Heretics (G.K. Chesterton) 38：第九章第1-2段

IX. The Moods of Mr. George Moore

Mr. George Moore began his literary career by writing his personal confessions; nor is there any harm in this if he had not continued them for the remainder of his life. He is a man of genuinely forcible mind and of great command over a kind of rhetorical and fugitive conviction which excites and pleases. He is in a perpetual state of temporary honesty. He has admired all the most admirable modern eccentrics until they could stand it no longer. Everything he writes, it is to be fully admitted, has a genuine mental power. His account of his reason for leaving the Roman Catholic Church is possibly the most admirable tribute to that communion which has been written of late years. For the fact of the matter is, that the weakness which has rendered barren the many brilliancies of Mr. Moore is actually that weakness which the Roman Catholic Church is at its best in combating. Mr. Moore hates Catholicism because it breaks up the house of looking-glasses in which he lives. Mr. Moore does not dislike so much being asked to believe in the spiritual existence of miracles or sacraments, but he does fundamentally dislike being asked to believe in the actual existence of other people. Like his master Pater and all the aesthetes, his real quarrel with life is that it is not a dream that can be moulded by the dreamer. It is not the dogma of the reality of the other world that troubles him, but the dogma of the reality of this world.

第九章：喬治摩爾先生的情緒

喬治摩爾以書寫個人的懺悔展開其文學生涯。其實倘若他不是接下來終其一生都以此作為寫作主題的話，這本來也無傷大雅。他極具說服力，並且極能掌握可激起情感、討好人的煽惑信念，他永遠都處於一種暫時誠實的狀態。他崇敬當代所有最令人肅然起敬的奇人異事，直到他們再也無法忍受。不得不承認，他寫的一切作品都具有真實的心智力量。他對自己離開天主教的理由的敘述，或許是近年來對這神聖群體最崇高的禮讚。事實上，阻擾摩爾許多才華未能大放異彩的弱點，正是天主教會最擅長對抗的。摩爾憎恨天主教，因為它破壞了他寄居生存、以鏡子構成的房屋。摩爾對於被要求去相信奇蹟或聖禮的靈性實存並不反感，但他實在厭惡被要求去相信其他人的實際存在。像他的老師佩特（譯注：Walter Pater，1839-1894，英國作家）以及所有唯美主義者一樣，他對生命最大的不滿，在於生命不是一個可被做夢的人雕塑的夢。讓他生厭心煩的不是另一個世界實存的教條，而是關於這個世界之現實的教條。

The truth is that the tradition of Christianity (which is still the only coherent ethic of Europe) rests on two or three paradoxes or mysteries which can easily be impugned in argument and as easily justified in life. One of them, for instance, is the paradox of hope or faith—that the more hopeless is the situation the more hopeful must be the man. Stevenson understood this, and consequently Mr. Moore cannot understand Stevenson. Another is the paradox of charity or chivalry that the weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, that the more indefensible a thing is the more it should appeal to us for a certain kind of defence. Thackeray understood this, and therefore Mr. Moore does not understand Thackeray. Now, one of these very practical and working mysteries in the Christian tradition, and one which the Roman Catholic Church, as I say, has done her best work in singling out, is the conception of the sinfulness of pride. Pride is a weakness in the character; it dries up laughter, it dries up wonder, it dries up chivalry and energy. The Christian tradition understands this; therefore Mr. Moore does not understand the Christian tradition.

事實是，基督教傳統（至今仍是歐洲唯一邏輯一致的倫理論述）的基礎是幾個在辯論中常容易被質疑，但在生活中卻可被證實的悖論（paradox）與奧秘。例如，盼望的悖論，或是信仰的悖論，便是其中之一，盼望或信仰的矛盾處在於愈是在無盼望的處境下，人愈應該懷抱希望。Stevenson明白這點，因此摩爾無法理解Stevenson。另一個例子，是關於施予或可稱為騎士精神的悖論——愈是脆弱的弱者，愈是需要被尊重；愈是無能為力抵禦防衛自己的事物，愈需要我們介入提供保護。Thackeray明白這點，因此 摩爾無法理解Thackeray。在基督教傳統諸多相當務實與實際運作的奧義裡，有一個難解的教理被天主教會恰當地凸顯出來，這教理就是對驕傲的罪性的概念。驕傲是人格的弱點，它吸乾喜悅，消滅驚奇，耗損騎士精神與能量。基督教傳統明白這點，因此摩爾無法理解基督教。