the soul of man-第5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！



We　have　been　able　to　have　fine　poetry　in　England　because　the　public

do　not　read　it；　and　consequently　do　not　influence　it。　　The　public

like　to　insult　poets　because　they　are　individual；　but　once　they

have　insulted　them；　they　leave　them　alone。　　In　the　case　of　the

novel　and　the　drama；　arts　in　which　the　public　do　take　an　interest；

the　result　of　the　exercise　of　popular　authority　has　been　absolutely

ridiculous。　　No　country　produces　such　badly…written　fiction；　such

tedious；　common　work　in　the　novel　form；　such　silly；　vulgar　plays　as

England。　　It　must　necessarily　be　so。　　The　popular　standard　is　of

such　a　character　that　no　artist　can　get　to　it。　　It　is　at　once　too

easy　and　too　difficult　to　be　a　popular　novelist。　　It　is　too　easy；

because　the　requirements　of　the　public　as　far　as　plot；　style；

psychology；　treatment　of　life；　and　treatment　of　literature　are

concerned　are　within　the　reach　of　the　very　meanest　capacity　and　the

most　uncultivated　mind。　　It　is　too　difficult；　because　to　meet　such

requirements　the　artist　would　have　to　do　violence　to　his

temperament；　would　have　to　write　not　for　the　artistic　joy　of

writing；　but　for　the　amusement　of　half…educated　people；　and　so

would　have　to　suppress　his　individualism；　forget　his　culture；

annihilate　his　style；　and　surrender　everything　that　is　valuable　in

him。　　In　the　case　of　the　drama；　things　are　a　little　better：　　the

theatre…going　public　like　the　obvious；　it　is　true；　but　they　do　not

like　the　tedious；　and　burlesque　and　farcical　comedy；　the　two　most

popular　forms；　are　distinct　forms　of　art。　　Delightful　work　may　be

produced　under　burlesque　and　farcical　conditions；　and　in　work　of

this　kind　the　artist　in　England　is　allowed　very　great　freedom。　　It

is　when　one　comes　to　the　higher　forms　of　the　drama　that　the　result

of　popular　control　is　seen。　　The　one　thing　that　the　public　dislike

is　novelty。　　Any　attempt　to　extend　the　subject…matter　of　art　is

extremely　distasteful　to　the　public；　and　yet　the　vitality　and

progress　of　art　depend　in　a　large　measure　on　the　continual

extension　of　subject…matter。　　The　public　dislike　novelty　because

they　are　afraid　of　it。　　It　represents　to　them　a　mode　of

Individualism；　an　assertion　on　the　part　of　the　artist　that　he

selects　his　own　subject；　and　treats　it　as　he　chooses。　　The　public

are　quite　right　in　their　attitude。　　Art　is　Individualism；　and

Individualism　is　a　disturbing　and　disintegrating　force。　　Therein

lies　its　immense　value。　　For　what　it　seeks　to　disturb　is　monotony

of　type；　slavery　of　custom；　tyranny　of　habit；　and　the　reduction　of

man　to　the　level　of　a　machine。　　In　Art；　the　public　accept　what　has

been；　because　they　cannot　alter　it；　not　because　they　appreciate　it。

They　swallow　their　classics　whole；　and　never　taste　them。　　They

endure　them　as　the　inevitable；　and　as　they　cannot　mar　them；　they

mouth　about　them。　　Strangely　enough；　or　not　strangely；　according　to

one's　own　views；　this　acceptance　of　the　classics　does　a　great　deal

of　harm。　　The　uncritical　admiration　of　the　Bible　and　Shakespeare　in

England　is　an　instance　of　what　I　mean。　　With　regard　to　the　Bible；

considerations　of　ecclesiastical　authority　enter　into　the　matter；

so　that　I　need　not　dwell　upon　the　point。　　But　in　the　case　of

Shakespeare　it　is　quite　obvious　that　the　public　really　see　neither

the　beauties　nor　the　defects　of　his　plays。　　If　they　saw　the

beauties；　they　would　not　object　to　the　development　of　the　drama；

and　if　they　saw　the　defects；　they　would　not　object　to　the

development　of　the　drama　either。　　The　fact　is；　the　public　make　use

of　the　classics　of　a　country　as　a　means　of　checking　the　progress　of

Art。　　They　degrade　the　classics　into　authorities。　　They　use　them　as

bludgeons　for　preventing　the　free　expression　of　Beauty　in　new

forms。　　They　are　always　asking　a　writer　why　he　does　not　write　like

somebody　else；　or　a　painter　why　he　does　not　paint　like　somebody

else；　quite　oblivious　of　the　fact　that　if　either　of　them　did

anything　of　the　kind　he　would　cease　to　be　an　artist。　　A　fresh　mode

of　Beauty　is　absolutely　distasteful　to　them；　and　whenever　it

appears　they　get　so　angry；　and　bewildered　that　they　always　use　two

stupid　expressions　…　one　is　that　the　work　of　art　is　grossly

unintelligible；　the　other；　that　the　work　of　art　is　grossly　immoral。

What　they　mean　by　these　words　seems　to　me　to　be　this。　　When　they

say　a　work　is　grossly　unintelligible；　they　mean　that　the　artist　has

said　or　made　a　beautiful　thing　that　is　new；　when　they　describe　a

work　as　grossly　immoral；　they　mean　that　the　artist　has　said　or　made

a　beautiful　thing　that　is　true。　　The　former　expression　has

reference　to　style；　the　latter　to　subject…matter。　　But　they

probably　use　the　words　very　vaguely；　as　an　ordinary　mob　will　use

ready…made　paving…stones。　　There　is　not　a　single　real　poet　or

prose…writer　of　this　century；　for　instance；　on　whom　the　British

public　have　not　solemnly　conferred　diplomas　of　immorality；　and

these　diplomas　practically　take　the　place；　with　us；　of　what　in

France；　is　the　formal　recognition　of　an　Academy　of　Letters；　and

fortunately　make　the　establishment　of　such　an　institution　quite

unnecessary　in　England。　　Of　course；　the　public　are　very　reckless　in

their　use　of　the　word。　　That　they　should　have　called　Wordsworth　an

immoral　poet；　was　only　to　be　expected。　　Wordsworth　was　a　poet。　　But

that　they　should　have　called　Charles　Kingsley　an　immoral　novelist

is　extraordinary。　　Kingsley's　prose　was　not　of　a　very　fine　quality。

Still；　there　is　the　word；　and　they　use　it　as　best　they　can。　　An

artist　is；　of　course；　not　disturbed　by　it。　　The　true　artist　is　a

man　who　believes　absolutely　in　himself；　because　he　is　absolutely

himself。　　But　I　can　fancy　that　if　an　artist　produced　a　work　of　art

in　England　that　immediately　on　its　appearance　was　recognised　by　the

public；　through　their　medium；　which　is　the　public　press；　as　a　work

that　was　quite　intelligible　and　highly　moral；　he　would　begin　to

seriously　question　whether　in　its　creation　he　had　really　been

himself　at　all；　and　consequently　whether　the　work　was　not　quite

unworthy　of　him；　and　either　of　a　thoroughly　second…rate　order；　or

of　no　artistic　value　whatsoever。



Perhaps；　however；　I　have　wronged　the　public　in　limiting　them　to

such　words　as　'immoral；'　'unintelligible；'　'exotic；'　and

'unhealthy。'　　There　is　one　other　word　that　they　use。　　That　word　is

'morbid。'　　They　do　not　use　it　often。　　The　meaning　of　the　word　is　so

simple　that　they　are　afraid　of　using　it。　　Still；　they　use　it

sometimes；　and；　now　and　then；　one　comes　across　it　in　popular

newspapers。　　It　is；　of　course；　a　ridiculous　word　to　apply　to　a　work

of　art。　　For　what　is　morbidity　but　a　mood　of　emotion　or　a　mode　of

thought　that　one　cannot　express？　　The　public　are　all　morbid；

because　the　public　can　never　find　expression　for　anything。　　The

artist　is　never　morbid。　　He　expresses　everything。　　He　stands

outside　his　subject；　and　through　its　medium　produces　incomparable

and　artistic　effects。　　To　call　an　artist　morbid　because　he　deals

with　morbidity　as　his　subject…matter　is　as　silly　as　if　one　called

Shakespeare　mad　because　he　wrote　'King　Lear。'



On　the　whole；　an　artist　in　England　gains　something　by　being

attacked。　　His　individuality　is　intensified。　　He　becomes　more

completely　himself。　　Of　course；　the　attacks　are　very　gross；　very

impertinent；　and　very　contemptible。　　But　then　no　artist　expects

grace　from　the　vulgar　mind；　or　style　from　the　suburban　intellect。

Vulgarity　and　stupidity　are　two　very　vivid　facts　in　modern　life。

One　regrets　them；　naturally。　　But　there　they　are。　　They　are

subjects　for　study；　like　everything　else。　　And　it　is　only　fair　to

state；　with　regard　to　modern　journalists；　that　they　always

apologise　to　one　in　private　for　what　they　have　written　against　one

in　public。



Within　the　last　few　years　two　other　adjectives；　it　may　be

mentioned；　have　been　added　to　the　very　limited　vocabulary　of　art…

abuse　that　is　at　the　disposal　of　the　public。　　One　is　the　word

'unhealthy；'　the　other　is　the　word　'exotic。'　　The　latter　merely

expresses　the　rage　of　the　momentary　mushroom　against　the　immortal；

entrancing；　and　exquisitely　lovely　orchid。　　It　is　a　tribute；　but　a

tribute　of　no　importance。　　The　word　'unhealthy；'　however；　admits　of

analysis。　　It　is　a　rather　interesting　word。　　In　fact；　it　is　so

interesting　that　the　people　who　use　it　do　not　know　what　it　means。



What　does　it　mean？　　What　is　a　healthy；　or　an　unhealthy　work　of　art？

All　terms　that　one　applies　to　a　work　of　art；　provided　that　one

applies　them　rationally；　have　reference　to　either　its　style　or　its

subject；　or　to　both　together。　　From　the　point　of　view　of　style；　a

healthy　work　of　art　is　one　whose　style　recognises　the　beauty　of　the

material　it　employs；　be　that　material　one　of　words　or　of　bronze；　of

colour　or　of　ivory；　and　uses　that　beauty　as　a　factor　in　producing

the　aesthetic　effect。　　From　the　point　of　view　of　subject；　a　healthy

work　of　art　is　one　the　choice　of　whose　subject　is　conditioned　by

the　temperament　of　the　artist；　and　comes　directly　out　of　it。　　In

fine；　a　healthy　work　of　art　is　one　that　has　both　perfection　and

personality。　　Of　course；　form　and　substance　cannot　be　separated　in

a　work　of　art；　they　are　always　one。　　But　for　purposes　of　analysis；

and　setting　the　wholeness　of　aesthetic　impression　aside　for　a

moment；　we　can　intellectually　so　separate　them。　　An　unhealthy　work

of　art；　on　the　other　hand；　is　a　work　whose　style　is　obvious；　old…

fashioned；　and　common；　and　whose　subject　is　deliberately　chosen；

not　because　the　artist　has　any　pleasure　in　it；　but　because　he

thinks　that　the　public　will　pay　him　for　it。　　In　fact；　the　popular

novel　that　the　public　calls　healthy　is　always　a　thoroughly

unhealthy　production；　and　what　the　public　call　an　unhealthy　novel

is　always　a　beautiful　and　healthy　work　of　art。



I　need　hardly　say　that　I　am　not；　for　a　single　moment；　complaining

that　the　public　and　the　public　press　misuse　these　words。　　I　do　not

see　how；　with　their　lack　of　comprehension　of　what　Art　is；　they

could　pos