orthodoxy- 第18部分

worth　answering　intelligently；　he　is　saying　that　no　good　son



should　warn　his　mother　off　a　cliff　until　she　has　fallen　over　it。　



But　there　is　an　anti…patriot　who　honestly　angers　honest　men；



and　the　explanation　of　him　is；　I　think；　what　I　have　suggested：　



he　is　the　uncandid　candid　friend；　the　man　who　says；　〃I　am　sorry



to　say　we　are　ruined；〃　and　is　not　sorry　at　all。　　And　he　may　be　said；



without　rhetoric；　to　be　a　traitor；　for　he　is　using　that　ugly　knowledge



which　was　allowed　him　to　strengthen　the　army；　to　discourage　people



from　joining　it。　　Because　he　is　allowed　to　be　pessimistic　as　a



military　adviser　he　is　being　pessimistic　as　a　recruiting　sergeant。　



Just　in　the　same　way　the　pessimist　（who　is　the　cosmic　anti…patriot）



uses　the　freedom　that　life　allows　to　her　counsellors　to　lure　away



the　people　from　her　flag。　　Granted　that　he　states　only　facts；　it　is



still　essential　to　know　what　are　his　emotions；　what　is　his　motive。　



It　may　be　that　twelve　hundred　men　in　Tottenham　are　down　with　smallpox；



but　we　want　to　know　whether　this　is　stated　by　some　great　philosopher



who　wants　to　curse　the　gods；　or　only　by　some　common　clergyman　who　wants



to　help　the　men。







　　　　　The　evil　of　the　pessimist　is；　then；　not　that　he　chastises　gods



and　men；　but　that　he　does　not　love　what　he　chastiseshe　has　not



this　primary　and　supernatural　loyalty　to　things。　　What　is　the　evil



of　the　man　commonly　called　an　optimist？　　Obviously；　it　is　felt



that　the　optimist；　wishing　to　defend　the　honour　of　this　world；



will　defend　the　indefensible。　　He　is　the　jingo　of　the　universe；



he　will　say；　〃My　cosmos；　right　or　wrong。〃　　He　will　be　less　inclined



to　the　reform　of　things；　more　inclined　to　a　sort　of　front…bench



official　answer　to　all　attacks；　soothing　every　one　with　assurances。　



He　will　not　wash　the　world；　but　whitewash　the　world。　　All　this



（which　is　true　of　a　type　of　optimist）　leads　us　to　the　one　really



interesting　point　of　psychology；　which　could　not　be　explained



without　it。







　　　　　We　say　there　must　be　a　primal　loyalty　to　life：　　the　only



question　is；　shall　it　be　a　natural　or　a　supernatural　loyalty？　



If　you　like　to　put　it　so；　shall　it　be　a　reasonable　or　an



unreasonable　loyalty？　　Now；　the　extraordinary　thing　is　that　the



bad　optimism　（the　whitewashing；　the　weak　defence　of　everything）



comes　in　with　the　reasonable　optimism。　　Rational　optimism　leads



to　stagnation：　　it　is　irrational　optimism　that　leads　to　reform。　



Let　me　explain　by　using　once　more　the　parallel　of　patriotism。　



The　man　who　is　most　likely　to　ruin　the　place　he　loves　is　exactly



the　man　who　loves　it　with　a　reason。　　The　man　who　will　improve



the　place　is　the　man　who　loves　it　without　a　reason。　　If　a　man　loves



some　feature　of　Pimlico　（which　seems　unlikely）；　he　may　find　himself



defending　that　feature　against　Pimlico　itself。　　But　if　he　simply　loves



Pimlico　itself；　he　may　lay　it　waste　and　turn　it　into　the　New　Jerusalem。　



I　do　not　deny　that　reform　may　be　excessive；　I　only　say　that　it　is　the



mystic　patriot　who　reforms。　　Mere　jingo　self…contentment　is　commonest



among　those　who　have　some　pedantic　reason　for　their　patriotism。　



The　worst　jingoes　do　not　love　England；　but　a　theory　of　England。　



If　we　love　England　for　being　an　empire；　we　may　overrate　the　success



with　which　we　rule　the　Hindoos。　　But　if　we　love　it　only　for　being



a　nation；　we　can　face　all　events：　　for　it　would　be　a　nation　even



if　the　Hindoos　ruled　us。　　Thus　also　only　those　will　permit　their



patriotism　to　falsify　history　whose　patriotism　depends　on　history。　



A　man　who　loves　England　for　being　English　will　not　mind　how　she　arose。　



But　a　man　who　loves　England　for　being　Anglo…Saxon　may　go　against



all　facts　for　his　fancy。　　He　may　end　（like　Carlyle　and　Freeman）



by　maintaining　that　the　Norman　Conquest　was　a　Saxon　Conquest。　



He　may　end　in　utter　unreasonbecause　he　has　a　reason。　　A　man　who



loves　France　for　being　military　will　palliate　the　army　of　1870。　



But　a　man　who　loves　France　for　being　France　will　improve　the　army



of　1870。　　This　is　exactly　what　the　French　have　done；　and　France　is



a　good　instance　of　the　working　paradox。　　Nowhere　else　is　patriotism



more　purely　abstract　and　arbitrary；　and　nowhere　else　is　reform　more



drastic　and　sweeping。　　The　more　transcendental　is　your　patriotism；



the　more　practical　are　your　politics。







　　　　　Perhaps　the　most　everyday　instance　of　this　point　is　in　the　case



of　women；　and　their　strange　and　strong　loyalty。　　Some　stupid　people



started　the　idea　that　because　women　obviously　back　up　their　own



people　through　everything；　therefore　women　are　blind　and　do　not



see　anything。　　They　can　hardly　have　known　any　women。　　The　same　women



who　are　ready　to　defend　their　men　through　thick　and　thin　are　（in



their　personal　intercourse　with　the　man）　almost　morbidly　lucid



about　the　thinness　of　his　excuses　or　the　thickness　of　his　head。　



A　man's　friend　likes　him　but　leaves　him　as　he　is：　　his　wife　loves　him



and　is　always　trying　to　turn　him　into　somebody　else。　　Women　who　are



utter　mystics　in　their　creed　are　utter　cynics　in　their　criticism。　



Thackeray　expressed　this　well　when　he　made　Pendennis'　mother；



who　worshipped　her　son　as　a　god；　yet　assume　that　he　would　go　wrong



as　a　man。　　She　underrated　his　virtue；　though　she　overrated　his　value。　



The　devotee　is　entirely　free　to　criticise；　the　fanatic　can　safely



be　a　sceptic。　　Love　is　not　blind；　that　is　the　last　thing　that　it　is。　



Love　is　bound；　and　the　more　it　is　bound　the　less　it　is　blind。







　　　　　This　at　least　had　come　to　be　my　position　about　all　that



was　called　optimism；　pessimism；　and　improvement。　　Before　any



cosmic　act　of　reform　we　must　have　a　cosmic　oath　of　allegiance。　



A　man　must　be　interested　in　life；　then　he　could　be　disinterested



in　his　views　of　it。　　〃My　son　give　me　thy　heart〃；　the　heart　must



be　fixed　on　the　right　thing：　　the　moment　we　have　a　fixed　heart　we



have　a　free　hand。　　I　must　pause　to　anticipate　an　obvious　criticism。　



It　will　be　said　that　a　rational　person　accepts　the　world　as　mixed



of　good　and　evil　with　a　decent　satisfaction　and　a　decent　endurance。　



But　this　is　exactly　the　attitude　which　I　maintain　to　be　defective。　



It　is；　I　know；　very　common　in　this　age；　it　was　perfectly　put　in　those



quiet　lines　of　Matthew　Arnold　which　are　more　piercingly　blasphemous



than　the　shrieks　of　Schopenhauer







〃Enough　we　live：and　if　a　life；　With　large　results　so　little　rife；



Though　bearable；　seem　hardly　worth　This　pomp　of　worlds；　this　pain



of　birth。〃







　　　　　I　know　this　feeling　fills　our　epoch；　and　I　think　it　freezes



our　epoch。　　For　our　Titanic　purposes　of　faith　and　revolution；



what　we　need　is　not　the　cold　acceptance　of　the　world　as　a　compromise；



but　some　way　in　which　we　can　heartily　hate　and　heartily　love　it。　



We　do　not　want　joy　and　anger　to　neutralize　each　other　and　produce　a



surly　contentment；　we　want　a　fiercer　delight　and　a　fiercer　discontent。　



We　have　to　feel　the　universe　at　once　as　an　ogre's　castle；



to　be　stormed；　and　yet　as　our　own　cottage；　to　which　we　can　return



at　evening。







　　　　　No　one　doubts　that　an　ordinary　man　can　get　on　with　this　world：　



but　we　demand　not　strength　enough　to　get　on　with　it；　but　strength



enough　to　get　it　on。　　Can　he　hate　it　enough　to　change　it；



and　yet　love　it　enough　to　think　it　worth　changing？　　Can　he　look



up　at　its　colossal　good　without　once　feeling　acquiescence？　



Can　he　look　up　at　its　colossal　evil　without　once　feeling　despair？　



Can　he；　in　short；　be　at　once　not　only　a　pessimist　and　an　optimist；



but　a　fanatical　pessimist　and　a　fanatical　optimist？　　Is　he　enough　of　a



pagan　to　die　for　the　world；　and　enough　of　a　Christian　to　die　to　it？　



In　this　combination；　I　maintain；　it　is　the　rational　optimist　who　fails；



the　irrational　optimist　who　succeeds。　　He　is　ready　to　smash　the　whole



universe　for　the　sake　of　itself。







　　　　　I　put　these　things　not　in　their　mature　logical　sequence；　but　as



they　came：　　and　this　view　was　cleared　and　sharpened　by　an　accident



of　the　time。　　Under　the　lengthening　shadow　of　Ibsen；　an　argument



arose　whether　it　was　not　a　very　nice　thing　to　murder　one's　self。　



Grave　moderns　told　us　that　we　must　not　even　say　〃poor　fellow；〃



of　a　man　who　had　blown　his　brains　out；　since　he　was　an　enviable　person；



and　had　only　blown　them　out　because　of　their　exceptional　excellence。　



Mr。　William　Archer　even　suggested　that　in　the　golden　age　there



would　be　penny…in…the…slot　machines；　by　which　a　man　could　kill



himself　for　a　penny。　　In　all　this　I　found　myself　utterly　hostile



to　many　who　called　themselves　liberal　and　humane。