惊婚记 英文版 Quentin Durward
瓦尔特.司各特 Sir Walter Scott
AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION
abandon the selfdenying principles in which the young knight was instructed and towhich he was so carefully trained up, Louis XI of France was thechief. That sovereign was of a character so purely selfish -- soguiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected.
The scene of this romance is laid in the fifteenth century, whenthe feudal system, which had been the sinews and nerves of nationaldefence, and the spirit of chivalry, by which, as by a vivifying soul,that system was animated, began to be innovated upon and abandonedby those grosser characters who centred their sum of happiness inprocuring the personal objects on which they had fixed their ownexclusive attachment. The same egotism had indeed displayed itselfeven in more primitive ages; but it was now for the first time openlyavowed as a professed principle of action. The spirit of chivalryhad in it this point of excellence, that, however overstrained andfantastic many of its doctrines may appear to us, they were allfounded on generosity and self denial, of which, if the earth weredeprived, it would be difficult to conceive the existence of virtueamong the human race.
Among those who were the first to ridicule and abandon the selfdenying principles in which the young knight was instructed and towhich he was so carefully trained up, Louis XI of France was thechief. That sovereign was of a character so purely selfish -- soguiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected with his ambition,covetousness, and desire of selfish enjoyment -- that he almostseems an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do hisutmost to corrupt our ideas of honour in its very source. Nor is itto be forgotten that Louis possessed to a great extent that causticwit which can turn into ridicule all that a man does for any otherperson's advantage but his own, and was, therefore, peculiarlyqualified to play the part of a cold hearted and sneering fiend.
The cruelties, the perjuries, the suspicions of this prince, wererendered more detestable, rather than amended, by the gross anddebasing superstition which he constantly practised. The devotionto the heavenly saints, of which he made such a parade, was upon themiserable principle of some petty deputy in office, who endeavoursto hide or atone for the malversations of which he is consciousby liberal gifts to those whose duty it is to observe his conduct,and endeavours to support a system of fraud by an attempt to corruptthe incorruptible. In no other light can we regard his creating theVirgin Mary a countess and colonel of his guards, or the cunningthat admitted to one or two peculiar forms of oath the force of abinding obligation which he denied to all other, strictly preservingthe secret, which mode of swearing he really accounted obligatory,as one of the most valuable of state mysteries.
To a total want of scruple, or, it would appear, of any sensewhatever of moral obligation, Louis XI added great natural firmnessand sagacity of character, with a system of policy so highly refined,considering the times he lived in, that he sometimes overreachedhimself by giving way to its dictates.
Probably there is no portrait so dark as to be without its softershades. He understood the interests of France, and faithfullypursued them so long as he could identify them with his own. Hecarried the country safe through the dangerous crisis of the wartermed "for the public good;" in thus disuniting and dispersing thisgrand and dangerous alliance of the great crown vassals of Franceagainst the Sovereign, a king of a less cautious and temporizingcharacter, and of a more bold and less crafty disposition thanLouis XI, would, in all probability, have failed. Louis had alsosome personal accomplishments not inconsistent with his publiccharacter. He was cheerful and witty in society; and none was betterable to sustain and extol the superiority of the coarse and selfishreasons by which he endeavoured to supply those nobler motives forexertion which his predecessors had derived from the high spiritof chivalry.
chivalry.desire of selfish enjoyment -- that he almostseems an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do hisutmost to corrupt our ideas of honour in its very source. Nor.
In fact, that system was now becoming ancient, and had, even whilein its perfection, something so overstrained and fantastic inits principles, as rendered it peculiarly the object of ridicule,whenever, like other old fashions, it began to fall out of repute;and the weapons of raillery could be employed against it, withoutexciting the disgust and horror with which they would havebeen rejected at an early period, as a species of blasphemy. Theprinciples of chivalry were cast aside, and their aid supplied bybaser stimulants. Instead of the high spirit which pressed everyman forward in the defence of his country, Louis XI substituted theexertions of the ever ready mercenary soldier, and persuaded hissubjects, among whom the mercantile class began to make a figure,that it was better to leave to mercenaries the risks and laboursof war, and to supply the Crown with the means of paying them,than to peril themselves in defence of their own substance. Themerchants were easily persuaded by this reasoning. The hour did notarrive in the days of Louis XI when the landed gentry and noblescould be in like manner excluded from the ranks of war; but the wilymonarch commenced that system, which, acted upon by his successors,at length threw the whole military defence of the state into thehands of the Crown.
He was equally forward in altering the principles which were wontto regulate the intercourse of the sexes. The doctrines of chivalryhad established, in theory at least, a system in which Beauty wasthe governing and remunerating divinity -- Valour, her slave, whocaught his courage from her eye and gave his life for her slightestservice. It is true, the system here, as in other branches, was stretchedto fantastic extravagance, and cases of scandal not unfrequentlyarose. Still, they were generally such as those mentioned by Burke,where frailty was deprived of half its guilt, by being purified fromall its grossness. In Louis XI's practice, it was far otherwise.He was a low voluptuary, seeking pleasure without sentiment, anddespising the sex from whom he desired to obtain it. ... By selectinghis favourites and ministers from among the dregs of the people,Louis showed the slight regard which he paid to eminent stationand high birth; and although this might be not only excusable butmeritorious, where the monarch's fiat promoted obscure talent, orcalled forth modest worth, it was very different when the King madehis favourite associates of such men as the chief of hispolice, Tristan l'Hermite. .
Nor were Louis's sayings and actions in private or public of a kindwhich could redeem such gross offences against the character of aman of honour. His word, generally accounted the most sacred testof a man's character, and the least impeachment of which is a capitaloffence by the code of honour, was forfeited without scruple onthe slightest occasion, and often accompanied by the perpetrationof the most enormous crimes ... It is more than probable that, inthus renouncing almost openly the ties of religion, honour, andmorality, by which mankind at large feel themselves influenced, Louissought to obtain great advantages in his negotiations with partieswho might esteem themselves bound, while he himself enjoyed liberty.He started from the goal, he might suppose, like the racer whohas got rid of the weights with which his competitors are stillencumbered, and expects to succeed of course. But Providenceseems always to unite the existence of peculiar danger with somecircumstance which may put those exposed to the peril upon theirguard. The constant suspicion attached to any public person whobecomes badly eminent for breach of faith is to him what the rattleis to the poisonous serpent: and men come at last to calculatenot so much on what their antagonist says as upon that which heis likely to do; a degree of mistrust which tends to counteractthe intrigues of such a character, more than his freedom fromthe scruples of conscientious men can afford him advantage. .
Indeed, although the reign of Louis had been as successful ina political point of view as he himself could have desired, thespectacle of his deathbed might of itself be a warning piece againstthe seduction of his example. Jealous of every one, but chiefly ofhis own son, he immured himself in his Castle of Plessis, intrustinghis person exclusively to the doubtful faith of his Scottishmercenaries. He never stirred from his chamber; he admitted no oneinto it, and wearied heaven and every saint with prayers, not forforgiveness of his sins, but for the prolongation of his life. Witha poverty of spirit totally inconsistent with his shrewd worldlysagacity, he importuned his physicians until they insultedas well as plundered him. .
It was not the least singular circumstance of this course, thatbodily health and terrestrial felicity seemed to be his only object.Making any mention of his sins when talking on the state of hishealth, was strictly prohibited; and when at his command a priestrecited a prayer to Saint Eutropius in which he recommended theKing's welfare both in body and soul, Louis caused the two lastwords to be omitted, saying it was not prudent to importune theblessed saint by too many requests at once. Perhaps he thought bybeing silent on his crimes he might suffer them to pass out of therecollection of the celestial patrons, whose aid he invoked forhis body.
So great were the well merited tortures of this tyrant's deathbed,that Philip de Comines enters into a regular comparison betweenthem and the numerous cruelties inflicted on others by his order;and considering both, comes to express an opinion that the worldlypangs and agony suffered by Louis were such as might compensate thecrimes he had committed, and that, after a reasonable quarantinein purgatory, he might in mercy he found duly qualified for thesuperior regions ... The instructive but appalling scene of thistyrant's sufferings was at length closed by death, 30th August,1483.
The selection of this remarkable person as the principal characterin the romance -- for it will be easily comprehended that the littlelove intrigue of Quentin is only employed as the means of bringingout the story -- afforded considerable facilities to the author.In Louis XI's time, extraordinary commotions existed throughoutall Europe. England's Civil Wars were ended, rather in appearancethan reality, by the short lived ascendancy of the House of York.Switzerland was asserting that freedom which was afterwards sobravely defended. In the Empire and in France, the great vassalsof the crown were endeavouring to emancipate themselves from itscontrol, while Charles of Burgundy by main force, and Louis moreartfully by indirect means, laboured to subject them to subservienceto their respective sovereignties. Louis, while with one handhe circumvented and subdued his own rebellious vassals, labouredsecretly with the other to aid and encourage the large tradingtowns of Flanders to rebel against the Duke of Burgundy, to whichtheir wealth and irritability naturally disposed them. In the morewoodland districts of Flanders, the Duke of Gueldres, and Williamde la Marck, called from his ferocity the Wild Boar of Ardennes,were throwing off the habits of knights and gentlemen to practisethe violences and brutalities of common bandits.
(Chapter I gives a further account of the conditions of the periodwhich Quentin Durward portrays.)
A hundred secret combinations existed in the different provincesof France and Flanders; numerous private emissaries of the restlessLouis, Bohemians, pilgrims, beggars, or agents disguised as such,were everywhere spreading the discontent which it was his policyto maintain in the dominions of Burgundy.
Amidst so great an abundance of materials, it was difficult toselect such as should be most intelligible and interesting to thereader: and the author had to regret, that though he made liberaluse of the power of departing from the reality of history, he feltby no means confident of having brought his story into a pleasing,compact, and sufficiently intelligible form. The mainspring ofthe plot is that which all who know the least of the feudal systemcan easily understand, though the facts are absolutely fictitious.The right of a feudal superior was in nothing more universallyacknowledged than in his power to interfere in the marriage ofa female vassal. This may appear to exist as a contradiction bothof the civil and canon laws, which declare that marriage shall befree, while the feudal or municipal jurisprudence, in case of afief passing to a female, acknowledges an interest in the superiorof the fief to dictate the choice of her companion in marriage.This is accounted for on the principle that the superior was, by hisbounty, the original granter of the fief, and is still interestedthat the marriage of the vassal shall place no one there whomay be inimical to his liege lord. On the other hand, it might bereasonably pleaded that this right of dictating to the vassal toa certain extent in the choice of a husband, is only competent tothe superior from whom the fief is originally derived. There istherefore no violent improbability in a vassal of Burgundy flyingto the protection of the King of France, to whom the Duke of Burgundyhimself was vassal; not is it a great stretch of probability toaffirm that Louis, unscrupulous as he was, should have formed thedesign of betraying the fugitive into some alliance which mightprove inconvenient, if not dangerous, to his formidable kinsmanand vassal of Burgundy.
(Some of these departures from historical accuracy, as whenthe death of the Bishop of Liege is antedated, are duly set forthin the notes. It should be mentioned that Mr. J. F. Kirk, in hiselaborate History of Charles the Bold, claims that in some pointsinjustice has been done to the Duke in this romance. He says: "Thefaults of Charles were sufficiently glaring, and scarcely admittedof exaggeration; but his breeding had been that of a prince, hiseducation had been better than that of other princes of his time,his tastes and habits were more, not less, refined than theirs,and the restraint he imposed upon his sensual appetites was asconspicuous a trait as his sternness and violence.")
Abbotsford, 1830.
Quentin Durward was published in June, 1823, and was Scott'sfirst venture on foreign ground. While well received at home, thesensation it created in Paris was comparable to that caused bythe appearance of Waverley in Edinburgh and Ivanhoe in London. InGermany also, where the author was already popular, the new novelhad a specially enthusiastic welcome. The scene of the romance waspartly suggested by a journal kept by Sir Walter's dear friend,Mr. James Skene of Rubislaw, during a French tour, the diary beingillustrated by a vast number of clever drawings. The author, intelling this tale laid in unfamiliar scenes, encountered difficultiesof a kind quite new to him, as it necessitated much study of maps,gazetteers, and books of travel. For the history, he naturally foundabove all else the Memoirs of Philip de Comines "the very key ofthe period," though it need not be said that the lesser chroniclersreceived due attention. It is interesting to note that in writingto his friend, Daniel Terry, the actor and manager, Scott says,"I have no idea my present labours will be dramatic in situation;as to character, that of Louis XI, the sagacious, perfidious,superstitious, jocular, politic tyrant, would be, for a historicalchronicle containing his life and death, one of the most powerfulever brought on the stage." So thought the poet, Casimir Delavigne-- writing when Scott's influence was marked upon French literature-- whose powerful drama, Louis XI, was a great Parisian success.Later Charles Kean and Henry Irving made an English version of itwell known in England and America.