Marginalia　旁注之美

Marginalia

旁注之美

Edgar Allan Poe

埃德加·爱伦·坡

作者简介

埃德加·爱伦·坡（Edgar Allan Poe，1809—1849），美国作家、文艺评论家，也是美国最早的短篇小说家之一，尤以恐怖小说和侦探小说闻名于世。他于1841年发表的《莫格街谋杀案》（The Murders in the Rue Morgue）被公认为最早的侦探小说，埃德加·爱伦·坡本人也被奉为侦探小说的鼻祖。他的恐怖小说《陷坑与钟摆》（The Pit and the Pendulum）、《大漩涡历险记》（A Descent Into the Maelstrom）等更是为中国读者熟知。

埃德加·爱伦·坡是个唯美主义者，这篇关于页边留白和旁注的散文就能看出这一点。本文节选自1844年11月出版的《民主书评》（Democratic Review）杂志。作者“不是喜爱页边留白本身，而是觉得它适合用铅笔记下自己的思考、赞同、异议和短评”的阅读习惯是否能引起你的共鸣？

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.

拿到一本书时，我总希望有充裕的页边留白。我不是喜爱页边留白本身，而是觉得它适合用铅笔记下自己的思考、赞同、异议和短评。如果窄窄的页边空间有限，不足以记下我的所思所想，我会写在另一张纸上，把它夹在书页之间，并用一点点胶水将它粘住。

这或许是一时兴起，或许是陈腐的陋习，或许是闲人的习惯，但我仍坚持这么做。我能从中获得愉悦，并从愉悦中获利——尽管边沁1和密尔2都不这么认为。

但毫无疑问的是，我写旁注绝不是写备忘——写备忘这个习惯存在缺陷。贝尔纳丹·德·圣皮埃尔说：“将思绪记录下来，凭借记忆酝酿，最终仍会遗忘。”事实上，如果你想立刻忘记某事，把它写成备忘即可。

但纯粹的（不为备忘的）旁注和备忘录完全不同。旁注不是没有特定的目的，而是根本没有目的性。这种毫无目的性正是它的价值所在。旁注的档次高于偶一为之、断断续续的文学闲谈类评论。后者是脱口而出、“没话找话”的废话，旁注则是经过深思熟虑、谨慎写下的成果，因为读者想把自己的思想一吐为快——无论多轻率、多愚蠢、多琐碎，那毕竟是思想，而不是换一个时间、换一种场合就不能称为思想的东西。在旁注里，我们只是自说自话。因此，我们的观点新鲜、大胆、独特，敢于放纵自己，但不狂妄自大。杰里米·泰勒、托马斯·布朗爵士、威廉·坦普尔爵士、爱“解剖”的伯顿、最有逻辑的推理家巴特勒，以及其他的昔日文人，他们的著作总是挤得满满当当，这无疑使其无法彰显风度。风度的确非常重要——堪称风度典范的书籍要有充裕的页边留白。

限制可供落笔的页边空间利大于弊。这迫使我们无论脑中有多少漫无边际的想法，都要像孟德斯鸠、塔西佗或卡莱尔一般精练行文。当然，塔西佗《编年史》结尾处的长篇大论不在此列。据说，旁注会和你平日虚伪做作、语法拙劣的文章截然不同。我固执地提出“语法拙劣”，是因为语法学家（他们应该知道得比我多）坚持认为我不该这样。但那样的话，语法就不是这些语法学家说了算的。语法只是语言的分析，加上分析的结果。语法是优是劣，取决于分析者是智者还是蠢货，是霍恩·图克3还是科贝特4。

但说回到我们自己。不久前，在一个阴雨的午后，我整个人无精打采，没有办法继续研究。为了摆脱倦怠的心境，我在书房里随意翻阅藏书。我的藏书当然不多，但是种类够杂。我还得自夸一句，其中可有不少珍本。

当时，我或许处于德国人称为“精神涣散”而感到幽默的情形下。书中栩栩如生的涂鸦吸引了我的注意，那些仓促写成的评论也让我感到有趣。最后，我竟希望它们不是出自我手，而是别人所为。我想象着，如果是这样，我翻书时看见它们将有更大的惊喜。从这一点出发，可以这么换位思考——莱尔先生5、默奇森先生6或费瑟斯通豪先生7也会这么想——即使在我的信笔涂鸦中，也会有一些别人感兴趣的东西。

……

我的最终结论是，原则上要充分相信读者的敏锐度和想象力。但有些情况下，即使信念也无法移动高山。我只得重新调整旁注的格式，以便至少能传达我想说的概念。如果原文对理解这个概念至关重要，我会引用原文；如果提到的书名不可或缺，我会列出书名。简而言之，由于没有更让人满意的旁注准则，我只好像小说里处于困境的英雄一样，下定决心“顺其自然”。

————————————————————

1．杰里米·边沁（Jeremy Bentham，1748—1832），英国功利主义哲学家、经济学家。

2．约翰·斯图尔特·密尔（John Stuart Mill，1806—1873），英国著名哲学家和经济学家，支持边沁的功利主义观点。

3．约翰·霍恩·图克（John Horne Tooke，1736—1812），英国政治家、语言学家、幽默大师，代表作《致地主》（Fads Addressed to Landholders）。

4．威廉·科贝特（William Cobbett，1763—1835），英国记者，著有《英语语法》（A Grammer of the English Language）一书。

5．查尔斯·莱尔（Charles Lyell，1797—1875），英国律师，地质学家，对达尔文、赫胥黎等人产生过重要影响。

6．罗德里克·默奇森（Roderick Murchison，1792—1871），苏格兰地质学家，曾与莱尔一起到法国南部研究地层结构。

7．费瑟斯通豪（Fetherstonhaugh），英国著名的父子爵士。