Chapter 7
Section 7 of 1891 Collection. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Rating by Matt Perard. 1891 Collection. By Varius. Section 7. A House with Palm Granites. By Oscar Wilde. Letter 1. Speaker. December 5, 1891.
Sir, I have just purchased, at a price that for any other English six-penny paper I would have considered exorbitant, a copy of the Speaker at one of the charming kiosks that decorate Paris. Institutions, by the way, that I think we should at once introduce into London. The kiosk is a delightful object, and when illuminated at night from within, as lovely as a fantastic Chinese lantern, especially when the transparent advertisements are from the clever pencil of Monsieur Charest. In London, we have merely the ill-clad news-vendor whose voice, in spite of the admirable efforts of the Royal College of Music to make England a really musical nation, is always out of tune, and whose rags, badly designed and badly worn, merely emphasize a painful note of uncomely misery, without conveying that impression of picturesqueness, which is the only thing that is worth mentioning. It is not, however, about the establishment of kiosks in London that I wish to write to you, though I am of opinion that it is a thing that the County Council should at once take in hand.
The object of my letter is to correct a statement made in a paragraph of your interesting paper. The writer of the paragraph in question states that the decorative designs that make lovely my book, A House of Pomegranates, are by the hand of Mr. Shannon, while the delicate dreams that separate and herald each story are by Mr. Ricketts. The contrary is the case. Mr. Shannon is the drawer of the dreams, and Mr. Ricketts is the subtle and fantastic decorator. Indeed, it is to Mr. Ricketts that the entire decorative design of the book is due, from the selection of the type and the placing of the ornamentation to the completely beautiful cover that encloses the whole. The writer of the paragraph goes on to state that he does not like the cover. This is no doubt to be regretted, though it is not a matter of much importance, as there are only two people in the world whom it is absolutely necessary that the cover should please. One is Mr. Ricketts, who designed it. The other is myself, whose book it binds. We both admire it immensely. The reason, however, that your critic gives for his failure to gain from the cover any impression of beauty seems to me to show a lack of artistic instinct on his part, which I beg you will allow me to try to correct.
He complains that a portion of the design on the left-hand side of the cover reminds him of an Indian club with a house painter's brush on top of it, while a portion of the design on the right-hand side suggests to him the idea of a chimney pot hat with a sponge in it. Now, I do not for a moment dispute that these are the real impressions your critic received. It is the spectator and the mind of the spectator, as I pointed out in the preface to the picture of Dorian Gray, that art really mirrors. What I want to indicate is this. The artistic beauty of the cover of my book resides in the delicate tracing, arabesques, and massing of many coral red lines on a ground of white ivory, the colour effect culminating in certain high-guilt notes and being made still more pleasurable by the overlapping band of moss-green cloth that holds the book together. What the gilt notes suggest, what imitative parallel may be found to them in that chaos that is termed nature, is a matter of no importance. They may suggest, as they do sometimes to me, peacocks and pomegranates and splashing fountains of gold water, or, as they do to your critic, sponges and Indian clubs and chimney pot hats.
Such suggestions and evocations have nothing whatsoever to do with the aesthetic quality and value of the design. A thing in nature becomes much lovelier if it reminds us of a thing in art, but a thing in art gains no real beauty through reminding us of a thing in nature. The primary aesthetic impression of a work of art borrows nothing from recognition or resemblance. These belong to a later and less perfect stage of apprehension. Properly speaking, they are no part of a real aesthetic impression at all. And the constant preoccupation with subject matter that characterizes nearly all our English art criticism is what makes our art criticisms, especially as regards literature, so sterile, so profitless, so much beside the mark, and of such curiously little account. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Oscar Wilde. Boulevard de Capucines, Paris. Letter Number 2. Paul Mong Gazette, December 11, 1891.
To the editor of the Paul Mong Gazette. Sir, I have just had sent me from London a copy of the Paul Mong Gazette containing a review of my book, A House of Pomegranates. The writer of this review makes a certain suggestion, which I beg you will allow me to correct at once. He starts by asking an extremely silly question, and that is whether or not I have written this book for the purpose of giving pleasure to the British child. Having expressed grave doubts on this subject, a subject on which I cannot conceive any fairly educated person having any doubts at all, he proceeds, apparently quite seriously, to make the extremely limited vocabulary at the disposal of the book. I hope you will imagine that Mr. Shannon, for instance, whose delicate and lovely illustrations he confesses himself quite unable to see, draws for the purpose of giving information to the blind. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, Oscar Wilde. Boulevard de Capucines, Paris. End of Section 7.
