我記得三聯簡譯本等，有解釋書名意思和作者用意？參考日本的："回想録『墓の彼方からの回想』（Mémoires d'outre-tombe、没後出版）"---《墓後回憶錄》。"這裡的“墓後”，“墓中”，甚至還有別處的“墓外”，其實在法文中是同一個詞。為什麼會有這些譯文上的差異？當然這取決於每一位譯者對原文含義的讀解。應該說，都沒錯。但從夏多布里昂自己的解釋而言，“我始終想像我是坐在我的棺材裡寫作的”，我私下以為，也許郭宏安先生的“墓中”譯法更近原意。"
夏多布里昂（1768～1848).
夏多布里昂《墓中回憶錄》Memoires d'outre-tombe [memoirs from beyond the tomb] (1849-50)
此書為原書(中國也有全譯本)的1/8，是「意在精彩」。沒錯，除了沒對作者一生概述之外，選文的確有意思。譬如說，『華盛頓拿破崙異同論』等，都值得一讀。 Chateaubriand, François-René, vicomte de (1768-1848). Born in Saint-Malo of an old Breton noble family whose declining fortunes his father somewhat restored, Chateaubriand spent his youth there or with his grandmother, or particularly at Combourg, a medieval château acquired by his father which provided rich material for his Romantic imagination. Destined for the army, he was presented at court in 1787 but also frequented literary circles with Fontanes, La Harpe, Ginguené, and particularly Malesherbes. Partly at the latter's prompting, after witnessing the beginnings of the Revolution, Chateaubriand set forth for North America (June 1791-January 1792), visiting Philadelphia, New York, Niagara Falls, and venturing west as far as Ohio. Recent scholarship has established that the itinerary he claimed, often considered fantastic, was quite accurately described. Chateaubriand was to put his American sojourn to considerable literary profit, writing a prose epic, Les Natchez (published 1826), of the amorous and other adventures of the Frenchman René among the Indians and in the French and Indian wars.
After his return to France he joined the army of the émigré princes, was wounded at the Battle of Thionville, and made his way from there to Jersey and then England, only returning to France in 1800. In England, his life was difficult, but he wrote extensively and in 1797 published his Essai historique, politique et moral sur les révolutions anciennes et modernes dans leurs rapports avec la révolution française, a deeply pessimistic book equating all revolutions, announcing the end of Christianity, combining political theory and personal outpourings. Back in France, he achieved fame with the publication of Atala (1801), originally a part of Les Natchez, and then of Le Génie du christianisme (1802), which happily coincided with Napoleon's efforts to restore Catholicism. The chapter on the prototypical Romantic hero René was much appreciated. According to Le Génie, man's desire for the absolute is infinite, and only religion can satisfy that desire. Christianity satisfies the imagination and the emotions, inspires beautiful works of art, contributes to civilization and progress. The aesthetic, positivistic aspect of his apologetics—Christianity is true because it is good and beautiful—was to have widespread influence.
An appreciative Napoleon sent him to Rome, but he there tangled with Cardinal Fesch. In 1804, indignant at the assassination of the duc d'Enghien, he resigned and became increasingly hostile towards the Napoleonic regime. He moved to La Vallée aux Loups, a country home to the south of Paris where he redesigned both house and garden. In 1806 he embarked on a lengthy trip to the Orient (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Egypt, Carthage, finally Spain) which led to his Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (1811). Like much travel literature of the period, the book is something of a compendium and a rewriting, but many of the descriptive passages are rich. He also produced Les Martyrs ou le Triomphe de la religion chrétienne (1809), another prose epic about the triumph of Christianity over paganism. The Christian hero loves a pagan maid, she becomes converted, they are separated, then reunited, then martyred. He also regularly wrote political journalism for the Mercure de France, and had a series of amorous engagements with often notable women (his marriage, made hastily in 1792, was not a happy one) including Delphine de Sabran, contesse de Custine and mother of Astolphe de Custine, Claire de Kersaint, duchesse de Duras, and, especially from 1817 until his death, Juliette Récamier.
He was elected to the Académie Française in 1811, but not allowed to read his anti-Napoleon discours de réception. In 1814 he published De Buonaparte et des Bourbons, a virulent attack against Napoleon then in exile on Elba (Chateaubriand had written it before his fall from power); Louis XVIII said the volume ‘was worth an army’. He accompanied Louis XVIII to Ghent during the Hundred Days. Under the second Bourbon Restoration he had a highly chequered political career, largely because he sought to combine loyalty to legitimacy with the defence of political liberties, especially the liberty of the press; also, his political ambitions were not always accompanied by the necessary competence and skills. His De la monarchie selon la Charte (1816), a defence of Louis XVIII's policies but with a conclusion sharply critical of some governmental actions, led to his fall from favour and one of many serious financial crises, forcing him to sell La Vallée aux Loups. He soon returned to partial favour, served as ambassador to Berlin and to London, was present at the Congress of Verona, and was minister of foreign affairs at the time of the 1823 intervention in Spain. His relations with Charles X were quite strained, but he was appointed ambassador to Rome in 1828.
After the July Revolution, Chateaubriand, who in many ways had prepared its advent, chose to resign from the Chambre des Pairs out of loyalty to the elder branch of the Bourbons, and began writing his Histoire de France (1831). In 1832 his support of the duchesse de Berry in her effort to foment a civil war and restore the Bourbons led to two weeks' imprisonment, but he was acquitted. His voyages and efforts to reconcile Charles X with his quixotic daughter-in-law were quite unsuccessful. In 1838 he and his wife moved from their home in the rue d'Enfer (next to an infirmary she had directed and supported by the sale of chocolate) to the Hôtel de Clermont-Tonnerre, in the rue du Bac and near L'Abbaye-aux-Bois where Madame Récamier lived and where Chateaubriand went daily; it was one of the most prestigious literary salons of the time. At the behest of his spiritual director, he wrote a Vie de Rancé (1849); the work is also a meditation by Chateaubriand on his own life. In 1847 he finished his Mémoires d'outre-tombe, perhaps his most appreciated work today. He was buried, as he had carefully planned, in the Romantic island setting of the Grand Bé, in the Atlantic near Saint-Malo.
Considered by the Romantics and many since as their founding father, with his melancholy vision and his interest in the exotic, the passions, the imagination, Chateaubriand was also a perceptive observer of and important participant in the political scene of his days, and possessed real merit as an apologist of the Christian faith and as an historian and essayist. His combination of acuity, at times bordering on cynicism, revery, and sensibility produced writings which have been greatly appreciated by writers as different as Hugo, de Gaulle and Barthes.
[Frank Paul Bowman]
夏多布里昂：他想“敘述”激盪洶湧的一生在法國，夏多布里昂可是個大名鼎鼎的人物。法國人熱愛文化，以了解對自己文化做出傑出貢獻的藝術家、思想家、文學家為榮。而在他們眼裡，夏多布里昂就是一個對法國文學做出巨大貢獻的大文豪。當然，在中國，也有不少人熟知夏多布里昂這個名字；但畢竟不能與另一個大文豪雨果的知名度相比。
實際上，我敢說，假如不是在雨果之前已經有那麼一個“夏多布里昂”，沒準雨果的“偉大”還真的很難成就。雨果出世時，夏多布里昂恰好三十四歲，正在大展宏圖。等到雨果也對文學和榮耀萌生熱愛之心，夏多布里昂已然功成名就。於是少年雨果立下宏願：“要么成為夏多布里昂，要么一無所成”。
夏多布里昂（1768--1848），我第一次讀到這個名字時，覺得有點拗口。五個字組成一個名字，這在中國幾乎沒有，而且那個“昂”字，當時是被譯作“盎”。 “盎”字用在一個人的名字上，也就是因為外國人，譯者才敢下這狠手。在我的記憶裡，這個名字是和《法國文學史》連在一起的，那本書談到夏多布里昂的“矯揉造作”。可他是法國十九世紀浪漫主義的代表作家啊！
中國人自己編寫的《法國文學史》之所以突出夏多布里昂的“矯揉造作”，可能是因為馬克思抨擊過他的緣故。是的，馬克思抨擊過夏多布里昂：“他在各個方面都是法國式的虛榮的最典型的化身，這種虛榮不是穿著十八世紀輕佻的服裝，而是換上了浪漫的外衣，用新創的辭藻來加以炫耀……”，還說他“用最反常的方式把十八世紀貴族階級的懷疑主義和伏爾泰主義同十九世紀貴族階級的感傷主義和浪漫主義結合在一起” 。很明顯，馬克思在政治上嫌惡夏多布里昂。他把夏多加里昂當成政敵來大加撻伐。好在馬克思對文學本身畢竟保持著敏感，所以他也承認：“自然，從文風上來看，這種結合在法國應當是件大事。”
確實，法國人撰寫的文學史一直是把夏多布里昂及其作品當作一件“大事”來研究的。在文學史家布呂奈爾的筆下，夏多布里昂被譽為“第一個現代小說家”，認為他和他的作品“標誌著一種新人和現代文學的產生”。聖勃夫誇讚他“在宏偉中保持分寸和比例”。羅蘭.巴特則為夏多布里昂的《朗西傳》寫序：“這種回憶的激情，只能在行動中才平息下來：最終給予回憶以一種帶有實質的平衡，即寫作”。晚年的龔古爾更是在其《日記》中表示，他願意拿人之初以來的所有詩篇來換取《墓後回憶錄》的頭兩卷。
可見，《墓後回憶錄》在龔古爾心中佔據著一個多麼重要的位置！這部卷帙浩繁的回憶錄並不是一氣呵成的。從1830年構思至1848年定稿，為了完成它，夏多布里昂耗費了巨大的心力和時間。通過這部回憶錄，夏多布里昂試圖“敘述”他激盪洶湧的一生。然而，當他以作者身份“敘述”他經歷過的事件和情感時，實際上，新的事件和情感仍在向他湧現。所以說，這一“敘述”是伴隨著作者的生命過程逐漸展開的。他一邊“敘述”，一邊生存。 “敘述”影響到他的繼續生存，而從未間斷的生存又讓他的“敘述”有所偏離。這畢竟是一個大活人以“我”為中心“文學地”寫成的一部回憶錄。它之所以能夠傳世，並非因為它“敘述”到的事件和情感有多麼真實可靠，而是因為這一“敘述”飽含生命的激情力量，富於文學的創造性。
對這一點，夏多布里昂似乎也有洞察：“關於自己，我只談符合我尊嚴的事，我敢說，只談符合我高貴心靈的事。只應敘述美的東西……”。在文學和政治之間，夏多布里昂度過了波瀾壯闊、跌宕起伏的一生。文學是他的先天敏感，政治則是他的後天吸引；文學從情感上撫慰他內心的孤獨，政治則成為他贏得權力的外部手段。夏多布里昂很晚才覺悟到：“我的文學生涯功成名就，產生了它應該產生的一切，因為它只取決於我。我的政治生涯在成功之中突然半途而止，因為它取決於別人”。但依我看，在夏多布里昂身上，文學慾望和政治慾望是相互交織在一起的。對自己生命的動力源泉，夏多布里昂無力洞悉，因為生命的秘密恰恰在於，它是活生生的經曆本身，而不是經歷後的認知結果。
行動。回憶。激情。寫作。平息。這五個詞彙貫穿著夏多布里昂的一生。當然，這五個詞彙，也像五根藤蔓，纏緊夏多布里昂這棵生命之樹。它們互相推動，互相生髮，互相爭鬥，最終成全了夏多布里昂雄心勃勃、激情充沛、在政治和文學的雙重漩渦中奮力拼博、最後竟然活到八十高壽的一生。概括地說，夏多布里昂，貴族之子，生於風暴，死於風暴。他的一生所為，可以說是“掙扎著反抗時間”；而他的回憶錄，則是試圖解釋他那顆“難以解釋的心”。心，它與現實，總是自相矛盾。
如果說程依榮先生等新近推出的中譯本《墓後回憶錄》是大而全，那麼，先前郭宏安先生的那個選譯本《墓中回憶錄》（三聯書店，1997年），則稱得上少而精。這裡的“墓後”，“墓中”，甚至還有別處的“墓外”，其實在法文中是同一個詞。為什麼會有這些譯文上的差異？當然這取決於每一位譯者對原文含義的讀解。應該說，都沒錯。但從夏多布里昂自己的解釋而言，“我始終想像我是坐在我的棺材裡寫作的”，我私下以為，也許郭宏安先生的“墓中”譯法更近原意。
此外，在譯筆上，同一句法文，與程依榮先生的“我母親分娩的房間俯瞰通常空無一人的城牆；透過房間的窗口，可以望見一望無際的大海，海浪拍打著礁石”相比，我也更愛讀郭宏安先生的“我母親生產的那間屋子下臨一段廢棄的城牆，透過窗戶，可以看見一望無際的、在礁石上撞得粉碎的海”。顯然，後者從語感上更能傳達夏多布里昂文體風格的激情之美和飽滿氣勢。
2004年4月4日 北京
沒有留言:
張貼留言