Seven Men

When a book about the literature of the eighteen-nineties was given by Mr. Holbrook Jackson to the world, I looked eagerly in the index for Soames, Enoch.  I had feared he would not be there.  He was not there.  But everybody else was.  Many writers whom I had quite forgotten, or remembered but faintly, lived again for me, they and their work, in Mr. Holbrook Jackson’s pages.  The book was as thorough as it was brilliantly written.  And thus the omission found by me was an all the deadlier record of poor Soames’ failure to impress himself on his decade.

I daresay I am the only person who noticed the omission.  Soames had failed so piteously as all that!  Nor is there a counterpoise in the thought that if he had had some measure of success he might have passed, like those others, out of my mind, to return only at the historian’s beck.  It is true that had his gifts, such as they were, been acknowledged in his life-time, he would never have made the bargain I saw him make—­that strange bargain whose results have kept him always in the foreground of my memory.  But it is from those very results that the full piteousness of him glares out.

Not my compassion, however, impels me to write of him.  For his sake, poor fellow, I should be inclined to keep my pen out of the ink.  It is ill to deride the dead.  And how can I write about Enoch Soames without making him ridiculous?  Or rather, how am I to hush up the horrid fact that he was ridiculous?  I shall not be able to do that.  Yet, sooner or later, write about him I must.  You will see, in due course, that I have no option.  And I may as well get the thing done now.

In the Summer Term of ’93 a bolt from the blue flashed down on Oxford.  It drove deep, it hurtlingly embedded itself in the soil.  Dons and undergraduates stood around, rather pale, discussing nothing but it.  Whence came it, this meteorite?  From Paris.  Its name?  Will Rothenstein.  Its aim?  To do a series of twenty-four portraits in lithograph.  These were to be published from the Bodley Head, London.  The matter was urgent.  Already the Warden of A, and the Master of B, and the Regius Professor of C, had meekly `sat.’  Dignified and doddering old men, who had never consented to sit to any one, could not withstand this dynamic little stranger.  He did not sue:  he invited; he did not invite:  he commanded.  He was twenty-one years old.  He wore spectacles that flashed more than any other pair ever seen.  He was a wit.  He was brimful of ideas.  He knew Whistler.  He knew Edmond de Goncourt.  He knew every one in Paris.  He knew them all by heart.  He was Paris in Oxford.  It was whispered that, so soon as he had polished off his selection of dons, he was going to include a few undergraduates.  It was a proud day for me when I—­I—­was included.  I liked Rothenstein not less than I feared him; and there arose between us a friendship that has grown ever warmer, and been more and more valued by me, with every passing year.

At the end of Term he settled in—­or rather, meteoritically into—­ London.  It was to him I owed my first knowledge of that forever enchanting little world-in-itself, Chelsea, and my first acquaintance with Walter Sickert and other august elders who dwelt there.  It was Rothenstein that took me to see, in Cambridge Street, Pimlico, a young man whose drawings were already famous among the few—­Aubrey Beardsley, by name.  With Rothenstein I paid my first visit to the Bodley Head.  By him I was inducted into another haunt of intellect and daring, the domino room of the Cafe Royal.

There, on that October evening—­there, in that exuberant vista of gilding and crimson velvet set amidst all those opposing mirrors and upholding caryatids, with fumes of tobacco ever rising to the painted and pagan ceiling, and with the hum of presumably cynical conversation broken into so sharply now and again by the clatter of dominoes shuffled on marble tables, I drew a deep breath, and `This indeed,’ said I to myself, `is life!’

It was the hour before dinner.  We drank vermouth.  Those who knew Rothenstein were pointing him out to those who knew him only by name.  Men were constantly coming in through the swing-doors and wandering slowly up and down in search of vacant tables, or of tables occupied by friends.  One of these rovers interested me because I was sure he wanted to catch Rothenstein’s eye.  He had twice passed our table, with a hesitating look; but Rothenstein, in the thick of a disquisition on Puvis de Chavannes, had not seen him.  He was a stooping, shambling person, rather tall, very pale, with longish and brownish hair.  He had a thin vague beard—­or rather, he had a chin on which a large number of hairs weakly curled and clustered to cover its retreat.  He was an odd-looking person; but in the ’nineties odd apparitions were more frequent, I think, than they are now.  The young writers of that era—­and I was sure this man was a writer—­strove earnestly to be distinct in aspect.  This man had striven unsuccessfully.  He wore a soft black hat of clerical kind but of Bohemian intention, and a grey waterproof cape which, perhaps because it was waterproof, failed to be romantic.  I decided that `dim’ was the mot juste for him.  I had already essayed to write, and was immensely keen on the mot juste, that Holy Grail of the period.

The dim man was now again approaching our table, and this time he made up his mind to pause in front of it. `You don’t remember me,’ he said in a toneless voice.

Rothenstein brightly focussed him. `Yes, I do,’ he replied after a moment, with pride rather than effusion—­pride in a retentive memory. `Edwin Soames.’

`Enoch Soames,’ said Enoch.

`Enoch Soames,’ repeated Rothenstein in a tone implying that it was enough to have hit on the surname. `We met in Paris two or three times when you were living there.  We met at the Cafe Groche.’

`And I came to your studio once.’

`Oh yes; I was sorry I was out.’

`But you were in.  You showed me some of your paintings, you know….  I hear you’re in Chelsea now.’

`Yes.’

I almost wondered that Mr. Soames did not, after this monosyllable, pass along.  He stood patiently there, rather like a dumb animal, rather like a donkey looking over a gate.  A sad figure, his.  It occurred to me that `hungry’ was perhaps the mot juste for him; but—­hungry for what?  He looked as if he had little appetite for anything.  I was sorry for him; and Rothenstein, though he had not invited him to Chelsea, did ask him to sit down and have something to drink.

Seated, he was more self-assertive.  He flung back the wings of his cape with a gesture which—­had not those wings been waterproof—­might have seemed to hurl defiance at things in general.  And he ordered an absinthe. `Je me tiens toujours fidele,’ he told Rothenstein, `a la sorciere glauque.’

`It is bad for you,’ said Rothenstein dryly.

`Nothing is bad for one,’ answered Soames. `Dans ce monde il n’y a ni de bien ni de mal.’

`Nothing good and nothing bad?  How do you mean?’

`I explained it all in the preface to “Negations.”’

`”Negations”?’

`Yes; I gave you a copy of it.’

`Oh yes, of course.  But did you explain—­for instance—­that there was no such thing as bad or good grammar?’

`N-no,’ said Soames. `Of course in Art there is the good and the evil.  But in Life—­no.’  He was rolling a cigarette.  He had weak white hands, not well washed, and with finger-tips much stained by nicotine. `In Life there are illusions of good and evil, but’—­ his voice trailed away to a murmur in which the words `vieux jeu’ and `rococo’ were faintly audible.  I think he felt he was not doing himself justice, and feared that Rothenstein was going to point out fallacies.  Anyhow, he cleared his throat and said `Parlons d’autre chose.’

It occurs to you that he was a fool?  It didn’t to me.  I was young, and had not the clarity of judgment that Rothenstein already had.  Soames was quite five or six years older than either of us.  Also, he had written a book.

It was wonderful to have written a book.

If Rothenstein had not been there, I should have revered Soames.  Even as it was, I respected him.  And I was very near indeed to reverence when he said he had another book coming out soon.  I asked if I might ask what kind of book it was to be.

`My poems,’ he answered.  Rothenstein asked if this was to be the title of the book.  The poet meditated on this suggestion, but said he rather thought of giving the book no title at all. `If a book is good in itself—­’ he murmured, waving his cigarette.

Rothenstein objected that absence of title might be bad for the sale of a book. `If,’ he urged, `I went into a bookseller’s and said simply “Have you got?” or “Have you a copy of?” how would they know what I wanted?’

`Oh, of course I should have my name on the cover,’ Soames answered earnestly. `And I rather want,’ he added, looking hard at Rothenstein, `to have a drawing of myself as frontispiece.’  Rothenstein admitted that this was a capital idea, and mentioned that he was going into the country and would be there for some time.  He then looked at his watch, exclaimed at the hour, paid the waiter, and went away with me to dinner.  Soames remained at his post of fidelity to the glaucous witch.

`Why were you so determined not to draw him?’ I asked.

`Draw him?  Him?  How can one draw a man who doesn’t exist?’

`He is dim,’ I admitted.  But my mot juste fell flat.  Rothenstein repeated that Soames was non-existent.

Still, Soames had written a book.  I asked if Rothenstein had read `Negations.’  He said he had looked into it, `but,’ he added crisply, `I don’t profess to know anything about writing.’  A reservation very characteristic of the period!  Painters would not then allow that any one outside their own order had a right to any opinion about painting.  This law (graven on the tablets brought down by Whistler from the summit of Fujiyama) imposed certain limitations.  If other arts than painting were not utterly unintelligible to all but the men who practised them, the law tottered—­the Monroe Doctrine, as it were, did not hold good.  Therefore no painter would offer an opinion of a book without warning you at any rate that his opinion was worthless.  No one is a better judge of literature than Rothenstein; but it wouldn’t have done to tell him so in those days; and I knew that I must form an unaided judgment on `Negations.’

Not to buy a book of which I had met the author face to face would have been for me in those days an impossible act of self-denial.  When I returned to Oxford for the Christmas Term I had duly secured `Negations.’  I used to keep it lying carelessly on the table in my room, and whenever a friend took it up and asked what it was about I would say `Oh, it’s rather a remarkable book.  It’s by a man whom I know.’  Just `what it was about’ I never was able to say.  Head or tail was just what I hadn’t made of that slim green volume.  I found in the preface no clue to the exiguous labyrinth of contents, and in that labyrinth nothing to explain the preface.

`Lean near to life.  Lean very near—­nearer.

`Life is web, and therein nor warp nor woof is, but web only.

`It is for this I am Catholick in church and in thought, yet do let swift Mood weave there what the shuttle of Mood wills.’

These were the opening phrases of the preface, but those which followed were less easy to understand.  Then came `Stark:  A Conte,’ about a midinette who, so far as I could gather, murdered, or was about to murder, a mannequin.  It was rather like a story by Catulle Mendes in which the translator had either skipped or cut out every alternate sentence.  Next, a dialogue between Pan and St. Ursula—­lacking, I felt, in `snap.’  Next, some aphorisms (entitled `Aphorismata’ [spelled in Greek]).  Throughout, in fact, there was a great variety of form; and the forms had evidently been wrought with much care.  It was rather the substance that eluded me.  Was there, I wondered, any substance at all?  It did now occur to me:  suppose Enoch Soames was a fool!  Up cropped a rival hypothesis:  suppose I was!  I inclined to give Soames the benefit of the doubt.  I had read `L’Apres-midi d’un Faune’ without extracting a glimmer of meaning.  Yet Mallarme—­of course—­was a Master.  How was I to know that Soames wasn’t another?  There was a sort of music in his prose, not indeed arresting, but perhaps, I thought, haunting, and laden perhaps with meanings as deep as Mallarme’s own.  I awaited his poems with an open mind.

And I looked forward to them with positive impatience after I had had a second meeting with him.  This was on an evening in January.  Going into the aforesaid domino room, I passed a table at which sat a pale man with an open book before him.  He looked from his book to me, and I looked back over my shoulder with a vague sense that I ought to have recognised him.  I returned to pay my respects.  After exchanging a few words, I said with a glance to the open book, `I see I am interrupting you,’ and was about to pass on, but `I prefer,’ Soames replied in his toneless voice, `to be interrupted,’ and I obeyed his gesture that I should sit down.

I asked him if he often read here. `Yes; things of this kind I read here,’ he answered, indicating the title of his book—­`The Poems of Shelley.’

`Anything that you really’—­and I was going to say `admire?’ But I cautiously left my sentence unfinished, and was glad that I had done so, for he said, with unwonted emphasis, `Anything second-rate.’

I had read little of Shelley, but `Of course,’ I murmured, `he’s very uneven.’

`I should have thought evenness was just what was wrong with him.  A deadly evenness.  That’s why I read him here.  The noise of this place breaks the rhythm.  He’s tolerable here.’  Soames took up the book and glanced through the pages.  He laughed.  Soames’ laugh was a short, single and mirthless sound from the throat, unaccompanied by any movement of the face or brightening of the eyes. `What a period!’ he uttered, laying the book down.  And `What a country!’ he added.

I asked rather nervously if he didn’t think Keats had more or less held his own against the drawbacks of time and place.  He admitted that there were `passages in Keats,’ but did not specify them.  Of `the older men,’ as he called them, he seemed to like only Milton. `Milton,’ he said, `wasn’t sentimental.’  Also, `Milton had a dark insight.’  And again, `I can always read Milton in the reading-room.’

`The reading-room?’

`Of the British Museum.  I go there every day.’

`You do?  I’ve only been there once.  I’m afraid I found it rather a depressing place.  It—­it seemed to sap one’s vitality.’

`It does.  That’s why I go there.  The lower one’s vitality, the more sensitive one is to great art.  I live near the Museum.  I have rooms in Dyott Street.’

`And you go round to the reading-room to read Milton?’

`Usually Milton.’  He looked at me. `It was Milton,’ he certificatively added, `who converted me to Diabolism.’

`Diabolism?  Oh yes?  Really?’ said I, with that vague discomfort and that intense desire to be polite which one feels when a man speaks of his own religion. `You—­worship the Devil?’

Soames shook his head. `It’s not exactly worship,’ he qualified, sipping his absinthe. `It’s more a matter of trusting and encouraging.’

`Ah, yes….  But I had rather gathered from the preface to “Negations” that you were a—­a Catholic.’

`Je l’etais a cette epoque.  Perhaps I still am.  Yes, I’m a Catholic Diabolist.’

This profession he made in an almost cursory tone.  I could see that what was upmost in his mind was the fact that I had read `Negations.’  His pale eyes had for the first time gleamed.  I felt as one who is about to be examined, viva voce, on the very subject in which he is shakiest.  I hastily asked him how soon his poems were to be published. `Next week,’ he told me.

`And are they to be published without a title?’

`No.  I found a title, at last.  But I shan’t tell you what it is,’ as though I had been so impertinent as to inquire. `I am not sure that it wholly satisfies me.  But it is the best I can find.  It suggests something of the quality of the poems….  Strange growths, natural and wild, yet exquisite,’ he added, `and many-hued, and full of poisons.’

I asked him what he thought of Baudelaire.  He uttered the snort that was his laugh, and `Baudelaire,’ he said, `was a bourgeois malgre lui.’  France had had only one poet:  Villon; `and two-thirds of Villon were sheer journalism.’  Verlaine was `an epicier malgre lui.’  Altogether, rather to my surprise, he rated French literature lower than English.  There were `passages’ in Villiers de l’Isle-Adam.  But `I,’ he summed up, `owe nothing to France.’  He nodded at me. `You’ll see,’ he predicted.

I did not, when the time came, quite see that.  I thought the author of `Fungoids’ did—­unconsciously, of course—­owe something to the young Parisian decadents, or to the young English ones who owed something to them.  I still think so.  The little book—­bought by me in Oxford—­lies before me as I write.  Its pale grey buckram cover and silver lettering have not worn well.  Nor have its contents.  Through these, with a melancholy interest, I have again been looking.  They are not much.  But at the time of their publication I had a vague suspicion that they might be.  I suppose it is my capacity for faith, not poor Soames’ work, that is weaker than it once was….

         ToA young woman.

Thou art, who hast not been! 
    Pale tunes irresolute
    And traceries of old sounds
    Blown from a rotted flute
Mingle with noise of cymbals rouged with rust,
Nor not strange forms and epicene
    Lie bleeding in the dust,
        Being wounded with wounds.

        For this it is
    That in thy counterpart
        Of age-long mockeries
    Thou hast not been nor art!

There seemed to me a certain inconsistency as between the first and last lines of this.  I tried, with bent brows, to resolve the discord.  But I did not take my failure as wholly incompatible with a meaning in Soames’ mind.  Might it not rather indicate the depth of his meaning?  As for the craftsmanship, `rouged with rust’ seemed to me a fine stroke, and `nor not’ instead of `and’ had a curious felicity.  I wondered who the Young Woman was, and what she had made of it all.  I sadly suspect that Soames could not have made more of it than she.  Yet, even now, if one doesn’t try to make any sense at all of the poem, and reads it just for the sound, there is a certain grace of cadence.  Soames was an artist—­in so far as he was anything, poor fellow!

It seemed to me, when first I read `Fungoids,’ that, oddly enough, the Diabolistic side of him was the best.  Diabolism seemed to be a cheerful, even a wholesome, influence in his life.

Nocturne.