orthodoxy-第3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！





poet　went　mad；　Cowper。　　And　he　was　definitely　driven　mad　by　logic；



by　the　ugly　and　alien　logic　of　predestination。　　Poetry　was　not



the　disease；　but　the　medicine；　poetry　partly　kept　him　in　health。　



He　could　sometimes　forget　the　red　and　thirsty　hell　to　which　his



hideous　necessitarianism　dragged　him　among　the　wide　waters　and



the　white　flat　lilies　of　the　Ouse。　　He　was　damned　by　John　Calvin；



he　was　almost　saved　by　John　Gilpin。　　Everywhere　we　see　that　men



do　not　go　mad　by　dreaming。　　Critics　are　much　madder　than　poets。　



Homer　is　complete　and　calm　enough；　it　is　his　critics　who　tear　him



into　extravagant　tatters。　　Shakespeare　is　quite　himself；　it　is　only



some　of　his　critics　who　have　discovered　that　he　was　somebody　else。　



And　though　St。　John　the　Evangelist　saw　many　strange　monsters　in



his　vision；　he　saw　no　creature　so　wild　as　one　of　his　own　commentators。　



The　general　fact　is　simple。　　Poetry　is　sane　because　it　floats



easily　in　an　infinite　sea；　reason　seeks　to　cross　the　infinite　sea；



and　so　make　it　finite。　　The　result　is　mental　exhaustion；



like　the　physical　exhaustion　of　Mr。　Holbein。　　To　accept　everything



is　an　exercise；　to　understand　everything　a　strain。　　The　poet　only



desires　exaltation　and　expansion；　a　world　to　stretch　himself　in。　



The　poet　only　asks　to　get　his　head　into　the　heavens。　　It　is　the　logician



who　seeks　to　get　the　heavens　into　his　head。　　And　it　is　his　head



that　splits。







　　　　　It　is　a　small　matter；　but　not　irrelevant；　that　this　striking



mistake　is　commonly　supported　by　a　striking　misquotation。　　We　have



all　heard　people　cite　the　celebrated　line　of　Dryden　as　〃Great　genius



is　to　madness　near　allied。〃　　But　Dryden　did　not　say　that　great　genius



was　to　madness　near　allied。　　Dryden　was　a　great　genius　himself；



and　knew　better。　　It　would　have　been　hard　to　find　a　man　more　romantic



than　he；　or　more　sensible。　　What　Dryden　said　was　this；　〃Great　wits



are　oft　to　madness　near　allied〃；　and　that　is　true。　　It　is　the　pure



promptitude　of　the　intellect　that　is　in　peril　of　a　breakdown。　



Also　people　might　remember　of　what　sort　of　man　Dryden　was　talking。　



He　was　not　talking　of　any　unworldly　visionary　like　Vaughan　or



George　Herbert。　　He　was　talking　of　a　cynical　man　of　the　world；



a　sceptic；　a　diplomatist；　a　great　practical　politician。　　Such　men



are　indeed　to　madness　near　allied。　　Their　incessant　calculation



of　their　own　brains　and　other　people's　brains　is　a　dangerous　trade。　



It　is　always　perilous　to　the　mind　to　reckon　up　the　mind。　　A　flippant



person　has　asked　why　we　say；　〃As　mad　as　a　hatter。〃　　A　more　flippant



person　might　answer　that　a　hatter　is　mad　because　he　has　to　measure



the　human　head。







　　　　　And　if　great　reasoners　are　often　maniacal；　it　is　equally　true



that　maniacs　are　commonly　great　reasoners。　　When　I　was　engaged



in　a　controversy　with　the　CLARION　on　the　matter　of　free　will；



that　able　writer　Mr。　R。B。Suthers　said　that　free　will　was　lunacy；



because　it　meant　causeless　actions；　and　the　actions　of　a　lunatic



would　be　causeless。　　I　do　not　dwell　here　upon　the　disastrous　lapse



in　determinist　logic。　　Obviously　if　any　actions；　even　a　lunatic's；



can　be　causeless；　determinism　is　done　for。　　If　the　chain　of



causation　can　be　broken　for　a　madman；　it　can　be　broken　for　a　man。　



But　my　purpose　is　to　point　out　something　more　practical。　



It　was　natural；　perhaps；　that　a　modern　Marxian　Socialist　should　not



know　anything　about　free　will。　　But　it　was　certainly　remarkable　that



a　modern　Marxian　Socialist　should　not　know　anything　about　lunatics。　



Mr。　Suthers　evidently　did　not　know　anything　about　lunatics。　



The　last　thing　that　can　be　said　of　a　lunatic　is　that　his　actions



are　causeless。　　If　any　human　acts　may　loosely　be　called　causeless；



they　are　the　minor　acts　of　a　healthy　man；　whistling　as　he　walks；



slashing　the　grass　with　a　stick；　kicking　his　heels　or　rubbing



his　hands。　　It　is　the　happy　man　who　does　the　useless　things；



the　sick　man　is　not　strong　enough　to　be　idle。　　It　is　exactly　such



careless　and　causeless　actions　that　the　madman　could　never　understand；



for　the　madman　（like　the　determinist）　generally　sees　too　much　cause



in　everything。　　The　madman　would　read　a　conspiratorial　significance



into　those　empty　activities。　　He　would　think　that　the　lopping



of　the　grass　was　an　attack　on　private　property。　　He　would　think



that　the　kicking　of　the　heels　was　a　signal　to　an　accomplice。　



If　the　madman　could　for　an　instant　become　careless；　he　would



become　sane。　　Every　one　who　has　had　the　misfortune　to　talk　with　people



in　the　heart　or　on　the　edge　of　mental　disorder；　knows　that　their



most　sinister　quality　is　a　horrible　clarity　of　detail；　a　connecting



of　one　thing　with　another　in　a　map　more　elaborate　than　a　maze。　



If　you　argue　with　a　madman；　it　is　extremely　probable　that　you　will



get　the　worst　of　it；　for　in　many　ways　his　mind　moves　all　the　quicker



for　not　being　delayed　by　the　things　that　go　with　good　judgment。　



He　is　not　hampered　by　a　sense　of　humour　or　by　charity；　or　by　the　dumb



certainties　of　experience。　　He　is　the　more　logical　for　losing　certain



sane　affections。　　Indeed；　the　common　phrase　for　insanity　is　in　this



respect　a　misleading　one。　　The　madman　is　not　the　man　who　has　lost



his　reason。　　The　madman　is　the　man　who　has　lost　everything　except



his　reason。







　　　　　The　madman's　explanation　of　a　thing　is　always　complete；　and　often



in　a　purely　rational　sense　satisfactory。　　Or；　to　speak　more　strictly；



the　insane　explanation；　if　not　conclusive；　is　at　least　unanswerable；



this　may　be　observed　specially　in　the　two　or　three　commonest　kinds



of　madness。　　If　a　man　says　（for　instance）　that　men　have　a　conspiracy



against　him；　you　cannot　dispute　it　except　by　saying　that　all　the　men



deny　that　they　are　conspirators；　which　is　exactly　what　conspirators



would　do。　　His　explanation　covers　the　facts　as　much　as　yours。　



Or　if　a　man　says　that　he　is　the　rightful　King　of　England；　it　is　no



complete　answer　to　say　that　the　existing　authorities　call　him　mad；



for　if　he　were　King　of　England　that　might　be　the　wisest　thing　for　the



existing　authorities　to　do。　　Or　if　a　man　says　that　he　is　Jesus　Christ；



it　is　no　answer　to　tell　him　that　the　world　denies　his　divinity；



for　the　world　denied　Christ's。







　　　　　Nevertheless　he　is　wrong。　　But　if　we　attempt　to　trace　his　error



in　exact　terms；　we　shall　not　find　it　quite　so　easy　as　we　had　supposed。　



Perhaps　the　nearest　we　can　get　to　expressing　it　is　to　say　this：　



that　his　mind　moves　in　a　perfect　but　narrow　circle。　　A　small　circle



is　quite　as　infinite　as　a　large　circle；　but；　though　it　is　quite



as　infinite；　it　is　not　so　large。　　In　the　same　way　the　insane　explanation



is　quite　as　complete　as　the　sane　one；　but　it　is　not　so　large。　



A　bullet　is　quite　as　round　as　the　world；　but　it　is　not　the　world。　



There　is　such　a　thing　as　a　narrow　universality；　there　is　such



a　thing　as　a　small　and　cramped　eternity；　you　may　see　it　in　many



modern　religions。　　Now；　speaking　quite　externally　and　empirically；



we　may　say　that　the　strongest　and　most　unmistakable　MARK　of　madness



is　this　combination　between　a　logical　completeness　and　a　spiritual



contraction。　　The　lunatic's　theory　explains　a　large　number　of　things；



but　it　does　not　explain　them　in　a　large　way。　　I　mean　that　if　you



or　I　were　dealing　with　a　mind　that　was　growing　morbid；　we　should　be



chiefly　concerned　not　so　much　to　give　it　arguments　as　to　give　it　air；



to　convince　it　that　there　was　something　cleaner　and　cooler　outside



the　suffocation　of　a　single　argument。　　Suppose；　for　instance；



it　were　the　first　case　that　I　took　as　typical；　suppose　it　were



the　case　of　a　man　who　accused　everybody　of　conspiring　against　him。　



If　we　could　express　our　deepest　feelings　of　protest　and　appeal



against　this　obsession；　I　suppose　we　should　say　something　like　this：　



〃Oh；　I　admit　that　you　have　your　case　and　have　it　by　heart；



and　that　many　things　do　fit　into　other　things　as　you　say。　　I　admit



that　your　explanation　explains　a　great　deal；　but　what　a　great　deal　it



leaves　out！　　Are　there　no　other　stories　in　the　world　except　yours；



and　are　all　men　busy　with　your　business？　　Suppose　we　grant　the　details；



perhaps　when　the　man　in　the　street　did　not　seem　to　see　you　it　was



only　his　cunning；　perhaps　when　the　policeman　asked　you　your　name　it



was　only　because　he　knew　it　already。　　But　how　much　happier　you　would



be　if　you　only　knew　that　these　people　cared　nothing　about　you！　



How　much　larger　your　life　would　be　if　your　self　could　become　smaller



in　it；　if　you　could　really　look　at　other　men　with　common　curiosity



and　pleasure；　if　you　could　see　them　walking　as　they　are　in　their



sunny　selfishness　and　their　virile　indifference！　　You　would　begin



to　be　interested　in　them；　because　they　were　not　interested　in　you。　



You　would　break　out　of　this　tiny　and　tawdry　theatre　in　which　your



own　little　plot　is　always　being　played；　and　you　would　find　yourself



under　a　freer　sky；　in　a　street　full　of　splendid　strangers。〃　



Or　suppose　it　were　the　second　case　of　madness；　that　of　a　man　who



claims　the　crown；　your　impulse　would　be　to　answer；　〃All　right！　



Perhaps　you　know　that　you　are　the　King　of　England；　but　why　do　you　care？　



Make　one　magnificent　effort　and　you　will　be　a　human　being　and　look



down　on　all　the　kings　of　the　earth。〃　　Or　it　might　be　the　third　case；



of　the　madman　who　called　himself　Christ。　　If　we　said　what　we　felt；



we　should　say；　〃So　you　are　the　Creator　and　Redeemer　of　the　world：　



but　what　a　small　world　it　must　be！　　What　a　little　heaven　you　must　inhabit；



with　angels　no　bigger　than　butterflies！　　How　sad　it　must　be　to　be　God；



and　an　inadequate　God！　　Is　there　really　no　life　fuller　and　no　love



more　marvellous　than　yours；　and　is　it　really　in　your　small　and　painful



pity　that　all　flesh　must　put　its　faith？　　How　much　happier　you　would　be；



how　much　more　of　you　there　would　be；　if　the　hammer　of　a　higher　God



could　smash　your　small　cosmos；　scattering　the　stars　like　spangles；



and　leave　you　in　the　open；　free　like　other　men　to　look　up　as　well



as　down！〃







　　　　　And　it　must　be　remembered　that　the　most　purely　practical　science



does　take　this　view　of　mental　evil；　it　does　not　seek　to　argue　with　it



like　a　heresy　but　simply　to　snap　it　like　a　spell。　　Neither　modern



science　nor　ancient　religion　believes　in　complete　free　thought。　



Theology　rebukes　certain　thoughts　by　calling　them　blasphemous。　



Science　rebukes　certain　thoughts　by　calling　them　morbid。　　For　example；



some　religious