第二章
第4段
（非常長的一段）
Now, it is this great gap in modern ethics, the absence of vivid pictures of purity and spiritual triumph, which lies at the back of the real objection felt by so many sane men to the realistic literature of the nineteenth century. If any ordinary man ever said that he was horrified by the subjects discussed in Ibsen or Maupassant, or by the plain language in which they are spoken of, that ordinary man was lying. The average conversation of average men throughout the whole of modern civilization in every class or trade is such as Zola would never dream of printing. Nor is the habit of writing thus of these things a new habit. On the contrary, it is the Victorian prudery and silence which is new still, though it is already dying. The tradition of calling a spade a spade starts very early in our literature and comes down very late. But the truth is that the ordinary honest man, whatever vague account he may have given of his feelings, was not either disgusted or even annoyed at the candour of the moderns. What disgusted him, and very justly, was not the presence of a clear realism, but the absence of a clear idealism. Strong and genuine religious sentiment has never had any objection to realism; on the contrary, religion was the realistic thing, the brutal thing, the thing that called names. This is the great difference between some recent developments of Nonconformity and the great Puritanism of the seventeenth century. It was the whole point of the Puritans that they cared nothing for decency. Modern Nonconformist newspapers distinguish themselves by suppressing precisely those nouns and adjectives which the founders of Nonconformity distinguished themselves by flinging at kings and queens. But if it was a chief claim of religion that it spoke plainly about evil, it was the chief claim of all that it spoke plainly about good. The thing which is resented, and, as I think, rightly resented, in that great modern literature of which Ibsen is typical, is that while the eye that can perceive what are the wrong things increases in an uncanny and devouring clarity, the eye which sees what things are right is growing mistier and mistier every moment, till it goes almost blind with doubt. If we compare, let us say, the morality of the DIVINE COMEDY with the morality of Ibsen's GHOSTS, we shall see all that modern ethics have really done. No one, I imagine, will accuse the author of the INFERNO of an Early Victorian prudishness or a Podsnapian optimism. But Dante describes three moral instruments—Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell, the vision of perfection, the vision of improvement, and the vision of failure. Ibsen has only one—Hell. It is often said, and with perfect truth, that no one could read a play like GHOSTS and remain indifferent to the necessity of an ethical self-command. That is quite true, and the same is to be said of the most monstrous and material descriptions of the eternal fire. It is quite certain the realists like Zola do in one sense promote morality—they promote it in the sense in which the hangman promotes it, in the sense in which the devil promotes it. But they only affect that small minority which will accept any virtue of courage. Most healthy people dismiss these moral dangers as they dismiss the possibility of bombs or microbes. Modern realists are indeed Terrorists, like the dynamiters; and they fail just as much in their effort to create a thrill. Both realists and dynamiters are well meaning people engaged in the task, so obviously ultimately hopeless, of using science to promote morality.
回過頭來，許多理性的人無法接受十九世紀現實主義文學（realistic literature，或譯：寫實文學）的真正原因，正是因有感於現代倫理那巨大的缺憾（gap），那純淨與靈性勝利的栩栩如生畫面之空白。若任何一個普通人表示他對易卜生（Ibsen）或莫泊桑（Maupassant）書中涉及的議題感到驚懼，或對其所使用的語言之通俗平實感到驚訝，那這個人一定是在說謊。在這整個現代文明社會，各個階級、各個職業領域裡，一般人之間的平常對話就是如此，尋常平凡到左拉（Zola）絕不會想到把這印刷出版，同樣的將這些寫下來也絕非新事。相反的，維多利亞式的斟酌用詞、謹慎沈靜才是依然至今都是新的，雖然這風格已漸死亡。在我們的文學界，稱鏟子為鏟子的寫實傳統起步得十分早，消褪得十分晚。但事實是，那個老實的普通人，無論他對於自己感受的描述如何模糊，都對現代這坦白直率的風格不覺得噁心或反感。讓他感到噁心，且是有理有據地感到噁心的，並非清晰呈現的現實主義，而是明顯缺乏的理想主義。強烈與真實的宗教情感從不反對現實主義，相反的，宗教就是現實的、殘酷的，不加文藻修飾直接稱呼事物其名的。而這是近代發展之不從國教派（Nonconformity）與十七世紀的偉大清教徒精神之間的一個巨大差異。對禮儀、外貌得體的不在意，正是清教徒的特徵。現代不從國教派的報紙，卻會藉由箝制打壓某些名詞與形容詞的使用，來凸顯自己，而這些名詞與形容詞恰好被不從國教派的元老用於攻擊國王與皇后，好彰顯自己。但倘若宗教的首要主張是不加修飾地呈顯邪惡，那所有人的首要主張應是不加修飾地呈顯良善。而在偉大的，以易卜生為典型代表的現代文學中，被人厭棄，並且就我看來是應該要被厭棄的，是那可察知醜陋之事的眼，愈發明亮，甚至清晰尖銳到可怕的程度，但那可看到美善、正確之事的眼卻變得愈來愈朦朧、模糊，直至帶著懷疑完全失去視力。假如我們比較，神曲（DIVINE COMEDY）與易卜生的群鬼（GHOSTS）裡的道德觀，我們應可看出現代的道德觀到底造成什麼影響。我想，應該沒有人會因書中維多利亞式的用詞拘謹，或波斯納普式的樂觀精神（Podsnapian optimism或翻阿Q精神？/線上詞典表示：Podsnapian來自狄更斯書中的Mr. Podsnap），而指責神曲地獄篇（INFERNO）的作者。但丁筆下呈現三個道德工具——天堂、煉獄、地獄，（分別對應）完美之景、革新之景、失敗之景。而易卜生的筆下只出現一個——地獄。常有人說，且這說法極為實在，沒有人能讀完一本像群鬼這樣的劇本，卻仍對於道德自制之必要性無感。這是真的，而對那永恆火焰最為可怕、實在、精確的描述也能帶來同樣效果。毋庸置疑的，現實主義者，例如左拉，在某方面來說也是提倡道德的，他們提倡道德的方式就跟劊子手一樣，跟魔鬼鼓吹道德的方式一樣。但他們僅能影響可接受任何勇德（virtue of courage）的小眾，大部分心理健康的人都拒絕承認這種道德風險，就好像他們會對炸彈或微生物出現的可能性不置可否一般。現代的現實主義者，其實就是恐怖份子，就好像那些炸彈客（dynamiters，這字有可能有其他翻譯方式，也有可能是指像諾貝爾這樣發明炸藥的人，但在不違背原文文意下，我選擇比較貼近現代人可以理解的方式）。他們失敗到了一個程度連讓人心跳加速都無法（they fail just as much in their effort to create a thrill，翻譯：若要說他們有多失敗，也沒有太失敗，不過就是身為恐怖份子連讓人感到驚恐也無法….）。現實主義者跟炸彈客都是帶著良好出發點，在執行一項明顯看來最終無望的任務，這任務就是使用科學推廣道德。
===
常有人形容Chesterton這作家機智、語言辛辣，機智是很明顯，語言辛辣，之前都覺得只有辣到翻譯的人...(常常會在心底嘀咕：一定要每個句子都這麼長嗎？子句套子句套子句.....)
但這段將現實主義者（那些我大學時代讀過的作家...）比喻成恐怖份子的文字，的確有加了辣椒的感覺。
衷心希望，這篇文章最終不是因為google關鍵字搜尋「炸彈客」而被看見......XDDDD
----
留言
張貼留言