and the other; whereas, when he came to look into the works of the great composers he found they made a practice of all the three. 'Am I a genius?' he queried pathetically. 'If so, I could do as I please. I wish I knew.' Every author who can read and write is in the same predicament: on the one hand his own instinct for a phrase or a sentence, on the other the contempt of every honest critic. The guardians of the laws of English have a stock of taboos; but unlike the guardians of the laws of England they credit every disregard of them to ignorance. They cannot conceive of malice aforethought. We are forbidden, for example, to use the word 'phenomenal' in the sense of 'extraordinary.' But, with Mr. Crummles's Infant Phenomenon in everybody's mind, can we expect the adjective to shake off the old associations of its parent noun?
Last year I culled an amusing sentence from a 'Standard' criticism of a tale of adventure: 'The story is a well- told, and in spite of the word 'unreliable,' a well-written one.' Now just as many foolish persons object to 'a...one' as to 'unreliable.' As for the first phrase, I am sure so great a writer as Tom Hood would have pronounced it A1, while 'unreliable' is defended with unusual warmth by Webster's Dictionary. The contention that 'reliable' should be 'reli-on-able,' is ridiculous, and Webster's argument is 'laughable,' which should obviously be 'laugh-at-able.' These remarks are made quite without prejudice, for personally I have little to complain of. (By the way, this sentence is as open to blame as that of the professor who told his pupils 'You must not use a preposition to end a sentence with.') Though I have sat under an army of critics, I have but once been accused of inelegant English, and then it was only by a lady who wrote that my slipshod style 'aggravated' her.
Finally it will be remarked that by dispensing with illustrations I preserve intact my egoism and the dignity of a rival art. Nothing can be more absurd than the conventional illustration which merely attempts to picture over again what the writer has already pictured in words. Not only is the effort superfluous, a waste of force, but the artist's picture is too often in flat contradiction of the text. Whom are you to believe, the author or the artist? the man who tells you that the heroine is ethereal, or the man who plainly demonstrates that she is podgy? How often, too, do the people dress differently in the words and in the picture, not to speak of the shifting backgrounds! Dickens had so much difficulty with his illustrations because he saw his characters so much more clearly than any other novelist; the sight of his inner eye was so good. And one can understand, too, how Cruikshank came to fancy he had created Oliver Twist, much as an actor imagines he 'creates' a character. The true collaboration between author and artist requires that the work should be divided between them, not reduplicated. Those parts of the story which need the intervention of words should be allotted to the writer, while to the artist should be entrusted the parts better told by pencil. Neither need trench on the other's province. Description-which so many readers skip already-would be abolished. Even incidents-such as murder-could be caught by the artist in the act. And after the artist had killed a character, the author could preach over his corpse. Thus there would be an agreeable reversion to picture- language, the earliest way of writing, and the latest. The ends of the ages would meet in a romance written on these lines:-
'Sick at heart we watched till the grey dawn stole in through the diamond-paned casements of the Grange, and then, at last, when we had given up all hope, we saw coming up the gravel pathway-'
[Illustration.]
After which the author proceeds: 'Fascinated by the blood that dripped from the edges of the eight umbrellas, we stood silent; then, throwing off our coats, we-
[Illustration.]
'So that was how I won the sweetest little bride I ever wedded. But if I live to wed a hundred, I shall never forget that terrible night in Grewsome Grange.
'THE END.'
My friend the artist once collaborated with me in an experiment of this sort, but we did not pursue it, discovering how feeble an advance ours would be after all; for there were points at which both of us felt we ought to give way to the tone-poet. When the emotions became too intangible for intellectual expression I asked my friend the musician to insert paragraphs in a minor key. The love-scenes I was particularly anxious to have written in musical phrases. But he shrank from so unconventional a form, not being sure he was a genius. I was also disheartened by the disappointing behaviour of the diverse scents with which I had expressed myself on certain blank pages. They would not remain in their places.
II. TUNINGS UP
They were 'tuning up' in a wooden hall, stupidly built on the pier to shut off the sea and the night (a penny to pay for the privation), and in that strange cacophony of desolate violin strings, tuneless trombones, and doleful double basses, in that homeless wail of forlorn brass and lost catgut, I found a music sweeter than a Beethoven symphony; for memory's tricksy finger touched of a sudden the source of tears, and flashed before the inner eye a rainbow-lit panorama of the early joys of the theatre-the joys that are no more. Was it even at a theatre-was it even more than an interlude in a diorama?-that divine singing of 'The Last Rose of Summer' by a lady in evening dress, whose bust is, perhaps for me alone in all the world, still youthful? Was it from this hall of the siren, or was it from some later enchantment, that I, an infant Ulysses, struggled home by night along a sea road, athwart a gale that well-nigh blew me out to sea? How fierce that salt wind blew, a-yearn to drive me to the shore's edge and whirl me over! How fresh and tameless it beats against me yet, blowing the cobwebs from my brain as that real breeze outside the pier could never do! When my monitory friends gabble of change of air I inhale that wind and am strong. For the child is of the elements, elemental, and the man of the complexities, complex. And so that good salt wind blows across my childhood still, though it cannot sweep away the mist that hovers thereover.
For who shall say whether 't was I or my sister who was borne shrieking with fear from the theatre when the black man, 'Othello,' appeared on the boards! The first clear memory of things dramatic is of an amateur performance-alas! I have seen few others. 'Twas a farce-when was an amateur performance other? There was much play of snuff-boxes passed punctiliously 'twixt irascible old gentlemen with coloured handkerchiefs. Also there was dinner beforehand-my first experience of chicken and champagne. And then there is a great break till the real theatre rises stately and splendid, like Britannia ruling the waves-nay, Britannia herself, or, as they call it lovingly down Shoreditch way, 'the Brit.'
When to my fashionable friends I have held forth on the glories and the humours of 'the Brit.,' they have taken it for granted, and I have lacked the courage or the energy to undeceive them, that my visits to this temple of the people were expeditions of Haroun Al Raschid in the back streets of Bagdad or adventures of Prince Florizel in Rupert Street; but of a truth I have climbed the gallery stairs in sober boyish earnestness, elbowed of the gods, and elbowing, and if I did not yield to the seductions of 'ginger-beer and Banbury' that filled up clamantly the entr'actes, 't was that I had not the coppers. 'Guy Fawkes' was my first piece, in the days when the drama's 'fireworks' were not epigrams, and so the smell of the sulphur still purifies the air. All the long series of 'London successes,' with their array of genius and furniture, have faded like insubstantial pageants, but the rude vault piled with flour-barrels for the desperado's torch is fixed as by chemic process. Consider the preparation of the brain for that memory. What! I should actually go to a play-that far-off wonder! 'The Miller and his Men' cut in cardboard should no longer stave off my longing for the living passion of the theatre. 'T was a very elongated young man who took me, a young cigar-maker fond of reciting, spouting Shakespeare from a sixpenny edition, playing Hamlet mentally as he rolled the tobacco-leaf. There was a halo about his head, for he was on speaking terms with the low comedian of the 'Brit.,' and, I understood, was permitted upon occasion to pay for a pint of half-and-half. Alas! all this did not avail to save him from an early tomb. Poor worshipper of the green room, perchance thy ghost still walks there. Or is there room in some other world for thy baffled aspirations?
In such clouds of glory did the drama first come to me, sulphurously splendid. In the 'Brit.' I made my first acquaintance with the limelit humanity that, magnificent in its crimes and in its virtues, sins or suffers in false eyebrows or white muslin to the sound of soft music. Here I met that strange creation, the villain-a being as mythic, meseems, as the centaur, and, like it, more beast than man. The 'Brit.' was a hot place for villains, the gallery accepting none but the highest principles of speech and conduct, and ginger-beer bottles were not too wedghty a form of expressing detestation of the more comprehensive breaches of the decalogue. Hisses the villain never escaped, and I was puzzled to know how the poor actor could discriminate betwixt the hiss ethical and the hiss esthetic. But perhaps no player ever received the latter; the house was very loyal to its favourites, all of whom had their well-defined roles in every play, which spared the playwrights the task of indicating character. Before the heroine had come on we knew that she was young and virtuous-had she not been so for the last five and twenty years?-the comic man had not to open his mouth for us to begin to laugh; a latent sibilance foreran the villain. Least
