SEEING MR. CHESTERTON
Somewhat later in this article I am going to present an "interview" (or
something like that) with Gilbert K. Chesterton. At least I hope I am
going to present it. Yesterday it looked as though I might have to get
up my interview without having seen Mr. Chesterton. Though today the
situation appears somewhat brighter. "Seeing" Mr. Chesterton (on his
visit over here, at any rate) seems to be a complicated matter.
As anything which gives some view of the workings of the Chestertonian
machinery ought to be of interest to all who can lay claim to the happy
state of mind of being Chestertonites, I'll begin by telling the
proceedings so far in this affair. Then as matters progress to supply me
with more material (if they do progress) I'll continue.
I one time wrote an article in which I told with what surprising ease I
saw Mr. Chesterton several years ago in England. Without acquaintances
in England, some sort of a fit of impudence seized me. I wrote Mr.
Chesterton a letter, communicating to him the intelligence that I had
arrived in London, that it was my belief that he was one of the noblest
and most interesting monuments in England; and I asked him if he
supposed that he could be "viewed" by me, at some street corner, say, at
a time appointed, as he rumbled past in his triumphal car. Mrs.
Chesterton replied directly in a note that her husband wished to thank
me for my letter and to say that he would be pleased if I cared to come
down to spend an afternoon with him at Beaconsfield. Mr. Chesterton, I
later recollected, had no means readily at hand of ascertaining whether
or not I was an American pickpocket; but from the deference of his
manner I was led to suspect that he vaguely supposed I was perhaps the
owner of the New York _Times_, or somebody like that.
This escapade of my visit to Overroads I suppose it was that put into
the head of the editor of _The Bookman_ the notion that I was a person
with ready access to Mr. Chesterton. So I was served with a hurry-up
assignment to see him and to deliver an article about my seeing him for
the March number of the magazine before that issue, then largely in the
hands of the printers, got off the press. Thus my adventures, the
termination of which are at present considerably up in the air, began.
I at once wrote to Mr. Chesterton at the hotel where at the moment he
was in Boston. At the same time I wrote to Lee Keedick ("Manager of the
World's Most Celebrated Lecturers") at his office in New York. I had
picked up the impression that a lecture manager of this caliber owned
outright the time of a visiting celebrity whom he promoted, and that you
couldn't even telephone the celebrity without the manager's permission.
I didn't know that you couldn't telephone him anyway. Or that you
couldn't telephone the manager either.
Mr. Keedick very promptly replied that he would be very glad to do
everything that he could to bring about the interview. Or at least I
received a very courteous letter to this effect which bore a signature
which I took to be that of Mr. Keedick.
Mr. Chesterton was not to be back in New York until after a couple of
days. On the day set for his return to town I attempted to communicate
with Mr. Keedick by telephone. I am (I fear) a bit slow at the etiquette
of telephones, and I so far provoked a young woman at the other end of
the wire as to cause her to demand rather sharply, "Who are you?" This
matter adjusted amicably, Mr. Keedick it developed was so utterly remote
from attainment that I am not altogether sure such a person exists.
However, another gentleman responded cordially enough. Still, it seemed
to me (upon reflection) that in a matter of this urgent nature I had
been at fault in having failed to obtain more definiteness in the matter
of an appointment. So I went round to the manager's office. Very affably
received. Presented to a gentleman fetched for that purpose from another
room, where he had been closeted with someone else. Mr. Widdecombe, this
gentleman's name. Introduced as Mr. Chesterton's secretary. A pronounced
Englishman in effect. Said very politely indeed, several times, that he
was "delighted." Mr. Chesterton, however, was going away tomorrow. Would
return two days hence. Made, Mr. Widdecombe, very careful memorandum of
my address.
In due course of time thought I'd better look up Mr. Widdecombe
again--his memorandum might have got mislaid. Telephoned lecture bureau.
Satisfied young lady of honorable intentions. Explained matters all over
again to owner of agreeable masculine voice. Received assurance that Mr.
Widdecombe would be reminded at once of pressing state of affairs.
Disturbed by uneventful flight of time, called in at lecture bureau once
more. Learned that Mr. Widdecombe had not yet turned up. They, however,
would try to get him on the wire at the Biltmore for me. Yes, he was
there, but the fourth floor desk of the hotel said he had just gone into
Mr. Chesterton's room, and so (as, apparently, everyone ought to know)
could not be communicated with just now. He would call up shortly.
Lecture people suggested that I go round to the hotel. If Mr. Widdecombe
called in the meantime they'd tell him I was on my way over.
Thought I recognized the gentleman stepping out of the elevator at the
fourth floor. I did not know whether or not it was at all what you did
to lay hold of an Englishman in so abrupt a fashion, but concluded this
would have to be done. Mr. Widdecombe was all courtesy. The point,
however, was that "Mr. Chesterton had had an hour of it this morning.
Had had an hour of it." This afternoon he was getting off some work for
London. Then tomorrow, of course, would be his lecture. My matter _did_
seem to be urgent. But what could "we" do? Mr. Chesterton was a
"beautiful man." He had been so hospitable to the gentlemen of the
press. But if we should go in to him now he would say, "Dear me! Dear
me!" I readily saw, of course, that this would be an awful thing,
still....
Mr. Widdecombe was somewhat inclined to think that we "could do" this:
Suppose I should come to the Times Square Theatre the next afternoon, at
about a quarter to five, call for him at the stage entrance. Yes, he
thought we could arrange it that way. I could talk to Mr. Chesterton in
the taxi on the way back to the hotel. Perhaps detain him for a few
moments afterward. Mr. Widdecombe smiled very pleasantly indeed at the
idea of so happy a solution of our difficulties. And I myself was rather
taken by the notion of interviewing Mr. Chesterton in a cab. The fancy
occurred to me that this was perhaps after all the most fitting place
in the whole world in which to interview Mr. Chesterton.
So everything seems to be all right.
* * * * *
New complications! (This is the following day.) In the morning mail a
letter from Mrs. Chesterton, saying so sorry not to have answered my
letter before, but it had been almost impossible to deal with the
correspondence that had reached them since they arrived in America. Her
husband asked her to say he would very much like to see me. And could I
call at the hotel round about twelve o'clock on Sunday morning? No
difficulty about meeting Mr. Chesterton in the kindness of that. But
Sunday might be quite too late for the purpose of my article. So I'll go
to the theatre anyway, and I'll certainly accept all Chesterton
invitations.
* * * * *
A colored dignitary in a uniform sumptuously befrogged with gold lace
who commanded the portal directed me to the stage entrance. I passed
into a dark and apparently deserted passage and paused to consider my
next step. Before me was a tall, brightly lighted aperture, and coming
through this I caught the sound, gently rising and falling, of a rather
dulcet voice. A slight pause in the flow of individual utterance, and
directly following upon this a soft wave as of the intimate mirth of an
audience wafted about what was evidently the auditorium beyond. Just
then a figure duskily defined itself before me and addressed me in a
gruff whisper. I was directed to proceed around the passage extending
ahead, to Room Three. I should have passed behind a tall screen (I
recognized later), but inadvertently I passed before it, and suddenly
found myself the target of thousands upon thousands of eyes--and the
unmistakable back of Mr. Chesterton looming in the brilliance directly
before me.
Regaining the passage, I found a door labelled A 3. Receiving no
response to my knock, I opened it; and peered into a lighted cubby-hole
about one-third the size of a very small hall bed-room. The only object
of any conspicuousness presented to me was a huge, dark garment hanging
from a hook in the wall. It seemed to be--ah! yes; it was a voluminous
overcoat with a queer cape attached. So; I was in the right shop all
right.
I thought I ought to look around and try to find somebody. I wandered
into what I suppose are the "wings" of the theatre. Anyway, I had an
excellent view, from one side, of the stage and of a portion of one
gallery. The only person quite near me was a fireman, who paid no
attention whatever to me, but continued to gaze out steadily at Mr.
Chesterton, with an expression of countenance which (as well as I could
decipher it) registered fascinated incomprehension. I attempted to lean
against what I supposed was a wall, but to my great fright the whole
structure nearly tumbled over as I barely touched it. Perceiving a chair
the other side of the fireman, I passed before him, sat down, and gave
myself over to contemplation of the spectacle.
My first impression, I think, was that Mr. Chesterton was speaking in so
conversational a key that I should have expected to hear cries of
"Louder!" coming from all over the house. But from the lighted
expressions of the faces far away in the corner of the gallery visible
to me he was apparently being followed perfectly. I did not then know
that at his first public appearance in New York he had referred to his
lecturing voice as the original mouse that came from the mountain. Nor
had I then seen Francis Hackett's comment upon it that: "It wasn't, of
course, a bellow. Neither was it a squeak." Mr. Hackett adds that it is
"the ordinary good lecture-hall voice." I do not feel that this quite
describes my own impression of it the other afternoon. Rather, perhaps,
I should put the matter in this way. My recollection of the conversation
I had with him in 1914 at Beaconsfield is that there was a much more
ruddy quality to his voice then than the other day, and more, much more,
in the turn of his talk a racy note of the burly world.
Perhaps he feels that before a "representative" American audience one
should be altogether what used to be called "genteel." At any rate, I
certainly heard the other day the voice of a modest, very friendly,
cultivated, nimble-minded gentleman, speaking with the nicety of
precision more frequently observed among English people than among
Americans. There was in it even a trace of a tone as though it were most
at home within university walls. Though, indeed, I am glad to say, Mr.
Chesterton did not abstain from erudite, amused, and amusing allusions
to the society most at home in "pubs." And I cannot but suspect that
perhaps he would have been found a shade more amusing even than he was
if ... but, no matter.
One gentleman who has written a piece about his impressions of Mr.
Chesterton's lectures here felt that his audience didn't have quite as
much of a good time as the members of it expected to have. I heard only
a brief, concluding portion of one lecture. The portion of the audience
which came most closely before my observation were those seated at the
well filled press table, which stood directly between the speaker and
me. These naïve beings gave every evidence of getting, to speak
temperately, their money's worth.
Though Mr. Chesterton turned the pages of notes as he spoke, he could
not be said to have read his lecture. On the other hand, it was clear
that he did not appreciably depart from a carefully prepared
disquisition.
The tumbled mane which tops him off seemed more massive even than
before. It did not, though, appear quite so tumbled. I think there had
been an effort (since 1914) to brush it quite nicely. Certainly it is
ever so much greyer. I think in my earlier article I said something like
this: "Mr. Chesterton has so remarkably red a face that his smallish
moustache seems lightish in color against it." While Mr. Chesterton's
face today could not be described as pale, it looks more like a face and
less like a glowing full moon. The moustache is darker against it; less
bristling than before, more straggly.
A couple of our recent commentators upon Mr. Chesterton have taken a
fling at the matter of his not being as huge as, it seems to them, he
has been made out to be. I remember that when I saw him before I was
even startled to find him more monstrous than even he had appeared in
his pictures. He appears to take part a good deal in pageants in
England; and recent photographs of him as Falstaff, or Tony Weller, or
Mr. Pickwick, or somebody like that, have not altogether squared up with
my recollection of him. True, he has not quite the bulk he had before;
but it is a captious critic, I should say, who would not consider him
sufficiently elephantine for all ordinary purposes.
He was saying (much to the delight of the house) when I became one of
the audience, that he would "not regard this as the time or the occasion
for him to comment upon the lid on liquor." A bit later in the course of
his answer to the question he had propounded, "Shall We Abolish the
Inevitable," he got an especially good hand when he remarked: "People
nowadays do not like statements having authority--but they will accept
any statement without authority." He concluded his denunciation of the
idea of fatalism with the declaration: "Whatever man is, he is not in
one sense a part of nature." "He has committed crimes, Crimes," he
repeated--with gusto in the use of the word,--"and performed heroisms
which no animal ever tried to do. Let us hold ourselves free from the
boundary of the material order of things, for so shall we have a chance
in the future to do things far too historic for prophecy."
I darted back toward Room Three, ran into Mr. Widdecombe, we wheeled,
and saw the mountain approaching. Whereas before, this off-stage place
had been deserted, now the scene was populous--with the figures of
agitated young women. Mr. Widdecombe, however, with much valiance
secured Mr. Chesterton. "Yes, yes," he said, and (remarkable remark!),
"I had the pleasure of meeting you in England." He glanced about rather
nervously at the dancing figures seeking to obtain him, and led the way
for me into the dressing room. Mr. Widdecombe pulled the door to from
without.
I am far from being as large as Mr. Chesterton, but the two of us
closeted in that compartment was an absurdity. Mr. Chesterton eclipsed a
chair, and beamed upon me with an expression of Cheeryble-like
brightness. Upon his arrival in New York he had declared to the press
that he would not write a book of his impressions of the United States.
I asked him if, after being here a week or so, he had changed his mind
as to this determination. "Not definitely," he said, "not definitely.
But, of course, one could never tell what one might do." He might write
a book about us, then? Yes, he might. Did he think it at all likely that
he would take up residence over here? A very joyous smile: "One's own
country is best," he said. Rumors had several times been afloat that he
had entered the Roman Catholic Church. Would he say whether there was
any likelihood of his doing this? He was an Anglican Catholic, he
replied. Not a Roman Catholic--yet. That was not to say that he might
not be--if the English Church should become more Protestant. What was
his next book to be? Had he any project in mind of going to Turkey, or
Mexico, or some such place? No; the only books he was working on at
present were a new volume of short stories and a book (smiling again
widely) on eugenics. He knew Mr. Lucas, of course? "Yes, fine fellow."
Did he know Frank Swinnerton? No. What was.... But the door was popped
open. Several persons were waiting for him, among them Mrs. Chesterton.
I helped him into the cape-coat. Stood behind the door so that when it
was opened he could get out. "You know Mr. Holliday," he said to Mrs.
Chesterton. "Thank you, so much," he said to me. And was whisked away.
* * * * *
Sunday at the hotel. He was late in arriving. I thought it would be
pleasanter to wait a bit out in front. Expected he would drive up soon
in a taxi. Then I saw him coming around the corner, walking, rolling
slowly from side to side like a great ship, Mrs. Chesterton with him--a
little lady whose stature suggested the idea of a yacht gracefully
cruising alongside the huge craft. I wonder if, nowadays when most
writers seem to try to look like something else, Mr. Chesterton knows
how overwhelmingly like a great literary figure he looks.
When we were seated, I asked if he had any dope on his "New Jerusalem"
book. He began to tell me how surprised he had been to find Jerusalem as
it is. But the substance of this you may find in the book. He expressed
sympathy with the idea of Zionism. Remarked that he "might become a
Zionist if it could be accomplished in Zion." All that he could find to
tell me about his "New Jerusalem" was that it had been "written on the
spot." Seemed very disinclined to talk about his own books. Said his
feeling in general about each one of them was that he "hoped something
would happen to it before anybody saw it."
His surprise at Jerusalem suggested to me the question, Had he been
surprised at the United States--what he had seen of it? But he dodged
giving any "view" of us. His only comment was on the "multitudinous
wooden houses."
Had he met many American authors? The one most recently met, a day or so
ago in Northampton, though he had met him before in England, was a
gentleman he liked very much. He was so thin Mr. Chesterton thought the
two of them "should go around together." His name? Gerald Stanley Lee.
But there is not a particle more of time that I can spend on this
article.