James (H.), Maupassant, début [trad. ?] :
« Les artistes de premier plan, à quelque domaine qu'ils touchent, ne sont indubitablement pas ceux qui émettent le plus souvent des idées générales sur leur art, qui sont féconds en préceptes, en justifications, en formules, ni ceux qui peuvent le mieux nous exposer les raisons et la philosophie des choses. Nous reconnaissons généralement les meilleurs à l'énergie de leur pratique, à la constance avec laquelle ils appliquent leurs principes et à la sérénité avec laquelle ils nous laissent rechercher leur secret dans l'illustration, l'exemple concret. […] La doctrine est bien moins portée à être inspirée que l'œuvre, l'œuvre est souvent tellement plus intelligente que la doctrine. »
James (H.), French writers (Maupassant) :« The first artists, in any line, are doubtless not those whose general ideas about their art are most often on their lips—those who most abound in precept, apology, and formula and can best tell us the reasons and the philosophy of things. We know the first usually by their energetic practice, the constancy with which they apply their principles, and the serenity with which they leave us to hunt for their secret in the illustration, the concrete example. None the less it often happens that a valid artist utters his mystery. Hashes upon us for a moment the light by which he works, shows us the rule by which he holds it just that he should be measured. This accident is happiest, I think, when it is soonest over; the shortest explanations of the products of genius arc the best, and there is many a creator of living figures whose friends, however full of faith in his inspiration, will do well to pray for him when he sallies forth into the dim wilderness of theory. The doctrine is apt to be so much less inspired than the work, the work is often so much more intelligent than the doctrine. »