TŌKYŌ, December, 1890.
DEAR PROFESSOR,--I have just finished the reading of your "Origins of
Art." ... Some years ago I remember that I wanted very much to produce
an ideal essay upon the "ghostliness" of fine art,--the element of
_thrill_ common to all forms of it: painting, sculpture, music, or
architecture. The notion is not original, I suppose,--but it came to
me with such an intensity that I imagined a general truth behind it.
This was the possible fact that no existing æsthetic sentiment had a
primarily æsthetic origin, and that all such sentiment must simply
represent emotional accumulation,--organic memory or inherited tendency.
But I could not develop my notion judiciously. Your fine book shows me
how such things should have been done, and it expresses convictions and
ideas which I lacked the scientific training to utter consistently.
I found a particular satisfaction in your critique of the Darwinian
hypothesis as to sexual æsthetic sensibility in animals and birds.
Though I am an "extreme" evolutionist, this hypothesis always seemed to
me essentially wrong,--essentially opposed to the facts of psychical
evolution. You have more than convinced me of what I suspected. Also I
think that, even while occasionally diverging from Spencer's views, you
have reënforced his main positions, and shed fresh light upon various
shadowy regions of the new psychology. I liked very much your treatment
of the difficult topic of pleasure-pain: indeed, I like the whole book
more than I feel able to tell you.
My own slight knowledge of these matters is based chiefly upon a study
of Spencer. Although I have played "æsthetically" with metaphysical
ideas in my books, I believe that I have a fair knowledge of the whole
system of Synthetic Philosophy, and that I may call myself a disciple
of its author. Therefore,--or rather by reason of this private study
only,--can I presume even to discuss your work as an admirer. You
place the study of æsthetics upon a purely natural and common-sense
basis, even while considering its multiple aspects; and I am persuaded
that this must be the system of the future. Psychophysics and
psycho-dynamics have of late years been applied to æsthetic problems
with the naked result of leaving the main question exactly where it was
before, or of landing the student in a _cul-de-sac_; and I imagine that
much intellectual labour has been wasted in such paths merely through
cowardice of conventions. It is a delight to meet with a book like this,
in which science quietly ignores cant, and opens a new clearing through
the blinding maze of mediæval cobwebs. Again, I must say that a more
lucid, strong, and pleasing style I have not found in any modern work on
æsthetics.
I want, however, to make a small protest about the second paragraph on
page 233. Perhaps in the second edition you might think it worth your
while to modify the statement as to the "gross" character of Japanese
dancing. I should question the fairness of classing together--except
as to probable emotional origins--Asiatic and African dances (i.e.
_negro_ dances). But I shall speak of the Japanese dances only. To
make any general statement about anything Japanese is always risky;
for customs here (differing in every province and every period)
exhibit a most bewildering variety. It is not correct to say that
the dancing is performed by "outcast women" mostly; for there are
many respectable forms of dancing. The _maiko_ is not perhaps a very
respectable person;--but the _miko_, or Shintō priestesses (daughters
of priests), certainly are worthy of all respect. Well, there are the
temple-dances, before the old gods,--the dances of children at the
temples upon holidays,--the dances of the peasants, etc., etc. None of
these could be called gross,--however amorous their origin. Men dance as
well as women: all children dance; and in some conservative provinces
dancing is a part of female education. To come back to the _maiko_ or
_geisha_, however, let me assure you that although some of their dances
may be passionally mimetic, even the passionate acting could not be
termed "gross" with justice: on the contrary it is a very delicate bit
of refined acting,--acting of eyes and lips and hands,--which requires
a sharp eye to follow. There are in Japan, as everywhere else, dances
that would not bear severe moral criticism; but the fine forms of
Oriental dancing are really dramatic performances,--silent monologues of
a most artistic kind.--Perhaps you will be interested in a book which
an acquaintance of mine, Mr. Osman Edwards, is bringing out through Mr.
Heinemann of London, "The Theatre in Japan." The fact of the old lyric
drama seems to me to call for a modification of the statement on page
233. Of course I am not questioning the suggestion of origins.
Excuse these hasty and insufficient expressions of appreciation. Now to
the question of a former letter received from you, on the subject of a
selection of papers translated from various books of mine, by Mrs. Hirn.
You have my full consent to publish such a translation.... I should
certainly accept no pay either from translator or publisher; and a
single copy of such translation, when published, would be favour
enough....
On the subject of a photograph and biographical notice, however, will
you not excuse me for saying that I do not think the circumstances
justify such an introduction to a strange public?...
With renewed thanks for your most precious book, believe me, dear
Professor, very sincerely yours,