heretics- 第4部分

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



to　promote　morality。







I　do　not　wish　the　reader　to　confuse　me　for　a　moment　with　those　vague



persons　who　imagine　that　Ibsen　is　what　they　call　a　pessimist。



There　are　plenty　of　wholesome　people　in　Ibsen；　plenty　of



good　people；　plenty　of　happy　people；　plenty　of　examples　of　men



acting　wisely　and　things　ending　well。　　That　is　not　my　meaning。



My　meaning　is　that　Ibsen　has　throughout；　and　does　not　disguise；



a　certain　vagueness　and　a　changing　attitude　as　well　as　a　doubting



attitude　towards　what　is　really　wisdom　and　virtue　in　this　life



a　vagueness　which　contrasts　very　remarkably　with　the　decisiveness



with　which　he　pounces　on　something　which　he　perceives　to　be　a　root



of　evil；　some　convention；　some　deception；　some　ignorance。



We　know　that　the　hero　of　GHOSTS　is　mad；　and　we　know　why　he　is　mad。



We　do　also　know　that　Dr。　Stockman　is　sane；　but　we　do　not　know



why　he　is　sane。　　Ibsen　does　not　profess　to　know　how　virtue



and　happiness　are　brought　about；　in　the　sense　that　he　professes



to　know　how　our　modern　sexual　tragedies　are　brought　about。



Falsehood　works　ruin　in　THE　PILLARS　OF　SOCIETY；　but　truth　works　equal



ruin　in　THE　WILD　DUCK。　　There　are　no　cardinal　virtues　of　Ibsenism。



There　is　no　ideal　man　of　Ibsen。　　All　this　is　not　only　admitted；



but　vaunted　in　the　most　valuable　and　thoughtful　of　all　the　eulogies



upon　Ibsen；　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw's　QUINTESSENCE　OF　IBSENISM。



Mr。　Shaw　sums　up　Ibsen's　teaching　in　the　phrase；　〃The　golden



rule　is　that　there　is　no　golden　rule。〃　　In　his　eyes　this



absence　of　an　enduring　and　positive　ideal；　this　absence



of　a　permanent　key　to　virtue；　is　the　one　great　Ibsen　merit。



I　am　not　discussing　now　with　any　fullness　whether　this　is　so　or　not。



All　I　venture　to　point　out；　with　an　increased　firmness；



is　that　this　omission；　good　or　bad；　does　leave　us　face　to　face



with　the　problem　of　a　human　consciousness　filled　with　very



definite　images　of　evil；　and　with　no　definite　image　of　good。



To　us　light　must　be　henceforward　the　dark　thingthe　thing　of　which



we　cannot　speak。　　To　us；　as　to　Milton's　devils　in　Pandemonium；



it　is　darkness　that　is　visible。　　The　human　race；　according　to　religion；



fell　once；　and　in　falling　gained　knowledge　of　good　and　of　evil。



Now　we　have　fallen　a　second　time；　and　only　the　knowledge　of　evil



remains　to　us。







A　great　silent　collapse；　an　enormous　unspoken　disappointment；



has　in　our　time　fallen　on　our　Northern　civilization。　　All　previous



ages　have　sweated　and　been　crucified　in　an　attempt　to　realize



what　is　really　the　right　life；　what　was　really　the　good　man。



A　definite　part　of　the　modern　world　has　come　beyond　question



to　the　conclusion　that　there　is　no　answer　to　these　questions；



that　the　most　that　we　can　do　is　to　set　up　a　few　notice…boards



at　places　of　obvious　danger；　to　warn　men；　for　instance；



against　drinking　themselves　to　death；　or　ignoring　the　mere



existence　of　their　neighbours。　　Ibsen　is　the　first　to　return



from　the　baffled　hunt　to　bring　us　the　tidings　of　great　failure。







Every　one　of　the　popular　modern　phrases　and　ideals　is



a　dodge　in　order　to　shirk　the　problem　of　what　is　good。



We　are　fond　of　talking　about　〃liberty〃；　that；　as　we　talk　of　it；



is　a　dodge　to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。　　We　are　fond　of　talking



about　〃progress〃；　that　is　a　dodge　to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。



We　are　fond　of　talking　about　〃education〃；　that　is　a　dodge



to　avoid　discussing　what　is　good。　　The　modern　man　says；　〃Let　us



leave　all　these　arbitrary　standards　and　embrace　liberty。〃



This　is；　logically　rendered；　〃Let　us　not　decide　what　is　good；



but　let　it　be　considered　good　not　to　decide　it。〃　　He　says；



〃Away　with　your　old　moral　formulae；　I　am　for　progress。〃



This；　logically　stated；　means；　〃Let　us　not　settle　what　is　good；



but　let　us　settle　whether　we　are　getting　more　of　it。〃



He　says；　〃Neither　in　religion　nor　morality；　my　friend；　lie　the　hopes



of　the　race；　but　in　education。〃　　This；　clearly　expressed；



means；　〃We　cannot　decide　what　is　good；　but　let　us　give　it



to　our　children。〃







Mr。　H。G。　Wells；　that　exceedingly　clear…sighted　man；　has　pointed　out　in　a



recent　work　that　this　has　happened　in　connection　with　economic　questions。



The　old　economists；　he　says；　made　generalizations；　and　they　were



（in　Mr。　Wells's　view）　mostly　wrong。　　But　the　new　economists；　he　says；



seem　to　have　lost　the　power　of　making　any　generalizations　at　all。



And　they　cover　this　incapacity　with　a　general　claim　to　be；　in　specific　cases；



regarded　as　〃experts〃；　a　claim　〃proper　enough　in　a　hairdresser　or　a



fashionable　physician；　but　indecent　in　a　philosopher　or　a　man　of　science。〃



But　in　spite　of　the　refreshing　rationality　with　which　Mr。　Wells　has



indicated　this；　it　must　also　be　said　that　he　himself　has　fallen



into　the　same　enormous　modern　error。　　In　the　opening　pages　of　that



excellent　book　MANKIND　IN　THE　MAKING；　he　dismisses　the　ideals　of　art；



religion；　abstract　morality；　and　the　rest；　and　says　that　he　is　going



to　consider　men　in　their　chief　function；　the　function　of　parenthood。



He　is　going　to　discuss　life　as　a　〃tissue　of　births。〃　　He　is　not　going



to　ask　what　will　produce　satisfactory　saints　or　satisfactory　heroes；



but　what　will　produce　satisfactory　fathers　and　mothers。　　The　whole　is　set



forward　so　sensibly　that　it　is　a　few　moments　at　least　before　the　reader



realises　that　it　is　another　example　of　unconscious　shirking。　　What　is　the　good



of　begetting　a　man　until　we　have　settled　what　is　the　good　of　being　a　man？



You　are　merely　handing　on　to　him　a　problem　you　dare　not　settle　yourself。



It　is　as　if　a　man　were　asked；　〃What　is　the　use　of　a　hammer？〃　and　answered；



〃To　make　hammers〃；　and　when　asked；　〃And　of　those　hammers；　what　is



the　use？〃　answered；　〃To　make　hammers　again〃。　Just　as　such　a　man　would



be　perpetually　putting　off　the　question　of　the　ultimate　use　of　carpentry；



so　Mr。　Wells　and　all　the　rest　of　us　are　by　these　phrases　successfully



putting　off　the　question　of　the　ultimate　value　of　the　human　life。







The　case　of　the　general　talk　of　〃progress〃　is；　indeed；



an　extreme　one。　　As　enunciated　today；　〃progress〃　is　simply



a　comparative　of　which　we　have　not　settled　the　superlative。



We　meet　every　ideal　of　religion；　patriotism；　beauty；　or　brute



pleasure　with　the　alternative　ideal　of　progressthat　is　to　say；



we　meet　every　proposal　of　getting　something　that　we　know　about；



with　an　alternative　proposal　of　getting　a　great　deal　more　of　nobody



knows　what。　　Progress；　properly　understood；　has；　indeed；　a　most



dignified　and　legitimate　meaning。　　But　as　used　in　opposition



to　precise　moral　ideals；　it　is　ludicrous。　　So　far　from　it　being



the　truth　that　the　ideal　of　progress　is　to　be　set　against　that



of　ethical　or　religious　finality；　the　reverse　is　the　truth。



Nobody　has　any　business　to　use　the　word　〃progress〃　unless



he　has　a　definite　creed　and　a　cast…iron　code　of　morals。



Nobody　can　be　progressive　without　being　doctrinal；　I　might　almost



say　that　nobody　can　be　progressive　without　being　infallible



at　any　rate；　without　believing　in　some　infallibility。



For　progress　by　its　very　name　indicates　a　direction；



and　the　moment　we　are　in　the　least　doubtful　about　the　direction；



we　become　in　the　same　degree　doubtful　about　the　progress。



Never　perhaps　since　the　beginning　of　the　world　has　there　been



an　age　that　had　less　right　to　use　the　word　〃progress〃　than　we。



In　the　Catholic　twelfth　century；　in　the　philosophic　eighteenth



century；　the　direction　may　have　been　a　good　or　a　bad　one；



men　may　have　differed　more　or　less　about　how　far　they　went；　and　in



what　direction；　but　about　the　direction　they　did　in　the　main　agree；



and　consequently　they　had　the　genuine　sensation　of　progress。



But　it　is　precisely　about　the　direction　that　we　disagree。



Whether　the　future　excellence　lies　in　more　law　or　less　law；



in　more　liberty　or　less　liberty；　whether　property　will　be　finally



concentrated　or　finally　cut　up；　whether　sexual　passion　will　reach



its　sanest　in　an　almost　virgin　intellectualism　or　in　a　full



animal　freedom；　whether　we　should　love　everybody　with　Tolstoy；



or　spare　nobody　with　Nietzsche；these　are　the　things　about　which　we



are　actually　fighting　most。　　It　is　not　merely　true　that　the　age



which　has　settled　least　what　is　progress　is　this　〃progressive〃　age。



It　is；　moreover；　true　that　the　people　who　have　settled　least



what　is　progress　are　the　most　〃progressive〃　people　in　it。



The　ordinary　mass；　the　men　who　have　never　troubled　about　progress；



might　be　trusted　perhaps　to　progress。　　The　particular　individuals



who　talk　about　progress　would　certainly　fly　to　the　four



winds　of　heaven　when　the　pistol…shot　started　the　race。



I　do　not；　therefore；　say　that　the　word　〃progress〃　is　unmeaning；　I　say



it　is　unmeaning　without　the　previous　definition　of　a　moral　doctrine；



and　that　it　can　only　be　applied　to　groups　of　persons　who　hold



that　doctrine　in　common。　　Progress　is　not　an　illegitimate　word；



but　it　is　logically　evident　that　it　is　illegitimate　for　us。



It　is　a　sacred　word；　a　word　which　could　only　rightly　be　used



by　rigid　believers　and　in　the　ages　of　faith。















III。　　On　Mr。　Rudyard　Kipling　and　Making　the　World　Small











There　is　no　such　thing　on　earth　as　an　uninteresting　subject；



the　only　thing　that　can　exist　is　an　uninterested　person。



Nothing　is　more　keenly　required　than　a　defence　of　bores。



When　Byron　divided　humanity　into　the　bores　and　bored；　he　omitted



to　notice　that　the　higher　qu