218 Mr. Arthur C. Benson [Jan. 26, 



ment ; and I feel myself little doubt that Pater abandoned the book 

 because he felt that Gaston was lacking in personality, and that he 

 had chosen a time too crowded with influences and types. There is 

 much that is beautiful in the book, but it is lacking in structure and 

 coherence, and even in vitality. 



Pater was also slowly accumulating the sections of a book on which 

 he set a high value— P/«^o and Flatonism. Much of this had been 

 deUvered in the form of lectures, and it is curious that when he was 

 once asked which of his books he thought most likely to live, by 

 which his name would be known, he replied that he had little doubt 

 it would be his Plato and Flatonism. He intended it to be a useful, 

 an educational book, and I can conceive of no more stimulating 

 volume to put in the hands of a young and eager scholar, upon whom 

 the significance and beauty of Greek life are beginning to dawn ; one 

 feels that the writer has penetrated and interpreted the spirit of the 

 time in a wonderful way ; but the philosophy is held by some to be 

 unorthodox, and the view of Plato to be coloured by Pater's own 

 personality. Still, the book does undoubtedly present an enchanting 

 picture of the sensitive and ardent soul of that great imaginative 

 writer, Plato, who may be called rather the creator of the romance of 

 thought than the inventor of a philosophical system. 



One other little essay of rather earlier date deserves a special 

 mention. This is the Essay on Style, which appeared in 1888. It is 

 a deliberate manifesto of his own artistic aims ; it is an intricate and 

 subtle piece of writing, but it is worth careful study by anyone who 

 desires to penetrate Pater's theory of art. The essence of the situa- 

 tion is, according to Pater, that a writer should start with a firm 

 conception of the structure of his creation ; he must realise that the 

 first condition of interesting others is that he should be himself 

 interested, and then the manipulation of his subject is to be like the 

 engraving of a gem, with firm and delicate strokes, till the last speck 

 of lucent dust is blown away from the subtle curves of the design. 



But there is a further matter still. However firm the structure may 

 be, however delicate the workmanship, however patient the labour, 

 there may still be lacking the one essential charm— the charm i of 

 personality. It is not enough just to transcribe the object which the 

 artist sees, however faithfully ; he must give his own sense of it ; and 

 here. Pater would hold, lies the difference between talent and genius 

 — talent may exhibit all the virtues of flawless work, but genius alone, 

 in varying degree, can infuse into the picture that sense of charm, 

 interest, attractiveness — that subtle thing which makes one sometimes 

 feel in looking at a great work of art, that it is significant of far-off 

 wonderful things, tliat it deals with larger issues, that it opens a door 

 into a world whicli lies all about us, unseen too often and unsuspected, 

 but which is certainly there, and is full to the brim of a force and 

 a divinity which will notj clamorously make itself known, but waits 

 smilingly for us to enter in. 



