楊絳學(xué)術(shù)文章的論點(diǎn)論據(jù)大多源自錢鍾書的筆記。楊絳的襲用是雙重的，襲用錢鍾書的筆記，襲用錢鍾書筆記里的引據(jù)。這里列舉刊登于《文學(xué)研究》1957年6月號(hào)的《斐爾丁在小說方面的理論和實(shí)踐》和《文學(xué)評(píng)論》1964年6月號(hào)的《堂吉訶德和〈堂吉訶德〉》的襲用。

其一

斐爾丁同時(shí)的人就佩服他能夠跟各個(gè)階層各種職業(yè)的人（Persons of every situation and calling）交往談心，“不讓自己的談鋒起銹”。見司密斯（J. T. Smith）《諾勒根斯及其時(shí)代》（Nollekens and His Times）第五章——世界經(jīng)典叢書版（The World’s Classics）八〇頁(yè)。

按錢鍾書“F. Homes Dudden, Henry Fielding: His Life, Works and Times (1952)”筆記：630: Both J. T. Smith (Nollekens and His Times, “World’s Classics”, 80) and James Harris (Works, 1781 ed. III, 163-4) comment on Fielding’s fondness of “promiscuous intercourse”, of “conversing with persons of every situation and calling”.

其二

但也有讀者如十九世紀(jì)的小說家斯各特和喬治·艾略特（George Eliot）對(duì)這幾章十分贊賞。斯各特說，這些議論初看似乎阻滯故事的進(jìn)展，但是看到第二三遍，就覺得這是全書最有趣味的幾章。艾略特很喜歡《湯姆·瓊斯》里節(jié)外生枝的議論，尤其每卷的第一章；她說斐爾丁好像搬了個(gè)扶手椅子坐在舞臺(tái)上和我們閑談，那一口好英文講來又有勁道，又極自在。注：《小說家列傳》(Lives of the Novelists）——世界經(jīng)典叢書版二二頁(yè)；《米德馬區(qū)》（Middlemarch）第十五章——世界經(jīng)典叢書版一四七頁(yè)。

按Dudden書第673頁(yè)起：It need only be added that two critics of distinction — Sir Walter Scott and George Eliot — have borne testimony to their interest and value. ‘Fielding’, wrote Scott, ‘considered his works as an experiment in British literature, and therefore he chose to prefix a preliminary chapter to each book, explanatory of his own views and of the rules attached to this mode of composition. Those critical introductions, which rather interrupt the course of the story and the flow of the interest at the first perusal, are found, on a second or third, the most entertaining chapters of the whole work’ (Scott, Lives of the Novelists, World’s Classics ed. 22). George Eliot, for her part, evinced high appreciation of Fielding’s ‘copious remarks and digressions’, and especially of ‘those initial chapters to the successive books of his history, where he seems to bring his armchair to the proscenium and chat with us in all the lusty ease of his fine English’. ‘But’, she went on, ‘Fielding lived when the days were longer (for time, like money, is measured by our needs), when summer afternoons were spacious, and the clock ticked slowly in the winter evenings. We belated historians must not linger after his example; and if we did so, it is probable that our chat would be thin and eager, as if delivered from a campstool in a parrot-house’ (George Eliot, Middlemarch, book ii, ch. 15).錢鍾書筆記約斂作：Scott (Lives of the Novelists, World’s Classics ed. 22) and George Eliot (Middlemarch, ii. 15) praised three prefatory disquisitions.

其三

他自己說，《湯姆·瓊斯》每卷的第一章，讀者看來也許最乏味，作者寫來也最吃力；又說，每卷的第一章寫來比整卷的小說還費(fèi)事。注：見《湯姆·瓊斯》第五卷第一章。第十六卷第一章。

按Dudden書第665頁(yè)： Fielding himself singled out these disquisitions as the parts of his ‘prodigious work’ which had ‘given the author the greatest pains in composing’; he even declared, ‘I can with less pains write one of the books of this history, than the prefatory chapter to each of them (Tom Jones, v. I; xvi. I).錢鍾書筆記節(jié)作：These initial essays in Tom Jones, which had given Fielding “the greatest pains in composing” ( v. 1; cf xvi. 1; ix. 1). 《斐爾丁在小說方面的理論和實(shí)踐》所用Fielding文字，幾無外乎Dudden書。舉此以概。

其四

斐爾丁的小說理論大多就依據(jù)法國(guó)十七世紀(jì)的批評(píng)家，尤其是勒·伯需（René Le Bossu）的《論史詩(shī)》（Traité du Po?me épique）。注：參看狄容《斐爾丁的小說》二八四頁(yè)。

按Dudden書筆記：328: The conception of a prose epic had been defended by Le Bossu in his Traité du Po?me épique, a classic to which Fielding was indebted for many of his ideas on literature (see A. Digeon, The Novels of Fielding, 233-4); examples of the prose epic were afforded by Heliodorus’s Aethiopica and Fénelon’s Télémaque.

其五

他的《馬吉悌斯》（Margites）和喜劇的關(guān)系，就恰像《伊里亞德》、《奧狄賽》和悲劇的關(guān)系?！恶R吉悌斯》就是斐爾丁所說已經(jīng)遺失的喜劇性史詩(shī)。

按Dudden書第328頁(yè)：A comic epic had long ago been produced in the lost Margites of Homer, which according to Aristotle bore the same relation to comedy that Iliad and Odyssey did to tragedy (Aristotle, Poetics, iv. 9. Fielding refers to the lost Margites in Joseph Andrews, Preface; iii. 2).錢鍾書筆記作： A comic epic had long ago been produced in the lost Margites of Homer (cf Aristotle, Poetics, iv. 9), to which Fielding refers in Joseph Andrews (Preface; iii. 2).

其六

《阿米麗亞》摹仿維吉爾。注：《花果市周報(bào)》（The Covent-Garden Journal）第八期——建生（G. E. Jensen）編注本第一冊(cè)一八六頁(yè)。

斐爾丁在他辦的《花果市周報(bào)》上為《阿米麗亞》辯護(hù)，說這是自己最寵愛的孩子，按照大師們的規(guī)則寫成；公正而飽學(xué)的讀者可以看出來，他這次取法的是維吉爾。注：《花果市周報(bào)》第八期——建生編注本第一冊(cè)一八六頁(yè)。

按Dudden書第876頁(yè)：Nay, when I go further and avow that of all my offspring she is my favourite child. I can truly say that I bestowed a more than ordinary pains in her education; in which I venture to affirm, I followed the rules of all those who are acknowledged to have writ best on the subject; and if her conduct be fairly examined, she will be found to deviate very little from the strictest observation of all those rules; neither Homer nor Virgil pursued them with greater care than myself, and the candid and learned reader will see that the latter was the noble model which I made use of on this occasion.引自The Covent-Garden Journal, 28 Jan. 1752?！?8 July 1752”即“第八期”。

其七

法國(guó)貝爾加德（Abbe Bellegarde）寫過一篇論可笑的文章，卻沒有追溯出可笑的根源。斐爾丁認(rèn)為可笑的根源出于虛偽。虛偽又有兩個(gè)原因：虛榮和欺詐……可笑的事物形形色色，但追溯根源，無非出自虛偽。注：見《約瑟·安柱斯》序。

按Dudden書筆記：333: With the Abbé J-B. Morvan de Bellegarde’s Réflexions sur le Ridicule (4th ed. 1727, i. 58) and Chesterfield’s essay (Common Sense, 3 Sept. 1737; cf The World, 17 April 1755) in mind, Fielding did not hesitate to adopt the theory that “affectation” is “the only source of the true ridiculous”, while vanity and hypocrisy are in turn the source of affectation (Joseph Andrews, Preface).

其八

他根據(jù)康格利芙（Congreve）和班·江生（Ben Jonson），以為偏僻的性格使人物舉動(dòng)可笑。注：見《花果市周報(bào)》第五十五期，建生編注本第二冊(cè)六二頁(yè)。

按Dudden書筆記：913: Quoting from Congreve’s essay Concerning Humour in Comedy and Jonson’s Every Man Out of His Humour, Fielding put forward the view that humour is “a violent bent or disposition of the mind to some particular point.” But “No passion or humour of the mind is absolutely either tragic or comic in itself” (The Covent-Garden Journal, 18 July 1752).又334: The theory is not sufficiently comprehensive, and Fielding later put forward an amended theory in The Covent-Garden Journal, 18 July 1752.

“第五十五期”即“18 July 1752”。

其九

這類傳記在十八世紀(jì)的英國(guó)非常風(fēng)行，英國(guó)小說家笛福（Defoe）也學(xué)到訣竅，他的《魯濱孫飄流記》、《女流氓弗蘭德斯傳》、《羅克莎娜夫人傳》等都是這類捏造的歷史。所以斯狄爾在《閑談?wù)摺罚?em>Tatler）上嘲笑法國(guó)傳記說：“我以后要通知一切書店和翻譯家：法國(guó)人所謂傳記（memoir），只是小說（novel）的別稱。”注：一七〇九年十月二十二日《閑談?wù)摺贰ㄊ康牵˙oston: Little Brown & Co.）一八六六年版第二冊(cè)二九六—七頁(yè)。

按錢鍾書“Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France, Avril-Juin 1955”筆記：165: Daniel Defoe écrivit aussi un grand nombres de mémoires apocryphes (cf D. A. Stauffer, The Art of Biography in Eighteenth Century England, p.79). Steele: “Some merry gentlemen of the French nation...have written very advantageous histories of their exploits in war, love and politics, under the title of memoirs...I do hereby give notice to all booksellers and translators whatsoever, that the word ‘Memoir’ is French for a novel” (Tatler, 22 Oct. 1709).

所札為Georges May文“L’histoire a-t-elle engendré le Roman? Aspects fran?ais de la Question au seuil du siècle des lumières”。

其十

所以枯立支（Coleridge）以為自古以來布局完密無間的作品有三部，《湯姆·瓊斯》居其一。注：《枯立支語錄》（The Table-Talk and Omniana of S. T. Coleridge）龐標(biāo)準(zhǔn)叢書（Bohn’s Standard Library）版二九四—五頁(yè)。

司各特和薩克利也贊嘆它的布局。注：司各特《乃杰爾的遭遇》（The Fortunes of Nigel）書信代序（Introductory Epistle）牛津版一九一—二〇頁(yè)）。又薩克利《英國(guó)滑稽家》（English Humourists）第五講——一八七九年倫敦版《薩克利集》第二十三冊(cè)二九七頁(yè)。

Henry Fielding: His Life, Works and Times第616頁(yè)

按Dudden書筆記：616: Coleridge: “What a master of composition Fielding was! Upon my word, I think the Oedipus Tyrannus, the Alchemist, and Tom Jones, the three most perfect plots ever planned” (Table Talk, 5 July 1834). Scott repeatedly praised this “regularly built”, “well-planned tale” (Lives of the Novelists, “World’s Classics” ed. 68; The Monastery, Introduction; The Fortunes of Nigel, Introductory Epistle). Thackeray pronounced it, “as a work of construction, quite a wonder” (English Humorists, Lect. V).

其十一

薩克利在他的小說《潘丹尼斯》（Pendennis）序里對(duì)斐爾丁膽敢據(jù)實(shí)描摹表示欽佩，只恨在他自己所處的時(shí)代里文學(xué)作品不敢這樣描寫。

按Dudden書筆記：629: Cf Thackeray in the Preface to Pendennis on Fielding’s courageous truth-speaking.又按下句“and laments the lack of this quality in the literature of his age”未錄，“on”原作“admires”。

其十二

斐爾丁只求寫得貼合實(shí)情，也不肯落小說家的窠臼。歷來西洋小說里寫戀愛，總不脫中世紀(jì)騎士式的《戀愛法典》，例如想念情人就必定飯也不吃，覺也不睡。注：參看斯當(dāng)達(dá)《戀愛論》（De l’Amour）卷二附錄十二世紀(jì)《戀愛法典》第二三條——沙發(fā)（Le Divan）版第二冊(cè)第二八九頁(yè)。

按錢鍾書“The History of Tom Jones, by H. Fielding”筆記：The famous first chapter of the sixth book contains more practical wisdom than the Phaedrus and more honest passion than all Stendhal’s De l’ Amour—Saintsbury. 札諸Everyman’s Library本Saintsbury所作敘論。錢鍾書《小說識(shí)小》：斐爾亭（Fielding）小說《湯姆·瓊斯傳》（History of Tom Jones）卷六第一章詳說戀愛心理，圣茨伯雷先生（George Saintsbury）頗嘆賞之。

其十三

斐爾丁說《約瑟·安柱斯》是仿《堂吉訶德》作者賽萬提斯的筆法寫成的……亞當(dāng)斯雖屬吉訶德型，個(gè)性并不一樣。像他這種帶三分傻氣的忠厚好人后來英國(guó)文學(xué)上出現(xiàn)不少，像斯登（Laurence Sterne）投貝叔叔（Uncle Toby）、戈?duì)査姑芷潱℅oldsmith）的普林姆柔斯（Dr Primrose）和哈卡塞先生（Mr. Hardcastle），薩克利的紐康上校（Colonel Newcome），狄更斯的匹克威克先生（Pickwick）等，都是亞當(dāng)斯牧師同一類型的人物。

按Dudden書筆記：327: Joseph Andrews is described on the title-page as “written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes, Author of Don Quixote”. 337: Parson Adams is obviously modelled Cervantes’s hero. 355: Adams is the centre of interest. The prototype of “my uncle Toby”, Dr Primrose and Colonel Newcome.

又按此節(jié)重出于《堂吉訶德和〈堂吉訶德〉》。

其十四

一個(gè)人憑一時(shí)情感，干錯(cuò)了事，說不定自己也后悔，不能就此斷定他的一生。人的好壞看他的居心，好人居心仁厚，常常推己及人，跟人休戚相關(guān)，自然而然的愿意助成人家的幸福，解除他們的困苦。注：參看斐爾丁散文《論知人之明》（An Essay On the Knowledge of the Characters of Men）——一八三三年龐（Bohn）版《斐爾丁集》六四五頁(yè)。

按Dudden書筆記： 273: “An Essay On the Knowledge of the Characters of Men”: “Good-nature is that benevolent and amiable temper of mind, which disposes us to feel the misfortunes, and enjoy the happiness of others; and consequently pushes us on to promote the latter and prevent the former; and that without any abstract contemplation on the beauty of virtue, and without the allurements or terrors of religion” (Works, ed. W. E. Henley, xiv. 285).

又按上文“霍布斯以為笑是自己得意而對(duì)人輕侮的表現(xiàn)[參看《勒外頓》（Leviathan）第一部第六章，汝德雷吉版（George Routledge and Sons）三三頁(yè)]”，“《斐爾丁集》六四五頁(yè)”亦道及——“Mr. Hobbes tells us that laughter arises from pride”。

其十五

例如法國(guó)十九世紀(jì)批評(píng)家艾米爾·蒙泰居（émile Montégut）在他的《文學(xué)典型和美學(xué)幻想》（Types littéraires et fantaisies esthétiques, 1833）里，把堂吉訶德、哈姆雷特、少年維特、維爾海姆·麥斯特（Wilhelm Meister）四個(gè)角色稱為合乎美學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的四種典型。

按錢鍾書“PMLA, March, 1961”筆記：100: émile Montégut objected to “rhétongue savante”… “constructions artificiellement logiques” occurs in his essay on Wilhelm Meister (Types littéraires et fantaisies esthétiques, pp. 154-5).為Richard M. Chadbourne的論文“The Essay World of émile Montégut”。Types littéraires et fantaisies esthétiques出版于1882年（émile Montégut 1825年生），作者似未嘗手觸。

其十六

艾狄生把《堂吉訶德》和勃特勒（Samuel Butler）的《胡迪布拉斯》（Hudibras）并稱為夸張滑稽的作品。注：《旁觀者》（Spectator）二四九期，《每人叢書》版第二冊(cè)二九九頁(yè)。夏夫茨伯利（Shaftesbury）也把《堂吉訶德》看作夸張的諷刺，見《論特性》（Characteristics），羅伯生（J. M. Robertson）編注本第二冊(cè)三一三頁(yè)。

按全襲Stuart Malcolm Tave著The Amiable Humorist，錢鍾書“Stuart M. Tave, The Amiable Humorist (1960）”筆記札之：153: Addison regularly couples Hudibras and Don Quixote (Spectator, no. 227) and calls Cervantes’s novel an example of burlesque or mock-heroic (no. 249) — a view also held by Shaftesbury and Pope (Characteristics, II, 313; Postscript to the Odyssey). 又按“a view also held by Shaftesbury and Pope”為Tave書To Shaftesbury, too, the book was a burlesque, to Pope “the perfection of the Mock-Epick”, and this was standard; as late as 1801, Don Quixote was “a burlesque hero, whose example we are to shun”的隱括。

The Amiable Humorist第616頁(yè)

錢鍾書The Amiable Humorist筆記

其十七

譚坡爾（William Temple）甚至責(zé)備塞萬提斯的諷刺用力過猛，不僅消滅了西班牙的武俠小說，連西班牙崇尚武俠的精神都消滅了。注：譚坡爾《論古今學(xué)術(shù)》（On Ancient and Modern Learning）——斯賓岡（J. E. Spingarn）編《十七世紀(jì)批評(píng)論文集》（Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century）第三冊(cè)七一頁(yè)。

按Tave書筆記：153: The only objection raised against Cervantes was that his satire had been too effective and had killed Spanish greatness along with its false chivalry (Sir William Temple, “Of Poetry” and “Of Ancient and Modern Learning”, in Spingarn, Critical Essays, III, 71-2, 101-2, 307.

其十八

散文家斯蒂爾（Richard Steele）、小說家笛福、詩(shī)人拜侖等對(duì)塞萬提斯都有同樣的指責(zé)。注：詳見上書三〇七頁(yè)注釋。

按Tave書筆記：153: Steele, Tatler, no. 219; Hurd, Moral and Political Dialogues, 1759, p.115).“307”作：The theory that ‘Cervantes smiled Spain’s chivalry away’ (Byron, Don Juan, xiii. 11) has persisted in English literature since Temple first gave expression to it in this passage; cf. Steele, in the Tatter, no. 219, Defoe’s Memoirs of Captain Carleton, Motteux’s preface to Don Quixote, 1700 (Becker, Don Quixote in der englischen Literatur, p. 26 sq.).

其十九

約翰生說：“堂吉訶德的失望招得我們又笑他、又憐他。我們可憐他的時(shí)候，想到了自己的失望；我們笑他的時(shí)候，自己心上明白，他并不比我們更可笑?！弊ⅲ骸堵秸摺罚?em>Rambler）第二期，《每人叢書》版七頁(yè)。

按Tave書第16頁(yè)：Dr. Johnson said (1750), the visions and disappointments of Don Quixote raise mirth or pity, but we cannot deny that “When we pity him, we reflect on our own Disappointments; and when we laugh, our Hearts inform us that he is not more ridiculous than ourselves”[Samuel Johnson, Rambler, No.2 (March 24, 1749-50)].

其二十

英國(guó)詩(shī)人蒲柏也注意到堂吉訶德有理性、講道德的方面。他首先看到堂吉訶德那副嚴(yán)肅的神情，并且說他是“最講道德、最有理性的瘋子，我們雖然笑他，也敬他愛他，因?yàn)槲覀兛梢孕ψ约壕磹鄣娜?，不帶一點(diǎn)惡意或輕鄙之心。”注：《笨伯詠》（Dunciad）卷一，二一行。舍本（George Sherburn）編《蒲伯書信集》（Correspondence）第四冊(cè)二〇八頁(yè)。

按Tave書第153頁(yè)起：Pope’s reference in the Dunciad to “Cervantes’ serious air” shows “a truer insight” into the significance of the book, it has been said [James Fitzmaurice-Kelly, Cervantes in England, p. 16. Dunciad Variorum, I, 19, or Dunciad in Four Books, I, 21 (ed. J. R. Sutherland, pp.62, 270)]…A more interesting bit is a letter Pope wrote to Lyttelton in 1739: “As He loves Don Quixote, for the Most Moral and Reasoning Madman in the world. For I maintain, and I know it, that one may smile at Those one loves, nay esteems, and with no more Malice or Contempt, than one bears to an Amiable schoolboy” (Correspondence, IV, 208).

其二十一

英國(guó)十九世紀(jì)批評(píng)家海茲利特（William Hazlitt）認(rèn)為《堂吉訶德》這個(gè)可笑的故事掩蓋著動(dòng)人的、偉大的思想感情，叫人失笑，又叫人下淚。注：《論英國(guó)小說家》（On the English Novelists），郝歐（P. P. Howe）編《海茲利特全集》第六冊(cè)一〇八頁(yè)。

按Tave書筆記：234: Hazlitt notices that “the ludicrous blends with the tender” in Shakespeare, that “the pathetic and sentimental” is mixed “with the quaint and humorous” in Cervantes, etc. (Works, IV, 338; VI, 33-5, 11, 108, 110).

又按“一〇八頁(yè)”為“一一〇頁(yè)”之誤。

其二十二

按照蘭姆（Charles Lamb）的意見，塞萬提斯創(chuàng)造堂吉訶德的意圖是眼淚，不是笑。注：《現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)創(chuàng)作的缺乏想象力》，魯加斯（E. V. Lucas）編《蘭姆全集》第二冊(cè)二三三頁(yè)。

按Tave書筆記：234: Cf Lamb on the wretched illustrator of Don Quixote: “That man has read his book by halves; he has laughed, mistaking his author’s purport, which was—tears.”—“Barrenness of the Imagination”, Works, ed. E. V. Lucas, II, 233）。

其二十三

例如海茲利特就認(rèn)為塞萬提斯是借堂吉訶德來發(fā)揚(yáng)過去的騎士道——賀歐編《全集》第六冊(cè)一〇八頁(yè)。

按Tave書筆記：163: To Hazlitt, Don Quixote is “an enthusiast of the most amiable kind”, through whose through “crazed and battered figure” the “spirit of chivalry shines out with undiminished lustre” (Comic Writers, in Works, VI, 108).

其二十四

又《重讀堂吉訶德》（《外國(guó)文學(xué)研究集刊》第一輯）：美國(guó)當(dāng)代小說家司各特·費(fèi)茲杰拉爾德（Scott Fitzgerald）在他的《富家子》（The Rich Boy)開頭說：你動(dòng)筆寫一個(gè)具有個(gè)性的人（an individual）會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己創(chuàng)出了一個(gè)典型（created a type）；你從典型入手，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己什么也沒有創(chuàng)出來（created—nothing）。注：梅爾康·考雷（Malcolm Cowley）編《司各特·費(fèi)茲杰拉爾德全集》第五冊(cè)二八六頁(yè)。

按出自錢鍾書“MLN, Oct. 1975”筆記：Cf Scott Fitzgerald story The Rich Boy, opening sentence, “Begin with an individual, and before you know it you find that you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find that you have created—nothing” (The Bodley Head Scott Fitzgerald, ed. Malcolm Cowley, V, 286).節(jié)抄自1975年10月號(hào)Modern Language 上Notes Michael Morley所作“Truth in Masquerade”: Structure and Meaning in Brecht’s Die Bestie。