heretics-第35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！
it admires a big and barbaric beauty in its women； for instance；
but so did Rome when the Goth was at the gates。 All these are
things quite compatible with fundamental tedium and decay。
There are three main shapes or symbols in which a nation can show
itself essentially glad and greatby the heroic in government；
by the heroic in arms； and by the heroic in art。 Beyond government；
which is； as it were； the very shape and body of a nation；
the most significant thing about any citizen is his artistic
attitude towards a holiday and his moral attitude towards a fight
that is； his way of accepting life and his way of accepting death。
Subjected to these eternal tests； America does not appear by any means
as particularly fresh or untouched。 She appears with all the weakness
and weariness of modern England or of any other Western power。
In her politics she has broken up exactly as England has broken up；
into a bewildering opportunism and insincerity。 In the matter of war
and the national attitude towards war； her resemblance to England
is even more manifest and melancholy。 It may be said with rough
accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people。
First； it is a small power； and fights small powers。 Then it is
a great power； and fights great powers。 Then it is a great power；
and fights small powers； but pretends that they are great powers；
in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity。
After that； the next step is to become a small power itself。
England exhibited this symptom of decadence very badly in the war with
the Transvaal； but America exhibited it worse in the war with Spain。
There was exhibited more sharply and absurdly than anywhere
else the ironic contrast between the very careless choice
of a strong line and the very careful choice of a weak enemy。
America added to all her other late Roman or Byzantine elements
the element of the Caracallan triumph； the triumph over nobody。
But when we come to the last test of nationality； the test of art
and letters； the case is almost terrible。 The English colonies
have produced no great artists； and that fact may prove that they
are still full of silent possibilities and reserve force。
But America has produced great artists。 And that fact most certainly
proves that she is full of a fine futility and the end of all things。
Whatever the American men of genius are； they are not young gods
making a young world。 Is the art of Whistler a brave； barbaric art；
happy and headlong？ Does Mr。 Henry James infect us with the spirit
of a schoolboy？ No； the colonies have not spoken； and they are safe。
Their silence may be the silence of the unborn。 But out of America
has come a sweet and startling cry； as unmistakable as the cry
of a dying man。
XIX Slum Novelists and the Slums
Odd ideas are entertained in our time about the real nature of the doctrine
of human fraternity。 The real doctrine is something which we do not；
with all our modern humanitarianism； very clearly understand；
much less very closely practise。 There is nothing； for instance；
particularly undemocratic about kicking your butler downstairs。
It may be wrong； but it is not unfraternal。 In a certain sense；
the blow or kick may be considered as a confession of equality：
you are meeting your butler body to body； you are almost according
him the privilege of the duel。 There is nothing； undemocratic；
though there may be something unreasonable； in expecting a great deal
from the butler； and being filled with a kind of frenzy of surprise
when he falls short of the divine stature。 The thing which is
really undemocratic and unfraternal is not to expect the butler
to be more or less divine。 The thing which is really undemocratic
and unfraternal is to say； as so many modern humanitarians say；
〃Of course one must make allowances for those on a lower plane。〃
All things considered indeed； it may be said； without undue exaggeration；
that the really undemocratic and unfraternal thing is the common
practice of not kicking the butler downstairs。
It is only because such a vast section of the modern world is
out of sympathy with the serious democratic sentiment that this
statement will seem to many to be lacking in seriousness。
Democracy is not philanthropy； it is not even altruism or social reform。
Democracy is not founded on pity for the common man； democracy is
founded on reverence for the common man； or； if you will； even on
fear of him。 It does not champion man because man is so miserable；
but because man is so sublime。 It does not object so much
to the ordinary man being a slave as to his not being a king；
for its dream is always the dream of the first Roman republic；
a nation of kings。
Next to a genuine republic； the most democratic thing
in the world is a hereditary despotism。 I mean a despotism
in which there is absolutely no trace whatever of any
nonsense about intellect or special fitness for the post。
Rational despotismthat is； selective despotismis always
a curse to mankind； because with that you have the ordinary
man misunderstood and misgoverned by some prig who has no
brotherly respect for him at all。 But irrational despotism
is always democratic； because it is the ordinary man enthroned。
The worst form of slavery is that which is called Caesarism；
or the choice of some bold or brilliant man as despot because
he is suitable。 For that means that men choose a representative；
not because he represents them； but because he does not。
Men trust an ordinary man like George III or William IV。
because they are themselves ordinary men and understand him。
Men trust an ordinary man because they trust themselves。
But men trust a great man because they do not trust themselves。
And hence the worship of great men always appears in times
of weakness and cowardice； we never hear of great men until
the time when all other men are small。
Hereditary despotism is； then； in essence and sentiment
democratic because it chooses from mankind at random。
If it does not declare that every man may rule； it declares
the next most democratic thing； it declares that any man may rule。
Hereditary aristocracy is a far worse and more dangerous thing；
because the numbers and multiplicity of an aristocracy make it
sometimes possible for it to figure as an aristocracy of intellect。
Some of its members will presumably have brains； and thus they；
at any rate； will be an intellectual aristocracy within the social one。
They will rule the aristocracy by virtue of their intellect；
and they will rule the country by virtue of their aristocracy。
Thus a double falsity will be set up； and millions of the images
of God； who； fortunately for their wives and families； are neither
gentlemen nor clever men； will be represented by a man like Mr。 Balfour
or Mr。 Wyndham； because he is too gentlemanly to be called
merely clever； and just too clever to be called merely a gentleman。
But even an hereditary aristocracy may exhibit； by a sort of accident；
from time to time some of the basically democratic quality which
belongs to a hereditary despotism。 It is amusing to think how much
conservative ingenuity has been wasted in the defence of the House
of Lords by men who were desperately endeavouring to prove that
the House of Lords consisted of clever men。 There is one really
good defence of the House of Lords； though admirers of the peerage
are strangely coy about using it； and that is； that the House
of Lords； in its full and proper strength； consists of stupid men。
It really would be a plausible defence of that otherwise indefensible
body to point out that the clever men in the Commons； who owed
their power to cleverness； ought in the last resort to be checked
by the average man in the Lords； who owed their power to accident。
Of course； there would be many answers to such a contention；
as； for instance； that the House of Lords is largely no longer
a House of Lords； but a House of tradesmen and financiers；
or that the bulk of the commonplace nobility do not vote； and so
leave the chamber to the prigs and the specialists and the mad old
gentlemen with hobbies。 But on some occasions the House of Lords；
even under all these disadvantages； is in some sense representative。
When all the peers flocked together to vote against Mr。 Gladstone's
second Home Rule Bill； for instance； those who said that the
peers represented the English people； were perfectly right。
All those dear old men who happened to be born peers were at that moment；
and upon that question； the precise counterpart of all the dear old
men who happened to be born paupers or middle…class gentlemen。
That mob of peers did really represent the English peoplethat is
to say； it was honest； ignorant； vaguely excited； almost unanimous；
and obviously wrong。 Of course； rational democracy is better as an
expression of the public will than the haphazard hereditary method。
While we are about having any kind of democracy； let it be
rational democracy。 But if we are to have any kind of oligarchy；
let it be irrational oligarchy。 Then at least we shall be ruled by men。
But the thing which is really required for the proper working of democracy
is not merely the democratic system； or even the democratic philosophy；
but the democrat
