orthodoxy-第16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！





sacred　well。　　People　first　paid　honour　to　a　spot　and　afterwards



gained　glory　for　it。　　Men　did　not　love　Rome　because　she　was　great。　



She　was　great　because　they　had　loved　her。







　　　　　The　eighteenth…century　theories　of　the　social　contract　have



been　exposed　to　much　clumsy　criticism　in　our　time；　in　so　far



as　they　meant　that　there　is　at　the　back　of　all　historic　government



an　idea　of　content　and　co…operation；　they　were　demonstrably　right。　



But　they　really　were　wrong；　in　so　far　as　they　suggested　that　men



had　ever　aimed　at　order　or　ethics　directly　by　a　conscious　exchange



of　interests。　　Morality　did　not　begin　by　one　man　saying　to　another；



〃I　will　not　hit　you　if　you　do　not　hit　me〃；　there　is　no　trace



of　such　a　transaction。　　There　IS　a　trace　of　both　men　having　said；



〃We　must　not　hit　each　other　in　the　holy　place。〃　　They　gained　their



morality　by　guarding　their　religion。　　They　did　not　cultivate　courage。　



They　fought　for　the　shrine；　and　found　they　had　become　courageous。　



They　did　not　cultivate　cleanliness。　　They　purified　themselves　for



the　altar；　and　found　that　they　were　clean。　　The　history　of　the　Jews



is　the　only　early　document　known　to　most　Englishmen；　and　the　facts　can



be　judged　sufficiently　from　that。　　The　Ten　Commandments　which　have　been



found　substantially　common　to　mankind　were　merely　military　commands；



a　code　of　regimental　orders；　issued　to　protect　a　certain　ark　across



a　certain　desert。　　Anarchy　was　evil　because　it　endangered　the　sanctity。　



And　only　when　they　made　a　holy　day　for　God　did　they　find　they　had　made



a　holiday　for　men。







　　　　　If　it　be　granted　that　this　primary　devotion　to　a　place　or　thing



is　a　source　of　creative　energy；　we　can　pass　on　to　a　very　peculiar　fact。　



Let　us　reiterate　for　an　instant　that　the　only　right　optimism　is　a　sort



of　universal　patriotism。　　What　is　the　matter　with　the　pessimist？　



I　think　it　can　be　stated　by　saying　that　he　is　the　cosmic　anti…patriot。



And　what　is　the　matter　with　the　anti…patriot？　I　think　it　can　be　stated；



without　undue　bitterness；　by　saying　that　he　is　the　candid　friend。　



And　what　is　the　matter　with　the　candid　friend？　　There　we　strike



the　rock　of　real　life　and　immutable　human　nature。







　　　　　I　venture　to　say　that　what　is　bad　in　the　candid　friend



is　simply　that　he　is　not　candid。　　He　is　keeping　something　back



his　own　gloomy　pleasure　in　saying　unpleasant　things。　　He　has



a　secret　desire　to　hurt；　not　merely　to　help。　　This　is　certainly；



I　think；　what　makes　a　certain　sort　of　anti…patriot　irritating　to



healthy　citizens。　　I　do　not　speak　（of　course）　of　the　anti…patriotism



which　only　irritates　feverish　stockbrokers　and　gushing　actresses；



that　is　only　patriotism　speaking　plainly。　　A　man　who　says　that



no　patriot　should　attack　the　Boer　War　until　it　is　over　is　not



worth　answering　intelligently；　he　is　saying　that　no　good　son



should　warn　his　mother　off　a　cliff　until　she　has　fallen　over　it。　



But　there　is　an　anti…patriot　who　honestly　angers　honest　men；



and　the　explanation　of　him　is；　I　think；　what　I　have　suggested：　



he　is　the　uncandid　candid　friend；　the　man　who　says；　〃I　am　sorry



to　say　we　are　ruined；〃　and　is　not　sorry　at　all。　　And　he　may　be　said；



without　rhetoric；　to　be　a　traitor；　for　he　is　using　that　ugly　knowledge



which　was　allowed　him　to　strengthen　the　army；　to　discourage　people



from　joining　it。　　Because　he　is　allowed　to　be　pessimistic　as　a



military　adviser　he　is　being　pessimistic　as　a　recruiting　sergeant。　



Just　in　the　same　way　the　pessimist　（who　is　the　cosmic　anti…patriot）



uses　the　freedom　that　life　allows　to　her　counsellors　to　lure　away



the　people　from　her　flag。　　Granted　that　he　states　only　facts；　it　is



still　essential　to　know　what　are　his　emotions；　what　is　his　motive。　



It　may　be　that　twelve　hundred　men　in　Tottenham　are　down　with　smallpox；



but　we　want　to　know　whether　this　is　stated　by　some　great　philosopher



who　wants　to　curse　the　gods；　or　only　by　some　common　clergyman　who　wants



to　help　the　men。







　　　　　The　evil　of　the　pessimist　is；　then；　not　that　he　chastises　gods



and　men；　but　that　he　does　not　love　what　he　chastiseshe　has　not



this　primary　and　supernatural　loyalty　to　things。　　What　is　the　evil



of　the　man　commonly　called　an　optimist？　　Obviously；　it　is　felt



that　the　optimist；　wishing　to　defend　the　honour　of　this　world；



will　defend　the　indefensible。　　He　is　the　jingo　of　the　universe；



he　will　say；　〃My　cosmos；　right　or　wrong。〃　　He　will　be　less　inclined



to　the　reform　of　things；　more　inclined　to　a　sort　of　front…bench



official　answer　to　all　attacks；　soothing　every　one　with　assurances。　



He　will　not　wash　the　world；　but　whitewash　the　world。　　All　this



（which　is　true　of　a　type　of　optimist）　leads　us　to　the　one　really



interesting　point　of　psychology；　which　could　not　be　explained



without　it。







　　　　　We　say　there　must　be　a　primal　loyalty　to　life：　　the　only



question　is；　shall　it　be　a　natural　or　a　supernatural　loyalty？　



If　you　like　to　put　it　so；　shall　it　be　a　reasonable　or　an



unreasonable　loyalty？　　Now；　the　extraordinary　thing　is　that　the



bad　optimism　（the　whitewashing；　the　weak　defence　of　everything）



comes　in　with　the　reasonable　optimism。　　Rational　optimism　leads



to　stagnation：　　it　is　irrational　optimism　that　leads　to　reform。　



Let　me　explain　by　using　once　more　the　parallel　of　patriotism。　



The　man　who　is　most　likely　to　ruin　the　place　he　loves　is　exactly



the　man　who　loves　it　with　a　reason。　　The　man　who　will　improve



the　place　is　the　man　who　loves　it　without　a　reason。　　If　a　man　loves



some　feature　of　Pimlico　（which　seems　unlikely）；　he　may　find　himself



defending　that　feature　against　Pimlico　itself。　　But　if　he　simply　loves



Pimlico　itself；　he　may　lay　it　waste　and　turn　it　into　the　New　Jerusalem。　



I　do　not　deny　that　reform　may　be　excessive；　I　only　say　that　it　is　the



mystic　patriot　who　reforms。　　Mere　jingo　self…contentment　is　commonest



among　those　who　have　some　pedantic　reason　for　their　patriotism。　



The　worst　jingoes　do　not　love　England；　but　a　theory　of　England。　



If　we　love　England　for　being　an　empire；　we　may　overrate　the　success



with　which　we　rule　the　Hindoos。　　But　if　we　love　it　only　for　being



a　nation；　we　can　face　all　events：　　for　it　would　be　a　nation　even



if　the　Hindoos　ruled　us。　　Thus　also　only　those　will　permit　their



patriotism　to　falsify　history　whose　patriotism　depends　on　history。　



A　man　who　loves　England　for　being　English　will　not　mind　how　she　arose。　



But　a　man　who　loves　England　for　being　Anglo…Saxon　may　go　against



all　facts　for　his　fancy。　　He　may　end　（like　Carlyle　and　Freeman）



by　maintaining　that　the　Norman　Conquest　was　a　Saxon　Conquest。　



He　may　end　in　utter　unreasonbecause　he　has　a　reason。　　A　man　who



loves　France　for　being　military　will　palliate　the　army　of　1870。　



But　a　man　who　loves　France　for　being　France　will　improve　the　army



of　1870。　　This　is　exactly　what　the　French　have　done；　and　France　is



a　good　instance　of　the　working　paradox。　　Nowhere　else　is　patriotism



more　purely　abstract　and　arbitrary；　and　nowhere　else　is　reform　more



drastic　and　sweeping。　　The　more　transcendental　is　your　patriotism；



the　more　practical　are　your　politics。







　　　　　Perhaps　the　most　everyday　instance　of　this　point　is　in　the　case



of　women；　and　their　strange　and　strong　loyalty。　　Some　stupid　people



started　the　idea　that　because　women　obviously　back　up　their　own



people　through　everything；　therefore　women　are　blind　and　do　not



see　anything。　　They　can　hardly　have　known　any　women。　　The　same　women



who　are　ready　to　defend　their　men　through　thick　and　thin　are　（in



their　personal　intercourse　with　the　man）　almost　morbidly　lucid



about　the　thinness　of　his　excuses　or　the　thickness　of　his　head。　



A　man's　friend　likes　him　but　leaves　him　as　he　is：　　his　wife　loves　him



and　is　always　trying　to　turn　him　into　somebody　else。　　Women　who　are



utter　mystics　in　their　creed　are　utter　cynics　in　their　criticism。　



Thackeray　expressed　this　well　when　he　made　Pendennis'　mother；



who　worshipped　her　son　as　a　god；　yet　assume　that　he　would　go　wrong



as　a　man。　　She　underrated　his　virtue；　though　she　overrated　his　value。　



The　devotee　is　entirely　free　to　criticise；　the　fanatic　can　safely



be　a　sceptic。　　Love　is　not　blind；　that　is　the　last　thing　that　it　is。　



Love　is　bound；　and　the　more　it　is　bound　the　less　it　is　blind。







　　　　　This　at　least　had　come　to　be　my　position　about　all　that



was　called　optimism；　pessimism；　and　improvement。　　Before　any



cosmic　act　of　reform　we　must　have　a　cosmic　oath　of　allegiance。　



A　man　must　be　interested　in　life；　then　he　could　be　disinterested



in　his　views　of　it。　　〃My　son　give　me　thy　heart〃；　the　heart　must



be　fixed　on　the　right　thing：　　the　moment　we　have　a　fixed　heart　we



have　a　free　hand。　　I　must　pause　to　anticipate　an　obvious　criticism。　



It　will　be　said　that　a　rational　person　accepts　the　world　as　mixed



of　good　and　evil　with　a　decent　satisfaction　and　a　decent　endurance。　



But　this　is　exactly　the　attitude　which　I　maintain　to　be　defective。　



It　is；　I　know；　very　common　in　this　age；　it　was　perfectly　put　in　those



quiet　lines　of　Matthew　Arnold　which　are　more　piercingly　blasphemous



than　the　shrieks　of　Schopenhauer







〃Enough　we　live：and　if　a　life；　With　large　results　so　little　rife；



Though　bearable；　seem　hardly　worth　This　pomp　of　worlds；　this　pain



of　birth。〃







　　　　　I　know　this　feeling　fills　our　epoch；　and　I　think　it　freezes



our　epoch。　　For　our　Titanic　purposes　of　faith　and　revolution；



what　we　need　is　not　the　cold　acceptance　of　the　world　as　a　compromise；



but　some　way　in　w