the soul of man-第4部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



far　as　it　thinks　it　can。　　Wherever　it　has　really　diminished　it；　the

results　have　always　been　extremely　good。　　The　less　punishment；　the

less　crime。　　When　there　is　no　punishment　at　all；　crime　will　either

cease　to　exist；　or；　if　it　occurs；　will　be　treated　by　physicians　as

a　very　distressing　form　of　dementia；　to　be　cured　by　care　and

kindness。　　For　what　are　called　criminals　nowadays　are　not　criminals

at　all。　　Starvation；　and　not　sin；　is　the　parent　of　modern　crime。

That　indeed　is　the　reason　why　our　criminals　are；　as　a　class；　so

absolutely　uninteresting　from　any　psychological　point　of　view。

They　are　not　marvellous　Macbeths　and　terrible　Vautrins。　　They　are

merely　what　ordinary；　respectable；　commonplace　people　would　be　if

they　had　not　got　enough　to　eat。　　When　private　property　is　abolished

there　will　be　no　necessity　for　crime；　no　demand　for　it；　it　will

cease　to　exist。　　Of　course；　all　crimes　are　not　crimes　against

property；　though　such　are　the　crimes　that　the　English　law；　valuing

what　a　man　has　more　than　what　a　man　is；　punishes　with　the　harshest

and　most　horrible　severity；　if　we　except　the　crime　of　murder；　and

regard　death　as　worse　than　penal　servitude；　a　point　on　which　our

criminals；　I　believe；　disagree。　　But　though　a　crime　may　not　be

against　property；　it　may　spring　from　the　misery　and　rage　and

depression　produced　by　our　wrong　system　of　property…holding；　and

so；　when　that　system　is　abolished；　will　disappear。　　When　each

member　of　the　community　has　sufficient　for　his　wants；　and　is　not

interfered　with　by　his　neighbour；　it　will　not　be　an　object　of　any

interest　to　him　to　interfere　with　anyone　else。　　Jealousy；　which　is

an　extraordinary　source　of　crime　in　modern　life；　is　an　emotion

closely　bound　up　with　our　conceptions　of　property；　and　under

Socialism　and　Individualism　will　die　out。　　It　is　remarkable　that　in

communistic　tribes　jealousy　is　entirely　unknown。



Now　as　the　State　is　not　to　govern；　it　may　be　asked　what　the　State

is　to　do。　　The　State　is　to　be　a　voluntary　association　that　will

organise　labour；　and　be　the　manufacturer　and　distributor　of

necessary　commodities。　　The　State　is　to　make　what　is　useful。　　The

individual　is　to　make　what　is　beautiful。　　And　as　I　have　mentioned

the　word　labour；　I　cannot　help　saying　that　a　great　deal　of　nonsense

is　being　written　and　talked　nowadays　about　the　dignity　of　manual

labour。　　There　is　nothing　necessarily　dignified　about　manual　labour

at　all；　and　most　of　it　is　absolutely　degrading。　　It　is　mentally　and

morally　injurious　to　man　to　do　anything　in　which　he　does　not　find

pleasure；　and　many　forms　of　labour　are　quite　pleasureless

activities；　and　should　be　regarded　as　such。　　To　sweep　a　slushy

crossing　for　eight　hours；　on　a　day　when　the　east　wind　is　blowing　is

a　disgusting　occupation。　　To　sweep　it　with　mental；　moral；　or

physical　dignity　seems　to　me　to　be　impossible。　　To　sweep　it　with

joy　would　be　appalling。　　Man　is　made　for　something　better　than

disturbing　dirt。　　All　work　of　that　kind　should　be　done　by　a

machine。



And　I　have　no　doubt　that　it　will　be　so。　　Up　to　the　present；　man　has

been；　to　a　certain　extent；　the　slave　of　machinery；　and　there　is

something　tragic　in　the　fact　that　as　soon　as　man　had　invented　a

machine　to　do　his　work　he　began　to　starve。　　This；　however；　is；　of

course；　the　result　of　our　property　system　and　our　system　of

competition。　　One　man　owns　a　machine　which　does　the　work　of　five

hundred　men。　　Five　hundred　men　are；　in　consequence；　thrown　out　of

employment；　and；　having　no　work　to　do；　become　hungry　and　take　to

thieving。　　The　one　man　secures　the　produce　of　the　machine　and　keeps

it；　and　has　five　hundred　times　as　much　as　he　should　have；　and

probably；　which　is　of　much　more　importance；　a　great　deal　more　than

he　really　wants。　　Were　that　machine　the　property　of　all；　every　one

would　benefit　by　it。　　It　would　be　an　immense　advantage　to　the

community。　　All　unintellectual　labour；　all　monotonous；　dull　labour；

all　labour　that　deals　with　dreadful　things；　and　involves　unpleasant

conditions；　must　be　done　by　machinery。　　Machinery　must　work　for　us

in　coal　mines；　and　do　all　sanitary　services；　and　be　the　stoker　of

steamers；　and　clean　the　streets；　and　run　messages　on　wet　days；　and

do　anything　that　is　tedious　or　distressing。　　At　present　machinery

competes　against　man。　　Under　proper　conditions　machinery　will　serve

man。　　There　is　no　doubt　at　all　that　this　is　the　future　of

machinery；　and　just　as　trees　grow　while　the　country　gentleman　is

asleep；　so　while　Humanity　will　be　amusing　itself；　or　enjoying

cultivated　leisure　…　which；　and　not　labour；　is　the　aim　of　man　…　or

making　beautiful　things；　or　reading　beautiful　things；　or　simply

contemplating　the　world　with　admiration　and　delight；　machinery　will

be　doing　all　the　necessary　and　unpleasant　work。　　The　fact　is；　that

civilisation　requires　slaves。　　The　Greeks　were　quite　right　there。

Unless　there　are　slaves　to　do　the　ugly；　horrible；　uninteresting

work；　culture　and　contemplation　become　almost　impossible。　　Human

slavery　is　wrong；　insecure；　and　demoralising。　　On　mechanical

slavery；　on　the　slavery　of　the　machine；　the　future　of　the　world

depends。　　And　when　scientific　men　are　no　longer　called　upon　to　go

down　to　a　depressing　East　End　and　distribute　bad　cocoa　and　worse

blankets　to　starving　people；　they　will　have　delightful　leisure　in

which　to　devise　wonderful　and　marvellous　things　for　their　own　joy

and　the　joy　of　everyone　else。　　There　will　be　great　storages　of

force　for　every　city；　and　for　every　house　if　required；　and　this

force　man　will　convert　into　heat；　light；　or　motion；　according　to

his　needs。　　Is　this　Utopian？　　A　map　of　the　world　that　does　not

include　Utopia　is　not　worth　even　glancing　at；　for　it　leaves　out　the

one　country　at　which　Humanity　is　always　landing。　　And　when　Humanity

lands　there；　it　looks　out；　and；　seeing　a　better　country；　sets　sail。

Progress　is　the　realisation　of　Utopias。



Now；　I　have　said　that　the　community　by　means　of　organisation　of

machinery　will　supply　the　useful　things；　and　that　the　beautiful

things　will　be　made　by　the　individual。　　This　is　not　merely

necessary；　but　it　is　the　only　possible　way　by　which　we　can　get

either　the　one　or　the　other。　　An　individual　who　has　to　make　things

for　the　use　of　others；　and　with　reference　to　their　wants　and　their

wishes；　does　not　work　with　interest；　and　consequently　cannot　put

into　his　work　what　is　best　in　him。　　Upon　the　other　hand；　whenever　a

community　or　a　powerful　section　of　a　community；　or　a　government　of

any　kind；　attempts　to　dictate　to　the　artist　what　he　is　to　do；　Art

either　entirely　vanishes；　or　becomes　stereotyped；　or　degenerates

into　a　low　and　ignoble　form　of　craft。　　A　work　of　art　is　the　unique

result　of　a　unique　temperament。　　Its　beauty　comes　from　the　fact

that　the　author　is　what　he　is。　　It　has　nothing　to　do　with　the　fact

that　other　people　want　what　they　want。　　Indeed；　the　moment　that　an

artist　takes　notice　of　what　other　people　want；　and　tries　to　supply

the　demand；　he　ceases　to　be　an　artist；　and　becomes　a　dull　or　an

amusing　craftsman；　an　honest　or　a　dishonest　tradesman。　　He　has　no

further　claim　to　be　considered　as　an　artist。　　Art　is　the　most

intense　mode　of　Individualism　that　the　world　has　known。　　I　am

inclined　to　say　that　it　is　the　only　real　mode　of　Individualism　that

the　world　has　known。　　Crime；　which；　under　certain　conditions；　may

seem　to　have　created　Individualism；　must　take　cognisance　of　other

people　and　interfere　with　them。　　It　belongs　to　the　sphere　of

action。　　But　alone；　without　any　reference　to　his　neighbours；

without　any　interference；　the　artist　can　fashion　a　beautiful　thing；

and　if　he　does　not　do　it　solely　for　his　own　pleasure；　he　is　not　an

artist　at　all。



And　it　is　to　be　noted　that　it　is　the　fact　that　Art　is　this　intense

form　of　Individualism　that　makes　the　public　try　to　exercise　over　it

in　an　authority　that　is　as　immoral　as　it　is　ridiculous；　and　as

corrupting　as　it　is　contemptible。　　It　is　not　quite　their　fault。

The　public　has　always；　and　in　every　age；　been　badly　brought　up。

They　are　continually　asking　Art　to　be　popular；　to　please　their　want

of　taste；　to　flatter　their　absurd　vanity；　to　tell　them　what　they

have　been　told　before；　to　show　them　what　they　ought　to　be　tired　of

seeing；　to　amuse　them　when　they　feel　heavy　after　eating　too　much；

and　to　distract　their　thoughts　when　they　are　wearied　of　their　own

stupidity。　　Now　Art　should　never　try　to　be　popular。　　The　public

should　try　to　make　itself　artistic。　　There　is　a　very　wide

difference。　　If　a　man　of　science　were　told　that　the　results　of　his

experiments；　and　the　conclusions　that　he　arrived　at；　should　be　of

such　a　character　that　they　would　not　upset　the　received　popular

notions　on　the　subject；　or　disturb　popular　prejudice；　or　hurt　the

sensibilities　of　people　who　knew　nothing　about　science；　if　a

philosopher　were　told　that　he　had　a　perfect　right　to　speculate　in

the　highest　spheres　of　thought；　provided　that　he　arrived　at　the

same　conclusions　as　were　held　by　those　who　had　never　thought　in　any

sphere　at　all　…　well；　nowadays　the　man　of　science　and　the

philosopher　would　be　considerably　amused。　　Yet　it　is　really　a　very

few　years　since　both　philosophy　and　science　were　subjected　to

brutal　popular　control；　to　authority　…　in　fact　the　authority　of

either　the　general　ignorance　of　the　community；　or　the　terror　and

greed　for　power　of　an　ecclesiastical　or　governmental　class。　　Of

course；　we　have　to　a　very　great　extent　got　rid　of　any　attempt　on

the　part　of　the　community；　or　the　Church；　or　the　Government；　to

interfere　with　the　individualism　of　speculative　thought；　but　the

attempt　to　interfere　with　the　individualism　of　imaginative　art

still　lingers。　　In　fact；　it　does　more　than　linger；　it　is

aggressive；　offensive；　and　brutalising。



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

the　public　take　no　interest。　　Poetry　is　an　instance　of　what　I　mean。

We　have　been　able　to　have　fine　poetry　in　England　because　the　public

do　not　read　it；　and　con