heretics-第34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！
joy which belongs to belief。 I should regard any civilization
which was without a universal habit of uproarious dancing as being；
from the full human point of view； a defective civilization。
And I should regard any mind which had not got the habit
in one form or another of uproarious thinking as being；
from the full human point of view； a defective mind。
It is vain for Mr。 McCabe to say that a ballet is a part of him。
He should be part of a ballet； or else he is only part of a man。
It is in vain for him to say that he is 〃not quarrelling
with the importation of humour into the controversy。〃
He ought himself to be importing humour into every controversy；
for unless a man is in part a humorist； he is only in part a man。
To sum up the whole matter very simply； if Mr。 McCabe asks me why I
import frivolity into a discussion of the nature of man； I answer；
because frivolity is a part of the nature of man。 If he asks me why
I introduce what he calls paradoxes into a philosophical problem；
I answer； because all philosophical problems tend to become paradoxical。
If he objects to my treating of life riotously； I reply that life
is a riot。 And I say that the Universe as I see it； at any rate；
is very much more like the fireworks at the Crystal Palace than it
is like his own philosophy。 About the whole cosmos there is a tense
and secret festivitylike preparations for Guy Fawkes' day。
Eternity is the eve of something。 I never look up at the stars
without feeling that they are the fires of a schoolboy's rocket；
fixed in their everlasting fall。
XVII On the Wit of Whistler
That capable and ingenious writer； Mr。 Arthur Symons；
has included in a book of essays recently published； I believe；
an apologia for 〃London Nights；〃 in which he says that morality
should be wholly subordinated to art in criticism； and he uses
the somewhat singular argument that art or the worship of beauty
is the same in all ages； while morality differs in every period
and in every respect。 He appears to defy his critics or his
readers to mention any permanent feature or quality in ethics。
This is surely a very curious example of that extravagant bias
against morality which makes so many ultra…modern aesthetes as morbid
and fanatical as any Eastern hermit。 Unquestionably it is a very
common phrase of modern intellectualism to say that the morality
of one age can be entirely different to the morality of another。
And like a great many other phrases of modern intellectualism；
it means literally nothing at all。 If the two moralities
are entirely different； why do you call them both moralities？
It is as if a man said； 〃Camels in various places are totally diverse；
some have six legs； some have none； some have scales； some have feathers；
some have horns； some have wings； some are green； some are triangular。
There is no point which they have in common。〃 The ordinary man
of sense would reply； 〃Then what makes you call them all camels？
What do you mean by a camel？ How do you know a camel when you see one？〃
Of course； there is a permanent substance of morality； as much
as there is a permanent substance of art； to say that is only to say
that morality is morality； and that art is art。 An ideal art
critic would； no doubt； see the enduring beauty under every school；
equally an ideal moralist would see the enduring ethic under every code。
But practically some of the best Englishmen that ever lived could see
nothing but filth and idolatry in the starry piety of the Brahmin。
And it is equally true that practically the greatest group of artists
that the world has ever seen； the giants of the Renaissance；
could see nothing but barbarism in the ethereal energy of Gothic。
This bias against morality among the modern aesthetes is nothing
very much paraded。 And yet it is not really a bias against morality；
it is a bias against other people's morality。 It is generally
founded on a very definite moral preference for a certain sort
of life； pagan； plausible； humane。 The modern aesthete； wishing us
to believe that he values beauty more than conduct； reads Mallarme；
and drinks absinthe in a tavern。 But this is not only his favourite
kind of beauty； it is also his favourite kind of conduct。
If he really wished us to believe that he cared for beauty only；
he ought to go to nothing but Wesleyan school treats； and paint
the sunlight in the hair of the Wesleyan babies。 He ought to read
nothing but very eloquent theological sermons by old…fashioned
Presbyterian divines。 Here the lack of all possible moral sympathy
would prove that his interest was purely verbal or pictorial； as it is；
in all the books he reads and writes he clings to the skirts
of his own morality and his own immorality。 The champion of l'art
pour l'art is always denouncing Ruskin for his moralizing。
If he were really a champion of l'art pour l'art； he would be always
insisting on Ruskin for his style。
The doctrine of the distinction between art and morality owes
a great part of its success to art and morality being hopelessly
mixed up in the persons and performances of its greatest exponents。
Of this lucky contradiction the very incarnation was Whistler。
No man ever preached the impersonality of art so well；
no man ever preached the impersonality of art so personally。
For him pictures had nothing to do with the problems of character；
but for all his fiercest admirers his character was；
as a matter of fact far more interesting than his pictures。
He gloried in standing as an artist apart from right and wrong。
But he succeeded by talking from morning till night about his
rights and about his wrongs。 His talents were many； his virtues；
it must be confessed； not many； beyond that kindness to tried friends；
on which many of his biographers insist； but which surely is a
quality of all sane men； of pirates and pickpockets； beyond this；
his outstanding virtues limit themselves chiefly to two admirable ones
courage and an abstract love of good work。 Yet I fancy he won
at last more by those two virtues than by all his talents。
A man must be something of a moralist if he is to preach； even if he is
to preach unmorality。 Professor Walter Raleigh； in his 〃In Memoriam：
James McNeill Whistler；〃 insists； truly enough； on the strong
streak of an eccentric honesty in matters strictly pictorial；
which ran through his complex and slightly confused character。
〃He would destroy any of his works rather than leave a careless
or inexpressive touch within the limits of the frame。
He would begin again a hundred times over rather than attempt
by patching to make his work seem better than it was。〃
No one will blame Professor Raleigh； who had to read a sort of funeral
oration over Whistler at the opening of the Memorial Exhibition；
if； finding himself in that position； he confined himself mostly
to the merits and the stronger qualities of his subject。
We should naturally go to some other type of composition
for a proper consideration of the weaknesses of Whistler。
But these must never be omitted from our view of him。
Indeed； the truth is that it was not so much a question of the weaknesses
of Whistler as of the intrinsic and primary weakness of Whistler。
He was one of those people who live up to their emotional incomes；
who are always taut and tingling with vanity。 Hence he had
no strength to spare； hence he had no kindness； no geniality；
for geniality is almost definable as strength to spare。
He had no god…like carelessness； he never forgot himself；
his whole life was； to use his own expression； an arrangement。
He went in for 〃the art of living〃a miserable trick。
In a word； he was a great artist； but emphatically not a great man。
In this connection I must differ strongly with Professor Raleigh upon
what is； from a superficial literary point of view； one of his most
effective points。 He compares Whistler's laughter to the laughter
of another man who was a great man as well as a great artist。
〃His attitude to the public was exactly the attitude taken up by
Robert Browning； who suffered as long a period of neglect and mistake；
in those lines of ‘The Ring and the Book'
〃‘Well； British Public； ye who like me not；
（God love you！） and will have your proper laugh
At the dark question； laugh it！ I'd laugh first。'
〃Mr。 Whistler；〃 adds Professor Raleigh； 〃always laughed first
