my discovery of england-第21部分
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！
The same thing is true of nations。 Each thinks its own humour of an entirely superior kind； and either refuses to admit； or admits reluctantly； the humorous quality of other peoples。 The Englishman may credit the Frenchman with a certain light effervescence of mind which he neither emulates nor envies； the Frenchman may acknowledge that English literature shows here and there a sort of heavy playfulness； but neither of them would consider that the humour of the other nation could stand a moment's comparison with his own。
Yet； oddly enough； American humour stands as a conspicuous exception to this general rule。 A certain vogue clings to it。 Ever since the spacious days of Artemus Ward and Mark Twain it has enjoyed an extraordinary reputation； and this not only on our own continent； but in England。 It was in a sense the English who 〃discovered〃 Mark Twain； I mean it was they who first clearly recognised him as a man of letters of the foremost rank； at a time when academic Boston still tried to explain him away as a mere comic man of the West。 In the same way Artemus Ward is still held in affectionate remembrance in London； and； of the later generation； Mr。 Dooley at least is a household word。
This is so much the case that a sort of legend has grown around American humour。 It is presumed to be a superior article and to enjoy the same kind of pre…eminence as French cooking； the Russian ballet； and Italian organ grinding。 With this goes the converse supposition that the British people are inferior in humour； that a joke reaches them only with great difficulty； and that a British audience listens to humour in gloomy and unintelligent silence。 Peoplc still love to repeat the famous story of how John Bright listened attentively to Artemus Ward's lecture in London and then said； gravely； that he 〃doubted many of the young man's statements〃； and readers still remember Mark Twain's famous parody of the discussion of his book by a wooden…headed reviewer of an English review。
But the legend in reality is only a legend。 If the English are inferior to Americans in humour； I； for one； am at a loss to see where it comes in。 If there is anything on our continent superior in humour to Punch I should like to see it。 If we have any more humorous writers in our midst than E。 V。 Lucas and Charles Graves and Owen Seaman I should like to read what they write； and if there is any audience capable of more laughter and more generous appreciation than an audience in London； or Bristol； or Aberdeen； I should like to lecture to it。
During my voyage of discovery in Great Britain I had very exceptional opportunities for testing the truth of these comparisons。 It was my good fortune to appear as an avowed humourist in all the great British cities。 I lectured as far north as Aberdeen and as far south as Brighton and Bournemouth； I travelled eastward to Ipswich and westward into Wales。 I spoke on serious subjects； but with a joke or two in loco； at the universities； at business gatherings； and at London dinners； I watched； lost in admiration； the inspired merriment of the Savages of Adelphi Terrace； and in my moments of leisure I observed； with a scientific eye； the gaieties of the London revues。 As a result of which I say with conviction that； speaking by and large； the two communities are on the same level。 A Harvard audience； as I have reason gratefully to acknowledge； is wonderful。 But an Oxford audience is just as good。 A gathering of business men in a textile town in the Midlands is just as heavy as a gathering of business men in Decatur； Indiana； but no heavier； and an audience of English schoolboys as at Rugby or at Clifton is capable of a wild and sustained merriment not to be outdone from Halifax to Los Angeles。
There is； however； one vital difference between American and English audiences which would be apt to discourage at the outset any American lecturer who might go to England。 The English audiences； from the nature of the way in which they have been brought together； expect more。 In England they still associate lectures with information。 We don't。 Our American lecture audiences are； in nine cases out of ten； organised by a woman's club of some kind and drawn not from the working class； but fromwhat shall we call it？the class that doesn't have to work； or； at any rate； not too hard。 It is largely a social audience； well educated without being 〃highbrow；〃 and tolerant and kindly to a degree。 In fact； what the people mainly want is to see the lecturer。 They have heard all about G。 K。 Chesterton and Hugh Walpole and John Drinkwater； and so when these gentlemen come to town the woman's club want to have a look at them； just as the English people； who are all crazy about animals； flock to the zoo to look at a new giraffe。 They don't expect the giraffe to do anything in particular。 They want to see it； that's all。 So with the American woman's club audience。 After they have seen Mr。 Chesterton they ask one another as they come outjust as an incidental matter〃Did you understand his lecture？〃 and the answer is； 〃I can't say I did。〃 But there is no malice about it。 They can now go and say that they have seen Mr。 Chesterton； that's worth two dollars in itself。 The nearest thing to this attitude of mind that I heard of in England was at the City Temple in London； where they have every week a huge gathering of about two thousand people； to listen to a （so…called） popular lecture。 When I was there I was told that the person who had preceded me was Lord Haldane； who had lectured on Einstein's Theory of Relativity。 I said to the chairman； 〃Surely this kind of audience couldn't understand a lecture like that！〃 He shook his head。 〃No；〃 he said； 〃they didn't understand it； but they all enjoyed it。〃
I don't mean to imply by what I said above that American lecture audiences do not appreciate good things or that the English lecturers who come to this continent are all giraffes。 On the contrary： when the audience finds that Chesterton and Walpole and Drinkwater； in addition to being visible； are also singularly interesting lecturers； they are all the better pleased。 But this doesn't alter the fact that they have come primarily to see the lecturer。
Not so in England。 Here a lecture （outside London） is organised on a much sterner footing。 The people are there for information。 The lecture is organised not by idle； amiable； charming women； but by a body called； with variations； the Philosophical Society。 From experience I should define an English Philosophical Society as all the people in town who don't know anything about philosophy。 The academic and university classes are never there。 The audience is only of plainer folk。 In the United States and Canada at any evening lecture a large sprinkling of the audience are in evening dress。 At an English lecture （outside of London） none of them are； philosophy is not to be wooed in such a garb。 Nor are there the same commodious premises； the same bright lights； and the same atmosphere of gaiety as at a society lecture in America。 On the contrary； the setting is a gloomy one。 In England； in winter； night begins at four in the afternoon。 In the manufacturing towns of the Midlands and the north （which is where the philosophical societies flourish） there is always a drizzling rain and wet slop underfoot； a bedraggled poverty in the streets； and a dimness of lights that contrasts with the glare of light in an American town。 There is no visible sign in the town that a lecture is to happen； no placards； no advertisements； nothing。 The lecturer is conducted by a chairman through a side door in a dingy building （The Institute； established 1840）； and then all of a sudden in a huge； dim hallthere sits the Philosophical Society。 There are a thousand of them； but they sit as quiet as a prayer meeting。 They are waiting to be fedon information。
Now I don't mean to say that the Philosophical Society are not a good audience。 In their own way they're all right。 Once the Philosophical Society has decided that a lecture is humorous they do not stint their laughter。 I have had many times the satisfaction of seeing a Philosophical Society swept away from its moorings and tossing in a sea of laughter； as generous and as whole…hearted as anything we ever see in America。
But they are not so willing to begin。 With us the chairman has only to say to the gaily dressed members of the Ladies' Fortnightly Club； 〃Well； ladies； I'm sure we are all looking forward very much to Mr。 Walpole's lecture；〃 and at once there is a ripple of applause； and a responsive expression on a hundred charming faces。
Not so the Philosophical Society of the Midlands。 The chairman rises。 He doesn't call for silence。 It is there； thick。 〃We have with us to…night；〃 he says； 〃a man whose name is well known to the Philosophical Society〃 （here he looks at his card）； 〃Mr。 Stephen Leacock。〃 （Complete silence。） 〃He is a professor of political economy at〃 Here he turns to me and says； 〃Which college did you say？〃 I answer quite audibly in the silence； 〃At McGill。〃 〃He is at McGill；〃 says the chairman。 （More silence。） 〃I don't suppose； however； ladies and gentlemen； that he's come here to talk about political economy。〃 This is meant as a jest； but the audience takes it as a threat。 〃However； ladies and gentlemen； you haven't come here to listen to me〃 （this evokes applause； the first of the evening）； 〃so without more ado〃 （the man always has the impression that there's been a lot of 〃ado；〃 but I never see any of it） 〃I'll now introduce Mr。 Leacock。〃 （Complete silence。）
Nothing of which means the least harm。 It only implies that the Philosophical Society are true philosophers in accepting nothing unproved。 They are like the man from Missouri。 They want to be shown。 And undoubtedly it takes a little time； therefore； to rouse them。 I remember listening with great interest to Sir Michael Sadler； who is possessed of a very neat wit； introducing me at Leeds。 He threw three jokes； one after the other； into the heart of a huge； silent audience without effect。 He might as well have thrown soap bubbles。 But the fourth joke broke fair and square like a bomb in the middle of the Philosophical Society and exploded them into convulsions。 The process is very like what artillery men tell
