旅行的藝術(shù):回歸 Ⅸ 習(xí)慣-6

6

6

德·梅伊斯特不僅僅是一個(gè)室內(nèi)旅行家。他也是一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)意義上的偉大旅行家。他游覽過(guò)意大利和俄羅斯，與皇家軍隊(duì)一同在阿爾卑斯山度過(guò)了一個(gè)冬天，并且在高加索與俄軍交戰(zhàn)。

De Maistre was not only a room-traveller. He was also a great traveller in the classic sense. He journeyed to Italy and Russia, he spent a winter with the royalist armies in the Alps and fought a Russian campaign in the Caucasus.

在1801年一篇寫(xiě)于南美洲的自傳體筆記中，亞歷山大·馮·洪堡寫(xiě)到了他旅行的動(dòng)機(jī)：“我被一種不確定的渴望所激勵(lì)，這種渴望就是從一種令人厭倦的日常生活轉(zhuǎn)向一個(gè)奇妙的世界。”正是這種對(duì)立的關(guān)系，即“令人厭倦的日常生活”與“奇妙的世界”相對(duì)的關(guān)系，引起了德·梅伊斯特的興趣，他樂(lè)于為這兩個(gè)世界重新劃出精妙的界限。他一定不會(huì)告訴洪堡，南美洲是乏味的，他僅僅會(huì)催促他去思考，他的故鄉(xiāng)柏林或許也能提供某些東西。

In an autobiographical note written in 1801 in South America, Alexander von Humboldt had written of his motives for travelling: 'I was spurred on by an uncertain longing to be transported from a boring daily life to a marvellous world.' It was this dichotomy, 'boring daily life' pitted against 'marvellous world', that De Maistre had tried to redraw with greater subtlety. He would not have told Humboldt that South America was dull, he would merely have urged him to consider that his native Berlin might have something to offer too.

80年以后，尼采讀了德·梅伊斯特的著作并大加贊賞（他自己也是一個(gè)老在斗室打轉(zhuǎn)的人），他曾發(fā)表如下感想：

Eight decades later, Nietzsche, who had read and admired De Maistre (and spent much time in his room), picked up on the thought:

有些人知道如何利用他們的日常生活中平淡無(wú)奇的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，使自己成為沃土，在這片沃土上每年能結(jié)出三次果實(shí)，而其他一些人（為數(shù)眾多）則只會(huì)逐命運(yùn)之流，逐時(shí)代和國(guó)家變幻之流，就像一個(gè)軟木塞一樣在上面漂來(lái)漂去。當(dāng)我們觀察到這一切后，我們會(huì)把人分為兩類：一種人可以化腐朽為神奇，另一種人則是化神奇為腐朽，絕大部分人是后者，前者則為數(shù)寥寥。

When we observe how some people know how to manage their experiences-their insignificant, everyday experiences-so that they become an arable soil that bears fruit three times a year, while others-and how many there are!-are driven through surging waves of destiny, the most multifarious currents of the times and the nations, and yet always remain on top, bobbing like a cork, then we are in the end tempted to divide mankind into a minority (a minimality) of those who know how to make much of little, and a majority of those who know how to make little of much.