Editor.

CHAPTER II

The principle of vision.

All good Literature rests primarily on insight.  All bad Literature rests upon imperfect insight, or upon imitation, which may be defined as seeing at second-hand.

There are men of clear insight who never become authors:  some, because no sufficient solicitation from internal or external impulses makes them bond their energies to the task of giving literary expression to their thoughts; and some, because they lack the adequate powers of literary expression.  But no man, be his felicity and facility of expression what they may, ever produces good Literature unless he sees for himself, and sees clearly.  It is the very claim and purpose of Literature to show others what they failed to see.  Unless a man sees this clearly for himself how can he show it to others?

Literature delivers tidings of the world within and the world without.  It tells of the facts which have been witnessed, reproduces the emotions which have been felt.  It places before the reader symbols which represent the absent facts, or the relations of these to other facts; and by the vivid presentation of the symbols of emotion kindles the emotive sympathy of readers.  The art of selecting the fitting symbols, and of so arranging them as to be intelligible and kindling, distinguishes the great writer from the great thinker; it is an art which also relies on clear insight.

The value of the tidings brought by Literature is determined by their authenticity.  At all times the air is noisy with rumours, but the real business of life is transacted on clear insight and authentic speech.  False tidings and idle rumours may for an hour clamorously usurp attention, because they are believed to be true; but the cheat is soon discovered, and the rumour dies.  In like manner Literature which is unauthentic may succeed as long as it is believed to be true:  that is, so long as our intellects have not discovered the falseness of its pretensions, and our feelings have not disowned sympathy with its expressions.  These may be truisms, but they are constantly disregarded.  Writers have seldom any steadfast conviction that it is of primary necessity for them to deliver tidings about what they themselves have seen and felt.  Perhaps their intimate consciousness assures them that what they have seen or felt is neither new nor important.  It may not be new, it may not be intrinsically important; nevertheless, if authentic, it has its value, and a far greater value than anything reported by them at second-hand.  We cannot demand from every man that he have unusual depth of insight or exceptional experience; but we demand of him that he give us of his best, and his best cannot be another’s.  The facts seen through the vision of another, reported on the witness of another, may be true, but the reporter cannot vouch for them.  Let the original observer speak for himself.  Otherwise only rumours are set afloat.  If you have never seen an acid combine with a base you cannot instructively speak to me of salts; and this, of course, is true in a more emphatic degree with reference to more complex matters.