SOME PERSONAL ITEMS
It is pretty generally known that when Sir Theodore Martin desired, in
honor of Lady Martin’s memory, to place a Helen Faucit memorial in the
chancel of Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, it was Miss Marie Corelli
who undertook a successful campaign against the project. Sir Theodore
Martin most ardently wished to execute his intention, and he had
progressed so far with the negotiations that his desires were on the
point of being carried out; and they would have been but for the active
intervention of Miss Corelli, who roused the whole town of Stratford
into energetic protest against the proposed invasion of Shakespeare’s
own particular shrine. It was Sir Theodore’s idea to place a bas-relief
of Helen Faucit immediately opposite the historical bust of the Poet, on
the other side of the chancel, but in an equally if not more prominent
position.
Miss Corelli began her campaign with a letter to the _Morning Post_
calling public attention to Sir Theodore’s plan, and the whole Press
backed up her efforts with hearty unanimity. The late Sir Arthur
Hodgson had taken the chief responsibility of supporting Sir Theodore
Martin, but in his haste and zeal had forgotten to ascertain whether he
could legally remove from the wall of the chancel two mural tablets
which occupied the intended site of the proposed Helen Faucit effigy.
The then Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Perowne, a great personal friend of
Sir Arthur’s, was persuaded to grant a “faculty” for their removal,
without due inquiry. Miss Corelli, however, discovered the descendants
of the very family those mural tablets belonged to, and found that their
permission had not been sought, or their existence considered. Whereupon
the law promptly stepped in, and Sir Theodore Martin was compelled to
withdraw. Otherwise the modern stone-mason would have gone to work in
the hallowed precincts of Shakespeare’s grave, and a piece of wholly
unecclesiastical sculpture would have overlooked the Poet’s place of
family sepulture, a place which Shakespeare himself purchased for his
own interment, and which all the world of literature rightly considers
should be left to his remains, uninvaded.
The bas-relief of Lady Martin, had it been put up, would have shown her
figure turned with its _back to the altar_, the medallion of
Shakespeare lying at her feet! The whole thing was out of place, and
out of tune with the national sentiment, as though Helen Faucit
was an eminent actress in her day, she had no connection with
Stratford-on-Avon; moreover, she was not British-born. Miss Corelli’s
fight was a hard one, for though Mr. Sidney Lee, who was entirely on her
side, wrote to Sir Theodore Martin himself to expostulate with him on
the mistaken idea he had taken up, nothing would have had any effect had
not Miss Corelli fortunately discovered the descendants of the family
whose mural tablets were about to be displaced without their permission.
When she at last won the day, the whole Press broke out unanimously in a
chorus of praise and congratulation, which must have been a singular
experience for her, so long inured to disparagement. She was bombarded
by telegrams from almost every quarter of the globe, particularly from
America, expressing the thanks of all lovers of Shakespeare.
It is a pity some one like Marie Corelli was not in Stratford-on-Avon at
the time Shakespeare’s own house, “New Place,” was demolished. Had there
been such an one, the chances are that the house would be still standing
as one of the world’s priceless treasures. Many precious shrines are
defaced, and many valuable mementoes lost for lack of some one to speak
out who is not afraid to give an opinion. Shakespeare’s townspeople are
grateful to the novelist who fought their Poet’s cause single-handed,
and won it in the face of powerful opposition.
* * * * *
Concerning the portraits of Miss Corelli, her experiences have not been
particularly pleasing. It will be remembered that a large oil painting
of the novelist was exhibited at Messrs. Graves’ Art Gallery, Pall Mall.
This portrait was painted for two reasons: first, because Miss Corelli
knew at the time of its execution that she was the victim of a serious
malady which might, it was then feared, shortly end her life; and
secondly, because she wished to leave some resemblance of herself to her
dearest friend, Miss Vyver.
Miss Donald-Smith painted the picture and also executed two “pastel”
portraits. Miss Corelli gave several sittings to the artist at a time
when her illness was causing her the acutest agony, and when the hours
thus spent in the studio were to her a perfect martyrdom. At Miss
Donald-Smith’s request she permitted her to send the large picture to
the Academy, where it was rejected. It was then exhibited by Messrs.
Graves, and was at once made the subject of personal and abusive
attacks, not on the artist, but on Marie Corelli herself for being
painted at all! Some journalists went so far as to accuse her of “taking
the gate-money” and “speculating in her own portrait.” As a matter of
fact, Miss Corelli received none of the percentage allowed on the
photogravures of the picture, and it may be added that she withdrew the
picture altogether from public view before it had been long on
exhibition.
Another portrait was painted by Mr. Ellis Roberts for himself. He asked
Marie Corelli to sit for him, having always been one of her greatest
admirers. He did not, of course, know that she consented to sit for the
same primary reason as for the other--namely, that she did not then
expect to live more than a few months--and that she wished to bequeathe
some “presentment” of herself to those who might care for it. Mr.
Roberts is probably not aware to this day that she was often almost
fainting when she left his studio after a prolonged “sitting.” He has
never seen her since she recovered her health and good spirits: if he
had, it is probable he would wish to make another sketch of her.
We may add that Miss Corelli still declines to allow a portrait of
herself to be published--a decision which we regret. For many are the
“surprises” that have been given to those expectant of meeting in the
novelist a severe literary woman with spectacles and a bilious
complexion. It may be truly said that Marie Corelli is very
light-hearted, always high-spirited, and full of fun; people who
represent her as morbid, brooding on her own “sorrows,” or grumbling at
the world in general, have never seen her, and can form no idea of her
disposition.
She is really a most charming lady, a most hospitable hostess, a
delightful _raconteur_, a brilliant musician, a woman of broad views and
large sympathies, a true and staunch friend, always glad to do a kindly
action.
* * * * *
After the record-breaking success of “The Master Christian” and the
world-wide discussions following the publication of that famous book,
the editor of a magazine addressed the following communication to Miss
Marie Corelli:
INDD
“DEAR MADAM,--
“I venture to ask whether you would kindly undertake for us a
review of Mr. Hall Caine’s new book, ‘The Eternal City’?
“Your own novel on a somewhat similar theme leads us to believe
that a criticism of Mr. Caine’s book from your pen would be of
great interest and of singular literary value. I suggest that it
might run to three or four thousand words, for which we would be
ready to pay an _honorarium_ of fifty guineas.”
Vastly entertained by this proposition, and seeing very clearly through
the evident “hole in a millstone,” the novelist replied promptly:
INDD
“DEAR SIR,--
“I cannot but admire the astute and businesslike character of your
request; but I do not write ‘reviews.’ Nothing would ever persuade
me to criticise the work of my contemporaries. Moreover, my book,
‘The Master Christian,’ is not at all on the same theme as ‘The
Eternal City.’ Mr. Hall Caine treats of Rome,--I, of the Christ.
The two are direct opposites.
“‘The Eternal City’ is recognizably inspired by and founded on
Zola’s ‘Rome,’ in which great work the ‘religious message’ of Mr.
Caine’s novel is fully set forth. The idea of a democratic Rome
under a democratic Pope is Zola’s ‘own original’ and belongs to
Zola alone. Wherefore, let me suggest that you should ask M. Zola
to review the work of his English _confrère_!”
* * * * *
When Sir Henry Drummond Wolff made Miss Corelli’s acquaintance he was
rather struck by the somewhat lonely and incessantly hard-working life
of the young novelist at the time of “Ardath"‘s publication. Her beloved
stepfather was dying by inches--failing gradually every day, and her
hours were consumed by anxiety, work, and watching. He asked her if he
could introduce her to any one in London she would like to know. After a
few moments’ reflection, of all people in the world she chose Henry
Labouchere! “I don’t want anything from him,” she said; “I’m not after a
notice in _Truth_. I want to know _him_, because I’m sure he is unlike
anybody else.”
The introduction was given, and the result of it was that she became
very intimate with the editor of _Truth_, with Mrs. Labouchere, and with
Miss Dora Labouchere. They were among those good friends who, with Miss
Vyver, helped to rouse her from the shock and nervous prostration
following on the sudden death of her stepbrother, George Eric Mackay.
Mr. Labouchere has never been known to try the satiric edge of his
tongue against his “little friend,” as he calls her; and she is always a
most welcome visitor to his house in Old Palace Yard.
* * * * *
Quite lately there has been a singular journalistic incident which must
be considered as particularly unfortunate, having regard to some of
Miss Marie Corelli’s previous experiences of newspapers. A “private and
confidential” letter, written by her to the editor of a ladies’ paper,
was published by that editor in his journal with the appendage of a very
discourteous reply. The incident arose out of the Highland gathering at
Braemar, at which place Miss Corelli had been staying for some weeks.
This gathering, which was honored by the presence of his Majesty, was
attended by Miss Corelli and a party of friends. Miss Corelli, as her
thousands of readers have no need to be told, did not require, or seek
for, a “mention in the papers” in consequence of her attendance at the
function. Had she done so she could easily have paid for it in the
“fashionable announcements.” She attends many gatherings in connection
with which her name is never mentioned, but she does not write
complaints--confidential or otherwise--on that score. Some people like
to suggest that Marie Corelli, whose circle of distinguished personal
friends is remarkably large, is more or less friendless and without
social surroundings, a suggestion that, pitiful as it is, is somewhat
amusing to those who are favored with her close acquaintance.
On the occasion in question Miss Corelli wrote a note marked “private
and confidential,” asking the editor of the ladies’ paper not “why her
name was not mentioned,” but “why it was omitted”--a distinction with a
difference in this case--for she happened to be the hostess of a party
whose names were included in the newspaper notice, and who were
surprised and indignant at the fact that, whilst their names were
mentioned, that of their notable hostess was left out. It was at the
suggestion of one of these that Miss Corelli wrote the “private and
confidential” letter which the editor, without consulting her, rushed
into print. The result of her harmless inquiry is well-known. The
publication of the communication brought a shoal of letters to the
famous author from men and women of “light and leading,” assuring her of
their sympathy in this outrage. Amongst the writers of these letters
were several very distinguished journalists, a fact which lends emphasis
to Miss Corelli’s knowledge that, notwithstanding her tilts with the
Press, the bulk of the journalists of the country do honor to their
profession and totally disapprove of such an act as the publication of a
“private and confidential” communication. We hear that printed slips
containing her letter to the editor in question, and the latter’s reply,
were sent by some one for circulation through the town of
Stratford-on-Avon. Such a proceeding, whoever
[Illustration: WINTER AT “MASON CROFT"]
was responsible, could have been followed with only the one object of
endeavoring to make Miss Corelli appear in an unfavorable light before
the neighbors and friends among whom she resides.
It is pleasant to learn that this precious campaign entirely failed. The
editor of the local journal, the _Stratford-on-Avon Herald_, duly
received his slips of this correspondence, the hope probably being that
he would reproduce them in his journal. He however took no notice of
these “hand-bills”; and the good citizens of Shakespeare’s town
generally are far too conscious of Miss Corelli’s affection for them and
unfailing sympathy in all their interests, to feel anything but
unmeasured contempt for any effort to injure her in their esteem. People
hastened to call at Mason Croft and express their indignation at the
treatment she had received, and they found her, as usual, busily
working, happy and unconcerned. To one friend, an M.P., who expressed
his views on the subject with considerable expletive, she said quietly,
“Oh, well, it really doesn’t matter! The editor has condemned himself by
his own action. My letter, asking merely why my name was omitted, was
quite a harmless epistle, surely? It scarcely merits an imprisonment in
the Tower!”
_The Daily Express_ acted somewhat curiously on this occasion. Having
copied the whole of the “private correspondence,” it was suggested that
this paper might possibly be laying itself open to penalties of the law
for “breach of copyright.” Whereupon haste was made to send the
following telegram to Miss Corelli: “Have asked our correspondent to
call upon you. We will print with pleasure any statement. Sorry our
article did not please you. Would like to make amends.--_Daily Express._
The desire, however, to “make amends” does not appear to have been very
hearty, because soon afterwards a second article on the subject appeared
in _The Daily Express_, stating that there was “no law to prevent the
publication of a private and confidential letter,” unless it bore a
legal “confidential stamp.” And at the same time Mr. Pearson wrote to
Miss Corelli to say that he thought the editor who had published her
“private and confidential” note was “perfectly justified” in his action!
But there can be no possible justification for publishing a letter of
confidence. Business would be impossible under such circumstances. The
mistake Miss Corelli has made in the past has been to condemn the Press
and pressmen for the shortcomings of individuals who represent only
themselves and not a profession. She has been misunderstood on the
matter, but her hearty good-will to journalists is well-known to many of
the craft who are proud to be within the pleasant circle of her intimate
friends.
* * * * *
A section of the Press finds pleasure in accusing Miss Corelli of
“self-advertisement.” If it were at all true that she has any
proclivities that way, she would surely accept the frequent and urgent
offers made to her to lecture in the United States, on almost fabulous
terms.
Again, a chance for “self-advertisement” offered itself to Miss Corelli
in the invitation of Edinburgh, last year, to open the Home Industries
Exhibition, in Waverley Market. People hoped for her coming, and urgent
letters were sent to her assuring her that she would receive a splendid
welcome. Miss Corelli, however, declined the tempting proposal, which,
if the “advertising” accusations were in any way well-founded, seems a
short-sighted waste of opportunity on her part. As a matter of fact, she
seldom takes the chances of notoriety that are so frequently offered to
her; but it would be easy to name a dozen or more periodicals which are
glad to make advertisements for themselves out of some specially
contrived attack upon her. The public, however, sees through this, and,
understanding the motives of action, are all the more loyal to Marie
Corelli and her work. Britishers are famed for their love of “fair
play,” and the spectacle of several able-bodied men engaged in steadily
“hounding” a woman who has made her way without their assistance by the
fuel of her own brain and energy, does not appeal to the majority. They
see no fun in it, but only an exhibition of cowardice.
While on this subject, it may be mentioned that as soon as certain
sections of the Press discovered that Marie Corelli was among the
favored few who had received an invitation from the King to be present
in the Abbey at the Coronation on August 9th, she was bombarded with
letters and telegrams from several newspapers entreating her to write
for them her “impressions” of the great ceremony. To all these
applications she gave no answer. Her silence on such an occasion rather
discounts her supposed “love of notoriety”! Truth to tell, her presence
at the Abbey, as a guest of the King, created in some quarters quite a
riot of fury.
“We hear,” said one paper, “that Miss Marie Corelli was among the King’s
guests in the Abbey! Marvelous! No doubt she wore a gown as gorgeous as
her love of self-advertisement could make it!” Poor Miss Corelli! In the
very simplest attire of white chiffon and lace, she was one of the most
unobtrusively dressed ladies present, as she wore no jewels, and had
nothing indeed about her costume that could attract the slightest
attention, though she was the “observed of all observers” at the
luncheon held in the House of Peers after the Abbey ceremonial, not for
her dress, but for her fame.
Another incident may be aptly quoted here. When the King was attacked by
his serious illness, the enterprising manager of a newspaper press
agency made haste to write to Miss Corelli saying that it was necessary
to “prepare for the worst,” and would she therefore write her
“impressions” of the King,--which meant, of course, an obituary notice!
To which the novelist replied with considerable warmth that she had too
much immediate concern for the dangerous condition of her Sovereign, as
well as too much honor for him, to “make trade” for the newspapers by
writing “obituary notices” of his life before he was dead! By the grace
of God, she said, he would be spared to the Throne for many good and
happy years to come. Such is the real spirit of the woman whom her more
than malicious enemies accuse of “disloyalty” and “desire for
advertisement.” It is a satisfaction to give a few truths of her real
disposition as opposed to the unfounded falsehoods that are circulated
about her. As a single example of her womanliness and womanly
sympathies, it may be mentioned that no one has yet written a tenderer
tribute to the virtues of the Queen than Marie Corelli in “The Soul of
Queen Alexandra,” published last year in her “Christmas Greeting.”
* * * * *
Two letters which were addressed to Miss Corelli by eminent preachers
who have since passed away are of interest. In explanation of their
inclusion it should be mentioned that Dr. Campbell, the successor of Dr.
Parker at the City Temple, was exceedingly anxious to persuade Miss
Corelli to open a great Nonconformist bazaar in the Dome during the
early part of last November. She would have been perfectly willing to do
so had there not been a great agitation just then in the press
concerning the Education Bill, for she judged that had she performed any
special ceremony in any prominent way for the Nonconformist cause, she
would again have been singled out for unfair attack.
For several days she hesitated, her whole inclination being to help the
charity so urgently and eloquently pleaded for by the Rev. Dr. Campbell.
During this time of indecision, however, she was made the subject of a
violent discourse from the pulpit of a Nonconformist minister in another
part of the country. This appears to have formulated her final resolve,
for she wrote to Dr. Campbell, regretting her inability to comply with
his request, and enclosing the “sermon” on herself from one of his own
persuasion, concerning which she said that under such circumstances her
opening of the Bazaar might do the cause more harm than good.
Dr. Campbell, disappointed, but not dismayed, renewed his persuasions
and prevailed upon several of his distinguished personal friends to
write to the novelist and urge her to alter her decision. Among those
who did so were Dr. Joseph Parker and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, to
both of whom the sermon against the novelist had been sent for perusal.
Dr. Parker wrote to Miss Corelli as follows:--
HAMPSTEAD,
_October 6th, 1902_.
DEAR MISS CORELLI,--
I have just received a letter from my friend Campbell, and though I
have to rise from my bed to write this note, I gladly make a very
great sacrifice. I do not know the preacher whose sermon you send.
I never even heard of him. Campbell I do know--refined, cultured,
high-minded. Let me entreat you to serve my true and good friend.
What need you care for such an attack? You do not live on the same
plane as that nameless man. I read your book[D] with inexpressible
delight; why not pay more attention to my praise than to another
man’s slander? Now do send me a wire or a card or a letter, and say
that you will open the Bazaar at Brighton.
Very tired,
Very dispirited,
Ever sincerely and hopefully yours,
JOSEPH PARKER.
The note from the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes ran thus:--
MEMORIAL HALL,
FARRINGDON STREET,
LONDON, E. C.
_October 6th, 1902_.
DEAR MADAM,--
I find that my friend, Mr. R. J. Campbell, of Brighton, has asked
you to open a Bazaar in the Dome. I take the liberty of expressing
a very earnest hope that you will be able to comply with Mr.
Campbell’s request. Mr. Campbell occupies a quite unique position
among us, and any kindness shown to him will be a kindness to us
all.
I am, dear Madam,
Yours sincerely,
HUGH PRICE HUGHES.
MISS MARIE CORELLI.
Miss Corelli, however, who was just at that time being made the subject
of some particularly venomous attacks concerning her romance, “Temporal
Power,” felt compelled to maintain her refusal, though much to her own
great disinclination and regret--a regret that we share, for we should
like to be able to record that she opened the bazaar after all.
* * * * *
The following letter, which deals with a critique on “Temporal Power,”
is most interesting from the point of view that it was written by one
lady-novelist in defense of another; it possesses all the more weight
seeing that Mrs. Rentoul Esler is an entire stranger to Miss Corelli.
THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM
_To the Editor of the “Sunday Sun"_
Sir,--When a new book appears there are only two points on which
the reading public requires enlightenment. These are the subject of
the book and the manner in which that subject is handled. All else
is apart from the best interests of literature, and the literary
life. When a book from Miss Marie Corelli is issued it seems the
fashion in press circles to discourse largely and loosely of the
writer and to say little or nothing of her work.
The abuse poured on this lady seems to do the sale of her books no
harm--it may even increase it--and the supposition is
suggestive--but as books and the making of them have an interest
apart from the commercial one, it seems time that a protest be made
against the unworthy treatment to which one individual is
habitually subjected. I have no personal acquaintance with Miss
Corelli, and her books give me no more pleasure and no less than do
those of Mr. George Meredith, whom your critic seems to place in
antithesis to her, this also being the fashion of the moment; it is
not in defense of a favorite writer that I wish to express an
opinion, but in defense of those qualities that render criticism an
honorable calling.
The heading of the critique in your issue of August 31st, and the
introductory section, were alike unworthy of a literary paper and
of the pen of a gentleman. The charges of self-advertisement are
insulting and untrue. There are few writers who owe as little to
the paragraphist as Miss Corelli, while the flouts and jibes flung
at her because her books sell extensively are merely stupid. The
size of an edition of any book depends on the publisher’s knowledge
of the demand that awaits it. It might be better, in the interests
of literature, to keep commerce and literary merit in separate
compartments, but as long as such critical organs as _The Bookman_
make a regular feature of tables of sales from Provincial and
Metropolitan book-sellers, it is neither logical nor brave to pour
vials of scorn on one writer because her publisher announces that
the first edition of her book will be large.
The subject of Miss Corelli’s book seems a legitimate one; “If I
were King” has appealed to the moralist, the fictionist, and the
dramatist time out of mind. When a biography of this popular writer
is called for, the critic may then be personal and impertinent if
it seem good to him, but in connection with the discussion of a
book personalities regarding its author are unfair and in the worst
possible taste.
As an interested reader of the critical opinions in the _Sunday
Sun_ since the first issue of that paper, I consider myself
entitled to protest when a journal of such eminence descends to
methods that are neither amusing, informative, nor well-bred. Even
a popular writer is entitled to fair treatment, and it is of the
utmost importance to every branch of literature that those who
undertake to form public opinion should remember that the rostrum
has obligations as well as privileges.
E. RENTOUL ESLER.
THE HEATH, DARTFORD.
Mrs. Rentoul Esler is herself a writer of distinction and power, and is
thus able to express herself with the vigor and lucidity which carry
conviction. Her letter is a clear call for that “Fair Play” which Marie
Corelli has been demanding for so long.
* * * * *
That the novelist is well able to retort upon unfriendly critics is
shown by a few verses addressed by her to _The Quarterly_ in her
“Christmas Greeting” (1901). A lacerating article concerning Miss
Corelli and her work had appeared in _The Quarterly_, and it drew from
her the following little epigram:--
TO THE QUARTERLY
WITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON
Greeting, old friend! A merry Christmas time
To you, who nothing merry ever see;--
Great Murderer of poets in their prime,--
Why have you struck at _me_?
With vengeful hooks of sharpened critic-steel
You tortured giants in the days gone by,--
And now upon your creaking, rusty wheel,
You’d break a Butterfly!
Alas! you’re far too cumbrous for such things!
Your heavy, clanking axle drags i’ the chase;--
The happy Insect has the use of wings,
And keeps its Sunshine-place!