Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
Now, it is interesting to ask ourselves what the newspaper really
meant, when it was so wildly illogical in what it said. Superficially
and as a matter of mood or feeling, we can all guess what was meant. The
writer meant that street musicians looked very much like beggars,
because they wore thinner and dirtier clothes than his own; and that he
had grown quite used to people who looked like that being treated anyhow
and arrested for everything. That is a state of mind not uncommon among
those whom economic security has kept as superficial as a varnish. But
what was intellectually involved in his vague argument was more
interesting. What he meant was, in that deeper sense, that it would be a
great convenience if the law that punishes beggars could be _stretched_
to cover people who are certainly not beggars, but who may be as much of
a botheration as beggars. In other words, he wanted to use the mendicity
laws in a matter quite unconnected with mendicity; but he wanted to use
the old laws because it would save the trouble of making new laws--as
the corkscrew would save the trouble of going to look for the
tin-opener. And for this notion of the crooked and anomalous use of
laws, for ends logically different from their own, he could, of course,
find much support in the various sophists who have attacked reason in
recent times. But, as I have said, it does not really save trouble; and
it is becoming increasingly doubtful whether it will even save disaster.
It used to be said that this rough-and-ready method made the country
richer; but it will be found less and less consoling to explain why the
country is richer when the country is steadily growing poorer. It will
not comfort us in the hour of failure to listen to long and ingenious
explanations of our success. The truth is that this sort of practical
compromise has not led to practical success. The success of England came
as the culmination of the highly logical and theoretical eighteenth
century. The method was already beginning to fail by the time we came to
the end of the compromising and constitutional nineteenth century.
Modern scientific civilization was launched by logicians. It was only
wrecked by practical men. Anyhow, by this time everybody in England has
given up pretending to be particularly rich. It is, therefore, no
appropriate moment for proving that a course of being consistently
unreasonable will always lead to riches.
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