orthodoxy-第33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！




be　allowed　for。　　If　any　one　wishes　to　appreciate　this　point；　let　him



go　outside　Christianity　into　some　other　philosophical　atmosphere。　



Let　him；　for　instance；　compare　the　classes　of　Europe　with　the　castes



of　India。　　There　aristocracy　is　far　more　awful；　because　it　is　far



more　intellectual。　　It　is　seriously　felt　that　the　scale　of　classes



is　a　scale　of　spiritual　values；　that　the　baker　is　better　than　the



butcher　in　an　invisible　and　sacred　sense。　　But　no　Christianity；



not　even　the　most　ignorant　or　perverse；　ever　suggested　that　a　baronet



was　better　than　a　butcher　in　that　sacred　sense。　　No　Christianity；



however　ignorant　or　extravagant；　ever　suggested　that　a　duke　would



not　be　damned。　　In　pagan　society　there　may　have　been　（I　do　not　know）



some　such　serious　division　between　the　free　man　and　the　slave。　



But　in　Christian　society　we　have　always　thought　the　gentleman



a　sort　of　joke；　though　I　admit　that　in　some　great　crusades



and　councils　he　earned　the　right　to　be　called　a　practical　joke。　



But　we　in　Europe　never　really　and　at　the　root　of　our　souls　took



aristocracy　seriously。　　It　is　only　an　occasional　non…European



alien　（such　as　Dr。　Oscar　Levy；　the　only　intelligent　Nietzscheite）



who　can　even　manage　for　a　moment　to　take　aristocracy　seriously。　



It　may　be　a　mere　patriotic　bias；　though　I　do　not　think　so；　but　it



seems　to　me　that　the　English　aristocracy　is　not　only　the　type；



but　is　the　crown　and　flower　of　all　actual　aristocracies；　it　has　all



the　oligarchical　virtues　as　well　as　all　the　defects。　　It　is　casual；



it　is　kind；　it　is　courageous　in　obvious　matters；　but　it　has　one



great　merit　that　overlaps　even　these。　　The　great　and　very　obvious



merit　of　the　English　aristocracy　is　that　nobody　could　possibly　take



it　seriously。







　　　　　In　short；　I　had　spelled　out　slowly；　as　usual；　the　need　for



an　equal　law　in　Utopia；　and；　as　usual；　I　found　that　Christianity



had　been　there　before　me。　　The　whole　history　of　my　Utopia　has　the



same　amusing　sadness。　　I　was　always　rushing　out　of　my　architectural



study　with　plans　for　a　new　turret　only　to　find　it　sitting　up　there



in　the　sunlight；　shining；　and　a　thousand　years　old。　　For　me；　in　the



ancient　and　partly　in　the　modern　sense；　God　answered　the　prayer；



〃Prevent　us；　O　Lord；　in　all　our　doings。〃　　Without　vanity；　I　really



think　there　was　a　moment　when　I　could　have　invented　the　marriage



vow　（as　an　institution）　out　of　my　own　head；　but　I　discovered；



with　a　sigh；　that　it　had　been　invented　already。　　But；　since　it　would



be　too　long　a　business　to　show　how；　fact　by　fact　and　inch　by　inch；



my　own　conception　of　Utopia　was　only　answered　in　the　New　Jerusalem；



I　will　take　this　one　case　of　the　matter　of　marriage　as　indicating



the　converging　drift；　I　may　say　the　converging　crash　of　all　the　rest。







　　　　　When　the　ordinary　opponents　of　Socialism　talk　about



impossibilities　and　alterations　in　human　nature　they　always　miss



an　important　distinction。　　In　modern　ideal　conceptions　of　society



there　are　some　desires　that　are　possibly　not　attainable：　　but　there



are　some　desires　that　are　not　desirable。　　That　all　men　should　live



in　equally　beautiful　houses　is　a　dream　that　may　or　may　not　be　attained。　



But　that　all　men　should　live　in　the　same　beautiful　house　is　not



a　dream　at　all；　it　is　a　nightmare。　　That　a　man　should　love　all　old



women　is　an　ideal　that　may　not　be　attainable。　　But　that　a　man　should



regard　all　old　women　exactly　as　he　regards　his　mother　is　not　only



an　unattainable　ideal；　but　an　ideal　which　ought　not　to　be　attained。　



I　do　not　know　if　the　reader　agrees　with　me　in　these　examples；



but　I　will　add　the　example　which　has　always　affected　me　most。　



I　could　never　conceive　or　tolerate　any　Utopia　which　did　not　leave　to　me



the　liberty　for　which　I　chiefly　care；　the　liberty　to　bind　myself。　



Complete　anarchy　would　not　merely　make　it　impossible　to　have



any　discipline　or　fidelity；　it　would　also　make　it　impossible



to　have　any　fun。　　To　take　an　obvious　instance；　it　would　not　be



worth　while　to　bet　if　a　bet　were　not　binding。　　The　dissolution



of　all　contracts　would　not　only　ruin　morality　but　spoil　sport。　



Now　betting　and　such　sports　are　only　the　stunted　and　twisted



shapes　of　the　original　instinct　of　man　for　adventure　and　romance；



of　which　much　has　been　said　in　these　pages。　　And　the　perils；　rewards；



punishments；　and　fulfilments　of　an　adventure　must　be　real；　or



the　adventure　is　only　a　shifting　and　heartless　nightmare。　　If　I　bet



I　must　be　made　to　pay；　or　there　is　no　poetry　in　betting。　　If　I　challenge



I　must　be　made　to　fight；　or　there　is　no　poetry　in　challenging。　



If　I　vow　to　be　faithful　I　must　be　cursed　when　I　am　unfaithful；



or　there　is　no　fun　in　vowing。　　You　could　not　even　make　a　fairy　tale



from　the　experiences　of　a　man　who；　when　he　was　swallowed　by　a　whale；



might　find　himself　at　the　top　of　the　Eiffel　Tower；　or　when　he



was　turned　into　a　frog　might　begin　to　behave　like　a　flamingo。　



For　the　purpose　even　of　the　wildest　romance　results　must　be　real；



results　must　be　irrevocable。　　Christian　marriage　is　the　great



example　of　a　real　and　irrevocable　result；　and　that　is　why　it



is　the　chief　subject　and　centre　of　all　our　romantic　writing。　



And　this　is　my　last　instance　of　the　things　that　I　should　ask；



and　ask　imperatively；　of　any　social　paradise；　I　should　ask　to　be　kept



to　my　bargain；　to　have　my　oaths　and　engagements　taken　seriously；



I　should　ask　Utopia　to　avenge　my　honour　on　myself。







　　　　　All　my　modern　Utopian　friends　look　at　each　other　rather　doubtfully；



for　their　ultimate　hope　is　the　dissolution　of　all　special　ties。　



But　again　I　seem　to　hear；　like　a　kind　of　echo；　an　answer　from　beyond



the　world。　　〃You　will　have　real　obligations；　and　therefore　real



adventures　when　you　get　to　my　Utopia。　　But　the　hardest　obligation



and　the　steepest　adventure　is　to　get　there。〃















VIII　THE　ROMANCE　OF　ORTHODOXY











　　　　　It　is　customary　to　complain　of　the　bustle　and　strenuousness



of　our　epoch。　　But　in　truth　the　chief　mark　of　our　epoch　is



a　profound　laziness　and　fatigue；　and　the　fact　is　that　the　real



laziness　is　the　cause　of　the　apparent　bustle。　　Take　one　quite



external　case；　the　streets　are　noisy　with　taxicabs　and　motorcars；



but　this　is　not　due　to　human　activity　but　to　human　repose。　



There　would　be　less　bustle　if　there　were　more　activity；　if　people



were　simply　walking　about。　　Our　world　would　be　more　silent　if　it



were　more　strenuous。　　And　this　which　is　true　of　the　apparent　physical



bustle　is　true　also　of　the　apparent　bustle　of　the　intellect。　



Most　of　the　machinery　of　modern　language　is　labour…saving　machinery；



and　it　saves　mental　labour　very　much　more　than　it　ought。　



Scientific　phrases　are　used　like　scientific　wheels　and　piston…rods



to　make　swifter　and　smoother　yet　the　path　of　the　comfortable。　



Long　words　go　rattling　by　us　like　long　railway　trains。　　We　know　they



are　carrying　thousands　who　are　too　tired　or　too　indolent　to　walk



and　think　for　themselves。　　It　is　a　good　exercise　to　try　for　once



in　a　way　to　express　any　opinion　one　holds　in　words　of　one　syllable。　



If　you　say　〃The　social　utility　of　the　indeterminate　sentence　is



recognized　by　all　criminologists　as　a　part　of　our　sociological



evolution　towards　a　more　humane　and　scientific　view　of　punishment；〃



you　can　go　on　talking　like　that　for　hours　with　hardly　a　movement



of　the　gray　matter　inside　your　skull。　　But　if　you　begin　〃I　wish



Jones　to　go　to　gaol　and　Brown　to　say　when　Jones　shall　come　out；〃



you　will　discover；　with　a　thrill　of　horror；　that　you　are　obliged



to　think。　　The　long　words　are　not　the　hard　words；　it　is　the　short



words　that　are　hard。　　There　is　much　more　metaphysical　subtlety　in　the



word　〃damn〃　than　in　the　word　〃degeneration。〃







　　　　　But　these　long　comfortable　words　that　save　modern　people　the　toil



of　reasoning　have　one　particular　aspect　in　which　they　are　especially



ruinous　and　confusing。　　This　difficulty　occurs　when　the　same　long　word



is　used　in　different　connections　to　mean　quite　different　things。　



Thus；　to　take　a　well…known　instance；　the　word　〃idealist〃　has



one　meaning　as　a　piece　of　philosophy　and　quite　another　as　a　piece



of　moral　rhetoric。　　In　the　same　way　the　scientific　materialists



have　had　just　reason　to　complain　of　people　mixing　up　〃materialist〃



as　a　term　of　cosmology　with　〃materialist〃　as　a　moral　taunt。　



So；　to　take　a　cheaper　instance；　the　man　who　hates　〃progressives〃



in　London　always　calls　himself　a　〃progressive〃　in　South　Africa。







　　　　　A　confusion　quite　as　unmeaning　as　this　has　arisen　in　connection



with　the