orthodoxy-第23部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





can　be　valueless。　　Here；　again　in　short；　Christianity　got　over　the



difficulty　of　combining　furious　opposites；　by　keeping　them　both；



and　keeping　them　both　furious。　　The　Church　was　positive　on　both　points。　



One　can　hardly　think　too　little　of　one's　self。　　One　can　hardly　think



too　much　of　one's　soul。







　　　　　Take　another　case：　　the　complicated　question　of　charity；



which　some　highly　uncharitable　idealists　seem　to　think　quite　easy。　



Charity　is　a　paradox；　like　modesty　and　courage。　　Stated　baldly；



charity　certainly　means　one　of　two　thingspardoning　unpardonable　acts；



or　loving　unlovable　people。　　But　if　we　ask　ourselves　（as　we　did



in　the　case　of　pride）　what　a　sensible　pagan　would　feel　about　such



a　subject；　we　shall　probably　be　beginning　at　the　bottom　of　it。　



A　sensible　pagan　would　say　that　there　were　some　people　one　could　forgive；



and　some　one　couldn't：　a　slave　who　stole　wine　could　be　laughed　at；



a　slave　who　betrayed　his　benefactor　could　be　killed；　and　cursed



even　after　he　was　killed。　　In　so　far　as　the　act　was　pardonable；



the　man　was　pardonable。　　That　again　is　rational；　and　even　refreshing；



but　it　is　a　dilution。　　It　leaves　no　place　for　a　pure　horror　of　injustice；



such　as　that　which　is　a　great　beauty　in　the　innocent。　　And　it　leaves



no　place　for　a　mere　tenderness　for　men　as　men；　such　as　is　the　whole



fascination　of　the　charitable。　　Christianity　came　in　here　as　before。　



It　came　in　startlingly　with　a　sword；　and　clove　one　thing　from　another。　



It　divided　the　crime　from　the　criminal。　　The　criminal　we　must　forgive



unto　seventy　times　seven。　　The　crime　we　must　not　forgive　at　all。　



It　was　not　enough　that　slaves　who　stole　wine　inspired　partly　anger



and　partly　kindness。　　We　must　be　much　more　angry　with　theft　than　before；



and　yet　much　kinder　to　thieves　than　before。　　There　was　room　for　wrath



and　love　to　run　wild。　　And　the　more　I　considered　Christianity；



the　more　I　found　that　while　it　had　established　a　rule　and　order；



the　chief　aim　of　that　order　was　to　give　room　for　good　things　to　run



wild。







　　　　　Mental　and　emotional　liberty　are　not　so　simple　as　they　look。　



Really　they　require　almost　as　careful　a　balance　of　laws　and　conditions



as　do　social　and　political　liberty。　　The　ordinary　aesthetic　anarchist



who　sets　out　to　feel　everything　freely　gets　knotted　at　last　in　a



paradox　that　prevents　him　feeling　at　all。　　He　breaks　away　from　home



limits　to　follow　poetry。　　But　in　ceasing　to　feel　home　limits　he　has



ceased　to　feel　the　〃Odyssey。〃　　He　is　free　from　national　prejudices



and　outside　patriotism。　　But　being　outside　patriotism　he　is　outside



〃Henry　V。〃　Such　a　literary　man　is　simply　outside　all　literature：　



he　is　more　of　a　prisoner　than　any　bigot。　　For　if　there　is　a　wall



between　you　and　the　world；　it　makes　little　difference　whether　you



describe　yourself　as　locked　in　or　as　locked　out。　　What　we　want



is　not　the　universality　that　is　outside　all　normal　sentiments；



we　want　the　universality　that　is　inside　all　normal　sentiments。　



It　is　all　the　difference　between　being　free　from　them；　as　a　man



is　free　from　a　prison；　and　being　free　of　them　as　a　man　is　free　of



a　city。　　I　am　free　from　Windsor　Castle　（that　is；　I　am　not　forcibly



detained　there）；　but　I　am　by　no　means　free　of　that　building。　



How　can　man　be　approximately　free　of　fine　emotions；　able　to　swing



them　in　a　clear　space　without　breakage　or　wrong？　　THIS　was　the



achievement　of　this　Christian　paradox　of　the　parallel　passions。　



Granted　the　primary　dogma　of　the　war　between　divine　and　diabolic；



the　revolt　and　ruin　of　the　world；　their　optimism　and　pessimism；



as　pure　poetry；　could　be　loosened　like　cataracts。







　　　　　St。　Francis；　in　praising　all　good；　could　be　a　more　shouting



optimist　than　Walt　Whitman。　　St。　Jerome；　in　denouncing　all　evil；



could　paint　the　world　blacker　than　Schopenhauer。　　Both　passions



were　free　because　both　were　kept　in　their　place。　　The　optimist　could



pour　out　all　the　praise　he　liked　on　the　gay　music　of　the　march；



the　golden　trumpets；　and　the　purple　banners　going　into　battle。　



But　he　must　not　call　the　fight　needless。　　The　pessimist　might　draw



as　darkly　as　he　chose　the　sickening　marches　or　the　sanguine　wounds。　



But　he　must　not　call　the　fight　hopeless。　　So　it　was　with　all　the



other　moral　problems；　with　pride；　with　protest；　and　with　compassion。　



By　defining　its　main　doctrine；　the　Church　not　only　kept　seemingly



inconsistent　things　side　by　side；　but；　what　was　more；　allowed　them



to　break　out　in　a　sort　of　artistic　violence　otherwise　possible



only　to　anarchists。　　Meekness　grew　more　dramatic　than　madness。　



Historic　Christianity　rose　into　a　high　and　strange　COUP　DE　THEATRE



of　moralitythings　that　are　to　virtue　what　the　crimes　of　Nero　are



to　vice。　　The　spirits　of　indignation　and　of　charity　took　terrible



and　attractive　forms；　ranging　from　that　monkish　fierceness　that



scourged　like　a　dog　the　first　and　greatest　of　the　Plantagenets；



to　the　sublime　pity　of　St。　Catherine；　who；　in　the　official　shambles；



kissed　the　bloody　head　of　the　criminal。　　Poetry　could　be　acted　as



well　as　composed。　　This　heroic　and　monumental　manner　in　ethics　has



entirely　vanished　with　supernatural　religion。　　They；　being　humble；



could　parade　themselves：　　but　we　are　too　proud　to　be　prominent。　



Our　ethical　teachers　write　reasonably　for　prison　reform；　but　we



are　not　likely　to　see　Mr。　Cadbury；　or　any　eminent　philanthropist；



go　into　Reading　Gaol　and　embrace　the　strangled　corpse　before　it



is　cast　into　the　quicklime。　　Our　ethical　teachers　write　mildly



against　the　power　of　millionaires；　but　we　are　not　likely　to　see



Mr。　Rockefeller；　or　any　modern　tyrant；　publicly　whipped　in　Westminster



Abbey。







　　　　　Thus；　the　double　charges　of　the　secularists；　though　throwing



nothing　but　darkness　and　confusion　on　themselves；　throw　a　real　light　on



the　faith。　　It　is　true　that　the　historic　Church　has　at　once　emphasised



celibacy　and　emphasised　the　family；　has　at　once　（if　one　may　put　it　so）



been　fiercely　for　having　children　and　fiercely　for　not　having　children。　



It　has　kept　them　side　by　side　like　two　strong　colours；　red　and　white；



like　the　red　and　white　upon　the　shield　of　St。　George。　　It　has



always　had　a　healthy　hatred　of　pink。　　It　hates　that　combination



of　two　colours　which　is　the　feeble　expedient　of　the　philosophers。　



It　hates　that　evolution　of　black　into　white　which　is　tantamount　to



a　dirty　gray。　　In　fact；　the　whole　theory　of　the　Church　on　virginity



might　be　symbolized　in　the　statement　that　white　is　a　colour：　



not　merely　the　absence　of　a　colour。　　All　that　I　am　urging　here　can



be　expressed　by　saying　that　Christianity　sought　in　most　of　these



cases　to　keep　two　colours　coexistent　but　pure。　　It　is　not　a　mixture



like　russet　or　purple；　it　is　rather　like　a　shot　silk；　for　a　shot



silk　is　always　at　right　angles；　and　is　in　the　pattern　of　the　cross。







　　　　　So　it　is　also；　of　course；　with　the　contradictory　charges



of　the　anti…Christians　about　submission　and　slaughter。　　It　IS　true



that　the　Church　told　some　men　to　fight　and　others　not　to　fight；



and　it　IS　true　that　those　who　fought　were　like　thunderbolts



and　those　who　did　not　fight　were　like　statues。　　All　this　simply



means　that　the　Church　preferred　to　use　its　Supermen　and　to　use



its　Tolstoyans。　　There　must　be　SOME　good　in　the　life　of　battle；



for　so　many　good　men　have　enjoyed　being　soldiers。　　There　must　be



SOME　good　in　the　idea　of　non…resistance；　for　so　many　good　men　seem



to　enjoy　being　Quakers。　　All　that　the　Church　did　（so　far　as　that　goes）



was　to　prevent　either　of　these　good　things　from　ousting　the　other。　



They　existed　side　by　side。　　The　Tolstoyans；　having　all　the　scruples



of　monks；　simply　became　monks。　　The　Quakers　became　a　club　instead



of　becoming　a　sect。　　Monks　said　all　that　Tolstoy　says；　they　poured



out　lucid　lamentations　about　the　cruelty　of　battles　and　the　vanity



of　revenge。　　But　the　Tolstoyans　are　not　quite　right　enough　to　run



the　whole　world；　and　in　the　ages　of　faith　they　were　not　allowed



to　run　it。　　The　world　did　not　lose　the　last　charge　of　Sir　James



Douglas　or　the　banner　of　Joan　the　Maid。　　And　sometimes　this　pure



gentleness　and　this　pure　fierceness　met　and　justified　their　juncture；



the　paradox　of　all　the　prophets　was　fulfilled；　and；　in　the　soul



of　St。　Louis；　the　lion　lay　down　with　the　lamb。　　But　remember　that



this　text　is　too　lightly　interpreted。　　It　is　constantly　assured；



especially　in　our　Tolstoyan　tendencies；　that　when　the　lion　lies



down　with　the　lamb　the　lion　becomes　lamb…like。　But　that　is　brutal



annexation　and　imperialism　on　the　part　of　the　lamb。　　That　is　simply



the　lamb　absorbing　the　lion　instead　of　the　lion　eating　the　lamb。　



The　real　problem　isCan　the　lion　lie　down　with　the　lamb　and　still



retain　his　royal　ferocity？　　THAT　is　the　problem　the　Church　attempted；



THAT　is　the　miracle　she　achieved。







　　　　　This　is　what　I　have　called　guessing　the　hidden　eccentricities



of　life。　　This　is　knowing　that　a　man's　heart　is　to　the　left　and　not



in　the　middle。　　This　is　knowing　not　only　that　the　earth　is　round；



but　knowing　exactly　where　it　is　flat。　　Christian　doctrine　detected



the　oddities　of　life。　　It　not　only　discovered　the　law；　but　it



foresaw　the　exceptions。　　Those　underrate　Christianity　who　say　that



it　discovered　mercy；　any　one　might　discover　mercy。　　In　fact　every



one　did。　　But　to　discover　a　plan　for　being　merciful　and　also　severe



THAT　was　to　anticipate　a　strange　need　of　human　nature。　　For　no　one



wants　to　be　forgiven　for　a　big　sin　as　if　it　were　a　little　one。