Intentions | Page 5

that, as a class, they are quite unreadable.
CYRIL. That is certainly a very grave qualification, but I must say that I think you are
rather unfair in some of your strictures. I like The Deemster, and The Daughter of Heth,
and Le Disciple, and Mr. Isaacs, and as for Robert Elsmere, I am quite devoted to it. Not
that I can look upon it as a serious work. As a statement of the problems that confront the
earnest Christian it is ridiculous and antiquated. It is simply Arnold's Literature and
Dogma with the literature left out. It is as much behind the age as Paley's Evidences, or
Colenso's method of Biblical exegesis. Nor could anything be less impressive than the
unfortunate hero gravely heralding a dawn that rose long ago, and so completely missing
its true significance that he proposes to carry on the business of the old firm under the
new name. On the other hand, it contains several clever caricatures, and a heap of
delightful quotations, and Green's philosophy very pleasantly sugars the somewhat bitter
pill of the author's fiction. I also cannot help expressing my surprise that you have said
nothing about the two novelists whom you are always reading, Balzac and George
Meredith. Surely they are realists, both of them?
VIVIAN. Ah! Meredith! Who can define him? His style is chaos illumined by flashes of
lightning. As a writer he has mastered everything except language: as a novelist he can do
everything, except tell a story: as an artist he is everything except articulate. Somebody in
Shakespeare--Touchstone, I think--talks about a man who is always breaking his shins
over his own wit, and it seems to me that this might serve as the basis for a criticism of
Meredith's method. But whatever he is, he is not a realist. Or rather I would say that he is
a child of realism who is not on speaking terms with his father. By deliberate choice he
has made himself a romanticist. He has refused to bow the knee to Baal, and after all,
even if the man's fine spirit did not revolt against the noisy assertions of realism, his style
would be quite sufficient of itself to keep life at a respectful distance. By its means he has
planted round his garden a hedge full of thorns, and red with wonderful roses. As for
Balzac, he was a most remarkable combination of the artistic temperament with the
scientific spirit. The latter he bequeathed to his disciples. The former was entirely his
own. The difference between such a book as M. Zola's L'Assommoir and Balzac's
Illusions Perdues is the difference between unimaginative realism and imaginative reality.
'All Balzac's characters;' said Baudelaire, 'are gifted with the same ardour of life that
animated himself. All his fictions are as deeply coloured as dreams. Each mind is a
weapon loaded to the muzzle with will. The very scullions have genius.' A steady course
of Balzac reduces our living friends to shadows, and our acquaintances to the shadows of
shades. His characters have a kind of fervent fiery-coloured existence. They dominate us,
and defy scepticism. One of the greatest tragedies of my life is the death of Lucien de
Rubempre. It is a grief from which I have never been able completely to rid myself. It
haunts me in my moments of pleasure. I remember it when I laugh. But Balzac is no
more a realist than Holbein was. He created life, he did not copy it. I admit, however, that
he set far too high a value on modernity of form, and that, consequently, there is no book
of his that, as an artistic masterpiece, can rank with Salammbo or Esmond, or The
Cloister and the Hearth, or the Vicomte de Bragelonne.
CYRIL. Do you object to modernity of form, then?

VIVIAN. Yes. It is a huge price to pay for a very poor result. Pure modernity of form is
always somewhat vulgarising. It cannot help being so. The public imagine that, because
they are interested in their immediate surroundings, Art should be interested in them also,
and should take them as her subject- matter. But the mere fact that they are interested in
these things makes them unsuitable subjects for Art. The only beautiful things, as
somebody once said, are the things that do not concern us. As long as a thing is useful or
necessary to us, or affects us in any way, either for pain or for pleasure, or appeals
strongly to our sympathies, or is a vital part of the environment in which we live, it is
outside the proper sphere of art. To art's subject-matter we should be more or less
indifferent. We should, at any rate, have no preferences, no prejudices, no partisan feeling
of any