AN ingenuous reviewer once described some verses of mine as “unwholesome,”
because, he said, they had “a faint smell of Patchouli about them.” I am a
little sorry he chose Patchouli, for that is not a particularly favourite scent
with me. If he had only chosen Peau d’Espagne, which has a subtle meaning, or
Lily of the Valley, with which I have associations! But Patchouli will serve.
Let me ask, then, in republishing, with additions, a collection of little
pieces, many of which have been objected to, at one time or another, as being
somewhat deliberately frivolous, why art should not, if it please, concern
itself with the artificially charming, which, I suppose, is what my critic means
by Patchouli? All art, surely, is a form of artifice, and thus, to the truly
devout mind, condemned already, if not as actively noxious, at all events as
needless. That is a point of view which I quite understand, and its conclusion I
hold to be absolutely logical. I have the utmost respect for the people who
refuse to read a novel, to go to the theatre, or to learn dancing. That is to
have convictions and to live up to them. I understand also the point of view
from which a work of art is tolerated in so far as it is actually militant on
behalf of a religious or a moral idea. But what I fail to understand are those
delicate, invisible degrees by which a distinction is drawn between this form of
art and that; the hesitations, and compromises, and timorous advances, and
shocked retreats, of the Puritan conscience once emancipated, and yet afraid of
liberty. However you may try to convince yourself to the contrary, a work of art
can be judged only from two standpoints: the standpoint from which its art is
measured entirely by its morality, and the standpoint from which its morality is
measured entirely by its art.
Here, for once, in connection with these “Silhouettes,” I have not, if my
recollection serves me, been accused of actual immorality. I am but a fair way
along the “primrose path,” not yet within singeing distance of the “everlasting
bonfire.” In other words, I have not yet written “London Nights,” which, it
appears (I can scarcely realize it, in my innocent abstraction in aesthetical
matters), has no very salutary reputation among the blameless moralists of the
press. I need not, therefore, on this occasion, concern myself with more than
the curious fallacy by which there is supposed to be something inherently wrong
in artistic work which deals frankly and lightly with the very real charm of the
lighter emotions and the more fleeting sensations.
I do not wish to assert that the kind of verse which happened to reflect
certain moods of mine at a certain period of my life, is the best kind of verse
in itself, or is likely to seem to me, in other years, when other moods may have
made me their own, the best kind of verse for my own expression of myself. Nor
do I affect to doubt that the creation of the supreme emotion is a higher form
of art than the reflection of the most exquisite sensation, the evocation of the
most magical impression. I claim only an equal liberty for the rendering of
every mood of that variable and inexplicable and contradictory creature which we
call ourselves, of every aspect under which we are gifted or condemned to
apprehend the beauty and strangeness and curiosity of the visible world.
Patchouli! Well, why not Patchouli? Is there any “reason in nature”
why we should write exclusively about the natural blush, if the delicately
acquired blush of rouge has any attraction for us? Both exist; both, I think,
are charming in their way; and the latter, as a subject, has, at all events,
more novelty. If you prefer your “new-mown hay” in the hayfield, and
I, it may be, in a scent-bottle, why may not my individual caprice be allowed
to find expression as well as yours? Probably I enjoy the hayfield as much as
you do; but I enjoy quite other scents and sensations as well, and I take the
former for granted, and write my poem, for a change, about the latter. There is
no necessary difference in artistic value between a good poem about a flower in
the hedge and a good poem about the scent in a sachet. I am always charmed to
read beautiful poems about nature in the country. Only, personally, I prefer
town to country; and in the town we have to find for ourselves, as best we may,
the décor which is the town equivalent of the great natural décor
of fields and hills. Here it is that artificiality comes in; and if any one
sees no beauty in the effects of artificial light, in all the variable, most
human, and yet most factitious town landscape, I can only pity him, and go on
my own way.
That is, if he will let me. But he tells me that one thing is right and the
other is wrong; that one is good art and the other is bad; and I listen in
amazement, sometimes not without impatience, wondering why an estimable personal
prejudice should be thus exalted into a dogma, and uttered in the name of art.
For in art there can be no prejudices, only results. If we arc to save people’s
souls by the writing of verses, well and good. But if not, there is no choice
but to admit an absolute freedom of choice. And if Patchouli pleases one, why
not Patchouli?
Arthur Symons.
London, February,1896.