Heretics (G.K. Chesterton)1

出於個人莫名其妙的堅持

從標題開始我就選擇跟之前不一樣的翻譯，我知道異教徒是更為簡潔與直接的表達方式，但我真心覺得在Chesterton的文字中，在他的社會情境脈絡裡，他的發言對象不僅僅是我們所謂的異教徒，而是與正統持不同立場，甚或更為精確的，可說是那些根本不認為有正統的人...(這些人當中很多都不是所謂的異教徒)

因此我翻成異端份子。

（但異端是什麼？在非基督教界的社會文化中，有人在用這個詞嗎？還是應該直接翻成異議份子呢？？？？？）

以下文章都將以原文跟翻譯文字交叉排列的方式呈現。

感謝近代的知識共享與資訊平台的快速發展，原文來自於Project Gutenberg（網址http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/470）。

 

 

I Introductory: Remarks  on  the  Importance  of Orthodoxy

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law—all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clearheaded and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

I.論正統重要性之引言

沒有什麼比今日對正統這個詞的誇張運用，更能詭異地凸顯現代社會裡巨大且無聲無息的邪惡。從前，異端份子對於自己不是異端份子感到自豪。偏離正統，走向異端的是這世界，是警察與法官，他自認正統。他在反叛那些異端份子上無法自誇，因是那些人反抗他。對他而言，配備殘酷武裝的軍隊，面無表情的國王，政治正確的國家政策，外表合理的法律條文，這一切都像羊走入歧途。這人自詡於自己的正統，驕傲於自己的正確。若他獨自站立在偏僻的曠野，他就不僅僅是一個人，而是一間教會。他彷彿成了宇宙的中心，星星都圍著他轉。所有來自被遺忘地獄裡的虐待苦刑，也都無法讓他承認自己是個異端份子。但到了現代，幾句常用的俗語，卻讓他常以異端自居。他會刻意笑著說：「我想我應該是個道地的異端份子」，然後環顧四周等待他人投以欣賞的眼神。「異端」這個詞不僅不再有錯誤的意涵，更幾乎成了頭腦清楚跟勇氣十足的同義詞；「正統」這個詞不再有正確的意涵，而是等同於錯誤。而這一切都只意味著一件事，人對於自己在抽象的哲學定義上是否正確，已經不再那麼在乎。因為說真的，一個人應該先承認自己瘋了，再坦承自己是異端。那個打著紅領帶的波希米亞人應該對自己的正統感到憤恨。而那投擲炸彈的炸彈客，應該覺得無論他是誰，至少他是一個正統分子。

 

-- 

光是第一段就充滿問題了....T_T

真心的：我在讀這些文字時真的有時懷疑我有閱讀障礙...

我的主要問題在：

1.  In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic

2. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him.

以及這幾話周圍其他文字脈絡構成的整體邏輯，我怎麼讀都不是很懂。

雖然最後勉強翻成目前這樣，但你看得懂嗎？

 

繼續往下讀...

 

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us today. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters—except everything.

一個哲學家若因無法在宇宙觀上與另一個哲學家有共識，而在史密斯婓爾德市場(smithfield market)上放火要燒他，這在一般狀況下看來都是件蠢事。但這蠢事在中世紀的後期卻常發生，並且完全未能達到原本的目標，失敗得一蹋糊塗。然而有一件事情卻遠比因一個人的哲學立場而放火燒他，要更加荒謬與脫離實際，那就是認為一個人的哲學立場不重要，而這樣的想法在二十世紀，這個革命年代的尾聲，卻普遍存在。隨時隨地都有人輕視一般性理論，隨著人的墮落的教義被斥之以鼻，人的權利也被視而不見。對今天的我們而言，無神論還太過神學，我們不願意有任何通則或理論。蕭伯納恰如其分地以一句話形容這處境：「所謂的黃金律，就是沒有黃金律。」我們愈來愈常討論藝術、政治、文學的枝微末節。一個男人對街車的意見，對波提切利（Botticelli）的想法，但他對那些關乎一切之事的觀點卻不重要。他可以反覆思想，探索數百萬個主題，但他永不會觸碰到那個奇怪的議題，也就是關於這個宇宙的問題，因為如果他想到了，他會產生信仰，他會不再是他自己。所有的事情都很重要——除了那關乎萬事萬物者外。

 

 

Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialistor a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent teatable we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted  out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

我們對關於宇宙的哲學的全然輕視，應該無需多加說明。除此之外，也無需多加解釋的是，無論我們認為什麼會影響現實世事，一個人是樂觀或悲觀主義者，是笛卡兒派或黑格爾派，是唯物論者或唯心論者，都絕非我們認為重要的事。然而讓我隨意舉一個例子。在任一個尋常的下午茶場合，我們都能輕易聽到人說：「這人生實在活著沒意義。」而我們聽到這句話的反應，就好像聽到別人說今天天氣很好，沒有人會認為這句話對說話的那人，或是對這事件，會帶來什麼嚴重的危害。但倘若我們真的相信那句話中詞句的意思，世界將自我毀滅，殺人犯將因奪去他人的生命而獲得獎牌，消防員則會因挽救人的生命而被斥責，毒藥會被用作治病靈藥，身體健康的時候才會去找醫生，皇家人道協會（Royal Humane Society）會被視為一群刺客，而被根除。但是，事實是我們從不思考這發言的悲觀主義者，是會提升或是沈淪這個社會，因為我們深信他們對這世界的理論，對這世界的想法，無關緊要。

 

 

This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means  that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this—that now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds.

而這完全不是那些引領我們享有今日自由的人所認同的。當上一代的自由份(Liberals)將所有異端的桎梏卸下時，他們以為將看到一波對宗教與哲學的新發現。他們認為宇宙真理實在太過重要，每個人都應獨自親證。而現代的觀點則認為，宇宙真理實在太不重要，任何人的想法都無所謂。前者好像人鬆開高貴獵犬的項圈般，讓人能自由思考提問；而後者則好像人逃回充滿無法吞食的魚類的大海般，讓人對一切質疑。從未出現一個時代，像今天這樣，對人的本質鮮少有討論，而諷刺的是，今天這個時代所有人卻難得一見都有機會可討論。古時的限制使得當時只有正統人士能夠討論宗教，而現代的自由反而使得無人討論宗教。當其他管道都無法使我們閉口不言時，所謂的好品味，這個人類最後也最卑下的迷信，卻成功讓我們沈默。六十年前，誓言當一個無神論者，會被視為是毫無見識的舉動。後來布拉德勞（Charles Bradlaugh，英國政治家與無神論者）的信眾出現了，他們可說是最後一群虔誠的人，最後一群在意神的人，但就算他們也無法改變這事實，誓言當一個無神論者，仍舊是毫無品味與見識的舉動。他們的苦痛僅成就一件事，也就是今日當一個虔誠的基督徒，也被看為毫無見識的舉動。給予人社會政治的權利，僅導致聖徒被當作異教首領般關在沈默的塔樓中。然後我們聊安格爾西侯爵的八卦，談論天氣，稱這種聊天是不受任何教條束縛的自由。

 

---

我想沒有人懷疑Chesterton的語文能力。但應該也沒有人會否認，Chesterton從不滿意單調直接的論述，他傳達的訊息雖然是很方正嚴謹的，但他使用的手法並非正面迎擊的教條式論述，而是大量採用對比與譏諷，似乎想要透過這一系列的反問、質問，挑戰讀者去思考。

但或許也因此增加了翻譯的難度....

（有次試用線上軟體協助進行論文的proofreading，一時興起，將Heretics的起首幾段也丟入軟體中，想看看AI如何分析Chesterton的文筆，結果：獲得不少修改語氣與換字的建議....。事實證明，AI還是不太懂人性，但Chesterton懂，而他的文筆明顯將這很人性的一部分帶入....）