orthodoxy-第32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！





work　away　（in　every　sense）　until　all　was　blue。　　He　could　have



heroic　adventures；　the　putting　of　the　last　touches　to　a　blue　tiger。　



He　could　have　fairy　dreams；　the　dawn　of　a　blue　moon。　　But　if　he



worked　hard；　that　high…minded　reformer　would　certainly　（from　his　own



point　of　view）　leave　the　world　better　and　bluer　than　he　found　it。　



If　he　altered　a　blade　of　grass　to　his　favourite　colour　every　day；



he　would　get　on　slowly。　　But　if　he　altered　his　favourite　colour



every　day；　he　would　not　get　on　at　all。　　If；　after　reading　a



fresh　philosopher；　he　started　to　paint　everything　red　or　yellow；



his　work　would　be　thrown　away：　　there　would　be　nothing　to　show　except



a　few　blue　tigers　walking　about；　specimens　of　his　early　bad　manner。　



This　is　exactly　the　position　of　the　average　modern　thinker。　



It　will　be　said　that　this　is　avowedly　a　preposterous　example。　



But　it　is　literally　the　fact　of　recent　history。　　The　great　and　grave



changes　in　our　political　civilization　all　belonged　to　the　early



nineteenth　century；　not　to　the　later。　　They　belonged　to　the　black



and　white　epoch　when　men　believed　fixedly　in　Toryism；　in　Protestantism；



in　Calvinism；　in　Reform；　and　not　unfrequently　in　Revolution。　



And　whatever　each　man　believed　in　he　hammered　at　steadily；



without　scepticism：　　and　there　was　a　time　when　the　Established



Church　might　have　fallen；　and　the　House　of　Lords　nearly　fell。　



It　was　because　Radicals　were　wise　enough　to　be　constant　and　consistent；



it　was　because　Radicals　were　wise　enough　to　be　Conservative。　



But　in　the　existing　atmosphere　there　is　not　enough　time　and　tradition



in　Radicalism　to　pull　anything　down。　　There　is　a　great　deal　of　truth



in　Lord　Hugh　Cecil's　suggestion　（made　in　a　fine　speech）　that　the　era



of　change　is　over；　and　that　ours　is　an　era　of　conservation　and　repose。　



But　probably　it　would　pain　Lord　Hugh　Cecil　if　he　realized　（what



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　etern