William Beckford, born in 1759, the
year before the accession of King George the Third,
was the son of an Alderman who became twice Lord Mayor
of London. His family, originally of Gloucestershire,
had thriven by the plantations in Jamaica; and his
father, sent to school in England, and forming a school
friendship at Westminster with Lord Mansfield, began
the world in this country as a merchant, with inheritance
of an enormous West India fortune. William Beckford
the elder became Magistrate, Member of Parliament,
Alderman. Four years before the birth of William
Beckford the younger he became one of the Sheriffs
of London, and three years after his son’s birth
he was Lord Mayor. As Mayor he gave very sumptuous
dinners that made epochs in the lives of feeding men.
His son’s famous “History of the Caliph
Vathek” looks as if it had been planned for an
Alderman’s dream after a very heavy dinner at
the Mansion House. There is devotion in it to
the senses, emphasis on heavy dining. Vathek
piqued himself on being the greatest eater alive;
but when the Indian dined with him, though the tables
were thirty times covered, there was still want of
more food for the voracious guest. There is thirst:
for at one part of the dream, when Vathek’s
mother, his wives, and some eunuchs “assiduously
employed themselves in filling bowls of rock crystal,
and emulously presented them to him, it frequently
happened that his avidity exceeded their zeal, insomuch
that he would prostrate himself upon the ground to
lap up the water, of which he could never have enough.”
And the nightmare incidents of the Arabian tale all
culminate in a most terrible heartburn. Could
the conception of Vathek have first come to the son
after a City dinner?
Though a magnificent host, the elder
Beckford was no glutton. In the year of his
first Mayoralty, 1763, Beckford, stood by the side
of Alderman Wilkes, attacked for his N of The
North Briton. As champion of the popular
cause, when he had been again elected to the Mayoralty,
Beckford, on the 23rd of May, 1770, went up to King
George the Third at the head of the Aldermen and Livery
with an address which the king snubbed with a short
answer. Beckford asked leave to reply, and before
His Majesty recovered breath from his astonishment,
proceeded to reply in words that remain graven in
gold upon his monument in Guildhall. Young Beckford,
the author of “Vathek,” was then a boy
not quite eleven years old, an only son; and he was
left three years afterwards, by his father’s
death, heir to an income of a hundred thousand a year,
with a million of cash in hand.
During his minority young Beckford’s
mother, who was a granddaughter of the sixth Earl
of Abercorn, placed him under a private tutor.
He was taught music by Mozart; and the Earl of Chatham,
who had been his father’s friend, thought him
so fanciful a boy “all air and fire” that
he advised his mother to keep the Arabian Nights out
of his way. Happily she could not, for Vathek
adds the thousand and second to the thousand and one
tales, with the difference that it joins to wild inventions
in the spirit of the East touches of playful extravagance
that could come only from an English humourist who
sometimes laughed at his own tale, and did not mind
turning its comic side to the reader. The younger
William Beckford had been born at his father’s
seat in Wiltshire, Fonthill Abbey; and at seventeen
amused himself with a caricature “History of
Extraordinary Painters,” encouraging the house-keeper
of Fonthill to show the pictures to visitors as works
of Og of Basan and other worthies in her usual edifying
manner.
Young Beckford’s education was
continued for a year and a half at Geneva. He
then travelled in Italy and the Low Countries, and
it was at this time that he amused himself by writing,
at the age of about twenty-two, “Vathek”
in French, at a single sitting; but he gave his mind
to it and the sitting lasted three days and two nights.
An English version of it was made by a stranger,
and published without permission in 1784. Beckford
himself published his tale at Paris and Lausanne in
1787, one year after the death of a wife to whom he
had been three years married, and who left him with
two daughters.
Beckford went to Portugal and Spain;
returned to France, and was present at the storming
of the Bastille. He was often abroad; he bought
Gibbon’s library at Lausanne, and shut himself
up with it for a time, having a notion of reading
it through. He was occasionally in Parliament,
but did not care for that kind of amusement.
He wrote pieces of less enduring interest than “Vathek,”
including two burlesques upon the sentimental novel
of his time. In 1796 he settled down at Fonthill,
and began to spend there abundantly on building and
rebuilding. Perhaps he thought of Vathek’s
tower when he employed workmen day and night to build
a tower for himself three hundred feet high, and set
them to begin it again when it fell down. He
is said to have spent upon Fonthill a quarter of a
million, living there in much seclusion during the
last twenty years of his life. He died in 1844.
The happy thought of this William
Beckford’s life was “Vathek.”
It is a story that paints neither man nor outward
nature as they are, but reproduces with happy vivacity
the luxuriant imagery and wild incidents of an Arabian
tale. There is a ghost of a moral in the story
of a sensual Caliph going to the bad, as represented
by his final introduction to the Halls of Eblis.
But the enjoyment given by the book reflects the
real enjoyment that the author had in writing it enjoyment
great enough to cause it to be written at a heat,
in one long sitting, without flagging power.
Young and lively, he delivered himself up to a free
run of fancy, revelled in the piled-up enormities
of the Wicked Mother, who had not brought up Vathek
properly, and certainly wrote some parts of his nightmare
tale as merrily as if he were designing matter for
a pantomime.
Whoever, in reading “Vathek,”
takes it altogether seriously, does not read it as
it was written. We must have an eye for the vein
of caricature that now and then comes to the surface,
and invites a laugh without disturbing the sense of
Eastern extravagance bent seriously upon the elaboration
of a tale crowded with incident and action. Taken
altogether seriously, the book has faults of construction.
But the faults turn into beauties when we catch the
twinkle in the writer’s eye.
H.
M.