Papers from Lilliput. J. B. Priestley

the baser sort has invaded the realm of verse; every day, our poets are more startling, though not so startling as their friends and critics.

      Looking about then, with no unfriendly eye, we shall discover that audacity, not of the worst kind, is to be found in much of the best known work of to-day. It is not everywhere: there is little or no trace of it in the work of Hardy, Bridges, Henry James, Conrad, W. H. Hudson, Galsworthy, Maurice Hewlett, to name only a few. But elsewhere, though mingled with other finer qualities, there is no lack of it. It takes many strange shapes, and can be discovered lurking under many disguises. It has proved itself no small part of Bernard Shaw’s stock-in-trade. It roars lustily through the essays and ‘histories’ of Messrs. Belloc and Chesterton, peeps slyly from Max Beerbohm’s essays, screams in the devastating contributions of H. G. Wells, leers through George Moore’s endless reminiscences. It drove Arnold Bennett to write essays, and is now urging John Drinkwater to create dramas. After being long the servant, it is now the master of Barrie. There is no end to it. Fortunately, these are not gentlemen of one characteristic alone; they do not content themselves with crying ‘ducdame,’ for they have still something to say when the circle is formed. But there are others, novelists, verse-writers, critics, and what editors call ‘publicists,’ who think to run their course with nothing to speed them but audacity alone, which makes them doubly audacious, but nothing more. The drums beat, the trumpets sound, the crowd is hushed, and then follows a cough and a splutter—and then silence.

      When did it begin? In its primary form, no doubt it is a characteristic as old as literature itself. It is there, full-fledged, in Aristophanes. The Hebrew chroniclers and prophets had audacity of a sublime kind. Perhaps there were once wild young literary men in China, and no doubt many an impudent papyrus in Babylon and Ancient Egypt. But in the more questionable shape we know, audacity in literature is a thing only of yesterday and to-day. Going back, we come first to Wilde, who was nothing if not audacious, an impudent confidence-trick man-of-letters. Then, Stevenson and Henley, not without a touch, surely, though more audacious in the flesh perhaps than on paper. Again, Butler, a very clever man, perhaps a great man, but still a shockingly bad precedent for young men inclined to flippancy and petulance. There is Bagehot, whose genuine originality is not unspeckled; and further back, we see the young Disraeli, busy upon Contarini Fleming, and compounded of velveteen, macassar oil and impudence. And now we come to Blackwood’s young men, Christopher North and Company, beginning a career of literary swashbuckling with the Chaldee MS., and culprits one and all, triple-dyed in the fearful purple. And if a poetic criminal is wanted, there is Byron, who, from the sheer impertinence of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers to the magnificent audacity of Don Juan, gives us every form of impudence rhymed and rhythmed; who began the game of making the bourgeois pay for being shocked, and continuously boiled his pot with the heat of their disapproval. But can we stop here? The graves stir, and a crowd of thin ghosts press forward, waving innumerable ragged volumes. There is the lean spectre of Yorick, and, close by, the author of Jonathan Wild, while a little way behind, one catches a glimpse of Swift, and Defoe, and Buckingham, and a hundred more. But their claims must be denied, for we must not fall into the error of using our make-shift term ‘audacity’ in its widest sense, and thereby running back to the Ptolemies in search of origins; we must save something for ourselves in literature, and we have already confessed that a certain audacious trick of writing belongs to our own age; so we will take our stand upon Byron and Blackwood’s merry men, and go no further.

      There is one plain reason for the existence, or rather the success, of the audacious in our letters. It is not so much that writers have changed as that the audience has changed. When all that is written goes the round of one small circle of readers, is pondered over by the same leisurely few; when a writer’s style and manner are discussed by those about him, and are matters of some moment, an ordinary man of letters will imitate what seems to him the best manner of the time, and a greater man will be simply himself, bringing something new into the world; but among greater or less there will be little mere posturing. A man addresses his equals jovially, carelessly, angrily, as the mood takes him; it is only for pennies in the market-place or at the fair ground that he continually makes faces and stands on his head. With a small, critical audience, some fashions of writing are not in place, being entirely unwelcome: we have not yet allowed the trombone and big drum into our chamber music. But when the little circle of readers begins to swell until it is enlarged beyond recognition by rush after rush of newcomers; when journals and newspapers begin to thrive, and the old groves and porticos take on the appearance of an auction mart, then it is time to change the manner. The audience is huge, with half its wits gone wandering, a great Saurian blinking at the mud, a thing to be tickled with a ten-foot spike; it plays the part of a vast, drowsy auctioneer lolling above a clamouring crowd of buyers, men-of-letters trying to catch its eye; and what avail now are the level tones and the sober argument when only a squeak or a roar or an insane gesture is likely to attract attention. And now that over a century has passed since the times began to change, since the literary man left his armchair and took to eating fire and swallowing the sword, if we choose to write we shall do well if we escape audacity, for it is woven madly into the texture of our letters, the note of it is louder than the loud bassoon. At the best, with a good will, we may abjure the more impudent tricks, but unless we are towering geniuses we cannot escape the characteristic itself: it is—alas!—the very marrow of this essay.

IN PRAISE OF THE HYPERBOLE

       Table of Contents

      FEW experiences are more distressing to me than being present when a person is checked at the very climax of a tale because of some paltry exaggeration that he or she has made in the heat of the moment. Husbands and wives are always at such tricks, for it very often happens that a genial, expansive, imaginative person is united to one who is somewhat cold, literal-minded, devoid of fancy. A lady, finishing a tale and warming to the task, will cry: ‘No sooner had I opened the door than about fifteen people rushed out—.’ ‘No, my dear, you exaggerate,’ her husband will interrupt, ‘there were only three people there; I counted them.’ And if they are among friends, he will probably turn round and add: ‘Mary will exaggerate, you know; it’s quite a habit of hers.’ The tale then comes to a lame finish, and is indeed quite spoilt. We have been led, as it were, to expect fifteen people; the whole progress of the narrative demanded them; and then at the very moment that we are gratified by their appearance on the scene, four-fifths of them are whisked away and we have to be content with a paltry three merely to satisfy some busybody’s illtimed demand for accuracy. Accuracy, exact statements, hard facts, are very well; they have their uses in the world; but a man must not allow his passion for them to carry him to dangerous lengths, or he will not only give himself a creeping style but will try to spoil every tale that comes his way; such a one will soon be unfit for decent society and will have to take to writing to the newspapers—a vile end. Such literal-minded fellows, without imagination, without any sense of art, are the ruin of good talk; let them do the world’s work in laboratories and counting-houses, but when they are abroad let them keep quiet, or some of us will put them into monstrously exaggerated, scandalous tales, which will be doubly vexatious to them.

      I say that these sticklers for the little facts have no sense of art. They appear to think that we distort their trumpery figures or enlarge a statement here and there, for no purpose whatever, but from sheer carelessness, lack of memory, or a mischievous love of lying. They are wrong and it is easy to see why. Such quibblers do not understand the working of the imagination; they have yet to learn that good talk is a form of art, and that exaggeration is one of art’s great devices, a worthy part of its process of selection and emphasis, by which any number of petty details are brought into unity and made to serve great purposes. When we are surrounded by good listeners and in the heat of narration, that swift creative power, the imagination, ransacking heaven and earth for its own ends, takes the reins, and we find ourselves changing the mere facts so that they will produce, at second-hand, the very feelings we experienced at first-hand. Because we are only in talk and make use of the device, clumsily maybe, it is called exaggeration and sneered at by some few, and sometimes even gives rise to charges of open lying; yet this very practice of making the outward show conform to the inward and real truth consumes