The ballets of the Alhambra are institutions in which a particular selected row of persons in pink go through an operation known as dancing. Now, in all commonwealths dominated by a religion--in the Christian commonwealths of the Middle Ages and in many rude societies--this habit of dancing was a common habit with everybody, and was not necessarily confined to a professional class.
A person could dance without being a dancer; a person could dance without being a specialist; a person could dance without being pink.
And, in proportion as Mr. McCabe's scientific civilization advances--that is, in proportion as religious civilization (or real civilization)decays--the more and more "well trained," the more and more pink, become the people who do dance, and the more and more numerous become the people who don't. Mr. McCabe may recognize an example of what Imean in the gradual discrediting in society of the ancient European waltz or dance with partners, and the substitution of that horrible and degrading oriental interlude which is known as skirt-dancing.
That is the whole essence of decadence, the effacement of five people who do a thing for fun by one person who does it for money.
Now it follows, therefore, that when Mr. McCabe says that the ballets of the Alhambra and my articles "have their place in life,"it ought to be pointed out to him that he is doing his best to create a world in which dancing, properly speaking, will have no place in life at all. He is, indeed, trying to create a world in which there will be no life for dancing to have a place in.
The very fact that Mr. McCabe thinks of dancing as a thing belonging to some hired women at the Alhambra is an illustration of the same principle by which he is able to think of religion as a thing belonging to some hired men in white neckties.
Both these things are things which should not be done for us, but by us. If Mr. McCabe were really religious he would be happy.
If he were really happy he would dance.
Briefly, we may put the matter in this way. The main point of modern life is not that the Alhambra ballet has its place in life.
The main point, the main enormous tragedy of modern life, is that Mr. McCabe has not his place in the Alhambra ballet.
The joy of changing and graceful posture, the joy of suiting the swing of music to the swing of limbs, the joy of whirling drapery, the joy of standing on one leg,--all these should belong by rights to Mr. McCabe and to me; in short, to the ordinary healthy citizen.
Probably we should not consent to go through these evolutions.
But that is because we are miserable moderns and rationalists.
We do not merely love ourselves more than we love duty; we actually love ourselves more than we love joy.
When, therefore, Mr. McCabe says that he gives the Alhambra dances (and my articles) their place in life, I think we are justified in pointing out that by the very nature of the case of his philosophy and of his favourite civilization he gives them a very inadequate place.
For (if I may pursue the too flattering parallel) Mr. McCabe thinks of the Alhambra and of my articles as two very odd and absurd things, which some special people do (probably for money) in order to amuse him.
But if he had ever felt himself the ancient, sublime, elemental, human instinct to dance, he would have discovered that dancing is not a frivolous thing at all, but a very serious thing.
He would have discovered that it is the one grave and chaste and decent method of expressing a certain class of emotions.
And similarly, if he had ever had, as Mr. Shaw and I have had, the impulse to what he calls paradox, he would have discovered that paradox again is not a frivolous thing, but a very serious thing.
He would have found that paradox simply means a certain defiant joy which belongs to belief. I should regard any civilization which was without a universal habit of uproarious dancing as being, from the full human point of view, a defective civilization.
And I should regard any mind which had not got the habit in one form or another of uproarious thinking as being, from the full human point of view, a defective mind.
It is vain for Mr. McCabe to say that a ballet is a part of him.
He should be part of a ballet, or else he is only part of a man.
It is in vain for him to say that he is "not quarrelling with the importation of humour into the controversy."He ought himself to be importing humour into every controversy;for unless a man is in part a humorist, he is only in part a man.
To sum up the whole matter very simply, if Mr. McCabe asks me why Iimport frivolity into a discussion of the nature of man, I answer, because frivolity is a part of the nature of man. If he asks me why I introduce what he calls paradoxes into a philosophical problem, I answer, because all philosophical problems tend to become paradoxical.
If he objects to my treating of life riotously, I reply that life is a riot. And I say that the Universe as I see it, at any rate, is very much more like the fireworks at the Crystal Palace than it is like his own philosophy. About the whole cosmos there is a tense and secret festivity--like preparations for Guy Fawkes' day.
Eternity is the eve of something. I never look up at the stars without feeling that they are the fires of a schoolboy's rocket, fixed in their everlasting fall.
