"Because I can"t help it," I said; "I think of the way in which I muddle on with my writing, and I feel how hopeless I am."

"That"s all wrong, my boy," said Father Payne; "you ought to say to yourself--"So that is _his_ way of putting things and, by Jove, it"s superb. Now I"ve got to find my way of putting things!" You had better go and work in the fields like an honest man, if you don"t feel you have got anything to say worth saying. You have your own point of view, you know: try and get it down on paper. It isn"t exactly the same as, let us say, Shakespeare"s point of view: but if you feel that he has seen everything worth seeing, and said everything worth saying, then, of course, it is no good going on. But that is pure grovelling; no lively person ever does feel that--he says, "Hang it, he has left _some_ things out!" After all, everyone has a right to his point of view, and if it can be expressed, why, it is worth expressing. We want all the sidelights we can get."

"That"s one comfort!" I said.

"Yes," said Father Payne, "but you know perfectly well that you knew it before I told you. Why be so undignified? You need not want to astonish or amuse the whole civilised world. You probably won"t do that; but you can fit a bit of the mosaic in, if you have it in you. Now look you here! I know exactly what I am worth. I can"t write--though I think I can when I"m at it--but I can perceive, and see when a thing is amiss, and lay my finger on a fault; I can be of some use to a fellow like yourself--and I can manage an estate in my own way, and I can keep my tenants" spirits up. I have got a perfectly definite use in the world, and I"m going to play my part for all that I"m worth. I"m not going to pretend that I am a worm or an outcast--I don"t feel one; and I am as sure as I can be of anything, that G.o.d does not wish me to feel one. He needs me; He can"t get on without me just here; and when He can, He will say the word. I don"t think I am of any far-reaching significance: but neither am I going to say that I am nothing but vile earth and a miserable sinner. I"m lazy, I"m cross, I"m unkind, I"m greedy: but I know when I am wasting time and temper, and I don"t do it all the time. It"s no use being abject. The mistake is to go about comparing yourself with other people and weighing yourself against them. The right thing to do is to be able to recognise generously and desirously when you see anyone doing something finely which you do badly, and to say, "Come, that"s the right way! I must do better." But to be humble is to be grubby, because it makes one proud, in a nasty sort of way, of doing things badly. "What a poor creature I am," says the humble man, "and how nice to know that I am so poor a creature; how n.o.ble and unworldly I am." The mistake is to want to do a thing better than Smith or Jones: the right way is to want to do it better than yourself."

"Yes," I said, "that"s perfectly true, Father: and I won"t be such a fool again."

"You haven"t been a fool, so far as I am aware," said Father Payne. "It is only that you are just a thought too polite. You mustn"t be polite in mind, you know--only in manners. Politeness only consists in not saying all you think unless you are asked. But humility consists in trying to believe that you think less than you think. It"s like holding your nose, and saying that the bad smell has gone--it is playing tricks with your mind: and if you get into the way of doing that, you will find that your mind has a nasty way of playing tricks upon you. Here! hold on! I am rapidly becoming like Chadband! Send me Vincent, will you--there"s a good man? He comes next."

x.x.xIV

OF CRITICISM

Father Payne had told me that my writing was becoming too juicy and too highly-scented. "You mustn"t hide the underlying form," he said; "have plenty of plain s.p.a.ces. This sort of writing is only for readers who want to be vaguely soothed and made to feel comfortable by a book--it"s a stimulant, it"s not a food!"

"Yes," I said with a sigh, "I suppose you are right."

"Up to a certain point, I am right," he replied, "because you are in training at present--and people in training have to do abnormal things: you can"t _live_ as if you were in training, of course; but when you begin to work on your own account, you must find your own pace and your own manner: and even now you needn"t agree with me unless you like."

I determined, however, that I would give him something very different next time. He suggested that I should write an essay on a certain writer of fiction. I read the novels with great care, and I then produced the driest and most technical criticism I could. I read it aloud to Father Payne a month later. He heard it in silence, stroking his beard with his left hand, as his manner was. When I had finished, he said: "Well, you have taken my advice with a vengeance; and as an exercise--indeed, as a _tour-de-force_--it is good. I didn"t think you had it in you to produce such a bit of anatomy. I think it"s simply the most uninteresting essay I ever heard in my life--chip, chip, chip, the whole time. It won"t do you any harm to have written it, but, of course, it"s a mere caricature.

No conceivable reason could be a.s.signed for your writing it. It"s like the burial of the dead--ashes to ashes, dust to dust!"

"I admit," I said, "that I did it on purpose, to show you how judicious I could be."

"Oh yes," he said, "I quite realise that--and that"s why I admire it. If you had produced it as a real thing, and not by way of reprisal, I should think very ill of your prospects. It"s like the work of an a.n.a.lytical chemist--I tell you what it"s like, it"s like the diagnosis of the symptoms of some sick person of rank in a doctor"s case-book! But, of course, you know you mustn"t write like that, as well as I do. There must be some motive for writing, some touch of admiration and sympathy, something you can show to other people which might escape them, and which is worth while for them to see. In writing--at present, at all events--one can"t be so desperately scientific and technical as all that. I suppose that some day, when we treat human thought and psychology scientifically, we shall have to dissect like that; but even so, it will be in the interests of science, not in the interests of literature. One must not confuse the two, and no doubt, when we begin to a.n.a.lyse the development of human thought, its heredity, its genesis and growth, we shall have a Sh.e.l.ley-culture in a test-tube, and we shall be able to isolate a Browning-germ: but we haven"t got there yet."

"In that case," I said, "I don"t really see what was so wrong with my last essay."

"Why, it was a mere extemporisation," said Father Payne; "a phrase suggested a phrase, a word evoked a lot of other words--there was no real connection of thought. It was pretty enough, but you were not even roving from one place to another, you were just drifting with the stream. Now this last essay is purely business-like. You have a.n.a.lysed the points--but there"s no beauty or pleasure in it. It is simply what an engineer might say to an engineer about the building of a bridge. Mind, I am not finding fault with your essay. You did what you set out to do, and you have done it well. I only say there is not any conceivable reason why it should have been written, and there is every conceivable reason why it should not be read."

"It was just an attempt," I said, "to see the points and to disentangle them."

"Yes, yes," said Father Payne; "I see that, and I give you full credit for it. But, after all, you must look on writing as a species of human communication. The one reason for writing is that the writer sees something which other people overlook, perceives the beauty and interest of it, gets behind it, sees the quality of it, and how it differs from other similar things. If the writer is worth anything, his subject must be so interesting or curious or beautiful to himself that he can"t help setting it down. The motive of it all must be the fact that he is interested--not the hope of interesting other people. You must risk that, though the more you are interested, the better is your chance of interesting others. Then the next point is that things mustn"t be presented in a cold and abstract light--you have done that here--it must be done as you see it, not as a photographic plate records it: and that is where the personality of the artist comes in, and where writers are handicapped, according as they have or have not a personal charm. That is the unsolved mystery of writing--the personal charm: apart from that there is little in it. A man may see a thing with hideous distinctness, but he may not be able to invest it with charm: and the danger of charm is that some people can invest very shallow, muddled, and shabby thinking with a sort of charm. It is like a cloak, if I may say so. If I wear an old cloak, it looks shabby and disgraceful, as it is. But if I lend it to a shapely and well-made friend, it gets a beauty from the wearer. There are men I know who can tell me a story as old as the hills, and yet make it fresh and attractive. Look at that delicious farrago of nonsense and absurdity, Ruskin"s _Fors Clavigera_. He crammed in anything that came into his head--his reminiscences, sc.r.a.ps out of old dreary books he had read, paragraphs snipped out of the papers. There"s no order, no sequence about it, and yet it is irresistible. But then Ruskin had the charm, and managed to pour it into all that he wrote. He is always _there_, that whimsical, generous, perverse, affectionate, afflicted, pathetic creature, even in the smallest sc.r.a.p of a letter or the dreariest old tag of quotation. But you and I can"t play tricks like that. You are sometimes there, I confess, in what you write, while I am never there in anything that I write. What I want to teach you to do is to be really yourself in all that you write."

"But isn"t it apt to be very tiresome," said I, "if the writer is always obtruding himself?"

"Yes, if he obtrudes himself, of course he is tiresome," said Father Payne.

"But look at Ruskin again. I imagine, from all that I read about him, that if he was present at a gathering, he was the one person whom everyone wanted to hear. If he was sulky or silent, it was everyone"s concern to smoothe him down--if _only_ he would talk. What you must learn to do is to give exactly as much of yourself as people want. But it must be a transfusion of yourself, not a presentment, I don"t imagine that Ruskin always talked about himself--he talked about what interested him, and because he saw five times as much as anyone else saw in a picture, and about three times as much as was ever there, it was fascinating: but the primary charm was in Ruskin himself. Don"t you know the curious delight of seeing a house once inhabited by anyone whom one has much admired and loved? However dull and commonplace it is, you keep on saying to yourself, "That was what his eyes rested on, those were the books he handled; how could he bear to have such curtains, how could he endure that wallpaper?"

The most hideous things become interesting, because he tolerated them. In writing, all depends upon how much of what is interesting, original, emphatic, charming in yourself you can communicate to what you are writing.

It has got to _live_; that is the secret of the commonplace and even absurd books which reviewers treat with contempt, and readers buy in thousands. They have _life!_"

"But that is very far from being art, isn"t it?" I said.

"Of course!" said Father Payne, "but the use of art, as I understand it, is just that--that all you present shall have life, and that you should learn not to present what has not got life. Why I objected to your last essay was because you were not alive in it: you were just echoing and repeating things: you seemed to me to be talking in your sleep. Why I object to this essay is that you are too wide awake--you are just talking shop."

"I confess I rather despair," I said.

"What rubbish!" said Father Payne; "all I want you to do is to _live_ in your ideas--make them your own, don"t just slop them down without having understood or felt them. I"ll tell you what you shall do next. You shall just put aside all this dreary collection of formulae and scalpel-work, and you shall write me an essay on the whole subject, saying the best that you feel about it all, not the worst that a stiff intelligence can extract from it. Don"t be pettish about it! I a.s.sure you I respect your talent very much. I didn"t think it was in you to produce anything so loathsomely judicious."

x.x.xV

OF THE SENSE OF BEAUTY

There had been some vague ethical discussion during dinner in which Father Payne had not intervened; but he suddenly joined in briskly, though I don"t remember who or what struck the spark out. "You are running logic too hard," he said; "the difficulty with all morality is not to know where it is to begin, but where it is to stop."

"I didn"t know it had to stop," said Vincent; "I thought it had to go on."

"Yes, but not as morality," said Father Payne; "as instinct and feeling--only very elementary people indeed obey rules, _because_ they are rules. The righteous man obeys them because on the whole he agrees with them."

"But in one sense it isn"t possible to be too good?" said Vincent.

"No," said Father Payne, "not if you are sure what good is--but it is quite easy to be too righteous, to have too many rules and scruples--not to live your own life at all, but an anxious, timid, broken-winged sort of life, like some of the fearful saints in the _Pilgrim"s Progress_, who got no fun out of the business at all. Don"t you remember what Mr. Feeblemind says? I can"t quote--it"s a glorious pa.s.sage."

Barthrop slipped out and fetched a _Pilgrim"s Progress_, which he put over Father Payne"s shoulder. "Thank you, old man," said Father Payne, "that"s very kind of you--that is morality translated into feeling!"

He turned over the pages, and read the bit in his resonant voice:

""I am, as I said, a man of a weak and feeble mind, and shall be offended and made weak at that which others can bear. I shall like no Laughing: I shall like no gay Attire: I shall like no unprofitable Questions. Nay, I am so weak a man, as to be offended with that which others have a liberty to do. I do not know all the truth: I am a very ignorant Christian man; sometimes, if I hear some rejoice in the Lord, it troubles me, because I cannot do so too.""

"There," he said, "that"s very good writing, you know--full of freshness--but you are not meant to admire the poor soul: _that"s_ not the way to go on pilgrimage! There is something wrong with a man"s religion, if it leaves him in that state. I don"t mean that to be happy is always a sign of grace--it often is simply a lack of sympathy and imagination; but to be as good as Mr. Feeblemind, and at the same time as unhappy, is a clear sign that something is wrong. He is like a dog that _will_ try to get through a narrow gap with a stick in his mouth--he can"t make out why he can"t do his duty and bring the stick--it catches on both sides, and won"t let him through. He knows it is his business to bring the thing back at once, but he is prevented in some mysterious way. It doesn"t occur to him to put the stick down, get through himself, and then pull it through by the end. That is why our duty is often so hard, because we think we ought to do it simply and directly, when it really wants a little adjusting--we regard the momentary precept, not the ultimate principle."

"But what is to tell us where to draw the line," said Vincent, "and when to disregard the precept?"

"Ah," said Father Payne, "that"s my great discovery, which no one else will ever recognise--that is where the sense of beauty comes in!"

"I don"t see that the sense of beauty has anything to do with morality,"

said Vincent.

"Ah, but that is because you are at heart a Puritan," said Father Payne; "and the mistake of all Puritans is to disregard the sense of beauty--all the really great saints have felt about morality as an artist feels about beauty. They don"t do good things because they are told to do them, but because they feel them to be beautiful, splendid, attractive; and they avoid having anything to do with evil things, because such things are ugly and repellent."

"But when you have to do a thoroughly disagreeable thing," said Vincent, "there often isn"t anything beautiful about it either way. I"ll give you a small instance. Some months ago I had been engaged for a fortnight to go to a thoroughly dull dinner-party with some dreary relations of mine, and a man asked me to come and dine at his club and meet George Meredith, whom I would have given simply anything to meet. Of course I couldn"t do it--I had to go on with the other thing. I had to do what I hated, without the smallest hope of being anything but fearfully bored: and I had to give up doing what would have interested me more than anything in the world. Of course, that is only a small instance, but it will suffice."

"It all depends on how you behaved at your dinner-party when you got there," said Father Payne, smiling; "were you sulky and cross, or were you civil and decent?"

"I don"t know," said Vincent; "I expect I was pretty much as usual. After all, it wasn"t their fault!"

"You are all right, my boy," said Father Payne; "you have got the sense of beauty right enough, though you probably call it by some uncomfortable name. I won"t make you blush by praising you, but I give you a good mark for the whole affair. If you had excused yourself, or asked to be let off, or told a lie, it would have been ugly. What you did was in the best taste: and that is what I mean. The ugly thing is to clutch and hold on. You did more for yourself by being polite and honest than even George Meredith could have done for you. What I mean by the sense of beauty, as applied to morality, is that a man must be a gentleman first, and a moralist afterwards, if he can. It is grabbing at your own sense of righteousness, if you use it to hurt other people. Your own complacency of conscience is not as important as the duty of not making other people uncomfortable. Of course there are occasions when it is right to stand up to a moral bully, and then you may go for him for all you are worth: but these cases are rare; and what you must not do is to get into the way of a sort of moral skirmishing. In ordinary life, people draw their lines in slightly different places according to preference: you must allow for temperament.

You mustn"t interfere with other people"s codes, unless you are prepared to be interfered with. It is impossible to be severely logical. Take a thing like the use of money: it is good to be generous, but you mustn"t give away what you can"t afford, because then your friends have to pay your bills.

What everyone needs is something to tell him when he must begin practising a virtue, and when to stop practising it. You may say that common sense does that. Well, I don"t think it does! I know sensible people who do very brutal things: there must be something finer than common sense: it must be a mixture of sense and sympathy and imagination, and delicacy and humour and tact--and I can"t find a better way of expressing it than to call it a sense of beauty, a faculty of judging, in a fine, sweet-tempered, gentle, quiet way, with a sort of instinctive prescience as to where the ripples of what you do and say will spread to, and what sort of effect they will produce. That"s the right sort of virtue--attractive virtue--which makes other people wish to behave likewise. I don"t say that a man who lives like that can avoid suffering: he suffers a good deal, because he sees ugly things going on all about him; but he doesn"t cause suffering--unless he intends to--and even so he doesn"t like doing it. He is never spiteful or jealous. He often makes mistakes, but he recognises them. He doesn"t erect barriers between himself and other people. He isn"t always exactly popular, because many people hate superiority whenever they see it: but he is trusted and loved and even taken advantage of, because he doesn"t go in for reprisals."