One has to ask oneself, then, what sort of pantomime children really

like. I ought to know, because I once tried to write one, and some

kind critic was found to say (as generally happens on these occasions)

that I showed "a wonderful insight into the child's mind." Perhaps

he was thinking of the elephant. The manager had a property elephant

left over from some other play which he had produced lately. There it

was, lying in the wings and getting in everybody's way. I think he had

left it about in the hope that I might be inspired by it. At one of

the final rehearsals, after I had fallen over this elephant several

times, he said, "It's a pity we aren't going to use the elephant.

Couldn't you get it in somewhere?" I said that I thought I could.

After all, getting an elephant into a play is merely a question of

stagecraft. If you cannot get an elephant on and off the stage in a

natural way, your technique is simply hopeless, and you had better

give up writing plays altogether. I need hardly say that my technique

was quite up to the work. At the critical moment the boy-hero said,

"Look, there's an elephant," pointing to that particular part of the

stage by which alone it could enter, and there, sure enough, the

elephant was. It then went through its trick of conveying a bun to its

mouth, after which the boy said, "Good-bye, elephant," and it was

hauled off backwards. Of course it intruded a certain gross

materialism into the delicate fancy of my play, but I did not care to

say so, because one has to keep in with the manager. Besides, there

was the elephant, eating its head off; it might just as well be used.

Well, so far as the children were concerned, the elephant was the

success of the play. Up to the moment of its entrance they were--well,

I hope not bored, but no more than politely interested. But as soon as

the hero said, "Look, there's an elephant," you could feel them all

jumping up and down in their seats and saying "Oo!" Nor was this

"Oo" atmosphere ever quite dispelled thereafter. The elephant had

withdrawn, but there was always the hope now that he might come on

again, and if an elephant, why not a giraffe, a hippopotamus, or a

polar-bear? For the rest of the pantomime every word was followed with

breathless interest. At any moment the hero might come out with

another brilliant line--"Look, there's a hippopotamus." Even when it

was proved, with the falling of the final curtain, that the author had

never again risen to these heights, there was still one chance left.

Perhaps if they clapped loudly enough, the elephant would hear, and

would take a call like the others.

What sort of pantomime do children like? It is a strange thing that we

never ask ourselves "What sort of plays--or books or pictures--do

public-school men like?" You say that that would be an absurd

question. Yet it is not nearly so absurd as the other. For the real

differences of thought and feeling between you and your neighbour were

there when you were children, and your agreements are the result of

the subsequent community of interests which you have shared--in

similar public-schools, universities, services, or professions. Why

should two children want to see the same pantomime? Apart from the

fact that "two children" may mean such different samples of humanity

as a boy of five and a girl of fifteen, is there any reason why

Smith's child and Robinson's child should think alike? And as for your

child, my dear sir (or madam), I have only to look at it--and at

you--to see at once how utterly different it is from every other child

which has ever been born. Obviously it would want something very much

superior to the sort of pantomime which would amuse those very

ordinary children of which Smith and Robinson are so proud.

I cannot, therefore, advance my own childish recollections of my first

pantomime as trustworthy evidence of what other children like. But I

should wish you to know that when I was taken to _Beauty and the

Beast_ at the age of seven, it was no elephant, nor any other kind of

beast, which made the afternoon sacred for me. It was Beauty. I just

gazed and gazed at Beauty. Never had I seen anything so lovely. For

weeks afterwards I dreamed about her. Nothing that was said or done on

the stage mattered so long as she was there. Probably the author had

put some of his most delightful work into that pantomime--"dialogue

which showed a wonderful insight into the child's mind"; I apologize

to him for not having listened to it. (I can sympathize with him now.)

Or it may be that the author had written for men and women of the

world; his dialogue was full of that sordid cynicism about married

life which is still considered amusing, so that the aunt who took me

wondered if this were really a pantomime suitable for children. Poor

dear!--as if I heard a word of it, I who was just waiting for Beauty

to come back.

What do children like? I do not think that there is any answer to that

question. They like anything; they like everything; they like so many

different things. But I am certain that there has never been an ideal

play for very young children. It will never be written, for the reason

that no self-respecting writer could bore himself so completely as to

write it. (Also it is doubtful if fathers and mothers, uncles and

aunts, would sacrifice themselves a second time, after they had once

sat through it.) For very young children do not want humour or

whimsicality or delicate fancy or any of the delightful properties

which we attribute to the ideal children's play. I do not say that

they will rise from their stalls and call loudly for their

perambulators, if these qualities creep into the play, but they can

get on very happily without them. All that they want is a continuous

procession of ordinary everyday events--the arrival of elephants (such

as they see at the Zoo), or of postmen and policemen (such as they see

in their street), the simplest form of clowning or of practical joke,

the most photographically dull dialogue. For a grown-up it would be an

appalling play to sit through, and still more appalling play to have

to write.

Perhaps you protest that your children love _Peter Pan_. Of course

they do. They would be horrible children if they didn't. And they

would be horrible children if they did not love (as I am sure they do)

a Drury Lane pantomime. A nice child would love _Hamlet_. But I also

love _Peter Pan_; and for this reason I feel that it cannot possibly

be the ideal play for children. I do not, however, love the Drury Lane

pantomime... which leaves me with the feeling that it may really be

"the children's pantomime" after all.

The Road to Knowledge

My pipe being indubitably smoked out to the last grain, I put it in my

pocket and went slowly up to the nursery, trying to feel as much like

that impersonation of a bear which would inevitably be demanded of me

as is possible to a man of mild temperament. But I had alarmed myself

unnecessarily. There was no demand for bears. Each child lay on its

front, engrossed in a volume of _The Children's Encyclopaedia_. Nobody

looked up as I came in. Greatly relieved, I also took a volume of the

great work and lay down on my front. I came away from my week-end a

different man. For the first time in my life I was well informed. If

you had only met me on the Monday and asked me the right questions, I

could have surprised you. Perhaps, even now... but alas! my knowledge

is slipping away from me, and probably the last of it will be gone

before I have finished this article.

For this _Encyclopaedia_ (as you may have read in the advertisements)

makes a feature of answering all those difficult questions which

children ask grown-ups, and which grown-ups really want to ask

somebody else. Well, perhaps not all those questions. There are two to

which there were no answers in my volume, nor, I suspect, in any of

the other volumes, and yet these are the two questions more often

asked than any others. "How did God begin?" and "Where do babies

come from?" Perhaps they were omitted because the answers to them are

so easy. "That, my child, is something which you had better ask your

mother," one replies; or if one is the mother, "You must wait till

you are grown-up, dear." Nor did I see any mention of the most

difficult question of all, the question of the little girl who had

just been assured that God could do anything. "Then, if He can do

anything, can He make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"

Perhaps the editor is waiting for his second edition before he answers

that one. But upon such matters as "Why does a stone sink?" or

"Where does the wind come from?" or "What makes thunder?" he is

delightfully informing.

But I felt all the time that in this part of his book he really had

his eye on me and my generation rather than on the children. No child

wants to know why a stone sinks; it knows the answer already--"What

else could it do?" Even Sir Isaac Newton was a grown-up before he

asked why an apple fell, and there had been men in the world fifty

thousand years before that (yes I have been reading _The Outline of

History_, too), none of whom bothered his head about gravitation. Yes,

the editor was thinking all the time that you and I ought to know more

about these things. Of course, we should be too shy to order the book

for ourselves, but we could borrow it from our young friends

occasionally on the plea of seeing if it was suitable for them, and so

pick up a little of that general knowledge which we lack so sadly.

Where does the wind come from? Well, really, I don't think I know now.

The drawback of all _Guides to Knowledge_ is that one cannot have the

editor at hand in order to cross-examine him. This is particularly so

in the case of a _Children's Encyclopaedia_, for the child's first

question, "Why does this do that?" is meant to have no more finality

than tossing-up at cricket or dealing the cards at bridge. The child

does not really want to know, but it does want to keep up a friendly

conversation, or, if humourously inclined, to see how long you can go

on without getting annoyed. Not always, of course; sometimes it really

is interested; but in most cases, I suspect, the question, "What

makes thunder?" is inspired by politeness or mischief. The grown-up

is bursting to explain, and ought to be humoured; or else he obviously

doesn't know, and ought to be shown up.

But these would not be my motives if the editor of _The Children's

Encyclopaedia_ took me for a walk and allowed me to ask him questions.

The fact that light travels at so many hundred thousand miles an hour

does not interest me; I should accept the information and then ask him

my next question, "How did they find out?" That is always the

intriguing part of the business. Who first realized that light was not

instantaneous? What put him up to it? How did he measure its velocity?

The fact (to take another case) that a cricket chirps by rubbing his

knees together does not interest me; I want to know why he chirps. Is

it involuntary, or is it done with the idea of pleasing? Why does a

bird sing? The editor is prepared to tell me why a parrot is able to

talk, but that is a much less intriguing matter. Why does a bird sing?

I do not want an explanation of a thrush's song or a nightingale's,

but why does a silly bird go on saying "chiff-chaff" all day long?

Is it, for instance, happiness or hiccups?

Possibly these things are explained in some other volume than the one

which fell to me. Possibly they are inexplicable. We can dogmatize

about a star a billion miles away, but we cannot say with certainty

how an idea came to a man or a song to a bird. Indeed, I think,

perhaps, it would have been wiser of me to have left the chiff-chaff

out of it altogether. I have an uneasy feeling that all last year the

chiff-chaff was asking himself why I wrote every day. Was it

involuntary, he wondered, or was it done with the idea of pleasing?

A Man of Property

Yes, a gardener's life is a disappointing one. When it was announced

that we were just too late for everything this year, I decided to buy

some ready-made gardens and keep them about the house, until such time

as Nature was ready to co-operate. So now I have three gardens. This

enables me to wear that superior look (which is so annoying for you)

when you talk about your one little garden in front of me. Then you

get off in disgust and shoot yourself, and they bury you in what you

proudly called your herbaceous border, and people wonder next year why

the delphiniums are so luxuriant--but you are not there to tell them.

Yes, I have three gardens. You come upon the first one as you are

shown up the staircase to the drawing-room. It is outside the

staircase window. This is the daffodil garden--3 ft. 8 ins. by 9 ins.

The vulgar speak of it as a window-box; that is how one knows that

they are vulgar. The maid has her instructions; we are not at home

when next they call.

Sometimes I sit on the stairs and count the daffodils in my garden.

There are seventy-eight of them; seventy-eight or seventy-nine--I

cannot say for certain, because they will keep nodding their heads, so

that sometimes one may escape me, or perhaps I may count another one

twice over. The wall round the daffodil garden is bright blue--I

painted it myself, and still carry patterns of it about with me--and

the result of all these yellow heads on their long green necks waving

above the blue walls of my garden is that we are always making excuses

to each other for going up and down stairs, and the bell in the

drawing-room is never rung.

But I have a fault to find with my daffodils. They turn their backs on

us. It is natural, I suppose, that they do not care to look in at the

window to see what we are doing, preferring the blue sky and the sun,

and all that they can catch of March and April, but the end of it is

that we see too little of their faces; for even if they are trained in

youth with a disposition towards the window, yet as soon as they begin

to come to their full glory they swing round towards the south and

hide their beauty from us. But the House Opposite sees them, and

brings his visitors, you may be sure, to his window to look at them.

Indeed, I should not be surprised if he boasted of it as "his

garden" and were even now writing in a book about it.

My second garden is circular--18 ins. in diameter, and, of course,

more than that all the way round. I can see it now as I write--or,

more accurately, if I stop writing for a moment--for it is just

outside the library window. The vulgar call it a tub--they would;

actually it is the Tulip Garden. At least, the man says so. For the

tulips have not bourgeoned yet. No, I am wrong. (That is the worst of

using these difficult words.) They have bourgeoned, but they have not

blossomed. Their heads are well above ground, they have swelled into

buds, but the buds have not broken. So, for all I know, they may yet

be sun-flowers. However, the man says they will be tulips; he was paid

for tulips; and he assures me that he has had experience in these

matters. For myself, I should never dare to speak with so much

authority. It is not our birth but our upbringing which makes us what

we are, and these tulips have had, during their short lives above

ground, a fatherly care and a watchfulness neither greater nor less

than were bestowed upon the daffodils. That they sprang from different

bulbs seems to me a small matter in comparison with this. However, the

man says that they will be tulips. Presumably yellow ones.

One's gardens get smaller and smaller. My third is only 11 ins. by 9

ins. The vulgar call it a Japanese garden--indeed, I don't see what

else they could call it. East is East and West is West and never the

twain shall meet, but this does not prevent my Japanese garden from

sitting on an old English refectory table in the dining-room. A

Japanese garden needs very careful management. I have three native

gardeners working at it day and night. At least they maintain the

attitudes of men hard at work, but they don't seem to do much; perhaps

they are afraid of throwing one another out of employment. The head

gardener spends his time pointing to the largest cactus, and saying (I

suppose in Japanese), "Look at my cactus!" The other two appear to

be washing his Sunday shirt for him, instead of pruning or potting

out, which is what I pay them for. However, the whole scene is one of

great activity, for in the ornamental water in the middle of the

garden two fishermen are hard at it, hoping to land something for my

breakfast. So far they have not had a bite.

My Japanese garden has this advantage over the others, that it is

independent of the seasons. The daffodils will bow their heads and

droop away. The tulips--well, let us be sure that they are tulips

first; but, if the man is correct, they too will wither. But the green

hedgehog which friends tell me is a cactus will just go on and on. It

must have some source of self-nourishment, for it can derive little

from the sand whereon it rests. Perhaps, like most of us, it thrives

on appreciation, and the gardener, who points to it so proudly day and

night, is rightly employed after all. He knows that if once he dropped

his hand, or looked the other way, the cactus would give it up

disheartened.

It is fortunate for you that I am writing this week, and not later,

for I have now ordered three more gardens, circular ones, to sit

outside the library. There is talk also of a couple of evergreen woods

for the front of the house. With six gardens, two woods, and an

ornamental lake I shall be unbearable. In all the gardens of England

people will be shooting themselves in disgust, and the herbaceous

borders will flourish as never before. But that is for the future.

To-day I write only of my three gardens. I would write of them at

greater length but that my daffodil garden is sending out an

irresistible call. I go to sit on the staircase.

An Ordnance Map

Spring calls to us to be up and about. It shouts to us to stand

bareheaded upon hills and look down upon little woods and tiny red

cottages, and away up to where the pines stand straight into the sky.

Let the road, thin and white, wander on alone; we shall meet it again,

and it shall lead us if it will to some comfortable inn; but now we

are for the footpath and the stile--we are to stand in the fields and

listen to the skylark.

Must you stay and work in London? But you will have ten minutes to

spare. Look, I have an ordnance map--let us take our walk upon that.

We will start, if you please, at Buckley Cross. That is the best of

walking on the map; you may start where you like, and there are no

trains to catch. Our road goes north through the village--shall we

stop a moment to buy an apple or two? Apples go well in the open air;

we shall sit upon a gate presently and eat them before we light our

pipes and join the road again. A pound, if you will--and now with

bulging pockets for the north.

Over Buckley Common. You see by the dotted lines that it is an

unfenced road, as, indeed, it should be over gorse and heather. A mile

of it, and then it branches into two. Let us take this lane on the

left; the way seems more wooded to the west.

By now we should be passing Buckley Grove. Perhaps it is for sale. If

so, we might stop for a minute or two and buy it. We can work out how

many acres it is, because it is about three-quarters of an inch each

way, and if we could only remember how many acres went to a square

mile--well, anyhow, it is a good-sized place. But three miles from a

station, you say? Ah yes, but look at that little mark there just

round the corner. Do you know what _that_ stands for? A wind pump. How

jolly to have one at your very door. "Shall we go and look at the

wind pump?" you would say casually to your guests.

Let us leave the road. Do you see those dots going off to the right?

That is a footpath. I have an idea that that will take us to the

skylark. They do not mark skylarks on the map--I cannot say why--but

something tells me that about a mile farther on, where the dots begin

to bend.... Ah, do you hear? Up and up and up he goes into the blue,

fainter and fainter falls the music. He calls to us to follow him to

the clean morning of the world, whose magic light has shone for us in

our dreams so long, yet ever eluded us waking. Bathed in that light,

Youth is not so young as we, nor Beauty more beautiful; in that light

Happiness is ours at last, for Endeavour shall have its perfect

fulfilment, a fulfilment without regret....

Yes, let us have an apple.

Our path seems to end suddenly here. We shall have to go through this

farm. All the dogs barking, all the fowls cluttering, all the lambs

galloping--what a jolly, friendly commotion we've made! But we can get

into the road again this way. Indeed, we must get into the road soon

because it is hungry work out in the air, and two inches to the

north-west is written a word full of meaning--the most purposeful word

that can be written upon a map. "Inn," So now for a steady climb. We

have dropped down to "200" by the farmhouse, and the inn is marked

"500." But it is only two miles--well, barely that. Come along.

What shall we have? Ought it not to be bread and cheese and beer? But

if you will excuse me, I would rather not have beer. I know that it

sounds well to ask for it--as far as that goes, I will ask for it

willingly--but I have never been able to drink it in any comfort. I

think I shall have a gin and ginger. That also sounds well. More

important still, it drinks well; in fact, the only thing which I don't

like about it is the gin. "Oh, good morning. We want some bread and

cheese, please, and one pint of beer, and a gin and ginger.

And--er--you might leave out the gin." Yes, of course, I could have

asked straight off for a plain ginger beer, but that sounds so very

mild. My way I use the word "gin" twice. Let us be dashing on this

brave day.

After lunch a pipe, while we consider where to go next.

It is anywhere you like, you know. To the north there is Greymoor

Wood, and we pass a windmill; and to the east there is the little

village of Colesford which has a church without a steeple; and to the

west we go quite near another wind pump; and to the south--well, we

should have to cross the line pretty soon. That brings us into touch

with civilization; we do not want that just yet. So the north again

let it be....

This is Greymoor Wood. Yes; there is a footpath marked right through

it, but footpaths are hard to see beneath such a carpet of dead

leaves. I dare say we shall lose ourselves. One false step and we are

off the line of dots. There you are, there's a dot missing. We have

lost the track. Now we must get out as best we can.

Do you know the way of telling the north by the sun? You turn the hour

hand of your watch to the sun, and half-way between that and the XII

is the south. Or else you turn the XII to the sun and take half-way

between that and the hour hand. Anyhow you do find the south

eventually after one or two experiments, and having discovered the

south it is easy enough to locate the north. With your permission then

we will push due north through Greymoor Wood.

We are through and on the road, but it is getting late. I et us hurry

on. It would be tempting to wander down to that stream and follow its

banks for a little; it would be pleasant to turn into that

"unmetalled, unfenced" road--ah, doesn't one know those roads?--and

let it carry us to the village of Milden, rich in both telegraph

office and steeple. There is also, no more than two miles from where

we stand, a contour of 600 ft.--shall we make for the view at the top

of that? But no, perhaps you are right. We had best be getting home

now. It is growing chilly; the sun has gone in; if we lost ourselves

again, we could never find the north. Let us make for the nearest

station. Widdington, isn't it? Three miles away....

There! Now we're home again. And must you really get on with your

work? Well, but it has been a jolly day, hasn't it?

The Lord Mayor

There is a story of a boy who was asked to name ten animals which

inhabit the polar regions. After a little thought he answered, "Six

penguins and four seals." In the same way I suspect that, if you were

asked to give the names of any three Lord Mayors of London, you would

say, "Dick Whittington, and--er--Dick Whittington, and of

course--er--Dick Whittington," knowing that he held that high office

three times, and being quite unable to think of anybody else. This is

where I have the advantage of you. In my youth there was a joke which

went like this: "Why does the Lord Mayor like pepper? Because without

his K.N., he'd be ill." I have an unfortunate habit of remembering

even the worst joke, and so I can tell you, all these years after,

that there was once a Lord Mayor called Knill. It is because I know

the names of four Lord Mayors that I can write with such authority

upon the subject.

If I May · 第 3 / 10 段