英译汉原文：

On Home

By John Berger

“Philosophy is really homesickness, it is the urge to be at home everywhere.”—Novalis

【1】The transition from a nomadic life to a settled one is said to mark the beginning of what was later called civilization. Soon all those who survived outside the city began to be considered uncivilized. But that is another story—to be told in the hills near the wolves.

【2】Perhaps during the last century and a half an equally important transformation has taken place. Never before our time have so many people been uprooted. Emigration, forced or chosen, across national frontiers or from village to metropolis, is the quintessential experience of our time. That industrialization and capitalism would require such a transport of men on an unprecedented scale and with a new kind of violence was already prophesied by the opening of the slave trade in the sixteenth century. The Western Front in the First World War with its conscripted massed armies was a later confirmation of the same practice of tearing up, assembling, transporting, and concentrating in a “no-man’s land.” Later, concentration camps, across the world, followed the logic of the same continuous practice.

【3】All the modern historians from Marx to Spengler have identified the contemporary phenomenon of emigration. Why add more words? To whisper for that which has been lost. Not out of nostalgia, but because it is on the site of loss that hopes are born.

【4】The term home (Old Norse Heimer, High German heim, Greek kōmi, meaning “village”) has, since a long time, been taken over by two kinds of moralists, both dear to those who wield power. The notion of home became the keystone for a code of domestic morality, safeguarding the property (which included the women) of the family. Simultaneously the notion of homeland supplied a first article of faith for patriotism, persuading men to die in wars which often served no other interest except that of a minority of their ruling class. Both usages have hidden the original meaning.

【5】Originally home meant the center of the world—not in a geographical, but in an ontological sense. Mircea Eliade has demonstrated how home was the place from which the world could be founded. A home was established, as he says, “at the heart of the real.” In traditional societies, everything that made sense of the world was real; the surrounding chaos existed and was threatening, but it was threatening because it was unreal. Without a home at the center of the real, one was not only shelterless, but also lost in nonbeing, in unreality. Without a home everything was fragmentation.

【6】Home was the center of the world because it was the place where a vertical line crossed with a horizontal one. The vertical line was a path leading upwards to the sky and downwards to the underworld. The horizontal line represented the traffic of the world, all the possible roads leading across the earth to other places. Thus, at home, one was nearest to the gods in the sky and to the dead in the underworld. This nearness promised access to both. And at the same time, one was at the starting point and, hopefully, the returning point of all terrestrial journeys.

【7】The crossing of the two lines, the reassurance their intersection promises, was probably already there, in embryo, in the thinking and beliefs of nomadic people, but they carried the vertical line with them, as they might carry a tent pole. Perhaps at the end of this century of unprecedented transportation, vestiges of the reassurance still remain in the unarticulated feelings of many millions of displaced people.

【8】Emigration does not only involve leaving behind, crossing water, living amongst strangers, but also, undoing the very meaning of the world and—at its most extreme—abandoning oneself to the unreal which is the absurd.

【9】Emigration, when it is not enforced at gunpoint, may of course be prompted by hope as well as desperation. For example, to the peasant son the father’s traditional authority may seem more oppressively absurd than any chaos. The poverty of the village may appear more absurd than the crimes of the metropolis. To live and die amongst foreigners may seem less absurd than to live persecuted or tortured by one’s fellow countrymen. All this can be true. But to emigrate is always to dismantle the center of the world, and so to move into a lost, disoriented one of fragments.

家

哲学即乡思，是处处为家的渴望。

——诺瓦利斯

文/约翰·伯格[1] 

译/张春柏

【1】人类从游牧生活到定居生活的变迁，据称标志着后来所谓文明的开端。未几，在城外生活的人便被称为未开化者。不过，那是狼群周遭的山野传说，自当别论。

【2】过去一个半世纪里，有个重要的变迁或许可与之相提并论。此前从未有过这么多人离开家园，迁至他处。迁移是当今时代的本质经验，无论自愿与否，无论迁至他国还是由乡入城。工业化与资本主义需要用一种新的暴力以空前的规模迁送人口。这种迁移，早在16世纪奴隶贸易肇始之际，便已初露端倪。此后，第一次世界大战的西线战场亦照例复制，大量征募来的士兵被移出家园，集合起来，运输至此，再集中投送到一片“无人地带”[2]。再往后，世界各地的集中营继续以同样的模式，操演着同样的人口迁移流程。

【3】所有的近现代史学家，从马克思到施本格勒，对当今的人口迁移现象都有过论述。既如此，又何需我等赘言？实为智者之所失略补数语而已。并非出于乡愁，而是因为失漏之处正是希望之地。

【4】长期以来，“家”这个词（古斯堪的纳维亚语为Heimer，高地德语heim，希腊语kōmi，意为“村庄”）一直为两类道德学家所专宠，二者都为当权者所青睐。于是，“家”这个概念成了家庭道德规范的基础，捍卫着家庭的财产（包括妇女）。同时，国家的概念成了爱国主义的第一信条，激励男人在战争中慷慨赴死，而这些战争往往只是为少数统治阶级成员的利益服务的。这两种用法都遮蔽了“家”的本意。

【5】起初，“家”意指世界的中心——是本体意义而非地理概念上的中心。米尔恰·埃利亚代[3]论证了家是如何成为世界的基础的。他认为，家是“真实界的核心”。在传统社会中，一切能让世界成为有意义的存在的东西都是实在的；周遭的混沌确实存在过，并且威胁着人类，但它的威胁在于它不是具有意义的实在。人一旦失去了真实界核心的家，不仅会失去栖身之所，还会在不存在、不真实中失去自身。没有了家，一切都支离破碎。

【6】家是世界的中心，因为它是垂直线与水平线的交汇点。垂直线是一条小路，上通天国，下达地府。水平线代表全世界的交通网，地球上所有的道路，无一漏网。因此，在家的人离天国诸神和地府众灵最近。唯其近，在家的人才上得天国，下得地府。人世间一切旅行，莫不始于家中，但愿也归于家中。

【7】这种两线相遇相交带来的期许，在当年游牧人的思想和信仰中或许已经萌芽，不过，他们只能把那根垂直线随身携带，就和他们的帐篷柱一般。本世纪末，交通运输规模空前，但是在千千万离家背井者的心中，或许依然默默地保留着些许这种期许。

【8】迁移不仅意味着弃家远行，生活在他者中间，还意味着解构世界的本义——并在极端情况下——将自己弃于荒诞的不真实之中。

【9】若非暴力强迫，迁移自然可能为希望所驱使，也可能为绝望所驱使。譬如，对农夫的儿子而言，令人压抑的传统父权之荒诞，远甚于任何混沌。村子里的贫穷可能比大都市的犯罪更荒诞。在外国人中间生也好、死也罢，不见得比在同胞的压迫折磨下生活更荒诞。这一切可能都是真实的。但是，要迁移必定要拆除世界的中心，进入一个迷失的、没有方向的碎片世界中。

注释：

[1] 约翰·伯格（John Berger，1926年11月5日—2017年1月2日），英国艺术史家、小说家、公共知识分子、画家。

[2] 这里的原文no man’s land原指第一次世界大战中同盟国和协约国军队的战壕系统之间双方都不敢进入的区域，通常译为“无人地带”或“无人区”，此处引申为整个西线战场。

[3] 米尔恰·埃利亚代（Mircea Eliade，1907年—1986年），罗马尼亚宗教史学家、作家和哲学家，曾为芝加哥大学教授。

论  家

哲学，真的是一种思乡病，是那种身在四方却心在家园的渴望。

——诺瓦利斯

文/约翰·伯格

译/衡爱峰

【1】人类从游牧走向定居，此一转变被视为开化之始，后被称作文明。其后不久，所有生存于城廓之外的众生被归入未开化之列。此一情形按下不表，留待日后于旷野山丘群狼出没之处详述。

【2】或许，过去的一个半世纪中已经发生了另一个同等重要的变化——人们背井离乡，数量之多古之未有。迁徙，或因情势所迫或自愿选择，或跨越国界或离乡进城，它是我们这一时代的特色历程。16世纪开通的贩奴贸易，未卜先知地预示了工业化和资本主义需要以空前的规模和全新的惨烈来输送劳力。第一次世界大战中西线战场集结的无数征人确认了这一做法：征掳、编组、运送，最终集结于“无人区”。后来，全世界的集中营沿袭的思路则如出一辙。

【3】从马克思到斯宾格勒，现代的诸多史学家对当代的人口迁徙已有论述。何需赘言？为了找回那些失去的存在。不是怀旧，只因相信所失之处方能重生希望。

【4】长久以来，“家”（古诺尔斯语Heimer，高地德语heim，希腊语kōmi，即“村庄”）这一术语被两类说教之士把持，他们同为当权者所重视。对“家”的解释成了家庭道德准则的根基，捍卫着家庭财产（曾包括女眷）；“家国”概念则是爱国主义的第一信条，让将士为了纯属少数统治阶层的利益而甘愿赴死战场。但这两种用途都掩盖了家的本来含义。

【5】本来，家指的是世界（the world）中心，这里不是地理意义，而是本体意义。米歇尔·伊利亚德（Mircea Eliade）已论述了“家”如何堪为世界的起源。他说，家建立在“真实界（the real）的中心”。在过去的传统社会中，赋予世界以意义的一切是真实的；周遭的混乱存在可见、构成威胁，但威胁感源自不真实。在真实界的中心，没有家，人不但失去庇护，而且会迷失于非存在、迷失于不真实。没有家，一切都支离破碎。

【6】家之所以是世界中心，因它位居纵横两线之交点：纵线上达天庭，下通阴间；横线代表世间的一切流动，跨越山川，连接四方。故安居家中，距上天神灵和阴间亡灵如咫尺，通达方便；一切尘世旅程以此为始，亦可望以此为终。

【7】纵横两线交叉，必有交点，这种笃定，该是古已有之，它存在于游牧先民的胚胎之中，存在于其思考和信仰之中。这根纵线与生俱来，一如他们走到哪里都带着帐篷支杆。也许，在经历了这一个世纪的空前迁移后，在无以计数的流民的沉默内心中仍可找到这种笃定的遗存。

【8】迁徙，不仅意味着抛家舍业、跋山涉水、陌路同檐，还意味着打破世界的核心意义，其极端者使人耽于荒诞的不真实。

【9】当然，若非枪口所迫，迁徙可能是绝望所鞭策，也可能是希望所激励。例如，对农家子弟来说，父亲传统权威的压抑荒唐远甚乱世，乡村的一贫如洗比都市的杀人抢劫还要可笑，客死异国不会比身居故乡却死于同胞迫害摧残来得更加荒唐。上述所言不无道理，但离开家园，却无一不是摧毁世界的中心，进入一个支离破碎、失去方向的迷茫之境。