I TAKE THE PLUNGE
I have never been so old as I was during my first three or four years
in London. It is, or at any rate it used to be, a common delusion of
youth that the mantle of years has descended upon its shoulders. In my
case the shoulders could have carried a large mantle. I was tall and
big framed, earning my living in a foreign country, where, by the way,
I felt completely at home; my habits of thought were far beyond those
which custom fixes for the 'teens, and all my associates were older
than myself, most of them much older. In the work which circumstances
and I laid out, youth was by others supposed to be a disadvantage, so
that it might have been natural had I assumed the merit of a maturity
which I did not possess. But I was not compelled to assume it. It was
attributed to me. Nobody supposed that I was under nineteen. I was
supposed to be at least half a dozen years older.
My first editor was George Parsons Lathrop, of the _Boston Courier_.
He was a son-in-law of Nathaniel Hawthorne, and he achieved the honour
of editing my copy by the alacrity with which he published it for
nothing. As the suggestion was {29} my own the acceptance of
non-compensated work was entirely fair. If his paper could stand it, I
could. I wanted practise, and Lathrop wanted copy. He was perfectly
willing that I should practise in his columns. I did n't know him from
Adam, but had written to him enclosing a "London Letter" which
solicited his acceptance on gratuitous terms. Beneath my generosity
was a design. Not only did I need practice but I wanted to be known as
the London Correspondent of an American paper, in order to have the
_entree_ at theatres, concerts, political gatherings, and other public
functions. After sufficient practice with Lathrop, I would endeavour
to sell copy in other quarters. The plan succeeded.
When the period of gratuitous service had stretched far enough, a
Boston journal of much interest and overwhelming respectability,
deigned graciously to pay five dollars a letter for my London "stuff."
The magnitude of this offer did not shock me, but five dollars meant a
sovereign, and the addition of twenty shillings to one's weekly income
suggested wealth to a young scribbler in London. Three or four letters
had been despatched when, one evening, an expensive acquaintance who
had rooms above mine, near Queen Square, dropped in at my snug chambers
and spun a yarn. He had "seen Leighton, you know, President of the
Royal Academy, good sort, dev'lish good fellow. What do you suppose he
's done now? Taken up a sculptor in Paris, French of course, poor as I
am, poorer, if it 's possible to be poorer than I am, and has had a
piece of the chap's work sent over here for exhibit at the {30}
Academy. Sculptor could n't send it. No money. Not even a studio.
Devilled for years in other men's studios. Leighton saw, says fellow
must become known in London. Got artist chaps to pay expenses of
sending over. Good fellow, Leighton. Go see it, you! Press
Day--Royal Academy--next week. Forgot French chap's name!"
This brought to my recollection the fact that in Paris, the previous
Easter, when haunting Bohemia with a pack of student friends, I had
heard of a needy sculptor who was doing things of strange power, and
was hard up because he would not work in accepted forms, but persisted
in carving things that nobody wanted. And who, in those days, would
buy sculpture from an "artist unknown"? My friends promised that I
should meet the man, but I was called away from Paris before this could
be arranged.
I went to the Royal Academy on Press Day, and saw the specimen of the
"new man's" work. I was quite alone with it. One is always sure to be
alone in the Statuary Room of the Royal Academy. An article came out
of the silence. It went to my five-dollar editor. He responded with
this note:
"Sorry we can't pay for any more of your letters. We printed the last
one, but, really, we don't want articles about unknown sculptors,
especially French ones."
The unknown sculptor, whose name, of course, I gave, was Auguste Rodin!
I subsequently heard that the article was the {31} first about Rodin to
be published in America, and that an artist and fellow townsman of
mine, Henry Bacon, then in Paris, brought it to his attention. Months
afterward, having followed me half around the world, there arrived by
post a big and battered parcel. It contained a photograph of the
sculpture I had seen, the bust of Rodin's "St. John Preaching", and the
large mount bore Auguste Rodin's autograph with a grateful message to
me. I had the trophy framed and hung over the fireplace in my
chambers, and there, whether the fireplace were in England or America,
it has hung ever since. If I were the first to give Auguste Rodin
public recognition in my country, he was the first anywhere to
acknowledge my stumbling work.
Vocation was pressing its claims more heavily than usual about that
time and there was little opportunity to pursue a project I had formed
for writing a series of articles upon "The London of Disraeli."
Everybody in pendom had written of "Dickens' London", and "Thackeray's
London", and after "Endymion" had made its loudly trumpeted appearance,
it occurred to me that Disraeli had a London which the makers of
articles had not seized upon and which would yield "material" for
interesting copy. This, if well illustrated, might appeal to some
magazine editor in America and subsequently become a book. At the same
time I was gathering notes and impressions for a series of papers which
might be called "Odd Corners of London." For things of this kind
America seemed to promise an especially good market, and I believed
{32} that I could supply it fairly well. One thing after another
delayed this little plan. Vocation was taking up more time and at
higher pressure than is compatible with hobby-riding. It has a habit
of doing so. Then a visit to America intervened, for the purpose of
spending my twenty-first birthday, and the following five or six
months, at home. The return to England was followed by a rush of work
in the City, and this by an illness of some weeks' duration. All the
while the Disraeli subject lay untouched until, one day in 1882, I met
a character in a Disraeli novel, who was much more of a character
outside it.
It was a day of powerful rain. The Pullman Company were to run their
first train in England over the Brighton line from Victoria Station.
They had invited a regiment of celebrities and a few odd sticks. Among
the latter I was included by some official of my acquaintance who
thought I might write an article for some overseas paper. Taking a
place in a smoking car I was solitary for but a minute, when George
Augustus Sala entered hurriedly and plumped himself down beside me,
saying: "What a beastly, blowy, wet morning!"
"The worst since Noah's time," said I.
"If this train gets to Brighton and returns through the flood, it will
be another case not only of pull man, but also of pull devil, pull
baker," said Sala.
"There 's copy for you," said I.
"Oh, are you a journalist?" asked Sala.
"I 'm hoping to be. It's an aspiration."
"Desperation, more likely," he said. "Don't do {33} it, young man, not
if there 's a good crossing to sweep in your neighbourhood. Journalism
is the worst trade in the world."
"Every man says that of his own profession," I replied.
"Profession be hanged! What do we profess? We stain paper, and look
as wise as owls, and know a damned sight more than we ever tell. Most
of us bleat in our folds like sheep; few of us have the chance to go
about the world and see things, and even they work like slaves to
entertain the public while their owners take the profits. The worst
trade in the world, sir; work harder, know more than any other--about
human nature, anyhow--and get less for it than any other; what we write
is forgotten the day after it's printed, and when we can't grind out
any more, when they 've squeezed our brains dry, we 're thrown on the
dust-heap to be buried by a benevolent association. Don't go into
journalism unless you own the paper! That's where the profits are--big
circulation and advertising revenue, politics and peerages! I 'm too
old for aiming at ownership now; besides, I 'm a writer, not a screw!
Journalism be hanged. If I 'd been a _chef_ in a millionaire's palace,
or a fashionable hotel, I 'd have done better."
Possibly. At any rate he would have been the prince of _chefs_ as he
was "the prince of journalists", or was it the king the public called
him? He was supposed to earn fabulous sums with his pen. If he earned
them he spent them, for he left nothing when he had "gone west." He
was an artist in {34} cookery, had a knowing taste in wines; he had
been everywhere, seen everything, knew everybody, and on the shortest
possible notice could write an article upon anything or nothing. He
had a flaming face, small, glittering eyes, a build and frontage not
unlike that of Pierpont Morgan of later fame, and a reputation for wit
and story-telling. He had also a reputation for geniality. He was as
genial as a thunderstorm. His rumblings and clatters might pass quite
harmless, or sear you with a flash. His familiar signature was "G.A.S."
"I see you don't believe it," said he, "but you will. Don't say I did
n't warn you."
"Thanks," said I.
"Not in the least," said he. "Go to your doom! What's your paper?"
I said I had written for two or three papers at home, in America, and I
told him the story of the editor who did n't want Rodin. He laughed
until his white waistcoat nearly burst its buttons. "I had an editor
once," said he, "who didn't know the date of the Battle of Waterloo but
was certain that Nelson had saved the day. Journalism a 'profession',
eh? And editors are the High Board of Examiners. But don't mind me.
I 'm like this on wet mornings."
Just then a wet prelate in a shaggy coat shook himself at the door, as
if he were a huge dog that had soaked in the rain. His prelacy was
revealed by the purple at his throat.
"Monsignor Capel," exclaimed Sala. "How are you? And did you come in
a boat?"
{35}
"The voyage from Kensington was rough," said the prelate, "but this
seems a snug harbour."
"Make fast to moorings here, and to-morrow the envious will say that
G.A.S. is travelling Rome-wards with you on an American train."
"Undreamed-of felicity," said the prelate. "But I think we shall not
go far toward Rome to-day. This train has no 'through connection', as
they say in America. This is my first experience in an American train,
but not, of course, your first, Mr. Sala. Possibly your first, sir,"
he said, turning to me, as he took a seat beside Sala.
"Oh, no, I 'm an American," said I.
"Then I am doubly fortunate," said the Monsignor. "Because I am going
to America and you can tell me how to get about, if you will be so
good." This was a pleasant way to break the ice, and as the train
filled, presently we had a pleasant company and were speedily at
Brighton, where the Pullman people entertained their trainload at
luncheon. On the return journey Monsignor Capel sat opposite me at a
table built for two, and talked about America. That is to say, he
asked questions and I answered them, as we smoked the Pullman cigars.
As we parted at Victoria, he invited me to dine at his house, making an
appointment for the following week.
He was not only a clever man and "striking", as they say, in
appearance, but he had great charm, and being a Jesuit of brilliant and
varied accomplishments, could adapt himself easily to any company. As
a preacher he was eloquent; as a man of the world he was brilliant and
fascinating; as an {36} ecclesiastic distinguished and influential; as
a maker of titled, wealthy, and in the worldly sense "important"
converts to Rome he was famous, but as the administrator of a college
or university he proved a failure. He was a prominent figure in London
life; he was the Monsignor Catesby of "Lothair", as Manning was the
Cardinal Grandison. If his fortunes had begun to ebb at the time I
knew him, the glamour of his successes was still about him.
Disraeli had described Catesby as "a fascinating man who talked upon
all subjects except high mass, and knew everything that took place at
Court without being present there himself. He led the conversation to
the majestic theme, and while he seemed to be busied in breaking an egg
with delicate precision, and hardly listening to the frank expression
of opinions which he carelessly encouraged, obtained a not insufficient
share of Lothair's views and impressions of human beings and affairs in
general."
I dined with Monsignor Capel on several occasions at Scarsdale Lodge,
in Wright's Lane, Kensington. Scarsdale Lodge has for many years known
a succession of celebrated tenants, of whom Dundreary Sothern was one.
Sothern had also lived at Cedar Villa, next door, and Capel had
succeeded him there. Now, and for many years, Scarsdale Lodge has been
the town home of H. Hughes-Stanton, R.A., whom I have known from almost
the beginning of things. Up to the year preceding the Pullman
excursion Monsignor Capel had lived in Cedar Villa. Sothern had made
that place famous for breakfasts and suppers and practical jokes. {37}
Capel's breakfasts had been quite as famous without the practical
jokes. Capel had transformed Sothern's billiard room into a chapel.
The dining room in which the actor had "exposed" the "feats" of the
Davenport brothers, and where the lights of Bohemia had twinkled, had,
under the prelate's tenancy, been noted for its hospitality to pilgrims
from the polite world who were on the way to Rome. But the line was
not drawn at hungry hearts. Palates that were used to dainty feasts
were tickled there, and brilliant table talk of politics and art, of
literature and science and society had rippled there. Capel's
hospitality was wide; his guests were, as likely as not,
non-conformists--if they dared to come--Anglicans who dared
anything--and political men of all shades of opinion, especially
anti-Gladstonian opinion. But disciples of the G.O.M. were welcome if
they were good talkers. They might be converted to other politics; at
any rate they would hear them.
Monsignor Capel at home was in purple-edged cassock, with purple
buttons and broad purple sash. If in his shaggy overcoat he had
suggested bulk, in his cassock and biretta he was a dignified, even an
imposing figure. He received me in his study at the twilight hour.
The fire-glow played over the room, while the papal chamberlain
submitted to the processes of an interview. But "submitted" is
scarcely the right word; it is merely the word that custom applies to
the extraction of copy from a willing subject. He had invited the
interviewer and did not pretend that the interview {38} was torture.
We sat by the fire and spun. The room was on the ground floor of the
house and in the rear, overlooking the garden. His writing desk was in
a bay window, and above it a crucifix was suspended. Near it, on the
left wall, hung a large photograph of Pope Pius IX and his household.
The Monsignor himself was not inconspicuous in this. About the room
were a dozen or more photographs of celebrities. Among these was a
photograph of Gladstone. "I keep that here as a penance," said Capel,
to whom the name of the "Grand Old Man" was anathema.
Capel alluded to himself as a "lamb" in politics, but his allusion to
politicians opposed to his way of thinking were anything but lamblike
that early evening. He had published a pamphlet called "Great Britain
and Rome, or Ought the Queen to Hold Diplomatic Relations with the
Sovereign Pontiff?" Of course he held that she ought, and he said so
to the immense disapproval of the majority of his fellow countrymen.
He had also produced a pamphlet on the Irish Question which, then as
now, could be counted on for enraging and puzzling half the population.
The solution proposed by him, was, I believe, more Roman Catholicism,
but why and how to get more of what was already in excess one did not
see then, and sees now even less than before.
But Capel's star was dimming. His Catholic college, or university, or
whatever it was, had failed for lack of support and faults of
administration, and the financial troubles were soon to drive him to
the {39} bankruptcy court, if they had not already done so. And His
Eminence Cardinal Manning had thrown his influence against the
captivating Monsignor. The Cardinal had his reasons, and, I suppose,
they were good reasons. At any rate, like Shylock's, they were
sufficient. When the Cardinal was against a man in his flock, that
man's chances for preferment, and even for holding his own, were not
worth discussing. Capel went to America in 1883. He sailed on the
_Arizona_ whose captain was the brother of my friend, Henry Murray.
The Monsignor made a meteoric flash over the American continent. I saw
him there. And then the continent swallowed him. He died in
California, if not unknown then practically forgotten.
The sequel to my visit at Scarsdale Lodge was an article, and the
article was sent, on chance, to the _Boston Herald_, then the leading
newspaper in New England and of almost metropolitan importance. I did
not know any one connected with the paper, not even the editor's name.
But the article was printed, although I did not know that until some
months later, at the end of 1882, when I turned up in Boston, at the
_Herald_ office, and asked for the editor, sending him my card with a
message of inquiry about the article which I had posted to him from
London some months earlier.
I intended to ask him for a job, for I had decided to settle awhile in
Boston and turn my London experiences to account if the opportunity
could be made.
A boy came to the room where I had waited on the anxious seat for an
unhappy quarter of an hour.
{40}
"Mr. Holmes will see you," he said. "Come this way."
Holmes was the man's name, was it! Yes, John H. I had learned that
much, and I followed the boy to an inner office. A dark-haired,
slender, agreeable-mannered man, who looked rather like the Whitelaw
Reid of that time, rose from his desk. As he did so I said:
"Mr. Holmes, I believe."
"Yes," said he, "and you are the writer of that article?" naming it.
"Yes," said I.
He held out his hand, and smiled. We shook hands, and I tried to look
as if it were my daily occupation to be welcomed by the editors of
powerful journals. Naturally, I did n't feel that way, and was
nervously wondering what to say next. That anxiety vanished as the
editor asked:
"Are you at liberty to do any more work of that kind, or of any special
kind, for us?"
"Yes," said I, concealing, I hoped, my eagerness and delight.
"Then I will take as much as you are willing to write," said he, "and
pay you ten dollars a column, and when you go anywhere for us, your
expense bill."
This seemed a fair beginning, particularly as I had not been compelled
to ask for it, as I had expected to do. When I closed the door behind
me and descended the stairs, I felt an elation of spirit that was
natural enough in a young chap who was more than five months short of
his twenty-third birthday.
{41}
And so, with the beginning of 1883, I took the plunge into journalism.
There followed five more or less adventurous years which carried me
from one end of the country to the other and across the Atlantic and
back again. Then in 1888, I was appointed London correspondent of the
same paper, a position which I held for nine years until called
elsewhere. It is with memories and impressions of the London Days of
that time, and of some of their celebrated personages, that the
following pages are concerned.
{42}