The Ideal Contributor
The intimation in Mr Harold Nicolson's " Marginal Comment " on a later page of this issue that he feels that he can no longer undertake to produce an article a week for the Spectator will be read with the deepest regret by the thousands who have so long delighted in what has been without question the most distinguished page of this journal— or indeed in weekly journalism in this country. Mr. Nicolson has stated the reasons for his decision. They are quite explicit, and there are no others. The suggestion that " Marginal Comment " is in danger of becoming repetitive or trite is, of course, fantastic. Its eternal freshness has been a perpetual marvel. But its writer's desire to be freed from the inexorable demand the Friday article makes on him week by week cannot be resisted. He has established himself as unquestionably the outstanding essayist of the day, and it will be a lasting satisfaction to the Spectator that it is in its pages that he has unfolded his wit and wisdom so regularly and so long. He is not deserting these pages, but he will appear hence- forward as an occasional rather than an invariable contributor. An association deeply valued on the receiving side—and not, there is reason to think, unappreciated on the other—will therefore happily still continue. One word should be added on an aspect of "Marginal Comment" of which its readers could have no knowledge. Never was the legend that literary men are congenitally unmethodical been more decisively dispelled than by Mr. Nicolson. Never, whether its writer happened to_ be at home or abroad, ill or well, has his article failed to arrive on the regular day. Not once in three months has it been a line long or a line short; it alone of all the contributions for the week's issue has gone straight to the printer unread. Never have relations between a writer and the paper he has adorned been more unclouded. Their memory will long remain as a warm spot in a cold world.
Previous page
