There Baudelaire had touched a chord that was to sound loud and long; for what else than this thought of all the senses meeting in union inspired the music drama of Wagner?—­only one of his points of kinship, as we shall see, with symbolism.

Thus the symbolists, in quest of reality, touched it only through the inner life.  There they are, in their fashion, realists.  ‘A landscape’, said Albert Samain, ‘is a state of soul.’  The landscape may be false, but the state of soul is veracious.  What interests them in life is the image of life, not lucidly reflected but exquisitely transformed.  Yet the vision of the world caught in that transforming mirror was not without strange revealing glimpses, invisible, like stars mirrored in a well, to the plain observer.  They could hear the music of the spheres; or in the language of Samain’s sonnet

    ’Feel flowing through them, like a pouring wave,
    The music-tide of universal Soul;
    Hear in their heart the beating pulse of heaven.’[13]

In the earlier poetry of Maurice Maeterlinck, the inner life imposes a more jealous sway.  The poet sits not before a transforming mirror, where the outer world is disguised, but in a closed chamber, where it is only dreamed of, and it fades into the incoherence and the irrelevance of a dream.  But the chamber is of rare beauty, and in its hushed and perfumed twilight, dramas of the spirit are being silently and almost imperceptibly enacted, more tragic than the loud passion and violence of the stage.  He has written an essay on Silence,—­silence that, like humility, holds for him a ‘treasure’ beyond the reach of eloquence or of pride; for it is the dwelling of our true self, the spiritual core of us, ’more profound and more boundless than the self of the passions or of pure reason.’  And so there is less matter for drama in ’a captain who conquers in battle or a husband who avenges his honour than in an old man, seated in his arm-chair waiting patiently with his lamp beside him, giving unconscious ear to all the eternal laws that reign about his house, interpreting without comprehending, the silence of door and window, and the quivering voice of the light; submitting with bent head to the presence of his soul and his destiny.’

It is on this side that symbolism discloses its kinship with the Russian novel,—­with the mystic quietism of Tolstoy and the religion of self-sacrifice in Dostoievsky; and its sharp antagonism to the Nietzschean gospel of daemonic will and ruthless self-assertion, just then being preached in Germany.  The two faiths were both alive and both responded to deep though diverse needs of the time; but the immediate future, as we shall see, belonged to the second.  They had their first resounding encounter when Nietzsche held up his once venerated master Wagner to scorn as the chief of ‘decadents’ because he had turned from the superhuman heroism of Siegfried and the boundless passion of Tristram to glorify the mystic Catholicism of the Grail and the loveliness of the ‘pure fool’ Parzifal.