orthodoxy-第26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　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　in　the　rich。　　For　she　has　maintained



from　the　beginning　that　the　danger　was　not　in　man's　environment；



but　in　man。　　Further；　she　has　maintained　that　if　we　come　to　talk　of　a



dangerous　environment；　the　most　dangerous　environment　of　all　is　the



commodious　environment。　　I　know　that　the　most　modern　manufacture　has



been　really　occupied　in　trying　to　produce　an　abnormally　large　needle。　



I　know　that　the　most　recent　biologists　have　been　chiefly　anxious



to　discover　a　very　small　camel。　　But　if　we　diminish　the　camel



to　his　smallest；　or　open　the　eye　of　the　needle　to　its　largestif；



in　short；　we　assume　the　words　of　Christ　to　have　meant　the　very　least



that　they　could　mean；　His　words　must　at　the　very　least　mean　this



that　rich　men　are　not　very　likely　to　be　morally　trustworthy。　



Christianity　even　when　watered　down　is　hot　enough　to　boil　all　modern



society　to　rags。　　The　mere　minimum　of　the　Church　would　be　a　deadly



ultimatum　to　the　world。　　For　the　whole　modern　world　is　absolutely



based　on　the　assumption；　not　that　the　rich　are　necessary　（which　is



tenable）；　but　that　the　rich　are　trustworthy；　which　（for　a　Christian）



is　not　tenable。　　You　will　hear　everlastingly；　in　all　discussions



about　newspapers；　companies；　aristocracies；　or　party　politics；



this　argument　that　the　rich　man　cannot　be　bribed。　　The　fact　is；



of　course；　that　the　rich　man　is　bribed；　he　has　been　bribed　already。　



That　is　why　he　is　a　rich　man。　　The　whole　case　for　Christianity　is　that



a　man　who　is　dependent　upon　the　luxuries　of　this　life　is　a　corrupt　man；



spiritually　corrupt；　politically　corrupt；　financially　corrupt。　



There　is　one　thing　that　Christ　and　all　the　Christian　saints



have　said　with　a　sort　of　savage　monotony。　　They　have　said　simply



that　to　be　rich　is　to　be　in　peculiar　danger　of　moral　wreck。　



It　is　not　demonstrably　un…Christian　to　kill　the　rich　as　violators



of　definable　justice。　　It　is　not　demonstrably　un…Christian　to　crown



the　rich　as　convenient　rulers　of　society。　　It　is　not　certainly



un…Christian　to　rebel　against　the　rich　or　to　submit　to　the　rich。　



But　it　is　quite　certainly　un…Christian　to　trust　the　rich；　to　regard



the　rich　as　more　morally　safe　than　the　poor。　　A　Christian　may



consistently　say；　〃I　respect　that　man's　rank；　although　he　takes　bribes。〃　



But　a　Christian　cannot　say；　as　all　modern　men　are　saying　at　lunch



and　breakfast；　〃a　man　of　that　rank　would　not　take　bribes。〃　



For　it　is　a　part　of　Christian　dogma　that　any　man　in　any　rank　may



take　bribes。　　It　is　a　part　of　Christian　dogma；　it　also　happens　by



a　curious　coincidence　that　it　is　a　part　of　obvious　human　history。　



When　people　say　that　a　man　〃in　that　position〃　would　be　incorruptible；



there　is　no　need　to　bring　Christianity　into　the　discussion。　　Was　Lord



Bacon　a　bootblack？　　Was　the　Duke　of　Marlborough　a　crossing　sweeper？　



In　the　best　Utopia；　I　must　be　prepared　for　the　moral　fall　of　any　man



in　any　position　at　any　moment；　especially　for　my　fall　from　my　position



at　this　moment。







　　　　　Much　vague　and　sentimental　journalism　has　been　poured　out



to　the　effect　that　Christianity　is　akin　to　democracy；　and　most



of　it　is　scarcely　strong　or　clear　enough　to　refute　the　fact　that



the　two　things　have　often　quarrelled。　　The　real　ground　upon　which



Christianity　and　democracy　are　one　is　very　much　deeper。　　The　one



specially　and　peculiarly　un…Christian　idea　is　the　idea　of　Carlyle



the　idea　that　the　man　should　rule　who　feels　that　he　can　rule。　



Whatever　else　is　Christian；　this　is　heathen。　　If　our　faith　comments



on　government　at　all；　its　comment　must　be　thisthat　the　man　should



rule　who　does　NOT　think　that　he　can　rule。　　Carlyle's　hero　may　say；



〃I　will　be　king〃；　but　the　Christian　saint　must　say　〃Nolo　episcopari。〃　



If　the　great　paradox　of　Christianity　means　anything；　it　means　this



that　we　must　take　the　crown　in　our　hands；　and　go　hunting　in　dry



places　and　dark　corners　of　the　earth　until　we　find　the　one　man



who　feels　himself　unfit　to　wear　it。　　Carlyle　was　quite　wrong；



we　have　not　got　to　crown　the　exceptional　man　who　knows　he　can　rule。　



Rather　we　must　crown　the　much　more　exceptional　man　who　knows　he



can't。







　　　　　Now；　this　is　one　of　the　two　or　three　vital　defences　of



working　democracy。　　The　mere　machinery　of　voting　is　not　democracy；



though　at　present　it　is　not　easy　to　effect　any　simpler　democratic　method。　



But　even　the　machinery　of　voting　is　profoundly　Christian　in　this



practical　sensethat　it　is　an　attempt　to　get　at　the　opinion　of　those



who　would　be　too　modest　to　offer　it。　　It　is　a　mystical　adventure；



it　is　specially　trusting　those　who　do　not　trust　themselves。　



That　enigma　is　strictly　peculiar　to　Christendom。　　There　is　nothing



really　humble　about　the　abnegation　of　the　Buddhist；　the　mild　Hindoo



is　mild；　but　he　is　not　meek。　　But　there　is　something　psychologically



Christian　about　the　idea　of　seeking　for　the　opinion　of　the　obscure



rather　than　taking　the　obvious　course　of　accepting　the　opinion



of　the　prominent。　　To　say　that　voting　is　particularly　Christian　may



seem　somewhat　curious。　　To　say　that　canvassing　is　Christian　may　seem



quite　crazy。　　But　canvassing　is　very　Christian　in　its　primary　idea。　



It　is　encouraging　the　humble；　it　is　saying　to　the　modest　man；



〃Friend；　go　up　higher。〃　　Or　if　there　is　some　slight　defect



in　canvassing；　that　is　in　its　perfect　and　rounded　piety；　it　is　only



because　it　may　possibly　neglect　to　encourage　the　modesty　of　the　canvasser。







　　　　　Aristocracy　is　not　an　institution：　　aristocracy　is　a　sin；



generally　a　very　venial　one。　　It　is　merely　the　drift　or　slide



of　men　into　a　sort　of　natural　pomposity　and　praise　of　the　powerful；



which　is　the　most　easy　and　obvious　affair　in　the　world。







　　　　　It　is　one　of　the　hundred　answers　to　the　fugitive　perversion



of　modern　〃force〃　that　the　promptest　and　boldest　agencies　are



also　the　most　fragile　or　full　of　sensibility。　　The　swiftest　things



are　the　softest　things。　　A　bird　is　active；　because　a　bird　is　soft。　



A　stone　is　helpless；　because　a　stone　is　hard。　　The　stone　must



by　its　own　nature　go　downwards；　because　hardness　is　weakness。　



The　bird　can　of　its　nature　go　upwards；　because　fragility　is　force。　



In　perfect　force　there　is　a　kind　of　frivolity；　an　airiness　that　can



maintain　itself　in　the　air。　　Modern　investigators　of　miraculous



history　have　solemnly　admitted　that　a　characteristic　of　the　great



saints　is　their　power　of　〃levitation。〃　　They　might　go　further；



a　characteristic　of　the　great　saints　is　their　power　of　levity。　



Angels　can　fly　because　they　can　take　themselves　lightly。　



This　has　been　always　the　instinct　of　Christendom；　and　especially



the　instinct　of