WORLDS OF STYLE
523
Artist, is, not because Art is identical with these forms of ac–
tion, for it is identical with no specific forms, but simply be–
cause the poet, painter, and so forth, more than any other
men, have thrown off the tyranny of nature and custom, and
followed the inspirations of genius, the inspirations of beauty, in
their own souls. These men to some extent have sunk the service of
nature and society in the obedience of their own private attractions.
They have merged the search of the good and the true in that of the
beautiful, and have consequently announced a divinity as yet un–
announced either in nature or society. To the extent of their con–
secration, they are priests after the order of Melchisedec, that is to
say, a priesthood which, not being made after the law of a carnal
commandment, shall never pass away. And they are kings, who reign
by a
direct
unction from the Highest. But the priest is not the altar,
but the servant of the altar; and the king is not the Highest, but a
servant of the Highest. So painting, poetry, is not Art, but the
servant and representative of Art. Art is divine, universal, infinite.
It therefore exacts to itself infinite forms or manifestations, here in
the painter, there in the actor; here in the musician, there in the
machinist; here in the architect, there in the dancer; here in the
poet, there in the costumer. We do not therefore call the painter or
poet, Artist, because painting or poetry is a whit more essential to
Art than ditching is, but simply because the painter and poet have
more frequently exhibited the life of Art by means of a hearty in–
subjection to nature and convention.
When, therefore, I call the Divine Man, or God's image in
creation, by the name of Artist, the reader will not suppose me to
mean the poet, painter, or any other special form of man. On the
contrary, he will suppose me to mean that infinite and spiritual
man whom all these finite functionaries represent indeed, hut whom
none of them constitutes, namely, the man who in every visible form
of action acts always from his inmost self, or from attraction, and
not from necessity or duty. I mean the man who is a law unto him–
self, and ignores all outward allegiance, whether to nature or soci–
ety. This man may indeed have no technical vocation whatever,
such as poet, painter, and the like, and yet he will be none the
less sure to announce himself. The humblest theatre of action fur–
nishes
him
a platform. I pay my waiter so much a day for putting
my dinner on the table. But he performs his function in a way so
entirely
sui generis,
with so exquisite an attention to beauty in all
the details of the service, with so symmetrical an arrangement of
