Marginalia　旁注之美

Marginalia

旁注之美

Edgar Allan Poe

埃德加·愛倫·坡

作者簡介

埃德加·愛倫·坡（Edgar Allan Poe，1809—1849），美國作家、文藝評論家，也是美國最早的短篇小說家之一，尤以恐怖小說和偵探小說聞名于世。他于1841年發(fā)表的《莫格街謀殺案》（The Murders in the Rue Morgue）被公認(rèn)為最早的偵探小說，埃德加·愛倫·坡本人也被奉為偵探小說的鼻祖。他的恐怖小說《陷坑與鐘擺》（The Pit and the Pendulum）、《大漩渦歷險(xiǎn)記》（A Descent Into the Maelstrom）等更是為中國讀者熟知。

埃德加·愛倫·坡是個(gè)唯美主義者，這篇關(guān)于頁邊留白和旁注的散文就能看出這一點(diǎn)。本文節(jié)選自1844年11月出版的《民主書評》（Democratic Review）雜志。作者“不是喜愛頁邊留白本身，而是覺得它適合用鉛筆記下自己的思考、贊同、異議和短評”的閱讀習(xí)慣是否能引起你的共鳴？

In getting my books, I have been always solicitous of an ample margin; this not so much through any love of the thing itself, however agreeable, as for the facility it affords me of pencilling suggested thoughts, agreements, and differences of opinion, or brief critical comments in general. Where what I have to note is too much to be included within the narrow limits of a margin, I commit it to a slip of paper, and deposit it between the leaves, taking care to secure it by an imperceptible portion of gum tragacanth paste.

All this may be whim; it may be not only a very hackneyed, but a very idle, practice; yet I persist in it still, and it affords me pleasure, which is profit, in despite of Mr. Bentham, with Mr. Mill on his back.

This making of notes, however, is by no means the making of mere memoranda, a custom which has its disadvantages, beyond doubt. “Ce que je mets sur papier,”says Bernardin de St. Pierre, “je remets de ma mémoire, et par conséquence je l'oublie”; and, in fact, if you wish to forget anything on the spot, make a note that this thing is to be remembered.

But the purely marginal jottings, done with no eye to the memorandum-book, have a distinct complexion, and not only a distinct purpose, but none at all; this it is which imparts to them a value. They have a rank somewhat above the chance and desultory comments of literary chit-chat, for these latter are not unfrequently “talk for talk's sake,”hurried out of the mouth; while the marginalia are deliberately pencilled, because the mind of the reader wishes to unburthen itself of a thought—however flippant, however silly, however trivial, still a thought; indeed not merely a thing that might have been a thought in time and under more favorable circumstances. In the marginalia, too, we talk only to ourselves; we therefore talk freshly, boldly, originally, with abandonnement, without conceit; much after the fashion of Jeremy Taylor, and Sir Thomas Browne, and Sir William Temple, and the anatomical Burton, and that most logical analogist, Butler, and some other people of the old day, who were too full of their matter to have any room for their manner, which, being thus left out of question, was a capital manner, indeed—a model of manners, with a richly marginalic air.

The circumscription of space, too, in these pencillings, has in it something more of advantage than inconvenience. It compels us (whatever diffuseness of idea we may clandestinely entertain) into Montesquieu-ism, into Tacitus-ism (here I leave out of view the concluding portion of the Annals), or even into Carlyle-ism, a thing which, I have been told, is not to be confounded with your ordinary affectation and bad grammar. I say “bad grammar,”through sheer obstinacy, because the grammarians (who should know better) insist upon it that I should not. But then grammar is not what these grammarians will have it, and, being merely the analysis of language with the result of this analysis, must be good or bad just as the analyst is sage or silly—just as he is a Horne Tooke or a Cobbett.

But to our sheep. During a rainy afternoon, not long ago, being in a mood too listless for continuous study, I sought relief from ennui in dipping here and there, at random, among the volumes of my library—no very large one, certainly, but sufficiently miscellaneous, and, I flatter myself, not a little recherché.

Perhaps it was what the Germans call the “brain-scattering”humor of the moment; but, while the picturesqueness of the numerous pencil-scratches arrested my attention, their helter-skelteriness of commentary amused me. I found myself, at length, forming a wish that it had been some other hand than my own which had so bedevilled the books, and fancying that, in such case, I might have derived no inconsiderable pleasure from turning them over. From this the transition-thought (as Mr. Lyell, or Mr. Murchison, or Mr. Featherstonhaugh would have it) was natural enough: there might be something even in my scribblings which, for the mere sake of scribbling, would have interest for others.

…

I concluded, at length, to put extensive faith in the acumen and imagination of the reader;—this as a general rule. But, in some instances, where even faith would not remove mountains, there seemed no safer plan than so to remodel the note as to convey at least the ghost of a conception as to what it was all about. Where, for such conception, the text itself was absolutely necessary, I could quote it; where the title of the book commented upon was indispensable, I could name it. In short, like a novel-hero dilemma'd, I made up my mind “to be guided by circumstances,”in default of more satisfactory rules of conduct.

拿到一本書時(shí)，我總希望有充裕的頁邊留白。我不是喜愛頁邊留白本身，而是覺得它適合用鉛筆記下自己的思考、贊同、異議和短評。如果窄窄的頁邊空間有限，不足以記下我的所思所想，我會寫在另一張紙上，把它夾在書頁之間，并用一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)膠水將它粘住。

這或許是一時(shí)興起，或許是陳腐的陋習(xí)，或許是閑人的習(xí)慣，但我仍堅(jiān)持這么做。我能從中獲得愉悅，并從愉悅中獲利——盡管邊沁1和密爾2都不這么認(rèn)為。

但毫無疑問的是，我寫旁注絕不是寫備忘——寫備忘這個(gè)習(xí)慣存在缺陷。貝爾納丹·德·圣皮埃爾說：“將思緒記錄下來，憑借記憶醞釀，最終仍會遺忘?！笔聦?shí)上，如果你想立刻忘記某事，把它寫成備忘即可。

但純粹的（不為備忘的）旁注和備忘錄完全不同。旁注不是沒有特定的目的，而是根本沒有目的性。這種毫無目的性正是它的價(jià)值所在。旁注的檔次高于偶一為之、斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的文學(xué)閑談?lì)愒u論。后者是脫口而出、“沒話找話”的廢話，旁注則是經(jīng)過深思熟慮、謹(jǐn)慎寫下的成果，因?yàn)樽x者想把自己的思想一吐為快——無論多輕率、多愚蠢、多瑣碎，那畢竟是思想，而不是換一個(gè)時(shí)間、換一種場合就不能稱為思想的東西。在旁注里，我們只是自說自話。因此，我們的觀點(diǎn)新鮮、大膽、獨(dú)特，敢于放縱自己，但不狂妄自大。杰里米·泰勒、托馬斯·布朗爵士、威廉·坦普爾爵士、愛“解剖”的伯頓、最有邏輯的推理家巴特勒，以及其他的昔日文人，他們的著作總是擠得滿滿當(dāng)當(dāng)，這無疑使其無法彰顯風(fēng)度。風(fēng)度的確非常重要——堪稱風(fēng)度典范的書籍要有充裕的頁邊留白。

限制可供落筆的頁邊空間利大于弊。這迫使我們無論腦中有多少漫無邊際的想法，都要像孟德斯鳩、塔西佗或卡萊爾一般精練行文。當(dāng)然，塔西佗《編年史》結(jié)尾處的長篇大論不在此列。據(jù)說，旁注會和你平日虛偽做作、語法拙劣的文章截然不同。我固執(zhí)地提出“語法拙劣”，是因?yàn)檎Z法學(xué)家（他們應(yīng)該知道得比我多）堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為我不該這樣。但那樣的話，語法就不是這些語法學(xué)家說了算的。語法只是語言的分析，加上分析的結(jié)果。語法是優(yōu)是劣，取決于分析者是智者還是蠢貨，是霍恩·圖克3還是科貝特4。

但說回到我們自己。不久前，在一個(gè)陰雨的午后，我整個(gè)人無精打采，沒有辦法繼續(xù)研究。為了擺脫倦怠的心境，我在書房里隨意翻閱藏書。我的藏書當(dāng)然不多，但是種類夠雜。我還得自夸一句，其中可有不少珍本。

當(dāng)時(shí)，我或許處于德國人稱為“精神渙散”而感到幽默的情形下。書中栩栩如生的涂鴉吸引了我的注意，那些倉促寫成的評論也讓我感到有趣。最后，我竟希望它們不是出自我手，而是別人所為。我想象著，如果是這樣，我翻書時(shí)看見它們將有更大的驚喜。從這一點(diǎn)出發(fā)，可以這么換位思考——萊爾先生5、默奇森先生6或費(fèi)瑟斯通豪先生7也會這么想——即使在我的信筆涂鴉中，也會有一些別人感興趣的東西。

……

我的最終結(jié)論是，原則上要充分相信讀者的敏銳度和想象力。但有些情況下，即使信念也無法移動高山。我只得重新調(diào)整旁注的格式，以便至少能傳達(dá)我想說的概念。如果原文對理解這個(gè)概念至關(guān)重要，我會引用原文；如果提到的書名不可或缺，我會列出書名。簡而言之，由于沒有更讓人滿意的旁注準(zhǔn)則，我只好像小說里處于困境的英雄一樣，下定決心“順其自然”。

————————————————————

1．杰里米·邊沁（Jeremy Bentham，1748—1832），英國功利主義哲學(xué)家、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。

2．約翰·斯圖爾特·密爾（John Stuart Mill，1806—1873），英國著名哲學(xué)家和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，支持邊沁的功利主義觀點(diǎn)。

3．約翰·霍恩·圖克（John Horne Tooke，1736—1812），英國政治家、語言學(xué)家、幽默大師，代表作《致地主》（Fads Addressed to Landholders）。

4．威廉·科貝特（William Cobbett，1763—1835），英國記者，著有《英語語法》（A Grammer of the English Language）一書。

5．查爾斯·萊爾（Charles Lyell，1797—1875），英國律師，地質(zhì)學(xué)家，對達(dá)爾文、赫胥黎等人產(chǎn)生過重要影響。

6．羅德里克·默奇森（Roderick Murchison，1792—1871），蘇格蘭地質(zhì)學(xué)家，曾與萊爾一起到法國南部研究地層結(jié)構(gòu)。

7．費(fèi)瑟斯通豪（Fetherstonhaugh），英國著名的父子爵士。