按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
of an army； while Nietzsche； for all we know； was afraid of a cow。
Tolstoy only praised the peasant； she was the peasant。 Nietzsche only
praised the warrior； she was the warrior。 She beat them both at
their own antagonistic ideals； she was more gentle than the one；
more violent than the other。 Yet she was a perfectly practical person
who did something； while they are wild speculators who do nothing。
It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she
and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility
that has been lost。 And with that thought came a larger one；
and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre
of my thoughts。 The same modern difficulty which darkened the
subject…matter of Anatole France also darkened that of Ernest Renan。
Renan also divided his hero's pity from his hero's pugnacity。
Renan even represented the righteous anger at Jerusalem as a mere
nervous breakdown after the idyllic expectations of Galilee。
As if there were any inconsistency between having a love for
humanity and having a hatred for inhumanity！ Altruists； with thin；
weak voices； denounce Christ as an egoist。 Egoists （with
even thinner and weaker voices） denounce Him as an altruist。
In our present atmosphere such cavils are comprehensible enough。
The love of a hero is more terrible than the hatred of a tyrant。
The hatred of a hero is more generous than the love of a philanthropist。
There is a huge and heroic sanity of which moderns can only collect
the fragments。 There is a giant of whom we see only the lopped
arms and legs walking about。 They have torn the soul of Christ
into silly strips； labelled egoism and altruism； and they are
equally puzzled by His insane magnificence and His insane meekness。
They have parted His garments among them； and for His vesture they
have cast lots； though the coat was without seam woven from the top
throughout。
IV THE ETHICS OF ELFLAND
When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office…boy； it
is commonly in some such speech as this： 〃Ah； yes； when one is young；
one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air；
but in middle age they all break up like clouds； and one comes down
to a belief in practical politics； to using the machinery one has
and getting on with the world as it is。〃 Thus； at least； venerable and
philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves used to talk to me
when I was a boy。 But since then I have grown up and have discovered
that these philanthropic old men were telling lies。 What has really
happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen。
They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the
methods of practical politicians。 Now； I have not lost my ideals
in the least； my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was。
What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics。
I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon；
but I am not so much concerned about the General Election。
As a babe I leapt up on my mother's knee at the mere mention
of it。 No； the vision is always solid and reliable。 The vision
is always a fact。 It is the reality that is often a fraud。
As much as I ever did； more than I ever did； I believe in Liberalism。
But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals。
I take this instance of one of the enduring faiths because；
having now to trace the roots of my personal speculation；
this may be counted； I think； as the only positive bias。
I was brought up a Liberal； and have always believed in democracy；
in the elementary liberal doctrine of a self…governing humanity。
If any one finds the phrase vague or threadbare； I can only pause
for a moment to explain that the principle of democracy； as I
mean it； can be stated in two propositions。 The first is this：
that the things common to all men are more important than the
things peculiar to any men。 Ordinary things are more valuable
than extraordinary things； nay； they are more extraordinary。
Man is something more awful than men； something more strange。
The sense of the miracle of humanity itself should be always more vivid
to us than any marvels of power； intellect； art； or civilization。
The mere man on two legs； as such； should be felt as something more
heartbreaking than any music and more startling than any caricature。
Death is more tragic even than death by starvation。 Having a nose
is more comic even than having a Norman nose。
This is the first principle of democracy： that the essential
things in men are the things they hold in common； not the things
they hold separately。 And the second principle is merely this：
that the political instinct or desire is one of these things
which they hold in common。 Falling in love is more poetical than
dropping into poetry。 The democratic contention is that government
（helping to rule the tribe） is a thing like falling in love；
and not a thing like dropping into poetry。 It is not something
analogous to playing the church organ； painting on vellum；
discovering the North Pole （that insidious habit）； looping the loop；
being Astronomer Royal； and so on。 For these things we do not wish
a man to do at all unless he does them well。 It is； on the contrary；
a thing analogous to writing one's own love…letters or blowing
one's own nose。 These things we want a man to do for himself；
even if he does them badly。 I am not here arguing the truth of any
of these conceptions； I know that some moderns are asking to have
their wives chosen by scientists； and they may soon be asking；
for all I know； to have their noses blown by nurses。 I merely
say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions；
and that democracy classes government among them。 In short；
the democratic faith is this： that the most terribly important things
must be left to ordinary men themselvesthe mating of the sexes；
the rearing of the young； the laws of the state。 This is democracy；
and in this I have always believed。
But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been
able to understand。 I have never been able to understand where people
got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition。
It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time。
It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to
some isolated or arbitrary record。 The man who quotes some German
historian against the tradition of the C