orthodoxy-第21章
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！
can be valueless。 Here； again in short； Christianity got over the
difficulty of combining furious opposites； by keeping them both；
and keeping them both furious。 The Church was positive on both points。
One can hardly think too little of one's self。 One can hardly think
too much of one's soul。
Take another case： the complicated question of charity；
which some highly uncharitable idealists seem to think quite easy。
Charity is a paradox； like modesty and courage。 Stated baldly；
charity certainly means one of two thingspardoning unpardonable acts；
or loving unlovable people。 But if we ask ourselves （as we did
in the case of pride） what a sensible pagan would feel about such
a subject； we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it。
A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive；
and some one couldn't： a slave who stole wine could be laughed at；
a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed； and cursed
even after he was killed。 In so far as the act was pardonable；
the man was pardonable。 That again is rational； and even refreshing；
but it is a dilution。 It leaves no place for a pure horror of injustice；
such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent。 And it leaves
no place for a mere tenderness for men as men； such as is the whole
fascination of the charitable。 Christianity came in here as before。
It came in startlingly with a sword； and clove one thing from another。
It divided the crime from the criminal。 The criminal we must forgive
unto seventy times seven。 The crime we must not forgive at all。
It was not enough that slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger
and partly kindness。 We must be much more angry with theft than before；
and yet much kinder to thieves than before。 There was room for wrath
and love to run wild。 And the more I considered Christianity；
the more I found that while it had established a rule and order；
the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run
wild。
Mental and emotional liberty are not so simple as they look。
Really they require almost as careful a balance of laws and conditions
as do social and political liberty。 The ordinary aesthetic anarchist
who sets out to feel everything freely gets knotted at last in a
paradox that prevents him feeling at all。 He breaks away from home
limits to follow poetry。 But in ceasing to feel home limits he has
ceased to feel the 〃Odyssey。〃 He is free from national prejudices
and outside patriotism。 But being outside patriotism he is outside
〃Henry V。〃 Such a literary man is simply outside all literature：
he is more of a prisoner than any bigot。 For if there is a wall
between you and the world； it makes little difference whether you
describe yourself as locked in or as locked out。 What we want
is not the universality that is outside all normal sentiments；
we want the universality that is inside all normal sentiments。
It is all the difference between being free from them； as a man
is free from a prison； and being free of them as a man is free of
a city。 I am free from Windsor Castle （that is； I am not forcibly
detained there）； but I am by no means free of that building。
How can man be approximately free of fine emotions； able to swing
them in a clear space without breakage or wrong？ THIS was the
achievement of this Christian paradox of the parallel passions。
Granted the primary dogma of the war between divine and diabolic；
the revolt and ruin of the world； their optimism and pessimism；
as pure poetry； could be loosened like cataracts。
St。 Francis； in praising all good； could be a more shouting
optimist than Walt Whitman。 St。 Jerome； in denouncing all evil；
could paint the world blacker than Schopenhauer。 Both passions
were free because both were kept in their place。 The optimist could
pour out all the praise he liked on the gay music of the march；
the golden trumpets； and the purple banners going into battle。
But he must not call the fight needless。 The pessimist might draw
as darkly as he chose the sickening marches or the sanguine wounds。
But he must not call the fight hopeless。 So it was with all the
other moral problems； with pride； with protest； and with compassion。
By defining its main doctrine； the Church not only kept seemingly
inconsistent things side by side； but； what was more； allowed them
to break out in a sort of artistic violence otherwise possible
only to anarchists。 Meekness grew more dramatic than madness。
Historic Christianity rose into a high and strange COUP DE THEATRE
of moralitythings that are to virtue what the crimes of Nero are
to vice。 The spirits of indignation and of charity took terrible
and attractive forms； ranging from that monkish fierceness that
scourged like a dog the first and greatest of the Plantagenets；
to the sublime pity of St。 Catherine； who； in the official shambles；
kissed the bloody head of the criminal。 Poetry could be acted as
well as composed。 This heroic and monumental manner in ethics has
entirely vanished with supernatural religion。 They； being humble；
could parade themselves： but we are too proud to be prominent。
Our ethical teachers write reasonably for prison reform； but we
are not likely to see Mr。 Cadbury； or any eminent philanthropist；
go into Reading Gaol and embrace the strangled corpse before it
is cast into the quicklime。 Our ethical teachers write mildly
against the power of millionaires； but we are not likely to see
Mr。 Rockefeller； or any modern tyrant； publicly whipped in Westminster
Abbey。
Thus； the double charges of the secularists； though throwing
nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves； throw a real light on
the faith。 It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised
celibacy and emphasised the family； has at once （if one may put it so）
been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children。
It has kept them side by side like two strong colours； red and white；
like the red and white upon the shield of St。 George。 It has
always had a healthy hatred of pink。 It hates that combination
of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers。
It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to
a dirty gray。 In fact； the whole theory of the Church on virginity
might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour：
not merely the absence of a colour。 All that I am urging here can
be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these
cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure。 It is not a mixture
like russet or purple； it is rather like a shot silk； for a shot
silk is always at right angles； and is in the pattern of the cross。
So it is also； of course； with the contradictory charges
of the anti…Christians about submission and slaughter。 It IS true
that the Church told some men to fight and others not to fight；
and it IS true that those who fought were like thunderbolts
and those who did not fight were like statues。 All this simply
means that the Church preferred to use its Supermen and to use
its Tolstoyans。 There must be SOME good in the life of battle；
for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers。 There must be
SOME good in the idea of non…resistance； for so many good men seem
to enjoy being Quakers。 All that the Church did （so far as that goes）
was to prevent either of these good things from ousting the other。
They existed side by side。 The Tolstoyans； having all the scruples
of monks； simply became monks。 The Quakers became a club instead
of becoming a sect。 Monks said all that Tolstoy says； they poured
out lucid lamentations about the cruelty of battles and the vanity
of revenge。 But the Tolstoyans are not quite right enough to run
the whole world； and in the ages of faith they were not allowed
to run it。 The world did not lose the last charge of Sir James
Douglas or the banner of Joan the Maid。 And sometimes this pure
gentleness and this pure fierceness met and justified their juncture；
the paradox of all the prophets was fulfilled； and； in the soul
of St。 Louis； the lion lay down with the lamb。 But remember that
this text is too lightly interpreted。 It is constantly assured；
especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies； that when the lion lies
down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb…like。 But that is brutal
annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb。 That is simply
the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb。
The real problem isCan the lion lie down with the lamb and still
retain his royal ferocity？ THAT is the problem the Church attempted；
THAT is the miracle she achieved。
This is what I have called guessing the hidden eccentricities
of life。 This is knowing that a man's heart is to the left and not
in the middle。 This is knowing not only that the earth is round；
but knowing exactly where it is flat。 Christian doctrine detected
the oddities of life。 It not only discovered the law； but it
foresaw the exceptions。 Those underrate Christianity who say that
it discovered mercy； any one might discover mercy。 In fact every
one did。 But to discover a plan for being merciful and also severe
THAT was to anticipate a strange need of human nature。 For no one
wants to be forgiven for a big sin as if it were a little one。
Any one might say that we should be neither quite miserable nor
quite happy。 But to find out how far one MAY be quite miserable
without making it impossible to be quite happythat was a discovery
in psychology。 Any one might say； 〃Neither swagger nor grovel〃；
and it would have been a limit。 But to say； 〃Here you can swagger
and there you can grovel〃that was an emancipation。
This was the big fact about Christian ethics； the discovery
of the new balance。 Paganism had been like a pillar of marble；
upright because proportioned with symmetry。 Christianity was like
a huge and ragged and romantic rock； which； though it sways on its
pedestal at a touch； yet； because its exaggerated excrescences
exactly balance each other； is enthroned there for a thousand years。
In a Gothic cathedral the columns were all different； but they were
all necessary。 Every support seemed an accidental and fantastic support；
