【導(dǎo)讀】哈特·克蘭(1899—1932)是20世紀(jì)美國(guó)最有影響力的詩(shī)人之一。他中學(xué)畢業(yè)后即創(chuàng)作并發(fā)表詩(shī)歌,在T.S.艾略特和惠特曼等人的影響下,很早就立志以詩(shī)歌創(chuàng)作為業(yè),并試圖超越自己的偶像艾略特。在短暫且高度戲劇化的一生里,克蘭留下了《白色建筑群》《橋》等作品。可以說(shuō)沒(méi)有哪個(gè)詩(shī)人像克蘭那樣以短暫悲愴的人生和強(qiáng)大的詩(shī)歌影響力塑造并改變了美國(guó)詩(shī)歌的發(fā)展軌跡。哈羅德·布魯姆推崇其為20世紀(jì)最偉大的美國(guó)詩(shī)人之一。
克蘭曾與艾倫·泰特、瑪麗安·穆?tīng)枴.E.卡明斯、威廉·卡洛斯·威廉斯、伊沃·溫特斯等人建立不同程度的友誼并留下了通信記錄。選文是克蘭寫(xiě)給溫特斯的46封信中最有名也最具文史價(jià)值的一封,節(jié)選自《哈特·克蘭與伊沃·溫特斯文學(xué)書(shū)信集》(HartCraneandYvorWinters:TheirLiteraryCorrespondence)第86—89頁(yè)。這封信的寫(xiě)作背景主要有兩個(gè):一是溫特斯在來(lái)信中就克蘭的私生活和創(chuàng)作理念提出了批評(píng);二是埃德蒙·威爾遜在《新共和》雜志發(fā)表了一篇評(píng)論年度詩(shī)歌的文章,指責(zé)詩(shī)人們?yōu)榱丝娝狗艞壣鐣?huì)責(zé)任。溫特斯針對(duì)敏感問(wèn)題不請(qǐng)自來(lái)的建議在克蘭看來(lái)逾越了友誼的邊界,而威爾遜的挑釁則無(wú)異于文學(xué)的路線之爭(zhēng),在克蘭看來(lái)都應(yīng)當(dāng)予以“抨擊”。這封信也是間接寫(xiě)給威爾遜看的。
一如克蘭晦澀難懂的詩(shī)作,這封私人書(shū)信也工于修辭、曲折回環(huán),讓人感嘆28歲的克蘭文風(fēng)何其老熟。信中的一些觀點(diǎn)時(shí)至今日仍有啟發(fā)意義,比如:詩(shī)人是否要做“全人”,詩(shī)歌是否必然要回應(yīng)“世務(wù)”、是否必然要向“時(shí)代需求”妥協(xié),詩(shī)人是否要效仿古典詩(shī)人、是否要接受世俗的定義,等等。
Patterson,NewYork
May29th,1927
DearWinters:
紐約帕特森
1927年5月29日
親愛(ài)的溫特斯:
Youneedagooddrubbingforallyourrecenteasytalkabout‘thecompleteman,’thepoetandhisethicalplaceinsociety,etc.I’mafraidIlackthetimerightnowtoattemptwhatImightcallarelativelycompleteexcuseforcommittingmyselftotheabovesentiments—andIamalsoencumberedbyagooddealofsympathywithyourviewpointingeneral.Wilson’sarticlewasjusthalf-bakedenoughtomakeonewarmaroundthecollar.Itissodamnedeasyforsuchashe,bornintoeasymeans,graduatedfromafashionableuniversityintoacriticalchairoverlookingWashingtonSquare,etc."tosittightandhatchlittlesquibsofadvicetopoetsnottobeso‘professional’asheclaimstheyare,asthoughallthenameshehasjustmentionedhadbeenassuavelynourishedashe—asthough4outof5ofthemhadn’tbeendamnedwellforcedthemajorpartoftheirlivestogrubatanykindofworktheycouldmanagebyhookorcrookandthefearofhelltosecure!Yes,whynotstepintotheStateDept.andjointhediplomaticcorpsforachange!Indeed,orsomeothercourtlyoccupationwhichwouldbringyouintowideandactivecontactwithworldaffairs!AsamatteroffactI’malltooreadytoconcedethatthereareseveralothercareersmoreengagingtofollowthanthatofpoetry.Butthecircumstancesofone’sbirth,theconductofone’sparents,thecurrenteconomicstructureofsocietyandathousandotherlocalfactorshaveasmuchormoretosayaboutsuccessionstosuchoccupations,thenaivevolitionsofthepoettothecontrary.Iagreewithyouofcourse,thatthepoetshouldinaslargeameasureaspossibleadjusthimselftosociety.Butthequestionalwayswillremainastohowfartheconscienceisjustifiedincompromisingwiththeage’sdemands.
你近來(lái)輕率地談?wù)摗叭恕薄⒃?shī)人及其社會(huì)倫理地位等話題,著實(shí)該受一番抨擊了。我此刻恐怕無(wú)暇找個(gè)我認(rèn)為相對(duì)徹底的理由,來(lái)解釋自己為何會(huì)有上述情緒——更何況,對(duì)你的觀點(diǎn)大體上我仍頗為贊同。威爾遜那篇文章半生不熟,足以讓人感到不安。對(duì)于他這樣的人,一切都輕而易舉得很——他出身優(yōu)渥,從一所知名大學(xué)畢業(yè)后直接坐上了評(píng)論席位,在俯瞰華盛頓廣場(chǎng)的辦公室里正襟危坐,炮制或幽默或諷刺的小短文,建議詩(shī)人們不要像他所說(shuō)的那么“專(zhuān)業(yè)”,就好像所有他提到的這些人都像他那樣被生活溫柔以待——仿佛這些人中的五分之四不是大半生疲于奔命,想方設(shè)法要找個(gè)工作,任何應(yīng)付得了的工作,還終日惶惶,唯恐生計(jì)無(wú)著!是啊,可以改行去國(guó)務(wù)院當(dāng)個(gè)外交官啊!其實(shí),也可以找個(gè)別的什么體面工作,那樣就能更廣泛、更主動(dòng)地接觸世務(wù)了!事實(shí)上,我完全承認(rèn)有若干職業(yè)比詩(shī)歌創(chuàng)作更吸引人。但是,一個(gè)人的家庭條件、父母的言傳身教、當(dāng)前社會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)及無(wú)數(shù)其他環(huán)境因素對(duì)于這些職業(yè)的承繼都有著同樣甚至更多的影響,而詩(shī)人的天真意愿則恰恰相反。當(dāng)然,我同意你說(shuō)的詩(shī)人應(yīng)該盡可能適應(yīng)社會(huì)。但有個(gè)問(wèn)題始終會(huì)存在,即良知在多大程度上可以與時(shí)代需求相妥協(xié)。
Theimageof‘thecompleteman’isagoodidealisticantidoteforthehorridhysteriaforspecializationthatinhabitsthemodernworld.AndIstronglysecondyourwishforsomedefiniteethicalorder.Munson,however,andanumberofmyotherfriends,notsolongago,beingstrickenwiththesameurge,andfeelingthatsomethingmustbedoneaboutit—rushedintotheportalsofthefamousGurdjieffInstituteandhavesinceputthemselvesthroughallsortsofHinduantics,songs,dances,incantations,psychicsessions,etc.,sothatnow,presumablytheleftlobesoftheirbrainsandtheirrightlobesrespectivelyfunction(M’sfavoriteword)inperfectunison.IspenthoursatthetypewritertryingtoexplaintocertainoftheseurgentpeoplewhyIcouldnotenthuseabouttheirmethods;itwasalltonoavail,asIwastoldthatthe‘completeman’hadadifferentlogicthanmine,andfurtherthattherewasnowayofgainingorunderstandingthislogicwithoutfirstsubmittingyourselftothenecessarytraining.Iwasfinallylefttorollinthegutterofmyancientpredispositions,andsufferedtoreceiveagooddealofunnecessarypityformyobstinance.Someofthem,havingfoundagoodsubstitutefortheirformerinterestinwritingbymeansofmorecompleteformulasofexpression,haveceasedwritingaltogether,whichisprobablyjustaswell.Atanyratetheyhavebecomehermeticallysealedsoulstomyeyesight,andIamreallynotabletoofferjudgment.
“全人”形象是應(yīng)對(duì)現(xiàn)代世界可怕的專(zhuān)業(yè)化狂熱的一劑理想主義良藥。我也強(qiáng)烈贊同你關(guān)于建立某種明確的倫理秩序的愿望。然而,就在不久前,由于遭受同一種沖動(dòng)的困擾,曼森和我其他一些朋友都感到必須要為此做些什么——于是他們沖進(jìn)著名的葛吉夫?qū)W院的大門(mén),不厭其煩地學(xué)習(xí)了印度教的各種滑稽姿勢(shì)、歌曲、舞蹈、咒語(yǔ)和靈修課程等,所以現(xiàn)在,想必他們的左腦和右腦各自運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)(曼森最喜歡用這個(gè)詞),配合默契。我曾花很多時(shí)間打字撰文,試圖向這一心情迫切的群體中的某些人解釋為什么我對(duì)他們的方法提不起興趣;但一切都是徒勞,我得到的答復(fù)是,“全人”的邏輯和我的不一樣,并且,一個(gè)人首先需接受必要的訓(xùn)練,否則無(wú)法獲得或者理解這種邏輯。最終徒留我在陳舊執(zhí)念的陰溝里翻滾,還為自己的固執(zhí)忍受了那么多不必要的憐憫。他們中的一些已經(jīng)找到了某種更完備的表達(dá)方式取代從前的寫(xiě)作興趣,因而完全停止了寫(xiě)作,這或許也不是壞事。不管怎樣,在我看來(lái),他們的靈魂已經(jīng)完全封閉,我實(shí)難做出評(píng)判。
Iamnotidentifyingyouradviceinanyparticularwaywiththeirs,foryouarecertainlylogical,somuchsothatIaminclinedtodoubtthesuccessofyourprogramevenwithyourself....Iamonlybeggingthequestion,afterall,andaskingyounottojudgemetoosummarilybytheshorthandstatementsthatonehastouseasthemakeshiftforthenecessarychaptersrequiredformoreexplicitandfinalexplanations.Iamsuspect,Ifear,forequivocating.ButIcannotflattermyselfintoquiteasdefiniterecipesforefficiencyasyouseemto,onereasonbeing,Isuppose,thatI’mnotsoardentanaspiranttowardtheratherclassicalcharacteristicsthatyouciteasdesirable.ThisisnottosaythatIdon’t‘envy’themanwhoattainsthem,butratherthatIhavelongsinceabandonedthatfield—andIdoubtifIwasborntoachieve(withtheparticularvision)thoserichersynthesesofconsciousnesswhichwebothagreeinclassingassupreme;atleasttheattitudeofaShakespeareoraChaucerisnotminebyorganicrights,andwhytrytofoolmyselfthatIpossessthattypeofvisionwhenIobviouslydonot!
我并非刻意將你的建議與他們的相提并論,因?yàn)槟愕拇_是合乎邏輯的,邏輯之強(qiáng)甚至讓我懷疑你的計(jì)劃你自己都無(wú)法完成。……說(shuō)到底,我只是想當(dāng)然,請(qǐng)你不要僅憑那些簡(jiǎn)短的陳述草率地評(píng)判我,那些不過(guò)是提供明確最終解釋所需的必要章節(jié)的臨時(shí)代用品。恐怕我的模棱兩可會(huì)讓人起疑。但我做不到你看上去那般自我陶醉,以為自己找到了確定的高效秘訣,原因之一,我想是對(duì)于你認(rèn)為理想的古典特征我并不那么孜孜以求。這并不是說(shuō)我不“羨慕”達(dá)到這種境界的人,而是我早已放棄了那片領(lǐng)域——我懷疑天生我材是否就為(以特別的眼界)實(shí)現(xiàn)你我都認(rèn)為至高無(wú)上的那種更豐富的意識(shí)融合;至少莎士比亞或喬叟的那種態(tài)度不是我與生俱來(lái)的態(tài)度,那為何還要騙自己擁有那種眼界,而實(shí)際上我顯然沒(méi)有!
Ihaveacertaincodeofethics.Ihavenotasyetattemptedtoreduceittoanyexactformula,andifIdidIshouldprobablyembarkonanendlesstomewithmonthlyadditionsanddigressionseveryyear.Itseemsobviousthatacertaindecentcarriageandactionisaparamountrequirementinanypoet,deaconorcarpenter.AndthoughIreservemyselfthepleasantrighttodefinethesestandardsinasomewhatindividualway,andtoshoutandcomplainwhencircumstancesagainstmeseemtowarrantit,ontheotherhandIbelievemyselftobespeakinghonestlywhenIsaythatIhaveneverbeenabletoregret—forlong—whateverhashappenedtome,moreespeciallythosedecisionswhichattimeshavebeenpermittedafreewill.(Don’tblamemeentirelyforbringingdownallthissimplicityonyourhead—yourletteralmostsolicitsit!)AndIamascompletelyoutofsympathywiththefamiliarwhimperingcaricatureoftheartistandhis‘divinerights’asyouseemtobe.IamnotaStoic,thoughIthinkIcouldlearnmoreinthatdirectionifIcameto(asImaysometime)appreciatemorehighlytheimaginativeprofitsofsuchacourse.
我自有一套道德法則。我尚未嘗試將其簡(jiǎn)化為任何確切的模式,如果這樣做,我可能會(huì)開(kāi)始寫(xiě)一本永遠(yuǎn)寫(xiě)不完的巨著,年復(fù)一年地每月增加些題內(nèi)話和題外話。顯然,對(duì)任何一個(gè)詩(shī)人、助祭或木匠來(lái)說(shuō),某種得體的舉止和行為都是至關(guān)重要的。盡管我保留以某種個(gè)人方式定義這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的愉快權(quán)利,也保留在時(shí)勢(shì)似乎不利于我的必要時(shí)刻大聲疾呼和抱怨的權(quán)利,但當(dāng)我說(shuō)我從未對(duì)經(jīng)歷過(guò)的任何事,尤其是依靠自由意志所做的決定感到后悔不已,我相信我是在誠(chéng)實(shí)地表達(dá)自己。(說(shuō)你頭腦簡(jiǎn)單不要完全怪我——你那封信幾乎是自尋此路!)我完全不認(rèn)同藝術(shù)家“顧影自憐雙淚垂”這種為人熟知的刻板形象及其所謂的“神圣權(quán)利”,你的看法似乎也一樣。我不是什么斯多葛派,但我認(rèn)為,如果我能(將來(lái)可能會(huì))更加懂得這一路徑對(duì)于想象力的裨益,我會(huì)在這個(gè)方向上學(xué)到更多。
......
Bestwishes,
HartCrane
…………
謹(jǐn)致良好祝愿
哈特·克蘭
(譯者單位:北京語(yǔ)言大學(xué))