Still More on James by Arthur Sherbo, Michigan State University I have twice ventured into Jamesian studies, having come across a number of unrecorded revisions of his works and a few peripheral bits of information. At the end of the second of these ventures I stated that I was relatively sure that turning over the pages of other periodicals would reveal more unrecorded reviews (Sherbo). And so it has. I have gone through a number of periodicals in quest of the forgotten and unrecorded, not only in James studies but in many other areas. In three of these periodicals, Literature, The Speaker, and The New Witness I came upon the unrecorded reviews which I wiU quote in chronological order. Literature ran from October 23, 1897 to January 11, 1902 and merged into The Academy. The Speaker/The Liberal Review ran from January 4, 1890 to September 30, 1899 and, in a new series, from October 7, 1899 to February 23, 1907. The New Witness ran from November 7, 1912 to May 4, 1923, having begun in 1911 as The Eye Witness. G. K. Chesterton wrote for the last two periodicals; indeed, he edited The New Witness after the death of his brother Cecil, the editor of the periodical. The first review concerns What Masie Knew and is anonymous, appearing in the first volume of Literature on October 23, 1897. I omit the plot summary here as weU as quotations from James's work in some of the other reviews.1 Mr. James's other works must bear the burden of "What Masie Knew," for this is hardly a book to enhance his great reputation. There are, of course, almost as many ways of writing a novel as of "constructing tribal lays," and for that reason we should hesitate to express a sweeping opinion on the merits and demerits of the book. Besides, it is well understood in these days that a modern novel may dispense with a great part of the machinery, and many of the virtues, that used to be thought necessary. Plot, incident, humour itself, is superfluous if only the author be sufficiently expert in portrait-painting and analysis. Mr. James himself is a proof of this. "What Maisie Knew" is not amusing, not exciting, not humorous; it has little or no plot: it neither cheers nor inebriates; and yet it is worth reading. The reader, we know, will not expect ordinary novels from Mr. James, or find fault with him because his qualities are not those of other writers. His work has never been in the least degree commonplace; he has had his special public, and has been content to appeal only to educated people. But, as even a highly educated palate sometimes longs for plain fare, so the most fastidious lover of fiction may prefer something just a shade wholesomer than this particular book. The plain truth is that we do not like the atmosphere of the Divorce Court, and pant for the breath of fresh air which comes, in a vague and inferential manner, in the very last page. From cover to cover one is bewildered by the complicated The Henry James Review 12(1991): 101-116 ©1991 by The Johns Hopkins University Press 102 The Henry James Review and promiscuous immorality of the characters, and by the unpleasant situations which the author elaborated and analyzes. . . . There is no blinking the fact that this is about as unpromising a story as could well be invented. Indeed, with the whole field of human comedy before him, one fails to see why Mr. James should insist on taking us through this slough of immorality. It is true that he picks his way through it with extreme delicacy, but it is a case of corruptio optimi all the same, and it may be doubted whether even the greatest artist is justified in painting a picture so repulsive in design and outline. But, while we dislike the design of the picture, it must be pointed out that the central figures in it are not the objectionable parents and step-parents, but the innocent child Maisie herself and her governess Mrs. Wix. It is on them that Mr. James has...