But neither Apollo nor Buddha could help or save me.  One in his exquisite balance of body, a skylark-like song of eternal beauty, stood lightly advancing; the other sat in sombre contemplation, calm as a beautiful evening.  I looked for sorrow in the eyes of the pastel ­the beautiful pastel that seemed to fill with a real presence the rich autumnal leaves where the jays darted and screamed.  The twisted columns of the bed rose, burdened with great weight of fringes and curtains, the python devoured a guinea-pig, the last I gave him; the great white cat came to me.  I said all this must go, must henceforth be to me an abandoned dream, a something, not more real than a summer meditation.  So be it, and, as was characteristic of me, I broke with Paris suddenly, without warning anyone.  I knew in my heart of hearts that I should never return, but no word was spoken, and I continued a pleasant delusion with myself; I told my concierge that I would return in a month, and I left all to be sold, brutally sold by auction, as the letter I read in the last chapter charmingly and touchingly describes.

Not even to Marshall did I confide my foreboding that Paris would pass out of my life, that it would henceforth be with me a beautiful memory, but never more a practical delight.  He and I were no longer living together; we had parted a second time, but this time without bitterness of any kind; he had learnt to feel that I wanted to live alone, and had moved away into the Latin quarter, whither I made occasional expeditions.  I accompanied him once to the old haunts, but various terms of penal servitude had scattered our friends, and I could not interest myself in the new.  Nor did Marshall himself interest me as he had once done.  To my eager taste, he had grown just a little trite.  My affection for him was as deep and sincere as ever; were I to meet him now I would grasp his hand and hail him with firm, loyal friendship; but I had made friends in the Nouvelle Athènes who interested me passionately, and my thoughts were absorbed by and set on new ideals, which Marshall had failed to find sympathy for, or even to understand.  I had introduced him to Degas and Manet, but he had spoken of Jules Lefèbvre and Bouguereau, and generally shown himself incapable of any higher education; he could not enter where I had entered, and this was alienation.  We could no longer even talk of the same people; when I spoke of a certain marquise, he answered with an indifferent “Do you really think so”? and proceeded to drag me away from my glitter of satin to the dinginess of print dresses.  It was more than alienation, it was almost separation; but he was still my friend, he was the man, and he always will be, to whom my youth, with all its aspirations, was most closely united.  So I turned to say good-bye to him and to my past life.  Rap ­rap ­rap!

“Who’s there?”

“I ­George Moore.”

“I’ve got a model.”

“Never mind your model.  Open the door.  How are you? what are you painting?”

“This; what do you think of it?”

“It is prettily composed.  I think it will come out all right.  I am going to England; come to say good-bye.”

“Going to England!  What will you do in England?”

“I have to go about money matters, very tiresome.  I had really begun to forget there was such a place.”

“But you are not going to stay there?”

“Oh, no!”

“You will be just in time to see the Academy.”

The conversation turned on art, and we æstheticised for an hour.  At last Marshall said, “I am really sorry, old chap, but I must send you away; there’s that model.”

The girl sat waiting, her pale hair hanging down her back, a very picture of discontent.

“Send her away.”

“I asked her to come out to dinner.”

“D ­n her....  Well, never mind, I must spend this last evening with you; you shall both dine with me. Je quitte Paris demain matin, peut-être pour longtemps; je voudrais passer ma dernière soirèe avec mon ami; alors si vous voulez bien me permettre, mademoiselle, je vous invite tous les deux à diner; nous passerons la soirèe ensemble si cela vous est agrèable?”

“Je veux bien, monsieur.”

Poor Marie!  Marshall and I were absorbed in each other and art.  It was always so.  We dined in a gargote, and afterwards we went to a students’ ball; and it seems like yesterday.  I can see the moon sailing through a clear sky, and on the pavement’s edge Marshall’s beautiful, slim, manly figure, and Marie’s exquisite gracefulness.  She was Lefèbvre’s Chloe; so every one sees her now.  Her end was a tragic one.  She invited her friends to dinner, and with the few pence that remained she bought some boxes of matches, boiled them, and drank the water.  No one knew why; some said it was love.

I went to London in an exuberant necktie, a tiny hat; I wore large trousers and a Capoul beard; looking, I believe, as unlike an Englishman as a drawing by Grévin.  In the smoking-room of Morley’s Hotel I met my agent, an immense nose, and a wisp of hair drawn over a bald skull.  He explained, after some hesitation, that I owed him a few thousands, and that the accounts were in his portmanteau.  I suggested taking them to a solicitor to have them examined.  The solicitor advised me strongly to contest them.  I did not take the advice, but raised some money instead, and so the matter ended so far as the immediate future was concerned.  The years that are most impressionable, from twenty to thirty, when the senses and the mind are the widest awake, I, the most impressionable of human beings, had spent in France, not among English residents, but among that which is the quintessence of the nation, not an indifferent spectator, but an enthusiast, striving heart and soul to identify himself with his environment, to shake himself free from race and language and to recreate himself as it were in the womb of a new nationality, assuming its ideals, its morals, and its modes of thought, and I had succeeded strangely well, and when I returned home England was a new country to me; I had, as it were, forgotten everything.  Every aspect of street and suburban garden was new to me; of the manner of life of Londoners I knew nothing.  This sounds incredible, but it is so; I saw, but I could realise nothing.  I went into a drawing-room, but everything seemed far away ­a dream, a presentment, nothing more; I was in touch with nothing; of the thoughts and feelings of those I met I could understand nothing, nor could I sympathise with them:  an Englishman was at that time as much out of my mental reach as an Esquimaux would be now.  Women were nearer to me than men, and I will take this opportunity to note my observation, for I am not aware that any one else has observed that the difference between the two races is found in the men, not in the women.  French and English women are psychologically very similar; the standpoint from which they see life is the same, the same thoughts interest and amuse them; but the attitude of a Frenchman’s mind is absolutely opposed to that of an Englishman; they stand on either side of a vast abyss, two animals different in colour, form, and temperament; ­two ideas destined to remain irrevocably separate and distinct.

I have heard of writing and speaking two languages equally well:  this was impossible to me, and I am convinced that if I had remained two more years in France I should never have been able to identify my thoughts with the language I am now writing in, and I should have written it as an alien.  As it was I only just escaped this detestable fate.  And it was in the last two years, when I began to write French verse and occasional chroniques in the papers, that the great damage was done.  I remember very well indeed one day, while arranging an act of a play I was writing with a friend, finding suddenly to my surprise that I could think more easily and rapidly in French that in English; but with all this I did not learn French.  I chattered, and I felt intensely at home in it; yes, I could write a sonnet or a ballade almost without a slip, but my prose required a good deal of alteration, for a greater command of language is required to write in prose than in verse.  I found this in French and also in English.  When I returned from Paris, my English terribly corrupt with French ideas and forms of thought, I could write acceptable English verse, but even ordinary newspaper prose was beyond my reach, and an attempt I made to write a novel drifted into a miserable failure.

Here is a poem that Cabaner admired; he liked it in the French prose translation which I made for him one night in the Nouvelle Athènes: ­

    We are alone!  Listen, a little while,
    And hear the reason why your weary smile
    And lute-toned speaking is so very sweet,
    And how my love of you is more complete
    Than any love of any lover.  They
    Have only been attracted by the gray
    Delicious softness of your eyes, your slim
    And delicate form, or some such other whim,
    The simple pretexts of all lovers; ­I
    For other reason.  Listen whilst I try
    To say.  I joy to see the sunset slope
    Beyond the weak hours’ hopeless horoscope,
    Leaving the heavens a melancholy calm
    Of quiet colour chaunted like a psalm,
    In mildly modulated phrases; thus
    Your life shall fade like a voluptuous
    Vision beyond the sight, and you shall die
    Like some soft evening’s sad serenity... 
    I would possess your dying hours; indeed
    My love is worthy of the gift, I plead
    For them.  Although I never loved as yet,
    Methinks that I might love you; I would get
    From out the knowledge that the time was brief,
    That tenderness, whose pity grows to grief,
    And grief that sanctifies, a joy, a charm
    Beyond all other loves, for now the arm
    Of Death is stretched to you-ward, and he claims
    You as his bride.  Maybe my soul misnames
    Its passion; love perhaps it is not, yet
    To see you fading like a violet,
    Or some sweet thought away, would be a strange
    And costly pleasure, far beyond the range
    Of formal man’s emotion.  Listen, I
    Will choose a country spot where fields of rye
    And wheat extend in rustling yellow plains,
    Broken with wooded hills and leafy lanes,
    To pass our honeymoon; a cottage where,
    The porch and windows are festooned with fair
    Green wreaths of eglantine, and look upon
    A shady garden where we’ll walk alone
    In the autumn sunny evenings; each will see
    Our walks grow shorter, till to the orange tree,
    The garden’s length, is far, and you will rest
    From time to time, leaning upon my breast
    Your languid lily face.  Then later still
    Unto the sofa by the window-sill
    Your wasted body I shall carry, so
    That you may drink the last left lingering glow
    Of evening, when the air is filled with scent
    Of blossoms; and my spirit shall be rent
    The while with many griefs.  Like some blue day
    That grows more lovely as it fades away,
    Gaining that calm serenity and height
    Of colour wanted, as the solemn night
    Steals forward you will sweetly fall asleep
    For ever and for ever; I shall weep
    A day and night large tears upon your face,
    Laying you then beneath a rose-red place
    Where I may muse and dedicate and dream
    Volumes of poesy of you; and deem
    It happiness to know that you are far
    From any base desires as that fair star
    Set in the evening magnitude of heaven. 
    Death takes but little, yea, your death has given
    Me that deep peace, and that secure possession
    Which man may never find in earthly passion.

And here are two specimens of my French verse.  I like to print them, for they tell me how I have held together, and they are not worse than my English verse, and is my English verse worse than the verse of our minor poets?

NUIT DE SEPTEMBRE

    La nuit est pleine de silence,
    Et dans une étrange lueur,
    Et dans une douce indolence
    La lune dort comme une fleur.

    Parmi rochers, dans lé sable
    Sous les grands pins d’un calme amer
    Surgit mon amour périssable,
    Faim de tes yeux, soif de ta chair.

    Je suis ton amant, et la blonde
    Gorge tremble sous mon baiser,
    Et lé feu de l’amour inonde
    Nos deux cÅ“urs sans les apaiser.

    Rien ne peut durer, maïs ta bouche
    Est telle qu’un fruit fait de sang;
    Tout passe, maïs ta main me touche
    Et je me donne en frémissant,

    Tes yeux verts me regardent:  j’aime
    Le clair de lune de tes yeux,
    Et je ne vois dans lé ciel même
    Que ton corps rare et radieux.

POUR UN TABLEAU DE LORD LEIGHTON

    De quoi rêvent-elles? de fleurs,
    D’ombres, d’étoiles où de pleurs? 
    De quoi rêvent ces douces femmes
    De leurs amours où de leurs âmes?

    Parcilles aux lis abattus
    Elles dorment les rêves tus
    Dans la grande fenêtre ovale
    Ou s’ouvre la nuit estivale.

But I realised before I was thirty that minor poetry is not sufficient occupation for a life-time ­I realised that fact suddenly ­I remember the very place at the corner of Wellington Street in the Strand; and these poems were the last efforts of my muse.

THE SWEETNESS OF THE PAST

    As sailors watch from their prison
      For the faint grey line of the coasts,
    I look to the past re-arisen,
      And joys come over in hosts
    Like the white sea birds from their roosts.

    I love not the indelicate present,
      The future’s unknown to our quest,
    To-day is the life of the peasant,
      But the past is a haven of rest ­
    The things of the past are the best.

    The rose of the past is better
      Than the rose we ravish to-day,
    ’Tis holier, purer, and fitter
      To place on the shrine where we pray
    For the secret thoughts we obey.

    In the past nothing dies, nothing changes,
      In the past all is lovely and still;
    No grief nor fate that estranges,
      Nor hope that no life can fulfil,
    But ethereal shelter from ill.

    The coarser delights of the hour
      Tempt, and debauch, and deprave,
    And we joy in a flitting flower,
      Knowing that nothing can save
    Our flesh from the fate of the grave.

    But sooner or later returning
      In grief to the well-loved nest,
    Our souls filled with infinite yearning,
      We cry, there is rest, there is rest
    In the past, its joys are the best.

NOSTALGIA

    Fair were the dreamful days of old,
      When in the summer’s sleepy shade,
    Beneath the beeches on the wold,
      The shepherds lay and gently played
    Music to maidens, who, afraid,
      Drew all together rapturously,
    Their white soft hands like white leaves laid,
      In the old dear days of Arcady.

    Men were not then as they are now
      Haunted and terrified by creeds,
    They sought not then, nor cared to know
      The end that as a magnet leads,
    Nor told with austere fingers beads,
      Nor reasoned with their grief and glee,
    But rioted in pleasant meads
      In the old dear days of Arcady.

The future may be wrong or right,
The present is a hopeless wrong,
For life and love have lost delight,
And bitter even is our song;
And year by year grey doubt grows strong,
And death is all that seems to dree. 
Wherefore with weary hearts we long
For the old dear days of Arcady.

Envoi.

Glories and triumphs ne’er shall cease,
But men may sound the heavens and sea,
One thing is lost for aye ­the peace
Of the old dear days of Arcady.

And so it was that I came to settle down in a Strand lodging-house, determined to devote myself to literature, and to accept the hardships of a literary life.  I had been playing long enough, and was now anxious for proof, peremptory proof, of my capacity or incapacity.  A book!  No.  An immediate answer was required, and journalism alone could give that.  So did I reason in the Strand lodging-house.  And what led me to that house?  Chance, or a friend’s recommendation?  I forget.  It was uncomfortable, ugly, and not very clean; but curious, as all things are curious when examined closely.  Let me tell you about my rooms.  The sitting-room was a good deal longer than it was wide; it was panelled with deal, and the deal was painted a light brown; behind it there was a large bedroom:  the floor was covered with a ragged carpet, and a big bed stood in the middle of the floor.  But next to the sitting-room was a small bedroom which was let for ten shillings a week; and the partition wall was so thin that I could hear every movement the occupant made.  This proximity was intolerable, and eventually I decided on adding ten shillings to my rent, and I became the possessor of the entire flat.  In the room above me lived a pretty young woman, an actress at the Savoy Theatre.  She had a piano, and she used to play and sing in the mornings, and in the afternoon, friends ­girls from the theatre ­used to come and see her; and Emma, the maid-of-all-work, used to take them up their tea; and, oh! the chattering and the laughter.  Poor Miss L ­; she had only two pounds a week to live on, but she was always in high spirits except when she could not pay the hire of her piano; and I am sure that she now looks back with pleasure and thinks of those days as very happy ones.

She was a tall girl, a thin figure, and she had large brown eyes; she liked young men, and she hoped that Mr Gilbert would give her a line or two in his next opera.  Often have I come out on the landing to meet her; we used to sit on those stairs talking, long after midnight, of what? ­of our landlady, of the theatre, of the most suitable ways of enjoying ourselves in life.  One night she told me she was married; it was a solemn moment.  I asked in a sympathetic voice why she was not living with her husband.  She told me, but the reason of the separation I have forgotten in the many similar reasons for separations and partings which have since been confided to me.  The landlady resented our intimacy, and I believe Miss L ­ was charged indirectly for her conversations with me in the bill.  On the first floor there was a large sitting-room and bedroom, solitary rooms that were nearly always unlet.  The landlady’s parlour was on the ground floor, her bedroom was next to it, and further on was the entrance to the kitchen stairs, whence ascended Mrs S ­’s brood of children, and Emma, the awful servant, with tea things, many various smells, that of ham and eggs predominating.

Emma, I remember you ­you are not to be forgotten ­up at five o’clock every morning, scouring, washing, cooking, dressing those infamous children; seventeen hours at least out of the twenty-four at the beck and call of landlady, lodgers, and quarrelling children; seventeen hours at least out of the twenty-four drudging in that horrible kitchen, running up stairs with coals and breakfasts and cans of hot water; down on your knees before a grate, pulling out the cinders with those hands ­can I call them hands?  The lodgers sometimes threw you a kind word, but never one that recognised that you were akin to us, only the pity that might be extended to a dog.  And I used to ask you all sorts of cruel questions, I was curious to know the depth of animalism you had sunk to, or rather out of which you had never been raised.  And generally you answered innocently and naïvely enough.  But sometimes my words were too crude, and they struck through the thick hide into the quick, into the human, and you winced a little; but this was rarely, for you were very nearly, oh, very nearly an animal, your temperament and intelligence were just those of a dog that has picked up a master, not a real master, but a makeshift master who may turn it out at any moment.  Dickens would sentimentalise or laugh over you; I do neither.  I merely recognise you as one of the facts of civilisation.  You looked ­well, to be candid, ­you looked neither young nor old; hard work had obliterated the delicate markings of the years, and left you in round numbers something over thirty.  Your hair was reddish brown, and your face wore that plain honest look that is so essentially English.  The rest of you was a mass of stuffy clothes, and when you rushed up stairs I saw something that did not look like legs; a horrible rush that was of yours, a sort of cart-horselike bound.  I have spoken angrily to you; I have heard others speak angrily to you, but never did that sweet face of yours, for it was a sweet face ­that sweet, natural goodness that is so sublime ­lose its expression of perfect and unfailing kindness.  Words convey little sense of the real horrors of the reality.  Life in your case meant this:  to be born in a slum, and to leave it to work seventeen hours a day in a lodging-house; to be a Londoner, but to know only the slum in which you were born and the few shops in the Strand at which the landlady dealt.  To know nothing of London meant in your case not to know that it was not England; England and London! you could not distinguish between them.  Was England an island or a mountain? you had no notion.  I remember when you heard that Miss L ­ was going to America, you asked me, and the question was sublime:  “Is she going to travel all night?” You had heard people speak of travelling all night, and that was all you knew of travel or any place that was not the Strand.  I asked you if you went to church, and you said, “No, it makes my eyes bad.”  I said, “But you don’t read; you can’t read.”  “No, but I have to look at the book.”  I asked you if you had heard of God ­you hadn’t, but when I pressed you on the point you suspected I was laughing at you, and you would not answer, and when I tried you again on the subject I could see that the landlady had been telling you what to say.  But you had not understood, and your conscious ignorance, grown conscious within the last couple of days, was even more pitiful than your unconscious ignorance when you answered that you couldn’t go to church because it made your eyes bad.  It is a strange thing to know nothing; for instance, to live in London and to have no notion of the House of Commons, nor indeed of the Queen, except perhaps that she is a rich lady; the police ­yes, you knew what a policeman was because you used to be sent to fetch one to make an organ-man or a Christy minstrel move on.  To know of nothing but a dark kitchen, grates, eggs and bacon, dirty children; to work seventeen hours a day and to get cheated out of your wages; to answer, when asked, why you did not get your wages or leave if you weren’t paid, that you “didn’t know how Mrs S ­ would get on without me.”

This woman owed you forty pounds, I think, so I calculated it from what you told me; and yet you did not like to leave her because you did not know how she would get on without you.  Sublime stupidity!  At this point your intelligence stopped.  I remember you once spoke of a half-holiday; I questioned you, and I found your idea of a half-holiday was to take the children for a walk and buy them some sweets.  I told my brother of this and he said ­Emma out for a half-holiday! why, you might as well give a mule a holiday.  The phrase was brutal, but it was admirably descriptive of you.  Yes, you are a mule, there is no sense in you; you are a beast of burden, a drudge too horrible for anything but work; and I suppose, all things considered, that the fat landlady with a dozen children did well to work you seventeen hours a day, and cheat you out of your miserable wages.  You had no friends; you could not have a friend unless it were some forlorn cat or dog; but you once spoke to me of your brother, who worked in a potato store, and I was astonished, and I wondered if he were as awful as you.  Poor Emma!  I shall never forget your kind heart and your unfailing good humour; you were born beautifully good as a rose is born with perfect perfume; you were as unconscious of your goodness as the rose of its perfume.  And you were taken by this fat landlady as ’Arry takes a rose and sticks it in his tobacco-reeking coat; and you will be thrown away, shut out of doors when health fails you, or when, overcome by base usage, you take to drink.  There is no hope for you; even if you were treated better and paid your wages there would be no hope.  Those forty pounds even, if they were given to you, would bring you no good fortune.  They would bring the idle loafer, who scorns you now as something too low for even his kisses, hanging about your heels and whispering in your ears.  And his whispering would drive you mad, for your kind heart longs for kind words; and then when he had spent your money and cast you off in despair, the gin shop and the river would do the rest.  Providence is very wise after all, and your best destiny is your present one.  We cannot add a pain, nor can we take away a pain; we may alter, but we cannot subtract nor even alleviate.  But what truisms are these; who believes in philanthropy nowadays?

“Come in.”

“Oh, it is you, Emma!”

“Are you going to dine at home to-day, sir?”

“What can I have?”

“Well, yer can ’ave a chop or a steak.”

“Anything else?”

“Yes, yer can ’ave a steak, or a chop, or ­”

“Oh, yes, I know; well then, I’ll have a chop.  And now tell me, Emma, how is your young man?  I hear you have got one, you went out with him the other night.”

“Who told yer that?”

“Ah, never mind; I hear everything.”

“I know, from Miss L ­”

“Well, tell me, how did you meet him, who introduced him?”

“I met ’im as I was a-coming from the public ’ouse with the beer for missus’ dinner.”

“And what did he say?”

“He asked me if I was engaged; I said no.  And he come round down the lane that evening.”

“And he took you out?”

“Yes.”

“And where did you go?”

“We went for a walk on the Embankment.”

“And when is he coming for you again?”

“He said he was coming last evening, but he didn’t.”

“Why didn’t he?”

“I dunno; I suppose because I haven’t time to go out with him.  So it was Miss L ­ that told you; well, you do ’ave chats on the stairs.  I suppose you likes talking to ’er.”

“I like talking to everybody, Emma; I like talking to you.”

“Yes, but not as you talks to ’er; I ’ears you jes do ’ave fine times.  She said this morning that she had not seen you for this last two nights ­that you had forgotten ’er, and I was to tell yer.”

“Very well, I’ll come out to-night and speak to her.”

“And missus is so wild about it, and she daren’t say nothing ’cause she thinks yer might go.”

A young man in a house full of women must be almost supernaturally unpleasant if he does not occupy a great deal of their attention.  Certain at least it is that I was the point of interest in that house; and I found there that the practice of virtue is not so disagreeable as many young men think it.  The fat landlady hovered round my doors, and I obtained perfectly fresh eggs by merely keeping her at her distance; the pretty actress, with whom I used to sympathise with on the stairs at midnight, loved me better, and our intimacy was more strange and subtle, because it was pure, and it was not quite unpleasant to know that the awful servant dreamed of me as she might of a star, or something equally unattainable; but the landlady’s daughter, a nasty girl of fifteen, annoyed me with her ogling, which was a little revolting, but the rest was, and I speak quite candidly, not wholly unpleasant.  It was not aristocratic, it is true, but, I repeat, it was not unpleasant, nor do I believe that any young man, however refined, would have found it unpleasant.

But if I was offered a choice between a chop and steak in the evening, in the morning I had to decide between eggs and bacon and bacon and eggs.  A knocking at the door, “Nine o’clock, sir; ’ot water, sir; what will you have for breakfast?” “What can I have?” “Anything you like, sir.  You can have bacon and eggs, or ­” “Anything else?” ­Pause, ­“Well, sir, you can have eggs and bacon, or ­” “Well, I’ll have eggs and bacon.”

The streets seemed to me like rat holes, dark and wandering as chance directed, with just an occasional rift of sky, seen as if through an occasional crevice, so different from the boulevards widening out into bright space with fountains and clouds of green foliage.  The modes of life were so essentially opposed.  I am thinking now of intellectual rather than physical comforts.  I could put up with even lodging-house food, but I found it difficult to forego the glitter and artistic enthusiasm of the café.  The tavern, I had heard of the tavern.

Some seventy years ago the Club superseded the Tavern, and since then all literary intercourse has ceased in London.  Literary clubs have been founded, and their leather arm-chairs have begotten Mr Gosse; but the tavern gave the world Villon and Marlowe.  Nor is this to be wondered at.  What is wanted is enthusiasm and devil-may-careism; and the very aspect of a tavern is a snort of defiance at the hearth, the leather arm-chairs are so many salaams to it.  I ask, Did anyone ever see a gay club room?  Can any one imagine such a thing?  You can’t have a club-room without mahogany tables, you can’t have mahogany tables without magazines ­Longman’s, with a serial by Rider Haggard, the Nineteenth Century, with an article, “The Rehabilitation of the Pimp in Modern Society,” by W. E. Gladstone ­a dulness that’s a purge to good spirits, an aperient to enthusiasm; in a word, a dulness that’s worth a thousand a year.  You can’t have a club without a waiter in red plush and silver salver in his hand; then you can’t bring a lady to a club, and you have to get into a corner to talk about them.  Therefore I say a club is dull.

As the hearth and home grew all-powerful it became impossible for the husband to tell his wife that he was going to the tavern; everyone can go to the tavern, and no place in England where everyone can go is considered respectable.  This is the genesis of the Club ­out of the Housewife by Respectability.  Nowadays everyone is respectable ­jockeys, betting-men, actors, and even actresses.  Mrs Kendal takes her children to visit a duchess, and has naughty chorus girls to tea, and tells them of the joy of respectability.  There is only one class left that is not respectable, and that will succumb before long; how the transformation will be effected I can’t say, but I know an editor or two who would be glad of an article on the subject.

Respectability! ­a suburban villa, a piano in the drawing-room, and going home to dinner.  Such things are no doubt very excellent, but they do not promote intensity of feeling, fervour of mind; and as art is in itself an outcry against the animality of human existence, it would be well that the life of the artist should be a practical protest against the so-called decencies of life; and he can best protest by frequenting a tavern and cutting his club.  In the past the artist has always been an outcast; it is only latterly he has become domesticated, and judging by results, it is clear that if Bohemianism is not a necessity it is at least an adjuvant.  For if long locks and general dissoluteness were not an aid and a way to pure thought, why have they been so long his characteristics?  If lovers were not necessary for the development of poet, novelist, and actress, why have they always had lovers ­Sappho, George Eliot, George Sand, Rachel, Sara?  Mrs Kendal nurses children all day and strives to play Rosalind at night.  What infatuation, what ridiculous endeavour!  To realise the beautiful woodland passion and the idea of the transformation, a woman must have sinned, for only through sin may we learn the charm of innocence.  To play Rosalind a woman must have had more than one lover, and if she has been made to wait in the rain and has been beaten she will have done a great deal to qualify herself for the part.  The ecstatic Sara makes no pretence to virtue, she introduces her son to an English duchess, and throws over a nation for the love of Richepin, she can, therefore, say as none other ­

    “Ce n’est plus qu’une ardeur dans mes veines cachée,
    C’est Venus tout entière à sa proie attachée.”

Swinburne, when he dodged about London, a lively young dog, wrote “Poems and Ballads,” and “Chastelard,” since he has gone to live at Putney, he has contributed to the Nineteenth Century, and published an interesting little volume entitled, “A Century of Rondels,” in which he continues his plaint about his mother the sea.

Respectability is sweeping the picturesque out of life; national costumes are disappearing.  The kilt is going or gone in the highlands, and the smock in the southlands, even the Japanese are becoming christian and respectable; in another quarter of a century silk hats and pianos will be found in every house in Yeddo.  Too true that universal uniformity is the future of the world; and when Mr Morris speaks of the democratic art to be when the world is socialistic, I ask, whence will the unfortunates draw their inspiration?  To-day our plight is pitiable enough ­the duke, the jockey-boy, and the artist are exactly alike; they are dressed by the same tailor, they dine at the same clubs, they swear the same oaths, they speak equally bad English, they love the same women.  Such a state of things is dreary enough, but what unimaginable dreariness there will be when there are neither rich nor poor, when all have been educated, when self-education has ceased.  A terrible world to dream of, worse, far worse, in darkness and hopelessness than Dante’s lowest circle of hell.  The spectre of famine, of the plague, of war, etc., are mild and gracious symbols compared with that menacing figure, Universal Education, with which we are threatened, which has already eunuched the genius of the last five-and-twenty years of the nineteenth century, and produced a limitless abortion in that of future time.  Education, I tremble before thy dreaded name.  The cruelties of Nero, of Caligula, what were they? ­a few crunched limbs in the amphitheatre; but thine, O Education, are the yearning of souls sick of life, of maddening discontent, of all the fearsome and fathomless sufferings of the mind.  When Goethe said “More light,” he said the wickedest and most infamous words that human lips ever spoke.  In old days, when a people became too highly civilised the barbarians came down from the north and regenerated that nation with darkness; but now there are no more barbarians, and sooner or later I am convinced that we shall have to end the evil by summary edicts ­the obstruction no doubt will be severe, the equivalents of Gladstone and Morley will stop at nothing to defeat the Bill; but it will nevertheless be carried by patriotic Conservative and Unionist majorities, and it will be written in the Statute Book that not more than one child in a hundred shall be taught to read, and no more than one in ten thousand shall learn the piano.

Such will be the end of Respectability, but the end is still far distant.  We are now in a period of decadence growing steadily more and more acute.  The old gods are falling about us, there is little left to raise our hearts and minds to, and amid the wreck and ruin of things only a snobbery is left to us, thank heaven, deeply graven in the English heart; the snob is now the ark that floats triumphant over the democratic wave; the faith of the old world reposes in his breast, and he shall proclaim it when the waters have subsided.

In the meanwhile Respectability, having destroyed the Tavern, and created the Club, continues to exercise a meretricious and enervating influence on literature.  All audacity of thought and expression has been stamped out, and the conventionalities are rigorously respected.  It has been said a thousand times that an art is only a reflection of a certain age; quite so, only certain ages are more interesting than others, and consequently produce better art, just as certain seasons produce better crops.  We heard in the Nouvelle Athènes how the Democratic movement, in other words, Respectability, in other words, Education, has extinguished the handicrafts; it was admitted that in the more individual arts ­painting and poetry ­men would be always found to sacrifice their lives for a picture or a poem:  but no man is, after all, so immeasurably superior to the age he lives in as to be able to resist it wholly; he must draw sustenance from some quarter, and the contemplation of the past will not suffice.  Then the pressure on him from without is as water upon the diver; and sooner or later he grows fatigued and comes to the surface to breathe; he is as a flying-fish pursued by sharks below and cruel birds above; and he neither dives as deep nor flies as high as his freer and stronger ancestry.  A daring spirit in the nineteenth century would have been but a timid nursery soul indeed in the sixteenth.  We want tumult and war to give us forgetfulness, sublime moments of peace to enjoy a kiss in; but we are expected to be home to dinner at seven, and to say and do nothing that might shock the neighbours.  Respectability has wound itself about society, a sort of octopus, and nowhere are you quite free from one of its horrible suckers.  The power of the villa residence is supreme:  art, science, politics, religion, it has transformed to suit its requirements.  The villa goes to the Academy, the villa goes to the theatre, and therefore the art of to-day is mildly realistic; not the great realism of idea, but the puny reality of materialism; not the deep poetry of a Peter de Hogue, but the meanness of a Frith ­not the winged realism of Balzac, but the degrading naturalism of a coloured photograph.

To my mind there is no sadder spectacle of artistic debauchery than a London theatre; the overfed inhabitants of the villa in the stalls hoping for gross excitement to assist them through their hesitating digestions; an ignorant mob in the pit and gallery forgetting the miseries of life in imbecile stories reeking of the sentimentality of the back stairs.  Were other ages as coarse and common as ours?  It is difficult to imagine Elizabethan audiences as not more intelligent than those that applaud Mr Pettit’s plays.  Impossible that an audience that could sit out Edward II. could find any pleasure in such sinks of literary infamies as In the Ranks and Harbour Lights.  Artistic atrophy is benumbing us, we are losing our finer feeling for beauty, the rose is going back to the briar.  I will not speak of the fine old crusted stories, ever the same, on which every drama is based, nor yet of the musty characters with which they are peopled ­the miser in the old castle counting his gold by night, the dishevelled woman whom he keeps for ambiguous reasons confined in a cellar.  Let all this be waived.  We must not quarrel with the ingredients.  The miser and the old castle are as true, and not one jot more true, than the million events which go to make up the phenomena of human existence.  Not at these things considered separately do I take umbrage, but at the miserable use that is made of them, the vulgarity of the complications evolved from them, and the poverty of beauty in the dialogue.

Not the thing itself, but the idea of the thing evokes the idea.  Schopenhauer was right; we do not want the thing, but the idea of the thing.  The thing itself is worthless; and the moral writers who embellish it with pious ornamentation are just as reprehensible as Zola, who embellishes it with erotic arabesques.  You want the idea drawn out of obscuring matter, and this can best be done by the symbol.  The symbol, or the thing itself, that is the great artistic question.  In earlier ages it was the symbol; a name, a plume, sufficed to evoke the idea; now we evoke nothing, for we give everything, the imagination of the spectator is no longer called into play.  In Shakespeare’s days to create wealth in a theatre it was only necessary to write upon a board, “A magnificent apartment in a palace.”  This was no doubt primitive and not a little barbarous, but it was better by far than by dint of anxious archæology to construct the Doge’s palace upon the stage.  By one rich pillar, by some projecting balustrade taken in conjunction with a moored gondola, we should strive to evoke the soul of the city of Veronese:  by the magical and unequalled selection of a subtle and unexpected feature of a thought or aspect of a landscape, and not by the up-piling of extraneous detail, are all great poetic effects achieved.

     “By the tideless dolorous inland sea,
     In a land of sand, of ruin, and gold.”

And, better example still,

    “Dieu que lé son du cor est triste au fond des bois,”

that impeccable, that only line of real poetry Alfred de Vigny ever wrote.  Being a great poet Shakespeare consciously or unconsciously observed more faithfully than any other poet these principles of art; and, as is characteristic of the present day, nowhere do we find these principles so grossly violated as in the representation of his plays.  I had painful proof of this some few nights after my arrival in London.  I had never seen Shakespeare acted, and I went to the Lyceum and there I saw that exquisite love-song ­for Romeo and Juliet is no more than a love song in dialogue ­tricked out in silks and carpets and illuminated building, a vulgar bawd suited to the gross passion of an ignorant public.  I hated all that with the hatred of a passionate heart, and I longed for a simple stage, a few simple indications, and the simple recitation of that story of the sacrifice of the two white souls for the reconciliation of two great families.  My hatred did not reach to the age of the man who played the boy-lover, but to the offensiveness with which he thrust his individuality upon me, longing to realise the poet’s divine imagination:  and the woman, too, I wished with my whole soul away, subtle and strange though she was, and I yearned for her part to be played by a youth as in old time:  a youth cunningly disguised, would be a symbol; and my mind would be free to imagine the divine Juliet of the poet, whereas I could but dream of the bright eyes and delicate mien and motion of the woman who had thrust herself between me and it.

But not with symbol and subtle suggestion has the villa to do, but with such stolid, intellectual fare as corresponds to its material wants.  The villa has not time to think, the villa is the working bee.  The tavern is the drone.  It has no boys to put to school, no neighbours to study, and is therefore a little more refined, or, should I say? depraved, in its taste.  The villa in one form or other has always existed, and always will exist so long as our present social system holds together.  It is the basis of life, and more important than the tavern.  Agreed:  but that does not say that the tavern was not an excellent corrective influence to the villa, and that its disappearance has not had a vulgarising effect on artistic work of all kinds, and the club has been proved impotent to replace it, the club being no more than the correlative of the villa.  Let the reader trace villa through each modern feature.  I will pass on at once to the circulating library, at once the symbol and glory of villaism.

The subject is not unfamiliar to me; I come to it like the son to his father, like the bird to its nest. (Singularly inappropriate comparison, but I am in such excellent humour to-day; humour is everything.  It is said that the tiger will sometimes play with the lamb!  Let us play.) We have the villa well in our mind.  The father who goes to the city in the morning, the grown-up girls waiting to be married, the big drawing-room where they play waltz music, and talk of dancing parties.  But waltzes will not entirely suffice, nor even tennis; the girls must read.  Mother cannot keep a censor (it is as much as she can do to keep a cook, housemaid and page-boy), besides the expense would be enormous, even if nothing but shilling and two-shilling novels were purchased.  Out of such circumstances the circulating library was hatched.

The villa made known its want, and art fell on its knees.  Pressure was put on the publishers, and books were published at 31d.; the dirty outside public was got rid of, and the villa paid its yearly subscription, and had nice large handsome books that none but the élite could obtain, and with them a sense of being put on a footing of equality with my Lady This and Lady That, and certainty that nothing would come into the hands of dear Kate and Mary and Maggie that they might not read, and all for two guineas a year.  English fiction became pure, and the garlic and assafÅ“tida with which Byron, Fielding and Ben Jonson so liberally seasoned their works, and in spite of which, as critics say, they were geniuses, have disappeared from our literature.  English fiction became pure, dirty stories were to be heard no more, were no longer procurable.  But at this point human nature intervened; poor human nature! when you pinch it in one place it bulges out in another, after the fashion of a lady’s figure.  Human nature has from the earliest time shown a liking for dirty stories; dirty stories have formed a substantial part of every literature (I employ the words “dirty stories” in the circulating library sense); therefore a taste for dirty stories may be said to be inherent in the human animal.  Call it a disease if you will ­an incurable disease ­which, if it is driven inwards, will break out in an unexpected quarter in a new form and with redoubled virulence.  This is exactly what has happened.  Actuated by the most laudable motives, Mudie cut off our rations of dirty stories, and for forty years we were apparently the most moral people on the face of the earth.  It was confidently asserted that an English woman of sixty would not read what would bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of a maiden of any other nation.  But humiliation and sorrow were awaiting Mudie.  True it is that we still continued to subscribe to his library, true it is that we still continued to go to church, true it is that we turned our faces away when Mdlle. de Maupin or the Assommoir was spoken of; to all appearance we were as good and chaste as even Mudie might wish us; and no doubt he looked back upon his forty years of effort with pride; no doubt he beat his manly breast and said, “I have scorched the evil one out of the villa; the head of the serpent is crushed for evermore;” but lo, suddenly, with all the horror of an earthquake, the slumbrous law courts awoke, and the burning cinders of fornication and the blinding and suffocating smoke of adultery were poured upon and hung over the land.  Through the mighty columns of our newspapers the terrible lava rolled unceasing, and in the black stream the villa, with all its beautiful illusions, tumbled and disappeared.

An awful and terrifying proof of the futility of human effort, that there is neither bad work nor good work to do, nothing but to await the coming of the Nirvana.

I have written much against the circulating library, and I have read a feeble defence or two; but I have not seen the argument that might be legitimately put forward in its favour.  It seems to me this:  the circulating library is conservatism, art is always conservative; the circulating library lifts the writer out of the precariousness and noise of the wild street of popular fancy into a quiet place where passion is more restrained and there is more reflection.  The young and unknown writer is placed at once in a place of comparative security, and he is not forced to employ vile and degrading methods of attracting attention; the known writer, having a certain market for his work, is enabled to think more of it and less of the immediate acclamation of the crowd; but all these possible advantages are destroyed and rendered nil by the veracious censorship exercised by the librarian.

There is one thing in England that is free, that is spontaneous, that reminds me of the blitheness and nationalness of the Continent; ­but there is nothing French about it, it is wholly and essentially English, and in its communal enjoyment and its spontaneity it is a survival of Elizabethan England ­I mean the music-hall; the French music-hall seems to me silly, effete, sophisticated, and lacking, not in the popularity, but in the vulgarity of an English hall ­I will not say the Pavilion, which is too cosmopolitan, dreary French comics are heard there ­for preference let us say the Royal.  I shall not easily forget my first evening there, when I saw for the time a living house ­the dissolute paragraphists, the elegant mashers (mark the imaginativeness of the slang), the stolid, good-humoured costers, the cheerful lights o’ love, the extraordinary comics.  What delightful unison of enjoyment, what unanimity of soul, what communality of wit; all knew each other, all enjoyed each other’s presence; in a word, there was life.  Then there were no cascades of real water, nor London docks, nor offensively rich furniture, with hotel lifts down which some one will certainly be thrown, but one scene representing a street; a man comes on ­not, mind you, in a real smock-frock, but in something that suggests one ­and sings of how he came up to London, and was “cleaned out” by thieves.  Simple, you will say; yes, but better than a fricassée of Faust, garnished with hags, imps, and blue flame; better, far better than a drawing-room set at the St James’s, with an exhibition of passion by Mrs and Mr Kendal; better, a million times better than the cheap popularity of Wilson Barrett ­an elderly man posturing in a low-necked dress to some poor trull in the gallery; nor is there in the hall any affectation of language, nor that worn-out rhetoric which reminds you of a broken-winded barrel-organ playing a che la morte, bad enough in prose, but when set up in blank verse awful and shocking in its more than natural deformity ­but bright quips and cranks fresh from the back-yard of the slum where the linen is drying, or the “pub” where the unfortunate wife has just received a black eye that will last her a week.  That inimitable artist, Bessie Bellwood, whose native wit is so curiously accentuated that it is sublimated, that it is no longer repellent vulgarity but art, choice and rare ­see, here she comes with “What cheer, Rea!  Rea’s on the job.”  The sketch is slight, but is welcome and refreshing after the eternal drawing-room and Mrs Kendal’s cumbrous domesticity; it is curious, quaint, perverted, and are not these the aions and the attributes of art?  Now see that perfect comedian, Arthur Roberts, superior to Irving because he is working with living material; how trim and saucy he is! and how he evokes the soul, the brandy-and-soda soul, of the young men, delightful and elegant in black and white, who are so vociferously cheering him, “Will you stand me a cab-fare, ducky, I am feeling so awfully queer?” The soul, the spirit, the entity of Piccadilly Circus is in the words, and the scene the comedian’s eyes ­each look is full of suggestion; it is irritating, it is magnetic, it is symbolic, it is art.

Not art, but a sign, a presentiment of an art, that may grow from the present seeds, that may rise into some stately and unpremeditated efflorescence, as the rhapsodist rose to Sophocles, as the miracle play rose through Peele and Nash to Marlowe, hence to the wondrous summer of Shakespeare, to die later on in the mist and yellow and brown of the autumn of Crowes and Davenants.  I have seen music-hall sketches, comic interludes that in their unexpectedness and naïve naturalness remind me of the comic passages in Marlowe’s Faustus, I waited (I admit in vain) for some beautiful phantom to appear, and to hear an enthusiastic worshipper cry out in his agony: ­

    “Was this the face that launched a thousand ships
    And burnt the topless towers of Ilium? 
    Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss. 
    Her lips suck forth my soul; see where it flies! 
    Come, Helen, come; give me my soul again. 
    Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
    And all is dross that is not Helena.”

And then the astonishing change of key: ­

    “I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
    Instead of Troy shall Wurtemberg be sacked,” etc.

The hall is at least a protest against the wearisome stories concerning wills, misers in old castles, lost heirs, and the woeful solutions of such things ­she who has been kept in the castle cellar for twenty years restored to the delights of hair-pins and a mauve dress, the ingenue to the protecting arm, etc.  The music-hall is a protest against Mrs Kendal’s marital tendernesses and the abortive platitudes of Messrs Pettit and Sims; the music-hall is a protest against Sardou and the immense drawing-room sets, rich hangings, velvet sofas, etc., so different from the movement of the English comedy with its constant change of scene.  The music-hall is a protest against the villa, the circulating library, the club, and for this the “’all” is inexpressibly dear to me.

But in the interests of those illiterate institutions called theatres it is not permissible for several characters to narrate events in which there is a sequel, by means of dialogue, in a music-hall.  If this vexatious restriction were removed it is possible, if it is not certain, that while some halls remained faithful to comic songs and jugglers others would gradually learn to cater for more intellectual and subtle audiences, and that out of obscurity and disorder new dramatic forms, coloured and permeated by the thought and feeling of to-day, might be definitely evolved.  It is our only chance of again possessing a dramatic literature.