave their fictions. If they know anything about the matter by experience in their own families they ought to conceal the sad knowledge; if they have to draw on their imagination for the facts they render themselves unpleasantly ridiculous. . . . Exceedingly repulsive features of a novel which has no attractive ones. . . . The very vulgar company of this novel is, however, preferable to its fine company. . . . The Fane family are not at all original, we have met them in many trashy novels, although it must be admitted there is something remarkable about Miss Lottie. It is not every young lady who figures in tights of whom it can be said, ‘the necessary stage training had added to her manner a naïveté which she might not otherwise have possessed.”
The Pall Mall Gazette (4 February, 1884)
The old literary maxim that no one can ever be written out of a reputation save by himself is undoubtedly sound, and as a general rule nothing can be less wise than for a writer to criticise his critics. But there are exceptions to the rule. Mr. Whistler’s famous critical catalogue, for instance, raised a well-deserved laugh by no means against himself; and there is a letter in the Standard this morning which furnishes another case in point. It will surely go hard with the authoress of “Through the Stage Door” if the public does not feel a good deal of curiosity about a novel which one and the same journal describes as “exceedingly repulsive” and eminently “readable” and “pleasant.” The highest function of criticism, as every one knows, is to find out the best that can be known; but there is an even larger impartiality in saying at the same time the best and the worst that can be said.
The Academy (9 February, 1884)
A NEW DEPARTURE IN CRITICISM.
Your contemporary the Spectator is a journal which I have always looked upon with the greatest respect. Its high moral fervour is well known, as well as its freedom from religious bias; but I think the world knows little of its wonderful catholicity in matters of literary criticism, of which I have just furnished the Standard with a remarkable illustration.
The Standard (18 February, 1884 - p.2)
“Through the Stage Door.” By Harriet Jay, Author of “The Queen of Connaught.” Three Vols. F. V. White and Co. —The Colonel is a curious character. He can find no woman worthy of his hand in his own rank of life; but he tumbles headlong into love with a little burlesque dancer, and is ready to take to his arms the whole of her very vulgar family. But he gives her up very easily, and leads a fast life without being himself fast, and forms a platonic friendship for a notoriously bad woman, who finally proves herself a good angel to him and his little dancer. No one but a fool or a bigot would question the purity and honesty of many ballet girls; but there are others from whose life it can serve no purpose to draw the veil. The atmosphere of a green-room is believed by outsiders to have some subtle and mysterious charms of its own. Here it is represented as licentious and vulgar, but certainly not alluring. Of many absurd incidents in this novel perhaps the most silly is that in which Colonel Sedgemore is represented as throwing flowers from the stage box to the actress whom he had deserted for her infidelity. Could any man have had such a fiend of a sister as Mrs. Crowe for forty years without finding it out?
The Daily News (1 March, 1884)
It seems singular that the natural talent of Miss Harriett Jay, her literary associations and her experience of the theatre, should not enable her to produce anything better in the way of a theatrical novel than “Through the Stage Door” (3 vols., F. V. White and Co.). The tone is pitched throughout on a level with the attainments of the burlesque actresses whose story it professes to tell, for, though Miss Lottie Fane takes to Shakespeare after her love disappointments and performs Rosalind to her pert sister’s Celia, the reader is not enabled to realise any idea of her performance of the part or in any sense to “see her in it.” It is difficult to believe that the same hand wrote this poor novel as that which wrote the “Queen of Connaught,” and other stories of power and meaning.
The Derby Mercury (9 July, 1884 - p.6)
[A comparison of Florence Marryat’s My Sister the Actress and Harriett Jay’s Through the Stage Door, including lengthy extracts from both, can be accessed by clicking the image below.]
The Derby Mercury (2 July, 1884)
A new serial story by Miss Harriet Jay, authoress of “The Queen of Connaught,” “Through the Stage Door,” &c., will be commenced in the Lady’s Pictorial early this month. A series of papers, by Miss Emily Faithfull, on “Life among the Mormons,” will also shortly appear in the same paper.
The Morning Post (9 July, 1885 - p.2)
A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE.*
Besides her many other gifts as a novelist Miss Jay possesses that of great versatility. There is a gulf between the scenes and incidents of her well-known work, “The Queen of Connaught,” and her latest production. It would have been disappointing had so clever an author written a mere “Society novel,” whatever its merit. “A Marriage of Convenience,” although belonging to the above category, is yet something more than others of its class. Highly dramatic as is the plot, it owes much of its thrilling interest and originality to the sort of medieval element brought into it by the nationality of one of its chief characters, the Duke d’Azzeglio. From the moment at which the Spanish grandee appears upon the scene the commonplace vanishes. It is instantly felt that the story will be pervaded by an unusually dramatic colouring, that the Duke’s wrongs, if any are done him, will be avenged by means savouring of a feudal age, and that he will hate and love with the intense passion of his race and clime. Unfortunately no noble or generous feeling redeems the misdeeds of a man great only from the circumstances of birth. From first to last powerfully written, it may be safely predicted that this work will be one of the most successful novels of the season.
* A Marriage of Convenience. By Harriett Jay. London: F. V. White and Co.
The Graphic (22 August, 1885)
Miss Harriet Jay’s “A Marriage of Convenience” (3 vols.: F. V. White and Co.), is not by any means up to the level to which the authoress of “Queen of Connaught” has accustomed her readers. We fear it must be classed with the results of the art of book-making—it certainly bears all the signs of fatal hurry. It contains powerful passages here and there, but they seem always to have dropped into the work by accident, as the result of some chance inspiration, and not as that of any clear and harmonious design. The characters are stagey to extravagance—the melodramatic Spanish Duke, the man who has vowed life-long vengeance against him and follows him like a sleuth-hound, the stern old lady who also lives for an incomprehensible or rather lunatic revenge, the persecuted heroine, and all the rest of them. The footlights never cease to glare between the reader and the stage: and the situations correspond to the characters—or rather, while the latter are merely conventionally extravagant, the former are impossible. We have had so constantly to speak with unqualified admiration of Miss Jay’s work that we are the more bound to note the first symptom of indifference to what is due from an artist to her art. Nobody can be always at his or her best: but novels like “A Marriage of Convenience” are best left in the limbo of the magazines—in one of which, to judge from the periodical recurrence of a fainting fit or some other temporary climax, the story probably first appeared.
The Scotsman (8 February, 1897 - p.2)
The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown. By Charles Marlowe (Harriet Jay.) London: Robert Buchanan.
A three-act comedy has already been founded on The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown, and perusal of the tale might even suggest that it was originally written for stage presentation. The characters are the beings of modern comedy; the main incidents demand of the reader a certain blindness to probability commonly required in drama. The story is that of the marriage of a ward in Chancery to a young military captain. The marriage ceremony is scarcely performed when Angela is recaptured by her guardian, and conveyed back to the boarding-school from which she has fled. Thither her husband follows her, dressed in female attire; and the doings of the harmless Don Juan, who goes by the name of Miss Brown, are amusing enough. In the end, when everything has reached a crisis, it is announced that the captain has succeeded to a peerage. The objections to the marriage are thus removed, and the course of true love is smoothed. The tale is entertainingly written.
Glasgow Herald (25 February, 1897)
The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown. By Charles Marlowe (Harriet Jay). (London: Robert Buchanan.)—One hardly needs to be reminded that this story is of close kin to “the popular three-act comedy produced in 1895 at the Vaudeville Theatre, London, and still running in England and America.” There is all the delightfully conventional improbability of stageland in the runaway marriage of the gallant young officer and the Chancery ward, and especially in the stratagem whereby Captain Courtenay, until matters are smoothed by his succession to a peerage, introduces himself as a parlour boarder into the ladies’ seminary to which his bride has been brought back by her legal guardians. Quite stagely orthodox, too, are the characters—the impassive captain himself and his romantic inamorata, the friendly Irish major who swears “by the saints” and possesses a warm-hearted Irish wife full of infinite resources for the aid of distressed lovers, the sentimental confidante, the prim schoolmistress, the philandering music-master, and all the other personages necessary for the conduct of an innocent little intrigue. The structure of the story, in fact, is rather that of the play than of the novel, and the various chapters are really dramatic scenes turned into narrative. None the less the book is a thoroughly brisk and amusing one, well fitted for the employment of a vacant hour.
The Stage (25 March, 1897 - p.13)
Robert Buchanan, publisher amongst his other vocations, has issued in one-volume novel form, “The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown.” This is the story from which the play of that name was dramatised. “Charles Marlowe,” otherwise clever Miss Harriett Jay, is the author. The book is much upon the same plan as the extravagant piece, and will, no doubt, like the latter, find very many to enjoy it.
The Era (10 April, 1897)
“THE STRANGE ADVENTURES OF MISS BROWN.” By CHARLES MARLOWE (HARRIETT JAY). London: Robert Buchanan, Gerrard-street, W.—Few farces are amusing reading, and one is therefore agreeably surprised to find that The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown stands so well the ordeal of cold print. But then we have a right to expect excellent work from so experienced an authoress as Miss Harriett Jay. The story told in the book runs exactly on the same lines as that acted at the theatre, except that it was thought prudent to transfer to a drawing-room the scene between Angela Brightwell, Miss Schultz, and “Miss Brown” that in the novel is located in a bedroom. Those who have seen the play will be able to revive memories of pleasant evenings at the theatre, and those whose knowledge of “Miss Brown” will be derived from the book will find “her” worth knowing.
The Morning Post (17 April, 1897 - p.2)
THE STRANGE ADVENTURES OF MISS BROWN.*
Some may incline to think that there is more of farce than of comedy in this most amusing book, but to this opinion objections may reasonably be made. Although the personages not seldom find themselves in ludicrous situations, they are well defined, and have in themselves nothing of the exaggeration which is one of the necessary elements of farce. Take, for instance, Miss Brown, otherwise Captain Courtenay, whose adventures are told in a manner that might have imparted a sense of humour to Diogenes. He is as “brave a soldier as ever wore uniform,” clever, but with a demeanour remarkable for its stolidity. The circumstances in which the author ingeniously places him are absurd, but in spite of all he never degenerates into a clown, and manages all through to retain a considerable amount of dignity. Of course, probability is set aside when the cheery O’Gallaghers are made to appear ignorant of the gravity of the consequences that may result from the step to which they urge the lovers. But why be hypocritical when almost every page is brimful of fun. The Major, to do him justice, does entertain apprehensions, and represents to his wife that the proposed bride is “only eighteen, and a ward in Chancery.” But his irrepressible wife, instead of feeling impressed, insults the majesty of the law by exclaiming, “Yes, the poor darling. Without father or mother to look after her, and only a deputy Providence in the shape of an old gentleman with a wig.” Once the marriage over, and the bride back again in Miss Romney’s select academy, while the bridegroom, hiding from justice, weaves plots to effect her deliverance, the mirth becomes fast and furious. From first to last Courtenay is too good for the empty-headed, silly school-girl his imagination has transformed into a goddess. He is such a thoroughly excellent fellow that one leaves him with regret, and also the warm-hearted O’Gallaghers. Angela perhaps learns to live up to the good fortune that befalls her. At any rate, gratitude is owing to them all for the amusement they have been made to afford not only in this novel but in the play in which they had already appeared.
*The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown. By Charles Marlowe (Harriett Jay). 1 vol. London: Robert Buchanan.
The Liverpool Mercury (28 April, 1897 - p.7)
“The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown.” By Charles Marlowe (Harriett Jay). (London: Robert Buchanan.) Any one desiring a couple of hours’ light reading is recommended to purchase this production of “Charles Marlowe’s” facile and skilful pen. It is not now occupied with sketching the Irish scenes and people with which it is so familiar, but in describing the adventures of an English officer, who essays to marry a ward in Chancery without the consent of the Lord Chancellor. When it is said that the exigencies of the case drive Captain Courtenay to the desperate expedient of figuring in a highly respectable school for young ladies as “Miss Brown,” it will be seen that there is room for an abundant display of humour. It may be said that the literary merits of the story are far above the material here indicated, being very cleverly written. We observe that the volume is published by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the well-known novelist and poet.
The Aberdeen Weekly Journal (1 October, 1902 - p.10)
READERS & WRITERS
(By J. CUTHBERT HADDEN.)
. . .
I am glad to learn that we are soon to have a “Life of the late Robert Buchanan,” the novelist-poet. It should make lively reading, for Mr. Buchanan was what the Scotch people call a “braw fechter,” and was engaged in many notable controversies. His biographer will find it a somewhat difficult matter to “place” him. He had a strenuous and remarkable individuality that too often dissipated itself in futile tilting at windmills. He was at constant war with the publishers, and sometimes with the public, and he did not always carry the sympathies of the public with him. But the sincerity of his convictions could never be doubted.
The Edinburgh Evening News (20 December, 1902 - p.4)
THE BIOGRAPHY OF ROBERT BUCHANAN.
The biography of Robert Buchanan, by his sister-in-law, Miss Harriett Jay, will be one of the early books of the spring. She remembers Mr T. P. O’Connor writing that Buchanan could, better than anybody else, have told the story of his own life. This, she says, was so true that in compiling the biography she has endeavoured, as far as possible, to let the poet-novelist speak for himself. As the sub-title states, the volume is an account of Buchanan’s life, of his life’s work, and of his many literary friendships. It will be issued by Mr Fisher Unwin, with portraits.
The Yorkshire Post (21 January, 1903 - p.5)
The “Life of Robert Buchanan,” by his sister-in-law, Miss Harriet Jay, will be published by Mr. Fisher Unwin this month. Miss Jay inscribes it: “To the memory of Robert Buchanan, who adopted me in my childhood, and who, throughout his life, was to me the kindest of fathers, the best of friends.”
The Gloucester Citizen (29 January, 1903 - p.3)
The Scotsman (2 February, 1903 - p. 2)
ROBERT BUCHANAN. Some Account of his Life, his Life’s Work, and his Literary Friendships. By Harriet Jay, Author of “The Queen of Connaught,” &c. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Readers of novelty will find relatively little to satisfy them in this biography, for the obituary notices given in the newspapers when Robert Buchanan died less than two years ago were well informed, and the life of that man of letters was uneventful except in the publication of books. Yet the work has its own fresh interest as a piece of literary piety. It is written by Buchanan’s wife’s sister, who had been adopted into his family when a child; and, while coloured by a partiality characteristic of familiar biographers, brings together a larger and more trustworthy body of particulars concerning the author of “The Shadow of the Sword” than is to be found elsewhere. It recounts Buchanan’s boyhood in Glasgow as the son of a busy journalist there, and his going up to London at eighteen years of age, when his father’s fortunes failed. It gives pathetic incidents of that period of early struggles in which Buchanan lived and worked in a garret, and tells over again the story of the ill-starred ambitions, the sad illness, and early death of his companion, the poet David Gray. It tells of the friendships he formed with authors, journalists, and actors in Bohemia, of his marriage, and of his first books that came out in the early sixties. The spirit of these ran counter to the orthodox theologies of their day, and the biographical narrative is at this point appropriately interrupted by a paper in which Mr Henry S. Salt gives his impressions of Robert Buchanan as a humanitarian. The writer’s services to the literature of his time were already so far recognised as to have made him the recipient of a Government pension; but his name was scarcely known to the great public until it came to be connected with the pseudonymous article and pamphlet that attacked the so-called fleshly school of poetry. The reception of invective with which this publication met at the hands of poets and critics is duly recorded by the present biographer, who, without going so far as to maintain the justice of Buchanan’s attack on Swinburne and Rossetti, explains the provocation that led to it, and puts it that Buchanan found in the pleasures of independence more than a compensation for the pains of personal martyrdom. The book then follows the author through his career as a novelist, a poet, and a writer of plays, retracing the steps of a public career known to all reading men of these days, and now supplemented by a record of the few domestic incidents, such as the deaths of Buchanan’s wife and his mother, and of the many pecuniary embarrassments that chequered its private side. Mr George R. Sims contributes to the volume a reminiscence of his dramatic collaboration with Buchanan; and Mr Henry Murray describes from personal knowledge the fondness which the humanitarian poet cherished for speculation upon the turf. As if anticipating the objections of the censorious, Mr Murray does not neglect to tell that Buchanan did not allow the race meetings to interfere with his literary work. “Nay,” he says, “he even carried his literary labours on to the turf. At the time when he was preparing a long commentary on Rénan’s views regarding certain Scriptural episodes we went together to Sandown, and in an interval between two races I found him standing in the middle of Tattersall’s ring, serenely unconscious of the charivari about him, reading his Greek Testament. When the bell rang he slipped the volume into his pocket, marking the place with a tip telegram, and plunged into the fray apparently greatly refreshed by his studies.”
The Echo (2 February, 1903 - p.1)
POET AND NOVELIST.
It is extremely difficult to estimate the exact place Robert Buchanan will occupy in literary history. He was a man so versatile, so gifted, yet so often pessimistic that his finest efforts were hampered by this failing. Had he concentrated all his energies upon the development of his poetic genius there is little doubt but that he could have added the distinction of a Poet-Laureateship to his already long list of achievements. It was just this final note that everybody was waiting for, and which never came, that robbed his life of final triumph. He was a Lancashire man, “a worker, yet a dreamer who fought Don Quixote-like with many windmills.” His biographer, Harriet Jay (“Robert Buchanan,” T. Fisher Unwin), speaks of him as a lonely man, “not unsociable by disposition, not unsympathetic, but seldom travelling far for sympathy.” One who was ever climbing, but never reaching his intellectual ideals. His pessimism is accounted for by the fact that for many years he was a martyr to the agonies of an overwrought nervous system, which begat isolation, friendlessness, bitterness, misconception, and despair.
His father was an ardent Owenite, and soon after Robert was born joined the staff of a newspaper in the capacity of reporter. This, combined with the profits accruing from the small newsvendor’s shop, provided the Buchanan home with the necessaries of life. The school days of the poet were not tinged with very tender memories, for the Scotch Socialist missionary who undertook the training of this fragile branch of the Buchanan family had not only extraordinary views concerning religion, but equally eccentric views concerning the diet of the human race. Hence all the children placed under his care ran the risk of being starved. For Buchanan once said that he had to supplement the grass meals—now called vegetarian—by eating snails gathered in the garden. This necessitated a change of school. Sunday in the Buchanan home was a great day. It was really a congregation of the apostles of progress. And during holiday time the youthful Robert saw a great deal of the strange figures that flitted about his father’s house. Amongst them was Louis Blanc, the famous exile, and Caussidiere, who had been chief of the Parisian police during the last Revolution. The former was one of the most brilliant and cultured of men. He was ever preaching the great Socialistic doctrine of solidarity, and was a stout opponent of tyranny in any form.
But the man who contributed largely to the poetic genius of young Buchanan, during those early days, was Lloyd Jones, the famous lecturer and journalist. He it was that first taught the eager, impetuous boy to love old songs and homespun English poetry. A great portion of his boyhood and early youth was spent at Glasgow, and it was here that he “listened to the oracles, and drank in the atmosphere of unbelief.” In that stronghold of Godliness and Sabbatarianism, his father was frequently insulted when walking the streets because he held views and opinions derogatory to the common or orthodox theological Scotch mind. The persecution descended even upon the family, and Robert came in for his share. If he made an acquaintance of his own age, that boy was generally warned against him, and taught to give him the cold shoulder. “Don’t play with yon laddie,” the boys themselves would say; “his father’s an infidel.”
A Thrilling Life-Story.
Passing on to the beginning of his literary career, we find him, in May, 1860, in London with only a few shillings in his pocket. Prior to leaving Scotland he had sent some verses to Hepworth Dixon, who was then editing the “Athenæum,” and young Buchanan hoped that he might procure more work in this direction. Mr. Dixon gave him a few unimportant books to review, but these brought in very little money, and thus commenced the great struggle for existence. The story of his life from this point is told in a graphic manner, and the shaping of the huge mass of material at hand is wonderfully done.
T. P.’s Weekly (6 February, 1903 - p.1-2)
THE BOOK OF THE WEEK.
“The story of his life,” writes Miss Harriet Jay, “is in many respects a sad one.” Indeed it is; I know few sadder. It is the second time, within a few weeks, that I have to deal with the life of a Scotchman, and a second time I have to speak of that life as ruined by the want of some of the most distinctive of Scotch virtues. Robert Buchanan, unlike poor Burns, was born into a time when literature had its full market price. He worked incessantly; no fewer than fifty-one volumes were published by him, while the whole output of Burns can be contained in one not very large volume. Burns was a poet alone; while Buchanan was dramatist, novelist, and journalist, as well as poet; and though Buchanan died prematurely according to our standard of to-day, there is a difference between dying at thirty-seven, as Burns did, and at sixty, as did Buchanan. And yet there is sadness throughout all the story of the one man as of the other; and Buchanan, almost as much as Burns—except that the vice of drinking was absent, died in bankruptcy of hope and pocket. Burns had one great consolation entirely unknown to Buchanan. His generation recognised the supreme genius of Burns; the reputation of Buchanan always seemed to slip away from him; he never attained the literary position to which his extraordinary and varied gifts entitled him. To miss genius and the highest fame altogether is a more tolerable lot than to just miss them; and that was the fate of Buchanan. He just missed genius; he just missed supreme fame. He made a great deal of money in his time; he had some very brilliant moments of success; his name was known all over the world; but if you compare his position, say, with that of Mr. Rudyard Kipling, you will see how far he was from reaching the heights. It was partly because, owing to faults of temper and temperament, his reputation was of noise, conflict, apparently boisterous and not always considerate self-assertion; and trying three great branches of literary effort, he was regarded as missing the highest in them all. And thus it was that he spent his life in struggle—much of it ignoble; that he was embittered; that he had, as Miss Jay says, “few friends and many enemies”; that somehow or other, with all his notoriety, there was a sense of ineffectiveness and of baulked achievement; and thus it was that he ended in something like darkness and ruin.
There are several factors that go to the unmaking of so richly endowed a nature; and some of these factors belong to forces and times which lay beyond Buchanan’s control. Poor Buchanan, as Miss Jay says, was never able to learn the art of compound addition; his expenditure was always beyond even his occasional princely income; he was an incurable dreamer who saw the realities of life, and especially of money, in no rigid lines of accuracy, but in the confused limning of his imagination. And of this the chief secret is that he came from a family of dreamers. He was a dreamer by the mighty and resistless force of heredity; his fate was fashioned for him in this rough world before he entered upon it.
When his words of promise—wrote Buchanan—sounded like a trumpet-note to so many youthful sons of toil, one of the first to respond was a poor journeyman tailor in Ayrshire, who, throwing down goose and scissors, straightway aspired to the rôle of Socialist reformer; was soon welcomed and appreciated for his keen Scottish intelligence, his wide, if uninstructed reading, and his rugged eloquence on the platform; in due time became one of Owen’s most valuable Missionaries; and before many years had elapsed was famous among his own people, and infamous among the orthodox, as Robert Buchanan, poet and iconoclast. That man was my father.
On the mother’s side Buchanan came also from the race of rebel dreamers; his mother was a daughter of “lawyer Williams,” a solicitor of Stoke-upon-Trent, and, like Buchanan’s father, a freethinker and a Socialist.
The father of Buchanan suggests most of the son’s career. The two had the same incapacity for measuring money, of realising ways and means; they had the same recklessness and unconquerable hopefulness; they were both gamblers. Indeed, it was the faults and weaknesses of the father that did much to create the misfortunes of the son. His father, as proprietor of the “Glasgow Sentinel,” was doing well and becoming a prosperous man, when, fired by ambition to achieve a huge fortune, he started two other journals, and this brought him to the Bankruptcy Court. That inauspicious change in the fortunes of the family did not come till Robert Buchanan was nearly twenty years of age, and until he had been brought up in all the luxurious habits and wants of that first heritage of our time, the proprietorship of a successful newspaper. It was characteristic of both father and son that both accepted this vast change of fortune with considerable equanimity. “Even if I never loved my father before,” wrote Buchanan many years afterwards, “I should have loved and venerated him then for the patience and gentleness with which he accepted the blow.” “He was as weak as water,” is another of the son’s comments on the father.
But looking back over the years I see in him who had so many faults a nobility, a loving-kindness which I have scarcely seen in any other man. For the rest he was a childish creature, dear and simple as a child. His very faults were childish, nay, his very vices, but it is much to be able to say of him—what could not be said of one man in a thousand—that in all my recollection of him. I cannot remember one cruel or unkind act, or even one unkind word.
It is characteristic of Buchanan’s father that after his failure he calmly settled down to writing serial stories, and there is little record of any break almost to the end in the perfect equanimity with which he received Fortune’s different phases.
It is easy to see, then, where Buchanan got this recklessness about money; but it is a curious instance of the somewhat contrary effects which come from early upbringing, that Buchanan, who never heard even the mention of the word God till he was a grown boy, who was brought up in a home in which, on both sides, all existing religions were regarded as mere childish superstitions, should from almost the first have had undefinable and uncertain, but strong leanings toward some form of religious faith.
For the life of me I cannot tell how the sweet spirit of natural piety arose within me. All my experience, my birth, my education, my entire surroundings were against its birth or growth, all the human beings I had known or listened to were confirmed sceptics or boisterous unbelievers. Yet while my father was confidently preaching God’s non-existence, I was praying to God in the language of the canonical books. I cannot even remember a time when I did not kneel by my bedside before going to sleep, and repeat the Lord’s Prayer. So far away was I from any human sympathy in this foolish matter, that this praying of mine was ever done secretly, with a strong sense of shame and dread of discovery.
To this vague faith in a Creator, Buchanan, though he never approached even orthodoxy, clung throughout all his life; his poems and his most intimate writings agree in always proclaiming the immortality of the soul, a life after death.
When the crash came in the fortunes of the family, young Buchanan showed the courage to strike out for himself, and on May 5, 1860, he started from the once luxurious home in a third-class carriage to fight for fortune in London. He had only a few shillings in his pocket; in one possession only was he rich; it is worth mentioning as characteristic. This was an excellent stock of clothes, and amongst it a sumptuous silk-quilted dressing-gown which his mother had bought for him just before his father failed. He had the usual experiences of the young literary provincial who comes to London in similar plight; he settled down finally in a top room in a lodging-house in that unsavoury district of Stamford Street, Blackfriars. He dreamed, he worked, he starved, and he was not unhappy for some years in this wretched abode. It was at that period that he made the acquaintance of Charles Gibbon—a novelist of much charm, now, I fear, almost forgotten, and together the two lived and worked, hoped and starved, in the “bankrupt garret” in Stamford Street.
Although their earnings at that time were not great they were both at work far into the watches of the night, reading, writing, studying like young fellows cramming for an examination. Every night a pot of strong coffee was set upon the hob, and out of this pot they refreshed themselves, fighting hard against the natural desire for sleep, and again and again tumbling off into a troubled doze till daylight came and they crept wearily to bed.
Buchanan’s parents had meantime drifted to London, the father “trying his hand at the manufacture of cheap fiction,” and Buchanan went to live with them at the little house they had taken in Kentish Town. Already Buchanan had shown some talent for writing for the stage. He had written and been paid for a pantomime when he was but fourteen, and now he, with Gibbon, adapted a piece out of Banim’s powerful story, “Crohoore of the Billhook.” It was accepted and produced at the Standard Theatre; the fee of the authors was £20! It was in the production of that play that an amusing episode in the life of Buchanan took place; I alluded to it in writing about him after his death, but I did not state the facts correctly. Here they are, as given by Miss Jay authoritatively:—
Before the play was drawn from representation the authors appeared in it themselves, Mr. Gibbon taking the part of a young lover, and Mr. Buchanan that of the hero, called Shadrack the Shingawn. As they knew the play by heart they had no rehearsals. The part played by Mr. Buchanan was that of a hunchback falsely accused of murder, and he made the character so hideously disfigured a monster that somebody inquired whether he was representing Shakespeare’s Caliban. However, the audiences out eastward were not critical, and the performance passed off with a certain measure of applause. The crux of the performance came in the penultimate act, when Shadrack had to rescue the heroine from a violent death, descending by a rope from the top of a precipice, seizing the heroine in his arms as he swung over the abyss from the branch of a tree, and ascending with her to the cliffs above. For this effect, which demanded an athlete rather than an actor, there had, as I have said, been no rehearsal, and it is more than probable that the aspiring actor showed some little doubt and trepidation, for the lady whom he was to save was in agonies of terror. However, all went well. Shadrack descended by a rope from the flies, clasped the lady in his arms, and was drawn back amid round after round of deafening applause.
In 1864 Buchanan published “London Poems.” The book took the town by storm, obtained him the acquaintance of some of the leading literary men and women of his time, and a Civil List pension of £100 a year. From that time forward Buchanan never had to complain of neglect. He jumped into fame, and if he had been a different man he would equally have jumped into a great fortune. But, as Miss Jay says,
A taste for luxury of all kinds had been instilled into him by his mother, while from his father he inherited a love of speculation. From neither had he learned the value of money; when he had it he spent it like a lord, when he hadn’t it he lived upon credit, and then, finding himself in difficulties, he endeavoured to extricate himself by hard work, or by plunging into hazardous speculations which very often had the effect of sinking him still deeper in the mire.
Extravagance, indeed, often took the shape of reckless gambling. There is a chapter of this book written by his friend Mr. Henry Murray, with that writer’s usual brilliancy, which is one of the most painful in the whole volume. It is a description of Buchanan as a gambler on the racecourse. The chapter ought to have been written; the biography and the picture of the man would have been incomplete without it; and in biography I am for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But all the same there is something infinitely saddening in seeing this very fine fellow—with all his wonderful powers, his pathos, his humanity, his mastery of so many literary arts, his love of truth and his influence over the hearts and consciences of men—to find him on a racecourse taking and giving the odds, and risking hundreds of the money he had earned in blood and tears, on so uncertain a chance as the running of a horse.
It must not be supposed—writes Miss Jay—that all his money went in the purchase of mere personal pleasures. His generosity was without parallel, and he never refused a request for help if it was in his power to grant it. If a friend happened to be in “Queer Street” he would lend him a hundred pounds with as little hesitation as he would lend ten, and it was a peculiarity with him that he never looked for the return of such money, no matter how large the sum might be, but always regarded it as so much to the good if it happened to come his way again.
And so it was that this man of genius was “darkly doomed,” as Miss Jay puts it, “to much ignoble pot-boiling.” Let us be charitable; for he paid the penalty for his weakness.
* “Robert Buchanan, Some Account of His Life, His Life’s Work, and His Literary Friendships.” By Harriet Jay. (Fisher, Unwin.)
The Academy (7 February, 1903)
A Literary Man.
ROBERT BUCHANAN: SOME ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE, HIS LIFE’S WORK, AND HIS LITERARY FRIENDSHIPS. By Harriet Jay. (Fisher Unwin.)
THIS biography of Robert Buchanan, diffuse in its very title, is written by his sister-in-law, who was also his adopted daughter. Trained (as she says) from her earliest years to look up to him with reverence as the embodiment of all the moral—and other—virtues, she is therefore the last person in the world to write his life in any true sense. She is at the same time well fitted to produce the usual domestic “great and good man” record. And being a novelist, she is also able to make her biography readable—for which we are thankful exceedingly. It is on the usual principle of letting the man “speak for himself,” and is quite a capable piece of work in its kind, which we love not.
“While my father was confidently preaching God’s non-existence,” says he, “I was praying to God in the language of the canonical books. I cannot even remember a time when I did not kneel by my bedside before going to sleep, and repeat the Lord’s Prayer. So far away was I from any human sympathy in this foolish matter, that this praying of mine was ever done secretly, with a strong sense of shame and dread of discovery.”
He was in after-life, of course, an Agnostic, with “a strong sense of natural religion”—which vague phrase you can interpret for yourself. Sent to a boarding-school at Rothesay, in the Isle of Bute, he began to develop all the characteristics of his after self. Worshipping his mother, he was bitterly homesick. He also fell in love. He was twelve, and she was nine; and they parted—never to meet again. “Again and again my youthful Juliet rushed into my arms,” he writes,” again and again our tears mingled together.” Naturally, being Robert Buchanan, he began to write verse, for the first time. He met a dazzling vision (let us hope it was before the “youthful Juliet”); her name was Rebecca, and he rhymed it with “deck her.” Did not Tennyson write—
I wove a crown before her,
or something like it? Let us excuse poor Robert at twelve. The spirit of revolt which was his throughout life came with those of love and poetry. “Were you that devil of a boy who was at school with my daughter at Rothesay?” wrote to him a gentleman some years later. He was. he made up his mind to get expelled (having first tried jumping off a steamer, coming home dripping, and saying he had fallen overboard) and he got expelled—perhaps the only time he got his desire.
Morals they had none to boast of; they tippled, they swaggered, they ran after petticoats and petticoats ran after them; but the spirit of the savage old literature ran in their veins like blood, and they had the fine qualities of their defects. Their very speech was archaic, their very oaths were reminiscent of Bardolph and Pistol . . . . Among them, for a short period, drifted a young player of another nature, afterwards known to the world as Henry Irving. A quiet, studious young man, even then ambitious, but exhibiting little talent even as a “walking gentleman,” I was much drawn to him by his thoughtful personality, so different to the wilder personalities of his companions, and I took him to my father’s house and introduced him to my mother.
His father’s sudden and complete failure made him risk the venture of throwing himself on London, whither his poetic ambitions drew him. With plenty of clothes but little in his pockets he reached Euston, to have his luggage impounded on account of a lost ticket. He had no friends, did not know where to go. Lying in Regent’s Park, with tears in his eyes, he saw a youth looking at him; a close-cropped youth with a pugilistic aspect and a short clay:—
He reminded me instantly of . . . the Artful Dodger, and by that token he was quite as ragged and disreputable-looking. We got into conversation, and . . . hearing that I was without a home, he invited me to accompany him to his quarters in the neighbourhood of Shoreditch . . . Late that afternoon I found myself in the east of London, in a sort of low lodging-house, or thieves’ kitchen. It is all like a dream now, but I remember my new friend was very kind to me, and saved me from impolite attentions on the part of my companions. The whole place reminded me of Oliver Twist, and I fancy Fagin was there as well as my friend the Dodger, whose bed I shared that night, throwing myself full dressed upon it and sleeping like a top till morning. There were other beds in the wretched room, and other youths and men of my friend’s persuasion, but no one molested me, and, what is more wonderful, no one robbed me of the small sum in my pocket. I rose up in the early dawn, and shook hands with my friend, who was half asleep. I never saw him again.
It is not “the cheese,” as Buchanan might have been told, for one gentleman in misfortune to prey on another. The account shows some of the weaknesses which explain Buchanan’s want of success. It is over-wordy in the original (he cannot say “rose” without adding “up”). He conveys no idea, gets no grip of the scene he visited; an alert writer would have seized it in a few strokes.
THE WIFE OF ROBERT BUCHANAN.
In my “Book of the Week” in the last issue of this paper, I had no time or space to devote to a figure which stands out from the life of Robert Buchanan. It is an omission I feel I ought to repair. Miss Jay, in her admirable biography of her brother-in-law, quotes the following words, which I wrote of her sister immediately after the death of Buchanan himself. I give them again, because they represent so well my feelings now as when they were written.
She was a very beautiful woman, stately and statuesque in figure, with beautifully chiselled, regular features, fine eyes, and a gay and almost bubbling spirit. But early in her married life she was attacked by one of those painful internal maladies which are the death of health and domestic happiness, and often she suffered tortures. Indeed, I remember seeing her once laughing and chattering like some bright singing bird, and in the midst of it a shade suddenly fell upon her face, and turning to me she said, “If you speak to me, I shall have to burst into tears.” I was young in years and even younger in experience, and knew nothing at that time of that strange world of laughter and tears, of heroic suffering and tragic depression, which is the world of the invalid woman, but the moment remained with me afterwards, an illuminating glimpse into the unfathomable depths of secret and silent sorrow and pain in which we move unconsciously among our fellow men and women.
This was the impression made upon me by the wife of Robert Buchanan; it was made after seeing her altogether not more than half a dozen times. But I find from the inner light thrown upon her life by her sister that the impression was correct, and that I was right in thinking that I had met in this beautiful and touching creature one of those women who are as the salt of the earth. She was already an invalid when I saw her; and it will be seen that then her chief endeavour was to conceal her suffering, and that in the intervals between her intolerable pains she laughed and joked with the best of them. I remember, that on one occasion, just after I had been returned to Parliament for the first time, she insisted that I should get up and make a speech, just to give her an idea of what a speech was like. Of course, I refused; whereupon she got up, and, standing with some difficulty on her trembling limbs, and with a little more pallor in her face, uttered a few words of mock-heroic speech. I think it was on that same afternoon that she suddenly turned to me, and gave me that glimpse into the depths to which I have alluded in the passage already quoted.
Miss Jay tells the sequel of the story. It is almost too painful to read; but it is so full of pathos and heroism—perchance, also of not unnecessary suggestion—that I cannot refrain from giving it. It was just after Buchanan had published his remarkable story, “God and the Man,” and had had it performed with success on the stage; in other words, just as he was seeing light out of the dark abyss of debt and difficulties in which he was plunged—it was at that moment that he suddenly heard the dread news that the disease from which his wife had suffered all those years was cancer! “For two long years she was slowly dying.” And poor Buchanan was not rich enough to sit down and grieve; he had to slave on, writing anything and everything, which brought in money to help to cure—or, if that were impossible, to relieve—the poor sufferer.
He had had—writes Miss Jay—I need hardly say, doctors without end, and, indeed, every quack in the country who professed to cure cancer was brought to her bedside. At times, when she heard of the advent of some new doctor, she would refuse to see him, saying wearily, “What is the use? It always ends in the same way—let me die!” But to her husband’s piteous appeal of “Just to please me,” she ever yielded—and so the doctors came and went, their remedies were tried, but ever with the same result. When we heard of the marvellous water she was lying almost at the point of death, and so weak was she that she could scarcely lift her hand. Without loss of time the water was procured—she drank of it, and it seemed as if a miracle was about to be performed. Gradually, though very slowly, her weakness gave place to ever-increasing strength, and in time she rose from her bed looking like a girl of twenty. . . . But though her strength increased up to a certain point, it seemed as if that point could not be passed. Though she went about the house as usual, though, when the spring came, she took some walks in Regent Street to look at the gaily bedecked shop-windows and to study the fashions—though her bright, rippling laughter was often the gayest of the gay, one could see by the shadows which sometimes darkened her face that all was not well with her—that she knew, in fact, but that she would not speak, because she dreaded to shatter the illusions which she had ceased to share.
Then they took the poor woman to the sea for which she longed; they decided on Southend. Miss Jay describes an incident of that journey which is one of the most touching and characteristic I ever read. It is all in accord with the utter unselfishness, the courage, the bright hopefulness of Robert Buchanan’s wife.
There is—writes Miss Jay—a long flight of steps at Fenchurch Street Station which leads up to the platform. I remember how eagerly she made for those steps, while her husband was at the ticket-office, in order that he might not see how difficult it was for her to mount them. A gentleman coming down as she was going up, paused for a moment and offered her his arm, which was curtly and irritably refused. “Why did he do that?” she asked, turning to me. “I am quite well able, quite strong enough, to walk alone!”
The hopeless battle was again renewed; but Mrs. Buchanan knew that it was hopeless all along. Her one effort was to keep that knowledge from others, and especially from her husband. She refused to have morphia administered. Sometimes she tore the bedclothes to keep herself from shrieking aloud, and “her great anxiety was to keep her husband from the room.” “He is always wanting to do something for me,” she said to her sister, “and I know that nothing can be done. I want to be left alone.”
When the attacks passed off she was always very calm and resigned; sometimes, indeed
Finally she died, “in her husband’s arms, her head resting on his shoulder.”
Poor Buchanan had his faults, and wrecked his life in the end; but assuredly this noble devotion to wife and mother which belong to his life are something to extenuate and atone for far worse and far greater errors than his. I have told the story of his wife, however, to bring out her virtues rather than his, and because I believe it is only one instance of thousands around us in which women bear the worst of tortures in silence and in loneliness rather than o’ercast the souls of those whom they love. As a type of that class poor Mrs. Buchanan deserves to live in the hearts of all good men and women for ever.
The Times Literary Supplement (13 February, 1903 - p.46-47)
ROBERT BUCHANAN. Some account of His Life, His Life’s Work, and Literary Friendships. By HARRIETT JAY. (Unwin. 10s. 6d. Net.)
This portly volume once more suggests the need for the more serious consideration of biographical values. The men of whose lives a pedestrian year-by-year record, such as this, is necessary require to be separated more rigorously from the men of whom a bird’s-eye view would suffice. Some one should decide; if the publishers are not capable, there should be a necrologist-in-chief, to whom intending biographers should apply before setting forth on their tasks. Then we should be spared the pain of having to say that Miss Harriett Jay’s memoir of her brother-in-law, the late Robert Buchanan, is both out of proportion and insufficiently instructive. We are afraid, indeed, that Mr. Gosse’s indictment of the widow as biographer must be extended to the sister-in-law. Love and admiration and a sweet charity Miss Jay has in abundance, but she was too near her subject, and she has few of the more important gifts of either the biographer or the critic. The whole man is not in these pages; we doubt, indeed, if more than a moiety of him is here, or rather would have been here but for the contributory chapter by Mr. R. E. Francillon, to which we shall return later.
Half seraph and half shrew;
and he was the author of the “Ballad of Judas Iscariot” and certain other striking poems of strong individuality, if undistinguished in form.
The right reading of Buchanan was, I am convinced, that his very genius had prevented him from outgrowing, or being able to outgrow, the boyishness of the best sort of boy; while too many of us only too quickly forget what any sort of boyhood means. And the grand note of the best sort of boy is a sincere passion for justice, or rather a consuming indignation against injustice—the two things are not exactly the same. The boy of whatever age can never comprehend the coolness with which the grown-up man of the world has learned to take injustice as part and parcel of the natural order of things, even when himself the sufferer. The grown-up man has learned the sound policy of not sending indignation red-hot or white-hot to the post or the press, but of waiting till it is cool enough to insert in a barrel of gunpowder without risk of explosion. But the boy rebels, and, if he be among the great masters of language, hurls it out hot and strong, in the full belief that no honest feelings could be so weak as to be wounded by any honest words. Of course he was wrong. Complete honesty is perfectly compatible with even abnormal thinness of skin, and with an even exceptionally plentiful crop of corns. He would often have been amazed and shocked could he, to whom hard hitting was so easy, have estimated the effect of his blows. I do not believe Robert Buchanan to have been capable of a malign or vindictive thought; I know that I never heard him utter an unkindly word. I wish, above all else, that those who thought of him as I had thought of him before knowing him could have met him at home—Strasz-Engel, Haus-Teufel (“Street Angel, House Devil,” say the Germans) —not that they have any monopoly of the experience. I have never heard the natural converse of the saying, but it is impossible to think of Buchanan without its suggestion. . . .
This is the temper in which we would have had the monograph on Buchanan written. Miss Jay’s lengthy biography has, however, as we have said, come instead. It is a well-published book (save for its flat back), and will be found readable by those who want an emotional and superficial account of an author’s life. For ourselves, we can but regret that so little has been made of the more interesting episodes, such as, for example, Buchanan’s friendship with Thomas Love Peacock. We could well have spared reminiscences of the “Bard” by Mr. George R. Sims to have more of Buchanan’s own autobiographical sketches; and a few of his best poems might have been given. Here we leave the work—with a prayer for the speedy arrival of the necrologist-in-chief.
The Guardian (17 February, 1903 - p.4)
ROBERT BUCHANAN: SOME ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE, HIS LIFE’S WORK, AND HIS LITERARY FRIENDSHIPS. By Harriett Jay. London: T. Fisher Unwin. Pp. 324. 10s. 6d. net.
Miss Jay does not pretend to approach her subject critically. She collaborated with Buchanan in some of his later dramatic work, and he was always her generous and intimate friend. If her devotion leads her sometimes into mistake, we must recognise that generally she writes with moderation and with a reserve that will not be misunderstood. It strikes us sometimes that the life is a little lacking in the intimate touches that might give a clearer impression of personality. Buchanan’s attitude to the world was perhaps rather artificial, and a great part of the book is made up of letters and reminiscences in which his opinions are stated and restated. Miss Jay’s plan is not, we think, the best that could have been adopted. The compromise between a general trend of narrative and the grouping of particular features is not very skilfully carried out, and the positions of certain chapters, written by other friends, seem to be determined arbitrarily. There is one by Mr. H. S. Salt on Buchanan’s “Humanitarianism,” an “Impression” by Mr. R. E. Francillon, “A Reminiscence” by Mr. G. R. Sims, and a short account of his connection with the turf by Mr. Henry Murray. Miss Jay refrains from any criticism of Buchanan’s work and is content to indicate its reception by the public and by certain of his contemporaries. The earlier parts of the book are the most coherent, and we are shown the causes which made of Buchanan, naturally genial, a persistent rebel. He belonged to the ostracised faction, and as he was born in the “odour of infidelity” his early life was passed among theorists, “atheists,” and uncomfortable people of various epithets. There are some interesting passages about the influence of Robert Owen, and the initial steps of the poetical career are clearly traced. Among those who showed him kindness in his youthful struggles in London were Barry Cornwall and Lord Houghton. Other acquaintances or associates, whose names may serve to suggest Buchanan’s wide and various interests, were Louis Blanc, Hermann Vezin, Peacock, Edmund Yates, G. H. Lewes, George Eliot, Browning, Charles Reade, Whitman, and Roden Noel, his “most intimate and life-long friend.” Certainly Buchanan lived a very full and, we may believe, upon the whole a happy life. Miss Jay’s biography shows us a man of many good and generous impulses who “fought bravely for the good of Humanity” but never quite got himself in hand. The diversities of his pursuits may be illustrated by a passage from Mr. Murray’s chapter:—
“At the time when he was preparing a long commentary on Rénan’s views regarding certain Scriptural episodes we went together to Sandown, and in an interval between two races I found him standing in the middle of Tattersall’s ring, serenely unconscious of the charivari about him, reading his Greek Testament. When the bell rang he slipped the volume into his pocket, marking the place with a tip telegram, and plunged into the fray, apparently greatly refreshed by his studies.”
A bibliographical list includes some fifty volumes of prose and verse, which, together with the numerous plays of which he was author, wholly or in part, makes a formidable body of work. Whatever may be the ultimate verdict upon it, admiration and respect are compelled by a life of such fine activities.
The Westminster Budget (27 February, 1903 - p.21-22)
This is in certain respects a depressing book. It shows early promise never realised, excellent opportunities often missed, and brilliant talents, if not at times wasted, at least frequently employed on work quite unworthy of them. It reveals a man endowed with many lovable qualities soured and in revolt against his fellows—the bitterness, it must be added, largely arising from causes which the exercise of common-sense and common prudence might to a very large extent have avoided. It was quite another man that those who made Buchanan’s acquaintance only through his earlier writings—his “Idylls and Legends of Inverburn,” for instance—knew. How far the poet’s earlier experiences may have been responsible for much that occurred in his later life it were, perhaps, idle to inquire. There was certainly a good deal connected with his boyhood that is not without pathos, and every allowance ought perhaps to be made. In preparing her biography Miss Jay had many advantages. She was adopted into the poet’s family when a child, and knew her subject as no survivor knew him. The portrait she gives, while very sympathetic, as it could hardly fail to be, is truthful. Miss Jay, if she usually tries to excuse the poet’s failings, never hides them. The fault of her book is that it has so little to say concerning Buchanan’s literary efforts beyond a bare enumeration of them. But it certainly shows us the man as he lived and moved, and by many will be found to be intensely interesting. A good deal of the narrative takes the form of autobiography—the touching story of the poet’s connexion with David Gray, for instance, being told in Buchanan’s own words, as well as many reminiscences of his early years. Buchanan can hardly, perhaps, be called fortunate in his birth. He was reared in a home where revolutionary views were daily discussed and among people whose beliefs concerning Christianity caused the boy to be often shunned by his fellows. Treatment of that kind, foolish and unpardonable as it was, was bound to have an effect on a very sensitive temperament, and it no doubt left its mark. The story of how Buchanan ran away from Glasgow to London at the age of nineteen, when misfortune fell upon his father, is of course well known. For a time he had considerable difficulty in earning a living, but it was only for a time. One of his first friends in London was Barry Cornwall, who assisted him pecuniarily, and whose kindness unfortunately Buchanan never repaid. Very soon his literary work attracted attention. He began to do reviewing for the Athenæum. He wrote in All the Year Round, and Temple Bar, and came into contact with George Henry Lewes. He seems, however, to have had a decided repugnance to George Eliot—a prejudice which ultimately was the cause of the friendship with Lewes coming to an end. He also got to know Browning, but his relations with that poet were not afterwards altogether pleasant. Buchanan’s first book of poems, “Undertones,” published in 1863, made a great hit; his second volume, “Idylls and Legends of Inverburn,” which followed two years later, was even more successful. He had married at twenty, and for a time fortune highly favoured him. But there were rocks and quicksands ahead. He caused much excitement and made certain influential enemies by his attack on “The Fleshly School of Poetry.” That attack was published under a pseudonym in the Contemporary Review. It created a tremendous stir, and Buchanan asserted afterwards that it was not conscientiously dishonest. “I really believed then,” he said, “that Rossetti was an affected, immoral, and over-praised writer.” He also states that after the publication of his review Tennyson averred to him that one of Rossetti’s sonnets was “the filthiest one he had ever read.” Browning, he likewise asserted, had in private been equally emphatic. The critical journals, however, described him as a “disguised assassin,” and his biographer says that for years afterwards he was assailed with every insult that malice could invent for his destruction. So cruel, indeed, and so relentless was this persecution of him that when in the year 1872 he published his “St. Abe and His Seven Wives,” he found it expedient not only to issue the book anonymously but to take every precaution to prevent the name of the author from being known. It is pleasant to remember that later Buchanan came forward and made amends both in his inscription of “God and the Man,” and in his maturer appreciation of Mr. Rossetti in his “Look Round Literature.” When in his prime Buchanan took to fiction. His “Shadow of the Sword” was published in 1876, and showed that he possessed other qualities besides those of a true poet. Into that story and “God and the Man” Buchanan put the best work of which he was capable. More might have followed of equally high merit had things gone well with him, but domestic calamity overtook him; he was in need of money, and he “scribbled at fiction” in order to get money. “His output,” says Miss Jay, “was very great and very rapid, and although his income increased his position as a novelist declined; many of his later novels were written, as it were, with his left hand, and it is certain that had he been a man of means they would never have been written at all.” About 1885 he turned his attention to plays, and most of his subsequent life was devoted to work of that character. Several of his own novels he dramatised; he also collaborated with Mr. G. R. Sims, and he produced other plays. Money came pouring in, but it went almost as soon as it was received, and his health finally gave way. The loss of his mother in 1894 was a great blow to him, and from that he never really recovered. He returned to his work for a time, but not with the same enthusiasm, and after suffering for eight months, during which he was as helpless as a child, he passed away in June 1901. At one period of his career Buchanan protested, inwardly at least, against the infidelity which surrounded him in his early home. “While my father,” he said, “was confidently preaching God’s non-existence I was praying to God in the language of the canonical books. I cannot even remember a time when I did not kneel by my bedside before going to sleep and repeat the Lord’s Prayer.” To Sir Leslie Stephen, as late as 1896, he said: “I cannot say that I am of your opinion that this life is worth anything without another and a higher. Frankly I hope I shall never think so.” It would, perhaps, be difficult to give an exact name to his religious beliefs; he was on this, as on some other things, “exceedingly easy to misunderstand.” Buchanan’s literary output covered nearly thirty years. How much of it, one wonders, will live? Certain it is that a good deal of it is the genuine metal which time will never tarnish.
* “Robert Buchanan: Some Account of his Life, his Life’s Work, and his Literary Friendships.” By Harriett Jay, Author of “The Queen of Connaught,” &c. (Fisher Unwin.)
The New York Times (7 March, 1903)
MR. ALDEN’S VIEWS.
LONDON, Feb. 26.—The life of Robert Buchanan, by Harriet Jay, his sister-in-law, has the merit of giving a truthful portrait of the man. As a rule, this cannot be said of a biography written by one who is in warm sympathy with the subject. When a man has been dead a hundred years or so, a biographer may be expected to tell the truth about him, but a biography written within a year after the death of the subject, and written, too, by a personal friend, almost inevitably takes on the coloring of friendship, and gives us a purified and glorified impression of the dead man. But Buchanan was one of the most transparent of men, and it was not a difficult task to show him as he was. certainly Buchanan was a poet, for he wrote not a little verse that was worthy of the name of poetry, although he also wrote much that was simply rhyme and nothing more. He was a novelist, but his books always suggested that they were written merely to sell, and not because the writer had any thing to say or any love for his art. He was a clever and savage critic, but his personal animosities made his criticism occasionally worthless. He never attained a commanding position in literature, and it is doubtful if anything written by him will survive.
From A Bookman’s Letters by W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913 - Chapter 36, p. 323- 330)
MR. BIRRELL discussed some time ago the question, Is it possible to distinguish between a good book and a bad book? He came to the conclusion that it was very difficult to draw the line. Is it possible to distinguish a good man from a bad man ? It is by no means easy. The question is rarely raised by a biographer. As a rule, one lays down a biography feeling that he has learned something, that the man of whom he has been reading has some quality of nobleness or of patience which may well be admired and followed. But the Life of Robert Buchanan written by Miss Harriet Jay in 1902 almost forces a moral judgment on Buchanan. I hope to resist the compulsion, and to content myself with drawing attention to some materials for the solution of the problem. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion as to Buchanan’s intellectual gifts and literary achievements. He had an unquestionable touch of genius, and has done some fine things. But by far the larger part of his work is quite dead, and only the merest fragments can survive.