heretics-第38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！





to　Matthew　Arnold　that　he　was　getting　as　dogmatic　as　Carlyle。



He　replied；　〃That　may　be　true；　but　you　overlook　an　obvious　difference。



I　am　dogmatic　and　right；　and　Carlyle　is　dogmatic　and　wrong。〃



The　strong　humour　of　the　remark　ought　not　to　disguise　from　us　its



everlasting　seriousness　and　common　sense；　no　man　ought　to　write　at　all；



or　even　to　speak　at　all；　unless　he　thinks　that　he　is　in　truth　and　the　other



man　in　error。　　In　similar　style；　I　hold　that　I　am　dogmatic　and　right；



while　Mr。　Shaw　is　dogmatic　and　wrong。　　But　my　main　point；　at　present；



is　to　notice　that　the　chief　among　these　writers　I　have　discussed



do　most　sanely　and　courageously　offer　themselves　as　dogmatists；



as　founders　of　a　system。　　It　may　be　true　that　the　thing　in　Mr。　Shaw



most　interesting　to　me；　is　the　fact　that　Mr。　Shaw　is　wrong。



But　it　is　equally　true　that　the　thing　in　Mr。　Shaw　most　interesting



to　himself；　is　the　fact　that　Mr。　Shaw　is　right。　　Mr。　Shaw　may　have



none　with　him　but　himself；　but　it　is　not　for　himself　he　cares。



It　is　for　the　vast　and　universal　church；　of　which　he　is　the　only　member。







The　two　typical　men　of　genius　whom　I　have　mentioned　here；　and　with　whose



names　I　have　begun　this　book；　are　very　symbolic；　if　only　because　they



have　shown　that　the　fiercest　dogmatists　can　make　the　best　artists。



In　the　fin　de　siecle　atmosphere　every　one　was　crying　out　that



literature　should　be　free　from　all　causes　and　all　ethical　creeds。



Art　was　to　produce　only　exquisite　workmanship；　and　it　was　especially　the



note　of　those　days　to　demand　brilliant　plays　and　brilliant　short　stories。



And　when　they　got　them；　they　got　them　from　a　couple　of　moralists。



The　best　short　stories　were　written　by　a　man　trying　to　preach　Imperialism。



The　best　plays　were　written　by　a　man　trying　to　preach　Socialism。



All　the　art　of　all　the　artists　looked　tiny　and　tedious　beside



the　art　which　was　a　byproduct　of　propaganda。







The　reason；　indeed；　is　very　simple。　　A　man　cannot　be　wise　enough　to　be



a　great　artist　without　being　wise　enough　to　wish　to　be　a　philosopher。



A　man　cannot　have　the　energy　to　produce　good　art　without　having



the　energy　to　wish　to　pass　beyond　it。　　A　small　artist　is　content



with　art；　a　great　artist　is　content　with　nothing　except　everything。



So　we　find　that　when　real　forces；　good　or　bad；　like　Kipling　and



G。　B。　S。；　enter　our　arena；　they　bring　with　them　not　only　startling



and　arresting　art；　but　very　startling　and　arresting　dogmas。　　And　they



care　even　more；　and　desire　us　to　care　even　more；　about　their　startling



and　arresting　dogmas　than　about　their　startling　and　arresting　art。



Mr。　Shaw　is　a　good　dramatist；　but　what　he　desires　more　than



anything　else　to　be　is　a　good　politician。　　Mr。　Rudyard　Kipling



is　by　divine　caprice　and　natural　genius　an　unconventional　poet；



but　what　he　desires　more　than　anything　else　to　be　is　a　conventional　poet。



He　desires　to　be　the　poet　of　his　people；　bone　of　their　bone；　and　flesh



of　their　flesh；　understanding　their　origins；　celebrating　their　destiny。



He　desires　to　be　Poet　Laureate；　a　most　sensible　and　honourable　and



public…spirited　desire。　　Having　been　given　by　the　gods　originality



that　is；　disagreement　with　othershe　desires　divinely　to　agree　with　them。



But　the　most　striking　instance　of　all；　more　striking；　I　think；



even　than　either　of　these；　is　the　instance　of　Mr。　H。　G。　Wells。



He　began　in　a　sort　of　insane　infancy　of　pure　art。　　He　began　by　making



a　new　heaven　and　a　new　earth；　with　the　same　irresponsible　instinct



by　which　men　buy　a　new　necktie　or　button…hole。　He　began　by　trifling



with　the　stars　and　systems　in　order　to　make　ephemeral　anecdotes；



he　killed　the　universe　for　a　joke。　　He　has　since　become　more　and



more　serious；　and　has　become；　as　men　inevitably　do　when　they　become



more　and　more　serious；　more　and　more　parochial。　　He　was　frivolous　about



the　twilight　of　the　gods；　but　he　is　serious　about　the　London　omnibus。



He　was　careless　in　〃The　Time　Machine；〃　for　that　dealt　only　with



the　destiny　of　all　things；　but　be　is　careful；　and　even　cautious；



in　〃Mankind　in　the　Making；〃　for　that　deals　with　the　day　after



to…morrow。　He　began　with　the　end　of　the　world；　and　that　was　easy。



Now　he　has　gone　on　to　the　beginning　of　the　world；　and　that　is　difficult。



But　the　main　result　of　all　this　is　the　same　as　in　the　other　cases。



The　men　who　have　really　been　the　bold　artists；　the　realistic　artists；



the　uncompromising　artists；　are　the　men　who　have　turned　out；　after　all；



to　be　writing　〃with　a　purpose。〃　　Suppose　that　any　cool　and　cynical



art…critic；　any　art…critic　fully　impressed　with　the　conviction



that　artists　were　greatest　when　they　were　most　purely　artistic；



suppose　that　a　man　who　professed　ably　a　humane　aestheticism；



as　did　Mr。　Max　Beerbohm；　or　a　cruel　aestheticism；　as　did



Mr。　W。　E。　Henley；　had　cast　his　eye　over　the　whole　fictional



literature　which　was　recent　in　the　year　1895；　and　had　been　asked



to　select　the　three　most　vigorous　and　promising　and　original　artists



and　artistic　works；　he　would；　I　think；　most　certainly　have　said



that　for　a　fine　artistic　audacity；　for　a　real　artistic　delicacy；



or　for　a　whiff　of　true　novelty　in　art；　the　things　that　stood　first



were　〃Soldiers　Three；〃　by　a　Mr。　Rudyard　Kipling；　〃Arms　and　the　Man；〃



by　a　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw；　and　〃The　Time　Machine；〃　by　a　man　called　Wells。



And　all　these　men　have　shown　themselves　ingrainedly　didactic。



You　may　express　the　matter　if　you　will　by　saying　that　if　we　want



doctrines　we　go　to　the　great　artists。　　But　it　is　clear　from



the　psychology　of　the　matter　that　this　is　not　the　true　statement；



the　true　statement　is　that　when　we　want　any　art　tolerably　brisk



and　bold　we　have　to　go　to　the　doctrinaires。







In　concluding　this　book；　therefore；　I　would　ask；　first　and　foremost；



that　men　such　as　these　of　whom　I　have　spoken　should　not　be　insulted



by　being　taken　for　artists。　　No　man　has　any　right　whatever　merely



to　enjoy　the　work　of　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw；　he　might　as　well　enjoy



the　invasion　of　his　country　by　the　French。　　Mr。　Shaw　writes　either



to　convince　or　to　enrage　us。　　No　man　has　any　business　to　be　a



Kiplingite　without　being　a　politician；　and　an　Imperialist　politician。



If　a　man　is　first　with　us；　it　should　be　because　of　what　is　first　with　him。



If　a　man　convinces　us　at　all；　it　should　be　by　his　convictions。



If　we　hate　a　poem　of　Kipling's　from　political　passion；　we　are　hating　it



for　the　same　reason　that　the　poet　loved　it；　if　we　dislike　him　because　of



his　opinions；　we　are　disliking　him　for　the　best　of　all　possible　reasons。



If　a　man　comes　into　Hyde　Park　to　preach　it　is　permissible　to　hoot　him；



but　it　is　discourteous　to　applaud　him　as　a　performing　bear。



And　an　artist　is　only　a　performing　bear　compared　with　the　meanest



man　who　fancies　he　has　anything　to　say。







There　is；　indeed；　one　class　of　modern　writers　and　thinkers　who　cannot



altogether　be　overlooked　in　this　question；　though　there　is　no　space



here　for　a　lengthy　account　of　them；　which；　indeed；　to　confess



the　truth；　would　consist　chiefly　of　abuse。　　I　mean　those　who　get



over　all　these　abysses　and　reconcile　all　these　wars　by　talking　about



〃aspects　of　truth；〃　by　saying　that　the　art　of　Kipling　represents



one　aspect　of　the　truth；　and　the　art　of　William　Watson　another；



the　art　of　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　one　aspect　of　the　truth；　and　the　art



of　Mr。　Cunningham　Grahame　another；　the　art　of　Mr。　H。　G。　Wells



one　aspect；　and　the　art　of　Mr。　Coventry　Patmore　（say）　another。



I　will　only　say　here　that　this　seems　to　me　an　evasion　which　has



not　even　bad　the　sense　to　disguise　itself　ingeniously　in　words。



If　we　talk　of　a　certain　thing　being　an　aspect　of　truth；



it　is　evident　that　we　claim　to　know　what　is　truth；　just　as；　if　we



talk　of　the　hind　leg　of　a　dog；　we　claim　to　know　what　is　a　dog。



Unfortunately；　the　philosopher　who　talks　about　aspects　of　truth



generally　also　asks；　〃What　is　truth？〃　　Frequently　even　he　denies



the　existence　of　truth；　or　says　it　is　inconceivable　by　the



human　intelligence。　　How；　then；　can　he　recognize　its　aspects？



I　should　not　like　to　be　an　artist　who　brought　an　architectural　sketch



to　a　builder；　saying；　〃This　is　the　south　aspect　of　Sea…View　Cottage。



Sea…View　Cottage；　of　course；　does　not　exist。〃　　I　should　not　even



like　very　much　to　have　to　explain；　under　such　circumstances；



that　Sea…View　Cottage　might　exist；　but　was　unthinkable　by　the　human　mind。



Nor　should　I　like　any　better　to　be　the　bungling　and　absurd　metaphysician



who　professed　to　be　able　to　see　everywhere　the　aspects　of　a　truth



that　is　not　there。　　Of　course；　it　is　perfectly　obvious　that　there



are　truths　in　Kipling；　that　there　are　truths　in　Shaw　or　Wells。



But　the　degree　to　which　we　can　perceive　them　depends　strictly　upon



how　far　we　have　a　definite　conception　inside　us　of　what　is　truth。



It　is　ludicrous　to　suppose　that　the　more　sceptical　we　are　the　more　we



see　good　in　everything。　　It　is　clear　that　the　more　we　are　certain



what　good　is；　the　more　we　shall　see　good　in　everything。







I　plead；　then；　that　we　should　agree　or　disagree　with　these　men。　　I　plead



that　we　should　agree　with　them　at　least　in　having　an　abstract　belief。



But　I　know　that　there　are　current　in　the　modern　world　many　vague



objections　to　having　an　abstract　belief；　and　I　feel　that　we　shall



not　get　any　further　until　we　have　dealt　with　some　of　them。



The　first　objection　is　easily　stated。







A　common　hesitation　in　our　day　touching　the　use　of　extreme　convictions



is　a　sort　of　notion　that　extreme　convictions　specially　upon　cosmic　matters；



hav