“以更好的名义”——《雄狮之死》的反讽力量
摘要
19世纪末的英美文化界普遍存在消费文学消费化的趋势,亨利·詹姆斯的《雄狮之死》借第一人称叙述者之口,对文学的各消费群体进行了辛辣的反讽。反讽的力量在于,既通过鞭挞各群体的实用主义以期达到促使他们反省自我的作用,又激发真诚的读者和文学批评家增强各自的道德意识和责任感,"以更好的名义"参与生活,投身文学阅读与文学批评。
It was characteristic of the 19th century British and American public to consume literature.Henry James’s"The Death of the Lion",adopting the voice of the first-person narrator,directs a sharp irony at various groups of consumers.The powerful irony achieves its emphasized effect in that it not only attacks their pragmatism with an intention to improve their self-introspection and but also stimulates sincere readers and literary critics to heighten their moral consciousness and sense of responsibility so as to dedicate themselves to literary reading and criticism"on behalf of the something better".
It was characteristic of the 19th century British and American public to consume literature.Henry James’s"The Death of the Lion",adopting the voice of the first-person narrator,directs a sharp irony at various groups of consumers.The powerful irony achieves its emphasized effect in that it not only attacks their pragmatism with an intention to improve their self-introspection and but also stimulates sincere readers and literary critics to heighten their moral consciousness and sense of responsibility so as to dedicate themselves to literary reading and criticism"on behalf of the something better".
引文
① Leon Edel, Henry James: A Life (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985), p.395.
② 参见Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, Studies in Short Fiction, 2 (1975), 163-172页。
③ 参见P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, The Henry James Review, 2 (1996), 99-107页。
④ 参见Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, The Henry James Review 1 (Winter 2011), 45-59页
⑤ 毛亮:《自我、自由与伦理生活:亨利·詹姆斯研究》,北京大学出版社2015年版,132页。
⑥ Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, in Complete Stories 1892-1898(New York: The Library of America, 1996), p.356.(以后引用,在正文中随文标注页码。)
⑦ 着重号为笔者所加。
⑧ 着重号为笔者所加。
⑨ 迪贝尔认为叙述者对帕拉迪的作品感知以抒发强烈的情感为特点,而不是呈现作品内容(Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, 52页),但值得指出的是,迪贝尔忽略了一个细节,即叙述者撰写的帕拉迪评论文章遭到平霍恩拒稿,其原因是“过于关注细节”,这里的“细节”在笔者看来应是叙述者对帕拉迪作品的认知。这表明叙述者的文章是言之有物的,正因为涉及了作品内容,才不符合平霍恩的要求。平霍恩拒稿的另一原因是“抒发强烈情感”,也是基于叙述者对帕拉迪的作品以及对帕拉迪的禀赋欣赏而产生的。
⑩ Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, eds. Leon Edel and Lyall H. Powers (New York: Oxford UP, 1987), p.87.
(11) 着重号为笔者所加。
(12) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.86.
(13) Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, p.168.
(14) Laurence Barrett, “Young Henry James, Critic”, American Literature, 3 (1948), p.388.
(15) 马修·阿诺德:《“甘甜”与“光明”——马修·阿诺德新译8种及其他》,贺淯滨译,河南大学出版社2011年版,15页。
(16) Henry James, “Matthew Arnold”, in Literary Criticism, Vol.1 (New York: The Library of America: 1984), p.717.
(17) 参见Henry James, “Matthew Arnold”, 717页,着重号为笔者所加。
(18) Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, p.359, p.366, p.371, p.380.
(19) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.87.
(20) 霍格认为帕拉迪乐享鲁波先生为他画像(Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, 170页),而事实上,这些只是“以为他(帕拉迪)会乐于接受这些恩惠的奇特的假想而已。”(Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, 380页)
(21) 凡勃仑:《有闲阶级论——关于制度的经济研究》,蔡受百译,商务印书馆2013年版,296-297页。
(22) Henry James, “Gustave Flaubert”, Literary Criticism: European Writers; Prefaces to the New York Edition, Vol. 2 (New York: The Library of America, 1984),p.339.詹姆斯一针见血地指出,福楼拜却也受益于这种风气。“尽管他既慨叹又咒骂,但他还是有解决方法的,而且他总有机会做到与社会合拍。”
(23) 皮埃尔·布迪厄:《艺术的法则:文学场的生成与结构》,刘晖译,中央编译出版社2001年版,192页。
(24) 参见P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 105页。
(25) 马修·阿诺德:《“甘甜”与“光明”——马修·阿诺德新译8种及其他》,15页。
(26) 阿姆斯特朗的观点是,叙述者自诩有特权阐释帕拉迪的作品,并指出叙述者是在与威姆布什夫人竞争(P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 104页, 106页)。事实上,威姆布什夫人或其他有闲阶级成员从未阅读过帕拉迪的作品,而且叙述者并没有机会与社交圈的任何人探讨帕拉迪的作品。
(27) 即便是当今学界也质疑帕拉迪的真实性,参见Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”,163-172页; P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 99-107页; Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, 45-59页。但以上批评家并未结合詹姆斯的序言细读文本,认真探究詹姆斯对其人物真实性的说明,某种程度上忽视了小说反讽的丰富内涵。
(28) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, Literary Criticism, Vol.2, in European Writers; Prefaces to the New York Edition (New York: The Library of America, 1984), p.1229.
(29) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, p.1231.
(30) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.87.
(31) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, p.1229.
② 参见Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, Studies in Short Fiction, 2 (1975), 163-172页。
③ 参见P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, The Henry James Review, 2 (1996), 99-107页。
④ 参见Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, The Henry James Review 1 (Winter 2011), 45-59页
⑤ 毛亮:《自我、自由与伦理生活:亨利·詹姆斯研究》,北京大学出版社2015年版,132页。
⑥ Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, in Complete Stories 1892-1898(New York: The Library of America, 1996), p.356.(以后引用,在正文中随文标注页码。)
⑦ 着重号为笔者所加。
⑧ 着重号为笔者所加。
⑨ 迪贝尔认为叙述者对帕拉迪的作品感知以抒发强烈的情感为特点,而不是呈现作品内容(Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, 52页),但值得指出的是,迪贝尔忽略了一个细节,即叙述者撰写的帕拉迪评论文章遭到平霍恩拒稿,其原因是“过于关注细节”,这里的“细节”在笔者看来应是叙述者对帕拉迪作品的认知。这表明叙述者的文章是言之有物的,正因为涉及了作品内容,才不符合平霍恩的要求。平霍恩拒稿的另一原因是“抒发强烈情感”,也是基于叙述者对帕拉迪的作品以及对帕拉迪的禀赋欣赏而产生的。
⑩ Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, eds. Leon Edel and Lyall H. Powers (New York: Oxford UP, 1987), p.87.
(11) 着重号为笔者所加。
(12) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.86.
(13) Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, p.168.
(14) Laurence Barrett, “Young Henry James, Critic”, American Literature, 3 (1948), p.388.
(15) 马修·阿诺德:《“甘甜”与“光明”——马修·阿诺德新译8种及其他》,贺淯滨译,河南大学出版社2011年版,15页。
(16) Henry James, “Matthew Arnold”, in Literary Criticism, Vol.1 (New York: The Library of America: 1984), p.717.
(17) 参见Henry James, “Matthew Arnold”, 717页,着重号为笔者所加。
(18) Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, p.359, p.366, p.371, p.380.
(19) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.87.
(20) 霍格认为帕拉迪乐享鲁波先生为他画像(Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”, 170页),而事实上,这些只是“以为他(帕拉迪)会乐于接受这些恩惠的奇特的假想而已。”(Henry James, “The Death of the Lion”, 380页)
(21) 凡勃仑:《有闲阶级论——关于制度的经济研究》,蔡受百译,商务印书馆2013年版,296-297页。
(22) Henry James, “Gustave Flaubert”, Literary Criticism: European Writers; Prefaces to the New York Edition, Vol. 2 (New York: The Library of America, 1984),p.339.詹姆斯一针见血地指出,福楼拜却也受益于这种风气。“尽管他既慨叹又咒骂,但他还是有解决方法的,而且他总有机会做到与社会合拍。”
(23) 皮埃尔·布迪厄:《艺术的法则:文学场的生成与结构》,刘晖译,中央编译出版社2001年版,192页。
(24) 参见P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 105页。
(25) 马修·阿诺德:《“甘甜”与“光明”——马修·阿诺德新译8种及其他》,15页。
(26) 阿姆斯特朗的观点是,叙述者自诩有特权阐释帕拉迪的作品,并指出叙述者是在与威姆布什夫人竞争(P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 104页, 106页)。事实上,威姆布什夫人或其他有闲阶级成员从未阅读过帕拉迪的作品,而且叙述者并没有机会与社交圈的任何人探讨帕拉迪的作品。
(27) 即便是当今学界也质疑帕拉迪的真实性,参见Gerald Hoag, “The Death of the Paper Lion”,163-172页; P.B. Armstrong, “Art and the Construction of Community in ‘The Death of the Lion’”, 99-107页; Anne Diebel, “ ‘The Dreary Duty’: Henry James, The Yellow Book, and Literary Personality”, 45-59页。但以上批评家并未结合詹姆斯的序言细读文本,认真探究詹姆斯对其人物真实性的说明,某种程度上忽视了小说反讽的丰富内涵。
(28) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, Literary Criticism, Vol.2, in European Writers; Prefaces to the New York Edition (New York: The Library of America, 1984), p.1229.
(29) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, p.1231.
(30) Henry James, The Complete Notebooks of Henry James, p.87.
(31) Henry James, “Preface to The Lesson of the Master, The Death of the Lion, The Next Time, The Figure in the Carpet, The Coxon Fund”, p.1229.