orthodoxy-第20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！
that is sane and all its critics that are madin various ways。
I tested this idea by asking myself whether there was about any
of the accusers anything morbid that might explain the accusation。
I was startled to find that this key fitted a lock。 For instance；
it was certainly odd that the modern world charged Christianity
at once with bodily austerity and with artistic pomp。 But then
it was also odd； very odd； that the modern world itself combined
extreme bodily luxury with an extreme absence of artistic pomp。
The modern man thought Becket's robes too rich and his meals too poor。
But then the modern man was really exceptional in history； no man before
ever ate such elaborate dinners in such ugly clothes。 The modern man
found the church too simple exactly where modern life is too complex；
he found the church too gorgeous exactly where modern life is too dingy。
The man who disliked the plain fasts and feasts was mad on entrees。
The man who disliked vestments wore a pair of preposterous trousers。
And surely if there was any insanity involved in the matter at all it
was in the trousers； not in the simply falling robe。 If there was any
insanity at all； it was in the extravagant entrees； not in the bread
and wine。
I went over all the cases； and I found the key fitted so far。
The fact that Swinburne was irritated at the unhappiness of Christians
and yet more irritated at their happiness was easily explained。
It was no longer a complication of diseases in Christianity；
but a complication of diseases in Swinburne。 The restraints
of Christians saddened him simply because he was more hedonist
than a healthy man should be。 The faith of Christians angered
him because he was more pessimist than a healthy man should be。
In the same way the Malthusians by instinct attacked Christianity；
not because there is anything especially anti…Malthusian about
Christianity； but because there is something a little anti…human
about Malthusianism。
Nevertheless it could not； I felt； be quite true that Christianity
was merely sensible and stood in the middle。 There was really
an element in it of emphasis and even frenzy which had justified
the secularists in their superficial criticism。 It might be wise；
I began more and more to think that it was wise； but it was not
merely worldly wise； it was not merely temperate and respectable。
Its fierce crusaders and meek saints might balance each other；
still； the crusaders were very fierce and the saints were very meek；
meek beyond all decency。 Now； it was just at this point of the
speculation that I remembered my thoughts about the martyr and
the suicide。 In that matter there had been this combination between
two almost insane positions which yet somehow amounted to sanity。
This was just such another contradiction； and this I had already
found to be true。 This was exactly one of the paradoxes in which
sceptics found the creed wrong； and in this I had found it right。
Madly as Christians might love the martyr or hate the suicide；
they never felt these passions more madly than I had felt them long
before I dreamed of Christianity。 Then the most difficult and
interesting part of the mental process opened； and I began to trace
this idea darkly through all the enormous thoughts of our theology。
The idea was that which I had outlined touching the optimist and
the pessimist； that we want not an amalgam or compromise； but both
things at the top of their energy； love and wrath both burning。
Here I shall only trace it in relation to ethics。 But I need not
remind the reader that the idea of this combination is indeed central
in orthodox theology。 For orthodox theology has specially insisted
that Christ was not a being apart from God and man； like an elf；
nor yet a being half human and half not； like a centaur； but both
things at once and both things thoroughly； very man and very God。
Now let me trace this notion as I found it。
All sane men can see that sanity is some kind of equilibrium；
that one may be mad and eat too much； or mad and eat too little。
Some moderns have indeed appeared with vague versions of progress and
evolution which seeks to destroy the MESON or balance of Aristotle。
They seem to suggest that we are meant to starve progressively；
or to go on eating larger and larger breakfasts every morning for ever。
But the great truism of the MESON remains for all thinking men；
and these people have not upset any balance except their own。
But granted that we have all to keep a balance； the real interest
comes in with the question of how that balance can be kept。
That was the problem which Paganism tried to solve： that was
the problem which I think Christianity solved and solved in a very
strange way。
Paganism declared that virtue was in a balance； Christianity
declared it was in a conflict： the collision of two passions
apparently opposite。 Of course they were not really inconsistent；
but they were such that it was hard to hold simultaneously。
Let us follow for a moment the clue of the martyr and the suicide；
and take the case of courage。 No quality has ever so much addled
the brains and tangled the definitions of merely rational sages。
Courage is almost a contradiction in terms。 It means a strong desire
to live taking the form of a readiness to die。 〃He that will lose
his life； the same shall save it；〃 is not a piece of mysticism
for saints and heroes。 It is a piece of everyday advice for
sailors or mountaineers。 It might be printed in an Alpine guide
or a drill book。 This paradox is the whole principle of courage；
even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage。 A man cut off by
the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice。
He can only get away from death by continually stepping within
an inch of it。 A soldier surrounded by enemies； if he is to cut
his way out； needs to combine a strong desire for living with a
strange carelessness about dying。 He must not merely cling to life；
for then he will be a coward； and will not escape。 He must not merely
wait for death； for then he will be a suicide； and will not escape。
He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it；
he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine。
No philosopher； I fancy； has ever expressed this romantic riddle
with adequate lucidity； and I certainly have not done so。
But Christianity has done more： it has marked the limits of it
in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero； showing the distance
between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the
sake of dying。 And it has held up ever since above the European
lances the banner of the mystery of chivalry： the Christian courage；
which is a disdain of death； not the Chinese courage； which is a
disdain of life。
And now I began to find that this duplex passion was the Christian
key to ethics everywhere。 Everywhere the creed made a moderation
out of the still crash of two impetuous emotions。 Take； for instance；
the matter of modesty； of the balance between mere pride and
mere prostration。 The average pagan； like the average agnostic；
would merely say that he was content with himself； but not insolently
self…satisfied； that there were many better and many worse；
that his deserts were limited； but he would see that he got them。
In short； he would walk with his head in the air； but not necessarily
with his nose in the air。 This is a manly and rational position；
but it is open to the objection we noted against the compromise
between optimism and pessimismthe 〃resignation〃 of Matthew Arnold。
Being a mixture of two things； it is a dilution of two things；
neither is present in its full strength or contributes its full colour。
This proper pride does not lift the heart like the tongue of trumpets；
you cannot go clad in crimson and gold for this。 On the other hand；
this mild rationalist modesty does not cleanse the soul with fire
and make it clear like crystal； it does not （like a strict and
searching humility） make a man as a little child； who can sit at
the feet of the grass。 It does not make him look up and see marvels；
for Alice must grow small if she is to be Alice in Wonderland。 Thus it
loses both the poetry of being proud and the poetry of being humble。
Christianity sought by this same strange expedient to save both
of them。
It separated the two ideas and then exaggerated them both。
In one way Man was to be haughtier than he had ever been before；
in another way he was to be humbler than he had ever been before。
In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures。 In so far
as I am a man I am the chief of sinners。 All humility that had
meant pessimism； that had meant man taking a vague or mean view
of his whole destinyall that was to go。 We were to hear no more
the wail of Ecclesiastes that humanity had no pre…eminence over
the brute； or the awful cry of Homer that man was only the saddest
of all the beasts of the field。 Man was a statue of God walking
about the garden。 Man had pre…eminence over all the brutes；
man was only sad because he was not a beast； but a broken god。
The Greek had spoken of men creeping on the earth； as if clinging
to it。 Now Man was to tread on the earth as if to subdue it。
Christianity thus held a thought of the dignity of man that could only
be expressed in crowns rayed like the sun and fans of peacock plumage。
Yet at the same time it could hold a thought about the abject smallness
of man that could only be expressed in fasting and fantastic submission；
in the gray ashes of St。 Dominic and the white snows of St。 Bernard。
When one came to think of ONE'S SELF； there was vista and void enough
for any amount of bleak abnegation and bitter truth。 There the
realistic gentleman could let himself goas long as he let himself go
at himself。 There was an open playground for the happy pessimist。
Let him say anything against himself short of blaspheming the original
aim of his being； let him call himself a fool and even a damned
fool （though that is Calvinistic）； but he must not say that fools
are not worth saving。 He must not say that a man； QUA man；
can be valueless。 Here； again in short； Christianity got over
