Ah! well! I suppose we have been too long familiar
with the unprofitableness of speculation, have surrendered
too definitely to action—to the material
side of things, retaining for what relaxation our
spirits may require, a habit of sentimental aspiration,
carefully divorced from things as they are.
We seem to have decided that things are not, or, if
they are, ought not to be—and what is the
good of thinking of things like that? In fact,
our national ideal has become the Will to Health,
to Material Efficiency, and to it we have sacrificed
the Will to Sensibility. It is a point of view.
And yet—to the philosophy that craves
Perfection, to the spirit that desires the golden mean,
and hankers for the serene and balanced seat in the
centre of the see-saw, it seems a little pitiful,
and constricted; a confession of defeat, a hedging
and limitation of the soul. Need we put up with
this, must we for ever turn our eyes away from things
as they are, stifle our imaginations and our sensibilities,
for fear that they should become our masters, and
destroy our sanity? This is the eternal question
that confronts the artist and the thinker. Because
of the inevitable decline after full flowering-point
is reached, the inevitable fading of the fire that
follows the full flame and glow, are we to recoil from
striving to reach the perfect and harmonious climacteric?
Better to have loved and lost, I think, than never
to have loved at all; better to reach out and grasp
the fullest expression of the individual and the national
soul, than to keep for ever under the shelter of the
wall. I would even think it possible to be sensitive
without neurasthenia, to be sympathetic without insanity,
to be alive to all the winds that blow without getting
influenza. God forbid that our Letters and our
Arts should decade into Beardsleyism; but between
that and their present “health” there lies
full flowering-point, not yet, by a long way, reached.
To flower like that, I suspect, we must see things
just a little more—as they are! 1905-1912.
THE WINDLESTRAW
A certain writer, returning one afternoon from rehearsal
of his play, sat down in the hall of the hotel where
he was staying. “No,” he reflected,
“this play of mine will not please the Public;
it is gloomy, almost terrible. This very day
I read these words in my morning paper: ’No
artist can afford to despise his Public, for, whether
he confesses it or not, the artist exists to give
the Public what it wants.’ I have, then,
not only done what I cannot afford to do, but I have
been false to the reason of my existence.”
Copyrights
Studies and Essays: Concerning Letters from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.