orthodoxy-第17节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





also；　an　obedience　to　whatever　made　us。　　And　last；　and　strangest；



there　had　come　into　my　mind　a　vague　and　vast　impression　that　in　some



way　all　good　was　a　remnant　to　be　stored　and　held　sacred　out　of　some



primordial　ruin。　　Man　had　saved　his　good　as　Crusoe　saved　his　goods：　



he　had　saved　them　from　a　wreck。　　All　this　I　felt　and　the　age　gave　me



no　encouragement　to　feel　it。　　And　all　this　time　I　had　not　even　thought



of　Christian　theology。















V　THE　FLAG　OF　THE　WORLD











　　　　　When　I　was　a　boy　there　were　two　curious　men　running　about



who　were　called　the　optimist　and　the　pessimist。　　I　constantly　used



the　words　myself；　but　I　cheerfully　confess　that　I　never　had　any



very　special　idea　of　what　they　meant。　　The　only　thing　which　might



be　considered　evident　was　that　they　could　not　mean　what　they　said；



for　the　ordinary　verbal　explanation　was　that　the　optimist　thought



this　world　as　good　as　it　could　be；　while　the　pessimist　thought



it　as　bad　as　it　could　be。　　Both　these　statements　being　obviously



raving　nonsense；　one　had　to　cast　about　for　other　explanations。　



An　optimist　could　not　mean　a　man　who　thought　everything　right　and



nothing　wrong。　　For　that　is　meaningless；　it　is　like　calling　everything



right　and　nothing　left。　　Upon　the　whole；　I　came　to　the　conclusion



that　the　optimist　thought　everything　good　except　the　pessimist；



and　that　the　pessimist　thought　everything　bad；　except　himself。　



It　would　be　unfair　to　omit　altogether　from　the　list　the　mysterious



but　suggestive　definition　said　to　have　been　given　by　a　little　girl；



〃An　optimist　is　a　man　who　looks　after　your　eyes；　and　a　pessimist



is　a　man　who　looks　after　your　feet。〃　　I　am　not　sure　that　this　is　not



the　best　definition　of　all。　　There　is　even　a　sort　of　allegorical　truth



in　it。　　For　there　might；　perhaps；　be　a　profitable　distinction　drawn



between　that　more　dreary　thinker　who　thinks　merely　of　our　contact



with　the　earth　from　moment　to　moment；　and　that　happier　thinker



who　considers　rather　our　primary　power　of　vision　and　of　choice



of　road。







　　　　　But　this　is　a　deep　mistake　in　this　alternative　of　the　optimist



and　the　pessimist。　　The　assumption　of　it　is　that　a　man　criticises



this　world　as　if　he　were　house…hunting；　as　if　he　were　being　shown



over　a　new　suite　of　apartments。　　If　a　man　came　to　this　world　from



some　other　world　in　full　possession　of　his　powers　he　might　discuss



whether　the　advantage　of　midsummer　woods　made　up　for　the　disadvantage



of　mad　dogs；　just　as　a　man　looking　for　lodgings　might　balance



the　presence　of　a　telephone　against　the　absence　of　a　sea　view。　



But　no　man　is　in　that　position。　　A　man　belongs　to　this　world　before



he　begins　to　ask　if　it　is　nice　to　belong　to　it。　　He　has　fought　for



the　flag；　and　often　won　heroic　victories　for　the　flag　long　before　he



has　ever　enlisted。　　To　put　shortly　what　seems　the　essential　matter；



he　has　a　loyalty　long　before　he　has　any　admiration。







　　　　　In　the　last　chapter　it　has　been　said　that　the　primary　feeling



that　this　world　is　strange　and　yet　attractive　is　best　expressed



in　fairy　tales。　　The　reader　may；　if　he　likes；　put　down　the　next



stage　to　that　bellicose　and　even　jingo　literature　which　commonly



comes　next　in　the　history　of　a　boy。　　We　all　owe　much　sound　morality



to　the　penny　dreadfuls。　　Whatever　the　reason；　it　seemed　and　still



seems　to　me　that　our　attitude　towards　life　can　be　better　expressed



in　terms　of　a　kind　of　military　loyalty　than　in　terms　of　criticism



and　approval。　　My　acceptance　of　the　universe　is　not　optimism；



it　is　more　like　patriotism。　　It　is　a　matter　of　primary　loyalty。　



The　world　is　not　a　lodging…house　at　Brighton；　which　we　are　to



leave　because　it　is　miserable。　　It　is　the　fortress　of　our　family；



with　the　flag　flying　on　the　turret；　and　the　more　miserable　it



is　the　less　we　should　leave　it。　　The　point　is　not　that　this　world



is　too　sad　to　love　or　too　glad　not　to　love；　the　point　is　that



when　you　do　love　a　thing；　its　gladness　is　a　reason　for　loving　it；



and　its　sadness　a　reason　for　loving　it　more。　　All　optimistic　thoughts



about　England　and　all　pessimistic　thoughts　about　her　are　alike



reasons　for　the　English　patriot。　　Similarly；　optimism　and　pessimism



are　alike　arguments　for　the　cosmic　patriot。







　　　　　Let　us　suppose　we　are　confronted　with　a　desperate　thing



say　Pimlico。　　If　we　think　what　is　really　best　for　Pimlico　we　shall



find　the　thread　of　thought　leads　to　the　throne　or　the　mystic　and



the　arbitrary。　　It　is　not　enough　for　a　man　to　disapprove　of　Pimlico：　



in　that　case　he　will　merely　cut　his　throat　or　move　to　Chelsea。　



Nor；　certainly；　is　it　enough　for　a　man　to　approve　of　Pimlico：　



for　then　it　will　remain　Pimlico；　which　would　be　awful。　



The　only　way　out　of　it　seems　to　be　for　somebody　to　love　Pimlico：　



to　love　it　with　a　transcendental　tie　and　without　any　earthly　reason。　



If　there　arose　a　man　who　loved　Pimlico；　then　Pimlico　would　rise



into　ivory　towers　and　golden　pinnacles；　Pimlico　would　attire　herself



as　a　woman　does　when　she　is　loved。　　For　decoration　is　not　given



to　hide　horrible　things：　　but　to　decorate　things　already　adorable。　



A　mother　does　not　give　her　child　a　blue　bow　because　he　is　so　ugly



without　it。　　A　lover　does　not　give　a　girl　a　necklace　to　hide　her　neck。　



If　men　loved　Pimlico　as　mothers　love　children；　arbitrarily；　because　it



is　THEIRS；　Pimlico　in　a　year　or　two　might　be　fairer　than　Florence。　



Some　readers　will　say　that　this　is　a　mere　fantasy。　　I　answer　that　this



is　the　actual　history　of　mankind。　　This；　as　a　fact；　is　how　cities　did



grow　great。　　Go　back　to　the　darkest　roots　of　civilization　and　you



will　find　them　knotted　round　some　sacred　stone　or　encircling　some



sacred　well。　　People　first　paid　honour　to　a　spot　and　afterwards



gained　glory　for　it。　　Men　did　not　love　Rome　because　she　was　great。　



She　was　great　because　they　had　loved　her。







　　　　　The　eighteenth…century　theories　of　the　social　contract　have



been　exposed　to　much　clumsy　criticism　in　our　time；　in　so　far



as　they　meant　that　there　is　at　the　back　of　all　historic　government



an　idea　of　content　and　co…operation；　they　were　demonstrably　right。　



But　they　really　were　wrong；　in　so　far　as　they　suggested　that　men



had　ever　aimed　at　order　or　ethics　directly　by　a　conscious　exchange



of　interests。　　Morality　did　not　begin　by　one　man　saying　to　another；



〃I　will　not　hit　you　if　you　do　not　hit　me〃；　there　is　no　trace



of　such　a　transaction。　　There　IS　a　trace　of　both　men　having　said；



〃We　must　not　hit　each　other　in　the　holy　place。〃　　They　gained　their



morality　by　guarding　their　religion。　　They　did　not　cultivate　courage。　



They　fought　for　the　shrine；　and　found　they　had　become　courageous。　



They　did　not　cultivate　cleanliness。　　They　purified　themselves　for



the　altar；　and　found　that　they　were　clean。　　The　history　of　the　Jews



is　the　only　early　document　known　to　most　Englishmen；　and　the　facts　can



be　judged　sufficiently　from　that。　　The　Ten　Commandments　which　have　been



found　substantially　common　to　mankind　were　merely　military　commands；



a　code　of　regimental　orders；　issued　to　protect　a　certain　ark　across



a　certain　desert。　　Anarchy　was　evil　because　it　endangered　the　sanctity。　



And　only　when　they　made　a　holy　day　for　God　did　they　find　they　had　made



a　holiday　for　men。







　　　　　If　it　be　granted　that　this　primary　devotion　to　a　place　or　thing



is　a　source　of　creative　energy；　we　can　pass　on　to　a　very　peculiar　fact。　



Let　us　reiterate　for　an　instant　that　the　only　right　optimism　is　a　sort



of　universal　patriotism。　　What　is　the　matter　with　the　pessimist？　



I　think　it　can　be　stated　by　saying　that　he　is　the　cosmic　anti…patriot。



And　what　is　the　matter　with　the　anti…patriot？　I　think　it　can　be　stated；



without　undue　bitterness；　by　saying　that　he　is　the　candid　friend。　



And　what　is　the　matter　with　the　candid　friend？　　There　we　strike



the　rock　of　real　life　and　immutable　human　nature。







　　　　　I　venture　to　say　that　what　is　bad　in　the　candid　friend



is　simply　that　he　is　not　candid。　　He　is　keeping　something　back



his　own　gloomy　pleasure　in　saying　unpleasant　things。　　He　has



a　secret　desire　to　hurt；　not　merely　to　help。　　This　is　certainly；



I　think；　what　makes　a　certain　sort　of　anti…patriot　irritating　to



healthy　citizens。　　I　do　not　speak　（of　course）　of　the　anti…patriotism



which　only　irritates　feverish　stockbrokers　and　gushing　actresses；



that　is　only　patriotism　speaking　plainly。　　A　man　who　says　that



no　patriot　should　attack　the　Boer　War　until　it　is　over　is　not



worth　answering　intelligently；　he　is　saying　that　no　good　son



should　warn　his　moth