joy　which　belongs　to　belief。　　I　should　regard　any　civilization
  which　was　without　a　universal　habit　of　uproarious　dancing　as　being；
  from　the　full　human　point　of　view；　a　defective　civilization。
  And　I　should　regard　any　mind　which　had　not　got　the　habit
  in　one　form　or　another　of　uproarious　thinking　as　being；
  from　the　full　human　point　of　view；　a　defective　mind。
  It　is　vain　for　Mr。　McCabe　to　say　that　a　ballet　is　a　part　of　him。
  He　should　be　part　of　a　ballet；　or　else　he　is　only　part　of　a　man。
  It　is　in　vain　for　him　to　say　that　he　is　〃not　quarrelling
  with　the　importation　of　humour　into　the　controversy。〃
  He　ought　himself　to　be　importing　humour　into　every　controversy；
  for　unless　a　man　is　in　part　a　humorist；　he　is　only　in　part　a　man。
  To　sum　up　the　whole　matter　very　simply；　if　Mr。　McCabe　asks　me　why　I
  import　frivolity　into　a　discussion　of　the　nature　of　man；　I　answer；
  because　frivolity　is　a　part　of　the　nature　of　man。　　If　he　asks　me　why
  I　introduce　what　he　calls　paradoxes　into　a　philosophical　problem；
  I　answer；　because　all　philosophical　problems　tend　to　become　paradoxical。
  If　he　objects　to　my　treating　of　life　riotously；　I　reply　that　life
  is　a　riot。　　And　I　say　that　the　Universe　as　I　see　it；　at　any　rate；
  is　very　much　more　like　the　fireworks　at　the　Crystal　Palace　than　it
  is　like　his　own　philosophy。　　About　the　whole　cosmos　there　is　a　tense
  and　secret　festivitylike　preparations　for　Guy　Fawkes'　day。
  Eternity　is　the　eve　of　something。　　I　never　look　up　at　the　stars
  without　feeling　that　they　are　the　fires　of　a　schoolboy's　rocket；
  fixed　in　their　everlasting　fall。
  XVII　On　the　Wit　of　Whistler
  That　capable　and　ingenious　writer；　Mr。　Arthur　Symons；
  has　included　in　a　book　of　essays　recently　published；　I　believe；
  an　apologia　for　〃London　Nights；〃　in　which　he　says　that　morality
  should　be　wholly　subordinated　to　art　in　criticism；　and　he　uses
  the　somewhat　singular　argument　that　art　or　the　worship　of　beauty
  is　the　same　in　all　ages；　while　morality　differs　in　every　period
  and　in　every　respect。　　He　appears　to　defy　his　critics　or　his
  readers　to　mention　any　permanent　feature　or　quality　in　ethics。
  This　is　surely　a　very　curious　example　of　that　extravagant　bias
  against　morality　which　makes　so　many　ultra…modern　aesthetes　as　morbid
  and　fanatical　as　any　Eastern　hermit。　　Unquestionably　it　is　a　very
  common　phrase　of　modern　intellectualism　to　say　that　the　morality
  of　one　age　can　be　entirely　different　to　the　morality　of　another。
  And　like　a　great　many　other　phrases　of　modern　intellectualism；
  it　means　literally　nothing　at　all。　　If　the　two　moralities
  are　entirely　different；　why　do　you　call　them　both　moralities？
  It　is　as　if　a　man　said；　〃Camels　in　various　places　are　totally　diverse；
  some　have　six　legs；　some　have　none；　some　have　scales；　some　have　feathers；
  some　have　horns；　some　have　wings；　some　are　green；　some　are　triangular。
  There　is　no　point　which　they　have　in　common。〃　　The　ordinary　man
  of　sense　would　reply；　〃Then　what　makes　you　call　them　all　camels？
  What　do　you　mean　by　a　camel？　　How　do　you　know　a　camel　when　you　see　one？〃
  Of　course；　there　is　a　permanent　substance　of　morality；　as　much
  as　there　is　a　permanent　substance　of　art；　to　say　that　is　only　to　say
  that　morality　is　morality；　and　that　art　is　art。　　An　ideal　art
  critic　would；　no　doubt；　see　the　enduring　beauty　under　every　school；
  equally　an　ideal　moralist　would　see　the　enduring　ethic　under　every　code。
  But　practically　some　of　the　best　Englishmen　that　ever　lived　could　see
  nothing　but　filth　and　idolatry　in　the　starry　piety　of　the　Brahmin。
  And　it　is　equally　true　that　practically　the　greatest　group　of　artists
  that　the　world　has　ever　seen；　the　giants　of　the　Renaissance；
  could　see　nothing　but　barbarism　in　the　ethereal　energy　of　Gothic。
  This　bias　against　morality　among　the　modern　aesthetes　is　nothing
  very　much　paraded。　　And　yet　it　is　not　really　a　bias　against　morality；
  it　is　a　bias　against　other　people's　morality。　　It　is　generally
  founded　on　a　very　definite　moral　preference　for　a　certain　sort
  of　life；　pagan；　plausible；　humane。　　The　modern　aesthete；　wishing　us
  to　believe　that　he　values　beauty　more　than　conduct；　reads　Mallarme；
  and　drinks　absinthe　in　a　tavern。　　But　this　is　not　only　his　favourite
  kind　of　beauty；　it　is　also　his　favourite　kind　of　conduct。
  If　he　really　wished　us　to　believe　that　he　cared　for　beauty　only；
  he　ought　to　go　to　nothing　but　Wesleyan　school　treats；　and　paint
  the　sunlight　in　the　hair　of　the　Wesleyan　babies。　　He　ought　to　read
  nothing　but　very　eloquent　theological　sermons　by　old…fashioned
  Presbyterian　divines。　　Here　the　lack　of　all　possible　moral　sympathy
  would　prove　that　his　interest　was　purely　verbal　or　pictorial；　as　it　is；
  in　all　the　books　he　reads　and　writes　he　clings　to　the　skirts
  of　his　own　morality　and　his　own　immorality。　　The　champion　of　l'art
  pour　l'art　is　always　denouncing　Ruskin　for　his　moralizing。
  If　he　were　really　a　champion　of　l'art　pour　l'art；　he　would　be　always
  insisting　on　Ruskin　for　his　style。
  The　doctrine　of　the　distinction　between　art　and　morality　owes
  a　great　part　of　its　success　to　art　and　morality　being　hopelessly
  mixed　up　in　the　persons　and　performances　of　its　greatest　exponents。
  Of　this　lucky　contradiction　the　very　incarnation　was　Whistler。
  No　man　ever　preached　the　impersonality　of　art　so　well；
  no　man　ever　preached　the　impersonality　of　art　so　personally。
  For　him　pictures　had　nothing　to　do　with　the　problems　of　character；
  but　for　all　his　fiercest　admirers　his　character　was；
  as　a　matter　of　fact　far　more　interesting　than　his　pictures。
  He　gloried　in　standing　as　an　artist　apart　from　right　and　wrong。
  But　he　succeeded　by　talking　from　morning　till　night　about　his
  rights　and　about　his　wrongs。　　His　talents　were　many；　his　virtues；
  it　must　be　confessed；　not　many；　beyond　that　kindness　to　tried　friends；
  on　which　many　of　his　biographers　insist；　but　which　surely　is　a
  quality　of　all　sane　men；　of　pirates　and　pickpockets；　beyond　this；
  his　outstanding　virtues　limit　themselves　chiefly　to　two　admirable　ones
  courage　and　an　abstract　love　of　good　work。　　Yet　I　fancy　he　won
  at　last　more　by　those　two　virtues　than　by　all　his　talents。
  A　man　must　be　something　of　a　moralist　if　he　is　to　preach；　even　if　he　is
  to　preach　unmorality。　　Professor　Walter　Raleigh；　in　his　〃In　Memoriam：
  James　McNeill　Whistler；〃　insists；　truly　enough；　on　the　strong
  streak　of　an　eccentric　honesty　in　matters　strictly　pictorial；
  which　ran　through　his　complex　and　slightly　confused　character。
  〃He　would　destroy　any　of　his　works　rather　than　leave　a　careless
  or　inexpressive　touch　within　the　limits　of　the　frame。
  He　would　begin　again　a　hundred　times　over　rather　than　attempt
  by　patching　to　make　his　work　seem　better　than　it　was。〃
  No　one　will　blame　Professor　Raleigh；　who　had　to　read　a　sort　of　funeral
  oration　over　Whistler　at　the　opening　of　the　Memorial　Exhibition；
  if；　finding　himself　in　that　position；　he　confined　himself　mostly
  to　the　merits　and　the　stronger　qualities　of　his　subject。
  We　should　naturally　go　to　some　other　type　of　composition
  for　a　proper　consideration　of　the　weaknesses　of　Whistler。
  But　these　must　never　be　omitted　from　our　view　of　him。
  Indeed；　the　truth　is　that　it　was　not　so　much　a　question　of　the　weaknesses
  of　Whistler　as　of　the　intrinsic　and　primary　weakness　of　Whistler。
  He　was　one　of　those　people　who　live　up　to　their　emotional　incomes；
  who　are　always　taut　and　tingling　with　vanity。　　Hence　he　had
  no　strength　to　spare；　hence　he　had　no　kindness；　no　geniality；
  for　geniality　is　almost　definable　as　strength　to　spare。
  He　had　no　god…like　carelessness；　he　never　forgot　himself；
  his　whole　life　was；　to　use　his　own　expression；　an　arrangement。
  He　went　in　for　〃the　art　of　living〃a　miserable　trick。
  In　a　word；　he　was　a　great　artist；　but　emphatically　not　a　great　man。
  In　this　connection　I　must　differ　strongly　with　Professor　Raleigh　upon
  what　is；　from　a　superficial　literary　point　of　view；　one　of　his　most
  effective　points。　　He　compares　Whistler's　laughter　to　the　laughter
  of　another　man　who　was　a　great　man　as　well　as　a　great　artist。
  〃His　attitude　to　the　public　was　exactly　the　attitude　taken　up　by
  Robert　Browning；　who　suffered　as　long　a　period　of　neglect　and　mistake；
  in　those　lines　of　‘The　Ring　and　the　Book'
  〃‘Well；　British　Public；　ye　who　like　me　not；
  （God　love　you！）　and　will　have　your　proper　laugh
  At　the　dark　question；　laugh　it！　　I'd　laugh　first。'
  〃Mr。　Whistler；〃　adds　Professor　Raleigh；　〃always　laughed　first