Meet us on:
Entire Site
    Try our fun game

    Dueling book covers…may the best design win!

    Random Quote
    "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Follow us on Twitter

    Never miss a good book again! Follow Read Print on Twitter

    The Decay Of Lying: An Observation

    by Oscar Wilde
    • Rate it:
    • Average Rating: 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating
    Launch Reading Mode
    A DIALOGUE. Persons: Cyril and Vivian. Scene: the Library of a
    country house in Nottinghamshire.

    CYRIL (coming in through the open window from the terrace). My
    dear Vivian, don't coop yourself up all day in the library. It is
    a perfectly lovely afternoon. The air is exquisite. There is a
    mist upon the woods, like the purple bloom upon a plum. Let us go
    and lie on the grass and smoke cigarettes and enjoy Nature.

    VIVIAN. Enjoy Nature! I am glad to say that I have entirely lost
    that faculty. People tell us that Art makes us love Nature more
    than we loved her before; that it reveals her secrets to us; and
    that after a careful study of Corot and Constable we see things in
    her that had escaped our observation. My own experience is that
    the more we study Art, the less we care for Nature. What Art
    really reveals to us is Nature's lack of design, her curious
    crudities, her extraordinary monotony, her absolutely unfinished
    condition. Nature has good intentions, of course, but, as
    Aristotle once said, she cannot carry them out. When I look at a
    landscape I cannot help seeing all its defects. It is fortunate
    for us, however, that Nature is so imperfect, as otherwise we
    should have no art at all. Art is our spirited protest, our
    gallant attempt to teach Nature her proper place. As for the
    infinite variety of Nature, that is a pure myth. It is not to be
    found in Nature herself. It resides in the imagination, or fancy,
    or cultivated blindness of the man who looks at her.

    CYRIL. Well, you need not look at the landscape. You can lie on
    the grass and smoke and talk.

    VIVIAN. But Nature is so uncomfortable. Grass is hard and lumpy
    and damp, and full of dreadful black insects. Why, even Morris's
    poorest workman could make you a more comfortable seat than the
    whole of Nature can. Nature pales before the furniture of 'the
    street which from Oxford has borrowed its name,' as the poet you
    love so much once vilely phrased it. I don't complain. If Nature
    had been comfortable, mankind would never have invented
    architecture, and I prefer houses to the open air. In a house we
    all feel of the proper proportions. Everything is subordinated to
    us, fashioned for our use and our pleasure. Egotism itself, which
    is so necessary to a proper sense of human dignity, is entirely the
    result of indoor life. Out of doors one becomes abstract and
    impersonal. One's individuality absolutely leaves one. And then
    Nature is so indifferent, so unappreciative. Whenever I am walking
    in the park here, I always feel that I am no more to her than the
    cattle that browse on the slope, or the burdock that blooms in the
    ditch. Nothing is more evident than that Nature hates Mind.
    Thinking is the most unhealthy thing in the world, and people die
    of it just as they die of any other disease. Fortunately, in
    England at any rate, thought is not catching. Our splendid
    physique as a people is entirely due to our national stupidity. I
    only hope we shall be able to keep this great historic bulwark of
    our happiness for many years to come; but I am afraid that we are
    beginning to be over-educated; at least everybody who is incapable
    of learning has taken to teaching--that is really what our
    enthusiasm for education has come to. In the meantime, you had
    better go back to your wearisome uncomfortable Nature, and leave me
    to correct my proofs.

    CYRIL. Writing an article! That is not very consistent after what
    you have just said.

    VIVIAN. Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the
    doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to
    the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice.
    Not I. Like Emerson, I write over the door of my library the word
    'Whim.' Besides, my article is really a most salutary and valuable
    warning. If it is attended to, there may be a new Renaissance of

    CYRIL. What is the subject?

    VIVIAN. I intend to call it 'The Decay of Lying: A Protest.'

    CYRIL. Lying! I should have thought that our politicians kept up
    that habit.

    VIVIAN. I assure you that they do not. They never rise beyond the
    level of misrepresentation, and actually condescend to prove, to
    discuss, to argue. How different from the temper of the true liar,
    with his frank, fearless statements, his superb irresponsibility,
    his healthy, natural disdain of proof of any kind! After all, what
    is a fine lie? Simply that which is its own evidence. If a man is
    sufficiently unimaginative to produce evidence in support of a lie,
    he might just as well speak the truth at once. No, the politicians
    won't do. Something may, perhaps, be urged on behalf of the Bar.
    The mantle of the Sophist has fallen on its members. Their feigned
    ardours and unreal rhetoric are delightful. They can make the
    worse appear the better cause, as though they were fresh from
    Leontine schools, and have been known to wrest from reluctant
    juries triumphant verdicts of acquittal for their clients, even
    when those clients, as often happens, were clearly and
    unmistakeably innocent. But they are briefed by the prosaic, and
    are not ashamed to appeal to precedent. In spite of their
    endeavours, the truth will out. Newspapers, even, have
    degenerated. They may now be absolutely relied upon. One feels it
    as one wades through their columns. It is always the unreadable
    that occurs. I am afraid that there is not much to be said in
    favour of either the lawyer or the journalist. Besides, what I am
    pleading for is Lying in art. Shall I read you what I have
    written? It might do you a great deal of good.

    CYRIL. Certainly, if you give me a cigarette. Thanks. By the
    way, what magazine do you intend it for?

    VIVIAN. For the Retrospective Review. I think I told you that the
    elect had revived it.

    CYRIL. Whom do you mean by 'the elect'?

    VIVIAN. Oh, The Tired Hedonists, of course. It is a club to which
    I belong. We are supposed to wear faded roses in our button-holes
    when we meet, and to have a sort of cult for Domitian. I am afraid
    you are not eligible. You are too fond of simple pleasures.

    CYRIL. I should be black-balled on the ground of animal spirits, I

    VIVIAN. Probably. Besides, you are a little too old. We don't
    admit anybody who is of the usual age.

    CYRIL. Well, I should fancy you are all a good deal bored with
    each other.

    VIVIAN. We are. This is one of the objects of the club. Now, if
    you promise not to interrupt too often, I will read you my article.

    CYRIL. You will find me all attention.

    VIVIAN (reading in a very clear, musical voice). THE DECAY OF
    LYING: A PROTEST.--One of the chief causes that can be assigned
    for the curiously commonplace character of most of the literature
    of our age is undoubtedly the decay of Lying as an art, a science,
    and a social pleasure. The ancient historians gave us delightful
    fiction in the form of fact; the modem novelist presents us with
    dull facts under the guise of fiction. The Blue-Book is rapidly
    becoming his ideal both for method and manner. He has his tedious
    document humain, his miserable little coin de la creation, into
    which he peers with his microscope. He is to be found at the
    Librairie Nationale, or at the British Museum, shamelessly reading
    up his subject. He has not even the courage of other people's
    ideas, but insists on going directly to life for everything, and
    ultimately, between encyclopaedias and personal experience, he
    comes to the ground, having drawn his types from the family circle
    or from the weekly washerwoman, and having acquired an amount of
    useful information from which never, even in his most meditative
    moments, can he thoroughly free himself.

    'The lose that results to literature in general from this false
    ideal of our time can hardly be overestimated. People have a
    careless way of talking about a "born liar," just as they talk
    about a "born poet." But in both cases they are wrong. Lying and
    poetry are arts--arts, as Pinto saw, not unconnected with each
    other--and they require the most careful study, the most
    disinterested devotion. Indeed, they have their technique, just as
    the more material arts of painting and sculpture have, their subtle
    secrets of form and colour, their craft-mysteries, their deliberate
    artistic methods. As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one
    can recognise the liar by his rich rhythmic utterance, and in
    neither case will the casual inspiration of the moment suffice.
    Here, as elsewhere, practice must, precede perfection. But in
    modern days while the fashion of writing poetry has become far too
    common, and should, if possible, be discouraged, the fashion of
    lying has almost fallen into disrepute. Many a young man starts in
    life with a natural gift for exaggeration which, if nurtured in
    congenial and sympathetic surroundings, or by the imitation of the
    best models, might grow into something really great and wonderful.
    But, as a rule, he comes to nothing. He either falls into careless
    habits of accuracy--'

    CYRIL. My dear fellow!

    VIVIAN. Please don't interrupt in the middle of a sentence. 'He
    either falls into careless habits of accuracy, or takes to
    frequenting the society of the aged and the well-informed. Both
    things are equally fatal to his imagination, as indeed they would
    be fatal to the imagination of anybody, and in a short time he
    develops a morbid and unhealthy faculty of truth-telling, begins to
    verify all statements made in his presence, has no hesitation in
    contradicting people who are much younger than himself, and often
    ends by writing novels which are so lifelike that no one can
    possibly believe in their probability. This is no isolated
    instance that we are giving. It is simply one example out of many;
    and if something cannot be done to check, or at least to modify,
    our monstrous worship of facts, Art will become sterile, and beauty
    will pass away from the land.

    'Even Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson, that delightful master of
    delicate and fanciful prose, is tainted with this modern vice, for
    we know positively no other name for it. There is such a thing as
    robbing a story of its reality by trying to make it too true, and
    The Black Arrow is so inartistic as not to contain a single
    anachronism to boast of, while the transformation of Dr. Jekyll
    reads dangerously like an experiment out of the Lancet. As for Mr.
    Rider Haggard, who really has, or had once, the makings of a
    perfectly magnificent liar, he is now so afraid of being suspected
    of genius that when he does tell us anything marvellous, he feels
    bound to invent a personal reminiscence, and to put it into a
    footnote as a kind of cowardly corroboration. Nor are our other
    novelists much better. Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it
    were a painful duty, and wastes upon mean motives and imperceptible
    "points of view" his neat literary style, his felicitous phrases,
    his swift and caustic satire. Mr. Hall Caine, it is true, aims at
    the grandiose, but then he writes at the top of his voice. He is
    so loud that one cannot bear what he says. Mr. James Payn is an
    adept in the art of concealing what is not worth finding. He hunts
    down the obvious with the enthusiasm of a short-sighted detective.
    As one turns over the pages, the suspense of the author becomes
    almost unbearable. The horses of Mr. William Black's phaeton do
    not soar towards the sun. They merely frighten the sky at evening
    into violent chromolithographic effects. On seeing them approach,
    the peasants take refuge in dialect. Mrs. Oliphant prattles
    pleasantly about curates, lawn-tennis parties, domesticity, and
    other wearisome things. Mr. Marion Crawford has immolated himself
    upon the altar of local colour. He is like the lady in the French
    comedy who keeps talking about "le beau ciel d'Italie." Besides,
    he has fallen into the bad habit of uttering moral platitudes. He
    is always telling us that to be good is to be good, and that to be
    bad is to be wicked. At times he is almost edifying. Robert
    Elsmere is of course a masterpiece--a masterpiece of the "genre
    ennuyeux," the one form of literature that the English people seems
    thoroughly to enjoy. A thoughtful young friend of ours once told
    us that it reminded him of the sort of conversation that goes on at
    a meat tea in the house of a serious Nonconformist family, and we
    can quite believe it. Indeed it is only in England that such a
    book could be produced. England is the home of lost ideas. As for
    that great and daily increasing school of novelists for whom the
    sun always rises in the East-End, the only thing that can be said
    about them is that they find life crude, and leave it raw.

    'In France, though nothing so deliberately tedious as Robert
    Elsmere has been produced, things are not much better. M. Guy de
    Maupassant, with his keen mordant irony and his hard vivid style,
    strips life of the few poor rags that still cover her, and shows us
    foul sore and festering wound. He writes lurid little tragedies in
    which everybody is ridiculous; bitter comedies at which one cannot
    laugh for very tears. M. Zola, true to the lofty principle that he
    lays down in one of his pronunciamientos on literature, "L'homme de
    genie n'a jamais d'esprit," is determined to show that, if he has
    not got genius, he can at least be dull. And how well he succeeds!
    He is not without power. Indeed at times, as in Germinal, there is
    something almost epic in his work. But his work is entirely wrong
    from beginning to end, and wrong not on the ground of morals, but
    on the ground of art. From any ethical standpoint it is just what
    it should be. The author is perfectly truthful, and describes
    things exactly as they happen. What more can any moralist desire?
    We have no sympathy at all with the moral indignation of our time
    against M. Zola. It is simply the indignation of Tartuffe on being
    exposed. But from the standpoint of art, what can be said in
    favour of the author of L'Assommoir, Nana and Pot-Bouille?
    Nothing. Mr. Ruskin once described the characters in George
    Eliot's novels as being like the sweepings of a Pentonville
    omnibus, but M. Zola's characters are much worse. They have their
    dreary vices, and their drearier virtues. The record of their
    lives is absolutely without interest. Who cares what happens to
    them? In literature we require distinction, charm, beauty and
    imaginative power. We don't want to be harrowed and disgusted with
    an account of the doings of the lower orders. M. Daudet is better.
    He has wit, a light touch and an amusing style. But he has lately
    committed literary suicide. Nobody can possibly care for Delobelle
    with his "Il faut lutter pour l'art," or for Valmajour with his
    eternal refrain about the nightingale, or for the poet in Jack with
    his "mots cruels," now that we have learned from Vingt Ans de ma
    Vie litteraire that these characters were taken directly from life.
    To us they seem to have suddenly lost all their vitality, all the
    few qualities they ever possessed. The only real people are the
    people who never existed, and if a novelist is base enough to go to
    life for his personages he should at least pretend that they are
    creations, and not boast of them as copies. The justification of a
    character in a novel is not that other persons are what they are,
    but that the author is what he is. Otherwise the novel is not a
    work of art. As for M. Paul Bourget, the master of the roman
    psychologique, he commits the error of imagining that the men and
    women of modern life are capable of being infinitely analysed for
    an innumerable series of chapters. In point of fact what is
    interesting about people in good society--and M. Bourget rarely
    moves out of the Faubourg St. Germain, except to come to London,--
    is the mask that each one of them wears, not the reality that lies
    behind the mask. It is a humiliating confession, but we are all of
    us made out of the same stuff. In Falstaff there is something of
    Hamlet, in Hamlet there is not a little of Falstaff. The fat
    knight has his moods of melancholy, and the young prince his
    moments of coarse humour. Where we differ from each other is
    purely in accidentals: in dress, manner, tone of voice, religious
    opinions, personal appearance, tricks of habit and the like. The
    more one analyses people, the more all reasons for analysis
    disappear. Sooner or later one comes to that dreadful universal
    thing called human nature. Indeed, as any one who has ever worked
    among the poor knows only too well, the brotherhood of man is no
    mere poet's dream, it is a most depressing and humiliating reality;
    and if a writer insists upon analysing the upper classes, he might
    just as well write of match-girls and costermongers at once.'
    However, my dear Cyril, I will not detain you any further just
    here. I quite admit that modern novels have many good points. All
    I insist on is 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 kind. It
    is exactly because Hecuba is nothing to us that her sorrows are
    such an admirable motive for a tragedy. I do not know anything in
    the whole history of literature sadder than the artistic career of
    Charles Reade. He wrote one beautiful book, The Cloister and the
    Hearth, a book as much above Romola as Romola is above Daniel
    Deronda, and wasted the rest of his life in a foolish attempt to be
    modern, to draw public attention to the state of our convict
    prisons, and the management of our private lunatic asylums.
    Charles Dickens was depressing enough in all conscience when he
    tried to arouse our sympathy for the victims of the poor-law
    administration; but Charles Reade, an artist, a scholar, a man with
    a true sense of beauty, raging and roaring over the abuses of
    contemporary life like a common pamphleteer or a sensational
    journalist, is really a sight for the angels to weep over. Believe
    me, my dear Cyril, modernity of form and modernity of subject-
    matter are entirely and absolutely wrong. We have mistaken the
    common livery of the age for the vesture of the Muses, and spend
    our days in the sordid streets and hideous suburbs of our vile
    cities when we should be out on the hillside with Apollo.
    Certainly we are a degraded race, and have sold our birthright for
    a mess of facts.

    CYRIL. There is something in what you say, and there is no doubt
    that whatever amusement we may find in reading a purely model
    novel, we have rarely any artistic pleasure in re-reading it. And
    this is perhaps the best rough test of what is literature and what
    is not. If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again,
    there is no use reading it at all. But what do you say about the
    return to Life and Nature? This is the panacea that is always
    being recommended to us.

    VIVIAN. I will read you what I say on that subject. The passage
    comes later on in the article, but I may as well give it to you

    'The popular cry of our time is "Let us return to Life and Nature;
    they will recreate Art for us, and send the red blood coursing
    through her veins; they will shoe her feet with swiftness and make
    her hand strong." But, alas! we are mistaken in our amiable and
    well-meaning efforts. Nature is always behind the age. And as for
    Life, she is the solvent that breaks up Art, the enemy that lays
    waste her house.'

    CYRIL. What do you mean by saying that Nature is always behind the

    VIVIAN. Well, perhaps that is rather cryptic. What I mean is
    this. If we take Nature to mean natural simple instinct as opposed
    to self-conscious culture, the work produced under this influence
    is always old-fashioned, antiquated, and out of date. One touch of
    Nature may make the whole world kin, but two touches of Nature will
    destroy any work of Art. If, on the other hand, we regard Nature
    as the collection of phenomena external to man, people only
    discover in her what they bring to her. She has no suggestions of
    her own. Wordsworth went to the lakes, but he was never a lake
    poet. He found in stones the sermons he had already hidden there.
    He went moralising about the district, but his good work was
    produced when he returned, not to Nature but to poetry. Poetry
    gave him 'Laodamia,' and the fine sonnets, and the great Ode, such
    as it is. Nature gave him 'Martha Ray' and 'Peter Bell,' and the
    address to Mr. Wilkinson's spade.

    CYRIL. I think that view might be questioned. I am rather
    inclined to believe in 'the impulse from a vernal wood,' though of
    course the artistic value of such an impulse depends entirely on
    the kind of temperament that receives it, so that the return to
    Nature would come to mean simply the advance to a great
    personality. You would agree with that, I fancy. However, proceed
    with your article.

    VIVIAN (reading). 'Art begins with abstract decoration, with
    purely imaginative and pleasurable work dealing with what is unreal
    and non-existent. This is the first stage. Then Life becomes
    fascinated with this new wonder, and asks to be admitted into the
    charmed circle. Art takes life as part of her rough material,
    recreates it, and refashions it in fresh forms, is absolutely
    indifferent to fact, invents, imagines, dreams, and keeps between
    herself and reality the impenetrable barrier of beautiful style, of
    decorative or ideal treatment. The third stage is when Life gets
    the upper hand, and drives Art out into the wilderness. That is
    the true decadence, and it is from this that we are now suffering.

    'Take the case of the English drama. At first in the hands of the
    monks Dramatic Art was abstract, decorative and mythological. Then
    she enlisted Life in her service, and using some of life's external
    forms, she created an entirely new race of beings, whose sorrows
    were more terrible than any sorrow man has ever felt, whose joys
    were keener than lover's joys, who had the rage of the Titans and
    the calm of the gods, who had monstrous and marvellous sins,
    monstrous and marvellous virtues. To them she gave a language
    different from that of actual use, a language full of resonant
    music and sweet rhythm, made stately by solemn cadence, or made
    delicate by fanciful rhyme, jewelled with wonderful words, and
    enriched with lofty diction. She clothed her children in strange
    raiment and gave them masks, and at her bidding the antique world
    rose from its marble tomb. A new Caesar stalked through the
    streets of risen Rome, and with purple sail and flute-led oars
    another Cleopatra passed up the river to Antioch. Old myth and
    legend and dream took shape and substance. History was entirely
    re-written, and there was hardly one of the dramatists who did not
    recognise that the object of Art is not simple truth but complex
    beauty. In this they were perfectly right. Art itself is really a
    form of exaggeration; and selection, which is the very spirit of
    art, is nothing more than an intensified mode of over-emphasis.

    'But Life soon shattered the perfection of the form. Even in
    Shakespeare we can see the beginning of the end. It shows itself
    by the gradual breaking-up of the blank-verse in the later plays,
    by the predominance given to prose, and by the over-importance
    assigned to characterisation. The passages in Shakespeare--and
    they are many--where the language is uncouth, vulgar, exaggerated,
    fantastic, obscene even, are entirely due to Life calling for an
    echo of her own voice, and rejecting the intervention of beautiful
    style, through which alone should life be suffered to find
    expression. Shakespeare is not by any means a flawless artist. He
    is too fond of going directly to life, and borrowing life's natural
    utterance. He forgets that when Art surrenders her imaginative
    medium she surrenders everything. Goethe says, somewhere -

    In der Beschrankung zeigt Fsich erst der Meister,

    "It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself,"
    and the limitation, the very condition of any art is style.
    However, we need not linger any longer over Shakespeare's realism.
    The Tempest is the most perfect of palinodes. All that we desired
    to point out was, that the magnificent work of the Elizabethan and
    Jacobean artists contained within itself the seeds of its own
    dissolution, and that, if it drew some of its strength from using
    life as rough material, it drew all its weakness from using life as
    an artistic method. As the inevitable result of this substitution
    of an imitative for a creative medium, this surrender of an
    imaginative form, we have the modern English melodrama. The
    characters in these plays talk on the stage exactly as they would
    talk off it; they have neither aspirations nor aspirates; they are
    taken directly from life and reproduce its vulgarity down to the
    smallest detail; they present the gait, manner, costume and accent
    of real people; they would pass unnoticed in a third-class railway
    carriage. And yet how wearisome the plays are! They do not
    succeed in producing even that impression of reality at which they
    aim, and which is their only reason for existing. As a method,
    realism is a complete failure.

    'What is true about the drama and the novel is no less true about
    those arts that we call the decorative arts. The whole history of
    these arts in Europe is the record of the struggle between
    Orientalism, with its frank rejection of imitation, its love of
    artistic convention, its dislike to the actual representation of
    any object in Nature, and our own imitative spirit. Wherever the
    former has been paramount, as in Byzantium, Sicily and Spain, by
    actual contact, or in the rest of Europe by the influence of the
    Crusades, we have had beautiful and imaginative work in which the
    visible things of life are transmuted into artistic conventions,
    and the things that Life has not are invented and fashioned for her
    delight. But wherever we have returned to Life and Nature, our
    work has always become vulgar, common and uninteresting. Modern
    tapestry, with its aerial effects, its elaborate perspective, its
    broad expanses of waste sky, its faithful and laborious realism,
    has no beauty whatsoever. The pictorial glass of Germany is
    absolutely detestable. We are beginning to weave possible carpets
    in England, but only because we have returned to the method and
    spirit of the East. Our rugs and carpets of twenty years ago, with
    their solemn depressing truths, their inane worship of Nature,
    their sordid reproductions of visible objects, have become, even to
    the Philistine, a source of laughter. A cultured Mahomedan once
    remarked to us, "You Christians are so occupied in misinterpreting
    the fourth commandment that you have never thought of making an
    artistic application of the second." He was perfectly right, and
    the whole truth of the matter is this: The proper school to learn
    art in is not Life but Art.'

    And now let me read you a passage which seems to me to settle the
    question very completely.

    'It was not always thus. We need not say anything about the poets,
    for they, with the unfortunate exception of Mr. Wordsworth, have
    been really faithful to their high mission, and are universally
    recognised as being absolutely unreliable. But in the works of
    Herodotus, who, in spite of the shallow and ungenerous attempts of
    modem sciolists to verify his history, may justly be called the
    "Father of Lies"; in the published speeches of Cicero and the
    biographies of Suetonius; in Tacitus at his best; in Pliny's
    Natural History; in Hanno's Periplus; in all the early chronicles;
    in the Lives of the Saints; in Froissart and Sir Thomas Malory; in
    the travels of Marco Polo; in Olaus Magnus, and Aldrovandus, and
    Conrad Lycosthenes, with his magnificent Prodigiorum et Ostentorum
    Chronicon; in the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini; in the
    memoirs of Casanova; in Defoe's History of the Plague; in Boswell's
    Life of Johnson; in Napoleon's despatches, and in the works of our
    own Carlyle, whose French Revolution is one of the most fascinating
    historical novels ever written, facts are either kept in their
    proper subordinate position, or else entirely excluded on the
    general ground of dulness. Now, everything is changed. Facts are
    not merely finding a footing-place in history, but they are
    usurping the domain of Fancy, and have invaded the kingdom of
    Romance. Their chilling touch is over everything. They are
    vulgarising mankind. The crude commercialism of America, its
    materialising spirit, its indifference to the poetical side of
    things, and its lack of imagination and of high unattainable
    ideals, are entirely due to that country having adopted for its
    national hero a man who, according to his own confession, was
    incapable of telling a lie, and it is not too much to say that the
    story of George Washington and the cherry-tree has done more harm,
    and in a shorter space of time, than any other moral tale in the
    whole of literature.'

    CYRIL. My dear boy!

    VIVIAN. I assure you it is the case, and the amusing part of the
    whole thing is that the story of the cherry-tree is an absolute
    myth. However, you must not think that I am too despondent about
    the artistic future either of America or of our own country.
    Listen to this:-

    'That some change will take place before this century has drawn to
    its close we have no doubt whatsoever. Bored by the tedious and
    improving conversation of those who have neither the wit to
    exaggerate nor the genius to romance, tired of the intelligent
    person whose reminiscences are always based upon memory, whose
    statements are invariably limited by probability, and who is at any
    time liable to be corroborated by the merest Philistine who happens
    to be present, Society sooner or later must return to its lost
    leader, the cultured and fascinating liar. Who he was who first,
    without ever having gone out to the rude chase, told the wandering
    cavemen at sunset how he had dragged the Megatherium from the
    purple darkness of its jasper cave, or slain the Mammoth in single
    combat and brought back its gilded tusks, we cannot tell, and not
    one of our modern anthropologists, for all their much-boasted
    science, has had the ordinary courage to tell us. Whatever was his
    name or race, he certainly was the true founder of social
    intercourse. For the aim of the liar is simply to charm, to
    delight, to give pleasure. He is the very basis of civilised
    society, and without him a dinner-party, even at the mansions of
    the great, is as dull as a lecture at the Royal Society, or a
    debate at the Incorporated Authors, or one of Mr. Burnand's
    farcical comedies.

    'Nor will he be welcomed by society alone. Art, breaking from the
    prison-house of realism, will run to greet him, and will kiss his
    false, beautiful lips, knowing that he alone is in possession of
    the great secret of all her manifestations, the secret that Truth
    is entirely and absolutely a matter of style; while Life--poor,
    probable, uninteresting human life--tired of repeating herself for
    the benefit of Mr. Herbert Spencer, scientific historians, and the
    compilers of statistics in general, will follow meekly after him,
    and try to reproduce, in her own simple and untutored way, some of
    the marvels of which he talks.

    'No doubt there will always be critics who, like a certain writer
    in the Saturday Review, will gravely censure the teller of fairy
    tales for his defective knowledge of natural history, who will
    measure imaginative work by their own lack of any imaginative
    faculty, and will hold up their ink-stained hands in horror if some
    honest gentleman, who has never been farther than the yew-trees of
    his own garden, pens a fascinating book of travels like Sir John
    Mandeville, or, like great Raleigh, writes a whole history of the
    world, without knowing anything whatsoever about the past. To
    excuse themselves they will try and shelter under the shield of him
    who made Prospero the magician, and gave him Caliban and Ariel as
    his servants, who heard the Tritons blowing their horns round the
    coral reefs of the Enchanted Isle, and the fairies singing to each
    other in a wood near Athens, who led the phantom kings in dim
    procession across the misty Scottish heath, and hid Hecate in a
    cave with the weird sisters. They will call upon Shakespeare--they
    always do--and will quote that hackneyed passage forgetting that
    this unfortunate aphorism about Art holding the mirror up to
    Nature, is deliberately said by Hamlet in order to convince the
    bystanders of his absolute insanity in all art-matters.'

    CYRIL. Ahem! Another cigarette, please.

    VIVIAN. My dear fellow, whatever you may say, it is merely a
    dramatic utterance, and no more represents Shakespeare's real views
    upon art than the speeches of Iago represent his real views upon
    morals. But let me get to the end of the passage:

    'Art finds her own perfection within, and not outside of, herself.
    She is not to be judged by any external standard of resemblance.
    She is a veil, rather than a mirror. She has flowers that no
    forests know of, birds that no woodland possesses. She makes and
    unmakes many worlds, and can draw the moon from heaven with a
    scarlet thread. Hers are the "forms more real than living man,"
    and hers the great archetypes of which things that have existence
    are but unfinished copies. Nature has, in her eyes, no laws, no
    uniformity. She can work miracles at her will, and when she calls
    monsters from the deep they come. She can bid the almond-tree
    blossom in winter, and send the snow upon the ripe cornfield. At
    her word the frost lays its silver finger on the burning mouth of
    June, and the winged lions creep out from the hollows of the Lydian
    hills. The dryads peer from the thicket as she passes by, and the
    brown fauns smile strangely at her when she comes near them. She
    has hawk-faced gods that worship her, and the centaurs gallop at
    her side.'

    CYRIL. I like that. I can see it. Is that the end?

    VIVIAN. No. There is one more passage, but it is purely
    practical. It simply suggests some methods by which we could
    revive this lost art of Lying.

    CYRIL. Well, before you read it to me, I should like to ask you a
    question. What do you mean by saying that life, 'poor, probable,
    uninteresting human life,' will try to reproduce the marvels of
    art? I can quite understand your objection to art being treated as
    a mirror. You think it would reduce genius to the position of a
    cracked looking-glass. But you don't mean to say that you
    seriously believe that Life imitates Art, that Life in fact is the
    mirror, and Art the reality?

    VIVIAN. Certainly I do. Paradox though it may seem--and paradoxes
    are always dangerous things--it is none the less true that Life
    imitates art far more than Art imitates life. We have all seen in
    our own day in England how a certain curious and fascinating type
    of beauty, invented and emphasised by two imaginative painters, has
    so influenced Life that whenever one goes to a private view or to
    an artistic salon one sees, here the mystic eyes of Rossetti's
    dream, the long ivory throat, the strange square-cut jaw, the
    loosened shadowy hair that he so ardently loved, there the sweet
    maidenhood of 'The Golden Stair,' the blossom-like mouth and weary
    loveliness of the 'Laus Amoris,' the passion-pale face of
    Andromeda, the thin hands and lithe beauty of the Vivian in
    'Merlin's Dream.' And it has always been so. A great artist
    invents a type, and Life tries to copy it, to reproduce it in a
    popular form, like an enterprising publisher. Neither Holbein nor
    Vandyck found in England what they have given us. They brought
    their types with them, and Life with her keen imitative faculty set
    herself to supply the master with models. The Greeks, with their
    quick artistic instinct, understood this, and set in the bride's
    chamber the statue of Hermes or of Apollo, that she might bear
    children as lovely as the works of art that she looked at in her
    rapture or her pain. They knew that Life gains from art not merely
    spirituality, depth of thought and feeling, soul-turmoil or soul-
    peace, but that she can form herself on the very lines and colours
    of art, and can reproduce the dignity of Pheidias as well as the
    grace of Praxiteles. Hence came their objection to realism. They
    disliked it on purely social grounds. They felt that it inevitably
    makes people ugly, and they were perfectly right. We try to
    improve the conditions of the race by means of good air, free
    sunlight, wholesome water, and hideous bare buildings for the
    better housing of the lower orders. But these things merely
    produce health, they do not produce beauty. For this, Art is
    required, and the true disciples of the great artist are not his
    studio-imitators, but those who become like his works of art, be
    they plastic as in Greek days, or pictorial as in modern times; in
    a word, Life is Art's best, Art's only pupil.

    As it is with the visible arts, so it is with literature. The most
    obvious and the vulgarest form in which this is shown is in the
    case of the silly boys who, after reading the adventures of Jack
    Sheppard or Dick Turpin, pillage the stalls of unfortunate apple-
    women, break into sweet-shops at night, and alarm old gentlemen who
    are returning home from the city by leaping out on them in suburban
    lanes, with black masks and unloaded revolvers. This interesting
    phenomenon, which always occurs after the appearance of a new
    edition of either of the books I have alluded to, is usually
    attributed to the influence of literature on the imagination. But
    this is a mistake. The imagination is essentially creative, and
    always seeks for a new form. The boy-burglar is simply the
    inevitable result of life's imitative instinct. He is Fact,
    occupied as Fact usually is, with trying to reproduce Fiction, and
    what we see in him is repeated on an extended scale throughout the
    whole of life. Schopenhauer has analysed the pessimism that
    characterises modern thought, but Hamlet invented it. The world
    has become sad because a puppet was once melancholy. The Nihilist,
    that strange martyr who has no faith, who goes to the stake without
    enthusiasm, and dies for what he does not believe in, is a purely
    literary product. He was invented by Tourgenieff, and completed by
    Dostoieffski. Robespierre came out of the pages of Rousseau as
    surely as the People's Palace rose out of the debris of a novel.
    Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but
    moulds it to its purpose. The nineteenth century, as we know it,
    is largely an invention of Balzac. Our Luciens de Rubempre, our
    Rastignacs, and De Marsays made their first appearance on the stage
    of the Comedie Humaine. We are merely carrying out, with footnotes
    and unnecessary additions, the whim or fancy or creative vision of
    a great novelist. I once asked a lady, who knew Thackeray
    intimately, whether he had had any model for Becky Sharp. She told
    me that Becky was an invention, but that the idea of the character
    had been partly suggested by a governess who lived in the
    neighbourhood of Kensington Square, and was the companion of a very
    selfish and rich old woman. I inquired what became of the
    governess, and she replied that, oddly enough, some years after the
    appearance of Vanity Fair, she ran away with the nephew of the lady
    with whom she was living, and for a short time made a great splash
    in society, quite in Mrs. Rawdon Crawley's style, and entirely by
    Mrs. Rawdon Crawley's methods. Ultimately she came to grief,
    disappeared to the Continent, and used to be occasionally seen at
    Monte Carlo and other gambling places. The noble gentleman from
    whom the same great sentimentalist drew Colonel Newcome died, a few
    months after The Newcomer had reached a fourth edition, with the
    word 'Adsum' on his lips. Shortly after Mr. Stevenson published
    his curious psychological story of transformation, a friend of
    mine, called Mr. Hyde, was in the north of London, and being
    anxious to get to a railway station, took what he thought would be
    a short cut, lost his way, and found himself in a network of mean,
    evil-looking streets. Feeling rather nervous he began to walk
    extremely fast, when suddenly out of an archway ran a child right
    between his legs. It fell on the pavement, he tripped over it, and
    trampled upon it. Being of course very much frightened and a
    little hurt, it began to scream, and in a few seconds the whole
    street was full of rough people who came pouring out of the houses
    like ants. They surrounded him, and asked him his name. He was
    just about to give it when he suddenly remembered the opening
    incident in Mr. Stevenson's story. He was so filled with horror at
    having realised in his own person that terrible and well-written
    scene, and at having done accidentally, though in fact, what the
    Mr. Hyde of fiction had done with deliberate intent, that he ran
    away as hard as he could go. He was, however, very closely
    followed, and finally he took refuge in a surgery, the door of
    which happened to be open, where he explained to a young assistant,
    who happened to be there, exactly what had occurred. The
    humanitarian crowd were induced to go away on his giving them a
    small sum of money, and as soon as the coast was clear he left. As
    he passed out, the name on the brass door-plate of the surgery
    caught his eye. It was 'Jekyll.' At least it should have been.

    Here the imitation, as far as it went, was of course accidental.
    In the following case the imitation was self-conscious. In the
    year 1879, just after I had left Oxford, I met at a reception at
    the house of one of the Foreign Ministers a woman of very curious
    exotic beauty. We became great friends, and were constantly
    together. And yet what interested me most in her was not her
    beauty, but her character, her entire vagueness of character. She
    seemed to have no personality at all, but simply the possibility of
    many types. Sometimes she would give herself up entirely to art,
    turn her drawing-room into a studio, and spend two or three days a
    week at picture galleries or museums. Then she would take to
    attending race-meetings, wear the most horsey clothes, and talk
    about nothing but betting. She abandoned religion for mesmerism,
    mesmerism for politics, and politics for the melodramatic
    excitements of philanthropy. In fact, she was a kind of Proteus,
    and as much a failure in all her transformations as was that
    wondrous sea-god when Odysseus laid hold of him. One day a serial
    began in one of the French magazines. At that time I used to read
    serial stories, and I well remember the shock of surprise I felt
    when I came to the description of the heroine. She was so like my
    friend that I brought her the magazine, and she recognised herself
    in it immediately, and seemed fascinated by the resemblance. I
    should tell you, by the way, that the story was translated from
    some dead Russian writer, so that the author had not taken his type
    from my friend. Well, to put the matter briefly, some months
    afterwards I was in Venice, and finding the magazine in the
    reading-room of the hotel, I took it up casually to see what had
    become of the heroine. It was a most piteous tale, as the girl had
    ended by running away with a man absolutely inferior to her, not
    merely in social station, but in character and intellect also. I
    wrote to my friend that evening about my views on John Bellini, and
    the admirable ices at Florian's, and the artistic value of
    gondolas, but added a postscript to the effect that her double in
    the story had behaved in a very silly manner. I don't know why I
    added that, but I remember I had a sort of dread over me that she
    might do the same thing. Before my letter had reached her, she had
    run away with a man who deserted her in six months. I saw her in
    1884 in Paris, where she was living with her mother, and I asked
    her whether the story had had anything to do with her action. She
    told me that she had felt an absolutely irresistible impulse to
    follow the heroine step by step in her strange and fatal progress,
    and that it was with a feeling of real terror that she had looked
    forward to the last few chapters of the story. When they appeared,
    it seemed to her that she was compelled to reproduce them in life,
    and she did so. It was a most clear example of this imitative
    instinct of which I was speaking, and an extremely tragic one.

    However, I do not wish to dwell any further upon individual
    instances. Personal experience is a most vicious and limited
    circle. All that I desire to point out is the general principle
    that Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life, and I feel
    sure that if you think seriously about it you will find that it is
    true. Life holds the mirror up to Art, and either reproduces some
    strange type imagined by painter or sculptor, or realises in fact
    what has been dreamed in fiction. Scientifically speaking, the
    basis of life--the energy of life, as Aristotle would call it--is
    simply the desire for expression, and Art is always presenting
    various forms through which this expression can be attained. Life
    seizes on them and uses them, even if they be to her own hurt.
    Young men have committed suicide because Rolla did so, have died by
    their own hand because by his own hand Werther died. Think of what
    we owe to the imitation of Christ, of what we owe to the imitation
    of Caesar.

    CYRIL. The theory is certainly a very curious one, but to make it
    complete you must show that Nature, no less than Life, is an
    imitation of Art. Are you prepared to prove that?

    VIVIAN. My dear fellow, I am prepared to prove anything.

    CYRIL. Nature follows the landscape painter, then, and takes her
    effects from him?

    VIVIAN. Certainly. Where, if not from the Impressionists, do we
    get those wonderful brown fogs that come creeping down our streets,
    blurring the gas-lamps and changing the houses into monstrous
    shadows? To whom, if not to them and their master, do we owe the
    lovely silver mists that brood over our river, and turn to faint
    forms of fading grace curved bridge and swaying barge? The
    extraordinary change that has taken place in the climate of London
    during the last ten years is entirely due to a particular school of
    Art. You smile. Consider the matter from a scientific or a
    metaphysical point of view, and you will find that I am right. For
    what is Nature? Nature is no great mother who has borne us. She
    is our creation. It is in our brain that she quickens to life.
    Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it,
    depends on the Arts that have influenced us. To look at a thing is
    very different from seeing a thing. One does not see anything
    until one sees its beauty. Then, and then only, does it come into
    existence. At present, people see fogs, not because there are
    fogs, but because poets and painters have taught them the
    mysterious loveliness of such effects. There may have been fogs
    for centuries in London. I dare say there were. But no one saw
    them, and so we do not know anything about them. They did not
    exist till Art had invented them. Now, it must be admitted, fogs
    are carried to excess. They have become the mere mannerism of a
    clique, and the exaggerated realism of their method gives dull
    people bronchitis. Where the cultured catch an effect, the
    uncultured catch cold. And so, let us be humane, and invite Art to
    turn her wonderful eyes elsewhere. She has done so already,
    indeed. That white quivering sunlight that one sees now in France,
    with its strange blotches of mauve, and its restless violet
    shadows, is her latest fancy, and, on the whole, Nature reproduces
    it quite admirably. Where she used to give us Corots and
    Daubignys, she gives us now exquisite Monets and entrancing
    Pissaros. Indeed there are moments, rare, it is true, but still to
    be observed from time to time, when Nature becomes absolutely
    modern. Of course she is not always to be relied upon. The fact
    is that she is in this unfortunate position. Art creates an
    incomparable and unique effect, and, having done so, passes on to
    other things. Nature, upon the other hand, forgetting that
    imitation can be made the sincerest form of insult, keeps on
    repeating this effect until we all become absolutely wearied of it.
    Nobody of any real culture, for instance, ever talks nowadays about
    the beauty of a sunset. Sunsets are quite old-fashioned. They
    belong to the time when Turner was the last note in art. To admire
    them is a distinct sign of provincialism of temperament. Upon the
    other hand they go on. Yesterday evening Mrs. Arundel insisted on
    my going to the window, and looking at the glorious sky, as she
    called it. Of course I had to look at it. She is one of those
    absurdly pretty Philistines to whom one can deny nothing. And what
    was it? It was simply a very second-rate Turner, a Turner of a bad
    period, with all the painter's worst faults exaggerated and over-
    emphasised. Of course, I am quite ready to admit that Life very
    often commits the same error. She produces her false Renes and her
    sham Vautrins, just as Nature gives us, on one day a doubtful Cuyp,
    and on another a more than questionable Rousseau. Still, Nature
    irritates one more when she does things of that kind. It seems so
    stupid, so obvious, so unnecessary. A false Vautrin might be
    delightful. A doubtful Cuyp is unbearable. However, I don't want
    to be too hard on Nature. I wish the Channel, especially at
    Hastings, did not look quite so often like a Henry Moore, grey
    pearl with yellow lights, but then, when Art is more varied, Nature
    will, no doubt, be more varied also. That she imitates Art, I
    don't think even her worst enemy would deny now. It is the one
    thing that keeps her in touch with civilised man. But have I
    proved my theory to your satisfaction?

    CYRIL. You have proved it to my dissatisfaction, which is better.
    But even admitting this strange imitative instinct in Life and
    Nature, surely you would acknowledge that Art expresses the temper
    of its age, the spirit of its time, the moral and social conditions
    that surround it, and under whose influence it is produced.

    VIVIAN. Certainly not! Art never expresses anything but itself.
    This is the principle of my new aesthetics; and it is this, more
    than that vital connection between form and substance, on which Mr.
    Pater dwells, that makes music the type of all the arts. Of
    course, nations and individuals, with that healthy natural vanity
    which is the secret of existence, are always under the impression
    that it is of them that the Muses are talking, always trying to
    find in the calm dignity of imaginative art some mirror of their
    own turbid passions, always forgetting that the singer of life is
    not Apollo but Marsyas. Remote from reality, and with her eyes
    turned away from the shadows of the cave, Art reveals her own
    perfection, and the wondering crowd that watches the opening of the
    marvellous, many-petalled rose fancies that it is its own history
    that is being told to it, its own spirit that is finding expression
    in a new form. But it is not so. The highest art rejects the
    burden of the human spirit, and gains more from a new medium or a
    fresh material than she does from any enthusiasm for art, or from
    any lofty passion, or from any great awakening of the human
    consciousness. She develops purely on her own lines. She is not
    symbolic of any age. It is the ages that are her symbols.

    Even those who hold that Art is representative of time and place
    and people cannot help admitting that the more imitative an art is,
    the less it represents to us the spirit of its age. The evil faces
    of the Roman emperors look out at us from the foul porphyry and
    spotted jasper in which the realistic artists of the day delighted
    to work, and we fancy that in those cruel lips and heavy sensual
    jaws we can find the secret of the ruin of the Empire. But it was
    not so. The vices of Tiberius could not destroy that supreme
    civilisation, any more than the virtues of the Antonines could save
    it. It fell for other, for less interesting reasons. The sibyls
    and prophets of the Sistine may indeed serve to interpret for some
    that new birth of the emancipated spirit that we call the
    Renaissance; but what do the drunken boors and bawling peasants of
    Dutch art tell us about the great soul of Holland? The more
    abstract, the more ideal an art is, the more it reveals to us the
    temper of its age. If we wish to understand a nation by means of
    its art, let us look at its architecture or its music.

    CYRIL. I quite agree with you there. The spirit of an age may be
    best expressed in the abstract ideal arts, for the spirit itself is
    abstract and ideal. Upon the other hand, for the visible aspect of
    an age, for its look, as the phrase goes, we must of course go to
    the arts of imitation.

    VIVIAN. I don't think so. After all, what the imitative arts
    really give us are merely the various styles of particular artists,
    or of certain schools of artists. Surely you don't imagine that
    the people of the Middle Ages bore any resemblance at all to the
    figures on mediaeval stained glass, or in mediaeval stone and wood
    carving, or on mediaeval metal-work, or tapestries, or illuminated
    MSS. They were probably very ordinary-looking people, with nothing
    grotesque, or remarkable, or fantastic in their appearance. The
    Middle Ages, as we know them in art, are simply a definite form of
    style, and there is no reason at all why an artist with this style
    should not be produced in the nineteenth century. No great artist
    ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to
    be an artist. Take an example from our own day. I know that you
    are fond of Japanese things. Now, do you really imagine that the
    Japanese people, as they are presented to us in art, have any
    existence? If you do, you have never understood Japanese art at
    all. The Japanese people are the deliberate self-conscious
    creation of certain individual artists. If you set a picture by
    Hokusai, or Hokkei, or any of the great native painters, beside a
    real Japanese gentleman or lady, you will see that there is not the
    slightest resemblance between them. The actual people who live in
    Japan are not unlike the general run of English people; that is to
    say, they are extremely commonplace, and have nothing curious or
    extraordinary about them. In fact the whole of Japan is a pure
    invention. There is no such country, there are no such people.
    One of our most charming painters went recently to the Land of the
    Chrysanthemum in the foolish hope of seeing the Japanese. All he
    saw, all he had the chance of painting, were a few lanterns and
    some fans. He was quite unable to discover the inhabitants, as his
    delightful exhibition at Messrs. Dowdeswell's Gallery showed only
    too well. He did not know that the Japanese people are, as I have
    said, simply a mode of style, an exquisite fancy of art. And so,
    if you desire to see a Japanese effect, you will not behave like a
    tourist and go to Tokio. On the contrary, you will stay at home
    and steep yourself in the work of certain Japanese artists, and
    then, when you have absorbed the spirit of their style, and caught
    their imaginative manner of vision, you will go some afternoon and
    sit in the Park or stroll down Piccadilly, and if you cannot see an
    absolutely Japanese effect there, you will not see it anywhere.
    Or, to return again to the past, take as another instance the
    ancient Greeks. Do you think that Greek art ever tells us what the
    Greek people were like? Do you believe that the Athenian women
    were like the stately dignified figures of the Parthenon frieze, or
    like those marvellous goddesses who sat in the triangular pediments
    of the same building? If you judge from the art, they certainly
    were so. But read an authority, like Aristophanes, for instance.
    You will find that the Athenian ladies laced tightly, wore high-
    heeled shoes, dyed their hair yellow, painted and rouged their
    faces, and were exactly like any silly fashionable or fallen
    creature of our own day. The fact is that we look back on the ages
    entirely through the medium of art, and art, very fortunately, has
    never once told us the truth.

    CYRIL. But modern portraits by English painters, what of them?
    Surely they are like the people they pretend to represent?

    VIVIAN. Quite so. They are so like them that a hundred years from
    now no one will believe in them. The only portraits in which one
    believes are portraits where there is very little of the sitter,
    and a very great deal of the artist. Holbein's drawings of the men
    and women of his time impress us with a sense of their absolute
    reality. But this is simply because Holbein compelled life to
    accept his conditions, to restrain itself within his limitations,
    to reproduce his type, and to appear as he wished it to appear. It
    is style that makes us believe in a thing--nothing but style. Most
    of our modern portrait painters are doomed to absolute oblivion.
    They never paint what they see. They paint what the public sees,
    and the public never sees anything.

    CYRIL. Well, after that I think I should like to hear the end of
    your article.

    VIVIAN. With pleasure. Whether it will do any good I really
    cannot say. Ours is certainly the dullest and most prosaic century
    possible. Why, even Sleep has played us false, and has closed up
    the gates of ivory, and opened the gates of horn. The dreams of
    the great middle classes of this country, as recorded in Mr.
    Myers's two bulky volumes on the subject, and in the Transactions
    of the Psychical Society, are the most depressing things that I
    have ever read. There is not even a fine nightmare among them.
    They are commonplace, sordid and tedious. As for the Church, I
    cannot conceive anything better for the culture of a country than
    the presence in it of a body of men whose duty it is to believe in
    the supernatural, to perform daily miracles, and to keep alive that
    mythopoeic faculty which is so essential for the imagination. But
    in the English Church a man succeeds, not through his capacity for
    belief, but through his capacity for disbelief. Ours is the only
    Church where the sceptic stands at the altar, and where St. Thomas
    is regarded as the ideal apostle. Many a worthy clergyman, who
    passes his life in admirable works of kindly charity, lives and
    dies unnoticed and unknown; but it is sufficient for some shallow
    uneducated passman out of either University to get up in his pulpit
    and express his doubts about Noah's ark, or Balaam's ass, or Jonah
    and the whale, for half of London to flock to hear him, and to sit
    open-mouthed in rapt admiration at his superb intellect. The
    growth of common sense in the English Church is a thing very much
    to be regretted. It is really a degrading concession to a low form
    of realism. It is silly, too. It springs from an entire ignorance
    of psychology. Man can believe the impossible, but man can never
    believe the improbable. However, I must read the end of my

    'What we have to do, what at any rate it is our duty to do, is to
    revive this old art of Lying. Much of course may be done, in the
    way of educating the public, by amateurs in the domestic circle, at
    literary lunches, and at afternoon teas. But this is merely the
    light and graceful side of lying, such as was probably heard at
    Cretan dinner-parties. There are many other forms. Lying for the
    sake of gaining some immediate personal advantage, for instance--
    lying with a moral purpose, as it is usually called--though of late
    it has been rather looked down upon, was extremely popular with the
    antique world. Athena laughs when Odysseus tells her "his words of
    sly devising," as Mr. William Morris phrases it, and the glory of
    mendacity illumines the pale brow of the stainless hero of
    Euripidean tragedy, and sets among the noble women of the past the
    young bride of one of Horace's most exquisite odes. Later on, what
    at first had been merely a natural instinct was elevated into a
    self-conscious science. Elaborate rules were laid down for the
    guidance of mankind, and an important school of literature grew up
    round the subject. Indeed, when one remembers the excellent
    philosophical treatise of Sanchez on the whole question, one cannot
    help regretting that no one has ever thought of publishing a cheap
    and condensed edition of the works of that great casuist. A short
    primer, "When to Lie and How," if brought out in an attractive and
    not too expensive a form, would no doubt command a large sale, and
    would prove of real practical service to many earnest and deep-
    thinking people. Lying for the sake of the improvement of the
    young, which is the basis of home education, still lingers amongst
    us, and its advantages are so admirably set forth in the early
    books of Plato's Republic that it is unnecessary to dwell upon them
    here. It is a mode of lying for which all good mothers have
    peculiar capabilities, but it is capable of still further
    development, and has been sadly overlooked by the School Board.
    Lying for the sake of a monthly salary is of course well known in
    Fleet Street, and the profession of a political leader-writer is
    not without its advantages. But it is said to be a somewhat dull
    occupation, and it certainly does not lead to much beyond a kind of
    ostentatious obscurity. The only form of lying that is absolutely
    beyond reproach is lying for its own sake, and the highest
    development of this is, as we have already pointed out, Lying in
    Art. Just as those who do not love Plato more than Truth cannot
    pass beyond the threshold of the Academe, so those who do not love
    Beauty more than Truth never know the inmost shrine of Art. The
    solid stolid British intellect lies in the desert sands like the
    Sphinx in Flaubert's marvellous tale, and fantasy, La Chimere,
    dances round it, and calls to it with her false, flute-toned voice.
    It may not hear her now, but surely some day, when we are all bored
    to death with the commonplace character of modern fiction, it will
    hearken to her and try to borrow her wings.

    'And when that day dawns, or sunset reddens, how joyous we shall
    all be! Facts will be regarded as discreditable, Truth will be
    found mourning over her fetters, and Romance, with her temper of
    wonder, will return to the land. The very aspect of the world will
    change to our startled eyes. Out of the sea will rise Behemoth and
    Leviathan, and sail round the high-pooped galleys, as they do on
    the delightful maps of those ages when books on geography were
    actually readable. Dragons will wander about the waste places, and
    the phoenix will soar from her nest of fire into the air. We shall
    lay our hands upon the basilisk, and see the jewel in the toad's
    head. Champing his gilded oats, the Hippogriff will stand in our
    stalls, and over our heads will float the Blue Bird singing of
    beautiful and impossible things, of things that are lovely and that
    never happen, of things that are not and that should be. But
    before this comes to pass we must cultivate the lost art of Lying.'

    CYRIL. Then we must entirely cultivate it at once. But in order
    to avoid making any error I want you to tell me briefly the
    doctrines of the new aesthetics.

    VIVIAN. Briefly, then, they are these. Art never expresses
    anything but itself. It has an independent life, just as Thought
    has, and develops purely on its own lines. It is not necessarily
    realistic in an age of realism, nor spiritual in an age of faith.
    So far from being the creation of its time, it is usually in direct
    opposition to it, and the only history that it preserves for us is
    the history of its own progress. Sometimes it returns upon its
    footsteps, and revives some antique form, as happened in the
    archaistic movement of late Greek Art, and in the pre-Raphaelite
    movement of our own day. At other times it entirely anticipates
    its age, and produces in one century work that it takes another
    century to understand, to appreciate and to enjoy. In no case does
    it reproduce its age. To pass from the art of a time to the time
    itself is the great mistake that all historians commit.

    The second doctrine is this. All bad art comes from returning to
    Life and Nature, and elevating them into ideals. Life and Nature
    may sometimes be used as part of Art's rough material, but before
    they are of any real service to art they must be translated into
    artistic conventions. The moment Art surrenders its imaginative
    medium it surrenders everything. As a method Realism is a complete
    failure, and the two things that every artist should avoid are
    modernity of form and modernity of subject-matter. To us, who live
    in the nineteenth century, any century is a suitable subject for
    art except our own. The only beautiful things are the things that
    do not concern us. It is, to have the pleasure of quoting myself,
    exactly because Hecuba is nothing to us that her sorrows are so
    suitable a motive for a tragedy. Besides, it is only the modern
    that ever becomes old-fashioned. M. Zola sits down to give us a
    picture of the Second Empire. Who cares for the Second Empire now?
    It is out of date. Life goes faster than Realism, but Romanticism
    is always in front of Life.

    The third doctrine is that Life imitates Art far more than Art
    imitates Life. This results not merely from Life's imitative
    instinct, but from the fact that the self-conscious aim of Life is
    to find expression, and that Art offers it certain beautiful forms
    through which it may realise that energy. It is a theory that has
    never been put forward before, but it is extremely fruitful, and
    throws an entirely new light upon the history of Art.

    It follows, as a corollary from this, that external Nature also
    imitates Art. The only effects that she can show us are effects
    that we have already seen through poetry, or in paintings. This is
    the secret of Nature's charm, as well as the explanation of
    Nature's weakness.

    The final revelation is that Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue
    things, is the proper aim of Art. But of this I think I have
    spoken at sufficient length. And now let us go out on the terrace,
    where 'droops the milk-white peacock like a ghost,' while the
    evening star 'washes the dusk with silver.' At twilight nature
    becomes a wonderfully suggestive effect, and is not without
    loveliness, though perhaps its chief use is to illustrate
    quotations from the poets. Come! We have talked long enough.
    If you're writing a The Decay Of Lying: An Observation essay and need some advice, post your Oscar Wilde essay question on our Facebook page where fellow bookworms are always glad to help!

    Top 5 Authors

    Top 5 Books

    Book Status
    Want to read

    Are you sure you want to leave this group?