艾米麗·勃朗特：“我沒有怯懦的靈魂”

By Ron Charles

Even the light of 200 birthday candles couldnt pierce the gloom of Wuthering Heights. But the fire that burned within Emily Bront？ roars across the centuries.

How remarkable that on the bicentennial1 of her birth， this reclusive woman should still be crying at our window like Catherine， “Let me in—let me in！ Im come home！”

The younger sister of Charlotte， Emily was born on July 30， 1818， in Yorkshire， England， to Maria Branwell， who died just a few years later， and Patrick Bront？， a parish priest. Together with her two sisters， Emily stoked a furnace of creativity unique in the annals of literary history.2 The children wrote fantastical stories together， spinning imaginary worlds of romantic and military adventure.

《呼嘯山莊》堪稱英語文學(xué)史上的一部曠世奇作，冰冷寂寥的漫漫荒野、永無止境的殘酷黑暗、肆意揮灑的愛恨情仇……盡管這部作品如今被視為難以超越的佳作，在首次出版的年代里卻備受爭議與抨擊，而作者艾米麗·勃朗特那充滿遺憾與寂寥的短暫人生也令后人唏噓不已。一生僅一部小說，艾米麗似乎將生命中所有熾熱的情感與能量都傾注于這片陰冷的荒野，用超越時代與世俗的浪漫奇想編織出了一段飛揚跋扈的癡狂虐戀。在她二百周年誕辰之際，我們?nèi)匀粦涯钪?，懷念著她在文學(xué)史上書寫的那筆優(yōu)美凄絕的永恒。

Only poetic remnants of that juvenilia survive today， but during their brief lives， each of the Bront？ sisters managed to publish at least one novel， and none of them generates more cultish devotion than Wuthering Heights.3 Yes， Charlottes Jane Eyre may have more readers， but the tale of young Catherine and Heathcliff， the mysterious bad boy who is really bad， remains the most feverish love story in English literature.

Given that blaze of fury and passion， filmmakers have been drawn to Bront？s bleak moors as inexorably4（and disastrously） as Catherine is attracted to Heathcliff. Everyone from Laurence Olivier to Timothy Dalton to Ralph Fiennes has taken a stab at “that devil.” In 2015， the Lifetime network set Wuthering High School in Malibu， which is not so much an adaptation as a desecration5. Perhaps the plot is simply too static and vast to capture on screen， which may be why Kate Bushs otherworldly single “Wuthering Heights” （1978） remains the best homage.6

The books fame was hardly preordained. Published in 1847 under the masculine pseudonym Ellis Bell， Wuthering Heights struck its first readers as “a perfect misanthropists7 heaven.” Early reviewers called it “strange，” “disagreeable，” “baffling，” “disjointed”and even “inexpressibly painful.” All true， but they made that sound like a bad thing. One reviewer was particularly distressed by the novels dismal gloominess. “Never was there a period in our history，” he concluded， “when we English could so ill afford to dispense with sunshine，” which sounds like he was that guy who walks up to women and says， “Come on， girl： Give us a smile！”

For sure， Emily was not prone to giddiness8. But despite the extraordinary fame of her single novel， she remains obscured by fog， which only makes her more attractive for our own projected fantasies of savage romantic abandon. She was， reportedly， shy and private. A family member claimed she rarely left the house except for church or to walk alone. Our impression of her is further clouded by Charlottes heavy-handed efforts to tidy up her little sisters reputation after she died in 1848. In a perplexing preface to the second edition of Wuthering Heights， Charlotte praised the novel—“We seem at times to breathe lightning”—while also questioning the wisdom of creating a character like Heathcliff. She went on to suggest that Emily was not a talented artist so much as a natural genius， “a native and nursling of the moors” who worked “in a wild workshop， with simple tools， out of homely materials.” Its a surprisingly chauvinistic9 argument， and factually untrue， given Emilys wide reading of Romantic literature—in English and German. At the peak of her sisterly betrayal， Charlotte wrote， “Having formed these beings， she did not know what she had done.”

In fact， we do not know what Emily has done.

Long after Wuthering Heights should look rusted by time and softened by familiarity， it remains an extravagantly turbulent novel.10 As a teenager， I found the story， with its nested narrators and tangled family tree， baffling and dull. Rereading it this month， though， I was dazzled by its preternatural11 modernity. The way the characters resist any moral explanation， the way the style flickers between gothic romanticism and flinty realism， and the way the incestuous plot festers past all endurance on that claustrophobic moor—its shockingly daring.12 Charlotte didnt have the nerve to leave her little Jane Eyre in the red-room for more than a few hours， but Wuthering Heights reads as though Catherine never came out.

The novelist Kate Mosse is one of many luminaries13 celebrating Emilys bicentennial with the Bront？ Parsonage Museum in Haworth. She writes via email， “There is no apology within Wuthering Heights， no attempt to make the story palatable14 or the characters likable or domestic， but instead it has an unashamed sense of its own purpose， its own self.”

Emily， after all， is the woman who wrote， “No coward soul is mine/No trembler in the worlds storm-troubled sphere.” And the characters she created are just as fearless， just as audacious15 in their disregard for what is expected， what is reasonable， what makes sense. Their relentless pettiness， their meanness， their physical and emotional abuse， including knife-throwing and dog-hanging—I dont deny the repulsiveness of any of that behavior； the story would make an effective Human Resources PowerPoint presentation on Disruptive Behavior Procedures. But romantic tragedy is cathartic16， not instructive. The wonder of Wuthering Heights is its exponential emotions： “such anguish in the gush of grief！”17

We know Catherine is doomed and Heathcliff is “a fierce， pitiless， wolfish man，” but how subversive， how bewitching such unbridled passion feels in our self-conscious age of transactional hookups and enlightened unions.18 No dating app would ever bring these two lovers together； no marriage algorithm would ever predict a happy future. And yet... “Hes more myself than I am，” Catherine cries. “Whatever our souls are made of， his and mine are the same.”

Such romantic fusion is a catastrophe that irradiates the realm of Wuthering Heights and leaves a blast area that should warn others away， but who can resist approaching that crater of heartache and feeling the heat that comes off these pages？19

In a poem dated 1843， Emily wrote：

Farewell then， all that love

All that deep sympathy；

Sleep on， Heaven laughs above—

Earth never misses thee.

Youre wrong， Emily. Two hundred years later， we still miss you.

盡管二百根生日蠟燭的火光也未能穿透《呼嘯山莊》的幽暗氣息，艾米麗·勃朗特內(nèi)心的熾熱火焰卻蔓延了數(shù)個世紀，依舊熊熊燃燒。

不同尋常的是，在二百周年誕辰之際，這位避世隱居的女性仍舊如凱瑟琳那般在窗外大聲呼喊：“讓我進去——讓我進去！我回家了！”

艾米麗是夏洛蒂的妹妹，于1818年7月30日出生在英格蘭約克郡，其母瑪麗亞·布蘭韋爾在幾年后就去世了，父親帕特里克·勃朗特是一名教區(qū)牧師。艾米麗和她的兩位姐妹一同在文學(xué)編年史上留下了獨特的非凡創(chuàng)造。年少的她們一同寫就充滿奇想的故事，編織著一個個想象中的充滿浪漫而大膽的冒險世界。

盡管勃朗特三姐妹年少時期的作品中僅有詩歌得以留存，但在她們短暫的人生中，每個人都至少有一部小說得以出版，而《呼嘯山莊》便是其中受到最多狂熱追捧的佳作。的確，夏洛蒂的《簡·愛》或許擁有更多讀者，但年輕的凱瑟琳和神秘而邪惡的希思克利夫之間的故事，依舊是英語文學(xué)史上一筆最為熾熱的愛戀。

狂怒與激情交織成奪目的烈焰，勃朗特筆下陰冷的荒野以不可抵擋的（且災(zāi)難般的）魅力吸引著電影制作人，就如同書中的希思克利夫?qū)P瑟琳的吸引一樣。勞倫斯·奧利維爾、蒂莫西·道爾頓和拉爾夫·費因斯都曾飾演過這位惡魔般的男主人公。2015年，Lifetime電視臺還拍攝了電視電影《呼嘯高中》，情節(jié)設(shè)定在現(xiàn)代的美國加州馬里布市，但這并非一次成功的改編，更多的是對原著的褻瀆。也許是由于這部作品情節(jié)中的畫面過于靜止和廣闊，因而較難實現(xiàn)理想的熒屏呈現(xiàn)，于是歌手凱特·布什風(fēng)格脫俗的單曲《呼嘯山莊》（1978）便一直被視為對原著最好的致敬。

這本書的名氣并非命中注定的。1847年，以男性假名埃利斯·貝爾為作者，《呼嘯山莊》得以出版，被第一批讀者視作“完美的厭世者的天堂”。早期的評論者將其形容為“奇特的”、“令人不快的”、“令人困惑的”以及“支離破碎的”，甚至是“充滿無法言喻的痛苦的”。的確如此，但這些評價著實貶低了這部作品的價值。一位評論者尤其對這部小說陰郁的黑暗氣息感到不快：“我們的歷史進程中從未有過這樣一個時期，”他總結(jié)道，“我們英國人承受不起沒有陽光的日子?！边@樣的評價使他聽起來如同一個走向女人的家伙，說著：“來吧，姑娘！給我一個微笑吧！”

毫無疑問，艾米麗的形象并不復(fù)雜。但盡管她唯一的小說極負盛名，她仍舊充滿迷霧般的神秘色彩，這使她更具有吸引力，尤其是對于我們對殘酷的愛恨情仇的幻想而言。據(jù)說，她是一個害羞而喜歡獨處的人。一位家庭成員曾聲稱，她很少離開房間，除非是為了去教堂或出門獨自散步。在艾米麗于1848年去世之后，夏洛蒂試圖以頗為粗暴的方式梳理她的名聲，而這使我們對艾米麗的印象更加模糊。在第二版《呼嘯山莊》那篇令人費解的序言中，夏洛蒂贊揚了這部小說——“我們似乎時不時地呼吸著閃電”——與此同時，她也質(zhì)疑了創(chuàng)造希思克利夫這一角色是否明智之舉。她接著評價道，艾米麗并非有天賦的藝術(shù)家，而是一個自然的天才，“一個土生土長的荒野生靈，在野外工作坊中使用著至簡的原始工具。”這是一種令人驚訝的沙文主義般的觀點，而且并不符實，畢竟艾米麗曾閱讀了大量英語和德語的浪漫主義文學(xué)。而這一姐妹間背叛的巔峰，便是夏洛蒂寫道：“她創(chuàng)造了這些人物，卻并不知曉自己究竟做了什么?！?/p>

實際上，我們并不知道艾米麗做了什么。

如今，《呼嘯山莊》的魅力并未因時間的流逝而被銹蝕，或因其家喻戶曉而變得溫和，它仍舊是一部非常震撼人心的小說。在青少年時期，我曾覺得這部作品敘述者繁多、家譜圖錯綜復(fù)雜，因而顯得費解而無趣。而在本月重讀此書，它那超乎尋常的現(xiàn)代性則令我贊嘆不已。書中的主人公抗拒一切道德解釋，敘述的風(fēng)格兼具哥特式浪漫主義與冰冷的現(xiàn)實主義，亂倫情節(jié)在具有幽閉恐怖癥氣息的荒野之上潰爛、蔓延——這是令人震驚的大膽創(chuàng)作。夏洛蒂從未有過這般的勇氣，她筆下的小簡·愛從未在那紅房間內(nèi)停留超過幾個小時，但《呼嘯山莊》讀起來就如同凱瑟琳在封閉的屋內(nèi)從未離開。

小說家凱特·莫斯是在位于霍沃思的勃朗特故居博物館慶祝艾米麗誕辰二百周年的杰出人物之一。她在郵件中寫道：“《呼嘯山莊》之中沒有歉疚，沒有任何使故事更可接受、使人物更討人喜愛和符合世俗的嘗試，但它有一種問心無愧的精神，只為詮釋其自身?！?/p>

畢竟，艾米麗曾寫道：“我沒有怯懦的靈魂 /在世間的狂風(fēng)急驟之處亦不戰(zhàn)栗。”她所創(chuàng)造的人物皆是無畏的，他們勇敢地漠視著規(guī)則的、明智的、合理的一切。他們有著無止境的卑鄙和吝嗇，對身體和情緒施加著雙重虐行，包括揮舞銳器和殘害動物——我并不否認這些行為的可憎之處；這個故事若是作為人力資源學(xué)中關(guān)于“破壞性行為規(guī)程”的幻燈片演講展示內(nèi)容，定是頗為合適的素材。但浪漫主義悲劇是宣泄式而非教益式的。《呼嘯山莊》的非凡之處便在于其指數(shù)式增長的情緒發(fā)展：“悲傷的噴涌中是極度的痛苦！”

我們知道，凱瑟琳有著命中注定的厄運，而希思克利夫是一個“兇狠的、無情的、狼一般的男人”，但這般肆無忌憚的熱情在如今這個矯揉造作的、充滿交易般的戀情和開明的結(jié)合的時代里是多么具有顛覆性，多么令人著迷。沒有哪個約會軟件會讓這兩位戀人在一起，沒有哪種婚姻算法會為他們的結(jié)合預(yù)測一個幸福的未來。然而……“他比我更像我自己，”凱瑟琳哭喊道，“無論我們的靈魂是由什么構(gòu)成的，我與他有著同一個靈魂?！?/p>

這種浪漫的結(jié)合是一種災(zāi)難，它點亮了呼嘯山莊這一方土地，并留下了一片極其危險的區(qū)域，使外物不得不避之千里，但又有誰能抗拒接近這布滿心痛的火山口，體會這字里行間噴涌而出的熾熱呢？

在一首1843年的詩作中，艾米麗寫道：

永別了，所有的愛

所有深切的同情

沉睡吧，那大笑著的天堂——

人間從未思念你。

你錯了，艾米麗。二百年后，我們?nèi)匀凰寄钅恪?/p>

1. bicentennial： 二百周年紀念。

2. furnace： 火爐，熔爐；annal： 記錄，編年史。

3. remnant： 剩余部分，殘余部分；juvenilia： 在藝術(shù)家形成成熟風(fēng)格前于青少年時代創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù)、文學(xué)或音樂作品；cultish： 狂熱的。

4. inexorably： 不可逆轉(zhuǎn)地，不可阻擋地。

5. desecration： 褻瀆神圣，侮辱神物。

6. otherworldly： 超俗的；single： 單曲；homage： 致敬，崇敬。

7. misanthropist： 厭世者，厭惡人類者。

8. giddiness： 眼花繚亂。

9. chauvinistic： 沙文主義的，本國（本民族）至上的。

10. extravagantly： 過度地；turbulent： 騷亂的，動蕩的。

11. preternatural： 超乎尋常的，超自然的。

12. flinty： 強硬的，冷冰冰的；incestuous： 亂倫的；fester：惡化，潰爛；claustrophobic：導(dǎo)致幽閉恐怖癥的，患幽閉恐怖癥的。

13. luminary： 泰斗，杰出人物。

14. palatable： 合意的，可接受的。

15. audacious： 無畏的，大膽的。

16. cathartic： 情感宣泄的，精神發(fā)泄的。

17. exponential： 指數(shù)式增長的；gush： 涌流，噴出之物。

18. unbridled： 放肆的，不受約束的；transactional：交易型的，事務(wù)性的。

19. irradiate： 使生輝，使煥發(fā)；crater： 火山口。