The Project Gutenberg eBook of Round the world in any number of days
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Round the world in any number of days
Author: Maurice Baring
Illustrator: Walter J. Enright
Vincent Lynch
Release date: August 27, 2025 [eBook #76744]
Language: English
Original publication: BOSTON: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1914
Credits: Alan, The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ROUND THE WORLD IN ANY NUMBER OF DAYS ***
Round the World
In any number of days
[Illustration: MY TICKET IS FOR NEW ZEALAND (page 4)]
ROUND THE WORLD IN
ANY NUMBER OF DAYS
By Maurice Baring
ILLUSTRATED BY B. T. B., VINCENT LYNCH
AND WALTER J. ENRIGHT
[Illustration]
BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
The Riverside Press Cambridge
1914
COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY MAURICE BARING
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
_Published October 1914_
Contents
INTRODUCTORY 1
TILBURY: JUNE 21 3
BAY OF BISCAY: JUNE 24 11
GIBRALTAR: JUNE 28 14
NAPLES: JUNE 29 15
PORT SAID: JULY 3 22
THE RED SEA: IN JULY 26
THE GULF OF ADEN: JULY 34
THE INDIAN OCEAN: DURING THE MONSOON 46
CEYLON: JULY 51
FROM COLOMBO TO FREMANTLE: JULY 57
FREMANTLE: JULY 68
ADELAIDE: JULY 71
MELBOURNE: JULY 76
SYDNEY: AUGUST 2 77
ON BOARD THE MAUNGANUI: AUGUST 82
WELLINGTON: AUGUST 10 102
NEAR PALMERSTON: AUGUST 20 106
WELLINGTON: SEPTEMBER 111
RORATONGA AND TAHITI: SEPTEMBER 117
ACROSS THE PACIFIC: SEPTEMBER 21-OCTOBER 3 138
SAN FRANCISCO: OCTOBER 3 144
NEW YORK: OCTOBER 173
Illustrations
MY TICKET IS FOR NEW ZEALAND (page 4) _Frontispiece_
THE STEWARDS 4
NAPLES--THREE IMPRESSIONS 16
FROM SHIP’S MUSIC, AS A RULE, ONE CAN WITHDRAW ONE’S
ATTENTION WITHOUT DIFFICULTY 36
IF G. K. CHESTERTON HAD BEEN AN AUSTRALIAN 42
“THERE IS NOTHING SO ROMANTIC AS FOOD” 62
IN SYDNEY I FOUND THE MEN IN THE BOOKSTORES ABNORMALLY
INTELLIGENT 78
“YOU MUSTN’T THINK OF A GREEN HORSE” 90
A WELLINGTON MAN TURNING A STREET CORNER 102
A GREAT QUANTITY OF NATIVES SWARM ON BOARD 120
VERY FEW WRITERS THINK WHEN THEY ARE WRITING 148
THE ONLY HANSOM CAB IN LONDON 158
ANOTHER TURN OF THE SCREW AND HE WOULD BREAK DOWN 176
UNDRESSING IN THE BERTH OF AN AMERICAN CAR IS AN ACROBATIC
FEAT 184
THEIR WHOLE BUSINESS IS TO STEAL OTHER PEOPLE’S BAGGAGE 188
TRYING TO GET A NUMBER AT THE HOTEL CECIL 192
ROUND THE WORLD IN ANY NUMBER OF DAYS
I believe there is a school of people who say the world is flat. I
asked H. G. Wells (who ought to know) whether the world was flat: He
said he thought it improbable (mark the scepticism of H. G. Wells!),
but he said the proofs generally given of the world’s roundness were
bosh. The dogmas of science go round and round, from reaction to
progress, and from progress to reaction, like the dogmas of medicine.
One has only to remain very conservative to find one’s self a
revolutionary. “But,” some one may say, “whether the world is round and
you are going round it, or whether it is flat and you are going across
(or along?) it, that is no reason for describing your voyage--nowadays
a hackneyed affair; you might just as well describe a journey round the
Place de la Concorde or Trafalgar Square.”
My answer to this is, I might. But all journeys differ with the
differing traveler. I write partly to please myself, partly in the hope
of pleasing others, and partly in the hope (a pious hope) of gain.
_Tilbury: June 21_
There is a dock-strike going on: but the leaders say this has been
defeated; the newspapers say it is over. I reach Tilbury Docks by
noon of Friday, June 21. There, evidences of a strike are manifest in
the shape of a local body of special police. The porter who wheels my
luggage points them out and alludes to them in vivid and disrespectful
terms. He says they are a pack of--you know the rest.
I am sailing in one of the Orient ships: one of the big ones, twelve
thousand tons or so.
As soon as I get on board the lift-boy assures me that there are only
eight old hands on board--all the rest have struck.
“But who are the new hands?” I ask. “Casual amateurs?”
“Oh! just any one we would get,” he says.
It turns out that five hundred members of the police have been on board
the ship for a week. Coaling has been carried out with the utmost
difficulty. Most of the new stewards have never been to sea. Nobody
knows where anything is. The steward in the smoking-room doesn’t know
where the materials for liquid refreshment are concealed.
“But will they be found before the end of the voyage?” I hear a man
inquire in some trepidation.
The steward says they will. There is a sigh of relief, and soon we
are steaming down the Thames. I shall be in the ship till we reach
Australia. My ticket is for New Zealand.
There is a sense of delicious independence and freedom from the
fretting ties of everyday life when one starts on a long journey in a
big liner. And, watching the lights of Brighton flashing in the night,
I murmur to myself the words of the hymn:--
“Peace, perfect peace, with loved ones far away.”
Somebody ought one day to write the epic of Brighton, just as Mr.
Arnold Bennett has written the epic of the Five Towns. Arnold Bennett
has given us pictures of Brighton, it is true; and as for Sussex, no
county has such a crowd of enthusiastic poets to sing its praise. But
when I hear the word Sussex spoken, the picture it evokes for me has
nothing to do with any of that lyrical enthusiasm.
[Illustration: THE STEWARDS]
I see a third-class railway carriage on a Monday morning full of
bluejackets. They are travelling to London from Portsmouth. We have
just left Horsham. One of them is looking out of the window; he
observes a man sitting on a stile. “Nice easy job that bloke’s got,”
the sailor observes, “watching the tortoises _flash_ by.”
All this is suggested by the sight of Brighton where, at this very
moment, while I am setting out to wander with the antipodes (the
expression is Shakespeare’s), I know that two friends of mine are
dining in that most comfortable of inns, the Royal York Hotel. I wish I
were there....
While thus meditating on absent friends, somebody asks me if I play
bridge. I say Yes. “Why did you say Yes?” I say to myself, groaning
inwardly as I sit down to play. “You know you can’t play properly and
that you’ll spoil the game.”
Sure enough I revoke in the first game. However, in my prophetic soul
the comforting thought arises that I shan’t be asked to play again.
The next morning by breakfast time we have almost reached Plymouth.
I know the coast we are passing between Bolt Head and Wembury Point,
having been brought up in that little corner of land. I played on those
beaches as a child, picnicked on those cliffs, played at robbers and
smugglers in those caves. It is like a piece of a dream to see these
familiar, these intimate rocks and cliffs, after so many years.
The sea has that peculiar glitter as of a million golden scales, and
the sky has something peculiar in the quality of its azure, something
luminous, hazy, and radiant which seems to me to belong to the seas of
South Devon, and to the seas of South Devon alone.
Is this really so? Does it, I wonder, strike other people in the same
way? Or is the impression I receive due to the unfading spell and the
old glamour of childhood.
There is a ruined church nestling in the rocks right down by the
waves; there are the paths, and the pools, which were the playground
of hundreds of games, and the battlefields of mimic warfare, and the
temples of the long thoughts of boyhood.
There are the spots which to childhood’s eye seemed one’s very own, a
sacred and permanent possession, part and parcel of that larger entity
of home which was then the centre of one’s universe, and seemed to be
indestructible and everlasting.
And now! Thirty years after, I have no more to do with it than any of
my fellow passengers in this ship. The place is there, the place is
the same, but I am divorced from it. There it is, in sight and almost
within reach, but I no longer belong to it. It is far away, a part of
the past, a part of the irrevocable, a fugitive facet in a kaleidoscope
of memories and dreams.
* * * * *
If the world of romance be divided into provinces, each having its
capital, Plymouth is certainly the capital of that region in the
romantic world of England which concerns the sea. And the last twenty
years, which have made such fearful havoc among so much which was
characteristically English, have spared Plymouth. Plymouth still smiles
over the Sound--between the luxuriant wooded hills of Mount Edgecombe
and the forts of Statton Heights, crowned in the distance by the
blue rim of Dartmoor. Little cutters, with their spotless sails, are
racing in the Sound; two torpedo destroyers are dressed because it is
Coronation Day; a German liner has arrived from New York. Everything
is just the same as it used to be thirty years ago.
Just before sunset a real Devonshire shower comes on, veiling the hills
in a gray mist, but the sun, only half hidden, silvers the waters. Then
the rain drifts away, and the sun sets in a watery glory of gold and
silver, and as the twilight deepens, threatening and cloudy, all the
lights begin to twinkle on the Hoe.
There are always a lot of lights in Plymouth, but there are more than
usual to-night, because the city is illuminated. We steam past the
breakwater. The Eddystone Light appears and vanishes intermittently far
ahead, and behind us Plymouth is twinkling and gleaming and flashing.
“Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
Wi’ sailor lads a-dancin’ heel-an’-toe,
An’ the shore-lights flashin’, an’ the night-tide dashin’,
He sees it arl so plainly, as he saw it long ago.”
These lines of Newbolt’s, from his poem, “Drake’s Drum,” ring in my
memory and seem now and to-night intolerably appropriate. It begins to
drizzle once more, and I feel the well-known smell of the West Country
rain all about me, and the years slip by, and the past rises from its
tomb, sharp and vivid as the present.... I see it all so plainly as I
saw it long ago.
All at once forward in the steerage, a party of Welsh emigrants start
singing a wailing Celtic chorus, piercingly melancholy, alien and
strange, and this chases away the dream, and reminds me that I am on a
liner bound for Australia, and that it’s raining, and I determine to
seek the smoking-room.
_Bay of Biscay: June 24_
Somebody ought to start a series called “Books by Bores for People who
Really Want to Know.”
These books would contain that particular information which you need
at particular times and seasons, but which you cannot bear to have
imparted to you at any other time. Information about the conditions
of life on board different liners, for instance. If somebody begins
to tell you about this when you are not going on a journey and he has
just returned, you withdraw your attention and think of Tom Thumb, as
Dr. Johnson did when people talked of the Punic Wars; or, if you are
on familiar terms with the informant, you tell him to dry up. But when
you are yourself starting on a journey, that is just what you want,
in choosing your line and your steamer, and just what you can’t get.
Nobody knows. It appears to be a dead secret. I am not going to give
a particle of that information here,--I know the result too well.
Any digression on any general subject, say the claims of Christian
Science, or the merits of Harry Lauder’s songs, would be tolerated,
but not that; because those things are topics, and this other thing
is instruction. Neither children nor grown-up people can bear to be
instructed. Children have to submit to it, until the general Children’s
Strike occurs. Grown-up people needn’t and don’t, and if people insist
on instructing them, they either kill them, as the Greeks killed
Socrates, who was a schoolmaster abroad if ever there was one; or they
put them in Coventry and isolate them by not listening, as the House
of Commons did to Burke and Macaulay; or they damn them by saying,
“So-and-so knows a lot, but he is a bore.” It need only be said once.
The man is done for. He has quaffed an invisible and intangible poison
more deadly than hemlock. He is a social leper. His approach is like a
bell. Wherever he goes, he makes a desert. He can call it peace, if he
likes.
That is why I shall say no word about the arrangements, the huge
qualities and advantages, of the steamers of the Orient line.
But to go back to the Series of Books by Bores for People who Really
Want to Know: I would suggest the following subjects:--
A Book telling you (A) whom to give tips to, and how much, in
country-houses and hotels in all the countries of the world.
And (B) how much to public men, men of business, and like officials,
anywhere.
Section (B) would be good reading if written by an expert, because the
art of tipping or bribing a Prime Minister is no doubt a delicate one,
and though one hears so much about the terrible bribery and corruption
in many countries, one so rarely meets any one who has actually himself
tipped or bribed either a rich Banker, a Magistrate, a General, an
Archbishop, or a Minister for Foreign Affairs.
_Gibraltar: June 28_
Most people have been there. For those who haven’t:--
“It looks
Exactly as it does in books.”
We stop there only three hours.
_Naples: June 29_
One often hears people say that Naples is “disappointing.” The
disappointment depends on what you expect, on your standard of
comparison, and on the nature of the conditions under which you see
Naples.
There was once upon a time an Englishwoman who came out to Rome to
live there. She was the wife of a scholar. She was asked by one of her
compatriots whether she liked Rome. She said it was a great come-down
after what she had been used to.
“And where,” asked the second Englishwoman, “used you to live in
England?”
“Surbiton,” she answered.
Have you ever seen Surbiton? It is a small suburban town on the
Southwestern Railway, about half an hour’s distance by rail from London.
Well, if you go to a place like Naples and you expect to find a place
like Sheerness, you will be disappointed.
Then as to the conditions. These depend on the weather; and I know
by experience that the weather at Naples can make disappointment a
certainty. The first time I went there it rained. That was in spring.
The second time I went there it snowed. That was in winter. The third
time I went there I chose the month of May so as to insure good
weather. There was a thick fog the whole time. You couldn’t even see
Vesuvius. Nevertheless I persevered and went there a fourth time, and
was rewarded. This time I found the proper weather for Naples. It is
broiling hot, with just a slight sea-breeze.
[Illustration: NAPLES--THREE IMPRESSIONS]
It is St. Peter’s Day, consequently I anticipated that the shops would
be shut. I spoke my fear to one of the talkative and gesticulative
guides who boarded the ship.
He said No.
“But it’s ‘festa,’” I said.
“St. Peter,” he answered with a sniff; “St. Peter’s the patron Saint
of Rome, but here, no!”--and he made a gesture of indifferent contempt,
which no man can do so well as an Italian. “We’ve got St. Januarius,”
he added.
St. Peter, he gave one to understand, was, as far as Naples is
concerned, a very secondary person, a poor affair. And this is odd,
because St. Peter was a fisherman, and Naples is a city of fishermen.
At Naples St. Januarius overshadows every one and everything which is
connected with the Life Sacred: besides the fact of having a miracle
that works plumb, and to which the unbeliever bears witness.
Some of the shops were shut, some were open. The churches were
decorated with red hangings and crowded with people--old fishermen,
decrepit women, quantities of children and young women, and some smart
young men in white ducks and flannels.
I hold that in many ways Naples is the most characteristic, the most
Italian, of all Italy’s cities. It is the most exaggeratedly Italian of
them all. _L’Italie au grand complet._ It is there you see the bluest
of blue skies, the yellowest of yellow houses, where you hear Italian
talk at its most garrulous, Italian smells at their most pungent, and
Italian song at its most nasal sentimental pitch, those squalling,
pathetic, imploring, slightly flat love songs, the best of all love
songs, because they express real love without any nonsense, plain love,
unendurable, excruciating love.
“Excruciating” is the word. It is the love Catullus sings of in one of
the shortest of poems:--
“Odi et amo, quave id faciam fortasse requiris
Nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior.”
I hate and I love; and if you want to know how that can be, I can’t
tell you, but I feel it, and I am excruciated--that is to say, I am in
agony.
I imagine Catullus living at Naples and sailing on the bay in his
yacht (_phaselus ille_) and going out to dinner and drinking too much
wine, and being witty and sometimes insolent to important people such
as Julius Cæsar, and squalling love songs, bitter-sweet, desperate,
passionate songs, in the gardens of his Lesbia, whose real name was
Clodia.
She was the wife of a politician called, I think, Metellus Celer,
and the professors say she was very, very bad. I don’t trust the
professors. I don’t believe they know what the Romans, and especially
the she-Romans, were like. I distrust their knowledge. But I trust
Catullus’s verse, and from that it is evident that he was very much in
love, indeed, and very unhappy. Wretched Catullus, as he calls himself.
And she, Lesbia, didn’t care a rap. And in his misery he calls her hard
names, which were probably well deserved. The note you hear in his
poetry is the same you get in certain Neapolitan songs you hear in the
street. You can get them on the gramophone, sung by Anselmi.
“At Florence,” according to an Italian saying, “you think; at Rome,
you pray; at Venice, you love; at Naples, you look.” There is plenty
to look at, especially in the evening, when Vesuvius turns rosy and
transparent and the sea becomes phosphorescent; and plenty even in the
daytime, when you watch
“The blue Mediterranean where he lay
Lulled by the coil of his crystalline streams
Beside a pumice isle in Baiæ’s bay,
And saw in sleep old palaces and towers
Quivering within the wave’s intenser day,
All overgrown with azure moss and flowers.”
The poets do hit it sometimes. And that is an exact description of
Capri. It quivers in the wave’s intenser day. As you drive along to
Posilippo, the hills of Sorrento seem like phantoms; the vegetation on
the hill is gorgeously luxuriant and green; you pass donkey carts laden
with bright-coloured fruits; the driver carries a huge yellow or green
parasol; every now and then somebody shouts; trams whistle by. It is
hot, swelteringly hot, but freshness comes from the sea. Vesuvius is
dormant, but crowned by a little cloud which pretends to be an eruption
and isn’t.
You are glutted with sunshine and beauty and heat and colour. This is
Italy, the quintessence of Italy, a panorama of azure, and sun, and
dust. To-day, in any case, there is nothing disappointing about it--and
I wish I were going to bathe in the reaches near Posilippo, and to sail
in a boat at night and listen to the squealing, love-sick Neapolitan
songsters.
When I get back to the ship, the passengers are all looking on at the
boys diving for pennies, and carefully distinguishing between copper
and silver, under the sea; till at last we leave behind the noise, the
chatter, and the importunate vendors who want to sell you opera-glasses
for almost nothing, and steam past Vesuvius, Sorrento, and Capri, away
into the blue Mediterranean. _Addio, Napoli._
_Port Said: July 3_
We call for the mails at Taranto and then nothing happens till we get
to Port Said--except that the stewards who had never been to sea before
have recovered from seasickness, and the passengers are all well enough
now to organise games and competitions in order to break the monotony,
or to mar the peace (whichever you like), of the voyage.
At Port Said we coal. Black men do it, singing the whole time. When one
has seen the black men coal at Port Said one realizes how the Egyptian
pyramids were built. I don’t mean how the engineering was done, but the
kind of way in which the people who had to make bricks without straw
set about it; for in the East nothing changes.
Conjurers and fortune-tellers come on board. I have my fortune told.
I am amazed by the accurate description of my character and the
probability of the foretold fortune, until a friend of mine has his
fortune told, and on comparing notes, we find the man told us word
for word the same thing about our characteristics and fortune, past,
present, and future. On reflection, I see that the way to tell people’s
character is to have one list of characteristics and to use it for
every one without the slightest variation. It is bound to succeed. For
instance, supposing Falstaff and Hamlet had their fortunes told by this
Nubian, I imagine he would have told Hamlet’s character as follows (I
assume Hamlet and Falstaff to be on board _incognito_):--
You are not so fortunate as you seem. You have a great deal of sense,
but more sense than knowledge. You can give admirable advice to other
people. Your judgment is excellent as regards others, but bad as
regards yourself. You never take your own good advice. You are fond of
your friends. You prefer talk to action. You suffer from indecision.
You are fond of the stage. You are susceptible to female beauty.
You are witty, amiable, and well educated, but you have a weakness
for coarse jokes. You are superstitious and believe in ghosts. You
can make people laugh; you often pretend to be more foolish than you
are. At other times you will surprise people by your power of apt
repartee. Your bane will be an inclination to fat which will hamper
you in fighting. You are unsuccessful as a soldier, but unrivalled as
a companion and philosopher. You will mix in high society, and have
friends at Court. You will come off badly in personal encounter, and
your final enemy will be a king.”
Now, imagine him saying exactly the same thing to Falstaff. Doesn’t
it fit him just as well? Can’t you imagine Falstaff saying, “He has
hit me off to a T,” and Hamlet murmuring, “My prophetic soul”? In
fact, I believe the profession of a fortune-teller, after that of a
hair-specialist, to be the finest profession in the world, and the
easiest. In the first place it is almost impossible to prevent the
patient from telling you the whole of his past and present of his own
accord; and even if he doesn’t do this, a little deft cross-examination
involved in a mass of vague generalization will extract a good deal.
This particular Nubian in the course of the process asked me my age, my
profession, whether I was married, what my financial prospects were,
and whether I had any children. However, I refused to answer questions;
but I very nearly did once or twice, so insinuatingly were the
questions put. I further tested the process by having my fortune and
character told by a second seer, and he said exactly the same things as
the first had said, and I afterwards found out that he also had said
exactly the same thing to some one else.
_The Red Sea: in July_
The first day you say it is pleasant. The second day you say the
stories about the heat you have heard are gross exaggerations. The
third day you feel the heat; and the fourth you realize that you
are morning, noon, and night in a Turkish bath that hasn’t got a
cooling-room. And yet the energetic played cricket and quoits.
One morning (quite early in the morning) a tragedy happened. One of the
stokers, a Maltee, went mad, owing to the heat, and jumped overboard.
The steamer stopped, but nothing could be done. The sea is full of
sharks.
The air is full of little particles of dust which makes your hair
gritty. The best way to spend one’s time is, I think, to remain
obstinately motionless in a chair, dressed in the lightest of clothes,
and to read novels, stories which engage without unduly straining the
attention.
How grateful one is on such occasions to the authors who have written
books of that kind!
Somebody once said that there were books which it is a positive
pleasure to read. To my mind the most precious of all books are those
which seem to do the work for you. You don’t have to bother; you are
not aware that you are reading. Nobody could say this of the works of
George Meredith or of Henry James. You may be interested, delighted,
and moved, but you know you are reading.
Anthony Trollope and William de Morgan do the work for me, personally;
so do Victor Hugo, George Sand, Count Tolstoy, and Rudyard Kipling.
Then there are books which one can’t stop reading. To this class
belong, in my case, the works of Dumas: “Monte Cristo,” “La Reine
Margot,” and the many volumes which tell of the Musketeers.
“Monte Cristo” is the only book which for me has ever annihilated
time, space, and place, and everything else.
I read it at school at Eton, on a whole school-day. At three you had to
go into school, which lasted till four. I began reading, or rather flew
back to my book, as soon as luncheon was over, about half past two.
I had just got to the part where Dantès is escaping from the Château
d’If. I sat reading in a small room in my tutor’s house. A quarter to
three struck; three struck; Dumas silenced those bells, whose sound
your whole unconscious self, as a rule, automatically obeyed. You
couldn’t forget that sound if you wanted to, any more than a soldier
forgets the bugle-calls that mark the routine of the day, or the sailor
forgets the boatswain’s whistle. The sound is in his flesh and bones as
well as in his ears. Nature responds to it automatically, unconsciously.
But the sound of the clock striking three escaped me; and the clanging
echoes of the school clock chiming the quarters struck in vain for
me through my open window on that June afternoon: and a quarter past
three, half past three, and quarter to four. I may have heard, but I
heeded not; my mind was far away. Now to shirk school altogether was
an unheard-of thing. You could do it in the early morning and say you
were ill, and “stay out” under the protection of the matron, who always
certified that you were ill. (Who knows? it might be measles!) But if
you shirked afternoon school, it meant probably writing out four books
of “Paradise Lost.” A little time after the quarter, the boys’ maid
came into my room and asked me whatever I was doing. I was brought back
from the Château d’If, and my heart stopped still. I raced downstairs,
across the street to the schoolyard, up the wooden stairs into the
old Upper School, where beneath the busts of famous old Etonians, our
little lessons dribbled on. I found school just over, and oh! miracle
of miracles! my absence hadn’t been noticed! In every division there
was a boy called the _Præpostor_ whose duty it was to see that every
boy was present at chapel and in school (that is to say, in the various
classrooms). The office was held for a week by every boy in the
division, in turn. If you were absent, he had to find out whether it
was due to certified illness or whether you had any other reasonable
excuse. If not, your name went in to the Head Master. He hadn’t noticed
my absence, nor had the master, and I walked away with the other boys
as though I had been there all the time instead of at the Château
d’If. I sometimes think that perhaps the spirit of Dumas impersonated
me during that hour in Upper School, so that my rapture in reading of
Dantès’s escape for the first time might be complete, perfect, and
uninterrupted. If Dumas could make one forget the chimes of the school
clock at Eton, he could make one forget anything.
Another book which has (in addition to many other glorious qualities
such as poetry, pathos, and passion) the same riveting power is, to my
mind (if you skip the historical dissertations), Victor Hugo’s “Les
Misérables.” Mr. Basil Thomson says it is the favourite book of the
convicts in Dartmoor Prison, and that they call it “Less Miserable.”
It is a favourite book among the Russian peasants also--among those
who read and write. So is, as a matter of fact, “Monte Cristo.” Most
literary critics say the latter part of “Monte Cristo” is a pity. Not
so the Russian peasant, and not I. The proof is in the reading. Whoever
heard of anybody not finishing “Monte Cristo,” and stopping halfway,
bored?
In reading what Mr. Basil Thomson says of the books liked and the
books disliked by the prisoners in Dartmoor Prison, I was startlingly
reminded of what I had heard and seen myself of the literary taste of
the Russian peasants.
They both dislike books which are “full of lies” (including many
excellent modern stories). “Monte Cristo” has the seal of romantic
truth. I met a man in a steamer later on in my journey who said that
“Monte Cristo” was the best book in print. I agree.
In the Red Sea it was almost too hot to read, and I murmured to myself
those lines from H. Belloc’s epic, “The Modern Traveller”:--
“O Africa, mysterious land,
Surrounded by a lot of sand--
Far land of Ophir, mined of old
By lordly Solomon for gold,
Who sailing southward to Perim,
Took all the gold away with him,
And left a lot of holes:
Vacuities which bring despair
To those confiding souls,
Who find that they have bought a share
In desolate horizons where
The Desert, terrible and bare,
Interminably rolls.”
Perim we passed in the night, and then there suddenly came a moment
when it got cooler. We had turned a corner and the breeze began to
blow. A hot breeze, but a breeze. And it’s something even to get a hot
breeze after four days and four nights in a Turkish bath.
_The Gulf of Aden: July_
Everybody up to now has been vaguely discussing what kind of monsoon
it would be. The most dismal prophecies were made. We were told it
would be very rough, very hot, and very wet. As it turns out, it is not
rough, not wet, but still hot: steamy and damp, that is to say.
I now feel as if I had been all my life on board. The passengers, the
officers, and crew seem to be the only people in my universe; the rest
are shadows and dreams. There are not many passengers on board. People
fight shy of the Red Sea and the monsoon in July. I think they are
wrong. There are just enough people for company and not too many for
comfort. There is a pleasant variety of passengers; a few Australians,
two Germans, a Frenchman and his wife, an Irishman,--once a mining
expert and now a professional painter who paints bold and capable
landscapes in oil, full of colour and light,--a Scotch family, a
High Commissioner (whatever that may be), an American lady singer, a
missionary, and two young North-Country Englishmen.
If one travels for over a month on a liner, one’s fellow passengers
sometimes may become something more than what Bourget calls _profils
perdus_: meaning the chance acquaintanceships of the _table d’hôte_ and
the railway train. In a steamer one can, if one chooses, get to know
people really well.
Every evening a small crowd play whisky poker for cocktails; after
dinner there is a good deal of bridge; sometimes some music. But from
ship’s music, as a rule, one can “withdraw one’s attention” without
difficulty.
I am told a good deal about Australia and the Australians by people who
have been backwards and forwards. They agree to its being a splendid
country, full of openings for the emigrant. “In Australia,” some one
tells me, “people don’t ask you for references. If you ask for a job
they give it you, and as long as you show you can do it, they let you
do it, and as soon as you show signs of not being able to do it, they
fire you out.”
That is, indeed, a different system from what obtains in the mother
country, where references are regarded with awe, and where a thousand
small side issues often contribute not only to a square peg remaining
in a round hole, but to an utterly hopeless peg remaining in any kind
of hole.
One also hears that the Australians (_a_) resent criticism on anything
Australian; (_b_) are very critical of what they see in other countries.
[Illustration: FROM SHIP’S MUSIC, AS A RULE, ONE CAN WITHDRAW ONE’S
ATTENTION WITHOUT DIFFICULTY]
What irritates the Australians, no doubt, and what justly irritates
them, is when globe-trotters rush round the country in a few days
and then write a book of critical impressions. In England (and in
America, I should think) the people have got over being irritated by
that particular form of literature. They don’t care. If a visitor,
after spending a fortnight in England, writes a book called “The Rotten
English,” or “Those Damned English,” or the “God-forsaken Country,” we
don’t much care. And as for criticism, if it be well founded and well
expressed, it will be certain to obtain a wide popularity in England.
Witness Mr. Collier’s “England and the English.” Personally there is
nothing I enjoy reading more than the critical impressions of my own
country written by an intelligent foreigner. It opens the window on all
sorts of shut-up points of view, and it calls one’s attention to what
one had never noticed because it was too obvious; because we ourselves
are in it.
But the Australians appear to be sensitive to the criticism of the
foreigner, even when it is just and well founded. My very slender
experience has convinced me that they are often unduly critical with
regard to the objects of interest in other countries. One day, on
board, one of the Australians expressed disappointment and censure
with regard to London architecture. I thought at first he meant the
new public offices; but not at all; he meant Westminster Abbey, which
compared unfavourably with the cathedral in Adelaide.
I was inclined to think this critical point of view which was
attributed to the colonials was perhaps imaginary, or in any case
exaggerated. It certainly is exaggerated; it isn’t imaginary.
Here, for instance, are some extracts taken from a book written by
A. W. Rutherford, of New Zealand, on Europe. I quote them from a
review which appeared in an Australian review, “The Bookfellow.” Mr.
Rutherford, says the reviewer, was disappointed with Paris; “the
streets are not equal to those of any of our cities; the respectable
restaurants are mean, shabby affairs; the swell restaurants are the
haunts of gilded vice and supported by vice; the Seine, like the Thames
within its city boundary, is just a dirty ditch--neither of them to be
compared with the Waikato. Most Parisians look dowdy. Our Maoris could
teach the French a lesson in politeness. Meat is not safe in France....
Much of the wine is vile; no colonial could possibly drink it; the
cheap wines of France are deadly rubbish.”
Of the tombs in Westminster Abbey he says they are dirty, untidy,
inartistic; “some of them look like great cooking ranges.”
He is disappointed in Venice, but he gives a clear reason for his
disappointment in the gondola. “I had imagined the latter a frivolous,
giddy thing, gaily painted, and the gondoliers clothed as in the
play of that name. The gondoliers are just plain sailormen, in their
work-a-day clothes.”
That explains everything. Everything, as I said about Naples, depends
on what you expect, on your standard. If you expect a gondola to be
gilded and giddy and it turns out to be black, you are disappointed.
If you expect the Seine and the Thames to be vast rivers, outside
their cities and not in them, you are disappointed. What such authors
never seem to bother about is whether their standard is likely to be
indorsed by the rest of the human race or not. Their standard may be
an excellent one for some things. The things which everybody else in
the world would acknowledge to be good. For instance, in this case, the
manners of the Maoris. The Maoris are the most courteous and chivalrous
race in the world. But if they can teach manners to the French, there
are many people in the colonies who would benefit by a lesson from
them also. Another thing which the author of this book does not seem
to realize is that there are many people who prefer a gondolier should
look like a sailor, which he is, than like a singer in operetta. They
prefer him to be dressed in his ordinary work-a-day clothes. They think
it not only more appropriate to his task, but more picturesque. They
think a man who is dressed in the clothes which befit his profession
will look more dignified than a man who is dressed up as for a pageant.
The reviewer ends by saying, “Mr. Rutherford is a representative New
Zealander, and in many ways a typical New Zealander. His interesting
book is worth reading. It is compounded of keen observation, shrewd
judgment, parish prejudice, and pure ignorance ... in its narrowness
and in its depth, its arrogance and its enlightenment, it comments upon
New Zealand as effectively as upon Europe; it shows us why Dominion
standards are condemned in Britain, sometimes justly, and it may
suggest to British readers how the Dominions feel in regard to the
comments of hasty British tourists with frequently less ability than
Mr. Rutherford displays.”
Yes, it does suggest that. It also suggests to one to hope that free
trade and liberty may be maintained in the matter. Let the colonial
say exactly what he thinks about Europe, but let the European say
exactly what he thinks about the colonies, and then neither side
can have a grievance. But when the colonial complains of the hasty
and narrow judgment of the European, let him have a thought for the
possible beam in his own eye.
Another time, on board, another Australian complained that the works
of G. K. Chesterton were bosh. “Thank God,” he added, “he’s not an
Australian.”
But fancy if G. K. Chesterton had been an Australian. One wonders
what would have been the effect on his figure, his style, and his
philosophy. Instead of his romantic, adventurous optimism, would his
genius have been sultry, pessimistic, and rebellious?
[Illustration: IF G. K. CHESTERTON HAD BEEN AN AUSTRALIAN]
I think he would have written gigantic epics on the Blue Mountains,
the Bush, and gum-trees; wild romances about bush-rangers, and
beach-combers, and swinging songs about Botany Bay.
I can imagine G. K. Chesterton, looking lean and spare, riding a horse
bareback. One of his qualities would have certainly developed in the
same way, had he been born and bred over the sea, and that is his
geniality, his large, hospitable nature, his belief in goodness; for
hospitality and friendliness grow if anything quicker on Australian and
colonial soil than they do in England.
Here is a fragment of verse supposed to be written by G. K. Chesterton,
had he been born and bred in the country which Adam Lindsay Gordon
sang:--
_“The Melbourne Cup,” or “Hippodromania”_
The crowd came out of the Eastern lands
To see the Melbourne Cup,
Like Titans under tiger skies
They were as simple as surprise
And pleased as a bulldog pup.
Beyond the twisted gum-trees
They suddenly ceased to swarm;
Like statues the wild crowd stood still,
Like soldiers little children drill,
And silence came upon the hill
More loud than a thunderstorm.
And the bell rang a little,
And the riders were up at the post,
Full of strange fire the racers strip
And ramp and rock and boil and skip
Each like an angel in a ship
That charges the tall white coast.
The emerald course was a course indeed,
Between that crowd of men.
And every steed became a steed.
“Say when, old boy, say when!”
The flag is lowered, they’re off! They come!
Like clouds on a roaring sky.
Jim Whiffler swirls his whip away
And the tall grey horse goes by.
His face is like a newspaper
That many men take in;
The colours of his sleeve are mixed
Like cocktails made with gin.
Now Strop falls back, they’re neck and neck,
Now Davis, Whiffler, ride;
Jim Whiffler with his brainless face
Is spun and swirled aside.
Jim Whiffler’s lost! but as he fails
He screams into the din,
The mare has still more heart to lose
Than you have heart to win.
And Whiffler sits high in the saddle,
A broken-hearted jockey;
And our Jim Whiffler, robbed of fame,
Singed by the bookmakers with blame,
Cries out, “I’ll change my trade and name
And take to playing hockey.”
_The Indian Ocean: during the Monsoon_
It’s not at all like the Indian Ocean of which Kipling sings, “so soft,
so something, so blooming blue.” It is grey; there’s a swell, and it’s
muggy. But at night you can see the Southern Cross, and that’s an
excitement.
How did Dante know there was such a thing as the Southern Cross? He
certainly did know it, because when he emerged from hell, somewhere
near the South Pole, he says he looked at the polar sky and saw
four stars which had never been seen before save by the first
people--whoever they were (the inhabitants of Paradise?)--
“All’ altro polo, e vidi quattro stelle
Non viste mai fuor che alla prima gente.”
I dare say, and I believe some commentators do say, that his meaning
was allegorical, and that by the four stars he meant Woman’s Suffrage,
or the battle of Waterloo. I take leave to differ. I’m sure he meant
the Southern Cross. Perhaps it is in Herodotus, whose geography, long
suspected of being fantastic, is proved to be more and more accurate.
For instance, Herodotus said the source of the Nile was in the Silver
Mountain. This was pooh-poohed for centuries, until the discovery of
Mount Ruwenzori proved that Herodotus was perfectly right.
Dante was a great traveller, and the greatest pen impressionist who
ever wrote. He describes a landscape in a line so that it stays with
you forever. He uses the smallest possible number of words, hardly
any adjectives, and the picture leaps up before you, immortal and
unforgettable.
Who can do this among the moderns? Keats could sometimes. Tennyson
gives you English landscape. If you read “In Memoriam” you have lived a
year in the English country and seen the march of the English seasons.
Crabbe can do it. Who reads Crabbe? Nobody. And yet he is a wonderful
poet, as realistic as Tolstoy and Arnold Bennett, as poignant as
Gorky. Byron called him the best painter of nature. (And Byron was a
good judge.) He can give you a landscape in a line. For instance:--
“And on the ocean slept th’ unanchored fleet.”
He writes about the poor as they are, without sentimentality, and
without exaggeration; and as a painter of English landscape he still
remains the best.
What has the poet Crabbe got to do with the Indian Ocean? Nothing. But
it can do nobody any harm to be reminded of the poet Crabbe, although
he was born in 1754 and died in 1832. He may not be read by the modern
generation, but he is not forgotten. A Frenchman wrote a long and
excellent book about him not long ago. He is safe in the Temple of
Fame, which once you have entered you cannot leave. And this temple
is like a wheel. It goes round and round, and sometimes some of its
inmates are in the glare of the sun, and sometimes they are in the
shade, but they are there; and they never fall out. This is comforting.
It also teaches us not to laugh at the taste of our fathers, because
that taste which we despise may be the rage once more in the days of
our grandchildren.
How we used to despise everything connected with the Early Victorian
period. Now people have their rooms done up in Early Victorian style,
and Early Victorian furniture is collected; rep sofas are precious,
green tablecloths and antimacassars. They have passed the period of
being like an out-of-date fashion plate; they have reached the hallowed
moment of being picturesque and Old World. It is Late Victorian art
that is now despised--William Morris and Burne-Jones. But they are
safe in the temple, too, and a day will come when people will admire
Burne-Jones’s pictures and collect Morris designs as a great curiosity,
and say, “This is a very fine specimen of 1880 chintz.”
During this monsoon period I read more than ever. I once asked a
famous politician what he did on a sea voyage. He said, “The first
day I am civil to my fellow passengers, and after that I read Scott’s
novels.” I adopted this plan.
_Ceylon: July_
A line of palm trees over a tumultuous fringe of silver foam, which
leaps up on a dull opal-green sea, is your first impression as you get
near the island. When you come into harbour, a quantity of narrow black
boats swarm round the steamer. Then the tug comes alongside, and after
waiting in it till it is no longer worth while to go on shore in a
boat, I finally, in a burst of impatience, get into a boat and am rowed
ashore. No sooner am I in the boat than the tug starts. However, the
four black men in my boat pull hard and we reach the pier almost at the
same time as the tug.
The first thing to do is to take a rickshaw. It is fine, but
fortunately cloudy; the sun is hidden. In spite of this, it is hot,
very hot. The streets are made of red sand, the houses of Venetian
red stone. You pass palm trees, and trees which look like acacias,
only they have mingled with the intense green of their foliage a
quantity of scarlet flowers. I go scudding along the street to the
Galleface Hotel. You pass babus in white European clothes, and frail
black Cingalese dressed in diaphanous silks, and Anglo-Indians in
pith helmets. The world of Kipling is revealed to one in a trice. A
long drive along the sea leads to the hotel, This is the fashionable
esplanade of Ceylon. Carriages pass up and down full of wealthy
natives. The sea throws up a huge long wash of booming surf. The
hotel is a large white building, like the section of an exhibition.
The bedrooms are high wooden cubicles. As soon as you arrive a tailor
springs from somewhere and asks you if you want any clothes--thin
clothes--made in the night. I don’t think I do. As soon as I have got
a room and disposed of my luggage, I take a rickshaw and drive through
the native part of the town. It becomes more and more like Kipling. You
pass little bullocks, and natives bathing and washing clothes in a
pool; shops full of fruit; natives squatting, natives talking, natives
smoking. You hear all manner of cries, and you smell the smell of the
East.
I wander about until it is dark and then come back to dinner. The
tailor appears again. I don’t want any clothes: but it is no use, one
has to order them, so importunate is he. He measures me and promises to
have the complete suit ready by the next morning at 6.30.
It is when you are dressed for dinner and you come down into the large
high dining-room, full of electric fans, that you realize that it is
impossible to be cool. It is an absorbing, annihilating damp heat that
saps your very being.
The first thing to do is to eat a mango. Will it be as good as you
are told it is? Yes, it is better. At first you think it is just an
ordinary apricot, and then you think it is a banana; no, fresher; a
peach, a strawberry, and then a delicious, sharp, fresh, aromatic
after-taste comes, slightly tinged with turpentine, but not bitter.
Then you get all the tastes at once, and you know that the mango is
like nothing else but its own incomparable self.
It has all these different tastes at once, simultaneously. In this
it resembles the beatific vision as told of by St. Thomas Aquinas.
The point of the beatific vision, says St. Thomas, is _its infinite
variety_. So that those who enjoy it have at the same time the feeling
that they are looking at a perfect landscape, hearing the sweetest
music, bathing in a cold stream on a hot day, reaching the top of
a mountain, galloping on grass on a horse that isn’t running away,
floating over tree-tops in a balloon, reading very good verse, eating
toasted cheese, drinking a really good cocktail--and any other nice
thing you can think of, _all at once_. The point, therefore, of the
taste of the mango is its infinite variety. It was probably mangoes
which grew in Eden on the Tree of Knowledge, only I expect they had
a different kind of skin then, and were without that cumbersome and
obstinate kernel, which makes them so very difficult to eat.
There are a good many people at dinner--Englishmen and Englishwomen.
Their faces are washed absolutely chalk-white by the heat, as if
every drop of blood had been drained from them. That is what comes
from living in such a climate. One thinks of Kipling once more. The
room seems to be full of his characters. There is Mrs. Hawksbee; I
recognised her at once. There is Otis Yeere and Pluffles, and Churton
and Reggie Burke, and Pack, and I believe that conjuror in the verandah
is Strickland in disguise. He comes nearer and does the mango trick,
and then begins to charm a snake; but we all refuse to see the snake
charmed, charm he never so wisely, having a horror of snakes.
It gets hotter and hotter; one feels one’s bones melting.
The next morning punctually at 6.30 the tailor arrives with the suit
of clothes finished, as he promised, and by eight we have to be on
board the steamer.
To-day the sun is shining with all his might, and one realizes that if
one had stayed a few hours longer in this beautiful island, it would
have entailed either buying a pith helmet or getting a sunstroke.
The harbour is a lovely sight in the early morning. Church parties
from a British man-of-war are on their way to church. The sea is
like an emerald to-day. The little narrow native boats, full of
gorgeous-coloured fruits, are slipping about round the liner. I am
sorry to leave Ceylon.
_From Colombo to Fremantle: July_
The Indian Ocean once more. The weather now is pleasant, but it is
still very hot. We are in the doldrums. The word “doldrums” conjures
up visions of adventure, of pirates, of Spanish galleons, of frigates
fighting privateers, and of Marryat’s characters.
I don’t believe a man who is not a sailor can write a really good book
about the sea. The knowledge involved is so intimate, and requires
years of soaking in. There are, of course, exceptions. Shakespeare
has led some people to believe that, besides being a lawyer, a Lord
Chancellor, and a woman, he was also a sailor. Rudyard Kipling, I
should say, could deceive the elect, and surely “Captains Courageous”
is one of the very best sea-stories ever written. “Treasure Island” is
an adventure book, and a masterpiece, but then it really deals very
little with the sea. Turn to Marryat: what a difference there is
between him and the amateur sea-writer! You feel that the sea is his
whole life; he lays bare the very pulse of the machine of sea-life.
I wish some of the great novelists had spent their early years on a
training-ship. I wonder what would have been the result had this been
the fate of George Meredith, for instance. I think it would have made
his style more lucid; but perhaps not. Can you imagine a ship of whom
the skipper was George Meredith, the first mate Henry James, the second
mate Thomas Hardy, the purser Bernard Shaw, the ship’s cook G. K.
Chesterton, and the steward Max Beerbohm? I can imagine the following
conversation taking place:--
_Scene: Deck of a Ship in the Indian Ocean_
CAPTAIN MEREDITH (_to First Mate James_): I think we had better fiddle
harmonics on the strings of the mainsail.
FIRST MATE JAMES: I mentioned to you, sir, the last time that we
somewhat infelicitously met, that I intended to appeal, with a
dozen differential precautions, to another and probably more closely
qualified meteorologic authority on the subject of the Second Mate’s
whimsical, wanton, perhaps fortunate but so far unconfirmed and
unqualified change of course, and indeed, if I may venture without
presumption, and at the risk of incurring the suspicion of undue
parenthesis, and of an almost tremulous desire to say everything, I
would, and indeed I had done so already, but for a fugitive shade
of displeasure on your eyebrows, I would adumbrate the shadow of a
surmise, that, faced as we are--
CAPTAIN MEREDITH (_impatiently_): The young who fear to enter the
forest of advice do so at the cost of losing their way in the lane
that knows no ending.
(_Enter Ship’s Cook Chesterton_)
COOK CHESTERTON: The Purser complains of the pea-soup. He says it is
not fit for a dog. It is true. It is not fit for a dog, but the whole
soul and glory of this fast and frantic life is to eat and to enjoy
food that a dog rejects. He doesn’t see that it is the dog who is
wrong.
PURSER SHAW: I never said that the dog was wrong in his choice of
food. I have no objection to eating dog biscuit; what I do object to
is eating dog soup.... What I do object to is eating a soup which
professes to be made of vegetables and in reality is made of dog. I
see no moral objection to cannibalism. I have no moral objection to
eating shoulder of boatswain; but I do object to the old-fashioned
superstition of believing that soup is still made of fresh peas when
_it isn’t_. That soup was made of old flesh. If you don’t believe me,
ask the steward. Here, Steward.
(_Enter Steward Beerbohm_)
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: Our battle is ever between undeserved rewards and
stolen fruits. What say you, Steward?
STEWARD BEERBOHM: Let us forget these bickerings and turn ourselves
lightly to the thought of home, of Piccadilly, of the artificial
haunts and the gaudy hostels, where indifferent cooks and careless
waiters proffer inartistically prepared _mets_ to the blasé, the
faded and the jaded and the new rich, who partake of it with feigned
satisfaction, and pay for it with a faint but exquisite pleasure in
knowing that the bill is more than they can afford.
PURSER SHAW: Your Piccadilly is here and now. I venture to submit
that the Steward is an incurable romantic. Now romance in food is
preposterous.
COOK CHESTERTON: There is nothing so romantic as food, nothing so
poetic as roast beef, nothing so fantastic as plum-pudding, nothing so
lyrical as eggs and bacon, nothing in cant modern sense so artistic as
a mutton chop, nothing so dreamy as toasted cheese.
PURSER SHAW: Exactly. You are still infected with the poison of your
nurseries and the sentiment of Christmas. I have exploded Christmas. I
have annihilated the nursery.
STEWARD BEERBOHM: I think Christmas very quaint and charming, and a
nursery, conducted according to the principles of the early years of
Victoria the First, a place of dainty manners and delicate precepts
and wistful rhymes. I would not forget them for anything.
FIRST MATE JAMES: The word nursery, now you speak it, throws a
curious thrill through the lining, so to speak, of the psychological
situation. We might, in fact, in such a case even follow the steward
into another and no less refined a speculation, the question of
whether the nursery, the sanest seat of moral ethics, might not, after
all, be the high final if somewhat narrow circle of all ultimate--that
is to say--
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: To have the sense of the eternal in the nursery is
nothing. To have had it is the beginning of wisdom. But let us rather
put off discussion of the theme, until round the mahogany we can
broach a bottle of the Old Widow, nay rather, Hermitage--ah! that was
a great wine--
STEWARD BEERBOHM: The suggestion of asceticism in the name, blent with
the sensuality of the thing, heightens its charm. Who would not be a
hermit, and dwell in one of those rococo palacules built for weary
monarchs in an age of scepticism, flute-playing, and minuets?
(_Enter Second Mate Hardy_)
SECOND MATE HARDY: The spirit of the years is looking down upon our
ship with an ironical smile. O Wessex, Wessex! Would that I could see
Stonehenge and a large red moon rising over the plain.
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: I am glad to be away from the island of chills and
the _informes hiemes_.
PURSER SHAW: Sir, with all due respect, I cannot allow this digression
to continue. No Englishman can talk consecutively for more than two
minutes on the same subject.
COOK CHESTERTON: That is why the Irish have conquered England.
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: Observe the Southern Cross, if indeed that be the
Southern Cross, hanging like a jeweled hilt in the spheral blue--
STEWARD BEERBOHM: Pretty little trinket! Is it a brooch or an
aigrette? Methinks a device of Cartier--
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: Those stars are pebbles on the silvery wheel-course
of the chariot of the moon.
SECOND MATE HARDY: Pitiless, inflexible stars, thousands and thousands
of millions of miles away.
PURSER SHAW: Don’t you believe it. That’s one of the lies men of
science tell us.
COOK CHESTERTON: It doesn’t matter if the stars are twenty miles off,
or twenty millions of miles off. The point about the stars is that
they are stars.
(_Enter an Ordinary Seaman_)
ORDINARY SEAMAN: Please, sir, the ship is sinking.
SECOND MATE HARDY: I knew it! O Irony!
PURSER SHAW: Then we shall have to eat roast boatswain after all.
FIRST MATE JAMES: If I might hazard a suggestion, without of course
trying to grasp any impertinent or rather importunate shadow of a
scheme--
ORDINARY SEAMAN: The cabin boy has escaped in the galley.
CAPTAIN MEREDITH: O brave!
STEWARD BEERBOHM: Ouf!
(_The ship sinks with all hands._)
[Illustration: THERE IS NOTHING SO ROMANTIC AS FOOD]
* * * * *
To-night (when is it? I have lost count of time, but I know it is
still July) one of the officers told me a yarn. It was his own ghost
story, and it was ultimately spoiled for him, just as happened in the
case of Kipling, when he heard phantom billiard players playing all
night and found out the next day that the noise was caused by a rat and
a loose window-sash. This is the story; but I shall spoil it in the
telling because to tell a sea-yarn you must be a sailor.
The ship was sailing somewhere near the Cape of Good Hope. It was
dirty weather and the sailor who was on watch came and reported to the
officer that there was a ghost in the sea, for’ard.
The officer sent him away, but he returned almost immediately and
reported that the ghost was still there.
The officer said rude things, and added that he had better go aloft and
watch the ghost from there. Another man was sent to replace the craven,
and all was calm for a while, when suddenly this second sailor came
back, pale with fear, and said that a woman was rising through the mist
from the sea. Some one else was sent to replace this man, and the ghost
had such an effect upon him that he fell down and broke his leg. Then
the captain came on deck and the officer reported the state of affairs
to him. He went forward and came back saying, “It is a ghost.” Then,
being a religious man, he fetched a Bible and tried to exorcise the
ghost by reading the Scripture.
While this was going on, the officer who told me the story went
forward, and there, as plain as a pikestaff, in the murky mist, he saw
a white woman slowly rise in the swell and then disappear. Paralysed
with horror, he stood looking at the sea, and the woman rose once more;
and then, his fear left him, and he realized that it was the figurehead
of the ship which had got knocked off.
But I have spoiled that story. I have merely told the bare facts; what
you want is the whole thing; the dialogue, the details; the technical
terms.
From Colombo to Fremantle is probably the most monotonous part of the
voyage. The only object of interest is the albatross, but as nobody
shot one, with a crossbow, no untoward events happened.
_Fremantle: July_
Fremantle is the least attractive of ports. You are not meant to stay
there. You are meant to go on to Perth. Nevertheless, it was my first
sight of an Australian city. It struck me as being in some ways rather
like a Russian provincial town; this is not odd, because Russia is
a country of colonists. What differentiates a Russian city from an
Australian--and indeed from any other city--is the churches with their
gilded spires and blue cupolas and their Byzantine shape.
At Fremantle the firemen went on shore--against orders. They drank
to their hearts’ content, and came back in a state of truculent
inebriation, as did many of the steerage passengers. We left Fremantle
in the evening. There was a strong wind blowing. Two little tugs were
doing their best to pull us out of the narrow harbour. They could
scarcely pull their own weight; and then one of the hawsers broke. We
drifted to port where alongside of the wharf some cargo steamers lay at
anchor.
“Hullo!” said somebody; “we shall only just do it.”
The passengers became interested.
Then it became evident that we weren’t going just to do it; and we
went--_crunch! crunch!_--into the steamers alongside the wharf,
carrying away the wooden gear they had to put cattle in.
Then began a slow battle of the tugs against the wind; whenever we
seemed to be moving to starboard, the wind brought us back again to
the wharf. It looked at one moment as if we were going to be there all
night. Two of the firemen were fighting forward. Then the wind dropped
a little, our own engines began to work, and we steamed safely out of
the harbour.
We did hardly any damage to the ship against which we crunched, except
carrying away that wooden gear; but the moment any little incident
of that kind happens in a ship, it makes you realize instantly how
disagreeable a real accident would be. These large ships look so
helpless under such circumstances: and after all, when accidents
happen, they happen, whether a ship is in harbour or in midocean,
whether she is large or small: witness the Royal George and the
Titanic.
_Adelaide: July_
We reached Adelaide on a Saturday night, and on Sunday morning I went
on shore and saw for the first time the dark-brown colouring, the
scrub, and the gum-trees of Australia. It was supposed to be winter;
but it was what we call in England early spring, because the almond
trees were in full bloom. The atmosphere was dazzingly clear but cold.
The whole colour and nature of the place, with its dark evergreens,
brown earth, luxuriant winter vegetation, and its blue and lilac hills
in the distance, and its limpid sky, reminded me of the south of France
in winter; but Australia has a peculiar atmosphere of its own which,
if properly painted, ought to make the fortune of a painter. There are
some very clever Australian painters.
Adelaide is called the “Garden City” of Australia. It deserves the
name, for it looks like a garden even in winter. The hotels are good,
the streets spacious and wide boulevards, and there is the most
beautifully situated steeplechase course I have ever seen. It being
Sunday, everything was shut: this made occupation in the city less
interesting than it might have been, and it was too cold to motor into
the hills.
At Adelaide fourteen firemen left the ship forever. The trouble about
firemen on the mail steamers that go to Australia is that they are
white men. They cannot stand the heat of the tropics and they do not
earn a living wage.
“Who,” as the chief engineer said to me, “would not be a fireman in
the Red Sea in July, when the temperature is 120 in the shade? And who
would not be a man who has to look after firemen?”
One cannot travel on a big liner without being amazed, or rather
aghast, at the conditions under which the crew and the stewards live in
the merchant service, and the terms under which the officers serve, so
that one wonders how it happens that any one goes to sea; and one is
inclined almost to agree with Dr. Johnson’s opinions on the subject.
“A ship,” he said, “is worse than a gaol. There is in a gaol better
air, better company, better conveniences of every kind; and a ship has
the additional disadvantage of being in danger. When men come to like a
sea-life they are not fit to live on land.”
“Then,” said Boswell, “it would be cruel in a father to breed his son
to the sea.”
“It would be cruel,” said Johnson, “in a father who thinks as I do. Men
go to sea before they know the unhappiness of that way of life; and
when they come to know it, they cannot escape from it, because it is
then too late to choose another profession; as, indeed, is generally
the case with men when they have once engaged in any particular way of
life.”
But what is wrong with the officer’s life in the merchant service? it
will be asked.
The answer is that he is miserably underpaid. In some cases he gets
less than an able seaman gets in Australia. He has to buy linen, his
uniform, many pairs of whites. His work is one of great responsibility.
A captain when he has worked for twenty years gets no pension. Talk
with any officer in the merchant service and his advice to any one who
thinks of going to sea is, “Don’t.”
As to the men, a sailor’s life in a liner is about the same as a
sailor’s life anywhere, but the accommodation of the stewards is
miserable. The “glory-hole” where they sleep crowded together has an
almost incredible insufficiency of space and air. And a first-class
steward has to keep himself neat and clean: besides which he is
extremely hard-worked.
Talking of the recent dock strike in London with one of the stewards,
he told me they didn’t want to come out in sympathy with the strikers,
because they got absolutely nothing by it. They were most of them made
to come out on strike, with no prospect of any betterment in matters
which concerned them.
I don’t believe the stewards’ accommodation in a ship is a bit better
than it was forty years ago.
_Melbourne: July_
I practically only had a glimpse of Melbourne; a drive through the
city, a visit to a newspaper office and to some of the shops, a walk
through the park in the twilight, a dinner with a friend, and a drive
in a taxi back to the harbour.
I was struck by the mildness of the climate; but I was told that up
till then the weather had been very cold. I was struck here again by
the softness and peculiar luminous quality of the atmosphere; by the
size of the city, which seemed quite enormous; a handsome city, with
regular streets, tall buildings, and a multitude of cars.
_Sydney: August 2_
We entered the bay in the dawn--or rather before the dawn; it was very
misty; we moved in a vague twilight of blue shadows. I got up to see
the bay, but you could see nothing distinctly, nothing but mist and
blue shadows; the whole thing very unearthly and beautiful. I went back
to my bunk, intending to get up again in half an hour’s time, when it
was lighter. But I went to sleep, and when I woke up again we were
right against the wharf.
You could hear the bugles from a British man-of-war, the Drake. It was
a brilliant, warm, delicious day.
I spent a whole day in the city of Sydney, exploring the stores, riding
about aimlessly in the cars. I had luncheon at the Australian Hotel.
The waiters were dressed as stewards, and, indeed, many of them are
ex-stewards. I thought the food excellent. I visited two excellent
bookstores.
[Illustration: IN SYDNEY I FOUND THE MEN IN THE BOOKSTORES ABNORMALLY
INTELLIGENT]
When you go to a bookstore in London and ask for any book, you are
told they haven’t got it. Here in Sydney I found the men in the stores
abnormally intelligent. You could even get different kinds of books
written by the same author, which is a difficult feat anywhere. Most
booksellers think that if a man writes a book on, say, poultry, it
is preposterous to ask for a work of his on political economy or
step-dancing. And yet it happens that many writers write books on
different subjects--Andrew Lang, for instance. We received the sad
news of the death of Andrew Lang at Fremantle. Andrew Lang is an
author who spent the large capital of his wit, his learning, his wide
sympathies, royally and generously without stint; he was a master of
English prose, and some of the best pieces of prose he ever wrote were
flung into leaders in the “Daily News.” Those which were afterwards
collected in a book called “Lost Leaders” make the most delightful
reading. He wrote just as well and just as wittily on street noises
or midsummer heat as on Homer, the Young Pretender, or Joan of Arc. He
was profoundly unprovincial; he had a fine and rare quiet appreciation
of French poetry; he could write ghost stories, fairy tales, doggerel;
he was a supreme dialectician, an amusing parodist, a prince of letter
writers, as well as a poet;--perhaps he was above all things a poet.
The following translation of Rufinus’ verses to Rhodocleia, sending her
a wreath, is a good example of his verse. He has turned an exquisite
Greek poem into an exquisite English poem.
“Ah, Golden Eyes, to win you yet,
I bring mine April coronet.
The lovely blossoms of the spring
For you I weave, to you I bring
These roses with the lilies set,
The dewy dark-eyed violet,
Narcissus, and the wind-flower wet:
Wilt thou disdain mine offering?
Ah, Golden Eyes!
Crowned with thy lover’s flowers, forget
The pride wherein thy heart is set,
For thou, like these or anything,
Hast but a moment of thy spring,
Thy spring, and then--the long regret!
Ah, Golden Eyes!”
To go back to Sydney and the stores. The trouble is I cannot remember
either of their names. I had dinner at a restaurant called the Palace
Hotel, and after dinner I visited the office of the Sydney “Herald,”
where I spent a very pleasant time. I had already been met by two
interviewers in the morning, and they asked me whether I was going to
write anything about Australia. I said No, that I had no intention of
so doing, as I did not believe in writing seriously about a country
where one doesn’t make a proper stay. Practically I saw nothing of
Australia; but I suppose there is no harm in writing these notes--the
mere rough impressions of a fugitive traveller.
Although I was only twelve hours in Sydney, I had occasion to notice
the hospitality of the people. What struck me also was the life and
gaiety of the place.
The next morning, which was Saturday, I had to leave the liner, which
had been my home for the last six weeks, and embark on the Maunganui
for Wellington, whither I was bound.
The Maunganui, which belongs to the Union Steamship Company, is a new
vessel, and quite extraordinarily comfortable. The voyage from Sydney
to Wellington takes from Saturday to Wednesday, but sometimes if the
weather is bad it takes longer.
As we steamed out of Sydney, I at last had a view of the famous bay,
and it exceeded all my expectations: the colouring is so rich, the
lines and shape of the coast are so nobly planned, and the sky and the
sea are so intoxicatingly bright, fresh, and dazzling. I am sorry for
people who are disappointed in Sydney.
_On Board the Maunganui: August_
The ship is crowded with passengers. There is a very comfortable
smoking-room on the upper deck. The ship is beautifully clean and
new-looking. She is a new ship. She made her first voyage in February,
1912.
There are on board fifty “boys” who are going to Buenos Ayres. There
are engineers. As for the rest of the passengers, there are many men,
many women, and many children. The sea is unusually smooth--unusually,
that is to say, for this part of the ocean, which I am told is
generally rough.
I settle myself down to read O’Brien’s “Life of Parnell,” one of the
best biographies in the English language.
I think a ship is the pleasantest place to read in in the world. First,
you have the advantages of being indoors and out of doors at the same
time, if you sit on a deck chair, or in a smoking-room near an open
door. Secondly, you are just sufficiently and not too much interrupted.
You can pause and watch the passengers. You overhear scraps of talk.
You engage yourself in desultory conversation.
But during all this first afternoon I am riveted by the doings of
Parnell--the man who, so cold and aloof, exercised an electric power
over the rest of his fellow creatures: the man who smashed the
machinery of the House of Commons, in order to compel the British to
deal with the Irish question.
I was at school when some of the most stirring acts of that drama were
being played. All schoolboys are, of course, “Conservatives,” and our
schoolmaster was a fanatical Tory. The mere mention of Mr. Gladstone’s
name maddened him, and I remember one day his telling the boys that
he had received a circular from some political Liberal association,
and that he intended to send it back to the secretary with a penny
inside it, so that the sender should have to pay eightpence. This was a
good civic lesson for the young! All the boys professed to be staunch
Tories; but if it was discovered that one’s parents were Liberals, one
was labelled Liberal. This was my unfortunate predicament.
The general election of 1885 took place when I was at school. The Head
Master addressed the school when it began, and he prefaced his speech
by saying, “There are only seven Liberals in the school.” This was nice
for the Liberals.
On the 5th of November an effigy of Chamberlain was burned in the
garden. The effigy bore a large cardboard cow with the words “Three
Acres” written on it. Years afterwards I described this incident in
an article for a London daily. In mentioning Chamberlain I added the
words, “who was at that time a radical.” The editor crossed out these
words. The Conservative readers of this daily were not to be reminded
that Chamberlain had ever been a radical. It seemed almost like
blasphemy to hint at such a thing. And yet it was true. Unless history
be suppressed altogether, the fact will have to go down to posterity
that in 1885 Chamberlain was a radical. It seemed a terrible shame in
those days that one’s parents should be on what, in the opinion of
one’s world, was obviously the wrong side.
English private schools are, or were, the most curious institutions
in the world. The parents of to-day say they are entirely changed and
altered. They may be; but one thing is quite certain, the parents don’t
know. The only people who know are the boys, and they don’t reveal the
secrets of the fortress until they are grown up; but, judging by what
grown-up boys of twenty now tell one, they do not seem to me to be
greatly changed.
My school was totally unlike the schools depicted in fiction and
pictured by the boyish imagination. There were no bullies--at least,
not among the boys; the masters did the bullying. They exercised a
reign of terror; they ruled by mysterious hints and vague threats, so
that one moved perpetually under the shadow of an impending but unknown
doom. The sense of guilt for some crime which one didn’t know the
nature of was perpetually being brought home to one. And the boys used
to catch the tone of mystery, and act as if they formed part of the
conspiracy, which, of course, they didn’t. They were all equally in the
dark.
The discretion of boys is extraordinary: their fear of giving anything
away; their constant profession of happiness, in spite of obvious
misery. But then, of course, it must be remembered that they accept
the conditions of school life as the best that life has to offer. They
think that _is_ happiness.
* * * * *
In the evening after dinner some of the “boys” played poker. Gradually
I made their acquaintance. One of them told me of the life in Buenos
Ayres. He asked me to lend him a book. He had a pal who read books, and
was in fact reading, he said, a book which he believed to be the _best
book in print_. That was a nice phrase, and I have already quoted it.
He fetched the book: it turned out to be “Monte Cristo.” I agree as to
the description of it.
In another book on English prisons I have read just lately, called “A
Holiday in Gaol,” the writer says that “Monte Cristo” was engaged half
a dozen deep by the prisoners at Wormwood Scrubbs.
The “boy” turned over the leaves of “Monte Cristo” and came across the
name “Sinbad the Sailor,” and asked me whether it was the same story
as “Sinbad the Sailor,” because he had seen that played at Sydney, and
couldn’t make it out. It is, indeed, not very easy to make out the
story of “Sinbad the Sailor” from a pantomime version.
I saw this actual version of “Sinbad the Sailor” later in Wellington,
and a very good pantomime it was; but lucidity and cohesion of plot
were not its strongest points.
In Sydney pantomimes go on all the year round, I am told, and not only
at Christmas time, as in England.
I was playing patience after dinner. This led to talking of
fortune-telling by cards, and one of the Sydney “boys” asked me to tell
his fortune, which I did, as well as that of five or six others. The
next day one of them informed me that I had told their fortunes “to a
tick.”
Let me hastily say that I don’t believe there is anything in it; but
cards are uncanny things all the same, and fruitful in odd coincidences.
Once when I was travelling in Russia I met a man who professed to tell
fortunes by cards. It was in a third-class railway carriage and the man
was a poor man. This is how he did it. He told one to wish, and then
dealt out his cards in the orthodox manner; but he added, “When you
wish, you mustn’t think of a green horse or else your wish won’t come
true.” As if after being told such a thing one could help thinking of a
green horse.
* * * * *
I am reading a book by that delightful author, William de Morgan,
called “Somehow Good.” He is one of those authors who does the work for
you. The book reads itself: just in the same way as Italian servants
say that crockery breaks. For instance, an Italian servant never says,
“The cook has broken a plate,” but “A plate has broken itself to the
cook.” (Si e rotto un piatto alla cuoca.)
I have often wondered how housemaids acquired the apparently innate
genius they possess for breaking things. It certainly amounts to
genius; for it happens automatically and suddenly, as if prompted by
divine and authentic inspiration. The gift is apparently shared by
steerage passengers in a liner. The chief officer of the liner in which
I travelled from England told me, before we had reached Fremantle, that
twelve hundred glasses had been broken in the steerage. (There were
eight hundred passengers.)
Sailors and Chinamen never break anything; but, on the other hand,
there is nothing that children will not break. Children are like white
ants; they are entirely destructive, and they construct nothing, except
sand castles. And sand is the best safety-valve for the terrible and
unlimited powers of childhood that exists.
This has been noted by the poet, who says:--
“On the other hand,
Children in ordinary dress
May always play with sand.”
* * * * *
In reading through the last pages that I have written, I am struck by
the fact that there is very little about travel in these supposed notes
on travel. The word longitude has not yet occurred, and no scrap of
information that could be of any possible practical use to any one has
yet been given. Does it matter?
[Illustration: YOU MUSTN’T THINK OF A GREEN HORSE]
Practical information can be sought for in guidebooks. I say _sought
for_ purposely, for it can really only be obtained by experience. As
for geographical details, I cannot think that the perusal of them
is very interesting. And then, in writing on random subjects under
a misleading title, I am only following well-known precedents. For
instance, if you buy a modern book on “Gardening,” what do you find?
You open the book, say, at the chapter headed “June,” and you find this
kind of thing:--
I don’t think the pictures in the Royal Academy are so good this year
as they were last: but the average level is on the whole higher. I
remember Lord Melbourne saying that the Academy was the only picture
gallery he really enjoyed, because the pictures told one stories and
there was no damned nonsense of art about them. I am sorry that the
girls of the present day are no longer taught sketching. Every girl
should be able to sketch badly. Albums of sketches, made on the
Continent, are a great resource on rainy Saturdays, and do well to sell
at bazaars.
Italy is a good subject for sketching. Apropos of Italy, I came across
the following poem in the South Wiltshire “Gazette.” It was said to be
by Wordsworth, but a kind correspondent tells me that it is really by
Miss Ellen F. Winthrope, who died at Beverly, Massachusetts, in 1887,
at the age of seventy-three:--
_Lines written at Florence_
Look upward, for the sky is not all cloud.
Look forward, think not of the dismal shroud.
No lane but has a turning, and no road
That leads not somewhere to a warm abode.
Take courage. If the day seems rather long,
The cooling dew will fall at evensong.
Believe, and Doubt is sure to slink away,
Doubt is a cur; and Fear is but a fool;
Rely upon yourself and let your stay
Be the observance of the heavenly rule.
Never say die; and do not be afraid;
At eventide the wages will be paid.
A Dutch friend of mine gave me the following very good recipe for
cooking anchovies: “Take an old garden hat, boil for seven minutes
in boiling water. Add four pounds of cinnamon, one nutmeg, and half a
glass of Chablis. Cut the anchovies in pieces and place on china plate.
Pour the boiling water over them, and serve tepid with slices of lemon.”
Another friend of mine gave me this quaint, old-fashioned recipe
for boiling a turkey: “Gather strawberry leaves on Lamas Eve, press
them in the distillery until the aromatick perfume thereof becomes
sensible. Take a fat turkey and pluck him, and baste him, then enfold
him carefully in the strawberry leaves. Then boyl him in water from
the well, and add rosemary, rue, parsefoil, passevelours, carraway,
floramour, velvet flower, lavender, thistles, stinging nettles, and
other sweet smelling herbs. Add also a pinte of Canary wine, and half
pound of butter and one of ginger passed through the sieve. Serve with
plums and stewed raisons and a little salt. Cover him with a silver
dish cover. The Compleat Cook, 1656.”
Appended to this was the quaint motto:--
“Live and learne, for flowyrres fade,
June waiteth not for man or mayde.”
That is the kind of thing you will find in the June chapter of the
modern book on “Gardening.”
Then, if you take a book on a definite place, called, say, Rome. What
do you find? Facts? No. Dates? No. But something like this:--
_The Spirit of Rome_ (_with apologies to Vernon Lee_)
_May 11._ We drove this afternoon to the Villa Madama; on the way we
talked of Richard Strauss and the non-melodic musicians. Strauss is a
Dionysiac. We compared his prophetic mood-music with the old-fashioned
facile melodies of Wagner that pleased our youth. While we were
talking a shepherd passed us. As he passed he took off his hat and
said, “Buon giorno.” Very Roman that.
_May 27._ Porta Pia. A ragged cloud in the west and the sun shining
very pale and watery. Passed a man playing a harmonium. P---- insisted
on stopping to listen and the man asked him the time. This is the kind
of thing that only happens to P---- and in Rome.
_May 31._ Mount Aventine. S---- and I strolled up the hill. We walked
into a church (blonde marbles and seaweed-coloured pillars). A woman
dressed in a bonnet and black silk came in and said her prayers.
S---- said this reminded her of Boston. Why?
_June 2._ Sunday. Heard a sermon in the afternoon at the church of
St. Praxed. (Alas! the tomb of Browning’s Bishop is not there, nay,
probably Browning had another church in his eye.) The priest in the
middle of his sermon, yawned, and said, “Basta!” Then, for the first
time during this visit, for the first time since twenty years, I felt
the unmistakable thrill of recognition, and said, “This is Rome.”
Or there is another method. That is the contemplative historic
description of something you have never seen (the Belloc method). You
don’t pretend to have seen it; but you describe what you might have
felt, had you seen it. It is something like this:--
I have never been to Arles. But yesterday as I was walking along the
Roman Road between Chanctonbury and Horsham, I thought of Arles. Arles
is perpetually seeking new things in Europe. Arles has the spirit,
the judgment, and the greatness of the thirteenth century. Chicago
differs utterly in mood from Arles. In Chicago there is war. You buy
a newspaper and ten to one the leading article will be an affirmation
or a denial of a creed or a dogma. In Arles you may buy newspapers for
a month and get nothing but the record of the weather, two days old.
And, as I consider the two towns, neither of which I have visited, I
find almost as great a pleasure in imagining them as in remembering
the sharp pictures of Birmingham and Swindon. I have been to Swindon;
and that reminds me, Swindon has a song of its own. It is called “If
the Swin was in the Swim.” I have great hopes of the town of Swindon.
The world has become introspective and subjective. People no longer
write about what they heard or saw. They assume that the reader knows
all that. But they describe what they felt and thought on Monday, or
on Tuesday, or on any other day of the week. Anatole France started
the game by saying that criticism was the adventures of the soul among
masterpieces.
This method came as a boon to reviewers and critics: they no longer
had to pretend to read the books they reviewed. To dramatic critics,
especially, the system was invaluable; but they have now carried it
further still. The “literary” critic who wrote an account of a play
instead of telling you what the play was about and the effect it had
on the audience, gave you his “impressions” of the play. But now he
just gives you his impressions: not his impressions of the play, but
his impressions of anything: the Woman’s Suffrage Movement--the Rocky
Mountains. He need scarcely mention the play; but it is generally
done. These impressions he will write in the obscure dialect of modern
Oxford, which consists of a complicated kind of literary slang. He
writes so carefully that it is impossible to know exactly what he
means. He will begin by describing a journey he has just made; he will
continue to give you his views on Henry James, or the principles of
art, then he will suddenly find after two columns of disquisition that
he has come to the end of his space, and he will put off dealing with
the play to the following week. By that time he will have forgotten
what he meant to be going to say, and he will be obliged to write a new
disquisition on something else. That is how the “literary critic” deals
with the drama to-day. I find no fault with the system.
This is how the “literary” critic would deal with “Hamlet” were
“Hamlet” a new play:--
_A Non-Conductor_
Last week I had a good deal to say about the possible effect of
woman’s suffrage on art, and this led me to disagree, as the French
say, on the attitude of Aristophanes towards the woman question. The
fault I have to find with Mr. Shakespeare’s play which was produced
tentatively at the Repertory Theatre in Wolverhampton last Tuesday,
will be plainer when I have first explained the reason why Walt
Whitman never wrote a play.
Walt Whitman had probably the greatest unexpressed dramatic gift
of the century. He was the most potentially dramatic of all the
modern poets: although his centrifugality led him out, so to speak,
of his perspective, and shifted his dioramic outlook from the
psychologic-human to the devisualized-ideal. Yes, Whitman was perhaps
the greatest dramatist who never wrote a play: with the possible
exception of Browning, who wrote plays which were in reality unbegun
novels. Unlike Swinburne, whose system consisted of finishing his
play before it began and filling up the space with deciduous phrases.
Swinburne and Browning are the two great negative poles of drama:
Whitman is the inverted mute magnet, who repelled drama from him
instead of attracting it. I will explain, and in order to explain, we
must go back to the Indian drama; etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Here, on the other hand, in contrast to this, is an example of
the older impressionist method; a short notice written in a cheap
newspaper, by a critic who has not had time to see the last act, and to
whom the manager has refused to give a sketch of the plot:--
_Hamlet: Puzzle-Play at the Pantheon_
Mr. Shakespeare is presumably a new writer. I don’t remember having
seen any of his work before, although it was rumoured last night
that he had once been guilty of some sonnets. He may be able to
write sonnets; but writing sonnets is one thing and writing a play is
another. Not that there is no cleverness and no promise in “Hamlet”;
but it is a literary cleverness, and not a dramatic cleverness.
The play suffers from dullness, length, and want of action. There is
far too much talk from beginning to end. And the talk is not dramatic.
Mr. Shakespeare has made the unpardonable mistake of not making his
intention clear.
Is Hamlet, the hero of this rather disagreeable family imbroglio,
meant to be mad, or is he meant to be simulating madness? Is the
ghost a real ghost? Are we to take it seriously, or is it merely the
practical mystification of a royal buffoon?
And what are we to think of the heroine? Is she really mad also?
Or is her madness a literary device contrived so as to afford Mr.
Shakespeare opportunities for “lyricism” and incidental music? Either
Mr. Shakespeare meant to write a serious tragedy on the subject of
madness, or he meant to parody the prevalent mania for so-called
psychological studies: but the audience, being at a loss to know what
he meant, was merely puzzled and bored. The actors did their best with
their thankless task, and Mrs. Siddons, who celebrated her diamond
jubilee last Thursday, looked younger than ever in the somewhat
ungrateful part of the peevish and provoking heroine.
The upshot of all this digression is that I wish to excuse myself
for having written at random by the exposition of current models and
precedents.
* * * * *
After a four days’ voyage from Sydney, I have arrived at the other end
of the world: Antipodes.
_Wellington: August 10_
It is the end of winter here, the beginning of spring; and colder, of
course, than it is in Australia. The Wellington wind which you hear so
much of you feel and hear a great deal as soon as you get up on to the
hills. In the town I think you feel it less than one is told.
Before sailing from London, five people told me that you can always
tell a Wellington man because he holds on his hat when he walks round a
corner of a street, because the wind blows round the corners. Everybody
in the ship coming out, to whom I mentioned New Zealand, told me the
story again, until at last I thought of having a small placard hanging
round my neck with “I know how to tell a Wellington man” written on it,
or “Don’t tell me the story of the Wellington man and wind; I know it.”
[Illustration: A WELLINGTON MAN TURNING A STREET CORNER]
The first thing that strikes an Englishman about the landscape of
New Zealand is the absence of atmosphere. The jagged hills stand
out sharp against the clear sky like a photograph seen through a
stereoscope. There are no half-lights, no melting mist or wreathing
haze, no vague distances.
Another thing which strikes the stranger is the volcanic appearance
of the hills and the soil. New Zealand is a tropical island cooled
and made temperate by the neighbourhood of the South Pole. Wellington
nestles among steep hills covered with light-green grass and shorn of
all trees. Its roofs are nearly all red. If you climb up a hill you see
the view on either side of it, and the sea, very deep and blue.
Not so very many years ago New Zealand was covered with bush; and the
vegetation must have been riotously splendid, for what remains is very
fine.
My first walk in the country along the beach, where a very blue sea
breaks over sharp brown rocks, and high cliffs stand out sharp and
sheer, reminded me of South Devon.
My first long drive in the country reminded me of Russia, that is
to say, of eastern Siberia and Transbaikalia. The little wooden
one-storied houses, with red iron roofs and verandahs, might have been
taken from Siberia. The sharp outline of the hills, the colour of the
scrub, the clearness of the sky, all this is very much like what you
see from the windows of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Another thing the stranger will notice immediately is the limpidity of
the streams and the water.
Everybody tells me that this is the wrong time of year to be in New
Zealand. One should be here in the summer: that is to say, in November
and December. One should be able to camp out in the bush, by the
great lakes, where the black swans sweep and wheel in the transparent
afterglow.
I shan’t see all that, alas! because it is practically winter now. I
shall miss probably all the important sights.
In Wellington you see a great many private automobiles; very few public
cabs and taxis. Most people use the tram-cars, which is much the most
convenient way of getting about, let alone the cheapness.
The first thing that strikes you in Wellington is the well-to-do-ness
of everybody. There are no beggars; the workmen are all well off. The
people seem quite extraordinarily happy.
_Near Palmerston: August 20_
I have spent four days in the country near Palmerston. As you travel in
the train the country is more like eastern Siberia than ever. In the
distance you see a sharp range of blue hills, in the foreground a flat
plain on which little squat one-storied wooden houses with red iron
roofs are dotted about.
The small provincial cities, too, are--as in Australia--very like the
provincial towns in Russia. The streets are broad and the houses have
verandahs.
Another point of resemblance: the way the people ride. You meet
children riding back from school, two on a pony. They seem to belong
to the pony. They ride like little centaurs. This reminds me of the
evenings in the plains of the Russian country, where one used to see
the children of the village galloping off bareback on large horses and
driving a lot of riderless horses to the river, to water them.
As you drive in the country in New Zealand, the first thing you notice
is the tall gum-trees, and whenever you get near the bush you hear the
song of strange, unfamiliar birds. No native-born New Zealand bird has
wings.
* * * * *
The New Zealanders are born footballers. You see the children playing
everywhere. On every Saturday afternoon there is a big football match,
and crowds of people look on. Rugby football is the national game of
New Zealand, and I suppose the New Zealanders are the best players in
the world.
At the Athletic Park Ground you often see two matches going on at once.
It is extremely difficult to watch two matches at once; because the
moment you begin to watch something in the one, something interesting
is sure to happen in the other. One would think, speaking as an
outsider, that the Rugby game is far more interesting to look on at
than the Association game. But the Londoner does not think so. Every
Saturday in London, and, indeed, all over England, thousands of people
look on at the Association game, and they care very much less for
Rugby, which they consider to be a “toff’s game.” There is, they say,
“too much shirt-tearing” about it for their taste.
Rugby football in New Zealand has not yet been spoiled by
professionalism. People think it is an honour to play for a team, and
they are willing to travel and play all over the country for the honour
of it, and without remuneration.
In England professionalism has spoiled not only football but almost
every other game, with the possible exception of “Old Maid,” cribbage,
and “My Bird Sings.”
The result is:--
(1) People prefer looking on at games to playing them themselves.
(2) They demand professionals and they bet on them.
(3) Some games become so professionally perfect that people no longer
care to look on at them.
The passion of the crowd in England for watching football is looked
upon by many people as the most ominous sign of national decadence, and
as a manifestation resembling that of the gladiatorial shows in ancient
Rome. They say it is this passion for watching, and for betting in the
watching, that is responsible for the prevalence of professionalism.
In England one local club buys a celebrated player from another local
club. Therefore, it is obvious that this is the death of any real local
spirit.
As for the games becoming so professional that people lose interest in
them, this does not apply to football: but it does apply to cricket. In
the last years there is in England a great falling-off in the public
interest in cricket. The play has become so perfect that nobody cares
to look at it.
And even, or rather especially, at the schools in England, games have
become ultra-professional.
All this is a pity, but it does not apply to New Zealand. New Zealand
has, up to now, been unspoiled by professionalism. Long may it remain
so. One football enthusiast told me that the cloven hoof was making its
appearance.
* * * * *
What most people want to hear about New Zealand are facts with regard
to the economic situation of the country: the labour question, the
effects of woman’s suffrage, the drink question, prohibition, etc.
Now, unless one makes a really thorough and serious study of these
questions, which it is impossible to do without devoting considerable
time to it, without, in fact, living in the country for a reasonable
period, it is worse than useless to fire off a few superficial and
dogmatic generalizations. It is for this reason that I forbear from
discussing them here.
_Wellington: September_
The first manifestations of the spring have taken the form of rain and
wind. Whenever the wind is in the south, the weather is cold: for the
wind comes straight from the South Pole. But luckily the rain does not
last long. Changes of weather in New Zealand are very sudden. The hills
are now covered with gorse in bloom. Daffodils are out everywhere; and
in the town you see arum lilies that grow wild in New Zealand in great
profusion; but I imagine their time is later.
I am leaving the country just as the pleasant season is beginning, and
I am leaving before I have had time to see the most interesting places
in it. I have not seen New Zealand; but I have seen Wellington, and I
have had a glimpse of the country. I have seen the Parliament sitting.
I have met many interesting people. I have been to two concerts, one
picture-show, one hospital, one theatre, and four football matches. I
have not been to one thing: and that is morning tea.
Morning tea is, I believe, a custom peculiar to New Zealand. The New
Zealanders give teas at eleven o’clock in the morning.
Eleven o’clock in the morning is the time when one feels most
exhausted. Refreshment of some kind at 11 A.M. is surely a need of
human nature; and the New Zealanders have done well to crystallize the
need into a tradition and a habit.
Tea and whisky seem to be the national drinks of New
Zealand--especially whisky. But tea is often drunk at meals.
The impression that prevails in England that New Zealand is a place
where you can’t get anything to drink, is a false one. Of course, some
of the cities in the country are under the ban of prohibition, and so
are certain portions of Wellington itself: from these you have to cross
the street into such territory as lies outside the ban. The railway
cars are teetotal.
The people here often tell you that they are being over-legislated. And
one notable New Zealander told me that what the country most needed was
improvement in higher education. The people, he said, did not care for
higher education. Their point of view was material. They wouldn’t do
things unless there was something to show for it.
In Wellington there are four large, long streets full of shops, tall
stone buildings, English in character, hotels, banks, etc., with
verandahs covering the pavement the whole way, and cars running through
them. Outside of these streets, the houses are mostly built of wood,
and resemble, as I have already said, those of a Russian provincial
town.
The prices strike an Englishman as high, and the cost of living in New
Zealand is undoubtedly high. The wages are, from our point of view,
enormously high. A good chauffeur (I know of a case in point) can get
£4 a week, and a house. From the English point of view such wages are
very high indeed.
The New Zealanders strike me as being much more like English people
than the Australians. Of course they have characteristics of their own.
One thing is certain--a more friendly, hospitable people does not exist.
To go into the matter of their institutions, life, etc., would need
a far more prolonged study and stay than I have been able to make,
and I have already said, three or four times, that I don’t believe in
pronouncing judgments on a country before you know it thoroughly.
One of the most interesting people I have met here is a French lady of
the highest culture and education, Sœur Marie Joseph, who is at the
head of a Home of Compassion for derelict children. She went out to the
Crimean War under Florence Nightingale and looked after the wounded on
the battlefields that knew nothing of anæsthetics. She told me that
sometimes the doctors, after a day of surgical operations, would be
drunk with the fumes of the blood. The wounded had to be tied down to
be operated on, and sometimes, where this was not practicable, people
had to sit on them to hold them down.
Sœur Marie Joseph is very fond of New Zealand. She came out, attracted
by what she heard of the Maoris, and she knows the Maoris with an
intimate thoroughness. She has a great admiration for them; and she
gave me many instances of their chivalry and nobility of character.
She has seen great changes since she has been in New Zealand. When she
first came, she told me, New Zealand was covered with bush--that is to
say, with magnificent forests; and the population, then, she says, was
like one large family.
* * * * *
This morning at one of the Catholic churches here the priest preached
a most interesting sermon. Among other things he told the following
story. He said, “The other day I met a man who said, ‘I am a better
Catholic than you are; because I go to all the churches: the Catholic,
the Anglican, the Presbyterian, etc.’” On the following Sunday the
priest passed this same man as he was working in his garden, and he
said to him, “You may go to all the churches, but you don’t obey the
precepts of any of them; for they all tell you not to work on Sunday.”
The man laughed.
A few days after the priest met the man again in the town, and the man
said to him: “I have just had the narrowest escape. I fell off a car
and my legs were underneath it, and I was within an ace of being run
over, when mercifully it stopped just in time.”
“Well,” said the priest, “I think that was due to me, because, when I
saw you working last Sunday, I prayed for the salvation of your legs.”
_Roratonga and Tahiti: September_
I left Wellington on September 13 on the steamship Moana, one of the
steamers belonging to the Union Steamship Company.
There was a great deal of excitement at the send-off, because the Rugby
Union Football Team from Australia were on board. They had come from
Sydney and were on their way to San Francisco, in order to play against
the local teams there. These football boys had arrived the day before,
and had had a respite of twenty-four hours from the inclemency of the
sea, which they had greatly enjoyed (the respite, I mean, not the
sea). Some of them had never been away from Australia before. Several
of them, or, indeed, nearly all of them with the exception of about
seven, were indifferent sailors. They remained on shore as long as they
possibly could, one of them climbing up the gangway as it was actually
being pulled up. The ship sailed amidst cheering and singing.
The southern Pacific, especially that part of it which is near New
Zealand, is not a pleasant sea. The steamer pitched, and altogether
the comfort of passengers was considerably interfered with during
the first two days of the voyage. We started on Friday, and owing to
the change of time we had two Saturdays running. (Let mathematicians
explain that if they can.) It was not until the Sunday which followed
the two Saturdays that the sea began to be smooth enough to allow the
passengers to behave like human beings instead of like half-inanimate
corpses.
On Sunday most of the football boys emerged from their cabins and began
training on the upper deck. They boxed, they wrestled, they ran, they
played leap-frog, they formed scrimmages; in fact, they displayed every
form of energy which human bones and muscles are capable of.
The weather grew warmer, and on the Tuesday we got to the southeast
trade winds. The day after this the steamer called at the island of
Roratonga. Roratonga is an island which consists of sharp and jagged
little hills entirely covered with a riotous green vegetation.
In thinking of the South Sea Islands, and of tropical islands in
general, if you have never seen them, one may not realise that the
general appearance of them must necessarily be green, since they
are entirely covered with vegetation. One imagines a few palm-trees
sticking up out of the sea, instead of a range of mountains covered
with trees. As you first catch sight of Roratonga, you realise what
New Zealand must have been like when it was covered with bush, only,
of course, the climate of Roratonga is far milder and far warmer. The
moment the steamer reaches Roratonga a great quantity of natives set
out in boats from the shore and swarm on board. They are not black;
they are not copper-coloured; they are a sort of dull almond colour,
with very black hair and very dark brown eyes. They wear large straw
hats; some of them have flowers in their hair and behind their ears.
[Illustration: NATIVES SWARMING ON BOARD]
As soon as you reach the shore the aspect of the island, which you
might think disappointing at a distance, changes entirely. You are
caught in a sort of warm embrace of aromatic deliciousness. Hibiscus
bushes, with great scarlet blossoms, surround you on every side; cocoa
palms, and all vegetation which you expect to see in a tropical island,
are there before your eyes. But you will say, “If it is just the same
as any other tropical island, what is the use of describing it--if
it is merely what one sees in the East? You have already spoken of
Ceylon.” Well, Roratonga and the islands of the South Seas are not in
the least like Ceylon, and they are not in the least like anything in
the Near or Far East. They have a peculiar charm which is completely
individual, and totally unlike anything else. The sights and the people
of these Southern places are utterly unlike the sights and people
you see in the East--in Ceylon, for instance. There is nothing here
of that hard, metallic element which you get in the East; nothing of
that inscrutable mystery, that shadow of cruelty, which you feel in
the Orient. The people are like the climate--soft and gentle; and
they talk in musical tones, like the twittering of birds; and their
speech is careless as the laughing talk of children. They reminded me
of that race of people whom H. G. Wells describes in his book “The
Time Machine,” that same people whom he imagines as living aboveground
in the far, far distant future, when the industrial population of
the world had grown into a sort of human flesh-eating lemur, which
could only live underground and could only see in the dark. Mr. Wells
represents the other and the civilized half of the population as
having progressed or degenerated, whichever you like, into a race of
childlike, amiable, and playful little people, who live on fruit
in tumble-down houses, and who are as careless and irresponsible as
butterflies. The people of Roratonga reminded me of this fancy of Mr.
Wells’s.
At a little hotel where I stopped to eat some fresh bananas (and, oh,
the difference between the fresh bananas and those which one buys at a
store in Europe!) the woman who kept the hotel, and who had come from
South Africa, talked of the natives. She said: “It is impossible to get
them to work. If you find any fault with them they go away. It is we
poor white people who have to do all the work. I would like,” she said,
“to shambok them as they do in South Africa, so lazy and impossible
they are sometimes, but we are not allowed to touch them. But then,”
she added, “of course one can’t blame them, because they are quite well
off without working. They have got enough to live on without doing any
work.” I thought that it would, indeed, be unreasonable to blame these
natives for not slaving for white people if they were not obliged to
do so. The fact is that in these islands work for the natives is not a
necessity; it is a hobby. It is to them what gardening must have been
to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, in the days before the Fall. If
Adam and Eve gardened then, they gardened for fun. After the Fall of
Man, they had to garden for a living and not from choice. Well, the
native inhabitants of the South Sea Islands seem to have escaped or to
be exempted from the primal curse; in fact, I believe that the islands
of Tahiti and Roratonga are two bits of the Garden of Eden which were
allowed to remain in the world so as to show mankind what they had lost
by Eve’s curiosity, Adam’s disobedience, and the Devil’s spite.
We walked along the coast of this island up to the house of the
missionary, where there was a large field. The football boys wanted to
practise. We certainly envied the missionary his house. It stood under
a huge shelving hill covered with palm-trees, in a perfect labyrinth
of flowers. When the boys began to play football, the natives came in
great crowds and stood round chirping with delight like birds; and
when the boys had finished practising, they threw the football to the
natives and told them they might play. At first, the natives fought shy
of the football,--I imagine that they thought they would have to play
against these terrifically efficient and muscular representatives of
New South Wales; but when they realised that the boys did not want to
play with them, and that they could play among themselves, they took
to the game with great eagerness, and were soon enjoying themselves
greatly. It was curious that by just looking on they had picked up a
very good idea of the game, the main features of which they mimicked
with some skill; one little boy was an excellent tackler.
One was struck by the extraordinarily musical quality of their voices
and their language, which consists almost entirely of soft open
vowels, and which is, I suppose, the most melodious of all human
languages.
Before going back to the steamer, which was to sail in a few hours, I
bathed in the sea, in a warm azure sea, and then, after eating more
bananas and a delicious bitter fruit called “Brazilian cherries,” I
went on board once more.
From Roratonga it only takes two days to get to the island of Tahiti,
and the steamer anchored at Papeete on Friday, the 20th September.
Roratonga gives you a kind of foretaste of the whole charm and beauty
of the South Seas. It is the appetizer, the _hors-d’œuvre_, not the
whole meal. Tahiti is the whole thing; the real thing; the thing one
has dreamt about all one’s life; the thing which made Stevenson leave
Europe forever. All tellers of fairy tales, and all poets from Homer
downwards, have always imagined the existence of certain islands which
were so full of magic and charm that they turned man from his duty and
from all tasks, labour, or occupation in which he was engaged, and held
him a willing captive, who would not sell his captivity for all the
prizes of the busy world.
Stevenson in one of his books--“The Wrecker,” I think--says that
if a man who was toiling in some English town were to be suddenly
transported to one of the South Sea Islands, in the neighbourhood of
Tahiti, and had a vision of the beauty that is there, and then were
to be transported back again to his prosaic and ugly surroundings, he
would say, “At any rate, I have had my dream.” That is how one feels
when one has seen Tahiti. One feels one has had one’s dream.
The Bay of Papeete curves inward. As you sail into it you are sure
to see several white schooners at anchor. At one side is a range of
light-blue volcanic hills stretching out into the crystalline sea,
reminding one of Naples, Capri, and Sorrento, and in the middle of the
bay there is a tiny little island, consisting of a few cocoa palms.
The sea is a transparent azure; little white houses are dotted all
along the line of the beach, nestling in greenery. We got there in the
afternoon and landed at once. We walked along the beach into the little
town, and into the suburbs of it. It was spring in Tahiti, and every
kind of imaginable blossom was flaunting its reckless and extravagant
beauty. Everything grows wild in Tahiti. Nobody seems to bother about
gardening or anything of that kind. It is not only the lilies who do
not toil and spin, but the gardeners also. The unaided results of
nature are so prodigious that the imagination is staggered to think of
what might be done supposing an energetic gardener were let loose in
these islands and allowed to try experiments. He would produce such a
garden as the world has never seen.
I scarcely knew the names of any of the fruits or any of the blossoms
which I saw. There were mango-trees, laden with mangoes which were not
yet ripe; bamboo-trees, breadfruit-trees, cocoa palms, banana-trees,
hibiscus bushes, a tree with a bright pink blossom which looked like
a Judas-tree, but which was not one, bushes with intense mauve- and
deep lilac-coloured flowers, and broad avenues of large green trees
which shaded the road from the hot sun with great fanlike branches. As
we walked along this avenue, on both sides of which there are little
houses, we caught glimpses of wonderfully luxuriant and untrained
gardens.
There seemed to be no birds except blackbirds and mina birds, which
were hopping about in great quantities.
The people seem extraordinarily contented and invincibly indolent.
I was walking along the main street and I wanted to get to the
post-office, which I knew was somewhere along that street. I
stopped at a store and asked whether I was going the right way. The
storekeeper--who was a Frenchman--said, yes, I was going right. I then
asked if it was far. The storekeeper said, oh, yes, it was very far;
indeed, it would take me a good quarter of an hour or twenty minutes
to walk there. I asked him if I could hire a conveyance, as I was in
a hurry. He shook his head and thought it unlikely. I then went on my
way. I thought I would just time myself and see how long it did take
to reach the post-office. I walked fast; but I found, to my amazement,
that it took me exactly three minutes to get there. Doubtless it would
have taken a native of Tahiti twenty minutes. There is no such thing as
hurry and no such thing as energy in these islands.
At five o’clock in the evening the football boys gave a display in
front of the Governor’s house, and crowds of natives witnessed it.
After that we all went to bathe in the bay, where sharks rarely come,
although they do come sometimes.
In the evening we went to a picture-show, where there was a
boxing-match between some native champions.
The people say that if you once drink of the water of Tahiti you
will be bound to go there again, and I do not wonder at this. It is
certainly the most fascinating and most beautiful spot I have ever
seen. Its fascination lies not so much in the profusion and wealth
of luxuriant vegetation and exotic colouring as in its subtle and
indescribable charm. You do not feel as if you were in a hothouse. You
feel as if you were in a most delicious country. You walk along by the
side of streams where you see people doing their washing; you hear the
cry of poultry; you see people driving oxen along the shady road. There
is a wonderful fragrance in the air. Schooners come into the harbour
from the other islands: the Marquesas Islands, etc. The Europeans
walking about in their white clothes do not look like the Europeans you
see in Ceylon, all washed out and wearied from the heat and strain;
they look as if they were enjoying life, as if they were happy where
they were.
There is a large Chinese population in Tahiti, but they busy themselves
for the most part with agriculture. They do not do much work for
the white people. The labour problem in Tahiti is consequently very
vexatious for the white people. It is difficult to get work done at
all; therefore, life in Tahiti is expensive. Often, for instance, the
natives on market-day will bring no meat to the market, because it
bothers them to do so. Of course, if white people consented to live
entirely on fruit, as the natives do, the question would be solved,
and certainly the fruit there is excellent. But man cannot live by
breadfruit alone. He insists on sucking-pig and other more substantial
delicacies; and to get these, in Tahiti, he has to pay money.
There is practically only one small hotel in Tahiti, a little
two-storied house with a verandah. There are many French stores; the
Governor’s House; the post-office; and a theatre. When the Panama
Canal is opened, steamers, I suppose, will call at Tahiti in greater
numbers than they do now, and that will be the time for speculators
to build a larger hotel there. I have no fears of Tahiti ever being
spoiled. It is the kind of place that will conquer civilization rather
than be conquered by it. It was, at present,--I was told by people who
had visited all the islands in the Pacific,--the most unspoiled of all
of them. That is why I chose that route. Fiji is far more progressive,
and I dare say far more satisfactory from a business and European point
of view, but it is less interesting from a picturesque point of view.
I cannot imagine anything more ideal than to possess a schooner fitted
with a small motor, in case of calm, and to cruise about the waters
between Tahiti and the Marquesas, which, one is told, are indescribably
beautiful.
I understand why Stevenson liked the South Seas above all things.
I also understand why he was so loath to write descriptive articles
about them. They are things to be seen; they are places to be seen and
lived in; not to be written about. The pen can give no idea of their
charm. Stevenson does it in his stories, and so does another well-known
author, Louis Becke, who is rightly supposed to be the best writer of
fiction on the South Seas.
It is possible now to take trips to the Marquesas from Tahiti in
trading schooners, but I believe that is not a comfortable manner of
transport. The thing would be to have a schooner of one’s own,--not an
auxiliary schooner, because a schooner which is provided with steam
ceases to be a sailing-vessel: the sails are never used; but a schooner
fitted with a motor would ensure one against being becalmed, and, at
the same time, the motor would not compete with and finally defeat the
sails.
Lying at anchor in Papeete Harbour, there was a magnificent
sailing-vessel which had come from San Francisco. It may not be
very long before such vessels cease to exist altogether. Every day
wind-jammers are being turned into steamers, and sailing-vessels become
fewer and fewer. It is a melancholy fact for those who love the sea.
We stayed at Papeete only twenty-four hours. If you stay longer than
that, you have to stay there a month, because the steamers only call
there once a month. Tahiti is not connected by cable with any other
country. Loath as I was to go, at the end of the twenty-four hours I
felt it was a good thing that I was doing so; otherwise I should have
been tempted to remain there for the rest of my life. Apart from other
things, the climate is intoxicatingly pleasant; hot, but not too hot;
prodigal, at sunset, of the most gorgeous effects of color and light;
indescribably wonderful in the night-time.
The most beautiful spots in Tahiti are inland in the island, and it
would take about a month to see the place properly. Papeete possesses
three public automobiles for hire. I tried the whole of the morning on
the day we left to get one of them, but they had all gone out. Apart
from this, there are a few little carriages which act as cabs, driven
by Chinamen, but they appear to go to sleep in the daytime, and only
appear in the evening. The result was one had to walk about on one’s
feet the whole time, and at the end of the morning I did not wonder
that the inhabitants of this island are disinclined to make strenuous
efforts. It is the kind of place where you are perfectly satisfied to
do nothing. That morning, nevertheless, was one of the most enjoyable
I have ever spent. I walked up and down the streets, looking again and
again at the gorgeous-coloured blossoms and the wonderful green trees.
Between the hours of eleven and one o’clock the stores shut, and the
business of life is interrupted for the midday meal and subsequent
repose.
We left Tahiti in the afternoon, when the greater part of the
population came down to the wharf to see us off. We left feeling like
Ulysses when he was driven by force from the island of Calypso. And I
for one, in any case, felt that come what might, I had had my dream. I
had had a glimpse of Eden, a peep into the earthly paradise.
I have seen many of the beautiful corners of the world. A lake in
Manchuria covered with large pink lotus flowers, as delicate as the
landscape on a piece of Oriental china.
I have seen Linfa, the deserted ruin of the Roman Campagna, rising from
waters thick with water-lilies, and a wilderness of leaves, like a
castle which an enchanter has bade go to sleep for hundreds of years.
I have seen, in the Scilly Isles, that island which is a white garden
set in the bluest of seas. I have seen Capri, and the Greek Islands,
and Brusa in Asia Minor in the spring, when the nightingales sing all
day, and the roses are in full bloom, and the noise of running water is
forever in your ears.
But never have I seen anything so captivating as Tahiti, as those long
shady walks, those great green trees, that reckless, untutored glory of
blossom and foliage, those fruits, those flowers, and the birdlike talk
of those careless natives, who wreathe themselves with flowers, and are
happy without working, and who put scarlet flowers behind their ears
to signify they are going to enjoy themselves: to have a good time; to
paint the town red.
In Tahiti there are no snakes, and in this respect at least Tahiti is
superior to the Garden of Eden, equal to Ireland.
_Across the Pacific: September 21-- October 3_
In describing the voyage across the Pacific (in “The Wrecker”),
Stevenson says that there are certain periods in life which leave
behind them a kind of roseate haze on the map of one’s existence. You
cannot remember the details; you are merely conscious of a kind of
pleasant blur. I feel the same thing about my voyage from Tahiti to
San Francisco, but I have not yet forgotten and shall never forget
the details. That voyage stands out for me like a kind of bath which
had the power of restoring one’s youth for the time being. The trade
winds blew freshly the whole time. There was a breeze even when we
crossed “the line.” It was tropically warm, and yet never for one
hour too hot. It was only at the end of the voyage that the freshness
was overdone, that the weather grew cold, and the sea too rough for
comfort; otherwise the weather was perfect. The huge clouds of the
Pacific chased one another across the sky, as Stevenson describes
them--“blotting out the stars” at night, and making fantastic citadels
in the sunset.
Apropos of the stars in the tropics, one is always told that there is
no twilight in these regions. This is not quite an accurate way of
expressing it. What is accurate, is Coleridge’s line in “The Ancient
Mariner,” when he says, “The Sun’s rim dips; the stars rush out.” He
adds, “At one stride comes the dark.” The moment the sun goes down,
you do see the stars at once; but the darkness that comes is not dark;
the red afterglow down on the horizon, and above it the luminous mauve
haze, which is peculiar to the tropics, lingers a long time, and
against this the great shapes of the clouds stand out inky and black.
It is a wonderful sight.
The football boys used to train twice a day. A large swimming-bath,
made out of a sail, had been fixed up on the deck, so that after
toying with a little amateur training, one could take off one’s clothes
and splash about in the salt water. I do not think I ever enjoyed baths
so much.
In the afternoon many of us used to take sunbaths, and lie half
stripped on the upper deck in the sun, till our skin turned first red
and then brown. At Sydney everybody takes these sunbaths, and this
accounts for the bronzed complexion of the Australians.
The football boys had appetites which I have rarely seen equalled and
never seen surpassed.
When I was at school at Eton, there was a phrase which was peculiar to
the place, namely, “a brozier” (I am not certain that this is the right
spelling). “A brozier” or “to brozier” meant when the boys ate all the
food provided for them and clamored for more, until there was nothing
left in the house.
There was, once upon a time, a much-venerated lady at Eton, called
Miss Evans, who ruled over a house of boys. One day the boys settled on
“a brozier,” and ate everything in the house, but Miss Evans was not
to be defeated. She produced a large, evil-smelling cheese, and set it
before the boys, and this cheese defeated them.
The football boys seemed capable of doing this every day, and the
stewards were walked off their feet by the amount of fetching and
carrying of dishes which they had to perform. As soon as the bugle
blew, one heard a stampede of feet going down to the saloon. One felt
inclined to quote Browning’s celebrated poem, and say,--
“Dinner’s at seven--
All’s right with the world.”
It is a curious thing that I got to know more about Australia and
New Zealand after having left it than I did when I was there, by the
presence and companionship of these football boys from New South Wales.
Most of them were Australians, some had come from New Zealand. Besides
being some of the best amateur football players in the world, they were
the very best of good fellows, and to live with them was like being
transported back again to Oxford or Cambridge and the days of one’s
youth.
After dinner in the evening choruses used to be sung, and singing in
chorus is the crown of good-fellowship.
In the eighteenth century in England, whenever people met together to
eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, they sang. Song, alas, is now dying
out of modern England, but it still lingers in the haunts of the young.
Very few people now write drinking-songs, and this surely testifies to
a lamentable decay in our morals.
I shall always be thankful to this trip for having afforded me a better
glimpse of the new world, which I obtained through the companionship
of these fine sons of Australia and New Zealand, than I might have
obtained by living for months in Wellington or Sydney, because on
board a small ship one gets to know people far more intimately than one
does anywhere else, and it is by getting to know people that you arrive
at an understanding of a country. It is not through sight-seeing that
you get to know a country; it is through getting to know its people
well, and through getting to know the right sort of people.
_San Francisco: October 3_
There is no subject in the world more hackneyed than American
impressions. Nearly every month a writer of note discovers America over
again. In spite of this, I am told, there is no stuff that is more
eagerly read in the States, and outside of them, than impressions of
America written by a foreigner. It doesn’t seem to matter whether such
impressions are written by a writer of renown, such as H. G. Wells or
Arnold Bennett, or by a totally unknown tourist; it does not matter
whether they are well written or ill written, whether they are serious
or flippant, amusing or dull; they are certain to be read.
I think I can understand the reason of this. People in any country like
to read about themselves. They like to look upon their own image as it
is reflected in the mirror of foreign observers.
It does not much matter what the mirror is like, so long as the image
is there. There is no book of impressions of England, for instance,
that I could not read with interest.
Nevertheless, all this does not make the task of writing about America
to an American public any easier. If one is writing exclusively for
one’s own native public, the task is not so difficult. One can describe
an American hotel, for instance, a train, a tram-car; one can tell how
one is shaved and how one’s boots are blacked; but the American public
knows that already. So the task resolves itself into this: one has to
write about things which are intimately familiar to the public one is
addressing, in such a manner as to make it possible for them to read
what one writes without being tired to death and throwing the book at
some one’s head.
This being so, I revolve in my mind the different methods which could
be applied to the task. First of all, there is the method to which I
have already alluded, and in some cases used in these notes: the method
of not writing about America at all, but about something else. You
would begin writing like this: “The day I arrived at San Francisco,
I was thinking about Venice,” and then you would write a chapter on
Venice. But I do not think people would stand this.
Then you could use the manner of Bernard Shaw. You could write a
“discussion” on America in three acts, in which an aeronaut, a
milliner, a Salvation Army girl, a capitalist, a High-Church clergyman,
and a lady Socialist would sit round a table and discuss America.
You would begin with a preface on trusts, Italian opera, vivisection,
submarines, and prizefighting. Then you would get to the discussion.
This would be prefaced by five pages of stage-directions, with
regard to the room in which the discussion was to take place. Then
one of the characters would enter, and there would be two pages of
stage-directions in very small print about the facial expression, the
clothes, the boots, the watch, the cigarette-case of that character.
Then the character would do a little business,--open the window,
perhaps, or shut it. More characters would enter, heralded by more
stage-directions. Then the characters, having sat down, would discuss
America, and incidentally every other country under the sun, especially
England.
The discussion would be forbidden by the censorship in England, because
one of the characters would be called Askfour, and this would be
considered allusion to
(_a_) Mr. Asquith
(_b_) Mr. Balfour
(_c_) Sir George Askwith (on account of the “k”);--
and so the discussion would be acted in the Little Theatre at New York,
and in London by the State Society on Sunday evenings.
Then I might adopt the method of Pierre Loti. This is called the
“dot-and-dash” method. It is like the Morse code made poetic. You
begin a sentence and leave it unfinished, adding a lot of dots like
this:--
New York.............
I am in New York-.-...but I am not thinking of New York..-....-I
am thinking of something else....-..the other places.......
the East ......the desert........Stamboul...............
Ispahan........Sadi......
(Then a whole line of dots.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Then you begin again.)
I am in New York............. tall buildings rise wistful and white in
the pale milky sky...... They are very tall, those buildings........
They affect me with a strange longing to go away....... to be
somewhere else...... anywhere else........ not here....There........
where?...... Beyond.......
Translate that into French, and you get the Loti-Morse method.
[Illustration: VERY FEW WRITERS THINK WHEN THEY ARE WRITING]
Then there is the Masefield method. That would consist in writing an
enormously long poem about the Bowery, in verse full of expletives,
oaths, and tough adjectives, called “Street-pity.”
“Take that, and that, and go to Hell.
Hell, Hell, Hell, Hell.”
On reflection, I reject all these methods. I will leave the matter to
my pen.
The only way to write is to let the pen do the work, like what happens
in planchette (except when somebody cheats). Very few writers think
before they write or even when they are writing; they let their pen
guide their thoughts. And I am certain that those writers who write too
much suffer from a disease of the fingers and not of the brain.
Before saying a word about America, I apologize for anything I shall
say which may sound or be absurd.
A wit once said that the American and English people had everything in
common, except, of course, the language. There is, I think, a great
deal of truth in this: the words are the same, but they mean different
things and they are used in different ways.
Some day, when I have learned the American language properly, I mean
to write a large book on the American language. In the mean time,
the following condensed grammar for foreigners may prove useful
for Americans going to England, as well as for Englishmen going to
America:--
_Chapter I_
_Rule I._ (Very important.) Whenever you say “in” in English say
either “on” or “to” in American.
(Note that all English people say, “on a ship,” except British naval
officers. If you say, “on a ship,” to a British naval officer,--if,
for instance, you say, “Jones is on the Dreadnought,” he will get very
angry and correct you, and say, “_in_ the Dreadnought.”)
There are one hundred and twenty-six exceptions to this rule, the most
important of which is this:--
“To be in trouble” is not translated “to be on trouble” in American.
_Rule II._ The two most important words in American are “proposition”
and “stunt.”
Everything is either a proposition or a stunt.
There are no other rules.
_Exercise_
Translate the following story into American:--
THE MOUSE AND THE LION
Once upon a time a Mouse went and trod on a Lion who was asleep. The
Lion, who had been late in going to bed the night before (translate
“had a hang-over”), woke up, and after saying, “Bother you,” seized
the Mouse, and prepared to eat it.
But the Mouse, who was as brave as a mouse, said, “Let me go, you son
of a Lioness; perhaps some day I may do you a good turn.”
The Lion, having laughed the Mouse to scorn, let it go, saying: “A
Mouse do a Lion a good turn. How witty!”
Some time afterwards, some hunters caught the Lion, and put it into a
large net.
The Mouse, which happened to be there, hearing the Lion groan, came
and nibbled away the net (translate “got busy”), until the Lion was
free.
“Don’t you remember,” said the Mouse, “my telling you that I might
some day do you a good turn? You see how right you were not to eat me
then.”
“Yes, that’s true,” said the Lion, and it ate the Mouse.
_Conversation_
Did you hand the gardener’s niece a lemon?
Where is the son of the stockbroker?
What is the son of the stockbroker doing on the street?
Will the son of the stockbroker be stung?
Is the son of the stockbroker a cooker?
Did the son of the baker call the son of the cook a four-flusher?
Did the cousin of the carpenter make the brother-in-law of the
blacksmith look like 30 cents?
Is it up to you to put it over him?
Did the son of the banker, when his father gave him his blessing for a
birthday present, say it was a two-spot on the show-down?
No, but I threw a bouquet at the brother of the carpenter.
He is on the street.
The son of the stockbroker is looking for hens’ teeth.
Yes, good and plenty.
No, the son of the stockbroker is a quitter.
No, he called him a son of a gun.
No, he got his.
Sure, Mike.
Yes, and he said the gent was a piece of cheese.
Can you see anything to the daughter of the money-lender?
Did the second cousin of the tough get outside four bottles?
Is the nephew of the crook a booze-fighter?
Will the uncle of the stockbroker lend me fifty dollars?
Yes, $5,100,000.
No, the second cousin of the tough has been on the water-wagon for
three moons.
No, the nephew of the crook is a Bull-Mooser.
No, the uncle of the stockbroker is a tight-wad.
What differentiates the arrival at an American port or city from the
arrival at the port or city of any other country is that in America you
will find a whole lot of people who are there to meet your wants and
your need. When you arrive in any foreign country, you are necessarily
ignorant of nearly all those things which it is essential you should
know. Now, in most countries you find nobody to help deal with that
ignorance and to help you out of a situation created by it. In America,
on the other hand, you will find a whole lot of people who are there
to find out what you want to do, and to help you to do it in the most
convenient and quickest way. They make a business of it. It pays them
and it helps you. It pays them to help you better than some one else
helps you.
I have met in England quite a lot of people who are frightened at the
thought of going to America, because they feel so ignorant of the
conditions obtaining there. They need feel no such alarm. They will
find a crowd of people competing among themselves as to who can best
put them in the way of what they want to do. For instance, when I
arrived at San Francisco, agents came on board the ship from all of
the different railway lines, each of which was ready to fix up your
journey for you and do anything you wanted. Each railway line wants you
to travel by their line, so each line makes it his business that you
should have every possible inducement to do so.
When I arrived at San Francisco, I thought I might have to proceed on
my journey that same night, but I also wanted to get some money from
the bank. I had arrived after the closing-time of banks. In any other
country this would have been an insuperable obstacle in the way of
getting money. In San Francisco, not at all. The representative of the
Santa Fé Line, which I wished to travel by, immediately took me to an
office where I could get money on presentation of my letter of credit.
The whole business was fixed up in about ten minutes; in most other
countries it takes about half a day to draw on a letter of credit in a
bank; it is quite impossible to draw on it after business hours.
As a matter of fact, I did not proceed on my journey that night. Here,
again, there was no difficulty in cancelling my sleeping-berth.
All these things, which are a matter of course to the American, are
unheard of in European countries. Nobody in Europe has made it a
fine art to meet the convenience of travellers, with the exception,
of course, of Messrs. Cook & Son; but when Cook’s office is closed,
it is closed, and nothing can open it. In America, as far as I can
see, nothing is ever completely closed. There will always be somebody
somewhere to get you what you want.
In San Francisco, to-day, it is difficult to detect any traces of the
fire which followed the earthquake. The enormous high buildings look as
if they had always been there.
I drove to the hotel--the St. Francis--after having finished my
business in the city, in a taxi. This is an expensive thing to do,
but practically the only time you need do it is when you are coming
from the boat. In spite of this, one sometimes wishes that taxis in
America were cheaper. I think there is only one country in the world
where it is within the means of the really poor to hire a cab, and
that is--Russia. A poor man can take a cab just as easily as a rich
man there, because there is no standard charge. The charge depends on
the cabman, and sometimes he will drive you for almost nothing. I have
often seen extremely poor people take cabs in Russia.
In Moscow, the cab-drivers very often own their cabs. They bargain with
you before you get into the cab, as to the price of the drive, and if
the driver does not agree to your price, he will not drive you.
New York, I suppose, is the only city now where hansom cabs still
exist. In London, the only place where you can find one is the British
Museum.
The first thing that struck me in San Francisco, and in America
altogether, was the architecture. Many years ago, when I was in
Florence, I was present in the house of a famous picture expert, when
he and some well-known archæologists were discussing architecture, and
some one who was present said he wondered whether there would ever be a
Renaissance in architecture. One of the archæologists present said that
this Renaissance was already happening in America.
I do not think there are any modern buildings in Europe which can
compare with the modern buildings in America, But apart from such
masterpieces as the Pennsylvania Railroad Station, Pierpont Morgan’s
library, and the wonderful towers and skyscrapers in New York, it
struck me that all the little houses you saw everywhere in the
country round San Francisco and along the Santa Fé Railway track, and
again in Long Island, were remarkable for their symmetry, their good
proportions, and their daintiness. For instance, the country in New
Zealand is covered with little bungalows; so is the country round San
Francisco; but the difference between them is immense. There is no
elegance or prettiness about the bungalows in New Zealand; they are
heavy, unshapely, and monotonous; there is no taste or design about
them; while in San Francisco, on the contrary, they are extremely
varied, remarkable for their proportion, attractive-looking, and often
extremely pretty. I believe that in the American character there is
a deep sense of symmetry, shape, and neatness. I think there are
evidences of this in all departments of American life: in the clothes
of the men and women; in their neatness; in the quickness and neatness
of their phrases and their humour; in the ingenuity of their machinery.
There is a constant tendency to do away with what is unnecessary. In
the finest American buildings what strikes one most is the absence of
unnecessary ornamentation and detail of architect’s “twiddles,” which,
in England, for instance, it is impossible to get architects to leave
out, do what you will.
[Illustration: THE ONLY HANSOM CAB IN LONDON]
The Pennsylvania Railroad Station and Pierpont Morgan’s library have
the simplicity of Greek architecture.
To go back again to San Francisco, the climate is like champagne. There
is gaiety in the air. The streets and the houses seem to radiate with
amusement and cheerfulness. San Francisco is essentially a night city,
and next to Paris, I should say it was the gayest night city in the
world.
I have met with a great deal of hospitality all over the world, but I
have never met with people who take so much trouble for the stranger as
the Americans. A friend of mine in New York met a friend of his, and
asked this friend if he had any acquaintances in San Francisco, and if
so, whether they could do anything for me. This friend of my friend’s
immediately sent a lot of telegrams to San Francisco, the result of
which was that I instantly received cards of invitation to three
different clubs, and that I was, that very night, entertained at the
Pacific Union Club.
Here again was an example of beautiful architecture. The club is the
last word of luxury, but the luxury is subordinate to taste and design.
It is not over-ornamented. When new clubs are built in England, for
the sheer purpose of luxury, such as, for instance, the Automobile
Club, the result is ramshackle, shoddy, pretentious, and hideous.
There is nothing solid about it in taste or in design--merely luxurious
gaudiness. I do not think there is in the whole of the world a club
to compare in luxury, solid comfort, and fine proportion with the San
Francisco Pacific Union. The food is as excellent as the architecture.
I was also taken to the Bohemian Club, which is famous for its great
yearly entertainment in the redwood region.
There is also a wonderful home of athletics, which I visited, called
the Olympic Club, which has not long been built. It contains every kind
of bath you can imagine, and an enormous salt-water swimming-bath.
It is the kind of bath you can imagine the ancient Romans built for
themselves, and, indeed, American cities lead one to think that in many
respects they are like ancient Rome: the quantity of marble employed;
the detailed supply which is ever present to meet the demands and the
needs of the individual.
During my second day in San Francisco, I was taken by a friend to see a
ranch. We went by train, and then drove in a machine over the beautiful
hills, right into the heart of the country. There is no country more
beautiful than California. At this moment, although no rain had fallen
for some time, the green was still vivid, the colours of the foliage
mellow and soft and indescribably varied. The atmosphere of the hills
softened the tints, and the harmony of colour was soft and gorgeous.
Riding back we passed through Stanford University, which possesses in
its university buildings a striking example of American genius for
architecture.
Next day I went to see the Australian Football Team play a local team.
I do not think the American public is very highly interested in Rugby
football, judging from the gate, which was not a very good one, as the
introduction of the Rugby game in America is comparatively recent.
The local team played very well, but they did not seem familiar with
some of the rules. The Australian boys had not yet recovered from their
journey; nevertheless, they won.
After the match was over, I drove back with them to the Olympic Club,
where they bathed.
The next day I went with some friends, first by ferry across the bay,
then by train, till we reached the hills. We climbed up into the hills,
where great vistas of gorgeous scenery lay beneath one, and then,
walking down into the valley, we wandered about amongst the trunks of
the huge topless redwood. A mountain railway took us down to the level
again.
No words can describe the glory of the California scenery when you get
up into these hills, which are covered with woods, and nothing can give
you any idea of the sweetness and the freshness of the air there.
The next night I left San Francisco for Chicago. Before leaving San
Francisco, I had dinner at a restaurant called the “New Franks.” It
is a small restaurant, and it provides the best food I have ever eaten
anywhere. When people speak in this way of a restaurant, they often
mean that they happened on that day to be hungry and to have a good
appetite. I was not hungry the night I went to the New Franks. I was
not inclined to eat, but the sheer excellence of the cooking there
excited my greed, and bade my appetite rise from the dead.
The cooking was perfect. There is no other word for it. When I say the
cooking was perfect, I mean the food was perfectly cooked. I don’t mean
that there were dozens of messy entrées and highly spiced sauces. The
food was of the simplest. I had soup (soup _à l’oignon_, a dream!),
fish, and chicken, and I never tasted anything so good in my life.
Anatole France tells somewhere the story of a king, who, powerful as
he was (or rather just because he was all-powerful), was condemned
to the luxury of a huge kitchen and a huge staff of cooks, who served
him up elaborate tasteless dishes which meant nothing to him. And this
was sad, adds Anatole France, for he liked good food (Car il aimait la
bonne chère).
He would have found it at the New Franks, which is under the direction
of Mr. Peter Kochely, a Dalmatian. His cook, or cooks, are Frenchmen,
and I| think a part of the success which his restaurant enjoys and the
greater part of the excellence which it reaches are due to his eagle
eye, which detects from a distance the likes and dislikes of every
customer.
The trouble about small restaurants, when they are excellent, is, that
they become well known, and are then so largely patronized that they
become large and ultimately bad.
Once I was walking in Normandy with a friend, and we stopped in a very
small town to have luncheon at a hotel. We asked if there was any
wine. Yes, there was some wine, some Burgundy, some Beaune. We tried
a bottle, and it surprised us. Surprise is, in fact, a mild word to
describe the sharpness of our ecstasy.
“Is not this wine very good?” we asked of the host.
“Yes, sirs,” he answered, “it is very good. It is very old, but there
is not much of it left.”
Now, my friend was a journalist, who writes about French towns and
French wines in the English press.
“Whatever happens,” I said to him, “if you write about this town and
about this wine, which I know you will do, you must not divulge the
name of the town.”
He agreed. He wrote an article about the town, he grew lyric over the
wine, and looted all the poets of the world from Homer downwards for
epithets and comparisons fit for it. And he did not mention the name of
the place.
The year after, he returned to the same place and ordered a bottle of
the Burgundy. There was no more left. Some English gentlemen, the host
told him, had come on purpose from England to finish it.
Now, I am sure some very intelligent man, and a man who was desperately
fond of good wine, read the article, and guessed from the description
the whereabouts of the little French town and the precious liquid.
The moral of this is: “Don’t tell secrets in the newspapers; don’t even
tell half a secret.”
The evening I left San Francisco, I had a small adventure. I asked a
man the way to some street. He told me the way, and then, catching hold
of my arm, he said, “You will stand me a drink.”
I said I would, and we went into a drinking-saloon. Then he said, “I’m
a bum. I was [and he stated his profession], and I’ve been fixed. I’m a
booze-fighter.” He added with engaging frankness that he was half drunk.
In the course of conversation, it turned out that we had a common
friend, and had I not been going off on the train, I would have taken
him off to supper.
A singular proof of the smallness of the world.
Before taking leave of San Francisco, however, I want to say a word or
two more. First of all about the clubs.
To a man who is used to the staid silence of London clubs, American
clubs are exhilarating. I was present, for instance, at a dinner at
the Bohemian Club, the “High Jinks Dinner,” which takes place once
a year. Every year the members of the club camp out in the redwood
region, where the enormous trees grow which you see in pictures, and
there, in an amphitheatre formed by these vast topless trunks, they
give an open-air opera, written, composed, and played by themselves.
Later on, when they come back to the city, they give a dinner in the
club, followed by a theatrical entertainment, which is a burlesque
on the opera given in the camp: also written, composed, and played
by themselves. It was at this dinner I was present, and spontaneous
gaiety bubbled from that entertainment like champagne out of a bottle.
There was champagne in the concrete also, as well as in the abstract.
But the gaiety was more spontaneous and more infectious than I
have seen at any, even Bohemian, club in London. I fancy that San
Francisco some day will be the great pleasure city of the world:
the meeting-place of East and West, owing to its situation, its
incomparable climate, its beautiful surroundings, and the microbe of
gaiety which is in the air of the place. And then San Francisco is the
golden gate which opens on to the enchanted realms of the Pacific.
I travelled to New York on the Santa Fé Line, meaning to stop and see
the Grand Cañon, but, as it turned out, I had to go right on to Chicago.
Writers of American impressions generally deliver themselves of a
solemn verdict on the trains, the sleeping-car accommodations, and
their merits and demerits.
“You won’t like the sleeping-berths,” said an American to me, before I
started; “no Englishman ever does.”
When I got on to the Pullman car, I found it was quite different
from what I had imagined. I thought the berths would be stretched
horizontally three quarters of the way across the car. The fact of
their being placed sideways gives the sleeper a much broader berth than
he has on European trains.
But I will discuss this presently.
There is one feature on American trains which is very different from
anything in England and Europe--the attitude of the conductors. In
England, and in most European countries, the conductor hovers round you
for a tip. In America the conductor is an independent citizen; but I
found him a singularly kind-hearted one.
I wanted to send a telegram to Chicago. He did it for me. He
“dead-headed” it. He found out everything I wanted to know. He was my
guide, philosopher, and friend on my way to Chicago.
There is something very attractive about this warm-hearted human
kindness which one meets with in America, and something very refreshing
in the absence of servility.
It makes one breathe deep from his lungs to be among people who treat
you as an equal, and expect to be treated as an equal by you.
There are some countries which profess democracy, where, under the
pretence of treating you as an equal, the inhabitants take pains to
treat you as an inferior, but this is not so in America.
Somebody--a historian, I believe--said that in the far future America
and Russia would carry everything before them, owing to their driving
power, which came from a fundamental kindness of heart. I believe this
to be true. Russia and America are the two most hospitable countries
I have ever visited. I think the Russians and the Americans are the
_kindest_ people in the world, and their countries the most really
democratic (whatever their respective governments may be).
I spent only a few hours at Chicago, where I wandered like an ant among
the gigantic buildings; then I went right on to New York, along the
beautiful Hudson River, all glorious in the October tints of its woods
and foliage, and then I reached New York.
After my first two days in New York, I felt as the Queen of Sheba felt
after she had been shown over King Solomon’s private residence: there
was no spirit in me. The place took my breath away, and I haven’t yet
got it back, but of that later.
_New York: October_
“The difference between New York and London,” a man once said to me,
“is this: in New York, if you have a new idea, you can get it carried
out at once; in London, if you have a new idea, you are up against a
brick wall.”
I believe this to be true. People in New York, and in America in
general, are not afraid of new ideas, nor, indeed, of anything new.
They are not afraid of the future. In England, if a man finds, for
instance, that his profession is uncongenial to him, however certain he
may be of the impossibility of his making a success of it, he will none
the less very rarely give it up and try his hand at something else.
The future alarms him. In America a man will think nothing of throwing
up his profession twenty times running, until he finds something which
does suit him.
I think the cause of this particular difference lies in the climate
of America, and especially in the climate of New York. Just as the
climate of some places fills the whole system with an invincible desire
to do nothing, with an insuperable languor and sloth, in the same way
the climate of New York fills the body and mind with the desire to be
up and about. It is the nimble air which produces the nimble wits: the
stimulating atmosphere which creates, in the denizen of New York, the
love of bustle, hurry, competition, and work. I am not saying this is
either a good thing or a bad thing--I am merely noting and recording
what struck me as being the main differences between New York and
London. London, compared with certain cities, say Constantinople or
Seville, seems a whirlpool of energy; compared with New York, it is
slack. Compared with New Yorkers, Londoners are slackers. They go to
bed earlier, they get up later, they do infinitely less during the
day, and they do it more slowly. They waste more time. On the other
hand, they suffer less from “nerve trouble.” They do not live on their
nerves. In New York the people do. Very often, when you talk to some
one who is employed, say in a store, in New York, you feel as if he was
so highly strung as to be on the verge of breaking down; another turn
of the screw and you feel he would break down. You never feel this in
talking to a Londoner. In talking to a Londoner, you often want to give
him a dose of H. G. Wells’s “accelerator,” the medicine which makes
you live more quickly. In talking to a New Yorker, you often think he
would be the better for a dose of some patent procrastinator, which
would have the effect of making the wheels of his physical and mental
machinery work slower.
A street boy, a child, in New York, is more nimble-minded, more agile
in thought and expression, than the quickest-witted Englishman. He
will have got there and be walking round him in thought before the
Englishman has begun to express himself. I was much struck by the
patience and tolerance shown to me by lift-boys and other children in
dealing with some one so much heavier-witted and sluggish-minded than
themselves, especially when one began cumbrously to explain something
they had already understood some minutes before.
Does all this lead to a waste of energy, like a lot of soda-water
bottles bursting their stoppers and fizzing into space? I don’t know.
It certainly leads to nervous breakdowns and nervous strain in general.
The air in New York acts like a constant pick-me-up and enables you to
do tiring things all day without making you feel tired. But some day or
other you have, I suppose, to pay for this.
So much for the air and the atmosphere of New York--a delicious air
to the newcomer; in any case, a tingling, stimulating, intoxicating
atmosphere to the stranger; and air, as people say, like champagne.
That depends, however, on what kind of champagne. It is not true to say
that all champagne is good. All port may be good, but all champagne
is not.
[Illustration: ANOTHER TURN OF THE SCREW AND HE WOULD BREAK DOWN]
I have already said something about New York architecture; but I forget
what. I have not got the back part of my manuscript here. In any case,
whatever I said, I know that I expressed admiration. When one sees a
fine piece of modern architecture anywhere, one says, as a rule, it
is very fine for a modern thing. Now one does not in the least feel
tempted to say any such thing about the Pennsylvania Railroad Station
or Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s library. One feels--at least I feel--that
whenever and wherever these two masterpieces had been made, they would
legitimately have been ranked with the world’s best. Had Pheidias
designed the Pennsylvania Railway Station, he might have been proud.
By the way, Pheidias wasn’t an architect, but only a decorator; well,
let us say the best great architect of the best period, whoever he was.
The striking thing about these buildings is, to my mind, the fact that
they are modern, but untainted with the influence of that horrible
thing called “art nouveau,” “modern style,” and various other names. A
style which, by the way, is German. It was born in Munich. Its parent
on the male side was Japanese, on the female side a bastard descendant
of William Morris via Maple. It was brought up in Germany, fostered
by what are called decadent artists. These are artists whose work is
a mixture of beer and sausage and Aubrey Beardsley. This style spread
with incredible rapidity all over Germany and reached and flooded
Russia, from Moscow to Harbin, and from St. Petersburg to Odessa. In
Moscow it has produced huge shops, in St. Petersburg likewise. The
result is not pleasing. It is full of useless details: ornaments which
have no sense, curves and twiddles which have no meaning. This brings
me to what I believe is the secret of the beauty of modern American
architecture. It is, I believe, the absence of twiddles. By twiddles
I mean any kind of unnecessary line, curve, moulding, arabesque, or
ornament. If you ever have had any dealings with an English architect,
you will know that when he brings you his plan, whether for the
outside or the inside of a house, it will be full of twiddles. If
you protest--if, for instance, you say you consider seven mouldings
underneath the cornice on the ceiling to be too much--he will say it
is necessary in order to break the line. This isn’t true. Because the
architects of ancient times did not find it necessary to “break the
line” in this manner, nor do the architects of modern America. But that
they do not is a very remarkable fact indeed. It is probably unique in
the modern world, and the result of it is magnificent architecture.
American architecture is good because it is based on common sense.
The worst kind of architecture is that which is based on nonsense.
By nonsense I mean non-sense, the contrary of sense. The kind of
architecture which puts in a room a staircase which goes nowhere is
non-sense. All the finest architecture in the world was made for a
definite purpose and use, and made to suit that purpose and use.
The pyramids of Egypt had a use; the only thing is, nobody knows
now what it was, but it was something very definite; of that we can
be certain from the enormous care which was taken to build them in
accordance with certain mathematical calculations and according to a
certain disposition and conjunction of the stars, the latitude, and
the longitude. The idea that they were simply tombs is, I believe,
difficult to support. But whatever the purpose was, we can be certain
they had a purpose. They were not simply staircases leading nowhere.
Now the Pennsylvania Railway Station _is_ a railway station, and the
architecture is subordinate to its use. The result is magnificent.
Nothing would have been added to its use had it been filled with absurd
lines and curves, twisted flowers, impossible fruits and silly claws;
and nothing would have been added to its beauty.
Then there are the skyscrapers. These are obviously useful, since the
narrowness of the area in which New York is built makes it, if not
necessary, at least highly desirable to economize as much space as
possible, and since it is impossible to build broadly, the only way
to acquire houseroom is to build skyward. And this has been done,
again without the addition on the face of the buildings of a lot of
unnecessary excrescences and ornaments. Mr. Pennell, who is an artist
of fame, says that the sight of the skyscraper, from the seas, beats
Venice. I don’t care two pins for comparisons, for what seems to me
amusing and appreciable is that we live in a world so rich in invention
and so various that it produces and contains things so striking and
so different as Venice and the skyscrapers of New York. That’s what
we ought to be thankful for. Another useful thing which seems to
me to result in a spectacle of amazing beauty is the illuminated
advertisements on Broadway at night. There, by their quantity and their
quality, they compose a fairy city which is constantly changing--a city
of stars, glow-worms, fireflies, and Roman candles. Just the right
thing to light up a street which is almost exclusively devoted, at
night, to theatres, restaurants, and places of amusement.
Is America comfortable? I have already said something about the
trains; but since writing that I have been for two long journeys
in the Orient Express. I suppose the Orient Express professes to
represent and embody the acme of human luxury in the way of European
travelling. It certainly represents, to my mind, the acme of human
discomfort. The train is narrow. It shakes. The restaurant car is too
small, and the food has a peculiar nauseating quality which is the
special and exclusive invention and property of the International
Sleeping-Car Company. The curious thing is that the food is the same
on whatever line you travel, so long as the restaurant car belongs to
the International Sleeping-Car Company. It does not matter if you are
travelling on the Nord Express, the Sud Express, or the Orient Express,
you will get exactly the same dinner, and that same dinner will have
the same taste--that unique taste you find nowhere else in the world.
And, what is more, if you ever feed at one of the hotels belonging to
the International Sleeping-Car Company, you will even there find the
same meal and the same taste to it, the same taste pervading all the
dishes--a peculiar kind of staleness, something slightly rancid and
altogether unappetizing. One wonders who invented it and by what manner
and means it was made universal. On the Trans-Siberian Railway, which
goes from Moscow to Vladivostok, on certain days of the week there
is a dining-car belonging to the International Sleeping-Car Company,
and on other days there is a dining-car belonging to the State. In
the car belonging to the State you get good, ordinary food; the same
kind of food as you can get at a hotel or a station buffet; but in
the International Sleeping-Car Company’s dining-car you get the same
old meal and the same old taste. When I last travelled on the Orient
Express, I was thinking the whole time, which is the most comfortable
or the most uncomfortable, that or an American train. And I made the
following schedule of advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of the Orient Express over an American express train:--
(1) You have a compartment to yourself or, at the worst, shared with
one other.
(2) You can smoke where you like.
(3) You have a washing-place opening off of your compartment.
Advantages of the American express over the Orient Express:--
(1) Your bed, when you are once in it, is much broader and more
comfortable.
(2) The food is incomparably better.
(3) There is a constant supply of iced water within reach.
Disadvantages of the Orient Express:--
(1) The bed is narrow. A hard pillow is put under the mattress so that
it catches you in the small of the back. If you take it away, your
head sinks into a draughty hole between the wall and the mattress. The
blanket is folded double, so that it is impossible to cover yourself
or the bed with it entirely. If you unfold it and use it single it is
too thin to protect you from the cold.
(2) You can smoke in your compartment, it is true, but if you want
for a change to smoke in the smoking compartment, you will find the
accommodations insufficient and unsatisfactory.
(3) There is no supply of newspapers.
Disadvantages of an American express:--
(1) You have to wash in public. Passengers often use the washing-room
as smoking-room in the morning and sit in it smoking cigars, while
you have to shave. Some people find it quite impossible to shave in
public. Shaving even in private makes them nervous, but shaving in
public is for them a positive impossibility.
(2) Undressing in the berth of an American car is an acrobatic feat.
(3) You are at the mercy of the coloured man who looks after you.
Either he bullies you or he doesn’t; but if he doesn’t he is generally
slack and doesn’t look after you and your things. He makes up for
inefficiency by an exaggerated familiarity.
[Illustration: UNDRESSING IN THE BERTH OF AN AMERICAN CAR IS AN
ACROBATIC FEAT]
There--that seems to me to be a very impartial schedule--the conclusion
being that travelling on the Orient Express or on an American express
is equally uncomfortable. The truth is that all railway travelling
is very uncomfortable anyhow. As Mr. H. G. Wells printed somewhere,
railway travelling hasn’t really improved since the first trains were
invented. The same essentials of discomfort remain: the narrowness,
the dirt, the stuffiness, the vibration of the car. The car has not
improved. The Pullman car is a more ingenious arrangement than the
European car for the train, but it is not more comfortable for the
passenger. What surprises me now is the things I remember Americans
telling me about American trains before I went to America. I remember
being told by them that American trains were full of hot and cold
baths, which you could jump into at any minute; that there was no
difference in being on a train or in a club; that they were more
comfortable than the best hotel and more luxurious than the fastest
liners; that the best European cars would be considered to belong to
the fourth class in America. How different this is from what I have
heard Americans say about American trains when they were themselves on
the train in America!
With regard to baggage, I throw a large bouquet at the check system.
It is infinitely more convenient than the European system, which I do
not think has a single advantage, except the doubtful one of its being
easier for you to lose your boxes. In England, for instance, there is
a special profession to which certain people belong who are called
“Peter-claimers,” and whose whole business in life is to steal other
people’s baggage from railway stations. They drive to the station with
an empty bag or with a bag full of stones. They put down their bag next
to that of a banker, which they know to be full of gold, or next to
that of a duchess, which they know to be full of pearls, rubies, and
pink topazes. Then in their hurry they make a mistake, and, leaving
their bag, they take away that of the banker or the duchess and
drive home with it and never give it back, unless the reward offered be
larger than the value of the contents of the bag and no questions be
asked. This is called “Peter-claiming.”
[Illustration: THEIR WHOLE BUSINESS IS TO STEAL OTHER PEOPLES’ BAGGAGE]
Another and more complicated way of doing it is this: You--the
crook--that is to say, the “Peter-claimer”--have a particular kind of
bag made which when placed on the top of any other kind of bag opens
and swallows it up. I don’t see how “Peter-claimers” could possibly do
their work in a country where the check system prevails. However, human
ingenuity is boundless, and doubtless a way would be found.
An American said to me, when I was travelling not long ago, that in
America matters such as travelling, living in hotels, etc., had been
reduced to perfection. I don’t believe this to be true. What I do think
is very often true is that the means has been perfected without any
regard having been paid to the end. The Pullman car is an example
in point. If you regard the Pullman car as a device for travelling,
a machine for holding as many people as possible and economizing the
maximum of space in so doing, it is perfect. But as a vehicle for human
beings to travel in in comfort it is imperfect. It contains great
possibilities for discomfort quite apart from the coloured gentleman,
who may or may not make life a hell to you during the journey. What
is often left out in the calculations of ingenious devices of means
of luxury is the human element, the human being. It is no good having
an elevator that goes at a speed of five hundred miles an hour, if it
makes you sick. It is no good having a train that goes so fast that you
can neither read by day nor sleep by night in it. It is no good having
a theatre so large that you cannot hear the actors speak. It is no
good having a meal so rich that your appetite has gone after the first
course.
I remember somebody once saying to me a long time ago that the
Americans had attained to luxury by jumping over comfort. I think there
is a certain amount of truth in this, and yet it would be foolish
to call American hotels uncomfortable. They are not uncomfortable.
Only there is this to be said: That to some people all hotel life
is uncomfortable. They hate living in a crowd. They hate bustle,
confusion, noise, the arrival and departure of people, etc. And there
is certainly more hotel life in America than in other countries. And
yet what a saving to the nerves, and to the temper, are so many of the
devices and the arrangments in American hotels. The telephone, for
instance: if you want a nice test of temper, try to get a number at
the Hotel Cecil in London; or, better still, spend a happy morning in
ringing up people on the telephone in Paris. In America it is either
done for you at once or you know it cannot be done, and the matter is
settled. Hotel life in America seems to me infinitely better organized
than in any other country in the world, with the possible exception of
China. Because when you order a room at a Chinese hotel, in a small
Chinese town, the room is built for you while you wait; you choose the
style of room, and the paper, the carpeting, and all the furniture are
put in during the day.
Another thing which is an immense saving of time and temper in an
American hotel is the way in which it is possible to find out whether
or not some friend of yours is staying there, without having to
wait the best part of an hour, and without people being sent off in
different directions, who come back much later on with contradictory
reports.
[Illustration: TRYING TO GET A NUMBER AT THE HOTEL CECIL]
If, though, on the one hand, in anything that concerns machinery
contrivance, organization is better in America than elsewhere, anything
that concerns the personal service of human beings is probably less
good, owing to the simple fact that there is no servant class
in America; that servants in America are either coloured men or
foreigners. This is a factor which makes for discomfort, because the
existence of a great mass of human beings who have nothing else to do
but attend to the wants of other human beings, obviously conduces to
the comfort of those people whose wants are being attended to. For
instance, it is more comfortable to arrive at a railway station in
Russia, where there are about twenty willing railway porters to every
traveller, than it is to arrive at 4 A.M., in Paris, where there is
only one unwilling and extremely rude porter to attend to all the
travellers. It is obviously more comfortable to be certain of finding
some one to carry a heavy bag for you, if you are going into the
suburbs by rail, than to be certain that you will have to carry it
yourself. On the other hand, the absence of a servant class speaks well
for the spirit of independence and initiative in the country. At least
I suppose it does. Equality is a good thing, but it can be abused just
as much as its brother, liberty.
We all know the acts of tyranny which have been committed, and are
committed daily, in the name of liberty. In the same way crime and
misdemeanors are committed in the name of equality. In order to show
you that he is as good as his master, Jack often treats his master as
his inferior.
If I had to compare the comforts of life in England and America, and
to sum up the matter briefly, I should say as far as life in public is
concerned--that is to say, life in hotels, restaurants, clubs, and,
perhaps, trains (in England the distances being short, the proposition
is hardly the same), and certainly railway stations and buffets and
all kinds of bars--everything you get in America is superior, but as
far as life in private is concerned--country houses, cottages, farms,
town houses, flats, and rooms--the comfort in England is incomparably
greater. Of course some people say that life in private--home
life--does not exist in America at all. But that is the kind of
generalization I distrust. Personally I think a small private house in
England is a much more comfortable affair than a small private house
in America. On the other hand, I think an American bar is much more
comfortable and cheerful than our English public house. Again, I think
there is a great difference between the English country house, owned by
the English rich, and that owned in England by the American rich. In
the homes of the American rich you will rarely find a room in which it
is possible to sit down with comfort.
American clubs, again, are far more human and cheerful than English
clubs. Anything more depressing than the average English club can
scarcely be imagined: a series of rooms in which old men in different
corners grunt, frown, and snore--the rest is silence. In American
clubs you feel that everybody is alive and that people go to clubs not
to avoid the society of their fellow creatures, but, on the contrary,
to enjoy it. And that, after all, was the origin and the initial
purpose of all clubs, because if a man wants solitude he can stop at
home. But I forgot--some men are married. That, of course, certainly
changes the question.
In the category of human comforts belongs the food question. I don’t
suppose it is necessary at this time of the day to sing the praises of
the food you get in America. America has a national food, containing
a quantity of delicious dishes you can get only in America, and
Americans are, thank heavens, not unconscious of the fact. England
has a national food also; but, alas! how rarely you get English food,
good English food, in England, and how often you get a shockingly bad
imitation of French food--a succession of entrées which a wit once
said were like tepid lawn-tennis balls. How excellent a thing, on the
other hand, is a fried sole, toasted cheese (like that you get at the
“Cheshire Cheese”), English cold beef, English bacon, roast grouse, and
currant-and-raspberry tart. These are all things which I believe you
can get nowhere out of England; nowhere meat at such a peculiar pitch
of perfection.
There was once upon a time an English statesman (it was either
Lord Melbourne or Lord Palmerston) who asked a schoolboy what
his ideal luncheon would be. The boy thought for a long time and
said, “Roast duck, with peas and new potatoes, and then some
raspberry-and-black-currant tart.” And the statesman, struck by the
extraordinary wisdom of the reply, prophesied a great future for the
boy, who was none other than--well, I quite forget. But it was not
Winston Churchill.
It is on record, I believe, that Macaulay gave a house-warming dinner
to two friends in Albany, and after expending much thought and all
the resources of his immense erudition on the subject, came to the
conclusion that the following would be the ideal menu for the occasion.
The season was autumn.
Mulligatawny Soup
Broiled Turbot
Roast Partridge
Toasted Cheese
I once asked a Frenchman who, at the time, was supposed to have, and
rightly, the best cook in Paris, where and what was the best dinner he
had ever had. He said the best dinner he had ever had was in a small
country house in England and had consisted of a fried sole and roast
grouse.
If I were Emperor of Rome, and had at my disposal the manual labor of
ancient Rome, the skilled cooks of all nations, and the railway service
of the world, and if I liked to give a perfect dinner, I should arrange
it thus.
The season is, let us say, autumn or winter.
A cocktail made by an American
Hors d’œuvre, consisting of
fresh caviare from Russia, prawns from Seville
Oysters: Blue Points
Soup: Bortsch, made by a peasant of Little Russia
Cold lobster
Whitebait
Veau à la bourgeoise, cooked by a
Frenchwoman from a farm
Roast grouse--Corn on the cob
Salad, made by a Frenchman
Marrow bones
Toasted cheese
A German apple tart
Mince pies--Indigestion.
That is, perhaps, enough about food and the comforts of life. However
the comforts of life in America may stand with regard to those in other
countries, they are in America very remarkable, very characteristic,
and worthy of study and still more of experience.
THE END
Transcriber's Notes:
Italics are shown thus: _sloping_.
Variations in spelling and hyphenation are retained.
Perceived typographical errors have been changed.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ROUND THE WORLD IN ANY NUMBER OF DAYS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
