Is the charge true? I think it is; but while making it, we must be quite clear as to what we mean by hypocrisy? Well, the English are comparatively guiltless of this; they have little of the Renaissance villain about them. Do we mean unconscious deceit? Muddle-headedness? Of this believe them to be guilty. When an Englishman has been led into a course of wrong action, he has nearly always begun by muddling himself. A public-school education does not make for mental clearness, and he possesses to a very high degree the power of confusing his own mind. We have seen this tendency at work in the domain of theology; how does it work in the domain of conduct?
這項指控公正嗎?我想是公正的;但是當我們進行指控時,我們必須清楚何為虛偽。虛偽是否意味著有意識的欺騙?如果是,那么英國人是無辜的,英國人中不存在文藝復興式的反派人物。虛偽是否意味著無意識的欺騙?糊涂蟲?如果是,那么我相信英國人是有罪的。當一個英國人被引入歧途時,他幾乎總是從犯糊涂開始。公學教育沒有賦予學生清楚的頭腦,而且他很容易使自己的思維混淆。我們在神學領域看到了這一傾向,在行為學領域是否也如此?
Jane Austen may seem an odd authority to cite, but Jane Austen has, within her limits, marvelous insight into the English mind. Her range is limited, her characters never attempt any of the more scarlet sins. But she has a merciless eye for questions of conduct, and the classical example of two English people muddling themselves before they embark upon a wrong course of action is to be found in the opening chapters of Sense and Sensibility. Old Mr. Dashwood has just died. He has been twice married. By his first marriage he has a son, John; by his second marriage three daughters. The son is well off; the young ladies and their mother—for Mr. Dashwood's second wife survives him—are badly off. He has called his son to his death-bed and has solemnly adjured him to provide for the second family. Much moved, the young man promises, and mentally decides to give each of his sisters a thousand pounds: and then the comedy begins. For he announces his enerous intention to his wife, and Mrs. John Dashwood by no means approves of depriving their own little boy of so large a sum. The thousand pounds are accordingly reduced to five hundred. But even this seems rather much. Might not an annuity to the stepmother be less of a wrench? Yes—but though less of wrench it might be more of drain, for "she is very stout and healthy, and scarcely forty." An occasional present of fifty pounds will be better, "and will, I think, be amply discharging my promise to my father." Or, better still, an occasional present of fish. And in the end nothing is done, nothing; the four impecunious ladies are not even helped in the moving of their furniture.
這里把簡·奧斯汀作為權威來引用似乎有些奇怪,但是簡·奧斯汀已經在她有限的范圍內非凡地洞察了英國人的思維。她的世界是有限的,而她筆下的人物也從未犯過任何重罪。但是在觀察行為問題時,她的目光尖銳無情。她的小說《理智與情感》的前幾章提供了一個經典例子,使我們看到兩個英國人在走上一條錯誤道路之前是如何先犯糊涂的。老達什伍德先生剛剛去世。他有過兩次婚姻,第一次婚姻為他留下一個兒子約翰,第二次婚姻為他留下三個女兒。他的兒子富有,而比他長壽的第二個妻子和三個女兒則貧困。他把兒子叫到病榻前鄭重地將一家人托付給他。備受感動的年輕人答應了父親的要求,并暗下決心給每個妹妹1000英鎊,隨后喜劇性的情節開始了。由于約翰·達什伍德向妻子宣布了自己慷慨的意圖,而太太當然不同意讓別人來剝奪自己兒子的財產。于是1000英鎊減少為500英鎊。即使這個數目也太多了,那么向繼母支付贍養費會不會減少失財的痛苦?會的,但是減少痛苦會增加支出,因為“她現在相當強壯、健康,而且還不到40歲”。偶爾給她50英鎊作為禮物也許更好,“而且,我認為,我也完全履行了對父親的諾言。最好什么都不給,反正父親已經死了。最終什么都沒有,什么都沒有,甚至沒有幫四位身無分文的女士搬運家具。