on liberty- 第18部分

carry　on　their　lives　in　their　own　way。　There　is　no　reason　that　all



human　existence　should　be　constructed　on　some　one　or　some　small　number



of　patterns。　If　a　person　possesses　any　tolerable　amount　of　common



sense　and　experience；　his　own　mode　of　laying　out　his　existence　is



the　best；　not　because　it　is　the　best　in　itself；　but　because　it　is



his　own　mode。　Human　beings　are　not　like　sheep；　and　even　sheep　are



not　undistinguishably　alike。　A　man　cannot　get　a　coat　or　a　pair　of



boots　to　fit　him　unless　they　are　either　made　to　his　measure；　or　he　has



a　whole　warehouseful　to　choose　from：　and　is　it　easier　to　fit　him



with　a　life　than　with　a　coat；　or　are　human　beings　more　like　one



another　in　their　whole　physical　and　spiritual　conformation　than　in　the



shape　of　their　feet？　If　it　were　only　that　people　have　diversities　of



taste；　that　is　reason　enough　for　not　attempting　to　shape　them　all



after　one　model。



　　But　different　persons　also　require　different　conditions　for　their



spiritual　development；　and　can　no　more　exist　healthily　in　the　same



moral；　than　all　the　variety　of　plants　can　in　the　same　physical；



atmosphere　and　climate。　The　same　things　which　are　helps　to　one



person　towards　the　cultivation　of　his　higher　nature　are　hindrances



to　another。　The　same　mode　of　life　is　a　healthy　excitement　to　one；



keeping　all　his　faculties　of　action　and　enjoyment　in　their　best　order；



while　to　another　it　is　a　distracting　burthen；　which　suspends　or



crushes　all　internal　life。　Such　are　the　differences　among　human　beings



in　their　sources　of　pleasure；　their　susceptibilities　of　pain；　and



the　operation　on　them　of　different　physical　and　moral　agencies；　that



unless　there　is　a　corresponding　diversity　in　their　modes　of　life；　they



neither　obtain　their　fair　share　of　happiness；　nor　grow　up　to　the



mental；　moral；　and　aesthetic　stature　of　which　their　nature　is　capable。



Why　then　should　tolerance；　as　far　as　the　public　sentiment　is



concerned；　extend　only　to　tastes　and　modes　of　life　which　extort



acquiescence　by　the　multitude　of　their　adherents？　Nowhere　（except　in



some　monastic　institutions）　is　diversity　of　taste　entirely



unrecognised；　a　person　may；　without　blame；　either　like　or　dislike



rowing；　or　smoking；　or　music；　or　athletic　exercises；　or　chess；　or



cards；　or　study；　because　both　those　who　like　each　of　these　things；　and



those　who　dislike　them；　are　too　numerous　to　be　put　down。　But　the



man；　and　still　more　the　woman；　who　can　be　accused　either　of　doing



〃What　nobody　does；〃　or　of　not　doing　〃what　everybody　does；〃　is　the



subject　of　as　much　depreciatory　remark　as　if　he　or　she　had　committed



some　grave　moral　delinquency。　Persons　require　to　possess　a　title；　or



some　other　badge　of　rank；　or　of　the　consideration　of　people　of　rank；



to　be　able　to　indulge　somewhat　in　the　luxury　of　doing　as　they　like



without　detriment　to　their　estimation。　To　indulge　somewhat；　I



repeat：　for　whoever　allow　themselves　much　of　that　indulgence；　incur



the　risk　of　something　worse　than　disparaging　speeches…　they　are　in



peril　of　a　commission　de　lunatico；　and　of　having　their　property



taken　from　them　and　given　to　their　relations。*







　　*　There　is　something　both　contemptible　and　frightful　in　the　sort　of



evidence　on　which；　of　late　years；　any　person　can　be　judicially



declared　unfit　for　the　management　of　his　affairs；　and　after　his　death；



his　disposal　of　his　property　can　be　set　aside；　if　there　is　enough　of



it　to　pay　the　expenses　of　litigation…　which　are　charged　on　the



property　itself。　All　the　minute　details　of　his　daily　life　are　pried



into；　and　whatever　is　found　which；　seen　through　the　medium　of　the



perceiving　and　describing　faculties　of　the　lowest　of　the　low；　bears



an　appearance　unlike　absolute　commonplace；　is　laid　before　the　jury　as



evidence　of　insanity；　and　often　with　success；　the　jurors　being　little；



if　at　all；　less　vulgar　and　ignorant　than　the　witnesses；　while　the



judges；　with　that　extraordinary　want　of　knowledge　of　human　nature　and



life　which　continually　astonishes　us　in　English　lawyers；　often　help



to　mislead　them。　These　trials　speak　volumes　as　to　the　state　of　feeling



and　opinion　among　the　vulgar　with　regard　to　human　liberty。　So　far　from



setting　any　value　on　individuality…　so　far　from　respecting　the　right



of　each　individual　to　act；　in　things　indifferent；　as　seems　good　to



his　own　judgment　and　inclinations；　judges　and　juries　cannot　even



conceive　that　a　person　in　a　state　of　sanity　can　desire　such　freedom。



In　former　days；　when　it　was　proposed　to　burn　atheists；　charitable



people　used　to　suggest　putting　them　in　a　madhouse　instead：　it　would　be



nothing　surprising　now…a…days　were　we　to　see　this　done；　and　the



doers　applauding　themselves；　because；　instead　of　persecuting　for



religion；　they　had　adopted　so　humane　and　Christian　a　mode　of



treating　these　unfortunates；　not　without　a　silent　satisfaction　at



their　having　thereby　obtained　their　deserts。







　　There　is　one　characteristic　of　the　present　direction　of　public



opinion　peculiarly　calculated　to　make　it　intolerant　of　any　marked



demonstration　of　individuality。　The　general　average　of　mankind　are　not



only　moderate　in　intellect；　but　also　moderate　in　inclinations：　they



have　no　tastes　or　wishes　strong　enough　to　incline　them　to　do



anything　unusual；　and　they　consequently　do　not　understand　those　who



have；　and　class　all　such　with　the　wild　and　intemperate　whom　they　are



accustomed　to　look　down　upon。　Now；　in　addition　to　this　fact　which　is



general；　we　have　only　to　suppose　that　a　strong　movement　has　set　in



towards　the　improvement　of　morals；　and　it　is　evident　what　we　have　to



expect。　In　these　days　such　a　movement　has　set　in；　much　has　actually



been　effected　in　the　way　of　increased　regularity　of　conduct　and



discouragement　of　excesses；　and　there　is　a　philanthropic　spirit



abroad；　for　the　exercise　of　which　there　is　no　more　inviting　field　than



the　moral　and　prudential　improvement　of　our　fellow　creatures。　These



tendencies　of　the　times　cause　the　public　to　be　more　disposed　than　at



most　former　periods　to　prescribe　general　rules　of　conduct；　and



endeavour　to　make　every　one　conform　to　the　approved　standard。　And　that



standard；　express　or　tacit；　is　to　desire　nothing　strongly。　Its　ideal



of　character　is　to　be　without　any　marked　character；　to　maim　by



compression；　like　a　Chinese　lady's　foot；　every　part　of　human　nature



which　stands　out　prominently；　and　tends　to　make　the　person　markedly



dissimilar　in　outline　to　commonplace　humanity。



　　As　is　usually　the　case　with　ideals　which　exclude　one…half　of　what　is



desirable；　the　present　standard　of　approbation　produces　only　an



inferior　imitation　of　the　other　half。　Instead　of　great　energies　guided



by　vigorous　reason；　and　strong　feelings　strongly　controlled　by　a



conscientious　will；　its　result　is　weak　feelings　and　weak　energies；



which　therefore　can　be　kept　in　outward　conformity　to　rule　without



any　strength　either　of　will　or　of　reason。　Already　energetic　characters



on　any　large　scale　are　becoming　merely　traditional。　There　is　now



scarcely　any　outlet　for　energy　in　this　country　except　business。　The



energy　expended　in　this　may　still　be　regarded　as　considerable。　What



little　is　left　from　that　employment　is　expended　on　some　hobby；　which



may　be　a　useful；　even　a　philanthropic　hobby；　but　is　always　some　one



thing；　and　generally　a　thing　of　small　dimensions。　The　greatness　of



England　is　now　all　collective；　individually　small；　we　only　appear



capable　of　anything　great　by　our　habit　of　combining；　and　with　this　our



moral　and　religious　philanthropists　are　perfectly　contented。　But　it



was　men　of　another　stamp　than　this　that　made　England　what　it　has　been；



and　men　of　another　stamp　will　be　needed　to　prevent　its　decline。



　　The　despotism　of　custom　is　everywhere　the　standing　hindrance　to



human　advancement；　being　in　unceasing　antagonism　to　that　disposition



to　aim　at　something　better　than　customary；　which　is　called；



according　to　circumstances；　the　spirit　of　liberty；　or　that　of　progress



or　improvement。　The　spirit　of　improvement　is　not　always　a　spirit　of



liberty；　for　it　may　aim　at　forcing　improvements　on　an　unwilling



people；　and　the　spirit　of　liberty；　in　so　far　as　it　resists　such



attempts；　may　ally　itself　locally　and　temporarily　with　the　opponents



of　improvement；　but　the　only　unfailing　and　permanent　source　of



improvement　is　liberty；　since　by　it　there　are　as　many　possible



independent　centres　of　improvement　as　there　are　individuals。　The



progressive　principle；　however；　in　either　shape；　whether　as　the　love



of　liberty　or　of　improvement；　is　antagonistic　to　the　sway　of　Custom；



involving　at　least　emancipation　from　that　yoke；　and　the　contest



between　the　two　constitutes　the　chief　interest　of　the　history　of



mankind。　The　greater　part　of　the　world　has；　properly　speaking；　no



history；　because　the　despotism　of　Custom　is　complete。　This　is　the　case



over　the　whole　East。　Custom　is　there；　in　all　things；　the　final　appeal；



justice　and　right　mean　conformity　to　custom；　the　argument　of　custom　no



one；　unless　tyrant　intoxicated　with　power；　thinks　of　resisting。　And　we



see　the　result。　Those　nations　must　once　have　had　originality；　they　did



not　start　out　of　the　ground　populous；　lettered；　and　versed　in　many



of　the　arts　of　life；　they　made　themselves　all　this；　and　were　then



the　greatest　and　most　powerful　nations　of　the　world。　What　are　they



now？　The　subjects　or　dependents　of　tribes　whose　forefathers　wandered



in　the　forests　when　theirs　had　magnificent　palaces　and　gorgeous



temples；　but　over　whom　custom　exercised　only　a　divided　rule　with



liberty　and　progress。



　　A　people；　it　appears；　may　be　progressive　for　a　certain　length　of



time；　and　then　stop：　when　does　it　stop？　When　it　ceases　to　possess



individuality。　If　a　similar　change　should　befall　the　nations　of



Europe；　it　will　not　be　in