Jill Lepore on Traveling through Time (Ep. 24)
I’m here at Harvard University with Jill Lepore.
我和吉尔·莱波雷 (Jill Lepore) 在哈佛大学。
She is one of the best-known American historians and also a columnist for the New Yorker.
她是美国最著名的历史学家之一，也是《纽约客》的专栏作家。
I’d like to give you my conceptual and indeed highly subjective introduction to how I think of her work.
我想向您提供我对她的工作的概念性的、实际上是高度主观的介绍。
The book of Jill’s that really made everything click for me is her book called A is for American, and that’s a book on communication.
吉尔的那本书真正让我眼前一亮的是她的书《A is for American》，这是一本关于沟通的书。
It studies Noah Webster, Samuel Morse, Gallaudet, Alexander Graham Bell, and I think of Jill’s works as being fundamentally concerned with communication.
它研究了诺亚·韦伯斯特、塞缪尔·莫尔斯、加劳德、亚历山大·格雷厄姆·贝尔，我认为吉尔的作品从根本上关注的是沟通。
It’s as if there’s information stored in silos around the country, around the world.
就好像有信息存储在全国各地、世界各地的孤岛中。
They’re often distinct silos, and they’re somewhat hidden or encoded.
它们通常是不同的孤岛，并且有些隐藏或编码。
The job of the historian — also the journalist, also the human being — is to unearth those silos, carry materials from one to another, deal with the impermanence of information.
历史学家——也是记者，也是人类——的工作就是挖掘这些孤岛，将材料从一个地方转移到另一个地方，处理信息的无常性。
So she is herself performing these multiple roles, and if I think of her different books, her columns, her book on Wonder Woman, is looking to comics as a silo, where there’s information about American history, unearthing truths about King Philip’s war in Native American history, realizing how much of the history of the 18th century, and indeed New York City, is in part a history of slavery.
所以她自己扮演着这些多重角色，如果我想到她的不同书籍，她的专栏，她关于神奇女侠的书，正在将漫画视为一个筒仓，那里有关于美国历史的信息，挖掘美洲原住民历史中菲利普国王战争的真相，认识到18世纪的历史，实际上是纽约市，有多少部分是奴隶制的历史。
All of her books I’ve started viewing in this framework.
我开始在这个框架中查看她的所有书籍。
It turns out my favorite of her books is her latest one, that’s called Joe Gould’s Teeth.
事实证明，我最喜欢的她的书是她最新的一本，叫做《乔·古尔德的牙齿》。
Joe Gould was a rather strange figure who at least claimed to be assembling a kind of definitive oral history of the United States, and it’s still debated to what extent this oral history actually existed.
乔·古尔德是一个相当奇怪的人物，他至少声称正在整理一种美国权威的口述历史，而这种口述历史到底在多大程度上存在仍然存在争议。
Jill writes that Gould suffered from graphomania, which is the desire to write and write and write.
吉尔写道，古尔德患有书写狂，即写作、写作、写作的欲望。
I think of Jill, when she’s writing about Joe Gould, she’s actually writing about herself, that she herself has graphomania — doesn’t really suffer from it; it’s something we envy in her.
我想到吉尔，当她写乔·古尔德时，她实际上是在写她自己，她自己有写作癖——但她并没有真正遭受这种痛苦；她只是在写她自己。这是我们羡慕她的地方。
It’s not just that she’s written a lot of pages, but the information density of those pages, the diversity of topics and perspectives, the different silos being brought together is so high.
这不仅是因为她写了很多页，而且这些页的信息密度、主题和观点的多样性以及不同的孤岛聚集在一起都非常高。
There’s so many features of Joe Gould’s life that in some way refer to Jill’s own life: the connection to New England, Joe Gould being at Harvard, Joe Gould being this outsider, that Joe Gould was made prominent by the New Yorker, that he was writing a history of America, and that he was obsessed with collecting materials.
乔·古尔德的生活中有很多特征在某种程度上与吉尔自己的生活有关：与新英格兰的联系，乔·古尔德在哈佛，乔·古尔德是一个局外人，乔·古尔德被《纽约客》捧红了，他正在写一部美国历史，而且他痴迷于收集材料。
So I think of Jill as, in a way, like a character in a Borges short story or her own obsession with Edgar Allan Poe and Poe’s short story, “The Gold Bug,” and encrypted messages.
所以我认为吉尔在某种程度上就像博尔赫斯短篇小说中的一个角色，或者她自己对埃德加·爱伦·坡和坡的短篇小说《金甲虫》和加密消息的痴迷。
In essence, she’s writing all of these books that are deeply personal.
从本质上讲，她写的所有这些书都是非常个人化的。
I read her book on Jane Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s — until Jill’s book — not-very-well-known sister, who was largely an unrecorded figure in history, and I think of Jill when I read these books and that they’re all scattered with references and inside jokes and retellings of stories she’s been processing in her own mind.
我读过她关于简·富兰克林的书，本杰明·富兰克林的书——直到吉尔的书——不太出名的妹妹，她在历史上基本上是一个未被记录的人物，当我读这些书时，我想起了吉尔，它们都散布着参考资料、内部笑话和她在自己脑海中处理的故事的重述。
That’s my introduction to Jill, highly subjective.
这就是我对吉尔的介绍，非常主观。
But now she’s writing a book on the history of the United States.
但现在她正在写一本关于美国历史的书。
She’s been working on it two years, and I thought I would just toss out some topics.
她已经为此工作了两年，我想我应该扔掉一些话题。
On any given topic you can comment on the topic, or you can tell us what it reminds you about in the 18th century, or you can just pass.
对于任何给定的主题，您可以对该主题发表评论，或者您可以告诉我们它让您想起 18 世纪的什么，或者您可以直接忽略。
How does that sound?
听起来怎么样？
OK, I’m in.
好的，我进来了。
On stories of influential women
关于有影响力的女性的故事
OK, first topic.
好啦，第一个话题。
Since we’re here in New England, let’s start with Elizabeth Bishop.
既然我们在新英格兰，让我们从伊丽莎白·毕肖普开始吧。
Elizabeth Bishop, the poet.
伊丽莎白·毕肖普，诗人。
Correct.
正确的。
What do you want to ask me about Elizabeth Bishop?
关于伊丽莎白·毕肖普，你想问我什么？
COWEN: What does she mean to you?
考恩：她对你来说意味着什么？
What’s her role in American history?
她在美国历史上扮演什么角色？
I don’t know that I have an answer about her role in American history, but I will tell a story.
我不知道我对她在美国历史上的角色有什么答案，但我会讲一个故事。
When I was an undergraduate, I took a creative writing class at Tufts, which was a disaster in every conceivable way.
当我还是一名本科生时，我在塔夫茨大学上了一堂创意写作课，从各方面来说这都是一场灾难。
One way in which it was a disaster is that one of the first short stories I wrote that semester featured a main character whose name was Elizabeth Bishop.
从某种程度上来说，这是一场灾难，因为我那个学期写的第一个短篇小说的主角是伊丽莎白·毕肖普。
I had no idea who Elizabeth Bishop was, and I got a terrible grade.
我不知道伊丽莎白·毕肖普是谁，而且我的成绩很糟糕。
Somehow, I think my creative writing instructor thought I was offering a meditation on the poetry and life of Elizabeth Bishop, and in fact I was offering no such thing.
不知何故，我认为我的创意写作老师认为我正在对伊丽莎白·毕肖普的诗歌和生活进行沉思，但事实上我并没有提供这样的东西。
I don’t have a “What does Elizabeth Bishop mean to us today?” She just is a kind of dark cloud over my own past.
我没有“伊丽莎白·毕晓普今天对我们意味着什么？”她只是我过去的一朵乌云。
COWEN: You’re writing more and more on the issues of publicity and privacy.
COWEN：你写的关于公共和隐私问题的文章越来越多。
Today is the 125th birthday of a woman born under the name Gladys Louise Brooks, known as America’s sweetheart.
今天是一位名叫格拉迪斯·路易斯·布鲁克斯 (Gladys Louise Brooks) 的女性的 125 岁生日，她被称为美国甜心。
We all know her as Mary Pickford.
我们都知道她是玛丽·碧克馥。
How does Mary Pickford fit into your vision of American history?
玛丽·碧克馥如何符合您对美国历史的看法？
One of the things I find so interesting about our modern discussion of privacy is that the very notion historically comes out of the confinement of women.
我发现现代关于隐私的讨论非常有趣的一件事是，这个概念在历史上源于对女性的限制。
The big discussion about privacy — that began in the United States and influences our constitutional arguments today — starts in 1890 when Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, living both here in Cambridge together, write an article for the Harvard Law Review called “The Right to Privacy.”
关于隐私的大讨论始于美国，并影响了我们今天的宪法争论，始于 1890 年，当时路易斯·布兰代斯 (Louis Brandeis) 和塞缪尔·沃伦 (Samuel Warren) 一起住在剑桥，为《哈佛法律评论》撰写了一篇题为《隐私权》的文章。
What they’re animated by in doing that is, Warren, who’s married into a very influential Washington family, has been concerned about the way new technologies of photography — but this will then apply to film as well — have exposed people’s ordinary lives to public view in a new way.
他们这样做的动力是，沃伦嫁入了一个非常有影响力的华盛顿家族，他一直担心新技术——“但这也将适用于电影”——以一种新的方式将人们的日常生活暴露在公众视野中。
In particular, they have made women visible, and the private lives of families visible.
特别是，它们让女性和家庭的私生活变得可见。
Reporters with photographers come to Warren’s wedding, for instance, and his wife’s father’s funeral is covered in the paper with photographs.
例如，记者带着摄影师来参加沃伦的婚礼，他妻子父亲的葬礼上也刊登了照片。
So Warren and Brandeis, who write this article called “The Right to Privacy,” in which they argue that there inheres in the Bill of Rights a constitutional right to privacy — which later becomes resurrected, and since 1965, we use it to understand rights to reproductive privacy — is actually really about trying to hide women.
因此，沃伦和布兰代斯撰写了这篇名为《隐私权》的文章，他们在文中认为《权利法案》中固有的宪法隐私权——后来又被复活，自 1965 年以来，我们用它来理解生殖隐私权——实际上是在试图隐藏女性。
So much about Pickford and the early women of cinema and the controversial nature of their careers has to do with women becoming visible, more parts of women’s bodies becoming visible.
关于皮克福德和早期电影界女性以及她们职业生涯中备受争议的本质，都与女性变得可见有关，女性身体的更多部分变得可见。
The 1920s new woman and the flapper and the visibility of women incites a big public conversation that makes possible, eventually, the abolition of the Comstock laws.
20 年代的新女性、摩登女郎以及女性的知名度引发了一场大规模的公众对话，最终使康斯托克法律的废除成为可能。
It’s the first federal law in 1873 that defines pornography, and it includes everything from discussion of contraception to discussion of homosexuality.
这是 1873 年第一部定义色情内容的联邦法律，涵盖从避孕讨论到同性恋的所有内容。
Those Comstock laws, the federal law and all the little state laws that follow, are really being contested in the 1920s as freedom of speech issues.
这些康斯托克法律、联邦法律以及随后的所有小州法律，在 20 年代确实因言论自由问题而受到争议。
So I guess I would put Pickford in that context and in that conversation because what I think the legacy interestingly is for, that our notion of the right to privacy historically has its roots in men’s interest in keeping women visible from public view, means that we have a really screwy understanding, constitutionally, of the right to privacy, and that reproductive rights, for instance, are grounded in a right that doesn’t, to me, make a lot of sense.
所以我想我会把皮克福德放在这样的背景和对话中，因为我认为有趣的遗产是，我们的隐私权概念历史上植根于男性让女性在公众视野中可见的利益，这意味着我们从宪法上对隐私权有一个非常扭曲的理解，例如，生殖权是建立在一项对我来说没有多大意义的权利的基础上的。
Reproductive rights seems to me would’ve been much better grounded in claims for equal protection or claims for liberty than in claims for privacy, which I think turned out to have kind of backfired as a matter of legal discourse.
在我看来，生殖权利应该更好地基于平等保护或自由的主张，而不是隐私的主张，我认为这在法律话语上产生了适得其反的效果。
That’s a long departure from Mary Pickford, but when I look at — to get back to your silo question — when I look at something now, or in the past, it always appears to me on a timeline.
这与玛丽·碧克馥相差甚远，但当我看 —— 回到你的筒仓问题 —— 当我现在或过去看某件事时，它总是出现在时间线上。
Not all historians do this, but I’m really fascinated by timelines, so where did Pickford come from?
并非所有历史学家都这样做，但我真的对时间线很着迷，那么皮克福德从哪里来呢？
And what’s Pickford’s legacy?
皮克福德的遗产是什么？
I just sort of put things in that way.
我只是这么说的。
Of course, she’s also an immigrant from Canada.
当然，她也是来自加拿大的移民。
But speaking of the visibility of women, Eleanor Roosevelt.
但说到女性的知名度，埃莉诺·罗斯福。
You’ve just written a preface to a book by Eleanor Roosevelt, correct?
您刚刚为埃莉诺·罗斯福的一本书写了序言，对吗？
Yes, it was tricky because I’m writing this history of the United States, and I was working on parts of a chapter that are about the New Deal.
是的，这很棘手，因为我正在写美国的历史，而且我正在写有关新政的章节的部分内容。
And Eleanor Roosevelt says the real New Deal is a new civic role for women.
埃莉诺·罗斯福表示，真正的新政是赋予女性新的公民角色。
And it’s really hard: One of the challenges of writing a textbook is how to fully integrate the story of women into the story of men, politically, over the centuries.
这真的很难：编写教科书的挑战之一是如何将几个世纪以来女性的故事完全融入政治上的男性故事。
Roosevelt is so interesting and so important in that era.
罗斯福在那个时代是如此有趣，如此重要。
The introduction I wrote is to this book that Roosevelt published, her first book, called It’s Up to the Women.
我写的介绍是罗斯福出版的这本书，她的第一本书，叫做《女人的决定》。
It came out in 1933.
它于 1933 年问世。
She had a very unhappy marriage, as you may know.
正如你所知，她的婚姻非常不幸福。
FDR had an affair, a long-running affair.
罗斯福有外遇，而且是长期的外遇。
He was quite in love with another woman.
他深深地爱上了另一个女人。
Their marriage was sort of a disaster.
他们的婚姻堪称一场灾难。
She didn’t want him to run for president.
她不希望他竞选总统。
She really didn’t want to become First Lady.
她真的不想成为第一夫人。
She’d been very involved in the Democratic Party.
她一直积极参与民主党。
After women get the right to vote in 1920, the parties have a fight about who can get women to join their parties, so they both form women’s divisions.
1920年女性获得投票权后，各党派就谁可以让女性加入自己的政党展开斗争，因此双方形成了女性分裂。
Roosevelt is the head of the women’s division for the Democratic Party by 1920, and she’s been really involved in getting women to become engaged civically and politically and to run for office.
到 1920 年，罗斯福已成为民主党妇女部门的负责人，她一直致力于让女性参与公民和政治活动以及竞选公职。
And she’s disheartened by the idea of becoming a First Lady, which is essentially like being a caged bird, I think, to her.
她对成为第一夫人的想法感到沮丧，我认为这对她来说本质上就像是一只笼中的鸟。
Still is.
仍然是。
Still is, exactly.
确切地说，仍然是。
So she decides she wants to write a book.
所以她决定写一本书。
While her husband’s preparing for his inauguration, she writes this book called It’s Up to the Women.
当她丈夫准备就职典礼时，她写了这本书，名为《由女性决定》。
It’s actually a hilarious move, if you think about it.
如果你仔细想想，这实际上是一个搞笑的举动。
It’s a little nose-thumbing, in a way, like, “You know what?
从某种程度上来说，这有点令人恼火，就像，“你知道吗？
Good for you, you’re president.
对你有好处，你是总统。
But really, to get out of this depression, it’s up to the women.” It’s a fascinating book and becomes controversial because she goes on a speaking tour.
但实际上，要摆脱这种萧条，这取决于女性。”这是一本引人入胜的书，但由于她进行巡回演讲而引起争议。
In my class this week, I had my students read this incredibly funny document by H.
本周在我的课堂上，我让我的学生阅读了 H.
L.
L。
Mencken from 1937.
1937 年的门肯。
Right after the court-packing scandal, Mencken writes this constitution for the New Deal.
法院挤满丑闻后不久，门肯为新政起草了这部宪法。
It’s a fake constitution and just making fun of FDR’s abuses of power.
这是一部假宪法，只是在嘲笑罗斯福滥用权力。
And one of the clauses of the constitution in the executive part, is the president shall have the ability to appoint anyone in his family to any part of the administration to take on any role, and they shall not be prevented from touring the nation and making speeches.
宪法中行政部分的条款之一是，总统有权任命其家族中的任何人到政府的任何部门担任任何职务，并且不得阻止他们全国巡演和发表演讲。
This is a not-very-sly attack on Eleanor Roosevelt.
这是对埃莉诺·罗斯福的不那么狡猾的攻击。
But so interesting how, in the 1930s when Roosevelt was doing what she was doing, this question of whether women were too visible, too outspoken, whether women could speak in public, whether they could write on topics of interest to public affairs, remained a question.
但有趣的是，在 20 世纪 30 年代，当罗斯福正在做她正在做的事情时，女性是否太引人注目、太直言不讳，女性是否可以在公共场合发言，是否可以就公共事务感兴趣的话题进行写作，这些问题仍然是一个问题。
It remains a question today.
今天这仍然是一个问题。
This remains a surprisingly controversial question.
这仍然是一个令人惊讶的有争议的问题。
If we think of the intensification of celebrity starting in the 1920s, and we compare figures such as, say, Charles Lindbergh to Amelia Earhart, who were two big early celebrities, a man and a woman doing some roughly comparable things, the unfairness meted out to women, say, being judged by their looks in particular ways that are unfair to them, has that really improved much since the 1920s, if you think about Pickford and Amelia Earhart and other women, who first hit that onslaught of celebrity publicity?
如果我们考虑从 20 年代开始的名人效应，我们将查尔斯·林德伯格 (Charles Lindbergh) 和阿米莉亚·埃尔哈特 (Amelia Earhart) 等人物进行比较，他们是早期的两位大名人，一个男人和一个女人做着一些大致相似的事情，对女性的不公平待遇，例如，根据她们的外表以对她们不公平的特定方式来评判，自 1920 年代以来，情况真的有很大改善吗？首先受到名人宣传的冲击？
Or do you think we’ve solved some problem we had back then through some means?
或者你认为我们通过某种方式解决了当时的一些问题？
I don’t know if that’s improved.
我不知道这是否有所改善。
Women have a more visible role in realms other than entertainment.
女性在娱乐以外的领域发挥着更明显的作用。
They’re more visible politically, for sure.
当然，他们在政治上更加引人注目。
But I think it remains quite a punishing thing to undertake, in many ways.
但我认为，从很多方面来说，这仍然是一件相当痛苦的事情。
The technological forces are suppressing women’s political speech in a new way.
技术力量正在以新的方式压制女性的政治言论。
There are new technologies .
有新技术。
.
。
.
。
Social media are more vicious.
社交媒体更加恶毒。
The cost of speaking in public is different because there are new ways and more immediate ways of being shot down.
在公共场合演讲的成本是不同的，因为有新的方式和更直接的方式被击落。
So you might have said, even 15 years ago before the rise of social media, you might have said things were quite a bit better than in the 1920s or 1930s.
所以你可能会说，即使在 15 年前社交媒体兴起之前，你也可能会说现在的情况比 1920 年代或 1930 年代要好得多。
But my guess would be, if you were to look at it empirically, I would suppose — and I could be wrong, I would really want to investigate this in a quantitative way — that the costs are more significant.
但我的猜测是，如果你从经验上来看，我会认为 ——我可能是错的，我真的很想以定量的方式对此进行调查 ——成本更显着。
There would be people who are measuring that.
会有人在衡量这一点。
Rutgers has this Center for American Women in Politics where they look at under what circumstances are women willing to run for office.
罗格斯大学设有美国女性政治中心，研究女性在什么情况下愿意竞选公职。
Because it’s not that women don’t win when they run — they have a hard time raising money — but it has to do with a kind of reticence of the cost, often not only to one’s self but to one’s family, that women assess differently.
因为这并不是说女性在竞选时就不会获胜——“她们很难筹集资金”——而是与一种对成本的保守有关，通常不仅是对自己，而且对家庭，女性对此有不同的评估。
And I wonder how chilling the discourse around social media has been for women who are considering.
我想知道围绕社交媒体的讨论对于正在考虑的女性来说是多么令人不寒而栗。
On Charles Dickens the grump
查尔斯·狄更斯的脾气暴躁
And from the book you haven’t written yet, Charles Dickens in His American Notes, why is he so grumpy about this country?
从你还没写的那本书来看，查尔斯·狄更斯在《美国笔记》中，为什么他对这个国家如此暴躁？
COWEN: What is it about the thought of Dickens that led him to under-appreciate our virtues, if indeed that’s what he was doing, and focus as much as he did, say, on the penal system here and other areas where very few people would defend America’s record?
考恩：狄更斯的思想是什么导致他低估了我们的美德（如果这确实是他正在做的事情的话），并像他一样关注这里的刑罚制度和其他很少有人会捍卫美国记录的领域？
For you listeners who don’t know the backstory, Dickens in 1842, late 1841, he decides to go to the United States.
对于那些不知道背景故事的听众来说，1842 年的狄更斯，1841 年底，他决定去美国。
Partly he needs to earn some money.
部分原因是他需要赚一些钱。
He wants to earn some money and he’s got a nice book contract.
他想赚点钱，而且他有一份不错的图书合同。
People tend to pop over to America, spend a few months and go back and write a little travel note.
人们往往会去美国呆上几个月，然后回去写一篇游记。
Dickens thought this would be a natural for him, and Americans thought of Dickens as a kind of honorary American because he wrote about the lowly.
狄更斯认为这对他来说是很自然的，美国人认为狄更斯是一种荣誉美国人，因为他写的是卑微的人。
This is after Oliver Twist, so 1838, and The Pickwick Papers have been hugely popular in the United States.
这是继《雾都孤儿》（1838）之后，《匹克威克外传》在美国非常受欢迎。
He has this huge audience, he wants to meet his audience, and his audience is thrilled to meet him and honor him with their de facto citizenship.
他拥有庞大的观众，他想见到他的观众，他的观众很高兴见到他并授予他事实上的公民身份。
And Dickens thinks of himself as an honorary American in many ways.
狄更斯认为自己在很多方面都是一名荣誉美国人。
This is the land of democracy, and he’s a democratic writer.
这是民主的土地，他是一位民主作家。
So he’s expecting it to be this incredible love fest, and the anticipation is huge.
所以他期待这将是一场令人难以置信的爱情盛宴，而且期待是巨大的。
And yet, although he loves Boston — he lands first in Boston — and he quite loves Boston and is adored and finds it adorable.
然而，尽管他热爱波士顿——“他首先来到波士顿”——而且他非常热爱波士顿，被崇拜并发现它可爱。
He becomes quite close with Longfellow and with Charles Sumner, really good friends with both of those guys.
他与朗费罗和查尔斯·萨姆纳变得非常亲密，他们都是很好的朋友。
The trip really falls apart when he goes to New York.
当他去纽约时，这次旅行真的崩溃了。
He finds that Americans are, to him, garish and coarse.
他发现美国人对他来说既花哨又粗俗。
In a way, what Dickens finds traveling through the United States is that he really is an Englishman.
在某种程度上，狄更斯在美国旅行中发现他确实是一个英国人。
And he’s angry because — there are a lot of answers one could give to your question, why does he decide he doesn’t like the Unites States so much?
他很生气，因为 —— 对于你的问题，人们可以给出很多答案，为什么他认为他不太喜欢美国？
He would have said, in a kind of pious way, because he was sickened by slavery.
他会以一种虔诚的方式这么说，因为他对奴隶制感到厌恶。
And although that’s true — he was indeed sickened by slavery, and he’s supposed to go on a tour of the South and he doesn’t.
尽管这是真的——他确实对奴隶制感到厌恶，他应该去南方旅行，但他没有。
He gets as far as Richmond, and he just turns around.
他一直走到里士满，然后就掉头了。
In the end he escapes and goes to Canada, where he’s very happy in Canada.
最后他逃到了加拿大，他在加拿大过得很开心。
But, more practically, he’s come partly because his work is generally pirated in the United States, and he goes to Washington to argue for copyright law, an international copyright law that would protect his work because he’s earning just pennies from the huge, vast, unprecedented sales of his work in the United States.
但更实际的是，他来这里的部分原因是他的作品在美国普遍被盗版，他去华盛顿主张版权法，这是一项可以保护他的作品的国际版权法，因为他的作品在美国空前巨大的销量中只赚了几分钱。
And he finds that Americans are very — newspaper editors in particular — are quite contemptuous of him for having done this.
他发现美国人非常“——尤其是报纸编辑”——对他这样做非常蔑视。
Here he is, the poet of poverty, and he’s come here to make sure he’s paid for his work.
他在这里，贫穷的诗人，他来这里是为了确保他的工作得到报酬。
The Americans find that to be ironic and to be hypocritical.
美国人认为这是讽刺和虚伪的。
And Dickens is like, “Well, I’m not working for free.
狄更斯说：“好吧，我不是免费工作。
I’m writing for a living here.
我在这里以写作为生。
You should be willing to pay me.” So it’s really as much that as anything else.
你应该愿意付钱给我。”所以这确实和其他事情一样重要。
But there is a kind of general cultural coarseness that he doesn’t like, and he’s exhausted.
但他不喜欢普遍存在的文化粗俗，而且他已经筋疲力尽了。
Clearly his relationship with his wife is failing.
显然他和妻子的关系正在破裂。
There are a lot of other factors.
还有很多其他因素。
I taught a research seminar with undergraduates about Dickens a few years ago, and the end product was, the students made a podcast.
几年前，我与本科生一起举办了一次有关狄更斯的研究研讨会，最终的结果是，学生们制作了一个播客。
They wrote a radio drama, using only primary sources describing Dickens’s trip from Dickens’s letters home and newspaper reporters’ reports of Dickens as he goes from town to town.
他们写了一部广播剧，仅使用狄更斯的家信和报纸记者对狄更斯从一个城镇到另一个城镇的报道来描述狄更斯的旅程。
And they did a fantastic job, but it was hilarious because he comes with such high hopes, and the whole thing just unravels.
他们做得非常出色，但这很搞笑，因为他带着如此高的希望而来，而整个事情就这样瓦解了。
The further he gets into the United States, the more he hates it, and the more Americans decide that they hate him.
他越深入美国，他就越讨厌它，而越来越多的美国人也决定讨厌他。
I was going to write a book about it, and in the end I decided narratively it was too unsatisfying because you’re waiting for the redemptive moment and it just doesn’t come.
我本来打算写一本关于它的书，但最后我觉得从叙述角度来说这太令人不满意了，因为你在等待救赎的时刻，但它却没有到来。
If we go back to the 18th century, there’s Abbe Raynal from France, the philosopher George Berkeley from Ireland, arguably Jefferson: They think America will blossom as the new Athens and actually do so fairly soon.
如果我们回到 18 世纪，有来自法国的阿贝·雷纳尔 (Abbe Raynal)、来自爱尔兰的哲学家乔治·伯克利 (George Berkeley)，甚至可以说是杰斐逊 (Jefferson)：他们认为美国将像新雅典一样蓬勃发展，而且实际上很快就会这样做。
At best, they were 100 years too early with their forecast for when it would happen, arguably more.
他们对这一事件发生时间的预测充其量也早了 100 年，甚至可能还早了 100 年。
What variable do you think they mis-estimated?
您认为他们错误估计了哪些变量？
Why were they so overly optimistic about the arts and letters in what was to become the United States?
为什么他们对后来的美国的艺术和文学如此过度乐观？
There’s much more alcoholism than they expected, more hooliganism, arguably more stupidity, badly polarized politics, and more violence.
酗酒的现象比他们预想的要多得多，流氓行为也更多，可以说还有更多的愚蠢，严重两极分化的政治以及更多的暴力。
What was wrong with their model of this country, or country-to-be?
他们的这个国家或未来国家的模式出了什么问题？
That’s an interesting question.
这是一个有趣的问题。
I think that the flourishing that they anticipated rested on a misunderstanding of the basic premise of republican government as it was set up in the 18th century.
我认为他们所期望的繁荣是基于对18世纪建立的共和政府的基本前提的误解。
They did not see what we would now think of as the original sin of the Constitution, the three-fifths clause and the continuation of slavery and that constitutional sanctioning of the institution, and could not see how the kind of decay that that would lead to in what was erected as this kind of shining city on a hill version of republicanism.
他们没有看到我们现在所认为的宪法的原罪，即五分之三条款和奴隶制的延续以及宪法对该制度的认可，也看不到这将如何导致这种在山上闪闪发光的共和主义版本的城市的衰落。
That the first century of American history is engaged domestically, almost entirely with the struggle over that question.
美国历史的第一个世纪是在国内展开的，几乎完全是围绕这个问题进行的斗争。
Every step westward that Americans make, is a step deeper into that problem.
美国人向西迈出的每一步，都让这个问题更进一步。
Right.
正确的。
And there’s no alleviating it before the war, and no real alleviation of it after the war.
而且战前没有缓解，战后也没有真正缓解。
So, it seems naïve to suppose, looking back, that the flowering, the great flowering of culture, which is contingent in that notion on the ease of equality, could be possible.
因此，回顾过去，认为文化的繁荣、伟大的繁荣是可能的，这似乎是天真的，而文化的繁荣取决于平等的轻松观念。
I’m not asking you to comment on Steve Bannon, but if you think of Steve Bannon, does that strike you as an unprecedented phenomenon in American history or something that reminds you of something earlier?
我不是要你评论史蒂夫·班农，但如果你想到史蒂夫·班农，你是否会觉得这是美国历史上前所未有的现象，或者让你想起更早的事情？
Bannon as a character or Bannon’s ideas?
班农这个人物还是班农的想法？
Either.
任何一个。
Bannon as a role maybe.
班农也许是一个角色。
The mix of character and ideas in this weirdly unaccountable position.
在这个奇怪的、不负责任的位置上，性格和想法的混合。
I try really hard not to offer, “Here’s a historical analogy.
我努力不去说：“这是一个历史类比。
This is a person somewhat similar at a different moment.” Because that logic generally makes no sense to me.
这是一个在不同时刻有些相似的人。”因为这种逻辑对我来说通常毫无意义。
There’s something, to me, very 1840s about Bannon, partly in the schlumpy .
对我来说，班农有一种 1840 年代的味道，部分是因为他的邋遢。
.
。
.
。
like you could see that guy wandering around a precinct on election day.
就像你可以看到那个人在选举日在选区闲逛一样。
And this is just going to seem unfair, but it’s something about his visage.
这看起来有点不公平，但这与他的面貌有关。
You can completely picture him in an 1840s painting of American politics .
你完全可以将他描绘成一幅 1840 年代美国政治的画作。
.
。
.
。
Yes, you can.
是的，你可以。
.
。
.
。
.
。
wearing the kind of baggy coat, and he’s got the bulbous red nose, and he’s a very Dickensian character in that sense.
穿着那种宽松的外套，长着球根状的红鼻子，从这个意义上说，他是一个非常狄更斯式的人物。
Dickens would have written him extremely well.
狄更斯会把他写得非常好。
On how best to play the accordion of time
关于如何最好地演奏时间手风琴
You’ve argued at times that people overestimate the connectedness of the present with the American past.
您有时认为人们高估了现在与美国过去的联系。
It’s not just that the past is a foreign country as Peter Laslett suggested, but it’s indeed stranger in some sense.
过去不仅像彼得·拉斯莱特（Peter Laslett）所说的那样是异国他乡，而且在某种意义上确实是陌生的。
If we could undo those mistaken intuitions about, “Oh this is like the 1960s” or “This is like Andrew Jackson,” whatever the analogy may be, what’s a concrete example of how that could improve our understanding of the current world?
如果我们能够消除那些错误的直觉，“哦，这就像 20 世纪 60 年代”或“这就像安德鲁·杰克逊”，无论类比是什么，有什么具体的例子可以说明这如何能够提高我们对当今世界的理解呢？
I like to think about it in a different structural way.
我喜欢以不同的结构方式来思考它。
That completely understandable desire to find a historical analogy is just like to take an accordion and compress it.
寻找历史类比的愿望是完全可以理解的，就像拿起手风琴并压缩它一样。
Yes.
是的。
They make then just like now.
他们当时就像现在一样。
So, “Oh I know, Trump is just like Andrew Jackson.
所以，“哦，我知道，特朗普就像安德鲁·杰克逊。
It’s the same move.
这是同一个动作。
He’s appealing to the people.
他对人们有吸引力。
He’s unwilling to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court.
他不愿意执行最高法院的裁决。
He’s overriding Congress in order to get the mandate.” Whatever it is that you want to say about those two people.
他凌驾于国会之上以获得授权。”对于这两个人，你有什么想说的。
And that seems to me really quite kooky.
在我看来，这真的很奇怪。
A different move that I find much more edifying and historically defensible is to pull open the accordion and stretch it open as far as you can, so you can see the distance between now and Andrew Jackson, the distance between Trump and Jackson, and try to understand what happened between those two characters and those two presidencies that helps us to see transformation.
我发现更有启发性和历史上更有说服力的另一个举措是拉开手风琴并将其尽可能地拉开，这样你就可以看到现在与安德鲁·杰克逊之间的距离，特朗普与杰克逊之间的距离，并尝试了解这两个角色和这两位总统之间发生的事情，这有助于我们看到转变。
It’s a little bit like some of the controversy over how to interpret the Constitution.
这有点像关于如何解释宪法的一些争议。
Because originalism, to me, is like squishing that accordion all the way together.
因为对我来说，原创主义就像把手风琴一直压在一起。
“What would James Madison think?” is the question that originalists want to ask.
“詹姆斯·麦迪逊会怎么想？”这是原旨主义者想要问的问题。
Whereas I want to know what happened between when Madison thought that and here where we are now.
而我想知道从麦迪逊这么想到我们现在所处的位置之间发生了什么。
And that’s a very different kind of constitutional interpretation.
这是一种非常不同的宪法解释。
In 1987, when it was the 200th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention, there was a lot of hoopla.
1987年，正值制宪会议召开200周年，当时闹得沸沸扬扬。
It was right after the Robert Bork nomination, and then originalism was very much the priority of the Reagan justice department under Edwin Meese, and there’s a lot of conversation about the filial piety of a bicentennial.
那是在罗伯特·博克获得提名之后，当时埃德温·米斯领导下的里根司法部非常重视原创性，并且有很多关于二百周年孝道的讨论。
And this is an exciting thing to think about, that 200th anniversary of the Constitution.
宪法颁布 200 周年纪念日是一件令人兴奋的事情。
Thurgood Marshall, as you know, the first African American Supreme Court justice who’d argued Brown v.
瑟古德·马歇尔，如你所知，第一位为布朗诉特朗普案辩护的非裔美国最高法院法官。
Board of Education in 1954 — he was asked, “Are you going to participate in the hoopla, the bicentennial hoopla of the Constitution?” He gives this incredibly powerful speech in which he says, “No. You know what I’m willing to celebrate, not that document, which was flawed.
1954 年的教育委员会——有人问他：“你要参加宪法二百周年纪念活动吗？”他发表了这篇令人难以置信的有力演讲，其中他说：“不。你知道我愿意庆祝什么，而不是那份有缺陷的文件。
Let’s just understand the ways in which it was flawed.
让我们来了解一下它的缺陷所在。
I will celebrate the 200 years since, the 200 years of struggle to make good on the promises of that document.” And it’s that kind of thinking, that kind of historical thinking that contributes to our popular culture and to our discussions of the relationship between the past and the present, more than that desire to really collapse things and say, “Oh it’s 2008; this is just like 1932.” It’s not.
我将庆祝此后的 200 年，庆祝为兑现该文件承诺而奋斗的 200 年。”正是这种思维、这种历史思维对我们的流行文化以及我们对过去与现在之间关系的讨论做出了贡献，而不是那种真正瓦解事物并说“哦，这是 2008 年；这就像 1932 年”的愿望。它不是。
It’s really not like 1932.
这真的不像1932年。
You’ve written a book on the Tea Party as a modern phenomenon, and part of that book includes examples of how they’ve misinterpreted the Constitution.
您写了一本关于茶党作为一种现代现象的书，该书的一部分包括了他们如何曲解宪法的例子。
Are there aspects in which you would say the Tea Party was right about the Constitution, and we’ve neglected what they had to tell us, to our peril?
您是否认为茶党关于宪法的某些方面是正确的，而我们却忽视了他们必须告诉我们的内容，从而给我们带来危险？
I think that constitutional interpretation is not as neat as that, like “These people were right, these people were wrong.” Historically, we can see certain decisions are, from our modern vantage, unequivocally wrong.
我认为宪法解释并不像“这些人是对的，这些人错了”那样简洁。从历史上看，我们可以看到，从我们现代的角度来看，某些决定无疑是错误的。
They tended to be decisions that were extremely controversial at the time.
它们往往是当时极具争议性的决定。
Dred Scott in 1857, the worst decision the Court ever made.
1857 年的德雷德·斯科特案，是法院做出的最糟糕的判决。
People of the time said it was the worst decision the court ever made.
当时的人们表示，这是法院做出的最糟糕的决定。
And then it becomes the measure of “This is the worst decision since Dred Scott.” FDR in the 1930s, when the court strikes down a lot of the New Deal, he says, “This is the worst thing since Dred Scott.” Or Lochner in 1905.
然后它就变成了“这是自德雷德·斯科特以来最糟糕的决定”的衡量标准。罗斯福在 1930 年代，法院推翻了新政的许多条款，他说，“这是自德雷德·斯科特以来最糟糕的事情。”或者 1905 年的洛克纳。
People say, “This is the worst decision since Dred Scott.”
人们说，“这是自德雷德·斯科特以来最糟糕的决定。”
I don’t think we have that about, say, the Roberts court’s decision about the Affordable Care Act, which surprised people in the Tea Party by upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act under the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
我不认为我们对罗伯茨法院关于《平价医疗法案》的裁决有这样的看法，该裁决在商业条款的广义解释下维护了《平价医疗法案》的合宪性，这令茶党人士感到惊讶。
I don’t think that there’s some striking national consensus that that decision was either right or wrong.
我认为全国范围内并没有就这一决定是对是错达成共识。
The people I spoke to in the Tea Party were most agitated about health care.
我在茶党中采访过的人对医疗保健最为焦虑。
The provisions that Obama was proposing and then later were passed by Congress — these were things that were not in the Constitution, and they would carry around signs saying, “These things are unconstitutional.” And the court made a different decision, and I don’t think that we have a vantage on that that would suggest, “Oh yes, the Tea Party was right and the court was wrong.” And that’s the chief constitutional question that the people I talked to are interested in arguing about.
奥巴马提出的、后来国会通过的条款——这些都是宪法之外的东西，他们会带着“这些东西违宪”的标语。法院做出了不同的决定，我认为我们没有优势表明，“哦，是的，茶党是对的，法院是错的。”这是与我交谈过的人有兴趣争论的主要宪法问题。
But isn’t it good to have a certain dogmatism about at least some aspects of the Constitution?
但至少对宪法的某些方面有一定的教条主义不是很好吗？
If we look today at the Emoluments Clause, arguably it’s being violated in a fairly large number of ways right now.
如果我们今天看看薪酬条款，可以说它现在在很多方面都被违反了。
And as far as I can tell, the world doesn’t seem to mind that much.
据我所知，世界似乎并不太介意。
We’ll see how that develops, but if we were more originalist and more dogmatic about our own Constitution, would there not be a greater outrage right now about the Emoluments Clause in a way that would be productive?
我们将看看事情会如何发展，但如果我们对我们自己的宪法更加原创和更加教条，那么现在对薪酬条款的愤怒难道不会以一种更有成效的方式吗？
Well, I don’t think that would require originalism; that would just be textualism.
嗯，我认为这不需要原创性；那只是文本主义。
But textualism and originalism, they blend together, right?
但是文本主义和原旨主义，它们融合在一起，对吗？
Yeah, I don’t mean to avoid your question, but I guess one thing that became clear to a lot of people observing the Tea Party phenomenon, which is thought of as popular constitutionalism, or popular originalism, that is to say, rather than legal scholars offering these various interpretations, that the people would decide how to interpret the Constitution.
是的，我并不是想回避你的问题，但我想很多观察茶党现象的人都清楚了一件事，茶党现象被认为是大众宪政主义或大众原旨主义，也就是说，人民将决定如何解释宪法，而不是法律学者提供这些不同的解释。
It was a really, I thought, really fascinating and kind of exciting part of the Tea Party movement.
我认为，这确实是茶党运动中非常迷人且令人兴奋的一部分。
You’d go to these rallies and people would be selling little books called The Constitution Made Easy, and people in the Tea Party would join study groups, or they would read the Constitution.
你去参加这些集会，人们会出售名为《宪法变得容易》的小书，茶党的人会加入学习小组，或者他们会阅读宪法。
And I’m all for reading the Constitution.
我完全赞成阅读宪法。
One of the reasons that that was illuminating was, you could see how entirely liberals had failed to talk in constitutional terms in making political arguments.
这具有启发性的原因之一是，你可以看到自由主义者在提出政治论点时完全没有用宪法术语来说话。
That for as much as the decades in the middle of the 20th century having involved constitutional arguments made by minorities seeking rights — from Brown all the way through the same-sex marriage case — that liberals don’t talk about the Constitution as often.
在 20 世纪中叶的几十年里，涉及少数群体寻求权利的宪法争论——从布朗一直到同性婚姻案件——自由主义者并不经常谈论宪法。
And it left a lot of room for that political argument to make it seem as though conservatives have the Constitution on their side, and liberals just think everything is made up and there’s a great deal of uncertainty.
这为政治争论留下了很大的空间，让保守派看起来宪法站在他们一边，而自由派则认为一切都是编造的，存在很大的不确定性。
Structurally, that’s a completely unequal fight.
从结构上来说，这是一场完全不平等的战斗。
So I hear what you’re saying — you see that now — the degree to which thinking about the travel ban or the Emoluments Clause, or the many different ways in which the early acts of the Trump administration might be challenged on constitutional grounds, that liberals are citing the Constitution more often, but it becomes problematic when you only look to constitutional argument when you’re out of power.
所以我听到你在说什么——你现在看到了——考虑旅行禁令或薪酬条款，或者特朗普政府早期行为可能因宪法理由而受到挑战的许多不同方式的程度，自由派更频繁地引用宪法，但当你在权力下台时只关注宪法论证时，就会出现问题。
On time travel, Doctor Who, and Adam Smith
时间旅行、神秘博士和亚当·斯密
In addition to your work reminding me of Poe and Borges, someone else it also reminds me of is Connie Willis.
除了你的作品让我想起坡和博尔赫斯之外，它还让我想起康妮·威利斯。
She writes about the difficulties of time travel in her novels.
她在小说中描写了时间旅行的困难。
There are stories of researchers being caught with not enough information, or having conflicting pieces of information and not exactly knowing what to do, but then in response to that, compiling or assembling more information, so something like Doomsday Book.
有这样的故事，研究人员发现信息不足，或者信息相互矛盾，不知道该怎么做，但随后为了应对这种情况，编译或组装了更多信息，比如《世界末日书》。
Do you have a take on Connie Willis, or it’s something outside of your purview?
你对康妮·威利斯有什么看法，或者这超出了你的职权范围？
No, I haven’t read Connie Willis.
不，我还没读过康妮·威利斯。
I have a take on time travel and Doctor Who.
我对时间旅行和神秘博士有兴趣。
COWEN: Tell us that.
考恩：告诉我们吧。
LEPORE: I’m totally fascinated by time travel.
LEPORE：我对时间旅行非常着迷。
You should read Connie Willis, then.
那么你应该读一下康妮·威利斯。
OK, maybe I should.
好吧，也许我应该。
That’s her main theme.
这是她的主题。
And a historical understanding of time travel.
以及对时间旅行的历史理解。
Yeah, and I love thinking about how Wells, H.
是的，我喜欢思考 Wells, H.
G.
G。
Wells, thinks about time.
威尔斯，考虑一下时间。
I find that really, really interesting.
我觉得这真的非常非常有趣。
And I think what happens at the end of the 19th century, which is when modern science fiction is being born, among other things, there is this really dramatic sense that the pace in which we lead our lives is changing, and industrialism has accelerated our lives.
我认为在 19 世纪末发生的事情，也就是现代科幻小说诞生的时期，除其他外，有一种非常戏剧性的感觉，即我们生活的节奏正在改变，工业化加速了我们的生活。
A lot of historians have written about this, this new attention to time.
许多历史学家都写过关于这一点的文章，关于这种对时间的新关注。
You get this whole world of science fiction that’s interested in going back through time and especially going back to a time before industrialization, working out what would be the nature of our politics and our economics without industrialization.
你会看到整个科幻小说世界都有兴趣回到过去，尤其是回到工业化之前的时代，弄清楚如果没有工业化，我们的政治和经济的本质是什么。
I think that’s really, really interesting.
我认为这真的非常非常有趣。
I wrote a long piece once about Doctor Who because I happened to have watched a ton of it, both as a kid and as a grown-up, with my own kids, and as a kid, and with my in-laws, who are British.
我曾经写过一篇关于神秘博士的长篇文章，因为我碰巧看过很多它，无论是作为一个孩子还是作为一个成年人，和我自己的孩子，以及小时候和我的英国姻亲。
And I got really interested in how, by the time Doctor Who starts, which I think is 1961 — it just had its 50th anniversary a few years ago — the way that Doctor Who works is to use that sort of H.
我真的很感兴趣，当《神秘博士》开始时，我认为是 1961 年——“几年前它刚刚度过了 50 周年纪念日——《神秘博士》的工作方式是如何使用那种 H.
G.
G。
Wells critique of the widening inequality of industrial and post-industrial life, attaching it to nostalgia for the British Empire.
威尔斯批评工业和后工业生活中日益扩大的不平等，并将其与对大英帝国的怀旧联系在一起。
What Doctor Who is all about is traveling through time so that Britain can be the world’s policeman instead of just one of the members of the Security Council.
《神秘博士》的全部内容是穿越时空，让英国成为世界警察，而不仅仅是安理会成员之一。
It’s actually a really, really interesting way to reimagine imperialism.
这实际上是重新想象帝国主义的一种非常非常有趣的方式。
You could be the lord of time; Doctor Who is a time lord.
你可以成为时间的主宰；神秘博士是时间领主。
It’s a kind of longing for Britain being the imperial power of the whole world.
这是一种对英国成为全世界皇权的渴望。
And what it means to then think about time as something that you could colonize.
以及将时间视为可以殖民的东西意味着什么。
I think that all that is really, really profitable, intellectually, to puzzle through when and why people have fantasies about moving through time.
我认为，从智力上来说，弄清楚人们何时以及为何会产生穿越时空的幻想，这一切都是非常非常有益的。
And Brexit is arguable another example of that.
英国脱欧可以说是另一个例子。
Is another example.
又是一个例子。
People want to just, “Could we just turn back?”
人们只想问：“我们可以回头吗？”
Can’t we trade more with New Zealand, what about India?
我们不能与新西兰进行更多贸易吗？印度呢？
Can we join NAFTA, maybe?
我们可以加入北美自由贸易协定吗？
Yeah.
是的。
To go back before industrialization, in your novel, Blindspot — which is yet another way of assembling and interpreting broadly historical materials — you mentioned Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1734.
回到工业化之前，在你的小说《盲点》中——“这是收集和解释广泛历史材料的另一种方式”——你提到了亚当·斯密的《道德情操论》，1734年。
What’s your take on that book?
你对那本书有何看法？
Is it overrated, underrated?
是被高估了，还是被低估了？
What do you pull from that?
你从中得到什么？
I wrote this novel, Blindspot, with a friend of mine who is a colleague here, Jane Kamensky, and we had a whole lot of fun doing it.
我和我的一位同事朋友简·卡门斯基（Jane Kamensky）写了这本小说《盲点》，我们在创作过程中获得了很多乐趣。
The reason that we wrote it and tossed in a lot of Adam Smith and everybody else was, we’d become really frustrated that we were really interested in telling stories that weren’t biographies of the founding fathers, 18th-century stories that weren’t another biography of Benjamin Franklin or another biography of John Adams.
我们写这本书并加入大量亚当·斯密和其他人的原因是，我们真的很沮丧，因为我们真正感兴趣的是讲述不是开国元勋传记的故事，不是本杰明·富兰克林的另一本传记或约翰·亚当斯的另一本传记的 18 世纪故事。
It’s very frustrating, as a historian who studies other sorts of people, that you just don’t have characters to drive a story like that.
作为一名研究其他类型的人的历史学家，你没有人物来推动这样的故事，这非常令人沮丧。
We know a great deal quantitatively and aggregate about, say, poor widows in Boston in the 18th century, because we have the records of the overseers of the poor.
例如，我们对 18 世纪波士顿的贫困寡妇的情况有大量的定量和总体了解，因为我们有穷人监督者的记录。
We know how old people were when they entered the poor house, how old they were when they died there.
我们知道人们进入这座破房子时多大年纪，死在那里时多大年纪。
How many days they spent there, how much their food cost.
他们在那里待了多少天，他们的食物花费了多少。
But we just didn’t have a story to tell about those people.
但我们只是没有关于这些人的故事可讲。
So, Jane and I decided to write this novel in order to animate the 18th century, the lives of ordinary people in the 18th century.
所以，简和我决定写这本小说，就是为了让18世纪，18世纪普通人的生活变得生动起来。
But then, we also wanted to show how important 18th-century thought was to ordinary people, that for Smith, ideas about sensibility and the moral imagination, and the degree to which we form ourselves in relation to one another through the act of empathy and sympathy, were ideas that suffused the whole culture.
但随后，我们也想表明 18 世纪的思想对普通人来说有多么重要，对史密斯来说，关于感性和道德想象力的思想，以及我们通过同理心和同情行为形成彼此关系的程度，是遍布整个文化的思想。
That, for Smith, came out of his experience of the culture as much as they were him injecting something into the culture.
对于史密斯来说，这既来自他对文化的体验，也来自他向文化注入的东西。
So that’s why that stuff is all over Blindspot.
这就是为什么这些东西遍布《盲点》。
We were ultimately, I think, two didactic professors just, “Here would be an occasion where we could allude to the Wealth of Nations now.” And “Here would be an occasion where we could bring in Locke.” We wanted to show that ordinary people were bound up in the world of ideas.
我认为，我们最终只是两位说教的教授，“现在是我们可以提及《国富论》的一个场合。” “这将是我们可以引进洛克的机会。”我们想表明普通人与思想世界息息相关。