-
Unit 5 conservatives and liberals
保守派和革新派
Conservatives and Liberals
Ralph Waldo Emerson
1. The
two parties which divide the state, the party of
Conservative and that of innovation,
are very old, and have
disputed the
possession of the world ever since it was made.
This quarrel is the subject of civil
history. The conservative
party
established the reverend hierarchies and
monarchies of
the most ancient world.
The battle of patrician and plebian, of
parent state and colony, of old usage
and accommodation to new
facts, of the
rich and, of the poor, reappears in all countries
and
times. The war rages not only in
battlefields, in national councils,
and
ecclesiastical synods, but agitates every man’s
bosom with
opposing advantages every
hour. On rolls the old world meantime,
and now one, now the other gets the
day, and still the fight
renews itself
as if for the first time, under new names and hot
personalities.
这个国家存在着两个政党,保
守党和革新党。这两个政党长期存
在,并且,自从这个世界存在财产后,两个政党就有了
争端。这种争
端是人民历史发展的主题。
保守党建立了这个世界
最古老的值得尊敬
的等级制度和君主制。
两党之间的战争包括贵
族和平民,
宗主国和殖
民地,旧秩序和新秩序,穷人和富人。这
些争端存在于所有国家的每
个时刻。战争的范围不仅是在战场,在国家议会和基督教议会
,而且
每时每刻都以反对性质的优势牵动着每个人的内心。
旧世
界被推翻的
同时建立起新世界。
今天新世界发展得很好,
但是他仍然要不断的以
新的的名字和时代性个性更新自我,。
2. Such an irreconcilable
antagonism, of course, must have a
correspondent depth of seat in the
human constitution. It is the
opposition of Past and Future, of
Memory and Hope, of the
Understanding
and Reason. It is the primal antagonism, the
appearance in trifles of the two poles
of nature.
当然,如此势不两立的敌对势力必须对人类的体制有相似深度的
理解。这就是过去和将来,记忆和希望,理解和原因的对立。最基本
的敌对势力存在于自然两级中的琐事中。
3.
There is a fragment of old fable which seems
somehow to
have been dropped from the
current mythologies, which may
deserve
attention, as it appears to relate to this
subject.
有一个古老预言的片段似乎一定程度上能用来解释现今的神话,
p>
它很值得关注,因为它与这个主题相关。
4. Saturn grew weary of sitting alone,
or with none but the great
Uranus or
Heaven beholding him, and he created an oyster.
Then
he
would
act
again,
but
he
made
nothing
more,
but
went
on
creating the race of
oysters. Then Uranus cried, “a new work, O
Saturn! The old is not go
od
again.”
5.
Saturn replied, “I fear. There is not
only the alternative of
making
and
not
making,
but
also
of
unmaking.
Seest
thou
the
great
sea, how it ebbs and
flows? So is
it with me; my power
ebbs;
and
if
I
put
forth
my
hands,
I
shall
not
do,
but
undo.
Therefore I do what I
have done; I hold what I have got; and so
I resist Night and Chaos.”
6.
“O Saturn,”
replied Uranus. “Thou canst not hold thine own,
but by making more. Thy oysters are
barnacles and cockles, and
with the
next flowing of the tide, they will be pebble and
sea
foam.”
7.
“I see,” rejoins Saturn, “thou art in
league with Night, thou
art become an
evil eye: thou spakest from love; now thy words
smite
me
with
hatred.
I
appeal
to
Fate,
must
there
not
be
rest?”
---
“I
appeal to Fate also,” said Uranus, “must there not
be
motion?”
--- But Saturn
was silent and went on making oysters
for a thousand years.
8.
After that the word of Uranus came into his mind
like a ray of
the
sun,
and
he
made
Jupiter;
and
then
he
feared
again;
and
nature froze, the things
that were made went backward, and to
save the world, Jupiter slew his father
Saturn.
9. This may stand for the
earliest account of a conversation on
politics between a Conservative and a
Radical, which has come
down
to
us.
It
is
ever
thus.
It
is
the
counteraction
of
the
centripetal and the
centrifugal forces. Innovation is the salient
energy;
Conservatism
the
pause
on
the
last
movement.
“That
which is was made by God,” saith
Conservatism. “He is leaving
that, he
is entering this other,” rejoins
Inno
vation.
这个也许是保守党和激进党政见最早
描述的代表,它传承下来给我
们。他曾经是那样。它是离心力和向心力的对抗。革新党是
突起的力
量,保守党是最后发展的停滞。保守党坚持那是上帝创造的东西。革
新党增加到上帝留下了一些东西,他也将加入其他的东西。
10.
There
is
always
a
certain
meanness
in
the
argument
of
conservatism,
joined
with
certain
superiority
in
its
fact.
It
affirms because it holds. Its fingers
clutch the fact, and it will
not
open
its
eyes
to
see
a
better
fact.
The
castle,
which
conservatism
set
to
defend,
is
the
actual
state
of
things.
Of
course, conservatism always has the
worst of the argument, is
always
apologizing, pleading a necessity, pleading that
to change
would
be
to
deteriorate;
it
must
saddle
itself
with
the
mountainous
load
of
all
the
violence
and
vice
of
society,
must
deny the possibility of good, deny
ideas, and suspect and stone
the
prophet; whilst innovation is always in the right,
triumphant,