heretics- 第33部分

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　youth　about　America　or



the　colonies；　if　we