Part 16 (1/2)

If it were possible for the artist to lay hands on his ideal--to gaze on it face to face, in all its complete reality--its reproduction would be reduced to a mere matter of copying. This would amount to downright realism, superlative of its kind no doubt, but positive; and thus the two factors of the artist's work--the personal function, which const.i.tutes its _originality_, and the aesthetic one, which const.i.tutes its _rationality_--are at once eliminated. This is not the true relation between the work of art and the artist's ideal conception. The ideal can never be adequately reproduced. It is the loadstar, the motive force.

The artist feels it, he is ruled by it, it is his undefined ”excelsior,”

the imperious _desideratum_ imposed on him by the law of Beauty, and the very persistence of its inner prompting proves its truth and the impossibility of its attainment.

To draw from an imperfect and lower reality the elements which shall measure and determine the extent to which the said reality agrees or disagrees with Nature's reasonable law, herein lies the artist's highest function. And this verification of Nature as it is, by Nature's own laws, is what is known as ”aesthetics.” ”aesthetics” are the argument of _Beauty_.

In art, as elsewhere, reason must counter-balance pa.s.sion, and thence it follows that all artistic work of the very highest cla.s.s leaves an impress of calm--that sign of real power, which ”rules its art even to the checking point.”

As we have already observed, it is the _personal_ emotion, in the artist's collaboration with Nature, which gives the stamp of _originality_ to his work. Originality is often confounded with peculiarity or oddity. Yet they are absolutely distinct qualities.

Oddity is something abnormal, even unhealthy. It is a mitigated form of mental alienation, and belongs to the region of pathology. As the synonymous word eccentricity so well denotes, it is a deviation, a running off at a tangent.

Originality, on the other hand, is the distinctly evident link which binds the individual to the common intellectual centre. The work of art is the progeny of the common mother--Nature; and of a distinct father--the artist. Its originality is simply an a.s.severation of paternity. It is the proper name linked to the family appellation, an individual recommendation approved by the community at large.

But the artist's work does not consist merely in his personal expression, though that indeed gives it its distinctive quality, its individual features, even while it thereby confines them within certain limits.

As a matter of fact, while his artistic sensitiveness brings him into touch with actual nature, his reason brings him into equal contact with ideal nature, and this in virtue of that law of transfiguration which must be applied to all existent realities, so as to draw them ever closer to those which _are_--in other words, to their perfect prototype.

Let me here quote a sentence which seems to me, at all events, a somewhat striking formulation, even if it be not a proof, of the truth of the foregoing remarks. St. Theresa, that pious woman whose brilliant wisdom has earned her a place amongst the most famous teachers of the Church, used to say she did not remember ever to have heard a bad sermon. I ask no better than to believe this, seeing she said it. But it must be admitted that unless the saint deceived herself, she herself at least, if not the period in which she lived, must have been blessed with some special favour, by no means the lightest, in all conscience, which G.o.d has been pleased to bestow upon His faithful servants. However that may have been, and without desiring to cast the slightest doubt on the faithfulness of her witness, it may be explained--translated, let us say; and we may arrive at some comprehension of how, and to what an occasionally astounding extent, the inaccurate relation of a fact may co-exist with the absolute veracity of the person who bears the testimony.

Why did St. Theresa never recollect having heard a bad sermon? Because every sermon she heard with her outward ears was spontaneously transfigured, and literally _recreated_ by reason of the sublimity of that which sounded ever within her own soul. Because the words of the preacher, void though they might be of literary power or oratorical artifice, spoke to her of that which she loved best in the world, and once her spirit was borne in that direction, or to that level, she felt and heard nothing but G.o.d--concerning whom the preacher spoke.

”Use my eyes,” said a famous painter, when an acquaintance complained of the hideousness of his model; ”use my eyes, sir, and you will see he is sublime!”

Thus, at the mere sight of even a second-rate work, so that it suffice to kindle that divine spark, the hall-mark of genius, in his soul, the truly great artist will suddenly grasp his idea, and fathom the very depths of his art in one swift piercing glance.

Who can tell whether the ”Barbier de Seville” and ”Guillaume Tell” were not cradled on the paternal trestle stage on which Rossini's musical training first began?

To pa.s.s from exterior tangible realities to emotion, from emotion onwards to reason, this is the progressive order of true intellectual development. And this it is which St Augustine sums up so admirably in one of those clear and perspicuous maxims constantly to be met with in his works: ”Ab exterioribus ad interiora, ab interioribus ad superiora”--From without, within; from within, above.

Art is one of the three incarnations of the ideal in the real; one of the three operations of that spirit which is to ”renew the face of the earth;” one of the three revivals of Nature in man; one of the three forms, in a word, of that principle of separate immortality which const.i.tutes the perpetual resurrection of humanity at large, by virtue of its three creative powers, distinct in function, though substantially identical--viz., Love, the essence of human life; Science, the essence of truth; and Art, the essence of beauty.

Having thus endeavoured to show how the law which governs the progress of the human mind resides in the union of the ideal with the real, it now remains for me to give the counter-proof, by demonstrating the result of the separation and isolation of these two factors.

In art, mere realism is another word for slavish imitation. Utter idealism is the madness of fancy. In science, reality, by itself, is the enigma of fact unenlightened by its laws. Idealism alone is a ghostly conjecture, devoid of the confirmation of actualities.

In morality, realism unadulterated means the egotism of self-interest--in other words, a lack of _rational_ sanction in the field of human will. Unmixed idealism is mere Utopia, or the absence of the sanction of experience in all that is governed by human maxims.

In each and every case there must be either a soulless body or a disembodied soul; a denial of the law of existence by one who belongs at once, by virtue of his double nature, to the tangible and to the intellectual order of life, and whose being is only normal and complete inasmuch as it gives expression to these two orders of reality. If there be one peculiarity specially characteristic of these three high human vocations, the service of Goodness, of Beauty, and of Truth--if there be a bond between them, which marks the divinity of their common origin, and raises them to truly Apostolic dignity--it is that they are disinterested, gratuitous, _freely given_.

The functions of _life_ are so closely knit to those of _existence_ that the divine freedom of a man's vocation must perforce submit to the human necessities of his profession. And the most pa.s.sionate and eager _livers_ often understand little, and fare ill, when it comes to matters of _subsistence_. But all the superior functions of mankind are necessarily and intrinsically _gratuitous_.

Neither Love, nor Science, nor Art can be venally appraised. They are the divine three persons of the human conscience. Only finite things can be sold. Immortal things must bestow themselves freely.

Therefore it is that the handiwork of Goodness, of Beauty, and of Truth defies the centuries; the very eternity of their first causes gives them life.

”NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH.”

Thus did the mighty captive of Patmos, the prince of evangelists, foretell the end of time, in the twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypse; a stately vision, culminating in the hosannah of the ”New Jerusalem, the Holy City, coming down from G.o.d out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” What mighty seers they were! those great Hebrew poets! those diviners of the growth and destinies of the human race!--Job, David, Solomon, the Prophets, St. Paul, and the Apostle John, who was permitted to learn the secrets of eternity and to peer into the unfathomable depths of infinite generations!

That New Jerusalem, that chosen country, is _human selection_, the victorious solver of all enigmas, bearing, like some glorious trophy, all the sacramental veils the world has dropped one by one along the centuries--”the faithful steward entering into the joy of his Lord,”

who, under the glorious light of the ”New Heaven,” lays the ”New Earth”