orthodoxy-第26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！





is　certainly　the　case）　that　ours　is　only　an　age　of　conservation



because　it　is　an　age　of　complete　unbelief。　　Let　beliefs　fade　fast



and　frequently；　if　you　wish　institutions　to　remain　the　same。　



The　more　the　life　of　the　mind　is　unhinged；　the　more　the　machinery



of　matter　will　be　left　to　itself。　　The　net　result　of　all　our



political　suggestions；　Collectivism；　Tolstoyanism；　Neo…Feudalism；



Communism；　Anarchy；　Scientific　Bureaucracythe　plain　fruit　of　all



of　them　is　that　the　Monarchy　and　the　House　of　Lords　will　remain。　



The　net　result　of　all　the　new　religions　will　be　that　the　Church



of　England　will　not　（for　heaven　knows　how　long）　be　disestablished。　



It　was　Karl　Marx；　Nietzsche；　Tolstoy；　Cunninghame　Grahame；　Bernard　Shaw



and　Auberon　Herbert；　who　between　them；　with　bowed　gigantic　backs；



bore　up　the　throne　of　the　Archbishop　of　Canterbury。







　　　　　We　may　say　broadly　that　free　thought　is　the　best　of　all　the



safeguards　against　freedom。　　Managed　in　a　modern　style　the　emancipation



of　the　slave's　mind　is　the　best　way　of　preventing　the　emancipation



of　the　slave。　　Teach　him　to　worry　about　whether　he　wants　to　be　free；



and　he　will　not　free　himself。　　Again；　it　may　be　said　that　this



instance　is　remote　or　extreme。　　But；　again；　it　is　exactly　true　of



the　men　in　the　streets　around　us。　　It　is　true　that　the　negro　slave；



being　a　debased　barbarian；　will　probably　have　either　a　human　affection



of　loyalty；　or　a　human　affection　for　liberty。　　But　the　man　we　see



every　daythe　worker　in　Mr。　Gradgrind's　factory；　the　little　clerk



in　Mr。　Gradgrind's　officehe　is　too　mentally　worried　to　believe



in　freedom。　　He　is　kept　quiet　with　revolutionary　literature。　



He　is　calmed　and　kept　in　his　place　by　a　constant　succession　of



wild　philosophies。　　He　is　a　Marxian　one　day；　a　Nietzscheite　the



next　day；　a　Superman　（probably）　the　next　day；　and　a　slave　every　day。　



The　only　thing　that　remains　after　all　the　philosophies　is　the　factory。　



The　only　man　who　gains　by　all　the　philosophies　is　Gradgrind。　



It　would　be　worth　his　while　to　keep　his　commercial　helotry　supplied



with　sceptical　literature。　　And　now　I　come　to　think　of　it；　of　course；



Gradgrind　is　famous　for　giving　libraries。　　He　shows　his　sense。　



All　modern　books　are　on　his　side。　　As　long　as　the　vision　of　heaven



is　always　changing；　the　vision　of　earth　will　be　exactly　the　same。　



No　ideal　will　remain　long　enough　to　be　realized；　or　even　partly　realized。　



The　modern　young　man　will　never　change　his　environment；　for　he　will



always　change　his　mind。







　　　　　This；　therefore；　is　our　first　requirement　about　the　ideal　towards



which　progress　is　directed；　it　must　be　fixed。　　Whistler　used　to　make



many　rapid　studies　of　a　sitter；　it　did　not　matter　if　he　tore　up



twenty　portraits。　　But　it　would　matter　if　he　looked　up　twenty　times；



and　each　time　saw　a　new　person　sitting　placidly　for　his　portrait。　



So　it　does　not　matter　（comparatively　speaking）　how　often　humanity　fails



to　imitate　its　ideal；　for　then　all　its　old　failures　are　fruitful。　



But　it　does　frightfully　matter　how　often　humanity　changes　its　ideal；



for　then　all　its　old　failures　are　fruitless。　　The　question　therefore



becomes　this：　　How　can　we　keep　the　artist　discontented　with　his　pictures



while　preventing　him　from　being　vitally　discontented　with　his　art？　



How　can　we　make　a　man　always　dissatisfied　with　his　work；　yet　always



satisfied　with　working？　　How　can　we　make　sure　that　the　portrait



painter　will　throw　the　portrait　out　of　window　instead　of　taking



the　natural　and　more　human　course　of　throwing　the　sitter　out



of　window？







　　　　　A　strict　rule　is　not　only　necessary　for　ruling；　it　is　also　necessary



for　rebelling。　　This　fixed　and　familiar　ideal　is　necessary　to　any



sort　of　revolution。　　Man　will　sometimes　act　slowly　upon　new　ideas；



but　he　will　only　act　swiftly　upon　old　ideas。　　If　I　am　merely



to　float　or　fade　or　evolve；　it　may　be　towards　something　anarchic；



but　if　I　am　to　riot；　it　must　be　for　something　respectable。　　This　is



the　whole　weakness　of　certain　schools　of　progress　and　moral　evolution。　



They　suggest　that　there　has　been　a　slow　movement　towards　morality；



with　an　imperceptible　ethical　change　in　every　year　or　at　every　instant。　



There　is　only　one　great　disadvantage　in　this　theory。　　It　talks　of　a　slow



movement　towards　justice；　but　it　does　not　permit　a　swift　movement。　



A　man　is　not　allowed　to　leap　up　and　declare　a　certain　state　of　things



to　be　intrinsically　intolerable。　　To　make　the　matter　clear；　it　is　better



to　take　a　specific　example。　　Certain　of　the　idealistic　vegetarians；



such　as　Mr。　Salt；　say　that　the　time　has　now　come　for　eating　no　meat；



by　implication　they　assume　that　at　one　time　it　was　right　to　eat　meat；



and　they　suggest　（in　words　that　could　be　quoted）　that　some　day



it　may　be　wrong　to　eat　milk　and　eggs。　　I　do　not　discuss　here　the



question　of　what　is　justice　to　animals。　　I　only　say　that　whatever



is　justice　ought；　under　given　conditions；　to　be　prompt　justice。　



If　an　animal　is　wronged；　we　ought　to　be　able　to　rush　to　his　rescue。　



But　how　can　we　rush　if　we　are；　perhaps；　in　advance　of　our　time？　　How　can



we　rush　to　catch　a　train　which　may　not　arrive　for　a　few　centuries？　



How　can　I　denounce　a　man　for　skinning　cats；　if　he　is　only　now　what　I



may　possibly　become　in　drinking　a　glass　of　milk？　　A　splendid　and　insane



Russian　sect　ran　about　taking　all　the　cattle　out　of　all　the　carts。　



How　can　I　pluck　up　courage　to　take　the　horse　out　of　my　hansom…cab；



when　I　do　not　know　whether　my　evolutionary　watch　is　only　a　little



fast　or　the　cabman's　a　little　slow？　　Suppose　I　say　to　a　sweater；



〃Slavery　suited　one　stage　of　evolution。〃　　And　suppose　he　answers；



〃And　sweating　suits　this　stage　of　evolution。〃　　How　can　I　answer　if　there



is　no　eternal　test？　　If　sweaters　can　be　behind　the　current　morality；



why　should　not　philanthropists　be　in　front　of　it？　　What　on　earth



is　the　current　morality；　except　in　its　literal　sensethe　morality



that　is　always　running　away？







　　　　　Thus　we　may　say　that　a　permanent　ideal　is　as　necessary　to　the



innovator　as　to　the　conservative；　it　is　necessary　whether　we　wish



the　king's　orders　to　be　promptly　executed　or　whether　we　only　wish



the　king　to　be　promptly　executed。　　The　guillotine　has　many　sins；



but　to　do　it　justice　there　is　nothing　evolutionary　about　it。　



The　favourite　evolutionary　argument　finds　its　best　answer　in



the　axe。　　The　Evolutionist　says；　〃Where　do　you　draw　the　line？〃



the　Revolutionist　answers；　〃I　draw　it　HERE：　　exactly　between　your



head　and　body。〃　　There　must　at　any　given　moment　be　an　abstract



right　and　wrong　if　any　blow　is　to　be　struck；　there　must　be　something



eternal　if　there　is　to　be　anything　sudden。　　Therefore　for　all



intelligible　human　purposes；　for　altering　things　or　for　keeping



things　as　they　are；　for　founding　a　system　for　ever；　as　in　China；



or　for　altering　it　every　month　as　in　the　early　French　Revolution；



it　is　equally　necessary　that　the　vision　should　be　a　fixed　vision。　



This　is　our　first　requirement。







　　　　　When　I　had　written　this　down；　I　felt　once　again　the　presence



of　something　else　in　the　discussion：　　as　a　man　hears　a　church　bell



above　the　sound　of　the　street。　　Something　seemed　to　be　saying；



〃My　ideal　at　least　is　fixed；　for　it　was　fixed　before　the　foundations



of　the　world。　　My　vision　of　perfection　assuredly　cannot　be　altered；



for　it　is　called　Eden。　　You　may　alter　the　place　to　which　you



are　going；　but　you　cannot　alter　the　place　from　which　you　have　come。　



To　the　orthodox　there　must　always　be　a　case　for　revolution；



for　in　the　hearts　of　men　God　has　been　put　under　the　feet　of　Satan。　



In　the　upper　world　hell　once　rebelled　against　heaven。　　But　in　this



world　heaven　is　rebelling　against　hell。　　For　the　orthodox　there



can　always　be　a　revolution；　for　a　revolution　is　a　restoration。　



At　any　instant　you　may　strike　a　blow　for　the　perfection　which



no　man　has　seen　since　Adam。　　No　unchanging　custom；　no　changing



evolution　can　make　the　original　good　any　thing　but　good。　



Man　may　have　had　concubines　as　long　as　cows　have　had　horns：　



still　they　are　not　a　part　of　him　if　they　are　sinful。　　Men　may



have　been　under　oppression　ever　since　fish　were　under　water；



still　they　ought　not　to　be；　if　oppression　is　sinful。　　The　chain　may



seem　as　natural　to　the　slave；　or　the　paint　to　the　harlot；　as　does



the　plume　to　the　bird　or　the　burrow　to　the　fox；　still　they　are　not；



if　they　are　sinful。　　I　lift　my　prehistoric　legend　to　defy　all



your　history。　　Your　vision　is　not　merely　a　fixture：　　it　is　a　fact。〃　



I　paused　to　note　the　new　coincidence　of　Christianity：　　but　I



passed　on。







　　　　　I　passed　on　to　the　next　necessity　of　any　ideal　of　progress。　



Some　people　（as　we　have　said）　seem　to　believe　in　an　automatic



and　impersonal　progress　in　the　nature　of　things。　　But　it　is　clear



that　no　political　activity　can　be　encouraged　by　saying　that　progress



is　natural　and　inevitable；　that　is　not　a　reason　for　being　active；



but　rather　a　reason　for　being　lazy。　　If　we　are　bound　to　improve；



we　need　not　trouble　to　improve。　　The　pure　doctrine　of　progress



is　the　best　of　all　reasons　for　not　being　a　progressive。　　But　it



is　to　none　of　these　obvious　comments　that　I　wish　primarily　to



call　attention。







　　　　　The　only　arresting　point　is　this：　　that　if　we　suppose



improvement　to　be　natural；　it　must　be　fairly　simple。　　The　world



might　conceivably　be　working　towards　one　consummation；　but　hardly



towards　any　particular　arrangement　of　many　qualities。　　To　take



our　original　si