Part 75 (1/2)

THOMAS ST. E. HAKE.

In _Notes and Queries_ [9th S., ix. 369, 450; x. 16] a letter had appeared, signed 'Jay Aitch,' inquiring as to the school of mystics founded by Lavater, alluded to on page 83 of the _Ill.u.s.trated Aylwin_. This afforded Mr. Thomas St. E. Hake another opportunity of unloading his wallet of Rossetti and _Aylwin_ lore. And in the same journal, for 2nd August 1902, he wrote as follows:

The question raised by Jay Aitch as to the school of mystics founded by Lavater, and the large book _The Veiled Queen_, by 'Philip Aylwin,' which contains quotations that Jay Aitch affirms have haunted him ever since he read them, are certainly questions about as interesting as any that could have been raised in connexion with the story. And in answering these queries I find an opportunity of saying a few authentic words on a subject upon which many unauthentic ones have been-uttered--that of the occultism of D. G, Rossetti and some of his friends. It has been frequently said that Rossetti was a spiritualist, and it is a fact that he went to several _seances_; but the word 'spiritualism' seems to have a rather elastic meaning. A spiritualist, as distinguished from a materialist, Rossetti certainly was, but his spiritualism was not, I should say, that which in common parlance bears this name. It was exactly like 'Aylwinism,' which seems to have been related to the doctrines of the Lavaterian sect about which Jay Aitch inquires. As a matter of fact, it was not the original of 'Wilderspin' nearly so much as the original D'Arcy who was captured by the doctrine of what is called in the story the 'Aylwinian.'

With regard to Johann Kaspar Lavater, Jay Aitch is no doubt aware that, although this once noted writer's fame rests entirely upon his treatise _Physiognomische Fragmente_, he founded a school of mystics in Switzerland. This was before what is called spiritualism came into vogue. I believe that the doctrines of _The Veiled Queen_ are closely related to the doctrines of the Lavaterians; but my knowledge on this matter is of a second-hand kind, and is derived from conversations upon Lavater and his claims as a physiognomist, which I heard many years ago at Coombe and during walks in Richmond Park, between the author of _Aylwin_ and my father, who, admittedly a man of intellectual grasp, went even further than Lavater.

A writer in the _Literary World_, in some admirable remarks upon this story, is, as far as I know, the only critic who has dwelt upon the extraordinary character of 'Philip Aylwin.' He says:

'The melancholy, the spiritual isolation, and the pa.s.sionate love of this master-mystic for his dead wife are so finely rendered that the reader's sympathies go out at once to this most pathetic and lonely figure....It would be difficult for any sensitive man or woman to follow Philip Aylwin's story as related by his son without the tribute of aching heart and scalding tears. To our thinking, the man's sanity is more moving, more supremely tragic, than even the madness of Winifred, which is the culminating tragedy of the book.'

I must say that I agree with this writer in thinking 'Philip Aylwin'

to be the most impressive character in the story. The most remarkable feature of the novel, indeed, is that, although 'Philip Aylwin'

disappears from the scene so early, his opinions, his character, and his dreams are cast so entirely over the book from beginning to end that the novel might have been called _Philip Aylwin_. I have a special interest in this character, because I knew the undoubted original of the character with a considerable amount of intimacy.

Without the permission of the author of _Aylwin_, I can only touch on outward traits--the deep, spiritual life of this man is beyond me.

Although a very near relation, he was not, as has been so often surmised, the author's father. [Footnote] He was a man of extraordinary learning in the academic sense of the word, and possessed still more extraordinary general knowledge. He lived for many years the strangest kind of hermit life, surrounded by his books and old ma.n.u.scripts. His two great pa.s.sions were philology and occultism. He knew more, I think, of those strange writers discussed in Vaughan's _Hours with the Mystics_ than any other person--including, perhaps, Vaughan himself; but he managed to combine with his love of Mysticism a deep pa.s.sion for the physical sciences, especially astronomy. He seemed to be learning languages up to almost the last year of his life. His method of learning languages was the opposite of that of George Borrow, that is to say, he made great use of grammars; and when he died it is said that from four to five hundred treatises on grammar were found among his books. He used to express great contempt for Borrow's method of learning languages from dictionaries only.