heretics-第31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！
and politics； in arts and in arms。 Perhaps the only quality
which was possessed in common by the great Fielding； and the
great Richardson was that neither of them hid their feelings。
Swift； indeed； was hard and logical； because Swift was Irish。
And when we pass to the soldiers and the rulers； the patriots and
the empire…builders of the eighteenth century； we find； as I have said；
that they were； If possible； more romantic than the romancers；
more poetical than the poets。 Chatham； who showed the world
all his strength； showed the House of Commons all his weakness。
Wolfe walked。 about the room with a drawn sword calling himself
Caesar and Hannibal； and went to death with poetry in his mouth。
Clive was a man of the same type as Cromwell or Bunyan； or； for the
matter of that； Johnsonthat is； he was a strong； sensible man
with a kind of running spring of hysteria and melancholy in him。
Like Johnson； he was all the more healthy because he was morbid。
The tales of all the admirals and adventurers of that England are
full of braggadocio； of sentimentality； of splendid affectation。
But it is scarcely necessary to multiply examples of the essentially
romantic Englishman when one example towers above them all。
Mr。 Rudyard Kipling has said complacently of the English；
〃We do not fall on the neck and kiss when we come together。〃
It is true that this ancient and universal custom has vanished with
the modern weakening of England。 Sydney would have thought nothing
of kissing Spenser。 But I willingly concede that Mr。 Broderick
would not be likely to kiss Mr。 Arnold…Foster； if that be any proof
of the increased manliness and military greatness of England。
But the Englishman who does not show his feelings has not altogether
given up the power of seeing something English in the great sea…hero
of the Napoleonic war。 You cannot break the legend of Nelson。
And across the sunset of that glory is written in flaming letters
for ever the great English sentiment； 〃Kiss me； Hardy。〃
This ideal of self…repression； then； is； whatever else it is； not English。
It is； perhaps； somewhat Oriental； it is slightly Prussian； but in
the main it does not come； I think； from any racial or national source。
It is； as I have said； in some sense aristocratic； it comes
not from a people； but from a class。 Even aristocracy； I think；
was not quite so stoical in the days when it was really strong。
But whether this unemotional ideal be the genuine tradition of
the gentleman； or only one of the inventions of the modern gentleman
（who may be called the decayed gentleman）； it certainly has something
to do with the unemotional quality in these society novels。
From representing aristocrats as people who suppressed their feelings；
it has been an easy step to representing aristocrats as people who had no
feelings to suppress。 Thus the modern oligarchist has made a virtue for
the oligarchy of the hardness as well as the brightness of the diamond。
Like a sonneteer addressing his lady in the seventeenth century；
he seems to use the word 〃cold〃 almost as a eulogium； and the word
〃heartless〃 as a kind of compliment。 Of course； in people so incurably
kind…hearted and babyish as are the English gentry； it would be
impossible to create anything that can be called positive cruelty；
so in these books they exhibit a sort of negative cruelty。
They cannot be cruel in acts； but they can be so in words。
All this means one thing； and one thing only。 It means that the living
and invigorating ideal of England must be looked for in the masses；
it must be looked for where Dickens found itDickens among whose glories
it was to be a humorist； to be a sentimentalist； to be an optimist；
to be a poor man； to be an Englishman； but the greatest of whose glories
was that he saw all mankind in its amazing and tropical luxuriance；
and did not even notice the aristocracy； Dickens； the greatest
of whose glories was that he could not describe a gentleman。
XVI On Mr。 McCabe and a Divine Frivolity
A critic once remonstrated with me saying； with an air of
indignant reasonableness； 〃If you must make jokes； at least you need
not make them on such serious subjects。〃 I replied with a natural
simplicity and wonder； 〃About what other subjects can one make
jokes except serious subjects？〃 It is quite useless to talk
about profane jesting。 All jesting is in its nature profane；
in the sense that it must be the sudden realization that something
which thinks itself solemn is not so very solemn after all。
If a joke is not a joke about religion or morals； it is a joke about
police…magistrates or scientific professors or undergraduates dressed
up as Queen Victoria。 And people joke about the police…magistrate
more than they joke about the Pope； not because the police…magistrate
is a more frivolous subject； but； on the contrary； because the
police…magistrate is a more serious subject than the Pope。
The Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England；
whereas the police…magistrate may bring his solemnity to bear quite
suddenly upon us。 Men make jokes about old scientific professors；
even more than they make them about bishopsnot because science
is lighter than religion； but because science is always by its
nature more solemn and austere than religion。 It is not I；
it is not even a particular class of journalists or jesters
who make jokes about the matters which are of most awful import；
it is the whole human race。 If there is one thing more than another
which any one will admit who has the smallest knowledge of the world；
it is that men are always speaking gravely and earnestly and with
the utmost possible care about the things that are not important；
but always talking frivolously about the things that are。
Men talk for hours with the faces of a college of cardinals about
things like golf； or tobacco； or waistcoats； or party politics。
But all the most grave and dreadful things in the world are the oldest
jokes in the worldbeing married； being hanged。
One gentleman； however； Mr。 McCabe； has in this matter made
to me something that almost amounts to a personal appeal；
and as he happens to be a man for whose sincerity and intellectual
virtue I have a high respect； I do not feel inclined to let it
pass without some attempt to satisfy my critic in the matter。
Mr。 McCabe devotes a considerable part of the last essay in
the collection called 〃Christianity and Rationalism on Trial〃
to an objection； not to my thesis； but to my method； and a very
friendly and dignified appeal to me to alter it。 I am much inclined
to defend myself in this matter out of mere respect for Mr。 McCabe；
and still more so out of mere respect for the truth which is； I think；
in danger by his error； not only in this question； but in others。
In order that there may be no injustice done in the matter；
I will quote Mr。 McCabe himself。 〃But before I follow Mr。 Chesterton
in some detail I would make a general observation on his method。
He is as serious as I am in his ultimate purpose； and I respect
him for that。 He knows； as I do； that humanity stands at a solemn
parting of the ways。 Towards some unknown goal it presses through
the ages； impelled by an overmastering desire of happiness。
To…day it hesitates； lightheartedly enough； but every serious
thinker knows how momentous the decision may be。 It is； apparently；
deserting the path of religion and entering upon the path of secularism。
Will it lose itself in quagmires of sensuality down this new path；
and pant and toil through years of civic and industrial anarchy；
only to learn it had lost the road； and must return to religion？
Or will it find that at last it is leaving the mists and the quagmires
behind it； that it is ascending the slope of the hill so long dimly
discerned ahead； and making straight for the long…sought Utopia？
This is the drama of our time； and every man and every woman
should understand it。
〃Mr。 Chesterton understands it。 Further； he gives us
credit for understanding it。 He has nothing of that paltry
meanness or strange density of so many of his colleagues；
who put us down as aimless iconoclasts or moral anarchists。
He admits that we are waging a thankless war for what we
take to be Truth and Progress。 He is doing the same。
But why； in the name of all that is reasonable； should we；
when we are agreed on the momentousness of the is
