• 作者：岳南
• 出版社：遠流
• 出版日期：2009年
•  
•  　　在20世紀初葉成群而來的學術大師中，有些是單打獨鬥、依靠本身的研究成果對學術界產生巨大影響而為後人所懷念，有的除個人輝煌的學術造詣外，還留下了制度性的遺業，在學術界維持著歷久彌新的影響力，前者當以陳寅恪為代表，後者則非傅斯年莫屬。
  　 　陳寅恪先後留洋16載，通曉二十餘種語言，傅斯年乃五四運動健將，負笈海外7年，與陳寅恪在德國柏林大學共同度過了4年時光。二人學成歸國，陳氏進入清 華國學研究院，成為聞名天下的「四大導師」之一；傅氏出任中山大學文學院院長，開南國一代學術新風。北伐成功後，被譽為「人間最希有的一個天才」的傅斯年 出任中央研究院歷史語言研究所所長，「三百年來僅此一人」、「教授的教授」陳寅恪出任史語所歷史組主任。傅、陳二人這一歷史性的聚合，開創了一個舉世矚目 的學術流派。令人扼腕的是，由於國共分裂，這對同學加姻親關係的曠代天才，被無情地阻隔在海峽兩岸遙天對望而不能相聚，最後的結局是：一個無聲地倒斃在台 灣省議會大廳，一個默默死於大陸嶺南病榻。並世成雙的奇葩凋落成泥，只有芬芳永留人間大地。
  　　本書敘述了陳寅恪與傅斯年成長、留學以及在動蕩歲月中顛沛流離，執著學術事業的艱難過程，生動卓然地展現了知識分子「獨立之精神，自由之思想」的理想信念。是一部反映20世紀上半葉知識分子心路歷程與事業追求的通俗作品，讀來感人淚下，悵然歎息。
  作者簡介
  岳南
  　 　1962年生，山東諸城賈悅人，先後畢業於解放軍藝術學院文學系、北京師範大學魯迅文學院文藝學研究生班，文學碩士。中國作家協會會員，現居北京。著有 考古、歷史題材紀實文學作品《風雪定陵》、《萬世法門》、《復活的軍團》、《日暮東陵》、《尋找北京人》等十二部。另著有以自由知識分子學術、精神及人生 歷程為主軸的《李莊往事》、《梁思成、林徽因和他們那一代文化名人》、《春去花還在》等紀實文學作品十部。
  

  
  

  目錄

  《實用歷史叢書》出版緣起
  序：獨為神州惜大儒（何茲全）
  第一章 風雲際會
  走進清華園∕從北大到柏林∕北京初會∕槎浮海外
  第二章 江湖多風波
  歐洲行旅∕柏林日夜∕羅家倫信件披露的隱祕∕傅斯年歸國∕中山大學的暗流
  第三章 南北兩校園
  傅斯年與魯迅、顧頡剛的衝突∕由同窗到仇寇∕陳寅恪進清華的背後隱祕∕獨為神州惜大儒∕王國維沉湖
  第四章 史語所的第一桶金
  元和新腳未成軍∕內閣大庫檔案的「發見」∕陳寅恪與內閣大庫檔案∕
  第五章 望斷天涯路
  盧溝橋事變∕流亡途中∕再別長沙
  第六章 南渡記
  暫住蒙自∕遷往昆明∕炸彈下的陳寅恪與傅斯年∕
  第七章 中研院院長爭奪戰
  八方風雨會重慶∕來渝只為胡先生∕揚子江頭流亡客∕
  第八章 縱橫天涯馬
  傅斯年家世情緣∕辭別重慶∕營救陳寅恪∕「殺孔祥熙以謝天下」
  第九章 與李莊擦肩而過
  騎上虎背的葉企孫∕傅斯年與葉企孫之爭∕李莊不復見
  第十章 西北望
  亂世策士夢∕傅斯年與毛澤東窯洞相會∕延安歸來
  第十一章 千秋恥，終當雪
  初聞涕淚滿衣裳∕代理北大校長∕重返平津
  第十二章 魂返關塞黑
  在燕大講台上的背影∕陳寅恪失明經過∕欲將心事付瑤琴∕陳寅恪與蔣介石的因緣∕赴英就醫
  第十三章 生別常惻惻
  日暮蒼山遠∕還都南京∕最後的晚餐∕北歸一夢原知短
  第十四章 斯人獨憔悴
  醉不成歡慘將別∕退守孤島∕傅斯年之死
  第十五章 殘陽如血
  南國的冬日∕汪籛、向達的悲劇∕傅斯年家族的毀滅∕陳寅恪之死

  序

  獨為神州惜大儒
  何茲全時年九十八歲 2008.3.23
  前幾天，岳南先生來到我的寓所，攜來《陳寅恪與傅斯年》書稿，囑我看後提些意見。我雖是九十八歲的老人，精力不濟，但面對這部撰述陳、傅兩位恩師，並插 有堂兄何思源（仙槎）青年時代與陳、傅二師一起留學歐洲相交甚篤的圖片和文字，百感交集，遂未作推辭，決定先讀為快。書稿翻閱一遍，一幕幕往事湧上心頭， 兩位大師的身影又在眼前浮現。既然作者有此盛意，藉此機會，說一說陳、傅二師對我的栽培和教誨，順便寫下一點讀後感言，算是對兩位恩師的紀念，以及對作者 岳南先生為此付出心血與汗水的答謝吧。
  我是一九三一年冬認識傅斯年先生的。一九三一年暑假，我考上北京大學，進入史學系。我的堂兄何思 源寫信給傅先生，請他做我的保證人。他們是五四時期的同學好友，後來又一起在歐洲留學數載。我於一個晚上持信去看他，那時傅先生住在西城內平安里往東不遠 再往北的一個胡同裡，好像是廠橋胡同吧。
  傅先生熱情接待了我，和我談了大學應如何學習，並囑我兩句話：「一定要學好古文，一定要學好外語。」說來慚愧，我一生既沒有學好古文，也沒有學好外語，但越來越覺得學好古文和學好外語的重要，時時想起傅先生這兩句話，念念不忘。
  傅斯年先生有學術心，也有學術事業心。他北大畢業後留學歐洲，回國後在中山大學教書，不久就在中山大學創辦了「語言歷史研究所」，這是一九二七年秋天的 事。一九二八年十月，傅斯年又在中山大學語言歷史研究所的基礎上，籌備建立了中央研究院歷史語言研究所。史語所成立後他出任所長，一直到一九五○年去世。 他的社會、政治領域的職務千變萬化，名堂甚多，但史語所所長這個職務卻是他一直擔任到底的。他以史語所為基礎，對中國近代學術事業作出了很大貢獻，中國的 歷史、語言研究由此向前推進了一大步。特別是田野考古工作，可以說是到傅先生與李濟、梁思永等那一代人手中才成為科學的，小屯殷墟的考古發掘是傅先生和史 語所同人建立起來的最早的科學工作。傅斯年主持中央研究院歷史語言研究所的二十三年中，為中國史學、考古學、語言學、民族學培養了眾多人才。新中國成立 後，一大批在這方面有貢獻的學者，大多都受過他的培養。因而在這一領域，傅斯年是當之無愧的第一功臣。
  傅先生是北大培養出來的，也是著 名的五四運動學生領袖，對北大有一種特別的感情，在他一生的事業中，除了創辦史語所，對北大的貢獻也功不可沒。抗戰前，傅斯年除了擔任史語所所長，還兼任 北大歷史系教授、文科研究所所長等職務。我在北大讀書的那四年，和傅先生接觸不多，但聽過他講的中國古代史課程。他講西周史，處處有新意，有創見，使人開 闊眼界，開闊胸襟。聽他的課，很佩服他廣博的學問和深厚的功力。前幾年，美籍華人、著名考古學家張光直教授稱讚傅先生是一位歷史天才，他的〈夷夏東西說〉 一篇文章奠定了他的天才地位，並說此文與董作賓的〈甲骨文斷代研究例〉，是他所看到的有創始性和突破性的最好的兩篇文章。在我看來，傅先生除了這篇名滿天 下的雄文之外，在他身後留下的有關中國古代史的文字中，我更看重〈周東封與殷遺民〉、〈大東小東說──兼論魯、燕、齊初封在成周東南而後乃東遷〉、〈姜 原〉，以及〈論所謂五等爵〉等篇章。這些文章的好，不在於篇篇擲地有聲，而在於它們和〈夷夏東西說〉一樣，都是有創始性和突破性的大手筆與天才之作，只有 大手筆和真正的天才，才能寫出這般具有史識、史見，震古鑠今的光輝篇章。
  我說傅斯年是我的老師，這老師不是泛泛的老師而是真正意義上的 恩師。一九三五年我從北大畢業，他邀我去史語所工作，我沒有去，而是赴日本讀書。抗戰爆發後，我回國在重慶編雜誌，寫社論，在機關裡混。後來失了業，中英 庚款董事會撥發一部分專款協助一些人員在國內做研究工作，我請傅先生推薦我，取得了中英庚款協助，研究魏晉南北朝史。我有了收入，一家三口生活得以維持。
  一九四四年，何思源大哥回山東任山東省政府主席，要帶我回山東做官。當時我正在國民黨中央訓練委員會任編審，該會的負責人是段錫朋，段與傅斯年先生同為 五四運動學生領袖，為人精明苛刻。我原已不想再在訓練委員會待下去，但也不願去山東做官，我還有自知之明，自知做官是最無能的。抗戰後期論政之心已倦，極 願回書齋生活。我去看傅先生，說我願去史語所念書。傅先生說：「畢業時就約你來，你不來。」就這樣我進了當時已搬遷到四川省南溪縣李莊鎮的中央研究院歷史 語言研究所。
  在李莊，我和傅先生見面的機會就多了，只是我同所內大多數學長、學弟一樣，對傅先生是又尊敬又拘束，用三個字來表達，那就 是「敬」、「怕」、「親」。所謂敬，大家對傅先生的學問沒有不是滿心尊敬、佩服和崇拜的；對於怕和親，說老實話，傅先生的性情不同常人，極易衝動、暴怒， 像個孩子，因而大家對他既怕又親。正像董作賓所說：其實傅先生對朋友，對同人，原是一片赤子之心，同人愛他之處也在此，但年輕人的「敬」和「怕」卻又壓住 了他們的「親」。或許這便是當時的內在真情吧。
  抗戰之後，我去美國留學，一九五○年回到北京，十二月去看鄭天挺師，進門他就對我說：「孟真（傅斯年先生的字）先生去世了！」我一時愕然，沉默了半天沒說話。
  行文至此，禁不住思緒縹緲，淚眼婆娑，一時回到北大，一時回到李莊，一時又回到現在，情腸交結，不忍追憶。當年史語所在李莊的幾十口子同人、師友，傅先 生去了，董作賓先生去了，李濟先生、梁思永先生、石璋如先生、夏鼐先生，以及與李莊擦肩而過的陳寅恪師也去了。想到這裡，真是欲祭疑君在，天涯哭此時，令 人倍感傷神。
  屈指算來，到今天，傅斯年師去世已五十八個年頭，而陳寅恪師去世已三十九年矣。我自己也漸漸老了。回憶接受傅斯年、陳寅恪師教誨的日子，猶歷歷在目，感念不已。
  我與陳寅恪師相識於抗戰爆發之後的西南之地，最早見到他是在重慶，後來我到了史語所歷史組任助理研究員，成為陳寅恪先生的學生與下屬。儘管接觸不多，但 有論文經常寄給他請教。在李莊的後期，陳寅恪師已赴成都燕大任教，他的眼睛已患嚴重的疾病，但對我的論文與晉升職稱等事宜，時刻掛念在心，這樣的事例從 陳、傅二師通信中還可以看到，岳南先生在著作中已有摘錄，不贅。有一次，聽從成都回李莊的一位史語所同事說，他去拜訪陳寅恪先生時，陳師對我的學問與人品 還誇獎了一番。我聽後受寵若驚，感到莫大的榮幸，同時也感汗顏。抗戰勝利後，陳先生從英國治病回到南京，住在俞大維公館。這個時候，我與陳先生的接觸就多 了起來，經常受傅斯年先生或董作賓先生委派，給他送信、送物或者送錢等。藉此機會，我也請教了一些史學上的難題，已雙目失明的陳師都一一作答，令我深受感 動。
  陳寅恪先生是三百年甚至一千年乃得一見的學術大師，傅斯年先生是二十世紀中國史學界、國學界當之無愧的天才、奇才和大師級人物。如 果用「最好的」、「最有創始性、突破性」作標準，二十世紀上半葉史學、國學方面的學者，能稱得起大師級人物的，在我看來也就是梁啟超、王國維、胡適、陳寅 恪、傅斯年、陶希聖、錢穆、郭沫若、顧頡剛等幾個人吧。
  令我感到欣喜的是，岳南先生在這部《陳寅恪與傅斯年》文學傳記書稿中，不僅講了陳、傅兩位大師級人物，上面列舉的另外幾位大師，也大都有不同篇幅的描述和介紹，只是敘述的側重點有所不同罷了。
  由於諸多複雜的原因，過去幾十年，在中國大陸，沒有看到關於傅斯年的傳記，甚至連普通的介紹文章也較少。隨著政治思想逐漸放開，前些年傅先生家鄉聊城的 父老鄉親，為此做過不少的努力，召開過幾屆「傅斯年與中國文化」國際學術研討會，也出版過幾本傳記性書籍與論文集。但總的感覺，其聲勢與深入人心的程度， 與傅斯年本人的聲望和在學術上的貢獻比起來，還是不夠匹配，不到位。今天中國大陸的年輕一代，甚至包括相當一部分中青年知識分子，能知傅斯年為何許人也， 做過何種事業者，已不是很多了。人類是容易遺忘的，對傅斯年及他那一代知識分子精英的健忘，不知是歷史的無情，還是今人的不幸？
  關於陳寅恪先生的生平史事，在此前出版的一些著作中，大多是把先生的人生境遇一分為二，對前幾十年生命歷程的?述相對薄弱，而後半生，特別是陳先生最後二十年著墨較多。我猜想，這可能是陳師前半生留下的資料較少，而作為傳主「出彩」的地方也較少的緣故吧。
  岳南先生的《陳寅恪與傅斯年》令我看到的是，他盡可能地搜集了陳寅恪與傅斯年家族前輩人物的一些史事，簡明扼要地進行?述點評，爾後對陳、傅二人留學期 間，特別是在歐洲的交往史實，進行了多方搜羅和鑑別比較，通過當年在歐洲的中國留學生的書信來往與局外者的回憶文章，一點一滴查找、拼對、復原，基本勾勒 出一個輪廓，讓後人看到陳、傅二人在那個時代較為清晰的身影，以及二人在學術上相互影響、砥礪，漸行漸近，肝膽相照的生命歷程。
  幾年 前，岳南先生為撰寫《陳寅恪與傅斯年》這部書，找過我幾次，特別是對抗戰期間知識分子流亡西南的事情，詢問得尤為仔細。我談了一些我所知道的情況。後來聽 說為了寫好這部書，岳南先生還赴長沙、昆明、重慶、成都、李莊等地，對傅斯年、陳寅恪那一代知識分子，以及我們這一批小字輩學者工作、生活和戰鬥過的地方 進行調查採訪，體察當地風土人情，盡量在每一個細節上做到真實不虛。在這個基礎上，他耗幾年心血成就了這部著作，這種扎扎實實的寫作態度是難能可貴的。此 書涉及不少史事屬首次有理有據、條理清晰地對外披露，填補了陳、傅兩位大師研究領域的空白，對研究者與普通讀者予以啟迪的方面不少。
  正 如岳南先生書稿中所描述的，由於歷史和政治等原因，一九四八年後，陳、傅兩位大師被迫離散，一位留在了大陸嶺南中山大學，默默承受一系列政治苦難和心靈煎 熬；一位歸骨孤島，長眠於台灣大學校園。兩位天才的聚合離散，既是大時代的因緣，也是二人性格與思想觀念不同所致。去台後的傅斯年先生曾把主要精力用於台 灣大學的建設上，他想把這座日本統治時期創建的學府，改造成現代一流的大學和學術中心。可惜天不假年，他僅在台大校長任上奮鬥了兩年即溘然長逝，去世時年 僅五十五歲。而留在大陸的陳寅恪先生逐漸落入了淒涼之境，於「文革」中精神備受折磨而死去。
  當年與陳寅恪、傅斯年同時留歐，且是好友加 親家的俞大維說：陳寅恪平生的志願是寫成一部《中國通史》，及《中國歷史的教訓》，在史中求史識，「因他晚年環境的遭遇，與雙目失明，他的大作 （Magnum Opus）未能完成，此不但是他個人的悲劇，也是我們這個時代的悲劇。」
  作為後來者，面對岳南先生撰寫的這部著作，以及著作中所描述的兩位天才大師的因緣際會，聚合離散，或許能讓我們從另一個側面更真切地感知歷史的真相，並從中吸取一些「歷史的教訓」吧。
  是為序。
  序者簡介
  何茲全
  一九一一年生，山東菏澤人。一九三五年北平大學（今北京大學）研究生畢業，旋赴日本留學。抗戰爆發後歸國，任中央研究院歷史語言研究所歷史組助理研究 員、研究員。一九四六年赴美國哥倫比亞大學攻讀歷史學，一九五○年歸國。曾任北京師範大學歷史系教授、北京大學歷史系兼職教授。著有《讀史集》、《中國古 代社會》、《中國文化六講》、《何茲全全集》（六卷）等作品。
  推薦序一
  評論家　南方朔
  詩人戴望舒在〈我用殘損的手掌〉這首詩裡如此寫道：「無形的手掌掠過無限的江山，手指沾了血和灰，手掌黏了陰暗。」他的意思是在那個災難的歲月，詩人的手掌殘損，他撫摸的江山也同樣的殘破。
  但若我們殘損的手掌，撫摸的是知識分子這個板塊，相信，那種感覺就更複雜了。其中有悵然、有傷感，有對歷史的深深喟嘆，有對典型在夙昔的緬懷。知識分子 和他們所處的時代，本來就有著極不自在的關係。而在後進國，這種不自在又多了許多悲劇色彩。近代中國知識分子從康梁、王國維、陳寅恪、傅斯年，到最近剛逝 世的季羨林，哪一個不或多或少帶有悲劇的況味？這本《陳寅恪與傅斯年》說的雖是陳寅恪與傅斯年，其實是用殘損的手掌摩娑過他們那個時代知識分子這個板塊， 予人無限幽思。
  近代知識分子命運多乖，在西方已有新興的「知識分子論」這個新的探索領域，研究中國知識分子，可能也需要從更大的視野去 重新解釋他們命運多乖的更深層原因，並探索知識分子前瞻的可能性。這本著作倒不妨作為一個新的起點，讓我們在作者感嘆的「大師之後再無大師」上，作出更多 探討與思考！
  推薦序二
  歷史學家∕政治評論者　胡忠信
  本書以二十世紀「新 史學」兩位史學大師陳寅恪與傅斯年的生平與思想為主軸，「上窮碧落下黃泉，動手動腳找東西」，深刻而周密地重建民國時代的學術氛圍，把知識分子追求真理以 及報效家國的意志與熱誠作了忠實的敘述。「歷史是現在與過去之間無休止的對話」，這是一本與知識良心的對話錄，值得反思與尊崇。
  推薦序三
  作家∕評論家　楊照
  兩位個性與風格截然不同的人物，卻共同經歷了中國動盪時代，更重要的，共同經歷了對於中國歷史苦苦追尋的過程。從他們的合傳，我們可以更深刻地思考二十世紀中國知識分子悲運的來龍去脈，並探問我們自己看待歷史知識的根本態度。

  內容連載

  【第一章】
  風雲際會
  走進清華園
  一九二五年，隆冬。
  薄霧輕啟，天色微明。慘澹的星光下，一個單薄瘦削的中 年人攜一黃髮碧眼的幼兒，悄然離開德國柏林大學研究院暗灰色的公寓，冒著清晨凜冽的寒風，乘車向大街盡頭駛去。兩天後的上午，二人轉乘的汽車穿越卡納比埃 爾街︵La Canebiere︶，很快抵達碧海青天、卷積雲連綿不絕的馬賽港。中年人提著行李，深吸了一口帶有海腥味的空氣，健步踏上停泊在港灣的豪華郵輪，身後的 幼兒既興奮又好奇地跟進。陣陣汽笛聲中，一老一少作別歐洲大陸，穿越波滾浪湧的地中海，向魂牽夢繞的東方故國駛來。
  
  翌年七月八日，中年人的身影出現在北京西郊清華園荷塘岸邊，他那清臞、睿智的面容與擺動的長衫，隨著陣陣微風與飄拂的花香，立即入了學界的視野。
  
  ──時年三十七歲的陳寅恪受好友吳宓舉薦、清華學校校長曹雲祥聘請，告別長達十六年海外游學生涯，來到這所浸潤著歐風美雨的大師之園，以教授身分，開始了傳道、授業、解惑的人生之旅。
  
  清 華學校的建立，其源頭要追溯到清宣統元年︵一九○九︶六月。當時大清王朝的掌權者受時風薰染與國內外形勢所迫，在北京設立了一個游美學務處，負責選派留美 學生和籌建游美肄業館。這年八月，經外務部和學務部一同奏請，內務部把北京西北郊一座荒蕪的皇家花園──清華園撥給游美學務處，作為游美肄業館館址，並撥 款修建了館舍。在往後的三年時間裡，游美學務處於北京城內史家胡同等處考選了三批共一百八十位直接留美生。入選者到美後，視不同條件或直接進入美國大學就 讀，或先進入美國高級中學補習，爾後再進大學。宣統三年二月，游美學務處和籌建中的游美肄業館遷入清華園辦公，並將校名定為清華學堂。這年四月二十九日︵ 農曆四月初一日︶，清華學堂正式開學，由此揭開了中國教育史上嶄新的一頁。
  十月因發生辛亥革命，停課。一九一二年中華民國成立後，清華學堂更名為清華學校，於五月一日重行開課，並裁撤游美學務處，使之隸屬外交部。
  
  最初的十幾年中，清華學堂一直作為一所普通的留美預備學校而設置，學生進入清華園，主要學習英文和一些歐美文化知識，中國傳統文化的教學則相對薄弱。一九二四年初，清華學校在各方鼓譟和社會大潮湧動中，正式啟動﹁改辦大學﹂程序。
  
  這 年十月，根據清華大學籌備委員會草擬的組織綱要，決定在籌建大學部的同時，籌備創建研究院，﹁以備清華大學或他校之畢業生，對特種問題為高深之研究﹂。由 於財力、人力、研究方向等諸方面的限制，籌備人員多次討論，最終決定研究院先設國學門一科，也就是後來被社會廣泛稱謂的國學研究院。培養目標是訓練﹁以著 述為畢生事業的國學研究人才﹂，學科範圍包括中國歷史、哲學、文學、語言、文字學、考古學等，同時吸收歐美、日本等國際學術前沿的優秀成果，重建中國傳統 學術之魂──即研究院主任吳宓所提出的：﹁故今即開辦研究院，而專修國學。惟茲所謂國學者，乃指中國學術文化之全體而言。而研究之道，尤注重正確精密之方 法︵即時人所謂科學方法︶並取材於歐美學者研究東方語言及中國文化之成績，此又本校研究院之異於國內之研究國學者也。﹂
•  
• 
  

• 週運：王汎森不知道的傅斯年藏西文哲學及數理書

   五明子 2015-11-29 11:30:22
        傅斯年與尼采      一尼采      在國圖翻查外文老書，提出一冊阿萊維(Daniel Halévy)的《尼采傳》(The Life of Friedrich Nietzsche，tr. by JMH one，T. Fisher Unwin，1914)，發現前襯頁有一行鋼筆題字：Szunien Fu London March 1920。封面內側貼有國立北平圖書館的藏書票。老友高山杉在一旁興奮地說這是傅斯年藏書。      1920年8月1日傅斯年給胡適信中說，他抵英在2月末，在倫敦大學聽講一學期，因俞平伯偷著要回國，傅斯年趕去法國想把他追回來。他3月20日左右才從法國馬賽回來，因而這一學年不算，要從當年10月算起。他正溫習化學、物理學、數學等，興趣很濃。又說：“年限增長，範圍縮小。哲學諸科概不曾選習。我想若不於自然或社會科學有一二種知道個大略，有些小根基，先去學哲學定無著落。”(《胡適遺稿及秘藏書信》，黃山書社1994年版，第三十七冊第350-352頁)。這冊《尼采傳》正是他1920年3月初到倫敦時買的。而傅斯年早在1918年8月9日致蔡元培的信中就提出：“(西洋)凡欲研治哲學者，其算學知識必須甚高，其自然科學知識，必具大概。”(《傅斯年遺札》，社會科學文獻出版社2014年版，第一卷第1頁)毛子水在《傅孟真先生傳略》裡說傅斯年“在北大唸書時，對文學史學哲學各方面，都有很濃厚的興趣。他心中以為治科學是治哲學的基礎，所以赴英後，即進倫敦大學治生理學，打算從生理學以通心理學，而進於哲學。”(《傅孟真傳記資料》[一]，第7頁)所以他在英國學心理學和科學都是為進一步學哲學做準備。現在有些研究者如王汎森認為傅斯年最初到歐洲為了學心理學，杜正勝也認為“傅斯年是科學迷，在中國早已嚮往的實驗心理學”，他們都忽略了眼前的直接證據。       後來在國圖又提出多冊尼采著作、傳記和研究作品，都是傅斯年舊藏：      《尼采：生平及其著作》(Raoul Richter，Friedrich Nietzsche：sein Leben und sein Werk，Zweite Auflage，Felix Meiner，1917 )，扉頁有鋼筆題字：隴西李永。      《青年尼采》(Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche，Der Junge Nietzsche，Alfred Krner，1912)，封面的布面上有鋼筆題字：斯年。扉頁上鋼筆題字：隴西李氏。       高山杉一查，這個李永是傅斯年的另一個名字。那廉君在《傅孟真先生軼事》裡說：“孟真先生的母親姓李，在孟真先生尚未成年的時候，大概是從母姓，所以孟真先生的藏書中，有不少書籍上面所寫的名字是'李永'。'李永'，據說就是孟真先生。”此書又添了一個佐證。      《尼采：一個神話嘗試》(Ernst Bertram，Nietzsche：Versuch einer Mythologie，Bei Georg Bondi，1921)，灰色布面精裝，書脊上有：Nietzsche Bertram FS。這是傅斯年自己改的精裝，FS是傅斯年名字Szunien Fu的縮寫。前襯頁有黑色鋼筆字：斯年一九二六年三月一日柏林。原來的封面改成後襯頁，上面有黑色鋼筆字：斯年中華民國十五年。
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
        

  
        《孤獨尼采》(Der einsame Nietzsche，Hrsg. Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche，Alfred Korner，1922)，前襯頁有黑色鋼筆字：斯年一九二六年二月。      
• 《青年時期作品》(Jugendschriften，Dichtungen，Aufsaetze，Vortrage，Aufzeichnungen und philologische Arbeiten 1858-1868，Musarion Verlag，1923)，這是Musarion版《尼采全集》第一卷的特別版。傅斯年自己改的精裝，黑色皮脊，精裝16開，四角包皮，黑色布面。書脊有：FS字樣。前襯頁二有黑色鋼筆字：斯年中華民國十五年。棕色封面改成書後襯頁。  
•    《成長中的尼采》(Der Werdende Nietzsche，Autobiographische Aufzeichungen，Musarion，1924)，傅斯年自己改的精裝，同樣的黑色皮脊，精裝大32開，布面裝幀，書脊有：Der Werdende Nietzsche FS字樣。前襯頁二黑色鋼筆字：始興後世斯年。原封面改為後襯頁，上面有鋼筆字：斯年。      
• 《尼采文集》16卷(Alfred Krner，1903- 1921，索書號：B3312.A21903)，紙面精裝，這套書是傅斯年舊藏。其中第一卷有簽名(1903)，前襯頁一黑色鋼筆字：斯年十三年八月。後面十五卷，都沒有簽名。      貝爾特拉姆(Ernst Bertram，1884-1957)這冊《尼采：一個神話嘗試》，是一本尼采研究名著，當時是暢銷書，從1918年到1929年，出了不下七版，印了兩萬一千冊，也影響了同時代如雅斯貝爾斯、海德格爾等人對尼采的研究。傅斯年這冊是第二版。傅斯年不但在1924年8月買了Korner版尼采文集，還買了尼采妹妹伊麗莎白的這冊《孤獨尼采》。伊麗莎白曾寫過三卷《尼采傳》(1895-1904)，後來又把這套書修訂刪節成《青年尼采》(1912)和《孤獨尼采》(1913)兩書，傅斯年把這兩冊全買了。而《成長中的尼采》上的“始興後世斯年”簽名，據艾俊川兄考證，南朝宋傅亮，因擁立宋文帝而進爵始興郡公，而傅斯年是其第五十五世。通過傅斯年改的精裝判斷，此書也和《青年時期作品》一樣，均購於1926年。自1922年M usarion版《尼采全集》開始出版以來，增補了不少尼采的遺作，因而傅斯年會買《青年時期作品》、《成長中的尼采》這兩冊作為他那套文集的補充，它們是Musarion版全集的第一捲和第二十一卷的自傳部分。      
• 說到尼采與傅斯年的淵源，傅斯年在北大上學期間，受陳獨秀等人的影響，開始閱讀尼采（《隨想錄》，1919年5月1日《新潮》第一卷第五號，載《傅斯年全集》，台灣聯經出版事業公司1980年版，第二冊第149頁)。而留學歐洲時繼續購買和閱讀尼采，更加深了他對尼采學說的理解與認識，尼采學說增強了他對獸性主義的信仰。傅斯年在《我對蕭伯納的看法》裡談到，他二十六七歲時崇拜蕭伯納，而他到英國，尤其到了德國之後，知道了他對於瓦格納、尼采的關係，而對蕭伯納的興趣大減：“尼采是個真的詩人和創造思想者，蕭伯納可不是。”(1950年11月16日《自由中國》第三卷第十期，載《傅斯年全集》，第七冊第38頁)而他1932年10月30日發表的文章《陳獨秀案》裡引了陳獨秀的主張，贊同陳獨秀的獸性主義等教育綱領：“他的思想中這個'尼采層'是使他最不能對中國固有不合理的事物因循妥協的，也正是他為文學革命倫理改造兩運動中之原動力。”(《獨立評論》第二十四號)這個獸性主義恐怕就是尼采的權力意志。所以這些傅斯年的尼采舊藏，也是探索他和尼采關係的重要材料。       二來源      王汎森根據《傅斯年檔案》裡一份1938年編制的傅斯年非中文藏書書目，說當時傅斯年的西文藏書裡，主要集中於心理學、語言學、數學、物理學和歷史學等，他認為這些外文書幾乎都是傅斯年在歐洲時買的(《傅斯年：中國近代歷史與政治中的個體生命》，北京三聯2012年版，第72頁)。而他現存的私人藏書裡只有一些1918年以前出版的英文書，如文德爾班《哲學史》(購於1916年)，羅素的《哲學的科學方法》(購於1918年)，杜 ​​威等人編的《創造性思維：實用主義態度論文集》(購於1918年)(同上書，第26頁腳註)。現存台灣史語所傅斯年圖書館的藏書裡也保留了龐加萊、馬赫等一類科學哲學書籍。這樣看來傅斯年留下的1938年藏書目錄和現存外文藏書裡沒有在歐洲購買的哲學書，原因應是因為傅斯年對哲學失去了興趣，而把這些藏書處理了。傅斯年1926年9月22日晚離開巴黎經意大利回國，這些書一併運回來。傅斯年1929年回到北平，當年6月5日史語所遷入北海靜心齋，直到1936年3月初他才離開北平搬去南京。估計很可能這期間他把在歐洲買的哲學類外文書一併贈給了北平圖書館。      
• 最近發現了一冊希爾伯特(David Hilbert)的《線性積分方程一般理論基礎》(Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen，BGTeubner，1912)，有國立北平圖書館印章，前襯頁有黑色鋼筆字：Szunien Fu Berlin-Dahlem 1924。這是他剛到柏林時買的。還提出過一套七卷本《萊布尼茨數學文集》(Leibnizens Mathematische Schriften，7 Vols.，Hrsg. C .I. Gerhardt，Berlin and Halle：A . Asher & Comp. and H .W .Schmidt， 1849-63)，這是佩爾茨(Georg Heinrich Pertz)主編的《萊布尼茨全集》第三編(Leibnizens Gesammelte Werke Aus den Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Hannover，Dritte Folge)，第一二卷(1849 -50)是合訂在一起的，此書黑布書脊上有：S.Fus Library。這也是傅斯年舊藏。此冊萊布尼茨應為柏林A . Asher &Comp.初版的影印本，紙張都很差，印刷字也有些模糊。隨後提出其餘六冊，看紙張和印刷都是初版。第一二卷合訂本應該是傅斯年為這套書配的缺本，買不到原版，只好用影印的本子了，然後統一裝訂。第三卷有兩個分冊(1855-1856)，而第四卷(1859)，前襯頁有鋼筆題字：與吳洛夫往來信一卷「為」裝(時以之)者誤」入此冊中。看字跡就是傅斯年。裡面果然有《萊布尼茨與沃爾夫通信集》(1860)，此冊屬於哲學通信集，不該收入數學文集，這是裝訂者誤裝，而且書脊上把傅斯年的外文名也給打錯了。其中藏書用的英文，會不會是傅斯年在英國時購買並裝訂的。看來傅斯年當時處理給北平圖書館的不只是哲學外文書，還有數學書。     
•  而高山杉也發現一小冊《萊布尼茨對無限的分析》(Leibniz über die Analysis des Unendlichen，Akademische Verlagsgesellschaftm .bH .，1920)，這是著名的奧斯特瓦爾德精確科學經典叢書本，扉頁右上角有傅斯年的簽名：S Fu，封底有鉛筆：29.4.22。傅斯年如此集中買萊布尼茨的數學著作，應該與他在英國時學習羅素的《對萊布尼茨哲學的批評性解釋》(1900)有關，該書附錄部分就是萊布尼茨著作的摘錄。而傅斯年在美國養病期間，還在1948年4月21日致英國劍橋赫費父子書店(W .H effer.& Sons.Ltd.)的信中，提出購買《對萊布尼茨哲學的批評性解釋》第二版(1937)、《決定論與物理學》(1936)、《物的分析》(1927)等羅素著作(《傅斯年遺札》，第三卷第1352頁)。       
• 說來有意思的是，幾個月前曾發現過一套八卷本《伏爾泰 ​​全集》(O euvrescom plètesdeVoltaire，avec préfaces，notes etcom m entairesnouveaux，parEm ilede la Bédollière & GeorgesAvenel，Aux Bureaux Du Siècle，Paris ：J.Voisvenel，1867-70)，此書紅色皮脊布面，大8開精裝，扉頁前有一幅版刻的伏爾泰 ​​肖像。扉頁上有一朱紅方印：“大綵”，當時想該不會是傅夫人俞大綵的藏書吧。現在對照《傅斯年文物資料選輯》第15頁那枚“大綵”的藏書印，二印雖有不同，藏書上的印是篆字。此印也是傅斯年的藏書印之一，在自己藏書上加蓋夫人的名章，似有夫妻共有之意。俞大綵1931年從滬江大學畢業，主科是社會學，她會英文，對英語文學感興趣，可沒聽說會法文。傅俞二人是1934年8月5日結婚的，後來因為舉家南遷，而把不用的書處理了。不過從傅斯年1948年4月給威廉·詹姆斯《論文與評論集》(C ollected Essays andR eview s，Longm ans，G reen andCo.，1920)書後題記看：“詹母士書，二次戰前，餘多有之，戰後至北平，心理學兩冊猶在，此是以前致力之書也。”(《傅斯年文物資料選輯》，第42頁)，他北平前鐵匠營胡同二號寓所也留了些藏書，日據時期有些損失。     
•   而前段時間查閱資料，發現1932-1933年度傅斯年贈了一冊容媛、容庚為史語所編的《金石書錄目》給平館(《國立北平圖書館館務報告》民國二十一年七月至二十二年六月)。1935-1936年度平館接受贈書：“西文書籍期刊贈書及交換者共三四二二冊……就中較為要得者列舉如下：傅孟真斯年先生贈明正德刊本《大明會典》殘本二一冊，又西文哲學及數理書一二一冊。”(《國立北平圖書館館務報告》民國二十四年七月至二十五年六月，第2頁)現在一共發現了55冊傅藏，還有66冊沒有找到。       對於傅斯年捐贈的原因，可以考察一下他與北平圖書館的關係。1929年史語所遷移至北平原因之一是“歷史語言研究所之發達，便有圖書館資助。此時本所無力自辦一適宜圖書館，欲就北平圖書館參考，亦以移北平為便。”(《國立中央研究院十七年度總報告》)。到北平後，傅斯年親身參與了對北平圖書館的管理工作。1929年8月末，傅就成為新成立的國立北平圖書館委員會委員。據1930年11月25日北平圖書館函教育部及中基會1929年度報告，購書委員會委員有：陳垣、傅斯年、陳寅恪、胡先驌、葉企孫、孫洪芬、任鴻雋。1931年6月6日北平圖書館圖書委員會第一次會議，決定該舊購書委員會分為中文西文兩組，丁文江、胡先驌、陳寅恪、傅斯年、孫洪芬、王守兢、顧子剛七人為西文組委員，傅斯年同時也是中文組成員。從1931年到1937年，傅斯一直任圖書委員會委員。1933年6月，胡適為委員會委員長，傅斯年為副委員長。後來傅斯年多次連任，一直到1940年之後。他應該是看到北平圖書館外文藏書的缺乏而捐贈了書籍。而王汎森說“從1927年到1936年，傅幾乎沒有機會買任何西方語言的書籍”(《傅斯年》，第72頁)，他偏偏忘了傅斯年作為北平圖書館的圖書委員會委員和購書委員會委員，有便利的渠道購買西文書。為便利平館購書(為獲得折扣)於1930年成立的大同書店專門負責採購國外書刊。傅斯年也通過熟人從國外買，如1933年2月11日致信吳定良。       傅斯年買國外書刊，為了省錢辦法可不少。王汎森還說傅斯年1924年下半年起“轉向德國史學傳統，尤其是蘭克學派”，還奇怪傅斯年現存的藏書中沒有蘭克的任何著作(《傅斯年》，第69頁註釋5)。其實傅斯年自述裡說得非常清楚，他在德國主要學習近代物理學和比較語言學。估計他沒花多少功夫去注意德國史學傳統，更別說蘭克學派了。另外根據《北平各圖書館館藏西文圖書聯合目錄》，截至1930年底，當時北平各圖書館有蘭克作品的就有北大、清華、燕京、平館、松坡等八家，而史語所圖書館就有《德意志宗教改革運動史》英譯本(History of the Reformation in Germany，1905)，這顯然是傅斯年經手購買的，傅斯年可能在國外圖書館借閱過，所以不能光看他現存藏書裡有什麼，還要考慮當時他朋友或圖書館有什麼書。（http://epaper.oeeee.com/epaper/C/html/2015-11/29/content_16330.htm#article）
        
• 
  
• 
  

  陳寅恪與傅斯年 作者：岳南 出版日期：2009 年07 月 31 日

  
  

  
  計畫既定，清華校長曹雲祥立即動員原游美學務處第二批庚款留學生，以第五十五名成績放洋美國，並於一九一七年歸國未久就﹁暴得大名﹂的北大文學院 哲學教授胡適︵字適之︶，到籌建中的清華國學研究院主持院務。時年三十四歲，尚不算糊塗的胡氏立即推辭，表示只做顧問不就院長，還建議曹校長採用宋、元書 院的導師制，吸取外國大學研究生院學術論文的專題研究法來辦研究院。曹校長聽罷深以為然，當場表示請胡出任導師，廣招天下士子名流，親身示範，以保留綿延 中國文化之血脈云云。儘管胡適此時的學問日益進取，地位和名聲在新派學界如日中天，但他畢竟算是個心中有數之人，面對曹校長的一番抬舉，並未得意忘形，更 沒敢輕視王國維︵字靜安，號觀堂︶、梁啟超︵字卓如，號任公︶等諸前輩學界泰斗的真實存在，忽略王、梁等人作為文化崑崙在天下儒林所展現的﹁高山仰止﹂的 偉岸身影。
  他清醒並謙虛地說道：﹁非第一流學者，不配作研究院的導師，我實在不敢當。你最好去請梁任公、王靜安、章太炎三位大師，方能把研究院辦好。﹂曹校長見對方態度誠懇，又覺此言甚在情理，於是決定按胡適指引的方式、方法付諸行動。
  
  一九二五年二月，在曹雲祥主持下，清華學校國學研究院籌備處鳴鑼開張，首先聘請由清華出身、美國哈佛大學學成歸國的一代名士、年僅三十二歲的吳宓主持研究院籌備處事宜。
  
  按 照當初胡適的建議，曹雲祥讓吳宓拿著自己簽發的聘書前往幾位大師住處一一聘請。曾任宣統朝五品﹁南書房行走﹂之職、時年四十九歲的王國維，身為滿清王朝最 後一位皇帝──溥儀的﹁帝師﹂，自然屬於舊派人物。此前，曹雲祥曾託胡適向王氏轉交過一封非正式的印刷體聘書，並讓胡對王就研究院性質與教授程序做一番解 釋說明。聘書送到後，胡適怕這位性格內向的學術大師優柔寡斷，又動用自己的汽車專門載著王國維在清華園轉了一圈。王氏見園內風景優美，校內頗具規模與秩 序，始有進清華的念頭。此次吳宓在登門之前，針對王氏這位清朝遺老的生活、思想、習性做了調查研究，計定了周密的對付辦法，欲一舉拿下。待到北京城內地安 門織染局十號王國維住所後，吳宓進得廳堂，二話沒說，先必恭必敬地向上行三鞠躬禮，然後落坐，再慢慢提及聘請之事。如此一招，令王國維大感意外又深受感 動，覺得眼前這個吃過洋麵包的年輕人，居然把自己當做一個有身分的前輩人物看待，尊敬有加，頓覺有了面子，心中頗為舒暢痛快，當場答應下來。據吳宓回憶 說：﹁王先生事後語人，彼以為來者必係西服革履、握手對坐之少年，至是乃知不同，乃決就聘。﹂
  
  吳宓打的三個恭總算沒有白費。
  
  王 國維雖打定主意，但又想到自己仍是前清皇朝的臣子，為人臣者，乃唯君命是從，像這樣工作調動之大事還得按舊規矩向﹁皇帝﹂稟報，看﹁上面﹂是否﹁恩准﹂， 然後才能正式決定行止，否則有失體統。於是，他憋在家中頗費了一番腦筋，經過幾次反覆思量，又偷偷摸摸跑到日本駐華使館拜見遜帝溥儀︵南按：時溥儀被馮玉 祥趕出紫禁城，暫避於東交民巷日使館︶，吭哧了老半天，在﹁面奉諭旨命就清華學校研究院之聘﹂後，才放下心來，收拾行李，於四月十八日攜家人遷往清華園古 月堂居住︵秋遷入西院十六、十八號︶，就任國學研究院教授之職。
•  王氏到校，立即在師生間引起轟動，鑑於他在國學界如雷貫耳的顯赫聲名，曹雲祥校長有意請其出任研究院院長一職，王﹁以院長須總理院中大小事宜﹂而堅辭不 就，執意專任教授。曹校長鑑於吳宓在籌備過程的貢獻，便與之商議，請他出任院長，吳宓為人謙恭不肯接受，學校乃改聘他為研究院主任。
  
  與王 國維處事風格不同的是，時年五十三歲的梁啟超一見吳宓送達的聘書，極其痛快地欣然接受。梁氏儘管年過半百，思想不再像當年﹁公車上書﹂，憑一介書生之血氣 與康有為等舉子在北京城奔走呼號，掀起著名的﹁康梁變法﹂滔天巨浪時那樣激進，且已有保守之嫌；但憑藉他那明快暢達，開一代學風的︽飲冰室文集︾和現代史 學的奠基之作︽中國歷史研究法︾等文史巨著，奠定了其不可撼動的學術大師地位。當時中國學界曾稱﹁太炎為南方學術界之泰山，任公為北方學術界之北斗﹂，南 北兩大巨星相互映照，構成了二十世紀上半葉史學星河中燦爛絢麗的風景。
  
  王、梁二位大師應聘後，按當初胡適的提議，清華方面欲聘另一位名蓋 當世，為天下士子服膺的國學大師、外號﹁章瘋子﹂的章太炎︵名炳麟︶前來聚會。但自視甚高，目空天下士的章氏不願與王、梁二人同堂共事。因為章在日本時常 和梁啟超打筆墨官司，另外章公開反對甲骨文，說那是奸商們鼓搗出的假冒偽劣產品，信它就是妄人，而王國維恰是以研究甲骨文並發現了殷商王朝的先公先王聞名 於世的。鑑於這眾多的瓜葛，章太炎得此禮聘，﹁瘋﹂勁頓起，當場將聘書摔在地下，高聲示眾，以表決絕之心。自此，﹁章瘋子﹂失去了在清華園一展風采的機 會，清華園也失去了一位儒林宗師。
  
  國學研究院既開，第一屆招收了三十八名學生，僅王、梁二位導師顯然不足以應付。於是，清華教務長張彭春 積極薦舉與自己同期留美，時年三十四歲，才情超群，知識廣博，號稱﹁漢語言學之父﹂的哈佛博士趙元任前來任教。曹校長聞知，欣然同意，立即發電聘請。正擔 任國學研究院主任之職的吳宓，一看張氏薦舉了自己的同窗故舊，也不甘示弱，靈機一動，藉機向曹雲祥推薦了自己在哈佛攻讀時的同學──這便是後來被譽為中國 史學界﹁三百年來僅此一人﹂的陳寅恪。
  
  原籍陝西涇陽的吳宓︵字雨僧︶，一九一六年於清華學堂畢業，次年赴美留學，初入維吉尼亞大學，後轉 入哈佛大學就讀。獲得學士學位後，繼入哈佛研究生院，師從新人文主義大師白璧德︵Irving Babbitt︶攻讀哲學。就在這個時候，來自江西義寧的陳寅恪經在美國哈佛就讀的表弟俞大維介紹，入哈佛大學，師從東方語言學大師蘭曼︵Charles Rockwell Lanman︶學習梵文與巴利文︵Paali，古印度文的一種︶。既進哈佛校園，自然要與中國留學生結交，陳寅恪很快與姜立夫、梅光迪、湯用彤等輩相識， 當然還有終生摯友吳宓。其間，由於陳寅恪、吳宓、湯用彤三人才華出眾，成績卓著，引起中國留學生的矚目，一時有﹁哈佛三傑﹂之譽。而
  身為三傑之一的吳宓，則對陳寅恪的學問人品推崇備至，讚為人中之龍，相識不久即以師長待之。
  
  吳 宓有寫日記的習慣和毅力，也是日記高手，行文優美，議論獨到，與好論政治時勢的胡適日記大為不同，內中充滿了真性情和對世事的深邃見解。其珍貴的史料價值 與引人入勝的﹁好看﹂程度，在學術界備受推崇，是研究陳寅恪生平史事的一扇不可或缺的窗口。據已整理出版的︽吳宓日記︾載，一九一九年三月二日，正在哈佛 攻讀碩士學位的吳氏受中國學生會之請，作︽紅樓夢新談︾演講，他認為﹁用西洋小說法程︵原理、技術︶來衡量︽紅樓夢︾，見得處處精上，結論是：︽紅樓夢︾ 是一部偉大的小說，世界各國文學中未見其比﹂。
•  當吳宓意氣風發，正在講堂上慷慨激昂地演講之時，剛進哈佛大學一個月的陳寅恪在俞大維的陪同下前往聆聽，見吳宓搖頭晃腦沉醉其中，對︽紅樓夢︾中人物景 象，隱語暗線，起承轉合，皆說得有聲有色，頭頭是道。陳寅恪對吳宓的才學留下了深刻印象，並流露出欽佩之情，很快作︿﹁紅樓夢新談﹂題詞﹀一首相贈，詩 曰：
  
  等是閻浮夢裡身，夢中談夢倍酸辛。
  青天碧海能留命，赤縣黃車（自注：虞初號黃車使者）更有人。
  世外文章歸自媚，燈前啼笑已成塵。
  春宵絮語知何意，付與勞生一愴神。
  
  吳宓初得陳寅恪詩文，驚喜交加，認為在異國他鄉的飄零歲月，不僅得到了一位難得的知音，同時得到了一位亦師亦友的貼心好兄弟。這個朋友很可能伴隨自己一生，並作為道德學問之楷模，像一盞永不熄滅的明燈，昭示著前方那漫長的人生之路。
  
  吳 宓在當天的日記中寫道：﹁陳君學問淵博，識力精到，遠非儕輩所能及。而又性氣和爽，志行高潔，深為傾倒。新得此友，殊自得也。﹂i字裡行間，跳躍著作者喜 悅的音符，彌漫蕩漾著濃得化不開、只有雙方心靈深處才能觸動的熱血情懷。自此之後，吳、陳二人作為同學加密友，攜手並行，開始了長達半個世紀感人肺腑的管 鮑之交。也正是得益於陳寅恪的鼓勵與幫助，吳宓所學專業日漸精進，在﹁紅學﹂研究中深得神韻，終於成為開宗立派、獨領風騷的一代宗師。為此，吳宓深為感 激，並多次提及此事。許多年後，對於陳寅恪的學問人品，吳宓仍不無感慨地說道：﹁一九一九年一月底二月初，陳寅恪君由歐洲來到美國。先寓康橋 Cambridge區之Mt. Auburn街。由俞大維君介見。以後宓恆往訪，聆其談述。則寅恪不但學問淵博，且深悉中西政治、社會之內幕。……其歷年在中國文學、史學及詩之一道，所 啟迪、指教宓者，更多不勝記也。﹂縱觀吳宓一生為人為學之品性，此說當為其發自肺腑的心聲。
  
  一九二一年夏秋之交，吳宓獲得碩士學位後歸 國，先後出任東南大學和東北大學教授，致力於西方文學教學和研究，同時兼任號稱﹁論究學術，闡述真理，昌明國粹，融化新知，以中正之眼光，行批評之職事， 無偏無黨，無激無隨﹂的︽學衡︾雜誌主編。這份以梅光迪、柳詒徵等為主要創辦人，奉吳氏為﹁學衡派﹂領袖的雜誌，儘管遭到了另類文化派領袖陳獨秀以及幹將 胡適、周豫才︵魯迅︶、周作人兄弟等人的強烈抵制與猛烈抨擊，但與胡適關係相當密切的曹雲祥，並未因此類江湖恩怨偏袒一方。當清華學校國學研究院籌備處成 立後，曹氏慕吳宓的才學與名聲，力主聘其回母校為國學研究院籌備工作鳴鑼開道。吳不負厚意，很快辭去東北大學教職，懷著一份感念之情回到故都北京，二度踏 進水木清華那寧靜安逸的校園，竭盡全力協助校長曹雲祥，積極物色延聘國內﹁精博宏通的國學大師﹂︵吳宓語︶來院執教。就在這樣一個節骨眼上，遠在萬里之外 的陳寅恪，迎來了踏入清華園一試身手的歷史契機。
  
  此時，陳寅恪已由美國哈佛大學轉赴德國柏林大學研究院攻讀。他得到清華聘請的電文後，經 過一番躊躇思量，答應就聘。由於購書等事宜拖延了半年才起程歸國，又因母喪等事宜，回到上海的陳寅恪向校方請假在家中逗留了一年，直到一九二六年七月八 日，方步入清華校園的大門。而這個時候，吳宓因與教務長張彭春矛盾加深，已辭去研究院主任之職，改任清華外國語言文學系教授。曾經薦舉趙元任步入清華講壇 的張彭春，也在與吳宓等人的紛爭中敗下陣來，被學生趕出了清華園，研究院事務由新任教務長梅貽琦兼理。
  
  混戰過後，處於多事之秋的清華園又恢復了往日的平靜。在蛙鼓蟬鳴與陣陣熱風吹蕩中，隨著陳寅恪擺動長衫緩緩登上承載著文化使命的聖潔講台，一個令天下學界為之震動，被後世廣為流傳並影響深遠的﹁四大導師﹂陣營業已形成，清華國學研究院迎來了它的巔峰時代。
  
  這 年十一月十六日，清華學校教務長梅貽琦來到陳寅恪住所商談，欲聘請一位大字號﹁海龜﹂︵海外歸國學人︶來校出任中國文史教授，以充實清華的文科陣容，壯大 學校的整體實力，為即將改制的清華大學再加籌碼。陳寅恪稍加思索，脫口說出了一個人的名字。這便是聲名赫赫的五四運動學生領袖，當時仍在德國柏林大學研究 院就讀的同窗好友──傅斯年。

一一歲三登大肚山，疎林漸已蔽孱顏。欲知獨客頻來意，為有畸人住此間。僻地儻逃牛李厄，勞生端愧鳥魚頑。別來太瘦君無悔，正要詩芒掩鬢斑。

2011.7

Romola by George Eliot: Chapter 5

綠色EQ

Ecological Intelligence

作者：丹尼爾．高曼

• Conversations With Joseph Brodsky
• A Poets Journey Through The Twentieth Century
• 作者︰Solomon Volkov

作品的中譯[編輯]

• 《我坐在窗前》等. 金重，王偉慶/譯. 世界文學. 1987年.
• 《從彼得堡到斯德哥爾摩》. 王希蘇、常暉/譯. 灕江出版社. 1992年.
• 《見證與愉悅》. 黃燦然/譯. 天津市: 百花文藝出版社. 1999年.
• 《赫伯特/布羅茨基/赫伯特》. 李魁賢/譯. 台北市: 桂冠. 2002年.
• 《文明的孩子：布羅茨基論詩和詩人》. 劉文飛、唐烈英/譯. 北京市: 中央編譯. 2007年.
• 《布羅茨基談話錄》. 馬海甸等人/編譯. 北京: 東方. 2008年.
• 《布羅茨基詩選》. 金重，譯. 世界文學. 2013年.

Gennady Smakov, 48, Translator and Author

Ladies and gentlemen of the class of 1984:

No matter how daring or cautious you may choose to be, in the course of your life you are bound to come into direct physical contact with what’s known as Evil. I mean here not a property of the gothic novel but, to say the least, a palpable social reality that you in no way can control. No amount of good nature or cunning calculations will prevent this encounter. In fact, the more calculating, the more cautious you are, the greater is the likelihood of this rendezvous, the harder its impact. Such is the structure of life that what we regard as Evil is capable of a fairly ubiquitous presence if only because it tends to appear in the guise of good. You never see it crossing your threshold announcing itself: “Hi, I’m Evil!” That, of course, indicates its secondary nature, but the comfort one may derive from this observation gets dulled by its frequency.

A prudent thing to do, therefore, would be to subject your notions of good to the closest possible scrutiny, to go, so to speak, through your entire wardrobe checking which of your clothes may fit a stranger. That, of course, may turn into a full-time occupation, and well it should. You’ll be surprised how many things you considered your own and good can easily fit, without much adjustment, your enemy. You may even start to wonder whether he is not your mirror image, for the most interesting thing about Evil is that it is wholly human. To put it mildly, nothing can be turned and worn inside out with greater ease than one’s notion of social justice, public conscience, a better future, etc. One of the surest signs of danger here is the number of those who share your views, not so much because unanimity has a knack of degenerating into uniformity as because of the probability—implicit in great numbers—that noble sentiment is being faked.

By the same token, the surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even—if you will—eccentricity. That is, something that can’t be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned impostor couldn’t be happy with. Something, in other words, that can’t be shared, like your own skin—not even by a minority. Evil is a sucker for solidity. It always goes for big numbers, for confident granite, for ideological purity, for drilled armies and balanced sheets. Its proclivity for such things has to do presumably with its innate insecurity, but this realization, again, is of small comfort when Evil triumphs.

Which it does: in so many parts of the world and inside ourselves. Given its volume and intensity, given, especially, the fatigue of those who oppose it, Evil today may be regarded not as an ethical category but as a physical phenomenon no longer measured in particles but mapped geographically. Therefore the reason I am talking to you about all this has nothing to do with your being young, fresh, and facing a clean slate. No, the slate is dark with dirt and it’s hard to believe in either your ability or your will to clean it. The purpose of my talk is simply to suggest to you a mode of resistance which may come in handy to you one day; a mode that may help you to emerge from the encounter with Evil perhaps less soiled if not necessarily more triumphant than your precursors. What I have in mind, of course, is the famous business of turning the other cheek.

I assume that one way or another you have heard about the interpretations of this verse from the Sermon on the Mount by Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others. In other words, I assume that you are familiar with the concept of nonviolent, or passive, resistance, whose main principle is returning good for evil, that is, not responding in kind. The fact that the world today is what it is suggests, to say the least, that this concept is far from being cherished universally. The reasons for its unpopularity are twofold. First, what is required for this concept to be put into effect is a margin of democracy. This is precisely what 86 percent of the globe lacks. Second, the common sense that tells a victim that his only gain in turning the other cheek and not responding in kind yields, at best, a moral victory, i.e., quite immaterial. The natural reluctance to expose yet another part of your body to a blow is justified by a suspicion that this sort of conduct only agitates and enhances Evil; that moral victory can be mistaken by the adversary for his impunity.

There are other, graver reasons to be suspicious. If the first blow hasn’t knocked all the wits out of the victim’s head, he may realize that turning the other cheek amounts to manipulation of the offender’s sense of guilt, not to speak of his karma. The moral victory itself may not be so moral after all, not only because suffering often has a narcissistic aspect to it, but also because it renders the victim superior, that is, better than his enemy. Yet no matter how evil your enemy is, the crucial thing is that he is human; and although incapable of loving another like ourselves, we nonetheless know that evil takes root when one man starts to think that he is better than another. (This is why you’ve been hit on your right cheek in the first place.) At best, therefore, what one can get from turning the other cheek to one’s enemy is the satisfaction of alerting the latter to the futility of his action. “Look,” the other cheek says, “what you are hitting is just flesh. It’s not me. You can’t crush my soul.” The trouble, of course, with this kind of attitude is that the enemy may just accept the challenge.

Twenty years ago the following scene took place in one of the numerous prison yards of northern Russia. At seven o’clock in the morning the door of a cell was flung open and on its threshold stood a prison guard who addressed its inmates: “Citizens! The collective of this prison’s guards challenges you, the inmates, to socialist competition in cutting the lumber amassed in our yard.” In those parts there is no central heating, and the local police, in a manner of speaking, tax all the nearby lumber companies for one tenth of their produce. By the time I am describing, the prison yard looked like a veritable lumber yard: the piles were two to three stories high, dwarfing the onestoried quadrangle of the prison itself. The need for cutting was evident, although socialist competitions of this sort had happened before. “And what if I refuse to take part in this?” inquired one of the inmates. “Well, in that case no meals for you,” replied the guard.

Then axes were issued to inmates, and the cutting started. Both prisoners and guards worked in earnest, and by noon all of them, especially the always underfed prisoners, were exhausted. A break was announced and people sat down to eat: except the fellow who asked the question. He kept swinging his axe. Both prisoners and guards exchanged jokes about him, something about Jews being normally regarded as smart people whereas this man…and so forth. After the break they resumed the work, although in a somewhat more flagging manner. By four o’clock the guards quit, since for them it was the end of their shift; a bit later the inmates stopped too. The man’s axe still kept swinging. Several times he was urged to stop, by both parties, but he paid no attention. It seemed as though he had acquired a certain rhythm he was unwilling to break; or was it a rhythm that possessed him?

To the others, he looked like an automaton. By five o’clock, by six o’clock, the axe was still going up and down. Both guards and inmates were now watching him keenly, and the sardonic expression on their faces gradually gave way first to one of bewilderment and then to one of terror. By seven-thirty the man stopped, staggered into his cell, and fell asleep. For the rest of his stay in that prison, no call for socialist competition between guards and inmates was issued again, although the wood kept piling up.

I suppose the fellow could do this—twelve hours of straight cutting—because at the time he was quite young. In fact, he was then twenty-four. Only a little older than you are. However, I think there could have been another reason for his behavior that day. It’s quite possible that the young man—precisely because he was young—remembered the text of the Sermon on the Mount better than Tolstoy and Gandhi did. Because the Son of Man was in the habit of speaking in triads, the young man could have recalled that the relevant verse doesn’t stop at

but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

but continues without either period or comma:

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thycloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Quoted in full, these verses have in fact very little to do with nonviolent or passive resistance, with the principles of not responding in kind and returning good for evil. The meaning of these lines is anything but passive for it suggests that evil can be made absurd through excess; it suggests rendering evil absurd through dwarfing its demands with the volume of your compliance, which devalues the harm. This sort of thing puts a victim into a very active position, into the position of a mental aggressor. The victory that is possible here is not a moral but an existential one. The other cheek here sets in motion not the enemy’s sense of guilt (which he is perfectly capable of quelling) but exposes his senses and faculties to the meaninglessness of the whole enterprise: the way every form of mass production does.

Let me remind you that we are not talking here about a situation involving a fair fight. We are talking about situations where one finds oneself in a hopelessly inferior position from the very outset, where one has no chance of fighting back, where the odds are overwhelmingly against one. In other words, we are talking about the very dark hours in one’s life, when one’s sense of moral superiority over the enemy offers no solace, when this enemy is too far gone to be shamed or made nostalgic for abandoned scruples, when one has at one’s disposal only one’s face, coat, cloak, and a pair of feet that are still capable of walking a mile or two.

In this situation there is very little room for tactical maneuver. So turning the other cheek should be your conscious, cold, deliberate decision. Your chances of winning, however dismal they are, all depend on whether or not you know what you are doing. Thrusting forward your face with the cheek toward the enemy, you should know that this is just the beginning of your ordeal as well as that of the verse—and you should be able to see yourself through the entire sequence, through all three verses from the Sermon on the Mount. Otherwise, a line taken out of context will leave you crippled.

To base ethics on a faultily quoted verse is to invite doom, or else to end up becoming a mental bourgeois enjoying the ultimate comfort: that of his convictions. In either case (of which the latter with its membership in well-intentioned movements and nonprofit organizations is the least palatable) it results in yielding ground to Evil, in delaying the comprehension of its weaknesses. For Evil, may I remind you, is only human.

Ethics based on this faultily quoted verse have changed nothing in post-Gandhi India, save the color of its administration. From a hungry man’s point of view, though, it’s all the same who makes him hungry. I submit that he may even prefer a white man to be responsible for his sorry state if only because this way social evil may appear to come from elsewhere and may perhaps be less efficient than the suffering at the hand of his own kind. With an alien in charge, there is still room for hope, for fantasy.

Similarly in post-Tolstoy Russia, ethics based on this misquoted verse undermined a great deal of the nation’s resolve in confronting the police state. What has followed is known all too well: six decades of turning the other cheek transformed the face of the nation into one big bruise, so that the state today, weary of its violence, simply spits at that face. As well as at the face of the world. In other words, if you want to secularize Christianity, if you want to translate Christ’s teachings into political terms, you need something more than modern political mumbo-jumbo: you need to have the original—in your mind at least if it hasn’t found room in your heart. Since He was less a good man than divine spirit, it’s fatal to harp on His goodness at the expense of His metaphysics.

I must admit that I feel somewhat uneasy talking about these things: because turning or not turning that other cheek is, after all, an extremely intimate affair. The encounter always occurs on a one-to-one basis. It’s always your skin, your coat and cloak, and it is your limbs that will have to do the walking. To advise, let alone to urge, anyone about the use of these properties is, if not entirely wrong, indecent. All I aspire to do here is to erase from your minds a cliché that harmed so many and yielded so little. I also would like to instill in you the idea that as long as you have your skin, coat, cloak, and limbs, you are not yet defeated, whatever the odds are.

There is, however, a greater reason for one to feel uneasy about discussing these matters in public; and it’s not only your own natural reluctance to regard your young selves as potential victims. No, it’s rather mere sobriety, which makes one anticipate among you potential villains as well, and it is a bad strategy to divulge the secrets of resistance in front of the potential enemy. What perhaps relieves one from a charge of treason or, worse still, of projecting the tactical status quo into the future, is the hope that the victim will always be more inventive, more original in his thinking, more enterprising than the villain. Hence the chance that the victim may triumph.

*****

The Resurrection of Joseph Brodsky

December 1, 2015 | by Linda Kinstler

Mikhail Baryshnikov’s new “anti-ballet.”

Image via New Riga Theatre

At the New Riga Theatre, before a recent performance of Mikhail Baryshnikov’s new one-man show, Brodsky / Baryshnikov, women combed their hair and adjusted their furs in the yellow lobby’s mirror-paneled walls. Some had camped out overnight for tickets when they first went on sale in September; seats sold out almost immediately and promptly began circulating on the black market for many hundreds of euros. Wealthy Russians jetted in from Moscow and Saint Petersburg for the event—the director Alvis Hermanis and Baryshnikov are both persona non-grata in Russia, so the entirely Russian-language performance will not stop in Russia during its upcoming international tour.

The well-heeled crowd greeted one another with “Ciao, ciao” before slipping into their native tongues, the theater a burble of Latvian, Russian, English, and French. They were all there to see the return of “their” prodigal son, but the performance they witnessed was something more akin to the return of the prodigal son as old man. Mikhail Baryshnikov is, after all, sixty-seven years old. He is no longer a prodigy, but emeritus.

“Those who expect the typical Baryshnikov pirouettes and splits … are likely to be disappointed,” Latvian critic Undine Adamaite wrote in Diena, a Latvian daily. 

Indeed, Brodsky / Baryshnikov, which begins its international tour in Tel Aviv this winter before debuting in New York, in spring 2016, is far closer to theater than ballet, a meditation, in part, on aging and death. “It's anti-ballet, it's anti-choreography,” Hermanis said. “What Misha does with the body … it’s just like spontaneous electricity.” Hermanis and Baryshnikov did not hire a choreographer for the performance, which relies on improvisation. “These things are not fixed—each evening they’re slightly different … It’s not the possibility of dance, but the impossibility of dance.” There’s even a script, a departure from the ballets of Baryshnikov’s youth. This one is composed entirely of the poetry of Joseph Brodsky, Baryshnikov’s good friend, who died in 1996. The two could be said to star together inBrodsky / Baryshnikov, even if only one man enters the theater.

The audience took a collective breath when Baryshnikov first appeared on stage. He looks not the athlete he once was but a gaunt, bedraggled traveler, suitcase in hand, seated on a wooden bench below the broken fuse of a dilapidated Art Deco apartment with large, dusty window panes. He doesn’t speak. He makes the audience wait, Jim Wilson’s operatic “God’s Chorus of Crickets” playing in the background. Baryshnikov opens his suitcase, pulls out an alarm clock, some poetry books, and a bottle of Jameson (Brodsky’s favorite). He picks up a book, starts flipping through, whispering to himself, as if trying to pick one to read aloud. He finds one, and takes a swig.

*

Brodsky couldn’t remember the first time he met Baryshnikov. “We had a few rather close friends in common in Leningrad,” he said in conversation with Solomon Volkov at his apartment on Morton Street in the late seventies. Baryshnikov was also a close friend of Brodsky’s daughter, a fellow dancer; he even drove her home from a Leningrad hospital after she gave birth. But the two men only met many years later, in New York, after Baryshnikov defected from the USSR in 1974.

For Baryshnikov, the memory of their first meeting is all too clear: one evening in 1974, the composer Mstislav Rostropovich organized a party in New York in honor of the visiting Soviet writer Alexander Galich, and took the recently defected Baryshnikov, then in his midtwenties, along. Brodsky was there. “He was sitting, smoking, very red, very handsome. He looked at me, smiled, and said, Mikhail, take a seat, we have a lot to talk about,” Baryshnikov recalled in a Russian-language interview with a Riga magazine in October. “He gave me a cigarette, my hands were trembling … For me, he was a legend.”

After dinner, the two men went on a long walk through the West Village, found a Greek restaurant open late to continue their conversation. They exchanged numbers. Soon, they were talking nearly every day. Brodsky gave Baryshnikov reading assignments, introduced him to his friends—Czeslaw Milosz, Stephen Spender, Susan Sontag. “He kind of put me on my feet,” Baryshnikov recalled. “That was my university.”

Brodsky dedicated several of his poems to Baryshnikov, who carries his friend’s work with him, and resurrects their dialogue on stage. Hermanis, who began developing the idea for the production fifteen years ago, described it to Latvian public media as a “spiritist séance.” He and Hermanis were both born in Riga, and it wasn’t by accident that they chose that city for the debut run of what Baryshnikov has called “the most private and important work I’ve done in my life.”

“Riga is becoming like a Hong Kong for Russian culture,” Hermanis said. Over the past few years, several prominent Russian journalists and artists have emmigrated to the Baltic country to escape state censorship at home. There’s always a stir when Baryshnikov comes to town—the Latvian press laps up the “prodigal-son motif, the return-home motif, the ancestral-roots motif,” as Joan Acocella put it in her 1998 account of Baryshnikov’s first trip back to his hometown since his defection. Back then, Baryshnikov didn’t harbor any affection for the city. (“The minute I stepped again on Latvian land, I realized this was never my home. My heart didn’t even skip one beat,” he told Acocella, describing his Russian parents as “occupiers.”) In the intervening years, something seems to have changed. This summer, his personal art collection was exhibited as part of the cultural program of Latvia’s presidency of the European Union, and Baryshnikov described himself as a “Russian Latvian” in a recent interview with a Riga magazine.

“You returned home—so what? / Look around, to whom are you still needed? / Who are your friends now?” the bedraggled Baryshnikov reads in Russian at the start of the performance, hunched over on a wooden bench. “How good, as you hurry home, to realize your words are not truthful, and how hard it is for the soul to change.” He flips through a book of Brodsky poems, whispering, and looks up at the audience. Baryshnikov reads on, sometimes rocking back in forth, as if in prayer, gaze toward the ceiling. On the bench across from him, a radio begins playing a recording of Brodsky reciting: “There’s someone wandering the ruins, shuffling the leaves. Or maybe the wind has come back like a prodigal son, and all its letters were delivered at once.”

There’s dancing, yes, but only in the sense that Baryshnikov displays his talent for “pure body metaphysics,” as Brodsky told Volkov he so admired. Baryshnikov embodies his friend’s poems; his hands shake as they did on the day they met. And once more, Brodsky gets Baryshnikov back on his feet. He stands up, hand fluttering, “spinning like a shaman in the room,” as he convenes the séance, Brodsky’s words booming through the theater. At about thirty minutes into the show, Baryshnikov is no longer content to channel his old friend. As he recites Brodsky’s poem “May 24, 1980” —his fortieth birthday; “Life has been long, and sorrowful—but until I die, I’ll be nothing but grateful for it”—the radio on the opposite bench starts to play. Brodsky’s voice fills the theater, overtaking that of Baryshnikov. It’s a somber reunion.

“Greetings to my old age!” Baryshnikov recites. He takes off his jacket, rolls up his pants, unbuttons his vest, revealing a chest and arms and legs that do not look like the youthful body he had when he left Riga as a teenage prodigy. “My breath stinks and my joints creak; we’re not yet talking about my shroud, but the future pallbearers are at the door.” After investigating his reflection in the set’s glass windows as the poem plays on, Baryshnikov begins perhaps the most elegant zombie dance ever performed, his hands stiffly stretched, knees bent, eyes rolling.

“Life—is the sum of tiny movements,” he reads toward the end of the performance. Laughing, Baryshnikov breaks the script. “Oh, da.” And just before he takes leave of the stage, he pauses to address the audience. “One last poem. 1957. Written when Joseph was seventeen years old,” Baryshnikov says. “Farewell, and don’t judge me too harshly. Burn my letters, like a bridge … Be strong and fight. I’m happy for those who may travel along the way with you.”

The audience gave him a standing ovation, but the chattering ladies who had arrived so full of glee were quiet. A grave silence rolled over them as they filed out of their seats.

Linda Kinstler is a Marshall Scholar at the University of Cambridge.

• 作者： 黃仁達
• 出版社：聯經出版公司
• 出版日期：2011

內容簡介

序

希望「中國顏色」此書的"作者"能夠解釋一下| Facebook

India's Founding Fathers

By the time Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, the subcontinent's ancient political traditions had been all but erased.

By SUDHA KOUL

• 作者：[英]V.S.奈保爾著
• 譯者：李永平譯
• 出版社：生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店
• 出版日期：2003年08月01日
• 語言：簡體中文 ISBN：7108018063

• 作者：[英]V.S.奈保爾著
• 譯者：黃道琳譯
• 出版社：生活‧讀書‧新知三聯書店
• 出版日期：2003年08月01日
• 語言：簡體中文 ISBN：7108018748

mu・ti・ny

━━ n.反乱, 暴動, 反抗.
━━ vt.反乱を起す, 反抗する ((away)).
mu・ti・neer
　━━ n.暴徒, 反乱者.
mu・ti・nous
　━━ a.暴動［反乱］の; 反抗的.



(幽黯國度: 記憶與現實交錯的印度之旅)  An Area of Darkness


by V. S. Naipaul, 1964

李永平譯，台北：馬可波羅，2ooo

網路內容簡介:
《幽 黯國度》（一九六四年）是作者在印度遊歷一年，是部具有自傳色彩的作品，記錄他在祖國所見、所聞、所思。作者是出身於千里達島上的一個印度家庭。他的祖父 來自印度，但從不曾向我們描述這個國家的山川文物，在一種非常特殊的層次上，印度一直存留在作者童年生活的背景中。因此，對作者來說，印度並不是真實的 ──它只不過是存在於千里達這個小島外面的茫茫太虛中的一個國家。離開印度後，我們家族的旅程就算終結了。印度是虛懸在時間中的國家。在他心目中，印度依 舊是一個特殊的、與世隔絕的地方；它哺育過我祖父和其他出生在印度、以契約勞工身分來到千里達的鄉親，但即使是這段歷史，後來也湮沒在茫茫太虛中。

當他真實地置身於印度──他的祖國時，童年及成長過程、宗教與種姓階級制度的影響，變得鮮明起來。書中鮮活的記錄著在祖國的印度人及從異地返鄉的印度人生活的點滴，以深刻的角度分析印度人的世界觀和價值觀。



comments

我有大陸的版本。不過今夜翻的是2001年的台版第六刷，可見相當暢銷。不過很少讀到中文的評論。
我想這書處處是珠璣，譬如說[金字塔成為公共廁所。”尾聲：奔逃”的夢相當富哲理。不像正文中斬釘截鐵的論斷，譬如說，「虛誇的自我評價、粗糙的石雕工藝、濫用外國語言(hc案：可惜這必須是不翻譯的原文才能瞭解)－－這些現象串連在一起，正好反映出印度的現況。」
（現在我們可以透過NHK等許多印度專題，了解另外的視角。不過詩人所見的許多東西，可能還是直指人心。）

這書探討英國與印度之間的「愛恨情愁」，可能最為精彩部分。
他其實引了許多著名的作品，包括台灣人大部分不知道的一本大部頭回憶錄：Autobiography of an Unknown Indian by Nirad C. Chaudhuri (第289頁)卷首題詞：
“紀念在印度的大英帝國。它把我們視為子民，但我們並不滿足，要求它賦予我們完整的公民權，因為我們心靈中最美好的、充滿生機的一面，是在大英帝國統治下行成和發展的。”

書中說，印度的藝術之衰竭正是在大英帝國統治下的。

'Incorruptible' V.S. Naipaul wins Nobel Prize in literature

Thursday, October 11, 2001

KIM GAMEL

Associated Press WriterSTOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- V.S. Naipaul, a writer of aching humor and grim reality, won the Nobel Prize in literature on Thursday for his "incorruptible scrutiny" of postcolonial society and his critical assessments of Muslim fundamentalism.
Naipaul, 69, a British novelist and essayist who was born in Trinidad to parents of Indian descent, started with the West Indian island as his first subject. He extended his writings to include India, Africa, "America from south to north," and the Islamic communities of Asia and England, according to the citation.
The 215-year-old Swedish Academy singled out his 1987 autobiographical novel, "The Enigma of Arrival," saying the author created an "unrelenting image of the placid collapse of the old colonial ruling culture and the demise of European neighborhoods."
Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul left Trinidad at the age of 18, when he traveled to England to study at Oxford. Naipaul, whose other famous books include "A House for Mr. Biswas" and "A Bend in the River," writes in English.
In fiction and nonfiction, Naipaul described the upheaval of newly independent nations and the people who live with one foot in the remnants of their ancient culture and one in the culture of their colonial masters.
"The history I carried with me, together with the self-awareness that had come with my education and ambition, had sent me into the world with a sense of glory dead," Naipaul wrote in "The Enigma of Arrival."
The Nobel Literature Prize, first awarded to French author Sully Prudhomme in 1901, is worth $943,000 in this centennial year.
Academy head Horace Engdahl reached the laureate after Naipaul's wife, Nadia Khannum Alvi, had to call him several times to get him to the phone at his home in Wiltshire, England. Engdahl described him as a strong individual "which we also think is one of his qualities."
"He was very surprised and I don't think he was pretending. He was surprised because he feels that as a writer he doesn't represent anything but himself," Engdahl said.
Naipaul has the reputation of being a tough-minded, misanthropic man. He does not engage in such literary rituals as publishing parties. In "Sir Vidia's Shadow," a highly unflattering book published in 1998, former friend Paul Theroux wrote that "he elevated crankishness as the proof of his artistic temperament."
Last year's winner was little-known exiled Chinese novelist and playwright Gao Xingjian, a French citizen. His award was denounced by the Chinese government as political. Italy's Dario Fo and Germany's Guenter Grass are other recent winners with strong political views.
Engdahl conceded that this year's choice also might be seen as political in the wake of terror attacks in the United States and the American reaction due to Naipaul's criticism of Muslim fundamentalism in non-Arab countries like Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan.
"The present situation perhaps will make room for a more muted reaction," he said. "I don't think we will have violent protests from the Islamic countries and if they take the care to read his travel books from that part of the world they will realize that his view of Islam is a lot more nuanced."
"What he's really attacking in Islam is a particular trait that it has in common with all cultures that conquerors bring along, that it tends to obliterate the preceding culture," he said.
The 18 lifetime members of the academy make the selection in deep secrecy at one of their weekly Thursday meetings and nominees are not publicly revealed for 50 years, leaving the literary world with only speculation about who might be in the running.
Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, offered only vague guidance about the prizes in his will, saying only the award should go to those who "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction." The awards always are handed out on Dec. 10, the anniversary of Nobel's death in 1896.
The Nobels started Monday with the naming of medicine prize winners, American Leland H. Hartwell and Britons Tim Hunt and Paul Nurse, for work on cell development that could lead to new cancer treatments.
The physics award went Tuesday to German scientist Wolfgang Ketterle and Americans Eric A. Cornell and Carl E. Wieman for creating a new state of matter, an ultra-cold gas known as Bose-Einstein condensate.
On Wednesday, the economics prize went to Americans George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz for developing ways to measure the power of information in a wide range of deals and investments. On the same day, Americans K. Barry Sharpless and William S. Knowles shared the chemistry prize with Ryoji Noyori of Japan for showing how to better control chemical reactions used in producing medicines.
The peace prize is to be announced on Friday in Oslo, Norway.

---

On the Net:
Nobel site, http://www.nobel.se
Swedish Academy site, http://www.svenskaakademien.se/ENG/index...