But the studio, where I had been working for the last three or four months so diligently, became wearisome to me, and for two reasons.  First, because it deprived me of many hours of Marshall’s company.  Secondly ­and the second reason was the graver ­because I was beginning to regard the delineation of a nymph, or youth bathing, etc., as a very narrow channel to carry off the strong, full tide of a man’s thought.  For now thoughts of love and death, and the hopelessness of life, were in active fermentation within me and sought for utterance with a strange persistency of appeal.  I yearned merely to give direct expression to my pain.  Life was then in its springtide; every thought was new to me, and it would have seemed a pity to disguise even the simplest emotion in any garment when it was so beautiful in its Eden-like nakedness.  The creatures whom I met in the ways and byeways of Parisian life, whose gestures and attitudes I devoured with my eyes, and whose souls I hungered to know, awoke in me a tense, irresponsible curiosity, but that was all, ­I despised, I hated them, thought them contemptible, and to select them as subjects of artistic treatment, could not then, might never, have occurred to me, had the suggestion to do so not come direct to me from the outside.

At the time of which I am writing I lived in an old-fashioned hotel on the Boulevard, which an enterprising Belgian had lately bought and was endeavouring to modernise; an old-fashioned hotel, that still clung to its ancient character in the presence of half a dozen old people, who, for antediluvian reasons, continue to dine on certain well-specified days at the table d’hôte.  Fifteen years have passed away, and these old people, no doubt, have joined their ancestors; but I can see them still sitting in that salle à manger, the buffets en vieux chéne, the opulent candelabra en style d’empire, the waiter lighting the gas in the pale Parisian evening.  That white-haired man, that tall, thin, hatchet-faced American, has dined at this table d’hôte for the last thirty years ­he is talkative, vain, foolish, and authoritative.  The clean, neatly-dressed old gentleman who sits by him, looking so much like a French gentleman, has spent a great part of his life in Spain.  With that piece of news, and its subsequent developments, your acquaintance with him begins and ends; the eyes, the fan, the mantilla, how it began, how it was broken off, and how it began again.  Opposite sits another French gentleman, with beard and bristly hair.  He spent twenty years of his life in India, and he talks of his son who has been out there for the last ten, and who has just returned home.  There is the Italian comtesse of sixty summers, who dresses like a girl of sixteen and smokes a cigar after dinner, ­if there are not too many strangers in the room.  A stranger she calls any one whom she has not seen at least once before.  The little fat, neckless man, with the great bald head, fringed below the ears with hair, is M. Duval.  He is a dramatic author, the author of a hundred and sixty plays.  He does not intrude himself on your notice, but when you speak to him on literary matters he fixes a pair of tiny, sloe-like eyes on you, and talks affably of his collaborateurs.

I was soon deeply interested in M. Duval, and I invited him to come to the café after dinner.  I paid for his coffee and liqueurs, I offered him a choice cigar.  He did not smoke; I did.  It was, of course, inevitable that I should find out that he had not had a play produced for the last twenty years, but then the aureole of the hundred and sixty was about his poor bald head.  I thought of the chances of life, he alluded to the war; and so this unpleasantness was passed over, and we entered on more genial subjects of conversation.  He had written plays with everybody; his list of collaborateurs was longer than any list of lady patronesses for an English county ball; there was no literary kitchen in which he had not helped to dish up.  I was at once amazed and delighted.  Had M. Duval written his hundred and sixty plays in the seclusion of his own rooms, I should have been less surprised; it was the mystery of the séances of collaboration, the rendezvous, the discussion, the illustrious company, that overwhelmed me in a rapture of wonder and respectful admiration.  Then came the anecdotes.  They were of all sorts.  Here are a few specimens:  He, Duval, had written a one-act piece with Dumas père; it had been refused at the Français, and then it had been about, here, there, and everywhere; finally the Variétés had asked for some alterations, and c’était une affaire entendue.  “I made the alterations one afternoon, and wrote to Dumas, and what do you think, ­by return of post I had a letter from him saying he could not consent to the production of a one-act piece, signed by him, at the Variétés, because his son was then giving a five-act piece at the Gymnase.”  Then came a string of indecent witticisms by Suzanne Lagier and Dejazet.  They were as old as the world, but they were new to me, and I was amused and astonished.  These bon-mots were followed by an account of how Gautier wrote his Sunday feuilleton, and how he and Balzac had once nearly come to blows.  They had agreed to collaborate.  Balzac was to contribute the scenario, Gautier the dialogue.  One morning Balzac came with the scenario of the first act.  “Here it is, Gautier!  I suppose you can let me have it back finished by to-morrow afternoon?” And the old gentleman would chirp along in this fashion till midnight.  I would then accompany him to his rooms in the Quartier Montmartre ­rooms high up on the fifth floor ­where, between two pictures, supposed to be by Angelica Kauffmann, M. Duval had written unactable plays for the last twenty years, and where he would continue to write unactable plays until God called him to a world, perhaps, of eternal cantatas, but where, by all accounts, l’exposition de la pièce selon la formule de M. Scribe is still unknown.

How I used to enjoy these conversations!  I remember how I used to stand on the pavement after having bid the old gentleman good-night, regretting I had not asked for some further explanation regarding lé mouvement Romantique, or la façon de M. Scribe de ménager la situation.

Why not write a comedy?  So the thought came.  I had never written anything save a few ill-spelt letters; but no matter.  To find a plot was the first thing.  Take Marshall for hero and Alice for heroine, surround them with the old gentlemen who dined at the table d’hôte, flavour with the Italian countess who smoked cigars when there were not too many strangers present.  After three weeks of industrious stirring, the ingredients did begin to simmer into something resembling a plot.  Put it upon paper.  Ah! there was my difficulty.  I remembered suddenly that I had read “Cain,” “Manfred,” “The Cenci,” as poems, without ever thinking of how the dialogue looked upon paper; besides, they were in blank verse.  I hadn’t a notion how prose dialogue would look upon paper.  Shakespeare I had never opened; no instinctive want had urged me to read him.  He had remained, therefore, unread, unlooked at.  Should I buy a copy?  No; the name repelled me ­as all popular names repelled me.  In preference I went to the Gymnase, and listened attentively to a comedy by M. Dumas fils.  But strain my imagination as I would, I could not see the spoken words in their written form.  Oh, for a look at the prompter’s copy, the corner of which I could see when I leaned forward!  At last I discovered in Galignani’s library a copy of Leigh Hunt’s edition of the old dramatists, and after a month’s study of Congreve, Wycherley, Vanbrugh, and Farquhar, I completed a comedy in three acts, which I entitled “Worldliness.”  It was, of course, very bad; but, if my memory serves me well, I do not think it was nearly so bad as might be imagined.

No sooner was the last scene written than I started at once for London, confident I should find no difficulty in getting my play produced.