友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
读书室 返回本书目录 加入书签 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 『收藏到我的浏览器』

orthodoxy-第31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!








     Twice again; therefore; Christianity had come in with the exact



answer that I required。  I had said; 〃The ideal must be fixed;〃



and the Church had answered; 〃Mine is literally fixed; for it



existed before anything else。〃  I said secondly; 〃It must be



artistically combined; like a picture〃; and the Church answered;



〃Mine is quite literally a picture; for I know who painted it。〃 



Then I went on to the third thing; which; as it seemed to me;



was needed for an Utopia or goal of progress。  And of all the three it



is infinitely the hardest to express。  Perhaps it might be put thus: 



that we need watchfulness even in Utopia; lest we fall from Utopia



as we fell from Eden。







     We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive



is that things naturally tend to grow better。  But the only real



reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend



to grow worse。  The corruption in things is not only the best



argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument



against being conservative。  The conservative theory would really



be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact。 



But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave



things alone you leave them as they are。  But you do not。 



If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change。 



If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post。  If you



particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again;



that is; you must be always having a revolution。  Briefly; if you



want the old white post you must have a new white post。  But this



which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and



terrible sense true of all human things。  An almost unnatural vigilance



is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity



with which human institutions grow old。  It is the custom in passing



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
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 2 1
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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!