heretics- 第20部分

not　because　such　a　thought　was　natural；　but　because　it　was　supernatural；



not　because　it　made　things　more　comprehensible；　but　because　it



made　them　a　hundred　times　more　incomprehensible　and　mysterious。



For　a　man　walking　down　a　lane　at　night　can　see　the　conspicuous　fact



that　as　long　as　nature　keeps　to　her　own　course；　she　has　no　power



with　us　at　all。　　As　long　as　a　tree　is　a　tree；　it　is　a　top…heavy



monster　with　a　hundred　arms；　a　thousand　tongues；　and　only　one　leg。



But　so　long　as　a　tree　is　a　tree；　it　does　not　frighten　us　at　all。



It　begins　to　be　something　alien；　to　be　something　strange；　only　when　it



looks　like　ourselves。　　When　a　tree　really　looks　like　a　man　our　knees



knock　under　us。　　And　when　the　whole　universe　looks　like　a　man　we



fall　on　our　faces。















XII　Paganism　and　Mr。　Lowes　Dickinson











Of　the　New　Paganism　（or　neo…Paganism）；　as　it　was　preached



flamboyantly　by　Mr。　Swinburne　or　delicately　by　Walter　Pater；



there　is　no　necessity　to　take　any　very　grave　account；



except　as　a　thing　which　left　behind　it　incomparable　exercises



in　the　English　language。　　The　New　Paganism　is　no　longer　new；



and　it　never　at　any　time　bore　the　smallest　resemblance　to　Paganism。



The　ideas　about　the　ancient　civilization　which　it　has　left



loose　in　the　public　mind　are　certainly　extraordinary　enough。



The　term　〃pagan〃　is　continually　used　in　fiction　and　light　literature



as　meaning　a　man　without　any　religion；　whereas　a　pagan　was　generally



a　man　with　about　half　a　dozen。　　The　pagans；　according　to　this　notion；



were　continually　crowning　themselves　with　flowers　and　dancing



about　in　an　irresponsible　state；　whereas；　if　there　were　two　things



that　the　best　pagan　civilization　did　honestly　believe　in；　they　were



a　rather　too　rigid　dignity　and　a　much　too　rigid　responsibility。



Pagans　are　depicted　as　above　all　things　inebriate　and　lawless；



whereas　they　were　above　all　things　reasonable　and　respectable。



They　are　praised　as　disobedient　when　they　had　only　one　great　virtue



civic　obedience。　　They　are　envied　and　admired　as　shamelessly　happy



when　they　had　only　one　great　sindespair。







Mr。　Lowes　Dickinson；　the　most　pregnant　and　provocative　of　recent



writers　on　this　and　similar　subjects；　is　far　too　solid　a　man　to



have　fallen　into　this　old　error　of　the　mere　anarchy　of　Paganism。



In　order　to　make　hay　of　that　Hellenic　enthusiasm　which　has



as　its　ideal　mere　appetite　and　egotism；　it　is　not　necessary



to　know　much　philosophy；　but　merely　to　know　a　little　Greek。



Mr。　Lowes　Dickinson　knows　a　great　deal　of　philosophy；



and　also　a　great　deal　of　Greek；　and　his　error；　if　error　he　has；



is　not　that　of　the　crude　hedonist。　　But　the　contrast　which　he　offers



between　Christianity　and　Paganism　in　the　matter　of　moral　ideals



a　contrast　which　he　states　very　ably　in　a　paper　called　〃How　long



halt　ye？〃　which　appeared　in　the　Independent　Reviewdoes；　I　think；



contain　an　error　of　a　deeper　kind。　　According　to　him；　the　ideal



of　Paganism　was　not；　indeed；　a　mere　frenzy　of　lust　and　liberty



and　caprice；　but　was　an　ideal　of　full　and　satisfied　humanity。



According　to　him；　the　ideal　of　Christianity　was　the　ideal　of　asceticism。



When　I　say　that　I　think　this　idea　wholly　wrong　as　a　matter　of



philosophy　and　history；　I　am　not　talking　for　the　moment　about　any



ideal　Christianity　of　my　own；　or　even　of　any　primitive　Christianity



undefiled　by　after　events。　　I　am　not；　like　so　many　modern　Christian



idealists；　basing　my　case　upon　certain　things　which　Christ　said。



Neither　am　I；　like　so　many　other　Christian　idealists；



basing　my　case　upon　certain　things　that　Christ　forgot　to　say。



I　take　historic　Christianity　with　all　its　sins　upon　its　head；



I　take　it；　as　I　would　take　Jacobinism；　or　Mormonism；　or　any　other



mixed　or　unpleasing　human　product；　and　I　say　that　the　meaning　of　its



action　was　not　to　be　found　in　asceticism。　　I　say　that　its　point



of　departure　from　Paganism　was　not　asceticism。　　I　say　that　its



point　of　difference　with　the　modern　world　was　not　asceticism。



I　say　that　St。　Simeon　Stylites　had　not　his　main　inspiration　in　asceticism。



I　say　that　the　main　Christian　impulse　cannot　be　described　as　asceticism；



even　in　the　ascetics。







Let　me　set　about　making　the　matter　clear。　　There　is　one　broad　fact



about　the　relations　of　Christianity　and　Paganism　which　is　so　simple



that　many　will　smile　at　it；　but　which　is　so　important　that　all



moderns　forget　it。　　The　primary　fact　about　Christianity　and　Paganism



is　that　one　came　after　the　other。　　Mr。　Lowes　Dickinson　speaks



of　them　as　if　they　were　parallel　idealseven　speaks　as　if　Paganism



were　the　newer　of　the　two；　and　the　more　fitted　for　a　new　age。



He　suggests　that　the　Pagan　ideal　will　be　the　ultimate　good　of　man；



but　if　that　is　so；　we　must　at　least　ask　with　more　curiosity



than　he　allows　for；　why　it　was　that　man　actually　found　his



ultimate　good　on　earth　under　the　stars；　and　threw　it　away　again。



It　is　this　extraordinary　enigma　to　which　I　propose　to　attempt　an　answer。







There　is　only　one　thing　in　the　modern　world　that　has　been　face



to　face　with　Paganism；　there　is　only　one　thing　in　the　modern



world　which　in　that　sense　knows　anything　about　Paganism：



and　that　is　Christianity。　　That　fact　is　really　the　weak　point　in



the　whole　of　that　hedonistic　neo…Paganism　of　which　I　have　spoken。



All　that　genuinely　remains　of　the　ancient　hymns　or　the　ancient　dances



of　Europe；　all　that　has　honestly　come　to　us　from　the　festivals　of　Phoebus



or　Pan；　is　to　be　found　in　the　festivals　of　the　Christian　Church。



If　any　one　wants　to　hold　the　end　of　a　chain　which　really　goes　back



to　the　heathen　mysteries；　he　had　better　take　hold　of　a　festoon



of　flowers　at　Easter　or　a　string　of　sausages　at　Christmas。



Everything　else　in　the　modern　world　is　of　Christian　origin；



even　everything　that　seems　most　anti…Christian。　The　French　Revolution



is　of　Christian　origin。　　The　newspaper　is　of　Christian　origin。



The　anarchists　are　of　Christian　origin。　　Physical　science　is　of



Christian　origin。　　The　attack　on　Christianity　is　of　Christian　origin。



There　is　one　thing；　and　one　thing　only；　in　existence　at　the　present



day　which　can　in　any　sense　accurately　be　said　to　be　of　pagan　origin；



and　that　is　Christianity。







The　real　difference　between　Paganism　and　Christianity　is　perfectly



summed　up　in　the　difference　between　the　pagan；　or　natural；　virtues；



and　those　three　virtues　of　Christianity　which　the　Church　of　Rome



calls　virtues　of　grace。　　The　pagan；　or　rational；　virtues　are　such



things　as　justice　and　temperance；　and　Christianity　has　adopted　them。



The　three　mystical　virtues　which　Christianity　has　not　adopted；



but　invented；　are　faith；　hope；　and　charity。　　Now　much　easy



and　foolish　Christian　rhetoric　could　easily　be　poured　out　upon



those　three　words；　but　I　desire　to　confine　myself　to　the　two



facts　which　are　evident　about　them。　　The　first　evident　fact



（in　marked　contrast　to　the　delusion　of　the　dancing　pagan）the　first



evident　fact；　I　say；　is　that　the　pagan　virtues；　such　as　justice



and　temperance；　are　the　sad　virtues；　and　that　the　mystical　virtues



of　faith；　hope；　and　charity　are　the　gay　and　exuberant　virtues。



And　the　second　evident　fact；　which　is　even　more　evident；



is　the　fact　that　the　pagan　virtues　are　the　reasonable　virtues；



and　that　the　Christian　virtues　of　faith；　hope；　and　charity　are



in　their　essence　as　unreasonable　as　they　can　be。







As　the　word　〃unreasonable〃　is　open　to　misunderstanding；　the　matter



may　be　more　accurately　put　by　saying　that　each　one　of　these　Christian



or　mystical　virtues　involves　a　paradox　in　its　own　nature；　and　that　this



is　not　true　of　any　of　the　typically　pagan　or　rationalist　virtues。



Justice　consists　in　finding　out　a　certain　thing　due　to　a　certain　man



and　giving　it　to　him。　　Temperance　consists　in　finding　out　the　proper



limit　of　a　particular　indulgence　and　adhering　to　that。　　But　charity



means　pardoning　what　is　unpardonable；　or　it　is　no　virtue　at　all。



Hope　means　hoping　when　things　are　hopeless；　or　it　is　no　virtue　at　all。



And　faith　means　believing　the　incredible；　or　it　is　no　virtue　at　all。







It　is　somewhat　amusing；　indeed；　to　notice　the　difference　between



the　fate　of　these　three　paradoxes　in　the　fashion　of　the　modern　mind。



Charity　is　a　fashionable　virtue　in　our　time；　it　is　lit　up　by　the



gigantic　firelight　of　Dickens。　　Hope　is　a　fashionable　virtue　to…day；



our　attention　has　been　arrested　for　it　by　the　sudden　and　silver



trumpet　of　Stevenson。　　But　faith　is　unfashionable；　and　it　is　customary



on　every　side　to　cast　against　it　the　fact　that　it　is　a　paradox。



Everybody　mockingly　repeats　the　famous　childish　definition　that　faith



is　〃the　power　of　believing　that　which　we　know　to　be　untrue。〃



Yet　it　is　not　one　atom　more　paradoxical　than　hope　or　charity。



Charity　is　the　power　of　defending　that　which　we　know　to　be　indefensible。



Hope　is　the　power　of　being　cheerful　in　circumstances　which　we　know



to　be　desperate。　　It　is　true　that　there　is　a　state　of　hope　which　belongs



to　bright　prospects　and　the　morning；　but　that　is　not　the　virtue　of　hope。



The　virtue　of　hope　exists　only　in　earthquake　and；　eclipse。



It　is　true　that　there　is　a　thing　crudely　called　charity；　which　means



charity　to　the　deserving　poor；　but　charity　to　the　deserving　is　not



charity　at　all；　but　justice。　　It　is　the　undeserving　who　require　it；



and　the　ideal　either　does　not　exist　at　all；　or　exists　wholly　for　them。



For　practical　purposes　it　is　at　the　hopeless　moment　that　we　require



the　hopeful　man；　and　the　vi