heretics-第30节
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！
essential or accidental； have altered the quality of our English comedy。
In particular； that stoical ideal； absurdly supposed to be
the English ideal； has stiffened and chilled us。 It is not
the English ideal； but it is to some extent the aristocratic ideal；
or it may be only the ideal of aristocracy in its autumn or decay。
The gentleman is a Stoic because he is a sort of savage；
because he is filled with a great elemental fear that some stranger
will speak to him。 That is why a third…class carriage is a community；
while a first…class carriage is a place of wild hermits。
But this matter； which is difficult； I may be permitted to approach
in a more circuitous way。
The haunting element of ineffectualness which runs through so much
of the witty and epigrammatic fiction fashionable during the last
eight or ten years； which runs through such works of a real though
varying ingenuity as 〃Dodo；〃 or 〃Concerning Isabel Carnaby；〃
or even 〃Some Emotions and a Moral；〃 may be expressed in various ways；
but to most of us I think it will ultimately amount to the same thing。
This new frivolity is inadequate because there is in it no strong sense
of an unuttered joy。 The men and women who exchange the repartees
may not only be hating each other； but hating even themselves。
Any one of them might be bankrupt that day； or sentenced to be shot
the next。 They are joking； not because they are merry； but because
they are not； out of the emptiness of the heart the mouth speaketh。
Even when they talk pure nonsense it is a careful nonsensea nonsense
of which they are economical； or； to use the perfect expression
of Mr。 W。 S。 Gilbert in 〃Patience；〃 it is such 〃precious nonsense。〃
Even when they become light…headed they do not become light…hearted。
All those who have read anything of the rationalism of the moderns know
that their Reason is a sad thing。 But even their unreason is sad。
The causes of this incapacity are also not very difficult to indicate。
The chief of all； of course； is that miserable fear of being sentimental；
which is the meanest of all the modern terrorsmeaner even than
the terror which produces hygiene。 Everywhere the robust and
uproarious humour has come from the men who were capable not merely
of sentimentalism； but a very silly sentimentalism。 There has been
no humour so robust or uproarious as that of the sentimentalist
Steele or the sentimentalist Sterne or the sentimentalist Dickens。
These creatures who wept like women were the creatures who laughed
like men。 It is true that the humour of Micawber is good literature
and that the pathos of little Nell is bad。 But the kind of man
who had the courage to write so badly in the one case is the kind
of man who would have the courage to write so well in the other。
The same unconsciousness； the same violent innocence； the same
gigantesque scale of action which brought the Napoleon of Comedy
his Jena brought him also his Moscow。 And herein is especially
shown the frigid and feeble limitations of our modern wits。
They make violent efforts； they make heroic and almost pathetic efforts；
but they cannot really write badly。 There are moments when we
almost think that they are achieving the effect； but our hope
shrivels to nothing the moment we compare their little failures
with the enormous imbecilities of Byron or Shakespeare。
For a hearty laugh it is necessary to have touched the heart。
I do not know why touching the heart should always be connected only
with the idea of touching it to compassion or a sense of distress。
The heart can be touched to joy and triumph； the heart can be
touched to amusement。 But all our comedians are tragic comedians。
These later fashionable writers are so pessimistic in bone
and marrow that they never seem able to imagine the heart having
any concern with mirth。 When they speak of the heart； they always
mean the pangs and disappointments of the emotional life。
When they say that a man's heart is in the right place；
they mean； apparently； that it is in his boots。 Our ethical societies
understand fellowship； but they do not understand good fellowship。
Similarly； our wits understand talk； but not what Dr。 Johnson called
a good talk。 In order to have； like Dr。 Johnson； a good talk；
it is emphatically necessary to be； like Dr。 Johnson； a good man
to have friendship and honour and an abysmal tenderness。
Above all； it is necessary to be openly and indecently humane；
to confess with fulness all the primary pities and fears of Adam。
Johnson was a clear…headed humorous man； and therefore he did not
mind talking seriously about religion。 Johnson was a brave man；
one of the bravest that ever walked； and therefore he did not mind
avowing to any one his consuming fear of death。
The idea that there is something English in the repression of one's
feelings is one of those ideas which no Englishman ever heard of until
England began to be governed exclusively by Scotchmen； Americans；
and Jews。 At the best； the idea is a generalization from the Duke
of Wellingtonwho was an Irishman。 At the worst； it is a part
of that silly Teutonism which knows as little about England as it
does about anthropology； but which is always talking about Vikings。
As a matter of fact； the Vikings did not repress their feelings in
the least。 They cried like babies and kissed each other like girls；
in short； they acted in that respect like Achilles and all strong
heroes the children of the gods。 And though the English nationality
has probably not much more to do with the Vikings than the French
nationality or the Irish nationality； the English have certainly
been the children of the Vikings in the matter of tears and kisses。
It is not merely true that all the most typically English men
of letters； like Shakespeare and Dickens； Richardson and Thackeray；
were sentimentalists。 It is also true that all the most typically English
men of action were sentimentalists； if possible； more sentimental。
In the great Elizabethan age； when the English nation was finally
hammered out； in the great eighteenth century when the British
Empire was being built up everywhere； where in all these times；
where was this symbolic stoical Englishman who dresses in drab
and black and represses his feelings？ Were all the Elizabethan
palladins and pirates like that？ Were any of them like that？
Was Grenville concealing his emotions when he broke wine…glasses
to pieces with his teeth and bit them till the blood poured down？
Was Essex restraining his excitement when he threw his hat into the sea？
Did Raleigh think it sensible to answer the Spanish guns only；
as Stevenson says； with a flourish of insulting trumpets？
Did Sydney ever miss an opportunity of making a theatrical remark in
the whole course of his life and death？ Were even the Puritans Stoics？
The English Puritans repressed a good deal； but even they were
too English to repress their feelings。 It was by a great miracle
of genius assuredly that Carlyle contrived to admire simultaneously
two things so irreconcilably opposed as silence and Oliver Cromwell。
Cromwell was the very reverse of a strong； silent man。
Cromwell was always talking； when he was not crying。 Nobody； I suppose；
will accuse the author of 〃Grace Abounding〃 of being ashamed
of his feelings。 Milton； indeed； it might be possible to represent
as a Stoic； in some sense he was a Stoic； just as he was a prig
and a polygamist and several other unpleasant and heathen things。
But when we have passed that great and desolate name； which may
really be counted an exception； we find the tradition of English
emotionalism immediately resumed and unbrokenly continuous。
Whatever may have been the moral beauty of the passions
of Etheridge and Dorset； Sedley and Buckingham； they cannot
be accused of the fault of fastidiously concealing them。
Charles the Second was very popular with the English because；
like all the jolly English kings； he displayed his passions。
William the Dutchman was very unpopular with the English because；
not being an Englishman； he did hide his emotions。 He was； in fact；
precisely the ideal Englishman of our modern theory； and precisely
for that reason all the real Englishmen loathed him like leprosy。
With the rise of the great England of the eighteenth century；
we find this open and emotional tone still maintained in letters
and politics； in arts and in arms。 Perhaps the only quality
