Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
But it does not matter to the main question whether anybody else draws
the line exactly where I do. The point is that I am not doing an
illogical thing, but the only logical thing, in drawing the line. I
think tennis for women normal and football for women quite abnormal; and
I am no more inconsistent than I am in having a wooden walking-stick and
not a wooden hat. I do not particularly object to a female despot; but I
do object to a female demagogue. And my distinction is as much founded
on the substance of things as my eccentric conduct in having a wooden
chair and table but not a wooden knife and fork. You may think my
division wrong; the point is that it is not wrong in being a division.
All this fallacy of false progress tends to obscure the old common sense
of all mankind, which is still the common sense of every man in his own
daily dealings: that everything has its place and proportion and proper
use, and that it is rational to trust its use and distrust its abuse.
Progress, in the good sense, does not consist in looking for a direction
in which one can go on indefinitely. For there is no such direction,
unless it be in quite transcendental things, like the love of God. It
would be far truer to say that true progress consists in looking for the
place where we can stop.
The Myth of the “Mayflower”
Agnosticism, the ancient confession of ignorance, was a singularly sane
and healthy thing so far as it went. Unfortunately it has not gone as
far as the twentieth century. It has declared in all ages, as a heathen
chief declared in the dark ages, that the life of a man is like the
flight of a bird across a firelit room, because we know nothing of
whence it comes or whither it goes. It would seem natural to apply it
not only to man but to mankind. But the moderns do not apply the same
principle but the very opposite principle. They specialize in the
unknown origins and in the unknown future. They dwell on the prehistoric
and on the post-historic or prophetic; and neglect only the historic.
They will give a most detailed description of the habits of the bird
when he was a sort of pterodactyl only faintly to be traced in a fossil.
They will give an equally detailed description of the habits of the bird
a hundred years hence, when he shall have turned into a super-bird, or
the dove of universal peace. But the bird in the hand is worth far less
to them than the two mysterious birds in these two impenetrable bushes.
Thus they will publish a portrait with life, letters, and tabletalk of
the Missing Link, although he is missing; they will publish a plan and
documented history of how the Social Revolution happened, though it has
not happened yet. It is the men who are not missing and the revolutions
that have happened that they have rather a habit of overlooking. Anyone
who has argued, for instance, with the young Jewish intellectuals who
are the brain of Bolshevism knows that their whole system turns on the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account