awiAAU^. .>.A Qlive-Percival THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES / 4J O HIEROGLYPHICS A NOTE UPON EC ST AST IN LITERATURE Br ARTHUR MA CHEN 1 J » i 1 i I * ^ * Q i ^ • ■» i i J * > »»„ • »»^ J » n ■ • 9 i A^£/r YORK MITCHELL KENNERLEY MCMXIII • « • • • « « ■ « • • • • t • • ••• PREFATORT NOTE IT was m^ privilege, many years ago, to make the acquaintance of the obscure literary hermit whose talk I have tried to reproduce in the pages that follow. Our first meeting was one of those chance affairs that now and then mitigate the loneliness of the London streets, and a second hazard led to the discovery that we had many interests in com- mon. I think that the Hermit (as I shall call him) had begun to find the perpetual solitude of his years a growing terror, and he was not sorry to have a listener ; at first, indeed, he talked almost with the joy of a child, or rather of a prisoner who has escaped from the house of silence, but as he chose subjects which have always interested me intensely, he gave as much pleasure as he received, and I became an assiduous visitor of his cell. He had found an odd retreat. He avoided personalities, and had a happy knack of forgetting any that I vouchsafed on my side (he forgot my name three times on the first evening that "ENGLISH 8 Hieroglyphics we spent together, and succeeded in repeating this feat over and over again since then), and I never gathered much of his past history. But I believe that " something had happened " many years before, in the prehistoric age of the 'seventies. There had been a break of some sort in the man's Uf e when he was quite young ; and so he had left the world and gone to Barns- bury, an almost mythical region lying between Pentonville and the Caledonian Road. Here, in the most retired street of that retired quarter, he occupied two rooms on the ground floor of a big, mouldy house, standing apart from the street and sheltered by gaunt-grown trees and ancient shrubs ; and just beside the dim and dusty window of the sitting-room a laburnum had cast a green stain on the decaying wall. The laburnum had grown wild, like all the trees and shrubs, and some of its black, straggling boughs brushed the pane, and of dark, windy nights while we sat together and talked of art and life we would be startled by the sudden violence with which those branches beat angrily upon the glass. The room seemed always dark. I suppose that the house had been built in the early eighteenth century, and had been altered and added to at various periods, with a final " doing up " for the comparative luxury of someone Prefatory Note 9 in the 'tens or 'twenties ; there were, I think, twenty rooms in it, and my friend used to declare that when a new servant came she spent many months in finding her way in the com- pHcated maze of stairs and passages, and that the landlady even was now and then at fault. But the room in which we sat was hung with flock paper, of a deep and heavy crimson colour, and even on bright summer evenings the crimson looked almost black, and seemed to cast a shadow into the room. Often we sat there till the veritable darkness came, and each could scarcely see the white of the other's face, and then my friend would light two lonely candles on the mantelpiece, or if he wished to read he set one on a table beside him ; and when the candles were lighted I thought that the gloom grew more intense, and looking through the uncurtained window one could not see even the friendly twinkle of the gas- lamp in the street, but only the vague growth of the laburnum, and the tangle of boughs beyond. It was a large room and gave me always a sense of empty space. Against one wall stood a heavy bookcase, with glass doors, solid and of dark mahogany, but made in the intermediate period that came between Chippendale and the modern school of machine-turned rubbish. lo Hieroglyphics In the duskiest corner of the room there was a secretaire of better workmanship, and two small tables and three gaunt chairs made up the furnishing. The Hermit would sometimes pace up and down in the void centre of the room as he talked, and if I chanced to be sitting by the window his shape would almost disappear as he neared the secretaire on his march, and I heard the voice, and used to wonder for a moment whether the man had not vanished for ever, having been resolved into the shadows about him. I have spent many evenings in that old mouldering room, where, when we were silent / for an instant, the inanimate matter about us found a voice, and the decaying beams murmured together, and a vague sound might come from the cellars underneath. And it always seemed to me as if the crypt-like odour of the cellar rose also into the room, mingling with a faint suggestion of incense, though I am sure that my friend never burned it. Here then, with such surroundings as I have indicated, we held our sessions and talked freely and with enjoyment of many curious things, which, as the Hermit would say, had the huge merit of interesting no one but ourselves. He would sometimes, whimsically, compare himself to Coleridge, and I think that he often Prefatory Note n deliberately talked in S. T. C.'s manner with delight in the joke. For I need hardly say that the comparison was not in any way a serious one ; he had a veneration for Coleridge's achievement, with a still greater veneration for that which Coleridge might have achieved, which would have caused him to regard any such comparison, seriously entertained, as un- speakably ludicrous. Still, he hked to regard himself as a very humble disciple in Coleridge's school ; he was fond, as I have said, of imitating his master's manner as well as he could, and I think that he cherished, in the fashion of S. T. C, the notion that he had a " system," an esoteric philosophy of things. He sought for a key that would open, and a lamp that would enlighten all the dark treasure-houses of the Universe, and sometimes he believed that he held both the Key and the Lamp in his hands. It is a confession of mysticism, but I incline to think that he was right in this belief. I recall the presence of that hollow, echoing room, the atmosphere with its subtle suggestion of incense sweetening the dank odours of the cellar, and the tone of the voice speaking to me, and I believe that once or twice we both saw visions, and some glimpse at least of certain eternal, ineffable Shapes. But these matters, the more esoteric doctrines of the " system," 1 2 Hieroglyphics have entered hardly or not at all into the very imperfect and fragmentary notes that I have made of his conversations on literature. I should scarcely be justified in calling him a hterary monomaniac. But it is true that Art in general and the art of literature in particular had for him a very high significance and interest ; and he was always ready to defend the thesis that, all the arts being glorious, the literary art was the most glorious and wonderful of all. He reverenced music, but he was firm in main- taining that in perfect lyrical poetry there is the subtlest and most beautiful melody in the world. I can scarcely say whether he wrote much himself. He would speak of stories on which he was engaged, but I have never seen his name on pubHshers' Hsts, and I do not think that he had adopted a pseudonym. One evening, I remember, I came in a little before my accus- tomed time, and in the shadowy corner of the room a drawer in the secretaire was open, and I thought that it looked full of neat manu- scripts. But I never spoke to him about his literary work ; and I noticed that he did not much care to talk of literature from the com- mercial standpoint. It is perhaps needless to say that I consulted my friend before publishing these notes of his Prefatory Note 13 conversations. I had been forced to leave London for some months, and I wrote to him from the country, requesting his permission to give to the world (if the world would have them) those judgments on books which I had listened to in Barnsbury. His reply allowed me to take my own way, " with all my heart, so long as you make me sufficiently apocryphal. I am not going to compete with ' real ' critics whose names are printed in the papers ; but if you can maintain the incognito and allow your readers (supposing their existence) to believe that I am a mere figment of your brain, you can print my obiter dicta ' with ease of body and rest of reins.' Here is a suggestion for a title : what do you say to ' Boswell in Barnsbury ' ? But I really had no notion that you were taking notes all the time. Remember : keep the secret, and the secrets." I regarded this as a very liberal license, and I have tried to set in the best order I could compass the " system " so far as it relates to letters. I do not pretend that I am a verbatim reporter, for I had to trust to my memory, and though I tried to arrange my notes at the time, I fear I have fallen here and there into confusion. Still, I think that the six chapters which follow will seem fairly consecutive in their argument and arrangement, and the 14 Hieroglyphics " Appendix " — a confession of failure — is, in reality, the result of the " cyclical mode of discoursing," in which the Hermit jocularly professed to follow Coleridge. Perhaps indeed Coleridge was deceived, and my dear friend with him, in the hope of real essential knowledge ; but even so, these fragments which I propose are evidence that the latter earnestly desired the truth and sought it. A. M. I Do you know that just before you came in. I found something highly significant in the evening paper ? I am afraid from your ex- pression that you rather undervalue the influence of the press ; indeed, I remember one day when we were out together you swore at an inoffensive boy who tried to allure us with news of all the winners. I think I pointed out at the time that even horse-racing and an interest in *' events " are preferable to stagnation, and that there is something august in the universal human passion for gambling. And, after all, the office-boy who " puts on " half a crown is really only an example of the love of man for the unknown ; the half-crown is a venture into mystery, with that due flavour of commercialism which we in England add to most of our interests. But you see, don't you ? that gambling, even under its most sordid aspects, is not altogether sordid ; it's the mystery, the uncertainty, the hours of " strange surmise " that the smallest bet gives to the bettor, that make the real delight 15 1 6 Hieroglyphics of betting. When, the office-boy wins and gets ten shiUings for the risk of his two-and-six, his delight is not by any means pure love of gain, it is distinguished by a very marked line from the constantly repeated joys of the grocer, who is always buying delicious tea at ninepence and selling it at one-and-six. Here you have com- mercialism in its simplest form ; but our office-boy, though he likes the money well enough, stands on a much higher plane. For the moment he is the man who has succeeded in solving the enigma of the Sphinx, in discovering the unknown continent, in reading the cypher, i in guessing at the song the Sirens sang, in unveiling the hidden treasure that the buc- caneers buried on the lonely shore ; he has ventured successfully into the dim region of surmises. And when he loses, there are always consolations ; the Indies have not been dis- covered on this voyage, certainly, but there have been wonders on the way, he has enjoyed many hours of delicious expectation. The proof that he likes the sport, even when he loses, is that he invariably takes the first opportunity of venturing again in the same manner. And, by the way, perhaps I was a little severe just now on trade, and especially on the grocer's sugary and soapy enterprise. Perhaps if we were to look with a rather finer vision into the commercial Hieroglyphics 1 7 spirit, we might find that it is not wholly com- mercial, not altogether sordid. Of course if the grocer opens his shop with a certainty, mathe- matical or almost mathematical, that the public will buy his wares, he is a wicked fellow ; he is gambHng with loaded dice, betting against a horse that he knows is to be made " all right," playing cards with honours up his sleeve, and I am sure that if this be his enterprise, it will always meet with our sternest disapproval. Casanova died towards the close of the last century, and since then card-sharping has become impossible to a man of taste. But seriously, I suspect that a good deal of the allure- ment that trade possesses for so many of us is the risk which it almost always implies, and risk means uncertainty, and uncertainty connotes the un- known. So you see our despised grocer turns out, after all, to be of the kin of Columbus, of the treasure-seekers, and mystery-mongers, and delvers after hidden things spiritual and material. I suppose we have here the real explanation of the human trading passion, and the solution of a problem that has often puzzled me. The problem I mean is this : How does it happen that the EngUsh are both the greatest poets and the greatest tradesmen of the modern world ? Superficially, it seems that keeping shops and making poetry are incompatibles, and Words- 1 8 Hieroglyphics worth and Coleridge, Keats and Shelley, Tennyson and Poe, should have come from Provence or Sicily, from the " unpractical," uncommercial Latin races. But if vi?e trace back the trading instinct to that love of a risk — or in other words to the desire for the unknown — the antinomy disappears, and it will become perfectly natural that the race which has gone to the world's end with its merchandise, has penetrated so gloriously into the further regions of poetry. But that reminds me of what I was saying just after you had lit your pipe. I think I remarked that I had seen something of very high significance in the evening paper, and the glare of disgust with which you greeted my observation constituted an interruption, and an interruption that had to be dealt with. Now again you seem to hint at doubt with your eyebrows ; you would say, perhaps, that I have not made out a very convincing case for journalism ? But you must remember that my mental process resembles that of Coleridge ; you called on the Seer at eleven o'clock in the morning, and (if young and imprudent) asked him a question. And at the waning of the light Coleridge was still diligently engaged in answering your question for you, having talked without intermission all the summer day. A " cyclical mode of discoursing " Hieroglyphics 1 9 the pious Henry Nelson Coleridge called it, and he deals faithfully with certain persons who complained " that they could get no answer to a question from Coleridge." And you will please to remember this when you think that I am " wandering " — a vice of which Coleridge also was accused. To-night, for example, on the evening paper being mentioned, your face expressed disgust and contempt, which I diagnosed (and rightly, I beheve ? ) as a tribute to the enormous interest taken by the editors of these agreeable journals in the very latest sporting news ; an interest which allows but Httle space for the discussion of pure literature. Hence my remarks on the gambling-spirit ; and now I hope you will at least assume a thrill of interest when the boy bawls in your ear " All the winners and S. P." It is possible you may be thinking of Ulysses or of Keats at the moment, and the interruption may annoy you, but it will do so no longer when you reflect that a burning anxiety as to the rtSnning of Bolter is for many thousands the symbol — and the only possible symbol — of the Doom of Troy and the wandering fields of foam, and the Isle of Calypso, and the " wild surmise " of Pizarro and all his men. But here is the evening paper in question. Yes, the colour is, perhaps, a little sickly. A 20 Hieroglyphics kind of pinky green, it seems, doesn't it ? But it forced itself on my notice in the most extra- ordinary manner, and I expect you will have to admit, when you have heard the story, that some Powers were at work. Well, I was walking up and down the room, just as it was getting dusk, and every now and then I stopped and looked out of the window. Yes, I was making phrases as usual, and thinking of a new story in the middle of the old one : hence the quarter-deck exercise. I dare say you have remarked that I do not keep my window in a very brilliant con- dition, and the air this evening, you will remem- ber, was rather misty — October, I always think, wears a peculiar dim grace in Barnsbury — so I hope you will not find my impressions too incredible. I was staring, then, out of the window, when to my vast astonishment a great pale bird seemed suddenly to shoot up into the air from the road, and to flutter into the garden, where it became entangled in that sapless old laburnum that weeps green tears upon the wall. I saw, as I thought, the beating and fluttering of wings, and I ran out, imagining that I was to secure a strange companion for my solitude. It was the evening paper, not a bird, and I saw at once that it would be impious to let it flutter there unread, so I secured it and brought it in, meditating the adventure, and Hieroglyphics 2 1 wondering what strange message was thus borne to my eyes. So I went through its columns patiently, even to the leaderettes, and I will do myself the justice to say that I at once recognised the communication that was addressed to me in this singular and even I may say Arabian fashion. It was a short comment upon some agitation that is now appealing rather strongly to Progressive leaders ; but the subject-matter is of no consequence, since the significance lies in the last sentence. Here it is : " We are glad to hear that extensive arrangements have been made for the dissemination of literature." You don't see the immense importance of that ? You surprise me. Let us go into it, then. I told you I was not very precise as to the exact scope of the agitation alluded to — it may be a question of a heavy tax on persons who will say " lady " instead of " lydy," it may be an affair of restricting the franchise to citizens thoroughly ignorant of history ; it doesn't matter — but here are men who wish some political change to be effected, and these men are issuing printed matter, the purpose of which is to convince others of the righteousness of this particular " program." And this printed matter is called " literature." You know the sort of thing indicated. It may be a series of arguments, simple and fallacious, it may be in dialogue, it 22 Hieroglyphics may be in story form, it may assume the guise of parody, it may be a brief history. And now what I want to know is this : here we have a vast body of thought, clothed in words, ranging from the agreeable leaflets that we have been speaking of up to — let us say — the Odyssey, and all this mass is known as literature : what is to be our criterion, our means of distinguishing between the two extremes I have mentioned and all the innumerable links between them ? Is the whole mass literature in the true sense of the word ? If not, with what instrument, by what rule are we to divide the true from the false, to judge exactly in the case of any particu- lar book whether it is literature or not ? Of course you may say that the question is rather verbal than real ; that " literature " is a general term conveniently applied to anything in print, and that in practice everybody knows the difference between a political pamphlet and the Odyssey. I very much doubt whether people do understand precisely the distinction between the two, but for the avoidance of verbal con- fusion I suggest that when we mean literature in its highest sense we shall say (for the present at all events), " fine literature " ; and the question will be, then : What is it that differ- entiates fine literature from a number of grammatical, or partly grammatical, sentences Hieroglyphics 23 arranged in a more or less logical order ? Why is the Odyssey to come in, why is the " literature" of our evening paper to be kept out ? And again, to put the question in a more subtle form : To which class do the works of Jane Austen belong ? Is Pride and. Prejudice to stand on the Odyssey shelf, or to lie in the pamphlet drawer ? Where is Pope's place ? Is he to be set in the class of Keats ? If not, for what reason ? What is the rank of Dickens, of Thackeray, of George Eliot, of Hawthorne ? and, in a word, how are we to sort out, as it were, this huge multitude of names, giving to each one his proper rank and station ? I am glad it strikes you as a big question : to me it seems the question, the question which covers the final dogma of literary criticism. Of course after we have answered this prerogative riddle there will be other questions, almost without end, classes, and sub-classes of infinite analysis. But this will be detail ; while the question I have propounded is the question of first principles ; it marks the parting of two ways, and in a manner it asks itself not only of literature, but of life, but of philosophy, but of religion. What is the line, then ; the mark of division which is to separate spoken, or written, or printed thought into two great genera ? Well, as you may have guessed, I have my < 24 Hieroglyphics solution, and I like it none the less because the word of the enigma seems to me actually but a single word. Yes, for me the answer comes with the one word. Ecstasy. If ecstasy be present, then I say there is fine literature, if it be absent, then, in spite of all the cleverness, all the talents, all the workmanship and observation and dexterity you may show me, then, I think, we have a product (possibly a very interesting one) which is not fine literature. Of course you will allow me to contradict myself, or rather, to amplify myself before we begin to discuss the matter fully. I said my answer was the word, ecstasy ; I still say so, but I may remark that I have chosen this word as the representative of many. Substitute, if you like, rapture, beauty, adoration, wonder, awe, mystery, sense of the unknown, desire for the unknown. All and each will convey what I mean ; for some particular case one term may be more appropriate than another, but in every case there will be that withdrawal from the common life and the common consciousness which justifies my choice of " ecstasy " as the best symbol of my meaning. I claim, then, that here we have the touchstone which will infallibly separate the higher from the lower in literature, which will range the innumerable multitude of books in two great divisions, which can be Hieroglyphics 2 5 applied with equal justice to a Greek drama, an eighteenth-century novelist, and a modern poet, to an epic in twelve books, and to a lyric in twelve lines. I will convince you of my belief in my own nostrum by a bold experiment : here is Pickwick and here is Vanity Fair ; the one regarded as a popular " comic " book, the other as a serious masterpiece, showing vast insight into human character ; and applying my test, I set Pickwick beside the Odyssey, and Vanity Fair on top of the political pamphlet. I will not argue the matter at the moment ; I would merely caution you against supposing that I imply any equality of merit in the books that I have thus summarily " bracketed." You mustn't suppose that I think Dickens's book as good as Homer's, or that I have any doubts as to the vast superiority of Vanity Fair over all the pamphlets in the world. " Here is a temple, here is a tub," we may suppose a child to say, learning from a picture-alphabet ; but the temple may be a miserably designed structure, in ruinous condition, and the tub is, perhaps, a miracle of excellent workmanship. But one means worship and the other means washing, and that is the distinction. Or, to take a better example ; the bottom boy in the sixth form may be a miserable dunce compared with the top boy in the fifth ; still, the dunce is in the 26 Hieroglyphics sixth form, and the genius is in the fifth. Or, to take a third instance (I want you to under- stand what I'm driving at), the fact that an EngHsh orator is fluent, brilliant, profound, convincing, while a Greek orator is stuttering, stupid, shallow, illogical, does not hinder that the former, though he may speak ever so well, still speaks English, while the latter, however badly he may speak, speaks in Greek for all that. Analogies, as you know, are never perfect, and must not be pressed too far ; they suggest rather than prove ; but I hope you understand me though you may not agree with me. But before we argue the merits of my own literary solvent, we might very well see what we can do with other tests. I dare say you can suggest a good many. We won't go into the question of printed and not printed, written or not written, because it is obvious that the visible symbols by which literature is recorded have nothing to do with literature itself. In the beginning all literature was a matter of im- provisation or recitation and memory, and hieroglyphics, writing, printing are mere con- veniences. Indeed, the point is only worth mentioning because there are, I believe, simple souls who think that the invention of printing has some sort of mysterious connection with the birth of literature, and that the abolition of the Hieroglyphics 27 paper duty was its coming of age. But I don't think we need trouble ourselves much about a view of literary art which regards the cheap press as its father and the school-board as its nursing mother. Many people think, on the other hand, that literature is to be estimated by its effect on the emotions, by the shock which it gives to the system. You may say that a book which interests you so intensely that you cannot put it down, that affects you so acutely that you weep, that amuses you so immensely that you roar with laughter, must be very good. I don't object to " very good," but, from my point of view, " very good " and " fine literature " are two different things. You see I believe that the difference between interesting, exciting, tear- compelling, laughter-moving reading-matter and fine art is not specific but generic : who would blaspheme against good bitter beer, who would say that because it is good, it is therefore bur- gundy ? I am not quite sure that I am not muddling up two things which are in reality distinct. I mean I am in doubt whether the faculty of making the reader cry ought not to be dis- tinguished from the faculty of interesting him intensely. On the whole I think that it would be well to draw a line between the two, especially as " interesting " is somewhat ambiguous. 2 8 Hieroglyphics And you think it a paradox, then, to maintain that the power of exciting the emotions to a high degree is not a mark of fine literature ? But just think it over. Suppose that a few yards from this room — in the next house, in the next street — a woman is waiting for the return of her husband and son. A ring comes at the bell, there's a reddish brown envelope, and inside it the message : " Railway accident — father killed." Well, you can imagine the effect that these four words will have on the woman's emotions ; she will either faint away or burst into an agony of tears ; she may even die of the shock, and you can't have a more striking emotional result than death, can you ? Very well ; but is the telegram fine art ? Is it art ? Is it even artifice ? It isn't art because it is true ! But if I invented such a telegram and sent it to a woman whose husband and son were away, would it thereby become art ? You must see perfectly well that it would be nothing of the kind ; and I must ask you to explain how a book which is, virtually, a long succession of such telegrams can rise higher than its origin and source ? You must see, I think, that the question of truth and falsity can make no real difference to our (no doubt pompous) high aesthetic standpoint ; and if you admit that four words which produce an emotional result are not necessarily art, then it Hieroglyphics 29 follows that four hundred or four hundred thousand words woven together on the same principle are in no better position. An increased quantity means no doubt an increased artifice, but artifice and art are very different things. We may agree then that it is impossible to measure the artistic merit of a book by the emotional shock that it may give to its readers. I have never read The Sorrows of Werther ; but if you have read it and it has made you sorrowful you are hereby warned against deducing from this effect any conclusion as to its aesthetic value. I confess all this seems A B C to me, though I see you are still inclined to think me a little paradoxical — not to say sophistical — but it grows more difficult when one gets to the question of the " interesting " or " absorbing " book. As I said, " interesting " seems such an ambiguous word. It may stand for that aesthetic emotion produced, say, by the CEdipus ; it may denote the wide-eyed attention of the butcher's wife listening to the story of my landlady as to the love-affairs of the grocer's daughter — and there are many books which are, virtually, " Tales of My Landlady " printed and bound. We must really then omit " interesting " in our account of the possible criteria of fine art ; the word as it were cancels itself out, because it may mean on the one hand the possession 30 Hieroglyphics of the highest artistic value, or on the other it may serve as epithet for a book which gratifies the lowest curiosity. You know there are books which the French have kindly named romans a clef ; and I suppose there is no more miser- able form of book-making. The recipe is easy enough. The grocer's daughter, to whose amours I alluded just now, is really named Miss Buggins, and the gentleman is Mr. Tibb. Well, suppose that my landlady, relating their lyric to the butcher's wife, should, with a knowing wink, profess to tell the story of Miss Ruggins and Mr. Ribb — she would simply be composing a roman a clef without knowing it. You might say that it is hardly worth while to labour the point, that such " interest " as this is wholly and lamentably inartistic — that it is the very contrary to all true art — but it is not long since a person of some literary note, in criticising the Heptameron, stated that its chief value lay in the fact that one could identify the persons who tell the stories and those also of whom they were told ! But there is another interest of a much higher kind, and that is the sensational. We have done some excellent books of this sort in England, and perhaps you will understand the class I mean when I say that a novel of this description is hard to lay down, and harder still to take up Hieroglyphics 3 1 again when you have once found out the secret. This is not high art ; you are always at Hberty to put down Lycidas, but then you are compelled to take it up again and again, and the secret of Lycidas is always a secret, and one never fails to experience the joy of an artistic surprise. Still, the books I mean sometimes show very high artifice, and in itself, perhaps, the quality that I am talking about, the power of exciting a vivid curiosity, an earnest desire to know what is to come next, is not, like the vulgar roman a clef curiosity, in actual discord from the purpose of art. Indeed, I imagine that this trick of stimu- lating the curiosity may be made subservient to purely aesthetic ends, it may become a handmaid to lead one towards that desire of the unknown which I think was one of the synonyms I gave you for the master word — Ecstasy. Still, though the trick is a good one, it will not, by itself, make fine art. You may discover so much by reading The Moonstone, that monument of ingenuity and absurdity. On the face of it all detective stories come under this heading : formally, no doubt, they must all be reckoned as tricks, and they may vary from the infinitely ingenious to the infinitely imbecile, and so far as I remember, the famous French tales of detection verge towards the lower rather than the higher ground. But I am inclined, not very 3 2 Hieroglyphics logically, perhaps, to make an exception in favour of Poe's Dupin, and to place him almost in the sphere of pure literature. Logically, he is a detective, but I almost think that in his case the detective is a symbol of the mystagogue. As I say, I should be pressed hard if I were asked to make out my case in terms and syllogisms, but if you require me to do so, I would say first of all that the atmosphere of Dupin — and you must remember that in literature everything counts ; it is not alone the plot or the style that we have to consider — has to me hints of that presence which I have called ecstasy. Listen to this : " It was a freak of fancy in my friend (for what else shall I call it ?) to be enamoured of the Night for her own sake ; and into this bizarrerie, as into all his others, I quietly fell ; giving myself up to his wild whims with a perfect abandon. The sable divinity would not herself dwell with us always ; but we could counterfeit her presence. At the first dawn of the morning we closed all the massive shutters of our old building, lighting a couple of tapers which, strongly perfumed, threw out only the ghastliest and feeblest of rays. By the aid of these we then buried our souls in dreams — reading, writing, or conversing, until warned by the clock of the advent of the true Darkness. Hieroglyphics 33 Then we sallied forth into the streets, arm in arm, continuing the topics of the day, or roaming far and wide until a late hour, seeking, amid the wild lights and shadows of the populous city, that infinity of mental excitement which quiet observation can afford." And again ; in the stories themselves, in the conduct of M. Dupin's detective processes, I find a faint suggestion of the under-consciousness or other-consciousness of man, a mere hint, not, I think, expressed in so many words, rather latent than patent, that if you would thoroughly understand the rational man you must have sounded the irrational man, the mysterious companion that walks beside each one of us on the earthly journey. Of course the artifice in the Dupin stories is of the very highest kind, but for the reasons I have given I am inclined to think that there is more than artifice, and the shadow, at all events, of art itself. But this exceptional case of Poe's detective tales only leads us back to the main proposition — that the power of exciting a very high sensa- tional interest does not, in itself, mark out a book as being fine literature. I think I proved the proposition by my instance of The Moonstone^ but if that does not convince you, we might demonstrate this theorem in the same way as we demonstrated the other one about the 34 Hieroglyphics " literature " that produces its effect on the emotions. We have only to send out a series of telegrams, or we may even glance at the newspaper, and follow a case in the Central Criminal Court. Or we may affirm, more generally, that life often offers many highly ab- sorbing and highly interesting spectacles, but that life is not art, and therefore, that literature which fails to rise above the level of life, or rather, to penetrate beneath the surface of life, is not fine literature in our sense of that term. A gold nugget may be as pure and fine as you like, but it is not a sovereign ; it lacks the stamp ; and it is the business of art to give its stamp and imprint to the matter of life. I really think then that we have disposed of perhaps the most generally received of artistic fallacies — that books are to be judged by their power of reproducing in the reader those feelings of grief, interest, curiosity, and so forth which he experiences or may experience in his everyday life, which he really does experience in greater or less degree every time he talks to a friend, takes up a newspaper, or receives a telegram. It comes to this again and again, doesn't it ? that Art and Life are two different spheres, and that the Artist with a capital A is not a clever photographer who understands selection in a greater or less degree. Hieroglyphics 35 But before we go on with our work and see what can be done with other literary " solvents " I want to make a digression. I should have made it before, if you had pulled me up at the proper cue, and that was when I spoke of " interest " as a highly ambiguous term, the fruitful parent of " undistributed middles." You see how the unscrupulous sophist would bend this word to his dark work, don't you ? It would be, I suppose, something like this : A very high degree of interest [of the artistic kind] is the mark of fine literature. But The Moonstone excites a very high degree of interest [of the sensational kind]. Therefore, The Moonstone has the mark of fine literature. You note the " paltering " with the word, its use now in one sense, and now in another ; and if that sort of thing were allowed we should have Wilkie Collins placed among the Immortals before we knew where we were. But hasn't it occurred to you that nearly all the terms we are using are patient of the same vile uses ? You remember that we began with " literature " itself, as a monstrous example of ambiguity, sheltering as it did both the publications of the Anti-Everything Society and the Song of Ulysses' Wandering ; even now we are trying to 3 6 Hieroglyphics track the monster to his den in spite of his mani- fold turnings and disguises. In the meanwhile, for the sake of clearness, we agreed to prefix the epithet " fine " to the word when we meant the Odyssey class, though if we say " fine " so often I am afraid we run the risk of being thought superfine. However, one must run all risks in the cause of making oneself understood ; and so I say you ought to have pulled me up when I talked about " art " and " books that appealed to the emotions." My " art " may not be the same as your " art," and " emotions " are still more dangerous in the same way. I think I made some attempt to deal with " art " as I was talking. I contrasted it with " artifice," and my phrase " Artist with a big A " was another hint to you that the word must be handled cautiously. You know that in ordinary conversation we say that bees have " the art " or " an art " of making hexagonal cells of wax, that wasps have an art of making a sort of paper for their nests, that there is an art of logic, an art of cookery, an art in making a gravel path. Now in each of these instances the word really speaks of the adaptation of means to ends. In the case of the bees and wasps there is a slightly different nuance of meaning, because they make their cells and their paper just as a bird builds its nest, through the in- Hieroglyphics 37 fluence of forces which to us are occult, which we conveniently sum up under the word instinct. In the arts of cookery and path-making there is a conscious employment of certain means towards the securing of certain ends ; and it is at least possible that the swallow, gathering its materials and shaping them, has at the moment nothing but a blind impulse, similar to that of hunger. We all know when we are hungry and we all know what to do in such a case, but we do not all know the physiology of the stomach and the gastric juices, and perhaps not one of us knows the whole secret of inanition and nutri- tion. We simply eat because we want to eat, not because we wish to supply ourselves with a certain quantity of peptones ; and so perhaps the swallow gathers her nest and shapes it, without the consciousness of the eggs and the little birds that are to follow. But I need not remind you that there are plenty of well-authen- ticated instances of animals who have con- sciously used means to secure ends, and thus " art " in its common significance is not even an exclusively human faculty. When, for example, the bees find themselves in danger of being left queenless, they administer what has been called " royal food " to a common grub, and that which would have been a worker becomes a queen ; and in this case the bees are as much 3 8 Hieroglyphics " artists " as the cook who puts a particular ingredient into a dish with the view of obtaining a particular flavour. Now, then, let us apply all this to our matter. I dare say you have often heard a book praised for its " great art," and if you have read it you will have discovered that its " art " is simply contrivance, the very adaptation of means to ends that we have been discussing. " The art with which the mystery is carefully kept in the background," " the art by which the two characters are contrasted throughout the volume," " the highly artistic manner in which Fernando and the heroine are brought together on the last page " — these, you see clearly, are contrivances, artifices, in no way differing in degree from the contrivances of the man who makes the garden path, of the cook who " dusts in " just a suspicion of lemon-rind, of the bee who administers the " royal food." This " art " then is a totally different thing from our Art with the capital letter, with the epithet " fine " or " high " before it ; and in future when I mean " adaptation of means to ends," I shall always say " artifice," while " art " will be retained and set apart for higher uses. And now as to " emotion." Here, I think, you ought to have been down on me. You might have said : " You declare that the appeal Hieroglyphics 3 9 to the emotions is not a test of fine literature. But to what then does Homer appeal ? What is the CEdipus but an appeal to the emotions ? What is all exquisite lyric poetry but the cry of the emotions, set to music ? " I suppose that, as a matter of fact, you understood my real meaning by the instance I gave ; the anguish of a wife at the loss of a husband ; you saw that what I wanted to say was this : that fine literature does not content itself with repeating, or mimicking, the emotions of private, personal, everyday Ufe. Still, I should have gone into the matter more fully then, and as I did not do so we had better see what can be done now. And do you know that I believe that the best approach we can make to a rather subtle question will be a somewhat indirect one ? Just now I was talking about Poe's Dupin stories, and I tried, rather vaguely, to justify my tentative inclusion of them in the higher class of letters, by pointing out that Poe seemed to hint at the " other-conscious- ness " of man, and to suggest, at least, the presence of that shadowy, unknown, or half- known Companion who walks beside each one of us all our days. I tried to realise the image of a man, followed or rather attended, by a spiritual fellow, treading a path parallel with but different from his own ; and now I want you 40 Hieroglyphics to carry out this image into the sphere of words. Already you must have a hint of it. One might draw a figure ; something Uke this : Fine Literature. " Literature." Art. Artifice. Emotion. Feelings. And before I go into the special question, let me extend the list ; it will explain itself. Romance, romantic. A " Romantic " Affair in the West End. Tragedy, tragic. " Tragedy " in Soho. Drama, dramatic. Le " drame " de la Rue Cochon : " Dramatic " Elopement in Peckham. Interest, interesting [of An " interesting " number of Hamlet]. " Snippets." Lyric. The " Lyric " Theatre. Inebriated. In an "inebriated" condition. That almost gives my secret away, doesn't it ? Of course you see the place that the words in the right-hand column take in the scheme. The " Romantic " Affair in the West End really concerned the life of a draper's assistant, who robbed his master's till in order that he might make presents to Miss Claire Tilbury, one of the " Sisters Tilbury " now performing at the Lucifer. An unmentionable person cut his throat in some alley off Greek Hieroglyphics 4 1 Street ; hence the " Tragedy " in Soho. Two peculiarly squalid servants, who beat out their master's brains, under singularly uninteresting circumstances, acted the " Drama " of the Rue Cochon, and it was a dissolute barmaid who eloped " dramatically " from Peckham in the dog-cart of her employer. The two varying uses of the word " lyric " need not be under- lined for you, who know the Elizabethans and the Cavaliers ; but perhaps I may say that he who tastes calix mens inebrians will not be in an " inebriated " condition. It would be possible to extend these parallel columns almost to infinity ; but I think the list is long enough for our purpose, and Trench On Words is a well-known handbook. But you see my hrigt-hand column word parallel with " Emo- tion " ? You see I have written " Feelings," and I suggest that it will be convenient to speak of feelings when we mean the things of life, of society, of personal and private relationship, while we may reserve emotion for the influence produced in man by fine art. Thus it will be with emotion that we witness the fall of CEdipus, the madness of Lear, while we feel for our friends and ourselves in misfortune. That seems to make it plain enough, doesn't it ? You see now, clearly, what I mean by saying that the power of producing an emotional shock cannot be a 42 Hieroglyphics test of fine literature. Art must appeal to emo- tion, and sometimes, no doubt, with a shock ; but it must always be to the emotion of the left-hand column, never to the " feelings " on the right hand. So you must never tell me that a book is fine art because it made you, or somebody else, cry ; your tears are, emphatically, not evidence in the court of Fine Literature. I dare say it may have struck you that the tests we have considered hitherto have been, in the main, popular tests. No doubt many persons calling themselves critics have praised the art of a book because it has drawn tears from eyes, or because it has not suffered itself to be put down, or because it contains easily recognisable portraits of well-known people, but such critics are to be spelt with a very small initial letter, and, as I said, I don't think we want to extend that list of parallels. There is another test that I had forgotten : I suppose there really are people who believe that a book is fine " because it will do good," but I don't think we'll argue with them, though I once knew a liberally educated man who said a certain book was fine because it tended " to raise one's opinion of the clergy." So we will reckon our " popular " tests as done with, and proceed to the more technical solvents that are proposed by professed men of letters. Hieroglyphics 43 Three of these more literary criteria occur to me at the moment, and I believe we shall under- stand them and the position which they repre- sent better if we take them, at first, at all events, in a mass. I can conceive, then, that many- persons whose opinion one would respect would state their position in literary criticism some- what as follows : — " If a book [they would say] shows keenness of observation, insight into character, with fidelity to Hfe as the result of these capacities ; if its art [we should say, artifice] in the design and ' laying out ' of the plot, in the contrivance of incident is confessedly admirable, and finally if it is written in a good style : then you have fine literature. Fine art, in short, is a clear mirror, and the artist's skill consists in arranging and selecting such parts of life as he thinks best for his purpose of re- flection." Well, now, as to the first point : fidelity to life, clearness of reflection, the selection being taken for granted, as no one out of an asylum would maintain that a book must mirror the whole of life, or even the millionth part of one particular man's life. Come, let us apply the test in question to one or two of the acknowledged excellences — to the Odyssey, for instance, to the Morte d' Arthur, to Don Quixote. Is the story of Ulysses, in any accepted sense of the phrase, 44 Hieroglyphics " faithful " to life as we know it ? Is it " faith- ful," that is to say, with the fidelity of Jane Austen, of Thackeray, of George Eliot, of Fielding ? Is there anything in our experience answering to the episodes of the Lotus-Eaters, Calypso's Isle, the Cyclops' Cavern, the descent of the Goddess ? Is the " reflection " even a reflection of Homer's own experience ? Had he escaped from the cave under the belly of a ram ? Had he been in the world of one-eyed giants ? Were his friends in the habit of talking in hexameter verse ? We may go on, of course, but is it worth while ? It is surely hardly necessary to demonstrate the fact that the author of the Morte d^ Arthur had never seen the Graal, that such a character as Don Quixote never existed in the natural order of things. We might have gone more sharply to work with this " fidelity " test : we might have said that poetry being, admittedly, fine literature at its finest, and (admittedly also) being un- faithful to life as we know it both in matter and manner, therefore the test breaks down at once. If fine literature must be faithful to life, then Kubla Khan is not fine literature ; which, I think we may say, is highly absurd, I dare say you think I have dealt rather crudely, in a somewhat materialistic spirit, with this criterion of " fidelity to life." I admit the Hieroglyphics 45 charge, but you must remember that I am dealing with very bad people, who understand nothing but materialism. And when these people tell you in so many words that it is the author's business clearly and intelligently to present the life — the common, social life around him — then, believe me, the only thing to be done is to throw Odyssey and GEdipus, Morte d'Arthur, Kubla Khan, and Don Quixote straight in their faces, and to demonstrate that these eternal books were not constructed on the proposed recipe. Of course if I were treating with the initiated, if I were com- mentating and not arguing, I should handle the great masterpieces in a much moie reverent manner. I mean that for those who possess the secret it skills not to bring in the Cyclops (who for us is not a giant but a symbol) ; we have only to bow down before the great music of such a poem as the Odyssey, recognising that by the very reason of its transcendent beauty, by the very fact that it trespasses far beyond the world of our daily lives, beyond " selection " and ** reflection," it is also exalted above our under- standing, that because its beauty is supreme, therefore its beauty is largely beyond criti- cism. For ourselves we do not need to prove its transcendence of life by this or that extra- ordinary incident ; it is the whole spirit and 46 Hieroglyphics essence and sound and colour of the song that affect us ; and we know that the Odyssey sur- passed the bounds of its own age and its own land just as much as it surpasses those of our time and own country. You look as if you thought I were fighting with the vanquished, but let me tell you that great people have praised Homer because he depicted truthfully the men and manners of his time. But as I was saying, all this would be too subtle for the enemy, for the people who maintain that fine literature is a faithful reflection of life, and think that Jane Austen touched the point of literary supremacy. With them, as I said, we must be rough ; we must ask : Did Sophocles describe the ordinary life of Athens in his day ? No : very well, then ; since the works of Sophocles are fine literature, it follows that some fine literature does not reflect ordinary life, and therefore that fidelity to nature is not the differentia of the highest art. I wonder whether I ought to caution you again against the ambiguity of language ? We are dealing easily enough with such words as " life " and " nature," and from what you know of my system you may perhaps have seen that I have been using these words as the people use them, as those use them who would say that Vanity Hieroglyphics 47 Fair is a faithful presentation of life. I thought you would understand this, but I may just mention in passing that words like " nature," "life," and "truth" or "fidelity" have also their esoteric values, that (by way of example) the truth of the scientist and the truth of the philosopher are two very different things. So it may turn out by and by that in the occult sense " fidelity to life " is the differentia of fine literature ; that the aim of art is truth ; that the artist continually mirrors nature in its eternal, essential forms ; but for the present moment it is understood, is it not ? that these words have been used in their common, everyday popular significance. The Dunciad is a study of man, and Wordsworth's Ode on Intimations of Im- mortality is a study of man, and the literary standpoint that we have been attacking is that of Pope and not that of Wordsworth. If I remember, the next test we have to analyse is that of artifice, often and improperly called art. But I think we have already demolished this criterion. In distinguishing between art and artifice I pointed out that the latter merely signifies the adaptation of means to an end, and has no relation whatever with art properly so called ; it is simply the mental instrument with which man performs every task and every work of his daily hfe ; it consists in the rejection 48 Hieroglyphics o£ that which is unfit for the particular purpose in view, and in the acceptance and use of that which is fit for the desired end and Hkely to bring it about. It concerns not creation but execution, and it is I need hardly say as indis- pensable to the author as are his pen and ink, and (I might almost say) is as little concerned as these with the essence of his art. Of course in works of the very highest genius we may declare that, in a sense, art has become all in all, that the necessary artifice has been interpenetrated with art, so that we can hardly distinguish in our minds between the idea and the realisation of it. In such cases artifice has been lifted up and exalted into the heaven of art, and it remains artifice no longer ; but in the view that we are considering it is merely the adaptation of means to an end, a clever choice of incident, the knack of putting in and leaving out. The faculty may, as I said, be glorified and transfigured by genius, but every newspaper reporter must have more or less of it, and it is clear enough I think (perhaps I may mention Wilkie Collins once more) that in itself it cannot establish the claim of any book to be fine literature. And lastly we have to deal with style ; and here again I must have recourse to my dis- tinctions. What is a. good style ? If you mean by a " good " style one that delivers the Hieroglyphics 49 author's meaning in the clearest possible manner, if its purpose and effect are obviously utiUtarian, if it be designed solely with the view of imparting knowledge — the knowledge of what the author intends — then I must point out that " style " in this sense is or should be amongst the accomplishments of every commercial clerk — indeed, it will be merely a synonym for plain speaking and plain writing — and in this sense it is evidently not one of the marks of art, since the object of art is not information, but a peculiar kind of aesthetic delight. But if on the other hand style is to mean such a use and choice of words and phrases and cadences that the ear and the soul through the ear receive an impres- sion of subtle but most beautiful music, if the sense and sound and colour of the words affect us with an almost inexplicable delight, then I say that while idea is the soul, style is the glorified body of the very highest literary art. Style, in short, is the last perfection of the very best in literature, it is the outward sign of the burning grace within. But we must keep the systematic consideration of style for some other night ; it's not a subject to be dealt with by the way, and I have only said so much because it was necessary to draw the line between language as a means of imparting facts (good style in the sense of our opponents) and language as an so Hieroglyphics aesthetic instrument, which is a good, or rather a beautiful style in our sense. In the latter sense it is the form of fine literature, in the former sense it is the medium of all else that is expressed in words, from a bill of exchange upwards. It seems to me, then, that we have considered one by one the alternative tests of fine literature which have been or may be proposed, and we have come to the conclusion that each and all are impossible. It is no longer permissible, I imagine, for you or for me to say : " This book is fine literature because it makes me cry, because it was so interesting that I couldn't put it down, because it is so natural and faithful to life, because it is so well (plainly and neatly) written." We have picked these reasons to pieces one by one, and the result is that we are driven back on my " word of the enigma " — Ecstasy ; the infallible instrument, as I think, by which fine literature may be discerned from reading- matter, by which art may be known from artifice, and style from intelligent expression. At any rate we have got our hypothesis, and you remember what stress Coleridge laid on the necessity of forming some hypothesis before entering on any investigation. I believe we began to-night with the evening paper, and the strange glimpse it gives us, through a pinky-green veil, through a -loud of Hieroglyphics 5 1 laborious nonsense about odds and winners and tips and all such foolery, into that ancient eternal desire o£ man for the unknown. And that, you remember, was one of the synonyms that I offered you for ecstasy ; and so in a sense I expect that we shall have the evening paper close beside us all the way of our long voyage in quest of the lost Atlantis. II I THINK it is a horrible thing to have such a good memory as that. I recollect, now that you remind me, that I did lay down Pickwick V. Vanity Fair as a sort of test case of my theory of literature ; but you surely do not expect me to work out the arguments in detail ? Of course if I were giving a series of lectures I should " set a paper " after each one ; but I expect you to content yourself with the suggestion, with the skeleton map, as it were. Besides, if we take that special case of two eminent Victorian novels as a concrete instance of the abstract argument, don't you see that we are answering the particular question all the while that we are investigating the general proposition ? Surely, if you recollect all that we said about fine literature in general, you won't have much difficulty in adjudicating on the claims of Thackeray. Don't you see that he never withdraws himself from the common life and the common consciousness, that he is all the while nothing but a photographer ; a showman with a set of pictures ? A consummately clever 52 Hieroglyphics 53 photographer, certainly, a showman with a gift of amusing, interesting " patter " that is quite extraordinary, an artificer of very high merit. But where will you find Ecstasy in Thackeray ? Where is his adoration ? You may search, I think, from one end of his books to the other, without finding any evidence that he realised the mystery of things ; he was never for a moment aware of that shadowy double, that strange companion of man, who walks, as I said, foot to foot with each one of us, and yet his paces are in an unknown w^orld. And (unless you have got any fresh arguments) I think we decided last week that the book which lacks the sense of all this is not fine literature. I hope you don't think I am abusing Thack- eray. I am always reading him, and I chose his Vanity Fair because it strikes me as such a supremely clever example of its class. I sup- pose there is nothing more amusing than the society of a brilliant, observant man of the world. Well, Thackeray was brilHant and observant in excelsis, and besides that, he under- stood the artifice of story-telling, and he could write a terse, clean-cut English which was always sufficient for his purpose. He contrives the corporal overthrow of the Marquis of Steyne, he shows you that bald old nobleman sprawhng on the floor, and the words that he uses are his 54 Hieroglyphics brisk, willing, and capable servants. He has observation, and artifice, and " style " in that secondary sense which we distinguished from the real style ; from those " melodies unheard " which I called (I think rather picturesquely) the glorified body of the highest literary art. But these qualities, we found out, are not, separately or conjointly, the differentia of fine literature as we understand the term ; and consequently, with all our admiration and all our interest, we are compelled to place Thackeray in the lower form, simply because he is clearly and decisively lacking in that one essential quality of ecstasy, because he never leaves the street and the highroad to wander on the eternal hills, because he does not seem to be aware that such hills exist. Of course I have only taken Thackeray as the representative of his class, and I chose him, as I remarked, because, for me, he is the most favourable representative of it. I am thinking, really, of the " plain man " whom we have en- gaged in so many forms, and of his " plain " argument which comes to this — " for me a great book is a book that amuses me greatly and that I enjoy reading." And I say that Thackeray amuses me greatly and that I enjoy reading his books immensely, but that, with due respect to " common sense," such an argument fails to prove that Vanity Fair is fine literature. Other Hieroglyphics $s people would, no doubt, have chosen other books ; many would have selected Miss Austen, and I dare say they would have a good deal to say for their choice. Undoubtedly there is a severity, a self-restraint, a fineness of observation, a delicacy of irony in Pride and Prejudice which are unmatched of their kind (the Thackeray of the caricatures, of those queer woodblocks, comes out now and then in the books, and digression occasionally goes beyond due bounds) ; but I named Vanity Fair because, personally, I find it more amusing than Pride and Prejudice. In neither of these books is there art in our high sense of the word, and in preferring the one over the other I am simply saying that I prefer the company of a brilliant and witty cosmo- politan to that of a very keen and delicate, but very limited maiden lady, who lives in a remote country town and understands thoroughly the reason why the vicar bowed so low when a certain carriage rolled up the high street, and why that pretty, prim girl crossed over the way when the handsome gentleman from the Hall came out of the chymist's. Yes, the cosmopolitan at the club window certainly fails a little in his manners now and then, and the country gentlewoman's breeding is perfect of its kind, but the circles in which Pendennis moved are (to me) so infinitely the more entertaining of the two. 56 Hieroglyphics You see, I think that the question of liking a book or not liking it has nothing whatever to do with the consideration of fine art. Art is there, if I may say so, just as the Tenth Commandment is there ; and if we don't like them, so much the worse for us. I may find Homer very dull reading, I may covet your ox and your ass and everything that is yours, but my limited and somewhat commonplace brains, and my envy of your prosperity, won't alter the fact that the Odyssey is fine literature and that covetousness is wicked. But when we once leave the utterances of the eternal, universal human ecstasy, which we have agreed to call art, and descend to these lower levels that we are talking of now, it seems to me that the question of liking or not liking counts for a good deal. Not for everything, of course. We must still distinguish : between plots stupid or ingenious, between observation that is close and keen and observation that is vague and inaccurate, between artifice and the want of it, between sentences that are neatly constructed and mere slipshod. All these things naturally reckon in the account, but when they have been estimated and allowed their value, you will usually find that you are influenced still more by your mere liking or disliking of the subject- matter, and it seems to me quite legitimately. For, if you look closely into the whole question, you Hieroglyphics 5 7 will find that you are judging these secondary- books as you judge o£ life, as you choose the scene of your holiday, as you read the newspaper. One man may say that he prefers to talk to artists, another, quite legitimately, may love the society of brewers ; you may think Norway perfection, I am going to Constantinople ; A. turns at once to the quotation for Turpentine at Savannah, B. folds down the sheet at the Police News. It is not a question of art, but of taste, that is, of individual humour and constitution ; you frequent the company that suits you, you go to the place you like, you read the news that happens to be most interesting from your special standpoint. And in the same way, if I find the conversation of Miss Becky Sharp, as reported by Mr. W. M. Thackeray, more amusing than the conversation of Miss Elizabeth Bennett as reported by Miss Jane Austen, it seems to me that there is no more to be said. Elizabeth's remarks are more skilfully reported ? Very likely, but, granting that, I had rather listen to the record, imperfect, if you please, of the other lady's conversation. Here is a speech on Bimetallism, given at great length, and (let us presume) with great accuracy ; here is a short summary of Professor L.'s lecture on the Eleusinian Mysteries, very badly " sub-edited." But, you see, I happen not to care twopence 5 8 Hieroglyphics about Bimetallism, so I turn away from the careful report, growling ; while I cut out that wretched summary of the lecture with the purpose of pasting it in my scrap-book, since every word about the Eleusinian Mysteries has a vivid interest for me. It often amuses me to hear people quarrelling about the rival " artistic merit " of books which have, in most cases, no artistic merits at all. A. writes a book about greengrocers, and you, who find something singularly piquant and entertaining in the manners, speech, and habits of the class in question, pronounce A. to be a " great artist " who has written a masterpiece. I love dukes, and B's. novel of the peerage strikes me as a marvel of artistic accomplishment, while I pronounce the work that has charmed you to be as stupid and tiresome as the class it represents. Each of us is talking nonsense ; there is no art in the question, which is purely a matter of individual taste. The Stock Exchange column interests one man, while the latest football news absorbs the other. That is all. Of course, as I said, artifice counts for some- thing : there is a pleasure in seeing the thing neatly done, and I suppose it is this pleasure that has secured Miss Austen her fervent admirers. It is a Httle difficult to treat this form of pleasure quite fairly ; a musician perhaps would find it Hieroglyphics 59 difficult to answer the question whether he would rather hear Palestrina badly rendered or Zin- garelH executed to perfection. In the latter case there would certainly be the charm of exquisite voices in perfect order and accord, though the music were nothing or worse than nothing ; still, our musician might say, on the other hand, that Palestrina martyred was better than Zingarelli triumphant. I am afraid I can imagine myself saying : " Limited country- people, as seen by Jane Austen, are so * slow ' that they rather bore me, though the author has portrayed them with wonderful skill," but I can hardly fancy myself affirming that Becky Sharp is such an interesting personage that she would still deUght me, even if the author of Ten Thousand a Tear had written her history. On the other hand I believe that the plot of Jekyll and Hyde would still have had some fascination, though it had been treated by the veriest dolt in letters. But that is not a good example, since Jekyll and Hyde is certainly in its conception, though not in its execution, a work of fine art. Let us take The Moonstone again as an example ; I beUeve, then, that if the events related in it had caught our eyes in a brief newspaper paragraph they would still have interested. It seems to me that, after all, this question of 6o Hieroglyphics artifice, of " how the thing is done," comes under the same category as hking and dishking. I mean it is largely a matter of the personal equation, about which no very strict laws can be laid down. You might say, for example, that Becky would entertain you in any hands, however indifferent, provided that her " facts " were preserved, and I don't see that I could argue the point with you. It reminds me again of the way in which men choose their friends ; one lays stress on pleasant manners, another on sterling goodness of character, a third on wit, a fourth on distinction of some kind ; and argument is really voiceless. " Here is a bookcase," you may say, " look how exquisitely it is made." Yes, but I don't want a bookcase ; whereas that table, rickety as it is, will be really useful. But if you were to say : " Look at Westminster Abbey," you can hardly imagine my answering : " Bother Westminster Abbey ; I want a pig-sty." You see how, here again, we come to the generic difference between fine literature and interesting reading-matter. We read the Odyssey because we are super- natural, because we hear in it the echoes of the eternal song, because it symbolises for us certain amazing and beautiful things, because it is music ; we read Miss Austen and Thackeray because we like to recognise the faces of our friends aptly reproduced, to see the external Hieroglyphics 6 1 face of humanity so deftly mimicked, because we are natural. The question of our preference for one over the other is, making due allowance for analogy, the question of our preference for a table over a bookcase or vice versa, and the workmanship in each case is largely a matter of detail. And the great poem may be equated with the great church : each is made for beauty, the one is ecstasy in words, the other ecstasy in stone. But the church and the pig-sty, on the other hand, are not to be compared together : incidentally, no doubt, the former is rainproof or in ill repair, has good or bad acoustic pro- perties, while the latter may be either an aesthetic pest in the back-yard or an agreeable-looking little shed enough. Still, the essence of the church is beauty, ecstasy ; of the sty utiUty, the safe keeping of pigs. It would be absurd, you see, to say, " I prefer an abbey to a pig-sty," and it would be equally absurd to say, " I prefer the CEdipus to Pride and Prejudice " or " I prefer the Venus of the Louvre to the wax- figures in the exhibition." Of course these are only analogies, and you mustn't press them, but they may help to make my meaning clearer, to enforce the vast distinction between art and artifice. Please don't think that I wish to estabhsh a proportion : as a pig-sty is to an abbey, so is Jane Austen to Sophocles. In her 62 Hieroglyphics case you would have to substitute a neat Geor- gian house for " pig-sty " and then I think you would have a very fair proportion. But all that I wanted to do was to draw the line between things made for use, to occupy some definite place in relation to our common daily life ; and things made by ecstasy and for ecstasy, things that are symbols, proclaiming the presence of the unknown world. And I chose Pickwick as the antithesis to Vanity Fair deliberately. Thackeray (in my private judgment) is the chief of those who have provided interesting reading-matter ; Dickens is by no means in the first rank of literary artists. I think he is golden, but he is very largely alloyed with baser stuff, with indifferent metal, which was the product of his age, of his circum- stances in life, of his own uncertain taste. Just contrast the atmosphere which surrounded the young Sophocles with that in which the young Dickens flourished. Both were men of genius, but one grew up in the City of the Violet Crown, the other in Camden Town and worse places, one was accustomed to breathe that " most pellucid air," the other inhaled the " London particular." The wonder is, not that there are faults in Dickens, but that there is genius of any kind. I am not going to analyse Pickwick any more than I analysed Vanity Fair^ Hieroglyphics 63 but of course you see that, in its conception, it is essentially one with the Odyssey. It is a book of wandering ; you start from your own doorstep and you stray into the unknown ; every turn of the road fills you with surmise, every little village is a discovery, a something new, a creation. You know not what may happen next ; you are journeying through another world. I need not remind you how glorious all this is in the Odyssey, which of course is so much more beautiful than Pickwick, as that glowing Mediterranean Sea, whose bounds on every side were mystery, is more beautiful than the muddy, foggy Thames, as those rolling hexameters are more beautiful than Dickens's prose ; and yet in each case the symbol is, in reality, the same ; both the heroic song of the old Ionian world and the comic cockney romance of 1837 communicate that enthralling impression of the unknown, which is, at once, a whole philosophy of life, and the most exquisite of emotions. In varying degrees of intensity you will trace it all through fine literature in every age and in every nation ; you will find it in Celtic voyages, in the Eastern Tale, where a door in a dull street suddenly opens into dreamland, in the mediaeval stories of the wandering knights, in Don Quixote, and at last in our Pickwick, where Ulysses has become a retired City 64 Hieroglyphics man, whimsically journeying up and down the England of eighty years ago. You talk of the " grotesquerie " of Pickwick, but don't you see that this element is present in all the master- pieces of the kind ? Remember the Cyclops, remember the grotesque shapes that decorate the Arabian Nights, remember the bizarre element, the almost wanton grotesquerie of many of the Arthur romances. In all these cases as in Pick- wick the same result is obtained ; an overpowering impression of " strangeness," of remoteness, of withdrawal from the common ways of life. Pickwick is, in no sense, or in no valuable sense, a portrayal, a copy, an imitation of life in the ordinary sense of " imitation " and " life " ; Pickwick, and Sam, and Jingle, and the rest of them are not clever reproductions of actual people (is there any more foolish pursuit than that of disputing about the " original " of Mr. Pickwick ?) ; the book is rather the sugges- tion of another life, beneath our own or beside our own, and the characters, those queer grotesque people, are queer for the same reason that the Cyclops is queer and the dwarfs and dragons of mediaeval romance are queer. We are withdrawn from the common ways of life ; and in that withdrawal is the beginning of ecstasy. There are sentences in Pickwick that give me an almost extravagant delight. Hierog/yp hies 6 5 You remember the lines about the Lotus- Eaters. T<2v 5' ocTTts AwTOio cfidyoL fi€X.i,rj8ea /capTrov, ovKer' aTrayyelXai irdkLv i^^eAev ovSk veecrOai aAA.' avTOv /3ovX.ovTO fier' a.v8pd