按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
view of life is so large； so varied； so imaginatively true。 There
are tellers of stories in Russia who have a more vivid sense of
what pain in fiction may be。 But to him belongs philosophy in
fiction。 His people not merely live； but they live in thought。
One can see them from myriad points of view。 They are suggestive。
There is soul in them and around them。 They are interpretative and
symbolic。 And he who made them； those wonderful quickly…moving
figures； made them for his own pleasure； and has never asked the
public what they wanted； has never cared to know what they wanted；
has never allowed the public to dictate to him or influence him in
any way but has gone on intensifying his own personality； and
producing his own individual work。 At first none came to him。
That did not matter。 Then the few came to him。 That did not
change him。 The many have come now。 He is still the same。 He is
an incomparable novelist。 With the decorative arts it is not
different。 The public clung with really pathetic tenacity to what
I believe were the direct traditions of the Great Exhibition of
international vulgarity； traditions that were so appalling that the
houses in which people lived were only fit for blind people to live
in。 Beautiful things began to be made； beautiful colours came from
the dyer's hand； beautiful patterns from the artist's brain； and
the use of beautiful things and their value and importance were set
forth。 The public were really very indignant。 They lost their
temper。 They said silly things。 No one minded。 No one was a whit
the worse。 No one accepted the authority of public opinion。 And
now it is almost impossible to enter any modern house without
seeing some recognition of good taste； some recognition of the
value of lovely surroundings； some sign of appreciation of beauty。
In fact； people's houses are； as a rule； quite charming nowadays。
People have been to a very great extent civilised。 It is only fair
to state； however； that the extraordinary success of the revolution
in house…decoration and furniture and the like has not really been
due to the majority of the public developing a very fine taste in
such matters。 It has been chiefly due to the fact that the
craftsmen of things so appreciated the pleasure of making what was
beautiful； and woke to such a vivid consciousness of the
hideousness and vulgarity of what the public had previously wanted；
that they simply starved the public out。 It would be quite
impossible at the present moment to furnish a room as rooms were
furnished a few years ago； without going for everything to an
auction of second…hand furniture from some third…rate lodging…
house。 The things are no longer made。 However they may object to
it； people must nowadays have something charming in their
surroundings。 Fortunately for them； their assumption of authority
in these art…matters came to entire grief。
It is evident； then； that all authority in such things is bad。
People sometimes inquire what form of government is most suitable
for an artist to live under。 To this question there is only one
answer。 The form of government that is most suitable to the artist
is no government at all。 Authority over him and his art is
ridiculous。 It has been stated that under despotisms artists have
produced lovely work。 This is not quite so。 Artists have visited
despots； not as subjects to be tyrannised over； but as wandering
wonder…makers； as fascinating vagrant personalities； to be
entertained and charmed and suffered to be at peace； and allowed to
create。 There is this to be said in favour of the despot； that he；
being an individual； may have culture； while the mob； being a
monster； has none。 One who is an Emperor and King may stoop down
to pick up a brush for a painter； but when the democracy stoops
down it is merely to throw mud。 And yet the democracy have not so
far to stoop as the emperor。 In fact； when they want to throw mud
they have not to stoop at all。 But there is no necessity to
separate the monarch from the mob； all authority is equally bad。
There are three kinds of despots。 There is the despot who
tyrannises over the body。 There is the despot who tyrannises over
the soul。 There is the despot who tyrannises over the soul and
body alike。 The first is called the Prince。 The second is called
the Pope。 The third is called the People。 The Prince may be
cultivated。 Many Princes have been。 Yet in the Prince there is
danger。 One thinks of Dante at the bitter feast in Verona； of
Tasso in Ferrara's madman's cell。 It is better for the artist not
to live with Princes。 The Pope may be cultivated。 Many Popes have
been； the bad Popes have been。 The bad Popes loved Beauty； almost
as passionately； nay； with as much passion as the good Popes hated
Thought。 To the wickedness of the Papacy humanity owes much。 The
goodness of the Papacy owes a terrible debt to humanity。 Yet；
though the Vatican has kept the rhetoric of its thunders； and lost
the rod of its lightning； it is better for the artist not to live
with Popes。 It was a Pope who said of Cellini to a conclave of
Cardinals that common laws and common authority were not made for
men such as he； but it was a Pope who thrust Cellini into prison；
and kept him there till he sickened with rage； and created unreal
visions for himself； and saw the gilded sun enter his room； and
grew so enamoured of it that he sought to escape； and crept out
from tower to tower； and falling through dizzy air at dawn； maimed
himself； and was by a vine…dresser covered with vine leaves； and
carried in a cart to one who； loving beautiful things； had care of
him。 There is danger in Popes。 And as for the People； what of
them and their authority？ Perhaps of them and their authority one
has spoken enough。 Their authority is a thing blind； deaf；
hideous； grotesque； tragic； amusing； serious； and obscene。 It is
impossible for the artist to live with the People。 All despots
bribe。 The people bribe and brutalise。 Who told them to exercise
authority？ They were made to live； to listen； and to love。
Someone has done them a great wrong。 They have marred themselves
by imitation of their inferiors。 They have taken the sceptre of
the Prince。 How should they use it？ They have taken the triple
tiara of the Pope。 How should they carry its burden？ They are as
a clown whose heart is broken。 They are as a priest whose soul is
not yet born。 Let all who love Beauty pity them。 Though they
themselves love not Beauty； yet let them pity themselves。 Who
taught them the trick of tyranny？
There are many other things that one might point out。 One might
point out how the Renaissance was great； because it sought to solve
no social problem； and busied itself not about such things； but
suffered the individual to develop freely； beautifully； and
naturally； and so had great and individual artists； and great and
individual men。 One might point out how Louis XIV。； by creating
the modern state； destroyed the individualism of the artist； and
made things monstrous in their monotony of repetition； and
contemptible in their conformity to rule； and destroyed throughout
all France all those fine freedoms of expression that had made
tradition new in beauty； and new modes one with antique form。 But
the past is of no importance。 The present is of no importance。 It
is with the future that we have to deal。 For the past is what man
should not have been。 The present is what man ought not to be。
The future is what artists are。
It will； of course； be said that such a scheme as is set forth here
is quite unpractical； and goes against human nature。 This is
perfectly true。 It is unpractical； and it goes against human
nature。 This is why it is worth carrying out； and that is why one
proposes it。 For what is a practical scheme？ A practical scheme
is either a scheme that is already in existence； or a scheme that
could be carried out under existing conditions。 But it is exactly
the existing conditions that one objects to； and any scheme that
could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish。 The conditions
will be done away with； and human nature will change。 The only
thing that one really knows about human nature is that it changes。
Change is the one quality we can predicate of it。 The systems that
fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature； and not
on its growth and development。 The error of Louis XIV。 was that he
thought human nature would always be the same。 The result of his
error was the French Revolution。 It was an admirable result。 All
the results of the mistakes of governments are quite admirable。
It is to be noted also that Individualism does not come to man with
any sickly cant about duty； which merely means doing what other
people want because they want it； or any hideous cant about self…
sacrifice； which is merely a survival of savag