'Sir,you City men enter on your speculations,and take the chances of them.Some of your speculations succeed,some fail.Mine happen to have failed,yours happen to have succeeded.That is the only difference,sir,between my visitor and me.But,sir,I will tell you one thing in which I have succeeded to the last.I have been determined through life to hold the position of a gentleman.
I have always done so.I do so still.It is the custom of this place that each of the inmates of a cell shall take his morning's turn of sweeping it out.I occupy a cell with a bricklayer and a sweep,but they never offer me the broom!'When a friend reproached him with the murder of Helen Abercrombie he shrugged his shoulders and said,'Yes;it was a dreadful thing to do,but she had very thick ankles.'
From Newgate he was brought to the hulks at Portsmouth,and sent from there in the SUSAN to Van Diemen's Land along with three hundred other convicts.The voyage seems to have been most distasteful to him,and in a letter written to a friend he spoke bitterly about the ignominy of 'the companion of poets and artists'being compelled to associate with 'country bumpkins.'The phrase that he applies to his companions need not surprise us.Crime in England is rarely the result of sin.It is nearly always the result of starvation.There was probably no one on board in whom he would have found a sympathetic listener,or even a psychologically interesting nature.
His love of art,however,never deserted him.At Hobart Town he started a studio,and returned to sketching and portrait-painting,and his conversation and manners seem not to have lost their charm.
Nor did he give up his habit of poisoning,and there are two cases on record in which he tried to make away with people who had offended him.But his hand seems to have lost its cunning.Both of his attempts were complete failures,and in 1844,being thoroughly dissatisfied with Tasmanian society,he presented a memorial to the governor of the settlement,Sir John Eardley Wilmot,praying for a ticket-of-leave.In it he speaks of himself as being 'tormented by ideas struggling for outward form and realisation,barred up from increase of knowledge,and deprived of the exercise of profitable or even of decorous speech.'His request,however,was refused,and the associate of Coleridge consoled himself by making those marvellous PARADIS ARTIFICIELSwhose secret is only known to the eaters of opium.In 1852he died of apoplexy,his sole living companion being a cat,for which he had evinced at extraordinary affection.
His crimes seem to have had an important effect upon his art.They gave a strong personality to his style,a quality that his early work certainly lacked.In a note to the LIFE OF DICKENS,Forster mentions that in 1847Lady Blessington received from her brother,Major Power,who held a military appointment at Hobart Town,an oil portrait of a young lady from his clever brush;and it is said that 'he had contrived to put the expression of his own wickedness into the portrait of a nice,kind-hearted girl.'M.Zola,in one of his novels,tells us of a young man who,having committed a murder,takes to art,and paints greenish impressionist portraits of perfectly respectable people,all of which bear a curious resemblance to his victim.The development of Mr.Wainewright's style seems to me far more subtle and suggestive.One can fancy an intense personality being created out of sin.
This strange and fascinating figure that for a few years dazzled literary London,and made so brilliant a DEBUT in life and letters,is undoubtedly a most interesting study.Mr.W.Carew Hazlitt,his latest biographer,to whom I am indebted for many of the facts contained in this memoir,and whose little book is,indeed,quite invaluable in its way,is of opinion that his love of art and nature was a mere pretence and assumption,and others have denied to him all literary power.This seems to me a shallow,or at least a mistaken,view.The fact of a man being a poisoner is nothing against his prose.The domestic virtues are not the true basis of art,though they may serve as an excellent advertisement for second-rate artists.It is possible that De Quincey exaggerated his critical powers,and I cannot help saying again that there is much in his published works that is too familiar,too common,too journalistic,in the bad sense of that bad word.Here and there he is distinctly vulgar in expression,and he is always lacking in the self-restraint of the true artist.But for some of his faults we must blame the time in which he lived,and,after all,prose that Charles Lamb thought 'capital'has no small historic interest.
That he had a sincere love of art and nature seems to me quite certain.There is no essential incongruity between crime and culture.We cannot re-write the whole of history for the purpose of gratifying our moral sense of what should be.
Of course,he is far too close to our own time for us to be able to form any purely artistic judgment about him.It is impossible not to feel a strong prejudice against a man who might have poisoned Lord Tennyson,or Mr.Gladstone,or the Master of Balliol.But had the man worn a costume and spoken a language different from our own,had he lived in imperial Rome,or at the time of the Italian Renaissance,or in Spain in the seventeenth century,or in any land or any century but this century and this land,we would be quite able to arrive at a perfectly unprejudiced estimate of his position and value.I know that there are many historians,or at least writers on historical subjects,who still think it necessary to apply moral judgments to history,and who distribute their praise or blame with the solemn complacency of a successful schoolmaster.
