<h2><SPAN name="IX" id="IX"></SPAN>IX</h2>
<p>The truth is doubtless, however, much less in the wealth of my
experience than in the tenacity of my impression, the fact that I have
lost nothing of what I saw and that though I can't now quite divide the
total into separate occasions the various items surprisingly swarm for
me. I shall return to some of them, wishing at present only to make my
point of when and how the seeds were sown that afterwards so thickly
sprouted and flowered. I was greatly to love the drama, at its best, as
a "form"; whatever variations of faith or curiosity I was to know in
respect to the infirm and inadequate theatre. There was of course
anciently no question for us of the drama at its best; and indeed while
I lately by chance looked over a copious collection of theatrical
portraits, beginning with the earliest age of lithography and
photography as so applied, and documentary in the highest degree on the
personalities, as we nowadays say, of the old American stage,
stupefaction grew sharp in me and scepticism triumphed, so vulgar, so
barbarous, seemed the array of types, so extraordinarily provincial the
note of every figure, so less than scant the claim<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_104" id="Page_104"></SPAN></span> of such
physiognomies and such reputations. Rather dismal, everywhere, I admit,
the histrionic image with the artificial lights turned off—the fatigued
and disconnected face reduced to its mere self and resembling some
closed and darkened inn with the sign still swung but the place blighted
for want of custom. That consideration weighs; but what a "gang," all
the same, when thus left to their own devices, the performers, men and
women alike, of that world of queer appreciations! I ought perhaps to
bear on them lightly in view of what in especial comes back to me; the
sense of the sacred thrill with which I began to watch the green
curtain, the particular one that was to rise to The Comedy of Errors on
the occasion that must have been, for what I recall of its almost
unbearable intensity, the very first of my ever sitting at a play. I
should have been indebted for the momentous evening in that case to Mr.
William Burton, whose small theatre in Chambers Street, to the rear of
Stewart's big shop and hard by the Park, as the Park was at that time
understood, offered me then my prime initiation. Let me not complain of
my having owed the adventure to a still greater William as well, nor
think again without the right intensity, the scarce tolerable throb, of
the way the torment of the curtain was mixed, half so dark a defiance
and half so rich a promise. One's eyes bored into it in vain, and yet
one knew<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_105" id="Page_105"></SPAN></span> it <i>would</i> rise at the named hour, the only question being if
one could exist till then. The play had been read to us during the day;
a celebrated English actor, whose name I inconsistently forget, had
arrived to match Mr. Burton as the other of the Dromios; and the
agreeable Mrs. Holman, who had to my relentless vision too retreating a
chin, was so good as to represent Adriana. I regarded Mrs. Holman as a
friend, though in no warmer light than that in which I regarded Miss
Mary Taylor—save indeed that Mrs. Holman had the pull, on one's
affections, of "coming out" to sing in white satin and quite
irrelevantly between the acts; an advantage she shared with the younger
and fairer and more dashing, the dancing, Miss Malvina, who footed it
and tambourined it and shawled it, irruptively, in lonely state. When
not admiring Mr. Burton in Shakespeare we admired him as Paul Pry, as
Mr. Toodles and as Aminadab Sleek in The Serious Family, and we must
have admired him very much—his huge fat person, his huge fat face and
his vast slightly pendulous cheek, surmounted by a sort of elephantine
wink, to which I impute a remarkable baseness, being still perfectly
present to me.</p>
<p>We discriminated, none the less; we thought Mr. Blake a much finer
comedian, much more of a gentleman and a scholar—"mellow" Mr. Blake,
whom with the brave and emphatic Mrs. Blake<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_106" id="Page_106"></SPAN></span> (<i>how</i> they must have made
their points!) I connect partly with the Burton scene and partly with
that, of slightly subsequent creation, which, after flourishing awhile
slightly further up Broadway under the charmlessly commercial name of
Brougham's Lyceum (we had almost only Lyceums and Museums and Lecture
Rooms and Academies of Music for playhouse and opera then,) entered upon
a long career and a migratory life as Wallack's Theatre. I fail
doubtless to keep <i>all</i> my associations clear, but what is important, or
what I desire at least to make pass for such, is that when we most
admired Mr. Blake we also again admired Miss Mary Taylor; and it was at
Brougham's, not at Burton's, that we rendered <i>her</i> that
tribute—reserved for her performance of the fond theatrical daughter in
the English version of Le Père de la Débutante, where I see the charming
panting dark-haired creature, in flowing white classically relieved by a
gold tiara and a golden scarf, rush back from the supposed stage to the
represented green-room, followed by thunders of applause, and throw
herself upon the neck of the broken-down old gentleman in a blue coat
with brass buttons who must have been after all, on second thoughts, Mr.
Placide. Greater flights or more delicate shades the art of pathetic
comedy was at that time held not to achieve; only I straighten it out
that Mr. and Mrs. Blake, not less than Miss Mary<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_107" id="Page_107"></SPAN></span> Taylor (who
preponderantly haunts my vision, even to the disadvantage of Miss Kate
Horn in Nan the Good-for-Nothing, until indeed she is displaced by the
brilliant Laura Keene) did migrate to Brougham's, where we found them
all themselves as Goldsmith's Hardcastle pair and other like matters. We
rallied especially to Blake as Dogberry, on the occasion of my second
Shakespearean night, for as such I seem to place it, when Laura Keene
and Mr. Lester—the Lester Wallack that was to be—did Beatrice and
Benedick. I yield to this further proof that we had our proportion of
Shakespeare, though perhaps antedating that rapt vision of Much Ado,
which may have been preceded by the dazzled apprehension of A Midsummer
Night's Dream at the Broadway (there <i>was</i> a confessed Theatre;) this
latter now present to me in every bright particular. It supplied us, we
must have felt, our greatest conceivable adventure—I cannot otherwise
account for its emerging so clear. Everything here is as of yesterday,
the identity of the actors, the details of their dress, the charm
imparted by the sisters Gougenheim, the elegant elder as the infatuated
Helena and the other, the roguish "Joey" as the mischievous Puck. Hermia
was Mrs. Nagle, in a short salmon-coloured peplum over a white
petticoat, the whole bulgingly confined by a girdle of shining gilt and
forming a contrast to the loose scarves of Helena,<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_108" id="Page_108"></SPAN></span> while Mr. Nagle, not
devoid, I seem to remember, of a blue chin and the latency of a fine
brogue, was either Lysander or Demetrius; Mr. Davidge (also, I surmise,
with a brogue) was Bottom the weaver and Madame Ponisi Oberon—Madame
Ponisi whose range must have been wide, since I see her also as the
white-veiled heroine of The Cataract of the Ganges, where, preferring
death to dishonour, she dashes up the more or less perpendicular
waterfall on a fiery black steed and with an effect only a little
blighted by the chance flutter of a drapery out of which peeps the leg
of a trouser and a big male foot; and then again, though presumably at a
somewhat later time or, in strictness, <i>after</i> childhood's fond hour, as
this and that noble matron or tragedy queen. I descry her at any rate as
representing all characters alike with a broad brown face framed in
bands or crowns or other heavy headgear out of which cropped a row of
very small tight black curls. The Cataract of the Ganges is all there as
well, a tragedy of temples and idols and wicked rajahs and real water,
with Davidge and Joey Gougenheim again for comic relief—though all in a
coarser radiance, thanks to the absence of fairies and Amazons and
moonlit mechanical effects, the charm above all, so seen, of the play
within the play; and I rank it in that relation with Green Bushes,
despite the celebrity in the latter of Madame Céleste, who<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_109" id="Page_109"></SPAN></span> came to us
straight out of London and whose admired walk up the stage as Miami the
huntress, a wonderful majestic and yet voluptuous stride enhanced by a
short kilt, black velvet leggings and a gun haughtily borne on the
shoulder, is vividly before me as I write. The piece in question was, I
recall, from the pen of Mr. Bourcicault, as he then wrote his name—he
was so early in the field and must have been from long before, inasmuch
as he now appears to me to have supplied Mr. Brougham, of the Lyceum
aforesaid, with his choicest productions.</p>
<p>I sit again at London Assurance, with Mrs. Wallack—"Fanny" Wallack, I
think, not that I quite know who she was—as Lady Gay Spanker, flushed
and vociferous, first in a riding-habit with a tail yards long and
afterwards in yellow satin with scarce a tail at all; I am present also
at Love in a Maze, in which the stage represented, with primitive art I
fear, a supposedly intricate garden-labyrinth, and in which I admired
for the first time Mrs. Russell, afterwards long before the public as
Mrs. Hoey, even if opining that she wanted, especially for the
low-necked ordeal, less osseous a structure. There are pieces of that
general association, I admit, the clue to which slips from me; the drama
of modern life and of French origin—though what was then not of French
origin?—in which Miss Julia Bennett,<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_110" id="Page_110"></SPAN></span> fresh from triumphs at the
Haymarket, made her first appearance, in a very becoming white bonnet,
either as a brilliant adventuress or as the innocent victim of
licentious design, I forget which, though with a sense somehow that the
white bonnet, when of true elegance, was the note at that period of the
adventuress; Miss Julia Bennett with whom at a later age one was to
renew acquaintance as the artful and ample Mrs. Barrow, full of manner
and presence and often Edwin Booth's Portia, Desdemona and Julie de
Mortemer. I figure her as having in the dimmer phase succeeded to Miss
Laura Keene at Wallack's on the secession thence of this original
charmer of our parents, the flutter of whose prime advent is perfectly
present to me, with the relish expressed for that "English" sweetness of
her speech (I already wondered why it <i>shouldn't</i> be English) which was
not as the speech mostly known to us. The Uncles, within my hearing,
even imitated, for commendation, some of her choicer sounds, to which I
strained my ear on seeing her afterwards as Mrs. Chillington in the
refined comedietta of A Morning Call, where she made delightful game of
Mr. Lester as Sir Edward Ardent, even to the point of causing him to
crawl about on all fours and covered with her shawl after the fashion of
a horse-blanket. That delightful impression was then unconscious of the
blight to come—that of my apprehending, years<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_111" id="Page_111"></SPAN></span> after, that the
brilliant comedietta was the tribute of our Anglo-Saxon taste to Alfred
de Musset's elegant proverb of the Porte Ouverte ou Fermée, in which
nothing could find itself less at home than the horseplay of the English
version. Miss Laura Keene, with a native grace at the start, a fresh and
delicate inspiration, I infer from the kind of pleasure she appears to
have begun with giving, was to live to belie her promise and, becoming
hard and raddled, forfeit (on the evidence) all claim to the higher
distinction; a fact not surprising under the lurid light projected by
such a sign of the atmosphere of ineptitude as an accepted and condoned
perversion to vulgarity of Musset's perfect little work. How <i>could</i>
quality of talent consort with so dire an absence of quality in the
material offered it? where could such lapses lead but to dust and
desolation and what happy instinct not be smothered in an air so
dismally non-conducting? Is it a foolish fallacy that these matters may
have been on occasion, at that time, worth speaking of? is it only
presumable that everything was perfectly cheap and common and everyone
perfectly bad and barbarous and that even the least corruptible of our
typical spectators were too easily beguiled and too helplessly kind? The
beauty of the main truth as to any remembered matter looked at in due
detachment, or in other words through the haze of time, is that
<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_112" id="Page_112"></SPAN></span>comprehension has then become one with criticism, compassion, as it may
really be called, one with musing vision, and the whole company of the
anciently restless, with their elations and mistakes, their sincerities
and fallacies and vanities and triumphs, embalmed for us in the mild
essence of their collective submission to fate. We needn't be strenuous
about them unless we particularly want to, and are glad to remember in
season all that this would imply of the strenuous about our own
<i>origines</i>, our muddled initiations. If nothing is more certain for us
than that many persons, within our recollection, couldn't help being
rather generally unadmonished and unaware, so nothing is more in the
note of peace than that such a perceived state, pushed to a point, makes
our scales of judgment but ridiculously rattle. <i>Our</i> admonition, our
superior awareness, is of many things—and, among these, of how
infinitely, at the worst, they lived, the pale superseded, and how much
it was by their virtue.</p>
<p>Which reflections, in the train of such memories as those just gathered,
may perhaps seem over-strained—though they really to my own eyes cause
the images to multiply. Still others of these break in upon me and
refuse to be slighted; reconstituting as I practically am the history of
my fostered imagination, for whatever it may be worth, I won't pretend
to a disrespect for <i>any</i> <span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_113" id="Page_113"></SPAN></span>contributive particle. I left myself just
above staring at the Fifth Avenue poster, and I can't but linger there
while the vision it evokes insists on swarming. It was the age of the
arrangements of Dickens for the stage, vamped-up promptly on every scene
and which must have been the roughest theatrical tinkers' work, but at
two or three of which we certainly assisted. I associate them with Mr.
Brougham's temple of the art, yet am at the same time beset with the
Captain Cuttle of Dombey and Son in the form of the big Burton, who
never, I earnestly conceive, graced that shrine, so that I wander a
trifle confusedly. Isn't it he whom I remember as a monstrous Micawber,
the coarse parody of a charming creation, with the entire baldness of a
huge Easter egg and collar-points like the sails of Mediterranean
feluccas? Dire of course for all temperance in these connections was the
need to conform to the illustrations of Phiz, himself already an
improvising parodist and happy only so long as not imitated, not
literally reproduced. Strange enough the "æsthetic" of artists who could
desire but literally to reproduce. I give the whole question up,
however, I stray too in the dust, and with a positive sense of having,
in the first place, but languished at home when my betters admired Miss
Cushman—terribly out of the picture and the frame we should to-day
pronounce her, I fear—as the Nancy of<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_114" id="Page_114"></SPAN></span> Oliver Twist: as far away this
must have been as the lifetime of the prehistoric "Park," to which it
was just within my knowledge that my elders went for opera, to come back
on us sounding those rich old Italian names, Bosio and Badiali, Ronconi
and Steffanone, I am not sure I have them quite right; signs, of a
rueful sound to us, that the line as to our infant participation <i>was</i>
somewhere drawn. It had not been drawn, I all the more like to remember,
when, under proper protection, at Castle Garden, I listened to that
rarest of infant phenomena, Adelina Patti, poised in an armchair that
had been pushed to the footlights and announcing her incomparable gift.
She was about of our own age, she was one of us, even though at the same
time the most prodigious of fairies, of glittering fables. That
principle of selection was indeed in abeyance while I sat with my mother
either at Tripler Hall or at Niblo's—I am vague about the occasion, but
the names, as for fine old confused reasons, plead alike to my pen—and
paid a homage quite other than critical, I dare say, to the then
slightly worn Henrietta Sontag, Countess Rossi, who struck us as
supremely elegant in pink silk and white lace flounces and with whom
there had been for certain members of our circle some contact or
intercourse that I have wonderingly lost. I learned at that hour in any
case what "acclamation" might mean, and have again<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_115" id="Page_115"></SPAN></span> before me the vast
high-piled auditory thundering applause at the beautiful pink lady's
clear bird-notes; a thrilling, a tremendous experience and my sole other
memory of concert-going, at that age, save the impression of a strange
huddled hour in some smaller public place, some very minor hall, under
dim lamps and again in my mother's company, where we were so near the
improvised platform that my nose was brushed by the petticoats of the
distinguished amateur who sang "Casta Diva," a very fine fair woman with
a great heaving of bosom and flirt of crinoline, and that the ringletted
Italian gentleman in black velvet and a romantic voluminous cloak who
represented, or rather who professionally and uncontrollably was, an
Improvisatore, had for me the effect, as I crouched gaping, of quite
bellowing down my throat. That occasion, I am clear, was a concert for a
charity, with the volunteer performance and the social patroness, and it
had squeezed in where it would—at the same time that I somehow connect
the place, in Broadway, on the right going down and not much below
Fourth Street (except that everything seems to me to have been just
below Fourth Street when not just above,) with the scene of my great
public exposure somewhat later, the wonderful exhibition of Signor
Blitz, the peerless conjurer, who, on my attending his entertainment
with W. J. and our frequent comrade of<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_116" id="Page_116"></SPAN></span> the early time "Hal" Coster,
practised on my innocence to seduce me to the stage and there plunge me
into the shame of my sad failure to account arithmetically for his
bewilderingly subtracted or added or divided pockethandkerchiefs and
playing-cards; a paralysis of wit as to which I once more, and with the
same wan despair, feel my companions' shy telegraphy of relief, their
snickerings and mouthings and raised numerical fingers, reach me from
the benches.</p>
<p>The second definite matter in the Dickens connection is the Smike of
Miss Weston—whose prænomen I frivolously forget (though I fear it was
Lizzie,) but who was afterwards Mrs. E. L. Davenport and then, sequently
to some public strife or chatter, Mrs. Charles Matthews—in a version of
Nicholas Nickleby that gracelessly managed to be all tearful melodrama,
long-lost foundlings, wicked Ralph Nicklebys and scowling Arthur Grides,
with other baffled villains, and scarcely at all Crummleses and
Kenwigses, much less Squeerses; though there must have been something of
Dotheboys Hall for the proper tragedy of Smike and for the broad
Yorkshire effect, a precious theatrical value, of John Brodie. The
ineffaceability was the anguish, to my tender sense, of Nicholas's
starved and tattered and fawning and whining protégé; in face of my
sharp retention of which through all the years who shall deny the<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_117" id="Page_117"></SPAN></span>
immense authority of the theatre, or that the stage is the mightiest of
modern engines? Such at least was to be the force of the Dickens
imprint, however applied, in the soft clay of our generation; it was to
resist so serenely the wash of the waves of time. To be brought up thus
against the author of it, or to speak at all of the dawn of one's early
consciousness of it and of his presence and power, is to begin to tread
ground at once sacred and boundless, the associations of which, looming
large, warn us off even while they hold. He did too much for us surely
ever to leave us free—free of judgment, free of reaction, even should
we care to be, which heaven forbid: he laid his hand on us in a way to
undermine as in no other case the power of detached appraisement. We
react against other productions of the general kind without "liking"
them the less, but we somehow liked Dickens the more for having
forfeited half the claim to appreciation. That process belongs to the
fact that criticism, roundabout him, is somehow futile and tasteless.
His own taste is easily impugned, but he entered so early into the blood
and bone of our intelligence that it always remained better than the
taste of overhauling him. When I take him up to-day and find myself
holding off, I simply stop: not holding off, that is, but holding on,
and from the very fear to do so; which sounds, I recognise, like
perusal, like renewal, of the<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_118" id="Page_118"></SPAN></span> scantest. I don't renew, I wouldn't renew
for the world; wouldn't, that is, with one's treasure so hoarded in the
dusty chamber of youth, let in the intellectual air. Happy the house of
life in which such chambers still hold out, even with the draught of the
intellect whistling through the passages. We were practically
contemporary, contemporary with the issues, the fluttering monthly
numbers—that was the point; it made for us a good fortune, constituted
for us in itself romance, on which nothing, to the end, succeeds in
laying its hands.</p>
<p>The whole question dwells for me in a single small reminiscence, though
there are others still: that of my having been sent to bed one evening,
in Fourteenth Street, as a very small boy, at an hour when, in the
library and under the lamp, one of the elder cousins from Albany, the
youngest of an orphaned brood of four, of my grandmother's most
extravagant adoption, had begun to read aloud to my mother the new,
which must have been the first, instalment of David Copperfield. I had
feigned to withdraw, but had only retreated to cover close at hand, the
friendly shade of some screen or drooping table-cloth, folded up behind
which and glued to the carpet, I held my breath and listened. I listened
long and drank deep while the wondrous picture grew, but the tense cord
at last snapped under the strain of the Murdstones and I broke into the
sobs of sympathy that<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_119" id="Page_119"></SPAN></span> disclosed my subterfuge. I was this time
effectively banished, but the ply then taken was ineffaceable. I
remember indeed just afterwards finding the sequel, in especial the vast
extrusion of the Micawbers, beyond my actual capacity; which took a few
years to grow adequate—years in which the general contagious
consciousness, and our own household response not least, breathed
heavily through Hard Times, Bleak House and Little Dorrit; the seeds of
acquaintance with Chuzzlewit and Dombey and Son, these coming thickly
on, I had found already sown. I was to feel that I had been born, born
to a rich awareness, under the very meridian; there sprouted in those
years no such other crop of ready references as the golden harvest of
Copperfield. Yet if I was to wait to achieve the happier of these
recognitions I had already pored over Oliver Twist—albeit now uncertain
of the relation borne by that experience to the incident just recalled.
When Oliver was new to me, at any rate, he was already old to my
betters; whose view of his particular adventures and exposures must have
been concerned, I think, moreover, in the fact of my public and lively
wonder about them. It was an exhibition deprecated—to infant innocence
I judge; unless indeed my remembrance of enjoying it only on the terms
of fitful snatches in another, though a kindred, house is due mainly to
the existence there of George<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_120" id="Page_120"></SPAN></span> Cruikshank's splendid form of the work,
of which our own foreground was clear. It perhaps even seemed to me more
Cruikshank's than Dickens's; it was a thing of such vividly terrible
images, and all marked with that peculiarity of Cruikshank that the
offered flowers or goodnesses, the scenes and figures intended to
comfort and cheer, present themselves under his hand as but more subtly
sinister, or more suggestively queer, than the frank badnesses and
horrors. The nice people and the happy moments, in the plates,
frightened me almost as much as the low and the awkward; which didn't
however make the volumes a source of attraction the less toward that
high and square old back-parlour just westward of Sixth Avenue (as we in
the same street were related to it) that formed, romantically, half our
alternative domestic field and offered to our small inquiring steps a
larger range and privilege. If the Dickens of those years was, as I have
just called him, the great actuality of the current imagination, so I at
once meet him in force as a feature even of conditions in which he was
but indirectly involved.</p>
<p>For the other house, the house we most haunted after our own, was that
of our cousin Albert, still another of the blest orphans, though this
time of our mother's kindred; and if it was my habit, as I have hinted,
to attribute to orphans as orphans a circumstantial charm, a setting
necessarily more<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_121" id="Page_121"></SPAN></span> delightful than our father'd and mother'd one, so
there spread about this appointed comrade, the perfection of the type,
inasmuch as he alone was neither brother'd nor sister'd, an air of
possibilities that were none the less vivid for being quite indefinite.
He was to embody in due course, poor young man, some of these
possibilities—those that had originally been for me the vaguest of all;
but to fix his situation from my present view is not so much to wonder
that it spoke to me of a wild freedom as to see in it the elements of a
rich and rounded picture. The frame was still there but a short time
since, cracked and empty, broken and gaping, like those few others, of
the general overgrown scene, that my late quest had puzzled out; and
this has somehow helped me to read back into it the old figures and the
old long story, told as with excellent art. We knew the figures well
while they lasted and had with them the happiest relation, but without
doing justice to their truth of outline, their felicity of character and
force of expression and function, above all to the compositional harmony
in which they moved. That lives again to my considering eyes, and I
admire as never before the fine artistry of fate. Our cousin's guardian,
the natural and the legal, was his aunt, his only one, who was the
cousin of our mother and our own aunt, virtually <i>our</i> only one, so far
as a felt and adopted closeness of kinship<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_122" id="Page_122"></SPAN></span> went; and the three,
daughters of two sole and much-united sisters, had been so brought up
together as to have quite all the signs and accents of the same strain
and the same nest. The cousin Helen of our young prospect was thus all
but the sister Helen of our mother's lifetime, as was to happen, and was
scarcely less a stout brave presence and an emphasised character for the
new generation than for the old; noted here as she is, in particular,
for her fine old-time value of clearness and straightness. I see in her
strong simplicity, that of an earlier, quieter world, a New York of
better manners and better morals and homelier beliefs, the very elements
of some portrait by a grave Dutch or other truth-seeking master; she
looks out with some of the strong marks, the anxious honesty, the modest
humour, the folded resting hands, the dark handsome serious attire, the
important composed cap, almost the badge of a guild or an order, that
hang together about the images of past worthies, of whichever sex, who
have had, as one may say, the courage of their character, and qualify
them for places in great collections. I note with appreciation that she
was strenuously, actively good, and have the liveliest impression both
that no one was ever better, and that her goodness somehow testifies for
the whole tone of a society, a remarkable cluster of private decencies.
Her value to my imagination is even<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_123" id="Page_123"></SPAN></span> most of all perhaps in her mere
local consistency, her fine old New York ignorance and rigour. Her
traditions, scant but stiff, had grown there, close to her—they were
all she needed, and she lived by them candidly and stoutly. That there
have been persons so little doubtful of duty helps to show us how
societies grow. A proportionately small amount of absolute conviction
about it will carry, we thus make out, a vast dead weight of mere
comparative. She was as anxious over hers indeed as if it had ever been
in question—which is a proof perhaps that being void of imagination,
when you are quite entirely void, makes scarcely more for comfort than
having too much, which only makes in a manner for a homeless freedom or
even at the worst for a questioned veracity. With a big installed
conscience there is virtue in a grain of the figurative faculty—it acts
as oil to the stiff machine.</p>
<p>Yet this life of straight and narrow insistences seated so clearly in
our view didn't take up all the room in the other house, the house of
the pictured, the intermittent Oliver, though of the fewer books in
general than ours, and of the finer proportions and less peopled spaces
(there were but three persons to fill them) as well as of the more
turbaned and powdered family portraits, one of these, the most antique,
a "French pastel," which must have been charming, of a young collateral
ancestor who<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_124" id="Page_124"></SPAN></span> had died on the European tour. A vast marginal range
seemed to me on the contrary to surround the adolescent nephew, who was
some three years, I judge, beyond me in age and had other horizons and
prospects than ours. No question of "Europe," for him, but a patriotic
preparation for acquaintance with the South and West, or what was then
called the West—he was to "see his own country first," winking at us
while he did so; though he was, in spite of differences, so nearly and
naturally neighbour'd and brother'd with us that the extensions of his
range and the charms of his position counted somehow as the limits and
the humilities of ours. He went neither to our schools nor to our
hotels, but hovered out of our view in some other educational air that I
can't now point to, and had in a remote part of the State a vast wild
property of his own, known as the Beaverkill, to which, so far from his
aunt's and his uncle's taking him there, he affably took them, and to
which also he vainly invited W. J. and me, pointing thereby to us,
however, though indirectly enough perhaps, the finest childish case we
were to know for the famous acceptance of the inevitable. It was
apparently not to be thought of that instead of the inevitable we should
accept the invitation; the place was in the wilderness, incalculably
distant, reached by a whole day's rough drive from the railroad, through
every danger of flood and<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_125" id="Page_125"></SPAN></span> field, with prowling bears thrown in and
probable loss of limb, of which there were sad examples, from swinging
scythes and axes; but we of course measured our privation just by those
facts, and grew up, so far as we did then grow, to believe that
pleasures beyond price had been cruelly denied us. I at any rate myself
grew up sufficiently to wonder if poor Albert's type, as it developed to
the anxious elder view from the first, mightn't rather have undermined
countenance; his pleasant foolish face and odd shy air of being
suspected or convicted on grounds less vague to himself than to us may
well have appeared symptoms of the course, of the "rig," he was
eventually to run. I could think of him but as the <i>fils de famille</i>
ideally constituted; not that I could then use for him that designation,
but that I felt he must belong to an important special class, which he
in fact formed in his own person. Everything was right, truly, for these
felicities—to speak of them only as dramatic or pictorial values; since
if we were present all the while at more of a drama than we knew, so at
least, to my vague divination, the scene and the figures were there, not
excluding the chorus, and I must have had the instinct of their being as
right as possible. I see the actors move again through the high, rather
bedimmed rooms—it is always a matter of winter twilight, firelight,
lamplight; each one appointed to his or her part<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_126" id="Page_126"></SPAN></span> and perfect for the
picture, which gave a sense of fulness without ever being crowded.</p>
<p>That composition had to wait awhile, in the earliest time, to find its
proper centre, having been from the free point of view I thus cultivate
a little encumbered by the presence of the most aged of our relatives,
the oldest person I remember to have familiarly known—if it can be
called familiar to have stood off in fear of such strange proofs of
accomplished time: our Great-aunt Wyckoff, our maternal grandmother's
elder sister, I infer, and an image of living antiquity, as I figure her
to-day, that I was never to see surpassed. I invest her in this vision
with all the idol-quality that may accrue to the venerable—solidly
seated or even throned, hooded and draped and tucked-in, with big
protective protrusive ears to her chair which helped it to the effect of
a shrine, and a large face in which the odd blackness of eyebrow and of
a couple of other touches suggested the conventional marks of a painted
image. She signified her wants as divinities do, for I recover from her
presence neither sound nor stir, remembering of her only that, as
described by her companions, the pious ministrants, she had "said" so
and so when she hadn't spoken at all. Was she really, as she seemed, so
tremendously old, so old that her daughter, our mother's cousin Helen
and ours, would have had to come to her in middle life to<span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_127" id="Page_127"></SPAN></span> account for
it, or did antiquity at that time set in earlier and was surrender of
appearance and dress, matching the intrinsic decay, only more
complacent, more submissive and, as who should say, more abject? I have
my choice of these suppositions, each in its way of so lively an
interest that I scarce know which to prefer, though inclining perhaps a
little to the idea of the backward reach. If Aunt Wyckoff was, as I
first remember her, scarce more than seventy, say, the thought fills me
with one sort of joy, the joy of our modern, our so generally greater
and nobler effect of duration: who <i>wouldn't</i> more subtly strive for
that effect and, intelligently so striving, reach it better, than such
non-questioners of fate?—the moral of whose case is surely that if they
gave up too soon and too softly we wiser witnesses can reverse the
process and fight the whole ground. But I apologise to the heavy shade
in question if she had really drained her conceivable cup, and for that
matter rather like to suppose it, so rich and strange is the pleasure of
finding the past—the Past above all—answered for to one's own touch,
this being our only way to be sure of it. It was the Past that one
touched in her, the American past of a preponderant unthinkable
queerness; and great would seem the fortune of helping on the continuity
at some other far end.</p>
<hr />
<p><span class='pagenum'><SPAN name="Page_128" id="Page_128"></SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />