1895: The Grammar of Desire
By Mr Felix Marchant, Actor, Lecturer in Charm, and Irregular Philosopher, Published in “A Gentlemen’s Gentlemen”
Desire, like language, is seldom improved by instruction. Children babble quite adequately without a grammar, and young men discover longing without a syllabus. Yet civilisation, obsessed with tidiness, insists that both must be corrected. Hence we have grammarians for the tongue and moralists for the body, each determined to abolish irregular verbs and irregular appetites in a single stroke.
Oscar Wilde—who is, in aesthetic matters, an unusually reliable co‑conspirator—remarked in one of his essays that “to define is to limit.” The same may be said of desire. The moment one insists upon naming one’s feelings, they retire to a safer part of the nervous system. Love shrinks into “attachment,” lust is rechristened “temperament,” and curiosity hides beneath “interest.” The vocabulary improves; the experience goes downstairs for air.
Our educators, bless them, have decided that desire must be domesticated by repetition. They teach young people to recite commandments as though conjugating temptation: I must not, thou must not, he very definitely must not. These chantings, admirable as drill, do nothing to address the original impulse. They only drive it into cunning. The result is a society full of men who can quote virtue perfectly and practise it seldom—a grammatical triumph, perhaps, but hardly a moral one.
It is worth remembering that grammar, at its heart, is not about prohibition but about relation: how words lean upon one another, how they touch. In the same way, desire is the study of proximity. It asks not “Is this allowed?” but “What happens if I stand here, instead of there?” Moralists fret about the sentence; sensualists attend to the syntax.
Angela Carter, that future sorceress of syntax whom we shall have to invent if she fails to appear in due course, would say that a sentence can be erotic merely by the way it unfolds—clause after clause, each dependent yet insistent, the meaning delayed until it becomes unbearable. Desire behaves in precisely that fashion. It is the suspension, not the consummation, that gives it grammar. If passion had its way immediately, there would be no literature beyond telegrams.
Education, however, mistrusts delay. It prefers answers to questions, conclusions to clauses. Our schools teach boys how to end a sentence, seldom how to begin one with style. They teach them that desire is a mistake of the flesh rather than a figure of speech. Yet the art of living pleasantly depends upon knowing when to place a comma, when a semicolon, and when, in rare ecstasies, a full stop.
Consider the imperative mood. Society loves it. “Don’t.” “Do.” “Obey.” These are the barked monosyllables of custom. They resemble stage directions shouted from the wings: “Enter respectably,” “Exit silently.” But desire speaks more subtly, in subjunctives and conditionals—if only, had we but, might we perhaps. It is the most theatrical of tenses: nothing actually happens; everything nearly does.
Our moralists maintain that virtue must be memorised. I suggest instead that it should be composed. A man who has merely learned the rules of conduct by rote is like an actor who knows his lines but not his rôle. He hits every word and misses every point. True grace—of the body, of the mind, of the affections—can only be acquired by listening to one’s own responses and editing them into something one would be willing to repeat. That, incidentally, is how character is written.
The danger of rote in matters of desire is that it confuses inhibition with integrity. To teach someone never to feel is impossible; to teach him never to admit he feels is all too easy. Thus we create generations of perfectly correct men whose hands tremble whenever they pour wine. They have learned the catechism of “ought,” but never the vocabulary of “want,” and so their lives resemble essays written entirely in the passive voice: things happen to them; nothing quite by them.
Life, incomprehensibly, refuses to be parsed that way. It behaves more like one of those long, baroque sentences Angela Carter will one day write: sensual, excessive, trailing its meanings behind it like silk. One thought slips into another; an image interrupts an argument; a taste undoes a resolution. A man enters a room with the intention of remaining virtuous and finds that the lighting has conjugated his intention into a conditional.
It is here that the grammar of desire becomes indispensable. Not to suppress longing, which would be barbarous, but to phrase it so that it may live in company. The internal monologue is rarely printable; the great art lies in translating it into a dialogue that can be spoken aloud. A raised eyebrow, properly deployed, can say what an entire scandalous chapter would only vulgarise. The well‑timed pause is the colon of conversation: expectation followed by clarification.
No amount of rote schooling can teach this. It is learned in the only university that grants no degrees—experience. One must read widely in people, annotate the margins of evenings, and revise oneself after every mismanaged encounter. You meet someone whose presence rearranges your punctuation; you find yourself using exclamation marks where you once preferred parentheses. You discover that you have been speaking prose all your life when you might have attempted poetry. That discovery is the beginning of education.
Let us not, therefore, mistake encyclopaedic memory for sophistication. I have known men who could recite the entire moral law in three languages and yet kiss as if they were paying a debt. Ignorance is graceless; but knowledge without sensual intelligence is gracelessness in Latin. The truly educated man is not the one who can list every sin; he is the one who instinctively senses when pleasure becomes self‑parody and adjusts his performance accordingly.
Aesthetics, as a philosopher will eventually remark, is the grammar of desire: the way longing takes shape, becomes communicable, and, crucially, becomes shareable without devouring its object. The blush, the glance, the refusal delivered with a smile—all these are as rule‑bound and as liberating as any sonnet. They make appetite legible. Without such refinements, desire is mere hunger; with them, it becomes conversation.
Our task, as gentlemen who are perhaps more gentlemanly with one another than with the world, is not to abolish desire but to civilise its expression. Life will provide the content; we must supply the syntax. Read bodies as you read books—slowly, with annotation, and never trusting the Preface. Listen to voices as you listen to verse: for timbre, not just text. Observe the way a hand drifts toward a glass or a shoulder leans a fraction closer than necessary. These are the adverbs of affection.
Rote learning may help you decline Latin nouns; it will never teach you to decline an invitation without causing despair. For that, you must practise the higher accents: tact, irony, and the occasional useful lie.
In the end, desire is not a sin to be memorised, but a language to be learned. It has its tenses—what we wanted, what we want, what we will pretend not to want. It has its moods—indicative in daylight, subjunctive after midnight. And it has, above all, its idioms: those private phrases, glances, and silences that two people share like slang. No catechism can supply them; they must be invented in the moment, which is why desire remains stubbornly unteachable and endlessly instructive.
So, my dear gentlemen, when next you are tempted to admire a man for his command of doctrine, ask also after his grammar of desire. Can he listen? Can he hesitate elegantly? Does he know when not to speak? If so, he is educated, whatever his school records say. If not, then all the rote in the world has left him illiterate where it matters most.
Life will go on conjugating us with or without our consent: I desired, I desire, I shall desire still. The least we can do is learn to say it beautifully.
You are here: States of Grace > Philosophy