PREFATORY NOTES

1. I have to thank two friends, who read or listened to large portions of this work, for their sympathy, long-suffering, and good advice, and to acquit them of all further complicity.

2. I must also thank a fellow-walker, who, on Maundy Thursday of 1910, as we climbed the road out of Marlborough into Savernake Forest, suggested to me the magnificent quotation from Cicero which heads the essay on Walking and Music.

3. I have stolen the substance of one epigram from an obiter dictum in ‘My System for Ladies,’ by J. P. Müller; but it was too good to miss.

4. None of the remarks about beer apply to Munich beer.

A. H. S.

August 1912.{xi}{x}

I WALKING AND CONVERSATION

{2}

‘The heavenly bodies is philosophy, and the earthly bodies is philosophy. If there’s a screw loose in a heavenly body, that’s philosophy; and if there’s a screw loose in an earthly body, that’s philosophy too; or it may be that sometimes there’s a little metaphysics in it, but that’s not often. Philosophy’s the chap for me.{3}’

I WALKING AND CONVERSATION

About the year 1887 there was still in existence a nursery joke:—

This, pronounced as a consecutive sentence, gave the infant mind its first experience of paradox. At the time we thought it funny. Later on, in the last decade of Victorianism, when we were struggling with ‘post,’ ‘postquam,’ and ‘postea,’ the joke appeared less funny. But later still, in Edwardian times, a deep moral meaning began (as was customary in those times) to appear underlying the joke. Take the two sentences as they stand above: construe ‘walk’ and ‘talk’ in their strict sense: generalise King Charles: convert the ‘post hoc’ into a{4} ‘propter hoc’; and you will have a motto to which all good walkers will add ‘ὣς ἀπόλοιτο....’

I do not mean, of course, that any or all forms of walking and talking are incompatible. It is possible, simultaneously, to stroll and to babble, to stroll and to talk, to walk and to babble. Strolling, the mere reflex action of the legs, is compatible with that sustained and coherent activity of the mind which alone deserves the name of talking. Babbling, the corresponding reflex action of the mind, is equally compatible with that supreme activity of the whole being which men call walking. But the attempt so often made to combine real walking with real talking is disastrous. Better the man who babbles and strolls, who trails his feet across country and his tongue across commonplace, than the man who tries to ventilate fundamental things while his body is braced to the conquest of road and hill.

‘A Voice’ at this point says ‘Yes, but we are not all scorchers,’ and thereby makes manifest a very common delusion. The{5} Voice, and the body of opinion which it represents, are convinced that the difference between strolling and walking consists in the merely material point of speed, and that walkers cannot talk because they are bent solely on record-breaking, and have one eye ever on the milestones and one on the stop-watch, and no attention to spare for anything else. This is a gross and palpable error. Record-breaking is, of course, a possible form of walking, and most of us have indulged in it at one time or another; it is interesting, and sometimes even salutary, to abandon all higher thoughts, and go for a record frankly and whole-heartedly. But to the true walker this is only an occasional indulgence. Record-breaking is ultimately a degrading and (literally) a brutalising pursuit. It is the mere pitting of the brute animal powers against the brute inanimate conditions of time and space. If we are to be men and not animals,

walking must be something more than a mere swing of the legs, and the country something more than a colourless aliquantum of miles. Record-breaking,{6} if it becomes a habit, will be as a blight in the fair garden of walking, as a sarrusophone in the pedestrian symphony.

A casual observation of true walkers no doubt lends some colour to the Voice’s delusion. Walkers have generally an air of being intent upon the business in hand: they do not (as explained below) talk much: and as a mere matter of fact they generally walk at a good round pace. But their pace is only accidental and subordinate to their main purpose. The full swing of the legs, like all physical activities, is a fine thing in itself, but it is merely physical. The great fact is that such an activity leads more directly than others to that sense of intimacy with air and sun and hills and green things, which is the walker’s ideal. This sense of intimacy is not to be won by strolling; a man must do his best with his body before the gates are opened to him.

Another Voice may here interject ‘Wordsworth’; but, with all reverence and respect, I doubt if that great man ever was really an intimate of his surroundings in the sense which I mean. With him it{7} was a mystical communion rather than an intimacy. He loved the country with a kind of austere and detached benevolence; I doubt if he really felt its idiosyncrasies like a friend. In his altitudes of thought there was probably little perceptible difference when he climbed Loughrigg after tea and when he took a whole day over the Langdale Pikes and Serjeant Man (if he ever did). Like the God of Aristotle, he experienced a single and continuous pleasure, instead of the infinitely varied and minutely individualised feelings of the ordinary walker. And the reason, I think, was simply that he was not, in the true sense, a walker. He records expeditions, of course, but these were generally made with his wife and sister, which in the then state of feminine development would give little chance of walking. There is no evidence that he ever laid his

body at full stretch to the conquest of a mountain; hence they were to him merely mountains, full of general sublimities, and not individuals, each with its own idiosyncrasy, full of the variety and interest which are the{8} staple food of friendship. His higher faculties, in short, operated abstractedly; he missed that concrete body of feeling to which even you and I can attain by ministering to the soul through the body. It is a great thing, no doubt, to be catholic, to feel the same immensities on Silver Howe as on the Great Gable; but there is something to be said for the humbler lot of the ordinary walker, who, if he misses the immensities on Silver Howe, yet gains that sudden jump and uplifting of his whole being as he approaches Esk Hause from the south-east, leaving behind the soft outlines and mere prettiness of the south, and on an instant lifts his head into a world of gods and giants.

The attainment of such a feeling requires a certain receptivity and even passivity of mind. You cannot grasp the character of country by a conscious effort of discursive reason; all you can do is to set your body fairly to its task, and to leave the intimate character of your surroundings to penetrate slowly into your higher faculties, aided by the consciousness of physical effort, the{9} subtle rhythm of your walk, the feel of the earth beneath your feet, and the thousand intangible influences of sense. You must lay aside for the time being that formal and conscious reasoning which (you fondly think) gives you your distinctiveness and individuality in ordinary life; you must win back to deeper and commoner things: you must become mere man upon the face of your mother earth. Only in a state of humility and simplicity, with all views and arguments and chains of reasoning—all, in fact, that divides man from man—laid aside and utterly forsworn, can you enter the great democracy of walkers.

Which things being prefaced, the utter incompatibility of walking and talking needs no further demonstration, but only (what walkers much prefer) dogmatic reiteration. Talking requires a definite activity of the mind: walking demands passivity. Talking tends to make men aware of their differences; walking rests on their identity. Talking may be the same on a fine day or on a wet day, in spring or autumn, on{10} Snowdon or Leith Hill; walking varies according to each and every one of these conditions. In a word, when you can paste a photograph on to the middle of an Old Master, or set a gramophone going in an orchestra, then, and not till then, can you walk and talk simultaneously.

Those who try to combine the two usually fail to achieve either. Sometimes, of course, a talker may be tamed: if securely buttressed by a large company of walkers, he may be subdued by a judicious mixture of silence, irrelevance, or frivolity; or he may be carried along at such a pace that he is reduced to voicelessness, if not to a proper state of quiescent reverence. But usually a single talker in a walking company will infect the whole; he will provoke them to argument and disputation; he will expose the inmost parts of his soul and gradually allure them to a like indecency. In such a case walking goes by the board; the company either loiters and trails in clenched controversy, or, what is worse sacrilege, strides blindly across country like a herd of animals, recking little of whence they come{11} or whither they are going, desecrating the face of nature with sophism and inference and authority and regurgitated Blue Book. At the end of such a day, what have they profited? Their gross and perishable physical frames may have been

refreshed: their less gross but equally perishable minds may have been exercised: but what of their immortal being? It has been starved between the blind swing of the legs below and the fruitless flickering of the mind above, instead of receiving, through the agency of a quiet mind and a co-ordinated body, the gentle nutriment which is its due.

If, then, we are to walk, the talker should be eliminated before starting. But this does not mean that our walk will be a silent one. There are many forms of utterance besides talking, strictly so called; and nearly all of these are possible and even desirable concomitants of walking. Thus, there is the simple and natural babble of the first few miles, while the body is settling down to work: the intellect, so to say, is blowing off steam preparatory to a period{12} of quiescence. Then there is monologue of the purely spontaneous kind, which asks for no listener and desires no reply—the mere happy wagging of a tongue and jaw only remotely connected with anything that could be called a meaning. There may even be relatively continuous and intelligible statements or discussions, provided that these arise naturally out of the walk and the surrounding circumstances—for example, discussions on the weather, the way, the place for lunch, the utility of hard-boiled eggs, the peculiar pungency of wedding-cake in the open air. All of these fit in easily with the walking frame of mind.

The question of the rhythmic and musical elements in walking is so important as to require separate discussion; but there is one form of utterance, related to music much as babbling is related to talking, which is so intimately associated with the greater moments of life that I cannot forbear mentioning it here. I mean the After Lunch Song. If lunch is taken properly, that is to say lightly, without strong drink, in the open, the period which follows is the very heart{13} of the day. The limbs are well attuned to their work: the soul has begun to receive its appropriate message: there are long hours ahead, clean food within, the face of nature without. At such a time a man can, if he will, do his greatest feats of mere space-devouring. But it is better, if time permits, to abate something of the full speed, and to allow the heart-felt sensations of gratitude and content to find their natural utterance in song. It need not be an appropriate song: nay, it need not be a song at all in the ordinary sense: above all, the whole company may

sing without regard to one another or to any laws of time and harmony. It is the utterance alone which matters. I remember well a party of three which climbed the northern face of the Bookham Downs on a summer Sunday, with Schubert’s Müllerin cycle going in front against two distinct Sullivan operettas behind; and there was in our hearts no more thought of discord than there is between the chiff-chaff and cuckoo when the reiterated fourth of the one blends with the other’s major third in a different key.{14}

Superficial observers may think from the preceding passage that the walker as there represented is a morose and unsociable person. Nothing can be further from the truth. Only by construing sociability in the very narrow sense of compliance with current social conventions, can you justify such a position: and even so, I would ask, are walkers the only men who have ever omitted calls or trifled with dance invitations? But if sociability is taken in its true sense as indicating a friendly attitude of mind, I say there is more of it between two walkers treading the eighteenth mile without a word spoken, than between any two diners-out talking twenty-four to the dozen, as if there were a tax on unaccompanied monologue, and a graduated super-tax on silence. When put to the ultimate test of fact this becomes clear. If you have walked with a man you will lend him tobacco, half-a-crown, nay, you will lend him your map; if you have only dined with him, I doubt if you would lend him a silk hat.

But even when judged by the merely physical test of the volume and quality of{15} words uttered, walkers have no need to fear comparison with any other class of men. It is true that while engaged in their own particular craft their words are few: but does the artist talk much while he is painting, or the motorist while driving? Is the conversation of the golfer while golfing—even with the shorter sentences omitted—such as he could repeat in a drawing-room which he respects? If we are to apply comparative tests we must take the specialists, not when they are specialising, but when they are mixed with one another and with ordinary men and women. In such circumstances I say that the walker shines: he possesses, on the average, all the conversational qualities of ordinary men, and, in addition, has certain special advantages. As these have been slighted and overlooked by other observers, I proceed to set them forth.

The first point is that walkers generalise much better than other men, whether on morals, politics, art, or any other of the worn topics of society. Their generalities may not be so frequent or facile: but when{16} they occur they will be far more weighty. The ordinary man generalises by the action of a feverish brain working above a sluggish and disparate body; hence his utterance is that of the brain only, of the quarter man. But walking induces a more concrete habit of thinking. When you have let a problem simmer at the back of your head for the whole of a twenty mile walk, you will find at the end that it has worked itself into your system, and your verdict on it is the concrete verdict of your whole being. And such a verdict is invincible, disdaining argument and scouting refutation. What chance have the merely logical beliefs of the ordinary diner-out against the ingrown and seasoned prejudices of the walker? The rest may reason and welcome; ’tis we pedestrians know.

The first great merit, then, of a walker in ordinary society is a power of authoritative and Delphic utterance on subjects which other men approach humbly with reasoning, aggregated evidence, and formal disputation. It may be urged that this has the effect of killing the subject. That is true:{17} but the real fact is that such subjects ought to be killed once the first opinions are spoken. General topics have really no permanent place in civilised conversation; they are useful only as guides to enable people to adjust themselves easily to each other’s mental and spiritual conformation. When this has been effected, generalities can be cast aside; and the particularities of persons and things and times and places, which form the staple food of conversation, can begin. The walker by a single bold utterance of a prejudice deeply felt at once defines the position. Ex pede Herculem; the conversation can then proceed comfortably.

The second great point in a walker’s conversation is that his ‘shop’ is less shoppy and more interesting than that of other men. The minutiae of his own craft are homely and human things—boots and coats and knapsacks and hobnails and ordnance maps. The golfer’s talk of Dreadnought Drivers and eclectic scores and the fathomless iniquities of caddies has only a limited interest; the motorist is little better with{18} his accelerators and carburettors and police traps and organised perjury. Few people really care to hear how a matchless car was bought in Long Acre (where the bow drawn was also long), went from Land’s End to John o’ Groats in ninety-five minutes (or hours), paid for a new county asylum in fines, killed four chickens, a human being, and a chauffeur, and finally exploded and fell into the Devil’s Punchbowl. (I summarise from vague memories the folklore of motorists.) But all turn round with a pleased smile when a friend of mine begins the life history of his famous boots; how they were originally bought as football boots and scored

twenty-seven goals in two seasons; how they were then resoled and nailed by a Swiss cobbler and went up Mont Blanc; how they subsequently covered nine hundred miles in the Home Counties; how they lost all their nails and became ordinary boots and went to a garden party; how they split on a critical occasion and were under-girded (like St. Paul’s ship) with string, bootlaces, and a Government strap; how, finally, when{19} they were past their work, they were offered to (and only refused after a struggle by) the Pitt-Rivers anthropological collection in the Oxford Museum; and how they now repose in a glass case inscribed with the words Bene Merentibus.

It is thus clear (if it is not, I decline to argue) that as regards conversation under ordinary conditions, so far from being at a disadvantage, the walker is better qualified than most men to speak with his enemies in the gate—that is with his acquaintances in the drawing-room or dining room. In the structural part of conversation, dogmatism, his touch is firmer and more impressive; in its constituent material he can on his own subject display a pleasing virtuosity. Over the rest of the ordinary range of conversation I make no extravagant claims for the walker: it is enough to say that he is at no disadvantage as regards persons and events and anecdotes and gossip and generally What Has Happened and What They Are Saying About It. He is, in virtue of his craft, above all things,{20} sane and concrete, and has therefore little difficulty in observing the ordinary conversational traditions. But he is no blind acceptor of conventional limitations. On the contrary, he ever seeks to extend the limits of the conversational

range, adding new topics of interest. And there are in particular a few topics which (like the souls of the young ladies in the song) the blind world despises, and has therefore excluded from the realm of proper conversation. These it is the walker’s business to reclaim and invest with a due sense of their real importance.