heretics-第35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！
〃Mr。 Whistler；〃 adds Professor Raleigh； 〃always laughed first。〃
The truth is； I believe； that Whistler never laughed at all。
There was no laughter in his nature； because there was no thoughtlessness
and self…abandonment； no humility。 I cannot understand anybody
reading 〃The Gentle Art of Making Enemies〃 and thinking that there
is any laughter in the wit。 His wit is a torture to him。
He twists himself into arabesques of verbal felicity； he is full
of a fierce carefulness； he is inspired with the complete seriousness
of sincere malice。 He hurts himself to hurt his opponent。
Browning did laugh； because Browning did not care； Browning did
not care； because Browning was a great man。 And when Browning
said in brackets to the simple； sensible people who did not like
his books； 〃God love you！〃 he was not sneering in the least。
He was laughingthat is to say； he meant exactly what he said。
There are three distinct classes of great satirists who are also great men
that is to say； three classes of men who can laugh at something without
losing their souls。 The satirist of the first type is the man who；
first of all enjoys himself； and then enjoys his enemies。
In this sense he loves his enemy； and by a kind of exaggeration of
Christianity he loves his enemy the more the more he becomes an enemy。
He has a sort of overwhelming and aggressive happiness in his
assertion of anger； his curse is as human as a benediction。
Of this type of satire the great example is Rabelais。 This is
the first typical example of satire； the satire which is voluble；
which is violent； which is indecent； but which is not malicious。
The satire of Whistler was not this。 He was never in any of his
controversies simply happy； the proof of it is that he never talked
absolute nonsense。 There is a second type of mind which produces satire
with the quality of greatness。 That is embodied in the satirist whose
passions are released and let go by some intolerable sense of wrong。
He is maddened by the sense of men being maddened； his tongue
becomes an unruly member； and testifies against all mankind。
Such a man was Swift； in whom the saeva indignatio was a bitterness
to others； because it was a bitterness to himself。 Such a satirist
Whistler was not。 He did not laugh because he was happy； like Rabelais。
But neither did he laugh because he was unhappy； like Swift。
The third type of great satire is that in which he satirist is enabled
to rise superior to his victim in the only serious sense which
superiority can bear； in that of pitying the sinner and respecting
the man even while he satirises both。 Such an achievement can be
found in a thing like Pope's 〃Atticus〃 a poem in which the satirist
feels that he is satirising the weaknesses which belong specially
to literary genius。 Consequently he takes a pleasure in pointing
out his enemy's strength before he points out his weakness。
That is； perhaps； the highest and most honourable form of satire。
That is not the satire of Whistler。 He is not full of a great sorrow
for the wrong done to human nature； for him the wrong is altogether
done to himself。
He was not a great personality； because he thought so much
about himself。 And the case is stronger even than that。
He was sometimes not even a great artist； because he thought
so much about art。 Any man with a vital knowledge of the human
psychology ought to have the most profound suspicion of anybody
who claims to be an artist； and talks a great deal about art。
Art is a right and human thing； like walking or saying one's prayers；
but the moment it begins to be talked about very solemnly； a man
may be fairly certain that the thing has come into a congestion
and a kind of difficulty。
The artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs。
It is a disease which arises from men not having sufficient power of
expression to utter and get rid of the element of art in their being。
It is healthful to every sane man to utter the art within him；
it is essential to every sane man to get rid of the art within him
at all costs。 Artists of a large and wholesome vitality get rid
of their art easily； as they breathe easily； or perspire easily。
But in artists of less force； the thing becomes a pressure；
and produces a definite pain； which is called the artistic temperament。
Thus； very great artists are able to be ordinary men
men like Shakespeare or Browning。 There are many real tragedies
of the artistic temperament； tragedies of vanity or violence or fear。
But the great tragedy of the artistic temperament is that it cannot
produce any art。
Whistler could produce art； and in so far he was a great man。
But he could not forget art； and in so far he was only a man with
the artistic temperament。 There can be no stronger manifestation
of the man who is a really great artist than the fact that he can
dismiss the subject of art； that he can； upon due occasion；
wish art at the bottom of the sea。 Similarly； we should always
be much more inclined to trust a solicitor who did not talk about
conveyancing over the nuts and wine。 What we really desire of any
man conducting any business is that the full force of an ordinary
man should be put into that particular study。 We do not desire
that the full force of that study should be put into an ordinary man。
We do not in the least wish that our particular law…suit should
pour its energy into our barrister's games with his children；
or rides on his bicycle； or meditations on the morning star。
But we do； as a matter of fact； desire that his games with his children；
and his rides on his bicycle； and his meditations on the morning star
should pour something of their energy into our law…suit。 We do desire
that if he has gained any especial lung development from the bicycle；
or any bright and pleasing metaphors from the morning star； that the should
be placed at our disposal in that particular forensic controversy。
In a word； we are very glad that he is an ordinary man； since that
may help him to be an exceptional lawyer。
Whistler never ceased to be an artist。 As Mr。 Max Beerbohm pointed
out in one of his extraordinarily sensible and sincere critiques；
Whistler really regarded Whistler as his greatest work of art。
The white lock； the single eyeglass； the remarkable hat
these were much dearer to him than any nocturnes or arrangements
that he ever threw off。 He could throw off the nocturnes；
for some mysterious reason he could not throw off the hat。
He never threw off from himself that disproportionate accumulation
of aestheticism which is the burden of the amateur。
It need hardly be said that this is the real explanation of the thing
which has puzzled so many dilettante critics； the problem of the extreme
ordinariness of the behaviour of so many great geniuses in history。
Their behaviour was so ordinary that it was not recorded；
hence it was so ordinary that it seemed mysterious。 Hence people say
that Bacon wrote Shakespeare。 The modern artistic temperament cannot
understand how a man who could write such lyrics as Shakespeare wrote；
could be as keen as Shakespeare was on business transactions in a
little town in Warwickshire。 The explanation is simple enough；
it is that Shakespeare had a real lyrical impulse； wrote a real lyric；
and so got rid of the impulse and went about his business。
Being an artist did not prevent him from being an ordinary man；
any more than being a sleeper at night or being a diner at dinner
prevented him from being an ordinary man。
All very great teachers and leaders have had this habit
of assuming their point of view to be one which was human
and casual； one which would readily appeal to every passing man。
If a man is genuinely superior to his fellows the first thing
that he believes in is the equality of man。 We can see this；
for instance； in that strange and innocent rationality with which
Christ addressed any motley crowd that happened to stand about Him。
〃What man of you having a hundred sheep； and losing one； would not leave
the ninety and nine in the wilderness； and go after that which was lost？〃
Or； again； 〃What man of you if his son ask for bread will he give
him a stone； or if he ask for a fish will he give him a serpent？〃
This plainness； this almost prosaic camaraderie； is the note of all
very great minds。
To very great minds the things on which men
