heretics-第30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！
off his hat to a lady； and what can be more solemn and absurd；
considered in the abstract； than； symbolizing the existence of the other
sex by taking off a portion of your clothing and waving it in the air？
This； I repeat； is not a natural and primitive symbol； like fire or food。
A man might just as well have to take off his waistcoat to a lady；
and if a man； by the social ritual of his civilization； had to take off
his waistcoat to a lady； every chivalrous and sensible man would take
off his waistcoat to a lady。 In short； Mr。 Kensit； and those who agree
with him； may think； and quite sincerely think； that men give too
much incense and ceremonial to their adoration of the other world。
But nobody thinks that he can give too much incense and ceremonial
to the adoration of this world。 All men； then； are ritualists； but are
either conscious or unconscious ritualists。 The conscious ritualists
are generally satisfied with a few very simple and elementary signs；
the unconscious ritualists are not satisfied with anything short
of the whole of human life； being almost insanely ritualistic。
The first is called a ritualist because he invents and remembers
one rite； the other is called an anti…ritualist because he obeys
and forgets a thousand。 And a somewhat similar distinction
to this which I have drawn with some unavoidable length；
between the conscious ritualist and the unconscious ritualist；
exists between the conscious idealist and the unconscious idealist。
It is idle to inveigh against cynics and materialiststhere are
no cynics； there are no materialists。 Every man is idealistic；
only it so often happens that he has the wrong ideal。
Every man is incurably sentimental； but； unfortunately； it is so often
a false sentiment。 When we talk； for instance； of some unscrupulous
commercial figure； and say that he would do anything for money；
we use quite an inaccurate expression； and we slander him very much。
He would not do anything for money。 He would do some things for money；
he would sell his soul for money； for instance； and； as Mirabeau
humorously said； he would be quite wise 〃to take money for muck。〃
He would oppress humanity for money； but then it happens that humanity
and the soul are not things that he believes in； they are not his ideals。
But he has his own dim and delicate ideals； and he would not violate
these for money。 He would not drink out of the soup…tureen； for money。
He would not wear his coat…tails in front； for money。 He would
not spread a report that he had softening of the brain； for money。
In the actual practice of life we find； in the matter of ideals；
exactly what we have already found in the matter of ritual。
We find that while there is a perfectly genuine danger of fanaticism
from the men who have unworldly ideals； the permanent and urgent
danger of fanaticism is from the men who have worldly ideals。
People who say that an ideal is a dangerous thing； that it
deludes and intoxicates； are perfectly right。 But the ideal
which intoxicates most is the least idealistic kind of ideal。
The ideal which intoxicates least is the very ideal ideal； that sobers
us suddenly； as all heights and precipices and great distances do。
Granted that it is a great evil to mistake a cloud for a cape；
still； the cloud； which can be most easily mistaken for a cape；
is the cloud that is nearest the earth。 Similarly； we may grant
that it may be dangerous to mistake an ideal for something practical。
But we shall still point out that； in this respect； the most
dangerous ideal of all is the ideal which looks a little practical。
It is difficult to attain a high ideal； consequently； it is almost
impossible to persuade ourselves that we have attained it。
But it is easy to attain a low ideal； consequently； it is easier
still to persuade ourselves that we have attained it when we
have done nothing of the kind。 To take a random example。
It might be called a high ambition to wish to be an archangel；
the man who entertained such an ideal would very possibly
exhibit asceticism； or even frenzy； but not； I think； delusion。
He would not think he was an archangel； and go about flapping
his hands under the impression that they were wings。
But suppose that a sane man had a low ideal； suppose he wished
to be a gentleman。 Any one who knows the world knows that in nine
weeks he would have persuaded himself that he was a gentleman；
and this being manifestly not the case； the result will be very
real and practical dislocations and calamities in social life。
It is not the wild ideals which wreck the practical world；
it is the tame ideals。
The matter may； perhaps； be illustrated by a parallel from our
modern politics。 When men tell us that the old Liberal politicians
of the type of Gladstone cared only for ideals； of course；
they are talking nonsensethey cared for a great many other things；
including votes。 And when men tell us that modern politicians
of the type of Mr。 Chamberlain or； in another way； Lord Rosebery；
care only for votes or for material interest； then again they are
talking nonsensethese men care for ideals like all other men。
But the real distinction which may be drawn is this； that to
the older politician the ideal was an ideal； and nothing else。
To the new politician his dream is not only a good dream； it is a reality。
The old politician would have said； 〃It would be a good thing
if there were a Republican Federation dominating the world。〃
But the modern politician does not say； 〃It would be a good thing
if there were a British Imperialism dominating the world。〃
He says； 〃It is a good thing that there is a British Imperialism
dominating the world；〃 whereas clearly there is nothing of the kind。
The old Liberal would say 〃There ought to be a good Irish government
in Ireland。〃 But the ordinary modern Unionist does not say；
〃There ought to be a good English government in Ireland。〃 He says；
〃There is a good English government in Ireland；〃 which is absurd。
In short； the modern politicians seem to think that a man becomes
practical merely by making assertions entirely about practical things。
Apparently； a delusion does not matter as long as it is a
materialistic delusion。 Instinctively most of us feel that；
as a practical matter； even the contrary is true。 I certainly
would much rather share my apartments with a gentleman who thought
he was God than with a gentleman who thought he was a grasshopper。
To be continually haunted by practical images and practical problems；
to be constantly thinking of things as actual； as urgent； as in process
of completionthese things do not prove a man to be practical；
these things； indeed； are among the most ordinary signs of a lunatic。
That our modern statesmen are materialistic is nothing against
their being also morbid。 Seeing angels in a vision may make a man
a supernaturalist to excess。 But merely seeing snakes in delirium
tremens does not make him a naturalist。
And when we come actually to examine the main stock notions of our
modern practical politicians； we find that those main stock notions are
mainly delusions。 A great many instances might be given of the fact。
We might take； for example； the case of that strange class of notions
which underlie the word 〃union；〃 and all the eulogies heaped upon it。
Of course； union is no more a good thing in itself than separation
is a good thing in itself。 To have a party in favour of union
and a party in favour of separation is as absurd as to have a party
in favour of going upstairs and a party in favour of going downstairs。
The question is not whether we go up or down stairs； but where we
are going to； and what we are going； for？ Union is strength；
union is also weakness。 It is a good thing to harness two horses
to a cart； but it is not a good thing to try and turn two hansom cabs
into one four…wheeler。 Turning ten nations into one empire may happen
to be as feasible as turning ten shillings into one half…sovereign。
Also it may happen to be as preposterous as turning ten terriers
into one mastiff 。 The question in all cases is not a question of
union or absence of union； but of identity or absence of identity。
Owing to certain historical and moral causes； two nations may be
so united as upon the whole to help each other。 Thus England
and Scotland pass their time in paying each other compliments；
but their energies and atmospheres run distinct and parallel；
and consequently do not clash。 Scotland continues to be educated
and Calvinistic； England continues to be uneducated and happy。
But owing to certain other Moral and certain other political causes；
two nations may be so united as only to hamper each other；
their lines do clash and do not run parallel。 Thus； for instance；
England and Ireland are so united that the Irish can
sometimes rule England； but can never rule Ireland。
The educational systems； including the last Education Act； are here；
as in the case of Scotland； a very good test of the matter。
The overwhelming majority of Irishmen believe in a strict Catholicism；
the overwhelming majority of Englishmen believe in a vague Protestantism。
The Irish party in the Parliament of Union is just large enough to prevent
the English education being indefinitely Protestant； and just small
enough to prevent the Irish education being definitely Catholic。
Here we have a state of things which no man in his senses would
ever dream of wishing to continue if he had not been bewitched
by the sentimentalism of the mere word 〃union。〃
This example of union； however； is not the example which I propose
to take of the ingrained futility and deception underlying
all the assumptions of the modern practical politician。
I wish to speak especially of another and much more general delusion。
It pervades the minds and speeches of all the practical men of all parties；
and it is a childish blunder built upon a single false metaphor。
I refer to the universal modern talk about young nations and new nations；
about America being young； about New Zealand being new。 The whole thing
is a trick of words。 America is not young； New Zealand is not new。
It is a very discussable question whether they are not both much
older than England or Ireland。
Of course we may use the metaphor of yo
