When I consider my neighbors， the farmers of Concord， who are at least as well off as the other classes， I find that for the most part they have been toiling twenty， thirty， or forty years， that they may become the real owners of their farms， which commonly they have inherited with encumbrances， or else bought with hired money ――and we may regard one third of that toil as the cost of their houses―― but commonly they have not paid for them yet.  It is true， the encumbrances sometimes outweigh the value of the farm， so that the farm itself becomes one great encumbrance， and still a man is found to inherit it， being well acquainted with it， as he says.  On applying to the assessors， I am surprised to learn that they cannot at once name a dozen in the town who own their farms free and clear. If you would know the history of these homesteads， inquire at the bank where they are mortgaged.  The man who has actually paid for his farm with labor on it is so rare that every neighbor can point to him.  I doubt if there are three such men in Concord.  What has been said of the merchants， that a very large majority， even ninety-seven in a hundred， are sure to fail， is equally true of the farmers.  With regard to the merchants， however， one of them says pertinently that a great part of their failures are not genuine pecuniary failures， but merely failures to fulfil their engagements，because it is inconvenient； that is， it is the moral character that breaks down.  But this puts an infinitely worse face on the matter，and suggests， beside， that probably not even the other three succeed in saving their souls， but are perchance bankrupt in a worse sense than they who fail honestly.  Bankruptcy and repudiation are the springboards from which much of our civilization vaults and turns its somersets， but the savage stands on the unelastic plank of famine.  Yet the Middlesex Cattle Show goes off here with eclat annually， as if all the joints of the agricultural machine were suent.

　　The farmer is endeavoring to solve the problem of a livelihood by a formula more complicated than the problem itself.  To get his shoestrings he speculates in herds of cattle.  With consummate skill he has set his trap with a hair spring to catch comfort and independence， and then， as he turned away， got his own leg into it. This is the reason he is poor； and for a similar reason we are all poor in respect to a thousand savage comforts， though surrounded by luxuries.  As Chapman sings，

　　"The false society of men ―――― for earthly greatness All heavenly comforts rarefies to air."

　　And when the farmer has got his house， he may not be the richer but the poorer for it， and it be the house that has got him.  As I understand it， that was a valid objection urged by Momus against the house which Minerva made， that she "had not made it movable， by which means a bad neighborhood might be avoided"； and it may still be urged， for our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them； and the bad neighborhood to be avoided is our own scurvy selves.  I know one or two families， at least， in this town， who， for nearly a generation，have been wishing to sell their houses in the outskirts and move into the village， but have not been able to accomplish it， and only death will set them free.

　　當我想到我的鄰居時，那些康科德的農夫們，他們的境遇至少同別的階級一樣好，我發現他們中間的大部分人都已工作了二十年三十年或四十年了，為的是他們可以成為他們農場的真正主人，通常這些農場是附帶了抵押權而傳給他們的遺產，或許是借了錢買下來的，――我們不妨把他們的勞力中的三分之一，作為房屋的代價，――通常總是他們還沒有付清那一筆借款。真的，那抵押權有時還超過了農場的原價，結果農場自身已成了一個大累贅，然而到最后總是有承繼的人，正如他自己說的，因為他這個承繼人和農場太親近了。我找評價課稅官談過話，驚詫地發現他們竟然不能夠一口氣背出十二個擁有農場，而又自由、清白的市民來。如果你要知道這些家宅的實況，你得到銀行去問一問抵押的情形。真正能夠用勞力來償付他的農場債務的人是這樣地少，如果有的話，每一個鄰人都能用手指把他指點出來。我疑心康科德這一帶還找不出三個這樣的人。說到商人們，則絕大部分商人，甚至一百個中間大約有九十六個是肯定要失敗的，農夫也是如此。然而關于商人，其中有一位曾經恰當地指出，他們的失敗大都不是由于虧本，而只是由于不方便而沒有遵守諾言；這就是說，是由于信用的毀損。這一來，問題就要糟糕得多，而且不禁使人想到前述那三個人的靈魂，說不定將來也不能夠得救，也許他們會比那些老老實實地失敗的人，在更糟的情況下破產。破產啊，拒付債務啊，是一條條的跳板，我們的文明的一大部分就從那里縱躍上升，翻了跟斗的，而野蠻人卻站在饑饉這條沒有彈性的木板上。然而，每年在這里舉行的米德爾塞克斯耕牛比賽大會，總是光輝燦爛，好像農業的狀況還極好似的。

　　農夫們常想用比問題本身更復雜的方式，來解決生活問題。為了需要他的鞋帶，他投機在畜牧之中。他用熟練的技巧，用細彈簧布置好一個陷阱，想捉到安逸和獨立性，他正要拔腳走開，不料他自己的一只腳落進陷阱里去了。他窮的原因就在這里；而且由于類似的原因，我們全都是窮困的，雖然有奢侈品包圍著我們，倒不及野蠻人有著一千種安逸。查普曼歌唱道：“這虛偽的人類社會――――為了人間的宏偉至上的歡樂稀薄得像空氣。”

　　等到農夫得到了他的房屋，他并沒有因此就更富，倒是更窮了，因為房屋占有了他。

　　依照我所能理解的，莫墨斯曾經說過一句千真萬確的話，來反對密涅瓦建筑的一座房屋，說她“沒有把它造成可以移動的房屋，否則的話就可以從一個惡劣的鄰居那兒遷走了”；這里還可以追上一句話，我們的房屋是這樣不易利用，它把我們幽禁在里面，而并不是我們居住在里面；至于那需要避開的惡劣的鄰居，往往倒是我們的可鄙的“自我”。我知道，在這個城里，至少有一兩家，幾乎是希望了一輩子，要賣掉他們近郊的房屋，搬到鄉村去住，可是始終辦不到，只能等將來壽終正寢了，他才能恢復自由。

更多 英文美文、英語美文、英文短文、英語短文，請繼續關注 英語作文大全