heretics- 第35部分

it　admires　a　big　and　barbaric　beauty　in　its　women；　for　instance；



but　so　did　Rome　when　the　Goth　was　at　the　gates。　　All　these　are



things　quite　compatible　with　fundamental　tedium　and　decay。



There　are　three　main　shapes　or　symbols　in　which　a　nation　can　show



itself　essentially　glad　and　greatby　the　heroic　in　government；



by　the　heroic　in　arms；　and　by　the　heroic　in　art。　　Beyond　government；



which　is；　as　it　were；　the　very　shape　and　body　of　a　nation；



the　most　significant　thing　about　any　citizen　is　his　artistic



attitude　towards　a　holiday　and　his　moral　attitude　towards　a　fight



that　is；　his　way　of　accepting　life　and　his　way　of　accepting　death。







Subjected　to　these　eternal　tests；　America　does　not　appear　by　any　means



as　particularly　fresh　or　untouched。　　She　appears　with　all　the　weakness



and　weariness　of　modern　England　or　of　any　other　Western　power。



In　her　politics　she　has　broken　up　exactly　as　England　has　broken　up；



into　a　bewildering　opportunism　and　insincerity。　　In　the　matter　of　war



and　the　national　attitude　towards　war；　her　resemblance　to　England



is　even　more　manifest　and　melancholy。　　It　may　be　said　with　rough



accuracy　that　there　are　three　stages　in　the　life　of　a　strong　people。



First；　it　is　a　small　power；　and　fights　small　powers。　　Then　it　is



a　great　power；　and　fights　great　powers。　　Then　it　is　a　great　power；



and　fights　small　powers；　but　pretends　that　they　are　great　powers；



in　order　to　rekindle　the　ashes　of　its　ancient　emotion　and　vanity。



After　that；　the　next　step　is　to　become　a　small　power　itself。



England　exhibited　this　symptom　of　decadence　very　badly　in　the　war　with



the　Transvaal；　but　America　exhibited　it　worse　in　the　war　with　Spain。



There　was　exhibited　more　sharply　and　absurdly　than　anywhere



else　the　ironic　contrast　between　the　very　careless　choice



of　a　strong　line　and　the　very　careful　choice　of　a　weak　enemy。



America　added　to　all　her　other　late　Roman　or　Byzantine　elements



the　element　of　the　Caracallan　triumph；　the　triumph　over　nobody。







But　when　we　come　to　the　last　test　of　nationality；　the　test　of　art



and　letters；　the　case　is　almost　terrible。　　The　English　colonies



have　produced　no　great　artists；　and　that　fact　may　prove　that　they



are　still　full　of　silent　possibilities　and　reserve　force。



But　America　has　produced　great　artists。　　And　that　fact　most　certainly



proves　that　she　is　full　of　a　fine　futility　and　the　end　of　all　things。



Whatever　the　American　men　of　genius　are；　they　are　not　young　gods



making　a　young　world。　　Is　the　art　of　Whistler　a　brave；　barbaric　art；



happy　and　headlong？　　Does　Mr。　Henry　James　infect　us　with　the　spirit



of　a　schoolboy？　　No；　the　colonies　have　not　spoken；　and　they　are　safe。



Their　silence　may　be　the　silence　of　the　unborn。　　But　out　of　America



has　come　a　sweet　and　startling　cry；　as　unmistakable　as　the　cry



of　a　dying　man。















XIX　Slum　Novelists　and　the　Slums











Odd　ideas　are　entertained　in　our　time　about　the　real　nature　of　the　doctrine



of　human　fraternity。　　The　real　doctrine　is　something　which　we　do　not；



with　all　our　modern　humanitarianism；　very　clearly　understand；



much　less　very　closely　practise。　　There　is　nothing；　for　instance；



particularly　undemocratic　about　kicking　your　butler　downstairs。



It　may　be　wrong；　but　it　is　not　unfraternal。　　In　a　certain　sense；



the　blow　or　kick　may　be　considered　as　a　confession　of　equality：



you　are　meeting　your　butler　body　to　body；　you　are　almost　according



him　the　privilege　of　the　duel。　　There　is　nothing；　undemocratic；



though　there　may　be　something　unreasonable；　in　expecting　a　great　deal



from　the　butler；　and　being　filled　with　a　kind　of　frenzy　of　surprise



when　he　falls　short　of　the　divine　stature。　　The　thing　which　is



really　undemocratic　and　unfraternal　is　not　to　expect　the　butler



to　be　more　or　less　divine。　　The　thing　which　is　really　undemocratic



and　unfraternal　is　to　say；　as　so　many　modern　humanitarians　say；



〃Of　course　one　must　make　allowances　for　those　on　a　lower　plane。〃



All　things　considered　indeed；　it　may　be　said；　without　undue　exaggeration；



that　the　really　undemocratic　and　unfraternal　thing　is　the　common



practice　of　not　kicking　the　butler　downstairs。







It　is　only　because　such　a　vast　section　of　the　modern　world　is



out　of　sympathy　with　the　serious　democratic　sentiment　that　this



statement　will　seem　to　many　to　be　lacking　in　seriousness。



Democracy　is　not　philanthropy；　it　is　not　even　altruism　or　social　reform。



Democracy　is　not　founded　on　pity　for　the　common　man；　democracy　is



founded　on　reverence　for　the　common　man；　or；　if　you　will；　even　on



fear　of　him。　　It　does　not　champion　man　because　man　is　so　miserable；



but　because　man　is　so　sublime。　　It　does　not　object　so　much



to　the　ordinary　man　being　a　slave　as　to　his　not　being　a　king；



for　its　dream　is　always　the　dream　of　the　first　Roman　republic；



a　nation　of　kings。







Next　to　a　genuine　republic；　the　most　democratic　thing



in　the　world　is　a　hereditary　despotism。　　I　mean　a　despotism



in　which　there　is　absolutely　no　trace　whatever　of　any



nonsense　about　intellect　or　special　fitness　for　the　post。



Rational　despotismthat　is；　selective　despotismis　always



a　curse　to　mankind；　because　with　that　you　have　the　ordinary



man　misunderstood　and　misgoverned　by　some　prig　who　has　no



brotherly　respect　for　him　at　all。　　But　irrational　despotism



is　always　democratic；　because　it　is　the　ordinary　man　enthroned。



The　worst　form　of　slavery　is　that　which　is　called　Caesarism；



or　the　choice　of　some　bold　or　brilliant　man　as　despot　because



he　is　suitable。　　For　that　means　that　men　choose　a　representative；



not　because　he　represents　them；　but　because　he　does　not。



Men　trust　an　ordinary　man　like　George　III　or　William　IV。



because　they　are　themselves　ordinary　men　and　understand　him。



Men　trust　an　ordinary　man　because　they　trust　themselves。



But　men　trust　a　great　man　because　they　do　not　trust　themselves。



And　hence　the　worship　of　great　men　always　appears　in　times



of　weakness　and　cowardice；　we　never　hear　of　great　men　until



the　time　when　all　other　men　are　small。







Hereditary　despotism　is；　then；　in　essence　and　sentiment



democratic　because　it　chooses　from　mankind　at　random。



If　it　does　not　declare　that　every　man　may　rule；　it　declares



the　next　most　democratic　thing；　it　declares　that　any　man　may　rule。



Hereditary　aristocracy　is　a　far　worse　and　more　dangerous　thing；



because　the　numbers　and　multiplicity　of　an　aristocracy　make　it



sometimes　possible　for　it　to　figure　as　an　aristocracy　of　intellect。



Some　of　its　members　will　presumably　have　brains；　and　thus　they；



at　any　rate；　will　be　an　intellectual　aristocracy　within　the　social　one。



They　will　rule　the　aristocracy　by　virtue　of　their　intellect；



and　they　will　rule　the　country　by　virtue　of　their　aristocracy。



Thus　a　double　falsity　will　be　set　up；　and　millions　of　the　images



of　God；　who；　fortunately　for　their　wives　and　families；　are　neither



gentlemen　nor　clever　men；　will　be　represented　by　a　man　like　Mr。　Balfour



or　Mr。　Wyndham；　because　he　is　too　gentlemanly　to　be　called



merely　clever；　and　just　too　clever　to　be　called　merely　a　gentleman。



But　even　an　hereditary　aristocracy　may　exhibit；　by　a　sort　of　accident；



from　time　to　time　some　of　the　basically　democratic　quality　which



belongs　to　a　hereditary　despotism。　　It　is　amusing　to　think　how　much



conservative　ingenuity　has　been　wasted　in　the　defence　of　the　House



of　Lords　by　men　who　were　desperately　endeavouring　to　prove　that



the　House　of　Lords　consisted　of　clever　men。　　There　is　one　really



good　defence　of　the　House　of　Lords；　though　admirers　of　the　peerage



are　strangely　coy　about　using　it；　and　that　is；　that　the　House



of　Lords；　in　its　full　and　proper　strength；　consists　of　stupid　men。



It　really　would　be　a　plausible　defence　of　that　otherwise　indefensible



body　to　point　out　that　the　clever　men　in　the　Commons；　who　owed



their　power　to　cleverness；　ought　in　the　last　resort　to　be　checked



by　the　average　man　in　the　Lords；　who　owed　their　power　to　accident。



Of　course；　there　would　be　many　answers　to　such　a　contention；



as；　for　instance；　that　the　House　of　Lords　is　largely　no　longer



a　House　of　Lords；　but　a　House　of　tradesmen　and　financiers；



or　that　the　bulk　of　the　commonplace　nobility　do　not　vote；　and　so



leave　the　chamber　to　the　prigs　and　the　specialists　and　the　mad　old



gentlemen　with　hobbies。　　But　on　some　occasions　the　House　of　Lords；



even　under　all　these　disadvantages；　is　in　some　sense　representative。



When　all　the　peers　flocked　together　to　vote　against　Mr。　Gladstone's



second　Home　Rule　Bill；　for　instance；　those　who　said　that　the



peers　represented　the　English　people；　were　perfectly　right。



All　those　dear　old　men　who　happened　to　be　born　peers　were　at　that　moment；



and　upon　that　question；　the　precise　counterpart　of　all　the　dear　old



men　who　happened　to　be　born　paupers　or　middle…class　gentlemen。



That　mob　of　peers　did　really　represent　the　English　peoplethat　is



to　say；　it　was　honest；　ignorant；　vaguely　excited；　almost　unanimous；



and　obviously　wrong。　　Of　course；　rational　democracy　is　better　as　an



expression　of　the　public　will　than　the　haphazard　hereditary　method。



While　we　are　about　having　any　kind　of　democracy；　let　it　be



rational　democracy。　　But　if　we　are　to　have　any　kind　of　oligarchy；



let　it　be　irrational　oligarchy。　　Then　at　least　we　shall　be　ruled　by　men。







But　the　thing　which　is　really　required　for　the　proper　working　of　democracy



is　not　merely　the　democratic　system；　or　even　the　democratic　philosophy；



but　the　democrat