The show must go on...
第5段
Now, the first and fairest thing to say about Rudyard Kipling is that he has borne a brilliant part in thus recovering the lost provinces of poetry. He has not been frightened by that brutal materialistic air which clings only to words; he has pierced through to the romantic, imaginative matter of the things themselves. He has perceived the significance and philosophy of steam and of slang. Steam may be, if you like, a dirty byproduct of science. Slang may be, if you like, a dirty byproduct of language. But at least he has been among the few who saw the divine parentage of these things, and knew that where there is smoke there is fire—that is, that wherever there is the foulest of things, there also is the purest. Above all, he has had something to say, a definite view of things to utter, and that always means that a man is fearless and faces everything. For the moment we have a view of the universe, we possess it.
關於盧亞德·吉卜齡這人，我對他首先、也是最公平的評價，是他在恢復詩歌的地位上，發揮了關鍵又出色的影響力，他對那僅專注於字面意義的粗野物質主義精神毫不懼怕，奮勇挺進字面意義底下真實事物那浪漫、富想像力的本質，他敏銳覺察到蒸汽與俚語的意涵及哲理。若這說法你還能接受，蒸汽可說是科學的骯髒副產品。而俚語，則是語言的骯髒副產品。但至少他還是少數之一，知道這些事物來自何等清潔、聖潔父母的人，他也知道有煙出現的地方，也必然有火產生，也就是說，最骯髒的東西出現之處，也必有最乾淨、純潔的事物。最重要的是，他有東西想要表達，有想要聲明的明確觀點，這點顯示出這人毫無懼怕，不逃避、願意面對一切。因當我們對宇宙有個人的觀點時，我們就支配它。
第6段
Now, the message of Rudyard Kipling, that upon which he has really concentrated, is the only thing worth worrying about in him or in any other man. He has often written bad poetry, like Wordsworth. He has often said silly things, like Plato. He has often given way to mere political hysteria, like Gladstone. But no one can reasonably doubt that he means steadily and sincerely to say something, and the only serious question is, What is that which he has tried to say? Perhaps the best way of stating this fairly will be to begin with that element which has been most insisted by himself and by his opponents—I mean his interest in militarism. But when we are seeking for the real merits of a man it is unwise to go to his enemies, and much more foolish to go to himself.
但吉卜齡的訊息，那個他極為專注在意的訊息，是唯一值得讓人為他、或任何其他人擔心的部分。他常常寫出糟糕的詩，就跟華茲華斯一樣。（譯註：Wordsworth，英國超級大詩人，上英詩課程必讀的詩人。）他常常說一些蠢話，就像柏拉圖。（譯註：這位應該不用介紹了）他常常陷入無腦的政治狂熱，就像格拉斯頓。（譯註：William Gladstone，英國政治家，1868至1894年間曾四度擔任英國首相，時間總長達12年。）但每個人應都能合理認同，他總是認真的想要表達一些訊息，因而這最為關鍵的問題是：他到底想要表達什麼？或許回答這問題最合適的方式，是從檢視他自己以及他的對手最堅持的事情上開始，也就是他對軍國主義的興趣。當我們想要找尋一個人的優點時，詢問他的對手，並不是一個明智的作法，但去詢問他本人，更是愚蠢。
第7段
Now, Mr. Kipling is certainly wrong in his worship of militarism, but his opponents are, generally speaking, quite as wrong as he. The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe. There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time when men were less brave. All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man; but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the fantastic perfection of the arms. Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome, and it demonstrates the decadence of Prussia.
吉卜齡對軍國主義的崇拜當然是錯誤的，但整體而言，他的對手犯錯的程度跟他一樣。軍國主義之惡不在於顯示某些人是殘暴、粗野、好戰的。軍國主義之惡，在於突顯大部分人都是溫馴、膽小、極端怯戰的。當社會整體的勇氣下降時，職業軍人的權力愈發增加。因此當整個羅馬愈來愈豪奢、墮落時，羅馬禁衛軍變得愈來愈重要。軍隊奪取的公民權力，正是與公民喪失的戰鬥能力成正比。這樣的狀態不僅發生在古羅馬，也發生在現今的歐洲社會。從沒有哪一個時代的國家比起現在的各國，更為軍事化。從沒有哪一個時代的人民，比起現在的人民更無勇氣。所有的世代與史詩都頌讚武器與軍隊，但我們卻全體一致的努力於軍隊與精湛優良武器的削減。軍國主義展示了羅馬的衰亡，也顯露出普魯士的衰敗。
第8段
And unconsciously Mr. Kipling has proved this, and proved it admirably. For in so far as his work is earnestly understood the military trade does not by any means emerge as the most important or attractive. He has not written so well about soldiers as he has about railway men or bridge builders, or even journalists. The fact is that what attracts Mr. Kipling to militarism is not the idea of courage, but the idea of discipline. There was far more courage to the square mile in the Middle Ages, when no king had a standing army, but every man had a bow or sword. But the fascination of the standing army upon Mr. Kipling is not courage, which scarcely interests him, but discipline, which is, when all is said and done, his primary theme. The modern army is not a miracle of courage; it has not enough opportunities, owing to the cowardice of everybody else. But it is really a miracle of organization, and that is the truly Kiplingite ideal. Kipling's subject is not that valour which properly belongs to war, but that interdependence and efficiency which belongs quite as much to engineers, or sailors, or mules, or railway engines. And thus it is that when he writes of engineers, or sailors, or mules, or steam engines, he writes at his best. The real poetry, the "true romance" which Mr. Kipling has taught, is the romance of the division of labour and the discipline of all the trades. He sings the arts of peace much more accurately than the arts of war. And his main contention is vital and valuable. Every thing is military in the sense that everything depends upon obedience. There is no perfectly epicurean corner; there is no perfectly irresponsible place. Everywhere men have made the way for us with sweat and submission. We may fling ourselves into a hammock in a fit of divine carelessness. But we are glad that the net maker did not make the hammock in a fit of divine carelessness. We may jump upon a child's rocking horse for a joke. But we are glad that the carpenter did not leave the legs of it unglued for a joke. So far from having merely preached that a soldier cleaning his sidearm is to be adored because he is military, Kipling at his best and clearest has preached that the baker baking loaves and the tailor cutting coats is as military as anybody.
吉卜齡無意識間證明了這點，證明得令人五體投地、欽佩萬分。只要他的作品被人認真的理解，軍事絕無可能被視為最重要或最吸引人的。他對軍人的描述比不上他對鐵路工人或橋樑建築工，或甚至記者的描寫。事實是，軍國主義吸引吉卜齡之處，不是「勇氣」，而是「紀律」。中世紀時代，任一處方圓一英里內的勇氣都比現在多，那時沒有哪一個國王有常備軍隊，但每個人都持有弓或劍。但對吉卜齡而言，常備軍迷人之處不在於勇氣，他對這毫無興趣，吸引他的是紀律，而這說到底才是他最重要的焦點。現代軍隊不是英勇的奇蹟，因其他人的懦弱，現代軍隊根本沒有足夠機會成為這樣的奇蹟。現代軍隊是組織的奇蹟，而這才是真正的吉卜齡理想概念。吉卜齡的主題，並非關於那屬於戰爭的勇敢、勇猛，而是那同樣也出現在工程師、水手、驢子或火車引擎的互賴共生與效率。而這也是為什麼當他描寫工程師、水手、驢子或蒸汽引擎時，他寫得最好。按照吉卜齡所教育我們的，真正的詩歌，真正的羅曼史，是分工與各行各業紀律的羅曼史。他對和平的頌讚，遠比他對戰爭的頌讚要精確。他的主要論點極為重要且寶貴。從每件事物都有賴服從的角度來看，每件事物都具有軍事的屬性。萬事萬物中不存在一個享樂主義者的角落，沒有無需負責任的天堂。任一處，都有人以汗水和服從為我們造橋鋪路。我們或許會在一股自以為高尚的的瀟灑、不在乎下，轉身躺入吊床。但我們應竊喜製造那吊床網線的人，不是在瀟灑、不在乎下製作這吊床。我們或許因為好玩而跳上小孩的木馬，但我們應高興，木匠沒有因好玩而未固定木馬的腿。所以與其說士兵清理隨身武器是令人讚賞的行為，是因他屬於軍隊的一份子，吉卜齡清楚明白的宣述，麵包師傅烤麵包、裁縫師製作大衣，以及其他的各行各業，都具有軍事的本質。
＝＝＝
從詩歌到軍事...
就讓我們繼續看下去...
---
前篇回顧：
留言
張貼留言