按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Exactly what does breed insanity is reason。 Poets do not go mad；
but chess…players do。 Mathematicians go mad； and cashiers；
but creative artists very seldom。 I am not； as will be seen；
in any sense attacking logic： I only say that this danger does
lie in logic； not in imagination。 Artistic paternity is as
wholesome as physical paternity。 Moreover； it is worthy of remark
that when a poet really was morbid it was commonly because he had
some weak spot of rationality on his brain。 Poe； for instance；
really was morbid； not because he was poetical； but because he
was specially analytical。 Even chess was too poetical for him；
he disliked chess because it was full of knights and castles；
like a poem。 He avowedly preferred the black discs of draughts；
because they were more like the mere black dots on a diagram。
Perhaps the strongest case of all is this： that only one great English
poet went mad； Cowper。 And he was definitely driven mad by logic；
by the ugly and alien logic of predestination。 Poetry was not
the disease； but the medicine； poetry partly kept him in health。
He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his
hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and
the white flat lilies of the Ouse。 He was damned by John Calvin；
he was almost saved by John Gilpin。 Everywhere we see that men
do not go mad by dreaming。 Critics are much madder than poets。
Homer is complete and calm enough； it is his critics who tear him
into extravagant tatters。 Shakespeare is quite himself； it is only
some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else。
And though St。 John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in
his vision； he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators。
The general fact is simple。 Poetry is sane because it floats
easily in an infinite sea； reason seeks to cross the infinite sea；
and so make it finite。 The result is mental exhaustion；
like the physical exhaustion of Mr。 Holbein。 To accept everything
is an exercise； to understand everything a strain。 The poet only
desires exaltation and expansion； a world to stretch himself in。
The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens。 It is the logician
who seeks to get the heavens into his head。 And it is his head
that splits。
It is a small matter； but not irrelevant； that this striking
mistake is commonly supported by a striking misquotation。 We have
all heard people cite the celebrated line of Dryden as 〃Great genius
is to madness near allied。〃 But Dryden did not say that great genius
was to madness near allied。 Dryden was a great genius himself；
and knew better。 It would have been hard to find a man more romantic
than he； or more sensible。 What Dryden said was this； 〃Great wits
are oft to madness near allied〃； and that is true。 It is the pure
promptitude of the intellect that is in peril of a breakdown。
Also people might remember of what sort of man Dryden was talking。
He was not talking of any unworldly visionary like Vaughan or
George Herbert。 He was talking of a cynical man of the world；
a sceptic； a diplomatist； a great practical politician。 Such men
are indeed to madness near allied。 Their incessant calculation
of their own brains and other people's brains is a dangerous trade。
It is always perilous to the mind to reckon up the mind。 A flippant
person has asked why we say； 〃As mad as a hatter。〃 A more flippant
person might answer that a hatter is mad because he has to measure
the human head。
And if great reasoners are often maniacal； it is equally true
that maniacs are commonly great reasoners。 When I was engaged
in a controversy with the CLARION on the matter of free will；
that able writer Mr。 R。B。Suthers said that free will was lunacy；
because it meant causeless actions； and the actions of a lunatic
would be causeless。 I do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse
in determinist logic。 Obviously if any actions； even a lunatic's；
can be causeless； determinism is done for。 If the chain of
causation can be broken for a madman； it can be broken for a man。
But my purpose is to point out something more practical。
It was natural； perhaps； that a modern Marxian Socialist should not
know anything about free will。 But it was certainly remarkable that
a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics。
Mr。 Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics。
The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions
are causeless。 If any human acts may loosely be called causeless；
they are the minor acts of a healthy man； whistling as he walks；
slashing the grass with a stick； kicking his heels or rubbing
his hands。 It is the happy man who does the useless things；
the sick man is not strong enough to be idle。 It is exactly such
careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand；
for the madman （like the determinist） generally sees too much cause
in everything。 The madman would read a conspiratorial significance
into those empty activities。 He would think that the lopping
of the grass was an attack on private property。 He would think
that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice。
If the madman could for an instant become careless； he would
become sane。 Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people
in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder； knows that their
most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail； a connecting
of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze。
If you argue with a madman； it is extremely probable that you will
get the worst of it； for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker
for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment。
He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity； or by the dumb
certainties of experience。 He is the more logical for losing certain
sane affections。 Indeed； the common phrase for insanity is in this
respect a misleading one。 The madman is not the man who has lost
his reason。 The madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason。
The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete； and often
in a purely rational sense satisfactory。 Or； to speak more strictly；
the insane explanation； if not conclusive； is at least unanswerable；
this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds
of madness。 If a man says （for instance） that men have a conspiracy
against him； you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men
deny that they are conspirators； which is