On National Prejudices
As I am one of that sauntering tribe of mortals, who spend the greatest part of their time in taverns, coffee houses, and other places of public resort, I have thereby an opportunity of observing an infinite variety of characters, which, to a person of a contemplative turn, is a much higher entertainment than a view of all the curiosities of art or nature. In one of these, my late rambles, I accidentally fell into the company of half a dozen gentlemen, who were engaged in a warm dispute about some political affair; the decision of which, as they were equally divided in their sentiments, they thought proper to refer to me, which naturally drew me in for a share of the conversation.
Amongst a multiplicity of other topics, we took occasion to talk of a different characters of the several nations of Europe; when one of the gentlemen, cocking his hat, and assuming such an air of importance as if he had possessed all the merit of the English nation in his own person, declared that the Dutch were a parcel of avaricious wretches; the French a set of flattering sycophants; that the Germans were drunken sots, and beastly gluttons; and the Spaniards proud, haughty, and surly tyrants; but that in bravery, generosity, clemency, and in every other virtue, the English excelled all the world.
This very learned and judicious remark was received with a general smile of approbation by all the company--all, I mean, but your humble servant; who, endeavoring to keep my gravity as well as I could, I reclined my head upon my arm, continued for some times in a posture of affected thoughtfulness, as if I had been musing on something else, and did not seem to attend to the subject of conversation; hoping by these means to avoid the disagreeable necessity of explaining myself, and thereby depriving the gentlemen of his imaginary happiness.
But my pseudo-patriot had no mind to let me escape so easily. Not satisfied that his opinion should pass without contradiction, he was determined to have it ratified by the suffrage of every one in the company; for which purpose addressing himself to me with an air of inexpressible confidence, he asked me if I was not in the same way of thinking. As I am never forward in giving my opinion, especially when I have reason to believe that it will not be agreeable; so, when I am obliged to give it, I always hold it for a maxim to speak my real sentiments. I therefore told him that, for my own part, I should not have ventured to talk in such a peremptory strain, unless I had made the tour of Europe, and examined the manners of these several nations with great care and accuracy: that, perhaps, a more impartial judge would not scruple to affirm that the Dutch were more frugal and industrious, the French more temperate and polite, the Germans more hardy and patient of labour and fatigue, and the Spaniards more staid and sedate, than the English; who, though undoubtedly brave and generous, were at the same time rash, headstrong, and impetuous; too apt to be elated with prosperity, and to despond in adversity.
I could easily perceive that all of the company began to regard me with a jealous eye before I had finished my answer, which I had no sooner done, than the patriotic gentleman observed, with a contemptuous sneer, that he was greatly surprised how some people could have the conscience to live in a country which they did not love, and to enjoy the protection of a government, to which in their hearts they were inveterate enemies. Finding that by this modest declaration of my sentiments, I had forfeited the good opinion of my companions, and given them occasion to call my political principles in question, and well knowing that it was in vain to argue with men who were so very full of themselves, I threw down my reckoning and retired to my own lodgings, reflecting on the absurd and ridiculous nature of national prejudice and prepossession.
Among all the famous sayings of antiquity, there is none that does greater honour to the author, or affords greater pleasure to the reader (at least if he be a person of a generous and benevolent heart) than that the philosopher, who, being asked what "countryman he was," replied that he was a citizen of the world. How few there are to be found in modern times who can say the same, or whose conduct is consistent with such a profession! We are now become so much Englishmen, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Germans, that we are no longer citizens of the world; so much the natives of one particular spot, or members of one petty society, that we no longer consider ourselves as the general inhabitants of the globe, or members of that grand society which comprehends the whole human kind.
Did these prejudices prevail only among the meanest and lowest of the people, perhaps they might be excused, as they have few, if any, opportunities of correcting them by reading, traveling, or conversing with foreigners; but the misfortune is, that they infect the minds, and influence the conduct even of our gentlemen; of those, I mean, who have every title to this appellation but an exemption from prejudice, which, however, in my opinion, ought to be regarded as the characteristical mark of a gentleman: for let a man's birth be ever so high, his station ever so exalted, or his fortune ever so large, yet if he is not free from national and other prejudices, I should make bold to tell him, that he had a low and vulgar mind, and had no just claim to the character of a gentleman. And in fact, you will always find that those are most apt to boast of national merit, who have little or no merit of their own to depend on, than which, to be sure, nothing is more natural: the slender vine twists around the sturdy oak for no other reason in the world but because it has not strength sufficient to support itself.
Should it be alleged in defense of national prejudice, that it is the natural and necessary growth of love to our country, and that therefore the former cannot be destroyed without hurting the latter; I answer, that this is a gross fallacy and delusion. That it is the growth and love to our country, I will allow; but that it is the natural and necessary growth of it, I absolutely deny. Superstition and enthusiasm too are the growth of religion; but who ever took it in his head to affirm that they are the necessary growth of this noble principle? They are, if you will, the bastard sprouts of this heavenly plant; but not its natural and genuine branches, and may safely enough be lopped off, without doing any harm to the parent stock; nay, perhaps, till once they are lopped off, this goodly tree can never flourish in perfect health and vigour.
Is it not very possible that I may love my own country, without hating the natives of other countries? that I may exert the most heroic bravery, the most undaunted resolution, in defending its laws and liberty, without despising all the rest of the world as cowards and poltroons? Most certainly it is: and if it were not--But why need I suppose what is absolutely impossible?--but if it were not, I must own, I should prefer the title of the ancient philosopher, viz (=namely), a citizen of the world, to that of an Englishman, a Frenchman, a European, or to any other appellation whatever.
译文：
论国家偏见
作为悠闲的芸芸众生中的一员，我大多数时间是在酒馆，咖啡厅或其它公共场所里打发的。正因此，我才有机会来观察形形色色的人物。这种娱乐方式对生性喜爱沉思的我而言，比欣赏艺术或自然界的奇妙更引人入胜。在最近一次闲逛中，我偶然碰见六位绅士，他们当时正在激烈地讨论政事，于是我便站在一边旁听。由于意见不一，且双方支持人数相同，他们认为理应咨询我的看法。自然而然，我也加入了此次谈话。
在诸多话题中，我们乘机谈到了欧洲一些国家的不同特征；其中一位绅士，将帽子一歪，摆出一副郑重其事的架势，好像自己拥有英国人民所有的优点一般，声称荷兰人是一群贪婪的可怜人；法国人是一群奉承谄媚者；德国人是一群饕餮烂醉之徒；西班牙人是一群傲慢专横之流。然而，说到勇敢，慷慨，宽厚，或其它美德，英国人在世界上是可圈可点的。
在场所有人对这句“博学睿智”的言辞报之一笑，并大为赞赏。然而，尊敬的英国，这里指的所有人是除了您卑微的仆人在下之外的。我极力保持庄重之态，双手托住头，一直假装摆出一副冥思的姿势，仿佛在思考别的事而未注意谈话的主题，希望借此可以避免发表看法，以免让自己蒙羞，也好让他们继续沉浸在自己想象的快乐之中。
可惜我们这位伪爱国者却绝不轻易放过我。他想满意地看到自己的说法毫无争议，便决定以投票的方式让在场每一个人都表示赞同。为此，他竟带着一份无可言传的自信询问我是否认同他的看法。由于我从不直言个人看法，特别是在有理由相信它会引人不快之时，所以在不得不道出时，通常，我的格言便是说出自己真实的想法。于是我告诉他说，在我看来，如果我没有游历欧洲，没有认真仔细地研究过那些国家民众的行为举止，我就不应武断地做出如此绝对的结论。这样的话，也许得出的结论会更加公正，或许会毫不留情地证明荷兰人比英国人更勤俭节约，法国人比英国人更温文儒雅，德国人比英国人更加坚忍，更加能吃苦耐劳，西班牙人比英国人更加沉着冷静。然而，虽然英国人无疑是勇敢，慷慨的，他们有时候也会变得鲁莽，固执，冲动，在顺境中易于狂喜，在逆境中易于沮丧。
我很快察觉到，在我还没发表完看法之前，所有人就开始以一种不友善的眼神望着我。我话还没说完，那位爱国绅士轻蔑地一笑，说道，“看到有些人竟有脸生活在一个自己不热爱的国家，享有政府的保护，而且在他们心目中还把对方当成宿敌，真是令人惊愕。”道出拙见后，我收回了先前对这几位绅士的好评，同时给他们机会质疑我的政治理念，我也不再和他们理论，心知与这些以自我为中心的人争论是徒劳的，于是扔下账单便回到了自己的住所，思考那些荒诞不经的国家偏见。
在所有蜚声中外的古言中，这句使作者显得最睿智，也让读者感到最快乐，至少是那些宽厚仁慈的读者（至少如果他是一个拥有仁慈之心的人），比起在被问到他是哪国人时回答“我是世界的公民”的哲人来。当今有多少人能说出这句话，又有多少人的所作所为与这句表白一致？如今我们常以英国人，法国人，荷兰人，西班牙人，德国人自诩，我们已不再是世界的公民。我们深信自己是小地区的居民，是小社会群体中的成员，却忘记了自己是地球上的栖息者，生活在由人类组成的大社会中。
这些偏见是否仅在最无知的下层阶级中盛行呢？也许这群人是可以被原谅的，因为他们很少有机会去阅读书籍，去旅行，或者与外国人交流，以纠正自己的偏见。但不幸的是，这些偏见竟影响了一些智者，让我们的绅士的行为也受到影响。我认为那些在方方面面都满足绅士这一头衔，却无法摆脱国家偏见的人，恰恰是绅士的典型代表。即使一个人出生再高贵，地位再尊贵，财产再庞大，如果他无法摆脱国家偏见或对其它事物的偏见，我觉得自己就有义务斗胆让他知道他只是一个头脑简单粗鄙的俗物，称不上是一位绅士。事实上，你经常会发现那些最善于吹嘘国家功绩，而自己却鲜有甚至是没有功绩的人，成长是畸形的，正如那盘旋于坚实橡树上的松软葡萄藤，它们不为别的，只是因为自己的力量连自己都支撑不起来。
我们是否应该理直气壮地认为国家偏见是必要的，它代表着我们真情流露，不断上涨的爱国情怀，所以如果批判国家偏见也就否定了爱国情怀？我觉得这纯粹是一种谬论和错觉。如果说它代表了国家的发展以及国民的爱国情怀，我是赞同的；但如果说它是随着国家发展的一种必要的自然流露，我是坚决反对的。迷信和激情是宗教发展的产物，但谁会暗自断言它们是这崇高宗教的必然产物呢？如果你坚持这么认为，那么它们只得是仙木的杂枝，而非自然生长的枝条，砍去它们，植物也能存活，不会对母干造成丁点损害。不，也许只有将它们砍掉，仙木主干才能健健康康，茁壮成长。
我深爱着自己的国家，却不憎恶他国人；我禀着勇敢的英雄气魄，盖世无双的决心，以维护本国的法律和自由，却不轻视他国，认为世界上其它的国人皆为懦夫，这不大可能么？答案很可能是否定的。就算答案是肯定的，可为什么我要设想一个不可能的答案呢？不过如果答案真的就是肯定的，我必须承认，我宁愿作为古代的那位哲人，即，一个世界公民，而非一个英国人，一个法国人，一个欧洲人或其它任何一国的人。
关于奥利弗·哥德史密斯：
