Jules Salles-Wagner’s 1898 painting ‘Romeoand Juliet.’

（圖解：朱爾斯·薩勒斯-瓦格納1898年畫作：《羅密歐與朱麗葉》）

For a lecture course I teach at BrownUniversity called “Love Stories,” we begin at the beginning, with love at firstsight.

我在布朗大學(xué)教授一門叫做“愛情故事”的課程，一開始的時候我們是以一見鐘情（這個話題）來開場。

To its detractors, love at first sight mustbe an illusion – the wrong term for what is simply infatuation, or a way tosugarcoat lust.

對于它的批評者來說，一見鐘情必是一種幻覺，單純是刻畫迷戀的錯誤術(shù)語，或是一種粉飾**的方式。

Buy into it, they say, and you’re a fool.

他們說，要是真信那你就成傻瓜了。

In my class, I point to an episode of “TheOffice,” in which Michael Scott, regional manager for Dunder Mifflin, is such afool: He’s blown away by a model in an office furniture catalog. Michael vowsto find her in the flesh, only to discover that the love of his life is nolonger living. Despairing (but still determined), he visits her grave and singsto her a stirring requiem, set to the tune of “American Pie”:

在我的課上，我點出了《辦公室》中的一集，劇中“Dunder Mifflin”紙業(yè)公司的區(qū)域經(jīng)理邁克爾?斯考特就是這樣的一個傻瓜：他被家具目錄頁上的一個模特迷了心竅。邁克爾發(fā)誓要找到找到她這個大活人，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)他此生的至愛已經(jīng)不在人世了。百般絕望（但依然志堅）之下，他去探訪了她的墳?zāi)?，還唱了一曲震撼人心的安魂曲給她聽，還把調(diào)子變調(diào)成了“美國派”。

（譯注：《辦公室》（“The Office”）為2005年的美劇，為當(dāng)年度十佳劇集）

? ?Bye, bye Ms. Chair Model Lady
? ? Idreamt we were married and you treated me nice
? ?We had lots of kids, drinking whiskey and rye
Why’d you haveto go off and die?

再見，再見了椅模女士
曾夢見你我成婚，你待我甚好
我們子孫成群，飲著黑麥威士忌
為什么你非要離開、死去？

This might as well be a funeral for love atfirst sight, since all of this comes at delusional Michael’s expense.

不妨把這個當(dāng)成一見鐘情的葬禮，因為所有這些是以妄想的邁克爾自己為代價的。

If you find yourself smitten with someoneyou’ve only just met, you’ll question whether you should give the feeling somuch weight – and risk ending up like Michael.

如果你發(fā)現(xiàn)，你才剛剛認(rèn)識的一個人讓你神魂顛倒，你會懷疑自己是否應(yīng)該賦予這種感覺太重的分量，并冒著落得個邁克爾下場的風(fēng)險。

Psychologists and neuroscientists havetried to find some answers. But I would argue that for the best guidance, don’tlook there – look to Shakespeare.

心理學(xué)家和神經(jīng)學(xué)家已經(jīng)嘗試著去找出一些答案了。但我會主張：為了最好地指引（這個問題），不要去研究那些，去著眼莎士比亞。

Sifting through the science

通過科學(xué)來篩查

Even in a class tailored to romantics, whenI poll my students about whether they believe in love at first sight, around 90percent of the 250 students indicate they don’t.

就算在一堂為浪漫主義者量身定制的課中，當(dāng)我讓我的學(xué)生就是否相信一見鐘情進行投票時，250個學(xué)生中有大約90%表示他們不相信。

At least one study suggests that the restof us agree with my students. Like them, participants in this study believethat love takes time. Two people meet and may or may not be infatuated uponfirst meeting. They gradually develop an intimate understanding of each other.And then, and only then, do they fall in love. That’s just how love works.

至少有一項研究表明我們中其他一些人和我的學(xué)生見解一致。和他們一樣，這項研究的參與者相信愛是需要時間的。兩個人碰面，也許初見就會迷上，也許不會。他們是逐漸形成對彼此的親密理解的。然后，且只有在那以后，他們才會墜入愛河。這才是愛運作的方式。??

Then again, maybe we’re more like MichaelScott than we think. Other surveys suggest that most of us indeed do believe inlove at first sight. Many of us say we’ve experienced it.

然而，我們可能要比自己想象的更接近邁克爾·斯考特。另一些調(diào)查表明：我們中的大部分人真的相信一見鐘情。我們中的很多人都說自己經(jīng)歷過這種事。

What does brain science say? Some studiesclaim that we can clearly distinguish what happens in our brains at the momentof initial attraction – when chemicals related to pleasure, excitement and anxietypredominate – from what happens in true romantic attachment, when attachmenthormones like oxytocin take over.

對此腦科學(xué)又怎么說呢？一些研究聲稱，我們可以清楚地辨別出現(xiàn)最初吸引時我們的大腦發(fā)生的事以及真正的愛慕，前者是涉及愉悅、興奮和焦慮的化學(xué)物質(zhì)主宰大腦的時候，后者則是由主愛慕的荷爾蒙比如催產(chǎn)素接管了大腦。
??
But other studies don’t accept such a cleanbreak between the chemistry of love at first sight and of “true” love, insteadsuggesting that what happens in the brain at first blush may resemble whathappens later on.

但其他的研究不接受這種一見鐘情和“真”愛背后化學(xué)過程的干凈切割，相反它們主張：乍看之下大腦中發(fā)生的事可能會和稍后發(fā)生的類似。

Regardless of whether chemical reactions inlove at first sight and longer-term romantic love are alike, the deeperquestion persists.

無論一見鐘情和長期愛情之間的化學(xué)反應(yīng)是否相似，更深的問題仍然存在。

Does love at first sight deserve the nameof love?

即，一見鐘情當(dāng)?shù)闷饜矍榈拿^嗎？

?
Shakespeare weighs in

莎士比亞加入了爭論

While science and surveys can’t seem tosettle on a definitive answer, Shakespeare can. Cited as an authority in nearlyevery recent book-length study of love, Shakespeare shows how love at firstsight can be as true a love as there is.

雖然科學(xué)和調(diào)查似乎沒法得出一個決定性的答案，莎士比亞卻可以。在幾乎每一本愛情研究著作中，莎士比亞都被視為權(quán)威，他展現(xiàn)了一見鐘情這種愛情可以有多真實。

Let’s look at how his lovers meet in “Romeoand Juliet.”

讓我們來瞧瞧在《羅密歐與朱麗葉》中，他筆下的有情人是如何邂逅的。

Romeo, besotted with Juliet at the Capuletball, musters the courage to speak with her, even though he doesn’t know hername. When he does, she doesn’t just respond. Together, they speak a sonnet:

羅密歐是在凱普萊特家的舞會上被朱麗葉迷住的，他鼓起勇氣同她說話，哪怕不知道她的名字。當(dāng)他這么做的時候，她不只是有所回應(yīng)。他們一起誦出一首十四行詩：

Romeo: If I profane with my unworthiest hand
Thisholy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
Mylips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
Tosmooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.

羅密歐：若是我手上的塵污褻瀆了這神圣的廟宇：
雙唇便是含羞的信徒，盼能以親吻祈求原諒。

Juliet: Good pilgrim, you do wrong your handtoo much,
Which mannerly devotion shows in this;
Forsaints have hands that pilgrims' hands do touch,
Andpalm to palm is holy palmers' kiss.

朱麗葉：好信徒，別讓手受到侮辱，
這正是虔誠的禮敬；
圣人的手本應(yīng)該讓信徒接觸，
掌心的密合遠勝于親吻。

Romeo: Have not saints lips, and holy palmerstoo?

羅密歐：圣人和信徒不都有嘴唇？

Juliet: Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must usein prayer.

朱麗葉：有啊，那是用來禱告神明的。

Romeo: O, then, dear saint, let lips do whathands do!
Theypray; grant thou, lest faith turn to despair.

羅密歐：哦，那么，親愛的圣人，讓嘴唇做雙手該做的事吧！

他們祈禱；你要承認(rèn)，免得信心變?yōu)榻^望。

Juliet: Saints do not move, though grant forprayers' sake.

朱麗葉：圣人不能有俗念，但會順應(yīng)信徒的祈愿。

Romeo: Then move not, while my prayer's effectI take.

羅密歐：那便不要動念，讓我享受祈禱的靈驗。

Even though it’s their first encounter, thetwo converse dynamically and inventively – an intense back-and-forth thatequates love with religion. Love poems typically are spoken by a lover to abeloved, as in many of Shakespeare’s own sonnets or Michael’s requiem.Generally, there’s one voice. Not in the case of Romeo and Juliet – and theenergy between the two is as stunning as it is silly.

盡管這是他們的第一次相遇，兩人的交談卻富有活力和創(chuàng)造力，這是一種熾烈的來回反復(fù)，將愛情與宗教同等看待。正常情況下，情詩是情人講給心愛之人聽的，就像莎士比亞自己的很多十四行詩或是邁克爾的安魂曲那樣。通常，只有一種聲音。但羅密歐和朱麗葉的情況卻有所不同，兩人間澎湃的能量其攝人心魄的程度，和愚蠢同等。

In the first four lines, Romeo privilegeslips over hands, in a bid for a kiss. In the next four lines, Juliet disagreeswith Romeo. She asserts that, actually, hands are better. Holding hands is itsown kind of kiss.

在前四行中，羅密歐賦予雙唇特權(quán)而不是雙手，只為求得一吻。在接下來的四行中，朱麗葉否定了羅密歐。她堅稱，事實上手才更好。牽手是其自己的親吻方式。

Romeo keeps going, noting that saints andpilgrims have lips. Since they do, lips mustn’t be so bad. They should be used.

羅密歐繼續(xù)深入，指出圣人和信徒都是有嘴唇的。既然他們有，那嘴唇一定沒有那么糟糕。應(yīng)該去使用它們。

But again, Juliet answers Romeo readily:Lips are to be used, yes – but to pray, not to kiss. Romeo tries a third timeto resolve the tension by saying that kissing, far from being opposed toprayer, is in fact a way of praying. And maybe kissing is like praying, likeasking for a better world. Juliet at last agrees, and the two do kiss, after acouplet which suggests that they are in harmony.

但又一次，朱麗葉輕松答道：嘴唇是拿來用的沒錯，但是用來祈禱，而不是親吻。羅密歐通過說親吻完全不是反對祈禱，實際上是一種祈禱的方式，來第三次嘗試消除緊張。而且可能親吻和祈禱差不多，都像是在尋求一個更好的世界。朱麗葉最后同意了，而且在一組暗示他們已和諧無間的對句后，兩人確實接吻了。

（譯注：對句即couplet，為相連并押韻的兩行詩，見于各型英語詩歌）

Romeo and Juliet obviously have unrealisticideas. But they connect in such a powerful way – right away – that it’sungenerous to say that their religion of love is only silly. We can’t dismissit in the same way we can mock Michael Scott. This is not a man with an officefurniture catalog, or two revelers grinding at a club.

很明顯羅密歐和朱麗葉有著不切實際的念想。但他們以如此強勁的方式立時就完成了交相勾連，使得說他們的愛情信仰只不過是愚蠢就顯得有失公允了。我們沒法用嘲笑邁克爾·斯考特的方式，去對它置之不理。這可不是一個男人和一張辦公室家具目錄，或是兩個狂歡酒徒在夜店里貼面起舞。

That two strangers can share a sonnet inspeech means that they already share a deep connection – that they areincredibly responsive to each other.

兩個陌生人能在說話中一起生生攢出一首十四行詩，這就意味著他倆間已然存在深度的勾連，這就能讓他們難以置信地去交相輝映。

What are we so afraid of?

讓我們?nèi)绱丝謶值牡降资鞘裁矗?br/>
Why would we want to dismiss Romeo andJuliet or those who claim to be like them?

為什么我們會對羅密歐與朱麗葉不屑一顧，或是那些自稱類似他們情況的人們？

We talk excitedly about meeting someone andhow we “click” or “really hit it off” – how we feel intimately acquainted eventhough we’ve only just met. This is our way of believing in low-grade love atfirst sight, while still scorning its full-blown form.

我們會興奮地談?wù)撆龅搅四硞€人，以及我們是如何“心有靈犀”，或是“真的很合拍”，我們?nèi)绾稳绾胃杏X到彼此之間的一見如故，盡管我們只是才認(rèn)識。我們就是以這種方式在信仰著低等級的一見鐘情，同時仍然蔑視其完全成熟的形式。

Imagine if we did what Romeo and Juliet do.They show the signs that we tend to regard as hallmarks of “mature” love –profound passion, intimacy and commitment – right away. For Shakespeare, if youhave this, you have love, whether it takes six months or six minutes.

想象一下，如果我們做了羅密歐和朱麗葉做過的事。他們立時就展現(xiàn)出了我們會傾向于視其為“成熟”愛情標(biāo)志的跡象：深刻的激情、親密感以及承諾。在莎士比亞眼里，只要你具備了這些，你就擁有愛情，不管是花費了六個月還是六分鐘。

It’s easy to say that people don’t loveeach other when they first meet because they don’t know each other and haven’thad a chance to form a true attachment. Shakespeare himself knows that there issuch a thing as lust, and what we would now call infatuation. He’s no fool.

人們初次相見的時候不會愛上彼此，因為他們不了解彼此而且還不曾擁有機會形成一個真正的承諾。說這種話是很容易的。莎士比亞本人是知道存在**這檔子事兒的，而這個東西我們現(xiàn)在會稱之為迷戀。他可不傻。

Still, he reminds us – as forcefully as weever will be reminded – that some people, right away, do know each otherdeeply. Love gives them insight into each other. Love makes them pledgethemselves to each other. Love makes them inventive. Yes, it also makes themridiculous.

盡管如此，他以我們會碰到的最強有力的方式提醒了我們：有些人剎那間就能互相了解到深處。愛情賦予了他們對彼此的洞察。愛情引領(lǐng)著他們對互相作出承諾。愛情使他們充滿了創(chuàng)造力。是的，愛情也使他們變得荒唐可笑。

But that’s just another of love’s glories.It makes being ridiculous permissible.

但那只是愛情的另一種榮耀。變身可笑因此而得到了準(zhǔn)許。? ? ? ??


（評論區(qū)）

1、I won’t say that Ibelieve in “l(fā)ove at first sight” as the schmaltzy unbreakable thing societytypically believes, and used to be flat out against it as a concept at all… butthere is definitely something that happens sometimes that seems to be beyondrational explanation and beyond basic attraction

我不會說我會像社會通常相信的那個矯情而牢不可破的東西那樣相信“一見鐘情”，而且我過去是完全反對它作為一個概念的存在的...但確實存在一些時而會發(fā)生的事情，似乎超出了理性的解釋，也超出了基本的吸引力范圍。

about 10 years before I ever met my husbandwe went to the same movie as teenagers. Not only did we both independentlyremember spying on each other across that crowded room a decade later… but Ilater realized I modeled the romantic lead in a novel I was working on at thetime after the man I would later meet and marry.

在我認(rèn)識我丈夫十年前，我們以青少年的年紀(jì)去看了同一個電影。我們倆都記得，十年前我們在穿過那個擁擠的房間時各自自發(fā)地偷看彼此...但之后，我意識到我是把這個我會在日后遇見并嫁給的男人拿去比照當(dāng)時我正攻讀的一部小說中的浪漫主義主演了。
?