老いの一筆

Fair is foul, and foul is fair – Macbeth Act 1 SceneⅠ・・・きれいはきたない、きたないはきれい

ホンネとタテマエ ― 英語では?

本音と建前の使い分けの世界第二位はどこか。

私はイギリスであると思っている。

彼も島国である。

本音をズバズバ言い合えば、お互いにしこりを残す。広い国なら、バイバイすればいいが、島はそうはいかない。死ぬまで、あるいは孫子の代までしこり続けることもある。

人間、何が不愉快かと言って、お隣さんとの不仲ほど不愉快なものはない。しこりは不愉快の通奏低音である。

そこで建前の出番となる。建前は、社会通念から離れていないから、建前を言っている限り、相手は傷つかない。傷つかないから、相手からも傷つくような言葉は返ってこない。

狭い島でこういう暮らしを続けていれば、それが国民性となって定着する。

それでは、日本語のホンネとタテマエに相当する英語は何か。

研究社大和英
That is the position we take on the basis.
That is our official stance about the matter.

旺文社和英中辞典
His principle is one thing and his real intention is another.
There is a disparity between his words and actual intentions.

スーパーアンカー和英
In bureaucracy principles have priority over everything else.
What people say and what they really feel is often different.

これで分かるように、ホンネとタテマエを一度解釈して、それを英語で表現している。独立した単語を出していない。

スーパーアンカーも、建て前の項目に枠を設けて、ホンネとタテマエにぴったり対応する英語はないと述べている。

同じ狭い島国である、ないはずはない。

そこで高校数学Ⅰの数式のカッコを利用する。

もともと、ホンネとタテマエは本音と建て前という単語が並列になっただけのものではなく、本音と建て前がセットになった表現である。

だから、本音と建て前をカッコでくくり、(ホンネ+タテマエ)として、それに相当する単語を解とすればいい。

その解は「ヘンリ・ライクロフトの私記」にある。



hypocrasy 
pharisaism     [終]


付:
1.多分フランスあたりからいじめられたのでしょう、Gissingは懸命に言い訳をしています。
2.他のイギリスの随筆にイギリス人のhypocrasyをテーマにしたのがありました。広く認められているようです。
3.21年の島暮らし。島は日本の縮図でした。

・・・・・

WINTER 

XX

Is it true that the English are deeply branded with the vice of
hypocrisy? The accusation, of course, dates from the time of the
Round-heads; before that, nothing in the national character could
have suggested it. The England of Chaucer, the England of
Shakespeare, assuredly was not hypocrite. The change wrought by
Puritanism introduced into the life of the people that new element
which ever since, more or less notably, has suggested to the
observer a habit of double-dealing in morality and religion. The
scorn of the Cavalier is easily understood; it created a traditional
Cromwell, who, till Carlyle arose, figured before the world as our
arch-dissembler. With the decline of genuine Puritanism came that
peculiarly English manifestation of piety and virtue which is
represented by Mr. Pecksniff--a being so utterly different from
Tartufe, and perhaps impossible to be understood save by Englishmen
themselves. But it is in our own time that the familiar reproach
has been persistently levelled at us. It often sounds upon the lips
of our emancipated youth; it is stereotyped for daily impression in
the offices of Continental newspapers. And for the reason one has
not far to look. When Napoleon called us a "nation of shop-
keepers," we were nothing of the kind; since his day we have become
so, in the strictest sense of the word; and consider the spectacle
of a flourishing tradesman, anything but scrupulous in his methods
of business, who loses no opportunity of bidding all mankind to
regard him as a religious and moral exemplar. This is the actual
show of things with us; this is the England seen by our bitterest
censors. There is an excuse for those who charge us with
"hypocrisy."

But the word is ill-chosen, and indicates a misconception. The
characteristic of your true hypocrite is the assumption of a virtue
which not only he has not, but which he is incapable of possessing,
and in which he does not believe. The hypocrite may have, most
likely has, (for he is a man of brains,) a conscious rule of life,
but it is never that of the person to whom his hypocrisy is
directed. Tartufe incarnates him once for all. Tartufe is by
conviction an atheist and a sensualist; he despises all who regard
life from the contrasted point of view. But among Englishmen such
an attitude of mind has always been extremely rare; to presume it in
our typical money-maker who has edifying sentiments on his lips is
to fall into a grotesque error of judgment. No doubt that error is
committed by the ordinary foreign journalist, a man who knows less
than little of English civilization. More enlightened critics, if
they use the word at all, do so carelessly; when speaking with more
precision, they call the English "pharisaic"--and come nearer the
truth.

Our vice is self-righteousness. We are essentially an Old Testament
people; Christianity has never entered into our soul we see
ourselves as the Chosen, and by no effort of spiritual aspiration
can attain unto humility. In this there is nothing hypocritic. The
blatant upstart who builds a church, lays out his money in that way
not merely to win social consideration; in his curious little soul
he believes (so far as he can believe anything) that what he has
done is pleasing to God and beneficial to mankind. He may have lied
and cheated for every sovereign he possesses; he may have polluted
his life with uncleanness; he may have perpetrated many kinds of
cruelty and baseness--but all these things has he done against his
conscience, and, as soon as the opportunity comes, he will make
atonement for them in the way suggested by such faith as he has, the
way approved by public opinion. His religion, strictly defined, is
AN INERADICABLE BELIEF IN HIS OWN RELIGIOUSNESS. As an Englishman,
he holds as birthright the true Piety, the true Morals. That he has
"gone wrong" is, alas, undeniable, but never--even when leering most
satirically--did he deny his creed. When, at public dinners and
elsewhere, he tuned his voice to the note of edification, this man
did not utter the lie of the hypocrite he MEANT EVERY WORD HE SAID.
Uttering high sentiments, he spoke, not as an individual, but as an
Englishman, and most thoroughly did he believe that all who heard
him owed in their hearts allegiance to the same faith. He is, if
you like, a Pharisee--but do not misunderstand; his Pharisaism has
nothing personal. That would be quite another kind of man;
existing, to be sure, in England, but not as a national type. No;
he is a Pharisee in the minor degree with regard to those of his
countrymen who differ from him in dogma; he is Pharisee absolute
with regard to the foreigner. And there he stands, representing an
Empire.

The word hypocrisy is perhaps most of all applied to our behaviour
in matters of sexual morality, and here with specially flagrant
misuse. Multitudes of Englishmen have thrown aside the national
religious dogma, but very few indeed have abandoned the conviction
that the rules of morality publicly upheld in England are the best
known in the world. Any one interested in doing so can but too
easily demonstrate that English social life is no purer than that of
most other countries. Scandals of peculiar grossness, at no long
intervals, give rich opportunity to the scoffer. The streets of our
great towns nightly present an exhibition the like of which cannot
be seen elsewhere in the world. Despite all this, your average
Englishman takes for granted his country's moral superiority, and
loses no chance of proclaiming it at the expense of other peoples.
To call him hypocrite, is simply not to know the man. He may, for
his own part, be gross-minded and lax of life; that has nothing to
do with the matter; HE BELIEVES IN VIRTUE. Tell him that English
morality is mere lip-service, and he will blaze with as honest anger
as man ever felt. He is a monument of self-righteousness, again not
personal but national.

XXI

I make use of the present tense, but am I speaking truly of present
England? Such powerful agencies of change have been at work during
the last thirty years; and it is difficult, nay impossible, to
ascertain in what degree they have affected the national character,
thus far. One notes the obvious: decline of conventional religion,
free discussion of the old moral standards; therewith, a growth of
materialism which favours every anarchic tendency. Is it to be
feared that self-righteousness may be degenerating into the darker
vice of true hypocrisy? For the English to lose belief in
themselves--not merely in their potential goodness, but in their
pre-eminence as examples and agents of good--would mean as hopeless
a national corruption as any recorded in history. To doubt their
genuine worship, in the past, of a very high (though not, of course,
the highest) ethical ideal, is impossible for any one born and bred
in England; no less impossible to deny that those who are rightly
deemed "best" among us, the men and women of gentle or humble birth
who are not infected by the evils of the new spirit, still lead, in
a very true sense, "honest, sober, and godly" lives. Such folk, one
knows, were never in a majority, but of old they had a power which
made them veritable representatives of the English ETHOS. If they
thought highly of themselves, why, the fact justified them; if they
spoke, at times, as Pharisees, it was a fault of temper which
carried with it no grave condemnation. Hypocrisy was, of all forms
of baseness, that which they most abhorred. So is it still with
their descendants. Whether these continue to speak among us with
authority, no man can certainly say. If their power is lost, and
those who talk of English hypocrisy no longer use the word amiss, we
shall soon know it.

      The Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft by G. Gissing
   

コメント

コメントの投稿


管理者にだけ表示を許可する

FC2Ad