第五章
13
And now it comes to my mind that Mr. H. G. Wells actually has written a very delightful romance about men growing as tall as trees; and that here, again, he seems to me to have been a victim of this vague relativism. "The Food of the Gods" is, like Mr. Bernard Shaw's play, in essence a study of the Superman idea. And it lies, I think, even through the veil of a half-pantomimic allegory, open to the same intellectual attack. We cannot be expected to have any regard for a great creature if he does not in any manner conform to our standards. For unless he passes our standard of greatness we cannot even call him great. Nietszche summed up all that is interesting in the Superman idea when he said, "Man is a thing which has to be surpassed." But the very word "surpass" implies the existence of a standard common to us and the thing surpassing us. If the Superman is more manly than men are, of course they will ultimately deify him, even if they happen to kill him first. But if he is simply more supermanly, they may be quite indifferent to him as they would be to another seemingly aimless monstrosity. He must submit to our test even in order to overawe us. Mere force or size even is a standard; but that alone will never make men think a man their superior. Giants, as in the wise old fairytales, are vermin. Supermen, if not good men, are vermin.
我現在想起，威爾斯還真的創作過一篇富娛樂性的浪漫故事，裡面的人物長得跟樹一樣高。而在那篇文章裡，他似乎再一次成為自己模糊相對論的受害者。<神食>（The Food of the Gods） 這部作品，跟蕭伯納的劇作相同，其本意皆在探討「超人」這概念。即使隔著半默劇式的比喻之帳，我認為這作品的弱點仍大喇喇顯露，並暴露於同樣的論述攻擊下。若一個生物不符合我們的標準，那要期待我們對這偉大的生物有任何尊敬之情，實在很難。因為除非他通過我們對於偉大的認定標準，否則我們不會承認他偉大。尼采以一句話總結他關於超人這概念的精彩部分，他說：「人是一種需要被超越的生物。（Man is a thing which has to be surpassed.）」但「超越」這個字本身即意味著，在我們當中存在一個普遍共通的標準，而這生物超越了我們。若超人比人更「人性」，人當然會將他神格化，即使他們對這超人的首先反應是將他殺了。但他如果只是更「超人性」，人應該會對他無感、冷淡，就好像又見到另外一個天外飛來的怪物一樣。若要讓我們對他感到崇敬，他必須先經過我們的標準的檢驗。力量與體型上的相當是一個標準，但光是這個標準無法讓我們視其為人上人。就好比西方傳奇神話中的巨人是害人怪物，超人若非好人，也不過只是惡棍毒瘤。
14
"The Food of the Gods" is the tale of "Jack the GiantKiller" told from the point of view of the giant. This has not, I think, been done before in literature; but I have little doubt that the psychological substance of it existed in fact. I have little doubt that the giant whom Jack killed did regard himself as the Superman. It is likely enough that he considered Jack a narrow and parochial person who wished to frustrate a great forward movement of the life-force. If (as not unfrequently was the case) he happened to have two heads, he would point out the elementary maxim which declares them to be better than one. He would enlarge on the subtle modernity of such an equipment, enabling a giant to look at a subject from two points of view, or to correct himself with promptitude. But Jack was the champion of the enduring human standards, of the principle of one man one head and one man one conscience, of the single head and the single heart and the single eye. Jack was quite unimpressed by the question of whether the giant was a particularly gigantic giant. All he wished to know was whether he was a good giant—that is, a giant who was any good to us. What were the giant's religious views; what his views on politics and the duties of the citizen? Was he fond of children—or fond of them only in a dark and sinister sense? To use a fine phrase for emotional sanity, was his heart in the right place? Jack had sometimes to cut him up with a sword in order to find out. The old and correct story of Jack the GiantKiller is simply the whole story of man; if it were understood we should need no Bibles or histories. But the modern world in particular does not seem to understand it at all. The modern world, like Mr. Wells is on the side of the giants; the safest place, and therefore the meanest and the most prosaic. The modern world, when it praises its little Caesars, talks of being strong and brave: but it does not seem to see the eternal paradox involved in the conjunction of these ideas. The strong cannot be brave. Only the weak can be brave; and yet again, in practice, only those who can be brave can be trusted, in time of doubt, to be strong. The only way in which a giant could really keep himself in training against the inevitable Jack would be by continually fighting other giants ten times as big as himself. That is by ceasing to be a giant and becoming a Jack. Thus that sympathy with the small or the defeated as such, with which we Liberals and Nationalists have been often reproached, is not a useless sentimentalism at all, as Mr. Wells and his friends fancy. It is the first law of practical courage. To be in the weakest camp is to be in the strongest school. Nor can I imagine anything that would do humanity more good than the advent of a race of Supermen, for them to fight like dragons. If the Superman is better than we, of course we need not fight him; but in that case, why not call him the Saint? But if he is merely stronger (whether physically, mentally, or morally stronger, I do not care a farthing), then he ought to have to reckon with us at least for all the strength we have. It we are weaker than he, that is no reason why we should be weaker than ourselves. If we are not tall enough to touch the giant's knees, that is no reason why we should become shorter by falling on our own. But that is at bottom the meaning of all modern hero-worship and celebration of the Strong Man, the Caesar the Superman. That he may be something more than man, we must be something less.
<神食>是「傑克與魔豆」（Jack the Giant-Killer）這故事的巨人視角版。據我所知，先前似乎沒有類似的文學作品，但我絲毫不懷疑，這故事的心理層面本質早已存在。我相信傑克殺死的那個巨人，勢必認為自己是超人，並且也極可能看傑克不過是個目光短淺、心思狹窄，想要阻擋生命偉大進展的人。若他剛好有兩個頭（正如童話中常見的設定），他也會引用通俗格言來宣告：兩個總比一個好。他會擴大解釋這雙頭的巧妙神奇之處，可讓他從兩個不同的角度看事物，或讓他可敏捷快速地變換姿態跟角度。但傑克是人類標準長存的勝利代表，彰顯一人一頭、一人一良知 、一頭一心一眼的人類本質。對於這巨人是否是特別巨大無比的巨人，傑克毫不在意。他只在意，這巨人是否是好巨人，意思是，這巨人對我們好嗎？這巨人的宗教信仰是什麼，他對政治以及對公民的職責有何看法？他喜歡小孩嗎？抑或只是邪惡病態地喜歡親近小孩？如用心理健康（emotional sanity）的語彙來度量，他的心理正常嗎？傑克有時不得不用劍刺他才能得到答案。傑克與魔豆這個古老無誤的故事正是人類的故事，若我們能真正理解這故事，可能就無需聖經或歷史了。但現代社會似乎特別不能明白這故事。現代社會，就跟威爾斯一樣，都站在巨人那一邊，那最安全的地方，因此也是最吝嗇也最平淡乏味之處。當現代社會讚美小凱撒，高談強壯與勇敢時，卻未留意到這些概念的交織處存在著一個永恆的矛盾。強壯的，不會是勇敢的。只有軟弱的，才能展現出勇敢。而現實中，當讓人懷疑困惑的時刻來臨，只有那些勇敢的，配得我們信賴、期待能變得強壯。巨人若要時刻訓練自己，預備對抗遲早會出現的傑克，唯有持續不斷跟比自己強大十倍以上的巨人奮戰，也就是說，把自己從巨人轉化成為傑克。照此來看，對弱小與戰敗者的同情，也就是我們這些自由派與國家主義者常被指責的情愫，完全非威爾斯跟他的朋友所想的那樣，是無用的多愁善感，而是展現勇氣的第一定律。站在弱者那方，就等同於註冊進入強者訓練學校。我也無法想像還有什麼比超人的來臨更對人類有益的事情，因他們就像龍一樣打鬥。若超人比我們更優秀，我們當然無須對抗他，但倘若如此，為何不稱超人為聖人？但若超人只是比較強壯（無論是生理上、心智上或是道德上更強，皆可），那他至少應依我們所擁有的全部力量重視我們。若我們比他弱，那也不代表我們比我們自己更弱。若我們的高度搆不到巨人的膝蓋，那也不代表我們要把自己自貶在地。但這卻是現代社會各種英雄崇拜的本質，現代社會就是如此歌頌強人、如此頌揚超人凱撒。好像他更偉大的同時，我們一定更卑賤。
15
Doubtless there is an older and better hero-worship than this. But the old hero was a being who, like Achilles, was more human than humanity itself. Nietzsche's Superman is cold and friendless. Achilles is so foolishly fond of his friend that he slaughters armies in the agony of his bereavement. Mr. Shaw's sad Caesar says in his desolate pride, "He who has never hoped can never despair." The ManGod of old answers from his awful hill, "Was ever sorrow like unto my sorrow?" A great man is not a man so strong that he feels less than other men; he is a man so strong that he feels more. And when Nietszche says, "A new commandment I give to you, 'be hard,'" he is really saying, "A new commandment I give to you, 'be dead.'" Sensibility is the definition of life.
無疑的，有一種存在更久也更好的英雄崇拜模式。但這種模式所崇拜的古代英雄，例如阿基里斯（Achilles），比一般人更具人性。尼采的超人冷漠、不受友情繫絆，但阿基里斯卻愚蠢地深愛他的朋友，甚至因失去朋友之悲痛而上陣殺敵。蕭伯納作品中悲傷的凱撒在淒微的傲氣中說出：「從未抱過希望的人也絕不會失望。」那道成肉身的人子（原文：Man-God of old）從那骷髏山崗（原文：awful hill）上說出：「有痛苦像我所受的痛苦嗎？」偉大的人，不是一個因為非常強壯而較無痛楚、無感受的人，而是一個非常強壯，因而有更為強烈感受的人。而當尼采說：「我給你們一個新命令，要『堅強』」，他其實是在說：「我給你們一個新命令，要『成為死人』」。人的情感、感受，是生命力的基礎。
16
I recur for a last word to Jack the GiantKiller. I have dwelt on this matter of Mr. Wells and the giants, not because it is specially prominent in his mind; I know that the Superman does not bulk so large in his cosmos as in that of Mr. Bernard Shaw. I have dwelt on it for the opposite reason; because this heresy of immoral hero-worship has taken, I think, a slighter hold of him, and may perhaps still be prevented from perverting one of the best thinkers of the day. In the course of "The New Utopia" Mr. Wells makes more than one admiring allusion to Mr. W. E. Henley. That clever and unhappy man lived in admiration of a vague violence, and was always going back to rude old tales and rude old ballads, to strong and primitive literatures, to find the praise of strength and the justification of tyranny. But he could not find it. It is not there. The primitive literature is shown in the tale of Jack the GiantKiller. The strong old literature is all in praise of the weak. The rude old tales are as tender to minorities as any modern political idealist. The rude old ballads are as sentimentally concerned for the underdog as the Aborigines Protection Society. When men were tough and raw, when they lived amid hard knocks and hard laws, when they knew what fighting really was, they had only two kinds of songs. The first was a rejoicing that the weak had conquered the strong, the second a lamentation that the strong had, for once in a way, conquered the weak. For this defiance of the statu quo, this constant effort to alter the existing balance, this premature challenge to the powerful, is the whole nature and inmost secret of the psychological adventure which is called man. It is his strength to disdain strength. The forlorn hope is not only a real hope, it is the only real hope of mankind. In the coarsest ballads of the greenwood men are admired most when they defy, not only the king, but what is more to the point, the hero. The moment Robin Hood becomes a sort of Superman, that moment the chivalrous chronicler shows us Robin thrashed by a poor tinker whom he thought to thrust aside. And the chivalrous chronicler makes Robin Hood receive the thrashing in a glow of admiration. This magnanimity is not a product of modern humanitarianism; it is not a product of anything to do with peace. This magnanimity is merely one of the lost arts of war. The Henleyites call for a sturdy and fighting England, and they go back to the fierce old stories of the sturdy and fighting English. And the thing that they find written across that fierce old literature everywhere, is "the policy of Majuba."
我最後要再說說「傑克與魔豆」。我一再想起威爾斯與巨人，並不是因為巨人對他而言特別重要，我知道「超人」這概念在他的世界裡，並不像在蕭伯納心思裡那樣佔據著巨大的地位。我一再想起的原因恰好相反，因為這不道德的英雄崇拜異端，據我觀察，對他產生的影響較小，並且或許能持續被防堵，不去對這位當今最佳的其中一位思想家造成阻礙。在「新烏托邦」中，威爾斯不只一次用讚賞語句暗比威廉亨利（譯註：英國詩人W. E. Henley）。這位聰明又陰鬱的詩人終生欣賞、讚揚那模糊的暴戾之勇，並總是追想未經修飾、粗俗的古舊故事與詩歌，強壯又原始的文學作品，企圖以此來頌揚勇力，來合理暴政。但他找不到。那些並不存在。原始文學所呈現的面貌就如「傑克與魔豆」這故事一樣，強壯又古老的故事總是頌讚弱者，那些粗俗的老故事，就跟任何當今的政治理想家一樣關切弱勢少數。那些粗俗的老詩歌，就跟原住民保護協會一樣關懷受欺壓者。當人處於艱苦又原始的階段，在崎嶇逆境與冷血法律的處境下，當他們深知為生存奮戰是何種滋味時，他們只會有兩種頌歌。一種是對弱者戰勝強者的詠讚，另一種是悲嘆強者，某次打敗了弱者。因這種對現狀的現狀的反抗，這嘗試改變現存平衡的持續努力，這對強壯者的初生之犢挑戰，是心靈歷險的全然本質與最深秘密，而這歷險即是人性。人力量的本質，就是對力量的反抗。孤注一擲的希望不僅真實，更是人類唯一的真實希望。在書寫綠林最粗野的歌謠中，最受崇拜的人物是那些勇於反抗的，不僅是反抗國王，更精確的說，是反抗英雄。當羅賓漢成為某種超人的那刻，也就是記錄下這俠義故事的野史家，寫下羅賓漢被他以為已推開在一旁的弱小鍋匠推倒在地的時候，並且這野史家讓羅賓漢應聲倒地之時，周圍響起一陣讚嘆。這種對弱者的寬宏同情，並不是現代人道主義的產物，也跟追求和平無關。這種寬宏氣度不過只是一種失傳的戰爭藝術。與威廉亨利相同的思想家，嘗試挖掘勇敢奮戰的英格蘭時代的勇猛老故事，在當中尋找堅強、奮戰的英格蘭，但他們卻發現，在這些戰情猛烈的古代文學中遍滿了「馬久巴政策」（譯註：原文為the policy of Majuba，至今完全不確定其意涵。只知道那應該是跟馬久巴山丘的戰爭有關，是指：掩護政策嗎？還是...? ）
＝＝
留言
張貼留言