Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
can I imagine anyone regarding the accusation with horror or resentment;
the sins and crimes blackening the career of a bean must be
comparatively few; its character must be simple and free from
complexity, and its manner of life innocent. A philosophic rationalist
wrote to me the other day to say that my grubbing in the grossest
superstitions of the past reminded him of “an old sow pig rooting in the
refuse of the kitchen heap,” and expressed a hope that I should be
dragged from this occupation and made to resume “the cap and bells of
yore.” That is something like a vigorous and vivid comparison; though my
Feminist friends may be distressed at my being compared to a sow as well
as a pig; and though I am not quite clear myself about how the animal
would get on when he had resumed the cap and bells of yore. But it would
certainly be a pity, when it was possible to find this image in the
kitchen heap, to be content with one from the kitchen garden. It would
indeed be a lost opportunity to work yourself up to the furious pitch of
calling your enemy a beast, and then only call him a bean.
From the extracts I saw, it would seem that certain ladies were
especially lively in their protest against my antiquated prejudices; and
rioted in quite a bean-feast of old beans. The form the argument
generally takes is to ask why parents and children should not be
friends, or as they often put it (I deeply regret to say) pals. Neither
term seems to me to convey a sufficiently distinctive meaning; and I
take it that the best term for what they really mean is that they should
be comrades. Now comradeship is a very real and splendid thing; but this
is simply the cant of comradeship. A boy does not take his mother with
him when he goes bird-nesting; and his affection for his mother is of
another kind unconnected with the idea of her climbing a tree. Three men
do not generally take an aged and beloved aunt with them as part of
their luggage on a walking tour; and if they did, it would not be so
much disrespectful to age as unjust to youth. For this confusion between
two valuable but varied things, like most of such modern confusions, is
quite as liable to obscurantist as to mutinous abuse; and is as easy to
turn into tyranny as into licence. If a boy’s aunts are his comrades,
why should he need any comrades except his aunts? If his father and
mother are perfect and consummate pals, why should he fool away his time
with more ignorant, immature and insufficient pals? As in a good many
other modern things, the end of the old parental dignity would be the
beginning of a new parental tyranny. I would rather the boy loved his
father as his father than feared him as a Frankenstein giant of a
superior and supercilious friend, armed in that unequal friendship with
all the weapons of psychology and psycho-analysis. If he loves him as a
father he loves him as an older man; and if we are to abolish all
differences of tone towards those older than ourselves, we must
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account