A Study in W.S.Maugham's View Freedom for Artists

The Society of English Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

The Society ofEnglish Studies

38

A Study in W.S.Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for ArtistsEspecially as Seen in The Moon and Simpence

MasayoMuraoka

Abstract

What Stroeve is explaining is `art

ior art's sake.' Stroeve seemsto be creating in himself his own world where views of things

depend on different values, and common sense is almost never

understood. In this regard, Strickland and Stroeve have common

ideas, although they thernselves are quite different. This is one of

the factors which migtht indicate that Maugham is reflected inboth Strickland and Stroeve.

Freedom of mind may have been the ultimate end for Strick-land, though it is extremely difficult for artists in general. There-fore, it is vital for Strickland to leave his mind completely

unrestricted.

Maugham believes that one's life is satisfactory enough if he issatisfied with it. It seems to me that Maugham finds very human

and wonderful the way Strickland, an eccentric man who has

violent and brutal nature but has something spiritual in him,

weaves his pattern of life until he dies in Tahiti.

I ) On Paul Gauguin and the Artists around him

Charles Strickland is not Paul Gauguin, but Maugham has written a

fictional life of Paul Gauguin, 7nhe Moon and Smpence. So I won't mention

about the relation between Gauguin and Strickland in this chapter, but it

is clear this novel was written by the aid of the suggestion from the life



The Society ofEnglishStudies

A Study in W,S,Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 39

of Paul Gauguin, who belongs to postimpressionist. I think it necessary to

refer to the painting world in the age of Paul Gauguin a little. Then I'11

pick out the referable part from Modern dempean Art, Alan Bowness.

Inevitably the dissatisfaction with their own work that all the impres-

sionist painters felt in the 1880s was reflected in the next generation.

For Seurat, Van Gogh and Gauguin, the painting of Monet and his

friends represented a final phase of naturalism which was inadequate

to the demands of the time. They all became critical of a certain

triviality in the matter and manner of the new painting of.the 1870s,

and were convinced that something more fundamental, more pro-

found, should take its place.

It was not clear, however, what the alternative should be, and in the

later 1880s the avant-garde divided into two sometimes very hostile

factions. Seurat and Gauguin were the respective Ieaders: neo-impres-

sionist (or divisionist, or pointillist) and synthetist (or symbolist, or

cloissonist) were the labels attached to thetn and to their followers

and associates. But the antagonism was essentially one of personal

antipathy and rivalry, and in some respects the two rnen had common

ground. The greatest artist of this generation, Vicent van Gogh,

refused to commit himself entirely to the practices or beliefs of either.

...This was a conviction which Seurat shared with his erstwhile rival,

Paul Gauguin (1848-1903). Long before he was able to make any

practical use of his ideas, Gauguin too was thinking about the

abstract significance of lines, numbers, colours and shapes.Ci)

The next quotation is the letter which Gauguin wrote to his friend EmileSchuffenecker on 14 January 1885. As he says about five senses, Iines,

colours, and etc. in this letter, I'll quote the part and finish this section

here.

`AII five senses, on which a multiplicity of things have impressed

themselves in such a way as to be indelible, communicate directly

with the brain. From this fact I conclude that there are lines which are




40 Masayo Muraol{a

noble, others which are misleading, etc., a straight line creates infin-

ity, a curve limits creation, not to speak of the fatality of numbers.

Have we talked enough about the numbers 3 and 7? Colours, though

less diverse than lines, nevertheless more explanatory by virtue of

their power over the eye. There are tonalities which are noble and

others which are vulgar, harmonies which are calm or consoling, and

others which are exciting because of thier boldness.'(2)

In conclusion, Paul Gauguin (1848-1903), Georges Seurat (1859-1891),Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) and Paul Cezanne (1839-1906), the greatcontemporary artists of this group, represent a vast range of diversified

explorations, but together they embody direct sources of most of the ideas

and attitudes of twentieth-century painting, I suppose.

II) Before the Liberation of Mind In Civilized Societies

In ( lf Hhrman Bonduge, which is said to be Maugham's autobiographi-

cal novel, Clutton is studying painting with Philip in Paris. One day Philip

asks Clutton to make comments on his paintings during a meal. Clutton

says the following response to Philip's request:

`People

ask you for criticism, but they only want praise. Besides,

what's the good of criticism? What does it matter if your picture is

good or bad?'`It

matters to me.'

`No.

The only reason that one paints is that one can't help it. It's afunction like any of the other functions of the body., only comparative-

ly few people have got it. One paints for oneself: otherwise one would

commit suicide.

...a great painter forces the world to see nature as he sees it; but in the

next generation another painter sees the world in another way, and

then the public judges him not by himself but by his predecessor....But trees aren't like that. It never struck them that trees are exactly

how a painter chooses to see them. We paint from within outwards-




A Study in W.S.Maugham's View on Freedorn of Mind for Artists 41

if we foree our vision on the world it calls us great painters; if we don't

it ignores us; but we are the same. We dont attach any meaning to

greatness or to smallness. What happens to our work afterwards is

unimportant; we have got all we could out of it while we were doing

it' (3)

What draws my attention the most in this quotation is the next sentence

of a few words;

The only reason that one paints is that one can't help it,

This explains very well Strickland's almost abnormal passion for

painting and also Strickland's life. In 7'7ze Moon and Siepence, Amy,

Strickland's wife, asks "I"

te bring Strickland back from Paris. When "I"

meets Strickland and presses him for an answer, Strickland does not have

any other woman or any complaint about his wife. Strickland's answer is

just the following;

Ì

want to paint.'(4)

This is a very simple answer of only four words, but these four words

have profound meaning. They represent Strickland's true motive, his

theme and the key sentence in T7ze Moon and Smpence, one of Maugham's

masterpieces. In order to understand his true thoughts, I would like to cite

the conversation between "I" and Strickland:

`What makes you think you have any talent?'

He did not answer for a minute. His gaze rested on the passing

throng, but I do not think he saw it. His answer was no answer.

Ì've

got to paint.'Àren't

you taking an awful chance?'

He looked at me then. His eyes had something strange in them, so

that I felt rather uncomfortable.[How

old are you? Twenty-three?'




42 Masayo Muraoka

It seemed to me that the question was beside the point. It was

natural that I should take chances; but he was a man whose youth was

past, a stockbroker with a position of respectability, a wife and two

children. A course that would have been natural for me was absurd

for him.Iwished to be quite fair.

;Of

course a miracle may happen, and you may be a great painter,

but you must confess the chances are a rnillion to one against it. It'11

be an awful sell if at the end you have to acknowledge you've made

,a hash of it.'

`I've

got to paint,' he repeated,(5)

To all of "I's"

question, Strickland only repeats the same answer,

`I've

got to paint.' After that, Strickland reveals his feelings as

follows:

[I

tell you I've got to paint. I can't help myself. When a man falls into

the water it doesn't matter how he swims, well or badly: he's got to

get out or else he'11 drown.'(6)

"I"

is moved by the passion in Strickland's voice. Strickland's fame of

mind may be like the `drowning

man will catch at a straw.'

It is often said that when a mountaineer is asked why he climbs a

mountain, he answers `because

it is there.'

This seems to be similar to Strickland's way of thinking, but Strick-land's way of life is even more amazing than that of a mountaineer.

Stricklalnd's way of life is thought to be that of Maugham's views toward

art. Maugham actually says the following oii art in T7ze Stzmming (L(b:

Art, art for art's sake, was the only thing that mattered in the world;

and the artist alone gave this ridiculous world significance.C')

This idea may have been influenced by the aesthetes at the end of the

nineteenth century including W. Pater or O. Wilde. Strickland does not

care for making sacrifices of other people and tries to live in his own way.

Maugham seems to sympathize with or praise the way of Strickland




A Study in W.S.Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artjsts 43

whom Maugham created.

So, what is Maugham's view toward beauty? He makes Mary say the

following about beauty in T7ze Me7Ty-Go-Round (1905, when Maugham

was thirty years old):

`You

always had a weakness for goodlooking men, Mary,' answered

Miss Langton, smiling.`Beauty

is quite the most irnportant thing in the world, my dear...'(8}

He also makes a knight say the following about beauty in his last novel

Ctzinlina (in 1948, when he was seventy-three years old):

For the eternal and the beautiful are one.(9]

This seems to correspond with what John Keats says in the first verse

of the first volume of his Endymion (1818), that is, as follows:

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:Its loveliness increases; it will never

Pass into nothingness;(iO}

Maugham, however, denies Keat's idea of `joy

for ever' in A liPV'iter's

IVbteboole (1941). He believes that beauty awakens a particular feeling at

a particular moment.

Here I have tried to illustrate Maugham's idea of bea'uty using his early

works and his last novel. Judging from all his novels, he may think of

beauty as an `important

thing' or a `precious

thing.' Moreover, this view

toward beauty seems to be consistent throughout his life.

The above is Maugham's view of beauty. `Beauty'

for French is Beaute

and Sch6nheit, das Sh6ne are that for German. The word `beauty'

has two

meanings; in a narrow sense, it means literally the state of being beautiful

or lovely. In wider sense it is synonymous with `aesthetic.'

It includes not

only visual beauty, but also all the categories of aesthetic phenomena,

including spiritual value. The O.E.D. gives the following definition:




44 MasayoMuraoka

1 . Such combined perfection of form and charm of colouring as

affords keen pleasure to the sense of sight.

2. That quality or combination of qualities which affords keen

pleasure to other senses (e.g. that of hearing), or which charms

the intellectual or moral faculties, through inherent grace, or

fitness to a desired end;...

There are several main characteristics of beauty; it is conclusive,

harmonious, concrete, contemplative, comfortable, creative and so on. As

for painting, which appeals to the sense of sight, I myself think of beauty

as this doesn't mean anything, but `creativity with harmony,' which means

continuously producing new forms of marked individuality by creative

activities originated in the center of one's self. However, as a view of

beauty completely depends on the person, it can not be defined so easily.

In 7')l2e Moon and SitiPence, Dirk Stroeve is described as a comical

person rather than a tragic person. His paintings lack originality, but he

has discerning eye, Before Strickland's paintings are recognized by his

peers, picture dealers or critics, Stroeve already notices originality

in Strickland's pictures. Dirk Stroeve also becomes the other self of

Maugham. Maugham makes him say the following about beauty:

`Why

should you think that beauty, which is the most precious thing

in the world, lies like a stone on the beach for the careless passer-by

to pick up idly?

Beauty is something wonderful and strange that the artist fashions

out of the chaos of the world in the torment of his soul.'"i)

Five years after the separation of Mr. and Mrs. Strickland, Stroeve

takes "I"

to a cafe in Paris where "I"

sees Strickland playing chess.

Strickland's appearance then is like the following:

He gave me an extraordinary impression as he sat there, his attention

riveted on his game-an impression of great strength; and I could not




A Study in W,S.Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 45

understand why it was that his emaciation somehow made it more

striking.(i2)

After the chess partner and Stroeve are gone, "I"

talks to Strickland.

The following is their conversation:

`Dirk Stroeve thinks you're a great artist.'

`What the hell do you supposeIcare?'

`Will you let me see your pictures?'

`Why should I?i

Ì

might feel inclined to buy one.'

Ì might not feel inclined to sell one.'

Àre you making a good living?' I asked smiling. He chuckled.

`Do I look it?'

`You look half starved.'

Ì am half starved.'{i3)

An artist with great talent is often an incompetent or strange, eccentric

person with an image of being sacrificed by tragic fate. Strickland paints

only for his own sake without paying attention to how the other people

see his pictures. Therefore, he never has the intention of selling his

pictures even on the verge of starva･tion. Maugham says the following

about this type of genius in the 1892 section of A Wn'ter's iVbtebook:

Genius is talent provided with ideals. Genius starves while talent

wears purple and fine line.(i4)

When ìl"

asks him why Strickland does not participate in an exhibition

to receive other's criticism, Strickland says the following:

`Would you?'

`Don't you want fame? It's something that most artists haven't been

indifferent to.'`Children.

How can you care for the opinion of the crowd, when you

NII-Electronic




46 MasayoMuraoka

don't care twopence for the opinion of the individual?'

...`Why do you mind if you paint well or badly?'`I

don't. I only want to paint what I see.'Ci5)

Here Strickland does not care for worldly things and only says that he

wants to paint. After reading this novel many times, although I can not

say that I understand it fully, I myself feel attracted to his purity as an

artist, always pursuing his dream assertively.

Maugham probably wanted to describe through Strickland the image ofan artist who is as free from social framework as unstable in reality. Bycreating Dirk Stroeve, an ordinary artist, for contrast, he may have

intended to emphasize Strickland's greatness as an artist and to make the

reader understand or sympathize with him.

In addition inventing Stroeve, Maugham makes this novel real.

Although Strickland dominates 7]Vze Moon and Smpence and although

he is a man unlike and apart from ordinary humanity, "the novel has

a remarkable reality, much due to the drawing of the minor

characters."a6)

According to `Somerset Maugham's Story of a Genius,' IVlaw Ybrk

Times Boofe Review,3 Aug. 1919, it is described like the above.

`I

wonder if I could write on a desert island, with the certainty that no

eyes but mine would ever see what I had written.'

Strickland did not speak for a long time, but his eyes shone strangely,

as though he saw something that kindled his soul to ecstasy.`Sometimes

I've thought of an island lost in a boundless sea, where Icould live in some hidden valley, among strange trees, in silence,

There I think I could find what I want.'(i7)

In the above passage Maugham skillfully suggests what Strickland's

idea might be of going to Tahiti and creating a masterpiece there.

When Stroeve hears that Strickland is seriously ill, he asks his wife




A Study in W.S,Maugharn's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 47

Blanche to take care of Strickland. Blanche first refuses his offer, but

Stroeve, who recognizes Strickland's originality in art, says the following

to Blanche:

`He's

a great artist.'

...Dear child, he has genius. You don't think I believe that I have it. I

wish I had; but I know it when I see it, and I honour it with all my

heart. It's the most wonderful thing in the world. It's a great burden

to its possessors. We should be very tolerant with them, and very

Patient.' (i8)

The expression `He's

a great artist' in the above quotation is oftenused in this novel. In Chapter XIX, Maugham has Stroeve say this

sentence three times. Moreover, Maugham emphasizes that Strickland is

a genius, and shows his great respect for genius."Genius," which is

thought to be the key word in T7ze moon and Smpence, is noticeably

repeated; eighteen times in the whole novel, and words like "talent" or

"gift"

(which may be in essence different from genius) are also used over

and over again. Here I would like to make clear the meaning of "genius"

according to the definition in the O. E. D., 5:

Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as is attributed to

those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art, specula-

tion, or practice; instinctive and extraordinary capacity for imagina-

tive creation, original thought, invention. or discovery.

...The difference between genius and talent has been formulated very

variously by different writers, but there is general agreement in

regarding the former as the higher of the two, as `creative'

and

`original',

and as achieving its results by instinctive perception and

spontaneous activity, rather than by processes which admit of being

distinctly analyzed.

Maugham seems to admire a genius with `creative'

and `original'

sub-

stance. That is why Maugham has Stroeve recognize Strickland's genius




48 MasayoMuraoka

and has him forgive Strickland even though Strickland has driven his wife

Blanche to suicide. Stroeve tells "I" that he has decided to return home to

Holland, and says the following:

Àrt

is the greatest thing in the world.'(i9)

After the burial of Blanche, Stroeve goes back to his apartment and

finds a nude painting of her there. Stroeve normally an excessively good-natured

person, gets jealous this time, His first impulse is to tear up the

painting, but he sees something in it. This is the conversation between

Stroeve and "I":

Ì

don't know what happened to me. I was just going to make a great

hole in the picture, I had my arm all ready for the blow, when

suddenlyIseemed to see it.'

`See

what?'

`The

picture. It was a work of art. I couldn't touch it. I was afraid,'(20}

Stroeve, an adorer of art, is moved by the nude painting because of itsartistic value. He is afraid and can not even touch it, because it is such a

work of art. He gives priority to art over jealousy and the judgement of

right and wrong. He reflects on giving thought of tearing it up, and says

as follows:

Ìt

was a great, a wonderful picture. I was seized with awe. I had

nearly cornmitted a dreadful crime. I moved a little to see it better,

and my foot knocked against the scraper. I shuddered.'<2')

Hearing this reminiscence of Stroeve, "I" says the following:

...Ìt was as though I were suddenly transported into a world in which

the values were changed.'(22)

What he is explaining is àrt

for art's sake.' Stroeve seems to be




A Study in W.S,Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind fer Artists 49

creating in himself his own world where views of things depend on

different values, and cemmon sense is almost never understood. In this

regard, Strickland and Stroeve have common ideas, although they them-

selves are quite different. This is one of the factors which might indicate

that Maugham is reflected in both Strickland and Stroeve. "I"

further

says the following:

...Strickland had burst the bonds that hitherto had held him. He had

found, not himself, as the phrase goes, but a new soul with unsus-

pected powers.(23)

Freedom of mind may have been the ultimate end for Strickland,

though it is extremely difficult for artists in general, Therefore, it is vital

for Strickland to leave his mind completely unrestricted.

Strickland asks "I"

to go to see Strickland's pictures. At that tirne "I"

says that he sees that Strickland's inner self is different from his appear-

ance.

I stared at hirn. He stood before me, motionless, with a mocking smile

in his eyes; but for all that, for a moment I had an inkling of a fiery,

tortured spirit, aiming at something greater than could be conceived

by anything that was bound up with the flesh. I had a fleeting glimpse

of a pursuit of the ineffable. I looked at the man before me in his

shabby clothes, with his great nose and shining eyes, his red beard and

untidy hair; and I had a strange sensation that it was only an enve-

lope, and I was in the presence of a disembodied spirit.{2`)

Here "I",

who is thought to represent Maugham, admires Stricklandalmost fanatically as a

`disembodied spirit.'

"I" is guided to Strickland's

apartment and sees almost thirty paintings of Strickland's. The pictures

are crude in technique and unrefined in coloration. It cannot be said that

"I" is net impressed at all with the paintings, but he is relatively unimpres-

sed by what only art can give. "I"

says the following about his impressions

of the pictures:




50 MasayoMuraoka

...I felt that these pictures had something to say to me that was very

important for me to know, but I could not tell what it was. Theyseemed to me ugly, but they suggested without disclosing a secret of

momentous significance. They were strangely tantalizing. They gaveme an emotion thatI could not analyse. They said something thatwords were powerless to utter. I fancy that Strickland saw vaguely

some spiritual meaning in material things that was so strange that hecould only suggest it with halting symbols. It was as though he foundin the chaos of the universe a new pattern, and were attempting

clumsily, with anguish of soul, to set it down. I saw a tormented spirit

striving for the release of expression.(25)

Strickland reproduces not only the visible world but also tries to turn

his eyes to such things as the invisible world, one's inner world or one's

soul. By doing this, he has tasted the agony of death while searching forfreedom of expression.

Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), a Romanist artist, says something likethe following about one's inner feelings:

One's spirit has inner feelings which cannot be satisfied by things in thereal world. What can give form and life to these feelings is only the

imagination of an artist or a poet.

Therefore, pictures painted by such an artist are not only beautiful, butthey contain poems and thoughts as well, expressed by paintbrushes. The

pictures, as a result, can convey the artist's feelings or thoughts just likebooks do.

Quintus Horatius FIaccus (65-8 B. C.), a Roman poet, says the following

about the relationship between paintings and poems in Hbrace SketiresE]Pistles and Ars Poetica:

Ut pictura poesis: erit quae, si propius stes, te capiat magis, et

quaedam, si longius abstes.

haec amat obscurum, volet haec sub luce videri, indicis argutum quae

non formidat acumen; haec placuit semel, haec deciens repetita




A Study in W.S.Maugham's View en Freedom ef Mind fer Artists 51

placebit.

A poem is like a picture: one strikes your fancy more, the nearer you

stand; another, the farther away. This courts the shade, that will wish

to be seen in the light, and dreads not the critic insight of the judge.This pleased but once; that, though ten times called for, will always

please.C26)

The similarity, however, does net mean that they are completely the

same, and Horatius tried to explain the respective characteristics of both

paintings and poems. Kenneth Clark (1903-83) also says the following

about the same relationship in Moments of Vision:

The poet must translate his heightened perception into words and

audible rhythms and so from the very first he is influenced by verbal

and rhythmic necessities.

...Painting, on the other hand, begins and ends in the visible; and the

intensity of a self-confirming perception may be so closely bound up

with aesthetic perception in general that we can hardly distinguish

one from the other. Constable, the most Wordsworthian of painters,

was certainly moved by `willows,

old rotten planks, slirny posts and

brickwork] in the same all-absorbing manner as the poet. His letters,

no less than his sketches, leave us in no doubt of that. But the

emotions they aroused in his became a part of his visual appetite for

everything in nature, and in his greatest paintings the impulse of the

first vision is sustained throughout the whole. Even when certain

features in a painter's work stand out and present themselves to us as

records of heightened intensity, they have not been seen by chance,

the eye wandering where it will, as a poet's may, but have been

selected in conformity with what we can only call the artist's whole

rhythmic organisation.(27)

Maugham also says the following in 7'lhe S2tmming C?IZ) from the writer's

point of view:




52 MasayoMuraoka

...the creators produce because of that urge within them that forces

them to exteriorize their personality. It is an accident if what they

produce has beauty; that is seldom their special aim. Their aim is todisembarrass their souls of the burdens that oppress them, and they

use the means, their pen, their paints, or their clay, for which they

have by nature a facility.(28)

I have once heard it said that "An

artist must have the root which

grows a tree." The root pumps up water, nutrients and many other things

from the earth. For an artist, the root is his soul. Artists are always

making an effort, with anguish, to abandon any fixed idea and to express

the realm of the subconscious in order to attain freedom of spirit or purify

his soul.

Strickland suffers this kind of agony, too. The color and form that hecreates are the fruit of his expression, and therefore they have particularmeaning to him.

"I"

observes Strickland's agony very calmly:

...He kept the secret of his struggles to himself. If in the loneliness of

his studio he wrestled desperately with the Angel of the Lord he never

allowed a soul to divine his anguish.(29)

Strickland's life is amazing; he Ieaves his wife and two children, refuses

his lovers to reach his mind in depth, and always tries to release his spiritfrom any restrictions. He always faces loneliness and anguish. He is very

Iikely a reflection of Maugham, who constantly had his own "Asura,"

loneliness, in the world of literature.

Actually Maugham admits the abnormal personality of Strickland, and

of artists in general. He says the following in A M7)'iterls IVbtebook:

In the development of every art there is an interval between thecharm of na'ivet6 and the elegance of sophistication, and it is then that

perfection is produced. But in this interval is also produced dullness.

For then artists are in complete command of their medium, and their




A Study in W,S,Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 53

personality be out of the ordinary if they are to avoid the tediousness

of realism.(3o)

By saying this, Maugham tries to make the reader respect artists,

including himself. He also says the following to elevate artists to the level

of rnystics, as similar to a god as possible:

The artist has by his nature the detachment and freedorn which the

mystic seeks in the repression of desire.

The artist, like the mystic who seeks to attain God, is detached in

spirit from the world.(3i)

III) The Achievement of the Liberatien of Mind

In Utopia

"I"

goes to Tahiti, Strickland's final wandering place, fifteen years

after "I's;'

separation from Strickland, that is, nine years after Strickland's

death. "I"

describes the impression of the island as follows:

For Tahiti is smiling and friendly; it is like a lovely woman graciously

prodigal of her charm and beauty;...(33)

"I"

is intrigued with the mysterious charm of the island. C`I"

recognizes

that the island possesses all the conditions for Strickland's inspiration. "I"

also guesses, looking back on ten years ago, how Strickland's soul was

separated from his body and how his soul discovered itself. This exactly

reflects Maugharn's own experience. This evidence for this can be found

in Maugham's words in 7';lze Summi7rg Ub about his trip to Tahiti to

gather materials for Tlze Moon and Siopence:

I went looking for beauty and romance and glad to put a great ocean

between me and the trouble that harassed me. I found beauty and

romance, but I found also somethingI had never expected. I found a

new self. Ever since I left St. Thomas's Hospital I had lived with

people who attached value to culture.{33)




54 Masayo Muraoka

"The

Garden of Eden" that I imagine is a thickly-wooded land, ablazewith flowering plarits. There may be a clear-blue fountain, fish swimmingin streams, birds singing and animals romping around. It is blessed withevery kind of natural thing. There people may be able to lead a secluded

and contemplative life. Maugham says the following in the pages of"Prose

and Dr. TMotson" in Iloints of Iliew about the advantages of thiskind of life:

The advantage which men have by a more devout and retired and

contemplative life is that they are not distracted about many things;their minds and affections are set upon one thing; and the whole

stream and force of their affections run one way.(3`}

The uncivilized land of Tafiiti, Strickland's final place, is like a Utopia,which can be seen in the pictures of Paul Gauguin. There the spirit and the

feelings of artists can be led into one direction and then, after a while, beled into a trance or an unconscious state. Maugham says the following in7112e Stzmming C,l)b:

Like the bride of Christ, the artist waits for the illumination that shallbring forth a new spiritual life...

the unconscious does its mysterious business; and then, suddenly

spnngmg, you might think from nowhere, the idea is produced.<35)

This kind of Utopia may be the fount of artists' creativity. (There stillexists the problem of why Strickland chose Tahiti, but it will be discussedlater.) Before going any further, I would like to make clear the image ofthe Utopia where Strickland lived. The following is the statement byCaptain Brunot who once visited Tahiti:

...but the place where Strickland lived had the beauty of the Gardenof Eden. Ah, I wish I could niake you see the enchantment of thatspot, a corner hidden away from all the world, with the blue sky




A Study in W.S.Maugham:s View on Freeclom of Mind for Artists 55

overhead and the rich, luxuriant trees. It was a feast of colour. And

it was fragrant and cool. Words cannot describe that paradise. And

here he lived, unmindful of the world and by the world forgotten.(36)

The guide to this `Garden

of Eden' is Ata, a native girl, compared with

a glittering black pearl. She greets Strickland gently, who is worn out.

She plays a role of a boat which guides him to the lake and the fountain,

which let him develop an artist's imagination.

Although Strickland arrives in this earthly paradise after a lot of

wandering, his Iife changes completely again when he contracts leprosy.

Dr. Coutras recollects the following when he pronounces Strickland to

have leprosy:

I could not prevent an unwilling admiration for the stoical courage

which enabled him to bear perhaps the rnost dreadful of human

afflictions.{37>

It is often said that death is a shadow of life. To think of death,

however, is to think of the meaning of life. By thinking of death, Strick-

land can abandon.his worldly desires and his soul might be able to

concentrate on his only purpose, that is, to paint.

The O.E.D., I gives this definition of [strick':

A bundle of broken hemp, flax, jute, etc. for heckling. In Silk-manuf.

A bunch of silk fibre.

This may be stretched to mean "a

pure thing which is taken from a

combed stratum." Likewise, Strickland combs everything that clings to

him (a strong discontinuation form the past), and paints on canvas while

fighting leprosy. He uses this struggle as a spring for purifying his work,

and tries to take on the pure spirit of an artist.

Incidentally, the O.ED. gives the following definition of `Dirk'

in Dirk

Stroeve, a mediocre painter in this novel:




56 MasayeMuraoka

Dirk(d5Jk), sb. Forms: 7 dork, 7-9 durk, (7 durke), 8-dirk. [Origin unknown. Found in 1602 spelt dork, then common from second half of

17th c. as durk; the spelling dirk was adopted without authority in

Johnson's Dict. 1775, app. from the falling together of iz uL in Eng.

pronunciation; cf. Bu7mah, Birmah, dir4 cthtr4 etc. Although early

quots. and Johnson's explanation suggest that the name was Gaelic,

there is no such word in that language, where the weapon is called

biodug. O'Reilly's duirc is merely the 18th c. English word spelt Irish-

fashion.

The suggestion has been offered that the word may be the Da. Dirk,

familiar form of the personal name Diecierile, which name, in Ger.

dietn'ch LG. dierker (Bremen Wb.), Da. dirk, dith Sw. dyrk, is

actually given to pick-lock; but besides the difficulty that dirk is not

the original form of the English worcl, no such sense as `daggre'

belongs to the continental word. If of continental origin, the earliest

form (iox4r might possibly be a soldier's or sailor's corruption of Du.,

Da., Sw. doth, Ger. dOlch,dagger.]

Since the word has no clear origin and has been spelled differentlyaccording to the times when it was used, it was once possibly spelled`dark.'

Fuzanbo's A Comprehensive English-joPanese Dictiona?y gives the fol-Iowing definition;

dirk v. n. & a. = dark

The O.E.D., 10 gives the following definition of `dark';

Void of intellectural light, mentally or spiritually blind; unenlight-

ened, uninformed, destitute of knowledge, ignorant.'

Ma'ugham might have intentionally given this name to the character inthis novel, in contrast to `Strick'

in Strickland, though there is no clear

evidence available.




A Study in W.S.Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 57

In this connection, Maugham says the following on naming characters

in the introduction of T)Ezeatre:

The characters in this novel are imaginary. The author has tried to fit

them with names of his own invention...(38)

By devoting himself to painting, and fearing death in his Iast days,

Strickland is ready for death and attains a state of perfect selflessness.

Maugham says the following as a conclusion in A Wi'iter's AJbteboole:

For I am like a passenger waiting for his ship at a war-time port. I

do not know on which day it will sail, but I am ready to embark at

a moment's notice.

...I do not try to make friends with people from whom I shall so soon

be parted. I am on the wing.{39}

This shows the framework of Maugham's mind, a seventy-year-old

artist.

In this paper I have often used the word Cartists.'

`Artistsi

generally

means people who are engaged in expressing beauty in the fields of

painting, rnusic, sculpture, literature, drama and so on. Maugham has a

wider view of it.

In 71Vze Moon and S21spence, Maugham makes Captain Brunot say the

following:

`Did

I not tell you that I, too, in my way was an artist? I realized in

myself the same desire as animated him. But whereas his medium was

paint, mine has been life.'

...I have made something where there was nothing. I too have made

beauty. Ah, you do not know what it is to look at those tall, healthy

trees and think that every one I planted myself.{`O)

Here Captain Brunot represents Maugham's idea. Actually Maugham

states the following very clearly in A PV)"iter's AJbteboofe:




58 Masayo Muraoka

But I do not mean that it is only painters, poets and musicians who

can respond profitably to the work of art; the value of art would bemuch diminished; among artists I include the practitioners of the most

subtle, the most neglected and the most significant of all the arts, theart of life.{4i)

IV) The Accomplishment of Artistic Works

Several years after Dr. Coutras pronounces Strickland to have leprosy,he hears that Strickland is in critical condition. Dr. Coutras goes to paya visit to Strickland, but finds him already dead. Ata is crying on the floorand tells Dr. Coutras that Strickland had been blind for a year.

When Dr. Coutras sees Strickland's paintings on the walls, he is strange-ly impressed by them. The following describes Dr. Coutras's reaction tothe paintings, which he later recounts to "I".

From floor to ceiling the walls were covered with a strange and

elaborate composition. It was indescribably wonderful and mysteri-

ous. It took his breath away. It filled him with an emotion which hecould not understand or analyse. He felt the awe and the delightwhich a man might feel who watched the beginning of a world. It wastremendous, sensual, passionate; and yet there was something horriblethere too, something which made him afraid. It was the work of a

man who had delved into the hidden depths of nature and had dis-covered secrets which were beautiful and fearful too. It was the work

of a man who knew things which it is unholy for men to know, Therewas something primeval there and terrible. It was not human. Itbrought to his rnind vague recollections of black magic. It was

beautiful and obscene.(`2)

Since Strickland had been painting this picture in order to completely

release his soul, he accomplished his purpose by completing his work,

thereby becoming able to see the mystical world. Therefore, painting was




A Study in W.S.Maugham"s View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 59

not necessary for him any longer. At his will, obedient Ata has burnt out

all his paintings and even the hut in which he lived.

Maugham knowledgeably created the scenario in which Stricklandcontracts leprosy and dies of it. It is natural that since Maugham once

aimed to be a doctor, he wrote this novel having a detailed knowledge of

the disease. I once heard that if one has leproys, his nose can decay to the

point that he does not even notice if his decayed nose falls into a fireplace.

If so, Strickland may have been able to concentrate on completing his

paintings because the paralysis of his nerves made him free of pain.

The last picture Strickland painted, at the sacrifice of everything, is not

seen by anybody except Dr. Coutras. That is, t`I"

does not see the picture

personally, but he hears about it from Dr. Coutras.

What was Srtrickland's final picture like, then? What "I"

hears from

Dr. Coutras, and the following statement by Stroeve, who is crushed over

Blanche's death, may suggest what the picture was like:

The world is hard and cruel. We are here none knows why, and we go

none knows whither.(43)

From the above, I can think of the famous picture by Paul Gauguin;

D'oa venon-nous? Que sommes-nous? Od allons-nous?(")

Belinda Thomson says the following about the situation in which Paul

Gauguin painted the picture:




60 Masayo Muraoka

Unquestionably the most important canvas of Gauguin's late career

was D'obl" venons-nous.P Que sommes-nous.P OuN allons-nozes? which

he painted at the end of 1897.

That year, financial worries and poor health, as well as the news of

his daughter Aline's tragic death, brought him to the point of despair.He determined to commit suicide if nature did not do the job for him.Paradoxically, the personal satisfaction he had gained from his rnost

recent canvases has rekindled his ambitions and a mural painter, and

he determined to produce one last masterpiece on a huge scale, a

work that would serve as a fitting monument after his death.(45)

I have no intention of comparing Strickland with Gauguin, but like

Strickland, Gauguin's last picture was his lifework, and in despair,

Gauguin was ready for death though he failed in his attempt to commit

suicide. In Shakespeare's King Lear Kent, a loyal retainer, says "Nothing

alrnost sees miracles but misery."<"6) As compared with the situation of

Gauguin or Strickland, this is to the point.

Maugham also says the following in CZn)Ize S2tmmi7ag [Zb:

For the production of art is not the result of a miracle. It requires

preparation. The soil, be it ever so rich, must be fed.(`'}

The interpretation of this may be that miracle in art may only bappen

after making frantic efforts.

Why did Maugham create the setting in which Strickland's master-

pieces had to be burnt?

Maugham says the following about completion of beauty in 7]he

Szamming" CZ)b:

It seemed to me that beauty was like the summit of a mountain peak;

when you had reached it there was nothing to do but to come down

again. Perfection is a trifle dull.(4S)





Maugham believes that paintings also have to "come down" when they

are completed, that is, the process of creating is the most important thing

and completed works are valueless. The following may support his

argument, though it is not about art but drama:

His ideas will be neither more or less original than those of the

serious young men who write in these journals. There is no reason

why they should be less interesting; and if by the time the play has run

its course they are out of date, what of it? The play is dead anyway.("9)

But Maugham became successful only after a lot of hardships, so

money was not an insignificant motive for him. He says the following in

7Mll2e Summing tip:

Moreover I was poor. I had no notion of living on a crust in a garret

ifI could help it. I had found out that money was like a sixth sense

whithout which you could not make the most of the other five.(5D)

He also says the following in A VVriterls AZbteboofe about the time when

he achieved great success as a play-writer in 1908:

Its only net value to me is that it has freed me from financial

uncertainties that were never quite absent from rny thoughts. I hated

poverty. I hated having to scrape and save so as to make both ends

Meet.<51)

Judging from abeve quetations, Maugham may have felt that he was

still poor even after he made a fortune.

As a result of having been worried over the gap between the Ideal and

the Real in the depths of his consciousness, he must have conveyed in

Strickland his ideal toward art which he himself had been pursuing but

could never realized. In other words, there are two Maughams in his

consciousness. One is the Maugham as a realist. He sees the value of art

in "its effects."(52) The other Maugham, an idealist, thinks of a completed




62 Masayo Muraoka

work as virtually dead and says that "Perfection

is a trifle dull." As an

artist, Maugham is apparently both a realist and a pure idealist.

As the thoughts of Maugham as an idealist are expressed in The Moonand Simpence, the plot of the story ends with the burning of Strickland'slifework. This is, therefore, quite different from Maugham's way of life

as a realist.

St. Matthew (Chap. XVI, 26) teaches about the soul as follows:

For what is a man profited, if hee shal gaine the whole world, and lose

his owne soule?

Oh what shall a man giue in exchange for his soule.

It can be said that Maugham described his sense of the beauty of

destruction through Strickland (a painter from whose career and arts

nothing can develop), who continued painting only to liberate his own

soul, and who tried to live abstractly, leaving no traces of himself.

Before concluding this chapter, let us think about what `soul'

means the"soul'

that we usually recognize only vaguely but which we are made to

consider deeply this work, particularly in connection with arts.

After mentioning the Hindu and Christian interpretation about the soul

in A VI!).iterls Albteboofe (1944, Maugham at.70), Maugham wrote his ownview as well. Excerpts:

And what of the soul? The Hindus call it the Atman, nad they think

it has existed from eternity and will continue to exist eternity. It iseasier to believe that than that it is created with the conception or

birth of the individual. They think it is of the nature of absolute

Reality, and having emanated from that will at leng last return to it.

...But what is the soul? From Plato onwards many answers have been

given to this question, and most of them are but modifications of his

coniectures. We use the word constantly, and it must be presumedthat we mean something by it. Christianity nas accepted it as an

article of faith that the soul is a simple spiritual substance created byGod and immortal. One may not believe that and yet attach some





signification to the word. When I ask myself what I mean by it I can

only answer that I mean by it my consciousness of myself, the I in me,

the personality which is me; and that personality is compounded of

my thoughts, my feelings, my experiences and the accidents of my

body. I think many people shrink from the notion that the accidents

of the body can have an effect on the constitution of the soul. There

is nothing of which for my own part I am more assured.(53)

Maugham's description is like this. When it comes to the soul, since he

was born and brought up completely in a Christian culture, the notion of

the immortality of the soul was taught to him since before he could

remember. But Maugham doubts if the immortality of the soul really

exists and if it is worth believing in.

The Hindus also regard the souls as immortal, but they go one step

further than the Christians. That is, the soul is immortal, and it is reborn

by reincarnation so repeatedly that it continues forever. People are born

and die, but it does not follow that a person's soul vanishes just becausehe or she dies. The soul goes on existing, and it goes into a person when

he or she is born, and when the person dies it separates from the body, but

it goes into another person again. So people are born and die infinitely,

but the soul itself is constant and basic. This is what the Hindus believe.

If what Hinduism says can be fully believed in, it is a far easier belief

to understand, and more convincing than the idea that a soul is generatedeach time a person is born Maugharn thinks this way. But it is impos-

sible for him to completely believe in the Hindu doctrine. So Maugham

repeatedly asks himself what the soul is.

Those are happy who can believe in the immortality of the soul, but it

is a matter of religion, not of rationality.

Within the realrn of rationality, the soul is thought of as one's con-

sciousness, one's internal heart or one's characteristics. Up to that point,

we can follow it rationally, but not beyond there. That is probably the

reason why Maugham kept wondering what the soul could possibly be.

It is convincingly reasonable to say that one's soul is one?s conscious-

ness. If rationality vanishes together with all the other things that make




64 MasayoMuraoka

up consciousness when one dies, that person's sense and consciousness

disappear at the same time. This is reasonably convincing, but a some-

what frail and fragile belief, That's why many people think that even ifbodies are gone souls aren't. This is a kind of desire and impossible to

prove rationally. Maugham thinks about his hope in his god and his

immortality as follows:

It may be that my heart, having found rest nowhere, had some deep

ancestral craving for God and immortality which my reason would

have no truck with. In default of anything better it has seemed to me

sometimes that I might pretend to myself that the goodness I have notso seldom after all come across in many of those I have encountered

on my way had reality.{5`)

He'd like to believe it if possible, but he can't just because Christianitysays so or Hinduism says so, This may be why Maugham was perplexed

to the very end.

What is the soul? The thought that one's soul is one's consciousness is

not religious. Its Western counterpart is Descartes's thought. He advocat-

ed the absolute certainty of one's lasting consciousness. So he is said to be

the beginner of the modern soul theory, that is, the fixed opinion in

Europe that modern rationalism began with Descartes. The history of

modern Europe has been that of looking into the self.

What the senses point out is not always certain. Then, what is it thatis certain? One's internal senses? For example, am I hungry or not? Am Isleepy or clear-sighted? Am I certain in my internal senses that I am now

writing this paper? In common sense, yes, it is. Or else everyday life isimpossible. That I am writing now may be just an illusion.

We may be, in Descartes's view, dreaming a long, long dream. It is notimpossible to say that one's Iife is a dream, and that one keeps on

dreaming through one's whole life. If so, one's very existence isn't certain.

Although there's nothing certain in this world, Descartes gets to its soul.

Certainly the existence in this eternal world is uncertain. Everything is

doubtful, but the continuity of the awareness of doubt is absolutely




A Study in W.S.Maugham's View on Freedom ef Mind fer Artists 65

certain, Descartes thought.

Although it is not certain whether awareness is right or wrong, it doesn't

matter what one is aware of. Whether right or wrong, that I am conscious

ef something is at least absolutely certain. If one is aware of anything, one

exists as long as one's consciousness exists. For Descartes, neither the

external existence nor the body is certain.

Descartes regards everything he sees as insecure, so consciousness,

which is thought of as uncertain in common sense, is in fact the most

reliable existence. In his opinion, the soul is consciousness.

Sartre follows him in this opinion, and he also thinks that only con-

sciousness, and only one's own consciousness, can be ascertained. While

differences between Descartes and Sartre are innumerable, they are of the

same opinion in this respect.

This notion is deep-rooted in Europe. So in Maugham's view, the soul

is nothing but one's consciousness. One's consciousness is, in other words,

the internal self, what makes a person what that person is one's personal-

ity. One's consciousness, internal self, and personality all these terms

refer to only one thing from various aspects. One's awareness and,

characteristics are ever-lasting even if the person expires and the body is

gone. This is a matter of religion, not of rationalism.

That's all that rational thinking can cover, Maugham thinks. He

continually tries hard to figure out what the soul is. Rationality is not

easy to go beyond, and if he is obliged to stay within reach of rationality,

he feels that something is missing, and that's why he is struggling.

notes

1 ) Alan Bowness. Modern EzaroPean Ari, London: Thames and Hudson, 1972, pp.

47-56.

2 ) Mode7tn EurqPean Art, p. 56.3 ) W.S.Maugham. Qf Hhr?nan Bondage, London: William Heinemann, 1915; rpt.

London: Pan Books, 1975. p. 241.

4 ) W.S,Maugham. 7';Pze Moon and Simpence, London: William Heinemann, 1919;

rpt. New York: Penguin Books, 1986, p. 47.

5) Ibid,, p. 48.

6) Ibid., p. 48,

7) W-S.Maugham, TTze Summi7rg C,lb, London: WMiam Heinemann, 19389,rpt.




66Masayo Muraoka

London: Penguin Books, 1986, p. 97.

8) W.S.Maugham. 71he Meri3,-Go-Ro"nd, London: William Heinemann, 1905;

rpL London: Penguin Books, 1987, p. 18.

9 ) W.S.Maugham. Catalina, London: William Heinemann, 1948, p. 233.

10) John Keats. End)tmion, in ComPgete Pbems, London: Harvard University Press, 1982, p. 65.

11) 7"he Moon and Simpence, p. 72.

I2) Ibid. p. 74.

13) Ibid. p, 75.

14) W.S,Maugham. A Wn'ter's Noteboofe, London: William Heinemann, ]949; New York; Penguin Books, 1986, p. 16.

15) T7ze Mbon and Simpence, p. 78.

16) A]exander Woollcott. `Somerset

Maugham's Story of a Genius', New York:

2Vizw Yb2ila 7'Vmes Boofe Review, 3 Aug. 1919, p. 69.17) 7';ije Moon and Simpence, pp. 78-79.18) Ibid,, pp. 92-93.

19) TVlae Moon and Sirpence, p. 130,20) Ibid. p. 134.

21) Ibid. p. 134.22) Ibid. p. 134.23) Ibid., p. 135.24) Ibid,, p, 146.25) Ibid., p, 149,26) Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Statires, E))istles and Ats foetica, London: William

Heinemann, 1966, pp. 480-481.27) Kenneth Clark. Monzents of Vision, London: John Murray, 1981, pp. 13-14.28) 7"he Summing Ub, p. 198.29) 7;4ie A4bon and Sirpence, p. 153,

30) A LU}'iter's AJbtebook,p, 228,31) Ibid., p, 228.

32) Tlze Mbon and SitPence, p. 160.

33) TVie Summi,rg LIP, pp. 130--131. .

34) W.S.Maugham. Pbints of lliew, Lonclon: William Heinemann, 1958, pp. 139- 140.

35) 7';eze Summing C,1), p. 65.36) T;lie Mbon and Simpence, p. 191.37) Ibid. p. 203,

38) W.S.Maugham. 7']lieatre, London: William Hejnemann, 1937; rpt. Merbeurne: Williarn Heinemann, 1975.

39) A uaiter's IVbteboofe, pp, 331-332.40) 7';he Moon and Simpence, pp. 195-197.41) A LVriter's Albteboefe, p. esZ42) T7ie Mbon and Simpence, p. 207.43) Ibid. p. 129.

44> Belinda Thomson. Gazrguin, London: Thames and Hudson, 1987, p, 180.

NII-Electronic Mbrary




45)46)47)48)49)50)51)52)53)54)

A Stucly in W.S,Maugham's View on Freedom of Mind for Artists 67

Ibid., p, 194,

Williarn Shakespeare, King Lear, New York: Penguin Books, 1972, p. 103

T7ze Summing Llp, p. 65.Ibid., p. 195.

Ibid,, p. 91.

Ibid., p. 78.

A VVri'ter's IVoteboole, p. 85.

7)lze Summing LIP, p. 199,

A LVlrt'ter's Aibteboofe, pp. 326-327.

7';Pze Sztmmi7rg C,Cij, p, 203.

A Study in W.S.Maugham's View Freedom for Artists

Documents

Transcript of A Study in W.S.Maugham's View Freedom for Artists