第四章
第3段
There is another man in the modern world who might be called the antithesis of Mr. Chamberlain in every point, who is also a standing monument of the advantage of being misunderstood. Mr. Bernard Shaw is always represented by those who disagree with him, and, I fear, also (if such exist) by those who agree with him, as a capering humorist, a dazzling acrobat, a quick-change artist. It is said that he cannot be taken seriously, that he will defend anything or attack anything, that he will do anything to startle and amuse. All this is not only untrue, but it is, glaringly, the opposite of the truth; it is as wild as to say that Dickens had not the boisterous masculinity of Jane Austen. The whole force and triumph of Mr. Bernard Shaw lie in the fact that he is a thoroughly consistent man. So far from his power consisting in jumping through hoops or standing on his head, his power consists in holding his own fortress night and day. He puts the Shaw test rapidly and rigorously to everything that happens in heaven or earth. His standard never varies. The thing which weak-minded revolutionists and weak-minded Conservatives really hate (and fear) in him, is exactly this, that his scales, such as they are, are held even, and that his law, such as it is, is justly enforced. You may attack his principles, as I do; but I do not know of any instance in which you can attack their application. If he dislikes lawlessness, he dislikes the lawlessness of Socialists as much as that of Individualists. If he dislikes the fever of patriotism, he dislikes it in Boers and Irishmen as well as in Englishmen. If he dislikes the vows and bonds of marriage, he dislikes still more the fiercer bonds and wilder vows that are made by lawless love. If he laughs at the authority of priests, he laughs louder at the pomposity of men of science. If he condemns the irresponsibility of faith, he condemns with a sane consistency the equal irresponsibility of art. He has pleased all the bohemians by saying that women are equal to men; but he has infuriated them by suggesting that men are equal to women. He is almost mechanically just; he has something of the terrible quality of a machine. The man who is really wild and whirling, the man who is really fantastic and incalculable, is not Mr. Shaw, but the average Cabinet Minister. It is Sir Michael Hicks-Beach who jumps through hoops. It is Sir Henry Fowler who stands on his head. The solid and respectable statesman of that type does really leap from position to position; he is really ready to defend anything or nothing; he is really not to be taken seriously. I know perfectly well what Mr. Bernard Shaw will be saying thirty years hence; he will be saying what he has always said. If thirty years hence I meet Mr. Shaw, a reverent being with a silver beard sweeping the earth, and say to him, "One can never, of course, make a verbal attack upon a lady," the patriarch will lift his aged hand and fell me to the earth. We know, I say, what Mr. Shaw will be, saying thirty years hence. But is there any one so darkly read in stars and oracles that he will dare to predict what Mr. Asquith will be saying thirty years hence?
現代世界中有另一人，這人雖然因被誤解而獲得巨大好處，但他在每一個層面都可說張伯倫的對立反相。蕭伯納總是被那些不贊同他，並且我擔心連贊同他（倘若有）的人，視為蹦跳活潑的幽默作家，把戲多樣的雜耍家，變化多端的藝術家，人們認為不應嚴肅看待他，因他會護衛任何事物或攻擊任何事物，他會為了要製造驚喜與出於好玩而做出任何事情。但這樣的看法不僅是不真實，而是根本就徹底與事實相反。這不合理的程度就好比說狄更斯不具有珍奧斯汀的濃烈男子氣概。蕭伯納這人的能力與勝利都奠基於他徹頭徹尾一致這事實上。若說他的能力在於會跳火圈或倒立這些花招，這說法實在是脫離現實，因他的能力建立在能日以繼夜鞏固他的堡壘。針對天地間所發生的一切事情，他都能快速且嚴謹地進行「蕭氏審查」，他的標準從不改變。而意志軟弱、優柔寡斷的改革家與保守份子最討厭（害怕）他的地方，也正是這點，正是他的衡量準則就跟他們的一樣公平，所依循的律法跟他們的一樣公義。你可以像我一樣攻擊他的原則，但我想不到任何事例容人攻擊他對這些原則的執行、使用。若他厭惡不法，他對社會主義者與個人主義者的不法行徑同樣厭惡。若他討厭狂熱的愛國主義，那他對於波爾人、愛爾蘭人、英國人同樣討厭。若他不屑婚姻的誓言與盟約，那他對於愛侶在法律之外所締結的，那更為濃烈的盟約與誓言更為不屑。若他嘲笑神父、僧侶的權威，那他更加嘲弄科學界人士那自以為不可一世的專業。若他譴責宗教的不負責，那他也同樣責難藝術的不負責。當他說女人跟男人同等時，他取悅了所有的波西米亞人，但他也同樣因認為男人跟女人相等而激怒他們。他好似擁有機器那可怕的特質，幾乎可說是如機械般穩定的正直、公義。狂野、隨興、特異、無法預測，這些都不是對蕭伯納的正確描述，而是對一般內閣大臣的描述。會跳火圈的是比奇爵士（Sir Michael Hicks-Beach），會倒立的是福勒爵士（Sir Henry Fowler）。這些體面、令人尊敬的政府官員真的從一個位置跳到另一個位置，隨時都準備好為任何事或不為任何事辯護，因此我們實在無法嚴肅看待他們。但蕭伯納，我非常清楚三十年後他會說什麼，他會說他之前已經說過的話。若三十年後我遇見鬢髮斑白、受人景仰的他，並對他說：「一個人絕對不會用言詞攻擊女士」，這父權主義者會抬起他那年邁的手將我打落地面。就好像我說的，我知道蕭伯納三十年後會說什麼。但會有人對星象與預言如此有把握，膽敢說阿斯奎斯（Mr. Asquith，曾任英國首相）三十年後會說什麼嗎？
第4段
The truth is, that it is quite an error to suppose that absence of definite convictions gives the mind freedom and agility. A man who believes something is ready and witty, because he has all his weapons about him. He can apply his test in an instant. The man engaged in conflict with a man like Mr. Bernard Shaw may fancy he has ten faces; similarly a man engaged against a brilliant duellist may fancy that the sword of his foe has turned to ten swords in his hand. But this is not really because the man is playing with ten swords, it is because he is aiming very straight with one. Moreover, a man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope. Millions of mild black-coated men call themselves sane and sensible merely because they always catch the fashionable insanity, because they are hurried into madness after madness by the maelstrom of the world.
事實是，認定人若不抱持明確信念，反能有更自由靈活的心思，實在是大錯特錯的看法。一個有信仰的人是個準備充足與聰敏智慧的人，因他所有攻防的武器皆隨侍在旁，能立刻拿來進行檢驗。跟像蕭伯納這樣的人進行爭論的人可能幻想他有十張臉，就好像與技巧精湛的擊劍手比劃的人，會以為他敵人手中的劍在霎時變成十把一樣。但敵人不真的持有十把劍，而是使用手中那一把劍擊準目標。擁有明確信念的人，因為不隨世界改變，而總是看起來異於常人。他好像爬入一個靜止不動的行星，地球在他底下像旋轉畫筒（zoetrope）般快速轉動。數以百萬計身著黑色大衣、神色溫和的人，僅因為能夠跟上瘋狂的潮流，能在世界旋渦中快速墜入一次又一次的狂潮，而自詡為心智健全、理智的人。
第5段
People accuse Mr. Shaw and many much sillier persons of "proving that black is white." But they never ask whether the current colour-language is always correct. Ordinary sensible phraseology sometimes calls black white, it certainly calls yellow white and green white and reddish-brown white. We call wine "white wine" which is as yellow as a Bluecoat boy's legs. We call grapes "white grapes" which are manifestly pale green. We give to the European, whose complexion is a sort of pink drab, the horrible title of a "white man"—a picture more bloodcurdling than any spectre in Poe.
人們指責蕭伯納跟許多智慧遠不及他的人「不分黑白」（譯註：原文直譯應該是：證明黑色是白色），但他們卻從沒有想過，究竟目前用於描述顏色的語言是否總是正確。尋常合理的用語，有時就會稱黑色為白色，或至少確定會稱黃色為白色、綠色為白色、紅棕色為白色。我們稱葡萄酒為「白酒」，但其實那跟藍衣制服男孩的腿一樣黃。我們稱葡萄「白葡萄」，但那明明就是淡綠色。我們給膚色帶著些微粉紅的歐洲人那可怕的稱號——「白人」，這詞所呈現的景象比愛倫坡（Poe）書中的任何怪誕更加令人發顫。
留言
張貼留言