|
G.K.'S WEEKLY London, England 13 August 1927 (page 554)
THE COCKPIT.
A DOLEFUL TAIL RETORTED.
My dear Mr. Chesterton,—Since you have honoured me with an editorial “all to myself,” I venture to address you personally; and I trust to your indubitable sense of fairness when I ask that your readers, who have read you on me should be allowed to read me on you.
It is not, believe me, wholly sarcasm on my part when I tell you that I cannot help wishing that you would be as tender when dealing with others’ allies in the flesh as you are when dealing with your own friends “on other planes” as the Theosophists say.
“God,” “omniscience,” “judgment,” “soul,” I venture to put into inverted commas because they are, to me, very doubtful characters. In any case my sin against your friends is not, I fancy, so heinous as your own peccadillo against good taste in permitting that Limerick to appear on page 444 of your issue for June 11th. If that is a specimen of the delightful sense of humour possessed by the pious, I do not regret to learn that you consider me destitute of that quality. Forgive me when I say that caddishness and humour are not always synonymous.
I notice that, like most religionists, you take a low view of human nature, and of (I suppose) fallen men. Allow me the pleasure of contradicting—you of course in a Pickwickian sense. It is not “natural” for every man to wish “to rush out of a burning theatre, even if he tramples on women and children.” Some men might conceivably wish to stay and help. That, to them, is “natural”; it is all a matter of individual evolution, a perfectly “natural” process
Your last paragraph full of Chestertonian “humour,” and begging the question as to what is Nature, which is really the point at issue, would certainly “bring down the house” at a public meeting; but it would be a cheap descent notwithstanding. “Life,” you say, “must be full of surprises for him; he strikes a match and is indignant that it burns the sulphur”; and so on, in a kind of pseudo-Rabelaisian ecstasy. Ha! Ha! Ha! But, when the “arrogant” infidel is discomfited, and the Christian laughter is a little subsided, the wee fact remains that an unwanted baby is an unforeseen and surprising consequence to parents who practise birth-control; and the vanquished Atheist ventures to smile again.
And what is Nature? An umbrella is as “natural” to a non-superstitionist as rain; a jar is as “natural” as honey; and birth-control is as “natural” as babies. Being an Atheist, you see, I am forced to attribute everything to Nature
Among the hundreds of current creeds, there are not two that agree as to how, where, when, why, or even if, “God” interposes in mundane affairs; so it is just possible that the non-committal attitude of the Freethinker is justifiable. It is certainly the very reverse of “arrogant”; arrogance belongs properly to those who dogmatise about the unknown.
You seem to imagine, dear Sir, that I regard Mrs. Stopes as a kind of deity. I assure you that, disbelieving wholly in deity, I do not make an exception; even in favour of that excellent woman. On the contrary, I differ from her considerably, though I hope I shall never be so insulting to her as G.K.’s Weekly is.
A final point regarding “slipshoddiness”: A Heretic’s expression implied that “rubber-goods” caused the gratification of passion. This is obviously not the case. My point was that looseness of expression indicated looseness of thought. That is the only point of both my quotations and my objection; that point, Sir, you miss, although you are pleased to label your anti-Neuburg leader “Birth and Brain Control.”
Victor Neuburg was responding to the following article:
G.K.’s WEEKLY London, England 2 July 1927 (page 475)
THE COCKPIT.
BIRTH AND BRAIN CONTROL.
A correspondent has written to us last week complaining of the article signed “Heretic,” which condemned Birth Control not from a religious but a purely rationalist standpoint. The correspondent, Mr. Victor Neuburg, appears to give himself considerable airs of superiority because he is unable to believe in anything (except in Mrs. Stopes) and this is interesting, as illustrating a not un common combination of the incapacity for believing with the incapacity for thinking. It will be quite sufficient to quote about four lines of his letter, which contain more complicated contradictions and inconsequences than we have ever seen in such a space; and which end with one of those abrupt abysses of the entire absence of humour which is more laughable than the best humour in the world.
He says that a man does not practise Birth Control “in order to indulge his passions as a Heretic slipshoddily affirms; but in order that his quite natural (and therefore legitimate) sexual passion may have no unforeseen and un desired results.”
Why he should repudiate the indulging of his passion if his passion is quite legitimate, and why he should want to make the indulgence safe except in order to indulge it, the Lord only knows. He will pardon this theological expression; which we apologise for not putting in quotation marks, as he so haughtily presents all theological expressions. But the muddle is much more amusing than that. The passion, let it be noted, is not natural and legitimate; he distinctly says it is natural and therefore legitimate. In other words everything that is natural is legitimate. So far so good. It is natural for a man to wish to rush out of a burning theatre, even if he tramples on women and children; it is natural and therefore it is legitimate. It is natural for a man called upon to face death or tortures for the truth (of Mrs. Stopes, let us say) to run away and hide; it is natural and therefore it is legitimate. That is quite understood; and so far we are all getting along nicely. But if everything that is natural is right, why in the world is not the birth of a baby as natural as the growth of a passion? If it is unnatural to control appetite, why is it not unnatural to control birth? They are both obviously parts of the same natural process, which has a natural beginning and a natural end. And Mr. Neuburg who thinks all natural things legitimate, has no possible reason for interrupting it at one stage more than at another. As Nature is infallible, we must not question what progeny she produces. If Nature is not infallible, we have a right to question the passions that she inspires.
And then comes the joyous culmination and collapse; of calling a baby an unforeseen consequence of getting married. It would be entertaining to wander through the world with Mr. Neuburg sharing all the unforeseen consequences of the most ordinary actions. Life must be full of surprises for him; he strikes a match and is indignant that it burns the sulphur; he throws a stone into a puddle and is irritated that it makes a splash; he keeps bees and is furious because they fertilise flowers; he breeds dogs and stands astounded before the unforeseen consequence of puppies. Wonder is a wonderful thing and, with less irritation, might be a beautiful thing. But we rather doubt whether anyone who argues like this has any right to a tone of such extreme intellectual arrogance. |