第十章 論涼鞋與簡樸
現代英國人最大的不幸，不在於他們比其他人更愛吹噓（他們並沒有）；而在於他們吹噓的恰恰是那些一旦吹噓就會失去的特質。一個法國人可以自豪於自己的大膽與邏輯，同時依然保持大膽與邏輯。一個德國人可以自豪於自己的善於沉思與井然有序，同時依然保持沉思與有序。但是，一個英國人無法自豪於自己的簡樸直率，並同時保有簡樸直率。針對這些奇特的德行，意識到它們的存在的同時，也扼殺了它們的存在。一個人可以意識到自己是英勇或神聖的，但他不可能（無論盎格魯撒克遜詩人們為此寫了多少詩歌）意識到自己「無意識」。
我認為不可否認的是，這種「不可能」的特質，附著在一群人身上，而這群人（至少在他們自己眼裡）與盎格魯-撒克遜主義學派截然不同。我指的是通常與托爾斯泰（Tolstoyan）聯想在一起的「簡樸生活」學派。如果整天掛在嘴邊說自己有多強壯，會導致一個人變得不那麼強壯；那麼整天談論自己的簡樸更會導致一人不再簡樸。我認為，應對現代「簡樸生活」的支持者提出一項批評，就是那些對信奉各類簡樸生活，包含素食主義到生活一致性令人景仰的杜霍波爾教派（Doukhobors）。這批評是：他們要在無關緊要的事上要我們變得簡單，卻在至關重要的事上讓我們變得複雜。他們想讓我們在那些不重要的事情上變得簡單——例如飲食、服裝、禮儀、經濟制度，但卻要我們在那些重要的事情上變得複雜——例如哲學、忠誠、靈性的接納與拒絕。一個人吃的是烤番茄還是生番茄，其實無關緊要；但如果他吃著生番茄，心靈卻備受煎熬，那問題就大了。唯一值得保留的簡樸，是心靈的簡樸，是得以接納與享受喜樂的簡樸。我們或許可對何種體系能保存這種簡樸抱有合理的懷疑；但毫無疑問的是，刻意追求簡樸的體系會摧毀它。一個一時興起大啖魚子醬的人，比一個因為依循原則，而啃葡萄堅果麥片的人，擁有更多的簡樸。這些人主要的錯誤，就體現在他們最鍾愛的那句格言裡——「生活簡樸，思想高尚」（plain living and high thinking）。這些人不需要、也不會因「生活簡樸，思想高尚」而進步。他們需要的是相反的東西。「生活優渥，思想平實」（high living and plain thinking）才能使他們進步。一點點優渥的生活（我這話是帶著充分責任感說的，一點點優渥的生活）可教會他們人類歡愉慶祝，也就是自創世以來就一直存在的歡宴的力量與意義。可教會他們一個歷史事實：人造的事物，比自然的事物更古老。可教會他們， 舉杯共飲與飢餓一樣古老。可教會他們，儀式主義比任何宗教都更早存在。而一點點平實的思想將教會他們，他們那套道德觀是多麼嚴苛且充滿幻想；一個托爾斯泰主義者的大腦是多麼高度文明且結構複雜，才會真正相信愛自己的國家是邪惡的，而動武是種罪。
Chapter X On Sandals and Simplicity
The great misfortune of the modern English is not at all that they are more boastful than other people (they are not); it is that they are boastful about those particular things which nobody can boast of without losing them. A Frenchman can be proud of being bold and logical, and still remain bold and logical. A German can be proud of being reflective and orderly, and still remain reflective and orderly. But an Englishman cannot be proud of being simple and direct, and still remain simple and direct. In the matter of these strange virtues, to know them is to kill them. A man may be conscious of being heroic or conscious of being divine, but he cannot (in spite of all the Anglo-Saxon poets) be conscious of being unconscious.
Now, I do not think that it can be honestly denied that some portion of this impossibility attaches to a class very different in their own opinion, at least, to the school of Anglo-Saxonism. I mean that school of the simple life, commonly associated with Tolstoy. If a perpetual talk about one's own robustness leads to being less robust, it is even more true that a perpetual talking about one's own simplicity leads to being less simple. One great complaint, I think, must stand against the modern upholders of the simple life—the simple life in all its varied forms, from vegetarianism to the honourable consistency of the Doukhobors. This complaint against them stands, that they would make us simple in the unimportant things, but complex in the important things. They would make us simple in the things that do not matter—that is, in diet, in costume, in etiquette, in economic system. But they would make us complex in the things that do matter—in philosophy, in loyalty, in spiritual acceptance, and spiritual rejection. It does not so very much matter whether a man eats a grilled tomato or a plain tomato; it does very much matter whether he eats a plain tomato with a grilled mind. The only kind of simplicity worth preserving is the simplicity of the heart, the simplicity which accepts and enjoys. There may be a reasonable doubt as to what system preserves this; there can surely be no doubt that a system of simplicity destroys it. There is more simplicity in the man who eats caviar on impulse than in the man who eats Grape-Nuts on principle. The chief error of these people is to be found in the very phrase to which they are most attached—"plain living and high thinking." These people do not stand in need of, will not be improved by, plain living and high thinking. They stand in need of the contrary. They would be improved by high living and plain thinking. A little high living (I say, having a full sense of responsibility, a little high living) would teach them the force and meaning of the human festivities, of the banquet that has gone on from the beginning of the world. It would teach them the historic fact that the artificial is, if anything, older than the natural. It would teach them that the loving-cup is as old as any hunger. It would teach them that ritualism is older than any religion. And a little plain thinking would teach them how harsh and fanciful are the mass of their own ethics, how very civilized and very complicated must be the brain of the Tolstoyan who really believes it to be evil to love one's country and wicked to strike a blow.
A man approaches, wearing sandals and simple raiment, a raw tomato held firmly in his right hand, and says, "The affections of family and country alike are hindrances to the fuller development of human love;" but the plain thinker will only answer him, with a wonder not untinged with admiration, "What a great deal of trouble you must have taken in order to feel like that." High living will reject the tomato. Plain thinking will equally decisively reject the idea of the invariable sinfulness of war. High living will convince us that nothing is more materialistic than to despise a pleasure as purely material. And plain thinking will convince us that nothing is more materialistic than to reserve our horror chiefly for material wounds.
留言
張貼留言