第四章
第1段
IV. Mr. Bernard Shaw
In the glad old days, before the rise of modern morbidities, when genial old Ibsen filled the world with wholesome joy, and the kindly tales of the forgotten Emile Zola kept our firesides merry and pure, it used to be thought a disadvantage to be misunderstood. It may be doubted whether it is always or even generally a disadvantage. The man who is misunderstood has always this advantage over his enemies, that they do not know his weak point or his plan of campaign. They go out against a bird with nets and against a fish with arrows. There are several modern examples of this situation. Mr. Chamberlain, for instance, is a very good one. He constantly eludes or vanquishes his opponents because his real powers and deficiencies are quite different to those with which he is credited, both by friends and foes. His friends depict him as a strenuous man of action; his opponents depict him as a coarse man of business; when, as a fact, he is neither one nor the other, but an admirable romantic orator and romantic actor. He has one power which is the soul of melodrama—the power of pretending, even when backed by a huge majority, that he has his back to the wall. For all mobs are so far chivalrous that their heroes must make some show of misfortune—that sort of hypocrisy is the homage that strength pays to weakness. He talks foolishly and yet very finely about his own city that has never deserted him. He wears a flaming and fantastic flower, like a decadent minor poet. As for his bluffness and toughness and appeals to common sense, all that is, of course, simply the first trick of rhetoric. He fronts his audiences with the venerable affectation of Mark Antony—
"I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But as you know me all, a plain blunt man."
IV. 蕭伯納
在現代的病態尚未流行的美好過去時光，在和藹老易（易卜生）仍以歡樂充滿世界，被遺忘的左拉（Emile Zola）仍用充滿善意的故事，讓我們心情愉快、清淨地坐在爐邊的年代裡，被人誤解被當作一件壞事。但我們或許可以質疑這是否總是，或甚至是否通常是件壞事。被誤解的人總是佔敵人上風，因為他們不知道他的弱點，或是他致勝的策略。他們就好像以魚網捕鳥，用弓箭射魚。現代社會中可看到幾個這樣的實例。張伯倫（Chamberlain）就是一個很好的例子。他一再逃離或征服他的對手，因為他真正的能力與缺陷，跟眾人，包含他的朋友與敵人，以為他所具有的特質大不相同。他的朋友視他為一個勤奮的行動派，而他的敵人則視他為一個粗野的商人。但事實是，他兩者都不是，他是個優秀的浪漫行動者與浪漫派演員。他擁有一項可說是通俗劇的核心的能力，也就是，即使當他擁有大多數的支持，仍能假裝自己陷入絕境。為要讓所有烏合之眾展現出他們的騎士之勇，他們的英雄必得表演出一些不幸的橋段——當強壯向軟弱致敬時，正顯出這類虛偽。他愚蠢卻又言詞精煉地論及自己的城市從未離棄他，他如頹喪、名不經傳詩人般別著鮮豔火紅的花朵。而想當然，他那虛張聲勢的強硬與就事論事的氣度，不過只是語言上的修辭，文字上的遊戲。他在他的觀眾面前，演出一幕可敬的矯揉造作版馬克安東尼——
「我不是雄辩家，不像布鲁特斯那樣；
如你们所知，我只是一个平凡率直的人。」
第2段
It is the whole difference between the aim of the orator and the aim of any other artist, such as the poet or the sculptor. The aim of the sculptor is to convince us that he is a sculptor; the aim of the orator, is to convince us that he is not an orator. Once let Mr. Chamberlain be mistaken for a practical man, and his game is won. He has only to compose a theme on empire, and people will say that these plain men say great things on great occasions. He has only to drift in the large loose notions common to all artists of the second rank, and people will say that business men have the biggest ideals after all. All his schemes have ended in smoke; he has touched nothing that he did not confuse. About his figure there is a Celtic pathos; like the Gaels in Matthew Arnold's quotation, "he went forth to battle, but he always fell." He is a mountain of proposals, a mountain of failures; but still a mountain. And a mountain is always romantic.
雄辯家與任何其他種類的藝術家，例如詩人或雕刻家，他們的目的之差別即在於此。雕刻家的目的是說服我們他是雕刻家，而雄辯家的目的是說服我們他不是雄辯家。一旦誤以為張伯倫是個務實的平凡人，那他就贏了。他只需要譜出出帝國的主題曲，人們就會開始以為平凡人能在不凡的時代做出偉大的事。他只需要在次等藝術家間常見的鬆散思想中晃蕩，人們就以為這商人原來是有偉大思想的。他所有的計謀都如煙終結，他所觸及的人事物無一不變得困惑混淆。塞爾特式的哀愁正好適用於他，他就好像阿諾德（Matthew Arnold英國詩人）引用詩句所描寫的蓋爾人（Gaels）：「他前行出征，但屢征不勝。」他好比一座提案山，一座充滿失敗的山，但仍舊是座山，而山總是浪漫的。
-----
很常聽到一種說法：英國人罵人不帶髒字。
我想...Chesterton算是將這特異能力發揮到淋漓盡致XD
留言
張貼留言