ORTHODOXY

by
G. K. CHESTERTON
JOHN LANE
THE BODLEY HEAD LTD
First published in.................................................. 1908
Reprinted................................................................ 1908
Reprinted................................................................ 1909
Reprinted................................................................ 1911
Reprinted................................................................ 1915
Reprinted................................................................ 1919
Reprinted................................................................ 1921
Reprinted................................................................ 1924
Reprinted................................................................ 1926
First published in "The Week-End Library" in 1927
Reprinted................................................................ 1934
MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND
SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.
TO MY MOTHER
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. Introduction in Defence of Everything Else
CHAPTER II. The Maniac
CHAPTER III. The Suicide of Thought
CHAPTER IV The Ethics of Elfland
CHAPTER V. The lag of the !orld
CHAPTER VI. The "arado#es of Christianity
CHAPTER VII. The Eternal Revolution
CHAPTER VIII. The Ro$ance of Orthodo#y
CHAPTER IX. %uthority and the %dventurer
CHAPTER I.Introduction in Defence of Everything
Else
The only possible excuse for this book is that it is an anser to a challen!e.
"#en a ba$ shot is $i!nifie$ hen he accepts a $uel. %hen so&e ti&e a!o '
publishe$ a series of hasty but sincere papers( un$er the na&e of )*eretics()
se#eral critics for hose intellect ' ha#e a ar& respect +' &ay &ention
specially ,r. -... .treet/ sai$ that it as all #ery ell for &e to tell
e#erybo$y to affir& his cos&ic theory( but that ' ha$ carefully a#oi$e$
supportin! &y precepts ith exa&ple. )' ill be!in to orry about &y
philosophy() sai$ ,r. .treet( )hen ,r. 0hesterton has !i#en us his.) 't as
perhaps an incautious su!!estion to &ake to a person only too rea$y to rite
books upon the feeblest pro#ocation. 1ut after all( thou!h ,r. .treet has
inspire$ an$ create$ this book( he nee$ not rea$ it. 'f he $oes rea$ it( he ill
fin$ that in its pa!es ' ha#e atte&pte$ in a #a!ue an$ personal ay( in a set of
&ental pictures rather than in a series of $e$uctions( to state the philosophy in
hich ' ha#e co&e to belie#e. ' ill not call it &y philosophy2 for ' $i$ not
&ake it. -o$ an$ hu&anity &a$e it2 an$ it &a$e &e.
' ha#e often ha$ a fancy for ritin! a ro&ance about an "n!lish yachts&an
ho sli!htly &iscalculate$ his course an$ $isco#ere$ "n!lan$ un$er the
i&pression that it as a ne islan$ in the .outh .eas. ' alays fin$( hoe#er(
that ' a& either too busy or too la3y to rite this fine ork( so ' &ay as ell
!i#e it aay for the purposes of philosophical illustration. There ill probably
be a !eneral i&pression that the &an ho lan$e$ +ar&e$ to the teeth an$
talkin! by si!ns/ to plant the 1ritish fla! on that barbaric te&ple hich turne$
out to be the 4a#ilion at 1ri!hton( felt rather a fool. ' a& not here concerne$ to
$eny that he looke$ a fool. 1ut if you i&a!ine that he felt a fool( or at any rate
that the sense of folly as his sole or his $o&inant e&otion( then you ha#e not
stu$ie$ ith sufficient $elicacy the rich ro&antic nature of the hero of this
tale. *is &istake as really a &ost en#iable &istake2 an$ he kne it( if he as
the &an ' take hi& for. %hat coul$ be &ore $eli!htful than to ha#e in the
sa&e fe &inutes all the fascinatin! terrors of !oin! abroa$ co&bine$ ith all
the hu&ane security of co&in! ho&e a!ain5 %hat coul$ be better than to ha#e
all the fun of $isco#erin! .outh 6frica ithout the $is!ustin! necessity of
lan$in! there5 %hat coul$ be &ore !lorious than to brace one7s self up to
$isco#er 8e .outh %ales an$ then reali3e( ith a !ush of happy tears( that it
as really ol$ .outh %ales. This at least see&s to &e the &ain proble& for
philosophers( an$ is in a &anner the &ain proble& of this book. *o can e
contri#e to be at once astonishe$ at the orl$ an$ yet at ho&e in it5 *o can
this 9ueer cos&ic ton( ith its &any:le!!e$ citi3ens( ith its &onstrous an$
ancient la&ps( ho can this orl$ !i#e us at once the fascination of a stran!e
ton an$ the co&fort an$ honour of bein! our on ton5 To sho that a faith
or a philosophy is true fro& e#ery stan$point oul$ be too bi! an un$ertakin!
e#en for a &uch bi!!er book than this2 it is necessary to follo one path of
ar!u&ent2 an$ this is the path that ' here propose to follo. ' ish to set forth
&y faith as particularly anserin! this $ouble spiritual nee$( the nee$ for that
&ixture of the fa&iliar an$ the unfa&iliar hich 0hristen$o& has ri!htly
na&e$ ro&ance. ;or the #ery or$ )ro&ance) has in it the &ystery an$
ancient &eanin! of <o&e. 6ny one settin! out to $ispute anythin! ou!ht
alays to be!in by sayin! hat he $oes not $ispute. 1eyon$ statin! hat he
proposes to pro#e he shoul$ alays state hat he $oes not propose to pro#e.
The thin! ' $o not propose to pro#e( the thin! ' propose to take as co&&on
!roun$ beteen &yself an$ any a#era!e rea$er( is this $esirability of an acti#e
an$ i&a!inati#e life( pictures9ue an$ full of a poetical curiosity( a life such as
estern &an at any rate alays see&s to ha#e $esire$. 'f a &an says that
extinction is better than existence or blank existence better than #ariety an$
a$#enture( then he is not one of the or$inary people to ho& ' a& talkin!. 'f a
&an prefers nothin! ' can !i#e hi& nothin!. 1ut nearly all people ' ha#e e#er
&et in this estern society in hich ' li#e oul$ a!ree to the !eneral
proposition that e nee$ this life of practical ro&ance2 the co&bination of
so&ethin! that is stran!e ith so&ethin! that is secure. %e nee$ so to #ie
the orl$ as to co&bine an i$ea of on$er an$ an i$ea of elco&e. %e nee$
to be happy in this on$erlan$ ithout once bein! &erely co&fortable. 't
is this achie#e&ent of &y cree$ that ' shall chiefly pursue in these pa!es.
1ut ' ha#e a peculiar reason for &entionin! the &an in a yacht( ho
$isco#ere$ "n!lan$. ;or ' a& that &an in a yacht. ' $isco#ere$ "n!lan$. ' $o
not see ho this book can a#oi$ bein! e!otistical2 an$ ' $o not 9uite see +to
tell the truth/ ho it can a#oi$ bein! $ull. =ullness ill( hoe#er( free &e
fro& the char!e hich ' &ost la&ent2 the char!e of bein! flippant. ,ere li!ht
sophistry is the thin! that ' happen to $espise &ost of all thin!s( an$ it is
perhaps a holeso&e fact that this is the thin! of hich ' a& !enerally
accuse$. ' kno nothin! so conte&ptible as a &ere para$ox2 a &ere in!enious
$efence of the in$efensible. 'f it ere true +as has been sai$/ that ,r. 1ernar$
.ha li#e$ upon para$ox( then he ou!ht to be a &ere co&&on &illionaire2 for
a &an of his &ental acti#ity coul$ in#ent a sophistry e#ery six &inutes. 't is as
easy as lyin!2 because it is lyin!. The truth is( of course( that ,r. .ha is
cruelly ha&pere$ by the fact that he cannot tell any lie unless he thinks it is
the truth. ' fin$ &yself un$er the sa&e intolerable bon$a!e. ' ne#er in &y life
sai$ anythin! &erely because ' thou!ht it funny2 thou!h( of course( ' ha#e ha$
or$inary hu&an #ain:!lory( an$ &ay ha#e thou!ht it funny because ' ha$ sai$
it. 't is one thin! to $escribe an inter#ie ith a !or!on or a !riffin( a creature
ho $oes not exist. 't is another thin! to $isco#er that the rhinoceros $oes
exist an$ then take pleasure in the fact that he looks as if he $i$n7t. >ne
searches for truth( but it &ay be that one pursues instincti#ely the &ore
extraor$inary truths. 6n$ ' offer this book ith the heartiest senti&ents to all
the ?olly people ho hate hat ' rite( an$ re!ar$ it +#ery ?ustly( for all '
kno/( as a piece of poor clonin! or a sin!le tireso&e ?oke.
;or if this book is a ?oke it is a ?oke a!ainst &e. ' a& the &an ho ith the
ut&ost $arin! $isco#ere$ hat ha$ been $isco#ere$ before. 'f there is an
ele&ent of farce in hat follos( the farce is at &y on expense2 for this book
explains ho ' fancie$ ' as the first to set foot in 1ri!hton an$ then foun$ '
as the last. 't recounts &y elephantine a$#entures in pursuit of the ob#ious.
8o one can think &y case &ore lu$icrous than ' think it &yself2 no rea$er can
accuse &e here of tryin! to &ake a fool of hi&@ ' a& the fool of this story( an$
no rebel shall hurl &e fro& &y throne. ' freely confess all the i$iotic
a&bitions of the en$ of the nineteenth century. ' $i$( like all other sole&n little
boys( try to be in a$#ance of the a!e. Aike the& ' trie$ to be so&e ten &inutes
in a$#ance of the truth. 6n$ ' foun$ that ' as ei!hteen hun$re$ years behin$
it. ' $i$ strain &y #oice ith a painfully ?u#enile exa!!eration in utterin! &y
truths. 6n$ ' as punishe$ in the fittest an$ funniest ay( for ' ha#e kept &y
truths@ but ' ha#e $isco#ere$( not that they ere not truths( but si&ply that
they ere not &ine. %hen ' fancie$ that ' stoo$ alone ' as really in the
ri$iculous position of bein! backe$ up by all 0hristen$o&. 't &ay be( *ea#en
for!i#e &e( that ' $i$ try to be ori!inal2 but ' only succee$e$ in in#entin! all
by &yself an inferior copy of the existin! tra$itions of ci#ili3e$ reli!ion. The
&an fro& the yacht thou!ht he as the first to fin$ "n!lan$2 ' thou!ht ' as
the first to fin$ "urope. ' $i$ try to foun$ a heresy of &y on2 an$ hen ' ha$
put the last touches to it( ' $isco#ere$ that it as ortho$oxy.
't &ay be that so&ebo$y ill be entertaine$ by the account of this happy
fiasco. 't &i!ht a&use a frien$ or an ene&y to rea$ ho ' !ra$ually learnt
fro& the truth of so&e stray le!en$ or fro& the falsehoo$ of so&e $o&inant
philosophy( thin!s that ' &i!ht ha#e learnt fro& &y catechis&Bif ' ha$ e#er
learnt it. There &ay or &ay not be so&e entertain&ent in rea$in! ho ' foun$
at last in an anarchist club or a 1abylonian te&ple hat ' &i!ht ha#e foun$ in
the nearest parish church. 'f any one is entertaine$ by learnin! ho the
floers of the fiel$ or the phrases in an o&nibus( the acci$ents of politics or
the pains of youth ca&e to!ether in a certain or$er to pro$uce a certain
con#iction of 0hristian ortho$oxy( he &ay possibly rea$ this book. 1ut there
is in e#erythin! a reasonable $i#ision of labour. ' ha#e ritten the book( an$
nothin! on earth oul$ in$uce &e to rea$ it.
' a$$ one purely pe$antic note hich co&es( as a note naturally shoul$( at the
be!innin! of the book. These essays are concerne$ only to $iscuss the actual
fact that the central 0hristian theolo!y +sufficiently su&&ari3e$ in the
6postles7 0ree$/ is the best root of ener!y an$ soun$ ethics. They are not
inten$e$ to $iscuss the #ery fascinatin! but 9uite $ifferent 9uestion of hat is
the present seat of authority for the procla&ation of that cree$. %hen the or$
)ortho$oxy) is use$ here it &eans the 6postles7 0ree$( as un$erstoo$ by
e#erybo$y callin! hi&self 0hristian until a #ery short ti&e a!o an$ the !eneral
historic con$uct of those ho hel$ such a cree$. ' ha#e been force$ by &ere
space to confine &yself to hat ' ha#e !ot fro& this cree$2 ' $o not touch the
&atter &uch $ispute$ a&on! &o$ern 0hristians( of here e oursel#es !ot it.
This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slo#enly autobio!raphy. 1ut
if any one ants &y opinions about the actual nature of the authority( ,r. -...
.treet has only to thro &e another challen!e( an$ ' ill rite hi& another
book.
CHAPTER II.The Maniac
Thorou!hly orl$ly people ne#er un$erstan$ e#en the orl$2 they rely
alto!ether on a fe cynical &axi&s hich are not true. >nce ' re&e&ber
alkin! ith a prosperous publisher( ho &a$e a re&ark hich ' ha$ often
hear$ before2 it is( in$ee$( al&ost a &otto of the &o$ern orl$. Cet ' ha$
hear$ it once too often( an$ ' sa su$$enly that there as nothin! in it. The
publisher sai$ of so&ebo$y( )That &an ill !et on2 he belie#es in hi&self.)
6n$ ' re&e&ber that as ' lifte$ &y hea$ to listen( &y eye cau!ht an o&nibus
on hich as ritten )*anell.) ' sai$ to hi&( ).hall ' tell you here the
&en are ho belie#e &ost in the&sel#es5 ;or ' can tell you. ' kno of &en
ho belie#e in the&sel#es &ore colossally than 8apoleon or 0aesar. ' kno
here fla&es the fixe$ star of certainty an$ success. ' can !ui$e you to the
thrones of the .uper:&en. The &en ho really belie#e in the&sel#es are all in
lunatic asylu&s.) *e sai$ &il$ly that there ere a !oo$ &any &en after all
ho belie#e$ in the&sel#es an$ ho ere not in lunatic asylu&s. )Ces( there
are() ' retorte$( )an$ you of all &en ou!ht to kno the&. That $runken poet
fro& ho& you oul$ not take a $reary tra!e$y( he belie#e$ in hi&self. That
el$erly &inister ith an epic fro& ho& you ere hi$in! in a back roo&( he
belie#e$ in hi&self. 'f you consulte$ your business experience instea$ of your
u!ly in$i#i$ualistic philosophy( you oul$ kno that belie#in! in hi&self is
one of the co&&onest si!ns of a rotter. 6ctors ho can7t act belie#e in
the&sel#es2 an$ $ebtors ho on7t pay. 't oul$ be &uch truer to say that a
&an ill certainly fail because he belie#es in hi&self. 0o&plete self:
confi$ence is not &erely a sin2 co&plete self:confi$ence is a eakness.
1elie#in! utterly in one7s self is a hysterical an$ superstitious belief like
belie#in! in Doanna .outhcote@ the &an ho has it has 7*anell7 ritten on his
face as plain as it is ritten on that o&nibus.) 6n$ to all this &y frien$ the
publisher &a$e this #ery $eep an$ effecti#e reply( )%ell( if a &an is not to
belie#e in hi&self( in hat is he to belie#e5) 6fter a lon! pause ' replie$( )'
ill !o ho&e an$ rite a book in anser to that 9uestion.) This is the book
that ' ha#e ritten in anser to it.
1ut ' think this book &ay ell start here our ar!u&ent starte$Bin the
nei!hbourhoo$ of the &a$:house. ,o$ern &asters of science are &uch
i&presse$ ith the nee$ of be!innin! all in9uiry ith a fact. The ancient
&asters of reli!ion ere 9uite e9ually i&presse$ ith that necessity. They
be!an ith the fact of sinBa fact as practical as potatoes. %hether or no &an
coul$ be ashe$ in &iraculous aters( there as no $oubt at any rate that he
ante$ ashin!. 1ut certain reli!ious lea$ers in Aon$on( not &ere
&aterialists( ha#e be!un in our $ay not to $eny the hi!hly $isputable ater(
but to $eny the in$isputable $irt. 0ertain ne theolo!ians $ispute ori!inal sin(
hich is the only part of 0hristian theolo!y hich can really be pro#e$. .o&e
folloers of the <e#eren$ <.D. 0a&pbell( in their al&ost too fasti$ious
spirituality( a$&it $i#ine sinlessness( hich they cannot see e#en in their
$rea&s. 1ut they essentially $eny hu&an sin( hich they can see in the street.
The stron!est saints an$ the stron!est sceptics alike took positi#e e#il as the
startin!:point of their ar!u&ent. 'f it be true +as it certainly is/ that a &an can
feel ex9uisite happiness in skinnin! a cat( then the reli!ious philosopher can
only $ra one of to $e$uctions. *e &ust either $eny the existence of -o$(
as all atheists $o2 or he &ust $eny the present union beteen -o$ an$ &an( as
all 0hristians $o. The ne theolo!ians see& to think it a hi!hly rationalistic
solution to $eny the cat.
'n this re&arkable situation it is plainly not no possible +ith any hope of a
uni#ersal appeal/ to start( as our fathers $i$( ith the fact of sin. This #ery fact
hich as to the& +an$ is to &e/ as plain as a pikestaff( is the #ery fact that
has been specially $ilute$ or $enie$. 1ut thou!h &o$erns $eny the existence
of sin( ' $o not think that they ha#e yet $enie$ the existence of a lunatic
asylu&. %e all a!ree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as
un&istakable as a fallin! house. ,en $eny hell( but not( as yet( *anell. ;or
the purpose of our pri&ary ar!u&ent the one &ay #ery ell stan$ here the
other stoo$. ' &ean that as all thou!hts an$ theories ere once ?u$!e$ by
hether they ten$e$ to &ake a &an lose his soul( so for our present purpose
all &o$ern thou!hts an$ theories &ay be ?u$!e$ by hether they ten$ to &ake
a &an lose his its.
't is true that so&e speak li!htly an$ loosely of insanity as in itself attracti#e.
1ut a &o&ent7s thou!ht ill sho that if $isease is beautiful( it is !enerally
so&e one else7s $isease. 6 blin$ &an &ay be pictures9ue2 but it re9uires to
eyes to see the picture. 6n$ si&ilarly e#en the il$est poetry of insanity can
only be en?oye$ by the sane. To the insane &an his insanity is 9uite prosaic(
because it is 9uite true. 6 &an ho thinks hi&self a chicken is to hi&self as
or$inary as a chicken. 6 &an ho thinks he is a bit of !lass is to hi&self as
$ull as a bit of !lass. 't is the ho&o!eneity of his &in$ hich &akes hi& $ull(
an$ hich &akes hi& &a$. 't is only because e see the irony of his i$ea that
e think hi& e#en a&usin!2 it is only because he $oes not see the irony of his
i$ea that he is put in *anell at all. 'n short( o$$ities only strike or$inary
people. >$$ities $o not strike o$$ people. This is hy or$inary people ha#e a
&uch &ore excitin! ti&e2 hile o$$ people are alays co&plainin! of the
$ulness of life. This is also hy the ne no#els $ie so 9uickly( an$ hy the
ol$ fairy tales en$ure for e#er. The ol$ fairy tale &akes the hero a nor&al
hu&an boy2 it is his a$#entures that are startlin!2 they startle hi& because he is
nor&al. 1ut in the &o$ern psycholo!ical no#el the hero is abnor&al2 the
centre is not central. *ence the fiercest a$#entures fail to affect hi&
a$e9uately( an$ the book is &onotonous. Cou can &ake a story out of a hero
a&on! $ra!ons2 but not out of a $ra!on a&on! $ra!ons. The fairy tale
$iscusses hat a sane &an ill $o in a &a$ orl$. The sober realistic no#el of
to:$ay $iscusses hat an essential lunatic ill $o in a $ull orl$.
Aet us be!in( then( ith the &a$:house2 fro& this e#il an$ fantastic inn let us
set forth on our intellectual ?ourney. 8o( if e are to !lance at the philosophy
of sanity( the first thin! to $o in the &atter is to blot out one bi! an$ co&&on
&istake. There is a notion a$rift e#eryhere that i&a!ination( especially
&ystical i&a!ination( is $an!erous to &an7s &ental balance. 4oets are
co&&only spoken of as psycholo!ically unreliable2 an$ !enerally there is a
#a!ue association beteen reathin! laurels in your hair an$ stickin! stras
in it. ;acts an$ history utterly contra$ict this #ie. ,ost of the #ery !reat
poets ha#e been not only sane( but extre&ely business:like2 an$ if
.hakespeare e#er really hel$ horses( it as because he as &uch the safest
&an to hol$ the&. '&a!ination $oes not bree$ insanity. "xactly hat $oes
bree$ insanity is reason. 4oets $o not !o &a$2 but chess:players $o.
,athe&aticians !o &a$( an$ cashiers2 but creati#e artists #ery sel$o&. ' a&
not( as ill be seen( in any sense attackin! lo!ic@ ' only say that this $an!er
$oes lie in lo!ic( not in i&a!ination. 6rtistic paternity is as holeso&e as
physical paternity. ,oreo#er( it is orthy of re&ark that hen a poet really
as &orbi$ it as co&&only because he ha$ so&e eak spot of rationality on
his brain. 4oe( for instance( really as &orbi$2 not because he as poetical(
but because he as specially analytical. "#en chess as too poetical for hi&2
he $islike$ chess because it as full of kni!hts an$ castles( like a poe&. *e
a#oe$ly preferre$ the black $iscs of $rau!hts( because they ere &ore like
the &ere black $ots on a $ia!ra&. 4erhaps the stron!est case of all is this@ that
only one !reat "n!lish poet ent &a$( 0oper. 6n$ he as $efinitely $ri#en
&a$ by lo!ic( by the u!ly an$ alien lo!ic of pre$estination. 4oetry as not the
$isease( but the &e$icine2 poetry partly kept hi& in health. *e coul$
so&eti&es for!et the re$ an$ thirsty hell to hich his hi$eous necessitarianis&
$ra!!e$ hi& a&on! the i$e aters an$ the hite flat lilies of the >use. *e
as $a&ne$ by Dohn 0al#in2 he as al&ost sa#e$ by Dohn -ilpin.
"#eryhere e see that &en $o not !o &a$ by $rea&in!. 0ritics are &uch
&a$$er than poets. *o&er is co&plete an$ cal& enou!h2 it is his critics ho
tear hi& into extra#a!ant tatters. .hakespeare is 9uite hi&self2 it is only so&e
of his critics ho ha#e $isco#ere$ that he as so&ebo$y else. 6n$ thou!h .t.
Dohn the "#an!elist sa &any stran!e &onsters in his #ision( he sa no
creature so il$ as one of his on co&&entators. The !eneral fact is si&ple.
4oetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea2 reason seeks to cross
the infinite sea( an$ so &ake it finite. The result is &ental exhaustion( like the
physical exhaustion of ,r. *olbein. To accept e#erythin! is an exercise( to
un$erstan$ e#erythin! a strain. The poet only $esires exaltation an$
expansion( a orl$ to stretch hi&self in. The poet only asks to !et his hea$
into the hea#ens. 't is the lo!ician ho seeks to !et the hea#ens into his hea$.
6n$ it is his hea$ that splits.
't is a s&all &atter( but not irrele#ant( that this strikin! &istake is co&&only
supporte$ by a strikin! &is9uotation. %e ha#e all hear$ people cite the
celebrate$ line of =ry$en as )-reat !enius is to &a$ness near allie$.) 1ut
=ry$en $i$ not say that !reat !enius as to &a$ness near allie$. =ry$en as a
!reat !enius hi&self( an$ kne better. 't oul$ ha#e been har$ to fin$ a &an
&ore ro&antic than he( or &ore sensible. %hat =ry$en sai$ as this( )-reat
its are oft to &a$ness near allie$)2 an$ that is true. 't is the pure pro&ptitu$e
of the intellect that is in peril of a break$on. 6lso people &i!ht re&e&ber of
hat sort of &an =ry$en as talkin!. *e as not talkin! of any unorl$ly
#isionary like Eau!han or -eor!e *erbert. *e as talkin! of a cynical &an of
the orl$( a sceptic( a $iplo&atist( a !reat practical politician. .uch &en are
in$ee$ to &a$ness near allie$. Their incessant calculation of their on brains
an$ other people7s brains is a $an!erous tra$e. 't is alays perilous to the &in$
to reckon up the &in$. 6 flippant person has aske$ hy e say( )6s &a$ as a
hatter.) 6 &ore flippant person &i!ht anser that a hatter is &a$ because he
has to &easure the hu&an hea$.
6n$ if !reat reasoners are often &aniacal( it is e9ually true that &aniacs are
co&&only !reat reasoners. %hen ' as en!a!e$ in a contro#ersy ith
the Clarion on the &atter of free ill( that able riter ,r. <.1. .uthers sai$
that free ill as lunacy( because it &eant causeless actions( an$ the actions
of a lunatic oul$ be causeless. ' $o not $ell here upon the $isastrous lapse
in $eter&inist lo!ic. >b#iously if any actions( e#en a lunatic7s( can be
causeless( $eter&inis& is $one for. 'f the chain of causation can be broken for
a &a$&an( it can be broken for a &an. 1ut &y purpose is to point out
so&ethin! &ore practical. 't as natural( perhaps( that a &o$ern ,arxian
.ocialist shoul$ not kno anythin! about free ill. 1ut it as certainly
re&arkable that a &o$ern ,arxian .ocialist shoul$ not kno anythin! about
lunatics. ,r. .uthers e#i$ently $i$ not kno anythin! about lunatics. The last
thin! that can be sai$ of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. 'f any
hu&an acts &ay loosely be calle$ causeless( they are the &inor acts of a
healthy &an2 histlin! as he alks2 slashin! the !rass ith a stick2 kickin! his
heels or rubbin! his han$s. 't is the happy &an ho $oes the useless thin!s2
the sick &an is not stron! enou!h to be i$le. 't is exactly such careless an$
causeless actions that the &a$&an coul$ ne#er un$erstan$2 for the &a$&an
+like the $eter&inist/ !enerally sees too &uch cause in e#erythin!. The
&a$&an oul$ rea$ a conspiratorial si!nificance into those e&pty acti#ities.
*e oul$ think that the loppin! of the !rass as an attack on pri#ate property.
*e oul$ think that the kickin! of the heels as a si!nal to an acco&plice. 'f
the &a$&an coul$ for an instant beco&e careless( he oul$ beco&e sane.
"#ery one ho has ha$ the &isfortune to talk ith people in the heart or on
the e$!e of &ental $isor$er( knos that their &ost sinister 9uality is a horrible
clarity of $etail2 a connectin! of one thin! ith another in a &ap &ore
elaborate than a &a3e. 'f you ar!ue ith a &a$&an( it is extre&ely probable
that you ill !et the orst of it2 for in &any ays his &in$ &o#es all the
9uicker for not bein! $elaye$ by the thin!s that !o ith !oo$ ?u$!&ent. *e is
not ha&pere$ by a sense of hu&our or by charity( or by the $u&b certainties
of experience. *e is the &ore lo!ical for losin! certain sane affections. 'n$ee$(
the co&&on phrase for insanity is in this respect a &islea$in! one. The
&a$&an is not the &an ho has lost his reason. The &a$&an is the &an ho
has lost e#erythin! except his reason.
The &a$&an7s explanation of a thin! is alays co&plete( an$ often in a purely
rational sense satisfactory. >r( to speak &ore strictly( the insane explanation( if
not conclusi#e( is at least unanserable2 this &ay be obser#e$ specially in the
to or three co&&onest kin$s of &a$ness. 'f a &an says +for instance/ that
&en ha#e a conspiracy a!ainst hi&( you cannot $ispute it except by sayin!
that all the &en $eny that they are conspirators2 hich is exactly hat
conspirators oul$ $o. *is explanation co#ers the facts as &uch as yours. >r
if a &an says that he is the ri!htful Fin! of "n!lan$( it is no co&plete anser
to say that the existin! authorities call hi& &a$2 for if he ere Fin! of
"n!lan$ that &i!ht be the isest thin! for the existin! authorities to $o. >r if
a &an says that he is Desus 0hrist( it is no anser to tell hi& that the orl$
$enies his $i#inity2 for the orl$ $enie$ 0hrist7s.
8e#ertheless he is ron!. 1ut if e atte&pt to trace his error in exact ter&s(
e shall not fin$ it 9uite so easy as e ha$ suppose$. 4erhaps the nearest e
can !et to expressin! it is to say this@ that his &in$ &o#es in a perfect but
narro circle. 6 s&all circle is 9uite as infinite as a lar!e circle2 but( thou!h it
is 9uite as infinite( it is not so lar!e. 'n the sa&e ay the insane explanation is
9uite as co&plete as the sane one( but it is not so lar!e. 6 bullet is 9uite as
roun$ as the orl$( but it is not the orl$. There is such a thin! as a narro
uni#ersality2 there is such a thin! as a s&all an$ cra&pe$ eternity2 you &ay
see it in &any &o$ern reli!ions. 8o( speakin! 9uite externally an$
e&pirically( e &ay say that the stron!est an$ &ost un&istakable mark of
&a$ness is this co&bination beteen a lo!ical co&pleteness an$ a spiritual
contraction. The lunatic7s theory explains a lar!e nu&ber of thin!s( but it $oes
not explain the& in a lar!e ay. ' &ean that if you or ' ere $ealin! ith a
&in$ that as !roin! &orbi$( e shoul$ be chiefly concerne$ not so &uch
to !i#e it ar!u&ents as to !i#e it air( to con#ince it that there as so&ethin!
cleaner an$ cooler outsi$e the suffocation of a sin!le ar!u&ent. .uppose( for
instance( it ere the first case that ' took as typical2 suppose it ere the case
of a &an ho accuse$ e#erybo$y of conspirin! a!ainst hi&. 'f e coul$
express our $eepest feelin!s of protest an$ appeal a!ainst this obsession( '
suppose e shoul$ say so&ethin! like this@ )>h( ' a$&it that you ha#e your
case an$ ha#e it by heart( an$ that &any thin!s $o fit into other thin!s as you
say. ' a$&it that your explanation explains a !reat $eal2 but hat a !reat $eal it
lea#es outG 6re there no other stories in the orl$ except yours2 an$ are all
&en busy ith your business5 .uppose e !rant the $etails2 perhaps hen the
&an in the street $i$ not see& to see you it as only his cunnin!2 perhaps
hen the police&an aske$ you your na&e it as only because he kne it
alrea$y. 1ut ho &uch happier you oul$ be if you only kne that these
people care$ nothin! about youG *o &uch lar!er your life oul$ be if your
self coul$ beco&e s&aller in it2 if you coul$ really look at other &en ith
co&&on curiosity an$ pleasure2 if you coul$ see the& alkin! as they are in
their sunny selfishness an$ their #irile in$ifferenceG Cou oul$ be!in to be
intereste$ in the&( because they ere not intereste$ in you. Cou oul$ break
out of this tiny an$ ta$ry theatre in hich your on little plot is alays
bein! playe$( an$ you oul$ fin$ yourself un$er a freer sky( in a street full of
splen$i$ stran!ers.) >r suppose it ere the secon$ case of &a$ness( that of a
&an ho clai&s the cron( your i&pulse oul$ be to anser( )6ll ri!htG
4erhaps you kno that you are the Fin! of "n!lan$2 but hy $o you care5
,ake one &a!nificent effort an$ you ill be a hu&an bein! an$ look $on on
all the kin!s of the earth.) >r it &i!ht be the thir$ case( of the &a$&an ho
calle$ hi&self 0hrist. 'f e sai$ hat e felt( e shoul$ say( ).o you are the
0reator an$ <e$ee&er of the orl$@ but hat a s&all orl$ it &ust beG %hat a
little hea#en you &ust inhabit( ith an!els no bi!!er than butterfliesG *o sa$
it &ust be to be -o$2 an$ an ina$e9uate -o$G 's there really no life fuller an$
no lo#e &ore &ar#ellous than yours2 an$ is it really in your s&all an$ painful
pity that all flesh &ust put its faith5 *o &uch happier you oul$ be( ho
&uch &ore of you there oul$ be( if the ha&&er of a hi!her -o$ coul$ s&ash
your s&all cos&os( scatterin! the stars like span!les( an$ lea#e you in the
open( free like other &en to look up as ell as $onG)
6n$ it &ust be re&e&bere$ that the &ost purely practical science $oes take
this #ie of &ental e#il2 it $oes not seek to ar!ue ith it like a heresy( but
si&ply to snap it like a spell. 8either &o$ern science nor ancient reli!ion
belie#es in co&plete free thou!ht. Theolo!y rebukes certain thou!hts by
callin! the& blasphe&ous. .cience rebukes certain thou!hts by callin! the&
&orbi$. ;or exa&ple( so&e reli!ious societies $iscoura!e$ &en &ore or less
fro& thinkin! about sex. The ne scientific society $efinitely $iscoura!es
&en fro& thinkin! about $eath2 it is a fact( but it is consi$ere$ a &orbi$ fact.
6n$ in $ealin! ith those hose &orbi$ity has a touch of &ania( &o$ern
science cares far less for pure lo!ic than a $ancin! =er#ish. 'n these cases it is
not enou!h that the unhappy &an shoul$ $esire truth2 he &ust $esire health.
8othin! can sa#e hi& but a blin$ hun!er for nor&ality( like that of a beast. 6
&an cannot think hi&self out of &ental e#il2 for it is actually the or!an of
thou!ht that has beco&e $isease$( un!o#ernable( an$( as it ere( in$epen$ent.
*e can only be sa#e$ by ill or faith. The &o&ent his &ere reason &o#es( it
&o#es in the ol$ circular rut2 he ill !o roun$ an$ roun$ his lo!ical circle( ?ust
as a &an in a thir$:class carria!e on the 'nner 0ircle ill !o roun$ an$ roun$
the 'nner 0ircle unless he perfor&s the #oluntary( #i!orous( an$ &ystical act
of !ettin! out at -oer .treet. =ecision is the hole business here2 a $oor
&ust be shut for e#er. "#ery re&e$y is a $esperate re&e$y. "#ery cure is a
&iraculous cure. 0urin! a &a$&an is not ar!uin! ith a philosopher2 it is
castin! out a $e#il. 6n$ hoe#er 9uietly $octors an$ psycholo!ists &ay !o to
ork in the &atter( their attitu$e is profoun$ly intolerantBas intolerant as
1loo$y ,ary. Their attitu$e is really this@ that the &an &ust stop thinkin!( if
he is to !o on li#in!. Their counsel is one of intellectual a&putation. 'f
thy head offen$ thee( cut it off2 for it is better( not &erely to enter the
Fin!$o& of *ea#en as a chil$( but to enter it as an i&becile( rather than ith
your hole intellect to be cast into hellBor into *anell.
.uch is the &a$&an of experience2 he is co&&only a reasoner( fre9uently a
successful reasoner. =oubtless he coul$ be #an9uishe$ in &ere reason( an$ the
case a!ainst hi& put lo!ically. 1ut it can be put &uch &ore precisely in &ore
!eneral an$ e#en Hsthetic ter&s. *e is in the clean an$ ell:lit prison of one
i$ea@ he is sharpene$ to one painful point. *e is ithout healthy hesitation an$
healthy co&plexity. 8o( as ' explain in the intro$uction( ' ha#e $eter&ine$ in
these early chapters to !i#e not so &uch a $ia!ra& of a $octrine as so&e
pictures of a point of #ie. 6n$ ' ha#e $escribe$ at len!th &y #ision of the
&aniac for this reason@ that ?ust as ' a& affecte$ by the &aniac( so ' a&
affecte$ by &ost &o$ern thinkers. That un&istakable &oo$ or note that ' hear
fro& *anell( ' hear also fro& half the chairs of science an$ seats of learnin!
to:$ay2 an$ &ost of the &a$ $octors are &a$ $octors in &ore senses than one.
They all ha#e exactly that co&bination e ha#e note$@ the co&bination of an
expansi#e an$ exhausti#e reason ith a contracte$ co&&on sense. They are
uni#ersal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation an$ carry it #ery
far. 1ut a pattern can stretch for e#er an$ still be a s&all pattern. They see a
chess:boar$ hite on black( an$ if the uni#erse is pa#e$ ith it( it is still hite
on black. Aike the lunatic( they cannot alter their stan$point2 they cannot &ake
a &ental effort an$ su$$enly see it black on hite.
Take first the &ore ob#ious case of &aterialis&. 6s an explanation of the
orl$( &aterialis& has a sort of insane si&plicity. 't has ?ust the 9uality of the
&a$&an7s ar!u&ent2 e ha#e at once the sense of it co#erin! e#erythin! an$
the sense of it lea#in! e#erythin! out. 0onte&plate so&e able an$ sincere
&aterialist( as( for instance( ,r. ,c0abe( an$ you ill ha#e exactly this
uni9ue sensation. *e un$erstan$s e#erythin!( an$ e#erythin! $oes not see&
orth un$erstan$in!. *is cos&os &ay be co&plete in e#ery ri#et an$ co!:
heel( but still his cos&os is s&aller than our orl$. .o&eho his sche&e(
like the luci$ sche&e of the &a$&an( see&s unconscious of the alien ener!ies
an$ the lar!e in$ifference of the earth2 it is not thinkin! of the real thin!s of
the earth( of fi!htin! peoples or prou$ &others( or first lo#e or fear upon the
sea. The earth is so #ery lar!e( an$ the cos&os is so #ery s&all. The cos&os is
about the s&allest hole that a &an can hi$e his hea$ in.
't &ust be un$erstoo$ that ' a& not no $iscussin! the relation of these cree$s
to truth2 but( for the present( solely their relation to health. Aater in the
ar!u&ent ' hope to attack the 9uestion of ob?ecti#e #erity2 here ' speak only of
a pheno&enon of psycholo!y. ' $o not for the present atte&pt to pro#e to
*aeckel that &aterialis& is untrue( any &ore than ' atte&pte$ to pro#e to the
&an ho thou!ht he as 0hrist that he as labourin! un$er an error. ' &erely
re&ark here on the fact that both cases ha#e the sa&e kin$ of co&pleteness
an$ the sa&e kin$ of inco&pleteness. Cou can explain a &an7s $etention at
*anell by an in$ifferent public by sayin! that it is the crucifixion of a !o$ of
ho& the orl$ is not orthy. The explanation $oes explain. .i&ilarly you
&ay explain the or$er in the uni#erse by sayin! that all thin!s( e#en the souls
of &en( are lea#es ine#itably unfol$in! on an utterly unconscious treeBthe
blin$ $estiny of &atter. The explanation $oes explain( thou!h not( of course(
so co&pletely as the &a$&an7s. 1ut the point here is that the nor&al hu&an
&in$ not only ob?ects to both( but feels to both the sa&e ob?ection. 'ts
approxi&ate state&ent is that if the &an in *anell is the real -o$( he is not
&uch of a !o$. 6n$( si&ilarly( if the cos&os of the &aterialist is the real
cos&os( it is not &uch of a cos&os. The thin! has shrunk. The $eity is less
$i#ine than &any &en2 an$ +accor$in! to *aeckel/ the hole of life is
so&ethin! &uch &ore !rey( narro( an$ tri#ial than &any separate aspects of
it. The parts see& !reater than the hole.
;or e &ust re&e&ber that the &aterialist philosophy +hether true or not/ is
certainly &uch &ore li&itin! than any reli!ion. 'n one sense( of course( all
intelli!ent i$eas are narro. They cannot be broa$er than the&sel#es. 6
0hristian is only restricte$ in the sa&e sense that an atheist is restricte$. *e
cannot think 0hristianity false an$ continue to be a 0hristian2 an$ the atheist
cannot think atheis& false an$ continue to be an atheist. 1ut as it happens(
there is a #ery special sense in hich &aterialis& has &ore restrictions than
spiritualis&. ,r. ,c0abe thinks &e a sla#e because ' a& not alloe$ to
belie#e in $eter&inis&. ' think ,r. ,c0abe a sla#e because he is not alloe$
to belie#e in fairies. 1ut if e exa&ine the to #etoes e shall see that his is
really &uch &ore of a pure #eto than &ine. The 0hristian is 9uite free to
belie#e that there is a consi$erable a&ount of settle$ or$er an$ ine#itable
$e#elop&ent in the uni#erse. 1ut the &aterialist is not alloe$ to a$&it into
his spotless &achine the sli!htest speck of spiritualis& or &iracle. 4oor ,r.
,c0abe is not alloe$ to retain e#en the tiniest i&p( thou!h it &i!ht be
hi$in! in a pi&pernel. The 0hristian a$&its that the uni#erse is &anifol$ an$
e#en &iscellaneous( ?ust as a sane &an knos that he is co&plex. The sane
&an knos that he has a touch of the beast( a touch of the $e#il( a touch of the
saint( a touch of the citi3en. 8ay( the really sane &an knos that he has a
touch of the &a$&an. 1ut the &aterialist7s orl$ is 9uite si&ple an$ soli$( ?ust
as the &a$&an is 9uite sure he is sane. The &aterialist is sure that history has
been si&ply an$ solely a chain of causation( ?ust as the interestin! person
before &entione$ is 9uite sure that he is si&ply an$ solely a chicken.
,aterialists an$ &a$&en ne#er ha#e $oubts.
.piritual $octrines $o not actually li&it the &in$ as $o &aterialistic $enials.
"#en if ' belie#e in i&&ortality ' nee$ not think about it. 1ut if ' $isbelie#e in
i&&ortality ' &ust not think about it. 'n the first case the roa$ is open an$ '
can !o as far as ' like2 in the secon$ the roa$ is shut. 1ut the case is e#en
stron!er( an$ the parallel ith &a$ness is yet &ore stran!e. ;or it as our
case a!ainst the exhausti#e an$ lo!ical theory of the lunatic that( ri!ht or
ron!( it !ra$ually $estroye$ his hu&anity. 8o it is the char!e a!ainst the
&ain $e$uctions of the &aterialist that( ri!ht or ron!( they !ra$ually $estroy
his hu&anity2 ' $o not &ean only kin$ness( ' &ean hope( coura!e( poetry(
initiati#e( all that is hu&an. ;or instance( hen &aterialis& lea$s &en to
co&plete fatalis& +as it !enerally $oes/( it is 9uite i$le to preten$ that it is in
any sense a liberatin! force. 't is absur$ to say that you are especially
a$#ancin! free$o& hen you only use free thou!ht to $estroy free ill. The
$eter&inists co&e to bin$( not to loose. They &ay ell call their la the
)chain) of causation. 't is the orst chain that e#er fettere$ a hu&an bein!.
Cou &ay use the lan!ua!e of liberty( if you like( about &aterialistic teachin!(
but it is ob#ious that this is ?ust as inapplicable to it as a hole as the sa&e
lan!ua!e hen applie$ to a &an locke$ up in a &a$:house. Cou &ay say( if
you like( that the &an is free to think hi&self a poache$ e!!. 1ut it is surely a
&ore &assi#e an$ i&portant fact that if he is a poache$ e!! he is not free to
eat( $rink( sleep( alk( or s&oke a ci!arette. .i&ilarly you &ay say( if you
like( that the bol$ $eter&inist speculator is free to $isbelie#e in the reality of
the ill. 1ut it is a &uch &ore &assi#e an$ i&portant fact that he is not free to
praise( to curse( to thank( to ?ustify( to ur!e( to punish( to resist te&ptations( to
incite &obs( to &ake 8e Cear resolutions( to par$on sinners( to rebuke
tyrants( or e#en to say )thank you) for the &ustar$.
'n passin! fro& this sub?ect ' &ay note that there is a 9ueer fallacy to the
effect that &aterialistic fatalis& is in so&e ay fa#ourable to &ercy( to the
abolition of cruel punish&ents or punish&ents of any kin$. This is startlin!ly
the re#erse of the truth. 't is 9uite tenable that the $octrine of necessity &akes
no $ifference at all2 that it lea#es the flo!!er flo!!in! an$ the kin$ frien$
exhortin! as before. 1ut ob#iously if it stops either of the& it stops the kin$
exhortation. That the sins are ine#itable $oes not pre#ent punish&ent2 if it
pre#ents anythin! it pre#ents persuasion. =eter&inis& is 9uite as likely to
lea$ to cruelty as it is certain to lea$ to coar$ice. =eter&inis& is not
inconsistent ith the cruel treat&ent of cri&inals. %hat it is +perhaps/
inconsistent ith is the !enerous treat&ent of cri&inals2 ith any appeal to
their better feelin!s or encoura!e&ent in their &oral stru!!le. The $eter&inist
$oes not belie#e in appealin! to the ill( but he $oes belie#e in chan!in! the
en#iron&ent. *e &ust not say to the sinner( )-o an$ sin no &ore() because
the sinner cannot help it. 1ut he can put hi& in boilin! oil2 for boilin! oil is an
en#iron&ent. 0onsi$ere$ as a fi!ure( therefore( the &aterialist has the
fantastic outline of the fi!ure of the &a$&an. 1oth take up a position at once
unanserable an$ intolerable.
>f course it is not only of the &aterialist that all this is true. The sa&e oul$
apply to the other extre&e of speculati#e lo!ic. There is a sceptic far &ore
terrible than he ho belie#es that e#erythin! be!an in &atter. 't is possible to
&eet the sceptic ho belie#es that e#erythin! be!an in hi&self. *e $oubts not
the existence of an!els or $e#ils( but the existence of &en an$ cos. ;or hi&
his on frien$s are a &ytholo!y &a$e up by hi&self. *e create$ his on
father an$ his on &other. This horrible fancy has in it so&ethin! $eci$e$ly
attracti#e to the so&ehat &ystical e!ois& of our $ay. That publisher ho
thou!ht that &en oul$ !et on if they belie#e$ in the&sel#es( those seekers
after the .uper&an ho are alays lookin! for hi& in the lookin!:!lass( those
riters ho talk about i&pressin! their personalities instea$ of creatin! life
for the orl$( all these people ha#e really only an inch beteen the& an$ this
aful e&ptiness. Then hen this kin$ly orl$ all roun$ the &an has been
blackene$ out like a lie2 hen frien$s fa$e into !hosts( an$ the foun$ations of
the orl$ fail2 then hen the &an( belie#in! in nothin! an$ in no &an( is
alone in his on ni!ht&are( then the !reat in$i#i$ualistic &otto shall be
ritten o#er hi& in a#en!in! irony. The stars ill be only $ots in the
blackness of his on brain2 his &other7s face ill be only a sketch fro& his
on insane pencil on the alls of his cell. 1ut o#er his cell shall be ritten(
ith $rea$ful truth( )*e belie#es in hi&self.)
6ll that concerns us here( hoe#er( is to note that this pane!oistic extre&e of
thou!ht exhibits the sa&e para$ox as the other extre&e of &aterialis&. 't is
e9ually co&plete in theory an$ e9ually cripplin! in practice. ;or the sake of
si&plicity( it is easier to state the notion by sayin! that a &an can belie#e that
he is alays in a $rea&. 8o( ob#iously there can be no positi#e proof !i#en
to hi& that he is not in a $rea&( for the si&ple reason that no proof can be
offere$ that &i!ht not be offere$ in a $rea&. 1ut if the &an be!an to burn
$on Aon$on an$ say that his housekeeper oul$ soon call hi& to breakfast(
e shoul$ take hi& an$ put hi& ith other lo!icians in a place hich has
often been allu$e$ to in the course of this chapter. The &an ho cannot
belie#e his senses( an$ the &an ho cannot belie#e anythin! else( are both
insane( but their insanity is pro#e$ not by any error in their ar!u&ent( but by
the &anifest &istake of their hole li#es. They ha#e both locke$ the&sel#es
up in to boxes( painte$ insi$e ith the sun an$ stars2 they are both unable to
!et out( the one into the health an$ happiness of hea#en( the other e#en into
the health an$ happiness of the earth. Their position is 9uite reasonable2 nay(
in a sense it is infinitely reasonable( ?ust as a threepenny bit is infinitely
circular. 1ut there is such a thin! as a &ean infinity( a base an$ sla#ish
eternity. 't is a&usin! to notice that &any of the &o$erns( hether sceptics or
&ystics( ha#e taken as their si!n a certain eastern sy&bol( hich is the #ery
sy&bol of this ulti&ate nullity. %hen they ish to represent eternity( they
represent it by a serpent ith his tail in his &outh. There is a startlin! sarcas&
in the i&a!e of that #ery unsatisfactory &eal. The eternity of the &aterial
fatalists( the eternity of the eastern pessi&ists( the eternity of the supercilious
theosophists an$ hi!her scientists of to:$ay is( in$ee$( #ery ell presente$ by
a serpent eatin! his tail( a $e!ra$e$ ani&al ho $estroys e#en hi&self.
This chapter is purely practical an$ is concerne$ ith hat actually is the
chief &ark an$ ele&ent of insanity2 e &ay say in su&&ary that it is reason
use$ ithout root( reason in the #oi$. The &an ho be!ins to think ithout
the proper first principles !oes &a$( the &an ho be!ins to think at the ron!
en$. 6n$ for the rest of these pa!es e ha#e to try an$ $isco#er hat is the
ri!ht en$. 1ut e &ay ask in conclusion( if this be hat $ri#es &en &a$( hat
is it that keeps the& sane5 1y the en$ of this book ' hope to !i#e a $efinite(
so&e ill think a far too $efinite( anser. 1ut for the &o&ent it is possible in
the sa&e solely practical &anner to !i#e a !eneral anser touchin! hat in
actual hu&an history keeps &en sane. ,ysticis& keeps &en sane. 6s lon! as
you ha#e &ystery you ha#e health2 hen you $estroy &ystery you create
&orbi$ity. The or$inary &an has alays been sane because the or$inary &an
has alays been a &ystic. *e has per&itte$ the tili!ht. *e has alays ha$
one foot in earth an$ the other in fairylan$. *e has alays left hi&self free to
$oubt his !o$s2 but +unlike the a!nostic of to:$ay/ free also to belie#e in the&.
*e has alays care$ &ore for truth than for consistency. 'f he sa to truths
that see&e$ to contra$ict each other( he oul$ take the to truths an$ the
contra$iction alon! ith the&. *is spiritual si!ht is stereoscopic( like his
physical si!ht@ he sees to $ifferent pictures at once an$ yet sees all the better
for that. Thus he has alays belie#e$ that there as such a thin! as fate( but
such a thin! as free ill also. Thus he belie#e$ that chil$ren ere in$ee$ the
kin!$o& of hea#en( but ne#ertheless ou!ht to be obe$ient to the kin!$o& of
earth. *e a$&ire$ youth because it as youn! an$ a!e because it as not. 't is
exactly this balance of apparent contra$ictions that has been the hole
buoyancy of the healthy &an. The hole secret of &ysticis& is this@ that &an
can un$erstan$ e#erythin! by the help of hat he $oes not un$erstan$. The
&orbi$ lo!ician seeks to &ake e#erythin! luci$( an$ succee$s in &akin!
e#erythin! &ysterious. The &ystic allos one thin! to be &ysterious( an$
e#erythin! else beco&es luci$. The $eter&inist &akes the theory of causation
9uite clear( an$ then fin$s that he cannot say )if you please) to the house&ai$.
The 0hristian per&its free ill to re&ain a sacre$ &ystery2 but because of this
his relations ith the house&ai$ beco&e of a sparklin! an$ crystal clearness.
*e puts the see$ of $o!&a in a central $arkness2 but it branches forth in all
$irections ith aboun$in! natural health. 6s e ha#e taken the circle as the
sy&bol of reason an$ &a$ness( e &ay #ery ell take the cross as the sy&bol
at once of &ystery an$ of health. 1u$$his& is centripetal( but 0hristianity is
centrifu!al@ it breaks out. ;or the circle is perfect an$ infinite in its nature2 but
it is fixe$ for e#er in its si3e2 it can ne#er be lar!er or s&aller. 1ut the cross(
thou!h it has at its heart a collision an$ a contra$iction( can exten$ its four
ar&s for e#er ithout alterin! its shape. 1ecause it has a para$ox in its centre
it can !ro ithout chan!in!. The circle returns upon itself an$ is boun$. The
cross opens its ar&s to the four in$s2 it is a si!npost for free tra#ellers.
.y&bols alone are of e#en a clou$y #alue in speakin! of this $eep &atter2 an$
another sy&bol fro& physical nature ill express sufficiently ell the real
place of &ysticis& before &ankin$. The one create$ thin! hich e cannot
look at is the one thin! in the li!ht of hich e look at e#erythin!. Aike the
sun at noon$ay( &ysticis& explains e#erythin! else by the bla3e of its on
#ictorious in#isibility. =etache$ intellectualis& is +in the exact sense of a
popular phrase/ all &oonshine2 for it is li!ht ithout heat( an$ it is secon$ary
li!ht( reflecte$ fro& a $ea$ orl$. 1ut the -reeks ere ri!ht hen they &a$e
6pollo the !o$ both of i&a!ination an$ of sanity2 for he as both the patron
of poetry an$ the patron of healin!. >f necessary $o!&as an$ a special cree$ '
shall speak later. 1ut that transcen$entalis& by hich all &en li#e has
pri&arily &uch the position of the sun in the sky. %e are conscious of it as of
a kin$ of splen$i$ confusion2 it is so&ethin! both shinin! an$ shapeless( at
once a bla3e an$ a blur. 1ut the circle of the &oon is as clear an$
un&istakable( as recurrent an$ ine#itable( as the circle of "ucli$ on a
blackboar$. ;or the &oon is utterly reasonable2 an$ the &oon is the &other of
lunatics an$ has !i#en to the& all her na&e.
CHAPTER III.The Suicide of Thought
The phrases of the street are not only forcible but subtle@ for a fi!ure of speech
can often !et into a crack too s&all for a $efinition. 4hrases like )put out) or
)off colour) &i!ht ha#e been coine$ by ,r. *enry Da&es in an a!ony of
#erbal precision. 6n$ there is no &ore subtle truth than that of the e#ery$ay
phrase about a &an ha#in! )his heart in the ri!ht place.) 't in#ol#es the i$ea of
nor&al proportion2 not only $oes a certain function exist( but it is ri!htly
relate$ to other functions. 'n$ee$( the ne!ation of this phrase oul$ $escribe
ith peculiar accuracy the so&ehat &orbi$ &ercy an$ per#erse ten$erness
of the &ost representati#e &o$erns. 'f( for instance( ' ha$ to $escribe ith
fairness the character of ,r. 1ernar$ .ha( ' coul$ not express &yself &ore
exactly than by sayin! that he has a heroically lar!e an$ !enerous heart2 but
not a heart in the ri!ht place. 6n$ this is so of the typical society of our ti&e.
The &o$ern orl$ is not e#il2 in so&e ays the &o$ern orl$ is far too !oo$.
't is full of il$ an$ aste$ #irtues. %hen a reli!ious sche&e is shattere$ +as
0hristianity as shattere$ at the <efor&ation/( it is not &erely the #ices that
are let loose. The #ices are( in$ee$( let loose( an$ they an$er an$ $o $a&a!e.
1ut the #irtues are let loose also2 an$ the #irtues an$er &ore il$ly( an$ the
#irtues $o &ore terrible $a&a!e. The &o$ern orl$ is full of the ol$ 0hristian
#irtues !one &a$. The #irtues ha#e !one &a$ because they ha#e been isolate$
fro& each other an$ are an$erin! alone. Thus so&e scientists care for truth2
an$ their truth is pitiless. Thus so&e hu&anitarians only care for pity2 an$
their pity +' a& sorry to say/ is often untruthful. ;or exa&ple( ,r. 1latchfor$
attacks 0hristianity because he is &a$ on one 0hristian #irtue@ the &erely
&ystical an$ al&ost irrational #irtue of charity. *e has a stran!e i$ea that he
ill &ake it easier to for!i#e sins by sayin! that there are no sins to for!i#e.
,r. 1latchfor$ is not only an early 0hristian( he is the only early 0hristian
ho ou!ht really to ha#e been eaten by lions. ;or in his case the pa!an
accusation is really true@ his &ercy oul$ &ean &ere anarchy. *e really is the
ene&y of the hu&an raceBbecause he is so hu&an. 6s the other extre&e( e
&ay take the acri$ realist( ho has $eliberately kille$ in hi&self all hu&an
pleasure in happy tales or in the healin! of the heart. Tor9ue&a$a torture$
people physically for the sake of &oral truth. Iola torture$ people &orally for
the sake of physical truth. 1ut in Tor9ue&a$a7s ti&e there as at least a
syste& that coul$ to so&e extent &ake ri!hteousness an$ peace kiss each
other. 8o they $o not e#en bo. 1ut a &uch stron!er case than these to of
truth an$ pity can be foun$ in the re&arkable case of the $islocation of
hu&ility.
't is only ith one aspect of hu&ility that e are here concerne$. *u&ility
as lar!ely &eant as a restraint upon the arro!ance an$ infinity of the appetite
of &an. *e as alays out:strippin! his &ercies ith his on nely in#ente$
nee$s. *is #ery poer of en?oy&ent $estroye$ half his ?oys. 1y askin! for
pleasure( he lost the chief pleasure2 for the chief pleasure is surprise. *ence it
beca&e e#i$ent that if a &an oul$ &ake his orl$ lar!e( he &ust be alays
&akin! hi&self s&all. "#en the hau!hty #isions( the tall cities( an$ the
topplin! pinnacles are the creations of hu&ility. -iants that trea$ $on forests
like !rass are the creations of hu&ility. Toers that #anish upar$s abo#e the
loneliest star are the creations of hu&ility. ;or toers are not tall unless e
look up at the&2 an$ !iants are not !iants unless they are lar!er than e. 6ll
this !i!antes9ue i&a!ination( hich is( perhaps( the &i!htiest of the pleasures
of &an( is at botto& entirely hu&ble. 't is i&possible ithout hu&ility to
en?oy anythin!Be#en pri$e.
1ut hat e suffer fro& to:$ay is hu&ility in the ron! place. ,o$esty has
&o#e$ fro& the or!an of a&bition. ,o$esty has settle$ upon the or!an of
con#iction2 here it as ne#er &eant to be. 6 &an as &eant to be $oubtful
about hi&self( but un$oubtin! about the truth2 this has been exactly re#erse$.
8oa$ays the part of a &an that a &an $oes assert is exactly the part he ou!ht
not to assertBhi&self. The part he $oubts is exactly the part he ou!ht not to
$oubtBthe =i#ine <eason. *uxley preache$ a hu&ility content to learn fro&
8ature. 1ut the ne sceptic is so hu&ble that he $oubts if he can e#en learn.
Thus e shoul$ be ron! if e ha$ sai$ hastily that there is no hu&ility
typical of our ti&e. The truth is that there is a real hu&ility typical of our ti&e2
but it so happens that it is practically a &ore poisonous hu&ility than the
il$est prostrations of the ascetic. The ol$ hu&ility as a spur that pre#ente$
a &an fro& stoppin!2 not a nail in his boot that pre#ente$ hi& fro& !oin! on.
;or the ol$ hu&ility &a$e a &an $oubtful about his efforts( hich &i!ht &ake
hi& ork har$er. 1ut the ne hu&ility &akes a &an $oubtful about his ai&s(
hich ill &ake hi& stop orkin! alto!ether.
6t any street corner e &ay &eet a &an ho utters the frantic an$
blasphe&ous state&ent that he &ay be ron!. "#ery $ay one co&es across
so&ebo$y ho says that of course his #ie &ay not be the ri!ht one. >f
course his #ie &ust be the ri!ht one( or it is not his #ie. %e are on the roa$
to pro$ucin! a race of &en too &entally &o$est to belie#e in the
&ultiplication table. %e are in $an!er of seein! philosophers ho $oubt the
la of !ra#ity as bein! a &ere fancy of their on. .coffers of ol$ ti&e ere
too prou$ to be con#ince$2 but these are too hu&ble to be con#ince$. The
&eek $o inherit the earth2 but the &o$ern sceptics are too &eek e#en to clai&
their inheritance. 't is exactly this intellectual helplessness hich is our secon$
proble&.
The last chapter has been concerne$ only ith a fact of obser#ation@ that hat
peril of &orbi$ity there is for &an co&es rather fro& his reason than his
i&a!ination. 't as not &eant to attack the authority of reason2 rather it is the
ulti&ate purpose to $efen$ it. ;or it nee$s $efence. The hole &o$ern orl$
is at ar ith reason2 an$ the toer alrea$y reels.
The sa!es( it is often sai$( can see no anser to the ri$$le of reli!ion. 1ut the
trouble ith our sa!es is not that they cannot see the anser2 it is that they
cannot e#en see the ri$$le. They are like chil$ren so stupi$ as to notice
nothin! para$oxical in the playful assertion that a $oor is not a $oor. The
&o$ern latitu$inarians speak( for instance( about authority in reli!ion not only
as if there ere no reason in it( but as if there ha$ ne#er been any reason for it.
6part fro& seein! its philosophical basis( they cannot e#en see its historical
cause. <eli!ious authority has often( $oubtless( been oppressi#e or
unreasonable2 ?ust as e#ery le!al syste& +an$ especially our present one/ has
been callous an$ full of a cruel apathy. 't is rational to attack the police2 nay( it
is !lorious. 1ut the &o$ern critics of reli!ious authority are like &en ho
shoul$ attack the police ithout e#er ha#in! hear$ of bur!lars. ;or there is a
!reat an$ possible peril to the hu&an &in$@ a peril as practical as bur!lary.
6!ainst it reli!ious authority as reare$( ri!htly or ron!ly( as a barrier. 6n$
a!ainst it so&ethin! certainly &ust be reare$ as a barrier( if our race is to
a#oi$ ruin.
That peril is that the hu&an intellect is free to $estroy itself. Dust as one
!eneration coul$ pre#ent the #ery existence of the next !eneration( by all
enterin! a &onastery or ?u&pin! into the sea( so one set of thinkers can in
so&e $e!ree pre#ent further thinkin! by teachin! the next !eneration that
there is no #ali$ity in any hu&an thou!ht. 't is i$le to talk alays of the
alternati#e of reason an$ faith. <eason is itself a &atter of faith. 't is an act of
faith to assert that our thou!hts ha#e any relation to reality at all. 'f you are
&erely a sceptic( you &ust sooner or later ask yourself the 9uestion( )%hy
shoul$ anything !o ri!ht2 e#en obser#ation an$ $e$uction5 %hy shoul$ not
!oo$ lo!ic be as &islea$in! as ba$ lo!ic5 They are both &o#e&ents in the
brain of a beil$ere$ ape5) The youn! sceptic says( )' ha#e a ri!ht to think
for &yself.) 1ut the ol$ sceptic( the co&plete sceptic( says( )' ha#e no ri!ht to
think for &yself. ' ha#e no ri!ht to think at all.)
There is a thou!ht that stops thou!ht. That is the only thou!ht that ou!ht to be
stoppe$. That is the ulti&ate e#il a!ainst hich all reli!ious authority as
ai&e$. 't only appears at the en$ of $eca$ent a!es like our on@ an$ alrea$y
,r. *.-. %ells has raise$ its ruinous banner2 he has ritten a $elicate piece of
scepticis& calle$ )=oubts of the 'nstru&ent.) 'n this he 9uestions the brain
itself( an$ en$ea#ours to re&o#e all reality fro& all his on assertions( past(
present( an$ to co&e. 1ut it as a!ainst this re&ote ruin that all the &ilitary
syste&s in reli!ion ere ori!inally ranke$ an$ rule$. The cree$s an$ the
crusa$es( the hierarchies an$ the horrible persecutions ere not or!ani3e$( as
is i!norantly sai$( for the suppression of reason. They ere or!ani3e$ for the
$ifficult $efence of reason. ,an( by a blin$ instinct( kne that if once thin!s
ere il$ly 9uestione$( reason coul$ be 9uestione$ first. The authority of
priests to absol#e( the authority of popes to $efine the authority( e#en of
in9uisitors to terrify@ these ere all only $ark $efences erecte$ roun$ one
central authority( &ore un$e&onstrable( &ore supernatural than allBthe
authority of a &an to think. %e kno no that this is so2 e ha#e no excuse
for not knoin! it. ;or e can hear scepticis& crashin! throu!h the ol$ rin!
of authorities( an$ at the sa&e &o&ent e can see reason sayin! upon her
throne. 'n so far as reli!ion is !one( reason is !oin!. ;or they are both of the
sa&e pri&ary an$ authoritati#e kin$. They are both &etho$s of proof hich
cannot the&sel#es be pro#e$. 6n$ in the act of $estroyin! the i$ea of =i#ine
authority e ha#e lar!ely $estroye$ the i$ea of that hu&an authority by hich
e $o a lon!:$i#ision su&. %ith a lon! an$ sustaine$ tu! e ha#e atte&pte$
to pull the &itre off pontifical &an2 an$ his hea$ has co&e off ith it.
Aest this shoul$ be calle$ loose assertion( it is perhaps $esirable( thou!h $ull(
to run rapi$ly throu!h the chief &o$ern fashions of thou!ht hich ha#e this
effect of stoppin! thou!ht itself. ,aterialis& an$ the #ie of e#erythin! as a
personal illusion ha#e so&e such effect2 for if the &in$ is &echanical( thou!ht
cannot be #ery excitin!( an$ if the cos&os is unreal( there is nothin! to think
about. 1ut in these cases the effect is in$irect an$ $oubtful. 'n so&e cases it is
$irect an$ clear2 notably in the case of hat is !enerally calle$ e#olution.
"#olution is a !oo$ exa&ple of that &o$ern intelli!ence hich( if it $estroys
anythin!( $estroys itself. "#olution is either an innocent scientific $escription
of ho certain earthly thin!s ca&e about2 or( if it is anythin! &ore than this( it
is an attack upon thou!ht itself. 'f e#olution $estroys anythin!( it $oes not
$estroy reli!ion but rationalis&. 'f e#olution si&ply &eans that a positi#e
thin! calle$ an ape turne$ #ery sloly into a positi#e thin! calle$ a &an( then
it is stin!less for the &ost ortho$ox2 for a personal -o$ &i!ht ?ust as ell $o
thin!s sloly as 9uickly( especially if( like the 0hristian -o$( he ere outsi$e
ti&e. 1ut if it &eans anythin! &ore( it &eans that there is no such thin! as an
ape to chan!e( an$ no such thin! as a &an for hi& to chan!e into. 't &eans
that there is no such thin! as a thin!. 6t best( there is only one thin!( an$ that
is a flux of e#erythin! an$ anythin!. This is an attack not upon the faith( but
upon the &in$2 you cannot think if there are no thin!s to think about. Cou
cannot think if you are not separate fro& the sub?ect of thou!ht. =escartes
sai$( )' think2 therefore ' a&.) The philosophic e#olutionist re#erses an$
ne!ati#es the epi!ra&. *e says( )' a& not2 therefore ' cannot think.)
Then there is the opposite attack on thou!ht@ that ur!e$ by ,r. *.-. %ells
hen he insists that e#ery separate thin! is )uni9ue() an$ there are no
cate!ories at all. This also is &erely $estructi#e. Thinkin! &eans connectin!
thin!s( an$ stops if they cannot be connecte$. 't nee$ har$ly be sai$ that this
scepticis& forbi$$in! thou!ht necessarily forbi$s speech2 a &an cannot open
his &outh ithout contra$ictin! it. Thus hen ,r. %ells says +as he $i$
so&ehere/( )6ll chairs are 9uite $ifferent() he utters not &erely a
&isstate&ent( but a contra$iction in ter&s. 'f all chairs ere 9uite $ifferent(
you coul$ not call the& )all chairs.)
6kin to these is the false theory of pro!ress( hich &aintains that e alter the
test instea$ of tryin! to pass the test. %e often hear it sai$( for instance( )%hat
is ri!ht in one a!e is ron! in another.) This is 9uite reasonable( if it &eans
that there is a fixe$ ai&( an$ that certain &etho$s attain at certain ti&es an$
not at other ti&es. 'f o&en( say( $esire to be ele!ant( it &ay be that they are
i&pro#e$ at one ti&e by !roin! fatter an$ at another ti&e by !roin!
thinner. 1ut you cannot say that they are i&pro#e$ by ceasin! to ish to be
ele!ant an$ be!innin! to ish to be oblon!. 'f the stan$ar$ chan!es( ho can
there be i&pro#e&ent( hich i&plies a stan$ar$5 8iet3sche starte$ a
nonsensical i$ea that &en ha$ once sou!ht as !oo$ hat e no call e#il2 if it
ere so( e coul$ not talk of surpassin! or e#en fallin! short of the&. *o
can you o#ertake Dones if you alk in the other $irection5 Cou cannot $iscuss
hether one people has succee$e$ &ore in bein! &iserable than another
succee$e$ in bein! happy. 't oul$ be like $iscussin! hether ,ilton as
&ore puritanical than a pi! is fat.
't is true that a &an +a silly &an/ &i!ht &ake chan!e itself his ob?ect or i$eal.
1ut as an i$eal( chan!e itself beco&es unchan!eable. 'f the chan!e:
orshipper ishes to esti&ate his on pro!ress( he &ust be sternly loyal to
the i$eal of chan!e2 he &ust not be!in to flirt !aily ith the i$eal of
&onotony. 4ro!ress itself cannot pro!ress. 't is orth re&ark( in passin!( that
hen Tennyson( in a il$ an$ rather eak &anner( elco&e$ the i$ea of
infinite alteration in society( he instincti#ely took a &etaphor hich su!!ests
an i&prisone$ te$iu&. *e roteB
)Aet the !reat orl$ spin for e#er $on the rin!in! !roo#es of chan!e.)
*e thou!ht of chan!e itself as an unchan!eable !roo#e2 an$ so it is. 0han!e is
about the narroest an$ har$est !roo#e that a &an can !et into.
The &ain point here( hoe#er( is that this i$ea of a fun$a&ental alteration in
the stan$ar$ is one of the thin!s that &ake thou!ht about the past or future
si&ply i&possible. The theory of a co&plete chan!e of stan$ar$s in hu&an
history $oes not &erely $epri#e us of the pleasure of honourin! our fathers2 it
$epri#es us e#en of the &ore &o$ern an$ aristocratic pleasure of $espisin!
the&.
This bal$ su&&ary of the thou!ht:$estroyin! forces of our ti&e oul$ not be
co&plete ithout so&e reference to pra!&atis&2 for thou!h ' ha#e here use$
an$ shoul$ e#eryhere $efen$ the pra!&atist &etho$ as a preli&inary !ui$e
to truth( there is an extre&e application of it hich in#ol#es the absence of all
truth hate#er. ,y &eanin! can be put shortly thus. ' a!ree ith the
pra!&atists that apparent ob?ecti#e truth is not the hole &atter2 that there is
an authoritati#e nee$ to belie#e the thin!s that are necessary to the hu&an
&in$. 1ut ' say that one of those necessities precisely is a belief in ob?ecti#e
truth. The pra!&atist tells a &an to think hat he &ust think an$ ne#er &in$
the 6bsolute. 1ut precisely one of the thin!s that he &ust think is the
6bsolute. This philosophy( in$ee$( is a kin$ of #erbal para$ox. 4ra!&atis& is
a &atter of hu&an nee$s2 an$ one of the first of hu&an nee$s is to be
so&ethin! &ore than a pra!&atist. "xtre&e pra!&atis& is ?ust as inhu&an as
the $eter&inis& it so poerfully attacks. The $eter&inist +ho( to $o hi&
?ustice( $oes not preten$ to be a hu&an bein!/ &akes nonsense of the hu&an
sense of actual choice. The pra!&atist( ho professes to be specially hu&an(
&akes nonsense of the hu&an sense of actual fact.
To su& up our contention so far( e &ay say that the &ost characteristic
current philosophies ha#e not only a touch of &ania( but a touch of suici$al
&ania. The &ere 9uestioner has knocke$ his hea$ a!ainst the li&its of hu&an
thou!ht2 an$ cracke$ it. This is hat &akes so futile the arnin!s of the
ortho$ox an$ the boasts of the a$#ance$ about the $an!erous boyhoo$ of free
thou!ht. %hat e are lookin! at is not the boyhoo$ of free thou!ht2 it is the
ol$ a!e an$ ulti&ate $issolution of free thou!ht. 't is #ain for bishops an$
pious bi!i!s to $iscuss hat $rea$ful thin!s ill happen if il$ scepticis&
runs its course. 't has run its course. 't is #ain for elo9uent atheists to talk of
the !reat truths that ill be re#eale$ if once e see free thou!ht be!in. %e
ha#e seen it en$. 't has no &ore 9uestions to ask2 it has 9uestione$ itself. Cou
cannot call up any il$er #ision than a city in hich &en ask the&sel#es if
they ha#e any sel#es. Cou cannot fancy a &ore sceptical orl$ than that in
hich &en $oubt if there is a orl$. 't &i!ht certainly ha#e reache$ its
bankruptcy &ore 9uickly an$ cleanly if it ha$ not been feebly ha&pere$ by
the application of in$efensible las of blasphe&y or by the absur$ pretence
that &o$ern "n!lan$ is 0hristian. 1ut it oul$ ha#e reache$ the bankruptcy
anyho. ,ilitant atheists are still un?ustly persecute$2 but rather because they
are an ol$ &inority than because they are a ne one. ;ree thou!ht has
exhauste$ its on free$o&. 't is eary of its on success. 'f any ea!er
freethinker no hails philosophic free$o& as the $an( he is only like the
&an in ,ark Tain ho ca&e out rappe$ in blankets to see the sun rise an$
as ?ust in ti&e to see it set. 'f any fri!htene$ curate still says that it ill be
aful if the $arkness of free thou!ht shoul$ sprea$( e can only anser hi&
in the hi!h an$ poerful or$s of ,r. 1elloc( )=o not( ' beseech you( be
trouble$ about the increase of forces alrea$y in $issolution. Cou ha#e
&istaken the hour of the ni!ht@ it is alrea$y &ornin!.) %e ha#e no &ore
9uestions left to ask. %e ha#e looke$ for 9uestions in the $arkest corners an$
on the il$est peaks. %e ha#e foun$ all the 9uestions that can be foun$. 't is
ti&e e !a#e up lookin! for 9uestions an$ be!an lookin! for ansers.
1ut one &ore or$ &ust be a$$e$. 6t the be!innin! of this preli&inary
ne!ati#e sketch ' sai$ that our &ental ruin has been rou!ht by il$ reason(
not by il$ i&a!ination. 6 &an $oes not !o &a$ because he &akes a statue a
&ile hi!h( but he &ay !o &a$ by thinkin! it out in s9uare inches. 8o( one
school of thinkers has seen this an$ ?u&pe$ at it as a ay of renein! the
pa!an health of the orl$. They see that reason $estroys2 but %ill( they say(
creates. The ulti&ate authority( they say( is in ill( not in reason. The supre&e
point is not hy a &an $e&an$s a thin!( but the fact that he $oes $e&an$ it. '
ha#e no space to trace or expoun$ this philosophy of %ill. 't ca&e( ' suppose(
throu!h 8iet3sche( ho preache$ so&ethin! that is calle$ e!ois&. That(
in$ee$( as si&ple:&in$e$ enou!h2 for 8iet3sche $enie$ e!ois& si&ply by
preachin! it. To preach anythin! is to !i#e it aay. ;irst( the e!oist calls life a
ar ithout &ercy( an$ then he takes the !reatest possible trouble to $rill his
ene&ies in ar. To preach e!ois& is to practise altruis&. 1ut hoe#er it
be!an( the #ie is co&&on enou!h in current literature. The &ain $efence of
these thinkers is that they are not thinkers2 they are &akers. They say that
choice is itself the $i#ine thin!. Thus ,r. 1ernar$ .ha has attacke$ the ol$
i$ea that &en7s acts are to be ?u$!e$ by the stan$ar$ of the $esire of
happiness. *e says that a &an $oes not act for his happiness( but fro& his ill.
*e $oes not say( )Da& ill &ake &e happy() but )' ant ?a&.) 6n$ in all this
others follo hi& ith yet !reater enthusias&. ,r. Dohn =a#i$son( a
re&arkable poet( is so passionately excite$ about it that he is obli!e$ to rite
prose. *e publishes a short play ith se#eral lon! prefaces. This is natural
enou!h in ,r. .ha( for all his plays are prefaces@ ,r. .ha is +' suspect/ the
only &an on earth ho has ne#er ritten any poetry. 1ut that ,r. =a#i$son
+ho can rite excellent poetry/ shoul$ rite instea$ laborious &etaphysics in
$efence of this $octrine of ill( $oes sho that the $octrine of ill has taken
hol$ of &en. "#en ,r. *.-. %ells has half spoken in its lan!ua!e2 sayin! that
one shoul$ test acts not like a thinker( but like an artist( sayin!( )' feel this
cur#e is ri!ht() or )that line shall !o thus.) They are all excite$2 an$ ell they
&ay be. ;or by this $octrine of the $i#ine authority of ill( they think they can
break out of the $oo&e$ fortress of rationalis&. They think they can escape.
1ut they cannot escape. This pure praise of #olition en$s in the sa&e break up
an$ blank as the &ere pursuit of lo!ic. "xactly as co&plete free thou!ht
in#ol#es the $oubtin! of thou!ht itself( so the acceptation of &ere )illin!)
really paraly3es the ill. ,r. 1ernar$ .ha has not percei#e$ the real
$ifference beteen the ol$ utilitarian test of pleasure +clu&sy( of course( an$
easily &isstate$/ an$ that hich he propoun$s. The real $ifference beteen
the test of happiness an$ the test of ill is si&ply that the test of happiness is a
test an$ the other isn7t. Cou can $iscuss hether a &an7s act in ?u&pin! o#er a
cliff as $irecte$ toar$s happiness2 you cannot $iscuss hether it as
$eri#e$ fro& ill. >f course it as. Cou can praise an action by sayin! that it
is calculate$ to brin! pleasure or pain to $isco#er truth or to sa#e the soul. 1ut
you cannot praise an action because it shos ill2 for to say that is &erely to
say that it is an action. 1y this praise of ill you cannot really choose one
course as better than another. 6n$ yet choosin! one course as better than
another is the #ery $efinition of the ill you are praisin!.
The orship of ill is the ne!ation of ill. To a$&ire &ere choice is to refuse
to choose. 'f ,r. 1ernar$ .ha co&es up to &e an$ says( )%ill so&ethin!()
that is tanta&ount to sayin!( )' $o not &in$ hat you ill() an$ that is
tanta&ount to sayin!( )' ha#e no ill in the &atter.) Cou cannot a$&ire ill in
!eneral( because the essence of ill is that it is particular. 6 brilliant anarchist
like ,r. Dohn =a#i$son feels an irritation a!ainst or$inary &orality( an$
therefore he in#okes illBill to anythin!. *e only ants hu&anity to ant
so&ethin!. 1ut hu&anity $oes ant so&ethin!. 't ants or$inary &orality. *e
rebels a!ainst the la an$ tells us to ill so&ethin! or anythin!. 1ut e ha#e
ille$ so&ethin!. %e ha#e ille$ the la a!ainst hich he rebels.
6ll the ill:orshippers( fro& 8iet3sche to ,r. =a#i$son( are really 9uite
e&pty of #olition. They cannot ill( they can har$ly ish. 6n$ if any one
ants a proof of this( it can be foun$ 9uite easily. 't can be foun$ in this fact@
that they alays talk of ill as so&ethin! that expan$s an$ breaks out. 1ut it
is 9uite the opposite. "#ery act of ill is an act of self:li&itation. To $esire
action is to $esire li&itation. 'n that sense e#ery act is an act of self:sacrifice.
%hen you choose anythin!( you re?ect e#erythin! else. That ob?ection( hich
&en of this school use$ to &ake to the act of &arria!e( is really an ob?ection
to e#ery act. "#ery act is an irre#ocable selection an$ exclusion. Dust as hen
you &arry one o&an you !i#e up all the others( so hen you take one course
of action you !i#e up all the other courses. 'f you beco&e Fin! of "n!lan$(
you !i#e up the post of 1ea$le in 1ro&pton. 'f you !o to <o&e( you sacrifice
a rich su!!esti#e life in %i&ble$on. 't is the existence of this ne!ati#e or
li&itin! si$e of ill that &akes &ost of the talk of the anarchic ill:
orshippers little better than nonsense. ;or instance( ,r. Dohn =a#i$son tells
us to ha#e nothin! to $o ith )Thou shalt not)2 but it is surely ob#ious that
)Thou shalt not) is only one of the necessary corollaries of )' ill.) )' ill !o
to the Aor$ ,ayor7s .ho( an$ thou shalt not stop &e.) 6narchis& a$?ures us
to be bol$ creati#e artists( an$ care for no las or li&its. 1ut it is i&possible
to be an artist an$ not care for las an$ li&its. 6rt is li&itation2 the essence of
e#ery picture is the fra&e. 'f you $ra a !iraffe( you &ust $ra hi& ith a
lon! neck. 'f( in your bol$ creati#e ay( you hol$ yourself free to $ra a
!iraffe ith a short neck( you ill really fin$ that you are not free to $ra a
!iraffe. The &o&ent you step into the orl$ of facts( you step into a orl$ of
li&its. Cou can free thin!s fro& alien or acci$ental las( but not fro& the las
of their on nature. Cou &ay( if you like( free a ti!er fro& his bars2 but $o not
free hi& fro& his stripes. =o not free a ca&el of the bur$en of his hu&p@ you
&ay be freein! hi& fro& bein! a ca&el. =o not !o about as a $e&a!o!ue(
encoura!in! trian!les to break out of the prison of their three si$es. 'f a
trian!le breaks out of its three si$es( its life co&es to a la&entable en$.
.o&ebo$y rote a ork calle$ )The Ao#es of the Trian!les)2 ' ne#er rea$ it(
but ' a& sure that if trian!les e#er ere lo#e$( they ere lo#e$ for bein!
trian!ular. This is certainly the case ith all artistic creation( hich is in so&e
ays the &ost $ecisi#e exa&ple of pure ill. The artist lo#es his li&itations@
they constitute the thing he is $oin!. The painter is !la$ that the can#as is flat.
The sculptor is !la$ that the clay is colourless.
'n case the point is not clear( an historic exa&ple &ay illustrate it. The ;rench
<e#olution as really an heroic an$ $ecisi#e thin!( because the Dacobins
ille$ so&ethin! $efinite an$ li&ite$. They $esire$ the free$o&s of
$e&ocracy( but also all the #etoes of $e&ocracy. They ishe$ to ha#e #otes
an$ not to ha#e titles. <epublicanis& ha$ an ascetic si$e in ;ranklin or
<obespierre as ell as an expansi#e si$e in =anton or %ilkes. Therefore they
ha#e create$ so&ethin! ith a soli$ substance an$ shape( the s9uare social
e9uality an$ peasant ealth of ;rance. 1ut since then the re#olutionary or
speculati#e &in$ of "urope has been eakene$ by shrinkin! fro& any
proposal because of the li&its of that proposal. Aiberalis& has been $e!ra$e$
into liberality. ,en ha#e trie$ to turn )re#olutionise) fro& a transiti#e to an
intransiti#e #erb. The Dacobin coul$ tell you not only the syste& he oul$
rebel a!ainst( but +hat as &ore i&portant/ the syste& he oul$ not rebel
a!ainst( the syste& he oul$ trust. 1ut the ne rebel is a sceptic( an$ ill not
entirely trust anythin!. *e has no loyalty2 therefore he can ne#er be really a
re#olutionist. 6n$ the fact that he $oubts e#erythin! really !ets in his ay
hen he ants to $enounce anythin!. ;or all $enunciation i&plies a &oral
$octrine of so&e kin$2 an$ the &o$ern re#olutionist $oubts not only the
institution he $enounces( but the $octrine by hich he $enounces it. Thus he
rites one book co&plainin! that i&perial oppression insults the purity of
o&en( an$ then he rites another book +about the sex proble&/ in hich he
insults it hi&self. *e curses the .ultan because 0hristian !irls lose their
#ir!inity( an$ then curses ,rs. -run$y because they keep it. 6s a politician( he
ill cry out that ar is a aste of life( an$ then( as a philosopher( that all life
is aste of ti&e. 6 <ussian pessi&ist ill $enounce a police&an for killin! a
peasant( an$ then pro#e by the hi!hest philosophical principles that the
peasant ou!ht to ha#e kille$ hi&self. 6 &an $enounces &arria!e as a lie( an$
then $enounces aristocratic profli!ates for treatin! it as a lie. *e calls a fla! a
bauble( an$ then bla&es the oppressors of 4olan$ or 'relan$ because they take
aay that bauble. The &an of this school !oes first to a political &eetin!(
here he co&plains that sa#a!es are treate$ as if they ere beasts2 then he
takes his hat an$ u&brella an$ !oes on to a scientific &eetin!( here he
pro#es that they practically are beasts. 'n short( the &o$ern re#olutionist(
bein! an infinite sceptic( is alays en!a!e$ in un$er&inin! his on &ines. 'n
his book on politics he attacks &en for tra&plin! on &orality2 in his book on
ethics he attacks &orality for tra&plin! on &en. Therefore the &o$ern &an in
re#olt has beco&e practically useless for all purposes of re#olt. 1y rebellin!
a!ainst e#erythin! he has lost his ri!ht to rebel a!ainst anythin!.
't &ay be a$$e$ that the sa&e blank an$ bankruptcy can be obser#e$ in all
fierce an$ terrible types of literature( especially in satire. .atire &ay be &a$
an$ anarchic( but it presupposes an a$&itte$ superiority in certain thin!s o#er
others2 it presupposes a stan$ar$. %hen little boys in the street lau!h at the
fatness of so&e $istin!uishe$ ?ournalist( they are unconsciously assu&in! a
stan$ar$ of -reek sculpture. They are appealin! to the &arble 6pollo. 6n$ the
curious $isappearance of satire fro& our literature is an instance of the fierce
thin!s fa$in! for ant of any principle to be fierce about. 8iet3sche ha$ so&e
natural talent for sarcas&@ he coul$ sneer( thou!h he coul$ not lau!h2 but there
is alays so&ethin! bo$iless an$ ithout ei!ht in his satire( si&ply because
it has not any &ass of co&&on &orality behin$ it. *e is hi&self &ore
preposterous than anythin! he $enounces. 1ut( in$ee$( 8iet3sche ill stan$
#ery ell as the type of the hole of this failure of abstract #iolence. The
softenin! of the brain hich ulti&ately o#ertook hi& as not a physical
acci$ent. 'f 8iet3sche ha$ not en$e$ in i&becility( 8iet3scheis& oul$ en$ in
i&becility. Thinkin! in isolation an$ ith pri$e en$s in bein! an i$iot. "#ery
&an ho ill not ha#e softenin! of the heart &ust at last ha#e softenin! of the
brain.
This last atte&pt to e#a$e intellectualis& en$s in intellectualis&( an$ therefore
in $eath. The sortie has faile$. The il$ orship of lalessness an$ the
&aterialist orship of la en$ in the sa&e #oi$. 8iet3sche scales sta!!erin!
&ountains( but he turns up ulti&ately in Tibet. *e sits $on besi$e Tolstoy in
the lan$ of nothin! an$ 8ir#ana. They are both helplessBone because he
&ust not !rasp anythin!( an$ the other because he &ust not let !o of anythin!.
The Tolstoyan7s ill is fro3en by a 1u$$hist instinct that all special actions are
e#il. 1ut the 8iet3scheite7s ill is 9uite e9ually fro3en by his #ie that all
special actions are !oo$2 for if all special actions are !oo$( none of the& are
special. They stan$ at the cross:roa$s( an$ one hates all the roa$s an$ the other
likes all the roa$s. The result isBell( so&e thin!s are not har$ to calculate.
They stan$ at the cross:roa$s.
*ere ' en$ +thank -o$/ the first an$ $ullest business of this bookBthe rou!h
re#ie of recent thou!ht. 6fter this ' be!in to sketch a #ie of life hich &ay
not interest &y rea$er( but hich( at any rate( interests &e. 'n front of &e( as '
close this pa!e( is a pile of &o$ern books that ' ha#e been turnin! o#er for the
purposeBa pile of in!enuity( a pile of futility. 1y the acci$ent of &y present
$etach&ent( ' can see the ine#itable s&ash of the philosophies of
.chopenhauer an$ Tolstoy( 8iet3sche an$ .ha( as clearly as an ine#itable
railay s&ash coul$ be seen fro& a balloon. They are all on the roa$ to the
e&ptiness of the asylu&. ;or &a$ness &ay be $efine$ as usin! &ental acti#ity
so as to reach &ental helplessness2 an$ they ha#e nearly reache$ it. *e ho
thinks he is &a$e of !lass( thinks to the $estruction of thou!ht2 for !lass
cannot think. .o he ho ills to re?ect nothin!( ills the $estruction of ill2
for ill is not only the choice of so&ethin!( but the re?ection of al&ost
e#erythin!. 6n$ as ' turn an$ tu&ble o#er the cle#er( on$erful( tireso&e( an$
useless &o$ern books( the title of one of the& ri#ets &y eye. 't is calle$
)Deanne $76rc() by 6natole ;rance. ' ha#e only !lance$ at it( but a !lance as
enou!h to re&in$ &e of <enan7s )Eie $e DJsus.) 't has the sa&e stran!e
&etho$ of the re#erent sceptic. 't $iscre$its supernatural stories that ha#e
so&e foun$ation( si&ply by tellin! natural stories that ha#e no foun$ation.
1ecause e cannot belie#e in hat a saint $i$( e are to preten$ that e kno
exactly hat he felt. 1ut ' $o not &ention either book in or$er to criticise it(
but because the acci$ental co&bination of the na&es calle$ up to startlin!
i&a!es of sanity hich blaste$ all the books before &e. Doan of 6rc as not
stuck at the cross:roa$s( either by re?ectin! all the paths like Tolstoy( or by
acceptin! the& all like 8iet3sche. .he chose a path( an$ ent $on it like a
thun$erbolt. Cet Doan( hen ' ca&e to think of her( ha$ in her all that as true
either in Tolstoy or 8iet3sche( all that as e#en tolerable in either of the&. '
thou!ht of all that is noble in Tolstoy( the pleasure in plain thin!s( especially
in plain pity( the actualities of the earth( the re#erence for the poor( the $i!nity
of the boe$ back. Doan of 6rc ha$ all that an$ ith this !reat a$$ition( that
she en$ure$ po#erty as ell as a$&irin! it2 hereas Tolstoy is only a typical
aristocrat tryin! to fin$ out its secret. 6n$ then ' thou!ht of all that as bra#e
an$ prou$ an$ pathetic in poor 8iet3sche( an$ his &utiny a!ainst the
e&ptiness an$ ti&i$ity of our ti&e. ' thou!ht of his cry for the ecstatic
e9uilibriu& of $an!er( his hun!er for the rush of !reat horses( his cry to ar&s.
%ell( Doan of 6rc ha$ all that( an$ a!ain ith this $ifference( that she $i$ not
praise fi!htin!( but fou!ht. %e know that she as not afrai$ of an ar&y( hile
8iet3sche( for all e kno( as afrai$ of a co. Tolstoy only praise$ the
peasant2 she as the peasant. 8iet3sche only praise$ the arrior2 she as the
arrior. .he beat the& both at their on anta!onistic i$eals2 she as &ore
!entle than the one( &ore #iolent than the other. Cet she as a perfectly
practical person ho $i$ so&ethin!( hile they are il$ speculators ho $o
nothin!. 't as i&possible that the thou!ht shoul$ not cross &y &in$ that she
an$ her faith ha$ perhaps so&e secret of &oral unity an$ utility that has been
lost. 6n$ ith that thou!ht ca&e a lar!er one( an$ the colossal fi!ure of her
,aster ha$ also crosse$ the theatre of &y thou!hts. The sa&e &o$ern
$ifficulty hich $arkene$ the sub?ect:&atter of 6natole ;rance also $arkene$
that of "rnest <enan. <enan also $i#i$e$ his hero7s pity fro& his hero7s
pu!nacity. <enan e#en represente$ the ri!hteous an!er at Derusale& as a &ere
ner#ous break$on after the i$yllic expectations of -alilee. 6s if there ere
any inconsistency beteen ha#in! a lo#e for hu&anity an$ ha#in! a hatre$ for
inhu&anityG 6ltruists( ith thin( eak #oices( $enounce 0hrist as an e!oist.
"!oists +ith e#en thinner an$ eaker #oices/ $enounce *i& as an altruist. 'n
our present at&osphere such ca#ils are co&prehensible enou!h. The lo#e of a
hero is &ore terrible than the hatre$ of a tyrant. The hatre$ of a hero is &ore
!enerous than the lo#e of a philanthropist. There is a hu!e an$ heroic sanity of
hich &o$erns can only collect the fra!&ents. There is a !iant of ho& e
see only the loppe$ ar&s an$ le!s alkin! about. They ha#e torn the soul of
0hrist into silly strips( labelle$ e!ois& an$ altruis&( an$ they are e9ually
pu33le$ by *is insane &a!nificence an$ *is insane &eekness. They ha#e
parte$ *is !ar&ents a&on! the&( an$ for *is #esture they ha#e cast lots2
thou!h the coat as ithout sea& o#en fro& the top throu!hout.
CHAPTER IVThe Ethics of Elfland
%hen the business &an rebukes the i$ealis& of his office:boy( it is co&&only
in so&e such speech as this@ )6h( yes( hen one is youn!( one has these i$eals
in the abstract an$ these castles in the air2 but in &i$$le a!e they all break up
like clou$s( an$ one co&es $on to a belief in practical politics( to usin! the
&achinery one has an$ !ettin! on ith the orl$ as it is.) Thus( at least(
#enerable an$ philanthropic ol$ &en no in their honoure$ !ra#es use$ to talk
to &e hen ' as a boy. 1ut since then ' ha#e !ron up an$ ha#e $isco#ere$
that these philanthropic ol$ &en ere tellin! lies. %hat has really happene$ is
exactly the opposite of hat they sai$ oul$ happen. They sai$ that ' shoul$
lose &y i$eals an$ be!in to belie#e in the &etho$s of practical politicians.
8o( ' ha#e not lost &y i$eals in the least2 &y faith in fun$a&entals is exactly
hat it alays as. %hat ' ha#e lost is &y ol$ chil$like faith in practical
politics. ' a& still as &uch concerne$ as e#er about the 1attle of 6r&a!e$$on2
but ' a& not so &uch concerne$ about the -eneral "lection. 6s a babe ' leapt
up on &y &other7s knee at the &ere &ention of it. 8o2 the #ision is alays
soli$ an$ reliable. The #ision is alays a fact. 't is the reality that is often a
frau$. 6s &uch as ' e#er $i$( &ore than ' e#er $i$( ' belie#e in Aiberalis&. 1ut
there as a rosy ti&e of innocence hen ' belie#e$ in Aiberals.
' take this instance of one of the en$urin! faiths because( ha#in! no to trace
the roots of &y personal speculation( this &ay be counte$( ' think( as the only
positi#e bias. ' as brou!ht up a Aiberal( an$ ha#e alays belie#e$ in
$e&ocracy( in the ele&entary liberal $octrine of a self:!o#ernin! hu&anity. 'f
any one fin$s the phrase #a!ue or threa$bare( ' can only pause for a &o&ent
to explain that the principle of $e&ocracy( as ' &ean it( can be state$ in to
propositions. The first is this@ that the thin!s co&&on to all &en are &ore
i&portant than the thin!s peculiar to any &en. >r$inary thin!s are &ore
#aluable than extraor$inary thin!s2 nay( they are &ore extraor$inary. ,an is
so&ethin! &ore aful than &en2 so&ethin! &ore stran!e. The sense of the
&iracle of hu&anity itself shoul$ be alays &ore #i#i$ to us than any &ar#els
of poer( intellect( art( or ci#ili3ation. The &ere &an on to le!s( as such(
shoul$ be felt as so&ethin! &ore heart:breakin! than any &usic an$ &ore
startlin! than any caricature. =eath is &ore tra!ic e#en than $eath by
star#ation. *a#in! a nose is &ore co&ic e#en than ha#in! a 8or&an nose.
This is the first principle of $e&ocracy@ that the essential thin!s in &en are the
thin!s they hol$ in co&&on( not the thin!s they hol$ separately. 6n$ the
secon$ principle is &erely this@ that the political instinct or $esire is one of
these thin!s hich they hol$ in co&&on. ;allin! in lo#e is &ore poetical than
$roppin! into poetry. The $e&ocratic contention is that !o#ern&ent +helpin!
to rule the tribe/ is a thin! like fallin! in lo#e( an$ not a thin! like $roppin!
into poetry. 't is not so&ethin! analo!ous to playin! the church or!an(
paintin! on #ellu&( $isco#erin! the 8orth 4ole +that insi$ious habit/( loopin!
the loop( bein! 6strono&er <oyal( an$ so on. ;or these thin!s e $o not ish
a &an to $o at all unless he $oes the& ell. 't is( on the contrary( a thin!
analo!ous to ritin! one7s on lo#e:letters or bloin! one7s on nose. These
thin!s e ant a &an to $o for hi&self( e#en if he $oes the& ba$ly. ' a& not
here ar!uin! the truth of any of these conceptions2 ' kno that so&e &o$erns
are askin! to ha#e their i#es chosen by scientists( an$ they &ay soon be
askin!( for all ' kno( to ha#e their noses blon by nurses. ' &erely say that
&ankin$ $oes reco!ni3e these uni#ersal hu&an functions( an$ that $e&ocracy
classes !o#ern&ent a&on! the&. 'n short( the $e&ocratic faith is this@ that the
&ost terribly i&portant thin!s &ust be left to or$inary &en the&sel#esBthe
&atin! of the sexes( the rearin! of the youn!( the las of the state. This is
$e&ocracy2 an$ in this ' ha#e alays belie#e$.
1ut there is one thin! that ' ha#e ne#er fro& &y youth up been able to
un$erstan$. ' ha#e ne#er been able to un$erstan$ here people !ot the i$ea
that $e&ocracy as in so&e ay oppose$ to tra$ition. 't is ob#ious that
tra$ition is only $e&ocracy exten$e$ throu!h ti&e. 't is trustin! to a
consensus of co&&on hu&an #oices rather than to so&e isolate$ or arbitrary
recor$. The &an ho 9uotes so&e -er&an historian a!ainst the tra$ition of
the 0atholic 0hurch( for instance( is strictly appealin! to aristocracy. *e is
appealin! to the superiority of one expert a!ainst the aful authority of a &ob.
't is 9uite easy to see hy a le!en$ is treate$( an$ ou!ht to be treate$( &ore
respectfully than a book of history. The le!en$ is !enerally &a$e by the
&a?ority of people in the #illa!e( ho are sane. The book is !enerally ritten
by the one &an in the #illa!e ho is &a$. Those ho ur!e a!ainst tra$ition
that &en in the past ere i!norant &ay !o an$ ur!e it at the 0arlton 0lub(
alon! ith the state&ent that #oters in the slu&s are i!norant. 't ill not $o for
us. 'f e attach !reat i&portance to the opinion of or$inary &en in !reat
unani&ity hen e are $ealin! ith $aily &atters( there is no reason hy e
shoul$ $isre!ar$ it hen e are $ealin! ith history or fable. Tra$ition &ay
be $efine$ as an extension of the franchise. Tra$ition &eans !i#in! #otes to
the &ost obscure of all classes( our ancestors. 't is the $e&ocracy of the $ea$.
Tra$ition refuses to sub&it to the s&all an$ arro!ant oli!archy of those ho
&erely happen to be alkin! about. 6ll $e&ocrats ob?ect to &en bein!
$is9ualifie$ by the acci$ent of birth2 tra$ition ob?ects to their bein!
$is9ualifie$ by the acci$ent of $eath. =e&ocracy tells us not to ne!lect a !oo$
&an7s opinion( e#en if he is our !roo&2 tra$ition asks us not to ne!lect a !oo$
&an7s opinion( e#en if he is our father. '( at any rate( cannot separate the to
i$eas of $e&ocracy an$ tra$ition2 it see&s e#i$ent to &e that they are the
sa&e i$ea. %e ill ha#e the $ea$ at our councils. The ancient -reeks #ote$ by
stones2 these shall #ote by to&bstones. 't is all 9uite re!ular an$ official( for
&ost to&bstones( like &ost ballot papers( are &arke$ ith a cross.
' ha#e first to say( therefore( that if ' ha#e ha$ a bias( it as alays a bias in
fa#our of $e&ocracy( an$ therefore of tra$ition. 1efore e co&e to any
theoretic or lo!ical be!innin!s ' a& content to allo for that personal
e9uation2 ' ha#e alays been &ore incline$ to belie#e the ruck of har$:
orkin! people than to belie#e that special an$ troubleso&e literary class to
hich ' belon!. ' prefer e#en the fancies an$ pre?u$ices of the people ho see
life fro& the insi$e to the clearest $e&onstrations of the people ho see life
fro& the outsi$e. ' oul$ alays trust the ol$ i#es7 fables a!ainst the ol$
&ai$s7 facts. 6s lon! as it is &other it it can be as il$ as it pleases.
8o( ' ha#e to put to!ether a !eneral position( an$ ' preten$ to no trainin! in
such thin!s. ' propose to $o it( therefore( by ritin! $on one after another
the three or four fun$a&ental i$eas hich ' ha#e foun$ for &yself( pretty
&uch in the ay that ' foun$ the&. Then ' shall rou!hly synthesise the&(
su&&in! up &y personal philosophy or natural reli!ion2 then ' shall $escribe
&y startlin! $isco#ery that the hole thin! ha$ been $isco#ere$ before. 't ha$
been $isco#ere$ by 0hristianity. 1ut of these profoun$ persuasions hich '
ha#e to recount in or$er( the earliest as concerne$ ith this ele&ent of
popular tra$ition. 6n$ ithout the fore!oin! explanation touchin! tra$ition
an$ $e&ocracy ' coul$ har$ly &ake &y &ental experience clear. 6s it is( ' $o
not kno hether ' can &ake it clear( but ' no propose to try.
,y first an$ last philosophy( that hich ' belie#e in ith unbroken certainty( '
learnt in the nursery. ' !enerally learnt it fro& a nurse2 that is( fro& the sole&n
an$ star:appointe$ priestess at once of $e&ocracy an$ tra$ition. The thin!s '
belie#e$ &ost then( the thin!s ' belie#e &ost no( are the thin!s calle$ fairy
tales. They see& to &e to be the entirely reasonable thin!s. They are not
fantasies@ co&pare$ ith the& other thin!s are fantastic. 0o&pare$ ith the&
reli!ion an$ rationalis& are both abnor&al( thou!h reli!ion is abnor&ally
ri!ht an$ rationalis& abnor&ally ron!. ;airylan$ is nothin! but the sunny
country of co&&on sense. 't is not earth that ?u$!es hea#en( but hea#en that
?u$!es earth2 so for &e at least it as not earth that criticise$ elflan$( but
elflan$ that criticise$ the earth. ' kne the &a!ic beanstalk before ' ha$ taste$
beans2 ' as sure of the ,an in the ,oon before ' as certain of the &oon.
This as at one ith all popular tra$ition. ,o$ern &inor poets are naturalists(
an$ talk about the bush or the brook2 but the sin!ers of the ol$ epics an$ fables
ere supernaturalists( an$ talke$ about the !o$s of brook an$ bush. That is
hat the &o$erns &ean hen they say that the ancients $i$ not )appreciate
8ature() because they sai$ that 8ature as $i#ine. >l$ nurses $o not tell
chil$ren about the !rass( but about the fairies that $ance on the !rass2 an$ the
ol$ -reeks coul$ not see the trees for the $rya$s.
1ut ' $eal here ith hat ethic an$ philosophy co&e fro& bein! fe$ on fairy
tales. 'f ' ere $escribin! the& in $etail ' coul$ note &any noble an$ healthy
principles that arise fro& the&. There is the chi#alrous lesson of )Dack the
-iant Filler)2 that !iants shoul$ be kille$ because they are !i!antic. 't is a
&anly &utiny a!ainst pri$e as such. ;or the rebel is ol$er than all the
kin!$o&s( an$ the Dacobin has &ore tra$ition than the Dacobite. There is the
lesson of )0in$erella() hich is the sa&e as that of the ,a!nificatBexaltait
humiles!There is the !reat lesson of )1eauty an$ the 1east)2 that a thin! &ust
be lo#e$ before it is lo#eable. There is the terrible alle!ory of the ).leepin!
1eauty() hich tells ho the hu&an creature as blesse$ ith all birth$ay
!ifts( yet curse$ ith $eath2 an$ ho $eath also &ay perhaps be softene$ to a
sleep. 1ut ' a& not concerne$ ith any of the separate statutes of elflan$( but
ith the hole spirit of its la( hich ' learnt before ' coul$ speak( an$ shall
retain hen ' cannot rite. ' a& concerne$ ith a certain ay of lookin! at
life( hich as create$ in &e by the fairy tales( but has since been &eekly
ratifie$ by the &ere facts.
't &i!ht be state$ this ay. There are certain se9uences or $e#elop&ents
+cases of one thin! folloin! another/( hich are( in the true sense of the
or$( reasonable. They are( in the true sense of the or$( necessary. .uch are
&athe&atical an$ &erely lo!ical se9uences. %e in fairylan$ +ho are the &ost
reasonable of all creatures/ a$&it that reason an$ that necessity. ;or instance(
if the K!ly .isters are ol$er than 0in$erella( it is +in an iron an$ aful
sense/ ne"essary that 0in$erella is youn!er than the K!ly .isters. There is no
!ettin! out of it. *aeckel &ay talk as &uch fatalis& about that fact as he
pleases@ it really &ust be. 'f Dack is the son of a &iller( a &iller is the father of
Dack. 0ol$ reason $ecrees it fro& her aful throne@ an$ e in fairylan$
sub&it. 'f the three brothers all ri$e horses( there are six ani&als an$ ei!hteen
le!s in#ol#e$@ that is true rationalis&( an$ fairylan$ is full of it. 1ut as ' put
&y hea$ o#er the he$!e of the el#es an$ be!an to take notice of the natural
orl$( ' obser#e$ an extraor$inary thin!. ' obser#e$ that learne$ &en in
spectacles ere talkin! of the actual thin!s that happene$B$an an$ $eath
an$ so onBas if they ere rational an$ ine#itable. They talke$ as if the fact
that trees bear fruit ere ?ust as ne"essary as the fact that to an$ one trees
&ake three. 1ut it is not. There is an enor&ous $ifference by the test of
fairylan$2 hich is the test of the i&a!ination. Cou cannot imagine to an$
one not &akin! three. 1ut you can easily i&a!ine trees not !roin! fruit2 you
can i&a!ine the& !roin! !ol$en can$lesticks or ti!ers han!in! on by the
tail. These &en in spectacles spoke &uch of a &an na&e$ 8eton( ho as
hit by an apple( an$ ho $isco#ere$ a la. 1ut they coul$ not be !ot to see the
$istinction beteen a true la( a la of reason( an$ the &ere fact of apples
fallin!. 'f the apple hit 8eton7s nose( 8eton7s nose hit the apple. That is a
true necessity@ because e cannot concei#e the one occurrin! ithout the
other. 1ut e can 9uite ell concei#e the apple not fallin! on his nose2 e can
fancy it flyin! ar$ently throu!h the air to hit so&e other nose( of hich it ha$
a &ore $efinite $islike. %e ha#e alays in our fairy tales kept this sharp
$istinction beteen the science of &ental relations( in hich there really are
las( an$ the science of physical facts( in hich there are no las( but only
eir$ repetitions. %e belie#e in bo$ily &iracles( but not in &ental
i&possibilities. %e belie#e that a 1ean:stalk cli&be$ up to *ea#en2 but that
$oes not at all confuse our con#ictions on the philosophical 9uestion of ho
&any beans &ake fi#e.
*ere is the peculiar perfection of tone an$ truth in the nursery tales. The &an
of science says( )0ut the stalk( an$ the apple ill fall)2 but he says it cal&ly(
as if the one i$ea really le$ up to the other. The itch in the fairy tale says(
)1lo the horn( an$ the o!re7s castle ill fall)2 but she $oes not say it as if it
ere so&ethin! in hich the effect ob#iously arose out of the cause.
=oubtless she has !i#en the a$#ice to &any cha&pions( an$ has seen &any
castles fall( but she $oes not lose either her on$er or her reason. .he $oes not
&u$$le her hea$ until it i&a!ines a necessary &ental connection beteen a
horn an$ a fallin! toer. 1ut the scientific &en $o &u$$le their hea$s( until
they i&a!ine a necessary &ental connection beteen an apple lea#in! the tree
an$ an apple reachin! the !roun$. They $o really talk as if they ha$ foun$ not
only a set of &ar#ellous facts( but a truth connectin! those facts. They $o talk
as if the connection of to stran!e thin!s physically connecte$ the&
philosophically. They feel that because one inco&prehensible thin! constantly
follos another inco&prehensible thin! the to to!ether so&eho &ake up a
co&prehensible thin!. To black ri$$les &ake a hite anser.
'n fairylan$ e a#oi$ the or$ )la)2 but in the lan$ of science they are
sin!ularly fon$ of it. Thus they ill call so&e interestin! con?ecture about
ho for!otten folks pronounce$ the alphabet( -ri&&7s Aa. 1ut -ri&&7s
Aa is far less intellectual than -ri&&7s ;airy Tales. The tales are( at any rate(
certainly tales2 hile the la is not a la. 6 la i&plies that e kno the
nature of the !eneralisation an$ enact&ent2 not &erely that e ha#e notice$
so&e of the effects. 'f there is a la that pick:pockets shall !o to prison( it
i&plies that there is an i&a!inable &ental connection beteen the i$ea of
prison an$ the i$ea of pickin! pockets. 6n$ e kno hat the i$ea is. %e can
say hy e take liberty fro& a &an ho takes liberties. 1ut e cannot say
hy an e!! can turn into a chicken any &ore than e can say hy a bear
coul$ turn into a fairy prince. 6s ideas( the e!! an$ the chicken are further off
each other than the bear an$ the prince2 for no e!! in itself su!!ests a chicken(
hereas so&e princes $o su!!est bears. -rante$( then( that certain
transfor&ations $o happen( it is essential that e shoul$ re!ar$ the& in the
philosophic &anner of fairy tales( not in the unphilosophic &anner of science
an$ the )Aas of 8ature.) %hen e are aske$ hy e!!s turn to bir$s or fruits
fall in autu&n( e &ust anser exactly as the fairy !o$&other oul$ anser
if 0in$erella aske$ her hy &ice turne$ to horses or her clothes fell fro& her
at tel#e o7clock. %e &ust anser that it is magi". 't is not a )la() for e $o
not un$erstan$ its !eneral for&ula. 't is not a necessity( for thou!h e can
count on it happenin! practically( e ha#e no ri!ht to say that it &ust alays
happen. 't is no ar!u&ent for unalterable la +as *uxley fancie$/ that e
count on the or$inary course of thin!s. %e $o not count on it2 e bet on it. %e
risk the re&ote possibility of a &iracle as e $o that of a poisone$ pancake or
a orl$:$estroyin! co&et. %e lea#e it out of account( not because it is a
&iracle( an$ therefore an i&possibility( but because it is a &iracle( an$
therefore an exception. 6ll the ter&s use$ in the science books( )la()
)necessity() )or$er() )ten$ency() an$ so on( are really unintellectual( because
they assu&e an inner synthesis hich e $o not possess. The only or$s that
e#er satisfie$ &e as $escribin! 8ature are the ter&s use$ in the fairy books(
)char&() )spell() )enchant&ent.) They express the arbitrariness of the fact an$
its &ystery. 6 tree !ros fruit because it is a magi" tree. %ater runs $onhill
because it is beitche$. The sun shines because it is beitche$.
' $eny alto!ether that this is fantastic or e#en &ystical. %e &ay ha#e so&e
&ysticis& later on2 but this fairy:tale lan!ua!e about thin!s is si&ply rational
an$ a!nostic. 't is the only ay ' can express in or$s &y clear an$ $efinite
perception that one thin! is 9uite $istinct fro& another2 that there is no lo!ical
connection beteen flyin! an$ layin! e!!s. 't is the &an ho talks about )a
la) that he has ne#er seen ho is the &ystic. 8ay( the or$inary scientific &an
is strictly a senti&entalist. *e is a senti&entalist in this essential sense( that he
is soake$ an$ sept aay by &ere associations. *e has so often seen bir$s fly
an$ lay e!!s that he feels as if there &ust be so&e $rea&y( ten$er connection
beteen the to i$eas( hereas there is none. 6 forlorn lo#er &i!ht be unable
to $issociate the &oon fro& lost lo#e2 so the &aterialist is unable to $issociate
the &oon fro& the ti$e. 'n both cases there is no connection( except that one
has seen the& to!ether. 6 senti&entalist &i!ht she$ tears at the s&ell of apple:
blosso&( because( by a $ark association of his on( it re&in$e$ hi& of his
boyhoo$. .o the &aterialist professor +thou!h he conceals his tears/ is yet a
senti&entalist( because( by a $ark association of his on( apple:blosso&s
re&in$ hi& of apples. 1ut the cool rationalist fro& fairylan$ $oes not see
hy( in the abstract( the apple tree shoul$ not !ro cri&son tulips2 it
so&eti&es $oes in his country.
This ele&entary on$er( hoe#er( is not a &ere fancy $eri#e$ fro& the fairy
tales2 on the contrary( all the fire of the fairy tales is $eri#e$ fro& this. Dust as
e all like lo#e tales because there is an instinct of sex( e all like astonishin!
tales because they touch the ner#e of the ancient instinct of astonish&ent. This
is pro#e$ by the fact that hen e are #ery youn! chil$ren e $o not nee$
fairy tales@ e only nee$ tales. ,ere life is interestin! enou!h. 6 chil$ of
se#en is excite$ by bein! tol$ that To&&y opene$ a $oor an$ sa a $ra!on.
1ut a chil$ of three is excite$ by bein! tol$ that To&&y opene$ a $oor. 1oys
like ro&antic tales2 but babies like realistic talesBbecause they fin$ the&
ro&antic. 'n fact( a baby is about the only person( ' shoul$ think( to ho& a
&o$ern realistic no#el coul$ be rea$ ithout borin! hi&. This pro#es that
e#en nursery tales only echo an al&ost pre:natal leap of interest an$
a&a3e&ent. These tales say that apples ere !ol$en only to refresh the
for!otten &o&ent hen e foun$ that they ere !reen. They &ake ri#ers run
ith ine only to &ake us re&e&ber( for one il$ &o&ent( that they run ith
ater. ' ha#e sai$ that this is holly reasonable an$ e#en a!nostic. 6n$(
in$ee$( on this point ' a& all for the hi!her a!nosticis&2 its better na&e is
'!norance. %e ha#e all rea$ in scientific books( an$( in$ee$( in all ro&ances(
the story of the &an ho has for!otten his na&e. This &an alks about the
streets an$ can see an$ appreciate e#erythin!2 only he cannot re&e&ber ho
he is. %ell( e#ery &an is that &an in the story. "#ery &an has for!otten ho
he is. >ne &ay un$erstan$ the cos&os( but ne#er the e!o2 the self is &ore
$istant than any star. Thou shalt lo#e the Aor$ thy -o$2 but thou shalt not
kno thyself. %e are all un$er the sa&e &ental cala&ity2 e ha#e all
for!otten our na&es. %e ha#e all for!otten hat e really are. 6ll that e call
co&&on sense an$ rationality an$ practicality an$ positi#is& only &eans that
for certain $ea$ le#els of our life e for!et that e ha#e for!otten. 6ll that e
call spirit an$ art an$ ecstacy only &eans that for one aful instant e
re&e&ber that e for!et.
1ut thou!h +like the &an ithout &e&ory in the no#el/ e alk the streets
ith a sort of half:itte$ a$&iration( still it is a$&iration. 't is a$&iration in
"n!lish an$ not only a$&iration in Aatin. The on$er has a positi#e ele&ent
of praise. This is the next &ilestone to be $efinitely &arke$ on our roa$
throu!h fairylan$. ' shall speak in the next chapter about opti&ists an$
pessi&ists in their intellectual aspect( so far as they ha#e one. *ere ' a& only
tryin! to $escribe the enor&ous e&otions hich cannot be $escribe$. 6n$ the
stron!est e&otion as that life as as precious as it as pu33lin!. 't as an
ecstacy because it as an a$#enture2 it as an a$#enture because it as an
opportunity. The !oo$ness of the fairy tale as not affecte$ by the fact that
there &i!ht be &ore $ra!ons than princesses2 it as !oo$ to be in a fairy tale.
The test of all happiness is !ratitu$e2 an$ ' felt !rateful( thou!h ' har$ly kne
to ho&. 0hil$ren are !rateful hen .anta 0laus puts in their stockin!s !ifts
of toys or seets. 0oul$ ' not be !rateful to .anta 0laus hen he put in &y
stockin!s the !ift of to &iraculous le!s5 %e thank people for birth$ay
presents of ci!ars an$ slippers. 0an ' thank no one for the birth$ay present of
birth5
There ere( then( these to first feelin!s( in$efensible an$ in$isputable. The
orl$ as a shock( but it as not &erely shockin!2 existence as a surprise(
but it as a pleasant surprise. 'n fact( all &y first #ies ere exactly uttere$ in
a ri$$le that stuck in &y brain fro& boyhoo$. The 9uestion as( )%hat $i$ the
first fro! say5) 6n$ the anser as( )Aor$( ho you &a$e &e ?u&pG) That
says succinctly all that ' a& sayin!. -o$ &a$e the fro! ?u&p2 but the fro!
prefers ?u&pin!. 1ut hen these thin!s are settle$ there enters the secon$
!reat principle of the fairy philosophy.
6ny one can see it ho ill si&ply rea$ )-ri&&7s ;airy Tales) or the fine
collections of ,r. 6n$re Aan!. ;or the pleasure of pe$antry ' ill call it the
=octrine of 0on$itional Doy. Touchstone talke$ of &uch #irtue in an )if)2
accor$in! to elfin ethics all #irtue is in an )if.) The note of the fairy utterance
alays is( )Cou &ay li#e in a palace of !ol$ an$ sapphire( if you $o not say
the or$ 7co7)2 or )Cou &ay li#e happily ith the Fin!7s $au!hter( if you $o
not sho her an onion.) The #ision alays han!s upon a #eto. 6ll the $i33y
an$ colossal thin!s conce$e$ $epen$ upon one s&all thin! ithhel$. 6ll the
il$ an$ hirlin! thin!s that are let loose $epen$ upon one thin! that is
forbi$$en. ,r. %.1. Ceats( in his ex9uisite an$ piercin! elfin poetry( $escribes
the el#es as laless2 they plun!e in innocent anarchy on the unbri$le$ horses
of the airB
)<i$e on the crest of the $ishe#elle$ ti$e(6n$ $ance upon the &ountains like a
fla&e.)
't is a $rea$ful thin! to say that ,r. %.1. Ceats $oes not un$erstan$ fairylan$.
1ut ' $o say it. *e is an ironical 'rish&an( full of intellectual reactions. *e is
not stupi$ enou!h to un$erstan$ fairylan$. ;airies prefer people of the yokel
type like &yself2 people ho !ape an$ !rin an$ $o as they are tol$. ,r. Ceats
rea$s into elflan$ all the ri!hteous insurrection of his on race. 1ut the
lalessness of 'relan$ is a 0hristian lalessness( foun$e$ on reason an$
?ustice. The ;enian is rebellin! a!ainst so&ethin! he un$erstan$s only too
ell2 but the true citi3en of fairylan$ is obeyin! so&ethin! that he $oes not
un$erstan$ at all. 'n the fairy tale an inco&prehensible happiness rests upon
an inco&prehensible con$ition. 6 box is opene$( an$ all e#ils fly out. 6 or$
is for!otten( an$ cities perish. 6 la&p is lit( an$ lo#e flies aay. 6 floer is
plucke$( an$ hu&an li#es are forfeite$. 6n apple is eaten( an$ the hope of -o$
is !one.
This is the tone of fairy tales( an$ it is certainly not lalessness or e#en
liberty( thou!h &en un$er a &ean &o$ern tyranny &ay think it liberty by
co&parison. 4eople out of 4ortlan$ -aol &i!ht think ;leet .treet free2 but
closer stu$y ill pro#e that both fairies an$ ?ournalists are the sla#es of $uty.
;airy !o$&others see& at least as strict as other !o$&others. 0in$erella
recei#e$ a coach out of %on$erlan$ an$ a coach&an out of nohere( but she
recei#e$ a co&&an$Bhich &i!ht ha#e co&e out of 1rixtonBthat she
shoul$ be back by tel#e. 6lso( she ha$ a !lass slipper2 an$ it cannot be a
coinci$ence that !lass is so co&&on a substance in folk:lore. This princess
li#es in a !lass castle( that princess on a !lass hill2 this one sees all thin!s in a
&irror2 they &ay all li#e in !lass houses if they ill not thro stones. ;or this
thin !litter of !lass e#eryhere is the expression of the fact that the happiness
is bri!ht but brittle( like the substance &ost easily s&ashe$ by a house&ai$ or
a cat. 6n$ this fairy:tale senti&ent also sank into &e an$ beca&e &y
senti&ent toar$s the hole orl$. ' felt an$ feel that life itself is as bri!ht as
the $ia&on$( but as brittle as the in$o:pane2 an$ hen the hea#ens ere
co&pare$ to the terrible crystal ' can re&e&ber a shu$$er. ' as afrai$ that
-o$ oul$ $rop the cos&os ith a crash.
<e&e&ber( hoe#er( that to be breakable is not the sa&e as to be perishable.
.trike a !lass( an$ it ill not en$ure an instant2 si&ply $o not strike it( an$ it
ill en$ure a thousan$ years. .uch( it see&e$( as the ?oy of &an( either in
elflan$ or on earth2 the happiness $epen$e$ on not doing something hich
you coul$ at any &o&ent $o an$ hich( #ery often( it as not ob#ious hy
you shoul$ not $o. 8o( the point here is that to me this $i$ not see& un?ust.
'f the &iller7s thir$ son sai$ to the fairy( )"xplain hy ' &ust not stan$ on &y
hea$ in the fairy palace() the other &i!ht fairly reply( )%ell( if it co&es to
that( explain the fairy palace.) 'f 0in$erella says( )*o is it that ' &ust lea#e
the ball at tel#e5) her !o$&other &i!ht anser( )*o is it that you are
!oin! there till tel#e5) 'f ' lea#e a &an in &y ill ten talkin! elephants an$ a
hun$re$ in!e$ horses( he cannot co&plain if the con$itions partake of the
sli!ht eccentricity of the !ift. *e &ust not look a in!e$ horse in the &outh.
6n$ it see&e$ to &e that existence as itself so #ery eccentric a le!acy that '
coul$ not co&plain of not un$erstan$in! the li&itations of the #ision hen '
$i$ not un$erstan$ the #ision they li&ite$. The fra&e as no stran!er than the
picture. The #eto &i!ht ell be as il$ as the #ision2 it &i!ht be as startlin! as
the sun( as elusi#e as the aters( as fantastic an$ terrible as the toerin! trees.
;or this reason +e &ay call it the fairy !o$&other philosophy/ ' ne#er coul$
?oin the youn! &en of &y ti&e in feelin! hat they calle$ the !eneral
senti&ent of reolt. ' shoul$ ha#e resiste$( let us hope( any rules that ere
e#il( an$ ith these an$ their $efinition ' shall $eal in another chapter. 1ut '
$i$ not feel $ispose$ to resist any rule &erely because it as &ysterious.
"states are so&eti&es hel$ by foolish for&s( the breakin! of a stick or the
pay&ent of a peppercorn@ ' as illin! to hol$ the hu!e estate of earth an$
hea#en by any such feu$al fantasy. 't coul$ not ell be il$er than the fact
that ' as alloe$ to hol$ it at all. 6t this sta!e ' !i#e only one ethical
instance to sho &y &eanin!. ' coul$ ne#er &ix in the co&&on &ur&ur of
that risin! !eneration a!ainst &ono!a&y( because no restriction on sex
see&e$ so o$$ an$ unexpecte$ as sex itself. To be alloe$( like "n$y&ion( to
&ake lo#e to the &oon an$ then to co&plain that Dupiter kept his on &oons
in a hare& see&e$ to &e +bre$ on fairy tales like "n$y&ion7s/ a #ul!ar anti:
cli&ax. Feepin! to one o&an is a s&all price for so &uch as seein! one
o&an. To co&plain that ' coul$ only be &arrie$ once as like co&plainin!
that ' ha$ only been born once. 't as inco&&ensurate ith the terrible
excite&ent of hich one as talkin!. 't shoe$( not an exa!!erate$
sensibility to sex( but a curious insensibility to it. 6 &an is a fool ho
co&plains that he cannot enter "$en by fi#e !ates at once. 4oly!a&y is a lack
of the reali3ation of sex2 it is like a &an pluckin! fi#e pears in &ere absence
of &in$. The Hsthetes touche$ the last insane li&its of lan!ua!e in their
eulo!y on lo#ely thin!s. The thistle$on &a$e the& eep2 a burnishe$ beetle
brou!ht the& to their knees. Cet their e&otion ne#er i&presse$ &e for an
instant( for this reason( that it ne#er occurre$ to the& to pay for their pleasure
in any sort of sy&bolic sacrifice. ,en +' felt/ &i!ht fast forty $ays for the sake
of hearin! a blackbir$ sin!. ,en &i!ht !o throu!h fire to fin$ a coslip. Cet
these lo#ers of beauty coul$ not e#en keep sober for the blackbir$. They
oul$ not !o throu!h co&&on 0hristian &arria!e by ay of reco&pense to
the coslip. .urely one &i!ht pay for extraor$inary ?oy in or$inary &orals.
>scar %il$e sai$ that sunsets ere not #alue$ because e coul$ not pay for
sunsets. 1ut >scar %il$e as ron!2 e can pay for sunsets. %e can pay for
the& by not bein! >scar %il$e.
%ell( ' left the fairy tales lyin! on the floor of the nursery( an$ ' ha#e not
foun$ any books so sensible since. ' left the nurse !uar$ian of tra$ition an$
$e&ocracy( an$ ' ha#e not foun$ any &o$ern type so sanely ra$ical or so
sanely conser#ati#e. 1ut the &atter for i&portant co&&ent as here( that
hen ' first ent out into the &ental at&osphere of the &o$ern orl$( ' foun$
that the &o$ern orl$ as positi#ely oppose$ on to points to &y nurse an$
to the nursery tales. 't has taken &e a lon! ti&e to fin$ out that the &o$ern
orl$ is ron! an$ &y nurse as ri!ht. The really curious thin! as this@ that
&o$ern thou!ht contra$icte$ this basic cree$ of &y boyhoo$ on its to &ost
essential $octrines. ' ha#e explaine$ that the fairy tales foun$e$ in &e to
con#ictions2 first( that this orl$ is a il$ an$ startlin! place( hich &i!ht
ha#e been 9uite $ifferent( but hich is 9uite $eli!htful2 secon$( that before
this il$ness an$ $eli!ht one &ay ell be &o$est an$ sub&it to the 9ueerest
li&itations of so 9ueer a kin$ness. 1ut ' foun$ the hole &o$ern orl$
runnin! like a hi!h ti$e a!ainst both &y ten$ernesses2 an$ the shock of that
collision create$ to su$$en an$ spontaneous senti&ents( hich ' ha#e ha$
e#er since an$ hich( cru$e as they ere( ha#e since har$ene$ into
con#ictions.
;irst( ' foun$ the hole &o$ern orl$ talkin! scientific fatalis&2 sayin! that
e#erythin! is as it &ust alays ha#e been( bein! unfol$e$ ithout fault fro&
the be!innin!. The leaf on the tree is !reen because it coul$ ne#er ha#e been
anythin! else. 8o( the fairy:tale philosopher is !la$ that the leaf is !reen
precisely because it &i!ht ha#e been scarlet. *e feels as if it ha$ turne$ !reen
an instant before he looke$ at it. *e is please$ that sno is hite on the
strictly reasonable !roun$ that it &i!ht ha#e been black. "#ery colour has in it
a bol$ 9uality as of choice2 the re$ of !ar$en roses is not only $ecisi#e but
$ra&atic( like su$$enly spilt bloo$. *e feels that so&ethin! has been done.
1ut the !reat $eter&inists of the nineteenth century ere stron!ly a!ainst this
nati#e feelin! that so&ethin! ha$ happene$ an instant before. 'n fact(
accor$in! to the&( nothin! e#er really ha$ happene$ since the be!innin! of
the orl$. 8othin! e#er ha$ happene$ since existence ha$ happene$2 an$ e#en
about the $ate of that they ere not #ery sure.
The &o$ern orl$ as ' foun$ it as soli$ for &o$ern 0al#inis&( for the
necessity of thin!s bein! as they are. 1ut hen ' ca&e to ask the& ' foun$
they ha$ really no proof of this una#oi$able repetition in thin!s except the fact
that the thin!s ere repeate$. 8o( the &ere repetition &a$e the thin!s to &e
rather &ore eir$ than &ore rational. 't as as if( ha#in! seen a curiously
shape$ nose in the street an$ $is&isse$ it as an acci$ent( ' ha$ then seen six
other noses of the sa&e astonishin! shape. ' shoul$ ha#e fancie$ for a &o&ent
that it &ust be so&e local secret society. .o one elephant ha#in! a trunk as
o$$2 but all elephants ha#in! trunks looke$ like a plot. ' speak here only of an
e&otion( an$ of an e&otion at once stubborn an$ subtle. 1ut the repetition in
8ature see&e$ so&eti&es to be an excite$ repetition( like that of an an!ry
school&aster sayin! the sa&e thin! o#er an$ o#er a!ain. The !rass see&e$
si!nallin! to &e ith all its fin!ers at once2 the cro$e$ stars see&e$ bent
upon bein! un$erstoo$. The sun oul$ &ake &e see hi& if he rose a thousan$
ti&es. The recurrences of the uni#erse rose to the &a$$enin! rhyth& of an
incantation( an$ ' be!an to see an i$ea.
6ll the toerin! &aterialis& hich $o&inates the &o$ern &in$ rests
ulti&ately upon one assu&ption2 a false assu&ption. 't is suppose$ that if a
thin! !oes on repeatin! itself it is probably $ea$2 a piece of clockork. 4eople
feel that if the uni#erse as personal it oul$ #ary2 if the sun ere ali#e it
oul$ $ance. This is a fallacy e#en in relation to knon fact. ;or the #ariation
in hu&an affairs is !enerally brou!ht into the&( not by life( but by $eath2 by
the $yin! $on or breakin! off of their stren!th or $esire. 6 &an #aries his
&o#e&ents because of so&e sli!ht ele&ent of failure or fati!ue. *e !ets into
an o&nibus because he is tire$ of alkin!2 or he alks because he is tire$ of
sittin! still. 1ut if his life an$ ?oy ere so !i!antic that he ne#er tire$ of !oin!
to 'slin!ton( he &i!ht !o to 'slin!ton as re!ularly as the Tha&es !oes to
.heerness. The #ery spee$ an$ ecstasy of his life oul$ ha#e the stillness of
$eath. The sun rises e#ery &ornin!. ' $o not rise e#ery &ornin!2 but the
#ariation is $ue not to &y acti#ity( but to &y inaction. 8o( to put the &atter
in a popular phrase( it &i!ht be true that the sun rises re!ularly because he
ne#er !ets tire$ of risin!. *is routine &i!ht be $ue( not to a lifelessness( but to
a rush of life. The thin! ' &ean can be seen( for instance( in chil$ren( hen
they fin$ so&e !a&e or ?oke that they specially en?oy. 6 chil$ kicks his le!s
rhyth&ically throu!h excess( not absence( of life. 1ecause chil$ren ha#e
aboun$in! #itality( because they are in spirit fierce an$ free( therefore they
ant thin!s repeate$ an$ unchan!e$. They alays say( )=o it a!ain)2 an$ the
!ron:up person $oes it a!ain until he is nearly $ea$. ;or !ron:up people
are not stron! enou!h to exult in &onotony. 1ut perhaps -o$ is stron! enou!h
to exult in &onotony. 't is possible that -o$ says e#ery &ornin!( )=o it a!ain)
to the sun2 an$ e#ery e#enin!( )=o it a!ain) to the &oon. 't &ay not be
auto&atic necessity that &akes all $aisies alike2 it &ay be that -o$ &akes
e#ery $aisy separately( but has ne#er !ot tire$ of &akin! the&. 't &ay be that
*e has the eternal appetite of infancy2 for e ha#e sinne$ an$ !ron ol$( an$
our ;ather is youn!er than e. The repetition in 8ature &ay not be a &ere
recurrence2 it &ay be a theatrical en"ore. *ea#en &ay en"ore the bir$ ho
lai$ an e!!. 'f the hu&an bein! concei#es an$ brin!s forth a hu&an chil$
instea$ of brin!in! forth a fish( or a bat( or a !riffin( the reason &ay not be
that e are fixe$ in an ani&al fate ithout life or purpose. 't &ay be that our
little tra!e$y has touche$ the !o$s( that they a$&ire it fro& their starry
!alleries( an$ that at the en$ of e#ery hu&an $ra&a &an is calle$ a!ain an$
a!ain before the curtain. <epetition &ay !o on for &illions of years( by &ere
choice( an$ at any instant it &ay stop. ,an &ay stan$ on the earth !eneration
after !eneration( an$ yet each birth be his positi#ely last appearance.
This as &y first con#iction2 &a$e by the shock of &y chil$ish e&otions
&eetin! the &o$ern cree$ in &i$:career. ' ha$ alays #a!uely felt facts to be
&iracles in the sense that they are on$erful@ no ' be!an to think the&
&iracles in the stricter sense that they ere wilful. ' &ean that they ere( or
&i!ht be( repeate$ exercises of so&e ill. 'n short( ' ha$ alays belie#e$ that
the orl$ in#ol#e$ &a!ic@ no ' thou!ht that perhaps it in#ol#e$ a &a!ician.
6n$ this pointe$ a profoun$ e&otion alays present an$ sub:conscious2 that
this orl$ of ours has so&e purpose2 an$ if there is a purpose( there is a
person. ' ha$ alays felt life first as a story@ an$ if there is a story there is a
story:teller.
1ut &o$ern thou!ht also hit &y secon$ hu&an tra$ition. 't ent a!ainst the
fairy feelin! about strict li&its an$ con$itions. The one thin! it lo#e$ to talk
about as expansion an$ lar!eness. *erbert .pencer oul$ ha#e been !reatly
annoye$ if any one ha$ calle$ hi& an i&perialist( an$ therefore it is hi!hly
re!rettable that nobo$y $i$. 1ut he as an i&perialist of the loest type. *e
populari3e$ this conte&ptible notion that the si3e of the solar syste& ou!ht to
o#er:ae the spiritual $o!&a of &an. %hy shoul$ a &an surren$er his $i!nity
to the solar syste& any &ore than to a hale5 'f &ere si3e pro#es that &an is
not the i&a!e of -o$( then a hale &ay be the i&a!e of -o$2 a so&ehat
for&less i&a!e2 hat one &i!ht call an i&pressionist portrait. 't is 9uite futile
to ar!ue that &an is s&all co&pare$ to the cos&os2 for &an as alays s&all
co&pare$ to the nearest tree. 1ut *erbert .pencer( in his hea$lon!
i&perialis&( oul$ insist that e ha$ in so&e ay been con9uere$ an$
annexe$ by the astrono&ical uni#erse. *e spoke about &en an$ their i$eals
exactly as the &ost insolent Knionist talks about the 'rish an$ their i$eals. *e
turne$ &ankin$ into a s&all nationality. 6n$ his e#il influence can be seen
e#en in the &ost spirite$ an$ honourable of later scientific authors2 notably in
the early ro&ances of ,r. *.-. %ells. ,any &oralists ha#e in an exa!!erate$
ay represente$ the earth as icke$. 1ut ,r. %ells an$ his school &a$e the
hea#ens icke$. %e shoul$ lift up our eyes to the stars fro& hence oul$
co&e our ruin.
1ut the expansion of hich ' speak as &uch &ore e#il than all this. ' ha#e
re&arke$ that the &aterialist( like the &a$&an( is in prison2 in the prison of
one thou!ht. These people see&e$ to think it sin!ularly inspirin! to keep on
sayin! that the prison as #ery lar!e. The si3e of this scientific uni#erse !a#e
one no no#elty( no relief. The cos&os ent on for e#er( but not in its il$est
constellation coul$ there be anythin! really interestin!2 anythin!( for instance(
such as for!i#eness or free ill. The !ran$eur or infinity of the secret of its
cos&os a$$e$ nothin! to it. 't as like tellin! a prisoner in <ea$in! !aol that
he oul$ be !la$ to hear that the !aol no co#ere$ half the county. The
ar$er oul$ ha#e nothin! to sho the &an except &ore an$ &ore lon!
corri$ors of stone lit by !hastly li!hts an$ e&pty of all that is hu&an. .o these
expan$ers of the uni#erse ha$ nothin! to sho us except &ore an$ &ore
infinite corri$ors of space lit by !hastly suns an$ e&pty of all that is $i#ine.
'n fairylan$ there ha$ been a real la2 a la that coul$ be broken( for the
$efinition of a la is so&ethin! that can be broken. 1ut the &achinery of this
cos&ic prison as so&ethin! that coul$ not be broken2 for e oursel#es ere
only a part of its &achinery. %e ere either unable to $o thin!s or e ere
$estine$ to $o the&. The i$ea of the &ystical con$ition 9uite $isappeare$2 one
can neither ha#e the fir&ness of keepin! las nor the fun of breakin! the&.
The lar!eness of this uni#erse ha$ nothin! of that freshness an$ airy outbreak
hich e ha#e praise$ in the uni#erse of the poet. This &o$ern uni#erse is
literally an e&pire2 that is( it is #ast( but it is not free. >ne ent into lar!er an$
lar!er in$oless roo&s( roo&s bi! ith 1abylonian perspecti#e2 but one
ne#er foun$ the s&allest in$o or a hisper of outer air.
Their infernal parallels see&e$ to expan$ ith $istance2 but for &e all !oo$
thin!s co&e to a point( sor$s for instance. .o fin$in! the boast of the bi!
cos&os so unsatisfactory to &y e&otions ' be!an to ar!ue about it a little2 an$
' soon foun$ that the hole attitu$e as e#en shalloer than coul$ ha#e been
expecte$. 6ccor$in! to these people the cos&os as one thin! since it ha$ one
unbroken rule. >nly +they oul$ say/ hile it is one thin! it is also the only
thin! there is. %hy( then( shoul$ one orry particularly to call it lar!e5 There
is nothin! to co&pare it ith. 't oul$ be ?ust as sensible to call it s&all. 6
&an &ay say( )' like this #ast cos&os( ith its thron! of stars an$ its cro$ of
#arie$ creatures.) 1ut if it co&es to that hy shoul$ not a &an say( )' like this
cosy little cos&os( ith its $ecent nu&ber of stars an$ as neat a pro#ision of
li#e stock as ' ish to see)5 >ne is as !oo$ as the other2 they are both &ere
senti&ents. 't is &ere senti&ent to re?oice that the sun is lar!er than the earth2
it is 9uite as sane a senti&ent to re?oice that the sun is no lar!er than it is. 6
&an chooses to ha#e an e&otion about the lar!eness of the orl$2 hy shoul$
he not choose to ha#e an e&otion about its s&allness5
't happene$ that ' ha$ that e&otion. %hen one is fon$ of anythin! one
a$$resses it by $i&inuti#es( e#en if it is an elephant or a life!uar$s&an. The
reason is( that anythin!( hoe#er hu!e( that can be concei#e$ of as co&plete(
can be concei#e$ of as s&all. 'f &ilitary &oustaches $i$ not su!!est a sor$
or tusks a tail( then the ob?ect oul$ be #ast because it oul$ be
i&&easurable. 1ut the &o&ent you can i&a!ine a !uar$s&an you can
i&a!ine a s&all !uar$s&an. The &o&ent you really see an elephant you can
call it )Tiny.) 'f you can &ake a statue of a thin! you can &ake a statuette of
it. These people professe$ that the uni#erse as one coherent thin!2 but they
ere not fon$ of the uni#erse. 1ut ' as fri!htfully fon$ of the uni#erse an$
ante$ to a$$ress it by a $i&inuti#e. ' often $i$ so2 an$ it ne#er see&e$ to
&in$. 6ctually an$ in truth ' $i$ feel that these $i& $o!&as of #itality ere
better expresse$ by callin! the orl$ s&all than by callin! it lar!e. ;or about
infinity there as a sort of carelessness hich as the re#erse of the fierce
an$ pious care hich ' felt touchin! the pricelessness an$ the peril of life.
They shoe$ only a $reary aste2 but ' felt a sort of sacre$ thrift. ;or
econo&y is far &ore ro&antic than extra#a!ance. To the& stars ere an
unen$in! inco&e of halfpence2 but ' felt about the !ol$en sun an$ the sil#er
&oon as a schoolboy feels if he has one so#erei!n an$ one shillin!.
These subconscious con#ictions are best hit off by the colour an$ tone of
certain tales. Thus ' ha#e sai$ that stories of &a!ic alone can express &y sense
that life is not only a pleasure but a kin$ of eccentric pri#ile!e. ' &ay express
this other feelin! of cos&ic cosiness by allusion to another book alays rea$
in boyhoo$( )<obinson 0rusoe() hich ' rea$ about this ti&e( an$ hich oes
its eternal #i#acity to the fact that it celebrates the poetry of li&its( nay( e#en
the il$ ro&ance of pru$ence. 0rusoe is a &an on a s&all rock ith a fe
co&forts ?ust snatche$ fro& the sea@ the best thin! in the book is si&ply the
list of thin!s sa#e$ fro& the reck. The !reatest of poe&s is an in#entory.
"#ery kitchen tool beco&es i$eal because 0rusoe &i!ht ha#e $roppe$ it in the
sea. 't is a !oo$ exercise( in e&pty or u!ly hours of the $ay( to look at
anythin!( the coal:scuttle or the book:case( an$ think ho happy one coul$ be
to ha#e brou!ht it out of the sinkin! ship on to the solitary islan$. 1ut it is a
better exercise still to re&e&ber ho all thin!s ha#e ha$ this hair:brea$th
escape@ e#erythin! has been sa#e$ fro& a reck. "#ery &an has ha$ one
horrible a$#enture@ as a hi$$en unti&ely birth he ha$ not been( as infants that
ne#er see the li!ht. ,en spoke &uch in &y boyhoo$ of restricte$ or ruine$
&en of !enius@ an$ it as co&&on to say that &any a &an as a -reat ,i!ht:
*a#e:1een. To &e it is a &ore soli$ an$ startlin! fact that any &an in the
street is a -reat ,i!ht:8ot:*a#e:1een.
1ut ' really felt +the fancy &ay see& foolish/ as if all the or$er an$ nu&ber of
thin!s ere the ro&antic re&nant of 0rusoe7s ship. That there are to sexes
an$ one sun( as like the fact that there ere to !uns an$ one axe. 't as
poi!nantly ur!ent that none shoul$ be lost2 but so&eho( it as rather fun that
none coul$ be a$$e$. The trees an$ the planets see&e$ like thin!s sa#e$ fro&
the reck@ an$ hen ' sa the ,atterhorn ' as !la$ that it ha$ not been
o#erlooke$ in the confusion. ' felt econo&ical about the stars as if they ere
sapphires +they are calle$ so in ,ilton7s "$en/@ ' hoar$e$ the hills. ;or the
uni#erse is a sin!le ?eel( an$ hile it is a natural cant to talk of a ?eel as
peerless an$ priceless( of this ?eel it is literally true. This cos&os is in$ee$
ithout peer an$ ithout price@ for there cannot be another one.
Thus en$s( in una#oi$able ina$e9uacy( the atte&pt to utter the unutterable
thin!s. These are &y ulti&ate attitu$es toar$s life2 the soils for the see$s of
$octrine. These in so&e $ark ay ' thou!ht before ' coul$ rite( an$ felt
before ' coul$ think@ that e &ay procee$ &ore easily afterar$s( ' ill
rou!hly recapitulate the& no. ' felt in &y bones2 first( that this orl$ $oes
not explain itself. 't &ay be a &iracle ith a supernatural explanation2 it &ay
be a con?urin! trick( ith a natural explanation. 1ut the explanation of the
con?urin! trick( if it is to satisfy &e( ill ha#e to be better than the natural
explanations ' ha#e hear$. The thin! is &a!ic( true or false. .econ$( ' ca&e to
feel as if &a!ic &ust ha#e a &eanin!( an$ &eanin! &ust ha#e so&e one to
&ean it. There as so&ethin! personal in the orl$( as in a ork of art2
hate#er it &eant it &eant #iolently. Thir$( ' thou!ht this purpose beautiful in
its ol$ $esi!n( in spite of its $efects( such as $ra!ons. ;ourth( that the proper
for& of thanks to it is so&e for& of hu&ility an$ restraint@ e shoul$ thank
-o$ for beer an$ 1ur!un$y by not $rinkin! too &uch of the&. %e oe$( also(
an obe$ience to hate#er &a$e us. 6n$ last( an$ stran!est( there ha$ co&e
into &y &in$ a #a!ue an$ #ast i&pression that in so&e ay all !oo$ as a
re&nant to be store$ an$ hel$ sacre$ out of so&e pri&or$ial ruin. ,an ha$
sa#e$ his !oo$ as 0rusoe sa#e$ his !oo$s@ he ha$ sa#e$ the& fro& a reck.
6ll this ' felt an$ the a!e !a#e &e no encoura!e&ent to feel it. 6n$ all this
ti&e ' ha$ not e#en thou!ht of 0hristian theolo!y.
CHAPTER V.The lag of the !orld
%hen ' as a boy there ere to curious &en runnin! about ho ere calle$
the opti&ist an$ the pessi&ist. ' constantly use$ the or$s &yself( but '
cheerfully confess that ' ne#er ha$ any #ery special i$ea of hat they &eant.
The only thin! hich &i!ht be consi$ere$ e#i$ent as that they coul$ not
&ean hat they sai$2 for the or$inary #erbal explanation as that the opti&ist
thou!ht this orl$ as !oo$ as it coul$ be( hile the pessi&ist thou!ht it as ba$
as it coul$ be. 1oth these state&ents bein! ob#iously ra#in! nonsense( one
ha$ to cast about for other explanations. 6n opti&ist coul$ not &ean a &an
ho thou!ht e#erythin! ri!ht an$ nothin! ron!. ;or that is &eanin!less2 it is
like callin! e#erythin! ri!ht an$ nothin! left. Kpon the hole( ' ca&e to the
conclusion that the opti&ist thou!ht e#erythin! !oo$ except the pessi&ist( an$
that the pessi&ist thou!ht e#erythin! ba$( except hi&self. 't oul$ be unfair
to o&it alto!ether fro& the list the &ysterious but su!!esti#e $efinition sai$ to
ha#e been !i#en by a little !irl( )6n opti&ist is a &an ho looks after your
eyes( an$ a pessi&ist is a &an ho looks after your feet.) ' a& not sure that
this is not the best $efinition of all. There is e#en a sort of alle!orical truth in
it. ;or there &i!ht( perhaps( be a profitable $istinction $ran beteen that
&ore $reary thinker ho thinks &erely of our contact ith the earth fro&
&o&ent to &o&ent( an$ that happier thinker ho consi$ers rather our pri&ary
poer of #ision an$ of choice of roa$.
1ut this is a $eep &istake in this alternati#e of the opti&ist an$ the pessi&ist.
The assu&ption of it is that a &an criticises this orl$ as if he ere house:
huntin!( as if he ere bein! shon o#er a ne suite of apart&ents. 'f a &an
ca&e to this orl$ fro& so&e other orl$ in full possession of his poers he
&i!ht $iscuss hether the a$#anta!e of &i$su&&er oo$s &a$e up for the
$isa$#anta!e of &a$ $o!s( ?ust as a &an lookin! for lo$!in!s &i!ht balance
the presence of a telephone a!ainst the absence of a sea #ie. 1ut no &an is in
that position. 6 &an belon!s to this orl$ before he be!ins to ask if it is nice
to belon! to it. *e has fou!ht for the fla!( an$ often on heroic #ictories for
the fla! lon! before he has e#er enliste$. To put shortly hat see&s the
essential &atter( he has a loyalty lon! before he has any a$&iration.
'n the last chapter it has been sai$ that the pri&ary feelin! that this orl$ is
stran!e an$ yet attracti#e is best expresse$ in fairy tales. The rea$er &ay( if he
likes( put $on the next sta!e to that bellicose an$ e#en ?in!o literature hich
co&&only co&es next in the history of a boy. %e all oe &uch soun$
&orality to the penny $rea$fuls. %hate#er the reason( it see&e$ an$ still
see&s to &e that our attitu$e toar$s life can be better expresse$ in ter&s of a
kin$ of &ilitary loyalty than in ter&s of criticis& an$ appro#al. ,y
acceptance of the uni#erse is not opti&is&( it is &ore like patriotis&. 't is a
&atter of pri&ary loyalty. The orl$ is not a lo$!in!:house at 1ri!hton( hich
e are to lea#e because it is &iserable. 't is the fortress of our fa&ily( ith the
fla! flyin! on the turret( an$ the &ore &iserable it is the less e shoul$ lea#e
it. The point is not that this orl$ is too sa$ to lo#e or too !la$ not to lo#e2 the
point is that hen you $o lo#e a thin!( its !la$ness is a reason for lo#in! it(
an$ its sa$ness a reason for lo#in! it &ore. 6ll opti&istic thou!hts about
"n!lan$ an$ all pessi&istic thou!hts about her are alike reasons for the
"n!lish patriot. .i&ilarly( opti&is& an$ pessi&is& are alike ar!u&ents for the
cos&ic patriot.
Aet us suppose e are confronte$ ith a $esperate thin!Bsay 4i&lico. 'f e
think hat is really best for 4i&lico e shall fin$ the threa$ of thou!ht lea$s
to the throne of the &ystic an$ the arbitary. 't is not enou!h for a &an to
$isappro#e of 4i&lico@ in that case he ill &erely cut his throat or &o#e to
0helsea. 8or( certainly( is it enou!h for a &an to appro#e of 4i&lico@ for then
it ill re&ain 4i&lico( hich oul$ be aful. The only ay out of it see&s to
be for so&ebo$y to lo#e 4i&lico@ to lo#e it ith a transcen$ental tie an$
ithout any earthly reason. 'f there arose a &an ho lo#e$ 4i&lico( then
4i&lico oul$ rise into i#ory toers an$ !ol$en pinnacles2 4i&lico oul$
attire herself as a o&an $oes hen she is lo#e$. ;or $ecoration is not !i#en
to hi$e horrible thin!s2 but to $ecorate thin!s alrea$y a$orable. 6 &other $oes
not !i#e her chil$ a blue bo because he is so u!ly ithout it. 6 lo#er $oes not
!i#e a !irl a necklace to hi$e her neck. 'f &en lo#e$ 4i&lico as &others lo#e
chil$ren( arbitarily( because it is theirs 4i&lico in a year or to &i!ht be fairer
than ;lorence. .o&e rea$ers ill say that this is a &ere fantasy. ' anser that
this is the actual history of &ankin$. This( as a fact( is ho cities $i$ !ro
!reat. -o back to the $arkest roots of ci#ilisation an$ you ill fin$ the&
knotte$ roun$ so&e sacre$ stone or encirclin! so&e sacre$ ell. 4eople first
pai$ honour to a spot an$ afterar$s !aine$ !lory for it. ,en $i$ not lo#e
<o&e because she as !reat. .he as !reat because they ha$ lo#e$ her.
The ei!hteenth:century theories of the social contract ha#e been expose$ to
&uch clu&sy criticis& in our ti&e2 in so far as they &eant that there is at the
back of all historic !o#ern&ent an i$ea of content an$ co:operation( they ere
$e&onstrably ri!ht. 1ut they really ere ron! in so far as they su!!este$
that &en ha$ e#er ai&e$ at or$er or ethics $irectly by a conscious exchan!e of
interests. ,orality $i$ not be!in by one &an sayin! to another( )' ill not hit
you if you $o not hit &e)2 there is no trace of such a transaction. There is a
trace of both &en ha#in! sai$( )%e &ust not hit each other in the holy place.)
They !aine$ their &orality by !uar$in! their reli!ion. They $i$ not culti#ate
coura!e. They fou!ht for the shrine( an$ foun$ they ha$ beco&e coura!eous.
They $i$ not culti#ate cleanliness. They purifie$ the&sel#es for the altar( an$
foun$ that they ere clean. The history of the Des is the only early $ocu&ent
knon to &ost "n!lish&en( an$ the facts can be ?u$!e$ sufficiently fro& that.
The Ten 0o&&an$&ents hich ha#e been foun$ substantially co&&on to
&ankin$ ere &erely &ilitary co&&an$s2 a co$e of re!i&ental or$ers( issue$
to protect a certain ark across a certain $esert. 6narchy as e#il because it
en$an!ere$ the sanctity. 6n$ only hen they &a$e a holy $ay for -o$ $i$
they fin$ they ha$ &a$e a holi$ay for &en.
'f it be !rante$ that this pri&ary $e#otion to a place or thin! is a source of
creati#e ener!y( e can pass on to a #ery peculiar fact. Aet us reiterate for an
instant that the only ri!ht opti&is& is a sort of uni#ersal patriotis&. %hat is
the &atter ith the pessi&ist5 ' think it can be state$ by sayin! that he is the
cos&ic anti:patriot. 6n$ hat is the &atter ith the anti:patriot5 ' think it can
be state$( ithout un$ue bitterness( by sayin! that he is the can$i$ frien$. 6n$
hat is the &atter ith the can$i$ frien$5 There e strike the rock of real life
an$ i&&utable hu&an nature.
' #enture to say that hat is ba$ in the can$i$ frien$ is si&ply that he is not
can$i$. *e is keepin! so&ethin! backBhis on !loo&y pleasure in sayin!
unpleasant thin!s. *e has a secret $esire to hurt( not &erely to help. This is
certainly( ' think( hat &akes a certain sort of anti:patriot irritatin! to healthy
citi3ens. ' $o not speak +of course/ of the anti:patriotis& hich only irritates
fe#erish stockbrokers an$ !ushin! actresses2 that is only patriotis& speakin!
plainly. 6 &an ho says that no patriot shoul$ attack the 1oer %ar until it is
o#er is not orth anserin! intelli!ently2 he is sayin! that no !oo$ son shoul$
arn his &other off a cliff until she has fallen o#er it. 1ut there is an anti:
patriot ho honestly an!ers honest &en( an$ the explanation of hi& is( ' think(
hat ' ha#e su!!este$@ he is the uncan$i$ can$i$ frien$2 the &an ho says( )'
a& sorry to say e are ruine$() an$ is not sorry at all. 6n$ he &ay be sai$(
ithout rhetoric( to be a traitor2 for he is usin! that u!ly knole$!e hich as
alloe$ hi& to stren!then the ar&y( to $iscoura!e people fro& ?oinin! it.
1ecause he is alloe$ to be pessi&istic as a &ilitary a$#iser he is bein!
pessi&istic as a recruitin! ser!eant. Dust in the sa&e ay the pessi&ist +ho is
the cos&ic anti:patriot/ uses the free$o& that life allos to her counsellors to
lure aay the people fro& her fla!. -rante$ that he states only facts( it is still
essential to kno hat are his e&otions( hat is his &oti#e. 't &ay be that
tel#e hun$re$ &en in Tottenha& are $on ith s&allpox2 but e ant to
kno hether this is state$ by so&e !reat philosopher ho ants to curse the
!o$s( or only by so&e co&&on cler!y&an ho ants to help the &en.
The e#il of the pessi&ist is( then( not that he chastises !o$s an$ &en( but that
he $oes not lo#e hat he chastisesBhe has not this pri&ary an$ supernatural
loyalty to thin!s. %hat is the e#il of the &an co&&only calle$ an opti&ist5
>b#iously( it is felt that the opti&ist( ishin! to $efen$ the honour of this
orl$( ill $efen$ the in$efensible. *e is the ?in!o of the uni#erse2 he ill
say( ),y cos&os( ri!ht or ron!.) *e ill be less incline$ to the refor& of
thin!s2 &ore incline$ to a sort of front:bench official anser to all attacks(
soothin! e#ery one ith assurances. *e ill not ash the orl$( but
hiteash the orl$. 6ll this +hich is true of a type of opti&ist/ lea$s us to
the one really interestin! point of psycholo!y( hich coul$ not be explaine$
ithout it.
%e say there &ust be a pri&al loyalty to life@ the only 9uestion is( shall it be a
natural or a supernatural loyalty5 'f you like to put it so( shall it be a
reasonable or an unreasonable loyalty5 8o( the extraor$inary thin! is that the
ba$ opti&is& +the hiteashin!( the eak $efence of e#erythin!/ co&es in
ith the reasonable opti&is&. <ational opti&is& lea$s to sta!nation@ it is
irrational opti&is& that lea$s to refor&. Aet &e explain by usin! once &ore
the parallel of patriotis&. The &an ho is &ost likely to ruin the place he
lo#es is exactly the &an ho lo#es it ith a reason. The &an ho ill
i&pro#e the place is the &an ho lo#es it ithout a reason. 'f a &an lo#es
so&e feature of 4i&lico +hich see&s unlikely/( he &ay fin$ hi&self
$efen$in! that feature a!ainst 4i&lico itself. 1ut if he si&ply lo#es 4i&lico
itself( he &ay lay it aste an$ turn it into the 8e Derusale&. ' $o not $eny
that refor& &ay be excessi#e2 ' only say that it is the &ystic patriot ho
refor&s. ,ere ?in!o self:content&ent is co&&onest a&on! those ho ha#e
so&e pe$antic reason for their patriotis&. The orst ?in!oes $o not lo#e
"n!lan$( but a theory of "n!lan$. 'f e lo#e "n!lan$ for bein! an e&pire( e
&ay o#errate the success ith hich e rule the *in$oos. 1ut if e lo#e it
only for bein! a nation( e can face all e#ents@ for it oul$ be a nation e#en if
the *in$oos rule$ us. Thus also only those ill per&it their patriotis& to
falsify history hose patriotis& $epen$s on history. 6 &an ho lo#es "n!lan$
for bein! "n!lish ill not &in$ ho she arose. 1ut a &an ho lo#es "n!lan$
for bein! 6n!lo:.axon &ay !o a!ainst all facts for his fancy. *e &ay en$
+like 0arlyle an$ ;ree&an/ by &aintainin! that the 8or&an 0on9uest as a
.axon 0on9uest. *e &ay en$ in utter unreasonBbecause he has a reason. 6
&an ho lo#es ;rance for bein! &ilitary ill palliate the ar&y of 1870. 1ut a
&an ho lo#es ;rance for bein! ;rance ill i&pro#e the ar&y of 1870. This
is exactly hat the ;rench ha#e $one( an$ ;rance is a !oo$ instance of the
orkin! para$ox. 8ohere else is patriotis& &ore purely abstract an$
arbitrary2 an$ nohere else is refor& &ore $rastic an$ seepin!. The &ore
transcen$ental is your patriotis&( the &ore practical are your politics.
4erhaps the &ost e#ery$ay instance of this point is in the case of o&en2 an$
their stran!e an$ stron! loyalty. .o&e stupi$ people starte$ the i$ea that
because o&en ob#iously back up their on people throu!h e#erythin!(
therefore o&en are blin$ an$ $o not see anythin!. They can har$ly ha#e
knon any o&en. The sa&e o&en ho are rea$y to $efen$ their &en
throu!h thick an$ thin are +in their personal intercourse ith the &an/ al&ost
&orbi$ly luci$ about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his hea$.
6 &an7s frien$ likes hi& but lea#es hi& as he is@ his ife lo#es hi& an$ is
alays tryin! to turn hi& into so&ebo$y else. %o&en ho are utter &ystics
in their cree$ are utter cynics in their criticis&. Thackeray expresse$ this ell
hen he &a$e 4en$ennis7 &other( ho orshippe$ her son as a !o$( yet
assu&e that he oul$ !o ron! as a &an. .he un$errate$ his #irtue( thou!h
she o#errate$ his #alue. The $e#otee is entirely free to criticise2 the fanatic can
safely be a sceptic. Ao#e is not blin$2 that is the last thin! that it is. Ao#e is
boun$2 an$ the &ore it is boun$ the less it is blin$.
This at least ha$ co&e to be &y position about all that as calle$ opti&is&(
pessi&is&( an$ i&pro#e&ent. 1efore any cos&ic act of refor& e &ust ha#e
a cos&ic oath of alle!iance. 6 &an &ust be intereste$ in life( then he coul$ be
$isintereste$ in his #ies of it. ),y son !i#e &e thy heart)2 the heart &ust be
fixe$ on the ri!ht thin!@ the &o&ent e ha#e a fixe$ heart e ha#e a free
han$. ' &ust pause to anticipate an ob#ious criticis&. 't ill be sai$ that a
rational person accepts the orl$ as &ixe$ of !oo$ an$ e#il ith a $ecent
satisfaction an$ a $ecent en$urance. 1ut this is exactly the attitu$e hich '
&aintain to be $efecti#e. 't is( ' kno( #ery co&&on in this a!e2 it as
perfectly put in those 9uiet lines of ,atthe 6rnol$ hich are &ore
piercin!ly blasphe&ous than the shrieks of .chopenhauerB
)"nou!h e li#e@Ban$ if a life(%ith lar!e results so little rife(Thou!h
bearable( see& har$ly orthThis po&p of orl$s( this pain of birth.)
' kno this feelin! fills our epoch( an$ ' think it free3es our epoch. ;or our
Titanic purposes of faith an$ re#olution( hat e nee$ is not the col$
acceptance of the orl$ as a co&pro&ise( but so&e ay in hich e can
heartily hate an$ heartily lo#e it. %e $o not ant ?oy an$ an!er to neutralise
each other an$ pro$uce a surly content&ent2 e ant a fiercer $eli!ht an$ a
fiercer $iscontent. %e ha#e to feel the uni#erse at once as an o!re7s castle( to
be stor&e$( an$ yet as our on cotta!e( to hich e can return at e#enin!.
8o one $oubts that an or$inary &an can !et on ith this orl$@ but e
$e&an$ not stren!th enou!h to !et on ith it( but stren!th enou!h to !et it on.
0an he hate it enou!h to chan!e it( an$ yet lo#e it enou!h to think it orth
chan!in!5 0an he look up at its colossal !oo$ ithout once feelin!
ac9uiescence5 0an he look up at its colossal e#il ithout once feelin! $espair5
0an he( in short( be at once not only a pessi&ist an$ an opti&ist( but a
fanatical pessi&ist an$ a fanatical opti&ist5 's he enou!h of a pa!an to $ie for
the orl$( an$ enou!h of a 0hristian to $ie to it5 'n this co&bination( '
&aintain( it is the rational opti&ist ho fails( the irrational opti&ist ho
succee$s. *e is rea$y to s&ash the hole uni#erse for the sake of itself.
' put these thin!s not in their &ature lo!ical se9uence( but as they ca&e@ an$
this #ie as cleare$ an$ sharpene$ by an acci$ent of the ti&e. Kn$er the
len!thenin! sha$o of 'bsen( an ar!u&ent arose hether it as not a #ery
nice thin! to &ur$er one7s self. -ra#e &o$erns tol$ us that e &ust not e#en
say )poor fello() of a &an ho ha$ blon his brains out( since he as an
en#iable person( an$ ha$ only blon the& out because of their exceptional
excellence. ,r. %illia& 6rcher e#en su!!este$ that in the !ol$en a!e there
oul$ be penny:in:the:slot &achines( by hich a &an coul$ kill hi&self for a
penny. 'n all this ' foun$ &yself utterly hostile to &any ho calle$ the&sel#es
liberal an$ hu&ane. 8ot only is suici$e a sin( it is the sin. 't is the ulti&ate an$
absolute e#il( the refusal to take an interest in existence2 the refusal to take the
oath of loyalty to life. The &an ho kills a &an( kills a &an. The &an ho
kills hi&self( kills all &en2 as far as he is concerne$ he ipes out the orl$.
*is act is orse +sy&bolically consi$ere$/ than any rape or $yna&ite outra!e.
;or it $estroys all buil$in!s@ it insults all o&en. The thief is satisfie$ ith
$ia&on$s2 but the suici$e is not@ that is his cri&e. *e cannot be bribe$( e#en
by the bla3in! stones of the 0elestial 0ity. The thief co&pli&ents the thin!s
he steals( if not the oner of the&. 1ut the suici$e insults e#erythin! on earth
by not stealin! it. *e $efiles e#ery floer by refusin! to li#e for its sake.
There is not a tiny creature in the cos&os at ho& his $eath is not a sneer.
%hen a &an han!s hi&self on a tree( the lea#es &i!ht fall off in an!er an$ the
bir$s fly aay in fury@ for each has recei#e$ a personal affront. >f course
there &ay be pathetic e&otional excuses for the act. There often are for rape(
an$ there al&ost alays are for $yna&ite. 1ut if it co&es to clear i$eas an$
the intelli!ent &eanin! of thin!s( then there is &uch &ore rational an$
philosophic truth in the burial at the cross:roa$s an$ the stake $ri#en throu!h
the bo$y( than in ,r. 6rcher7s suici$al auto&atic &achines. There is a
&eanin! in buryin! the suici$e apart. The &an7s cri&e is $ifferent fro& other
cri&esBfor it &akes e#en cri&es i&possible.
6bout the sa&e ti&e ' rea$ a sole&n flippancy by so&e free thinker@ he sai$
that a suici$e as only the sa&e as a &artyr. The open fallacy of this helpe$ to
clear the 9uestion. >b#iously a suici$e is the opposite of a &artyr. 6 &artyr is
a &an ho cares so &uch for so&ethin! outsi$e hi&( that he for!ets his on
personal life. 6 suici$e is a &an ho cares so little for anythin! outsi$e hi&(
that he ants to see the last of e#erythin!. >ne ants so&ethin! to be!in@ the
other ants e#erythin! to en$. 'n other or$s( the &artyr is noble( exactly
because +hoe#er he renounces the orl$ or execrates all hu&anity/ he
confesses this ulti&ate link ith life2 he sets his heart outsi$e hi&self@ he $ies
that so&ethin! &ay li#e. The suici$e is i!noble because he has not this link
ith bein!@ he is a &ere $estroyer2 spiritually( he $estroys the uni#erse. 6n$
then ' re&e&bere$ the stake an$ the cross:roa$s( an$ the 9ueer fact that
0hristianity ha$ shon this eir$ harshness to the suici$e. ;or 0hristianity
ha$ shon a il$ encoura!e&ent of the &artyr. *istoric 0hristianity as
accuse$( not entirely ithout reason( of carryin! &artyr$o& an$ asceticis& to
a point( $esolate an$ pessi&istic. The early 0hristian &artyrs talke$ of $eath
ith a horrible happiness. They blasphe&e$ the beautiful $uties of the bo$y@
they s&elt the !ra#e afar off like a fiel$ of floers. 6ll this has see&e$ to
&any the #ery poetry of pessi&is&. Cet there is the stake at the cross:roa$s to
sho hat 0hristianity thou!ht of the pessi&ist.
This as the first of the lon! train of eni!&as ith hich 0hristianity entere$
the $iscussion. 6n$ there ent ith it a peculiarity of hich ' shall ha#e to
speak &ore &arke$ly( as a note of all 0hristian notions( but hich $istinctly
be!an in this one. The 0hristian attitu$e to the &artyr an$ the suici$e as not
hat is so often affir&e$ in &o$ern &orals. 't as not a &atter of $e!ree. 't
as not that a line &ust be $ran so&ehere( an$ that the self:slayer in
exaltation fell ithin the line( the self:slayer in sa$ness ?ust beyon$ it. The
0hristian feelin! e#i$ently as not &erely that the suici$e as carryin!
&artyr$o& too far. The 0hristian feelin! as furiously for one an$ furiously
a!ainst the other@ these to thin!s that looke$ so &uch alike ere at opposite
en$s of hea#en an$ hell. >ne &an flun! aay his life2 he as so !oo$ that his
$ry bones coul$ heal cities in pestilence. 6nother &an flun! aay life2 he as
so ba$ that his bones oul$ pollute his brethren7s. ' a& not sayin! this
fierceness as ri!ht2 but hy as it so fierce5
*ere it as that ' first foun$ that &y an$erin! feet ere in so&e beaten
track. 0hristianity ha$ also felt this opposition of the &artyr to the suici$e@
ha$ it perhaps felt it for the sa&e reason5 *a$ 0hristianity felt hat ' felt( but
coul$ not +an$ cannot/ expressBthis nee$ for a first loyalty to thin!s( an$ then
for a ruinous refor& of thin!s5 Then ' re&e&bere$ that it as actually the
char!e a!ainst 0hristianity that it co&bine$ these to thin!s hich ' as
il$ly tryin! to co&bine. 0hristianity as accuse$( at one an$ the sa&e ti&e(
of bein! too opti&istic about the uni#erse an$ of bein! too pessi&istic about
the orl$. The coinci$ence &a$e &e su$$enly stan$ still.
6n i&becile habit has arisen in &o$ern contro#ersy of sayin! that such an$
such a cree$ can be hel$ in one a!e but cannot be hel$ in another. .o&e
$o!&a( e are tol$( as cre$ible in the telfth century( but is not cre$ible in
the tentieth. Cou &i!ht as ell say that a certain philosophy can be belie#e$
on ,on$ays( but cannot be belie#e$ on Tues$ays. Cou &i!ht as ell say of a
#ie of the cos&os that it as suitable to half:past three( but not suitable to
half:past four. %hat a &an can belie#e $epen$s upon his philosophy( not upon
the clock or the century. 'f a &an belie#es in unalterable natural la( he cannot
belie#e in any &iracle in any a!e. 'f a &an belie#es in a ill behin$ la( he
can belie#e in any &iracle in any a!e. .uppose( for the sake of ar!u&ent( e
are concerne$ ith a case of thau&atur!ic healin!. 6 &aterialist of the telfth
century coul$ not belie#e it any &ore than a &aterialist of the tentieth
century. 1ut a 0hristian .cientist of the tentieth century can belie#e it as
&uch as a 0hristian of the telfth century. 't is si&ply a &atter of a &an7s
theory of thin!s. Therefore in $ealin! ith any historical anser( the point is
not hether it as !i#en in our ti&e( but hether it as !i#en in anser to
our 9uestion. 6n$ the &ore ' thou!ht about hen an$ ho 0hristianity ha$
co&e into the orl$( the &ore ' felt that it ha$ actually co&e to anser this
9uestion.
't is co&&only the loose an$ latitu$inarian 0hristians ho pay 9uite
in$efensible co&pli&ents to 0hristianity. They talk as if there ha$ ne#er been
any piety or pity until 0hristianity ca&e( a point on hich any &e$iH#al
oul$ ha#e been ea!er to correct the&. They represent that the re&arkable
thin! about 0hristianity as that it as the first to preach si&plicity or self:
restraint( or inar$ness an$ sincerity. They ill think &e #ery narro
+hate#er that &eans/ if ' say that the re&arkable thin! about 0hristianity as
that it as the first to preach 0hristianity. 'ts peculiarity as that it as
peculiar( an$ si&plicity an$ sincerity are not peculiar( but ob#ious i$eals for
all &ankin$. 0hristianity as the anser to a ri$$le( not the last truis& uttere$
after a lon! talk. >nly the other $ay ' sa in an excellent eekly paper of
4uritan tone this re&ark( that 0hristianity hen strippe$ of its ar&our of
$o!&a +as ho shoul$ speak of a &an strippe$ of his ar&our of bones/( turne$
out to be nothin! but the Luaker $octrine of the 'nner Ai!ht. 8o( if ' ere to
say that 0hristianity ca&e into the orl$ specially to $estroy the $octrine of
the 'nner Ai!ht( that oul$ be an exa!!eration. 1ut it oul$ be #ery &uch
nearer to the truth. The last .toics( like ,arcus 6urelius( ere exactly the
people ho $i$ belie#e in the 'nner Ai!ht. Their $i!nity( their eariness( their
sa$ external care for others( their incurable internal care for the&sel#es( ere
all $ue to the 'nner Ai!ht( an$ existe$ only by that $is&al illu&ination. 8otice
that ,arcus 6urelius insists( as such introspecti#e &oralists alays $o( upon
s&all thin!s $one or un$one2 it is because he has not hate or lo#e enou!h to
&ake a &oral re#olution. *e !ets up early in the &ornin!( ?ust as our on
aristocrats li#in! the .i&ple Aife !et up early in the &ornin!2 because such
altruis& is &uch easier than stoppin! the !a&es of the a&phitheatre or !i#in!
the "n!lish people back their lan$. ,arcus 6urelius is the &ost intolerable of
hu&an types. *e is an unselfish e!oist. 6n unselfish e!oist is a &an ho has
pri$e ithout the excuse of passion. >f all concei#able for&s of
enli!hten&ent the orst is hat these people call the 'nner Ai!ht. >f all
horrible reli!ions the &ost horrible is the orship of the !o$ ithin. 6ny one
ho knos any bo$y knos ho it oul$ ork2 any one ho knos any one
fro& the *i!her Thou!ht 0entre knos ho it $oes ork. That Dones shall
orship the !o$ ithin hi& turns out ulti&ately to &ean that Dones shall
orship Dones. Aet Dones orship the sun or &oon( anythin! rather than the
'nner Ai!ht2 let Dones orship cats or croco$iles( if he can fin$ any in his
street( but not the !o$ ithin. 0hristianity ca&e into the orl$ firstly in or$er
to assert ith #iolence that a &an ha$ not only to look inar$s( but to look
outar$s( to behol$ ith astonish&ent an$ enthusias& a $i#ine co&pany an$
a $i#ine captain. The only fun of bein! a 0hristian as that a &an as not left
alone ith the 'nner Ai!ht( but $efinitely reco!nise$ an outer li!ht( fair as the
sun( clear as the &oon( terrible as an ar&y ith banners.
6ll the sa&e( it ill be as ell if Dones $oes not orship the sun an$ &oon. 'f
he $oes( there is a ten$ency for hi& to i&itate the&2 to say( that because the
sun burns insects ali#e( he &ay burn insects ali#e. *e thinks that because the
sun !i#es people sun:stroke( he &ay !i#e his nei!hbour &easles. *e thinks
that because the &oon is sai$ to $ri#e &en &a$( he &ay $ri#e his ife &a$.
This u!ly si$e of &ere external opti&is& ha$ also shon itself in the ancient
orl$. 6bout the ti&e hen the .toic i$ealis& ha$ be!un to sho the
eaknesses of pessi&is&( the ol$ nature orship of the ancients ha$ be!un to
sho the enor&ous eaknesses of opti&is&. 8ature orship is natural
enou!h hile the society is youn!( or( in other or$s( 4antheis& is all ri!ht as
lon! as it is the orship of 4an. 1ut 8ature has another si$e hich experience
an$ sin are not slo in fin$in! out( an$ it is no flippancy to say of the !o$ 4an
that he soon shoe$ the clo#en hoof. The only ob?ection to 8atural <eli!ion
is that so&eho it alays beco&es unnatural. 6 &an lo#es 8ature in the
&ornin! for her innocence an$ a&iability( an$ at ni!htfall( if he is lo#in! her
still( it is for her $arkness an$ her cruelty. *e ashes at $an in clear ater as
$i$ the %ise ,an of the .toics( yet( so&eho at the $ark en$ of the $ay( he is
bathin! in hot bull7s bloo$( as $i$ Dulian the 6postate. The &ere pursuit of
health alays lea$s to so&ethin! unhealthy. 4hysical nature &ust not be &a$e
the $irect ob?ect of obe$ience2 it &ust be en?oye$( not orshippe$. .tars an$
&ountains &ust not be taken seriously. 'f they are( e en$ here the pa!an
nature orship en$e$. 1ecause the earth is kin$( e can i&itate all her
cruelties. 1ecause sexuality is sane( e can all !o &a$ about sexuality. ,ere
opti&is& ha$ reache$ its insane an$ appropriate ter&ination. The theory that
e#erythin! as !oo$ ha$ beco&e an or!y of e#erythin! that as ba$.
>n the other si$e our i$ealist pessi&ists ere represente$ by the ol$ re&nant
of the .toics. ,arcus 6urelius an$ his frien$s ha$ really !i#en up the i$ea of
any !o$ in the uni#erse an$ looke$ only to the !o$ ithin. They ha$ no hope
of any #irtue in nature( an$ har$ly any hope of any #irtue in society. They ha$
not enou!h interest in the outer orl$ really to reck or re#olutionise it. They
$i$ not lo#e the city enou!h to set fire to it. Thus the ancient orl$ as
exactly in our on $esolate $ile&&a. The only people ho really en?oye$ this
orl$ ere busy breakin! it up2 an$ the #irtuous people $i$ not care enou!h
about the& to knock the& $on. 'n this $ile&&a +the sa&e as ours/
0hristianity su$$enly steppe$ in an$ offere$ a sin!ular anser( hich the
orl$ e#entually accepte$ as the anser. 't as the anser then( an$ ' think it
is the anser no.
This anser as like the slash of a sor$2 it sun$ere$2 it $i$ not in any sense
senti&entally unite. 1riefly( it $i#i$e$ -o$ fro& the cos&os. That
transcen$ence an$ $istinctness of the $eity hich so&e 0hristians no ant
to re&o#e fro& 0hristianity( as really the only reason hy any one ante$
to be a 0hristian. 't as the hole point of the 0hristian anser to the
unhappy pessi&ist an$ the still &ore unhappy opti&ist. 6s ' a& here only
concerne$ ith their particular proble& ' shall in$icate only briefly this !reat
&etaphysical su!!estion. 6ll $escriptions of the creatin! or sustainin!
principle in thin!s &ust be &etaphorical( because they &ust be #erbal. Thus
the pantheist is force$ to speak of -o$ in all thin!s as if he ere in a box.
Thus the e#olutionist has( in his #ery na&e( the i$ea of bein! unrolle$ like a
carpet. 6ll ter&s( reli!ious an$ irreli!ious( are open to this char!e. The only
9uestion is hether all ter&s are useless( or hether one can( ith such a
phrase( co#er a $istinct idea about the ori!in of thin!s. ' think one can( an$ so
e#i$ently $oes the e#olutionist( or he oul$ not talk about e#olution. 6n$ the
root phrase for all 0hristian theis& as this( that -o$ as a creator( as an
artist is a creator. 6 poet is so separate fro& his poe& that he hi&self speaks
of it as a little thin! he has )thron off.) "#en in !i#in! it forth he has flun! it
aay. This principle that all creation an$ procreation is a breakin! off is at
least as consistent throu!h the cos&os as the e#olutionary principle that all
!roth is a branchin! out. 6 o&an loses a chil$ e#en in ha#in! a chil$. 6ll
creation is separation. 1irth is as sole&n a partin! as $eath.
't as the pri&e philosophic principle of 0hristianity that this $i#orce in the
$i#ine act of &akin! +such as se#ers the poet fro& the poe& or the &other
fro& the ne:born chil$/ as the true $escription of the act hereby the
absolute ener!y &a$e the orl$. 6ccor$in! to &ost philosophers( -o$ in
&akin! the orl$ ensla#e$ it. 6ccor$in! to 0hristianity( in &akin! it( *e set it
free. -o$ ha$ ritten( not so &uch a poe&( but rather a play2 a play he ha$
planne$ as perfect( but hich ha$ necessarily been left to hu&an actors an$
sta!e:&ana!ers( ho ha$ since &a$e a !reat &ess of it. ' ill $iscuss the truth
of this theore& later. *ere ' ha#e only to point out ith hat a startlin!
s&oothness it passe$ the $ile&&a e ha#e $iscusse$ in this chapter. 'n this
ay at least one coul$ be both happy an$ in$i!nant ithout $e!ra$in! one7s
self to be either a pessi&ist or an opti&ist. >n this syste& one coul$ fi!ht all
the forces of existence ithout $esertin! the fla! of existence. >ne coul$ be at
peace ith the uni#erse an$ yet be at ar ith the orl$. .t. -eor!e coul$
still fi!ht the $ra!on( hoe#er bi! the &onster bulke$ in the cos&os( thou!h
he ere bi!!er than the &i!hty cities or bi!!er than the e#erlastin! hills. 'f he
ere as bi! as the orl$ he coul$ yet be kille$ in the na&e of the orl$. .t.
-eor!e ha$ not to consi$er any ob#ious o$$s or proportions in the scale of
thin!s( but only the ori!inal secret of their $esi!n. *e can shake his sor$ at
the $ra!on( e#en if it is e#erythin!2 e#en if the e&pty hea#ens o#er his hea$
are only the hu!e arch of its open ?as.
6n$ then folloe$ an experience i&possible to $escribe. 't as as if ' ha$
been blun$erin! about since &y birth ith to hu!e an$ un&ana!eable
&achines( of $ifferent shapes an$ ithout apparent connectionBthe orl$
an$ the 0hristian tra$ition. ' ha$ foun$ this hole in the orl$@ the fact that one
&ust so&eho fin$ a ay of lo#in! the orl$ ithout trustin! it2 so&eho
one &ust lo#e the orl$ ithout bein! orl$ly. ' foun$ this pro?ectin! feature
of 0hristian theolo!y( like a sort of har$ spike( the $o!&atic insistence that
-o$ as personal( an$ ha$ &a$e a orl$ separate fro& *i&self. The spike of
$o!&a fitte$ exactly into the hole in the orl$Bit ha$ e#i$ently been &eant
to !o thereBan$ then the stran!e thin! be!an to happen. %hen once these to
parts of the to &achines ha$ co&e to!ether( one after another( all the other
parts fitte$ an$ fell in ith an eerie exactitu$e. ' coul$ hear bolt after bolt o#er
all the &achinery fallin! into its place ith a kin$ of click of relief. *a#in!
!ot one part ri!ht( all the other parts ere repeatin! that rectitu$e( as clock
after clock strikes noon. 'nstinct after instinct as ansere$ by $octrine after
$octrine. >r( to #ary the &etaphor( ' as like one ho ha$ a$#ance$ into a
hostile country to take one hi!h fortress. 6n$ hen that fort ha$ fallen the
hole country surren$ere$ an$ turne$ soli$ behin$ &e. The hole lan$ as lit
up( as it ere( back to the first fiel$s of &y chil$hoo$. 6ll those blin$ fancies
of boyhoo$ hich in the fourth chapter ' ha#e trie$ in #ain to trace on the
$arkness( beca&e su$$enly transparent an$ sane. ' as ri!ht hen ' felt that
roses ere re$ by so&e sort of choice@ it as the $i#ine choice. ' as ri!ht
hen ' felt that ' oul$ al&ost rather say that !rass as the ron! colour than
say that it &ust by necessity ha#e been that colour@ it &i!ht #erily ha#e been
any other. ,y sense that happiness hun! on the cra3y threa$ of a con$ition $i$
&ean so&ethin! hen all as sai$@ it &eant the hole $octrine of the ;all.
"#en those $i& an$ shapeless &onsters of notions hich ' ha#e not been able
to $escribe( &uch less $efen$( steppe$ 9uietly into their places like colossal
caryati$es of the cree$. The fancy that the cos&os as not #ast an$ #oi$( but
s&all an$ cosy( ha$ a fulfille$ si!nificance no( for anythin! that is a ork of
art &ust be s&all in the si!ht of the artist2 to -o$ the stars &i!ht be only s&all
an$ $ear( like $ia&on$s. 6n$ &y hauntin! instinct that so&eho !oo$ as
not &erely a tool to be use$( but a relic to be !uar$e$( like the !oo$s fro&
0rusoe7s shipBe#en that ha$ been the il$ hisper of so&ethin! ori!inally
ise( for( accor$in! to 0hristianity( e ere in$ee$ the sur#i#ors of a reck(
the cre of a !ol$en ship that ha$ !one $on before the be!innin! of the
orl$.
1ut the i&portant &atter as this( that it entirely re#erse$ the reason for
opti&is&. 6n$ the instant the re#ersal as &a$e it felt like the abrupt ease
hen a bone is put back in the socket. ' ha$ often calle$ &yself an opti&ist( to
a#oi$ the too e#i$ent blasphe&y of pessi&is&. 1ut all the opti&is& of the a!e
ha$ been false an$ $isheartenin! for this reason( that it ha$ alays been tryin!
to pro#e that e fit in to the orl$. The 0hristian opti&is& is base$ on the
fact that e $o not fit in to the orl$. ' ha$ trie$ to be happy by tellin! &yself
that &an is an ani&al( like any other hich sou!ht its &eat fro& -o$. 1ut
no ' really as happy( for ' ha$ learnt that &an is a &onstrosity. ' ha$ been
ri!ht in feelin! all thin!s as o$$( for ' &yself as at once orse an$ better
than all thin!s. The opti&ist7s pleasure as prosaic( for it $elt on the
naturalness of e#erythin!2 the 0hristian pleasure as poetic( for it $elt on
the unnaturalness of e#erythin! in the li!ht of the supernatural. The &o$ern
philosopher ha$ tol$ &e a!ain an$ a!ain that ' as in the ri!ht place( an$ '
ha$ still felt $epresse$ e#en in ac9uiescence. 1ut ' ha$ hear$ that ' as in
the wrong place( an$ &y soul san! for ?oy( like a bir$ in sprin!. The
knole$!e foun$ out an$ illu&inate$ for!otten cha&bers in the $ark house of
infancy. ' kne no hy !rass ha$ alays see&e$ to &e as 9ueer as the !reen
bear$ of a !iant( an$ hy ' coul$ feel ho&esick at ho&e.
CHAPTER VI.The "arado#es of Christianity
The real trouble ith this orl$ of ours is not that it is an unreasonable orl$(
nor e#en that it is a reasonable one. The co&&onest kin$ of trouble is that it is
nearly reasonable( but not 9uite. Aife is not an illo!icality2 yet it is a trap for
lo!icians. 't looks ?ust a little &ore &athe&atical an$ re!ular than it is2 its
exactitu$e is ob#ious( but its inexactitu$e is hi$$en2 its il$ness lies in ait. '
!i#e one coarse instance of hat ' &ean. .uppose so&e &athe&atical creature
fro& the &oon ere to reckon up the hu&an bo$y2 he oul$ at once see that
the essential thin! about it as that it as $uplicate. 6 &an is to &en( he on
the ri!ht exactly rese&blin! hi& on the left. *a#in! note$ that there as an
ar& on the ri!ht an$ one on the left( a le! on the ri!ht an$ one on the left( he
&i!ht !o further an$ still fin$ on each si$e the sa&e nu&ber of fin!ers( the
sa&e nu&ber of toes( tin eyes( tin ears( tin nostrils( an$ e#en tin lobes
of the brain. 6t last he oul$ take it as a la2 an$ then( here he foun$ a heart
on one si$e( oul$ $e$uce that there as another heart on the other. 6n$ ?ust
then( here he &ost felt he as ri!ht( he oul$ be ron!.
't is this silent ser#in! fro& accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny ele&ent
in e#erythin!. 't see&s a sort of secret treason in the uni#erse. 6n apple or an
oran!e is roun$ enou!h to !et itself calle$ roun$( an$ yet is not roun$ after all.
The earth itself is shape$ like an oran!e in or$er to lure so&e si&ple
astrono&er into callin! it a !lobe. 6 bla$e of !rass is calle$ after the bla$e of a
sor$( because it co&es to a point2 but it $oesn7t. "#eryhere in thin!s there
is this ele&ent of the 9uiet an$ incalculable. 't escapes the rationalists( but it
ne#er escapes till the last &o&ent. ;ro& the !ran$ cur#e of our earth it coul$
easily be inferre$ that e#ery inch of it as thus cur#e$. 't oul$ see& rational
that as a &an has a brain on both si$es( he shoul$ ha#e a heart on both si$es.
Cet scientific &en are still or!ani3in! expe$itions to fin$ the 8orth 4ole(
because they are so fon$ of flat country. .cientific &en are also still
or!anisin! expe$itions to fin$ a &an7s heart2 an$ hen they try to fin$ it( they
!enerally !et on the ron! si$e of hi&.
8o( actual insi!ht or inspiration is best teste$ by hether it !uesses these
hi$$en &alfor&ations or surprises. 'f our &athe&atician fro& the &oon sa
the to ar&s an$ the to ears( he &i!ht $e$uce the to shoul$er:bla$es an$
the to hal#es of the brain. 1ut if he !uesse$ that the &an7s heart as in the
ri!ht place( then ' shoul$ call hi& so&ethin! &ore than a &athe&atician.
8o( this is exactly the clai& hich ' ha#e since co&e to propoun$ for
0hristianity. 8ot &erely that it $e$uces lo!ical truths( but that hen it
su$$enly beco&es illo!ical( it has foun$( so to speak( an illo!ical truth. 't not
only !oes ri!ht about thin!s( but it !oes ron! +if one &ay say so/ exactly
here the thin!s !o ron!. 'ts plan suits the secret irre!ularities( an$ expects
the unexpecte$. 't is si&ple about the si&ple truth2 but it is stubborn about the
subtle truth. 't ill a$&it that a &an has to han$s( it ill not a$&it +thou!h
all the ,o$ernists ail to it/ the ob#ious $e$uction that he has to hearts. 't is
&y only purpose in this chapter to point this out2 to sho that hene#er e
feel there is so&ethin! o$$ in 0hristian theolo!y( e shall !enerally fin$ that
there is so&ethin! o$$ in the truth.
' ha#e allu$e$ to an un&eanin! phrase to the effect that such an$ such a cree$
cannot be belie#e$ in our a!e. >f course( anythin! can be belie#e$ in any a!e.
1ut( o$$ly enou!h( there really is a sense in hich a cree$( if it is belie#e$ at
all( can be belie#e$ &ore fixe$ly in a co&plex society than in a si&ple one. 'f
a &an fin$s 0hristianity true in 1ir&in!ha&( he has actually clearer reasons
for faith than if he ha$ foun$ it true in ,ercia. ;or the &ore co&plicate$
see&s the coinci$ence( the less it can be a coinci$ence. 'f snoflakes fell in
the shape( say( of the heart of ,i$lothian( it &i!ht be an acci$ent. 1ut if
snoflakes fell in the exact shape of the &a3e at *a&pton 0ourt( ' think one
&i!ht call it a &iracle. 't is exactly as of such a &iracle that ' ha#e since co&e
to feel of the philosophy of 0hristianity. The co&plication of our &o$ern
orl$ pro#es the truth of the cree$ &ore perfectly than any of the plain
proble&s of the a!es of faith. 't as in 8ottin! *ill an$ 1attersea that ' be!an
to see that 0hristianity as true. This is hy the faith has that elaboration of
$octrines an$ $etails hich so &uch $istresses those ho a$&ire 0hristianity
ithout belie#in! in it. %hen once one belie#es in a cree$( one is prou$ of its
co&plexity( as scientists are prou$ of the co&plexity of science. 't shos ho
rich it is in $isco#eries. 'f it is ri!ht at all( it is a co&pli&ent to say that it7s
elaborately ri!ht. 6 stick &i!ht fit a hole or a stone a hollo by acci$ent. 1ut
a key an$ a lock are both co&plex. 6n$ if a key fits a lock( you kno it is the
ri!ht key.
1ut this in#ol#e$ accuracy of the thin! &akes it #ery $ifficult to $o hat '
no ha#e to $o( to $escribe this accu&ulation of truth. 't is #ery har$ for a
&an to $efen$ anythin! of hich he is entirely con#ince$. 't is co&parati#ely
easy hen he is only partially con#ince$. *e is partially con#ince$ because he
has foun$ this or that proof of the thin!( an$ he can expoun$ it. 1ut a &an is
not really con#ince$ of a philosophic theory hen he fin$s that so&ethin!
pro#es it. *e is only really con#ince$ hen he fin$s that e#erythin! pro#es it.
6n$ the &ore con#er!in! reasons he fin$s pointin! to this con#iction( the
&ore beil$ere$ he is if aske$ su$$enly to su& the& up. Thus( if one aske$
an or$inary intelli!ent &an( on the spur of the &o&ent( )%hy $o you prefer
ci#ilisation to sa#a!ery5) he oul$ look il$ly roun$ at ob?ect after ob?ect(
an$ oul$ only be able to anser #a!uely( )%hy( there is that bookcase ... an$
the coals in the coal:scuttle ... an$ pianos ... an$ police&en.) The hole case
for ci#ilisation is that the case for it is co&plex. 't has $one so &any thin!s.
1ut that #ery &ultiplicity of proof hich ou!ht to &ake reply o#erhel&in!
&akes reply i&possible.
There is( therefore( about all co&plete con#iction a kin$ of hu!e helplessness.
The belief is so bi! that it takes a lon! ti&e to !et it into action. 6n$ this
hesitation chiefly arises( o$$ly enou!h( fro& an in$ifference about here one
shoul$ be!in. 6ll roa$s lea$ to <o&e2 hich is one reason hy &any people
ne#er !et there. 'n the case of this $efence of the 0hristian con#iction '
confess that ' oul$ as soon be!in the ar!u&ent ith one thin! as another2 '
oul$ be!in it ith a turnip or a taxi&eter cab. 1ut if ' a& to be at all careful
about &akin! &y &eanin! clear( it ill( ' think( be iser to continue the
current ar!u&ents of the last chapter( hich as concerne$ to ur!e the first of
these &ystical coinci$ences( or rather ratifications. 6ll ' ha$ hitherto hear$ of
0hristian theolo!y ha$ alienate$ &e fro& it. ' as a pa!an at the a!e of
tel#e( an$ a co&plete a!nostic by the a!e of sixteen2 an$ ' cannot un$erstan$
any one passin! the a!e of se#enteen ithout ha#in! aske$ hi&self so si&ple
a 9uestion. ' $i$( in$ee$( retain a clou$y re#erence for a cos&ic $eity an$ a
!reat historical interest in the ;oun$er of 0hristianity. 1ut ' certainly re!ar$e$
*i& as a &an2 thou!h perhaps ' thou!ht that( e#en in that point( *e ha$ an
a$#anta!e o#er so&e of *is &o$ern critics. ' rea$ the scientific an$ sceptical
literature of &y ti&eBall of it( at least( that ' coul$ fin$ ritten in "n!lish an$
lyin! about2 an$ ' rea$ nothin! else2 ' &ean ' rea$ nothin! else on any other
note of philosophy. The penny $rea$fuls hich ' also rea$ ere in$ee$ in a
healthy an$ heroic tra$ition of 0hristianity2 but ' $i$ not kno this at the ti&e.
' ne#er rea$ a line of 0hristian apolo!etics. ' rea$ as little as ' can of the&
no. 't as *uxley an$ *erbert .pencer an$ 1ra$lau!h ho brou!ht &e back
to ortho$ox theolo!y. They soe$ in &y &in$ &y first il$ $oubts of $oubt.
>ur !ran$&others ere 9uite ri!ht hen they sai$ that To& 4aine an$ the
free:thinkers unsettle$ the &in$. They $o. They unsettle$ &ine horribly. The
rationalist &a$e &e 9uestion hether reason as of any use hate#er2 an$
hen ' ha$ finishe$ *erbert .pencer ' ha$ !ot as far as $oubtin! +for the first
ti&e/ hether e#olution ha$ occurre$ at all. 6s ' lai$ $on the last of 0olonel
'n!ersoll7s atheistic lectures the $rea$ful thou!ht broke across &y &in$(
)6l&ost thou persua$est &e to be a 0hristian.) ' as in a $esperate ay.
This o$$ effect of the !reat a!nostics in arousin! $oubts $eeper than their on
&i!ht be illustrate$ in &any ays. ' take only one. 6s ' rea$ an$ re:rea$ all
the non:0hristian or anti:0hristian accounts of the faith( fro& *uxley to
1ra$lau!h( a slo an$ aful i&pression !re !ra$ually but !raphically upon
&y &in$Bthe i&pression that 0hristianity &ust be a &ost extraor$inary
thin!. ;or not only +as ' un$erstoo$/ ha$ 0hristianity the &ost fla&in! #ices(
but it ha$ apparently a &ystical talent for co&binin! #ices hich see&e$
inconsistent ith each other. 't as attacke$ on all si$es an$ for all
contra$ictory reasons. 8o sooner ha$ one rationalist $e&onstrate$ that it as
too far to the east than another $e&onstrate$ ith e9ual clearness that it as
&uch too far to the est. 8o sooner ha$ &y in$i!nation $ie$ $on at its
an!ular an$ a!!ressi#e s9uareness than ' as calle$ up a!ain to notice an$
con$e&n its ener#atin! an$ sensual roun$ness. 'n case any rea$er has not
co&e across the thin! ' &ean( ' ill !i#e such instances as ' re&e&ber at
ran$o& of this self:contra$iction in the sceptical attack. ' !i#e four or fi#e of
the&2 there are fifty &ore.
Thus( for instance( ' as &uch &o#e$ by the elo9uent attack on 0hristianity
as a thin! of inhu&an !loo&2 for ' thou!ht +an$ still think/ sincere pessi&is&
the unpar$onable sin. 'nsincere pessi&is& is a social acco&plish&ent( rather
a!reeable than otherise2 an$ fortunately nearly all pessi&is& is insincere.
1ut if 0hristianity as( as these people sai$( a thin! purely pessi&istic an$
oppose$ to life( then ' as 9uite prepare$ to blo up .t. 4aul7s 0athe$ral. 1ut
the extraor$inary thin! is this. They $i$ pro#e to &e in 0hapter '. +to &y
co&plete satisfaction/ that 0hristianity as too pessi&istic2 an$ then( in
0hapter ''.( they be!an to pro#e to &e that it as a !reat $eal too opti&istic.
>ne accusation a!ainst 0hristianity as that it pre#ente$ &en( by &orbi$ tears
an$ terrors( fro& seekin! ?oy an$ liberty in the boso& of 8ature. 1ut another
accusation as that it co&forte$ &en ith a fictitious pro#i$ence( an$ put
the& in a pink:an$:hite nursery. >ne !reat a!nostic aske$ hy 8ature as
not beautiful enou!h( an$ hy it as har$ to be free. 6nother !reat a!nostic
ob?ecte$ that 0hristian opti&is&( )the !ar&ent of &ake:belie#e o#en by
pious han$s() hi$ fro& us the fact that 8ature as u!ly( an$ that it as
i&possible to be free. >ne rationalist ha$ har$ly $one callin! 0hristianity a
ni!ht&are before another be!an to call it a fool7s para$ise. This pu33le$ &e2
the char!es see&e$ inconsistent. 0hristianity coul$ not at once be the black
&ask on a hite orl$( an$ also the hite &ask on a black orl$. The state of
the 0hristian coul$ not be at once so co&fortable that he as a coar$ to
clin! to it( an$ so unco&fortable that he as a fool to stan$ it. 'f it falsifie$
hu&an #ision it &ust falsify it one ay or another2 it coul$ not ear both
!reen an$ rose:coloure$ spectacles. ' rolle$ on &y ton!ue ith a terrible ?oy(
as $i$ all youn! &en of that ti&e( the taunts hich .inburne hurle$ at the
$reariness of the cree$B
)Thou hast con9uere$( > pale -alilHan( the orl$ has !ron !ray ith Thy
breath.)
1ut hen ' rea$ the sa&e poet7s accounts of pa!anis& +as in )6talanta)/( '
!athere$ that the orl$ as( if possible( &ore !ray before the -alilHan
breathe$ on it than afterar$s. The poet &aintaine$( in$ee$( in the abstract(
that life itself as pitch $ark. 6n$ yet( so&eho( 0hristianity ha$ $arkene$ it.
The #ery &an ho $enounce$ 0hristianity for pessi&is& as hi&self a
pessi&ist. ' thou!ht there &ust be so&ethin! ron!. 6n$ it $i$ for one il$
&o&ent cross &y &in$ that( perhaps( those &i!ht not be the #ery best ?u$!es
of the relation of reli!ion to happiness ho( by their on account( ha$ neither
one nor the other.
't &ust be un$erstoo$ that ' $i$ not conclu$e hastily that the accusations ere
false or the accusers fools. ' si&ply $e$uce$ that 0hristianity &ust be
so&ethin! e#en eir$er an$ icke$er than they &a$e out. 6 thin! &i!ht ha#e
these to opposite #ices2 but it &ust be a rather 9ueer thin! if it $i$. 6 &an
&i!ht be too fat in one place an$ too thin in another2 but he oul$ be an o$$
shape. 6t this point &y thou!hts ere only of the o$$ shape of the 0hristian
reli!ion2 ' $i$ not alle!e any o$$ shape in the rationalistic &in$.
*ere is another case of the sa&e kin$. ' felt that a stron! case a!ainst
0hristianity lay in the char!e that there is so&ethin! ti&i$( &onkish( an$
un&anly about all that is calle$ )0hristian() especially in its attitu$e toar$s
resistance an$ fi!htin!. The !reat sceptics of the nineteenth century ere
lar!ely #irile. 1ra$lau!h in an expansi#e ay( *uxley in a reticent ay( ere
$eci$e$ly &en. 'n co&parison( it $i$ see& tenable that there as so&ethin!
eak an$ o#er patient about 0hristian counsels. The -ospel para$ox about the
other cheek( the fact that priests ne#er fou!ht( a hun$re$ thin!s &a$e plausible
the accusation that 0hristianity as an atte&pt to &ake a &an too like a
sheep. ' rea$ it an$ belie#e$ it( an$ if ' ha$ rea$ nothin! $ifferent( ' shoul$
ha#e !one on belie#in! it. 1ut ' rea$ so&ethin! #ery $ifferent. ' turne$ the
next pa!e in &y a!nostic &anual( an$ &y brain turne$ up:si$e $on. 8o '
foun$ that ' as to hate 0hristianity not for fi!htin! too little( but for fi!htin!
too &uch. 0hristianity( it see&e$( as the &other of ars. 0hristianity ha$
$elu!e$ the orl$ ith bloo$. ' ha$ !ot thorou!hly an!ry ith the 0hristian(
because he ne#er as an!ry. 6n$ no ' as tol$ to be an!ry ith hi& because
his an!er ha$ been the &ost hu!e an$ horrible thin! in hu&an history2 because
his an!er ha$ soake$ the earth an$ s&oke$ to the sun. The #ery people ho
reproache$ 0hristianity ith the &eekness an$ non:resistance of the
&onastries ere the #ery people ho reproache$ it also ith the #iolence an$
#alour of the 0rusa$es. 't as the fault of poor ol$ 0hristianity +so&eho or
other/ both that "$ar$ the 0onfessor $i$ not fi!ht an$ that <ichar$ 0oeur $e
Aion $i$. The Luakers +e ere tol$/ ere the only characteristic 0hristians2
an$ yet the &assacres of 0ro&ell an$ 6l#a ere characteristic 0hristian
cri&es. %hat coul$ it all &ean5 %hat as this 0hristianity hich alays
forba$e ar an$ alays pro$uce$ ars5 %hat coul$ be the nature of the thin!
hich one coul$ abuse first because it oul$ not fi!ht( an$ secon$ because it
as alays fi!htin!5 'n hat orl$ of ri$$les as born this &onstrous &ur$er
an$ this &onstrous &eekness5 The shape of 0hristianity !re a 9ueerer shape
e#ery instant.
' take a thir$ case2 the stran!est of all( because it in#ol#es the one real
ob?ection to the faith. The one real ob?ection to the 0hristian reli!ion is si&ply
that it is one reli!ion. The orl$ is a bi! place( full of #ery $ifferent kin$s of
people. 0hristianity +it &ay reasonably be sai$/ is one thin! confine$ to one
kin$ of people2 it be!an in 4alestine( it has practically stoppe$ ith "urope. '
as $uly i&presse$ ith this ar!u&ent in &y youth( an$ ' as &uch $ran
toar$s the $octrine often preache$ in "thical .ocietiesB' &ean the $octrine
that there is one !reat unconscious church of all hu&anity foun$e$ on the
o&nipresence of the hu&an conscience. 0ree$s( it as sai$( $i#i$e$ &en2 but
at least &orals unite$ the&. The soul &i!ht seek the stran!est an$ &ost
re&ote lan$s an$ a!es an$ still fin$ essential ethical co&&on sense. 't &i!ht
fin$ 0onfucius un$er "astern trees( an$ he oul$ be ritin! )Thou shalt not
steal.) 't &i!ht $ecipher the $arkest hiero!lyphic on the &ost pri&e#al $esert(
an$ the &eanin! hen $eciphere$ oul$ be )Aittle boys shoul$ tell the truth.)
' belie#e$ this $octrine of the brotherhoo$ of all &en in the possession of a
&oral sense( an$ ' belie#e it stillBith other thin!s. 6n$ ' as thorou!hly
annoye$ ith 0hristianity for su!!estin! +as ' suppose$/ that hole a!es an$
e&pires of &en ha$ utterly escape$ this li!ht of ?ustice an$ reason. 1ut then '
foun$ an astonishin! thin!. ' foun$ that the #ery people ho sai$ that
&ankin$ as one church fro& 4lato to "&erson ere the #ery people ho
sai$ that &orality ha$ chan!e$ alto!ether( an$ that hat as ri!ht in one a!e
as ron! in another. 'f ' aske$( say( for an altar( ' as tol$ that e nee$e$
none( for &en our brothers !a#e us clear oracles an$ one cree$ in their
uni#ersal custo&s an$ i$eals. 1ut if ' &il$ly pointe$ out that one of &en7s
uni#ersal custo&s as to ha#e an altar( then &y a!nostic teachers turne$ clean
roun$ an$ tol$ &e that &en ha$ alays been in $arkness an$ the superstitions
of sa#a!es. ' foun$ it as their $aily taunt a!ainst 0hristianity that it as the
li!ht of one people an$ ha$ left all others to $ie in the $ark. 1ut ' also foun$
that it as their special boast for the&sel#es that science an$ pro!ress ere
the $isco#ery of one people( an$ that all other peoples ha$ $ie$ in the $ark.
Their chief insult to 0hristianity as actually their chief co&pli&ent to
the&sel#es( an$ there see&e$ to be a stran!e unfairness about all their relati#e
insistence on the to thin!s. %hen consi$erin! so&e pa!an or a!nostic( e
ere to re&e&ber that all &en ha$ one reli!ion2 hen consi$erin! so&e
&ystic or spiritualist( e ere only to consi$er hat absur$ reli!ions so&e
&en ha$. %e coul$ trust the ethics of "pictetus( because ethics ha$ ne#er
chan!e$. %e &ust not trust the ethics of 1ossuet( because ethics ha$ chan!e$.
They chan!e$ in to hun$re$ years( but not in to thousan$.
This be!an to be alar&in!. 't looke$ not so &uch as if 0hristianity as ba$
enou!h to inclu$e any #ices( but rather as if any stick as !oo$ enou!h to beat
0hristianity ith. %hat a!ain coul$ this astonishin! thin! be like hich
people ere so anxious to contra$ict( that in $oin! so they $i$ not &in$
contra$ictin! the&sel#es5 ' sa the sa&e thin! on e#ery si$e. ' can !i#e no
further space to this $iscussion of it in $etail2 but lest any one supposes that '
ha#e unfairly selecte$ three acci$ental cases ' ill run briefly throu!h a fe
others. Thus( certain sceptics rote that the !reat cri&e of 0hristianity ha$
been its attack on the fa&ily2 it ha$ $ra!!e$ o&en to the loneliness an$
conte&plation of the cloister( aay fro& their ho&es an$ their chil$ren. 1ut(
then( other sceptics +sli!htly &ore a$#ance$/ sai$ that the !reat cri&e of
0hristianity as forcin! the fa&ily an$ &arria!e upon us2 that it $oo&e$
o&en to the $ru$!ery of their ho&es an$ chil$ren( an$ forba$e the&
loneliness an$ conte&plation. The char!e as actually re#erse$. >r( a!ain(
certain phrases in the "pistles or the ,arria!e .er#ice( ere sai$ by the anti:
0hristians to sho conte&pt for o&an7s intellect. 1ut ' foun$ that the anti:
0hristians the&sel#es ha$ a conte&pt for o&an7s intellect2 for it as their
!reat sneer at the 0hurch on the 0ontinent that )only o&en) ent to it. >r
a!ain( 0hristianity as reproache$ ith its nake$ an$ hun!ry habits2 ith its
sackcloth an$ $rie$ peas. 1ut the next &inute 0hristianity as bein!
reproache$ ith its po&p an$ its ritualis&2 its shrines of porphyry an$ its
robes of !ol$. 't as abuse$ for bein! too plain an$ for bein! too coloure$.
6!ain 0hristianity ha$ alays been accuse$ of restrainin! sexuality too &uch(
hen 1ra$lau!h the ,althusian $isco#ere$ that it restraine$ it too little. 't is
often accuse$ in the sa&e breath of pri& respectability an$ of reli!ious
extra#a!ance. 1eteen the co#ers of the sa&e atheistic pa&phlet ' ha#e foun$
the faith rebuke$ for its $isunion( )>ne thinks one thin!( an$ one another()
an$ rebuke$ also for its union( )'t is $ifference of opinion that pre#ents the
orl$ fro& !oin! to the $o!s.) 'n the sa&e con#ersation a free:thinker( a
frien$ of &ine( bla&e$ 0hristianity for $espisin! Des( an$ then $espise$ it
hi&self for bein! Deish.
' ishe$ to be 9uite fair then( an$ ' ish to be 9uite fair no2 an$ ' $i$ not
conclu$e that the attack on 0hristianity as all ron!. ' only conclu$e$ that if
0hristianity as ron!( it as #ery ron! in$ee$. .uch hostile horrors &i!ht
be co&bine$ in one thin!( but that thin! &ust be #ery stran!e an$ solitary.
There are &en ho are &isers( an$ also spen$thrifts2 but they are rare. There
are &en sensual an$ also ascetic2 but they are rare. 1ut if this &ass of &a$
contra$ictions really existe$( 9uakerish an$ bloo$thirsty( too !or!eous an$ too
threa$:bare( austere( yet pan$erin! preposterously to the lust of the eye( the
ene&y of o&en an$ their foolish refu!e( a sole&n pessi&ist an$ a silly
opti&ist( if this e#il existe$( then there as in this e#il so&ethin! 9uite
supre&e an$ uni9ue. ;or ' foun$ in &y rationalist teachers no explanation of
such exceptional corruption. 0hristianity +theoretically speakin!/ as in their
eyes only one of the or$inary &yths an$ errors of &ortals. They !a#e &e no
key to this tiste$ an$ unnatural ba$ness. .uch a para$ox of e#il rose to the
stature of the supernatural. 't as( in$ee$( al&ost as supernatural as the
infallibility of the 4ope. 6n historic institution( hich ne#er ent ri!ht( is
really 9uite as &uch of a &iracle as an institution that cannot !o ron!. The
only explanation hich i&&e$iately occurre$ to &y &in$ as that
0hristianity $i$ not co&e fro& hea#en( but fro& hell. <eally( if Desus of
8a3areth as not 0hrist( *e &ust ha#e been 6ntichrist.
6n$ then in a 9uiet hour a stran!e thou!ht struck &e like a still thun$erbolt.
There ha$ su$$enly co&e into &y &in$ another explanation. .uppose e
hear$ an unknon &an spoken of by &any &en. .uppose e ere pu33le$ to
hear that so&e &en sai$ he as too tall an$ so&e too short2 so&e ob?ecte$ to
his fatness( so&e la&ente$ his leanness2 so&e thou!ht hi& too $ark( an$ so&e
too fair. >ne explanation +as has been alrea$y a$&itte$/ oul$ be that he
&i!ht be an o$$ shape. 1ut there is another explanation. *e &i!ht be the ri!ht
shape. >utra!eously tall &en &i!ht feel hi& to be short. Eery short &en &i!ht
feel hi& to be tall. >l$ bucks ho are !roin! stout &i!ht consi$er hi&
insufficiently fille$ out2 ol$ beaux ho ere !roin! thin &i!ht feel that he
expan$e$ beyon$ the narro lines of ele!ance. 4erhaps .e$es +ho ha#e
pale hair like to/ calle$ hi& a $ark &an( hile ne!roes consi$ere$ hi&
$istinctly blon$e. 4erhaps +in short/ this extraor$inary thin! is really the
or$inary thin!2 at least the nor&al thin!( the centre. 4erhaps( after all( it is
0hristianity that is sane an$ all its critics that are &a$Bin #arious ays. '
teste$ this i$ea by askin! &yself hether there as about any of the accusers
anythin! &orbi$ that &i!ht explain the accusation. ' as startle$ to fin$ that
this key fitte$ a lock. ;or instance( it as certainly o$$ that the &o$ern orl$
char!e$ 0hristianity at once ith bo$ily austerity an$ ith artistic po&p. 1ut
then it as also o$$( #ery o$$( that the &o$ern orl$ itself co&bine$ extre&e
bo$ily luxury ith an extre&e absence of artistic po&p. The &o$ern &an
thou!ht 1ecket7s robes too rich an$ his &eals too poor. 1ut then the &o$ern
&an as really exceptional in history2 no &an before e#er ate such elaborate
$inners in such u!ly clothes. The &o$ern &an foun$ the church too si&ple
exactly here &o$ern life is too co&plex2 he foun$ the church too !or!eous
exactly here &o$ern life is too $in!y. The &an ho $islike$ the plain fasts
an$ feasts as &a$ on entr#es. The &an ho $islike$ #est&ents ore a pair
of preposterous trousers. 6n$ surely if there as any insanity in#ol#e$ in the
&atter at all it as in the trousers( not in the si&ply fallin! robe. 'f there as
any insanity at all( it as in the extra#a!antentr#es( not in the brea$ an$ ine.
' ent o#er all the cases( an$ ' foun$ the key fitte$ so far. The fact that
.inburne as irritate$ at the unhappiness of 0hristians an$ yet &ore irritate$
at their happiness as easily explaine$. 't as no lon!er a co&plication of
$iseases in 0hristianity( but a co&plication of $iseases in .inburne. The
restraints of 0hristians sa$$ene$ hi& si&ply because he as &ore he$onist
than a healthy &an shoul$ be. The faith of 0hristians an!ere$ hi& because he
as &ore pessi&ist than a healthy &an shoul$ be. 'n the sa&e ay the
,althusians by instinct attacke$ 0hristianity2 not because there is anythin!
especially anti:,althusian about 0hristianity( but because there is so&ethin! a
little anti:hu&an about ,althusianis&.
8e#ertheless it coul$ not( ' felt( be 9uite true that 0hristianity as &erely
sensible an$ stoo$ in the &i$$le. There as really an ele&ent in it of e&phasis
an$ e#en fren3y hich ha$ ?ustifie$ the secularists in their superficial
criticis&. 't &i!ht be ise( ' be!an &ore an$ &ore to think that it as ise(
but it as not &erely orl$ly ise2 it as not &erely te&perate an$
respectable. 'ts fierce crusa$ers an$ &eek saints &i!ht balance each other2
still( the crusa$ers ere #ery fierce an$ the saints ere #ery &eek( &eek
beyon$ all $ecency. 8o( it as ?ust at this point of the speculation that '
re&e&bere$ &y thou!hts about the &artyr an$ the suici$e. 'n that &atter there
ha$ been this co&bination beteen to al&ost insane positions hich yet
so&eho a&ounte$ to sanity. This as ?ust such another contra$iction2 an$
this ' ha$ alrea$y foun$ to be true. This as exactly one of the para$oxes in
hich sceptics foun$ the cree$ ron!2 an$ in this ' ha$ foun$ it ri!ht. ,a$ly
as 0hristians &i!ht lo#e the &artyr or hate the suici$e( they ne#er felt these
passions &ore &a$ly than ' ha$ felt the& lon! before ' $rea&e$ of
0hristianity. Then the &ost $ifficult an$ interestin! part of the &ental process
opene$( an$ ' be!an to trace this i$ea $arkly throu!h all the enor&ous
thou!hts of our theolo!y. The i$ea as that hich ' ha$ outline$ touchin! the
opti&ist an$ the pessi&ist2 that e ant not an a&al!a& or co&pro&ise( but
both thin!s at the top of their ener!y2 lo#e an$ rath both burnin!. *ere '
shall only trace it in relation to ethics. 1ut ' nee$ not re&in$ the rea$er that
the i$ea of this co&bination is in$ee$ central in ortho$ox theolo!y. ;or
ortho$ox theolo!y has specially insiste$ that 0hrist as not a bein! apart fro&
-o$ an$ &an( like an elf( nor yet a bein! half hu&an an$ half not( like a
centaur( but both thin!s at once an$ both thin!s thorou!hly( #ery &an an$ #ery
-o$. 8o let &e trace this notion as ' foun$ it.
6ll sane &en can see that sanity is so&e kin$ of e9uilibriu&2 that one &ay be
&a$ an$ eat too &uch( or &a$ an$ eat too little. .o&e &o$erns ha#e in$ee$
appeare$ ith #a!ue #ersions of pro!ress an$ e#olution hich seeks to
$estroy the MNOPQ or balance of 6ristotle. They see& to su!!est that e are
&eant to star#e pro!ressi#ely( or to !o on eatin! lar!er an$ lar!er breakfasts
e#ery &ornin! for e#er. 1ut the !reat truis& of the MNOPQ re&ains for all
thinkin! &en( an$ these people ha#e not upset any balance except their on.
1ut !rante$ that e ha#e all to keep a balance( the real interest co&es in ith
the 9uestion of ho that balance can be kept. That as the proble& hich
4a!anis& trie$ to sol#e@ that as the proble& hich ' think 0hristianity
sol#e$ an$ sol#e$ in a #ery stran!e ay.
4a!anis& $eclare$ that #irtue as in a balance2 0hristianity $eclare$ it as in
a conflict@ the collision of to passions apparently opposite. >f course they
ere not really inconsistent2 but they ere such that it as har$ to hol$
si&ultaneously. Aet us follo for a &o&ent the clue of the &artyr an$ the
suici$e2 an$ take the case of coura!e. 8o 9uality has e#er so &uch a$$le$ the
brains an$ tan!le$ the $efinitions of &erely rational sa!es. 0oura!e is al&ost
a contra$iction in ter&s. 't &eans a stron! $esire to li#e takin! the for& of a
rea$iness to $ie. )*e that ill lose his life( the sa&e shall sa#e it() is not a
piece of &ysticis& for saints an$ heroes. 't is a piece of e#ery$ay a$#ice for
sailors or &ountaineers. 't &i!ht be printe$ in an 6lpine !ui$e or a $rill book.
This para$ox is the hole principle of coura!e2 e#en of 9uite earthly or 9uite
brutal coura!e. 6 &an cut off by the sea &ay sa#e his life if he ill risk it on
the precipice. *e can only !et aay fro& $eath by continually steppin! ithin
an inch of it. 6 sol$ier surroun$e$ by ene&ies( if he is to cut his ay out(
nee$s to co&bine a stron! $esire for li#in! ith a stran!e carelessness about
$yin!. *e &ust not &erely clin! to life( for then he ill be a coar$( an$ ill
not escape. *e &ust not &erely ait for $eath( for then he ill be a suici$e(
an$ ill not escape. *e &ust seek his life in a spirit of furious in$ifference to
it2 he &ust $esire life like ater an$ yet $rink $eath like ine. 8o philosopher(
' fancy( has e#er expresse$ this ro&antic ri$$le ith a$e9uate luci$ity( an$ '
certainly ha#e not $one so. 1ut 0hristianity has $one &ore@ it has &arke$ the
li&its of it in the aful !ra#es of the suici$e an$ the hero( shoin! the
$istance beteen hi& ho $ies for the sake of li#in! an$ hi& ho $ies for the
sake of $yin!. 6n$ it has hel$ up e#er since abo#e the "uropean lances the
banner of the &ystery of chi#alry@ the 0hristian coura!e( hich is a $is$ain of
$eath2 not the 0hinese coura!e( hich is a $is$ain of life.
6n$ no ' be!an to fin$ that this $uplex passion as the 0hristian key to
ethics e#eryhere. "#eryhere the cree$ &a$e a &o$eration out of the still
crash of to i&petuous e&otions. Take( for instance( the &atter of &o$esty( of
the balance beteen &ere pri$e an$ &ere prostration. The a#era!e pa!an( like
the a#era!e a!nostic( oul$ &erely say that he as content ith hi&self( but
not insolently self:satisfie$( that there ere &any better an$ &any orse( that
his $eserts ere li&ite$( but he oul$ see that he !ot the&. 'n short( he oul$
alk ith his hea$ in the air2 but not necessarily ith his nose in the air. This
is a &anly an$ rational position( but it is open to the ob?ection e note$
a!ainst the co&pro&ise beteen opti&is& an$ pessi&is&Bthe )resi!nation)
of ,atthe 6rnol$. 1ein! a &ixture of to thin!s( it is a $ilution of to
thin!s2 neither is present in its full stren!th or contributes its full colour. This
proper pri$e $oes not lift the heart like the ton!ue of tru&pets2 you cannot !o
cla$ in cri&son an$ !ol$ for this. >n the other han$( this &il$ rationalist
&o$esty $oes not cleanse the soul ith fire an$ &ake it clear like crystal2 it
$oes not +like a strict an$ searchin! hu&ility/ &ake a &an as a little chil$(
ho can sit at the feet of the !rass. 't $oes not &ake hi& look up an$ see
&ar#els2 for 6lice &ust !ro s&all if she is to be 6lice in %on$erlan$. Thus it
loses both the poetry of bein! prou$ an$ the poetry of bein! hu&ble.
0hristianity sou!ht by this sa&e stran!e expe$ient to sa#e both of the&.
't separate$ the to i$eas an$ then exa!!erate$ the& both. 'n one ay ,an
as to be hau!htier than he ha$ e#er been before2 in another ay he as to be
hu&bler than he ha$ e#er been before. 'n so far as ' a& ,an ' a& the chief of
creatures. 'n so far as ' a& a&an ' a& the chief of sinners. 6ll hu&ility that
ha$ &eant pessi&is&( that ha$ &eant &an takin! a #a!ue or &ean #ie of his
hole $estinyBall that as to !o. %e ere to hear no &ore the ail of
"cclesiastes that hu&anity ha$ no pre:e&inence o#er the brute( or the aful
cry of *o&er that &an as only the sa$$est of all the beasts of the fiel$. ,an
as a statue of -o$ alkin! about the !ar$en. ,an ha$ pre:e&inence o#er all
the brutes2 &an as only sa$ because he as not a beast( but a broken !o$.
The -reek ha$ spoken of &en creepin! on the earth( as if clin!in! to it. 8o
,an as to trea$ on the earth as if to sub$ue it. 0hristianity thus hel$ a
thou!ht of the $i!nity of &an that coul$ only be expresse$ in crons raye$
like the sun an$ fans of peacock plu&a!e. Cet at the sa&e ti&e it coul$ hol$ a
thou!ht about the ab?ect s&allness of &an that coul$ only be expresse$ in
fastin! an$ fantastic sub&ission( in the !rey ashes of .t. =o&inic an$ the
hite snos of .t. 1ernar$. %hen one ca&e to think of one$s self( there as
#ista an$ #oi$ enou!h for any a&ount of bleak abne!ation an$ bitter truth.
There the realistic !entle&an coul$ let hi&self !oBas lon! as he let hi&self
!o at hi&self. There as an open play!roun$ for the happy pessi&ist. Aet hi&
say anythin! a!ainst hi&self short of blasphe&in! the ori!inal ai& of his
bein!2 let hi& call hi&self a fool an$ e#en a $a&ne$ fool +thou!h that is
0al#inistic/2 but he &ust not say that fools are not orth sa#in!. *e &ust not
say that a &an( %u& &an( can be #alueless. *ere a!ain( in short( 0hristianity
!ot o#er the $ifficulty of co&binin! furious opposites( by keepin! the& both(
an$ keepin! the& both furious. The 0hurch as positi#e on both points. >ne
can har$ly think too little of one7s self. >ne can har$ly think too &uch of one7s
soul.
Take another case@ the co&plicate$ 9uestion of charity( hich so&e hi!hly
uncharitable i$ealists see& to think 9uite easy. 0harity is a para$ox( like
&o$esty an$ coura!e. .tate$ bal$ly( charity certainly &eans one of to thin!s
Bpar$onin! unpar$onable acts( or lo#in! unlo#able people. 1ut if e ask
oursel#es +as e $i$ in the case of pri$e/ hat a sensible pa!an oul$ feel
about such a sub?ect( e shall probably be be!innin! at the botto& of it. 6
sensible pa!an oul$ say that there ere so&e people one coul$ for!i#e( an$
so&e one coul$n7t@ a sla#e ho stole ine coul$ be lau!he$ at2 a sla#e ho
betraye$ his benefactor coul$ be kille$( an$ curse$ e#en after he as kille$. 'n
so far as the act as par$onable( the &an as par$onable. That a!ain is
rational( an$ e#en refreshin!2 but it is a $ilution. 't lea#es no place for a pure
horror of in?ustice( such as that hich is a !reat beauty in the innocent. 6n$ it
lea#es no place for a &ere ten$erness for &en as &en( such as is the hole
fascination of the charitable. 0hristianity ca&e in here as before. 't ca&e in
startlin!ly ith a sor$( an$ clo#e one thin! fro& another. 't $i#i$e$ the
cri&e fro& the cri&inal. The cri&inal e &ust for!i#e unto se#enty ti&es
se#en. The cri&e e &ust not for!i#e at all. 't as not enou!h that sla#es ho
stole ine inspire$ partly an!er an$ partly kin$ness. %e &ust be &uch &ore
an!ry ith theft than before( an$ yet &uch kin$er to thie#es than before.
There as roo& for rath an$ lo#e to run il$. 6n$ the &ore ' consi$ere$
0hristianity( the &ore ' foun$ that hile it ha$ establishe$ a rule an$ or$er( the
chief ai& of that or$er as to !i#e roo& for !oo$ thin!s to run il$.
,ental an$ e&otional liberty are not so si&ple as they look. <eally they
re9uire al&ost as careful a balance of las an$ con$itions as $o social an$
political liberty. The or$inary Hsthetic anarchist ho sets out to feel
e#erythin! freely !ets knotte$ at last in a para$ox that pre#ents hi& feelin! at
all. *e breaks aay fro& ho&e li&its to follo poetry. 1ut in ceasin! to feel
ho&e li&its he has cease$ to feel the )>$yssey.) *e is free fro& national
pre?u$ices an$ outsi$e patriotis&. 1ut bein! outsi$e patriotis& he is outsi$e
)*enry E.) .uch a literary &an is si&ply outsi$e all literature@ he is &ore of a
prisoner than any bi!ot. ;or if there is a all beteen you an$ the orl$( it
&akes little $ifference hether you $escribe yourself as locke$ in or as locke$
out. %hat e ant is not the uni#ersality that is outsi$e all nor&al senti&ents2
e ant the uni#ersality that is insi$e all nor&al senti&ents. 't is all the
$ifference beteen bein! free fro& the&( as a &an is free fro& a prison( an$
bein! free of the& as a &an is free of a city. ' a& free fro& %in$sor 0astle
+that is( ' a& not forcibly $etaine$ there/( but ' a& by no &eans free of that
buil$in!. *o can &an be approxi&ately free of fine e&otions( able to sin!
the& in a clear space ithout breaka!e or ron!5 This as the achie#e&ent
of this 0hristian para$ox of the parallel passions. -rante$ the pri&ary $o!&a
of the ar beteen $i#ine an$ $iabolic( the re#olt an$ ruin of the orl$( their
opti&is& an$ pessi&is&( as pure poetry( coul$ be loosene$ like cataracts.
.t. ;rancis( in praisin! all !oo$( coul$ be a &ore shoutin! opti&ist than %alt
%hit&an. .t. Dero&e( in $enouncin! all e#il( coul$ paint the orl$ blacker
than .chopenhauer. 1oth passions ere free because both ere kept in their
place. The opti&ist coul$ pour out all the praise he like$ on the !ay &usic of
the &arch( the !ol$en tru&pets( an$ the purple banners !oin! into battle. 1ut
he &ust not call the fi!ht nee$less. The pessi&ist &i!ht $ra as $arkly as he
chose the sickenin! &arches or the san!uine oun$s. 1ut he &ust not call the
fi!ht hopeless. .o it as ith all the other &oral proble&s( ith pri$e( ith
protest( an$ ith co&passion. 1y $efinin! its &ain $octrine( the 0hurch not
only kept see&in!ly inconsistent thin!s si$e by si$e( but( hat as &ore(
alloe$ the& to break out in a sort of artistic #iolence otherise possible only
to anarchists. ,eekness !re &ore $ra&atic than &a$ness. *istoric
0hristianity rose into a hi!h an$ stran!e "oup de th#atre of &oralityBthin!s
that are to #irtue hat the cri&es of 8ero are to #ice. The spirits of
in$i!nation an$ of charity took terrible an$ attracti#e for&s( ran!in! fro& that
&onkish fierceness that scour!e$ like a $o! the first an$ !reatest of the
4lanta!enets( to the subli&e pity of .t. 0atherine( ho( in the official
sha&bles( kisse$ the bloo$y hea$ of the cri&inal. 4oetry coul$ be acte$ as
ell as co&pose$. This heroic an$ &onu&ental &anner in ethics has entirely
#anishe$ ith supernatural reli!ion. They( bein! hu&ble( coul$ para$e
the&sel#es2 but e are too prou$ to be pro&inent. >ur ethical teachers rite
reasonably for prison refor&2 but e are not likely to see ,r. 0a$bury( or any
e&inent philanthropist( !o into <ea$in! -aol an$ e&brace the stran!le$
corpse before it is cast into the 9uickli&e. >ur ethical teachers rite &il$ly
a!ainst the poer of &illionaires2 but e are not likely to see ,r. <ockefeller(
or any &o$ern tyrant( publicly hippe$ in %est&inster 6bbey.
Thus( the $ouble char!es of the secularists( thou!h throin! nothin! but
$arkness an$ confusion on the&sel#es( thro a real li!ht on the faith. 't is true
that the historic 0hurch has at once e&phasise$ celibacy an$ e&phasise$ the
fa&ily2 has at once +if one &ay put it so/ been fiercely for ha#in! chil$ren an$
fiercely for not ha#in! chil$ren. 't has kept the& si$e by si$e like to stron!
colours( re$ an$ hite( like the re$ an$ hite upon the shiel$ of .t. -eor!e. 't
has alays ha$ a healthy hatre$ of pink. 't hates that co&bination of to
colours hich is the feeble expe$ient of the philosophers. 't hates that
e#olution of black into hite hich is tanta&ount to a $irty !rey. 'n fact( the
hole theory of the 0hurch on #ir!inity &i!ht be sy&boli3e$ in the state&ent
that hite is a colour@ not &erely the absence of a colour. 6ll that ' a& ur!in!
here can be expresse$ by sayin! that 0hristianity sou!ht in &ost of these cases
to keep to colours co:existent but pure. 't is not a &ixture like russet or
purple2 it is rather like a shot silk( for a shot silk is alays at ri!ht an!les( an$
is in the pattern of the cross.
.o it is also( of course( ith the contra$ictory char!es of the anti:0hristians
about sub&ission an$ slau!hter. 't is true that the 0hurch tol$ so&e &en to
fi!ht an$ others not to fi!ht2 an$ it is true that those ho fou!ht ere like
thun$erbolts an$ those ho $i$ not fi!ht ere like statues. 6ll this si&ply
&eans that the 0hurch preferre$ to use its .uper&en an$ to use its Tolstoyans.
There &ust be some!oo$ in the life of battle( for so &any !oo$ &en ha#e
en?oye$ bein! sol$iers. There &ust be some !oo$ in the i$ea of non:
resistance( for so &any !oo$ &en see& to en?oy bein! Luakers. 6ll that the
0hurch $i$ +so far as that !oes/ as to pre#ent either of these !oo$ thin!s
fro& oustin! the other. They existe$ si$e by si$e. The Tolstoyans( ha#in! all
the scruples of &onks( si&ply beca&e &onks. The Luakers beca&e a club
instea$ of beco&in! a sect. ,onks sai$ all that Tolstoy says2 they poure$ out
luci$ la&entations about the cruelty of battles an$ the #anity of re#en!e. 1ut
the Tolstoyans are not 9uite ri!ht enou!h to run the hole orl$2 an$ in the
a!es of faith they ere not alloe$ to run it. The orl$ $i$ not lose the last
char!e of .ir Da&es =ou!las or the banner of Doan the ,ai$. 6n$ so&eti&es
this pure !entleness an$ this pure fierceness &et an$ ?ustifie$ their ?uncture2
the para$ox of all the prophets as fulfille$( an$( in the soul of .t. Aouis( the
lion lay $on ith the la&b. 1ut re&e&ber that this text is too li!htly
interprete$. 't is constantly assure$( especially in our Tolstoyan ten$encies(
that hen the lion lies $on ith the la&b the lion beco&es la&b:like. 1ut
that is brutal annexation an$ i&perialis& on the part of the la&b. That is
si&ply the la&b absorbin! the lion instea$ of the lion eatin! the la&b. The
real proble& isB0an the lion lie $on ith the la&b an$ still retain his royal
ferocity5 That is the proble& the 0hurch atte&pte$2that is the &iracle she
achie#e$.
This is hat ' ha#e calle$ !uessin! the hi$$en eccentricities of life. This is
knoin! that a &an7s heart is to the left an$ not in the &i$$le. This is knoin!
not only that the earth is roun$( but knoin! exactly here it is flat. 0hristian
$octrine $etecte$ the o$$ities of life. 't not only $isco#ere$ the la( but it
foresa the exceptions. Those un$errate 0hristianity ho say that it
$isco#ere$ &ercy2 any one &i!ht $isco#er &ercy. 'n fact e#ery one $i$. 1ut to
$isco#er a plan for bein! &erciful an$ also se#ereBthat as to anticipate a
stran!e nee$ of hu&an nature. ;or no one ants to be for!i#en for a bi! sin as
if it ere a little one. 6ny one &i!ht say that e shoul$ be neither 9uite
&iserable nor 9uite happy. 1ut to fin$ out ho far one may be 9uite &iserable
ithout &akin! it i&possible to be 9uite happyBthat as a $isco#ery in
psycholo!y. 6ny one &i!ht say( )8either sa!!er nor !ro#el)2 an$ it oul$
ha#e been a li&it. 1ut to say( )*ere you can sa!!er an$ there you can
!ro#el)Bthat as an e&ancipation.
This as the bi! fact about 0hristian ethics2 the $isco#ery of the ne balance.
4a!anis& ha$ been like a pillar of &arble( upri!ht because proportione$ ith
sy&&etry. 0hristianity as like a hu!e an$ ra!!e$ an$ ro&antic rock( hich(
thou!h it says on its pe$estal at a touch( yet( because its exa!!erate$
excrescences exactly balance each other( is enthrone$ there for a thousan$
years. 'n a -othic cathe$ral the colu&ns ere all $ifferent( but they ere all
necessary. "#ery support see&e$ an acci$ental an$ fantastic support2 e#ery
buttress as a flyin! buttress. .o in 0hristen$o& apparent acci$ents balance$.
1ecket ore a hair shirt un$er his !ol$ an$ cri&son( an$ there is &uch to be
sai$ for the co&bination2 for 1ecket !ot the benefit of the hair shirt hile the
people in the street !ot the benefit of the cri&son an$ !ol$. 't is at least better
than the &anner of the &o$ern &illionaire( ho has the black an$ the $rab
outar$ly for others( an$ the !ol$ next his heart. 1ut the balance as not
alays in one &an7s bo$y as in 1ecket7s2 the balance as often $istribute$
o#er the hole bo$y of 0hristen$o&. 1ecause a &an praye$ an$ faste$ on the
8orthern snos( floers coul$ be flun! at his festi#al in the .outhern cities2
an$ because fanatics $rank ater on the san$s of .yria( &en coul$ still $rink
ci$er in the orchar$s of "n!lan$. This is hat &akes 0hristen$o& at once so
&uch &ore perplexin! an$ so &uch &ore interestin! than the 4a!an e&pire2
?ust as 6&iens 0athe$ral is not better but &ore interestin! than the 4arthenon.
'f any one ants a &o$ern proof of all this( let hi& consi$er the curious fact
that( un$er 0hristianity( "urope +hile re&ainin! a unity/ has broken up into
in$i#i$ual nations. 4atriotis& is a perfect exa&ple of this $eliberate balancin!
of one e&phasis a!ainst another e&phasis. The instinct of the 4a!an e&pire
oul$ ha#e sai$( )Cou shall all be <o&an citi3ens( an$ !ro alike2 let the
-er&an !ro less slo an$ re#erent2 the ;rench&en less experi&ental an$
sift.) 1ut the instinct of 0hristian "urope says( )Aet the -er&an re&ain slo
an$ re#erent( that the ;rench&an &ay the &ore safely be sift an$
experi&ental. %e ill &ake an e9uipoise out of these excesses. The absur$ity
calle$ -er&any shall correct the insanity calle$ ;rance.)
Aast an$ &ost i&portant( it is exactly this hich explains hat is so
inexplicable to all the &o$ern critics of the history of 0hristianity. ' &ean the
&onstrous ars about s&all points of theolo!y( the earth9uakes of e&otion
about a !esture or a or$. 't as only a &atter of an inch2 but an inch is
e#erythin! hen you are balancin!. The 0hurch coul$ not affor$ to ser#e a
hair7s brea$th on so&e thin!s if she as to continue her !reat an$ $arin!
experi&ent of the irre!ular e9uilibriu&. >nce let one i$ea beco&e less
poerful an$ so&e other i$ea oul$ beco&e too poerful. 't as no flock of
sheep the 0hristian shepher$ as lea$in!( but a her$ of bulls an$ ti!ers( of
terrible i$eals an$ $e#ourin! $octrines( each one of the& stron! enou!h to
turn to a false reli!ion an$ lay aste the orl$. <e&e&ber that the 0hurch
ent in specifically for $an!erous i$eas2 she as a lion ta&er. The i$ea of
birth throu!h a *oly .pirit( of the $eath of a $i#ine bein!( of the for!i#eness
of sins( or the fulfil&ent of prophecies( are i$eas hich( any one can see( nee$
but a touch to turn the& into so&ethin! blasphe&ous or ferocious. The
s&allest link as let $rop by the artificers of the ,e$iterranean( an$ the lion
of ancestral pessi&is& burst his chain in the for!otten forests of the north. >f
these theolo!ical e9ualisations ' ha#e to speak afterar$s. *ere it is enou!h to
notice that if so&e s&all &istake ere &a$e in $octrine( hu!e blun$ers &i!ht
be &a$e in hu&an happiness. 6 sentence phrase$ ron! about the nature of
sy&bolis& oul$ ha#e broken all the best statues in "urope. 6 slip in the
$efinitions &i!ht stop all the $ances2 &i!ht ither all the 0hrist&as trees or
break all the "aster e!!s. =octrines ha$ to be $efine$ ithin strict li&its( e#en
in or$er that &an &i!ht en?oy !eneral hu&an liberties. The 0hurch ha$ to be
careful( if only that the orl$ &i!ht be careless.
This is the thrillin! ro&ance of >rtho$oxy. 4eople ha#e fallen into a foolish
habit of speakin! of ortho$oxy as so&ethin! hea#y( hu&$ru&( an$ safe. There
ne#er as anythin! so perilous or so excitin! as ortho$oxy. 't as sanity@ an$
to be sane is &ore $ra&atic than to be &a$. 't as the e9uilibriu& of a &an
behin$ &a$ly rushin! horses( see&in! to stoop this ay an$ to say that( yet
in e#ery attitu$e ha#in! the !race of statuary an$ the accuracy of arith&etic.
The 0hurch in its early $ays ent fierce an$ fast ith any arhorse2 yet it is
utterly unhistoric to say that she &erely ent &a$ alon! one i$ea( like a
#ul!ar fanaticis&. .he ser#e$ to left an$ ri!ht( so as exactly to a#oi$
enor&ous obstacles. .he left on one han$ the hu!e bulk of 6rianis&(
buttresse$ by all the orl$ly poers to &ake 0hristianity too orl$ly. The
next instant she as ser#in! to a#oi$ an orientalis&( hich oul$ ha#e
&a$e it too unorl$ly. The ortho$ox 0hurch ne#er took the ta&e course or
accepte$ the con#entions2 the ortho$ox 0hurch as ne#er respectable. 't
oul$ ha#e been easier to ha#e accepte$ the earthly poer of the 6rians. 't
oul$ ha#e been easy( in the 0al#inistic se#enteenth century( to fall into the
botto&less pit of pre$estination. 't is easy to be a &a$&an@ it is easy to be a
heretic. 't is alays easy to let the a!e ha#e its hea$2 the $ifficult thin! is to
keep one7s on. 't is alays easy to be a &o$ernist2 as it is easy to be a snob.
To ha#e fallen into any of those open traps of error an$ exa!!eration hich
fashion after fashion an$ sect after sect set alon! the historic path of
0hristen$o&Bthat oul$ in$ee$ ha#e been si&ple. 't is alays si&ple to fall2
there are an infinity of an!les at hich one falls( only one at hich one stan$s.
To ha#e fallen into any one of the fa$s fro& -nosticis& to 0hristian .cience
oul$ in$ee$ ha#e been ob#ious an$ ta&e. 1ut to ha#e a#oi$e$ the& all has
been one hirlin! a$#enture2 an$ in &y #ision the hea#enly chariot flies
thun$erin! throu!h the a!es( the $ull heresies spralin! an$ prostrate( the
il$ truth reelin! but erect.
CHAPTER VII.The Eternal Revolution
The folloin! propositions ha#e been ur!e$@ ;irst( that so&e faith in our life
is re9uire$ e#en to i&pro#e it2 secon$( that so&e $issatisfaction ith thin!s as
they are is necessary e#en in or$er to be satisfie$2 thir$( that to ha#e this
necessary content an$ necessary $iscontent it is not sufficient to ha#e the
ob#ious e9uilibriu& of the .toic. ;or &ere resi!nation has neither the !i!antic
le#ity of pleasure nor the superb intolerance of pain. There is a #ital ob?ection
to the a$#ice &erely to !rin an$ bear it. The ob?ection is that if you &erely
bear it( you $o not !rin. -reek heroes $o not !rin2 but !ar!oyles $oBbecause
they are 0hristian. 6n$ hen a 0hristian is please$( he is +in the &ost exact
sense/ fri!htfully please$2 his pleasure is fri!htful. 0hrist prophesie$ the
hole of -othic architecture in that hour hen ner#ous an$ respectable
people +such people as no ob?ect to barrel or!ans/ ob?ecte$ to the shoutin!
of the !utter:snipes of Derusale&. *e sai$( )'f these ere silent( the #ery
stones oul$ cry out.) Kn$er the i&pulse of *is spirit arose like a cla&orous
chorus the faca$es of the &e$iH#al cathe$rals( thron!e$ ith shoutin! faces
an$ open &ouths. The prophecy has fulfille$ itself@ the #ery stones cry out.
'f these thin!s be conce$e$( thou!h only for ar!u&ent( e &ay take up here
e left it the threa$ of the thou!ht of the natural &an( calle$ by the .cotch
+ith re!rettable fa&iliarity/( )The >l$ ,an.) %e can ask the next 9uestion so
ob#iously in front of us. .o&e satisfaction is nee$e$ e#en to &ake thin!s
better. 1ut hat $o e &ean by &akin! thin!s better5 ,ost &o$ern talk on
this &atter is a &ere ar!u&ent in a circleBthat circle hich e ha#e alrea$y
&a$e the sy&bol of &a$ness an$ of &ere rationalis&. "#olution is only !oo$
if it pro$uces !oo$2 !oo$ is only !oo$ if it helps e#olution. The elephant
stan$s on the tortoise( an$ the tortoise on the elephant.
>b#iously( it ill not $o to take our i$eal fro& the principle in nature2 for the
si&ple reason that +except for so&e hu&an or $i#ine theory/( there is no
principle in nature. ;or instance( the cheap anti:$e&ocrat of to:$ay ill tell
you sole&nly that there is no e9uality in nature. *e is ri!ht( but he $oes not
see the lo!ical a$$en$u&. There is no e9uality in nature2 also there is no
ine9uality in nature. 'ne9uality( as &uch as e9uality( i&plies a stan$ar$ of
#alue. To rea$ aristocracy into the anarchy of ani&als is ?ust as senti&ental as
to rea$ $e&ocracy into it. 1oth aristocracy an$ $e&ocracy are hu&an i$eals@
the one sayin! that all &en are #aluable( the other that so&e &en are &ore
#aluable. 1ut nature $oes not say that cats are &ore #aluable than &ice2 nature
&akes no re&ark on the sub?ect. .he $oes not e#en say that the cat is en#iable
or the &ouse pitiable. %e think the cat superior because e ha#e +or &ost of
us ha#e/ a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than $eath. 1ut
if the &ouse ere a -er&an pessi&ist &ouse( he &i!ht not think that the cat
ha$ beaten hi& at all. *e &i!ht think he ha$ beaten the cat by !ettin! to the
!ra#e first. >r he &i!ht feel that he ha$ actually inflicte$ fri!htful punish&ent
on the cat by keepin! hi& ali#e. Dust as a &icrobe &i!ht feel prou$ of
sprea$in! a pestilence( so the pessi&istic &ouse &i!ht exult to think that he
as renein! in the cat the torture of conscious existence. 't all $epen$s on
the philosophy of the &ouse. Cou cannot e#en say that there is #ictory or
superiority in nature unless you ha#e so&e $octrine about hat thin!s are
superior. Cou cannot e#en say that the cat scores unless there is a syste& of
scorin!. Cou cannot e#en say that the cat !ets the best of it unless there is
so&e best to be !ot.
%e cannot( then( !et the i$eal itself fro& nature( an$ as e follo here the
first an$ natural speculation( e ill lea#e out +for the present/ the i$ea of
!ettin! it fro& -o$. %e &ust ha#e our on #ision. 1ut the atte&pts of &ost
&o$erns to express it are hi!hly #a!ue.
.o&e fall back si&ply on the clock@ they talk as if &ere passa!e throu!h ti&e
brou!ht so&e superiority2 so that e#en a &an of the first &ental calibre
carelessly uses the phrase that hu&an &orality is ne#er up to $ate. *o can
anythin! be up to $ate5 a $ate has no character. *o can one say that
0hrist&as celebrations are not suitable to the tenty:fifth of a &onth5 %hat
the riter &eant( of course( as that the &a?ority is behin$ his fa#ourite
&inorityBor in front of it. >ther #a!ue &o$ern people take refu!e in &aterial
&etaphors2 in fact( this is the chief &ark of #a!ue &o$ern people. 8ot $arin!
to $efine their $octrine of hat is !oo$( they use physical fi!ures of speech
ithout stint or sha&e( an$( hat is orst of all( see& to think these cheap
analo!ies are ex9uisitely spiritual an$ superior to the ol$ &orality. Thus they
think it intellectual to talk about thin!s bein! )hi!h.) 't is at least the re#erse
of intellectual2 it is a &ere phrase fro& a steeple or a eathercock. )To&&y
as a !oo$ boy) is a pure philosophical state&ent( orthy of 4lato or
69uinas. )To&&y li#e$ the hi!her life) is a !ross &etaphor fro& a ten:foot
rule.
This( inci$entally( is al&ost the hole eakness of 8iet3sche( ho& so&e are
representin! as a bol$ an$ stron! thinker. 8o one ill $eny that he as a
poetical an$ su!!esti#e thinker2 but he as 9uite the re#erse of stron!. *e as
not at all bol$. *e ne#er put his on &eanin! before hi&self in bal$ abstract
or$s@ as $i$ 6ristotle an$ 0al#in( an$ e#en Farl ,arx( the har$( fearless &en
of thou!ht. 8iet3sche alays escape$ a 9uestion by a physical &etaphor( like
a cheery &inor poet. *e sai$( )beyon$ !oo$ an$ e#il() because he ha$ not the
coura!e to say( )&ore !oo$ than !oo$ an$ e#il() or( )&ore e#il than !oo$ an$
e#il.) *a$ he face$ his thou!ht ithout &etaphors( he oul$ ha#e seen that it
as nonsense. .o( hen he $escribes his hero( he $oes not $are to say( )the
purer &an() or )the happier &an() or )the sa$$er &an() for all these are i$eas2
an$ i$eas are alar&in!. *e says )the upper &an() or )o#er &an() a physical
&etaphor fro& acrobats or alpine cli&bers. 8iet3sche is truly a #ery ti&i$
thinker. *e $oes not really kno in the least hat sort of &an he ants
e#olution to pro$uce. 6n$ if he $oes not kno( certainly the or$inary
e#olutionists( ho talk about thin!s bein! )hi!her() $o not kno either.
Then a!ain( so&e people fall back on sheer sub&ission an$ sittin! still. 8ature
is !oin! to $o so&ethin! so&e $ay2 nobo$y knos hat( an$ nobo$y knos
hen. %e ha#e no reason for actin!( an$ no reason for not actin!. 'f anythin!
happens it is ri!ht@ if anythin! is pre#ente$ it as ron!. 6!ain( so&e people
try to anticipate nature by $oin! so&ethin!( by $oin! anythin!. 1ecause e
&ay possibly !ro in!s they cut off their le!s. Cet nature &ay be tryin! to
&ake the& centipe$es for all they kno.
Aastly( there is a fourth class of people ho take hate#er it is that they
happen to ant( an$ say that that is the ulti&ate ai& of e#olution. 6n$ these
are the only sensible people. This is the only really healthy ay ith the or$
e#olution( to ork for hat you ant( an$ to call that e#olution. The only
intelli!ible sense that pro!ress or a$#ance can ha#e a&on! &en( is that e
ha#e a $efinite #ision( an$ that e ish to &ake the hole orl$ like that
#ision. 'f you like to put it so( the essence of the $octrine is that hat e ha#e
aroun$ us is the &ere &etho$ an$ preparation for so&ethin! that e ha#e to
create. This is not a orl$( but rather the &aterials for a orl$. -o$ has !i#en
us not so &uch the colours of a picture as the colours of a palette. 1ut *e has
also !i#en us a sub?ect( a &o$el( a fixe$ #ision. %e &ust be clear about hat
e ant to paint. This a$$s a further principle to our pre#ious list of
principles. %e ha#e sai$ e &ust be fon$ of this orl$( e#en in or$er to
chan!e it. %e no a$$ that e &ust be fon$ of another orl$ +real or
i&a!inary/ in or$er to ha#e so&ethin! to chan!e it to.
%e nee$ not $ebate about the &ere or$s e#olution or pro!ress@ personally '
prefer to call it refor&. ;or refor& i&plies for&. 't i&plies that e are tryin!
to shape the orl$ in a particular i&a!e2 to &ake it so&ethin! that e see
alrea$y in our &in$s. "#olution is a &etaphor fro& &ere auto&atic unrollin!.
4ro!ress is a &etaphor fro& &erely alkin! alon! a roa$B#ery likely the
ron! roa$. 1ut refor& is a &etaphor for reasonable an$ $eter&ine$ &en@ it
&eans that e see a certain thin! out of shape an$ e &ean to put it into
shape. 6n$ e kno hat shape.
8o here co&es in the hole collapse an$ hu!e blun$er of our a!e. %e ha#e
&ixe$ up to $ifferent thin!s( to opposite thin!s. 4ro!ress shoul$ &ean that
e are alays chan!in! the orl$ to suit the #ision. 4ro!ress $oes &ean +?ust
no/ that e are alays chan!in! the #ision. 't shoul$ &ean that e are slo
but sure in brin!in! ?ustice an$ &ercy a&on! &en@ it $oes &ean that e are
#ery sift in $oubtin! the $esirability of ?ustice an$ &ercy@ a il$ pa!e fro&
any 4russian sophist &akes &en $oubt it. 4ro!ress shoul$ &ean that e are
alays alkin! toar$s the 8e Derusale&. 't $oes &ean that the 8e
Derusale& is alays alkin! aay fro& us. %e are not alterin! the real to suit
the i$eal. %e are alterin! the i$eal@ it is easier.
.illy exa&ples are alays si&pler2 let us suppose a &an ante$ a particular
kin$ of orl$2 say( a blue orl$. *e oul$ ha#e no cause to co&plain of the
sli!htness or siftness of his task2 he &i!ht toil for a lon! ti&e at the
transfor&ation2 he coul$ ork aay +in e#ery sense/ until all as blue. *e
coul$ ha#e heroic a$#entures2 the puttin! of the last touches to a blue ti!er. *e
coul$ ha#e fairy $rea&s2 the $an of a blue &oon. 1ut if he orke$ har$( that
hi!h:&in$e$ refor&er oul$ certainly +fro& his on point of #ie/ lea#e the
orl$ better an$ bluer than he foun$ it. 'f he altere$ a bla$e of !rass to his
fa#ourite colour e#ery $ay( he oul$ !et on sloly. 1ut if he altere$ his
fa#ourite colour e#ery $ay( he oul$ not !et on at all. 'f( after rea$in! a fresh
philosopher( he starte$ to paint e#erythin! re$ or yello( his ork oul$ be
thron aay@ there oul$ be nothin! to sho except a fe blue ti!ers
alkin! about( speci&ens of his early ba$ &anner. This is exactly the position
of the a#era!e &o$ern thinker. 't ill be sai$ that this is a#oe$ly a
preposterous exa&ple. 1ut it is literally the fact of recent history. The !reat
an$ !ra#e chan!es in our political ci#ili3ation all belon!e$ to the early
nineteenth century( not to the later. They belon!e$ to the black an$ hite
epoch hen &en belie#e$ fixe$ly in Toryis&( in 4rotestantis&( in 0al#inis&(
in <efor&( an$ not unfre9uently in <e#olution. 6n$ hate#er each &an
belie#e$ in he ha&&ere$ at stea$ily( ithout scepticis&@ an$ there as a ti&e
hen the "stablishe$ 0hurch &i!ht ha#e fallen( an$ the *ouse of Aor$s
nearly fell. 't as because <a$icals ere ise enou!h to be constant an$
consistent2 it as because <a$icals ere ise enou!h to be 0onser#ati#e. 1ut
in the existin! at&osphere there is not enou!h ti&e an$ tra$ition in
<a$icalis& to pull anythin! $on. There is a !reat $eal of truth in Aor$ *u!h
0ecil7s su!!estion +&a$e in a fine speech/ that the era of chan!e is o#er( an$
that ours is an era of conser#ation an$ repose. 1ut probably it oul$ pain
Aor$ *u!h 0ecil if he realise$ +hat is certainly the case/ that ours is only an
a!e of conser#ation because it is an a!e of co&plete unbelief. Aet beliefs fa$e
fast an$ fre9uently( if you ish institutions to re&ain the sa&e. The &ore the
life of the &in$ is unhin!e$( the &ore the &achinery of &atter ill be left to
itself. The net result of all our political su!!estions( 0ollecti#is&(
Tolstoyanis&( 8eo:;eu$alis&( 0o&&unis&( 6narchy( .cientific 1ureaucracy
Bthe plain fruit of all of the& is that the ,onarchy an$ the *ouse of Aor$s
ill re&ain. The net result of all the ne reli!ions ill be that the 0hurch of
"n!lan$ ill not +for hea#en knos ho lon!/ be $isestablishe$. 't as Farl
,arx( 8iet3sche( Tolstoy( 0unnin!ha&e -raha&e( 1ernar$ .ha an$
6uberon *erbert( ho beteen the&( ith boe$ !i!antic backs( bore up the
throne of the 6rchbishop of 0anterbury.
%e &ay say broa$ly that free thou!ht is the best of all the safe!uar$s a!ainst
free$o&. ,ana!e$ in a &o$ern style the e&ancipation of the sla#e7s &in$ is
the best ay of pre#entin! the e&ancipation of the sla#e. Teach hi& to orry
about hether he ants to be free( an$ he ill not free hi&self. 6!ain( it &ay
be sai$ that this instance is re&ote or extre&e. 1ut( a!ain( it is exactly true of
the &en in the streets aroun$ us. 't is true that the ne!ro sla#e( bein! a $ebase$
barbarian( ill probably ha#e either a hu&an affection of loyalty( or a hu&an
affection for liberty. 1ut the &an e see e#ery $ayBthe orker in ,r.
-ra$!rin$7s factory( the little clerk in ,r. -ra$!rin$7s officeBhe is too
&entally orrie$ to belie#e in free$o&. *e is kept 9uiet ith re#olutionary
literature. *e is cal&e$ an$ kept in his place by a constant succession of il$
philosophies. *e is a ,arxian one $ay( a 8iet3scheite the next $ay( a
.uper&an +probably/ the next $ay2 an$ a sla#e e#ery $ay. The only thin! that
re&ains after all the philosophies is the factory. The only &an ho !ains by
all the philosophies is -ra$!rin$. 't oul$ be orth his hile to keep his
co&&ercial helotry supplie$ ith sceptical literature. 6n$ no ' co&e to
think of it( of course( -ra$!rin$ is fa&ous for !i#in! libraries. *e shos his
sense. 6ll &o$ern books are on his si$e. 6s lon! as the #ision of hea#en is
alays chan!in!( the #ision of earth ill be exactly the sa&e. 8o i$eal ill
re&ain lon! enou!h to be realise$( or e#en partly realise$. The &o$ern youn!
&an ill ne#er chan!e his en#iron&ent2 for he ill alays chan!e his &in$.
This( therefore( is our first re9uire&ent about the i$eal toar$s hich pro!ress
is $irecte$2 it &ust be fixe$. %histler use$ to &ake &any rapi$ stu$ies of a
sitter2 it $i$ not &atter if he tore up tenty portraits. 1ut it oul$ &atter if he
looke$ up tenty ti&es( an$ each ti&e sa a ne person sittin! placi$ly for
his portrait. .o it $oes not &atter +co&parati#ely speakin!/ ho often
hu&anity fails to i&itate its i$eal2 for then all its ol$ failures are fruitful. 1ut it
$oes fri!htfully &atter ho often hu&anity chan!es its i$eal2 for then all its
ol$ failures are fruitless. The 9uestion therefore beco&es this@ *o can e
keep the artist $iscontente$ ith his pictures hile pre#entin! hi& fro& bein!
#itally $iscontente$ ith his art5 *o can e &ake a &an alays $issatisfie$
ith his ork( yet alays satisfie$ ith orkin!5 *o can e &ake sure that
the portrait painter ill thro the portrait out of in$o instea$ of takin! the
natural an$ &ore hu&an course of throin! the sitter out of in$o5
6 strict rule is not only necessary for rulin!2 it is also necessary for rebellin!.
This fixe$ an$ fa&iliar i$eal is necessary to any sort of re#olution. ,an ill
so&eti&es act sloly upon ne i$eas2 but he ill only act siftly upon ol$
i$eas. 'f ' a& &erely to float or fa$e or e#ol#e( it &ay be toar$s so&ethin!
anarchic2 but if ' a& to riot( it &ust be for so&ethin! respectable. This is the
hole eakness of certain schools of pro!ress an$ &oral e#olution. They
su!!est that there has been a slo &o#e&ent toar$s &orality( ith an
i&perceptible ethical chan!e in e#ery year or at e#ery instant. There is only
one !reat $isa$#anta!e in this theory. 't talks of a slo &o#e&ent toar$s
?ustice2 but it $oes not per&it a sift &o#e&ent. 6 &an is not alloe$ to leap
up an$ $eclare a certain state of thin!s to be intrinsically intolerable. To &ake
the &atter clear( it is better to take a specific exa&ple. 0ertain of the i$ealistic
#e!etarians( such as ,r. .alt( say that the ti&e has no co&e for eatin! no
&eat2 by i&plication they assu&e that at one ti&e it as ri!ht to eat &eat( an$
they su!!est +in or$s that coul$ be 9uote$/ that so&e $ay it &ay be ron! to
eat &ilk an$ e!!s. ' $o not $iscuss here the 9uestion of hat is ?ustice to
ani&als. ' only say that hate#er is ?ustice ou!ht( un$er !i#en con$itions( to
be pro&pt ?ustice. 'f an ani&al is ron!e$( e ou!ht to be able to rush to his
rescue. 1ut ho can e rush if e are( perhaps( in a$#ance of our ti&e5 *o
can e rush to catch a train hich &ay not arri#e for a fe centuries5 *o
can ' $enounce a &an for skinnin! cats( if he is only no hat ' &ay possibly
beco&e in $rinkin! a !lass of &ilk5 6 splen$i$ an$ insane <ussian sect ran
about takin! all the cattle out of all the carts. *o can ' pluck up coura!e to
take the horse out of &y hanso&:cab( hen ' $o not kno hether &y
e#olutionary atch is only a little fast or the cab&an7s a little slo5 .uppose '
say to a seater( ).la#ery suite$ one sta!e of e#olution.) 6n$ suppose he
ansers( )6n$ seatin! suits this sta!e of e#olution.) *o can ' anser if
there is no eternal test5 'f seaters can be behin$ the current &orality( hy
shoul$ not philanthropists be in front of it5 %hat on earth is the current
&orality( except in its literal senseBthe &orality that is alays runnin! aay5
Thus e &ay say that a per&anent i$eal is as necessary to the inno#ator as to
the conser#ati#e2 it is necessary hether e ish the kin!7s or$ers to be
pro&ptly execute$ or hether e only ish the kin! to be pro&ptly execute$.
The !uillotine has &any sins( but to $o it ?ustice there is nothin! e#olutionary
about it. The fa#ourite e#olutionary ar!u&ent fin$s its best anser in the axe.
The "#olutionist says( )%here $o you $ra the line5) the <e#olutionist
ansers( )' $ra it here@ exactly beteen your hea$ an$ bo$y.) There &ust at
any !i#en &o&ent be an abstract ri!ht an$ ron! if any blo is to be struck2
there &ust be so&ethin! eternal if there is to be anythin! su$$en. Therefore
for all intelli!ible hu&an purposes( for alterin! thin!s or for keepin! thin!s as
they are( for foun$in! a syste& for e#er( as in 0hina( or for alterin! it e#ery
&onth as in the early ;rench <e#olution( it is e9ually necessary that the #ision
shoul$ be a fixe$ #ision. This is our first re9uire&ent.
%hen ' ha$ ritten this $on( ' felt once a!ain the presence of so&ethin! else
in the $iscussion@ as a &an hears a church bell abo#e the soun$ of the street.
.o&ethin! see&e$ to be sayin!( ),y i$eal at least is fixe$2 for it as fixe$
before the foun$ations of the orl$. ,y #ision of perfection assure$ly cannot
be altere$2 for it is calle$ "$en. Cou &ay alter the place to hich you are
!oin!2 but you cannot alter the place fro& hich you ha#e co&e. To the
ortho$ox there &ust alays be a case for re#olution2 for in the hearts of &en
-o$ has been put un$er the feet of .atan. 'n the upper orl$ hell once
rebelle$ a!ainst hea#en. 1ut in this orl$ hea#en is rebellin! a!ainst hell. ;or
the ortho$ox there can alays be a re#olution2 for a re#olution is a restoration.
6t any instant you &ay strike a blo for the perfection hich no &an has seen
since 6$a&. 8o unchan!in! custo&( no chan!in! e#olution can &ake the
ori!inal !oo$ anythin! but !oo$. ,an &ay ha#e ha$ concubines as lon! as
cos ha#e ha$ horns@ still they are not a part of hi& if they are sinful. ,en
&ay ha#e been un$er oppression e#er since fish ere un$er ater2 still they
ou!ht not to be( if oppression is sinful. The chain &ay see& as natural to the
sla#e( or the paint to the harlot( as $oes the plu&e to the bir$ or the burro to
the fox2 still they are not( if they are sinful. ' lift &y prehistoric le!en$ to $efy
all your history. Cour #ision is not &erely a fixture@ it is a fact.) ' pause$ to
note the ne coinci$ence of 0hristianity@ but ' passe$ on.
' passe$ on to the next necessity of any i$eal of pro!ress. .o&e people +as e
ha#e sai$/ see& to belie#e in an auto&atic an$ i&personal pro!ress in the
nature of thin!s. 1ut it is clear that no political acti#ity can be encoura!e$ by
sayin! that pro!ress is natural an$ ine#itable2 that is not a reason for bein!
acti#e( but rather a reason for bein! la3y. 'f e are boun$ to i&pro#e( e nee$
not trouble to i&pro#e. The pure $octrine of pro!ress is the best of all reasons
for not bein! a pro!ressi#e. 1ut it is to none of these ob#ious co&&ents that '
ish pri&arily to call attention.
The only arrestin! point is this@ that if e suppose i&pro#e&ent to be natural(
it &ust be fairly si&ple. The orl$ &i!ht concei#ably be orkin! toar$s one
consu&&ation( but har$ly toar$s any particular arran!e&ent of &any
9ualities. To take our ori!inal si&ile@ 8ature by herself &ay be !roin! &ore
blue2 that is( a process so si&ple that it &i!ht be i&personal. 1ut 8ature
cannot be &akin! a careful picture &a$e of &any picke$ colours( unless
8ature is personal. 'f the en$ of the orl$ ere &ere $arkness or &ere li!ht it
&i!ht co&e as sloly an$ ine#itably as $usk or $an. 1ut if the en$ of the
orl$ is to be a piece of elaborate an$ artistic chiaroscuro( then there &ust be
$esi!n in it( either hu&an or $i#ine. The orl$( throu!h &ere ti&e( &i!ht
!ro black like an ol$ picture( or hite like an ol$ coat2 but if it is turne$ into
a particular piece of black an$ hite artBthen there is an artist.
'f the $istinction be not e#i$ent( ' !i#e an or$inary instance. %e constantly
hear a particularly cos&ic cree$ fro& the &o$ern hu&anitarians2 ' use the
or$ hu&anitarian in the or$inary sense( as &eanin! one ho uphol$s the
clai&s of all creatures a!ainst those of hu&anity. They su!!est that throu!h
the a!es e ha#e been !roin! &ore an$ &ore hu&ane( that is to say( that one
after another( !roups or sections of bein!s( sla#es( chil$ren( o&en( cos( or
hat not( ha#e been !ra$ually a$&itte$ to &ercy or to ?ustice. They say that
e once thou!ht it ri!ht to eat &en +e $i$n7t/2 but ' a& not here concerne$
ith their history( hich is hi!hly unhistorical. 6s a fact( anthropopha!y is
certainly a $eca$ent thin!( not a pri&iti#e one. 't is &uch &ore likely that
&o$ern &en ill eat hu&an flesh out of affectation than that pri&iti#e &an
e#er ate it out of i!norance. ' a& here only folloin! the outlines of their
ar!u&ent( hich consists in &aintainin! that &an has been pro!ressi#ely
&ore lenient( first to citi3ens( then to sla#es( then to ani&als( an$ then
+presu&ably/ to plants. ' think it ron! to sit on a &an. .oon( ' shall think it
ron! to sit on a horse. "#entually +' suppose/ ' shall think it ron! to sit on a
chair. That is the $ri#e of the ar!u&ent. 6n$ for this ar!u&ent it can be sai$
that it is possible to talk of it in ter&s of e#olution or ine#itable pro!ress. 6
perpetual ten$ency to touch feer an$ feer thin!s &i!ht( one feels( be a
&ere brute unconscious ten$ency( like that of a species to pro$uce feer an$
feer chil$ren. This $rift &ay be really e#olutionary( because it is stupi$.
=arinis& can be use$ to back up to &a$ &oralities( but it cannot be use$
to back up a sin!le sane one. The kinship an$ co&petition of all li#in!
creatures can be use$ as a reason for bein! insanely cruel or insanely
senti&ental2 but not for a healthy lo#e of ani&als. >n the e#olutionary basis
you &ay be inhu&ane( or you &ay be absur$ly hu&ane2 but you cannot be
hu&an. That you an$ a ti!er are one &ay be a reason for bein! ten$er to a
ti!er. >r it &ay be a reason for bein! as cruel as the ti!er. 't is one ay to train
the ti!er to i&itate you( it is a shorter ay to i&itate the ti!er. 1ut in neither
case $oes e#olution tell you ho to treat a ti!er reasonably( that is( to a$&ire
his stripes hile a#oi$in! his clas.
'f you ant to treat a ti!er reasonably( you &ust !o back to the !ar$en of
"$en. ;or the obstinate re&in$er continue$ to recur@ only the supernatural has
taken a sane #ie of 8ature. The essence of all pantheis&( e#olutionis&( an$
&o$ern cos&ic reli!ion is really in this proposition@ that 8ature is our &other.
Knfortunately( if you re!ar$ 8ature as a &other( you $isco#er that she is a
step:&other. The &ain point of 0hristianity as this@ that 8ature is not our
&other@ 8ature is our sister. %e can be prou$ of her beauty( since e ha#e the
sa&e father2 but she has no authority o#er us2 e ha#e to a$&ire( but not to
i&itate. This !i#es to the typically 0hristian pleasure in this earth a stran!e
touch of li!htness that is al&ost fri#olity. 8ature as a sole&n &other to the
orshippers of 'sis an$ 0ybele. 8ature as a sole&n &other to %or$sorth
or to "&erson. 1ut 8ature is not sole&n to ;rancis of 6ssisi or to -eor!e
*erbert. To .t. ;rancis( 8ature is a sister( an$ e#en a youn!er sister@ a little(
$ancin! sister( to be lau!he$ at as ell as lo#e$.
This( hoe#er( is har$ly our &ain point at present2 ' ha#e a$&itte$ it only in
or$er to sho ho constantly( an$ as it ere acci$entally( the key oul$ fit
the s&allest $oors. >ur &ain point is here( that if there be a &ere tren$ of
i&personal i&pro#e&ent in 8ature( it &ust presu&ably be a si&ple tren$
toar$s so&e si&ple triu&ph. >ne can i&a!ine that so&e auto&atic ten$ency
in biolo!y &i!ht ork for !i#in! us lon!er an$ lon!er noses. 1ut the 9uestion
is( $o e ant to ha#e lon!er an$ lon!er noses5 ' fancy not2 ' belie#e that e
&ost of us ant to say to our noses( )Thus far( an$ no farther2 an$ here shall
thy prou$ point be staye$)@ e re9uire a nose of such len!th as &ay ensure an
interestin! face. 1ut e cannot i&a!ine a &ere biolo!ical tren$ toar$s
pro$ucin! interestin! faces2 because an interestin! face is one particular
arran!e&ent of eyes( nose( an$ &outh( in a &ost co&plex relation to each
other. 4roportion cannot be a $rift@ it is either an acci$ent or a $esi!n. .o ith
the i$eal of hu&an &orality an$ its relation to the hu&anitarians an$ the anti:
hu&anitarians. 't is concei#able that e are !oin! &ore an$ &ore to keep our
han$s off thin!s@ not to $ri#e horses2 not to pick floers. %e &ay e#entually
be boun$ not to $isturb a &an7s &in$ e#en by ar!u&ent2 not to $isturb the
sleep of bir$s e#en by cou!hin!. The ulti&ate apotheosis oul$ appear to be
that of a &an sittin! 9uite still( not $arin! to stir for fear of $isturbin! a fly(
nor to eat for fear of inco&&o$in! a &icrobe. To so cru$e a consu&&ation as
that e &i!ht perhaps unconsciously $rift. 1ut $o e ant so cru$e a
consu&&ation5 .i&ilarly( e &i!ht unconsciously e#ol#e alon! the opposite
or 8iet3scheian line of $e#elop&entBsuper&an crushin! super&an in one
toer of tyrants until the uni#erse is s&ashe$ up for fun. 1ut $o e ant the
uni#erse s&ashe$ up for fun5 's it not 9uite clear that hat e really hope for
is one particular &ana!e&ent an$ proposition of these to thin!s2 a certain
a&ount of restraint an$ respect( a certain a&ount of ener!y an$ &astery. 'f our
life is e#er really as beautiful as a fairy:tale( e shall ha#e to re&e&ber that
all the beauty of a fairy:tale lies in this@ that the prince has a on$er hich
?ust stops short of bein! fear. 'f he is afrai$ of the !iant( there is an en$ of hi&2
but also if he is not astonishe$ at the !iant( there is an en$ of the fairy:tale.
The hole point $epen$s upon his bein! at once hu&ble enou!h to on$er(
an$ hau!hty enou!h to $efy. .o our attitu$e to the !iant of the orl$ &ust not
&erely be increasin! $elicacy or increasin! conte&pt@ it &ust be one
particular proportion of the toBhich is exactly ri!ht. %e &ust ha#e in us
enou!h re#erence for all thin!s outsi$e us to &ake us trea$ fearfully on the
!rass. %e &ust also ha#e enou!h $is$ain for all thin!s outsi$e us( to &ake us(
on $ue occasion( spit at the stars. Cet these to thin!s +if e are to be !oo$ or
happy/ &ust be co&bine$( not in any co&bination( but in one particular
co&bination. The perfect happiness of &en on the earth +if it e#er co&es/ ill
not be a flat an$ soli$ thin!( like the satisfaction of ani&als. 't ill be an exact
an$ perilous balance2 like that of a $esperate ro&ance. ,an &ust ha#e ?ust
enou!h faith in hi&self to ha#e a$#entures( an$ ?ust enou!h $oubt of hi&self
to en?oy the&.
This( then( is our secon$ re9uire&ent for the i$eal of pro!ress. ;irst( it &ust be
fixe$2 secon$( it &ust be co&posite. 't &ust not +if it is to satisfy our souls/ be
the &ere #ictory of so&e one thin! salloin! up e#erythin! else( lo#e or
pri$e or peace or a$#enture2 it &ust be a $efinite picture co&pose$ of these
ele&ents in their best proportion an$ relation. ' a& not concerne$ at this
&o&ent to $eny that so&e such !oo$ cul&ination &ay be( by the constitution
of thin!s( reser#e$ for the hu&an race. ' only point out that if this co&posite
happiness is fixe$ for us it &ust be fixe$ by so&e &in$2 for only a &in$ can
place the exact proportions of a co&posite happiness. 'f the beatification of
the orl$ is a &ere ork of nature( then it &ust be as si&ple as the free3in! of
the orl$( or the burnin! up of the orl$. 1ut if the beatification of the orl$
is not a ork of nature but a ork of art( then it in#ol#es an artist. 6n$ here
a!ain &y conte&plation as clo#en by the ancient #oice hich sai$( )' coul$
ha#e tol$ you all this a lon! ti&e a!o. 'f there is any certain pro!ress it can
only be &y kin$ of pro!ress( the pro!ress toar$s a co&plete city of #irtues
an$ $o&inations here ri!hteousness an$ peace contri#e to kiss each other.
6n i&personal force &i!ht be lea$in! you to a il$erness of perfect flatness
or a peak of perfect hei!ht. 1ut only a personal -o$ can possibly be lea$in!
you +if( in$ee$( you are bein! le$/ to a city ith ?ust streets an$ architectural
proportions( a city in hich each of you can contribute exactly the ri!ht
a&ount of your on colour to the &any:coloure$ coat of Doseph.)
Tice a!ain( therefore( 0hristianity ha$ co&e in ith the exact anser that '
re9uire$. ' ha$ sai$( )The i$eal &ust be fixe$() an$ the 0hurch ha$ ansere$(
),ine is literally fixe$( for it existe$ before anythin! else.) ' sai$ secon$ly( )'t
&ust be artistically co&bine$( like a picture)2 an$ the 0hurch ansere$(
),ine is 9uite literally a picture( for ' kno ho painte$ it.) Then ' ent on to
the thir$ thin!( hich( as it see&e$ to &e( as nee$e$ for an Ktopia or !oal of
pro!ress. 6n$ of all the three it is infinitely the har$est to express. 4erhaps it
&i!ht be put thus@ that e nee$ atchfulness e#en in Ktopia( lest e fall fro&
Ktopia as e fell fro& "$en.
%e ha#e re&arke$ that one reason offere$ for bein! a pro!ressi#e is that
thin!s naturally ten$ to !ro better. 1ut the only real reason for bein! a
pro!ressi#e is that thin!s naturally ten$ to !ro orse. The corruption in
thin!s is not only the best ar!u&ent for bein! pro!ressi#e2 it is also the only
ar!u&ent a!ainst bein! conser#ati#e. The conser#ati#e theory oul$ really be
9uite seepin! an$ unanserable if it ere not for this one fact. 1ut all
conser#atis& is base$ upon the i$ea that if you lea#e thin!s alone you lea#e
the& as they are. 1ut you $o not. 'f you lea#e a thin! alone you lea#e it to a
torrent of chan!e. 'f you lea#e a hite post alone it ill soon be a black post.
'f you particularly ant it to be hite you &ust be alays paintin! it a!ain2
that is( you &ust be alays ha#in! a re#olution. 1riefly( if you ant the ol$
hite post you &ust ha#e a ne hite post. 1ut this hich is true e#en of
inani&ate thin!s is in a 9uite special an$ terrible sense true of all hu&an
thin!s. 6n al&ost unnatural #i!ilance is really re9uire$ of the citi3en because
of the horrible rapi$ity ith hich hu&an institutions !ro ol$. 't is the
custo& in passin! ro&ance an$ ?ournalis& to talk of &en sufferin! un$er ol$
tyrannies. 1ut( as a fact( &en ha#e al&ost alays suffere$ un$er ne
tyrannies2 un$er tyrannies that ha$ been public liberties har$ly tenty years
before. Thus "n!lan$ ent &a$ ith ?oy o#er the patriotic &onarchy of
"li3abeth2 an$ then +al&ost i&&e$iately afterar$s/ ent &a$ ith ra!e in
the trap of the tyranny of 0harles the ;irst. .o( a!ain( in ;rance the &onarchy
beca&e intolerable( not ?ust after it ha$ been tolerate$( but ?ust after it ha$
been a$ore$. The son of Aouis the ell:belo#e$ as Aouis the !uillotine$. .o
in the sa&e ay in "n!lan$ in the nineteenth century the <a$ical
&anufacturer as entirely truste$ as a &ere tribune of the people( until
su$$enly e hear$ the cry of the .ocialist that he as a tyrant eatin! the
people like brea$. .o a!ain( e ha#e al&ost up to the last instant truste$ the
nespapers as or!ans of public opinion. Dust recently so&e of us ha#e seen
+not sloly( but ith a start/ that they are ob#iously nothin! of the kin$. They
are( by the nature of the case( the hobbies of a fe rich &en. %e ha#e not any
nee$ to rebel a!ainst anti9uity2 e ha#e to rebel a!ainst no#elty. 't is the ne
rulers( the capitalist or the e$itor( ho really hol$ up the &o$ern orl$. There
is no fear that a &o$ern kin! ill atte&pt to o#erri$e the constitution2 it is
&ore likely that he ill i!nore the constitution an$ ork behin$ its back2 he
ill take no a$#anta!e of his kin!ly poer2 it is &ore likely that he ill take
a$#anta!e of his kin!ly poerlessness( of the fact that he is free fro& criticis&
an$ publicity. ;or the kin! is the &ost pri#ate person of our ti&e. 't ill not be
necessary for any one to fi!ht a!ain a!ainst the proposal of a censorship of the
press. %e $o not nee$ a censorship of the press. %e ha#e a censorship by the
press.
This startlin! siftness ith hich popular syste&s turn oppressi#e is the
thir$ fact for hich e shall ask our perfect theory of pro!ress to allo. 't
&ust alays be on the look out for e#ery pri#ile!e bein! abuse$( for e#ery
orkin! ri!ht beco&in! a ron!. 'n this &atter ' a& entirely on the si$e of the
re#olutionists. They are really ri!ht to be alays suspectin! hu&an
institutions2 they are ri!ht not to put their trust in princes nor in any chil$ of
&an. The chieftain chosen to be the frien$ of the people beco&es the ene&y
of the people2 the nespaper starte$ to tell the truth no exists to pre#ent the
truth bein! tol$. *ere( ' say( ' felt that ' as really at last on the si$e of the
re#olutionary. 6n$ then ' cau!ht &y breath a!ain@ for ' re&e&bere$ that ' as
once a!ain on the si$e of the ortho$ox.
0hristianity spoke a!ain an$ sai$( )' ha#e alays &aintaine$ that &en ere
naturally backsli$ers2 that hu&an #irtue ten$e$ of its on nature to rust or to
rot2 ' ha#e alays sai$ that hu&an bein!s as such !o ron!( especially happy
hu&an bein!s( especially prou$ an$ prosperous hu&an bein!s. This eternal
re#olution( this suspicion sustaine$ throu!h centuries( you +bein! a #a!ue
&o$ern/ call the $octrine of pro!ress. 'f you ere a philosopher you oul$
call it( as ' $o( the $octrine of ori!inal sin. Cou &ay call it the cos&ic a$#ance
as &uch as you like2 ' call it hat it isBthe ;all.
' ha#e spoken of ortho$oxy co&in! in like a sor$2 here ' confess it ca&e in
like a battle:axe. ;or really +hen ' ca&e to think of it/ 0hristianity is the only
thin! left that has any real ri!ht to 9uestion the poer of the ell:nurture$ or
the ell:bre$. ' ha#e listene$ often enou!h to .ocialists( or e#en to $e&ocrats(
sayin! that the physical con$itions of the poor &ust of necessity &ake the&
&entally an$ &orally $e!ra$e$. ' ha#e listene$ to scientific &en +an$ there are
still scientific &en not oppose$ to $e&ocracy/ sayin! that if e !i#e the poor
healthier con$itions #ice an$ ron! ill $isappear. ' ha#e listene$ to the&
ith a horrible attention( ith a hi$eous fascination. ;or it as like atchin! a
&an ener!etically sain! fro& the tree the branch he is sittin! on. 'f these
happy $e&ocrats coul$ pro#e their case( they oul$ strike $e&ocracy $ea$. 'f
the poor are thus utterly $e&orali3e$( it &ay or &ay not be practical to raise
the&. 1ut it is certainly 9uite practical to $isfranchise the&. 'f the &an ith a
ba$ be$roo& cannot !i#e a !oo$ #ote( then the first an$ siftest $e$uction is
that he shall !i#e no #ote. The !o#ernin! class &ay not unreasonably say( )'t
&ay take us so&e ti&e to refor& his be$roo&. 1ut if he is the brute you say( it
ill take hi& #ery little ti&e to ruin our country. Therefore e ill take your
hint an$ not !i#e hi& the chance.) 't fills &e ith horrible a&use&ent to
obser#e the ay in hich the earnest .ocialist in$ustriously lays the
foun$ation of all aristocracy( expatiatin! blan$ly upon the e#i$ent unfitness of
the poor to rule. 't is like listenin! to so&ebo$y at an e#enin! party
apolo!isin! for enterin! ithout e#enin! $ress( an$ explainin! that he ha$
recently been intoxicate$( ha$ a personal habit of takin! off his clothes in the
street( an$ ha$( &oreo#er( only ?ust chan!e$ fro& prison unifor&. 6t any
&o&ent( one feels( the host &i!ht say that really( if it as as ba$ as that( he
nee$ not co&e in at all. .o it is hen the or$inary .ocialist( ith a bea&in!
face( pro#es that the poor( after their s&ashin! experiences( cannot be really
trustorthy. 6t any &o&ent the rich &ay say( )Eery ell( then( e on7t trust
the&() an$ ban! the $oor in his face. >n the basis of ,r. 1latchfor$7s #ie of
here$ity an$ en#iron&ent( the case for the aristocracy is 9uite o#erhel&in!.
'f clean ho&es an$ clean air &ake clean souls( hy not !i#e the poer +for the
present at any rate/ to those ho un$oubte$ly ha#e the clean air5 'f better
con$itions ill &ake the poor &ore fit to !o#ern the&sel#es( hy shoul$ not
better con$itions alrea$y &ake the rich &ore fit to !o#ern the&5 >n the
or$inary en#iron&ent ar!u&ent the &atter is fairly &anifest. The co&fortable
class &ust be &erely our #an!uar$ in Ktopia.
's there any anser to the proposition that those ho ha#e ha$ the best
opportunities ill probably be our best !ui$es5 's there any anser to the
ar!u&ent that those ho ha#e breathe$ clean air ha$ better $eci$e for those
ho ha#e breathe$ foul5 6s far as ' kno( there is only one anser( an$ that
anser is 0hristianity. >nly the 0hristian 0hurch can offer any rational
ob?ection to a co&plete confi$ence in the rich. ;or she has &aintaine$ fro&
the be!innin! that the $an!er as not in &an7s en#iron&ent( but in &an.
;urther( she has &aintaine$ that if e co&e to talk of a $an!erous
en#iron&ent( the &ost $an!erous en#iron&ent of all is the co&&o$ious
en#iron&ent. ' kno that the &ost &o$ern &anufacture has been really
occupie$ in tryin! to pro$uce an abnor&ally lar!e nee$le. ' kno that the
&ost recent biolo!ists ha#e been chiefly anxious to $isco#er a #ery s&all
ca&el. 1ut if e $i&inish the ca&el to his s&allest( or open the eye of the
nee$le to its lar!estBif( in short( e assu&e the or$s of 0hrist to ha#e
&eant the #ery least that they coul$ &ean( *is or$s &ust at the #ery least
&ean thisBthat rich &en are not #ery likely to be &orally trustorthy.
0hristianity e#en hen atere$ $on is hot enou!h to boil all &o$ern society
to ra!s. The &ere &ini&u& of the 0hurch oul$ be a $ea$ly ulti&atu& to the
orl$. ;or the hole &o$ern orl$ is absolutely base$ on the assu&ption( not
that the rich are necessary +hich is tenable/( but that the rich are trustorthy(
hich +for a 0hristian/ is not tenable. Cou ill hear e#erlastin!ly( in all
$iscussions about nespapers( co&panies( aristocracies( or party politics( this
ar!u&ent that the rich &an cannot be bribe$. The fact is( of course( that the
rich &an is bribe$2 he has been bribe$ alrea$y. That is hy he is a rich &an.
The hole case for 0hristianity is that a &an ho is $epen$ent upon the
luxuries of this life is a corrupt &an( spiritually corrupt( politically corrupt(
financially corrupt. There is one thin! that 0hrist an$ all the 0hristian saints
ha#e sai$ ith a sort of sa#a!e &onotony. They ha#e sai$ si&ply that to be
rich is to be in peculiar $an!er of &oral reck. 't is not $e&onstrably un:
0hristian to kill the rich as #iolators of $efinable ?ustice. 't is not
$e&onstrably un:0hristian to cron the rich as con#enient rulers of society. 't
is not certainly un:0hristian to rebel a!ainst the rich or to sub&it to the rich.
1ut it is 9uite certainly un:0hristian to trust the rich( to re!ar$ the rich as &ore
&orally safe than the poor. 6 0hristian &ay consistently say( )' respect that
&an7s rank( althou!h he takes bribes.) 1ut a 0hristian cannot say( as all
&o$ern &en are sayin! at lunch an$ breakfast( )a &an of that rank oul$ not
take bribes.) ;or it is a part of 0hristian $o!&a that any &an in any rank &ay
take bribes. 't is a part of 0hristian $o!&a2 it also happens by a curious
coinci$ence that it is a part of ob#ious hu&an history. %hen people say that a
&an )in that position) oul$ be incorruptible( there is no nee$ to brin!
0hristianity into the $iscussion. %as Aor$ 1acon a bootblack5 %as the =uke
of ,arlborou!h a crossin! seeper5 'n the best Ktopia( ' &ust be prepare$ for
the &oral fall of any &an in any position at any&o&ent2 especially for &y fall
fro& &y position at this &o&ent.
,uch #a!ue an$ senti&ental ?ournalis& has been poure$ out to the effect that
0hristianity is akin to $e&ocracy( an$ &ost of it is scarcely stron! or clear
enou!h to refute the fact that the to thin!s ha#e often 9uarrelle$. The real
!roun$ upon hich 0hristianity an$ $e&ocracy are one is #ery &uch $eeper.
The one specially an$ peculiarly un:0hristian i$ea is the i$ea of 0arlyleBthe
i$ea that the &an shoul$ rule ho feels that he can rule. %hate#er else is
0hristian( this is heathen. 'f our faith co&&ents on !o#ern&ent at all( its
co&&ent &ust be thisBthat the &an shoul$ rule ho $oes not think that he
can rule. 0arlyle7s hero &ay say( )' ill be kin!)2 but the 0hristian saint &ust
say( )8olo episcopari.) 'f the !reat para$ox of 0hristianity &eans anythin!( it
&eans thisBthat e &ust take the cron in our han$s( an$ !o huntin! in $ry
places an$ $ark corners of the earth until e fin$ the one &an ho feels
hi&self unfit to ear it. 0arlyle as 9uite ron!2 e ha#e not !ot to cron
the exceptional &an ho knos he can rule. <ather e &ust cron the &uch
&ore exceptional &an ho knos he can7t.
8o( this is one of the to or three #ital $efences of orkin! $e&ocracy. The
&ere &achinery of #otin! is not $e&ocracy( thou!h at present it is not easy to
effect any si&pler $e&ocratic &etho$. 1ut e#en the &achinery of #otin! is
profoun$ly 0hristian in this practical senseBthat it is an atte&pt to !et at the
opinion of those ho oul$ be too &o$est to offer it. 't is a &ystical
a$#enture2 it is specially trustin! those ho $o not trust the&sel#es. That
eni!&a is strictly peculiar to 0hristen$o&. There is nothin! really hu&ble
about the abne!ation of the 1u$$hist2 the &il$ *in$oo is &il$( but he is not
&eek. 1ut there is so&ethin! psycholo!ically 0hristian about the i$ea of
seekin! for the opinion of the obscure rather than takin! the ob#ious course of
acceptin! the opinion of the pro&inent. To say that #otin! is particularly
0hristian &ay see& so&ehat curious. To say that can#assin! is 0hristian
&ay see& 9uite cra3y. 1ut can#assin! is #ery 0hristian in its pri&ary i$ea. 't
is encoura!in! the hu&ble2 it is sayin! to the &o$est &an( );rien$( !o up
hi!her.) >r if there is so&e sli!ht $efect in can#assin!( that is in its perfect
an$ roun$e$ piety( it is only because it &ay possibly ne!lect to encoura!e the
&o$esty of the can#asser.
6ristocracy is not an institution@ aristocracy is a sin2 !enerally a #ery #enial
one. 't is &erely the $rift or sli$e of &en into a sort of natural po&posity an$
praise of the poerful( hich is the &ost easy an$ ob#ious affair in the orl$.
't is one of the hun$re$ ansers to the fu!iti#e per#ersion of &o$ern )force)
that the pro&ptest an$ bol$est a!encies are also the &ost fra!ile or full of
sensibility. The siftest thin!s are the softest thin!s. 6 bir$ is acti#e( because
a bir$ is soft. 6 stone is helpless( because a stone is har$. The stone &ust by
its on nature !o $onar$s( because har$ness is eakness. The bir$ can of
its nature !o upar$s( because fra!ility is force. 'n perfect force there is a kin$
of fri#olity( an airiness that can &aintain itself in the air. ,o$ern in#esti!ators
of &iraculous history ha#e sole&nly a$&itte$ that a characteristic of the !reat
saints is their poer of )le#itation.) They &i!ht !o further2 a characteristic of
the !reat saints is their poer of le#ity. 6n!els can fly because they can take
the&sel#es li!htly. This has been alays the instinct of 0hristen$o&( an$
especially the instinct of 0hristian art. <e&e&ber ho ;ra 6n!elico
represente$ all his an!els( not only as bir$s( but al&ost as butterflies.
<e&e&ber ho the &ost earnest &e$iH#al art as full of li!ht an$ flutterin!
$raperies( of 9uick an$ caperin! feet. 't as the one thin! that the &o$ern 4re:
raphaelites coul$ not i&itate in the real 4re:raphaelites. 1urne:Dones coul$
ne#er reco#er the $eep le#ity of the ,i$$le 6!es. 'n the ol$ 0hristian pictures
the sky o#er e#ery fi!ure is like a blue or !ol$ parachute. "#ery fi!ure see&s
rea$y to fly up an$ float about in the hea#ens. The tattere$ cloak of the be!!ar
ill bear hi& up like the raye$ plu&es of the an!els. 1ut the kin!s in their
hea#y !ol$ an$ the prou$ in their robes of purple ill all of their nature sink
$onar$s( for pri$e cannot rise to le#ity or le#itation. 4ri$e is the $onar$
$ra! of all thin!s into an easy sole&nity. >ne )settles $on) into a sort of
selfish seriousness2 but one has to rise to a !ay self:for!etfulness. 6 &an
)falls) into a bron stu$y2 he reaches up at a blue sky. .eriousness is not a
#irtue. 't oul$ be a heresy( but a &uch &ore sensible heresy( to say that
seriousness is a #ice. 't is really a natural tren$ or lapse into takin! one7s self
!ra#ely( because it is the easiest thin! to $o. 't is &uch easier to rite a
!oo$ Times lea$in! article than a !oo$ ?oke in 'un"h. ;or sole&nity flos out
of &en naturally2 but lau!hter is a leap. 't is easy to be hea#y@ har$ to be li!ht.
.atan fell by the force of !ra#ity.
8o( it is the peculiar honour of "urope since it has been 0hristian that hile
it has ha$ aristocracy it has alays at the back of its heart treate$ aristocracy
as a eaknessB!enerally as a eakness that &ust be alloe$ for. 'f any one
ishes to appreciate this point( let hi& !o outsi$e 0hristianity into so&e other
philosophical at&osphere. Aet hi&( for instance( co&pare the classes of
"urope ith the castes of 'n$ia. There aristocracy is far &ore aful( because it
is far &ore intellectual. 't is seriously felt that the scale of classes is a scale of
spiritual #alues2 that the baker is better than the butcher in an in#isible an$
sacre$ sense. 1ut no 0hristianity( not e#en the &ost i!norant or per#erse( e#er
su!!este$ that a baronet as better than a butcher in that sacre$ sense. 8o
0hristianity( hoe#er i!norant or extra#a!ant( e#er su!!este$ that a $uke
oul$ not be $a&ne$. 'n pa!an society there &ay ha#e been +' $o not kno/
so&e such serious $i#ision beteen the free &an an$ the sla#e. 1ut in
0hristian society e ha#e alays thou!ht the !entle&an a sort of ?oke( thou!h
' a$&it that in so&e !reat crusa$es an$ councils he earne$ the ri!ht to be
calle$ a practical ?oke. 1ut e in "urope ne#er really an$ at the root of our
souls took aristocracy seriously. 't is only an occasional non:"uropean alien
+such as =r. >scar Ae#y( the only intelli!ent 8iet3scheite/ ho can e#en
&ana!e for a &o&ent to take aristocracy seriously. 't &ay be a &ere patriotic
bias( thou!h ' $o not think so( but it see&s to &e that the "n!lish aristocracy
is not only the type( but is the cron an$ floer of all actual aristocracies2 it
has all the oli!archical #irtues as ell as all the $efects. 't is casual( it is kin$(
it is coura!eous in ob#ious &atters2 but it has one !reat &erit that o#erlaps
e#en these. The !reat an$ #ery ob#ious &erit of the "n!lish aristocracy is that
nobo$y coul$ possibly take it seriously.
'n short( ' ha$ spelle$ out sloly( as usual( the nee$ for an e9ual la in
Ktopia2 an$( as usual( ' foun$ that 0hristianity ha$ been there before &e. The
hole history of &y Ktopia has the sa&e a&usin! sa$ness. ' as alays
rushin! out of &y architectural stu$y ith plans for a ne turret only to fin$ it
sittin! up there in the sunli!ht( shinin!( an$ a thousan$ years ol$. ;or &e( in
the ancient an$ partly in the &o$ern sense( -o$ ansere$ the prayer( )4re#ent
us( > Aor$( in all our $oin!s.) %ithout #anity( ' really think there as a
&o&ent hen ' coul$ ha#e in#ente$ the &arria!e #o +as an institution/ out
of &y on hea$2 but ' $isco#ere$( ith a si!h( that it ha$ been in#ente$
alrea$y. 1ut( since it oul$ be too lon! a business to sho ho( fact by fact
an$ inch by inch( &y on conception of Ktopia as only ansere$ in the
8e Derusale&( ' ill take this one case of the &atter of &arria!e as
in$icatin! the con#er!in! $rift( ' &ay say the con#er!in! crash of all the rest.
%hen the or$inary opponents of .ocialis& talk about i&possibilities an$
alterations in hu&an nature they alays &iss an i&portant $istinction. 'n
&o$ern i$eal conceptions of society there are so&e $esires that are possibly
not attainable@ but there are so&e $esires that are not $esirable. That all &en
shoul$ li#e in e9ually beautiful houses is a $rea& that &ay or &ay not be
attaine$. 1ut that all &en shoul$ li#e in the sa&e beautiful house is not a
$rea& at all2 it is a ni!ht&are. That a &an shoul$ lo#e all ol$ o&en is an
i$eal that &ay not be attainable. 1ut that a &an shoul$ re!ar$ all ol$ o&en
exactly as he re!ar$s his &other is not only an unattainable i$eal( but an i$eal
hich ou!ht not to be attaine$. ' $o not kno if the rea$er a!rees ith &e in
these exa&ples2 but ' ill a$$ the exa&ple hich has alays affecte$ &e
&ost. ' coul$ ne#er concei#e or tolerate any Ktopia hich $i$ not lea#e to &e
the liberty for hich ' chiefly care( the liberty to bin$ &yself. 0o&plete
anarchy oul$ not &erely &ake it i&possible to ha#e any $iscipline or
fi$elity2 it oul$ also &ake it i&possible to ha#e any fun. To take an ob#ious
instance( it oul$ not be orth hile to bet if a bet ere not bin$in!. The
$issolution of all contracts oul$ not only ruin &orality but spoil sport. 8o
bettin! an$ such sports are only the stunte$ an$ tiste$ shapes of the ori!inal
instinct of &an for a$#enture an$ ro&ance( of hich &uch has been sai$ in
these pa!es. 6n$ the perils( rear$s( punish&ents( an$ fulfil&ents of an
a$#enture &ust be real( or the a$#enture is only a shiftin! an$ heartless
ni!ht&are. 'f ' bet ' &ust be &a$e to pay( or there is no poetry in bettin!. 'f '
challen!e ' &ust be &a$e to fi!ht( or there is no poetry in challen!in!. 'f '
#o to be faithful ' &ust be curse$ hen ' a& unfaithful( or there is no fun in
#oin!. Cou coul$ not e#en &ake a fairy tale fro& the experiences of a &an
ho( hen he as salloe$ by a hale( &i!ht fin$ hi&self at the top of the
"iffel Toer( or hen he as turne$ into a fro! &i!ht be!in to beha#e like a
fla&in!o. ;or the purpose e#en of the il$est ro&ance( results &ust be real2
results &ust be irre#ocable. 0hristian &arria!e is the !reat exa&ple of a real
an$ irre#ocable result2 an$ that is hy it is the chief sub?ect an$ centre of all
our ro&antic ritin!. 6n$ this is &y last instance of the thin!s that ' shoul$
ask( an$ ask i&perati#ely( of any social para$ise2 ' shoul$ ask to be kept to &y
bar!ain( to ha#e &y oaths an$ en!a!e&ents taken seriously2 ' shoul$ ask
Ktopia to a#en!e &y honour on &yself.
6ll &y &o$ern Ktopian frien$s look at each other rather $oubtfully( for their
ulti&ate hope is the $issolution of all special ties. 1ut a!ain ' see& to hear(
like a kin$ of echo( an anser fro& beyon$ the orl$. )Cou ill ha#e real
obli!ations( an$ therefore real a$#entures hen you !et to &y Ktopia. 1ut the
har$est obli!ation an$ the steepest a$#enture is to !et there.)
CHAPTER VIII.The Ro$ance of Orthodo#y
't is custo&ary to co&plain of the bustle an$ strenuousness of our epoch. 1ut
in truth the chief &ark of our epoch is a profoun$ la3iness an$ fati!ue2 an$ the
fact is that the real la3iness is the cause of the apparent bustle. Take one 9uite
external case2 the streets are noisy ith taxicabs an$ &otor:cars2 but this is not
$ue to hu&an acti#ity but to hu&an repose. There oul$ be less bustle if there
ere &ore acti#ity( if people ere si&ply alkin! about. >ur orl$ oul$ be
&ore silent if it ere &ore strenuous. 6n$ this hich is true of the apparent
physical bustle is true also of the apparent bustle of the intellect. ,ost of the
&achinery of &o$ern lan!ua!e is labour:sa#in! &achinery2 an$ it sa#es
&ental labour #ery &uch &ore than it ou!ht. .cientific phrases are use$ like
scientific heels an$ piston:ro$s to &ake sifter an$ s&oother yet the path of
the co&fortable. Aon! or$s !o rattlin! by us like lon! railay trains. %e
kno they are carryin! thousan$s ho are too tire$ or too in$olent to alk
an$ think for the&sel#es. 't is a !oo$ exercise to try for once in a ay to
express any opinion one hol$s in or$s of one syllable. 'f you say )The social
utility of the in$eter&inate sentence is reco!nise$ by all cri&inolo!ists as a
part of our sociolo!ical e#olution toar$s a &ore hu&ane an$ scientific #ie
of punish&ent() you can !o on talkin! like that for hours ith har$ly a
&o#e&ent of the !rey &atter insi$e your skull. 1ut if you be!in )' ish Dones
to !o to !aol an$ 1ron to say hen Dones shall co&e out() you ill $isco#er(
ith a thrill of horror( that you are obli!e$ to think. The lon! or$s are not the
har$ or$s( it is the short or$s that are har$. There is &uch &ore
&etaphysical subtlety in the or$ )$a&n) than in the or$ )$e!eneration.)
1ut these lon! co&fortable or$s that sa#e &o$ern people the toil of
reasonin! ha#e one particular aspect in hich they are especially ruinous an$
confusin!. This $ifficulty occurs hen the sa&e lon! or$ is use$ in $ifferent
connections to &ean 9uite $ifferent thin!s. Thus( to take a ell:knon
instance( the or$ )i$ealist) has one &eanin! as a piece of philosophy an$
9uite another as a piece of &oral rhetoric. 'n the sa&e ay the scientific
&aterialists ha#e ha$ ?ust reason to co&plain of people &ixin! up
)&aterialist) as a ter& of cos&olo!y ith )&aterialist) as a &oral taunt. .o( to
take a cheaper instance( the &an ho hates )pro!ressi#es) in Aon$on alays
calls hi&self a )pro!ressi#e) in .outh 6frica.
6 confusion 9uite as un&eanin! as this has arisen in connection ith the or$
)liberal) as applie$ to reli!ion an$ as applie$ to politics an$ society. 't is often
su!!este$ that all Aiberals ou!ht to be freethinkers( because they ou!ht to lo#e
e#erythin! that is free. Cou &i!ht ?ust as ell say that all i$ealists ou!ht to be
*i!h 0hurch&en( because they ou!ht to lo#e e#erythin! that is hi!h. Cou
&i!ht as ell say that Ao 0hurch&en ou!ht to like Ao ,ass( or that 1roa$
0hurch&en ou!ht to like broa$ ?okes. The thin! is a &ere acci$ent of or$s.
'n actual &o$ern "urope a free:thinker $oes not &ean a &an ho thinks for
hi&self. 't &eans a &an ho( ha#in! thou!ht for hi&self( has co&e to one
particular class of conclusions( the &aterial ori!in of pheno&ena( the
i&possibility of &iracles( the i&probability of personal i&&ortality an$ so on.
6n$ none of these i$eas are particularly liberal. 8ay( in$ee$ al&ost all these
i$eas are $efinitely illiberal( as it is the purpose of this chapter to sho.
'n the fe folloin! pa!es ' propose to point out as rapi$ly as possible that on
e#ery sin!le one of the &atters &ost stron!ly insiste$ on by liberalisers of
theolo!y their effect upon social practice oul$ be $efinitely illiberal. 6l&ost
e#ery conte&porary proposal to brin! free$o& into the church is si&ply a
proposal to brin! tyranny into the orl$. ;or freein! the church no $oes not
e#en &ean freein! it in all $irections. 't &eans freein! that peculiar set of
$o!&as loosely calle$ scientific( $o!&as of &onis&( of pantheis&( or of
6rianis&( or of necessity. 6n$ e#ery one of these +an$ e ill take the& one
by one/ can be shon to be the natural ally of oppression. 'n fact( it is a
re&arkable circu&stance +in$ee$ not so #ery re&arkable hen one co&es to
think of it/ that &ost thin!s are the allies of oppression. There is only one
thin! that can ne#er !o past a certain point in its alliance ith oppressionB
an$ that is ortho$oxy. ' &ay( it is true( tist ortho$oxy so as partly to ?ustify a
tyrant. 1ut ' can easily &ake up a -er&an philosophy to ?ustify hi& entirely.
8o let us take in or$er the inno#ations that are the notes of the ne theolo!y
or the &o$ernist church. %e conclu$e$ the last chapter ith the $isco#ery of
one of the&. The #ery $octrine hich is calle$ the &ost ol$:fashione$ as
foun$ to be the only safe!uar$ of the ne $e&ocracies of the earth. The
$octrine see&in!ly &ost unpopular as foun$ to be the only stren!th of the
people. 'n short( e foun$ that the only lo!ical ne!ation of oli!archy as in
the affir&ation of ori!inal sin. .o it is( ' &aintain( in all the other cases.
' take the &ost ob#ious instance first( the case of &iracles. ;or so&e
extraor$inary reason( there is a fixe$ notion that it is &ore liberal to $isbelie#e
in &iracles than to belie#e in the&. %hy( ' cannot i&a!ine( nor can anybo$y
tell &e. ;or so&e inconcei#able cause a )broa$) or )liberal) cler!y&an alays
&eans a &an ho ishes at least to $i&inish the nu&ber of &iracles2 it ne#er
&eans a &an ho ishes to increase that nu&ber. 't alays &eans a &an ho
is free to $isbelie#e that 0hrist ca&e out of *is !ra#e2 it ne#er &eans a &an
ho is free to belie#e that his on aunt ca&e out of her !ra#e. 't is co&&on to
fin$ trouble in a parish because the parish priest cannot a$&it that .t. 4eter
alke$ on ater2 yet ho rarely $o e fin$ trouble in a parish because the
cler!y&an says that his father alke$ on the .erpentine5 6n$ this is not
because +as the sift secularist $ebater oul$ i&&e$iately retort/ &iracles
cannot be belie#e$ in our experience. 't is not because )&iracles $o not
happen() as in the $o!&a hich ,atthe 6rnol$ recite$ ith si&ple faith.
,ore supernatural thin!s are alleged to ha#e happene$ in our ti&e than oul$
ha#e been possible ei!hty years a!o. ,en of science belie#e in such &ar#els
&uch &ore than they $i$@ the &ost perplexin!( an$ e#en horrible( pro$i!ies of
&in$ an$ spirit are alays bein! un#eile$ in &o$ern psycholo!y. Thin!s that
the ol$ science at least oul$ frankly ha#e re?ecte$ as &iracles are hourly
bein! asserte$ by the ne science. The only thin! hich is still ol$:fashione$
enou!h to re?ect &iracles is the 8e Theolo!y. 1ut in truth this notion that it
is )free) to $eny &iracles has nothin! to $o ith the e#i$ence for or a!ainst
the&. 't is a lifeless #erbal pre?u$ice of hich the ori!inal life an$ be!innin!
as not in the free$o& of thou!ht( but si&ply in the $o!&a of &aterialis&.
The &an of the nineteenth century $i$ not $isbelie#e in the <esurrection
because his liberal 0hristianity alloe$ hi& to $oubt it. *e $isbelie#e$ in it
because his #ery strict &aterialis& $i$ not allo hi& to belie#e it. Tennyson( a
#ery typical nineteenth:century &an( uttere$ one of the instincti#e truis&s of
his conte&poraries hen he sai$ that there as faith in their honest $oubt.
There as in$ee$. Those or$s ha#e a profoun$ an$ e#en a horrible truth. 'n
their $oubt of &iracles there as a faith in a fixe$ an$ !o$less fate2 a $eep an$
sincere faith in the incurable routine of the cos&os. The $oubts of the a!nostic
ere only the $o!&as of the &onist.
>f the fact an$ e#i$ence of the supernatural ' ill speak afterar$s. *ere e
are only concerne$ ith this clear point2 that in so far as the liberal i$ea of
free$o& can be sai$ to be on either si$e in the $iscussion about &iracles( it is
ob#iously on the si$e of &iracles. <efor& or +in the only tolerable sense/
pro!ress &eans si&ply the !ra$ual control of &atter by &in$. 6 &iracle
si&ply &eans the sift control of &atter by &in$. 'f you ish to fee$ the
people( you &ay think that fee$in! the& &iraculously in the il$erness is
i&possibleBbut you cannot think it illiberal. 'f you really ant poor chil$ren
to !o to the seasi$e( you cannot think it illiberal that they shoul$ !o there on
flyin! $ra!ons2 you can only think it unlikely. 6 holi$ay( like Aiberalis&( only
&eans the liberty of &an. 6 &iracle only &eans the liberty of -o$. Cou &ay
conscientiously $eny either of the&( but you cannot call your $enial a triu&ph
of the liberal i$ea. The 0atholic 0hurch belie#e$ that &an an$ -o$ both ha$ a
sort of spiritual free$o&. 0al#inis& took aay the free$o& fro& &an( but left
it to -o$. .cientific &aterialis& bin$s the 0reator *i&self2 it chains up -o$
as the 6pocalypse chaine$ the $e#il. 't lea#es nothin! free in the uni#erse.
6n$ those ho assist this process are calle$ the )liberal theolo!ians.)
This( as ' say( is the li!htest an$ &ost e#i$ent case. The assu&ption that there
is so&ethin! in the $oubt of &iracles akin to liberality or refor& is literally the
opposite of the truth. 'f a &an cannot belie#e in &iracles there is an en$ of the
&atter2 he is not particularly liberal( but he is perfectly honourable an$ lo!ical(
hich are &uch better thin!s. 1ut if he can belie#e in &iracles( he is certainly
the &ore liberal for $oin! so2 because they &ean first( the free$o& of the soul(
an$ secon$ly( its control o#er the tyranny of circu&stance. .o&eti&es this
truth is i!nore$ in a sin!ularly nai#e ay( e#en by the ablest &en. ;or
instance( ,r. 1ernar$ .ha speaks ith a hearty ol$:fashione$ conte&pt for
the i$ea of &iracles( as if they ere a sort of breach of faith on the part of
nature@ he see&s stran!ely unconscious that &iracles are only the final floers
of his on fa#ourite tree( the $octrine of the o&nipotence of ill. Dust in the
sa&e ay he calls the $esire for i&&ortality a paltry selfishness( for!ettin!
that he has ?ust calle$ the $esire for life a healthy an$ heroic selfishness. *o
can it be noble to ish to &ake one7s life infinite an$ yet &ean to ish to
&ake it i&&ortal5 8o( if it is $esirable that &an shoul$ triu&ph o#er the
cruelty of nature or custo&( then &iracles are certainly $esirable2 e ill
$iscuss afterar$s hether they are possible.
1ut ' &ust pass on to the lar!er cases of this curious error2 the notion that the
)liberalisin!) of reli!ion in so&e ay helps the liberation of the orl$. The
secon$ exa&ple of it can be foun$ in the 9uestion of pantheis&Bor rather of a
certain &o$ern attitu$e hich is often calle$ i&&anentis&( an$ hich often is
1u$$his&. 1ut this is so &uch &ore $ifficult a &atter that ' &ust approach it
ith rather &ore preparation.
The thin!s sai$ &ost confi$ently by a$#ance$ persons to cro$e$ au$iences
are !enerally those 9uite opposite to the fact2 it is actually our truis&s that are
untrue. *ere is a case. There is a phrase of facile liberality uttere$ a!ain an$
a!ain at ethical societies an$ parlia&ents of reli!ion@ )the reli!ions of the
earth $iffer in rites an$ for&s( but they are the sa&e in hat they teach.) 't is
false2 it is the opposite of the fact. The reli!ions of the earth $o not !reatly
$iffer in rites an$ for&s2 they $o !reatly $iffer in hat they teach. 't is as if a
&an ere to say( )=o not be &isle$ by the fact that the Chur"h Times an$
the Freethinker look utterly $ifferent( that one is painte$ on #ellu& an$ the
other car#e$ on &arble( that one is trian!ular an$ the other hecta!onal2 rea$
the& an$ you ill see that they say the sa&e thin!.) The truth is( of course(
that they are alike in e#erythin! except in the fact that they $on7t say the sa&e
thin!. 6n atheist stockbroker in .urbiton looks exactly like a .e$enbor!ian
stockbroker in %i&ble$on. Cou &ay alk roun$ an$ roun$ the& an$ sub?ect
the& to the &ost personal an$ offensi#e stu$y ithout seein! anythin!
.e$enbor!ian in the hat or anythin! particularly !o$less in the u&brella. 't is
exactly in their souls that they are $i#i$e$. .o the truth is that the $ifficulty of
all the cree$s of the earth is not as alle!e$ in this cheap &axi&@ that they a!ree
in &eanin!( but $iffer in &achinery. 't is exactly the opposite. They a!ree in
&achinery2 al&ost e#ery !reat reli!ion on earth orks ith the sa&e external
&etho$s( ith priests( scriptures( altars( sorn brotherhoo$s( special feasts.
They a!ree in the &o$e of teachin!2 hat they $iffer about is the thin! to be
tau!ht. 4a!an opti&ists an$ "astern pessi&ists oul$ both ha#e te&ples( ?ust
as Aiberals an$ Tories oul$ both ha#e nespapers. 0ree$s that exist to
$estroy each other both ha#e scriptures( ?ust as ar&ies that exist to $estroy
each other both ha#e !uns.
The !reat exa&ple of this alle!e$ i$entity of all hu&an reli!ions is the alle!e$
spiritual i$entity of 1u$$his& an$ 0hristianity. Those ho a$opt this theory
!enerally a#oi$ the ethics of &ost other cree$s( except( in$ee$( 0onfucianis&(
hich they like because it is not a cree$. 1ut they are cautious in their praises
of ,aho&&e$anis&( !enerally confinin! the&sel#es to i&posin! its &orality
only upon the refresh&ent of the loer classes. They sel$o& su!!est the
,aho&&e$an #ie of &arria!e +for hich there is a !reat $eal to be sai$/(
an$ toar$s Thu!s an$ fetish orshippers their attitu$e &ay e#en be calle$
col$. 1ut in the case of the !reat reli!ion of -auta&a they feel sincerely a
si&ilarity.
.tu$ents of popular science( like ,r. 1latchfor$( are alays insistin! that
0hristianity an$ 1u$$his& are #ery &uch alike( especially 1u$$his&. This is
!enerally belie#e$( an$ ' belie#e$ it &yself until ' rea$ a book !i#in! the
reasons for it. The reasons ere of to kin$s@ rese&blances that &eant
nothin! because they ere co&&on to all hu&anity( an$ rese&blances hich
ere not rese&blances at all. The author sole&nly explaine$ that the to
cree$s ere alike in thin!s in hich all cree$s are alike( or else he $escribe$
the& as alike in so&e point in hich they are 9uite ob#iously $ifferent. Thus(
as a case of the first class( he sai$ that both 0hrist an$ 1u$$ha ere calle$ by
the $i#ine #oice co&in! out of the sky( as if you oul$ expect the $i#ine #oice
to co&e out of the coal:cellar. >r( a!ain( it as !ra#ely ur!e$ that these to
"astern teachers( by a sin!ular coinci$ence( both ha$ to $o ith the ashin!
of feet. Cou &i!ht as ell say that it as a re&arkable coinci$ence that they
both ha$ feet to ash. 6n$ the other class of si&ilarities ere those hich
si&ply ere not si&ilar. Thus this reconciler of the to reli!ions $ras
earnest attention to the fact that at certain reli!ious feasts the robe of the Aa&a
is rent in pieces out of respect( an$ the re&nants hi!hly #alue$. 1ut this is the
re#erse of a rese&blance( for the !ar&ents of 0hrist ere not rent in pieces
out of respect( but out of $erision2 an$ the re&nants ere not hi!hly #alue$
except for hat they oul$ fetch in the ra! shops. 't is rather like allu$in! to
the ob#ious connection beteen the to cere&onies of the sor$@ hen it taps
a &an7s shoul$er( an$ hen it cuts off his hea$. 't is not at all si&ilar for the
&an. These scraps of puerile pe$antry oul$ in$ee$ &atter little if it ere not
also true that the alle!e$ philosophical rese&blances are also of these to
kin$s( either pro#in! too &uch or not pro#in! anythin!. That 1u$$his&
appro#es of &ercy or of self:restraint is not to say that it is specially like
0hristianity2 it is only to say that it is not utterly unlike all hu&an existence.
1u$$hists $isappro#e in theory of cruelty or excess because all sane hu&an
bein!s $isappro#e in theory of cruelty or excess. 1ut to say that 1u$$his& an$
0hristianity !i#e the sa&e philosophy of these thin!s is si&ply false. 6ll
hu&anity $oes a!ree that e are in a net of sin. ,ost of hu&anity a!rees that
there is so&e ay out. 1ut as to hat is the ay out( ' $o not think that there
are to institutions in the uni#erse hich contra$ict each other so flatly as
1u$$his& an$ 0hristianity.
"#en hen ' thou!ht( ith &ost other ell:infor&e$( thou!h unscholarly(
people( that 1u$$his& an$ 0hristianity ere alike( there as one thin! about
the& that alays perplexe$ &e2 ' &ean the startlin! $ifference in their type of
reli!ious art. ' $o not &ean in its technical style of representation( but in the
thin!s that it as &anifestly &eant to represent. 8o to i$eals coul$ be &ore
opposite than a 0hristian saint in a -othic cathe$ral an$ a 1u$$hist saint in a
0hinese te&ple. The opposition exists at e#ery point2 but perhaps the shortest
state&ent of it is that the 1u$$hist saint alays has his eyes shut( hile the
0hristian saint alays has the& #ery i$e open. The 1u$$hist saint has a
sleek an$ har&onious bo$y( but his eyes are hea#y an$ seale$ ith sleep. The
&e$iH#al saint7s bo$y is aste$ to its cra3y bones( but his eyes are fri!htfully
ali#e. There cannot be any real co&&unity of spirit beteen forces that
pro$uce$ sy&bols so $ifferent as that. -rante$ that both i&a!es are
extra#a!ances( are per#ersions of the pure cree$( it &ust be a real $i#er!ence
hich coul$ pro$uce such opposite extra#a!ances. The 1u$$hist is lookin!
ith a peculiar intentness inar$s. The 0hristian is starin! ith a frantic
intentness outar$s. 'f e follo that clue stea$ily e shall fin$ so&e
interestin! thin!s.
6 short ti&e a!o ,rs. 1esant( in an interestin! essay( announce$ that there
as only one reli!ion in the orl$( that all faiths ere only #ersions or
per#ersions of it( an$ that she as 9uite prepare$ to say hat it as.
6ccor$in! to ,rs. 1esant this uni#ersal 0hurch is si&ply the uni#ersal self. 't
is the $octrine that e are really all one person2 that there are no real alls of
in$i#i$uality beteen &an an$ &an. 'f ' &ay put it so( she $oes not tell us to
lo#e our nei!hbours2 she tells us to be our nei!hbours. That is ,rs. 1esant7s
thou!htful an$ su!!esti#e $escription of the reli!ion in hich all &en &ust
fin$ the&sel#es in a!ree&ent. 6n$ ' ne#er hear$ of any su!!estion in &y life
ith hich ' &ore #iolently $isa!ree. ' ant to lo#e &y nei!hbour not
because he is '( but precisely because he is not '. ' ant to a$ore the orl$( not
as one likes a lookin!:!lass( because it is one7s self( but as one lo#es a o&an(
because she is entirely $ifferent. 'f souls are separate lo#e is possible. 'f souls
are unite$ lo#e is ob#iously i&possible. 6 &an &ay be sai$ loosely to lo#e
hi&self( but he can har$ly fall in lo#e ith hi&self( or( if he $oes( it &ust be a
&onotonous courtship. 'f the orl$ is full of real sel#es( they can be really
unselfish sel#es. 1ut upon ,rs. 1esant7s principle the hole cos&os is only
one enor&ously selfish person.
't is ?ust here that 1u$$his& is on the si$e of &o$ern pantheis& an$
i&&anence. 6n$ it is ?ust here that 0hristianity is on the si$e of hu&anity an$
liberty an$ lo#e. Ao#e $esires personality2 therefore lo#e $esires $i#ision. 't is
the instinct of 0hristianity to be !la$ that -o$ has broken the uni#erse into
little pieces( because they are li#in! pieces. 't is her instinct to say )little
chil$ren lo#e one another) rather than to tell one lar!e person to lo#e hi&self.
This is the intellectual abyss beteen 1u$$his& an$ 0hristianity2 that for the
1u$$hist or Theosophist personality is the fall of &an( for the 0hristian it is
the purpose of -o$( the hole point of his cos&ic i$ea. The orl$:soul of the
Theosophists asks &an to lo#e it only in or$er that &an &ay thro hi&self
into it. 1ut the $i#ine centre of 0hristianity actually thre &an out of it in
or$er that he &i!ht lo#e it. The oriental $eity is like a !iant ho shoul$ ha#e
lost his le! or han$ an$ be alays seekin! to fin$ it2 but the 0hristian poer is
like so&e !iant ho in a stran!e !enerosity shoul$ cut off his ri!ht han$( so
that it &i!ht of its on accor$ shake han$s ith hi&. %e co&e back to the
sa&e tireless note touchin! the nature of 0hristianity2 all &o$ern philosophies
are chains hich connect an$ fetter2 0hristianity is a sor$ hich separates
an$ sets free. 8o other philosophy &akes -o$ actually re?oice in the
separation of the uni#erse into li#in! souls. 1ut accor$in! to ortho$ox
0hristianity this separation beteen -o$ an$ &an is sacre$( because this is
eternal. That a &an &ay lo#e -o$ it is necessary that there shoul$ be not only
a -o$ to be lo#e$( but a &an to lo#e hi&. 6ll those #a!ue theosophical &in$s
for ho& the uni#erse is an i&&ense &eltin!:pot are exactly the &in$s hich
shrink instincti#ely fro& that earth9uake sayin! of our -ospels( hich $eclare
that the .on of -o$ ca&e not ith peace but ith a sun$erin! sor$. The
sayin! rin!s entirely true e#en consi$ere$ as hat it ob#iously is2 the
state&ent that any &an ho preaches real lo#e is boun$ to be!et hate. 't is as
true of $e&ocratic fraternity as of $i#ine lo#e2 sha& lo#e en$s in co&pro&ise
an$ co&&on philosophy2 but real lo#e has alays en$e$ in bloo$she$. Cet
there is another an$ yet &ore aful truth behin$ the ob#ious &eanin! of this
utterance of our Aor$. 6ccor$in! to *i&self the .on as a sor$ separatin!
brother an$ brother that they shoul$ for an Hon hate each other. 1ut the ;ather
also as a sor$( hich in the black be!innin! separate$ brother an$ brother(
so that they shoul$ lo#e each other at last.
This is the &eanin! of that al&ost insane happiness in the eyes of the
&e$iH#al saint in the picture. This is the &eanin! of the seale$ eyes of the
superb 1u$$hist i&a!e. The 0hristian saint is happy because he has #erily
been cut off fro& the orl$2 he is separate fro& thin!s an$ is starin! at the&
in astonish&ent. 1ut hy shoul$ the 1u$$hist saint be astonishe$ at thin!s5
since there is really only one thin!( an$ that bein! i&personal can har$ly be
astonishe$ at itself. There ha#e been &any pantheist poe&s su!!estin!
on$er( but no really successful ones. The pantheist cannot on$er( for he
cannot praise -o$ or praise anythin! as really $istinct fro& hi&self. >ur
i&&e$iate business here hoe#er is ith the effect of this 0hristian
a$&iration +hich strikes outar$s( toar$s a $eity $istinct fro& the
orshipper/ upon the !eneral nee$ for ethical acti#ity an$ social refor&. 6n$
surely its effect is sufficiently ob#ious. There is no real possibility of !ettin!
out of pantheis& any special i&pulse to &oral action. ;or pantheis& i&plies
in its nature that one thin! is as !oo$ as another2 hereas action i&plies in its
nature that one thin! is !reatly preferable to another. .inburne in the hi!h
su&&er of his scepticis& trie$ in #ain to restle ith this $ifficulty. 'n ).on!s
before .unrise() ritten un$er the inspiration of -aribal$i an$ the re#olt of
'taly( he proclai&e$ the neer reli!ion an$ the purer -o$ hich shoul$ ither
up all the priests of the orl$.
)%hat $oest thou noAookin! -o$ar$ to cry' a& '( thou art thou(' a& lo(
thou art hi!h(' a& thou that thou seekest to fin$ hi&( fin$ thoubut thyself( thou
art '()
>f hich the i&&e$iate an$ e#i$ent $e$uction is that tyrants are as &uch the
sons of -o$ as -aribal$is2 an$ that Fin! 1o&ba of 8aples ha#in!( ith the
ut&ost success( )foun$ hi&self) is i$entical ith the ulti&ate !oo$ in all
thin!s. The truth is that the estern ener!y that $ethrones tyrants has been
$irectly $ue to the estern theolo!y that says )' a& '( thou art thou.) The sa&e
spiritual separation hich looke$ up an$ sa a !oo$ kin! in the uni#erse
looke$ up an$ sa a ba$ kin! in 8aples. The orshippers of 1o&ba7s !o$
$ethrone$ 1o&ba. The orshippers of .inburne7s !o$ ha#e co#ere$ 6sia for
centuries an$ ha#e ne#er $ethrone$ a tyrant. The 'n$ian saint &ay reasonably
shut his eyes because he is lookin! at that hich is ' an$ Thou an$ %e an$
They an$ 't. 't is a rational occupation@ but it is not true in theory an$ not true
in fact that it helps the 'n$ian to keep an eye on Aor$ 0ur3on. That external
#i!ilance hich has alays been the &ark of 0hristianity +the co&&an$ that
e shoul$ wat"h an$ pray/ has expresse$ itself both in typical estern
ortho$oxy an$ in typical estern politics@ but both $epen$ on the i$ea of a
$i#inity transcen$ent( $ifferent fro& oursel#es( a $eity that $isappears.
0ertainly the &ost sa!acious cree$s &ay su!!est that e shoul$ pursue -o$
into $eeper an$ $eeper rin!s of the labyrinth of our on e!o. 1ut only e of
0hristen$o& ha#e sai$ that e shoul$ hunt -o$ like an ea!le upon the
&ountains@ an$ e ha#e kille$ all &onsters in the chase.
*ere a!ain( therefore( e fin$ that in so far as e #alue $e&ocracy an$ the
self:renein! ener!ies of the est( e are &uch &ore likely to fin$ the& in
the ol$ theolo!y than the ne. 'f e ant refor&( e &ust a$here to
ortho$oxy@ especially in this &atter +so &uch $ispute$ in the counsels of ,r.
<.D. 0a&pbell/( the &atter of insistin! on the i&&anent or the transcen$ent
$eity. 1y insistin! specially on the i&&anence of -o$ e !et introspection(
self:isolation( 9uietis&( social in$ifferenceBTibet. 1y insistin! specially on
the transcen$ence of -o$ e !et on$er( curiosity( &oral an$ political
a$#enture( ri!hteous in$i!nationB0hristen$o&. 'nsistin! that -o$ is insi$e
&an( &an is alays insi$e hi&self. 1y insistin! that -o$ transcen$s &an( &an
has transcen$e$ hi&self.
'f e take any other $octrine that has been calle$ ol$:fashione$ e shall fin$
the case the sa&e. 't is the sa&e( for instance( in the $eep &atter of the Trinity.
Knitarians +a sect ne#er to be &entione$ ithout a special respect for their
$istin!uishe$ intellectual $i!nity an$ hi!h intellectual honour/ are often
refor&ers by the acci$ent that thros so &any s&all sects into such an
attitu$e. 1ut there is nothin! in the least liberal or akin to refor& in the
substitution of pure &onotheis& for the Trinity. The co&plex -o$ of the
6thanasian 0ree$ &ay be an eni!&a for the intellect2 but *e is far less likely
to !ather the &ystery an$ cruelty of a .ultan than the lonely !o$ of >&ar or
,aho&et. The !o$ ho is a &ere aful unity is not only a kin! but an "astern
kin!. The heart of hu&anity( especially of "uropean hu&anity( is certainly
&uch &ore satisfie$ by the stran!e hints an$ sy&bols that !ather roun$ the
Trinitarian i$ea( the i&a!e of a council at hich &ercy plea$s as ell as
?ustice( the conception of a sort of liberty an$ #ariety existin! e#en in the
in&ost cha&ber of the orl$. ;or %estern reli!ion has alays felt keenly the
i$ea )it is not ell for &an to be alone.) The social instinct asserte$ itself
e#eryhere as hen the "astern i$ea of her&its as practically expelle$ by
the %estern i$ea of &onks. .o e#en asceticis& beca&e brotherly2 an$ the
Trappists ere sociable e#en hen they ere silent. 'f this lo#e of a li#in!
co&plexity be our test( it is certainly healthier to ha#e the Trinitarian reli!ion
than the Knitarian. ;or to us Trinitarians +if ' &ay say it ith re#erence/Bto
us -o$ *i&self is a society. 't is in$ee$ a fatho&less &ystery of theolo!y( an$
e#en if ' ere theolo!ian enou!h to $eal ith it $irectly( it oul$ not be
rele#ant to $o so here. .uffice it to say here that this triple eni!&a is as
co&fortin! as ine an$ open as an "n!lish firesi$e2 that this thin! that
beil$ers the intellect utterly 9uiets the heart@ but out of the $esert( fro& the
$ry places an$ the $rea$ful suns( co&e the cruel chil$ren of the lonely -o$2
the real Knitarians ho ith sci&itar in han$ ha#e lai$ aste the orl$. ;or it
is not ell for -o$ to be alone.
6!ain( the sa&e is true of that $ifficult &atter of the $an!er of the soul( hich
has unsettle$ so &any ?ust &in$s. To hope for all souls is i&perati#e2 an$ it is
9uite tenable that their sal#ation is ine#itable. 't is tenable( but it is not
specially fa#ourable to acti#ity or pro!ress. >ur fi!htin! an$ creati#e society
ou!ht rather to insist on the $an!er of e#erybo$y( on the fact that e#ery &an is
han!in! by a threa$ or clin!in! to a precipice. To say that all ill be ell
anyho is a co&prehensible re&ark@ but it cannot be calle$ the blast of a
tru&pet. "urope ou!ht rather to e&phasise possible per$ition2 an$ "urope
alays has e&phasise$ it. *ere its hi!hest reli!ion is at one ith all its
cheapest ro&ances. To the 1u$$hist or the eastern fatalist existence is a
science or a plan( hich &ust en$ up in a certain ay. 1ut to a 0hristian
existence is a story( hich &ay en$ up in any ay. 'n a thrillin! no#el +that
purely 0hristian pro$uct/ the hero is not eaten by cannibals2 but it is essential
to the existence of the thrill that he might be eaten by cannibals. The hero
&ust +so to speak/ be an eatable hero. .o 0hristian &orals ha#e alays sai$ to
the &an( not that he oul$ lose his soul( but that he &ust take care that he
$i$n7t. 'n 0hristian &orals( in short( it is icke$ to call a &an )$a&ne$)@ but it
is strictly reli!ious an$ philosophic to call hi& $a&nable.
6ll 0hristianity concentrates on the &an at the cross:roa$s. The #ast an$
shallo philosophies( the hu!e syntheses of hu&bu!( all talk about a!es an$
e#olution an$ ulti&ate $e#elop&ents. The true philosophy is concerne$ ith
the instant. %ill a &an take this roa$ or that5 that is the only thin! to think
about( if you en?oy thinkin!. The Hons are easy enou!h to think about( any
one can think about the&. The instant is really aful@ an$ it is because our
reli!ion has intensely felt the instant( that it has in literature $ealt &uch ith
battle an$ in theolo!y $ealt &uch ith hell. 't is full of danger like a boy7s
book@ it is at an i&&ortal crisis. There is a !reat $eal of real si&ilarity
beteen popular fiction an$ the reli!ion of the estern people. 'f you say that
popular fiction is #ul!ar an$ ta$ry( you only say hat the $reary an$ ell:
infor&e$ say also about the i&a!es in the 0atholic churches. Aife +accor$in!
to the faith/ is #ery like a serial story in a &a!a3ine@ life en$s ith the pro&ise
+or &enace/ )to be continue$ in our next.) 6lso( ith a noble #ul!arity( life
i&itates the serial an$ lea#es off at the excitin! &o&ent. ;or $eath is
$istinctly an excitin! &o&ent.
1ut the point is that a story is excitin! because it has in it so stron! an ele&ent
of ill( of hat theolo!y calls free:ill. Cou cannot finish a su& ho you
like. 1ut you can finish a story ho you like. %hen so&ebo$y $isco#ere$ the
=ifferential 0alculus there as only one =ifferential 0alculus he coul$
$isco#er. 1ut hen .hakespeare kille$ <o&eo he &i!ht ha#e &arrie$ hi& to
Duliet7s ol$ nurse if he ha$ felt incline$. 6n$ 0hristen$o& has excelle$ in the
narrati#e ro&ance exactly because it has insiste$ on the theolo!ical free:ill.
't is a lar!e &atter an$ too &uch to one si$e of the roa$ to be $iscusse$
a$e9uately here2 but this is the real ob?ection to that torrent of &o$ern talk
about treatin! cri&e as $isease( about &akin! a prison &erely a hy!ienic
en#iron&ent like a hospital( of healin! sin by slo scientific &etho$s. The
fallacy of the hole thin! is that e#il is a &atter of acti#e choice( hereas
$isease is not. 'f you say that you are !oin! to cure a profli!ate as you cure an
asth&atic( &y cheap an$ ob#ious anser is( )4ro$uce the people ho ant to
be asth&atics as &any people ant to be profli!ates.) 6 &an &ay lie still an$
be cure$ of a &ala$y. 1ut he &ust not lie still if he ants to be cure$ of a sin2
on the contrary( he &ust !et up an$ ?u&p about #iolently. The hole point
in$ee$ is perfectly expresse$ in the #ery or$ hich e use for a &an in
hospital2 )patient) is in the passi#e &oo$2 )sinner) is in the acti#e. 'f a &an is
to be sa#e$ fro& influen3a( he &ay be a patient. 1ut if he is to be sa#e$ fro&
for!in!( he &ust be not a patient but an impatient. *e &ust be personally
i&patient ith for!ery. 6ll &oral refor& &ust start in the acti#e not the
passi#e ill.
*ere a!ain e reach the sa&e substantial conclusion. 'n so far as e $esire
the $efinite reconstructions an$ the $an!erous re#olutions hich ha#e
$istin!uishe$ "uropean ci#ilisation( e shall not $iscoura!e the thou!ht of
possible ruin2 e shall rather encoura!e it. 'f e ant( like the "astern saints(
&erely to conte&plate ho ri!ht thin!s are( of course e shall only say that
they &ust !o ri!ht. 1ut if e particularly ant to make the& !o ri!ht( e &ust
insist that they &ay !o ron!.
Aastly( this truth is yet a!ain true in the case of the co&&on &o$ern atte&pts
to $i&inish or to explain aay the $i#inity of 0hrist. The thin! &ay be true or
not2 that ' shall $eal ith before ' en$. 1ut if the $i#inity is true it is certainly
terribly re#olutionary. That a !oo$ &an &ay ha#e his back to the all is no
&ore than e kne alrea$y2 but that -o$ coul$ ha#e his back to the all is a
boast for all insur!ents for e#er. 0hristianity is the only reli!ion on earth that
has felt that o&nipotence &a$e -o$ inco&plete. 0hristianity alone has felt
that -o$( to be holly -o$( &ust ha#e been a rebel as ell as a kin!. 6lone of
all cree$s( 0hristianity has a$$e$ coura!e to the #irtues of the 0reator. ;or the
only coura!e orth callin! coura!e &ust necessarily &ean that the soul passes
a breakin! pointBan$ $oes not break. 'n this in$ee$ ' approach a &atter &ore
$ark an$ aful than it is easy to $iscuss2 an$ ' apolo!ise in a$#ance if any of
&y phrases fall ron! or see& irre#erent touchin! a &atter hich the !reatest
saints an$ thinkers ha#e ?ustly feare$ to approach. 1ut in that terrific tale of
the 4assion there is a $istinct e&otional su!!estion that the author of all thin!s
+in so&e unthinkable ay/ ent not only throu!h a!ony( but throu!h $oubt. 't
is ritten( )Thou shalt not te&pt the Aor$ thy -o$.) 8o2 but the Aor$ thy -o$
&ay te&pt *i&self2 an$ it see&s as if this as hat happene$ in -ethse&ane.
'n a !ar$en .atan te&pte$ &an@ an$ in a !ar$en -o$ te&pte$ -o$. *e passe$
in so&e superhu&an &anner throu!h our hu&an horror of pessi&is&. %hen
the orl$ shook an$ the sun as ipe$ out of hea#en( it as not at the
crucifixion( but at the cry fro& the cross@ the cry hich confesse$ that -o$
as forsaken of -o$. 6n$ no let the re#olutionists choose a cree$ fro& all
the cree$s an$ a !o$ fro& all the !o$s of the orl$( carefully ei!hin! all the
!o$s of ine#itable recurrence an$ of unalterable poer. They ill not fin$
another !o$ ho has hi&self been in re#olt. 8ay( +the &atter !ros too
$ifficult for hu&an speech/ but let the atheists the&sel#es choose a !o$. They
ill fin$ only one $i#inity ho e#er uttere$ their isolation2 only one reli!ion
in hich -o$ see&e$ for an instant to be an atheist.
These can be calle$ the essentials of the ol$ ortho$oxy( of hich the chief
&erit is that it is the natural fountain of re#olution an$ refor&2 an$ of hich
the chief $efect is that it is ob#iously only an abstract assertion. 'ts &ain
a$#anta!e is that it is the &ost a$#enturous an$ &anly of all theolo!ies. 'ts
chief $isa$#anta!e is si&ply that it is a theolo!y. 't can alays be ur!e$
a!ainst it that it is in its nature arbitrary an$ in the air. 1ut it is not so hi!h in
the air but that !reat archers spen$ their hole li#es in shootin! arros at itB
yes( an$ their last arros2 there are &en ho ill ruin the&sel#es an$ ruin
their ci#ilisation if they &ay ruin also this ol$ fantastic tale. This is the last
an$ &ost astoun$in! fact about this faith2 that its ene&ies ill use any eapon
a!ainst it( the sor$s that cut their on fin!ers( an$ the firebran$s that burn
their on ho&es. ,en ho be!in to fi!ht the 0hurch for the sake of free$o&
an$ hu&anity en$ by flin!in! aay free$o& an$ hu&anity if only they &ay
fi!ht the 0hurch. This is no exa!!eration2 ' coul$ fill a book ith the
instances of it. ,r. 1latchfor$ set out( as an or$inary 1ible:s&asher( to pro#e
that 6$a& as !uiltless of sin a!ainst -o$2 in &anoeu#rin! so as to &aintain
this he a$&itte$( as a &ere si$e issue( that all the tyrants( fro& 8ero to Fin!
Aeopol$( ere !uiltless of any sin a!ainst hu&anity. ' kno a &an ho has
such a passion for pro#in! that he ill ha#e no personal existence after $eath
that he falls back on the position that he has no personal existence no. *e
in#okes 1u$$his& an$ says that all souls fa$e into each other2 in or$er to
pro#e that he cannot !o to hea#en he pro#es that he cannot !o to *artlepool. '
ha#e knon people ho proteste$ a!ainst reli!ious e$ucation ith ar!u&ents
a!ainst any e$ucation( sayin! that the chil$7s &in$ &ust !ro freely or that
the ol$ &ust not teach the youn!. ' ha#e knon people ho shoe$ that there
coul$ be no $i#ine ?u$!&ent by shoin! that there can be no hu&an
?u$!&ent( e#en for practical purposes. They burne$ their on corn to set fire
to the church2 they s&ashe$ their on tools to s&ash it2 any stick as !oo$
enou!h to beat it ith( thou!h it ere the last stick of their on $is&e&bere$
furniture. %e $o not a$&ire( e har$ly excuse( the fanatic ho recks this
orl$ for lo#e of the other. 1ut hat are e to say of the fanatic ho recks
this orl$ out of hatre$ of the other5 *e sacrifices the #ery existence of
hu&anity to the non:existence of -o$. *e offers his #icti&s not to the altar(
but &erely to assert the i$leness of the altar an$ the e&ptiness of the throne.
*e is rea$y to ruin e#en that pri&ary ethic by hich all thin!s li#e( for his
stran!e an$ eternal #en!eance upon so&e one ho ne#er li#e$ at all.
6n$ yet the thin! han!s in the hea#ens unhurt. 'ts opponents only succee$ in
$estroyin! all that they the&sel#es ?ustly hol$ $ear. They $o not $estroy
ortho$oxy2 they only $estroy political coura!e an$ co&&on sense. They $o
not pro#e that 6$a& as not responsible to -o$2 ho coul$ they pro#e it5
They only pro#e +fro& their pre&ises/ that the 03ar is not responsible to
<ussia. They $o not pro#e that 6$a& shoul$ not ha#e been punishe$ by -o$2
they only pro#e that the nearest seater shoul$ not be punishe$ by &en. %ith
their oriental $oubts about personality they $o not &ake certain that e shall
ha#e no personal life hereafter2 they only &ake certain that e shall not ha#e a
#ery ?olly or co&plete one here. %ith their paralysin! hints of all conclusions
co&in! out ron! they $o not tear the book of the <ecor$in! 6n!el2 they only
&ake it a little har$er to keep the books of ,arshall an$ .nel!ro#e. 8ot only
is the faith the &other of all orl$ly ener!ies( but its foes are the fathers of all
orl$ly confusion. The secularists ha#e not recke$ $i#ine thin!s2 but the
secularists ha#e recke$ secular thin!s( if that is any co&fort to the&. The
Titans $i$ not scale hea#en2 but they lai$ aste the orl$.
CHAPTER IX.%uthority and the %dventurer
The last chapter has been concerne$ ith the contention that ortho$oxy is not
only +as is often ur!e$/ the only safe !uar$ian of &orality or or$er( but is also
the only lo!ical !uar$ian of liberty( inno#ation an$ a$#ance. 'f e ish to pull
$on the prosperous oppressor e cannot $o it ith the ne $octrine of
hu&an perfectibility2 e can $o it ith the ol$ $octrine of >ri!inal .in. 'f e
ant to uproot inherent cruelties or lift up lost populations e cannot $o it
ith the scientific theory that &atter prece$es &in$2 e can $o it ith the
supernatural theory that &in$ prece$es &atter. 'f e ish specially to aaken
people to social #i!ilance an$ tireless pursuit of practise( e cannot help it
&uch by insistin! on the '&&anent -o$ an$ the 'nner Ai!ht@ for these are at
best reasons for content&ent2 e can help it &uch by insistin! on the
transcen$ant -o$ an$ the flyin! an$ escapin! !lea&2 for that &eans $i#ine
$iscontent. 'f e ish particularly to assert the i$ea of a !enerous balance
a!ainst that of a $rea$ful autocracy e shall instincti#ely be Trinitarian rather
than Knitarian. 'f e $esire "uropean ci#ilisation to be a rai$ an$ a rescue( e
shall insist rather that souls are in real peril than that their peril is ulti&ately
unreal. 6n$ if e ish to exalt the outcast an$ the crucifie$( e shall rather
ish to think that a #eritable -o$ as crucifie$( rather than a &ere sa!e or
hero. 6bo#e all( if e ish to protect the poor e shall be in fa#our of fixe$
rules an$ clear $o!&as. The rules of a club are occasionally in fa#our of the
poor &e&ber. The $rift of a club is alays in fa#our of the rich one.
6n$ no e co&e to the crucial 9uestion hich truly conclu$es the hole
&atter. 6 reasonable a!nostic( if he has happene$ to a!ree ith &e so far( &ay
?ustly turn roun$ an$ say( )Cou ha#e foun$ a practical philosophy in the
$octrine of the ;all2 #ery ell. Cou ha#e foun$ a si$e of $e&ocracy no
$an!erously ne!lecte$ isely asserte$ in >ri!inal .in2 all ri!ht. Cou ha#e
foun$ a truth in the $octrine of hell2 ' con!ratulate you. Cou are con#ince$ that
orshippers of a personal -o$ look outar$s an$ are pro!ressi#e2 '
con!ratulate the&. 1ut e#en supposin! that those $octrines $o inclu$e those
truths( hy cannot you take the truths an$ lea#e the $octrines5 -rante$ that all
&o$ern society is trustin! the rich too &uch because it $oes not allo for
hu&an eakness2 !rante$ that ortho$ox a!es ha#e ha$ a !reat a$#anta!e
because +belie#in! in the ;all/ they $i$ allo for hu&an eakness( hy
cannot you si&ply allo for hu&an eakness ithout belie#in! in the ;all5 'f
you ha#e $isco#ere$ that the i$ea of $a&nation represents a healthy i$ea of
$an!er( hy can you not si&ply take the i$ea of $an!er an$ lea#e the i$ea of
$a&nation5 'f you see clearly the kernel of co&&on:sense in the nut of
0hristian ortho$oxy( hy cannot you si&ply take the kernel an$ lea#e the nut5
%hy cannot you +to use that cant phrase of the nespapers hich '( as a
hi!hly scholarly a!nostic( a& a little asha&e$ of usin!/ hy cannot you
si&ply take hat is !oo$ in 0hristianity( hat you can $efine as #aluable(
hat you can co&prehen$( an$ lea#e all the rest( all the absolute $o!&as that
are in their nature inco&prehensible5) This is the real 9uestion2 this is the last
9uestion2 an$ it is a pleasure to try to anser it.
The first anser is si&ply to say that ' a& a rationalist. ' like to ha#e so&e
intellectual ?ustification for &y intuitions. 'f ' a& treatin! &an as a fallen
bein! it is an intellectual con#enience to &e to belie#e that he fell2 an$ ' fin$(
for so&e o$$ psycholo!ical reason( that ' can $eal better ith a &an7s exercise
of freeill if ' belie#e that he has !ot it. 1ut ' a& in this &atter yet &ore
$efinitely a rationalist. ' $o not propose to turn this book into one of or$inary
0hristian apolo!etics2 ' shoul$ be !la$ to &eet at any other ti&e the ene&ies
of 0hristianity in that &ore ob#ious arena. *ere ' a& only !i#in! an account
of &y on !roth in spiritual certainty. 1ut ' &ay pause to re&ark that the
&ore ' sa of the &erely abstract ar!u&ents a!ainst the 0hristian cos&olo!y
the less ' thou!ht of the&. ' &ean that ha#in! foun$ the &oral at&osphere of
the 'ncarnation to be co&&on sense( ' then looke$ at the establishe$
intellectual ar!u&ents a!ainst the 'ncarnation an$ foun$ the& to be co&&on
nonsense. 'n case the ar!u&ent shoul$ be thou!ht to suffer fro& the absence
of the or$inary apolo!etic ' ill here #ery briefly su&&arise &y on
ar!u&ents an$ conclusions on the purely ob?ecti#e or scientific truth of the
&atter.
'f ' a& aske$( as a purely intellectual 9uestion( hy ' belie#e in 0hristianity( '
can only anser( );or the sa&e reason that an intelli!ent a!nostic $isbelie#es
in 0hristianity.) ' belie#e in it 9uite rationally upon the e#i$ence. 1ut the
e#i$ence in &y case( as in that of the intelli!ent a!nostic( is not really in this
or that alle!e$ $e&onstration2 it is in an enor&ous accu&ulation of s&all but
unani&ous facts. The secularist is not to be bla&e$ because his ob?ections to
0hristianity are &iscellaneous an$ e#en scrappy2 it is precisely such scrappy
e#i$ence that $oes con#ince the &in$. ' &ean that a &an &ay ell be less
con#ince$ of a philosophy fro& four books( than fro& one book( one battle(
one lan$scape( an$ one ol$ frien$. The #ery fact that the thin!s are of $ifferent
kin$s increases the i&portance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion.
8o( the non:0hristianity of the a#era!e e$ucate$ &an to:$ay is al&ost
alays( to $o hi& ?ustice( &a$e up of these loose but li#in! experiences. ' can
only say that &y e#i$ences for 0hristianity are of the sa&e #i#i$ but #arie$
kin$ as his e#i$ences a!ainst it. ;or hen ' look at these #arious anti:0hristian
truths( ' si&ply $isco#er that none of the& are true. ' $isco#er that the true
ti$e an$ force of all the facts flos the other ay. Aet us take cases. ,any a
sensible &o$ern &an &ust ha#e aban$one$ 0hristianity un$er the pressure of
three such con#er!in! con#ictions as these@ first( that &en( ith their shape(
structure( an$ sexuality( are( after all( #ery &uch like beasts( a &ere #ariety of
the ani&al kin!$o&2 secon$( that pri&e#al reli!ion arose in i!norance an$
fear2 thir$( that priests ha#e bli!hte$ societies ith bitterness an$ !loo&.
Those three anti:0hristian ar!u&ents are #ery $ifferent2 but they are all 9uite
lo!ical an$ le!iti&ate2 an$ they all con#er!e. The only ob?ection to the& +'
$isco#er/ is that they are all untrue. 'f you lea#e off lookin! at books about
beasts an$ &en( if you be!in to look at beasts an$ &en then +if you ha#e any
hu&our or i&a!ination( any sense of the frantic or the farcical/ you ill
obser#e that the startlin! thin! is not ho like &an is to the brutes( but ho
unlike he is. 't is the &onstrous scale of his $i#er!ence that re9uires an
explanation. That &an an$ brute are like is( in a sense( a truis&2 but that bein!
so like they shoul$ then be so insanely unlike( that is the shock an$ the
eni!&a. That an ape has han$s is far less interestin! to the philosopher than
the fact that ha#in! han$s he $oes next to nothin! ith the&2 $oes not play
knuckle:bones or the #iolin2 $oes not car#e &arble or car#e &utton. 4eople
talk of barbaric architecture an$ $ebase$ art. 1ut elephants $o not buil$
colossal te&ples of i#ory e#en in a roccoco style2 ca&els $o not paint e#en
ba$ pictures( thou!h e9uippe$ ith the &aterial of &any ca&el7s:hair brushes.
0ertain &o$ern $rea&ers say that ants an$ bees ha#e a society superior to
ours. They ha#e( in$ee$( a ci#ilisation2 but that #ery truth only re&in$s us that
it is an inferior ci#ilisation. %ho e#er foun$ an ant:hill $ecorate$ ith the
statues of celebrate$ ants5 %ho has seen a bee:hi#e car#e$ ith the i&a!es of
!or!eous 9ueens of ol$5 8o2 the chas& beteen &an an$ other creatures &ay
ha#e a natural explanation( but it is a chas&. %e talk of il$ ani&als2 but &an
is the only il$ ani&al. 't is &an that has broken out. 6ll other ani&als are
ta&e ani&als2 folloin! the ru!!e$ respectability of the tribe or type. 6ll
other ani&als are $o&estic ani&als2 &an alone is e#er un$o&estic( either as a
profli!ate or a &onk. .o that this first superficial reason for &aterialis& is( if
anythin!( a reason for its opposite2 it is exactly here biolo!y lea#es off that
all reli!ion be!ins.
't oul$ be the sa&e if ' exa&ine$ the secon$ of the three chance rationalist
ar!u&ents2 the ar!u&ent that all that e call $i#ine be!an in so&e $arkness
an$ terror. %hen ' $i$ atte&pt to exa&ine the foun$ations of this &o$ern i$ea
' si&ply foun$ that there ere none. .cience knos nothin! hate#er about
pre:historic &an2 for the excellent reason that he is pre:historic. 6 fe
professors choose to con?ecture that such thin!s as hu&an sacrifice ere once
innocent an$ !eneral an$ that they !ra$ually $in$le$2 but there is no $irect
e#i$ence of it( an$ the s&all a&ount of in$irect e#i$ence is #ery &uch the
other ay. 'n the earliest le!en$s e ha#e( such as the tales of 'saac an$ of
'phi!enia( hu&an sacrifice is not intro$uce$ as so&ethin! ol$( but rather as
so&ethin! ne2 as a stran!e an$ fri!htful exception $arkly $e&an$e$ by the
!o$s. *istory says nothin!2 an$ le!en$s all say that the earth as kin$er in its
earliest ti&e. There is no tra$ition of pro!ress2 but the hole hu&an race has a
tra$ition of the ;all. 6&usin!ly enou!h( in$ee$( the #ery $isse&ination of this
i$ea is use$ a!ainst its authenticity. Aearne$ &en literally say that this pre:
historic cala&ity cannot be true because e#ery race of &ankin$ re&e&bers it.
' cannot keep pace ith these para$oxes.
6n$ if e took the thir$ chance instance( it oul$ be the sa&e2 the #ie that
priests $arken an$ e&bitter the orl$. ' look at the orl$ an$ si&ply $isco#er
that they $on7t. Those countries in "urope hich are still influence$ by priests(
are exactly the countries here there is still sin!in! an$ $ancin! an$ coloure$
$resses an$ art in the open:air. 0atholic $octrine an$ $iscipline &ay be alls2
but they are the alls of a play!roun$. 0hristianity is the only fra&e hich
has preser#e$ the pleasure of 4a!anis&. %e &i!ht fancy so&e chil$ren
playin! on the flat !rassy top of so&e tall islan$ in the sea. .o lon! as there
as a all roun$ the cliff7s e$!e they coul$ flin! the&sel#es into e#ery frantic
!a&e an$ &ake the place the noisiest of nurseries. 1ut the alls ere knocke$
$on( lea#in! the nake$ peril of the precipice. They $i$ not fall o#er2 but
hen their frien$s returne$ to the& they ere all hu$$le$ in terror in the
centre of the islan$2 an$ their son! ha$ cease$.
Thus these three facts of experience( such facts as !o to &ake an a!nostic( are(
in this #ie( turne$ totally roun$. ' a& left sayin!( )-i#e &e an explanation(
first( of the toerin! eccentricity of &an a&on! the brutes2 secon$( of the #ast
hu&an tra$ition of so&e ancient happiness2 thir$( of the partial perpetuation of
such pa!an ?oy in the countries of the 0atholic 0hurch.) >ne explanation( at
any rate( co#ers all three@ the theory that tice as the natural or$er
interrupte$ by so&e explosion or re#elation such as people no call
)psychic.) >nce *ea#en ca&e upon the earth ith a poer or seal calle$ the
i&a!e of -o$( hereby &an took co&&an$ of 8ature2 an$ once a!ain +hen
in e&pire after e&pire &en ha$ been foun$ antin!/ *ea#en ca&e to sa#e
&ankin$ in the aful shape of a &an. This oul$ explain hy the &ass of
&en alays look backar$s2 an$ hy the only corner here they in any sense
look forar$s is the little continent here 0hrist has *is 0hurch. ' kno it
ill be sai$ that Dapan has beco&e pro!ressi#e. 1ut ho can this be an anser
hen e#en in sayin! )Dapan has beco&e pro!ressi#e() e really only &ean(
)Dapan has beco&e "uropean)5 1ut ' ish here not so &uch to insist on &y
on explanation as to insist on &y ori!inal re&ark. ' a!ree ith the or$inary
unbelie#in! &an in the street in bein! !ui$e$ by three or four o$$ facts all
pointin! to so&ethin!2 only hen ' ca&e to look at the facts ' alays foun$
they pointe$ to so&ethin! else.
' ha#e !i#en an i&a!inary tria$ of such or$inary anti:0hristian ar!u&ents2 if
that be too narro a basis ' ill !i#e on the spur of the &o&ent another. These
are the kin$ of thou!hts hich in co&bination create the i&pression that
0hristianity is so&ethin! eak an$ $isease$. ;irst( for instance( that Desus as
a !entle creature( sheepish an$ unorl$ly( a &ere ineffectual appeal to the
orl$2 secon$( that 0hristianity arose an$ flourishe$ in the $ark a!es of
i!norance( an$ that to these the 0hurch oul$ $ra! us back2 thir$( that the
people still stron!ly reli!ious or +if you ill/ superstitiousBsuch people as the
'rishBare eak( unpractical( an$ behin$ the ti&es. ' only &ention these i$eas
to affir& the sa&e thin!@ that hen ' looke$ into the& in$epen$ently ' foun$(
not that the conclusions ere unphilosophical( but si&ply that the facts ere
not facts. 'nstea$ of lookin! at books an$ pictures about the 8e Testa&ent '
looke$ at the 8e Testa&ent. There ' foun$ an account( not in the least of a
person ith his hair parte$ in the &i$$le or his han$s claspe$ in appeal( but of
an extraor$inary bein! ith lips of thun$er an$ acts of luri$ $ecision( flin!in!
$on tables( castin! out $e#ils( passin! ith the il$ secrecy of the in$
fro& &ountain isolation to a sort of $rea$ful $e&a!o!y2 a bein! ho often
acte$ like an an!ry !o$Ban$ alays like a !o$. 0hrist ha$ e#en a literary
style of his on( not to be foun$( ' think( elsehere2 it consists of an al&ost
furious use of the a fortiori. *is )ho &uch &ore) is pile$ one upon another
like castle upon castle in the clou$s. The $iction use$ about0hrist has been(
an$ perhaps isely( seet an$ sub&issi#e. 1ut the $iction use$ by 0hrist is
9uite curiously !i!antes9ue2 it is full of ca&els leapin! throu!h nee$les an$
&ountains hurle$ into the sea. ,orally it is e9ually terrific2 he calle$ hi&self a
sor$ of slau!hter( an$ tol$ &en to buy sor$s if they sol$ their coats for
the&. That he use$ other e#en il$er or$s on the si$e of non:resistance
!reatly increases the &ystery2 but it also( if anythin!( rather increases the
#iolence. %e cannot e#en explain it by callin! such a bein! insane2 for
insanity is usually alon! one consistent channel. The &aniac is !enerally a
&ono&aniac. *ere e &ust re&e&ber the $ifficult $efinition of 0hristianity
alrea$y !i#en2 0hristianity is a superhu&an para$ox hereby to opposite
passions &ay bla3e besi$e each other. The one explanation of the -ospel
lan!ua!e that $oes explain it( is that it is the sur#ey of one ho fro& so&e
supernatural hei!ht behol$s so&e &ore startlin! synthesis.
' take in or$er the next instance offere$@ the i$ea that 0hristianity belon!s to
the $ark a!es. *ere ' $i$ not satisfy &yself ith rea$in! &o$ern
!eneralisations2 ' rea$ a little history. 6n$ in history ' foun$ that 0hristianity(
so far fro& belon!in! to the $ark a!es( as the one path across the $ark a!es
that as not $ark. 't as a shinin! bri$!e connectin! to shinin! ci#ilisations.
'f any one says that the faith arose in i!norance an$ sa#a!ery the anser is
si&ple@ it $i$n7t. 't arose in the ,e$iterranean ci#ilisation in the full su&&er
of the <o&an "&pire. The orl$ as sar&in! ith sceptics( an$ pantheis&
as as plain as the sun( hen 0onstantine naile$ the cross to the &ast. 't is
perfectly true that afterar$s the ship sank2 but it is far &ore extraor$inary
that the ship ca&e up a!ain@ repainte$ an$ !litterin!( ith the cross still at the
top. This is the a&a3in! thin! the reli!ion $i$@ it turne$ a sunken ship into a
sub&arine. The ark li#e$ un$er the loa$ of aters2 after bein! burie$ un$er
the $Jbris of $ynasties an$ clans( e arose an$ re&e&bere$ <o&e. 'f our faith
ha$ been a &ere fa$ of the fa$in! e&pire( fa$ oul$ ha#e folloe$ fa$ in the
tili!ht( an$ if the ci#ilisation e#er re:e&er!e$ +an$ &any such ha#e ne#er re:
e&er!e$/ it oul$ ha#e been un$er so&e ne barbaric fla!. 1ut the 0hristian
0hurch as the last life of the ol$ society an$ as also the first life of the
ne. .he took the people ho ere for!ettin! ho to &ake an arch an$ she
tau!ht the& to in#ent the -othic arch. 'n a or$( the &ost absur$ thin! that
coul$ be sai$ of the 0hurch is the thin! e ha#e all hear$ sai$ of it. *o can
e say that the 0hurch ishes to brin! us back into the =ark 6!es5 The
0hurch as the only thin! that e#er brou!ht us out of the&.
' a$$e$ in this secon$ trinity of ob?ections an i$le instance taken fro& those
ho feel such people as the 'rish to be eakene$ or &a$e sta!nant by
superstition. ' only a$$e$ it because this is a peculiar case of a state&ent of
fact that turns out to be a state&ent of falsehoo$. 't is constantly sai$ of the
'rish that they are i&practical. 1ut if e refrain for a &o&ent fro& lookin! at
hat is sai$ about the& an$ look at hat is done about the&( e shall see that
the 'rish are not only practical( but 9uite painfully successful. The po#erty of
their country( the &inority of their &e&bers are si&ply the con$itions un$er
hich they ere aske$ to ork2 but no other !roup in the 1ritish "&pire has
$one so &uch ith such con$itions. The 8ationalists ere the only &inority
that e#er succee$e$ in tistin! the hole 1ritish 4arlia&ent sharply out of its
path. The 'rish peasants are the only poor &en in these islan$s ho ha#e
force$ their &asters to $is!or!e. These people( ho& e call priest:ri$$en(
are the only 1ritons ho ill not be s9uire:ri$$en. 6n$ hen ' ca&e to look
at the actual 'rish character( the case as the sa&e. 'rish&en are best at the
specially hard professionsBthe tra$es of iron( the layer( an$ the sol$ier. 'n
all these cases( therefore( ' ca&e back to the sa&e conclusion@ the sceptic as
9uite ri!ht to !o by the facts( only he ha$ not looke$ at the facts. The sceptic
is too cre$ulous2 he belie#es in nespapers or e#en in encyclopH$ias. 6!ain
the three 9uestions left &e ith three #ery anta!onistic 9uestions. The a#era!e
sceptic ante$ to kno ho ' explaine$ the na&by:pa&by note in the -ospel(
the connection of the cree$ ith &e$iH#al $arkness an$ the political
i&practicability of the 0eltic 0hristians. 1ut ' ante$ to ask( an$ to ask ith
an earnestness a&ountin! to ur!ency( )%hat is this inco&parable ener!y
hich appears first in one alkin! the earth like a li#in! ?u$!&ent an$ this
ener!y hich can $ie ith a $yin! ci#ilisation an$ yet force it to a resurrection
fro& the $ea$2 this ener!y hich last of all can infla&e a bankrupt peasantry
ith so fixe$ a faith in ?ustice that they !et hat they ask( hile others !o
e&pty aay2 so that the &ost helpless islan$ of the "&pire can actually help
itself5)
There is an anser@ it is an anser to say that the ener!y is truly fro& outsi$e
the orl$2 that it is psychic( or at least one of the results of a real psychical
$isturbance. The hi!hest !ratitu$e an$ respect are $ue to the !reat hu&an
ci#ilisations such as the ol$ "!yptian or the existin! 0hinese. 8e#ertheless it
is no in?ustice for the& to say that only &o$ern "urope has exhibite$
incessantly a poer of self:reneal recurrin! often at the shortest inter#als
an$ $escen$in! to the s&allest facts of buil$in! or costu&e. 6ll other societies
$ie finally an$ ith $i!nity. %e $ie $aily. %e are alays bein! born a!ain
ith al&ost in$ecent obstetrics. 't is har$ly an exa!!eration to say that there is
in historic 0hristen$o& a sort of unnatural life@ it coul$ be explaine$ as a
supernatural life. 't coul$ be explaine$ as an aful !al#anic life orkin! in
hat oul$ ha#e been a corpse. ;or our ci#ilisation ought to ha#e $ie$( by all
parallels( by all sociolo!ical probability( in the <a!norak of the en$ of <o&e.
That is the eir$ inspiration of our estate@ you an$ ' ha#e no business to be
here at all. %e are all reenants2 all li#in! 0hristians are $ea$ pa!ans alkin!
about. Dust as "urope as about to be !athere$ in silence to 6ssyria an$
1abylon( so&ethin! entere$ into its bo$y. 6n$ "urope has ha$ a stran!e lifeB
it is not too &uch to say that it has ha$ the (umpsBe#er since.
' ha#e $ealt at len!th ith such typical tria$s of $oubt in or$er to con#ey the
&ain contentionBthat &y on case for 0hristianity is rational2 but it is not
si&ple. 't is an accu&ulation of #arie$ facts( like the attitu$e of the or$inary
a!nostic. 1ut the or$inary a!nostic has !ot his facts all ron!. *e is a non:
belie#er for a &ultitu$e of reasons2 but they are untrue reasons. *e $oubts
because the ,i$$le 6!es ere barbaric( but they eren7t2 because =arinis&
is $e&onstrate$( but it isn7t2 because &iracles $o not happen( but they $o2
because &onks ere la3y( but they ere #ery in$ustrious2 because nuns are
unhappy( but they are particularly cheerful2 because 0hristian art as sa$ an$
pale( but it as picke$ out in peculiarly bri!ht colours an$ !ay ith !ol$2
because &o$ern science is &o#in! aay fro& the supernatural( but it isn7t( it
is &o#in! toar$s the supernatural ith the rapi$ity of a railay train.
1ut a&on! these &illion facts all floin! one ay there is( of course( one
9uestion sufficiently soli$ an$ separate to be treate$ briefly( but by itself2 '
&ean the ob?ecti#e occurrence of the supernatural. 'n another chapter ' ha#e
in$icate$ the fallacy of the or$inary supposition that the orl$ &ust be
i&personal because it is or$erly. 6 person is ?ust as likely to $esire an or$erly
thin! as a $isor$erly thin!. 1ut &y on positi#e con#iction that personal
creation is &ore concei#able than &aterial fate( is( ' a$&it( in a sense(
un$iscussable. ' ill not call it a faith or an intuition( for those or$s are
&ixe$ up ith &ere e&otion( it is strictly an intellectual con#iction2 but it is
a primary intellectual con#iction like the certainty of self or the !oo$ of
li#in!. 6ny one ho likes( therefore( &ay call &y belief in -o$ &erely
&ystical2 the phrase is not orth fi!htin! about. 1ut &y belief that &iracles
ha#e happene$ in hu&an history is not a &ystical belief at all2 ' belie#e in
the& upon hu&an e#i$ence as ' $o in the $isco#ery of 6&erica. Kpon this
point there is a si&ple lo!ical fact that only re9uires to be state$ an$ cleare$
up. .o&eho or other an extraor$inary i$ea has arisen that the $isbelie#ers in
&iracles consi$er the& col$ly an$ fairly( hile belie#ers in &iracles accept
the& only in connection ith so&e $o!&a. The fact is 9uite the other ay.
The belie#ers in &iracles accept the& +ri!htly or ron!ly/ because they ha#e
e#i$ence for the&. The $isbelie#ers in &iracles $eny the& +ri!htly or
ron!ly/ because they ha#e a $octrine a!ainst the&. The open( ob#ious(
$e&ocratic thin! is to belie#e an ol$ apple:o&an hen she bears testi&ony
to a &iracle( ?ust as you belie#e an ol$ apple:o&an hen she bears
testi&ony to a &ur$er. The plain( popular course is to trust the peasant7s or$
about the !host exactly as far as you trust the peasant7s or$ about the
lan$lor$. 1ein! a peasant he ill probably ha#e a !reat $eal of healthy
a!nosticis& about both. .till you coul$ fill the 1ritish ,useu& ith e#i$ence
uttere$ by the peasant( an$ !i#en in fa#our of the !host. 'f it co&es to hu&an
testi&ony there is a chokin! cataract of hu&an testi&ony in fa#our of the
supernatural. 'f you re?ect it( you can only &ean one of to thin!s. Cou re?ect
the peasant7s story about the !host either because the &an is a peasant or
because the story is a !host story. That is( you either $eny the &ain principle
of $e&ocracy( or you affir& the &ain principle of &aterialis&Bthe abstract
i&possibility of &iracle. Cou ha#e a perfect ri!ht to $o so2 but in that case you
are the $o!&atist. 't is e 0hristians ho accept all actual e#i$enceBit is you
rationalists ho refuse actual e#i$ence( bein! constraine$ to $o so by your
cree$. 1ut ' a& not constraine$ by any cree$ in the &atter( an$ lookin!
i&partially into certain &iracles of &e$iH#al an$ &o$ern ti&es( ' ha#e co&e
to the conclusion that they occurre$. 6ll ar!u&ent a!ainst these plain facts is
alays ar!u&ent in a circle. 'f ' say( ),e$iH#al $ocu&ents attest certain
&iracles as &uch as they attest certain battles() they anser( )1ut &e$iH#als
ere superstitious)2 if ' ant to kno in hat they ere superstitious( the
only ulti&ate anser is that they belie#e$ in the &iracles. 'f ' say )a peasant
sa a !host() ' a& tol$( )1ut peasants are so cre$ulous.) 'f ' ask( )%hy
cre$ulous5) the only anser isBthat they see !hosts. 'celan$ is i&possible
because only stupi$ sailors ha#e seen it2 an$ the sailors are only stupi$
because they say they ha#e seen 'celan$. 't is only fair to a$$ that there is
another ar!u&ent that the unbelie#er &ay rationally use a!ainst &iracles(
thou!h he hi&self !enerally for!ets to use it.
*e &ay say that there has been in &any &iraculous stories a notion of
spiritual preparation an$ acceptance@ in short( that the &iracle coul$ only
co&e to hi& ho belie#e$ in it. 't &ay be so( an$ if it is so ho are e to test
it5 'f e are in9uirin! hether certain results follo faith( it is useless to
repeat earily that +if they happen/ they $o follo faith. 'f faith is one of the
con$itions( those ithout faith ha#e a &ost healthy ri!ht to lau!h. 1ut they
ha#e no ri!ht to ?u$!e. 1ein! a belie#er &ay be( if you like( as ba$ as bein!
$runk2 still if e ere extractin! psycholo!ical facts fro& $runkar$s( it oul$
be absur$ to be alays tauntin! the& ith ha#in! been $runk. .uppose e
ere in#esti!atin! hether an!ry &en really sa a re$ &ist before their eyes.
.uppose sixty excellent househol$ers sore that hen an!ry they ha$ seen
this cri&son clou$@ surely it oul$ be absur$ to anser )>h( but you a$&it
you ere an!ry at the ti&e.) They &i!ht reasonably re?oin +in a stentorian
chorus/( )*o the bla3es coul$ e $isco#er( ithout bein! an!ry( hether
an!ry people see re$5) .o the saints an$ ascetics &i!ht rationally reply(
).uppose that the 9uestion is hether belie#ers can see #isionsBe#en then( if
you are intereste$ in #isions it is no point to ob?ect to belie#ers.) Cou are still
ar!uin! in a circleBin that ol$ &a$ circle ith hich this book be!an.
The 9uestion of hether &iracles e#er occur is a 9uestion of co&&on sense
an$ of or$inary historical i&a!ination@ not of any final physical experi&ent.
>ne &ay here surely $is&iss that 9uite brainless piece of pe$antry hich talks
about the nee$ for )scientific con$itions) in connection ith alle!e$ spiritual
pheno&ena. 'f e are askin! hether a $ea$ soul can co&&unicate ith a
li#in! it is lu$icrous to insist that it shall be un$er con$itions in hich no to
li#in! souls in their senses oul$ seriously co&&unicate ith each other. The
fact that !hosts prefer $arkness no &ore $ispro#es the existence of !hosts than
the fact that lo#ers prefer $arkness $ispro#es the existence of lo#e. 'f you
choose to say( )' ill belie#e that ,iss 1ron calle$ her fian"# a periinkle
or any other en$earin! ter&( if she ill repeat the or$ before se#enteen
psycholo!ists() then ' shall reply( )Eery ell( if those are your con$itions( you
ill ne#er !et the truth( for she certainly ill not say it.) 't is ?ust as
unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprise$ that in an unsy&pathetic
at&osphere certain extraor$inary sy&pathies $o not arise. 't is as if ' sai$ that
' coul$ not tell if there as a fo! because the air as not clear enou!h2 or as if
' insiste$ on perfect sunli!ht in or$er to see a solar eclipse.
6s a co&&on:sense conclusion( such as those to hich e co&e about sex or
about &i$ni!ht +ell knoin! that &any $etails &ust in their on nature be
conceale$/ ' conclu$e that &iracles $o happen. ' a& force$ to it by a
conspiracy of facts@ the fact that the &en ho encounter el#es or an!els are
not the &ystics an$ the &orbi$ $rea&ers( but fisher&en( far&ers( an$ all &en
at once coarse an$ cautious2 the fact that e all kno &en ho testify to
spiritualist inci$ents but are not spiritualists2 the fact that science itself a$&its
such thin!s &ore an$ &ore e#ery $ay. .cience ill e#en a$&it the 6scension
if you call it Ae#itation( an$ ill #ery likely a$&it the <esurrection hen it
has thou!ht of another or$ for it. ' su!!est the <e!al#anisation. 1ut the
stron!est of all is the $ile&&a abo#e &entione$( that these supernatural thin!s
are ne#er $enie$ except on the basis either of anti:$e&ocracy or of &aterialist
$o!&atis&B' &ay say &aterialist &ysticis&. The sceptic alays takes one of
the to positions2 either an or$inary &an nee$ not be belie#e$( or an
extraor$inary e#ent &ust not be belie#e$. ;or ' hope e &ay $is&iss the
ar!u&ent a!ainst on$ers atte&pte$ in the &ere recapitulation of frau$s( of
sin$lin! &e$iu&s or trick &iracles. That is not an ar!u&ent at all( !oo$ or
ba$. 6 false !host $ispro#es the reality of !hosts exactly as &uch as a for!e$
banknote $ispro#es the existence of the 1ank of "n!lan$Bif anythin!( it
pro#es its existence.
-i#en this con#iction that the spiritual pheno&ena $o occur +&y e#i$ence for
hich is co&plex but rational/( e then colli$e ith one of the orst &ental
e#ils of the a!e. The !reatest $isaster of the nineteenth century as this@ that
&en be!an to use the or$ )spiritual) as the sa&e as the or$ )!oo$.) They
thou!ht that to !ro in refine&ent an$ uncorporeality as to !ro in #irtue.
%hen scientific e#olution as announce$( so&e feare$ that it oul$
encoura!e &ere ani&ality. 't $i$ orse@ it encoura!e$ &ere spirituality. 't
tau!ht &en to think that so lon! as they ere passin! fro& the ape they ere
!oin! to the an!el. 1ut you can pass fro& the ape an$ !o to the $e#il. 6 &an
of !enius( #ery typical of that ti&e of beil$er&ent( expresse$ it perfectly.
1en?a&in =israeli as ri!ht hen he sai$ he as on the si$e of the an!els. *e
as in$ee$2 he as on the si$e of the fallen an!els. *e as not on the si$e of
any &ere appetite or ani&al brutality2 but he as on the si$e of all the
i&perialis& of the princes of the abyss2 he as on the si$e of arro!ance an$
&ystery( an$ conte&pt of all ob#ious !oo$. 1eteen this sunken pri$e an$ the
toerin! hu&ilities of hea#en there are( one &ust suppose( spirits of shapes
an$ si3es. ,an( in encounterin! the&( &ust &ake &uch the sa&e &istakes
that he &akes in encounterin! any other #arie$ types in any other $istant
continent. 't &ust be har$ at first to kno ho is supre&e an$ ho is
subor$inate. 'f a sha$e arose fro& the un$er orl$( an$ stare$ at 4icca$illy(
that sha$e oul$ not 9uite un$erstan$ the i$ea of an or$inary close$ carria!e.
*e oul$ suppose that the coach&an on the box as a triu&phant con9ueror(
$ra!!in! behin$ hi& a kickin! an$ i&prisone$ capti#e. .o( if e see spiritual
facts for the first ti&e( e &ay &istake ho is upper&ost. 't is not enou!h to
fin$ the !o$s2 they are ob#ious2 e &ust fin$ -o$( the real chief of the !o$s.
%e &ust ha#e a lon! historic experience in supernatural pheno&enaBin or$er
to $isco#er hich are really natural. 'n this li!ht ' fin$ the history of
0hristianity( an$ e#en of its *ebre ori!ins( 9uite practical an$ clear. 't $oes
not trouble &e to be tol$ that the *ebre !o$ as one a&on! &any. ' kno
he as( ithout any research to tell &e so. Deho#ah an$ 1aal looke$ e9ually
i&portant( ?ust as the sun an$ the &oon looke$ the sa&e si3e. 't is only sloly
that e learn that the sun is i&&easurably our &aster( an$ the s&all &oon
only our satellite. 1elie#in! that there is a orl$ of spirits( ' shall alk in it as
' $o in the orl$ of &en( lookin! for the thin! that ' like an$ think !oo$. Dust
as ' shoul$ seek in a $esert for clean ater( or toil at the 8orth 4ole to &ake a
co&fortable fire( so ' shall search the lan$ of #oi$ an$ #ision until ' fin$
so&ethin! fresh like ater( an$ co&fortin! like fire2 until ' fin$ so&e place in
eternity( here ' a& literally at ho&e. 6n$ there is only one such place to be
foun$.
' ha#e no sai$ enou!h to sho +to any one to ho& such an explanation is
essential/ that ' ha#e in the or$inary arena of apolo!etics( a !roun$ of belief.
'n pure recor$s of experi&ent +if these be taken $e&ocratically ithout
conte&pt or fa#our/ there is e#i$ence first( that &iracles happen( an$ secon$
that the nobler &iracles belon! to our tra$ition. 1ut ' ill not preten$ that this
curt $iscussion is &y real reason for acceptin! 0hristianity instea$ of takin!
the &oral !oo$ of 0hristianity as ' shoul$ take it out of 0onfucianis&.
' ha#e another far &ore soli$ an$ central !roun$ for sub&ittin! to it as a faith(
instea$ of &erely pickin! up hints fro& it as a sche&e. 6n$ that is this@ that
the 0hristian 0hurch in its practical relation to &y soul is a li#in! teacher( not
a $ea$ one. 't not only certainly tau!ht &e yester$ay( but ill al&ost certainly
teach &e to:&orro. >nce ' sa su$$enly the &eanin! of the shape of the
cross2 so&e $ay ' &ay see su$$enly the &eanin! of the shape of the &itre.
>ne fine &ornin! ' sa hy in$os ere pointe$2 so&e fine &ornin! ' &ay
see hy priests ere sha#en. 4lato has tol$ you a truth2 but 4lato is $ea$.
.hakespeare has startle$ you ith an i&a!e2 but .hakespeare ill not startle
you ith any &ore. 1ut i&a!ine hat it oul$ be to li#e ith such &en still
li#in!( to kno that 4lato &i!ht break out ith an ori!inal lecture to:&orro(
or that at any &o&ent .hakespeare &i!ht shatter e#erythin! ith a sin!le
son!. The &an ho li#es in contact ith hat he belie#es to be a li#in!
0hurch is a &an alays expectin! to &eet 4lato an$ .hakespeare to:&orro
at breakfast. *e is alays expectin! to see so&e truth that he has ne#er seen
before. There is one only other parallel to this position2 an$ that is the parallel
of the life in hich e all be!an. %hen your father tol$ you( alkin! about
the !ar$en( that bees stun! or that roses s&elt seet( you $i$ not talk of takin!
the best out of his philosophy. %hen the bees stun! you( you $i$ not call it an
entertainin! coinci$ence. %hen the rose s&elt seet you $i$ not say ),y
father is a ru$e( barbaric sy&bol( enshrinin! +perhaps unconsciously/ the $eep
$elicate truths that floers s&ell.) 8o@ you belie#e$ your father( because you
ha$ foun$ hi& to be a li#in! fountain of facts( a thin! that really kne &ore
than you2 a thin! that oul$ tell you truth to:&orro( as ell as to:$ay. 6n$ if
this as true of your father( it as e#en truer of your &other2 at least it as
true of &ine( to ho& this book is $e$icate$. 8o( hen society is in a rather
futile fuss about the sub?ection of o&en( ill no one say ho &uch e#ery
&an oes to the tyranny an$ pri#ile!e of o&en( to the fact that they alone
rule e$ucation until e$ucation beco&es futile@ for a boy is only sent to be
tau!ht at school hen it is too late to teach hi& anythin!. The real thin! has
been $one alrea$y( an$ thank -o$ it is nearly alays $one by o&en. "#ery
&an is o&anise$( &erely by bein! born. They talk of the &asculine o&an2
but e#ery &an is a fe&inise$ &an. 6n$ if e#er &en alk to %est&inster to
protest a!ainst this fe&ale pri#ile!e( ' shall not ?oin their procession.
;or ' re&e&ber ith certainty this fixe$ psycholo!ical fact2 that the #ery ti&e
hen ' as &ost un$er a o&an7s authority( ' as &ost full of fla&e an$
a$#enture. "xactly because hen &y &other sai$ that ants bit they $i$ bite(
an$ because sno $i$ co&e in inter +as she sai$/2 therefore the hole orl$
as to &e a fairylan$ of on$erful fulfil&ents( an$ it as like li#in! in so&e
*ebraic a!e( hen prophecy after prophecy ca&e true. ' ent out as a chil$
into the !ar$en( an$ it as a terrible place to &e( precisely because ' ha$ a
clue to it@ if ' ha$ hel$ no clue it oul$ not ha#e been terrible( but ta&e. 6
&ere un&eanin! il$erness is not e#en i&pressi#e. 1ut the !ar$en of
chil$hoo$ as fascinatin!( exactly because e#erythin! ha$ a fixe$ &eanin!
hich coul$ be foun$ out in its turn. 'nch by inch ' &i!ht $isco#er hat as
the ob?ect of the u!ly shape calle$ a rake2 or for& so&e sha$oy con?ecture
as to hy &y parents kept a cat.
.o( since ' ha#e accepte$ 0hristen$o& as a &other an$ not &erely as a chance
exa&ple( ' ha#e foun$ "urope an$ the orl$ once &ore like the little !ar$en
here ' stare$ at the sy&bolic shapes of cat an$ rake2 ' look at e#erythin!
ith the ol$ el#ish i!norance an$ expectancy. This or that rite or $octrine &ay
look as u!ly an$ extraor$inary as a rake2 but ' ha#e foun$ by experience that
such thin!s en$ so&eho in !rass an$ floers. 6 cler!y&an &ay be
apparently as useless as a cat( but he is also as fascinatin!( for there &ust be
so&e stran!e reason for his existence. ' !i#e one instance out of a hun$re$2 '
ha#e not &yself any instincti#e kinship ith that enthusias& for physical
#ir!inity( hich has certainly been a note of historic 0hristianity. 1ut hen '
look not at &yself but at the orl$( ' percei#e that this enthusias& is not only
a note of 0hristianity( but a note of 4a!anis&( a note of hi!h hu&an nature in
&any spheres. The -reeks felt #ir!inity hen they car#e$ 6rte&is( the
<o&ans hen they robe$ the #estals( the orst an$ il$est of the !reat
"li3abethan playri!hts clun! to the literal purity of a o&an as to the central
pillar of the orl$. 6bo#e all( the &o$ern orl$ +e#en hile &ockin! sexual
innocence/ has flun! itself into a !enerous i$olatry of sexual innocenceBthe
!reat &o$ern orship of chil$ren. ;or any &an ho lo#es chil$ren ill a!ree
that their peculiar beauty is hurt by a hint of physical sex. %ith all this hu&an
experience( allie$ ith the 0hristian authority( ' si&ply conclu$e that ' a&
ron!( an$ the church ri!ht2 or rather that ' a& $efecti#e( hile the church is
uni#ersal. 't takes all sorts to &ake a church2 she $oes not ask &e to be
celibate. 1ut the fact that ' ha#e no appreciation of the celibates( ' accept like
the fact that ' ha#e no ear for &usic. The best hu&an experience is a!ainst &e(
as it is on the sub?ect of 1ach. 0elibacy is one floer in &y father7s !ar$en( of
hich ' ha#e not been tol$ the seet or terrible na&e. 1ut ' &ay be tol$ it any
$ay.
This( therefore( is( in conclusion( &y reason for acceptin! the reli!ion an$ not
&erely the scattere$ an$ secular truths out of the reli!ion. ' $o it because the
thin! has not &erely tol$ this truth or that truth( but has re#eale$ itself as a
truth:tellin! thin!. 6ll other philosophies say the thin!s that plainly see& to be
true2 only this philosophy has a!ain an$ a!ain sai$ the thin! that $oes not
see& to be true( but is true. 6lone of all cree$s it is con#incin! here it is not
attracti#e2 it turns out to be ri!ht( like &y father in the !ar$en. Theosophists(
for instance( ill preach an ob#iously attracti#e i$ea like re:incarnation2 but if
e ait for its lo!ical results( they are spiritual superciliousness an$ the
cruelty of caste. ;or if a &an is a be!!ar by his on pre:natal sins( people ill
ten$ to $espise the be!!ar. 1ut 0hristianity preaches an ob#iously unattracti#e
i$ea( such as ori!inal sin2 but hen e ait for its results( they are pathos an$
brotherhoo$( an$ a thun$er of lau!hter an$ pity2 for only ith ori!inal sin e
can at once pity the be!!ar an$ $istrust the kin!. ,en of science offer us
health( an ob#ious benefit2 it is only afterar$s that e $isco#er that by
health( they &ean bo$ily sla#ery an$ spiritual te$iu&. >rtho$oxy &akes us
?u&p by the su$$en brink of hell2 it is only afterar$s that e realise that
?u&pin! as an athletic exercise hi!hly beneficial to our health. 't is only
afterar$s that e realise that this $an!er is the root of all $ra&a an$
ro&ance. The stron!est ar!u&ent for the $i#ine !race is si&ply its
un!raciousness. The unpopular parts of 0hristianity turn out hen exa&ine$
to be the #ery props of the people. The outer rin! of 0hristianity is a ri!i$
!uar$ of ethical abne!ations an$ professional priests2 but insi$e that inhu&an
!uar$ you ill fin$ the ol$ hu&an life $ancin! like chil$ren( an$ $rinkin!
ine like &en2 for 0hristianity is the only fra&e for pa!an free$o&. 1ut in the
&o$ern philosophy the case is opposite2 it is its outer rin! that is ob#iously
artistic an$ e&ancipate$2 its $espair is ithin.
6n$ its $espair is this( that it $oes not really belie#e that there is any &eanin!
in the uni#erse2 therefore it cannot hope to fin$ any ro&ance2 its ro&ances
ill ha#e no plots. 6 &an cannot expect any a$#entures in the lan$ of anarchy.
1ut a &an can expect any nu&ber of a$#entures if he !oes tra#ellin! in the
lan$ of authority. >ne can fin$ no &eanin!s in a ?un!le of scepticis&2 but the
&an ill fin$ &ore an$ &ore &eanin!s ho alks throu!h a forest of
$octrine an$ $esi!n. *ere e#erythin! has a story tie$ to its tail( like the tools
or pictures in &y father7s house2 for it is &y father7s house. ' en$ here '
be!anBat the ri!ht en$. ' ha#e entere$ at least the !ate of all !oo$ philosophy.
' ha#e co&e into &y secon$ chil$hoo$.
1ut this lar!er an$ &ore a$#enturous 0hristian uni#erse has one final &ark
$ifficult to express2 yet as a conclusion of the hole &atter ' ill atte&pt to
express it. 6ll the real ar!u&ent about reli!ion turns on the 9uestion of
hether a &an ho as born upsi$e $on can tell hen he co&es ri!ht ay
up. The pri&ary para$ox of 0hristianity is that the or$inary con$ition of &an
is not his sane or sensible con$ition2 that the nor&al itself is an abnor&ality.
That is the in&ost philosophy of the ;all. 'n .ir >li#er Ao$!e7s interestin!
ne 0atechis&( the first to 9uestions ere@ )%hat are you5) an$ )%hat(
then( is the &eanin! of the ;all of ,an5) ' re&e&ber a&usin! &yself by
ritin! &y on ansers to the 9uestions2 but ' soon foun$ that they ere #ery
broken an$ a!nostic ansers. To the 9uestion( )%hat are you5) ' coul$ only
anser( )-o$ knos.) 6n$ to the 9uestion( )%hat is &eant by the ;all5) '
coul$ anser ith co&plete sincerity( )That hate#er ' a&( ' a& not &yself.)
This is the pri&e para$ox of our reli!ion2 so&ethin! that e ha#e ne#er in any
full sense knon( is not only better than oursel#es( but e#en &ore natural to us
than oursel#es. 6n$ there is really no test of this except the &erely
experi&ental one ith hich these pa!es be!an( the test of the pa$$e$ cell
an$ the open $oor. 't is only since ' ha#e knon ortho$oxy that ' ha#e knon
&ental e&ancipation. 1ut( in conclusion( it has one special application to the
ulti&ate i$ea of ?oy.
't is sai$ that 4a!anis& is a reli!ion of ?oy an$ 0hristianity of sorro2 it oul$
be ?ust as easy to pro#e that 4a!anis& is pure sorro an$ 0hristianity pure
?oy. .uch conflicts &ean nothin! an$ lea$ nohere. "#erythin! hu&an &ust
ha#e in it both ?oy an$ sorro2 the only &atter of interest is the &anner in
hich the to thin!s are balance$ or $i#i$e$. 6n$ the really interestin! thin!
is this( that the pa!an as +in the &ain/ happier an$ happier as he approache$
the earth( but sa$$er an$ sa$$er as he approache$ the hea#ens. The !aiety of
the best 4a!anis&( as in the playfulness of 0atullus or Theocritus( is( in$ee$(
an eternal !aiety ne#er to be for!otten by a !rateful hu&anity. 1ut it is all a
!aiety about the facts of life( not about its ori!in. To the pa!an the s&all thin!s
are as seet as the s&all brooks breakin! out of the &ountain2 but the broa$
thin!s are as bitter as the sea. %hen the pa!an looks at the #ery core of the
cos&os he is struck col$. 1ehin$ the !o$s( ho are &erely $espotic( sit the
fates( ho are $ea$ly. 8ay( the fates are orse than $ea$ly2 they are $ea$. 6n$
hen rationalists say that the ancient orl$ as &ore enli!htene$ than the
0hristian( fro& their point of #ie they are ri!ht. ;or hen they say
)enli!htene$) they &ean $arkene$ ith incurable $espair. 't is profoun$ly true
that the ancient orl$ as &ore &o$ern than the 0hristian. The co&&on
bon$ is in the fact that ancients an$ &o$erns ha#e both been &iserable about
existence( about e#erythin!( hile &e$iH#als ere happy about that at least. '
freely !rant that the pa!ans( like the &o$erns( ere only &iserable about
e#erythin!Bthey ere 9uite ?olly about e#erythin! else. ' conce$e that the
0hristians of the ,i$$le 6!es ere only at peace about e#erythin!Bthey
ere at ar about e#erythin! else. 1ut if the 9uestion turn on the pri&ary
pi#ot of the cos&os( then there as &ore cos&ic content&ent in the narro
an$ bloo$y streets of ;lorence than in the theatre of 6thens or the open !ar$en
of "picurus. -iotto li#e$ in a !loo&ier ton than "uripi$es( but he li#e$ in a
!ayer uni#erse.
The &ass of &en ha#e been force$ to be !ay about the little thin!s( but sa$
about the bi! ones. 8e#ertheless +' offer &y last $o!&a $efiantly/ it is not
nati#e to &an to be so. ,an is &ore hi&self( &an is &ore &anlike( hen ?oy
is the fun$a&ental thin! in hi&( an$ !rief the superficial. ,elancholy shoul$
be an innocent interlu$e( a ten$er an$ fu!iti#e fra&e of &in$2 praise shoul$ be
the per&anent pulsation of the soul. 4essi&is& is at best an e&otional half:
holi$ay2 ?oy is the uproarious labour by hich all thin!s li#e. Cet( accor$in! to
the apparent estate of &an as seen by the pa!an or the a!nostic( this pri&ary
nee$ of hu&an nature can ne#er be fulfille$. Doy ou!ht to be expansi#e2 but
for the a!nostic it &ust be contracte$( it &ust clin! to one corner of the orl$.
-rief ou!ht to be a concentration2 but for the a!nostic its $esolation is sprea$
throu!h an unthinkable eternity. This is hat ' call bein! born upsi$e $on.
The sceptic &ay truly be sai$ to be topsy:tur#y2 for his feet are $ancin!
upar$s in i$le ecstacies( hile his brain is in the abyss. To the &o$ern &an
the hea#ens are actually belo the earth. The explanation is si&ple2 he is
stan$in! on his hea$2 hich is a #ery eak pe$estal to stan$ on. 1ut hen he
has foun$ his feet a!ain he knos it. 0hristianity satisfies su$$enly an$
perfectly &an7s ancestral instinct for bein! the ri!ht ay up2 satisfies it
supre&ely in this2 that by its cree$ ?oy beco&es so&ethin! !i!antic an$
sa$ness so&ethin! special an$ s&all. The #ault abo#e us is not $eaf because
the uni#erse is an i$iot2 the silence is not the heartless silence of an en$less
an$ ai&less orl$. <ather the silence aroun$ us is a s&all an$ pitiful stillness
like the pro&pt stillness in a sick roo&. %e are perhaps per&itte$ tra!e$y as a
sort of &erciful co&e$y@ because the frantic ener!y of $i#ine thin!s oul$
knock us $on like a $runken farce. %e can take our on tears &ore li!htly
than e coul$ take the tre&en$ous le#ities of the an!els. .o e sit perhaps in
a starry cha&ber of silence( hile the lau!hter of the hea#ens is too lou$ for
us to hear.
Doy( hich as the s&all publicity of the pa!an( is the !i!antic secret of the
0hristian. 6n$ as ' close this chaotic #olu&e ' open a!ain the stran!e s&all
book fro& hich all 0hristianity ca&e2 an$ ' a& a!ain haunte$ by a kin$ of
confir&ation. The tre&en$ous fi!ure hich fills the -ospels toers in this
respect( as in e#ery other( abo#e all the thinkers ho e#er thou!ht the&sel#es
tall. *is pathos as natural( al&ost casual. The .toics( ancient an$ &o$ern(
ere prou$ of concealin! their tears. *e ne#er conceale$ *is tears2 *e
shoe$ the& plainly on *is open face at any $aily si!ht( such as the far si!ht
of *is nati#e city. Cet *e conceale$ so&ethin!. .ole&n super&en an$
i&perial $iplo&atists are prou$ of restrainin! their an!er. *e ne#er restraine$
*is an!er. *e flun! furniture $on the front steps of the Te&ple( an$ aske$
&en ho they expecte$ to escape the $a&nation of *ell. Cet *e restraine$
so&ethin!. ' say it ith re#erence2 there as in that shatterin! personality a
threa$ that &ust be calle$ shyness. There as so&ethin! that *e hi$ fro& all
&en hen *e ent up a &ountain to pray. There as so&ethin! that *e
co#ere$ constantly by abrupt silence or i&petuous isolation. There as so&e
one thin! that as too !reat for -o$ to sho us hen *e alke$ upon our
earth2 an$ ' ha#e so&eti&es fancie$ that it as *is &irth.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton
*** END OF !"# P$O%EC G&ENBE$G EBOOK O$!ODO'( ***
***** h)s f)*e shou*d be n+,ed -./.01h.ht, or -./.01h.2)3 *****
h)s +nd +** +ssoc)+ted f)*es of 4+r)ous for,+ts 5)** be found )n6
htt3677555.gutenberg.org7-7.7/7.7-./.07
Produced by %on+th+n "ngr+,, C*+re Coney +nd the On*)ne
D)str)buted Proofre+d)ng e+, +t htt3677555.3gd3.net
&3d+ted ed)t)ons 5)** re3*+ce the 3re4)ous one11the o*d ed)t)ons
5)** be ren+,ed.
Cre+t)ng the 5orks fro, 3ub*)c do,+)n 3r)nt ed)t)ons ,e+ns th+t no
one o5ns + &n)ted #t+tes co3yr)ght )n these 5orks, so the Found+t)on
8+nd you9: c+n co3y +nd d)str)bute )t )n the &n)ted #t+tes 5)thout
3er,)ss)on +nd 5)thout 3+y)ng co3yr)ght roy+*t)es. #3ec)+* ru*es,
set forth )n the Gener+* er,s of &se 3+rt of th)s *)cense, +33*y to
co3y)ng +nd d)str)but)ng Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks to
3rotect the P$O%EC G&ENBE$G1t, conce3t +nd tr+de,+rk. Project
Gutenberg )s + reg)stered tr+de,+rk, +nd ,+y not be used )f you
ch+rge for the eBooks, un*ess you rece)4e s3ec)f)c 3er,)ss)on. "f you
do not ch+rge +nyth)ng for co3)es of th)s eBook, co,3*y)ng 5)th the
ru*es )s 4ery e+sy. (ou ,+y use th)s eBook for ne+r*y +ny 3ur3ose
such +s cre+t)on of der)4+t)4e 5orks, re3orts, 3erfor,+nces +nd
rese+rch. hey ,+y be ,od)f)ed +nd 3r)nted +nd g)4en +5+y11you ,+y do
3r+ct)c+**y ;N(!"NG 5)th 3ub*)c do,+)n eBooks. $ed)str)but)on )s
subject to the tr+de,+rk *)cense, es3ec)+**y co,,erc)+*
red)str)but)on.
*** #;$6 F&<< <"CEN#E ***
!E F&<< P$O%EC G&ENBE$G <"CEN#E
P<E;#E $E;D !"# BEFO$E (O& D"#$"B&E O$ &#E !"# =O$K
o 3rotect the Project Gutenberg1t, ,)ss)on of 3ro,ot)ng the free
d)str)but)on of e*ectron)c 5orks, by us)ng or d)str)but)ng th)s 5ork
8or +ny other 5ork +ssoc)+ted )n +ny 5+y 5)th the 3hr+se >Project
Gutenberg>:, you +gree to co,3*y 5)th +** the ter,s of the Fu**
Project
Gutenberg1t, <)cense 8+4+)*+b*e 5)th th)s f)*e or on*)ne +t
htt3677gutenberg.net7*)cense:.
#ect)on -. Gener+* er,s of &se +nd $ed)str)but)ng Project Gutenberg1
t,
e*ectron)c 5orks
-.;. By re+d)ng or us)ng +ny 3+rt of th)s Project Gutenberg1t,
e*ectron)c 5ork, you )nd)c+te th+t you h+4e re+d, underst+nd, +gree to
+nd +cce3t +** the ter,s of th)s *)cense +nd )nte**ectu+* 3ro3erty
8tr+de,+rk7co3yr)ght: +gree,ent. "f you do not +gree to +b)de by +**
the ter,s of th)s +gree,ent, you ,ust ce+se us)ng +nd return or
destroy
+** co3)es of Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks )n your
3ossess)on.
"f you 3+)d + fee for obt+)n)ng + co3y of or +ccess to + Project
Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5ork +nd you do not +gree to be bound by the
ter,s of th)s +gree,ent, you ,+y obt+)n + refund fro, the 3erson or
ent)ty to 5ho, you 3+)d the fee +s set forth )n 3+r+gr+3h -.E.?.
-.B. >Project Gutenberg> )s + reg)stered tr+de,+rk. "t ,+y on*y be
used on or +ssoc)+ted )n +ny 5+y 5)th +n e*ectron)c 5ork by 3eo3*e 5ho
+gree to be bound by the ter,s of th)s +gree,ent. here +re + fe5
th)ngs th+t you c+n do 5)th ,ost Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks
e4en 5)thout co,3*y)ng 5)th the fu** ter,s of th)s +gree,ent. #ee
3+r+gr+3h -.C be*o5. here +re + *ot of th)ngs you c+n do 5)th
Project
Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks )f you fo**o5 the ter,s of th)s
+gree,ent
+nd he*3 3reser4e free future +ccess to Project Gutenberg1t,
e*ectron)c
5orks. #ee 3+r+gr+3h -.E be*o5.
-.C. he Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on 8>the
Found+t)on>
or PG<;F:, o5ns + co,3)*+t)on co3yr)ght )n the co**ect)on of Project
Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks. Ne+r*y +** the )nd)4)du+* 5orks )n the
co**ect)on +re )n the 3ub*)c do,+)n )n the &n)ted #t+tes. "f +n
)nd)4)du+* 5ork )s )n the 3ub*)c do,+)n )n the &n)ted #t+tes +nd you
+re
*oc+ted )n the &n)ted #t+tes, 5e do not c*+), + r)ght to 3re4ent you
fro,
co3y)ng, d)str)but)ng, 3erfor,)ng, d)s3*+y)ng or cre+t)ng der)4+t)4e
5orks b+sed on the 5ork +s *ong +s +** references to Project Gutenberg
+re re,o4ed. Of course, 5e ho3e th+t you 5)** su33ort the Project
Gutenberg1t, ,)ss)on of 3ro,ot)ng free +ccess to e*ectron)c 5orks by
free*y sh+r)ng Project Gutenberg1t, 5orks )n co,3*)+nce 5)th the ter,s
of
th)s +gree,ent for kee3)ng the Project Gutenberg1t, n+,e +ssoc)+ted
5)th
the 5ork. (ou c+n e+s)*y co,3*y 5)th the ter,s of th)s +gree,ent by
kee3)ng th)s 5ork )n the s+,e for,+t 5)th )ts +tt+ched fu** Project
Gutenberg1t, <)cense 5hen you sh+re )t 5)thout ch+rge 5)th others.
-.D. he co3yr)ght *+5s of the 3*+ce 5here you +re *oc+ted +*so
go4ern
5h+t you c+n do 5)th th)s 5ork. Co3yr)ght *+5s )n ,ost countr)es +re
)n
+ const+nt st+te of ch+nge. "f you +re outs)de the &n)ted #t+tes,
check
the *+5s of your country )n +dd)t)on to the ter,s of th)s +gree,ent
before do5n*o+d)ng, co3y)ng, d)s3*+y)ng, 3erfor,)ng, d)str)but)ng or
cre+t)ng der)4+t)4e 5orks b+sed on th)s 5ork or +ny other Project
Gutenberg1t, 5ork. he Found+t)on ,+kes no re3resent+t)ons concern)ng
the co3yr)ght st+tus of +ny 5ork )n +ny country outs)de the &n)ted
#t+tes.
-.E. &n*ess you h+4e re,o4ed +** references to Project Gutenberg6
-.E.-. he fo**o5)ng sentence, 5)th +ct)4e *)nks to, or other
),,ed)+te
+ccess to, the fu** Project Gutenberg1t, <)cense ,ust +33e+r
3ro,)nent*y
5hene4er +ny co3y of + Project Gutenberg1t, 5ork 8+ny 5ork on 5h)ch
the
3hr+se >Project Gutenberg> +33e+rs, or 5)th 5h)ch the 3hr+se >Project
Gutenberg> )s +ssoc)+ted: )s +ccessed, d)s3*+yed, 3erfor,ed, 4)e5ed,
co3)ed or d)str)buted6
h)s eBook )s for the use of +nyone +ny5here +t no cost +nd 5)th
+*,ost no restr)ct)ons 5h+tsoe4er. (ou ,+y co3y )t, g)4e )t +5+y or
re1use )t under the ter,s of the Project Gutenberg <)cense )nc*uded
5)th th)s eBook or on*)ne +t 555.gutenberg.net
-.E.@. "f +n )nd)4)du+* Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5ork )s
der)4ed
fro, the 3ub*)c do,+)n 8does not cont+)n + not)ce )nd)c+t)ng th+t )t
)s
3osted 5)th 3er,)ss)on of the co3yr)ght ho*der:, the 5ork c+n be
co3)ed
+nd d)str)buted to +nyone )n the &n)ted #t+tes 5)thout 3+y)ng +ny fees
or ch+rges. "f you +re red)str)but)ng or 3ro4)d)ng +ccess to + 5ork
5)th the 3hr+se >Project Gutenberg> +ssoc)+ted 5)th or +33e+r)ng on
the
5ork, you ,ust co,3*y e)ther 5)th the reAu)re,ents of 3+r+gr+3hs -.E.-
through -.E./ or obt+)n 3er,)ss)on for the use of the 5ork +nd the
Project Gutenberg1t, tr+de,+rk +s set forth )n 3+r+gr+3hs -.E.? or
-.E.0.
-.E.B. "f +n )nd)4)du+* Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5ork )s
3osted
5)th the 3er,)ss)on of the co3yr)ght ho*der, your use +nd d)str)but)on
,ust co,3*y 5)th both 3+r+gr+3hs -.E.- through -.E./ +nd +ny
+dd)t)on+*
ter,s ),3osed by the co3yr)ght ho*der. ;dd)t)on+* ter,s 5)** be
*)nked
to the Project Gutenberg1t, <)cense for +** 5orks 3osted 5)th the
3er,)ss)on of the co3yr)ght ho*der found +t the beg)nn)ng of th)s
5ork.
-.E.C. Do not un*)nk or det+ch or re,o4e the fu** Project Gutenberg1
t,
<)cense ter,s fro, th)s 5ork, or +ny f)*es cont+)n)ng + 3+rt of th)s
5ork or +ny other 5ork +ssoc)+ted 5)th Project Gutenberg1t,.
-.E.D. Do not co3y, d)s3*+y, 3erfor,, d)str)bute or red)str)bute th)s
e*ectron)c 5ork, or +ny 3+rt of th)s e*ectron)c 5ork, 5)thout
3ro,)nent*y d)s3*+y)ng the sentence set forth )n 3+r+gr+3h -.E.- 5)th
+ct)4e *)nks or ),,ed)+te +ccess to the fu** ter,s of the Project
Gutenberg1t, <)cense.
-.E... (ou ,+y con4ert to +nd d)str)bute th)s 5ork )n +ny b)n+ry,
co,3ressed, ,+rked u3, non3ro3r)et+ry or 3ro3r)et+ry for,, )nc*ud)ng
+ny
5ord 3rocess)ng or hy3ertext for,. !o5e4er, )f you 3ro4)de +ccess to
or
d)str)bute co3)es of + Project Gutenberg1t, 5ork )n + for,+t other
th+n
>P*+)n E+n)**+ ;#C""> or other for,+t used )n the off)c)+* 4ers)on
3osted on the off)c)+* Project Gutenberg1t, 5eb s)te
8555.gutenberg.net:,
you ,ust, +t no +dd)t)on+* cost, fee or ex3ense to the user, 3ro4)de +
co3y, + ,e+ns of ex3ort)ng + co3y, or + ,e+ns of obt+)n)ng + co3y u3on
reAuest, of the 5ork )n )ts or)g)n+* >P*+)n E+n)**+ ;#C""> or other
for,. ;ny +*tern+te for,+t ,ust )nc*ude the fu** Project Gutenberg1t,
<)cense +s s3ec)f)ed )n 3+r+gr+3h -.E.-.
-.E./. Do not ch+rge + fee for +ccess to, 4)e5)ng, d)s3*+y)ng,
3erfor,)ng, co3y)ng or d)str)but)ng +ny Project Gutenberg1t, 5orks
un*ess you co,3*y 5)th 3+r+gr+3h -.E.? or -.E.0.
-.E.?. (ou ,+y ch+rge + re+son+b*e fee for co3)es of or 3ro4)d)ng
+ccess to or d)str)but)ng Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks
3ro4)ded
th+t
1 (ou 3+y + roy+*ty fee of @FG of the gross 3rof)ts you der)4e fro,
the use of Project Gutenberg1t, 5orks c+*cu*+ted us)ng the ,ethod
you +*re+dy use to c+*cu*+te your +33*)c+b*e t+xes. he fee )s
o5ed to the o5ner of the Project Gutenberg1t, tr+de,+rk, but he
h+s +greed to don+te roy+*t)es under th)s 3+r+gr+3h to the
Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on. $oy+*ty 3+y,ents
,ust be 3+)d 5)th)n .F d+ys fo**o5)ng e+ch d+te on 5h)ch you
3re3+re 8or +re *eg+**y reAu)red to 3re3+re: your 3er)od)c t+x
returns. $oy+*ty 3+y,ents shou*d be c*e+r*y ,+rked +s such +nd
sent to the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on +t the
+ddress s3ec)f)ed )n #ect)on C, >"nfor,+t)on +bout don+t)ons to
the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on.>
1 (ou 3ro4)de + fu** refund of +ny ,oney 3+)d by + user 5ho not)f)es
you )n 5r)t)ng 8or by e1,+)*: 5)th)n BF d+ys of rece)3t th+t s7he
does not +gree to the ter,s of the fu** Project Gutenberg1t,
<)cense. (ou ,ust reAu)re such + user to return or
destroy +** co3)es of the 5orks 3ossessed )n + 3hys)c+* ,ed)u,
+nd d)scont)nue +** use of +nd +** +ccess to other co3)es of
Project Gutenberg1t, 5orks.
1 (ou 3ro4)de, )n +ccord+nce 5)th 3+r+gr+3h -.F.B, + fu** refund of
+ny
,oney 3+)d for + 5ork or + re3*+ce,ent co3y, )f + defect )n the
e*ectron)c 5ork )s d)sco4ered +nd re3orted to you 5)th)n 0F d+ys
of rece)3t of the 5ork.
1 (ou co,3*y 5)th +** other ter,s of th)s +gree,ent for free
d)str)but)on of Project Gutenberg1t, 5orks.
-.E.0. "f you 5)sh to ch+rge + fee or d)str)bute + Project Gutenberg1
t,
e*ectron)c 5ork or grou3 of 5orks on d)fferent ter,s th+n +re set
forth )n th)s +gree,ent, you ,ust obt+)n 3er,)ss)on )n 5r)t)ng fro,
both the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on +nd H)ch+e*
!+rt, the o5ner of the Project Gutenberg1t, tr+de,+rk. Cont+ct the
Found+t)on +s set forth )n #ect)on B be*o5.
-.F.
-.F.-. Project Gutenberg 4o*unteers +nd e,3*oyees ex3end cons)der+b*e
effort to )dent)fy, do co3yr)ght rese+rch on, tr+nscr)be +nd 3roofre+d
3ub*)c do,+)n 5orks )n cre+t)ng the Project Gutenberg1t,
co**ect)on. Des3)te these efforts, Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c
5orks, +nd the ,ed)u, on 5h)ch they ,+y be stored, ,+y cont+)n
>Defects,> such +s, but not *),)ted to, )nco,3*ete, )n+ccur+te or
corru3t d+t+, tr+nscr)3t)on errors, + co3yr)ght or other )nte**ectu+*
3ro3erty )nfr)nge,ent, + defect)4e or d+,+ged d)sk or other ,ed)u,, +
co,3uter 4)rus, or co,3uter codes th+t d+,+ge or c+nnot be re+d by
your eAu)3,ent.
-.F.@. <"H"ED =;$$;N(, D"#C<;"HE$ OF D;H;GE# 1 Exce3t for the
>$)ght
of $e3*+ce,ent or $efund> descr)bed )n 3+r+gr+3h -.F.B, the Project
Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on, the o5ner of the Project
Gutenberg1t, tr+de,+rk, +nd +ny other 3+rty d)str)but)ng + Project
Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5ork under th)s +gree,ent, d)sc*+), +**
*)+b)*)ty to you for d+,+ges, costs +nd ex3enses, )nc*ud)ng *eg+*
fees. (O& ;G$EE !; (O& !;EE NO $EHED"E# FO$ NEG<"GENCE, #$"C
<";B"<"(, B$E;C! OF =;$$;N( O$ B$E;C! OF CON$;C E'CEP !O#E
P$OE"DED "N P;$;G$;P! FB. (O& ;G$EE !; !E FO&ND;"ON, !E
$;DEH;$K O=NE$, ;ND ;N( D"#$"B&O$ &NDE$ !"# ;G$EEHEN ="<< NO BE
<";B<E O (O& FO$ ;C&;<, D"$EC, "ND"$EC, CON#EI&EN";<, P&N""EE O$
"NC"DEN;< D;H;GE# EEEN "F (O& G"EE NO"CE OF !E PO##"B"<"( OF #&C!
D;H;GE.
-.F.B. <"H"ED $"G! OF $EP<;CEHEN O$ $EF&ND 1 "f you d)sco4er +
defect )n th)s e*ectron)c 5ork 5)th)n 0F d+ys of rece)4)ng )t, you c+n
rece)4e + refund of the ,oney 8)f +ny: you 3+)d for )t by send)ng +
5r)tten ex3*+n+t)on to the 3erson you rece)4ed the 5ork fro,. "f you
rece)4ed the 5ork on + 3hys)c+* ,ed)u,, you ,ust return the ,ed)u,
5)th
your 5r)tten ex3*+n+t)on. he 3erson or ent)ty th+t 3ro4)ded you 5)th
the defect)4e 5ork ,+y e*ect to 3ro4)de + re3*+ce,ent co3y )n *)eu of
+
refund. "f you rece)4ed the 5ork e*ectron)c+**y, the 3erson or ent)ty
3ro4)d)ng )t to you ,+y choose to g)4e you + second o33ortun)ty to
rece)4e the 5ork e*ectron)c+**y )n *)eu of + refund. "f the second
co3y
)s +*so defect)4e, you ,+y de,+nd + refund )n 5r)t)ng 5)thout further
o33ortun)t)es to f)x the 3rob*e,.
-.F.C. Exce3t for the *),)ted r)ght of re3*+ce,ent or refund set
forth
)n 3+r+gr+3h -.F.B, th)s 5ork )s 3ro4)ded to you J;#1"#J ="! NO O!E$
=;$$;N"E# OF ;N( K"ND, E'P$E## O$ "HP<"ED, "NC<&D"NG B& NO <"H"ED
O
=;$$;N"E# OF HE$C!;N"B"<"( O$ F"NE## FO$ ;N( P&$PO#E.
-.F.D. #o,e st+tes do not +**o5 d)sc*+),ers of cert+)n ),3*)ed
5+rr+nt)es or the exc*us)on or *),)t+t)on of cert+)n ty3es of d+,+ges.
"f +ny d)sc*+),er or *),)t+t)on set forth )n th)s +gree,ent 4)o*+tes
the
*+5 of the st+te +33*)c+b*e to th)s +gree,ent, the +gree,ent sh+** be
)nter3reted to ,+ke the ,+x),u, d)sc*+),er or *),)t+t)on 3er,)tted by
the +33*)c+b*e st+te *+5. he )n4+*)d)ty or unenforce+b)*)ty of +ny
3ro4)s)on of th)s +gree,ent sh+** not 4o)d the re,+)n)ng 3ro4)s)ons.
-.F... "NDEHN"( 1 (ou +gree to )nde,n)fy +nd ho*d the Found+t)on,
the
tr+de,+rk o5ner, +ny +gent or e,3*oyee of the Found+t)on, +nyone
3ro4)d)ng co3)es of Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks )n
+ccord+nce
5)th th)s +gree,ent, +nd +ny 4o*unteers +ssoc)+ted 5)th the
3roduct)on,
3ro,ot)on +nd d)str)but)on of Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c 5orks,
h+r,*ess fro, +** *)+b)*)ty, costs +nd ex3enses, )nc*ud)ng *eg+* fees,
th+t +r)se d)rect*y or )nd)rect*y fro, +ny of the fo**o5)ng 5h)ch you
do
or c+use to occur6 8+: d)str)but)on of th)s or +ny Project Gutenberg1
t,
5ork, 8b: +*ter+t)on, ,od)f)c+t)on, or +dd)t)ons or de*et)ons to +ny
Project Gutenberg1t, 5ork, +nd 8c: +ny Defect you c+use.
#ect)on @. "nfor,+t)on +bout the H)ss)on of Project Gutenberg1t,
Project Gutenberg1t, )s synony,ous 5)th the free d)str)but)on of
e*ectron)c 5orks )n for,+ts re+d+b*e by the 5)dest 4+r)ety of
co,3uters
)nc*ud)ng obso*ete, o*d, ,)dd*e1+ged +nd ne5 co,3uters. "t ex)sts
bec+use of the efforts of hundreds of 4o*unteers +nd don+t)ons fro,
3eo3*e )n +** 5+*ks of *)fe.
Eo*unteers +nd f)n+nc)+* su33ort to 3ro4)de 4o*unteers 5)th the
+ss)st+nce they need, )s cr)t)c+* to re+ch)ng Project Gutenberg1t,Js
go+*s +nd ensur)ng th+t the Project Gutenberg1t, co**ect)on 5)**
re,+)n free*y +4+)*+b*e for gener+t)ons to co,e. "n @FF-, the Project
Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on 5+s cre+ted to 3ro4)de + secure
+nd 3er,+nent future for Project Gutenberg1t, +nd future gener+t)ons.
o *e+rn ,ore +bout the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on
+nd ho5 your efforts +nd don+t)ons c+n he*3, see #ect)ons B +nd C
+nd the Found+t)on 5eb 3+ge +t htt3677555.3g*+f.org.
#ect)on B. "nfor,+t)on +bout the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e
Found+t)on
he Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on )s + non 3rof)t
DF-8c:8B: educ+t)on+* cor3or+t)on org+n)2ed under the *+5s of the
st+te of H)ss)ss)33) +nd gr+nted t+x exe,3t st+tus by the "ntern+*
$e4enue #er4)ce. he Found+t)onJs E"N or feder+* t+x )dent)f)c+t)on
nu,ber )s .C1.@@-DC-. "ts DF-8c:8B: *etter )s 3osted +t
htt36773g*+f.org7fundr+)s)ng. Contr)but)ons to the Project Gutenberg
<)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on +re t+x deduct)b*e to the fu** extent
3er,)tted by &.#. feder+* *+5s +nd your st+teJs *+5s.
he Found+t)onJs 3r)nc)3+* off)ce )s *oc+ted +t CDD/ He*+n Dr. #.
F+)rb+nks, ;K, 00/-@., but )ts 4o*unteers +nd e,3*oyees +re sc+ttered
throughout nu,erous *oc+t)ons. "ts bus)ness off)ce )s *oc+ted +t
?F0 North -DFF =est, #+*t <+ke C)ty, & ?C--., 8?F-: D0.1-??/, e,+)*
bus)nessK3g*+f.org. E,+)* cont+ct *)nks +nd u3 to d+te cont+ct
)nfor,+t)on c+n be found +t the Found+t)onJs 5eb s)te +nd off)c)+*
3+ge +t htt36773g*+f.org
For +dd)t)on+* cont+ct )nfor,+t)on6
Dr. Gregory B. Ne5by
Ch)ef Execut)4e +nd D)rector
gbne5byK3g*+f.org
#ect)on C. "nfor,+t)on +bout Don+t)ons to the Project Gutenberg
<)ter+ry ;rch)4e Found+t)on
Project Gutenberg1t, de3ends u3on +nd c+nnot sur4)4e 5)thout 5)de
s3re+d 3ub*)c su33ort +nd don+t)ons to c+rry out )ts ,)ss)on of
)ncre+s)ng the nu,ber of 3ub*)c do,+)n +nd *)censed 5orks th+t c+n be
free*y d)str)buted )n ,+ch)ne re+d+b*e for, +ccess)b*e by the 5)dest
+rr+y of eAu)3,ent )nc*ud)ng outd+ted eAu)3,ent. H+ny s,+** don+t)ons
8L- to LD,FFF: +re 3+rt)cu*+r*y ),3ort+nt to ,+)nt+)n)ng t+x exe,3t
st+tus 5)th the "$#.
he Found+t)on )s co,,)tted to co,3*y)ng 5)th the *+5s regu*+t)ng
ch+r)t)es +nd ch+r)t+b*e don+t)ons )n +** DF st+tes of the &n)ted
#t+tes. Co,3*)+nce reAu)re,ents +re not un)for, +nd )t t+kes +
cons)der+b*e effort, ,uch 3+3er5ork +nd ,+ny fees to ,eet +nd kee3 u3
5)th these reAu)re,ents. =e do not so*)c)t don+t)ons )n *oc+t)ons
5here 5e h+4e not rece)4ed 5r)tten conf)r,+t)on of co,3*)+nce. o
#END DON;"ON# or deter,)ne the st+tus of co,3*)+nce for +ny
3+rt)cu*+r st+te 4)s)t htt36773g*+f.org
=h)*e 5e c+nnot +nd do not so*)c)t contr)but)ons fro, st+tes 5here 5e
h+4e not ,et the so*)c)t+t)on reAu)re,ents, 5e kno5 of no 3roh)b)t)on
+g+)nst +cce3t)ng unso*)c)ted don+t)ons fro, donors )n such st+tes 5ho
+33ro+ch us 5)th offers to don+te.
"ntern+t)on+* don+t)ons +re gr+tefu**y +cce3ted, but 5e c+nnot ,+ke
+ny st+te,ents concern)ng t+x tre+t,ent of don+t)ons rece)4ed fro,
outs)de the &n)ted #t+tes. &.#. *+5s +*one s5+,3 our s,+** st+ff.
P*e+se check the Project Gutenberg =eb 3+ges for current don+t)on
,ethods +nd +ddresses. Don+t)ons +re +cce3ted )n + nu,ber of other
5+ys )nc*ud)ng )nc*ud)ng checks, on*)ne 3+y,ents +nd cred)t c+rd
don+t)ons. o don+te, 3*e+se 4)s)t6 htt36773g*+f.org7don+te
#ect)on D. Gener+* "nfor,+t)on ;bout Project Gutenberg1t, e*ectron)c
5orks.
Professor H)ch+e* #. !+rt )s the or)g)n+tor of the Project Gutenberg1
t,
conce3t of + *)br+ry of e*ectron)c 5orks th+t cou*d be free*y sh+red
5)th +nyone. For th)rty ye+rs, he 3roduced +nd d)str)buted Project
Gutenberg1t, eBooks 5)th on*y + *oose net5ork of 4o*unteer su33ort.
Project Gutenberg1t, eBooks +re often cre+ted fro, se4er+* 3r)nted
ed)t)ons, +** of 5h)ch +re conf)r,ed +s Pub*)c Do,+)n )n the &.#.
un*ess + co3yr)ght not)ce )s )nc*uded. hus, 5e do not necess+r)*y
kee3 eBooks )n co,3*)+nce 5)th +ny 3+rt)cu*+r 3+3er ed)t)on.
Host 3eo3*e st+rt +t our =eb s)te 5h)ch h+s the ,+)n PG se+rch
f+c)*)ty6
htt3677555.gutenberg.net
h)s =eb s)te )nc*udes )nfor,+t)on +bout Project Gutenberg1t,,
)nc*ud)ng ho5 to ,+ke don+t)ons to the Project Gutenberg <)ter+ry
;rch)4e Found+t)on, ho5 to he*3 3roduce our ne5 eBooks, +nd ho5 to
subscr)be to our e,+)* ne5s*etter to he+r +bout ne5 eBooks.