CHAPTER
I
SOME
WOMEN WHO WROTE
The
first poetess I ever met was a very remarkable one. I was
but a boy and not far from where my parents lived in Dublin
was a large pretentious house at the corner of Merrion
Square where Sir William Wilde, Oculist and Otologist, and
Lady Wilde, otherwise known as “ Speranza,”
poetess, resided. They were the parents of Oscar Wilde.
Lady Wilde interested me inasmuch as her grandfather, the
famous Archdeacon Elgee, who as a very old man and Rector
of Wexford had christened me. Oscar Wilde, and his brother
Willie, I recollect seeing in Eton jackets when home for
their holidays. Lady Wilde was a very tall and stoutishly
inclined woman, with the appearance and air of a tragedy
queen of the Mrs. Crummles type. She might have walked out
of the pages of Nicholas
Nickleby, in
fact, R. H. Sherrard in his life of Oscar Wilde rather
hints that she did. I have the passage handy in one of the
black boxes where I throw foolish things to deal with when
opportunity arises, and one of these is reserved for those
modern writers who belittle the most popular author of the
last century—Charles Dickens. Here is the
passage :
“ The
great caricaturist, Dickens, whose notice few of his
distinguished contemporaries escaped, seems tohave studied
some of Lady Wilde’s peculiarities from afar, and the
results of his observations may be found here and there in
his books.”
The caricaturist, Dickens !
the old twentieth-century sneer of the absurd superior
person.
And yet here is Lady Wilde, an actual person, described
thus in this life of her son :
“ A
very tall woman—she looked over six feet high—she wore a
long crimson silk gown which swept the floor . . . round
what had been a waist an Oriental scarf embroidered with
gold was twisted. The long, massive, handsome face was
plastered with powder. Over her blue-black, glossy hair was
a gilt crown of laurels. Her throat was bare, so were her
arms, but they were covered with quaint jewellery. On her
broad chest was festooned a series of large miniature
brooches, evidently family portraits . . . this gave her
the appearance of a walking family mausoleum. She wore
white kid gloves, held a scent-bottle, a lace handkerchief,
and a fan.”
Lady Wilde, had she been cleaned up and plainly and
rationally dressed, would have made a remarkably fine model
of the grande
dame, but
with all her paint and tinsel and tawdry tragedy-queen
get-up she was a walking burlesque of motherhood. Her
husband resembled a monkey, a miserable-looking little
creature, who, apparently unshorn and unkempt, looked as if
he had been rolling in the dust. Monkeys were in those days
dressed up and accompanied organ-grinders of the oily type.
A Dublin woman, soliciting alms, was sharply rebuked by Sir
William in Merrion Square—“ Go
away, go away, you beggars are a perfect nuisance.”
“ Beggar
indade ! ”
squealed the woman. “ Beggar !
an’ what are y’self thin when out with your I-talian
masther wid a chain on ye.”
Opposite to their pretentious dwelling in Dublin were the
Turkish Baths, but to all appearance neither Sir William
nor his lady walked across the street. At all the public
functions these two peculiar objects appeared in their dust
and eccentricity. Living caricatures, in evidence that
neither Hogarth nor Dickens in their respective periods had
the need to invent characters. They are ready to hand in
real life, needing only a little trouble and a modicum of
perspicacity to find them.
Their son Oscar did not, in this particular peculiarity,
take after his parents. His linen was conspicuous by its
glossy whiteness. It was said he used his capacious cuffs
to jot down his epigrams.
When he produced his famous play A
Woman of No Importance I
inquired :
“ Who
is Mr. Oscar Wilde’s washerwoman ? ”
What a cynic she must be by this time ?
When she gets up his fine linen she must pause before she
dips the expansive shirt cuffs of her æsthetically
sarcastic customer into the seething soap-suds, for has she
not during the last six months beheld startling epigrams
hastily pencilled on the critic’s cuffs ?
As, for example, “ Men
marry because they are tired, women because they are
curious,” and “ If
a man wants to get into society he must either feed people,
amuse people, or shock people.” But surely the old
washerwoman would hurriedly dip the pencilled linen into
the tub when she
4 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
deciphered the following :
“ The
happiness of a married man depends on the woman he has not
married,” and it must rather shock the worthy dame’s
sensibilities to read :
“ A
bad man is the sort of man who admires innocence and a bad
woman is the sort of woman that a man never gets tired of.”
I can picture to myself the soap-suds flying when the old
lady’s eye is met by “ All
married men live like bachelors, and all bachelors like
married men,” and she must have smiled when she
read :
“ A
well-tied tie is the first serious step in life.” But I
have no doubt that, like Sir Beerbohm Tree, the washerwoman
was “ very
proud to be associated with this work of art.” The work of
art is “ a
new and original play of modern life,” entitled
“ A
Woman of no Importance.” It certainly was new and original
insomuch as it was totally devoid of action. It was
beautifully dressed, and the excellent Haymarket company
sat about on garden seats and drawing-room chairs, letting
off Oscar Wilde’s sarcastic epigrams by the dozen,
evidently, as I suggest, a collection of Oscar’s happy
thoughts dotted down at odd times on his shirt-cuffs, and
now produced strung together, without apparently any other
reason than that of demonstrating the cleverness of the
author.
Sir William Wilde was a wicked old man, there was no
attempt to disguise the fact that he had many illegitimate
children, one was in his own profession and had a good
practice. With all the queer ways of this eccentric couple,
it is no wonder that Oscar, their genius of a son, grew
into an eccentric unnatural being. It would have been more
surprising if he had not done so.
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 5
In those Victorian days most of the poetesses and
authoresses affected the long flowing black velvet gown,
low cut bodices, lace and jewellery. Even such a practical
authoress as Mrs. J. H. Riddell was so attired when I, as a
youth, lunched with her at Leyton, Essex, in the early
seventies. On her writing-table an ordinary cup and saucer
answered the purpose of an inkstand, the cup was half-full
of ink and half a dozen feather pens lay diagonally across
the saucer—these little affectations were a survival of the
literary lady Thackeray described so well a generation
before in his Character Sketches as “ The
fashionable Authoress.”
While writing this I was sent the literary magazine,
The
Irish Book Lover, for
January 1920, which opens with some letters I wrote to a
literary friend of mine in my youth, containing my first
impression of Mrs. Riddell, under date of August 11th, 1873
“ I
like London very much indeed, and am sure will like it more
the longer I reside here. I have only had my boxes over a
few days, so at present am busy preparing my samples, if I
might call them so. Having an introduction to a Mrs.
Riddell, an authoress who wrote George
Geith,
City
and Suburb, and
edited St.
Paul’s, etc.,
etc., I called on her, and had the honour and real pleasure
of her company for several hours. I took lunch with her at
her rural seat at Leyton, Essex, and came away with a note
of introduction to Mrs. Ross Church, Editor of
London
Society, who
unfortunately had left for the Continent for some months.
Mrs. Riddell is a very charming and fine
woman :
she gave me several ‘ tips ’—woman’s
6 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
‘ tips ’
I ought to add—about literary circles. She is to ask me to
some of their Bohemian parties, and take me with her to be
introduced to all the ‘ big-wigs.’
As you might expect, she is very severe on her sex’s
endeavours in writing. Mrs.—— is ‘ simply
a brute,’ she throws in bits of religion to slip her fodder
down the public throat. She says there is not a magazine in
London paying, the libraries destroy the
sale :
they are too dear. But more anon.”
Mrs. Riddell had made a great reputation with her
“ prize
novel,” George
Geith, but
she was unhappily married, at least, I believe her husband
through some queer way in business was resting somewhere at
his country’s expense. This led Mrs. R. to work desperately
hard, and by doing so she indirectly let me into a by-way
in Bohemia—I have unfortunately come across a good many
since—and that was how to publish (she published under
another name) catch-advertisement ventures. I illustrated
one profusely in the Caldecottian style, which brought in a
number of advertisements, but only a few copies were
printed—thus saving paper and printing—and I never received
a penny for my work, or the advertisers much show for their
money.
Another literary lady at the same time showed me another
by-way, which thus easily opened the question with me—Do
men write their own literary
contributions ?
When I was a friendless and ambitious youth, arrived for
the first time in London, I carried in my pocket next to my
rapidly pulsating heart a letter from Tom Taylor, editor
of Punch,
from himself to himself giving me his address, and a
request to call and lunch with him on my
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 7
arrival. In consequence, I wended my way to Lavender Sweep,
Clapham, where I found a house with india-rubber tubing
tacked on to the hall door, to keep out draughts—and
draughtsmen. Mr. Taylor was not at home. Subsequently I
received an apologetic note, but no invitation.
Later on I met a literary lady, a friend of Mr. Taylor’s,
at the first “ At
Home ”
to which I was invited in London, at the house of Mrs. Ross
Church, better known to the general public as Florence
Marryat, the novelist, and I told her that although Tom
Taylor had induced me to come to London he did not seem to
trouble himself much about me. Her description of T. T. was
not particularly complimentary. She said that he knew
little about current Art, and that in fact she wrote most
of his criticisms. I was sceptical about that point.
“ Well,”
she said, “ you
will see that I have a deal of influence over him. He will
be at your rooms at ten o’clock to-morrow morning.”
And
he was. He was
a dull heavy man and anything but communicative or
encouraging. For fully five minutes he shook me by the
hand, until I feared his spectacles would have dropped off,
but I noticed they were tied on to his head with a piece of
string. It struck me that he was thinking of anything but
of me ;
after a time I managed to show him my sketches, which he
himself had asked me to do, when I met him in Dublin. He
offered no criticism, but shook my hand for another five
minutes, which proved to me that the lady who had sent him
was right ;
he departed without saying anything and I never saw either
Tom Taylor or the
8 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
lady again. I sent him ideas for Punch
once or
twice which he rejected in this style. I kept them as
specimens of untidy graphology, for, with the exception of
James Payn, his writing was the most indistinct among
literary men.
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 9
As soon as he departed and a new editor was appointed
to Punch,
I joined the staff of that periodical, and at the
“ Table ”
caused some little amusement by my imitation of Tom Taylor,
under whose editorship Punch
had
become so dull.
I recollect a rather pretty little woman I used to meet at
Tinsley’s, the publisher. She wrote for him, but she also
wrote other novels, that she declared—and Tinsley assured
me he knew her statement to be true—she sold to Edmund
Yates, who published them as his own productions. When she
died I read with much interest the obituary notice of her
written by Yates, which I, reading between the lines, was
fully convinced confirmed the strange statement she herself
had made. Anyway he never published another novel—any more
than some of the wives of celebrated painters, who having
become exhibitors themselves refrain from exhibiting after
their husband’s death.
I was informed by a very able lady journalist, who was for
a long time Paris correspondent of a leading London daily,
that she came across Oscar Wilde in Paris, after his
imprisonment in Reading Gaol. He was cowed, broken-down,
and miserable, he implored her to call and see him, which
she did, and he began to read to her a new play he had
written, but just as he had finished the first act she was
called away on professional work, and before she could
again visit O. W.’s lodgings he had passed away. Some time
after she saw a very brilliant and successful play which
was attracting all play-going peoples. The name of a very
clever dramatist, who had
10 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
already written attractive plays with much success but in a
different style, was given as the author, who had turned
his talents into a new channel and made a fresh departure.
My lady friend assured me that Act I was identically the
same, word for word, as the one scene read to her by Oscar
Wilde.
So it comes to this—as far as I can judge—that some critics
were not partially, but entirely, ignorant of their
matter ;
clever journalists posed as novelists with books written by
literary lady “ ghosts ” ;
pictures publicly exhibited were often not painted by those
who signed them ;
plays were not always written by those who, for the sake of
convenience, appended their names ;
Cabinet Ministers did not write the descriptive articles
applauded by the public ;
nor did high legal luminaries always write their own books.
These, my dear readers, are some of the by-ways and queer
ways which had better not be followed too closely—some end
in culs-de-sac
and most
of them are unsavoury.
Florence Marryat was a daughter of the famous writer,
Captain Marryat, and she was, as I say, one of my earliest
friends in London ;
in fact, she gave me my first work.
She was a good-natured, energetic woman, and a prolific
writer—but not a great one. She was at one time an operatic
singer and then an actress, subsequently she became an
entertainer and lecturer, but she was not great in any one
subject. She was principally known as a believer in
Spiritualism. That was her latest phase and one that took
on. Her last books were all on that
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 11
subject—There
is no Death, The Risen Dead, a
novel, and The
Spirit World.
I used to go to the séances in her house, when she started
the Spirit business, but I never saw anything out of the
common, and I never read her books. Known as Mrs. Ross
Church when I first met her, she decided to marry someone
else, and discarded her husband, who I think was in the
Army. Anyway, she sent all her friends and acquaintances,
myself included, a statement in cold printer’s ink,
informing us that she was not divorced, but that in future
she wished to be known as Mrs. Lean. This little piece of
eccentricity fell into her husband’s solicitor’s hands and
thus ended the Church business. Edmund Downey was William
Tinsley’s, the publisher’s, right-hand man in the late
seventies and early eighties. In his interesting
reminiscences of those Bohemian days he gives a very
characteristic description of Florence Marryat. It so
happened the authoress had written to the publisher to say
she wanted him to publish her new novel, and as he decided
to be “ out ”
when she called, he asked Downey to see her and find out
what she wanted. Downey was not acquainted with Miss
Marryat, and therefore asked how he could recognize her if
she called and refused to give her name as visitors
frequently did.
“ You’ll
recognize her easily enough,” said the publisher.
“ She
is a tall, striking-looking woman, and she’ll talk to you
like a man.” The lady called, she looked round the office,
and then, addressing Downey, said, “ Is
Bill in ? ”
Downey fancied the inquirer might
12 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
be Miss Marryat, and replied that Mr. Tinsley was not in
and asked her if he could do anything for her.
“ I
must see Bill himself,” she said. “ Tell
the old bounder I called.” “ You’re
Miss Marryat,” Downey ventured to remark.
“ Yes,
but stop !
How the devil do you know I’m Miss
Marryat ?
I never saw you before.”
Florence Marryat was a bright, happy-go-lucky writer when I
was a boy, and on my arrival in London she was editing a
popular magazine in the office of Sampson Low, Marston,
Rivington and Searle, a firm only equalled in the number of
partners by the number of stone steps which ascended to
their first-floor offices. Next door to these offices (now
occupied by the Linotype Company) was the
“ London
Restaurant,” and a very good restaurant
too !—situated
over Partridge and Cooper’s at the corner of Chancery Lane.
To that excellent place the fair editor of
London
Society and her
favoured contributors frequently adjourned for lunch. I was
one of the party, and with pleasure I record that on
several occasions I stood the treat. “ That
will not do,” said my editor ;
“ you
are a young man and you cannot afford it.” I remained
obdurate. “ Well,
I must repay you. So here goes—I’ll kiss
you ! ”
There was no means of escape, as another contributor held
the door. I merely mention this little incident to show
that, in those Bohemian days, business was carried on in a
much more agreeable way than now.
In later years I met literary women in a different
environment, and outside Bohemia. One I was asked
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 13
to meet at dinner for a special reason, which I should like
to record. The lady who desired to “ renew ”
my acquaintance was the celebrated authoress, Mrs.
Archibald Little, whose Intimate
China had just
then made a great hit.
She is a delightful and interesting lady, and I was curious
to know why she had so mysteriously wished to meet me
without disclosing her object. As we sat at dinner the
mystery was disclosed. I was, so she declared, a man with a
past. She knew, though others did not, a secret in my life.
She had been so intimate with China there was nothing she
did not know, and one thing she did know was the fact that
I had been forced to leave the country. She put it
carefully and mildly to me, that my departure was caused by
my caricatures of high persons who demanded my instant
removal.
“ Perhaps
it will interest you to know, Mrs. Little, that although I
have travelled much I have never been in China.”
“ I
know, Mr. Furniss, you wish to forget it.”
“ It
happened a long time ago as you have yourself admitted,” I
remarked. “ So
you could have heard it only from old residents, and
although I began life very early—I was on the press at the
age of fourteen—yet at the date you are referring to——”
She was all attention and smiled, thinking I was about to
confess the truth.
“ I
was exactly three years of age. I could not have been very
dangerous even if I were that extraordinary infant prodigy
you describe.”
14 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
The facts were these :
My father was married twice, I being the youngest son of
his second wife. The Furniss Mrs. Little had confused with
me was my half-brother, a young man who was five-and-twenty
years of age when I was born. He was in the Merchant
Service—a very fine, handsome, talented fellow who gave up
the sea for a time and settled in China. He was evidently
an Admirable Crichton, for he was a clever artist and
writer, he founded the Hong-Kong Punch.
He was also a splendid singer, and a good actor. He opened
a theatre and played in the old burlesque of the Italian
Operas then so popular. I knew little of him except that he
was a reckless, clever fellow who eventually returned to
sea life and died when I was still a boy.
For one reason alone I was glad to pass as a very old man
with a past, for it led to an interesting meeting with a
very charming authoress.
I cannot say I ever met
Ouida,
but I followed her once, without knowing it, along a few
yards of a corridor at the Langham Hotel. I happened to be
calling upon an American acquaintance, some time early in
the eighties, and I observed in front of me a curious
figure of a woman or child—I could not determine
which—rather short in stature, with reddish hair lying
loose on her shoulders. She was wearing a straight gown of
nondescript character. As she turned, I noticed she had a
large nose and small eyes, and was no longer young. I asked
my friend if there was a lunatic in the room next to his,
and he replied there was a Frenchwoman with a brain-storm,
who imagined she was Ouida ;
and
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 15
we both heartily laughed at the idea. Subsequently, of
course, I discovered my mistake.
I never could read Ouida’s novels with
patience ;
when I was young her name was held up as being typical of
everything objectionable in literature.
I did, however, read with immense pleasure and admiration
“ A
Leaf in a Storm,” one of several stories collected under
the title of A
Dog of Flanders, which
dealt with incidents in the Franco-Prussian war. I was
about fifteen or sixteen years of age when the war took
place, and followed with intense interest Ouida’s
description of the brutal Germans. Baron Tauchnitz, who
published the Continental edition, strongly objected to
this description of the brutal treatment of the French
peasants by German soldiers, but Ouida gallantly refused to
alter her story.
Lady St. Helier (well known in Bohemian days as Lady
Jeune), who was better acquainted with celebrities, both
men and women, than any other London hostess,
writes :
“ It
is always unwise to have preconceived ideas as to the
character and appearance of any distinguished person.”
This statement prefaces the description of her first
meeting with Ouida. She anticipated “ a
graceful woman of middle age, with traces of great beauty,
and brilliant conversation ”—in
fact, an ideal Egeria. In place of that, she found Ouida
“ small,
insignificant-looking, with no pretension to beauty, her
harsh voice, and manner almost grotesque in its
affectation, completed the destruction of my ideal.”
16 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
In one particular instance women are cleverer than men,
women appreciate their own good or attractive points, and
lay themselves out to make the best of them.
“ She
was,” adds Lady St. Helier, “ very
vain, and inordinately proud of her remarkably small hands
and beautiful feet, which she displayed with great
prodigality.” I never knew a woman with a pretty foot and
ankle that did not show it to advantage.
Ouida was one of the most extraordinary creatures—man or
woman—the world has known, her colossal vanity, her
eccentricities, her extravagance, her unpleasant
personality and her talents were well known. Being unable
to pronounce her own name as a little child she called
herself Ouida. She maintained that “ The
Public has no business with what my name is or is not.
Ouida is all they have a right to know,” and it was her
characteristic reply when asked the origin of the name by
which she became famous.
She liked to receive guests dressed in white satin seated
in a red satin arm-chair, her feet stretched out to show
their beautiful proportions, and, with an eye for effect,
she usually made her mother dress in black.
She always dressed to fit the position of the heroine she
was depicting at the time. Several writers have described
her. William Allingham—Tennyson’s friend and adviser, and
himself a poet writes :
“ She
was dressed in green silk, with a clever, sinister face,
her hair down, small hands and feet and a voice like a
carving-knife.” And Henry James the novelist sums Ouida up
thus :
“ She
was curious,
in a common, little way . . . of a most
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 17
uppish or dauntless little spirit of arrogance and
independence . . . a little terrible and finally pathetic
grotesque.”
Ouida was introduced to an American lady, the wife of a
celebrated American writer ;
after a short conversation Ouida, in her hard,
uncompromsing way, abruptly said :
“ You
are American ? ”
“ I
guess that’s so,” replied the lady.
“ I
do not like Americans ! ”
was Ouida’s extraordinary rejoinder.
“ Wall,
that’s vairy ungrateful of you, for it’s we Americans, I
guess, buy and read your filthy books.”
The remark of Lady St. Helier that I have just quoted,
concerning the disappointments attendant on preconceived
notions of distinguished people, was anticipated by Maginn.
William Maginn, that wayward Irish genius and wit,
immortalized by Thackeray in Pendennis,
said much the same thing as Lady St.
Helier :
“ The
desire of becoming acquainted in the body with those from
whose minds we have long received delight, is natural
enough, as is also the exception to find in the one the
‘ outward
and visible sign ’
of the ‘ inward
and spiritual grace ’
we have known in the other. But this is a desire, often, if
not always, productive of disappointment, and could never,
hardly, one would imagine, be more so than in the present
instance.” This Maginn wrote apropos of his disappointment
on first seeing Miss Mitford.
In the good old Victorian days women writers remained
18 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
in the villages they were born in, and, like the Brontë
sisters, were seldom seen in towns. Before the times of
photography and illustrated papers perhaps no woman
writer’s appearance caused more comment and merriment than
simple-minded Mary Russell Mitford, the author of
Our
Village, a
series of papers which ran through the Lady’s
Magazine a
hundred years ago, were subsequently collected in book
form, and became famous. She has been described by her
contemporaries as “ short,
rotund and unshapely.”
S. C. Hall described her as a “ stout
little lady, tightened up in a shawl, a roly-poly figure,
most vexatiously dumpy.” Even the refined poetess
“ L.
E. L.” (Miss Landon) cried out when she beheld Miss Mitford
for the first time :
“ Good
heavens !
A Sancho Panza in petticoats ! ”
Lucas Malet’s father, Charles Kingsley, was a great friend
of Miss Mitford and, as he lived near her in the country,
frequently called at the celebrated woman’s shabby little
cottage to enjoy a rest and a chat. It was in the shabby
little parlour that Talfourd, Haydon, the painter, Amelia
Opie, Jane Porter, Cary and other celebrities met the
shabby little clever woman.
I expected to find Miss Braddon, the authoress of
Lady
Audley’s Secret,
Aurora
Floyd (which I
devoured in my youth), Dead
Men’s Shoes,
and Asphodel,
a tall massive woman with an air of intense romance, with a
strong face of a severe type, large dark dreamy eyes, a
finely shaped nose, and firm lips ;
she would, I thought, be over-dressed, and slightly
theatrical. This was how I
SOME WOMEN WHO WROTE 19
pictured her in my mind’s eye ;
when she invited me to make one of a party at lunch at her
beautiful house at Richmond I had the surprise of my life.
My hostess turned out to be a stout, merry, homely little
woman with a short turned-up nose, a large mouth, little
twinkling eyes, a big head and hair thin and cropped. In
fact, if she had been a man she would have made an
excellent comedian. She was a woman of the world with
plenty to say, and could say it amusingly—hers was a strong
character, with apparently not a vestige of romance in it.
When the great Tichborne case was, for years, almost the
sole topic of conversation, and the claimant—a butcher from
Wapping—posed as Roger Tichborne, a famous
“ scrap
of paper ”
was found on which these memorable—and fatal—words were
written :
“ Some
men has brains and no money, and some men has money and no
brains. I think that the men who has money and no brains
was made for the men who has brains and no money.”
It is interesting to know that he had found this rough
axiom in one of Miss Braddon’s novels, and it was not, as
every one thought and still thinks, the unaided emanation
of his gigantic intellect.
One might expect to find that accomplished author, Lucas
Malet, the daughter of Charles Kingsley, that
beetle-browed, hawk-eyed, beak-nosed, Gladstonian type of
man, the lady who had the audacity to write
The
Wages of Sin—the
first of the modern school of lady novelists to throw a
literary bomb into the centre of squeamish
20 SOME VICTORIAN WOMEN
people loaded with what she called “ the
great and cruel riddle of sex ”—a
masculine-looking woman of the severe Kingsley
type ;
instead of which she is a pleasant, handsome woman with a
keen sense of humour.
When I took over the Pall
Mall Budget from Mr.
Astor (the late Lord Astor) I renamed it the
New
Budget. I lost
a fortune by it, as my predecessor had also done, but,
then, being a millionaire, he could afford it—I could not.
In the New
Budget I
published an appreciation of Lucas Malet, by one of my
literary staff. It struck me as being very excellent, and
it winds up in this way :
“ Though
your style is epigrammatic, and you love to convey your
meaning in vivid, sparkling phrases, you are never betrayed
into inane verbal antics, or mere contortions and
inversions of language, in a vain striving after effect.
Nowadays our writers are apt to mistake a mere jingle of
words for a witty saying, and to write ‘ To
be confident is not necessarily to be confidential,’ or
‘ His
caricatures were courtly rather than cautious,’ with the
proud assumption that they have been epigrammatic, instead
of the sneaking consciousness that they have been inane.
You never do that, and so one can read and re-read your
novels with pleasure. But then, of course, you write very
slowly. Perhaps if you were to set yourself to turn out
books at the rate of two a year your epigrams would begin
to ring false, and you would take to mistaking sound for
sense and verbal gymnastics for wit, like the rest of us. I
am sure I hope you will never try.”
Mrs. Humphry Ward is moulded in the strong andunmistakable
fine intellectual Arnold type—one can never mistake an
Arnold. Some clever families run in distinctly marked
types. The Terrys for instance. One can never mistake a
Terry nose—that charming tip-tilted nose so fascinating in
the pictures of Ellen Terry—any more than one can avoid
noting the strong aquiline nose in the family of
Arnolds ;
so conspicuous in the intellectual face of Mrs. Humphry
Ward. Mrs. Humphry Ward opens her interesting volume
of A
Writer’s Recollections with the
following question :
“ Do
we all become garrulous and confidential as we approach the
gates of old age ? ”
Of course we do, and my only regret is that that brilliant
lady was neither garrulous nor confidential when I had the
one opportunity of a pleasant—and to me—profitable chat.
The first time I met Mrs. Humphry Ward she was leaving her
husband’s study in their house in Russell Square as I
entered unexpectedly under peculiar circumstances, an event
which, as it turned out, was of great importance. One
morning, just as I was getting on my horse for my daily
ride in the spring of 1887, I received a note from Mr.
Humphry Ward asking me for some particulars about myself
for a work on “ Men
of the Time ”
he was compiling. It so happened I had just finished a most
elaborate work, large framed pictures in black and white
parodying the styles of all the Academicians of the day.
Mr. Humphry Ward kindly visited my studio and was the first
to see my tour
de force. He
wrote in the Times
an
important article heralding my venture, under the heading
“ An
Artistic joke,” which title I eventually adopted. This
article appeared on the leader page, and caused such an
interest that I had to employ police to keep the crowd—a
half-crown a head crowd too—in order outside the
“ house
full ”
gallery in Bond Street.