Reflections on the Typical American.
New York,January23.
I wasasked to-day by the editor of theNorth American Reviewto write an article on the typical American.
The typical American!
In the eyes of my beloved compatriots, the typical American is a man with hair falling over his shoulders, wearing a sombrero, a red shirt, leather leggings, a pair of revolvers in his belt, spending his life on horseback, and able to shoot a fly off the tip of your nose without for a moment endangering your olfactory organ; and, since Buffalo Bill has been exhibiting his Indians and cowboys to the Parisians, this impression has become a deep conviction.
I shall never forget the astonishment I caused to my mother when I first broke the news to her that I wanted to go to America. My mother had practically never left a lovely little provincial town of France. Her face expressed perfect bewilderment.
“You don’t mean to say you want to go to America?” she said. “What for?”
“I am invited to give lectures there.”
“Lectures? in what language?”
“Well, mother, I will try my best in English.”
“Do they speak English out there?”
“H’m—pretty well, I think.”
We did not go any further on the subject that time. Probably the good mother thought of the time when the Californian gold-fields attracted all the scum of Europe, and, no doubt, she thought that it was strange for a man who had a decent position in Europe, to go and “seek fortune” in America.
Later on, however, after returning to England, I wrote to her that I had made up my mind to go.
Her answer was full of gentle reproaches, and of sorrow at seeing that she had lost all her influence over her son. She signed herself “always your loving mother,” and indulged in a postscript. Madame de Sévigné said that the gist of a woman’s letter was to be found in the postscript.
My mother’s was this:
“P.S.—I shall not tell any one in the town that you have gone to America.”
This explains why I still dare show my face in my little native town.
.......
The typical American!
First of all, does he exist? I do not think so. As I have said elsewhere, there are Americans in plenty, buttheAmerican has not made his appearance yet. The type existed a hundred years ago in New England. He is there still; but he is not now a national type, he is only a local one.
THE TYPICAL AMERICAN.
THE TYPICAL AMERICAN.
I was talking one day with two eminent Americans on the subject of the typical American, real or imaginary. One of them was of opinion that he was a taciturn being; the other, on the contrary, maintained that he was talkative. How is a foreigner to dare decide, where two eminent natives find it impossible to agree?
In speaking of the typical American, let us understand each other. All the civilized nations of the earth are alike in one respect; they are all composed of two kinds of men, those that are gentlemen, and those that are not. America is no exception to this rule. Fifth Avenue does not differ from Belgravia and Mayfair. A gentleman is everywhere a gentleman. As a type, he belongs to no particular country, he is universal.
When the writer of some “society” paper, English or American, reproaches a sociologist for writing about the masses instead of the classes, suggesting that “he probably never frequented the best society of the nation he describes,” that writer writes himself down an ass.
In the matters of feeling, conduct, taste, culture, I have never discovered the least difference between a gentleman from America and a gentleman from France, England, Russia, or any other country of Europe—including Germany. So, if we want to find a typical American, it is not in good society that we must search for him, but among the mass of the population.
Well, it is just here that our search will break down. We shall come across all sorts and conditions of Americans, but not one that is really typical.
THE AMERICAN OF A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
THE AMERICAN OF A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
A little while ago, theCentury Magazinepublished specimens of composite photography. First, there was the portrait of one person, then that of this same face with another superposed, then another containing three faces blended, and so on up to eight or nine. On the last page the result was shown. I can only compare the typical American to the last of those. This appears to me the process of evolution through which the American type is now going. What it will be when this process of evolution is over, no one, I imagine, can tell. The evolution will be complete when immigration shall have ceased, and all the different types have been well mixed and assimilated. While the process of assimilation is still going on, the result is suspended, and the type is incomplete.
But, meanwhile, are there not certain characteristic traits to be found throughout almost all America? That is a question much easier to answer.
Is it necessary to repeat that I put aside good society and confine myself merely to the people?
Nations are like individuals: when they are young, they have the qualities and the defects of children. The characteristic trait of childhood is curiosity. It is also that of the American. I have never been in Australia, but I should expect to find this trait in the Australian.
Look at American journalism. What does it live on? Scandal and gossip. Let a writer, an artist, or any one else become popular in the States, and the papers will immediately tell the public at what time he rises and what he takes for breakfast. When any one of the least importance arrives in America, he is quickly beset by a band of reporters who ask him ahost of preposterous questions and examine him minutely from head to foot, in order to tell the public next day whether he wears laced, buttoned, or elastic boots, enlighten them as to the cut of his coat and the color of his trowsers, and let them know if he parts his hair in the middle or not.
CURIOSITY IN AUSTRALIA.
CURIOSITY IN AUSTRALIA.
Every time I went into a new town to lecture I was interviewed, and the next day, besides an account ofthe lecture, there was invariably a paragraph somewhat in this style:
The lecturer is a man of about forty, whose cranium is getting visible through his hair. He wears a double eye-glass, with which he plays while talking to his audience. His handkerchief was black-bordered. He wore the regulation patent leather shoes, and his shirt front was fastened with a single stud. He spoke without effort or pretension, and often with his hands in his pockets, etc.
The lecturer is a man of about forty, whose cranium is getting visible through his hair. He wears a double eye-glass, with which he plays while talking to his audience. His handkerchief was black-bordered. He wore the regulation patent leather shoes, and his shirt front was fastened with a single stud. He spoke without effort or pretension, and often with his hands in his pockets, etc.
A few days ago, on reading the morning papers in a town where I had lectured the night before, I found, in one of them, about twenty lines consecrated to my lecture, and half a column to my hat.
I must tell you that this hat was brown, and all the hats in America are black. If you wear anything that is not exactly like what Americans wear, you are gazed at as if you were a curious animal. The Americans are as greatbadaudsas the Parisians. In London, you may go down Regent Street or Piccadilly got up as a Swiss admiral, a Polish general, or even a Highlander, and nobody will take the trouble to look at you. But, in America, you have only to put on a brown hat or a pair of light trowsers, and you will become the object of a curiosity which will not fail very promptly to bore you, if you are fond of tranquility, and like to go about unremarked.
I was so fond of that poor brown hat, too! It was an incomparably obliging hat. It took any shape, and adapted itself to any circumstances. It even went into my pocket on occasions. I had bought it at Lincoln & Bennett’s, if you please. But I had to give it up. To my great regret, I saw that it was imperative: its popularity bid fair to make me jealous. Twenty linesabout me, and half a column about that hat! It was time to come to some determination. It was not to be put up with any longer. So I took it up tenderly, smoothed it with care, and laid it in a neat box which was then posted to the chief editor of the paper with the following note:
Dear Sir:I see by your estimable paper that my hat has attracted a good deal of public attention during its short sojourn in your city. I am even tempted to think that it has attracted more of it than my lecture. I send you the interesting headgear, and beg you will accept it as a souvenir of my visit, and with my respectful compliments.
Dear Sir:
I see by your estimable paper that my hat has attracted a good deal of public attention during its short sojourn in your city. I am even tempted to think that it has attracted more of it than my lecture. I send you the interesting headgear, and beg you will accept it as a souvenir of my visit, and with my respectful compliments.
A citizen of the Great Republic knows how to take a joke. The worthy editor inserted my letter in the next number of his paper, and informed his readers that my hat fitted him to a nicety, and that he was going to have it dyed and wear it. He further said, “Max O’Rell evidently thinks the song, ‘Where did you get that hat?’ was specially written to annoy him,” and went on to the effect that “Max O’Rell is not the only man who does not care to tell where he got his hat.”
Do not run away with the idea that such nonsense as this has no interest for the American public. It has.
American reporters have asked me, with the most serious face in the world, whether I worked in the morning, afternoon, or evening, and what color paper I used (sic). One actually asked me whether it was true that M. Jules Claretie used white paper to write his novels on, and blue paper for his newspaper articles. Not having the honor of a personal acquaintance withthe director of the Comédie-Française, I had to confess my inability to gratify my amiable interlocutor.
Look at the advertisements in the newspapers. There you have the bootmaker, the hatter, the traveling quack, publishing their portraits at the head of their advertisements. Why are those portraits there, if it be not to satisfy the curiosity of customers?
The mass of personalities, each more trumpery than the other, those details of people’s private life, and all the gossip daily served up in the newspapers, are they not proof enough that curiosity is a characteristic trait of the American?
This curiosity, which often shows itself in the most impossible questions, gives immense amusement to Europeans. Unhappily, it amuses them at the expense of well-bred Americans—people who are as innocent of it as the members of the stiffest aristocracy in the world could be. The English, especially, persist in not distinguishing Americans who are gentlemen from Americans who are not.
.......
And even that easy-going Americanbourgeois, with his childish but good-humored nature, they often fail to do justice to. They too often look at his curiosity as impertinence and ill-breeding, and will not admit that, in nine cases out of ten, the freedom he uses with you is but a show of good feeling, an act of good-fellowship.
Take, for instance, the following little story:
An American is seated in a railway carriage, and opposite him is a lady in deep mourning, and looking a picture of sadness; a veritablemater dolorosa.
“Lost a father?” begins the worthy fellow.
“No, sir.”
“A mother, maybe?”
“No, sir.”
“Ah! a child then?”
“No, sir; I have lost my husband.”
“Your husband! Ah! Left you comfortable?”
The lady, rather offended, retires to the other end of the car, and cuts short the conversation.
“Rather stuck up, this woman,” remarks the good Yankee to his neighbor.
The intention was good, if the way of showing it was not. He had but wanted to show the poor lady the interest he took in her.
After having seen you two or three times, the American will suppress “Mr.” and address you by your name without any handle to it. Do not say that this is ill placed familiarity; it is meant as an act of good-fellowship, and should be received by you as such.
If you are stiff, proud, and stuck-up, for goodness’ sake, never go to America; you will never get on there. On the contrary, take over a stock of simple, affable manners and a good temper, and you will be treated as a friend everywhere, fêted, and well looked after.
In fact, try to deserve a certificate of good-fellowship, such as the Clover Club, of Philadelphia, awards to those who can sit at its hospitable table without taking affront at the little railleries leveled at them by the members of that lively association. With people of refinement who have humor, you can indulge in a joke at their expense. So says La Bruyère. Everyvisitor to America, who wants to bring back a pleasant recollection of his stay there, should lay this to heart.
Such are the impressions that I formed of the American during my first trip to his country, and the more I think over the matter, the more sure I am that they were correct. Curiosity is his chief little failing, and good-fellowship his most prominent quality. This is the theme I will develop and send to the Editor of theNorth American Review. I will profit by having a couple of days to spend in New York to install myself in a cosy corner of that cosiest of clubs, the “Players,” and there write it.
It seems that, in the same number of this magazine, the same subject is to be treated by Mr. Andrew Lang. He has never seen Jonathan at home, and it will be interesting to see what impressions he has formed of him abroad. In the hands of such a graceful writer, the “typical American” is sure to be treated in a pleasant and interesting manner.
I am Asked to Express Myself Freely on America—I Meet Mrs. Blank and for the First Time Hear of Mr. Blank—Beacon Street Society—The Boston Clubs.
Boston,January25.
Itamuses me to notice how the Americans to whom I have the pleasure of being introduced, refrain from asking me what I think of America. But they invariably inquire if the impressions of my first visit are confirmed.
This afternoon, at an “At Home,” I met a lady from New York, who asked me a most extraordinary question.
“I have read ‘Jonathan and His Continent,’” she said to me. “I suppose that is a book of impressions written for publication. But now, tell meen confidence, what do you think of us?”
“Is there anything in that book,” I replied, “which can make you suppose that it is not the faithful expression of what the author thinks of America and the Americans?”
“Well,” she said, “it is so complimentary, taken altogether, that I must confess I had a lurking suspicion of your having purposely flattered us and indulged ournational weakness for hearing ourselves praised, so as to make sure of a warm reception for your book.”
“No doubt,” I replied, “by writing a flattering book on any country, you would greatly increase your chance of a large sale in that country; but, on the other hand, you may write an abusive book on any country and score a great success among that nation’s neighbors. For my part, I have always gone my own quiet way, philosophizing rather than opinionating, and when I write, it is not with the aim of pleasing any particular public. I note down what I see, say what I think, and people may read me or not, just as they please. But I think I may boast, however, that my pen is never bitter, and I do not care to criticise unless I feel a certain amount of sympathy with the subject of my criticism. If I felt that I could only honestly say hard things of people, I would always abstain altogether.”
“Now,” said my fair questioner, “how is it that you have so little to say about our Fifth Avenue folks? Is it because you have seen very little of them, or is it because you could only have said hard things of them?”
“On the contrary,” I replied; “I saw a good deal of them, but what I saw showed me that to describe them would be only to describe polite society, as it exists in London and elsewhere. Society gossip is not in my line; boudoir and club smoking-room scandal has no charm for me. Fifth Avenue resembles too much Mayfair and Belgravia to make criticism of it worth attempting.”
I knew this answer would have the effect of putting me into the lady’s good graces at once, and I was notdisappointed. She accorded to me her sweetest smile, as I bowed to her to go and be introduced to another lady by the mistress of the house.
FIFTH AVENUE FOLK.
FIFTH AVENUE FOLK.
The next lady was a Bostonian. I had to explain to her why I had not spoken of Beacon Street people, using the same argument as in the case of Fifth Avenue society, and with the same success.
.......
At the same “At Home,” I had the pleasure ofmeeting Mrs. Blank, whom I had met many times in London and Paris.
She is one of the crowd of pretty and clever women whom America sends to brighten up European society, and who reappear in London and Paris with the regularity of the swallows. You meet them everywhere, and conclude that they must be married, since they are styled Mrs. and not Miss. But whether they are wives, widows, ordivorcées, you rarely think of inquiring, and you may enjoy their friendship for years without knowing whether they have a living lord or not.
A TELEPHONE AND TICKER.
A TELEPHONE AND TICKER.
Mrs. Blank, as I say, is a most fascinating specimen of America’s daughters, and to-day I find that Mr. Blank is also very much alive, but that the companionsof his joys and sorrows are the telephone and the ticker; in fact it is thanks to his devotion to these that the wife of his bosom is able to adorn European society during every recurring season.
American women have such love for freedom and are so cool-headed that their visits to Europe could not arouse suspicion even in the most malicious. But, nevertheless, I am glad to have heard of Mr. Blank, because it is comfortable to have one’s mind at rest on these subjects. Up to now, whenever I had been asked, as sometimes happened, though seldom: “Who is Mr. Blank, and where is he?” I had always answered: “Last puzzle out!”
.......
Lunched to-day in the beautiful Algonquin Club, as the guest of Colonel Charles H. Taylor, and met the editors of the other Boston papers, among whom was John Boyle O’Reilly,1the lovely poet, and the delightful man. The general conversation turned on two subjects most interesting to me, viz., American journalism, and American politics. All these gentlemen seemed to agree that the American people take an interest in local politics only, but not in imperial politics, and this explains why the papers of the smaller towns give detailed accounts of what is going on in the houses of legislature of both city and State, but do not concern themselves about what is going on in Washington. I had come to that conclusion myself, seeing that the great papers of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago devoted columns to thesayings and doings of the political world in London and Paris, and seldom a paragraph to the sittings of Congress in Washington.
In the morning, before lunch, I had called on Mr. John Holmes, the editor of the BostonHerald, and there met a talented lady who writes under thenom de plumeof “Max Eliot,” and with whom I had a delightful half-hour’s chat.
I have had to-day the pleasure of meeting the editors of all the Boston newspapers.
.......
In the evening, I dined with the members of the New England Club, who meet every month to listen, at dessert, to some interesting debate or lecture. The wine is supplied by bets. You bet, for instance, that the sun will shine on the following Friday at half-past two. If you lose, you are one of those who will have to supply one, two, or three bottles of champagne at the next dinner, and so on. This evening the lecture, or rather the short address, was given by Colonel Charles H. Taylor on the history of American journalism. I was particularly interested to hear the history of the foundation of the New YorkHerald, by James Gordon Bennett, and that of the New YorkWorld, by Mr. Pulitzer, a Hungarian emigrant, who, some years ago, arrived in the States, unable to speak English, became jack-of-all-trades, then a reporter on a German paper, proprietor of a Western paper, and then bought theWorld, which is now one of the best paying concerns in the whole of the United States. This man, who, to maintain himself, not in health, but just alive, is obliged to be constantly traveling, directs the paperby telegraph from Australia, from Japan, from London, or wherever he happens to be. It is nothing short of marvelous.
.......
I finished the evening in the St. Botolph Club, and I may say that I have to-day spent one of the most delightful days of my life, with those charming and highly cultured Bostonians, who, a New York witty friend of mine declares, “are educated beyond their intellects.”
1J. B. O’Reilly died in 1890.
1J. B. O’Reilly died in 1890.
A Lively Sunday in Boston—Lecture in the Boston Theater—Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes—The Booth-Modjeska Combination.
Boston,January26.
“Max Eliot”devotes a charming and most flattering article to me in this morning’sHerald, embodying the conversation we had together yesterday in the BostonHerald’soffice. Many thanks, Max.
A reception was given to me this afternoon by Citizen George Francis Train, and I met many artists, journalists, and a galaxy of charming women.
The Citizen is pronounced to be the greatest crank on earth. I found him decidedly eccentric, but entertaining, witty, and a first-rateraconteur. He shakes hands with you in the Chinese fashion—he shakes his own. He has taken a solemn oath that his body shall never come in contact with the body of any one.
A charming programme of music and recitations was gone through.
The invitation cards issued for the occasion speak for themselves.
THE CITIZEN SHAKES HANDS.
THE CITIZEN SHAKES HANDS.
CITIZENGEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN’SRECEPTIONToCITOYEN MAX O’RELL.P.S.—“Demons” have checkmated “Psychos”! Invitations canceled! “Hub” Boycotts Sunday Receptions! Boston half century behind New York and Europe’s Elite Society. (Ancient Athens still Ancient!) Regrets and Regards! Good-by, Tremont! (The Proprietors not to blame.)Videsome of his “Apothegmic Works”! (Reviewed in Pulitzer’s New YorkWorldand Cosmos Press!).......John Bull et Son Ile! Les Filles de John Bull! Les Chers Voisins! L’Ami Macdonald! John Bull, Junior! Jonathan et Son Continent! L’Eloquence Française! etc.YOU ARE INVITED TO MEETthis distinguished French Traveler, Author, and Lecturer (From the land of Lafayette, Rochambeau, and De Grasse),AT MY SIXTH “POP-CORN RECEPTION”!Sunday, January Twenty-Sixth, From 2 to 7P. M.(Tremont House!)Private Banquet Hall!Fifty “Notables”!Talent from Dozen Operas and Theaters! All Stars! No Airs! No “Wall Flowers”! No Amens! No Selahs! But “MUTUAL ADMIRATION CLUB OF GOOD FELLOWSHIP”!No Boredom! No Formality! (Dress as you like!) No Programme! (Pianos! Cellos! Guitars! Mandolins! Banjos! Violins! Harmonicas! Zithers!) Opera, Theater and Press Represented!Succeeding Receptions: To Steele Mackaye! Nat Goodwin! Count Zubof (St. Petersburg)! Prima Donna Clementina De Vere (Italy)! Albany Press Club! (Duly announced printed invitations!)GEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN,Tremont House for Winter!Psychic Press thanks for friendlynotices of Sunday Musicales!
CITIZEN
GEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN’S
RECEPTION
To
CITOYEN MAX O’RELL.
P.S.—“Demons” have checkmated “Psychos”! Invitations canceled! “Hub” Boycotts Sunday Receptions! Boston half century behind New York and Europe’s Elite Society. (Ancient Athens still Ancient!) Regrets and Regards! Good-by, Tremont! (The Proprietors not to blame.)
Videsome of his “Apothegmic Works”! (Reviewed in Pulitzer’s New YorkWorldand Cosmos Press!)
.......
John Bull et Son Ile! Les Filles de John Bull! Les Chers Voisins! L’Ami Macdonald! John Bull, Junior! Jonathan et Son Continent! L’Eloquence Française! etc.
YOU ARE INVITED TO MEET
this distinguished French Traveler, Author, and Lecturer (From the land of Lafayette, Rochambeau, and De Grasse),
AT MY SIXTH “POP-CORN RECEPTION”!
Sunday, January Twenty-Sixth, From 2 to 7P. M.(Tremont House!)
Private Banquet Hall!Fifty “Notables”!
Talent from Dozen Operas and Theaters! All Stars! No Airs! No “Wall Flowers”! No Amens! No Selahs! But “MUTUAL ADMIRATION CLUB OF GOOD FELLOWSHIP”!No Boredom! No Formality! (Dress as you like!) No Programme! (Pianos! Cellos! Guitars! Mandolins! Banjos! Violins! Harmonicas! Zithers!) Opera, Theater and Press Represented!
Succeeding Receptions: To Steele Mackaye! Nat Goodwin! Count Zubof (St. Petersburg)! Prima Donna Clementina De Vere (Italy)! Albany Press Club! (Duly announced printed invitations!)
GEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN,
Tremont House for Winter!
Psychic Press thanks for friendly
notices of Sunday Musicales!
It will be seen from the “P. S.” that the reception could not be held at the Tremont House; but the plucky Citizen did not allow himself to be beaten, and the reception took place at the house of a friend.
.......
In the evening I lectured in the Boston Theater to a beautiful audience.
If there is a horrible fascination about “the man who won’t smile,” as I mentioned in a foregoing chapter, there is a lovely fascination about the lady who seems to enjoy your lecture thoroughly. You watch the effects of your remarks on her face, and her bright, intellectual eyes keep you in good form the whole evening; in fact, you give the lecture to her. I perhaps never felt the influence of that face more powerfully than to-night. I had spoken for a few minutes, when Madame Modjeska, accompanied by her husband, arrived and took a seat on the first row of the orchestra stalls. To be able to entertain the greattragédiennebecame my sole aim, and as soon asI perceived that I was successful, I felt perfectly proud and happy. I lectured to her the whole evening. Her laughter and applause encouraged me, her beautiful, intellectual face cheered me up, and I was able to introduce a little more acting and by-play than usual.
I had had the pleasure of making Madame Modjeska’s acquaintance two years ago, during my first visit to the United States, and it was a great pleasure to be able to renew it after the lecture.
I will go and see herOpheliato-morrow night.
.......
January27.
Spent the whole morning wandering about Boston, and visiting a few interesting places. Beacon Street, the public gardens, and Commonwealth Avenue are among the finest thoroughfares I know. What enormous wealth is contained in those miles of huge mansions!
The more I see Boston, the more it strikes me as a great English city. It has a character of its own, as no other American city has, excepting perhaps Washington and Philadelphia. The solidity of the buildings, the parks, the quietness of the women’s dresses, the absence of the twang in most of the voices, all remind you of England.
After lunch I called on Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes. The “Autocrat of the Breakfast Table” is now over eighty, but he is as young as ever, and will die with a kind smile on his face and a merry twinkle in his eyes. I know no more delightful talker than this delightful man. You may say of him that every time he talks he says something. When he asked me what it was Ihad found most interesting in America, I wished I could have answered: “Why, my dear doctor, to see and to hear such a man as you, to be sure!” But the doctor is so simple, so unaffected, that I felt an answer of that kind, though perfectly sincere, would not have been one calculated to please him. The articles “Over the Tea Cups,” which he writes every month for theAtlantic Monthly, and which will soon appear in book form, are as bright, witty, humorous, and philosophic as anything he ever wrote. Long may he live to delight his native land!
.......
In the evening I went to see Mr. Edwin Booth and Madame Modjeska in “Hamlet.” By far the two greatest tragedians of America in Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy. I expected great things. I had seen Mounet-Sully in the part, Henry Irving, Wilson Barrett; and I remembered the witty Frenchquatrain, published on the occasion of Mounet-Sully attempting the part:
Sans Fechter ni RivièreLe cas était hasardeux;Jamais, non jamais sur terre,On n’a fait d’Hamlet sans eux.
Sans Fechter ni Rivière
Le cas était hasardeux;
Jamais, non jamais sur terre,
On n’a fait d’Hamlet sans eux.
I had seen Mr. Booth three times before. AsBrutus, I thought he was excellent. AsRichelieuhe was certainly magnificent; asIagoideally superb.
HisHamletwas a revelation to me. After seeing the ravingHamletof Mounet-Sully, the somberHamletof Irving, and the dreamyHamletof Wilson Barrett, I saw this eveningHamletthe philosopher, the rhetorician.
Mr. Booth is too old to playHamletas he does, that is to say, without any attempt at making-up. He puts on a black wig, and that is all, absolutely all. It is, however, a most remarkable, subtle piece of acting in his hands.
Madame Modjeska was beautiful asOphelia. Notragédiennethat I have ever seen weeps more naturally. In all sad situations she makes the chords of one’s heart vibrate, and that without any trick or artifice, but simply by the modulations of her singularly sympathetic voice and such like natural means.
It is very seldom that you can see in America, outside of New York, more than one very good actor or actress playing together. So you may imagine the success of such a combination as Booth-Modjeska.
Every night the theater is packed from floor to ceiling, although the prices of admission are doubled.
St. Johnsbury—The State of Maine—New England Self-Control—Cold Climates and Frigid Audiences—Where is the Audience?—All Drunk!—A Reminiscence of a Scotch Audience on a Saturday Night.
St. Johnsbury (Vt.),January28.
St. Johnsburyis a charming little town perched on the top of a mountain, from which a lovely scene of hills and woods can be enjoyed. The whole country is covered with snow, and as I looked at it in the evening by the electric light, the effect was very beautiful. The town has only six thousand inhabitants, eleven hundred of whom came to hear my lecture to-night. Which is the European town of six thousand inhabitants that would supply an audience of eleven hundred people to a literarycauserie?
St. Johnsbury has a dozen churches, a public library of 15,000 volumes, with a reading-room beautifully fitted with desks and perfectly adapted for study. A museum, a Young Men’s Christian Association, with gymnasium, school-rooms, reading-rooms, play-rooms, and a lecture hall capable of accommodating over 1000 people. Who, after that, would consider himself an exile if he had to live in St. Johnsbury? There ismore intellectual life in it than in any French town outside of Paris and about a dozen more large cities.
.......
Portsea, January30.
I have been in the State of Maine for two days; a strange State to be in, let me tell you.
After addressing the Connecticut audience in Meriden a few days ago, I thought I had had the experience of the most frigid audience that could possibly be gathered together. Last Tuesday night, at Portsea, I was undeceived.
Half-way between St. Johnsbury and Portsea, the day before yesterday, I was told that the train would be very late, and would not arrive at Portsea before half-past eight. My lecture in that city was to begin at eight. The only thing to do was to send a telegram to the manager of the lecture. At the next station I sent the following:
“Train late. If possible, keep audience waiting half an hour. Will dress on board.”
I dressed in the state-room of the parlor-car. At forty minutes past eight the train arrived at Portsea. I immediately jumped into a cab and drove to the City Hall, where the lecture was to take place. The building was lighted, but, as I ascended the stairs, there was not a person to be seen or a sound to be heard. “The place is deserted,” I thought; “and if anybody came to hear me, they have all gone.”
I opened the door of the private room behind the platform and there found the manager, who expressed his delight to see me. I excused myself, and wasgoing to enter into a detailed explanation when he interrupted:
“Oh, that’s all right.”
“What do you mean?” said I. “Have you got an audience there, on the other side of that door?”
“Why, we have got fifteen hundred people.”
“There?” said I, pointing to the door.
“Yes, on the other side of that door.”
“But I can’t hear a sound.”
“I guess you can’t. But that’s all right; they are there.”
“I suppose,” I said, “I had better apologize to them for keeping them waiting three-quarters of an hour.”
“Well, just as you please,” said the manager. “I wouldn’t.”
“Wouldn’t you?”
“No; I guess they would have waited another half-hour without showing any sign of impatience.”
I opened the door trembling. My desk was far, far away. My manager was right; the audience was there. I stepped on the platform, shut the door after me, making as little noise as I could, and, walking on tiptoe so as to wake up as few people as possible, proceeded toward the table. Not one person applauded. A few people looked up unconcernedly, as if to say, “I guess that’s the show.” The rest seemed asleep, although their eyes were open.
Arrived at the desk, I faced the audience, and ventured a little joke, which fell dead flat.
I began to realize the treat that was in store for me that night.
I tried another little joke, and—missed fire.
“Never mind, old fellow,” I said to myself; “it’s two hundred and fifty dollars; go ahead.”
And I went on.
I saw a few people smile, but not one laughed, although I noticed that a good many were holding their handkerchiefs over their mouths, probably to stifle any attempt at such a frivolous thing as laughter. The eyes of the audience, which I always watch, showed signs of interest, and nobody left the hall until the conclusion of the lecture. When I had finished, I made a small bow, when certainly fifty people applauded. I imagined they were glad it was all over.
“Well,” I said to the manager, when I had returned to the little back room, “I suppose we must call this a failure.”
“A failure!” said he; “it’s nothing of the sort. Why, I have never seen them so enthusiastic in my life!”
I went to the hotel, and tried to forget the audienceI had just had by recalling to my mind a joyous evening in Scotland. This happened about a year ago, in a mining town in the neighborhood of Glasgow, where I had been invited to lecture, on a Saturday night, to the members of a popular—very popular—Institute.
I AM ESCORTED TO THE HALL.
I AM ESCORTED TO THE HALL.
I arrived at the station from Glasgow at half-past seven, and there found the secretary and the treasurer of the Institute, who had been kind enough to come and meet me. We shook hands. They gave me a few words of welcome. I thought my friends looked a little bit queer. They proposed that we should walk to the lecture hall. The secretary took my right arm, the treasurer took my left, and, abreast, the three of usproceeded toward the hall. They did not take me to that place;Itook them, holding them fast all the way—the treasurer especially.
We arrived in good time, although we stopped once for light refreshment. At eight punctually, I entered the hall, preceded by the president, and followed by the members of the committee. The president introduced me in a most queer, incoherent speech. I rose, and was vociferously cheered. When silence was restored, I said in a calm, almost solemn manner: “Ladies and Gentlemen.” This was the signal for more cheering and whistling. In France whistling means hissing, and I began to feel uneasy, but soon I bore in mind that whistling, in the North of Great Britain, was used to express the highest pitch of enthusiasm.
So I went on.
The audience laughed at everything I said, and even before I said it. I had never addressed such keen people. They seemed so anxious to laugh and cheer in the right place that they laughed and cheered all the time—so much so that in an hour and twenty minutes, I had only got through half my lecture, which I had to bring to a speedy conclusion.
The president rose and proposed a vote of thanks in another most queer speech, which was a new occasion for cheering.
When we had retired in the committee room, I said to the secretary: “What’s the matter with the president? Is he quite right?” I added, touching my forehead.
“Oh!” said the secretary, striking his chest as proudly as possible, “he is drunk—and so am I.”
“HE’S DRUNK, AND SO AM I.”
“HE’S DRUNK, AND SO AM I.”
The explanation of the whole strange evening dawned upon me. Of course they were drunk, and so was the audience.
That night, I believe I was the only sober person on the premises.
.......
Yesterday, I had an interesting chat with a native of the State of Maine on the subject of my lecture at Portsea.
“You are perfectly wrong,” he said to me, “in supposing that your lecture was not appreciated. I was present, and I can assure you that the attentive silence in which they listened to you from beginning to end is the proof that they appreciated you. You would also be wrong in supposing that they do not appreciate humor. On the contrary, they are very keen of it, and I believe that the old New Englander was the father of American humor, through the solemn manner in which he told comic things, and the comic manner in which he told the most serious ones. Yes, they are keen of humor, and their apparent want of appreciation is only due to reserve, to self-control.”
And, as an illustration of it, my friend told me the following anecdote which, I have no doubt, a good many Americans have heard before:
Mark Twain had lectured to a Maine audience without raising a single laugh in his listeners, when, at the close, he was thanked by a gentleman who came to him in the green-room, to tell him how hugely every one had enjoyed his amusing stories. When the lecturerexpressed his surprise at this announcement, as the audience had not laughed, the gentleman added:
“Yes, we never were so amused in our lives, and if you had gone on five minutes more, upon my word I don’t think we could have held out any longer.”
Such is New England self-control.