the great feast-days of all, for the restless critic, are those much interspaced occasions of his really meeting a “case,” as he soon enough learns to call, for his convenience and assistance, any supremely contributive or determinant party to the critical question. these are recognitions that make up for many dull hours and dry contacts, many a thankless, a disconcerted gaze into faces that have proved expressionless. always looking, always hoping for his happiest chance, the inquirer into the reasons of things—by which i mean especially into the reasons of books—so often misses it, so often wastes his steps and withdraws his confidence, that he inevitably works out for himself, sooner or later, some handy principle of recognition. it may be a rough thing, a mere home-made tool of his trade, but it serves his purpose if it keeps him from beginning with mistakes. he becomes able to note in its light the signs and marks of the possible precious identity, able to weigh with some exactitude the appearances that make for its reality. he ends, through much expenditure of patience, by seeing when, how, why, the “case” announces and presents itself, and he perhaps even feels that failure and felicity have worked together to produce in him a sense for it that may at last be trusted as an instinct. he thus arrives at a view of all the candidates, frequently interesting enough, who fall short of the effective title, because he has at need, perhaps even from afar, scented along the wind the strongest member of the herd. he may perhaps not always be able to give us the grounds of his certainty, but he is at least never without knowing it in presence of one of the full-blown products that are the joy of the analyst. he recognises as well how the state of being full-blown comes above all from the achievement of consistency, of that last consistency which springs from the unrestricted enjoyment of freedom.

many of us will doubtless not have forgotten how we were witnesses a certain number of years since to a season and a society that had found themselves of a sudden roused, as from some deep drugged sleep, to the conception of the “esthetic” law of life; in consequence of which this happy thought had begun to receive the honours of a lively appetite and an eager curiosity, but was at the same time surrounded and manipulated by as many different kinds of inexpertness as probably ever huddled together on a single pretext. the spectacle was strange and finally was wearisome, for the simple reason that the principle in question, once it was proclaimed—a principle not easily formulated, but which we may conveniently speak of as that of beauty at any price, beauty appealing alike to the senses and to the mind—was never felt to fall into its place as really adopted and efficient. it remained for us a queer high-flavoured fruit from overseas, grown under another sun than ours, passed round and solemnly partaken of at banquets organised to try it, but not found on the whole really to agree with us, not proving thoroughly digestible. it brought with it no repose, brought with it only agitation. we were not really, not fully convinced, for the state of conviction is quiet. this was to have been the state itself—that is the state of mind achieved and established—in which we were to know ugliness no more, to make the esthetic consciousness feel at home with us, or learn ourselves at any rate to feel at home with it. that would have been the reign of peace, the supreme beatitude; but stability continued to elude us. we had mustered a hundred good reasons for it, yet the reasons but lighted up our desert. they failed to flower into a single concrete esthetic “type.” one authentic, one masterful specimen would have done wonders for us, would at least have assuaged our curiosity. but we were to be left till lately with our curiosity on our hands.

this is a yearning, however, that signor d’annunzio may at last strike us as supremely formed to gratify; so promptly we find in him as a literary figure the highest expression of the reality that our own conditions were to fail of making possible. he has immediately the value of giving us by his mere logical unfolding the measure of our shortcomings in the same direction, that of our timidities and penuries and failures. he throws a straighter and more inevitable light on the esthetic consciousness than has, to my sense, in our time, reached it from any other quarter; and there is many a mystery that properly interrogated he may help to clear up for us, many an explanation of our misadventure that—as i have glanced at it—he may give. he starts with the immense advantage of enjoying the invoked boon by grace and not by effort, of claiming it under another title than the sweat of his brow and the aspiration of his culture. he testifies to the influence of things that have had time to get themselves taken for granted. beauty at any price is an old story to him; art and form and style as the aim of the superior life are a matter of course; and it may be said of him, i think, that, thanks to these transmitted and implanted instincts and aptitudes, his individual development begins where the struggle of the mere earnest questioner ends. signor d’annunzio is earnest in his way, quite extraordinarily—which is a feature of his physiognomy that we shall presently come to and about which there will be something to say; but we feel him all the while in such secure possession of his heritage of favouring circumstance that his sense of intellectual responsibility is almost out of proportion. this is one of his interesting special marks, the manner in which the play of the esthetic instinct in him takes on, for positive extravagance and as a last refinement of freedom, the crown of solicitude and anxiety. such things but make with him for ornament and parade; they are his tribute to civility; the essence of the matter is meanwhile in his blood and his bones. no mistake was possible from the first as to his being of the inner literary camp—a new form altogether of perceptive and expressive energy; the question was settled by the intensity and variety, to say nothing of the precocity, of his early poetic production.

born at pescara, in the regno, the old kingdom of naples, “toward” 1863, as i find noted by a cautious biographer, he had while scarce out of his teens allowed his lyric genius full opportunity of scandalising even the moderately austere. he defined himself betimes very much as he was to remain, a rare imagination, a poetic, an artistic intelligence of extraordinary range and fineness concentrated almost wholly on the life of the senses. for the critic who simplifies a little to state clearly, the only ideas he urges upon us are the erotic and the plastic, which have for him about an equal intensity, or of which it would be doubtless more correct to say that he makes them interchangeable faces of the same figure. he began his career by playing with them together in verse, to innumerable light tunes and with an extraordinary general effect of curiosity and brilliancy. he has continued still more strikingly to play with them in prose; they have remained the substance of his intellectual furniture. it is of his prose only, however, that, leaving aside the intermezzo, l’isottèo, la chimera, odi navali and other such matters, i propose to speak, the subject being of itself ample for one occasion. his five novels and his four plays have extended his fame; they suggest by themselves as many observations as we shall have space for. the group of productions, as the literary industry proceeds among us to-day, is not large, but we may doubt if a talent and a temperament, if indeed a whole “view of life,” ever built themselves up as vividly for the reader out of so few blocks. the writer is even yet enviably young; but this solidity of his literary image, as of something already seated on time and accumulation, makes him a rare example. precocity is somehow an inadequate name for it, as precocity seldom gets away from the element of promise, and it is not exactly promise that blooms in the hard maturity of such a performance as “the triumph of death.” there are certain expressions of experience, of the experience of the whole man, that are like final milestones, milestones for his possible fertility if not for his possible dexterity; a truth that has not indeed prevented “il fuoco,” with its doubtless still ampler finality, from following the work just mentioned. and we have had particularly before us, in verse, i must add, “francesca da rimini,” with the great impression a great actress has enabled this drama to make.

only i must immediately in this connection also add that signor d’annunzio’s plays are, beside his novels, of decidedly minor weight; testifying abundantly to his style, his romantic sense and his command of images, but standing in spite of their eloquence only for half of his talent, largely as he yet appears in “il fuoco” to announce himself by implication as an intending, indeed as a pre-eminent dramatist. the example is interesting when we catch in the fact the opportunity for comparing with the last closeness the capacity of the two rival canvases, as they become for the occasion, on which the picture of life may be painted. the closeness is never so great, the comparison never so pertinent, as when the separate efforts are but different phases of the same talent. it is not at any rate under this juxtaposition that the infinitely greater amplitude of portrayal resident in the novel strikes us least. it in fact strikes us the more, in this quarter, for signor d’annunzio, that his plays have been with one exception successes. we must none the less take “francesca” but for a success of curiosity; on the part of the author i mean even more than on the part of the public. it is primarily a pictorial and ingenious thing and, as a picture of passion, takes, in the total collection, despite its felicities of surface and arrangement, distinctly a “back seat.” scarcely less than its companions it overflows with the writer’s plenitude of verbal expression, thanks to which, largely, the series will always prompt a curiosity and even a tenderness in any reader interested precisely in this momentous question of “style in a play”—interested in particular to learn by what esthetic chemistry a play would as a work of art propose to eschew it. it is in any such connection so inexpugnable that we have only to be cheated of it in one place to feel the subject cry aloud for it, like a sick man forsaken, in another.

i may mention at all events the slightly perverse fact that, thanks, on this side, to the highest watermark of translation, signor d’annunzio makes his best appeal to the english public as a dramatist. of each of the three english versions of other examples of his work whose titles are inscribed at the beginning of these remarks it may be said that they are adequate and respectable considering the great difficulty encountered. the author’s highest good fortune has nevertheless been at the hands of his french interpreter, who has managed to keep constantly close to him—allowing for an occasional inconsequent failure of courage when the directness of the original brave l’honnêteté—and yet to achieve a tone not less idiomatic, and above all not less marked by “authority,” than his own. mr. arthur symons, among ourselves, however, has rendered the somewhat insistent eloquence of “la gioconda” and the intricate and difficult verse of “francesca” with all due sympathy, and in the latter case especially—a highly arduous task—with remarkably patient skill. it is not his fault, doubtless, if the feet of his english text strike us as moving with less freedom than those of his original; such being the hard price paid always by the translator who tries for correspondence from step to step, tries for an identical order. even less is he responsible for its coming still more home to us in a translation that the meagre anecdote here furnishing the subject, and on which the large superstructure rests, does not really lend itself to those developments that make a full or an interesting tragic complexity. behind the glamour of its immense literary association the subject of “francesca” is for purposes of essential, of enlarged exhibition delusive and “short.”

these, however, are for the moment side-issues; what is more relevant is the stride taken by our author’s early progress in his first novel and his second, “il piacere” and “l’innocente”; a pair from the freshness, the direct young energy of which he was, for some of his admirers, too promptly and to markedly to decline. we may take it as characteristic of the intensity of the literary life in him that his brief career falls already thus into periods and supplies a quantity of history sufficient for those differences among students by which the dignity of history appears mainly to be preserved. the nature of his prime inspiration i have already glanced at; and we are helped to a characterisation if i say that the famous enthroned “beauty” which operates here, so straight, as the great obsession, is not in any perceptible degree moral beauty. it would be difficult perhaps to find elsewhere in the same compass so much expression of the personal life resting so little on any picture of the personal character and the personal will. it is not that signor d’annunzio has not more than once pushed his furrow in this latter direction; but nothing is exactly more interesting, as we shall see, than the seemingly inevitable way in which the attempt falls short.

“il piacere,” the first in date of the five tales, has, though with imperfections, the merit of giving us strongly at the outset the author’s scale and range of view, and of so constituting a sort of prophetic summary of his elements. all that is done in the later things is more or less done here, and nothing is absent here that we are not afterwards also to miss. i propose, however, that it shall not be prematurely a question with us of what we miss; no intelligible statement of which, for that matter, in such considerations as these, is ever possible till there has been some adequate statement of what we find. count andrea sperelli is a young man who pays, pays heavily, as we take it that we are to understand, for an unbridled surrender to the life of the senses; whereby it is primarily a picture of that life that the story gives us. he is represented as inordinately, as quite monstrously, endowed for the career that from the first absorbs and that finally is to be held, we suppose, to engulf him; and it is a tribute to the truth with which his endowment is presented that we should scarce know where else to look for so complete and convincing an account of such adventures. casanova de seingalt is of course infinitely more copious, but his autobiography is cheap loose journalism compared with the directed, finely-condensed iridescent epic of count andrea.

this young man’s years have run but half their course from twenty to thirty when he meets and becomes entangled with a woman more infernally expert even than himself in the matters in which he is most expert—and he is given us as a miracle of social and intellectual accomplishment—the effect of whom is fatally to pervert and poison his imagination. as his imagination is applied exclusively to the employments of “love,” this means, for him, a frustration of all happiness, all comfortable consistency, in subsequent relations of the same order. the author’s view—this is fundamental—is all of a world in which relations of any other order whatever mainly fail to offer themselves in any attractive form. andrea sperelli, loving, accordingly—in the manner in which d’annunzio’s young men love and to which we must specifically return—a woman of good faith, a woman as different as possible from the creature of evil communications, finds the vessel of his spirit itself so infected and disqualified that it falsifies and dries up everything that passes through it. the idea that has virtually determined the situation appears in fact to be that the hero would have loved in another manner, or would at least have wished to, but that he had too promptly put any such fortune, so far as his capacity is concerned, out of court. we have our reasons, presently manifest, for doubting the possibility itself; but the theory has nevertheless given its direction to the fable.

for the rest the author’s three sharpest signs are already unmistakable: first his rare notation of states of excited sensibility; second his splendid visual sense, the quick generosity of his response to the message, as we nowadays say, of aspects and appearances, to the beauty of places and things; third his ample and exquisite style, his curious, various, inquisitive, always active employment of language as a means of communication and representation. so close is the marriage between his power of “rendering,” in the light of the imagination, and whatever he sees and feels, that we should much mislead in speaking of his manner as a thing distinct from the matter submitted to it. the fusion is complete and admirable, so that, though his work is nothing if not “literary,” we see at no point of it where literature or where life begins or ends: we swallow our successive morsels with as little question as we swallow food that has by proper preparation been reduced to singleness of savour. it is brought home to us afresh that there is no complete creation without style any more than there is complete music without sound; also that when language becomes as closely applied and impressed a thing as for the most part in the volumes before us the fact of artistic creation is registered at a stroke. it is never more present than in the thick-sown illustrative images and figures that fairly bloom under d’annunzio’s hand. i find examples in “il piacere,” as elsewhere, by simply turning the pages. “his will”—of the hero’s weakness—“useless as a sword of base temper hung at the side of a drunkard or a dullard.” or of his own southern land in september: “i scarce know why, looking at the country in this season, i always think of some beautiful woman after childbirth, who lies back in her white bed, smiling with a pale astonished inextinguishable smile.” or the incision of this: “where for him now were those unclean short-lived loves that left in the mouth the strange acidity of fruit cut with a steel knife?” or the felicity of the following, of a southern night seen and felt from the terrace of a villa. “clear meteors at intervals streaked the motionless air, running over it as lightly and silently as drops of water on a crystal pane.” “the sails on the sea,” he says of the same look-out by day, “were as pious and numberless as the wings of cherubim on the gold grounds of old giottesque panels.”

but it is above all here for two things that his faculty is admirable; one of them his making us feel through the windows of his situation, or the gaps, as it were, of his flowering wood, the golden presence of rome, the charm that appeals to him as if he were one of the pilgrims from afar, save that he reproduces it with an authority in which, as we have seen, the pilgrims from afar have mainly been deficient. the other is the whole category of the phenomena of “passion,” as passion prevails between his men and his women—and scarcely anything else prevails; the states of feeling, of ecstasy and suffering engendered, the play of sensibility from end to end of the scale. in this direction he has left no dropped stitches for any worker of like tapestries to pick up. we shall here have made out that many of his “values” are much to be contested, but that where they are true they are as fresh as discoveries; witness the passage where sperelli, driving back to rome after a steeplechase in which he has been at the supreme moment worsted, meets nothing that does not play with significance into his vision and act with force on his nerves. he has before the race had “words,” almost blows, on the subject of one of the ladies present, with one of the other riders, of which the result is that they are to send each other their seconds; but the omens are not for his adversary, in spite of the latter’s success on the course.

from the mail-coach, on the return, he overtook the flight toward rome of giannetto rutolo, seated in a small two-wheeled trap, behind the quick trot of a great roan, over whom he bent with tight reins, holding his head down and his cigar in his teeth, heedless of the attempts of policemen to keep him in line. rome, in the distance, stood up dark against a zone of light as yellow as sulphur; and the statues crowning st. john lateran looked huge, above the zone, in their violet sky. then it was that andrea fully knew the pain he was making another soul suffer.

nothing could be more characteristic of the writer than the way what has preceded flowers into that last reality; and equally in his best manner, doubtless, is such a passage as the following from the same volume, which treats of the hero’s first visit to the sinister great lady whose influence on his soul and his senses is to become as the trail of a serpent. she receives him, after their first accidental meeting, with extraordinary promptitude and the last intimacy, receives him in the depths of a great roman palace which the author, with a failure of taste that is, unfortunately for him, on ground of this sort, systematic, makes a point of naming. “then they ceased to speak. each felt the presence of the other flow and mingle with his own, with her own, very blood; till it was her blood at last that seemed to have become his life, and his that seemed to have become hers. the room grew larger in the deep silence; the crucifix of guido reni made the shade of the canopy and curtains religious; the rumour of the city came to them like the murmur of some far-away flood.” or take for an instance of the writer’s way of showing the consciousness as a full, mixed cup, of touching us ourselves with the mystery at work in his characters, the description of the young man’s leaving the princely apartments in question after the initiation vouchsafed to him. he has found the great lady ill in bed, with remedies and medicine-bottles at her side, but not too ill, as we have seen, to make him welcome. “farewell,” she has said. “love me! remember!”

it seemed to him, crossing the threshold again, that he heard behind him a burst of sobs. but he went on, a little uncertain, wavering like a man who sees imperfectly. the odour of the chloroform clung to his sense like some fume of intoxication; but at each step something intimate passed away from him, wasting itself in the air, so that, impulsively, instinctively, he would have kept himself as he was, have closed himself in, have wrapped himself up to prevent the dispersion. the rooms in front of him were deserted and dumb. at one of the doors “mademoiselle” appeared, with no sound of steps, with no rustle of skirts, standing there like a ghost. “this way, signor conte. you won’t find it.” she had an ambiguous, irritating smile, and her curiosity made her grey eyes more piercing. andrea said nothing. the woman’s presence again disconcerted and troubled him, affected him with a vague repugnance, stirred indeed his wrath.

even the best things suffer by detachment from their context; but so it is that we are in possession of the young man’s exit, so it is that the act interests us. fully announced from the first, among these things, was d’annunzio’s signal gift of never approaching the thing particularly to be done, the thing that so presents itself to the painter, without consummately doing it. each of his volumes offers thus its little gallery of episodes that stand out like the larger pearls occurring at intervals on a string of beads. the steeplechase in “il piacere,” the auction sale of precious trinkets in via sistina on the wet afternoon, the morning in the garden at schifanoia, by the southern sea, when donna maria, the new revelation, first comes down to andrea, who awaits her there in the languor of convalescence from the almost fatal wound received in the duel of which the altercation on the race-course has been the issue: the manner of such things as these has an extraordinary completeness of beauty. but they are, like similar pages in “il trionfo” and “il fuoco,” not things for adequate citation, not things that lend themselves as some of the briefer felicities. donna maria, on the september night at schifanoia, has been playing for andrea and their hostess certain old quaint gavottes and toccatas.

it lived again wondrously beneath her fingers, the eighteenth-century music, so melancholy in its dance-tunes—tunes that might have been composed to be danced, on languid afternoons of some st. martin’s summer, in a deserted park, among hushed fountains and pedestals without their statues, over carpets of dead roses, by pairs of lovers soon to love no more.

autobiographic in form, “l’innocente” sticks closely to its theme, and though the form is on the whole a disadvantage to it the texture is admirably close. the question is of nothing less than a young husband’s relation to the illegitimate child of his wife, born confessedly as such, and so born, marvellous to say, in spite of the circumstance that the wife adores him, and of the fact that, though long grossly, brutally false to her, he also adores his wife. to state these data is sufficiently to express the demand truly made by them for superiority of treatment; they require certainly two or three almost impossible postulates. but we of course never play the fair critical game with an author, never get into relation with him at all, unless we grant him his postulates. his subject is what is given him—given him by influences, by a process, with which we have nothing to do; since what art, what revelation, can ever really make such a mystery, such a passage in the private life of the intellect, adequately traceable for us? his treatment of it, on the other hand, is what he actively gives; and it is with what he gives that we are critically concerned. if there is nothing in him that effectually induces us to make the postulate, he is then empty for us altogether, and the sooner we have done with him the better; little as the truly curious critic enjoys, as a general thing, having publicly to throw up the sponge.

tullio hermil, who finally compasses the death of the little “innocent,” the small intruder whose presence in the family life has become too intolerable, retraces with a master’s hand each step of the process by which he has arrived at this sole issue. save that his wife dumbly divines and accepts it his perpetration of the deed is not suspected, and we take the secret confession of which the book consists as made for the relief and justification of his conscience. the action all goes forward in that sphere of exasperated sensibility which signor d’annunzio has made his own so triumphantly that other story-tellers strike us in comparison as remaining at the door of the inner precinct, as listening there but to catch an occasional faint sound, while he alone is well within and moving through the place as its master. the sensibility has again in itself to be qualified; the exasperation of feeling is ever the essence of the intercourse of some man with some woman who has reduced him, as in “l’innocente” and in “il trionfo,” to homicidal madness, or of some woman with some man who, as in “il fuoco,” and also again by a strange duplication of its office in “l’innocente,” causes her atrociously to suffer. the plane of the situation is thus visibly a singularly special plane; that, always, of the more or less insanely demoralised pair of lovers, for neither of whom is any other personal relation indicated either as actual or as conceivably possible. here, it may be said on such a showing, is material rather alarmingly cut down as to range, as to interest and, not least, as to charm; but here precisely it is that, by a wonderful chance, the author’s magic comes effectively into play.

little in fact as the relation of the erotically exasperated with the erotically exasperated, when pushed on either side to frenzy, would appear to lend itself to luminous developments, the difficulty is surmounted each time in a fashion that, for consistency no less than for brilliancy, is all the author’s own. though surmounted triumphantly as to interest, that is, the trick is played without the least falsification of the luckless subjects of his study. they remain the abject victims of sensibility that his plan has originally made them; they remain exasperated, erotic, hysterical, either homicidally or suicidally determined, cut off from any personal source of life that does not poison them; notwithstanding all of which they neither starve dramatically nor suffer us to starve with them. how then is this seemingly inevitable catastrophe prevented? we ask it but to find on reflection that the answer opens the door to their historian’s whole secret. the unfortunates are deprived of any enlarging or saving personal relation, that is of any beneficent reciprocity; but they make up for it by their relation both to the idea in general and to the whole world of the senses, which is the completest that the author can conceive for them. he may be described as thus executing on their behalf an artistic volte-face of the most effective kind, with results wonderful to note. the world of the senses, with which he surrounds them—a world too of the idea, that is of a few ideas admirably expressed—yields them such a crop of impressions that the need of other occasions to vibrate and respond, to act or to aspire, is superseded by their immense factitious agitation. this agitation runs its course in strangely brief periods—a singular note, the brevity, of every situation; but the period is while it lasts, for all its human and social poverty, quite inordinately peopled and furnished. the innumerable different ways in which his concentrated couples are able to feel about each other and about their enclosing cage of golden wire, the nature and the art of italy—these things crowd into the picture and pervade it, lighting it scarcely less, strange to say, because they are things of bitterness and woe.

it is one of the miracles of the imagination; the great shining element in which the characters flounder and suffer becomes rich and beautiful for them, as well as in so many ways for us, by the action of the writer’s mind. they not only live in his imagination, but they borrow it from him in quantities; indeed without this charitable advance they would be poor creatures enough, for they have in each case almost nothing of their own. on the aid thus received they start, they get into motion; it makes their common basis of “passion,” desire, enchantment, aversion. the essence of the situation is the same in “il trionfo” and “il fuoco” as in “l’innocente”: the temporarily united pair devour each other, tear and rend each other, wear each other out through a series of erotic convulsions and nervous reactions that are made interesting—interesting to us—almost exclusively by the special wealth of their consciousness. the medium in which they move is admirably reflected in it; the autumn light of venice, the afterglow of her past, in the drama of the elderly actress and the young rhetorician of “il fuoco”; the splendour of the summer by the edge of the lower adriatic in that of the two isolated erotomaniacs of “il trionfo,” indissolubly linked at last in the fury of physical destruction into which the man drags the woman by way of retribution for the fury of physical surrender into which she has beguiled him.

as for “l’innocente” again, briefly, there is perhaps nothing in it to match the roman passages of “il piacere”; but the harmony of the general, the outer conditions pervades the picture; the sweetness of the villeggiatura life, the happiness of place and air, the lovability of the enclosing scene, all at variance with the sharpness of the inner tragedy. the inner tragedy of “l’innocente” has a concentration that is like the carrying, through turns and twists, upstairs and down, of some cup filled to the brim, of which no drop is yet spilled; such cumulative truth rules the scene after we have once accepted the postulate. it is true that the situation as exhibited involves for giuliana, the young wife, the vulgarest of adventures; yet she becomes, as it unfolds, the figure of the whole gallery in whom the pathetic has at once most of immediate truth and of investing poetry. i much prefer her for beauty and interest to donna maria in “il piacere,” the principal other image of faith and patience sacrificed. we see these virtues as still supreme in her even while she faces, in advance, her ordeal, in respect to which it has been her hope, in fact her calculation, that her husband will have been deceived about the paternity of her child; and she is so truthfully touching when this possibility breaks down that even though we rub our eyes at the kind of dignity claimed for her we participate without reserve in her predicament. the origin of the infant is frankly ignoble, whereas it is on the nobleness of giuliana that the story essentially hinges; but the contradiction is wonderfully kept from disconcerting us altogether. what the author has needed for his strangest truth is that the mother shall feel exactly as the husband does, and that the husband shall after the first shock of his horror feel intimately and explicitly with the mother. they take in this way the same view of their woeful excrescence; and the drama of the child’s advent and of the first months of his existence, his insistent and hated survival, becomes for them in respect to the rest of the world a drama of silence and dissimulation, in every step of which we feel a terror.

the effect, i may add, gains more than one kind of intensity from that almost complete absence of other contacts to which d’annunzio systematically condemns his creatures; introducing here, however, just the two or three that more completely mark the isolation. it may doubtless be conceded that our english-speaking failure of insistence, of inquiry and penetration, in certain directions, springs partly from our deep-rooted habit of dealing with man, dramatically, on his social and gregarious side, as a being the variety of whose intercourse with his fellows, whatever forms his fellows may take, is positively half his interesting motion. we fear to isolate him, for we remember that as we see and know him he scarce understands himself save in action, action which inevitably mixes him with his kind. to see and know him, like signor d’annunzio, almost only in passion is another matter, for passion spends itself quickly in the open and burns hot mainly in nooks and corners. nothing, too, in the picture is more striking than the manner in which the merely sentimental abyss—that of the couple brought together by the thing that might utterly have severed them—is consistently and successfully avoided. we should have been certain to feel it in many other hands yawning but a few steps off. we see the dreadful facts in themselves, are brought close to them with no interposing vaguenesses or other beggings of the question, and are forcibly reminded how much more this “crudity” makes for the communication of tenderness—what is aimed at—than an attitude conventionally more reticent. we feel what the tenderness can be when it rests on all the items of a constituted misery, not one of which is illogically blinked.

for the pangs and pities of the flesh in especial d’annunzio has in all his work the finest hand—those of the spirit exist with him indeed only as proceeding from these; so that giuliana for instance affects us, beyond any figure in fiction we are likely to remember, as living and breathing under our touch and before our eyes, as a creature of organs, functions and processes, palpable, audible, pitiful physical conditions. these are facts, many of them, of an order in pursuit of which many a spectator of the “picture of life” will instinctively desire to stop short, however great in general his professed desire to enjoy the borrowed consciousness that the picture of life gives us; and nothing, it may well be said, is more certain than that we have a right in such matters to our preference, a right to choose the kind of adventure of the imagination we like best. no obligation whatever rests on us in respect to a given kind—much light as our choice may often throw for the critic on the nature of our own intelligence. there at any rate, we are disposed to say of such a piece of penetration as “l’innocente,” there is a particular dreadful adventure, as large as life, for those who can bear it. the conditions are all present; it is only the reader himself who may break down. when in general, it may be added, we see readers do so, this is truly more often because they are shocked at really finding the last consistency than because they are shocked at missing it.

“il trionfo della morte” and “il fuoco” stand together as the amplest and richest of our author’s histories, and the earlier, and more rounded and faultless thing of the two, is not unlikely to serve, i should judge, as an unsurpassable example of his talent. his accomplishment here reaches its maximum; all his powers fight for him; the wealth of his expression drapes the situation represented in a mantle of voluminous folds, stiff with elaborate embroidery. the “story” may be told in three words: how giorgio aurispa meets in rome the young and extremely pretty wife of a vulgar man of business, her unhappiness with whom is complete, and, falling in love with her on the spot, eventually persuades her—after many troubled passages—to come and pass a series of weeks with him in a “hermitage” by the summer sea, where, in a delirium of free possession, he grows so to hate her, and to hate himself for his subjection to her, and for the prostration of all honour and decency proceeding from it, that his desire to destroy her even at the cost of perishing with her at last takes uncontrollable form and he drags her, under a pretext, to the edge of a sea-cliff and hurls her, interlocked with him in appalled resistance, into space. we get at an early stage the note of that aridity of agitation in which the narrator has expended treasures of art in trying to interest us. “fits of indescribable fury made them try which could torture each other best, which most lacerate the other’s heart and keep it in martyrdom.” but they understand, at least the hero does; and he formulates for his companion the essence of their impasse. it is not her fault when she tears and rends.

each human soul carries in it for love but a determinate quantity of sensitive force. it is inevitable that this quantity should use itself up with time, as everything else does; so that when it is used up no effort has power to prevent love from ceasing. now it’s a long time that you have been loving me; nearly two years!

the young man’s intelligence is of the clearest; the woman’s here is inferior, though in “il fuoco” the two opposed faculties are almost equal; but the pair are alike far from living in their intelligence, which only serves to bestrew with lurid gleams the black darkness of their sensual life. so far as the intelligence is one with the will our author fundamentally treats it as cut off from all communication with any other quarter—that is with the senses arrayed and encamped. the most his unfortunates arrive at is to carry their extremely embellished minds with them through these dusky passages as a kind of gilded glimmering lantern, the effect of which is merely fantastic and ironic—a thing to make the play of their shadows over the walls of their catacomb more monstrous and sinister. again in the first pages of “il trionfo” the glimmer is given.

he recognised the injustice of any resentment against her, because he recognised the fatal necessities that controlled them alike. no, his misery came from no other human creature; it came from the very essence of life. the lover had not the lover to complain of, but simply love itself. love, toward which his whole being reached out, from within, with a rush not to be checked, love was of all the sad things of this earth the most lamentably sad. and to this supreme sadness he was perhaps condemned till death.

that, in a nutshell, is d’annunzio’s subject-matter; not simply that his characters see in advance what love is worth for them, but that they nevertheless need to make it the totality of their consciousness. in “il trionfo” and “il fuoco” the law just expressed is put into play at the expense of the woman, with the difference, however, that in the latter tale the woman perceives and judges, suffers in mind, so to speak, as well as in nerves and in temper. but it would be hard to say in which of these two productions the inexhaustible magic of italy most helps the effect, most hangs over the story in such a way as to be one with it and to make the ugliness and the beauty melt together. the ugliness, it is to be noted, is continually presumed absent; the pursuit and cultivation of beauty—that fruitful preoccupation which above all, i have said, gives the author his value as our “case”—being the very ground on which the whole thing rests. the ugliness is an accident, a treachery of fate, the intrusion of a foreign substance—having for the most part in the scheme itself no admitted inevitability. against it every provision is made that the most developed taste in the world can suggest; for, ostensibly, transcendently, signor d’annunzio’s is the most developed taste in the world—his and that of the ferocious yet so contracted conoscenti his heroes, whose virtual identity with himself, affirmed with a strangely misplaced complacency by some of his critics, one would surely hesitate to take for granted. it is the wondrous physical and other endowments of the two heroines of “il piacere,” it is the joy and splendour of the hero’s intercourse with them, to say nothing of the lustre of his own person, descent, talents, possessions, and of the great general setting in which everything is offered us—it is all this that makes up the picture, with the constant suggestion that nothing of a baser quality for the esthetic sense, or at the worst for a pampered curiosity, might hope so much as to live in it. the case is the same in “l’innocente,” a scene all primarily smothered in flowers and fruits and fragrances and soft italian airs, in every implication of flattered embowered constantly-renewed desire, which happens to be a blighted felicity only for the very reason that the cultivation of delight—in the form of the wife’s luckless experiment—has so awkwardly overleaped itself. whatever furthermore we may reflectively think either of the ippolita of “il trionfo” or of her companion’s scheme of existence with her, it is enchanting grace, strange, original, irresistible in kind and degree, that she is given us as representing; just as her material situation with her young man during the greater part of the tale is a constant communion, for both of them, with the poetry and the nobleness of classic landscape, of nature consecrated by association.

the mixture reaches its maximum, however, in “il fuoco,” if not perhaps in “the virgins of the rocks”; the mixture i mean of every exhibited element of personal charm, distinction and interest, with every insidious local influence, every glamour of place, season and surrounding object. the heroine of the first-named is a great tragic actress, exquisite for everything but for being unfortunately middle-aged, battered, marked, as we are constantly reminded, by all the after-sense of a career of promiscuous carnal connections. the hero is a man of letters, a poet, a dramatist of infinite reputation and resource, and their union is steeped to the eyes in the gorgeous medium of venice, the moods of whose melancholy and the voices of whose past are an active part of the perpetual concert. but we see all the persons introduced to us yearn and strain to exercise their perceptions and taste their impressions as deeply as possible, conspiring together to interweave them with the pleasures of passion. they “go in” as the phrase is, for beauty at any cost—for each other’s own to begin with; their creator, in the inspiring quest, presses them hard, and the whole effect becomes for us that of an organised general sacrifice to it and an organised general repudiation of everything else. it is not idle to repeat that the value of the italian background has to this end been inestimable, and that every spark of poetry it had to contribute has been struck from it—with what supreme felicity we perhaps most admiringly learn in “the virgins of the rocks.” to measure the assistance thus rendered, and especially the immense literary lift given, we have only to ask ourselves what appearance any one of the situations presented would have made in almost any cisalpine or “northern” frame of circumstance whatever. supported but by such associations of local or of literary elegance as our comparatively thin resources are able to furnish, the latent weakness in them all, the rock, as to final effect, on which they split and of which i shall presently speak, would be immeasurably less dissimulated. all this is the lesson of style, by which we here catch a writer in the very act of profiting after a curious double fashion. d’annunzio arrives at it both by expression and by material—that is, by a whole side of the latter; so that with such energy at once and such good fortune it would be odd indeed if he had not come far. it is verily in the very name and interest of beauty, of the lovely impression, that giorgio aurispa becomes homicidal in thought and finally in act.

she would in death become for me matter of thought, pure ideality. from a precarious and imperfect existence she would enter into an existence complete and definitive, forsaking forever the infirmity of her weak luxurious flesh. destroy to possess—there is no other way for him who seeks the absolute in love.

to these reflections he has been brought by the long, dangerous past which, as the author says, his connection with his mistress has behind it—a past of recriminations of which the ghosts still walk. “it dragged behind it, through time, an immense dark net, all full of dead things.” to quote here at all is always to desire to continue, and “il trionfo” abounds in the illustrative episodes that are ever made so masterfully concrete. offering in strictness, incidentally, the only exhibition in all the five volumes of a human relation other than the acutely sexual, it deals admirably enough with this opportunity when the hero pays his visit to his provincial parents before settling with his mistress at their hermitage. his people are of ancient race and have been much at their ease; but the home in the old apulian town, overdarkened by the misdeeds of a demoralised father, is on the verge of ruin, and the dull mean despair of it all, lighted by outbreaks of helpless rage on the part of the injured mother, is more than the visitor can bear, absorbed as he is in impatiences and concupiscences which make everything else cease to exist for him. his terror of the place and its troubles but exposes of course the abjection of his weakness, and the sordid squabbles, the general misery and mediocrity of life that he has to face, constitute precisely, for his personal design, the abhorred challenge of ugliness, the interference of a call other than erotic. he flees before it, leaving it to make shift as it can; but nothing could be more “rendered” in detail than his overwhelmed vision of it.

so with the other finest passages of the story, notably the summer day spent by the lovers in a long dusty dreadful pilgrimage to a famous local miracle-working shrine, where they mingle with the multitude of the stricken, the deformed, the hideous, the barely human, and from which they return, disgusted and appalled, to plunge deeper into consoling but too temporary transports; notably also the incident, masterly in every touch, of the little drowned contadino, the whole scene of the small starved dead child on the beach, in all the beauty of light and air and view, with the effusions and vociferations and grimnesses round him, the sights and sounds of the quasi-barbaric life that have the relief of antique rites portrayed on old tombs and urns, that quality and dignity of looming larger which a great feeling on the painter’s part ever gives to small things. with this ampler truth the last page of the book is above all invested, the description of the supreme moment—for some time previous creeping nearer and nearer—at which the delirious protagonist beguiles his vaguely but not fully suspicious companion into coming out with him toward the edge of a dizzy place over the sea, where he suddenly grasps her for her doom and the sense of his awful intention, flashing a light back as into their monstrous past, makes her shriek for her life. she dodges him at the first betrayal, panting and trembling.

“are you crazy?” she cried with wrath in her throat. “are you crazy?” but as she saw him make for her afresh in silence, as she felt herself seized with still harsher violence and dragged afresh toward her danger, she understood it all in a great sinister flash which blasted her soul with terror. “no, no, giorgio! let me go! let me go! another minute—listen, listen! just a minute! i want to say——!” she supplicated, mad with terror, getting herself free and hoping to make him wait, to put him off with pity. “a minute! listen! i love you! forgive me! forgive me!” she stammered incoherent words, desperate, feeling herself overcome, losing her ground, seeing death close. “murder!” she then yelled in her fury. and she defended herself with her nails, with her teeth, biting like a wild beast. “murder!” she yelled, feeling herself seized by the hair, felled to the ground on the edge of the precipice, lost. the dog meanwhile barked out at the scuffle. the struggle was short and ferocious, as between implacable enemies who had been nursing to this hour in the depths of their souls an intensity of hate. and they plunged into death locked together.

the wonder-working shrine of the abruzzi, to which they have previously made their way, is a local lourdes, the resort from far and wide of the physically afflicted, the evocation of whose multitudinous presence, the description of whose unimaginable miseries and ecstasies, grovelling struggles and supplications, has the mark of a pictorial energy for such matters not inferior to that of émile zola—to the degree even that the originality of the pages in question was, if i remember rightly, rather sharply impugned in paris. d’annunzio’s defence, however, was easy, residing as it does in the fact that to handle any subject successfully handled by zola (his failures are another matter) is quite inevitably to walk more or less in his footsteps, in prints so wide and deep as to leave little margin for passing round them. to which i may add that, though the judgment may appear odd, the truth and force of the young man’s few abject days at guardiagrele, his casa paterna, are such as to make us wish that other such corners of life were more frequent in the author’s pages. he has the supremely interesting quality in the novelist that he fixes, as it were, the tone of every cluster of objects he approaches, fixes it by the consistency and intensity of his reproduction. in “the virgins of the rocks” we have also a casa paterna, and a thing, as i have indicated, of exquisite and wonderful tone; but the tone here is of poetry, the truth and the force are less measurable and less familiar, and the whole question, after all, in its refined and attenuated form, is still that of sexual pursuit, which keeps it within the writer’s too frequent limits. giorgio aurispa, in “il trionfo,” lives in communion with the spirit of an amiable and melancholy uncle who had committed suicide and made him the heir of his fortune, and one of the nephew’s most frequent and faithful loyalties is to hark back, in thought, to the horror of his first knowledge of the dead man’s act, put before us always with its accompaniment of loud southern resonance and confusion. he is in the place again, he is in the room, at guardiagrele, of the original appalled vision.

he heard, in the stillness of the air and of his arrested soul, the small shrill of an insect in the wainscot. and the little fact sufficed to dissipate for the moment the extreme violence of his nervous tension, as the puncture of a needle suffices to empty a swollen bladder. every particular of the terrible day came back to his memory: the news abruptly brought to torretta di sarsa, toward three in the afternoon, by a panting messenger who stammered and whimpered: the ride on horseback, at lightning speed, under the canicular sky and up the torrid slopes, and, during the rush, the sudden faintnesses that turned him dizzy in his saddle; then the house at home, filled with sobs, filled with a noise of doors slamming in the general scare, filled with the strumming of his own arteries; and at last his irruption into the room, the sight of the corpse, the curtains inflated and rustling, the tinkle on the wall of the little font for holy water.

this young man’s great mistake, we are told, had been his insistence on regarding love as a form of enjoyment. he would have been in a possible relation to it only if he had learned to deal with it as a form of suffering. this is the lesson brought home to the heroine of “il fuoco,” who suffers indeed, as it seems to us, so much more than is involved in the occasion. we ask ourselves continually why; that is we do so at first; we do so before the special force of the book takes us captive and reduces us to mere charmed absorption of its successive parts and indifference to its moral sense. its defect is verily that it has no moral sense proportionate to the truth, the constant high style of the general picture; and this fact makes the whole thing appear given us simply because it has happened, because it was material that the author had become possessed of, and not because, in its almost journalistic “actuality,” it has any large meaning. we get the impression of a direct transfer, a “lift,” bodily, of something seen and known, something not really produced by the chemical process of art, the crucible or retort from which things emerge for a new function. their meaning here at any rate, extracted with difficulty, would seem to be that there is an inevitable leak of ease and peace when a mistress happens to be considerably older than her lover; but even this interesting yet not unfamiliar truth loses itself in the great poetic, pathetic, psychologic ceremonial.

that matters little indeed, as i say, while we read; the two sensibilities concerned bloom, in all the venetian glow, like wondrous water-plants, throwing out branches and flowers of which we admire the fantastic growth even while we remain, botanically speaking, bewildered. they are other sensibilities than those with which we ourselves have community—one of the main reasons of their appearing so i shall presently explain; and, besides, they are isolated, sequestrated, according to d’annunzio’s constant view of such cases, for an exclusive, an intensified and arid development. the mistress has, abnormally, none of the protection, the alternative life, the saving sanity of other interests, ties, employments; while the hero, a young poet and dramatist with an immense consciousness of genius and fame, has for the time at least only those poor contacts with existence that the last intimacies of his contact with his friend’s person, her poor corpo non più giovane, as he so frequently repeats, represent for him. it is not for us, however, to contest the relation; it is in the penetrating way again in which the relation is rendered that the writer has his triumph; the way above all in which the world-weary interesting sensitive woman, with her infinite intelligence, yet with her longing for some happiness still among all her experiments untasted, and her genius at the same time for familiar misery, is marked, featured, individualised for us, and, with the strangest art in the world—one of those mysteries of which great talents alone have the trick—at once ennobled with beauty and desecrated by a process that we somehow feel to be that of exposure, to spring from some violation of a privilege. “?‘do with me,’?” says the foscarina on a certain occasion, “?‘whatever you will’; and she smiled in her offered abjection. she belonged to him like the thing one holds in one’s fist, like the ring on one’s finger, like a glove, like a garment, like a word that may be spoken or not, like a draught that may be drunk or poured on the ground.” there are some lines describing an hour in which she has made him feel as never before “the incalculable capacity of the heart of man. and it seemed to him as he heard the beating of his own heart and divined the violence of the other beside him that he had in his ears the loud repercussion of the hammer on the hard anvil where human destiny is forged.” more than ever here the pitch of the personal drama is taken up by everything else in the scene—everything else being in fact but the immediate presence of venice, her old faded colour and old vague harmonies, played with constantly as we might play with some rosy fretted faintly-sounding sea-shell.

it would take time to say what we play with in the silver-toned “virgins of the rocks,” the history of a visit paid by a transcendent young man—always pretty much the same young man—to an illustrious family whose fortunes have tragically shrunken with the expulsion of the bourbons from the kingdom of naples, and the three last lovely daughters of whose house are beginning to wither on the stem, undiscovered, unsought, in a dilapidated old palace, an old garden of neglected pomp, a place of fountains and colonnades, marble steps and statues, all circled with hard bright sun-scorched volcanic scenery. they are tacitly candidates for the honour of the hero’s hand, and the subject of the little tale, which deals with scarce more than a few summer days, is the manner of their presenting themselves for his admiration and his choice. i decidedly name this exquisite composition as my preferred of the series; for if its tone is thoroughly romantic the romance is yet of the happiest kind, the kind that consists in the imaginative development of observable things, things present, significant, related to us, and not in a weak false fumble for the remote and the disconnected.

it is indeed the romantic mind itself that makes the picture, and there could be no better case of the absolute artistic vision. the mere facts are soon said; the main fact, above all, of the feeble remnant of an exhausted race waiting in impotence to see itself cease to be. the father has nothing personal left but the ruins of his fine presence and of his old superstitions, a handful of silver dust; the mother, mad and under supervision, stalks about with the delusion of imperial greatness (there is a wonderful page on her parading through the gardens in her rococo palanquin, like a byzantine empress, attended by sordid keepers, while the others are hushed into pity and awe); the two sons, hereditarily tainted, are virtually imbecile; the three daughters, candidly considered, are what we should regard in our anglo-saxon world as but the stuff of rather particularly dreary and shabby, quite unutterably idle old maids. nothing, within the picture, occurs; nothing is done or, more acutely than usual, than everywhere, suffered; it is all a mere affair of the rich impression, the complexity of images projected upon the quintessential spirit of the hero, whose own report is what we have—an affair of the quality of observation, sentiment and eloquence brought to bear. it is not too much to say even that the whole thing is in the largest sense but a theme for style, style of substance as well as of form. within this compass it blooms and quivers and shimmers with light, becomes a wonderful little walled garden of romance. the young man has a passage of extreme but respectful tenderness with each of the sisters in turn, and the general cumulative effect is scarcely impaired by the fact that “nothing comes” of any of these relations. too little comes of anything, i think, for any very marked human analogy, inasmuch as if it is interesting to be puzzled to a certain extent by what an action, placed before us, is designed to show or to signify, so we require for this refined amusement at least the sense that some general idea is represented. we must feel it present.

therefore if making out nothing very distinct in “le vergini” but the pictorial idea, and yet cleaving to the preference i have expressed, i let the anomaly pass as a tribute extorted by literary art, i may seem to imply that a book may have a great interest without showing a perfect sense. the truth is undoubtedly that i am in some degree beguiled and bribed by the particularly intense expression given in these pages to the author’s esthetic faith. if he is so supremely a “case” it is because this production has so much to say for it, and says it with such a pride of confidence, with an assurance and an elegance that fairly make it the last conceivable word of such a profession. the observations recorded have their origin in the narrator’s passionate reaction against the vulgarity of the day. all the writer’s young men react; but cantelmo, in the volume before us, reacts with the finest contempt. he is, like his brothers, a raffiné conservative, believing really, so far as we understand it, only in the virtue of “race” and in the grand manner. the blighted virgins, with all that surrounds them, are an affirmation of the grand manner—that is of the shame and scandal of what in an odious age it has been reduced to. it consists indeed of a number of different things which i may not pretend to have completely fitted together, but which are, with other elements, the sense of the supremacy of beauty, the supremacy of style and, last not least, of the personal will, manifested for the most part as a cold insolence of attitude—not manifested as anything much more edifying. what it really appears to come to is that the will is a sort of romantic ornament, the application of which, for life in the present and the future, remains awkwardly vague, though we are always to remember that it has been splendidly forged in the past. the will in short is beauty, is style, is elegance, is art—especially in members of great families and possessors of large fortunes. that of the hero of “le vergini” has been handed down to him direct, as by a series of testamentary provisions, from a splendid young ancestor for whose memory and whose portrait he has a worship, a warrior and virtuoso of the renaissance, the model of his spirit.

he represents for me the mysterious meaning of the power of style, not violable by any one, and least of all ever by myself in my own person.

and elsewhere:—

the sublime hands of violante [the beauty and interest of hands play a great part, in general, in the picture], pressing out in drops the essence of the tender flowers and letting them fall bruised to the ground, performed an act which, as a symbol, corresponded perfectly to the character of my style; this being ever to extract from a thing its very last scent of life, to take from it all it could give and leave it exhausted. was not this one of the most important offices of my art of life?

the book is a singularly rich exhibition of an inward state, the state of private poetic intercourse with things, the kind of current that in a given personal experience flows to and fro between the imagination and the world. it represents the esthetic consciousness, proud of its conquests and discoveries, and yet trying, after all, as with the vexed sense of a want, to look through other windows and eyes. it goes all lengths, as is of course indispensable on behalf of a personage constituting a case. “i firmly believe that the greatest sum of future dominion will be precisely that which shall have its base and its apex in rome”—such being in our personage the confidence of the “latin” spirit. does it not really all come back to style? it was to the latin spirit that the renaissance was primarily vouchsafed; and was not, for a simplified statement, the last word of the renaissance the question of taste? that is the esthetic question; and when the latin spirit after many misadventures again clears itself we shall see how all the while this treasure has been in its keeping. let us as frankly as possible add that there is a whole side on which the clearance may appear to have made quite a splendid advance with signor d’annunzio himself.

but there is another side, which i have been too long in coming to, yet which i confess is for me much the more interesting. no account of our author is complete unless we really make out what becomes of that esthetic consistency in him which, as i have said, our own collective and cultivated effort is so earnestly attempting and yet so pathetically, if not so grotesquely, missing. we are struck, unmistakably, early in our acquaintance with these productions, by the fact that their total beauty somehow extraordinarily fails to march with their beauty of parts, and that something is all the while at work undermining that bulwark against ugliness which it is their obvious theory of their own office to throw up. the disparity troubles and haunts us just in proportion as we admire; and our uneasy wonderment over the source of the weakness fails to spoil our pleasure only because such questions have so lively an interest for the critic. we feel ourselves somehow in presence of a singular incessant leak in the effect of distinction so artfully and copiously produced, and we apply our test up and down in the manner of the inquiring person who, with a tin implement and a small flame, searches our premises for an escape of gas. the bad smell has, as it were, to be accounted for; and yet where, amid the roses and lilies and pomegranates, the thousand essences and fragrances, can such a thing possibly be? quite abruptly, i think, at last (if we have been much under the spell) our test gives us the news, not unaccompanied with the shock with which we see our escape of gas spring into flame. there is no mistaking it; the leak of distinction is produced by a positive element of the vulgar; and that the vulgar should flourish in an air so charged, intellectually speaking, with the “aristocratic” element, becomes for us straightway the greatest of oddities and at the same time, critically speaking, one of the most interesting things conceivable.

the interest then springs from its being involved for us in the “case.” we recognise so many suggested consequences if the case is really to prove responsible for it. we ask ourselves if there be not a connection, we almost tremble lest there shouldn’t be; since what is more obvious than that, if a high example of exclusive estheticism—as high a one as we are likely ever to meet—is bound sooner or later to spring a leak, the general question receives much light? we recognise here the value of our author’s complete consistency: he would have kept his bottom sound, so to speak, had he not remained so long at sea. if those imperfect exponents of his faith whom we have noted among ourselves fail to flower, for a climax, in any proportionate way, we make out that they are embarrassed not so much by any force they possess as by a force—a force of temperament—that they lack. the anomaly i speak of presents itself thus as the dilemma in which signor d’annunzio’s consistency has inexorably landed him; and the disfigurement breaks out, strikingly enough, in the very forefront of his picture, at the point where he has most lavished his colour. it is where he has most trusted and depended that he is most betrayed, the traitor sharing certainly his tent and his confidence. what is it that in the interest of beauty he most elaborately builds on if not on the love-affairs of his heroes and heroines, if not on his exhibition of the free play, the sincere play, the play closely studied and frankly represented, of the sexual relation? it is round this exercise, for him, that expressible, demonstrable, communicable beauty prevailingly clusters; a view indeed as to which we all generously go with him, subject to the reserve for each of us of our own expression and demonstration. it is these things on his part that break down, it is his discrimination that falls short, and thereby the very kind of intellectual authority most implied by his pretension. there is according to him an immense amenity that can be saved—saved by style—from the general wreck and welter of what is most precious, from the bankruptcy determined more and more by our basely democratic conditions. as we watch the actual process, however, it is only to see the lifeboat itself founder. the vulgarity into which he so incongruously drops is, i will not say the space he allots to love-affairs, but the weakness of his sense of “values” in depicting them.

we begin to ask ourselves at an early stage what this queer passion may be in the representation of which the sense of beauty ostensibly finds its richest expression and which is yet attended by nothing else at all—neither duration, nor propagation, nor common kindness, nor common consistency with other relations, common congruity with the rest of life—to make its importance good. if beauty is the supreme need so let it be; nothing is more certain than that we can never get too much of it if only we get it of the right sort. it is therefore on this very ground—the ground of its own sufficiency—that signor d’annunzio’s invocation of it collapses at our challenge. the vulgarity comes from the disorder really introduced into values, as i have called them; from the vitiation suffered—that we should have to record so mean an accident—by taste, impeccable taste, itself. the truth of this would come out fully in copious examples, now impossible; but it is not too much to say, i think, that in every principal situation presented the fundamental weakness causes the particular interest to be inordinately compromised.

i must not, i know, make too much of “il piacere”—one of those works of promising youth with which criticism is always easy—and i should indeed say nothing of it if it were also a work of less ability. it really, however, to my mind, quite gives us the key, all in the morning early, to our author’s general misadventure. andrea sperelli is the key; donna maria is another key of a slightly different shape. they have neither of them the esthetic importance, any more than the moral, that their narrator claims for them and in his elaborate insistence on which he has so hopelessly lost his way. if they were important—by which i mean if they showed in any other light than that of their particular erotic exercise—they would justify the claim made for them with such superior art. they have no general history, since their history is only, and immediately and extravagantly, that of their too cheap and too easy romance. why should the career of the young man be offered as a sample of pathetic, of tragic, of edifying corruption?—in which case it might indeed be matter for earnest exhibition. the march of corruption, the insidious influence of propinquity, opportunity, example, the ravage of false estimates and the drama of sterilising passion—all this is a thinkable theme, thinkable especially in the light of a great talent. but for andrea sperelli there is not only no march, no drama, there is not even a weakness to give him the semblance of dramatic, of plastic material; he is solidly, invariably, vulgarly strong, and not a bit more corrupt at the end of his disorders than at the beginning. his erudition, his intellectual accomplishments and elevation, are too easily spoken for; no view of him is given in which we can feel or taste them. donna maria is scarcely less signal an instance of the apparent desire on the author’s part to impute a “value” defeated by his apparently not knowing what a value is. she is apparently an immense value for the occasions on which the couple secretly meet, but how is she otherwise one? and what becomes therefore of the beauty, the interest, the pathos, the struggle, or whatever else, of her relation—relation of character, of judgment, even of mere taste—to her own collapse? the immediate physical sensibility that surrenders in her is, as throughout, exquisitely painted; but since nothing operates for her, one way or the other, but that familiar faculty, we are left casting about us almost as much for what else she has to give as for what, in any case, she may wish to keep.

the author’s view of the whole matter of durations and dates, in these connections, gives the scale of “distinction” by itself a marked downward tilt; it confounds all differences between the trivial and the grave. giuliana, in “l’innocente,” is interesting because she has had a misadventure, and she is exquisite in her delineator’s view because she has repented of it. but the misadventure, it appears, was a matter but of a minute; so that we oddly see this particular romance attenuated on the ground of its brevity. given the claims of the exquisite, the attenuation should surely be sought in the very opposite quarter; since, where these remarkable affections are concerned, how otherwise than by the element of comparative duration do we obtain the element of comparative good faith, on which we depend for the element, in turn, of comparative dignity? andrea sperelli becomes in the course of a few weeks in rome the lover of some twenty or thirty women of fashion—the number scarce matters; but to make this possible his connection with each has but to last a day or two; and the effect of that in its order is to reduce to nothing, by vulgarity, by frank grotesqueness of association, the romantic capacity in him on which his chronicler’s whole appeal to us is based. the association rising before us more nearly than any other is that of the manners observable in the most mimetic department of any great menagerie.

the most serious relation depicted—in the sense of being in some degree the least suggestive of mere zoological sociability—is that of the lovers in “il fuoco,” as we also take this pair for their creator’s sanest and most responsible spirits. it is a question between them of an heroic affection, and yet the affection appears to make good for itself no place worth speaking of in their lives. it holds but for a scant few weeks; the autumn already reigns when the connection begins, and the connection is played out (or if it be not the ado is about nothing) with the first flush of the early italian spring. it suddenly, on our hands, becomes trivial, with all our own estimate of reasons and realities and congruities falsified. the foscarina has, on professional business, to “go away,” and the young poet has to do the same; but such a separation, so easily bridged over by such great people, makes a beggarly climax for an intercourse on behalf of which all the forces of poetry and tragedy have been set in motion. where then we ask ourselves is the weakness?—as we ask it, very much in the same way, in respect to the vulgarised aspect of the tragedy of giorgio aurispa. the pang of pity, the pang that springs from a conceivable community in doom, is in this latter case altogether wanting. directly we lift a little the embroidered mantle of that gift for appearances which plays, on signor d’annunzio’s part, such tricks upon us, we find ourselves put off, as the phrase is, with an inferior article. the inferior article is the hero’s poverty of life, which cuts him down for pathetic interest just as the same limitation in “il piacere” cuts down donna maria. presented each as victims of another rapacious person who has got the better of them, there is no process, no complexity, no suspense in their story; and thereby, we submit, there is no esthetic beauty. why shouldn’t giorgio aurispa go mad? why shouldn’t stelio effrena go away? we make the inquiry as disconcerted spectators, not feeling in the former case that we have had any communication with the wretched youth’s sanity, and not seeing in the latter why the tie of all the passion that has been made so admirably vivid for us should not be able to weather change.

nothing is so singular with d’annunzio as that the very basis and subject of his work should repeatedly go aground on such shallows as these. he takes for treatment a situation that is substantially none—the most fundamental this of his values, and all the more compromising that his immense art of producing illusions still leaves it exposed. the idea in each case is superficially specious, but where it breaks down is what makes all the difference. “il piacere” would have meant what it seems to try to mean only if a provision had been made in it for some adequate “inwardness” on the part either of the nature disintegrated or of the other nature to which this poisoned contact proves fatal. “l’innocente,” of the group, comes nearest to justifying its idea; and i leave it unchallenged, though its meaning surely would have been written larger if the attitude of the wife toward her misbegotten child had been, in face of the husband’s, a little less that of the dumb detached animal suffering in her simplicity. as a picture of such suffering, the pain of the mere dumb animal, the work is indeed magnificent; only its connections are poor with the higher dramatic, the higher poetic, complexity of things.

i can only repeat that to make “the triumph of death” a fruitful thing we should have been able to measure the triumph by its frustration of some conceivable opportunity at least for life. there is a moment at which we hope for something of this kind, the moment at which the young man pays his visit to his family, who have grievous need of him and toward whom we look to see some one side or other of his fine sensibility turn. but nothing comes of that for the simple reason that the personage is already dead—that nothing exists in him but the established fear of life. he turns his back on everything but a special sensation, and so completely shuts the door on the elements of contrast and curiosity. death really triumphs, in the matter, but over the physical terror of the inordinate woman; a pang perfectly communicated to us, but too small a surface to bear the weight laid on it, which accordingly affects us as that of a pyramid turned over on its point. it is throughout one of d’annunzio’s strongest marks that he treats “love” as a matter not to be mixed with life, in the larger sense of the word, at all—as a matter all of whose other connections are dropped; a sort of secret game that can go on only if each of the parties has nothing to do, even on any other terms, with any one else.

i have dwelt on the fact that the sentimental intention in “il fuoco” quite bewilderingly fails, in spite of the splendid accumulation of material. we wait to the end to see it declare itself, and then are left, as i have already indicated, with a mere meaningless anecdote on our hands. brilliant and free, each freighted with a talent that is given us as incomparable, the parties to the combination depicted have, for their affection, the whole world before them—and not the simple terraqueous globe, but that still vaster sphere of the imagination in which, by an exceptionally happy chance, they are able to move together on very nearly equal terms. a tragedy is a tragedy, a comedy is a comedy, when the effect, in either sense, is determined for us, determined by the interference of some element that starts a complication or precipitates an action. as in “il fuoco” nothing whatever interferes—or nothing certainly that need weigh with the high spirits represented—we ask why such precious revelations are made us for nothing. admirably made in themselves they yet strike us as, esthetically speaking, almost cruelly wasted.

this general remark would hold good, as well, of “le vergini,” if i might still linger, though its application has already been virtually made. anatolia, in this tale, the most robust of the three sisters, declines marriage in order to devote herself to a family who have, it would certainly appear, signal need of her nursing. but this, though it sufficiently represents her situation, covers as little as possible the ground of the hero’s own, since he, quivering intensely with the treasure of his “will,” inherited in a straight line from the cinque-cento, only asks to affirm his sublimated energy. the temptation to affirm it erotically, at least, has been great for him in relation to each of the young women in turn; but it is for anatolia that his admiration and affection most increase in volume, and it is accordingly for her sake that, with the wonderful moral force behind him (kept as in a florentine casket,) we most look to see him justified. he has a fine image—and when has the author not fine images?—to illustrate the constant readiness of this possession. the young woman says something that inspires him, whereupon, “as a sudden light playing over the dusky wall of a room causes the motionless sword in a trophy to shine, so her word drew a great flash from my suspended volontà. there was a virtue in her,” the narrator adds, “which could have produced portentous fruit. her substance might have nourished a superhuman germ.” in spite of which it never succeeds in becoming so much as a question that his affection for her shall act, that this grand imagination in him shall operate, that he himself is, in virtue of such things, exactly the person to come to her aid and to combine with her in devotion. the talk about the volontà is amusing much in the same way as the complacency of a primitive man, unacquainted with the uses of things, who becomes possessed by some accident of one of the toys of civilisation, a watch or a motor-car. and yet artistically and for our author the will has an application, since without it he could have done no rare vivid work.

here at all events we put our finger, i think, on the very point at which his esthetic plenitude meets the misadventure that discredits it. we see just where it “joins on” with vulgarity. that sexual passion from which he extracts such admirable detached pictures insists on remaining for him only the act of a moment, beginning and ending in itself and disowning any representative character. from the moment it depends on itself alone for its beauty it endangers extremely its distinction, so precarious at the best. for what it represents, precisely, is it poetically interesting; it finds its extension and consummation only in the rest of life. shut out from the rest of life, shut out from all fruition and assimilation, it has no more dignity than—to use a homely image—the boots and shoes that we see, in the corridors of promiscuous hotels, standing, often in double pairs, at the doors of rooms. detached and unassociated these clusters of objects present, however obtruded, no importance. what the participants do with their agitation, in short, or even what it does with them, that is the stuff of poetry, and it is never really interesting save when something finely contributive in themselves makes it so. it is this absence of anything finely contributive in themselves, on the part of the various couples here concerned, that is the open door to the trivial. i have said, with all appreciation, that they present the great “relation,” for intimacy, as we shall nowhere else find it presented; but to see it related, in its own turn, to nothing in the heaven above or the earth beneath, this undermines, we definitely learn, the charm of that achievement.

and so it is, strangely, that our esthetic “case” enlightens us. the only question is whether it be the only case of the kind conceivable. may we not suppose another with the elements differently mixed? may we not in imagination alter the proportions within or the influences without, and look with cheerfulness for a different issue? need the esthetic adventure, in a word, organised for real discovery, give us no more comforting news of success? are there not, so to speak, finer possible combinations? are there not safeguards against futility that in the example before us were but too presumably absent? to which the sole answer probably is that no man can say. it is signor d’annunzio alone who has really sailed the sea and brought back the booty. the actual case is so good that all the potential fade beside it. it has for it that it exists, and that, whether for the strength of the original outfit or for the weight of the final testimony, it could scarce thinkably be bettered.