王鼎鈞

文學作品能使大眾相信尚未發(fā)生之事，秦朝直到始皇帝死亡，并未將阿房宮建成，可是唐朝的杜牧寫了一篇《阿房宮賦》，天下后世多少人都“知道”秦始皇在這座龐大奢華的建筑里住了三十六年。

文學作品能使人樂意去做某些事情，“讀了《詩經(jīng)》會說話，讀了《易經(jīng)》會占卦，讀了《水滸》會打架”，“讀了《紅樓》會吃穿，讀了《三國》會做官，讀了《水滸》想招安”3，詩歌小說都制造欲望和情感，而欲望和情感是行為的動力。

文學有這樣的功能，宗教家、資本家、政治家都為之傾心，這三種人物都希望大眾相信他描述的尚未發(fā)生之事，因而改變了行為。文學家與這三種人合作由來已久，他們跟政治家合作的經(jīng)驗最不愉快，宗教家、資本家手中只有軟性的權(quán)力，對作家只能動之以利或動之以義，政治家手中有硬性的權(quán)力，對作家可以脅之以勢，繼之以迫害。

還有，資本家比較老實，他擺明了為的是自己的利益，他對消費者“只能夸大，不可欺騙”。宗教信誓旦旦為了別人的利益，如果欺騙，他的騙局在世界末日來臨之前不會被揭穿。政治呢，他實際上也許是資本家，文學把他化裝成宗教家，既夸大又欺騙，要命的是真相“立即”大白，作家陷于尷尬之境，既難自解，又難自拔。

有些作家誓言與政治絕緣，這又如何辦得到？文學表現(xiàn)人生、批判人生4，而政治管理人生、規(guī)劃人生5，這就難分難解。日出而作，你要坐地鐵;日落而息，你要找停車位;掘井而飲，你要自來水中沒有大腸菌;耕田而食，你要青菜沒有農(nóng)藥;帝力何有于我哉，經(jīng)濟海嘯來了，你得靠政府發(fā)失業(yè)補助金。你表現(xiàn)人生就看見了政治，你批判人生就褒貶了政治6。

還有，你需要創(chuàng)作自由，你的版權(quán)需要保護，你的銷路、你的讀者的購買力需要經(jīng)濟政策成功。“獨坐幽篁里，彈琴復長嘯”，需要警察維持治安，沒有人闖進來搜你的口袋。蓮花出淤泥而不染，那是蓮花高潔，可是如果沒有淤泥中的營養(yǎng)和水分？7……作家應該厭棄的是獨裁者而非政治，獨裁者和政治并非同義。如果請他到相關部門領演出補助費，他欣然前往，如果勸他投票，他斷然說我討厭政治，這是很奇怪的思維。當然，故意混淆可以規(guī)避社會責任，那是聰明過人。

再說政府應該了解，“文章華國”并非說它是政權(quán)的裝飾，而是說它是國家的光環(huán)，能在世界上增加國家的知名度和吸引力，引世人尊敬和向往。小小丹麥出了個安迪生，就在全世界兒童的精神領域成為泱泱大國。文學文藝使窮人變富人，使富人變貴人，使貴人變圣人，促進人民的精神生活，提高國民語言水平，即使罵人也罵得有風格。不要把文學看成海報標語，可以一夜貼滿大街小巷，一夜又撕去。文學家是沒有用的人，但“無用之用大矣哉”！優(yōu)秀的文學作品是國家民族的文化遺產(chǎn)，一個負責任的政權(quán)一定有心給后世留下這一類東西。

Literature creates a world of make-believe. Thus2， even though the construction of the Epang Palace was never completed during the reign of Qin Shi Huang， the first emperor of a unified China， a widespread belief persists generation upon generation that his majesty lived in this sprawling， super luxurious palace complex for 36 years. That’s because Du Mu， a famed Tang Dynasty poet， claimed so in his Ode to the Epang Palace.

Literature is an enabler. Reading The Book of Poetry improves our ability to express ourselves. The Book of Changes teaches how to practice divination. Outlaws of the Marsh acquaints us with stratagems to beat or coopt our opponents. The Dream of the Red Chamber cultivates a refined taste in life. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms braces us for a power struggle. In a word， novels and poems create desires and emotions， which motivate action.

Possession of such functions makes literature appealing， especially to spiritual masters， business tycoons and politicians. They all want to coopt the literary medium to induce the populace to believe their predictions， and to influence its behavior. Their engagement with men of letters has a long history. The most unpleasant has been the interaction between literary creation and political power. While spiritual masters and business tycoons can only rely on their soft power， such as presumed morality or money， to exert influence， men in power could come down hard on literary writers. Persecution often follows on the heels of threats.

By comparison， businesspeople are more honest. They don’t attempt to hide the fact that they are looking to boost their own bottom lines. When they peddle products to consumers， they know deception will eventually backfire， even though some exaggeration could be fine. Religious gurus claim they are serving others’ interests， and they know that their lies won’t be exposed until the Day of Judgement. Those in power might also be tycoons， but they are disguised through literary interventions as moral leaders. They resort to both exaggeration and deception. The problem is， however， that the truth comes out relentlessly fast， throwing window dressers into the abyss of shame， leaving them unable to justify their action or extricate themselves.

Some writers have pledged to stay away from politics. But how could that be possible？ Literature reflects or reviews our life experiences， and politics influences our decisions to manage and plan our lives. Literature and politics are therefore inseparable. Indeed， every mundane concern is inextricably fused with a political dimension： your morning subway commute， your hunt for a parking spot after work， your worries about possible E. coli contamination in tap water or pesticide residues in vegetables， or the onslaught of an economic tsunami， triggering the need for reliance on government unemployment benefits. Telling a life story leads inevitably to revealing ramifications of political decision-making. A critique of everyday life cannot eschew judging the merits of government policies， however obliquely.

Besides， you need freedom to write; you want strong copyright protection; and you pray for successful implementation of economic policies to create greater prosperity， so as to boost your readers’ purchasing power and your book sales. Even when you enjoy the solitude of singing and playing a musical instrument alone， you need police to keep your neighborhood safe， so that no one will break in to ask you to hand over your wallet. Even when you imagine yourself to be a lotus flower that has sprung out of the mud， you should not forget that an elegantly spotless flower thrives on the nutrients and water in the mud. For writers， the object of detestation should be dictatorship， rather than politics in general. While many writers are happy to collect government subsidies for staging their creations， they are loath to vote， citing their aversion to politics. This reveals a strange mindset. It’s， of course， also a way to shun your social responsibility by deliberately mixing up different concepts. That’s too smart.

On the other hand， “l(fā)iterature brings glory to a nation，” as an old saying goes. Government officials should be made aware that this doesn’t mean literature is intended to whitewash a regime’s actions; rather it adds charm to a nation， raising its profile， enhancing its appeal， and inspiring respect and appreciation globally. Thus， thanks to Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales， tiny Denmark occupies a hugely important place in the world of children’s literature. Literary creation empowers the poor， guides the rich in their embrace of noble ideals， and prepares the noble to embark on a path to greatness. It improves people’s intellectual wellness， as well as their language ability， so that they know how to show class even in a verbal confrontation. Literary works are not advertising posters that can go up on city streets overnight and can then be taken down just as swiftly. Literature has no practical use. But it can be truly invaluable. Literary masterpieces are gems of a nation’s cultural heritage. A responsible government would go out of the way to encourage literary creation， so that gems can be passed on to future generations.

1本文編選時，對原文有刪節(jié)。? 2 thus用在這里意為for example，是為了更好與上文銜接。第一句話提出命題，下文是舉例說明。? 3這里分兩組描寫讀書的功用，但兩組內(nèi)容是交叉的，如第一組和第二組都提到《水滸》，這是為了押韻的需要，讀起來非常俏皮，這是中文特色語的特有效果。在英語里模仿這一結(jié)構(gòu)恐怕只會弄巧成拙，因為用英語表達時邏輯性更重要，如果兩組內(nèi)容有重疊，就應該結(jié)合在一起表達。即使譯者使出九牛二虎之力，編出兩組押韻不同的詩句，也仍然不是上策，因為在英語里內(nèi)容安排在邏輯上的合理性壓倒了形式上的對稱和韻律。

4對于“批判人生”，如果直譯成criticizes life，那就會文理不通。我們首先需要把握“批判”的確切含義。其實，“批判”本身就有兩種意思：一是對錯誤的思想言行進行有理有據(jù)的分析，從而加以否定;二是（對任何事物的）分析評斷。根據(jù)本文語境，取第二種解釋是恰當?shù)模谑俏覀兛梢杂胷eview或類似的詞語來表示。? 5“政治管理人生、規(guī)劃人生”如果直譯成politics manages and plans our lives，也同樣不知所云。無法直譯時，我們只能轉(zhuǎn)一個彎，看作是對“管理人生、規(guī)劃人生”的決定的影響。? 6這句話也同樣無法按字面直譯，如果將其譯成“If you write about life， you see politics. If you critique life， you praise or disparage politics. ”，那實際上沒有表達原文的真正含義，或者說沒有表達任何意思。問題在于politics一詞的含義太廣，既可以指政府政策，也可以指任何人或團體的政治見解及行為等。而本篇上文里使用“政治”一詞一般用來指政府活動或政策，為了譯文達意，同時便于與文中其他部分照應，也許我們有必要點出內(nèi)在實際含義，如political decision-making或government policies等。

7 這兩句話之間有跳躍，特別是第二句的比喻，如果處理不當，就會顯得十分唐突，無法與前后內(nèi)容照應。中文對跳躍的容忍度較高，跳躍的跨度可以比較大，英文對邏輯連貫性的要求更高，不允許有過大的跳躍，所以筆者在譯文里添加了Even when you imagine yourself to be…，使句型與前一句型一致，以便更明顯地體現(xiàn)比喻用意所在。