heretics- 第3部分

contemporaries；　not　personally　or　in　a　merely　literary　manner；



but　in　relation　to　the　real　body　of　doctrine　which　they　teach。



I　am　not　concerned　with　Mr。　Rudyard　Kipling　as　a　vivid　artist



or　a　vigorous　personality；　I　am　concerned　with　him　as　a　Heretic



that　is　to　say；　a　man　whose　view　of　things　has　the　hardihood



to　differ　from　mine。　　I　am　not　concerned　with　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw



as　one　of　the　most　brilliant　and　one　of　the　most　honest　men　alive；



I　am　concerned　with　him　as　a　Hereticthat　is　to　say；　a　man　whose



philosophy　is　quite　solid；　quite　coherent；　and　quite　wrong。



I　revert　to　the　doctrinal　methods　of　the　thirteenth　century；



inspired　by　the　general　hope　of　getting　something　done。







Suppose　that　a　great　commotion　arises　in　the　street　about　something；



let　us　say　a　lamp…post；　which　many　influential　persons　desire　to



pull　down。　　A　grey…clad　monk；　who　is　the　spirit　of　the　Middle　Ages；



is　approached　upon　the　matter；　and　begins　to　say；　in　the　arid　manner



of　the　Schoolmen；　〃Let　us　first　of　all　consider；　my　brethren；



the　value　of　Light。　　If　Light　be　in　itself　good〃　At　this　point



he　is　somewhat　excusably　knocked　down。　　All　the　people　make　a　rush



for　the　lamp…post；　the　lamp…post　is　down　in　ten　minutes；　and　they　go



about　congratulating　each　other　on　their　unmediaeval　practicality。



But　as　things　go　on　they　do　not　work　out　so　easily。　　Some　people



have　pulled　the　lamp…post　down　because　they　wanted　the　electric　light；



some　because　they　wanted　old　iron；　some　because　they　wanted　darkness；



because　their　deeds　were　evil。　　Some　thought　it　not　enough　of　a



lamp…post；　some　too　much；　some　acted　because　they　wanted　to　smash



municipal　machinery；　some　because　they　wanted　to　smash　something。



And　there　is　war　in　the　night；　no　man　knowing　whom　he　strikes。



So；　gradually　and　inevitably；　to…day；　to…morrow；　or　the　next　day；



there　comes　back　the　conviction　that　the　monk　was　right　after　all；



and　that　all　depends　on　what　is　the　philosophy　of　Light。



Only　what　we　might　have　discussed　under　the　gas…lamp；　we　now　must



discuss　in　the　dark。















II。　　On　the　negative　spirit











Much　has　been　said；　and　said　truly；　of　the　monkish　morbidity；



of　the　hysteria　which　as　often　gone　with　the　visions　of　hermits　or　nuns。



But　let　us　never　forget　that　this　visionary　religion　is；　in　one　sense；



necessarily　more　wholesome　than　our　modern　and　reasonable　morality。



It　is　more　wholesome　for　this　reason；　that　it　can　contemplate　the　idea



of　success　or　triumph　in　the　hopeless　fight　towards　the　ethical　ideal；



in　what　Stevenson　called；　with　his　usual　startling　felicity；



〃the　lost　fight　of　virtue。〃　　A　modern　morality；　on　the　other　hand；



can　only　point　with　absolute　conviction　to　the　horrors　that　follow



breaches　of　law；　its　only　certainty　is　a　certainty　of　ill。



It　can　only　point　to　imperfection。　　It　has　no　perfection　to　point　to。



But　the　monk　meditating　upon　Christ　or　Buddha　has　in　his　mind



an　image　of　perfect　health；　a　thing　of　clear　colours　and　clean　air。



He　may　contemplate　this　ideal　wholeness　and　happiness　far　more　than　he　ought；



he　may　contemplate　it　to　the　neglect　of　exclusion　of　essential　THINGS



he　may　contemplate　it　until　he　has　become　a　dreamer　or　a　driveller；



but　still　it　is　wholeness　and　happiness　that　he　is　contemplating。



He　may　even　go　mad；　but　he　is　going　mad　for　the　love　of　sanity。



But　the　modern　student　of　ethics；　even　if　he　remains　sane；　remains　sane



from　an　insane　dread　of　insanity。







The　anchorite　rolling　on　the　stones　in　a　frenzy　of　submission



is　a　healthier　person　fundamentally　than　many　a　sober　man



in　a　silk　hat　who　is　walking　down　Cheapside。　　For　many



such　are　good　only　through　a　withering　knowledge　of　evil。



I　am　not　at　this　moment　claiming　for　the　devotee　anything



more　than　this　primary　advantage；　that　though　he　may　be　making



himself　personally　weak　and　miserable；　he　is　still　fixing



his　thoughts　largely　on　gigantic　strength　and　happiness；



on　a　strength　that　has　no　limits；　and　a　happiness　that　has　no　end。



Doubtless　there　are　other　objections　which　can　be　urged　without



unreason　against　the　influence　of　gods　and　visions　in　morality；



whether　in　the　cell　or　street。　　But　this　advantage　the　mystic



morality　must　always　haveit　is　always　jollier。　　A　young　man



may　keep　himself　from　vice　by　continually　thinking　of　disease。



He　may　keep　himself　from　it　also　by　continually　thinking　of



the　Virgin　Mary。　　There　may　be　question　about　which　method　is



the　more　reasonable；　or　even　about　which　is　the　more　efficient。



But　surely　there　can　be　no　question　about　which　is　the　more　wholesome。







I　remember　a　pamphlet　by　that　able　and　sincere　secularist；



Mr。　G。　W。　Foote；　which　contained　a　phrase　sharply　symbolizing　and



dividing　these　two　methods。　　The　pamphlet　was　called　BEER　AND　BIBLE；



those　two　very　noble　things；　all　the　nobler　for　a　conjunction　which



Mr。　Foote；　in　his　stern　old　Puritan　way；　seemed　to　think　sardonic；



but　which　I　confess　to　thinking　appropriate　and　charming。



I　have　not　the　work　by　me；　but　I　remember　that　Mr。　Foote　dismissed



very　contemptuously　any　attempts　to　deal　with　the　problem



of　strong　drink　by　religious　offices　or　intercessions；　and　said



that　a　picture　of　a　drunkard's　liver　would　be　more　efficacious



in　the　matter　of　temperance　than　any　prayer　or　praise。



In　that　picturesque　expression；　it　seems　to　me；　is　perfectly



embodied　the　incurable　morbidity　of　modern　ethics。



In　that　temple　the　lights　are　low；　the　crowds　kneel；　the　solemn



anthems　are　uplifted。　　But　that　upon　the　altar　to　which　all　men



kneel　is　no　longer　the　perfect　flesh；　the　body　and　substance



of　the　perfect　man；　it　is　still　flesh；　but　it　is　diseased。



It　is　the　drunkard's　liver　of　the　New　Testament　that　is　marred



for　us；　which　which　we　take　in　remembrance　of　him。







Now；　it　is　this　great　gap　in　modern　ethics；　the　absence　of　vivid



pictures　of　purity　and　spiritual　triumph；　which　lies　at　the　back



of　the　real　objection　felt　by　so　many　sane　men　to　the　realistic



literature　of　the　nineteenth　century。　　If　any　ordinary　man　ever



said　that　he　was　horrified　by　the　subjects　discussed　in　Ibsen



or　Maupassant；　or　by　the　plain　language　in　which　they　are　spoken　of；



that　ordinary　man　was　lying。　　The　average　conversation　of　average



men　throughout　the　whole　of　modern　civilization　in　every　class



or　trade　is　such　as　Zola　would　never　dream　of　printing。



Nor　is　the　habit　of　writing　thus　of　these　things　a　new　habit。



On　the　contrary；　it　is　the　Victorian　prudery　and　silence　which　is



new　still；　though　it　is　already　dying。　　The　tradition　of　calling



a　spade　a　spade　starts　very　early　in　our　literature　and　comes



down　very　late。　　But　the　truth　is　that　the　ordinary　honest　man；



whatever　vague　account　he　may　have　given　of　his　feelings；　was　not



either　disgusted　or　even　annoyed　at　the　candour　of　the　moderns。



What　disgusted　him；　and　very　justly；　was　not　the　presence



of　a　clear　realism；　but　the　absence　of　a　clear　idealism。



Strong　and　genuine　religious　sentiment　has　never　had　any　objection



to　realism；　on　the　contrary；　religion　was　the　realistic　thing；



the　brutal　thing；　the　thing　that　called　names。　　This　is　the　great



difference　between　some　recent　developments　of　Nonconformity　and



the　great　Puritanism　of　the　seventeenth　century。　　It　was　the　whole



point　of　the　Puritans　that　they　cared　nothing　for　decency。



Modern　Nonconformist　newspapers　distinguish　themselves　by　suppressing



precisely　those　nouns　and　adjectives　which　the　founders　of　Nonconformity



distinguished　themselves　by　flinging　at　kings　and　queens。



But　if　it　was　a　chief　claim　of　religion　that　it　spoke　plainly　about　evil；



it　was　the　chief　claim　of　all　that　it　spoke　plainly　about　good。



The　thing　which　is　resented；　and；　as　I　think；　rightly　resented；



in　that　great　modern　literature　of　which　Ibsen　is　typical；



is　that　while　the　eye　that　can　perceive　what　are　the　wrong　things



increases　in　an　uncanny　and　devouring　clarity；　the　eye　which　sees



what　things　are　right　is　growing　mistier　and　mistier　every　moment；



till　it　goes　almost　blind　with　doubt。　　If　we　compare；　let　us　say；



the　morality　of　the　DIVINE　COMEDY　with　the　morality　of　Ibsen's　GHOSTS；



we　shall　see　all　that　modern　ethics　have　really　done。



No　one；　I　imagine；　will　accuse　the　author　of　the　INFERNO



of　an　Early　Victorian　prudishness　or　a　Podsnapian　optimism。



But　Dante　describes　three　moral　instrumentsHeaven；　Purgatory；



and　Hell；　the　vision　of　perfection；　the　vision　of　improvement；



and　the　vision　of　failure。　　Ibsen　has　only　oneHell。



It　is　often　said；　and　with　perfect　truth；　that　no　one　could　read



a　play　like　GHOSTS　and　remain　indifferent　to　the　necessity　of　an



ethical　self…command。　That　is　quite　true；　and　the　same　is　to　be　said



of　the　most　monstrous　and　material　descriptions　of　the　eternal　fire。



It　is　quite　certain　the　realists　like　Zola　do　in　one　sense　promote



moralitythey　promote　it　in　the　sense　in　which　the　hangman



promotes　it；　in　the　sense　in　which　the　devil　promotes　it。



But　they　only　affect　that　small　minority　which　will　accept



any　virtue　of　courage。　　Most　healthy　people　dismiss　these　moral



dangers　as　they　dismiss　the　possibility　of　bombs　or　microbes。



Modern　realists　are　indeed　Terrorists；　like　the　dynamiters；



and　they　fail　just　as　much　in　their　effort　to　create　a　thrill。



Both　realists　and　dynamiters　are　well…meaning　people　engaged



in　the　task；　so　obviously　ultimately　hopeless；　of　using　science



to　promote　morality。