short stories and essays-第24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！


among　us；　Lowell；　Longfellow；　Whittier；　Curtis；　Emerson；　and　Bryant　more
or　less　promptly　and　openly　took　sides　against　slavery。　　Holmes　was　very
much　later　in　doing　so；　but　he　made　up　for　his　long　delay　by　his　final
strenuousness；　as　for　Hawthorne；　he　was；　perhaps；　too　essentially　a
spectator　of　life　to　be　classed　with　either　party；　though　his
associations；　if　not　his　sympathies；　were　with　the　Northern　men　who　had
Southern　principles　until　the　civil　war　came。　　After　the　war；　when　our
political　questions　ceased　to　be　moral　and　emotional　and　became　economic
and　sociological；　literary　men　found　their　standing　with　greater
difficulty。　　They　remained　mostly　Republicans；　because　the　Republicans
were　the　anti…slavery　party；　and　were　still　waging　war　against　slavery　in
their　nerves。

I　should　say　that　they　also　continued　very　largely　the　emotional
tradition　in　politics；　and　it　is　doubtful　if　in　the　nature　of　things　the
politics　of　literary　men　can　ever　be　otherwise　than　emotional。　　In　fact；
though　the　questions　may　no　longer　be　so；　the　politics　of　vastly　the
greater　number　of　Americans　are　so。　　Nothing　else　would　account　for　the
fact　that　during　the　last　ten　or　fifteen　years　men　have　remained
Republicans　and　remained　Democrats　upon　no　tangible　issues　except　of
office；　which　could　practically　concern　only　a　few　hundreds　or　thousands
out　of　every　million　voters。　　Party　fealty　is　praised　as　a　virtue；　and
disloyalty　to　party　is　treated　as　a　species　of　incivism　next　in
wickedness　to　treason。　　If　any　one　were　to　ask　me　why　then　American
authors　were　not　active　in　American　politics；　as　they　once　were；　I　should
feel　a　certain　diffidence　in　replying　that　the　question　of　other　people's
accession　to　office　was；　however　emotional；　unimportant　to　them　as
compared　with　literary　questions。　　I　should　have　the　more　diffidence
because　it　might　be　retorted　that　literary　men　were　too　unpractical　for
politics　when　they　did　not　deal　with　moral　issues。

Such　a　retort　would　be　rather　mild　and　civil；　as　things　go；　and　might
even　be　regarded　as　complimentary。　　It　is　not　our　custom　to　be　tender
with　any　one　who　doubts　if　any　actuality　is　right；　or　might　not　be
bettered；　especially　in　public　affairs。　　We　are　apt　to　call　such　a　one
out　of　his　name　and　to　punish　him　for　opinions　he　has　never　held。　　This
may　be　a　better　reason　than　either　given　why　authors　do　not　take　part　in
politics　with　us。　　They　are　a　thin…skinned　race；　fastidious　often；　and
always　averse　to　hard　knocks；　they　are　rather　modest；　too；　and　distrust
their　fitness　to　lead；　when　they　have　quite　a　firm　faith　in　their
convictions。　　They　hesitate　to　urge　these　in　the　face　of　practical
politicians；　who　have　a　confidence　in　their　ability　to　settle　all　affairs
of　State　not　surpassed　even　by　that　of　business　men　in　dealing　with
economic　questions。

I　think　it　is　a　pity　that　our　authors　do　not　go　into　politics　at　least
for　the　sake　of　the　material　it　would　yield　them；　but　really　they　do　not。
Our　politics　are　often　vulgar；　but　they　are　very　picturesque；　yet；　so
far；　our　fiction　has　shunned　them　even　more　decidedly　than　it　has　shunned
our　good　societywhich　is　not　picturesque　or　apparently　anything　but　a
tiresome　adaptation　of　the　sort　of　drama　that　goes　on　abroad　under　the
same　name。　　In　nearly　the　degree　that　our　authors　have　dealt　with　our
politics　as　material；　they　have　given　the　practical　politicians　only　too
much　reason　to　doubt　their　insight　and　their　capacity　to　understand　the
mere　machinery；　the　simplest　motives；　of　political　life。




II。

There　are　exceptions；　of　course；　and　if　my　promise　of　reticence　did　not
withhold　me　I　might　name　some　striking　ones。　　Privately　and
unprofessionally；　I　think　our　authors　take　as　vivid　an　interest　in　public
affairs　as　any　other　class　of　our　citizens；　and　I　should　be　sorry　to
think　that　they　took　a　less　intelligent　interest。　　Now　and　then；　but　only
very　rarely；　one　of　them　speaks　out；　and　usually　on　the　unpopular　side。
In　this　event　he　is　spared　none　of　the　penalties　with　which　we　like　to
visit　difference　of　opinion；　rather　they　are　accumulated　on　him。

Such　things　are　not　serious；　and　they　are　such　as　no　serious　man　need
shrink　from；　but　they　have　a　bearing　upon　what　I　am　trying　to　explain；
and　in　a　certain　measure　they　account　for　a　certain　attitude　in　our
literary　men。　　No　one　likes　to　have　stones；　not　to　say　mud；　thrown　at
him；　though　they　are　not　meant　to　hurt　him　badly　and　may　be　partly　thrown
in　joke。　　But　it　is　pretty　certain　that　if　a　man　not　in　politics　takes
them　seriously；　he　will　have　more　or　less　mud；　not　to　say　stones；　thrown
at　him。　　He　might　burlesque　or　caricature　them；　or　misrepresent　them；
with　safety；　but　if　he　spoke　of　public　questions　with　heart　and
conscience；　he　could　not　do　it　with　impunity；　unless　he　were　authorized
to　do　so　by　some　practical　relation　to　them。　　I　do　not　mean　that　then　he
would　escape；　but　in　this　country；　where　there　were　once　supposed　to　be
no　classes；　people　are　more　strictly　classified　than　in　any　other。
Business　to　the　business　man；　law　to　the　lawyer；　medicine　to　the
physician；　politics　to　the　politician；　and　letters　to　the　literary　man；
that　is　the　rule。　　One　is　not　expected　to　transcend　his　function；　and
commonly　one　does　not。　　We　keep　each　to　his　last；　as　if　there　were　not
human　interests；　civic　interests；　which　had　a　higher　claim　than　the　last
upon　our　thinking　and　feeling。　　The　tendency　has　grown　upon　us　severally
and　collectively　through　the　long　persistence　of　our　prosperity；　if
public　affairs　were　going　ill；　private　affairs　were　going　so　well　that　we
did　not　mind　the　others；　and　we　Americans　are；　I　think；　meridional　in　our
improvidence。　　We　are　so　essentially　of　to…day　that　we　behave　as　if　to…
morrow　no　more　concerned　us　than　yesterday。　　We　have　taught　ourselves　to
believe　that　it　will　all　come　out　right　in　the　end　so　long　that　we　have
come　to　act　upon　our　belief；　we　are　optimistic　fatalists。




III。

The　turn　which　our　politics　have　taken　towards　economics；　if　I　may　so
phrase　the　rise　of　the　questions　of　labor　and　capital；　has　not　largely
attracted　literary　men。　　It　is　doubtful　whether　Edward　Bellamy　himself；
whose　fancy　of　better　conditions　has　become　the　abiding　faith　of　vast
numbers　of　Americans；　supposed　that　he　was　entering　the　field　of
practical　politics；　or　dreamed　of　influencing　elections　by　his　hopes　of
economic　equality。　　But　he　virtually　founded　the　Populist　party；　which；
as　the　vital　principle　of　the　Democratic　party；　came　so　near　electing　its
candidate　for　the　Presidency　some　years　ago；　and　he　is　to　be　named　first
among　our　authors　who　have　dealt　with　politics　on　their　more　human　side
since　the　days　of　the　old　antislavery　agitation。　　Without　too　great
disregard　of　the　reticence　concerning　the　living　which　I　promised　myself；
I　may　mention　Dr。　Edward　Everett　Hale　and　Colonel　Thomas　Wentworth
Higginson　as　prominent　authors　who　encouraged　the　Nationalist　movement
eventuating　in　Populism；　though　they　were　never　Populists。　　It　may　be
interesting　to　note　that　Dr。　Hale　and　Colonel　Higginson；　who　later　came
together　in　their　sociological　sympathies；　were　divided　by　the　schism　of
1884；　when　the　first　remained　with　the　Republicans　and　the　last　went　off
to　the　Democrats。　　More　remotely；　Colonel　Higginson　was　anti　slavery
almost　to　the　point　of　Abolitionism；　and　he　led　a　negro　regiment　in　the
war。　　Dr。　Hale　was　of　those　who　were　less　radically　opposed　to　slavery
before　the　war；　but　hardly　so　after　it　came。　　Since　the　war　a　sort　of
refluence　of　the　old　anti…slavery　politics　carried　from　his　moorings　in
Southern　tradition　Mr。　George　W。　Cable；　who；　against　the　white　sentiment
of　his　section；　sided　with　the　former　slaves；　and　would；　if　the　indignant
renunciation　of　his　fellow…Southerners　could　avail；　have　consequently
ceased　to　be　the　first　of　Southern　authors；　though　he　would　still　have
continued　the　author　of　at　least　one　of　the　greatest　American　novels。

If　I　must　burn　my　ships　behind　me　in　alleging　these　modern　instances；　as
I　seem　really　to　be　doing；　I　may　mention　Mr。　R。　W。　Gilder；　the　poet；　as
an　author　who　has　taken　part　in　the　politics　of　municipal　reform；　Mr。
Hamlin　Garland　has　been　known　from　the　first　as　a　zealous　George　man；　or
single…taxer。　　Mr。　John　Hay；　Mr。　Theodore　Roosevelt；　and　Mr。　Henry　Cabot
Lodge　are　Republican　politicians；　as　well　as　recognized　literary　men。
Mr。　Joel　Chandler　Harris；　when　not　writing　Uncle　Remus；　writes　political
articles　in　a　leading　Southern　journal。　　Mark　Twain　is　a　leading　anti…
imperialist。




IV。

I　am　not　sure　whether　I　have　made　out　a　case　for　our　authors　or　against
them；　perhaps　I　have　not　done　so　badly；　but　I　have　certainly　not　tried　to
be　exhaustive；　the　exhaustion　is　so　apt　to　extend　from　the　subject　to　the
reader；　and　I　wish　to　leave　him　in　a　condition　to　judge　for　himself
whether　American　literary　men　take　part　in　American　politics　or　not。
I　think　they　bear　their　share；　in　the　quieter　sort　of　way　which　we　hope
（it　may　be　too　fondly）　is　the　American　way。　　They　are　none　of　them
politicians　in　the　Latin　sort。　　Few；　if　any；　of　our　statesmen　have　come
forward　with　small　volumes　of　verse　in　their　hands　as　they　used　to　do　in
Spain；　none　of　our　poets　or　historians　have　been　chosen　Presidents　of　the
republic　as　has　happened　to　their　French　confreres；　no　great　novelist　of
ours　has　been　exiled　as　Victor　Hugo　was；　or　atrociously　mishandled　as
Zola　has　been；　though　I　have　no　doubt　that　if；　for　instance；　one　had　once
said　the　Spanish　war　wrong　he　would　be　pretty　generally　'conspue'。
They　have　none　of　them　reached　the　heights　of　political　power；　as　several
English　authors　have　done；　but　they　have　often　been　ambassadors；
ministers；　and　consuls；　though　they　may　not　often　have　been　appointed　for
political　reasons。　　I　fancy　they　discharge　their　duties　in　voting　rather
faithfully；　though　they　do　not　often　take　part　in　caucuses　or
conventions。

As　for　the　other　half　of　the　questionhow　far　American　politicians　are
scholarsone's　first　impulse　would　be　to　say　that　they　never　were　so。
But　I　have　always　had　an　heretical　belief　that　there　were　snakes　in
Ireland；　and　it　may　be　some　such　disposition　to　question　authority　that
keeps　me　fr