Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare
The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare
The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare
Ebook260 pages3 hours

The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Read preview
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 1, 1908
The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare

Read more from G. K. (Gilbert Keith) Chesterton

Related to The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare

Related ebooks

Related articles

Reviews for The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare

Rating: 3.7895848147783253 out of 5 stars
4/5

1,421 ratings74 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A strange and startling book. At one level, a spoof of anarchism. At another level, a spoof of police efforts to infiltrate gangs and expose them. At still a deeper level, a metaphysical dream novel. The last point comes to sneak up on you, and hits you hard in the last few chapters of the book. It does well to remember the subtitle of the book, as Chesterton himself pointed out very shortly before he died.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I suspect that this dream will linger within me for years to come. The philosophical and political currents pale compared to the intrinsic visions within, the idea that the six all saw their childhood in the penultimate geography is a telling terror.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A poet who is converted by Scotland Yard into an undercover policeman trying to take down a group of elite anarchists finds himself thick in their midst, elected to their top council of seven leaders, each going by the name of a different day of the week. As his adventure unfolds, Syme (aka Thursday) begins to question not only his own role in the drama, but the very fabric of the world.Whoa, this was one crazy ride. I'm not certain that I completely understand what's going on in here, but I do know that it's a complete hoot. Think The Prisoner meets a darker, more urbane Narnia.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    At first, I was a little unsure of what I was reading. I'd missed the subtitle 'A Nightmare'. But in a short time the tone of the book, and its brilliant humour become, more clear. In the moment comes the delight. The recruitment of those who become what they think they're supposed to oppose, in order to stop it, only to discover they all share in that task, that none of them are who they thought, and that even the real opponent is not who they assumed; the impossibility of appearances at telling the truth, and our own personal vulnerability at seeing what is true; the experience of being pursued as something you are, or might not be, when the truth of a situation is lost to opinions and perspectives and conjecture: all these are the foundation of the nightmare. There is a role we're to play in the world: what if someone confused and scuttled it, or rendered the task impossible to really discern? What if reality and God Himself were somehow disguised beyond our description, and we had no bearings among our peers left? A clever depiction, perhaps, of the horror the secular world has brought. Some spectacular quotes lie within for whomever is willing to see the truth ;-p
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A note in the front of my paperback copy of this 1908 novel says 2/16/1967. That's when I bought it, and soon afterward I enjoyed a first reading. A few years later I reread it with the same pleasure. And then it sat in the hidden second tier of a shelf among hundreds of other books for at least four decades, until something sent me looking for it about a month ago. Amazingly, I was able to go right to it. Hurray: I haven't yet lost that store-and-retrieve connection. I'll be in trouble when I do, because there's nothing overtly systematic about my system. I usually find things by snapshot visual memory.But as to the story, all I recalled was the main setup of the plot, namely, that a man named Syme infiltrates an anarchists' cell whose members have as code names the days of the week. The anarchists set off on a mission to prevent the prevention of a planned bombing incident. Our main character plays along while trying to think of ways to foil it himself.Then, 7/8 of the way through this short (194-page) novel, it suddenly turns metaphysical. In fact, we begin to see that it has been allegorical all along, even though the fantastic element had seemed well anchored in a recognizable terrestrial reality. It has been so long since I last read this that it surprised me; so I guess what was memorable about it was less its own particulars than the fact that I enjoyed it so long ago.Now it seems to me a bit manipulative, although not crudely so, and treats of themes that I am well tired of meeting as if by ambush around shadowy corners.But this is not the fault of the book, which is unchanged--indeed, demonstrably so, for I am reading the selfsame edition that I purchased more than 40 years ago. This is one way that a book or movie or memento or landmark can be a mirror to us: if we know that it is a constant, then our altered perception of or response to it denotes a change in ourselves. In the case of this novel, I felt as if I had been conned, and yet at the same time it's hard not to feel elevated as well, even from the point in the story where the balloon goes aloft. Chesterton achieves his transformation competently and respectably, and the element of mystery still enchants.I just don't think I'll be going along with it again. There's too much left that I've never read at all.A sampling of passages that I liked:Through all this ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why, in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy. (page 89)[Syme speaking] "Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front..." (page 176)The philosopher may sometimes love the infinite; the poet always loves the finite. For him the great moment is not the creation of light, but the creation of the sun and moon. (page 183)When I first listed this book in my library, I rated it five stars based on the old memory. Now I find it very hard to rate, never mind classify; but I settled on three and a half stars just to hold as consistently as possible to my own ratings values. I would still recommend this book, though, to any reader who likes to think about things from different angles.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Once the story was established, it was quite predictable, but nonetheless enjoyable. The last chapter was perplexing to me, though. Not sure how I feel about it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Expect the unexpected.
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    I don't know why this book is listed as crime. There is no actual crime involved. Just a lot of hysterical policemen running around trying to arrest each other when they are all undercover. If you want to read this book start by expecting Alice in wonderland. It make about as much sense. It even references Alice a few times. It then devolves even further to some sort of religious allegory that even the author says he was pulling out if a hat. ( last couple of pages on the penguin edition I read ) In short, if you want a story that has no logic, reason or intelligent characters but is heavy on religious symbolism this is the one for you. Personally it just made my brain itch. And not in a good way.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Unique. And very, very good. While some things are clearly forseeable, the book leaves you puzzling until the end, and after (if you count what Chesterton wrote about it 30 years later). The little notes that appear during the (paper?) chase are hilarious. ("What about Martin Tupper now?" What indeed.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    The author's vivid descriptions of scenery and settings, as well as certain philosophy, make for memorable reading.The plot moves along with intriguing mystery and excitement, then becomes redundant and thoroughly improbable, but worse, boring.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Loved the symbolism, disorientation, and potent dose of philosophy at the end. A goldmine of ideas in a dream narrative, but not really a thriller by today's standards.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    A brilliant book?
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Good. Reminds me of a whole lot more contemporary humor on the level of Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A long time ago I read several of the Father Brown mysteries. This is a less-conventional bird, but didn't live up to its billing as an unpredictable ride. This novel's genre is heralded as difficult to pin down, but it's easily categorized as Christian allegory. There's plenty of meant-to-be-fun nonsense about police versus anarchists that becomes a slog if you see the emerging pattern. Much of this tale rings less farcical in today's world. Anarchists are anything but comic when anyone with an extreme viewpoint seems abundantly prepared to inflict massive casualities to make their point. Modern perspective's wounding of this story comes to a head with the conclusion. Read as giving answer to terrorists, it's a terribly poor one. I'm not convinced it was a great answer by the allegory interpretation either, but at least more palatable.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Allegories aren't my favorite kind of stories, but this one really stands out.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a heck of a book. Do not shelve it next to The Iron Dragon's Daughter because I think they would annihilate each other or something.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I do love Chesterton's writing, but this one got away from me a little bit. I had difficulty following the characters (could have been a personal problem).Gabriel Syme, poet & undercover detective, meets a man on the street, and after challenging him about his supposed anarchism, follows him to a meeting of anarchists. Somehow, Gabriel ends up being voted to the "grand council" of anarchists, all of whom are named after the days of the week. Gabriel becomes Thursday, and finds himself caught between planning a bombing and, of course, the fact that he is a policeman. The story gets more and more bizarre and convoluted, often hilarious, until towards the end, when I found it a mess.But it wasn't long, and I'm glad I read it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I really enjoyed reading this startling, at times riotously funny, often gorgeously written book. The ending perplexed me, however, and that's why I ultimately dropped my rating to 4 stars. I wouldn't recommend this as anyone's first foray into Chesterton, but if you've enjoyed Orthodoxy, this is likely a good place to start with his fiction. He's a marvelous writer.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The first half of this book is amazing, wonderful and very tightly conceived but I think it loses itself a little in the second half, when they go after Sunday. It is still memorable, though, and scenes have stayed with me. The ending is odd, as I was warned, but not uncharacteristic and I think it leaves a lovely taste in the mouth.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    With amazing suspense and continual anticipation, Chesterton positions the reader to the edge of their seats on a wild ride with twists, turns, and delightful encounters. It was a joy to read this work of genius. It was a shorter book. However, with the style and prose of Chesterton, it takes longer than usual. It was well worth the time and investment.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    There are so many reviews which comment on the religious allegory of this book so I will refrain from doing that, except to say I enjoyed the "dueling with the devil" scene the most. There are also many reviews that mention how weird the story gets. Agreed. Completely. This is one of those situations in a story where purpose overshadows plot because the whole thing is really quite ridiculous. In a nutshell, Gabriel Symes is an undercover detective who infiltrates an anarchist group (Council of the Seven Days) only to find that the entire membership, with the exception of its leader, is made up of undercover New Detective Corps members. Each member goes by a day of the week for an alias, hence the Council of the Seven Days. Symes has just been nominated as "Thursday". As a collective week they are all trying to get at the elusive leader, "Sunday". Except, they are all in the dark as to each others true identities. What I find curious is that when Sunday sniffs out a spy his fears are confirmed when the undercover policeman reveals he is carrying his membership card to the anti-anarchist constabulary. Wouldn't you remove that piece of evidence, especially if you bother to go through the trouble of wearing an elaborate disguise? Gogol posed as a hairy Pole, accent and all. The Professor posed as an invalid old man with a huge nose. Turns out, all six policemen are carrying the tell-tale blue identification card. Not one of them thought to leave it at home. But, I digress. For most of the story it is a cat and mouse game with the good guys chasing the bad guys (until one by one, they find out they are all good guys). The theme of "who can you trust" is ongoing.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Warning, spoilers. I have been wanting to read this book for some time, primarily because it is universally admired. The book deserves its reputation. Chesterton is an apologist for christianity, albeit a very cogent and intelligent one. This work of fiction functions on its surface as an intriguing detective story, but ultimately is an allegory on free will. I will have to reread it several times to fully plumb its depths. Put simply, the protagonist Symes is a police detective who infiltrates an anarchist group, which ruling members are code-named after days of the week. Symes becomes Thursday. The group's leader is Sunday. A bomb-throwing assasination plot is launched in France, and in the course of attempting to thwart it, Symes discovers that all members except Sunday are in fact policemen who have infiltrated a group composed essentially of themselves. The unsolved mystery at the novel's conclusion is: Who is Sunday? The book is short, and contains some fantastical, almost Bond-like, elements: a spinning table that screws itself into a subterranean chamber; chases by motorcar and horseback; Sunday's flight mounted atop an elephant; and, Sunday's attempted escape in a hot air balloon. The images of London are almost psychedelic in their imagery. The book is a page turner and I finished it in a Saturday morning.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Both policemen and anarchists go undercover as anarchists. If there were a central message, it escaped me, but the novel contains many entaining parts.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    At once lapidary, rich with ideas and a farcical romp.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Der Abenteuerroman datiert aus dem Jahr 1907 und ist vom Stil her doch etwas gewöhnungsbedürftig. Inhaltlich geht es um eine Anarchisten-Elitevereinigung, deren sieben Mitglieder die Wochentage als Decknamen tragen. Die erste Hälfte gestaltet sich relativ spannend, spätestens dann aber zeichnet sich der Ausgang der Geschichte zu deutlich ab und mindestens das letzte Drittel gestaltet sich sehr langatmig. Zudem finden sich doch einige krasse Handlungsbrüche und Ungereimtheiten im Handlungsaufbau. Da hilft es auch nur bedingt, dass dem Leser letztendlich offenbart wird, dass es sich bei dem Erlebten der Protagonisten nur um einen Traum handelt. Allerdings: Einem Autor, dem folgendes, wunderbares Zitat zugeschrieben wird, verzeiht man so einiges: "Märchen erzählen Kindern nicht, dass Drachen existieren. Kinder wissen um deren Existenz. Märchen erzählen Kinder, dass man Drachen töten kann."
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Chesterton is best known for the Fr. Brown mysteries. This is a very different stand-alone allegorical mystery featuring poet-detective Gabriel Syme and a circle of anarchists bent on destroying the world.

    There are some interesting philosophical / theological arguments between characters, but the work is dated. It was first published in 1908, and it shows its age. There were parts that reminded me of the McCarthyism communist “witch hunts” of the 1950s-1960s.

    QUOTE: “The work of the philosophical policeman,” replied the man in blue, “is at once bolder and more subtle than that of the ordinary detective. The ordinary detective goes to pot-houses and arrest thieves; we go to artistic tea-parties to detect pessimists. The ordinary detective discovers from a ledger or diary that a crime has been committed. We discover from a book of sonnets that a crime will be committed. We have to trace the origin of those dreadful thoughts that drive men on at last to intellectual fanaticism and intellectual crime.”
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    This is an allegorical novel that on the surface is about a group of anarchists, but questions many other things along the way. Being a nightmare, it has nightmarish qualities throughout, and the descriptions of scenery, weather and people reflect this. Had I liked this better, I’d reread it to really dig into more of that, and if this is your sort of novel it is worth reading more than once.
    This novel is an allegory dressed as a nightmare, and the only thing that saved it from being a total nightmare or a read for me were some of the amazingly brilliant lines and prose. Had I not realized it was written as a nightmare, I’d have never made it through during this second attempt at reading this novel. I realize it has many fans. This review is based purely as my take on it as a literary novel, and not on any theological underpinnings or references to the book of Job, since discussing Chesterton’s theology is fodder for an entirely different kind of forum
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    I simply didn’t understand this novel. From the beginning to the very end, there was almost no logic in this novel, and the ending was completely nonsensical. For starters, the character of Syme is more concerned about his Word that he gave to an anarchist than saving lives. Six different characters in this novel all think they’re working for the police against the anarchists solely on the basis of a conversation with a shadowy man that they can’t see and who has no identification. If they were truly working for the police, wouldn’t they have some official training, documents to sign, etc. Not to mention, if they were on an undercover assignment, wouldn’t they be alerted to other police that are operating on the same exact undercover assignment? Not to mention, why would you need so many police officers operating undercover to take down the same organization?The ending was a complete headscratcher. I couldn’t make heads or tails of not only the ending, but what actually happened in the novel. If you could make some sense of it, then more power to you. For me, this was a waste of my time reading it, and based on the reviews, a very overrated novel that I would recommend skipping.Carl Alves – author of Battle of the Soul
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Bizarre but interesting story. At first, this seems to be a straightforward suspense thriller of police versus anarchists, but as the story progresses, it gets stranger and stranger.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    ‘Humanity crushed once again’. ‘50 dead, 120 injured’. ‘Grave face of terror strikes again’. Familiar headlines scream through the pages of the newspapers each time a bomb goes off annihilating blameless lives. Through teeth gritting resilience, public outcry resonates through the deafened ears of failed intelligence and faith in the state’s law and order hangs by a thin string. As the weeks pass by rapid sketches of the alleged bombers, email links, forensic reports, collected evidence from the attacked ground and pictures of rehabilitating victims are splashed across the dailies. If by any chance the investigation comes through, anonymous visages covered with black rags are photographed outside the courtroom, readied for trial procedures, which may go on for months, maybe even years. As the days go by, life returns to normalcy (yes! It is a tricky word); everything is forgotten and the news fade until once again “humanity is crushed” by another dastardly attack. The analytical carnival starts once again. This is the time I dearly wish we had ‘philosophical policemen’ just like Chesterton describes in his book. Policemen- (officers of law), who would discover the book of sonnets and verses from where the crimes will be committed; those that recognize the intricate web of intellectual crimes. The derivation of dreadful thoughts- the human mind, so malicious and calculating camouflaged within an affluent, composed and erudite exterior. It is that very egocentric brainpower which churns out sadistic alterations from harmless verses and then picks vulnerable actors to craft that design into realism.

    “Evil philosopher is not trying to alter things but to annihilate them”.

    This book is more than a mere plot of undercover detectives and their clandestine exploration of the Secret anarchist Councilmen. Chesterton pens that a small time criminal is more of a good person. His aim is to eradicated only a certain obstacle and not annihilate the edifice. What caught my eye in one of the chapters was the elucidation of stereotyping poverty to rebellious festering.

    “You’ve got that eternal idiotic ides that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats are always anarchists; as you can see from the baron’s wars”.

    When a bomber or an active terrorist is caught, he mostly turns out to be from an impoverished background, where his ravenous mind and mislaid faith is manipulated to find refuge in an illusionary godly abode. These are mere actors for crying out loud, chosen by the scheming selfish elements who are coward enough to remain behind the backstage curtains. The affluent as elucidated in this narration are the ones to be feared. They have an abundance of monetary resources, have sheltering capacity in far away lands, if need be and have a mind that concocts the unexpected. Where do you think the enormous funds come for fertilizing terror? I do not want elucidate detailed reports of various pathways of monetary funds wired to definite cults or “charitable” institutions that ultimately fund the immoral actions. But, the currency sure is not a bequest from the poor or some excise complements from our paychecks. The respective courtesy comes from those societal fundamentals that remain unscathed or unfazed by decree. Who do you suppose manages the advanced scientific technologies in various bombing devices? The knowledgeable elite, isn’t it? The erudite or should I say the crème de la crème of religious preachers who instead of spreading peace and equality manipulates vulnerable populace digging their raw wounds every time through words that revolt in their bleeding wounds? I could go on and on, as it angers me to see such naivety among the elements of law and order or purposefully turning a blind eye on the so-called modernists who may be responsible in concocting the ongoing mayhem of lawlessness. Why couldn’t there be some ‘philosophical policemen’ here in India or any place that incessantly plays the role of a powerless victim?

    Chapter 4- The Tale of the Detective is the deciding chapter that outlines infinitesimal details of who Gabriel Syme really is. Syme sneaks his way into a clandestine council of seven men, each named after a day of the week. Syme becomes the inevitable Thursday though a pact he made with Lucian Gregory ,a poet and a true anarchist. Fear catches with Syme as his path deepens into the sinister world of the other six council men; the President being the most feared of all. Chesterton throws a light on various aspects of fear that thrives within and outside us. We rebel against the only side that corrupts us. What makes a mutineer and destroy the very notion of survival? We try and run from fear and pain, until one eventually catches up and makes us susceptible to uncouth rudiments that shelter our mental nakedness. It is the most treacherous survival, if every time we need proof of familiarity to feel safe. When fear caught up with Syme suffocating his senses, he would feel protected only if a blue card ( a source of identification given to every policemen in England) was shown to him. How vulnerable was Syme to live in a world of treachery and deceit? Makes me think of all the trepidation we feel every time we walk outside our homes or travel; the security checks, the sense of familiarity that we seek in bloodcurdling situations, the proof of safety that we search or reveal; spins a web of utter vulnerability that looms within the safest corners of our thoughts. The Man Who Was Thursday is a treasure that needs to be dug up by reading between the lines of a puzzling narrative to know what Chesterton is really saying.

    “Revolt in its abstract can be revolting. It is like vomiting.”

    Lastly, if everything leads to God and when nature if dissected reveals the face of God, then should I assume that evil is illusionary? Is malevolence the creation of couple menacing minds? If God means endurance then why is such mutinous extermination carried in God’s name after all?

Book preview

The Man Who Was Thursday, a nightmare - G. K. (Gilbert Keith) Chesterton

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Man Who Was Thursday, by G. K. Chesterton

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Man Who Was Thursday

       A Nightmare

Author: G. K. Chesterton

Release Date: November 17, 2008 [EBook #1695]

Last Updated: January 15, 2013

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY ***

Produced by Harry Plantinga, and David Widger

THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY

A NIGHTMARE

by G. K. Chesterton


CONTENTS

A WILD, MAD, HILARIOUS AND PROFOUNDLY MOVING TALE

THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY

CHAPTER I.   THE TWO POETS OF SAFFRON PARK

CHAPTER II.   THE SECRET OF GABRIEL SYME

CHAPTER III.   THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY

CHAPTER IV.   THE TALE OF A DETECTIVE

CHAPTER V.   THE FEAST OF FEAR

CHAPTER VI.   THE EXPOSURE

CHAPTER VII.   THE UNACCOUNTABLE CONDUCT OF PROFESSOR DE WORMS

CHAPTER VIII.   THE PROFESSOR EXPLAINS

CHAPTER IX.   THE MAN IN SPECTACLES

CHAPTER X.   THE DUEL

CHAPTER XI.   THE CRIMINALS CHASE THE POLICE

CHAPTER XII.   THE EARTH IN ANARCHY

CHAPTER XIII.     THE PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENT

CHAPTER XIV.   THE SIX PHILOSOPHERS

CHAPTER XV.   THE ACCUSER


A WILD, MAD, HILARIOUS AND PROFOUNDLY MOVING TALE

It is very difficult to classify THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY. It is possible to say that it is a gripping adventure story of murderous criminals and brilliant policemen; but it was to be expected that the author of the Father Brown stories should tell a detective story like no-one else. On this level, therefore, THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY succeeds superbly; if nothing else, it is a magnificent tour-de-force of suspense-writing.

However, the reader will soon discover that it is much more than that. Carried along on the boisterous rush of the narrative by Chesterton's wonderful high-spirited style, he will soon see that he is being carried into much deeper waters than he had planned on; and the totally unforeseeable denouement will prove for the modern reader, as it has for thousands of others since 1908 when the book was first published, an inevitable and moving experience, as the investigators finally discover who Sunday is.

THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY

A NIGHTMARE

To Edmund Clerihew Bentley

  A cloud was on the mind of men, and wailing went the weather,

  Yea, a sick cloud upon the soul when we were boys together.

  Science announced nonentity and art admired decay;

  The world was old and ended: but you and I were gay;

  Round us in antic order their crippled vices came—

  Lust that had lost its laughter, fear that had lost its shame.

  Like the white lock of Whistler, that lit our aimless gloom,

  Men showed their own white feather as proudly as a plume.

  Life was a fly that faded, and death a drone that stung;

  The world was very old indeed when you and I were young.

  They twisted even decent sin to shapes not to be named:

  Men were ashamed of honour; but we were not ashamed.

  Weak if we were and foolish, not thus we failed, not thus;

  When that black Baal blocked the heavens he had no hymns from us

  Children we were—our forts of sand were even as weak as we,

  High as they went we piled them up to break that bitter sea.

  Fools as we were in motley, all jangling and absurd,

  When all church bells were silent our cap and bells were heard.

  Not all unhelped we held the fort, our tiny flags unfurled;

  Some giants laboured in that cloud to lift it from the world.

  I find again the book we found, I feel the hour that flings

  Far out of fish-shaped Paumanok some cry of cleaner things;

  And the Green Carnation withered, as in forest fires that pass,

  Roared in the wind of all the world ten million leaves of grass;

  Or sane and sweet and sudden as a bird sings in the rain—

  Truth out of Tusitala spoke and pleasure out of pain.

  Yea, cool and clear and sudden as a bird sings in the grey,

  Dunedin to Samoa spoke, and darkness unto day.

  But we were young; we lived to see God break their bitter charms.

  God and the good Republic come riding back in arms:

  We have seen the City of Mansoul, even as it rocked, relieved—

  Blessed are they who did not see, but being blind, believed.

  This is a tale of those old fears, even of those emptied hells,

  And none but you shall understand the true thing that it tells—

  Of what colossal gods of shame could cow men and yet crash,

  Of what huge devils hid the stars, yet fell at a pistol flash.

  The doubts that were so plain to chase, so dreadful to withstand—

  Oh, who shall understand but you; yea, who shall understand?

  The doubts that drove us through the night as we two talked amain,

  And day had broken on the streets e'er it broke upon the brain.

  Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;

  Yea, there is strength in striking root and good in growing old.

  We have found common things at last and marriage and a creed,

  And I may safely write it now, and you may safely read.

  G. K. C.

CHAPTER I. THE TWO POETS OF SAFFRON PARK

THE suburb of Saffron Park lay on the sunset side of London, as red and ragged as a cloud of sunset. It was built of a bright brick throughout; its sky-line was fantastic, and even its ground plan was wild. It had been the outburst of a speculative builder, faintly tinged with art, who called its architecture sometimes Elizabethan and sometimes Queen Anne, apparently under the impression that the two sovereigns were identical. It was described with some justice as an artistic colony, though it never in any definable way produced any art. But although its pretensions to be an intellectual centre were a little vague, its pretensions to be a pleasant place were quite indisputable. The stranger who looked for the first time at the quaint red houses could only think how very oddly shaped the people must be who could fit in to them. Nor when he met the people was he disappointed in this respect. The place was not only pleasant, but perfect, if once he could regard it not as a deception but rather as a dream. Even if the people were not artists, the whole was nevertheless artistic. That young man with the long, auburn hair and the impudent face—that young man was not really a poet; but surely he was a poem. That old gentleman with the wild, white beard and the wild, white hat—that venerable humbug was not really a philosopher; but at least he was the cause of philosophy in others. That scientific gentleman with the bald, egg-like head and the bare, bird-like neck had no real right to the airs of science that he assumed. He had not discovered anything new in biology; but what biological creature could he have discovered more singular than himself? Thus, and thus only, the whole place had properly to be regarded; it had to be considered not so much as a workshop for artists, but as a frail but finished work of art. A man who stepped into its social atmosphere felt as if he had stepped into a written comedy.

More especially this attractive unreality fell upon it about nightfall, when the extravagant roofs were dark against the afterglow and the whole insane village seemed as separate as a drifting cloud. This again was more strongly true of the many nights of local festivity, when the little gardens were often illuminated, and the big Chinese lanterns glowed in the dwarfish trees like some fierce and monstrous fruit. And this was strongest of all on one particular evening, still vaguely remembered in the locality, of which the auburn-haired poet was the hero. It was not by any means the only evening of which he was the hero. On many nights those passing by his little back garden might hear his high, didactic voice laying down the law to men and particularly to women. The attitude of women in such cases was indeed one of the paradoxes of the place. Most of the women were of the kind vaguely called emancipated, and professed some protest against male supremacy. Yet these new women would always pay to a man the extravagant compliment which no ordinary woman ever pays to him, that of listening while he is talking. And Mr. Lucian Gregory, the red-haired poet, was really (in some sense) a man worth listening to, even if one only laughed at the end of it. He put the old cant of the lawlessness of art and the art of lawlessness with a certain impudent freshness which gave at least a momentary pleasure. He was helped in some degree by the arresting oddity of his appearance, which he worked, as the phrase goes, for all it was worth. His dark red hair parted in the middle was literally like a woman's, and curved into the slow curls of a virgin in a pre-Raphaelite picture. From within this almost saintly oval, however, his face projected suddenly broad and brutal, the chin carried forward with a look of cockney contempt. This combination at once tickled and terrified the nerves of a neurotic population. He seemed like a walking blasphemy, a blend of the angel and the ape.

This particular evening, if it is remembered for nothing else, will be remembered in that place for its strange sunset. It looked like the end of the world. All the heaven seemed covered with a quite vivid and palpable plumage; you could only say that the sky was full of feathers, and of feathers that almost brushed the face. Across the great part of the dome they were grey, with the strangest tints of violet and mauve and an unnatural pink or pale green; but towards the west the whole grew past description, transparent and passionate, and the last red-hot plumes of it covered up the sun like something too good to be seen. The whole was so close about the earth, as to express nothing but a violent secrecy. The very empyrean seemed to be a secret. It expressed that splendid smallness which is the soul of local patriotism. The very sky seemed small.

I say that there are some inhabitants who may remember the evening if only by that oppressive sky. There are others who may remember it because it marked the first appearance in the place of the second poet of Saffron Park. For a long time the red-haired revolutionary had reigned without a rival; it was upon the night of the sunset that his solitude suddenly ended. The new poet, who introduced himself by the name of Gabriel Syme was a very mild-looking mortal, with a fair, pointed beard and faint, yellow hair. But an impression grew that he was less meek than he looked. He signalised his entrance by differing with the established poet, Gregory, upon the whole nature of poetry. He said that he (Syme) was poet of law, a poet of order; nay, he said he was a poet of respectability. So all the Saffron Parkers looked at him as if he had that moment fallen out of that impossible sky.

In fact, Mr. Lucian Gregory, the anarchic poet, connected the two events.

It may well be, he said, in his sudden lyrical manner, it may well be on such a night of clouds and cruel colours that there is brought forth upon the earth such a portent as a respectable poet. You say you are a poet of law; I say you are a contradiction in terms. I only wonder there were not comets and earthquakes on the night you appeared in this garden.

The man with the meek blue eyes and the pale, pointed beard endured these thunders with a certain submissive solemnity. The third party of the group, Gregory's sister Rosamond, who had her brother's braids of red hair, but a kindlier face underneath them, laughed with such mixture of admiration and disapproval as she gave commonly to the family oracle.

Gregory resumed in high oratorical good humour.

An artist is identical with an anarchist, he cried. You might transpose the words anywhere. An anarchist is an artist. The man who throws a bomb is an artist, because he prefers a great moment to everything. He sees how much more valuable is one burst of blazing light, one peal of perfect thunder, than the mere common bodies of a few shapeless policemen. An artist disregards all governments, abolishes all conventions. The poet delights in disorder only. If it were not so, the most poetical thing in the world would be the Underground Railway.

So it is, said Mr. Syme.

Nonsense! said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!

It is you who are unpoetical, replied the poet Syme. If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!

Must you go? inquired Gregory sarcastically.

I tell you, went on Syme with passion, that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hairbreadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word 'Victoria,' it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed 'Victoria'; it is the victory of Adam.

Gregory wagged his heavy, red head with a slow and sad smile.

And even then, he said, we poets always ask the question, 'And what is Victoria now that you have got there?' You think Victoria is like the New Jerusalem. We know that the New Jerusalem will only be like Victoria. Yes, the poet will be discontented even in the streets of heaven. The poet is always in revolt.

There again, said Syme irritably, what is there poetical about being in revolt? You might as well say that it is poetical to be sea-sick. Being sick is a revolt. Both being sick and being rebellious may be the wholesome thing on certain desperate occasions; but I'm hanged if I can see why they are poetical. Revolt in the abstract is—revolting. It's mere vomiting.

The girl winced for a flash at the unpleasant word, but Syme was too hot to heed her.

It is things going right, he cried, that is poetical! Our digestions, for instance, going sacredly and silently right, that is the foundation of all poetry. Yes, the most poetical thing, more poetical than the flowers, more poetical than the stars—the most poetical thing in the world is not being sick.

Really, said Gregory superciliously, the examples you choose—

I beg your pardon, said Syme grimly, I forgot we had abolished all conventions.

For the first time a red patch appeared on Gregory's forehead.

You don't expect me, he said, to revolutionise society on this lawn?

Syme looked straight into his eyes and smiled sweetly.

No, I don't, he said; but I suppose that if you were serious about your anarchism, that is exactly what you would do.

Gregory's big bull's eyes blinked suddenly like those of an angry lion, and one could almost fancy that his red mane rose.

Don't you think, then, he said in a dangerous voice, that I am serious about my anarchism?

I beg your pardon? said Syme.

Am I not serious about my anarchism? cried Gregory, with knotted fists.

My dear fellow! said Syme, and strolled away.

With surprise, but with a curious pleasure, he found Rosamond Gregory still in his company.

Mr. Syme, she said, do the people who talk like you and my brother often mean what they say? Do you mean what you say now?

Syme smiled.

Do you? he asked.

What do you mean? asked the girl, with grave eyes.

My dear Miss Gregory, said Syme gently, "there are many kinds of sincerity and insincerity. When you say 'thank you' for the salt, do you mean what you say? No. When you say 'the world is round,' do you mean what you say? No. It is true, but you

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1