馬春英: 霍桑和瑪格烈特．傅勒：文學之怨？

http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/pub/j28/j28-14.htm
http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/pub/j28/j28-14.htm
霍桑和瑪格烈特．傅勒：文學之怨？

作者／馬春英 (國立臺灣師範大學文學院英語系)
摘要

一八四一年，美國新英格蘭卅一位唯一神教牧師喬治‧雷布利創辦一農場，名為溪莊。該莊之建設旨在使勞力與智力有更自然之結合；換言之，勞力者在工作之餘，可致力於學術之工作，而勞心者，在從事學問研究之暇，可以其勞力工作求自立更生。霍桑當時卅七歲，仍然未婚;他投資一千美元，買了兩股債券，成為溪莊成員之一，並於一八四一年春天住進莊內，開始其濃更生活。霍桑原本希望在溪莊上與其未婚妻蘇菲雅建立他們自己的一個家。但是渡過了那年的夏季後，他就失望的離開了溪莊。
十一年後，霍桑利用他在溪莊上的生活經驗完成了他的第三部小說快樂谷的故事。故事中，他塑造了一個黑髮美女，名叫神諾碧。此女主角除貌美外，還是個高傲的『才女』和熱烈的女權運動者，但是在失戀和失去財產繼承權的打擊下，她以跳和自殺來結束自己的生命。

『文學之怨』起源於霍桑之子朱立安，於一八八五年出版其父母之傳記，書中轉載其父之義大利札記中數段有關瑪格烈特‧傅勒的誹言而引起瑪格烈特的評論家之不滿，認為霍桑筆下的神諾碧即為瑪格烈特之化身，因而影響了瑪格烈特的形象和聲譽。
瑪格烈特‧傅勒和霍桑是同時代的人，她是為文學素養極高的當代『才女』;她的著作十九世紀之婦女，為她贏得女權運動者之盛名。後來從義大利回美國的途中，她和她義大利籍的丈夫和孩子都葬身海底。

霍桑所描述的神諾碧和瑪格烈特之間有太多的相似之處。因而瑪格烈特的評論家說霍桑的創作意圖是要諷刺瑪格烈特，『文學之怨』或『文學之戰』也因此展開，終於引起了瑪格烈特的支持者開始攻擊，與霍桑的支持者的迎戰。

本篇作者對此『文學之怨』的結論是，此乃一徒勞無功之爭吵，因為真正的參與者并非兩個主角本人;其次，事實上瑪格烈特生前確實是為特出之女性，而神諾碧卻是為奇特的文學人物;兩者都替世界和文學增添過幾許光彩。

《詳全文》
Hawthorne's Zenobia and Margaret Fuller － A Literary Quarrel ?
C.Y. Lily Ma Chang (Department of English College of Liberal Arts)
Abstract
"To insure a more natural union between intellectual and manual labor than now exists, and to combine the thinker and the worker in the same in-dividual," George Ripley, a Unitarian minister and a Transcendentalist, initiated the founding of a transcendental farming association, Brook Farm, situated some nine miles from Boston, New England, in 1841. Nathaniel Hawthorne, then a young man of about 37, still unmarried but already engaged to Sophia Peabody, bought two shares of stock at $500 each, and began his life at Brook Farm as a member in the spring of 1841. He wanted to build his own home there where he would eventually marry Sophia, but he left the Farm after toiling one whole summer, disillusioned.

After a lapse of one decade, in 1852, he wrote his third novel, The Blithedale Romance, setting it right in this communal Farm. In it, he created a beautiful dark-haired female character, Zenobia, who was endowed with intellectual pride in being a bluestocking and an excellent "conversationalist," and who was also a fervent advocate of women's rights. But this proud and strong-willed woman ended her own life in a muddy river after having an unrequited love affair with another inmate of the farm, Hollingsworth, and also after being disinherited by her father, Old Moodie.

The controversy begins when Hawthorne's son, Julian Hawthorne, published his parents' biography, Hawthorne and His Wife, in 1885, and included in it certain excerpts from Hawthorne's Italian Notebooks. Margaret Fuller's biographers and critics were furious about the content of these excerpts; they began to attack Hawthorne for using her as a prototype of Zenobia, and thus distorting the fair image of her and her reputation as well. Margaret Fuller, a contemporary of Hawthorne, was herself a highly knowledgeable bluestocking of literary aptness; she was famous for her "conversations" and her book, Woman of the Nineteenth Century, had won her the reputation of being a feminist. Her life was ended in a shipwreck when she was corning back to America from Italy with her Italian husband and their child.

The fact that many similarities exist between Zenobia and Margaret Fuller has caused Fuller's writers to accuse Hawthorne for having the satirical intent of breating his Zenobia just to ridicule her as a head-strong and aggressive feminist. Infuriated by their own indignation, Fuller's supporters opened fire, and the "literary quarrel" or "literary battle" began; naturally, Hawthorne's supporters also fired back.

After examining a number of relevant articles and books pertaining to the subject of the "literary quarrel," the writer of this paper has reached the conclusion that it has been an effortless quarrel, not worth fighting any longer, since in the first place, it is not an actual "literary quarrel" between Hawthorne and Fuller themselves; and secondly, Margaret Fuller, as an individual, was an outstanding woman in her own right; and Zenobia, as a fictitious individual, is also a literary wonder. They both add splendor to the colorful varieties of the human and literary species.