Somebody writes complaining of something I said about progress. I have forgotten what I said, but I am quite certain that it was (like a certain Mr. Douglas in a poem which I have also forgotten) tender and true. In any case, what I say now is this. Human history is so rich and complicated that you can make out a case for any course of improvement or retrogression. I could make out that the world has been growing more democratic, for the English franchise1 has certainly grown more democratic. I could also make out that the world has been growing more aristocratic, for the English Public Schools have certainly grown more aristocratic I could prove the decline of militarism by the decline of flogging; I could prove the increase of militarism by the increase of standing2 armies and conscription. But I can prove anything in this way. I can prove that the world has always been growing greener. Only lately men have invented absinthe and the Westminster Gazette. I could prove the world has grown less green. There are no more Robin3 Hood4 foresters, and fields are being covered with houses. I could show that the world was less red with khaki or more red with the new penny stamps. But in all cases progress means progress only in some particular thing. Have you ever noticed that strange line of Tennyson, in which he confesses, half consciously, how very conventional progress is?—
"Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing
grooves6 of change."
Even in praising change, he takes for a simile7 the most unchanging thing. He calls our modern change a groove5. And it is a groove; perhaps there was never anything so groovy.
Nothing would induce me in so idle a monologue8 as this to discuss adequately a great political matter like the question of the military punishments in Egypt. But I may suggest one broad reality to be observed by both sides, and which is, generally speaking, observed by neither. Whatever else is right, it is utterly9 wrong to employ the argument that we Europeans must do to savages10 and Asiatics whatever savages and Asiatics do to us. I have even seen some controversialists use the metaphor12, "We must fight them with their own weapons." Very well; let those controversialists take their metaphor, and take it literally13. Let us fight the Soudanese with their own weapons. Their own weapons are large, very clumsy knives, with an occasional old-fashioned gun. Their own weapons are also torture and slavery. If we fight them with torture and slavery, we shall be fighting badly, precisely14 as if we fought them with clumsy knives and old guns. That is the whole strength of our Christian15 civilisation16, that it does fight with its own weapons and not with other people's. It is not true that superiority suggests a tit for tat. It is not true that if a small hooligan puts his tongue out at the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice immediately realises that his only chance of maintaining his position is to put his tongue out at the little hooligan. The hooligan may or may not have any respect at all for the Lord Chief Justice: that is a matter which we may contentedly17 leave as a solemn psychological mystery. But if the hooligan has any respect at all for the Lord Chief Justice, that respect is certainly extended to the Lord Chief Justice entirely18 because he does not put his tongue out.
Exactly in the same way the ruder or more sluggish19 races regard the civilisation of Christendom. If they have any respect for it, it is precisely because it does not use their own coarse and cruel expedients20. According to some modern moralists whenever Zulus cut off the heads of dead Englishmen, Englishmen must cut off the heads of dead Zulus. Whenever Arabs or Egyptians constantly use the whip to their slaves, Englishmen must use the whip to their subjects. And on a similar principle (I suppose), whenever an English Admiral has to fight cannibals the English Admiral ought to eat them. However unattractive a menu consisting entirely of barbaric kings may appear to an English gentleman, he must try to sit down to it with an appetite. He must fight the Sandwich Islanders with their own weapons; and their own weapons are knives and forks. But the truth of the matter is, of course, that to do this kind of thing is to break the whole spell of our supremacy21. All the mystery of the white man, all the fearful poetry of the white man, so far as it exists in the eyes of these savages, consists in the fact that we do not do such things. The Zulus point at us and say, "Observe the advent22 of these inexplicable23 demi-gods, these magicians, who do not cut off the noses of their enemies." The Soudanese say to each other, "This hardy24 people never flogs its servants; it is superior to the simplest and most obvious human pleasures." And the cannibals say, "The austere25 and terrible race, the race that denies itself even boiled missionary26, is upon us: let us flee."
Whether or no[** "not"? or just his style?] these details are a little conjectural27, the general proposition I suggest is the plainest common sense. The elements that make Europe upon the whole the most humanitarian28 civilisation are precisely the elements that make it upon the whole the strongest. For the power which makes a man able to entertain a good impulse is the same as that which enables him to make a good gun; it is imagination. It is imagination that makes a man outwit his enemy, and it is imagination that makes him spare his enemy. It is precisely because this picturing of the other man's point of view is in the main a thing in which Christians29 and Europeans specialise that Christians and Europeans, with all their faults, have carried to such perfection both the arts of peace and war.
They alone have invented machine-guns, and they alone have invented ambulances; they have invented ambulances (strange as it may sound) for the same reason for which they have invented machine-guns. Both involve a vivid calculation of remote events. It is precisely because the East, with all its wisdom, is cruel, that the East, with all its wisdom, is weak. And it is precisely because savages are pitiless that they are still—merely savages. If they could imagine their enemy's sufferings they could also imagine his tactics. If Zulus did not cut off the Englishman's head they might really borrow it. For if you do not understand a man you cannot crush him. And if you do understand him, very probably you will not.
When I was about seven years old I used to think that the chief modern danger was a danger of over-civilisation. I am inclined to think now that the chief modern danger is that of a slow return towards barbarism, just such a return towards barbarism as is indicated in the suggestions of barbaric retaliation30 of which I have just spoken. Civilisation in the best sense merely means the full authority of the human spirit over all externals. Barbarism means the worship of those externals in their crude and unconquered state. Barbarism means the worship of Nature; and in recent poetry, science, and philosophy there has been too much of the worship of Nature. Wherever men begin to talk much and with great solemnity about the forces outside man, the note of it is barbaric. When men talk much about heredity and environment they are almost barbarians32. The modern men of science are many of them almost barbarians. Mr. Blatchford is in great danger of becoming a barbarian31. For barbarians (especially the truly squalid and unhappy barbarians) are always talking about these scientific subjects from morning till night. That is why they remain squalid and unhappy; that is why they remain barbarians. Hottentots are always talking about heredity, like Mr. Blatchford. Sandwich Islanders are always talking about environment, like Mr. Suthers. Savages—those that are truly stunted33 or depraved—dedicate nearly all their tales and sayings to the subject of physical kinship, of a curse on this or that tribe, of a taint34 in this or that family, of the invincible35 law of blood, of the unavoidable evil of places. The true savage11 is a slave, and is always talking about what he must do; the true civilised man is a free man and is always talking about what he may do. Hence all the Zola heredity and Ibsen heredity that has been written in our time affects me as not merely evil, but as essentially36 ignorant and retrogressive. This sort of science is almost the only thing that can with strict propriety37 be called reactionary38. Scientific determinism is simply the primal39 twilight40 of all mankind; and some men seem to be returning to it.
Another savage trait of our time is the disposition41 to talk about material substances instead of about ideas. The old civilisation talked about the sin of gluttony or excess. We talk about the Problem of Drink—as if drink could be a problem. When people have come to call the problem of human intemperance42 the Problem of Drink, and to talk about curing it by attacking the drink traffic, they have reached quite a dim stage of barbarism. The thing is an inverted43 form of fetish worship; it is no sillier to say that a bottle is a god than to say that a bottle is a devil. The people who talk about the curse of drink will probably progress down that dark hill. In a little while we shall have them calling the practice of wife-beating the Problem of Pokers44; the habit of housebreaking will be called the Problem of the Skeleton-Key Trade; and for all I know they may try to prevent forgery45 by shutting up all the stationers' shops by Act of Parliament.
I cannot help thinking that there is some shadow of this uncivilised materialism46 lying at present upon a much more dignified47 and valuable cause. Every one is talking just now about the desirability of ingeminating peace and averting48 war. But even war and peace are physical states rather than moral states, and in talking about them only we have by no means got to the bottom of the matter. How, for instance, do we as a matter of fact create peace in one single community? We do not do it by vaguely49 telling every one to avoid fighting and to submit to anything that is done to him. We do it by definitely defining his rights and then undertaking50 to avenge51 his wrongs. We shall never have a common peace in Europe till we have a common principle in Europe. People talk of "The United States of Europe;" but they forget that it needed the very doctrinal "Declaration of Independence" to make the United States of America. You cannot agree about nothing any more than you can quarrel about nothing.
点击收听单词发音
1 franchise | |
n.特许,特权,专营权,特许权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 robin | |
n.知更鸟,红襟鸟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 hood | |
n.头巾,兜帽,覆盖;v.罩上,以头巾覆盖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 groove | |
n.沟,槽;凹线,(刻出的)线条,习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 grooves | |
n.沟( groove的名词复数 );槽;老一套;(某种)音乐节奏v.沟( groove的第三人称单数 );槽;老一套;(某种)音乐节奏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 simile | |
n.直喻,明喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 monologue | |
n.长篇大论,(戏剧等中的)独白 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 savages | |
未开化的人,野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 metaphor | |
n.隐喻,暗喻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 civilisation | |
n.文明,文化,开化,教化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 contentedly | |
adv.心满意足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 sluggish | |
adj.懒惰的,迟钝的,无精打采的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 expedients | |
n.应急有效的,权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 advent | |
n.(重要事件等的)到来,来临 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 inexplicable | |
adj.无法解释的,难理解的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 hardy | |
adj.勇敢的,果断的,吃苦的;耐寒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 austere | |
adj.艰苦的;朴素的,朴实无华的;严峻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 missionary | |
adj.教会的,传教(士)的;n.传教士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 conjectural | |
adj.推测的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 humanitarian | |
n.人道主义者,博爱者,基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 retaliation | |
n.报复,反击 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 barbarian | |
n.野蛮人;adj.野蛮(人)的;未开化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 barbarians | |
n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 );外国人;粗野的人;无教养的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 stunted | |
adj.矮小的;发育迟缓的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 taint | |
n.污点;感染;腐坏;v.使感染;污染 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 invincible | |
adj.不可征服的,难以制服的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 reactionary | |
n.反动者,反动主义者;adj.反动的,反动主义的,反对改革的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 primal | |
adj.原始的;最重要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 twilight | |
n.暮光,黄昏;暮年,晚期,衰落时期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 intemperance | |
n.放纵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 inverted | |
adj.反向的,倒转的v.使倒置,使反转( invert的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 pokers | |
n.拨火铁棒( poker的名词复数 );纸牌;扑克;(通常指人)(坐或站得)直挺挺的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 forgery | |
n.伪造的文件等,赝品,伪造(行为) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 materialism | |
n.[哲]唯物主义,唯物论;物质至上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 averting | |
防止,避免( avert的现在分词 ); 转移 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 vaguely | |
adv.含糊地,暖昧地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 undertaking | |
n.保证,许诺,事业 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 avenge | |
v.为...复仇,为...报仇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |