orthodoxy-第28章

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！





in　the　awful　graves　of　the　suicide　and　the　hero；　showing　the　distance



between　him　who　dies　for　the　sake　of　living　and　him　who　dies　for　the



sake　of　dying。　　And　it　has　held　up　ever　since　above　the　European



lances　the　banner　of　the　mystery　of　chivalry：　　the　Christian　courage；



which　is　a　disdain　of　death；　not　the　Chinese　courage；　which　is　a



disdain　of　life。







　　　　　And　now　I　began　to　find　that　this　duplex　passion　was　the　Christian



key　to　ethics　everywhere。　　Everywhere　the　creed　made　a　moderation



out　of　the　still　crash　of　two　impetuous　emotions。　　Take；　for　instance；



the　matter　of　modesty；　of　the　balance　between　mere　pride　and



mere　prostration。　　The　average　pagan；　like　the　average　agnostic；



would　merely　say　that　he　was　content　with　himself；　but　not　insolently



self…satisfied；　that　there　were　many　better　and　many　worse；



that　his　deserts　were　limited；　but　he　would　see　that　he　got　them。　



In　short；　he　would　walk　with　his　head　in　the　air；　but　not　necessarily



with　his　nose　in　the　air。　　This　is　a　manly　and　rational　position；



but　it　is　open　to　the　objection　we　noted　against　the　compromise



between　optimism　and　pessimismthe　〃resignation〃　of　Matthew　Arnold。　



Being　a　mixture　of　two　things；　it　is　a　dilution　of　two　things；



neither　is　present　in　its　full　strength　or　contributes　its　full　colour。　



This　proper　pride　does　not　lift　the　heart　like　the　tongue　of　trumpets；



you　cannot　go　clad　in　crimson　and　gold　for　this。　　On　the　other　hand；



this　mild　rationalist　modesty　does　not　cleanse　the　soul　with　fire



and　make　it　clear　like　crystal；　it　does　not　（like　a　strict　and



searching　humility）　make　a　man　as　a　little　child；　who　can　sit　at



the　feet　of　the　grass。　　It　does　not　make　him　look　up　and　see　marvels；



for　Alice　must　grow　small　if　she　is　to　be　Alice　in　Wonderland。　　Thus　it



loses　both　the　poetry　of　being　proud　and　the　poetry　of　being　humble。　



Christianity　sought　by　this　same　strange　expedient　to　save　both



of　them。







　　　　　It　separated　the　two　ideas　and　then　exaggerated　them　both。　



In　one　way　Man　was　to　be　haughtier　than　he　had　ever　been　before；



in　another　way　he　was　to　be　humbler　than　he　had　ever　been　before。　



In　so　far　as　I　am　Man　I　am　the　chief　of　creatures。　　In　so　far



as　I　am　a　man　I　am　the　chief　of　sinners。　　All　humility　that　had



meant　pessimism；　that　had　meant　man　taking　a　vague　or　mean　view



of　his　whole　destinyall　that　was　to　go。　　We　were　to　hear　no　more



the　wail　of　Ecclesiastes　that　humanity　had　no　pre…eminence　over



the　brute；　or　the　awful　cry　of　Homer　that　man　was　only　the　saddest



of　all　the　beasts　of　the　field。　　Man　was　a　statue　of　God　walking



about　the　garden。　　Man　had　pre…eminence　over　all　the　brutes；



man　was　only　sad　because　he　was　not　a　beast；　but　a　broken　god。　



The　Greek　had　spoken　of　men　creeping　on　the　earth；　as　if　clinging



to　it。　　Now　Man　was　to　tread　on　the　earth　as　if　to　subdue　it。　



Christianity　thus　held　a　thought　of　the　dignity　of　man　that　could　only



be　expressed　in　crowns　rayed　like　the　sun　and　fans　of　peacock　plumage。　



Yet　at　the　same　time　it　could　hold　a　thought　about　the　abject　smallness



of　man　that　could　only　be　expressed　in　fasting　and　fantastic　submission；



in　the　gray　ashes　of　St。　Dominic　and　the　white　snows　of　St。　Bernard。　



When　one　came　to　think　of　ONE'S　SELF；　there　was　vista　and　void　enough



for　any　amount　of　bleak　abnegation　and　bitter　truth。　　There　the



realistic　gentleman　could　let　himself　goas　long　as　he　let　himself　go



at　himself。　　There　was　an　open　playground　for　the　happy　pessimist。　



Let　him　say　anything　against　himself　short　of　blaspheming　the　original



aim　of　his　being；　let　him　call　himself　a　fool　and　even　a　damned



fool　（though　that　is　Calvinistic）；　but　he　must　not　say　that　fools



are　not　worth　saving。　　He　must　not　say　that　a　man；　QUA　man；



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