THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET: THE GREAT UNKNOWN (Ch. 4)

Click any page to read it larger.

THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.JANUARY, 1820.No. IV.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 43.)


CHAPTER IV.

The Great Unknown.

“Who writes the Warden, Kit?”

She asked it on the Sat–urday, over the break­fast things, in thevoice in which she asked him whetherit was likely to rain; and Kit, who wasread­ing the Chron­icle against the cof–fee-pot be­cause Mr. Pel­ham did notwant it until ten, said that nobodyknew, and that Pel­ham said Albe­marleStreet kept it for reas­ons, and that ifshe wanted his opin­ion it was one ofthe Rad­cliffes, since nobody else wouldprint it.

“I did not want your opin­ion. Iwanted Mr. Pel­ham’s.”

“Then you shall have it on Monday,from Hare Court.” He turned thepaper. “Here is a thing, though. Thereis to be a new maga­zine in the Rowafter Christ­mas. Bald­win’s are at theback of it, Pel­ham says, and the firstnum­ber is to be out in Janu­ary, andthey are buy­ing up every­body. Pel­hamhad it at Dick’s. They have writ­ten tohalf the writ­ing men in Lon­don, and

they have writ­ten”⁠—he found the placehe wanted in the Chron­icle, and lostin­terest in his own sen­tence⁠—“to theAuthor of the Mor­timers, through Bal–dock, and the Row says Bal­dock hasnot sent it on, be­cause he has not thedir­ec­tion. Nobody has the dir­ec­tion.Pass the but­ter, Clem.”

Clem­ency passed the but­ter.

“Have they,” she said.

The Temple in the long va­ca­tion is aplace in which a ru­mour has noth­ing todo but grow.

The courts do not sit. The bench–ers are in the coun­try; the ju­ni­ors whocan af­ford it are on cir­cuit, and the ju–ni­ors who can­not are in their cham–bers with the door shut, pre­tend­ing tobe. The laundresses have the stair­casesto them­selves. A man may walk fromthe Inner Temple gate to the river atnoon and meet nobody but a porterand a cat, and the porter will tell himany­thing he likes, be­cause noth­ing has

CLOSE ×☞PAGE 49 · 49–71

happened since July and the porter isin want of con­ver­sa­tion. It was in thishush, in the first week of Oc­to­ber, be–tween the Michael­mas rents and theMichael­mas term, which did not beginuntil No­vem­ber and had noth­ing to dowith Michael­mas but the name, thatthe Inner Temple made up its mindwho wrote The Lord Warden.

Mr. Kin­ross, who had walked thereevery day for a month, was not con­sul–ted.

He was in his cham­bers, with thedoor shut, not pre­tend­ing to be any–thing. He had brought with him thesix num­bers of the Mor­timers and theel­even num­bers of the Warden, and apen­cil, and the in­ten­tion of read­ing thetwo of them through to­gether, in order,as one reads two sides of a cor­res­pond–ence when one has begun to sus­pectthat the other side has been read­ingit more care­fully than one­self. He haddone this on the Monday, and again onthe Tues­day, and by the Tues­day af–ter­noon he had begun to sort his ownmar­gins, which was a thing he hadnever done, be­cause he had never be–fore had mar­gins worth sort­ing.

They sor­ted into two heaps. In theone heap were the cor­rec­tions: the rail–ings, the din­ner-hour, a car­riage thatwould not have stood where the Authorhad stood it, a quo­ta­tion from thePsalms in the Bible words, which nocler­gy­man had ever read from a desk,

since the church reads them from thePrayer-Book. They were the marks ofa man who knew the front of a house.In the other heap were the things hehad let stand, and had marked onlywith a tick, or with true, or with noth–ing; and he ob­served, with the de­tach–ment of a man cata­loguing some­bodyelse’s lib­rary, that every one of themwas a thing seen from the back of thehouse: what a foot­man cost, and whata cook would bear, and how a house–keeper kept her book, and what it wasto sit out a din­ner in a gown. TheAuthor had been let into every roomin Mount Street but the draw­ing-room,and had de­scribed the draw­ing-roomfrom the stairs.

A house­keeper’s son. He wrote iton a slip, and under it Oxford, witha query, and under that, be­cause hewas hon­est in a mar­gin if nowhere else,pos­sibly a woman; and he looked atthe three lines for a while, and thenstruck out the third. A woman couldnot have kept it up for six months, atseven guineas, to the tenth of everymonth. Women did not write to thetenth of the month. They wrote whenthey were un­happy, and stopped whenthey were mar­ried, and in either con–di­tion they did not know what a foot–man cost; it was a thing they were keptfrom know­ing, as they were kept fromthe area steps. He had the testi­monyof his aunt, who had kept house for

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 50 · 49–71

him for el­even years and had never inthat time named a sum under ten thou–sand pounds. The house­keeper’s sonwas a bet­ter an­swer. It ac­coun­ted forthe stairs. He put the slip in the drawerwith the oth­ers, and was pleased withit, as a man is pleased with a wrongan­swer that has cost him some trouble.

She went on the Tues­day, be­causeTues­day was the day on which Mrs.Lyd­iard went to Bread Street to seeabout the Hind­leys’ ac­count, whichhad been seen about every Tues­dayfor two years and would not be settledin Clem­ency’s life­time; and be­causea woman who is going to walk twomiles west­ward through Lon­don withno par­cel had bet­ter choose a day onwhich nobody will ask her where sheis going.

She had settled, in the night, how itwas to be done. One did not walk downMount Street. One walked through it,on the way to some­where else, withthe air of a per­son who had been sent;and the some­where else was Gros–venor Square, be­cause a woman in agrey gown turned once might be any–body’s gov­erness going any­where, solong as she did not stop. The wholeart, as Clem­ency un­der­stood it, lay innot stop­ping. She had been not stop–ping out­side Bal­dock’s win­dow on thefirst of every month for six months, andcon­sidered her­self a pro­fi­cient.

She stopped at Acker­mann’s.

She had not meant to. It was onthe way, which was her ex­cuse, and itwas a win­dow into which half Lon­donlooked, which was her other ex­cuse,and she had crossed the Strand on pur–pose to be on its side of the street,which was no ex­cuse at all. There werethe new prints, and the draw­ing-books,and the little boxes of col­ours in theirrows, and a card with the price of acake of col­our writ­ten on it in a clerk’shand; and she stood and read the cardtwice, as she had read Mr. Wray twice,and found it as clever and as much tothe point. She knew to a penny whatshe had in her retic­ule, and to a pennywhat the week wanted of it, and thedif­fer­ence be­tween the two sums wasex­actly one cake of col­our, or a littleover; it had been so for a month, andshe had not spent it, be­cause to spend iton a col­our would be to begin a pic­ture,and she had begun enough of those.

Three doors along there was a hab–er­dasher’s, with a rib­bon in the win–dow of a blue that Lucy had been want–ing since the sum­mer for a straw hatthat did not de­serve it. Clem­ency wentin and bought a yard and a half ofit, and put the par­cel in her retic­ule,where it took up the room of the cakeof col­our pre­cisely; and came out, anddid not look again at Acker­mann’s, andwalked on to­ward Char­ing Cross, andfound, with some sur­prise, that she

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 51 · 49–71

was not sorry. She would say noth­ingabout it. She would leave it on Lucy’spil­low and let her think it had comefrom Kit, who would take the credit, ashe took the credit for most things, andin this case would de­serve it rather lessthan usual.

It was a long way. She had neverwalked it. Pic­ca­dilly she knew as faras the cir­cu­lat­ing lib­rary; bey­ond it thestreet went up, and the houses wentup with it, and the shops stopped, andthe pave­ment grew wider and emp­tierand cleaner, as though the dirt hadbeen told it was not wanted and hadgone away east. She turned up by thecorner that she had chosen from a mapin Dun­ning’s shop, and came, by twoturn­ings that she had made in her heada hun­dred times and never on her feet,into Mount Street.

It was not el­eg­ant.

She had known that it would not be;she had writ­ten that it was not; shehad taken some pains, in the secondnum­ber, to make Mrs. Mor­timer sayso. But she had not known how it wasnot. It was not el­eg­ant as Bread Streetwas not el­eg­ant: it had a pub­lic-housein it, and a work­house, and a smellof some­thing being boiled, and a cart;and the houses were brown and nar–row and had the air of houses that werelet, and would be let again, to peoplewho had taken them be­cause they werewithin a street of the Square and would

not be within a street of it long. Shewalked down it slowly, with no par–cel, and nobody asked her any­thing atall; and she thought, as she went, thatshe had been very nearly right abouteverything in it ex­cept its size, whichwas smal­ler, and its noise, which wasgreater, and its rail­ings, which werenot at the kerb; and that she wouldnot have changed a sen­tence of the sixnum­bers for hav­ing seen it, and thatshe would not now, for any money,write the sev­enth with­out hav­ing doneso.

Then she came out into the Square,and lost her nerve.

It was not the houses. She had ex–pec­ted the houses. It was the quiet.Noth­ing in the Square was mak­inga noise: not the garden, which waslocked; not the car­riages, which stoodwith their wheels muffled in strawwhere some­body was ill; not the ser–vants, who went along the areas underthe pave­ment as though the pave­mentwere a roof; not the pave­ment it­self,which was wide enough for four peopleand had nobody on it. She stood at thecorner with her hand on the rail­ings ofa house, which were, as Kit had said,along the area, to keep her from fall–ing into the kit­chen; and she un­der–stood for the first time what Mr. Wrayhad meant, and that he had been kinderthan he knew. One could not de­scribethis from the wrong side of the rail–

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 52 · 49–71

ings. One could not de­scribe it fromthe right side either. It did not wantde­scrib­ing. It wanted leav­ing alone,which was what it had, and what ithad been built for, and what nobody inBread Street or Salis­bury Square hadever been able to af­ford.

She had meant to walk once roundand go home. She had got as far as thenorth side when a win­dow went up, asa win­dow had gone up over her head inthe Row the week be­fore, ex­cept thatthis one went up under her feet, and avoice said: “You’ll be the young per­sonabout the place.”

Clem­ency looked down into the areaof a house in Gros­venor Square, whichwas his, though she did not know it andthere was noth­ing on the house to sayso; and a woman in a cap looked up ather out of it, with her sleeves rolled,and the whole of her face ar­ranged intothe ques­tion of whether this one woulddo.

“I beg your par­don?”

“Kit­chen-maid. You’ll have comefrom the of­fice. Come down, then;you’ll not get the place from the pave–ment.”

She went down. There were el­evensteps, and the rail­ings were at hershoulder all the way, and the kit­chendoor stood open at the bot­tom of themwith the warmth com­ing out of it like abreath; and she did not, at any one ofthe el­even steps, say that she was not

come about the place, be­cause at thefirst of them it had seemed rude to in–ter­rupt, and at the fifth it had seemedtoo late, and by the el­ev­enth she haddis­covered that she did not want to.She was nobody. She had been nobodyin Bread Street and nobody in Salis–bury Square and nobody, with somecare, in Pater­noster Row; but she hadnever be­fore been nobody in par­tic­u­lar,with a char­ac­ter to an­swer for and aplace to be tried for, and a woman in acap who wished to know whether shecould scour.

She said that she could scour.

“And the fires?”

“And the fires.”

“You’re very fine-spoken, for the of–fice.” The cook, if it was the cook,looked at her gown. “Where were youlast?”

“With a fam­ily in the City,” saidClem­ency, who had been with one forsix-and-twenty years, “that has sincegone down in the world.”

“They mostly have, in the City.”This was said with­out malice, as onestates the cli­mate. “You’ll not get aCity place here. It is a quiet house.The fam­ily’s in the north and the mas–ter dines alone, when he dines, whichis not every day, and never at six,whatever you may have been used to.It’s four­teen guineas, and your tea andsugar, and you’ll find it enough, forthere’s noth­ing to spend it on. The

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 53 · 49–71

last girl went be­cause it was too quiet.Could you bear it quiet?”

“I have borne a great deal of noise,”said Clem­ency, “and I should like to trythe other.”

The woman in the cap laughed,which she had not ex­pec­ted to do, andwhich Clem­ency had not ex­pec­ted tomake her do.

“Can you read?”

“A little.”

“Write?”

“Enough to sign for my wages.”

“Fol­low­ers?”

“None,” said Clem­ency.

“You’ll all say that.”

“I have said it for six-and-twentyyears, and it has been true the wholetime, which is more than most can sayof any­thing.”

The cook laughed again, and saidshe was a cool one, and that it wasno bad thing in a kit­chen-maid, for thelast had cried; and for a quarter of anhour, in the warm, at the foot of the el–even steps, with her back to the coal-cel­lar and the Square going by over–head, she was asked everything thata lady could not have been asked andanswered everything that a lady couldnot have known, and was found sat–is­fact­ory in all of it, and was told tocome again on Fri­day when Mr. Fen–wick would be at home, be­cause noth–ing in that house was settled with­outMr. Fen­wick, and it was as well she

should know it from the start.

She did not say that she would comeon Fri­day. She did not say that shewould not. She stood at the foot of thesteps and looked, be­cause she had leaveto look, at the only part of Gros­venorSquare that she was ever likely to seefrom the in­side; and what she saw wasa strip of sky with rail­ings across it,and the un­der­side of the pave­ment, anda round iron plate let into it wherethe coals went down, and, going pastabove her head at the level of her eyes,boots. Boots, and the wheels of a bar–row, and the hem of a gown, and moreboots. One did not see faces from thearea. One saw the whole of the fash–ion­able world by its feet, and learned,in a quarter of an hour, more of whereit was going than it knew it­self.

She went up the el­even steps withher hand on the rail­ings, and along thenorth side, and out of the Square bythe way she had come, and did not run,and did not laugh aloud until she was inMount Street, where nobody minded.

Mr. Kin­ross was at the Temple. Hehad been there since ten, with the doorshut, sort­ing his mar­gins into the frontof the house and the back; and at thehour at which a young per­son wasbeing tried for the place in his kit­chen,and found sat­is­fact­ory, he was writ­inga house­keeper’s son on a slip of papertwo miles off, and strik­ing out the linebelow it.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 54 · 49–71

Noth­ing came on the Monday, be–cause Mr. Pel­ham, who had some­thingbet­ter in hand, would not be hur­ried;and the some­thing bet­ter came homewith Kit on the Thursday, at six, in theform of news.

“They have found the Warden,”said Kit, be­fore he had his coat off.

Clem­ency, who was lay­ing the clothbe­cause Lucy was doing her hair, laida fork very ex­actly where it went.

“Found him where?”

“In Crown Office Row.” Kit satdown to the fire with the air of aman who has car­ried a thing two hun–dred yards and pro­poses to be paidfor it. “It’s a Mr. Dal­gleish, a con­vey–an­cer, who has cham­bers over Grice.Pel­ham had it from Grice on Tues–day, and the whole Inn has it now;you can’t cross the garden with­outbeing told. He takes the Albe­marle andreads it at Dick’s to save the two shil–lings, and his clerk has seen him carryit home, which he never did be­forethis year, and he dined in hall twicelast term with the Rad­cliffe that is abencher, who is no re­la­tion to the Albe–marle Street one, which Pel­ham saysis neither here nor there, and he hasbeen pink in the face since the first ofthe month. It’s as plain as a pikestaff.Pel­ham says there was never a doubtof it.”

“There was never a doubt of it on

Tues­day,” said Clem­ency. “There wasno Mr. Dal­gleish on Sat­urday.”

“There was al­ways a Mr. Dal­gleish.There was no oc­ca­sion to think ofhim.”

“Who is Mr. Grice?”

“Grice? Grice is the man he hascham­bers over.”

“And how does Mr. Grice know?”

“Lord, Clem, how does any­bodyknow any­thing? His laundress toldhim. She does Dal­gleish’s stairs. Shehad it from the clerk.” Kit stretched hisfeet to the fire. “If you want a thingproved, you want a laundress. Theyknow who is at home. And I’ll tell youwhat else the garden knows, since youbegan it. I asked Pel­ham on Monday,for you, who wrote the thing, and Pel–ham asked Grice, and Grice told thegarden; and the garden has it now thatthere is a lady in Fleet Street whoreads the Warden, which the Inn findsa bet­ter joke than Dal­gleish. You’refam­ous, Clem. You haven’t a name, butyou’re fam­ous.”

“I asked you who wrote it. I did notsay I read it.”

“You asked who wrote it over thebreak­fast things. Nobody asks thatabout a thing they don’t read.” He waspleased with this; it was the kind ofin­fer­ence he ad­mired in Pel­ham. “It’sgone round. You’ll not get it back.”

She knew that she would not. Shehad asked one ques­tion, in the voice

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 55 · 49–71

in which she asked about the weather,and it had gone two hun­dred yards intothe Temple and come out the other sideas a lady in Fleet Street; and she satwith the know­ledge, which was new toher, of hav­ing star­ted a thing that shecould not stop, and found that she didnot like it, and that it was, as near asmade no dif­fer­ence, what she had beendoing to a man in Albe­marle Streetsince the first of Sep­tem­ber.

Clem­ency fin­ished the cloth. Sheknew that it was not Mr. Dal­gleish,as she knew the price of coals; it wasone of the things in her head thatshe did not have to look for. Theman who wrote the Warden did notread the Albe­marle at Dick’s to savetwo shil­lings. He owned it. He car­riedthe Warden in it at twenty pounds amonth, which was two hun­dred andforty pounds a year, which was morethan Kit and Mr. Pel­ham to­gether,and more than the house in Salis­burySquare had cost her in rent since BreadStreet; and he had read her fourthnum­ber, and taken a sen­tence out of itand sent it back to her in the el­ev­enth,and a man who did that did not dinein hall with a bencher to be no­ticed.He had no wish to be no­ticed. He hadbeen not no­ticed for el­even months,with the whole of Lon­don look­ing, andhad paid twenty pounds a month forthe priv­ilege; and the Temple had nowgiven his book to a con­vey­an­cer who

was pink in the face. She could not sayso. She could not say that she knewthe price of the Warden’s si­lence, orhow, or why she had been count­ing it;and she said in­stead, “Is he a mar­riedman, Mr. Dal­gleish?” which was whather mother would have asked, and wasgiven to un­der­stand that he was not,and that he had four sis­ters in Perth,and that the thing was a settled fact.

Mrs. Lyd­iard came in with the fish,and Lucy with her hair, and they satdown; and Kit, who had the floor anddid not mean to give it up, went onfrom the Warden to the Mor­timerswith the ease of a man who has twoscan­dals and one audi­ence.

“And that’s not the whole of it. Pel–ham has the other one too. Pel­ham hasmade a study of it.” He helped him­self.“He has seven reas­ons why the Authorof the Mor­timers is a City man, andhe gave them me on the stairs, and I’llgive them you.”

“Must you?” said Clem­ency.

“You asked me on Sat­urday whowrote the Warden. You can hear whowrote the other. Firstly.” He held upa fork. “He knows what everythingcosts. A gen­tle­man doesn’t know whatany­thing costs; he has a man to knowit for him. Secondly: he says the Man–chester trade, and never the cot­tontrade, which is what the trade calls it–self and nobody else does. Thirdly: hehas never dined in Gros­venor Square,

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 56 · 49–71

which Pel­ham says proves noth­ing,since neither has Pel­ham, not since theyear el­even. Fourthly⁠—” He stopped.“I’ve lost the fourth. It was a good one.Some­thing about the Psalms.”

“He quotes the Psalms out of theBible,” said Clem­ency, “as they areread at pray­ers in a count­ing-house,and not out of the Prayer-Book, as theyare read in church.”

Kit stared at her. “That’s it. Howdid you come at it?”

“You said it was about the Psalms.There is only one thing it could beabout.” She took some fish. “Go on.”

“Fifthly,” said Kit, who had notquite re­covered, “he dines at six him–self, or it would never have come intohis head. That one’s mine. Sixthly:he gives the women all the sen­tencesabout money, which Pel­ham says nogen­tle­man would do, be­cause a gen­tle–man’s women don’t talk about money.Sev­enthly: he is paid by the sheet, andhe writes to the end of the sheet ex–actly, every num­ber, like a man meas–ur­ing calico.”

“He is not paid by the sheet. Nobodyin the Row is paid by the sheet. Mr.Bal­dock pays by the sheet and a half,be­cause that is what a num­ber is.”

“How the devil do you know whatBal­dock pays?”

“You told us,” said Clem­ency. “InAugust. You said every­body in theRow knew it.”

Kit had said it, or some­thing nearenough to it that he could not be surehe had not; and he had the grace tolook put out, and the sense to re­coverby tak­ing more fish. Lucy said that shedid not care who wrote the Mor­timers,so long as they went on, be­cause MissHarker had Num­ber Six and wouldnot give it up until Sunday. Mrs. Lyd–iard said noth­ing. She had the cuff ofKit’s other shirt, and was mend­ing itwith the air of a woman who does notlisten to the maga­zines; and Clem­ency,who had ar­gued four of Mr. Pel­ham’sseven reas­ons with­out once stop­ping tocon­sider which side of them she wason, found that she had be­come, in thecourse of a plate of fish, the ac­know–ledged au­thor­ity at that table on theAuthor of The Mor­timers of MountStreet, and that she was be­lieved ineverything she said be­cause nobodypresent could ima­gine that she had anymeans of know­ing. It was a very com–fort­able po­s­i­tion. It was the most com–fort­able po­s­i­tion she had oc­cu­pied in amonth. She cor­rec­ted Kit twice morebe­fore the cheese, on the num­ber of theMor­timers’ ser­vants and the quarter inwhich they had taken the house, andwas right both times, and was thanked.

“He writes,” said Kit, sum­ming upfor Mr. Pel­ham, “like a man who hashad a bill to pay.”

“He writes like a man who has paidit,” said Clem­ency, and was aware, as

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 57 · 49–71

she said it, that she had pro­nouncedupon the Author’s sex for the first timein her life, aloud, at her own table; andthat it had cost her noth­ing, and thatshe had been glad to do it.

“It is a woman,” said Mrs. Lyd­iard.

She said it to the cuff. The tablelooked at her.

“Mama!”

“I have said it be­fore. Nobodylistens.” Mrs. Lyd­iard drew her threadthrough. “There is no man alive knowswhat it costs to turn a gown. It is inthe fourth num­ber. He knows to a shil–ling. It is a woman, and she has had todo it.”

Kit laughed. “A woman couldn’tkeep a thing up six months, Ma’am.Not to the tenth of the month, notfor money. They keep noth­ing up sixmonths but a griev­ance.”

Lucy laughed, be­cause Kit had.Clem­ency laughed too. It was the onlylaugh of hers at that table in a monththat cost her any­thing, and she paid it,and went on with the cheese; and hermother, who had not laughed, bit offher thread and said that she would sayno more about it, and did not look ather elder daugh­ter at all, which waseither noth­ing or was a great deal, andClem­ency had no means of know­ingwhich, and did not ask.

“Well, who­ever he is,” said Kit,“he’s going up in the world. He’s toleave Bal­dock. The Row has it from

Bald­win’s people that the Mor­timersare be­spoke for the new maga­zine,the first num­ber, in Janu­ary, at tenguineas; and that the Author has beenap­plied to, and has dined with them.”

“Dined with them,” said Clem­ency.

“At the Chapter, on Tues­day. Atall man, the Row’s man says, aboutforty, with a Lan­ca­shire voice, whotalked of noth­ing all din­ner but theprice of calico. Which bears out thesecond reason, you’ll ob­serve.” Kit waspleased with this. “And the sev­enth.”

“On Tues­day.”

“On Tues­day.”

Clem­ency had been, on Tues­day, atthe foot of el­even steps in Gros­venorSquare, being asked whether she couldscour. She sat and con­sidered the tallman with the Lan­ca­shire voice, whohad dined at the Chapter in her nameand talked of calico. She found that shedid not re­sent him. She found, whichsur­prised her more, that she rather ad–mired him, as one ad­mires a thing welldone; for he was, in every point, theAuthor that Mr. Pel­ham had built outof seven reas­ons and that her brotherhad just fin­ished prov­ing to her overthe fish, and he had had the wit togo and be him be­fore any­body elsethought of it. The town had wanteda Man­chester man of forty, and hadgot one. It would al­ways get one. Shehad un­der­stood that even­ing some–thing that Mr. Bal­dock, with thirty

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 58 · 49–71

years in the trade, could have told herin a sen­tence: that the Author of any–thing is not the per­son who wrote it butthe per­son the town has agreed upon,and that the town will dine him at theChapter whether he ex­ists or not.

Kit, over the cheese, made a coupletupon it. He made couplets when he haddrunk his share, and this one came outwhole, as his couplets did, and was bet–ter than most:

He knows what every foot­man costs,

And what the din­ners are;

He knows the whole of Mount Street,

But the way to Gros­venor Square.

He was so pleased with it that hesaid it twice; and he took it into theTemple on Fri­day, and said it to Griceon the stairs, and by Sat­urday noonit was going round the Inn as Mr.Wray’s.

Lucy cleared. She was in and outwith the plates, and had not been at–tend­ing, or had seemed not to; and shestopped by Clem­ency’s chair with thecheese-dish in her hands and said, inthe voice in which she said most things,which was the voice of a girl who hasbeen told she is pretty and has foundit a suf­fi­cient oc­cu­pa­tion: “I could havetold him where the rail­ings go. I felldown an area in Fet­ter Lane when Iwas nine, and Papa said it was the rail–ings’ fault for being where they were,and the man said that was where rail–

ings went, and they had words. I havenever for­got it. I have a mark.”

“You never said so,” said Clem­ency.

“Nobody asked me,” said Lucy, andwent out with the cheese.

She wrote the sev­enth num­ber on theFri­day, in the back room, by day­light,in one sit­ting.

It was the kit­chen-maid’s num­ber.It had to be; there was no other way,now, that she could write the house.Mr. Mor­timer had lost his foot­man inthe fifth and his peace in the sixth, andin the sev­enth the thing that happenedwas that noth­ing happened, and thata girl of fif­teen, newly come from aregis­ter-of­fice with her char­ac­ter inher pocket, stood at the foot of the areasteps in Mount Street and looked up;and Clem­ency, who had never in sixnum­bers been able to see the housefrom the in­side, found that she couldsee the whole of it from below, downto the plate where the coals went in.She put in the plate. She put in theboots. She put in a cook who statedthe cli­mate of the City with­out malice,and a quarter of an hour in the warm,and four­teen guineas and the tea andsugar; and when she came to the car–riage, which in the fourth num­ber haddrawn up at the rail­ings at the kerb,she drew it up where car­riages drewup in that Square, at a step, with therail­ings be­hind it along the area and

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 59 · 49–71

the kit­chen-maid under them, and wenton with­out re­mark­ing it, as a womanmends a cuff.

Then she wrote the sen­tence.

She had not planned it. It ar­rived,as the good ones did, in the middle ofa para­graph about some­thing else, andshe stopped and let it come:

There was one place in the house inMount Street from which the house couldbe seen, and it was the low­est, and itwas worth four­teen guineas a year: forthe fam­ily had been set down at theirown door so many times that not one ofthem could have said within a yard wherethe rail­ings stood; but the kit­chen-maidspent her days below them, with noth­ingelse to look at, and knew the whole of thefash­ion­able world by its boots.

She read it over. It was true. It wasthe first thing in seven num­bers thatshe had known to be true be­cause shehad stood in the place, and not be­causeshe had taken trouble; and she sat fora mo­ment with the pen in her hand,and did a sum that she had not meantto do, and found that four­teen guineaswas two num­bers of the Mor­timers ex–actly, with noth­ing over, and that shehad there­fore been paid, that sum­mer,for every pair of months, a kit­chen-maid’s year. She did not know what tomake of this. She wrote it down on theback of the sheet, as she wrote downmost things she did not know what tomake of, and went on with the num­ber,

and fin­ished it at four, when the lightwent, with the sev­enth num­ber doneand two days in hand, which had neverhappened be­fore either.

She took it to the Row on the Sat–urday, be­cause the tenth was a Sundayand Mr. Bal­dock, who was a Whig,kept the Sab­bath as he kept everythingelse, on prin­ciple and under protest.

He had two let­ters for her. He hadthem on the desk in front of him,squared with its edge, and he had thelook of a man who has been wait–ing since break­fast to give some­bodysome­thing and has not yet de­cided inwhat order.

“This one first,” he said, “be­cause itis the one I un­der­stand.”

It was a let­ter from Lord Ash­combe.It was ad­dressed to Mr. Bal­dock, andit was three sides, in a large hand thatwent up­hill, and it said, in the char­ac–ter of a man who had lived in Gros–venor Square for forty years and knewwhat he was talk­ing about, that theAuthor of the Mor­timers was the firstwriter since Richard­son who had un–der­stood the Square; that the rail­ingsin the fourth num­ber were set ex­actlywhere rail­ings were set in the Square,which was at the kerb, as any res­id–ent could testify; that Mr. Wray of theAlbe­marle, who had said oth­er­wise,was a puppy and had never been askedany­where; and that his lord­ship had

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 60 · 49–71

taken the liberty of send­ing to the Rowfor the six num­bers, and had had themread to him, and had found the foot­manthe finest thing since Richard­son, andwished Mr. Bal­dock to tell the Authorso, and to tell him also that his lord–ship was his ser­vant and his ad­mirer,and would be glad to be al­lowed to behis host.

“He is wrong about the rail­ings,”said Clem­ency.

“He is a lord,” said Mr. Bal­dock.“He is al­lowed to be wrong about therail­ings. He is not al­lowed to be wrongabout them in my maga­zine, and I haveno in­ten­tion of print­ing him.” He tookoff his spec­tacles. “The sev­enth is inyour hand, I think. Have you men­dedthem?”

“I have men­ded them.”

“Then they are men­ded, and hislord­ship may find it out for him­self, ina month, from the pave­ment.” He heldout his hand for the num­ber, and shegave it him, and he weighed it with­outopen­ing it, as he al­ways did, as thoughit were sold by the pound. “Fif­teenpages. You are early. You are neverearly.”

“I had two days in hand.”

“Nobody has two days in hand.” Heput it in the drawer. “Now the other.”

The other was not ad­dressed to Mr.Bal­dock. It was ad­dressed, in a clerk’sgood round hand, To the Author of“The Mor­timers of Mount Street”, to

the care of Mr. Bal­dock, Pater­nosterRow; and it was sealed, and Mr. Bal–dock had not broken the seal, andsaid so, and added that he had held itup to the win­dow on Thursday nightand read it through the paper, whichwas not the same thing, and which hewould thank her not to men­tion in theRow.

“It is from the new people,” he said.“The Lon­don, they are to call it, as ifthere had never been one. Bald­win’sare find­ing the money and a gen­tle–man from the news­pa­pers is to find therest, and they are look­ing, I hear, for aman who knows the trade, which in theRow means a man who knows whatevery­body else is paid. They want youfor the first num­ber, in Janu­ary, at tenguineas, and they want to know yourname; and they are not the only oneswho want to know it, for the Row hasbeen in here twice since Tues­day to askme whether it is true you have dinedwith them, and I have said that I couldnot un­der­take to say, which has beentaken, I find, as mean­ing yes.”

“I was not at the Chapter on Tues–day.”

“I did not sup­pose you were. I sup–posed you were some­where, and that itwas no busi­ness of mine.” He looked ather over the desk. “I will not keep youfrom ten guineas, Miss Lyd­iard. I couldnot, if I would, and after my lease I amnot sure that I would. But I will tell you

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 61 · 49–71

what I told the Row, which is that I donot know the Author’s name; and I willtell you what I did not tell the Row,which is that if I did, I do not thinkit would fetch ten guineas in Janu­ary,nor seven, nor five. They want a Man–chester man of forty. They have dinedone.”

She took the let­ter. She did not openit there. She had never had a let­ter ad–dressed to the Author be­fore; nobodyhad, be­cause the Author had not hada dir­ec­tion until Thursday, when theRow gave him one by ac­clam­a­tion; andshe car­ried it home un­opened, with hislord­ship’s three sides fol­ded in­side it,down Lud­gate Hill and into Salis­buryCourt and up the two pair of stairs, andput the two of them into the fus­tianport­fo­lio under the bed, be­tween Mr.Mor­timer with­out a face and Mrs. Mor–timer’s car­riage at the rail­ings at thekerb. It was where she kept the thingsshe could not fin­ish. A din­ner in Gros–venor Square, and ten guineas a num–ber, and a name: they went in with therest, and she tied the tapes.

She had let the rail­ings stand cor–rec­ted. She did not think about it.She had been a day writ­ing the sev–enth num­ber and an af­ter­noon in Gros–venor Square, and she had put the rail–ings where they were be­cause that waswhere they were; and if the one man inLon­don who had taken her side in printwas to find out in a month, from his

own pave­ment, that she had not takenhis, she was sorry for it, and wouldhave done it again. It is the con­di­tionwhich in other people is called prin–ciple, and which Mrs. Lyd­iard, had shebeen told of it, would have called tak–ing trouble.

The Inner Temple gave The LordWarden to Mr. Dal­gleish on the Tues–day, had settled it by the Thursday,and had de­livered it, with the title, bySat­urday noon to every­body in the Innbut the one man it con­cerned.

Mr. Kin­ross was the last to be told,be­cause he spoke to nobody, and helearned of it from Fig­gis. He hadwalked in at the gate as he did everymorn­ing, and Fig­gis the porter, whohad told him noth­ing in el­even yearsbut the weather, told him that they hadfound out who wrote that thing in theAlbe­marle, and it was Mr. Dal­gleish ofCrown Office Row, and would he creditit; and Mr. Kin­ross said that he wouldnot, and walked on, and found that theInn had been fur­nished overnight, asa house is fur­nished for a sale, with asingle sub­ject.

He fol­lowed it, as a man whohas eaten the din­ners fol­lows a pointof law, to its source, which was alaundress; and found that on the evid–ence of a clerk, a bencher named Rad–cliffe who was no re­la­tion to the pub–lisher named Rad­cliffe, which the Inn

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 62 · 49–71

did not hold against the reas­on­ing,and the two shil­lings a month thatDal­gleish saved at Dick’s, the InnerTemple had con­victed a man of au­thor–ship on the evid­ence of his thrift. Therewas no break­ing it. It was not a goodar­gu­ment. It was a Temple ar­gu­ment,and he had heard worse of them win.

Grice him­self, met in the garden,im­proved on it. “And then there isthe Row,” said Grice, who was a witwhen the courts were up and could nothelp it. “Crown Office Row, sir. Calledafter an of­fice which nobody in it couldnow have poin­ted to, and the onlycham­bers in the Inn with the Crownin their dir­ec­tion. The Lord Warden,you ob­serve. A Crown ap­point­ment.The thing proves it­self.” He was de–lighted. “The beauty of it is that Dal–gleish is a con­vey­an­cer. He has con–veyed noth­ing in his life but titles, andnow the Inn has con­veyed one to himwith­out a deed. I call it ad­verse pos–ses­sion. He has sat on the Wardentwelve months with­out ob­jec­tion fromthe true owner, and by Black­stone it ishis.”

Mr. Kin­ross, who had the deed, in adrawer in Albe­marle Street, in a handthat Mr. Rad­cliffe had last seen at thefoot of a part­ner­ship, said that it wasvery good, and that he must tell it tosome­body; and went up to his cham–bers and shut the door, and sat down,and dis­covered that what he felt was

not what he had ex­pec­ted to feel.

He had ex­pec­ted to be af­fron­ted.He had been af­fron­ted, for about thelength of the garden. A man does notspend el­even months and two hun­dredand twenty pounds on a book, andwrite the best sen­tence of his life for itin the spring, and watch it car­ried offin Oc­to­ber by a con­vey­an­cer with foursis­ters in Perth, with­out some sen­sa–tion; and the sen­sa­tion was there, andwas sharp, and las­ted as far as thestair­case. What suc­ceeded it was re–lief. It was so com­plete, and so un–looked for, and so very far from cred–it­able, that he sat and ex­amined it forsome time, as he would have ex­amineda clause he sus­pec­ted of being toogood. The town had read his book atlast, and talked of it, and given it away;and the man it had given it to was aman he had never spoken to, and neverneed; and the Warden was now, as faras the Inner Temple was con­cerned, athing that had been settled, and settledwrong, and could be left alone. Nobodywould look fur­ther. Nobody ever did,once a thing was settled; it was thewhole prin­ciple of the law, and he hadeaten the din­ners. He was free of it. Hewas as free as a man is who has beenrobbed of a thing he could not have car–ried, and he did not like it in him­self,and he found, on the Sat­urday, thatthere was noth­ing in the Temple thathe could do about it but go home.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 63 · 49–71

There was a note on the hall table. Itwas from Lord Ash­combe, and it wentup­hill, and it said that Ash­combe hadbeen kept in town by the build­ers, whowere in at Ash­combe and would be inat Ash­combe until the Greek Kal­ends,which he laid to the ac­count of the Gov–ern­ment; that he was a neigh­bour, andsol­it­ary, and dined on Wed­nes­day; thathe had se­cured, by a stroke of greatgood for­tune, the com­pany of a gen–tle­man from the Temple whom Kin–ross would be glad to meet, since Kin–ross was a Temple man and a reader;and that he would not say more, be–cause it was not his secret, but Kin­rossmight take it that the Warden would beat the table. Fen­wick had put it underthe toast-rack, which was where Mr.Kin­ross put let­ters he did not meanto an­swer; and Mr. Kin­ross took itout, and read it twice, and answeredit.

Lord Ash­combe’s house was fourdoors along the north side, and he hadlived in it for forty years with­out oncehav­ing oc­ca­sion to no­tice the pave–ment, which was handed to him fromhis car­riage in the form of a step andtaken away again when he had donewith it. He was a large, kind, floridman of sev­enty, with a fine lib­rary inthe coun­try that had been read for himby three gen­er­a­tions of chap­lains, andan opin­ion on everything in it; and he

had never in his life been cor­rec­ted, be–cause there had never been any­body athis table whose busi­ness it was.

There were four at it on the Wed–nes­day: his lord­ship, Mr. Til­lot­son,who was the present chap­lain and readto him in the even­ings and had beentold what to think of the Warden andthought it; Mr. Dal­gleish of CrownOffice Row; and Mr. Kin­ross, who wasplaced op­pos­ite Mr. Dal­gleish, and wasin­tro­duced to him be­fore the soup asa neigh­bour and a Temple man and agreat reader of the Albe­marle, and wasasked by his host, with a look, whetherhe had the least no­tion whom he wassit­ting across from.

Mr. Dal­gleish was a small, neat,anxious man of five-and-forty, with astoop from the deeds and a Perth voicethat he had spent twenty years in Lon–don fail­ing to lose; and he had beenpink, as the Inn said, since the firstof the month, and he was pink now.He said, be­fore any­one could an­swerfor him, that there had been a veryfool­ish re­port in the Temple which hewas sorry had reached his lord­ship’sears, and that he was a con­vey­an­cerand noth­ing else, and had never writ–ten a line in his life that was not onparch­ment.

“There!” said Lord Ash­combe.“There, Kin­ross. You see how it is. Hedenies it.”

“He does,” said Mr. Kin­ross.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 64 · 49–71

“He has denied it to me three timessince Monday. My dear sir, they alldeny it. Scott has never owned Waver–ley to a liv­ing soul; they call himthe Great Unknown for it; when theRegent gave his health at CarltonHouse as the Author of it, he drank thetoast and said noth­ing, which wouldhang a man at the Old Bailey. Andyou’ll re­mem­ber the Trier­main busi–ness, when half Edin­burgh had it thatErs­kine wrote the thing, and Scott letthem think so, and wrote a pre­face tohelp them to it. They do it for sport. Itis the first mark of the thing. A manwho will own to a book has gen­er­allywrit­ten a poor one.” His lord­ship wasde­lighted with this, and said it againto Mr. Til­lot­son, who had heard it onMonday. “You’ll not get him to own it,Kin­ross. I have given it up. But youmay take my word for it, and I haveread every num­ber from the first.”

Mr. Kin­ross said: “So have I.”

It was the one true thing he couldsay, and he said it with some care,and found that it passed, as true thingsgen­er­ally do at din­ner, with­out any–body at­tend­ing to it. Mr. Dal­gleishlooked at him across the table with akind of ap­peal, as one hon­est man toan­other, and Mr. Kin­ross, who couldnot help him and had never be­fore inhis life been un­able to help a manby telling him the truth, looked athis soup. He re­membered the Trier–

main busi­ness. He re­membered, whichhis lord­ship did not, that Ers­kine hadbeen asked first, and had agreed, andhad writ­ten the pre­face him­self; andit came to him that he had be­comethe Author of Waver­ley with­out thetrouble of ar­ran­ging it, with a con­vey–an­cer for his Ers­kine, and that the onlydif­fer­ence be­tween Scott’s case and hisown was con­sent.

“Do you know his work?” said LordAsh­combe.

“Every word of it.”

“Hah!” said his lord­ship, and thething was done, and Mr. Dal­gleishsank a shade pinker and gave him–self up. “And you, Kin­ross? You neverwrote any­thing your­self, I think?”

“Noth­ing with my name on it.”

“Quite right. Quite right. A gen­tle–man reads.” His lord­ship turned to thechap­lain. “Til­lot­son, the build­ers. TellMr. Dal­gleish about the build­ers.” AndMr. Til­lot­son told Mr. Dal­gleish aboutthe build­ers, who were in at Ash­combe,and would be in at Ash­combe until thespring, and had been got in by the Gov–ern­ment as surely as if Lord Liver­poolhad sent them down him­self; and hislord­ship, who had heard it be­fore, en–joyed it very much.

They had the siege. Mr. Kin­ross hadknown that they would; a man doesnot go to dine with Lord Ash­combeand es­cape Frois­sart. They had it withthe fish, and through the fish, and his

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 65 · 49–71

lord­ship did the Welsh, and Mr. Til­lot–son, who had read the num­ber aloudon Tues­day and knew it bet­ter than itsau­thor, sup­plied the Lady Gwen­llian;and Mr. Dal­gleish, who had begun byprotest­ing and had been over­ruled andhad now the air of a man who has de–cided that if he is to be hanged for abook he may as well read it, was ap–pealed to upon Shrews­bury.

“For he passed it over,” saidhis lord­ship. “Shrews­bury, Dal­gleish.Passed it clean over, in the tenth, theonly battle in the reign that one hasseen; and I say he was wrong, and Til–lot­son says he was wrong, and I’ll notbe­lieve you had not a reason.”

Mr. Dal­gleish said un­hap­pily that hesup­posed the Author had thought it toowell known.

“Well known! It is not well known.Nobody knows it. Til­lot­son, when wasit?”

“The sum­mer of the year three, mylord.”

“The two-and-twen­ti­eth of July,”said Mr. Dal­gleish, who had been atthe play, “as I have al­ways un­der­stood.And the Prince killed Percy with hisown hand, which the Author mighthave made a great deal of.”

“He might,” said Lord Ash­combe.“He might in­deed. It is all in Frois–sart.”

Mr. Kin­ross, who knew that it wasnot in Frois­sart, since Frois­sart had

laid down his pen three years be­forethe battle; and who knew that the daywas the one-and-twen­ti­eth, since hehad spent a week of the spring withit; and who knew, as every­body whohad been at the play knew and every–body who had read a chron­icle did not,that nobody had ever found out whokilled Percy, who had put up his visorin the press and been struck in the faceby an arrow from nobody in par­tic­u–lar, and that the Prince’s hand was apoet’s: Mr. Kin­ross, who had never intwo-and-thirty years let a false thingstand that he could have set right, andhad not let one stand in Sep­tem­berwhen it cost a young man the rail–ings, sat at Lord Ash­combe’s tablewith the wrong date and the wronghand and the wrong chron­icler goinground it with the fish, and looked atMr. Dal­gleish, who could not be cor–rec­ted with­out being con­fessed, andsaid noth­ing at all.

He nod­ded. It was worse than say–ing it.

“You see,” said his lord­ship, to thetable. “Kin­ross agrees.”

They had the Mor­timers with themut­ton. His lord­ship had dis­coveredthem, it ap­peared, in the last fort­night,by way of Mr. Wray, whom he did notread but whose vic­tims he col­lec­ted, onthe prin­ciple that a thing worth a paperin the Albe­marle must be worth hav–ing; and he had sent to the Row for

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 66 · 49–71

the six num­bers, and had had Til­lot–son read them, and had be­come theircham­pion with the whole of the en–ergy that he had formerly given to theWarden, and gave to it still. He hadwrit­ten to Bal­dock. He had the copy ofthe let­ter in his pocket, and Til­lot­sonread it, up­hill, rail­ings and Richard­sonand all; and Mr. Kin­ross heard his ownrail­ings, which he had given to Lu­ciusWray over the port in August be­causethey were true, de­clared by a peer offorty years’ stand­ing in the Square tobe ex­actly wrong, and could not say so,be­cause to say so was to say how heknew.

“The man has eyes,” said his lord–ship. “That is the whole of it. Wrayhas never been asked any­where, andthe Author has been asked every–where, and knows where things are.And he is to leave Bal­dock, I hear, forthe new thing in the Row, in Janu­ary,at ten guineas; and I have writ­ten toBal­dock to say that if he lets him go Ishall not take the Lud­gate in, which Inever have, and that he had bet­ter lookto it. And I have asked the Author todine.”

“Has he answered?” said Mr. Kin–ross.

“He has not. He is a mod­est man.They are all mod­est men.” His lord­shiplooked at Mr. Dal­gleish with great af–fec­tion. “Bal­dock can­not un­der­take tosay who he is; it is a close thing, the

Row, closer than the Temple. I have itfrom Til­lot­son, who has it from some–where, that he is a Man­chester manand has dined at the Chapter. Well,he shall dine here. And Dal­gleish shalldine here, and it shall be be­fore Christ–mas, and I will have the two of them atone table, the only two writers in Lon–don worth the trouble, and Wray mayput that in his maga­zine. What do yousay, Kin­ross? You’ll make a fourth?”

Mr. Kin­ross said that he would makea fourth.

He was sit­ting across from thewrong au­thor of the one book, and hehad just been asked to meet the wrongau­thor of the other, whom he had him–self, on a slip of paper in a drawer,made a house­keeper’s son; and it cameto him, as the mut­ton went round, thatthe whole of lit­er­ary Lon­don was atthat mo­ment com­posed of people whohad not writ­ten any­thing being dinedby a man who had not read it, and thatit was, on the whole, the best din­ner hehad eaten in a year.

“It is a cold book, you know,” saidLord Ash­combe, into a pause. “TheWarden. I have thought so from thefirst. It is a cold book writ­ten by awarm man who has nobody to be warmto; one can al­ways tell. Now Dal­gleishhas four sis­ters.” He looked at Mr. Dal–gleish, and seemed for a mo­ment to beon the edge of a dis­cov­ery. “It can­notbe Dal­gleish,” he said; and passed the

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 67 · 49–71

port, and in passing it for­got what hehad said, and never found it again.

Mr. Kin­ross, who had nobody to bewarm to and had been given to un­der–stand as much by his aunt in a let­terunder the toast-rack, drank his wine.

“And I will tell you an­other thing,”said his lord­ship, who had been sav­ingit. “It is ad­mired where you would notlook for it. I have it⁠—never mind how Ihave it; Til­lot­son has it from his sis­ter,who has it from Rus­sell Square, whichis as good as the City⁠—that there isa lady in the City who has read thewhole of it, every num­ber, and thinksthe siege the finest thing since Frois–sart. Her own words, Til­lot­son?”

“Those were the words re­por­ted tome, my lord.”

“Since Frois­sart! A lady in the City!There, Dal­gleish; there is fame. Youare read in Rus­sell Square.” He wasmoved by it. “The finest thing sinceFrois­sart.”

Mr. Kin­ross had been in the room inSep­tem­ber when Lord Ash­combe hadsaid those words of the siege to Mr.Rad­cliffe, with­out hav­ing read it; andhe heard them now come back roundthe whole of Lon­don, by way of Mr.Til­lot­son’s sis­ter, and be laid be­forehim as the judg­ment of a lady in theCity. For the length of a swal­low hethought of the one reader he was sureof, who had taken a sen­tence out ofthe tenth num­ber as he had taken one

out of the fourth; and then he put thethought by, since that reader was ahouse­keeper’s son in a cof­fee-house,and house­keep­ers’ sons are not ladiesin the City. But it was a reader. It hadread every num­ber, and it had praisedthe siege, the one thing in the bookthat he had put in be­cause Rad­cliffewanted in­cid­ent, in Lord Ash­combe’sown words; and the praise had beencar­ried, with the rest, to Dal­gleish’sdoor.

“Did she,” said Mr. Kin­ross.

It was two words, and he heardthem as he said them, and it was thenearest he had come in two-and-thirtyyears to a joke against him­self; andnobody at the table took it for one,which was as he wished.

“Albe­marle Street,” said his lord–ship, sum­ming up, with the air of aman of the world, “has a way of notput­ting names on things, this year. Onehears it of a poem. One hears it of theWarden. I dare say they know theirbusi­ness. But a man can­not be mod­estfor ever, Dal­gleish, and I give you tillChrist­mas.”

Mr. Dal­gleish said, for the fourthtime, that he was a con­vey­an­cer.

“There,” said Lord Ash­combe. “Youhear him.”

He walked home. It was four doors,and he could have been car­ried; but hewalked, in the dark, along the north

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 68 · 49–71

side of the Square, and when he cameto his own house he did a thing that hehad not done in el­even years of liv­ingin it, and that Lord Ash­combe had notdone in forty: he stopped on the pave–ment, and looked at it.

The door was where he had left it.The step was where the step had al–ways been, and the lamp over the fan–light, which Fen­wick kept lit until hewas in; and to the left of the step, andto the right of it, at the pave­ment’sedge, with the area fall­ing away be–hind them into the dark where the kit–chen was, were the rail­ings. They werealong the area. They had been alongthe area since the house was built.They were not at the kerb, and neverhad been, and no car­riage had everdrawn up at them, be­cause a car­riagedrew up at the step; and he had knownthis. He had known it well enough towrite it in a mar­gin in August with thebrev­ity of a man who had never had toex­plain him­self, and to tell it to Lu­ciusWray over the port, and to let it standin print in Sep­tem­ber be­cause it wastrue. He had not known it be­cause hehad looked. He had known it as LordAsh­combe knew Frois­sart.

He stood for some time. A youngper­son had stood at those rail­ings onthe Tues­day of the week be­fore for aquarter of an hour, with her hand onthem, and gone down; but he did notknow that, and nobody had told him,

and the rail­ings had noth­ing to say.

In the morn­ing he asked Fen­wick.

He asked it at break­fast, across theChron­icle, in the tone in which heasked whether it was likely to rain, andFen­wick, who had been el­even yearsin the house and had never once beenasked any­thing by its mas­ter that hehad not already provided, re­ceived itwith the per­fect still­ness of a man whohas waited a long while for some­thingand does not pro­pose to spoil it by look–ing sur­prised.

“In the area, sir,” said Fen­wick.“Along the whole front, at the pave–ment’s edge. They have been theresince the house was built, under theold lord. I un­der­stood it was gen­er­allyknown.”

“It is,” said Mr. Kin­ross. “Thankyou, Fen­wick.”

“There was a young per­son at themon the Tues­day of last week, sir, asit hap­pens, for some little time, aboutthe kit­chen-maid’s place. Mrs. Prattthought her very suit­able. She did notcome back.”

Mr. Kin­ross said that he was sorryto hear it, and meant the kit­chen-maid,and turned the Chron­icle; and Fen­wickre­moved the toast-rack, under whichthere was noth­ing, and went out.

They tried Car­lile at Guild­hall for fourdays, from the Tues­day, be­fore theChief Justice and two spe­cial jur­ies,

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 69 · 49–71

for Paine first and for Palmer afterhim; and on the Fri­day the second juryfound him guilty, as the first had donethe day be­fore, and the news was inFleet Street be­fore the court had risen,be­cause the Row had a man at thedoor.

It came down the street as suchnews did, not called but car­ried, fromone shop to the next, at the pace ofa man who has some­thing to tell andhas not been paid to hurry: Car­lilewas guilty, twice over; the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral had his ver­dicts; and everyprinter be­tween Temple Bar and Lud–gate who had put any­thing into typesince August that he would not havecared to read aloud to a spe­cial jurywent in and shut his door, and read hislease. Mr. Bal­dock heard it at two, andsat for a while, and then went downinto his shop and sold a treat­ise uponthe dry rot to a cler­gy­man, be­cause thetrade must be kept up.

Clem­ency heard it at six, from Kit,who had it from the Inn, where it hadar­rived be­fore din­ner and been foundless in­ter­est­ing than the Warden. Shewas mend­ing the tapes of the fus­tianport­fo­lio, which had worn, and shewent on mend­ing them.

Mr. Kin­ross heard it in the Temple,at his desk, with the door shut; and heheard it, as he had heard the rest of Oc–to­ber, from Fig­gis, who put his head inwith­out knock­ing, which he had never

done, and said that they had found thatfel­low Car­lile guilty, sir, and would hecredit it, and went away.

He had the thir­teenth num­ber be–fore him. It was due in Albe­marleStreet on the tenth of No­vem­ber, andhe had begun it that morn­ing, whichwas early, for him; and he had begunit, he found, dif­fer­ently. He had takenthe Warden out of Lud­low and put himon the road, in the wet, with a let­terhe had not answered; and he had takenhim, for the first time in twelve num–bers, in at the back of a house in­steadof the front, and down a stair, andhad let him stand in a kit­chen and belooked at by the people in it, who knewto a penny what he cost. He did notask him­self why. He knew why, anddid not pro­pose to con­sult the part ofhis mind that knew it. He wrote, thataf­ter­noon, with the news of Guild­hallgoing down Fleet Street under his win–dow and the Michael­mas term a monthoff and the Inn settled in its opin­ion,as a man writes who has been givenaway and means to be worth the tak–ing back: so that who­ever read the thir–teenth num­ber on the first of Decem–ber, in Rus­sell Square or the City ortwo pair of stairs up over a law-sta–tioner’s, should know at the first para–graph that it had not been writ­ten byany­body in Crown Office Row.

He did not know where it would beread. He knew that it would be read,

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 70 · 49–71

which was more than he had knownin August; and he found that it wasenough to write to, and that he had

never be­fore in el­even months had any–thing to write to at all.

(To be con­tin­ued.)

☜CLOSE ×PAGE 71 · 49–71
THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.JANUARY, 1820.No. IV.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 43.)


CHAPTER IV.

The Great Unknown.

“Who writes the Warden, Kit?”

She asked it on the Sat­urday, over the break­fast things, in the voice in which she asked him whether it was likely to rain; and Kit, who was read­ing the Chron­icle against the cof­fee-pot be­cause Mr. Pel­ham did not want it until ten, said that nobody knew, and that Pel­ham said Albe­marle Street kept it for reas­ons, and that if she wanted his opin­ion it was one of the Rad­cliffes, since nobody else would print it.

“I did not want your opin­ion. I wanted Mr. Pel­ham’s.”

“Then you shall have it on Monday, from Hare Court.” He turned the paper. “Here is a thing, though. There is to be a new maga­zine in the Row after Christ­mas. Bald­win’s are at the back of it, Pel­ham says, and the first num­ber is to be out in Janu­ary, and they are buy­ing up every­body. Pel­ham had it at Dick’s. They have writ­ten to half the writ­ing men in Lon­don, and they have writ­ten”⁠—he found the place he wanted in the Chron­icle, and lost in­terest in his own sen­tence⁠—“to the Author of the Mor­timers, through Bal­dock, and the Row says Bal­dock has not sent it on, be­cause he has not the dir­ec­tion. Nobody has the dir­ec­tion. Pass the but­ter, Clem.”

Clem­ency passed the but­ter.

“Have they,” she said.

The Temple in the long va­ca­tion is a place in which a ru­mour has noth­ing to do but grow.

The courts do not sit. The bench­ers are in the coun­try; the ju­ni­ors who can af­ford it are on cir­cuit, and the ju­ni­ors who can­not are in their cham­bers with the door shut, pre­tend­ing to be. The laundresses have the stair­cases to them­selves. A man may walk from the Inner Temple gate to the river at noon and meet nobody but a porter and a cat, and the porter will tell him any­thing he likes, be­cause noth­ing has

happened since July and the porter is in want of con­ver­sa­tion. It was in this hush, in the first week of Oc­to­ber, be­tween the Michael­mas rents and the Michael­mas term, which did not begin until No­vem­ber and had noth­ing to do with Michael­mas but the name, that the Inner Temple made up its mind who wrote The Lord Warden.

Mr. Kin­ross, who had walked there every day for a month, was not con­sul­ted.

He was in his cham­bers, with the door shut, not pre­tend­ing to be any­thing. He had brought with him the six num­bers of the Mor­timers and the el­even num­bers of the Warden, and a pen­cil, and the in­ten­tion of read­ing the two of them through to­gether, in order, as one reads two sides of a cor­res­pond­ence when one has begun to sus­pect that the other side has been read­ing it more care­fully than one­self. He had done this on the Monday, and again on the Tues­day, and by the Tues­day af­ter­noon he had begun to sort his own mar­gins, which was a thing he had never done, be­cause he had never be­fore had mar­gins worth sort­ing.

They sor­ted into two heaps. In the one heap were the cor­rec­tions: the rail­ings, the din­ner-hour, a car­riage that would not have stood where the Author had stood it, a quo­ta­tion from the Psalms in the Bible words, which no cler­gy­man had ever read from a desk, since the church reads them from the Prayer-Book. They were the marks of a man who knew the front of a house. In the other heap were the things he had let stand, and had marked only with a tick, or with true, or with noth­ing; and he ob­served, with the de­tach­ment of a man cata­loguing some­body else’s lib­rary, that every one of them was a thing seen from the back of the house: what a foot­man cost, and what a cook would bear, and how a house­keeper kept her book, and what it was to sit out a din­ner in a gown. The Author had been let into every room in Mount Street but the draw­ing-room, and had de­scribed the draw­ing-room from the stairs.

A house­keeper’s son. He wrote it on a slip, and under it Oxford, with a query, and under that, be­cause he was hon­est in a mar­gin if nowhere else, pos­sibly a woman; and he looked at the three lines for a while, and then struck out the third. A woman could not have kept it up for six months, at seven guineas, to the tenth of every month. Women did not write to the tenth of the month. They wrote when they were un­happy, and stopped when they were mar­ried, and in either con­di­tion they did not know what a foot­man cost; it was a thing they were kept from know­ing, as they were kept from the area steps. He had the testi­mony of his aunt, who had kept house for

him for el­even years and had never in that time named a sum under ten thou­sand pounds. The house­keeper’s son was a bet­ter an­swer. It ac­coun­ted for the stairs. He put the slip in the drawer with the oth­ers, and was pleased with it, as a man is pleased with a wrong an­swer that has cost him some trouble.

She went on the Tues­day, be­cause Tues­day was the day on which Mrs. Lyd­iard went to Bread Street to see about the Hind­leys’ ac­count, which had been seen about every Tues­day for two years and would not be settled in Clem­ency’s life­time; and be­cause a woman who is going to walk two miles west­ward through Lon­don with no par­cel had bet­ter choose a day on which nobody will ask her where she is going.

She had settled, in the night, how it was to be done. One did not walk down Mount Street. One walked through it, on the way to some­where else, with the air of a per­son who had been sent; and the some­where else was Gros­venor Square, be­cause a woman in a grey gown turned once might be any­body’s gov­erness going any­where, so long as she did not stop. The whole art, as Clem­ency un­der­stood it, lay in not stop­ping. She had been not stop­ping out­side Bal­dock’s win­dow on the first of every month for six months, and con­sidered her­self a pro­fi­cient.

She stopped at Acker­mann’s.

She had not meant to. It was on the way, which was her ex­cuse, and it was a win­dow into which half Lon­don looked, which was her other ex­cuse, and she had crossed the Strand on pur­pose to be on its side of the street, which was no ex­cuse at all. There were the new prints, and the draw­ing-books, and the little boxes of col­ours in their rows, and a card with the price of a cake of col­our writ­ten on it in a clerk’s hand; and she stood and read the card twice, as she had read Mr. Wray twice, and found it as clever and as much to the point. She knew to a penny what she had in her retic­ule, and to a penny what the week wanted of it, and the dif­fer­ence be­tween the two sums was ex­actly one cake of col­our, or a little over; it had been so for a month, and she had not spent it, be­cause to spend it on a col­our would be to begin a pic­ture, and she had begun enough of those.

Three doors along there was a hab­er­dasher’s, with a rib­bon in the win­dow of a blue that Lucy had been want­ing since the sum­mer for a straw hat that did not de­serve it. Clem­ency went in and bought a yard and a half of it, and put the par­cel in her retic­ule, where it took up the room of the cake of col­our pre­cisely; and came out, and did not look again at Acker­mann’s, and walked on to­ward Char­ing Cross, and found, with some sur­prise, that she

was not sorry. She would say noth­ing about it. She would leave it on Lucy’s pil­low and let her think it had come from Kit, who would take the credit, as he took the credit for most things, and in this case would de­serve it rather less than usual.

It was a long way. She had never walked it. Pic­ca­dilly she knew as far as the cir­cu­lat­ing lib­rary; bey­ond it the street went up, and the houses went up with it, and the shops stopped, and the pave­ment grew wider and emp­tier and cleaner, as though the dirt had been told it was not wanted and had gone away east. She turned up by the corner that she had chosen from a map in Dun­ning’s shop, and came, by two turn­ings that she had made in her head a hun­dred times and never on her feet, into Mount Street.

It was not el­eg­ant.

She had known that it would not be; she had writ­ten that it was not; she had taken some pains, in the second num­ber, to make Mrs. Mor­timer say so. But she had not known how it was not. It was not el­eg­ant as Bread Street was not el­eg­ant: it had a pub­lic-house in it, and a work­house, and a smell of some­thing being boiled, and a cart; and the houses were brown and nar­row and had the air of houses that were let, and would be let again, to people who had taken them be­cause they were within a street of the Square and would not be within a street of it long. She walked down it slowly, with no par­cel, and nobody asked her any­thing at all; and she thought, as she went, that she had been very nearly right about everything in it ex­cept its size, which was smal­ler, and its noise, which was greater, and its rail­ings, which were not at the kerb; and that she would not have changed a sen­tence of the six num­bers for hav­ing seen it, and that she would not now, for any money, write the sev­enth with­out hav­ing done so.

Then she came out into the Square, and lost her nerve.

It was not the houses. She had ex­pec­ted the houses. It was the quiet. Noth­ing in the Square was mak­ing a noise: not the garden, which was locked; not the car­riages, which stood with their wheels muffled in straw where some­body was ill; not the ser­vants, who went along the areas under the pave­ment as though the pave­ment were a roof; not the pave­ment it­self, which was wide enough for four people and had nobody on it. She stood at the corner with her hand on the rail­ings of a house, which were, as Kit had said, along the area, to keep her from fall­ing into the kit­chen; and she un­der­stood for the first time what Mr. Wray had meant, and that he had been kinder than he knew. One could not de­scribe this from the wrong side of the rail­

­ings. One could not de­scribe it from the right side either. It did not want de­scrib­ing. It wanted leav­ing alone, which was what it had, and what it had been built for, and what nobody in Bread Street or Salis­bury Square had ever been able to af­ford.

She had meant to walk once round and go home. She had got as far as the north side when a win­dow went up, as a win­dow had gone up over her head in the Row the week be­fore, ex­cept that this one went up under her feet, and a voice said: “You’ll be the young per­son about the place.”

Clem­ency looked down into the area of a house in Gros­venor Square, which was his, though she did not know it and there was noth­ing on the house to say so; and a woman in a cap looked up at her out of it, with her sleeves rolled, and the whole of her face ar­ranged into the ques­tion of whether this one would do.

“I beg your par­don?”

“Kit­chen-maid. You’ll have come from the of­fice. Come down, then; you’ll not get the place from the pave­ment.”

She went down. There were el­even steps, and the rail­ings were at her shoulder all the way, and the kit­chen door stood open at the bot­tom of them with the warmth com­ing out of it like a breath; and she did not, at any one of the el­even steps, say that she was not come about the place, be­cause at the first of them it had seemed rude to in­ter­rupt, and at the fifth it had seemed too late, and by the el­ev­enth she had dis­covered that she did not want to. She was nobody. She had been nobody in Bread Street and nobody in Salis­bury Square and nobody, with some care, in Pater­noster Row; but she had never be­fore been nobody in par­tic­u­lar, with a char­ac­ter to an­swer for and a place to be tried for, and a woman in a cap who wished to know whether she could scour.

She said that she could scour.

“And the fires?”

“And the fires.”

“You’re very fine-spoken, for the of­fice.” The cook, if it was the cook, looked at her gown. “Where were you last?”

“With a fam­ily in the City,” said Clem­ency, who had been with one for six-and-twenty years, “that has since gone down in the world.”

“They mostly have, in the City.” This was said with­out malice, as one states the cli­mate. “You’ll not get a City place here. It is a quiet house. The fam­ily’s in the north and the mas­ter dines alone, when he dines, which is not every day, and never at six, whatever you may have been used to. It’s four­teen guineas, and your tea and sugar, and you’ll find it enough, for there’s noth­ing to spend it on. The

last girl went be­cause it was too quiet. Could you bear it quiet?”

“I have borne a great deal of noise,” said Clem­ency, “and I should like to try the other.”

The woman in the cap laughed, which she had not ex­pec­ted to do, and which Clem­ency had not ex­pec­ted to make her do.

“Can you read?”

“A little.”

“Write?”

“Enough to sign for my wages.”

“Fol­low­ers?”

“None,” said Clem­ency.

“You’ll all say that.”

“I have said it for six-and-twenty years, and it has been true the whole time, which is more than most can say of any­thing.”

The cook laughed again, and said she was a cool one, and that it was no bad thing in a kit­chen-maid, for the last had cried; and for a quarter of an hour, in the warm, at the foot of the el­even steps, with her back to the coal-cel­lar and the Square going by over­head, she was asked everything that a lady could not have been asked and answered everything that a lady could not have known, and was found sat­is­fact­ory in all of it, and was told to come again on Fri­day when Mr. Fen­wick would be at home, be­cause noth­ing in that house was settled with­out Mr. Fen­wick, and it was as well she should know it from the start.

She did not say that she would come on Fri­day. She did not say that she would not. She stood at the foot of the steps and looked, be­cause she had leave to look, at the only part of Gros­venor Square that she was ever likely to see from the in­side; and what she saw was a strip of sky with rail­ings across it, and the un­der­side of the pave­ment, and a round iron plate let into it where the coals went down, and, going past above her head at the level of her eyes, boots. Boots, and the wheels of a bar­row, and the hem of a gown, and more boots. One did not see faces from the area. One saw the whole of the fash­ion­able world by its feet, and learned, in a quarter of an hour, more of where it was going than it knew it­self.

She went up the el­even steps with her hand on the rail­ings, and along the north side, and out of the Square by the way she had come, and did not run, and did not laugh aloud until she was in Mount Street, where nobody minded.

Mr. Kin­ross was at the Temple. He had been there since ten, with the door shut, sort­ing his mar­gins into the front of the house and the back; and at the hour at which a young per­son was being tried for the place in his kit­chen, and found sat­is­fact­ory, he was writ­ing a house­keeper’s son on a slip of paper two miles off, and strik­ing out the line below it.

Noth­ing came on the Monday, be­cause Mr. Pel­ham, who had some­thing bet­ter in hand, would not be hur­ried; and the some­thing bet­ter came home with Kit on the Thursday, at six, in the form of news.

“They have found the Warden,” said Kit, be­fore he had his coat off.

Clem­ency, who was lay­ing the cloth be­cause Lucy was doing her hair, laid a fork very ex­actly where it went.

“Found him where?”

“In Crown Office Row.” Kit sat down to the fire with the air of a man who has car­ried a thing two hun­dred yards and pro­poses to be paid for it. “It’s a Mr. Dal­gleish, a con­vey­an­cer, who has cham­bers over Grice. Pel­ham had it from Grice on Tues­day, and the whole Inn has it now; you can’t cross the garden with­out being told. He takes the Albe­marle and reads it at Dick’s to save the two shil­lings, and his clerk has seen him carry it home, which he never did be­fore this year, and he dined in hall twice last term with the Rad­cliffe that is a bencher, who is no re­la­tion to the Albe­marle Street one, which Pel­ham says is neither here nor there, and he has been pink in the face since the first of the month. It’s as plain as a pikestaff. Pel­ham says there was never a doubt of it.”

“There was never a doubt of it on Tues­day,” said Clem­ency. “There was no Mr. Dal­gleish on Sat­urday.”

“There was al­ways a Mr. Dal­gleish. There was no oc­ca­sion to think of him.”

“Who is Mr. Grice?”

“Grice? Grice is the man he has cham­bers over.”

“And how does Mr. Grice know?”

“Lord, Clem, how does any­body know any­thing? His laundress told him. She does Dal­gleish’s stairs. She had it from the clerk.” Kit stretched his feet to the fire. “If you want a thing proved, you want a laundress. They know who is at home. And I’ll tell you what else the garden knows, since you began it. I asked Pel­ham on Monday, for you, who wrote the thing, and Pel­ham asked Grice, and Grice told the garden; and the garden has it now that there is a lady in Fleet Street who reads the Warden, which the Inn finds a bet­ter joke than Dal­gleish. You’re fam­ous, Clem. You haven’t a name, but you’re fam­ous.”

“I asked you who wrote it. I did not say I read it.”

“You asked who wrote it over the break­fast things. Nobody asks that about a thing they don’t read.” He was pleased with this; it was the kind of in­fer­ence he ad­mired in Pel­ham. “It’s gone round. You’ll not get it back.”

She knew that she would not. She had asked one ques­tion, in the voice

in which she asked about the weather, and it had gone two hun­dred yards into the Temple and come out the other side as a lady in Fleet Street; and she sat with the know­ledge, which was new to her, of hav­ing star­ted a thing that she could not stop, and found that she did not like it, and that it was, as near as made no dif­fer­ence, what she had been doing to a man in Albe­marle Street since the first of Sep­tem­ber.

Clem­ency fin­ished the cloth. She knew that it was not Mr. Dal­gleish, as she knew the price of coals; it was one of the things in her head that she did not have to look for. The man who wrote the Warden did not read the Albe­marle at Dick’s to save two shil­lings. He owned it. He car­ried the Warden in it at twenty pounds a month, which was two hun­dred and forty pounds a year, which was more than Kit and Mr. Pel­ham to­gether, and more than the house in Salis­bury Square had cost her in rent since Bread Street; and he had read her fourth num­ber, and taken a sen­tence out of it and sent it back to her in the el­ev­enth, and a man who did that did not dine in hall with a bencher to be no­ticed. He had no wish to be no­ticed. He had been not no­ticed for el­even months, with the whole of Lon­don look­ing, and had paid twenty pounds a month for the priv­ilege; and the Temple had now given his book to a con­vey­an­cer who was pink in the face. She could not say so. She could not say that she knew the price of the Warden’s si­lence, or how, or why she had been count­ing it; and she said in­stead, “Is he a mar­ried man, Mr. Dal­gleish?” which was what her mother would have asked, and was given to un­der­stand that he was not, and that he had four sis­ters in Perth, and that the thing was a settled fact.

Mrs. Lyd­iard came in with the fish, and Lucy with her hair, and they sat down; and Kit, who had the floor and did not mean to give it up, went on from the Warden to the Mor­timers with the ease of a man who has two scan­dals and one audi­ence.

“And that’s not the whole of it. Pel­ham has the other one too. Pel­ham has made a study of it.” He helped him­self. “He has seven reas­ons why the Author of the Mor­timers is a City man, and he gave them me on the stairs, and I’ll give them you.”

“Must you?” said Clem­ency.

“You asked me on Sat­urday who wrote the Warden. You can hear who wrote the other. Firstly.” He held up a fork. “He knows what everything costs. A gen­tle­man doesn’t know what any­thing costs; he has a man to know it for him. Secondly: he says the Man­chester trade, and never the cot­ton trade, which is what the trade calls it­self and nobody else does. Thirdly: he has never dined in Gros­venor Square,

which Pel­ham says proves noth­ing, since neither has Pel­ham, not since the year el­even. Fourthly⁠—” He stopped. “I’ve lost the fourth. It was a good one. Some­thing about the Psalms.”

“He quotes the Psalms out of the Bible,” said Clem­ency, “as they are read at pray­ers in a count­ing-house, and not out of the Prayer-Book, as they are read in church.”

Kit stared at her. “That’s it. How did you come at it?”

“You said it was about the Psalms. There is only one thing it could be about.” She took some fish. “Go on.”

“Fifthly,” said Kit, who had not quite re­covered, “he dines at six him­self, or it would never have come into his head. That one’s mine. Sixthly: he gives the women all the sen­tences about money, which Pel­ham says no gen­tle­man would do, be­cause a gen­tle­man’s women don’t talk about money. Sev­enthly: he is paid by the sheet, and he writes to the end of the sheet ex­actly, every num­ber, like a man meas­ur­ing calico.”

“He is not paid by the sheet. Nobody in the Row is paid by the sheet. Mr. Bal­dock pays by the sheet and a half, be­cause that is what a num­ber is.”

“How the devil do you know what Bal­dock pays?”

“You told us,” said Clem­ency. “In August. You said every­body in the Row knew it.”

Kit had said it, or some­thing near enough to it that he could not be sure he had not; and he had the grace to look put out, and the sense to re­cover by tak­ing more fish. Lucy said that she did not care who wrote the Mor­timers, so long as they went on, be­cause Miss Harker had Num­ber Six and would not give it up until Sunday. Mrs. Lyd­iard said noth­ing. She had the cuff of Kit’s other shirt, and was mend­ing it with the air of a woman who does not listen to the maga­zines; and Clem­ency, who had ar­gued four of Mr. Pel­ham’s seven reas­ons with­out once stop­ping to con­sider which side of them she was on, found that she had be­come, in the course of a plate of fish, the ac­know­ledged au­thor­ity at that table on the Author of The Mor­timers of Mount Street, and that she was be­lieved in everything she said be­cause nobody present could ima­gine that she had any means of know­ing. It was a very com­fort­able po­s­i­tion. It was the most com­fort­able po­s­i­tion she had oc­cu­pied in a month. She cor­rec­ted Kit twice more be­fore the cheese, on the num­ber of the Mor­timers’ ser­vants and the quarter in which they had taken the house, and was right both times, and was thanked.

“He writes,” said Kit, sum­ming up for Mr. Pel­ham, “like a man who has had a bill to pay.”

“He writes like a man who has paid it,” said Clem­ency, and was aware, as

she said it, that she had pro­nounced upon the Author’s sex for the first time in her life, aloud, at her own table; and that it had cost her noth­ing, and that she had been glad to do it.

“It is a woman,” said Mrs. Lyd­iard.

She said it to the cuff. The table looked at her.

“Mama!”

“I have said it be­fore. Nobody listens.” Mrs. Lyd­iard drew her thread through. “There is no man alive knows what it costs to turn a gown. It is in the fourth num­ber. He knows to a shil­ling. It is a woman, and she has had to do it.”

Kit laughed. “A woman couldn’t keep a thing up six months, Ma’am. Not to the tenth of the month, not for money. They keep noth­ing up six months but a griev­ance.”

Lucy laughed, be­cause Kit had. Clem­ency laughed too. It was the only laugh of hers at that table in a month that cost her any­thing, and she paid it, and went on with the cheese; and her mother, who had not laughed, bit off her thread and said that she would say no more about it, and did not look at her elder daugh­ter at all, which was either noth­ing or was a great deal, and Clem­ency had no means of know­ing which, and did not ask.

“Well, who­ever he is,” said Kit, “he’s going up in the world. He’s to leave Bal­dock. The Row has it from Bald­win’s people that the Mor­timers are be­spoke for the new maga­zine, the first num­ber, in Janu­ary, at ten guineas; and that the Author has been ap­plied to, and has dined with them.”

“Dined with them,” said Clem­ency.

“At the Chapter, on Tues­day. A tall man, the Row’s man says, about forty, with a Lan­ca­shire voice, who talked of noth­ing all din­ner but the price of calico. Which bears out the second reason, you’ll ob­serve.” Kit was pleased with this. “And the sev­enth.”

“On Tues­day.”

“On Tues­day.”

Clem­ency had been, on Tues­day, at the foot of el­even steps in Gros­venor Square, being asked whether she could scour. She sat and con­sidered the tall man with the Lan­ca­shire voice, who had dined at the Chapter in her name and talked of calico. She found that she did not re­sent him. She found, which sur­prised her more, that she rather ad­mired him, as one ad­mires a thing well done; for he was, in every point, the Author that Mr. Pel­ham had built out of seven reas­ons and that her brother had just fin­ished prov­ing to her over the fish, and he had had the wit to go and be him be­fore any­body else thought of it. The town had wanted a Man­chester man of forty, and had got one. It would al­ways get one. She had un­der­stood that even­ing some­thing that Mr. Bal­dock, with thirty

years in the trade, could have told her in a sen­tence: that the Author of any­thing is not the per­son who wrote it but the per­son the town has agreed upon, and that the town will dine him at the Chapter whether he ex­ists or not.

Kit, over the cheese, made a couplet upon it. He made couplets when he had drunk his share, and this one came out whole, as his couplets did, and was bet­ter than most:

He knows what every foot­man costs,

And what the din­ners are;

He knows the whole of Mount Street,

But the way to Gros­venor Square.

He was so pleased with it that he said it twice; and he took it into the Temple on Fri­day, and said it to Grice on the stairs, and by Sat­urday noon it was going round the Inn as Mr. Wray’s.

Lucy cleared. She was in and out with the plates, and had not been at­tend­ing, or had seemed not to; and she stopped by Clem­ency’s chair with the cheese-dish in her hands and said, in the voice in which she said most things, which was the voice of a girl who has been told she is pretty and has found it a suf­fi­cient oc­cu­pa­tion: “I could have told him where the rail­ings go. I fell down an area in Fet­ter Lane when I was nine, and Papa said it was the rail­ings’ fault for being where they were, and the man said that was where rail­ings went, and they had words. I have never for­got it. I have a mark.”

“You never said so,” said Clem­ency.

“Nobody asked me,” said Lucy, and went out with the cheese.

She wrote the sev­enth num­ber on the Fri­day, in the back room, by day­light, in one sit­ting.

It was the kit­chen-maid’s num­ber. It had to be; there was no other way, now, that she could write the house. Mr. Mor­timer had lost his foot­man in the fifth and his peace in the sixth, and in the sev­enth the thing that happened was that noth­ing happened, and that a girl of fif­teen, newly come from a regis­ter-of­fice with her char­ac­ter in her pocket, stood at the foot of the area steps in Mount Street and looked up; and Clem­ency, who had never in six num­bers been able to see the house from the in­side, found that she could see the whole of it from below, down to the plate where the coals went in. She put in the plate. She put in the boots. She put in a cook who stated the cli­mate of the City with­out malice, and a quarter of an hour in the warm, and four­teen guineas and the tea and sugar; and when she came to the car­riage, which in the fourth num­ber had drawn up at the rail­ings at the kerb, she drew it up where car­riages drew up in that Square, at a step, with the rail­ings be­hind it along the area and

the kit­chen-maid under them, and went on with­out re­mark­ing it, as a woman mends a cuff.

Then she wrote the sen­tence.

She had not planned it. It ar­rived, as the good ones did, in the middle of a para­graph about some­thing else, and she stopped and let it come:

There was one place in the house in Mount Street from which the house could be seen, and it was the low­est, and it was worth four­teen guineas a year: for the fam­ily had been set down at their own door so many times that not one of them could have said within a yard where the rail­ings stood; but the kit­chen-maid spent her days below them, with noth­ing else to look at, and knew the whole of the fash­ion­able world by its boots.

She read it over. It was true. It was the first thing in seven num­bers that she had known to be true be­cause she had stood in the place, and not be­cause she had taken trouble; and she sat for a mo­ment with the pen in her hand, and did a sum that she had not meant to do, and found that four­teen guineas was two num­bers of the Mor­timers ex­actly, with noth­ing over, and that she had there­fore been paid, that sum­mer, for every pair of months, a kit­chen-maid’s year. She did not know what to make of this. She wrote it down on the back of the sheet, as she wrote down most things she did not know what to make of, and went on with the num­ber, and fin­ished it at four, when the light went, with the sev­enth num­ber done and two days in hand, which had never happened be­fore either.

She took it to the Row on the Sat­urday, be­cause the tenth was a Sunday and Mr. Bal­dock, who was a Whig, kept the Sab­bath as he kept everything else, on prin­ciple and under protest.

He had two let­ters for her. He had them on the desk in front of him, squared with its edge, and he had the look of a man who has been wait­ing since break­fast to give some­body some­thing and has not yet de­cided in what order.

“This one first,” he said, “be­cause it is the one I un­der­stand.”

It was a let­ter from Lord Ash­combe. It was ad­dressed to Mr. Bal­dock, and it was three sides, in a large hand that went up­hill, and it said, in the char­ac­ter of a man who had lived in Gros­venor Square for forty years and knew what he was talk­ing about, that the Author of the Mor­timers was the first writer since Richard­son who had un­der­stood the Square; that the rail­ings in the fourth num­ber were set ex­actly where rail­ings were set in the Square, which was at the kerb, as any res­id­ent could testify; that Mr. Wray of the Albe­marle, who had said oth­er­wise, was a puppy and had never been asked any­where; and that his lord­ship had

taken the liberty of send­ing to the Row for the six num­bers, and had had them read to him, and had found the foot­man the finest thing since Richard­son, and wished Mr. Bal­dock to tell the Author so, and to tell him also that his lord­ship was his ser­vant and his ad­mirer, and would be glad to be al­lowed to be his host.

“He is wrong about the rail­ings,” said Clem­ency.

“He is a lord,” said Mr. Bal­dock. “He is al­lowed to be wrong about the rail­ings. He is not al­lowed to be wrong about them in my maga­zine, and I have no in­ten­tion of print­ing him.” He took off his spec­tacles. “The sev­enth is in your hand, I think. Have you men­ded them?”

“I have men­ded them.”

“Then they are men­ded, and his lord­ship may find it out for him­self, in a month, from the pave­ment.” He held out his hand for the num­ber, and she gave it him, and he weighed it with­out open­ing it, as he al­ways did, as though it were sold by the pound. “Fif­teen pages. You are early. You are never early.”

“I had two days in hand.”

“Nobody has two days in hand.” He put it in the drawer. “Now the other.”

The other was not ad­dressed to Mr. Bal­dock. It was ad­dressed, in a clerk’s good round hand, To the Author of “The Mor­timers of Mount Street”, to the care of Mr. Bal­dock, Pater­noster Row; and it was sealed, and Mr. Bal­dock had not broken the seal, and said so, and added that he had held it up to the win­dow on Thursday night and read it through the paper, which was not the same thing, and which he would thank her not to men­tion in the Row.

“It is from the new people,” he said. “The Lon­don, they are to call it, as if there had never been one. Bald­win’s are find­ing the money and a gen­tle­man from the news­pa­pers is to find the rest, and they are look­ing, I hear, for a man who knows the trade, which in the Row means a man who knows what every­body else is paid. They want you for the first num­ber, in Janu­ary, at ten guineas, and they want to know your name; and they are not the only ones who want to know it, for the Row has been in here twice since Tues­day to ask me whether it is true you have dined with them, and I have said that I could not un­der­take to say, which has been taken, I find, as mean­ing yes.”

“I was not at the Chapter on Tues­day.”

“I did not sup­pose you were. I sup­posed you were some­where, and that it was no busi­ness of mine.” He looked at her over the desk. “I will not keep you from ten guineas, Miss Lyd­iard. I could not, if I would, and after my lease I am not sure that I would. But I will tell you

what I told the Row, which is that I do not know the Author’s name; and I will tell you what I did not tell the Row, which is that if I did, I do not think it would fetch ten guineas in Janu­ary, nor seven, nor five. They want a Man­chester man of forty. They have dined one.”

She took the let­ter. She did not open it there. She had never had a let­ter ad­dressed to the Author be­fore; nobody had, be­cause the Author had not had a dir­ec­tion until Thursday, when the Row gave him one by ac­clam­a­tion; and she car­ried it home un­opened, with his lord­ship’s three sides fol­ded in­side it, down Lud­gate Hill and into Salis­bury Court and up the two pair of stairs, and put the two of them into the fus­tian port­fo­lio under the bed, be­tween Mr. Mor­timer with­out a face and Mrs. Mor­timer’s car­riage at the rail­ings at the kerb. It was where she kept the things she could not fin­ish. A din­ner in Gros­venor Square, and ten guineas a num­ber, and a name: they went in with the rest, and she tied the tapes.

She had let the rail­ings stand cor­rec­ted. She did not think about it. She had been a day writ­ing the sev­enth num­ber and an af­ter­noon in Gros­venor Square, and she had put the rail­ings where they were be­cause that was where they were; and if the one man in Lon­don who had taken her side in print was to find out in a month, from his own pave­ment, that she had not taken his, she was sorry for it, and would have done it again. It is the con­di­tion which in other people is called prin­ciple, and which Mrs. Lyd­iard, had she been told of it, would have called tak­ing trouble.

The Inner Temple gave The Lord Warden to Mr. Dal­gleish on the Tues­day, had settled it by the Thursday, and had de­livered it, with the title, by Sat­urday noon to every­body in the Inn but the one man it con­cerned.

Mr. Kin­ross was the last to be told, be­cause he spoke to nobody, and he learned of it from Fig­gis. He had walked in at the gate as he did every morn­ing, and Fig­gis the porter, who had told him noth­ing in el­even years but the weather, told him that they had found out who wrote that thing in the Albe­marle, and it was Mr. Dal­gleish of Crown Office Row, and would he credit it; and Mr. Kin­ross said that he would not, and walked on, and found that the Inn had been fur­nished overnight, as a house is fur­nished for a sale, with a single sub­ject.

He fol­lowed it, as a man who has eaten the din­ners fol­lows a point of law, to its source, which was a laundress; and found that on the evid­ence of a clerk, a bencher named Rad­cliffe who was no re­la­tion to the pub­lisher named Rad­cliffe, which the Inn

did not hold against the reas­on­ing, and the two shil­lings a month that Dal­gleish saved at Dick’s, the Inner Temple had con­victed a man of au­thor­ship on the evid­ence of his thrift. There was no break­ing it. It was not a good ar­gu­ment. It was a Temple ar­gu­ment, and he had heard worse of them win.

Grice him­self, met in the garden, im­proved on it. “And then there is the Row,” said Grice, who was a wit when the courts were up and could not help it. “Crown Office Row, sir. Called after an of­fice which nobody in it could now have poin­ted to, and the only cham­bers in the Inn with the Crown in their dir­ec­tion. The Lord Warden, you ob­serve. A Crown ap­point­ment. The thing proves it­self.” He was de­lighted. “The beauty of it is that Dal­gleish is a con­vey­an­cer. He has con­veyed noth­ing in his life but titles, and now the Inn has con­veyed one to him with­out a deed. I call it ad­verse pos­ses­sion. He has sat on the Warden twelve months with­out ob­jec­tion from the true owner, and by Black­stone it is his.”

Mr. Kin­ross, who had the deed, in a drawer in Albe­marle Street, in a hand that Mr. Rad­cliffe had last seen at the foot of a part­ner­ship, said that it was very good, and that he must tell it to some­body; and went up to his cham­bers and shut the door, and sat down, and dis­covered that what he felt was not what he had ex­pec­ted to feel.

He had ex­pec­ted to be af­fron­ted. He had been af­fron­ted, for about the length of the garden. A man does not spend el­even months and two hun­dred and twenty pounds on a book, and write the best sen­tence of his life for it in the spring, and watch it car­ried off in Oc­to­ber by a con­vey­an­cer with four sis­ters in Perth, with­out some sen­sa­tion; and the sen­sa­tion was there, and was sharp, and las­ted as far as the stair­case. What suc­ceeded it was re­lief. It was so com­plete, and so un­looked for, and so very far from cred­it­able, that he sat and ex­amined it for some time, as he would have ex­amined a clause he sus­pec­ted of being too good. The town had read his book at last, and talked of it, and given it away; and the man it had given it to was a man he had never spoken to, and never need; and the Warden was now, as far as the Inner Temple was con­cerned, a thing that had been settled, and settled wrong, and could be left alone. Nobody would look fur­ther. Nobody ever did, once a thing was settled; it was the whole prin­ciple of the law, and he had eaten the din­ners. He was free of it. He was as free as a man is who has been robbed of a thing he could not have car­ried, and he did not like it in him­self, and he found, on the Sat­urday, that there was noth­ing in the Temple that he could do about it but go home.

There was a note on the hall table. It was from Lord Ash­combe, and it went up­hill, and it said that Ash­combe had been kept in town by the build­ers, who were in at Ash­combe and would be in at Ash­combe until the Greek Kal­ends, which he laid to the ac­count of the Gov­ern­ment; that he was a neigh­bour, and sol­it­ary, and dined on Wed­nes­day; that he had se­cured, by a stroke of great good for­tune, the com­pany of a gen­tle­man from the Temple whom Kin­ross would be glad to meet, since Kin­ross was a Temple man and a reader; and that he would not say more, be­cause it was not his secret, but Kin­ross might take it that the Warden would be at the table. Fen­wick had put it under the toast-rack, which was where Mr. Kin­ross put let­ters he did not mean to an­swer; and Mr. Kin­ross took it out, and read it twice, and answered it.

Lord Ash­combe’s house was four doors along the north side, and he had lived in it for forty years with­out once hav­ing oc­ca­sion to no­tice the pave­ment, which was handed to him from his car­riage in the form of a step and taken away again when he had done with it. He was a large, kind, florid man of sev­enty, with a fine lib­rary in the coun­try that had been read for him by three gen­er­a­tions of chap­lains, and an opin­ion on everything in it; and he had never in his life been cor­rec­ted, be­cause there had never been any­body at his table whose busi­ness it was.

There were four at it on the Wed­nes­day: his lord­ship, Mr. Til­lot­son, who was the present chap­lain and read to him in the even­ings and had been told what to think of the Warden and thought it; Mr. Dal­gleish of Crown Office Row; and Mr. Kin­ross, who was placed op­pos­ite Mr. Dal­gleish, and was in­tro­duced to him be­fore the soup as a neigh­bour and a Temple man and a great reader of the Albe­marle, and was asked by his host, with a look, whether he had the least no­tion whom he was sit­ting across from.

Mr. Dal­gleish was a small, neat, anxious man of five-and-forty, with a stoop from the deeds and a Perth voice that he had spent twenty years in Lon­don fail­ing to lose; and he had been pink, as the Inn said, since the first of the month, and he was pink now. He said, be­fore any­one could an­swer for him, that there had been a very fool­ish re­port in the Temple which he was sorry had reached his lord­ship’s ears, and that he was a con­vey­an­cer and noth­ing else, and had never writ­ten a line in his life that was not on parch­ment.

“There!” said Lord Ash­combe. “There, Kin­ross. You see how it is. He denies it.”

“He does,” said Mr. Kin­ross.

“He has denied it to me three times since Monday. My dear sir, they all deny it. Scott has never owned Waver­ley to a liv­ing soul; they call him the Great Unknown for it; when the Regent gave his health at Carlton House as the Author of it, he drank the toast and said noth­ing, which would hang a man at the Old Bailey. And you’ll re­mem­ber the Trier­main busi­ness, when half Edin­burgh had it that Ers­kine wrote the thing, and Scott let them think so, and wrote a pre­face to help them to it. They do it for sport. It is the first mark of the thing. A man who will own to a book has gen­er­ally writ­ten a poor one.” His lord­ship was de­lighted with this, and said it again to Mr. Til­lot­son, who had heard it on Monday. “You’ll not get him to own it, Kin­ross. I have given it up. But you may take my word for it, and I have read every num­ber from the first.”

Mr. Kin­ross said: “So have I.”

It was the one true thing he could say, and he said it with some care, and found that it passed, as true things gen­er­ally do at din­ner, with­out any­body at­tend­ing to it. Mr. Dal­gleish looked at him across the table with a kind of ap­peal, as one hon­est man to an­other, and Mr. Kin­ross, who could not help him and had never be­fore in his life been un­able to help a man by telling him the truth, looked at his soup. He re­membered the Trier­main busi­ness. He re­membered, which his lord­ship did not, that Ers­kine had been asked first, and had agreed, and had writ­ten the pre­face him­self; and it came to him that he had be­come the Author of Waver­ley with­out the trouble of ar­ran­ging it, with a con­vey­an­cer for his Ers­kine, and that the only dif­fer­ence be­tween Scott’s case and his own was con­sent.

“Do you know his work?” said Lord Ash­combe.

“Every word of it.”

“Hah!” said his lord­ship, and the thing was done, and Mr. Dal­gleish sank a shade pinker and gave him­self up. “And you, Kin­ross? You never wrote any­thing your­self, I think?”

“Noth­ing with my name on it.”

“Quite right. Quite right. A gen­tle­man reads.” His lord­ship turned to the chap­lain. “Til­lot­son, the build­ers. Tell Mr. Dal­gleish about the build­ers.” And Mr. Til­lot­son told Mr. Dal­gleish about the build­ers, who were in at Ash­combe, and would be in at Ash­combe until the spring, and had been got in by the Gov­ern­ment as surely as if Lord Liver­pool had sent them down him­self; and his lord­ship, who had heard it be­fore, en­joyed it very much.

They had the siege. Mr. Kin­ross had known that they would; a man does not go to dine with Lord Ash­combe and es­cape Frois­sart. They had it with the fish, and through the fish, and his

lord­ship did the Welsh, and Mr. Til­lot­son, who had read the num­ber aloud on Tues­day and knew it bet­ter than its au­thor, sup­plied the Lady Gwen­llian; and Mr. Dal­gleish, who had begun by protest­ing and had been over­ruled and had now the air of a man who has de­cided that if he is to be hanged for a book he may as well read it, was ap­pealed to upon Shrews­bury.

“For he passed it over,” said his lord­ship. “Shrews­bury, Dal­gleish. Passed it clean over, in the tenth, the only battle in the reign that one has seen; and I say he was wrong, and Til­lot­son says he was wrong, and I’ll not be­lieve you had not a reason.”

Mr. Dal­gleish said un­hap­pily that he sup­posed the Author had thought it too well known.

“Well known! It is not well known. Nobody knows it. Til­lot­son, when was it?”

“The sum­mer of the year three, my lord.”

“The two-and-twen­ti­eth of July,” said Mr. Dal­gleish, who had been at the play, “as I have al­ways un­der­stood. And the Prince killed Percy with his own hand, which the Author might have made a great deal of.”

“He might,” said Lord Ash­combe. “He might in­deed. It is all in Frois­sart.”

Mr. Kin­ross, who knew that it was not in Frois­sart, since Frois­sart had laid down his pen three years be­fore the battle; and who knew that the day was the one-and-twen­ti­eth, since he had spent a week of the spring with it; and who knew, as every­body who had been at the play knew and every­body who had read a chron­icle did not, that nobody had ever found out who killed Percy, who had put up his visor in the press and been struck in the face by an arrow from nobody in par­tic­u­lar, and that the Prince’s hand was a poet’s: Mr. Kin­ross, who had never in two-and-thirty years let a false thing stand that he could have set right, and had not let one stand in Sep­tem­ber when it cost a young man the rail­ings, sat at Lord Ash­combe’s table with the wrong date and the wrong hand and the wrong chron­icler going round it with the fish, and looked at Mr. Dal­gleish, who could not be cor­rec­ted with­out being con­fessed, and said noth­ing at all.

He nod­ded. It was worse than say­ing it.

“You see,” said his lord­ship, to the table. “Kin­ross agrees.”

They had the Mor­timers with the mut­ton. His lord­ship had dis­covered them, it ap­peared, in the last fort­night, by way of Mr. Wray, whom he did not read but whose vic­tims he col­lec­ted, on the prin­ciple that a thing worth a paper in the Albe­marle must be worth hav­ing; and he had sent to the Row for

the six num­bers, and had had Til­lot­son read them, and had be­come their cham­pion with the whole of the en­ergy that he had formerly given to the Warden, and gave to it still. He had writ­ten to Bal­dock. He had the copy of the let­ter in his pocket, and Til­lot­son read it, up­hill, rail­ings and Richard­son and all; and Mr. Kin­ross heard his own rail­ings, which he had given to Lu­cius Wray over the port in August be­cause they were true, de­clared by a peer of forty years’ stand­ing in the Square to be ex­actly wrong, and could not say so, be­cause to say so was to say how he knew.

“The man has eyes,” said his lord­ship. “That is the whole of it. Wray has never been asked any­where, and the Author has been asked every­where, and knows where things are. And he is to leave Bal­dock, I hear, for the new thing in the Row, in Janu­ary, at ten guineas; and I have writ­ten to Bal­dock to say that if he lets him go I shall not take the Lud­gate in, which I never have, and that he had bet­ter look to it. And I have asked the Author to dine.”

“Has he answered?” said Mr. Kin­ross.

“He has not. He is a mod­est man. They are all mod­est men.” His lord­ship looked at Mr. Dal­gleish with great af­fec­tion. “Bal­dock can­not un­der­take to say who he is; it is a close thing, the Row, closer than the Temple. I have it from Til­lot­son, who has it from some­where, that he is a Man­chester man and has dined at the Chapter. Well, he shall dine here. And Dal­gleish shall dine here, and it shall be be­fore Christ­mas, and I will have the two of them at one table, the only two writers in Lon­don worth the trouble, and Wray may put that in his maga­zine. What do you say, Kin­ross? You’ll make a fourth?”

Mr. Kin­ross said that he would make a fourth.

He was sit­ting across from the wrong au­thor of the one book, and he had just been asked to meet the wrong au­thor of the other, whom he had him­self, on a slip of paper in a drawer, made a house­keeper’s son; and it came to him, as the mut­ton went round, that the whole of lit­er­ary Lon­don was at that mo­ment com­posed of people who had not writ­ten any­thing being dined by a man who had not read it, and that it was, on the whole, the best din­ner he had eaten in a year.

“It is a cold book, you know,” said Lord Ash­combe, into a pause. “The Warden. I have thought so from the first. It is a cold book writ­ten by a warm man who has nobody to be warm to; one can al­ways tell. Now Dal­gleish has four sis­ters.” He looked at Mr. Dal­gleish, and seemed for a mo­ment to be on the edge of a dis­cov­ery. “It can­not be Dal­gleish,” he said; and passed the

port, and in passing it for­got what he had said, and never found it again.

Mr. Kin­ross, who had nobody to be warm to and had been given to un­der­stand as much by his aunt in a let­ter under the toast-rack, drank his wine.

“And I will tell you an­other thing,” said his lord­ship, who had been sav­ing it. “It is ad­mired where you would not look for it. I have it⁠—never mind how I have it; Til­lot­son has it from his sis­ter, who has it from Rus­sell Square, which is as good as the City⁠—that there is a lady in the City who has read the whole of it, every num­ber, and thinks the siege the finest thing since Frois­sart. Her own words, Til­lot­son?”

“Those were the words re­por­ted to me, my lord.”

“Since Frois­sart! A lady in the City! There, Dal­gleish; there is fame. You are read in Rus­sell Square.” He was moved by it. “The finest thing since Frois­sart.”

Mr. Kin­ross had been in the room in Sep­tem­ber when Lord Ash­combe had said those words of the siege to Mr. Rad­cliffe, with­out hav­ing read it; and he heard them now come back round the whole of Lon­don, by way of Mr. Til­lot­son’s sis­ter, and be laid be­fore him as the judg­ment of a lady in the City. For the length of a swal­low he thought of the one reader he was sure of, who had taken a sen­tence out of the tenth num­ber as he had taken one out of the fourth; and then he put the thought by, since that reader was a house­keeper’s son in a cof­fee-house, and house­keep­ers’ sons are not ladies in the City. But it was a reader. It had read every num­ber, and it had praised the siege, the one thing in the book that he had put in be­cause Rad­cliffe wanted in­cid­ent, in Lord Ash­combe’s own words; and the praise had been car­ried, with the rest, to Dal­gleish’s door.

“Did she,” said Mr. Kin­ross.

It was two words, and he heard them as he said them, and it was the nearest he had come in two-and-thirty years to a joke against him­self; and nobody at the table took it for one, which was as he wished.

“Albe­marle Street,” said his lord­ship, sum­ming up, with the air of a man of the world, “has a way of not put­ting names on things, this year. One hears it of a poem. One hears it of the Warden. I dare say they know their busi­ness. But a man can­not be mod­est for ever, Dal­gleish, and I give you till Christ­mas.”

Mr. Dal­gleish said, for the fourth time, that he was a con­vey­an­cer.

“There,” said Lord Ash­combe. “You hear him.”

He walked home. It was four doors, and he could have been car­ried; but he walked, in the dark, along the north

side of the Square, and when he came to his own house he did a thing that he had not done in el­even years of liv­ing in it, and that Lord Ash­combe had not done in forty: he stopped on the pave­ment, and looked at it.

The door was where he had left it. The step was where the step had al­ways been, and the lamp over the fan­light, which Fen­wick kept lit until he was in; and to the left of the step, and to the right of it, at the pave­ment’s edge, with the area fall­ing away be­hind them into the dark where the kit­chen was, were the rail­ings. They were along the area. They had been along the area since the house was built. They were not at the kerb, and never had been, and no car­riage had ever drawn up at them, be­cause a car­riage drew up at the step; and he had known this. He had known it well enough to write it in a mar­gin in August with the brev­ity of a man who had never had to ex­plain him­self, and to tell it to Lu­cius Wray over the port, and to let it stand in print in Sep­tem­ber be­cause it was true. He had not known it be­cause he had looked. He had known it as Lord Ash­combe knew Frois­sart.

He stood for some time. A young per­son had stood at those rail­ings on the Tues­day of the week be­fore for a quarter of an hour, with her hand on them, and gone down; but he did not know that, and nobody had told him, and the rail­ings had noth­ing to say.

In the morn­ing he asked Fen­wick.

He asked it at break­fast, across the Chron­icle, in the tone in which he asked whether it was likely to rain, and Fen­wick, who had been el­even years in the house and had never once been asked any­thing by its mas­ter that he had not already provided, re­ceived it with the per­fect still­ness of a man who has waited a long while for some­thing and does not pro­pose to spoil it by look­ing sur­prised.

“In the area, sir,” said Fen­wick. “Along the whole front, at the pave­ment’s edge. They have been there since the house was built, under the old lord. I un­der­stood it was gen­er­ally known.”

“It is,” said Mr. Kin­ross. “Thank you, Fen­wick.”

“There was a young per­son at them on the Tues­day of last week, sir, as it hap­pens, for some little time, about the kit­chen-maid’s place. Mrs. Pratt thought her very suit­able. She did not come back.”

Mr. Kin­ross said that he was sorry to hear it, and meant the kit­chen-maid, and turned the Chron­icle; and Fen­wick re­moved the toast-rack, under which there was noth­ing, and went out.

They tried Car­lile at Guild­hall for four days, from the Tues­day, be­fore the Chief Justice and two spe­cial jur­ies,

for Paine first and for Palmer after him; and on the Fri­day the second jury found him guilty, as the first had done the day be­fore, and the news was in Fleet Street be­fore the court had risen, be­cause the Row had a man at the door.

It came down the street as such news did, not called but car­ried, from one shop to the next, at the pace of a man who has some­thing to tell and has not been paid to hurry: Car­lile was guilty, twice over; the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral had his ver­dicts; and every printer be­tween Temple Bar and Lud­gate who had put any­thing into type since August that he would not have cared to read aloud to a spe­cial jury went in and shut his door, and read his lease. Mr. Bal­dock heard it at two, and sat for a while, and then went down into his shop and sold a treat­ise upon the dry rot to a cler­gy­man, be­cause the trade must be kept up.

Clem­ency heard it at six, from Kit, who had it from the Inn, where it had ar­rived be­fore din­ner and been found less in­ter­est­ing than the Warden. She was mend­ing the tapes of the fus­tian port­fo­lio, which had worn, and she went on mend­ing them.

Mr. Kin­ross heard it in the Temple, at his desk, with the door shut; and he heard it, as he had heard the rest of Oc­to­ber, from Fig­gis, who put his head in with­out knock­ing, which he had never done, and said that they had found that fel­low Car­lile guilty, sir, and would he credit it, and went away.

He had the thir­teenth num­ber be­fore him. It was due in Albe­marle Street on the tenth of No­vem­ber, and he had begun it that morn­ing, which was early, for him; and he had begun it, he found, dif­fer­ently. He had taken the Warden out of Lud­low and put him on the road, in the wet, with a let­ter he had not answered; and he had taken him, for the first time in twelve num­bers, in at the back of a house in­stead of the front, and down a stair, and had let him stand in a kit­chen and be looked at by the people in it, who knew to a penny what he cost. He did not ask him­self why. He knew why, and did not pro­pose to con­sult the part of his mind that knew it. He wrote, that af­ter­noon, with the news of Guild­hall going down Fleet Street under his win­dow and the Michael­mas term a month off and the Inn settled in its opin­ion, as a man writes who has been given away and means to be worth the tak­ing back: so that who­ever read the thir­teenth num­ber on the first of Decem­ber, in Rus­sell Square or the City or two pair of stairs up over a law-sta­tioner’s, should know at the first para­graph that it had not been writ­ten by any­body in Crown Office Row.

He did not know where it would be read. He knew that it would be read,

which was more than he had known in August; and he found that it was enough to write to, and that he had never be­fore in el­even months had any­thing to write to at all.

(To be con­tin­ued.)

Edited by Michael Cummins. Written in full collaboration with Anthropic’s Claude models, and set here as it might have appeared in a London magazine of 1820. Read the announcement, with the plan of London.

EVER SILENT, EVER SAD

Dostoevsky believed Don Quixote was beautiful only because he was ridiculous, and feared his own hero had nothing of the kind. Within weeks his prince called himself ridiculous, and that spring a grieving father used the same words. By 1869 all the author would defend was “the idea.”

One Russian word means both funny and ridiculous. Followed through the novel’s crowded rooms, it arrives at a question the novel leaves open.

On 12 August 1867, in the museum at Basel, Fyodor Dostoevsky climbed onto a chair to look more closely at a painting. It was Hans Holbein the Younger’s Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb, a panel thirty centimetres high and two metres long, the length of a man laid out. His wife Anna wrote in her diary that night that she had been afraid he would be fined. In her memoir, written long afterwards, she remembered that she could not bear the picture and left the room. When she came back fifteen or twenty minutes later he had not moved, and his face held the frightened look she knew from the first moments of his fits. When she led him away to rest, he insisted on going back.

In her diary she called the painting “not at all aesthetic”; it filled her with “revulsion and a kind of horror.” What it lacks, as the museum that owns it now points out, is anyone else. Holbein left out the mourners and the disciples, and in a picture of this subject the absence of every living figure is almost unique. The body has no witness but whoever stands in front of it.

That autumn, in Geneva, Dostoevsky began notes for a novel; in December he threw them all out. Then, owing his publisher about 4,500 roubles and writing, as he put it, from a desperate plight, he wrote the first seven chapters of a new novel in twenty-three days, on an idea he had loved for years and long not dared to take up: a positively beautiful man.

The difficulty is older than the novel, and simple to state. Goodness has no natural audience. How do you make it bearable to read?

Holbein painted a death with no one there to see it. In the novel Dostoevsky began that winter, someone is nearly always watching.

I

Only Because Ridiculous

On 1 January 1868, with those chapters written, he explained the idea to his niece, Sofia Ivanova. The main thought of the novel, he wrote, was to portray a positively beautiful man, and nothing in the world was harder. Every writer who had tried it, Russian or European, had failed, because the task was immeasurable. There was only one positively beautiful figure in the world, and that was Christ. Among the beautiful figures of Christian literature the most complete was Don Quixote, “but he is beautiful only because he is at the same time ridiculous.” Dickens’s Pickwick, “an infinitely weaker thought than Don Quixote, but still an enormous one,” was ridiculous too, and won by that alone. Compassion arises for the beautiful that is mocked and does not know its own worth, and with it sympathy in the reader: “this arousing of compassion is the mystery of humour.” Victor Hugo’s Jean Valjean was another strong attempt, but he arouses sympathy through his terrible misfortune and society’s injustice to him. Two routes to a reader, then: Quixote’s, through laughter, and Valjean’s, through suffering. And then: “I have nothing like that, absolutely nothing, and so I am terribly afraid it will be a positive failure.”

The adjective he gives his hero is the one Russian uses for a sunset and for a noble act alike, and it asks for more than kindness. And the pun is his own: the failure would be as positive as the man.

Whatever “nothing like that” means, it cannot mean that nobody laughs at his hero, because the chapters already written contain the laughter. On the train into Petersburg two strangers laugh at the prince’s bundle and his foreign cloak, and he laughs with them; one of them is Rogozhin, a merchant’s son who has just come into a fortune. At General Epanchin’s house, while the prince is out of the room fetching a portrait of Nastasya Filippovna, the beautiful, notorious woman at the centre of the book, the eldest daughter, Alexandra, agrees with her sister that he is too simple, “so that he’s even a little ridiculous.” Their mother, Lizaveta Prokofyevna, tells the girls they are more ridiculous than he is. What he lacks, then, is not laughter in the room but the comedy that makes a reader laugh with love. The letter’s fear concerns readers, and later readers have loved Myshkin for a century and a half. This essay watches a different audience: the people in the rooms.

The letter speaks, too, of “the main thought of the novel” and “the idea of the novel,” and takes comfort that nothing is “yet compromised.” Thought, idea, compromise: the words will come back.

The Russian word in Quixote’s sentence is a form of smeshnoi. It means funny as well as ridiculous, and the distance between the two is the distance between being laughed at and being laughed with. In its various forms it occurs sixty-five times in the novel, sixteen of them about Myshkin; the words for laughter and laughing are different, and are not counted.

Michael R. Katz, whose translation appeared this year, stakes his claim on the comic half of the word: most other translators, he has said, “have missed the humor.” The English here is the essay’s own, apart from three lines from Eva Martin’s translation of 1915, named at the end.

Within weeks the prince says it of himself. What the letter calls the second part, begun that day, became the last nine chapters of Part One, printed in February. At their close, at Nastasya Filippovna’s birthday party, Myshkin has offered to marry her, and he reminds her of the laughter that met his first words: “You smiled at those words, and I heard people round us laughing too. Perhaps I expressed myself very ridiculously, and was ridiculous myself, but I kept feeling that I understand what honour is.” A few pages on, leaving with Rogozhin, Nastasya Filippovna says: “Goodbye, prince. For the first time, I have seen a human being!”

In March he answered the fear. A notebook entry dated 21 March reads: “The hero of the novel, the Prince, if not ridiculous, has another sympathetic trait: he is innocent!” (The biographer Konstantin Mochulsky quoted it long ago.)

None of this settles whether the novel failed. “Positive failure” is the letter’s pun, not a verdict, and what follows reports his verdicts and adopts none of them.

II

The Laughing Room

Dostoevsky chose his precedent himself: the letter’s Don Quixote, beautiful only because he is ridiculous. The novel will name the knight outright, but it starts with the word.

The novel’s first use of its word is the prince’s own, and it expects a listener’s laughter. Waiting in the Epanchins’ anteroom, he tells the general’s footman about a guillotining he saw in Lyon, and about the thought that certain death is worse than torture, and then he says: “To you this seems funny, wild.” Later, with the general’s wife and daughters, he tells of a man reprieved on the scaffold, and offers Adelaida a subject for a painting: a condemned man’s face one minute before the blade. Dostoevsky had stood on such a scaffold himself, on 22 December 1849. So the word enters the novel at the scaffold, and in a plan of early November 1867 the notebooks had put the scaffold and the painting on consecutive lines: a note on the thoughts of a man about to be beheaded, then “the story about Holbein’s Christ in Basel.”

Most of the novel’s comedy is not his. General Ivolgin lies magnificently; Lebedev, the clerk from the train, preaches on the Apocalypse. Myshkin is more often the occasion of laughter than its source. He can be funny, and the vase is coming. But the narrator will hardly laugh at him. Of the sixteen times the word is applied to Myshkin, the narrator speaks three, and hedges each. Someone too fond of laughing “might perhaps have found something to smile at” in his clothes, “but what doesn’t make people laugh?” He smiles “strangely and even funnily.” When he sets out his views to the Epanchins, it would all have been funny “if it had not been so well expounded,” as his listeners agreed afterwards. The book’s other voices laugh at him far more readily than the one that tells it.

People open to him, too. They tell Myshkin the worst of themselves; Tobias Grey, reviewing the new translation, calls him “an ideal confidant.” The telling seldom changes what they do, and it leaves him no safer.

Aglaya, the youngest Epanchin daughter, laughs at him hardest, and her laughter keeps running into Cervantes. Early in Part Two she keeps a note from the prince in a thick, stoutly bound book. A week later she looks to see what the book is. It is Don Quixote, and she laughs, though, the narrator says, “it would be difficult to say exactly why.” By the summer the poor knight of Pushkin’s ballad has become a family joke about the prince, told in front of him, and Kolya reminds her where it began: a month ago, leafing through Don Quixote, she exclaimed that there was nothing better than the poor knight. Before she recites the ballad, she explains it. The poor knight is “the same Don Quixote, only serious, not comic. At first I didn’t understand and laughed, and now I love the ‘poor knight,’ and respect his deeds.” It no longer mattered to him who his lady was: “even if she had been a thief, he would still have had to believe in her and break lances for her pure beauty.”

Then she recites. Pushkin’s knight writes A.M.D. in blood on his shield; his lady is never named, and only Pushkin’s first version spells the letters out, Ave, Mater Dei. Aglaya has already called them A.N.B., twice, and held to it when Kolya “corrected” her to A.N.D.; neither is Pushkin’s. Now she reads N.F.B., for Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova, a kept woman whose story many of her listeners know, and speaks the letters so gravely and so simply that they might pass for Pushkin’s. Her mother notices nothing; Evgeny Pavlovich makes sure he is seen to understand. The prince, sure it is deliberate, cannot see afterwards how so true and beautiful a feeling could go with so open and malicious a mockery. Beautiful is the letter’s word. Set the three ladies side by side: Cervantes’s Dulcinea, invented; Pushkin’s Mother of God, in heaven; Aglaya’s Nastasya Filippovna, fallen. Only the last puts Aglaya’s own rule to the test, and the prince will keep it, at her expense. The version she recites is Pushkin’s later one, of 1835, in which the knight dies “like a madman” and no one intercedes; in his first, of 1829, the Virgin takes him into heaven.

In the novel the comparison is Aglaya’s. Her knight is Quixote with the comedy taken out, the one ingredient the letter called essential, yet her own response runs in the letter’s order, laughter first and then love. Caterina Corbella has argued that her reading misleads, and that the one who loves as Quixote does, choosing a body for an invented ideal, is Aglaya herself. She also reads the prince and Rogozhin as two halves of one figure, as Quixote and Sancho are.

A painted double portrait on an empty dark brown ground. On the left, a gaunt older man in rusty, strapped armour, a brass barber’s basin on his head and a wooden lance in his hand, gazes upward past the viewer. On the right, a slender fair-haired young man with a small pale beard, in a grey travelling coat and dark neckcloth under a grey-green hooded cloak, holds a bundle tied in a faded red scarf and looks straight out at the viewer.
Don Quixote and Prince Myshkin, imagined side by side: one looking past us, one looking at us. Image generated by Gemini Argon for this essay.

III

A Funny Voice

Sonia Dostoevskaya was born in Geneva on 22 February 1868. She died of pneumonia on 12 May, not quite three months old. Six days later Dostoevsky wrote to his friend Apollon Maikov: “My Sonia has died; we buried her three days ago.”

The word comes four times in that letter. The first is “let it be that my love was ridiculous”; two more are set out below. He had sung to her, he writes, in his funny voice, and there the right English is funny. Then: “let them laugh at me and at my love.” In the January letter the word belonged to Cervantes and Dickens. In May it belongs to a father. In June, from Vevey, he wrote that he could still see her eyes following him as he went out to read the newspapers on the day she died.

Here, then, are two sentences, a few months apart.

Perhaps I expressed myself very ridiculously, and was ridiculous myself.
The prince, at Nastasya Filippovna’s party: Part One, chapter XVI, written early in 1868 and printed in February.

Let it be that I expressed myself ridiculously about her… I alone was ridiculous to them.
The father, to Maikov, 18 May 1868.

In Russian the verb is the same: perfective in the prince’s sentence, a single act, and imperfective in the father’s, an ongoing manner. The adverb is the same, and so is the short form of the adjective. The situation is the same as well: feeling spoken aloud, and laughed at. That is all the dates show.

IV

The Misfire

Ippolit Terentyev asks plainly not to be laughed at. He is a consumptive young man with weeks to live. In Part Two he tells Lizaveta Prokofyevna, the general’s wife, that he came to Pavlovsk to see the trees, and asks her, seriously: “That isn’t funny, is it? There’s nothing funny in that?”

In Part Three, written from August 1868, he reads his testament aloud on the prince’s terrace as the prince’s birthday turns into dawn, to a tired, half-drunk audience that did not ask to hear it. He calls it “My Necessary Explanation.” By now the trees have changed hands: in the testament they belong to his consolers, with “their ridiculous ‘Pavlovsk trees.’” Early on he is heckled. When he cries that they don’t like him at all, “there was laughter; most, however, did not laugh,” and he goes terribly red. Part of the testament is about a painting. He has seen the copy of the Holbein in Rogozhin’s house, and the picture, he says, shows “this blind, dumb, implacable, eternal, unreasoning force.” And he notices who is missing: “The people who surrounded the dead man, not one of whom is in the picture, must have felt a terrible anguish and confusion that evening.”

When he has finished, he turns, as if to a friend for advice, to Evgeny Pavlovich, a polished man of the world who is courting Aglaya: he has made a terrible mistake, reading them this notebook. “The position is ridiculous,” Evgeny Pavlovich answers, smiling, “but I really don’t know what to advise you.” Ippolit puts a pistol to his temple and pulls the trigger. It clicks; there is no cap in it. Fear turns into laughter, and some guffaw with malicious pleasure. Here is the derided sufferer, and in that moment he gets the laughter without the love.

In Part Four the prince tells him he is sorry Ippolit has disowned the notebook. “It is sincere, and you know, even its most ridiculous sides, and there are many” (here Ippolit winces) “are redeemed by suffering, because confessing them was suffering too.” The sentence joins Quixote’s route and Valjean’s, and offers them to someone who fears the first. Ippolit’s reply is that they have had “a very funny conversation.”

Holbein’s dead man has no witnesses. Ippolit, reading about him to a terrace full of listeners, has too many. The copy, about 1.8 metres long and 27 centimetres high, hangs over a door in Rogozhin’s house, where the novel’s last night will be spent.

V

Not the Novel, but the Idea

At the Epanchins’ evening party in Part Four, before the old princess Belokonskaya and a roomful of society, Myshkin breaks the Chinese vase that Aglaya warned him about. The laughter grows; he is forgiven, and he weeps. “You’re a kind man, but a ridiculous one,” Belokonskaya tells him. “Give you twopence and you thank them as if they’d saved your life. You think that’s praiseworthy, and it’s disgusting.” She is on the edge of real anger, and then she laughs, this time kindly.

Ippolit, who says he can neither love nor respect the prince, had already said the same behind his back: “a decidedly kind man, though… ridiculous.” Where the letter said beautiful, they say kind, and it is a pairing easy to say with affection, as Belokonskaya’s laugh shows. The audience’s word is smaller than the author’s. The theory works, and what it wins is a downgrade.

He begins to talk. Aglaya forbade him to speak, he tells an old dignitary in confidence, and even named the subjects, because she knows he is ridiculous in them. “I have no right to express my thought. Only in Moscow, with Rogozhin, did I speak openly. I am always afraid that my ridiculous look will compromise the thought and the main idea. I have no gesture. My gesture is always the opposite, and that provokes laughter and humiliates the idea.” Thought, main idea, compromise: the January letter’s words, in its hero’s mouth, months later. Now he turns to the room. They are all ridiculous, he says, he and they alike, and “to be ridiculous is sometimes even good, and better: we can forgive one another sooner.” Minutes later he falls in a fit. The theory has done all it promised: laughter, forgiveness, something like love.

The word’s last appearance in the novel turns the theory around. In the weeks before the wedding that never takes place, Nastasya Filippovna does everything she can to cheer him up and tells him every funny thing she can remember. The prince almost always pretends to laugh a great deal, and sometimes really does. Now she is the one offering the comedy, and he is the one pretending. On the wedding day she runs from the church steps to Rogozhin, as she had once before, at the end of Part One, in the chapter where the prince calls himself ridiculous. The last night is spent in Rogozhin’s house. He has killed her, and her body lies behind a curtain. The two men lie down next to each other and keep watch over her till morning; the painted body over the door still has no one. Myshkin strokes Rogozhin’s hair and cheeks; when the door is opened he no longer recognises anyone.

There is a reading in which this ending is his doing; Murray Krieger called his chapter on the novel, in The Tragic Vision (1960), “The Curse of Saintliness.” The novel gives that reading its scene. At the meeting of the two women in Part Four, when Nastasya Filippovna breaks down, he pleads her unhappiness to Aglaya, and Aglaya runs from the house; he stays. Nor is that reading foreign to the novel’s beginnings: in the earliest notebooks the hero is proud and violent. And the novel never entirely separates him from the man who kills: they exchange crosses, Rogozhin raises a knife against him on the stairs, and they spend the last night side by side, Corbella’s two halves of one figure. If that reading is right, the love that laughter wins is part of the harm. The text does not say whether his goodness caused the ending or only failed to prevent it.

The novel, Dostoevsky told his niece on 25 January 1869, had not expressed a tenth part of what he meant, and “I love my thought that failed, to this day.” To Nikolai Strakhov, a month later: “I stand not for the novel, but for my idea.” The letter to Strakhov does not use the word ridiculous at all. Of the January vocabulary, the thought and the idea remain. Nine years later he would say much the same of The Double, which “positively did not succeed, but its idea was rather bright.” If the formula is a reflex, these verdicts say less about The Idiot than they seem to. Here, though, its words have a scene: a hero at a party, afraid that his ridiculous look will compromise the thought and the main idea.

What Dostoevsky took from Cervantes is in his own letter and his own pages: a beautiful man the world laughs at, loved by some of those who laugh, and a lady to be championed whatever she has done. What changed is as plain. The comedy has moved: it is the room’s, not the narrator’s. This knight has no windmills; Myshkin’s trouble is that he sees people too clearly, and what is comic in him is his manner, not his mind. And Cervantes ends by giving his knight his reason back, so that he dies sane, as Alonso Quixano, called the Good.

Dostoevsky’s prince does not get his back. In the Conclusion he is in Switzerland, in the clinic he came from, like the poor knight of the ballad, who goes home to his distant castle and lives there shut away, “ever silent, ever sad.” Lizaveta Prokofyevna visits, and he does not recognise her at all. “At all events, I’ve had a good Russian cry over this poor fellow,” she says, and her adjective is the ballad’s: in Russian the poor fellow and the poor knight share it. Holbein left the mourners out. At its very end the novel gives its good man one. He does not know her.

Can the love that laughter wins protect the man it is won for?

⁂

The occasion is Tobias Grey’s review of Michael R. Katz’s new translation, “‘The Idiot’: Dostoevsky’s Classic Novel of an Honest Man”, in The Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2026.

The letters, Anna Dostoevskaya’s diary, the notebooks and Pushkin’s ballad are quoted in the essay’s own translations from the Russian, from the Nauka Collected Works in fifteen volumes (1996), which reprints the Academy texts. Where Ethel Colburn Mayne’s English of 1914 differs, as with “nothing like that” and “thought,” they follow the Russian; letters not quoted directly are paraphrased from Mayne. Quotations from the novel are the essay’s own translations, except “it would be difficult to say exactly why,” Ippolit’s “blind, dumb” force and Lizaveta Prokofyevna’s last line, which are Eva Martin’s, from 1915. The echoes traced here are in the Russian. Martin’s English smooths them away: his prince fears “spoiling a great Thought or Idea by my absurd manner,” and his prince’s “true and beautiful feeling” moves onto the girl. Dates are Old Style, the Russian calendar of the time, twelve days behind the Western one. The count of sixty-five uses of smeshnoi comes from a modern digital text of about 210,000 words; the Academy edition may differ by one or two.

For the painting and Anna’s account, the Kunstmuseum Basel’s exhibition texts. For Anna’s return to the panel and the notebook plan of November 1867, Katherine Bowers, “Under the Floorboards, Over the Door”, in Dostoevsky at 200, edited by Bowers and Kate Holland (Toronto, 2021), which also quotes Carol Apollonio’s “beyond the frame” (Dostoevsky’s Secrets, 2009); Apollonio and Bowers both look for the painting’s meaning among its viewers, before this essay does. The same volume’s introduction gives the earliest notebook hero. For the poor-knight passages in Russian, and for the reading of Aglaya as the novel’s Quixote, Caterina Corbella, “Cervantes’ Don Quixote in Dostoevsky’s Novel The Idiot”, Dostoevsky and World Culture, 2024, no. 2. For the laughter during Ippolit’s reading, Tatiana Kasatkina, 2025. For the order of composition and the March notebook entry, the 1868 Russian Messenger and Middlebury College’s notes on the making of the novel, after Konstantin Mochulsky. For the ballad, the Academy Complete Works of Pushkin in ten volumes (1977), vol. 3; the novel quotes Pushkin’s later version, and Kasatkina (1999) argues that the earlier one stands behind it. The Russian checks and the concordance are the literary editor’s.

Further reading, not consulted for this essay: Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics; Konstantin Mochulsky, Dostoevsky: His Life and Work, translated by Michael A. Minihan (1967); Robin Feuer Miller, Dostoevsky and The Idiot: Author, Narrator, and Reader (1981); Murray Krieger, “Dostoevsky’s Idiot: The Curse of Saintliness,” in The Tragic Vision (1960); Victor Terras, The Idiot: An Interpretation (1990); Tatiana Kasatkina on the painting’s liminality and the viewer’s position (2006, 2011); L. V. Alekseeva (2018), Bell and others in Funny Dostoevsky (2024), and Stefano Aloe on laughter; Tapp on embarrassment (Slavic and East European Journal 60.3, 2016); Young (2007); Jackson (2016); on Cervantes in Russia and in the novel, Ivan Turgenev, “Hamlet and Don Quixote” (1860), Vsevolod Bagno, Don Quixote in Russia and Russian Quixotism (2009), and Gratchev, “Prince Myshkin as a Tragic Interpretation of Don Quixote” (Cervantes 35.1, 2015); on the ballad’s versions, S. B. Fedotova (Russkaya literatura, 2025, no. 4) and S. A. Fomichev (2008).

Images generated by Gemini Argon for this essay.

Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary and copy editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; outside literary editing by Claude Fable 5.1.

UP TO US

On the one quality to wish for your children, the freedman who defined it, and why it cannot be given

In 1966 a Brooklyn-born psychologist whose father’s business had failed in the Depression published a questionnaire that sorted people by how much of their fate they thought was theirs; sixty years on, a column citing an economist in Sydney names the internal end of that scale as the one thing to wish for your children. The record agrees that internals do better, and then complicates the gift.

Sometime in the mid-1970s, the administrator of Arden House, a nursing home in Connecticut, spoke to the residents of one floor about what was still theirs. How their rooms were arranged, the administrator said, was up to them. So was how they spent their days, and with whom. So was the film: they could decide which night they would go. Then each of them was offered a small plant and asked to choose one. A plant chosen was a plant to be looked after.

On another floor of the same building, the administrator gave a different talk. The staff, the residents were told, were there to make their lives as pleasant as possible, and would see to things; they would be told which night they were to see the film. Each of them was given a plant. The staff would water it.

It was not much of a difference. Every resident on both floors ended the day with a small green thing in a pot. What separated the floors was mostly a question: which one would you like?

Three weeks later the residents who had been asked were, by their own account and by their nurses’ ratings, more alert, more active and happier than the residents who had been told. More of them came to the film.

The plants are long dead. What was handed round that afternoon along with them is still argued over, in laboratories and in newspaper columns and at kitchen tables where parents wonder what, if they could wish one thing for a child, they ought to wish. This August the Bartleby column in The Economist put the question outright: which single quality should a parent most wish for a child? Its answer, taken from the Sydney economist Deborah Cobb-Clark, was an internal locus of control. The argument it joined is older than the experiment, older than psychology, and older by nineteen centuries than the plants.

I

The Dial

Julian Rotter was born in Brooklyn in 1916, the third son of Jewish immigrants. His father’s business did well until the Depression reached it, and his biographers date to those years his sense of how strongly people are shaped by their circumstances. He read Freud and Adler as a schoolboy. At Brooklyn College he took chemistry, which seemed likelier to pay, and sat in on the seminars Alfred Adler was then giving in New York. Psychology won. After the war he went to Ohio State, and there, through the 1950s, he and his students built what they called social learning theory.

Its central claim was modest and, at the time, a little heretical. What a person does depends not only on what is rewarded but on what she expects to be rewarded, and the expectation is learned, from what her actions have produced before. In a familiar situation she goes by what that situation has taught her. In a new one she falls back on something more general: a standing estimate of how far what happens to her follows from what she does. Rotter’s students tested the idea by setting people the same task, described to some as a matter of skill and to others as a matter of chance, and watching how differently they learned from success and failure under each description.

In 1963 Rotter moved to the University of Connecticut, and in 1966 he published the monograph that made the general estimate famous. It came with an instrument: twenty-nine pairs of statements, six of them fillers, in which the person taking it had to choose, again and again, between two accounts of the world. Does a good job come from ability, or from being in the right place at the right time? Is the world run by a few powerful people, or can the ordinary citizen influence what governments decide? Add up the choices and you had a position on a line that ran from internal, the belief that outcomes follow from one’s own actions, to external, the belief that they follow from luck, fate or other people. Within a few years the words had left the journal. People began describing themselves, and each other, as internals and externals.

The evidence behind the column’s answer is substantial, and it deserves to be stated at full strength before anything is said against it. Among newly unemployed Germans, Cobb-Clark and her colleagues found, those with a more internal locus search harder for work, while the more external settle for less: the lowest wage they will accept is lower. The column adds that households with a stronger sense of their own agency save more of what they have, and that people who mean to start a company are likelier, if they are internals, to start one.

The effect also crosses a generation. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children has followed thousands of families around Bristol since the early 1990s, and in its data a mother’s locus of control, measured in the twelfth week of her pregnancy, predicts how she will parent, how much time she will put into her child, and how that child will be doing, in mind and in temper, years later. The economists who found this, led by Warn Lekfuangfu, offer a plain reason: a mother who believes effort pays puts in the effort. The internal mother does not hand her child a belief. She arranges the room.

The case grows stronger still when one looks at which way things have been moving. In 2004 Jean Twenge and two colleagues gathered dissertation studies of locus of control in young Americans, ninety-seven samples of college students who had taken Rotter’s scale and forty-one of children aged nine to fourteen who had taken a version adapted for children, and found that between 1960 and 2002 the scores had drifted towards the external end by about four-fifths of a standard deviation. The average student of 2002 was more external than four in five students of the early 1960s. The drift is not undisputed: a later study of American high-school seniors found no such shift, though the short scale it relied on has itself been questioned. Externality, the authors noted, goes with helplessness, with poor handling of stress, and with depression. A society drifting that way does not obviously need anyone to complicate the cure.

But the drift complicates it on its own. Twenge and her colleagues found their results consistent with a model of alienation: rising cynicism, rising individualism, and the self-serving bias, the habit of crediting oneself with one’s successes and the world with one’s failures. That is externality as excuse, the world blamed for what was one’s own.

There is another external, older and harder. It concedes the world its share, often most of it, and then acts on what is left. The difference between the two is the difference between an excuse and a map.

The man who built the scale had seen the misreading coming. By 1975 there were, by his count, well over six hundred studies using his construct, and he wrote a long paper to say that many of them had misunderstood it. The scale measured a continuum, not two kinds of person, and it was being used to sort people into good guys and bad guys. A generalised expectancy, in his own theory, mattered chiefly where people had nothing more specific to go on, so that reading it as fixed character was contrary to the construct from the start. He suspected, too, that the boom said something about the moment: a feeling of powerlessness seemed to him to be spreading through Western society, and his instrument had become one of the ways of measuring it. In 1990, in a paper he called the case history of a variable, he turned to a different question, using his own construct as a case study in why psychology needed broad theories rather than free-standing measures. He died in Mansfield, Connecticut, in 2014, at ninety-seven. The dial outlived his warning about it.

What it did not measure was where the line falls. For that, the place to begin is with a man for whom almost nothing was up to him.

II

The Line

Epictetus was born around the year 50 in Hierapolis, a spa town in Phrygia, and his name says the first thing about him: Epiktētos means “acquired.” He was a slave. His owner was Epaphroditus, a former slave himself, who served Nero as a secretary. He was lame, though whether from birth, illness or a master’s cruelty the ancient sources disagree. He was allowed to study with the Stoic Musonius Rufus, was at some point freed, and when the emperor Domitian expelled the philosophers from Rome in the 90s he went to Nicopolis, on the western coast of Greece, and opened a school. He wrote nothing. A student, Arrian, took notes, and from them came the Discourses and a short handbook, the Enchiridion, which begins by dividing the world in two. Some things are up to us, and some are not. Up to us are our judgments, our impulses, our desires and aversions: in a word, our own doings. Not up to us are our bodies, our property, our reputations, our offices: whatever is not our own doing.

What is striking about the division is how little falls on the near side of it. Body, property, standing: nearly everything a modern questionnaire might ask about is placed, at the first line, outside. A man who had been owned did not need persuading that most of the world was not his. The Stoic sorting is an admission before it is a claim. And it is not a belief held once but an act repeated. In the Discourses Epictetus teaches his students to stop each impression at the door and question it before it is let in: “Wait for me a little, impression.” That is the line being drawn, one impression at a time. (Four centuries later Boethius, awaiting execution near Pavia, would write another such book of sorting in a cell.)

In 1962, by his own account, a thirty-eight-year-old naval pilot studying international relations at Stanford wandered into the second half of a philosophy course called The Problems of Good and Evil. The professor, Philip Rhinelander, had served in the Second World War. He offered the pilot an hour a week, alone, at his house on the campus, and at the last of those hours he took a book from the shelf and gave it to him, saying he thought he might find it interesting. It was the Enchiridion. The gesture was an old one. In the first book of the Meditations, Marcus Aurelius thanks his teacher Rusticus for introducing him to the discourses of Epictetus, out of Rusticus’s own collection.

James Stockdale went back to sea. For three years, on every carrier he served in, the Epictetus books were on the table beside his bed, and he gave them several hours a week. Looking back, he said he had been putting the stuff away for later without knowing what it was for.

On September 9, 1965, over North Vietnam, his A-4 Skyhawk was hit. It caught fire and its controls went; he ejected, and had perhaps thirty seconds before he came down in the street of a village. What he whispered on the way down has become one of the most quoted sentences of the modern Stoic revival: that he would be there five years at least, and that he was leaving the world of technology for the world of Epictetus. Twenty-eight years later, telling the story to an audience in London, he put the descent in the present tense, as a man about to learn “how negligible is my control over my station in life.” He was a prisoner for seven and a half years.

He had no book. What he had was what three years had put away: the core of the handbook and a store of remembered remarks. He spent four years in solitary confinement, and two in leg irons in a small high-security prison the Americans called Alcatraz, beside the North Vietnamese Ministry of Defence. He was tortured. Every day, marched at gunpoint to interrogation, he whispered to himself: “control fear, control guilt.” His gloss on Epictetus, years afterwards, was that no one can be made the victim of another, only of himself. In 1969 he was caught with a note that gave his interrogators leads, and torture, he knew, could turn leads into names. The night before the interrogation he tried to end his life, and was found and saved. His reason, in his own account, was the men those names belonged to. The line had not made him invulnerable.

As the senior naval officer among the prisoners, he led their resistance, and he did it without ever, he said, tapping a word about Stoicism through the walls. Some of the men, he said, could read it in what he did. Whether any of them took it up he does not say; what he describes is a habit that could be seen.

Among the best-documented cases we have of the internal disposition, then, is a man who began from a near-total admission of external control. A questionnaire handed to him on the parachute might well have scored him external, and not by accident: the dial and the line measure different things. Rotter’s items ask about outcomes in the world, jobs and grades and governments, and the Stoic concedes nearly all of those at the outset. What Stockdale had instead was a line, drawn long before the parachute, that told him where to stand. And the obvious objection, that the line was handed to him, turns out on inspection to be the point. Rhinelander gave him an hour a week and a book at the end of it. He did not give him the line. The line was kept for three years, on a bedside table and in hours of reading, before the canopy tested it; the habit was laid down before it had a use. The order is the order of everything that follows: first the admission; then the finding: the discovery, made only by acting, that an act of one’s own has changed something; then, as it turns out, the telling.

None of this is evidence of the kind the column offers. No one has scored the Stoic distinction on a questionnaire and followed a cohort to see whether it predicts better than Rotter’s dial. Stockdale is a sample of one, and he is the kind of sample that survives to write the book; the men who did not come home cannot be asked what they sorted. What he offers is testimony, and testimony from the far end of human experience, where no ethics committee would let a researcher follow.

That the dial and the line measure different things raises a question the column does not ask. The internals in the studies it draws on search harder for work, save more and start more companies, and they do it while holding a belief about the world much of which the Stoic would call false. Perhaps a slightly inflated sense of one’s own control is simply more useful than an accurate map of it; the evidence cannot rule that out. What can be said is that the two fail differently. A belief that the world is yours is exposed to every refusal the world makes. A line drawn where it actually runs has less to lose.

Stockdale ended the London lecture, given in the Great Hall of King’s College in November 1993, not with Epictetus but with a scrap of paper towel. A fellow prisoner, Dave Hatcher, had left it for him in a drop under a sink, unsigned, and on it was the last stanza of Henley’s “Invictus,” the Victorian poem whose speaker declares himself the master of his fate and the captain of his soul. Stockdale let it close the lecture without comment. It was a comrade’s tribute and the speaker’s own choice of last word, and it is not quite the handbook. Its earlier stanzas concede what chance can do to a man, which a Stoic would recognise; its last claims the whole of his fate for him, which a Stoic would not. The dial and the line are both in it, in one man’s closing words, and he left them there.

III

The Plant

The two floors at Arden House were the work of Ellen Langer and Judith Rodin, and their paper on what happened there has been widely cited ever since. It is a smaller study than its reputation. Each condition was a whole floor, not a set of people assigned at random. Ninety-one residents were enrolled, but the self-reports on which the happiness finding rests come from forty-five of them. And the plant arrived inside a package, a speech and a choice of nights and the general air of being consulted, from which it cannot be separated. The result for which the study is most often remembered, that eighteen months later fewer of the residents who had been asked had died, rested on a statistic that a correction, printed in 1978, reduced to marginal significance. The study has been cited many hundreds of times. The correction has been cited a handful.

What survives is small and specific. People who were asked, and who chose, were brighter three weeks on than people who were told, and given. Being consulted about a plant and a film did something that being cared for did not.

About a decade earlier, in a laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, two young researchers, Martin Seligman and Steven Maier, had run an experiment whose design, in outline, the Arden House floors repeat. They put dogs in hammocks in three groups. Dogs in the first received electric shocks that they could end by pressing a panel with their noses. Dogs in the second were yoked to the first: they received exactly the same shocks, at the same moments and for the same length of time, but nothing they did could stop them. Dogs in the third received no shocks at all. Later, all of them were put in a box where a low barrier stood between them and safety, and the shocks could be escaped by jumping it. The dogs from the first and third groups learned to jump. Most of the yoked dogs lay down and took it.

Seligman and Maier called what they had seen learned helplessness, and for half a century it was taught as one of the field’s great findings. The animals, the theory went, had learned that nothing they did mattered, and the lesson had spread from the hammock to the box. It became a model of depression, a staple of introductory textbooks, and a phrase in ordinary speech.

In 2016, nearly fifty years on, Maier and Seligman published a review of what the intervening work on the brain had shown, and said, with a candour rare in any science, that they had had it backwards. Passivity in the face of prolonged, uncontrollable pain is not learned. It is the default, produced automatically by a small structure in the brainstem called the dorsal raphe nucleus. What is learned is control. When an animal’s action ends the shock, a region of the medial prefrontal cortex detects that it was the action that ended it, and switches the default off. The dogs with the panel had not been spared helplessness. They had learned the one thing that overrides it. The work behind the reversal is in rats, mapped with methods no one would use on a person, and how far the circuit carries to people is not yet known.

With that caution, the reversal still turns the column’s question round. If helplessness were learned, it might be unlearned by instruction: by being told, as the column’s readers are told, that agency is the thing to have. If what is learned is control, and it is learned by being detected, then telling alone may not install it. Arden House began with a speech, but the speech came with something to choose. Agency, on this account, is a finding a nervous system makes when there is something to press. An internal locus of control may not be something a child can be given. What you can give her is a plant.

The finding does not stay a finding. In Maier’s laboratory, rats that had once been able to end a shock were protected, a week later, against shocks they could not end; the protection depended on the same stretch of prefrontal cortex that does the detecting, and the laboratory calls it “behavioral immunization.” Detection, repeated, leaves something behind. Epictetus, in the chapter where he tells impressions to wait, had an image for it: the passions we give way to leave traces behind them, like weals from a blow, and what is repeated is strengthened. A trace kept becomes a habit, and a habit may be what Rotter’s dial was measuring the strength of: a disposition laid down by acts, not a type of person.

Philosophers of habit since Aristotle have noticed that the account is circular. The act lays down the habit, and the habit produces the act. Habit is at once the source of what we do and its result, as the philosopher Clare Carlisle has argued. As a source it cannot be handed to anyone. As a result it can be arranged for, and there are two ways of arranging it. One is scaffold: someone sets out the conditions in which a first act becomes possible, a panel within reach of a nose, a plant and a choice, and leaves the act itself to the one who makes it. The other is precedent: the act is seen done by someone else, as Stockdale’s men could see it in him. In 1838 Félix Ravaisson stated a law of habit in two halves, that repetition dulls what we undergo and strengthens what we do. Nearly two centuries before the 2016 review, it reads like a description of passivity as the default and control as the thing that is learned.

None of this would have surprised Rotter, whose whole theory was that expectancy is learned from experience. What he did not have was the 2016 finding, which says what the learning is: the detection of control, not the absence of it. Nor did he have the Stoic line, which says what the disposition is aimed at and not merely how strong it is. Those two things are what has been added to his dial since.

There is a limit here, and it should be stated plainly. The choosing floor was offered a choice, and a choice is still made by the one who makes it. Stockdale walked into the philosophy seminar of his own accord. What has been arranged can be refused, and the arrangement may work mainly for people who step onto it. What makes a person step is a question the record does not answer.

IV

The Coin

In January 2013 the economist Steven Levitt launched a website for people who could not make up their minds. Should I quit my job? Should I end it with him? Should I go back to school, or move, or propose? Visitors who were stuck described their dilemma, and the site flipped a virtual coin for them: heads, make the change; tails, leave things as they are. Two months later, and again at six, Levitt asked what they had done and how they felt, and where they agreed to it he asked a friend as well.

The coin worked. On the decisions that mattered, people who got heads were about eleven percentage points more likely to have made the change, and by six months those it had pushed into changing were happier for it; on minor decisions there was no effect on happiness, and at two months none that could be measured with confidence. Levitt hedges the result himself. His volunteers were young, mostly male, highly educated and self-selected. Those who obeyed the coin were likelier to answer his surveys, which may account for between 20 and 30 per cent of the effect. The status quo kept its pull: only half of those told to change had changed by two months, against three-quarters of those told to stay who stayed. The coin moved only decisions made in those first two months, and he calls his estimate an upper bound.

Why should a coin help anyone do anything? Levitt offers one possibility, carefully hedged. We regret most the outcomes we feel we chose. A person stuck at the edge of a decision has claimed, in advance, the whole of its consequences, and the weight of that claim holds her still. Handing the choice to a coin gives some of it back to the world, and some of the regret with it. That is the coin’s answer to the column’s question: to cede something to the world is sometimes the right placement of the line, and not a failure of agency.

An oil painting in candlelight: in a dark room a young man has just flicked a coin into the air. It gleams at the top of its arc above his open hand, between an armchair on the left and a door left ajar on the right, with his coat on a peg beside it.
Heads, make the change; tails, leave things as they are. Image made for this essay.

Max Weber found an older version of the same shape, and his is a thesis rather than a finding. In 1905 he argued that the Calvinists of early modern Europe, who believed their salvation decided before their birth and beyond the reach of anything they might do, became among the most relentless workers the world had seen: not in spite of the doctrine but because of it. A man who could do nothing to earn election, and could not know whether he had it, worked to produce the one sign he might be able to read. Historians have argued with Weber for more than a century. But the shape he described is the coin’s, a total concession followed by action, and the action a test run on oneself to find out what is up to one. The dogs’ panel was wired to the shock; the Calvinist’s labour was wired to nothing but his reading of himself, which may be why it never ended. Hamlet reaches the same place in a sentence, near the end, when he tells Horatio that there’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will. Later in the same scene he admits to Horatio a misgiving about the fencing match, declines to heed it, and says that the readiness is all.

The opposite error is commoner and duller. In 2008 Francis Flynn and Vanessa Lake asked people how many strangers they thought they would have to approach before one agreed to a small favour, to fill in a questionnaire or lend a phone for a call. People underestimated how readily they would be helped by as much as half. Strangers are not unusually kind; it is simply awkward to refuse a direct request to someone’s face. The people who misjudged it had ceded to the world something that was theirs, the asking, and never found out. Cate Hall and Sasha Chapin’s book of this year, You Can Just Do Things, builds on that finding.

The two ends of the column’s spectrum, then, are not opposites but errors of placement. The stuck chooser had claimed too much and was frozen by it; the reluctant asker had ceded too much and never tried. Both had drawn the line in the wrong place. Neither error shows up on a dial that asks only how much of the world you think is yours.

V

The Story

Shakespeare put both ends of Rotter’s line on one stage, and gave each to the person least able to bear it. In the second scene of King Lear, Edmund, the bastard son who is about to ruin his brother and betray his father, mocks the habit of blaming the heavens. “This is the excellent foppery of the world,” he says: that when our fortunes sicken, often from our own excess, we make the sun, the moon and the stars guilty of our disasters, as if we were villains by necessity. It is the internal creed, plainly stated, and it is given to the villain. Three acts later his father, blinded, speaks the external one: “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; / They kill us for their sport.” The play endorses neither. It shows what each belief does in the hands of the man who holds it, which a play can do and a questionnaire cannot.

The same divergence turns up wherever something arrives that nobody chose. Feng Xu and colleagues, surveying 324 research and development staff in nine manufacturing firms in Shenzhen, reported this year that employees with an internal locus of control tended to see their company’s adoption of artificial intelligence as a challenge, and shared what they learned about it; those with an external locus tended to see it as a hindrance, and hid what they knew. It is a survey of what people reported, not of what they did. But the machines were the same machines, and the line fell in different places.

And the line, it seems, can be moved in the telling. Jonathan Adler, a psychologist at Olin College who also writes plays, asked forty-seven adults beginning psychotherapy to write about their lives before their first session and then after each session that followed, twelve accounts in all. Nearly six hundred stories were coded for two qualities: agency, the sense of oneself as the one acting, and coherence, the sense of a life that hangs together. Coherence barely moved. Agency rose, and the writers’ mental health rose with it, and the change in the stories came first, by a week or two. Adler’s phrase for what he saw was that people told a new story and then “lived their way into it.” It is one study, of forty-seven people in therapy. But it has the same shape again, in a third medium: something found, and then something kept, this time in prose. That is the third step, after the admission and the finding: the telling.

Adler is careful about what the order proves. A story that changes a week or two before well-being does is, he says, about as close as research on identity can come to suggesting a cause, since no one would assign people the stories they live by at random. But he draws from the work a distinction that would have been at home in Nicopolis. We have no unrestricted say over what happens to us, he says; we have much more over the stories we tell about it. And he points to where the telling starts. Children learn to tell their own lives by telling them to someone, and the adults who listen shape what is told: which events belong in the story, and how a story is allowed to end. Adler’s word for what those adults do is scaffolding.

What, then, should a parent wish for a child? Not the quality the column names, because it is not a quality, and not the belief that the world is hers, because it is not, and she will find that out. What is worth wishing for is a habit: of drawing the line where it actually runs, and of acting on her side of it as though the other side did not exist. It has a name much older than Rotter’s, and the name is a chain. Aristotle begins the second book of the Ethics by observing that moral excellence comes about through habit, and that its very name, ēthikē, is a slight variation on ethos, the Greek for habit. In the Poetics he says that character is what reveals prohairesis, choice: the deciding between what to seek and what to avoid. And Epictetus, who taught that every faculty is kept and strengthened by its own acts, “the faculty of walking by walking, that of running by running,” took prohairesis and widened it until it meant the faculty of choosing itself, the one thing in the world that is up to us. Habit makes character; character shows in choice; and a man whose name meant “acquired” took the word for what a character shows on a stage and made it the name for the only thing he owned.

A story is a schedule of the acts a character can take. So is a life, on the right side of the line. Nobody can hand that over. What can be handed over is smaller and older: an hour a week, a book at the end of it, a plant to choose and look after, someone to listen when the story is told, and a question asked once. Which one would you like?

⁂

Sources: Bartleby, “The quality you should most wish for your children,” The Economist, August 27, 2026, from which the savings and entrepreneurship findings are taken. Julian B. Rotter, “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs 80 (1966); “Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43 (1975); “Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable,” American Psychologist 45 (1990); his life from Encyclopedia.com and other biographical accounts. Marco Caliendo, Deborah Cobb-Clark and Arne Uhlendorff, “Locus of control and job search strategies,” Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (2015). Warn N. Lekfuangfu, Nattavudh Powdthavee, Nele Warrinnier and Francesca Cornaglia, “Locus of control and its intergenerational implications for early childhood skill formation,” Economic Journal 128 (2018). Jean M. Twenge, Liqing Zhang and Charles Im, “It’s beyond my control,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (2004). Epictetus, Discourses II.18, in P. E. Matheson’s translation (1916); the opening of the Enchiridion is rendered for this essay. James B. Stockdale, Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus’s Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior (Hoover Institution, 1993), the lecture given at King’s College London on November 15, 1993. Ellen J. Langer and Judith Rodin, “The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (1976), and the 1977 follow-up with its 1978 correction; James Coyne’s re-examination of the study. Steven F. Maier and Martin E. P. Seligman, “Learned helplessness at fifty,” Psychological Review 123 (2016); John P. Christianson and colleagues, “Learned stressor resistance requires extracellular signal-regulated kinase in the prefrontal cortex,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8 (2014). Félix Ravaisson, Of Habit (1838); Clare Carlisle, On Habit (2014). Steven D. Levitt, “Heads or tails,” Review of Economic Studies 88 (2021), the published version, from which the figures are taken (working paper). Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905). Francis J. Flynn and Vanessa K. B. Lake, “If you need help, just ask,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95 (2008). Cate Hall and Sasha Chapin, You Can Just Do Things (2026). Feng Xu and colleagues, “Linking organizational AI adoption to employee knowledge behaviours,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 13 (2026). Jonathan M. Adler, “Living into the story,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102 (2012); his phrase as quoted by WBUR, January 13, 2012; and his conversation with the Business Group on Health. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II.1, in W. D. Ross’s translation, and Poetics 1450b. Shakespeare, King Lear and Hamlet. W. E. Henley, “Invictus” (1888), paraphrased.

Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary and copy editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; outside literary reading by Claude Fable 5.1. The header and interior images were generated with Gemini Argon for this essay.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET: “CROSSED LETTERS” (Ch. 3)

Click any page to read it larger.

THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.DECEMBER, 1819.No. III.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 28.)


CHAPTER III.

Crossed Letters.

Mr. Rad­cliffe read his own maga–zine on the first of every monthat seven o’clock in the morn­ing, fromthe wrap­per to the last ad­vert­ise­ment,be­fore any­body in Lon­don could tellhim what was in it.

He did not read it in proof. In proofa maga­zine was a mat­ter of sheets ander­rors, and he left it to Hol­lis, the over–seer, who was paid to read for theprinter and read noth­ing else; but onthe first, with the ink scarcely dry andAlbe­marle Street not yet awake, heread it as the town would read it, inhis chair, with his tea going cold at hiselbow, and he had found since he wasa boy in Edin­burgh that it was the onlyway to know what he had pub­lished.

He read the very tem­per­ate art–icle in sup­port of the ma­gis­trates, andfound it as tem­per­ate as he had paidfor. He read Mr. Wray’s second paperon the Cock­ney School, and found itbet­ter than the first, and noted the twoplaces in it where a para­graph stopped

short. Mr. Wray’s para­graphs did notstop short. He knew whose pen­cil hadstopped them. He did not think theworse of the paper for it, and he did notthink it his busi­ness to say so. Then heread the Warden, be­cause it was in thenum­ber, and be­cause Lord Ash­combewould write.

The el­ev­enth num­ber opened at afeast:

Upon the feast of Saint Michael, inthe year of grace four­teen hun­dred andthree, the Warden of the March kept histable in the hall at Lud­low as his of­ficere­quired of him, with his knights abovethe salt and his es­quires below it, andthe host­ages of the Welsh, who were ofgentle blood and must be fed as such, at aboard by them­selves be­neath the screen.

Between the King’s let­ter and thefeast the Warden had let the Battleof Shrews­bury go by, the one battleof the reign that the town knew fromthe play­house, and not a blow of iton the page. Mr. Rad­cliffe, who had

CLOSE ×☞PAGE 33 · 33–43

asked on the first of Sep­tem­ber for alittle more in­cid­ent, noted this as henoted everything that would not sell,and read on. There was a girl at thatboard, of whom he had not heard be–fore, and the num­ber had hardly begunbe­fore it gave her a sen­tence to her­self:

The Lady Gwen­llian un­der­stood, be–tween the grace and the first dish, thatshe would not be called up to the hightable; and she sat out the rest of the feastin the gown that had been made for it,be­cause to send for an­other would havebeen to own that she had hoped.

Mr. Rad­cliffe stopped.

He had not a lit­er­ary memory. Hehad a com­mer­cial one. It kept whatthe town re­peated, and the town hadbeen re­peat­ing Miss Mor­timer’s gownsince August; so be­fore he had well fin–ished the sen­tence he knew that he hadread it be­fore, or its sis­ter, and notin the Albe­marle. He got up and wentto the press be­hind the door, wherehe kept every num­ber of every maga–zine in Lon­don that he had read atseven o’clock on the first of the month.He took out the Lud­gate for August,turned to the fourth num­ber of theMor­timers, and found it near the end:Miss Mor­timer un­der­stood, be­tween thesoup and the fish, that she would not beasked to Lady Harrow­gate’s.

He laid the two maga­zines side byside upon the table, the buff wrap­perand the blue, and read the two sen–

tences twice over, slowly, as he reada bal­ance-sheet. Every fig­ure had beencar­ried across but one.

He did not sup­pose for a mo­mentthat the Author of the Mor­timerswrote the Warden. He knew whowrote the Warden. He was one of twomen in Lon­don who did, and the otherhad writ­ten it. The first num­ber hadbeen laid on this table el­even monthsago by its au­thor, in a hand that Mr.Rad­cliffe had last seen at the foot of adeed of part­ner­ship; and he had keptthe know­ledge ever since as he keptthe deed, in a place where nobody elsewould come upon it. What he had notknown until this minute was that theau­thor of the Warden read the Mor–timers; and read them, it ap­peared,with the at­ten­tion a man gives to athing he means to take. And he re–membered, be­cause it was the kind ofthing he did re­mem­ber, that on the firstof Sep­tem­ber he had read the Lud­gatefrom cover to cover at seven o’clock,and that be­fore noon his prin­cipal pro–pri­etor had picked it up off this tableand car­ried it away under his arm, andthat he had sat af­ter­wards won­der­ingwhat the devil a man of ten thou­sand ayear wanted with a rival’s maga­zine.

He knew now. It was not a thingthat would in­terest the town, whichdid not read the Warden and wouldnot have known the sen­tence if it had.It would in­terest Albe­marle Street a

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 34 · 33–43

great deal, and Pater­noster Row agreat deal more; and it was worth,as far as Mr. Rad­cliffe could see, ex–actly as much as he did not say aboutit. That the Mor­timers had robbedthe Warden first, in Sep­tem­ber, didnot occur to him at all. He had readthe para­graph in his own maga­zine inAugust, and again in Bal­dock’s in Sep–tem­ber, and had not known it for thesame; for he kept only what the townre­peated, and the town had never re–peated the Warden. The one man whoever had was Lord Ash­combe, who hadnot read it. He put the August Lud–gate back in the press. Then he tookthe Oc­to­ber num­ber off the heap ofother people’s maga­zines, which hadbeen brought up from the shop at halfpast six, and laid it by it­self on thecorner of the table nearest the door.

Mr. Lu­cius Wray called for his cop–ies at nine.

He was four-and-twenty, and hand–some in a way that he had not yetbeen made to pay for. He had been sentdown from Christ Church for a reasonthat im­proved with every telling, andhad quar­relled upon the strength of itwith his father, who was a dean; andhe had come up to Lon­don to makehis name by his pen, and wrote ina cof­fee-house in Co­vent Garden, anddined on credit, and had never set footin a count­ing-house in his life. Therewere per­haps three men in Lon­don

who could do with a para­graph whathe could do with one; he knew thenames of all three, and spoke to noneof them.

“I have been cut,” he said, be­fore hehad sat down.

“I saw.”

“You saw. Hol­lis saw. The com­pos–itor saw, I dare say, and laughed; theyal­ways know.” He took up a copy of thenum­ber and turned to his own paper,which he had read four times already.“Two things. The two best things inthe paper, and I do not say so lightly,be­cause there are a good many goodthings in it. The cook, and the lady ofthe Acad­emy. I said that the Authormust keep a cook in Cheap­side, sincehe knows to a shil­ling what the tur­botcost and has not the least no­tion whois asked to eat it. And I said that theAcad­emy ad­mit­ted flower-paint­ing asit had ad­mit­ted Miss Moser, out of po–lite­ness, and had been re­lieved of bothin May. It was the best sen­tence I havewrit­ten this year.”

“It was a cruel one,” said Mr. Rad–cliffe. “She is not five months dead.”

“All the best sen­tences are cruel. Itis how one knows them.” Mr. Wrayturned a page. “But he left me therail­ings. I sup­pose be­cause they weretrue; it is the only thing he ever asksof a sen­tence. And be­cause they werehis: he gave them me at your table inAugust, over the port. One would think

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 35 · 33–43

he had been to Gros­venor Square.”

“He lives there.”

“I know where he lives,” said Mr.Wray. “I have been let in.”

Mr. Kin­ross came in at half pastnine, with­out being an­nounced.

Mr. Wray rose, and bowed, an inchlower than a man bows who means it.“I have been thank­ing Mr. Rad­cliffe foryour cor­rec­tions, sir.”

“They were not cor­rec­tions,” saidMr. Kin­ross. “You had two thingswrong.”

“Which two?”

“Miss Moser was a bet­ter painterthan you are a writer. And the Authorhas never kept a cook.”

Mr. Wray laughed. He had a goodlaugh, and he used it as other men usea sword-cane. “You know the Author,then?”

“No. I know how a man writes whohas.”

“And the rail­ings?”

“The rail­ings were right.”

“I know,” said Mr. Wray. “You saidso at the time.”

Mr. Rad­cliffe, who had been look­ingat the win­dow, said: “The Lud­gate ison the corner of the table, sir, if youwant it.”

Mr. Kin­ross looked at the Lud­gate,lying by it­self on the corner nearestthe door, where nobody had ever puta maga­zine be­fore; and then he lookedat Mr. Rad­cliffe, who met his eye with

the ex­pres­sion of a phys­i­cian who hasjust said that a pa­tient is com­fort­able.There was a short pause. Mr. Wray,who was read­ing him­self, did not lookup.

“Thank you,” said Mr. Kin­ross, andtook it.

It was the first thing, in all the yearsof their part­ner­ship, that Mr. Rad­cliffehad known about his prin­cipal pro­pri–etor which his prin­cipal pro­pri­etor hadnot told him; and when the door hadclosed he put it away, as he put awayeverything, in the place where he keptthe things that would be worth morelater.

Mr. Kin­ross walked to the Temple,where he kept the cham­bers that hehad never needed for the law and hadal­ways needed for this. He had walkedthere every day for a month, and Fen–wick had given up ask­ing whether hewould take the car­riage, and had begunin­stead, he ob­served with­out re­mark,to have his boots brushed twice.

At the desk he read Mr. Wray first.He had read him already, in proof, witha pen­cil; but he wished to know what itwas like to read him as the town wouldread him this morn­ing, with noth­ing inhis hand.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 36 · 33–43

There is a kind of paint­ing whichstands at the bot­tom of the art, and is notthe worse for stand­ing there: the paint–ing of flowers. It asks for a quick eye, asteady hand, and a per­fect in­dif­fer­enceto what the flowers are for. The Mor–timers of Mount Street is flower-paint–ing in prose. The petals are coun­ted, andthe dew is put in af­ter­wards; the col­oursare true, and the ar­range­ment pleases;and like all flower-paint­ing it is the workof some­body to whom the flowers werebrought, and who has never been in thegarden. The Author has car­ried his fam–ily to Gros­venor Square and set the rail–ings at the kerb; he gives them their din–ner at six. Nobody who had once beenasked to dine in Gros­venor Square woulddo either. One learns where the rail­ingsstand by being let in; and it is the pe–cu­liar dis­tinc­tion of the Cock­ney Schoolthat it de­scribes the draw­ing-room fromthe wrong side of the rail­ings.

It was very good. That was theworst of it.

The rail­ings were his own. He hadwrit­ten them first in the mar­gin of theAugust Lud­gate, with the brev­ity ofa man who had never had to ex­plainhim­self; and a week later, at Mr. Rad–cliffe’s table, when Mr. Wray askedhim over the port what he made ofthe Mor­timers, he had told him, rail–ings and din­ner-hour to­gether, as hetold any­body any­thing that was true,with­out look­ing to see who was listen–ing. He had thought no more of it untilthe proof came to him in the middle of

Sep­tem­ber, and he found his two cor–rec­tions in it, grown to a para­graph.He had struck out Miss Moser, be­causeshe was dead and could not an­swer,and the cook, be­cause it was not true;and he had let the rail­ings stand. Hehad known when he let them stand thatthey would be read on the first of Oc­to–ber by a young man with sis­ters; thatthey would be read on the same morn–ing, very likely in the same hour, as theWarden’s an­swer to him; and he hadlet them stand, be­cause they were true,and be­cause the al­tern­at­ive was to bea man who struck out what was truewhen it was in­con­veni­ent to him, andhe had no in­ten­tion, at two-and-thirty,of be­gin­ning. He found now, read­ingthem with the town, that he did not likehim­self for it, and that he would do itagain. It is the con­di­tion which in othermen is called prin­ciple, and which hisaunt called a great pity.

Then he opened the Lud­gate.

This month’s num­ber was about Mr.Mor­timer. The Author had kept theprom­ise of the last, which he did notal­ways do, and had told the readerwhy Thomas gave no­tice. Mr. Mor–timer, hav­ing learned from some­bodyat his club that in the great housesevery foot­man is called James, hadcalled Thomas James for a month;and Thomas, who had been Thomasin Man­chester for el­even years, hadborne it for a month and gone, with

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 37 · 33–43

his box cor­ded and one sen­tence at thedoor: I was Thomas in Man­chester, sir,and I find I can­not be James for thirtypounds. Mr. Mor­timer could not see it.Mrs. Mor­timer could not see it. Thebut­ler, who could, was not asked. Mr.Kin­ross, who had lately begun to keepan hour on the first of the month for theMor­timers, found that he was read­ingwar­ily, and with reason. At the end ofthe num­ber the Author left Mr. Mor–timer alone in his din­ing-room with thede­canter and the know­ledge, and gavehim this:

Mr. Mor­timer had kept the peace of hishouse in Mount Street for nine months,at a charge, by the house­keeper’s book,of el­even hun­dred pounds; and he learnedin the keep­ing, though the book did nottell him so, that it was a thing more eas–ily broken by the keeper than by the kept,and not to be men­ded, at any chargewhatever, by the man who had broken it.

He did not need to take down theWarden’s an­swer to the King. He hadwrit­ten that sen­tence el­even times.

It was his again, as the foot­man hadbeen his, and again it had been car­riedinto a house where some­body knewwhat things cost, and had the price putinto it: the nine years of the Marchwere nine months of Mount Street, andthe peace of a king­dom had be­come ahouse­keeper’s book with el­even hun–dred pounds at the foot of the page.But the last clause was not his. He had

not thought of it. It had not once oc–curred to him, in the Marches or out ofthem, that a thing broken by its keepermight be past the keeper’s mend­ing;and he sat with the Lud­gate in his handand the Albe­marle open be­side it at Mr.Wray’s rail­ings, and con­sidered thathe had that morn­ing, at his own leaveand in his own maga­zine, broken some–thing that he did not see how he was tomend.

The young man had read theWarden’s an­swer to the King, then.In the first days of Sep­tem­ber, whilethe Warden was an­swer­ing him withthe Lady Gwen­llian, he had been help–ing him­self again, and sent this to thepress by the tenth of the month, be–fore he could have the least no­tion thatthe Warden had answered him at all.Each of them had answered a let­terthe other had not yet re­ceived. Thepost in this cor­res­pond­ence went oncea month, on the first; and this morn–ing it had car­ried both an­swers at once,and had car­ried with them, in the Albe–marle, by the pro­pri­etor’s leave, Lu­ciusWray. Mr. Kin­ross had sent his firstlet­ter, that is to say, in the same postas a horse­whip; and he had packed thehorse­whip him­self.

It oc­curred to him, sit­ting there,that he did not know what his ownfoot­men were called. He had neverasked. Fen­wick would know; and forthe first time in his life Mr. Kin­ross was

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 38 · 33–43

not per­fectly cer­tain that the namesFen­wick knew them by were their own.

He took up his pen­cil. Against thelast clause of Mr. Mor­timer’s sen­tence,which was the only part of it that wasnot his, he wrote one word in the mar–gin, as he had writ­ten one word inAugust; and the word, this time, wastrue.

Clem­ency went up to the Row atnoon, as she did on the first of everymonth, to look at her own num­ber inBal­dock’s win­dow with­out buy­ing it.

It was there, in its blue-grey wrap–per, be­tween a volume of ser­mons anda treat­ise upon the dry rot, with thecon­tents prin­ted down the front of itin the small, plain, Whig type that Mr.Bal­dock bought by the hun­dred­weight:The Mor­timers of Mount Street. No.VI. She looked at it for the properlength of time, which was the length oftime a stranger might give it, and wasturn­ing away when the win­dow of theof­fice above went up with a bang, andMr. Bal­dock put his head out and calledher in. He had never done it be­fore.She went up the stairs with the feel­ing,fa­mil­iar to any­one who has ever beensent for, of hav­ing already been foundout in some­thing.

The Oc­to­ber Albe­marle lay open onhis desk. He did not offer it to her. Heput his hand flat upon it, as she hadonce put hers flat upon his counter, and

said: “Mr. Wray has done you the hon–our.”

“Is it very bad?”

“It is clever,” said Mr. Bal­dock, whowas an hon­est man. “He has read you.I told you they would.” He looked ather over his spec­tacles, which he worefor read­ing other men’s maga­zines andfor noth­ing else. “He will sell threehun­dred Lud­gates for me be­fore Sat–urday. They al­ways do. I thought youhad bet­ter hear it from me than fromthe Row.”

“May I see it?”

“You may take it home. I have an–other.” He did not take his hand offit. “I should read it at home, with thedoor shut. It is not a thing to read in ashop.”

“Then I will read it at home,” saidClem­ency, and did not take it, be­causeshe found that she did not want tocarry it through the streets; and Mr.Bal­dock, who un­der­stood her, put itaway in his drawer with the Man–chester page and the August ac­counts,and changed the sub­ject, which wasthe kind­est thing he did all day.

The sub­ject he changed it to wasnot a com­fort­able one. They were totry Car­lile at Guild­hall this month, hesaid, for print­ing Paine; it was all overthe Row; and the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral,hav­ing begun with Car­lile, was notthought likely to stop there. Mr. Bal–dock had prin­ted the names of the dead

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 39 · 33–43

from St. Peter’s Field in Sep­tem­ber,with their ages and their trades, in asmal­ler type than the rest of the num–ber be­cause there had not been roomfor them in any other. He did not saythat they would come for the Lud­gate.He said that he had read his lease againon Tues­day night, which he had notdone in two years, and that he hadfound it a very in­struct­ive doc­u­ment.

Clem­ency, who had paid thequarter’s rent in Salis­bury Square onWed­nes­day, Michael­mas Day, with thewhole of Sep­tem­ber’s seven guineasand the bet­ter part of August’s, con–sidered this for a mo­ment in the light ofher own lease, which ran from quarter-day to quarter-day and con­tained noin­struc­tion at all.

“Then I had bet­ter write the sev­enthnum­ber quickly,” she said, “while thereis a Lud­gate to print it.”

Mr. Bal­dock laughed, which waswhat she had meant him to do. “Bringit by the tenth. If there is a Lud­gateon the first of No­vem­ber you shall bein it; and if there is not, you shall bepaid for it all the same.” He meantit. She knew, and she thought that heknew, that it was not a thing a mancould prom­ise who had read his leaseon Tues­day night; and they par­ted onit, as people do part on a kind­ness thatneither of them can af­ford.

She went home by Lud­gate Hill.There was a crowd at a print-shop

win­dow halfway down, as there hadbeen all Sep­tem­ber, five deep on thepave­ment, look­ing at the yeo­manry rid–ing down the people at Man­chester inred and black: col­oured by hand, at somuch the dozen, by some­body’s daugh–ter in a back room, with rather morered than was strictly needed. She wentby on the far side of the street, and didnot look, and saw it all the same, andthought, as she turned down into Salis–bury Court, that she knew ex­actly howmuch red was needed, and that it wasnone of it hers to put in.

The Albe­marle came to Salis­burySquare on the first of Oc­to­ber, on theday it was pub­lished, which it hadnever done be­fore.

Mr. Pel­ham had read one art­icle init in Hare Court be­fore his din­ner, andhad laughed at it twice, and had sentit home with Kit at six o’clock, withhis com­pli­ments to Mrs. Lyd­iard andthe young ladies and his opin­ion thatthey would find it cap­ital. Kit broughtit up the two pair of stairs to­getherwith a bar­rel of oysters, which he hadbought out of Michael­mas; his fortypounds had been paid on Wed­nes­day,and was, for the present, en­tire. It wasa Fri­day, and there was fish, be­cause inMrs. Lyd­iard’s house there was al­waysfish on a Fri­day; and the oysters, whichMrs. Lyd­iard said were very ex­tra­vag–ant and ate el­even of, made a feast of

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 40 · 33–43

it.

Kit read aloud. He read well, andknew it, and liked an audi­ence thatcould not get up and go; and hepropped the Albe­marle against thewater-jug and gave them Mr. Wray’ssecond paper on the Cock­ney Schoolfrom the be­gin­ning, with the ex­pres–sion. Nobody at the table knew whatClem­ency wrote for the Lud­gate, bey–ond that it was a little, and was paidfor, and was not the kind of thing thatany­body in Salis­bury Square had everasked to see.

Clem­ency knew what it was fromthe first sen­tence, be­cause Mr. Bal–dock had told her, and from the second,be­cause it named the Mor­timers. Shewent on eat­ing her fish.

“The Mor­timers!” said Lucy. “Oh,but I like the Mor­timers. Miss Harkerlends them to me. I think them ex­cess–ively di­vert­ing.”

“Then you have no taste, and Mr.Wray will tell you so.” Kit found hisplace. “There is a kind of paint­ingwhich stands at the bot­tom of the art⁠—”

He gave them the flower-paint­ing,and the petals coun­ted, and the dewput in af­ter­wards; and Clem­ency, whohad a port­fo­lio under her bed thatnobody in the room had ever lookedinto, found that her hand was steadyand that she could not taste the cod.

Mrs. Lyd­iard, who had been mend–ing a cuff of Kit’s with the air of

a woman who does not listen to themaga­zines, said with­out look­ing up:“Miss Moser painted flowers.”

“Who?”

“Miss Moser. She was of the RoyalAcad­emy.” Mrs. Lyd­iard drew herthread through. “The Queen had herto paint a whole room at Frog­more.Flowers from the floor to the ceil­ing.Nobody thought that the bot­tom ofany­thing.”

“Did you know her, Mama?” saidLucy.

“Every­body knew of her.” Therewas a short pause. “She died in May.”

It was the first time that Clem­encyhad ever heard her mother name apainter. She looked across the table,and Mrs. Lyd­iard said, “Go on, Kit,”in the voice in which she ordered thefish; and Kit went on. But the needlehad stopped in the cuff, and it did notbegin again, Clem­ency no­ticed, for therest of the paper.

Then Kit came to the rail­ings.

He gave it the voice of a ver­dict, andlingered over the end of it: it de­scribesthe draw­ing-room from the wrong sideof the rail­ings.

“That’s a hit,” said Kit, de­lighted.“That’s a palp­able hit.”

“Is it true?” said Clem­ency.

“Of course it’s true. Pel­ham says so.Pel­ham dined in Gros­venor Square inthe year el­even and has talked of noth–ing else since.” He re­filled his glass.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 41 · 33–43

“The rail­ings go along the area, Clem,to keep you from fall­ing into the kit–chen. Any­body knows that.”

Any­body who had been let in knewit. She sat with her fork in her handand saw, with the sud­den plain­nesswith which one sees the mis­take in asum that has been added up wrong fora month, where she had got her rail–ings. In Bread Street there had beenposts along the kerb, to keep the cartsoff the pave­ment, and she had grownup be­hind them; and when she hadneeded a house in Gros­venor Squareshe had built it out of the only streetshe knew, and set the rail­ings wherethe posts were. She had never been inGros­venor Square. She had never beenin Mount Street. She had writ­ten sixnum­bers about a house in it, and soldthem, and been liked for them by alady in Rus­sell Square, and she hadnever once walked down it, be­causeone can­not walk down Mount Streetwith a par­cel, and she had never hadany reason to be there with­out one.

“Have you any­thing in the Lud­gatethis month, Clem?” said Kit, turn­ingthe page.

“A little.”

“What about?”

“A foot­man.”

Kit laughed so much that he had toput the Albe­marle down. “Lord, Clem,you might write about some­thing,” hesaid; and Lucy laughed too, be­cause

Kit had, and their mother said thatshe did not see that a foot­man wasany laugh­ing mat­ter, she had known agreat many; and the sup­per went on.

Clem­ency sat it out. She sat out theoysters, and Mr. Wray’s per­or­a­tion,and the cheese, and Kit’s opin­ion of theCock­ney School, which was Mr. Pel–ham’s, be­cause to have got up and goneinto the back room would have been toown that any of it was hers.

They went to bed at el­even. Kit leftthe Albe­marle on the table among theoyster shells, as he left everything, andClem­ency waited until the house haddone creak­ing, and then took it, anda candle, through to the back room,where the desk was.

She read Mr. Wray again by her­self,from the be­gin­ning, which was worsethan hear­ing it. It was clever; Mr. Bal–dock was right. He had read her, andread her more care­fully than she hadsup­posed any­body in Albe­marle Streetread any­thing, and he had found theone thing in six num­bers that she couldnot have known, and had known thatshe could not have known it. She wouldgo and look at Mount Street. She didnot yet know how a woman walkeddown Mount Street with­out a par­cel,or what she would say to any­one whoasked her what she was doing there;but she would find out, as she found outmost things, by tak­ing more trouble

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 42 · 33–43

about it than it de­served.

Then she turned the page past Mr.Wray, be­cause the Warden was inthe num­ber, and she read the Wardennow. She sat down to it. It was one ofthe things she did not do.

The el­ev­enth num­ber opened atLud­low at Michael­mas, which theWarden kept with a feast and Salis–bury Square had kept on Wed­nes­daywith the rent; and there was a girl atthe feast: a Welsh girl, a host­age, thefirst woman to whom the Warden hadgiven a sen­tence of her own in el­evennum­bers. Clem­ency did not know thesen­tence at once. She read it as onereads a let­ter in a strange hand, andshe was halfway through the secondclause be­fore the hand turned out to beher own.

The Lady Gwen­llian un­der­stood, be–tween the grace and the first dish, thatshe would not be called up to the hightable; and she sat out the rest of the feastin the gown that had been made for it,be­cause to send for an­other would havebeen to own that she had hoped.

She sat quite still.

It was Miss Mor­timer. It was MissMor­timer to the last stone, ex­ceptwhere it was not: the soup and thefish had gone back four hun­dred yearsand be­come a grace and a dish, LadyHarrow­gate’s had be­come a high table,and the gown had been made for thefeast in­stead of merely put on for it.

And at the end, where she had writ–ten that the girl would not go up andchange be­cause to change would be toadmit that she had known, some­bodyhad taken out the one word on whichthe whole sen­tence turned, and put inan­other; and the word was hoped.

It had been read, then. Not lookedinto, nor sub­scribed to, nor taken topieces over the oysters, but read: thefourth num­ber, in August, throughMrs. Mor­timer’s car­riage and the din–ner at six, to the one sen­tence in it shehad been proud of and had shown tonobody. And who­ever had read it hadknown that it was hers to be proud of,and had taken it, which was the onlyway of say­ing so that was open to him;and had sent it back to her on the firstof Oc­to­ber, as she had sent him hison the first of Sep­tem­ber, so that sheshould know that it had been no­ticed.She had been right in every par­tic­u­larbut the last. A man of that kind didread the Mor­timers. He had read them,it seemed, as she read the Warden.

Over the roofs the gi­ants of St. Dun–stan’s began to strike twelve, and thefirst of Oc­to­ber went out with them.

She had never been able to de­cidewhat the girl in her port­fo­lio wouldlook like at the mo­ment she un­der–stood. There was nobody in the roomto see her face.

(To be con­tin­ued.)

☜CLOSE ×PAGE 43 · 33–43
THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.DECEMBER, 1819.No. III.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 28.)


CHAPTER III.

Crossed Letters.

Mr. Rad­cliffe read his own maga­zine on the first of every month at seven o’clock in the morn­ing, from the wrap­per to the last ad­vert­ise­ment, be­fore any­body in Lon­don could tell him what was in it.

He did not read it in proof. In proof a maga­zine was a mat­ter of sheets and er­rors, and he left it to Hol­lis, the over­seer, who was paid to read for the printer and read noth­ing else; but on the first, with the ink scarcely dry and Albe­marle Street not yet awake, he read it as the town would read it, in his chair, with his tea going cold at his elbow, and he had found since he was a boy in Edin­burgh that it was the only way to know what he had pub­lished.

He read the very tem­per­ate art­icle in sup­port of the ma­gis­trates, and found it as tem­per­ate as he had paid for. He read Mr. Wray’s second paper on the Cock­ney School, and found it bet­ter than the first, and noted the two places in it where a para­graph stopped short. Mr. Wray’s para­graphs did not stop short. He knew whose pen­cil had stopped them. He did not think the worse of the paper for it, and he did not think it his busi­ness to say so. Then he read the Warden, be­cause it was in the num­ber, and be­cause Lord Ash­combe would write.

The el­ev­enth num­ber opened at a feast:

Upon the feast of Saint Michael, in the year of grace four­teen hun­dred and three, the Warden of the March kept his table in the hall at Lud­low as his of­fice re­quired of him, with his knights above the salt and his es­quires below it, and the host­ages of the Welsh, who were of gentle blood and must be fed as such, at a board by them­selves be­neath the screen.

Between the King’s let­ter and the feast the Warden had let the Battle of Shrews­bury go by, the one battle of the reign that the town knew from the play­house, and not a blow of it on the page. Mr. Rad­cliffe, who had

asked on the first of Sep­tem­ber for a little more in­cid­ent, noted this as he noted everything that would not sell, and read on. There was a girl at that board, of whom he had not heard be­fore, and the num­ber had hardly begun be­fore it gave her a sen­tence to her­self:

The Lady Gwen­llian un­der­stood, be­tween the grace and the first dish, that she would not be called up to the high table; and she sat out the rest of the feast in the gown that had been made for it, be­cause to send for an­other would have been to own that she had hoped.

Mr. Rad­cliffe stopped.

He had not a lit­er­ary memory. He had a com­mer­cial one. It kept what the town re­peated, and the town had been re­peat­ing Miss Mor­timer’s gown since August; so be­fore he had well fin­ished the sen­tence he knew that he had read it be­fore, or its sis­ter, and not in the Albe­marle. He got up and went to the press be­hind the door, where he kept every num­ber of every maga­zine in Lon­don that he had read at seven o’clock on the first of the month. He took out the Lud­gate for August, turned to the fourth num­ber of the Mor­timers, and found it near the end: Miss Mor­timer un­der­stood, be­tween the soup and the fish, that she would not be asked to Lady Harrow­gate’s.

He laid the two maga­zines side by side upon the table, the buff wrap­per and the blue, and read the two sen­tences twice over, slowly, as he read a bal­ance-sheet. Every fig­ure had been car­ried across but one.

He did not sup­pose for a mo­ment that the Author of the Mor­timers wrote the Warden. He knew who wrote the Warden. He was one of two men in Lon­don who did, and the other had writ­ten it. The first num­ber had been laid on this table el­even months ago by its au­thor, in a hand that Mr. Rad­cliffe had last seen at the foot of a deed of part­ner­ship; and he had kept the know­ledge ever since as he kept the deed, in a place where nobody else would come upon it. What he had not known until this minute was that the au­thor of the Warden read the Mor­timers; and read them, it ap­peared, with the at­ten­tion a man gives to a thing he means to take. And he re­membered, be­cause it was the kind of thing he did re­mem­ber, that on the first of Sep­tem­ber he had read the Lud­gate from cover to cover at seven o’clock, and that be­fore noon his prin­cipal pro­pri­etor had picked it up off this table and car­ried it away under his arm, and that he had sat af­ter­wards won­der­ing what the devil a man of ten thou­sand a year wanted with a rival’s maga­zine.

He knew now. It was not a thing that would in­terest the town, which did not read the Warden and would not have known the sen­tence if it had. It would in­terest Albe­marle Street a

great deal, and Pater­noster Row a great deal more; and it was worth, as far as Mr. Rad­cliffe could see, ex­actly as much as he did not say about it. That the Mor­timers had robbed the Warden first, in Sep­tem­ber, did not occur to him at all. He had read the para­graph in his own maga­zine in August, and again in Bal­dock’s in Sep­tem­ber, and had not known it for the same; for he kept only what the town re­peated, and the town had never re­peated the Warden. The one man who ever had was Lord Ash­combe, who had not read it. He put the August Lud­gate back in the press. Then he took the Oc­to­ber num­ber off the heap of other people’s maga­zines, which had been brought up from the shop at half past six, and laid it by it­self on the corner of the table nearest the door.

Mr. Lu­cius Wray called for his cop­ies at nine.

He was four-and-twenty, and hand­some in a way that he had not yet been made to pay for. He had been sent down from Christ Church for a reason that im­proved with every telling, and had quar­relled upon the strength of it with his father, who was a dean; and he had come up to Lon­don to make his name by his pen, and wrote in a cof­fee-house in Co­vent Garden, and dined on credit, and had never set foot in a count­ing-house in his life. There were per­haps three men in Lon­don who could do with a para­graph what he could do with one; he knew the names of all three, and spoke to none of them.

“I have been cut,” he said, be­fore he had sat down.

“I saw.”

“You saw. Hol­lis saw. The com­pos­itor saw, I dare say, and laughed; they al­ways know.” He took up a copy of the num­ber and turned to his own paper, which he had read four times already. “Two things. The two best things in the paper, and I do not say so lightly, be­cause there are a good many good things in it. The cook, and the lady of the Acad­emy. I said that the Author must keep a cook in Cheap­side, since he knows to a shil­ling what the tur­bot cost and has not the least no­tion who is asked to eat it. And I said that the Acad­emy ad­mit­ted flower-paint­ing as it had ad­mit­ted Miss Moser, out of po­lite­ness, and had been re­lieved of both in May. It was the best sen­tence I have writ­ten this year.”

“It was a cruel one,” said Mr. Rad­cliffe. “She is not five months dead.”

“All the best sen­tences are cruel. It is how one knows them.” Mr. Wray turned a page. “But he left me the rail­ings. I sup­pose be­cause they were true; it is the only thing he ever asks of a sen­tence. And be­cause they were his: he gave them me at your table in August, over the port. One would think

he had been to Gros­venor Square.”

“He lives there.”

“I know where he lives,” said Mr. Wray. “I have been let in.”

Mr. Kin­ross came in at half past nine, with­out being an­nounced.

Mr. Wray rose, and bowed, an inch lower than a man bows who means it. “I have been thank­ing Mr. Rad­cliffe for your cor­rec­tions, sir.”

“They were not cor­rec­tions,” said Mr. Kin­ross. “You had two things wrong.”

“Which two?”

“Miss Moser was a bet­ter painter than you are a writer. And the Author has never kept a cook.”

Mr. Wray laughed. He had a good laugh, and he used it as other men use a sword-cane. “You know the Author, then?”

“No. I know how a man writes who has.”

“And the rail­ings?”

“The rail­ings were right.”

“I know,” said Mr. Wray. “You said so at the time.”

Mr. Rad­cliffe, who had been look­ing at the win­dow, said: “The Lud­gate is on the corner of the table, sir, if you want it.”

Mr. Kin­ross looked at the Lud­gate, lying by it­self on the corner nearest the door, where nobody had ever put a maga­zine be­fore; and then he looked at Mr. Rad­cliffe, who met his eye with the ex­pres­sion of a phys­i­cian who has just said that a pa­tient is com­fort­able. There was a short pause. Mr. Wray, who was read­ing him­self, did not look up.

“Thank you,” said Mr. Kin­ross, and took it.

It was the first thing, in all the years of their part­ner­ship, that Mr. Rad­cliffe had known about his prin­cipal pro­pri­etor which his prin­cipal pro­pri­etor had not told him; and when the door had closed he put it away, as he put away everything, in the place where he kept the things that would be worth more later.

Mr. Kin­ross walked to the Temple, where he kept the cham­bers that he had never needed for the law and had al­ways needed for this. He had walked there every day for a month, and Fen­wick had given up ask­ing whether he would take the car­riage, and had begun in­stead, he ob­served with­out re­mark, to have his boots brushed twice.

At the desk he read Mr. Wray first. He had read him already, in proof, with a pen­cil; but he wished to know what it was like to read him as the town would read him this morn­ing, with noth­ing in his hand.

There is a kind of paint­ing which stands at the bot­tom of the art, and is not the worse for stand­ing there: the paint­ing of flowers. It asks for a quick eye, a steady hand, and a per­fect in­dif­fer­ence to what the flowers are for. The Mor­timers of Mount Street is flower-paint­ing in prose. The petals are coun­ted, and the dew is put in af­ter­wards; the col­ours are true, and the ar­range­ment pleases; and like all flower-paint­ing it is the work of some­body to whom the flowers were brought, and who has never been in the garden. The Author has car­ried his fam­ily to Gros­venor Square and set the rail­ings at the kerb; he gives them their din­ner at six. Nobody who had once been asked to dine in Gros­venor Square would do either. One learns where the rail­ings stand by being let in; and it is the pe­cu­liar dis­tinc­tion of the Cock­ney School that it de­scribes the draw­ing-room from the wrong side of the rail­ings.

It was very good. That was the worst of it.

The rail­ings were his own. He had writ­ten them first in the mar­gin of the August Lud­gate, with the brev­ity of a man who had never had to ex­plain him­self; and a week later, at Mr. Rad­cliffe’s table, when Mr. Wray asked him over the port what he made of the Mor­timers, he had told him, rail­ings and din­ner-hour to­gether, as he told any­body any­thing that was true, with­out look­ing to see who was listen­ing. He had thought no more of it until the proof came to him in the middle of Sep­tem­ber, and he found his two cor­rec­tions in it, grown to a para­graph. He had struck out Miss Moser, be­cause she was dead and could not an­swer, and the cook, be­cause it was not true; and he had let the rail­ings stand. He had known when he let them stand that they would be read on the first of Oc­to­ber by a young man with sis­ters; that they would be read on the same morn­ing, very likely in the same hour, as the Warden’s an­swer to him; and he had let them stand, be­cause they were true, and be­cause the al­tern­at­ive was to be a man who struck out what was true when it was in­con­veni­ent to him, and he had no in­ten­tion, at two-and-thirty, of be­gin­ning. He found now, read­ing them with the town, that he did not like him­self for it, and that he would do it again. It is the con­di­tion which in other men is called prin­ciple, and which his aunt called a great pity.

Then he opened the Lud­gate.

This month’s num­ber was about Mr. Mor­timer. The Author had kept the prom­ise of the last, which he did not al­ways do, and had told the reader why Thomas gave no­tice. Mr. Mor­timer, hav­ing learned from some­body at his club that in the great houses every foot­man is called James, had called Thomas James for a month; and Thomas, who had been Thomas in Man­chester for el­even years, had borne it for a month and gone, with

his box cor­ded and one sen­tence at the door: I was Thomas in Man­chester, sir, and I find I can­not be James for thirty pounds. Mr. Mor­timer could not see it. Mrs. Mor­timer could not see it. The but­ler, who could, was not asked. Mr. Kin­ross, who had lately begun to keep an hour on the first of the month for the Mor­timers, found that he was read­ing war­ily, and with reason. At the end of the num­ber the Author left Mr. Mor­timer alone in his din­ing-room with the de­canter and the know­ledge, and gave him this:

Mr. Mor­timer had kept the peace of his house in Mount Street for nine months, at a charge, by the house­keeper’s book, of el­even hun­dred pounds; and he learned in the keep­ing, though the book did not tell him so, that it was a thing more eas­ily broken by the keeper than by the kept, and not to be men­ded, at any charge whatever, by the man who had broken it.

He did not need to take down the Warden’s an­swer to the King. He had writ­ten that sen­tence el­even times.

It was his again, as the foot­man had been his, and again it had been car­ried into a house where some­body knew what things cost, and had the price put into it: the nine years of the March were nine months of Mount Street, and the peace of a king­dom had be­come a house­keeper’s book with el­even hun­dred pounds at the foot of the page. But the last clause was not his. He had not thought of it. It had not once oc­curred to him, in the Marches or out of them, that a thing broken by its keeper might be past the keeper’s mend­ing; and he sat with the Lud­gate in his hand and the Albe­marle open be­side it at Mr. Wray’s rail­ings, and con­sidered that he had that morn­ing, at his own leave and in his own maga­zine, broken some­thing that he did not see how he was to mend.

The young man had read the Warden’s an­swer to the King, then. In the first days of Sep­tem­ber, while the Warden was an­swer­ing him with the Lady Gwen­llian, he had been help­ing him­self again, and sent this to the press by the tenth of the month, be­fore he could have the least no­tion that the Warden had answered him at all. Each of them had answered a let­ter the other had not yet re­ceived. The post in this cor­res­pond­ence went once a month, on the first; and this morn­ing it had car­ried both an­swers at once, and had car­ried with them, in the Albe­marle, by the pro­pri­etor’s leave, Lu­cius Wray. Mr. Kin­ross had sent his first let­ter, that is to say, in the same post as a horse­whip; and he had packed the horse­whip him­self.

It oc­curred to him, sit­ting there, that he did not know what his own foot­men were called. He had never asked. Fen­wick would know; and for the first time in his life Mr. Kin­ross was

not per­fectly cer­tain that the names Fen­wick knew them by were their own.

He took up his pen­cil. Against the last clause of Mr. Mor­timer’s sen­tence, which was the only part of it that was not his, he wrote one word in the mar­gin, as he had writ­ten one word in August; and the word, this time, was true.

Clem­ency went up to the Row at noon, as she did on the first of every month, to look at her own num­ber in Bal­dock’s win­dow with­out buy­ing it.

It was there, in its blue-grey wrap­per, be­tween a volume of ser­mons and a treat­ise upon the dry rot, with the con­tents prin­ted down the front of it in the small, plain, Whig type that Mr. Bal­dock bought by the hun­dred­weight: The Mor­timers of Mount Street. No. VI. She looked at it for the proper length of time, which was the length of time a stranger might give it, and was turn­ing away when the win­dow of the of­fice above went up with a bang, and Mr. Bal­dock put his head out and called her in. He had never done it be­fore. She went up the stairs with the feel­ing, fa­mil­iar to any­one who has ever been sent for, of hav­ing already been found out in some­thing.

The Oc­to­ber Albe­marle lay open on his desk. He did not offer it to her. He put his hand flat upon it, as she had once put hers flat upon his counter, and said: “Mr. Wray has done you the hon­our.”

“Is it very bad?”

“It is clever,” said Mr. Bal­dock, who was an hon­est man. “He has read you. I told you they would.” He looked at her over his spec­tacles, which he wore for read­ing other men’s maga­zines and for noth­ing else. “He will sell three hun­dred Lud­gates for me be­fore Sat­urday. They al­ways do. I thought you had bet­ter hear it from me than from the Row.”

“May I see it?”

“You may take it home. I have an­other.” He did not take his hand off it. “I should read it at home, with the door shut. It is not a thing to read in a shop.”

“Then I will read it at home,” said Clem­ency, and did not take it, be­cause she found that she did not want to carry it through the streets; and Mr. Bal­dock, who un­der­stood her, put it away in his drawer with the Man­chester page and the August ac­counts, and changed the sub­ject, which was the kind­est thing he did all day.

The sub­ject he changed it to was not a com­fort­able one. They were to try Car­lile at Guild­hall this month, he said, for print­ing Paine; it was all over the Row; and the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral, hav­ing begun with Car­lile, was not thought likely to stop there. Mr. Bal­dock had prin­ted the names of the dead

from St. Peter’s Field in Sep­tem­ber, with their ages and their trades, in a smal­ler type than the rest of the num­ber be­cause there had not been room for them in any other. He did not say that they would come for the Lud­gate. He said that he had read his lease again on Tues­day night, which he had not done in two years, and that he had found it a very in­struct­ive doc­u­ment.

Clem­ency, who had paid the quarter’s rent in Salis­bury Square on Wed­nes­day, Michael­mas Day, with the whole of Sep­tem­ber’s seven guineas and the bet­ter part of August’s, con­sidered this for a mo­ment in the light of her own lease, which ran from quarter-day to quarter-day and con­tained no in­struc­tion at all.

“Then I had bet­ter write the sev­enth num­ber quickly,” she said, “while there is a Lud­gate to print it.”

Mr. Bal­dock laughed, which was what she had meant him to do. “Bring it by the tenth. If there is a Lud­gate on the first of No­vem­ber you shall be in it; and if there is not, you shall be paid for it all the same.” He meant it. She knew, and she thought that he knew, that it was not a thing a man could prom­ise who had read his lease on Tues­day night; and they par­ted on it, as people do part on a kind­ness that neither of them can af­ford.

She went home by Lud­gate Hill. There was a crowd at a print-shop win­dow halfway down, as there had been all Sep­tem­ber, five deep on the pave­ment, look­ing at the yeo­manry rid­ing down the people at Man­chester in red and black: col­oured by hand, at so much the dozen, by some­body’s daugh­ter in a back room, with rather more red than was strictly needed. She went by on the far side of the street, and did not look, and saw it all the same, and thought, as she turned down into Salis­bury Court, that she knew ex­actly how much red was needed, and that it was none of it hers to put in.

The Albe­marle came to Salis­bury Square on the first of Oc­to­ber, on the day it was pub­lished, which it had never done be­fore.

Mr. Pel­ham had read one art­icle in it in Hare Court be­fore his din­ner, and had laughed at it twice, and had sent it home with Kit at six o’clock, with his com­pli­ments to Mrs. Lyd­iard and the young ladies and his opin­ion that they would find it cap­ital. Kit brought it up the two pair of stairs to­gether with a bar­rel of oysters, which he had bought out of Michael­mas; his forty pounds had been paid on Wed­nes­day, and was, for the present, en­tire. It was a Fri­day, and there was fish, be­cause in Mrs. Lyd­iard’s house there was al­ways fish on a Fri­day; and the oysters, which Mrs. Lyd­iard said were very ex­tra­vag­ant and ate el­even of, made a feast of

it.

Kit read aloud. He read well, and knew it, and liked an audi­ence that could not get up and go; and he propped the Albe­marle against the water-jug and gave them Mr. Wray’s second paper on the Cock­ney School from the be­gin­ning, with the ex­pres­sion. Nobody at the table knew what Clem­ency wrote for the Lud­gate, bey­ond that it was a little, and was paid for, and was not the kind of thing that any­body in Salis­bury Square had ever asked to see.

Clem­ency knew what it was from the first sen­tence, be­cause Mr. Bal­dock had told her, and from the second, be­cause it named the Mor­timers. She went on eat­ing her fish.

“The Mor­timers!” said Lucy. “Oh, but I like the Mor­timers. Miss Harker lends them to me. I think them ex­cess­ively di­vert­ing.”

“Then you have no taste, and Mr. Wray will tell you so.” Kit found his place. “There is a kind of paint­ing which stands at the bot­tom of the art⁠—”

He gave them the flower-paint­ing, and the petals coun­ted, and the dew put in af­ter­wards; and Clem­ency, who had a port­fo­lio under her bed that nobody in the room had ever looked into, found that her hand was steady and that she could not taste the cod.

Mrs. Lyd­iard, who had been mend­ing a cuff of Kit’s with the air of a woman who does not listen to the maga­zines, said with­out look­ing up: “Miss Moser painted flowers.”

“Who?”

“Miss Moser. She was of the Royal Acad­emy.” Mrs. Lyd­iard drew her thread through. “The Queen had her to paint a whole room at Frog­more. Flowers from the floor to the ceil­ing. Nobody thought that the bot­tom of any­thing.”

“Did you know her, Mama?” said Lucy.

“Every­body knew of her.” There was a short pause. “She died in May.”

It was the first time that Clem­ency had ever heard her mother name a painter. She looked across the table, and Mrs. Lyd­iard said, “Go on, Kit,” in the voice in which she ordered the fish; and Kit went on. But the needle had stopped in the cuff, and it did not begin again, Clem­ency no­ticed, for the rest of the paper.

Then Kit came to the rail­ings.

He gave it the voice of a ver­dict, and lingered over the end of it: it de­scribes the draw­ing-room from the wrong side of the rail­ings.

“That’s a hit,” said Kit, de­lighted. “That’s a palp­able hit.”

“Is it true?” said Clem­ency.

“Of course it’s true. Pel­ham says so. Pel­ham dined in Gros­venor Square in the year el­even and has talked of noth­ing else since.” He re­filled his glass.

“The rail­ings go along the area, Clem, to keep you from fall­ing into the kit­chen. Any­body knows that.”

Any­body who had been let in knew it. She sat with her fork in her hand and saw, with the sud­den plain­ness with which one sees the mis­take in a sum that has been added up wrong for a month, where she had got her rail­ings. In Bread Street there had been posts along the kerb, to keep the carts off the pave­ment, and she had grown up be­hind them; and when she had needed a house in Gros­venor Square she had built it out of the only street she knew, and set the rail­ings where the posts were. She had never been in Gros­venor Square. She had never been in Mount Street. She had writ­ten six num­bers about a house in it, and sold them, and been liked for them by a lady in Rus­sell Square, and she had never once walked down it, be­cause one can­not walk down Mount Street with a par­cel, and she had never had any reason to be there with­out one.

“Have you any­thing in the Lud­gate this month, Clem?” said Kit, turn­ing the page.

“A little.”

“What about?”

“A foot­man.”

Kit laughed so much that he had to put the Albe­marle down. “Lord, Clem, you might write about some­thing,” he said; and Lucy laughed too, be­cause Kit had, and their mother said that she did not see that a foot­man was any laugh­ing mat­ter, she had known a great many; and the sup­per went on.

Clem­ency sat it out. She sat out the oysters, and Mr. Wray’s per­or­a­tion, and the cheese, and Kit’s opin­ion of the Cock­ney School, which was Mr. Pel­ham’s, be­cause to have got up and gone into the back room would have been to own that any of it was hers.

They went to bed at el­even. Kit left the Albe­marle on the table among the oyster shells, as he left everything, and Clem­ency waited until the house had done creak­ing, and then took it, and a candle, through to the back room, where the desk was.

She read Mr. Wray again by her­self, from the be­gin­ning, which was worse than hear­ing it. It was clever; Mr. Bal­dock was right. He had read her, and read her more care­fully than she had sup­posed any­body in Albe­marle Street read any­thing, and he had found the one thing in six num­bers that she could not have known, and had known that she could not have known it. She would go and look at Mount Street. She did not yet know how a woman walked down Mount Street with­out a par­cel, or what she would say to any­one who asked her what she was doing there; but she would find out, as she found out most things, by tak­ing more trouble

about it than it de­served.

Then she turned the page past Mr. Wray, be­cause the Warden was in the num­ber, and she read the Warden now. She sat down to it. It was one of the things she did not do.

The el­ev­enth num­ber opened at Lud­low at Michael­mas, which the Warden kept with a feast and Salis­bury Square had kept on Wed­nes­day with the rent; and there was a girl at the feast: a Welsh girl, a host­age, the first woman to whom the Warden had given a sen­tence of her own in el­even num­bers. Clem­ency did not know the sen­tence at once. She read it as one reads a let­ter in a strange hand, and she was halfway through the second clause be­fore the hand turned out to be her own.

The Lady Gwen­llian un­der­stood, be­tween the grace and the first dish, that she would not be called up to the high table; and she sat out the rest of the feast in the gown that had been made for it, be­cause to send for an­other would have been to own that she had hoped.

She sat quite still.

It was Miss Mor­timer. It was Miss Mor­timer to the last stone, ex­cept where it was not: the soup and the fish had gone back four hun­dred years and be­come a grace and a dish, Lady Harrow­gate’s had be­come a high table, and the gown had been made for the feast in­stead of merely put on for it. And at the end, where she had writ­ten that the girl would not go up and change be­cause to change would be to admit that she had known, some­body had taken out the one word on which the whole sen­tence turned, and put in an­other; and the word was hoped.

It had been read, then. Not looked into, nor sub­scribed to, nor taken to pieces over the oysters, but read: the fourth num­ber, in August, through Mrs. Mor­timer’s car­riage and the din­ner at six, to the one sen­tence in it she had been proud of and had shown to nobody. And who­ever had read it had known that it was hers to be proud of, and had taken it, which was the only way of say­ing so that was open to him; and had sent it back to her on the first of Oc­to­ber, as she had sent him his on the first of Sep­tem­ber, so that she should know that it had been no­ticed. She had been right in every par­tic­u­lar but the last. A man of that kind did read the Mor­timers. He had read them, it seemed, as she read the Warden.

Over the roofs the gi­ants of St. Dun­stan’s began to strike twelve, and the first of Oc­to­ber went out with them.

She had never been able to de­cide what the girl in her port­fo­lio would look like at the mo­ment she un­der­stood. There was nobody in the room to see her face.

(To be con­tin­ued.)

Edited by Michael Cummins. Written in full collaboration with Anthropic’s Claude models, and set here as it might have appeared in a London magazine of 1819. Read the announcement, with the plan of London.

HER PRIVATE MOUNTAIN

On Cézanne’s mountain, O’Keeffe’s mesa, and what a painter owns after decades of looking.

Georgia O’Keeffe refused to paint like the European masters, and a new profile takes her at her word. But Paul Cézanne, the painter the men around her revered, painted one mountain some eighty times over nearly thirty years, and she painted hers twenty-nine. She called it her private mountain and said God had told her she could have it if she painted it enough. The question is what she got.

I A Mountain Near Aix

In the last autumn of his life Paul Cézanne walked most mornings from his studio on the hill of Les Lauves, above Aix-en-Provence, to a spot from which he could see Mont Sainte-Victoire, and painted it again. He had been painting it for nearly thirty years. The mountain is a ridge of grey limestone a thousand meters high, and he had painted it framed by pines, crossed by a railway viaduct, from the road to Le Tholonet and from his sister’s house at Bellevue, in watercolor and in oil, some eighty times in all. In the late pictures it is barely a mountain. It is a field of blue and green and ochre patches, each one a decision, and what the picture records is not the ridge but a man looking at it and not trusting what he sees. He died in October 1906, a week after being caught in a storm while painting outdoors.

Within a few years Cézanne was among the most revered painters in the small modern world of New York. Alfred Stieglitz showed his watercolors at 291 in 1911; the Armory Show hung him in 1913; the painters around Stieglitz, John Marin, Arthur Dove, Marsden Hartley, learned his lesson in a particular form. A painting is made of touches. Doubt can be a method. The surface should show the hand’s hesitation. A profile of Georgia O’Keeffe in the summer Smithsonian tells how she refused all that. Its last picture is the Courtauld’s Sainte-Victoire, and the caption says two things about it: that O’Keeffe “did not share her male peers’ reverence” for Cézanne, and that his paintings of the mountain were Impressionist. The second is wrong, and the profile’s text says it too, setting Cézanne beside Monet; Cézanne spent his life getting out of Impressionism. The first is half right: she did refuse the Stieglitz men’s Cézanne, and theirs was a manner, which most of them took for the whole of him.

II The Spoiled Poplars

The story the profile tells is a good one, and it is hers. In the 1907–08 school year at the Art Students League, where William Merritt Chase taught the brush to move quickly, she showed a classmate a painting of two poplars with the sky between their branches, and he took it from her and painted dots of red and blue and green over the trees to show her how the Impressionists did it. She had not heard of them. She thought he had spoiled her picture. The profile says that from then on she did not let other people spoil her paintings, and the sentence is true in a way it does not intend, because the rest of her life was spent fighting off what other people saw in them.

The flowers came first. In the middle 1920s she painted petals at the scale of a window so that New Yorkers in a hurry would have to stop, and they stopped, and they saw what they brought. She found this as irritating as the dots: people hung their own associations on her flower, she wrote, and wrote about it as if she saw what they saw, and she did not. Then, in 1929, she went to New Mexico, and after her second summer there she sent a barrel of bones back to the house she shared with Stieglitz on Lake George, and sat down to paint them. The men she knew, she wrote afterward, talked endlessly about the Great American Novel and the Great American Play, and she was not sure they aspired to the Great American Painting. So she painted a cow’s skull floating against blue, and because that was not quite enough she added a red stripe down each side. She said they would not think it great, but they would notice it.

This is the O’Keeffe of the profile and of the museum shop: the painter who owed nothing, who answered Paris with a skull in the colors of the flag. The evidence for it is real. Her edges are hard where Cézanne’s are broken; her color is flat where his is built from a hundred touches; she painted the thing in front of her until it turned into a shape, where he painted his uncertainty about it. On the surface, which is where a painting lives, she refused him entirely.

III Seven or Eight Versions

But a painter’s method is not her surface, and the method was in place before the desert. In December 1931, speaking of her calla lilies, she told a reporter from the Herald Tribune that she always did seven or eight versions of the same thing before she arrived at the final one. Nearly forty years later, explaining her paintings of clouds seen from airplanes, she told the Times that when she got started with a theme she had to keep going. That is the habit of a painter who works by return, and it is Cézanne’s habit, not Monet’s. Monet’s haystacks are a series about light changing; Cézanne’s mountain is a series about a man changing in front of a thing that does not. O’Keeffe’s bones and doors and flowers are the second kind.

Consider what the men did with the same reverence. Marsden Hartley, who loved Cézanne as hard as any of them, saw a Cézanne show at Bernheim-Jeune in Paris in 1926 and moved to Aix. By December he was living in the Maison Maria, a stone house in the woods by the Château Noir that Cézanne had painted about 1895, so that he lived inside a Cézanne and walked out of it to Cézanne’s mountain. He drew it, and painted it in Cézanne’s constructive strokes and louder colors. The pictures are good and they are borrowed: he took the manner and the motif both, and left the one thing that made Cézanne Cézanne, which was that the mountain had been his own, outside his own window, for nearly thirty years. His graphite drawing of it in the Brooklyn Museum is dated 1926–27. The mountain in it is a thousand meters high and belongs to someone else.

In 1934 O’Keeffe saw the mountain that would hold her habit for the rest of her life. Cerro Pedernal is a flat-topped, basalt-capped mesa southwest of Abiquiú, just over three thousand meters, and from the window of the house she took at Ghost Ranch it sits on the horizon like a table someone set there. She began painting it in 1936. She painted it behind red hills and behind a pink one, framed in the hollow of a pelvis, under a ladder hanging in an evening sky, as a thin blue line at the bottom of a canvas that was otherwise cloud. The museum that holds her estate counts twenty-nine paintings of it, and the profile says simply that she painted the Pedernal over and over.

Most of the men who revered Cézanne took his manner and left his method. Hartley found the repetition later. From 1939 to 1942 he painted Katahdin, in Maine, a mountain the Penobscot named and four nations hold sacred, at least eighteen times, all from sketches made in eight days at a lakeside camp; by then O’Keeffe had been at the Pedernal for three years. He worked from the sketches, not from the mountain. She took the method entire, and left the manner. She refused the touch, the doubt, the hesitation in the stroke, and kept the one idea underneath them, which is that a painter’s subject can be a single thing seen for the rest of a life, and that the seeing is the work. Whether it came to her from Cézanne, in the years after his watercolors hung at 291, when the men around her talked of nothing else, or whether she arrived at it alone, the kinship is closer than the refusal. She did not want to paint like Cézanne. She wanted what he had, which was a mountain of her own.

IV My Private Mountain

She said so. In her late eighties she called the Pedernal her private mountain, and said it belonged to her: “God told me if I painted it enough, I could have it.” It is the best sentence she ever spoke about her work, and it has aged in two directions at once.

Read one way it is a painter’s joke about a painter’s truth, and her biographer Laurie Lisle records that it was made jokingly. Nobody owns a mountain by looking at it, and she knew that; the joke is that she had done it anyway, by a method that takes nothing from the mountain and leaves it where it was. What she owned were twenty-nine paintings, and through them a way of seeing a particular horizon that is now, for a great many people, the only way they see it. That is a real kind of ownership, and it is the only kind a painter can have, and Cézanne had it over Sainte-Victoire.

Read the other way, the sentence is what it says. The mesa has a name in Tewa, Tsí Pín, flaking-stone mountain, and a name in Spanish, flint hill, that means nearly the same, and people quarried its flint for thousands of years, the ancestors of the pueblos among them, before anyone arrived with an easel. In 2021 the New Mexico Tourism Department built an advertisement around her words about the state, “that was mine,” and the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, which exists to keep her name, posted a statement that it did not support the use of such quotations, because it was now clear that this was the language of possession, colonization and erasure.

Four years later the museum gave three galleries, its largest among them, to the correction: Tewa Nangeh/Tewa Country, which opened last November and closes on Sunday, November 1. In the museum’s own description, she often claimed northern New Mexico as her own, on land that has been home to six Tewa Pueblos since time immemorial. The exhibition went out under an image by the Santa Clara artist Jason Garcia, who brought it to the museum and co-curated it: a clay tablet made up as a comic-book cover, with a cover date of 1977, the year her claim to the mountain went public. On it O’Keeffe stands in her black dress before a sign that once read “Welcome to O’Keeffe Country,” with “Tewa” scrawled over her name and Tsí Pín behind her.

Garcia has answered her on her own terms. He told NPR that her line about God was “pretty funny,” and that the mountain is not hers alone. He opened with nineteen pictures of Tsí Pín, painted from one vantage during a residency at Ghost Ranch, and he set out to pass her twenty-nine. He says he returns to the mountain “not to possess it, but to be in conversation with it,” and also that painting it more often than she did is a way of taking it back. That is her method turned on her claim, in a Tewa hand.

A year ago, in Aeon, the Puebloan poet Alanna Offield published an essay called “My private mountain,” about growing up in the shadow of a painter who was sold to her as the owner of her own homeland. This spring Alicia Inez Guzmán argued in High Country News that O’Keeffe’s paintings have come to stand for the whole of northern New Mexico, so that the region is sold as O’Keeffe Country and the people who were there first are painted out of it.

Offield is right, and the museum is right, and so is the joke. The sentence holds both readings. She did not take the mountain from anyone, and she also said, in the plain American way, that it belonged to her, and the saying is part of what the Smithsonian profile means by a great American painter. Cézanne never said Sainte-Victoire was his, as far as anyone recorded; Hartley, after eight days at Katahdin, wrote that it was “my mountain.” The claim is the American part, and it is also the part that has come back on her.

V The Cloud in the Eye

The eyes began to go in the 1960s. She described it later as a cloud entering her eyeballs, and in a manuscript from the seventies, “My Eyes and Painting,” she wrote of the world beginning to turn grey when her eyes stopped seeing sharply as they had for eighty years. Macular degeneration takes the center of the field and leaves the edges, which is to say it takes exactly the kind of seeing her paintings were made of, the hard edge and the flat plane, and leaves the kind Cézanne’s late pictures look like, the blur at the margin. She painted her last unassisted oils in 1972, among them a black rock against blue sky and a canvas called The Beyond, a dark band under a pale one, a horizon with nothing on it.

She stopped working, she wrote, and then, surprised in time that the grey world could be beautiful in a new way, she began to think about how to start again. She worked in clay in her last years, by touch, with a young potter named Juan Hamilton who had come to the door looking for work and stayed. She had assistants mix her colors. The mountain was still outside the window, and she could no longer see it sharply, and she had, by her own account, already been given it. Ownership by looking has to pass through the years when she could not look, and it passes: the owning was done, and it was in the paintings, and the paintings did not need her eyes any more than Cézanne’s needed his after October 1906.

Seen from inside a dark adobe room through a deep square window: a flat-topped mesa above gold and cream slopes and a thin band of red hills, the middle of its tabletop lost in a soft, round white blur. In the foreground, two pale hands in black sleeves shape a small gold clay pot.
In her last years she worked in clay, by touch. Macular degeneration takes the center of the field and leaves the edges, so the mountain outside her window kept its sides and lost its middle. An illustration made for this essay.

VI Ashes

She died in Santa Fe in March 1986, at ninety-eight, and her ashes were scattered on the Pedernal, which she had climbed herself. Cézanne is buried in the cemetery of Saint-Pierre in Aix, under his mountain too; he climbed it as a boy and at least once more, in his fifties, and otherwise looked. He never claimed it; everyone else gives it to him.

That is the difference, and it is smaller than the profile thinks and larger than it knows. Two painters, a continent apart, took one piece of ground and painted it until the painting and the ground could not be told apart. One of them did it in a manner the other refused, and the other did it in a manner that made her what the profile says she set out to be, a great American painter. But the manner was never the point. The point was the return, morning after morning, to a thing that did not change, so that the changing could be seen. That was his method, and she made it hers, and the only original thing in it was the mountain. The Pedernal is still there. It belongs to the people who named it and to no one, and it has been painted, by her count, enough.

⁂

Sources: Jennie Rothenberg Gritz, “Georgia O’Keeffe Ignored Advice to Mimic Great European Masters. Her Goal Instead Was to Be a Great American Painter,” Smithsonian, Summer 2026, photographs by Jen Judge; the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum’s “In Her Own Words,” for her interviews with the New York Herald Tribune (Ishbel Ross, December 29, 1931) and the New York Times (Grace Glueck, October 18, 1970); Laurie Lisle, Portrait of an Artist (1980), p. 295, as cited by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for Deer’s Skull with Pedernal; Alanna Offield, “My private mountain,” Aeon, October 28, 2025; Alicia Inez Guzmán, “O’Keeffe Country was never O’Keeffe’s to begin with,” High Country News, May 29, 2026; NPR, March 14, 2026; Alex De Vore, “New Mexico True Campaign Refresh Draws Ire,” Santa Fe Reporter, April 17, 2021; Ania Hull, “Indigenous artists reframe the ownership of ancestral lands,” Pasatiempo, Santa Fe New Mexican; the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, Tewa Nangeh/Tewa Country and its press release of October 8, 2025; New Mexico Magazine; Southwest Contemporary; the National Gallery of Art on Marsden Hartley’s Mount Katahdin, Maine (1942); the Princeton University Art Museum on Hartley’s Blue Landscape (1942); the Brooklyn Museum, Hartley, Mont Sainte-Victoire (1926–27); the Kimbell Art Museum, Cézanne, Maison Maria with a View of Château Noir; the Marsden Hartley Legacy Project chronology (Bates College); the Maine Atlas on Katahdin; Gary A. Smith and Bruce B. Huckell, “The geological and geoarchaeological significance of Cerro Pedernal,” New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 56 (2005); the Vision and Art Project on her eyesight, for Jeffrey Hogrefe’s account and her manuscript “My Eyes and Painting”; and Britannica on Mont Sainte-Victoire. The header and interior images were generated with Gemini Argon for this essay; they reproduce no painting or photograph. Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary and copy editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; cold read by Claude Fable 5.1.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET: THOMAS GIVES NOTICE (Ch. 2)

Click any page to read it larger.

THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.NOVEMBER, 1819.No. II.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 8.)


CHAPTER II.

Thomas Gives Notice.

The knocker had been taken offthe door of the house inGrosvenor Square in the last week ofJuly, as it was taken off every year, toinform the world that the family wasout of town; and the world, which wasitself out of town, had taken no notice.

The family was at Ardoch. That isto say, Lady Ardoch was at Ardoch,with four guests, two pointers, and aMiss Lauder whom she had invited forher complexion; and the head of thefamily, who should have been there,was in London, in a house where thechandeliers had been bagged in hol-land and the furniture stood about thedrawing-rooms in dust-sheets like acompany of mourners waiting to betold whose funeral it was. It was thefirst of September. Every gentlemanin England who could hold a gun wasstanding in a stubble field.Mr. Kinross was eating his breakfast.

He ate it in the small dining-roomat the back, because the large one had

been shut up, and he ate it alone, be-cause there was nobody else, and hewas served by Fenwick and two foot-men, because that was the establish-ment, and it did not occur to anyone inthe house that one man and a rack oftoast might be served by fewer. Thecoffee was at his hand before he hadlooked for it. The Times was folded atthe side of his plate, and beneath itthe Morning Chronicle, which he tookbecause it was a Whig paper and hewished to know what the Whigs weresaying, and beneath that the Courier,which he took because it was not, andhe wished to know that too. Fenwickhad ironed all three. He had neverasked Fenwick to iron the newspa-pers. He had never asked Fenwick foranything that he could remember, andit struck him, not for the first timethat summer, that he had lived for six-and-thirty days in this house withoutonce giving an order in it.

On the salver was a letter from his

CLOSE ×☞PAGE 17 · 17–28

aunt.

Lady Ardoch wrote a large, decidedhand, crossed and recrossed, and shewrote as she talked, which waswithout stopping. The weather wasfine. The birds were plentiful. MissLauder was a charming girl, and hadasked twice whether Mr. Kinross wasexpected, and Lady Ardoch had beenobliged to say she could not tell, sinceshe had not been told. She could notconceive what kept him in London inSeptember, unless it was his lawyers,and if it was his lawyers she couldonly say that she had never known alawyer who could not be kept waitingby a gentleman with ten thousand ayear. She remained his affectionateaunt. Under the signature, across thefirst page, in the smallest hand shehad: Pray do not tell me it is the book.

He folded the letter and put it un-der the toast-rack, which was wherehe put letters he did not mean to an-swer that day, and Fenwick, whoknew it, removed the toast-rack.

The newspapers were full ofManchester. They had been full ofManchester for a fortnight, since theMonday on which the yeomanry hadridden into a crowd of sixty thousandpeople in St. Peter’s Field with theirsabres drawn, to arrest a man on acart who could perfectly well havebeen arrested at his inn; and theywould be full of it for a long time yet.

The Courier printed the thanks of theGovernment to the magistrates, in acolumn of type that looked, hethought, as pleased with itself as typecould look. The Chronicle printed thenames of the dead, with their agesand their trades, under a headingwhich the Courier would call inflam-matory and which was merely accur-ate. A weaver. A special constable. Awoman. A child of two. He read themall, slowly, because it seemed to himthat someone ought to read them whohad not been there, and then he foldedthe paper and found that he had nottasted his coffee and that Fenwick hadalready replaced it with coffee thatwas hot.

It was not, he knew, any concern ofhis. He had no property in Lancashireand no opinions on the reform ofParliament that he had ever been re-quired to express aloud. But he hadspent the summer, and the nine yearsbefore it, in the company of a manwho kept order for a King who did nottrust him, and who had once, in theeighth number of The Lord Warden,ridden into a market-place at Ludlowwith forty spears to put down a riot ofweavers; and he had written thatscene with great care and a good dealof satisfaction, and had been ratherproud of the weavers. He did not feelproud of them this morning. He satwith the folded Chronicle under his

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 18 · 17–28

hand and saw, with the disagreeableclearness that comes upon a man atbreakfast, that the Warden had beenin Manchester on the sixteenth ofAugust, and that he had sent himthere.

“Will you take the carriage, sir?”said Fenwick.

He had not said that he was goingout. “I will walk,” he said; and thesatisfaction of having, for once, saidsomething that Fenwick could nothave said for him carried him as far asBrook Street before he understoodthat it was a very small satisfactionfor a man of two-and-thirty.

The Albemarle was published from ahouse in Albemarle Street, betweenthe Royal Institution, where the fash-ionable world had gone in SirHumphry Davy’s day to watch thingsset on fire, and Grillion’s, where it hadgone afterwards to dine. Mr. Radcliffehad the ground floor for his shop andthe first floor for his drawing-room, inwhich he gave dinners to authors whomight be of use to him, and a backroom on the ground floor in which hedid his business; and it was to theback room that Mr. Kinross wasshown, without being announced, be-cause he was the only man in Londonto whom Mr. Radcliffe was always athome.

It was the first of the month, and

the back room was full of magazines.The Albemarle lay on every chair, inits buff wrapper, still smelling of thepress; and on the table, in a heap thatMr. Radcliffe pretended not to havelooked at, lay everybody else’s: theMonthly, the European, the NewMonthly, the Gentleman’s, and theblue-grey wrapper of the Ludgate.

“You have seen the tenth number,”said Mr. Radcliffe. He was a large,pale, careful man, who had been abookseller’s apprentice in Edinburghand had never forgotten it, and hesaid it in the tone in which a physiciansays that a patient is comfortable.

“I wrote it.”

“It is much admired,” saidMr. Radcliffe, “by those who admireit.” He moved the Ludgate half aninch, so that it lay square with theedge of the table. “I had a letter fromLord Ashcombe. He wished me to saythat the siege in the ninth number wasthe finest thing of its kind sinceFroissart.”

“Lord Ashcombe has not readFroissart.”

“That is very possible. He has notread the Warden either, I think, buthe is a subscriber, and I value hisopinion.” Mr. Radcliffe sat down,which he did not usually do inMr. Kinross’s presence, and put thetips of his fingers together. “I will beplain with you, sir, since you pay me

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 19 · 17–28

to be. We lose by the Warden aboutwhat I told you in June. I can bear it.You can bear it a good deal more eas-ily than I can. But it is the first ofSeptember, and the town is talkingabout Manchester, and about nothingelse, and I should be glad if the elev-enth number had a little more in it ofwhat the town is talking about.”

“A massacre,” said Mr. Kinross.

“An incident,” said Mr. Radcliffe,with a faint emphasis, as of a mancorrecting the proof of somebodyelse’s newspaper. “We are printing avery temperate article in October, insupport of the magistrates. And youngWray has a second paper for us onthe Cockney School, which I thinkwill make a stir.” He touched theblue-grey wrapper again. “Baldock islucky. He has a page on Manchester inthis number, set in the last week ofAugust, I don’t know how; he musthave held his press for it. And he hasa comedy of the Manchester trade inthe same number, as it happens,which in any other month would havebeen thought vulgar, and in this onewill be thought prophetic. Wraymeans to take it to pieces in October.”

Mr. Kinross looked at the wrapper.He had a high opinion of very fewmen and a low opinion of LuciusWray, whose debts he had paid once,three years ago, for reasons that hehad not explained to anybody and did

not now propose to explain toMr. Radcliffe; and he found that hedid not care, as much as he wouldhave expected, to think of LuciusWray taking the Mortimers to pieces.It was not that he admired them. Hehad not decided what he thought ofthem. But he had decided, on a benchin the Temple garden, that they werecompetent, and he had not found thatanybody else in Albemarle Street wasin the habit of using the word.

“Will the eleventh number,” saidMr. Radcliffe, “have a little more in-cident in it?”

“No,” said Mr. Kinross. He pickedup the Ludgate. “I will take this, ifyou have done with it.”

Mr. Radcliffe, who had read it fromcover to cover at seven o’clock thatmorning, said that he had barelylooked into it, and that Mr. Kinrosswas very welcome; and when the doorhad closed behind his principal propri-etor he sat for some time looking atthe place on the table where theLudgate had been, and wondering, ashe had wondered once or twice beforein the course of a long and profitablelife, what the devil a man of ten thou-sand a year wanted with a rival’smagazine.

He walked to the Temple, because hehad said that he would walk, and be-cause a man who has refused the

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 20 · 17–28

carriage in Grosvenor Square cannotvery well take a hackney in Piccadilly;and he went down the Strand amongthe drays and the ballad-sellers andthe boys crying the latest fromManchester, which was a week old,with the Ludgate under his arm likeany clerk, and in at the Inner Templegate as St. Dunstan’s giants strucktwelve.

Figgis said good morning to him inthe lane. Figgis said good morning tohim every morning, in a mannerwhich conveyed that it was a privilegefor the morning, and that Figgiswould not have said it to everybody.

At his desk he read Mr. Baldock’spage on Manchester first, because hehad been told it was there, and foundit short, angry and plainly written, bysomebody who had been in St. Peter’sField and had not been able to get thesound of it out of his head; it had beenset in a smaller type than the rest ofthe number, as if it had been squeezedin with a shoehorn, and it was betterthan anything in the Courier by thewidth of England. Then he turned tothe fifth number of The Mortimers ofMount Street, and settled himself todecide, once and for all, what hethought of it.

The fifth number was about afootman.

It had seemed, in the fourth, that itwould be about Miss Mortimer and the

house she had not been asked to; butthe Author had set that aside, with abriskness he was coming to recognise,and had opened instead upon a morn-ing in Mount Street on whichThomas, the second footman, hadcome into the breakfast-parlour andgiven notice. Thomas did not say why.Mrs. Mortimer supposed it was thewages, and offered more; MissMortimer supposed it was a youngwoman, and was rebuked; the butlersupposed it was the place, and wasnot asked. Mr. Kinross, who had notexpected to be amused, found that hewas reading with the exact care of aman who is waiting to be disappoin-ted, and that he was not disappointed,and that the number was nearly over.

Then, at the foot of a column, hecame upon a sentence that he knew.

He knew it before he knew why.He knew it as a man knows his ownstep on a stair, by the weight of it, be-fore he has thought whose step it is:the long fall of the clause, the turnupon understood, the semicolons laiddown like stepping-stones across astream. He read it to the end. Then hegot up, and took the ninth number ofthe Albemarle from the shelf behindhim, and opened it at the placebetween the letter and the sermon,and laid the two magazines side byside upon the desk, the buff wrapperand the blue.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 21 · 17–28

It was his. It was his to the laststone, except where it was not. Untilthat hour had become until Thomasgave notice. The one thing was so eas–ily had had become the one was to behad for thirty pounds a year. Five-and-thirty years had acquired in theManchester trade, and the belief hadbecome the firm belief, which was theonly one of the alterations that hecould have improved upon, and he wasnot sure that he could. The Warden ofthe Marches, alone in a stone roomwith a King’s letter, had become acotton-man from Manchester in a din-ing-room in Mount Street, in want ofa footman; and the sentence, whichhad cost Mr. Kinross a week in thespring and which he had believed,privately, to be the best thing he hadever written, was funny.

He laughed.

He did not do it often, and he did itnow so suddenly and so loud that a pi-geon got up off the window-sill, andsomebody on the stair below stoppedand then went on. He laughed withhis hand flat on the two magazines, asa man laughs at a good stroke madeagainst him at fives; and when he haddone he sat back in his chair andlooked at the ceiling, which neededwhitewashing, and considered whathad happened to him.

Somebody had read the Warden.

Not looked into it, not subscribed to

it, not admired it to Mr. Radcliffe byletter, but read it, the ninth number,through the siege and the sermon,which he knew nobody could read;and had found, between the one andthe other, the only paragraph in itthat he had written for himself; andhad taken it. Nobody steals what hedoes not value. It was the first opinionof his work that he had ever beenoffered by a person who did not knowwho he was, and who had nothing togain by flattering him, and nothing tolose by saying so; and it had beenoffered in the plainest language thatone writer has for another, which istheft.

And then the thief had made it bet-ter. Not finer; he would not grantfiner. But he had written the sentencein the Marches about a man who hadno notion what anything cost, and thethief had moved it to a house wheresomebody knew to a shilling what afootman cost, and had put the priceinto the sentence, and the price waswhat made it true. To be had forthirty pounds a year. Mr. Kinross didnot know what his own footmen werepaid. He had never asked. Fenwickknew.

He looked for a long while at theblue-grey wrapper, and at the wordsThe Mortimers of Mount Street in itslist of contents; and then, withoutquite meaning to, he took up his pencil

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 22 · 17–28

and made a tick beside them, as hehad in August. The Author wasclever; that much the page proved.The rest Mr. Kinross supplied, as aman does who is used to being right.The Author was a young man; anOxford man, very likely, who hadquarrelled with his father and comeup to London to make his name by hispen; who wrote in a coffee-house anddined on credit, and had never set footin a counting-house in his life. And hehad an ear.

He was wrong in every particularbut the last.

The eleventh number of The LordWarden was due in Albemarle Streeton the tenth, and it had not beenbegun.

It had not been begun because thetenth had been so difficult. TheWarden had answered the King atlast, in a letter of four pages whichMr. Kinross had written eleven times,and which had gone to the printer inthe second week of August with thefeeling, familiar to him and neverpleasant, of a thing sent out of thehouse before it was dressed. Sincethen he had sat at this desk on mostafternoons and looked at a sheet offoolscap headed No. XI., and hadwritten on it, at various times, thedate of the Battle of Shrewsbury, thename of a horse, and a word which he

had struck through. The difficulty wasnot that he did not know whathappened next. He knew to the daywhat happened next; it was in the boxfor 1403. The difficulty was that hehad lost, somewhere in the writing ofthe King’s letter, the reason for tellingit.

He took the August Ludgate downfrom the shelf, where it lay marked inpencil, and opened it at the fourthnumber of the Mortimers, and foundthe paragraph beside which he hadwritten competent.

Miss Mortimer understood, betweenthe soup and the fish, that she would notbe asked to Lady Harrowgate’s; and shesat out the rest of the dinner in thegown in which she had been dressed forit, because to go up and change it wouldhave been to admit that she had known.

He read it three times. It was notcompetent. He had known in Augustthat it was not competent, and hadwritten the word because he did notwish to write any other, and becauseit is a thing commonly done by menwho own a share in one magazine tothe authors of another. It was the bestsentence in the number, and it wasabout a girl who had been dressed fora house she was not to enter, and ithad been written, he was now quitesure, by somebody who had sat out adinner in that gown. He put thisdown, after some thought, to the

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 23 · 17–28

young man’s having sisters.

He pulled the foolscap towards himand dipped his pen.

There was a hostage at Ludlow, inthe box for 1403: a Welsh girl, thedaughter of one of Glendower’s cap-tains, kept in the castle against herfather’s good behaviour, of whom thechroniclers said nothing at all exceptthat she was there. He had alwaysmeant to do something with her, andhad never known what. He knew now.He wrote, quickly, in the small fasthand that the laundress said was likea hen walking in ink, and he did notstop to cross anything out.

The Lady Gwenllian understood,between the grace and the first dish,that she would not be called up to thehigh table; and she sat out the rest ofthe feast in the gown that had beenmade for it, because to send for anotherwould have been to own that she hadhoped.

He read it over. It was not funny. Ithad been funny in Mount Street,where it had been something else, andhe was aware, in the part of his mindthat he did not commonly consult, thathe had taken a thing that was not hisand made it graver in the taking; andthat this was precisely, stroke forstroke, what had been done to him;and that whoever had done it wouldknow, on the first of October, that ithad been noticed.

It was a curious way to begin a cor-respondence. It was the only way, hesupposed, in which a man in King’sBench Walk could begin one with ayoung man whose name he did notknow, and who had sisters, withoutbeing introduced. He wrote on untilthe giants of St. Dunstan’s struck sixand the light went off the river, andwhen he got up from the desk the el-eventh number was four pages long,and he knew again the reason fortelling it.

The Albemarle came to SalisburySquare on the third of September, twodays late, because Mr. Pelham hadtaken it into the country.

Clemency had seen her own num-ber on the first. She had gone up tothe Row to look at it, as she did everymonth, without buying it, and hadstood at Baldock’s window and readthe list of contents through the glass,and had found, set in above theMortimers in a smaller type than therest, a page headed Manchester. Shehad known that it would be there;Mr. Baldock had held his press for it,and told her so, and told her that thetown would read the Mortimers thismonth with some attention, since theywere a Manchester family. He hadmeant it kindly. She had gone homeand been unable to eat her dinner. Herfather had bought fustians for twenty

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 24 · 17–28

years from a house in Manchesterwhose name she could still have writ-ten in her sleep; the Hindleys’ son hadcome to Bread Street once, and eatenroast mutton, and talked about looms;and she had spent the summer makingthe Manchester trade ridiculous forseven guineas a number, and had sentit out into a month in which peoplefrom the Manchester trade had beencut down with sabres in a field. It wasnot her fault. She had written it inJuly, and finished it on the fourth ofAugust, twelve days before St. Peter’sField. She told herself so a greatmany times, and it made nodifference.

Kit had said, at supper, thatMr. Pelham said the yeomanry haddone right, and that he rather thoughtthey had; and Lucy had said that shewas sure they had done wrong, andthat she rather thought so too; andtheir mother had said that she did notsee what Manchester had to do withany of them, and had then gone veryquiet, and said that she wonderedwhether the Hindleys were all well.

So it was in no frame of mind forthe Warden that Clemency took upthe tenth number on the morning ofthe third, and she was surprised tofind that she sat down to it.

The Warden had answered theKing.

It was a long answer, and a hard

one to read. It began by setting out,as carefully as a lease, which matterslay within the Warden’s authority andwhich lay outwith it; and she read itall; and somewhere in the third page,in the middle of an account of the for-tifying of Ludlow which went onlonger than anything ought to go on,with the river going down on the ebbbeneath the castle wall, she cameupon this:

My liege, I have kept your peace inthe March these nine years, and havelearned in the keeping that it is a thingmore easily broken by the keeper thanby the kept.

She read it with the room quite stillabout her. It was impossible that itshould have been written aboutManchester. The number had beenmade up in August, before anybody inLondon had heard of St. Peter’s Field;she knew how long a number took toprint better than anyone in that house.But it read, in the first week ofSeptember, as though the man hadbeen standing on the hustings with apencil, and she sat with the magazinein her lap and was angry with him, fora moment, for having been right byaccident, which was a thing she hadnever been.

Then she turned the pages throughto the end, slowly, looking forsomething.

She did not tell herself what she

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 25 · 17–28

was looking for. She was looking for afootman, or a dining-room, or a manfrom Manchester, or the turn of a sen-tence that she might know; for anysign, in short, that the fifth number ofthe Mortimers had been read in theplace where the Warden was written.There was none. There could not havebeen; the tenth number had been prin-ted before the fifth was published, andshe was a fool. She shut themagazine, and found that the cornerof the page with the Warden’s answeron it was turned down, and could notremember doing it.

She put on her bonnet, because theroom had become too small to thinkin, and went out.

It was not yet three, and thegarden would not be open; so shewalked as far as the print-seller’s atthe corner of Bouverie Street, whichwas as far as a woman could walk inFleet Street without appearing to begoing somewhere, and stood at thewindow.

The print-sellers of London soldLondon to itself in two kinds, andMr. Brindle hung them side by side.On the left, in a black frame, was anold engraving of Temple Bar, done be-fore she was born, so old that it stillshowed the iron spikes on the top ofthe gate where the City had once setthe heads of traitors: and under thearch the whole street was crammed

into a space a yard wide, carts andchairmen and a ballad-singer and adog and a beadle and a man with atray of pies, all shouting, as far as anengraving can shout. On the right, ina gilt one, was a view of the InnerTemple garden, drawn from somegentleman’s window above it: the longlawn, the gravel walks, the planetrees, the river wall, a barge with abrown sail, and nobody in it at all buta lady at the wall and a gentleman ona bench, too small to have faces.

The two pictures were of placesperhaps three hundred yards apart.She had looked at them a dozen times,and she saw now, as one sees a thingin a familiar room that has been thereall the while, what was clever aboutthem: that each had been made byleaving out the other. The man whodrew the gate had left out the garden,which was behind it; the man at thewindow had left out the noise, whichwas a street away. A customer couldcarry home the din or the quiet for thesame money, but not both. She did itherself every month, at seven guineas,and called it Mount Street.

And standing there, with her ownface faint in the glass between thegate and the garden, she did what shehad not allowed herself to do upstairs:she took the Warden to pieces.

The Warden lost money, and wasnot stopped. Mr. Baldock said that it

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 26 · 17–28

cost Albemarle Street twenty poundsa month; and a magazine does notcarry twenty pounds a month forsomebody’s nephew. It carries themfor the man who owns it. The author,therefore, owned the Albemarle, orthe better part of it, and was rich.That was one.

On the second page of his answerthe Warden had written that a certainmatter lay outwith his authority. NoEnglishman alive would have writtenoutwith. The author was a Scot. Thatwas two.

On the third page the Warden hadstood on the wall at Ludlow andwatched the river go down on the ebb.The Teme at Ludlow had no ebb; itwas fifty miles and more from thenearest tide, and she knew it, becauseshe had once spent a wet fortnightwith a gazetteer. The man had lookedat a tidal river so long, and so often,that he had given one to a river thathad none. He wrote within sight ofthe Thames. That was three.

And the King’s letter had beenanswered as a deed is drawn, whereasand provided always and saving nev–ertheless, by somebody who had beenbred to the law, or had sat a long timenear it. That was four.

A rich Scot of the Inns of Court,who wrote within sight of the river.She looked up from the glass, alongthe street, to the gate and the roofs of

the Temple beyond it, and very nearlylaughed; for half the Temple answeredto that description, and the other halfwas trying to. And a man of that kind,she thought, turning homeward,would no more read the Mortimersthan he would read the Lady’sCabinet; he did not know they existed;he never would.

She was right in every particularbut the last.

She went home by Salisbury Court,and up the two pair of stairs, and intothe back room; and when she hadtaken off her bonnet she did a thingthat she did perhaps once a month,and never when anybody was by. Shetook out the portfolio.

It had been her father’s, and hadheld patterns of fustian. It held now,between its marbled boards, every pic-ture she had ever begun of theMortimers, and not one of them wasfinished. Mr. Mortimer at the head ofhis table, without a face.Mrs. Mortimer’s carriage at the doorin Mount Street, very handsomelydone, with the railings set at the kerb.Miss Mortimer in the gown she hadbeen dressed in for LadyHarrowgate’s, the gown washed in tothe last flounce, and the face leftwhite, because Clemency had neverbeen able to decide what the girlwould look like at the moment sheunderstood.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 27 · 17–28

She had read Emma the winter itcame out, in the copy from the circu-lating library on Ludgate Hill, andhad laughed aloud at the portfolioMiss Woodhouse brought out to showMr. Elton: the miniatures and half-lengths and whole-lengths, in penciland crayon and water-colours, ofwhich not one had ever been finished,and the Author’s verdict on them,which was that steadiness had alwaysbeen wanting. It was not steadinessthat was wanting in Salisbury Square.It was colours, which cost money; anddaylight, which she could not paint bywhile she was writing by it; and areason. Emma’s drawing had beencarried to London by an admirer, andframed, and hung over a mantelpiecefor the whole of Highbury to praise. Apicture of Mount Street by somebodywho had never set foot in MountStreet would be seen by nobody at all;she had known it every time shebegan one; and her drawings went

back into a fustian-merchant’s portfo-lio, under the bed.

And yet she kept them, becausethere was a book in her head that wasnot the Mortimers as they were, soldby the sheet and forgotten by themonth, but the Mortimers as theymight one day be: three volumes inboards, with plates, and under eachplate, in small capitals, drawn bythe author. It was the most foolishthing she knew about herself, and shehad told it to nobody.

She sat down at the desk, in whatwas left of the light, and began an-other. It was the garden of the InnerTemple, seen from the river wall: thelong lawn, the plane trees, the gravelof the eastern walk, the bench underthe second plane, and on the bench agentleman, too small to have a face.

She did not finish it.

She would know on the first ofOctober.

(To be continued.)

☜CLOSE ×PAGE 28 · 17–28
THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.NOVEMBER, 1819.No. II.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

(Continued from page 8.)


CHAPTER II.

Thomas Gives Notice.

The knocker had been taken off the door of the house in Grosvenor Square in the last week of July, as it was taken off every year, to inform the world that the family was out of town; and the world, which was itself out of town, had taken no notice.

The family was at Ardoch. That is to say, Lady Ardoch was at Ardoch, with four guests, two pointers, and a Miss Lauder whom she had invited for her complexion; and the head of the family, who should have been there, was in London, in a house where the chandeliers had been bagged in holland and the furniture stood about the drawing-rooms in dust-sheets like a company of mourners waiting to be told whose funeral it was. It was the first of September. Every gentleman in England who could hold a gun was standing in a stubble field. Mr. Kinross was eating his breakfast.

He ate it in the small dining-room at the back, because the large one had been shut up, and he ate it alone, because there was nobody else, and he was served by Fenwick and two footmen, because that was the establishment, and it did not occur to anyone in the house that one man and a rack of toast might be served by fewer. The coffee was at his hand before he had looked for it. The Times was folded at the side of his plate, and beneath it the Morning Chronicle, which he took because it was a Whig paper and he wished to know what the Whigs were saying, and beneath that the Courier, which he took because it was not, and he wished to know that too. Fenwick had ironed all three. He had never asked Fenwick to iron the newspapers. He had never asked Fenwick for anything that he could remember, and it struck him, not for the first time that summer, that he had lived for six-and-thirty days in this house without once giving an order in it.

On the salver was a letter from his

aunt.

Lady Ardoch wrote a large, decided hand, crossed and recrossed, and she wrote as she talked, which was without stopping. The weather was fine. The birds were plentiful. Miss Lauder was a charming girl, and had asked twice whether Mr. Kinross was expected, and Lady Ardoch had been obliged to say she could not tell, since she had not been told. She could not conceive what kept him in London in September, unless it was his lawyers, and if it was his lawyers she could only say that she had never known a lawyer who could not be kept waiting by a gentleman with ten thousand a year. She remained his affectionate aunt. Under the signature, across the first page, in the smallest hand she had: Pray do not tell me it is the book.

He folded the letter and put it under the toast-rack, which was where he put letters he did not mean to answer that day, and Fenwick, who knew it, removed the toast-rack.

The newspapers were full of Manchester. They had been full of Manchester for a fortnight, since the Monday on which the yeomanry had ridden into a crowd of sixty thousand people in St. Peter’s Field with their sabres drawn, to arrest a man on a cart who could perfectly well have been arrested at his inn; and they would be full of it for a long time yet. The Courier printed the thanks of the Government to the magistrates, in a column of type that looked, he thought, as pleased with itself as type could look. The Chronicle printed the names of the dead, with their ages and their trades, under a heading which the Courier would call inflammatory and which was merely accurate. A weaver. A special constable. A woman. A child of two. He read them all, slowly, because it seemed to him that someone ought to read them who had not been there, and then he folded the paper and found that he had not tasted his coffee and that Fenwick had already replaced it with coffee that was hot.

It was not, he knew, any concern of his. He had no property in Lancashire and no opinions on the reform of Parliament that he had ever been required to express aloud. But he had spent the summer, and the nine years before it, in the company of a man who kept order for a King who did not trust him, and who had once, in the eighth number of The Lord Warden, ridden into a market-place at Ludlow with forty spears to put down a riot of weavers; and he had written that scene with great care and a good deal of satisfaction, and had been rather proud of the weavers. He did not feel proud of them this morning. He sat with the folded Chronicle under his

hand and saw, with the disagreeable clearness that comes upon a man at breakfast, that the Warden had been in Manchester on the sixteenth of August, and that he had sent him there.

“Will you take the carriage, sir?” said Fenwick.

He had not said that he was going out. “I will walk,” he said; and the satisfaction of having, for once, said something that Fenwick could not have said for him carried him as far as Brook Street before he understood that it was a very small satisfaction for a man of two-and-thirty.

The Albemarle was published from a house in Albemarle Street, between the Royal Institution, where the fashionable world had gone in Sir Humphry Davy’s day to watch things set on fire, and Grillion’s, where it had gone afterwards to dine. Mr. Radcliffe had the ground floor for his shop and the first floor for his drawing-room, in which he gave dinners to authors who might be of use to him, and a back room on the ground floor in which he did his business; and it was to the back room that Mr. Kinross was shown, without being announced, because he was the only man in London to whom Mr. Radcliffe was always at home.

It was the first of the month, and the back room was full of magazines. The Albemarle lay on every chair, in its buff wrapper, still smelling of the press; and on the table, in a heap that Mr. Radcliffe pretended not to have looked at, lay everybody else’s: the Monthly, the European, the New Monthly, the Gentleman’s, and the blue-grey wrapper of the Ludgate.

“You have seen the tenth number,” said Mr. Radcliffe. He was a large, pale, careful man, who had been a bookseller’s apprentice in Edinburgh and had never forgotten it, and he said it in the tone in which a physician says that a patient is comfortable.

“I wrote it.”

“It is much admired,” said Mr. Radcliffe, “by those who admire it.” He moved the Ludgate half an inch, so that it lay square with the edge of the table. “I had a letter from Lord Ashcombe. He wished me to say that the siege in the ninth number was the finest thing of its kind since Froissart.”

“Lord Ashcombe has not read Froissart.”

“That is very possible. He has not read the Warden either, I think, but he is a subscriber, and I value his opinion.” Mr. Radcliffe sat down, which he did not usually do in Mr. Kinross’s presence, and put the tips of his fingers together. “I will be plain with you, sir, since you pay me

to be. We lose by the Warden about what I told you in June. I can bear it. You can bear it a good deal more easily than I can. But it is the first of September, and the town is talking about Manchester, and about nothing else, and I should be glad if the eleventh number had a little more in it of what the town is talking about.”

“A massacre,” said Mr. Kinross.

“An incident,” said Mr. Radcliffe, with a faint emphasis, as of a man correcting the proof of somebody else’s newspaper. “We are printing a very temperate article in October, in support of the magistrates. And young Wray has a second paper for us on the Cockney School, which I think will make a stir.” He touched the blue-grey wrapper again. “Baldock is lucky. He has a page on Manchester in this number, set in the last week of August, I don’t know how; he must have held his press for it. And he has a comedy of the Manchester trade in the same number, as it happens, which in any other month would have been thought vulgar, and in this one will be thought prophetic. Wray means to take it to pieces in October.”

Mr. Kinross looked at the wrapper. He had a high opinion of very few men and a low opinion of Lucius Wray, whose debts he had paid once, three years ago, for reasons that he had not explained to anybody and did not now propose to explain to Mr. Radcliffe; and he found that he did not care, as much as he would have expected, to think of Lucius Wray taking the Mortimers to pieces. It was not that he admired them. He had not decided what he thought of them. But he had decided, on a bench in the Temple garden, that they were competent, and he had not found that anybody else in Albemarle Street was in the habit of using the word.

“Will the eleventh number,” said Mr. Radcliffe, “have a little more incident in it?”

“No,” said Mr. Kinross. He picked up the Ludgate. “I will take this, if you have done with it.”

Mr. Radcliffe, who had read it from cover to cover at seven o’clock that morning, said that he had barely looked into it, and that Mr. Kinross was very welcome; and when the door had closed behind his principal proprietor he sat for some time looking at the place on the table where the Ludgate had been, and wondering, as he had wondered once or twice before in the course of a long and profitable life, what the devil a man of ten thousand a year wanted with a rival’s magazine.

He walked to the Temple, because he had said that he would walk, and because a man who has refused the

carriage in Grosvenor Square cannot very well take a hackney in Piccadilly; and he went down the Strand among the drays and the ballad-sellers and the boys crying the latest from Manchester, which was a week old, with the Ludgate under his arm like any clerk, and in at the Inner Temple gate as St. Dunstan’s giants struck twelve.

Figgis said good morning to him in the lane. Figgis said good morning to him every morning, in a manner which conveyed that it was a privilege for the morning, and that Figgis would not have said it to everybody.

At his desk he read Mr. Baldock’s page on Manchester first, because he had been told it was there, and found it short, angry and plainly written, by somebody who had been in St. Peter’s Field and had not been able to get the sound of it out of his head; it had been set in a smaller type than the rest of the number, as if it had been squeezed in with a shoehorn, and it was better than anything in the Courier by the width of England. Then he turned to the fifth number of The Mortimers of Mount Street, and settled himself to decide, once and for all, what he thought of it.

The fifth number was about a footman.

It had seemed, in the fourth, that it would be about Miss Mortimer and the house she had not been asked to; but the Author had set that aside, with a briskness he was coming to recognise, and had opened instead upon a morning in Mount Street on which Thomas, the second footman, had come into the breakfast-parlour and given notice. Thomas did not say why. Mrs. Mortimer supposed it was the wages, and offered more; Miss Mortimer supposed it was a young woman, and was rebuked; the butler supposed it was the place, and was not asked. Mr. Kinross, who had not expected to be amused, found that he was reading with the exact care of a man who is waiting to be disappointed, and that he was not disappointed, and that the number was nearly over.

Then, at the foot of a column, he came upon a sentence that he knew.

He knew it before he knew why. He knew it as a man knows his own step on a stair, by the weight of it, before he has thought whose step it is: the long fall of the clause, the turn upon understood, the semicolons laid down like stepping-stones across a stream. He read it to the end. Then he got up, and took the ninth number of the Albemarle from the shelf behind him, and opened it at the place between the letter and the sermon, and laid the two magazines side by side upon the desk, the buff wrapper and the blue.

It was his. It was his to the last stone, except where it was not. Until that hour had become until Thomas gave notice. The one thing was so easily had had become the one was to be had for thirty pounds a year. Five-and-thirty years had acquired in the Manchester trade, and the belief had become the firm belief, which was the only one of the alterations that he could have improved upon, and he was not sure that he could. The Warden of the Marches, alone in a stone room with a King’s letter, had become a cotton-man from Manchester in a dining-room in Mount Street, in want of a footman; and the sentence, which had cost Mr. Kinross a week in the spring and which he had believed, privately, to be the best thing he had ever written, was funny.

He laughed.

He did not do it often, and he did it now so suddenly and so loud that a pigeon got up off the window-sill, and somebody on the stair below stopped and then went on. He laughed with his hand flat on the two magazines, as a man laughs at a good stroke made against him at fives; and when he had done he sat back in his chair and looked at the ceiling, which needed whitewashing, and considered what had happened to him.

Somebody had read the Warden.

Not looked into it, not subscribed to it, not admired it to Mr. Radcliffe by letter, but read it, the ninth number, through the siege and the sermon, which he knew nobody could read; and had found, between the one and the other, the only paragraph in it that he had written for himself; and had taken it. Nobody steals what he does not value. It was the first opinion of his work that he had ever been offered by a person who did not know who he was, and who had nothing to gain by flattering him, and nothing to lose by saying so; and it had been offered in the plainest language that one writer has for another, which is theft.

And then the thief had made it better. Not finer; he would not grant finer. But he had written the sentence in the Marches about a man who had no notion what anything cost, and the thief had moved it to a house where somebody knew to a shilling what a footman cost, and had put the price into the sentence, and the price was what made it true. To be had for thirty pounds a year. Mr. Kinross did not know what his own footmen were paid. He had never asked. Fenwick knew.

He looked for a long while at the blue-grey wrapper, and at the words The Mortimers of Mount Street in its list of contents; and then, without quite meaning to, he took up his pencil

and made a tick beside them, as he had in August. The Author was clever; that much the page proved. The rest Mr. Kinross supplied, as a man does who is used to being right. The Author was a young man; an Oxford man, very likely, who had quarrelled with his father and come up to London to make his name by his pen; who wrote in a coffee-house and dined on credit, and had never set foot in a counting-house in his life. And he had an ear.

He was wrong in every particular but the last.

The eleventh number of The Lord Warden was due in Albemarle Street on the tenth, and it had not been begun.

It had not been begun because the tenth had been so difficult. The Warden had answered the King at last, in a letter of four pages which Mr. Kinross had written eleven times, and which had gone to the printer in the second week of August with the feeling, familiar to him and never pleasant, of a thing sent out of the house before it was dressed. Since then he had sat at this desk on most afternoons and looked at a sheet of foolscap headed No. XI., and had written on it, at various times, the date of the Battle of Shrewsbury, the name of a horse, and a word which he had struck through. The difficulty was not that he did not know what happened next. He knew to the day what happened next; it was in the box for 1403. The difficulty was that he had lost, somewhere in the writing of the King’s letter, the reason for telling it.

He took the August Ludgate down from the shelf, where it lay marked in pencil, and opened it at the fourth number of the Mortimers, and found the paragraph beside which he had written competent.

Miss Mortimer understood, between the soup and the fish, that she would not be asked to Lady Harrowgate’s; and she sat out the rest of the dinner in the gown in which she had been dressed for it, because to go up and change it would have been to admit that she had known.

He read it three times. It was not competent. He had known in August that it was not competent, and had written the word because he did not wish to write any other, and because it is a thing commonly done by men who own a share in one magazine to the authors of another. It was the best sentence in the number, and it was about a girl who had been dressed for a house she was not to enter, and it had been written, he was now quite sure, by somebody who had sat out a dinner in that gown. He put this down, after some thought, to the

young man’s having sisters.

He pulled the foolscap towards him and dipped his pen.

There was a hostage at Ludlow, in the box for 1403: a Welsh girl, the daughter of one of Glendower’s captains, kept in the castle against her father’s good behaviour, of whom the chroniclers said nothing at all except that she was there. He had always meant to do something with her, and had never known what. He knew now. He wrote, quickly, in the small fast hand that the laundress said was like a hen walking in ink, and he did not stop to cross anything out.

The Lady Gwenllian understood, between the grace and the first dish, that she would not be called up to the high table; and she sat out the rest of the feast in the gown that had been made for it, because to send for another would have been to own that she had hoped.

He read it over. It was not funny. It had been funny in Mount Street, where it had been something else, and he was aware, in the part of his mind that he did not commonly consult, that he had taken a thing that was not his and made it graver in the taking; and that this was precisely, stroke for stroke, what had been done to him; and that whoever had done it would know, on the first of October, that it had been noticed.

It was a curious way to begin a correspondence. It was the only way, he supposed, in which a man in King’s Bench Walk could begin one with a young man whose name he did not know, and who had sisters, without being introduced. He wrote on until the giants of St. Dunstan’s struck six and the light went off the river, and when he got up from the desk the eleventh number was four pages long, and he knew again the reason for telling it.

The Albemarle came to Salisbury Square on the third of September, two days late, because Mr. Pelham had taken it into the country.

Clemency had seen her own number on the first. She had gone up to the Row to look at it, as she did every month, without buying it, and had stood at Baldock’s window and read the list of contents through the glass, and had found, set in above the Mortimers in a smaller type than the rest, a page headed Manchester. She had known that it would be there; Mr. Baldock had held his press for it, and told her so, and told her that the town would read the Mortimers this month with some attention, since they were a Manchester family. He had meant it kindly. She had gone home and been unable to eat her dinner. Her father had bought fustians for twenty

years from a house in Manchester whose name she could still have written in her sleep; the Hindleys’ son had come to Bread Street once, and eaten roast mutton, and talked about looms; and she had spent the summer making the Manchester trade ridiculous for seven guineas a number, and had sent it out into a month in which people from the Manchester trade had been cut down with sabres in a field. It was not her fault. She had written it in July, and finished it on the fourth of August, twelve days before St. Peter’s Field. She told herself so a great many times, and it made no difference.

Kit had said, at supper, that Mr. Pelham said the yeomanry had done right, and that he rather thought they had; and Lucy had said that she was sure they had done wrong, and that she rather thought so too; and their mother had said that she did not see what Manchester had to do with any of them, and had then gone very quiet, and said that she wondered whether the Hindleys were all well.

So it was in no frame of mind for the Warden that Clemency took up the tenth number on the morning of the third, and she was surprised to find that she sat down to it.

The Warden had answered the King.

It was a long answer, and a hard one to read. It began by setting out, as carefully as a lease, which matters lay within the Warden’s authority and which lay outwith it; and she read it all; and somewhere in the third page, in the middle of an account of the fortifying of Ludlow which went on longer than anything ought to go on, with the river going down on the ebb beneath the castle wall, she came upon this:

My liege, I have kept your peace in the March these nine years, and have learned in the keeping that it is a thing more easily broken by the keeper than by the kept.

She read it with the room quite still about her. It was impossible that it should have been written about Manchester. The number had been made up in August, before anybody in London had heard of St. Peter’s Field; she knew how long a number took to print better than anyone in that house. But it read, in the first week of September, as though the man had been standing on the hustings with a pencil, and she sat with the magazine in her lap and was angry with him, for a moment, for having been right by accident, which was a thing she had never been.

Then she turned the pages through to the end, slowly, looking for something.

She did not tell herself what she

was looking for. She was looking for a footman, or a dining-room, or a man from Manchester, or the turn of a sentence that she might know; for any sign, in short, that the fifth number of the Mortimers had been read in the place where the Warden was written. There was none. There could not have been; the tenth number had been printed before the fifth was published, and she was a fool. She shut the magazine, and found that the corner of the page with the Warden’s answer on it was turned down, and could not remember doing it.

She put on her bonnet, because the room had become too small to think in, and went out.

It was not yet three, and the garden would not be open; so she walked as far as the print-seller’s at the corner of Bouverie Street, which was as far as a woman could walk in Fleet Street without appearing to be going somewhere, and stood at the window.

The print-sellers of London sold London to itself in two kinds, and Mr. Brindle hung them side by side. On the left, in a black frame, was an old engraving of Temple Bar, done before she was born, so old that it still showed the iron spikes on the top of the gate where the City had once set the heads of traitors: and under the arch the whole street was crammed into a space a yard wide, carts and chairmen and a ballad-singer and a dog and a beadle and a man with a tray of pies, all shouting, as far as an engraving can shout. On the right, in a gilt one, was a view of the Inner Temple garden, drawn from some gentleman’s window above it: the long lawn, the gravel walks, the plane trees, the river wall, a barge with a brown sail, and nobody in it at all but a lady at the wall and a gentleman on a bench, too small to have faces.

The two pictures were of places perhaps three hundred yards apart. She had looked at them a dozen times, and she saw now, as one sees a thing in a familiar room that has been there all the while, what was clever about them: that each had been made by leaving out the other. The man who drew the gate had left out the garden, which was behind it; the man at the window had left out the noise, which was a street away. A customer could carry home the din or the quiet for the same money, but not both. She did it herself every month, at seven guineas, and called it Mount Street.

And standing there, with her own face faint in the glass between the gate and the garden, she did what she had not allowed herself to do upstairs: she took the Warden to pieces.

The Warden lost money, and was not stopped. Mr. Baldock said that it

cost Albemarle Street twenty pounds a month; and a magazine does not carry twenty pounds a month for somebody’s nephew. It carries them for the man who owns it. The author, therefore, owned the Albemarle, or the better part of it, and was rich. That was one.

On the second page of his answer the Warden had written that a certain matter lay outwith his authority. No Englishman alive would have written outwith. The author was a Scot. That was two.

On the third page the Warden had stood on the wall at Ludlow and watched the river go down on the ebb. The Teme at Ludlow had no ebb; it was fifty miles and more from the nearest tide, and she knew it, because she had once spent a wet fortnight with a gazetteer. The man had looked at a tidal river so long, and so often, that he had given one to a river that had none. He wrote within sight of the Thames. That was three.

And the King’s letter had been answered as a deed is drawn, whereas and provided always and saving nevertheless, by somebody who had been bred to the law, or had sat a long time near it. That was four.

A rich Scot of the Inns of Court, who wrote within sight of the river. She looked up from the glass, along the street, to the gate and the roofs of the Temple beyond it, and very nearly laughed; for half the Temple answered to that description, and the other half was trying to. And a man of that kind, she thought, turning homeward, would no more read the Mortimers than he would read the Lady’s Cabinet; he did not know they existed; he never would.

She was right in every particular but the last.

She went home by Salisbury Court, and up the two pair of stairs, and into the back room; and when she had taken off her bonnet she did a thing that she did perhaps once a month, and never when anybody was by. She took out the portfolio.

It had been her father’s, and had held patterns of fustian. It held now, between its marbled boards, every picture she had ever begun of the Mortimers, and not one of them was finished. Mr. Mortimer at the head of his table, without a face. Mrs. Mortimer’s carriage at the door in Mount Street, very handsomely done, with the railings set at the kerb. Miss Mortimer in the gown she had been dressed in for Lady Harrowgate’s, the gown washed in to the last flounce, and the face left white, because Clemency had never been able to decide what the girl would look like at the moment she understood.

She had read Emma the winter it came out, in the copy from the circulating library on Ludgate Hill, and had laughed aloud at the portfolio Miss Woodhouse brought out to show Mr. Elton: the miniatures and half-lengths and whole-lengths, in pencil and crayon and water-colours, of which not one had ever been finished, and the Author’s verdict on them, which was that steadiness had always been wanting. It was not steadiness that was wanting in Salisbury Square. It was colours, which cost money; and daylight, which she could not paint by while she was writing by it; and a reason. Emma’s drawing had been carried to London by an admirer, and framed, and hung over a mantelpiece for the whole of Highbury to praise. A picture of Mount Street by somebody who had never set foot in Mount Street would be seen by nobody at all; she had known it every time she began one; and her drawings went back into a fustian-merchant’s portfolio, under the bed.

And yet she kept them, because there was a book in her head that was not the Mortimers as they were, sold by the sheet and forgotten by the month, but the Mortimers as they might one day be: three volumes in boards, with plates, and under each plate, in small capitals, drawn by the author. It was the most foolish thing she knew about herself, and she had told it to nobody.

She sat down at the desk, in what was left of the light, and began another. It was the garden of the Inner Temple, seen from the river wall: the long lawn, the plane trees, the gravel of the eastern walk, the bench under the second plane, and on the bench a gentleman, too small to have a face.

She did not finish it.

She would know on the first of October.

(To be continued.)

Edited by Michael Cummins. Written in full collaboration with Anthropic’s Claude models, and set here as it might have appeared in a London magazine of 1819. Read the announcement, with the plan of London.

THE FOUND STYLE

On a spire raised in secret, a zoning law that drew a skyline, and a style named after it died

Nobody invented art deco. The style that defined the 1920s and 30s issued no manifesto and founded no school, and the name it goes by was already current among dealers when a 28-year-old sale-room correspondent put it on a title page in 1968. Trace its forms to their sources and you leave art behind: the stepped skyscraper was drawn by a light ordinance, the rounded radio by what a resin would consent to be, the lotus by a tomb other people dug up. Modernism was an idea; deco, the verdict runs, was only a look. But where did the look come from?

On October 23, 1929, inside the fire shaft of an unfinished tower on Lexington Avenue, a crew hoisted a steel spire up through the roof and fixed it in place in about ninety minutes. It had arrived in sections and been assembled in secret, inside the building, and the morning after it went up was Black Thursday. Scaffolding hid the crown until the spring. The extra height was given to the press only in November, after the rival tower downtown at 40 Wall Street had topped out, and by then William Van Alen’s Chrysler Building stood 1,046 feet high, the tallest in the world.

The most famous gesture of art deco was made inside a shroud, with no one in the street to see it and no name for it that would last, had anyone looked. The people who made the style called it moderne, when they called it anything. Fifteen months later, at the Society of Beaux-Arts Architects’ ball at the Hotel Astor, under the theme of a Fête Moderne, Van Alen came dressed as his building, with its spire on his head. When the name hasn’t arrived, you can point at the thing, or you can put it on.

Whether a style that nobody authored can be called original, or only recognized, is the question art deco leaves behind.

I

A Style Without a Manifesto

The early twentieth century was the great age of the artistic manifesto: Futurism in 1909, De Stijl in 1918, the Bauhaus in 1919, Surrealism in 1924, each telling you in advance what it was and what it despised. Art deco told you nothing in advance. Its theories came after its forms. The rules of the 1925 exposition, published in 1922, were a door policy rather than a doctrine, admitting only work of new inspiration and real originality and banning imitation of the old styles. Paul Frankl’s skyscraper bookcases were selling years before his book explained them, and Hugh Ferriss published his city of the future seven years after he had drawn its shape. The one theorist who ran ahead was Norman Bel Geddes, whose Horizons popularized streamlining in 1932. Dan Klein, who headed the twentieth-century decorative arts department at Christie’s, put it flatly: “It had no founder, no manifesto, and no philosophy.” It simply happened, he wrote, because the designers of postwar Paris were answering a restructured society, and that is the shrug in which most accounts of the style end.

Its French phase had a lineage it was proud of, the eighteenth-century cabinetmakers, and a debt to the German-speaking world. The luxury of ebony, shagreen and ivory took shape in Paris after the Werkbund showed its rooms at the Salon d’Automne of 1910 and Paul Poiret came home from Vienna in 1911 and opened a workshop. Even the French phase began with something found abroad, and the forms the world now recognizes as deco, the stepped tower and the rounded radio, came later, from further outside still.

The modernists argued relentlessly, and an early printing of the abbreviation is theirs. Le Corbusier had run a series of articles in L’Esprit Nouveau, the magazine he edited with Amédée Ozenfant, under the headline “1925 EXPO. ARTS. DÉCO.”, and in 1925 he collected them as L’Art décoratif d’aujourd’hui. Modern decorative art, ran his refrain, has no decoration, and the things of daily use should be anonymous standard types made by industry. Modernism did not refuse the powder compact. It let the compact in only on its own terms, anonymous, standard and plain, and it had a theory of history and a theory of ethics to explain why. Deco let the compact in as itself, and could only point at a ziggurat and say: look.

The pavilion built to carry the argument, the Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau, opened on July 18, almost three months after the exposition itself: a white box of standard furniture with a tree growing through a hole in its roof, meant to deny decorative art and to show architecture running from the smallest object of use to the house, the street and the city. The organizers put up a fence to hide part of it, and it took the Ministry of Fine Arts to have the fence taken down. The loudest argument made at art deco’s birth was made by its enemy, late, and the hosts tried to keep it out of sight.

II

The Ziggurat Was a By-law

Ask anyone to draw art deco and they will draw a stepped tower, its tiers climbing like a temple into the Manhattan sky, and the romantic explanation is ready to hand. The 1920s were mad for lost civilizations. The Carnegie Institution began work at Chichen Itza in 1924, and Aztec motifs ran up the facade of Joseph Younger’s Kennedy-Warren apartments in Washington. Deco’s designers, the story goes, looked at the stepped pyramids of Yucatán and saw the future.

The unromantic explanation is a zoning resolution. In 1916 New York passed the first comprehensive zoning law in the United States, and light was one of its concerns. The Equitable Building on lower Broadway threw a shadow of some seven acres across its neighbors, and the new law required tall buildings to step back from the street as they rose, so that daylight could still reach the pavement. Architects were not sure what that meant for their designs, so in 1922 Harvey Wiley Corbett asked Hugh Ferriss to draw it.

Ferriss made four drawings. They show no building, only the greatest mass of rentable space the law allowed on a city block, carved back in stages until it became a stepped mountain. He worked in black crayon, pulling tone off with a paper stump and erasing the highlights out, so that the mass seems to loom out of its own weather. The drawings taught architects to read the law not as a restriction but as a source of form; Carol Willis would later write a history of the skyscrapers of New York and Chicago on the premise that form follows finance, and Ferriss’s four sheets are where you can watch it happen. The law did not invent the step, and the Mayan enthusiasm was real. What the law did was make the step the price of bulk. Over a quarter of its lot a tower could rise as high as it liked, which is why the Chrysler’s shaft could climb at all, and the step and the shaft together are the difference between a motif and a skyline.

Ferriss held a contradiction. He illustrated his March 1922 article in The New York Times with drawings from the series, and in it, by Cooper Hewitt’s account, he argued that steel and glass had made the unornamented skyscraper the only truthful one. But in the pen-and-ink fantasies he drew in the same years, the setback towers stand amid the scenery of the ancient Near East and Imperial Rome, and setback skyscrapers were often called modern ziggurats, New York a new Babylon. His article argued for the bare tower while his fantasies dressed it, and the city took the mass and left the argument. The architects dressed the mountain too: eagles on the setbacks, sunbursts on the crowns, and a story about Yucatán. The Mayan temple was not the source of the skyline. It was the alibi.

III

What the Resin Wanted

The materials tell the same story. Deco is usually described as a style that used bakelite, chrome and colored glass, as though its designers had chosen them from a palette. It is nearer the truth to say that the materials used the designers.

Bakelite, the first synthetic plastic, created by Leo Baekeland in 1907, is a thermoset. Once it has cured under heat and pressure it cannot be melted or reshaped; it takes its shape once, in the mold, and the mold has opinions. When Wells Coates designed the round Ekco radio in 1932, the circle fitted the round speaker behind it, and by avoiding sharp edges and corners the case played to the properties of the pressed resin; he did not disguise the machine as a cabinet. Coates was a modernist, the architect of the Isokon flats in Hampstead, and the mold did not ask. It produced the deco curve with a modernist standing over it. The form belonged to neither camp, and only one camp had a doctrine against it.

The colorful sets of the decade were another chemistry, Catalin, cast rather than pressed, and finished by hand, and the decade turned out so many different cases for an economic reason. Radio technology had slowed, the Depression had emptied household budgets, and manufacturers sold new sets by restyling the case. Form followed the sales department.

Gottfried Semper argued in the 1860s that style arises from material, technique and purpose. Alois Riegl answered him in 1893, and by 1901 had a name for the answer, the Kunstwollen, an artistic will that uses materials rather than obeying them. Riegl would say the mold chose nothing: someone chose to make the radio round rather than fight the resin with trim, and that choice is a will like any other. He is right, and the argument survives him. Every style is what its materials will do. Gothic is what stone will do in compression, and modernism is what a cantilever will do. The difference lies not in the causes but in the claim. Modernism bent concrete to a theory and put its name to the result; deco let the resin have its way and claimed nothing. The will was there; it was a will to consent. When the slump emptied household budgets, the style changed shape to sell, and it had no theory to resist with.

IV

The Tomb and the Ship

The motifs came from outside as well, and a tomb shows what kind of thing they were. On November 4, 1922, Howard Carter’s men found a step cut into the floor of the Valley of the Kings, and on the afternoon of the 26th Carter breached a sealed doorway, put a candle through the gap and saw, by his own account, wonderful things. Lord Carnarvon sold the exclusive to The Times, and the unpacking of the tomb ran like a serial. Lotus buds, scarabs and winged discs poured into jewelry and cinema lobbies. Egypt was already in fashion, with Grauman’s Egyptian open in Hollywood a few weeks before the candle, and it was one import among many: the Ballets Russes had reached Paris in 1909 with no excavation behind them, and the Maya, Japanese lacquer and the repertoire of empire fed the style as richly. What the tomb shows is that deco’s motifs were neither invented nor, in the ordinary sense, influences. They were dug up, by other people, for other reasons, and reported in the newspaper.

A ship shows how it ended. The French Line took the hull lines for its next flagship from Vladimir Yourkevitch, a naval architect of the Imperial Russian Navy who had come west as an émigré, and the decorators would work inside the volume his lines enclosed. When the slump came, one British rival was cancelled and another, the future Queen Mary, stood unfinished on the slip; the French, heavily subsidized by their government, carried on. The Normandie was laid down at Saint-Nazaire on January 26, 1931, and launched on October 29, 1932, three years to the day after Black Tuesday. She was not the Depression’s child but its survivor.

Inside, the old luxury made its last stand. Lalique’s twelve illuminated glass pillars and ranks of tall lamps lit a first-class dining room ninety-three meters long, and the comparison repeated ever since is that the room was longer than the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. The vessel that stood for the future was measured against Louis XIV. In New York the alibi had been Mayan; at Saint-Nazaire it was the ancien régime.

She reached New York on August 28, 1939, and was laid up at Pier 88. France declared war six days later, and she never sailed again. The United States seized her in December 1941 and began turning her into a troopship, and on the afternoon of February 9, 1942, she caught fire. Yourkevitch went to the pier and was kept from those in command. Heavy with the water poured in to fight the fire, she rolled onto her side in the Hudson a little before three the next morning. It took eighteen months to right her, and after the war the hull was cut up for scrap. That is how the style went too: in the middle of a conversion to something more useful, and nobody made a speech.

V

The Found Style

The stepped skyline came from a by-law and the curve from a mold; the late manner came out of a slump and the motifs out of the ground. Trace the forms of art deco to their sources and you leave art behind, for law, chemistry, money and a newspaper serial. By the standard modernism set, originality as authorship, the designer imposing a concept on matter, deco has nothing to show. There is an obvious objection, that there were many art decos under one label and “found” is only a flattering word for eclectic. But eclecticism picks. A found style is picked. The circumstances did the choosing, and the designers consented. That may be the original thing about it.

Deco was the first style made by the twentieth century rather than about it. The modernists held a picture of the modern world before the world had properly arrived and built in its image: the machine as moral teacher, the house as a machine for living in, the white wall as hygiene made visible. Deco held no picture. It let the century in through the door, the regulations and the resins and the price of ivory and the discovery that a dead king’s furniture could sell newspapers, and it is a found style in the sense that Duchamp’s urinal is a found object: made elsewhere, for other purposes, and recognized as art only afterwards.

That is why it could go everywhere. Hillier called it “the last of the total styles,” and reckoned its reach from the skyscraper and the liner down to the powder compact and the letter-box. Turn his sentence over and the last total style is the first found one. A theory is also a set of terms. Modernism reached down to the smallest object of use and admitted it only as a type; deco let the powder compact in as itself, because nothing forbade it. Both went everywhere, but modernism’s totality was a conquest and deco’s a permission. It did not lack politics: the 1925 exposition was France’s answer to German design, its exotica came out of empire, and in 2025, the exposition’s centenary, Catherine Slessor charged the style with glossing over turmoil and Edward Denison with letting its glamour conceal the colonial rule under which much of it was built. What it lacked was a prohibition, and a style with no prohibition cannot refuse what it is handed, whether a zoning envelope, a pharaoh or an empire. It was total because it was empty, and it was loved because it was empty. It asked the public to believe nothing. It only asked them to look.

Painting in Art Deco style: a kneeling giant built of black stone and gold piers, stepped like a skyscraper, bearing a great golden sphere that blazes as a sunburst over a city skyline and a reflecting pool, with blank ticker tape drifting past.
The style that could not refuse what it was handed, made for this essay.

Art deco was a style of excavation, and it was excavated in its turn. Modernism got a time of death instead. In 1977 Charles Jencks dated it to 3:32 in the afternoon of July 15, 1972, “or thereabouts,” the moment, he wrote, when the Pruitt-Igoe housing blocks in St. Louis were dynamited; the first blocks had come down that spring, a few months before his date. Even modernism’s death certificate was written afterwards, five years late, by an enemy. Deco never received one. What it received, from admirers, was a name, and the name came with the digging. Since then it can be dug up again whenever a culture tires of ideas and wants something to look at, and last year one online dealer reported that its deco sales had tripled.

The man who did most to dig it up was born in March 1940, seven months into the war that ended it. By the middle of the 1960s Bevis Hillier was the sale-room correspondent of The Times, covering a trade that was already using the name. So, by November 1966, was an article in his own paper, and a year later an essay in Elle. When he wrote his book the style was, by his own account, despised. He did not coin its name. He put it on a title page in 1968, at twenty-eight, and three years later, after his exhibition in Minneapolis, it was the word everyone used. Van Alen had the thing in his hands and no name for it. Hillier had the name and no hand in the thing.

Made without a name, named without a maker.

⁂

The occasion is Dezeen’s Art Deco Centenary series and its A to Z of art deco (April 29, 2025). Bevis Hillier is quoted from his piece for that series (March 10, 2025), and his post at The Times from Contemporary Authors; Dan Klein from his introduction to In the Deco Style, as reprinted by the Art Deco Society of California; Charles Jencks from The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (1977). The spire is from the Skyscraper Museum and the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s designation report; the 1931 ball from the National Archives, Vanity Fair and The Smart Set; the Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau from the Fondation Le Corbusier; the 1916 resolution from the Skyscraper Museum and the Museum of the City of New York; Hugh Ferriss’s drawings and article from Cooper Hewitt, and his fantasy drawings from the Skyscraper Museum; the Ekco radio and Catalin from Cooper Hewitt and the V&A; Carter from the Griffith Institute’s excavation journals; the Normandie from RIBA, the Metropolitan Museum, the Musée Lalique, Shipscribe and American Heritage. The history of the name is from Benton, Benton and Wood’s Art Deco 1910–1939 (2003), at second hand. Quotations keep their sources’ spelling.

Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; outside literary editing by Claude Fable 5.1. Images generated with Gemini Argon for this essay.

OUT OF MY HEAD

Out of My Head · Intellicurean

Jane Eyre’s watercolors, Charlotte Brontë’s copies, and the paper that told the truth

Charlotte Brontë learned to draw by copying engravings. In Jane Eyre she gave her heroine three watercolors painted, as Jane tells Rochester, out of her own head.

After tea on a winter evening at Thornfield, having asked her about Lowood and made her play the piano, Mr. Rochester asks his new governess for her portfolio. He warns her first: “don’t pass your word unless you are certain: I can recognise patchwork.” Jane fetches it from the library. He looks at every sheet, sends most of them to the other table for Mrs. Fairfax and Adèle, keeps three, and begins a cross-examination. When did she find the time? In her last two vacations at Lowood. Then: “Where did you get your copies?”

“Out of my head.”

Rebecca Birrell, an art historian and novelist, writing in LitHub today about the amateur women painters of fiction, gives Jane’s watercolors one sentence: Jane paints them, and tells Rochester that painting them made her happy. That is true, and it passes over the word Rochester has just used.

In 1847 a copy was not only a duplicate. In the schoolroom it was the thing a pupil drew from: the engraved plate in the drawing book, the view in the annual. Rochester wants to know what she copied. That was how girls were taught to draw, and it was how Charlotte Brontë was taught. At least a third of the pictures she left, the Brontë scholar Christine Alexander has found, are copies of engravings. In the summer of 1834 she sent two pencil copies of engraved views of Yorkshire abbeys to an exhibition in Leeds, marked for sale. She was eighteen. So is Jane, on the night of the portfolio. Jane’s answer is the one sentence about her art that her author could not have said of the pictures she sent to Leeds.

Less than five months after the novel came out, its publishers asked her, in Alexander’s account, to illustrate it herself. She turned them down, in a letter to their reader, W. S. Williams: “If then ‘Jane Eyre’ is ever to be illustrated,” she wrote, “it must be by some other hand than that of it’s author.” The novel had already given that hand to its heroine. It gave Jane originals, a summer of painting from morning till night, and a viewer who asks who taught her to paint wind. Then it tied the strings of the portfolio. The next time anyone opened it, Jane was not in the room: Rochester sent for it, she supposes, to show his dinner guests.

I

A Portfolio of Beginnings

Thirty-two years before Jane Eyre, in Highbury, another portfolio is opened, this time in front of a suitor. Emma Woodhouse has decided to take Harriet Smith’s likeness, and when Mr. Elton praises her drawings, she thinks: “You know nothing of drawing. Don’t pretend to be in raptures about mine. Keep your raptures for Harriet’s face.” The raptures, Emma will learn, were for her. Then she “produced the portfolio containing her various attempts at portraits, for not one of them had ever been finished.” Austen lists them, “Miniatures, half-lengths, whole-lengths, pencil, crayon, and water-colours had been all tried in turn,” and gives the verdict in five words: “steadiness had always been wanting.”

Emma settles on “a whole-length in water-colours, like Mr. John Knightley’s,” destined, “if she could please herself, to hold a very honourable station over the mantelpiece,” and she means “to give a little more height, and considerably more elegance.” As the picture goes forward, each man looks for something of his own. Mr. Knightley: “You have made her too tall, Emma.” Emma “knew that she had, but would not own it.” Mr. Elton: “Oh no! certainly not too tall; not in the least too tall.” Mr. Woodhouse’s one objection is the little shawl: “it makes one think she must catch cold.”

The frame must come from London. Mr. Elton carries the picture there to “chuse the frame, and give the directions,” and it comes back “elegantly framed,” to hang “over the mantelpiece of the common sitting-room.”

That is what a lady’s picture was for: made to be seen, praised by a suitor, framed in town, hung where the household sits. It was all front. Jane has one picture that was framed and hung. Before she leaves Lowood, Bessie, the nurse from her Gateshead childhood, comes to see her and asks the two things Rochester will test: can she play the piano, and can she draw? Jane points to a watercolor landscape over the chimney-piece, a present to the superintendent, who had it “framed and glazed.” “It is as fine a picture as any Miss Reed’s drawing-master could paint,” Bessie says. The three in her portfolio are the reverse at every point. Her pictures are finished. They are judged, not flattered. Nobody frames them. And the man who judges them looks at his watch and tells her to take Adèle to bed.

II

The Copies

Around 1829 Patrick Brontë engaged John Bradley of Keighley, a house and sign painter, to teach all four of his children to draw. What Charlotte learned, as the Morgan Library put it when it showed her drawings in 2016, was “to copy from prints rather than sketch from nature.”

She was good at it, and she looked harder than anyone around her. Mary Taylor, who was at school with her at Roe Head, told Elizabeth Gaskell, Charlotte’s first biographer, that “She used to draw much better, and more quickly, than anything we had seen before,” and that “Whenever an opportunity offered of examining a picture or cut of any kind, she went over it piecemeal, with her eyes close to the paper, looking so long that we used to ask her ‘what she saw in it.’”

The two drawings she sent to Leeds were “Bolton Abbey” and “Kirkstall Abbey.” She had copied the first in May 1834 from Edward Finden’s engraving in The Literary Souvenir. A copy of an engraving of a Turner, exhibited for sale.

The next March she copied a print after Fuseli’s Lycidas in watercolor, and this time she didn’t obey it. The figure, “decidedly male in Fuseli’s version,” the Morgan noted, “is more ambiguous in her rendering,” and, having only the black-and-white print, she invented the color.

“At one time,” Gaskell writes, “Charlotte had the notion of making her living as an artist, and wearied her eyes in drawing,” minutely but, in Gaskell’s judgment, without accuracy, “for she drew from fancy rather than from nature.” Gaskell means invention. Of the sisters she says, “they laboured to design imaginations of their own; they lacked the power of execution, not of conception.” By the Christmas of 1836 the plan was over: “She had once hoped that she herself might become an artist, and so earn her livelihood; but her eyes had failed her in the minute and useless labour which she had imposed upon herself with a view to this end.” In one letter Gaskell prints, Charlotte apologizes for its brevity, “for I have been drawing all day, and my eyes are so tired it is quite a labour to write.”

The lessons had been the same for all four children. What they were for was not the same for a girl and a boy. In a girl’s education, drawing was supposed, in Alexander’s summary, “to act as an embellishment and an amusement.” Of the boy, Gaskell writes, “they all thought there could be no doubt about Branwell’s talent for drawing.” His family, she writes, “augured truly” that “he might turn out a great painter,” and “the best way of preparing him to become so appeared to be to send him as a pupil to the Royal Academy.”

So what went to Leeds were copies, and the fancy went into the margins of her manuscripts and into the stories. The novel does the reverse with Jane’s work: her fancy goes into pictures, and the pictures stay in the portfolio.

III

Out of My Head

Back at Thornfield, Rochester’s next question is about the head. “That head I see now on your shoulders?” “Yes, sir.” “Has it other furniture of the same kind within?” “I should think it may have: I should hope—better.”

While he looks, Jane turns to the reader and disowns the pictures before she describes them. “I must premise that they are nothing wonderful … As I saw them with the spiritual eye, before I attempted to embody them, they were striking; but my hand would not second my fancy, and in each case it had wrought out but a pale portrait of the thing I had conceived.” Fancy was Gaskell’s word for Charlotte. Here it is Jane’s, for what her hand could not reach.

“These pictures were in water-colours.” The first shows “clouds low and livid, rolling over a swollen sea,” and a half-submerged mast, on which sits “a cormorant, dark and large, with wings flecked with foam; its beak held a gold bracelet set with gems.” Below, “a drowned corpse glanced through the green water; a fair arm was the only limb clearly visible, whence the bracelet had been washed or torn.” The second is a hilltop under a twilight sky, and rising into it “a woman’s shape to the bust.” “The dim forehead was crowned with a star”: it is “this vision of the Evening Star.” The third shows “the pinnacle of an iceberg piercing a polar winter sky,” and against it “a colossal head,” veiled below the eyes, with “an eye hollow and fixed, blank of meaning but for the glassiness of despair.” Above the temples is “a ring of white flame,” and of that ring she writes: “This pale crescent was ‘the likeness of a kingly crown;’ what it diademed was ‘the shape which shape had none.’”

The inner quotation marks are Brontë’s, because the words are Milton’s. In the second book of Paradise Lost, at the gate of Hell, Satan meets Death: “The other Shape— / If shape it might be called that shape had none … what seemed his head / The likeness of a kingly crown had on.” Jane describes her third picture in Milton’s words for Death.

The wreck and the ice came from nearer home. On the first pages of the novel, the ten-year-old Jane sits in a window-seat behind a red curtain with Bewick’s History of British Birds. The rock “standing up alone in a sea of billow and spray” and “a wreck just sinking” are its vignettes, small wood engravings; the Arctic is its letterpress, which she quotes, “the vast sweep of the Arctic Zone,” and then calls “death-white realms.” Eight years later the wreck and the ice are in her portfolio, remembered, not copied. Rochester asked where she got her copies. Part of the answer is that the head was already furnished.

The critic Barbara Gates reads the three as “presentiments of trials that are to come,” and Peter Bolt, writing in The Victorian Web, traces them to scripture and Greek legend. What the novel itself does with them is simpler: it never shows anyone but Rochester looking at them.

“Were you happy when you painted these pictures?” he asks. “I was absorbed, sir: yes, and I was happy. To paint them, in short, was to enjoy one of the keenest pleasures I have ever known.” He presses: “And you felt self-satisfied with the result of your ardent labours?” “Far from it. I was tormented by the contrast between my idea and my handiwork: in each case I had imagined something which I was quite powerless to realise.” Birrell’s phrase for what matters in Lily Briscoe, the painter in To the Lighthouse, is “the quality of her devotion.” Jane has the devotion. She will not take it as consolation.

Then he gives his verdict, and it is a painter’s. “Not quite: you have secured the shadow of your thought; but no more, probably. You had not enough of the artist’s skill and science to give it full being: yet the drawings are, for a school-girl, peculiar. As to the thoughts, they are elfish. These eyes in the Evening Star you must have seen in a dream. How could you make them look so clear, and yet not at all brilliant? for the planet above quells their rays. And what meaning is that in their solemn depth? And who taught you to paint wind? There is a high gale in that sky, and on this hill-top. Where did you see Latmos? For that is Latmos.” Latmos is the mountain where the moon came down to the sleeping Endymion. Jane never names it. As Bolt notes, he does.

Then: “There! put the drawings away!”

IV

The Backs of Drawings

Jane passes sentence on herself in two pictures: a chalk self-portrait, to be titled “Portrait of a Governess, disconnected, poor, and plain,” and, on ivory, the beauty she supposes Rochester will court, “Blanche, an accomplished lady of rank,” for which she is to “omit neither diamond ring nor gold bracelet.” Peter Bolt links that bracelet to the one in the cormorant’s beak.

At Gateshead she draws “fancy vignettes,” a naiad and “an elf sitting in a hedge-sparrow’s nest,” and then, feature by feature, a face: “I was absorbed and content.” Her cousin Eliza asks whether it is a portrait of someone she knows. “I responded that it was merely a fancy head, and hurried it beneath the other sheets. Of course, I lied: it was, in fact, a very faithful representation of Mr. Rochester.” Fancy, which was the word for what her hand could not reach, is here the word she lies with.

In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall Anne Brontë gives her heroine, Helen, a secret of the same kind, and a man who goes looking for it. In the diary she keeps before her marriage, Helen describes looking up at a party to see Huntingdon “complacently gazing at the back of the picture:—it was his own face that I had sketched there and forgotten to rub out!” He holds the rest to a candle, “I must look at both sides now,” and makes out the faint traces of her other attempts at his face. “I perceive the backs of young ladies’ drawings,” he says, “like the postscripts of their letters, are the most important and interesting part of the concern.”

The next morning he finds her in the library, finishing what she calls “my masterpiece”: a girl kneeling under a bough to watch “an amorous pair of turtle doves.” He “set himself before my picture.” “She’s a sweet creature! but why didn’t you make her black hair?” Helen’s own hair is black. “I should fall in love with her,” he says, “if I hadn’t the artist before me.” Then he takes up her portfolio. “Mr. Huntingdon, those are my unfinished sketches,” she cries, “and I never let any one see them.” “Let me have its bowels then,” he says, and pockets a miniature of himself. When he gives it back: “To show him how I valued it, I tore it in two and threw it into the fire.”

Watercolor: in a sunlit library, a black-haired woman at her easel paints a fair-haired girl kneeling beneath two doves, while a chestnut-haired man in a sporting coat stands beside the canvas, studying it; a gun leans by the open window, her portfolio spills from a side table, and a fire burns in the grate.
Huntingdon, “setting his gun against the wall, threw up the sash and sprang in, and set himself before my picture.” Anne Brontë, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, chapter 18. Watercolor generated with Gemini Argon.

Two heroines draw the face of the man each will marry. Jane lies about hers. Helen burns hers. In both novels the drawing that tells the truth is on the side that wasn’t meant to be seen.

V

Some Other Hand

When Gilbert Markham, the neighbor who narrates the novel, calls at Wildfell Hall, he is shown into a studio. The tenant is Helen, who has left her husband, Huntingdon, and is living under the name Mrs. Graham. There is “a painter’s easel,” and “rolls of canvas, bottles of oil and varnish.” On the easel is a view of Wildfell Hall itself, lettered “Fernley Manor, Cumberland.” She has given the place a false name, she tells him, because friends “might possibly recognise the style in spite of the false initials” she has put in the corner. Will she keep it? “No; I cannot afford to paint for my own amusement.” Her small son explains: “Mamma sends all her pictures to London.”

She had planned, before she fled, to live by her painting: “The palette and the easel, my darling playmates once, must be my sober toil-fellows now.” Her husband found the materials and fed them to the fire: “palette, paints, bladders, pencils, brushes, varnish: I saw them all consumed.”

In the same letter, dated 11 March 1848, in which she turned down the illustrations, she told Williams: “It is not enough to have the artist’s eye; one must also have the artist’s hand to turn the first gift to practical account … when I examine the contents of my portfolio now, it seems as if during the years it has been lying closed, some fairy had changed what I once thought sterling coin into dry leaves, and I feel much inclined to consign the whole collection of drawings to the fire; I see they have no value.” Rochester had told Jane that she “had not enough of the artist’s skill and science.”

Both sisters, writing in the same house, set a woman’s pictures beside a fire. Anne did it twice: in one chapter the woman burns her own picture, and in another her husband burns her materials. Charlotte did it once, of herself, in a letter, and was only “inclined.”

Charlotte, Emily and Anne had published as Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell. That July, word reached Smith, Elder that Emily and Anne’s publisher, Thomas Newby, had told an American house that the Bell novels, Anne’s new one among them, were all “the production of one author”: that Currer Bell was also Ellis and Acton. Charlotte and Anne took the night train to London “with the view of proving our separate identity.” Charlotte’s publisher, George Smith, had never seen her. She told Mary Taylor what happened at Smith, Elder: “‘Is it Mr. Smith?’ I said, looking up through my spectacles at a tall young man.” She “put his own letter into his hand,” a letter he had written to Currer Bell. “Where did you get this?” he asked. “I gave my real name: Miss Brontë.” On the Monday, “we went to the Exhibition of the Royal Academy and the National Gallery.”

The last man in Jane Eyre to look at one of Jane’s pictures is St. John Rivers, the clergyman who has taken her in. She has painted a miniature of Rosamond Oliver, the local heiress he loves. He praises the workmanship, “A well-executed picture … very soft, clear colouring; very graceful and correct drawing,” but asks, unlike Rochester, nothing about how it was made, and looks in it for Rosamond: “It is like! … the eye is well managed: the colour, light, expression, are perfect. It smiles!” Then he covers it with “the sheet of thin paper on which I was accustomed to rest my hand in painting,” and tears “a narrow slip from the margin.” The next day it comes out of his pocket-book, with its “stains of ultra-marine, and lake, and vermillion,” bearing, “in Indian ink, in my own handwriting, the words ‘JANE EYRE’—the work doubtless of some moment of abstraction.” She has called herself Jane Elliott since the night she reached Moor House. The slip proves she is Jane Eyre: heir to an uncle’s twenty thousand pounds, and St. John’s cousin. Of everything Jane paints, the one piece that leaves the room and changes her life is the scrap she rested her hand on, and what is written on it is her name.

If the truth is on the back of the drawing, who was the front for?

Sources. Quotations from Jane Eyre (1847), The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848), Emma (1815) and Paradise Lost (1667) follow the Project Gutenberg texts and keep their sources’ spelling. Elizabeth Gaskell, The Life of Charlotte Brontë (1857), chapters 6–8, including Mary Taylor’s recollection. Christine Alexander, “Charlotte Brontë’s Paintings: Victorian Women and the Visual Arts,” Hancock Lecture, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Proceedings 18 (1993). The Morgan Library & Museum, Charlotte Brontë: An Independent Will (2016). Elena Lago, “Charlotte Brontë: An Evocative View of Bolton Abbey,” The Sisters’ Room (2020), and the Victoria and Albert Museum’s record of E. Finden’s “Bolton Abbey, Wharfdale,” after J. M. W. Turner (1826). Charlotte Brontë to W. S. Williams, 11 March 1848, as transcribed by The Eyre Guide; to Mary Taylor, 4 September 1848, as quoted by annebronte.org. Barbara Gates, “‘Visionary Woe’ and Its Revision: Another Look at Jane Eyre’s Pictures,” ARIEL. Peter Bolt, “Jane Eyre’s Three Paintings: Biblical Warnings & Greek Legends,” The Victorian Web. Rebecca Birrell, “Jane Eyre’s Watercolors, Lily Briscoe’s Paintings, and The Problem With Writing About Art,” LitHub, October 27, 2026.

Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; research with Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. Literary editing with Claude Sonnet 5.5. Edited by Michael Cummins. Images generated with Gemini Argon; they reproduce no artwork.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET: “A Sheet And A Half” (Ch. 1)

Click any page to read it larger.

THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.OCTOBER, 1819.No. I.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

A Literary Intellectual Romance.


CHAPTER I.

A Sheet and a Half.

The Albemarle came to SalisburySquare on the fourth of August,a day late, because Mr. Pelham ofHare Court read it first.

This was the arrangement.Mr. Pelham took the magazine at aguinea a year, as a barrister in a smallway of business takes a Tory monthly,to have it seen on his table; and whenhe had looked through it, which didnot take him long, he gave it to hisclerk to carry away. His clerk, whowas called Kit by everyone butMr. Pelham, carried it two hundredyards, out at the Inner Temple gateand along Fleet Street and downSalisbury Court, and up two pair ofstairs over Dunning the law-stationer’s, and put it on the table inthe front room, where his sisterClemency read it, who could not haveafforded it and would not have boughtit.

She read it standing: a tall youngwoman of six-and-twenty in a grey

gown that had been turned oncealready, with ink on the second fingerof her right hand that no pumice inLondon would shift. She had foundthat if she sat down to The LordWarden she was committed to finish-ing it, and she had not the least inten-tion of finishing it. It was the ninthnumber. The Warden was keeping theMarches for a King who did not trusthim, in a prose that had been built,stone by stone, out of the fifteenthcentury, and the Albemarle had beenrunning it since December to a silencethat could be felt across London.

“Kit says it is universally thoughtvery heavy,” said Mrs. Lydiard fromthe sofa.

“Kit has not read it.”

“Mr. Pelham says so. He saysAlbemarle Street keeps it for reas-ons.” Mrs. Lydiard had The Lady’sCabinet open on her knee. She tookthe Cabinet because she had taken itin Bread Street, and the quarter’s

CLOSE ×☞PAGE 1 · 1–8

subscription was one of the thingsthat had come with them from BreadStreet, like the sofa, and the clock,and the habit of ordering fish on aFriday whether or not there was any-one to eat it. “What reasons, I cannotthink. Lucy, if you put that ribbon onthe bonnet you will look like aMethodist.”

Lucy, who was nineteen and couldhave worn a dishclout, held the ribbonagainst the straw and considered it inthe glass. The glass had also comefrom Bread Street. Very little elsehad.

The rooms were two floors over thestationer’s, and they faced two ways.The back looked west, across theroofs of Whitefriars, to the InnerTemple, which was old, and walled,and had been built to be looked atfrom the inside. The front lookeddown into the square, whereRichardson had printed Pamela overhis shop eighty years ago, and whereWhitefriars sent up, on a still day, thesmell of ink. It was a respectable ad-dress. Everyone who lived in it saidso.

Clemency turned the page. Theninth number of The Lord Wardencontained, in order: an account of asiege, conducted with a thoroughnessthat made her want to lie down; thearrival of a letter under the King’sseal, which the Warden read in a

room that was described down to thelast stone of the hearth; and a sermon.Between the letter and the sermonthere was one paragraph.

She read it. Then she read it again,which she had not meant to do, andstood for a moment with the magazineopen in her hands and the smell of inkcoming up from Whitefriars, and thenshe turned the corner of the pagedown.

She did not turn pages down. Itwas one of the things she did not do,like sitting down to the Warden, andlike crying in the square.

“If it is so very heavy,” said hermother, “I wonder you trouble withit.”

“I don’t trouble with it,” saidClemency, and took it through to theback room, where the desk was.

At the desk she wrote the paragraphout in her own hand, to see whether itwas as good as she thought.

He had been obeyed all his life, andhad taken it, as a man takes theweather, for a quality of the world andnot of himself. It had not occurred tohim until that hour that a man might beobeyed by every creature in his houseand understood by none of them; thatthe one thing was so easily had, and theother not to be had for asking; and thathe had spent five-and-thirty years pur-chasing the cheaper article in the beliefthat it was the dear.

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 2 · 1–8

It was better. Written out, with thesiege and the sermon taken away fromeither side of it, it stood up by itself,and she saw what she had seen on thefirst reading and had not wanted tosee: that whoever wrote the Wardencould write, and that the ninth num-ber was heavy not because he couldnot do otherwise but because he wouldnot. There was nothing in the para-graph that a reader of the Albemarlecould have been expected to want. Ithad been put there for the writer’sown satisfaction, like a good hearth-stone in a room nobody visited.

She sat for some minutes with thepen dry.

The fifth number of The Mortimersof Mount Street lay under her lefthand, eleven pages of it, wanting fourmore and an ending. It was due in theRow on the tenth. She was finishing iton the fourth because Mr. Baldockpaid on delivery, and because thequarter’s rent was twelve pounds, andbecause Kit’s forty pounds was paidat Michaelmas and had been spent, inthe manner of Kit’s forty pounds,some time in July. The Mortimerswere a family in the Manchester tradewho had taken a house in MountStreet, and the fifth number requiredMr. Mortimer to lose his footman. Shehad been three days trying to makethe loss of a footman matter toanyone.

She dipped the pen, and moved theparagraph from the Marches of 1403to a dining-room in Mayfair, and gaveit to Mr. Mortimer.

Mr. Mortimer had been obeyed all hislife, and had taken it, as a man takes theweather, for a quality of the world andnot of himself. It did not occur to himuntil Thomas gave notice that a manmight be obeyed by every creature in hishouse and understood by none of them;that the one was to be had for thirtypounds a year and the other not for ask-ing; and that he had spent five-and-thirty years in the Manchester tradepurchasing the cheaper article in thefirm belief that it was the dear.

She read it over. It was funny. Ithad not been funny in the Marches,where it had been something else, andshe was aware, in the part of her mindthat kept accounts, that she had takena thing that was not hers and hadmade it smaller in the taking. She wasalso aware that it was better whereshe had put it, and that nobody wouldever know, because nobody read theWarden, and that the footmanmattered now.

The number was finished by three,which it never was.

From Salisbury Square to PaternosterRow was ten minutes if one did notstop at the print-shop windows, andClemency, who had the fifth numberin a paper under her arm and seven

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 3 · 1–8

guineas to collect, did not stop.

She went up Fleet Street with thecarts, past St. Bride’s, and over thebottom of Fleet Market, from which, ifone looked north, one could see thelong wall of the Fleet Prison, wherepeople lived who had not paid theirrent. She did not look. She went upLudgate Hill with the dome standingover everything like a thing that hadbeen there before the street and wouldbe there after it. The Row ran off thechurchyard on the north side, narrowand dark and smelling of paper, andhad for two hundred years been theplace where London’s books weremade, and bought, and remaindered,and it was not a street that a ladywalked down. It was a street that ayoung woman walked down with aparcel, and nobody looked at her,which was its chief recommendation.

The Ludgate had its office at num-ber eleven, over Baldock’s shop.Mr. Baldock was in it.

He was a short, warm, quick man,Whig by conviction and by circula-tion, who had started the Ludgate twoyears ago on the principle that theTories could not be allowed to have allthe magazines, and who paid for fic-tion by the sheet and for poetry not atall. He took the number, and weighedit in his hand, which was his way ofreading it, and said, “A sheet and ahalf.”

“A sheet and a half.”

“You are early.”

“I am always early, Mr. Baldock.”

“You are,” he agreed, and countedout the money, which he did not keepher waiting for, as he did not keepanyone waiting for whom he intendedto go on paying. “I’ll tell you a thing.The Mortimers are liked. I had a let-ter Tuesday from a lady in RussellSquare who wished to know whetherthe Author was acquainted with afamily of the name. I said I could notundertake to say.”

“You could not,” said Clemency.

“I could not.” He put the number inhis drawer. “They’re calling itCockney stuff in Albemarle Street,you know. The Mortimers. Tradewriting about trade.”

She had known that it would becalled that, in the way that one knowsthe rent will be due; it was not a sur-prise, and it was not pleasant, and shefound that she had put her hand flaton the counter. “Who is?”

“Oh, the young men. It is the wordthis year. They used it on Hunt, andon Hazlitt, and on that boy Keats whowas a surgeon’s apprentice, and theywill use it on anybody born east ofTemple Bar who has the impudence tohold a pen. I should take it as a com-pliment. It means they have readyou.” He looked at her over thedrawer. “They have not had much to

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 4 · 1–8

read of their own this twelvemonth.Have you seen the Warden?”

“I have seen it.”

“Nine numbers. They say in theRow that Albemarle Street losestwenty pounds a month on it anddaren’t stop. Somebody’s nephew.Somebody’s money. It is universallythought—”

“Very heavy,” said Clemency. “Yes.The ninth number has one paragraphin it.”

Mr. Baldock, who had been in thetrade thirty years and knew the soundof a judgment when he heard one,looked at her for a moment longerthan he need have done. Then he said,“Well. One is one more than theeighth,” and bade her good afternoon,and she went down the stairs into theRow with seven guineas and four shil-lings in her reticule and the wordCockney in her mouth like a bad tooth.

She did not go home. She wentdown Ludgate Hill, and back alongFleet Street past the end of her owncourt, and in at the Inner Templegate, because it was past three andthe Benchers let the public into thegarden after three, and because Figgisthe porter knew her as the clerk’s sis-ter and would not ask what shewanted there. What she wanted therewas the river. She had found thatthere was nowhere else in the Citywhere a woman could stand still for a

quarter of an hour without being sup-posed to be waiting for someone.

The garden lay at the bottom of theTemple, between the lawyers and theThames, and belonged to neither.

It had been laid out by men whowanted somewhere to walk after din-ner, and it had kept the shape of thatwish: a long lawn going down to theriver wall, gravel on either side, theplane trees along the walks, and at thefoot the water-stairs where theTemplars had once kept a barge andwhere there was now a boy whowould take you to Westminster forsixpence. On the far side of the waterLambeth lay flat and green under theafternoon. The tide was going out,and the mud smelt as it always smelt,and the barges went down on it withtheir brown sails slack, and above andbehind all of it, over the roofs of theInner Temple, the two wooden giantsof St. Dunstan’s struck the quarterwith their clubs.

She went down the eastern walk tothe wall and stood at it.

She stood there most days. It wasthe only place in London she knewwhere one could be still and not be inthe way of anything, and she hadcome to use it as other women used achurch. She did not think, particu-larly. She let the river go past. Theword Cockney went past with it, and

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 5 · 1–8

the lady in Russell Square, andMr. Mortimer’s footman, and after alittle while the ninth number of theWarden lying on the table inSalisbury Square with its cornerturned down, which was the thing shehad come to the wall not to thinkabout, and which she thought about,briefly and without comfort, and putaway.

There was a man on the bench un-der the second plane.

She saw him as she turned to goback up the walk, and she saw him theway one sees anything in the Templegarden on a weekday afternoon, whichis to say hardly at all. He was a gen-tleman; one knew that by the coat,which had been made by somebodywho did not advertise. He was read-ing. He had the thing he was readingfolded back on itself in his left hand,so that she could not see what it was,and in his right hand he had a pencil,and as she came level with him hemade a mark in the margin, briefly,without looking up, as a man correctsa proof.

It was the pencil she noticed. Shedid not mark books. It was not a prin-ciple; it was that the books inSalisbury Square had come fromBread Street and would have to besold back into Bread Street one day,and a book with a pencil in it was abook with a shilling off it. The gentle-

man on the bench marked what heread as if he would never in his lifehave to sell anything, and she passedbehind him with the small, exact, un-envious attention one gives to a thingone has decided not to want.

He did not look up. She did not ex-pect him to.

She went up the walk and outthrough the lane, past the sundial thattold the passer-by to be gone abouthis business, and did as it said.

The set of chambers on the secondfloor of number five, King’s BenchWalk, had the name Mr. A. Kinrosspainted on the doorpost in the Inn’sown lettering, and had been let toMr. Kinross for six years, and in sixyears had been entered by nobody butMr. Kinross, the laundress, and theman who came for the coals.

It was not an address. His addresswas Grosvenor Square, where hisaunt received for him on Thursdays,and where a letter would find him, andwhere, for most of the daylight hoursof the week, he was not. He had beenadmitted a student of the InnerTemple at one-and-twenty, as the heirto Ardoch had been admitted beforehim, and had eaten the dinners, andhad not been called, and had kept thechambers, which was all he had everwanted of the law. A gentleman in theInn was a gentleman whom the porter

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 6 · 1–8

did not announce. Nobody knew thatbetter than the porter.

The front room looked down overthe garden to the river. The desk wasat the window, and he sat at it now: atall, dark, unsmiling man of two-and-thirty, with the kind of face that hisaunt’s friends called distinguished andhis aunt called a great pity, since hedid nothing with it.

There were two things in the roomthat a visitor would have noticed, hadthere been a visitor. One was the files.They stood in deal boxes against theinner wall, seven-and-thirty of them,each lettered with a year, from thefirst of Richard to the last of thefourth Henry, and inside each box, onslips in a small, fast, Scotch hand, wasevery day of that year for which any-thing could be found: who was where,what the weather had done, what waspaid for a horse at Shrewsbury andwhat a bishop said at York. It hadtaken nine years. It was not finished.The other thing was a grammar of theEnglish of the fourteen-hundreds, inmanuscript, by the same hand, be-cause nobody had printed one and hehad wanted to be sure.

On the desk, under the window, laythe August number of the Ludgate,folded back on itself and marked inpencil.

The marks were in the fourth num-ber of The Mortimers of Mount Street.

There were three of them. Two werecorrections, made in the margin withthe brevity of a man who had neverhad to explain himself: against a pas-sage in which Mrs. Mortimer’s car-riage drew up at the railings of ahouse in Grosvenor Square, railingsare set in the area, not the kerb; andagainst a dinner, no one in that squaredines at six. The third was not a cor-rection. It stood beside a paragraphnear the end of the number, in whicha girl of the Mortimer family had beenmade to understand, in the course of asingle sentence, that she would not beasked to the house she had beendressed for. It was one word, writtenthat afternoon on a bench in thegarden below, and the word was com–petent.

He had been reading the Mortimerssince May, in the way that a man whoowns a share in a magazine reads themagazine that is beating it, and hehad not yet decided what he thoughtof them, which was not a condition hewas used to. He had taken them downto the garden that afternoon to decide,and had decided nothing but that oneword; and while he sat there someonehad come down the eastern walk andstood a while at the river wall, andpassed behind his bench, and gone.

He had not looked up. He was writ-ing the tenth number of The LordWarden, in which the Warden would

☜CLOSE ×☞PAGE 7 · 1–8

answer the King’s letter, and he hadreached the place in it where the an-swer had to be given, and he had beenthere since noon.

The ninth number lay on the shelfbehind him, as it lay in two thousandhouses that had not read it. He did notknow that in one of them it had beenread twice, or that the corner of apage had been turned down, or thatthe best paragraph he had written inhis life had that afternoon been car-ried up Fleet Street under a young

woman’s arm, set down in a dining-room in Mount Street, put into themouth of a man in the Manchestertrade, and sold, with the rest of thenumber, for seven guineas.

He would know on the first ofSeptember. It was the fourth ofAugust, and the tide was out, andSt. Dunstan’s giants struck the half-hour, and he wrote the first word ofthe Warden’s answer, and struck itthrough.

(To be continued.)

☜CLOSE ×PAGE 8 · 1–8
THE INTELLICUREAN.
Vol. I.OCTOBER, 1819.No. I.

THE WIT OF MOUNT STREET;

or,

HER HEART IN NUMBERS.

A Literary Intellectual Romance.


CHAPTER I.

A Sheet and a Half.

The Albemarle came to Salisbury Square on the fourth of August, a day late, because Mr. Pelham of Hare Court read it first.

This was the arrangement. Mr. Pelham took the magazine at a guinea a year, as a barrister in a small way of business takes a Tory monthly, to have it seen on his table; and when he had looked through it, which did not take him long, he gave it to his clerk to carry away. His clerk, who was called Kit by everyone but Mr. Pelham, carried it two hundred yards, out at the Inner Temple gate and along Fleet Street and down Salisbury Court, and up two pair of stairs over Dunning the law-stationer’s, and put it on the table in the front room, where his sister Clemency read it, who could not have afforded it and would not have bought it.

She read it standing: a tall young woman of six-and-twenty in a grey gown that had been turned once already, with ink on the second finger of her right hand that no pumice in London would shift. She had found that if she sat down to The Lord Warden she was committed to finishing it, and she had not the least intention of finishing it. It was the ninth number. The Warden was keeping the Marches for a King who did not trust him, in a prose that had been built, stone by stone, out of the fifteenth century, and the Albemarle had been running it since December to a silence that could be felt across London.

“Kit says it is universally thought very heavy,” said Mrs. Lydiard from the sofa.

“Kit has not read it.”

“Mr. Pelham says so. He says Albemarle Street keeps it for reasons.” Mrs. Lydiard had The Lady’s Cabinet open on her knee. She took the Cabinet because she had taken it in Bread Street, and the quarter’s

subscription was one of the things that had come with them from Bread Street, like the sofa, and the clock, and the habit of ordering fish on a Friday whether or not there was anyone to eat it. “What reasons, I cannot think. Lucy, if you put that ribbon on the bonnet you will look like a Methodist.”

Lucy, who was nineteen and could have worn a dishclout, held the ribbon against the straw and considered it in the glass. The glass had also come from Bread Street. Very little else had.

The rooms were two floors over the stationer’s, and they faced two ways. The back looked west, across the roofs of Whitefriars, to the Inner Temple, which was old, and walled, and had been built to be looked at from the inside. The front looked down into the square, where Richardson had printed Pamela over his shop eighty years ago, and where Whitefriars sent up, on a still day, the smell of ink. It was a respectable address. Everyone who lived in it said so.

Clemency turned the page. The ninth number of The Lord Warden contained, in order: an account of a siege, conducted with a thoroughness that made her want to lie down; the arrival of a letter under the King’s seal, which the Warden read in a room that was described down to the last stone of the hearth; and a sermon. Between the letter and the sermon there was one paragraph.

She read it. Then she read it again, which she had not meant to do, and stood for a moment with the magazine open in her hands and the smell of ink coming up from Whitefriars, and then she turned the corner of the page down.

She did not turn pages down. It was one of the things she did not do, like sitting down to the Warden, and like crying in the square.

“If it is so very heavy,” said her mother, “I wonder you trouble with it.”

“I don’t trouble with it,” said Clemency, and took it through to the back room, where the desk was.

At the desk she wrote the paragraph out in her own hand, to see whether it was as good as she thought.

He had been obeyed all his life, and had taken it, as a man takes the weather, for a quality of the world and not of himself. It had not occurred to him until that hour that a man might be obeyed by every creature in his house and understood by none of them; that the one thing was so easily had, and the other not to be had for asking; and that he had spent five-and-thirty years purchasing the cheaper article in the belief that it was the dear.

It was better. Written out, with the siege and the sermon taken away from either side of it, it stood up by itself, and she saw what she had seen on the first reading and had not wanted to see: that whoever wrote the Warden could write, and that the ninth number was heavy not because he could not do otherwise but because he would not. There was nothing in the paragraph that a reader of the Albemarle could have been expected to want. It had been put there for the writer’s own satisfaction, like a good hearth-stone in a room nobody visited.

She sat for some minutes with the pen dry.

The fifth number of The Mortimers of Mount Street lay under her left hand, eleven pages of it, wanting four more and an ending. It was due in the Row on the tenth. She was finishing it on the fourth because Mr. Baldock paid on delivery, and because the quarter’s rent was twelve pounds, and because Kit’s forty pounds was paid at Michaelmas and had been spent, in the manner of Kit’s forty pounds, some time in July. The Mortimers were a family in the Manchester trade who had taken a house in Mount Street, and the fifth number required Mr. Mortimer to lose his footman. She had been three days trying to make the loss of a footman matter to anyone.

She dipped the pen, and moved the paragraph from the Marches of 1403 to a dining-room in Mayfair, and gave it to Mr. Mortimer.

Mr. Mortimer had been obeyed all his life, and had taken it, as a man takes the weather, for a quality of the world and not of himself. It did not occur to him until Thomas gave notice that a man might be obeyed by every creature in his house and understood by none of them; that the one was to be had for thirty pounds a year and the other not for asking; and that he had spent five-and-thirty years in the Manchester trade purchasing the cheaper article in the firm belief that it was the dear.

She read it over. It was funny. It had not been funny in the Marches, where it had been something else, and she was aware, in the part of her mind that kept accounts, that she had taken a thing that was not hers and had made it smaller in the taking. She was also aware that it was better where she had put it, and that nobody would ever know, because nobody read the Warden, and that the footman mattered now.

The number was finished by three, which it never was.

From Salisbury Square to Paternoster Row was ten minutes if one did not stop at the print-shop windows, and Clemency, who had the fifth number in a paper under her arm and seven

guineas to collect, did not stop.

She went up Fleet Street with the carts, past St. Bride’s, and over the bottom of Fleet Market, from which, if one looked north, one could see the long wall of the Fleet Prison, where people lived who had not paid their rent. She did not look. She went up Ludgate Hill with the dome standing over everything like a thing that had been there before the street and would be there after it. The Row ran off the churchyard on the north side, narrow and dark and smelling of paper, and had for two hundred years been the place where London’s books were made, and bought, and remaindered, and it was not a street that a lady walked down. It was a street that a young woman walked down with a parcel, and nobody looked at her, which was its chief recommendation.

The Ludgate had its office at number eleven, over Baldock’s shop. Mr. Baldock was in it.

He was a short, warm, quick man, Whig by conviction and by circulation, who had started the Ludgate two years ago on the principle that the Tories could not be allowed to have all the magazines, and who paid for fiction by the sheet and for poetry not at all. He took the number, and weighed it in his hand, which was his way of reading it, and said, “A sheet and a half.”

“A sheet and a half.”

“You are early.”

“I am always early, Mr. Baldock.”

“You are,” he agreed, and counted out the money, which he did not keep her waiting for, as he did not keep anyone waiting for whom he intended to go on paying. “I’ll tell you a thing. The Mortimers are liked. I had a letter Tuesday from a lady in Russell Square who wished to know whether the Author was acquainted with a family of the name. I said I could not undertake to say.”

“You could not,” said Clemency.

“I could not.” He put the number in his drawer. “They’re calling it Cockney stuff in Albemarle Street, you know. The Mortimers. Trade writing about trade.”

She had known that it would be called that, in the way that one knows the rent will be due; it was not a surprise, and it was not pleasant, and she found that she had put her hand flat on the counter. “Who is?”

“Oh, the young men. It is the word this year. They used it on Hunt, and on Hazlitt, and on that boy Keats who was a surgeon’s apprentice, and they will use it on anybody born east of Temple Bar who has the impudence to hold a pen. I should take it as a compliment. It means they have read you.” He looked at her over the drawer. “They have not had much to

read of their own this twelvemonth. Have you seen the Warden?”

“I have seen it.”

“Nine numbers. They say in the Row that Albemarle Street loses twenty pounds a month on it and daren’t stop. Somebody’s nephew. Somebody’s money. It is universally thought—”

“Very heavy,” said Clemency. “Yes. The ninth number has one paragraph in it.”

Mr. Baldock, who had been in the trade thirty years and knew the sound of a judgment when he heard one, looked at her for a moment longer than he need have done. Then he said, “Well. One is one more than the eighth,” and bade her good afternoon, and she went down the stairs into the Row with seven guineas and four shillings in her reticule and the word Cockney in her mouth like a bad tooth.

She did not go home. She went down Ludgate Hill, and back along Fleet Street past the end of her own court, and in at the Inner Temple gate, because it was past three and the Benchers let the public into the garden after three, and because Figgis the porter knew her as the clerk’s sister and would not ask what she wanted there. What she wanted there was the river. She had found that there was nowhere else in the City where a woman could stand still for a quarter of an hour without being supposed to be waiting for someone.

The garden lay at the bottom of the Temple, between the lawyers and the Thames, and belonged to neither.

It had been laid out by men who wanted somewhere to walk after dinner, and it had kept the shape of that wish: a long lawn going down to the river wall, gravel on either side, the plane trees along the walks, and at the foot the water-stairs where the Templars had once kept a barge and where there was now a boy who would take you to Westminster for sixpence. On the far side of the water Lambeth lay flat and green under the afternoon. The tide was going out, and the mud smelt as it always smelt, and the barges went down on it with their brown sails slack, and above and behind all of it, over the roofs of the Inner Temple, the two wooden giants of St. Dunstan’s struck the quarter with their clubs.

She went down the eastern walk to the wall and stood at it.

She stood there most days. It was the only place in London she knew where one could be still and not be in the way of anything, and she had come to use it as other women used a church. She did not think, particularly. She let the river go past. The word Cockney went past with it, and

the lady in Russell Square, and Mr. Mortimer’s footman, and after a little while the ninth number of the Warden lying on the table in Salisbury Square with its corner turned down, which was the thing she had come to the wall not to think about, and which she thought about, briefly and without comfort, and put away.

There was a man on the bench under the second plane.

She saw him as she turned to go back up the walk, and she saw him the way one sees anything in the Temple garden on a weekday afternoon, which is to say hardly at all. He was a gentleman; one knew that by the coat, which had been made by somebody who did not advertise. He was reading. He had the thing he was reading folded back on itself in his left hand, so that she could not see what it was, and in his right hand he had a pencil, and as she came level with him he made a mark in the margin, briefly, without looking up, as a man corrects a proof.

It was the pencil she noticed. She did not mark books. It was not a principle; it was that the books in Salisbury Square had come from Bread Street and would have to be sold back into Bread Street one day, and a book with a pencil in it was a book with a shilling off it. The gentleman on the bench marked what he read as if he would never in his life have to sell anything, and she passed behind him with the small, exact, unenvious attention one gives to a thing one has decided not to want.

He did not look up. She did not expect him to.

She went up the walk and out through the lane, past the sundial that told the passer-by to be gone about his business, and did as it said.

The set of chambers on the second floor of number five, King’s Bench Walk, had the name Mr. A. Kinross painted on the doorpost in the Inn’s own lettering, and had been let to Mr. Kinross for six years, and in six years had been entered by nobody but Mr. Kinross, the laundress, and the man who came for the coals.

It was not an address. His address was Grosvenor Square, where his aunt received for him on Thursdays, and where a letter would find him, and where, for most of the daylight hours of the week, he was not. He had been admitted a student of the Inner Temple at one-and-twenty, as the heir to Ardoch had been admitted before him, and had eaten the dinners, and had not been called, and had kept the chambers, which was all he had ever wanted of the law. A gentleman in the Inn was a gentleman whom the porter

did not announce. Nobody knew that better than the porter.

The front room looked down over the garden to the river. The desk was at the window, and he sat at it now: a tall, dark, unsmiling man of two-and-thirty, with the kind of face that his aunt’s friends called distinguished and his aunt called a great pity, since he did nothing with it.

There were two things in the room that a visitor would have noticed, had there been a visitor. One was the files. They stood in deal boxes against the inner wall, seven-and-thirty of them, each lettered with a year, from the first of Richard to the last of the fourth Henry, and inside each box, on slips in a small, fast, Scotch hand, was every day of that year for which anything could be found: who was where, what the weather had done, what was paid for a horse at Shrewsbury and what a bishop said at York. It had taken nine years. It was not finished. The other thing was a grammar of the English of the fourteen-hundreds, in manuscript, by the same hand, because nobody had printed one and he had wanted to be sure.

On the desk, under the window, lay the August number of the Ludgate, folded back on itself and marked in pencil.

The marks were in the fourth number of The Mortimers of Mount Street. There were three of them. Two were corrections, made in the margin with the brevity of a man who had never had to explain himself: against a passage in which Mrs. Mortimer’s carriage drew up at the railings of a house in Grosvenor Square, railings are set in the area, not the kerb; and against a dinner, no one in that square dines at six. The third was not a correction. It stood beside a paragraph near the end of the number, in which a girl of the Mortimer family had been made to understand, in the course of a single sentence, that she would not be asked to the house she had been dressed for. It was one word, written that afternoon on a bench in the garden below, and the word was competent.

He had been reading the Mortimers since May, in the way that a man who owns a share in a magazine reads the magazine that is beating it, and he had not yet decided what he thought of them, which was not a condition he was used to. He had taken them down to the garden that afternoon to decide, and had decided nothing but that one word; and while he sat there someone had come down the eastern walk and stood a while at the river wall, and passed behind his bench, and gone.

He had not looked up. He was writing the tenth number of The Lord Warden, in which the Warden would

answer the King’s letter, and he had reached the place in it where the answer had to be given, and he had been there since noon.

The ninth number lay on the shelf behind him, as it lay in two thousand houses that had not read it. He did not know that in one of them it had been read twice, or that the corner of a page had been turned down, or that the best paragraph he had written in his life had that afternoon been carried up Fleet Street under a young woman’s arm, set down in a dining-room in Mount Street, put into the mouth of a man in the Manchester trade, and sold, with the rest of the number, for seven guineas.

He would know on the first of September. It was the fourth of August, and the tide was out, and St. Dunstan’s giants struck the half-hour, and he wrote the first word of the Warden’s answer, and struck it through.

(To be continued.)

Edited by Michael Cummins. Written in full collaboration with Anthropic’s Claude models, and set here as it might have appeared in a London magazine of 1819. Read the announcement, with the plan of London.

AND HIS FRIENDS

On five American book clubs, a sixteenth-century motto, and the old question of who counts as a friend

Between 1884 and 1895, collectors in five American cities founded clubs devoted to the book as an object. What has tested them longest is not the book but the company: who is asked in, and who is kept at the door.

The Rowfant Club of Cleveland keeps hundreds of candlesticks. On Wednesdays they are set out to hold places at dinner, and once a year, at the annual meeting on Candlemas, one is lit for every member. The candlestick is a groundhog sitting upright on an open book, holding the candle; Ernest Thompson Seton drew it, and Tiffany cast it in 1903. The club’s library holds about eleven thousand books, and since 2020 every one of them has passed through the hands of Amy Dawson, a cataloguer who works as the club’s library consultant, and who found there, in the first year of the pandemic, the quiet of an old building. Five years on, she still could not be a member. There is no candlestick for her.

The Rowfant is one of five American book clubs founded within eleven years of one another. The oldest is the Grolier Club of New York, founded on a January evening in 1884 when Robert Hoe invited eight friends to his home. Boston’s Club of Odd Volumes followed in 1887, Cleveland in 1892, Philadelphia’s Philobiblon in 1893, and Chicago’s Caxton Club in 1895. Each has its own words for what it is for. What the five have in common is the form: a society whose members are chosen. Three of them, in New York, Chicago and Cleveland, have left a public record of how they did the choosing; Boston and Philadelphia have said far less about theirs.

Jean Grolier, the French treasurer the New York club is named for, stamped his bindings in the sixteenth century Io. Grolierii et amicorum: belonging to Grolier and his friends. The motto is read as generosity, a man who shared his books. It is also a list. A club’s work is largely the list: who is invited, who is proposed, who is balloted, who dines. In Cleveland the list once kept a Black novelist from being invited and, eight years later, let him in. For most of a century, in all five cities, it kept out women. Then the clubs went two ways, and the question underneath, now that the book is common and some of the doors are open, is whether a bibliophile society is still about the book at all.

I

One Copy of Every Book

Sir Thomas Phillipps, born in Manchester in 1792, called himself a vello-maniac. He spent a fortune on some sixty thousand manuscripts and forty thousand printed books, and when it was spent he went into debt, and he wrote to a friend that he was buying printed books because he wished to have one copy of every book in the world. The collection was dispersed after his death, and part of it now lines a room on the fourth floor of a building on East 60th Street in Manhattan, where a quantity of his loose papers, bought in 2003 and installed in a display closet, grew mold and had to be sent away for treatment.

The building is the Grolier Club. On the evening of January 23, 1884, Robert Hoe, whose family firm built printing presses, invited eight fellow bibliophiles to his home in New York to talk about books: less, as Lauren Kane writes in Apollo this month, about what was being published than about how. Among the nine was Theodore Low De Vinne, the printer, who would print most of the club’s early books. The first of them, issued that same year, was a reprint of a decree of the Star Chamber from 1637 concerning printing, a law that had forbidden any man in England to own type or a press without the authorities’ leave, and it was De Vinne who urged the choice. Hoe called the result “a pretty nice specimen of printing.”

They named the club for Jean Grolier, a sixteenth-century treasurer of France whose library was famous. The club’s constitution commits it to “the acquisition, furnishing and maintenance of a suitable club building,” and in 1890 the members built one, on land Hoe provided, at 29 East 32nd Street. In 1917 they moved to the house on 60th Street where part of Phillipps’s collection now sits. A candidate for membership is proposed in writing by a member and supported by letters from three more.

A single Gutenberg Bible touches three of the five clubs. It had belonged to Brayton Ives, one of the nine, a Civil War general and a former president of the New York Stock Exchange, who sold a library at auction in 1891. It later belonged to James W. Ellsworth of Chicago, who, by the Caxton Club journal’s account, paid $14,800 for it at auction and was that club’s first president. In 1924 the Philadelphia dealer A. S. W. Rosenbach, whose name the Philobiblon’s meeting place now carries, sold it to John Scheide, and in 2014 Scheide’s son left it to Princeton.

Phillipps wanted one copy of every book in the world, and said so with three exclamation marks. The club that now keeps a piece of what he gathered chose for its first publication a law about who might own a press. Between those two facts lies a good deal of what a bibliophile society is: not the whole of print, which Phillipps wanted and could not have, but a selection, made by a few, printed well, and kept by a club that has outlasted both Phillipps’s library and Ives’s.

II

Properly Qualified

When fifteen bibliophiles founded the Caxton Club of Chicago in January 1895, on an idea that began among men at McClurg’s bookstore, the club admitted men only, as, Dan Crawford notes in the club’s own history of the episode, most clubs of the 1890s did. Some members wanted women admitted from the start. The club was inviting women to its events as early as 1897, though rarely. A proposal to admit them came up about once a decade, and each decade had its reason against. In the early 1960s it was the Cliff Dwellers, where the club then met, which itself barred women. In the early 1970s three officers took the question up, among them the president, Sam Rosenthal, whose wife, Marie-Louise, was a noted collector and could not join. The opposition, which had major donors and officers in its ranks, asked the Mid-Day Club, also a men’s club, to forbid the change as the Cliff Dwellers had. The Mid-Day declined.

In 1975 the Council voted ten to five in favor. That admitted no one. The Council had approved women only if a poll of the whole membership agreed, and so every member received a ballot with two boxes, to favor or to oppose the election of “properly qualified women.” The opponents called the wording unfair. As Crawford gives their objection: “What husband would dare suggest that his wife was NOT properly qualified?” One member wrote in the margin to ask when the club meant to admit some properly qualified men. A hundred and seventy-six members replied. A hundred and forty-two were in favor, thirty against, and four abstained, and most of the thirty were non-resident members who seldom came to meetings.

An oil painting of the Grolier Club’s house on East 60th Street at dusk in the rain, with a line of men in 1920s evening dress and top hats, several under umbrellas, filing up the steps through the lit front door.
The Grolier Club’s house on East 60th Street, as it was from 1917 to 1976. Painting made for this essay.

Out of worry about what the club might become if women came in numbers, the first intake was limited to five, and on January 12, 1976, it elected them: Karen A. Skubish, Mary Beth Beal, Mary Lynn McCree, Suzette Morton Davidson and Frances Hamill. Beal became the club’s first woman president. The limit did not last, and by 2010 about a quarter of the members were women. The Philobiblon in Philadelphia, by one record, had admitted women two years before Chicago, in 1974. In the same archive file as the ballots is a letter from the Grolier Club asking how the Caxtonians had done it. It is undated. The Grolier admitted its first women in 1976.

The Grolier’s librarian did not live to be one of them. Ruth Shepard Granniss ran its library from 1906 to 1944, could never have joined the club she served, and died in 1954. She was among the founders of the Hroswitha Club, which first met on November 16, 1944, at the Cosmopolitan Club in New York, convened by Sarah Gildersleeve Fife, with Belle da Costa Greene of the Morgan Library also among its founders, and which met for sixty years. In 1926, eighteen years before that first meeting, it was Greene who opened the bidding at the New York auction of the Melk abbey’s Gutenberg Bible; Rosenbach won it for $106,000, then reported as the highest price ever paid for a book. When the Grolier opened its membership in 1976, a number of the Hroswitha’s members were in the first group to join.

The opponents’ objection gave away what the vote was about. If no husband would dare call his own wife unqualified, the standard was never going to be applied, and what the members were deciding was who would be in the room.

III

Baxter’s Procrustes

In 1899 Houghton Mifflin published The Conjure Woman, a collection of stories by Charles W. Chesnutt of Cleveland, and, at the Rowfant Club’s suggestion, a limited edition of it in a hundred and fifty numbered copies. Three years later he was prevented from receiving an invitation to the same club because he was Black. The Library of America says he had applied and that one or two members judged it too soon; Cleveland Magazine’s word is “blackballed.” In June 1904 he published a story called “Baxter’s Procrustes.”

It concerns the Bodleian Club, a society of gentlemen of culture with a handsome clubhouse, a collection of pipes, and publications in which, the narrator confesses, contents matter less than linen paper, uncut edges and wide margins. The club resolves to print a poem by Baxter, perhaps its most scholarly member, in fifty numbered copies on Kelmscott paper bound in dark green morocco, and the committee, with great delicacy, does not read the manuscript. A member reads out a magazine note that a sealed copy of a Grolier Club publication has sold for three hundred dollars, and subscribers are offered their copies sealed. The narrator, appointed to review the poem, will not spoil his own copy by opening it. In the smoking-room the reviewers compare notes on a poem none of them can have read, and the narrator pronounces the letterpress “of course De Vinne’s best.” On the review night a young English visitor cuts the leaves with the paper knife and finds there is not a single line in it. Baxter offers to pay the bills; it is more than hinted that his resignation would be accepted; he never sends it, and goes to Europe. The president of the club draws the moral. Baxter’s book, he says, might be considered the acme of bookmaking. “To the true collector, a book is a work of art, of which the contents are no more important than the words of an opera.” At the next auction a sealed copy brings two hundred and fifty dollars, “the highest price ever brought by a single volume published by the club.”

The Chesnutt Archive describes the story as a mild satire of collectors and the clubs they form. The Bibliographical Society of America reads it as a comic critique of the book clubs of its day and an apt reply to his exclusion. The Library of America says he aimed it at the Rowfant’s members. The story names only the Bodleian and, inside it, the Grolier Club and De Vinne.

In 1910 the Rowfant reversed itself and admitted him; the Library of America calls him its first African American member. He gave nine lectures there over the next fourteen years, the last on valentines; his daughter recalled his Saturday nights at the club, where, as the Library of America quotes her, “he basked in the warm rays of friendship for which his lonely heart had yearned”; he was a member when he died in 1932.

In the story, the president gives his verdict to “a select few of us who sat around the fireplace.” In 1966 the Rowfant reprinted it in a limited edition of a hundred and fifty copies, by the count of the Chesnutt scholar Charles Duncan: the size of the edition of The Conjure Woman it had suggested in 1899.

An oil painting of a library gallery by day: on a worktable, an iron key lies across a ledger beside a green leather book open to blank pages and a second copy sealed in paper and red wax; below the railing, a long dining table is set with unlit brass candlesticks.
A cataloguer’s table in the gallery: a key across the ledger, a sealed copy, a blank one cut open, and below, the table set with its candlesticks. Painting made for this essay.

IV

The Candle

The Rowfant Club was founded on February 29, 1892, and named for Rowfant, the Sussex house of Frederick Locker-Lampson, an English collector and writer of light verse. Its object, in its own words, is “primarily the critical study of books in their various capacities to please the mind of man,” and it meets in a house built in 1838 and moved to its present site on Prospect Avenue in 1895.

In 1955 the club’s historian, Russell H. Anderson, counted its exclusion of women among its firmest traditions. Members, he wrote, would have vehemently denied that it came from jealousy or from any low opinion of women’s learning, and he wondered whether “the dread of napkins and mould salad” at the evening snack had played some part.

Women may come to the Rowfant as guests, attend its Wednesday-evening and Friday-lunch lectures and work in its library, but they may not join. That was the rule when Katherine Churchill reported on the club for Defector in June 2025, the most recent public account; I have found nothing since to say it has changed. With Boston’s Club of Odd Volumes, founded in 1887, the Rowfant was then one of only two rare book clubs in the country that still admitted no women. Neither belonged any longer to the Fellowship of American Bibliophilic Societies, which grew out of a meeting at the Rowfant’s own centennial in 1992. The fellowship’s former president told Churchill that the Rowfant and the fellowship had parted by mutual agreement, and that she hoped the club would one day reconsider.

Amy Dawson began working on that library in 2020, as a consultant to the club. She has handled every one of its roughly eleven thousand items, and she called it, in a way, “untouched ground.” Talking with members over bindings and fine press books, she told Churchill, she had found her tribe. She also told Churchill it struck her as funny that the people by whom she felt most understood were all men, and she wondered whether they saw her the way she saw them.

In 1902, by the Library of America’s account, “one or two members thought the time hadn’t come.” In 2025 a person familiar with the club’s workings told Churchill that the policy was what it was because that was how the club had been formed, and allowed that it kept out people who would make good members. The club did not comment to Churchill.

Dawson told Churchill, “I think I would be a wonderful Rowfant member.” Elsewhere in the article she said that she already had the benefits of a member: members pressed their guest tickets on her, and she could come to lunch when she liked. She is not the first. Ruth Granniss kept the Grolier’s library for thirty-eight years and could never join it. The Rowfant has lost nothing it can measure by keeping Dawson out. What it has lost is the chance to count among its friends one of the people who know its library best.

V

The Thousandth Exhibition

In September, when Kane visited for her Apollo piece, the Grolier Club was marking its thousandth public exhibition. It mounts seven a year. Proposals go to a committee of members and may come from people who are not members at all. The club’s director, Declan Kiely, came two years ago from the New York Public Library, where he had directed special collections and exhibitions, and has since endowed a post for a director of exhibitions and communications. The show on view, proposed by members with the arts collective Dieu Donné, founded in 1976, surveyed fifty years of its work: pulp painted, sheets watermarked, paper blown out with water while it was still forming.

The library upstairs is modeled on Wren’s at Trinity College, Cambridge. On a table there the newest catalogues of auction houses and dealers are set out for members, from Christie’s to a bookseller in New Jersey. The word that kept coming up on Kane’s visit was provenance, and what lit collectors up, she found, was not first editions but the old sale catalogues and logs in which collectors of the past kept track of what they owned. Members vote on which archives coming up for sale the club should buy, and the library is open to researchers and scholars. The most recent number of the club’s Gazette, its seventy-fifth, is built loosely around women collectors and their part in the club.

All of the Grolier’s eight hundred or so members are collectors, though the requirement, as Kane puts it, is broad. The examples Kiely gave her were paperbacks from the 1960s, books printed before 1501, and books with inscriptions. The club whose first publication was a law about who might own a press now counts a shelf of paperbacks as a collection. A paperback is not rare; what makes a shelf of them a collection is the person who chose them. Kane ends on the thought that such “analogue assets” will take on new meaning and value, and that a library full of the past might carry its readers into the future.

In Cleveland the Rowfant Club meets on Candlemas and lights a candle for each member. When a member dies, Cleveland Magazine reported in 2005, his candlestick is capped in a ceremony and set on the mantel beside those of the members who died before him. The two clubs were founded eight years apart, and they have given different answers to the question Grolier’s motto raises. The Grolier has widened what counts as a collection and who may propose a show. The Rowfant has kept its library, its candles and its rule about who may join. The woman who has handled every book in its library is still outside its membership. There is no candlestick for her.

Is a bibliophile society about the book, or was it always about the friends?

⁂

The occasion is Lauren Kane’s “Inside the Grolier Club, a book lover’s paradise in Manhattan,” published online October 26 in the November 2026 issue of Apollo, from which the Grolier Club of today is drawn. The Rowfant Club of 2025, Amy Dawson’s remarks and Russell H. Anderson’s 1955 history are quoted as reported in Katherine Churchill’s “The Exclusive Men’s-Only Rare Books Club, And The Woman Who Has A Key,” Defector, June 3, 2025; the club did not respond to her request for comment. The Caxton Club’s vote is from Dan Crawford’s history in the Caxtonian (August 2010) and the club’s own account of its first women members; James W. Ellsworth’s Bible and presidency are from Edward A. Quattrochi in the Caxtonian (June 2019). The Scheide Gutenberg’s owners are from Princeton University Library; the 1926 sale of the Melk copy is from Yale’s Beinecke Library. Charles W. Chesnutt’s “Baxter’s Procrustes” (1904) is public domain and is quoted from the text. The accounts of 1902 and 1910 are from the Charles W. Chesnutt Digital Archive, the Library of America and the Bibliographical Society of America; Helen Chesnutt is quoted as the Library of America quotes her. The candlesticks and the mantel are from Anne Trubek’s “The Book Boys,” Cleveland Magazine (2005), and from Freeman’s; the Philobiblon’s date is from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Quotations keep their sources’ spelling.

Also drawn on: the Grolier Club’s online exhibition entries for Robert Hoe and the Hroswitha Club’s records; the New International Encyclopædia on the Grolier Club; Princeton’s “Brayton Ives, collector”; Rare Book Hub on the Grolier’s founding; the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History on the Rowfant; and the Philobiblon Club’s meetings page.

Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; outside literary editing by Claude Fable 5.1. The header, the interior and the painting of the Grolier’s house were generated with Gemini Argon for this essay.

Essays & Reviews – For The Intellectually Curious

INTELLICUREAN

Essays & Reviews - For The Intellectually Curious

Skip to content ↓