<p>But it is when he deals with a sinner that Christ is most
romantic, in the sense of most real. The world had always
loved the saint as being the nearest possible approach to the
perfection of God. Christ, through some divine instinct in
him, seems to have always loved the sinner as being the nearest
possible approach to the perfection of man. His primary
desire was not to reform people, any more than his primary desire
was to a relieve suffering. To turn an interesting thief
into a tedious honest man was not his aim. He would have
thought little of the Prisoners’ Aid Society and other
modern movements of the kind. The conversion of a publican
into a Pharisee would not have seemed to him a great
achievement. But in a manner not yet understood of the
world he regarded sin and suffering as being in themselves
beautiful holy things and modes of perfection.</p>
<p>It seems a very dangerous idea. It is—all great
ideas are dangerous. That it was Christ’s creed
admits of no doubt. That it is the true creed I don’t
doubt myself.</p>
<p>Of course the sinner must repent. But why? Simply
because otherwise he would be unable to realise what he had
done. The moment of repentance is the moment of
initiation. More than that: it is the means by which one
alters one’s past. The Greeks thought that
impossible. They often say in their Gnomic aphorisms,
‘Even the Gods cannot alter the past.’ Christ
showed that the commonest sinner could do it, that it was the one
thing he could do. Christ, had he been asked, would have
said—I feel quite certain about it—that the moment
the prodigal son fell on his knees and wept, he made his having
wasted his substance with harlots, his swine-herding and
hungering for the husks they ate, beautiful and holy moments in
his life. It is difficult for most people to grasp the
idea. I dare say one has to go to prison to understand
it. If so, it may be worth while going to prison.</p>
<p>There is something so unique about Christ. Of course
just as there are false dawns before the dawn itself, and winter
days so full of sudden sunlight that they will cheat the wise
crocus into squandering its gold before its time, and make some
foolish bird call to its mate to build on barren boughs, so there
were Christians before Christ. For that we should be
grateful. The unfortunate thing is that there have been
none since. I make one exception, St. Francis of
Assisi. But then God had given him at his birth the soul of
a poet, as he himself when quite young had in mystical marriage
taken poverty as his bride: and with the soul of a poet and the
body of a beggar he found the way to perfection not
difficult. He understood Christ, and so he became like
him. We do not require the Liber Conformitatum to teach us
that the life of St. Francis was the true <i>Imitatio
Christi</i>, a poem compared to which the book of that name is
merely prose.</p>
<p>Indeed, that is the charm about Christ, when all is said: he
is just like a work of art. He does not really teach one
anything, but by being brought into his presence one becomes
something. And everybody is predestined to his
presence. Once at least in his life each man walks with
Christ to Emmaus.</p>
<p>As regards the other subject, the Relation of the Artistic
Life to Conduct, it will no doubt seem strange to you that I
should select it. People point to Reading Gaol and say,
‘That is where the artistic life leads a man.’
Well, it might lead to worse places. The more mechanical
people to whom life is a shrewd speculation depending on a
careful calculation of ways and means, always know where they are
going, and go there. They start with the ideal desire of
being the parish beadle, and in whatever sphere they are placed
they succeed in being the parish beadle and no more. A man
whose desire is to be something separate from himself, to be a
member of Parliament, or a successful grocer, or a prominent
solicitor, or a judge, or something equally tedious, invariably
succeeds in being what he wants to be. That is his
punishment. Those who want a mask have to wear it.</p>
<p>But with the dynamic forces of life, and those in whom those
dynamic forces become incarnate, it is different. People
whose desire is solely for self-realisation never know where they
are going. They can’t know. In one sense of the
word it is of course necessary, as the Greek oracle said, to know
oneself: that is the first achievement of knowledge. But to
recognise that the soul of a man is unknowable, is the ultimate
achievement of wisdom. The final mystery is oneself.
When one has weighed the sun in the balance, and measured the
steps of the moon, and mapped out the seven heavens star by star,
there still remains oneself. Who can calculate the orbit of
his own soul? When the son went out to look for his
father’s asses, he did not know that a man of God was
waiting for him with the very chrism of coronation, and that his
own soul was already the soul of a king.</p>
<p>I hope to live long enough and to produce work of such a
character that I shall be able at the end of my days to say,
‘Yes! this is just where the artistic life leads a
man!’ Two of the most perfect lives I have come
across in my own experience are the lives of Verlaine and of
Prince Kropotkin: both of them men who have passed years in
prison: the first, the one Christian poet since Dante; the other,
a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems
coming out of Russia. And for the last seven or eight
months, in spite of a succession of great troubles reaching me
from the outside world almost without intermission, I have been
placed in direct contact with a new spirit working in this prison
through man and things, that has helped me beyond any possibility
of expression in words: so that while for the first year of my
imprisonment I did nothing else, and can remember doing nothing
else, but wring my hands in impotent despair, and say,
‘What an ending, what an appalling ending!’ now I try
to say to myself, and sometimes when I am not torturing myself do
really and sincerely say, ‘What a beginning, what a
wonderful beginning!’ It may really be so. It
may become so. If it does I shall owe much to this new
personality that has altered every man’s life in this
place.</p>
<p>You may realise it when I say that had I been released last
May, as I tried to be, I would have left this place loathing it
and every official in it with a bitterness of hatred that would
have poisoned my life. I have had a year longer of
imprisonment, but humanity has been in the prison along with us
all, and now when I go out I shall always remember great
kindnesses that I have received here from almost everybody, and
on the day of my release I shall give many thanks to many people,
and ask to be remembered by them in turn.</p>
<p>The prison style is absolutely and entirely wrong. I
would give anything to be able to alter it when I go out. I
intend to try. But there is nothing in the world so wrong
but that the spirit of humanity, which is the spirit of love, the
spirit of the Christ who is not in churches, may make it, if not
right, at least possible to be borne without too much bitterness
of heart.</p>
<p>I know also that much is waiting for me outside that is very
delightful, from what St. Francis of Assisi calls ‘my
brother the wind, and my sister the rain,’ lovely things
both of them, down to the shop-windows and sunsets of great
cities. If I made a list of all that still remains to me, I
don’t know where I should stop: for, indeed, God made the
world just as much for me as for any one else. Perhaps I
may go out with something that I had not got before. I need
not tell you that to me reformations in morals are as meaningless
and vulgar as Reformations in theology. But while to
propose to be a better man is a piece of unscientific cant, to
have become a deeper man is the privilege of those who have
suffered. And such I think I have become.</p>
<p>If after I am free a friend of mine gave a feast, and did not
invite me to it, I should not mind a bit. I can be
perfectly happy by myself. With freedom, flowers, books,
and the moon, who could not be perfectly happy? Besides,
feasts are not for me any more. I have given too many to
care about them. That side of life is over for me, very
fortunately, I dare say. But if after I am free a friend of
mine had a sorrow and refused to allow me to share it, I should
feel it most bitterly. If he shut the doors of the house of
mourning against me, I would come back again and again and beg to
be admitted, so that I might share in what I was entitled to
share in. If he thought me unworthy, unfit to weep with
him, I should feel it as the most poignant humiliation, as the
most terrible mode in which disgrace could be inflicted on
me. But that could not be. I have a right to share in
sorrow, and he who can look at the loveliness of the world and
share its sorrow, and realise something of the wonder of both, is
in immediate contact with divine things, and has got as near to
God’s secret as any one can get.</p>
<p>Perhaps there may come into my art also, no less than into my
life, a still deeper note, one of greater unity of passion, and
directness of impulse. Not width but intensity is the true
aim of modern art. We are no longer in art concerned with
the type. It is with the exception that we have to
do. I cannot put my sufferings into any form they took, I
need hardly say. Art only begins where Imitation ends, but
something must come into my work, of fuller memory of words
perhaps, of richer cadences, of more curious effects, of simpler
architectural order, of some aesthetic quality at any rate.</p>
<p>When Marsyas was ‘torn from the scabbard of his
limbs’—<i>della vagina della membre sue</i>, to use
one of Dante’s most terrible Tacitean phrases—he had
no more song, the Greek said. Apollo had been victor.
The lyre had vanquished the reed. But perhaps the Greeks
were mistaken. I hear in much modern Art the cry of
Marsyas. It is bitter in Baudelaire, sweet and plaintive in
Lamartine, mystic in Verlaine. It is in the deferred
resolutions of Chopin’s music. It is in the
discontent that haunts Burne-Jones’s women. Even
Matthew Arnold, whose song of Callicles tells of ‘the
triumph of the sweet persuasive lyre,’ and the
‘famous final victory,’ in such a clear note of
lyrical beauty, has not a little of it; in the troubled undertone
of doubt and distress that haunts his verses, neither Goethe nor
Wordsworth could help him, though he followed each in turn, and
when he seeks to mourn for <i>Thyrsis</i> or to sing of the
<i>Scholar Gipsy</i>, it is the reed that he has to take for the
rendering of his strain. But whether or not the Phrygian
Faun was silent, I cannot be. Expression is as necessary to
me as leaf and blossoms are to the black branches of the trees
that show themselves above the prison walls and are so restless
in the wind. Between my art and the world there is now a
wide gulf, but between art and myself there is none. I hope
at least that there is none.</p>
<p>To each of us different fates are meted out. My lot has
been one of public infamy, of long imprisonment, of misery, of
ruin, of disgrace, but I am not worthy of it—not yet, at
any rate. I remember that I used to say that I thought I
could bear a real tragedy if it came to me with purple pall and a
mask of noble sorrow, but that the dreadful thing about modernity
was that it put tragedy into the raiment of comedy, so that the
great realities seemed commonplace or grotesque or lacking in
style. It is quite true about modernity. It has
probably always been true about actual life. It is said
that all martyrdoms seemed mean to the looker on. The
nineteenth century is no exception to the rule.</p>
<p>Everything about my tragedy has been hideous, mean, repellent,
lacking in style; our very dress makes us grotesque. We are
the zanies of sorrow. We are clowns whose hearts are
broken. We are specially designed to appeal to the sense of
humour. On November 13th, 1895, I was brought down here
from London. From two o’clock till half-past two on
that day I had to stand on the centre platform of Clapham
Junction in convict dress, and handcuffed, for the world to look
at. I had been taken out of the hospital ward without a
moment’s notice being given to me. Of all possible
objects I was the most grotesque. When people saw me they
laughed. Each train as it came up swelled the
audience. Nothing could exceed their amusement. That
was, of course, before they knew who I was. As soon as they
had been informed they laughed still more. For half an hour
I stood there in the grey November rain surrounded by a jeering
mob.</p>
<p>For a year after that was done to me I wept every day at the
same hour and for the same space of time. That is not such
a tragic thing as possibly it sounds to you. To those who
are in prison tears are a part of every day’s
experience. A day in prison on which one does not weep is a
day on which one’s heart is hard, not a day on which
one’s heart is happy.</p>
<p>Well, now I am really beginning to feel more regret for the
people who laughed than for myself. Of course when they saw
me I was not on my pedestal, I was in the pillory. But it
is a very unimaginative nature that only cares for people on
their pedestals. A pedestal may be a very unreal
thing. A pillory is a terrific reality. They should
have known also how to interpret sorrow better. I have said
that behind sorrow there is always sorrow. It were wiser
still to say that behind sorrow there is always a soul. And
to mock at a soul in pain is a dreadful thing. In the
strangely simple economy of the world people only get what they
give, and to those who have not enough imagination to penetrate
the mere outward of things, and feel pity, what pity can be given
save that of scorn?</p>
<p>I write this account of the mode of my being transferred here
simply that it should be realised how hard it has been for me to
get anything out of my punishment but bitterness and
despair. I have, however, to do it, and now and then I have
moments of submission and acceptance. All the spring may be
hidden in the single bud, and the low ground nest of the lark may
hold the joy that is to herald the feet of many rose-red
dawns. So perhaps whatever beauty of life still remains to
me is contained in some moment of surrender, abasement, and
humiliation. I can, at any rate, merely proceed on the
lines of my own development, and, accepting all that has happened
to me, make myself worthy of it.</p>
<p>People used to say of me that I was too individualistic.
I must be far more of an individualist than ever I was. I
must get far more out of myself than ever I got, and ask far less
of the world than ever I asked. Indeed, my ruin came not
from too great individualism of life, but from too little.
The one disgraceful, unpardonable, and to all time contemptible
action of my life was to allow myself to appeal to society for
help and protection. To have made such an appeal would have
been from the individualist point of view bad enough, but what
excuse can there ever be put forward for having made it? Of
course once I had put into motion the forces of society, society
turned on me and said, ‘Have you been living all this time
in defiance of my laws, and do you now appeal to those laws for
protection? You shall have those laws exercised to the
full. You shall abide by what you have appealed
to.’ The result is I am in gaol. Certainly no
man ever fell so ignobly, and by such ignoble instruments, as I
did.</p>
<p>The Philistine element in life is not the failure to
understand art. Charming people, such as fishermen,
shepherds, ploughboys, peasants and the like, know nothing about
art, and are the very salt of the earth. He is the
Philistine who upholds and aids the heavy, cumbrous, blind,
mechanical forces of society, and who does not recognise dynamic
force when he meets it either in a man or a movement.</p>
<p>People thought it dreadful of me to have entertained at dinner
the evil things of life, and to have found pleasure in their
company. But then, from the point of view through which I,
as an artist in life, approach them they were delightfully
suggestive and stimulating. The danger was half the
excitement. . . . My business as an artist was with Ariel.
I set myself to wrestle with Caliban. . . .</p>
<p>A great friend of mine—a friend of ten years’
standing—came to see me some time ago, and told me that he
did not believe a single word of what was said against me, and
wished me to know that he considered me quite innocent, and the
victim of a hideous plot. I burst into tears at what he
said, and told him that while there was much amongst the definite
charges that was quite untrue and transferred to me by revolting
malice, still that my life had been full of perverse pleasures,
and that unless he accepted that as a fact about me and realised
it to the full I could not possibly be friends with him any more,
or ever be in his company. It was a terrible shock to him,
but we are friends, and I have not got his friendship on false
pretences.</p>
<p>Emotional forces, as I say somewhere in <i>Intentions</i>, are
as limited in extent and duration as the forces of physical
energy. The little cup that is made to hold so much can
hold so much and no more, though all the purple vats of Burgundy
be filled with wine to the brim, and the treaders stand knee-deep
in the gathered grapes of the stony vineyards of Spain.
There is no error more common than that of thinking that those
who are the causes or occasions of great tragedies share in the
feelings suitable to the tragic mood: no error more fatal than
expecting it of them. The martyr in his ‘shirt of
flame’ may be looking on the face of God, but to him who is
piling the faggots or loosening the logs for the blast the whole
scene is no more than the slaying of an ox is to the butcher, or
the felling of a tree to the charcoal burner in the forest, or
the fall of a flower to one who is mowing down the grass with a
scythe. Great passions are for the great of soul, and great
events can be seen only by those who are on a level with
them.</p>
<p>* * * * *</p>
<p>I know of nothing in all drama more incomparable from the
point of view of art, nothing more suggestive in its subtlety of
observation, than Shakespeare’s drawing of Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern. They are Hamlet’s college
friends. They have been his companions. They bring
with them memories of pleasant days together. At the moment
when they come across him in the play he is staggering under the
weight of a burden intolerable to one of his temperament.
The dead have come armed out of the grave to impose on him a
mission at once too great and too mean for him. He is a
dreamer, and he is called upon to act. He has the nature of
the poet, and he is asked to grapple with the common complexity
of cause and effect, with life in its practical realisation, of
which he knows nothing, not with life in its ideal essence, of
which he knows so much. He has no conception of what to do,
and his folly is to feign folly. Brutus used madness as a
cloak to conceal the sword of his purpose, the dagger of his
will, but the Hamlet madness is a mere mask for the hiding of
weakness. In the making of fancies and jests he sees a
chance of delay. He keeps playing with action as an artist
plays with a theory. He makes himself the spy of his proper
actions, and listening to his own words knows them to be but
‘words, words, words.’ Instead of trying to be
the hero of his own history, he seeks to be the spectator of his
own tragedy. He disbelieves in everything, including
himself, and yet his doubt helps him not, as it comes not from
scepticism but from a divided will.</p>
<p>Of all this Guildenstern and Rosencrantz realise
nothing. They bow and smirk and smile, and what the one
says the other echoes with sickliest intonation. When, at
last, by means of the play within the play, and the puppets in
their dalliance, Hamlet ‘catches the conscience’ of
the King, and drives the wretched man in terror from his throne,
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz see no more in his conduct than a
rather painful breach of Court etiquette. That is as far as
they can attain to in ‘the contemplation of the spectacle
of life with appropriate emotions.’ They are close to
his very secret and know nothing of it. Nor would there be
any use in telling them. They are the little cups that can
hold so much and no more. Towards the close it is suggested
that, caught in a cunning spring set for another, they have met,
or may meet, with a violent and sudden death. But a tragic
ending of this kind, though touched by Hamlet’s humour with
something of the surprise and justice of comedy, is really not
for such as they. They never die. Horatio, who in
order to ‘report Hamlet and his cause aright to the
unsatisfied,’</p>
<blockquote><p>‘Absents him from felicity a while,<br/>
And in this harsh world draws his breath in pain,’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>dies, but Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are as immortal as
Angelo and Tartuffe, and should rank with them. They are
what modern life has contributed to the antique ideal of
friendship. He who writes a new <i>De Amicitia</i> must
find a niche for them, and praise them in Tusculan prose.
They are types fixed for all time. To censure them would
show ‘a lack of appreciation.’ They are merely
out of their sphere: that is all. In sublimity of soul
there is no contagion. High thoughts and high emotions are
by their very existence isolated.</p>
<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p>
<p>I am to be released, if all goes well with me, towards the end
of May, and hope to go at once to some little sea-side village
abroad with R--- and M---.</p>
<p>The sea, as Euripides says in one of his plays about
Iphigeneia, washes away the stains and wounds of the world.</p>
<p>I hope to be at least a month with my friends, and to gain
peace and balance, and a less troubled heart, and a sweeter
mood. I have a strange longing for the great simple
primeval things, such as the sea, to me no less of a mother than
the Earth. It seems to me that we all look at Nature too
much, and live with her too little. I discern great sanity
in the Greek attitude. They never chattered about sunsets,
or discussed whether the shadows on the grass were really mauve
or not. But they saw that the sea was for the swimmer, and
the sand for the feet of the runner. They loved the trees
for the shadow that they cast, and the forest for its silence at
noon. The vineyard-dresser wreathed his hair with ivy that
he might keep off the rays of the sun as he stooped over the
young shoots, and for the artist and the athlete, the two types
that Greece gave us, they plaited with garlands the leaves of the
bitter laurel and of the wild parsley, which else had been of no
service to men.</p>
<p>We call ours a utilitarian age, and we do not know the uses of
any single thing. We have forgotten that water can cleanse,
and fire purify, and that the Earth is mother to us all. As
a consequence our art is of the moon and plays with shadows,
while Greek art is of the sun and deals directly with
things. I feel sure that in elemental forces there is
purification, and I want to go back to them and live in their
presence.</p>
<p>Of course to one so modern as I am, ‘Enfant de mon
siècle,’ merely to look at the world will be always
lovely. I tremble with pleasure when I think that on the
very day of my leaving prison both the laburnum and the lilac
will be blooming in the gardens, and that I shall see the wind
stir into restless beauty the swaying gold of the one, and make
the other toss the pale purple of its plumes, so that all the air
shall be Arabia for me. Linnaeus fell on his knees and wept
for joy when he saw for the first time the long heath of some
English upland made yellow with the tawny aromatic brooms of the
common furze; and I know that for me, to whom flowers are part of
desire, there are tears waiting in the petals of some rose.
It has always been so with me from my boyhood. There is not
a single colour hidden away in the chalice of a flower, or the
curve of a shell, to which, by some subtle sympathy with the very
soul of things, my nature does not answer. Like Gautier, I
have always been one of those ‘pour qui le monde visible
existe.’</p>
<p>Still, I am conscious now that behind all this beauty,
satisfying though it may be, there is some spirit hidden of which
the painted forms and shapes are but modes of manifestation, and
it is with this spirit that I desire to become in harmony.
I have grown tired of the articulate utterances of men and
things. The Mystical in Art, the Mystical in Life, the
Mystical in Nature this is what I am looking for. It is
absolutely necessary for me to find it somewhere.</p>
<p>All trials are trials for one’s life, just as all
sentences are sentences of death; and three times have I been
tried. The first time I left the box to be arrested, the
second time to be led back to the house of detention, the third
time to pass into a prison for two years. Society, as we
have constituted it, will have no place for me, has none to
offer; but Nature, whose sweet rains fall on unjust and just
alike, will have clefts in the rocks where I may hide, and secret
valleys in whose silence I may weep undisturbed. She will
hang the night with stars so that I may walk abroad in the
darkness without stumbling, and send the wind over my footprints
so that none may track me to my hurt: she will cleanse me in
great waters, and with bitter herbs make me whole.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />