with the novel it is the same thing. popular authority and the recognition of popular authority are fatal. thackeray’s ‘esmond’ is a beautiful work of art because he wrote it to please himself. in his other novels, in ‘pendennis,’ in ‘philip,’ in ‘vanity fair’ even, at times, he is too conscious of the public, and spoils his work by appealing directly to the sympathies of the public, or by directly mocking at them. a true artist takes no notice whatever of the public. the public are to him non-existent. he has no poppied or honeyed cakes through which to give the monster sleep or sustenance. he leaves that to the popular novelist. one incomparable novelist we have p. 69now in england, mr george meredith. there are better artists in france, but france has no one whose view of life is so large, so varied, so imaginatively true. there are tellers of stories in russia who have a more vivid sense of what pain in fiction may be. but to him belongs philosophy in fiction. his people not merely live, but they live in thought. one can see them from myriad points of view. they are suggestive. there is soul in them and around them. they are interpretative and symbolic. and he who made them, those wonderful quickly-moving figures, made them for his own pleasure, and has never asked the public what they wanted, has never cared to know what they wanted, has never allowed the public to dictate to him or influence him in any way but has gone on intensifying his own personality, and producing his own individual work. at first none came to him. that did not matter. then the few came to p. 70him. that did not change him. the many have come now. he is still the same. he is an incomparable novelist.

with the decorative arts it is not different. the public clung with really pathetic tenacity to what i believe were the direct traditions of the great exhibition of international vulgarity, traditions that were so appalling that the houses in which people lived were only fit for blind people to live in. beautiful things began to be made, beautiful colours came from the dyer’s hand, beautiful patterns from the artist’s brain, and the use of beautiful things and their value and importance were set forth. the public were really very indignant. they lost their temper. they said silly things. no one minded. no one was a whit the worse. no one accepted the authority of public opinion. and now it is almost impossible to enter any modern house without seeing some recognition of good taste, some recognition of the value of lovely surroundings, p. 71some sign of appreciation of beauty. in fact, people’s houses are, as a rule, quite charming nowadays. people have been to a very great extent civilised. it is only fair to state, however, that the extraordinary success of the revolution in house-decoration and furniture and the like has not really been due to the majority of the public developing a very fine taste in such matters. it has been chiefly due to the fact that the craftsmen of things so appreciated the pleasure of making what was beautiful, and woke to such a vivid consciousness of the hideousness and vulgarity of what the public had previously wanted, that they simply starved the public out. it would be quite impossible at the present moment to furnish a room as rooms were furnished a few years ago, without going for everything to an auction of second-hand furniture from some third-rate lodging-house. the things are no longer made. however they p. 72may object to it, people must nowadays have something charming in their surroundings. fortunately for them, their assumption of authority in these art-matters came to entire grief.

it is evident, then, that all authority in such things is bad. people sometimes inquire what form of government is most suitable for an artist to live under. to this question there is only one answer. the form of government that is most suitable to the artist is no government at all. authority over him and his art is ridiculous. it has been stated that under despotisms artists have produced lovely work. this is not quite so. artists have visited despots, not as subjects to be tyrannised over, but as wandering wonder-makers, as fascinating vagrant personalities, to be entertained and charmed and suffered to be at peace, and allowed to create. there is this to be said in favour of the despot, that he, being an individual, p. 73may have culture, while the mob, being a monster, has none. one who is an emperor and king may stoop down to pick up a brush for a painter, but when the democracy stoops down it is merely to throw mud. and yet the democracy have not so far to stoop as the emperor. in fact, when they want to throw mud they have not to stoop at all. but there is no necessity to separate the monarch from the mob; all authority is equally bad.

there are three kinds of despots. there is the despot who tyrannises over the body. there is the despot who tyrannises over the soul. there is the despot who tyrannises over the soul and body alike. the first is called the prince. the second is called the pope. the third is called the people. the prince may be cultivated. many princes have been. yet in the prince there is danger. one thinks of dante at the bitter feast p. 74in verona, of tasso in ferrara’s madman’s cell. it is better for the artist not to live with princes. the pope may be cultivated. many popes have been; the bad popes have been. the bad popes loved beauty, almost as passionately, nay, with as much passion as the good popes hated thought. to the wickedness of the papacy humanity owes much. the goodness of the papacy owes a terrible debt to humanity. yet, though the vatican has kept the rhetoric of its thunders, and lost the rod of its lightning, it is better for the artist not to live with popes. it was a pope who said of cellini to a conclave of cardinals that common laws and common authority were not made for men such as he; but it was a pope who thrust cellini into prison, and kept him there till he sickened with rage, and created unreal visions for himself, and saw the gilded sun enter his room, and grew so enamoured of p. 75it that he sought to escape, and crept out from tower to tower, and falling through dizzy air at dawn, maimed himself, and was by a vine-dresser covered with vine leaves, and carried in a cart to one who, loving beautiful things, had care of him. there is danger in popes. and as for the people, what of them and their authority? perhaps of them and their authority one has spoken enough. their authority is a thing blind, deaf, hideous, grotesque, tragic, amusing, serious, and obscene. it is impossible for the artist to live with the people. all despots bribe. the people bribe and brutalise. who told them to exercise authority? they were made to live, to listen, and to love. someone has done them a great wrong. they have marred themselves by imitation of their inferiors. they have taken the sceptre of the prince. how should they use it? they have taken the triple tiara of the pope. how should p. 76they carry its burden? they are as a clown whose heart is broken. they are as a priest whose soul is not yet born. let all who love beauty pity them. though they themselves love not beauty, yet let them pity themselves. who taught them the trick of tyranny?

there are many other things that one might point out. one might point out how the renaissance was great, because it sought to solve no social problem, and busied itself not about such things, but suffered the individual to develop freely, beautifully, and naturally, and so had great and individual artists, and great and individual men. one might point out how louis xiv., by creating the modern state, destroyed the individualism of the artist, and made things monstrous in their monotony of repetition, and contemptible in their conformity to rule, and destroyed throughout all france all those fine freedoms of expression p. 77that had made tradition new in beauty, and new modes one with antique form. but the past is of no importance. the present is of no importance. it is with the future that we have to deal. for the past is what man should not have been. the present is what man ought not to be. the future is what artists are.

it will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. this is perfectly true. it is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. this is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. for what is a practical scheme? a practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. the conditions will be p. 78done away with, and human nature will change. the only thing that one really knows about human nature is that it changes. change is the one quality we can predicate of it. the systems that fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature, and not on its growth and development. the error of louis xiv. was that he thought human nature would always be the same. the result of his error was the french revolution. it was an admirable result. all the results of the mistakes of governments are quite admirable.

it is to be noted also that individualism does not come to man with any sickly cant about duty, which merely means doing what other people want because they want it; or any hideous cant about self-sacrifice, which is merely a survival of savage mutilation. in fact, it does not come to man with any claims upon him at all. it comes naturally p. 79and inevitably out of man. it is the point to which all development tends. it is the differentiation to which all organisms grow. it is the perfection that is inherent in every mode of life, and towards which every mode of life quickens. and so individualism exercises no compulsion over man. on the contrary, it says to man that he should suffer no compulsion to be exercised over him. it does not try to force people to be good. it knows that people are good when they are let alone. man will develop individualism out of himself. man is now so developing individualism. to ask whether individualism is practical is like asking whether evolution is practical. evolution is the law of life, and there is no evolution except towards individualism. where this tendency is not expressed, it is a case of artificially-arrested growth, or of disease, or of death.

individualism will also be unselfish p. 80and unaffected. it has been pointed out that one of the results of the extraordinary tyranny of authority is that words are absolutely distorted from their proper and simple meaning, and are used to express the obverse of their right signification. what is true about art is true about life. a man is called affected, nowadays, if he dresses as he likes to dress. but in doing that he is acting in a perfectly natural manner. affectation, in such matters, consists in dressing according to the views of one’s neighbour, whose views, as they are the views of the majority, will probably be extremely stupid. or a man is called selfish if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; if, in fact, the primary aim of his life is self-development. but this is the way in which everyone should live. selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is p. 81asking others to live as one wishes to live. and unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. it is not selfish to think for oneself. a man who does not think for himself does not think at all. it is grossly selfish to require of ones neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. why should he? if he can think, he will probably think differently. if he cannot think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from him. a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. it would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses. under individualism people will be quite natural and absolutely unselfish, p. 82and will know the meanings of the words, and realise them in their free, beautiful lives. nor will men be egotistic as they are now. for the egotist is he who makes claims upon others, and the individualist will not desire to do that. it will not give him pleasure. when man has realised individualism, he will also realise sympathy and exercise it freely and spontaneously. up to the present man has hardly cultivated sympathy at all. he has merely sympathy with pain, and sympathy with pain is not the highest form of sympathy. all sympathy is fine, but sympathy with suffering is the least fine mode. it is tainted with egotism. it is apt to become morbid. there is in it a certain element of terror for our own safety. we become afraid that we ourselves might be as the leper or as the blind, and that no man would have care of us. it is curiously limiting, too. one should sympathise with p. 83the entirety of life, not with life’s sores and maladies merely, but with life’s joy and beauty and energy and health and freedom. the wider sympathy is, of course, the more difficult. it requires more unselfishness. anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature—it requires, in fact, the nature of a true individualist—to sympathise with a friend’s success.

in the modern stress of competition and struggle for place, such sympathy is naturally rare, and is also very much stifled by the immoral ideal of uniformity of type and conformity to rule which is so prevalent everywhere, and is perhaps most obnoxious in england.

sympathy with pain there will, of course, always be. it is one of the first instincts of man. the animals which are individual, the higher animals, that is to say, share it with us. but it must be remembered that p. 84while sympathy with joy intensifies the sum of joy in the world, sympathy with pain does not really diminish the amount of pain. it may make man better able to endure evil, but the evil remains. sympathy with consumption does not cure consumption; that is what science does. and when socialism has solved the problem of poverty, and science solved the problem of disease, the area of the sentimentalists will be lessened, and the sympathy of man will be large, healthy, and spontaneous. man will have joy in the contemplation of the joyous life of others.

for it is through joy that the individualism of the future will develop itself. christ made no attempt to reconstruct society, and consequently the individualism that he preached to man could be realised only through pain or in solitude. the ideals that we owe to christ are the ideals of the man who abandons society entirely, or of the man p. 85who resists society absolutely. but man is naturally social. even the thebaid became peopled at last. and though the cenobite realises his personality, it is often an impoverished personality that he so realises. upon the other hand, the terrible truth that pain is a mode through which man may realise himself exercises a wonderful fascination over the world. shallow speakers and shallow thinkers in pulpits and on platforms often talk about the world’s worship of pleasure, and whine against it. but it is rarely in the world’s history that its ideal has been one of joy and beauty. the worship of pain has far more often dominated the world. medi?valism, with its saints and martyrs, its love of self-torture, its wild passion for wounding itself, its gashing with knives, and its whipping with rods—medi?valism is real christianity, and the medi?val christ is the real christ. when the renaissance dawned upon the world, and brought p. 86with it the new ideals of the beauty of life and the joy of living, men could not understand christ. even art shows us that. the painters of the renaissance drew christ as a little boy playing with another boy in a palace or a garden, or lying back in his mother’s arms, smiling at her, or at a flower, or at a bright bird; or as a noble, stately figure moving nobly through the world; or as a wonderful figure rising in a sort of ecstasy from death to life. even when they drew him crucified they drew him as a beautiful god on whom evil men had inflicted suffering. but he did not preoccupy them much. what delighted them was to paint the men and women whom they admired, and to show the loveliness of this lovely earth. they painted many religious pictures—in fact, they painted far too many, and the monotony of type and motive is wearisome, and was bad for art. it was the result of the authority of the public in art-matters, and is to be deplored. but p. 87their soul was not in the subject. raphael was a great artist when he painted his portrait of the pope. when he painted his madonnas and infant christs, he is not a great artist at all. christ had no message for the renaissance, which was wonderful because it brought an ideal at variance with his, and to find the presentation of the real christ we must go to medi?val art. there he is one maimed and marred; one who is not comely to look on, because beauty is a joy; one who is not in fair raiment, because that may be a joy also: he is a beggar who has a marvellous soul; he is a leper whose soul is divine; he needs neither property nor health; he is a god realising his perfection through pain.

the evolution of man is slow. the injustice of men is great. it was necessary that pain should be put forward as a mode of self-realisation. even now, in some places in the world, the message of christ is necessary. no one who lived p. 88in modern russia could possibly realise his perfection except by pain. a few russian artists have realised themselves in art; in a fiction that is medi?val in character, because its dominant note is the realisation of men through suffering. but for those who are not artists, and to whom there is no mode of life but the actual life of fact, pain is the only door to perfection. a russian who lives happily under the present system of government in russia must either believe that man has no soul, or that, if he has, it is not worth developing. a nihilist who rejects all authority, because he knows authority to be evil, and welcomes all pain, because through that he realises his personality, is a real christian. to him the christian ideal is a true thing.

and yet, christ did not revolt against authority. he accepted the imperial authority of the roman empire and paid tribute. he endured the ecclesiastical authority of the jewish p. 89church, and would not repel its violence by any violence of his own. he had, as i said before, no scheme for the reconstruction of society. but the modern world has schemes. it proposes to do away with poverty and the suffering that it entails. it desires to get rid of pain, and the suffering that pain entails. it trusts to socialism and to science as its methods. what it aims at is an individualism expressing itself through joy. this individualism will be larger, fuller, lovelier than any individualism has ever been. pain is not the ultimate mode of perfection. it is merely provisional and a protest. it has reference to wrong, unhealthy, unjust surroundings. when the wrong, and the disease, and the injustice are removed, it will have no further place. it will have done its work. it was a great work, but it is almost over. its sphere lessens every day.

nor will man miss it. for what man p. 90has sought for is, indeed, neither pain nor pleasure, but simply life. man has sought to live intensely, fully, perfectly. when he can do so without exercising restraint on others, or suffering it ever, and his activities are all pleasurable to him, he will be saner, healthier, more civilised, more himself. pleasure is nature’s test, her sign of approval. when man is happy, he is in harmony with himself and his environment. the new individualism, for whose service socialism, whether it wills it or not, is working, will be perfect harmony. it will be what the greeks sought for, but could not, except in thought, realise completely, because they had slaves, and fed them; it will be what the renaissance sought for, but could not realise completely except in art, because they had slaves, and starved them. it will be complete, and through it each man will attain to his perfection. the new individualism is the new hellenism.