short stories and essays-第26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！


the　play　nor　the　playing　that　I　saw　at　the　theatre　when　the　actor　was
hissed　for　the　wickedness　of　the　villain　he　was　personating；　was　at　all
fine；　and　yet　I　perceived；　on　reflection；　that　they　had　achieved　a
supreme　effect。　　If　I　may　be　so　confidential；　I　will　say　that　I　should　be
very　sorry　to　have　written　that　piece；　yet　I　should　be　very　proud　if；　on
the　level　I　chose　and　with　the　quality　I　cared　for；　I　could　invent　a
villain　that　the　populace　would　have　out　and　hiss　for　his　surpassing
wickedness。　　In　other　words；　I　think　it　a　thousand　pities　whenever　an
artist　gets　so　far　away　from　the　general；　so　far　within　himself　or　a
little　circle　of　amateurs；　that　his　highest　and　best　work　awakens　no
response　in　the　multitude。　　I　am　afraid　this　is　rather　the　danger　of　the
arts　among　us；　and　how　to　escape　it　is　not　so　very　plain。　　It　makes　one
sick　and　sorry　often　to　see　how　cheaply　the　applause　of　the　common　people
is　won。　　It　is　not　an　infallible　test　of　merit；　but　if　it　is　wanting　to
any　performance；　we　may　be　pretty　sure　it　is　not　the　greatest
performance。




III。

The　paradox　lies　in　wait　here；　as　in　most　other　human　affairs；　to
confound　us；　and　we　try　to　baffle　it；　in　this　way　and　in　that。　　We　talk；
for　instance；　of　poetry　for　poets；　and　we　fondly　imagine　that　this　is
different　from　talking　of　cookery　for　cooks。　　Poetry　is　not　made　for
poets；　they　have　enough　poetry　of　their　own；　but　it　is　made　for　people
who　are　not　poets。　　If　it　does　not　please　these；　it　may　still　be　poetry；
but　it　is　poetry　which　has　failed　of　its　truest　office。　　It　is　none　the
less　its　truest　office　because　some　very　wretched　verse　seems　often　to　do
it。

The　logic　of　such　a　fact　is　not　that　the　poet　should　try　to　achieve　this
truest　office　of　his　art　by　means　of　doggerel；　but　that　he　should　study
how　and　where　and　why　the　beauty　and　the　truth　he　has　made　manifest　are
wanting　in　universal　interest；　in　human　appeal。　　Leaving　the　drama　out　of
the　question；　and　the　theatre　which　seems　now　to　be　seeking　only　the
favor　of　the　dull　rich；　I　believe　that　there　never　was　a　time　or　a　race
more　open　to　the　impressions　of　beauty　and　of　truth　than　ours。　　The
artist　who　feels　their　divine　charm；　and　longs　to　impart　it；　has　now　and
here　a　chance　to　impart　it　more　widely　than　ever　artist　had　in　the　world
before。　　Of　course；　the　means　of　reaching　the　widest　range　of　humanity
are　the　simple　and　the　elementary；　but　there　is　no　telling　when　the
complex　and　the　recondite　may　not　universally　please。　　288

The　art　is　to　make　them　plain　to　every　one；　for　every　one　has　them　in
him。　　Lowell　used　to　say　that　Shakespeare　was　subtle；　but　in　letters　a
foot　high。

The　painter；　sculptor；　or　author　who　pleases　the　polite　only　has　a
success　to　be　proud　of　as　far　as　it　goes；　and　to　be　ashamed　of　that　it
goes　no　further。　　He　need　not　shrink　from　giving　pleasure　to　the　vulgar
because　bad　art　pleases　them。　　It　is　part　of　his　reason　for　being　that　he
should　please　them；　too；　and　if　he　does　not　it　is　a　proof　that　he　is
wanting　in　force；　however　much　he　abounds　in　fineness。　　Who　would　not
wish　his　picture　to　draw　a　crowd　about　it？　　Who　would　not　wish　his　novel
to　sell　five　hundred　thousand　copies；　for　reasons　besides　the　sordid　love
of　gain　which　I　am　told　governs　novelists？　　One　should　not　really　wish　it
any　the　less　because　chromos　and　historical　romances　are　popular。

Sometime；　I　believe；　the　artist　and　his　public　will　draw　nearer　together
in　a　mutual　understanding；　though　perhaps　not　in　our　present　conditions。
I　put　that　understanding　off　till　the　good　time　when　life　shall　be　more
than　living；　more　even　than　the　question　of　getting　a　living；　but　in　the
mean　time　I　think　that　the　artist　might　very　well　study　the　springs　of
feeling　in　others；　and　if　I　were　a　dramatist　I　think　I　should　quite
humbly　go　to　that　play　where　they　hiss　the　villain　for　his　villany；　and
inquire　how　his　wickedness　had　been　made　so　appreciable；　so　vital；　so
personal。　　Not　being　a　dramatist；　I　still　cannot　indulge　the　greatest
contempt　of　that　play　and　its　public。






POLITICS　OF　AMERICAN　AUTHORS

No　thornier　theme　could　well　be　suggested　than　I　was　once　invited　to
consider　by　an　Englishman　who　wished　to　know　how　far　American　politicians
were　scholars；　and　how　far　American　authors　took　part　in　politics。　　In　my
mind　I　first　revolted　from　the　inquiry；　and　then　I　cast　about；　in　the
fascination　it　began　to　have　for　me；　to　see　how　I　might　handle　it　and
prick　myself　least。　　In　a　sort；　which　it　would　take　too　long　to　set
forth；　politics　are　very　intimate　matters　with　us；　and　if　one　were　to
deal　quite　frankly　with　the　politics　of　a　contemporary　author；　one　might
accuse　one's　self　of　an　unwarrantable　personality。　　So；　in　what　I　shall
have　to　say　in　answer　to　the　question　asked　me；　I　shall　seek　above　all
things　not　to　be　quite　frank。




I。

My　uncandor　need　not　be　so　jealously　guarded　in　speaking　of　authors　no
longer　living。　　Not　to　go　too　far　back　among　these；　it　is　perfectly　safe
to　say　that　when　the　slavery　question　began　to　divide　all　kinds　of　men
among　us；　Lowell；　Longfellow；　Whittier；　Curtis；　Emerson；　and　Bryant　more
or　less　promptly　and　openly　took　sides　against　slavery。　　Holmes　was　very
much　later　in　doing　so；　but　he　made　up　for　his　long　delay　by　his　final
strenuousness；　as　for　Hawthorne；　he　was；　perhaps；　too　essentially　a
spectator　of　life　to　be　classed　with　either　party；　though　his
associations；　if　not　his　sympathies；　were　with　the　Northern　men　who　had
Southern　principles　until　the　civil　war　came。　　After　the　war；　when　our
political　questions　ceased　to　be　moral　and　emotional　and　became　economic
and　sociological；　literary　men　found　their　standing　with　greater
difficulty。　　They　remained　mostly　Republicans；　because　the　Republicans
were　the　anti…slavery　party；　and　were　still　waging　war　against　slavery　in
their　nerves。

I　should　say　that　they　also　continued　very　largely　the　emotional
tradition　in　politics；　and　it　is　doubtful　if　in　the　nature　of　things　the
politics　of　literary　men　can　ever　be　otherwise　than　emotional。　　In　fact；
though　the　questions　may　no　longer　be　so；　the　politics　of　vastly　the
greater　number　of　Americans　are　so。　　Nothing　else　would　account　for　the
fact　that　during　the　last　ten　or　fifteen　years　men　have　remained
Republicans　and　remained　Democrats　upon　no　tangible　issues　except　of
office；　which　could　practically　concern　only　a　few　hundreds　or　thousands
out　of　every　million　voters。　　Party　fealty　is　praised　as　a　virtue；　and
disloyalty　to　party　is　treated　as　a　species　of　incivism　next　in
wickedness　to　treason。　　If　any　one　were　to　ask　me　why　then　American
authors　were　not　active　in　American　politics；　as　they　once　were；　I　should
feel　a　certain　diffidence　in　replying　that　the　question　of　other　people's
accession　to　office　was；　however　emotional；　unimportant　to　them　as
compared　with　literary　questions。　　I　should　have　the　more　diffidence
because　it　might　be　retorted　that　literary　men　were　too　unpractical　for
politics　when　they　did　not　deal　with　moral　issues。

Such　a　retort　would　be　rather　mild　and　civil；　as　things　go；　and　might
even　be　regarded　as　complimentary。　　It　is　not　our　custom　to　be　tender
with　any　one　who　doubts　if　any　actuality　is　right；　or　might　not　be
bettered；　especially　in　public　affairs。　　We　are　apt　to　call　such　a　one
out　of　his　name　and　to　punish　him　for　opinions　he　has　never　held。　　This
may　be　a　better　reason　than　either　given　why　authors　do　not　take　part　in
politics　with　us。　　They　are　a　thin…skinned　race；　fastidious　often；　and
always　averse　to　hard　knocks；　they　are　rather　modest；　too；　and　distrust
their　fitness　to　lead；　when　they　have　quite　a　firm　faith　in　their
convictions。　　They　hesitate　to　urge　these　in　the　face　of　practical
politicians；　who　have　a　confidence　in　their　ability　to　settle　all　affairs
of　State　not　surpassed　even　by　that　of　business　men　in　dealing　with
economic　questions。

I　think　it　is　a　pity　that　our　authors　do　not　go　into　politics　at　least
for　the　sake　of　the　material　it　would　yield　them；　but　really　they　do　not。
Our　politics　are　often　vulgar；　but　they　are　very　picturesque；　yet；　so
far；　our　fiction　has　shunned　them　even　more　decidedly　than　it　has　shunned
our　good　societywhich　is　not　picturesque　or　apparently　anything　but　a
tiresome　adaptation　of　the　sort　of　drama　that　goes　on　abroad　under　the
same　name。　　In　nearly　the　degree　that　our　authors　have　dealt　with　our
politics　as　material；　they　have　given　the　practical　politicians　only　too
much　reason　to　doubt　their　insight　and　their　capacity　to　understand　the
mere　machinery；　the　simplest　motives；　of　political　life。




II。

There　are　exceptions；　of　course；　and　if　my　promise　of　reticence　did　not
withhold　me　I　might　name　some　striking　ones。　　Privately　and
unprofessionally；　I　think　our　authors　take　as　vivid　an　interest　in　public
affairs　as　any　other　class　of　our　citizens；　and　I　should　be　sorry　to
think　that　they　took　a　less　intelligent　interest。　　Now　and　then；　but　only
very　rarely；　one　of　them　speaks　out；　and　usually　on　the　unpopular　side。
In　this　event　he　is　spared　none　of　the　penalties　with　which　we　like　to
visit　difference　of　opinion；　rather　they　are　accumulated　on　him。

Such　things　are　not