orthodoxy-第22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！





all　necessary。　　Every　support　seemed　an　accidental　and　fantastic　support；



every　buttress　was　a　flying　buttress。　　So　in　Christendom　apparent



accidents　balanced。　　Becket　wore　a　hair　shirt　under　his　gold



and　crimson；　and　there　is　much　to　be　said　for　the　combination；



for　Becket　got　the　benefit　of　the　hair　shirt　while　the　people　in



the　street　got　the　benefit　of　the　crimson　and　gold。　　It　is　at　least



better　than　the　manner　of　the　modern　millionaire；　who　has　the　black



and　the　drab　outwardly　for　others；　and　the　gold　next　his　heart。　



But　the　balance　was　not　always　in　one　man's　body　as　in　Becket's；



the　balance　was　often　distributed　over　the　whole　body　of　Christendom。　



Because　a　man　prayed　and　fasted　on　the　Northern　snows；　flowers　could



be　flung　at　his　festival　in　the　Southern　cities；　and　because　fanatics



drank　water　on　the　sands　of　Syria；　men　could　still　drink　cider　in　the



orchards　of　England。　　This　is　what　makes　Christendom　at　once　so　much



more　perplexing　and　so　much　more　interesting　than　the　Pagan　empire；



just　as　Amiens　Cathedral　is　not　better　but　more　interesting　than



the　Parthenon。　　If　any　one　wants　a　modern　proof　of　all　this；



let　him　consider　the　curious　fact　that；　under　Christianity；



Europe　（while　remaining　a　unity）　has　broken　up　into　individual　nations。　



Patriotism　is　a　perfect　example　of　this　deliberate　balancing



of　one　emphasis　against　another　emphasis。　　The　instinct　of　the



Pagan　empire　would　have　said；　〃You　shall　all　be　Roman　citizens；



and　grow　alike；　let　the　German　grow　less　slow　and　reverent；



the　Frenchmen　less　experimental　and　swift。〃　　But　the　instinct



of　Christian　Europe　says；　〃Let　the　German　remain　slow　and　reverent；



that　the　Frenchman　may　the　more　safely　be　swift　and　experimental。　



We　will　make　an　equipoise　out　of　these　excesses。　　The　absurdity



called　Germany　shall　correct　the　insanity　called　France。〃







　　　　　Last　and　most　important；　it　is　exactly　this　which　explains



what　is　so　inexplicable　to　all　the　modern　critics　of　the　history



of　Christianity。　　I　mean　the　monstrous　wars　about　small　points



of　theology；　the　earthquakes　of　emotion　about　a　gesture　or　a　word。　



It　was　only　a　matter　of　an　inch；　but　an　inch　is　everything　when　you



are　balancing。　　The　Church　could　not　afford　to　swerve　a　hair's　breadth



on　some　things　if　she　was　to　continue　her　great　and　daring　experiment



of　the　irregular　equilibrium。　　Once　let　one　idea　become　less　powerful



and　some　other　idea　would　become　too　powerful。　　It　was　no　flock　of　sheep



the　Christian　shepherd　was　leading；　but　a　herd　of　bulls　and　tigers；



of　terrible　ideals　and　devouring　doctrines；　each　one　of　them　strong



enough　to　turn　to　a　false　religion　and　lay　waste　the　world。　



Remember　that　the　Church　went　in　specifically　for　dangerous　ideas；



she　was　a　lion　tamer。　　The　idea　of　birth　through　a　Holy　Spirit；



of　the　death　of　a　divine　being；　of　the　forgiveness　of　sins；



or　the　fulfilment　of　prophecies；　are　ideas　which；　any　one　can　see；



need　but　a　touch　to　turn　them　into　something　blasphemous　or　ferocious。　



The　smallest　link　was　let　drop　by　the　artificers　of　the　Mediterranean；



and　the　lion　of　ancestral　pessimism　burst　his　chain　in　the　forgotten



forests　of　the　north。　　Of　these　theological　equalisations　I　have



to　speak　afterwards。　　Here　it　is　enough　to　notice　that　if　some



small　mistake　were　made　in　doctrine；　huge　blunders　might　be　made



in　human　happiness。　　A　sentence　phrased　wrong　about　the　nature



of　symbolism　would　have　broken　all　the　best　statues　in　Europe。　



A　slip　in　the　definitions　might　stop　all　the　dances；　might　wither



all　the　Christmas　trees　or　break　all　the　Easter　eggs。　　Doctrines　had



to　be　defined　within　strict　limits；　even　in　order　that　man　might



enjoy　general　human　liberties。　　The　Church　had　to　be　careful；



if　only　that　the　world　might　be　careless。







　　　　　This　is　the　thrilling　romance　of　Orthodoxy。　　People　have　fallen



into　a　foolish　habit　of　speaking　of　orthodoxy　as　something　heavy；



humdrum；　and　safe。　　There　never　was　anything　so　perilous　or　so　exciting



as　orthodoxy。　　It　was　sanity：　　and　to　be　sane　is　more　dramatic　than　to



be　mad。　　It　was　the　equilibrium　of　a　man　behind　madly　rushing　horses；



seeming　to　stoop　this　way　and　to　sway　that；　yet　in　every　attitude



having　the　grace　of　statuary　and　the　accuracy　of　arithmetic。　



The　Church　in　its　early　days　went　fierce　and　fast　with　any　warhorse；



yet　it　is　utterly　unhistoric　to　say　that　she　merely　went　mad　along



one　idea；　like　a　vulgar　fanaticism。　　She　swerved　to　left　and　right；



so　exactly　as　to　avoid　enormous　obstacles。　　She　left　on　one　hand



the　huge　bulk　of　Arianism；　buttressed　by　all　the　worldly　powers



to　make　Christianity　too　worldly。　　The　next　instant　she　was　swerving



to　avoid　an　orientalism；　which　would　have　made　it　too　unworldly。　



The　orthodox　Church　never　took　the　tame　course　or　accepted



the　conventions；　the　orthodox　Church　was　never　respectable。　　It　would



have　been　easier　to　have　accepted　the　earthly　power　of　the　Arians。　



It　would　have　been　easy；　in　the　Calvinistic　seventeenth　century；



to　fall　into　the　bottomless　pit　of　predestination。　　It　is　easy　to　be



a　madman：　　it　is　easy　to　be　a　heretic。　　It　is　always　easy　to　let



the　age　have　its　head；　the　difficult　thing　is　to　keep　one's　own。　



It　is　always　easy　to　be　a　modernist；　as　it　is　easy　to　be　a　snob。　



To　have　fallen　into　any　of　those　open　traps　of　error　and　exaggeration



which　fashion　after　fashion　and　sect　after　sect　set　along　the



historic　path　of　Christendomthat　would　indeed　have　been　simple。　



It　is　always　simple　to　fall；　there　are　an　infinity　of　angles　at



which　one　falls；　only　one　at　which　one　stands。　　To　have　fallen　into



any　one　of　the　fads　from　Gnosticism　to　Christian　Science　would　indeed



have　been　obvious　and　tame。　　But　to　have　avoided　them　all　has　been



one　whirling　adventure；　and　in　my　vision　the　heavenly　chariot　flies



thundering　through　the　ages；　the　dull　heresies　sprawling　and　prostrate；



the　wild　truth　reeling　but　erect。















VII　THE　ETERNAL　REVOLUTION











　　　　　The　following　propositions　have　been　urged：　　First；　that　some



faith　in　our　life　is　required　even　to　improve　it；　second；　that　some



dissatisfaction　with　things　as　they　are　is　necessary　even　in　order



to　be　satisfied；　third；　that　to　have　this　necessary　content



and　necessary　discontent　it　is　not　sufficient　to　have　the　obvious



equilibrium　of　the　Stoic。　　For　mere　resignation　has　neither　the



gigantic　levity　of　pleasure　nor　the　superb　intolerance　of　pain。　



There　is　a　vital　objection　to　the　advice　merely　to　grin　and　bear　it。　



The　objection　is　that　if　you　merely　bear　it；　you　do　not　grin。　



Greek　heroes　do　not　grin：　　but　gargoyles　dobecause　they　are　Christian。　



And　when　a　Christian　is　pleased；　he　is　（in　the　most　exact　sense）



frightfully　pleased；　his　pleasure　is　frightful。　　Christ　prophesied



the　whole　of　Gothic　architecture　in　that　hour　when　nervous　and



respectable　people　（such　people　as　now　object　to　barrel　organs）



objected　to　the　shouting　of　the　gutter…snipes　of　Jerusalem。　



He　said；　〃If　these　were　silent；　the　very　stones　would　cry　out。〃　



Under　the　impulse　of　His　spirit　arose　like　a　clamorous　chorus　the



facades　of　the　mediaeval　cathedrals；　thronged　with　shouting　faces



and　open　mouths。　　The　prophecy　has　fulfilled　itself：　　the　very　stones



cry　out。







　　　　　If　these　things　be　conceded；　though　only　for　argument；



we　may　take　up　where　we　left　it　the　thread　of　the　thought　of　the



natural　man；　called　by　the　Scotch　（with　regrettable　familiarity）；



〃The　Old　Man。〃　　We　can　ask　the　next　question　so　obviously　in　front



of　us。　　Some　satisfaction　is　needed　even　to　make　things　better。　



But　what　do　we　mean　by　making　things　better？　　Most　modern　talk　on



this　matter　is　a　mere　argument　in　a　circlethat　circle　which　we



have　already　made　the　symbol　of　madness　and　of　mere　rationalism。　



Evolution　is　only　good　if　it　produces　good；　good　is　only　good　if　it



helps　evolution。　　The　elephant　stands　on　the　tortoise；　and　the　tortoise



on　the　elephant。







　　　　　Obviously；　it　will　not　do　to　take　our　ideal　from　the　principle



in　nature；　for　the　simple　reason　that　（except　for　some　human



or　divine　theory）；　there　is　no　principle　in　nature。　　For　instance；



the　cheap　anti…democrat　of　to…day　will　tell　you　solemnly　that



there　is　no　equality　in　nature。　　He　is　right；　but　he　does　not　see



the　logical　addendum。　　There　is　no　equality　in　nature；　also　there



is　no　inequality　in　nature。　　Inequality；　as　much　as　equality；



implies　a　standard　of　value。　　To　read　aristocracy　into　the　anarchy



of　animals　is　just　as　sentimental　as　to　read　democracy　into　it。　



Both　aristocracy　and　democracy　are　human　ideals：　　the　one　saying



that　all　men　are　valuable；　the　other　that　some　men　are　more　valuable。　



But　nature　does　not　say　that　cats　are　more　valuable　than　mice；



nature　makes　no　remark　on　the　subject。　　She　does　not　even　say



that　the　cat　is　enviable　or　the　mouse　pitiable。　　We　think　the　cat



superior　because　we　have　（or　most　of　us　have）　a　particular　philosophy



to　the　effect　that　life　is　better　than　death。　　But　if　the　mouse



were　a　German　pessimist　mouse；　he　might　not　think　that　the　cat



had　beaten　him　at　all。　　He　might　think　he　had　beaten　the　cat　by



getting　to　the　grave　first。　　Or　he　might　feel　that　he　had　actually



inflicted　frightful　punishment　on　the　cat　by　keeping　him　alive。　



Just　as　a　microbe　might　feel　proud　of　spreading　a　pestilence；



so　the　pessimistic　mouse　might　exult　to　think　that　he　was　renewing



in　the　cat　the　torture　of　conscious　existence。　　It　all　depends



on　the　philosophy　of　the　mouse。　　You　cannot　even　say　that　there



is　victory　or　superiority　in　nature　unless　you　have　some　doctrine



about　what　things　are　superior。　　You　cannot　even　say　that　the　cat



scores　unless　there　is　a　system　of　scoring。　　You　cannot　even　say



that　the　cat　gets　the　best　of　it　unless　there　is　some　best　to



be　got。







　　　　　We　cannot；　then；　get　the　ideal　itself　from　nature；



and　as　we　follow　here　the　first　and　natural　speculation；　we　will



leave　out　（for　the　present）　the　idea　of　getting　it　from　God。　



We　must　have　our　own　vision。　　But　the　attempts　of　most　moderns



to　express　it　are　highly　vague。







　　　　　Some　fall　back　simply　on　the　clock：　　they　talk　as　if　mere



passage　through　time　brought　some　superiority；　so　that　even　a　man



of　the　first　mental　calibre　carelessly　uses　the　phrase　that　human



morality　is　never　up　to　date。　　How　can　anything　be