There was a time when I began to write a detective story for myself.

My murder, I thought, was rather cleverly carried out. The villain

sent a letter to his victim, enclosing a stamped addressed envelope

for an answer. The gum of the envelope was poisoned. I did not know,

nor did I bother to find out, whether it was possible, but this, as I

said just now, is the beauty of writing a detective story. If there is

no such quick-working poison, then you invent one. If up to the moment

when the doubt occurs to you, your villain had been living in Brixton,

you immediately send him to Central Africa, where he extracts a poison

from a "deadly root" according to the prescription of the chief

medicine-man. ("It is the poison into which the Swabiji dip their

arrows," you tell the reader casually, as if he really ought to have

known it for himself.) Well, then, I invented my poison, and my

villain put it on the gum of a self-addressed envelope, and enclosed

it with a letter asking for his victim's autograph. He then posted the

letter, whereupon a very tragic thing happened.

What happened was that, having left the letter in the post for some

years while I formed fours and saluted, I picked up a magazine in the

Mess one day and began to read a detective story. It was a very

baffling one, and I really didn't see how the murderer could possibly

have committed his foul deed. But the detective was on to it at once.

He searched the wastepaper basket, and, picking an envelope therefrom,

said "Ha!" It was just about then that I said "Ha!" too, and also

other things, for my half-finished story was now useless. Somebody

else had thought of the same idea. But though I was very sorry for

this, I could not help feeling proud that my idea made such a good

story. Indeed, since then I have fancied myself rather as a

detective-story-writer, and if only I could think of something which

nobody else would think of while I was thinking of it, I would try

again.

Some Old Companions

In the days of the last-war-but-thirty-seven, when (as you will

remember) the Peers were fighting the People, Lord Curzon defended the

hereditary system by telling us that it worked very well in India,

where a tailor's son invariably became a tailor. The obvious answer,

if anyone bothered to give it, was that the tailor's son, having had

his career mapped out for him at birth, presumably prepared to be a

tailor, whereas a peer's eldest son, as far as one observed, did not

prepare to be a statesman. Indeed, the only profession in this country

to which one is apprenticed in one's childhood is that of royalty. The

future King can begin to learn the "tactful smile," the "memory for

faces," the knowledge of foreign languages and orders, almost as soon

as he begins to learn anything. He alone need not regret his youth and

say, "If only I had been taught this, that, and the other instead!"

These gloomy reflections have been forced on me by the re-discovery of

all those educational books which I absorbed, or was supposed to have

absorbed, at school and college. They made an imposing collection when

I had got them all together; fifty mathematical works by eminent Den,

from a well-thumbed, dog's-eared _Euclid_ to a clean uncut copy of

_Functions of a Quaternion_. It is doubtful if you even know what a

quaternion is, still less how it functions; probably you think of it

as a small four-legged animal with a hard shell. You may be right--it

is so long since I bought the book. But once I knew all about

quaternions; kept them, possibly, at the bottom of the garden; and now

I ask myself in Latin (for I learnt Latin too), _"Cui bono?"_ How

much better if I had learnt this, that, and the other instead!

History for instance. How useful a knowledge of history would be to me

now. To lighten an article like this with a reference to what

Garibaldi said to Cavour in '53; to round off a sentence with the

casual remark, "As was the custom in Alexander's day"; to trace back

a religious tendency, or a fair complexion, or the price of boots to

some barbarian invasion of a thousand years ago--how delightfully easy

it would be, I tell myself, to write with such knowledge at one's

disposal. One would never be at a loss for a subject, and plots for

stories, plays, and historical novels would be piled up in one's brain

for the choosing. But what can one do with mathematics--save count the

words of an article (when written) with rather more quickness and

accuracy than one's fellow writer? Did I spend ten years at

mathematics for this? The waste of it!

But perhaps those years were not so wasted as they seem to have been.

Not only Functions of a Quaternion, but other of these books, chatty

books about hydro-mechanics and dynamics of a particle (no, not an

article--that might have been helpful--a particle), gossipy books

about optics and differential equations, many of these have a

comforting air of cleanness; as if, having bought them at the

instigation of my instructor, I had felt that this was enough, and

that their mere presence in my bookcase was a sufficient talisman; a

talisman the more effective because my instructor had marked some of

the chapters "R"--meaning, no doubt, _"Read carefully"_--and other

chapters "RR" or _"Read twice as carefully."_ For these seem to be

the only marks in some of the books, and there are no traces of

midnight oil nor of that earnest thumb which one might expect from the

perspiring seeker after knowledge.

So I feel--indeed, I seem to remember--that the years were not so

wasted after all. When I should have been looking after my

quaternions, I was doing something else, something not so useful to

one who would be a mathematician, but perhaps more useful to a writer

who had already learnt enough to count the words in an article and to

estimate the number of guineas due to him. But whether this be so or

not, at least I have another reason for gratitude that I treated some

of these volumes so reverently. For I have now sold them all to a

secondhand bookseller, and he at least was influenced by the clean

look of those which I had placed upon the top.

So they stand now, my books, in a shelf outside the shop waiting for a

new master. Fifteen shillings I paid for some of them, and you or

anybody else can get them for three and sixpence, with my autograph

inside and the "R" and "RR" of some of our most learned

mathematicians. I should like to hear from the purchaser, and to know

that he is giving my books as kind a home as I gave them, treating

them as reverently, exercising them as gently. He can never be a

mathematician, or anything else, unless he has them on his shelves,

but let him not force his attentions upon them. Left to themselves

they will exert their own influence.

I shall wonder sometimes what he is going to be, this young fellow who

is now reading the books on which I was brought up. Spurred on by the

differential equations, will he decide to be a lawyer, or will the

dynamics of a particle help him to realize his ambition of painting?

Well, whatever he becomes, I wish him luck. And when he sells the

books again, may he get a better price than I did.

A Haunted House

We have been trying to hide it from each other, but the truth must now

come out. Our house is haunted.

Well, of course, anybody's house might be haunted. Anybody might have

a headless ghost walking about the battlements or the bath-room at

midnight, and if it were no more than that, I should not trouble you

with the details. But our house is haunted in a peculiar way. No house

that I have heard of has ever been affected in quite this way before.

I must begin by explaining that it is a new house, built just before

the war. (Before the war, not after; this is a true story.) Its first

and only tenant was a Mrs. Watson-Watson, who lived here with her

daughter. Add her three servants, and you have filled the house. No

doubt she could have stowed people away in the cellar, but I have

never heard that she did; she preferred to keep it for such coal and

wood as came her way. When Mrs. Watson-Watson decided six months ago

to retire to the country, we took the house, and have lived here

since. And very comfortably, except for this haunting business.

As was to be expected, we were busy for the first few weeks in sending

on Mrs. Watson-Watson's letters. Gradually, as the news of her removal

got round to her less intimate friends, the flow of them grew less,

and at last--to our great relief, for we were always mislaying her

address--it ceased altogether. It was not until then that we felt

ourselves to be really in possession of our house.

We were not in possession for long. A month later a letter arrived for

Lady Elizabeth Mullins. Supposing this to be a _nom-de-guerre_ of Mrs.

Watson-Watson's, we searched for, and with great difficulty found, the

missing address, and sent the letter on. Next day there were two more

letters for Lady Elizabeth; by the end of the week there were half a

dozen; and for the rest of that month they came trickling in at the

rate of one a day. Mrs. Watson-Watson's address was now definitely

lost, so we tied Lady-Elizabeth's letters up in a packet and sent them

to the ground-landlord's solicitors. Solicitors like letters.

It was annoying at this time, when one was expecting, perhaps, a very

important cheque or communication from the Prime Minister, to go

downstairs eagerly at the postman's knock and find a couple of letters

for Lady Elizabeth and a belated copy of the _Church Times_ for Mrs.

Watson-Watson. It was still more annoying, that, just when we were

getting rid of Lady Elizabeth, Mr. J. Garcia should have arrived to

take her place.

Mr. Garcia seems to be a Spaniard. At any rate, most of his letters

came from Spain. This makes it difficult to know what to do with them.

There was something clever in Spanish on the back of the last one,

which may be the address to which we ought to return it, but on the

other hand, may be just the Spanish for "Always faithful" or

"Perseverance" or "Down with the bourgeoisie." He seems to be a

busier person than Lady Elizabeth. Ten people wrote to him the other

week, whereas there were never more than seven letters in a week for

her ladyship.

Until lately, I have always been annoyed by the fact that there is no

Sunday post in London. To come down to breakfast knowing that on this

morning anyhow there is no chance of an O.B.E. takes the edge off

one's appetite. But lately, I have been glad of the weekly respite.

For one day in seven I can do without the excitement of wondering

whether there will be three letters for Mr. Garcia this morning, or

two for Lady Elizabeth, or three for Lady Elizabeth, or one for Mrs.

Watson-Watson. I will gladly let my own correspondence go in order to

be saved from theirs. But on Sunday last, about tea-time, there came a

knock at the front-door and the unmistakable scuttle of a letter being

pushed through the slit and dropping into the hall, My senses are now

so acute in this matter, that I can almost distinguish the scuffle of

a genuine Garcia from that of a Mullins or even a Watson-Watson. There

was a novelty about this arrival which was interesting. I went into

the hall, and saw a letter on the floor, unstamped and evidently

delivered by hand. It was inscribed to Sir John Poling.

Will somebody offer an explanation? I have given you our

story--leaving out as accidental, and not of sufficient historic

interest, the postcard to the Countess of Westbury and the obvious

income-tax form to Colonel Todgers, C.B.--and I feel that it is up to

you or the Psychical Research Society or somebody to tell us what it

all means. My own explanation is this. I think that our house is

haunted by ghosts, but by the ghosts of living persons only, and that

these ghosts are visible to outsiders, but invisible to the inmates

Thus Mr. Lopez, while passing down our street, suddenly sees J. Garcia

looking at him from our drawing-room window. "Caramba!" he says, "I

thought he was in Barcelona." He makes a note of the address, and

when he gets back to Spain writes long letters to Garcia begging him

to come back to his Barcelonian wife and family. At another time

somebody else sees Sir John Poling letting himself in at the front

door with a latch-key. "So that's where he lives now," she says to

herself, and spreads the news among their mutual friends. Of course,

this is very annoying for us, and one cannot help wishing that these

ghosts would confine themselves to one of the back bedrooms. Failing

this, they might leave some kind of address in indelible letters on

the bath-mat.

Another explanation is that our address has become in some way a sort

of typical address, just as "Thomas Atkins" became the typical

soldier for the purpose of filling up forms, and "John Doe" the

typical litigant. When a busy woman puts our address on an envelope

beneath the name of Lady Elizabeth Mullins, all she means is that Lady

Elizabeth lives somewhere, and that the secretary had better look up

the proper address and write it in before posting the letter. Every

now and then the secretary forgets to do this, and the letter comes

here. This may be a compliment to the desirability of our house, but

it is a compliment of which we are getting tired. I must ask that it

should now cease.

Round the World and Back

A friend of mine is just going off for his holiday. He is having a

longer holiday than usual this time. Instead of his customary three

weeks, he is having a year, and he is going to see the world. He

begins with India. Probably some of our Territorials will wonder why

he wants to see India particularly. They would gladly give him all of

it. However, he is determined to go, and I cannot do less than wish

him luck and a safe return.

There are several places to which I should be glad to accompany him,

but India is not one of them. Kipling ruined India for me, as I

suspect he did for many other of his readers. I picture India as full

of intriguing, snobbish Anglo-Indians, who are always damning the Home

Government for ruining the country. It is an odd thing that, although

I have lived between thirty and forty years in England, nobody

believes that I know how to govern England, and yet the stupidest

Anglo-Indian, who claims to know all about the proper government of

India because he has lived there ten or twenty years, is believed by

quite a number of people to be speaking with authority. No doubt my

friend will have the decisive word in future in all his arguments on

Indian questions with less travelled acquaintances. But he shall not

get round me.

From India he goes to China, and thither I would follow him with

greater willingness, albeit more tremulously. I can never get it out

of my head that the Chinese habitually torture the inquiring visitor.

Probably I read the wrong sort of books when I was young. One of them,

I remember, had illustrations. No doubt they were illustrations of

mediaeval implements; no doubt I am as foolish as the Chinaman would

be who had read about the Tower of London and feared to disembark at

Folkstone; but it is hard to dispel these early impressions. "Yes,

yes," I should say rather hastily, as they pointed out the Great Wall

to me, and I should lead the way unostentatiously but quite definitely

towards Japan.

Before deciding how long to stay in Japan, one would have to ask

oneself what one wants from a strange country. I think that the answer

in my case is "Scenery." The customs of Japan, or Thibet, or Utah

are interesting, no doubt, but one can be equally interested in a

description of them. The people of these countries are interesting,

but then I have by no means exhausted my interest in the people of

England, and five minutes or five months among an entirely new set of

people is not going to help me very much. But a five-second view of

(say) the Victoria Falls is worth acres of canvas or film on the

subject, and as many gallons of ink as you please. So I shall go to

Japan for what I can see, and (since it is so well worth seeing)

remain there as long as I can.

I am not sure where we go next. New Zealand, if the holiday were mine;

for I have always believed New Zealand to be the most beautiful

country in the world. Also it is from all accounts a nice clean

country. If I were to arrange a world-tour for myself, instead of

following some other traveller about in imagination, my course would

be settled, not, in the first place, by questions of climate or

scenery or the larger inhabitants, but by consideration of those

smaller natives--the Tarantula, the Scorpion, and the Centipede. If I

were told that in such-and-such a country one often found a lion in

one's bath, I might be prepared to risk it. I should feel that there

was always a chance that the lion might not object to me. But if I

heard that one might find a tarantula in one's hotel, then that

country would be barred to me for ever. For I should be dead long

before the beast had got to close quarters; dead of disgust.

This is why South America, which always looks so delightful on the

map, will never see me. I have had to give up most of Africa, India

(though, as I have said, this is a country which I can spare), the

West Indies, and many other places whose names I have forgotten. In a

world limited to inhabitants with not more than four legs I could

travel with much greater freedom. At present the two great

difficulties in my way are this insect trouble, and (much less

serious, but still more important) the language trouble. You can

understand, then, how it is that, since also it is a beautiful

country, I look so kindly on New Zealand.

But I doubt if I could be happy even in a dozen New Zealands, each one

more beautiful than the last, seeing that it would mean being away

from London for a year. The number of things which might happen in the

year while one was away! The new plays produced, the literary and

political reputations made and lost, a complete cricket championship

fought out; in one's over-anxious mind there would never be such a

year as the year which one was missing. My friend may retain his calm

as he hears of our distant doings in Kiplingized India, but it would

never do for me. Even to-day, after a fortnight in the country, I am

beginning to get restless. Really, I think I ought to get back

to-morrow.

The State of the Theatre

We are told that the theatre is in a bad way, that the English Drama

is dead, but I suspect that every generation in its turn has been told

the same thing. I have been reading some old numbers of the Theatrical

Magazine of a hundred years ago. These were the palmy days of the

stage, when blank verse flourished, and every serious play had to

begin like this:

_Scene. A place without._ Rinaldo _discovered dying. Enter_ Marco_._

_Mar._ What ho, Rinaldo! Lo, the hornéd moon

Dims the cold radiance of the westering stars,

Pale sentinels of the approaching dawn. How now, Rinaldo?

_Rin._ Marco, I am dying, Struck down by Tomasino's treacherous hand.

_Mar._ What, Tomasino?

_Rin._ Tomasino. Ere

The flaming chariot of Phoebus mounts

The vaults of Heaven, Rinaldo will be dead.

_Mar._ Oh, horror piled on horror!

Lo, the moon----

And so on. The result was called--and I think rightly--"a tragedy."

The alternative to these tragedies was a farce, in which everybody

went to an inn and was mistaken for somebody else (causing great fun

and amusement), the heat and burden of the evening resting upon a

humorous man-servant called _Trickett_ (or something good like that).

And whether the superior people of the day said that English Drama was

dead, I do not know; but they may be excused for having thought that,

if it wasn't dead, it ought to have been.

Fortunately we are doing better than that to-day. But we are not doing

as well as we should be, and the reason generally given is that we

have not enough theatres. No doubt we have many more theatres than we

had a hundred years ago, even if you only count those which confine

themselves to plays without music, but the mass-effect of all these

music-hall-theatres is to make many people think and say that English

Drama is (once more) dead.

It is customary to blame the manager for this--the new type of

manager, the Mr. Albert de Lauributt who has been evolved by the war.

He existed before the war, of course, but he limited his activities to

the music-hall. Now he spreads himself over half a dozen theatres, and

produces a revue or a musical comedy at each. He does not care for

Art, but only for Money. He would be just as proud of a successful

production of _Kiss Me, Katie_, as of _Hamlet_; and, to do him

justice, as proud of a successful production of _Hamlet_, as of _Kiss

Me, Katie_. But by "successful" he means "financially successful";

no more and no less. He is frankly out for the stuff, and he thinks

that it is musical comedy which brings in the stuff.

It seems absurd to single him out for blame, when there are so many

thousands of other people in the world who are out for the stuff. Why

should Mr. Albert de Lauributt lose two thousand pounds over your or

my serious play, when he can make ten thousand over _Hug me, Harriet_?

We do not blame other rich men for being as little quixotic with their

money. We do not expect a financier to back a young inventor because

he is a genius, in preference to backing some other inventor because

he has discovered a saleable, though quite inartistic, breakfast food.

So if Mr. de Lauributt produces six versions in his six different

theatres of _Cuddle Me, Constance_, it is only because this happens to

be his way of making money. He may even be spending his own evenings

secretly at the "Old Vic." For he runs his theatre, not as an

artist, but as a business man; and, as any business man will tell you,

"Business is business, my boy."

We cannot blame him then. But we can regret that he is allowed to own

six different theatres. In Paris it is "one man, one theatre," and

if it were so in London then there would be less the matter with the

English Drama. But, failing such an enactment, all that remains is to

persuade the public that what it really wants is something a little

better than _Kiss Me, Katie_. For Mr. de Lauributt is quite ready to

provide Shakespeare, Ibsen, Galsworthy, modern drama, modern comedy,

anything you like as long as it brings him in pots of money. And he

would probably do the thing well. He would have the sense to know that

the producer of _Hug Me, Harriet_, would not be the best possible

producer of _The Wild Duck_; he would try to get the best possible

producer and the best possible designer and the best possible cast,

knowing that all these would help to bring in the best possible

box-office receipts. Yes, he would do the thing well, if only the

public really asked for it.

How can the public ask for it? Obviously it can only do this by

staying away from _Cuddle Me, Constance_, and visiting instead those

plays whose authors take themselves seriously, whenever such plays are

available. It should be the business, therefore, of the critics (the

people who are really concerned to improve the public taste in plays)

to lead the public in the right direction; away, that is, from the

Bareback Theatre, and towards those theatres whose managers have other

than financial standards. But it is unfortunately the fact that they

don't do this. Without meaning it, they lead the public the wrong way.

They mislead them simply because they have two standards of

criticism--which the public does not understand. They go to the

Bareback Theatre for the first night of _Kiss Me, Katie_, and they

write something like this:--

"Immense enthusiasm.... A feast of colour to delight the eye. Mr.

Albert de Lauributt has surpassed himself.... Delightfully catchy

music.... The audience laughed continuously.... Mr. Ponk, the new

comedian from America, was a triumphant success.... Ravishing Miss

Rosie Romeo was more ravishing than ever... Immense enthusiasm."

On the next night they go to see Mr. A. W. Galsbarrie's new play,

_Three Men_. They write like this:--

If I May · 第 8 / 10 段