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！
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 miracle in any age。 If a man believes in a will behind law；
he can believe in any miracle in any age。 Suppose； for the sake
of argument； we are concerned with a case of thaumaturgic healing。
A materialist of the twelfth century could not believe it any more
than a materialist of the twentieth century。 But a Christian
Scientist of the twentieth century can believe it as much as a
Christian of the twelfth century。 It is simply a matter of a man's
theory of things。 Therefore in dealing with any historical answer；
the point is not whether it was given in our time； but whether it
was given in answer to our question。 And the more I thought about
when and how Christianity had come into the world； the more I felt
that it had actually come to answer this question。
It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay
quite indefensible compliments to Christianity。 They talk as if
there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came；
a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them。
They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it
was the first to preach simplicity or self…restraint； or inwardness
and sincerity。 They will think me very narrow （whatever that means）
if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it
was the first to preach Christianity。 Its peculiarity was that it
was peculiar； and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar；
but obvious ideals for all mankind。 Christianity was the answer
to a riddle； not the last truism uttered after a long talk。
Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone
this remark； that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma
（as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones）；
turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light。
Now； if I were to say that Christianity came into the world
specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light； that would
be an exaggeration。 But it would be very much nearer to the truth。
The last Stoics； like Marcus Aurelius； were exactly the people
who did believe in the Inner Light。 Their dignity； their weariness；
their sad external care for others； their incurable internal care
for themselves； were all due to the Inner Light； and existed only
by that dismal illumination。 Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists；
as such introspective moralists always do； upon small things done
or undone； it is because he has not hate or love enough to make
a moral revolution。 He gets up early in the morning； just as our
own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning；
because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games
of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land。
Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types。 He is an
unself