LETTER VI.

Have I gone too far in this portraiture of our times? I do not

anticipate this stricture, but rather another--that I have proved

too much by it. You will tell me that the picture I have presented

resembles the humanity of our day, but it also bodies forth all

nations engaged in the same degree of culture, because all, without

exception, have fallen off from nature by the abuse of reason,

before they can return to it through reason.

But if we bestow some serious attention to the character of our

times, we shall be astonished at the contrast between the present

and the previous form of humanity, especially that of Greece. We are

justified in claiming the reputation of culture and refinement, when

contrasted with a purely natural state of society, but not so

comparing ourselves with the Grecian nature. For the latter was

combined with all the charms of art and with all the dignity of

wisdom, without, however, as with us, becoming a victim to these

influences. The Greeks put us to shame not only by their simplicity,

which is foreign to our age; they are at the same time our rivals,

nay, frequently our models, in those very points of superiority from

which we seek comfort when regretting the unnatural character of our

manners. We see that remarkable people uniting at once fulness of

form and fulness of substance, both philosophising and creating,

both tender and energetic, uniting a youthful fancy; to the virility

of reason in a glorious humanity.

At the period of Greek culture, which was an awakening of the powers

of the mind, the senses and the spirit had no distinctly separated

property; no division had yet torn them asunder, leading them to

partition in a hostile attitude, and to mark off their limits with

precision. Poetry had not yet become the adversary of wit, nor had

speculation abused itself by passing into quibbling. In cases of

necessity both poetry and wit could exchange parts, because they

both honoured truth only in their special way. However high might be

the flight of reason, it drew matter in a loving spirit after it,

and, while sharply and stiffly defining it, never mutilated what it

touched. It is true the Greek mind displaced humanity, and recast it

on a magnified scale in the glorious circle of its gods; but it did

this not by dissecting human nature, but by giving it fresh

combinations, for the whole of human nature was represented in each

of the gods. How different is the course followed by us moderns! We

also displace and magnify individuals to form the image of the

specks, but we do this in a fragmentary way, not by altered

combinations, so that it is necessary to gather up from different

individuals the elements that form the species in its totality. It

would almost appear is if the powers of mind express themselves with

us in real life or empirically as separately as the psychologist

distinguishes them in the representation. For we see not only

individual subjects, but whole classes of men, uphold their

capacities only in part, while the rest of their faculties scarcely

show a germ of activity, as in the case of the stunted growth of

plants.

I do not overlook the advantages to which the present race, regarded

as a unity and in the balance of the understanding, may lay claim

over what is best in the ancient world; but it is obliged to engage

in the contest as a compact mass, and measure itself as a whole

against a whole. Who among the moderns could step forth, man against

man, and strive with an Athenian for the prize of higher humanity?

Whence comes this disadvantageous relation of individuals coupled

with great advantages of the race? Why could the individual Greek be

qualified as the type of his time? and why can no modern dare to

offer himself as such? Because all-uniting nature imparted its forms

to the Greek, and an all-dividing understanding gives our forms to

us.

It was culture itself that gave these wounds to modern humanity. The

inner union of human nature was broken, and a destructive contest

divided its harmonious forces directly; on the one hand, an enlarged

experience and a more distinct thinking necessitated a sharper

separation of the sciences, while on the other hand, the more

complicated machinery of states necessitated a stricter sundering of

ranks and occupations. Intuitive and speculative understanding took

up a hostile attitude in opposite fields, whose borders were guarded

with jealousy and distrust; and by limiting its operation to a

narrow sphere, men have made unto themselves a master who is wont

not unfrequently to end by subduing and oppressing all the other

faculties. Whilst on the one hand a luxuriant imagination creates

ravages in the plantations that have cost the intelligence so much

labour, on the other hand a spirit of abstraction suffocates the

fire that might have warmed the heart and inflamed the imagination.

This subversion, commenced by art and learning in the inner man, was

carried out to fulness and finished by the spirit of innovation in

government. It was, no doubt, reasonable to expect that the simple

organisation of the primitive republics should survive the

quaintness of primitive manners and of the relations of antiquity.

But, instead of rising to a higher and nobler degree of animal life,

this organisation degenerated into a common and coarse mechanism.

The zoophyte condition of the Grecian states, where each individual

enjoyed an independent life, and could, in cases of necessity,

become a separate whole and unit in himself, gave way to an

ingenious mechanism, when, from the splitting up into numberless

parts, there results a mechanical life in the combination. Then

there was a rupture between the state and the church, between laws

and customs; enjoyment was separated from labour, the means from the

end, the effort from the reward. Man himself eternally chained down

to a little fragment of the whole, only forms a kind of fragment;

having nothing in his ears but the monotonous sound of the

perpetually revolving wheel, he never develops the harmony of his

being; and instead of imprinting the seal of humanity on his being,

he ends by being nothing more than the living impress of the craft

to which he devotes himself, of the science that he cultivates. This

very partial and paltry relation, linking the isolated members to

the whole, does not depend on forms that are given spontaneously;

for how could a complicated machine, which shuns the light, confide

itself to the free will of man? This relation is rather dictated,

with a rigorous strictness, by a formulary in which the free

intelligence of man is chained down. The dead letter takes the place

of a living meaning, and a practised memory becomes a safer guide

than genius and feeling.

If the community or state measures man by his function, only asking

of its citizens memory, or the intelligence of a craftsman, or

mechanical skill, we cannot be surprised that the other faculties of

the mind are neglected, for the exclusive culture of the one that

brings in honour and profit. Such is the necessary result of an

organisation that is indifferent about character, only looking to

acquirements, whilst in other cases it tolerates the thickest

darkness, to favour a spirit of law and order; it must result if it

wishes that individuals in the exercise of special aptitudes 'should

gain in depth what they are permitted to lose in extension. We are

aware, no doubt, that a powerful genius does not shut up its

activity within the limits of its functions; but mediocre talents

consume in the craft fallen to their lot the whole of their feeble

energy; and if some of their energy is reserved for matters of

preference, without prejudice to its functions, such a state of

things at once bespeaks a spirit soaring above the vulgar. Moreover,

it is rarely a recommendation in the eye of a state to have a

capacity superior to your employment, or one of those noble

intellectual cravings of a man of talent which contend in rivalry

with the duties of office. The state is so jealous of the exclusive

possession of its servants that it would prefer--nor can it be

blamed in this--for functionaries to show their powers with the

Venus of Cytherea rather than the Uranian Venus.

It is thus that concrete individual life is extinguished, in order

that the abstract whole may continue its miserable life, and the

state remains for ever a stranger to its citizens, because feeling

does not discover it anywhere. The governing authorities find

themselves compelled to classify, and thereby simplify, the

multiplicity of citizens, and only to know humanity in a

representative form and at second hand. Accordingly they end by

entirely losing sight of humanity, and by confounding it with a

simple artificial creation of the understanding, whilst on their

part the subject classes cannot help receiving coldly laws that

address themselves so little to their personality. At length

society, weary of having a burden that the state takes so little

trouble to lighten, falls to pieces and is broken up--a destiny that

has long since attended most European states. They are dissolved in

what may be called a state of moral nature, in which public

authority is only one function more, hated and deceived by those who

think it necessary, respected only by those who can do without it.

Thus compressed between two forces, within and without, could

humanity follow any other course than that which it has taken? The

speculative mind, pursuing imprescriptible goods and rights in the

sphere of ideas, must needs have become a stranger to the world of

sense, and lose sight of matter for the sake of form. On its part,

the world of public affairs, shut up in a monotonous circle of

objects, and even there restricted by formulas, was led to lose

sight of the life and liberty of the whole, while becoming

impoverished at the same time in its own sphere. Just as the

speculative mind was tempted to model the real after the

intelligible, and to raise the subjective of its imagination into

laws constituting the existence of things, so the state spirit

rushed into the opposite extreme, wished to make a particular and

fragmentary experience the measure of all observation, and to apply

without exception to all affairs the rules of its own particular

craft. The speculative mind had necessarily to become the prey of a

vain subtlety, the state spirit of a narrow pedantry; for the former

was placed too high to see the individual, and the latter too low to

survey the whole. But the disadvantage of this direction of mind was

not confined to knowledge and mental production; it extended to

action and feeling. We know that the sensibility of the mind

depends, as to degree, on the liveliness, and for extent on the

richness of the imagination. Now the predominance of the faculty of

analysis must necessarily deprive the imagination of its warmth and

energy, and a restricted sphere of objects must diminish its wealth.

It is for this reason that the abstract thinker has very often a

cold heart, because he analyses impressions, which only move the

mind by their combination or totality; on the other hand, the man of

business, the statesman, has very often a narrow heart, because shut

up in the narrow circle of his employment his imagination can

neither expand nor adapt itself to another manner of viewing things.

My subject has led me naturally to place in relief the distressing

tendency of the character of our own times to show the sources of

the evil, without its being my province to point out the

compensations offered by nature. I will readily admit to you that,

although this splitting up of their being was unfavourable for

individuals, it was the only road open for the progress of the race.

The point at which we see humanity arrived among the Greeks was

undoubtedly a maximum; it could neither stop there nor rise higher.

It could not stop there, for the sum of notions acquired forced

infallibly the intelligence to break with feeling and intuition, and

to lead to clearness of knowledge. Nor could it rise any higher; for

it is only in a determinate measure that clearness can be reconciled

with a certain degree of abundance and of warmth. The Greeks had

attained this measure, and to continue their progress in culture,

they, as we, were obliged to renounce the totality of their being,

and to follow different and separate roads in order to seek after

truth.

There was no other way to develop the manifold aptitudes of man than

to bring them in opposition with one another. This antagonism of

forces is the great instrument of culture, but it is only an

instrument; for as long as this antagonism lasts, man is only on the

road to culture. It is only because these special forces are

isolated in man, and because they take on themselves to impose an

exclusive legislation, that they enter into strife with the truth of

things, and oblige common sense, which generally adheres

imperturbably to external phaenomena, to dive into the essence of

things. While pure understanding usurps authority in the world of

sense, and empiricism attempts to subject this intellect to the

conditions of experience, these two rival directions arrive at the

highest possible development, and exhaust the whole extent of their

sphere. While on the one hand imagination, by its tyranny, ventures

to destroy the order of the world, it forces reason, on the other

side, to rise up to the supreme sources of knowledge, and to invoke

against this predominance of fancy the help of the law of necessity.

By an exclusive spirit in the case of his faculties, the individual

is fatally led to error; but the species is led to truth. It is only

by gathering up all the energy of our mind in a single focus, and

concentrating a single force in our being, that we give in some sort

wings to this isolated force, and that we draw it on artificially

far beyond the limits that nature seems to have imposed upon it. If

it be certain that all human individuals taken together would never

have arrived, with the visual power given them by nature, to see a

satellite of Jupiter, discovered by the telescope of the astronomer,

it is just as well established that never would the human

understanding have produced the analysis of the infinite, or the

critique of pure reason, if in particular branches, destined for

this mission, reason had not applied itself to special researches,

and if, after having, as it were, freed itself from all matter, it

had not by the most powerful abstraction given to the spiritual eye

of man the force necessary, in order to look into the absolute. But

the question is, if a spirit thus absorbed in pure reason and

intuition will be able to emancipate itself from the rigorous

fetters of logic, to take the free action of poetry, and seize the

individuality of things with a faithful and chaste sense? Here

nature imposes even on the most universal genius a limit it cannot

pass, and truth will make martyrs as long as philosophy will be

reduced to make its principal occupation the search for arms against

errors.

But whatever may be the final profit for the totality of the world,

of this distinct and special perfecting of the human faculties, it

cannot be denied that this final aim of the universe, which devotes

them to this kind of culture, is a cause of suffering, and a kind of

malediction for individuals. I admit that the exercises of the

gymnasium form athletic bodies; but beauty is only developed by the

free and equal play of the limbs. In the same way the tension of the

isolated spiritual forces may make extraordinary men; but it is only

the well-tempered equilibrium of these forces that can produce happy

and accomplished men. And in what relation should we be placed with

past and future ages if the perfecting of human nature made sach a

sacrifice indispensable? In that case we should have been the slaves

of humanity, we should have consumed our forces in servile work for

it during some thousands of years, and we should have stamped on our

humiliated, mutilated nature the shameful brand of this slavery--all

this in order that future generations, in a happy leisure, might

consecrate themselves to the cure of their moral health, and develop

the whole of human nature by their free culture.

But can it be true that man has to neglect himself for any end

whatever? Can nature snatch from us; for any end whatever, the

perfection which is prescribed to us by the aim of reason? It must

be false that the perfecting of particular faculties renders the

sacrifice of their totality necessary; and even if the law of nature

had imperiously this tendency, we must have the power to reform by a

superior art this totality of our being, which art has destroyed.

Literary and Philosophical Essays: French, German and Italian · 第 56 / 96 题