FIGS FOR FIG LEAVES!

Of course, the writing of such a piece as 1601 raised the question of

freedom of expression for the creative artist.

Although little discussed at that time, it was a question which

intensely interested Mark, and for a fuller appreciation of Mark's

position one must keep in mind the year in which 1601 was written, 1876.

There had been nothing like it before in American literature; there had

appeared no Caldwells, no Faulkners, no Hemingways. Victorian England

was gushing Tennyson. In the United States polite letters was a cult

of the Brahmins of Boston, with William Dean Howells at the helm of

the Atlantic. Louisa May Alcott published Little Women in 1868-69, and

Little Men in 1871. In 1873 Mark Twain led the van of the debunkers,

scraping the gilt off the lily in the Gilded Age.

In 1880 Mark took a few pot shots at license in Art and Literature in

his Tramp Abroad, “I wonder why some things are? For instance, Art is

allowed as much indecent license to-day as in earlier times--but the

privileges of Literature in this respect have been sharply curtailed

within the past eighty or ninety years. Fielding and Smollet could

portray the beastliness of their day in the beastliest language; we have

plenty of foul subjects to deal with in our day, but we are not allowed

to approach them very near, even with nice and guarded forms of speech.

But not so with Art. The brush may still deal freely with any subject;

however revolting or indelicate. It makes a body ooze sarcasm at every

pore, to go about Rome and Florence and see what this last generation

has been doing with the statues. These works, which had stood in

innocent nakedness for ages, are all fig-leaved now. Yes, every one of

them. Nobody noticed their nakedness before, perhaps; nobody can help

noticing it now, the fig-leaf makes it so conspicuous. But the comical

thing about it all, is, that the fig-leaf is confined to cold and pallid

marble, which would be still cold and unsuggestive without this sham and

ostentatious symbol of modesty, whereas warm-blooded paintings which do

really need it have in no case been furnished with it.

“At the door of the Ufizzi, in Florence, one is confronted by statues

of a man and a woman, noseless, battered, black with accumulated

grime--they hardly suggest human beings--yet these ridiculous creatures

have been thoughtfully and conscientiously fig-leaved by this fastidious

generation. You enter, and proceed to that most-visited little gallery

that exists in the world.... and there, against the wall, without

obstructing rag or leaf, you may look your fill upon the foulest, the

vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses--Titian's Venus.

It isn't that she is naked and stretched out on a bed--no, it is the

attitude of one of her arms and hand. If I ventured to describe the

attitude, there would be a fine howl--but there the Venus lies, for

anybody to gloat over that wants to--and there she has a right to lie,

for she is a work of art, and Art has its privileges. I saw young

girls stealing furtive glances at her; I saw young men gaze long and

absorbedly at her; I saw aged, infirm men hang upon her charms with a

pathetic interest. How I should like to describe her--just to see what

a holy indignation I could stir up in the world--just to hear the

unreflecting average man deliver himself about my grossness and

coarseness, and all that.

“In every gallery in Europe there are hideous pictures of blood,

carnage, oozing brains, putrefaction--pictures portraying intolerable

suffering--pictures alive with every conceivable horror, wrought out in

dreadful detail--and similar pictures are being put on the canvas every

day and publicly exhibited--without a growl from anybody--for they

are innocent, they are inoffensive, being works of art. But suppose

a literary artist ventured to go into a painstaking and elaborate

description of one of these grisly things--the critics would skin him

alive. Well, let it go, it cannot be helped; Art retains her privileges,

Literature has lost hers. Somebody else may cipher out the whys and the

wherefores and the consistencies of it--I haven't got time.”

1601: Conversation as it was by the Social Fireside in the Time of the Tudors · 第 13 / 27 题