Section 1

We have in the portfolio of du Maurier the epic of the drawing-room. Many of the Victorians, including the Queen, and Alfred Lord Tennyson, seem to have viewed life from the drawing-room window. They gazed straight across the room from the English hearthrug as from undoubtedly the greatest place on earth. They were probably right. But some of this confidence has gone. Actually in these days there are people who won’t own up to having a drawing-room at all. If they have a room that could possibly answer to such a description, they go out of their way to call it the library, though its only available printed matter is a Bradshaw; or the music-room, though the only music ever heard in it is when the piano is dusted.

In turning over the old volumes of Punch it is surprising how many of the points made by du Maurier in his drawings and in the legends beneath them still hold good. As a mere “joker” he was perhaps the least able of the Punch staff. His influence began when he started inventing imaginary conversations. In many cases these do not represent the discussion of topical subjects at all, but deal with social aberrations, dated only in the illustration by the costume of the time.

In these imaginary conversations he is already a novelist. They record the strokes of finesse and the subterfuges necessary to the attainment of the vain ambitions which are the preoccupation of human genius in superficial levels of Society in all ages. We realise the waste of energy and diplomacy expended to score small points in the social game. His art is a mirror to weed-like qualities of human nature which enjoy a spring-time with every generation. But it also provides a remarkable record of the effect of the sudden replacement of old by new ideals in the world which it depicted.

The rise of the merchant capitalist upon the results of industrial enterprises rendered possible through the invention and rapid perfecting of machinery, created a class who suddenly appeared in the drawing-rooms of the aristocrats as strangers. Du Maurier himself seems to join in the amazement at their intrusion. Much of this first surprise is the theme of his art. Before the death of the artist the newcomers had proved their right to be there, having shamed an Aristocracy, which had lost nearly all its natural occupations, by bringing home to it the fact that the day was over for despising men who traded instead of fighting, who achieved through barter what the brave would once have been too proud to take except by conquest. The business of the original division of human possessions by the sanguinary method was well over; it was now the merchant’s day. It was plain that trade could no longer be despised, when, literally in an age of peace and inventive commerce, indolence was the only alternative to engagement in it.

Du Maurier was very tolerant to social intruders when they were pretty. He rather entered into Mrs. de Tomkyns’ aims, and showed it by making her pretty. Her ends might not be the highest, but the tact and the subtlety displayed in her campaign were aristocratic in character, and he would not have her laughed at personally, though we may laugh at the topsy-turvy of a Society in which the entrance into a certain drawing-room becomes the fun reward for the perseverance of a lifetime. But du Maurier shuddered when behind this lady, distinguished in the fact of the possession of genius, he saw a multitude of the aspirateless at the door. We never lose upon the face, which showed as his through his art, the expression of well-bred resentment, yet certainly of amusement also.

During the period of du Maurier’s work for Punch the actor gets his position in Society; and we see desolate gentlemen in other professions drifting about at the back of the room like ships that drag their anchor, while all the feminine blandishment of the place is concentrated on the actor. By following up his drawings we can see the whole surface of Victorian Society change in character; we can see one outrageous innovation after another solidify into what was correct.

There never was a period like the Victorian; in many respects the precedents of all older periods of Society fail to apply. In it the aristocrats believed in democracy, and resented the democrat who was practically their own creation. While the democrat held no faith with the same fervour as his belief that “whatsoever is lovely and of good report” could only be obtained by mingling with the upper classes. It was the commercial glory of the great Industrial Reign that turned the whole character of London Society upside down in du Maurier’s time. It became the study of the Suburbs to model themselves on Mayfair, to imitate its “rages” and “crazes” in every shade. It is all the vanities of this emulation which du Maurier records; there is little in his art to betray the great influences Ecclesiastically, scientifically, and politically, which expressed the genius of the Victorians. His splendid Bishops are as tranquil as if the controversial Newman, and Gladstone with his Disestablishment programme, had never disturbed the air. And one fancies that politics must have bored him, so studiously does he through over thirty years avoid even a slanting glance at the events which preoccupied Mr. Punch in his cartoons. There is evidence that there was more than the policy of the Paper in this. Du Maurier was an optimist. An optimist is a man who thinks that everything is going right when it is going wrong. It requires an effort of the imagination to recall and picture the fact that in the first hour of Du Maurier’s mere amusement Ruskin was adding his lachrymation to Carlyle’s over a society going swiftly to Gehenna. It is the entire absence of despair, bitterness, or cynicism in his work that gives it its altogether unique place in the history of social satire. Never before was there such a lenient barb on such a well-aimed arrow.

But if his business is not with the causes which contributed to the character of English Society in his time, it is with their effects. No satirist has ever put more highly representative figures on to his stage. They are so highly representative because they conform so strictly to type. He puts a valuation upon everyone whom he introduces on his stage. He shows exactly the regard in which we are to hold them and their profession. And it is interesting, in the light of the favour with which he always treated the typical savant, to hear from his son that he was always as much interested in what was being accomplished in science as in anything else in the world. We must conclude scientists were first in his estimation as men, from the pains he was at to give them the appearance of distinction in his pictures. Then he had much regard for Generals, great Admirals, and other magnificent specimens, the Adonis, for instance, that figures almost as often, and nearly always in company with, his charming woman. This gentleman is difficult to describe. He seems too languid even for the profession of man-about-town, but his clothes are such that one would think their irreproachability could only be maintained by a life of dedication to them. Did he ever exist? Du Maurier is very subtle here. He fully appreciated the great aim of the public-school-trained man in his own time the elaborate care with which an officer studied to conceal an enthusiasm for the profession of arms, the great air of indolence with which over-work was concealed in the other fashionable professions. As a matter of fact these beautiful priests in the temple of “good form” were splendid stoics. They would lay it down that as long as correctness of attitude was maintained nothing mattered.

The artist seems to share many of the prejudices of the older aristocrats. He makes his Jews too Jewish. He believes that they produce great artists, and as if this wasn’t enough, he still holds them at arm’s length. We have in his art not only the record of social innovations, but a picture of the aristocrats before the barbarian invasion. As a picture of them then his art has now its value. And yet he was not quite an aristocrat in temperament, which is a little different from being one by birth. He would have been less tolerant of the Philistines if he had been, and more Bohemian too. He made his great excursions into Bohemia, but he reached it always by a journey through the suburbs. His love of glamour and enchantment was aristocratic, but he did not keep it to the end. He loses it in later drawings. His satire, too, grows less pointed after the eighties, with an equivalent decline in the art by which it is conveyed. The poetic vein that once distinguished him from the Society he depicted tended also to disappear, as he succumbed to a process of absorption into a Society which he had once been able to observe with the freshness of a stranger. It is familiarity that blunts our sense of beauty. It is in its last phase in Punch that his drawing loses the poetry that characterised it in the seventies and eighties, and which gave his satire then such a potent stealthy influence over those for whom it was intended.

Section 2

If it were possible to imagine a world without any women or children in it, du Maurier’s contemporary, Keene, so far as we can judge from his art, would have got along very well in such a world. He would have missed the voluminous skirt that followed the crinoline, with its glorious opportunity for beautiful spacing of white in a drawing, more than he would have missed its wearer. But du Maurier’s art is Romantic; in the background of its chivalric regard for women there is the history of the worship of the Virgin. The source of such an art would have to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Camelot. It is impossible to overlook the chivalry that will not allow him, except with pain, to make a woman ugly. He was first of all a Poet, and though it may be a man’s business to put a poem on to paper, it is a woman’s to create it. He was a poet put into the business of satire with sufficient wit to sustain himself there. Many a time he has to make the satire rest almost entirely with the legend at the foot of his drawing; by obscuring their legends we find that drawing after drawing has nothing to tell us but of the beauty of those involved in “the joke,” and this, as we shall show further on, gives a peculiar salt, or rather sweetness, to satire from his pencil. He is a romancer. His dialogues are romances. It is the novelist and artist running side by side in the legend and the drawing, but almost independently of each other, the wit and the poet in him trying to play each other’s game, that provides the contradictoriness the charm in his pictures. The point of the “joke” seems very often a mere excuse for working off several incidents of beauty that have been perceived.

In dealing with fashion du Maurier scores with posterity. Beauty, when it really is recorded, is the one element in any transitory fashion that survives the challenge of time. It is natural for one generation to hate more than anything else in the world the fashions immediately preceding the one affected. Pointed contemporary satire has, from the very shape it must assume, an ephemeral success. It is only when something more than the mere object of the satire is involved by some grace of the satirist’s genius some response on his part to charm in the thing assailed, that the work of satire comes down from its own time with an indestructible ingredient in it.

As a record of feminine fashion du Maurier’s drawings in Punch are remarkable. It must not be imagined that the history of fashion is merely the tale of dressmakers’ caprice. The very language of changing ideals is the variation of the toilet. When women were restricted to an oriental extent within convention, when to be “prim” was the aim of life, no feature of dress was lacking that could put “abandonment” of any but a moral kind, out of the question. A shake of the head too quickly and the coiffure was imperilled; the movements that came within the prescribed circle of dignity within the circle of the crinoline were all of a rhythmical order. Women did not take to moving with freedom because the crinoline went out, but the crinoline went out when they took to moving with freedom. It went out simply because it was a confounded nuisance. It was a natural costume only as long as women imagined it was natural to them to be very still in demeanour. Once they began to have opinions about that matter they soon sent the crinoline on its way. The same process goes on with the fashions of wearing the hair. The Blue-stocking, constantly running her nervous fingers up her forehead into her hair, has given to Girton a style of its own, equivalent to none at all. Fashion is more sensible than most things. If it changes with a rapidity that dazzles man, is not that only because man is stupid?

To study hair-dressing in du Maurier’s pictures, is to study the growth of the nineteenth-century woman’s mind. The head-dress becomes more natural as woman herself becomes more natural. It becomes more Greek when she takes up the Amazon idea, and simple when she discards some of the complications of convention, always to return to elaboration in the winter when it is not easy to live the simple life after the bell goes for dinner.

When the crinoline went out the train came in; so that though woman had allowed herself more freedom, man could only walk behind her at a respectful distance with a ceremonial measure of pace. The dressmaker did not control all this; the resources of her transcendent art were strained to keep up with the march of womanhood that was all. If we may believe du Maurier’s art, the note of beauty never entirely disappeared from fashion until the aesthetic women of the eighties seemed to take in hand their own clothes. The aesthetic ladies failed, as the movement to which they attached themselves did, for beauty is something attendant upon life, arriving when it likes, going away very often when everyone is on his knees for it to remain.

Section 3

When it comes to his drawings of children du Maurier is very far away from the sentimentalist of the Barrie school. He does not attempt to go through the artifice of pretended possession of the realm of the child’s mind. He was of those who find the curious attractiveness of childhood in the unreality, and not, as claimed by the later school, the superior reality of the child’s world. His view of the child is the affectionate, but the “Olympian” one, with its amused appreciation of the naïveté and the charm of childhood’s particular brand of self-possession. It is possible that his nursery scenes played some part in promoting the respect that is given to-day to the impulses of childhood, the enlightened and beautiful side of which respect after all so far outweighs the ridiculous and sentimental one. His nursery drawings contribute much of the fragrance associated with his work in Punch. He takes rank under the best definition of an artist, namely, one who can put his own values upon the things that come up for representation on his paper. By his insistence upon certain pleasant things he helped to establish them in the ideal, which, on the morrow, always tends to become the real. He was a realist only to the extent of their possibility. It gave him no pleasure whatever to enumerate, and represent over again, the many times in which the beautiful intentions of nature had gone astray. He liked to be upon the side of her successes. He constantly helped us to believe in, and to will towards the existence of such a world here on earth, as we have set our heart upon. He is not an idealist in the vague sense, for he imports no beauty merely from dreamland. Like the Greeks, he makes the possible his single ideal. In insisting upon the possibility of beauty and suppressing every reference to the monstrous story of failure which the existence of hideousness implies, once more he puts the world in debt to art after the fashion of the old masters. For after all it seems to have been left for modern artists to grow wealthy and live comfortably upon the proceeds of their own relation of the world’s despair; if they are playwrights, to live most snugly upon the box-receipts of an entrapped audience unnerved for the struggle of life by their ghastly picture of life’s gloom.

However splendid the art in such a case we put it well down below that art which exerts the same amount of effort in trying to sustain the will to believe in, and so to bring about the reign of things we really want.

Du Maurier’s art was nearer to reality, and not farther away, in the charming side of it. Realism does not necessarily imply only the representation of the mean and the defaulting. It is perhaps because humanity so passionately desires the reign of beauty that it is inclined to doubt that art which witnesses to the dream of it as already partly true.

Although du Maurier’s art in its tenderness is romantic, in its belief in the ideal and in its insistence upon type rather than individuality it is Classic. In the fact that it is so it fails in intimacy of mood just the intimacy that is the soul of Keene’s art, which descends from Rembrandt’s. But this point will come up for consideration farther on. Here it only concerns us in its connection with the psychology of the people it interprets in satire. There is the psychology of individuals and the psychology of a whole society the latter was du Maurier’s theme. It is generally an obsession, a “fad,” a “craze,” or “fashion” that his pencil exploits. He does not with Keene laugh with an individual at another individual. His art is well-bred in its style partly through the fact of its limitations. Moreover, in “Society” individuality tends to be less evident than amongst the poorer classes, with whom eccentricity is respected. In “Society” the force of individuality now runs beneath the surface of observable varieties of costume, taking a subterranean course with an impulse to avoid everything that would give rise to comment. But the conformity of “Society” in small things is only a mask. Du Maurier’s real weakness in satire was that he did not quite perceive this. He was inclined to accept appearances for realities, with the consequence that the record he transmits of late Victorian Society obscures the quite feverish genius of that age.

Section 4

It has often been remarked that the comparative failure of du Maurier’s successors seems the result of a difficulty in drawing “a lady” unmistakably. We can forgive much to the artist who brought the English lady, by many accounted the finest in the world, into real existence in modern comic art. We shall have to forgive him for turning into a lady every woman who was not middle-aged. Du Maurier’s picture of Society was largely falsified by his inability to appreciate variety in feminine genius. But we are quite prepared to believe that his treatment of the dainty parlour-maid, for instance, helped to confirm that tradition of refinement in table service which is the pleasant feature of English home life. All the servants shown in his pictures are ladies, and this before the fashion had made any headway of engaging ladies as servants. And we cannot help feeling such delightful child-life as he represents could only have retained its characteristics under the wing of the beautiful women who nurse it in his pictures.

Both du Maurier and Keene knew the genus artist in all its varieties; and it is very interesting to contrast, and note the difference between, the “Artist” whom du Maurier brings into his society scenes and the one of Keene’s drawings. In Keene’s case the “artist” is generally a slouching Bohemian creature who belongs to a world of his own, and bears the stamp of “stranger” upon him in any other. But the “artist” of du Maurier, putting aside the aesthete coterie, with whom we shall deal presently, wears upon him every outward symbol of peace with the world The world, Mayfair. He is always an “R.A.” symbol of respectability whether du Maurier mentions it or not. With this type Art is one of the great recognised professions like The Army or The Bar. We have no curiosity as to what sort of pictures they paint. We know that their art was suitable for the Academy, therefore for the Victorian Drawing-room. We are merely amused at the solemnity of manner with which they assumed that their large-sized Christmas cards had anything to do with art at all cards which lost the purchasers of them such enormous sums when sold again at Christie’s that the shaken confidence of the public as to the worth of modern pictures has not recovered to this day.

All through this state of things, too, the really vital work of the time was left to the encouragement of those whom “Society” would then have called “outsiders,” and it was just this failure on the part of the aristocracy to enlist the genius of the period on its own side that betrayed its decrepitude.

Section 5

The enduring feature of du Maurier’s art, that which survives in it better than its sometimes scathing commentary upon a passing “craze,” is his close representation of the air with which people seek to foil each other in conversation and conceal their own trépidations. His “Social Agonies” are among the best of this series. If he does not lay stress upon individual character, he still remains the master draughtsman of a state of mind. He succeeds thus in the very field where probably all that is most important in modern art, whether of the novel or of illustration, will be found.

Behind the economy of word and gesture in the conversational method of to-day there lies the history of the long struggle of the race through volubility to refinement of expression. Du Maurier’s Punch pictures take their place in the field of psychology in which the modern novel has secured its greatest results, and the best appreciation of his Punch work was written in the eighties by Mr. Henry James, the supreme master in this field; the master of suspenses that are greater than the conversations in which they happen; the explorer of twilights of consciousness in which little passions contend.

The Society du Maurier depicted held its position upon more comfortable terms than any preceding it in history. It did not have, on the one hand, to trim to a court party, or, on the other, to concede anything to the people to keep itself in power. Yet it was as swollen with pride in its position as any society has ever been. The industrial phenomena of the age had suddenly filled its pockets; and it had nothing else in the world to do but to blow itself out with pride. But a Society holding its position without an effort of some kind of its own is bound to lose in character, and the confession of all the best literature of this time was of the baffled search for the soul of the prosperous class.

Section 6

For the appreciation of the artist’s management of dialogue we must move for a page or two in Mrs. de Tomkyns’ circle with Miss Lyon Hunter, Sir Gorgius Midas the Plutocrat, Sir Pompey Bedel (of Bedel, Flunke & Co.) the successful professional man, and the rest of the whole set, who understand each other in the freemasonry of a common ambition to get into another set.

Mamma. “Enfin, my love! We’re well out of this! What a gang!!!
Where shall we go next?”

Daughter. “To Lady Oscar Talbot’s, Mamma.”

Mamma. “She snubs one so I really can’t bear it! Let us go to
Mrs. Ponsonby de Tomkyns. It’s just as select (except the Host and
Hostess) and quite as amusing.”

Daughter. “But Mrs. Tomkyns snubs one worse than Lady Oscar,
Mamma!”

Mamma. “Pooh, my love! who cares for the snubs of a Mrs. Ponsonby
de Tomkyns I should like to know, so long as she’s clever enough to
get the right people.”

This is the conversation in the hall between two ladies leaving a party in one of du Maurier’s most characteristic drawings. On every side there are footmen and a crowd of guests cloaking and departing. Of Mrs. Ponsonby de Tomkyns Mr. Henry James has said: “This lady is a real creation.... She is not one of the heroines of the aesthetic movement, though we may be sure she dabbles in that movement so far as it pays to do so. Mrs. Ponsonby de Tomkyns is a little of everything, in so far as anything pays. She is always on the look-out; she never misses an opportunity. She is not a specialist, for that cuts off too many opportunities, and the aesthetic people have the tort as the French say, to be specialists. No, Mrs. Ponsonby de Tomkyns is what shall we call her? well, she is the modern social spirit. She is prepared for everything; she is ready to take advantage of everything; she would invite Mr. Bradlaugh to dinner if she thought the Duchess would come to meet him. The Duchess is her great achievement she never lets go of her Duchess. She is young, very nice-looking, slim, graceful, indefatigable. She tires poor Ponsonby completely out; she can keep going for hours after poor Ponsonby is reduced to stupefaction. This unfortunate husband is indeed almost stupefied. He is not, like his wife, a person of imagination. She leaves him far behind, though he is so inconvertible that if she were a less superior person he would have been a sad encumbrance. He always figures in the corner of the scenes in which she distinguishes herself, separated from her by something like the gulf that separated Caliban from Ariel. He has his hands in his pockets, his head poked forward; what is going on is quite beyond his comprehension. He vaguely wonders what his wife will do next; her manoeuvres quite transcend him. Mrs. Ponsonby de Tomkyns always succeeds. She is never at fault; she is as quick as the instinct of self-preservation. She is the little London lady who is determined to be a greater one she pushes, gently but firmly always pushes. At last she arrives.”

We have quoted this delightful picture almost in its entirety from the essay upon du Maurier written by Mr. Henry James in the eighties to which we have referred. It describes the type of woman revealed in Mrs. de Tomkyns when we have followed her adventures up a little way in the back numbers of Punch. But, if we may be permitted the slang, the type itself is anything but “a back number.” Du Maurier’s work bids fair to live in the enjoyment of many generations, from the fact that its chaff, for the most part, is directed against vanities that recur in human nature. Mr. James tells us that the lady of whom we write “hesitates at nothing; she is very modern. If she doesn’t take the aesthetic line more than is necessary, she finds it necessary to take it a little; for if we are to believe du Maurier, the passion for strange raiment and blue china has during the last few years made ravages in the London world.” Mr. Henry James himself is one of the experts of the London world. There is almost a hint in the last sentence that he thought du Maurier’s genius helped to nurse the crazes it made fun of.

Since writing this I have been told by one to whom du Maurier related the incident, that the hero of the aesthetic movement himself, Oscar Wilde, offered to sit to du Maurier for the chief character in his skit. Wilde was very young, but already master of that art of self-advertisement which he received from Byron and Disraeli, perfected, and, I think, handed on to Mr. Bernard Shaw. But such anxiety for every kind of celebrity at any cost seems to have lost the youthful genius the esteem of the great Punch artist once and for all. The representative of humorous journalism seems the one upon whom the delicate humour of the proposal was lost.

As far as du Maurier was capable of vindictiveness it was reserved for Maudle and Postlethwaite. He went out of his way to give a contemptible appearance to those who took the name of Art in vain. His only spiteful drawings are those of aesthetes. They are spiteful to the extent of the great disgust which he, the most amiable of satirists, felt for them. But still he was careful not to treat a craze which afforded him inexhaustible variations of subject matter with so much bitterness as to kill it right out. It was only towards this craze that he showed any bitterness at all, for the rest he is always amused with Society. He has none of the bitter Jeremiahlike anger against it of a Swift.

Mr. Henry James defending du Maurier from a charge of being malignant, brought against him for his ugly representation of queer people, failures, and grotesques, refused to allow that the taint of “French ferocity” of which the artist was accused, existed. But Mr. Henry James sees in du Maurier’s ugly people a real specification of type, where we confess that we have felt that his “ferocity” missed the point of resemblance to type through clumsy exaggeration. One noticeable instance, however, to our mind, where the too frequent outrageousness is replaced by an exquisite study of character, is in the face of the fair authoress who, when the gallant Colonel, anxious to break the ice, and full of the fact that he has just been made a proud father, asks if she takes any interest in very young children, replies, “I loathe all children!” (January 13, 1880).

Section 7

The story of children’s conversation has perhaps never been told quite so charmingly as du Maurier tells it. We could quote endlessly from the admirably constructed nursery dialogues in which he does not attempt to make a joke, and in which he very carefully refrains from giving a fantastic precocity to his little characters dialogues in which he is quite content to rely upon our sympathetic knowledge of children’s way of putting things, while he rests the appeal of the drawing and legend entirely upon a naïve literalness to their remarks. The charming atmosphere of the well-ordered nursery must be felt by readers, and then we can quote from the text of some of his drawings of the kind; this we shall do somewhat at random and as they come to mind.

“Are you asleep, dearest? Yes, Mamma, and the Doctor particularly
said that I wasn’t to be waked to take my medicine” (July 10,
1880).

“Oh, Auntie! There’s your tiresome cook’s been and filled my egg
too full” (April 22, 1882).

Already we are seized with misgivings as to whether, with the reader very much on the look-out for the jokes, we shall be successful in making our point in claiming for du Maurier that, as much as any author who has ever written upon children, he captures “the note” of children’s speeches. But anyhow we will try.

For an instance there is the delightful picture of a child clasping its mother round the knees, whilst the mother, shawled for an evening concert, bends affectionately down

“Good Night! Good Night! my dear, sweet, pretty mamma! I like you
to go out, because if you didn’t you’d never come home again, you
know.”

The artist perhaps invented this pretty speech, but the “Good Night! Good Night! my dear, sweet, pretty mamma” is of the very spirit of the redundancy by which children hope in heaping words together to express accumulation of emotion. Du Maurier’s children never make the nasty pert answers upon which, for their nearly impossible but always vulgar smartness, the providers of jokes about children for the comic papers generally depend. He is simply going on with his “novel” The Tale of the House it might be called when he affords us realistic glimpses of nursery conversation.

Mamma. “What is Baby crying for, Maggie?”

Maggie. “I don’t know.”

Mamma. “And what are you looking so indignant about?”

Maggie. “That nasty, greedy dog’s been and took and eaten my
punge-take!”

Mamma. “Why, I saw you eating a sponge-cake a minute ago!”

Maggie. “O that was Baby’s.”

We need hardly labour the point of the “been and took and eaten” as an instance of felicity in reconstructing children’s conversation, and making the verisimilitude to their grammar the charm of the reconstruction.

Ethel. “Isn’t it sad, Arthur? There’s the drawing-room cleared
for a dance, and all the dolls ready to begin, only they’ve got no
partners!”

Arthur. “Well, Ethel! There’s the four gentlemen in my Noah’s
Ark; but they don’t look as if they cared very much about
dancing, you know!” (February 24, 1872).

Ethel. “And O, Mamma, do you know as we were coming along we saw
a horrid woman with a red striped shawl drink something out of a
bottle, and then hand it to some men. I’m sure she was tipsy.”

Beatrice (who always looks on the best side of things). “Perhaps
it was only Castor Oil, after all!”

A whispered appeal. “Mamma! Mamma! don’t scold him any more, it
makes the room so dark.”

It is the poetry of the nursery that is to be felt throughout du Maurier’s art in this vein. And how well he knows the emotions of childhood. For instance, the large drawing “Farewell to Fair Normandy” (October 2, 1880), extending across two full pages of Punch, in which the children away for their seaside holiday leave the sands for the last time in a mournful procession. The sky is dimmed with an evening cloud. Du Maurier has compressed much poetry into the scene. It has been said that “there is only one art,” and this seems to be proved on great occasions by those who can command more than one art for the expression of their feelings. It is difficult to say where in this picture the artist in du Maurier gives place to the poet, as difficult as it is to say before a picture of Rossetti.

Sometimes du Maurier even depicted delightful children as the victims of the fashionable crazes that he loved to attack, and thus we are brought to another series of dialogues as a rule though only involving the “grown-ups” in which the legend and the type of person depicted, together, form a most valuable document of the times. There is for instance the China mania in the following in the incipient stage:

“O Mamma! O! O! N N Nurse has given me my C C Cod-liver Oil out
of a p p plain white mug” (December 26, 1874).

Then the inimitable colloquies of the aesthetes and especially the now famous one about the six-mark tea-pot.

Aesthetic Bridegroom. “It is quite consummate, is it not?”

Intense Bride. “It is, indeed! Oh, Algernon, let us live up to
it!”

Also the direction, to the architect about the country house:

Fair Client. “I want it to be nice and baronial, Queen Anne and Elizabethan, and all that; kind of quaint and Nuremburgy you know regular Old English, with French windows opening to the lawn, and Venetian blinds, and sort of Swiss balconies, and a loggia. But I’m sure you know what I mean!” (November 29, 1890).

And farther on in the Punch volumes:

“O, Mr. Robinson, does not it ever strike you, in listening to
sweet music, that the Rudiment of Potential Infinite Pain is subtly
woven into the tissue of our keenest joy” (December 2, 1891).

But perhaps before closing this chapter we should give some examples of drawing-room conversation pure and simple, without reference to any sort of craze, as specimens of their author’s skill. Familiarity with the artist’s characters will enable the reader to appreciate the note of a shy man’s agony in some, and of feminine spite in others.

Among the “Speeches to be lived down, if possible,” there are these:

She. “Let me introduce you to a very charming lady, to take down
to supper.”

He. “A thanks no. I never eat supper.”

“By George! I am so hungry I can’t talk.”

Fair Hostess (on hospitable thoughts intent). “Oh, I’m so glad!”

“Things one would rather have left unsaid”:

Amiable Hostess. “What! must you go already? Really, Professor,
it’s too bad of this sweet young wife of yours to carry you off so
early! She always does!”

Professor. “No, no, not always, Mrs. Bright. At most houses I
positively have to drag her away!”

“Truths that might have been left unspoken”:

Hostess. “What? haven’t you brought your sisters, Mr. Jones?”

Mr. Jones. “No, they couldn’t come, Mrs. Smith. The fact is,
they’re saving themselves for Mrs. Brown’s Dance to-morrow, you
know!” (January 9, 1886).

Under the heading “Feline Amenities”:

Fair Hostess (to Mrs. Masham, who is looking her very best).
“How-dy-do, dear? I hope you’re not so tired as you look!”

Sympathetic Lady Guest. “Don’t be unhappy about the rain, dear
Mrs. Bounderson it will soon be over, and your garden will be
lovelier than ever.”

Little Mrs. Goldmore Bounderson (who is giving her first Garden
Party). “Yes; but I’m afraid it will keep my most desirable guests
from coming!”

This last duologue is pure du Maurier. It is subtle.

“Feline Amenities” again:

“How kind of you to call I’m sorry to have kept you waiting!”

“Oh, don’t mention it. I’ve not been at all bored! I’ve been
trying to imagine what I should do to make this room look
comfortable if it were mine!” (November 22, 1892).

The “Things one would rather have expressed otherwise” is a good series too:

The Professor (to Hostess). “Thank you so much for a most delightful evening! I shall indeed go to bed with pleasant recollections and you will be the very last person I shall think of!”

And again, of the same series:

Fair Hostess. “Good-night, Major Jones. We’re supposed to breakfast at nine, but we’re not very punctual people. Indeed the later you appear to-morrow morning, the better pleased we shall all be” (May 13, 1893).

“Things one would rather have left unsaid”:

He. “Yes, I know Bootle slightly, and confess I don’t think much
of him!”

She. “I know him a little too. He took me in to dinner a little
while ago!”

He. “Ah, that’s just about all he’s fit for!”

The Hostess. “Dear Miss Linnet! would you would you sing one of
those charming ballads, while I go and see if supper’s ready?”

The Companion. “O, don’t ask me I feel nervous. There are so
many people.”

The Hostess. “O, they won’t listen, bless you! not one of them!
Now DO!!!”

And here is a conversation that betrays the presence of one of the currents of public feeling below the smooth surface of well-bred twaddle:

In the Metropolitan Railway. “I beg your pardon, but I think I
had the pleasure of meeting you in Rome last year?”

“No, I’ve never been nearer to Rome than St. Alban’s.”

“St. Alban’s? Where is that?”

“Holborn.”

Some rather amusing speeches of a different character in which du Maurier assails the more obvious forms of snobbery of a class below those with whom his art was generally concerned may be given:

Among the Philistines. Grigsby. “Do you know the Joneses,
Mrs. Brown?”

“No, we er don’t care to know Business people as a rule, although my husband’s in business; but then he’s in the Coffee Business and they’re all gentlemen in the Coffee Business, you know!”

Grigsby (who always suits himself to his company). “Really now! Why, that’s more than can be said of the Army, the Navy, the Church, the Bar, or even the House of Lords! I don’t wonder at your being rather exclusive!” (Punch’s Almanac, 1882).

“I see your servants wear cockades now, Miss Shoddson!”

“Yes, Pa’s just become a member of the Army and Navy Stores.”

When du Maurier confined himself to observing and to recording he never failed for subjects. But we suppose as a concession to a section of the public he felt a leaven of mere jokes was demanded from him every year. The scene of his struggle to invent those “jokes” is one to be veiled. It is safe to say that it is his distinction to have contributed at once the best satire and the worst jokes that Punch has ever published. A black and white artist has told the writer that the Art-Editors of papers look first at the joke. The drawing is accepted or rejected on the joke. We can only be glad that this was not entirely the editorial practice on Punch in du Maurier’s time. Perhaps the subjoined “joke” of du Maurier’s from Punch is the worst in the world:

“I say, cousin Constance, I’ve found out why you always call your
Mamma ‘Mater.’”

“Why, Guy?”

“Because she’s always trying to find a mate for you girls.”

And yet if the drawing accompanying this joke be looked at first, it delights with its charm and distinction. Here then is a psychological fact; the drawing itself seems to the eye a poorer affair once the poor joke has been read. Having suffered in this way several times in following with admiration the pencil of du Maurier through the old volumes of Punch, we at last hit upon the plan of always covering the joke and enjoying first the picture for its own sake, only uncovering the legend when this has been thoroughly appreciated lest it should turn out to be merely a feeble joke instead of a happily-invented conversation. There are some of the drawings for jokes which we should very much like to have included with our illustrations, but the human mind being so constituted that it goes direct to the legend of an illustration, feeling “sold” if it isn’t there, and the “jokes” in some of these instances being so fatal to the understanding of the atmosphere and charm of the drawing, we have had to abandon the idea of doing so. What the reader has to understand is that circumstances harnessed du Maurier to a certain business; he imported all manner of extraneous graces into it, and thus gave a determination to the character of the art of satire which it will never lose. The pages of Punch were enriched, beautified, and made more delicately human. Punch gained everything through the connection and du Maurier a stimulus in the demand for regular work. But it is not impossible to imagine circumstances which, but for this early connection with Punch, would have awakened and developed a different and perhaps profounder side of du Maurier, of which we seem to get a glimpse in the illustrations to Meredith in The Cornhill Magazine.

Section 8

The famous reply of an early Editor to the usual complaint that Punch was not as good as it used to be “No, sir, it never was” cannot be considered to hold good in any comparison between the present period and that in which the arts of du Maurier and Keene held sway. There have been periods, there is such a one now, when the literary side of Punch has touched a high-water mark. But on the illustrative side Punch seems to be always hoping that another Keene or du Maurier will turn up. It does not seem prepared to accept work in quite another style. But there is no more chance of there ever being another Keene than of there being another Rembrandt, or of there ever being another du Maurier than another Watteau. The next genius to whom it is given to illuminate the pages of the classic journal in a style that will rival the past is not likely to arise from among those who think that there is no other view of life than that which was discovered by their immediate predecessors. By force of his genius or, if you prefer it, of sympathy which means the same thing for some particular phase of life, some artist may at any moment uncover in its pages an altogether fresh kind of humour and of beauty.

Section 9

Du Maurier’s art covers the period when England was flushed with success. Artists in such times grow wealthy, and by their work refine their time. But in spite of the number of wealthy Academicians living upon Society in the mid-Victorian time, the influence of Art upon Society was less than at any time in history in which circumstances have been favourable to the artist.

The great wave of trade that carried the shop-keeper into the West-end drawing-room strewed also the curtains and carpets with that outrageous weed of trade design which gave to the mid-Victorian world its complexion of singular hideousness.

The aesthetic movement indicated the restlessness of some of the brighter spirits with this condition, but many of its remedies were worse than the disease. The nouveau artist-craftsman stood less chance than anybody of getting back to the secret of noble things, having forsaken the path of pure utility which, wherever it may go for a time, always leads back again to beauty. The disappearance of beauty for a time need not have been a cause of despair. Beauty will always come back if it is left alone. People had been swept off their feet with delight at what machinery could do, and they expected beauty to come out of it as a product at the same pace as everything else. It was not a mistake to expect it from any source, but from this particular source it could only come with time. There is evidence that it is on the way. And yet though the results of crude mechanical industrialism spoilt the outward appearance of the whole of the Victorian age, the earlier part at least of that time was one of marked personal refinement. We have but to look at portraits by George Richmond and others to receive a great impression of distinction. And this fact enables us to throw into clearer light the exact nature of du Maurier’s work. If we seek for evidence in the old volumes of Punch for the distinction of the early Victorians we shall not find it. We shall merely conceive instead a dislike for the type of gentleman of the time. Leech and his contemporaries did nothing more for their age than to make it look ridiculous for ever. But du Maurier gives us a real impression of the Society in which he moved. His ability to satirise society while still leaving it its dignity is unique. It may be said to be his distinctive contribution to the art of graphic satire. It gave to the Anglo-Saxon school its present-day characteristic, putting upon one of the very lightest forms of art the stamp of a noble time. The point is that whilst du Maurier thus deferred to the dignity of human nature he remained a satirist, not a humorist merely, as was Keene.