Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
All the most subtle truths of literature are to be found in legend.
There is no better test of the truth of serious fiction than the simple
truths to be found in a fairy tale or an old ballad. Now, in the whole
of folk-lore there is no such thing as free love. There is such a thing
as false love. There is also another thing, which the old ballads always
talk of as true love. But the story always turns on the keeping of a
bond or the breaking of it; and this quite apart from orthodox morality
in the matter of the marriage bond. The love may be in the strict sense
sinful, but it is never anarchical. There was quite as little freedom
for Lancelot as for Arthur; quite as little mere philandering in the
philosophy of Tristram as in the philosophy of Galahad. It may have been
unlawful love, but it certainly was not lawless love. In the old ballads
there is the triumph of true love, as in “The Bailiff’s Daughter of
Islington”; or the tragedy of true love, as in “Helen of Kirkconnel
Lea”; or the tragedy of false love, as in the ballad of “Oh waly, waly
up the bank.” But there is neither triumph nor tragedy in the idea of
_avowedly_ transient love; and no literature will ever be made out of
it, except the very lightest literature of satire. And even the satire
must be a satire on fickleness, and therefore involve an indirect ideal
of fidelity. But you cannot make any enduring literature out of love
_conscious_ that it will not endure. Even if this mutability were
working as morality, it would still be unworkable as art.
The decadents used to say that things like the marriage vow might be
very convenient for commonplace public purposes, but had no place in the
world of beauty and imagination. The truth is exactly the other way. The
truth is that if marriage had not existed it would have been necessary
for artists to invent it. The truth is that if constancy had never been
needed as a social requirement, it would still have been created out of
cloud and air as a poetical requirement. If ever monogamy is abandoned
in practice, it will linger in legend and in literature. When society is
haunted by the butterfly flitting from flower to flower, poetry will
still be describing the desire of the moth for the star; and it will be
a fixed star. Literature must always revolve round loyalties; for a
rudimentary psychological reason, which is simply the nature of
narrative. You cannot tell a _story_ without the idea of pursuing a
purpose and sticking to a point. You cannot tell a story without the
idea of the Quest, the idea of the Vow; even if it be only the idea of
the Wager.
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