heretics-第45章

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！





No　community；　perhaps；　ever　had　it　so　little　as　ours。







Everything　in　our　age　has；　when　carefully　examined；　this　fundamentally



undemocratic　quality。　　In　religion　and　morals　we　should　admit；



in　the　abstract；　that　the　sins　of　the　educated　classes　were　as　great　as；



or　perhaps　greater　than；　the　sins　of　the　poor　and　ignorant。



But　in　practice　the　great　difference　between　the　mediaeval



ethics　and　ours　is　that　ours　concentrate　attention　on　the　sins



which　are　the　sins　of　the　ignorant；　and　practically　deny　that



the　sins　which　are　the　sins　of　the　educated　are　sins　at　all。



We　are　always　talking　about　the　sin　of　intemperate　drinking；



because　it　is　quite　obvious　that　the　poor　have　it　more　than　the　rich。



But　we　are　always　denying　that　there　is　any　such　thing　as　the　sin　of　pride；



because　it　would　be　quite　obvious　that　the　rich　have　it　more　than　the　poor。



We　are　always　ready　to　make　a　saint　or　prophet　of　the　educated　man



who　goes　into　cottages　to　give　a　little　kindly　advice　to　the　uneducated。



But　the　medieval　idea　of　a　saint　or　prophet　was　something　quite　different。



The　mediaeval　saint　or　prophet　was　an　uneducated　man　who　walked



into　grand　houses　to　give　a　little　kindly　advice　to　the　educated。



The　old　tyrants　had　enough　insolence　to　despoil　the　poor；



but　they　had　not　enough　insolence　to　preach　to　them。



It　was　the　gentleman　who　oppressed　the　slums；　but　it　was　the　slums



that　admonished　the　gentleman。　　And　just　as　we　are　undemocratic



in　faith　and　morals；　so　we　are；　by　the　very　nature　of　our　attitude



in　such　matters；　undemocratic　in　the　tone　of　our　practical　politics。



It　is　a　sufficient　proof　that　we　are　not　an　essentially　democratic



state　that　we　are　always　wondering　what　we　shall　do　with　the　poor。



If　we　were　democrats；　we　should　be　wondering　what　the　poor　will　do　with　us。



With　us　the　governing　class　is　always　saying　to　itself；　〃What　laws　shall



we　make？〃　　In　a　purely　democratic　state　it　would　be　always　saying；



〃What　laws　can　we　obey？〃　　A　purely　democratic　state　perhaps　there



has　never　been。　　But　even　the　feudal　ages　were　in　practice　thus



far　democratic；　that　every　feudal　potentate　knew　that　any　laws



which　he　made　would　in　all　probability　return　upon　himself。



His　feathers　might　be　cut　off　for　breaking　a　sumptuary　law。



His　head　might　be　cut　off　for　high　treason。　　But　the　modern　laws　are　almost



always　laws　made　to　affect　the　governed　class；　but　not　the　governing。



We　have　public…house　licensing　laws；　but　not　sumptuary　laws。



That　is　to　say；　we　have　laws　against　the　festivity　and　hospitality　of



the　poor；　but　no　laws　against　the　festivity　and　hospitality　of　the　rich。



We　have　laws　against　blasphemythat　is；　against　a　kind　of　coarse



and　offensive　speaking　in　which　nobody　but　a　rough　and　obscure　man



would　be　likely　to　indulge。　　But　we　have　no　laws　against　heresy



that　is；　against　the　intellectual　poisoning　of　the　whole　people；



in　which　only　a　prosperous　and　prominent　man　would　be　likely　to



be　successful。　　The　evil　of　aristocracy　is　not　that　it　necessarily



leads　to　the　infliction　of　bad　things　or　the　suffering　of　sad　ones；



the　evil　of　aristocracy　is　that　it　places　everything　in　the　hands



of　a　class　of　people　who　can　always　inflict　what　they　can　never　suffer。



Whether　what　they　inflict　is；　in　their　intention；　good　or　bad；



they　become　equally　frivolous。　　The　case　against　the　governing　class



of　modern　England　is　not　in　the　least　that　it　is　selfish；　if　you　like；



you　may　call　the　English　oligarchs　too　fantastically　unselfish。



The　case　against　them　simply　is　that　when　they　legislate　for　all　men；



they　always　omit　themselves。







We　are　undemocratic；　then；　in　our　religion；　as　is　proved　by　our



efforts　to　〃raise〃　the　poor。　　We　are　undemocratic　in　our　government；



as　is　proved　by　our　innocent　attempt　to　govern　them　well。



But　above　all　we　are　undemocratic　in　our　literature；　as　is



proved　by　the　torrent　of　novels　about　the　poor　and　serious



studies　of　the　poor　which　pour　from　our　publishers　every　month。



And　the　more　〃modern〃　the　book　is　the　more　certain　it　is　to　be



devoid　of　democratic　sentiment。







A　poor　man　is　a　man　who　has　not　got　much　money。　　This　may　seem



a　simple　and　unnecessary　description；　but　in　the　face　of　a　great



mass　of　modern　fact　and　fiction；　it　seems　very　necessary　indeed；



most　of　our　realists　and　sociologists　talk　about　a　poor　man　as　if



he　were　an　octopus　or　an　alligator。　　There　is　no　more　need　to　study



the　psychology　of　poverty　than　to　study　the　psychology　of　bad　temper；



or　the　psychology　of　vanity；　or　the　psychology　of　animal　spirits。



A　man　ought　to　know　something　of　the　emotions　of　an　insulted　man；



not　by　being　insulted；　but　simply　by　being　a　man。　　And　he　ought　to　know



something　of　the　emotions　of　a　poor　man；　not　by　being　poor；　but　simply



by　being　a　man。　　Therefore；　in　any　writer　who　is　describing　poverty；



my　first　objection　to　him　will　be　that　he　has　studied　his　subject。



A　democrat　would　have　imagined　it。







A　great　many　hard　things　have　been　said　about　religious　slumming



and　political　or　social　slumming；　but　surely　the　most　despicable



of　all　is　artistic　slumming。　　The　religious　teacher　is　at　least



supposed　to　be　interested　in　the　costermonger　because　he　is　a　man；



the　politician　is　in　some　dim　and　perverted　sense　interested　in



the　costermonger　because　he　is　a　citizen；　it　is　only　the　wretched



writer　who　is　interested　in　the　costermonger　merely　because　he　is



a　costermonger。　　Nevertheless；　so　long　as　he　is　merely　seeking　impressions；



or　in　other　words　copy；　his　trade；　though　dull；　is　honest。



But　when　he　endeavours　to　represent　that　he　is　describing



the　spiritual　core　of　a　costermonger；　his　dim　vices　and　his



delicate　virtues；　then　we　must　object　that　his　claim　is　preposterous；



we　must　remind　him　that　he　is　a　journalist　and　nothing　else。



He　has　far　less　psychological　authority　even　than　the　foolish　missionary。



For　he　is　in　the　literal　and　derivative　sense　a　journalist；



while　the　missionary　is　an　eternalist。　　The　missionary　at　least



pretends　to　have　a　version　of　the　man's　lot　for　all　time；



the　journalist　only　pretends　to　have　a　version　of　it　from　day　to　day。



The　missionary　comes　to　tell　the　poor　man　that　he　is　in　the　same



condition　with　all　men。　　The　journalist　comes　to　tell　other　people



how　different　the　poor　man　is　from　everybody　else。







If　the　modern　novels　about　the　slums；　such　as　novels　of　Mr。　Arthur



Morrison；　or　the　exceedingly　able　novels　of　Mr。　Somerset　Maugham；



are　intended　to　be　sensational；　I　can　only　say　that　that　is　a　noble



and　reasonable　object；　and　that　they　attain　it。　　A　sensation；



a　shock　to　the　imagination；　like　the　contact　with　cold　water；



is　always　a　good　and　exhilarating　thing；　and；　undoubtedly；　men　will



always　seek　this　sensation　（among　other　forms）　in　the　form　of　the　study



of　the　strange　antics　of　remote　or　alien　peoples。　　In　the　twelfth　century



men　obtained　this　sensation　by　reading　about　dog…headed　men　in　Africa。



In　the　twentieth　century　they　obtained　it　by　reading　about　pig…headed



Boers　in　Africa。　　The　men　of　the　twentieth　century　were　certainly；



it　must　be　admitted；　somewhat　the　more　credulous　of　the　two。



For　it　is　not　recorded　of　the　men　in　the　twelfth　century　that　they



organized　a　sanguinary　crusade　solely　for　the　purpose　of　altering



the　singular　formation　of　the　heads　of　the　Africans。　　But　it　may　be；



and　it　may　even　legitimately　be；　that　since　all　these　monsters　have　faded



from　the　popular　mythology；　it　is　necessary　to　have　in　our　fiction



the　image　of　the　horrible　and　hairy　East…ender；　merely　to　keep　alive



in　us　a　fearful　and