As an instance to sharpen the argument, I take the one case of our everlasting3 education bills. We have actually contrived4 to invent a new kind of hypocrite. The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical. The Rev2. Brown, the Wesleyan minister, sturdily declares that he cares nothing for creeds6, but only for education; meanwhile, in truth, the wildest Wesleyanism is tearing his soul. The Rev. Smith, of the Church of England, explains gracefully7, with the Oxford8 manner, that the only question for him is the prosperity and efficiency of the schools; while in truth all the evil passions of a curate are roaring within him. It is a fight of creeds masquerading as policies. I think these reverend gentlemen do themselves wrong; I think they are more pious9 than they will admit. Theology is not (as some suppose) expunged10 as an error. It is merely concealed11, like a sin. Dr. Clifford really wants a theological atmosphere as much as Lord Halifax; only it is a different one. If Dr. Clifford would ask plainly for Puritanism and Lord Halifax ask plainly for Catholicism, something might be done for them. We are all, one hopes, imaginative enough to recognize the dignity and distinctness of another religion, like Islam or the cult13 of Apollo. I am quite ready to respect another man’s faith; but it is too much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations14 and fictions, his political bargain and make-believe. Most Nonconformists with an instinct for English history could see something poetic15 and national about the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Archbishop of Canterbury. It is when he does the rational British statesman that they very justifiably16 get annoyed. Most Anglicans with an eye for pluck and simplicity17 could admire Dr. Clifford as a Baptist minister. It is when he says that he is simply a citizen that nobody can possibly believe him.
But indeed the case is yet more curious than this. The one argument that used to be urged for our creedless vagueness was that at least it saved us from fanaticism18. But it does not even do that. On the contrary, it creates and renews fanaticism with a force quite peculiar19 to itself. This is at once so strange and so true that I will ask the reader’s attention to it with a little more precision.
Some people do not like the word “dogma.” Fortunately they are free, and there is an alternative for them. There are two things, and two things only, for the human mind, a dogma and a prejudice. The Middle Ages were a rational epoch20, an age of doctrine21. Our age is, at its best, a poetical22 epoch, an age of prejudice. A doctrine is a definite point; a prejudice is a direction. That an ox may be eaten, while a man should not be eaten, is a doctrine. That as little as possible of anything should be eaten is a prejudice; which is also sometimes called an ideal. Now a direction is always far more fantastic than a plan. I would rather have the most archaic23 map of the road to Brighton than a general recommendation to turn to the left. Straight lines that are not parallel must meet at last; but curves may recoil24 forever. A pair of lovers might walk along the frontier of France and Germany, one on the one side and one on the other, so long as they were not vaguely25 told to keep away from each other. And this is a strictly26 true parable27 of the effect of our modern vagueness in losing and separating men as in a mist.
It is not merely true that a creed5 unites men. Nay28, a difference of creed unites men—so long as it is a clear difference. A boundary unites. Many a magnanimous Moslem29 and chivalrous30 Crusader must have been nearer to each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two homeless agnostics in a pew of Mr. Campbell’s chapel31. “I say God is One,” and “I say God is One but also Three,” that is the beginning of a good quarrelsome, manly32 friendship. But our age would turn these creeds into tendencies. It would tell the Trinitarian to follow multiplicity as such (because it was his “temperament”), and he would turn up later with three hundred and thirty-three persons in the Trinity. Meanwhile, it would turn the Moslem into a Monist: a frightful33 intellectual fall. It would force that previously34 healthy person not only to admit that there was one God, but to admit that there was nobody else. When each had, for a long enough period, followed the gleam of his own nose (like the Dong) they would appear again; the Christian35 a Polytheist, and the Moslem a Panegoist, both quite mad, and far more unfit to understand each other than before.
It is exactly the same with politics. Our political vagueness divides men, it does not fuse them. Men will walk along the edge of a chasm36 in clear weather, but they will edge miles away from it in a fog. So a Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism, if he knows what is Socialism. But if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime37 atmosphere, a noble, indefinable tendency, why, then he keeps out of its way; and quite right too. One can meet an assertion with argument; but healthy bigotry38 is the only way in which one can meet a tendency. I am told that the Japanese method of wrestling consists not of suddenly pressing, but of suddenly giving way. This is one of my many reasons for disliking the Japanese civilization. To use surrender as a weapon is the very worst spirit of the East. But certainly there is no force so hard to fight as the force which it is easy to conquer; the force that always yields and then returns. Such is the force of a great impersonal39 prejudice, such as possesses the modern world on so many points. Against this there is no weapon at all except a rigid40 and steely sanity41, a resolution not to listen to fads42, and not to be infected by diseases.
In short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armoured itself with logic12 in an age of logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other’s way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable43. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance44 is misanthropic45. So it is with our existing divisions. They keep out of each other’s way; the Tory paper and the Radical46 paper do not answer each other; they ignore each other. Genuine controversy47, fair cut and thrust before a common audience, has become in our special epoch very rare. For the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast48 never interrupts; he listens to the enemy’s arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy’s arrangements. But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion49. You will have no answer except slanging or silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing50 journalism51. In neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern party combatants is to charge out of earshot.
The only logical cure for all this is the assertion of a human ideal. In dealing52 with this, I will try to be as little transcendental as is consistent with reason; it is enough to say that unless we have some doctrine of a divine man, all abuses may be excused, since evolution may turn them into uses. It will be easy for the scientific plutocrat to maintain that humanity will adapt itself to any conditions which we now consider evil. The old tyrants53 invoked55 the past; the new tyrants will invoke54 the future evolution has produced the snail56 and the owl57; evolution can produce a workman who wants no more space than a snail, and no more light than an owl. The employer need not mind sending a Kaffir to work underground; he will soon become an underground animal, like a mole58. He need not mind sending a diver to hold his breath in the deep seas; he will soon be a deep-sea animal. Men need not trouble to alter conditions, conditions will so soon alter men. The head can be beaten small enough to fit the hat. Do not knock the fetters59 off the slave; knock the slave until he forgets the fetters. To all this plausible60 modern argument for oppression, the only adequate answer is, that there is a permanent human ideal that must not be either confused or destroyed. The most important man on earth is the perfect man who is not there. The Christian religion has specially61 uttered the ultimate sanity of Man, says Scripture62, who shall judge the incarnate63 and human truth. Our lives and laws are not judged by divine superiority, but simply by human perfection. It is man, says Aristotle, who is the measure. It is the Son of Man, says Scripture, who shall judge the quick and the dead.
Doctrine, therefore, does not cause dissensions; rather a doctrine alone can cure our dissensions. It is necessary to ask, however, roughly, what abstract and ideal shape in state or family would fulfil the human hunger; and this apart from whether we can completely obtain it or not. But when we come to ask what is the need of normal men, what is the desire of all nations, what is the ideal house, or road, or rule, or republic, or king, or priesthood, then we are confronted with a strange and irritating difficulty peculiar to the present time; and we must call a temporary halt and examine that obstacle.
点击收听单词发音
1 cowardice | |
n.胆小,怯懦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 rev | |
v.发动机旋转,加快速度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 everlasting | |
adj.永恒的,持久的,无止境的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 contrived | |
adj.不自然的,做作的;虚构的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 creed | |
n.信条;信念,纲领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 creeds | |
(尤指宗教)信条,教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 gracefully | |
ad.大大方方地;优美地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 Oxford | |
n.牛津(英国城市) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 expunged | |
v.擦掉( expunge的过去式和过去分词 );除去;删去;消除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 concealed | |
a.隐藏的,隐蔽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 cult | |
n.异教,邪教;时尚,狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 hesitations | |
n.犹豫( hesitation的名词复数 );踌躇;犹豫(之事或行为);口吃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 poetic | |
adj.富有诗意的,有诗人气质的,善于抒情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 justifiably | |
adv.无可非议地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 simplicity | |
n.简单,简易;朴素;直率,单纯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 fanaticism | |
n.狂热,盲信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 epoch | |
n.(新)时代;历元 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 poetical | |
adj.似诗人的;诗一般的;韵文的;富有诗意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 archaic | |
adj.(语言、词汇等)古代的,已不通用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 recoil | |
vi.退却,退缩,畏缩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 vaguely | |
adv.含糊地,暖昧地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 parable | |
n.寓言,比喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 Moslem | |
n.回教徒,穆罕默德信徒;adj.回教徒的,回教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 chivalrous | |
adj.武士精神的;对女人彬彬有礼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 chapel | |
n.小教堂,殡仪馆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 manly | |
adj.有男子气概的;adv.男子般地,果断地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 frightful | |
adj.可怕的;讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 chasm | |
n.深坑,断层,裂口,大分岐,利害冲突 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 sublime | |
adj.崇高的,伟大的;极度的,不顾后果的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 bigotry | |
n.偏见,偏执,持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 impersonal | |
adj.无个人感情的,与个人无关的,非人称的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 rigid | |
adj.严格的,死板的;刚硬的,僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 sanity | |
n.心智健全,神智正常,判断正确 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 fads | |
n.一时的流行,一时的风尚( fad的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 sociable | |
adj.好交际的,友好的,合群的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 tolerance | |
n.宽容;容忍,忍受;耐药力;公差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 misanthropic | |
adj.厌恶人类的,憎恶(或蔑视)世人的;愤世嫉俗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 controversy | |
n.争论,辩论,争吵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 enthusiast | |
n.热心人,热衷者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 evasion | |
n.逃避,偷漏(税) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 slashing | |
adj.尖锐的;苛刻的;鲜明的;乱砍的v.挥砍( slash的现在分词 );鞭打;割破;削减 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 journalism | |
n.新闻工作,报业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 tyrants | |
专制统治者( tyrant的名词复数 ); 暴君似的人; (古希腊的)僭主; 严酷的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 invoke | |
v.求助于(神、法律);恳求,乞求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 invoked | |
v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 );行使(权利等);祈求救助;恳求 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 snail | |
n.蜗牛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 owl | |
n.猫头鹰,枭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 mole | |
n.胎块;痣;克分子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 fetters | |
n.脚镣( fetter的名词复数 );束缚v.给…上脚镣,束缚( fetter的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 plausible | |
adj.似真实的,似乎有理的,似乎可信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 specially | |
adv.特定地;特殊地;明确地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 scripture | |
n.经文,圣书,手稿;Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》,《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 incarnate | |
adj.化身的,人体化的,肉色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |