求诺贝尔文学奖获奖感言

求该段翻译 约翰·斯坦贝克的诺贝尔文学奖获奖感言~

我感谢瑞士科学院给予我的作品此最高的荣耀。我心中自问是否我比那些我所尊敬、景
仰的作家们更值得诺贝尔奖，但自己得到这个奖项，我的自豪和喜悦是勿庸置疑的。



依照惯例，获奖者将就文学的本质和发展方向，发表学术性演说或个人的感想。可
是，我觉得在这特别的时刻，我们不妨思考文学创作者的最高职责和义务。




在诺贝尔奖的巨大威望的感召下，我不想象只抱歉的老鼠一样说些感激的话，而
是为我的职业的骄傲，
我要为了多年来献身于此的伟大而优秀的人们，
象一只雄狮般呼
吼！




文学的传播，
不是靠着评论界苍白贫乏的说教者在他们空空如也的教堂里哼哼着他们的
连祷文，也不是隐士们的游戏，不是吹牛的文学苦行者们无病呻吟的绝望。



文学和语言一样古老。
它由人们的需要而生，
人类对它的倚赖与日益增。
吟唱诗人，
行吟诗人和作家们并不是离群索居，隔离世外的。文学的功能、职责和任务，从一开始
就为我们的种族所注定了。



人类经历过一段灰色而荒颓的混乱年代。我伟大的先驱者，威廉
*
福克纳曾在这里
演讲，
提起过这个年代的悲剧，
是长久弥漫全世界的肉体恐惧使人们再无法感受到心灵，
以致似乎只有人的内心和人类自身的冲突才是值得描写的。
福克纳比其他人都更清楚地
了解人类的力量，以及人类的弱点。他了解，对人们的恐惧的体会和解析，

是作家们
之所以存在的一个重要原因。



这并不是新的想法。
作家的古老使命并没有改变。他将揭示我们许多沉重的错误和
失败，同时也要挖掘我们暗黑而危险的梦境中，可以有助于人类进步的一丝光亮。



此外，
作家还应当宣扬和赞颂人类心灵和精神已经证明的伟大能力――面对失败的
勇气、无畏的精神、同情和爱。在对自身弱点和绝望的无止境的对抗中，我们仍有着希
望和进步作我们的鲜明旗帜。
我认为，
一个作家如不热忱地相信人类有自我提高的能力，
不配献身于文学，也不配立足于文学界之中。



当今全世界的恐惧，起源于我们对现实世界中某些危险因素突飞猛进的掌控。

诚
然，
对其他层面的理解还没有跟上技术的进步，但人们不会就此推定他们永不能并驾齐
驱。实际上，这也是作家的责任。人类漫长而自豪的历史中，一直坚定地抵御自然中的
敌人，
甚至曾经面对过几乎确定的失败和灭绝的危险，如今我们若在可能是人类最伟大
的胜利的前夜离开战场，便是真的懦弱而愚不可及。



我读了阿尔福雷德
.
诺贝尔的生平，书中将他叙述成一个孤独的人，一个充满思考
的人。

他完善了炸药的力量，使之既有美好的创造性，又是摧毁性的邪恶力量――可
是这力量本身无法选择，不受良心和判断的左右。



诺贝尔目睹了对他的发明的血腥残忍的误用。
他或许已经预见他毕生研究的最后结
果—极端的暴力，终极的毁灭。有人说他变得厌世，但我不相信。我以为他努力想发明
对这力量的控制—如同一个安全阀。

我相信他最后发现了，这只存在于人类的思想和
精神之中。

对我而言，
诺贝尔的思想已经清楚地在这些奖项里体现了。诺贝尔奖是为了人类世界中
知识的累积和传递；
为了理解和交流――这正是文学的作用。诺贝尔奖也是为了展示和
平的能力－这是奖项所有意义中最为崇高的。

他死后不到五十年，自然科学的门被打开了。人们被赋予了沉重得可怕的选择。

我们
篡取了过去以为只有上帝才拥有的力量。人们恐惧，没有准备。我们臆想我们已经可以
主宰整个世界、所有生灵的生死。危险或是荣耀，毕竟最终还是在人类自己手中选择。

人类是否可以到达完美的境界？考验正在眼前。

获得了上帝般的伟力，
我们必须从我们的自身寻找那我们曾向神祈求责任感和智慧。人
类自身已经成为我们最大的危险，和我们唯一的希望。所以今天，我们可以这样理解使
徒圣约翰的话：“末世”有道，道就是“人”，

道“与人同在”。

注：使徒圣约翰的原话是：
In the beginning was the Word and the Word
was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
太初有道，道与神同在，道就是
神。

Banquet Speech
John Steinbeck's speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1962

I thank the Swedish Academy for finding my work worthy of this highest honor.

In my heart there may be doubt that I deserve the Nobel award over other men of letters whom I hold in respect and reverence - but there is no question of my pleasure and pride in having it for myself.

It is customary for the recipient of this award to offer personal or scholarly comment on the nature and the direction of literature. At this particular time, however, I think it would be well to consider the high duties and the responsibilities of the makers of literature.

Such is the prestige of the Nobel award and of this place where I stand that I am impelled, not to squeak like a grateful and apologetic mouse, but to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession and in the great and good men who have practiced it through the ages.

Literature was not promulgated by a pale and emasculated critical priesthood singing their litanies in empty churches - nor is it a game for the cloistered elect, the tinhorn mendicants of low calorie despair.

Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.

The skalds, the bards, the writers are not separate and exclusive. From the beginning, their functions, their duties, their responsibilities have been decreed by our species.

Humanity has been passing through a gray and desolate time of confusion. My great predecessor, William Faulkner, speaking here, referred to it as a tragedy of universal fear so long sustained that there were no longer problems of the spirit, so that only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worth writing about.

Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being.

This is not new. The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.

Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.

I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.

The present universal fear has been the result of a forward surge in our knowledge and manipulation of certain dangerous factors in the physical world.

It is true that other phases of understanding have not yet caught up with this great step, but there is no reason to presume that they cannot or will not draw abreast. Indeed it is a part of the writer's responsibility to make sure that they do.

With humanity's long proud history of standing firm against natural enemies, sometimes in the face of almost certain defeat and extinction, we would be cowardly and stupid to leave the field on the eve of our greatest potential victory.

Understandably, I have been reading the life of Alfred Nobel - a solitary man, the books say, a thoughtful man. He perfected the release of explosive forces, capable of creative good or of destructive evil, but lacking choice, ungoverned by conscience or judgment.

Nobel saw some of the cruel and bloody misuses of his inventions. He may even have foreseen the end result of his probing - access to ultimate violence - to final destruction. Some say that he became cynical, but I do not believe this. I think he strove to invent a control, a safety valve. I think he found it finally only in the human mind and the human spirit. To me, his thinking is clearly indicated in the categories of these awards.

They are offered for increased and continuing knowledge of man and of his world - for understanding and communication, which are the functions of literature. And they are offered for demonstrations of the capacity for peace - the culmination of all the others.

Less than fifty years after his death, the door of nature was unlocked and we were offered the dreadful burden of choice.

We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God.

Fearful and unprepared, we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world - of all living things.

The danger and the glory and the choice rest finally in man. The test of his perfectibility is at hand.

Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.

Man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope.

So that today, St. John the apostle may well be paraphrased: In the end is the Word, and the Word is Man - and the Word is with Men.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to the speech, R. Sandler, Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, commented, «Mr. John Steinbeck - In your writings, crowned with popular success in many countries, you have been a bold observer of human behaviour in both tragic and comic situations. This you have described to the reading public of the entire world with vigour and realism. Your Travels with Charley is not only a search for but also a revelation of America, as you yourself say: ‹This monster of a land, this mightiest of nations, this spawn of the future turns out to be the macrocosm of microcosm me.› Thanks to your instinct for what is genuinely American you stand out as a true representative of American life.»

翻译可以借助谷歌的全文翻译

伊沃•安德里奇在诺贝尔宴会上的讲话，不知道是不是你找的

Banquet Speech

Ivo Andric's speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1961

(Translation)

In carrying out the high duties entrusted to it, the Nobel Committee of the Swedish Academy has this year awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, a signal mark of honour on the international scene, to a writer from a small country, as it is commonly called. In receiving this honour, I should like to make a few remarks about this country and to add a few considerations of a more general character about the storyteller's work to which you have graciously awarded your Prize.

My country is indeed a «small country between the worlds», as it has aptly been characterized by one of our writers, a country which, at break-neck speed and at the cost of great sacrifices and prodigious efforts, is trying in all fields, including the field of culture, to make up for those things of which it has been deprived by a singularly turbulent and hostile past. In choosing the recipient of this award you have cast a shining light upon the literary activity of that country, at the very moment when, thanks to a number of new names and original works, that country's literature is beginning to gain recognition through an honest endeavour to make its contribution to world literature. There is no doubt that your distinction of a writer of this country is an encouragement which calls for our gratitude; I am happy to have the opportunity to express this gratitude to you in this place and at this time, simply but sincerely.

It is a more difficult and more delicate task to tell you about the storyteller's work which you have honoured with your Prize. In fact, when it comes down to a writer and his work, can we expect him to be able to speak of that work, when in reality his creation is but a part of himself? Some among us would rather consider the authors of works of art either as mute and absent contemporaries or as famous writers of the past, and think that the work of art speaks with a clearer and purer voice if the living voice of the author does not interfere. This attitude is neither uncommon nor particularly new. Even in his day Montesquieu contended that authors are not good judges of their own works. I remember reading with understanding admiration Goethe's rule: «The artist's task is to create, not to talk »; and many years later I was moved to find the same thought brilliantly expressed by the greatly mourned Albert Camus.

Let me then, as seems fitting to me, concentrate in this brief statement on the story and the storyteller in general. In thousands of languages, in the most diverse climes, from century to century, beginning with the very old stories told around the hearth in the huts of our remote ancestors down to the works of modern storytellers which are appearing at this moment in the publishing houses of the great cities of the world, it is the story of the human condition that is being spun and that men never weary of telling to one another. The manner of telling and the form of the story vary according to periods and circumstances, but the taste for telling and retelling a story remains the same: the narrative flows endlessly and never runs dry. Thus, at times, one might almost believe that from the first dawn of consciousness throughout the ages, mankind has constantly been telling itself the same story, though with infinite variations, to the rhythm of its breath and pulse. And one might say that after the fashion of the legendary and eloquent Scheherazade, this story attempts to stave off the executioner, to suspend the ineluctable decree of the fate that threatens us, and to prolong the illusion of life and of time. Or should the storyteller by his work help man to know and to recognize himself? Perhaps it is his calling to speak in the name of all those who did not have the ability or who, crushed by life, did not have the power to express themselves. Or could it be that the storyteller tells his own story to himself, like the child who sings in the dark in order to assuage his own fear? Or finally, could the aim of these stories be to throw some light on the dark paths into which life hurls us at times and to tell us about this life, which we live blindly and unconsciously, something more than we can apprehend and comprehend in our weakness ? And thus the words of a good storyteller often shed light on our acts and on our omissions, on what we should do and on what we should not have done. Hence one might wonder whether the true history of mankind is not to be found in these stories, oral or written, and whether we might not at least dimly catch the meaning of that history. And it matters little whether the story is set in the present or in the past.

Nevertheless, some will maintain that a story dealing with the past neglects, and to a certain degree turns its back on, the present. A writer of historical stories and novels could not in my opinion accept such a gratuitous judgment. He would rather be inclined to confess that he does not himself know very well when or how he moves from what is called the present into what we call the past, and that he crosses easily - as in a dream - the threshold of centuries. But in the end, do not past and present confront us with similar phenomena and with the same problems: to be a man, to have been born without knowing it or wanting it, to be thrown into the ocean of existence, to be obliged to swim, to exist; to have an identity; to resist the pressure and shocks from the outside and the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts - one's own and those of others - which so often exceed one's capacities? And what is more, to endure one's own thoughts about all this: in a word, to be human.

So it happens that beyond the imaginary demarcation line between past and present the writer still finds himself eye to eye with the human condition, which he is bound to observe and understand as best he can, with which he must identify, giving it the strength of his breath and the warmth of his blood, which he must attempt to turn into the living texture of the story that he intends to translate for his readers, in such a way that the result be as beautiful, as simple, and as persuasive as possible.

How can a writer arrive at this aim, by what ways, by what means? For some it is by giving free rein to their imagination, for others it is by studying with long and painstaking care the instructions that history and social evolution afford. Some will endeavour to assimilate the substance and meaning of past epochs, others will proceed with the capricious and playful nonchalance of the prolific French novelist who once said, «What is history but a peg to hang my novels on? » In a word, there are a thousand ways and means for the novelist to arrive at his work, but what alone matters and alone is decisive is the work itself.

The author of historical novels could put as an epigraph to his works, in order to explain everything to everyone, once and for all, the old saying: «Cogitavi dies antiquos et annos aeternos in mente habui » (I have pondered the days of yore and I have kept in mind the years of eternity). But with or without epigraph, his work, by its very existence, suggests the same idea.

Still, these are ultimately nothing but questions of technique, tastes, and methods, a fascinating intellectual pastime concerning a work or having vaguely to do with it. In the end it matters little whether the writer evokes the past, describes the present, or even plunges boldly into the future. The main thing is the spirit which informs his story, the message that his work conveys to mankind; and it is obvious that rules and regulations do not avail here. Each builds his story according to his own inward needs, according to the measure of his inclinations, innate or acquired, according to his conceptions and to the power of his means of expression. Each assumes the moral responsibility for his own story and each must be allowed to tell it freely. But, in conclusion, it is to be hoped that the story told by today's author to his contemporaries, irrespective of its form and content, should be neither tarnished by hate nor obscured by the noise of homicidal machines, but that it should be born out of love and inspired by the breadth of ideas of a free and serene human mind. For the storyteller and his work serve no purpose unless they serve, in one way or another, man and humanity. That is the essential point. And that is what I have attempted to bring out in these brief reflections inspired by the occasion and which, with your permission, I shall conclude as I began them, with the repeated expression of a profound and sincere gratitude.

这是约翰•斯坦贝克的
Banquet Speech
John Steinbeck's speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1962

I thank the Swedish Academy for finding my work worthy of this highest honor.

In my heart there may be doubt that I deserve the Nobel award over other men of letters whom I hold in respect and reverence - but there is no question of my pleasure and pride in having it for myself.

It is customary for the recipient of this award to offer personal or scholarly comment on the nature and the direction of literature. At this particular time, however, I think it would be well to consider the high duties and the responsibilities of the makers of literature.

Such is the prestige of the Nobel award and of this place where I stand that I am impelled, not to squeak like a grateful and apologetic mouse, but to roar like a lion out of pride in my profession and in the great and good men who have practiced it through the ages.

Literature was not promulgated by a pale and emasculated critical priesthood singing their litanies in empty churches - nor is it a game for the cloistered elect, the tinhorn mendicants of low calorie despair.

Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.

The skalds, the bards, the writers are not separate and exclusive. From the beginning, their functions, their duties, their responsibilities have been decreed by our species.

Humanity has been passing through a gray and desolate time of confusion. My great predecessor, William Faulkner, speaking here, referred to it as a tragedy of universal fear so long sustained that there were no longer problems of the spirit, so that only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worth writing about.

Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being.

This is not new. The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.

Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.

I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.

The present universal fear has been the result of a forward surge in our knowledge and manipulation of certain dangerous factors in the physical world.

It is true that other phases of understanding have not yet caught up with this great step, but there is no reason to presume that they cannot or will not draw abreast. Indeed it is a part of the writer's responsibility to make sure that they do.

With humanity's long proud history of standing firm against natural enemies, sometimes in the face of almost certain defeat and extinction, we would be cowardly and stupid to leave the field on the eve of our greatest potential victory.

Understandably, I have been reading the life of Alfred Nobel - a solitary man, the books say, a thoughtful man. He perfected the release of explosive forces, capable of creative good or of destructive evil, but lacking choice, ungoverned by conscience or judgment.

Nobel saw some of the cruel and bloody misuses of his inventions. He may even have foreseen the end result of his probing - access to ultimate violence - to final destruction. Some say that he became cynical, but I do not believe this. I think he strove to invent a control, a safety valve. I think he found it finally only in the human mind and the human spirit. To me, his thinking is clearly indicated in the categories of these awards.

They are offered for increased and continuing knowledge of man and of his world - for understanding and communication, which are the functions of literature. And they are offered for demonstrations of the capacity for peace - the culmination of all the others.

Less than fifty years after his death, the door of nature was unlocked and we were offered the dreadful burden of choice.

We have usurped many of the powers we once ascribed to God.

Fearful and unprepared, we have assumed lordship over the life or death of the whole world - of all living things.

The danger and the glory and the choice rest finally in man. The test of his perfectibility is at hand.

Having taken Godlike power, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.

Man himself has become our greatest hazard and our only hope.

So that today, St. John the apostle may well be paraphrased: In the end is the Word, and the Word is Man - and the Word is with Men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to the speech, R. Sandler, Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, commented, «Mr. John Steinbeck - In your writings, crowned with popular success in many countries, you have been a bold observer of human behaviour in both tragic and comic situations. This you have described to the reading public of the entire world with vigour and realism. Your Travels with Charley is not only a search for but also a revelation of America, as you yourself say: ‹This monster of a land, this mightiest of nations, this spawn of the future turns out to be the macrocosm of microcosm me.› Thanks to your instinct for what is genuinely American you stand out as a true representative of American life.»

干吗？你又没获奖

---

永顺县18847165324： 假设鲁迅因为创作了《呐喊》而获得诺贝尔文学奖,请你为他写一则颁奖词.要求:联系呐喊的内容;80字以内 - ？
宠戚柴黄： 给予人性启蒙之呐喊,勿使民众迷茫不知前路;给予人性道义之呐喊,勿使民众冷漠不知仁爱;对陈腐之社会呐喊,...

永顺县18847165324： 2011年诺贝尔奖文学奖 名言 - ？
宠戚柴黄：[答案] 托马斯·特兰斯特罗默(Tomas Transtroemer),瑞典著名诗人,1954年出版第一本诗集《诗十七首》,引起瑞典诗坛轰... 等多卷,先后获得了多种国际国内文学奖.特兰斯特罗默多次被提名为诺贝尔文学奖的候选人.1990年遭受中风,影响了他的说...

永顺县18847165324： 莫言母亲的故事读后感,就是莫言在领奖台上说的那些话.急急急!!! - ？
宠戚柴黄： 莫言获奖感言:怀念母亲 做讲故事的人我获奖后发生了很多精彩的故事,这些故事,让我坚信真理和正义是存在的.北京时间今日(8日)凌晨,2012年诺贝...

永顺县18847165324： 2012年年诺贝尔文学奖授予中国作家莫言.莫言成为有史以来首位获得诺贝尔文学奖的中国籍作家.他在获奖演讲中说:我记忆中最痛苦的一件事,就是跟着... - ？
宠戚柴黄：[答案] (1)莫言母亲说:“儿子,那个打我的人,与这个老人,并不是一个人.”从老人的话语中我们感受到一种宽容的优良品质.(2)生活中我们需要宽容的优秀品质,因为:人有宽阔的胸襟,才能赢得友谊,增进团结;才能解人...

永顺县18847165324： 1913年泰戈尔荣获诺贝尔文学奖,其颁奖词是:“由于他那至为敏锐、清新与优美的诗;这诗出之于高超的技巧,并由于他自己用英文表达出来,使他那充满... - ？
宠戚柴黄：[选项] A. 泰戈尔作品表现了印度人内心的精髓 B. 印度传统文学与西方文学的相互碰撞 C. 东西方文化不同文学流派的隔阂消除 D. 东西方文化的交融以及文学的世界性

永顺县18847165324： 1968年诺贝尔文学奖得主川端康成的颁奖词是什么? - ？
宠戚柴黄： 【按语:1968年,川端康成获诺贝尔文学奖,在当年的颁奖典礼上,川端康成做了题为“美しい日本の私”的演讲,这里是高慧勤翻译的版本,题目按原文直译为“日本的美与我”,可与其他译文参看.】 春花秋月夏杜鹃 冬雪寂寂溢...

永顺县18847165324： 致自己三十岁微信感言 - ？
宠戚柴黄： 致自己三十岁微信感言有: 1、论语中提过,30而立,四十而不惑,五十而知天命.听着这样的话,总是天真地以为30岁离自己很远很远,自己仍是那率性而为的稚嫩少年. 2、生活的艰难,不只属于你,还有那些和你一样相逢在而立关卡的朋...

永顺县18847165324： 诺贝尔文学奖获奖作家的名言仔细 要有国籍 作者 书名 了解了不? OK?要6句 简单明了的意思深刻却易懂 - ？
宠戚柴黄：[答案] 2007年度诺贝尔文学奖得主多丽丝·莱辛(Doris Lessing,1919―)《野草在歌唱》、《暴力的孩子》、《金色笔记》、《堕入地狱简况》、《黑暗前的夏天》、《最甜的梦》、《爱情,又来了》等多部作品.名言:人的价值并不...

永顺县18847165324： 阅读下列材料,结合所学知识回答问题. 材料一:莫言获得2012年诺贝尔文学奖,在获奖演讲时他说,我是一个讲故事的人.因为讲故事我获得了诺贝尔文... - ？
宠戚柴黄：[答案] (1)①“这是世界小说的传统,更是中国小说的传统”体现了文化是民族的,各民族都有自己的文化个性和特征,文化又是世... 莫言作品获得诺贝尔文学奖,传播了中华文化,增强了中华文化的国际影响力. 分 析: (1)此题以莫言获得诺贝尔文学奖...