the soul of man-第8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！


naturally；　and　so　had　great　and　individual　artists；　and　great　and

individual　men。　　One　might　point　out　how　Louis　XIV。；　by　creating

the　modern　state；　destroyed　the　individualism　of　the　artist；　and

made　things　monstrous　in　their　monotony　of　repetition；　and

contemptible　in　their　conformity　to　rule；　and　destroyed　throughout

all　France　all　those　fine　freedoms　of　expression　that　had　made

tradition　new　in　beauty；　and　new　modes　one　with　antique　form。　　But

the　past　is　of　no　importance。　　The　present　is　of　no　importance。　　It

is　with　the　future　that　we　have　to　deal。　　For　the　past　is　what　man

should　not　have　been。　　The　present　is　what　man　ought　not　to　be。

The　future　is　what　artists　are。



It　will；　of　course；　be　said　that　such　a　scheme　as　is　set　forth　here

is　quite　unpractical；　and　goes　against　human　nature。　　This　is

perfectly　true。　　It　is　unpractical；　and　it　goes　against　human

nature。　　This　is　why　it　is　worth　carrying　out；　and　that　is　why　one

proposes　it。　　For　what　is　a　practical　scheme？　　A　practical　scheme

is　either　a　scheme　that　is　already　in　existence；　or　a　scheme　that

could　be　carried　out　under　existing　conditions。　　But　it　is　exactly

the　existing　conditions　that　one　objects　to；　and　any　scheme　that

could　accept　these　conditions　is　wrong　and　foolish。　　The　conditions

will　be　done　away　with；　and　human　nature　will　change。　　The　only

thing　that　one　really　knows　about　human　nature　is　that　it　changes。

Change　is　the　one　quality　we　can　predicate　of　it。　　The　systems　that

fail　are　those　that　rely　on　the　permanency　of　human　nature；　and　not

on　its　growth　and　development。　　The　error　of　Louis　XIV。　was　that　he

thought　human　nature　would　always　be　the　same。　　The　result　of　his

error　was　the　French　Revolution。　　It　was　an　admirable　result。　　All

the　results　of　the　mistakes　of　governments　are　quite　admirable。



It　is　to　be　noted　also　that　Individualism　does　not　come　to　man　with

any　sickly　cant　about　duty；　which　merely　means　doing　what　other

people　want　because　they　want　it；　or　any　hideous　cant　about　self…

sacrifice；　which　is　merely　a　survival　of　savage　mutilation。　　In

fact；　it　does　not　come　to　man　with　any　claims　upon　him　at　all。　　It

comes　naturally　and　inevitably　out　of　man。　　It　is　the　point　to

which　all　development　tends。　　It　is　the　differentiation　to　which

all　organisms　grow。　　It　is　the　perfection　that　is　inherent　in　every

mode　of　life；　and　towards　which　every　mode　of　life　quickens。　　And

so　Individualism　exercises　no　compulsion　over　man。　　On　the

contrary；　it　says　to　man　that　he　should　suffer　no　compulsion　to　be

exercised　over　him。　　It　does　not　try　to　force　people　to　be　good。

It　knows　that　people　are　good　when　they　are　let　alone。　　Man　will

develop　Individualism　out　of　himself。　　Man　is　now　so　developing

Individualism。　　To　ask　whether　Individualism　is　practical　is　like

asking　whether　Evolution　is　practical。　　Evolution　is　the　law　of

life；　and　there　is　no　evolution　except　towards　Individualism。

Where　this　tendency　is　not　expressed；　it　is　a　case　of　artificially…

arrested　growth；　or　of　disease；　or　of　death。



Individualism　will　also　be　unselfish　and　unaffected。　　It　has　been

pointed　out　that　one　of　the　results　of　the　extraordinary　tyranny　of

authority　is　that　words　are　absolutely　distorted　from　their　proper

and　simple　meaning；　and　are　used　to　express　the　obverse　of　their

right　signification。　　What　is　true　about　Art　is　true　about　Life。　　A

man　is　called　affected；　nowadays；　if　he　dresses　as　he　likes　to

dress。　　But　in　doing　that　he　is　acting　in　a　perfectly　natural

manner。　　Affectation；　in　such　matters；　consists　in　dressing

according　to　the　views　of　one's　neighbour；　whose　views；　as　they　are

the　views　of　the　majority；　will　probably　be　extremely　stupid。　　Or　a

man　is　called　selfish　if　he　lives　in　the　manner　that　seems　to　him

most　suitable　for　the　full　realisation　of　his　own　personality；　if；

in　fact；　the　primary　aim　of　his　life　is　self…development。　　But　this

is　the　way　in　which　everyone　should　live。　　Selfishness　is　not

living　as　one　wishes　to　live；　it　is　asking　others　to　live　as　one

wishes　to　live。　　And　unselfishness　is　letting　other　people's　lives

alone；　not　interfering　with　them。　　Selfishness　always　aims　at

creating　around　it　an　absolute　uniformity　of　type。　　Unselfishness

recognises　infinite　variety　of　type　as　a　delightful　thing；　accepts

it；　acquiesces　in　it；　enjoys　it。　　It　is　not　selfish　to　think　for

oneself。　　A　man　who　does　not　think　for　himself　does　not　think　at

all。　　It　is　grossly　selfish　to　require　of　ones　neighbour　that　he

should　think　in　the　same　way；　and　hold　the　same　opinions。　　Why

should　he？　　If　he　can　think；　he　will　probably　think　differently。

If　he　cannot　think；　it　is　monstrous　to　require　thought　of　any　kind

from　him。　　A　red　rose　is　not　selfish　because　it　wants　to　be　a　red

rose。　　It　would　be　horribly　selfish　if　it　wanted　all　the　other

flowers　in　the　garden　to　be　both　red　and　roses。　　Under

Individualism　people　will　be　quite　natural　and　absolutely

unselfish；　and　will　know　the　meanings　of　the　words；　and　realise

them　in　their　free；　beautiful　lives。　　Nor　will　men　be　egotistic　as

they　are　now。　　For　the　egotist　is　he　who　makes　claims　upon　others；

and　the　Individualist　will　not　desire　to　do　that。　　It　will　not　give

him　pleasure。　　When　man　has　realised　Individualism；　he　will　also

realise　sympathy　and　exercise　it　freely　and　spontaneously。　　Up　to

the　present　man　has　hardly　cultivated　sympathy　at　all。　　He　has

merely　sympathy　with　pain；　and　sympathy　with　pain　is　not　the

highest　form　of　sympathy。　　All　sympathy　is　fine；　but　sympathy　with

suffering　is　the　least　fine　mode。　　It　is　tainted　with　egotism。　　It

is　apt　to　become　morbid。　　There　is　in　it　a　certain　element　of

terror　for　our　own　safety。　　We　become　afraid　that　we　ourselves

might　be　as　the　leper　or　as　the　blind；　and　that　no　man　would　have

care　of　us。　　It　is　curiously　limiting；　too。　　One　should　sympathise

with　the　entirety　of　life；　not　with　life's　sores　and　maladies

merely；　but　with　life's　joy　and　beauty　and　energy　and　health　and

freedom。　　The　wider　sympathy　is；　of　course；　the　more　difficult。　　It

requires　more　unselfishness。　　Anybody　can　sympathise　with　the

sufferings　of　a　friend；　but　it　requires　a　very　fine　nature　…　it

requires；　in　fact；　the　nature　of　a　true　Individualist　…　to

sympathise　with　a　friend's　success。



In　the　modern　stress　of　competition　and　struggle　for　place；　such

sympathy　is　naturally　rare；　and　is　also　very　much　stifled　by　the

immoral　ideal　of　uniformity　of　type　and　conformity　to　rule　which　is

so　prevalent　everywhere；　and　is　perhaps　most　obnoxious　in　England。



Sympathy　with　pain　there　will；　of　course；　always　be。　　It　is　one　of

the　first　instincts　of　man。　　The　animals　which　are　individual；　the

higher　animals；　that　is　to　say；　share　it　with　us。　　But　it　must　be

remembered　that　while　sympathy　with　joy　intensifies　the　sum　of　joy

in　the　world；　sympathy　with　pain　does　not　really　diminish　the

amount　of　pain。　　It　may　make　man　better　able　to　endure　evil；　but

the　evil　remains。　　Sympathy　with　consumption　does　not　cure

consumption；　that　is　what　Science　does。　　And　when　Socialism　has

solved　the　problem　of　poverty；　and　Science　solved　the　problem　of

disease；　the　area　of　the　sentimentalists　will　be　lessened；　and　the

sympathy　of　man　will　be　large；　healthy；　and　spontaneous。　　Man　will

have　joy　in　the　contemplation　of　the　joyous　life　of　others。



For　it　is　through　joy　that　the　Individualism　of　the　future　will

develop　itself。　　Christ　made　no　attempt　to　reconstruct　society；　and

consequently　the　Individualism　that　he　preached　to　man　could　be

realised　only　through　pain　or　in　solitude。　　The　ideals　that　we　owe

to　Christ　are　the　ideals　of　the　man　who　abandons　society　entirely；

or　of　the　man　who　resists　society　absolutely。　　But　man　is　naturally

social。　　Even　the　Thebaid　became　peopled　at　last。　　And　though　the

cenobite　realises　his　personality；　it　is　often　an　impoverished

personality　that　he　so　realises。　　Upon　the　other　hand；　the　terrible

truth　that　pain　is　a　mode　through　which　man　may　realise　himself

exercises　a　wonderful　fascination　over　the　world。　　Shallow　speakers

and　shallow　thinkers　in　pulpits　and　on　platforms　often　talk　about

the　world's　worship　of　pleasure；　and　whine　against　it。　　But　it　is

rarely　in　the　world's　history　that　its　ideal　has　been　one　of　joy

and　beauty。　　The　worship　of　pain　has　far　more　often　dominated　the

world。　　Mediaevalism；　with　its　saints　and　martyrs；　its　love　of

self…torture；　its　wild　passion　for　wounding　itself；　its　gashing

with　knives；　and　its　whipping　with　rods　…　Mediaevalism　is　real

Christianity；　and　the　mediaeval　Christ　is　the　real　Christ。　　When

the　Renaissance　dawned　upon　the　world；　and　brought　with　it　the　new

ideals　of　the　beauty　of　life　and　the　joy　of　living；　men　could　not

understand　Christ。　　Even　Art　shows　us　that。　　The　painters　of　the

Renaissance　drew　Christ　as　a　little　boy　playing　with　another　boy　in

a　palace　or　a　garden；　or　lying　back　in　his　mother's　arms；　smiling

at　her；　or　at　a　flower；　or　at　a　bright　bird；　or　as　a　noble；　stately

figure　moving　nobly　through　the　world；　or　as　a　wonderful　figure

rising　in　a　sort　of　ecstasy　from　death　to　life。　　Even　when　they

drew　him　crucified　they　drew　him　as　a　beautiful　God　on　whom　evil

men　had　inflicted　suffering。　　But　he　did　not　preoccupy　them　much。

What　delighted　them　was　to　paint　the　men　and　women　whom　they

admired；　and　to　show　the　loveliness　of　this　lovely　earth。　　They

painted　many　religious　pictures　…　in　fact；　they　painted　far　too

many；　and　the　monotony　of　type　and　motive　is　wearisome；　and　was　bad

for　art。　　It　was　the　result　of　the　authority　of　the　public　in　art…

matters；　and　is　to　be　deplored。　　But　their　soul　was　not　in　the

subject。　　Raphael　was　a　great　artist　when　he　painted　his　portrait

of　the　Pope。　　When　he　painted　his　Madonnas　and　infant　Christs；　he

is　not　a　great　artist　at　all。　　Christ　had　no　message　for　the

Renaissance；　which　was　wonderful　because　it　brought　an　ideal　at

variance　with　his；　and　to　find　the　presenta