第一章第8段
The theory of the unmorality of art has established itself firmly in the strictly artistic classes. They are free to produce anything they like. They are free to write a "Paradise Lost" in which Satan shall conquer God. They are free to write a "Divine Comedy" in which heaven shall be under the floor of hell. And what have they done? Have they produced in their universality anything grander or more beautiful than the things uttered by the fierce Ghibbeline Catholic, by the rigid Puritan schoolmaster? We know that they have produced only a few roundels. Milton does not merely beat them at his piety, he beats them at their own irreverence. In all their little books of verse you will not find a finer defiance of God than Satan's. Nor will you find the grandeur of paganism felt as that fiery Christian felt it who described Faranata lifting his head as in disdain of hell. And the reason is very obvious. Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the day in a state of some exhaustion.
嚴謹的藝術課程已清楚界定藝術的不道德面。他們可隨心所欲創作，不僅能自由寫下一部新的<失樂園>，讓撒旦在其中擊敗上帝，也可自由創作<神曲>，把天堂的位置放在地獄之下。但他們有達成什麼嗎？比起支持皇帝的天主教徒（Ghibbeline Cathloic），或是嚴謹的清教徒校長，他們在其普及大眾的文化中，有產生任何更偉大、壯麗的事物嗎？我們知道他們不過得到幾個掛在牆上、裝飾用的紀念盤。米爾頓（Milton）不只是以虔誠贏過他們，更因他們對傳統與教條的無禮而勝出。在所有他們用詩句寫成的小書裡，都無法找到比撒旦對神更為詞藻華美的蔑視，也不會感受到那激憤的Christian（可能是指但丁）所感受到的異教的龐大堂皇，他出於激憤，當描述 Faranata昂頭時，文字間充滿對地獄的鄙視。我們在這些書中找不到這些的原因很清楚。褻瀆是一種藝術效果，因為褻瀆的前提是對某種哲學思想的信服。褻瀆需要有信仰作為依據，而隨著信仰淡去，褻瀆也隨著消逝。若有人懷疑這種說法，請他端莊嚴肅的好好坐著，認真地試著想出關於索爾的褻瀆念頭。我想他的家人會在一天結束時發現他累得要死。
＊我真的找不到Faranata是誰 （google遍尋千百次，換了n個關鍵字。勉強找到一個很接近的，神曲中的人物，但是問題是他的名字不是Faranata.....是語言上名字拼法的差異嗎...目前我還是不確定答案）
Neither in the world of politics nor that of literature, then, has the rejection of general theories proved a success. It may be that there have been many moonstruck and misleading ideals that have from time to time perplexed mankind. But assuredly there has been no ideal in practice so moonstruck and misleading as the ideal of practicality. Nothing has lost so many opportunities as the opportunism of Lord Rosebery. He is, indeed, a standing symbol of this epoch—the man who is theoretically a practical man, and practically more unpractical than any theorist. Nothing in this universe is so unwise as that kind of worship of worldly wisdom. A man who is perpetually thinking of whether this race or that race is strong, of whether this cause or that cause is promising, is the man who will never believe in anything long enough to make it succeed. The opportunist politician is like a man who should abandon billiards because he was beaten at billiards, and abandon golf because he was beaten at golf. There is nothing which is so weak for working purposes as this enormous importance attached to immediate victory. There is nothing that fails like success.
無論是政治圈或文學圈，都未能證明拒絕一般性理論是件成就。或許每隔一段時間就會出現許多迷惑和誤導人的思想，但可確定的是，沒有任何思想比實用性更迷惑與誤導人，也沒有什麼思想所錯過的機會，比羅斯伯里勳爵（Lord Rosebery）倡導的機會主義錯得更嚴重。他的確是這個時代的代表人物––一個理論層面上十分實際，但實際層面上比任何理論學家更不實際的人。在這宇宙中沒有什麼比崇拜世俗的智慧更愚拙的事情。一個人若一直不斷思想究竟這個種族或是那個種族比較強壯，這個或那個事業比較有前景，這個人相信任何事物的時間永遠都不可能長到足以成功。崇尚機會主義的政治人物，就像一個會因為在撞球檯上輸給人而放棄打撞球，在高爾夫球場上輸給人就放棄打高爾夫的人。對於立即獲得勝利的無比依賴及重視，產生最脆弱的目標與意志，沒有什麼比起成功更能帶來失敗（There is nothing that fails like success）。
＊There is nothing that fails like success. 這種反語式表達風格，可說是Chesterton的標章。但這到底怎麼翻才能傳達他的反諷與譏諷意味。我覺得目前的翻譯蠻失敗的。
---------
留言
張貼留言