【正文】 ey is an enduring marker of the human value placed on the mountain visible from this point. Here human hands raised stones to shelter an experience of pure stone. So I have e to the right place。 I am at home. But the human occupation has been lifted。 our presence has turned to stone. Nature has reclaimed its elements. Half Dome presides over the petrifaction of the world. Chimney and mountain are in dialogue as I sense the switching between their perspectives. I am present in ruin and in unity.這次審美體驗(yàn)的發(fā)現(xiàn)是什么？我所目睹的景致或許可以說(shuō)明美的外在特征：懸崖峭壁，造型奇特，給人以強(qiáng)烈的空間感，兩道石壁形狀迥異，廣袤交錯(cuò)，凌空矗立。此外，還有透視效果帶來(lái)的愉悅：雖然與半穹頂相比石煙囪顯得非常渺小，但我從山道這邊靠近，看上去無(wú)論在視覺(jué)上還是空間上其氣勢(shì)都一點(diǎn)兒不亞于半穹頂。人類的復(fù)雜意圖受到了辛辣的諷刺。從這一視點(diǎn)看過(guò)去，那煙囪是人的價(jià)值置于大山上的一道永久性標(biāo)記。人類在那里壘石筑屋，以觀蒼石。這樣看來(lái)，我來(lái)對(duì)了地方，我找到了歸宿。不過(guò)人類對(duì)自然的占據(jù)被消除掉了，我們的存在與石頭融為一體。大自然索回了自己的要素，半穹頂主宰著石頭的世界。我感受到兩種不同景致的交替，仿佛聽(tīng)見(jiàn)煙囪在和大山對(duì)話。我站在小屋廢墟上，也置身于和諧統(tǒng)一中。（集體討論 許建平 執(zhí)筆）A Person Who Apologizes Has the Moral Ball in His Court by Paul Johnson 誰(shuí)給別人道歉，誰(shuí)就在道義上掌握了主動(dòng) 保羅約翰遜I have sympathy for the butler in The Big Sleep. Marlowe detects him in a contradiction and asks him aggressively, You made a mistake, didn39。t you? To which the man replies, sadly and sweetly, I make many mistakes, sir. And so do I. I am, by instinct and training, a very specific writer, and so my errors are numerous. Recent ones include misspelling Geoffrey Madan39。s name —I phoned the printers with a correction but my page had already gone to press — and crediting Richard Tauber with Donald Peers39。s signaturetune, By a babbling brook (Tauber39。s, of course, was You are my heart39。s delight). I apologise for these mistakes, and for others in the past, and for those to e.我同情《長(zhǎng)眠》這部影片中的男管家。馬洛探長(zhǎng)發(fā)現(xiàn)了他講話前后有矛盾，就逼問(wèn)道：“你犯了一個(gè)錯(cuò)，對(duì)不？”管家傷感而乖巧地答曰：“我犯下的錯(cuò)可多去啦，先生?！?我又何嘗不是如此呢？我有點(diǎn)靈氣并且訓(xùn)練有素，寫(xiě)起東西來(lái)旁征博引，力求翔實(shí)，自然就言多語(yǔ)失嘍。最近犯下的錯(cuò)誤包括把杰弗瑞馬丹的名字拼寫(xiě)錯(cuò)了——我給印廠打了個(gè)電話，把更正告訴他們，可是我的那頁(yè)已經(jīng)開(kāi)印了；我把唐納德皮爾斯的信號(hào)曲“在潺潺的小溪旁”安到了理查德陶波的頭上（陶波的信號(hào)曲自然是“你是我心中的喜悅”。）對(duì)于這些錯(cuò)誤，以及過(guò)去犯的錯(cuò)誤和今后會(huì)犯的錯(cuò)誤，在下這廂有禮啦。Disraeli thought that, in politics, apologies don39。t work. I see why. Such being the nature of parliamentary conflict, an apology in politics merely leads to fresh accusations and further demands for embarrassing details. I once said to Harold Wilson when he was prime minister, It would be a good idea, Harold, to admit the government39。s mistakes occasionally, and apologise. He replied, That39。s a shrewd suggestion, Paul, and I entirely agree with it. (Harold being Harold, I knew an untruth was ing.) The trouble is, though, I can39。t actually think of any mistakes, and so there39。s nothing to apologise for. Which was to make Disraeli39。s point, though in a Wilsonian way. 迪斯累里首相認(rèn)為在政治問(wèn)題上，給別人道歉行不通。我明白個(gè)中的緣由。議會(huì)斗爭(zhēng)的本質(zhì)就是如此，在政治問(wèn)題上，道歉只會(huì)招致新的詰責(zé)和進(jìn)一步要求交待讓你左右為難的詳情。還是哈羅德威爾遜擔(dān)任首相的時(shí)候，有一次我向他進(jìn)言：“哈羅德，偶爾承認(rèn)一下政府的錯(cuò)誤，并且道個(gè)歉，不失為一個(gè)好主意吧?！?他答道：“你這個(gè)建議高，保羅，本人完全贊同?！保ü_德畢竟是哈羅德，我知道一句言不由衷的話就要脫口而出了。）“然而難辦的是我實(shí)在想不出有哪些錯(cuò)誤，因此，也就沒(méi)有甚么好道歉的嘍?！?這正是以威爾遜的方式表達(dá)出了迪斯累里的意思。Apologise is one of those words which has effectively reversed its original meaning. Its origin, in the Greek lawcourts, was jurisprudential: it signified the speech for the defence in which the prosecution39。s case was answered point by point. It retained its original meaning until at least the 16th century. Thus Sir Thomas More, after resigning from office, drew up his Apologie of Syr Thomas More, Knyght。 made by him, after he had geuen ouer the office of Lord Chancellor of Englande. Today we would say vindication. Only gradually did the word acquire the connotation of excuse, withdrawal, admission of fault and plea for forbearance. It still bore its original meaning in theology: Newman39。s Apologia pro Vita Sua was not an apology at all but a vigorous rebuttal of Charles Kingsley39。s charges. Dickens39。s unfortunate statement about his reasons for splitting up with his wife, which his friends begged him not to publish, was selfdestructive precisely because it was halfway between the two meanings: half defiant vindication, half admission of guilt.有那么一些詞兒，已經(jīng)徹底演變得與本義完全相反，“Apologise”即是其中之一。該詞的本義，在希臘法庭上，具有法理學(xué)意義：該詞即指辯護(hù)詞，在辯護(hù)過(guò)程中，對(duì)于訴訟方的指控，逐一予以回答。其原義至少到了16世紀(jì)還一直保留著。托馬斯莫爾爵士在掛印辭官之后，就是這樣撰寫(xiě)了他的“托馬斯莫爾爵士之辯護(hù)詞；辭去英格蘭大法官之職后所作?！苯裉煳覀儠?huì)使用“Vindication”（辯白，辯護(hù)）一詞。只是漸漸地“Apologise”這個(gè)詞才獲得了“原諒、撤回所說(shuō)的話、承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤并請(qǐng)求寬恕”之含義。在神學(xué)中該詞仍保留原來(lái)的意義：紐曼的《為吾生辯》（Apologia pro Vita Sua）根本就不是什么道歉，而是對(duì)查爾士金斯菜的指控所作的強(qiáng)硬辯駁。講狄更斯與其妻分手理由的那篇倒霉的陳詞（其友人求他不要發(fā)表），就是自毀其身，恰恰是它介于兩個(gè)意義之間：一半是倔強(qiáng)的辯白，一半是承認(rèn)有愧。No doubt everyone has to apologise for his life, sooner or later. When we appear at the Last Judgment and the Recording Angel reads out a list of our sins, we will presumably be given an opportunity to apologise, in the old sense of rebuttal, and in the new sense too, by way of confession and plea of repentance. In this life, it is well to apologise (in the new sense), but promptly, voluntarily, fully and sincerely. If the error is a matter of opinion and unpunishable, so much the better —an apology then bees a gracious and creditable occasion, and an example to all. An enforced apology is a miserable affair.毋庸置疑，任何人都要為自己的一生辯護(hù)，不管是今生還是來(lái)世。當(dāng)我們出席最后的審判時(shí)，記錄天使誦讀出所羅列的我們的罪孽，我們作了懺悔并請(qǐng)求寬恕，這樣大概會(huì)被給予辯白（這個(gè)詞的老義）和表示歉意（它的新義）的機(jī)會(huì)。在今生中，道歉（新義）是樁對(duì)的事， 但是要做到及時(shí)、要心甘情愿、要完完全全、要誠(chéng)心誠(chéng)意。如果過(guò)錯(cuò)是看法上的事，并且錯(cuò)不當(dāng)罰，那最好不過(guò)——說(shuō)一聲“對(duì)不起”就成了一個(gè)顯示大度的機(jī)會(huì)，可贊可嘆，眾人之楷模也。而被迫去道歉，那可就難受了。 Newspaper apologies nearly always seem inadequate. The most audacious one I know was brought back from America by the artist Edward BurneJones to show his friend Lady Homer of Mells. It read: Instead of being arrested as we stated, for kicking his wife down a flight of stairs, and hurling a lighted kerosene lamp after her, the Revd. James P. Wellman died unmarried four years ago. This sentence is remarkable for the enormity of the error and the succinctness of the correction — not, be it noted, an apology, for the law of libel, in the United States as in England, offers no redress to a dead person. I suspect the extract is from the New York World when it was a sensational paper owned by Pulitzer. For reasons which a recent biography of him does not clarify, he had a particular hatred for clergymen of all denominations, and frequently exaggerated or inv