the soul of man-第6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！



see　how；　with　their　lack　of　comprehension　of　what　Art　is；　they

could　possibly　use　them　in　the　proper　sense。　　I　am　merely　pointing

out　the　misuse；　and　as　for　the　origin　of　the　misuse　and　the　meaning

that　lies　behind　it　all；　the　explanation　is　very　simple。　　It　comes

from　the　barbarous　conception　of　authority。　　It　comes　from　the

natural　inability　of　a　community　corrupted　by　authority　to

understand　or　appreciate　Individualism。　　In　a　word；　it　comes　from

that　monstrous　and　ignorant　thing　that　is　called　Public　Opinion；

which；　bad　and　well…meaning　as　it　is　when　it　tries　to　control

action；　is　infamous　and　of　evil　meaning　when　it　tries　to　control

Thought　or　Art。



Indeed；　there　is　much　more　to　be　said　in　favour　of　the　physical

force　of　the　public　than　there　is　in　favour　of　the　public's

opinion。　　The　former　may　be　fine。　　The　latter　must　be　foolish。　　It

is　often　said　that　force　is　no　argument。　　That；　however；　entirely

depends　on　what　one　wants　to　prove。　　Many　of　the　most　important

problems　of　the　last　few　centuries；　such　as　the　continuance　of

personal　government　in　England；　or　of　feudalism　in　France；　have

been　solved　entirely　by　means　of　physical　force。　　The　very　violence

of　a　revolution　may　make　the　public　grand　and　splendid　for　a

moment。　　It　was　a　fatal　day　when　the　public　discovered　that　the　pen

is　mightier　than　the　paving…stone；　and　can　be　made　as　offensive　as

the　brickbat。　　They　at　once　sought　for　the　journalist；　found　him；

developed　him；　and　made　him　their　industrious　and　well…paid

servant。　　It　is　greatly　to　be　regretted；　for　both　their　sakes。

Behind　the　barricade　there　may　be　much　that　is　noble　and　heroic。

But　what　is　there　behind　the　leading…article　but　prejudice；

stupidity；　cant；　and　twaddle？　　And　when　these　four　are　joined

together　they　make　a　terrible　force；　and　constitute　the　new

authority。



In　old　days　men　had　the　rack。　　Now　they　have　the　press。　　That　is　an

improvement　certainly。　　But　still　it　is　very　bad；　and　wrong；　and

demoralising。　　Somebody　…　was　it　Burke？　…　called　journalism　the

fourth　estate。　　That　was　true　at　the　time；　no　doubt。　　But　at　the

present　moment　it　really　is　the　only　estate。　　It　has　eaten　up　the

other　three。　　The　Lords　Temporal　say　nothing；　the　Lords　Spiritual

have　nothing　to　say；　and　the　House　of　Commons　has　nothing　to　say

and　says　it。　　We　are　dominated　by　Journalism。　　In　America　the

President　reigns　for　four　years；　and　Journalism　governs　for　ever

and　ever。　　Fortunately　in　America　Journalism　has　carried　its

authority　to　the　grossest　and　most　brutal　extreme。　　As　a　natural

consequence　it　has　begun　to　create　a　spirit　of　revolt。　　People　are

amused　by　it；　or　disgusted　by　it；　according　to　their　temperaments。

But　it　is　no　longer　the　real　force　it　was。　　It　is　not　seriously

treated。　　In　England；　Journalism；　not；　except　in　a　few　well…known

instances；　having　been　carried　to　such　excesses　of　brutality；　is

still　a　great　factor；　a　really　remarkable　power。　　The　tyranny　that

it　proposes　to　exercise　over　people's　private　lives　seems　to　me　to

be　quite　extraordinary。　　The　fact　is；　that　the　public　have　an

insatiable　curiosity　to　know　everything；　except　what　is　worth

knowing。　　Journalism；　conscious　of　this；　and　having　tradesman…like

habits；　supplies　their　demands。　　In　centuries　before　ours　the

public　nailed　the　ears　of　journalists　to　the　pump。　　That　was　quite

hideous。　　In　this　century　journalists　have　nailed　their　own　ears　to

the　keyhole。　　That　is　much　worse。　　And　what　aggravates　the　mischief

is　that　the　journalists　who　are　most　to　blame　are　not　the　amusing

journalists　who　write　for　what　are　called　Society　papers。　　The　harm

is　done　by　the　serious；　thoughtful；　earnest　journalists；　who

solemnly；　as　they　are　doing　at　present；　will　drag　before　the　eyes

of　the　public　some　incident　in　the　private　life　of　a　great

statesman；　of　a　man　who　is　a　leader　of　political　thought　as　he　is　a

creator　of　political　force；　and　invite　the　public　to　discuss　the

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