looking back, i realise that what i have written about charles strickland must seem very unsatisfactory. i have given incidents that came to my knowledge, but they remain obscure because i do not know the reasons that led to them. the strangest, strickland's determination to become a painter, seems to be arbitrary; and though it must have had causes in the circumstances of his life, i am ignorant of them. from his own conversation i was able to glean nothing. if i were writing a novel, rather than narrating such facts as i know of a curious personality, i should have invented much to account for this change of heart. i think i should have shown a strong vocation in boyhood, crushed by the will of his father or sacrificed to the necessity of earning a living; i should have pictured him impatient of the restraints of life; and in the struggle between his passion for art and the duties of his station i could have aroused sympathy for him. i should so have made him a more imposing figure. perhaps it would have been possible to see in him a new prometheus. there was here, maybe, the opportunity for a modern version of the hero who for the good of mankind exposes himself to the agonies of the damned. it is always a moving subject.
on the other hand, i might have found his motives in the influence of the married relation. there are a dozen ways in which this might be managed. a latent gift might reveal itself on acquaintance with the painters and writers whose society his wife sought; or domestic incompatability might turn him upon himself; a love affair might fan into bright flame a fire which i could have shown smouldering dimly in his heart. i think then i should have drawn mrs. strickland quite differently. i should have abandoned the facts and made her a nagging, tiresome woman, or else a bigoted one with no sympathy for the claims of the spirit. i should have made strickland's marriage a long torment from which escape was the only possible issue. i think i should have emphasised his patience with the unsuitable mate, and the compassion which made him unwilling to throw off the yoke that oppressed him. i should certainly have eliminated the children.
an effective story might also have been made by bringing him into contact with some old painter whom the pressure of want or the desire for commercial success had made false to the genius of his youth, and who, seeing in strickland the possibilities which himself had wasted, influenced him to forsake all and follow the divine tyranny of art. i think there would have been something ironic in the picture of the successful old man, rich and honoured, living in another the life which he, though knowing it was the better part, had not had the strength to pursue.
the facts are much duller. strickland, a boy fresh from school, went into a broker's office without any feeling of distaste. until he married he led the ordinary life of his fellows, gambling mildly on the exchange, interested to the extent of a sovereign or two on the result of the derby or the oxford and cambridge race. i think he boxed a little in his spare time. on his chimney-piece he had photographs of mrs. langtry and mary anderson. he read punch and the sporting times. he went to dances in hampstead.
it matters less that for so long i should have lost sight of him. the years during which he was struggling to acquire proficiency in a difficult art were monotonous, and i do not know that there was anything significant in the shifts to which he was put to earn enough money to keep him. an account of them would be an account of the things he had seen happen to other people. i do not think they had any effect on his own character. he must have acquired experiences which would form abundant material for a picaresque novel of modern paris, but he remained aloof, and judging from his conversation there was nothing in those years that had made a particular impression on him. perhaps when he went to paris he was too old to fall a victim to the glamour of his environment. strange as it may seem, he always appeared to me not only practical, but immensely matter-of-fact. i suppose his life during this period was romantic, but he certainly saw no romance in it. it may be that in order to realise the romance of life you must have something of the actor in you; and, capable of standing outside yourself, you must be able to watch your actions with an interest at once detached and absorbed. but no one was more single-minded than strickland. i never knew anyone who was less self-conscious. but it is unfortunate that i can give no description of the arduous steps by which he reached such mastery over his art as he ever acquired; for if i could show him undaunted by failure, by an unceasing effort of courage holding despair at bay, doggedly persistent in the face of self-doubt, which is the artist's bitterest enemy, i might excite some sympathy for a personality which, i am all too conscious, must appear singularly devoid of charm. but i have nothing to go on. i never once saw strickland at work, nor do i know that anyone else did. he kept the secret of his struggles to himself. if in the loneliness of his studio he wrestled desperately with the angel of the lord he never allowed a soul to divine his anguish.
when i come to his connection with blanche stroeve i am exasperated by the fragmentariness of the facts at my disposal. to give my story coherence i should describe the progress of their tragic union, but i know nothing of the three months during which they lived together. i do not know how they got on or what they talked about. after all, there are twenty-four hours in the day, and the summits of emotion can only be reached at rare intervals. i can only imagine how they passed the rest of the time. while the light lasted and so long as blanche's strength endured, i suppose that strickland painted, and it must have irritated her when she saw him absorbed in his work. as a mistress she did not then exist for him, but only as a model; and then there were long hours in which they lived side by side in silence. it must have frightened her. when strickland suggested that in her surrender to him there was a sense of triumph over dirk stroeve, because he had come to her help in her extremity, he opened the door to many a dark conjecture. i hope it was not true. it seems to me rather horrible. but who can fathom the subtleties of the human heart? certainly not those who expect from it only decorous sentiments and normal emotions. when blanche saw that, notwithstanding his moments of passion, strickland remained aloof, she must have been filled with dismay, and even in those moments i surmise that she realised that to him she was not an individual, but an instrument of pleasure; he was a stranger still, and she tried to bind him to herself with pathetic arts. she strove to ensnare him with comfort and would not see that comfort meant nothing to him. she was at pains to get him the things to eat that he liked, and would not see that he was indifferent to food. she was afraid to leave him alone. she pursued him with attentions, and when his passion was dormant sought to excite it, for then at least she had the illusion of holding him. perhaps she knew with her intelligence that the chains she forged only aroused his instinct of destruction, as the plate-glass window makes your fingers itch for half a brick; but her heart, incapable of reason, made her continue on a course she knew was fatal. she must have been very unhappy. but the blindness of love led her to believe what she wanted to be true, and her love was so great that it seemed impossible to her that it should not in return awake an equal love.
but my study of strickland's character suffers from a greater defect than my ignorance of many facts. because they were obvious and striking, i have written of his relations to women; and yet they were but an insignificant part of his life. it is an irony that they should so tragically have affected others. his real life consisted of dreams and of tremendously hard work.
here lies the unreality of fiction. for in men, as a rule, love is but an episode which takes its place among the other affairs of the day, and the emphasis laid on it in novels gives it an importance which is untrue to life. there are few men to whom it is the most important thing in the world, and they are not very interesting ones; even women, with whom the subject is of paramount interest, have a contempt for them. they are flattered and excited by them, but have an uneasy feeling that they are poor creatures. but even during the brief intervals in which they are in love, men do other things which distract their mind; the trades by which they earn their living engage their attention; they are absorbed in sport; they can interest themselves in art. for the most part, they keep their various activities in various compartments, and they can pursue one to the temporary exclusion of the other. they have a faculty of concentration on that which occupies them at the moment, and it irks them if one encroaches on the other. as lovers, the difference between men and women is that women can love all day long, but men only at times.
with strickland the sexual appetite took a very small place. it was unimportant. it was irksome. his soul aimed elsewhither. he had violent passions, and on occasion desire seized his body so that he was driven to an orgy of lust, but he hated the instincts that robbed him of his self-possession. i think, even, he hated the inevitable partner in his debauchery. when he had regained command over himself, he shuddered at the sight of the woman he had enjoyed. his thoughts floated then serenely in the empyrean, and he felt towards her the horror that perhaps the painted butterfly, hovering about the flowers, feels to the filthy chrysalis from which it has triumphantly emerged. i suppose that art is a manifestation of the sexual instinct. it is the same emotion which is excited in the human heart by the sight of a lovely woman, the bay of naples under the yellow moon, and the entombment of titian. it is possible that strickland hated the normal release of sex because it seemed to him brutal by comparison with the satisfaction of artistic creation. it seems strange even to myself, when i have described a man who was cruel, selfish, brutal and sensual, to say that he was a great idealist. the fact remains.
he lived more poorly than an artisan. he worked harder. he cared nothing for those things which with most people make life gracious and beautiful. he was indifferent to money. he cared nothing about fame. you cannot praise him because he resisted the temptation to make any of those compromises with the world which most of us yield to. he had no such temptation. it never entered his head that compromise was possible. he lived in paris more lonely than an anchorite in the deserts of thebes. he asked nothing his fellows except that they should leave him alone. he was single-hearted in his aim, and to pursue it he was willing to sacrifice not only himself—many can do that—but others. he had a vision.
strickland was an odious man, but i still think he was a great one.
