Conservatives and Liberals原文及赏析.doc

Conservatives and Liberals Ralph Waldo EmersonThe 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 mans 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.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.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.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 good again.”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.”“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.”“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.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.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 Innovation.There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a 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, attacking, and sure of final success. Conservatism stands on mans incontestable limitations; reform on his indisputable infinitude; conservatism on circumstance; liberalism on power; one goes to make an adroit member of the social frame; the other to postpone all things to the man himself; conservatism is debonair and social; reform is individual and imperious. We are reformers in the spring and summer, in autumn and winter we stand by the old; reformers in the morning, conservers at night. Reform is affirmative, conservatism negative; conservatism goes for comfort, reform for truth. Conservatism is more candid to behold anothers worth; reform more disposed to maintain and increase its own. Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory. Reform has no gratitude, no prudence, no husbandry. It makes a great difference to your figure and to your thought, whether your foot is advancing or receding. Conservatism never puts the foot forward; in the hour when it does that, it is not establishment, but reform. Conservatism tends to universal seeming and treachery, believes in a negative fate; believes that mens temper governs them; that for me, it avails not to trust in principles; they will fail me; I must bend a little; it distrusts nature; it thinks there is a general law without a particular application, law for all that does not include any one. Reform in its antagonism inclines to asinine resistance, to kick with hoofs; it runs to egotism and bloated self-conceit; it runs to a bodiless pretension, to unnatural refining and elevation, which ends in hypocrisy and sensual reaction.And so whilst we do not go beyond general statements, it may be safely affirmed of these two metaphysical antagonists, that each is a good half, but an impossible whole. Each exposes the abuses of the other, but in a true society, in a true man, both must combine. Nature does not give the crown of its approbation, namely, beauty, to any action or emblem or actor but to one which combines both these elements; not to the rock which resists the waves from age to age, nor to the wave which lashes incessantly the rock, but the superior beauty is with the oak which stands with its hundred arms against the storms of a century and grows every year like a sapling; or the river which ever flowing, yet is found in the same bed from age to age; or, greatest of all, the man who has subsisted for years amid the changes of the nature, yet has distanced himself, so that when you remember what he was, and see what he is, you say, what strides! What a disparity is there! (1,132 words)【Text Analysis】 This piece of analytic writing presents the reader with a sharp contrast between Conservatism and Liberalism, two most fundamental ways of thinking in human life. Being a great thinker and scholar, the author Ralph Waldo Emerson deals with the subject with penetrating insight and philosophical profundity. He not only outlines respectively the features of the two parties from a neutral stand, but also makes objective and dialectic comments on both. It is his sincere efforts that lead to his most enlightening conclusion: each is a good half but an impossible whole and in a true society, in a true man, both must combine. The whole piece can be divided into three parts. The first two paragraphs serve as the beginning, which points out the various forms as well as the nature of the antagonism of the two. Paragraph 3 to 9 is the middle part, which contains a fable that illustrates in a vivid way the different thinking modes of the two types of people. Paragraph 10 and 11 constitute the last part of the article. Paragraph 10 is the most exciting part of the article, which provides the readers with a careful analysis of the major differences between the two ways of thinking in a highly condensed manner. In it, the ideas are closely knit and well developed, and certain rhetorical devices such as metaphor and parallelism are properly applied, making the whole paragraph both eloquent and convincing. Paragraph 11 is the ending. It is characterized by the skillful use of analogy, which renders the authors idea both clear and artful. With the images of oak and river, Emerson succeeds in getting across to his readers the message that only when both the elements of conservatism and reform are combined can beauty, the crown of natures approbation, be achieved. 【Difficult Sentences】1. 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. The old world goes on along with the war between the conservatives and the liberals, during which on party prevails over the other by alternation. The fight between the two parties goes on endlessly and fiercely, under different names in different times, and abusive language is used in the course to attack each other. personalities n. (archaic) disparaging remarks about an individual2. Such an irreconcilable antagonism, of course, must have a correspondent depth of seat in the human constitution. The conflict between the two parties is so heated and deep-rooted that it has to be accounted for in terms of human nature.3. It is the primal antagonism, the appearance in trifles of the two poles of nature. It is the most important form of conflict. Though it takes the form of unimportant things, it reflects two opposing extremes in human nature.4. Thou canst not hold thine own, but by making more. Making more things of the same kind, you would not be able to maintain what you possess at present.5. There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact. It affirms because it holds. Compared with the argument of Reform which tends to criticize the outdated and unreasonable things, the argument of Conservatism which tends to defend them is always placed at a disadvantage. However, in reality, it is often the Conservative force that takes a more advantageous position. The conservatives tend to assert a positive view of the present situation, because they strive to maintain the status quo.6. Conservatism stands on mans incontestable limitations; reform on his indisputable infinitude; conservatism on circumstance; liberalism on power. Conservatism refuses to change the current world drastically, so it would always take mans limitations in consciousness or his capability as its ground of argument for the impossibility of such a change, and would insist that the limitations are absolute and beyond any argument; while reform, with the purpose of changing the current situation completely, would emphasize mans infinitive power in creating miracles and deem such power as something above doubt. Also, in order to achieve their respective purposes mentioned above, conservatism would emphasize the objective difficulties, while reform would place stress on mans subjective power.7. one goes to make an adroit member of the social frame; the other to postpone all things to the man himself. Conservatism respects the current social frame and wants to develop a system of skills that may help people to adapt well to society; while liberalism deems human beings as the most important element of the social system and all other things should be adjusted to satisfy their need.8. conservatism is debonair and social; reform is individual and imperious. Conservatism is generally constructive, so it tends to maintain the current system as much as possible. Therefore, it would like to take lenient and inoffensive measures in dealing with social problems and would care more about the interests of society as a whole. Reform, at least at its beginning stage, is somewhat deconstructive, so it would easily ignore the stability of the whole system and cares more about the realization of individuals intention. Accordingly, it would like to adopt drastic measures to change the current social system.9. Conservatism is more candid to behold anothers worth; reform more disposed to maintain and increase its own. Conservatism, in its efforts to maintain the current social system, would be more likely to consider the worth of reform; while reform, more resolute and determined in achieving its own purpose, would be more likely to pay exclusive attention to its own worth or benefits.10. Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory. Reform has no gratitude, no prudence, no husbandry. Conservatism has no romantic prospect of the future and does not want to do anything creative to change the status quo, whereas Reform deems the status quo a world of the past. Since no benefit has ever been gained from such a world, Reform bears no gratitude to it and does not think it is worth careful maintaining and operating.11. It makes a great difference to your figure and to your thought, whether your foot is advancing or receding. Whether you take a conservative stand or a liberal one matters a lot to your social image and the way you think.12. Conservatism never puts the foot forward; in the hour when it does that, it is not establishment, but reform. It would never be possible for Conservatism to take radical measures. Should it ever do so, it would no longer be what it is, but rather, turn quickly into Reform, its opposite. establishment n. something established, as an arranged order or system13. Conservatism tends to universal seeming and treachery, believes in a negative fate. What conservatism cares about is to keep the general appearance of society or maintain the existing framework. Drastic changes of form would undoubtedly meet with strong resistance. But this does not mean it would refuse to accept some mild revision. Therefore, it does not care to have some limited compromises which may cause inconsistency between the appearance and the substance. It believes that everything has been decided by fate, it would do nothing positive to change the status quo. seeming n. outward appearance; semblance treachery n. inconsistency14.it thinks there is a general law without a particular application, law for all that does not include any one. It believes