orthodoxy-第35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！





romance　and　journalism　to　talk　of　men　suffering　under　old　tyrannies。　



But；　as　a　fact；　men　have　almost　always　suffered　under　new　tyrannies；



under　tyrannies　that　had　been　public　liberties　hardly　twenty



years　before。　　Thus　England　went　mad　with　joy　over　the　patriotic



monarchy　of　Elizabeth；　and　then　（almost　immediately　afterwards）



went　mad　with　rage　in　the　trap　of　the　tyranny　of　Charles　the　First。　



So；　again；　in　France　the　monarchy　became　intolerable；　not　just



after　it　had　been　tolerated；　but　just　after　it　had　been　adored。　



The　son　of　Louis　the　well…beloved　was　Louis　the　guillotined。　



So　in　the　same　way　in　England　in　the　nineteenth　century　the　Radical



manufacturer　was　entirely　trusted　as　a　mere　tribune　of　the　people；



until　suddenly　we　heard　the　cry　of　the　Socialist　that　he　was　a　tyrant



eating　the　people　like　bread。　　So　again；　we　have　almost　up　to　the



last　instant　trusted　the　newspapers　as　organs　of　public　opinion。　



Just　recently　some　of　us　have　seen　（not　slowly；　but　with　a　start）



that　they　are　obviously　nothing　of　the　kind。　　They　are；　by　the　nature



of　the　case；　the　hobbies　of　a　few　rich　men。　　We　have　not　any　need



to　rebel　against　antiquity；　we　have　to　rebel　against　novelty。　



It　is　the　new　rulers；　the　capitalist　or　the　editor；　who　really　hold



up　the　modern　world。　　There　is　no　fear　that　a　modern　king　will



attempt　to　override　the　constitution；　it　is　more　likely　that　he



will　ignore　the　constitution　and　work　behind　its　back；　he　will　take



no　advantage　of　his　kingly　power；　it　is　more　likely　that　he　will



take　advantage　of　his　kingly　powerlessness；　of　the　fact　that　he



is　free　from　criticism　and　publicity。　　For　the　king　is　the　most



private　person　of　our　time。　　It　will　not　be　necessary　for　any　one



to　fight　again　against　the　proposal　of　a　censorship　of　the　press。　



We　do　not　need　a　censorship　of　the　press。　　We　have　a　censorship　by



the　press。







　　　　　This　startling　swiftness　with　which　popular　systems　turn



oppressive　is　the　third　fact　for　which　we　shall　ask　our　perfect　theory



of　progress　to　allow。　　It　must　always　be　on　the　look　out　for　every



privilege　being　abused；　for　every　working　right　becoming　a　wrong。　



In　this　matter　I　am　entirely　on　the　side　of　the　revolutionists。　



They　are　really　right　to　be　always　suspecting　human　institutions；



they　are　right　not　to　put　their　trust　in　princes　nor　in　any　child



of　man。　　The　chieftain　chosen　to　be　the　friend　of　the　people



becomes　the　enemy　of　the　people；　the　newspaper　started　to　tell



the　truth　now　exists　to　prevent　the　truth　being　told。　　Here；　I　say；



I　felt　that　I　was　really　at　last　on　the　side　of　the　revolutionary。　



And　then　I　caught　my　breath　again：　　for　I　remembered　that　I　was　once



again　on　the　side　of　the　orthodox。







　　　　　Christianity　spoke　again　and　said：　　〃I　have　always　maintained



that　men　were　naturally　backsliders；　that　human　virtue　tended　of　its



own　nature　to　rust　or　to　rot；　I　have　always　said　that　human　beings



as　such　go　wrong；　especially　happy　human　beings；　especially　proud



and　prosperous　human　beings。　　This　eternal　revolution；　this　suspicion



sustained　through　centuries；　you　（being　a　vague　modern）　call　the



doctrine　of　progress。　　If　you　were　a　philosopher　you　would　call　it；



as　I　do；　the　doctrine　of　original　sin。　　You　may　call　it　the　cosmic



advance　as　much　as　you　like；　I　call　it　what　it　isthe　Fall。〃







　　　　　I　have　spoken　of　orthodoxy　coming　in　like　a　sword；　here　I



confess　it　came　in　like　a　battle…axe。　For　really　（when　I　came　to



think　of　it）　Christianity　is　the　only　thing　left　that　has　any　real



right　to　question　the　power　of　the　well…nurtured　or　the　well…bred。



I　have　listened　often　enough　to　Socialists；　or　even　to　democrats；



saying　that　the　physical　conditions　of　the　poor　must　of　necessity　make



them　mentally　and　morally　degraded。　　I　have　listened　to　scientific



men　（and　there　are　still　scientific　men　not　opposed　to　democracy）



saying　that　if　we　give　the　poor　healthier　conditions　vice　and　wrong



will　disappear。　　I　have　listened　to　them　with　a　horrible　attention；



with　a　hideous　fascination。　　For　it　was　like　watching　a　man



energetically　sawing　from　the　tree　the　branch　he　is　sitting　on。　



If　these　happy　democrats　could　prove　their　case；　they　would　strike



democracy　dead。　　If　the　poor　are　thus　utterly　demoralized；　it　may



or　may　not　be　practical　to　raise　them。　　But　it　is　certainly　quite



practical　to　disfranchise　them。　　If　the　man　with　a　bad　bedroom　cannot



give　a　good　vote；　then　the　first　and　swiftest　deduction　is　that　he



shall　give　no　vote。　　The　governing　class　may　not　unreasonably　say：　



〃It　may　take　us　some　time　to　reform　his　bedroom。　　But　if　he　is　the



brute　you　say；　it　will　take　him　very　little　time　to　ruin　our　country。　



Therefore　we　will　take　your　hint　and　not　give　him　the　chance。〃　



It　fills　me　with　horrible　amusement　to　observe　the　way　in　which　the



earnest　Socialist　industriously　lays　the　foundation　of　all　aristocracy；



expatiating　blandly　upon　the　evident　unfitness　of　the　poor　to　rule。　



It　is　like　listening　to　somebody　at　an　evening　party　apologising



for　entering　without　evening　dress；　and　explaining　that　he　had



recently　been　intoxicated；　had　a　personal　habit　of　taking　off



his　clothes　in　the　street；　and　had；　moreover；　only　just　changed



from　prison　uniform。　　At　any　moment；　one　feels；　the　host　might　say



that　really；　if　it　was　as　bad　as　that；　he　need　not　come　in　at　all。　



So　it　is　when　the　ordinary　Socialist；　with　a　beaming　face；



proves　that　the　poor；　after　their　smashing　experiences；　cannot　be



really　trustworthy。　　At　any　moment　the　rich　may　say；　〃Very　well；



then；　we　won't　trust　them；〃　and　bang　the　door　in　his　face。　



On　the　basis　of　Mr。　Blatchford's　view　of　heredity　and　environment；



the　case　for　the　aristocracy　is　quite　overwhelming。　　If　clean　homes



and　clean　air　make　clean　souls；　why　not　give　the　power　（for　the



present　at　any　rate）　to　those　who　undoubtedly　have　the　clean　air？　



If　better　conditions　will　make　the　poor　more　fit　to　govern　themselves；



why　should　not　better　conditions　already　make　the　rich　more　fit



to　govern　them？　　On　the　ordinary　environment　argument　the　matter　is



fairly　manifest。　　The　comfortable　class　must　be　merely　our　vanguard



in　Utopia。







　　　　　Is　there　any　answer　to　the　proposition　that　those　who　have



had　the　best　opportunities　will　probably　be　our　best　guides？　



Is　there　any　answer　to　the　argument　that　those　who　have　breathed



clean　air　had　better　decide　for　those　who　have　breathed　foul？　



As　far　as　I　know；　there　is　only　one　answer；　and　that　answer



is　Christianity。　　Only　the　Christian　Church　can　offer　any　rational



objection　to　a　complete　confidence　in　the　rich。　　For　she　has　maintained



from　the　beginning　that　the　danger　was　not　in　man's　environment；



but　in　man。　　Further；　she　has　maintained　that　if　we　come　to　talk　of　a



dangerous　environment；　the　most　dangerous　environment　of　all　is　the



commodious　environment。　　I　know　that　the　most　modern　manufacture　has



been　really　occupied　in　trying　to　produce　an　abnormally　large　needle。　



I　know　that　the　most　recent　biologists　have　been　chiefly　anxious



to　discover　a　very　small　camel。　　But　if　we　diminish　the　camel



to　his　smallest；　or　open　the　eye　of　the　needle　to　its　largestif；



in　short；　we　assume　the　words　of　Christ　to　have　meant　the　very　least



that　they　could　mean；　His　words　must　at　the　very　least　mean　this



that　rich　men　are　not　very　likely　to　be　morally　trustworthy。　



Christianity　even　when　watered　down　is　hot　enough　to　boil　all　modern



society　to　rags。　　The　mere　minimum　of　the　Church　would　be　a　deadly



ultimatum　to　the　world。　　For　the　whole　modern　world　is　ab