Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small]
[graphic]

came to seem to his neighbors a unique, amazing episode.

A GREEN MOUNTAIN-A PAINTING BY JOHN LILLIE

Not to him, however. No, although he loved his craft and reveled in the beauty of the fine old houses which he was asked to reclaim, he never forgot the greater joy of the creative impulse he had known. When such an impulse once grips a man it never lets him go. Little by little, during the long winters and when at times work was slack in the summer, John Lillie accumulated a store of canvases which he kept in his hen-house and concerning which he mostly held his peace. Now and then, when the thrill of catching some particularly lovely effect was unendurable, he tried to share it with a neighbor; but the neighbor did not always understand -as why, indeed, should he? So he said less and less and went his hidden way. If it had not been for the coming of yet another landscape painter to the valley last autumn, the hen-house might have kept its secrets.

But when the landscape painter did come! He was a temperamental soul, and, as the vivid phrase runs, he went right up in the air. "Why, this is a genius you have in your midst!" he scolded the valley folk. "What do you mean by asking him to come and mend your kitchen sinks? Kitchen sinks! John Lillie! I tell you, we're none of us fit to wash his brushes for him."

Of course it was extravagant, but it was immensely effective in waking the valley up, and soon John Lillie's name was on every lip and all the lingering summer people who cared anything about pictures were making pilgrimages to the Lillie hen-house. John Lillie received them cordially, not in the least bewildered by the sudden limelight which had been turned on him, not too much elated, but very truly pleased and gratified. The artist paints his pictures for himself and something outside him which we may as well call God; but the sympathetic approval of his fellow-man is needed to make the trinity complete. On the outer wall of the hen-house, against the soft gray background of unpainted boards, he slipped canvas after canvas into a studio frame which had been given to him. In the clear autumn light the paintings showed to great advantage.

They were strange pictures. On general principles, one would have expected an untrained painter to see and reproduce things photographically. But Lillie's Dorset was not at all the Dorset of his neighbors and of most of the summer people. It was a big, elemental world, simple, rather bare, sometimes austere, sometimes instinct with a poignant love liness, always high and remote and full of romance. In the significant words of the landscape painter who had un

earthed them, his pictures had "the unreality of all great things." One of the canvases held nothing but the golden crest of a big, bare autumn hill against a gray sky. Not a bush, not even a rock broke the noble curve, and only a faint rift in one corner broke the monotony of the sky. Yet it was a picture which one could ponder and search indefinitely. Another showed a white winter world, blurred and indistinct, with a thin line of wind-blown trees staggering across it. All the pictures had mystery and imagination. They were amazing productions on the part of a countryman whose only training had lain along the precise and accurate lines of carpentry.

Well, what to do about them and him? That was the question. If a genius had been discovered, he must be treated worthily. The visiting landscape painter I went back to New York and talked so convincingly to one of the Fifth Avenue picture dealers that the latter sent for a number of Lillie's canvases and kept five of them to show his patrons. The rest were taken by a young lawyer and his wife who lived in the East Seventies, and who set aside one of their big rooms to serve as a gallery during the season. Three of these pictures were sold. And now a new crop of them is on exhibition in their home valley.

What will come of it all? That is a

further important question, and one that cannot be answered. The ways and the ends of destinies like John Lillie's are beyond human fathoming. But, whatever may or may not happen, this is

sure: that the inhabitants of Dorset have been stirred and roused by a gust of that wayward spirit that bloweth where it listeth; whence it comes and whither it goes no man can tell. Like

John Keats, like Walt Whitman, John Lillie has been singled out for a mysterious, unprepared visitation, and all who know him are the more thoughtful and reverent for the experience.

THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM WILLIAMSTOWN BY ANDREW TEN EYCK

PROMINENT New York lawyer, much preoccupied in the duties of his profession, was my guest over a week-end. He knew nothing of the Institute of Politics except what he had read in the newspapers, and his impressions, it is fair to say, were those of the casual reader of the newspapers. He lived through the intimate life of this institution one day. He is not ordinarily a silent man, but he was so here. I feared the inappropriateness of my hospitality, but in the last few minutes before he left I was permitted to listen to his impressions. "I have enjoyed every minute of this week-end. It has been like a sudden trip abroad. The views I have heard have been so diverse, so sanely practical, and yet so idealistic. I didn't think that any body of folks like this could be assembled anywhere. It is a compliment to America that such an institution has been brought into exist ence."

My New York lawyer represents, I should say, the average intelligent American, much too absorbed, as this gentleman himself stated, in the question of making a living to give close study to international affairs. The Institute of Politics, seen through the eyes of such men, has been worth while. It has been pre-eminently a place of open discussion. It has fostered no programme and passed no resolutions.

When I met Lionel Curtis in New York about a month ago, he said to me that he was attracted to Williamstown because it was a place, as he understood it, where people didn't agree with each other. The trouble with the world, Mr. Curtis believed, was that we have been holding conferences, like those at Lake Mohonk, with people who agree with us, and we keep on agreeing, and all that is accomplished eventually is a sort of mutual admiration. Mr. Curtis appears now to have been a prophet.

It has not been easy for Dr. Garfield to adhere to his idea of maintaining the freedom from commitment. The test has come often. His controlling idea, and circumstances, have saved the day. There has been no Round Table conference where the views have been unanimous.

In general, the British lecturers, Lionel Curtis and Philip Kerr, created the keenest interest. Mr. Kerr talked about the prevention of war in the spirit of both a realist and an idealist, and put

forth a plan for world organization along the lines of the Government of the United States and what he termed the British Commonwealth, whose sanction would be backed by force. Although he was always careful to preface his speeches with the explanation that he spoke only for himself, it was never quite possible for his audience to forget that he was formerly the alter ego of a man who has remained in power while the other war Premiers and Presidents have been superseded and repudiated by the people. Therefore whatever Mr. Kerr had to say about the causes of the war, the Peace Conference, or a new world order took on an unconscious tinge of the reflected glory of his chief, and was interesting because of that impression as well as because of the inherent sense of the matter itself.

All through the Institute no issue cropped up more than the one which Philip Kerr stated in the following words: "It is an extraordinarily difficult problem how America is to play her part as a world power in helping to guide world policies while avoiding entanglements with the purely internal problems of Europe."

The Round Tables on the rehabilitation of Europe and Interallied debts were miniature lecture halls largely because of the clash between the New York bankers and such men as Oscar T. Crosby, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. This issue came forward again and again, and I do not think opinion has been much clarified by the discussions. One had ordinarily expected that there would be tense arguments about the policy of the American Government as to the League of Nations in the Round Tables, but, so far as could be gathered, such discussions have figured little in the Institute of Politics. In one Round Table the League was discussed, but it was concerned exclusively with those matters over which the League has some supervision and is functioning, namely, the mandated territories, the Saar Basin, and the Free City of Dantsic. The discussion of international relations, so far as the United States Government was concerned, dealt solely with the system of diplomatic intercourse and individual representations to the different Governments.

I think the Institute of Politics, if it can be said any clear opinion was developed on the subject, clearly foresees

that the future world problems lie in the Pacific. Lionel Curtis said: "The relations of the people of Europe and America to those of Asia and Africa are the ultimate problem of politics. The real question is how to bring those relations within the realm of law properly so called." Then, in stating the principle, Mr. Curtis said: "The problem you have to face in the Philippines and we have to face in India is how much scope you can give the people to hurt themselves without destroying the fabric of government altogether."

It was singular to note that the British delegation and a great many Englishmen and Canadians who came here to visit the Institute constantly used the word "Commonwealth" instead of "Empire" in speaking of the British Empire.

There is unquestionably a group of young Englishmen of the General Smuts school who are anxious to see such a transformation in the relationship of the various Dominions to the mother country. It was even suggested that this group would like to invite America in some. future day to join, perhaps not the British, but an English-speaking commonwealth of nations on the principle of a common language and a system of common law which would prevail universally in such an organization.

The chief value of the Round Table discussions was not so much in the specific thing said or discussed as it was in showing how an idea takes root in a gathering like this. People are rapidly revising their opinions, for instance, about war. Philip Kerr's explanation of the Kaiser's part in causing the war was satisfactory. Mr. Cravath's dictum that we could not afford to let Germany pay the full bill and that it should be reduced two-thirds is not far from the idea many hold who have studied the problem. The French view as put forward by M. Raymond Recouly, French journalist, and doubtless in the confidence of the French Foreign Office, who lectured at the Institute, seemed to show moderation. The thing which concerns us most is not that Germany in equity and right should pay the reparations which have been assessed, or even higher ones, but that the economic collapse which is imminent in Germany carries danger, especially to France, and in the long run would affect Great Britain and the United States.

Dr. Josef Redlich, former Minister of

[graphic][merged small]

Left to right: Lionel Curtis, Secretary of the Irish Peace Conference; Raymond Recouly, foreign editor of "Figaro" and "Le Temps;" the Hon. Philip H. Kerr, for four years confidential adviser of David Lloyd George; Dr. Harry A. Garfield, Chairman of the Institute and President of Williams College; the Hon. Manoel de Oliveira Lima, former Brazilian Ambassador to Great Britain; Dr. Rikitaro Fujisawa, Japanese political writer and professor in the University of Tokyo; Dr. Josef Redlich, Austrian jurist and former Minister of Finance

Finance in Austria, was a good reflector for the most part of the Austro-German view-point. His addresses were mostly historical, but in the Round Table discussions and in private talks one could gather what is on his mind.

In the last lecture Dr. Redlich urged America to return to the counsels of Europe. There should be a reinforced League of Nations, he said, with Ger many and America in it, a revision of the peace treaties in respect to reparations, a great Zollverein of the Central and near Eastern states formed, and a great European conference called to impose disarmament in all European states.

Dr. Redlich believes that the United States will not long escape the effects of the European collapse. "Tell your peo ple," he said, "to enjoy the summer while they can. No one wants to make history in the summer. The big things come in the crisp October weather, when statesmen come back from the mountains. This American boom cannot last long, and I am afraid you will soon feel the breakdown in Europe."

On our domestic problems the Austrian jurist preserved reticence, but he observed on one occasion that, in his opinion, the Democrats are not anxious to win this fall's election, for they, he thinks, would shoulder the critical re sponsibilities which are impossible of solution.

In general, the Institute of Politics possessed few of the distinguished characteristics that marked its first session. The public lecturers, with one or two exceptions, did not approach those of a year ago; on the other hand, the Round Tables in nearly every case functioned more successfully than a year ago. The interest of the different Round Table

leaders in the work of their associates took concrete expression by the organization of what is called the Super Round Table during the last two weeks. There every evening each leader in his turn would present a summary of what he had accomplished. Usually it did not end there, for nearly every formulation of so-called world policies would be challenged by his associates. As a concrete illustration of just how this Super Round Table functioned, I can do no better than to quote some of the propositions presented by President David P. Barrows, of the University of California

first, because they are an example of how some of the results of the Institute are achieved; and, second, because they concern the problems of the future.

The Government of the United States, following the evacuation of the Czechoslovak legions and the withdrawal of its own troops, is justified in insisting upon the evacuation by Japanese troops of all Russian territory.

The declared policy of the United States of considering Russian national rights and interests, jeopardized by the internal condition of Russia, as a trust to be guarded by all the nations in former alliance or association with whom Russia waged war against common enemies is a policy of moral strength and dignity and deserves the support of all friendly nations.

The continued occupation by Japanese troops of the Primorsk, the establishment of a civil Japanese régime in northern Sakhalin, and the appropriation of Russian mineral properties within these regions will continue to disturb the confidence of both Russians and Americans in the fair intentions of the Japanese Government.

The promise of future friendly and helpful relations between the Chinese,

Russian, Japanese, and American peoples lies in the full and prompt realization of the assurances given by Japan's representatives at the Washington Conference and in the consummation of the policy of withdrawal announced by the present Japanese Ministry.

I have been surprised to find people thinking of another titanic world struggle. In fact, I have talked with few who did not think it inevitable. Some have accentuated the present existing commercial rivalries of nations as being the slumbering flames. The naval and military group see those and have no confidence in avoiding them, and are arguing for us to keep our powder dry. Others would call an international conference to limit the danger of world-wide rival discriminations and recriminations among nations. Others still would pursue the lone game with a strong nationalistic arm. It has not been uncommon to hear an idealistic lecture one hour, and a Round Table conference at another hour virtually discrediting all the idealism that had been heard the hour before. One thing of large significance has been that the idealist left Williamstown encouraged with the vision he had been given, and the realist left with a fuller equipment of the facts and figures to carry on his battle for the increased prestige of his country as a world power. Still further, the practical idealist, who has my sympathy, goes away with both the vision and the facts to settle the issues in order to realize his vision.

Culbertson, Barrows, and Rogers were to me the real contributors to the Institute of Politics. I make this estimate because of the content of their contributions and because the happy solution of the issues they raised are the sine qua non of peaceful relationship of nations in the world, and these gentlemen see the need of a world conference to save us from the inevitable drift. Nationalistic tariff walls are bones of contention. The Far East is the arena of the future world struggle; Dr. Rikitaro Fujisawa himself stated the challenge. Our only hope is to appeal to the liberal forces of Japan, and to do so we must get news here and avoid the present difficulties of having a Jap orator throw a book on the wire when he doesn't like the news we are sending into the Far East. To avoid this, therefore, we must own our own cables, as does Great Britain, and develop a comprehensive system of world cable communications, which, as Mr. Rogers has shown, we have so far lamentably failed to do.

It is an exceedingly difficult task which Dr. Garfield has to perform in keeping the Institute of Politics away from the dangers which threaten its usefulness. He must unquestionably deny its platform to the propagandist. He must keep it uncommitted from dogmatic principles and from worshiping any angel. In my opinion, he has so far succeeded.

Williamstown. Massachusetts, August 23, 1922

Thonor done me by

HOUGH I greatly appreciated the honor done me by so distinguished a publication as The Outlook, when asking me to write a study of Lord Northcliffe, there were many reasons which inclined me to excuse myself from undertaking the task. I had known Lord Northcliffe for a quarter of a century, and at one time in my lifethat is, when both he and I were comparatively young men-we were on friendly, if not exactly on intimate, terms. We always differed a great deal in our outlook on public affairs, and indeed on things in general, and so found it difficult to lay our minds side by side as friends should. At the same time, I admired his push, energy, and great business qualities, and he, I think, liked as well as respected the "Spectator." It happened also that we were near neighbors in the country, and this propinquity made us see perhaps more of each other than we should if juxtaposition had not been an element in our acquaintance.

In later life we came to differ strongly on many questions. This, coupled with the fact that Lord Northcliffe gradually ceased to live much in Surrey, made us meet very little in the course of the last eight or nine years. Still our old acquaintanceship and the thought of the brilliant and eager young man whom I first got to know by a common interest in motor transport, and also the tragedy of his death-it was a cruel irony of fate which made his attempt to rest and restore his bodily and mental vigor the determinating cause of his illness-revived in me many kindly feelings towards the dead man. I should be inhuman if they had not. At the same time, my judgment told me in imperative terms that if I wrote upon Lord Northcliffe I must write the whole truth as I saw it and not partial and fragmentary glimpses. This again, my judgment told me, must lead to a critical attitude and to my saying things which one hesitates to say almost at the side of an open grave. I do not mean by this that I felt any necessity to say harsh things about Lord Northcliffe, but I knew that I could not indulge in the conventional eulogies, nor treat Lord Northcliffe from the point of view of a great man and a great jour nalist, as he has been treated so largely in the British and American press.

But, though these considerations inclined me strongly to say no more about Lord Northcliffe than I found it necessary to say in the "Spectator," reflection showed me that, after all, I ought to lay what I believe to be the facts before the American public. The reasons which brought about my final decision can easily be stated. The American public understand better than any other nation

BY J. ST. LOE STRACHEY

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

what is gained by, and what is involved in, the art of publicity. Therefore it is very important that they should not imagine that every one in England looks upon Lord Northcliffe as a competent and representative exponent of that deeply important art.

It would be a cause of serious misunderstanding on a vital matter if the wiser minds in America should come to think that we regarded Lord Northcliffe as the ideal newspaper proprietor, editor, and publicist. Yet if no voice were raised here in protest and no sincere attempt made to show what Lord Northcliffe really stood for, and what was the attitude of better-informed British public opinion in regard to him, they could hardly do anything else but take him at his face value, or, at any rate, at the value apparently set on him by the British press. To judge by the eulogies published in London, one would imagine that Lord Northcliffe was a kind of Delaine and John Walter rolled into one, and that he fulfilled the highest ideals of journalism as understood in this country. I am sure I am right in saying

that the great majority of thinking men would hold such a misconception to be little short of a disaster.

My aim is to show in its true colors his attitude towards the problems of journalism. I know of course that in doing so I shall expose myself to many disagreeable charges. To begin with, people may think me jealous as well as ungenerous. But I would rather incur those charges, and even the still more odious charge of sheltering personal hostility under the cloak of duty, than allow without protest Lord Northcliffe to be described as "the greatest figure in contemporary English journalism, and its ideal representative."

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »