Tea-Table Talk

Part 1

Transcribed from the 1903 Hutchinson & Co. edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

TEA-TABLE TALK

BY JEROME K. JEROME Author of “Paul Kelver” . . . . “Three Men in a Boat,” etc., etc.

* * * * *

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS ON PLATE PAPER BY FRED PEGRAM . . .

* * * * *

LONDON HUTCHINSON & CO. PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1903

* * * * *

PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD., LONDON AND AYLESBURY.

* * * * *

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE WHO WOULD BE A CHAPERONE? Frontispiece HE WOULD FLING HIMSELF ON HIS KNEES BEFORE HER, 14 NEVER NOTICING THE DOG I LEFT THEM AT IT 16 HE WENT WITH HER AND MADE HIMSELF RIDICULOUS AT THE 20 DRESSMAKER’S WHY SHOULD WE SEEK TO EXPLAIN AWAY ALL THE 26 BEAUTIFUL THINGS OF LIFE? ARE WE SO SURE THAT ART DOES ELEVATE? 38 THE ARTIST KNEW PRECISELY THE SORT OF GIRL THAT 42 OUGHT TO BE THERE A MAN’S WORK ’TIS TILL SET OF SUN, BUT A WOMAN’S 52 WORK IS NEVER DONE! DOES THE LADY OUT SHOPPING EVER FALL IN LOVE WITH 56 THE WAITER AT THE BUN-SHOP? WOMAN HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY NATURE THE TRUSTEE OF 58 THE CHILDREN COMPARING HIMSELF THE WHILE WITH MOLIÈRE READING TO 80 HIS COOK THE SINGER MAY BE A HEAVY, FLESHY MAN WITH A TASTE 84 FOR BEER IT IS THE FOOL WHO IMAGINES HER INHUMAN 100 IT SEIZED A NATURAL HUMAN PASSION AND TURNED IT TO 104 GOOD USES SHE SUGGESTED THAT POETS AND NOVELISTS SHOULD TAKE 106 SERVICE FOR A YEAR IN ANY LARGE DRAPERY OR MILLINERY ESTABLISHMENT WHO IS IT SUCCEEDS IN ESCAPING THE LAW OF THE HIVE? 126

“THEY are very pretty, some of them,” said the Woman of the World; “not the sort of letters I should have written myself.”

“I should like to see a love-letter of yours,” interrupted the Minor Poet.

“It is very kind of you to say so,” replied the Woman of the World. “It never occurred to me that you would care for one.”

“It is what I have always maintained,” retorted the Minor Poet; “you have never really understood me.”

“I believe a volume of assorted love-letters would sell well,” said the Girton Girl; “written by the same hand, if you like, but to different correspondents at different periods. To the same person one is bound, more or less, to repeat oneself.”

“Or from different lovers to the same correspondent,” suggested the Philosopher. “It would be interesting to observe the response of various temperaments exposed to an unvaried influence. It would throw light on the vexed question whether the qualities that adorn our beloved are her own, or ours lent to her for the occasion. Would the same woman be addressed as ‘My Queen!’ by one correspondent, and as ‘Dear Popsy Wopsy!’ by another, or would she to all her lovers be herself?”

“You might try it,” I suggested to the Woman of the World, “selecting, of course, only the more interesting.”

“It would cause so much unpleasantness, don’t you think?” replied the Woman of the World. “Those I left out would never forgive me. It is always so with people you forget to invite to a funeral—they think it is done with deliberate intention to slight them.”

“The first love-letter I ever wrote,” said the Minor Poet, “was when I was sixteen. Her name was Monica; she was the left-hand girl in the third joint of the crocodile. I have never known a creature so ethereally beautiful. I wrote the letter and sealed it, but I could not make up my mind whether to slip it into her hand when we passed them, as we usually did on Thursday afternoons, or to wait for Sunday.”

“There can be no question,” murmured the Girton Girl abstractedly, “the best time is just as one is coming out of church. There is so much confusion; besides, one has one’s Prayer-book—I beg your pardon.”

“I was saved the trouble of deciding,” continued the Minor Poet. “On Thursday her place was occupied by a fat, red-headed girl, who replied to my look of inquiry with an idiotic laugh, and on Sunday I searched the Hypatia House pews for her in vain. I learnt subsequently that she had been sent home on the previous Wednesday, suddenly. It appeared that I was not the only one. I left the letter where I had placed it, at the bottom of my desk, and in course of time forgot it. Years later I fell in love really. I sat down to write her a love-letter that should imprison her as by some subtle spell. I would weave into it the love of all the ages. When I had finished it, I read it through and was pleased with it. Then by an accident, as I was going to seal it, I overturned my desk, and on to the floor fell that other love-letter I had written seven years before, when a boy. Out of idle curiosity I tore it open; I thought it would afford me amusement. I ended by posting it instead of the letter I had just completed. It carried precisely the same meaning; but it was better expressed, with greater sincerity, with more artistic simplicity.”

“After all,” said the Philosopher, “what can a man do more than tell a woman that he loves her? All the rest is mere picturesque amplification, on a par with the ‘Full and descriptive report from our Special Correspondent,’ elaborated out of a three-line telegram of Reuter’s.”

“Following that argument,” said the Minor Poet, “you could reduce ‘Romeo and Juliet’ to a two-line tragedy—

Lass and lad, loved like mad; Silly muddle, very sad.”

“To be told that you are loved,” said the Girton Girl, “is only the beginning of the theorem—its proposition, so to speak.”

“Or the argument of the poem,” murmured the Old Maid.

Part 2

“The interest,” continued the Girton Girl, “lies in proving it—why does he love me?”

“I asked a man that once,” said the Woman of the World. “He said it was because he couldn’t help it. It seemed such a foolish answer—the sort of thing your housemaid always tells you when she breaks your favourite teapot. And yet, I suppose it was as sensible as any other.”

“More so,” commented the Philosopher. “It is the only possible explanation.”

“I wish,” said the Minor Poet, “it were a question one could ask of people without offence; I so often long to put it. Why do men marry viragoes, pimply girls with incipient moustaches? Why do beautiful heiresses choose thick-lipped, little men who bully them? Why are old bachelors, generally speaking, sympathetic, kind-hearted men; and old maids, so many of them, sweet-looking and amiable?”

“I think,” said the Old Maid, “that perhaps—” But there she stopped.

“Pray go on,” said the Philosopher. “I shall be so interested to have your views.”

“It was nothing, really,” said the Old Maid; “I have forgotten.”

“If only one could obtain truthful answers,” the Minor Poet, “what a flood of light they might let fall on the hidden half of life!”

“It seems to me,” said the Philosopher, “that, if anything, Love is being exposed to too much light. The subject is becoming vulgarised. Every year a thousand problem plays and novels, poems and essays, tear the curtain from Love’s Temple, drag it naked into the market-place for grinning crowds to gape at. In a million short stories, would-be comic, would-be serious, it is handled more or less coarsely, more or less unintelligently, gushed over, gibed and jeered at. Not a shred of self-respect is left to it. It is made the central figure of every farce, danced and sung round in every music-hall, yelled at by gallery, guffawed at by stalls. It is the stock-in-trade of every comic journal. Could any god, even a Mumbo Jumbo, so treated, hold its place among its votaries? Every term of endearment has become a catchword, every caress mocks us from the hoardings. Every tender speech we make recalls to us even while we are uttering it a hundred parodies. Every possible situation has been spoilt for us in advance by the American humorist.”

“I have sat out a good many parodies of ‘Hamlet,’” said the Minor Poet, “but the play still interests me. I remember a walking tour I once took in Bavaria. In some places the waysides are lined with crucifixes that are either comic or repulsive. There is a firm that turns them out by machinery. Yet, to the peasants who pass by, the Christ is still beautiful. You can belittle only what is already contemptible.”

“Patriotism is a great virtue,” replied the Philosopher: “the Jingoes have made it ridiculous.”

“On the contrary,” said the Minor Poet, “they have taught us to distinguish between the true and the false. So it is with love. The more it is cheapened, ridiculed, employed for market purposes, the less the inclination to affect it—to be in love with love, as Heine admitted he was, for its own sake.”

Continue reading Tea-Table Talk free in the Wunder reader →