SUSPENDED JUDGEMENT

 

THE conclusion of any book which has tried to throw into momentary relief the great shadowy figures who have led and misled humanity must necessarily be no more than a new suspension of judgement; of judgement drawing its interest from the colour of the mind of the individual making it, of judgement guarded from the impertinence of judicial decision by its confessed implication of radical subjectivity.

      The conclusion of any critical essay must in large measure be lame and halting; must indeed be a whispered warning to the reader to take what has gone before, however ardently expressed, with that wise pinch of true Attic salt which mitigates even a relative finality in these high things.

      One comes to feel more and more, as one reads many books, that judicial decisions are laughable and useless in this rare atmosphere, and that the mere utterance of such platitudinous decrees sets the pronouncer of them outside the inner and exclusive pale.

      One comes to feel more and more that all that any of us has a right to do is to set down as patiently and tenderly as he may the particular response, here or there, from this side or the other, as it chances to happen, that is aroused in his own soul by those historic works of art, which, whatever principle of selection it is that places them in our hands, have fallen somehow across our path.

      It might seem that a direct, natural and spontaneous response, of the kind I have in my mind, to these famous works, were easy enough of attainment.  Nothing, on the contrary, is more difficult to secure or more seldom secured.

      One might almost hazard the paradox that the real art of criticism only begins when we shake ourselves free of all books and win access to that locked and sealed and uncut volume which is the book of our own feelings.

      The art of self-culture - one learns just that when youth's outward-looking curiosity and passion begin to ebb - is the art of freeing oneself from the influence of books so that one may enjoy what one is destined to enjoy without pedantry or scruple.  And yet, by the profound law of the system of things, when one has thus freed oneself from the tyranny of literary catchwords and the dead weight of cultivated public opinion, one comes back to the world of books with an added zest.  It is then, and only then, that one reads with real unscrupulousness, thinking solely of the pleasure, and nothing of the rectitude or propriety or adequacy of what we take up.

      And it is then that the great figures of the master-writers appear in their true light; the light - that is to say - in which we, and not another, have visualised them, felt them, and reacted from them.

      It is wonderful what thrilling pleasures there are in store for us in literature when once we have cut ourselves adrift from all this superfluity of cultured opinion, and have given ourselves complete leave to love what we like and hate what we like and be indifferent to what we like, as the world swings round!

      I think the secret of making an exquisite use of literature so that it shall colour and penetrate our days is only a small part of what the wisest epicureans among us are concerned with attaining.  I think it is one of the most precious benefits conferred on us by every new writer that he flings us back more deeply than ever upon ourselves.  We draw out of him his vision, his peculiar atmosphere, his especial quality of mental and emotional tone.  We savour this and assimilate it and store it up, as something which we have made our own and which is there to fall back upon when we want it.  But beyond our enjoyment of this new increment to our treasury of feeling, we are driven inwards once more in a kind of intellectual rivalry with the very thing we have just acquired, and in precise proportion as it has seemed to us exciting and original we are roused in the depths of our mind to substitute something else for it; and this something else is nothing less than the evocation of our own originality, called up out of the hidden caverns of our being to claim its own creative place in the communion between our soul and the world.

      I can only speak for myself; but my own preference among writers will always be for those whose genius consists rather in creating a certain mental atmosphere than in hammering out isolated works of art, rounded and complete.

      For a flawless work of art is a thing for a moment, while that more penetrating projection of an original personality which one calls a mental or æsthetic atmosphere, is a thing that floats and flows and drifts and wavers, far beyond the boundaries of any limited creation.  Such an atmosphere, such a vague intellectual music, in the air about us, is the thing that really challenges the responsive spirit in ourselves; challenges it and rouses it to take the part which it has a right to take, the part which it alone can take, in recreating the world for us in accordance with our natural fatality.

      It is only by the process of gradual disillusionment that we come at last to recognise what we ourselves - undistracted now by any external authority - need and require from the genius of the past.  For my own part, looking over the great names included in the foregoing essays, I am at this moment drawn instinctively only to two among them all - to William Blake and to Paul Verlaine; and this is an indication to me that what my own soul requires is not philosophy or psychology or wit or sublimity, but a certain delicate transmutation of the little casual things that cross my way, and a certain faint, low, sweet music, rumouring from indistinguishable horizons, and bringing my vague rare thoughts, cool and quiet and deep and magical, such as have no concern with the clamour and brutality of the crowd.

      The greater number of the writers who have dominated us, in the pages that go before, belong to the Latin race, and I cannot but feel that it is to this race that civilisation must come more and more to return in its search for the grandeur and pathos, the humanity and irony of that attitude of mind which serves our spirits best as we struggle on through the confusions and bewilderments of our way.

      There is a tendency observable here and there - though the genuinely great minds who give their adherence to it are few and far between - to speak as though the race-element in literature were a thing better away, a thing whose place might be taken by a sort of attenuated idealistic amalgam of all the race-elements in the world, or by something which has no race-element in it at all - something international, interracial, humanitarian and cosmopolitan.

      People to whom this thin thing appeals often speak quite lightly of blending the traditions of East and West, of Saxon and Celt, of Latin and Teuton, of Scandinavian and Slav.

      They do not see that you might as well speak of blending the temperaments of two opposite types of human personality.  They do not see that the whole interest of life depends upon these contrasts.  You cannot blend traditions in this academic way, any more than you can blend two human souls that are diametrically different, or two soils or climates which are mutually excluding.  This ideal of a cosmopolitan literature that shall include all the local traditions and racial instincts is the sort of thing that appeals to the type of mind which remains essentially dull to the high qualities of a noble style.

      No; it is not cosmopolitan literature that we want.  It was not of cosmopolitan literature that Goethe was thinking when he used that term "I am a good European", which Nietzsche found so suggestive; it was of classical literature, of literature which, whatever its racial quality, has not lost touch with the civilised traditions of Athens and Rome.

      In art, as in everything else, we must "worship our dead"; and the attempt to substitute a vague idealised cosmopolitanism for the living passionate localised traditions that spring like trees and flowers out of a particular soil, out of a soil made dear to us by the ashes of our fathers and consecrated by a thousand pious usages, is an attempt that can result in no great magical works.

      Walt Whitman, for all his celebrations of the huge "ensemble" of the world, remains and must always remain profoundly and entirely American.

      When Romain Rolland, the author of "Jean Christophe", - the book of all books most penetrated by the spirit of race distinctions - appalled by the atrocity of the war, calls upon us to substitute the Ideal of Humanity for the ideas of the various tribes of men, he is really (in reaction from the dreadful scenes around him) renouncing those flashes of prophetic insight which gave him such living visions of the diverse souls of the great races.  Roman Rolland may speak rhetorically of the "Ideal of Humanity" to be realised in art and letters.  The thing is a word, a name, a phrase, an illusion.  What we actually have are individuals - individual artists, individual races - each with its own beautiful and tragical fatality.

      And what is true of races is true of persons both in life and in criticism.  All that is really interesting in us springs in the first place from the traditions of the race to which we belong, springs from the soil that gave us birth and from our sacred dead and the usages and customs and habits which bind us to the past; and in the second place from what is uniquely and peculiarly personal to ourselves, belonging to our intrinsic and integral character and refusing to be swamped by any vague cult of "humanity in general".

      To talk of literature becoming universal and planetary, becoming a logical synthesis of the traditions of races and the visions of individuals, is to talk of something that in its inherent nature is contrary to the fundamental spirit of art.  It implies a confusion between the spheres of art and philosophy.  The function of philosophy is to synthesise and unite.  The function of art is to differentiate and distinguish.  Philosophy and ethics are perfectly justified in concerning themselves with a "regenerated humanity" in which race-instincts and race-traditions are blotted out.  Let them produce such a humanity if they can!  But while there are any artists left in the world, or any lovers of art, it will always be to the old inalienable traditions that they will turn; to the old local customs, local pieties, local habits, local altars, and local gods.

      To talk vaguely of cosmopolitan art uniting the nations, is to talk foolishly, and it is to talk irreverently.  The people who deal in such theories are endeavouring to betray the dead of their own race and the noble pieties and desperate courage of those who made them what they are.  It is a sacrilege, this speculation, and a sacrifice of beauty upon the altar of a logical morality.

      What one comes more and more to feel is that everything which belongs to poetry and art belongs to the individual, to the individual nation and the individual person.  The great modern democracies, with their cult of the average man and their suspicion of the exceptional man, are naturally only too ready to hail as ideal and wonderful any doctrine about literature which flatters their pride.

      One of the most plausible forms of rhetorical cant is the cant about the soul of average humanity expressing itself in art, in an art which has sloughed off like an outworn skin all ancient race-instincts and all individual egoism.

      There has never been such art in the history of the world as this average man's art, free from tradition and free from personal colour.

      There will never be such art, unless it be the great, idealistic, humanitarian, cosmopolitan art of the cinema.

      But the idea sounds well in popular oratory, and it has a most soothing ointment for the souls of such artists as have neither reverence nor imagination.

      It is quite possible that for the general comfort of the race at large - even if not for its happiness - it would be a good thing if philosophers and moralists between them could get rid of the imagination of races as well as of the imagination of individuals.

      The common crowd are naturally suspicious of imagination of any kind, as they are suspicious of genius of any kind; and this new doctrine of a literature largely and purely "human", wherein the general soul of humanity may find its expression, free from the colour of race-feeling and free from the waywardness of individual men of genius, is just the sort of thing to flatter the unthinking mob.

      Why not have art and literature harnessed once and for all to the great rolling chariot of popular public opinion?  Why not abolish all individualism at one stroke as a thing dangerous to the public welfare - a thing uncomfortable, undesirable, upsetting?

      The same desperate, irrational, immoral imagination which inspires races with a strange madness, inspires individuals too with a strange madness.

      Art and Literature are, after all, and there is little use denying it, the last refuge and sanctuary, in a world ruled by machinery and sentiment, of the free, wild, reckless, irresponsible, anarchical imagination of such as refuse to sacrifice their own dreams for the dreams - not less illusive - of the general herd.

      We have to face the fact - bitter and melancholy though it may be - that in our great bourgeois-dominated democracies the majority of people would like to trample out the flame of genius altogether; trample it out as something inimical to their peace.

      Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Balzac, were all completely aware of this instinctive hatred with which the mob of men regard what is exceptional and rare.  The Hamlet-spirit of the author of Cariolanus must chuckle bitterly in that grave in Stratford-on-Avon when he learns that the new ideal is the ideal of cosmopolitan literature expressing the soul of the average man.

      The clash is bound to come sooner or later between public opinion, concerned to preserve the comfort of its illusions, and the art of the individual artist playing, in noble irresponsibility, with all illusions.

      It was his consciousness of this - of the natural antagonism of the mob and its leaders to all great literature - that made Goethe draw back so coldly and proudly from the popular tendencies of his time, and seek refuge among the great individualistic spirits of the classic civilisations.  And what Goethe - the good European - did in his hour, the more classical among European writers of our own day do still.

      The great style - the style which is like gold and bronze in an age of clay and rubble - remains as the only sure refuge we have from the howling vulgarities of our generation.  If books were taken from us - the high, calm, beautiful, ironical books of classic tradition - how, in this age, could be more sensitive among us endure to live at all?

      With brutality and insanity and ruffianism, with complacency and stupidity and sentimentalism, jostling us and hustling us on all sides, how could we live, if it were not for the great, calm, scornful anarchists of the soul, whose high inviolable imaginations perpetually refresh and recreate the world?

      And we who find this refuge, we who have to win our liberty every day anew by bathing in these classic streams, we too will do well to remember that the most precious things in life are the things that the world can neither give nor take away.

      We too - encouraged by these great individualists - have a right to fall back upon whatever individuality may have been left to us; and, resting upon that, sinking into the soul of that, to defy all that public opinion and the voice of what the majority may be able to do.

      And we shall be wise also if we recognise, before it is too late, that what is most intrinsic and inalienable in ourselves is just that very portion of us which has nothing to do with out work in life, nothing to do with our duty to the community.

      We shall be wise if we recognise, before it is too late, that the thing most sacred in us is that strange margin of unoccupied receptivity, upon which settle, in their flight over land and sea, the beautiful wild birds of unsolicited dreams.

      We shall be wise if, before we die, we learn a little of the art of suspending our judgement - the art of "waiting upon the spirit".

      For it is only when we have suspended our judgement; it is only when we have suspended our convictions, our principles, our ideals, our moralities, that "the still small voice" of the music of the universe, sad and sweet and terrible and tender, drifts in upon us, over the face of the waters of the soul.

      The essence of us, the hidden reality of us, is too rare and delicate a thing to bear the crude weight of these sturdy opinions, these vigorous convictions, these social ardours, without growing dulled and hardened.

      We all have to bear the burden of humanity; and the artists among us may be thankful that the predatory curse resting upon the rich is very seldom ours: but the burden of humanity must not be allowed to press all joy, all originality, all waywardness, all interest, all imagination out of our lives.

      It is not for long, at best or worst, that we know what it is to be conscious of being living children of the human race upon this strange planet.

      The days pass quickly, and the seasons and the years.  From the graves of the darlings of our souls there comes a voice and a cry.  A voice bidding us sink into our own true selves before we too are numbered with the dead; a cry bidding us sacrifice everything before we sacrifice the prerogative of our inmost identity, the right to feel and think and dream as persons born into a high inheritance, the inheritance of the mind that has the right to question all things and to hold fast what pleases it in defiance of opinion and logic and probability and argument.

      For it is only when we suspend our judgements and leave arguing and criticising, that the quiet gods of the moonlit shores of the world murmur their secrets in our ears.

      They come without our seeking for them, these rare intimations; without our seeking for them, and, sometimes, without our desiring them; but when they come they come as revelations of something deeper in us than any mere soul of humanity.  They come from a region that is as far beyond humanity as it is beyond nature.  They come from the fairyland of that mysterious country wherein dwell the dreams and the fancies of those lonely ones among the sons of men who have been possessed by imagination.  They come from the unknown land where those inhabit who are, as the Psalmist says, "free among the dead."  They come from the land which we left when we were born, and to which we return when we die.  And whether this is a land of nothingness and oblivion none knoweth; for none hath returned to tell us.  Meanwhile we can imagine what we will; and we can suspend our last judgement until we ourselves are judged.