Читаем The Rebel Angels полностью

"All donors and benefactors are crazy," he said. "What they want is posthumous fame and posthumous gratitude. Every college and faculty on this campus could tell a bloody tale if you asked for it. What about the family that earmarked the income from a million to found a chair of internal medicine, and then craftily snatched it back when they didn't like the politics of the third man appointed to it – years later? What about that old bastard who gave a historical library to the University Library, and frowned everybody down and demanded an honorary degree even when it was shown that the books weren't really his, but the property of a foundation he directed? What about old Mahaffy, who gave a bundle for a Centre for Celtic Studies, on condition that Celtic Studies meant Irish Studies and the Scots and the Welsh and the Bretons could all go and bugger themselves? What about that miserable old hound who founded a lectureship, insisting that it be initiated in his lifetime and that the University foot the bill till he died, and then told the President, years later, with a grin on his face, that he'd changed his mind, and didn't like the lectures anyway? Benefaction means self-satisfaction, nine times out of ten. The guile and cunning that enable benefactors to get their hands on the dough make it almost impossible for them to relinquish it, at the hour of death. Even our dear friend Cornish – a very superior specimen, as we all know – can't entirely relax his grip. But what does it matter, anyhow? If the National Gallery doesn't want a picture, give it to the Provincial Gallery, who are getting lots of pictures anyhow. What does another daub or so matter, in the long run? You know what the will says: anything that's left over after specific pictures have gone to the right places may be disposed of at the discretion of Cornish's executors. And that means us. The nephew won't know and won't care. Our job is to cut up the melon and get these apartments emptied."

But Hollier wouldn't hear of that. I had known him for years in a casual way, but I had never seen very deeply into him. He seemed to me to have more conscience than is good for any man. A powerful conscience and no sense of humour – a dangerous combination.

McVarish, on the other hand, possessed rather too much humour. People tend to talk as if a sense of humour were a wonderful adjunct to a personality – almost a substitute for common sense, not to speak of wisdom. But in the case of McVarish it was a sense of irresponsibility, a sense of the unimportance of anybody else's needs or wishes if they interfered with his convenience; it was a cheerful disguise for the contempt he felt for everybody but himself. In conversation and in the affairs of life he greatly valued what he called "the light touch"; nothing must ever be taken seriously, and the kind of seriousness Hollier displayed was, so McVarish hinted pretty broadly, ill-bred. I like a light touch myself, but in McVarish's case it was too plainly another name for selfishness. He didn't care about carrying out Cornish's wishes as well as could be managed; he just liked the importance of being an executor to a very rich and special man, and of hob-nobbing with people from the galleries who met his exacting standards. As has so often been my lot, I had to play peacemaker between these irreconcilables.

My special problem was with archivists. The University Library, not content with the promise of a splendid haul of manuscripts and rare books, wanted all Cornish's papers. The National Library in Ottawa, which had been left nothing, put in a courteous but determined request for Cornish's letters, records, papers, everything that could be found relating to his career as a collector and patron. The two libraries squared off and began, politely but intensely, to fight it out. Cornish had never, I suppose, thought that his old letters and junk might be of any interest to anyone; he kept no records, his method of filing was to throw stuff into cardboard cartons in whatever order came to hand; his notebooks – preserved simply because he never threw anything away – were a muddle of scribbled reminders of appointments, notes of unspecified sums of money, addresses, and occasional words and phrases that had meant something to him at some time. I looked through them superficially and found an entry in a book which, as it was not filled, I presumed must have been his last: it said, "Lend McV. Rab. MS April 16".

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Шедевры юмора. 100 лучших юмористических историй
Шедевры юмора. 100 лучших юмористических историй

«Шедевры юмора. 100 лучших юмористических историй» — это очень веселая книга, содержащая цвет зарубежной и отечественной юмористической прозы 19–21 века.Тут есть замечательные произведения, созданные такими «королями смеха» как Аркадий Аверченко, Саша Черный, Влас Дорошевич, Антон Чехов, Илья Ильф, Джером Клапка Джером, О. Генри и др.◦Не менее веселыми и задорными, нежели у классиков, являются включенные в книгу рассказы современных авторов — Михаила Блехмана и Семена Каминского. Также в сборник вошли смешные истории от «серьезных» писателей, к примеру Федора Достоевского и Леонида Андреева, чьи юмористические произведения остались практически неизвестны современному читателю.Тематика книги очень разнообразна: она включает массу комических случаев, приключившихся с деятелями культуры и журналистами, детишками и барышнями, бандитами, военными и бизнесменами, а также с простыми скромными обывателями. Читатель вволю посмеется над потешными инструкциями и советами, обучающими его искусству рекламы, пения и воспитанию подрастающего поколения.

Вацлав Вацлавович Воровский , Всеволод Михайлович Гаршин , Ефим Давидович Зозуля , Михаил Блехман , Михаил Евграфович Салтыков-Щедрин

Классическая проза / Юмор / Юмористическая проза / Прочий юмор / Проза