ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901)
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841 - 1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROBERT BUCHANAN’S LETTERS TO GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
These thirteen surviving letters from Robert Buchanan to George Bernard Shaw are in the collection of the British Library (Add MS 50529 G. B. SHAW PAPERS: SERIES 1. Vol. XXII (ff. 212) ff. 179-212). Shaw’s letters to Buchanan have not survived, but Buchanan did publish an extract from one in his pamphlet, Is Barabbas a Necessity? A discourse on publishers and publishing, a copy of which, from Bernard Shaw: Collected Letters 1874 - 1897 edited by Dan H. Laurence (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1965) I have also included on this page. That collection also includes this note on page 315: ‘Buchanan, who addressed Shaw variously as “Jehovah Junr” and “Dear Timon,” was also addicted to open letters, and later published two of these (“The Jester as Moral Pioneer” and “The ‘Translation’ of Bottom the Realist”) on Shaw in the Sunday Special (3rd and 24th April 1898).’ Unfortunately I don’t have either of these items (the archives of the Sunday Special are not available online) but in the Letters to the Press section, there are two exchanges between Buchanan and Shaw on the subject of Ibsen in the pages of the Pall Mall Gazette from June 1889 and January 1891. I should also point out that Christopher D. Murray, in his unpublished PhD thesis, ‘Robert Buchanan (1841-1901) : An assessment of his career’, does discuss Buchanan’s letters to Shaw on several occasions. _____
Letter 1: 26th October [1891]. 25 Maresfield Gardens Dear Sir, I’m not an Ibsenite, but a ‘critic with a wooden head’. I feel impelled, nevertheless, to tell you how much pleasure I’ve received from your Quintessence—which I look upon as a quite masterly statement of the case for the Defence. The only review I’ve seen describes your book as mystifying & intended to mystify. Nothing, I think, can be more untrue. It is strong, simple, & clear as crystal. Yours truly Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Year [1891] added by another hand. Envelope: “1891 Robert Buchanan 26 Oct. Introducing himself as a Notes: _____
Letter 2: 27th October [1891]. ‘Merkland’ Dear Sir, Your note increases the interest first awakened by your book; for it is another illustration of the truth that mere dogmas (and your book bustles with them) seldom explain human character. I quite realize that your practical experience of men is larger than mine, and that you are a ‘Meliorist’ in the sense you mean. I never, with your book before me, thought you a Pessimist of the Schopenhauer stye. What I meant was that you took an exaggerated view of social evils, were unjust to the good side of conventions established for general convenience, and harped too strongly and too aggressively on the old string of Self. You seem to me, indeed, despite all your claims to the character of Realist (using your own definition of the words) a thorough-going Idealist, dreaming of a state of affairs which never has been & never will be. And the kind of Art you admire is (still using your definition) outrageously idealistic, even to the extent of losing all touch of life. Ibsen’s people seem to me moral Phantoms,—hypocondriacs of the Ideal, searching their own secretions (as the old priests searched the entrails) for signs & portents. The results, to my mind, is universal ugliness, the very negation of the law of Art, which is Beauty. The very writing is devoid of both grace & charm. The joy of life has gone out of these creatures, as surely as it has gone out of the dwellers among arid orthodox creeds. Robert Buchanan. G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Year [1891] added by another hand. Envelope: “1891 Robert Buchanan 29 Oct. In reply to my reply _____
25 Maresfield Gardens Dear Mr Shaw, I should very much like to read your article on your own novels, if you will send me a copy, as you kindly propose. It has always seemed to me that a man should be his own critic: he is certain, however great his vanity, to show himself unconsciously in puris naturalibus. Truly yours Bernard Shaw
[’the world would be, worse, not better.’ A word has been crossed out, then, possibly overwritten with ‘worse’, which is then repeated. A word is also crossed out before ‘better’, and ‘not’ inserted above. _____
24 Margaret Street Dear Mr Shaw, In a story about to be pubd by Fisher Unwin, I have made a sort of fancy sketch of a person called G. B. Shaw. When I tell you that I am rather in love with the character, you’ll infer that ’tis no unkind caricature; but ’tis done like a child’s drawing ‘out of my own head’, since I have no personal knowledge of you & have only built up the creature as I conceive him. I shall be very curious to know what you think of him. Only in one thing does he differ from my conception of you—there is never the least mistake about what he says & means. Truly yours G. Bernard Shaw Esq. I send this c/o The Saturday Review, as I have mislaid your address. Your contributions to that venerable publication seem like a live man’s voice sounding in a sepulchre. How did you wander there? and dont you feel shadowed with the clammy presence of the dead criticasters?
[In the upper left corner, a date ‘2/7/95’ is written diagonally with what looks like shorthand marks beneath - whether this is Shaw’s notation or a library mark, I have no idea. _____
24 Margaret Street Dear Mr Shaw, I was a little premature in writing to you. I thought the book was coming out at once, for ’tis months since I revised the proofs, & behold, ’tis not yet pubd. However, I expect it very soon. Yours truly G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Year [1895] added by another hand. Envelope: “1895 Robert Buchanan 3 July. Book delayed. _____
24 Margaret St Dear Mr Shaw, On returning from Scotland this morning, I find your criticism on Nordau, which is full of wit and wisdom like all you write. I haven’t read Degeneration, for I am familiar with the kind of mind which created it. You touch the quick of the whole matter, when you suggest that all wars, literary or political, are really the fight of temperaments, not of reasons. Robert Buchanan, This publishing for myself is a step I am taking with good reason, & it involves a challenge to the usual publishing Jonathan Wilds of Paternoster Row. Yours truly G. Bernard Shaw Esq. If ‘Arms & the Man’ is printed, I should like a copy. If pubd, you need only tell me by whom. P. S. Why I want you to look at the Devil’s Case is not because I want your opinion of it as literature, but because I should like to know if it impresses you as true or false as religion, or as a facet of religion. The book was finished some weeks before my great sorrow came, and I have kept it by me since. If I thought it was opposed in any way to the highest & holiest instincts of Humanity, to my fixed and unalterable faith in the spiritised future of myself as an individual, I would not publish it. I loathe nothing so much as base & brutal ribaldry on sacred subjects—by sacred I mean subjects touching on the essential truth underlying phenomena. That it will shock some good souls va sans dire, but will it shock any one who is deeply & honestly reverential, as I am? That is the question. And is the latter portion, where the Devil mourns over human sacrifice, mere sentiment, or something better? Most people I meet seem to think me a fool for taking this question so seriously. How does it strike you, from your point of view, different as it is from mine? You will see & understand that this is no literary question, but one concerning the key principle by which we think & live, & by which alone our existence may be justified. B.
[‘the fight of temperaments, not of reasons.’ A word has been crossed out and ‘reasons’ written above. Envelope front: “1895 Robert Buchanan 10 Sept. On the Nordau article. Envelope back: Note: ‘In 1895, the Boston Transcript published an article attacking critics who praised frivolous dramatic inanities and condemned serious studies of contemporary social conditions. Undoubtedly the editors of the Transcript had in mind Max Nordau’s Entartung, later translated as Degeneracy, which had first been published in 1892. The essay was subsequently published as The Sanity of Art: An Exposure of the Current Nonsense about Artists being Degenerate. (London: The New Age Press, 1908).] _____
Letter 7: 30th October [1895]. 24 Margaret St Dear Mr Shaw, Thanks for the sheets, for your letter, & for your assurance that no one but yourself has seen the poem. Dont trouble yourself about the matter further! I was only curious to know how the statement struck your keenly logical intellect, quite apart from the question of literary criticism, which I begged you not to raise. Had you had time to tell me, I should have been much interested, as you, by temperament & education, view these things from a quite different standpoint. But why the deuce should I bother a busy man about a point of religion & philosophy? It was a betise on my part, I begin to think, for which I apologise. Yours truly G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Year [1895] added by another hand. Envelope: “1895 Robert Buchanan 30 Oct. Acknowledging return of proofsheets of Note: _____
[Shaw’s letters to Buchanan have not survived. However, Buchanan included an extract from one in his pamphlet, Is Barabbas a Necessity? A discourse on publishers and publishing, which is available on this site and the section dealing with Shaw’s letter can be found here. The extract was also published in Bernard Shaw: Collected Letters 1874 - 1897, with an explanatory note, and since some of the subsequent letters of Buchanan refer to this letter of Shaw’s, I have placed the extract and note here: From Bernard Shaw: Collected Letters 1874 - 1897 edited by Dan H. Laurence (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1965) - p. 584-585. ‘To ROBERT BUCHANAN [29 Fitzroy Square W] [In March 1896 Buchanan issued a self-published pamphlet Is Barabbas a Necessity? which was a Byronic attack on publishers. In it he noted that he had received a letter from a “distinguished man of letters” to whom he had sent a proof copy, in 1895, of his long poem The Devil’s Case, “and whom I chose for that confidence because I knew him to be diametrically opposed, both in character and experience, to myself.” Buchanan did not divulge the writer’s name, but assured his readers that “he is a man well known for intellectual honesty and practical beneficence, a man for whom I have the very highest respect, short of sympathising in the least degree with his opinions. These are his words, and they are very remarkable words, coming as they do from an enthusiast in the cause of social progress.” Shaw confided to Henry Salt that the letter was intended to be merely by way of illustration in an argument that it is not the inevitable misfortunes, but the evitable ones, that are most distasteful in life. (See “Salt on Shaw,” revised by Shaw, in Stephen Winsten’s Salt and His Circle, 1951.) Buchanan published the extracts without authorisation, and later wrote a letter of apology to Shaw for having taken this liberty. I observe that you are superstitious, that you want “solutions,” that you are driven to pessimism by your failure to find them, and that you are highly susceptible to the fullness and oppression of heart caused by love and death to men of strong sentiment. The reason we get on together in our correspondence is because I am as much as possible the reverse of all this. I have lost my father and my sister, with whom I was on excellent terms; and I assure you their deaths disturbed me less than a misprint in an article. If my mother dies before me, I am quite sure that I shall not be moved by it as much as I was moved by your poem on the death of your mother. The inevitable does not touch me; it is the non-avoidance of the evitable, the neglect of the possible, the falling short of attainable efficiency, clearness, accuracy, and beauty, that set me raging. I really care deeply for nothing but fine work, and since nobody can help me in this, no less can greatly affect my self-sufficiency. . . . There is nothing anti-social in all this; quite the reverse. Usually this sort of thing is so terrifying and repulsive to men that they would rather believe that it is a mere affectation of mine to cover what they call “a good heart”—meaning the weaknesses (usually produced by whiskey, ore or less) which they would like to believe common to all the race. But in my heart of hearts I utterly despise all this sort of special pleading. When a man whimpers to me about Goethe’s coldness and selfishness, I pity him. . . . There! that’s the real Simon Pure, with all his goods in the shop window. You may recoil as much as you like, and protest that there is a heart of gold in the back parlour, like Hall Caine’s, or Carton’s, or poor old Thackeray’s; I only reply, do my work, if you can, with that sort of heart, made of gold that any cheesecutter will slip into!’] _____
Letter 8: 23rd November [1895]. The Cottage Dear Mr Shaw, You rather misconceive me. I by no means intended Short for a likeness of you—I only suggested that certain public traits of yours had been worked into him. I quite see the point of your objection, but even if I knew you I should still see you à travers mon temperament. And I wont let you describe yourself in terms which remind me of—Oscar Wilde! Poor Oscar talked to me once in almost the same way,—said he didn’t feel moved by real love & sorrow but was deeply moved by them in Art—which is Bosh & Twaddle, my dear fellow, & in your heart you know it. As to your personal affections, they are your own affair, & so, after all, is your precious work. The world can do without them, as without any of us & any Art. But what you cant do without is the very thing you overlook. I would say to you frankly, your duty is first to those nearest to you—eg. your old mother—and all your precious art & work, were they those of a Shakspere, are not worth one ache of her little finger. Thems my sentiments, Scotch, whiskified, if you please—but I shall hold to them till I cease to breathe. Yours as ever G. Bernard Shaw Esq. After all is said & done, the one good thing that remains to me in life is that the one I loved & love best died as she had lived in the full certainty of my devotion, and the outcome of this in practice is that my heart goes out to all sonship & motherhood, & thence to all humanity. My chief revolt against +ianity is that it makes personal love subsidiary to the enthusiasm of humanity, not the nucleus & soul of that enthusiasm; & to me the most pathetic figure in the Gospels is the poor old bewildered Mother, who looked on in despair while the ‘crank’ her Son was muddling & droning over his mad ‘work’, turning his back on her & his brethren, & raging because he discovered flaws in his imaginary world—in your parlance, ‘misprints in his article’!
[Year [1895] added by another hand. Envelope: “1895 Robert Buchanan 26 Nov. On my disclaiming resemblance to his Marcus _____
36, Gerrard Street, Dear Mr Shaw, I dont know if I have done wrong in quoting from your letter in my pamphlet, but if so I am sorry. I suspect, however, that you do not make statements you would fear to publish, & au reste, your name is not mentioned. Yours truly
[The address of Buchanan’s publishing office is printed. Envelope: “1896 Robert Buchanan 5 March. Hopes I wont mind his quoting my letter Note: ‘Did Buchanan send you his pamphlet [Is Barabbas a Necessity?] as well as the leaflet? It (the pamphlet) contains a private letter of mine. B. is in immense spirits, “clinging in desolation and despair to a faith in God.”’ From Bernard Shaw: Collected Letters 1874 - 1897 edited by Dan H. Laurence - p. 608.] _____
36, Gerrard Street, Dear Shaw, Just got your letter here, after writing to you. I do feel seriously concerned over that quotation from your letter, but I dont imagine any one will father it on you, and indeed I fancied that such a deliverance on your part could not be meant in confidence. As for your mother ever seeing it, surely that is most unlikely; and even if she did, would she think you serious? I know my mother would have only laughed, if any one had shown her such words of mine—knowing well, as sons must do, that the real Simon Pure, or R. B, or Bernard Shaw, had only his tongue in his cheek, as (in the case of B. S) is usual. Yours truly
[The address is printed. Shaw’s review of The Romance of the Shopwalker is available here. ] _____
44 Streatham Hill Dear Shaw, P. S. I quite forgot, in answering yours, to touch on the Tolstoi question. You may be a ‘political economist’, but you’re no logician. However, the theme is too wide for discussion here. What I would point out to you is that, like most philanthropists by profession, you neglect the duties nearest to you. You told me in a former letter that rather than scamp your work you allow your old mother to suffer daily inconvenience, and now you tell me that you refused so much money from a prowling entrepreneur because he could only pay you for ‘moral’ rights. Now, no one gains by the free performance of your play but the said entrepreneur—he doesn’t perform it free, but pockets the royalty you refuse—while by accepting what is your moral right you could doubtless give some additional comfort or pleasure to one whom I believe, in spite of all your bunkum, you love dearly. It is you, not I, you see, that ‘love everybody’—it is you that are the Chadband, blessing democracy in general, posing as a highminded man, & forgetting the beloved one by your own fireside. You inherit, in fact, the +ian tradition, which has done more to swamp Humanity than any tradition in the world, and on your tongue is all the old contempt for affection, for sentiment, all the old sense of sin and unworthiness. You are a Calvinist minus +ianity. Tolstoi, again, is a crank of cranks, a blesser of mankind in general. I know by practical experience how much more can be done by private sympathy & Charity than by any organized beneficence, & if you had taken your two guineas a night from the Prowler I could have shown you a hundred ways of spending them if they were not wanted at home. Example, with only one guinea a week, I have been able, during the last 6 months, to make two mortal creatures as happy as sandboys—to keep one poor afflicted fellow from the workhouse, & to comfort the declining days of a poor old worn-out actor. You, I suppose, would think it more proper to give your money to the Charity Organization Society, or to inquire if the cases were deserving? Moral: the next time a Middleman offers you money, & you dont want it, send it on to me, or let me find you a pensioner who will bless you for the gift. _____ The more I think of it, the more angry am I with myself for having quoted you without your permission, but having humbly acknowledged my fault, I will only add that I am glad to have pinned you down to at least one bit of objective statement. You deal so largely in generalities, in nebulous statements, that you, like the average +ian, are difficult to catch and hold. Here, at last, you are explicit. Love & death trouble you less than ‘a misprint in an article’—sentiment is the result of whiskey &c.—& Goethe, that intellectual Onanist, was a wise creature. Why, you Saturnine Reviewer, you eternal Carper & Faultfinder, your articles are chokeful of misprints, your sobriety has all the characteristics of intoxication, & your wisdom is the merest self-worship. If Bernard Shaw is the outcome of water-drinking & vegetarianism, I mean to go in for the Buchanan Blend & avoid green stuff altogether. Robert Buchanan G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Letterheaded paper. The first two lines of the Gerrard Street address are crossed through and ’44 Streatham Hill S W’ written above. _____
Letter 12: [7th] March [1896]. 44 Streatham Hill Dear Shaw, Could you refer me to the Nos of the S. R. containing your remarks on actors & actresses? I should like to see them, & would send to the Office for them. Yours G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Date ‘7. [1896]’ added by another hand. Envelope: “1896 Robert Buchanan 7 March. On modern Poetry, Archer’s burlesque of his “Devil’s Case” &c.” ] _____
44 Streatham Hill Dear Timon, You & the Independent Theatre be blowed! I would sooner hang myself than march thro’ Coventry with any such pack of scarecrows & amateurs. Au reste, the N. D. Q. is copyrighted—I took care of that—& licensed. Some of these fine days, perhaps, it will be acted, to your disgust, for Marcus Aurelius Short is a character in it, a sort of ‘Charles his friend. Perhaps, however, that wont matter, since I know now that my fancy-sketch is not a bit like Bernard Shaw. Yours sincerely G. Bernard Shaw Esq.
[Year [1896] added by another hand. Envelope: “1896 Robert Buchanan 17 June. Replying to my suggestion that _____
[In relation to Buchanan’s publication of that extract from Shaw’s letter in Is Barabbas a Necessity?, I came across the following on the Henry S. Salt website. It is taken from ‘Salt on Shaw’ which was published in Salt and His Circle by Stephen Winsten (Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1951). ‘He lived with his mother, who was a music teacher, in Fitzroy Square; and we gathered from what he used to tell us that the household was by no means in affluence. On one occasion when Mrs. Shaw had been away for a week, and had left him sufficiently provided for that time and no more, an old friend unexpectedly arrived and claimed his hospitality, with the result that he was reduced, during the remaining days, to a diet of bread and apples. Mrs. Shaw was a charming old lady full of vivacity and wit; and it was evident that G.B.S., in spite of the levity of his talk, was very fond of her. In illustration of an argument that it is not the inevitable misfortunes, but the evitable ones, that are most distressful in life, he once wrote that his mother’s death would vex him less than a misprint; and it so happened that Robert Buchanan, who was a devoted son, saw this and wrote a severe comment on it, which he sent to Shaw by post in a halfpenny wrapper. This so stirred G.B.S. that he told Buchanan that the very fact of his having sent his reproof in such a way, where it might easily have been seen by Mrs. Shaw, showed that he could not really have cared for his own mother, and that the poems which he had devoted to her memory were mere sentimentality. When G.B.S. told me this, years later, it explained a remark made to me by Robert Buchanan, which at the time rather puzzled me, that Shaw was “extremely brutal”.’ ] _____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
