爱华网Lucidity, Simplicity,Euphony
清晰，简明，悦耳
By W. SomersetMaugham
索默斯特•毛姆
I have never had much patiencewith the writers who claim from the reader an effort to understandtheir meaning. You have only to go to the great philosophers to seethat it is possible to express with lucidity the most subtlereflections. You may find it difficult to understand the thought ofHume, and if you have no philosophical training its implicationswill doubtless escape you; but no one with any education at all canfail to understand exactly what the maning of each sentence is. Fewpeople have written English with more grace than Berkeley. Thereare two sorts of obscurity that you find in writers. One is due tonegligence and the other to wilfulness. People often writeobscurely because they have never taken the trouble to learn towrite clear. This sort of obscurity you find too often in modernphilosophers, in men of science, and even in literary critics. Hereis is indeed strange. You would have thought that men who passedtheir lives in the study of the great masters of literature wouldbe sufficiently sensitive to the beauty of language to write if notbeautifully at least with perspicuity. Yet you will find in theirworks sentence after sentence that you must read twice to discoverthe sense. Often you can only guess at it, for the writers haveevidently not said what they intended.
我对那些要求读者努力去理解自己意图的作者从来就没有太多的耐心。你只要去看看那些伟大的哲学家们的著作就会明白，清晰表达最精妙的思考是完全可能的。你可能会发现想要理解休谟的思想有点困难，而且如果你没有相关的哲学方面的训练，这对你确实不易，但受过教育的人完全可以准确的理解每一语句的意思。贝克莱优美的英语文笔很少有人能相比。你在一些作家的文字中会发现两种晦涩。一种是由于粗心大意，另一种则是有意而为之。至于那些写作晦涩的人，通常是因为他们从未在清晰的写作方面下过功夫。你会发现，这种晦涩在现代的哲学家，研究科学的人中，乃至文学评论家的文字中都普遍存在。你可能会认为那些把自己的毕生都花在文学研究方面的大师们肯定会对所用的语言之妙成竹在心，即使写的不优美，至少也应该清晰流畅。可是你会发现，在读他们作品的那些语句时，你必须读上两遍才能找到点感觉。通常你只能猜测其意，因为这些作者显然在闪烁其辞。
Another cause of obscurity isthat the writer is himself not quite sure of his meaning. He has avague impression of what he wants to say, but has not, either fromlack of mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in hismind and it is natural enough that he should not find a preciseexpression for a confused idea. This is due largely to the factthat many writers think, not before, but as they write. The penoriginates the thoughts. The disadvantage of this, and indeed it isa danger against which the author must be always on his guard, isthat there is a sort of magic in the written word. The ideaacquires substance by taking on a visible nature, and then standsin the way of its own clarification. But this sort of obscuritymerges very easily into the wilful. Some writers who do not thinkclearly are inclined to suppose that their thoughts have asignificance greater than at first sight appears. It is flatteringto believe that they are too profound to be expressed so clearlythat all who run may read, and very naturally it does not occur tosuch writers that the fault is with their own minds which have notthe faculty of precise reflection. Here again the magic of thewritten word obtains. It is very easy to persuade oneself that ap hrase that one does not quite understand may mean a great dealmore than one realizes. From this there is only a little way to goto fall into the habit of setting down one’s impressions in alltheir original vagueness. Fools can always be found to discover ahidden sense in them. There is another form of wilful obscuritythat masquerades as aristocratic exclusiveness. The author wrapshis meaning in mystery so that the vulgar shall not participate init. His soul is a secret garden into which the elect may penetrateonly after overcoming a number of perilous obstacles. But this kindof obscurity is not only pretentious; it is short-sighted. For timeplays it an odd trick. If the sense is meagre time reduces it to ameaningless verbiage that no one thinks ofreading.
晦涩的另一个原因就是作者自己也不完全确定他要表达的意图。他对自己所言之事表述模糊，除了他尚未想好如何表达之外，不是缺乏能力，就是偷懒，而且他无法从混乱的想法中找到清晰的表达方式也就再自然不过了。这主要是由于许多作者大都在写作之前并未想好如何下笔。文笔源于思想。缺点是在书面文字中存在着某种不可思议的力量，这地确是个威胁，作者必须时刻提高警惕。晦涩的想法通过语言文字的方式具有了可视性，但它却成为了更加困扰作者的障碍。但这种晦涩很容易与有意为之混在一起。一些无法清晰表达思想的作者会当然地认为他们的思想要比乍一看上去的表象深刻得多。得意地认为他们的思想太深奥，以至于无法清晰地表达，让所有的人都能读懂，但很显然，这样的作者无法意识到问题就在于他们自身缺乏清晰表达的能力。由此晦涩书面语便流行起来了。这很容易使人相信，一个你没有完全理解的措词可能比其本意意味着更多的含义。由此这般，就极容易养成行文晦涩的习惯。可就连傻瓜也常常会发现文字中隐藏的意思。另外还有一种故意晦涩的方式，那就是装扮成难以接近的贵族模样，作者将其意图隐藏在神秘之中，这样百姓就无法参与了。他的灵魂就是一个神秘园，只有特殊阶层克服了许多险阻之后才能进入。然而这种晦涩不仅是自负的，而且也是短视的。因为时间掌握着一切，对于没有意义的废话，如果读者失去了感觉，就没有人想读书了。
Simplicity is not such anobvious merit as lucidity. I have aimed at it because I have nogift for richness. Within limits I admire richness in others,though I find it difficult to digest in quantity. I can read onepage of Ruskin with delight, but twenty only with weariness. Therolling period, the stately epithet, the noun rich in poeticassociations, the subordinate clauses that give the sentence weightand magnificence, the grandeur like that of wave following wave inthe open sea; there is no doubt that in all this there is somethinginspiring. Words thus strung together fall on the ear like music.The appeal is sensuous rather than intellectual, and the beauty ofthe sound leads you easily to conclude that you need not botherabout the meaning. But words are tyrannical things, they exist fortheir meanings, and if you will not pay attention to these, youcannot pay attention at all. Your mind wanders. This kind ofwriting demands a subject that will suit it. It is surely out ofplace to write in the grand style of inconsiderablethings.
简明并不像清晰那样具有明显的优势。我选择简明是因为我没有表达华丽完美的天赋。在一定范围内，我钦佩别人遣词的华美，不过我发现过多了也难以消受。我可以愉快地读一页罗斯金的作品，但超过二十页就会厌倦。在很长的时期内，那堂皇的称谓，那诗化的名词，那些从句使语句厚重而华丽，就像广阔的大海的层层波浪那般宏伟壮丽；毫无疑问，这一切令人振奋。因此，那些捆绑在一起的文字就像音乐一样涌入我们的耳朵。这种感染力靠的是感性，而非理智，这种美妙的声音会轻易地引导着你，最终你就会不在乎文字的含义了。但那些文字是些专横的东西，只为其含义而存在，如果你不重视它们，你就什么也读不到。你的精神也会流离失所。因此这种写作就需要一种与之相适应的主题。用宏大的风格书写微不足道的事情肯定是不合适的。
But if richness needs gifts withwhich everyone is not endowed, simplicity by no means comes bynature. To achieve it needs rigid discipline. So far as I know oursis the only language in which it has been found necessary to give aname to the piece of prose which is described as the purple patch;it would not have been necessary to do so unless it werecharacteristic. English prose is elaborate rather than simple. Itwas not always so. Nothing could be more racy, straightforward andalive than the prose of Shakespeare; but it must be remembered thatthis was dialogue written to be spoken. We do not know how he wouldhave written if like Corneille he had composed prefaces to hisplays. It may be that the would have been as euphuistic as theletters of Queen Eli zabeth. But earlier prose, the prose of SirThomas More, for instance, is neither ponderous, flowery nororatorical. It smacks of the English soil. To my mind King James’sBible has been a very harmful influence on English prose. I am notso stupid as to deny its great beauty. It is majestical. But theBible is an oriental book. Its alien imagery has nothing to do withus.
但是，如果说华美需有得天独厚的天赋的话，那么简明也非来自天成。要达到简明乃需要严格的训练。据我了解，我们的语言是唯一的一种必须给散文中华丽的段落命名的语言；除非它典型，否则没有必要这么做。就英语散文而言，精美胜于简单。但也并非总是如此。没有什么能比莎士比亚的散文更生动，直白与鲜活了，但必须记住那是为口语而写的对话。我们确实不知道，如果让他像科尔内耶那样为自己的剧本作序的话，他会怎么写呢？或许会像伊丽莎白女王的信那样词藻华丽。但在更早期的散文中，例如托马斯•莫尔的散文，既不沉闷，华丽，也不雄辩，带有英国乡土的气息。以我之见，权威版的《圣经》对英国散文的影响是非常有害的。可我并未愚蠢到要否定其大美的程度，它依然高贵而庄严。但该版《圣经》来自东方，它所描述的异域风情与我们没有什么关系。
Those hyperboles, those lusciousmetaphors, are foreign to our genius. I cannot but think that notthe least of the misfortunes that the Secession from Rome broughtupon the spiritual life of our country is that this work for solong a period became the daily, and with many the only, reading ofour people. Those rhythms, that powerful vocabulary, thatgrandiloquence, became part and parcel of the national sensibility.The plain, honest English speech was overwhelmed with ornament.Blunt Englishmen twisted their tongues to speak like Hebrewprophets. There was evidently something in the English temper towhich this was congenial, perhaps a native lack of precision inthought, perhaps a naive delight in fine words for their own sake,an innate eccentricity and love of embroidery, I do not know; butthe fact remains that ever since, Engllish prose has had tostruggle against the tendency to luxuriance. When from time to timethe spirit of the language has reasserted itself, as it did withDryden and the writers of Queen Anne, it was only to be submergedonce more by the pomposities of Gibbon and Dr. Johnson. WhenEnglish prose recovered simplicity with Hazlitt, the Shelley of theletters and Charles Lamb at his best, it lost it again with DeQuincey, Carlyle, Meredith and Walter Pater. It is obvious that thegrand style is more striking than the plain. Indeed many peoplethink that a style that does not attract notice is not style. Theywill admire Walter Pater’s, but will read an essay by MatthewArnold without giving a moment’s attention to the elegance,distinction and sobriety with which he set down what he had tosay.
那些修辞的夸张句法，那些为了满足感官的隐喻，都与我们的天赋无关。我不得不认为那至少不是脱离了罗马教皇而给我国的精神生活带来的不幸，而是在那么长的一段时期里，这项工作（读圣经）变成了日常生活，并且成为了我们的人民，许多人的唯一读物。那些节奏，那掷地有声的词汇，那夸张的讲话都变成了我们民族情感的主要部分。那朴实，真诚的英语演讲被修饰所淹没。迟钝的英国人绕动着他们舌头，学着旧约全书中的样子讲话。显然在英国人的脾气中具有某种与此相似的东西，也许与生俱来就缺乏思想精度，也许为了自身的目的原本就喜欢精巧的言辞，对此我不甚了解；但事实是从那时直到现在，英语散文一直在同奢华的倾向做斗争。曾几何时，英语语言几度重塑自身的精髓，如德莱顿和安尼女王时期的作家们，却不料因吉本和约翰逊博士文风之浮夸而再度使英语沉沦。英语散文直到了赫兹利特，雪莱的书信以及查尔斯•兰姆顶盛期时才得以恢复，却因德昆西，凯雷，梅瑞狄斯和沃尔特•佩特再次迷失。很明显，那种落笔宏大的风格要比朴实无华更加吸引人。的确，许多人都会认为那种无法吸引人的风格便不算什么风格。他们会赞美沃尔特•佩特的风格，但阅读马休•阿诺德的散文时却没有对其创造的，不能不表现的那种优雅，个性以及冷静给予片刻的关注。
The dictum that the style is theman is well known. It is one of those aphorisms that say too muchto mean a great deal. Where is the man in Goethe, in his birdlikelyrics or in his clumsy prose? And Hazlitt? But I suppose that if aman has a confused mind he will write in a confused way, if histemper is capricious his prose will be fantastical, and if he has aquick, darting intelligence that is reminded by the matter in handof a hundred things, he will, unless he has great self-control,load his pages with metaphor and simile. There is a greatdifference between the magniloquence of the Jacobean writers, whowere intoxicated with the new wealth that had lately been broughtinto the language, and the turgidity of Gibbon and Dr. Johnson, whowere the victims of bad theories. I can read every word that Dr.Johnson wrote with delight, for he had good sense, charm and wit.No one could have written better if he had not wilfully set himselfto write in the grand style. He knew good English when he saw it.No critic has praised Dryden’s prose more aptly. He said of himthat he appeared to have no art other than that of expressing withclearness what he thought with vigor. And one of his Lives hefinished with the words: “Whoever wishes to attain an Englishstyle, familiar but not coarse, and elegant but not ostentatious,must give his days and nights to the volumes of Addison.” But whenhe himself sat down to write it was with a very different aim. Hemistook the orotund for the dignified. He had not the good breedingto see that simplicity and naturalness are the truest marks ofdistinction.
有句格言众所周知，即文如其人。它是那种表述宽泛却无什么含义的一类格言。歌德的抒情诗敏捷轻快，而其散文却笨拙沉重，他属于哪种情形呢？赫兹利特又怎样呢？我想，如果一个人思想混乱，他下笔就会混乱，如果其性情不定，他的散文就会让人觉着零乱古怪，而如果他思维敏捷，联想丰富，除非他有极强的自我控制力，否则他的字里行间就会充斥着或明或隐的比喻。这与詹姆士一世时期作者的夸夸其谈有很大的不同，他们沉迷于那些新近才出现在英语中的时髦说法，而吉本和约翰逊博士的文风浮夸则是受了糟糕理论的影响。我会欣然地阅读约翰逊博士写的每个字，因为他拥有出色的感觉，有魅力和富有智慧。如果他不是随意地用那种宏大风格写作的话，恐怕没有什么人能比他写得更出色了。他知道什么样的英语才是出色的英语。没有哪位评论家能比他对德莱顿的称赞更为恰当了。他说他除了思想活跃，表达明白外，他好象没有什么艺术性。在他的一部《诗人生活》的书中，他写出了这样的结束语：“无论谁希望达成一种朴实而不粗俗，优雅而不招摇的英语风格，他就必须不断地研习艾迪生的著作。”可当他自己坐下来写作时，情形则完全两样了。他把浮夸当成了高贵，他未受过良好的培养，不明白简明和自然才是区别语言最明确的标志。
Whether you ascribe importanceto euphony, the last of the three characteristics that I mentioned,must depend on the sensitiveness of your ear. A great many readers,and many admirable writers, are devoid of this quality. Poets as weknow have always made a great use of alliteration. They arepersuaded that the repetition of a sound gives an effect of beauty.I do not think it does so in prose. It seems to me that in prosealliteration should be used only for a special reason; whenused by accident it falls on the ear very disagreeable. But itsaccidental use is so common that one can only suppose that thesound of it is not universally offensive. Many writers withoutdistress will put two rhyming words together, join a monstrous longadjective to a monstrous long noun, or between the end of one wordand the beginning of another have a conjunction of consonants thatalmost breaks your jaw. These are trivial and obvious instances.These are trivial and obvious instances. I mention them only toprove that if careful writers can do such things it is only becausethey have no ear. Words have weight, sound and appearance; it isonly by considering these that you can write a sentence that isgood to look at and good to listen to.
无论你是否把重要性归于我提到过的那最后的三个特性，你都必须要依靠你耳朵的敏感性。有许多读者和许多令人钦佩的作者都缺乏这种才能。正如我们了解的那些诗人，他们总是在诗中使用大量的头韵。他们相信语音的重复会产生美的效果。但我认为在散文中情形并非如此。在我看来，在散文中只有特殊的原因才能使用头韵；而当头韵音意外地进入我们的耳朵时，会非常令人不快。但使用意外的头韵是如此的普遍，以至于人们只能认为其合理，不是人人都讨厌它。许多尚未尝到苦头的作者会把两个押韵的词组合在一起，再给一个很长的名词加上一个形容词，或者在两个词之间使用一个让你几乎喘不气来的辅音连接词。这些都是平常，明显的例子。我提到它们只是想证明，即使是谨慎的作者，只要他们没有听觉，也能做这样的事情。词汇是有分量，有声音和形象的；只有考虑到这些，你才能写出看上去不错，听起来也不错的句子。
I have read many books onEnglish prose, but have found it hard to profit by them; for themost part they are vague, unduly theoretical, and often scolding.But you cannot say this of Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern EnglishUsage. It is a valuable work. I do not think anyone writes so wellthat he cannot learn much from it. It is lively reading. Fowlerliked simplicity, straightforwardness and common sense. He had nopatience with pretentiousness. He had a sound feeling that idiomwas the backbone of a language and he was all for the racy phrase.He was no slavish admirer of logic and was willing enough to giveusage right of way through the exact demesnes of grammar. Englishgrammar is very difficult and few writers have avoided makingmistakes in it. So heedful a writer as Henry James, for instance,on occasion wrote so ungrammatically that a schoolmaster, findingsuch errors in a schoolboy’s essay, would be justly indignant. Itis necessary to know grammar, and it is better to writegrammatically than not, but it is well to remember that grammar iscommon speech formulated. Usage is the only test, I would prefer aphrase that was easy and unaffected to a phrase that wasgrammatical. One of the differences between French and English isthat in French you can be grammatical with complete naturalness,but in English not invariably. It is a difficulty in writingEnglish that the sound of the living voice dominates the look ofthe printed word. I have given the matter of style a great deal ofthought and have taken great pains. I have written few pages that Ifeel I could not improve and far too many that I have left withdissafisfaction because, try as I would, I could do no better. Icannot say of myself what Johnson said of Pope: “He never passed afault unamended by indifference, nor quitted it by despair.” I donot write as I want to ; I write as I can.
我读过许多有关论述英文散文的书，但发现很难从中获益，因为它们大多是些含糊不清，过于理论化并且时常训斥人的一类书。但你不能说富勒的《现代英语用法辞典》就是这样。它是一部有价值的著作。我认为不是什么人都可以写得那么好，以至于它不再有使用的价值了。它是一本充满活力的读物。富勒喜欢简明，直截了当以及通俗易懂。他不能容忍装腔作势。他拥有出色的感觉，认为习语乃语言的支柱，而且他完全赞同使用生动的习语。他不是一昧地盲从语言逻辑，而是通过精准的语法途径尽可能地给出恰当的用法。英语语法是非常难的，谈到它，很少有作者不犯错误。例如，像享利•詹姆斯那么注意语法的作家偶尔也会写出那么不合语法的东西，以至于一位小学校长在学生的作文里发现了类似的错误会那么恼火。知晓语法是必要的，而且如能按语法写作就更好，但不要忘记，语法乃日常讲话的系统化。使用是唯一的检验标准，不过我会更喜欢轻松，自然的习语，而非只符合语法的习语。英语与法语的差别之一就是在法语中语法完整自然，但英语却不然。英语写作的困难在于其表达受口语语音的支配。我曾就其风格问题思考良久，且煞费苦心。我所写的东西可以改进的地方实在太多，而且留下的遗憾也很多，不管想什么办法，我确实无法写得更好了。我无法像约翰逊评价蒲伯那样评价自己：“他从未因漠不关心而轻易地放过缺点，也未因绝望而放弃。”我写的东西并不是我想写的东西，但我所写的却是我能写的。（我之所写并非我之所想，但我之所写乃我之所能。）
But Fowler had no ear. He didnot see that simplicity may sometimes make concessions to euphony.I do not think a far-fetched, an archaic or even an affected wordis out of place when it sounds better than the blunt, obvious oneor when it gives a sentence a better balance. But, I hasten to add,though I think you may without misgiving make this concession topleasant sound, I think you should make none to what may obscureyour meaning. Anything is better than not to write clearly. Thereis nothing to be said against lucidity, and against simplicity onlythe possibility of dryness. This is a risk that is well worthtaking when you reflect how much better it is to be bald than towear a curly wig. But there is in euphony a danger that must beconsidered. It is very likely to be monotonous. When George Moorebegan to write, his style was poor; it gave you the impression thathe wrote on wrapping paper with a blunt pencil. But he developedgradually a very musical Egnlish. He learnt to write sentences thatfall away on the ear with a misty languor and it delighted him somuch that he could never have enough of it. He did not escapemonotony. It is like the sound of water lapping a shingly beach, sosoothing that you presently cease to be sensible of it. It is somellifluous that you hanker for some harshness, for an abruptdissonance, that will interrupt the silky concord. I do not knowhow one can guard against this. I suppose the best chance is tohave a more lively faculty of boredom than one’s readers so thatone is wearied before they are. One must always be on the watch formannerisms and when certain cadences come too easily to the pen askoneself whether they have not become mechanical. It is very hard todiscover the exact point where the idiom one has formed to expressoneself has lost its tang. As Dr. Johnson said: “He that has oncestudiously formed a style, rarely writes afterwards with completeease.” Admirably as I think Matthew Arnold’s style was suited tohis particular purposes, I must admit that his mannerisms are oftenirritating. His style was an instrument that he had forged once forall; it was not like the human hand capable of performing a varietyof actions.
然而，富勒却没有耳朵敏感的这种才能。他不明白有时为了语句的悦耳，简明是需要让步的。我认为当文字的声音好于直白，平淡或者声音使句子更加平顺时，使用一个有点牵强，古色古香，甚至用一个有点做作的词也未尝不可。但我要赶紧补充一句，虽然我认为你可以坦然地作出这种让步，但我以为你应该以不损害你的表达清晰为前提。什么也比不上表达清晰。论及清晰和简明，除了可能的枯燥乏味外，便没有其它的缺点了。这就是那种你值得冒的风险，即你要取舍的是秃顶和装饰它的卷毛假发哪个更好。但也必须考虑到悦耳中的一个风险。它很可能变得单调。在乔治•莫尔开始写作时，他的风格乏味，给你的印象好象是他用一支用钝了的铅笔，在包装纸上写作一样。但他却逐步练就了一种非常悦耳的英语。他学着写出了那些带着朦胧的倦意的句子，飘落在你的耳伴。这使他如此的愉快，以至于乐此不疲。他未能摆脱单调。如同海水拍打布满石子的海滩发出的声响，那么顺和，却很快让你对它失去了感觉。那声响是那么的流畅，以至于你渴望听到些刺耳的声音，盼望着突然出现的会中断那柔滑和谐的杂音。我的确不知道该如何防止出现这种状况。我想最佳的选择是培养一种比读者更敏感的厌倦的能力，在读者厌倦之前你已对自己的东西厌倦了。一个人必须时常提防着风格主义的文风（程式化的文风），当某种节奏过份于笔端时，要自问是否它们已经变成了机械模式了。非常难讲，一个人所形成的，用于表达自身思想的习语是在哪个节点上失去自己特性的。正像约翰逊博士所说：“他曾经刻意地形成了一种风格，可后来无法完全放松地进行写作了。”让人羡慕的是，马休•阿诺德的写作风格合适于他特殊的目标，但我必须承认他风格主义的文风常常让人不快。他的风格是他锻造的一件一劳永逸的工具；不像人的手可以完成各种各样的动作。
If you could write lucidly,simply, euphoniously and yet with liveliness you would writeperfectly: you would write like Voltaire. And yet we know how fatalthe pursuit of liveliness many be: it may result in the tiresomeacrobatics of Meredith. Macaulay and Carlyle were in theirdifferent ways arresting, but at the heavy cost of naturalness.Their flashy effects distract the mind. They destroy theirpersuasiveness; you would not believe a man was very intent onploughing a furrow if he carried a hoop with him and jumped throughit at every other step. A good style should show no sign of effort.What is written should seem a happy accident. I think no one inFrance now writes more admirably than Colette, and such is the easeof her expression that you cannot bring yourself to believe thatshe takes any trouble over it. I am told that there are pianistswho have a natural technique so that they can play in a manner thatmost executants can achieve only as the result of unremitting toil,and I am willing to believe that there are writers who are equallyfortunate. Among them I was much inclined to place Colette. I askedher. I was exceedingly surprised to hear that she wrote everythingover and over agiain she told me that she would often spend a wholemorning working upon a single page. But it does not matter how onegets the effect of ease. For my part, if I get it at all, it isonly by strenuous effort. Nature seldom provides me with the word,the turn of phrase, that is appropriate without being far-fetchedor commonplace.
--From The Summing Up
如果你能写得清晰，简明，悦耳且生动，你就能写得完美：你就能写得像伏尔泰一样出色。然而我们知道追求生动是多么的重要：它可能会导致出现梅雷迪思那种令人厌烦的表现手法。麦考利和卡莱尔都以各自不同的方式引人注意，但却严重地丧失了文风的自然性。他们文风浮夸的副作用分散了读者的注意力。他们破坏了自身的说服力；如果一个身带铁箍，且走两步就要跳一次铁箍的人还执意想下地耕作，你是不会信任他的。好的写作风格应当是不露雕琢的痕迹，所写之事似乎是巧妙的偶然。在法国，我以为无人能比科莱特写得更出色了。她写得那么的轻松，使你都无法相信她所经历的艰难困苦。有人告诉我，有些钢琴家具有天生的演奏技巧，因此他们可以自如的演奏，而大多数演奏者却只能通过不懈的努力才有可能，而且我愿意相信作家中也存在这种情况。我坚信科莱特就是他们其中的一位。我询问过她，她的回答让我非常吃惊，她所写的一切文字都经过了反反复复。她告诉我，她常常要花上整整一早晨的时间，才能写出一页的东西。但是这与一个人获得轻松的印象没有什么关系。对我来说，如果有一点收获的话，那只是艰苦努力的结果。天分几乎没有给我什么文字，措词的帮助，不过是少了些牵强附会或老生常谈罢了。
2012年1月30日译自《Readingsin Modern English Prose》下册
