ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901)
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE ‘FLESHLY SCHOOL’ IN THE PRESS
The Examiner (7 October, 1871) Literary criticism is particularly abundant in the magazines this month. Blackwood gives nearly a third of its space to reviews of several English and American books. In the ‘Fortnightly’ Mr Sidney Colvin reviews at length Mr Browning’s ‘Balaustion’s Adventure.’ and the ‘Dark Blue’ has the first of a series of papers by Mr Dickenson West, on “Browning as a Preacher.” In the ‘Dark Blue’ there is also the first part of “A Study of Walt Whitman,” by Mr Roden Noel, who says: We did want some infusion of robuster and healthier blood among the pallid civilised brotherhood of our poets. If admirers arise who strive to imitate Whitman’s gait and form, they will probably make themselves ridiculous, puff themselves out and collapse; yet will he certainly give our jaded literature the prick and fillip that it needed. He, at any rate, is no closet-warbler, trilling delicately after the music of other singers, having merely a few thin thoughts and emotions only a quarter his own, and a clever aptitude for catching the tricks of another man’s manner. Mr Ruskin says in the new number of his Fors Clavigera, “There was an article—I believe it got in by mistake, but the editor, of course, won’t say so—in the ‘Contemporary Review,’ two months back, on Mr Morley’s Essays, by a Mr Buchanan, with an incidental page on Carlyle in it, unmatchable (to the length of my poor knowledge) for obliquitous platitude, in the mud-walks of literature.” Many will be disposed to say nearly the same of an article in this month’s ‘Contemporary,’ by a Mr Thomas Maitland, who commences a series of strictures on “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” with seventeen pages about Mr Dante Rossetti. It opens thus, and the whole essay is in keeping with the first paragraph: If, on the occasion of any public performance of Shakespeare’s great tragedy, the actors who perform the parts of Rosencranz and Guildenstern were, by a preconcerted arrangement, and by means of what is technically known as “gagging,” to make themselves fully as prominent as the leading characters, and to indulge in soliloquies and business strictly belonging to Hamlet himself, the result would be, to say the least of it, astonishing; yet a very similar effect is produced on the unprejudiced mind when the “walking gentlemen” of the fleshly school of poetry, who bear precisely the same relation to Mr Tennyson as Rosencranz and Guildenstern do to the Prince of Denmark in the play, obtrude their lesser identities and parade their smaller idiosyncrasies in the front rank of leading performers. In their own place, the gentlemen are interesting and useful. Pursuing still the theatrical analogy, the present drama of poetry might be cast as follows: Mr Tennyson supporting the part of Hamlet, Mr Matthew Arnold that of Horatio, Mr Bailey that of Voltimand, Mr Buchanan that of Cornelius, Messrs Swinburne and Morris the parts of Rosencranz and Guildenstern, Mr Rossetti that of Osric, and Mr Robert Lytton that of “A Gentleman.” ___
The Morning Post (13 October, 1871 - p.2) THE OCTOBER MAGAZINES. . . . To members of “The Fleshly School of Poetry” we particularly commend the Contemporary Review, in which they will find themselves “noticed” to an extent even they, petted poets that they are, perhaps never dreamed of. But, instead of the fast and furious praise to which they have been accustomed, they will find criticism of a very different kind—criticism that shows up not so much their weak points as the mental garbage which disfigures all their writings and the uncleanliness which is the characteristic of their poetry. It is high time that these productions of “the Felshly School” were checked, for already they have sullied the history of 19th century literature to an extent that the sensational novelists of the period could never have done. ___
The Hampshire Advertiser (14 October, 1871 - p.7) LITERATURE OF THE WEEK. THE MAGAZINES, &c. The Contemporary Review opens with a paper by the Rev. Principal Tulloch on “Benjamin Whichcote,” a Cambridge Professor under the Commonwealth, who exercised no little influence as a theologian in his day. Mr. Thomas Maitland severely criticises what he calls “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” the poet, who is the principal theme of his animadversion, being Mr. Rossetti. Admitting his talent, we think the estimate formed by the reviewer of Mr. Rossetti’s writings to be tolerably correct, what is beautiful in them being marred by morbid sentiment. “The Journeyman Engineer” (Thoms Wright) puts forth his views respecting the relationship of the people to political power, and the article is well worth thoughtful perusal, as an expression of working-class opinion on some of the great problems of the day. The remainder of the contents embrace essays of much merit on various topics of interest. ___
The Academy (15 October, 1871) A curious instance of the obsolete vituperative style in criticism appears in the October number of the Contemporary Review, a periodical happily less known for such eccentricities than for very respectable services in the field of latitudinarian Christianity. The paper in question, called “The Fleshly School of Poetry: Mr. D. G. Rossetti,” by a Mr. Thomas Maitland, shows more acrimonious personal discourtesy, founded on more grotesque literary misapprehension than it would have been easy to suppose possible. Until the writer has learned to correct his manners he cannot expect a hearing for his opinions. [Note: This was written by Sidney Colvin.] ___
Glasgow Herald (17 October, 1871) THE MAGAZINES FOR OCTOBER. [SECOND NOTICE.] The Contemporary Review.—Among the most interesting articles of the present number is one on the “Prospects of the New German Reformation.” . . . ___
The Guardian (13 December, 1871) TABLE-TALK. . . . A strongly worded controversy has been excited in several quarters by the discovery that the very trenchant criticism in a recent Contemporary Review on the “Fleshly School” in poetry was written by Mr. Robert Buchanan, under the pseudonym of “Thomas Maitland.” The most painful result of the discovery has been a letter in the Athenæum written by a well-known Art critic, in which the following among other sentences occurs:—“Say that you, a disinterested reader, came across, in a periodical adopting the rule of signature, a critical effort, which you feel at once to be reprehensibly tempered—what then?” To which we find ourselves replying “Why then—we should break our jaw, if we read any further.” The question at issue, putting aside this letter, which is unreadable, or, when read, incomprehensible, seems chiefly to turn on, whether or not it is allowed to a critic to mention his own works. But in the article on “Spiritualism” in the last Quarterly, Dr. Carpenter repeatedly mentions himself, and in one place, if we mistake not, betrays himself by an incautious use of pronouns; and we have some recollections of a passage in Vivian Grey in which the hero talks of the “elder D’Israeli.” ___
The Pall Mall Gazette (19 December, 1871) Two months ago a violent attack on some living poets, and especially on Mr. Dante Rossetti, appeared in the Contemporary Review. The article was entitled “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” and signed “Thomas Maitland.” The public was therefore asked to accept it as the production of some unknown writer bearing that name. The Athenæum, however, informed its readers a fortnight since that Maitland was a nom de plume for Mr. Robert Buchanan, and by implication that a review which is in the habit of printing articles with authentic signatures had departed from its rule in producing this fierce onslaught of a poet upon his brethren of the craft. This charge has been met by the publishers in a brief note to the editor of the Athenæum, which sounds like a distinct denial of the statement. “You might,” they say, “with equal propriety, associate with the article the name of Mr. Robert Browning, or of Mr. Robert Lytton, or of any other Robert.” Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan’s publishers, that gentleman, as if to stultify them, sends a letter at the same time on his own account, in which he owns that he did write “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” and adds that “the publisher is best aware of the inadvertence which led to the suppression” of his name. Mr. Buchanan has never lacked boldness, and we are glad to see that, while confessing to the authorship of the article, he is able to add that he had nothing to do with the signature. We suppose, therefore, that he either did not see a proof sheet of the paper, or that the name of Thomas Maitland was accidentally substituted for his own after the proof had left his hands. ___
Birmingham Daily Post (20 December, 1871) A very pretty literary quarrel is being waged in the columns of the Athenæum. It began thus:—Two months ago a slashing, coarse, and in many respects vulgar, article appeared in the Contemporary Review, on the “Fleshly School of Poetry.” Like all the articles in this high-class magazine, the article was signed by the author, a Mr. “THOMAS MAITLAND.” It was a severe attack on Mr. D. ROSSETTI, not only as a poet and painter, but as a man;; and, it must be confessed, was quite unworthy of the Contemporary. It soon transpired that there was no such person as “THOMAS MAITLAND,” and it was openly stated that the real author was a rival poet—no other than Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN. Strange to say, in last Saturday’s Athenæum there appear two communications which, read in the light of each other, place Mr. BUCHANAN and the publishers of the Contemporary in a very awkward position. Messrs. STRAHAN and Co. write: “You might with equal propriety associate with the article ‘The Fleshly School of Poetry’ the name of Mr. ROBERT BROWNING, or of Mr. ROBERT LYTTON, or of any other Robert.” Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN himself writes: “I certainly wrote the article, but I had nothing to do with the signature. Mr. STRAHAN, publisher of the Contemporary Review, can corroborate me thus far, as he is best aware of the inadvertence which led to the suppression of my own name.” ___
Glasgow Herald (20 December, 1871) A PRETTY quarrel is just now being performed on the literary stage. In a recent number, the Contemporary Review published an article entitled “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” under which succulent designation was specially singled out for exposure and denunciation a volume of poems published some time ago from the hand of Mr Dante Rossetti. That volume attracted a great deal of attention, and a number of singularly favourable opinions were expressed by the ablest organs of criticism regarding it. Indeed, the critics could not have spoken more loudly if they had been paid twice for their labour, or if the poet had been their most excellent friend. But there was one person who could not conscientiously join this cry of triumph; so he wrote the article in the Contemporary, and signed himself “Thomas Maitland.” Now, this piece of work was undoubtedly a spicy performance, and some people went so far as to think that a second Daniel had actually come to judgment. But who was “Thomas Maitland?” For a time the answer was just “Thomas Maitland,” and nothing more, the proof being that the Contemporary Review had from the first adopted the principle of authenticating each article by the genuine signature of the writer. Still, as “Thomas Maitland” was a new name in criticism, many persons were anxious to know something about his personal identity. There were a few unusually shrewd persons who entertained doubts as to the genuineness of the name, and set themselves to study the style of “Maitland,” to see if they could discover whether he was the “true Thomas”—on the theory, we presume, that a critic may be known by his bite, as a dog is known by his bark. These investigators must have succeeded, for very soon it began to leak out that “Thomas Maitland” was an impostor, had stolen somebody’s article, and sent it to the publisher as if it were his own. It was naturally assumed that the Contemporary would not change its wholesome habit of letting each contributor receive the credit and glory of his own work. To whom, then, did the article on “The Fleshly School of Poetry” belong? Gossip replied, in its usual knowing whisper—“Mr Robert Buchanan, the Poet.” For a moment this announcement was received with blank amazement. It seemed difficult to believe that, in this singularly honest and humane age, one British Poet would assault another British Poet as fiercely as the article in question had assaulted Mr Rossetti. All the more difficult was it to credit the theory that Mr Buchanan could be the author of an article, in certain passages of which Mr Buchanan was himself rather favourably spoken of. Was Mr Buchanan not a modest man? Public opinion shook a dubious head; and it was quietly hinted that Mr Buchanan had once before, if not praised, at least reviewed, Mr Buchanan’s own poetry in one of his own essays. It was further insinuated that Mr Buchanan, in assailing Mr Rossetti, was simply repaying an old debt; for, it was asked, had not Mr Rossetti, in defending his friend Mr Swinburne from the onslaughts of Mr Buchanan, called Mr Buchanan by the most hateful of all names, a “poetaster?” ___
The Week’s News (23 December, 1871) “What People are Saying.” Something very curious is to be found in the pages of last week’s Athenæum. It must be premised that the Contemporary Review is conducted on the principle of open signatures, that an article appeared in October, signed “Thomas Maitland,” criticising severely writers who “extol fleshliness as the distinct and supreme end of poetic and pictorial art.” The criticism was severe, and some of the authors have replied; but who is Mr. Maitland? The Athenæum manages to link Mr. Robert Buchanan’s name with the article, and, rather hastily, Messrs. Strahan and Co., the publishers, write, under date December 12, to the Athenæum, to ask how ever the editor came to associate the name of Mr. Robert Buchanan with the article entitled “The Fleshly School of Poetry, by Thomas Maitland.” You might with equal propriety, say Messrs. Strahan and Co., associate with the article the name of Mr. Robert Browning, or of Mr. Robert Lytton, or of any other Robert. Alas! for the security of the nom de plume, Mr. Robert Buchanan himself wrote to the Athenæum on December 12:—“I certainly wrote the article on ‘The Fleshly School of Poetry,’ but I had nothing to do with the signature,” and the Athenæum publishes both letters together, with a note to the effect that Mr. Buchanan’s letter is an edifying commentary on Messrs. Strahan’s, and that it may be only a matter of taste, but they prefer to know that an article is written by Mr. Buchanan when he praises his own poems. This is a little piece of mischief that people in the book world can hardly be expected to refrain from talking about. ___
The Sun & Central Press (23 December, 1871 - p.12) I have already alluded to the new chapter which has been added to “the quarrels of authors,” by two scarcely brother poets—Messrs. Buchanan and Rossetti. The quarrel has gone to pretty lengths, and shews no signs of abatement. One fact I may add to the story. Mr. Buchanan was engaged by Mr. Strahan to write a series of articles for the Contemporary and other magazines, some of them to be signed by the author himself, some to be published under other signatures lest there should be “too much Buchanan.” This article on “The Fleshly School” the writer desired to be anonymous, in order that if any challenge were made, the real authorship might the more readily be revealed. Mr. Strahan, knowing nothing of this intention, signed the article “Thomas Maitland,” and Mr. Buchanan, who lives at Oban, in Scotland, telegraphed too late to effect an alteration. A few weeks ago the secret oozed out, and then the war commenced. Mr. Buchanan’s opponents have some excuse for styling Mr. Buchanan’s the “stealthy school of poetry,” seeing that under the guise of an impartial critic he praised his own writings. The paper which provoked all this wrath has been reprinted with considerable extensions. In the additional passages the author dwells specially upon the prurient pictorial literature at present rampant in the country, and a notorious specimen of which was brought into the law courts yesterday by the Society for the Suppression of Vice. ___
The Nation (11 January, 1872 - p.25) —The Contemporary Review—which, by the way, will hereafter bear for the American market the imprint of J. B. Lippincott & Co.—has during the last few weeks invited the public to an amusing farce in which Mr. Strahan, the publisher of the Review, and Mr. Robert Buchanan, the Scottish poet, are the actors. In the number for October there appeared an article “On the Fleshly School of Poetry,” written in the good old-fashioned “savage” style, recalling the Quarterly in its worst days. The reviewer’s wrath was directed generally against the new men, Morris, Swinburne, Rossetti, Robert Lytton, Matthew Arnold, and, though he is hardly a “new” man, “Festus” Bailey. Buchanan is also mentioned, but slightly, and, as is evident, merely to avoid suspicion. All these writers are stigmatized as followers and imitators of Tennyson, but as followers and imitators of what is weak and sensual in him, “Maud” and “Vivien” being the particular poems that have set all this prurient young blood afire. Having mercilessly slaughtered all the brood in general terms, the reviewer selects one in particular to be drawn and quartered, and that one is Mr. Dante G. Rossetti, to whom the bulk of the article is devoted, and of whom, when “Thomas Maitland,” the signer and presumed writer of the article in question, has wiped his sword and put it back in its scabbard, there would appear to have been very little left. A paragraph appeared in the Athenæum for Dec. 2, stating that it was understood that Mr. Sidney Colvin (a well-known contributor to the Academy and to Mr. Hamerton’s Portfolio) “was preparing an answer in the pages of the Contemporary Review to an article which had appeared in that Review signed Thomas Maitland, a nom de plume assumed by Mr. Robert Buchanan.” Next week out comes Mr. Sidney Colvin with a scornful denial of any intention to do so futile and unnecessary a thing as to “answer” Mr. Buchanan’s masked attack upon his brother poets. And now, the actors inn the farce having all taken their places, we have the play played out in the Athenæum for Dec. 16. First, there is a long article by Mr. D. G. Rossetti, in which he defends himself against the sly critic of the Contemporary Review, and his defence is very moderate and gentlemanly. Directly following it, the Athenæum prints the following note from Messrs. Strahan & Co.: “56 Ludgate Hill, December 6, 1871. Under this disclaimer the Athenæum has the barbarity to print the following note from Mr. Robert Buchanan: “Russell Square, W., December 12, 1871. ___
The Examiner (3 February, 1872) . . . In Tinsley Mr Farjeon, the author of ‘Joshua Marvel,’ begins a new novel, “London’s Heart,” and Mr Forman is hard upon Mr Robert Buchanan for his famous or infamous essay on “The Fleshly School of Poetry.” In St Paul’s Mr Buchanan patronises Dickens as “The Good Genie of Fiction,” and, much better reading, we have a continuation of Hawthorne’s posthumous romance “Septimius.” ___
The Era (4 February, 1872) TINSLEY’S FOR FEBRUARY is quite a brilliant number, having for the piece de resistance a new story called London’s Heart, by Mr. Farjeon, who writes a very lively story, somewhat in the Dickens school. Musical Recollections of the Last Half Century are full of interest; and, for a tale of adventure, The Red Dragon, by Mr. Grant, will assuredly be welcome. Mr. Forman breaks a lance with Mr. Robert Buchanan, in which that not very remarkable poet comes off second best. Mr. Buchanan should devote his time to better purpose than abusing more popular bards. Two or three very agreeable poems are to be found in this number, Under the Linden Trees being one. Fiorella, a waif, and Home, Sweet Home, are continued; and there is a lively paper on The Influence of Travel, by Mr. Henry Kingsley. ___
Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper (11 February, 1872 - p.5) MAGAZINES. . . . “London’s Heart” is the name of Mr. Farjeon’s new novel in Tinsley’s Magazine. The three chapters which form this month’s instalment are admirable studies of London poor life. We are sure our readers would appreciate Mr. Farjeon’s graphic description of the White Rose music-hall—but we have no room for quotation. James Grant’s spirited and inspiriting novel is progressing; and we find that the second part of that obvious translation, “Fiorella” is more un-English in style, even than the first. We have no possible objection to translations, except when they are unacknowledged. An article on “The ‘Fleshly School’ Scandal,” fully bears out our opinion, that Mr. Buchanan has done not only no good, but much harm, in prowling and raking about among what he considers the improprieties of modern poetry, and calling people’s attention in a loud voice to points which they would not otherwise have perceived. Henry Kingsley’s article on “The Influence of Travel” should be read on all sides. It is carefully written and is diverting, and embodies most sensible and intelligent unconventional views. Some of the poems are graceful, for instance, “Unrest,” and the “Modern Version of the Classics.” ___
The Derby Mercury (14 February, 1872) MAGAZINES FOR FEBRUARY. Tinsley’s Magazine. No. LV., February. London: 18, Catherine-street, Strand. . . . Mr. Robert Buchanan has given great offence to a writer in Tinsley by certain criticisms on “The Fleshly School” of poetry as represented by Rossetti, Swinburne, and Morris. We think, however, that the criticism was fully justified, and that the Tinsley writer’s defence is very weak. The fault of Mr. Buchanan was that he did not accept the responsibility of his opinions in a magazine which adopts the plan of appending the writer’s signature to the various articles, but wrote under a nom de plume. ___
The Graphic (17 February, 1872) THE FEBRUARY MAGAZINES. . . . We have not till now read any of Mr. B. L. Farjeon’s novels, but we are bound to say, judging from the first instalment in Tinsley’s, that “London’s Heart” promises to be a very attractive story. . . . —Lastly, we note a severe castigation of Mr. Robert Buchanan for his article in the Contemporary of last October, on “The Fleshly School of Poetry.” Mr. Buchanan deserves sharp rebuke for masquerading under the apparently real name of “Thomas Maitland,” and for professing afterwards that the suppression of his own name was an “inadvertence.” Curiously enough the same number of the Athenæum which contained Mr. Buchanan’s confession, contained a letter from the publishers of the Contemporary, virtually denying that he was the author. But the reprehensible character of these shifts and evasions does not affect the question of the soundness of the critique on Mr. Rossetti’s poems. In spite of a great deal of exaggeration and needless personality, an impartial observer cannot but admit the general reasonableness of the pseudonymous critic’s complaints. ___
Glasgow Herald (29 May, 1872) MR SWINBURNE. Glasgow, 25th May, 1872. ___
Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser (Dublin) (22 October, 1872) LONDON GOSSIP. London, Saturday. ... So much time has been devoted of late to the frivolous study of social politics that none has been left for the study of poetical human nature of which, nevertheless, the finest opportunity has been offered us. Some time ago Robert Buchanan, a poet of some little renown, undertook the castigation of some few men of letters who had attained to greater fame than he. It was what he was pleased to call the “fleshly school of poetry” that he was bent on crushing under-foot, and out of an odd kind of delicacy, and, perhaps, to ward off suspicion of his identity, he assumed the signature of Thomas Maitland. He began his strictures by that of the great Dante. So far no harm was done. Every modern scribbler of verses agrees in the opinion that Dante was nothing at all, totally undeserving of the immortality he has achieved, and, therefore, “Thomas Maitland” rather pleased than offended the poets of the day by the bitterness of his criticisms. But when it came to the same attack upon Swinburne and Rossetti, both of them passing rich in every illustration of wickedness, then the literary fray began in right good earnest. The mask was torn from Thomas Maitland’s face, and he became plain Robert Buchanan. No screaming farce, no drollery of burlesque, has ever furnished more amusement to the town than this strange quarrel. Ample proof is given that those whose hands are hardest in wielding the lash have still more tender skins when it is applied to their own backs. The poor country gentleman in whose garden once grew that famous mulberry tree supposed to have been planted by Shakspeare, had to bear with the most opprobrious epithets, such as “vulture-clawed” and “carrion-fed,” whereas the poor old gentleman who had probably never read Shakspeare, and very likely would not have thought much of him if he had, was simply annoyed at having his privacy broken in upon by the shoals of tourists from all parts of the world who came to clasp and weep and maunder around the tree which its own proprietor undervalued as being too old to bear fruit and too stunted to give shade. But the fine gentleman who bestowed these ignoble epithets cannot bear the smallest castigation himself, and stands up, stripped to the buff, dealing heavy bruisers right and left, merely because the one who is considered the head of the fleshly school is called a “clever monkey, who can squeak, scream, bite, munch, mumble—all but speak.” Thereupon the said clever “monkey” takes the “insect” Buchanan under a microscope, and examines and dissects him without mercy. Needless to say what name the insect bears in natural history, nor yet what fearful, what terrific, scalpel is used by the dissector.—Correspondent of Evening Telegraph. _____
Back to The Fleshly School Controversy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|