the soul of man-第7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！



incident；　to　exercise　authority　in　the　matter；　to　give　their　views；

and　not　merely　to　give　their　views；　but　to　carry　them　into　action；

to　dictate　to　the　man　upon　all　other　points；　to　dictate　to　his

party；　to　dictate　to　his　country；　in　fact；　to　make　themselves

ridiculous；　offensive；　and　harmful。　　The　private　lives　of　men　and

women　should　not　be　told　to　the　public。　　The　public　have　nothing　to

do　with　them　at　all。　　In　France　they　manage　these　things　better。

There　they　do　not　allow　the　details　of　the　trials　that　take　place

in　the　divorce　courts　to　be　published　for　the　amusement　or

criticism　of　the　public。　　All　that　the　public　are　allowed　to　know

is　that　the　divorce　has　taken　place　and　was　granted　on　petition　of

one　or　other　or　both　of　the　married　parties　concerned。　　In　France；

in　fact；　they　limit　the　journalist；　and　allow　the　artist　almost

perfect　freedom。　　Here　we　allow　absolute　freedom　to　the　journalist；

and　entirely　limit　the　artist。　　English　public　opinion；　that　is　to

say；　tries　to　constrain　and　impede　and　warp　the　man　who　makes

things　that　are　beautiful　in　effect；　and　compels　the　journalist　to

retail　things　that　are　ugly；　or　disgusting；　or　revolting　in　fact；

so　that　we　have　the　most　serious　journalists　in　the　world；　and　the

most　indecent　newspapers。　　It　is　no　exaggeration　to　talk　of

compulsion。　　There　are　possibly　some　journalists　who　take　a　real

pleasure　in　publishing　horrible　things；　or　who；　being　poor；　look　to

scandals　as　forming　a　sort　of　permanent　basis　for　an　income。　　But

there　are　other　journalists；　I　feel　certain；　men　of　education　and

cultivation；　who　really　dislike　publishing　these　things；　who　know

that　it　is　wrong　to　do　so；　and　only　do　it　because　the　unhealthy

conditions　under　which　their　occupation　is　carried　on　oblige　them

to　supply　the　public　with　what　the　public　wants；　and　to　compete

with　other　journalists　in　making　that　supply　as　full　and　satisfying

to　the　gross　popular　appetite　as　possible。　　It　is　a　very　degrading

position　for　any　body　of　educated　men　to　be　placed　in；　and　I　have

no　doubt　that　most　of　them　feel　it　acutely。



However；　let　us　leave　what　is　really　a　very　sordid　side　of　the

subject；　and　return　to　the　question　of　popular　control　in　the

matter　of　Art；　by　which　I　mean　Public　Opinion　dictating　to　the

artist　the　form　which　he　is　to　use；　the　mode　in　which　he　is　to　use

it；　and　the　materials　with　which　he　is　to　work。　　I　have　pointed　out

that　the　arts　which　have　escaped　best　in　England　are　the　arts　in

which　the　public　have　not　been　interested。　　They　are；　however；

interested　in　the　drama；　and　as　a　certain　advance　has　been　made　in

the　drama　within　the　last　ten　or　fifteen　years；　it　is　important　to

point　out　that　this　advance　is　entirely　due　to　a　few　individual

artists　refusing　to　accept　the　popular　want　of　taste　as　their

standard；　and　refusing　to　regard　Art　as　a　mere　matter　of　demand　and

supply。　　With　his　marvellous　and　vivid　personality；　with　a　style

that　has　really　a　true　colour…element　in　it；　with　his　extraordinary

power；　not　over　mere　mimicry　but　over　imaginative　and　intellectual

creation；　Mr　Irving；　had　his　sole　object　been　to　give　the　public

what　they　wanted；　could　have　produced　the　commonest　plays　in　the

commonest　manner；　and　made　as　much　success　and　money　as　a　man　could

possibly　desire。　　But　his　object　was　not　that。　　His　object　was　to

realise　his　own　perfection　as　an　artist；　under　certain　conditions；

and　in　certain　forms　of　Art。　　At　first　he　appealed　to　the　few：　　now

he　has　educated　the　many。　　He　has　created　in　the　public　both　taste

and　temperament。　　The　public　appreciate　his　artistic　success

immensely。　　I　often　wonder；　however；　whether　the　public　understand

that　that　success　is　entirely　due　to　the　fact　that　he　did　not

accept　their　standard；　but　realised　his　own。　　With　their　standard

the　Lyceum　would　have　been　a　sort　of　second…rate　booth；　as　some　of

the　popular　theatres　in　London　are　at　present。　　Whether　they

understand　it　or　not　the　fact　however　remains；　that　taste　and

temperament　have；　to　a　certain　extent　been　created　in　the　public；

and　that　the　public　is　capable　of　developing　these　qualities。　　The

problem　then　is；　why　do　not　the　public　become　more　civilised？　　They

have　the　capacity。　　What　stops　them？



The　thing　that　stops　them；　it　must　be　said　again；　is　their　desire

to　exercise　authority　over　the　artist　and　over　works　of　art。　　To

certain　theatres；　such　as　the　Lyceum　and　the　Haymarket；　the　public

seem　to　come　in　a　proper　mood。　　In　both　of　these　theatres　there

have　been　individual　artists；　who　have　succeeded　in　creating　in

their　audiences　…　and　every　theatre　in　London　has　its　own　audience

…　the　temperament　to　which　Art　appeals。　　And　what　is　that

temperament？　　It　is　the　temperament　of　receptivity。　　That　is　all。



If　a　man　approaches　a　work　of　art　with　any　desire　to　exercise

authority　over　it　and　the　artist；　he　approaches　it　in　such　a　spirit

that　he　cannot　receive　any　artistic　impression　from　it　at　all。　　The

work　of　art　is　to　dominate　the　spectator：　　the　spectator　is　not　to

dominate　the　work　of　art。　　The　spectator　is　to　be　receptive。　　He　is

to　be　the　violin　on　which　the　master　is　to　play。　　And　the　more

completely　he　can　suppress　his　own　silly　views；　his　own　foolish

prejudices；　his　own　absurd　ideas　of　what　Art　should　be；　or　should

not　be；　the　more　likely　he　is　to　understand　and　appreciate　the　work

of　art　in　question。　　This　is；　of　course；　quite　obvious　in　the　case

of　the　vulgar　theatre…going　public　of　English　men　and　women。　　But

it　is　equally　true　of　what　are　called　educated　people。　　For　an

educated　person's　ideas　of　Art　are　drawn　naturally　from　what　Art

has　been；　whereas　the　new　work　of　art　is　beautiful　by　being　what

Art　has　never　been；　and　to　measure　it　by　the　standard　of　the　past

is　to　measure　it　by　a　standard　on　the　rejection　of　which　its　real

perfection　depends。　　A　temperament　capable　of　receiving；　through　an

imaginative　medium；　and　under　imaginative　conditions；　new　and

beautiful　impressions；　is　the　only　temperament　that　can　appreciate

a　work　of　art。　　And　true　as　this　is　in　the　case　of　the　appreciation

of　sculpture　and　painting；　it　is　still　more　true　of　the

appreciation　of　such　arts　as　the　drama。　　For　a　picture　and　a　statue

are　not　at　war　with　Time。　　They　take　no　count　of　its　succession。

In　one　moment　their　unity　may　be　apprehended。　　In　the　case　of

literature　it　is　different。　　Time　must　be　traversed　before　the

unity　of　effect　is　realised。　　And　so；　in　the　drama；　there　may　occur

in　the　first　act　of　the　play　something　whose　real　artistic　value

may　not　be　evident　to　the　spectator　till　the　third　or　fourth　act　is

reached。　　Is　the　silly　fellow　to　get　angry　and　call　out；　and

disturb　the　play；　and　annoy　the　artists？　　No。　　The　honest　man　is　to

sit　quietly；　and　know　the　delightful　emotions　of　wonder；　curiosity；

and　suspense。　　He　is　not　to　go　to　the　play　to　lose　a　vulgar　temper。

He　is　to　go　to　the　play　to　realise　an　artistic　temperament。　　He　is

to　go　to　the　play　to　gain　an　artistic　temperament。　　He　is　not　the

arbiter　of　the　work　of　art。　　He　is　one　who　is　admitted　to

contemplate　the　work　of　art；　and；　if　the　work　be　fine；　to　forget　in

its　contemplation　and　the　egotism　that　mars　him　…　the　egotism　of

his　ignorance；　or　the　egotism　of　his　information。　　This　point　about

the　drama　is　hardly；　I　think；　sufficiently　recognised。　　I　can　quite

understand　that　were　'Macbeth'　produced　for　the　first　time　before　a

modern　London　audience；　many　of　the　people　present　would　strongly

and　vigorously　object　to　the　introduction　of　the　witches　in　the

first　act；　with　their　grotesque　phrases　and　their　ridiculous　words。

But　when　the　play　is　over　one　realises　that　the　laughter　of　the

witches　in　'Macbeth'　is　as　terrible　as　the　laughter　of　madness　in

'Lear；'　more　terrible　than　the　laughter　of　Iago　in　the　tragedy　of

the　Moor。　　No　spectator　of　art　needs　a　more　perfect　mood　of

receptivity　than　the　spectator　of　a　play。　　The　moment　he　seeks　to

exercise　authority　he　becomes　the　avowed　enemy　of　Art　and　of

himself。　　Art　does　not　mind。　　It　is　he　who　suffers。



With　the　novel　it　is　the　same　thing。　　Popular　authority　and　the

recognition　of　popular　authority　are　fatal。　　Thackeray's　'Esmond'

is　a　beautiful　work　of　art　because　he　wrote　it　to　please　himself。

In　his　other　novels；　in　'Pendennis；'　in　'Philip；'　in　'Vanity　Fair'

even；　at　times；　he　is　too　conscious　of　the　public；　and　spoils　his

work　by　appealing　directly　to　the　sympathies　of　the　public；　or　by

directly　mocking　at　them。　　A　true　artist　takes　no　notice　whatever

of　the　public。　　The　public　are　to　him　non…existent。　　He　has　no

poppied　or　honeyed　cakes　through　which　to　give　the　monster　sleep　or

sustenance。　　He　leaves　that　to　the　popular　novelist。　　One

incomparable　novelist　we　have　now　in　England；　Mr　George　Meredith。

There　are　better　artists　in　France；　but　France　has　no　one　whose

view　of　life　is　so　large；　so　varied；　so　imaginatively　true。　　There

are　tellers　of　stories　in　Russia　who　have　a　more　vivid　sense　of