Of Books

I make no doubt but that I often happen to speak of things that are much better and more truly handled by those who are masters of the trade. You have here purely an essay of my natural parts, and not of those acquired: and whoever shall catch me tripping in ignorance, will not in any sort get the better of me; for I should be very unwilling to become responsible to another for my writings, who am not so to myself, nor satisfied with them. Whoever goes in quest of knowledge, let him fish for it where it is to be found; there is nothing I so little profess. These are fancies of my own, by which I do not pretend to discover things but to lay open myself; they may, peradventure, one day be known to me, or have formerly been, according as fortune has been able to bring me in place where they have been explained; but I have utterly forgotten it; and if I am a man of some reading, I am a man of no retention; so that I can promise no certainty, more than to make known to what point the knowledge I now have has risen. Therefore, let none lay stress upon the matter I write, but upon my method in writing it. Let them observe, in what I borrow, if I have known how to choose what is proper to raise or help the invention, which is always my own. For I make others say for me, not before but after me, what, either for want of language or want of sense, I cannot myself so well express. I do not number my borrowings, I weigh them; and had I designed to raise their value by number, I had made them twice as many; they are all, or within a very few, so famed and ancient authors, that they seem, methinks, themselves sufficiently to tell who they are, without giving me the trouble. In reasons, comparisons, and arguments, if I transplant any into my own soil, and confound them amongst my own, I purposely conceal the author, to awe the temerity of those precipitate censors who fall upon all sorts of writings, particularly the late ones, of men yet living; and in the vulgar tongue which puts every one into a capacity of criticising and which seem to convict the conception and design as vulgar also. I will have them give Plutarch a fillip on my nose, and rail against Seneca when they think they rail at me. I must shelter my own weakness under these great reputations. I shall love any one that can unplume me, that is, by clearness of understanding and judgment, and by the sole distinction of the force and beauty of the discourse. For I who, for want of memory, am at every turn at a loss to, pick them out of their national livery, am yet wise enough to know, by the measure of my own abilities, that my soil is incapable of producing any of those rich flowers that I there find growing; and that all the fruits of my own growth are not worth any one of them. For this, indeed, I hold myself responsible; if I get in my own way; if there be any vanity and defect in my writings which I do not of myself perceive nor can discern, when pointed out to me by another; for many faults escape our eye, but the infirmity of judgment consists in not being able to discern them, when by another laid open to us. Knowledge and truth may be in us without judgment, and judgment also without them; but the confession of ignorance is one of the finest and surest testimonies of judgment that I know. I have no other officer to put my writings in rank and file, but only fortune. As things come into my head, I heap them one upon another; sometimes they advance in whole bodies, sometimes in single file. I would that every one should see my natural and ordinary pace, irregular as it is; I suffer myself to jog on at my own rate. Neither are these subjects which a man is not permitted to be ignorant in, or casually and at a venture, to discourse of. I could wish to have a more perfect knowledge of things, but I will not buy it so dear as it costs. My design is to pass over easily, and not laboriously, the remainder of my life; there is nothing that I will cudgel my brains about; no, not even knowledge, of what value soever.

我毫不怀疑，我谈到的许多事情，行家们处理得比我好得多、真确得多。你在这里看到的，纯粹是我天生才具的一次试笔，而不是后天所学的；谁要是抓住我无知的把柄，也丝毫占不了我的便宜，因为我连对自己都不肯为我写的东西负责，也并不满意，更不愿意对别人负责。谁要寻求知识，就让他到有知识的地方去钓吧；我最不敢自命的就是这个。这些是我自己的幻想，我并不想借它们去发现事物，只想借它们敞开我自己；这些事物也许有一天我会知道，或者从前知道过，那要看命运是否曾把我带到讲解它们的地方；但我已经忘得一干二净了；如果说我读过一些书，我却是一个记不住的人；所以我不能担保什么确定的东西，只能让人知道，我现在的知识到了什么地步。因此，谁也不要看重我写的内容，而要看我写作的方法。让他们看看，我所借用的东西，是否懂得挑选那些能够提升或帮助我的构思的，而构思永远是我自己的。因为凡是我自己因为缺少言辞、或者缺少见识而说不好的话，我就让别人替我说出来；他们是跟在我后面说，而不是走在我前面。我借来的东西，我不数，我称；倘若我想靠数量来抬高它们的身价，我本可以借上两倍之多；它们全都出自，或者几乎全都出自那样有名的古代作者，我觉得它们自己就足以说明自己是谁，用不着我费事。在道理、比喻和论证上，如果我把某些移栽到自己的土地上，与我自己的混在一起，我是有意隐去作者的名字，好吓一吓那些鲁莽的批评家，他们扑向各种作品，尤其是活着的人新近写的作品，而且是用通俗语言写的作品，这种语言使人人都能批评，似乎也证明了它的构想和设计同样通俗。我要让他们在我的鼻子上弹普鲁塔克一下，在以为骂我的时候骂了塞涅卡。我必须把自己的弱点藏在这些伟大的名声底下。谁能拔掉我借来的羽毛，我会爱他，就是说，凭着清楚的理解与判断，单凭言辞的力量与美来分辨。我因为缺少记性，时时没法从它们的民族服色上把它们认出来，可我还算明白，凭我自己才能的尺度，我的土地长不出我在那里看到的任何一朵丰美的花，我自己土里长出的所有果实，都抵不上它们当中的任何一个。我要为之负责的，确实是这一点：如果我自己妨碍了自己；如果我的作品里有什么虚浮和缺陷，我自己察觉不到，别人指出来我也辨认不出；因为许多错误逃过我们的眼睛，而判断力的弱点，就在于别人把错误摆在我们面前时，我们仍然看不出来。知识与真理可以存在于我们身上而没有判断，判断也可以没有它们而存在；但承认无知，是我所知道的判断力最好、最可靠的证明之一。我没有别的官员来给我的文字排列队伍，只有运气。事情来到我脑子里，我就把它们一个一个堆上去；有时它们整队前进，有时排成单行。我愿意每个人都看到我天然的、平常的步伐，尽管它并不整齐；我听任自己按自己的节奏慢慢走。这些也不是一个人不许不懂、或者不许随随便便谈论的题目。我很想对事物有更完满的认识，但我不愿花那么高的代价去买它。我的打算是轻松地、而不是辛劳地度过我的余生；没有什么事是我愿意绞尽脑汁的；不，就连知识也不，无论它多么有价值。

I seek, in the reading of books, only to please myself by an honest diversion; or, if I study, ‘tis for no other science than what treats of the knowledge of myself, and instructs me how to die and how to live well.

我读书，只想借一种正当的消遣让自己愉快；或者，如果我研究，那也只为研究那门讲认识自己的学问，它教我怎样死、怎样好好地活。

“Has meus ad metas sudet oportet equus.”

“Has meus ad metas sudet oportet equus.”

(“My horse must work according to my step.” —Propertius, iv.)

（“我的马必须按我的步子出力。”——普罗佩提乌斯，第四卷）

I do not bite my nails about the difficulties I meet with in my reading; after a charge or two, I give them over. Should I insist upon them, I should both lose myself and time; for I have an impatient understanding, that must be satisfied at first: what I do not discern at once is by persistence rendered more obscure. I do nothing without gaiety; continuation and a too obstinate endeavour, darkens, stupefies, and tires my judgment. My sight is confounded and dissipated with poring; I must withdraw it, and refer my discovery to new attempts; just as, to judge rightly of the lustre of scarlet, we are taught to pass the eye lightly over it, and again to run it over at several sudden and reiterated glances. If one book do not please me, I take another; and I never meddle with any, but at such times as I am weary of doing nothing. I care not much for new ones, because the old seem fuller and stronger; neither do I converse much with Greek authors, because my judgment cannot do its work with imperfect intelligence of the material.

读书时遇到困难，我不咬指甲苦思；冲一两次，冲不过去，就放下了。如果我执意纠缠，就会既迷失自己，又浪费时间；因为我的理解力缺乏耐心，必须第一下就得到满足：我一眼看不明白的东西，越是坚持就越模糊。我做什么都要带着兴致；连续不断、过于执拗的用力，会使我的判断昏暗、迟钝、疲倦。我的目光一直盯着看，就会混乱、涣散；我必须把它收回来，把发现留给新的尝试；就像要正确判断猩红色的光泽，人家教我们要让眼睛轻轻掠过，再突然地、一遍遍地瞥几眼。一本书不合我的意，我就换一本；而且我只在闲得发慌的时候才去碰书。我不大喜欢新书，因为旧书显得更丰满、更有力；我也不常与希腊作者交谈，因为我对材料理解不全，判断就无法施展。

Amongst books that are simply pleasant, of the moderns, Boccaccio’s Decameron, Rabelais, and the Basia of Johannes Secundus (if those may be ranged under the title) are worth reading for amusement. As to Amadis, and such kind of stuff, they had not credit to take me, so much as in my childhood. And I will, moreover, say, whether boldly or rashly, that this old, heavy soul of mine is now no longer tickled with Ariosto, no, nor with Ovid; his facility and inventions, with which I was formerly so ravished, are now of no more relish, and I can hardly have the patience to read them. I speak my opinion freely of all things, even of those that, perhaps, exceed my capacity, and that I do not conceive to be, in any wise, under my jurisdiction. And, accordingly, the judgment I deliver, is to show the measure of my own sight, and not of the things I make so bold to criticise. When I find myself disgusted with Plato’s ‘Axiochus’, as with a work, with due respect to such an author be it spoken, without force, my judgment does not believe itself: it is not so arrogant as to oppose the authority of so many other famous judgments of antiquity, which it considers as its tutors and masters, and with whom it is rather content to err; in such a case, it condemns itself either to stop at the outward bark, not being able to penetrate to the heart, or to consider it by some false light. It is content with only securing itself from trouble and disorder; as to its own weakness, it frankly acknowledges and confesses it. It thinks it gives a just interpretation to the appearances by its conceptions presented to it; but they are weak and imperfect. Most of the fables of AEsop have diverse senses and meanings, of which the mythologists chose some one that quadrates well to the fable; but, for the most part, ‘tis but the first face that presents itself and is superficial only; there yet remain others more vivid, essential, and profound, into which they have not been able to penetrate; and just so ‘tis with me.

在纯粹令人愉快的书里，近人的作品中，薄伽丘的《十日谈》、拉伯雷，以及约翰内斯·塞昆杜斯的《吻》（如果它们可以归入这一类的话），值得读来消遣。至于《阿玛迪斯》以及诸如此类的东西，即使在我童年时，它们也没能赢得我的青睐。我还要说——不管是大胆还是冒失——我这颗衰老沉重的灵魂，如今已经不再被阿里奥斯托逗乐，不，连奥维德也不能了；他的流畅和巧思，从前曾那样让我着迷，现在却再也尝不出滋味，我几乎没有耐心读下去。对一切事物，我都直言我的看法，即使是那些也许超出我的能力、我认为绝不在我管辖之内的事物。因此，我所作的判断，是为了显示我自己眼力的尺度，而不是我斗胆评论的那些事物的尺度。当我发现自己厌烦柏拉图的《阿克西奥库斯》，觉得它——恕我对这样一位作者直言——是一部没有力量的作品时，我的判断并不相信它自己：它没有狂妄到要去反对古代那么多其他著名判断的权威，它把那些判断看作自己的导师和主人，宁愿同它们一起犯错；在这种情形下，它责怪自己：要么只停留在外面的树皮上，没能深入到树心，要么是借着某种错误的光线去看它。它只求使自己免于困扰和混乱就满足了；至于它自己的弱点，它坦白地承认、供认。它以为自己对呈现在它面前的表象作出了公正的解释；但这些解释是软弱的、不完满的。伊索的寓言大多有多种意义和含义，神话学家们从中挑出一种与寓言十分吻合的；但在大多数情况下，那不过是最先呈现出来的那一面，只是表面的；还剩下别的更生动、更本质、更深刻的意义，他们没能深入进去；我也正是这样。

But, to pursue the business of this essay, I have always thought that, in poesy, Virgil, Lucretius, Catullus, and Horace by many degrees excel the rest; and signally, Virgil in his Georgics, which I look upon as the most accomplished piece in poetry; and in comparison of which a man may easily discern that there are some places in his AEneids, to which the author would have given a little more of the file, had he had leisure: and the fifth book of his AEneids seems to me the most perfect. I also love Lucan, and willingly read him, not so much for his style, as for his own worth, and the truth and solidity of his opinions and judgments. As for Terence, that model of the refined elegancies and grace of the Latin tongue, I find him admirable in his vivid representation of our manners and the movements of the soul; our actions throw me at every turn upon him; and I cannot read him so often that I do not still discover some new grace and beauty. Such as lived near Virgil’s time were scandalised that some should compare him with Lucretius. I am, I confess, of opinion that the comparison is, in truth, very unequal: a belief that, nevertheless, I have much ado to assure myself in, when I come upon some excellent passage in Lucretius. But if they were so angry at this comparison, what would they say to the brutish and barbarous stupidity of those who, nowadays, compare him with Ariosto? Would not Ariosto himself say?

不过，还是继续这篇随笔的正题吧。我一向认为，在诗歌方面，维吉尔、卢克莱修、卡图卢斯和贺拉斯远远胜过其余的人；尤其是维吉尔的《农事诗》，我认为它是诗中最完美的作品；与之相比，人们不难看出，《埃涅阿斯纪》里有些地方，作者如果有闲暇，是会再多锉磨一番的：而《埃涅阿斯纪》的第五卷，在我看来是最完美的。我也喜欢卢坎，乐于读他，与其说是为了他的文笔，不如说是为了他本身的价值，为了他的见解和判断的真实与坚实。至于泰伦斯，这位拉丁语精致典雅与优美风度的典范，我觉得他把我们的风俗和灵魂的活动描绘得栩栩如生，令人赞叹；我们的行为时时把我引回到他那里；无论我读他多少遍，总能发现新的优美与妙处。与维吉尔同时代前后的人，对有人把他与卢克莱修相比感到愤慨。我承认，我也认为这种比较确实很不相称：不过，每当我读到卢克莱修的某段精彩文字时，我又很难让自己确信这一点。但是，如果他们对这种比较都如此恼火，那么对于如今那些拿他与阿里奥斯托相比的人的粗野而愚蠢，他们又会说什么呢？阿里奥斯托本人难道不会说：

“O seclum insipiens et inficetum!”

“O seclum insipiens et inficetum!”

(“O stupid and tasteless age.”—Catullus, xliii. 8.)

（“啊，愚蠢而乏味的时代！”——卡图卢斯，第四十三首，第8行。）

I think the ancients had more reason to be angry with those who compared Plautus with Terence, though much nearer the mark, than Lucretius with Virgil. It makes much for the estimation and preference of Terence, that the father of Roman eloquence has him so often, and alone of his class, in his mouth; and the opinion that the best judge of Roman poets has passed upon his companion. I have often observed that those of our times, who take upon them to write comedies (in imitation of the Italians, who are happy enough in that way of writing), take three or four plots of those of Plautus or Terence to make one of their own, and, crowd five or six of Boccaccio’s novels into one single comedy. That which makes them so load themselves with matter is the diffidence they have of being able to support themselves with their own strength. They must find out something to lean to; and not having of their own stuff wherewith to entertain us, they bring in the story to supply the defect of language. It is quite otherwise with my author; the elegance and perfection of his way of speaking makes us lose the appetite of his plot; his refined grace and elegance of diction everywhere occupy us: he is so pleasant throughout,

我认为，古人更有理由对那些拿普劳图斯与泰伦斯相比的人恼火——虽然这两人要接近得多——而不是对那些拿卢克莱修与维吉尔相比的人。罗马雄辩之父那样常常把泰伦斯挂在嘴边，而且在同类作家中只提他一人，这对泰伦斯的声誉和地位大有助益；那位罗马诗人的最佳评判者对他这位同伴所下的评语，也是如此。我常常注意到，我们这个时代那些动笔写喜剧的人（他们模仿意大利人，意大利人在这种写法上相当得心应手），要拿普劳图斯或泰伦斯的三四个情节来凑成自己的一个，把薄伽丘的五六篇故事塞进一部喜剧里。使他们这样给自己堆满材料的，是他们不相信自己能凭自己的力量撑得住。他们必须找到可以倚靠的东西；他们自己没有足以款待我们的材料，就搬来故事，来弥补言辞的不足。我的这位作者却完全不同：他说话方式的优雅与完美，使我们对他的情节失去了胃口；他那精致的风度和措辞的典雅处处吸引着我们：他自始至终都那样令人愉快，

“Liquidus, puroque simillimus amni,”

“Liquidus, puroque simillimus amni,”

(“Liquid, and likest the pure river.” —Horace, Ep., ii. s, 120.)

（“流畅，最像一条清澈的河。”——贺拉斯，《书信集》，第二卷第二首，第120行。）

and so possesses the soul with his graces that we forget those of his fable. This same consideration carries me further: I observe that the best of the ancient poets have avoided affectation and the hunting after, not only fantastic Spanish and Petrarchal elevations, but even the softer and more gentle touches, which are the ornament of all succeeding poesy. And yet there is no good judgment that will condemn this in the ancients, and that does not incomparably more admire the equal polish, and that perpetual sweetness and flourishing beauty of Catullus’s epigrams, than all the stings with which Martial arms the tails of his. This is by the same reason that I gave before, and as Martial says of himself:

以他的种种优美占据了我们的灵魂，使我们忘记了他情节的优美。同样的考虑把我引得更远：我注意到，古代最好的诗人都避免矫揉造作，不仅不去追逐西班牙式和彼特拉克式的那种奇诡的拔高，甚至连那些更柔和、更温婉的笔触也不去追逐，而这些笔触正是后来一切诗歌的装饰。然而，没有哪个良好的判断会因此责备古人，没有哪个良好的判断不会无比地更欣赏卡图卢斯警句诗那均匀的光洁、那永恒的甜美与盛开的美，而不是马提亚尔给他的警句诗尾巴装上的种种毒刺。这是出于我前面说过的同一个道理，正如马提亚尔谈到自己时所说的：

“Minus illi ingenio laborandum fuit, / in cujus locum materia successerat:”

“Minus illi ingenio laborandum fuit, / in cujus locum materia successerat:”

(“He had the less for his wit to do that the subject itself supplied what was necessary.”—Martial, praef. ad lib. viii.)

（“题材本身已经提供了所需的东西，他的才智就用不着那么费力了。”——马提亚尔，第八卷序。）

The first, without being moved, or without getting angry, make themselves sufficiently felt; they have matter enough of laughter throughout, they need not tickle themselves; the others have need of foreign assistance; as they have the less wit they must have the more body; they mount on horseback, because they are not able to stand on their own legs. As in our balls, those mean fellows who teach to dance, not being able to represent the presence and dignity of our noblesse, are fain to put themselves forward with dangerous jumping, and other strange motions and tumblers tricks; and the ladies are less put to it in dances; where there are various coupees, changes, and quick motions of body, than in some other of a more sedate kind, where they are only to move a natural pace, and to represent their ordinary grace and presence. And so I have seen good drolls, when in their own everyday clothes, and with the same face they always wear, give us all the pleasure of their art, when their apprentices, not yet arrived at such a pitch of perfection, are fain to meal their faces, put themselves into ridiculous disguises, and make a hundred grotesque faces to give us whereat to laugh. This conception of mine is nowhere more demonstrable than in comparing the AEneid with Orlando Furioso; of which we see the first, by dint of wing, flying in a brave and lofty place, and always following his point: the latter, fluttering and hopping from tale to tale, as from branch to branch, not daring to trust his wings but in very short flights, and perching at every turn, lest his breath and strength should fail.

前一种诗人，不必激动，也不必发怒，就足以让人感受到他们；他们处处都有足够引人发笑的材料，用不着自己给自己挠痒；后一种诗人则需要外来的帮助：他们的才智越少，就越得有更多的躯体；他们骑上马背，是因为他们不能靠自己的双腿站稳。就像在我们的舞会上，那些教跳舞的平庸之辈，没法表现出我们贵族的仪态与尊严，只好用危险的跳跃和别的古怪动作、翻跟头的把戏来出风头；而贵妇们在有着各种切步、变换和身体快速动作的舞蹈中，倒不如在另一些更沉静的舞蹈中那样为难，在那些舞蹈里，她们只需迈着自然的步子，表现出平常的优雅与仪态。同样，我见过一些好丑角，穿着自己的家常衣服，带着他们一向的那张脸，就把他们技艺的全部乐趣给了我们；而他们的学徒，还没有达到那样完美的地步，只好往脸上抹面粉，穿上可笑的装扮，做出上百种怪相来逗我们发笑。我的这个看法，在拿《埃涅阿斯纪》同《疯狂的罗兰》相比时，最能得到证明：我们看到前者鼓动双翼，在勇敢而高远的天空飞翔，始终追随着自己的目标；后者却从一个故事扑腾、跳跃到另一个故事，就像从一根树枝跳到另一根树枝，不敢信赖自己的翅膀，只敢做很短的飞行，时时都要停下来歇脚，生怕气力不济。

“Excursusque breves tentat.”

“Excursusque breves tentat.”

(“And he attempts short excursions.” —Virgil, Georgics, iv. 194.)

（“它尝试着短短地飞出去。”——维吉尔，《农事诗》，第四卷，第194行。）

These, then, as to this sort of subjects, are the authors that best please me.

那么，就这类题材而言，以上就是最让我喜欢的作者。

As to what concerns my other reading, that mixes a little more profit with the pleasure, and whence I learn how to marshal my opinions and conditions, the books that serve me to this purpose are Plutarch, since he has been translated into French, and Seneca. Both of these have this notable convenience suited to my humour, that the knowledge I there seek is discoursed in loose pieces, that do not require from me any trouble of reading long, of which I am incapable. Such are the minor works of the first and the epistles of the latter, which are the best and most profiting of all their writings. ‘Tis no great attempt to take one of them in hand, and I give over at pleasure; for they have no sequence or dependence upon one another. These authors, for the most part, concur in useful and true opinions; and there is this parallel betwixt them, that fortune brought them into the world about the same century: they were both tutors to two Roman emperors: both sought out from foreign countries: both rich and both great men. Their instruction is the cream of philosophy, and delivered after a plain and pertinent manner. Plutarch is more uniform and constant; Seneca more various and waving: the last toiled and bent his whole strength to fortify virtue against weakness, fear, and vicious appetites; the other seems more to slight their power, and to disdain to alter his pace and to stand upon his guard. Plutarch’s opinions are Platonic, gentle, and accommodated to civil society; those of the other are Stoical and Epicurean, more remote from the common use, but, in my opinion, more individually commodious and more firm. Seneca seems to lean a little to the tyranny of the emperors of his time, and only seems; for I take it for certain that he speaks against his judgment when he condemns the action of the generous murderers of Caesar. Plutarch is frank throughout: Seneca abounds with brisk touches and sallies; Plutarch with things that heat and move you more; this contents and pays you better: he guides us, the other pushes us on.

至于我的另一类阅读，那是在乐趣之中掺进一点益处的，我从中学习怎样安排我的见解和品性；为此目的而为我所用的书，是普鲁塔克——自从他被译成法文之后——和塞涅卡。这两位都有一个与我的脾性十分相投的显著便利：我在其中寻求的知识，是用零散的篇章来讨论的，不要求我费力去读长篇，而长篇我是读不了的。前者的短篇作品和后者的书信就是这样，它们是他们全部著作中最好、最有益的。拿起其中一篇，并不是什么大工程，我想放下就放下；因为它们之间没有先后，也不互相依赖。这两位作者在有益而真实的见解上大多一致；他们之间还有这样的对应：命运让他们差不多生在同一个世纪；他们都做过罗马皇帝的老师；都是从异国被请来的；都富有，都是伟人。他们的教导是哲学的精华，而且是用平实而切题的方式讲出来的。普鲁塔克更均匀、更稳定；塞涅卡更多变、更起伏：后者劳心费力，用尽全力来武装德行，抵御软弱、恐惧和邪恶的欲望；前者似乎更轻视这些东西的力量，不屑于为此改变步子、严加防备。普鲁塔克的见解是柏拉图式的，温和，适合于公民社会；另一位的见解是斯多葛派和伊壁鸠鲁派的，离日常的用处更远，但在我看来，对个人来说更合用，也更坚定。塞涅卡似乎有点倾向于他那个时代皇帝们的暴政，但只是似乎；因为我确信，他谴责那些刺杀恺撒的慷慨义士的行为时，说的是违心之言。普鲁塔克处处坦率；塞涅卡充满了轻快的笔触和妙语；普鲁塔克则充满了更能使你激动、使你感动的东西；这一位更让你满足，回报你更多：他引导我们，另一位则推着我们向前。

As to Cicero, those of his works that are most useful to my design are they that treat of philosophy, especially moral. But boldly to confess the truth (for since one has passed the barriers of impudence, off with the bridle), his way of writing, and that of all other long-winded authors, appears to me very tedious: for his prefaces, definitions, divisions, and etymologies take up the greatest part of his work: whatever there is of life and marrow is smothered and lost in the long preparation. When I have spent an hour in reading him, which is a great deal for me, and try to recollect what I have thence extracted of juice and substance, for the most part I find nothing but wind; for he is not yet come to the arguments that serve to his purpose, and to the reasons that properly help to form the knot I seek. For me, who only desire to become more wise, not more learned or eloquent, these logical and Aristotelian dispositions of parts are of no use. I would have a man begin with the main proposition. I know well enough what death and pleasure are; let no man give himself the trouble to anatomise them to me. I look for good and solid reasons, at the first dash, to instruct me how to stand their shock, for which purpose neither grammatical subtleties nor the quaint contexture of words and argumentations are of any use at all. I am for discourses that give the first charge into the heart of the redoubt; his languish about the subject; they are proper for the schools, for the bar, and for the pulpit, where we have leisure to nod, and may awake, a quarter of an hour after, time enough to find again the thread of the discourse. It is necessary to speak after this manner to judges, whom a man has a design to gain over, right or wrong, to children and common people, to whom a man must say all, and see what will come of it. I would not have an author make it his business to render me attentive: or that he should cry out fifty times Oyez! as the heralds do. The Romans, in their religious exercises, began with ‘Hoc age’ as we in ours do with ‘Sursum corda’; these are so many words lost to me: I come already fully prepared from my chamber. I need no allurement, no invitation, no sauce; I eat the meat raw, so that, instead of whetting my appetite by these preparatives, they tire and pall it. Will the licence of the time excuse my sacrilegious boldness if I censure the dialogism of Plato himself as also dull and heavy, too much stifling the matter, and lament so much time lost by a man, who had so many better things to say, in so many long and needless preliminary interlocutions? My ignorance will better excuse me in that I understand not Greek so well as to discern the beauty of his language. I generally choose books that use sciences, not such as only lead to them. The two first, and Pliny, and their like, have nothing of this Hoc age; they will have to do with men already instructed; or if they have, ‘tis a substantial Hoc age; and that has a body by itself. I also delight in reading the Epistles to Atticus, not only because they contain a great deal of the history and affairs of his time, but much more because I therein discover much of his own private humours; for I have a singular curiosity, as I have said elsewhere, to pry into the souls and the natural and true opinions of the authors, with whom I converse. A man may indeed judge of their parts, but not of their manners nor of themselves, by the writings they exhibit upon the theatre of the world. I have a thousand times lamented the loss of the treatise Brutus wrote upon Virtue, for it is well to learn the theory from those who best know the practice.

至于西塞罗，他的著作中对我的打算最有用的，是那些讨论哲学、尤其是道德哲学的。可是，要大胆地承认实话（既然已经越过了厚颜的栅栏，那就索性松开缰绳吧），他的写作方式，以及其他一切冗长作者的写作方式，在我看来都非常乏味：因为他的序言、定义、划分和词源占去了他著作的大部分：其中有生气、有骨髓的东西，都在漫长的铺垫中窒息、消失了。我读他读上一个钟头——这对我来说已经很多了——再试着回想一下我从中榨取了什么汁液和实质，大多数时候我发现除了风什么也没有；因为他还没有讲到那些服务于他目的的论证，还没有讲到真正有助于结成我所寻找的那个结的道理。对我这个只想变得更明智、而不是更博学或更雄辩的人来说，这些逻辑的、亚里士多德式的分门别类毫无用处。我希望一个人从主要的论题开始。我很清楚死亡和快乐是什么；谁也不必费心来给我解剖它们。我寻找的是开门见山的、良好而坚实的道理，教我怎样经受住它们的冲击；为此，无论是语法上的精微，还是词句与论证的巧妙编织，都毫无用处。我喜欢的是那种第一下冲锋就直捣堡垒中心的论述；他的论述却在题目周围徘徊不前；它们适合于学堂，适合于法庭，适合于讲坛，在那里我们有闲暇打个盹，过一刻钟醒来，还来得及重新找到话头。对法官——一个人无论是非都想争取过来的法官——就有必要这样说话；对孩子和普通百姓也是如此，对他们必须把一切都说出来，看看会有什么效果。我不希望一个作者把引起我的注意当作他的任务，也不希望他像传令官那样喊上五十遍“肃静！”罗马人在宗教仪式上以“专心做事”（Hoc age）开头，就像我们在我们的仪式上以“举心向上”（Sursum corda）开头一样；这些对我来说都是白费的言辞：我从自己的房间出来时，就已经做好了充分的准备。我不需要引诱，不需要邀请，不需要调味汁；我吃的是生肉，所以，这些准备工作非但没有引起我的胃口，反而使它疲倦、使它腻烦。如果我指责柏拉图本人的对话体也沉闷笨重，太过窒息了内容，惋惜一个有那么多更好的话可说的人，在那么多冗长而不必要的开场对话里浪费了那么多时间，时代的放纵能宽恕我这种亵渎的大胆吗？我的无知会更好地为我开脱，因为我的希腊文不够好，看不出他语言的美。我一般挑选的是运用学问的书，而不是只引人走向学问的书。前面那两位，还有普林尼，以及与他们相似的人，都没有这种“专心做事”；他们要打交道的，是已经受过教导的人；即使有，那也是一个实在的“专心做事”，本身就有血有肉。我也喜欢读《致阿提库斯书》，不仅因为其中含有他那个时代的大量史事，更因为我从中发现了他自己许多私人的脾性；因为，正如我在别处说过的，我有一种特别的好奇心，想窥探我与之交谈的那些作者的灵魂，以及他们天然的、真实的见解。从他们在世界舞台上展示的著作，人们的确可以判断他们的才具，却不能判断他们的品行，也不能判断他们本人。我千百次地惋惜布鲁图斯所写的那篇论德行的文章失传了，因为从那些最懂得实践的人那里学习理论，是件好事。

But seeing the matter preached and the preacher are different things, I would as willingly see Brutus in Plutarch, as in a book of his own. I would rather choose to be certainly informed of the conference he had in his tent with some particular friends of his the night before a battle, than of the harangue he made the next day to his army; and of what he did in his closet and his chamber, than what he did in the public square and in the senate. As to Cicero, I am of the common opinion that, learning excepted, he had no great natural excellence. He was a good citizen, of an affable nature, as all fat, heavy men, such as he was, usually are; but given to ease, and had, in truth, a mighty share of vanity and ambition. Neither do I know how to excuse him for thinking his poetry fit to be published; ‘tis no great imperfection to make ill verses, but it is an imperfection not to be able to judge how unworthy his verses were of the glory of his name. For what concerns his eloquence, that is totally out of all comparison, and I believe it will never be equalled. The younger Cicero, who resembled his father in nothing but in name, whilst commanding in Asia, had several strangers one day at his table, and, amongst the rest, Cestius seated at the lower end, as men often intrude to the open tables of the great. Cicero asked one of his people who that man was, who presently told him his name; but he, as one who had his thoughts taken up with something else, and who had forgotten the answer made him, asking three or four times, over and over again; the same question, the fellow, to deliver himself from so many answers and to make him know him by some particular circumstance; “‘tis that Cestius,” said he, “of whom it was told you, that he makes no great account of your father’s eloquence in comparison of his own.” At which Cicero, being suddenly nettled, commanded poor Cestius presently to be seized, and caused him to be very well whipped in his own presence; a very discourteous entertainer! Yet even amongst those, who, all things considered, have reputed his, eloquence incomparable, there have been some, who have not stuck to observe some faults in it: as that great Brutus his friend, for example, who said ‘twas a broken and feeble eloquence, ‘fyactam et elumbem’. The orators also, nearest to the age wherein he lived, reprehended in him the care he had of a certain long cadence in his periods, and particularly took notice of these words, ‘esse videatur’, which he there so often makes use of. For my part, I more approve of a shorter style, and that comes more roundly off. He does, though, sometimes shuffle his parts more briskly together, but ‘tis very seldom. I have myself taken notice of this one passage:

但是，既然所宣讲的道理和宣讲的人是两回事，我倒宁愿在普鲁塔克的书里看布鲁图斯，就像在他自己的书里看他一样乐意。我宁愿确切地知道他在一场战役的前夜在营帐里同几位知己的谈话，而不是第二天他对军队发表的演说；宁愿知道他在书房和卧室里做了什么，而不是他在广场和元老院里做了什么。至于西塞罗，我同意一般的看法：除了学问之外，他并没有多少天生的卓越之处。他是个好公民，性情和蔼，像他那样肥胖笨重的人通常都是如此；但他贪图安逸，而且，说实话，有极大的虚荣心和野心。我也不知道该怎样为他开脱：他竟认为自己的诗值得发表；写坏诗并不是什么大缺点，但不能判断自己的诗多么配不上自己名声的荣耀，却是一个缺点。至于他的雄辩，那是完全无可比拟的，我相信永远不会有人能与之匹敌。小西塞罗，除了名字之外，没有一样像他父亲，他在亚细亚任指挥官时，有一天席上有几位陌生客人，其中有塞斯提乌斯，坐在下首，就像人们常常闯进大人物的公开宴席那样。西塞罗问他的一个仆人那人是谁，仆人马上告诉了他那人的名字；可他像一个心思被别的事占住、忘了别人给他的回答的人那样，一遍又一遍地问了三四次同样的问题；那仆人为了免得一再回答，也为了让他凭某个特别的情况记住这个人，就说：“就是那个塞斯提乌斯，人家跟您说过，他认为您父亲的雄辩比起他自己的来算不了什么。”西塞罗一下子被激怒了，命令立刻把可怜的塞斯提乌斯抓起来，当着他的面狠狠地鞭打了一顿：真是个无礼的主人！不过，即使在那些通盘考虑之后仍认为他的雄辩无可比拟的人当中，也有人毫不犹豫地指出了其中的一些毛病：比如他的朋友、那位伟大的布鲁图斯，就说那是一种破碎而无力的雄辩，“fractam et elumbem”。离他所处的时代最近的演说家们，也批评他在句子里刻意讲究某种长长的抑扬节奏，尤其注意到他常常用的“esse videatur”这几个词。就我来说，我更赞赏一种更简短、收尾更圆满的文体。他有时也确实把句子的各部分更轻快地错综在一起，但那是很少见的。我自己就注意到了这一段：

“Ego vero me minus diu senem mallem, / quam esse senem, antequam essem.”

“Ego vero me minus diu senem mallem, / quam esse senem, antequam essem.”

(“I had rather be old a brief time, than be old before old age.” —Cicero, De Senect., c. 10.)

（“我宁愿做老人的时间短一些，也不愿未老先衰。”——西塞罗，《论老年》，第十章。）

The historians are my right ball, for they are pleasant and easy, and where man, in general, the knowledge of whom I hunt after, appears more vividly and entire than anywhere else: the variety and truth of his internal qualities, in gross and piecemeal, the diversity of means by which he is united and knit, and the accidents that threaten him. Now those that write lives, by reason they insist more upon counsels than events, more upon what sallies from within, than upon what happens without, are the most proper for my reading; and, therefore, above all others, Plutarch is the man for me. I am very sorry we have not a dozen Laertii, or that he was not further extended; for I am equally curious to know the lives and fortunes of these great instructors of the world, as to know the diversities of their doctrines and opinions. In this kind of study of histories, a man must tumble over, without distinction, all sorts of authors, old and new, French or foreign, there to know the things of which they variously treat. But Caesar, in my opinion, particularly deserves to be studied, not for the knowledge of the history only, but for himself, so great an excellence and perfection he has above all the rest, though Sallust be one of the number. In earnest, I read this author with more reverence and respect than is usually allowed to human writings; one while considering him in his person, by his actions and miraculous greatness, and another in the purity and inimitable polish of his language, wherein he not only excels all other historians, as Cicero confesses, but, peradventure, even Cicero himself; speaking of his enemies with so much sincerity in his judgment, that, the false colours with which he strives to palliate his evil cause, and the ordure of his pestilent ambition excepted, I think there is no fault to be objected against him, saving this, that he speaks too sparingly of himself, seeing so many great things could not have been performed under his conduct, but that his own personal acts must necessarily have had a greater share in them than he attributes to them.

历史学家是我的拿手好球，因为他们令人愉快、容易读，而且在他们那里，人——我所追寻要认识的那个普遍的人——比在任何别的地方都显得更生动、更完整：他内在品质的多样与真实，无论是整体还是细部，他得以结合、联结的种种方式的多样，以及威胁着他的种种变故。而那些写传记的人，因为他们更着重于谋划而不是事件，更着重于从内心发出的东西而不是外面发生的东西，最适合我读；所以，在所有人之中，普鲁塔克是最合我意的。我很遗憾我们没有十几个第欧根尼·拉尔修，或者他没有写得更详尽些；因为我想知道这些世界伟大导师的生平和命运，就像想知道他们学说和见解的差异一样好奇。在研究历史的这一门里，一个人必须不加区别地翻遍各种作者，古代的和近代的，法国的或外国的，从中了解他们各自讲述的事情。但在我看来，恺撒特别值得研究，不仅是为了了解历史，更是为了他本人，他比其余所有的人都高出那么多卓越与完美，虽然撒路斯提乌斯也在其中。说真的，我读这位作者时怀着的崇敬和尊重，超过人们通常给予凡人著作的程度；时而从他本人，从他的行为和奇迹般的伟大来看他，时而从他语言的纯净和无可模仿的光洁来看他；在语言上，他不仅超过了所有其他历史学家，正如西塞罗所承认的，而且也许甚至超过了西塞罗本人；他谈到他的敌人时，判断那样真诚，以至于除了他竭力用来掩饰其邪恶事业的虚假色彩，以及他那害人的野心的污秽之外，我认为他没有任何可以指摘的毛病，只除了这一点：他谈自己谈得太吝啬了；因为那么多伟大的事业在他的指挥下完成，他本人的作为在其中所占的分量，必定比他归于自己的要大。

I love historians, whether of the simple sort, or of the higher order. The simple, who have nothing of their own to mix with it, and who only make it their business to collect all that comes to their knowledge, and faithfully to record all things, without choice or discrimination, leave to us the entire judgment of discerning the truth. Such, for example, amongst others, is honest Froissart, who has proceeded in his undertaking with so frank a plainness that, having committed an error, he is not ashamed to confess and correct it in the place where the finger has been laid, and who represents to us even the variety of rumours that were then spread abroad, and the different reports that were made to him; ‘tis the naked and inform matter of history, and of which every one may make his profit, according to his understanding. The more excellent sort of historians have judgment to pick out what is most worthy to be known; and, of two reports, to examine which is the most likely to be true: from the condition of princes and their humours, they conclude their counsels, and attribute to them words proper for the occasion; such have title to assume the authority of regulating our belief to what they themselves believe; but certainly, this privilege belongs to very few. For the middle sort of historians, of which the most part are, they spoil all; they will chew our meat for us; they take upon them to judge of, and consequently, to incline the history to their own fancy; for if the judgment lean to one side, a man cannot avoid wresting and writhing his narrative to that bias; they undertake to select things worthy to be known, and yet often conceal from us such a word, such a private action, as would much better instruct us; omit, as incredible, such things as they do not understand, and peradventure some, because they cannot express them well in good French or Latin. Let them display their eloquence and intelligence, and judge according to their own fancy: but let them, withal, leave us something to judge of after them, and neither alter nor disguise, by their abridgments and at their own choice, anything of the substance of the matter, but deliver it to us pure and entire in all its dimensions.

我喜爱历史学家，无论是朴素的一类，还是更高明的一类。朴素的一类，没有任何自己的东西掺进去，只以收集他们所知道的一切、忠实地记录一切为己任，不加挑选，不加分辨，把辨别真相的全部判断都留给我们。比如，在许多人当中，正直的傅华萨就是这样一位，他着手写作时那样坦率朴实，犯了错，也不羞于在被人指出的地方承认并改正，他甚至把当时流传的各种谣言、人们向他报告的各种不同说法都呈现给我们；这是历史赤裸的、未经加工的材料，每个人都可以按照自己的理解从中获益。更出色的一类历史学家，有判断力去挑选最值得知道的东西；对两种说法，能审察哪一种最可能是真的：他们根据君王们的处境和脾性推断他们的谋划，把适合场合的话归于他们；这样的人有资格取得权威，把我们的信念规范到他们自己所相信的东西上；但这种特权当然只属于极少数人。至于中间一类的历史学家——大多数都属于这一类——他们把一切都弄糟了；他们要替我们嚼好我们的食物；他们自命去评判历史，于是也就按照自己的想法让历史偏向一边；因为判断一旦倾向某一边，就免不了把叙述扭曲、拧向那个偏向；他们着手挑选值得知道的事情，却常常向我们隐瞒了某句话、某个私下的行为，而这些本来能更好地教导我们；他们把自己不懂的事情当作不可信的略去，也许还略去一些，只因为他们不能用漂亮的法文或拉丁文把它们表达好。让他们去展示他们的雄辩和才智，按照自己的想法去判断吧：但也要让他们给我们留下一些东西，让我们在他们之后去判断，不要用他们的删节、凭他们的选择去改变或掩饰事情实质的任何部分，而要把它纯粹完整、全方位地交给我们。

For the most part, and especially in these latter ages, persons are culled out for this work from amongst the common people, upon the sole consideration of well-speaking, as if we were to learn grammar from them; and the men so chosen have fair reason, being hired for no other end and pretending to nothing but babble, not to be very solicitous of any part but that, and so, with a fine jingle of words, prepare us a pretty contexture of reports they pick up in the streets. The only good histories are those that have been written by the persons themselves who held command in the affairs whereof they write, or who participated in the conduct of them, or, at least, who have had the conduct of others of the same nature. Such are almost all the Greek and Roman histories: for, several eye-witnesses having written of the same subject, in the time when grandeur and learning commonly met in the same person, if there happen to be an error, it must of necessity be a very slight one, and upon a very doubtful incident. What can a man expect from a physician who writes of war, or from a mere scholar, treating of the designs of princes? If we could take notice how scrupulous the Romans were in this, there would need but this example: Asinius Pollio found in the histories of Caesar himself something misreported, a mistake occasioned; either by reason he could not have his eye in all parts of his army at once and had given credit to some individual persons who had not delivered him a very true account; or else, for not having had too perfect notice given him by his lieutenants of what they had done in his absence. By which we may see, whether the inquisition after truth be not very delicate, when a man cannot believe the report of a battle from the knowledge of him who there commanded, nor from the soldiers who were engaged in it, unless, after the method of a judicial inquiry, the witnesses be confronted and objections considered upon the proof of the least detail of every incident. In good earnest the knowledge we have of our own affairs, is much more obscure: but that has been sufficiently handled by Bodin, and according to my own sentiment. A little to aid the weakness of my memory (so extreme that it has happened to me more than once, to take books again into my hand as new and unseen, that I had carefully read over a few years before, and scribbled with my notes) I have adopted a custom of late, to note at the end of every book (that is, of those I never intend to read again) the time when I made an end on’t, and the judgment I had made of it, to the end that this might, at least, represent to me the character and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it; and I will here transcribe some of those annotations.

大多数时候，尤其是在近来这些时代，人们是从普通人中间挑选人来做这件工作的，唯一的考虑是会说话，仿佛我们要跟他们学语法似的；这样选出来的人，受雇不为别的目的，也不自命别的什么，只会耍嘴皮子，自然有充分的理由只关心这一部分，于是用一串漂亮的叮当作响的词句，为我们编织出一篇他们从街头巷尾拾来的传闻。唯一好的历史，是由那些亲自指挥过他们所写之事的人写的，或者是参与过指挥的人写的，或者至少是指挥过同类事情的人写的。几乎所有希腊和罗马的历史都是这样：因为当时伟大和学问通常集于一身，有好几位目击者写过同一个题目，即使碰巧有错误，也必定是很轻微的，而且是在一件非常可疑的事情上。一个写战争的医生，或者一个谈论君王谋略的纯粹的学究，你能指望从他那里得到什么呢？如果我们想知道罗马人在这方面多么一丝不苟，只需这一个例子就够了：阿西尼乌斯·波利奥发现，连恺撒本人的史书里也有些记载失实，出了差错；要么是因为他不能同时注视军队的每一处，听信了某些没有向他如实报告的个人；要么是因为他的副将们没有把他不在时他们所做的事向他作十分完备的报告。由此我们可以看出，探求真相是不是一件非常微妙的事：一场战役的报告，连指挥这场战役的人的所知都不能相信，连参加战斗的士兵的所知也不能相信，除非按照司法审讯的方法，让证人们当面对质，并且在证明每一个事件的最小细节时都考虑到种种反驳。说真的，我们对自己的事务所知道的，还要模糊得多：不过这一点博丹已经讨论得很充分了，而且与我自己的看法相合。为了稍稍帮助我那极弱的记性（弱到不止一次，我把几年前仔细读过、还在上面写满批注的书重新拿到手里，当作没见过的新书），我近来养成了一个习惯：在每一本书的末尾（我是说那些我不打算再读的书），记下我读完它的时间，和我对它的评判，至少能让它向我重现我读这位作者时对他形成的性格与总体印象；下面我就抄录几则这样的批注。

I wrote this, some ten years ago, in my Guicciardini (of what language soever my books speak to me in, I always speak to them in my own): “He is a diligent historiographer, from whom, in my opinion, a man may learn the truth of the affairs of his time, as exactly as from any other; in the most of which he was himself also a personal actor, and in honourable command. There is no appearance that he disguised anything, either upon the account of hatred, favour, or vanity; of which the free censures he passes upon the great ones, and particularly those by whom he was advanced and employed in commands of great trust and honour, as Pope Clement VII., give ample testimony. As to that part which he thinks himself the best at, namely, his digressions and discourses, he has indeed some very good, and enriched with fine features; but he is too fond of them: for, to leave nothing unsaid, having a subject so full, ample, almost infinite, he degenerates into pedantry and smacks a little of scholastic prattle. I have also observed this in him, that of so many souls and so many effects, so many motives and so many counsels as he judges, he never attributes any one to virtue, religion, or conscience, as if all these were utterly extinct in the world: and of all the actions, how brave soever in outward show they appear in themselves, he always refers the cause and motive to some vicious occasion or some prospect of profit. It is impossible to imagine but that, amongst such an infinite number of actions as he makes mention of, there must be some one produced by the way of honest reason. No corruption could so universally have infected men that some one would not escape the contagion which makes me suspect that his own taste was vicious, whence it might happen that he judged other men by himself.”

大约十年前，我在我的圭恰迪尼上写了这样一段（我的书无论用什么语言对我说话，我总是用我自己的语言对它们说话）：“他是一位勤勉的史家，在我看来，人们从他那里了解他那个时代事务的真相，可以像从任何别人那里一样确切；其中大多数事情，他自己也亲身参与，而且担任着体面的指挥之职。看不出他因为憎恨、偏爱或虚荣而掩饰过什么；他对大人物们，尤其是对那些提拔他、委他以重大信任和荣誉之职的人，比如教皇克雷芒七世，都作了直率的批评，这就是充分的证明。至于他自以为最擅长的那一部分，即他的题外话和议论，其中确实有些很好的，而且有精彩的笔触作点缀；但他太喜欢这些了：他的题材那样丰富、广阔，几乎无穷无尽，他却为了不留下任何没说的话，堕入了学究气，带上了一点经院式空谈的味道。我还注意到他这一点：他评判了那么多灵魂、那么多结果、那么多动机、那么多谋划，却从来没有把其中任何一个归因于德行、宗教或良心，仿佛这些东西在世上已经完全绝迹了；对于一切行为，无论它们本身在外表上显得多么英勇，他总是把原因和动机归于某种邪恶的缘由，或者某种利益的盘算。在他提到的那无数行为之中，竟没有一个是出于正直的理由，这是不可想象的。腐败不可能如此普遍地感染了所有的人，以致没有一个人逃过这种传染；这使我怀疑他自己的品味是邪恶的，也许正因为如此，他才以己度人。”

In my Philip de Commines there is this written: “You will here find the language sweet and delightful, of a natural simplicity, the narration pure, with the good faith of the author conspicuous therein; free from vanity, when speaking of himself, and from affection or envy, when speaking of others: his discourses and exhortations rather accompanied with zeal and truth, than with any exquisite sufficiency; and, throughout, authority and gravity, which bespeak him a man of good extraction, and brought up in great affairs.”

在我的菲利普·德·科米纳上写着这样一段：“你在这里会读到甜美可喜的语言，带着天然的质朴；叙述纯净，作者的诚意清晰可见；谈到自己时没有虚荣，谈到别人时没有偏爱或嫉妒：他的议论和劝诫，与其说带着什么精妙的才具，不如说带着热忱与真实；全书处处有一种权威与庄重，表明他出身良好，在重大事务中成长起来。”

Upon the Memoirs of Monsieur du Bellay I find this: “‘Tis always pleasant to read things written by those that have experienced how they ought to be carried on; but withal, it cannot be denied but there is a manifest decadence in these two lords from the freedom and liberty of writing that shine in the elder historians, such as the Sire de Joinville, the familiar companion of St. Louis; Eginhard, chancellor to Charlemagne; and of later date, Philip de Commines. What we have here is rather an apology for King Francis, against the Emperor Charles V., than history. I will not believe that they have falsified anything, as to matter of fact; but they make a common practice of twisting the judgment of events, very often contrary to reason, to our advantage, and of omitting whatsoever is ticklish to be handled in the life of their master; witness the proceedings of Messieurs de Montmorency and de Biron, which are here omitted: nay, so much as the very name of Madame d’Estampes is not here to be found. Secret actions an historian may conceal; but to pass over in silence what all the world knows and things that have drawn after them public and such high consequences, is an inexcusable defect. In fine, whoever has a mind to have a perfect knowledge of King Francis and the events of his reign, let him seek it elsewhere, if my advice may prevail. The only profit a man can reap from these Memoirs is in the special narrative of battles and other exploits of war wherein these gentlemen were personally engaged; in some words and private actions of the princes of their time, and in the treaties and negotiations carried on by the Seigneur de Langey, where there are everywhere things worthy to be known, and discourses above the vulgar strain.”

在杜贝莱先生的《回忆录》上，我看到这样一段：“读那些亲身体验过事情应当怎样办的人所写的东西，总是令人愉快的；但同时也不能否认，与那些较早的史家——比如圣路易的亲密伙伴儒安维尔领主，查理曼的大臣艾因哈德，以及时代稍晚的菲利普·德·科米纳——身上闪耀的那种写作的自由与开放相比，这两位大人显然衰退了。我们在这里看到的，与其说是历史，不如说是为弗朗索瓦国王对抗皇帝查理五世所作的辩护。我不相信他们在事实上伪造了什么；但他们惯于把对事件的判断扭向对我们有利的一边，而且常常违背理性；凡是他们主人一生中棘手难谈的事，他们都略去不提：蒙莫朗西先生和比龙先生的那些作为就是明证，这里都略去了：不，连埃唐普夫人的名字都找不到。秘密的行为，史家可以隐瞒；但对全世界都知道的事，对那些引起了公共的、重大后果的事保持沉默，却是不可原谅的缺陷。总之，谁要想完全了解弗朗索瓦国王和他统治时期的事件，如果我的忠告能起作用的话，就让他到别处去找吧。人们能从这部《回忆录》中得到的唯一益处，在于这几位绅士亲身参与的战役和其他军事行动的专门叙述，在于他们那个时代君王们的一些言语和私下行为，以及朗热领主所进行的条约和谈判，那里处处都有值得知道的事情，和不同凡俗的议论。”