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！
but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist？ Is he enough of a
pagan to die for the world； and enough of a Christian to die to it？
In this combination； I maintain； it is the rational optimist who fails；
the irrational optimist who succeeds。 He is ready to smash the whole
universe for the sake of itself。
I put these things not in their mature logical sequence； but as
they came： and this view was cleared and sharpened by an accident
of the time。 Under the lengthening shadow of Ibsen； an argument
arose whether it was not a very nice thing to murder one's self。
Grave moderns told us that we must not even say 〃poor fellow；〃
of a man who had blown his brains out； since he was an enviable person；
and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence。
Mr。 William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there
would be penny…in…the…slot machines； by which a man could kill
himself for a penny。 In all this I found myself utterly hostile
to many who called themselves liberal and humane。 Not only is
suicide a sin； it is the sin。 It is the ultimate and absolute evil；
the refusal to take an interest in existence； the refusal to take
the oath of loyalty to life。 The man who kills a man； kills a man。
The man who kills himself； kills all men； as far as he is concerned
he wipes out the world。 His act is worse （symbolically considered）
than any rape or dynamite outrage。 For it destroys all buildings：
it insults all women。 The thief is satisfied with diamonds；
but the suicide is not： that is his crime。 He cannot be bribed；
even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City。 The thief
compliments the things he steals； if not the owner of them。
But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it。
He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake。
There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death
is not a sneer。 When a man hangs himself on a tree； the leaves
might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury：
for each has received a personal affront。 Of course there may be
pathetic emotional excuses for the act。 There often are for rape；
and there almost always are for dynamite。 But if it comes to clear
ideas and the intelligent meaning of things； then there is much
more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross…roads
and the stake driven through the body； than in Mr。 Archer's suicidal
automatic machines。 There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart。
The man's crime is different from other crimesfor it makes even
crimes impossible。
About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker：
he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr。 The open
fallacy of this helped to clear the question。 Obviously a suicide
is the opposite of a martyr。 A martyr is a man who cares so much
for something outside him； that he forgets his own personal life。
A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him；
that he wants to see the last of everything。 One wants something
to begin： the other wants everything to end。 In other words；
the martyr is noble； exactly because （however he renounces the world
or execrates all humanity） he confesses this ultimate link with life；
he sets his heart outside himself： he dies that something may live。
The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being：
he is a mere destroyer； spiritually； he destroys the universe。
And then I remembered the stake and the cross…roads； and the queer
fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide。
For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr。
Historic Christianity was accused； not entirely without reason；
of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point； desolate
and pessimistic。 The early Christian martyrs talked of death
with a horrible happiness。 They blasphemed the beautiful duties
of the body： they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers。
All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism。 Yet there
is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of
the pessimist。
This was the first of the long train of enigmas with which
Christianity entered the discussion。 And there went with it a
peculiarity of which I shall have to speak more markedly； as a note
of all Christian notions； but which distinctly began in this one。
The Christian attitude to the martyr and the suicide was not what is
so often affirmed in modern morals。 It was not a matter of degree。
It was not that a line must be drawn somewhere； and that the
self…slayer in exaltation fell within the line； the self…slayer
in sadness just beyond it。 The Christian feeling evidently
was not merely that the suicide was carrying martyrdom too far。
The Christian feeling was furiously for one and furiously against
the other： these two things that looked so much alike were at
opposite ends of heaven and hell。 One man flung away his life；
he was so good that his dry bones could heal cities in pestilence。
Another man flung away life； he was so bad that his bones would
pollute his brethren's。 I am not saying this fierceness was right；
but why was it so fierce？
Here it was that I first found that my wandering feet were
in some beaten track。 Christianity had also felt this opposition
of the martyr to the suicide： had it perhaps felt it for the
same reason？ Had Christianity felt what I felt； but could not
（and cannot） expressthis need for a first loyalty to things；
and then for a ruinous reform of things？ Then I remembered
that it was actually the charge against Christianity that it
combined these two things which I was wildly trying to combine。
Christianity was accused； at one and the same time； of being
too optimistic about the universe and of being too pessimistic
about the world。 The coincidence made me suddenly stand still。
An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying
that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot
be held in another。 Some dogma； we are told； was credible
in the twelfth century； but is not credible in the twentieth。
You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed
on Mondays； but cannot be believed on Tuesdays。 You might as well
say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half…past three；
but not suitable to half…past four。 What a man can believe
depends upon his philosophy； not upon the clock or the century。
If a man believes in unalterable natural law； he cannot believe
in any mirac