《四季随笔》节选 - 秋 21

《四季随笔》是吉辛的散文代表作。其中对隐士赖克罗夫特醉心于书籍、自然景色与回忆过去生活的描述，其实是吉辛的自述，作者以此来抒发自己的情感，因而本书是一部富有自传色彩的小品文集。

吉辛穷困的一生，对文学名著的爱好与追求，以及对大自然恬静生活的向往，在书中均有充分的反映。本书分为春、夏、秋、冬四个部分，文笔优美，行文流畅，是英国文学中小品文的珍品之一。

以下是由网友分享的《四季随笔》节选 - 秋 21的内容，让我们一起来感受吉辛的四季吧!

I wonder whether it be really true, as I have more than once seen suggested, that the publication of Anthony Trollope40's autobiography in some degree accounts for the neglect into which he and his works fell so soon after his death. I should like to believe it, for such a fact would be, from one point of view, a credit to "the great big stupid public." Only, of course, from one point of view; the notable merits of Trollope's work are unaffected by one's knowledge of how that work was produced; at his best he is an admirable writer of the pedestrian school, and this disappearance of his name does not mean final oblivion. Like every other novelist of note, he had two classes of admirers—those who read him for the sake of that excellence which here and there he achieved, and the undistinguishing crowd which found in him a level entertainment. But it would be a satisfaction to think that "the great big stupid" was really, somewhere in its secret economy, offended by that revelation of mechanical methods which made the autobiography either a disgusting or an amusing book to those who read it more intelligently. A man with a watch before his eyes, penning exactly so many words every quarter of an hour—one imagines that this picture might haunt disagreeably the thoughts even of Mudie41's steadiest subscriber, that it might come between him or her and any Trollopean work that lay upon the counter.

我曾不止一次听到别人说，安东尼·特罗洛普出版的自传，多少解释了在他去世后，他本人及作品便很快受到冷落的原因，我不知道这是不是真的。我愿意相信它，因为从一个角度来说，它是对“愚蠢大众”的赞许。当然了，只是从一个角度来说；特罗洛普作品的显著优点，不会因为读者知道了它的创作过程而受到影响；他是通俗派一位值得钦佩的作家，如今他名声的消逝并不意味着最终的湮没无闻。和所有知名小说家一样，他有两类仰慕者——一类人因为他作品随处可见的卓越而成为他的读者，另一类没有多少辨别力的人则从他的作品中得到某种娱乐。然而，想到特罗洛普自传中披露的秘而不宣却很经济的机械创作手法让“愚蠢大众”真的受到某种冒犯，还是让人有种满足感，对于那些用智慧来阅读这本自传的人来说，他们或许会感到厌恶，又或许会觉得有趣。一个人眼前放着一只手表，十五分钟写出不多不少的字数——可以想象，这个画面也许会时时萦绕在穆迪图书馆最忠实的借阅者心头，让他感觉不舒服，它也许还会在读者与柜台上摆放的特罗洛普作品之间造成隔阂。

The surprise was so cynically sprung upon a yet innocent public. At that happy time (already it seems so long ago) the literary news set before ordinary readers mostly had reference to literary work, in a reputable sense of the term, and not, as now, to the processes of "literary" manufacture and the ups and downs of the "literary" market. Trollope himself tells how he surprised the editor of a periodical, who wanted a serial from him, by asking how many thousand words it should run to; an anecdote savouring indeed of good old days. Since then, readers have grown accustomed to revelations of "literary" method, and nothing in that kind can shock them. There has come into existence a school of journalism which would seem to have deliberately set itself the task of degrading authorship and everything connected with it; and these pernicious scribblers (or typists, to be more accurate) have found the authors of a fretful age only too receptive of their mercantile suggestions. Yes, yes; I know as well as any man that reforms were needed in the relations between author and publisher. Who knows better than I that your representative author face to face with your representative publisher was, is, and ever will be, at a ludicrous disadvantage? And there is no reason in the nature and the decency of things why this wrong should not by some contrivance be remedied. A big, blusterous, genial brute of a Trollope could very fairly hold his own, and exact at all events an acceptable share in the profits of his work. A shrewd and vigorous man of business such as Dickens, aided by a lawyer who was his devoted friend, could do even better, and, in reaping sometimes more than his publisher, redress the ancient injustice. But pray, what of Charlotte Bronte? Think of that grey, pinched life, the latter years of which would have been so brightened had Charlotte Bronte received but, let us say, one third of what, in the same space of time, the publisher gained by her books. I know all about this; alas! no man better. None the less do I loathe and sicken at the manifold baseness, the vulgarity unutterable, which, as a result of the new order, is blighting our literary life. It is not easy to see how, in such an atmosphere, great and noble books can ever again come into being. May it, perhaps, be hoped that once again the multitude will be somehow touched with disgust?—that the market for "literary" news of this costermonger sort will some day fail?

这种让人吃惊的真相，被冷笑着抛到了还很天真的大众面前。在那个快乐年代（似乎已经是很久以前了），普通读者面前的文学消息大多和文学作品（在让人肃然起敬的意义上）相关，不像现在，都是关于“文学”的生产过程，以及“文学”市场的沉浮。特罗洛普自己告诉我们，一个杂志编辑向他约连载文稿，他问稿子应该写多少字，让这位编辑大为惊诧，这件轶事真有昔日好时光的味道。从那以后，读者们开始习惯于“文学”手法的披露，这方面已经没什么能让他们惊讶了。接着一个新闻流派产生，它的任务似乎就是刻意贬损作家身份及与之相关的一切；这些充当害群之马的三流作家（或者称为打字员更为精确）发现，这个浮躁时代的作家，极易接纳他们关于获利的建议。是的，是的，我和所有人都清楚，作者和出版商之间的关系需要改革。谁能比我更清楚，当代表性的作者和代表性的出版商面对面坐在一起，前者在过去、现在以及将来都在获利方面处于劣势？从事情的本质和体面上讲，都没有理由不对这个错误设法进行补救。像特罗洛普这样一个人高马大、气势汹汹而擅长交际的厉害人，满可以维护自己的权益，在任何情况下都从他作品的利润中取得合理的份额。像狄更斯那样头脑精明、精力旺盛的生意人，又有身为律师的忠诚好友帮忙，能做得更好，有时拿到的比出版商还多，纠正了长久以来的不公平。但是，夏洛特·勃朗特又怎么样呢？想想她昏暗拮据的生活吧，如果能取得三分之一出版商当时从她的作品得到的利润，那她的晚年生活该多么快活。我了解这些，唉，没人比我更清楚了。然而，我仍然对新秩序的建立而导致的种种卑贱和无法言说的粗俗，感到厌恶和憎恨,它们正在腐蚀我们的文学生活。在这样的氛围中，是不容易看到伟大高尚的作品产生的。也许，我们可以希望大众再次对此感到厌恶？——希望有一天这种小贩式的“文学”新闻的市场会垮台？

Dickens. Why, there too was a disclosure of literary methods. Did not Forster42 make known to all and sundry exactly how Dickens' work was done, and how the bargains for its production were made? The multitudinous public saw him at his desk, learnt how long he sat there, were told that he could not get on without having certain little ornaments before his eyes, and that blue ink and a quill pen were indispensable to his writing; and did all this information ever chill the loyalty of a single reader? There was a difference, in truth, between the picture of Charles Dickens sitting down to a chapter of his current novel, and that of the broad-based Trollope doing his so many words to the fifteen minutes. Trollope, we know, wronged himself by the tone and manner of his reminiscences; but that tone and manner indicated an inferiority of mind, of nature. Dickens—though he died in the endeavour to increase (not for himself) an already ample fortune, disastrous influence of his time and class—wrought with an artistic ingenuousness and fervour such as Trollope could not even conceive. Methodical, of course, he was; no long work of prose fiction was ever brought into existence save by methodical labour; but we know that there was no measuring of so many words to the hour. The picture of him at work which is seen in his own letters is one of the most bracing and inspiring in the history of literature. It has had, and will always have, a great part in maintaining Dickens' place in the love and reverence of those who understand.

狄更斯，他的文学创作技巧也受到过披露。福斯特不是让所有人都确切知道了狄更斯作品的创作过程，以及他作品的出版进行过怎样的交易吗？人们看到他坐在书桌前，知道他坐了多久，也了解到他眼前如果没有某些小装饰物，便无法工作。他写作时，蓝色墨水和羽毛笔是不可或缺的。这些信息让任何一个忠实读者感到心灰意冷了吗？查尔斯·狄更斯坐下创作最新小说的一章，和高大的特罗洛普十五分钟写多少字数，两个画面之间确实还是有区别的。我们知道，特罗洛普的形象大跌，是因为他在写回忆录时使用的语气和方式，它们显示了一种比较低级的思想和性情。狄更斯——虽然他受到所处时代和阶级的破坏性影响，为努力增加（不是为自己）一笔已经很丰厚的财富而死——他的创作有一种艺术上的率真和热情，这是特罗洛普无法望其项背的。当然，他也讲求条理，如果缺少有条不紊的笔耕，没有一部长篇小说能够创作出来；但是我们知道，他的创作不是用时间来计字数的。从他的书信中能窥见他伏案工作的情景，这是文学历史上最鼓舞人心的一个画面。它对维护狄更斯在那些热爱和尊崇他的知音们心目中的地位，曾经起到重要作用，将来也将如此。