DOG AND DUCK

Laurence Housman in Now and Then

The brief essay is a friendly form of literature; it enables the writer to say zestfully just what is in his mind to say, and no more. The moment his zest diminishes he can leave off, and another day start fresh on a new subject. So, in small measure, it gives us the man, the natural everyday furnishings of his brain, the room he lives in, the mental paraphernalia with which his taste for life has surrounded him.

The brief essay is, therefore, a personal test of character. Its writer need not make you, or even wish to make you agree with his opinions, he may have that type of minority mind which prefers to annoy people; he may be unlovable, provocative, sceptical, superstitious—I could string you any number of unvirtuous qualities from which a good brief essay may be compounded—but he must be himself, he must be interesting, and he must have a point of view.

I have not the pleasure, or the pain, of Mr Machen’s personal acquaintance. I do not know whether I should like him; but I do know that he would interest me—that he is himself, and that he has a point of view. I think that often we should differ and sometimes quarrel, that his point of view occasionally invites as much ridicule as it casts on others, that it is now and then inconsistent. But the inconsistency is all of a piece with the character: he has a mind with a certain focus, outside which the view becomes blurred, perhaps a little distorted. It is the kind of mind which Mr Chesterton invented for himself, the better to attract attention to the good which God had given him: he has a mind credulous toward folk-lore and the past, incredulous toward modern history and science; but he does not explain why folk-lore should be believed and modern history rejected—beyond giving us a few instances where folk-lore has been proved true, and modern history proved false; as to which one need only say that the means for correcting modern history are more abundantly to hand than those for correcting folk-lore. He is a romantic, and has a romantic detestation for the impossibilities of Euclid, whom he therefore dismisses as unworthy of the wise man’s consideration. But I could be just as romantic in favour of Euclid, on those very same grounds. It is only by giving it impossible things to believe that Euclid provides the human brain with foothold for clear logical thinking. It is only, as Mr Chesterton might say, by accepting the impossible that man can attain to true belief. It is on those lines that theology has provided us with a spiritualised Euclid of its own: and only by believing in its impossibilities shall we ever get to eternal life—which in itself is to the human mind an impossible condition, unless miserable science, through the theories of Einstein, is now going to help us to accept it. It is quite possible to be as romantic in one’s acceptance of science as Mr Machen is in his acceptance of folk-lore.

But it is when Mr Machen is sceptical of human nature’s ability to recapture the good it has let go that I quarrel with him most. As surely as I could train an intelligent child to be superstitious about going under a ladder, so surely could I train it to enjoy the bracing and rhythmical exercise of the Morris dance, on which Mr Machen throws a black and a wicked doubt for which I do not readily forgive him.

This only means that in his twenty-eight essays, his Dogs and his Ducks, Mr Machen has not always scored a complete “Duck,” and brought his point home with conviction. For the meaning of which I refer the reader to the first essay, which gives the book its unexplained title. But every one of them is interesting and attractive, even when provocative.

New York Herald

Some twenty-odd little essays by Arthur Machen have been gathered into a book carrying the title of the first essay, “Dog and Duck” (Knopf), on its cover. This singular combination refers to an ancient game that is still played in a Georgian setting in London, but before Machen gets through describing the game he takes the reader through a famous criminal trial of the eighteenth century. Carl Van Vechten says for the publisher that these essays are “in the Dickens manner,” but we found little of that savour in “Roast Goose” or “Martinmas” or “Christmas Mumming,” just the kind of subjects Dickens wrote about but in a so different manner and spirit. But, on their own merits, they make very agreeable reading.

Boston Transcript

This collection of rambling essays represents a late phase of its author’s work and presents an interesting contrast with some of the earlier books recently reissued as the result of the growth of a Machen cult in this country. The newer Machen is revealed as a less eccentric, healthier, but not less sensitive writer than the old. There is in “Dog and Duck” and its companion essays little trace of the author’s former prepossession with things occult and ghastly, while his more pleasing qualities as a writer are fairly well represented. When Machen writes with a gentle regret for things past or passing, such as old sports and old enjoyments, or the disappearance of the vulgar Valentine and the “fogs of yesteryear,” he is altogether charming.

A number of the essays have a satiric tinge, often sharply pointed and telling, as in “Simnel Cakes,” wherein Machen pays his respects to the professional etymologist, or “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” with its observations of the development of the popular idea of a fairy. Elsewhere there is a good deal of matter that is trite and obvious, as when the author demonstrates that Shakespeare was a practical man of the theatre rather than a university “don,” or that the Victorians were not strait-laced on all occasions. Briefly, in a number of the essays one perceives the journalist writing to fill space. There is much in the book that will not enhance Machen’s reputation as a man of letters.

The Manchester Guardian

The suspicion which assails the reader who is familiar with the present state of the “first edition” market as he takes up Mr Machen’s new book of essays is very natural. In a note on the dust-cover is the announcement that the issue is limited to less than a thousand copies, and that the author has autographed a considerable number of them. This, taken in conjunction with the news from America that at the auction of Mr John Quinn’s library two first-edition copies of Mr Machen’s earlier works were sold at impressive figures, irresistibly suggests that one, at all events, of the immediate purposes of “Dog and Duck” has been to “catch the market.” If this be so, then the modern craze for book-collecting has for once been useful. The essays are selected from the author’s most recent journalism, and the reader will have rich enjoyment in them. A characteristic corn-cob atmosphere is created in the very first pages, describing with a quiet and mellow humour the ancient pastime of “Dog and Duck,” which is so simple, we are assured, that only a soft india-rubber ball and a garden surrounded by an unbroken path are needed; yet it takes a lifetime for the player to become an expert. Dissertations on valentines, simnel cakes, old port, the only good way to make chocolate, fogs in November, and Shakespeare, Bacon, collops, and astrology follow handsomely; and through them all we have ample evidence that Mr Machen has kept intact his creed that, in his own language, “it is the love of splendour—the splendid robe, the splendid word, the splendid picture—which constitutes the vital distinction between man and brute. Many beasts have reason, the faculty of using means for a certain end. But only man has art, which is the love of splendour and the desire to create it.” The wistful note introduced a year since into his “Things Near and Far” develops occasionally into a page-long phase of sighing ostentatiously and regretting angrily, for he cannot help remembering the glories of his own youth in London that are no more.—T. M.

The Times Literary Supplement.

About most of the essays in Mr Arthur Machen’s “Dog and Duck”: A London Calendar et cetera, there is a graceful tenuousness which compares interestingly with the fiercer note of the other few. While he is gravely and reflectively tuning his discursive pen to the changing seasons of the year, he is grave, tenderly reminiscent, a trifle elderly. He discourses of the New Year and French influence in Scotland, of bygone valentines in February, of March and simnel cakes, of May and the decay of joy, of July and why young men row races at Henley, of roast goose in September, of first fogs in October, and so forth. These essays, with the charming account of the (we suspect) apocryphal game of Dog and Duck which constitutes the first, are nearly all in the wistful note which is characteristic of this author.

Mr Machen excels at the picturesque-peevish, when he complains that the joys which he knew in his youth are no more, that joy has vanished like the fogs and horse-omnibuses, that the race of Englishmen has perished to give place to a generation of inmates for a convalescent home. Then all of a sudden he flares up, and the hidden reason seems to be that some misguided doctor once tried to put Mr Machen on a diet: at all events the flare-up takes the form of violent diatribes against any interference in the name of science, health, or intelligence with the freedom of the stomach to indulge in wine, beer, stout, roast beef, kidneys, oysters, and other fleshly delights. At one moment he attacks poor old superseded Euclid under this inspiration, at another he satirically concludes that on scientific principles we had all better spend Christmas in gaol; and he will fire off a broadside at any moment against those who object to self-indulgence, who disbelieve in a primitive roystering Shakespeare, and who show any tendency to explain away anything at all. They hate life, says Mr Machen; but apparently he himself confesses to finding the actualities of life repulsive. One must get away from them somehow, then; young men do it by rowing themselves blue in the face, pure scientists by turning to abstractions, applied scientists by interfering with old ideas, and Mr Machen by imagining that he knew what Merrie England was like, somewhere about Caerleon in the day of Chaucer. Now he need never be dull, for he can revile the present in musical language.

H. P. Collins in The Outlook

Mr Machen has the one great requisite of a popular journalist: he holds the reader’s attention from the beginning to the end of his article, and holds it no longer. He is never dull; and he is never profound. To adopt a simile from the ingenious old game of “Dog and Duck” into which he initiates us: he brings his ball to rest between the chases without going to earth in “grounds” or “green,” scores five points or maybe ten—he never rounds the last corner and attains the Duck for a score of forty.

Mr Machen has a spirited and genial manner; but it does not proceed from a really robust and consistent personality. He is akin to Mr Chesterton in his gusto, his love of good fare, and his faith in medievalism and Merrie England; but he has none of Mr Chesterton’s wit and intellectual vigour. In “Far Off Things” the author’s mystical attitude brought him through in a qualified triumph; it has thinned unawares to sentimentality in these laments for valentines in February, Victorian bonhomie, and the fogs of yesteryear. He is vexed with Hewlett for his dislike of “the universe in general and human nature in particular”! It is nothing to the cheery tribe of Machen that there are and always have been those to whom history is not a pretty game, those who cannot afford milk-punch and those who cannot stomach roast goose and sage-and-onion. What Mr Machen, for all his gestures, cannot stomach is reality. He lives in a world not of experience but of legend, where it will please many to visit him.

It is with relief, though as must needs be a touch of sadness, that one turns from Mr Machen to these posthumous essays of Maurice Hewlett. From rose-coloured and enervating mists we pass to the keen air of Wiltshire and the keener stimulus of the voice that is now still.

Richard Church in The Nation and Athenæum

Mr Machen is a good journalist because he writes clearly and simply, and, for some reason or other, makes us finish reading his articles. We may think that his god, Commonsense, is often an uncommon fool, a creature of shallow thought and indolent prejudice, but we read on and enjoy the author’s company—often with a yawn. It is boring to hear that the world of to-day is degenerate, that the spirit of joy left England somewhere about the time of Elizabeth; for such talk recalls the conversation of the clubs, and the bores who always buttonhole us when we are particularly depressed by the weather or the political situation. Mr Machen is inclined to overdo this old “stunt” of the golden days of thirty, forty, fifty, five hundred years ago. In one article after another it appears, like the conventional “sea-runs” in the Norse and Keltic folktales. Our exasperation may be due to the fact that these articles are read one after another in the book, whereas they should be, and originally were, scattered in the periodical Press. Mr Machen has a hearty way with him, and a humorous and observant eye which informs a mind never weary of the pageant of passing events. In his description of old scenes and games, of personal adventures, of the flotsam and jetsam incidental to the daily life of his neighbour—and all the world is his neighbour—he is delightful and Dickensian. When he dogmatises he tends to become “lowbrow,” which is equally as unpleasant as being “highbrow.” The publisher is to be congratulated on the perfect production of this book.