heretics-第32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！
But why； in the name of all that is reasonable； should we；
when we are agreed on the momentousness of the issue either way；
forthwith desert serious methods of conducting the controversy？
Why； when the vital need of our time is to induce men
and women to collect their thoughts occasionally； and be men
and womennay； to remember that they are really gods that hold
the destinies of humanity on their kneeswhy should we think
that this kaleidoscopic play of phrases is inopportune？
The ballets of the Alhambra； and the fireworks of the Crystal Palace；
and Mr。 Chesterton's Daily News articles； have their place in life。
But how a serious social student can think of curing the
thoughtlessness of our generation by strained paradoxes； of giving
people a sane grasp of social problems by literary sleight…of…hand；
of settling important questions by a reckless shower of
rocket…metaphors and inaccurate ‘facts；' and the substitution
of imagination for judgment； I cannot see。〃
I quote this passage with a particular pleasure； because Mr。 McCabe
certainly cannot put too strongly the degree to which I give him
and his school credit for their complete sincerity and responsibility
of philosophical attitude。 I am quite certain that they mean every
word they say。 I also mean every word I say。 But why is it that
Mr。 McCabe has some sort of mysterious hesitation about admitting
that I mean every word I say； why is it that he is not quite as certain
of my mental responsibility as I am of his mental responsibility？
If we attempt to answer the question directly and well； we shall；
I think； have come to the root of the matter by the shortest cut。
Mr。 McCabe thinks that I am not serious but only funny；
because Mr。 McCabe thinks that funny is the opposite of serious。
Funny is the opposite of not funny； and of nothing else。
The question of whether a man expresses himself in a grotesque
or laughable phraseology； or in a stately and restrained phraseology；
is not a question of motive or of moral state； it is a question
of instinctive language and self…expression。 Whether a man chooses
to tell the truth in long sentences or short jokes is a problem
analogous to whether he chooses to tell the truth in French or German。
Whether a man preaches his gospel grotesquely or gravely is merely
like the question of whether he preaches it in prose or verse。
The question of whether Swift was funny in his irony is quite another sort
of question to the question of whether Swift was serious in his pessimism。
Surely even Mr。 McCabe would not maintain that the more funny
〃Gulliver〃 is in its method the less it can be sincere in its object。
The truth is； as I have said； that in this sense the two qualities
of fun and seriousness have nothing whatever to do with each other；
they are no more comparable than black and triangular。
Mr。 Bernard Shaw is funny and sincere。 Mr。 George Robey is
funny and not sincere。 Mr。 McCabe is sincere and not funny。
The average Cabinet Minister is not sincere and not funny。
In short； Mr。 McCabe is under the influence of a primary fallacy
which I have found very common m men of the clerical type。
Numbers of clergymen have from time to time reproached me for
making jokes about religion； and they have almost always invoked
the authority of that very sensible commandment which says；
〃Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain。〃
Of course； I pointed out that I was not in any conceivable sense
taking the name in vain。 To take a thing and make a joke out of it
is not to take it in vain。 It is； on the contrary； to take it
and use it for an uncommonly good object。 To use a thing in vain
means to use it without use。 But a joke may be exceedingly useful；
it may contain the whole earthly sense； not to mention the whole
heavenly sense； of a situation。 And those who find in the Bible
the commandment can find in the Bible any number of the jokes。
In the same book in which God's name is fenced from being taken in vain；
God himself overwhelms Job with a torrent of terrible levities。
The same book which says that God's name must not be taken vainly；
talks easily and carelessly about God laughing and God winking。
Evidently it is not here that we have to look for genuine
examples of what is meant by a vain use of the name。 And it is
not very difficult to see where we have really to look for it。
The people （as I tactfully pointed out to them） who really take
the name of the Lord in vain are the clergymen themselves。 The thing
which is fundamentally and really frivolous is not a careless joke。
The thing which is fundamentally and really frivolous is a
careless solemnity。 If Mr。 McCabe really wishes to know what sort
of guarantee of reality and solidity is afforded by the mere act
of what is called talking seriously； let him spend a happy Sunday
in going the round of the pulpits。 Or； better still； let him drop
in at the House of Commons or the House of Lords。 Even Mr。 McCabe
would admit that these men are solemnmore solemn than I am。
And even Mr。 McCabe； I think； would admit that these men are frivolous
more frivolous than I am。 Why should Mr。 McCabe be so eloquent
about the danger arising from fantastic and paradoxical writers？
Why should he be so ardent in desiring grave and verbose writers？
There are not so very many fantastic and paradoxical writers。
But there are a gigantic number of grave and verbose writers；
and it is by the efforts of the grave and verbose writers
that everything that Mr。 McCabe detests （and everything that
I detest； for that matter） is kept in existence and energy。
How can it have come about that a man as intelligent as Mr。 McCabe
can think that paradox and jesting stop the way？ It is solemnity
that is stopping the way in every department of modern effort。
It is his own favourite 〃serious methods；〃 it is his own favourite
〃momentousness；〃 it is his own favourite 〃judgment〃 which stops
the way everywhere。 Every man who has ever headed a deputation
to a minister knows this。 Every man who has ever written a letter
to the Times knows it。 Every rich man who wishes to stop the mouths
of the poor talks about 〃momentousness。〃 Every Cabinet minister
who has not got an answer suddenly develops a 〃judgment。〃
Every sweater who uses vile methods recommends 〃serious methods。〃
I said a moment ago that sincerity had nothing to do with solemnity；
but I confess that I am not so certain that I was right。
In the modern world； at any rate； I am not so sure that I was right。
In the modern world solemnity is the direct enemy of sincerity。
In the modern world sincerity is almost always on one side； and solemnity
almost always on the other。 The only answer possible to the fierce
and glad attack of sincerity is the miserable answer of solemnity。
Let Mr。 McCabe； or any one else who is much concerned that we should be
grave in order to be sincere； simply imagine the scene in some government
office in which Mr。 Bernard Shaw should head a Socialist deputation
to Mr。 Austen Chamberlain。 On which side would be the solemnity？
And on which the sincerity？
I am； indeed； delighted to discover that Mr。 McCabe reckons
Mr。 Shaw along with me in his system of condemnation of frivolity。
He said once； I believe； that he always wanted Mr。 Shaw to label
his paragraphs serious or comic。 I do not know which paragraphs
of Mr。 Shaw are paragraphs to be labelled serious； but surely
there can be no doubt that this paragraph of Mr。 McCabe's is
one to be labelled comic。 He also says； in the article I am
now discussing； that Mr。 Shaw has the reputation of deliberately
saying everything which his hearers do not expect him to say。
I need not labour the inconclusiveness and weakness of this； because it
has already been dealt with in my remarks on Mr。 Bernard Shaw。
Suffice it to say here that the only serious reason which I can imagine
inducing any one person to listen to any other is； that the first person
looks to the second person with an ardent faith and a fixed attention；
expecting him to say what he does not expect him to say。
It may be a paradox； but that is because paradoxes are true。
It may not be rational； but that is because rationalism is wrong。
But clearly it is quite true that whenever we go to hear a prophet or
teacher we may or may not expect wit； we may or may not expect eloquence；
but we do expect what we do not expect。 We may not expect the
