第三章 第9段
Being devoted to this multitudinous vision of duty, Mr. Kipling is naturally a cosmopolitan. He happens to find his examples in the British Empire, but almost any other empire would do as well, or, indeed, any other highly civilized country. That which he admires in the British army he would find even more apparent in the German army; that which he desires in the British police he would find flourishing, in the French police. The ideal of discipline is not the whole of life, but it is spread over the whole of the world. And the worship of it tends to confirm in Mr. Kipling a certain note of worldly wisdom, of the experience of the wanderer, which is one of the genuine charms of his best work.
他對責任這概念的多元觀點，證明吉卜齡是道地的世界主義者（譯註：cosmopolitan，我真心想直接翻成都會人，但深恐這無法表達Chesterton 的意思，但我最大的困境是，我其實也不確定他想要表達的意涵到哪個程度…只是他常常字面之下藏有其他意思…）。他碰巧在大英帝國找到支持他論點的例子，但幾乎任何其他帝國，或應說任何其他高度文明的國家，都有相對應的例子。英國軍隊中讓他激賞的事物，他可以在德國軍隊中找到更為明顯的事例；英國警政讓他感到欣喜的做法，他可以在法國警隊中找到施行更完美的範例。紀律這理想不是生命的全部，但散佈到世界各地。而對紀律的崇敬，證明吉卜齡擁有世界的智慧，有那四海為家者的歷練，而這是他最優秀作品中真實的魅力之一。
第10段
The great gap in his mind is what may be roughly called the lack of patriotism—that is to say, he lacks altogether the faculty of attaching himself to any cause or community finally and tragically; for all finality must be tragic. He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English. There is no harshness in saying this, for, to do him justice, he avows it with his usual picturesque candour. In a very interesting poem, he says that—
"If England was what England seems"
—that is, weak and inefficient; if England were not what (as he believes) she is—that is, powerful and practical—
"How quick we'd chuck 'er! But she ain't!"
He admits, that is, that his devotion is the result of a criticism, and this is quite enough to put it in another category altogether from the patriotism of the Boers, whom he hounded down in South Africa. In speaking of the really patriotic peoples, such as the Irish, he has some difficulty in keeping a shrill irritation out of his language. The frame of mind which he really describes with beauty and nobility is the frame of mind of the cosmopolitan man who has seen men and cities.
"For to admire and for to see,
For to be'old this world so wide."
而在他的思想中，最大的空缺可大致說是對愛國忠誠的缺乏，意味著他最終且悲劇性地全然缺失與任何行動目標，或社會團體產生連結的能力，因為所有最終之必然，必定是悲劇（？）。他欣賞英格蘭，但不愛她。因我們是以理性欣賞事物，但非用理據來愛（譯註：原文是對仗：for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons。難翻）。他欣賞英格蘭是因為英格蘭很強大，而非因為她是英格蘭。為公正評價他，這樣說其實對他絲毫不苛刻，因他曾以那一向充滿畫面與詩意的坦率風格，做過公開的聲明。在一首很有趣的詩中，他這樣寫道：
「若英格蘭是她外表那副模樣…」
——也就是軟弱又無力；若英格蘭沒有（如他所信）那英格蘭的本質——也就是強壯又有力——
「我們會多快甩離她呀！但她不是！」
他承認，他（對英格蘭）的忠誠是批判後的結果，足以被歸為與那被他尋索追逼到南非的波爾人（Boers）的愛國忠誠，全然相異的類別。當提到真正愛國的人，例如愛爾蘭人，他似乎難以抑制自己字句間不流露出尖酸惱恨。他以美與高貴所描繪的心智，是那見過世面、見過大都市的世界主義份子的心智。
「為讚嘆、為看見、
為見證世界何等遼闊。」
第11段
He is a perfect master of that light melancholy with which a man looks back on having been the citizen of many communities, of that light melancholy with which a man looks back on having been the lover of many women. He is the philanderer of the nations. But a man may have learnt much about women in flirtations, and still be ignorant of first love; a man may have known as many lands as Ulysses, and still be ignorant of patriotism.
他那爐火純青的文青式淡憂鬱，體現於一個人回望自己曾是多個社會的公民，多個女人的愛人時。他是遊走多個國家間的風流男子，但一個男人即使熟練與女人調情，仍可能對初戀一無所知；一個人或能像尤利西斯遊歷多國，但仍對愛國精神無感。
第12段
Mr. Rudyard Kipling has asked in a celebrated epigram what they can know of England who know England only. It is a far deeper and sharper question to ask, "What can they know of England who know only the world?" for the world does not include England any more than it includes the Church. The moment we care for anything deeply, the world—that is, all the other miscellaneous interests—becomes our enemy. Christians showed it when they talked of keeping one's self "unspotted from the world;" but lovers talk of it just as much when they talk of the "world well lost." Astronomically speaking, I understand that England is situated on the world; similarly, I suppose that the Church was a part of the world, and even the lovers inhabitants of that orb. But they all felt a certain truth—the truth that the moment you love anything the world becomes your foe. Thus Mr. Kipling does certainly know the world; he is a man of the world, with all the narrowness that belongs to those imprisoned in that planet. He knows England as an intelligent English gentleman knows Venice. He has been to England a great many times; he has stopped there for long visits. But he does not belong to it, or to any place; and the proof of it is this, that he thinks of England as a place. The moment we are rooted in a place, the place vanishes. We live like a tree with the whole strength of the universe.
盧亞德·吉卜齡在一首著名的詼諧短詩中曾問，那些只知道英格蘭的人，能對英格蘭有什麼認識。遠比他的提問更深層、更尖銳的問題是：「那些只知道這世界的人，能對英格蘭有什麼認識？」英格蘭在這世界中，就好像教會在這世界裡一樣。我們熱切在意任何人事物的那刻起，這世界——意即，所有其他五花八門的興趣——就成了我們的敵人。每當談到要保守自己「不沾染世俗」，基督徒就展現出這樣的意識，而當提到「這失喪的世界」時，那對任何人事物懷抱熱愛的人也是如此。從天文學的角度來看，我知道英格蘭位於地球；同理，我想教會也在這地球上，而那心中懷抱熱愛的人也住在這星球。但他們都領悟一個真理——從你愛上任一人事物的那刻起，這世界就成了你的敵人。吉卜齡當然知道這世界，他是這世界的一份子，具有監禁於這星球的人的所有狹窄閉俗特質。他認識英格蘭就好像一個英國知識份子認識威尼斯一樣。他造訪英格蘭許多次，在那裡多次長期停留，但他不屬於那裡，或任何其他地方。證據就在於，他想到英格蘭時只是想到一個地方。我們一旦札根於一處，那地方的地理意涵就消失了。我們在那裡生活就好像樹木用全宇宙的力量生長一樣。
第13段
The globe-trotter lives in a smaller world than the peasant. He is always breathing, an air of locality. London is a place, to be compared to Chicago; Chicago is a place, to be compared to Timbuctoo. But Timbuctoo is not a place, since there, at least, live men who regard it as the universe, and breathe, not an air of locality, but the winds of the world. The man in the saloon steamer has seen all the races of men, and he is thinking of the things that divide men—diet, dress, decorum, rings in the nose as in Africa, or in the ears as in Europe, blue paint among the ancients, or red paint among the modern Britons. The man in the cabbage field has seen nothing at all; but he is thinking of the things that unite men—hunger and babies, and the beauty of women, and the promise or menace of the sky. Mr. Kipling, with all his merits, is the globe-trotter; he has not the patience to become part of anything. So great and genuine a man is not to be accused of a merely cynical cosmopolitanism; still, his cosmopolitanism is his weakness. That weakness is splendidly
expressed in one of his finest poems, "The Sestina of the Tramp Royal," in which a man declares that he can endure anything in the way of hunger or horror, but not permanent presence in one place. In this there is certainly danger. The more dead and dry and dusty a thing is the more it travels about; dust is like this and the thistledown and the High Commissioner in South Africa. Fertile things are somewhat heavier, like the heavy fruit trees on the pregnant mud of the Nile. In the heated idleness of youth we were all rather inclined to quarrel with the implication of that proverb which says that a rolling stone gathers no moss. We were inclined to ask, "Who wants to gather moss, except silly old ladies?" But for all that we begin to perceive that the proverb is right. The rolling stone rolls echoing from rock to rock; but the rolling stone is dead. The moss is silent because the moss is alive.
那遊訪全世界的人居住生活在一個比農夫的世界還要小的星球。他永遠都是呼吸到該地域的空氣。與芝加哥相比，倫敦是一個地區；與廷布克圖（Timbuctoo）相比，芝加哥是一個地區。但廷布克圖不是一個地區，因為在那裡至少住著一群人認為那裡等同於全宇宙，他們呼吸的不是那地域內的空氣，而是這世界之風。觀光汽船上的乘客見過多國多族的人，但他腦中想的是人之間的區別——飲食、穿著、舉止，帶鼻環的是非洲人，戴耳環的是歐洲人，上了年紀的人偏愛藍色妝著，年輕一輩的英國人則愛紅色妝著。而在蔬菜田裡的農夫則什麼世面都沒見過，但腦中想的是人之間有何相同——飢餓與嬰兒、婦女的美麗、天候的仁慈與殘酷。吉卜齡因其所擁有的一切優越之處，他是一個遊訪全世界的人，他沒有耐心去歸屬任一處。有鑒於他的優秀與真誠，他實在不該僅因憤世嫉俗的世界主義就被指責，雖說如此，世界主義精神仍舊是他的弱點。而這弱點大喇喇地展現在他最優美的詩作——「關於雲遊四海的六節詩」中，詩中一個男人宣示他可以忍受任何飢餓或驚恐，但卻無法忍受永久停留在一處。而這當中的危害明確可見。一個物體愈衰亡、愈接近灰燼、煙塵，那這物體就愈有可能四處飄浮。灰塵如此，蓟花的冠毛如此，英國駐派南非的專員也如此。具繁殖生命能力的物體通常較重，像是尼羅河旁富饒泥土上的結實纍纍果樹。在輕狂無知年輕歲月裡，我們常愛爭辯滾石不生苔這句箴言的含義。我們好問：「除了愚蠢老嫗外，誰會想要生苔？」但因著這些爭辯，我們開始了解這句話是真的。滾石在石頭與石頭間滾動，製造迴響，但滾動的石頭是死的。青苔則安靜無聲，因為青苔是活的。
第14段
The truth is that exploration and enlargement make the world smaller. The telegraph and the steamboat make the world smaller. The telescope makes the world smaller; it is only the microscope that makes it larger. Before long the world will be cloven with a war between thetelescopists and the microscopists. The first study large things and live in a small world; the second study small things and live in a large world. It is inspiriting without doubt to whizz in a motorcar round the earth, to feel Arabia as a whirl of sand or China as a flash of rice-fields. But Arabia is not a whirl of sand and China is not a flash of rice-fields. They are ancient civilizations with strange virtues buried like treasures. If we wish to understand them it must not be as tourists or inquirers, it must be with the loyalty of children and the great patience of poets. To conquer these places is to lose them. The man standing in his own kitchen-garden, with fairyland opening at the gate, is the
man with large ideas. His mind creates distance; the motorcar stupidly destroys it. Moderns think of the earth as a globe, as something one can easily get round, the spirit of a schoolmistress. This is shown in the odd mistake perpetually made about Cecil Rhodes. His enemies say that he may have had large ideas, but he was a bad man. His friends say that he may have been a bad man, but he certainly had large ideas. The truth is that he was not a man essentially bad, he was a man of much geniality and many good intentions, but a man with singularly small views. There is nothing large about painting the map red; it is an innocent game for children. It is just as easy to think in continents as to think in cobble-stones. The difficulty comes in when we seek to know the substance of either of them. Rhodes' prophecies about the Boer resistance are an admirable comment on how the "large ideas" prosper when it is not a question of thinking in continents but of
understanding a few two-legged men. And under all this vast illusion of the cosmopolitan planet, with its empires and its Reuter's agency, the real life of man goes on concerned with this tree or that temple, with this harvest or that drinking-song, totally uncomprehended, totally untouched. And it watches from its splendid parochialism, possibly with a smile of amusement, motorcar civilization going its triumphant way, outstripping time, consuming space, seeing all and seeing nothing, roaring on at last to the capture of the solar system, only to find the sun cockney and the stars suburban.
真相是，探索與擴展眼界將世界縮小了，電報與蒸汽船讓世界縮小了，望遠鏡讓世界縮小了，只有顯微鏡讓世界變大。在可見的未來，世界勢必因望遠鏡派與顯微鏡派間的戰爭而分裂，因前者觀察巨大的事物但住在狹小的世界裡，而後者觀察細微的事物但住在廣大的世界裡。毫無疑問的，開著汽車呼嘯環繞世界，感受如沙漠旋風的阿拉伯，如金黃閃爍稻米田的中國，十分鼓舞、激動人心。但阿拉伯不是沙漠的旋風，中國也不是稻米田，她們是含有如寶藏般深藏的奇特美德的古老文明。若想要了解她們，絕不能像旅客或調查員，而是得用孩童般的忠誠與詩人般的巨大耐心。要征服這些地方，就得先遺忘這些地方。一個站在自己家中果菜園裡，感受到仙境之門在眼前打開的人，是懷有遼闊思想的人。他的心思創造出空間距離，但汽車卻愚蠢地將其摧毀。現代人視這世界為一個星球，好似可輕易理解征服，好似學校老師的習氣。而這點在總是對西塞爾．羅茲（Cecil Rhodes，英國殖民主義者、南非商人、礦業大亨、政治家）產生的怪異誤解上可見一班。羅茲的宿敵說，他可能有些遠大的理想，但他是一個惡人。他的朋友說，他可能是個惡人，但他絕對擁有偉大的理想。事實是，他並非本質邪惡，而是溫和且存有許多良好意圖的人，但他的目光與思想狹隘。將整面地圖變成紅色（譯註：征服各個大陸）並非什麼遠大的理想，這只不過是孩童在玩的幼稚遊戲。把征服對象視為地理大陸來思考，就跟視為石塊來思考一樣簡單。只有當我們想要了解這兩者中任一者的本質時，才會遭遇困難。羅茲對於波爾人反抗的預測令人欣賞，因其顯示出當思考不再聚焦在地理大陸上，而是對住在其上、有兩條腿的人的了解時，這「偉大理想」能帶來何等巨大的效力。而在這四海一家的大都會世界幻想下，在各個帝國、路透社辦公室之間，人的真實生活卻是在這棵樹旁或那個殿宇內發生，與某年的收成或某首飲酒歌有所關聯，但這真實的生活卻無人理解、無人觸碰。汽車文明乘凱旋之風前行，超越時間、吞噬空間，以其優越奪目的狹隘眼界，或許還帶著一絲微笑地觀望著，看見一切，卻什麼也沒看見，最終全速前進想捕獲那太陽星系，卻只發覺太陽帶著鄉音、星辰來自郊區。
---
前篇回顧：
留言
張貼留言