.
（本段抄自某書）
1749年10月，法蘭西王政君主治下的第戎學院在《法蘭西信使》上刊登了一則徵文啟事，以「復興學問和藝術是否有助純化道德風尚」為題徵集有獎論文。盧梭讀到這則啟事，一下子陷入激奮狀態，腦子裡馬上產生出一篇文章的立意。在不到半年時間裡，盧梭精心炮製出應徵文，按啟事規定的時間，在次年(1750年)4月1日前寄達第戎學院，時年38歲。同年八月，第戎學院徵文獎評審委員會宣佈：盧梭的論文在十三篇應徵文中勝出，獲得本次徵文獎。次年(1751年)元月，盧梭以單行本形式正式出版這篇獲獎文。這篇文章讓盧梭在一夜之間成為整個歐洲的「文化名人」，也讓人們看到，盧梭絕非僅僅是個文藝青年，他有深厚的古典學養，深諳政治學問……。在接下來的十五年中，盧梭寫下一系列如今已成為西方經典的政治哲學作品，引發迄今沒有停歇的爭議，留下迄今學界沒有獲得共識的理解困惑：1755的《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》，1758的《致達朗貝爾論戲劇的信書》，1761的《朱莉，或新愛洛綺絲》，1762的《社會契約：或政治權利原理》和《愛彌兒：或教育》，1764的《山中書簡》……
由於後來盧梭又參加一次第戎學院有獎徵文，寫出《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》，所以大家習將「復興學問和藝術」稱為《第一論》，「論人類不平等」稱為《第二論》。Lionel Trilling《Sincerity and Authenticity》（頁60-62）解說《第一論》對文學的論點，我分段提示如下：
本段說明盧梭批評文學是文明腐化人民的一個工具，所謂腐化，是為了增進人民間的和諧而犧牲掉自由、自我伸張。
The work which won for Rousseau his initial fame was the so-called First Discourse, to which the concept of sincerity is central. The essay responds to the question proposed by the Academy of Dijon – `Has the restoration of the sciences and the arts tended to purify morals:’ We know, of course, that it answers in the negative, but when we undertake to paraphrase Rousseau’s argument without having the text before us, we find it hard to do so with accuracy – the chances are that we will assign to the phrase `the sciences and the arts’ a unitary and general meaning and make it stand for civilization as a whole, and understand Rousseau to be saying that civilization, so far from purifying morals, has corrupted the elemental, essential nature of man. This formulation is not alien to Rousseau’s intention, but it is not what he says in the First Discourse. What he does say goes so much against our settled views [這裏說「違反我們既定的看法」是要製造對比] that we cannot readily accept that he really does say it. The proposition he advances is that the practice of the sciences and the arts is a peculiarly corrupting aspect of civilization. His emphasis is upon the arts, by which he chiefly means literature. It is literature that is the pre-eminent agent of man’s corruption, the essence or paradigm of the inherent falsehood of civilized society. Literature embodies the very principle of society, which is the individual’s abnegation of personal autonomy in order to win the forbearance [n.寬容] and esteem of others – early in the First Discourse Rousseau says that the chief usefulness literary occupations may be thought to have is that `they make men more sociable [read: more conformable] by inspiring in them the desire to please one another with works worthy of their mutual approval’.
本段說明盧梭對文學的理解非常侷限，很多文學作品和他所說的相反。
We are habituated to the idea that society, though necessary for survival, corrupts the life it fosters, and most of us give this idea some degree of assent. But we receive with no such tolerance the idea that literature is an accomplice in the social betrayal. This offends our deepest pieties. And in defence of the art we love and trust we seize eagerly upon [逮住，捉住(以施予打擊)] Rousseau’s statement that literature is motivated by the desire to `please’, that it is characterized by a `uniform and false veil of politeness’ and by `that much vaunted [v.自負，誇耀] urbanity [n.客套，文雅，優雅] which we owe to the enlightenment of our century’ – it is plain, we say, that Rousseau takes an all too local and temporal view of literature; the intention of the great works of the past, let alone of the age to come, is surely not comprised by the simple and servile purpose of `pleasing’. The literature to which we give our admiration and gratitude fulfils its function exactly by rending [v.撕碎] the false veil of politeness, by refusing the compromises of urbanity.
本段反轉前段之批評態度，講盧梭思想的價值。作者認為城市生活與市民是新興事物，它們取得優勢後，個人便屈服於大眾意見之下，尋求自己與大眾一致，因此個人特性、獨立思想遭到壓抑。作者將此稱為「不誠」，即不忠於自己。文學作品的流佈，傳播了大眾意見，並使人不誠。
This objection serves our piety but it does not really confront what Rousseau is saying about literature. It is true that he frames his indictment in terms of a particular aesthetic doctrine instituted in the Renaissance, still ascendant in his own day, and now wholly without credit. But his concern is far from being anachronistic: its real object is the developing status of literature in the modern world, its relation to that new social circumstance of which I have spoken, the ever more powerful existence of the public, that human entity which is defined by its urban habitat, its multitudinousness, and its ready accessibility to opinion. The individual who lives in this new circumstance is subject to the constant influence, the literal in-flowing, of the mental processes of others, which, in the degree that they stimulate or enlarge his consciousness, make it less his own. He finds it ever more difficult to know what his own self is and what being true to it consists in. It is with the psychological and moral consequences of the modern public dispensation in mind that Rousseau invents his famous savage, one of whose defining traits is the perfect autonomy of his consciousness. `The savage lives within himself,’ Rousseau says in the Second Discourse; `the sociable man knows how to live only in the opinion of others, and it is, so to speak, from their judgement alone that he draws the sentiment of his own being.’ In Rousseau’s view, literature stands preeminent among the agencies of modern society which convey opinion and make it forcible and thus control and qualify the individual’s sentiment of his own being.
Trilling第一段末引用的盧梭原文，因手頭的譯本不同，不能確定，最像來自《第一論》第13段。該書符合Trilling論述的段落，大致有：
〔第9段〕精神有自己的需要，身體同樣如此。身體的需要是社會的基礎，精神的需要則是愉悅。統治和法律為群體的人們提供安全和安利；種種科學、文學和藝術不那麼專制，從而也許更有力量，它們把花環纏繞在讓人們揹負的枷鎖上，窒息人們對原初自由的情感，人們似乎是為此自由而生的──使他們喜愛自己的受奴役，把他們形塑成所謂開化的人民。需要樹立起王權寶座，科學和文藝加固王權寶座。地上的權力們啊，愛惜天才們吧，保護那些栽培天才的人物吧。
〔第10段〕正是由於這種類型的文雅──既頗為可愛又不那麼彰顯的文雅，昔日的雅典和羅馬才能在以其大度和光彩而自豪的歲月裡頭角崢嶸；毫無疑義，正是由於這種類型的文雅，我們的世紀和我們的國家才會趕過所有的時代和所有的人民。一種毫無學究氣的哲學格調，一種自然而又得體的舉止，既遠離條頓人的粗獷，又遠離山南那邊的人的矯揉：這些便是一種趣味的結果，這種趣味得靠善於學習來獲得，靠貿易世界臻於完美。
〔第13段〕今天，更精微的研究和更細膩的趣味已經把愉悅的藝術歸納為種種原則，於是，在我們的道德風尚中，占支配地位的是卑鄙而又具有欺騙性的同一副面孔，每個人的心智仿佛都鑄自同一個模子：總是文雅在要求，總是得體在吩咐；人們總是遵循這些規矩，從不遵循自己固有的天資。人們再不敢顯露自己的所是；在這種無休止的束縛之下，人們形成了這個群體，也就是所謂的社會，置身在同樣的環境中，人們做的是同樣的事情，除非更強烈的動機讓他們分心。人們沒法清楚知道自己與之打交道的是個什麼人；即便要認識自己的朋友，也得等到種種重大關頭，也就是說，等到已經沒有更多時間，因為，唯有這些關頭才對認識朋友具有本質意義。
〔第14段〕伴隨這種人心莫測的是怎樣的一連串惡行啊！再也沒有誠摯的友誼，再也沒有實實在在的敬重，再也沒有踏實的信任！在這種同一副面孔的面紗和陰險的文雅下邊，在這種被大肆誇讚的從我們時代的啟蒙中得來的客套的背後，總隱藏著猜疑、提防、提心吊膽、冷漠、留一手、怨恨、背叛。……
〔第44段〕每個藝術家都想要得到讚賞，自己的同時代人的讚譽乃是藝術家的酬報中最珍貴的部分。要是一個藝術家不幸生在這樣一個人民和這樣一個時代之中，為了博得讚譽他該做什麼呢？此種時代，是讀書人成為時尚(devenus a la mode)，他們安排了淺薄輕浮的年輕人去定調；是人們屈服於壓制自由的專制君主，而犧牲掉自己的品味；是鄙棄戲劇體詩藝的大作，拒斥神奇無比的音樂，全因某一性別只敢讚賞與另一性別的怯弱相配的東西。這位藝術家會做什麼呢，各位先生？他就會把自己的天資降低到自己的時代水平，寧願寫些生前為人稱道的平庸作品，也不願寫出唯有死後很久才會為人讚美的優秀作品。告訴我們吧，大名鼎鼎的阿魯厄特(Arouet)，為了迎合我們矯揉造作的精巧，你犧牲了多少雄渾強健的美哦！你的諂媚造出多少精巧的小玩意兒，卻使你失去了多少偉大的東西哦！
（我初讀時在旁邊寫了提示：「傑出的人被世俗所壓抑」，現在重讀，才知錯甚。）
〔第54段〕賢哲之士(le sage)不追求財富，但對光榮不會無動於衷；而且，當他看到對光榮的分配如此之糟，他的德性雖然稍有鼓勵就能激發出來並會對社會(société)有益，也會變得懶心無腸，消沉在悲苦和遺忘中。這就是為什麼，久而久之必然會有這樣的結果：人們更偏愛迎合人心的天資而非有益的天資，而這也就是自科學與文藝復興以來的經驗極度證實的事。……
Trilling所談的是西方世界的一個發展階段，由於城市的興起和茁壯，城市生活成為新標準，同化了人民的思想。在同化的關係中，同化者是多數市民的主流意見，被同化者是個別單獨的人。此時當然原本各人得以選擇不同人生的多元風貌就不復存在了。
後來海德格用das Man指稱與我相對的別人，他們代我界定我的自我，指定我扮演的角色，要我的生活符合他們的期盼。沙特用bad faith（法文mauvaise foi）指稱社會壓力，令我接納錯誤價值，拋棄內在自由。這些思想是從盧梭傳承下來的。
. |
住戶編號:3716025
檢舉原因
心情: 
