VII

Elbows apt to make the leather spinUp the slow bat and round the unwary shin,

which is not only poor verse but proves on the part of the author an inadequate knowledge of the no-ball rule.

But perhaps verse is not a happy medium through which to express an enjoyment of cricket. Phrases like â€œunwary shinâ€ will intrude themselves, and, although Pindar used to celebrate with equally appropriate ardour the feats of generals and of athletes, the very idea of commemorating in heroic couplets Woolleyâ€™s two great test-match innings at Lordâ€™s seems ridiculous. We have grown so accustomed to reading accounts of cricket matches in the prose style of the sporting press that any other treatment is impossible. PerhapsMr Masefield will one day attempt an epic of the fifth test match at the Oval, but I doubt if it would be a success. It would be a quaint performance, as though one were to walk down the Strand in court dress of Jacobean cut. The jargon of a cricket report is unsuited to heroic verse, but it is indispensable. If, for instance, we were informed that Hendren,

Snared into over-confidence, stept back,Swinging his bat as though he would eclipseThe thundered violence of Albert Trott.Yet had he not correctly judged the flightOf the quick spinning ball.Aghast he heardBehind his back the rattle of the stumps,

we should not be very much the wiser. We should prefer to learn of such a tragedy in straightforward narrative: â€œHendren hooked Mailey to the on-boundary twice in succession; but, in an attempt to repeat the stroke to a ball that was pitched farther up to him and that went away with the arm, he was clean bowled.â€

Indeed, A. E. Housmanâ€™s â€œOn an Athlete Dying Youngâ€ is the best serious poem that can be said to interpret any side of cricket, and that poem is written to a runner. But it is universal, for it contains the tragedy of all professional sport:

Now you will not swell the routOf lads that wore their honours out,Runners whom renown outran,And the name died before the man.

Contemporary reference to any cricketer no longerplaying is made in the past tense, â€œTarrant was ...â€; and how many of the enthusiastic Ovalites who recall so eagerly the great days of â€œLocky and Brockyâ€ pause to consider that their hero is still alive?

The lack of prose literature dealing with cricket is, however, as surprising as it is deplorable. For a hundred years ago the game must have been able to supply an intriguing background for a novel. Lordâ€™s was like Paddington recreation-ground, and, when there was no match, the public were allowed to hire a pitch there for a shilling, a sum that included the use of stumps, bat, and ball; there were no mowing machines then, and the grass was kept down by a flock of sheep, which was penned up on match days. On Saturdays, four or five hundred sheep were driven on to the ground on their way to the Smithfield Market. And then half a dozen small boys would run out and pick out any long grass or thick tufts that were still left. It is not surprising that there were shooters then. And never since the days of the gladiators can there have been such wholesale bribery and corruption as there was in the days of Lord Frederic Beauclerk.

Enormous bets were made. Matches were played for stakes of one thousand guineas a sideâ€”in those days no small sum, and professionals found it hard to live on their pay; indeed, they made little effort to; and in big matches where a lot of money was at stake it was not uncommon to find one side trying to get themselves out while their opponents were trying to give them easy balls to make runs off. Indeed Lord Harris tells a story of how two professionals had a dispute at one of the annual general meetings at Lordâ€™s, andin the presence of the noble lords of the M.C.C. such questions as â€œWho sold the match at Nottingham?â€ and â€œWho would bowl at anything but the wicket for Kent?â€ were bandied about to the consternation, Lord Harris says, â€œof some of those present who had lost their money contrary to all calculation on the matches referred toâ€! There were few newspaper reporters then, and things could be done at Old Trafford news of which would come tardily to Lordâ€™s.

The only persons who appear to have remained incorruptible during these early days are, strangely enough, the umpires. Perhaps they put too high a premium on their honesty, and the bookmakers found it cheaper to have dealings with the players, or perhaps there was a general conspiracy of silence, no one being sufficiently without blame to cast a stone. At any rate, the interpreters of the law seem to have given satisfaction, and they can have had no easy time. For it was during these years that the code of rules under which we play to-day was compiled. And it was compiled in a most haphazard fashion. No committee sat over a table and weighed every possible contingency and interpretation of the laws. The authorities were worthy fellows, but lazy and unimaginative. They drew up a rough code and waited for things to happen. If any particular practice began to cause a nuisance they were prepared to put a stop to it. In the meantime let the wheel turn.

It did turn, and often with uncomfortable complications. At one time, for instance, in the days when there were only two stumps, a hole was cut between andbeneath the wickets, and when a batsman completed a run he had to pop his bat into this hole. If the bowler succeeded in popping the ball there before the bat the batsman was run out. It was found, however, that bat and ball would often arrive in the hole simultaneously, with sad results to the bowlerâ€™s fingers; and often enough, when a fieldsman had anticipated the bat, the defeated player would take what revenge he could by driving his bat upon the knuckles of his conqueror. After a certain number of fingers had been broken the authorities thought fit to substitute for the hole the present popping crease.

Much the same thing happened in the case of leg-before-wicket. As pads were not then invented, and as the ball was delivered with much rapidity, it had never seemed likely that any batsman would, with deliberate intention, place his unprotected legs in the path of a hard ball. But one day the cricket world was thrown into consternation by the tactics of one Ring, who placed his body in front of the wicket in such a way that it was impossible for him to be bowled out. His shins became very sore, but his score became very large. This gallant act of self-sacrifice for the good of his side did not win the admiration it deserved; it was described by a contemporary writer as â€œa shabby way of taking advantage of a bowler,â€ so that when Tom Taylor adopted the same tactics the bowlers â€œdeclared themselves beatenâ€: a leg-before-wicket rule was drawn up, and another opportunity for Spartan courage was lost to an effeminate age.

The rules were altered to suit each fresh development. And when we remember the manifold and barbarous practices of that day, we cannot but shudder when we try to imagine what fearsome and horrible atrocities must have taken place before the rule about â€œobstruction of the fieldâ€ was invented. Cannot we picture some burly butcher skying the ball to point and then, in order to save his wicket, rushing at the fieldsman and prostrating him with his bat? Cannot we see the batsman at the other end effecting a half-nelson upon the bowler who was about to catch his partner? The laws of Rome were not built up without bloodshed, nor were the laws of cricket. What opportunities for humorous narrative have been lost!

If only there had been some naturalistic writer who would have collected laboriously all these stories and made a novel of them. If Zola had been an Englishman we could have forgiven him his endless descriptions of gold-beaters and agricultural labourers, if one of the Macquarts had been a professional cricketer and one of those interminable novels had reconstructed the cricket world of his day. If only the caprice of things had allowed George Moore to spend his early years near a cricket field instead of a racing stable.

But even those few novelists who have included cricket in their panorama of the period appear woefully ignorant of the management of the game. What a sad mess Dickens made of it, and how well he might have done it! How entertaining Mr Winkle might have been behind the wicket: what sublime decisions he would have given as an umpire! But,no: Muggleton play Dingley Dell, and the great Podder â€œblocked the doubtful balls, missed the bad ones, took the good ones and sent them flying to all parts of the field,â€ which is surely the most quaint procedure that any batsman has ever followed; and as a climax Dingley Dell give in and allow the superior prowess of all Muggleton, apparently before they have had their own inningsâ€”an action without precedent in the annals of the game.

And so it has happened that our one complete picture of the Homeric days has come to us not from the novelists, the official recorders of the hour, but from John Nyren, who wrote without any thought of posterity a guide-book for the young cricketer. There are some books that, like wine, acquire qualities with the passage of time, and for us to-day theCricketerâ€™s Tutorpossesses a value that it did not have for those in whose service it was written. To the young blood of 1840 it was merely a manual, a sort of field service regulations; to-day it is a piece of literature; it interprets a period; it reveals a personality.

As we read John Nyrenâ€™s advice we can see how the game was played in 1820 on rough pitches, without pads, in top hats, and with a courage the extent of which may be gauged from the instructions that he gives to long-stop:

When the ball does not come to his hand with a fair bound, he must go down upon his right knee with his hands before him: then in case these should miss it, his body will form a bulwark and arrest its further progress.

In those days we learn that spectators were patient folk who sat on backless seats, drank porter, smoked long pipes, and made bets about the match. There was leisure then, and John Nyren believed that the batsman should wait to make his runs till bowler and fieldsmen were exhausted:

I would strongly recommend the young batsman to turn his attention to stopping: for by acting this part well, he becomes a serious antagonist to the bowler; who, when he sees a man coming in that he knows will stop all his length balls with ease, is always in a degree disheartened. He has no affection for such a customer. Besides, in this accomplishment lies the distinction between the scientific and the random batsman.

The random batsman: it is an adjective we find often in theCricketerâ€™s Tutor. For Nyren had an intense hatred of unskilled success. Cricket was to him an art the technique of which could only be mastered after an elaborate apprenticeship. He distrusted the short cut, and we find him the most bitter opponent of the young idea. He is the eternal Tory of yesterday, of to-day and of to-morrow. And he is very human to us as he stands on the brink of change uttering his solemn warning. For it was towards the end of his career that round-arm bowling was introduced, and it is hard to realise the revolution this caused in the world of sport. It made as much stir and roused as many bad feelings in its own province as its contemporarythe Reform Bill. This bowling was described as the â€œnew march of intellectâ€”style,â€ and in 1827 three matches were played between Sussex and England to test the merits of the two methods. The county won the first two matches, and the nine professionals on the England side were so incensed that they signed a formal petition â€œthat we, the undersigned, do agree that we will not play the third match between all England and Sussex unless the Sussex bowlers bowl fairâ€”that is, abstain from throwing.â€ And the great Mr Ward, when asked his opinion, said, â€œI can only say cricketers are a peaceable class of men. With this bowling I never see a match that might not end in a wrangle.â€

John Nyren was its most fierce opponent, and it is rather pathetic to read his violent and ineffectual protest. This invention would ruin cricket. He saw a new game that would lack the grace and skill of the game as he and his friends had played it. The ball would come so fast that the batsman would not have time to prepare for it.

The indifferent batsman possesses as fair a chance of success as the most refined player. And the reason for this is obvious, because from the random manner of delivering the ball it is impossible for the fine batsman to have time for that finesse and delicate management which so peculiarly distinguished the elegant manÅ“uvring of the chief players who occupied the field about eight, ten, or more years ago.

And he goes on to state his belief that if the presentsystem be persisted in a few years longer â€œthe elegant and scientific game of cricket will develop into a mere exhibition of rough, coarse horse-play.â€

What would he say if he could return to the pavilion at the Oval, and see Hitch bowling at how many miles is it an hour, and Hendren hooking him to the square-leg boundary? And the last paragraph of his protest is that of every man since the beginning of time who has seen his day pass, his heroes overthrown, and a rash, irreverent generation in their place.

I can use my eyes [he writes], I can compare notes and points in the two styles of playing, and they who have known me will bear testimony that I have never been accustomed to express myself rashly.

A forlorn figure, trusting so simply in the permanence of a static world.

It is sad to think how quickly that world has passed, and how effectively the machinery of our industrial system has already taken cricket to itself. Nyrenâ€™s game is no longer the entertainment of a few. It has become part of the national life, and probably, if the Bolshevists get their way here, it will be nationalised with the cinema and the theatre and association football. It is hard to find much in common between the old men who smoked long pipes and drank strong porter and watched Mr Haygarth bat three hours for sixteen runs, and the twenty thousand who flock to the Middlesex and Surrey match because the newspapers have told them to, and who barrack any batsman who playsthrough a maiden over. Indeed, on those big days, I do not think that you find there the survival of the old enthusiast. You will find him rather on a cold morning shivering at the back of the mound, on the third day of a match that is certain to be a draw, when there are only a couple of hundred spectators. No one knows why he goes there. He will be very cold. He will not see particularly good cricket. Professional batsmen will play for a draw in the most professional manner. The fielding towards four oâ€™clock will grow slack, and half an hour before the end the captains will decide that it is no good going on, and that they might just as well draw stumps. Your old man in the mound knows that this must happen. But he goes there all the same, and at three oâ€™clock he buys an evening paper to read an account of the match and he sees that the reporter says: â€œHardstaff was beaten and bowled by a yorker.â€ And the old man will chuckle, knowing that it was a half-volley and that Hardstaff hit over it. And in January, when he reads through hisWisden, he will put a tick against that match, with the others that he has seen, and he will add them up and find that he has spent five more days at Lordâ€™s this year than he did the year before. He will remember how his grandfather used to talk to him of Fuller Pilch; and he will smile, knowing the superiority of Hendren. And he will continue to watch cricket as his grandfather watched it on cold days as well as warm, when a draw is certain and when there is a chance of a great finish. One day he believes the professional batsmen will fail, there will bea collapse and a sensational victory, and only two hundred people will have seen it. He knows that many matches are played in the year and that very few of them yield great finishes, and he knows that the only way to make sure of the big occasion is to go there whenever stumps are pitched. And it is of him that we must think when we would reconstruct the cricket world of 1830.

For Nyren was the Homer of cricket and the Homeric days have passed. In 1923 the soil is no longer virgin. Cricket is a different game, and for the novelist it is less intriguing. There is no betting, there is no dishonesty, and, though we hear whispers of the questionable diplomacy of the northern leagues, it would hardly be possible to invent a cricket story with a credible villain. Nat Gould found no difficulty in writing a hundred novels of the racecourse; it is extremely difficult to write one of the cricket field. No scope is provided for dramatic narrative. Cricket in the lives of most of us is a delightful interludeâ€”pleasant hours in pleasant company; and we do not take our success or failure very seriously. At school it is important: caps and cups are at stake, positions of authority go to the most proficient; and it so happens that the only great cricket story of recent times is a school story, P. G. Wodehouseâ€™sMike. But apart from school it is hard to find in cricket a motive of sufficient strength to allow of the development and presentation of dramatic action. On the racecourse large sums of money are at stake. On the success of a horse may depend the future happiness of the hero andthe heroine. But I doubt if the result of a cricket match has in recent years ever involved much more than the temporary loss or gain of personal prestige. InWillow the KingJ. C. Snaith chose a cricket match as the setting for a summer idyll, but the author ofBrooke of Covendenwould hardly rank that story highly among his many very considerable achievements. The moment for the great cricket novel has passed: irrecoverably perhaps. And in the winter months we find ourselves returning as of old to a few books of reminiscence and to our long yellow-backed, tattered row ofWisden, and of the two we findWisdenthe more companionable.

WE readWisdenin the winter on cold nights before a leaping fire and it brings back to us the sense of new-mown grass, the feel of a cricket ball and the stir of sunlight. It is a substitute for cricket: and the old harassing doubt creeps up again, the doubt whether any literature is anything beyond a substitute, the focus of an unfulfilled desire. We know how old people drug themselves with novels. Every day they go down to the library and choose a new book, and for twenty-four hours cease to be themselves, becoming again in a story of adventure and young love all that they were and are not. Does not foiled ambition, we ask ourselves, always seek to realise itself in plays and pictures. Inevitably some side of ourselves must remain undeveloped, and through a process that the advanced psychologists describe as sublimation, we find that undeveloped side a substitute for its expression. Is a book anything more than a spade digging down to our subconsciousness, to our real self? Is anything ever quite what we take it for?

Influence: theyâ€™ll talk for hours about it from the pulpit. Influence: every little thing, every word and thought and act. It has its effect on someone somewhere. I can still hear a certain old parishpriestâ€™s thin voice falling across the dark silence of benediction. It was his pet theme: influence. â€œThey will tell you in the big world,â€ he used to say to us, â€œthat the strong man can be independent of his actions, that they fall from him as raindrops from a sloping roof. It may be so. Perhaps: for the very few, the very strong. But the water that falls from the clouds rests somewhere. It may slip from the sloping roofs, but it will find its level. Its level where it must complete its task, where it will rot wood, rust iron, or make the corn golden for the hands of man. Your acts, your words, your thoughts, they are like the falling rain. Somewhere they will create beauty or decay. They will never fall unheeded.â€

He was right, of course. Every moment of the day we impart, as we receive, impressions. But the nature of those impressions. It is there that Iâ€™m just a little doubtful. That â€œas we sow we reapâ€ theory. It looks all right. It ought to be all right. But life has a way of contradicting theories. It isnâ€™t always the good tree that bears good fruit. Sometimes, unquestionably; but one fact is worth a string of arguments. Or rather, perhaps, thereâ€™s no argument that can withstand a fact. And here, as my contribution to the argument, is the story of Pussy Willow, as she told it me a couple of months ago raffishly across the table of a dingy restaurant, in one of those back streets that filter through from Shaftesbury Avenue across Soho.

I drop in there quite often after closing time. Thereâ€™s dancing there and music, if you can so grace an unwashed foreignerâ€™s strumming on a banjo. And theyâ€™ve got alicence to carry on till twelve. I donâ€™t know how they got it. They donâ€™t even call themselves a club. But theyâ€™ll dump a property sandwich down in front of you and serve you, up till midnight, with villainous concocted cognac at half-a-crown a glass. Itâ€™s like most of those Soho Bohemian places: a poisonous atmosphere to live in, but amusing and profitable enough to visit now and again. I like to sit quietly in a corner and watch a crowd of people, laughing and quarrelling and drinkingâ€”and try to make stories up round each of them, wondering who is in love with whom, and who will be so and soâ€™s successor. Sometimes I signal to one of them to come and share a drink with me; more often they come across of their own accord and await an invitation.

It was in this way that I met, or should rather say, perhaps, re-met, Pussy Willow. A plump, flashily, but poorly dressed woman planted herself down in front of me and announced that she was two sheets in the wind.

â€œMine being,â€ she concluded, â€œa double Scotch, and water, not too much of it.â€

â€œAdmirable,â€ I answered. â€œOne double, waiter, and a benedictine.â€

She swallowed her double at a gulp, then leant forward across the table. â€œYou donâ€™t know who I am?â€ she said.

I shook my head.

â€œThen Iâ€™ll introduce myself. Miss Pussy Willow, late of the Vaudeville Theatre!â€

She was a good actress. She had always knownhow to get the most out of her voice, how to lay the bait for an effect. And she got it all right. I sat back and looked at her, looked at the puffed, swollen cheeks, the pouches under the eyes, the unshapely mouth where the powder caked along the wrinkles, the bulging double chin, and searched there, as one might search in the face of a long drowned friend for some sign of accustomed features, searched for that face, so pretty, so delicate, so appealing, so utterly, so entrancingly soubrette, that had made so many hearts beat quickly fifteen years ago. Not a trace of it. Not a trace of the woman who had once been Pussy Willow, of the radiant creature who had swayed in that great silver dress, before the chorus, singing the song that had been for six months the rage of London: â€œLove is the song of a girl and a boy.â€ Gone: all of it. That youth, that charm, that divine mingling of simplicity and wantonnessâ€”buried beneath this coated unhealthy mask of flesh and powder. I did not know what to say. She was looking at me in a half-dazed, half-resentful manner, ready to hit back if what I might say should hurt her. In the end I thought it better to say nothing.

â€œSo itâ€™s silence, is it?â€ she said. â€œAh, well, I guessed as much. I know what youâ€™re thinkingâ€”the pity of it, thatâ€™s what youâ€™re saying to yourself. Poor Pussy Willow, youâ€™ll say. Drunk herself down to this. And then youâ€™ll go back home and think what a damned fine fellow you are. And to-morrow youâ€™ll tell your friends up at the club: â€˜Do you know whom I saw yesterday?â€™ youâ€™ll say. â€˜Pussy Willow,quite drunk, she was. All her looks gone. You wouldnâ€™t have recognised her.â€™ And youâ€™ll all raise your hands and say: â€˜The pity of it!â€™ and get self-righteous. And then youâ€™ll go back to your office and swindle some wretched underdog and talk about leaving the world better than you found it. I know your sort. You only come here to get warm with self-righteousness. Ah, youâ€”But, well, Iâ€™ll tell you this, mister: you talk about leaving the world better than you found it, but Iâ€™ve probably done a sight more good in it than you have.â€

She paused on a high-pitched note of challenge.

But again I made no answer. I knew that I had only to wait to be told the story. I caught the waiterâ€™s eye, nodded, and another double was at her elbow. She gulped it down quickly, as she had the other. She leant forward, warmed, softened, recollective to continue on the note where she had paused. â€œMore good than you,â€”a blooming sight more good than you. I saved a man once from becomingâ€”well, you know what men become if they donâ€™t pull the reins up tight in the early thirties. Yes, meâ€”I saved a man. It makes me laugh now when I think of it.

â€œI met him here a couple of months ago, just as I met you. Tall, fine-looking man, he was, white-haired, with a short, close-cut beard. Well dressed: a successful family business manâ€”thatâ€™s what he looked. Heaven knows what he thought he was doing here. Change, I suppose; an empty hour to be filled in somehow. Perhaps he used to come here when he was a boy and felt sentimental suddenly. At any rate, hecame in and stood at the corner of the bar and ordered a brown sherry and looked very self-conscious and out of place. I nudged the girl next me. â€˜The 396th hymn,â€™ I said. â€˜Two minutes and heâ€™ll be in the pulpit.â€™ And we laughed and had another, and told a couple of bluish stories. And then, suddenly, I found myself getting uncomfortable, and I realised that I was being stared at, stared at in a curious, creepy sort of way, as though I was being looked through for something that was behind me. It went on that stare, till I couldnâ€™t stick it any longer. I walked across to him. â€˜Well, old sport,â€™ I said, â€˜this is me. Now, what about it?â€™

â€œHe stammered a little and looked embarrassed.

â€œâ€˜Yesâ€”Iâ€”Iâ€™m sorry. It was rude of me, but ... well, you remind me very much of someone.â€™

â€œâ€˜And who might that be?â€™ I asked.

â€œâ€˜An actress. You probably wouldnâ€™t know her. We thought a lot of her onceâ€”Pussy Willow.â€™

â€œIt knocked me sideways, I can tell you. I thought the world had forgotten Pussy, or that those who did remember wouldnâ€™t recognise her now in what she is.

â€œâ€˜You ought to be a detective then,â€™ I says, â€˜youâ€™ve touched the right target.â€™

â€œIt told. I hoped it would. He stammered: â€˜What! youâ€”you really are the Pussy Willow whoâ€”â€”â€™

â€œAnd suddenly, for cheek, I cocked back my hat as I used to at the jolly old Vaudeville, and I plumped my fists down on my hips and swayed backwards and began to sing the first verse of that old thing of mineâ€”you remember it, when I wore that great silver dress, â€˜Love is the song of a girl and a boy.â€™

â€œHe knew then: â€˜Pussy Willow!â€™ he murmured. Then stood looking at me as they all do, those that remember me, when I tell them who I am; looked at me till I got all hot and shivery.

â€œâ€˜Oh, come off it,â€™ I said, â€˜Give me a drink, old pal.â€™

â€œHe seemed to pull himself together with a start. â€˜Iâ€™m sorry,â€™ he said, â€˜I forgot. Waiter, send a bottle of champagne over to that table and some sandwiches.â€™

â€œBy the time oneâ€™s got to my age oneâ€™s learnt not to be surprised at anything. â€˜Gee, girls,â€™ I said, â€˜but itâ€™s a party!â€™ And I followed him across and began to chatter about old times. I thought that was what he wanted, to be made to feel young again. But I soon saw that he was not listening to what I was saying, that he had something of his own to say, but didnâ€™t know how to say it, so I just chattered on till he was ready.

â€œIt came, all of a heap, like an explosion, right across one of my best stories.

â€œâ€˜Pussy, look hereâ€”Iâ€™m ... well, Iâ€™m not rich, but I want to do something for you. I want toâ€”may I give you an allowance of two pounds a week?â€™

â€œI sat back on my chair flabergasted, absolutely. It was five years since anyone had made me that sort of offer.

â€œâ€˜Well,â€™ I said, â€˜the old ladyâ€™s a bit weatherbeaten, but what there is of her is good.â€™

â€œHe shook his hand; quite a stage gesture, quietly in front of me.

â€œâ€˜Oh, no, no, no,â€™ he said. â€˜Please donâ€™t misunderstand me. I didnâ€™t mean anything like thatâ€”as a present, simply.â€™

â€œI tried him with a dead straight glance.

â€œâ€˜Now, look here, my lad,â€™ I said, â€˜cough it up. Whatâ€™s it all about? People donâ€™t give things for nothingâ€”not in this world, any way.â€™

â€œHe nodded. â€˜Thatâ€™s why I want to do something for you. Youâ€™ve done me the greatest service that anyone has ever done me. I have a very happy home and three very happy children, and but for you I donâ€™t think I should have ever married.â€™

â€œThat made me laugh. â€˜So you heard me sing: â€œLove me in a cottage by the sea,â€ and caught the next train to Margate?â€™

â€œâ€˜Oh, no, no! Somethingâ€”something perhaps youâ€™d rather not be reminded of. But, do you remember when â€œThe Eastern Princessâ€ was running at the Clarion, and you flung up your part at a momentâ€™s notice and werenâ€™t seen again in London for six months?â€™

â€œI nodded. One of the landmarks in my life, that show was.

â€œâ€˜Well,â€™ he said, â€˜I was twenty-seven then. Iâ€™d just passed my first medical exam. in Ireland and had come up to London to open a practice in Richmond. I wasnâ€™t badly off. I had good prospects. I was a sportsman. For eight years, ever since I had gone up to Oxford, I had been working really hard. All my friends told me that my innings was just going to begin. â€œYouâ€™ll have a wonderful time,â€ they said; â€œthereâ€™s no place like London.â€â€™

â€œâ€˜And then I fell in love with a very young and very unsophisticated girl, the daughter of a country parson whom I had got to know during a cricket tour. My friends did their very best to dissuade me. â€œItâ€™s perfect madness,â€ they said, â€œyouâ€™re going to chuck your life away before youâ€™ve started it. You could have a wonderful time. My dear chap, donâ€™t be an ass!â€ And they took me to dancing clubs, and the heat and colour mounted to my brain. I began to agree with them: marriage was a fetter, a prison house. One didnâ€™t chuck oneâ€™s life away.

â€œâ€˜And then I heard a rumour about you. They were saying that you had gone away becauseâ€”well, your name was coupled with the producerâ€™s there. What was his name? Ah, yes, Clive Ferguson,â€”and they said that you wereâ€”wellâ€”erâ€”very ill.

â€œâ€˜Itâ€™ll surprise you, but I donâ€™t think anythingâ€™s ever shocked me quite so much. I had heard you sing a great many times. I had made a sort of ideal of you, as young men will of actresses. You had become the embodiment to me of the gay, brightly coloured butterfly life of London; and, when I heard that rumour, your ruin seemed a criticism of the whole life you represented. Thatâ€™s where it ends, I told myself. I thought of you as I had last seen you, singing in that great silver dress of yours. And then I thought of what life would be to you from then on. And I donâ€™t know, but beneath its warmth and glitter that life seemed hard and cruel and revengeful. A month later I was married, and Iâ€™ve been very, very happy. Andâ€”well, itâ€™s a bit late, Iâ€™m afraid, but if I can Ishould like to be able to do something for you now.â€™â€

Pussy Willow stopped speaking, tossed back her head and smiled. â€œAnd thatâ€™s the way I got my beer money for life.â€

â€œAnd was it true?â€ I asked.

â€œTrueâ€”what true?â€

â€œAbout Clive Ferguson?â€

She laughed a loud, harsh, triumphing laugh. â€œTrue, that! good God, no. Clive Ferguson! I wouldnâ€™t look at him. Dirty great oily Jew. I wouldnâ€™t have looked twice at him, not that way. I expect he started that story one evening when he was drunkâ€”sheer swank to save his vanity. Oh no, he wasnâ€™t the cause of that little jaunt of mine. No, I was away for six months, old sport, with the only man I think Iâ€™ve ever really cared for. A young boxer, he was, engaged to some soppy fool in the chorus. She brought him round to see us one evening. I had one look at him and made my mind up. He wasnâ€™t going to waste himself on the likes of her. God! but I was mad about that boy. Thatâ€™s really what started things against me. I rushed him straight away; didnâ€™t give him time to think; and Clive Ferguson never forgave me. The understudy was an utter dud; clean smashed the piece, it did, in its second month. He never forgave me. Wouldnâ€™t take me back again. And the money I spent on that boy; all my jewellery went and the things Iâ€™d put away. And of course I couldnâ€™t keep him. One never can keep them. They use one as a stepping-stone. I never really gotover it. I shanâ€™t ever forget. But, oh, well! two pound a week for life Iâ€™ve got out of it.

â€œAnd if itâ€™s a womanâ€™s job in life to make a man happy, to give him a good home and children, well, I suppose Iâ€™ve done it. I could laugh sometimes when I think how I have done it. But it doesnâ€™t matter, does it, as long as the thing gets done.â€

What are you going to argue against that? and in literature as in life.

As far as effect is concerned, social and moral effect that is to say, bad books, bad deeds, are just as valuable as good. Our contempt for the best seller, is it anything but a form of intellectual snobbery, or jealousy, which is the same thing, from another side.

Best sellers!

Whenever I see, on railway bookstalls and the shelves of Mudieâ€™s library, a novel by Florence Barclay I am reminded of one of my first, certainly my strangest, school friends. He was not the conventional public-school type. He disliked games. He refused to join the corps. He had no house or school spirit. He was a fine swimmer, but never trained for the competitions. Games were compulsory. But I do not recollect to have ever seen him on the cricket field, and he played football scarcely once a fortnight. He arranged for every afternoon of the week a music lesson or a music practice. Authority let him go his own way. He was, in fact, the sort of person whom one would expect to be bullied, and thoroughly wretched generally. And yet he was not, I think, unhappy. Certainly he was never bullied. Even the swashbuckling element,in what was admittedly a fairly boisterous community, treated him with respect. This in itself would make him a well-placed candidate for immortality. But it is his study that I particularly remember. It was the sort of study that challenged enterprise, and an old boy on seeing it was reported to have exclaimed: â€œGood God! what must the house be coming to! Why hasnâ€™t this place been shipped?â€

It was like no study that had ever been. They were small dark rooms, our studies, monastic quarters that lay under the shadow, on one side, of the abbey, and on the other, of the lindens and big school. We tried to make them brighter with light festooned wallpapers, allegorical pictures, and brackets on which we placed china shepherdesses; to the height of four feet the walls were panelled, and fashion decreed that the woodwork should be covered with long strips of brightly coloured cloth. It was a fashion that had been handed down, like the pictures, from one generation to another. Thus in my fatherâ€™s day did they disfigure honest handiwork, and thus will they disfigure it when I am fifty. My friend had, however, little use for fashions. He decided that he would have his woodwork painted in mauve and black. And to match it he had the walls covered with a deep mauve paper. From the ceiling he hung before the window a mauve curtain, edged with black. On the window seat and on the chairs he heaped high a profusion of mauve cushions; the walls, for he was a great admirer of Napoleon, he devoted exclusively to a picture gallery for the dictator. It was, in fact, a study that would, inChelsea, occasion a mild surprise; at school it made you reel in outraged dismay across the passage. Yet no one shipped it, no one turned the portraits of Napoleon to the wall, nor bedecked the ceiling with red ink; nor did anyone tear from their bracket beneath the gas the calf-bound set of Mrs Barclayâ€™s novels.

The Rosarywas his favourite novel, as it was mine. At each fresh reading we were moved to the edge, if not over the edge, of tears. It is, in the authorâ€™s words, the story of a beautiful woman in a plain shell. No man has ever seen below that surface. But one day she sings â€œThe Rosaryâ€ at a concert: the veil is torn aside, and Garth Dalmain, the famous painter, perceives her spiritual worth. But because she fears that he will tire of her, she will not marry him, and in a scene of sustained pathos, during which the name of the Deity is never long absent from her lips, she tells him that their paths must separate. But â€œlove never faileth.â€ Garth is providentially blinded in a shooting accident, and his lover returns to him as a nurse. Then the drama opens. She writes him letters, which in the position of nurse and secretary she reads to him, and as his nurse she makes him gradually appreciate the intensity of his need for the woman who has refused him. And, when the last barrier has gone, the nurse reveals herself as the lover by striking triumphantly the solemn chords of â€œThe hours I spent with thee, dear heart.â€

Prose narrative could, we felt, attain to no higher level of emotion, and at the end of the day, between lock up and hall, among mauve cushions we would sitand talk of the secret springs, the hidden splendours of life, of how we, too, within a plain shell were beautiful. It passed, of course, that worship that was almost idolatry. It passed in the September of 1913, when a copy ofCarnivalwas bought at a railway bookstall at the close of a summer holiday. That autumn we laid our mantle of sentiment before the tripping feet of Jenny, and when in early summer a copy ofPoems and Balladsfound its way into the school-house studies, it was the departed glory of Proserpine that we declaimed. We passed from one allegiance to another, as we passed from one size in collars to another. We were growing up.

But it is no part of my intention here, in this chapter, to attempt to trace the growth, the development, or the decay, as you may please to call it, of a literary taste. I am concerned solely with this fact: that ten years ago I held Florence Barclay to be the greatest living novelist, that in her work I found those characteristics, those qualities that to-day I find in the stories of Turgenev; that, as Turgenev moves me in 1923, so Mrs Barclay moved me in the summer of 1912. And this fact I find to be in the highest degree disquieting. There are attached to it a very large number of uncomfortable corollaries.

It depends, of course, on whether one does or does not take a relative view of things. To those who hold that there is a definite standard of literary judgment the tastes of immature, and of uneducated persons, can be of little matter. You tell your form master that you consider Swinburne a greater poet than Matthew Arnold, and he will smile indulgently: â€œOne doesthink like that at your age,â€ he will say, â€œbut youâ€™ll find in time that Matthew Arnold is more satisfying stuff.â€ And I suppose one does. At any rate, the majority of middle-aged persons of my acquaintance seem to find him so. But I can never see that this fact is a proof of Arnoldâ€™s superiority, any more than the fact that at forty one plays golf with greater comfort than Rugby football is a proof of the superiority of golf. In an estimate of Victorian poetry a critic considers himself to have proved his case when he has written: â€œSwinburne is the supreme poet of youth, but as the years pass his tempestuous flow of sound means less to us, and we increasingly appreciate the chastened, harmonious cadences of Matthew Arnold.â€ Actually, of course, he has done no more than state that Swinburneâ€™s is the poetry of youth and Arnoldâ€™s of middle age. That each poet has certain qualities and certain limitations, and in his acceptance of Arnoldâ€™s superiority he has assumed that the tastes of a man of fifty are more significant, less impermanent, more surely built than those of a man of twenty-five.

It is an assumption before whose authority most young writers, especially writers of fiction, have been in their time arraigned. â€œThese stories,â€ the reviewer says, â€œare well enough written, the characters competently drawn, the situations skilfully prepared. But the book is concerned entirely with the problems of adolescence, problems, that is to say, that will in a few yearsâ€™ time have ceased to concern the author. Its quality, therefore, is strictly temporal.â€ The author has been condemned, not on grounds of literarycraftsmanship, not because he has failed to do well the thing he set out to do, but because he has employed unprofitable material, because the perplexities and enthusiasms of adolescence that formed the theme of his book are transient and must yield in time to the perplexities and enthusiasms of manhood. It is doubtless inevitable that literary criticism should accept the quality of permanence as its deciding standard, should consider the period of duration rather than the intensity of the fleeting mood; but on its own grounds even would not criticism do well to seek that quality in the skill and sincerity of the treatment, rather than in the matter of the material treated?

For are the tastes of a man of fifty any more permanent than those of a man of twenty-five? Can we not still say to him: â€œYou will feel differently when you are older. You will look back to the person that you now are as to a stranger: to a man with different affections, different ambitions, and a different way of living. These present enthusiasms of yours will in their turn pass, we can assure you. They will pass into the tepid preferences of old age, and you will sit in the smoking-room of your club, the chief pleasure of your life an immunity from gout, the chief problem of it the avoidance of a draught.â€ Can we, with any greater justice, condemn the problems of twenty before the tribunal of forty-five than we can those of fifty before those of eighty? The brain is not useless now because it will one day soften; teeth not inefficacious because they will eventually decay. The young man will hardly listen to the impotent antiquity whoassures him that the charm of woman is a snare and an illusion. â€œWhen you have reached my age it will no longer move you.â€ In a world of fugitive sensation there is no fixed point at which anyone can say, â€œthus far and no farther.â€ We have a right to our own age; to the problems, the turmoil, the compensating enthusiasms of our age, and we have an equal right to the literature best suited for their nourishment and inspiration.

In the same way a particular period has a right to the literature best suited to its needs. Books follow a wave of recurrent popularity and depreciation. The masterpiece of 1820 is the Aunt Sally of 1850, but by 1880 it has been restored to favour. â€œThe masterpiece is the mood, and all moods pass save Shakespeare and the Bible.â€ This from George Moore. But of Shakespeare, as of others. He had little, or nothing, to say to the eighteenth century: to that unrivalled period of elegance and polish. They re-wrote â€œKing Learâ€: they made it end happily with Cordelia in Edgarâ€™s arms. Shakespeareâ€™s tragedy was described by Mr Tate in the dedicatory epistle to his own version â€œas a heap of jewels, unstrung and unpolished, yet so dazzling in their disorder that I soon perceived that I had seized a treasure.â€ We are inclined to smile at such ridiculous folly. â€œSo that is all they knew,â€ we say. But I think Mr Tate did wisely to rewrite â€œKing Learâ€ in the idiom of his own time. The eighteenth century which produced Swift, and Addison, and Pope, was not less cultured than the century that produced Shakespeare, and Donne, and Milton, and compares very favourablywith ours that has producedâ€”but I will not be personal. It is enough to say that the eighteenth century had a perfect right to say: â€œThis is what we like.â€ It could justify by its creations its exclusiveness. And, at the time, it was so very certain it was rightâ€”as certain as we are to-day that Clifford Bax is abundantly justified in the slaughter of Mr Gayâ€™s dialogue and verses that he has made in his new version of â€œPolly.â€

With what emotions, I wonder, must the wraith of John Gay have witnessed at the Kingsway Theatre the triumph of his opera. He can have hardly failed to find, after an interval of two hundred years, the enraptured reception of his work intensely gratifying. But he can equally have hardly failed to wonder what in that interval can have happened to his play. â€œThis,â€ we can imagine him to have said, â€œis all of it, of course, perfectly delightful.â€ But it was for a very different thing that London was divided into two camps, and the Duchess of Queensberry was forbidden the Court. I wrote a political and social satire. I transported to the West Indies the most notable of my creations in â€œThe Beggarâ€™s Opera.â€ Mrs Trapes I placed in charge of an establishment which courtesy permitted me to describe as an â€œacademy for young gentlewomen in song and dance.â€ Of Macheath I made a pirate chief, disguised with a blackened face, and wedded, to his no great comfort, to Jenny Diver. In the scandalous person of Mr Ducat, the colonel of the militia, I satirised British colonial administration. Polly Peachum, who had come to the island in search of her rascal husband, alone, I permitted to be an agreeableand virtuous creature. And by making her marry, after the well-merited execution of Macheath, the Indian Prince Cawwawkee, I established the superiority of the â€œnoble savageâ€ over the weak, cowardly, and self-indulgent white man. That was my opera. But of all this I find remarkably little in the version that Mr Clifford Bax has so elegantly adapted and Mr Nigel Playfair so successfully produced.

â€œThe social and political satire has been removed, No comparison is drawn between the virtues of the black man and the white. Macheath is never even threatened with the fate that I had prepared for him, but is restored in health and charm and vigour to the eager embraces of his faithful Polly. A good two-thirds of the play is not mine at all, and though I am highly sensitive to the charms of its many bewitching lyrics, I can claim but a small share in their authorship. It is all, as I have previously remarked, perfectly delightful; but what has happened to my play?â€

We like to think that Mr Gay must have, by now, realised how extremely bad his own edition was. We venture, whatever biographers may state, to discern in his work the presence of a genial unpretentious personality. By now, we say, he should have acquired a sufficient sense of detachment from the jealousies and rivalries and feuds of the early eighteenth century to realise that he himself had made a sad mess of it, that Clifford Bax is perfectly right, and that it would have been impossible for Macheath to die, or the divine Polly to be wedded to a black.

Doubtless they said much the same of Mr Tatetwo hundred years ago. To the dandy of 1720 it seemed as impossible that Lear should die as is to-day the execution of Macheath. And, as Clifford Bax has found in Pollyâ€™s misfortunes the single string on which might be threaded the characters and incidents that would have been otherwise irrelevant, so Mr Tate discovered in the love of Edgar for Cordelia the missing unity of Lear. Mr Gayâ€™s Polly was as impossible to-day as Mr Shakespeareâ€™s Lear was in 1720. In 2020 who knows but Mr Tateâ€™s version will be upon the boards of the Lyric, Hammersmith, and His Majestyâ€™s will be staging an unexpurgated Gay. Each age takes the food it needs. Like wine in bottles, some books deteriorate and others mature.

And, indeed, what is this posterity that we should so appeal to it? Are we not ourselves fallible and imperfect mortals, posterity to the Victorians? I can see Browning walking with Tennyson in the Elysian Fields. They discuss the literary journalism of their day. â€œIt was bad,â€ Browning mumbles into his beard,â€”â€œvery bad indeed. There was a silly fellow called John Stuart Millâ€”what was it he said about that first book of mine? â€˜Most self-conscious thing heâ€™d ever read.â€™ But I didnâ€™t worry. I looked ahead. I was content to let posterity decide; and I have my reward. I read last week such a charming thing about me by, let me see now, a very vigorous young person I thoughtâ€”ah, yes, Miss Rebecca West....â€

The other day I listened for upwards of a quarter of an hour to the complaint of a young poet whose works had been mishandled grievously in theLondon Mercury.Highly did he heap abuse on the heads of Mr J. C. Squire and Mr Edward Shanks; nor was he less generous to critics unconnected with that periodical: to Middleton Murry, and T. S. Eliot, and Robert Lynd; one by one they were presented to the lash of ridicule. Finally the injured poet turned a loving, a valedictory eye towards the great men of the pastâ€”Matthew Arnold, Ruskin, Emerson, Carlyle. â€œThere,â€ he said, â€œwere critics for you.â€ And, after a pause: â€œAh, well, in fifty yearsâ€™ time....â€ And he shrugged his shoulders as one who can afford to ignore such triflings in the face of time.

I said nothing. I am a placid person; I dislike quarrels. This, though, is what, if I were fashioned differently, I might have said: â€œMy good, my very good friend,â€ I would have said, â€œyou despise your own generation. You are content to appeal to posterity. You place your faith in the traditions that have been handed down to you by great writers in the past. Very good, but let me remind you of thisâ€”that Matthew Arnold too despised his generation and made his appeal to posterity. It was his hope that in 1923 he would receive the commendation of Robert Lynd, of J. C. Squire, and of Edward Shanks. What was good enough for Matthew Arnold should be good enough for you. The judgments of posterity are likely to be no more profound than those of 1923. For one day this posterity that you so worship will be to-day, and in this club and in that armchair will be sitting a disgruntled poet telling an indifferent friend how much better things were done in 1923. We are no better andno worse than other generations. We are a little different, that is all. And, because we are a little different, what you, my friend, are writing now may be more readily understood in 1950 than it is to-day. But, for that reason, your work will be of no higher quality than that of Walter de la Mare, whose verses give us such pleasure now. If you are popular in 1950 you will be little read in 1980. For that is the way things happen, and your talk about Matthew Arnold is a mixture of vanity and of snobbishness; let me hear no more of it.â€

I should like to believe that there is to be found somewhere a standard of literary criticism, but the power to appreciate beauty is a quality relative to ourselves: and there are times when it seems to me to be as vain to search for a standard of beauty in literature as it would be to search for one in woman. We respond to a certain type of beauty. And we say of other types: â€œI am sure, my dear fellow, that she is perfectly delightful. I am not in the least surprised that you are desperately enraptured. But, for myself, as I said, she leaves me cold.â€ We make no attempt to explain or adjudge a beauty in woman that we cannot understand. Why, then, should we speak so dogmatically of a beauty in literature that does not touch us; why should we deny the existence of a beauty to which we are insensible?

There was a painter once whose personality it would be discreet to hide under the pseudonym of Eric Walker. He had never seen the country. He did not know that trees existed outside the carefully tended bordersof Burnden Park. The only other stretch of grass he had ever seen was from the terraces of a football ground. For him the sky had been always dim with smoke, cut by the outline of huge chimney stacks. The only beauty he could understand was the clean, hard efficiency of a machine. With eager eyes he had seen stones lifted into the air by iron arms; he had watched the glow of furnaces flickering on polished steel. For hours on end he had stood beneath the great factory at North Town, while the sunlight cut the wreathing smoke into hard, sharp angles. The noise and glare of machinery enchanted him, and when a discerning teacher had discovered that he could draw, it was only natural that he should try to interpret in terms of line and colour those particular sights and sounds that alone had for him an Ã¦sthetic value.

Success came to him easily and quickly. He was taken up by the right people, his pictures were discussed in the right circles, and when his exhibition came on the right critics said the right things in the right papers. Eric Walker suddenly found himself rich; he came up to London, was made much of, sold his pictures easily. For six months he was the adored child of Mayfair.

After a while, however, his welcome grew less warm. At the time of his reception Gerald Garstin wrote: â€œHere is a young man who has successfully interpreted the hard, calculating commercialism of the North. In a fury of indignation he has revealed the soullessness of modern conditions. All his life he has been surrounded by squalor and ugliness. What may he notdo when he has seen more of life and has learnt to appreciate beauty in its fullest sense?â€ And Mayfair had endorsed this opinion. â€œSuch a wonderful young man,â€ they would say to one another. â€œAnd to think that he spent all those years in that terrible place, nothing but smoke and chimneys. What a revelation it must be to him to come to London, and how beautifully he will be able to express it.â€ And the patrons of modern art waited for Ericâ€™s delight to break forth in a riot of form and colour.

No such thing, however, happened. At the yearly exhibition of the Chelsea Group he was represented by a large picture of a train entering a tube station as it would be seen through the eyes of the driver. At the Florence Galleries he exhibited a picture called â€œCharing Cross Road,â€ in which a small boy stood watching the glowing furnaces of Messrs. Crosse and Blackwell, and to the New Movement Society he contributed â€œLiftman at Piccadilly Circus.â€ The announcement that he was at work on â€œSurrey and Middlesex at the Ovalâ€ gave promise of better things, but his followers were again disappointed. In a far corner of the canvas was a patch of green and one white figure, the remainder was occupied by the telegraph and the gasometers. It was generally agreed that Eric Walker had not fulfilled his promise.

â€œInteresting though this work may be,â€ wrote Gerald Garstin, â€œit cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called beautiful, and without beauty where is art?â€ Once again Mayfair echoed the pronouncement of its trusted critic. â€œItâ€™s not beautifulall that harping on machinery and ugliness. I am sure he canâ€™t have a nice mind. Why doesnâ€™t he look on the pleasant side of things?â€

To Eric Walker this change of front came abruptly and incomprehensibly. â€œBeauty,â€ he said. â€œBeauty, what do they mean? Arenâ€™t my pictures beautiful?â€ To him there was nothing in the world lovelier than the angles that sunshine cut in smoke, than the glow of a furnace on damp flesh, than the smooth, hard rhythm of a piston. â€œBeauty,â€ he said, â€œthatâ€™s the one thing I have really striven for, to get the full value of these things I have enjoyed, to interpret the magic of these sounds and colours, to make others realise the perfect form, poise, balance of a machine. What do they mean?â€

In the end he took his troubles to Mrs Abbot, a kindly, sentimental woman, who had always rather mothered the young artist. To her he poured out all his troubles, telling her how they misinterpreted his work, calling it ugly.

â€œBut, my dear boy, it is ugly!â€

â€œUgly! Oh, but, Mrs Abbot. Why, come here. Look out there. Do you see the great chimney-stack of the Gas Works? Do you see how the red glare shines out against the black roofs; what could be lovelier?â€

And he leapt up, seizing her hand, dragging her to the window. Gradually Mrs Abbot pacified him.

â€œMy dear boy,â€ she said, â€œI dare say you may like that sort of thing, but youâ€™ll find that itâ€™s not what we think nice, and itâ€™s what other people think nice thatmatters. Those chimneys of yours are all very well, and I know youâ€™re fond of them, but the things we call beautiful are not a bit like that.â€

â€œNo?â€

â€œNo, of course not,â€ she went on, â€œthe things we likeâ€”well, trees, fields, loveâ€”oh, you know, the joy, the beauty of life. Those are the things you ought to be painting.â€

Eric Walker gazed out fondly at the red glare of the factory as it shone glimmering on the surrounding roofs, then he turned sadly to the water-colours that hung on the walls, soft and delicate, roses and arbours, with a suggestion of Love, fleeting and perilously dear. For him there was no beauty thereâ€”only cowardice, weakness and evasion.

â€œSomething must be done, Harry,â€ she said. â€œHeâ€™s such a dear boy, and heâ€™s absolutely spoiling his chances. Now I tell you what we must do. We must take him right away from all this to some primitive, natural spot. When once he gets free from sordid influences heâ€™ll respond to beauty like a child.â€

Mr Abbot had been married twenty years, and had learnt that his personal comfort was only to be purchased by a complete indulgence of his wifeâ€™s fancies.

â€œAll right, my dear,â€ he said, â€œweâ€™ll see what can be done.â€

And so arrangements were made. An invalid friend owned a small house on an island in the Pacific, which he was willing to let for a summer holiday. MrsAbbot leapt at the opportunity, and with Eric Walker submitting as to an intractable decree of Fate, within five weeks he and Mr and Mrs Abbot were leaning over the taffrail of the ship watching the churned foam stretch out in a white line behind them.

The island was certainly very charming. The air was soft and scented, the deep blue of the sky merged almost imperceptibly into the deeper blue of the sea. The garden was full of rich flowers and luxuriant growth; the sunshine was full and heavy; it was the kind of island which one never expects to see, but of which one dreams fondly, hopelessly.

â€œNow,â€ said Mrs Abbot, â€œyouâ€™ll be able to paint wonderful pictures, wonâ€™t you, Eric?â€

â€œI hope so,â€ he said, gazing round with puzzled eyes at this world that, for all its riot of colour, lacked so strangely the sights and sounds to which he was accustomed.

For four days he wandered round with his sketchbook and water-colours. First of all he tried to draw the little house that was overgrown with fruit and flowers, but the lines blurred into one another, and he could not find the clear-cut form that he understood. Then he tried to paint the sunlight as it flickered on the waves, but its movement was irregular and spasmodic, unsuited to his method, and he failed equally when he tried to interpret the sway of the branches and the lazy droop of the oranges. He was puzzled, unhappy, unable to understand why things so vague and indefinite should be called beautiful. Mrs Abbotâ€™s large, kindly voice quite failed to comfort him.

â€œWait for your inspiration to come,â€ she would say. â€œJust walk about and absorb all thatâ€™s round you, and youâ€™ll be painting before you know where you are.â€

And next day it seemed as though her prophecy had been fulfilled. Eric had gone out directly after breakfast with his easel, paints, and canvas. They had seen nothing of him the whole morning; he had not come back to lunch, and by tea-time there were still no signs of him.

â€œI knew it,â€ said Mrs Abbot, â€œI knew it. We only had to take him away and put him in fresh surroundings; he was bound to respond to beauty, he only needed the sunshine.â€

As soon as she had finished her tea she set out to look for him, garrulous with excitement.

â€œNow what do you think it will have been that moved him? I wonder if it was the bay. No, he was standing on the top of the hill and he looked down and saw the village lying there in the sunlight! You take my word for it, we shall find him on the hill!â€

But they did not find him on the hill, nor was he painting the bay nor the orange grove, and they sought him in vain on the skirts of their little orchard. At last they began to feel a little nervous and began to ask one another fretfully whether any harm could have come to him. They made inquiries of the natives, but learnt nothing, and it was not till almost dinnertime that a fisherman told them where he was.

â€œThe young artist? Yes, sir. I saw him early this morning go into that little broken hut on the edge of the shingle, and though I have been working here allday I havenâ€™t seen him come out. Heâ€™s probably there still.â€

Mr and Mrs Abbot looked at each other askance. What could Eric want in that small dilapidated house that was slowly falling to pieces over the head of an old shrivelled woman and her daughter? At the thought of the daughter Mrs Abbot began to blush. What if the south wind and the sudden beauty had moved Eric to express himself in terms more personal than those of paint? Artists were notoriously immoral, and the islanders, she had always heard, unfortunately weak.

She hurried on, her heart beating quickly, excited and perturbed.

In a few moments, however, all her fears for the innocence of the gentle islander were banished. For there, at the back of the small hut, an old woman, black and shrivelled, was cooking her dinner over an iron stove. Her neck and arms were bare, and the red glow of the fire shone dimly on the damp flesh, the dying sunlight stealing in one long, broad band through a chink in the woodwork fell across her throat, cutting the curves of her hanging breasts into hard, sharp angles, and a few yards away Eric Walker was working at his canvas in a fine frenzy of inspiration.

Back to Index Next