orthodoxy-第29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！





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。　



Any　one　might　say　that　we　should　be　neither　quite　miserable　nor



quite　happy。　　But　to　find　out　how　far　one　MAY　be　quite　miserable



without　making　it　impossible　to　be　quite　happythat　was　a　discovery



in　psychology。　　Any　one　might　say；　〃Neither　swagger　nor　grovel〃；



and　it　would　have　been　a　limit。　　But　to　say；　〃Here　you　can　swagger



and　there　you　can　grovel〃that　was　an　emancipation。







　　　　　This　was　the　big　fact　about　Christian　ethics；　the　discovery



of　the　new　balance。　　Paganism　had　been　like　a　pillar　of　marble；



upright　because　proportioned　with　symmetry。　　Christianity　was　like



a　huge　and　ragged　and　romantic　rock；　which；　though　it　sways　on　its



pedestal　at　a　touch；　yet；　because　its　exaggerated　excrescences



exactly　balance　each　other；　is　enthroned　there　for　a　thousand　years。　



In　a　Gothic　cathedral　the　columns　were　all　different；　but　they　were



all　necessary。　　Every　support　seemed　an　accidental　and　fantastic　support；



every　buttress　was　a　flying　buttress。　　So　in　Christendom　apparent



accidents　balanced。　　Becket　wore　a　hair　shirt　under　his　gold



and　crimson；　and　there　is　much　to　be　said　for　the　combination；



for　Becket　got　the　benefit　of　the　hair　shirt　while　the　people　in



the　street　got　the　benefit　of　the　crimson　and　gold。　　It　is　at　least



better　than　the　manner　of　the　modern　millionaire；　who　has　the　black



and　the　drab　outwardly　for　others；　and　the　gold　next　his　heart。　



But　the　balance　was　not　always　in　one　man's　body　as　in　Becket's；



the　balance　was　often　distributed　over　the　whole　body　of　Christendom。　



Because　a　man　prayed　and　fasted　on　the　Northern　snows；　flowers　could



be　flung　at　his　festival　in　the　Southern　cities；　and　because　fanatics



drank　water　on　the　sands　of　Syria；　men　could　still　drink　cider　in　the



orchards　of　England。　　This　is　what　makes　Christendom　at　once　so　much



more　perplexing　and　so　much　more　interesting　than　the　Pagan　empire；



ju