Collected Letters Volume Two: Books, Broadcasts and War, 1931–1949. Walter Hooper

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ private citizen the same right and duty of deciding the justice of a given war which rests on governments; and I submit that the rules for determining what wars are just³⁵ were originally rules for the guidance of princes, not subjects. This does not mean that private persons must obey governments commanding them to do what they know is sin; but perhaps it does mean (I write it with some reluctance) that the ultimate decision as to what the situation at a given moment is in the highly complex field of international affairs is one which must be delegated.

      No doubt we must make every effort which the constitution allows to ensure a good government and to influence public opinion; but in the long run, the nation, as a nation, must act, and it can act only through its government. (It must be remembered that there are risks in both directions: if war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful.) What is the alternative? That individuals ignorant of history and strategy should decide for themselves whether condition 6 (‘a considerable probability of winning’) is, or is not, fulfilled?—or that every citizen, neglecting his own vocation and not weighing his capacity, is to become an expert on all the relevant, and often technical, problems?

      Decisions by the private conscience of each Christian in the light of Mr Mascall’s six rules would divide Christians from each other and result in no clear Christian witness to the pagan world around us. But a clear Christian witness might be attained in a different way. If all Christians consented to bear arms at the command of the magistrate, and if all, after that, refused to obey anti-Christian orders, should we not get a clear issue? A man is much more certain that he ought not to murder prisoners or bomb civilians than he ever can be about the justice of a war. It is perhaps here that ‘conscientious objection’ ought to begin. I feel certain that one Christian airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civilians would be a more effective martyr (in the etymological sense of the word) than a hundred Christians in jail for refusing to join the army.

      Christendom has made two efforts to deal with the evil of war-chivalry and pacifism. Neither succeeded. But I doubt whether chivalry has such an unbroken record of failure as pacifism.

      The question is a very dark one. I should welcome about equally refutation, or development, of what I have said.

      I am, sir,

      Your obedient servant,

      C. S. Lewis

      For some years Lewis had been concerned about what he regarded as the ‘inordinate esteem of culture’³⁶ by such unbelieving literary critics as Matthew Arnold, Benedetto Croce, I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis. The latter wanted to see culture made the basis of a humane society, and to this end he founded Scrutiny. The editors of this periodical, which ran from 1932 to 1953, expressed a belief in ‘a necessary relationship between the quality of the individual’s response to art and his general fitness for a humane existence’.³⁷

      Lewis was appalled to find this ‘inordinate esteem’ expressed in the pages o/Theology. In an essay entitled ‘The Necessity of Scrutiny’, published in the issue of March, 1939, the Anglican monk Brother George Every SSM,³⁸ after paying tribute to the literary beliefs of Leavis, D. H. Lawrence and T. S. Eliot, asked: ‘What are Mr Eliot’s admirers to think of a church where those who seem to be theologically equipped prefer the late Professor Housman, Mr Charles Morgan, and Miss Dorothy Sayers, to Lawrence, Joyce and Mr E. M. Forster?’ This essay would eventually lead Lewis to write one of his most valuable works of literary criticism, ‘Christianity and Culture’.

       TO ALEC VIDLER (BOD):

      Magdalen College

      Oxford

      March 11th 1939

      Dear Mr. Vidler

      I enclose (1) Corrected proof of article on Taliessin. (2) A letter about Christianity and war for your consideration.³⁹ If you think it worth printing (and I am not sure that it is) I believe the MS. will be clear enough for the printer: but if not, get it typed and tell me how much I owe you for the job.

      I have been ill or I would before now have answered your letter suggesting an early meeting of the ‘literary collaborators’. I should have great pleasure in attending this if it takes place. At the same time I ought to warn you that each number makes it clear to me that my only use to you in literary matters can be that of permanent opposition, for I find myself in sharp disagreement with Mr Roberts and Brother Every. It will be for you to decide when the limits of useful disagreement have been passed—if you eject me I shall not feel in the least ill used. The hint in Brother Every’s paper that good taste is essential to salvation seemed to me precisely one of our greatest enemies in this age of intellectual converts-there is a danger of making Christianity itself appear as one more highbrow fad.

      Don’t bother answering this at present. I write it only because I don’t want you to buy a pig in a poke.

      Yours sincerely

      C. S. Lewis

       Dr Vidler nevertheless replied to Lewis on 14 March:

      I am grateful for your warning…There seems a danger that Theology may be falling into the hands of a certain literary clique, but I am determined to avoid that, if possible. It so happens that George Every was one of the first to urge upon me the importance of giving attention in Theology to literary matters, and he made many suggestions…While I wish Every and his friends to have an opportunity of saying what they want to say, I do not intend that Theology shall be an exclusive organ for their views, and I shall welcome any opportunity of making this clear. The best way no doubt will be to publish articles from other points of view.

       TO ALEC VIDLER (BOD):

      Magdalen College

      Oxford

      March 16th 1939

      Dear Mr Vidler

      Sorry to have imposed such a long letter on you: this one will need no answer. As long as I can occasionally contribute an article on the opposite side, I am quite content.

      Yours sincerely

      C. S. Lewis

       TO MARY NEYLAN (T):

      The Kilns,

      Headington Quarry,

      Oxford.

      March 21st 1939.

      Dear Mrs Neylan

      Miss Moore and I are both very much obliged to you: she looks forward with great pleasure to seeing the school under such privileged conditions.⁴⁰

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, СКАЧАТЬ