Quantcast
  • Login
    • Account
    • Sign Up
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Catalog
  • Search
  • Register RSS
  • Embed RSS
    • FAQ
    • Get Embed Code
    • Example: Default CSS
    • Example: Custom CSS
    • Example: Custom CSS per Embedding
  • Super RSS
    • Usage
    • View Latest
    • Create
  • Contact Us
    • Technical Support
    • Guest Posts/Articles
    • Report Violations
    • Google Warnings
    • Article Removal Requests
    • Channel Removal Requests
    • General Questions
    • DMCA Takedown Notice
  • RSSing>>
    • Collections:
    • RSSing
    • EDA
    • Intel
    • Mesothelioma
    • SAP
    • SEO
  • Latest
    • Articles
    • Channels
    • Super Channels
  • Popular
    • Articles
    • Pages
    • Channels
    • Super Channels
  • Top Rated
    • Articles
    • Pages
    • Channels
    • Super Channels
  • Trending
    • Articles
    • Pages
    • Channels
    • Super Channels
Switch Editions?
Cancel
Sharing:
Title:
URL:
Copy Share URL
English
RSSing>> Latest Popular Top Rated Trending
Channel: 人和書 ( Men and Books)
NSFW?
Claim
0


X Mark channel Not-Safe-For-Work? cancel confirm NSFW Votes: (0 votes)
X Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel.
X 0
Showing article 3761 to 3780 of 6951 in channel 19040263
Channel Details:
  • Title: 人和書 ( Men and Books)
  • Channel Number: 19040263
  • Language:
  • Registered On: June 27, 2013, 10:02 am
  • Number of Articles: 6951
  • Latest Snapshot: June 4, 2025, 7:59 pm
  • RSS URL: http://hcbooks.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
  • Publisher: https://hcbooks.blogspot.com/
  • Description: 原"書海微瀾"。2017.3.25 改題。
  • Catalog: //books1847.rssing.com/catalog.php?indx=19040263
Remove ADS
Viewing all 6951 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

凌叔華《古韻》Ancient Melodies;《高門巨族的蘭花--凌叔華的一生》

July 7, 2017, 5:03 am
≫ Next: Theodore White ( 1915-86,白修德). America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980
≪ Previous: 董橋 [著]《白描》2004 / 《小風景 》2003 : 雷驤著作:木刻版畫黑美人《人間自若》傅月庵編 (2015)
$
0
0
陳學勇《高門巨族的蘭花--凌叔華的一生》北京:人民文學出版社,2010
頁254有Vanessa Bell (née Stephen; 30 May 1879 – 7 April 1961) 送的1949年作品月曆/掛曆。



凌叔華 Ancient Melodies by Su Hua, lONDON: Hogarth Press 1953

《古韻》台北:業強1991
濟南:山東畫報2003


兩位難忘的老師
她的親友



王世襄"和凌叔華先生一家的交往"
挽聯只有我寫的一幅 文曰
葉落楓丹歸故里
谷空蘭謝有餘馨
他們獨生女選它刻在墓碑







  • Ancient melodies /​ by Su Hua; with an introduction by V. Sackville-West.
Author
  • Ling, Shuhua, 1904-
Published
  • London, : Hogarth P., 1969.
Physical Description
  • 256 p. : illus. ; 21 cm.
Notes
  • "First published 1953."
Language
  • English
ISBN
  • 0701203358
Dewey Number
  • 915.1/​03/​40924
LC Call Number
  • PR6062.I49
Libraries Australia ID
  • 111270
Record ID
  • NBD111270
Contributed by
Libraries Australia

From Publishers Weekly

The author of these charming reminiscences, one of the many daughters of an ex-mayor of Peking, was encouraged as a writer and painter by Virginia Woolf with whom she began a correspondence in the 1930s. The two never met: Woolf had died by the time Su Hua moved to London in 1947. With delicate verbal strokes, the author paints the canvas of her comfortable childhood as the daughter of her father's fourth concubine in a household of courtyards that encompassed six mothers and their children, as well as servants who tended the complicated daily routines of life for the privileged in China just prior to the Boxer rebellion. These gently traced stories of a lost world hint at the imminent social changes. Published in England in the '50s and only now appearing in the United States, this memoir recreates for a new audience a book Vita Sackville-West praised for its "delightful sketches of a vanished way of life on the other side of the world."
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.



Product Details

  • Hardcover: 255 pages
  • Publisher: Universe Pub; First Edition. 1 in number line edition (October 1988)
  • Language: English


凌叔华-古韵真情

“古韵”悠然 真情生魅

不知何故,凌叔华思量已久的翻译计划一直未能实现,不过她与英文的渊源换了另一种方式呈现——她的英文自传体小说《Ancient Melodies》于1953年出版。该书由英国著名女作家弗吉尼亚·伍尔芙和她丈夫创办的霍加斯书屋出版,一经出版,很快即引起英国评论界的重视,成为畅销书。当时的《泰晤士报文学副刊》评论说:“叔华平静、轻松地将我们带进那座隐蔽着古文明的院落。现在这种文明已被扫得荡然无存,但那些真正热爱过它的人不会感到快慰。她向英国读者展示了一个中国人情感的新鲜世界。高昂的调子消失以后,古韵犹存,不绝于耳。”不过这本书被译为中文并在中国大陆出版,则是相距原版首次印行的40年之后,即1994年傅光明先生翻译并由中国华侨出版社出版,书名译作《古韵》。全书从写作到英文出版,前后经历了十数年,其中关系着一段偶然而特殊的因缘。

凌叔华南下武汉期间,一位来自异域的年轻人于她的视野中出现,他叫朱利安·贝尔,是位有才华又有激情的青年诗人,1935年应邀来武汉大学任教,时年27岁,他是英国著名女作家弗吉尼亚·伍尔芙的外甥,他的母亲凡尼莎·贝尔也是一位知名画家。他们在珞珈山相识,彼此都钟情并擅长文学、绘画等艺术,有共同的志趣,自然而然便多有往来。1937年,朱利安·贝尔回到英国之后,特别当面向姨母推荐凌叔华,并建议她们相互通信联系。于是,中国的才女作家凌叔华与一位天才作家得以越境神交,堪称一大良缘。

凌叔华回忆说:“我接受她的建议,开始用英文写自己的生平,写好一篇就寄一篇给她……”伍尔芙的鼓励,她记忆犹新:“继续写下去,自由地写,不要顾忌英文里的中国味儿。事实上,我建议你在形式和意蕴上写得贴近中国。生活、房子、家具,凡你喜欢的,写得愈细愈好,只当是写给中国读者的。然后,再就英文文法稍加润色,我想一定可以既保持中国味道,又能使英国人觉得新奇、好懂。”这些文稿传递穿过战火、跨越重洋,持续三年多,直到1941年伍尔芙不幸去世而止。后来结集出版的《古韵》中的作品,正是远隔千山万水、彼此从未相见的两位不同肤色、不同文化背景中的女性,在这段文心互通中的结果。

在伍尔芙离世6年后的1947年,凌叔华踏上了那个英伦岛国,来到了她心仪已久的大作家伍尔芙的家乡。(1944年陈西滢赴英主持中英文协工作,凌叔华随之而来。)而这部书之后在英国的出版,也是伍尔芙的夙愿。

《古韵》确实是本别致的书,让人觉得读时平静,而读罢之后则感到意味渐浓。诗人维特·萨克维尔·韦斯特在该书的英文版序言中说:“她(凌叔华)成功了。她以艺术家的灵魂和诗人的敏感呈现出一个被人遗忘的世界,在这个世界,对美好生活的冥思细想是不言自明的。她的每封信都能反映出她对于美的渴望。她的文笔自然天成,毫无矫饰,却有一点惆怅。因为她毕竟生活在流亡之中,而且那个古老文明的广袤荒凉之地似乎非常遥远。”
------

[2003-10-06] 才女凌叔華

才女凌叔華- 香港文匯報


2003年10月6日 ...凌叔華一九零零年出生北京一個仕宦與書畫世家,父親為清末翰林,精於詩詞,家 ...魯迅曾為她寫下評語:「凌叔華的小說,卻發祥於這一種期刊《現代 ..
放大圖片
凌叔華與丈夫陳西瀅
 凌叔華一九零零年出生北京一個仕宦與書畫世家,父親為清末翰林,精於詩詞,家中文人騷客來來往往。凌叔華受到良好教育,英文師從能把《失樂園》一字不差背誦的辜鴻銘。繪畫拜女畫家繆素荺。
 凌叔華二十二歲考入燕京大學外語系,畢業後與陳西瀅(陳源)結婚。當時陳(曾與徐志摩和胡適創辦《現代評論》周刊)任北大英文系系主任,他們通過泰戈爾訪華而相識。
 一九二七年凌叔華夫妻執教武漢大學,凌因她的小說要翻譯成英文,結識了英國著名女作家弗吉利亞.吳爾芙(即虹影作品《K》內男主角貝爾的親阿姨)。
 據記錄,吳爾芙曾鼓動她寫作,「自由地寫,不要在意多麼直接地由中文翻譯成英文。事實上,我寧願你盡量接近中文的語言風格和意義。」
 中西兩位女作家交往了三年(一九三八—一九四一),直到凌叔華的《古歌集》在英國出版,成為當時的暢銷書。該書隨後還被翻譯成多種文字。
 凌叔華的《酒後》,是她第一篇具有影響力的小說,其他如:《花之寺》、《女人》、《小哥兒倆》及散文集《愛山廬夢影》外,還有短篇小說自選集《凌叔華選集》等。
 魯迅曾為她寫下評語:「凌叔華的小說,卻發祥於這一種期刊《現代評論》的,她恰和馮沅君的大膽,敢言不同,大抵很謹慎的,適可而止的描寫了舊家庭中的婉順的女性。即使間有出軌之作,那是為了偶受著文酒之風的吹拂,終於也回復了她的故道了。這是好的,——使我們看見和馮沅君、黎錦明、川島、汪靜之所描寫的絕不相同的人物,也就是世態的一角,高門巨族的精魂。」(魯迅《(中國新文學大系)小說二集序》)
 凌叔華的繪畫,在國內外有著很高聲譽。她既善工筆,又善寫意,墨跡淡遠,秀韻入骨,曾被國內外的名家所稱道。一九六二年凌叔華在巴黎舉辦畫展。四年後,英國大英藝術協會曾借出她在法國展出的文人畫在倫敦展出。
 一九九零年五月,九十高齡的凌叔華病逝北京,骨灰安放在無錫惠山腳下,與陳西瀅合葬。
↧
Search

Theodore White ( 1915-86,白修德). America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980

July 7, 2017, 5:11 am
≫ Next: The Pilgrimage of Sudhana, A Study of Gandavyþha illustrations in China, Japan, and Java By Jan Fontein
≪ Previous: 凌叔華《古韻》Ancient Melodies;《高門巨族的蘭花--凌叔華的一生》
$
0
0






1942年河南饑荒

影片改編自小說《溫故一九四二》,講述了1942年抗日戰爭背景下的一場悲劇。1942年河南大旱,此時戰爭正處於僵持階段,數百萬民眾忍受飢荒的痛苦中,背井離鄉,逃荒的旅程。


1943年3月底,採訪完畢的美國記者白修德向蔣介石彙報災情,蔣介石聲稱不知情,其實早在1942年8~9月河南剛開始有災時,蔣介石已從軍方得知消 息,他就召開了緊急的「前方軍糧會議」,採取了一些措施。他一方面減少河南的征糧數額,另一方面決定把西安方面的儲糧運往河南以備軍隊之用。眼見會報無果,白修德通過商業電台迅速發往了紐約《時代》周刊,引起巨大反響。當時蔣介石的夫人宋美齡正在美國訪問,頓時大怒,認為有損中國政府形象,由於她與《時 代》周刊老闆亨利·盧斯是老朋友,所以強烈要求盧斯將白修德解職,這一無理要求理所當然被盧斯拒絕。


Books Birdviews 書海: 美國的自我探索America in Search of Itself ...

2011年3月19日 ...美國的自我探索: 總統的誕生(上下冊)西奧多.懷特著,美國在台協會附設今日出版社。1984. America in Search of Itself : The Making of the President ...Theodore H. White 白修德

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Theodore White" redirects here. For other uses, see Ted White.

Contents

  • 1Reporter
  • 2Making of the President series
  • 3Major books
  • 4Assessments
  • 5References
  • 6References
  • 7External links
Theodore Harold White (May 6, 1915– May 9, 1986) was an American political journalist, historian, and novelist, known for his wartime reporting from China and accounts of the 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential elections.

 Reporter

Born May 6, 1915, in Boston, Massachusetts, the son of a Jewish lawyer named David White. Theodore H. White received a scholarship to Harvard in 1934, based upon his academic achievements at Boston Latin School, from which he graduated in 1932.
White graduated from Harvard in 1938 summa cum laude (Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. was a classmate), with a degree in Chinese history, the first honors student of John K. Fairbank. He went to Chungking (Chongqing), China's wartime capital on a fellowship,later became a freelance reporter after being an adviser to Chinese Propaganda Dept for a short while. When Henry R. Luce, China born founder and publisher of Time Magazine, came to China the following year, he befriended White. White became the China correspondent for Time during the war. White chafed at the restrictions put on his reporting by the censorship of the Nationalist government and the rewriting of his stories by the editors at Time.
Although he maintained great respect for Henry Luce, he resigned and returned home to write, along with Annalee Jacoby, a best selling description of China at war and in crisis, Thunder Out of China[1]. The book described the incompetence and corruption of the Nationalist government and described the power of the rising Communist Party. The authors called upon Americans to come to terms with this reality. The Introduction warned “In Asia there are a billion people who are tired of the world as it is; they live such terrible bondage that they have nothing to lose but their chains.... Less than a thousand years ago Europe lived this way; then Europe revolted... The people of Asia are going through the same process.” (p. xix).
White then served as European correspondent for the Overseas News Agency (1948–50) and for The Reporter (1950–53)
He returned to his wartime experience in the novel The Mountain Road (1956), which deals with the retreat of a team of Americans in the face of the Japanese offensive. Although the Americans begin with a sympathy for the Chinese, their mission ends with the burning and destruction of a Chinese village.

Making of the President series

With experience in analyzing foreign cultures from his time abroad, White took up the challenge of analyzing American culture with the books The Making of the President, 1960 (1961), The Making of the President, 1964 (1965), The Making of the President, 1968 (1969), and The Making of the President, 1972 (1973), all analyzing at American presidential elections. The first of these was both a bestseller and a critical success, winning the 1962 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction.[1] It remains the most influential publication about the election that made John F. Kennedy the President. The later presidential books sold well but failed to have as great an effect, partly because other authors were by then publishing about the same topics, and White's larger-than-life style of storytelling became less fashionable during the 1960s and '70s.
A week after the death of JFK, Jacqueline Kennedy summoned White to the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport to "rescue" her husband's legacy. She proposed the that White prepare an article for Life magazine drawing a parallel between her husband and his administration to King Arthur and the mythical Camelot. At the time, a play of that name was being performed on Broadway and Jackie focused on the ending lyrics of an Alan Jay Lerner song, "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot." White, a long-time family friend of the Kennedy's, was happy to oblige. He and Jackie collaborated on 1,000 word essay that he dictated later that evening to his editors at Life. When they complained that the Camelot theme was overdone, Jackie objected to changes. Kennedy's time in office was transformed into a modern day Camelot that represented, “a magic moment in American history, when gallant men danced with beautiful women, when great deeds were done, when artists, writers, and poets met at the White House, and the barbarians beyond the walls held back.” Thus was born one of the nation's most enduring, and inaccurate, myths. White later wrote that his essay is a "misreading of history. The magic Camelot of John F. Kennedy never existed."
On May 15, 1986 White suffered a sudden stroke and died in New York City. He was survived by two of his children, Heyden White Rostow and David Fairbank White.

Major books

Thunder Out of China (with Annalee Jacoby) (1946) reprinted Da Capo, 1980 ISBN 03068012800.
Fire in the Ashes (1953) 中國驚雷

白修徳與賈安娜合著『中國的驚雷』,是轟動一時的普利茲得獎名著,
他是最清楚報導蔣介石把黃河決堤造成數百萬民眾被洪水淹沒的大慘劇美國記者.他對史迪威事件深入理解

沒有自動替代文字。




The Mountain Road (Sloane (1958), reprinted with an Introduction by Parks Coble, EastBridge 2006 ISBN 15998800080) which was made into a movie starring James Stewart.

Breach of Faith : The Fall of Richard Nixon (1975) A comprehensive history of the Watergate Scandal with biographical information about Richard Nixon and many of the key players of the event.

In Search of History: A Personal Adventure (1978)

America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980 (1982) Chinese translation , Taipei: USIS, 1984

Assessments

Both W.A. Swanberg in Luce and His Empire and David Halberstam in The Powers That Be discuss how White's China reporting for Time Magazine was extensively rewritten, frequently by Whittaker Chambers, to conform to publisher Henry Luce's admiration for Chiang.

William F. Buckley, Jr. a well-known conservative author, wrote an obituary of White in the National Review. He wrote of White that "conjoined with his fine mind, his artist's talent, his prodigious curiosity, there was a transcendent wholesomeness, a genuine affection for the best in humankind." He praised White, saying he "revolutionized the art of political reporting." Buckley added that White made one grave strategic mistake during his journalistic lifetime: "Like so many disgusted with Chiang Kaishek, he imputed to the opposition to Chiang thaumaturgical social and political powers. He overrated the revolutionists' ideals, and underrated their capacity for totalitarian sadism."[2]
In her book, Theodore H. White and Journalism As Illusion, Joyce Hoffman alleges that White's "personal ideology undermined professional objectivity" (according to the review of her work in Library Journal). She alleges "conscious mythmaking" on behalf of his subjects, including Chiang Kai-shek, John F. Kennedy, and David Bruce. Hoffman alleges that White self-censored information embarrassing to his subjects to portray them as heroes.

 References

Theodore H. White, In Search of History: A Personal Adventure (New York: Harper & Row, 1978). 561p. [ISBN 0060145994] Memoir of White's early years, training at Harvard under John K. Fairbank, experiences in wartime China, relations with Time publisher Henry Luce, and later tribulations and success as originator of the Making of the President series.

Thomas Griffith, Harry and Teddy: The Turbulent Friendship of Press Lord Henry R. Luce and His Favorite Reporter, Theodore H. White (New York: Random House, 1995).

“. . . The Crucial 1940's Nieman Reports.” Walter Sullivan The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University (Spring 1983) [3]
  • French, Paul. Through the Looking Glass: Foreign Journalists in China, from the Opium Wars to Mao. Hong Kong University Press, 2009.

References

  1. ^"Pulitzer Prize Winners: General Non-Fiction" (web). pulitzer.org. http://www.pulitzer.org/. Retrieved February 28, 2008.
Papers of T. H. White: an inventory (Harvard University Archives) [4]. Includes a biographical notice. External links
  • Theodore H. White
  • Amazon.com's page on Hoffman's work and editorial and user reviews
  • Theodore White - JFK Presidential Library & Museum
↧
↧

The Pilgrimage of Sudhana, A Study of Gandavyþha illustrations in China, Japan, and Java By Jan Fontein

July 10, 2017, 1:47 am
≫ Next: 劉安武《普列姆昌德評傳 Munshi Premchand》、劉安武 譯《普列姆昌德論文學》《普列姆昌德短篇小說精選》
≪ Previous: Theodore White ( 1915-86,白修德). America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980
$
0
0

1946/5/10 日記  胡適日記全集:
華嚴經善財童子的故事的教訓
"善男子 汝已發心 欲成就一切智 應決定求真善知識 勿生疲懈
見善知識 勿生厭足
于善知識 所有教誨 皆應隨順"

禪宗之行腳 即是實行此意



T10n0295_001 大方廣佛華嚴經入法界品 第1卷

■ CBETA 電子佛典集成 » 大正藏 (T) » 第 10 冊 » No.0295 » 第 1 卷 ▲上一卷 ▼下一卷

http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T10n0295_001


Jan Fontein (22 May 1927 – 19 May 2017) was a Dutch art historian and former museum director. From 1966 to 1992 he served as curator of Asiatic art at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Fontein was its director from 1975 to 1987.

Career[edit]

Fontein was born on 22 May 1927 in Naarden.[1] From 1945 to 1953 he studied far eastern languages and Indonesian archaeology at Leiden University. In 1947 Fontein started working as assistant curator at the Museum of Asiatic Art in Amsterdam. In 1955 he became curator of the same museum.[1]
In 1966 Fontein obtained his PhD under Theodoor Paul Galestin at Leiden University, with a dissertation titled: The Pilgrimage of Sudhana, A Study of Gandavyþha illustrations in China, Japan, and Java.[1][2] That same year Fontein moved to the United States, where he became curator of Asian Art at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. He was director of the Museum from 1975 to 1987. He laid down his position as curator in 1992. From 1990 to 1996 Fontein was Bishop White Visiting Scholar at the Royal Ontario Museum.[1]
Fontein was elected a correspondent of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1967.[3] He was made commander in the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure.[2]
Fontein died in Newton Upper Falls on 19 May 2017, aged 89.[4]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Jan Fontein". Dutch Studies on South Asia, Tibet and classical Southeast Asia. Archived from the original on 18 April 2016. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b "IIAS Masterclass: Jan Fontein". IIAS. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
  3. Jump up^ "J. Fontein". Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Archived from the original on 13 September 2016.
  4. Jump up^ Bryan Marquard (28 June 2017). "Jan Fontein, historian of Asian art and former MFA director, dies at 89". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017.

正稱為善才童子,而非時人常誤稱之善「財」童子。

善才(梵文 Sudhanakumâra),與龍女為觀世音菩薩左右脅侍。 形象多示現為年約六歲之童子,身著紅衣,相貌俊秀。

善才童子為《華嚴經·入法界品》之主人公,是修菩薩道行者的光輝榜樣,他發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心之後, 從文殊菩薩處漸次南行,參訪五十三位善知識,最後修行圓滿、證入法界。

佛堂觀音圖站在觀音菩薩旁之微笑男童,即是善才童子。另側為龍女,又合稱為金童玉女。 後來金童也常比喻一些相貌端正、形象清純的年輕男性。


《西遊記》中,撰寫之牛魔王之子紅孩兒即是取材自五十三參得道的善才童子之形象。

參考資料[編輯]

  • 《華嚴經·入法界品》

 Sudhana 
Sudhanakumâra (simplified Chinese: 善财童子; traditional Chinese: 善財童子; pinyin: Shàncáitóngzǐ; Wade–Giles: Shan-ts'ai-t'ung-tzu), mainly known as Sudhana and Shancai or Shancai Tongzi in Chinese, and translated as Child of Wealth, is the protagonist in the next-to-last and longest chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Sudhana appears in Buddhist, Taoist and folk stories; in most of them he is one of the acolytes of the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara(Guanyin) and is paired with Longnü (Dragon Girl). He and Longnü being depicted with Guanyin was most likely influenced by the Jade Maiden (Chinese: 玉女; pinyin: Yùnǚ) and Golden Youth (Chinese: 金僮; pinyin: Jīntóng) who both appear in the iconography of the Jade Emperor. A fictionalised account of Sudhana is detailed in the classical novel Journey to the West, where Sudhana is portrayed as a villain, Red Boy, who is eventually subdued by Guanyin and becomes the bodhisattva's attendant.[1]
Gandavyuha Sutra
Sudhana was a youth from India who was seeking enlightenment. At the behest of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, Sudhana takes a pilgrimage on his quest for enlightenment and studies under 53 "good friends", those who direct one towards the Way to Enlightenment. The 53 stations of Japan's Tokaido are a metaphor for Sudhana's journey. Avalokitesvara is the 28th spiritual master Sudhana visits at Mount Potalaka. Sudhana's quest reaches it climax at when he meets Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be, who snaps his fingers thereby opening the doors to his marvelous tower. Within the tower, Sudhana experiences all the Dharmadhatu (dimensions or worlds) in a fantastic succession of visions.[2] The final master that he visits is Samantabhadra, who teaches Sudhana that wisdom only exists for the sake of putting it into practice.
The pilgrimage of Sudhana mirrors that of Gautama Buddha and the Gandavyuha Sutra becomes very popular in China during the Song Dynasty when it was adapted and circulated in small amply illustrated booklets, each page dedicated to one of Sudhana's spiritual teachers.
Tale of the Southern Seas
Chapter 18 of the Complete Tale of Guanyin and the Southern Seas (simplified Chinese: 南海观音全撰; traditional Chinese: 南海觀音全撰; pinyin: Nánhǎi Guānyīn Quánzhuàn), a 16th-century Ming Dynasty novel, is the first text that established a connection between Shancai and Guanyin. In the tale, Shancai was a disabled boy from India who was very interested in studying the Buddha's teachings. At that time, Guanyin had just achieved enlightenment and had retired to Mount Putuo. When Shancai heard that there was a bodhisattva on the rocky island of Putuo, he quickly journeyed there to learn from her despite his disability.
An Altar of Guanyin Worship.
Guanyin, after having a discussion with Shancai, decided to test his resolve to fully study the Buddhist dharma. She transformed the trees and plants into sword-wielding pirates, who ran up the hill to attack them. Guanyin took off and dashed to the edge of a cliff and jumped off, with the pirates still in pursuit. Shancai, in his desperation to save Guanyin, jumped off after her.
Shancai and Guanyin managed to reascend the cliff, and at this point, Guanyin asked Shancai to look down. Shancai saw his mortal remains at the foot of the cliff. Guanyin then asked him to walk and Shancai found that he could walk normally and that he was no longer crippled. When he looked into a pool of water, he also discovered that he now had a handsome face. From that day onwards, Guanyin taught Shancai the entire Buddhist dharma. Guanyin and Shancai later encountered the third son of the Dragon King, and in the process, Guanyin earned Longnü (Dragon Girl) as a new acolyte. (see Longnü for how Shancai and Guanyin aided the Dragon King)
Precious Scrolls of Shancai and Longnü
A Yuan Dynasty hanging scroll depicting Shancai (walking on waves), the Filial Parrot (above), Guanyin and Longnü.
The Precious Scroll of Shancai and Longnü (simplified Chinese: 善财龙女宝撰; traditional Chinese: 善財龍女寶撰; pinyin: Shàncái Lóngnǚ Bǎozhuàn), an 18th or 19th century scroll comprising 29 folios, provides a different account on how Shancai and Longnü became the acolytes of Guanyin. This tale seems to have a Taoist origin. The story is set in the Qianfu era of the reign of Emperor Xizong of the Tang Dynasty.
A virtuous minister Chen Bao and his wife Lady Han are still childless when they are getting older. When Chen rejects his wife's recommendation to take a concubine, she suggested that they pray to the bodhisattva Guanyin for help. Guanyin saw that the couple was destined to not have any children, so she ordered a Boy Who Brings Wealth (simplified Chinese: 招财童子; traditional Chinese: 招財僮子; pinyin: Zhāocái Tóngzǐ) to be born into the family. Lady Han soon gave birth to a boy, who was named Chen Lian. She died when his son was only five years old.
As a child, Chen Lian was not interested in civil or military pursuits, but rather, in religious enlightenment, much to his father's disapproval. At the age of seven, his father finally gave in to his pleas and allowed him to study under the tutelage of the Yellow Dragon Immortal (simplified Chinese: 黄龙仙人; traditional Chinese: 黃龍仙人; pinyin: Huánglóng Xiānrén). Chen Lian was renamed to Shancai and became a dutiful apprentice of the immortal. However, he ignored all of his father's requests to visit home during his apprenticeship.
When his father's 60th birthday approached, Shancai was once again asked to go home for a visit. As his master was away, Shancai decided to return home since it was a special occasion. On his way down a mountain path, he heard a voice crying out for help. Upon investigation, he saw that it was a snake trapped in a bottle for the last 18 years. The snake begged Shancai to release her, and after Shancai did so, she revealed her true form as a giant serpent and wanted to eat him. When Shancai protested at the snake's behaviour, she argued that ēn (恩, an act of kindness) should be repaid with a feud, as is the way of nature. However, the snake agreed to bring the case before three judges.
The first judge was the Golden Water Buffalo Star in human form. He agreed with the snake that given her past experiences with humans, she was right to repay Shancai's kindness by devouring him. The Buffalo related how he was forced out of Heaven by the bodhisattva Ksitigarbha into the human world to help humans plough the fields. Ksitigarbha vowed that if the humans did not repay one's kindness by showing kindness in return, his eyes would fall out. As the Buffalo landed face first on Earth, he lost all his upper front teeth. He later suffered greatly, and after years of toiling for his human master, he was butchered and eaten. Because of this, Ksitigarbha's eyes fell out and landed on Earth and transformed into snails, which buffaloes trample on when they plough the fields.
The second judge was the Taoist master Zhuangzi, who also sided with the snake. He cited an incident where he resurrected a dead man, who repaid his kindness by bringing him to court and accusing him of stealing his money.
The third judge was a young girl. The girl told the snake that she could eat her as well if the snake could show them how it was able to fit into the bottle she was released from. As soon as the snake wormed itself back into the bottle, it was trapped. The girl then revealed herself as Guanyin. When the snake begged for mercy, Guanyin told her that if she wanted to be saved she must engage in religious exercises in the Grotto of the Sounds of the Flood (present-day Fayu Temple) on Mount Putuo. Around this time, Guanyin also gained a new disciple, the Filial Parrot.
Three years later, when Guanyin returned to Mount Putuo, she appeared to Shancai in the middle of the ocean. Shancai joined her in walking across the sea and became her acolyte. With the confirmation of his faith, Shancai's parents were reborn in Heaven. As for the snake, she committed herself to seven years of austerity and eventually cleansed itself of venom and produced a pearl. She transformed into Longnü and joined Shancai as an acolyte of Guanyin.[3]
As Red Boy
Sudhana is the Buddhist name of Red Boy, also known as Honghai'er (simplified Chinese: 红孩儿; traditional Chinese: 紅孩兒; pinyin: Hónghái'ér), an antagonist in the classical novel Journey to the West. Red Boy was the son of Princess Iron Fan and Bull Demon King. As an exchange for punishment after kidnapping Tang Sanzangand Zhu Bajie, as well as irreverently usurping Guanyin's lotus seat, Red Boy surrendered to Guanyin and became her attendant.
References
  1. Wilt L. Idema (2008). Personal salvation and filial piety: two precious scroll narratives of Guanyin and her acolytes. University of Hawaii Press. p. 30. ISBN 9780824832155.
  2. Peter N. Gregory (2002). Tsung-mi and the sinification of Buddhism. University of Hawaii Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780824826239.
  3. Wilt L. Idema (2008). Personal salvation and filial piety: two precious scroll narratives of Guanyin and her acolytes. University of Hawaii Press. p. 34. ISBN 9780824832155.
External references
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sudhana.
  • Putuoshan
  • Chinese Customs - Guan Yin
  • Chinese Customs - Jade One and Golden Child
  • Antiques - Guan Yin
Continue Reading...
善財童子(ぜんざいどうじ、Sudhanakumâra)は、仏教の童子の一人であり、『華厳経入法界品』、『根本説一切有部毘奈耶薬事』などに登場する。

目次

  [非表示] 
  • 1概要
    • 1.1華厳経
      • 1.1.1派生作品
        • 1.1.1.1東海道五十三次
    • 1.2根本説一切有部毘奈耶薬事
    • 1.3紅孩児
  • 2関連項目
  • 3脚注

概要[編集]

『華厳経入法界品』については仏道修行する内容で広く知られる[1]。

華厳経[編集]

『華厳経入法界品[2]』に於いて、インドの長者の子に生まれたが、ある日、仏教に目覚めて文殊菩薩の勧めにより、様々な指導者(善知識)53人を訪ね歩いて段階的に仏教の修行を積み、最後に普賢菩薩の所で悟りを開くという、菩薩行の理想者として描かれている。 善知識の中には比丘や比丘尼のほか外道(仏教徒以外の者)、遊女と思われる女性、童男、童女も含まれている。

派生作品[編集]

昔からこの様子が多くの絵や詩歌に描かれており、日本では、明恵上人高弁による善財童子の讃嘆が有名であり、また東大寺には『華厳五十五所絵巻』[3]、『華厳海会善知識曼荼羅図』などが現存している。金沢文庫に『善財童子華厳縁起[4]』がある。
東海道五十三次[編集]
一説には、江戸時代に整備された東海道五十三次の五十三の宿場は、善財童子を導く五十三人の善知識の数にもとづくものとされる。

根本説一切有部毘奈耶薬事[編集]

ジャータカ(本生経)の1つ『根本説一切有部毘奈耶薬事[5]』によれば善財童子は曠野国に攻め入った時、通りかかった薬叉(夜叉、王は毘沙門天(クベーラ)部下はパーンチカ(鬼子母神の夫)ら)の援軍をえたという。

紅孩児[編集]

明代に集大成された西遊記では善財童子は紅孩児[6]が観音菩薩に帰依した後の名とされる。

関連項目[編集]

  • 平城遷都1300年記念事業

脚注[編集]

[ヘルプ]
  1. ^ 『華厳経』と教育 (二) The Buddha-Avatamsaka-Sutra and the Education (2) 大手前大学人文科学部論集 4, 35-71, 2003
  2. ^ “大方広仏華厳経入法界品四十二字観門 三蔵沙門不空奉 詔訳”. 仏教典籍検索. 2010年7月30日閲覧。
  3. ^ 森本公誠編『善財童子 求道の旅』1998年、朝日新聞社刊
  4. ^ 納富常天 『善財童子華厳縁起』について The Manuscript of the Zenzaidoji-Kegon-engi 善財童子華厳縁起 駒澤大学佛教学部論集 18, 270-298, 1987-10
  5. ^ “巻第十三”. 根本説一切有部毘奈耶薬事 大唐三蔵義浄奉 制訳. 仏教典籍検索. 2010年7月30日閲覧。
  6. ^ 元曲の雑劇『雜劇·楊景賢·西遊記·第三本“雜劇·楊景賢·西遊記·第三本” (中国語(繁体字)). 2010年7月30日閲覧。』第十二折鬼母皈依では紅孩児は鬼子母神の子である愛奴児である
↧

劉安武《普列姆昌德評傳 Munshi Premchand》、劉安武 譯《普列姆昌德論文學》《普列姆昌德短篇小說精選》

July 10, 2017, 4:58 am
≫ Next: 嘯聲 《柱頭上的〈聖經〉》Chartres and Bible
≪ Previous: The Pilgrimage of Sudhana, A Study of Gandavyþha illustrations in China, Japan, and Java By Jan Fontein
$
0
0








普列姆昌德論文學
  • 出版社: 中國大百科全書出版社2016
  • 作者:劉安武
本書譯自西沃丹·辛赫·覺杭的《普列姆昌德論文學》。內容主要包括“《羅摩衍那》和《摩訶婆羅多》”、“長篇小說的內容”、“文學批評”“文學的基礎”、“文學在生活中的地位”、“印地語文學中神的難堪”、“《天鵝》的新面貌”等。




普列姆昌德評傳
  • 作者:劉安武
  •  中國大百科全書出版社 2016
  • 《普列姆昌德評傳》是由中國印度學學者、翻譯家劉安武先生所著。主要論述和評析了普列姆昌德童年和少年時代的生活環境,走向社會的青年時代,早期成功的創作實踐(1903-1918),豐收的年代(1919-1927)和創作高峰的歲月(1928-1936)等。



維基百科,自由的百科全書
普列姆昌德
原文名稱Munshi Premchand
出生滕伯德·拉伊
1880年7月31日
英屬印度北方邦貝拿勒斯
逝世1936年10月8日(56歲)
英屬印度北方邦瓦拉納西
職業小說家
語言烏爾都語、印地語
國籍英屬印度
民族印度人
母校阿拉哈巴德師範學院
體裁小說
代表作《妮摩拉》
普列姆昌德(天城文:प्रेमचंद,烏爾都文:پریمچں‎,拉丁化:Munshi Premchand。天城文原名:धनपत राय श्रीवस्तव,拉丁化:Dhanpat Rai Srivastava,1880年7月31日-1936年10月8日)英屬印度小說家,英屬印度現實主義小說家,被譽為「印地語小說之王」。普列姆昌德和中華民國小說家、雜文家魯迅生活在同一個時期。
普列姆昌德是現代印度、烏爾都文學的巨匠之一。普列姆昌德是筆名。

目錄

  [隱藏] 
  • 1生平
  • 2作品
  • 3風格
  • 4參考文獻
  • 5外部連結

生平[編輯]

1880年,普列姆昌德出生在英屬印度。[1] 5歲時,普列姆昌德開始在學堂讀書,學波斯語和烏爾都語,曾當過家庭教師。[1] 8歲時,普列姆昌德的母親去世。[1] 17歲時,普列姆昌德和一名女子結婚,但是兩人沒有感情。不久之後,父親去世。[1] 19歲時,普列姆昌德進入公立學校「阿拉哈巴德師範學院」讀書。[1]
1905年,普列姆昌德的妻子離家出走,再也沒有回來。他就和一個寡婦結了婚,兩人感情很好。[1]
1920年,英屬印度爆發了民族獨立鬥爭運動,面對甘地領導的波濤洶湧的群眾運動,普列姆昌德看清時勢,迅速辭去在英國殖民政府的公職,表示自己不和英國人合作,之後在私立學校當教師。[1]
1934年,普列姆昌德為了解決《天鵝》和《覺醒》雜誌的經濟困難問題,到孟買的一家電影製片廠工作。[1]
1936年4月,普列姆昌德主持了英屬印度進步作家協會第一次大會。[1]

作品[編輯]

  • 金鼎漢譯. 《妮摩拉》 (中文(簡體)‎).
  • 《服務院》 (中文(簡體)‎).
  • 《博愛新村》 (中文(簡體)‎).
  • 《舞台》 (中文(簡體)‎).
  • 《聖潔的土地》 (中文(簡體)‎).
  • 《戈丹》 (中文(簡體)‎).

風格[編輯]

普列姆昌德在其雜誌《天鵝》和《覺醒》中刊布文章支持中華民國抗擊大日本帝國的侵略,同時他預言了未來中國共產黨奪取中國大陸政權。
其作品主要是現實主義風格。早期用烏爾都語寫作,傾向於社會改良主義,自《戈丹》之後,開始支持甘地的「非暴力不合作」思想。

參考文獻[編輯]

  1. ^ 移至:1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 普列姆昌德. 中小學教育網. [2006] (中文(簡體)‎).

外部連結[編輯]

維基語錄上的相關摘錄:普列姆昌德

普列姆昌德作品匯集(1)
普列姆昌德作品匯集(2)
普列姆昌德的傳記
兩部作品的英文翻譯

印度說故事大師:普列姆昌德短篇小說精選1.2.3(27個傻瓜+印度漂鳥+永遠的小說之王)唯一印度語直翻,中文最權威完整推薦版

  • 作者: 普列姆昌德  追蹤作者 新功能介紹
  • 原文作者:Premchand
  • 譯者:劉安武
  • 出版社:柿子文化  訂閱出版社新書快訊 新功能介紹
  • 出版日期:2014/04/19
  • 語言:繁體中文
  • 優惠期限:2017年07月27日止

作品[編集]

主な物語[編集]

  • Panch Parameshvar (पंच परमेश्वर پنچ پرمیشور)
  • Idgah (ईदगाह عیدگاہ)
  • Nashaa (नशा نشا)
  • Shatranj ke khiladi (शतरंज के खिलाड़ी شترنج کے کھلاڈی) チェスをする人(The chess players)
  • Poos ki raat (पूस की रात پُوس کی رات)
  • Atmaram (आत्माराम آتمارام)
  • Boodhi Kaki (बूढ़ी काकी بُوڈھی کاکی) (The Old Aunt)
  • Bade Bhaisahab (बड़े भाईसाब بڈے بھائیساب) (The big brother)
  • Bade ghar ki beti (बड़े घर की बेटी بڈے گھر کی بیٹی) (The girl of an affluent family)
  • Kafan (कफ़न کفن) (Shroud)
  • Dikri Ke Rupai (दिक्रि के रुपये دِکرِ کے رُپے)
  • Udhar Ki Ghadi (उधार की घड़ी اُدھار کی گھڈی)
  • Namak Ka Daroga (नमक का दरोगा نمک کا دروگا)

小説[編集]

  • Gaban (गबन)
  • Sevasadan (सेवासदन) / Bazar-e Husn (بازار حسن)
  • Godaan (गोदान) ゴーダーン
  • Karmabhoomi (कर्मभूमी)
  • Kaayakalp (कायाकल्प)
  • Manorma (मनोरमा)
  • Mangalsootra (मंगलसूत्र), incomplete
  • Nirmala (निर्मला)
  • Pratigya (प्रतिज्ञा)
  • Premashram (प्रेमाश्रम)
  • Rangbhoomi (रंगभूमी)
  • Vardaan (वरदान)

映画およびテレビドラマ[編集]

  • Sadgati (1981) (TV)
  • Shatranj Ke Khilari (1977)
  • Godhuli (1977)
  • Oka Oori Katha (1977)
  • Gaban (1966)
  • Godaan (1963)
  • Seva Sadan (1938) (based on the novel Bazaar-e-Husn)
  • Mazdoor (1934)
  • Nirmala (TV Series, 1980s)

参考文献[編集]

  • 『プレームチャンド短篇選集』土井久弥注訳、大学書林、1985年。
  • 『厳寒の夜ープレームチャンド短編集』坂田貞二編訳、日本アジア文学協会、1990年。

外部リンク[編集]

ウィキクォートにムンシー・プレームチャンドに関する引用句集があります。

Collection of Munshi Premchand's stories and novels
Another brief biography
Website in making about works of Premchand
Translations of two stories by Premchand


↧

嘯聲 《柱頭上的〈聖經〉》Chartres and Bible

July 10, 2017, 5:12 am
≫ Next: 劉曉波及部分相關書籍
≪ Previous: 劉安武《普列姆昌德評傳 Munshi Premchand》、劉安武 譯《普列姆昌德論文學》《普列姆昌德短篇小說精選》
$
0
0

雖說是》Chartres and Bible
當然,本書沒談玻璃上的聖經故事........

Images for chartres and bible

Image result for chartres and bible
Image result for chartres and bible
Image result for chartres and bible
Image result for chartres and bible
Image result for chartres and bible
More images for chartres and bibleReport images

[PDF]The Cathedral at Chartres

fd.valenciacollege.edu/file/gadams/The%20Cathedral%20at%20Chartres.pdf
The Cathedral at Chartres: A Bible in Stone 249. In the Middle Ages, the pilgrim- age and the pilgrimage church were the spiritual goals of every man, woman, or ...

Chartres | Chartres Cathedral | Cathédrale Notre-Dame Chartres ...

www.travelsignposts.com › Home › Sightseeing
Chartres Cathedral is a superb Gothic cathedral with a huge collection of ... since that time, earningChartres Cathedral the reputation of a “Bible in Stone”.

Stone Bible: the Cathedral of Chartres - YouTube

Video for chartres and bible▶ 1:23:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqaPpos9T9M

Jan 3, 2015 - Uploaded by Augustine College
Chartres Cathedral, south of Paris, is revered as one of the most beautiful and profound works of art in the ...


柱頭上的聖經(簡體書)
  • 出版社: 廣西師範大學出版社
  • 作者:嘯聲
  • 裝訂/頁數:精裝/547頁
  • 規格(高/寬):20.8*14.6cm
  • 出版日:2013/09/01
世界上關於基督教《聖經》的書,實在是汗牛充棟,不可勝計。可是,把“敘事柱頭”按《聖經》故事編撰起來,毫無疑問是史無前例的獨特創意。本書作者在長期考察研究西方中世紀藝術過程中,對羅曼敘事柱並沒有和裝飾柱頭格外關注,曾親自拍攝下數千柱頭的珍貴資料。《柱頭上的〈聖經〉》在講述有關內容的同時,由作者精選280個柱頭,按照《舊約》、《新約》、後世和其它四部分編篡起來,成為一部左史右圖的奇書,供我國讀者翻閱把玩。




世界上關於基督教《聖經》的書,實在是汗牛充棟,不可勝計。可是,把“敘事柱頭”按《聖經》故事編撰起來,毫無疑問是史無前例的獨特創意。
西方中世紀藝術就其本質而言,是基督教藝術;基督教藝術就其大體而言,以《聖經》為內容。在柱頭上表現《聖經》題材,亦即柱頭與《聖經》結緣,成就了輝煌中世紀藝術最精彩的篇章。
在結構上擔負著起拱承重功能的柱頭,到了基督教的鼎盛時期,即藝術史所謂的羅曼時期(11至12世紀前後),在傳統的花葉紋樣裝飾上又有獨創性的發展,即表現《聖經》故事,稱敘事柱頭。由於基督教世界尤其是法蘭西和西班牙在這一時期建造了遍布各地的教堂和修道院,便對建築及其裝飾有巨大的需求,因此造就出許多天才工匠,他們又在敘事柱頭上各顯神通,創作出琳瑯滿目、美不勝收的傳世傑作。欣賞這宗珍奇,既賞心悅目,又廣識益智。
本書作者在長期考察研究西方中世紀藝術過程中,對羅曼敘事柱並沒有和裝飾柱頭格外關注,曾親自拍攝下數千柱頭的珍貴資料。《柱頭上的〈聖經〉》在講述有關內容的同時,由作者精選280個柱頭,按照《舊約》、《新約》、後世和其它四部分編篡起來,成為一部左史右圖的奇書,供我國讀者翻閱把玩。

作者簡介  · · · · · ·



嘯聲,姓邢,祖籍北京,1938年生於上海。幼習書畫,長學外語。自1981年起,專門從事外國美術的介紹工作。1984年至1986年,受國家選派赴巴黎,進修考察西方美術史,主攻中世紀藝術與現當代藝術。後又多次應邀出訪,先後到歐美十餘國考察講學,並有廣泛的交遊。2000年,當選西班牙聖費爾南多王家美術院通訊院士。



目錄 · · · · · ·
前言
緒論
一《聖經》其書及其深遠影響
二西方藝術與《聖經》
三作為獨立審美體系的羅曼藝術
四羅曼柱頭的結構功能以及教化和裝飾功能
五流派紛呈的敘事柱頭
柱頭上的《聖經》
《舊約》故事
《新約》故事
後世聖徒事蹟
其它題材及裝飾紋樣
柱頭所在地中外文名稱對照表及圖號索引
法國
西班牙
其它地方
↧
↧

劉曉波及部分相關書籍

July 11, 2017, 7:08 pm
≫ Next: Three Men in a Boat By Jerome K. Jerome
≪ Previous: 嘯聲 《柱頭上的〈聖經〉》Chartres and Bible
$
0
0





劉曉波劉霞詩選,香港 : 夏菲爾出版,2000

向良心說謊的民族 : 劉曉波文集,臺北市 : 捷幼,2010

自由荊冠 : 劉曉波與諾貝爾和平獎,香港 : 晨鐘出版, 2010

我沒有敵人: 劉曉波文集之二 : 2010年諾貝爾和平獎得主, 臺北市 : 捷幼,2011

追尋自由 : 劉曉波文選,美國華盛頓 : 勞改基金會 2011劉曉波傳,公小玄 作,美國 : 明鏡出版社 2010;余杰 1973- 臺北市 : 時報文化 2012


大國沈淪-寫給中國的備忘錄 劉曉波, 允晨文化,2009:中國當代政治與中國知識份子
, 劉曉波 , 唐山出版社,2010;

統一就是奴役:劉曉波論臺灣、香港及西藏
劉曉波 , 主流出版社,2016

從六四到零八:劉曉波的人權路,2016

劉曉波, 主流出版社 。2016我無罪:劉曉波傳, 余杰, 時報出版,2012 (2010:劉曉波打敗胡錦濤 , 晨鐘書局)


中共的獨裁愛國主義 2005

2017/7/11 — 


(編按:本文為劉曉波被控「煽動顛覆國家政權」罪,北京市人民檢察院在起訴書中列作證據的六篇「煽動性、造謠、誹謗」文章之一。原刊於《大紀元時報》網站。)
國家由它的民眾構成,民眾是一個國家的主體,也是國家主權的來源和國家利益的擁有者。在一個合理的政治制度下,政治權力來自民眾的授予,政府靠民眾血汗養活,政府或執政黨僅僅是國家的公僕而非國家的主人。政府必須真正地而不是口頭地把民眾當作衣食父母,而把自己當作民眾公僕。所以,政府的首要職能是善待自己的人民和提供公共服務,無論是權力和國家財政,都必須做到「取之於民而用之於民」;政府所代表的國家利益必須具體化為民眾的利益,最終具體落實為個人的安全、財產、自由和民主等諸項法定權利。
總之,尊民愛民、特別是尊重和保障民眾用和平的方式置疑、批評、甚至反對政府決策的權利,才有資格代表由民眾利益彙集而成的國家利益,也才可以稱之為愛國政府,才有資格倡導愛國主義。
然而,一個獨裁政權的愛國恰恰相反,它高調提倡愛國主義卻從來不尊重不愛護國家的主體——人民。
首先,它的權力不是來自民授而是來自暴力並靠暴力維持,它把本應服務於社會公益的公權力變成政權及權貴的私權力,變成貫徹政權意志、牟取權貴利益的工具。
其次,它維持社會秩序的主要方式是暴力恐怖和意識形態謊言,它剝奪民眾的基本人權,它封鎖公共信息,壓制多元化的價值和不同意見的表達,它不允許自由的思想和信仰,不允許民眾議政、結社、罷工和遊行,不允許民眾用和平方式來表達自身的不滿和對政府的批評。
最後,它靠人民的血汗來養活卻從來敵視民意並以虐待人民為樂,它增進社會福利的主要方式是自上而下的恩賜,它用暴力搶掠了全部社會財富,然後從本應屬於民眾的財產分出一小部份恩賜給民眾,非但不覺得羞恥,反而自以為是「皇恩浩蕩」,逼著民眾感恩戴德。
中共掌權後,為了維持黨權對人民和國家的絕對統治,一直在大談愛國主義,也始終強調一種似是而非的統治邏輯——「亡黨亡國論」。六四後,這種論調變種為「穩定論」和「崩潰論」的相互補充。它的正面宣傳是「只有中共才能給中國帶來穩定和繁榮」,它的反面灌輸是「離開了中共政權中國就將大亂甚至崩潰」,這一正一反的雙簧演奏著「亡黨亡國論」的主旋律。
事實上,「亡黨」與「亡國」之間,並沒有必然的因果關係。因為,任何政黨都是特定利益集團的代表,而沒有資格宣稱為「國家、民族和人民」的代表。即便是執政黨,也不能等於國家,更不能等同於民族及其文化。中共政權,不等於中國,更不能代表中國文化;亡黨,只意味著某一執政黨政權的坍塌,而並不意味著中國的崩潰和中華民族的沉淪。中國歷史上的政權更替頻繁,但中國作為一個國家並沒有「亡國」。
「亡國」,只能是「主權更迭」,即由國與國之間的極端衝突造成,民族被征服,領土被佔領,主權被剝奪,一個國家被另一國家所顛覆並控制(或由佔領者直接統治,或佔領者通過操縱傀儡政權進行間接控制),而絕非「政權更迭」,一國之內的政權更迭與亡國無關。美國有二百多年的歷史,期間由兩大政黨輪流執政的政權更迭定期進行,而美國作為一個國家則一脈相承。
在此意義上,冷戰時期的前蘇聯陣營中的東歐諸國,儘管在表面上還是主權國家,但實際的狀態更近於「亡國」,因為這些東歐國家的政權直接受制於前蘇聯霸權的武力操控,以至於,前蘇聯為了達到完全操控這些國家政權的目的,在這些國家發生旨在擺脫蘇聯共產霸權的改革之時,不惜將坦克直接開進這些國家的首都,以赤裸裸的武力來恢復前蘇聯的共產霸權。
中國是歷史悠久的古老國家,自從秦始皇通過武力兼併而建立統一秦朝政權之後,經歷了無數次政權更迭,但中國作為一個作家並沒有被滅亡。只有蒙族武力顛覆宋朝和滿清武力顛覆明朝,踏破中原大地的馬蹄和手起頭落的馬刀,將漢人置於劣等人地位的種族歧視制度,還可以勉強稱之為「亡國之恥」。反元復宋和反清復明的鬥爭,還可以稱之為「復國」的反侵略反佔領的鬥爭。1840年以來西方列強與中國的武力衝突,即便是中國的屢戰屢敗,不得不簽下大量喪權辱國的條約,也始終沒有淪為徹底的「亡國」,甚至包括日本人扶持的「滿洲國」和汪精衛政權,也並沒有取代中華民國政權。
同樣,在中國近代、現代歷史上,內部的頻繁權力更替之中,衰亡的僅僅是某個「家天下政權」或「黨天下政權」,而非國家本身。孫中山和袁世凱合力推翻滿清之功,最終以國民黨的「黨天下政權」取代了傳統的「家天下政權」。毛澤東及其中共打敗了蔣介石所代表的國民黨政權,不過是國民黨的黨天下被中共的黨天下所取代,也只是一國之內的改朝換代,並不涉及中國主權的轉移。換言之,中共政權只有五十年,而中國歷史已經延綿了五千年,中共所顛覆的僅僅是「國民黨政權」,而非中國這個「國家」。所以,中共在1949年奪取政權,只是又一個「新政權」的建立,而與「建國」無關;毛澤東也僅是「新政權之父」,而決不是「新中國之父」。即便現在的中共是世界上最大的政黨,但六千多萬黨員與十三億人口相比,也僅僅是少數,怎麼就能那麼大言不慚地宣稱「代表人民和國家」。中共之所以一直自奉為「國家、民族和人民」的天然代表,絕非真的「替天行道」,而是要維護獨裁強權及其既得利益。
凡是獨裁政權,都喜歡倡導愛國主義,而獨裁愛國主義不過是禍國殃民的藉口而已。中共獨裁政權提倡的官方愛國主義,是「以黨代國」體制的謬論,愛國的實質是要求人民愛獨裁政權、愛獨裁黨、愛獨裁者,是盜用愛國主義之名而行禍國殃民之實。
2005年10月3日於北京家中
↧

Three Men in a Boat By Jerome K. Jerome

July 11, 2017, 7:23 pm
≫ Next: THE BURDEN OF FEMALE TALENT By Ronald Egon [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》
≪ Previous: 劉曉波及部分相關書籍
$
0
0
Oxford World's Classics
#OnThisDay in 1848: Waterloo railway station in London opens. The station expanded regularly but in each case the long-term plan was that the expansion was 'temporary' until Waterloo became a through-station, and therefore these additions were simply added alongside and around the existing structure rather than as part of an overall architectural plan. This resulted in the station becoming increasingly ramshackle. This complexity and confusion became the butt of jokes by writers, including Jerome K. Jerome in Three Men in a Boat.
"We got to Waterloo at eleven, and asked where the eleven-five started from. Of course nobody knew; nobody at Waterloo ever does know where a train is going to start from, or where a train when it does start is going to, or anything about it."

圖像裡可能有文字
↧

THE BURDEN OF FEMALE TALENT By Ronald Egon [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》

July 11, 2017, 7:38 pm
≫ Next: Louis Aragon 聖周風雨錄 La Semaine Sainte (1958) ( Holy Week) By
≪ Previous: Three Men in a Boat By Jerome K. Jerome
$
0
0

至少兩篇重要書評,參考附錄。


才女之累:男人無法接受李清照的才華,才將易安詞理解為思念丈夫

原創 2017-07-09 高矅 文匯報 


艾朗諾教授是斯坦福大學漢學講座教授,長期致力於中國古典文學研究,對宋代詩學、宋代士大夫文化與宋代藝術史尤為關注。已經出版並引進國內的相關專著包括《歐陽修的文學作品》《蘇軾的言、象、行》《美的焦慮:北宋士大夫的審美思想與追求》等。

《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》是又一部著眼宋代文學的作品,英文原著於2013年由哈佛大學出版社出版,封面所用李清照畫像由中國美術史學家高居翰推薦。與大多數呈現女詞人婉約、柔弱的畫像不同,這幅畫像中的李清照顯得獨立而有想法,最符合艾朗諾對她的理解。

此書中文版經上海古籍出版社引進,於今年3月出版,其中諸多新穎觀點頗受學界關注。近日,艾朗諾教授接受《文匯學人》採訪,並就若干商榷意見給出回應。


▲漢學家艾朗諾

文匯:有關宋代文人的研究,您曾有幾本專著面世,重點關注歐陽修、蘇軾等士大夫。最近翻譯成中文引進中國的《才女之累》是一本圍繞宋代女性詞人李清照的專著,能否簡單介紹一下,您在其中落筆的重點?

艾朗諾:李清照是我個人很感興趣的宋代女性詞人。中國歷代也有其他一些女子得“才女”之名,頗享有聲望,但是,縱觀中國古代文學史,如果要問有幾位女性能算大家,我想只有李清照吧。李清照是唯一一位作品獲得經典地位的女性文人,能夠和歷代的陶淵明、杜甫、李白、白居易、蘇軾等同列於文學史,這一點是很特別的。當然這並不奇怪,中國古代文學當然是男性為主導,所以李清照顯得尤為特別。在這本研究李清照的《才女之累》中,我關注的重點,一方面是她和她的作品在文學史上的地位,另一方面是李清照過世以後,關於她的接受史的問題。

接受史的問題是我思考到後來的有趣發現。我仔細想過,中國古代文學史只讓一位女性成為大家,而她進入文學史的作品竟然都是在表達對丈夫的愛情?這兩者如此高度統一,不禁讓我產生懷疑,逐步意識到,傳統的對於李清照的了解恐怕是有問題的,對她作品的解讀恐怕也是有問題的。

在中文世界,李清照無疑是一位被反复研究的對象。後世文人對於李清照的思考和研究是非常有趣的,經常在變。比如她在趙明誠去世後嫁給張汝舟這件事,後世有一個曲折的認識和“接受”過程。人們一度無法接受這種“有失節操”的再嫁行為,甚至還引發一場否認再嫁、為才女雪恥辯誣的學術運動。由此可見,後世對待李清照,有著很矛盾的態度,一方面承認她的文學才華,欣賞她的作品。另一方面,要把這樣一位女子納入傳統文人的圈子,要承認她的文學地位,就要漸漸將她的形象重塑為合乎傳統的形象。

簡單地梳理一下我的想法:易安詞很受人喜愛;但是,男性文人又覺得,一位女性那麼有才華,是不大能接受的;但是,如果把她的作品都理解為是在抒發對丈夫的情感,那麼關係就理順了,就可以接受了。這就是男性的視角。

於是,喜愛她詞作的後世文人不斷強化他們理想中的李清照形象,到了明清時期,一般人所認為的李清照的形象,基本上就是一個深愛並思念著丈夫趙明誠、富有才華又忠貞不渝的女性形象。然而,這恐怕和真實的李清照有很大不同。

▲  [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》,夏麗麗、趙惠俊譯,上海古籍出版社,2017年2月出版,384頁,78元

文匯:《才女之累》的“導論”中有一段話,大意為:建國以來中文學界對於李清照的研究充滿熱情,相關研究成果浩如煙海,數量驚人,但大量研究是重複多餘的。您又說:本書的一項任務是“將數世紀以來外加與她的累贅層層剝離,看看一旦擺脫附會之言後,我們可以如何評說她”。如此看來,廓清李清照身上的迷霧,似乎可以被視為您的寫作動機。那麼,根據您的研究,李清照是怎樣的形象?

艾朗諾:也許是因為女性詩人、詞人在古代文學史上非常少見,所以像李清照這樣富有才華的,自然會一直吸引大家研究的興趣。很多人欣賞她的詩詞,而且能感覺到,她寫的詩詞和一般男性作者的作品相比,別具風格,這更加引起研究者的興趣。所以,研究李清照的學術成果確實非常多,但往往落入窠臼,大量觀點重複。

李清照並不是明清學者和文學評論者筆下的那個脆弱、孤單、寂寞、成天思念丈夫的女性形象。她的個性頗為爭強好勝,這一點可以找到很多證據。她寫過一篇很有名的文章——《金石錄後序》。金石研究是她丈夫趙明誠的愛好和學問所在,夫妻兩人在這項愛好上花費了大量金錢和精力。李清照寫《金石錄後序》時,趙明誠已經過世了。文章並不是寫金石研究本身,而是將夫妻之間三十多年的婚姻往事娓娓道來。一位妻子描述自己和丈夫的私人生活,寫得非常動人,這樣的文章在唐宋時期找不到類似的,因此非常特殊。

文章的其中一段很好玩,寫的是李清照懷念他們剛剛結婚時的愉快生活。夫妻二人都是讀書人,常常到市場上買書,買古董、字畫,一起賞鑑。還談到兩人相互比試:“餘性偶強記,每飯罷,坐歸來堂烹茶,指堆積書史,言某事在某書某卷第幾葉第幾行,以中否角勝負,為飲茶先後。中即舉杯大笑,至茶傾覆懷中,反不得飲而起。”

這很有趣,她只形容自己贏,不描述趙明誠贏了是什麼樣子,彷彿這個遊戲一直是她贏得多。另外,我還揣摩過的是,猜中以後,高興是高興,可為何要“大笑”呢?有那麼高興嗎?趙明誠曾是國子監太學生,也就是受過高等教育的,而那個年代的學問評價,很重要的一點就是記憶書卷中的內容。李清照比丈夫還熟悉書裡的內容,這大概很令她得意,故而開懷大笑吧。

所以,就我自己對李清照的認識,她是很有性格的作家,有非常強烈的要與男性文人一爭高下的競爭意識。

▲《才女之累》英文版

文匯:要了解李清照的身世,她的詞作已被證明很難依憑,那麼只能依據詞作以外的創作。有三篇作品特別重要,即前述《金石錄後序》以及另兩篇——《投翰林學士綦崈禮啟》和《詞論》,您在書中也都予以了精密的分析。請您談談這幾篇文章的關鍵點所在?

艾朗諾:我想以《詞論》為例來談。李清照在《詞論》中逐個點評了北宋一些重要的詞人,甚至不乏批評之辭。這就很能反映李清照的性格特點。我們要注意,她並不是籠統地評論當時以男性為主的詞人群體,而是從平仄、韻律、風格等方面,對那些最有名望、廣受好評的詞家,如歐陽修、蘇東坡、秦觀、晏殊等,都有批評。同時代還有誰會這樣批評士人的詞作呢?他們的文章因為政治觀點被批評,這是有的,但是詞作被評價寫得不好,真是很稀見。文章甫一出來,很多文人就大為反感:這樣一位女性怎麼敢如此大膽地妄議當代詞家呢?

我以為這是個很突出的例子。如果是男性作家,也許寫不出這類批評。我並不是要強調女性作家有著與男性多麼判然有別的思考,而是,對於詞這種文體的評價,必須是有個站在外面的人,以旁觀者的眼光,才會這樣寫。男性文人都是“圈內人”,大家都“身在此山中”,而李清照是“圈外人”,所以才有那麼大膽和特殊的批評視角。這也反映出,儘管她努力地想要廁身士林,也儘管易安詞備受矚目,但其實她還是在“文壇之外”的,精英文人並未因為她的創作才華而接受她的創作者身份。


文匯:中文書名《才女之累》的“累(léi)”,是取“累贅”之意。請您簡單談談,書中試圖揭示的是怎樣的“累贅”?

艾朗諾:中文名的翻譯其實經歷了一個反复考慮的過程,我和編輯、譯者以及其他朋友有過很多討論。Burden直譯成中文的話,更直接的可能是“負擔”,但是如果書名是《才女的負擔》,並不能完全表達我在書裡對李清照的認識,所以覺得第二聲的累是最恰當。才女的累贅,大概是這個意思。

不管男性還是女性,有才華總是好事,但在李清照生活的年代,兩性之間非常不平等,女性如果很有才華,反而會招致很多麻煩。女子為文在當時是令人非議的事。李清照的作品是在她生前就獲得了不錯反響的,喜愛她詞作的男性文人對她的評價往往很有趣——喜愛,卻又不能輕易接受,無法忽視她的性別。

他們在評定她詞作的才華時,總是不免要強調一下:可惜是個女子啊!李清照在經歷了再嫁、離異的風波之後,名節方面的問題便成了她的又一層累贅。於是,評論者又會忍不住再強調這一點:可惜她名節有欠缺啊!比如宋代王灼的筆記就很典型,既讚許她“才力華贍,逼近前輩,在士大夫中已不多得”“若本朝婦人,當推詞采第一”,又評價她“晚節流蕩無歸”。

由此,我們可以想像一下她當時享有聲名的複雜處境,才華無法脫離性別和所謂的名節被加以評判。用現在的眼光來審視,同時代人對她的文學創作的評論,無疑是很不公平的。

▲《漱玉詞》

文匯:中國各朝有不少有名的女性文人,當然數量上和男性文人完全不能比,李清照的同時代也有一些女性文人,您在書裡提到可大致分為三類,即歌妓、名媛和閨閣文人。您認為李清照不能歸類於任何一種,這一點如何來理解?

艾朗諾:她的個人風格很鮮明,確實不屬於這三類。在當時,歌妓會寫詞,上流社會的閨閣婦女或名媛也有一些作品,但是,這些都是比較偶然的情況,並不是她們生活中要緊的事情。不少詞作,往往寫則寫矣,但事後被銷毀了,這些女性作者並不打算讓自己的作品被別人看到。李清照不一樣,她把文學創作視為生活中最要緊的事情。固然她從未有過自己是文學家之類的說法,但她對於自己的文學創作是很積極的,對於自己創作者的身份也有自覺。這些意識在她的作品裡可以被找到。

我可以找一首詞來談談文學創作在李清照人生里的重要性。看這首《漁家傲》:

天接雲濤連曉霧。星河欲轉千帆舞。彷彿夢魂歸帝所。聞天語。殷勤問我歸何處。我報路長嗟日暮。學詩謾有驚人句。九萬里風鵬正舉。風休住。蓬舟吹取三山去。

天帝殷勤地問她要去哪裡,大概意思就是,你這輩子到底想做什麼?她馬上回答的就是:這是一條長長的路,已經臨近日暮,我學習寫詩,卻謾有驚人句。這里首先能看出,天帝一問“歸何處”的終極問題,她就想到寫詩;此外,她明明已經寫出不少“驚人句”了,卻說“謾有驚人句”,即沒人注意我,也沒人欣賞我,不是沒有驚人句,是知音稀少。從中很能看出,文學創作對她來說是很要緊的事情。


文匯:聽您這樣談論李清照的才華和遭遇的困境,不禁想起BBC的一部短劇《隱於書後》。劇中的勃朗特姐妹也對文學創作很有熱情,她們受制於時代的局限,無法順利地以女性的身份寫作,但仍然默默而持久地付出努力,並最終在文學上取得了堪稱流芳後世的成就。您的新書和這部短劇頗有一些相似的觀感,在此也出於好奇地請問您,是否覺得哪位西方的文學女性很像李清照?

艾朗諾:西方文壇和中國文壇很不相同。以前有人說,李清照是中國的薩福。薩福是古希臘的女性文人,也寫作詩歌,不過從我對薩福詩歌的理解而言,我覺得她們倆不太像。在西方文學中,要等到十八、十九世紀,出現寫小說的簡·奧斯丁和勃朗特姐妹等,她們把文學看得如此重要,才大致可以對比李清照。但是你看,她們比李清照晚了好幾百年呢。

文匯:歷代選家在具體選目上必然有所偏好,您對《樂府雅詞》和《草堂詩餘》《花庵詞選》《陽春白雪》《全芳備祖》五種早期詞選的選目作了比較考察,這些詞選的選目高度重疊,但也有不同。您認為流傳甚廣的忠於丈夫的李清照形象影響了易安詞在詞選中的面貌。男性選家遇到極為罕見的女性詞人時,他們會被詞集中那些與主流相一致的女性形像作品所吸引,這個主流當然是佔壓倒性多數的男性作家決定的。這個論述是否可視為您在本書中試圖貫徹的女性主義批評角度?

艾朗諾:或許我很難有什麼直接的根據,可以來解釋李清照“具有女性主義的意識”;但我可以說,她不同於普通的女性,也不同於普通女性的文學創作,她對自己的創作是抱有很高期望的。

其實李清照的文學成就不能局限於詞來評論,儘管她的詞最出名。她寫過一些很有名的詩,也是非常值得討論的。她的詩風格迥異於詞,風格和題材很男性化,常涉及政事。她的詩裡都寫些什麼呢?像著名的《烏江》,“生當作人傑,死亦為鬼雄。至今思項羽,不肯過江東”,表達對宋室倉皇南渡的失望,這是人們很熟悉的。

再舉另外一個例子。唐代元結寫下《大唐中興頌》,是為歌頌唐代朝廷平定安史之亂而寫的頌文,後由顏真卿書丹,刻於浯溪碑石上。到了北宋,李清照父親李格非的那一代文人,像秦觀、晁補之、張耒等,都寫過關於中興碑的詩,態度和唐代的中興碑文相似,頌揚軍事勝利。當時李清照還很年輕,她也寫同樣的主題,和他人的韻,但態度很不同。她的重點不在於回顧和歌頌唐代朝廷如何抗擊安史之亂,而是表達了對唐代朝廷的懷疑和反思——為何安祿山會有那麼大的力量,為何安史之亂會發生。足見其批判性的態度。同時也可以看出,李清照身處當時男性主導的文士圈子,有意與當時有名望的文人競爭,以彰顯自己的思想更為深刻,也更有穿透表層的問題意識。


評論與回應

文匯:您在《才女之累》的《導論》中說:“本書研究的目標之一,是為婦女史及女性文學批評研究領域提供新的個案。”廈門大學錢建狀教授曾就您的英文原著寫過一篇書評,整體上給予很高的評價。他認為:“從女性主義文學批評來看,這樣的理論表述與文體解析自有其內在邏輯,並且可以增加釋讀易安詞的一個維度”,並指出書中的女性主義文學批評如鹽在水,不見踪影。能否請您簡單梳理一下,在李清照這個個案中,您想要呈現的女性文學批評的思路?

艾朗諾:《導論》中那句話的意思是,我想利用李清照的個案來擴張女性文學批評。因為在歐美學術界,對於女性文學,一直以近代與現代歐美文學作為研究對象,很少包含東亞文學,而更少注意到古代或中古的東亞文學。換句話說,女性文學批評這個領域至今範圍很窄小,我希望讓它廣闊一些。另外,我那本書出發點並不是“要用女性文學批評的角度來分析李清照”,更確切地說,我是受到一些當下女性文學批評的影響,然後重新來思考中國古代最偉大的女性詞人,或者說,我想利用近來女性文學批評的看法,嘗試看看,能不能把李清照從男性文壇的環境中抽出來,讓她得到自己的空間,而不光以男性的標準來衡量她。

文匯:錢建狀教授也指出:“宋代幾部詞選,各有其選詞標準。《樂府雅詞》標舉'黜浮',《草堂詩餘》為應歌而設,《花庵詞選》兼收並蓄,《陽春白雪》標榜高雅,而實有存詞之功,《全芳備祖》則是博物學專著。這幾部詞選,沒有一部是女性詞選,並且自有意義。一部詞選,操選政者不同,選詞標準不同,選源有別,皆有可能影響選目。不從詞選編纂學的視度來審視易安詞的傳播,僅從男性身份上來闡釋,也有可能失之偏頗。”對此商榷意見,您有何回應?

艾朗諾:說南宋詞選每本都有它獨特的選詞標準,這當然有道理。然而李清照的《漱玉詞》已經失傳,我們今天想了解李清照最可靠的詞作,除了這幾本南宋詞選外,沒有其他早期的文本可看,不管詞選本身有怎麼樣的偏頗,也只好靠它們。


文匯:《文匯讀書周報》2017年5月22日刊發了華東師範大學成瑋老師的文章:《如何證明女詞人不是女詞人》,最後部分對《才女之累》的論述提出商榷意見,轉引如下:

譬如著者認為,清人辯稱李清照未嘗再婚,背景在女性守節的嚴格化,大體可從。麻煩出在,第一位廣羅文獻論證此說的俞正燮,恰是思想開明,主張“其再嫁者不當非之”(《節婦說》)的。其《易安居士事輯》明言:“是非天下之公,非望易安以不嫁也。不甘小人言語,使才人下配駔儈,故以年分考之。”他反對再嫁論,與其說出於貞節立場,毋寧說出於對結褵雙方雅俗懸殊的惋惜。本書力求把一切“辯誣”者,納入單一背景之下,對此文的闡釋,遂未免失之迂曲。又如考察易安詩文,不僅詮釋方式迥異於詞,真偽判斷也大相徑庭。對詞嚴加甄辨,對詩文則全盤接受,絕無疑議。實則詩文和詞一樣,均係後人輯得。其間有無贗品,字句有無竄易,並非不言自明。舉《詞論》為例,早在1980年代,馬興榮先生已質疑其著作權(《李清照〈詞論〉考》),至今塵埃未定;或又謂此篇“在傳聞過程中字句原意難免改動失真” (孫望、常國武主編《宋代文學史》)。倘與詞作一視同仁,似也應下一番考辨工夫,而非不假思索,坦然據以為說。再如代言體之論,固然極富意義,但是,著者太珍視自己的新解,傾向於把易安詞統一劃歸代言體。即便發現“李清照甚至允許在詞中時不時地出現與她生平有關係的細節”,依然強調,這類作品“還是必須和李清照本人相區分開來”。如是處置,恐怕難饜人意。以常理度之,易安詞一部分系代言,一部分係自傳,兩者兼有,方為正常狀態,無須偏取一端。展望未來,在可能範圍內,盡量辨明多少詞作屬於前者,多少詞作屬於後者,或將變為討論李清照的一項新議題。

對以上幾點商榷意見,您有何回應?

艾朗諾:關於“再婚”的討論,我不相信俞正燮反對說李清照曾經再嫁是出於雙方雅俗懸殊的惋惜,而不是出於他的貞節觀念。我看他說“非望易安以不(改)嫁”是衝口而出的話,,披露了他真正的想法,就是說,如果李清照嫁了個相當好的人,他也會惋惜。俞正燮的動機也許很複雜,然而在他的影響下,後來一大堆清代學者相繼出來替李清照“辯誣”或“雪恥”是出於貞節觀念,這是不可否定的。

關於易安詩文,說她的詩作也像她詞作一樣,很多是後人輯得是對的,但她的散文卻不是,多半很早就有人引用,甚至她還在世的時候已經有人引用或註意到。《詞論》就是其中一篇。早期的《苕溪漁隱叢話後集》卷三十三引用了全篇,後面附上胡仔的評語。胡仔是當時的學者,在詩詞方面很有學問,所以這篇屬於李清照的可能性很大。這情況與現今歸屬於李清照的詞作大半是幾百年後(明代中期或晚期)才出現這情況,差異極大。

關於是否把易安詞統一劃歸代言體,這點當然有可商量之處,但我們將永遠沒有辦法分辨,李清照哪些詩是自傳性的,哪些是代言的。我這本書主要是要挑戰一般人閱讀李清照詞作的方法,若能引起一些人對他們慣有的讀法發生懷疑,我就達到目的了。至於把她的詞作分為兩種(一部分是代言,一部分是自傳),恐怕不好,而且是過於簡單。這兩種也許是分不開的,相信她許多詞既有自傳性也有代言性,混在一起,就像許多男性詞人的詞一樣。


本次訪談由《才女之累》責任編輯劉賽參與策劃
來源丨文匯學人




  • 微信志
  •  
  • 推薦閱讀
  •  
  • 產品設計
  •  
  • 產品運營
  •  
  • 移動應用
  •  
  • 產品市場
  •  
  • 數據報告

  • 北美漢學新著|孫康宜、宇文所安評艾朗諾《才女的累贅:詞人李清照及其接受史》

    2015-09-05 閱讀:10000+ 無待有為齋 pin it   360doc

    評艾朗諾《才女的累贅:詞人李清照及其接受史》

    The Burden of Female Talent: The Poet Li Qingzhao and Her History inChina. By Ronald Egan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013. ix, 422 pp.$ 59.95 (cloth).

    孫康宜撰
    卞東波譯


    齋主按:斯坦福大學漢學講座教授艾朗諾(Ronald C. Egan)先生研究李清照的新作《才女的累贅——詞人李清照及其接受史》(The Burden of Female Talent: The Poet Li Qingzhao and Her History ,哈佛大學亞洲中心,2013年)確實給人以耳目一新的感覺。目前學界關於李清照的論文生產已經到了令人生厭的地步,艾朗諾教授此書試圖從新的角度解讀李清照,得出諸多讓人信服的結論。他認為詞是一種虛構的文體,也是一種高度程式化的文體,正如我們不能將柳永與他筆下的歌妓等同一樣,我們也不應將李清照與她詞中的抒情主人公視為一體。在《趙明誠遠遊時為什麼不給他的妻子李清照寫信》一文中,他指出,李清照詞中的相思並不是對趙明誠的告白,而是藉用詞體的傳統題材而已,並且趙明誠也從來沒有遠遊,兩人並未長久分別過。他又研究了《李清照集》作品增多的問題,宋代選本中李詞只有35首,到明清時已經增加到70多首,與晚明人對“情”的重視有很大關係。新增之作中多是偽作,包括一些李清照的“名作”,如“卻把青梅嗅”那首。李清照是否改嫁的問題也是學術史上的公案,本書也做了釐清,認為是清代學者受到理學影響而對李清照名譽的捍衛。作者認為,我們今天的李清照的形像是後人重塑的結果。書中又用女性主義的方法解讀了李清照《詞論》開頭的李八郎的故事,表明自己試圖突破傳統的決心。本書凡11章,有9章與李清照在後代的接受形塑有關,僅最後兩章論到李氏之詞,有點不滿足。封面所用的李清照的肖像是我們從未見過的畫像,由美國藝術史學者高居翰(James Cahill)在中國國家圖書館中發現。他與艾氏並不認識,得知艾在寫李清照之書,特地告知。待艾氏書出,而高已逝,學術情誼於斯可見。
    艾朗諾教授新著出版後,北美漢學界兩大巨擘孫康宜、宇文所安教授分別撰文盛讚該書。今齋主受孫康宜教授之託譯出其書評,供大家參考。宇文所安教授的書評見《哈佛亞洲學報》2014年第2期,諸君可以參看。


    艾朗諾關於中國最偉大的女詞人李清照新著無疑是一部傑作。本書在各個方面顯著擴展了我們關於這個課題的知識。近來年,李清照又成為中國學術界關注的熱點,出版了眾多研究著作,如陳祖美的《李清照新傳》(北京:北京出版社,2001 年)、諸葛憶兵的《李清照與趙明誠》(北京:中華書局,2004 年)及鄧紅梅的《李清照新傳》(上海:上海古籍出版社,2005 年)。但這些著作都沒有採用艾朗諾的研究方法,我堅信艾朗諾是在所有語種中,如此徹底而細緻研究李清照的第一人。本書在專題研究和宏觀論述上都取得了可喜的成績。
    首先,本書對李清照進行了全新的重新解讀,從而將改變我們對女性詞人的傳統解讀。艾朗諾向我們揭示了這位獨特的女詞人如何致力於在她的作品中刻錄她的經歷的,要知道當時的貴族女性只被教習讀書認字,而不被鼓勵寫作。最重要的是,艾朗諾極具洞察力地將李清照的《金石錄後序》(這是李清照為她的丈夫趙明誠所收集的金石銘文題跋集所寫的後記)解讀為,李清照在短暫改嫁與離婚之後的“重塑自我”,以及“重申自己的作家身份”(第191 頁)。李清照離婚之後,是她作為作家一生中最多產的歲月,這也是艾朗諾為學術界新揭示出來的重要事實。這種新的解讀必然改變我們對李清照的認知。中國學者過去習慣性地認為,李清照在她晚年過著漂泊無定的生活,但艾朗諾的研究告訴我們,暮年的李清照在社交場上很活躍,與一些名流接觸頻繁,甚至與皇室還有聯繫。
    艾朗諾援引大量文獻,展示了李清照的形像是如何在中國宋代以降被建構和改造的。他認為,將李清照的文學表達(特別是詞)等同於詩人的生平資料,這種慣常的研究理路大有問題。他指出,這種“自傳式解讀”的最難通之處就是批評家自我推理的循環闡釋。更糟糕的是,李清照的文集在後世散佚嚴重,這也使得闡釋變得問題重重。不過,拜艾朗諾精細的研究之賜,我們終於對中國歷代所編的詞集中收錄的李清照寫的詞(或歸於其名下的詞)有了概觀的了解。在處理作者問題時,艾朗諾常常對討論的對象提供充分的證據——包括正反兩方面的數據。譬如,書中討論了一些所謂“調情詞”,不少這類詞被歸到李清照的名下,艾朗諾在評論這種署名如何折射晚明的文學趣味時說:“恰恰因為明清時期產生了一種新的女性形象和偶像,女性受到推崇不僅僅是因為美貌,而且更因為才華……李清照就是古代女性詩人中的標誌性人物。”(第360 頁)而且,明代的夫妻交流,如黃峨與其夫楊慎之間的互動,可能也鼓勵了當時的選家認為類似的詞是李清照所寫,這些所謂李清照的詞“被想像為寫給她丈夫趙明誠的”(第362 頁)。[順便說,黃峨的名字在第362頁被誤植為“黃娥”。]另一方面,正如艾朗諾所言的,如果我們認為李清照“是對詞特別講究的人”,注重詞體“聲律的使用”和“風格的多樣”,那麼她自己也不是“沒有可能”寫這種詞的(第364 頁)。
    通觀全書,艾朗諾認為,性別建構的觀念是解讀李清照的關鍵因素。艾朗諾主要關注的是,李清照作為女性詞人如何在男性文學世界取得一席之地的。他特別指出,李清照的詞學名篇《詞論》不但表達了女性詞人奮力克服性別偏見,這也是充滿抱負的李清照一直遭遇到的;而且也是為了“她的作品能夠贏得了某些文學品味和文學成就裁斷者的認可”(第75 頁)。這種解讀完全不同於傳統對李清照《詞論》的解讀。
    每一位中國古典文學的研究者都應該讀一下本書,因為本書向讀者傳遞了互文性與重讀經典的神奇力量。

    宇文所安教授書評

    宇文所安教授的名作《追憶》中也論述過李清照及其《金石錄後序》,大家可以對讀。

    ↧
    Search

    Louis Aragon 聖周風雨錄 La Semaine Sainte (1958) ( Holy Week) By

    July 11, 2017, 10:16 pm
    ≫ Next: 劉曉波(2009年12月23日):《我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述》《我的自辯》;China's Charter 08 (零八憲章)
    ≪ Previous: THE BURDEN OF FEMALE TALENT By Ronald Egon [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》
    $
    0
    0
    • La Semaine Sainte (1958) (published in English in 1959 as Holy Week)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Aragon



    HolyWeekNovel.jpg
    First English-language edition

    La Semaine Sainte is an historical novel by French writer Louis Aragon published in 1958. It sold over 100,000 copies.
    An English translation by Haakon Chevalier was published in 1961 under the title Holy Week by Hamish Hamilton, London, to mixed reviews:
    "It is a very bad book, so bad that one doesn't want to write about it, and if it weren't by Aragon, France's according-to-blurb "leading poet-novelist", one wouldn't....The translation, incidentally, is execrable throughout."[1]
    "Although the novel lacks the warmth of War and Peace and never makes us care very deeply for any of the characters, it displays a splendid range of intellectual understanding. The only recent book worthy to be compared with this tremendous panorama is Dr. Zhivago. M. Aragon's vision seems to me no less poetic than Pasternak's, and his technique as a novelist is far superior."[2]
    The book covers the week of 19 to 26 March 1815, when Napoleon Bonaparte, after escaping from captivity on the island of Elba, sought to regain power from the French King Louis XVIII. The main character in the novel, the painter Théodore Géricault, who has renounced his artistic career for a military one, accompanies the king on his flight from Paris, but as the king continues to flee across the frontier into Belgium, Géricault begins to have doubts about his own loyalties and the implications of his potential choices.
    The novel begins with a strange 'Author's Note': "This is not a historical novel. Any resemblance to persons who have lived, any similarity in names, places, details, can be an effect only of pure coincidence, and the Author declines responsibility for this in the name of the Inalienable Rights of the Imagination". Yet is it very definitely an historical novel, using real persons and real incidents, including the author himself and events in his own life, as well as those invented by the author's imagination.
    The novel is rich in history, blending real persons and events with fictional ones. It swaps back and forth between characters, portraying their divided loyalties, and the confusion of the period. All the characters need to make a decision sooner or later as to which side to support, and what action to take: to run or fight, to run for England or Belgium, to fight for the king or for Napoleon, to save themselves, their possessions, their livelihoods or their country. Their emotions, past histories, and present fears are recreated well.
    Aragon does not simply tell a simple narrative. Many of the characters have flashbacks, and even flashforwards (such as that which details the mysterious death by defenestration of Marshal Berthier in June 1815), that are introduced suddenly, without warning or introduction. Likewise, Aragon manifests himself in the novel by directly addressing the reader as himself in several digressions: he recalls his own experiences during the French occupation of Germany in 1919, during the German invasion of France in 1940, his (and his wife's) experiences and memories of Bamberg. Less personally, after describing a royalist officer raping a peasant girl, he discusses his reasons for not naming the soldier, describing the progeny of the soldier down to the present day, and explaining that he does not wish to shame the present, real, family descended from this soldier.
    As part of the narrative, Aragon also discusses the political and economic policies of both Napoleon and Louis XVIII reminding the reader that the decision of whom to support was not black and white. Napoleon was liberal and forward thinking with regard to agricultural and industrial development, but his constant conscription of workers and peasants into his armies had stripped many villages of their male workforce, who returned crippled, if at all, and his wars had reduced opportunities for trade, particularly with England, destroying the industries he otherwise tried to develop. In contrast, the king's reactionary policies and the return of the aristocracy after Napoleon' exile had embittered the peasantry, but at least there were jobs and stability and peace and trade. Napoleon's return threatened new upheavals, not only within France, but also the possibility of invasion by forces from Prussia, Russia, Austria and England. How each character, historic or fictitious, reacts to these contradictions and dilemmas forms the meat of the novel. The novel ends with Théodore Géricault seeing no point in dying either for a crippled king who has fled the country, nor for supporting Napoleon and his imperial police state. Having seen the royal family across the frontier into Belgium, he feels his duty is completed and he decides to return as anonymously as possible to Paris and his former artistic career.

    Notes[edit]

    1. Jump up^ Brooke-Rose, Christine, "Aragon meets his Waterloo", The Observer, Sunday, October 15, 1961.
    2. Jump up^ Mortimer, Raymond, "A Glorious Historical Novel", 1961 newspaper clipping, probably from the Sunday Times discovered in rear of discarded former library copy

    聖周風雨錄


    聖周風雨錄
    作者:   [法]阿拉貢
    出版社:上海譯文出版社
    原作名: La Semaine Sainte 譯者 : 李玉民 / 陳蔚德出版年: 2012-6 頁數: 629 定價: 49.00元裝幀:平裝叢書: 法國二十世紀文學譯叢ISBN: 9787532756599


    內容簡介  · · · · · ·

    路易·阿拉貢(1897—1982),法國著名詩人、小說家和文學評論家,曾被譽為法蘭西民族詩人。《聖周風雨錄》是阿拉貢的歷史小說代表作。1815年3月,法國風雲突變,拿破崙在戛納登陸,捲土重來;軍隊爭相歸附,城市座座易主。剛複闢一年的波旁王朝風雨飄搖,巴黎進入戒備狀態。國王路易十八卻以閱兵為掩護,借華宴迷惑對手,半夜倉皇出逃。這批顯赫貴族、護衛隨從與羽林軍在淒風苦雨中艱難跋涉,從巴黎向北逃竄。作者以其歷史學家的廣博與精微,再現了法國歷史上“百日政變”時期以拿破崙和路易十八為代表的兩大政治勢力的較量和逃亡陣線上的風風雨雨,揭露了不可一世的拿破崙的專制獨裁與警察統治,路易十八的優柔寡斷、反复無常和宮廷貴族的奢華淫糜、羽林軍的奸殺擄掠。《聖周風雨錄》氣勢恢弘而又細緻入微,既描繪了輝煌的歷史畫卷,又蘊含著深刻的歷史哲理,堪稱歷史小說的巨著和佳構。

    作者簡介  · · · · · ·

    路易·阿拉貢(1897—1982),法國著名詩人、小說家和文學評論家,曾被譽為法蘭西民族詩人。

    目錄  · · · · · ·

    法國二十世紀文學的一個輪廓(總序) 
    輝煌的歷史畫卷深刻的歷史哲理(譯本序) 
    聖周風雨錄
    第一卷
    第二卷
    作者簡介
    譯後小記
    ↧
    ↧

    劉曉波(2009年12月23日):《我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述》《我的自辯》;China's Charter 08 (零八憲章)

    July 12, 2017, 11:45 pm
    ≫ Next: What Gershom Scholem’s take on Jewish mysticism can teach us now.Gershom Scholem A Life in Letters, 1914-1982、 從柏林到耶路撒冷;
    ≪ Previous: Louis Aragon 聖周風雨錄 La Semaine Sainte (1958) ( Holy Week) By
    $
    0
    0

    網路上有人將2009年(數十篇)~2010年 (幾篇)  劉曉波相關的文獻
    留下來:

    Nobel Prize for XBLiu: China's Charter 08零八憲章

    http://nobelliu.blogspot.tw/2009/12/china-charter-08.html



    我沒有敵人----- 我的自辯
    《我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述》

    ——劉曉波(2009年12月23日)

    在我已過半百的人生道路上,1989年6月是我生命的重大轉折時刻。那之前,我是文革後恢復高考的第一屆大學生(七七級),從學士到碩士再到博士,我的讀書生涯是一帆風順,畢業後留在北京師範大學任教。在講台上,我是一名頗受學生歡迎的教師。同時,我又是一名公共知識分子,在上世紀80年代發表過引起轟動的文章與著作,經常受邀去各地演講,還應歐美國家之邀出國做訪問學者。我給自己提出的要求是:無論做人還是為文,都要活得誠實、負責、有尊嚴。那之後,因從美國回來參加八九運動,我被以「反革命宣傳煽動罪」投入監獄,也失去了我酷愛的講台,再也不能在國內發表文章和演講。僅僅因為發表不同政見和參加和平民主運動,一名教師就失去了講台,一個作家就失去了發表的權利,一位公共知識人就失去公開演講的機會,這,無論之於我個人還是之於改革開放已經30年的中國,都是一種悲哀。

    想起來,六四後我最富有戲劇性的經歷,居然都與法庭相關;我兩次面對公眾講話的機會都是北京市中級法院的開庭提供的,一次是1991年1月,一次是現在。雖然兩次被指控的罪名不同,但其實質基本相同,皆是因言獲罪。

    20年過去了,六四冤魂還未瞑目,被六四情結引向持不同政見者之路的我,在1991年走出秦城監獄之後,就失去了在自己的祖國公開發言的權利,而只能通過境外媒體發言,並因此而被長年監控,被監視居住(1995年5月-1996年1月),被勞動教養(1996年10月-1999年10月),現在又再次被政權的敵人意識推上了被告席,但我仍然要對這個剝奪我自由的政權說,我監守覑20年前我在《六.二絕食宣言》中所表達的信念——我沒有敵人,也沒有仇恨。所有監控過我、捉捕過我、審訊過我的警察,起訴過我的檢察官,判決過我的法官,都不是我的敵人。雖然我無法接受你們的監控、逮捕、起訴和判決,但我尊重你的職業與人格,包括現在代表控方起訴我的張榮革和潘雪晴兩位檢察官。在12月3日兩位對我的詢問中,我能感到你們的尊重和誠意。

    因為,仇恨會腐蝕一個人的智慧和良知,敵人意識將毒化一個民族的精神,煽動起你死我活的殘酷鬥爭,眦掉一個社會的寬容和人性,阻礙一個國家走向自由民主的進程。所以,我希望自己能夠超越個人的遭遇來看待國家的發展和社會的變化,以最大的善意對待政權的敵意,以愛化解恨。

    眾所周知,是改革開放帶來了國家的發展和社會的變化。在我看來,改革開放始於放棄毛時代的「以階級鬥爭為綱」的執政方針。轉而致力於經濟發展和社會和諧。放棄「鬥爭哲學」的過程也是逐步淡化敵人意識、消除仇恨心理的過程,是一個擠掉浸入人性之中的「狼奶」的過程。正是這一進程,為改革開放提供了一個寬鬆的國內外環境,為恢復人與人之間的互愛,為不同利益不同價值的和平共處提供了柔軟的人性土壤,從而為國人的創造力之迸發和愛心之恢復提供了符合人性的激勵。可以說,對外放棄「反帝反修」,對內放棄「階級鬥爭」,是中國的改革開放得以持續至今的基本前提。經濟走向市場,文化趨於多元,秩序逐漸法治,皆受益於「敵人意識」的淡化。即使在進步最為緩慢的政治領域,敵人意識的淡化也讓政權對社會的多元化有了日益擴大的包容性,對不同政見者的迫害之力度也大幅度下降,對八九運動的定性也由「動暴亂」改為「政治風波」。敵人意識的淡化讓政權逐步接受了人權的普世性,1998年,中國政府向世界做出簽署聯合國的兩大國際人權公約的承諾,標誌覑中國對普世人權標準的承認;2004年,全國人大修憲首次把「國家尊重和保障人權」寫進了憲法,標誌覑人權已經成為中國法治的根本原則之一。與此同時,現政權又提出「以人為本」、「創建和諧社會」,標誌覑中共執政理念的進步。

    這些宏觀方面的進步,也能從我被捕以來的親身經歷中感受到。

    儘管我堅持認為自己無罪,對我的指控是違憲的,但在我失去自由的一年多時間裏,先後經歷了兩個關押地點、四位預審警官、三位檢察官、二位法官,他們的辦案,沒有不尊重,沒有超時,沒有逼供。他們的態度平和、理性,且時時流露出善意。6月23日,我被從監視居住處轉到北京市公安局第一看守所,簡稱「北看」。在北看的半年時間裏,我看到了監管上的進步。

    1996年,我曾在老北看(半步橋)呆過,與十幾年前半步橋時的北看相比,現在的北看,在硬件設施和軟件管理上都有了極大的改善。特別是北看首創的人性化管理,在尊重在押人員的權利和人格的基礎上,將柔性化的管理落實到管教們的一言一行中,體現在「溫馨廣播」、「悔悟」雜誌、飯前音樂、起脇睡覺的音樂中,這種管理,讓在押人員感到了尊嚴與溫暖,激發了他們維持監室秩序和反對牢頭獄霸的自覺性,不但為在押人員提供了人性化的生活環境,也極大地改善了在押人員的訴訟環境和心態,我與主管我所在監室的劉崢管教有覑近距離的接觸,他對在押人員的尊重和關心,體現在管理的每個細節中,滲透到他的一言一行中,讓人感到溫暖。結識這位真誠、正直、負責、善心的劉管教,也可以算作我在北看的幸運吧。

    政治基於這樣的信念和親歷,我堅信中國的政治進步不會停止,我對未來自由中國的降臨充滿樂觀的期待,因為任何力量也無法阻攔心向自由的人性欲求,中國終將變成人權至上的法治國。我也期待這樣的進步能體現在此案的審理中,期待合議庭的公正裁決——經得起歷史檢驗的裁決。

    如果讓我說出這二十年來最幸運的經歷,那就是得到了我的妻子劉霞的無私的愛。今天,我妻子無法到庭旁聽,但我還是要對你說,親愛的,我堅信你對我的愛將一如既往。這麼多年來,在我的無自由的生活中,我們的愛飽含覑外在環境所強加的苦澀,但回味起來依然無窮。我在有形的監獄中服刑,你在無形的心獄中等待,你的愛,就是超越高牆、穿透鐵窗的陽光,撫摸我的每寸皮膚,溫暖我的每個細胞,讓我始終保有內心的平和、坦蕩與明亮,讓獄中的每分鐘都充滿意義。而我對你的愛,充滿了負疚和歉意,有時沉重得讓我腳步蹣跚。我是荒野中的頑石,任由狂風暴雨的抽打,冷得讓人不敢觸碰。但我的愛是堅硬的、鋒利的,可以穿透任何阻礙。即使我被碾成粉末,我也會用灰燼擁抱你。

    親愛的,有你的愛,我就會坦然面對即將到來的審判,無悔於自己的選擇,樂觀地期待覑明天。我期待我的國家是一片可以自由表達的土地,在這裏,每一位國民的發言都會得到同等的善待;在這裏,不同的價值、思想、信仰、政見……既相互競爭又和平共處;在這裏,多數的意見和少數的意見都會得到平等的保障,特別是那些不同於當權者的政見將得到充分的尊重和保護;在這裏,所有的政見都將攤在陽光下接受民眾的選擇,每個國民都能毫無恐懼地發表政見,決不會因發表不同政見而遭受政治迫害;我期待,我將是中國綿綿不絕的文字獄的最後一個受害者,從此之後不再有人因言獲罪。

    表達自由,人權之基,人性之本,真理之母。封殺言論自由,踐踏人權,窒息人性,壓抑真理。

    為踐行憲法賦予的言論自由之權利,當盡到一個中國公民的社會責任,我的所作所為無罪,即便為此被指控,也無怨言。

    謝謝各位!



    《我的自辯》

    ——劉曉波(2009年12月23日)

    《起訴書》(京一分檢刑訴(2009)247號)列舉了六篇文章和《零八憲章》,並總中引述了三百三十多字據此指控我觸犯了《刑法》第105條第2款之規定,犯有「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」,應當追究刑事責任。

    對《起訴書》所列舉事實,除了說我「在徵集了三百餘人的簽名後」的事實陳述不準確之外,對其他的事實,我沒有異議。那六篇文章是我寫的,我參與了《零八憲章》,但我徵集的簽名只有70人左右,而不是三百多人,其他人的簽名不是我徵集的。至於據此指控我犯罪,我無法接受。在我失去自由的一年多時間裏,面對預審警官、檢察官和法官的詢問,我一直堅持自己無罪。現在,我將從中國憲法中的有關規定、聯合國的國際人權公約、我的政治改革主張、歷史潮流等多方面為自己進行無罪辯護。

    一、改革開放帶來的重要成果之一,就是國人的人權意識的日益覺醒,民間維權的此起彼伏,推動中國政府在人權觀念上的進步。2004年全國人大修憲,把「國家尊重和保障人權」寫進了憲法,遂使人權保障成為依法治國的憲法原則。這些國家必須尊重和保障的人權,就是憲法第35條規定的諸項公民權利,言論自由便是基本人權之一。我的言論所表達的不同政見,是一個中國公民在行使憲法所賦予的言論自由權利,非但不能受到政府的限制和任意剝奪,反而必須得到國家的尊重和法律的保護。所以,起訴書對我的指控,侵犯了我作為中國公民的基本人權,違反了中國的根本大法,是典型的因言治罪,是古老的文字獄在當代中國的延續,理應受到道義的譴責和違憲追究。《刑法》第105條第二款也有違憲之嫌,應該提請全國人大對其進行合憲性審查。

    二、《起訴書》根據所引的幾段話就指控我「以造謠、誹謗等方式煽動顛覆國家政權,推翻社會主義制度」這是欲加之罪。因為「造謠」是難造、編造虛假信息,中傷他人。「誹謗」是無中生有地詆譭他人的信譽與人格。二者涉及的都是事實的真假,涉及他人的名譽與利益。而我的言論皆為批評性的評論,是思想觀點的表達,是價值判斷而非事實判斷,也沒有對任何人造成傷害。所以,我的言論與造謠、誹謗風馬牛不相及。換言之,批評不是造謠,反對更不是誹謗。

    三、《起訴書》根據《零八憲章》的幾段言論指控我誣蔑執政黨,「試圖煽動顛覆現政權」。這指控有斷章取義之嫌,它完全無視《零八憲章》的整體表述,無視我所有的文章所表述的一貫觀點。

    首先,《零八憲章》指出的「人權災難」都是發生在當代中國的事實,「反右」錯劃了五十多萬右派,「大躍進」造成了上千萬人的非自然死亡,「文革」造成國家的浩劫。「六·四」是血案,許多人死了,許多人被投入監獄。這些事實都是舉世公認的「人權災難」,確實為中國的發展帶來危機,「束縛了中華民族的自身發展,制約了人類文明的進步。」至於取消一黨壟斷執政特權,不過是要求執政黨進行還政於民的改革,最終建立「民有、民治、民享」的自由國家。

    其次,《零八憲章》所申明的價值和所提出的政改主張,其長遠目標是建成自由民主的聯邦共和國,其改革措施是十九條,其改革方式是漸進的和平的方式。這是有感於現行的跛足改革的種種弊端,要求執政黨變跛足為雙足,即政治與經濟同步並進的均衡改革。也就是從民間的角度推動官方盡快啟動還政於民的改革,用自下而上的民間壓力敦促政府進行自上而下的政治變革,從而形成官民互動的良性合作,以盡早實現國人的百年憲政之夢想。

    再次,從1989年到2009年的二十年裏,我所表達的中國政治改革的觀點,一直是漸進、和平、有序、可控。我也一貫反對一步到位的激進改革,更反對暴力革命。這種漸進式改革主張,在我的《通過改變社會來改變政權》一文中有覑明確的表述:通過致力於民間權利意識的覺醒、民間維權的擴張、民間自主性的上升、民間社會的發展,形成自下而上的壓力,以推動自上而下的官方改革。事實上,中國三十年的改革實踐證明,每一次具有制度創新性質的改革措施的出台和實施,其最根本的動力皆來自民間的自發改革,民間改革的認同性和影響逐漸擴大,迫使官方接受民間的創新嘗試,從而變成自上而下的改革決策。

    總之,漸進、和平、有序、可控,自下而上與自上而下的互動,是我關於中國政治改革的關鍵詞。因為這種方式代價最小,效果最大。我知道政治變革的基本常識,有序、可控的社會變革必定優於無序、失控的變革。壞政府治下的秩序也優於無政府的天下大亂。所以,我反對獨裁化或壟斷化的執政方式,並不是「煽動顛覆現政權」。換言之,反對並不等於顛覆。

    四、中國有「滿招損、謙受益」的古訓,西諺有「狂妄必遭天譴」的箴言。我知道自己的局限,所以,我也知道我的公開言論不可能十全十美或完全正確。特別是我的時評類文章,不嚴謹的論證,情緒化的宣泄,錯誤的表述,以偏概全的結論……在所難免。但是,這些有局限性的言論,與犯罪毫無關系,不能作為治罪的依據。因為,言論自由之權利,不僅包括發表正確觀點的權利,也包括發表錯誤言論的權利。正確的言論和多數的意見需要保護;不正確的言論和少數的意見,同樣需要權利的保護。正所謂:我可以不贊成或反對你的觀點,但我堅決捍衛你公開表達不同觀點的權利,哪怕你所表達的觀點是錯誤的,這,才是言論自由的精義。對此,中國古代傳統中也有過經典的概括。我把這種概括稱為二十四字箴言:知無不言,言無不盡;言者無罪,聞者足戒;有則改之,無則加勉。正因為這二十四字箴言道出了言論自由的要義,才能讓每一代國人耳熟能詳,流傳至今。我認為,其中「言者無罪,聞者足戒」,完全可以作為當代國人對待批評意見的座右銘,更應該成為當權者對待不同政見的警示。

    五、我無罪,因為對我的指控有違國際社會公認的人權準則。早在1948年,中國作為聯合國的常任理事國就參與起草了《世界人權宣言》;五十年後的 1998年,中國政府又向國際社會作出了簽署聯合國制定的兩大國際人權公約的莊嚴承諾。其中《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》把言論自由列為最基本的普世人權,要求各國政府必須加以尊重和保障。中國作為聯合國常任理事國,也作為聯合國人權理事會的成員,有義務遵守聯合國制定的人權公約,有責任踐行自己的承諾,也應該模範地執行聯合國發布的人權保障條款。惟其如此,中國政府才能切實保障本國國民的人權,為推動國際人權事業做出自己的貢獻,從而顯示出一個大國的文明風範。

    遺憾的是,中國政府並沒有完全履行自己的義務和兌現自己的承諾,並沒有把紙上的保證落實為現實的行動,有憲法而無憲政,有承諾而無兌現,仍然是中國政府在應對國際社會的批評時的常態。現在對我的指控就是最新的例證。顯然,這樣的因言治罪,與中國作為常任理事國和人權理事會的成員的身分相悖,有損於中國的政治形象和國家利益,無法在政治上取信於文明世界。

    六、無論在中國還是在世界,無論是在古代還是現當代,因言治罪的文字獄都是反人道反人權的行為,有悖於大勢所趨、人心所向的時代潮流。回顧中國歷史,即使在家天下的帝制時代,從秦到清,文字獄的盛行,歷來都是一個政權的執政污點,也是中華民族的恥辱。秦始皇有統一中國之功,但其「焚書坑儒」之暴政卻遺臭萬年。漢武帝雄才大略,但其閹割太史公司馬遷之舉則倍受病詬。清朝有「康乾盛世」,但其頻繁的文字獄也只能留下罵名。相反,漢文帝在二千多年前就廢除過因言治罪的「誣謗罪」,由此贏得了開朝仁君的美名和歷代推崇的「文景之治」。

    進入現代中國,中國共產黨之所以由弱而強,最終戰勝國民黨,在根本上源自其「反獨裁爭自由」的道義力量。1949年前,中共的《新華日報》和《解放日報》經常發文抨擊蔣家政權對言論自由的壓制,為因言獲罪的有識之士大聲疾呼。毛澤東等中共領袖也多次論及言論自由及基本人權。但1949年後,從反右到文革,林昭被槍斃,張志新被割喉,言論自由在毛時代消失了,國家陷於萬馬齊瘖的死寂。改革以來,執政黨撥亂反正,對不同政見的容忍度有大幅度提高,社會的言論空間不斷擴大,文字獄大幅度減少,但因言治罪的傳統並沒有完全滅絕。從四·五到六· 四,從民主牆到零八憲章,因言治罪的案例時有發生。我此次獲罪,不過是最近的文字獄而已。

    二十一世紀的今天,言論自由早已成為多數國人的共識,文字獄卻是千夫所指。從客觀效果上看,防民之口甚於防川,監獄的高牆關不住自由的表達。一個政權不可能靠壓抑不同政見來建立合法性,也不可能靠文字獄來達成長治久安。因為,筆桿子的問題只能訴諸筆桿子來解決,一旦動用槍桿子解決筆桿子的問題,只能造成人權災難。只有從制度上根絕文字獄,憲法所規定的言論自由權利才能落實到每一位國民身上;只有當國民的言論自由權利得到制度化的現實保障,文字獄才會在中國大地上滅絕。

    因言治罪,不符合中國憲法所確立的人權原則,違反了聯合國發布的國際人權公約,有悖於普世道義與歷史潮流。我為自己所做的無罪辯護,希望能夠得到法庭的採納,從而讓此案的裁決在中國法治史上具有開先河的意義,經得起中國憲法之人權條款與國際人權公約的審查,也經得起道義的追問和歷史的檢驗。


    -------

    2009年12月7日 星期一

    China's Charter 08零八憲章

    《零八憲章》是為了紀念2008年12月10日《世界人權宣言》發表60周年由劉曉波等人起草並由303位中國各界人士首批簽署的一份宣言,旨在促進中國民主化進程,改善人權狀況。由於內容敏感,迄12月11日止發起人中已有兩人因此事被中華人民共和國政府逮捕。到目前為止,在《零八憲章》上簽名的有八千多人,還有一些人陸續在網上簽名。不過由於網站受到當局干擾,所以即使在網上簽名也已經不容易。

    起草人在宣言開頭解釋了發佈《零八憲章》的立場:

    今年是中國立憲百年,《世界人權宣言》公布60周年,「民主牆」誕生30周年,中國政府簽署《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》10周年。在經歷了長期的人權災難和艱難曲折的抗爭歷程之後,覺醒的中國公民日漸清楚地認識到,自由、平等、人權是人類共同的普世價值;民主、共和、憲政是現代政治的基本制度架構。





    過程

    零八憲章由中國303名各界人士發起並簽署。為因應世界人權宣言60周年,中國的維權人士呼籲在自由、平等、人權的普世價值下,在中國實施民主、共和、憲政的現代政治架構。原定於2008年12月10日簽署《世界人權宣言》60周年這一天舉行論壇,並發表中國《零八憲章》。不過因為當局的逮捕行動而終止。

    簽署者除發起人劉曉波以外,尚有鮑彤、丁子霖、戴晴、於浩成、浦志強、張祖樺、茅於軾、冉雲飛、劉逸明等,包括一些中國著名異見人士與維權人士。[5]

    宣言內容

    《零八憲章》分「前言」、「我們的基本理念」、「我們的基本主張」和「結語」等四部分,主要內容是闡述自由、人權、民主、憲政等概念,主張修改憲法、實行分權制衡,實現立法民主,司法獨立,主張結社、集會、言論、宗教自由,宣言共提出6點理念與19點的主張。

    基本理念

    * 自由:言論、出版、信仰、集會、結社、遷徙、罷工和遊行示威等權利
    * 人權:人是國家的主體,國家服務於人民,政府為人民而存在。
    * 平等:公民不論社會地位、職業、性別、經濟狀況、種族、膚色、宗教或政治信仰,其人格、尊嚴、自由都是平等的。
    * 共和:要求「大家共治,和平共生」,分權制衡與利益平衡。
    * 民主:主權在民和民選政府。
    * 憲政:主張以法治限制政府權力和行為的邊界。

    十九點基本主張

    《零八憲章》提出了十九點基本主張,包括:

    1. 修改憲法
    2. 分權制衡
    3. 立法民主
    4. 司法獨立
    5. 公器公用
    6. 人權保障
    7. 公職選舉
    8. 城鄉平等
    9. 結社自由
    10. 集會自由
    11. 言論自由
    12. 宗教自由
    13. 公民教育
    14. 財產保護
    15. 財稅改革
    16. 社會保障
    17. 環境保護
    18. 聯邦共和
    19. 轉型正義

    內容觸及了政治改革、經濟改革、城鄉差距與環境保護等諸多方面。

    政府壓制


    《零八憲章》發布至今,不斷有人加入簽署者行列。與此同時,中國政府也在採取打壓行動。首先是《零八憲章》共同起草人之一劉曉波被起訴。北京大學法學院教授賀衛方最近被調往新疆石河子支教。雖然原因無法確定,但有人認為可能和憲章有關。另外一位在《零八憲章》上簽名的北大教授夏業良受到很大的壓力,在兩個學術組織的職務被撤銷。

    其他許多簽署人也被警方傳喚,要求他們退出。據維權網報導,3月23日,四川自貢市簽署人羅世模被當地警方刑事傳喚,問及有關簽署《零八憲章》的情況。另外,廣東省韶關民運人士羅勇泉因為簽署《零八憲章》4月1日遭韶關市南雄縣國保大隊傳喚,這已經是半個月來第二次。

    據很多簽署人反映,警方在傳訊他們的時候都做了筆錄,問話內容圍繞《零八憲章》共同起草人劉曉波以及簽署前後的情況。

    在海外,該聲明則得到了余英時、哈金、陳一諮、方勵之、胡平、宋永毅、蘇曉康、萬潤南、王丹等多位著名人士的支持。

    簽署人表示,他們這樣做,是為了表達他們就中國未來向何處去這個問題的一種共識,希望民眾了解他們的民主訴求,但他們並不奢求能夠很快實現所追求的目標.

    中共在國內各媒體網站對此憲章全面封鎖,禁止報導。有消息稱北京大學法學院以黨委名義發布群郵件要求該院學生抵制零八憲章。

    國際反應

    2009年3月11日,在布拉格開幕的2009年「同一個世界」人權電影節開幕式上,捷克前總統哈維爾親自將「人與人」(Homo Homini)人權獎授予劉曉波和《零八憲章》簽署群體。由於劉曉波因故不能出席,參與簽署《零八憲章》的中國哲學家徐友漁、學者崔衛平和律師莫少平代替劉曉波接受了這一獎項。

    China's Charter 08
    Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

    The document below, signed by more than two thousand Chinese citizens, was conceived and written in conscious admiration of the founding of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, where, in January 1977, more than two hundred Czech and Slovak intellectuals formed a

    loose, informal, and open association of people...united by the will to strive individually and collectively for respect for human and civil rights in our country and throughout the world.

    The Chinese document calls not for ameliorative reform of the current political system but for an end to some of its essential features, including one-party rule, and their replacement with a system based on human rights and democracy.

    The prominent citizens who have signed the document are from both outside and inside the government, and include not only well-known dissidents and intellectuals, but also middle-level officials and rural leaders. They chose December 10, the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the day on which to express their political ideas and to outline their vision of a constitutional, democratic China. They want Charter 08 to serve as a blueprint for fundamental political change in China in the years to come. The signers of the document will form an informal group, open-ended in size but united by a determination to promote democratization and protection of human rights in China and beyond.

    Following the text is a postscript describing some of the regime's recent reactions to it.

    —Perry Link

    I. FOREWORD

    A hundred years have passed since the writing of China's first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of the Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China's signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.

    By departing from these values, the Chinese government's approach to "modernization" has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with "modernization" under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.

    The shock of the Western impact upon China in the nineteenth century laid bare a decadent authoritarian system and marked the beginning of what is often called "the greatest changes in thousands of years" for China. A "self-strengthening movement" followed, but this aimed simply at appropriating the technology to build gunboats and other Western material objects. China's humiliating naval defeat at the hands of Japan in 1895 only confirmed the obsolescence of China's system of government. The first attempts at modern political change came with the ill-fated summer of reforms in 1898, but these were cruelly crushed by ultraconservatives at China's imperial court. With the revolution of 1911, which inaugurated Asia's first republic, the authoritarian imperial system that had lasted for centuries was finally supposed to have been laid to rest. But social conflict inside our country and external pressures were to prevent it; China fell into a patchwork of warlord fiefdoms and the new republic became a fleeting dream.

    The failure of both "self- strengthening" and political renovation caused many of our forebears to reflect deeply on whether a "cultural illness" was afflicting our country. This mood gave rise, during the May Fourth Movement of the late 1910s, to the championing of "science and democracy." Yet that effort, too, foundered as warlord chaos persisted and the Japanese invasion [beginning in Manchuria in 1931] brought national crisis.

    Victory over Japan in 1945 offered one more chance for China to move toward modern government, but the Communist defeat of the Nationalists in the civil war thrust the nation into the abyss of totalitarianism. The "new China" that emerged in 1949 proclaimed that "the people are sovereign" but in fact set up a system in which "the Party is all-powerful." The Communist Party of China seized control of all organs of the state and all political, economic, and social resources, and, using these, has produced a long trail of human rights disasters, including, among many others, the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960), the Cultural Revolution (1966–1969), the June Fourth [Tiananmen Square] Massacre (1989), and the current repression of all unauthorized religions and the suppression of the weiquan rights movement [a movement that aims to defend citizens' rights promulgated in the Chinese Constitution and to fight for human rights recognized by international conventions that the Chinese government has signed]. During all this, the Chinese people have paid a gargantuan price. Tens of millions have lost their lives, and several generations have seen their freedom, their happiness, and their human dignity cruelly trampled.

    During the last two decades of the twentieth century the government policy of "Reform and Opening" gave the Chinese people relief from the pervasive poverty and totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era, and brought substantial increases in the wealth and living standards of many Chinese as well as a partial restoration of economic freedom and economic rights. Civil society began to grow, and popular calls for more rights and more political freedom have grown apace. As the ruling elite itself moved toward private ownership and the market economy, it began to shift from an outright rejection of "rights" to a partial acknowledgment of them.

    In 1998 the Chinese government signed two important international human rights conventions; in 2004 it amended its constitution to include the phrase "respect and protect human rights"; and this year, 2008, it has promised to promote a "national human rights action plan." Unfortunately most of this political progress has extended no further than the paper on which it is written. The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.

    The stultifying results are endemic official corruption, an undermining of the rule of law, weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor, pillage of the natural environment as well as of the human and historical environments, and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts, especially, in recent times, a sharpening animosity between officials and ordinary people.

    As these conflicts and crises grow ever more intense, and as the ruling elite continues with impunity to crush and to strip away the rights of citizens to freedom, to property, and to the pursuit of happiness, we see the powerless in our society—the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas—becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.

    II. OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

    This is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:

    Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.

    Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China's recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime's disregard for human rights.

    Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person—regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief—are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.

    Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of "fairness in all under heaven." It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.

    Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected. In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

    Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.

    III. WHAT WE ADVOCATE

    Authoritarianism is in general decline throughout the world; in China, too, the era of emperors and overlords is on the way out. The time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states. For China the path that leads out of our current predicament is to divest ourselves of the authoritarian notion of reliance on an "enlightened overlord" or an "honest official" and to turn instead toward a system of liberties, democracy, and the rule of law, and toward fostering the consciousness of modern citizens who see rights as fundamental and participation as a duty. Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens' rights, and social development:

    1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China's democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.

    2. Separation of Powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.

    3. Legislative Democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election, and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.

    4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible, we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.

    5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government, not to a political party, and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations must be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans, and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.

    6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There must be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee, responsible to the highest legislative body, that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one should suffer illegal arrest, detention, arraignment, interrogation, or punishment. The system of "Reeducation through Labor" must be abolished.

    7. Election of Public Officials. There should be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on "one person, one vote." The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county, city, province, and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.

    8. Rural–Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.

    9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be "approved," should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.

    10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.

    11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to "the crime of incitement to subvert state power" must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.

    12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief, and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws, regulations, or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups (and their places of worship) to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and, for those who choose to register, automatic.

    13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens' rights, fosters civic consciousness, and promotes civic virtues that serve society.

    14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property, reporting to the national legislature, that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair, competitive, and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land, guarantees the right to buy and sell land, and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.

    15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government—central, provincial, county or local—are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes, simplify the tax system, and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes, or institute new ones, without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.

    16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education, health care, retirement security, and employment.

    17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendants and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals, but also accept the supervision and participation of nongovernmental organizations.

    18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao, we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan, we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then, negotiating as equals and ready to compromise, seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind, seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.

    19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people, including their family members, who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought, speech, or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities, determining responsibility for them, upholding justice, and, on these bases, seeking social reconciliation.

    China, as a major nation of the world, as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and as a member of the UN Council on Human Rights, should be contributing to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Unfortunately, we stand today as the only country among the major nations that remains mired in authoritarian politics. Our political system continues to produce human rights disasters and social crises, thereby not only constricting China's own development but also limiting the progress of all of human civilization. This must change, truly it must. The democratization of Chinese politics can be put off no longer.

    Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens' movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.

    —Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

    POSTSCRIPT

    The planning and drafting of Charter 08 began in the late spring of 2008, but Chinese authorities were apparently unaware of it or unconcerned by it until several days before it was announced on December 10. On December 6, Wen Kejian, a writer who signed the charter, was detained in the city of Hangzhou in eastern China and questioned for about an hour. Police told Wen that Charter 08 was "different" from earlier dissident statements, and "a fairly grave matter." They said there would be a coordinated investigation in all cities and provinces to "root out the organizers," and they advised Wen to remove his name from the charter. Wen declined, telling the authorities that he saw the charter as a fundamental turning point in history.

    Meanwhile, on December 8, in Shenzhen in the far south of China, police called on Zhao Dagong, a writer and signer of the charter, for a "chat." They told Zhao that the central authorities were concerned about the charter and asked if he was the organizer in the Shenzhen area.

    Later on December 8, at 11 PM in Beijing, about twenty police entered the home of Zhang Zuhua, one of the charter's main drafters. A few of the police took Zhang with them to the local police station while the rest stayed and, as Zhang's wife watched, searched the home and confiscated books, notebooks, Zhang's passport, all four of the family's computers, and all of their cash and credit cards. (Later Zhang learned that his family's bank accounts, including those of both his and his wife's parents, had been emptied.) Meanwhile, at the police station, Zhang was detained for twelve hours, where he was questioned in detail about Charter 08 and the group Chinese Human Rights Defenders in which he is active.

    It was also late on December 8 that another of the charter's signers, the literary critic and prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo, was taken away by police. His telephone in Beijing went unanswered, as did e-mail and Skype messages sent to him. As of the present writing, he's believed to be in police custody, although the details of his detention are not known.

    On the morning of December 9, Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was called in for a police "chat," and in the evening the physicist and philosopher Jiang Qisheng was called in as well. Both had signed the charter and were friends of the drafters. On December 10—the day the charter was formally announced—the Hangzhou police returned to the home of Wen Kejian, the writer they had questioned four days earlier. This time they were more threatening. They told Wen he would face severe punishment if he wrote about the charter or about Liu Xiaobo's detention. "Do you want three years in prison?" they asked. "Or four?"

    On December 11 the journalist Gao Yu and the writer Liu Di, both well-known in Beijing, were interrogated about their signing of the Charter. The rights lawyer, Teng Biao, was approached by the police but declined, on principle, to meet with them. On December 12 and 13 there were reports of interrogations in many provinces—Shaanxi, Hunan, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, and others—of people who had seen the charter on the Internet, found that they agreed with it, and signed. With these people the police focused on two questions: "How did you get involved?" and "What do you know about the drafters and organizers?"

    The Chinese authorities seem unaware of the irony of their actions. Their efforts to quash Charter 08 only serve to underscore China's failure to uphold the very principles that the charter advances. The charter calls for "free expression" but the regime says, by its actions, that it has once again denied such expression. The charter calls for freedom to form groups, but the nationwide police actions that have accompanied the charter's release have specifically aimed at blocking the formation of a group. The charter says "we should end the practice of viewing words as crimes," and the regime says (literally, to Wen Kejian) "we can send you to prison for these words." The charter calls for the rule of law and the regime sends police in the middle of the night to act outside the law; the charter says "police should serve as nonpartisans," and here the police are plainly partisan.

    Charter 08 is signed only by citizens of the People's Republic of China who are living inside China. But Chinese living outside China are signing a letter of strong support for the charter. The eminent historian Yu Ying-shih, the astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, writers Ha Jin and Zheng Yi, and more than 160 others have so far signed.

    On December 12, the Dalai Lama issued his own letter in support of the charter, writing that "a harmonious society can only come into being when there is trust among the people, freedom from fear, freedom of expression, rule of law, justice, and equality." He called on the Chinese government to release prisoners "who have been detained for exercising their freedom of expression."

    —Perry Link, December 18, 2008
    張貼者: Nobel Liu於 上午12:11

    ↧

    What Gershom Scholem’s take on Jewish mysticism can teach us now.Gershom Scholem A Life in Letters, 1914-1982、 從柏林到耶路撒冷;

    July 13, 2017, 2:05 am
    ≫ Next: G. by John Berger
    ≪ Previous: 劉曉波(2009年12月23日):《我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述》《我的自辯》;China's Charter 08 (零八憲章)
    $
    0
    0



    Six Hundred Thousand Faces




    By Erik Hinton
     July 13, 2017

    ARTS & CULTURE


    What Gershom Scholem’s take on Jewish mysticism can teach us now.

    GERSHOM SCHOLEM

    In the wake of so much political turmoil, we’re hungry for books that diagnose our broken world: books that lay out a grand ethical program and claw back some hope for humanity. Online, I’ve noticed a loose reading list coalescing. We’ve called on Hannah Arendt, who cut into the heart of evil and found a weak organ of banality instead of an engine of diabolic creativity; Walter Benjamin and his “weak messianic power,” which inspired us with the latent energy of history’s failed revolutions; the totalitarian gloom of 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale; the grim prescience of Richard Rorty’s Achieving Our Country. Surely, the thinking goes, we could be saved if we find the proper pattern, fitting our dismal and uncertain present to the prescriptions of history.
    In Gershom Scholem, the historian who popularized the study of Kabbalistic and Messianic movements in Judaism, I’ve found a refreshing vision of revolutionary change and justice, stimulating the utopian imagination beyond the traditional touchstones of leftist thought. Though he was a friend of Benjamin’s and, more distantly, of Arendt’s, Scholem is the least widely read of the three and arguably the least accessible. A scholar of esoteric Jewish experience who rarely divulged his personal religious and political philosophy, Scholem resists the immediate, quotable relevance enjoyed by his contemporaries. His work features ecstatic stories of men who believed they were the Messiah, and incoherent descriptions of God’s celestial chariot—of limited use to political dissidents, war victims, and alienated workers. When the jackboots of authoritarianism are kicking in doors, Scholem’s apocalyptic religiosity can seem cloying. Why should we need to hallucinate the end of days? It’s here. 
    But Scholem wrote from a similar vantage. An adolescent and budding anarchist in Germany during World War I, he found himself trapped between a zealous nationalism and a bourgeois Jewish community that little nothing to prevent the bloodshed. Even the supposedly revolutionary Zionist movement, which enchanted Scholem, proved to be a disappointment when Martin Buber, one of its most influential intellectuals, endorsed the war. Later, after Scholem had moved to Jerusalem on a spiritual quest to deepen his engagement with Jewish literature and tradition, still trying to salvage redemptive threads of the cultural Zionist project, he again encountered devastation. The idealized return to the holy land engulfed Palestine in violence, culminating in the 1929 riots that claimed hundreds of Jewish and Arab lives. “Zionism has triumphed itself to death,” Scholem wrote in a 1931 letter to Walter Benjamin. “Now it is no longer a matter of saving us … but of jumping into the abyss that yawns between victory and reality.” A decade later, he witnessed the unimaginable tragedy of World War II and the Holocaust, which took the life of his close friend, Walter Benjamin, murdered his brother Werner, and annihilated much of European Jewry.
    Scholem reacted to these waves of devastation by turning to the study of mystical movements in Jewish history. Working in Jerusalem at the National Library and, eventually, as a professor of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University, he revitalized interest in Kabbalah, an esoteric tradition within Judaism. Dating back to the Talmudic era and thoroughly multifarious, Kabbalah is a mystical complement to Jewish religious life, driven by linguistic and metaphysical speculation. Rather than relegate the ecstatic and obscure threads of Kabbalah to a para-religious curiosity, Scholem detailed the evolution of Judaism as one that braided its mainline and mystical elements. In perhaps the best introduction to Scholem’s thought, his “Religious Authority and Mysticism,” he writes, “All mysticism has two contradictory or complementary aspects: the one conservative, the other revolutionary.” In his story of Judaism, the conservative tenets of the religion are tempered, subverted, and reinvented by mystical influences: blind sages meditating on the divine qualities of Hebrew letters, secretive rabbis forging mammoth tomes of speculative philosophy, and charismatic cult leaders claiming that they were the messiah. For Scholem, the history of Jewish mysticism held tradition open to innovation. He imagined a politics and ethics vitalized by an anarchistic spirit.
    *
    Why should a religious historian have any particular relevance to us now? After all, though he was a prolific scholar and an avid letter writer, Scholem rarely articulated his own philosophies, and he composed no sustained works of social critique. In 1960, he wrote to a friend, “I have made myself into one of the figures who camouflages himself in famous paintings.” He recedes into the negative space between his tableaus of historic mystical experience. In this absence, though, he articulates a radical vision of knowledge and truth.
    In Stranger in a Strange Land, an excellent new biography of Scholem, George Prochnik writes: “Through all the provocative ideas that glittered through his writing, there was one concept that cropped up repeatedly, as a kind of choral refrain, which I found galvanizing: Kabbalah preserved the frame of monotheism while shattering the idol of monolithic truth.” Kabbalah never questions the ultimate authority of God. Instead, it transforms what it means to know this authority, bracketing human understanding as always falling short. God’s word is absolute, but withdrawn; eternally valid but always open for reinterpretation.
    “The absolute word is as such meaningless, but it is pregnant with meaning,” Scholem writes. The divine can never be translated into human description or codified into law. Truth is always postponed, and the religious individual must labor in the impossible task of its comprehension and communication. This exertion creates a deep religious life, invulnerable to the stultifying effects of mundane obedience. “But it is precisely the shapeless core of his experience which spurs the mystic to his understanding of his religious world and its values … Here all religious authority is destroyed in the name of authority: here we have the revolutionary aspect of mysticism in its purest form.”
    The image of a pious individual exploring an unsayable truth, wandering toward a withdrawn God, animates Scholem’s body of work. Mysticism argues that our systems of rationality and knowledge are always incomplete. Here Scholem finds a revolutionary religious spirit that won’t harden into orthodoxy: a mystical character moored to tradition, but still plastic.
    This balance of conservative and revolutionary impulses fascinated Scholem, even in his earliest work. In his 1918 piece “The Bolshevik Revolution,” a young Scholem worries that although the revolution will be “the only high-point of the history of the world war,” it is ultimately compromised. Motivated by discrete ideology rather than a supernal dictate to strive toward a postponed good, the revolution justifies its authority and violence with the rigid rules of worldly philosophy. It will congeal into injustice and orthodoxy—the revolution will swallow its revolutionary character. Scholem wrestles with this self-eradicating character of revolution for his entire career, finding in Jewish mysticism a strange remedy. As long as knowledge can only tilt at an eternal and inaccessible truth, the revolution is sustained, bathed in the restorative waters of a continually reinterpreted tradition. For Scholem, this constant revolution held together by tradition, is his anarchistic, mystical utopia.
    Now, more than ever, this strange utopia is worth reflecting on. Public interest in leftist thought has been reinvigorated by the rise of brutal nationalism and the collapse of neoliberalism’s Potemkin civility. We would be wise to take notes from Scholem, who found himself in a similar point of historical inflection. If we want these new transformative currents to elude the snares that have trapped and divided the left for a century, we need new, vitalizing material. Though there’s no shortage of postwar authors who punched against leftist orthodoxy on social, philosophical, and economic grounds—C.L.R. James, Chantal Mouffe, and Alexis Shotwell, to name a few of the best—Scholem occupies a unique position. He criticized radical projects as not revolutionary enough from the unconventional perspective of religious anarchism. Rather than relitigate the well-worn conflicts of economism, historicism, Stalinism, or the other hobbyhorses of internecine sparring on the left, Scholem charted another path, bursting with imaginative and anarchic potential.
    If you’re interested in reading more about Scholem, Prochnik’s Stranger is the best place to start—it elegantly tracks Prochnik’s experiences in modern Jerusalem against Scholem’s life. As for Scholem work itself, I’d recommend the aforementioned essay in his collection On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, “Religious Authority and Mysticism.” It’s filled with colorful anecdotes and summarizes many of his motifs: divine inaccessibility, mystical creativity, and a history of revolutionary moments in the development of Jewish thought. In one of its most memorable sections, Scholem sketches such a world with a Kabbalistic reading of Moses delivering the law:
    Every world of the Torah has six hundred thousand ‘faces.’ That is, layers of meaning or entrances, one for each of the children of Israel who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai. Each face is turned toward only one of them; he alone can see it and decipher it. Each man has his own unique access to Revelation. Authority no longer resides in a single unmistakable ‘meaning’ of the divine communication, but in its infinite capacity for taking on new forms.
    Here we hear echoes of a rear-guardism that doesn’t destroy all authority, but radically democratizes it. Rummaging around in Scholem’s universe, dense as it is with esoteric symbols and stories, is revitalizing even when it’s not easy. Don’t let that frustrate you. His insight was that we don’t have master the truth to be transformed by it.


    Erik Hinton is a developer and journalist focusing on interactive news. He currently works at The Outline. His work has previously appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, andVICE.





    想想論壇 Thinking Taiwan Forum
    這幅畫在1921年由舒勒姆購得,家境富裕與年輕的舒勒姆將這幅畫送給班傑明做為生日禮物。舒勒姆〈Gershom Scholem, 1897-1982〉後來成為猶太史學家,班傑明〈Walter Benjamin, 1892-1940〉則為當代重要的思想家,與國人較為熟悉的漢娜鄂蘭有姻親關係。如同那時歐陸的猶太人,班傑明痛苦地活在兩次世界大戰之間,一戰後的德國猶太人更是風聲鶴唳。納粹掌權前夕班傑明逃離德國來到巴黎,1940年巴黎淪陷後再度逃亡,卻在越過法境後被占領加泰隆尼亞的佛朗哥政權查獲。彼時血腥的西班牙內戰剛結束,法西斯佛朗哥與希特勒一個鼻孔出氣,班傑明面臨遣返與送往集中營的命運,最後自殺身亡。班傑明的自殺是思想界重大的損失,不是班傑明不敢面對納粹的集中營,而是他以死來表達他對歷史的絕望。
    美好樂園裡的集體遺忘|李中志
    http://www.thinkingtaiwan.com/content/5239



    李中志 - 美好樂園裡的集體遺忘 - 想想Thinking Taiwan - 想想台灣,想想未來
    融合表現主義與超寫實畫派的瑞士裔德籍畫家克利〈Paul Klee,…
    THINKINGTAIWAN.COM




    Cover: A Life in Letters, 1914-1982 in HARDCOVER

    A Life in Letters, 1914-1982

    Gershom Scholem

    Edited and translated by Anthony David Skinner

    About This Book

    • About the Authors
    • Reviews
    • Table of Contents
    • Google Search Inside:

    Perhaps the greatest scholar of Jewish mysticism in the twentieth century, Gershom Scholem (1897-1982) once said of himself, "I have no biography, only a bibliography." Yet, in thousands of letters written over his lifetime, his biography does unfold, inscribing a life that epitomized the intellectual ferment and political drama of an era. This selection of the best and most representative letters—drawn from the 3000 page German edition—gives readers an intimate view of this remarkable man, from his troubled family life in Germany to his emergence as one of the leading lights of Israel during its founding and formative years.
    In the letters, we witness the travails and vicissitudes of the Scholem family, a drama in which Gershom is banished by his father for his anti-kaiser Zionist sentiments; his antiwar, socialist brother is hounded and murdered; and his mother and remaining brothers are forced to emigrate. We see Scholem’s friendships with some of the most intriguing intellectuals of the twentieth century—such as Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor Adorno—blossom and, on occasion, wither. And we learn firsthand about his Zionist commitment and his scholarly career, from his move to Palestine in the 1920s to his work as Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University. Over the course of seven decades that comprised the most significant events of the twentieth century, these letters reveal how Scholem’s scholarship is informed by the experiences he so eloquently described.



    Introduction
    I. A Jewish Zarathustra, 1914-1918

    II. Unlocking the Gates, 1919-1932

    III. Redemption through Sin, 1933-1947

    IV. Master Magician Emeritus, 1948-1982
    Notes

    Selected Bibliography

    Chronology

    Index





    “A biography of Gershom Scholem lies in these well selected and edited letters. Reading biographically between the letters’ lines, in the manner of Gershom Scholem, Master Scholar, you can learn how he found his own story between the lines of the Kabbalah’s texts he almost signlehandedly restored to life; and how he wrote his autobiography out so intensely, with such vast erudition and brilliance, in all his commentaries on the Kaballah that it became, over his lifetime, a biography of the whole endlessly resilient, culturally prolific Jewish people, a 20th century national epic.”—Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, author of Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World

    “Scholem was a giant in the scholarly study of Jewish mysticism, responsible for bringing Kabbalah in particular to the attention of academia. However, the letters Skinner presents here reveal more of Scholem as a person than as a scholar. Scholem saw the two as intimately connected and would likely argue that these documents do aid in understanding his work. The decision to focus on the personal has the benefit of unearthing several firsthand accounts of critical events in 20th-century Jewish and European history.”—Stephen Joseph, Library Journal

    “[Anthony David Skinner] has ably translated and edited a wide-ranging selection of letters from the life of this master scholar of Jewish mysticism. Most of the letters...appear here in English for the first time. [Skinner’s] selection illuminates a question that has always haunted readers of Scholem: How did the personality of this overly dignified and self-confident academic relate to the unbridled otherworldliness in the texts he analyzed with such seeming detachment?”—Publishers Weekly

    “Gershom Scholem: A Life in Letters offers a fascinating sample of the 16,000 letters he exchanged with members of his family...His correspondences with brilliant intellectuals of his time make for fascinating reading and provide a close look at the thoughts, beliefs and passions of a man discovering Judaism in a time and place when it seemed to be disappearing...Anthony David Skinner had chosen the letters wisely and offers excellent overviews of the periods in which they were written.”—Sylvia Rothchild, Jewish Advocate
    “A lively...collection, which follows Scholem from his fevered adolescence to the sovereign authority of his final years. The editor’s illuminating biographical summaries set out useful links from decade to decade, but it is Scholem’s uncompromising voice that gives this volume its unified force and striking crescendos. In their unstinting energy, the letters show a man exactly where he wanted to be, and conscious of exactly why.”—Cynthia Ozick, New Yorker

    “Over seven decades, Scholem sent and received 16,000 letters. The Hebrew University’s Anthony David Skinner has lovingly translated and edited a selection of these...The replies--from such luminaries as Walter Benjamin, Martin Buber, Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt--create an engrossing dialogue. Skinner’s artful annotations render Scholem’s most esoteric notions accessible to the lay reader. And he shows how the adolescent maverick evolved from a "Jewish Zarathustra to Master Magician Emeritus of the post-war years"...It will whet readers’ appetites to read Scholem’s own books. In an age of emails and faxes, Scholem is truly a man of letters--in both senses of the term.”—Lawrence Joffe, Jewish Chronicle

    “Anthony David Skinner has done a useful and meticulous job. This is the most readable history of German destruction and Israeli construction I know. And it describes Jewish habits of thought leading to this day and trailing back into the darkness over thousands of hidden years.”—Atar Hadari, Jewish Quarterly

    “What can this lucky bookworm say to readers who are not especially curious about the kabbalah or about the history of universities in Israel? A great deal, as this selection of letters to and from Scholem makes clear. Some of its pleasures are simple ones: the spell-binding story of the Scholem clan...But this narrative also asks difficult questions: one is whether cleaving to a particular people and its tradition constitutes a self-imposed exile from a realm of more-universal concerns...[Skinner’s] translations, thankfully, let the correspondents speak in voices that sound like their own.”—The Economist






    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 部分

    Part of a series on
    Kabbalah
    10 Sephirot
    Concepts[show]
    History[show]
    Practices[show]
    People[show]
    Role[show]
    • v
    • t
    • e
    Gerhard Scholem who, after his immigration from Germany to Palestine, changed his name to Gershom Scholem (Hebrew: גרשם שלום) (December 5, 1897 — February 21, 1982), was a German-born Israeli Jewish philosopher and historian, born and raised in Germany. He is widely regarded as the founder of the modern, academic study of Kabbalah, becoming the first Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [1] His close friends included Walter Benjamin and Leo Strauss, and selected letters from his correspondence with those philosophers have been published.
    Scholem is best known for his collection of lectures, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941) and for his biography Sabbatai Zevi, the Mystical Messiah (1973). His collected speeches and essays, published as On Kabbalah and its Symbolism (1965), helped to spread knowledge of Jewish mysticism among non-Jews.

    Contents

    • 1Life
    • 2Awards
    • 3Theories and scholarship
    • 4Debate with Hannah Arendt
    • 5Literary influence
    • 6Selected works in English
    • 7See also
    • 8Notes
    • 9References
    • 10Further reading

    Life

    Gerhard Scholem was born in Berlin to Arthur Scholem and Betty Hirsch Scholem. His interest in Judaica was strongly opposed by his father, a printer, but, thanks to his mother's intervention, he was allowed to study Hebrew and the Talmud with an Orthodox rabbi.
    Gerhard Scholem met Walter Benjamin in Munich in 1915, when the former was seventeen years old and the latter was twenty-three. They began a lifelong friendship that ended only with Benjamin's suicide in 1940. In 1915 Scholem enrolled at the Humboldt University of Berlin, where he studied mathematics, philosophy, and Hebrew, and where he came into contact with Martin Buber, Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Hayim Nahman Bialik, Ahad Ha'am, and Zalman Shazar. In Berlin, he first befriended and became an admirer of Leo Strauss (their correspondence would continue throughout his life).[2] He subsequently studied mathematical logic at the University of Jena under Gottlob Frege. He was in Bern in 1918 with Benjamin when he met Elsa Burckhardt, who became his first wife. He returned to Germany in 1919, where he received a degree in semitic languages at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. Less notable in his academic career was his establishment of the fictive University of Muri with Benjamin.
    He wrote his doctoral thesis on the oldest known kabbalistic text, Sefer ha-Bahir. Drawn to Zionism, and influenced by Buber, he emigrated in 1923 to the British Mandate of Palestine, where he devoted his time to studying Jewish mysticism and became a librarian, and eventually head of the Department of Hebrew and Judaica at the National Library. He later became a lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    He taught the Kabbalah and mysticism from a scientific point of view and became the first professor of Jewish mysticism at the university in 1933, working in this post until his retirement in 1965, when he became an emeritus professor. In 1936, he married his second wife, Fania Freud.
    Scholem's brother Werner was a member of the ultra-left "Fischer-Maslow Group" and the youngest ever member of the Reichstag, representing the Communist Party (KPD) in the German parliament. He was expelled from the party and later murdered by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Gershom Scholem, unlike his brother, was vehemently opposed to both Communism and Marxism.
    Scholem died in Jerusalem, where he is buried next to his wife in Sanhedria. Jürgen Habermas delivered the eulogy.


    Selected works in English

    • Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 1941
    • Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and the Talmudic Tradition, 1960
    • Arendt and Scholem, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: Exchange of Letters between Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt", in Encounter, 22/1, 1964
    • The Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality, trans. 1971
    • Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1973
    • From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memories of My Youth, trans. Harry Zohn, 1980.
    • 從柏林到耶路撒冷
      作者:[以]格舒姆·索羅姆
      出版:漓江出版社
      2015年版
      最不平凡時代的青少年歲月,鑄就最具影響力的猶太思想家。格舒姆·索羅姆被譽為20世紀最為深刻的猶太哲學家。“索羅姆具備那種最罕見的精神人格……他同時是哲學家、社會歷史學​​家、睿智雄健的論說文作家,而在此之上,還有一份良知——這苦難、險惡、兇殘的人世並不乏對這良知的了解,卻又總是忽視它的存在……”本書是其早年求知生涯的回憶錄,記敘了作者童年至青少年時期的人生經歷。
    • Kabbalah, Meridian 1974, Plume Books 1987 reissue: ISBN 0-452-01007-1
    • Walter Benjamin: the Story of a Friendship, trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books, 1981.
    • Origins of the Kabbalah, JPS, 1987 reissue: ISBN 0-691-02047-7
    • On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, 1997
    • The Fullness of Time: Poems, trans. Richard Sieburth
    • On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays
    • On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism
    • Tselem: The Representation of the Astral Body, trans. Scott J. Thompson 1987
    • Zohar — The Book of Splendor: Basic Readings from the Kabbalah, ed.

    ゲルショム・ゲルハルト・ショーレム(גרשם גרהרד שלוםGershom Gerhard Scholem1897年12月5日 - 1982年2月21日)はドイツ生まれのイスラエルの思想家。ユダヤ神秘主義(カバラ)の世界的権威で、ヘブライ大学教授を務めた。1958年にイスラエル賞を受賞。1968年にはイスラエル文理学士院の院長に選ばれた。
    彼はベルリンでユダヤ人の家庭に生まれ育った。父はアルトゥール・ショーレム、母はベティ・ヒルシュ・ショーレム。画家だった父は同化主義者で、息子がユダヤ教に興味を持つのを喜ばなかったが、ショーレムは母のとりなしにより正統派のラビのもとでヘブライ語やタルムードを学ぶことを許された。
    ベルリン大学で数学と哲学とヘブライ語を専攻。大学では、マルティーン・ブーバーやヴァルター・ベンヤミン、シュムエル・ヨセフ・アグノン、ハイム・ナフマン・ビアーリク、アハッド・ハーアム、ザルマン・シャザールといった面々と知り合った。1918年にはベンヤミンと共にスイスのベルンにいたが、ここで最初の妻エルザ・ブルクハルトを識った。1919年にドイツへ戻り、ミュンヘン大学からセム語研究で学位を受けた。
    博士論文のテーマは、最古のカバラ文献סֵפֶר הַבָּהִיר(セフェル・ハ=バヒール; "光輝の書")だった。シオニズムに傾倒し、友人ブーバーの影響もあって、1923年に英領パレスチナへ移住。ここで彼はユダヤ神秘主義の研究に没頭し、司書の職を得た。最終的にはイスラエル国会図書館のヘブライ・ユダヤ文献部門の責任者となった。のちにエルサレムのヘブライ大学で、講師として教え始めた。
    彼の特色は、自然科学の素養を活かして、カバラを科学的に教えた点にある。1933年にはヘブライ大学のユダヤ神秘主義講座の初代教授に就任、1965年に名誉教授となるまでこの地位にあった。ユング等が関わった「エラノス会議」にも参加
    1936年、ファニア・フロイトと再婚。
    兄のヴェルナー・ショーレムはドイツの極左組織<フィッシャー=マスロフ団>の一員で、ドイツ帝国議会ではドイツ共産党選出の議員だったが、のちに議会から追放され、ナチによって暗殺された。

    邦訳著書[編集]

    • 『ユダヤ主義の本質』 河出書房新社, 1972年
    • 『ユダヤ主義と西欧』 河出書房新社, 1973年
    • 『ユダヤ教神秘主義』 河出書房新社, 1975年
    • 『わが友ベンヤミン』 晶文社, 1978年
    • 『ユダヤ神秘主義』 叢書ウニベルシタス・法政大学出版局, 1985年 別訳
    • 『カバラとその象徴的表現』 叢書ウニベルシタス・法政大学出版局, 1985年
    • 『ベンヤミンーショーレム往復書簡』 叢書ウニベルシタス・法政大学出版局, 1990年
    • 『ベルリンからエルサレムへ 青春の思い出』 叢書ウニベルシタス・法政大学出版局, 1991年
    • 『錬金術とカバラ』 作品社, 2001年
    • 『サバタイ・ツヴィ伝 神秘のメシア』 2冊組 叢書ウニベルシタス・法政大学出版, 2009年
    • 『エラノス叢書』 平凡社全9巻別冊1、1994-95年、数編の論文が所収。


    Arendt and Scholem, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: Exchange of Letters between Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt", in Encounter, 22/1, 1964
    The Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality, trans. 1971
    Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1973
    From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memories of My Youth, trans. Harry Zohn, 1980.
    從柏林到耶路撒冷
    作者:[以]格舒姆·索羅姆
    出版:漓江出版社
    2015年版
    最不平凡時代的青少年歲月,鑄就最具影響力的猶太思想家。格舒姆·索羅姆被譽為20世紀最為深刻的猶太哲學家。“索羅姆具備那種最罕見的精神人格……他同時是哲學家、社會歷史學家、睿智雄健的論說文作家,而在此之上,還有一份良知——這苦難、險惡、兇殘的人世並不乏對這良知的了解,卻又總是忽視它的存在……”本書是其早年求知生涯的回憶錄,記敘了作者童年至青少年時期的人生經歷。
    ----
    因為受到I. Berlin等人對於 Hannah Arendt的評價 對她的作品比較少涉獵. 不過其作品不少有漢譯了.
    Gershom Scholem A Life in Letters, 1914-1982 , pp.393-98 有兩人對於 “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,”一書的許多不同的見解 包括 “the banality of evil.” 是否只是一口號.http://hcbooks.blogspot.tw/…/gershom-scholem-life-in-letter…



    Books 書海微瀾: Gershom Scholem A Life in Letters, 1914-1982 / Hannah Arendt: “the banality of evil.”
    HCBOOKS.BLOGSPOT.COM|由 HANCHING CHUNG 上傳

    ↧

    G. by John Berger

    July 13, 2017, 7:17 pm
    ≫ Next: ( Friedrich) Engels By David McLellan 恩格斯傳; 烏克蘭的恩格斯雕像,胡不魂歸曼徹斯特。
    ≪ Previous: What Gershom Scholem’s take on Jewish mysticism can teach us now.Gershom Scholem A Life in Letters, 1914-1982、 從柏林到耶路撒冷;
    $
    0
    0
    Vintage Books & Anchor Books
    Winner of the 1972 The Booker Prize...
    “Falling in love at five or six, although rare, is the same as falling in love at fifty. One may interpret one's feelings differently, the outcome may be different, but the state of feeling and of being is the same.”
    ―from G. by John Berger
    In this luminous novel — winner of Britain’s prestigious Booker Prize — John Berger relates the story of "G.," a young man forging an energetic sexual career in Europe during the early years of this century. With profound compassion, Berger explores the hearts and minds of both men and women, and what happens during sex, to reveal the conditions of the Don Juan’s success: his essential loneliness, the quiet cumulation in each of his sexual experiences of all of those that precede it, the tenderness that infuses even the briefest of his encounters, and the way women experience their own extraordinariness through their moments with him. All of this Berger sets against the turbulent backdrop of Garibaldi and the failed revolution of Milanese workers in 1898, the Boer War, and the first flight across the Alps, making G. a brilliant novel about the search for intimacy in history’s private moments.
    翻譯年糕
    圖像裡可能有1 人
    1則留言
    15則分享
    ↧

    ( Friedrich) Engels By David McLellan 恩格斯傳; 烏克蘭的恩格斯雕像,胡不魂歸曼徹斯特。

    July 15, 2017, 3:31 am
    ≫ Next: Dead Souls (Norton Critical Editions)果戈里《死靈魂》
    ≪ Previous: G. by John Berger
    $
    0
    0

    David McLellan 1977恩格斯傳北京:中國人民大學,2017


    Friedrich Engels was a German philosopher, social scientist, journalist, and businessman. He founded Marxist theory together with Karl Marx. Wikipedia
    Born: November 28, 1820, Barmen, Germany
    Died: August 5, 1895, London, United Kingdom
    Influenced: Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, MORE
    Movies: Too Early/Too Late
    Quotes
    The state is nothing but an instrument of opression of one class by another - no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.
    All history has been a history of class struggles between dominated classes at various stages of social development.
    An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.


    烏克蘭的恩格斯雕像,胡不魂歸曼徹斯特。
    https://www.ft.com/content/205105fc-67c3-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe

    Back on his pedestal: the return of Friedrich Engels A socialist resurgence has revived the radicalism of the German Marxist thinker. Now the artist Phil Collins is bringing his statue back to the British city he called home Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 6 Save 15 HOURS AGO by: John Lloyd The artist Phil Collins wanted to bring Friedrich Engels back to Manchester where, in the mid-19th century, he had lived for two decades. The German Marxist thinker established the first great industrial city in the annals of communist history with his excoriating 1845 polemic The Condition of the Working Class in England. But in the 171 years since his death, Manchester forgot about him. Collins told me his search for Engels was a “dream”. And it came true: he found him lying face down in the earth, long neglected, behind a creamery in Mala Pereshchepina, a few hours from the north-eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. He was a man of two halves, sawn through at the waist, mouldy, unlovely, cast in concrete. His sorry condition told a wider story. After the Soviet Union emerged from the terror-driven idealism of the Stalinist era, party leader Leonid Brezhnev sought to hold up the USSR as a “developed” socialist state. Other gods were put into place: Lenin statuary was displayed everywhere, as were busts of Karl Marx and, less frequently, his friend and funder Engels. All gazed purposefully into the future. This one had been erected in 1970 and stood stonily in the village for several decades, a gentleman of the Victorian era in frock coat and long beard. Phil Collins in Zaporizhia, Ukraine with a statue of Vladimir Lenin that he was ultimately unable to bring back to the UK © Nikiforov Yevgen The collapse of Soviet communism two decades later saw many come off their pedestals — a culling that was more or less total in the satellite states. Some remained in the Russified areas of eastern Ukraine; but in 2015, as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine continued, an increasingly anti-Russian government decreed that Soviet symbols must be removed, pro-Soviet speech banned and even the singing of Soviet-era songs forbidden. So Collins, previously nominated for the Turner Prize for a video about people whose lives had been ruined by appearing on reality TV, came upon the object of his search when it was at a literal low point in its concrete existence. He and two Russian-speaking aides, Anya Harrison and Olga Borissova, had begun their search in August last year, sensibly enough, in the city of Engels, on the Volga. There they found a statue, also concrete, still standing amid the ruin of the meatpacking plant that had commissioned it. But the local authority, at first helpful, later proved fearful of giving the icon to foreigners at a time of east-west tension. It referred the decision to a court: a decision is still pending. With time running against them, the searchers moved on to the Belarusian city of Vitebsk, where they found a triptych statue — an Asian woman, an African man, with a white young man between them, embracing both, expressing the theme of brotherhood (and less overtly, Soviet leadership). Collins was tempted but it, too, was denied a visa. Collins with a statue of Engels that did not come back to the UK © Nikiforov Yevgen Finally they came to Mala Pereshchepina, where the local authorities were only too glad to get rid of what was by now a legally toxic artefact. In mid-May this year, the two-tonne, near-four-metre-high cement behemoth was loaded on to a flatbed truck to be trundled across Europe, to the city of Engels’ epiphany. This Sunday evening, when it is unveiled outside Home, a big modern arts building in Manchester largely funded by the city council, Collins’ quest will finally be at an end. The artist’s timing is impeccable. June’s UK general election saw a surge of support for the Labour party led by the far-left Jeremy Corbyn. Like Bernie Sanders in last year’s US Democratic primaries, this ageing socialist appealed first of all to the young. Marxism, which had been read the last rites by many, has found new life, reuniting its long-lonely intellectuals and academic advocates with the masses. The French economist Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a self-conscious echo of Marx, was a huge seller. Commentators on the left are making connections between what Engels wrote and contemporary society. Writing in the Guardian after the fire at the Grenfell Tower block of flats in London, Aditya Chakrabortty explicitly linked the tragedy with The Condition of the Working Class, stating Britain “remains a country that murders its poor”. In such narratives, modern despair and marginalisation are laid at the feet of capitalism. The brutality of regimes working under Marxist rules — dramatised this week by the death of China’s most prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo, a few days after his release from long imprisonment — fades to the background. Collins believes that Engels is a writer “with whom we can engage today, with the questions he raises. He isn’t to be confined to his time and forgotten.” Engels’ writing shocked the Victorians. In The Condition of the Working Class he stressed that Britain’s wealth and imperial power (which impressed him), was built on the degradation and endless labour of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, living in “half or wholly ruined buildings . . . rarely a wooden or stone floor to be seen in the houses, almost uniformly broken, ill-fitting windows and doors, and a state of filth!” Karl Marx, whom Engels had known slightly before he left Germany, was said to have been bewitched by the book. A villager in Mala Pereshchepina, Ukraine, with the statue of Engels that eventually came to Manchester © Shady Lane Productions The brutal world Engels described became a backdrop to some of the era’s best-known literature. The future prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, published Sybil in 1845; Charles Dickens brought out Hard Times in 1854 and Mrs Gaskell North and South in 1855. All expressed horror at the human cost of industrialism, though with much more sentimentality and much less detail. Even now, when — for all the excesses of capitalism — the stark exploitation Engels evoked has disappeared in the western world, The Condition of the Working Class is an uncomfortable read. The homelessness of the rising generation; the precariousness of freelance work; the feared mass unemployment once artificial replaces human intelligence; the long, spiky tail of the banking collapse of 2008; the end of the postwar expectation that children will ascend further and richer than their parents — these are plausibly presented by the left as a 21st-century equivalent of the Condition of the Working, and even Middle Class of England, and the rest of the capitalist world. Looking out from Home’s café on to the space where Engels will finally rest — and remain — Sarah Perks, the centre’s artistic director for visual arts, tells me that discussion points will be created around the statue’s base to encourage viewers to become participants: “We want to try to understand what the equivalent hardships to those described by Engels would be for today’s working class.” *** Collins intersects with Engels in two ways. Born in the Cheshire port of Runcorn, he works mainly in Manchester. He also has a home in the North Rhine-Westphalia city of Wuppertal, where Engels was born to a pious and wealthy manufacturing family, mainly in the dyestuffs trade (he was already a fledgling socialist when sent by his despairing father to Manchester to work at one of his part-owned subsidiaries in the city). Moving the statue © Shady Lane Productions More than most contemporary artists on the left, Collins shows a strong sympathy for the communist era: one of his films, Marxism Today, is composed of tender interviews with former teachers of Marxism-Leninism in East Germany who were rendered unemployable by its collapse. “When the wall fell, there was also a collapse of something which had been solidarity, co-operative working: individualism flourished,” he says. First and foremost, though, he is engaged in an ironic, post-modernist project. He has taken an icon rejected by a recently socialist state as a sign of imperialist oppression to give it an honoured place in Manchester, the birthplace of industrial capitalism and of free trade. He sees Manchester as a city imbued with a kind of generic leftism: “There’s a Mancunian spirit of radicalism, an interest in politics and what it can do for people if properly managed.” He is most interested in “those who have been occluded from society or history” as Engels was in Manchester, where there is no statue to commemorate him. He thought it necessary to place him back in the city which he had described so graphically, to provide a contrast to the statues of local figures, some of whom — like Richard Cobden and John Bright, the proponents of free trade — were major national figures. On the long trip back from Ukraine to Manchester, he found that the huge, grubby, sundered statue “became a revelation: I felt more connected with him, he became suddenly real. It’s very alive — its physiognomy changed, depending on how it was placed, on the ground, or on the truck, or in the old train depot (its temporary home in Manchester).” The trip, which Collins filmed, featured a number of organised setpieces. In Kharkiv, a reception was arranged. “There were schoolchildren, and a teacher gave a lesson about Marx and Engels, Manchester and its importance, the Soviet Union, and the process of de-communisation. Then a girls’ choir, all in white, stood up on the truck and sang a Soviet-era song called ‘The Jolly Wind’ (presumably in defiance of the law), as they waved goodbye.” A choir of schoolchildren in Kharkiv, where a reception was arranged for the statue © Shady Lane Productions At Rosa Luxemburg Platz in Berlin (named after the communist activist murdered in the city in 1919) actors and others — many from the Volksbühne, or People’s Theatre — put on a show. There were speeches by academics belonging to the “accelerationist” school — a protean thought system with left and right branches, whose basis is the desire to speed up technological change to accelerate social transformation. The trip and the project display the artist’s ability to draw in myriad influences and strands, from kitsch through social realism and Soviet sentimentality for the loss of an authoritarianism they had experienced as security. Collins believes that, in the collapse of communism, “Something had been lost. The usual prism through which we saw, say, the East German society, was so strong that we didn’t see the ordinary; it frustrated our ability to see the day-to-day life.” He believes his Engels project “points to the fact we can have different kinds of statues here. It’s a found object, not something specially made. It’s transformative. It’s one kind of history coming back into the forge that created it.” *** The indifference of Manchester to Engels was noted by the former Labour MP Tristram Hunt in his fine biography, The Frock-Coated Communist. He found an Engels House on a council estate, where the residents complain of damp. In 2014, when the university in neighbouring Salford had the Engine Arts Theatre Company build a five-metre-high fibreglass Engels bust in which his vast beard was a climbing frame, one reviewer described it “as having all the intelligence and subtlety of making a see-saw shaped like Marx’s bum boils”. Things are changing, according to Jonathan Schofield, who writes about the city and conducts tours. Schofield thinks Manchester, along with other Midlands and northern cities, is shaking off its subaltern deference to London. “The provincial cities in the 19th century were more important than London. Now you’re finding a reawakening of civic pride: coming into their own again,” he says. He does a Marx and Engels tour that takes in Chetham’s Library, the oldest free library in the UK, opened in the mid-17th century through the bequest of Humphrey Chetham, a local merchant. “It’s the only building left where Engels definitely was. He worked with Marx at a table, still there, with the books they both used. When I take Chinese visitors to see it, some of them cry.” Vinnie Gavin (right) and his son Scott Gavin of 'Stone Central' work on restoring the statue of Friedrich Engels in Manchester in July © Greg Funnell For all the mass murders committed in their name, Marx and Engels continue to loom large today, not just in the consciousness of lachrymose visitors from China — where they remain on their pedestals. Their ideas are being revived beyond the lecture room. They represent a way not taken, a revolution betrayed. And on Sunday evening, Manchester’s first communist will be unveiled on a capitalist pedestal at last. John Lloyd is an FT contributing editor Photographs: Greg Funnell; Yevgen Nikiforov


    ↧
    ↧

    Dead Souls (Norton Critical Editions)果戈里《死靈魂》

    July 13, 2017, 11:00 am
    ≫ Next: 採訪劉曉波 1993;審美與人的自由
    ≪ Previous: ( Friedrich) Engels By David McLellan 恩格斯傳; 烏克蘭的恩格斯雕像,胡不魂歸曼徹斯特。
    $
    0
    0

    人都死了怎麼被買賣?
    俄國農奴制度中,男性農奴算是地主的財富,以農奴人數來課地主的稅,但在7年一次的人口普查之間,總會有一些農奴死掉卻還沒來得及註銷。「死靈魂交易」就從這裡開始!
    有一個投機客嗅到商機,用極低的價格買下在官方認定裡還是「活著」的死農奴,然後再高價抵押給救濟局,藉此謀取暴利...
    #遺忘之書 #俄國文學 #果戈里 #報導者
    虹風/遺忘之書G:175年不墜的瘋狂、荒誕與笑聲——果戈里《死靈魂》 - 報導者 The Reporter
    沒了靈魂的人,要如何救贖?在這虛偽的俗世,魔鬼的代理人游遍俄國的土…
    TWREPORTER.ORG


    "Take with you on your journey all the human emotions! Don't leave them on the road, for you will not pick them up afterwards!"
    -Nikolai Gogol, d. #OTD 1852


    In a famous passage from his novel Dead Souls, Gogol compared Russia with a troika (a traditional three-horse carriage) soaring forward: "Where art thou soaring away to, Russia? Give me the answer!"


    Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol died in Moscow, Russia on this day in 1852 (aged 42).
    "The gentleman lolling back in the chaise was neither dashingly handsome nor yet unbearably ugly, neither too stout nor yet too thin; it could not be claimed he was old but he was no stripling, either. His arrival in the town created no stir and was not marked by anything out of the ordinary."
    --from DEAD SOULS (1842) by Nikolai Gogol

    February 7th sees the opening of the winter Olympics in Sochi on the Black Sea. The message of the games is simple: "Russia is back". Sochi was planned as a celebration of the country's resurgence. But the conspicuous dazzle of the games masks a country, and a president, in deepening trouble http://econ.st/1ffEugz

    February 7th sees the opening of the winter Olympics in Sochi on the Black Sea. The message of the games is simple: "Russia is back". Sochi was planned as a celebration of the country's resurgence. But the conspicuous dazzle of the games masks a country, and a president, in deepening trouble http://econ.st/1ffEugz


    Chichikov and his box (Left) as imagined by Petr Sokolov, illustrator for Gogol, N. V. Mertvye Dushi. Poema. Chast' pervaia. (Dead Souls. Epic Poem. Part One.), Moscow-Leningrad: OGIZ Gos. Izd. Khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1947.

    Exhibition: Chagall Illustrations for Gogol's Dead Souls at Tel Aviv Museum of Art


    Marc Chagall, Illustrations for Gogol's Dead Souls. Photos: Courtesy of Tel Aviv Museum of Art



    更多的圖
    http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/Tag/Nikolai-Gogol-%22Dead-souls%22


    Such were the flattering opinions earned by the newcomer to the town; and these opinions he retained until the time as an odd peculiarity or undertaking of his or, as they said in the province. a 'passage,' of which the reader will soon learned more, threw the whole town into consternation.


    比較
    Such was the very flattering opinions which was formed of him in the town; and this opinion persisted until such time when a certain speciality of his, a certain scheme of his (the reader will learn presently what it was), plunged the majority of the townsfolk into a sea of perplexity.

    DEAD SOULS By Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol

    Translated by D. J. Hogarth

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1081/1081-h/1081-h.htm
    比教英譯本與一本漢譯 也相當有意思



    我8號問櫻花園出版社的邱光社長 台灣的譯本
    他說孟祥森在遠景有重譯本
    我告訴他魯迅的是從德文本重譯的


    Dead Souls (Norton Critical Editions)

    Nikolai Gogol (Author), George Gibian (Editor), George Reavey (Translator)

    死魂靈[1](俄語:Мёртвые души),為俄國文學家果戈理的代表作品。小說的第一部出版於1842年,果戈理還沒有完成預定計劃中的第三部,便於1852年去世。這本書的主題得自於普希金。雖然這部小說最後以中斷的句子做為結束,它仍被視為一部完整的作品。是四大著名吝嗇鬼小說之一。

    寫作背景

    在1861年農奴解放改革之前,俄國的地主可以擁有奴隸種作田地。這些農奴被視為地主的財產,可以買賣、抵押。農奴的計算往往以靈魂做 為單位,例如「六個靈魂」代表六個農奴。死靈魂這個書名就是來自於一些實際已經死亡、卻在財產登記單位上仍然存在的奴隸。果戈理在這部小說中諷刺批判俄國 當時的社會制度,並且企圖在第三部中提出解決之道。雖然這部小說終究未能完成,但第一二部中嘲諷上流社會以及荒謬制度的章節仍受到相當的重視。

    Product Description

    Few literary works have been so variously interpreted as Nikolai Gogol’s enduring comic masterpiece, Dead Souls.
    This Norton Critical Edition reprints the text of the acclaimed George Reavey translation, which has been fully annotated for undergraduate readers.

    "Backgrounds" contains not only Gogol’s correspondence relevant to the novel but also the four formal letters that set forth his views on the work.

    The editor has also included a useful chronology of Gogol’s life and an invaluable table of ranks in czarist Russia.

    A wide range of criticism includes Robert Maguire’s general overview of Gogol’s criticism; two nineteenth-century Russian appraisals; Donald Fanger’s brilliant essay; and a broad spectrum of twentieth-century Russian critical opinion.

    It features, as well, essays by Vladimir Nabokov and Edmund Wilson.

    The Russian essays have been translated specially for this Norton Critical Edition.

    A Selected Bibliography directs readers to resources for further study.


    Language Notes

    Text: English, Russian (translation)
    See all Editorial Reviews


    Product Details

    • Paperback: 608 pages
    • Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; annotated edition edition (January 17, 1986)
    • Language: English
    ---
    且介亭*杂文二集-->《死魂灵百图》小引



    果戈理開手作《死魂靈》第一部的時候,是一八三五年的下半年,離現在足有一百年了。幸而,還是不幸呢,其中的許多人物,到現在還很有生氣,使我們不同國度,不同時代的讀者,也覺得彷彿寫著自己的周圍,不得不嘆服他偉大的寫實的本領。不過那時的風尚,卻究竟有了變遷,例如男子的衣服,和現在雖然小異大同,而閨秀們的高髻圓裙,則已經少見;那時的時髦的車子,並非流線形的摩託卡〔2〕,卻是三匹馬拉的篷車,照著跳舞夜會的所謂眩眼的光輝,也不是電燈,只不過許多插在多臂燭台上的蠟燭:凡這些,倘使沒有圖畫,是很難想像清楚的。關於《死魂靈》的有名的圖畫,據里斯珂夫說,一共有三種,而最正確和完備的是阿庚的百圖〔3〕。這圖畫先有七十二幅,未詳何年出版,但總在一八四七年之前,去現在也快要九十年;後來即成為難得之品,新近蘇聯出版的《文學辭典》裡,曾採它為插畫,可見已經是有了定評的文獻了。雖在它的本國,恐怕也只能在圖書館中相遇,更何況在我們中國。今年秋末,孟十還〔4〕君忽然在上海的舊書店裡看到了這畫集,便像孩子望見了糖果似的,立刻奔走呼號,總算弄到手裡了,是一八九三年印的第四版,不但百圖完備,還增加了收藏家藹甫列摩夫所藏的三幅,並那時的廣告畫和第一版封紙上的小圖各一幅,共計一百零五圖。這大約是十月革命之際,俄國人帶了逃出國外來的;他該是一個愛好文藝的人,抱守了十六年,終於只好拿它來換衣食之資;在中國,也許未必有第二本。藏了起來,對己對人,說不定都是一種罪業,所以現在就設法來翻印這一本書,除紹介外國的藝術之外,第一,是在獻給中國的研究文學,或愛好文學者,可以和小說相輔,所謂“左圖右史”,更明白十九世紀上半的俄國中流社會的情形,第二,則想獻給插畫家,藉此看看別國的寫實的典型,知道和中國向來的“出相”或“繡像”〔5〕有怎樣的不同,或者能有可以取法之處;同時也以慰售出這本畫集的人,將他的原本化為千萬,廣佈於世,實足償其損失而有餘,一面也庶幾不枉孟十還君的一番奔走呼號之苦。對於木刻家,卻恐怕並無大益,因為這雖說是木刻,但畫者一人,刻者又別一人,和現在的自畫自刻,刻即是畫的創作木刻,是已經大有差別的了。  世間也真有意外的運氣。當中文譯本的《死魂靈》開始發表時,曹靖華〔6〕君就寄給我一卷圖畫,也還是十月革命後不多久,在彼得堡得到的。這正是里斯珂夫所說的梭可羅夫〔7〕畫的十二幅。紙張雖然頗為破碎,但圖像並無大損,怕它由我而亡,現在就附印在阿庚的百圖之後,於是俄國藝術家所作的最寫實,而且可以互相補助的兩種《死魂靈》的插畫,就全收在我們的這一本集子裡了。移譯序文和每圖的題句的,也是孟十還君的勞作;題句大概依照譯本,但有數處不同,現在也不改從一律;最末一圖的題句,不見於第一部中,疑是第二部記乞乞科夫免罪以後的事,這是那時俄國文藝家的習尚:總喜歡帶點教訓的。至於校印裝製,則是吳朗西〔8〕君和另外幾位朋友們所經營。這都應該在這裡聲明謝意。一九三五年十二月二十四日,魯迅。  CC〔1〕本篇最初印入《死魂靈百圖》。此書由魯迅出資,於一九三六年七月以三閒書屋名義出版。〔2〕摩託卡英語Motor-car的音譯,即汽車。 〔3〕里斯珂夫(aPUcRHLG)在《關於〈死魂靈〉的插畫》一文(原載一八九三年俄國《涅瓦》周刊第八期)中說:“作《死魂靈》插畫的有三個俄國藝術家:阿庚、皤克萊夫斯基和梭可羅夫。”阿庚(1817—1875),俄國畫家。這些插畫的雕版者是培爾那爾特斯基,阿庚的同時代人。〔4〕孟十還原名孟斯根,遼寧人,翻譯家。譯有果戈理的《密爾格拉得》、涅克拉索夫的《嚴寒·通​​紅的鼻子》等。 〔5〕“出相”或“繡像”都是指過去印入通俗小說的書中人物的白描畫像。〔6〕曹靖華河南盧氏人,未名社成員,翻譯家。曾在蘇聯留學和在列寧格勒大學任教,歸國後在北平大學女子文理學​​院、東北大學等校任教。譯有長篇小說《鐵流》等。〔7〕梭可羅夫(ffPGLGQG,1821—1899)俄國畫家。〔8〕吳朗西四川重慶人,翻譯家。當時任上海文化生活出版社經理。



    *
    鲁迅自 这故居为且介亭

    (“且介”读作“租界”,因为有一段时间,鲁迅先生住在上海闸北帝国主义越界筑路的区域,这个地区有“半租界”之称。鲁迅先生有很强烈的 ...

    *****

    魯迅《死魂靈》題簽本“出土”2006-10-16正當魯迅逝世七十週年之際,這部魯迅《死魂靈》題簽本在湮沒半個多世紀以後重現於世,實在是適逢其時。魯迅生平史料經過那麼多年海內外魯迅學界的不懈努力,早已幾乎蒐集殆盡了,現在哪怕是一紙半字的發掘都彌足珍貴。 魯迅翻譯俄國作家果戈理的代表作《死魂靈》,是上個世紀三十年代中國譯壇的一件大事,《死魂靈》也是魯迅翻譯的惟一的一部世界文學史上“著名的巨制”,這一切早已載入中國現代文學史冊,文學史家在論述中國現代文學對外國文學的接受時,魯迅翻譯《死魂靈》及其影響是必須提出並詳加探討的。  翻譯《死魂靈》時,魯迅的生命只剩下最後一年了。他是應鄭振鐸編輯的《世界文庫》這一重大文化工程之邀開始翻譯《死魂靈》的。俄羅斯文學那種壓抑中的奔放,悲愴中的舒展,那種雄渾的氣韻,沉鬱的色澤,魯迅一直心嚮往之。他早年與乃弟周作人合譯《域外小說集》時,選譯的三篇作品就均出自俄羅斯作家之手。他與果戈理當然也神交已久,在1908年發表的《摩羅詩力說》中對這位諷刺大師的精神特質和藝術風格已有相當的把握,強調果戈理是“以描寫社會人生之黑暗著名,以不可見之淚痕悲色,振其邦人”。他踏上文學征途之後,又一直把果戈理的作品引為自己“所仰仗的”思想和創作技巧的重要資源之一,魯迅的劃時代的名作《狂人日記》與果戈理的《狂人日記》之間恐怕不僅是篇名的巧合那麼簡單了。  1934年9月,魯迅創刊《譯文》月刊。他在創刊號上用“許遐”筆名譯介了果戈理的短篇《鼻子》,並在《譯者附記》中指出:果戈理“幾乎可以說是俄國寫實派的開山祖師”,“他的巨著《死掉的農奴》(魯迅後來又譯為《死靈魂》,最後定譯為《死魂靈》--筆者註),除中國外,較為文明的國度多有翻譯本,日本還有三種,現在又正在出他的全集”。這大概是魯迅翻譯《死魂靈》最初的動因,既然“較為文明的國度”多已有了《死魂靈》的譯本,以中國文明之悠久,理應也該有《死魂靈》的中譯本;既然沒有人願意做,那就不妨見難而上,自己嘗試。魯迅精神在此又一次得到了清晰而光輝的體現。  據《魯迅日記》記載,魯迅是1935年2月開譯《死魂靈》的,斷斷續續,至9月才譯完第一部。魯迅翻譯《死魂靈》時所投入的巨大熱情和辛勞,在他給胡風、蕭軍、孟十還等人的信中多次提到。魯迅開玩笑地說“我實在怕果戈理”,因為“果戈理的諷刺是千錘百煉的”,很難譯。在翻譯中,魯迅是“字典不離手,冷汗不離身”,“每譯兩章,好像生一場病”,因而魯迅不時發出感慨“《死魂靈》真難譯,……真好像做苦工,日子不好過”。難怪後來曹聚仁評價魯迅晚年譯《死魂靈》,“是一件艱苦的奇功”。  《死魂靈》第一部於1935年11月由上海文化生活出版社出版,列為黃源主編的“譯文叢書”之“果戈理選集五”。原來,按魯迅當時的設想,擬陸續出版六卷本的“果戈理選集”,即:一《狄康卡近鄉夜話》、二《密爾格拉得》、三《鼻子及其他》、四《巡按使及其他》、五《死魂靈》(第一部)、六《死魂靈》(第二部)。這是一項偉大的譯書計劃,堪與胡適主持的“中華教育文化基金董事會”計劃翻譯《莎士比亞全集》相媲美,但前者是依賴財力雄厚的庚款基金,魯迅則是憑藉一己的“傻勁”。可惜魯迅生前只出版了《死魂靈》(第一部)和孟十還翻譯的《密爾格拉得》,而未能竟其全功。  日前,一冊《死魂靈》初版布面精裝簽名題贈本惊現滬上,魯迅翻譯《死魂靈》時,文壇交遊鮮為人知的一面由此浮出地表。這部布面精裝的《死魂靈》書品完好,封面左上角印有果戈理的簽名式,環襯右上角鈐有“孟氏藏書”長方藍印,扉頁反面有魯迅的毛筆題字:
    這是重譯的書,以呈十還先生,所謂“班門弄斧”者是也。   魯迅(印)  一九三五年十一月十五日,上海。     魯迅簽名下鈐有北京女篆刻家劉淑度篆刻的“魯迅”陰文名印,這是魯迅晚年喜愛和常用的名印之一,後來的《且介亭雜文》封面設計還使用過。魯迅的細心從為防止名印印泥沾污書頁而加蓋於上的小​​襯紙也體現出來,這枚小襯紙也奇蹟般完整地保存下來了。另外,題籤的落款是“一九三五年十一月十五日”,但查《魯迅日記》,明明是11月16日“上午吳朗西來並贈《死魂靈》布面裝訂本五本”,那麼魯迅怎麼會提前一天把書送給“十還先生”呢,會不會是魯迅的筆誤?這是個謎。不過,題詞的真實性是無可懷疑的。這部題簽本的受贈人“十還先生”即孟十還,當時是魯迅的合作者,與魯迅合作翻譯果戈理,現存魯迅與他的通信就有三十二封之多。他原名孟斯根,曾留學前蘇聯,為《論語》、《人間世》撰過稿,後為魯迅、黃源主編的《譯文》以及《太白》等刊物撰文時署新筆名“孟十還”。他在1936年主編《作家》月刊時也得到了魯迅的鼎力支持。孟十還精通俄文,他翻譯普希金、果戈理、涅克拉索夫等俄羅斯古典文學大家的功績是不可磨滅的。

    魯迅不懂俄語,他為了翻譯《死魂靈》比較了日、英、德各語種譯本後,最終選定柏林普羅皮勒出版社1920年出版、奧托.布克(Otto Buek)編譯的《果戈理全集》中的《死魂靈》德譯本作為自己翻譯的底本,再參照日、英譯本,擇善而從。所以魯迅在這則題詞中說“這是重譯的書”,以區別於從俄文“直譯”,而且魯迅認為對能從俄文“直譯”的孟十還來說,他譯的《死魂靈》只是“班門弄斧”,魯迅的虛懷若谷由此足見一斑了。



    有趣的是,魯迅1936年2月17日致孟十還信中還特別提到他贈送的這部《死魂靈》,信不長,照錄如下:  十還先生:從三郎太太(指蕭紅--筆者註)口頭,知道您頗喜歡精印本《引玉集》,大有“愛不能釋”之概。嘗聞“紅粉贈佳人,寶劍贈壯士”,那麼,好書當然該贈書呆子。寓裡尚有一本,現在特以奉贈,作為“孟氏藏書”,待到五十世紀,定與拙譯《死魂靈》,都成為​​希世之寶也。 
     
    儘管是幽默風趣,魯迅的自信還是溢於言表。魯迅告訴我們,這部《死魂靈》精裝本與他編印的蘇俄版畫集《引玉集》精印本,作為“孟氏藏書”(鈐在《死魂靈》環襯上的“孟氏藏書”藍印,是不是孟十還根據魯迅此信的提議而專門篆刻的呢?已無從查考)都將成為“希世之寶”。十分遺憾的是,孟十還後來去了台灣,這部魯迅親筆題贈本留在了大陸,不再是“孟氏藏書”了。 
     
    正當魯迅逝世七十週年之際,這部魯迅《死魂靈》題簽本在湮沒半個多世紀以後重現於世,實在是適逢其時。魯迅生平史料經過那麼多年海內外魯迅學界的不懈努力,早已幾乎蒐集殆盡了,現在哪怕是一紙半字的發掘都彌足珍貴,從這個意義上說,《死魂靈》題簽本的發現是特別令人欣喜的。從題詞中我們得以再次領略魯迅的博大和謙虛。按照《魯迅全集》的編輯體例,這則有實質內容的題詞應該題為“題《死魂靈》贈孟十還”,筆者期待新版《魯迅全集》重印時能夠予以增補。
    ↧

    採訪劉曉波 1993;審美與人的自由

    July 16, 2017, 4:37 am
    ≫ Next: 儒家三部曲:《中國歷史人物論集》 Confucian Personalities, Confucian Personalities/《儒家思想的實踐》Confucianism in Action
    ≪ Previous: Dead Souls (Norton Critical Editions)果戈里《死靈魂》
    $
    0
    0



    既入地獄,就不抱怨黑暗——採訪劉曉波


    《中國之春》93 年 5 月號 ( 總第 120 期 )

    ——採訪劉曉波

    本刊記者周易

    原北京師範大學中文系講師,現在澳大利亞國立大學進行學術訪問的著名青年學者劉曉波應邀來美國短期講學。日前,在他於紐約小停會友時,本刊記者採訪了他。

    記:朋友們對你再次來到美國都很高興,請你說說有什麼新的打算。

    曉:原先我到澳大利亞並沒打算來美國。後來這裡的人給我打電話,說哈佛請我作講演, 於是臨時決定來美國,這不是原先計劃之內的事情。我還要到柏克萊大學演講,演講完就走,回澳大利亞,然後回中國。

    記:請問你的演講有那些內容?

    曉:我在澳洲主要演講了三個題目。一個是關於大眾文化的,研究大眾文化與黨文化的關係;再有一個演講是“ 從六四的謊言看中國的民主 ”;還有一個演講是 “ 中國文人在流亡 ” 。我分別就這三個題目演講了三次。這次到美國時間比較倉促,主要演講的內容是關於大眾文化的。

    “六四”的資源已經浪費得差不多了

    記:關於“ 從六四的謊言看中國的民主 ” 那個演講主要是什麼內容?

    曉:我那本《末日倖存者的獨白》一書講的就是那個內容,都已經寫得非常清楚了。我寫過的東西不想再重複。那個“ 六四的謊言 ” 的講演也是沒有辦法,在每次演講的時候,大家提問題也總要提到這個上面來,我也就作一些回答。因為那本書在澳洲基本上看不到,所以我就大概地講一講。

    記:也許因為人們很難忘記“ 六四 ” ,所以一看到你,大家就要提起它。本來我們曾經打算請你和周舵、高新三個人一起談一談。這個想法也是因為 “ 六四 ” 時你們三個在一起的行動而引起的。當然,也有人認為“ 六四 ” 不宜再多提起。

    曉:這要看你從什麼角度切入這個問題。關鍵是不能忘掉“ 六四 ”,我覺得淡忘 “ 六四 ” 是一件可怕的事,因為留了那麼多血。中國歷史上這麼大的一件事,不管它是悲劇還是喜劇,不管這裡有多醜惡的東西,有多殘酷的東西,這件事都不應該忘記。我還是喜歡昆德拉的那句話:和專制制度的鬥爭就是記憶和遺忘的鬥爭。( 記:而這兩個都是人性、人腦所固有的) 對。關鍵是你怎麼樣看這個問題。我現在覺得大家淡忘 “ 六四 ” ,是因為經歷過 “ 六四 ” 的那些人,過多地強調自己在 “ 六四 ” 中扮演的英雄角色,過多地拿 “ 六四 ” 作為資本。用我的一句話就是說,“ 六四 ” 是一種非常豐富的財富,苦難也是一筆非常豐富的財富,從這種財富中可以得到無窮無盡的智慧、經驗、甚至美。但在 “ 六四 ” 之後,悲劇的血和苦難成了向別人乞討的資本;苦難作為一種向臉上貼金的資本。我覺得至今來講,在這麼長時間裡,我看到的發表過的文章,沒有一篇文章是檢討自己在 “ 六四 ” 悲劇中所負的責任的。

    記:在你的“ 獨白 ” 中對自己檢討得卻夠多了。

    曉:對於“ 獨白 ” 中的檢討,我覺得是這樣的。有些時候有些人問起我說,你在 “ 六四 ” 前對中國人批評得這麼厲害, “ 六四 ” 後你怎麼看?我覺得如果說 “ 六四 ” 前我是極度的悲觀,那麼 “ 六四 ”後我就是絕望了。因為這麼大一場全民族的災難捧出來的都是一些這樣的人物,我覺得這是非常非常可怕的。好些人在海外這麼長時間,覺得為中國搞民主,全世界都欠他什麼似的。這太可怕了,我覺得你為中國搞民主,全世界人們並不欠你什麼。( 記:我想你現在也不是特指什麼人吧) 我覺得 “六四 ” 確實為海外的中國人,包括跑出來的那些流亡者提供了一個重新塑造中國人在國際上的形象的非常豐富的資源。但是我覺得四年下來,這個資源已經浪費得差不多了。用我的一句話說,在海外, “ 六四 ” 這塊蛋糕已經分得差不多了。

    記:是否可以說這種浪費也是一種自然的過程。

    曉:在中國,這肯定是一種非常自然的事情。就包括海外民運組織每次開會,打得分裂,自己又拉出來一個東西來。我就會想到,這種分裂帶來的是什麼。我有一個自己認為非常好的比喻,將來中國即便有一天成立什麼反對黨,有兩個大黨可以抗衡,假如一個黨獲得了百分之五十一的選票,另一個獲得了百分之四十九的選票,那麼獲得百分之四十九選票的絕不會認同獲得百分之五十一選票的這個黨的合法的選舉結果,肯定要重新拉出去,組成另一個政府。海外的組織分裂就是這樣。而且海外民運參加的人還有一種逆淘汰的過程。參加的人當中有很多聰明的、想問題想得很深的人慢慢地都退出去了。

    還有一個最大的問題是,這種民運在海外沒有直接利益的因素在上面,你就等於是一個空的東西。基本上你沒有誠心出於利益考慮的選民,而有些利益考慮的也是沾“ 六四 ” 的光,想分這個東西。當這個東西越分越小時,感興趣的人就會越來越少。比如我在這兒打工掙錢,養家糊口,海外民運搞得好壞跟我的切身利益沒有關係,所以,沒有這種利益制約的話就沒辦法。外國的民主則不同,選民投票是由於自己的利益在那裡。而海外民運最多是道義上的利益。擁護這個人,是有很多人覺得這個人有才華,有道義感,這個人就有很多票,當這種道義感逐漸消退之後,再沒有利益上的聯繫。民運就沒法再運作下去。嚴格地講,海外民運的選民運作都是不真實的選民。( 記:它缺少一種動力機制) 對。我想這是一種假想的部隊,隨著你這種道義形象越來越差。離開你的人就會越來越多。

    我看海外民運也有一點利益,這話說出來,可能有些人不愛聽。在某種意義上,海外民運是移民運動。很多人都是拿到綠卡以後退出的,這種現像你們比我更清楚。等到留學生保護法案通過以後,綠卡都拿到了,民運對學生的感召力就更小了。

    記:有些朋友認為你的“ 自白 ” 對自己的剖析過於殘酷,你自己覺得怎麼樣?

    曉:我倒沒覺得怎麼樣。因為我的書已經寫完了。我也不想再談它。我的習慣是我寫完的書,別人願意怎麼議論就怎麼議論。我自己不想再談它。

    大陸文化界:往俗裡走

    記:你能不能簡單介紹一下大陸文化界的現狀?

    曉:大陸文化界的情況怎麼說呢?大陸文化界的情況可以說是有兩種特別強大的文化趨勢:一種就是在鄧小平南巡前,在“ 六四 ” 之後,老百姓在共產黨開槍之後,大家覺得有一段時候非常壓抑,又不知道怎麼釋放內心的壓抑。那個時候人們就覺得有些崇高的東西,正面的激烈對抗是不可能了,那麼文化界就採取了迂迴的方式。比如最早由文化衫開始,然後發展到“ 編輯部的故事 ” ,這樣,它就不再利用一種正面的對抗的方式,而是用調侃的、開玩笑的方式來宣洩自己內心的壓抑。另一種趨勢是,在鄧小平南巡的講話中大家找到了一條新的宣洩渠道,那就是我去經商。這樣,在無可奈何管不了國家大事的情況下,我們大家現在要管好自己的事,我們不要那麼苦兮兮的。特別是知識界的一些人,要把自己的生活搞得好一點。現在基本上大家管自己的事情,掙了一些錢,可以隨便上飯店吃飯,可以隨便截出租車。實際上,錢也是一種自我評價吧。有錢之後,儘管他現在得不到一種言論自由,但是他掙來錢,也是一種評價標誌。我覺得文化界的有些人,有能力下海去掙錢的人,自我評價都比較好, ( 記:這本來就是一個很重要的評價標誌) 而且管自己的事情現在管出來一種樂趣。

    大陸文化界現在趨向於一個跟八五年、八六年比不一樣的狀態。八五、八六年的時髦是誰懂弗羅依德,誰懂薩特,誰先鋒誰時髦;八六年以後是誰尋根,誰有歷史感,誰時髦;那麼現在是誰俗誰時髦呢?大陸現在有一篇王朔小說的一個標題,叫“ 咱也是個俗人 ” ,還有一個詞是叫 “ 往俗裡走 ” 。就是說誰俗誰時髦。現在在大陸誰不談俗,誰不談錢就沒文化。而且大陸現在的文化市場整個極其混亂。

    記:這個混亂是從什麼角度上說呢?

    曉:第一,在市場管理上,音像、錄像的盜版很厲害。比如說,這個出版社出了一本暢銷書,這本書還沒有上市,那邊黑市上已經出現了。不但混亂,而且圖書市場不像一九八五、八六年,你也知道,那時市場上推出的都是一些西方思潮的書。包括非常艱深的理論書。現在不同了,現在的圖書基本上是炒冷飯,就是這本書上的東西搬到那本書上,這個集子里內容的再搬到那個集子裡,搞這種編輯性質的事情,圖書市場幾乎不給人們提供新的信息。基本上是滿足娛樂化消費化的要求,主要就是由這些東西佔領圖書市場。

    我覺得這種狀態跟“ 六四 ” 以後鄧小平的主導方針有關。有一個特別奇怪的現像是, “ 六四 ” 前請港台歌星去大陸,都是比較緊的,除了春節聯歡會,他們單獨舉行獨唱音樂會幾乎不可能。但是在 “ 六四 ” 以後,出現了港台歌星對大陸的全面的轟炸。除了鄧麗君、羅大佑這樣堅決不認同這個制度的,認為製度不改變他們就不會去大陸唱歌的人以外,剩下的有頭有臉的人差不多都去過大陸了。我覺得這就是共產黨的一種主要策略,用這種娛樂化的歌舞昇平叫人們遺忘 “ 六四 ” 。所以說,大陸現在對政治這個東西比較敏感,對直接針對政權的某些言論比較敏感,但是對色情、兇殺這些東西卻盡可能地讓它氾濫。( 記:就是說,對於不直接危及其政權的東西網開一面。) 不僅是網開一面,而且可以在某種程度上說是鼓勵。包括妓女等等東西。

    記:你覺得對於這種現象,是從大陸當局的治國策略上解釋好呢,還是把它說成是當局的一種無可奈何的應對比較切合事實?

    曉:從上層來看,有一種穩定政局的策略在裡頭,讓人們多掙錢,讓人們歡歡樂樂進卡拉OK ,慢慢的可以淡忘大的政治上的東西。

    記:如果要在共產黨的上層分什麼改革派或保守派的話,那麼,在這一點上,他們也會比較一致的。

    曉:對。有一個傳說,當然不大可信,說李鵬指責李瑞環,說他把清除資產階級自由化淡化為“ 掃黃 ” ,盡量把事情往比較軟性的、不在政治上敏感的方向引導。李瑞環提出的什麼 “ 詳和 ” 、 “ 安定 ” 等等就是這樣。我覺得共產黨在這一點上轉變得非常快。“ 六四 ” 之後,它馬上在主導意識形態上提出,要在國內創造一種歌舞昇平的氣氛。我覺得這種氣氛既符合老百姓 “ 六四 ” 以後的無可奈何的心態,但同時又有另一點作用。恰恰是它最先打中了當局的痛點,在瓦解共產主義意識形態上,它的作用是非常巨大的。因為它與老百姓的生活太接近了。比如從語言的角度講,港台的歌和音樂,提供了一套語言符號,完全不同於正統意識形態的符號。王朔的語言也提供了一套完全不同於早期五十年代的那些右派作家還按照正統意識形態寫作的方式。我覺得這套東西對正統意識形態的顛覆性作用很大。

    記:你是否覺得這種語言符號已經成為一種系統性的東西,或者可以視為一種符號系統了?

    曉:現在還沒有。非常亂,許多東西都攪到一塊來了。

    記:現在國內文化界,對一些出國在外的著名學者,如李澤厚、劉再复等人怎麼評論?

    曉:沒評論。沒有太大的評論。

    一千五百人的大眾文化調查

    記:我從《中國時報周刊》上看到了你正在進行的大眾文化調查的部分結果。我記得你原先是搞文學評論和美學的,是不是你原來的專業不再打算搞下去了?

    曉:沒有。大眾文化的這個題目我很早就想搞了,一直苦於沒有精力;另外一個原因是這個東西太紛亂。其實我很早就注意到大眾文化與黨文化的一種關係,一方面它既是一種背離、逃跑的關係,同時又在另一方面迎合了鄧小平所提倡的享樂性的、娛樂性的、物質性的文化觀念;這和毛澤東時代的革命性的、精神性的、苦行僧似的文化觀念是相反的。

    記:《中國時報周刊》稱這次大眾文化調查是你和他們合作進行的,請問調查的問卷是不是你親自設計的?

    曉:是我做了調查再由時報買去的,基本上算是合作吧。這個調查經費的前期投入是我拿出錢。後來時報他們感興趣了。調查的問卷是我找幾個設計過問卷的朋友一起設計的。

    記:我看在你的文化調查問卷中,提到了作家劉賓雁。

    曉:我之所以把劉賓雁考慮進去,是因為他比李澤厚等人更具有大眾文化的性質。他的報告文學基本屬於大眾文化的範圍。李澤厚的東西儘管在學術界有影響。但是他的普及性不如劉賓雁。

    記:從社會統計來說,這種方式還是一種最基本的方法。你能告訴我這些調查對象的樣組是怎麼建立的嗎?

    曉:我設計好問卷以後,就把問捲全盤交給一個社會心理學研究所,整個調查由他們進行。由他們使用自己的專業網絡進行,我付錢給他們。北京有好幾家這樣的機構了。

    記:請問你調查的樣本有多大?樣組中男女比例、年齡分佈、文化程度等等因素是如何確定的?

    曉:調查對像有一千五百多個。但各種交叉調查的數據還沒有出來。我現在報告的是最初的統計,是整體的數據。交叉數據他們還在給我算,等我回到國內時可以算出來,我可以寫新的調查報告。我基本上是第一次做這種事,我也想嘗試一下。我覺得按照西方嚴格的社會調查來看,我這個調查算不上什麼。

    記:在中國以往的人文科學研究中,研究者很不重視這種社會統計,認為這是一種實證科學的方法。其實搞人文科學,涉及到數量概念,也要採取這種方法。現在大陸人文、社會科學方面採用這種調查統計方法的多不多?

    曉:逐漸多起來了。比較大的,就是上海做了一次兩萬例的社會調查,出了一個調查報告。叫《中國當代性文化》。( 記:我托國內朋友去買這本書也沒有買到) 這本書是內部發行的,我的朋友送了一本給我,我看那個問卷設計得極其具體,極其直接。例如,你什麼時候第一次手淫?手淫時想到了什麼?第一次性交的經驗來自什麼方面?等等,問題問得特別具體。

    記:由於中國大陸的社會科學工作者以往不大採用這種方法,從被調查的人來說,某種社會和心理的因素會影響他提供答案的準確性。你的文章中也提到,比如像對於性與暴力問題,被調查對像有一種自我整飭,會影響到答案的準確性可靠性。這個問題你在研究中怎麼處理的?

    曉:這種調查難做在什麼地方呢,第一,我們這些進行調查的人在技術操作上、理念上有一種很淺薄的東西;而被調查對像也不熟悉這種東西方法,會有一種環境上的製約和心理上的製約。他們長期養成了一種習慣,認為對於調查,就必須說官樣文章,就向接受記者採訪一樣,基本上是這樣一種心理,而朋友聊天的時候,就說真話了。所以說這個東西的困難非常大。但只能試著做,什麼事情總要有第一步、第二步。我非常知道我的調查報告的粗糙性,它的不合規範的東西,但是我想以前寫作沒用這種方法,我這次關於大眾文化的書就想採用這種方法。其中還有一百小時的個案採訪,我想把這兩個內容綜合在一起。

    記:說起這一點,我不知道你是不是有意識地去作,是不是在主體上意識到這一點。在我的印像中,你以前的寫作大多是採用非邏輯的,或者說“非理性 ” 的方式,而你現在採取的方式似乎是傾向於某種實證的方式。

    曉:這是兩個領域。假如我要寫我的論理性精神,要寫人類是怎樣殺死上帝,寫我的審美的著作,我還會用我原來的方法;而我現在搞的大眾文化的領域,那種方法不行,因為這些東西太社會化了,大眾文化的東西不通過調查,猜是猜不出來的,靠悟性是悟不出來的。這是一個太現實的東西。而寫那些稍微超脫一些的,要想像力發揮的東西,更形而上的東西,可以靠我的腦子進行。

    “ 新權威主義” 特別不好的政治後果

    記:我想問一下,對國內那些與政治現實有關係的學術理論,比如對新權威主義和新保守主義,你有什麼看法?

    曉:在剛開始討論新權威主義時,我就覺得現在這個東西不可行,沒有可能,因為中國跟亞洲四小龍不一樣。第一,亞洲四小龍的經濟基本上是自由經濟,香港有英國的背景,新加坡、南韓、台灣都有美國的背景,這就是說,新權威主義在政治上要受到來自經濟領域的某種制約。儘管它是一種專制主義,但還是有製約的,它要受到美國這麼大的民主國家的製約,國際上的製約,而這兩個條件在中國都沒有。你怎樣保證一個新權威主義在沒有製約的情況下,它的決策是正確的?如果台灣在經濟上的決策是錯誤的,那麼市場上就有問題,美國人在某些方面就不會允許它。一個權力總要有製約,新權威也有製約。台灣受到私有經濟的製約,在經濟領域中,私有財產就對國民黨有一個制約,這樣,中產階級才能夠在專制制度下不斷壯大起來。而中國現在沒有這個東西。中國現在儘管有個體戶,但是在憲法上產權問題沒有立法,這個問題就很可怕。中國也沒受到那麼強大的國際制約,中國的權力製衡在於國際形勢。現在算有一點制約了,它要跟外國人做買賣,就要服從世界經濟運行形式,就要接受國際規則的製約。在政治上也就要相對做出一些讓步,這對國內來講,也相對有一些好處。

    再有,我覺得在中國提倡新權威主義有一個特別不好的政治結果,鄧小平對趙紫陽的懷疑就與這個理論討論有關。從“ 河殤 ” 開始,儘管 “河殤 ” 不是趙紫陽搞的,但顯然在裡邊有很多為趙紫陽樹碑立傳的東西,所以 “ 河殤 ” 出來之後趙紫陽覺得它比較好,看了很喜歡。新權威主義如果光在國內提還不要緊,在港台報刊上,許多雜誌提出了新權威主義的實質是 “ 擁趙倒鄧 ” ,那麼鄧小平會怎麼想?趙紫陽有那麼多的政治對手,我想他們一定會使鄧小平藉這個東西來攻擊趙紫陽。你即使剛當上黨的總書記,也要把你踢開。那就是說,沒有 “ 六四 ” ,趙紫陽也會下台。我就覺得新權威主義這個東西的政治後果是非常非常不好的。( 記:你這是從新權威主義的直接的政治後果來說的,而不是從理論上說的。) 對。即便趙紫陽的權威給樹了起來,也不能保證趙紫陽當他統攬最高權力以後的決策是對的。因為他沒有台灣的那種決策的製衡機制。

    記:現在大陸學術界是不是還提新權威主義?

    曉:不大提了。但是國內學術界有一個共識,大家比較喜歡“ 和平演變 ” 這個詞。

    認為中國一要和平,二要演變,這個詞沒有任何反動的意義在裡面。(記:在海外民運中“ 和平演變 ” 這個詞也談得很多 ) 我沒有研究過新權威主義這個東西在理論上的意義,因為我覺得它的參照系本身不確定。中國的具體情況跟台灣等地不一樣,它們那些地方、國家都沒有經歷過共產黨那樣殘酷,那樣專制的四十年的統治,而且是全封閉的統治。我認為現在想用任何一種理論來解決中國問題很難,無論是經濟問題還是文化問題。大陸的情況變化太大,其中的可變因素太多太多。不僅在上層,而且在全國的各個層次中的人都不按規則出牌。比如說,它的所有的運行決策,都不是在法律範圍之內,甚至也不是在共產黨制定的法律範圍之內進行的,而全是憑一種私人關係在進行。這種遍布全國的網絡的可變因素實在太多,大家都不按理出牌。“ 六四 ” 這麼大一件事,共產黨開槍之後,全國馬上平定了,這在外國人來說是不可想像的。

    記:最近國內有些學者,如上海的蕭功秦提出了有別於“ 新權威主義” 的 “ 新保守主義 ” ,你對這個理論怎麼看?

    曉:這個東西從理論上講意義也不是太大。其實大家都明白,中國社會代價最小的演變道路是靠共產黨自身的改良。大家都知道這條道路,這是全社會的共識,大家要努力起來從各個方面促成共產黨的這種變化。

    記:何新這個人你還熟悉吧,國內學術界的“ 何新現象 ” 曾經引起過不少人的注意,你知道何新現在怎麼樣?

    曉:現在大陸基本上沒人提他了。我覺得何新這個人不管他怎樣撒彌天大謊,起碼有一點,這個人還是比較透明的。他幹什麼事,你都能知道他的目的是什麼,我稱何新這種人是撒謊都撒得極其透明。

    共產黨應當慢慢釋放老百姓的不滿

    記:對於這次全國人大、政協和國家元首的高級人事變動,尤其是集大權於江澤民一身,你有什麼看法?

    曉:沒有什麼特別大的看法。在鄧小平和陳雲沒有死以前,這些具體的人還沒有趙紫陽、胡耀邦時代那些人的自主權來得大。他們現在基本都是虛位,尤其是江澤民,集黨政軍權於一身,就更證明他沒有權。江澤民是個空位,你想想,他要是能夠掌握實權的話,那鄧小平怎麼可能放心把那些權力都交給他呢?這不是開玩笑嗎?江澤民將來肯定要倒台,越這樣越要倒台。他現在肯定沒有決策權力,甚至我可以說,他對中央決策的影響還不如喬石。將來他做得不好,可能會倒霉。

    記:如果共產黨上層的老人再死掉幾個,是不是會因為內部權力分配的不平衡而產生一種權力鬥爭,這樣,有一派就要來解決“ 六四 ” 問題,或者來拉攏一批人,這樣會造成什麼後果?

    曉:我所擔心的就是這個問題。“ 六四 ” 在中國的平反是早晚的事,但千萬不要突然一下子平反。如果上來一個人為了打這張牌,突然宣布平反,那麼在平反的時候他會得到民心,但在平反之後,局面他就控制不了,所有的洪水猛獸都會出來。而且,看看海外民運運作的情況,就可以想像到 “ 六四 ” 平反以後的情況。在一些人回國以後依據 “ 六四 ” 分配利益的時候,中國將更加可怕。那將是一個人肉戰場。最好的辦法是,共產黨假使聰明的話,在它穩定、可以控制政局的時候,它開始慢慢地釋放老百姓因為 “ 六四 ” 而積累的不滿情緒。比如起碼有幾批人,一批人就是以趙紫陽為代表的上層官僚,包括下層各個單位組織中因為 “ 六四 ” 而被撤職、被調離的人的重新安排。用這種方法來慢慢抒解人們的情緒。(記:就是用實際的而不是公開宣布的方式,不是用突然的方式平反) 再有一個就是對死難者的家屬,對受傷者的家屬這批人的安排。

    對於“ 六四 ” ,中國老百姓可以堅持一種和平、理性、非暴力的主張,更多的中國人,包括我自己在內所考慮的不是一種民主理論上的和平、理性、非暴力,而是一種安全的考慮。這樣一種安全的、非暴力的東西就值得研究。我看到的在 “ 六四 ” 時期的口號中,包括共產黨和學生互相之間的不妥協的東西,實際上是一種仇恨心理。互相為敵的心理。現在之所以從這裡演變出和平、理性、非暴力的東西是在特殊情況下的特殊產物。因為這個政權實在太強大了。使用暴力,你沒有辦法與它鬥,反而授它以口實。所以說,處於安全、策略的考慮是這樣。沒有一種民主的理念上的認識,認為民主是避免政權更迭中的暴力,可以說,沒有幾個人有這種信念。即便有這種聲音,也很微弱。

    記:你的意思是,人們之所以主張和平方式,主要是一種策略上的,吸取教訓之後的結果。

    曉:“ 六四 ” 特別可怕的是留下了一顆仇恨的種子。“ 六四 ” 平反以後,就我本身來說,也能比較理智地看待這些事情,不能對那些共產黨的人採取非人道的方式。但老百姓可不管,突然平反將是一種非常可怕的事情。所以共產黨現在就應該迅速地開始做,在它還穩定地控制大陸政權的時候,就要作這件事。等到老百姓的不滿洩發得差不多了,它再宣布平反。不過,現在還看不出它已經在這樣作了。但是鄧小平的南巡講話比他以往上台以後的任何一次講話都要激進。膽子都要大。包括八八年,他的講話也沒有像南巡講話那樣大膽。

    要下地獄,就不能抱怨黑暗

    記:你這次出來,當局對你有沒有什麼限制? 你在國外進行講演,接受采訪,在你回國會後會不會帶來什麼影響?

    曉:我這次出來前護照也辦了將近七、八個月,反正我現在是這麼想的,我自己在心裡感覺上是覺得沒什麼太大問題,但我不知道大陸情況會怎麼變,因為這個政權是個完全不按理出牌的政權,你不知道它什麼時候又變了。我這次回去以後還能不能讓我再出來,我也不知道。演講和採訪有沒有影響不知道,我既然做了,也就無所謂了。

    記:你是不是認為,你回國以後起的作用要比在國外更大?

    曉:我沒有說我回國起了什麼作用。我只是出於我自己的處境的考慮。我覺得我作那些事情可能更符合我的意願,我更舒服。我在哪裡生活得更舒服,我就要回到哪裡去。這裡沒有一個為中國的民主的起因。當然從另一個角度講,回國干任何一件具體的小事,都要比在國外成立那些民運組織有意義。而且這種民運組織還打來打去。

    記:你在大陸最困難的時候有沒有想過,要是八九年不回去的話,就可以避免這些困難了。

    曉:沒有,從來沒有想過。我從來就抱有這種觀念,要下地獄,就不能抱怨黑暗。何況,回大陸還不是下地獄。我更感到有些東西是非常廉價的,在大陸,在某種意義上講,一個人想揚名海內外,想取得成功,是非常容易的。輕易的成功會造成輕浮的幻像,成功者不知道自己為何物。你面對的對手,智商非常低下。它的愚蠢給你製造了許多莫須有的光環。大陸的英雄嚴格地講是共產黨製造的。你從學識、從人格、從各方面來說,並沒有什麼特別像樣的人。不必那麼自我膨脹和自我標榜,我覺得在這些事情上不能作這種自我標榜。

    記:你是把有些人的這種行為理解為自我標榜的方式。

    曉:對。這東西是肯定的。有人說假如給人們帶來了監獄、痛苦,他願意承擔;假如有一天歷史給這些人帶來了光榮的時候,他願意把誰的榮譽還給誰。我覺得人只能為自己承擔責任。其實為別人承擔責任,也都是瞎扯。而且“ 六四 ” 運動比較透明,沒有什麼官方不知道的東西,沒有什麼陰謀需要揭發。我覺得海外有人在猜疑, “ 六四 ” 以後大家互相揭發什麼的,根本沒有。因為大家都一清二楚,都是公開的。你假如說有什麼要隱瞞,牽涉到背後揭發些什麼,那就證明了學運中有一部分是陰謀,而這次運動恰恰沒有任何陰謀。

    記:請問你對王丹的這封公開信怎麼評論?

    曉:王丹是在這次學生運動中給我留下的印象非常好的人,是學生當中最好的一個。但是我看了王丹的這個東西,我有失望。我覺得“ 六四 ”已經過去那麼多年了,咱們不要再談你在那次運動中扮演的那個角色究竟怎麼樣?而他有一種心態,仍然把自己看作是全世界矚目的中心,仍然是中國民運的領袖。我之所以出於獄後不接受人們的採訪,就是因為人家肯定要問我那些事情。我覺得我不是那種角色,八九民運是大家忽然都趕上了,每個人充當了自己扮演的角色。事情過去了,將來的角色重新分配,你的這種自我感覺將來在心理上會承受不了的。再也沒有給你這種角色的機會了。另外,像 “ 對得起人民 ” 這種語言,完全是救世主式的語言,太恐怖。假如我要寫這封公開信的話,我就要反省,我作為這場學運的頭,我應該負什麼樣的責任。我們為什麼會導致共產黨開槍,學生在這一點上究竟作得怎麼樣?而不應該用這種氣壯山河的豪言壯語。

    記:你在你的書裡對吾爾開希批評得很嚴厲,出來後又為開希鳴不平。

    曉:當時在國內,我聽到關於開希的種種傳聞,很痛心。媒體當時那樣捧他,這本身就是不負責任。開希剛出國,你也拉他,我也拉他,現在又把他看作一錢不值。這裡邊有嫉妒心,有幸災樂禍的心理,不是與人為善。開希是有毛病,現在他有了很大進步,他能夠對自己的過失有反省,這在海外民運人士中很難得。有不少人反而把他當成過氣的人物。很不公平。

    記:不管怎樣,你們“ 四君子 ” 在造成廣場學生和平撤退這件事上,做的意義還是很大的。

    曉:在那種情況下,我們只能那樣做。“ 四君子 ” 這種提法莫名其妙,我不認同這種作法。週舵、高新、侯德健,我永遠稱他們是朋友。我們一起度過了那麼嚴峻的時刻,我們是生死之交。歷史不會再提供一次場合,把我們放在同一個情景中去考驗。不管將來怎麼樣,我特別珍視我們之間的友誼,但是我討厭 “ 四君子 ” 這種稱呼。

    記:如果你們當時幾個人不出去談判,你估計會有什麼後果?

    曉:如果不去談判,學生不撤走,後果不堪設想。天安門上還架著槍。而且跟我們談判的那個上校,非常明確告訴我們,如果你們勸不走學生,我勸你們四個先走。我們接到的是死命令,不惜任何手段,天亮前清場。

    “ 中春” 不要再用共產黨的那套語言

    記:曉波,在原先的美學和文學評論領域,你將來還有什麼打算?

    曉:其實在文學評論方面我寫的東西比較少。就有幾篇關於當代中國文學的評論,還有幾篇外國文學的東西。美學方面,就是我的博士論文《審美和人的自由》。剩下來,我主要是寫的哲學方面的。我將來很可能還要寫一些這方面的東西。

    記:作為我們的老讀者和老作者,請你給我們雜誌提一些意見,好嗎?

    曉:你們“ 中春 ” 發表十週年回顧的文章,如果把民主、自由的字眼去掉,跟共產黨紀念幾十週年的內容沒有區別。完全一樣,真可怕。“中春 ” 發表的那些對於形勢的什麼看法,也跟共產黨的形勢報告一樣。只要進入那個情景,就必然用那套語言。我搞大眾文化,就強調大眾文化新的語言對共產黨意識形態的顛覆作用。還有,不要老是請那麼幾個人寫文章了,寫不出什麼新東西了。

    記:謝謝你提出的如此直率的意見。


    ~~~~~~~
    《審美與人的自由》
    劉曉波1988年博士論文的主題
    論文的審查委員:王元化、高爾泰、謝冕⋯⋯
    1988年,幸虧有王元化⋯⋯,這也可以說是兩人一生中命運的交會啊。
    「第一次見到元化先生,是20年前的1988年,請元化先生出任我的博士論文答辯委員會主任。當初,本來抱著試試的態度去請,沒想到先生爽快地答應了。當時,反自由化運動的餘波還在蕩漾,教委主任何東昌對我讀博士頗為不悅,開始還不同意我進行論文答辯。在我的導師和北師大校方的力爭下,教委勉強同意答辯,但要審查聘請的答辯委員會成員。
    按當時的規定,博士論文答辯委員會的組成只需要六位教授,最初聘請的除了元化先生之外,還請了人大教授蔣培坤先生、四川師院教授高爾泰先生,《中國》月刊主編牛漢先生、復旦教授蔣孔陽先生、北大教授謝冕先生。但教委認為這些教授大都是自由化分子,要求必須增加四個他們認為“堅持馬列”的教授,於是答辯委員會增加了北師大教授張紫晨、社科院研究員吳元邁、華東師大教授張德林和人大教授鄭國詮。後來,因蔣孔陽先生骨折,只能送來論文的審閱意見而無法前來參加答辯,所以我論文答辯時,參加答辯的委員僅為九人。
    即便在答辯委員會摻了沙子,教委還是不放心,答辯當天專門派來兩人“旁聽”,著實讓我的導師捏了一把汗。但有元化先生的坐鎮,有前六位委員提交同意授予博士學位的審議書,後加入的幾位教授和教委派來的兩個人,在討論時都沒有提出反對意見,我的論文便順利通過。 」

    審美與人的自由

    “人是生而自由的,但卻無往不在枷鎖之中。”盧梭的這句名言道出了人類在現實世界中難以改變的宿命。

    客觀規律從不顧及人的主觀願望,或服從,或毀滅,人類別無選擇;物理法則總是以冰冷的面孔回敬人類的一腔熱血;而人類自身呢?人創造出社會,同時也把一張誰也無法掙脫的網套在自己身上;人有理智,但理智所製定的無數的規範、條例、標準、定理則常常將活脫脫的生命納入程式化的教條之中;人的物質慾望更每每使人拜倒在金錢與權勢的腳下……那麼,什麼是人之自由?在哪裡、以何種方式才能獲得自由?只要有,即便一瞬,也當以千古鬻之。環顧壁壘森嚴的宇宙,人類常常陷於悲觀絕望之中。而令我驚異的是,人類居然造就了能夠超越一切的一瞬,儘管它神秘而短暫,象夢一般去來無跡。然而,許許多多天才的心靈都將這短短的瞬間視為永恆,視為人類唯一能走向自由的捷徑。

    這就是審美。

    孔子是最講究規範的哲人,但他把“遊於藝”作為禮治天下的極致,把“暮春者,春服既成,冠者五六人,童子六七人,浴乎沂,風乎舞雩,詠而歸”的審美活動視為人生的峰巔境界。老莊反對任何規範,他們所追求的那種內心冥寂、與時而動、與物而化、無所不適的逍遙遊,本身就是一種審美的人生,忘懷一切者便超越一切。古希臘人崇尚如醉如狂的酒神,荒山上的縱舞歡歌使他們度過了無數個無憂無慮、完全沉浸的夜晚。尤其是當人類的覺醒發現自我異化之後,更把走向自由的希望寄於審美之中。康德用審美在不可逾越的現象與本體、知性與理性、科學與道德的對立之間架起了通道;席勒的一生是追求自由的一生,審美是他的最終歸宿;黑格爾循規蹈矩是舉世聞名的,但也不能不承認審美令人解放;馬克思認為人類異化的重要標誌之一便是審美能力的喪失,對異化的揚棄便是使人的一切活動都帶有審美的性質——自由選擇、自由的創造和自由的享受。叔本華、尼采、柏格森,弗洛伊德等人也都把審美作為人類衝破一切束縛、獲得心靈自由的精神活動。之所以如此,就在於審美是以情感為核心的全身心的綜合運動,它既是自願的又是能動的,是對人的本質的全面肯定。在審美中,主觀情趣可以超越客觀法則,感性動力可以超越理性教條,精神享受可以超越功利欲求,個體生命可以超越社會壓力。

    一

    審美的自由是主觀對客觀的超越。

    審美活動必須以每個人的自願為基礎,個人的主觀情趣是選擇客觀對象的標準。工人不能自己選擇機床,農民難以選擇土地,士兵只能拿到發下的武器,學生只能用規定的教科書……然而,當這些從事不同職業的不同的人進入審美領域之後,卻能獲得根據自己的主觀情趣進行選擇的充分自由。你修養濃厚喜歡“陽春白雪”的高雅,我目不識丁,欣賞“下里巴人”的通俗;你幽默風趣,自然愛看喜劇,我多愁善感,只為悲劇動情;你溫柔善良,留連往返於纖巧細膩的江南風光,我魯莽粗獷,一輩子與原始的大草原、戈壁灘為伴;你是堂堂男子漢,總是陶醉於長城的崇高之美,我是婷婷弱女子,常常沉浸於飛天式的陰柔之美;你已老態龍鍾,我初出茅廬,每每在現代風格中追逐未來的理想;你樂觀開朗,崇尚東方式的和諧,我悲觀內向。酷愛怪誕的描寫;……在審美中,一切都取決於審美對象的風格與審美主體的情趣有沒有內在的適應性。如果有,無名小卒的作品可以成為某個人的欣賞極致。如果無,第一流名家的代表作也只好另尋主人。也就是說,不是客觀對象規定主觀情趣,而是主觀情趣規定客觀對象。我可以對巴爾扎克的小說不屑一顧,我可以對畢加索的繪畫嗤之以鼻;杜甫的偉大無法要求每個讀者都推崇他的詩歌,而低級的審美情趣卻能使毫無深意的傳奇、武打、推理、色情等作品成為暢銷書。一旦人能夠完全按照自己的主觀意願去選擇客觀對象,人便超越了客觀法則,成為自我的主宰。甚至可以說,在審美欣賞活動中,主體審美情趣就是上帝,客觀的審美對象就是上帝的選民。

    如果說,審美的自由選擇還只是主觀超越客觀的低級層次的話,那麼,審美的自由再創造就是主觀超越客觀的高級層次了,閱讀一本科學著作,學習一個科學原理,讀者無權用個人的主觀世界去進行再創造,排除個人偏見是進行科學活動的必須前提。無論有多少人去學習幾何學,三角形的內角之和只能等於一百八十度,任何人也無法改變這一結論。但是在審美活動中,欣賞者有權根據個人的主觀世界去解釋藝術作品,正像藝術家有權按照個人的審美理想去改造客觀的現實生活一樣。一個藝術家決不能被動地模仿客觀現實,他必須用個人的審美趣味、藝術修養和藝術才華去擁抱、改造、昇華客觀現實,使藝術品帶有獨特的主觀印跡,對於藝術創作來說,這印跡越鮮明越好,真正的藝術品是不可重複的。同理,一個欣賞者決不能局限於作為客觀對象的藝術品,他必須調動整個心靈,通過審美的再創造達到對藝術品的超越,使欣賞活動成為欣賞者個人的活動。每個人都應該根據自己的經歷、常識、個性、情感傾向,充分發揮想像力,去改造和再造藝術形象。當千百位欣賞者走進同一個美術館、同一個劇場時,客觀的統一空間就會被分割成無數個主觀的個人空間,在這些不同的空間中所產生的藝術形象決不會雷同。世界上只有一幅《蒙娜麗莎》,但是,她那迷人的微笑卻能在欣賞者的再創造中染上千姿百態度色調,甜蜜的、明朗的、羞澀的、神秘的,甚至可能是憂鬱的。因此,欣賞活動所形成的審美意象,已不再是客觀的藝術形象了,而是欣賞者再創造出的心像。有多少不同類型的欣賞者,就有多少不同類型的林黛玉。而一旦人能夠用自我去再創造客觀對象時,主體的心靈就能得到充分的自由享受。

    二

    審美是感性動力對理性法則的超越。

    人的生命是一個充滿各種情慾的動力系統,但是並非一切活動都能使人的生命得到全部的發揮和滿足。比如,以理智為核心的科學活動就是以對人的某些心理動力的掏為前提的,任何科學成果都是建立在大量的古籍經驗的基礎之上的,但是,人的感知經驗中包含著許多錯覺,必須經過理智的分割、捨棄和抽象,才能上升為科學原理。因此,在科學活動中,感知經驗的原始性、整體性和具體性便統統被理智拋棄了,活生生的感知表象最後變成幾條乾巴巴的原理,幾個抽象的符號公式。情感雖然是人的一切活動的動力,沒有熱情就不會有對真理的追求,但是,客觀真正的取得必須以理智對情感的某種抑製完全排除為代價。因為情感的強烈主觀性常常使人歪曲客觀現實,以情感態度觀察世界的人,永遠不能成為科學家,在科學論著中絕少有情感的感染力。在某種意義上可以說,理智的客觀性、邏輯性和明晰性恰恰是與情感的主觀性、非邏輯性的朦朧性相對立的。想像是思想的翅膀,它為科學活動帶來了高瞻遠矚的預見性,愛因斯坦甚至說,要領是想像的自由創造。但是,想像在科學中的主要作用是給人以一種啟發,使科學家能夠擴展思路,想像的預見性在沒有經過科學實驗的證明以前只能是一種假說,沒有實際的客觀有效性。而且,想像的隨機性、跳躍性和幻覺性只是必須經過理智的過濾的。因為科學所要求的是明確的必然性、嚴謹的邏輯性、絕對客觀的真實性,這一切都是想像所無法勝任的。人的記憶是信息儲存庫,失去記憶的人就等於失去了一切。科學家往往具有驚人的記憶力。但是,記憶與人的理智、情感密切相關,可以劃分為理解記憶、機械記憶和情緒記憶。在科學活動中,主要依賴於理解記憶和機械記憶,而對情緒記憶是原始的、感性的、易變的,被記憶的事物經常由於人的情緒而在頭腦中產生變形,有時甚至變得面目全非。最後,人的無限豐富的潛意識、下意識領域也是科學思維很少光顧的,因為潛意識往往是人的原始慾望、情緒記憶、無意感知和隨機想像的別名,是與人的生命本體息息相關的深沉的夢。它是盲目的、混亂的、自發的,荒謬的,對於井井有條、小心謹慎的理智來說,它是最可怕的敵人,科學必須壓抑潛意識的爆發。由此可見,科學雖然為人類帶來了巨大的物質利益但是人類為此付出的代價同樣巨大,幾乎賠上整個的生命。所以,人類必須通過其它途徑來彌補這種損失。值得慶幸的是,彌補這種損失的審美活動一直伴隨著人類,其起源要遠遠早於科學。

    原始的神話、巫術和傳說,在今天的科學看來是那樣的幼稚可笑、虛假荒唐,但是它們卻體現著、凝結著人類最真實的情感,最誠摯的希望,它們是人類最真實的情感,最誠摯的希望,它們是人的全部生命力所迸發出的最早的火花,至今還照耀人類的心靈,是不可企及的、具有永恆價值的藝術典範。在審美活動中,被冷酷的理智宣判了死刑或長期監禁的感知、情感、想像、情緒記憶和潛意識,重新獲得了生命和自由,人的心靈像經歷了一次火山噴發和一次十級地震,一切都在燃燒,一切都在運動。審美活動的情感使人的感情登上了國王的寶座。情感不僅是審美活動的原始動力,而且貫穿於審美活動的全過程,凝結在審美活動的成果中。它使人的感知成為敏銳的、具有特定的目標感和穿透力的直覺,它使想像獲得了充足的動力、大致的方向性和整體性,它使記憶變成取之不盡的庫房,使潛意識得以毫無拘束的宣洩和抒發;審美活動的具體性和形象性使人的感知得到了全面的發揮,生動的表像從始至終伴隨著藝術家的欣賞者的思維過程,它引發記憶與想像,賦予看不見摸不著的情感以活生生的、新鮮的形像外觀;審美活動的虛構性和再創造性為人的想像力和情緒記憶提供了無限廣闊的時空,天南海北,過去、現在、未來,一任它們自由馳騁,一顆心在有限的空間和固定的時間中,可以包容無限的宇宙和永恆的時間,它們使情感展翅高飛,使各種表象凝結成完整的審美意象,使荒唐的幻覺和稍縱即逝的夢成為心靈的象徵,使人的精神世界超越有限,進入無限;最後,審美活動使人類 隱秘、最受壓抑的潛意識得到了心情宣洩的機會,通過充滿詩意的昇華,潛意識由黑暗走向光明、由內心走向現實。因此,審美的自由,不只是想像虛構的自由,在最根本的意義上,它是以情感為核心的人的各種心理功能的自由運動,是人的全部生命力的自由迸發,是人的本質的全面展開。

    同時,在理智所主宰的科學活動涉足的地方,到處都是欄柵,到處都是界限,一切都被劃分到互相對立的領域中。客觀現實與主觀經驗之間、人與自然之間、有機物與無機物之間、生命與非生命之間……其判別涇渭分明,人類的生活完全按照現實的空間和時間進行。這種分別雖然加深了人對自然規律的認識,增強了人對環境的適應能力,但是,由於科學與理智所肯定的僅僅是客觀的、物理的真實,所以,人類生命的內在真實,人類追求的天人合一的理想卻被無情地否定了。因此,人類就不能不在審美活動中重新尋回推動了的心靈和人與宇宙的和諧。在審美中,人類不必拘泥於幾何學中用點、線、面所固定的空間位置,不必遵守數學中精確的數字和時間,不必顧及物理學所證明的真實,不必相信化學對各種物質的分子結構的分析,更不必服從哲學所規定的主觀與客觀,人與非人的區別。在審美中,所有的對立都溶解了,所有的界限都消失了,精確的事物變得飄忽不定、神秘莫測,無生命的物理世界成為人的生命的象徵,靈活的、跳躍的、不間斷的意識流和心理時空代替了僵死了、固定的現實秩序和物理時空。“千山鳥飛絕,萬徑人踪滅”,“前不見古人,後不見來者,念天地之悠悠,獨愴然而涕下!”人的心靈在一瞬間的顫動就能夠包容宇宙,縱貫古今。一塊堅硬的冰冷的石頭就是一次意志的勃發,一彎曉月就是一縷或恬靜或哀怨的思緒,客觀自然因審美的觀照而成為主觀經驗的對立物,那些被理智否定了的錯覺和幻覺,又因情感的放射而獲得了真實的品格。來吧,荒唐的夢,你是從人類心靈的最深處透出的晨曦;飛吧,自由的想像,你負載著人類走向無限的理想;氾濫吧,大海般的情感,你將裹挾著人的一切,去沖決理智所設置的堤壩。

    三

    審美是精神享受對功利欲求的超越。

    人是在多樣化的動機的推動下不斷地向上追求的生物。任何動機的實現對於人來說都是一種滿足,一種享受。同時,由於人又是能夠意識到自身的內在需求的社會生物,自我意識賦予了人以豐富的精神生活,社會給予了人以復雜的關係。因此,人不同於動物,當生理的、物質的、實用的需要滿足後,人的生命便指向社會的、心理的、精神的、甚至是超實用的追求。現代心理學把人類的需求劃分為三大類:生理需要,包括衣食住行和安全,這是人最基本的生活動機;社會需要,包括人與人之間的關係和尊重(權力、地位和名譽等),這是人的自我擴張的動機;精神需要,包括求知、理解和審美。與對這些需要的追求及其滿足相關,人在各種不同的層次中進行著自我完成或自我實現。置身於大沙漠的旅人會把一片綠蔭、一窪清水視為宇宙的極致,瀕於餓死的乞丐會將一片麵包當作上帝,被性慾之火烤灼得不堪忍受的獨身者會把一位無比醜陋的異性視為王子或公主,一個迷失於暴風雨中的過客會把破爛的茅草棚當作宮殿。而政治家的理想是權力和地位,哲學家的追求是宇宙和人生的法則,宗教徒的生命獻給了上帝,科學家的滿足是自然規律的發現,企業家每天都在想著產品和利潤,藝術家的最高享受是探索人的心靈。以上種種需求,都會成為的生活動機,動機的實現又都是人的自我完成,但是,由於動機所處的層次不同,自我實現的質量也就不同,凡是與生理的、物質的需求相關的都是動機的低級層次,而與社會的,心理的,精神的需求相關的動機屬於高級層次。同時,人的動機又可以分成實用的或功利的,和非實用的或超功利的。無論是低級層次上的動機,還是高級層次上的動機,都能在相互的交叉中互相浸透。對他人的需要可能是出於相互利用的動機,也可能是出於肝膽相照的情誼;對異性的需求可能只是為了性慾的滿足,也可能是對美好感情的嚮往;求知欲中既可以有造福於人類的動機,也可以是狹隘的自私自利;權力欲中既可能潛含著瘋狂膨脹的野心,也可能是為民族的振興,人類的和平……但是,不論各種動機怎樣交叉,也不論是高級的還是低級的,在人類複雜的慾求中,除了審美需要之外,其他的慾求都難逃脫實用的或功利的目的。雖然功利心推動著人去追求、去探索、去行動、去冒險,但是,人又常常被功利心所束縛,成為物質的奴隸,金錢的信徒和權力犧牲品,從而使人的本質發生異化。

    這就是莊子之所以堅決否定人的功利欲求,提倡不為物役的人生觀的原因所在,也是席勒、黑格爾、馬克思等人否定金錢關係的原因之一。只有在審美中,人類才能在一段短暫的時間裡,視功名富貴如浮雲,徹底擺脫各種功利欲求對人的束縛,自由地來往於一個純淨的精神世界中。

    人一旦進入審美的領域,所有的功利心都會退避三舍,宇宙的人眼中發生著奇異的變化:巨浪、狂風、暴雨和荒涼的原始森林不再是對人的威脅和壓迫,而是粗獷有力、充滿野性的壯觀;松樹、怪石不再使人想到打家具、蓋房子,而是高潔堅貞的象徵;細柳、小溪、明月不再只具有實用價值,而是幽深寧靜的心境;水果畫的光澤所引起的不再是涎水,而是賞心悅目的快感;裸體雕塑所引起的不再是性慾,而是對勻稱、和諧和和力量的讚美;那些充滿鮮血、拼搏和毀滅的悲劇不再使人恐懼畏縮,而是令人產生或崇敬、或同情的心靈淨化;古老的建築不再只是辦公、居住、祈禱的場所,而是人類的智慧和理想的象徵;那一串串經過巧妙組合在一起的音符,不再是對生理的刺激,而是使人心神飄蕩、浮想聯翩。在審美中,實際上並非只有道德意義上的好與壞、善與惡、有用與無用的標準,而且還有超越道德評價的藝術標準——成功與不成功,美與不美。一部以偉大人物為題材的作品,決不能只因人物高尚道德價值而成為不朽的傑作,如果作品中充滿了概念化、公式化的描寫的抽象的道德說教,照樣引不起美感,欣賞者有權根據審美標準判這類作品以死刑。相反,一部以最卑鄙的人物為題材的作品,只要在藝術成功,能夠給欣賞者以充分的美感享受,照樣可以成為第一流的名作。野心勃勃的麥克白夫婦,心狠手辣的伏脫冷,五毒俱全的西門慶,明里一把火,暗裡一把刀的王熙鳳……這些道德上的惡棍,卻是不朽的藝術典範,具有永恆的審美價值。這就是審美的超越。過去,我們的評價西門慶這類藝術形象,往往認為它們的意義僅僅是通過對惡、對醜的否定來肯定善、肯定美。這完全是一種功利標準。如果從審美上看,這類形像不僅是對惡與醜的否定,而且它們本身不是美,是栩栩如生、血肉豐滿的藝術典型。審美,通過擴大人與功利欲求之間的距離,使人的心靈擺脫了物質的束縛,進入了自由的天地。在這裡,人類彷彿置身於一個沒有人蹟的世界,慾望消除了,抗爭平息了,一切都是那樣的和諧安寧,神秘飄渺,忘乎天、忘乎地,忘乎人,忘乎己,宇宙與人類的本來面目清晰地呈現在我們眼前,我們重又回到了純潔天真的孩提時代獲得了第二次生命:人如處子。

    四

    審美的自由是個體生命對社會壓力的超越。

    人,作為個體,生來就具有自我保存、自我發展的權力,這是大自然的恩賜。同時,人,作為類,又必須結成統一社會的整體,每個人都是社會的一部分,這樣,才能有效地抵禦大自然的侵襲。人與自然的關係是社會整體的類與自然的關係,是整體與整體之間的關係。人與社會的關係則是個體的人與整體的類之間的關係,是人類所面臨的最棘手、最複雜的矛盾。從古到今,東西方文化反复探討的核心問題之一,便是個人與社會的關係。西方文化是個人本位論,重視個人甚於重視社會,把每個個體的生存和發展視為社會的生存和發展的決定性前提,並以個人的幸福作為衡量社會制度是否合理的標準,合理的社會應該為個體的自我發展提供最大的可能性與現實性,否則便是不合理,這也是西方諸國為什麼能由封建社會全面進入資本主義社會原因之一。因此,西方人更強調個人與社會的對立和衝突,這種衝突是貫穿全部西方藝術史的中心主題之一。東方文化是社會本位論,重視社會高於重視個人,把社會的生存和發展視而不見為每個個體的生存和發展決定性前提,並以社會整體的利益作為衡量個人價值的標準,有價值的個人不是道德發展自我,而是最充分地使自我適應於社會整體的要求,否則便是無價值。因此,東方人更強調個人與社會的統一和和諧,這種和諧和是貫穿全部東方藝術史的中心主題之一。而最合理的答案應是東西文化的融合——既有個人的充分發展又有社會的普遍進步,使個人與社會都達到完全符合人性的和諧和境界。

    然而,人類發展到今天,雖然經歷過幾種社會制度的變遷,雖然人類已擁有了航天、電子、原子、激光等尖端科學,但是個人與社會之間的矛盾仍然十分尖銳。西方現、當代的思想家、藝術家迷茫於“我是誰”這一古老而又常新的問題,再一次提出“尋找自我”的口號。東方人還因沿襲著封建時代所遺留的重負,難以發揮出個人的內在潛力。在現今的世界上,社會對個人的壓抑與束縛,人與人之間的競爭的拼搏,仍以新的形式繼續著。

    值得慶幸的是,儘管個人在現實生活的各種領域內很難超越社會之網,但是,人類始終通過審美來達到這種超越。西方人以驚心動魄的悲劇向社會發出一次次激烈的反抗的挑戰,東方人以和諧寧靜的喜劇來安撫創傷累累的心靈。前者是天崩地陷的時刻,是現實中你死我活的戰場,任何人都可以在絕望中仰天長嘯,孤注一擲,進行最後的拼搏,審美活動最忠實於人個性,人的感性生命和人最豐富最深邃的主觀精神世界,藝術創作為許多天才提供了按照個人的獨特個性去表現人的全部生命欲求的權力,藝術欣賞為一切人提供了按照個人的審美情趣去宣洩所有的內心隱秘的權力,我們在日常生活中不可能或不願意向他人、甚至親人透露的靈魂之光,可以在審美中自由地閃耀。沉默的審美對像是欣賞者心心相印的朋友,只要你喜歡它,它就親近你,甚至能夠與你融為一體,成為你生命的一部分。它從不對你進行任何干擾,只是默默地打開你的心扉,掃除一切由外在因素強加於你束縛,使你被社會權力、社會輿論和自我理性掠奪到心靈最深處的一切得以獲得自由的傾吐。在太陽、明月和星光下,在高山、大海和野草邊,在音樂廳、展覽館和影劇院,在一部小說和一首詩歌前,你可以無拘無束地訴說你的悲哀,噴洩你的憤怒,抒發你的喜悅,以及一切羞於啟齒的卑下的慾望和可恥的動機,從而使你更清醒地認識社會、人生、自我、宇宙。審美,交給強者一桿叛逆的旗幟,賜予弱者一張逃亡通行證,也把一面明鏡子塞到卑鄙者的手中。而這一切,都是沒有任何人的干預下進行的。通過藝術品這一無生命的中介,有血有肉的藝術家與欣賞者的心靈對話可以超越一切。

    同時,審美創造和審美欣賞的虛構性和超功利性,既昇華了藝術家的表現,使審美對象具有了能夠為社會允許的迷人的外觀,又淨化了欣賞者的心靈,使審美主體具有了遊戲者的身份,既然藝術都是虛構的,藝術家就有權進行自由的創造,那些殘酷的毀滅,那些淒慘的命運,那些怪異的性格,那些飄渺的意境……通通都是假的,只是叫人一時開開心,誰會真正地相信他們?既然藝術欣賞是超功利的遊戲,欣賞者就有權進行自由的選擇,那些嘆息和眼淚,那些興奮和狂喜,那些共鳴和深思……不過是一時衝動,一旦回到現實中,全部煙消霧散,沒有實用的目的的娛樂不會傷害任何人。人類,智慧而狡黠的人類,居然能為自己開墾出一片如此神奇的土地,在這裡,虛假與真實、遊戲與嚴肅、超功利與深入靈魂一起生長,構成一株永遠翠綠的參天大樹。它的尖頂,直指可望而不可企及的天邊外;它的根鬚,深扎進腳下的大地。它使人超越一切,又使人深入一切。

    美,自由的象徵。審美,自由的運動。通過美與審美,人的本質得到全面肯定,人的創造力得到充分發揮,人的生命得到徹底解放,儘管這一切在當今的世界中還僅僅是廓大宇宙中的有限空間,漫漫的人生道路上的短暫的瞬間,然而,人類的進步將把越來越多的時空交給審美,對美的追求正漸漸地滲透到人類生活的一切領域中去。審美的時空因電影的出現而得到了前所未有的拓展;大自然因人類的高度文明和交通的發達而獲得了日益豐富的審美素質;冰上舞蹈,水上體操,花樣跳傘、健美運動,在過去僅僅為增強體質的體育運動中,分化出越來越多的供人審美的項目;食品、服裝、建築、機械、運輸工具、廣告、包裝……無數種在過去僅僅是為了滿足人的物質需求的商品,現已不同程度地走向審美;勞動保護已經不只是為了安全生產,而是在不同的程度上為了人的心理健康;越來越多的人不再局限於功利需求的滿足,而是尋求審美的享受;交響樂、芭蕾舞、戲劇不再只屬於少數高雅人士,收錄機、電視機把貝多芬、鄧肯和莎士比亞送到了普普通通的千家萬戶。也許真有一天,人類的所有產品、所有活動都走向了審美化和藝術化,那麼,人的自由也就得到了真正的實現。

    人類最早的自由創造是神話,人類最終的自由創造仍是神話,前者是人類的理想,是自由的象徵,後者是人類的現實,是自由的實現。因為,生命的極致是審美,而審美的極致是神話。

    ↧
    Search

    儒家三部曲:《中國歷史人物論集》 Confucian Personalities, Confucian Personalities/《儒家思想的實踐》Confucianism in Action

    July 15, 2017, 7:19 pm
    ≫ Next: 狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017)《儒家的困境》The Trouble with Confucianism
    ≪ Previous: 採訪劉曉波 1993;審美與人的自由
    $
    0
    0
    《中國歷史人物論集》由中研院中美學人社科合作委員會 / 台北:正中書局發行, 1973
    翻譯自Arthur F. Wright and. Denis Twitchett, eds., Confucian Personalities (StanfordUniversity Press) ,1962


    《中國歷史人物論集 耶律楚材(1189-1243):佛家的理想主義和儒家的政治》台北:正中,1973,頁257-97 (翻譯自Arthur F. Wright and. Denis Twitchett, eds., Confucian Personalities (Stanford University Press) , 1962)

    Confucian Personalities. Ed. Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett [Stanford Studies in the Civilization of Eastern Asia; Stanford University Press, 1962]. Pp.x, 411. US$8.75.


    《中國歷史人物論集》
    目次
    前言
    譯者小序
    價值角色人物 Arthur F. Wright, "Values, Roles, Personalities" 1-27
    中國傳記的幾個問題 28-45
    顏之推 (531-591後): 一個崇佛的儒者 46-78
    唐代文人集傳 79-103
    陸贄(754-805):皇帝的顧問和朝廷的官吏 104-61
    王庚武“馮道—論儒家的忠君思想”頁162-98。
    岳飛傳:一個傳奇人物的傳奇故事 199-218
    朱熹的政治生涯一項內心衝突 219-56
    耶律楚材(1189-1243):佛家的理想主義和儒家的政 257-97
    賈似道(1213-75) 一個邪惡的亡國承相298-324
    淡於政治而熱衷藝術的董其昌(1555-1636) pp. 355-408:  “Tung Chí-cháng: Apathy in Government and Fervor on Art” By Nelson Wu, 
    康有為(1859-1927)—他的知識背景和早期思想 409-40
    廖平及其與儒家歷史的脫節441-52


    -----

    耶魯中國史教授芮瑪麗(Mary C. Wright 1917-1970)指點迷津,她勸他研究中國史。

    以《中國保守主義的最後據點:同治中興,一八六二─一八七四》一書揚名學界的芮瑪麗和她的丈夫芮沃壽(Arthur F. Wright 1913-1976),同為耶魯中國研究的兩張王牌,與哈佛的費正清鼎足而立。

    Confucianism in Action - Google 圖書結果

    David S. Nivison, Arthur F. Wright - 1959 - History - 390 頁
    AN ANALYSIS OF CHINESE CLAN RULES: CONFUCIAN THEORIES IN ACTION The purpose of this paper is to examine the clan rules in Chinese genealogies from the ... 

    The Confucian persuasion - Google 圖書結果

    Arthur F. Wright - 1960 - History - 390 頁
    Arthur 7. Wright SUI YANG-TI: PERSONALITY AND STEREOTYPE Yang Kuang (569-618), who ruled as Yang-ti of the Sui, is of interest to the student of Chinese ...


    中國哲學資料中心外文系列
    一、作者姓名與著作名稱:案:《儒家思想的實踐》孫隆基譯,中山學術文化基金董事會編譯/台灣商務印書館發行,1980
    NIVISON, David and Arthur Wright, eds. Confucianism in Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959. (尼米森與賴特 (編),《儒家思想的實踐》《儒家思想之實踐》)
    二、篇幅:共390頁 (序言2頁,目錄1頁,正文331頁,註釋39頁,索引16頁)
    三、主題:儒家思想之考察,儒家思想於社會、制度層面影響之分析,儒家思想於日本德川、明治時代發展之考察
    四、關鍵辭:儒家思想、日本德川時期、日本明治時期、范氏義莊、中國監察制度、和珅、元田永孚
    五、年代:先秦至民國,日本德川、明治時期
    六、主要論點:請見尼米森之〈導論〉。
    七、目次:
    第一篇尼米森,〈導論〉(David S. Nivison, “Introduction.”)
    第二篇狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-)〈理學家中的一些共同趨勢 (儒家思想之一些共同傾向)〉(Wm. Theodore De Bary, “Some Common Tendencies in Neo-Confucianism.”)

    狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017)(舊譯:狄百瑞),

    第三篇施華慈,〈儒學思想中的一些兩極性(儒家思想之諸極)〉(Benjamin Schwartz, “Some Polarities in Confucian Thought.”)
    第四篇劉王惠箴,〈中國族規的分析:儒家理論的實行(中國族規分析:儒家理論之實踐)〉(Hui-Chen Wang Liu, “An Analysis of Chinese Clan Rules: Confucian Theories in Action.”)
    第五篇推傑,〈范氏義莊:1050-1760 (范氏義莊:公元1050年至1760年)〉(Denis Twitchett, “The Fan Clan’s Charitable Estate, 1050-1760.”)
    第六篇楊慶堃,〈中國官僚行為的一些特色(中國官僚行為之特徵)〉(C. K. Yang, “Some Characteristics of Chinese Bureaucratic Behavior.”)
    第七篇劉子健,〈中國史學中的一些官僚的分類(中國史料編纂中之官僚分類)〉(James T. C. Liu, “Some Classifications of Bureaucrats in Chinese Historiography.”)
    第八篇賀凱,〈儒家思想與中國的監察制度(儒家思想與中國監察制度)〉(Charles O. Hucker, “Confucianism and the Chinese Censorial System.”)
    第九篇尼米森,〈和珅與他的控訴者:十八世紀的意理以及政治行為(和珅及其控訴者:十八世紀之意識型態與政治行為)〉(David S. Nivison, “Ho-shen and His Accusers: Ideology and Political Behavior in the Eighteenth Century.”)
    第十篇列文森,〈遺跡的建議性:儒家思想以及君主制度的末路(遺跡之暗示性:儒家思想與末代君主政體)〉(Joseph R. Levenson, “The Suggestiveness of Vestiges: Confucianism and Monarchy at the Last.”)
    第十一篇 霍爾,〈德川時代日本的儒家導師(日本德川時代之儒師)〉(John Whitney Hall, “The Confucian
    Teacher in Tokugawa Japan.”)
    第十二篇 史佛利,〈元田永孚:明治天皇的儒家講師(元田永孚:明治天皇之儒家國師)〉(Donald H. Shively,
    “Motoda Eifu: Confucian Lecturer to the Meiji Emperor.”)
    八、內容摘要:
    第一篇為尼米森所撰之〈導論〉(David S. Nivison, “Introduction.”)
    「儒家」究竟為何?這是作者首先提出的問題。作者表示,若要能針對此問題回應,就必須先指出何者為「非儒家」。首先,尼米森做出「儒家的」與「中國的」這 兩者的分別,他認為,道家、法家、某些佛教派別等都可以稱為「中國的」,可是絕非儒家。再者,尼米森強調「新儒家」和「儒家」的思想,都包含了多種互相衝 突之詞,而此多樣性多是由社會、政治現實所引起,並且是為了適應人類不同問題和活動而生。尼米森表示,這些多樣性的探究,正是此論文集所包括的文章所探討 的主題。

    第二篇為狄百瑞所撰之〈新儒家思想之一些共同傾向〉(Wm. Theodore De Bary, “Some Common Tendencies in Neo-Confucianism.”)
    本文旨在試圖對「新儒家」作一定義與描述。作者提出,在中國和日本,儒家思想與政治力量間,是有緊密之關係。然而儒家思想之角色卻絕不僅作為「政府之官方 工具」而已。作者在舉出一些例子後表示,事實上中國統治者多半在意儒家思想是否「危及統治的態度」,而較不在意的是與政治態度無關、純粹思想上的不同立 場,並且於日本,情況亦類於此。由此可見,於傳播、維繫、構作儒家思想上,中國或日本皇室所扮演之角色,可以說並不重要。舉例來說,新儒家思想於士大夫階 層興起之時,恰為朝廷不悅其發展之時:於南宋,朝廷並未支持程朱哲學,然而程朱哲學卻發展快速。由此可見:新儒家思想之內部實自有改造、自我維繫之力量與 內在生命,以致於可與國家控制力量相抗衡。
    然而新儒家思想生生不息力量之底層又為何?作者認為「基礎論」乃為新儒家思想之根本,此外,新儒家思想亦有復興面臨衰亡命運之信念體系之傾向,亦即有復古 傾向。除此之外,「具歷史傾向」、理性主義以及人本主義亦為新儒家思想之特徵。不過,在中國和日本,雖然儒家具有理性主義以及經驗主義之特徵,然而此二特 徵卻未獲進一步發展。究其原因,概是因為儒家思想中的理性特質,事實上比較傾向於道德秩序,並且與其說「格物」乃是指與自然科學相關之實驗或探究,不如說 「格物」實為對道德問題之探究。

    第三篇為施華慈所撰之〈儒家思想之諸極〉(Benjamin Schwartz, “Some Polarities in Confucian Thought.”)
    本文主旨在於以「極點」此一隱喻處理儒家思想之許多重要主題。作者認為理解儒家思想時,不能以二分法對儒家思想進行處理,因為對大部分的儒家思想家而言,思想中的概念並非相對,而是互補且不可分離的概念。然而,隨著時代演進,思想家亦開始體認此等概念間所存在之緊張關係。
    舉例來說,於《大學》與《論語》中,我們雖可見「修身」、「治國平天下」乃一個不可分割之整體的兩個構成部份,但是後期學者卻開始質疑「修身」是否即可以 達到「治國平天下」?而此即是北宋時期王安石與政敵爭論之焦點。然而無論是王安石或是其政敵,皆未拒棄「修身」、「治國平天下」的任何一極,而僅是指控另 一方的偏於一極。
    除此之外,作者還舉出「內」與「外」、「知」與「行」兩組在儒家思想中的兩極概念。但是作者認為,這些概念雖然兩極,之間卻仍然不是互相對立的關係。
    第四篇為劉王惠箴所撰之〈中國族規分析:儒家理論之實踐〉(Hui-Chen Wang Liu, “An Analysis of Chinese Clan Rules: Confucian Theories in Action.”)
    本文主旨在於由儒家思想之實踐層面探討中國族譜中之族規。首先,作者認為族規的目的在於,讚揚有德行為與譴責偏差行為,且強調的重點為:一、強調親族有序、和諧之理想,二、強調親族間恰當身分關係之遵守。
    作者繼而探討族規所含之價值架構。作者首先指出:族規中之價值架構乃教義與實際經驗調和後之產物,至於其調和過程則可分下列四面相:一、族規之意識型態構 成成分。作者認為在此等意識型態之構成成分中,儒家教義並非唯一構成成分。二、國家之影響。三、士大夫之影響。四、族規對社會習俗之反應。
    然而族規中之儒家教義又為何?作者指出,於族規所引用之古籍中,最重要者,非《禮記》莫屬,至於其他諸如《儀禮》、《周禮》、《爾雅》等論「禮」之古籍,以及《孝經》、《論語》等,亦屬重要。
    作者繼而提出,清廷對宗族所採取的態度為:希望宗族於既有架構下促進道德教育,卻不樂見宗族具有太大影響力。因此對宗族大體來說是為接受。
    至於士大夫於族規中對儒家價值之詮釋,則乃結合理論與實際層面之結果。對此,吾人可考量下列五個領域中士大夫對儒家價值之詮釋:父母與子女之關係、兄弟間 之關係、婚姻關係、宗族關係、社群關係與朋友關係。值得一提,作者提出對「孝」此一價值,族規另有現實主義之考量:父母之權威雖至高無上,然卻非絕對之權 威。
    作者的結論為:以族規為起點,吾人可見一端為族規對儒家理論之修正,至於另一端則為族規對一般人民之影響。此處,作者舉出Redfield所主張之「大傳統」與「小傳統」來說明。
    第五篇為推傑所撰之〈范氏義莊:公元1050年至1760年〉(Denis Twitchett, “The Fan Clan’s Charitable Estate, 1050-1760.”)
    本文係以中國「宗族共有財產」為探討焦點。於近代,宗族共有財產乃維繫宗族統一以及宗族成員社會地位之重要手段。然而值得注意者,則為「緊密宗族」實為宋代之產物,而儒家家族主義之極端展現,亦始自新儒家學者之主張。
    在文章中段,作者指出「義田」或「義莊」是宗族共有財產中最重意的制度,並且也針對此一部分的歷史進行詳盡的說明。於結語的部分,作者指出由范氏宗族之歷 史,吾人即可見諸如「宗族穩定性」與「宗族延續性」等傳統中國社會之特色。但是因為中國繼承制度,以及宗族要透過官職維繫社會地位日趨困難,因此宗族開始 分裂,並且其統一性也慢慢被破壞。但是即使如此,作者認為義莊實有將宗族意識制度化之作用。
    第六篇為楊慶堃所撰之〈中國官僚行為之特徵〉(C. K. Yang, “Some Characteristics of Chinese Bureaucratic Behavior.”)
    本文主旨在於探究中國官僚制度之主要特徵。
    作者首先指出:中國官僚制度係於一社會體系下發展,該社會體系係以分佈之社會模式、地方自給自足、地方同質而國家異質、對基本團體與密切人際關係之強調, 以及對非正式之道德秩序之強調等為主要特色,且儒家意識型態之形成,亦與此等主要特色息息相關。就此意義下,作者認為傳統中國係由兩種主要成分所構成,一 為強調中央化、標準化、形式化之國家官僚上層結構,另一則為以道德指向之社會秩序以及非正式基本團體為基礎之下層、異質性地方社群。為對官僚行為產生影 響,此等下層、異質性地方社群常試圖修改官僚結構之運作。作者認為,官僚制度係以「形式主義之無私」為強調重點,然而中國官僚行為卻受到一般社會體系之壓 力,其結果,則為非形式、私人之行為模式於形式主義之架構中發展。
    第七篇為劉子健所撰之〈中國史料編纂中之官僚分類〉(James T. C. Liu, “Some Classifications of Bureaucrats in Chinese Historiography.”)
    作者首先指出:近代學者多習以社會源流、地域、經濟地位、階級利益或思想學派以為中國官吏作分類,然而中國歷史學家卻習以官吏之政治行為為分類標準。本文 主旨即在於由儒家經典中之理想人物、歷史作品以及「政書」、「類書」中之官吏行為為探究焦點,並將焦點集中於宋朝之官吏,以分析中國史學中之官僚分類。
    作者透過對上述類型的作品探究,發現不同的作品對官吏的分類標準也有所不同。以《隨/隋?書》和「類書」來論,「類書」的分類標準較傾向現實主義,而《隨書》則傾向儒家的思想。
    此外,作者繼而探討文官則例中之官員考績於各朝代之變遷情形。總而言之,就「功能品質」與「道德品質」二者而論,中國歷代對官員之評價,乃較強調官員之功能品質,至於道德品質則僅為行為最低限度之標準。
    第八篇為賀凱所撰之〈儒家思想與中國監察制度〉(Charles O. Hucker, “Confucianism and the Chinese Censorial System.”)
    本文主旨在於探究中國之監察制度,並特以明代之監察制度為探究焦點。作者指出:中國監察制度之目的不在於控制私人出版、娛樂,而乃政府對自身之有組織、有 系統之自律行為,並以規勸、責問為其職責。對此,作者認為監察制度之存在,實展現了法家思想中對國家組織之看法,而監察制度之功能實為法家思想之展現。然 而另一方面,監察制度亦使君王意志之不可侵犯性產生動搖,就此而論,此實顯現出儒家思想之影響。另一方面,就概念層面上,相較於與法家思想間之關係,進諫 之監察功能實與儒家思想有較為密切之關係。總之,中國的監察制度融合了儒家以及法家的色彩,也可以說是以互不協調之意識型態前提為基礎之產物。
    第九篇為尼米森所撰之〈和珅及其控訴者:十八世紀之意識型態與政治行為〉(David S. Nivison, “Ho-shen and His Accusers: Ideology and Political Behavior in the Eighteenth Century.”)
    本文主旨在以清代和珅為探究起點,以進一步探究清代時統御君臣關係之意識型態。自古以來,人們皆認為臣子必須直言君王所犯之過錯;若君王不採納,則臣子即 須面對、接受死亡。就統治者方面觀之,良好的統治者則須吸引良臣為之服務,並允許良臣直言。但是作者認為,儒家思想的吊詭之處,在於對「忠」的概念認知, 很少以行為有效性的考量相伴而生,所以從儒家的思想來看,他們的對敵,往往都會與名、利的卑鄙鬥爭脫不了關係。同樣的,清廷對黨派之看法也是如此。此外, 十八世紀清朝皇帝發現:高舉帝王威嚴、限制臣子角色,乃有利於統治之舉措;因此儒家之君、臣理想,實無立足之地。就此觀之,作者認為:官員實不可能起而舉 發和珅之結黨貪污,蓋此等指控實無異於暗示皇帝之無能,且亦暗示皇帝之統治已為「黨派」所侵蝕。
    第十篇為列文森所撰之〈遺跡之暗示性:儒家思想與末代君主政體〉(Joseph R. Levenson, “The Suggestiveness of Vestiges: Confucianism and Monarchy at the Last.”)
    本文旨在探究民國以來儒家思想與帝制之演變。於清末,儒家思想已儼然成為現代思想之敵。現代化即意味對傳統中國行事方式之廢棄,其結果,則為終止其統治中 國之合法性。兩相權衡之下,清廷只得試圖以足夠之現代化以保護其傳統地位,而另一方面又強化儒家思想,以達燈盡油枯之境。最後儒家思想即成為反革命之符 號。民國既起,儒家思想即一變而以稀薄化之形式出現,亦毫不偏差的倒向任何有成功希望之帝制運動,袁世凱之稱帝即是一例。
    第十一篇為霍爾所撰之〈日本德川時代之儒師〉(John Whitney Hall, “The Confucian Teacher in Tokugawa Japan.”)
    本文主旨在於由日本德川時代儒師之生平、思想、行動與政治、社會現象間之關聯為緯,以便進而探究儒師與武士間之關係。作者認為儒家思想之所以能於德川時代 成為官方顯學,乃是由於十六世紀日本社會政治與思想轉變之結果:十六世紀日本之社會秩序,實類似於中國周代之情況,而周代即為儒家出現之時代。為此,藤原 惺窩實為日本此一時代由佛轉儒之過渡人物,而此一轉變最後則由林羅山所完成。至十七世紀中葉,儒者已大獲肯定,並於新的政治、社會秩序中提供必要的服務。 大體而言,儒者所提供的服務計有下列四項:一、作為儀禮家、哲學家與道德家,二、作為儒家文獻之權威,並於政府事務上提供意見,三、作為基本教育文獻之掌 門人,並承擔教育發展之重任,四、作為學者與作者,並成為文化活動中受人尊敬的領導者。
    此外,作者繼而探究儒者與武士之關係。對此,作者指出兩點:一、儒者並不希望日本之完全中國化,而僅希望利用中國之智慧而使德川社會變得更好。二、由於儒 家並無如佛教般具有制度上之獨立性,因此儒者實有賴於其所服務社會之贊助與支持。因此在武士心中,較之於職業儒者,儒家思想更受尊崇;儒家思想必須受尊 崇,至於儒者則為可以利用之人。至於就武士之政府與儒者之關係而論,作者指出:甚少儒者能於政府中佔有穩定、安全之職位,蓋儒者於政府中職位之保有,多賴 封建政府之私人恩惠)。
    最後,作者則探究德川末期儒者之特徵。拜儒者之賜,經德川時代漫長之歲月洗禮,日本領導人已成為受良好教育、理性之人,亦成為深受儒家思想影響之人。但是,於德川末期,中國學問之優越性亦遭質疑,其結果,則為武士對儒家思想之開始懷疑。公元1853年後於日本所發生之國家危機,則使儒者力量之大部份轉為其弱點:儒者之世界觀為民族主義之「國家體」所取代,其「科學」為西方科學所取代,至於儒者之教育體系,則亦遭侵蝕。儒者所剩者,則僅為社會倫理此一領域,而社會倫理此一領域即為儒者為明治新時代所帶來之古老殘餘。
    第十二篇為史佛利所撰之〈元田永孚:明治天皇之儒家國師〉(Donald H. Shively, “Motoda Eifu: Confucian Lecturer to the Meiji Emperor.”)
    公元1868年 日本皇室政治權力之恢復,使日本投入了現代化、西方化之進程。此後二十年內,日本即由封建國家轉變為一具歐洲模式之現代國家。這樣的結果,造成對儒家世界 觀、經典之全盤拒斥;儒學一變而成為封建時代野蠻習慣、鎖國無知之標誌。然而於日本現代化發展中,儒家思想與神道教等傳統觀念仍扮演重要角色,對此,作為 明治天皇國師與私人顧問之元田永孚,實為其中之靈魂人物。
    作者繼而以元田永孚之思想為探究焦點。元田永孚認為天地之初之唯一和諧原理即為「誠」,此後則衍生出陰陽五行,因此所有人類性質皆由自然法則而來。人性本 善,然而後世私欲覺醒,因此吾人即須受道德教訓,以便發展本性中之內在良善;而為了闡明倫理,吾人即須對「道」有所闡明。為此,吾人僅能於孔子之著述中探 求,因此孔子之著述即須為天皇、大臣與所有人民之教育基礎。於學習上,學習之方法必須具「實學」色彩,至於學習之目的則為「致良知、去私欲、明人倫、存天 理」。然而日本之「道」究竟與孔子之「道」由何不同?對此,元田永孚認為於堯舜之世,父子關係乃五倫之首,然而由於日本之天皇乃由女始祖所出,因此日本之 「道」遂由君臣關係開始。由此可見元田永孚調和日本本土傳統與儒家思想之痕跡。
    以此等信念出發,元田永孚遂以「培養天皇之德」為其主要關注焦點,並且主張宮廷必須與政府合而為一。除此之外,作者也進一步的論述了元田永孚在國事上對君主的建議,並且也都是以儒家的思想作為建議的出發點。
    最後作者表示,元田永孚逝世之時,深信其於強化天皇制度與重建儒家倫理此兩方面,皆已獲得成功。然而元田永孚心目中之儒家思想早已名存實亡;繼之而起者,則為日本之漸成為一現代帝國主義國家,而天皇制度亦逐漸成為此一現代帝國主義國家之意識型態基礎。
    九、附註:本書另有中譯本,詳見《儒家思想的實踐》,尼微遜等著,孫隆基譯,台北:台灣商務印書館,民國六十九年初版。
    ↧

    狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017)《儒家的困境》The Trouble with Confucianism

    July 15, 2017, 8:38 pm
    ≫ Next: 狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017) 中國的自由傳統
    ≪ Previous: 儒家三部曲:《中國歷史人物論集》 Confucian Personalities, Confucian Personalities/《儒家思想的實踐》Confucianism in Action
    $
    0
    0

    Wm Theodore de Bary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wm_Theodore_de_Bary

    William Theodore "Ted" de Bary (born August 9, 1919), is an American sinologist and East Asian literature scholar who serves as John Mitchell Mason Professor ...

    台灣第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」頒予美國哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授、漢學家狄百瑞(William Theodore de Bary)教授,表彰其為儒家思想研究所作的貢獻與影響。唐獎委員會認為:作為中國思想史專家,他對中國儒家思想有深刻的理解與闡掦,也不乏誠懇的批評,功在國際儒學的研究,可謂一代漢學巨擘。




    狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-)

    美百歲漢學家狄百瑞獲唐獎第二屆漢學獎
    台灣第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」頒予美國哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授、漢學家狄百瑞(William Theodore de…
    TRAD.CN.RFI.FR|作者:RFI 華語 - 法國國際廣播電台




    (中央社記者陳至中台北20日電)第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」今天頒給美國學者狄百瑞,他將中國儒學介紹到西方,帶領學者翻譯大量經典,並主張東西文化互相借鏡,儒學精神可彌補西方主流價值的不足。

    唐獎基金會公布的得獎理由是,「表彰他為儒家思想的研究所作的貢獻。狄百瑞(William Theodore de Bary)將近70年的學術生涯中,編寫過將近30冊書,其中有許多部具有突破性的貢獻和影響。對儒家思想每有同情的理解與闡揚,也不乏誠懇的批評,功在國際儒學的研究,可謂一代漢學巨擘。」1050620

    唐獎漢學獎 國際儒學先驅狄培理 (狄百瑞)

    唐獎漢學系列報導1

    (中央社記者陳至中台北20日電)第二屆唐獎漢學獎頒給美國哥倫比亞大學退休教授狄百瑞,他是國際儒學先驅,關注中國傳統思想中的自由、民主觀念,對儒學有闡揚之功,也不乏誠懇的批評。


    唐獎評選委員會總召集人李遠哲(中)20日公布第二屆 唐獎漢學獎得主,美國學者狄培理(狄百瑞William Theodore de Bary),他將中國儒學介紹到西方,帶領學者翻譯 大量經典,並主張東西文化互相借鏡,儒學精神可彌補 西方主流價值的不足。 中央社記者鄭傑文攝 105年6月20日

    現年97歲的狄培理(William Theodore de Bary),於1953年開始在美國哥倫比亞大學教授中國思想,一生出版30多本專書,他參與編撰的教材,至今仍是歐美大專生認識儒家文化所必讀。

    20世紀,華人社會在五四運動、文化大革命的浪潮下,努力擁抱西方價值,摒棄儒學文化的守舊、保守。狄培理卻獨排眾議,主張儒學絕非現代化的阻礙,反而是東亞地區珍貴的文化資本。


    在「中國的自由傳統」著作中,狄培理指出,中國缺乏西方意義下的「自由主義」,但並非不重視自由,尤其在明代理學中,保存了許多自由傾向(liberal tendencies)的價值。

    狄培理指出,儒學傳統使許多知識份子以「君子」自居,並以「先知的聲音(prophetic voice)」反抗濫用政治力量。

    除了自由,中國也曾燃起民主的火苗。狄培理特別關注理學家黃宗羲的「明夷待訪錄」,其中主張提高宰相權力以制衡君主,並廣設學校作為公論的管道,具備現代民主元素。

    然而狄培理也批判,儒學傳統並未將自由等概念轉化為法律制度,保護基本的公民權益。儒家君子不像西方的先知,沒有上帝賦予的感召力,儒學也未具備西方教會般的權力。除此之外,最關鍵的還是「君子」與人民脫節,著重與君王傳達先知的訊息,社會影響有限。

    另外,狄培理也指出,儒家思想中的民主元素,和西方代議制度仍有根本的不同。黃宗羲提倡「相權」,宰相卻是由君王選派;「公論」也非人民的聲音,而僅是士大夫之見。在儒家觀念中,人民的角色有限,各項作法並沒具備民主的契約特性。

    狄培理的漢學研究,是西方學子認識儒學的窗口,他所出版的「Sources of Chinese Tradition」影響久遠,陸續增訂數次。狄培理還主持了哥倫比亞大學東方經典翻譯計畫,翻譯了150本以上的典籍。

    狄培理主張透過不同文明的對話,解決世界的各種危機和亂局。唐獎基金會肯定他「對儒學思想每有同情的理解與闡揚,也不乏誠懇的批評,功在國際儒學研究,可謂一代漢學巨擘。」20160620



    2009.2(美)狄百瑞 (Wm Theodore de Bary) 著《儒家的困境》(The Trouble with Confucianism, 2nd edition, 1991) 北京大學出版社 2009年1月出版



    “儒家的困境”這一書名就足以構成人們注意的話題。當今社會困擾我們的,是歷史上的儒學嗎?
    “五四”運動成功地埋葬了儒學。而今,它正 在社會學研究的重大課題———如人文倫理或道德哲學中悄悄復活。作者甚至認為,儒學在歷史發展過程中消失的一些東西,實際上也是現代社會自工業時代以來崩 潰的情感和被破壞的環境所同樣短缺的。儒家思想的困境或許正是現代世介面臨的困境。

    近日,北京大学出版社推出译著《儒家的困境》。作者狄百瑞是前哥伦比亚大学校长、东亚语言和文化系教授,也是海外研究中国思想的著名学者。
    随着东亚的复兴,儒家思想重新成为全世界学术领域的重要课题,比如,东亚的崛起与儒家思想有什么关系?儒家的人格在现代社会中能起到何种作 用?作者用旧约传统中的“先知”同中国儒家传统中的“君子”进行比较,认为真正的君子就是要对朝廷的不义进行谴责和匡正。君子和帝王的关系是中国古代政治 重要的主题。君子的力量源于替百姓和上天代言的社会角色,但是君子却没有有效地得到百姓的托付,也没有从上天那里获得宗教性的支撑,而是一直陷入黎民苍生 和专制皇权的裂缝之中,这成了历史上儒家最大的困境。(却咏梅)

    Harvard University Press





    The Trouble with Confucianism

    Wm. Theodore de Bary

      In Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and other parts of East and Southeast Asia, as well as China, people are asking, "What does Confucianism have to offer today?" For some, Confucius is still the symbol of a reactionary and repressive past; for others, he is the humanist admired by generations of scholars and thinkers, East and West, for his ethical system and discipline. In the face of such complications, only a scholar of Theodore de Bary's stature could venture broad answers to the question of the significance of Confucianism in today's world.
    • Cover: The Trouble with Confucianism
    • A photo of the author
    Photo by Eileen Barroso/Columbia University
    Wm. Theodore de Bary is John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University, Emeritus and Provost, Emeritus of Columbia University.

      Read More by Wm. Theodore de Bary:

    • Asian Values and Human Rights: A Confucian Communitarian Perspective
    • East Asian Civilizations: A Dialogue in Five Stages
    • Confucianism and Ecology: The Interrelation of Heaven, Earth, and Humans
    • Nobility and Civility: Asian Ideals of Leadership and the Common Good
    Amazon.com Review
    As Confucian thinking makes a comeback in contemporary China, people are wondering if it will merely serve as a conservative tool for a despotic government as in imperial times, or if it could act instead as a liberalizing force. Wm. Theodore de Bary, depicting Confucius and certain later Confucians as Old Testament prophetlike figures, suggests that the true Confucian spirit is one of protesting and rectifying governmental injustices. This model of Confucianism, de Bary illustrates, is not a backward dogmatist intent on maintaining the status quo at all costs, but a whistle-blower, a moralizing evangelist responsible to the people and to heaven for speaking out against existing evils and abuses. Throughout, de Bary sympathizes with the scholar-official who feels trapped between the needs of the people and the will of an autocratic government, which reflects a parallel dilemma in today's China.

    Review
    It is a pleasure to read a book by a fine scholar who is not distracted from his discussion of the evolution of Confucianism from the time of Confucius himself (who drew on earlier traditions) by the trouble Confucianists had, and created, over the millennia. Gu Jiegang, who said we should study one Confucius at a time--he changed from a historical figure to a mythological one (even a magician) and a sage--would have liked this book. (Asian Studies Review )
    ↧
    ↧

    狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017) 中國的自由傳統

    July 16, 2017, 2:08 am
    ≫ Next: No Enemies, No Hatred 兩本《劉曉波傳》“刘晓波不会用流亡换出狱” Perry Link on Mo Yan
    ≪ Previous: 狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017)《儒家的困境》The Trouble with Confucianism
    $
    0
    0


    中國的自由傳統
    The Liberal Tradition in China
    出版日期:2016/11/01
    印刷:黑白印刷
    裝訂:平裝
    頁數:200
    開數:25開,高21×寬14.8 cm
    EAN:9789570848236
    出版社:聯經
    作者:狄培理
    譯者:李弘祺
    系列: 文化叢刊





    中國思想史泰斗狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-),美國哥倫比亞大學東亞語言與文化系教授,哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授,為國際研究中國思想的著名學者。主要著作有:《高貴與文明》、《亞洲價值與人權》、《為己之學》、《東亞文明:五個階段的對話》、《中國的自由傳統》,編寫了影響廣泛的《中國傳統資料選編》。2016年6月20日,榮獲第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」。

    第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」得主:狄培理(William Theodore de Bary)
    國際儒學先驅,關注中國傳統思想中的自由、民主觀念
    將中國儒學介紹到西方,帶領學者翻譯大量經典
    主張東西文化互相借鏡,儒學精神彌補西方主流價值的不足
    將近70年的學術生涯,編寫近30冊書,
    對儒家思想有同情的理解與闡揚,功在國際儒學的研究,
    可說是一代漢學巨擘!


    狄培理教授說明了宋代的學術趨勢,認為宋代思潮不但重新重視道的生命力與創造力,又同時具有新的批判性格。這兩者一在重估過去、一在拓深傳統,交互為用,以服務當代的需要。
    這些態度明顯地表現在「道學」、「道統」以及「心學」之中。
    狄培理教授也討論新儒家思想中的自由教育與自發精神,這是宋明兩代「自我」的廣義觀念以及獨特的個人主義的基礎。具有關鍵性的觀念是「為己之學」、「自得」、「自任於道」以及程朱思想中與「自我」有關的觀念。狄培理教授也評騭了這些發展對晚明的影響,並將歸結到黃宗羲尋覓一個新的綜合的努力。而這個新的綜合,代表了比較成熟的新儒家的自由主義。
    ↑Top
    作者/譯者/繪者簡介
    作者:狄培理
    中國思想史泰斗狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-),美國哥倫比亞大學東亞語言與文化系教授,哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授,為國際研究中國思想的著名學者。主要著作有:《高貴與文明》、《亞洲價值與人權》、《為己之學》、《東亞文明:五個階段的對話》、《中國的自由傳統》,編寫了影響廣泛的《中國傳統資料選編》。2016年6月20日,榮獲第二屆唐獎「漢學獎」。

    譯者:李弘祺
    耶魯大學博士,曾在香港中文大學及紐約市立大學任教。2002-2005年出任臺大東亞文明研究中心首任主任兼歷史系講座教授。2007年返國,先後在交通大學及清華大學擔任講座教授。2012-2015年間出任北京師範大學特聘教授。
    活躍於國際學術舞臺,曾受邀在美國、德國、日本等國發表論文或演講;以中、英、日、韓、德、義大利及西班牙文撰著及編輯書籍18本,文章過百篇。被日本關西大學的《泊園》學刊譽?「當今世界上研究中國教育及科舉第一人」。
    ↧

    No Enemies, No Hatred 兩本《劉曉波傳》“刘晓波不会用流亡换出狱” Perry Link on Mo Yan

    July 16, 2017, 7:49 pm
    ≫ Next: Simon Leys writing on Liu Xiaobo(2012): Pierre Ryckmans(1935-2014); Exposed Mao’s Hard Line. Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys
    ≪ Previous: 狄培理(William Theodore de Bary, 1919-2017) 中國的自由傳統
    $
    0
    0

       

    No Enemies, No Hatred

    Selected Essays and Poems

    Liu Xiaobo

    Edited by Perry Link

    Tienchi Martin-Liao

    Liu Xia

    Foreword by Vaclav Havel

    About This Book

    • About the Authors
    • Reviews
    • Table of Contents
    • Google Search Inside:
    • A Wall Street Journal Book of the Year, 2011
    When the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on December 10, 2010, its recipient, Liu Xiaobo, was in Jinzhou Prison, serving an eleven-year sentence for what Beijing called “incitement to subvert state power.” In Oslo, actress Liv Ullmann read a long statement the activist had prepared for his 2009 trial. It read in part: “I stand by the convictions I expressed in my ‘June Second Hunger Strike Declaration’ twenty years ago—I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies.”
    That statement is one of the pieces in this book, which includes writings spanning two decades, providing insight into all aspects of Chinese life. These works not only chronicle a leading dissident’s struggle against tyranny but enrich the record of universal longing for freedom and dignity. Liu speaks pragmatically, yet with deep-seated passion, about peasant land disputes, the Han Chinese in Tibet, child slavery, the CCP’s Olympic strategy, the Internet in China, the contemporary craze for Confucius, and the Tiananmen massacre. Also presented are poems written for his wife, Liu Xia, public documents, and a foreword by Václav Havel.
    This collection is an aid to reflection for Western readers who might take for granted the values Liu has dedicated his life to achieving for his homeland.

     

    • Foreword by Václav Havel
    • Introduction by Perry Link
    • Part I. Politics with Chinese Characteristics
      • Listen Carefully to the Voices of the Tiananmen Mothers: Reading the Unedited Interview Transcripts of Family Members Bereaved by the Massacre
        • Poem: Your Seventeen Years
        • Poem: Standing amid the Execrations of Time
      • To Change a Regime by Changing a Society
      • The Land Manifestos of Chinese Farmers
      • Xidan Democracy Wall and China’s Enlightenment
      • The Spiritual Landscape of the Urban Young in Post-Totalitarian China
        • Poem: What One Can Bear
        • Poem: A Knife Slid into the World
      • Bellicose and Thuggish: The Roots of Chinese “Patriotism” at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century
      • State Ownership of Land Is the Authorities’ Magic Wand for Forced Eviction
      • A Deeper Look into Why Child Slavery in China’s “Black Kilns” Could Happen
      • The Significance of the “Weng’an Incident”
    • Part II. Culture and Society
      • Epilogue to Chinese Politics and China’s Modern Intellectuals
      • On Living with Dignity in China
        • Poem: Looking Up at Jesus
      • Elegy to Lin Zhao, Lone Voice of Chinese Freedom
      • Ba Jin: The Limp White Flag
        • Poem: Alone in Winter
        • Poem: Van Gogh and You
      • The Erotic Carnival in Recent Chinese History
        • Poem: Your Lifelong Prisoner
      • From Wang Shuo’s Wicked Satire to Hu Ge’s Egao: Political Humor in a Post-Totalitarian Dictatorship
      • Yesterday’s Stray Dog Becomes Today’s Guard Dog
        • Poem: My Puppy’s Death
      • Long Live the Internet
      • Imprisoning People for Words and the Power of Public Opinion
    • Part III. China and the World
      • Behind the “China Miracle”
      • Behind The Rise of the Great Powers
        • Poem: To St. Augustine
        • Poem: Hats Off to Kant
      • The Communist Party’s “Olympic Gold Medal Syndrome”
      • Hong Kong Ten Years after the Handover
      • So Long as Han Chinese Have No Freedom, Tibetans Will Have No Autonomy
        • Poem: One Morning
        • Poem: Distance
      • Obama’s Election, the Republican Factor, and a Proposal for China
    • Part IV. Documents
      • The June Second Hunger Strike Declaration
        • Poem: You • Ghosts • The Defeated
      • A Letter to Liao Yiwu
        • Poem: Feet So Cold, So Small
      • Using Truth to Undermine a System Built on Lies: Statement of Thanks in Accepting the Outstanding Democracy Activist Award
      • Charter 08
      • My Self-Defense
      • I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement
      • The Criminal Verdict: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court Criminal Judgment No. 3901 (2009)
    • Bibliography
    • Acknowledgments
    • Index

     

     *****

    13 December 2012

    Perry Link on Mo Yan

    Mo YanThe Chinese writer Mo Yan accepted the Nobel prize in literature this week in Stockholm, offering remarks that further fanned the flames of controversy surrounding his selection. After being dismissed by Salman Rushdie as a “patsy of the régime” for his failure to support the release of jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, and having his Nobel selection decried by Chinese artist and agitator Ai Weiwei as “an insult to humanity and to literature,” the author defended censorship as necessary, likening it to airport security checks.
    Few observers could fail to note the contrasting responses to Mo Yan’s honor this year and to Liu Xiaobo’s in 2010, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Whereas in 2010 the Chinese government denounced and boycotted the award, this time the state has proudly received the honor, even announcing plans to spend $110 million making Mo Yan’s home village a “Culture Experience Zone.”
    Some of the Chinese people, on the other hand, evince a response less warm. In a long consideration of Mo Yan’s work and Nobel recognition, Perry Link quotes the satirist Wang Xiaohong imagining Alfred Nobel’s distress:
    Two years ago my people gave a prize to a Chinese, and in doing so offended the Chinese government. Today they gave another prize to a Chinese, and in doing so offended the Chinese people. My goodness. The whole of China offended in only two years.
    Link, a co-editor of No Enemies, No Hatred, our recent volume of Liu Xiaobo’s writings, and author of a forthcoming inquiry into the workings of the Chinese language, An Anatomy of Chinese, outlines a series of recent statements and actions which have contributed to wide disappointment in Mo Yan’s politics. For his part, Mo Yan asks that his writing be allowed to exist apart from his extratextual political positioning. While acknowledging the complications of any such compartmentalization, Link points to the larger question of “how and to what extent a writer’s immersion in, and adjustment to, an authoritarian political regime affects what he or she writes.”
    Link notes Mo Yan’s focus on society’s downtrodden, the “poor farmers who are bullied and bankrupted by local officials,” but contrasts his attention paid with that of dissident writers like Liu Xiaobo and Zheng Yi. “Liu and Zheng,” Link writes, “denounce the entire authoritarian system, including the people at the highest levels. Mo Yan and other inside-the-system writers blame local bullies and leave the top out of the picture.”
    Link also highlights Mo Yan’s libidinous “black humor,” the characteristic most often lauded by his supporters, but points to such writing’s usefulness to the regime for its obscuring of the past and its function as a “safety valve.” Link cites Liu Xiaobo’s 2004 article “The Erotic Carnival in Recent Chinese History,” excerpted here from No Enemies, No Hatred:
    In the years since the Tiananmen massacre, the rampant materialism of the power elite’s moves to privatize wealth has given rise in China to a consumer culture that has grown ever more hedonistic, superficial, and vulgar, and the social function of this materialism has been to bolster the dictatorial political order. Sarcasm in the entertainment world has turned into a kind of spiritual massage that numbs people’s consciences and paralyzes their memories; incessant propaganda about “the state drawing close to the people” reinforces the notion that the government is the savior of the people—who accordingly are its servants. Meanwhile an erotic carnival of products in commercial culture invite entry, real or fantasized, into a world of mistresses, prostitutes, adultery, one-night stands, and other forms of sexual abandon. The craze for political revolution in decades past has now turned into a craze for money and sex.
    […]
    In this situation, sexual indulgence becomes a handy partner for a dictatorship that is trying to stay on top of a society of rising prosperity. Chinese people were so repressed during the Mao era, sexually and otherwise, that when ideas about freedom trickled in from the outside, many of them had great appeal. But while ideas about political freedom—speech, assembly, elections, and so on—could have led to a liberation in the Chinese people of humanity’s best qualities, and could have brought dignity to individuals, the idea of sexual freedom did not support political democracy so much as it harked back to traditions of sexual abandon in China’s imperial times. It siphoned interest in freedom toward thoughts of concubinage, elegant prostitution, and the bedroom arts as they are celebrated in premodern pornography. This has been just fine with today’s dictators. It fits with the moral rot and political gangsterism that years of hypocrisy have generated, and it diverts the thirst for freedom into a politically innocuous direction.
    Link ends his piece by granting the unusual path chosen by Liu Xiaobo, and admitting the impropriety of spectators who “enjoy the comfort of distance” demanding that Mo Yan risk all to follow it. “But it would be even more wrong,” he concludes, “to mistake the clear difference between the two.” Or, put glibly, not all subversion is subversive.
    Posted by Harvard University Press in Asian Studies, Current Affairs, Humanities, In the News, Literary Criticism, Literature|PermalinkShareThis

    “刘晓波不会用流亡换出狱”

    刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖已经两年,他的妻子刘霞依然被中国当局软禁。英国媒体近日曝出,当局向刘霞施压以迫使刘晓波流亡,多位人士认为,刘晓波不会接受当局附条件的“自由”。
    This undated image provided by Voice of America shows Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize Friday Oct. 8, 2010. (AP Photo/voanews.com)
    (德国之声中文网)英国BBC英文报道,在刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖两周年之际,与刘晓波家庭关系密切的消息人士称,中国当局正在向刘晓波妻子刘霞施加压 力,以迫使刘晓波流亡国外;消息人士还透露刘霞在贴身的两位女警的监视和多位便衣警察监视住宅的情况下,受到极大的"精神折磨"。
    据刘霞好友、中国独立评论人莫之许向德国之声表示,报道中基本是事实,但已经是很久前传出的消息,但从刘霞家人及朋友、刘晓波弟弟等渠道都没有传出最新消息,因此不能确定当局目前针对刘晓波的进一步行动。他亦认为中国政府无理由限制刘霞自由,这也有损其"大国"形象。
    另据来自"中国网"消息,10月9日中国国务院新闻办《中国的司法改革》白皮书发布会上,中央司法体制改革领导小组办公室负责人姜伟平在回答英国《金融时报》记者,关于中国政府是依据什么法律或制度来软禁刘霞的问题时,该官员表示对刘霞的软禁是依据中国法律认定。
    In this Sept. 28, 2010 photo, Liu Xia, wife of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo speaks during an interview in Beijing, China. When the police came for Liu Xiaobo that night nearly two years ago, they didn't tell the dissident-author the reason for taking him away. The line in the detention order for "motive" was blank. But everyone in Liu's dark Beijing apartment knew exactly why. Liu was hours from releasing a call for peaceful political reform in China that would represent the democracy movement's most comprehensive demand ever _ and that would earn Liu multiple nominations for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)刘霞
    "他们是用哪条法律对刘晓波判刑、对刘霞软禁?"
    正被北京警方软禁的维权人士胡佳向德国之声透露在一个多月前的一个晚上,通过特殊方式让刘霞打开窗帘向外凝望,胡佳站在刘霞家的楼外,用智能手机的灯闪、 及轻声呼唤刘晓波和刘霞家人对其的昵称"傻瓜,胡佳",尽力使刘霞能够看到自己,因为不能惊动监禁警察,双方没有语言交流:"她还是光头的样子,戴着眼 镜,那种氛围让我感到她是特别孤独无助的。因为声音比较低,我并不确定她是否听清楚了这些话,如果她能听清楚,她就能明白我是去找他的,我希望这种探望, 尽管我们不能够相互说一句完整的话,但是让她知道有朋友在时刻关注她的状态,为她的自由在行动。"

    “刘晓波不会用流亡换出狱”(音频)

    曾任中共前总书记赵紫阳秘书、中国知名民主人士鲍彤向德国之声表示,他已经有两年无法与刘霞会面,很担忧她的处境,同时他也对中国当局 对刘晓波判刑和软禁刘霞再次提出质询:"他们是用哪条法律呢?如果中国政府准备依法治国,就应该把自己的法律条文向全世界宣布。他们根据什么法律把《零八 宪章》宣布为'颠覆中国政权'?刘晓波不管境况如何,毕竟是经过所谓法院审判,对刘霞软禁是根据哪条法律,不说清楚,只说根据中国的法律,这是搪塞,说中 国有自己的法律这就是说不准备依法治国,因为中国的法律就是没有法律。我希望再有媒体记者问的时候,中国发言人应该有点进步。"
    一直呼吁中国当局释放刘晓波、恢复刘霞自由的独立中文笔会会长廖天琪在接受德国之声采访时认为,刘霞当前处境也让中国当局大失形象的同时感到更加棘手: "中国独裁政府没有变通办法,走到一个死巷也必须走下去,如果新的执政者没有一个办法把刘霞释放,以此为指标我们不要对新的执政者进行政改、平反六四等抱 有希望。"
    FILE -- In this Sept. 28, 2010 file photo, Liu Xia, wife of Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, speaks during an interview in Beijing, China. Liu Xia, the wife of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, said in a Twitter message that she had been under house arrest since Friday Oct. 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Andy Wong/file)刘霞的摄影作品
    "刘晓波曾表示态度:不会流亡"
    鲍彤也表示因为无法联系到刘霞,对中国当局对刘晓波是否采取强迫流亡行动尚不得而知,但他早前和刘晓波、刘霞都曾谈起是选择在中国还是在海外生活的话题,他认为刘晓波不会选择流亡:"他过去曾表示过这样一个态度,如果让他流亡,他不会。"
    廖天琪透露,确实在前段时间经由一些渠道听闻,中国当局想让刘晓波流亡,刘晓波拒绝接受这种附条件的自由,廖天琪坚信刘晓波即使在狱中,这种坚守其实也是 推动一种有力量的行动:"如果用出国当作出狱的条件,我想他不会答应的。刘晓波他现在已经成为一个精神符号,不止是一个政治犯或异议人士,确实也代表中国 一部分知识群体的良心、道德、责任。他不会接受政府的收买或开恩而离开监狱,这也表示他们不会屈服于权力的。"
    但廖天琪和胡佳都对中国当局有可能为达成迫使刘晓波流亡,而加大对刘霞的施压表示忧虑,胡佳说:"刘晓波现在唯一要权衡的就是会给刘霞带来多大的压力。"
     ***Das Pressebild darf nur in Zusammenhang mit einer Berichterstattung über die Ausstellung verwendet werden*** This Tuesday, Feb. 7 2012 photo shows 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo holding a doll in a detail of a photograph by his wife, Chinese artist Liu Xia on display at during a preview of "The Silent Strength of Liu Xia" exhibit at The Italian Academy in New York. The photos were spirited out of China just before Liu was placed under house arrest after her husband, imprisoned in 2009 for urging democratic reform, won the Nobel. Her works are censored in her native country. The exhibition opens Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012. (Foto:Mary Altaffer/AP/dapd) 2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁奖仪式上特为刘晓波设置的"空椅子"
    "我们的存在就是一种抗议"
    胡佳表示透过刘晓波早前作品已明其志,既成为中国变革和观察和见证者,胡佳认为中共将刘晓波关在狱中,也承担了世界范围内的巨大压力,如果释放,又担心刘 晓波接下来会推动《零八宪章》进入实施阶段、促成国际社会和中国民间、知识界的联动,以推动中国的宪政民主等,因此中共应该愿意将刘晓波流亡海外,割断其 与中国的联结:"当局在这方面其实很恐惧,他们不希望中国出现哪怕软禁中的昂山素季一样的人物,他们把这个风险预估得很高。"
    胡佳引用昂山素季"我们的存在就是一种抗议", 认为刘晓波会有和昂山素季、曼德拉等人一致的选择:"对于刘晓波来说,他作为诺贝尔平奖获得者在中国监狱的存在,就等于在中共脸上浓墨重彩的写下'侵犯人 权的凶手',也反衬中共的丑陋,这三年多来晓波在看守所或监狱,他会知道在这个国家坚守会有什么样的价值,如果出去的话对他的理想的实现就会弱很多。"
    而鲍彤、廖天琪、胡佳都认为,释放刘晓波和恢复刘霞的自由,是中国政府如果重建公信力或意图改革最直接和容易达成的一种方式。
    作者:吴雨
    责编:洪沙

     
    余杰《劉曉波傳》即將在台灣出版 我取得清樣一讀......201?

    2017

    【讀書好】讀劉曉波傳

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/supplement/special/art/20170714/20088387

    Yu Jie, 余杰, a Dissident Chinese Writer Continues H...





    *****鄧小平說,中國最大的失敗是教育

    世煜兄和慧玲女在幾年前介紹中國的異議份子余杰先生,還帶我去去家濃厚豬肉的台菜餐廳。余杰(1973-)先生是劉曉波(1955-)先生的隔代知音。我後來都默默注意余先生的被當局修理和反抗,幸虧德國之音和紐約時報等都會報導他們的奮鬥。

    其實,劉曉波先生在台灣出版的著作至少五本,不過,劉曉波先生即使得到諾貝爾和平獎,他的書不像2000年諾貝爾文學獎般暢銷。

    劉曉波先生在電話中向余杰先生說:「你引用了一句鄧小平的話,鄧小平說,中國最大的失敗是教育,這句話引用不當,你知道鄧小平是在什麼情況下說的嗎?是在89年,他說教育的失誤是指沒有加強思想政治教育,他嫌當局對於大學生的洗腦不夠,你連背景都不清楚就在電視上亂說……。」(余杰《我無罪:劉曉波傳》台北版,2012,約頁261)兩本《劉曉波傳》

     

     貝嶺《犧牲自由 - 劉曉波傳》德语版

    Start | 2011.01.14

    德国之声专访:作家贝岭谈新作《刘晓波传》

    贝岭在科隆大学的读书讨论会上
    Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 贝岭在科隆大学的读书讨论会上

    1月13日,作家贝岭为其新书《刘晓波传》的德文版在科隆大学举办了读书会。贝岭强调,他是以一个"老朋友"的身份记录重大事件中的刘晓波。他围绕这本书以及他认识的刘晓波接受了德国之声记者的专访。

    记者:忽然写《刘晓波传》的原因何在?
    贝岭:不是忽然写,因为21年前我就写过跟刘晓波最早交往的三年回忆,那篇文章在刘晓波获奖之前被《法兰克福汇报》发表,(德国的)出版社看到这篇 文章后通过汉学家找到了我,出版社就是希望在刘晓波获奖之后,在圣诞节之前有一本书告诉德国人。我正好在写我自己的回忆录的时候已经整理出来几万字的和刘 晓波有关的笔记和内容,后来我发现我手上有关刘晓波的东西已经很多了,我就试一试继续把这本书完成,所以它并不是在一个很短的时间内完成的,但是却在最后 一个半月的时间内彻底地变成了一本书。这本书就成了除中文之外的第一本(《刘晓波传》)。

    记者:以什么身份在写这本传记呢?
    贝岭:其实我是他的老朋友,我不是他最亲密的朋友,因为我们毕竟有十年没再见过面,我们最后一次通电话是在入狱前的一年。我说是老朋友是我认识他的 时候很多人还不认识他,我们又是同事,我们是哈维尔自传的中文翻译,中文出版里,刘晓波最早是我的推手,我当时创办中文笔会,他是我最主要的支持者和国内 组织会员的人。也就是说我们就是文学同事和笔会同事,他是我哈维尔自传最主要的帮助者和促成者。这些历史使我和他的关系不是一般意义上的朋友关系。但应该 说,在后来这些年,我不是他最亲密的朋友,因为不在一个国家了,也有很多分歧,我对他的很多方式不支持不赞成,主要是在笔会以后。他对于我也有很多的批 评。也就是说,我们从来都是直言不讳的老朋友。老朋友的优点是可以直言不讳,而好朋友就很难,因为涉及到利益关系,这种关系我们没有。

    记者:刘晓波并不知道您给他写传?
    贝岭:那当然,当我决定写的时候想告诉刘霞,但她已经失去了与外界联系的方式,她恐怕也收不到我的邮件,我们俩最后一次通email是2010年的7、8月左右。刘霞看到我21年前写的那篇回忆录,她很感动,她觉得刘晓波和他的老朋友又回来了。
    《刘晓波传》德语版(Der Freiheit geopfert - Die Biographie von Liu Xiaobo) 直译 《牺牲自由 - 刘晓波传》)Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 《刘晓波传》德语版(Der Freiheit geopfert - Die Biographie von Liu Xiaobo) 直译 《牺牲自由 - 刘晓波传》) 

    记者:以您对刘晓波的认识,您认为他知道您给他写传了会有什么反应呢?
    贝岭:我想,我跟他之间是非常直率的友谊, 而且认识那么多年,其实彼此之间用他的话讲就是"不玩虚的了",我唯一关心的事里面有没有对他来说不真实或不准确的。刘晓波看完以后,他通过他人眼中的"我",他本身受过存在主义哲学影响,他人眼中的我其实是最好让你看清自己的(我)。不是你心目中的你,也不是崇拜者心目中的你,也不是大弟子余杰心目中的 你,就是一个你曾经的老朋友或者说现在又回来的老朋友写你。

    记者:这本书的重点是什么?
    贝岭:最大的重点就是我今天在讨论会上说的六四。其实严格上来讲,这本书是由大量的资料铺成重要历史事件里的刘晓波,其实这本与其说是刘晓波传,到 不如说通过刘晓波我来探讨知识分子在中国历史里产生的影响和作用的审视,它并不是一般意义上的传,因为对于那些细节我并没有花太多时间,比如刘晓波的父母 叫什么,他的兄弟姐妹,他童年的生活怎么样,这些我都没有花时间去讨论,我更加着魔于他在重要事件里做为如此丰富复杂的一个人的特点。这个特点才是我这本书想要呈现的。也想通过刘晓波呈现后面很多当代中国的知识分子以及当代中国的历史。而且我还常用第一人称写,写我和他。所以说不是传统的传记,但确实涵盖 了他一生里的主要生活。
    科隆大学汉学系教授司马涛在朗读《刘晓波传》的德文版Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 科隆大学汉学系教授司马涛在朗读《刘晓波传》的德文版记者:您的眼中,刘晓波在生活里到底是个什么样的人?
    贝岭:从某种意义上讲他就是一个毛病极多的一个家伙。比如说他不爱洗澡,抽烟抽得满屋子烟味儿,乱七八糟,但是当他离你很远的时候,你又觉得这是他很可爱的地方,就是说他很本色。他那喜欢口若悬河,背名言,人越多越不结巴,这些都是他的特点,从私人角度看的东西。

    记者:您11月份去台湾在北京转机的时候被强行遣送回德,写这本书会不会多少有些顾虑呢?因为可能会带来更多的不便。
    贝岭: 没有,那没有。我只是说不要再以这种方式经过北京,感觉就是比较意外,因为我没有准备,感觉他们随时可能让我消失,这是我的意外,但是没有任何人挡得住我 写的书。不管是写他还是写其他人。我觉得写刘晓波是意外,如果不是他获诺贝尔和平奖,他将只是在我的回忆里一部分、几万字探讨刘晓波。

    记者:那作为"老朋友",他获诺奖的时候您有什么感受呢?
    贝岭:他获奖的时候,我非常意外,因为没想到刘晓波这么快就获奖,因为一般提很多年才有可能。甚至我认为他需要的是自由,不是桂冠,自由比桂冠重要。现在我想,刘晓波获奖以后可能离自由更远了。但是我很快就认为这个奖对中国的反对运动从抽象意义上是个巨大的鼓舞,而且我们看到产生了像冲击波一样的 (影响),在媒体和网络没有控制的那一个星期里,我每天都会注意这个变化。
    采访:安静
    责编:李鱼
    ↧

    Simon Leys writing on Liu Xiaobo(2012): Pierre Ryckmans(1935-2014); Exposed Mao’s Hard Line. Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys

    July 17, 2017, 1:10 am
    ≫ Next: 轉載:端傳媒獨家:劉曉波7月5日最後手稿全文披露,送給劉霞的最後禮物;廖亦武序【劉曉波-劉霞詩選】
    ≪ Previous: No Enemies, No Hatred 兩本《劉曉波傳》“刘晓波不会用流亡换出狱” Perry Link on Mo Yan
    $
    0
    0

    New York Review Books
    Simon Leys writing on Liu Xiaobo in The New York Review of Books in 2012.
    bit.ly/2uARMGl


    He Told the Truth About China’s Tyranny
    All thinking people wish now to obtain at least some basic understanding of the deeper dynamics that underlie this sudden and stupendous metamorphosis: What are its true nature and significance? To what extent is…
    NYBOOKS.COM


    ------

    2016  最驚訝的是2周前NYT的訃聞:Pierre Ryckmans, 78, Dies; Exposed Mao’s Hard Line.. Chinese Shadows by Simon Leys.
    Wikipedia 的著作清單。臺大圖書館幾乎只有3~5% 著作有收藏。"唐獎"其實應該弄完整的漢學圖書館。

    Bibliography[edit]
    Shitao's Les propos sur la peinture du moine Citrouille-amère (translation and comments, 1970)
    La vie et l'oeuvre de Su Renshan, rebelle, peintre et fou (1971).
    Les habits neufs du président Mao (The chairman's New Clothes: Mao and the Cultural Revolution, 1971)
    Chinese Shadows, (1974) 我再翻閱,前15頁查英文字典的是我嗎?
    中國大陸的陰影 / Ryckmans, Pierre撰 ; 金開鑫譯
    台北市 : 黎明, 民66[1977]
    Images brisées (1976)
    Human Rights in China (1979) 此書在臺大圖書館已遺失
    中國大陸沒有人權 / 李斯(Simon Leys)撰 ; 聯合報編譯組譯
    台北市 : 聯合報社, 民70[1981]
    Broken Images: Essays on Chinese Culture and Politics (trans. Steve Cox, London: Allison & Busby, 1981)
    Orwell, ou l'horreur de la politique (1984)
    La forêt en feu: Essais sur la culture et la politique chinoises (The Burning Forest: Essays on Chinese Culture and Politics) (1987)1985

    Contents

    Ricci in China
    35
    Orientalism and Sinology
    95
    The Mosquitos Speech







    La Mort de Napoléon (The Death of Napoleon, 1986)
    ""The Chinese Attitude Towards the Past" (Forty Seventh Morrison Lecture, 16 July 1986), China Heritage Quarterly 14 (June 2008).
    L'humeur, l'honneur, l'horreur: Essais sur la culture et la politique chinoises (1991)
    Analects of Confucius (translation, 1997)
    Essais sur la Chine (Laffont, 1998, coll. "Bouquins")
    L'Ange et le Cachalot (1998)
    The Angel and the Octopus (collected essays 1983–1998, published February 1999) ISBN 1-875989-44-7
    Protée et autres essais (2001; awarded the 2001 Prix Renaudot de l'Essai)
    Deux années sur le gaillard d'avant (2002)
    Les Naufragés du Batavia (The Wreck of the Batavia: A True Story, 2003, was awarded the Prix Guizot)
    La mer dans la littérature française (Plon, 2003)
    Lu Xun's La mauvaise herbe (French translation)
    Other People's Thoughts – Idiosyncratically compiled by Simon Leys for the amusement of idle readers (Black Inc., 2007)

    ‘A book is a mirror; if an ape looks into it, an apostle is hardly likely to look out.’ –G. C. Lichtenberg
    ‘The desire to go into politics is usually indicative of some sort of personality disorder, and it is precisely those who want power most that should be kept furthest from it.’ –Arthur Koestler
    ‘Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.’ –Thoreau
    In this wonderfully entertaining collection of quotations, Simon Leys gathers insights and bons mots from a motley group of great artists, wits and thinkers. Topics range from ambition and adventure to youth, sex, time, toads, wine, faith and friendship.
    Wise, witty and delightfully unpredictable, Other People’s Thoughts is for anyone who has ever rifled through a friend’s bookshelves or snuck a peak over a reading stranger’s shoulder. In this wide-ranging miscellany, we are given free rein to explore the nooks and crannies of one man’s mental library. By turns profound, whimsical and subversive, the result is a book-lover’s delight.




    The Hall of Uselessness: Selected (sic) Essays (Black Inc, 2011)

    The Hall of Uselessness: Collected Essays: Collected Essays

    Front Cover
    Black Inc., Dec 12, 2014 - Australian essays - 586 pages
    Simon Leys' cultural and political commentary has long been legendary for its profundity and acerbic wit. In The Hall of Uselessness his most significant essays are finally gathered together, on subjects ranging from China to Orwell, from Quixotism to the sea. Leys feuds with Christopher Hitchens, ponders the popularity of Victor Hugo and analyses whether Nabokov's unfinished novel should ever have been published. He dissects Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge, and discusses Waugh, Simenon and Confucius. He considers Chinese art, culture and politics, the joys and difficulties of lit.




    http://hcbooks.blogspot.tw/2011/05/chinese-shadows-by-simon-leys.html
    約30年前,我讀過Simon的書。很了不起的中國透視力和筆力......

    Pierre Ryckmans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Ryckmans‎
    Pierre Ryckmans (born 28 September 1935, in Brussels, Belgium), who also uses the pen-name Simon Leys, is a writer, sinologist, essayist and literary critic.

    Simon Leys | New York Review Books

    www.nybooks.com/books/authors/simon-leys/‎
    Simon Leys is the pen name of Pierre Ryckmans, who was born in Belgium and settled in Australia in 1970. He taught Chinese literature at the Australian ...


    Chinese Shadows [Hardcover]Simon Leys
    Simon Leys (Author)
    ›Visit Amazon's Simon Leys Page
    Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
    See search results for this author
    Are you an author? Learn about Author Central
    (Author)

    • Hardcover: 220 pages
    • Publisher: Viking Adult; 1st U.S. edition (September 15, 1977)
    • Language: English
    (Opera Omnia is a project to record the complete works (in Latin: opera omnia))
    這是一本了解文革和現代中國的傑作 ( 我用Penguin 1978版)
    看他在書末對 韓素英 、 C. P. Snow和費正清的一語道破其弱點,就可知其功力 (書中說,
    魯迅先生的《阿Q正傳》說明革命的不可能, 以及一些當時法文刊物對中國的幽默)......


    Chinese Shadows

    September 15, 1977

    Stephen R. MacKinnon, reply by Simon Leys

    In response to:
    Chinese Shadows from the May 26, 1977 issue
    To the Editors:
    I am shocked by your recent articles on Vietnam and China, the likes of which one might expect to appear in Commentary or the Readers Digest. Apparently it is intellectually chic again to be anti-communist, especially in regard to third world countries.
    The authors of both pieces had profound personal biases against their subjects. One of your readers has already pointed this out in reference to the Vietnamese piece (NYR, May 12). I shall therefore focus on Simon Leys’s China pieces (NYR, May 26 and June 9).
    There is a proclivity among European intellectuals going as far back at least as Hegel to see China in terms of oriental despotism. It does not matter whether it is contemporary or historical China—it is all the same, there is always that terrible oriental despotism that the Chinese cannot escape. The most articulate of the twentieth-century European exponents of this point of view was Etienne Balazs. In a brilliant series of essays he argued that the Chinese had chances to escape oriental despotism through the Sung dynasty (end 1368). After that it has been all down hill. The weight of the past is such that contemporary China can in no way escape it—any revolution is a false one. Usually this view is derivative, as it was in Balazs’s case, of his own disillusionment with European politics and the left in particular. At bottom the Oriental Despotism view of China is Europe-centered. The genuine social and political revolution must come first in the West. Since it has not happened in the West, it is preposterous to talk of genuine revolution in such a place as China.
    I shall be specific on three points.
    1) Walls, the walls that Leys mourns so bitterly. Is it not just possible that city walls symbolize the oppression of the past to most Chinese? Both Chiang Kai-shek and the Japanese hid behind these walls for decades—used as bulwarks against the guerrillas in the countryside. It was their custom also to put the ordinary inmates of these marvelously walled cities up against these walls and shoot them for some crime real or imagined. The heads of dissenters were displayed on these wonderful walls. And then there was the squatter housing squashed up against Mr. Leys’s walls.
    2) Wang Shi-wei, the dissident who was shot in Yenan in 1947. True enough Wang was shot in Yenan in 1947 and Mao afterwards talked about it. What Leys fails to say is that Mao considered the execution a serious error which should not be repeated. In China, as elsewhere (even Europe), dissidents are persecuted, but they are rarely executed. In the 1950s we executed the Rosenbergs and today we publicly regret it. Eisenhower advocated executing American communists and we are embarrassed. Does this mean that Stalinist purges are the rule in either China or the US?
    Perhaps your readers would be interested in Mao’s full statement in 1962 about Wang Shi-wei’s execution:
    There was another man called Wang Shi-wei who was a secret agent working for the Kuomintang. When he was in Yenan, he wrote a book called The Wild Lily, in which he attacked the revolution and slandered the Communist Party. Afterwards he was arrested and executed. That incident happened at the time when the army was on the march, and the security organs themselves made the decision to execute him; the decision did not come from the Center. We have often made criticisms on this very matter; we thought that he shouldn’t have been executed. If he was a secret agent and wrote articles to attack us and refused to reform till death, why not leave him there or let him go and do labor? It isn’t good to kill people. We should arrest and execute as few people as possible. If we arrest people and execute people at the drop of the hat, the end result would be that everybody would fear for themselves and nobody would dare to speak. In such an atmosphere there wouldn’t be much democracy. [from “On Democratic Centralism” in Stuart Schram, ed., Chairman Mao Talks to the People (Pantheon, 1974), pp. 184-185]
    3) It is well known that the diplomatic community in China lives an isolated existence and receives formal and bureaucratic treatment from the Chinese. The ordinary visitor is received in a much more friendly, relaxed manner—and often sees much more than the cloistered diplomat like Leys did. There are other foreigners living in China as well. Teachers, students, “experts,” and writers have a much less isolated existence and often a rather integrated life among the Chinese people. Has Mr. Leys ever met Sid Engst, Jim Veneris, Israel Epstein, and others like them in China? Their perspective on the foreigner in China is rather different than Mr. Leys’s, although not without problems and barriers (see for example the excellent book by David and Nancy Milton, The Wind Will Not Subside [1976], which revolves around the foreign community in Beijing).
    No doubt Mr. Leys knows all this and that is what angers. His rigid preconceptions about the nature of past and present Chinese society and politics force a level of dishonesty which is unworthy of The New York Review….
    Stephen R. MacKinnon
    Tempe, Arizona
    Simon Leys replies:
    Mr. MacKinnon’s criticism bears on four questions. Let us discuss them in succession:
    —Concerning Balazs: Etienne Balazs was a great scholar and an admirable man. That Mr. MacKinnon in reading my modest little essays should be induced to compare me with him fills me with a mixture of confusion and pride. (I doubt however if Mr. MacKinnon did understand Balazs’s writings any better than mine.)
    —Concerning city walls: In underlining the fact that walls can symbolize oppression and that it was therefore right to pull them down, Mr. MacKinnon raises a very interesting point. Come to think of it—is it not a shame that, in a revolutionary capital such as Peking, quite a number of other (far worse) symbols of oppression are still allowed to stand: the Imperial Palace, the Summer Palace, etc.? Actually, in this respect, too many countries are still badly in need of a big clean-up: the London Tower, the Louvre, the Escorial, the Vatican, the pyramids of Egypt, etc., etc., are all awaiting the revolutionary intervention of Mr. MacKinnon’s pickaxe. If he intends to devote his energy to such a worthy cause, he has, without doubt, a most busy career ahead of him.
    —Mao’s quotation concerning Wang Shih-wei: three points
    1. “Mao deplored the execution of Wang Shih-wei.” Nixon too deplored his “plumbers” initiatives at Watergate. Great leaders are so often done a disservice by clumsy underlings!
    2. “Mao opposes random killings.” This in fact was the only point on which Mao significantly departed from Stalin’s doctrine. Mao always agreed with the principle of Stalinist purges; only, to his more sophisticated taste, their methods appeared rather crude, messy, and wasteful. Mao eventually developed his own theory of the efficient way of disposing of opponents—which is expressed quite clearly in the fifth volume of his Selected Works recently published in Peking: executions should not be too few (otherwise people do not realize that you really mean business); they should not be too many (not to create waste and chaos). Actually before the launching of some mass-movements, quotas were issued by the Maoist authorities, indicating how many executions would be required in the cities, how many in the countryside, etc. This ensured a smooth, rational, orderly development of the purges. Some people see in this method a great improvement by comparison with Stalin’s ways. I suppose it might be so—at least from Big Brother’s point of view.
    3. “Mao said that Wang Shih-wei was a secret agent working for the Kuomintang.” And Stalin said that Trotsky was a secret agent working for the Nazis. Later on it was also said that Liu Shao-ch’i was a secret agent working for the Americans. And that Lin Piao was a secret agent working for the Soviet Union. And now we have just learned that Madame Mao had been working for Chiang Kai-shek. Why not? After all there are always people ready to believe these things—Mr. MacKinnon, for instance.
    —Other foreigners living in China: I do have a wide circle of acquaintances who have been, or are still, working in China in various capacities. I do also keep in close touch with a number of Chinese friends, former citizens of the People’s Republic, who know Chinese realities from the inside, a thousand times better than either Mr. MacKinnon or myself will ever do. If it had not been for the advice and encouragement I received from those persons who kept telling me that I was right on target, I would never have felt confident enough to publish these subjective impressions of China. On one point, however, I agree with Mr. MacKinnon: I too think it most unlikely that a person living in Peking, and being employed by the Chinese government, would ever express publicly his agreement with my views (though I know some who do so in private).



    訃告

    揭露「文化大革命」本質的漢學家去世

    傅才德 2014年08月20日
    皮埃爾·李克曼曾使用筆名西蒙·萊斯,1955年上學時首次到中國旅行。了解到「文化大革命」的情況後,他對中國的浪漫化觀點消散了。
    William West/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
    皮埃爾·李克曼曾使用筆名西蒙·萊斯,1955年上學時首次到中國旅行。了解到「文化大革命」的情況後,他對中國的浪漫化觀點消散了。
    • 打印
    • 转发
    • 寄信给编辑
    • 字号
    比利時出生的中國學學者皮埃爾·李克曼(Pierre Ryckmans)曾質疑西方在20世紀60年代將毛澤東浪漫化的觀點,並率先將毛髮起的「文化大革命」描述為混亂和破壞的景象。周一(8月11日——譯註)他於澳大利亞悉尼家中逝世,享年78歲。
    他的女兒詹尼·李克曼(Jeanne Ryckmans)宣布死因是癌症。
    • 檢視大圖1966年6月,穿紅衛兵服裝的年輕學生揮舞着毛澤東語錄「紅寶書」,在北京遊行,慶祝「文化大革命」的開始。
      Jean Vincent/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
      1966年6月,穿紅衛兵服裝的年輕學生揮舞着毛澤東語錄「紅寶書」,在北京遊行,慶祝「文化大革命」的開始。

    相关文章

    • 毛澤東的水晶棺和中國的變遷
    • 和吳迪對話:關於文革的記憶
    • 時隱時現的文革歷史
    • 中國必須擺脫毛澤東的陰影
    • 陳小魯回憶文革,公開道歉
    • 美籍毛澤東專家施拉姆去世
    李克曼以其筆名西蒙·萊斯(Simon Leys)更加廣為人知。1955年,19歲的他與比利時的同學們一起到中國旅遊,從此便愛上了這個國家。期間更是受到周恩來總理的接見。毛澤東發起「大躍進」所導致的饑荒人禍,乃至始於1966年,止於1976年毛澤東去世的「文化大革命」都還是後話。在當時,新中國有很多值得讚美之處。
    但是對於一個西方人來說,留在中華人民共和國學習中國藝術、文化和文學是不可能的,於是他去了台灣,在那裡遇到了未來的妻子張涵芳(音譯)。後來他也曾在新加坡和香港定居。
    20世紀60年代末,香港仍然是英國的殖民地,在那裡,李克曼開始關注越過香港邊境的混亂,閱讀中國官方媒體關於「文化大革命」的報道,和逃離中國大陸的人交談,他們原來都曾是毛澤東的支持者。
    許多西方知識分子對毛澤東懷有浪漫主義觀點,認為他雖然有缺點,但卻是進步的,是人民大眾的捍衛者,李克曼漸漸發現,這些浪漫的觀點和「文化大革命」的殘酷性完全是互相抵觸的。「文化大革命」力圖抹殺中國文化傳統與西方資本主義的影響,代之以正統的毛主義。這個運動導致了大清洗,強制的國內流放與不同政治派別的互相打擊。這促使李克曼開始涉足政治評論領域。
    「1966年之前,中國政治根本沒有引起我的關注,我對中國的一切都有好感,我充滿信心地把這種好感也延伸到了毛主義政權上面,並沒特別多想,」李克曼在他以筆名出版的《中國的陰影》(Chinese Shadows)中寫道,該書於1974年以法語首次出版。「但是我從香港這個有利的位置從始至終地觀察了』文化大革命』,這迫使我從舒服的無知中脫離出來。」
    他的第一本書《主席的新裝》(The Chairman』s New Clothes)也是用法文出版,那是1971年,一年後,他定居澳大利亞,因為著名中國文學學者柳存仁將在澳大利亞國立大學教書。李克曼以筆名西蒙·萊斯出版了這本書,掩蓋真實身份是為了防止被中國拒之門外。
    1972年,他為比利時大使館擔任文化隨員工作,回到中國呆了六個月。看到這座城市的古建築遺產遭到破壞,他大為震驚。
    在《中國的陰影》中,他寫到自己瘋狂地尋找這座城市最宏偉的巨大城門,他覺得它們本應被保留,儘管他知道這座城市的城牆從20世紀50年代開始就已經在進行拆除了。城門不見了。「確切地說,北京城門的拆除是一種褻瀆;充滿戲劇性的不是官方拆除了它們,而是始終不解他們究竟為什麼要拆除它們,」他寫道。
    他發現,「文化大革命」破壞了中國文化與文明之美,卻沒有摧毀文化中應當被去除的東西——暴虐與專制。
    前澳大利亞總理陸克文(Kevin Rudd)曾是李克曼的學生,在一次電話採訪中,他說李克曼是「20世紀六七十年代第一個揭露』文化大革命』中文化褻瀆真相的西方漢學家,他剝除了其上的政治虛飾,暴露出它的真正本質:由毛澤東領導的一場中共內部醜陋而暴力的政治鬥爭」。
    陸克文還說:「當時的漢學家們大都迷戀『文化大革命』早期的浪漫色彩,因此嚴厲地指責他。」
    諷刺的是,陸克文說,毛澤東死後,中國領導人開始否定「文化大革命」。許多老北京令人欣喜的東西又回來了,比如食品小攤和夏日街頭的舞蹈,人們開始欣賞古典藝術、文學,乃至曾遭受毛主義者中傷的古典學者孔子。李克曼曾把孔子的語錄《論語》譯成英文。
    但李克曼並沒有隨着時間的流逝而改變。「讓皮埃爾接受中國自『改革開放』以來這些真實的、可持續和積極的變化是很困難的,」陸克文說。
    李克曼的連襟、同樣也是漢學家的任格瑞(Richard Rigby)說,李克曼不僅是漢學家,也是令人敬畏的歐洲學者,他曾在比利時獲得法學與藝術的博士學位。他說,李克曼的演講博採東西方之長。
    「他可以將一幅中國國畫,或奧威爾(Orwell)寫的什麼東西以及蒙田(Montaigne)的散文結合起來,成為一個連貫的整體,」任格瑞說。
    李克曼還寫過長篇小說《拿破崙之死》(The Death of Napoleon),書中想像了這位被罷黜的君王從聖海倫島流放地逃回法國的經歷。1986年在法國首版,1992年出版了英文版,小說家佩尼洛普·菲茨傑拉德(Penelope Fitzgerald)曾為《紐約時報》書評版撰文,稱之為「一本非同尋常的書」,2002年,它被改編為電影,由伊恩·霍爾姆(Ian Holm)和休·博內威利(Hugh Bonneville)主演。
    李克曼經常為《紐約書評》(The New York Review of Books)、《世界報》(Le Monde)和其他期刊撰稿,並獲得多項文學獎。
    他於1935年9月28日出生於布魯塞爾,除了女兒,他在世的親人還包括妻子與兒子馬克(Marc)、艾蒂安(Etienne)和路易(Louis),以及兩個孫輩。
    他曾在悉尼大學教書,晚年在寫作和玩帆船中度過。他的文集《無用堂文存》(The Hall of Uselessness)於2011年出版,探討從堂·吉訶德到孔子在內的各種話題。
    在《中國的陰影》一書中,李克曼寫道,儘管毛和他的扈從們終將離場,權威統治會出現一個不可避免的放鬆時期,但共產主義統治的基本特點不會改變。
    「在不同時期對共產主義中國的各種描述中,人們可以發現區別,」他寫道。「如果這些描述都是發自良心,有洞察力的,它們呈現出來的東西要比短暫的新聞真實更多,各種改良都是量變,而不是質變——它們只是角度上的變化調整,而不是基本方向的改變。」
    本文最初發表於2014年8月15日。
    傅才德(Michael Forsythe)是《紐約時報》記者。
    翻譯:董楠

    Pierre Ryckmans, 78, Dies; Exposed Mao’s Hard Line

    By MICHAEL FORSYTHE August 20, 2014

    Pierre Ryckmans, who used the pen name Simon Leys, first traveled to China as a student in 1955. His once romantic view of China dissipated when he learned of the Cultural Revolution.
    Pierre Ryckmans, a Belgian-born scholar of China who challenged a romanticized Western view of Mao Zedong in the 1960s with his early portrayal of Mao’s Cultural Revolution as chaotic and destructive, died on Monday at his home in Sydney, Australia. He was 78.
    His daughter, Jeanne Ryckmans, said the cause was cancer.
    • 檢視大圖Young students in the Red Guard waved copies of the “Little Red Book,” a collection of quotations by Mao, at a parade in Beijing in June 1966 to celebrate the start of the Cultural Revolution.
      Jean Vincent/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
      Young students in the Red Guard waved copies of the “Little Red Book,” a collection of quotations by Mao, at a parade in Beijing in June 1966 to celebrate the start of the Cultural Revolution.

    相关文章

    • 毛澤東的水晶棺和中國的變遷
    • 和吳迪對話:關於文革的記憶
    • 時隱時現的文革歷史
    • 中國必須擺脫毛澤東的陰影
    • 陳小魯回憶文革,公開道歉
    • 美籍毛澤東專家施拉姆去世
    Mr. Ryckmans, who was better known by his pen name, Simon Leys, fell in love with China at the age of 19 while touring the country with fellow Belgian students in 1955. One highlight was an audience with Prime Minister Zhou Enlai. The man-made famine of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and his Cultural Revolution, which began in 1966 and ended about the time of Mao’s death, in 1976, were still in the future. There was much to be admired in the new China.
    Yet pursuing his studies of Chinese art, culture and literature in the People’s Republic itself was not an option for a Westerner, so he settled in Taiwan, where he met his future wife, Han-fang Chang. He also lived in Singapore and Hong Kong.
    It was in Hong Kong during the late 1960s, when it was still a British colony, that Mr. Ryckmans (pronounced RICK-mans) began to follow the turmoil just across the frontier, reading accounts in the official Chinese press about the Cultural Revolution and talking to former Mao supporters who had escaped it.
    He began to find that the romantic view of Mao harbored by many Western intellectuals — as a progressive if flawed champion of the masses — was completely at odds with the cruelties of the Cultural Revolution, which sought to eradicate Chinese cultural traditions and Western capitalist influences and replace it with a Maoist orthodoxy. The movement led to purges, forced internal exiles and whipsaw shifts in the political winds, and it compelled Mr. Ryckmans to step into the arena of political commentary.
    “Until 1966 Chinese politics did not loom large in my preoccupations, and I confidently extended to the Maoist regime the same sympathy I felt for all things Chinese, without giving it more specific thought,” Mr. Ryckmans wrote under his pseudonym in “Chinese Shadows,” which was first published in French in 1974. “But the Cultural Revolution, which I observed from beginning to end from the vantage point of Hong Kong, forced me out of this comfortable ignorance.”
    His first account, “The Chairman’s New Clothes,” was also published in French, in 1971, a year after he had settled in Australia, lured by an eminent Chinese literary scholar, Liu Cunren, to teach at Australian National University. Mr. Ryckmans wrote the book under the name Simon Leys to disguise his identity so that he would not be banned from China.
    He returned to China in 1972 on a six-month assignment as a cultural attaché for the Belgian Embassy in Beijing. The wanton destruction of the city’s ancient architectural heritage shocked him.
    In “Chinese Shadows,” he wrote of his frantic search for some of the most magnificent of the city’s huge gates, which he assumed had been preserved, even though he knew that the city walls had been taken apart starting in the 1950s. The gates were gone. “The destruction of the gates of Peking is, properly speaking, a sacrilege; and what makes it dramatic is not that the authorities had them pulled down but that they remain unable to understand why they pulled them down,” he wrote.
    The Cultural Revolution, he found, had destroyed the beauty of Chinese culture and civilization without destroying what needed to be exorcised: the tyranny of arbitrary rule.
    In a telephone interview, Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia and a former student of Mr. Ryckmans, called him “the first of the Western Sinologists of the ’60s and ’70s to expose the truth of the cultural desecration that occurred during the Cultural Revolution, ripping away the political veneer from it all and exposing it for what it was: an ugly, violent, internal political struggle within the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao.”
    Mr. Rudd added, “He was excoriated at the time by Sinologists who had been captured by the romance which many felt for the Cultural Revolution in the early days.”
    The irony, Mr. Rudd said, is that the Chinese leadership moved to repudiate the Cultural Revolution after Mao’s death. Many of the delights of old Beijing — the food stalls, the street dancing on a summer’s evening — did indeed return, as did an appreciation for classical art, literature and, finally, the classical scholar Confucius, who had been vilified by the Maoists. Mr. Ryckmans translated, into English, the “Analects,” the collection of sayings attributed to Confucius.
    Yet he did not change with the times. “It was difficult to get Pierre to accept that real, sustainable and positive changes had occurred in the China of the period of ‘reform and opening,’ ” Mr. Rudd said.
    More than a Sinologist, Mr. Ryckmans was also a formidable European man of letters, earning doctorates in law and art in Belgium, said Richard Rigby, a China scholar and Mr. Ryckmans’s brother-in-law. His lectures, he added, brought the best of both worlds together.
    “He could look at a Chinese painting or maybe something by Orwell and essays by Montaigne and put them all together into a coherent whole,” Mr. Rigby said.
    Mr. Ryckmans also wrote a novel, “The Death of Napoleon,” which imagines the deposed emperor escaping from exile on St. Helena and making his way back to France. First published in France in 1986 and then in English in 1992, it was hailed as “an extraordinary book” by the novelist Penelope Fitzgerald, writing in The New York Times Book Review, and adapted into a film, with Ian Holm and Hugh Bonneville, in 2002.
    Mr. Ryckmans was a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books, Le Monde and other periodicals and the recipient of several literary prizes.
    He was born on Sept. 28, 1935, in Brussels. Besides his daughter, he is survived by his wife; his sons Marc, Etienne and Louis; and two grandchildren.
    He also taught at the University of Sydney and spent his later years writing and sailing. A collection of his essays, “The Hall of Uselessness,” discussing topics as far-ranging as “Don Quixote” and Confucius, was published in 2011.
    In “Chinese Shadows,” Mr. Ryckmans wrote that even though Mao and his acolytes would leave the scene, and there would be an inevitable relaxation of authoritarian rule, the fundamental characteristics of Communist rule would not change.
    “Among various descriptions of Communist China made at different times, one may note differences,” he wrote, “yet if these descriptions have been made conscientiously and perceptively, they will show more than ephemeral journalistic truths, for modifications will be in quantity, never in quality — variations in amplitude, not changes in basic orientation.”

    ↧
    Remove ADS
    Viewing all 6951 articles
    Browse latest View live

    Search

    • RSSing>>
    • Latest
    • Popular
    • Top Rated
    • Trending
    © 2025 //www.rssing.com