THE GREAT VIRTUOSO.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1413, 13 April 1912, Page 9

THE GREAT VIRTUOSO.

"Mr. Gosse, lecturing on Swinburne, quoted a saying of Guy do Maupassant that Swinburne was perhaps the most extravagantly artistic I>eing that had ever appeared in tho world," says the. London "Times." "Maupassant's description of him is true in tho main," says "Tho Times." "Ho was extravagantly artistic and the greatest virtuoso in language that has ever been known in England or perhaps in the world. When we call him a. virtuoso, wo think naturally not only of virtuoso musicians, but of tlie kind of

music they are apt to play—music which at best is a new pattern of agreeable sound, and at worst an executive problem

interesting only for tho difficulties to be overcomo in it. But, if Swinburne had written verse like this kind of music, no ono would ever have taken the trouble to read it. Wordsworth lost all his technical powers when he was inspired, but Swinburne always had them at his command. 110 was always the virtuoso, at his best and at his worst; and, like Victor Hugo, lie suffers from the constancy of his skill.

"But this virtuosity of his was not merely a mechanical gift, any more than the technical skill of such a painter as Correggio. Tho virtuosity of Swinburne, as of Correggio, was the result of a specialisation not merely in craft, but in his manner of living. All men have something of tho artist in them—that is to say, they have emotional experiences and

the impulse to express them in some form of art. But their artistic faculty is usually suppressed, partly by the increasing rarity of their emotional experiences, partly by tho vagueness of their impulse to express them. The great virtuoso has, to begin with, a very definite impulse of expression; he is born a poet or a painter or a musician, as tho case may lie. And in the next place his emotional experiences are incessant. Everything produces them, anil to express them becomes the business of his life.

"No doubt the very greatest of artists aro not so easily moved;"or rather they exercise moro judgment in tho choice of emotional' experience, as they aim at greater conciseness and precision in the expression of them. A Shakespeare, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven is more ardent to discover the secret of life. He lias a greater curiosity about those things which have no .immediate emotional in-

terest for him. Ho has a scientific and a philosophic bent which cannot be satisfied by continual raptures or the most brilliant expression of them. The greatest artists seeni to be on their guard against artistic specialisation, not so much in craft but in life itself. They are artists while they are at work; but at other times tliev open their minds to all kinds of experiences with a disinterested curiosity, not considering whether or not they will be useful to them in their art. The virtuoso is always a specialist. He does not lack experience, for his' whole life is made up cf intense experiences; but becauso _ they are so intense they aro

:iarrow in range. He is not curious about :hings that do not arouse emotion in him;

and this lack of curiosity produces a monotony in -the_ subject matter of his art and even in his methods of execution. A Correggio or a .Swinburne never raems to have enriched his work with disinterested observation. Both probably had .a habit, of noticing . mainly, those tilings m which fhev ivcro emotionally interested, and in both probably emotion succeeded •fg>mtjrtly^|iwi'i6l ) serti-ti<in as;] to cut it short, lo call either of them brainless would be absurd. . Swinburne was certainly a man of great intellectual poiver, .who could- understand. anything, that interested him. But from his poetry one would gather that the range of his interests was professionally narrow compared with tho range of Shakespeare or Chaucer. That is the price which tho great virtuoso has to pay for his virtuosity;: and tho same price is paid by all except the greatest men for extreme excellence of any kind. But we are not to suppose that a poet such as Swinburne lives an unreal life or plays an unprofitable game. It is only too easy to condemn .a great artist with, a theory based upon liis inferior work. Euskin was not the man 10 be carried awav by the exercise of a barren technical skill-, and ho wrote, of Swinburne-.--He is infinitely above me in all knowledge and power, and I should no more think of advising or criticising him than of venturing to do it to Turner if he were alive again.' He recognised in Swinburne. the great artist —that is -to say, the man who had great emotional experiences and the power of expressing them. "

That specialisation, of which we have spoken, was a defect of his' quality; but the quality. itself was a great one! The mastering passion of his life, even if it were too predominant in him, was loftv and disinterested. Ho must have lived habitually at a height to which most men attain only at rare moments, concerned always! with great passions and hopes and with the significance of the forces of n i l V' re ,. t ? tlu > s P |rit: of mlm - All tho rest of his life, with its fantasies and caprices was mere diversion. Ho was a specialist, no doubt, but in the same sense as saints and men of science are specialists, because one side of his nature was overdeveloped by an absorbing passion. Most men escape from this over-development merely because they have no passion that absorbs them, a few through a more even balanco of great interests and powers. Ruskin added to his praise of Swinburne those last qualifying words:—Tin righter than ho is—so are the lambs and swallows—but I'm not his match.' So much lesser , men may seem to themselves to be vighter than Swinburne. They may think that they would write moro'various poetry than his, if they could write poetry at all. So it is that we are always opt to judge great men. We assume ourselves to possess their powers, and then flatter ourselves that we could make a better use of them. Put in this agreeable process we forget that wo have 110 experience of thes9 powers or of their temptations. We escape virtuosity, not through superior wisdom, but through inferior capacity Ruskin was great enough himself not to fall into this error, nnd in estimating a great virtuoso like Swinburne we may echo his words with still more modestv and say—'l may be righter than he was— but I'm not his match.'" ,