heretics-第31部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





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。〃



The　truth　is；　I　believe；　that　Whistler　never　laughed　at　all。



There　was　no　laughter　in　his　nature；　because　there　was　no　thoughtlessness



and　self…abandonment；　no　humility。　　I　cannot　understand　anybody



reading　〃The　Gentle　Art　of　Making　Enemies〃　and　thinking　that　there



is　any　laughter　in　the　wit。　　His　wit　is　a　torture　to　him。



He　twists　himself　into　arabesques　of　verbal　felicity；　he　is　full



of　a　fierce　carefulness；　he　is　inspired　with　the　complete　seriousness



of　sincere　malice。　　He　hurts　himself　to　hurt　his　opponent。



Browning　did　laugh；　because　Browning　did　not　care；　Browning　did



not　care；　because　Browning　was　a　great　man。　　And　when　Browning



said　in　brackets　to　the　simple；　sensible　people　who　did　not　like



his　books；　〃God　love　you！〃　he　was　not　sneering　in　the　least。



He　was　laughingthat　is　to　say；　he　meant　exactly　what　he　said。







There　are　three　distinct　classes　of　great　satirists　who　are　also　great　men



that　is　to　say；　three　classes　of　men　who　can　laugh　at　something　without



losing　their　souls。　　The　satirist　of　the　first　type　is　the　man　who；



first　of　all　enjoys　himself；　and　then　enjoys　his　enemies。



In　this　sense　he　loves　his　enemy；　and　by　a　kind　of　exaggeration　of



Christianity　he　loves　his　enemy　the　more　the　more　he　becomes　an　enemy。



He　has　a　sort　of　overwhelming　and　aggressive　happiness　in　his



assertion　of　anger；　his　curse　is　as　human　as　a　benediction。



Of　this　type　of　satire　the　great　example　is　Rabelais。　　This　is



the　first　typical　example　of　satire；　the　satire　which　is　voluble；



which　is　violent；　which　is　indecent；　but　which　is　not　malicious。



The　satire　of　Whistler　was　not　this。　　He　was　never　in　any　of　his



controversies　simply　happy；　the　proof　of　it　is　that　he　never　talked



absolute　nonsense。　　There　is　a　second　type　of　mind　which　produces　satire



with　the　quality　of　greatness。　　That　is　embodied　in　the　satirist　whose



passions　are　released　and　let　go　by　some　intolerable　sense　of　wrong。



He　is　maddened　by　the　sense　of　men　being　maddened；　his　tongue



becomes　an　unruly　member；　and　testifies　against　all　mankind。



Such　a　man　was　Swift；　in　whom　the　saeva　indignatio　was　a　bitterness



to　others；　because　it　was　a　bitterness　to　himself。　　Such　a　satirist



Whistler　was　not。　　He　did　not　laugh　because　he　was　happy；　like　Rabelais。



But　neither　did　he　laugh　because　he　was　unhappy；　like　Swift。







The　third　type　of　great　satire　is　that　in　which　he　satirist　is　enabled



to　rise　superior　to　his　victim　in　the　only　serious　sense　which



superiority　can　bear；　in　that　of　pitying　the　sinner　and　respecting



the　man　even　while　he　satirises　both。　　Such　an　achievement　can　be



found　in　a　thing　like　Pope's　〃Atticus〃　a　poem　in　which　the　satirist



feels　that　he　is　satirising　the　weaknesses　which　belong　specially



to　literary　genius。　　Consequently　he　takes　a　pleasure　in　pointing



out　his　enemy's　strength　before　he　points　out　his　weakness。



That　is；　perhaps；　the　highest　and　most　honourable　form　of　satire。



That　is　not　the　satire　of　Whistler。　　He　is　not　full　of　a　great　sorrow



for　the　wrong　done　to　human　nature；　for　him　the　wrong　is　altogether



done　to　himself。







He　was　not　a　great　personality；　because　he　thought　so　much



about　himself。　　And　the　case　is　stronger　even　than　that。



He　was　sometimes　not　even　a　great　artist；　because　he　thought



so　much　about　art。　　Any　man　with　a　vital　knowledge　of　the　human



psychology　ought　to　have　the　most　profound　suspicion　of　anybody



who　claims　to　be　an　artist；　and　talks　a　great　deal　about　art。



Art　is　a　right　and　human　thing；　like　walking　or　saying　one's　prayers；



but　the　moment　it　begins　to　be　talked　about　very　solemnly；　a　man



may　be　fairly　certain　that　the　thing　has　come　into　a　congestion



and　a　kind　of　difficulty。







The　artistic　temperament　is　a　diseas