《四季隨筆》節(jié)選 - 夏 06

《四季隨筆》是吉辛的散文代表作。其中對隱士賴克羅夫特醉心于書籍、自然景色與回憶過去生活的描述，其實是吉辛的自述，作者以此來抒發(fā)自己的情感，因而本書是一部富有自傳色彩的小品文集。

吉辛窮困的一生，對文學(xué)名著的愛好與追求，以及對大自然恬靜生活的向往，在書中均有充分的反映。本書分為春、夏、秋、冬四個部分，文筆優(yōu)美，行文流暢，是英國文學(xué)中小品文的珍品之一。

以下是由網(wǎng)友分享的《四季隨筆》節(jié)選 - 夏 06的內(nèi)容，讓我們一起來感受吉辛的四季吧!

Of how many dwellings can it be said that no word of anger is ever heard beneath its roof, and that no unkindly feeling ever exists between the inmates? Most men's experience would seem to justify them in declaring that, throughout the inhabited world, no such house exists. I, knowing at all events of one, admit the possibility that there may be more; yet I feel that it is to hazard a conjecture; I cannot point with certainty to any other instance, nor in all my secular life (I speak as one who has quitted the world) could I have named a single example.

天底下能有幾戶人家，屋檐下從沒傳出過吵嘴的聲音，里面居住的人之間從沒有過不和睦？依多數(shù)人的經(jīng)驗，或許可以說，在有人居住的世界里，這樣的人家是不存在的。而我知道無論如何都有那么一戶存在，所以也承認(rèn)或許還可能有更多家。但我感覺這是在冒險臆測，我不能肯定地舉出其他例子，在我全部的世俗生活中（我是以一個遁世之人的身份來說這句話的），也找不出一個這樣的范例。

It is so difficult for human beings to live together; nay, it is so difficult for them to associate, however transitorily, and even under the most favourable conditions, without some shadow of mutual offence. Consider the differences of task and of habit, the conflict of prejudices, the divergence of opinions (though that is probably the same thing), which quickly reveal themselves between any two persons brought into more than casual contact, and think how much self-subdual is implicit whenever, for more than an hour or two, they co-exist in seeming harmony. Man is not made for peaceful intercourse with his fellows; he is by nature self-assertive, commonly aggressive, always critical in a more or less hostile spirit of any characteristic which seems strange to him. That he is capable of profound affections merely modifies here and there his natural contentiousness, and subdues its expression. Even love, in the largest and purest sense of the word, is no safeguard against perilous irritation and sensibilities inborn. And what were the durability of love without the powerful alliance of habit?

對人們來說，在一起生活是困難的；不，應(yīng)該說，人與人之間交往是困難的，不管時間多么短暫，甚至在最有利的境遇下，都不可避免地要蒙上相互冒犯的陰影。想想人們工作和習(xí)慣的不同，偏見上的沖突，觀點上的分歧（盡管那可能是一回事），如果兩個人的接觸有些密切，這些問題很快會出現(xiàn)。試想一下，讓兩個人維持一個或兩個多小時表面上的和諧，這其中將隱含多少自我克制。人生來就不是要與同類和平共處的，他天性獨斷專行，通常還咄咄逼人，總懷著多少有些敵意的心態(tài)批評自己不熟悉的任何特性。他擁有的深沉情感，只是在某些地方緩和了他好斗的天性，遏制了它的表達(dá)。即便是最博大最純粹意義上的愛心，也不能抵御人們天性里充滿危險的怒氣和情感。而如果沒有習(xí)性的強力支撐，又何來愛情的天長地久？

Suppose yourself endowed with such power of hearing that all the talk going on at any moment beneath the domestic roofs of any town became clearly audible to you; the dominant note would be that of moods, tempers, opinions at jar. Who but the most amiable dreamer can doubt it? This, mind you, is not the same thing as saying that angry emotion is the ruling force in human life; the facts of our civilization prove the contrary. Just because, and only because, the natural spirit of conflict finds such frequent scope, does human society hold together, and, on the whole, present a pacific aspect. In the course of ages (one would like to know how many) man has attained a remarkable degree of self-control; dire experience has forced upon him the necessity of compromise, and habit has inclined him (the individual) to prefer a quiet, orderly life. But by instinct he is still a quarrelsome creature, and he gives vent to the impulse as far as it is compatible with his reasoned interests—often, to be sure, without regard for that limit. The average man or woman is always at open discord with some one; the great majority could not live without oft-recurrent squabble. Speak in confidence with any one you like, and get him to tell you how many cases of coldness, alienation, or downright enmity, between friends and kinsfolk, his memory registers; the number will be considerable, and what a vastly greater number of everyday "misunderstandings" may be thence inferred! Verbal contention is, of course, commoner among the poor and the vulgar than in the class of well-bred people living at their ease, but I doubt whether the lower ranks of society find personal association much more difficult than the refined minority above them.

想象一下，如果你天賦異稟，能隨時清晰地聽到任何城鎮(zhèn)中所有人家屋里的所有談話；那其中的主旋律可能是情緒、脾氣和觀點的互相沖突。除了性情最隨和的空想家，誰還會懷疑這一點？但是，注意了，這不等于說怒氣是人類生活的主導(dǎo)力量，我們的文明證明了事實恰恰相反。正是因為，也僅僅因為人類沖突的自然性情能常常得到宣泄，人類社會才能凝聚在一起，并且在總體上呈現(xiàn)出和平的一面。多少個世紀(jì)以來（也許你想知道到底多少個），人們獲得了一種高度的自制力。悲慘的經(jīng)驗迫使他認(rèn)識到妥協(xié)的必要性，習(xí)慣也讓他（單個人）更喜歡過一種安靜、有條理的生活。但是，他天性仍舊是一個動輒爭吵的生靈，只要他認(rèn)為符合自己合理的利益，那么他便會發(fā)泄這種沖動—當(dāng)然，他常常忽視這種限制。普通男女總會和他人公開發(fā)生沖突，大多數(shù)人在生活中難免經(jīng)常發(fā)生爭吵。私下里和你喜歡的任何一個人談?wù)?，讓他告訴你，在他的記憶中，朋友和親人之間有過多少次冷戰(zhàn)、疏遠(yuǎn)或是徹底鬧翻。這個數(shù)量會很驚人，你由此可以推測出日常“誤會”的次數(shù)會多么龐大！當(dāng)然，窮人和俗人中發(fā)生口角的機會要多于生活舒適的教養(yǎng)好的人們，但是，社會底層人們的人際交往是否就比上流社會的少數(shù)人更困難呢，這一點我表示懷疑。

High cultivation may help to self-command, but it multiplies the chances of irritative contact. In mansion, as in hovel, the strain of life is perpetually felt—between the married, between parents and children, between relatives of every degree, between employers and employed. They debate, they dispute, they wrangle, they explode—then nerves are relieved, and they are ready to begin over again. Quit the home and quarrelling is less obvious, but it goes on all about one. What proportion of the letters delivered any morning would be found to be written in displeasure, in petulance, in wrath? The postbag shrieks insults or bursts with suppressed malice. Is it not wonderful—nay, is it not the marvel of marvels—that human life has reached such a high point of public and private organization?

優(yōu)良的教養(yǎng)也許有助于增強自制力，但也大大增加了交往中激發(fā)怒氣的機會。不管在豪門大戶，還是寒舍陋室，生活的壓力總是永恒存在的—在夫婦之間，在父母和孩子之間，在三親六戚之間，在雇主和雇員之間。他們辯論，爭執(zhí)，吵架，最后戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)—然后怒氣消退，他們又能夠重新開始。離開家后，吵架的機會減少了，但它仍在你的周圍繼續(xù)。早晨送抵的信件中，其中有多少封是在不快、暴躁和發(fā)怒的情緒下寫就的呢？郵包好像扯著嗓子罵著臟話，或者是壓抑的惡意將它撐破。人類生活在公共和私人組織上居然達(dá)到這樣一個高度—這難道不是很好嗎—不，應(yīng)該說，這不是奇跡中的奇跡嗎？

And gentle idealists utter their indignant wonder at the continuance of war! Why, it passes the wit of man to explain how it is that nations are ever at peace! For, if only by the rarest good fortune do individuals associate harmoniously, there would seem to be much less likelihood of mutual understanding and good-will between the peoples of alien lands. As a matter of fact, no two nations are ever friendly, in the sense of truly liking each other; with the reciprocal criticism of countries there always mingles a sentiment of animosity. The original meaning of hostis is merely stranger, and a stranger who is likewise a foreigner will only by curious exception fail to stir antipathy in the average human being. Add to this that a great number of persons in every country find their delight and their business in exasperating international disrelish, and with what vestige of common sense can one feel surprise that war is ceaselessly talked of, often enough declared. In days gone by, distance and rarity of communication assured peace between many realms. Now that every country is in proximity to every other, what need is there to elaborate explanations of the distrust, the fear, the hatred, which are a perpetual theme of journalists and statesmen? By approximation, all countries have entered the sphere of natural quarrel. That they f nd plenty of things to quarrel about is no cause for astonishment. A hundred years hence there will be some possibility of perceiving whether international relations are likely to obey the law which has acted with such beneficence in the life of each civilized people; whether this country and that will be content to ease their tempers with bloodless squabbling, subduing the more violent promptings for the common good. Yet I suspect that a century is a very short time to allow for even justifiable surmise of such an outcome. If by any chance newspapers ceased to exist... Talk of war, and one gets involved in such utopian musings!

而溫和的理想家們對戰(zhàn)爭的連綿不斷卻表示訝異和憤怒！唉，其實國與國之間相安無事倒是人類智慧無法解釋的！因為如果人和人之間只有在罕有的境遇里才能和諧相處，那么不同國家的人們之間更不可能有多少機會互相理解和善意相待了。事實上，就真正喜歡對方的意義而言，國家之間從來不是友好的；在國與國的互相抨擊中，總是摻雜著一種敵對的情愫。hostis原本的意思只是陌生人，一個陌生人同時又是外國人，如果不引起普通人的反感，那就是奇怪的例外了。加之每個國家都有很多人專司挑起國際社會敵對情緒，并以此為樂，所以如果你還有一絲常識，就不該對人們無休止討論戰(zhàn)爭和頻繁宣戰(zhàn)表示驚訝。以前，由于距離和通訊手段的匱乏，許多領(lǐng)土間維持了和平?，F(xiàn)在各國之間距離如此接近，還需要解釋為什么不信任、恐懼、厭惡會成為記者和政治家口中永遠(yuǎn)的主題嗎？由于相互接近，所有國家都進(jìn)入了必然爭吵的領(lǐng)域。他們能找到許多爭吵的緣由，這并不讓人感到驚奇。一百年后，我們有可能會看到：國際關(guān)系能否遵從文明人生活中相得益彰的法則；國家間是否會滿足于只用不流血的口角來平息怒火，并為了人們的整體利益而抑制暴力沖動。但是，我懷疑一個世紀(jì)的時間太短，甚至不能為這樣的結(jié)果提供一個合理的猜測。萬一報紙停印……一談起戰(zhàn)爭，我就會陷入這種烏托邦式的冥想！