第七章
9
Pater's mistake is revealed in his most famous phrase. He asks us to burn with a hard, gemlike flame. Flames are never hard and never gem-like— they cannot be handled or arranged. So human emotions are never hard and never gem-like; they are always dangerous, like flames, to touch or even to examine. There is only one way in which our passions can become hard and gemlike, and that is by becoming as cold as gems. No blow then has ever been struck at the natural loves and laughter of men so sterilizing as this carpe diem of the aesthetes. For any kind of pleasure a totally different spirit is required; a certain shyness, a certain indeterminate hope, a certain boyish expectation. Purity and simplicity are essential to passions—yes even to evil passions. Even vice demands a sort of virginity.
佩特的錯誤在他的名言中昭然若揭。他要我們以堅硬、寶石般的火焰燃燒。但火焰從不堅硬，也從不像寶石，無法被拿起或雕琢。人的情感也從不堅硬或像寶石，而總是如同火焰般，要小心觸碰，甚至小心檢視以防危險。只有在一種狀況下我們的情感才會變得堅硬如寶石，就是當我們變得冷酷如石頭般時。對人類天性的情愛與歡笑的攻擊，從未有比這些唯美主義詩人所提出的把握當下哲學更具殺傷力的。不同的樂趣需要全然不同的精神，有時是羞怯，有時是無把握的希望，有時是稚氣的期待。但純潔與簡單永遠是情感所不可或缺的，即使是邪惡的情感也是如此，就算是邪情也欲求貞節。
10
Omar's (or Fitzgerald's) effect upon the other world we may let go, his hand upon this world has been heavy and paralyzing. The Puritans, as I have said, are far jollier than he. The new ascetics who follow Thoreau or Tolstoy are much livelier company; for, though the surrender of strong drink and such luxuries may strike us as an idle negation, it may leave a man with innumerable natural pleasures, and, above all, with man's natural power of happiness. Thoreau could enjoy the sunrise without a cup of coffee. If Tolstoy cannot admire marriage, at least he is healthy enough to admire mud. Nature can be enjoyed without even the most natural luxuries. A good bush needs no wine. But neither nature nor wine nor anything else can be enjoyed if we have the wrong attitude towards happiness, and Omar (or Fitzgerald) did have the wrong attitude towards happiness. He and those he has influenced do not see that if we are to be truly gay, we must believe that there is some eternal gaiety in the nature of things. We cannot enjoy thoroughly even a pas-de-quatre at a subscription dance unless we believe that the stars are dancing to the same tune. No one can be really hilarious but the serious man. "Wine," says the Scripture, "maketh glad the heart of man," but only of the man who has a heart. The thing called high spirits is possible only to the spiritual. Ultimately a man cannot rejoice in anything except the nature of things. Ultimately a man can enjoy nothing except religion. Once in the world's history men did believe that the stars were dancing to the tune of their temples, and they danced as men have never danced since. With this old pagan eudaemonism the sage of the Rubaiyat has quite as little to do as he has with any Christian variety. He is no more a Bacchanal than he is a saint. Dionysus and his church was grounded on a serious joie-de-vivre like that of Walt Whitman. Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad. "Drink," he says, "for you know not whence you come nor why. Drink, for you know not when you go nor where. Drink, because the stars are cruel and the world as idle as a humming-top. Drink, because there is nothing worth trusting, nothing worth fighting for. Drink, because all things are lapsed in a base equality and an evil peace." So he stands offering us the cup in his hand. And at the high altar of Christianity stands another figure, in whose hand also is the cup of the vine. "Drink" he says "for the whole world is as red as this wine, with the crimson of the love and wrath of God. Drink, for the trumpets are blowing for battle and this is the stirrup-cup. Drink, for this my blood of the new testament that is shed for you. Drink, for I know of whence you come and why. Drink, for I know of when you go and where."
我們或可忽略歐馬（或費茲傑羅）對另一個世界造成的影響，他對這個世界的影響已夠重大，足以讓這世界癱瘓。如我先前所言，清教徒都比他快樂許多。跟隨梭羅（Thoreau）或托爾斯泰的苦修者都比他更愉悅。雖然狂飲荒宴看似閒散、虛擲生命，但卻給人許多滿足天性的快樂，並且最重要的，保留一個人感到快樂的天然能力。梭羅無需咖啡便能享受日出的美景。若托爾斯泰不喜歡婚姻，至少他還身心健康，能品味土壤。即使缺少最天然的奢持品，大自然也還是能被人享受。一叢灌木無需搭配美酒。但倘若我們對快樂抱持錯誤的態度，那無論是自然或酒或任何其他事物都無法被享受，而歐馬（或費茲傑羅）對快樂的態度就是錯的。他跟受其所影響的人都不明白，若我們想要真正快樂，我們必須相信大自然間存有永恆的喜悅。除非我們相信天上的星也以其自然韻律起舞，否則我們在舞廳內跳著四人舞時也不可能徹底享受。除了認真嚴肅的人外，沒有人能真正滑稽好笑。聖經說：「酒能悅人心。」但這話也只適用於有心的人。所謂的興高采烈只在那些有靈魂的人身上發生。追根究底，除了事物的本性，人無法在任何事物中得到快樂。追根究底，除了宗教，人無法尋得任何其他享受。在世界歷史中，曾經有一度人相信星宿會隨著廟宇的旋律起舞，因而跳出後世無法再現的舞蹈。而充滿魯拜集精神的智者，毫不沾染這古老的外邦幸福精神，正如他也全然不顧任何基督教信仰一樣。他不是聖人、也非酒神。戴奧尼修斯（譯註：希臘神話中的酒神）與其廟宇立基於嚴肅、好比華特惠特曼（譯解：美國詩人）詩作般的人生樂趣上。戴奧尼修斯造酒，那酒不是藥，而是聖物。基督耶穌也造酒，那酒不是藥，而是聖餐。歐馬造酒，但那不是聖物，而是藥。他吃喝是因為人生充滿苦難，他暢飲是因為悲傷。「喝吧！」他說，「因為你不知道你何時來，又為何而來。喝吧！因你不知道你何時離開，又走向何方。喝吧！因為宇宙星辰殘酷，而這世界旋轉如陀螺百般聊賴。喝吧！因為無物值得信任、無目標值得奮鬥。喝吧！因為所有一切都在低級的平等與不公的和平中墮落。」因此他站起伸出手，遞給我們一杯酒。但在基督教的祭壇上，站立著另一個身影，他的手上也拿著一杯葡萄酒。「喝吧！」他說，「因這整個世界在神緋紅的愛與憤怒下，就如這杯酒般鮮紅。喝吧！因上戰場的角聲已響起，這杯是餞別酒。喝吧！因這是我與你們立新約的血，這血是為你們流的。喝吧！因我知道你們何時來，為何來。喝吧！因我知道你們何時離開，走向何方。」
-----
留言
張貼留言