The Lyre of Orpheus

(1)

The completion of Darcourt’s poopnoddy scheme took almost three years from the fall of the final curtain on Arthur of Britain. Government bodies, great galleries, connoisseurs of art, publishers of books, and great sums of money all move with the uttermost deliberation, and to persuade them all to fit into a coherent plan calls for the extreme of diplomacy and tact. But Darcourt did it, and did it furthermore without ulcers or heart palpitations or too many private bouts of hysteria. He did it, he told himself, by pursuing the path of the Fool, marching merrily on his way, trusting to his intelligent nose and the little dog of intuition nipping at his rump to show him the path, overgrown and tortuous as it was.

So, on a December afternoon, in the presence of a distinguished assembly, the Francis Cornish Memorial Gallery was officially opened by the Governor General, and was agreed by everyone—or almost everyone—to be a notable addition to the National Gallery of Canada, to reflect the greatest credit on everyone concerned, and especially upon Arthur and Maria Cornish, whose names, as the prime movers in the plan, were never allowed to escape the notice of the public. If the contribution of the Cornishes to the opera production had been under-prized, and if their understandably hurt feelings had not been adequately salved, they were thanked to the point of embarrassment in the establishment of the Francis Cornish Memorial Gallery.

Of course they protested; of course their modesty was outraged, and they were entirely sincere in their protests and their sense of outrage. Nevertheless, it is very sweet to be recognized as public benefactors, and to be compelled to protest and feel outrage. Sweeter by far than to feel overlooked, under-prized, and intrusive when one is sincerely trying to do something for the furtherance of culture—for the hateful word, so much licked and pawed by Kater Murr, cannot conveniently be avoided. Arthur and Maria were modest, and were not displeased that the world should see that they were modest.

Darcourt, too, was modest, and for the first time in his life he had something of substantial public interest to be modest about. His book, the long-projected life of the late Francis Cornish, had been published a year earlier, and had received attention not only in Canada but throughout the English-speaking world, and indeed everywhere that books about extraordinary painters are read. Not all of the attention was flattering, but his publishers assured him that the attacks and the disparagement also had their value. Critics do not lash themselves into a high aesthetic tizzy about things that are insignificant. Nor were these critics all concerned with painting; many of them were critics of culture in a more general sense, and several of these were tarred with the recently fashionable Jungian brush, and had even read some of the writings of Jung. What delighted these, and enraged many of the art critics, was the Introduction to the book that had been contributed by Clement Hollier, whose reputation in such matters where art, time, and the enduring and many-layered human psyche kissed and commingled, was very great indeed. Clem, so hopelessly out of his depth in the creation of an opera libretto, was a very big gun in the world where Darcourt’s biography took its place. Paleo-psychology and the history of human culture was what the knowing ones called it, and it was not everybody who could follow Clem in its overgrown paths. Thus Darcourt found himself a significant explainer in a number of important worlds, and invitations to lecture—which were in some cases demands that he appear to defend himself—were piling up on his desk.

Such invitations had to wait until the Francis Cornish Memorial Gallery had been shaped, and assembled, and formally opened to the world. After that, his Old Ontario folk wisdom told him, it would be time enough to cut a dead dog in two.

The work was not easy. First of all, Prince Max and the Princess Amalie had to be persuaded to sell The Marriage at Cana to the National Gallery. There had to be assurance that they would not, under any circumstances, be accused of having harboured a fake, and shown it to the world as a genuine painting dating from the sixteenth century. They had never offered the picture for sale under false pretences; but on the other hand they had never denied the interesting explanation of the picture that had been contained in that persuasive article by Aylwin Ross, and which was there to be consulted in the authoritative pages of Apollo. It was in the light of this splendid piece of art detection that they had allowed it to be exhibited in a great American gallery, which had for a time considered buying it. They must not seem guileful, only reserved, and it must be apparent to everybody that their hands were clean. This could be managed, and it was managed, by the brilliant critic Addison Thresher, who washed their hands and laundered the picture—though the hateful word “laundered” was never, never used—and set the price the Cornish Foundation paid for it. If a percentage of that awesome sum later passed into the hands of Addison Thresher, surely it was to be expected that he would be recompensed for his work, and his great reputation which set at rest all, or nearly all, doubts.

This involved delicate negotiation, but it was as nothing to the work of persuading the National Gallery of Canada that it should accept a picture of such curious provenance, and show it with pride in a room specially devoted to it, even if it did not cost the Gallery a cent.

People who control important galleries are very far from being stupid, but they are not accustomed to thinking of pictures psychologically. If the picture, whose beauty they readily acknowledged, were the work of a Canadian who had painted it less than fifty years ago, why had he painted it in a sixteenth-century style, on an authentic old triptych, with paints that defied any of the tests that had been used? Yes, yes; the picture was a masterpiece, in the old sense of being a work undertaken by a painter who wished to prove himself a master. But what kind of a master? Francis had been a pupil, certainly the best pupil, of Tancred Saraceni, who was himself a supreme master of picture restoration, and so much a master that it was suspected that he had revised, or even recreated, some old pictures into forms that were vastly superior to what they had originally been. People whose lives and reputations are devoted to pictures have fits at any suggestion of faking. Faking is the syphilis of art, and the horrid truth is that syphilis has sometimes lain at the root of very fine art. But connoisseurs and great galleries shrink from saying to the world: Here’s a fine, poxy piece of painting, beautiful, uplifting, sincerely describable as great—though of course, because of its ambiguity, not precisely the sort of thing you can safely recommend to Kater Murr. For him and his kind, everything must be Simon Pure—or, if you prefer the term, kosher. Kater Murr is very active among the connoisseurs and the galleries.

It was here that the testimony of Clement Hollier was invaluable. If a man wants to paint a picture that is intended primarily as an exercise in a special area of expertise, he will do so in a style with which he is most familiar. If he wants to paint a picture which has a particular relevance to his own life-experience, which explores the myth of his life as he understands it, and which, in the old phrase, “makes up his soul”, he is compelled to do it in a mode that permits such allegorical revelation. Painters after the Renaissance, and certainly after the Protestant Reformation, have not painted such pictures with the frankness that was natural to pre-Renaissance artists. The vocabulary of faith, and of myth, has been taken from them by the passing of time. But Francis Cornish, when he wanted to make up his soul, turned to the style of painting and the concept of visual art which came most naturally to him. He did not feel himself bound to be “contemporary”. Indeed, he had many times laughed at the notion of contemporaneity in conversation with both Hollier and Darcourt, mocking it as a foolish chain on a painter’s inspiration and intention.

It must be remembered, added Darcourt, that Francis had been brought up a Catholic—or almost a Catholic—and he had taken his catholicity seriously enough to make it a foundation of his art. If God is one and eternal, and if Christ is not dead, but living, are not fashions in art mere follies for those who are the slaves of Time?

All of this had been thoroughly explored by Darcourt in his life of Francis Cornish, but he had to go over it many times in person, before many committees of solemn doubters.

The bigwigs of the National Gallery, who regarded themselves quite reasonably as the guardians of Canada’s official artistic taste, hummed and hawed. They heard; they understood; they admitted the adroitness of the argument; but they were not convinced. A man who painted in a bygone style, and who had the effrontery to do it with an accomplishment and imagination notably absent among the best modern Canadian artists, was not someone they could readily embrace. He had played the fool with one of the most sacred ideas still left to a world where the notion of sacrosanctity had become abhorrent—the idea of Time. He had dared to be of a time not his own. Surely such a person was either touched in his wits or else—this was a grave fear—a joker? Government bodies, the worlds of connoisseurship and art, dread jokes as the Devil dreads holy water. And when a joke also involves great sums of money—money, the very seed and foundation of modern art and modern culture—the dread quickly mounts to panic, and Kater Murr has catfits.

Nevertheless, Darcourt, staunchly aided by Hollier, and supported at every turn by Arthur and Maria, prevailed at last, and on that December day the Francis Cornish Memorial Gallery was opened.

It was a gallery in the sense that it was a large room devoted solely to the triptych of The Marriage at Cana and, on the other walls, a display of supportive material that showed what the Canadian origins of the picture were. Grandfather McRory’s Sun Pictures, enlarged so that they could be studied in detail, and the people of Blairlogie, the people of Grandfather’s household, and the medieval isolation of that backwoods town could be made apparent to anyone who chose to look. On another wall were Francis’s careful studies in Old Master style, as evidence of how the extraordinary technical skill of the great picture had been acquired. And on the third wall the most intimate of all Francis’s drawings—hasty sketches done in the undertaker’s workroom, quick impressions of Tancred Saraceni and Grandfather’s coachman which linked them with Judas and the huissier in the great picture, and the arresting studies—drawn with so much adoration—of Ismay Glasson, clothed and naked and, plain for all to see, the Bride in The Marriage. Not all the figures in the great picture were represented in the sketches and drawings, but most of them were, and perhaps the most arresting were the photograph of F. X. Bouchard, the dwarf tailor, by Grandfather, and the pitiful figure of the dwarf naked on the embalmer’s table, drawn by Francis; the most casual looker could not fail to see that this was the proud dwarf in parade armour who looked out at the spectator from the triptych.

It had been agreed by Arthur and Maria and Darcourt that the sketches which identified the grotesque angel as Francis the First should not be shown. Some mystery must be left unexplained.

With these exhibitions were explanatory notes, written by Darcourt, for what Hollier wrote was not plain enough for the widest possible public. But what could be plain only to visitors who had understood what the whole room said were the words painted in handsome calligraphy on the wall above the great picture:

A Man’s life of any worth is a continual allegory—

and very few eyes can see the Mystery of his life—a

life like the scriptures, figurative. JOHN KEATS.

(2)

“ARE YOU HAPPY WITH IT, Simon,” said Maria; “I do hope you are. You’ve worked so hard to make it happen.”

She and Arthur and Darcourt sat at dinner after the grand opening. The Governor General and his entourage had been thanked and bowed into their cars; Prince Max and Princess Amalie and the ever-attentive Addison Thresher had been escorted to the airport and seen off with many expressions of goodwill, as well as some whispered words to Darcourt from the Princess in which she thanked him yet again for the tact with which any connection between her own Old Master drawing from Francis’s hand (now so widely seen in her cosmetic advertisements) had been avoided; Clement Hollier and Penny Raven had been watched as they disappeared down the chute toward another plane to Toronto. The captains and the kings and the scholars had all departed, and the three friends were happily alone at their table.

“As happy as it’s in my nature to be,” said Darcourt. “A kind of golden glow. And I hope you’re happy, too.”

“Why wouldn’t we be?” said Arthur. “We’ve been lauded and complimented and petted beyond our deserts. I feel rather a fake.”

“It was all the money,” said Maria. “I suppose it’s silly to underestimate money.”

“Uncle Frank’s money, almost every penny,” said Arthur. “The cupboard is nearly bare. It’ll take a few years before the cistern has refilled to the point where the Foundation can do anything else.”

“Oh, it won’t be forever,” said Maria. “The bankers think about three years. Then we shall be able to do something else.”

“What’s going to be your attitude?” said Darcourt. “Are you going to be the Sword of Discretion or the Gushing Breast of Compassion?”

“The Sword every time,” said Arthur. “Offer the breast and somebody will bite it. Until you’ve tried it, you can have no idea of how hard it is to give away money. Intelligently, that’s to say. Look at this Gallery. What a fight we had to get it.”

“Oh, but a very genteel, high-minded fight,” said Darcourt. “What a tricky balancing of egotisms of various weights, and varying interests, some of which you’re not supposed to know about. What a lot of jockeying so that nobody has to say thank-you in such a way that they lose face. I’ll bet old Frank is laughing his head off, if he knows anything about it. He was an ironic old devil. And his big secret—that loony angel who was his parents’ first attempt at a Francis—is still a secret, though it’s almost certain that some toilsome snoop will root it out sooner or later. Not everything is on those apparently explanatory walls.”

“It’s been an adventure, and I’ve always hankered for adventures,” said Arthur. “And the opera was an adventure, too. That was Frank’s doing, and we shouldn’t forget it.”

“How can we?” said Maria. “Isn’t it still going on? Schnak is doing well, in a quiet way.”

“Not so quiet,” said Darcourt. “The opera hasn’t been done again; not yet, but there are nibbles. But that big central passage—The Queen’s Maying—has been played several times by very good orchestras, and always with a note that it comes from the opera. Schnak is on her way, and there is even some renewed interest in Hoffmann as a composer, Nilla tells me.”

“You know I hated Nilla when I first met her,” said Maria. “She was so awful at that Arthurian dinner. But she’s the perfection of a fairy—or I suppose I should say lesbian— godmother. She sends Davy the most wonderful wooden toys, trains and farm carts and things, and she’s determined we must take him to Paris for her to see. Not like that stinker Powell. He writes now and again but he never mentions the boy. Just his own dear little self. Mind you, he’s doing marvellously well. A terrific Orfeo in Milan, when last heard of. Even Clem is a better godfather. He’s given Davy a wonderfully illustrated book of the Arthurian legend, which he will be able to read when he’s about ten. And Penny has given him a first edition of The Hunting of the Snark. Have these professors no understanding of what a child of three is?”

“Perhaps it was really meant for you,” said Darcourt. “The Snark was a pretty fair comment on that opera job, and in the end the Snark was only half a Boojum.”

“I’ve never got around to reading that poem,” said Arthur. “Simon—lighten my darkness, I beseech you. What the hell is a Snark? And a Boojum? I suppose I ought to know.”

“You won’t ever know if you don’t read it,” said Darcourt. “But just for the moment, a Snark is a highly desirable object of search which, when found, can be unexpected and dangerous—a Boojum, in fact. All Snarks are likely to be Boojums to the unresting, questing Romantic spirit. It’s a splendid allegory of all artistic adventures.”

“Allegory. Allegory—I know what an allegory is. Simon, you’ve put that quotation from Keats right over Uncle Frank’s picture. ‘A Man’s life of any worth is a continual allegory’. Do you really believe that?”

“Haven’t I convinced you?” said Darcourt. “It’s one of those magnificent flashes that Keats popped into letters. That comes from a gossipy letter to his brother and sister. Just a piece of a letter, but what an insight!”

“You’ve convinced me several times, but I keep coming unconvinced. It’s such a terrifying thought.”

“Such an enlarging thought,” said Maria. “ ‘A Man’s life of any worth’—it forces you to wonder whether your life is of no particular worth, or if it has a mystery you can’t see.”

“I think I’d rather say my life was of no particular worth than face the idea of a pattern in it that I don’t know, and probably never will know,” said Arthur.

“You mustn’t dream of saying that your life is of no particular worth, my darling,” said Maria. “Because I know better.”

“But an allegory seems such an extraordinary thing to claim for oneself,” said Arthur. “It’s like commissioning a statue of yourself, stark naked, holding a scroll.”

“Keats wrote at the gallop,” said Darcourt. “He might equally well have said that a man’s life has a buried myth.”

“I don’t see that making it any easier.”

“Arthur, you are sometimes remarkably obtuse—not to say dumb,” said Darcourt. “Now—I think I’ve had enough of this excellent Burgundy to ask you a very personal question. Haven’t you seen your own myth in all that opera business? Your myth, and Maria’s myth, and Powell’s myth? A fine myth, and as an observer I must say you all carried it through with style.”

“Well, if you want to cast me as Arthur—though how do you know it isn’t just a trick of the name?—Maria has to be Guenevere, and I suppose Powell is Lancelot. But we weren’t very Arthurian, were we? Where’s your myth?”

Darcourt was about to speak, but Maria hushed him. “Of course you don’t see it. It’s not the nature of heroes of myth to think of themselves as heroes of myth. They don’t swan around, declaiming, ‘I’m a hero of myth.’ It’s observers like Simon and me who spot the myths and the heroes. The heroes see themselves simply as chaps doing the best they can in a special situation.”

“I flatly decline to be a hero,” said Arthur. “Who could live with that?”

“You haven’t any choice,” said Darcourt. “Fish up a myth from the depths and it takes you over. Maybe it’s had its eye on you for a long time. Think—an opera. What was it Hoffmann said?—you dug it up, Maria.”

“ ‘The lyre of Orpheus opens the door of the Underworld’.”

“He must have been a wonderful little chap,” said Arthur. “I’ve always thought that, though of course I couldn’t have put it like that. But I still don’t see the myth.”

“It is the myth of the Magnanimous Cuckold,” said Darcourt. “And the only way to meet it is with charity and love.”

After a long silence, and reflective sipping of wine, Arthur spoke.

“I choose not to think of myself as magnanimous.”

“But I do,” said Maria.