August 10, 1910
I am back in Chagford again after ten of the best
days I can remember. Camp was one continuous
round of sheer joy. The weather was good: they
gave us plenty of work to do; I learnt an immense
amount of soldiering and I have become quite as
keen as any of them.
O'Connor, our O.C., has recommended me for a
commission and I go into barracks at the Depot in
Exeter next week. I had no idea that life under
canvas could be so good. To be woken after a
dreamless sleep at five on a perfect summer morning,
to open the tent-flaps and look out on the gorgeous
woods of the Pennings and then to dash up and have
an icy shower-bath before first parade, to come in to
breakfast with an appetite as keen as that of a baby,
to spend the greater part of the day in the open air,
washing up, cleaning the tent and my uniform, or
running about as a scout searching for information,
to shout rowdy songs in company with a couple of
thousand other spirits as healthy and care-free as
oneself, to gossip in the lines as the light gradually
dwindles away at night, and last of all to be sung
to sleep by the bugle's "last post" and "lights out,"
in short to live as man should live, in a sort of half-savage,
wholly healthy way like this is one delirious
dream. I loved every minute of it. Would that it
could have continued for a hundred instead of ten
days. The boys in my tent treated me exactly as
one of themselves. I was ordered about by my
section commander just like any other private; in
fact, I was privileged enough to be taken by everybody
just as a private, as if there were no Radchester
and this was all. It was just one glorious "rag":
the fight for food and drink as orderly of the day,
the hustle to get everything cleared up in time for
parade, the deadly funk lest one's buttons should
not pass muster at the inspection, the fear lest one
should do the wrong thing in close order drill on
parade, and so bring ridicule down on the school or
oneself from the tyrannical sergeants who bullied us
into shape, everything was thoroughly good and
I loved it.
It is very quiet and tame at Chagford after that
strenuous time, but I have never before realized how
precious a thing a hot bath was, or clean sheets and
a comfortable bed, and entire liberty with regard to
the way in which one spends one's day. Chagford is
becoming my home, my refuge from the world.
Betty and Thomasin even came as far as Moretonhampstead
in the motor-bus to meet me. I could
have hugged them both for this. They were disappointed
not to see Illingworth and it was hard to
account for his absence. I said that he had gone to
Switzerland to complete his education. I miss him
even more here than I did at school. We sang all
the old songs to-night and I read some more stories
out of "The Arabian Nights." It is hard to imagine
that three months have passed since I was last here.
The village, they tell me, is crowded: all the summer
visitors are now here. I don't like to hear that—I
am jealous of my find. I don't like hordes of
Londoners prying into my favourite nooks. I shall
find banana-skins and orange-pips on the Wallabrook
to-morrow, and probably the way to Cranmere will
be indicated by a long succession of paper bags and
bits of discarded bun.
I wish I could describe the fascination of the moor.
As soon as I got to Exeter I saw the blue hills in the
distance with their quaint, craggy tors, and my heart
leaped within me. I wanted to get out of the train
and run to greet them. By the time that we had
climbed out of Newton to Bovey I was racing from
side to side of the carriage to glut my eyes with the
rich sights which met my eye wherever I looked, the
white-washed cottages, the prosperous farms, the
rookeries, the rock-strewn streams, the thick woods,
the riot of many-coloured flowers, the red loam and
real green fields—how different these from the poor
parched pastures of Radchester; the square squat
church towers, the tapering spires, the big mansions
of the squirearchy, the slow plodding farm labourers
in the winding lanes, the myriad animals squatting,
running, flying, chasing and being chased; everything
spoke to me of home and then at last at Moretonhampstead
to be met by such dear creatures as
Betty and Thomasin: my cup of happiness was
indeed full.
August 21, 1910
I am to go back to Chagford as soon as I have
finished my military training here in order to coach
young Willoughby (whose brother was at New College
with me last year) for Woolwich. He said that he
didn't mind where he went and so he fell in at once
with my suggestion of Chagford. I am not altogether
liking life in barracks after my wild and free week at
Chagford. There I got up when I liked, ordered
what I liked for meals, was waited on hand and foot
by Betty and Thomasin, lazed by the side of the
Teign and bathed at frequent intervals in a deep pool
which nobody knew of, far from all inquisitive eyes,
and trapesed about the moor to my heart's content
every day. I took a heap of books but except in the
kitchen at nights, when I read aloud, I never had any
temptation to open them. After the strenuous life
of camp I was only too glad of the opportunity to
meander and gossip. Life seems to move very
slowly in these Devon villages. No one seems to
have been married or to have died since I was last
here: the same girls serve in the same shops, the
same men occupy the same seats in the bar parlour
at "The Half-Moon" and "The Goat and Boy";
the only change is the influx of visitors attired in
immaculate flannels, who get excited because their
copy of the Times "was not sent up at the usual
time to-day."
Thank Heaven, I've only got to endure ten days
more of this: I am not overfond of the officers. They
resent my presence, I think, because I am not a pukka
soldier: I never could be—I have not O'Connor's
temperament. There is such an amazing amount of
ritual and ceremony about the mess. There's not
much to do except to drink and read the papers,
and "get up" the parts of the "rifle," which bore me.
The Sergeant-Major has taken me under his wing
and given me tips preparatory to my exam., but
I'm not so grateful as I ought to be. Every morning
I go out on first parade, usually in a parlous funk
about my clothes. Do I wear a sword or not?
Whom exactly am I expected to salute? What are
my duties? Everything is hazy: there is nothing
definite laid down and frequently I loiter about
all the morning only to find that I am not wanted.
Most of the senior officers seem to spend their time
filling up papers in the orderly room. In the afternoons
they go off and play tennis or fish, and I am
left to my own devices until dinner, which meal
I am expected to attend. I have explored the city,
which is an attractive one. The inhabitants are
sleepy, but extraordinarily healthy-looking and
rubicund of hue: the girls almost uncannily pretty.
Betty and Thomasin came in from Chagford for
the day yesterday at my invitation and I took them
out to lunch and tea, and we had a rare good time
together. They are very anxious for my release and
complain that Fernworthy View is very dull without
me. Whether that be true or no, all blessings be
upon their sweet heads for saying so.
I have had letters from heaps of Radcastrians who
were in camp with me, declaring that they find home
very slow and boring after the ecstatic days in camp.
September 15, 1910
I passed my exam. all right at Exeter and very
glad I was to shake the dust of the barracks square
from my feet and once more to get back to my
beloved Chagford.
Willoughby is a Wykehamist, who is trying to
get into "The Shop" in November. His mathematics
are sound but his English is lamentable.
He seems to have read nothing except, quaintly
enough, Norwegian sagas: he is always quoting
"Burnt Njal." I find him excellent company:
and he has ravished the hearts of most of the girls
who are staying here. It is much gayer than it was
when I was last here; we have had three gorgeous
dances. I wish I did not feel such a fool at these
shows. Radchester has unfitted me for all these
society gatherings. I feel abominably out of it;
it is so long since I used to dance regularly. I get
in a paralytic fear lest I should tread on my partners'
toes. I imagine that I am wooden, gawky and stiff,
in spite of my partner's eulogies on my ease and
lightness.
We play tennis, golf and cricket a good deal and
even got up some amateur theatricals, in which
I took the part of Myngs in a Pepys play. These
people are as different as possible from the north-country
manufacturers. None of them have much
money, but they all possess honoured names and an
intense pride of birth: Cruwys, Polwhele, Chichester,
Acland, Trefusis, or Champernowne. I wish we
boasted such names at Radchester. They are all
exceedingly kind to me. I feel thoroughly happy
and at ease when I am gossiping with the villagers
or running about on the moor with Willoughby, who
is very slack about walking, and always wants to hire a
car; he has heaps of money and is certainly lavish with
it. He flirts outrageously with all the girls he comes
across, but he is healthy and altogether lovable.
We work all the mornings and sometimes at night.
I don't think there is much doubt about his getting in.
He is beginning to take quite an interest in his
English work and constantly bewails the fact that
he never discovered at school what a delightful
subject it is. He is interested in all sides of life
and like Illingworth is afraid of nothing. If he wants
to get into conversation with any one he just does it,
whereas, however much I wanted to, I should always
hold back through fear, what of I don't quite know.
I have tried to set down on paper exactly how
this country affects me, but I cannot do it. I envy
Eden Phillpotts and Trevena more than I can say.
I look for romance in the faces of the passers-by and
try to weave stories about the villagers but they all
fail to materialize. I cannot make any of them live
in my pages; they are all dolls. I haven't really
been taught to observe properly. Willoughby comes
back from a garden-party and can conjure up an
exact picture of all the old frumps, the parsons, the
retired civilians, their lovely daughters ... every one.
He knows the colour of their eyes and hair, peculiarities
of their hands and bodies, the material of
which their clothes are made, together with their
colour and shape.
I talk to a girl for an hour, find her captivating,
come home, essay to describe her and fail entirely.
I can't even remember whether she is dark or fair,
what sort of frock she wore, what was the colour of
her eyes, or whether her features are regular or not.
I suppose I don't look at people enough. I simply
daren't. I can't scrutinize: I wish I could overcome
this bashfulness. All the time I keep on thinking
what a fool all these people must imagine me to be.
But all the same there are one or two types here
who interest me a good deal. The captain of the
cricket team is a retired colonel of an Indian regiment,
an old M.C.C. man who lives for the game and curses
us roundly when we fail to come up to his expectations.
When we win he praises us extravagantly,
when we lose his language becomes positively
Oriental. He never misses an opportunity of net-practice
and requires us to be equally keen. His one
aim in life is to go through a season without losing
a single match. In August he always invites the
most famous cricketers he knows to come and stay
with him, but they do not always come off on these
tricky wickets and he gets much more furious with
them if they fail than he does with us.
The doctor is another good type: he is very
handsome and beloved of every one. He bears his
honours lightly so long as every one gives in to him,
but he sulks like any two-year-old child if he is
crossed in any way. He likes to keep himself
surrounded by pretty girls and as there is no dearth
of them he has a good time.
One of the best points about Chagford is the way
in which every one collects at different houses without
any special invitation. I find that the Chagford
people have done me no end of good. They've
laughed me out of a good deal of my awkwardness.
Though I am much slower at making friends than
Willoughby, I have ceased to regard all mankind as
hostile to me.
The parson here has become a great pal of mine.
He is young, extraordinarily well-read, athletic, and
madly keen about his work. It is a treat, by way of
a change, to leave the roysterers and sit smoking in
his study and talk about books and education and
social problems. His life is full to the brim with that
happiness which comes from service. It seems to me
an ideal existence to try to keep the vision splendid
before the eyes of these moor-folk, to comfort them
in their distress.... I have often thought of taking
Orders. I don't quite know what keeps me back.
I can conceive no finer life than that led by the
preacher. Of all men in history I think I should
like to have been John Wesley. At home nothing
delights me so much as taking my father's Bible
Classes or preaching to his Sunday afternoon congregations
from the lectern. I've read the Thirty-nine
Articles again lately: I don't like the thought of
swearing my allegiance to them, but there are heaps
of parsons who do excellent work without regarding
a great many of them. I like visiting the cottagers
and for the most part they seem to like me. I know
that at home they all expect me "to go into the
Church," as they call it, in the end. The difficulty
is about the call. Is the Church my vocation?
One thing I would not do and that is to take Orders
solely with a view to preferment at school.... No,
I could not become a parson unless I felt a clear call
and it is that call that I am so uncertain of. I don't
like separating myself from my fellow-men by
wearing a sombre garb. I believe that it is possible
to fulfil one's life-mission quite as well by remaining
among the laity. Certainly points of ecclesiastical
etiquette give rise to no wild enthusiasms or hatred in
my breast. I was educated as a High Churchman
and I like incense and vestments, good music and
ritual, but I am quite happy with the Evangelicals.
I could never get so tempestuously wrathful about
minor points of doctrine as that flamboyant, truculent
paper that represents the Catholic Anglican party
does. I attend Wesleyan chapels and Roman Catholic
churches and from all of them I derive some
measure of comfort. I have been reading the lessons
in church here for the last few Sundays.
Willoughby always laughs at my church-going;
like most of the visitors he never enters a place of
worship. I see no reason why any man should unless
he feels the need of it. I do. He doesn't, and
there's an end of it. The psalms and collects and
hymns uplift me and the sermons I look forward to
more than anything in the week. There is always
some strain of philosophy in sermons which appeals
to me. I certainly dislike chapel at school, solely
because it is compulsory. The sermons, too, there
are curiously uneven. Most of the parsons on the
staff are good, conscientious Christians, but some are
devoted to dogma and others to moral conduct, and
they tend to separate these two features of religion
absolutely, which I am certain is a mistake.
It is like our Divinity lessons: one has to test
whether a boy has done his preparation by asking all
sorts of silly questions, while all the time one is longing
to preach, to point out the inspiration, to expound
the Bible as a complete guide to life. It is very
difficult to reconcile the two. My best Divinity
scholars are certainly my least reliable boys as regards
Christian practice.
I wish I knew where the solution lies. I am
tempted always to let the exact knowledge go and
preach from a text whenever I go in to class. The
object of education is to fit a boy for life, so that he
may learn to conduct himself honourably and valiantly
wherever he goes. Does our present system
succeed in doing this? If not, it is a very serious
shortcoming. What we want is much more Christian
doctrine taught—it ought to pervade every lesson.
There is still far too great a tendency to regard
Sundays, chapels, and the Divinity lessons as something
quite outside the ordinary things of life: boys
are not made to perceive that their whole life is a
religion and that where there is no religion there is
no life, and that to try to live according to one code
of ethics on Sundays and an entirely opposite one
all the rest of the week is simply to kill either the
spiritual or the material.
During these holidays I have devised several new
schemes for next term: I don't know how many of
them I shall bring to fruition. I've been reading a
good many books on school life lately, but they all
seem to me to lack something, I don't quite know
what it is. Most novelists at one time or another
try their hand at a Public School novel—but I expect
that the next generation will smile at our present
efforts, just as we do at "Eric, or Little by Little."
H. A. Vachell in "The Hill" wrote a most readable
novel and certainly portrayed that amazingly sentimental
side that is really very prominent in the
human boy. He hates and loves whole-heartedly.
Other men and boys become the whitest of heroes
and the blackest of villains in his eyes. But beyond
this there was nothing of truth to life in what was an
exceedingly successful book.
Arnold Lunn in his counterblast to this, "The
Harrovians," dwelt too distinctly on the reverse side
of the picture, on the more drab side of life at school.
He is certainly truer in his descriptions but somehow
he missed the soul: "The Harrovians" and "The
Hill" are both like Academy pictures.
I don't know if the real Public School novel will
ever be written: I don't quite know if it can. In
the first place, to make it both readable and true,
you must take an exceptional boy like Denis Yorke
in St. John Lucas's "The First Round," or those
immortal scamps in "Stalky and Co."
The average boy's life is too humdrum to make
material for a book: of course a good journalist could
make an excellent chapter out of an account of a
house or school match. Most novelists are quite bad
at this journeyman sort of writing. Modern writers
are trying different tactics. The popular way at
present is to focus the reader's attention on Common
Room. Boys are dull compared with men; their
conversations inept; all the normal plots round
which novels spin i.e. love-making, are out of place
in a boy's life, so clever Hugh Walpole in "Mr.
Perrin and Mr. Traill" has approached nearer than
any one else in presenting at once a readable, exciting
and true picture of a certain sort of school. Certainly
there are men on the Radchester staff who might
have walked straight out of the pages of this remarkable
novel. Anything truer than that sordid, lurid
picture of the petty jealousies that exist between
grown man and man at a school has never been written.
"But surely," said the parson here to me the other
night, while we were discussing this, "no two cultivated
men of the world would be at daggers drawn
simply over a ridiculous umbrella."
"That's just the hideousness of it all," I replied.
"Men do behave in that incomprehensible way at
schools. They are like naughty children: you'd
never believe that they are graduates, picked men,
both intellectually and physically. You'd never
believe how spiteful and inhuman men can be to
one another until you've lived with them in a school.
I suppose we see too much of one another. I cannot
believe that all schools are like Radchester, but
certainly Hugh Walpole must have suffered at one
not unlike it."
I have had a great many talks about education
with the parson while I have been here: he is very
keen on raising the age-limit to sixteen in elementary
schools. At present he says that the education they
get is of no use to them. There are heaps of boys
and girls of eighteen and nineteen in Chagford who
can neither read nor write, although they were taught
to do both when they were children: as soon as they
go on to the farms they find that these accomplishments
are not marketable, and so they forget them
in an incredibly short space of time. Apparently,
too, the standard of morality in village life is deplorably
low. When the youths attend church it is,
only too frequently, so that they may ogle the girls:
the church makes a good rendezvous. Neither
drunkenness nor immorality have decreased with the
spread of education, nor are the people any more
thrifty or ambitious.
The farmers are as ignorant as they were before the
Corn Laws were repealed. Altogether he draws a
lurid, hopeless picture of the country yokel.
There must be at bottom a wonderfully fine instinct
at the heart of every Englishman for, however bad
the system of education may be, and that it is bad
from the highest to lowest I am becoming surer
every day, he still makes a good thing of life.
The Public School product is a fine specimen of a
man: he is strictly honest in all his dealings, he will
never turn his back on a "pal," he is capable of
handling men with sympathy, he can adapt himself
at short shrift to almost any circumstance: if only
he could be prevailed upon not to despise learning
and beauty no other type of man could touch him.
I have lately been trying to understand more of
foreign countries through their fiction, particularly
Russia. Years ago I read and loved Tolstoi's
"Resurrection"; last week I tried to get through
"Anna Karenin" and failed. I can't explain quite
why, unless it is that Dostoievsky has supplanted him
in my estimation. I never read any one in the least
like Dostoievsky. I think "The Brothers Karamazov"
is the greatest novel I ever read. No man rises from
it with exactly the same outlook on life which he had
when he sat down to it. Dostoievsky seemed in
that book to be on the point of discovering all that
hurt and puzzled us about the world: every now and
then we seem to get a glimpse millions of years ahead
into a timeless, limitless space where truth and beauty
at last prevail, and misery and suffering are no more.
Everything that he writes seems to turn on this word
"suffering." Light, not salvation, comes to man
through his capacity to suffer. The characters in
"The Brothers Karamazov" are not human beings
at all: they are disembodied spirits with an amazing
power of self-analysis: this gloomy introspectiveness
is the chief feature of all Russian writing. They
seem to know so much more than we do about the
actions of the human heart: their sympathy with
humanity is deeper than ours: we are too apt to
dismiss from our thoughts what we do not immediately
understand—the more complex a man's
character the more we shun him, but the Russian
seeks to disintegrate it and account for his contradictory
traits: how Iago must appeal to the Russian
mind. They appear to be a nation of Hamlets.
Those that are not are Lucifers.
I am not pleased with the German mind. There is,
in their plays at any rate, an awful playing with fire.
Nietzsche paralyses me—this will to power would be
frightful if it were ever given full play. The present
effect of their refined system of education seems to
drive the flower of their youth to suicide. English
stupidity is better than German kultur if that is
what love of learning leads to. There must be some
middle way.
It is a relief to turn to American fiction. All the
world seems to be passing through a stage of transition
much as it did in the days of the Romantic
Revival.
Then all Europe was bothered about the Brotherhood
of Man and the Return to Nature; nowadays
we are casting off all the conventions of our fathers
and pressing towards the rights of the individual to
be a law unto himself.
In "Jean Christophe" Romain Rolland seems to
be expressing on the Continent what Wells, Bennett,
J. D. Beresford, Gilbert Cannan and others are trying
to express here, that the young man of to-day is not
content to accept religion, or the codes of morality
or conduct which his father believed in and acted
upon. The new age asks the right to discover a fresh
religion for itself and to live according to the light of
its own reason. The hero of the modern novel, if
hero he can be called, is feckless and unsteady: like
Dostoievsky he is continually on the look-out for
what is round the corner. He prefers misery to
happiness, for out of intense misery and unhappiness
he learns to harden himself, in Hugh Walpole's words,
by this means alone can he come to real adequate
manhood and subdue fear and hypocrisy.
The most outstanding characteristic of the new
school of hero is his selfishness: he thinks of no one
but himself. It does not matter very much that he
should be unhappy: he deserves to be and he almost
seems to delight in being so, but unfortunately he
brings every one else with whom he comes into
contact into a like state—his womenfolk, his parents,
are left heart-broken while he continues on his wild
way, Mazeppa-like, riding rough-shod over old-established
prejudices, subverting the minds of the
young, overturning traditions and setting up new gods
only to desert them in their turn.
I certainly prefer this new generation to the decadents
of the nineties; at least we are spared artificiality,
idle philandering, and that delicate languor of
lilies and harping on vice as a desirable thing. Our
new heroes are never dirty-minded though they
frequently perform rotten things. If only they
would not think so much they might be quite decent
beings.
Unfortunately all these supermen lack the one great
essential of all true men, they have no glimmer of
humour in their composition. They are so deadly in
earnest to find out the meaning of life that they have
no time to turn aside and browse in the pastures
which Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Charles Lamb and
Dickens so enjoyed; the comic spirit seems to be
dead in us.
They leave jesting to the music-hall artiste—they
have no room for laughter in their scheme of existence.
This is where the great American short-story writer
scores so heavily. He is incurably romantic and yet
alive and alert: he is interested in all humanity and
like all sympathetic observers of erring mankind,
he can afford to laugh not at but with them at the
absurdity of things.
I find in J. M. Synge the best epitome of this age.
He has a superb intellect (most of the young writers
are prodigiously clever), his style is clear, simple,
forcible and exact, and he tears up all our old ideas
by the roots. In "The Playboy of the Western
World" he has offended his own people of Ireland
for all time. They cannot understand the universality
of the theme. He did not write his play to show how
excellent a thing it is to be a parricide, though incidentally
he does carry on the Shavian idea that sons
owe no duty to their parents—they did not ask to
be born. What he did set out to do was to show
how the feckless, unappreciated lout may realize
that he has a soul, and how easily he stands alone
without love of women or any other sentimental prop
when he has found it. Stanley Houghton is another
exponent of the twentieth-century philosophy.
"Hindle Wakes" merely shows that the new theories
of life have spread not only to the other sex, but to
mill-girls and shop-girls. Fanny was willing to spend
a week-end in the society of a man simply for enjoyment,
and refused to bind herself to him for the rest
of her life just to satisfy an effete convention. What
she wanted and meant to have was freedom: she
was well able to take care of herself; she was earning
a good wage and had become self-supporting. Her
parents might turn her out; she was not, on that
account, like the forsaken mistress of the nineties,
therefore bound to go on the streets. She could live
her life in her own way, beholden to no man.
We are passing through grave and strenuous times
and it is quite obvious that we shall have to adapt
ourselves to new conditions: "new truths make ancient
good uncouth."
We have come a long way from the sentimental,
the artificial, the Restoration attitude to life. In
the new age men and women are coming to work side
by side, are beginning to understand one another
better and do not contemplate seductions or marriage
whenever they meet.
What are our schools doing to prepare their pupils
for this new world? Nothing at all so far as I can see.
Masters do not trouble to read the very obvious signs
in the sky. At girls' schools I am told the same old
methods of stringent secrecy about everything that
matters are carried out. The girl of to-day leaves
school with an outlook on life formed on an incomplete
acquaintance with the world of Jane Austen. There
has been no gradual unfolding of the new ideas—what
an awakening lies before some of the wives of
the next generation. But boys are in no happier case.
They are being brought up to believe that they will
go out into a world exactly similar to that in which
their fathers lived. Theirs too will be a troublous
time before they learn the lesson. I don't quite see
how the problem is to be tackled. It is scarcely
possible to give readings from all the modern novelists
to schoolboys: the outspokenness of this new writing
is frightening even to adult minds.
What we want is more knowledge; the zeal of the
present day is for facts. We want the truth at all
costs: we don't mind how much it hurts. We are
not like the men who have to create a God if there
isn't one, we are able to bear anything except shams
and lies; we recognize one aristocracy only, the
aristocracy of intellect and truth.
As an honest man I feel that I ought to resign my
post at Radchester after reading these moderns,
because I am paid to go on retailing hypocritical
untruths to my boys. Having caught me out in one
falsification they will be suspicious of me altogether.
I wonder how much Illingworth and Jefferies already
look on me as a charlatan—but then, according to
my lights I was proclaiming my faith ... and now,
well I find it hard to put down how I stand with
regard to the new school of thought. After all, these
men are all experimentalists, they are in the position
of men who are testing the scaffolding of a house:
they say our edifice is insecure, that our props are
rotten, that the architects who built our house of life
were jerry-builders, but how do we know that these
men are any better? I am so afraid of offending the
susceptibilities of one of my charges that I dare tell
them nothing, but on the other hand, surely it were
better for them to be guided now than to be flung
without a guide into the maelstrom of conflicting
public opinion when they leave school.
If only some of my colleagues had read these new
writers it would be so much more helpful. But all
books since Dickens and Thackeray are taboo at
school as new-fangled and hence ephemeral. The
attitude to life of the mid-Victorians is the attitude
we ourselves are expected not only to adopt for
ourselves but to teach. No wonder we are looked
upon as hopeless old fogies by our boys as soon as
they leave us.
The old idea that fiction was written as Fielding
wrote it, solely for our amusement and not at all
for our instruction, appears still to prevail pretty well
everywhere, so that even the most omnivorous
readers here in Chagford do not take the new men
seriously; they think that they are trying to shock
and startle us but have no sort of propagandist
theory at the back of their minds. It is the same
with the theatre. People resent the thought that
they might learn something of value by listening to
a play: they go to the theatre to be amused, not to
be preached at, consequently they miss the point
of quite half the plays they see. They are very good
lessons for every one except ourselves, but we never
need correction.