注册
正文 目录 文库目录 文库收藏 中文百科 Wiki百科
聪明的消遣：毛姆谈英国文学

亨利·菲尔丁与《汤姆·琼斯》 3|Henry Fielding and Tom Jones 3

属类： 双语小说 【分类】其他读物 -[作者: 毛姆] 阅读：[11926]
3
《 字+字- 行+行- 页+页- 字+字- 行+行- 页+页- 》
-

有人读不了《汤姆·琼斯》。我不是说那些除了报纸和有插图的周刊以外什么都不读的人，或那些除了侦探小说以外什么都不读的人。我是说那些不反对你把他们划为知识分子的人，那些读过一遍以后还会愉快地重读《傲慢与偏见》，满足地重读《米德尔马契》，心怀敬意地重读《金碗》(14)的人。他们可能从未想过要读《汤姆·琼斯》，即使有时尝试过，也没能读得下去。这书让他们觉得无聊。说他们应该喜欢这书是没用的，读书本就没有什么应该不应该。读小说是为了娱乐。我再说一遍，如果一本小说给不了你这个，那就什么都给不了你。如果你觉得一本小说没意思，没人能指责你，就像没人有权因为你不喜欢牡蛎而指责你。但是我禁不住问自己，到底是什么使读者放下了这本书？吉本说它是人情世态的一幅美妙画卷，司各特赞扬它是真理和人性本身，狄更斯欣赏它并从中受益。萨克雷说：“《汤姆·琼斯》这部小说真叫美妙，其结构算得上是个奇迹。那些智慧的穿插情节，那样强大的观察力，那些层次众多、巧妙恰当的措辞和思想，那种堪称伟大的喜剧史诗般的人物多样性，都永远使读者处于钦佩和好奇中。”是因为读者无法对两百年前人们的生活方式、风俗习惯感兴趣？还是因为风格的问题？但是《汤姆·琼斯》的风格很是轻松自然。我忘了是谁说过，可能是菲尔丁的朋友切斯特菲尔德爵爷，他说好的风格让人感觉是一个有文化的人在说话。菲尔丁的风格正是如此。他与读者对话，告诉他们汤姆·琼斯的故事，就像他在晚餐桌上就着一瓶酒对三五知己说话一样。他绝不咬文嚼字。美丽贞洁的索菲亚明显是听惯了“妓女”“杂种”“荡妇”这些词。说到这个，真猜不出为什么菲尔丁写“婊子”（bitch）的时候要省掉两个字母（“b．．．ch”）。事实上，有时候索菲亚的爸爸，乡绅魏斯顿，就是这么随便地用这些词称呼她的。

1
(14) 《金碗》是美国作家亨利·詹姆斯（1843—1916）1904年写的一本小说，写婚姻、家庭、父女关系的复杂纠缠，被认为是詹姆斯的代表作之一。
-

用谈话风格写小说有其弊端，因为作者会对你推心置腹，会告诉你他对笔下人物的感想，以及他对人物所处环境的看法。作者总在你的近旁，妨碍了你与故事中的人直接交流。他的道德说教有时会惹恼你，一旦他开始离题闲扯，就又会变得乏味无聊。你不想听他对某些道德问题和社会问题发表看法，你只希望他继续讲故事。菲尔丁的漫谈几乎总是明智或有趣，通常也还简短，并有为之道歉的风度，他的温厚也闪耀其中。而当萨克雷不明智地模仿菲尔丁时，他就显得假正经、假虔诚了，你还会不由自主地怀疑他也并不真诚。

2
-

菲尔丁在《汤姆·琼斯》的每卷前都置一序言。有些批评家对这些序言很激赏，认为它们起到了锦上添花的作用。我只能说这是因为他们对小说本身不感兴趣。散文家会愿意挑个题目进行讨论。如果题目新，他会告诉你一些你不知道的东西。但是新题目不好找，因此散文家通常期待用自己的态度和看问题的独特方式来使你感兴趣。也就是说，他希望他本人让你感兴趣。但是读小说的时候你不会想要这么做。你不关心作者，他的作用只是讲故事和介绍你认识一堆人物。小说读者想知道的是作者使他感兴趣的人物后来怎么样了，如果他连这个都不想知道，他就没理由读小说了。因为读小说——这话我说多少遍都不会厌烦——不是为了启迪和教导，而是为了一种聪明的消遣。菲尔丁似乎是在写完小说后才添加了那些评论。它们和所介绍的章节几乎没有关联，而且他承认这些评论文字给他找了很多麻烦，于是我们纳闷他为什么要写这些评论。他不可能不知道很多读者认为他的小说低俗，不太道德，甚至淫秽，他可能是想用那些序给他的小说以某种道德的提升。这些序写得很明智，有时还相当精明。如果你熟读了小说，再读这些序时也会相当愉快。但是如果你是第一次读小说，那就不如跳过这些序。《汤姆·琼斯》的情节很好。我从达顿博士的书里得知柯勒律治曾感叹道：“菲尔丁真是个写作大师！”司各特和萨克雷也同样热情。达顿博士引用萨克雷的话说：“不管道德不道德，让任何人都先把这个浪漫故事看成艺术作品，之后他就会觉得它是人类才智最令人震惊的产物。在这部小说中，一件事哪怕再小都是由前事演化而来，都推动了故事的发展，都和整个故事紧密相关。如此一部神助之作（如果我们可以如此措辞的话），在其他小说那里前所未见。你可以砍掉半部《堂吉诃德》，或者添加、调换、改写司各特的任何浪漫传奇故事，两者都不会有任何损失。罗德里克·兰登(15)以及类似主人公不管经历了怎样的冒险奇遇，最后，还可以提琴拿来，婚礼开始。但是《汤姆·琼斯》的故事情节自第一页至最后一页始终环环相扣，衔接紧密。作者一定是在落笔前就在脑子里搭好、撑起了整个结构。他是如何做到这一点的，想想都令人称奇。”

3
(15) 指苏格兰作家托比亚斯·斯摩莱特（1721—1771）所著的流浪汉小说《罗德里克·兰登的冒险》，出版于1748年。
-

这话有些夸张。《汤姆·琼斯》是按西班牙流浪汉小说和《吉尔·布拉斯》(16)的模式写的，其结构的简单取决于这一文体的本质：主人公因某种原因离开了家，一路上经历各种冒险，遇到各式人等，命运起起落落，最后发了财，娶了个迷人的妻子。菲尔丁一边套用这个模式，一边用无关的故事打断叙述。这真是个不怎么令人愉快的写作手法，而作家之所以采用，我想原因不光是我之前说的：他们总得给书商写点什么东西交稿，一两个故事总能充数；还因为他们担心一长串冒险会很无聊，觉得时不时讲个故事或许能给读者增添点刺激。再有就是如果他们想写短篇小说，除此之外他们没有别的办法能让公众看到。批评家们会斥责这种做法，但它就是不消亡。众所周知，狄更斯在《匹克威克外传》中就用了这种手法，《汤姆·琼斯》的读者也可以毫无损失地跳过“山中人”的故事和菲兹赫伯特太太的叙述。至于萨克雷评价菲尔丁书中的每一件事都其来有自，都推动了故事的发展，其实并不准确。汤姆·琼斯和吉卜赛人的相遇就没有导致任何事的发生，引入亨特夫人以及她向汤姆的求婚也很没必要。那一百镑账单的情节不仅毫无用处，还绝无可能，令人难以置信。至于萨克雷赞叹菲尔丁在动笔前就在脑子里构建了小说的整体结构，在我看来菲尔丁并没有这么做过，就像萨克雷在写《名利场》之前也不可能这么做一样。我觉得更有可能的是，一开始菲尔丁只是在脑子里有了故事主线，后来才边写边把那些具体情节编出来。他的大多数情节都写得不错。像他之前的那些流浪汉小说家一样，他并不在乎可能性。因为在他的书里最不可能的事都发生了，最离谱的巧合也都把人物聚合到了一起。但是他是如此活力十足地督促你一路前行，以至于你几乎没有时间，也不想要抗议这种不可能。他的人物都以原色描绘，粗率中带着豪放。如果他的人物缺少微妙之处，也因活力得到了弥补。这些人物极富个性，如果有所夸张，那也是时代使然，而且夸张的程度可能并未超越喜剧所能容许的范畴。我担心甄可敬先生(17)有点太好了，不像真人。但是菲尔丁在此处的失败也无非是像他之后的每个小说家那样，是因为太想要刻画一个道德完人，而经验告诉我们似乎没法不使甄可敬这样的人物显得有点蠢。读者对这么一个人是会有点不耐烦的，他太好了，于是被各式各样的人欺骗和利用。据说甄可敬原型是普里亚庄园的拉尔夫·艾伦。如果这是真的，菲尔丁对人物的描述也是真的，那只能说明直接源于生活的人物在小说里永远没法太令人信服。

4
(16) 《吉尔·布拉斯》，勒萨日（1668—1747）的代表作，十八世纪法国著名的流浪汉小说，写一个底层出身的小人物在社会中的沉浮。
-

另一方面，布利非也被认为坏得不像真人。菲尔丁痛恨欺骗和伪善，他对布利非的厌恶如此之深，以至于他把描绘这个人物的色彩涂抹得太重了。但是小气、鬼祟、自私、冷血的布利非并非是不常见的一类人，害怕露馅是唯一没有使他变成彻底的恶棍的原因。但是我觉得布利非如果不是坏得这么明显的话，这个人物刻画得倒是更能令人信服。他是讨厌，但是不鲜活，不像尤赖·希普(18)那样真实。我曾经自问，菲尔丁是否出于这样一种直觉有意把这个人物写少了：如果把他写得更活跃、更突出，那会使他过分强大和邪恶，从而掩盖了主角的光辉。

5
(18) 尤赖·希普是狄更斯小说《大卫·科波菲尔》中的一个负面人物，他为人不真诚，谄媚奉承，过分谦卑，他的名字在英文中已经成了“马屁精”的代名词。
-

《汤姆·琼斯》一经问世就在公众那里大获成功，批评家们对此却基本都持严厉态度。有些反对令人颇感荒谬。比如，拉克斯伯罗夫人抱怨说书中人物太像“社会上遇见的那些人”。但是这本小说之所以广受谴责，主要还是因为不道德。汉娜·摩尔(19)在回忆录中说她从没见过约翰逊博士对她生气，只除了一次，那是当她提及《汤姆·琼斯》中的一些妙语的时候。“听到你从这么一本道德败坏的书中引文摘句，我真是吃惊，”约翰逊说，“我很遗憾听说你已经读了这本书，一个正派淑女是不该坦白这种事的。我几乎不知道还有什么作品比这本书更堕落。”可是现在，我要说，一个正派淑女最好在结婚前读读这本书。它会告诉她有关人生她所需知道的一切事实，以及很多有关男人的事实，在她进入婚姻这个艰难阶段之前，知道这些对她不会没用。人人都知道约翰逊博士是带有偏见的，他不承认菲尔丁在文学上的造诣，有一次还说菲尔丁是个木头脑袋。当鲍斯威尔提出异议的时候，约翰逊博士说：“说他是个木头脑袋，我的意思是说他是个毫无思想的流氓。”鲍斯威尔则回答：“先生，难道你不认为他非常自然地描绘了人生吗？”对此，约翰逊说：“可是，先生，那是非常卑贱的人生。理查逊过去经常说他如果不知道菲尔丁是谁，他会以为他是个马夫。”我们现在已经习惯了小说里的低贱生活，《汤姆·琼斯》里再也没有什么是我们时代的小说家不曾让我们熟知的了。约翰逊博士可能记得，菲尔丁把索菲亚刻画成了一个温柔迷人、令小说读者感到愉悦的人物。她单纯但不傻，贞洁但不假正经，她有性格、决心和勇气。她有爱心，长得还美。玛丽·沃特利—蒙太古夫人认为《汤姆·琼斯》是菲尔丁的代表作，这一点她判断得很正确。但她遗憾菲尔丁没有发现他已经把男主人公写成了一个浑蛋。我想她指的是那件被认为是汤姆·琼斯先生职业生涯中最应受到谴责的事：贝拉斯顿夫人迷上了他，并且发现他也早准备好了要满足她的欲望，因为他认为女人既然都已表达了那个愿望，男人就该向她“殷勤”行事，这是男人良好教养的一部分。汤姆分文皆无，甚至连一个先令都没有，没法雇车把自己送到贝拉斯顿夫人的住所，可是这位夫人如此富有。女人通常花别人的钱大方，花自己的钱小气，可是这位夫人却有一种罕见的慷慨，她大方地救了汤姆的急。男人从女人那里拿钱总归不好，也不合算，因为有钱女人在这种情况下想要的可比她们花出去的多得多。但在道德上，这并不比女人从男人那里拿钱更值得大惊小怪。如果普遍看法都认为男人用女人的钱更糟糕的话，那只能说普遍看法很愚蠢。我们的时代已经认为有必要发明一个词“小白脸”来指这种把个人魅力变成赚钱手段的男性，因此汤姆的粗俗，哪怕再应受人谴责，也不能算是什么新鲜事了。我毫不怀疑乔治二世(20)统治下小白脸的盛行就像如今乔治五世统治下一样势头强劲。好在就在贝拉斯顿夫人因为陪睡而给了汤姆五十镑的那天，汤姆被房东给他讲的一个她的什么亲戚的倒霉故事感动了，他于是把钱包给了她，让她随便拿吧，去解决那人的困难吧。这也正是汤姆品格的典型体现。他虽然真诚地深爱着美丽的索菲亚，可是同时，他和任何迷人的、容易得手的女人放纵肉欲，也并不觉得有什么良心不安。他还并不因为这些插曲而少爱了索菲亚一点。菲尔丁太聪明，才没有把他的男主人公写得比一般男人更自制。他知道如果我们晚上也能像白天一样谨慎，那我们就会更道德。而当索菲亚听说汤姆这些艳遇时，她也没有不依不饶地过分生气。她在这事上有着她这个性别少见的常识，这肯定是她最迷人的性格之一了。对此，奥斯汀·道布森有一句话说得很好，虽然说得不那么文雅。他说菲尔丁“并不假装要塑造完美的典范，他只想写出普通的人性，他的笔调宁要粗糙不要文雅，宁要自然不要造作，他的愿望是要绝对真实地做到这一切，而不是掩盖缺点短处，或为之寻找借口”。这是现实主义者努力在做的事，但是有史以来，现实主义者一直都在或多或少地因此受到猛烈的抨击。据我所知主要原因有两条。一是有很多人，尤其是年长者、有钱人和有权人，都采取这种态度，即：“我们当然知道世上有很多犯罪和不道德，但我们不想读到这些事。我们为什么要让自己不舒服呢？我们反正也无能为力。这世界毕竟总是有穷有富”。另一种人有别的理由批评现实主义者，他们承认世界上有犯罪和邪恶，残酷和压迫，但是他们问：“这是适合写小说的材料吗？年轻人读长辈们知道但是惋惜、反对的东西好吗？假如年轻人读的小说哪怕不算淫秽可是已经算得上很具挑逗性了，这难道不会腐蚀他们吗？那些表现世界上有很多美、善、自我牺牲、慷慨和英雄主义的小说难道不是更好吗？”现实主义者的回答是：“对于他所接触到的世界，他只想实事求是地说真话。他不相信人能毫不掺杂地行善，他认为人是善与恶的混合体，他容忍传统道德所不容忍的人性的怪癖，他认为这些怪癖是人性的、自然的，因此也就是可以为之辩解的。他希望他对人性善的描写就像他对人性恶的描写一样诚实，如果读者更感兴趣的是恶不是善，那不是他的错。他不能为人类这种动物身上的这个奇怪的特点负责。但是如果他对自己诚实，他会承认恶是可以用闪闪发光的色彩描摹的，善却似乎总带着一抹暗色。如果你问他如何为腐蚀年轻人这个控诉辩解，他会说年轻人最好知道他们将要与之打交道的世界是个什么样。如果他们期待太高，结果很可能是灾难一场。如果一个现实主义者能教会年轻人不要从别人那里期待太高，让他们一开始就知道每个人最关心的都只是他自己；如果不管以何种方式他还能教会他们：一、他们必须为他们得到的一切付出代价，无论地位、财富、荣誉、爱情还是名誉；二、所谓智慧，很大程度在于不要为了得到某样东西付出超值的代价，那他就能比所有的老师和牧师加起来都更能教会年轻人如何过好这艰难的生活。但是，他还会再加一句，说他既不是老师，也不是牧师，他希望他是艺术家。”

6
(19) 汉娜·摩尔（1745—1833），约翰逊的文学圈中人，英国宗教作家及慈善家，也写诗和戏剧，还反对奴隶贸易。
-

(1) 指查尔斯·爱德华·斯图尔特（1720—1788），斯图尔特王朝的王子，人称“小王位觊觎者”。1745年，他趁大部分英国军队都在欧洲大陆参加奥地利王位继承战之机，在苏格兰登陆，纠集人马向南进发，企图夺回英国王位，结果战败逃亡法国。

7
-

(2) 哈布斯堡家族，也称奥地利家族，其纹章的主体图案是双头鹰。哈布斯堡家族是欧洲最有影响力的皇室家族，产生过多位神圣罗马帝国皇帝，以及波希米亚、德国、英国、法国、匈牙利、克罗地亚、爱尔兰、西班牙、葡萄牙等国国王。

8
-

(3) 查理五世（1500—1558），西班牙国王并神圣罗马帝国皇帝，他继承了西欧、南欧和中欧，以及美洲和亚洲的大片土地，建立了第一个“日不落帝国”。在他之后，哈布斯堡王朝分裂为西班牙和奥地利两个支系，下文“埃斯科里亚尔的宫殿和奥地利皇室的鹰徽”就是指这两个支系。

9
-

(4) 指西班牙首都马德里附近规模宏大的埃斯科里亚尔建筑群，包括西班牙国王的陵墓、宫殿、教堂、修道院等，建于1562到1584年间。

10
-

(5) 丘吉尔的祖先；十八世纪初，他作为总司令带领英军战胜了西班牙和法国军队。

11
-

(6) 此处语带双关，出租马车车夫和替人捉刀，英文都是hackney。

12
-

(7) 乔纳森·斯威夫特（1667—1745），爱尔兰作家，代表作为《格列佛游记》和《一只桶的故事》。斯威夫特曾任爱尔兰都柏林圣帕特里克大教堂的教长。

13
-

(8) 威廉·康格里夫（1670—1729），英国剧作家，善写风俗喜剧，以对话机智讽刺著称，代表作有《以爱还爱》《如此世道》。

14
-

(9) 大卫·盖里克（1717—1779），十八世纪英国著名的演员、剧作家、剧院经理和制作人。

15
-

(10) 指十八世纪英国作家理查逊以书信体写作的小说《克拉丽莎》，号称有史以来最长的英语小说。

16
-

(11) 十八世纪上半期英国人盛行饮杜松子酒，并因此引发无数社会问题，政府于是在1729、1736、1743、1747和1751年五次出台《杜松子法案》，希望限制杜松子酒的消费，本文所指应是最后一个法案。菲尔丁主张禁绝杜松子酒，认为它滋生犯罪，损害儿童健康。

17
-

(12) 埃德蒙·伯克（1729—1797），爱尔兰著名哲学家、政论家，反对英王乔治三世和英国政府，支持北美殖民地以及后来的美国革命，对法国大革命持批判态度。

18
-

(13) 由教会牧师主持的合法婚礼在白天举行，晚上结婚的大约是私奔者或身份更加不见容于世的男女。

19
-

(17) Mr．Allworthy，译名从潘家洵先生译本。

20
-

(20) 乔治二世，1727到1760年间在位，正是《汤姆·琼斯》故事发生的年代，这位国王以情妇、暴脾气，以及粗鲁著称。

21
-

There are people who cannot read Tom Jones. I am not thinking of those who never read anything but the newspapers and the illustrated weeklies, or of those who never read anything but detective stories; I am thinking of those who would not demur if you classed them as members of the intelligentsia, of those who read and re-read Pride and Prejudice with delight, Middlemarch with self-complacency, and The Golden Bowl with reverence. The chances are that it has never even occurred to them to read Tom Jones; but, sometimes, they have tried and not been able to get on with it. It bores them. Now it is no good saying that they ought to like it. There is no ought about the matter. You read a novel for its entertainment, and, I repeat, if it does not give you that, it has nothing to give you at all. No one has the right to blame you because you don’t find it interesting, any more than anyone has the right to blame you because you don’t like oysters. I cannot but ask myself, however, what it is that puts readers off a book which Gibbon described as an exquisite picture of human manners, which Walter Scott praised as truth and human nature itself, which Dickens admired and profited by, and of which Thackeray wrote: “The novel of Tom Jones is indeed exquisite; as a work of construction quite a wonder; the by-play of wisdom, the power of observation, the multiplied felicitous turns and thoughts, the varied character of the great comic epic, keep the reader in a perpetual admiration and curiosity.”Is it that they cannot interest themselves in the way of life, the manners and customs, of persons who lived two hundred years ago? Is it the style? It is easy and natural. It has been said, I forget by whom, Fielding’s friend, Lord Chesterfield, perhaps, that a good style should resemble the conversation of cultivated man. That is precisely what Fielding’s style does. He is talking to the reader and telling him the story of Tom Jones as he might tell it over the dinner-table with a bottle of wine to a number of friends. He does not mince his words. The beautiful and virtuous Sophia was apparently quite used to hearing such words as“whore, ”“bastard, ”“strumpet, ”and that which, for a reason hard to guess, Fielding writes“b…ch.”In fact, there were moments when her father, Squire Western, applied them very freely to her.

1

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
-

The conversational method of writing a novel, the method in which the author takes you into his confidence, telling you what he feels about the creatures of his invention and the situations in which he has placed them has its dangers. The author is always at your elbow, and so hinders your immediate communication with the persons of his story. He is apt to irritate you sometimes by moralizing and once he starts to digress, is apt to be tedious. You do not want to hear what he has to say on some moral or social point; you want him to get on with his story. Fielding’s digressions are nearly always sensible or amusing; they are brief, and he has the grace to apologize for them. His good nature shines through them. When Thackeray unwisely imitated him in this, he was priggish, sanctimonious and, you cannot but suspect, insincere.

2

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
-

Fielding prefaced each of the books into which Tom Jones is divided with an essay. Some critics have greatly admired them, and have looked upon them as adding to the excellence of the novel. I can only suppose that is because they were not interested in it as a novel. An essayist takes a subject and discusses it. If his subject is new to you, he may tell you something that you didn’t know before, but new subjects are hard to find and, in general, he expects to interest you by his own attitude and the characteristic way in which he regards things. That is to say, he expects to interest you in himself. But that is not what you want to do when you read a novel. You don’t care about the author; he is there to tell you a story and introduce you to a group of characters. The reader of a novel should want to know what happens next to the persons in whom the author has interested him and, if he doesn’t, there is no reason for him to read the novel at all. For the novel, I can never repeat too often, is not to be looked upon as a medium of instruction or edification, but as a source of intelligent diversion. It appears that Fielding wrote the essays with which he introduced the successive books of Tom Jones after he had finished the novel. They have hardly anything to do with the books they introduce; they gave him, he admits, a lot of trouble, and one wonders why he wrote them at all. He cannot have been unaware that many readers would look upon his novel as low, none too moral, and possibly even bawdy; and it may be that by them he thought to give it a certain elevation. These essays are sensible, and sometimes uncommonly shrewd; and when you know the novel well, you can read them with a certain amount of pleasure; but anyone who is reading Tom Jones for the first time is well advised to skip them. The plot of Tom Jones has been much admired. I learn from Dr. Dudden that Coleridge exclaimed: “What a master of composition Fielding was!”Scott and Thackeray were equally enthusiastic. Dr. Dudden quotes the latter as follows: “Moral or immoral, let any man examine this romance as a work of art merely, and it must strike him as the most astonishing production of human ingenuity. There is not an incident ever so trifling but advances the story, grows out of former incidents, and is connected with the whole. Such a literary providence, if we may use such a word, is not to be seen in any other work of fiction. You might cut out half of Don Quixote, or add, transpose, or alter any given romance of Walter Scott, and neither would suffer. Roderick Random and heroes of that sort run through a series of adventures, at the end of which the fiddles are brought, and there is a marriage. But the history of Tom Jones connected the very first page with the very last, and it is marvelous to think how the author could have built and carried all the structure in his brain, as he must have done, before he put it on paper.”

3

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
-

There is some exaggeration here. Tom Jones is fashioned on the model of the Spanish picaresque novels and of Gil Blas, and the simple structure depends on the nature of the genre: the hero for one reason or another leaves his home, has a variety of adventures on his travels, mixes with all sorts and conditions of men, has his ups and downs of fortune, and in the end achieves prosperity and marries a charming wife. Fielding, following his models, interrupted his narrative with stories that had nothing to do with it. This was an unhappy device that authors adopted not only, I think, for the reason I give in my first chapter, because they had to furnish a certain amount of matter to the bookseller and a story or two served to fill up; but partly, also, because they feared that a long string of adventures would prove tedious, and felt it would give the reader a fillip if they provided him here and there with a tale; and partly because if they were minded to write a short story, there was no other way to put it before the public. The critics chid, but the practice died hard, and, as we know, Dickens resorted to it in The Pickwick Papers. The reader of Tom Jones can without loss skip the story of The Man of the Hill and Mrs. Fitzherbert’s narrative. Nor is Thackeray quite accurate in saying that there is not an incident that does not advance the story and grow out of former incidents. Tom Jones’s encounter with the gipsies leads to nothing; and the introduction of Mrs. Hunt, and her proposal of marriage to Tom, is very unnecessary. The incident of the hundred-pound bill has no use and is, besides, grossly, fantastically improbable. Thackeray marvelled that Fielding could have carried all the structure in his brain before he began to put it on paper. I don’t believe that he did anything of the sort, any more than Thackeray did before he began to write Vanity Fair. I think it much more probable that, with the main lines of his novel in his mind, Fielding invented the incidents as he went along. For the most part they are happily devised. Fielding was as little concerned with probability as the picaresque novelists who wrote before him, and the most unlikely events occur, the most outrageous coincidences bring people together; yet he bustles you along with such gusto that you have hardly time, and in any case little inclination, to protest. The characters are painted in primary colours with a slap-dash bravura, and if they somewhat lack subtlety, they make up for it by animation. They are sharply individualized, and if they are drawn with some exaggeration, that was the fashion of the day, and perhaps their exaggeration is no greater than comedy allows. I am afraid Mr. Allworthy is a little too good to be true, but here Fielding failed, as every novelist since has failed who has attempted to depict a perfectly virtuous man. Experience seems to show that it is impossible not to make him a trifle stupid. One is impatient with a character who is so good that he lets himself be imposed upon by all and sundry. Mr. Allworthy is said to have been a portrait of Ralph Allen of Prior Park. If this is so, and the portrait is accurate, it only shows that a character taken straight from life is never quite convincing in a piece offiction.

4

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
-

Blifil, on the other hand, has been thought too bad to be true. Fielding hated deceit and hypocrisy, and his detestation of Blifil was such that it may be he laid on his colours with too heavy a hand; but Blifil, a mean, sneaking, self-seeking, cold-blooded fish, is not an uncommon type. The fear of being found out is the only thing that keeps him from being an utter scoundrel. But I think we should have believed more in Blifil if he had not been so transparent. He is repellent. He is not alive, as Uriah Heep is alive, and I have asked myself whether Fielding did not deliberately underwrite him from an instinctive feeling that if he gave him a more active and prominent role, he would make him so powerful and sinister a figure as to overshadow his hero.

5

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
-

On its appearance, Tom Jones was an immediate success with the public, but the critics were on the whole severe. Some of the objections were rather touchingly absurd: Lady Luxborough, for instance, complained that the characters were too like the persons“one meets with in the world.”It was on its supposed immorality, however, that the novel was generally condemned. Hannah More in her memoirs relates that she never saw Dr. Johnson angry with her but once, and that was when she alluded to some witty passage in Tom Jones.“I am shocked to hear you quote from so vicious a book, ”he said.“I am sorry to hear you have read it: a confession which no modest lady should ever make. I scarcely know a more corrupt work.”Now, I should say that a modest lady would do very well to read the book before marriage. It will tell her pretty well all she needs to know about the facts of life, and a lot about men which cannot fail to be useful to her before entering upon that difficult state. But no one has ever looked upon Dr. Johnson as devoid of prejudice. He would allow no literary merit to Fielding, and once described him as a blockhead. When Boswell demurred, he said: “What I mean by his being a blockhead is that he was a barren rascal.”“Will you not allow, Sir, that he draws very natural pictures of human life?”answered Boswell.“Why, Sir, it is of very low life. Richardson used to say that had he not known who Fielding was he should have believed that he was an ostler.”We are used to low life in fiction now, and there is nothing in Tom Jones that the novelists of our own day have not made us familiar with. Dr. Johnson might have remembered that in Sophia Western Fielding drew a charming and tender portrait of as delightful a young woman as ever enchanted a reader of fiction. She is simple but not silly, virtuous but no prude; she has character, determination and courage; she has a loving heart and she is beautiful. Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu, who very properly thought that Tom Jones was Fielding’s masterpiece, regretted that he did not perceive that he had made his hero a scoundrel. I suppose that she referred to the incident that has been looked upon as the most reprehensible in the career of Mr. Jones. Lady Bellaston took a fancy to him, and found him not unprepared to gratify her desires, for he regarded it as a part of good breeding to behave with“gallantry”with a woman who showed an inclination for sexual commerce; he hadn’t a penny in his pocket, not even a shilling in his pocket to pay for a chair to convey him to her abode, and Lady Bellaston was rich. With a generosity unusual with women, who are apt to be lavish with the money of others, but careful with their own, she handsomely relieved his necessities. Well, it is doubtless not a pretty thing for a man to accept money from a woman; it is also an unprofitable one, because rich ladies in these circumstances demand much more than their money’s worth; but morally it is no more shocking than for a woman to accept money from a man, and it is only foolishness on the part of common opinion to regard it as such. Our own day has found it necessary to invent a term, gigolo, to describe the male who turns his personal attractiveness into a source of profit; so Tom’s lack of delicacy, however reprehensible, can hardly be regarded as unique. I have no doubt that the gigolo flourished as hardily under the reign of George the Second as he did under that of George the Fifth. It was characteristic, and to Tom Jones’s credit, that on the very day on which Lady Bellaston had given him fifty pounds for passing the night with her, he was so moved by a hard-luck story, which his landlady told him about some relations of hers, that he handed her his purse and told her to take what she thought needful to relieve their distress. Tom Jones was honestly, sincerely and deeply in love with the charming Sophia, and yet felt no qualms about indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with any woman who was attractive and facile. He loved Sophia none the less for these episodes. Fielding was much too sensible to make his hero more continent than the normal man. He knew we should all be more virtuous if we were as prudent at night as we are in the morning. Nor was Sophia unreasonably vexed when she heard of these adventures. That in this particular she showed common sense unusual to her sex is surely one of the most engaging of her traits. It was well said by Austin Dobson, though with no elegance of style, that Fielding“made no pretence to produce models of perfection, but pictures of ordinary humanity, rather perhaps in the rough than in the polished, the natural than the artificial, his desire is to do this with absolute truthfulness, neither extenuating nor disguising defects and shortcomings.”That is what the realist strives to do and, throughout history, he has always been more or less violently attacked for it. For this the two main reasons, so far as I know, are as follows: there is a vast number of people, especially among the elderly, the well-to-do, the privileged, who take up the attitude: “Of course we know that there is a lot of crime and immorality in the world, poverty and unhappiness, but we don’t want to read about it. Why should we make ourselves uncomfortable? It is not as though we could do anything about it. After all, there always have been rich and poor in the world.”Another sort of people have other reasons for condemning the realist. They admit that there are vice and wickedness in the world, cruelty and oppression; but, they ask, is this proper matter for fiction? Is it well that the young should read about things which their elders know, but deplore, and may they not be corrupted by reading stories which are suggestive if not actually obscene? Surely fiction is better employed in showing how much beauty, kindness, self-sacrifice, generosity and heroism there is in the world. The answer the realist makes is that he is interested in telling the truth, as he sees it, about the world he has come in contact with. He does not believe in the unalloyed goodness of human beings; he thinks them a mixture of good and bad; and he is tolerant to idiosyncrasies of human nature which conventional morality reprobates, but which he accepts as human, natural, and therefore to be palliated. He hopes that he depicts the good in his characters as faithfully as the bad in them, and it is not his fault if his readers are more interested in their vices than in their virtues. That is a curious trait in the human animal for which he cannot be held responsible. If, however, he is honest with himself, he will admit that vice can be painted in colours that glow, whereas virtue seems to bear a hue that is somewhat dun. If you asked him how he could defend himself against the charge of corrupting the young, he would answer that it is very well for the young to learn what sort of a world it is that they will have to cope with. The result may be disastrous if they expect too much. If the realist can teach them to expect little from others; to realize from the beginning that each one’s main interest is in himself; if he can teach them that, in some way or other, they will have to pay for everything they get, be it place, fortune, honour, love, reputation; and that a great part of wisdom is not to pay for anything more than it is worth, he will have done more than all the pedagogues and preachers to enable them to make the best of this difficult business of living. He will add, however, that he is not a pedagogue or a preacher, but, he hopes, an artist.

6

读书笔记

是否公开

我的读书笔记

仅对会员开放

网友的读书笔记

仅对会员开放
序号 英文/音标 中文解释 更多操作

bore

[bɔː(r)]

【1】 v.使厌烦 【2】 vt. 钻(孔)；镗(孔)；开凿

oyster

[’ɔɪstə(r)]

n.牡蛎

exquisite

[ɪk’skwɪzɪt]

adj.精挑细选的;精致的;细腻的;强烈的

multiply

[’mʌltɪplaɪ]

vt.乘;增加

perpetual

[pə’petʃuəl]

adj.永久的;永恒的;一再往复的

customs

[’kʌstəmz]

n.海关

conversation

[ˌkɒnvə’seɪʃn]

n.谈话;会话

virtuous

[’vɜːtʃuəs]

adj.有品德的;有德行的;贞洁的

bastard

[’bɑːstəd]

adj.私生的;错误的;混蛋的

conversational

[ˌkɒnvə’seɪʃənl]

adj.会话的;对话的;健谈的

hinder

[’hɪndə(r)]

v.阻碍;打扰

moralize

[’mɒrəlaɪz]

v.教化;解说道德;用道德意义解释

digression

[daɪ’ɡreʃn]

n.离题;脱轨

preface

[’prefəs]

n. 序文; 绪言; 前言

elevation

[ˌelɪ’veɪʃn]

n.提升

uncommon

[ʌn’kɒmən]

adj.不寻常的;不常见的;极度的

enthusiastic

[ɪnˌθjuːzi’æstɪk]

adj.热心的;热情的;热烈的

immoral

[ɪ’mɒrəl]

adj.不道德的

providence

[’prɒvɪdəns]

n.天意;天命

fiddle

[’fɪdl]

n.小提琴;骗局

felted

[’feltɪd]

v. 把 ... 制成毡(使 ... 粘结)

bill

[bɪl]

①帐单；清单;

fantastically

[fæn’tæstɪkli]

adv.空想地;非常地

devise

[dɪ’vaɪz]

vt.设计;发明;遗赠

probability

[ˌprɒbə’bɪləti]

n.可能性

bustle

[’bʌsl]

n.喧哗;匆忙;裙撑;衬垫

inclination

[ˌɪnklɪ’neɪʃn]

n.倾向;意愿;趋势;斜坡;倾斜度

animation

[ˌænɪ’meɪʃn]

n.活泼;生气;兴奋;动画片;动画片制作

individualize

[ˌɪndɪ’vɪdʒuəlaɪz]

vt.使具有个性;个别对待;具体化

novelist

[’nɒvəlɪst]

n.小说家

impatient

[ɪm’peɪʃnt]

adj.不耐烦的;急躁的

Ralph

[rælf]

n.拉尔夫(男子名)

Allen

[ˈælən]

n.阿伦，艾伦(男子名，涵义：英俊;好看的)

utter

[’ʌtə(r)]

adj.完全的;全然的;绝对的

transparent

[træns’pærənt]

adj.透明的;明显的;清晰的

repellent

[rɪ’pelənt]

n.驱虫剂;防水剂

deliberate

[dɪ’lɪbərət]

adj.深思熟虑的;故意的;从容不迫的

instinctive

[ɪn’stɪŋktɪv]

adj.本能的;天性的;直觉的

honour

[ˈɒnə]

n.光荣;

preacher

[’priːtʃə(r)]

n.传道者;讲道者;牧师

immorality

[ˌɪmə’ræləti]

n.不道德;无道义

Hannah

[ˈhænə]

n.汉纳(女子名)

devoid

[dɪ’vɔɪd]

adj.全无的;缺乏的

blockhead

[’blɒkhed]

n.笨蛋;傻瓜

Boswell

[’bɒzwəl]

n.英国的传记作家

demur

[dɪ’mɜː(r)]

v.提出异议;反对;拖延

rascal

[’rɑːskl]

n.淘气鬼;流氓;坏蛋

ostler

[’ɒslə(r)]

n.(旅馆的)马夫.

prude

[pruːd]

n.过份正经的女人

scoundrel

[’skaʊndrəl]

n.无赖

reprehensible

[ˌreprɪ’hensəbl]

adj.应受谴责的

unprepared

[ˌʌnprɪ’peəd]

adj.无准备的;还没有准备好的;即席的

gallantry

[’ɡæləntri]

n.勇气;殷勤

generosity

[ˌdʒenə’rɒsəti]

n.慷慨;大方;宽大

lavish

[’lævɪʃ]

adj.大方的;丰富的;浪费的

doubtless

[’daʊtləs]

adj.无疑的;确定的

unprofitable

[ʌn’prɒfɪtəbl]

adj.没有利润的;无益的

foolishness

[’fuːlɪʃnəs]

n.可笑;愚蠢

gigolo

[’ʒɪɡələʊ]

n.舞男;靠女人生活的男人

attractiveness

[ə’træktɪvnəs]

n.魅力;吸引力

delicacy

[’delɪkəsi]

n.柔弱;精致;优雅;谨慎;佳肴

hardily

[’hɑːdɪlɪ]

adv.耐劳地;蛮勇地;大胆地

landlady

[’lændleɪdi]

n.女房东

needful

[’niːdfl]

adj.必需的;需要的

facile

[’fæsaɪl]

adj.易做到的;轻易完成的;麻利的

prudent

[’pruːdnt]

adj.谨慎的;有远见的;精明的

Dobson

[’dɒbsn]

n.【昆】水虿(鱼蛉等的幼虫;常用作钓饵)

truthfulness

[’truːθflnəs]

n.符合实际

realist

[’riːəlɪst]

n.现实主义者;唯实论者

unhappiness

[ʌn’hæpinəs]

n.忧愁;苦恼

wickedness

[’wɪkɪdnəs]

n.邪恶

oppression

[ə’preʃn]

n.压抑;压迫;沉闷

deplore

[dɪ’plɔː(r)]

vt. 悲叹; 谴责; 对 ... 深感遗憾

图片译典（一词多图)
我的生词(单词助记)
道德经
论语
孙子兵法
禮記
孟子
尚書
詩經
周易
简典
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

微信小程序

微信公众号

Email:

22745823@qq.com

联系站长：

QQ:22745823

机构翻译

地址翻译

人名翻译

译典登录

译典注册

译典说明

意见反馈

浙ICP备05023696号-8