orthodoxy-第24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！





and　each　time　saw　a　new　person　sitting　placidly　for　his　portrait。　



So　it　does　not　matter　（comparatively　speaking）　how　often　humanity　fails



to　imitate　its　ideal；　for　then　all　its　old　failures　are　fruitful。　



But　it　does　frightfully　matter　how　often　humanity　changes　its　ideal；



for　then　all　its　old　failures　are　fruitless。　　The　question　therefore



becomes　this：　　How　can　we　keep　the　artist　discontented　with　his　pictures



while　preventing　him　from　being　vitally　discontented　with　his　art？　



How　can　we　make　a　man　always　dissatisfied　with　his　work；　yet　always



satisfied　with　working？　　How　can　we　make　sure　that　the　portrait



painter　will　throw　the　portrait　out　of　window　instead　of　taking



the　natural　and　more　human　course　of　throwing　the　sitter　out



of　window？







　　　　　A　strict　rule　is　not　only　necessary　for　ruling；　it　is　also　necessary



for　rebelling。　　This　fixed　and　familiar　ideal　is　necessary　to　any



sort　of　revolution。　　Man　will　sometimes　act　slowly　upon　new　ideas；



but　he　will　only　act　swiftly　upon　old　ideas。　　If　I　am　merely



to　float　or　fade　or　evolve；　it　may　be　towards　something　anarchic；



but　if　I　am　to　riot；　it　must　be　for　something　respectable。　　This　is



the　whole　weakness　of　certain　schools　of　progress　and　moral　evolution。　



They　suggest　that　there　has　been　a　slow　movement　towards　morality；



with　an　imperceptible　ethical　change　in　every　year　or　at　every　instant。　



There　is　only　one　great　disadvantage　in　this　theory。　　It　talks　of　a　slow



movement　towards　justice；　but　it　does　not　permit　a　swift　movement。　



A　man　is　not　allowed　to　leap　up　and　declare　a　certain　state　of　things



to　be　intrinsically　intolerable。　　To　make　the　matter　clear；　it　is　better



to　take　a　specific　example。　　Certain　of　the　idealistic　vegetarians；



such　as　Mr。　Salt；　say　that　the　time　has　now　come　for　eating　no　meat；



by　implication　they　assume　that　at　one　time　it　was　right　to　eat　meat；



and　they　suggest　（in　words　that　could　be　quoted）　that　some　day



it　may　be　wrong　to　eat　milk　and　eggs。　　I　do　not　discuss　here　the



question　of　what　is　justice　to　animals。　　I　only　say　that　whatever



is　justice　ought；　under　given　conditions；　to　be　prompt　justice。　



If　an　animal　is　wronged；　we　ought　to　be　able　to　rush　to　his　rescue。　



But　how　can　we　rush　if　we　are；　perhaps；　in　advance　of　our　time？　　How　can



we　rush　to　catch　a　train　which　may　not　arrive　for　a　few　centuries？　



How　can　I　denounce　a　man　for　skinning　cats；　if　he　is　only　now　what　I



may　possibly　become　in　drinking　a　glass　of　milk？　　A　splendid　and　insane



Russian　sect　ran　about　taking　all　the　cattle　out　of　all　the　carts。　



How　can　I　pluck　up　courage　to　take　the　horse　out　of　my　hansom…cab；



when　I　do　not　know　whether　my　evolutionary　watch　is　only　a　little



fast　or　the　cabman's　a　little　slow？　　Suppose　I　say　to　a　sweater；



〃Slavery　suited　one　stage　of　evolution。〃　　And　suppose　he　answers；



〃And　sweating　suits　this　stage　of　evolution。〃　　How　can　I　answer　if　there



is　no　eternal　test？　　If　sweaters　can　be　behind　the　current　morality；



why　should　not　philanthropists　be　in　front　of　it？　　What　on　earth



is　the　current　morality；　except　in　its　literal　sensethe　morality



that　is　always　running　away？







　　　　　Thus　we　may　say　that　a　permanent　ideal　is　as　necessary　to　the



innovator　as　to　the　conservative；　it　is　necessary　whether　we　wish



the　king's　orders　to　be　promptly　executed　or　whether　we　only　wish



the　king　to　be　promptly　executed。　　The　guillotine　has　many　sins；



but　to　do　it　justice　there　is　nothing　evolutionary　about　it。　



The　favourite　evolutionary　argument　finds　its　best　answer　in



the　axe。　　The　Evolutionist　says；　〃Where　do　you　draw　the　line？〃



the　Revolutionist　answers；　〃I　draw　it　HERE：　　exactly　between　your



head　and　body。〃　　There　must　at　any　given　moment　be　an　abstract



right　and　wrong　if　any　blow　is　to　be　struck；　there　must　be　something



eternal　if　there　is　to　be　anything　sudden。　　Therefore　for　all



intelligible　human　purposes；　for　altering　things　or　for　keeping



things　as　they　are；　for　founding　a　system　for　ever；　as　in　China；



or　for　altering　it　every　month　as　in　the　early　French　Revolution；



it　is　equally　necessary　that　the　vision　should　be　a　fixed　vision。　



This　is　our　first　requirement。







　　　　　When　I　had　written　this　down；　I　felt　once　again　the　presence



of　something　else　in　the　discussion：　　as　a　man　hears　a　church　bell



above　the　sound　of　the　street。　　Something　seemed　to　be　saying；



〃My　ideal　at　least　is　fixed；　for　it　was　fixed　before　the　foundations



of　the　world。　　My　vision　of　perfection　assuredly　cannot　be　altered；



for　it　is　called　Eden。　　You　may　alter　the　place　to　which　you



are　going；　but　you　cannot　alter　the　place　from　which　you　have　come。　



To　the　orthodox　there　must　always　be　a　case　for　revolution；



for　in　the　hearts　of　men　God　has　been　put　under　the　feet　of　Satan。　



In　the　upper　world　hell　once　rebelled　against　heaven。　　But　in　this



world　heaven　is　rebelling　against　hell。　　For　the　orthodox　there



can　always　be　a　revolution；　for　a　revolution　is　a　restoration。　



At　any　instant　you　may　strike　a　blow　for　the　perfection　which



no　man　has　seen　since　Adam。　　No　unchanging　custom；　no　changing



evolution　can　make　the　original　good　any　thing　but　good。　



Man　may　have　had　concubines　as　long　as　cows　have　had　horns：　



still　they　are　not　a　part　of　him　if　they　are　sinful。　　Men　may



have　been　under　oppression　ever　since　fish　were　under　water；



still　they　ought　not　to　be；　if　oppression　is　sinful。　　The　chain　may



seem　as　natural　to　the　slave；　or　the　paint　to　the　harlot；　as　does



the　plume　to　the　bird　or　the　burrow　to　the　fox；　still　they　are　not；



if　they　are　sinful。　　I　lift　my　prehistoric　legend　to　defy　all



your　history。　　Your　vision　is　not　merely　a　fixture：　　it　is　a　fact。〃　



I　paused　to　note　the　new　coincidence　of　Christianity：　　but　I



passed　on。







　　　　　I　passed　on　to　the　next　necessity　of　any　ideal　of　progress。　



Some　people　（as　we　have　said）　seem　to　believe　in　an　automatic



and　impersonal　progress　in　the　nature　of　things。　　But　it　is　clear



that　no　political　activity　can　be　encouraged　by　saying　that　progress



is　natural　and　inevitable；　that　is　not　a　reason　for　being　active；



but　rather　a　reason　for　being　lazy。　　If　we　are　bound　to　improve；



we　need　not　trouble　to　improve。　　The　pure　doctrine　of　progress



is　the　best　of　all　reasons　for　not　being　a　progressive。　　But　it



is　to　none　of　these　obvious　comments　that　I　wish　primarily　to



call　attention。







　　　　　The　only　arresting　point　is　this：　　that　if　we　suppose



improvement　to　be　natural；　it　must　be　fairly　simple。　　The　world



might　conceivably　be　working　towards　one　consummation；　but　hardly



towards　any　particular　arrangement　of　many　qualities。　　To　take



our　original　simile：　　Nature　by　herself　may　be　growing　more　blue；



that　is；　a　process　so　simple　that　it　might　be　impersonal。　　But　Nature



cannot　be　making　a　careful　picture　made　of　many　picked　colours；



unless　Nature　is　personal。　　If　the　end　of　the　world　were　mere



darkness　or　mere　light　it　might　come　as　slowly　and　inevitably



as　dusk　or　dawn。　　But　if　the　end　of　the　world　is　to　be　a　piece



of　elaborate　and　artistic　chiaroscuro；　then　there　must　be　design



in　it；　either　human　or　divine。　　The　world；　through　mere　time；



might　grow　black　like　an　old　picture；　or　white　like　an　old　coat；



but　if　it　is　turned　into　a　particular　piece　of　black　and　white　art



then　there　is　an　artist。







　　　　　If　the　distinction　be　not　evident；　I　give　an　ordinary　instance。　　We



constantly　hear　a　particularly　cosmic　creed　from　the　modern　humanitarians；







I　use　the　word　humanitarian　in　the　ordinary　sense；　as　meaning　one



who　upholds　the　claims　of　all　creatures　against　those　of　humanity。　



They　suggest　that　through　the　ages　we　have　been　growing　more　and



more　humane；　that　is　to　say；　that　one　after　another；　groups　or



sections　of　beings；　slaves；　children；　women；　cows；　or　what　not；



have　been　gradually　admitted　to　mercy　or　to　justice。　　They　say



that　we　once　thought　it　right　to　eat　men　（we　didn't）；　but　I　am　not



here　concerned　with　their　history；　which　is　highly　unhistorical。　



As　a　fact；　anthropophagy　is　certainly　a　decadent　thing；　not　a



primitive　one。　　It　is　much　more　likely　that　modern　men　will　eat



human　flesh　out　of　affectation　than　that　primitive　man　ever　ate



it　out　of　ignorance。　　I　am　here　only　following　the　outlines　of



their　argument；　which　consists　in　maintaining　that　man　has　been



progressively　more　lenient；　first　to　citizens；　then　to　slaves；



then　to　animals；　and　then　（presumably）　to　plants。　　I　think　it　wrong



to　sit　on　a　man。　　Soon；　I　shall　think　it　wrong　to　sit　on　a　horse。　



Eventually　（I　suppose）　I　shall　think　it　wrong　to　sit　on　a　chair。　



That　is　the　drive　of　the　argument。　　And　for　this　argument　it　can



be　said　that　it　is　possible　to　talk　of　it　in　terms　of　evolution　or



inevitable　progress。　　A　perpetual　tendency　to　touch　fewer　and　fewer



things　mightone　feels；　be　a　mere　brute　unconscious　tendency；



like　that　of　a　species　to　produce　fewer　and　fewer　children。　



This　drift　may　be　really　evolutionary；　because　it　is　stupid。







　　　　　Darwinism　can　be　used　to　back　up　two　mad　moralities；



but　it　cannot　be　used　to　back　up　a　single　sane　one。　　The　kinship



and　competition　of　all　living　creatures　can　be　used　as　a　reason　for



being　insanely　cruel　or　insanely　sentimental；　but　not　for　a　healthy



love　of　animals。　　On　the　evolutionary　basis　you　may　be　inhumane；



or　you　may　be　absurdly　humane；　but　you　cannot　be　human。　　That　you



and　a　tiger　are　one　may　be　a　reason　for　being　tender　to　a　tiger。　



Or　it　may　be　a　reason　for　being　as　cruel　as　the　tiger。　　It　is　one　way



to　train　the　tiger　to　imitate　you；　it　is　a　shorter　way　to　imitate



the　tiger。　　But　in　neither　case　does　evolution　tell　you　how　to　treat



a　tiger　reasonably；　that　is；　to　admire　his　stripes　while　avoiding



his　claws。







　　　　　If　you　want　to　treat　a　tiger　reasonably；　you　must　go　back　to



the　garden　of　Eden。　　For　the　obstinate　reminder　continued　to　recur：　



only　the　supernatural　has　taken　a　sane　view　of　Nature。　　The　essence



of　all　pantheism；　evolutionism；　and　modern　cosmic　religion　is　really



in　this　proposition：　　that　Nature　is　our　mother。　　Unfortunately；　if　you



regard　Nature　as　a　mother；　you　discover　that　she　is　a　step…mother。　The



main　point　of　Christianity　was　this：　　that　Nature　is　not　our　mother：　



Nature　is　our　sister。　　We　can　be　proud　of　her　beauty；　since　we　have



the　same　father；　but　she　has　no　authority　over　us；　we　have　to　admire；