Heretics | Page 9

said, and with perfect truth, that no one
could read a play like GHOSTS and remain indifferent to the necessity
of an ethical self-command. That is quite true, and the same is to be
said of the most monstrous and material descriptions of the eternal fire.
It is quite certain the realists like Zola do in one sense promote
morality--they promote it in the sense in which the hangman promotes
it, in the sense in which the devil promotes it. But they only affect that
small minority which will accept any virtue of courage. Most healthy
people dismiss these moral dangers as they dismiss the possibility of
bombs or microbes. Modern realists are indeed Terrorists, like the
dynamiters; and they fail just as much in their effort to create a thrill.
Both realists and dynamiters are well-meaning people engaged in the
task, so obviously ultimately hopeless, of using science to promote
morality.
I do not wish the reader to confuse me for a moment with those vague
persons who imagine that Ibsen is what they call a pessimist. There are
plenty of wholesome people in Ibsen, plenty of good people, plenty of
happy people, plenty of examples of men acting wisely and things
ending well. That is not my meaning. My meaning is that Ibsen has
throughout, and does not disguise, a certain vagueness and a changing
attitude as well as a doubting attitude towards what is really wisdom
and virtue in this life-- a vagueness which contrasts very remarkably
with the decisiveness with which he pounces on something which he
perceives to be a root of evil, some convention, some deception, some
ignorance. We know that the hero of GHOSTS is mad, and we know
why he is mad. We do also know that Dr. Stockman is sane; but we do
not know why he is sane. Ibsen does not profess to know how virtue
and happiness are brought about, in the sense that he professes to know

how our modern sexual tragedies are brought about. Falsehood works
ruin in THE PILLARS OF SOCIETY, but truth works equal ruin in
THE WILD DUCK. There are no cardinal virtues of Ibsenism. There is
no ideal man of Ibsen. All this is not only admitted, but vaunted in the
most valuable and thoughtful of all the eulogies upon Ibsen, Mr.
Bernard Shaw's QUINTESSENCE OF IBSENISM. Mr. Shaw sums up
Ibsen's teaching in the phrase, "The golden rule is that there is no
golden rule." In his eyes this absence of an enduring and positive ideal,
this absence of a permanent key to virtue, is the one great Ibsen merit. I
am not discussing now with any fullness whether this is so or not. All I
venture to point out, with an increased firmness, is that this omission,
good or bad, does leave us face to face with the problem of a human
consciousness filled with very definite images of evil, and with no
definite image of good. To us light must be henceforward the dark
thing--the thing of which we cannot speak. To us, as to Milton's devils
in Pandemonium, it is darkness that is visible. The human race,
according to religion, fell once, and in falling gained knowledge of
good and of evil. Now we have fallen a second time, and only the
knowledge of evil remains to us.
A great silent collapse, an enormous unspoken disappointment, has in
our time fallen on our Northern civilization. All previous ages have
sweated and been crucified in an attempt to realize what is really the
right life, what was really the good man. A definite part of the modern
world has come beyond question to the conclusion that there is no
answer to these questions, that the most that we can do is to set up a
few notice-boards at places of obvious danger, to warn men, for
instance, against drinking themselves to death, or ignoring the mere
existence of their neighbours. Ibsen is the first to return from the
baffled hunt to bring us the tidings of great failure.
Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order
to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about
"liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is
good. We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid
discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "education"; that
is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says,

"Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is,
logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be
considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral
formulae; I am for