Complete Works of Rudyard Kipling (Illustrated) (1304 page)

the blooming bo’suns do, For ‘e is a poet — ’er Majesty’s poet — soldier an’ sailor, too.

An’ there isn’t no room for others, an’

there’s nothin’ left to do; ‘E ‘as sailed the main from the ‘Orn to Spain, e’ ‘as tramped the jungle through, An’ written up all there is to write — soldier an’ sailor, too!

There are manners an’ manners of

writin’, but ‘is is the proper way, An’ it ain’t so hard to be a bard if you’ll imitate Rudyard K.;

But sea an’ shore, an’ peace an’ war,

an’ everything else in view —

‘E ‘as gobbled the lot! — ’er Majesty’s

poet — soldier an’ sailor, too.

‘E’s not content with ‘is Indian ‘ome,

‘e’s looking for regions new,

In another year ‘e’ll ‘ave swept ‘em clear,

an’ what’ll the rest of us do?

‘E’s crowdin’ us out — ’er Majesty’s poet — soldier an’ sailor, too!

Some one said “ somewhere “ that to enjoy parody one must have an intense sense of the humorous and a humorous sense of the intense! Be that as it may, a knowledge of Kipling and a love of good and fair fun should always ensure a greeting for such lines as the foregoing. Kipling himself is, of course, an excellent parodist, and as his work in this class cannot be readily referred to — ”Echoes,” etc. — I quote here one of his shorter parodies of Browning, entitled :

THE JAM-POT.

The Jam-pot — tender thought!

I grabbed it — so did you.

“What wonder while we fought

Together that it flew In shivers? “ you retort.

You should have loosed your hold

One moment — checked your fist. But, as it was, too bold

You grappled and you missed. More plainly — you were sold.

“Well, neither of us shared

The dainty.” That your plea? “ Well, neither of us cared,”

I answer ...” Let me see. How have your trousers fared? “

LESS FAMILIAR HINDUSTANI WORDS AND PHRASES USEFUL FOR KIPLINGITES.

The Kiplingite who can proudly tell you that puttee means “ bandage,” khana means “dinner,” and that a chitt is a “note,” must indeed memorise a little more Hindustani to understand usefully words and phrases in some of the stories and sketches that were written about twenty years ago, mainly, if not entirely, for an Anglo-Indian audience. Thus :

Khubber=News. Burra=Great. Raj-mistri=Head mason. Bunnia=Village money-lender. Havildar= Sepoy non. com. officer or sergeant.

Bundobast=Affair, agreement, settlement, or arrangement. Mahajuns=Great persons, “ big pots,” money-lenders.

Punchayats=Village councils. Sirkar=The Government. Namak-Larami=Treason. Chaprassies=Messengers or footmen. Jehad=Holy war against infidels. Duftar=Office.

Chabutra=Terrace or platform attached to a house. Dharzee=Tailor. Nauker-log=Domestics. Izzat=Honour, credit, reputation, character. Popularly “ orders “ such as the heading of an official letter. Mehtar=Sweeper or menial servant of lowest order. Chamar=Leather worker. Jaldi karo=Make haste. Jaldi Jao=Go quickly. Jat=Caste. Ghat=Wharf. Nakhuda=Captain. Huzoor=Your Excellency. Salam=Good morning.

“THE FEMALE OF THE SPECIES.” (From a Symposium in T.P.’s Weekly.)

A lady correspondent who had been reading Monkshood’s monograph on Mr. Kipling was startled by his statement : “ I have never met a woman who was a Kiplingite, and I should not have believed it if I had. The writings of Rudyard Kipling do not appeal to women.” This is a strongly worded statement, and by the time Mr. Monkshood has read this page I think he will be prepared to modify it.

The Two Sides.

First of all, I will quote a letter from a lady admirer of Mr. Kipling who recognises the two sides of this question. This lady writes :

“I myself am an ardent Kiplingite, and for some years have made it a rule to ask the women I meet whether they read and like Kipling. I find almost invariably that they dislike both his prose and verse. I have only met two, out of the many I have asked, who read Kipling with enjoyment. May this be due to the feminine dislike to having ‘ things as they are’ brought before them? Personally, Kipling appeals to me so strongly that I find it difficult to sympathise with those who do not appreciate his work.”

It is not a little curious how, in letter after letter, the women admirers of Mr. Kipling’s works, who attempt to upset Mr. Monkshood’s case, admit between the lines that he really has a case. “ Kipling is not a woman’s writer,” says one correspondent, “ but that does not prevent many women from admiring his works intensely.” True reading, she says, is “ absolutely sexless,” a proposition which I find it hard to understand. Surely a woman can only read as a woman. It would be nearer the mark to say that true writing is sexless, in the sense that it appeals equally to the whole heart of humanity, men and women alike. This correspondent makes the further observation : “To any student of human nature, man or woman, Kipling’s works must be a treasure-house of information — except when he touches on women.” From this curious limitation the writer proceeds :

“Mr. Kipling’s vehemence is perhaps shocking to the gentle type of woman who is built for quiet home-life; but to the many women who know their limitations, and have no wish to overstep them, yet feeling an intellectual glory in the wider activities of masculinity, Kipling is a source of true delight. There is no better tonic after a long day than a dip into * Many Inventions’ or 4 The Day’s Work.’ Of the Kipling of 1 The Brush-Wood Boy’ and the ‘Just-so Stories’ there is no need to speak, since every woman, however gentle, must appreciate their tender fancies.”

Here the writer rather pleads for than asserts Mr. Kipling’s appeal to women, singling out two of his writings which she thinks every woman must appreciate — for what? For their “tender fancies.” One cannot altogether overlook the significance of the exceptions.

Another correspondent acknowledges that the majority of her feminine acquaintances are not. Kiplingites, and offers certain explanations, though unmoved by them herself :

“One friend of mine told me she did not like Kipling because his style was so spasmodic and disconnected, and he left so much to the reader’s imagination that it was very difficult sometimes to discover his meaning. I think that this, together with his rather frequent lack of refinement, constitutes the main reason of women’s antipathy towards his writings.”

Exceptional women read Mr. Kipling.

Taking these letters all in all, I am inclined to assent to the proposition of the lady who writes : “I think it takes a woman with certain powers of mind and brain to appreciate Mr. Kipling properly: his style is so strong and powerful, his expressions so terse and to the point.”

W. M. G. writes :

“Mr. Kipling’s poetry, without exception, has impressed me deeply, and nearly all his stories, even those written, as your correspondent says, ‘ for men only,’ have afforded me great interest and enjoyment. I have never been able, however, to admire the Jungle Books and the “Just-so Stories.’”

M. J. S. writes :

“Cannot a woman revel in genius as much as the 4 mere man’? And Kipling understands women as few male writers have ever done. What other man would have ventured on such feminine details as ‘ So, between tears, kisses, menthol, and packing, the afternoon wore away’? Surely this appeals to all women, for, as Kipling himself observes :

“The Colonel’s lady And Judy O’Grady Are sisters Under their skins.”

E. A. H. writes :

“What most women like in a man is, I think, virility, and this quality Kipling possesses in no ordinary degree. This is the chief charm in his writing, a strong masculine view of life. Even when one is not in complete sympathy with his subject, his mode of treating it invariably attracts.”

T. K. writes :

“I confidently contradict the assertion that no woman is a Kiplingite. His works appeal to healthily-minded women precisely because his men characters are true, honest, and manly, with no mawkishness or sentimentality about them; and to me, personally, one great attraction of his writing is the absence of ‘ the eternally feminine element,’ though, when he likes, Kipling can draw an attractive woman, e.g. William the Conqueror, in ‘ The Day’s Work.’”

Civita writes :

“Kipling’s female characters are rather irritating, because, like many another clever man, when he talks about women he is talking of what he does not understand, but his loyal English gentlemen, who would scorn a dirty action, yet are in no way ‘superior persons’ his very human Tommies whose only faults are generous ones, the whole spirit of vigour and freshness, of large tolerance for human frailties, of simple matter-of-fact devotion to duty, which pervades his works, backed by the glamour which he can throw over commonplaces, appeals very largely to a woman’s imagination, even if her heart be not thereby reached.”

Apparently, then, Mr. Kipling is not essentially a woman’s. writer; he does not, in fact, appeal very strongly to the mass of his reading countrywomen. The many women who do appreciate him do so because their minds are more than ordinarily strong and flexible, and they have the ability to travel beyond themselves into the world and thoughts of the virile, fighting, empire-building man. Such women are increasing in numbers every year.

WHY WOMEN LOVE KIPLING.

(An answer to W. J. Clarke.)

It is our weakness that we love the strong,

Your strong man is our hero; right or wrong

We love the truth to probe the heart of things,

And stoop to Hell or rise to Heav’n; our wings

May be discarded or assumed at will;

Howe’er we err we love a hero still.

We love your Kipling, being not all so blind

But we can see some virtue in your kind;

We hold him fitly king among the kings,

Who, fearless, can lay bare the truth of things;

Who, being a man, writes manly, and of men

And women, too, with clean, unsullied pen;

Nor even stoops to varnish o’er a stain,

Nor gloats o’er darkness and disease and pain,

But plunges in the thickest of the strife,

And paints us wrestling on the field of life;

And rides above the sordid and the base,

Breast-forward, with the sunlight on his face;

And nerves us in our weakness to be strong;

And bids his fellows rise “ to right the wrong.” . . .

From him we learn the basest and the best,

To cleave to what is pure and hate the rest.

He shows us Nature’s loveliest and her worst

And walks by day and calls the dark accurst. . . .

For this we love him; in our hearts shall

n live

All he has ever giv’n us and shall give.

A Woman and a Kiplingite.

From “The Literary World.”

THE CURIOUS BOOK OF LEEB- LUNDBERG

(Or, How To Be a Kipling.)

What is, undoubtedly, the most curious among the serious attempts to estimate the value of Kipling and track the secrets of his style to their source or eyrie, is a book upon the “ word-formation “ in Kipling by a Doctor in Philosophy named Leeb-Lundberg. It is an amazing book and, though I do not mean the words derisively, an amusing book also. Its author’s own description of the book is that it is “a stylistic-philological study,” but that need not scare away anyone who has the time and desire to read it. Perhaps it is almost needless to say that Leeb-Lundberg does not discover the secret of Kipling’s style at all, for the simple and sufficient reason that it cannot be discovered, or else round dozens and