And if you ask,"But what else could any one have done,what could the most artistic age have done to save the monument?"I reply,"There are hundreds of things that Greeks or Mediaevals might have done;and I have no notion what they would have chosen;but I say that by an instinct in their whole society they would have done something that was decent and serious and suitable to the place.Perhaps some family of knights or warriors would have the hereditary duty of guarding such a place.If so their armour would be appropriate;their tents would be appropriate;not deliberately--they would grow like that.Perhaps some religious order such as normally employ nocturnal watches and the relieving of guard would protect such a place.Perhaps it would be protected by all sorts of rituals,consecrations,or curses,which would seem to you mere raving superstition and silliness.But they do not seem to me onetwentieth part so silly,from a purely rationalist point of view,as calmly ****** a spot hideous in order to keep it beautiful."The thing that is really vulgar,the thing that is really vile,is to live in a good place Without living by its life.Any one who settles down in a place without becoming part of it is (barring peculiar personal cases,of course)a tripper or wandering cad.For instance,the Jew is a genuine peculiar case.The Wandering Jew is not a wandering cad.He is a highly civilised man in a highly difficult position;the world being divided,and his own nation being divided,about whether he can do anything else except wander.
The best example of the cultured,but common,tripper is the educated Englishman on the Continent.We can no longer explain the quarrel by calling Englishmen rude and foreigners polite.Hundreds of Englishmen are extremely polite,and thousands of foreigners are extremely rude.The truth of the matter is that foreigners do not resent the rude Englishman.
What they do resent,what they do most justly resent,is the polite Englishman.He visits Italy for Botticellis or Flanders for Rembrandts,and he treats the great nations that made these things courteously--as he would treat the custodians of any museum.It does not seem to strike him that the Italian is not the custodian of the pictures,but the creator of them.He can afford to look down on such nations--when he can paint such pictures.
That is,in matters of art and travel,the psychology of the cad.If,living in Italy,you admire Italian art while distrusting Italian character,you are a tourist,or cad.If,living in Italy,you admire Italian art while despising Italian religion,you are a tourist,or cad.
It does not matter how many years you have lived there.Tourists will often live a long time in hotels without discovering the nationality of the waiters.Englishmen will often live a long time in Italy without discovering the nationality of the Italians.But the test is ******.If you admire what Italians did without admiring Italians--you are a cheap tripper.
The same,of course,applies much nearer home.I have remarked elsewhere that country shopkeepers are justly offended by London people,who,coming among them,continue to order all their goods from London.It is caddish to wink and squint at the colour of a man's wine,like a winetaster;and then refuse to drink it.It is equally caddish to wink and squint at the colour of a man's orchard,like a landscape painter;and then refuse to buy the apples.It is always an insult to admire a thing and not use it.But the main point is that one has no right to see Stonehenge without Salisbury Plain and Salisbury:One has no right to respect the dead Italians without respecting the live ones.One has no right to visit a Christian society like a diver visiting the deep-sea fishes--fed along a lengthy tube by another atmosphere,and seeing the sights without breathing the air.It is very real bad manners.
