Primary Ideas in Literature

Westminster Gazette, 7 July 1898, pages 1-2, 663 words

It is the fate of one and all to be misunderstood, but the misunderstanding which divides Mr. J. A. Steuart and myself is so complete that I will ask your leave, Sir, to say a word more.

In the article from which Mr. Steuart deduces opinions contrary to those I hold, and a practice different from that which is mine, it was not my intention to raise any artistic theory whatever. But in this article there occurred the phrase "all great literary works are symbols of moral truths," and Mr. Steuart proceeds to draw many conclusions from it. It appears that I "plead for the novel with a purpose, in other words for the tract writ large." Mr. Steuart says that "the business of writers is not with this or that doctrine, this or that abuse, this or that moral truth, but with humanity, its joys, its successes and failures, comedies and tragedies.... This statement is a truism, and yet a truism which it is sometimes convenient to forget. Did Shakespeare theorise about the relation of art to morals? Did Fielding? Did Scott?

"It is true that I have argued at different times that all tragic stories are built about a moral idea or a primary idea — I take both to mean the same thing — and I have contended in at least two articles that the only distinction possible between great literature and little literature is that great literature is built about primary truths — shall I say passions? Perhaps that word will make my meaning more clear. But to do this is not the same thing as to plead for a novel with a purpose, for the tract writ large. What is “Hamlet" but the picture of a man whose dreams are in conflict with circumstances? What is "Lear" but the picture of parental altruism? What is "Othello" but a picture of jealousy? What is "Romeo and Juliet" but a picture of youthful exaltation? What is "Antony and Cleopatra” but a picture of overpowering sexual passion in middle age? What is "Macbeth" but a picture of ambition?

But in prose fiction no English writer has attempted tragedy. English novelists have contented themselves with depicting man in his habit of life, with the indication of idiosyncrasies, very often with mere social differences. Our fiction is therefore the weakest part of our literature. Primary ideas have found expression only in English poetry. The English novel is a novel of manners, that is to say, of the surface of life. Fielding created the form, and his form has been followed more or less faithfully by all. Landscape painting, farce, and melodrama have been added by Eliot, Dickens, Thackeray, and Scott, but these additions have distorted a form radically incapable of modification. Miss Austen is the one writer who kept to the original form; she did more than keep to it, she has emphasised it. She is the one writer who has eschewed landscape painting, farce, and melodrama, limiting herself to comedy, to domestic comedy. The English are a domestic race, and Miss Austen has realised the instincts of the race more perfectly than any other writer. Her.books are not very interesting, but she is our most characteristic novelist.

Here I can only hope to raise the fringe of an interesting question. The importance of primary ideas in literature is a subject that cannot be adequately dealt with in the space of a newspaper column. I will therefore proceed no further into it, but will ask Mr. Steuart to read the two articles which I contributed on this subject to Cosmopolis. One is entitled "Since the Elizabethans," the other "A Tragic Novel." After reading these articles he will know what my theory is regarding fiction; if he will then take up either of my novels, "Esther Waters" or "Evelyn Innes," he will be able to judge if my practice conforms to my theory.