DIGNITY AND INDIGNITY.
ONE of the ablest journalists of our day writes to us on the subject of the article on "Episcopal Bicyclists," expressing his profound disagreement with the central idea of that article in the following terms :—" I think a Bishop bicycling is like a Bishop waltzing, a man doing an innocent act, and destroying his dignity in doing it. You may say that is mere convention. But then, so is the Bishop himself. Society exists by virtue of certain conventions. One of them is that a dignified position requires a dignified demeanour. However, the world is against me, so I bow and submit, only hoping that no Bishop will bicycle down a cathedral. There is no reason why he shouldn't, if he is late." Now, there, we think that the writer misunderstands the position taken up in the article to which he refers. The word " dignity " simply expresses an outward manner,—a manner " worthy " of the inward purpose and drift of the life of which it is the expres- sion. The word " dignum " in the most impressive and solemn Latin sentence, " Vere dignum et justum eat, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper et ubique, gratias agere, Domine sancte, pater omnipotens, aeterne Dens," is translated in our Communion Service by the word "meet," and in effect declares therefore that any demeanour is dignified which is " meet " or appropriate to the divine purpose by which it is inspired, just as giving thanks to God is " meet " for those who deeply feel the greatness of the Christian revelation. So far we go with our critic, but the question is what is "meet," what is truly dignified in a man whose main purpose is the spreading of the gospel of Christ by a wise and effectual government of the Church. Now to our mind it is pure convention whether a stately out- ward action shall be always considered intrinsically appro- priate to a high position or not. As we said in the paper referred to, it is quite conceivable that the act of riding might originally have been thought " unmeet " for, unworthy of, a ruler of the Church. A horse may easily contrive to pre- sent his rider in some position in which he might be laughed at, as John Gilpin was when his horse ran away with him. None the less, we should not respect but despise the Bishop who refused to ride, when he could not otherwise properly perform the duties of his office, lest by any chance he should be placed in a predicament in which he might excite a smile. We should say of such a man that he preferred avoiding a situation in which he might chance to be laughed at, at the cost of duties which were obliga- tory on him, and were of the very essence of his office. What would our censor have said to the great Bishop of New Zealand, Bishop Selwyn, who, as we have been told, in the visitation of his wild diocese, would often swim the rivers when he could not procure any boat to cross them, pushing his clothes before him in a waterproof covering to the opposite bank P Surely he would not think that course undignified, but, on the contrary, the beat proof that could have been given of the perfect correspondence between his outward demeanour and the passion of his inward purpose. And what is the difference between bicycling in order to get through heavy episcopal duties adequately in a methodical and punctual manner, and swimming the rivers of a wild diocese with your clothes in a waterproof bag, except that the former process is much leas open to ridicule than the latter, yet quite as "meet" for the purpose of indicating the main aim and object of the life within? The great difference between bicycling and waltzing is this, that bicycling is the expression of a purpose which is directly subservient to the speedy and punctual performance of spiritual duties such as could not be otherwise performed in anything like the same time; while waltzing, though an innocent amusement, has no connection whatever with the aims of a Bishop's life, and might often happen to be inconsistent with them. Let it be admitted that it is not desirable for a Bishop to present himself to the world as if mere amusement were uppermost in his thoughts, for the very good reason that it ought not to be uppermost in his thoughts. Without maintaining that a Bishop should be always solemn,—which would be absurd,— or always even intent upon the display of his own serious purposes, it is very "meet" and worthy of the great objects he has at heart, that he should not needlessly ignore those objects. And we maintain that a reasonable feeling for the fitness of things in small matters, ought not to inter, fere with the greater purposes themselves. There is no reason why a Bishop should dance or go out shooting or leap gates as a mere expression of the buoyancy of his spirits, or, as we said laid last week, why he should "coast" downhill on his bicycle with his legs up. That would not be "meet," would not be "worthy of" the main purpose of his life. But when he comes to choose between the objections to a demeanour which might possibly result in what we choose to think un- dignified attitudes or positions, and the due discharge of his duties to his diocese, we hold that the smaller consideration should give way absolutely to the greater motives by which he ought to be actuated. A dignity is not worth much that cannot merge the apparent indignity of hurry, and of possible mischances unsuitable to the expression of his higher purposes, in those higher purposes themselves. There are plenty of bishoprics now in the world far too poorly paid to admit of horses and carriages, and yet far too heavily weighted with duty to admit of such expenditure of time as is needful for the discharge of that duty on foot. The real question is whether the Bishops who preside over these dioceses should prefer the neglect of their duties to running the risk of the small humiliations implied in the learning of an art which must involve a few ludicrous awkwardnesses in the early stages, and may result in occasional accidents and still more embarrassing catastrophes at any time. There is no position in life in which men can always appear as they would wish to appear, even with the highest possible reasons for that wish. Even the Pope himself may lose his dignity on occasions, and Sovereigns have often presented theimelves in the most ludicrous postures of mind and body. But it is not true dignity to fear such accidents so much that any duty should be needlessly neglected, lest such a humiliation should arise. As for the suggestion that punctuality might on occasion seem to require that a Bishop should bicycle down a cathedral aisle, it is obvious that the ditty of so respecting the solemn associations of a place of worship, as even the laity themselves respect them, would render it impossible for any devout clergyman to plead hurry as an excuse for such a feat as that. But that is, of course, only a graphic mode of putting the objection to which we have already replied, and not seriously intended. No doubt such a suggestion does imply that all dignity is more or less a matter of association, and that if it is allowable to jar the associations of reverent minds in one way, it is allowable to jar them also in other ways. But we hold that both dignity and indignity are to be re- garded as relative terms, and that all conventional views of them are liable to be overridden by larger considerations. It may be,—as all Christians are bound to hold,—the truest dignity to suffer some kinds of indignity willingly. St. Paul did not scruple to earn his livelihood by the use of his own hands. And a greater than St. Paul did not hesitate to subject himself willingly to the greatest indignities which this world of ours could furnish. And again, it may be true indignity to insist too fastidiously on a man's formal dignity. If there be any shortcoming in dignity on the part of our Bishops, we should say that it is in this direction. For they, perhaps, are sometimes too jealously anxious to pre- serve that outward dignity which a truer dignity would willingly sacrifice for the higher ends involved in the due performance of onerous duties.
Previous page
