503. The People On The Bridge - Wislawa Szymborska (1)
(Hiroshige Utagawa: "The Landscape")
Translated from the Polish by Stanislaw Baranczak and Clare Cavanagh
An odd planet, and those on it are odd, too. They're subject to time, but they won't admit it. They have their own ways of expressing protest. They make up little pictures, like for instance this:
At first glance, nothing special. What you see is water. And one of its banks. And a little boat sailing strenuously upstream. And a bridge over the water, and people on the bridge. It appears that the people are picking up their pace because of the rain just beginning to lash down from a dark cloud.
The thing is, nothing else happens. The cloud doesn't change its color or its shape. The rain doesn't increase or subside. The boat sails on without moving. The people on the bridge are running now exactly where they ran before.
It's difficult at this point to keep from commenting. This picture is by no means innocent. Time has been stopped here. Its laws are no longer consulted. It has been relieved of its influence over the course of events. It has been ignored and insulted.
On account of a rebel, one Hiroshige Utagawa (a being who, by the way, died long ago and in due course), time has tripped and fallen down.
It might well be simply a trifling prank, an antic on the scale of just a couple of galaxies, let us, however, just in case, add one final comment for the record:
For generations, it's been considered good form here to think highly of this picture, to be entranced and moved.
There are those for whom even this is not enough. They go so far as to hear the rain's spatter, to feel the cold drops on their necks and backs, they look at the bridge and the people on it as if they saw themselves there, running the same never-to-be-finished race through the same endless, ever-to-be-covered distance, and they have the nerve to believe that this is really so.
2013.1.4 讀Andrew Hsu的
A Contribution to Statistics ~ Wislawa Szymborska ~
Out of a hundred people
those who always know better -- fifty-two
doubting every step -- nearly all the rest, glad to lend a hand if it doesn't take too long -- as high as forty-nine,
always good because they can't be otherwise -- four, well maybe five,
able to admire without envy -- eighteen,
suffering illusions induced by fleeting youth -- sixty, give or take a few,
not to be taken lightly -- forty and four,
living in constant fear of someone or something -- seventy-seven,
capable of happiness -- twenty-something tops,
harmless singly, savage in crowds -- half at least,
cruel when forced by circumstances -- better not to know even ballpark figures,
wise after the fact -- just a couple more than wise before it,
taking only things from life -- thirty (I wish I were wrong),
hunched in pain, no flashlight in the dark -- eighty-three sooner or later,
righteous -- thirty-five, which is a lot,
righteous and understanding -- three,
worthy of compassion -- ninety-nine,
mortal -- a hundred out of a hundred. Thus far this figure still remains unchanged.
(Poems: New and Selected, trans. by S. Baranczak and C. Cavanagh)
「詩界莫札特」辛波絲卡，這首Writing a resume，直透一個人被化約成履歷表的悲哀。
Regardless the length of life, a resume is best kept short.
Concise, well-chosen facts are de rigueur. Landscapes are replaced by addresses, shaky memories give way to unshakable dates.
Of all your loves, mention only the marriage; of all your children, only those who were born.
Who knows you matters more than whom you know. Trips only if taken abroad. Memberships in what without why. Honors, but not how they were earned.
Write as if you've never talked to yourself And always kept yourself at arm's length. ...............
http://www.facebook.com/wenjyehsu?clk_loc=2 ---- 2012.2.22 Museum Here are plates with no appetite. And wedding rings, but the requited love has been gone now for some three hundred years.
Here’s a fan–where is the maiden’s blush? Here are swords–where is the ire? Nor will the lute sound at the twilight hour.
Since eternity was out of stock, ten thousand aging things have been amassed instead. The moss-grown guard in golden slumber props his mustache on Exhibit Number…
Eight. Metals, clay and feathers celebrate their silent triumphs over dates. Only some Egyptian flapper’s silly hairpin giggles.
The crown has outlasted the head. The hand has lost out to the glove. The right shoe has defeated the foot.
As for me, I am still alive, you see. The battle with my dress still rages on. It struggles, foolish thing, so stubbornly! Determined to keep living when I’m gone!
Wislawa Szymborska with her Nobel Prize medal in 1996.
The cause was lung cancer, said David A. Goldfarb, the curator of literature and humanities at the Polish Cultural Institute in New York, a diplomatic mission of the Polish Embassy.
Ms. Szymborska (pronounced vees-WAH-vah shim-BOR-ska) had a relatively small body of work when she received the Nobel, the fifth Polish or Polish-born writer to have done so since the prize was created in 1901. Only about 200 of her poems had been published in periodicals and thin volumes over a half-century, and her lifetime total was something less than 400.
The Nobel announcement surprised Ms. Szymborska, who had lived an intensely private life. “She was kind of paralyzed by it,” said Clare Cavanagh, who, with Stanislaw Baranczak, translated much of Ms. Szymborska’s work into English.
“Her friends called it the ‘Nobel tragedy,’ ” Dr. Cavanagh, a professor of literature at Northwestern University, said in an interview on Wednesday. “It was a few years before she wrote another poem.”
Ms. Szymborska lived most of her life in modest conditions in the old university city of Krakow, working for the magazine Zycie Literackie (Literary Life). She published a thin volume of her verse every few years.
She was popular in Poland, which tends to make romantic heroes of poets, but she was little known abroad. Her poems were clear in topic and language, but her playfulness and tendency to invent words made her work hard to translate.
Much of her verse was contemplative, but she also addressed death, torture, war and, strikingly, Hitler, whose attack on Poland in 1939 started World War II in Europe. She depicted him as an innocent — “this little fellow in his itty-bitty robe” — being photographed on his first birthday.
Ms. Szymborska began writing in the Socialist Realist style. The first collection of what some have called her Stalinist period, “That’s What We Live For,” appeared in 1952, followed two years later by another ideological collection, “Questions Put to Myself.”
Years later she told the poet and critic Edward Hirsch: “When I was young I had a moment of believing in the Communist doctrine. I wanted to save the world through Communism. Quite soon I understood that it doesn’t work, but I’ve never pretended it didn’t happen to me.
“At the very beginning of my creative life I loved humanity. I wanted to do something good for mankind. Soon I understood that it isn’t possible to save mankind.”
By 1957, she had renounced both Communism and her early poetry. Decades later, she was active in the Solidarity movement’s struggle against Poland’s Communist government. During a period of martial law, imposed in 1981, she published poems under a pseudonym in the underground press.
She insisted that her poetry was personal rather than political. “Of course, life crosses politics,” she said in an interview with The New York Times after winning the Nobel in 1996. “But my poems are strictly not political. They are more about people and life.”
Ms. Szymborska “looks at things from an angle you would never think of looking at for yourself in a million years,” Dr. Cavanagh said on the day of the Nobel announcement. She pointed to “one stunning poem that’s a eulogy.”
“It’s about the death of someone close to her that’s done from the point of view of the person’s cat,” she said.
That poem, “Cat in an Empty Apartment,” as translated by Dr. Cavanagh and Mr. Baranczak, opens:
Die — You can’t do that to a cat.
Since what can a cat do
in an empty apartment?
Climb the walls?
Rub up against the furniture?
Nothing seems different here,
but nothing is the same.
Nothing has been moved,
but there’s more space.
And at nighttime no lamps are lit.
Footsteps on the staircase,
but they’re new ones.
The hand that puts fish on the saucer
has changed, too.
Something doesn’t start
at its usual time.
Something doesn’t happen
as it should. Someone was always, always here,
then suddenly disappeared
and stubbornly stays disappeared.
Wislawa Szymborska was born on July 2, 1923, near Poznan, in western Poland. When she was 8, her family moved to Krakow. During the Nazi occupation, she went to a clandestine school, risking German punishment, and later studied literature and sociology at the prestigious Jagiellonian University in Krakow.
Her marriage to the poet Adam Wlodek ended in divorce. Her companion, the writer Kornel Filipowicz, died in 1990. She had no children, and no immediate family members survive.
Czeslaw Milosz, the Polish exile who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980, said of Ms. Szymborska’s Nobel selection: “She’s a shy and modest person, and for her it will be a terrible burden, this prize. She is very reticent in her poetry also. This is not a poetry where she reveals her personal life.”
Her work did, however, reveal sympathy for others — even the biblical figure who looked back at Sodom and turned into a pillar of salt. Ms. Szymborska speculated in the opening lines of “Lot’s Wife” on why she looked back:
They say I looked back out of curiosity,
but I could have had other reasons.
I looked back mourning my silver bowl.
Carelessly, while tying my sandal strap.
So I wouldn’t have to keep staring at the righteous nape
Of my husband Lot’s neck.
From the sudden conviction that if I dropped dead
He wouldn’t so much as hesitate.
From the disobedience of the meek.
Checking for pursuers.
Struck by the silence, hoping God had changed his mind.
Her last book to be translated, “Here,” was published in the United States last year. Reviewing it for The New York Review of Books, the poet Charles Simic noted that Ms. Szymborska “often writes as if on an assigned subject,” examining it in depth. He added: “If this sounds like poetry’s equivalent of expository writing, it is. More than any poet I can think of, Szymborska not only wants to create a poetic state in her readers, but also to tell them things they didn’t know before or never got around to thinking about.”
In her Nobel lecture, Ms. Szymborska joked about the life of poets. Great films can be made of the lives of scientists and artists, she said, but poets offer far less promising material.
“Their work is hopelessly unphotogenic,” she said. “Someone sits at a table or lies on a sofa while staring motionless at a wall or ceiling. Once in a while this person writes down seven lines, only to cross out one of them 15 minutes later, and then another hour passes, during which nothing happens. Who could stand to watch this kind of thing?”
Paul Vitello contributed reporting.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: February 3, 2012
Because of an editing error, an obituary on Thursday about the Nobel Prize-winning poet Wislawa Szymborska misstated the pronunciation of her given name. It is vees-WAH-vah, not VEES-mah-vah.
比較頁316查理五世的圖書與 與Wikipedia 的Charles V (21 January 1338 – 16 September 1380), called "the Wise" (French: le Sage; Latin: Sapiens), was King of France from 1364 to his death,.... 之culture program：
Of great importance to Charles V's cultural program was his vast library, housed in his expanded Louvre, and described in great detail by the nineteenth-century French historian Leopold Delisle. Containing over 1,200 volumes, it was symbolic of the authority and magnificence of the royal person, but also of his concern with government for the common good. Charles was keen to collect copies of works in French, in order that his counsellors had access to them. Perhaps the most significant ones commissioned for the library were those of Nicole Oresme, who translated Aristotle's Politics, Ethics, and Economics into eloquent French for the first time (an earlier attempt had been made at the Politics, but the manuscript is now lost). If the Politics and Economics served as a manual for government, then the Ethicsadvised the king on how to be a good man. Other important works commissioned for the royal library were the anonymous legal treatise "Songe du Vergier," greatly inspired by the debates of Philip IV's jurists with Pope Boniface VIII, the translations of Raol de Presles, which included St. Augustine's City of God, and the Grandes Chroniques de France edited in 1377 to emphasise the vassalage of Edward III. Charles' kingship placed great emphasis on both royal ceremony and scientific political theory, and to contemporaries and posterity his lifestyle at once embodied the reflective life advised by Aristotle and the model of French kingship derived from St. Louis, Charlemagne, and Clovis which he had illustrated in his Coronation Book of 1364, now in the British Library. Charles V was also a builder king, and he created or rebuilt several significant buildings in the late 14th century style including the Bastille, the Château du Louvre, Château de Vincennes, and Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which were widely copied by the nobility of the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V_of_France
***** American historian who won a Pulitzer Prize for The Guns of August (1962) and for Stilwell and the American Experience in China (1971).
舉目當今，在海外的知識界像余英時這樣基於個人信念而絕不和中共政權妥協的人，可說是少之又少的。這不禁讓筆者憶起美國史學家塔克曼（女）和參院外交委員會主席傅爾伯萊特的一段對話。塔克曼以寫「史迪威在華經驗（Stilwell and the American Experience in China）」一書而獲得普立茲獎，是有名的自由派，甚至有人認為她是左派。
As the Going Gets Tough, Chrysler Calls on Its Old Pitchman
By DANNY HAKIM
DETROIT, July 6 - Chrysler is bringing back Lee A. Iacocca to do what he does best - pitch cars in commercials. At least that is the plan.
----
American historian who won a Pulitzer Prize for The Guns of August (1962) and for Stilwell and the American Experience in China (1971).
塔奇曼《八月炮火》( The Gun of August by Barbara W. Tuchman) ，北京：新星出版社，2005
The Guns of August ( 1962) (also published as August 1914) is a military history book by Barbara Tuchman describing the crisis and events of the first 30 days of World War I. Beginning on July 28, 1914, The Guns of August plays out the cataclysm of events that lead to Continental War, as well as the strategies behind the war which would lead to inevitable stalemate. 】 2007
****200912/22 Barbara Tuchman Dead at 77; A Pulitzer-Winning Historian
By ERIC PACE
Published: February 7, 1989
Barbara W. Tuchman, whose skill at writing histories of men at war and on the brink of war won her two Pulitzer Prizes, died of complications of a stroke yesterday afternoon at Greenwich (Conn.) Hospital. She was 77 years old and was admitted to the hospital Saturday after suffering the stroke at her home at Cos Cob, Conn.
It was Mrs. Tuchman's fourth book, ''The Guns of August,'' a study of the background and beginning of World War I, that made her a celebrity after it came out in 1962, winning reviewers' salutes, a durable niche on best-seller lists and her first Pulitzer Prize. The second Pulitzer came for ''Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45.'' The 1971 biography of Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell, a hard-driving American officer who played a major role in China during World War II, was combined with a history of modern China. Her other books included ''The Zimmermann Telegram,''''The Proud Tower'' and ''A Distant Mirror.'' Latest Book a Best Seller Her most recent book, ''The First Salute,'' sets the American Revolution in international perspective. It has been on the New York Times best-seller list for 17 weeks, and last week was No. 9. Born into a New York family that had long been eminent in finance and public service, Mrs. Tuchman could have had an easy, conventional life as the wife of a prominent physician. But as her three daughters grew older, she took up the historian's profession. She had neither an academic title nor even a graduate degree. ''It's what saved me,'' she later said. ''If I had taken a doctoral degree, it would have stifled any writing capacity.'' Her Primary Obstacle But to be a writer was difficult, she found, simply because she was a woman. ''If a man is a writer,'' she once said, ''everybody tiptoes around past the locked door of the breadwinner. But if you're an ordinary female housewife, people say, 'This is just something Barbara wanted to do; it's not professional.''' In fact, Mrs. Tuchman had a firm, even contentious, sense of her vocation. In history and biography, she told an audience at the National Portrait Gallery in 1978, ''the writer's object is - or should be - to hold the reader's attention.'' ''I want the reader to turn the page and keep on turning to the end,'' she added. ''This is accomplished only when the narrative moves steadily ahead, not when it comes to a weary standstill, overloaded with every item uncovered in the research.'' An Impression of Authority In her person as well as in her choice of words, Mrs. Tuchman gave an impression of authority. She had strong features, a high forehead, wise hazel eyes and a somewhat serious manner that gave way, now and then, to a dazzling smile. Summing up her view of the historical process, she wrote in 1981, in the preface to ''Practicing History,'' a selection of her short writings, that she had arrived at ''a sense of history as accidental and perhaps cyclical, of human conduct as a steady stream running through endless fields of changing circumstances, of good and bad always coexisting and inextricably mixed in periods as in people, of cross-currents and counter-currents usually present to contradict too-easy generalizations.'' Lofty though her views might be, Mrs. Tuchman was down to earth in her research. Before she wrote ''The Guns of August,'' she rented a Renault sedan and toured the appropriate battlefields. When she took notes, it was always on index cards measuring 4 by 6 inches - a convenient size, she said, for storing in shoeboxes and carrying in her purse. That sort of prosaic concern was far from her exalted birthright. Barbara Wertheim was born on Jan. 30, 1912, in New York, the daughter of Maurice Wertheim, an investment banker, art collector and philanthropist, and Alma Morgenthau Wertheim, a sister of Henry Morgenthau Jr., who was Secretary of the Treasury under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Miss Wertheim attended the Walden School before entering Radcliffe College, where she concentrated on history and literature and received her bachelor's degree in 1933. Worked in Japan Since, as she put it, ''paying jobs did not hang from the trees'' in that Depression year, she took an unpaid position with the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. The following year, she went to Tokyo to help work up an economic handbook of the Pacific area. While there, she wrote for two journals, Far Eastern Survey and Pacific Affairs. An early contribution was a review of a French historian's book about Japan. Not long after it was printed, she later recalled: ''I was thrilled to receive from the author a letter addressed 'Chere consoeur' (the feminine of confrere, or as we would say, 'colleague'). I felt admitted into an international circle of professionals.'' In 1936, Miss Wertheim went to work for The Nation, which her father had bought to keep it from going bankrupt. Her first job was clipping newspaper articles, but soon she was writing herself, and in 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, she went to Valencia and Madrid as The Nation's correspondent. 'Heroes, Hopes, and Illusions' From Spain she traveled elsewhere in Europe, savoring what she later called ''a somber, exciting, believing, betraying time, with heroes, hopes, and illusions.'' In London, she put together a short book, ''The Lost British Policy,'' about British policy toward Spain and the Western Mediterranean. Her later appraisal of the work, which came out in 1938, was that it was only ''a respectable piece of research,'' and she sometimes omitted it in listing her books. By 1939, she was back in New York, writing largely on Spain, and the next year she married Dr. Lester Reginald Tuchman, a New York internist. Mrs. Tuchman was soon showing her strength of will. With Nazi Germany looming, she later wrote, her husband ''not unreasonably felt at that time that the world was too unpromising to bring children into. ''Sensible for once, I argued that if we waited for the outlook to improve, we might wait forever, and that if we wanted a child at all we should have it now, regardless of Hitler.'' ''The tyranny of men not being quite as total as today's feminists would have us believe,'' she added, writing in 1981, ''our first daughter was born nine months later.'' Separated by Wartime After Pearl Harbor, Dr. Tuchman went overseas to a United States military hospital, and Mrs. Tuchman got a job in New York with the Office of War Information, preparing material on the Far East for use in broadcasts to Europe. ''After the war, when my husband came home, we had two more children, and domesticity for a while prevailed,'' she wrote later, ''combined with beginning the work I had always wanted to do, which was writing a book.'' ''When the children were very small,'' she once recalled in an interview, ''I worked in the morning only and then gradually, as they spent full days at school, I could spend full days at work. I could never have done any of this work if I hadn't been able to afford domestic help.'' The fruit of those labors, ''Bible and Sword,'' about relations between Britain and Palestine, came out in 1956. It attracted relatively little notice, though what there was of it was favorable. Two years later ''The Zimmermann Telegram'' appeared, about a message sent from Berlin to a German diplomat in Mexico in January 1917, raising the possibility of ''an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer territory in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona,'' and about the message's repercussions after it was intercepted and made public by the British. Writing in The New York Times, Samuel Flagg Bemis, the Yale diplomatic historian, said the value and importance of the book lay in Mrs. Tuchman's ''brilliant use of well known materials, her sureness of insight and her competent grasp of a complicated chapter of diplomatic history.'''The Guns of August' Attempting something that might have seemed a bit beyond her reach, Mrs. Tuchman took up a far broader and more important topic in her next book, which was ''The Guns of August.'' World War I, as she saw it, was no less than ''the chasm between our world and a world that died forever.'' Though the book was largely about arms and men, it was also about aspirations and ideals. ''Men,'' she concluded, in one widely quoted passage, ''could not sustain a war of such magnitude and pain without hope - the hope that its very enormity would insure that it could never happen again.'' Clifton Fadiman, writing in the Book-of-the-Month-Club News, said: ''Its virtues are almost Thucydidean: intelligence, concision, weight, detachment.'' Writing in The New York Times, Cyril Falls, a British officer turned military historian, said Mrs. Tuchman ''writes so brilliantly and inspiringly.'' The book, he said, was ''lucid, fair, critical and witty.'' But he contended that her performance was uneven, and ''the errors and omissions amount to a formidable total.'' For his part, Bruce Bliven, writing in The New Yorker, complained that ''Mrs. Tuchman leans toward seeing issues as black and white.'' Emphasized Human Qualities The book's emphasis on the human qualities of the leaders of the time helped make it popular with the public, and it served as the basis for a 1964 documentary film, produced by Nathan Kroll, with the same title. The quarter-century preceding World War I was the subject of Mrs. Tuchman's next book, ''The Proud Tower,'' which came out in 1966. In a review in The New York Times, Martin Duberman, a Princeton history professor, praised her skill at narrating events, making historical personages come alive, and writing clearly and powerfully about complex matters. But he said the book did ''not come up to the high level of 'The Guns of August.''' It was not a portrait of the period, he contended, but merely ''random brush strokes, leaving a canvas unoccupied by any ruling vision.'' When ''Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45,'' came out, it was hailed as ''brilliant'' in a review in The New Republic by the dean of American China scholars, John K. Fairbank, the director of Harvard University's East Asian Research Center. 'A Distant Mirror' Another book about Asia, ''Notes From China,'' a slim volume about a six-week trip Mrs. Tuchman had taken, appeared in 1972. But six years went by before the appearance of her next work, ''A Distant Mirror,'' a study of the 14th century, an era that was racked by plague and war. Reviewing the book in The New York Times, Eric Cochrane, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, said, ''This book abounds in the same elements that have made her previous books masterpieces of popular scholarship: vivid battle scenes, scenes from daily life, brilliant portraits.'' But he also argued that she was guilty of grave omissions and misinterpretations. In ''The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam,'' a 1984 book, Mrs. Tuchman scrutinized the Trojans' decision to admit the Greek horse into their city, the refusal of six Renaissance Popes to arrest church corruption in advance of the Protestant Reformation, British misrule under King George III and America's mishandling of the Vietnam conflict. Mrs. Tuchman had an occasional fondness for twitting figures of authority. She once began a speech to the Army War College by noting that her subject, generalship, had been suggested by the college's commandant. ''No doubt,'' she observed, ''he could safely assume that the subject in itself would automatically interest this audience in the same way that motherhood would interest an audience of pregnant ladies.'' Mrs. Tuchman is survived by her husband, who is an emeritus professor of clinical medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine; a sister, Anne W. Werner of Manhattan; three daughters, Lucy T. Eisenberg of Los Angeles, Jessica Tuchman Mathews of Washington, and Alma Tuchman of Cos Cob and Manhattan, and four grandchildren. The funeral will be private. A memorial service is be held at 2 P.M. Sunday in the Celeste Bartos Forum at the main branch of the New York Public Library. Her Books And the Subjects ''The Lost British Policy'' (1938): British policy toward Spain and the Western Mediterranean. ''Bible and Sword'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1956): Relations between Britain and Palestine. ''The Zimmermann Telegram'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1958): A 1917 diplomatic message and its international repercussions. ''The Guns of August'' (Macmillan, 1962): The background and beginning of World War I. ''The Proud Tower'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1966): The quarter-century preceding World War I. ''Stillwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45'' (Macmillan, 1971): A biography of Gen. Joseph W. Stillwell. ''Notes From China (Macmillan, 1972): A trip to China. ''A Distant Mirror'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978): The 14th century. ''Practising History'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1981): A collection of her shorter writings. ''The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1984): Some historical mistakes. ''The First Salute'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 1988): The American Revolution placed in an international perspective. photos of Barbara Tuchman (NYT) (pgs. A1 & B7)
A version of this obituary appeared in print on February 7, 1989, on page A1 of the New York edition.
** 2008/7/7
著名的「塔克曼」（Tuchman , Barbara Wertheim 1912–1989）訪談，可參考Bill Moyers《美國心靈》（A WORLD OF IDEAS）（北京：三聯，第3-17頁）。
巴巴拉•W.塔奇曼（Barbara W. Tuchman）
她写出了20世纪最好的历史作品。以《八月炮火 》和《史迪威与美国在中国的经验》两次获得普利策奖。从1956年到1988年，她共出版了10部作品: 《圣经与剑》（Bible and Sword, 1956）、《齐默尔曼电报》（The Zimmermann Telegram, 1958）、《八月炮火》（The Guns of August, 1962 大陸有中文版）、《骄傲的城堡》（The Proud Tower, 1966）、《史迪威与美国在中国的经验》（Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1971大陸有中文版）、《来自中国的函件》（Notes from China, 1972）、《遠方之鏡：動盪不安的十四世紀》（A Distant Mirror, 1978 台北：廣場，2018）、《实践历史 大陸有中文版》（Practicing History, 1981 大陸有中文版）、《“荒唐”进行曲》（The March of Folly, 1984）、《第一次敬礼》（The First Salute, 1988）。
她力陳： 英雄的定義 為A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life。 不過，現代人都將名人當英雄(A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See synonyms at celebrity.) 這作者名字之發音，翻譯錯誤： Tuch·man (tŭck`mən) , Barbara Wertheim 1912–1989.
events of the first 30 days of World War I. Beginning on July 28, 1914, The Guns of August plays out the cataclysm of events that lead to Continental War, as well as the strategies behind the war which would lead to inevitable stalemate.】
大陸兩本，作者名字發音都搞錯：芭芭拉·塔克曼，不是「塔奇曼」。
這作者名字之發音，翻譯錯誤： Tuch·man (tŭck`mən) , Barbara Wertheim 1912–1989.
序巴巴拉•塔奇曼的《史迪威與美國在中國的經驗》是一部傑作，這是出於許多很不相同的理由，每一條理由都足以讓它流傳下去。首先，它富於戲劇性。這是一本生動的傳記，講的是一個古怪但卻真實的英雄，一個美國最偉大的戰區指揮官之一。當美國陸軍1940年在路易斯安那舉行軍事演習以物色有才幹的指揮官時，喬• 史迪威表現得極為敏捷、富有想像力而又不墨守成規，當時就已經是閃電戰的高手。在陸軍的九個軍級指揮官中他得到了最高評價，並受命率軍進攻北非。他本可以成為像歐洲戰區的布萊德雷或者巴頓那樣的人物。可是，由於他的中國經歷，他被派去處理那裡的危機。不過，美國在中國的戰時努力基本上是白費了——即便我們承認了這樣的事實，那就是：戰爭本身不過是一種高度組織化的對人的耗費而已。史迪威將軍恪盡職責， 這使他能屢屢創造奇蹟。他這次冒險本來就兇多吉少，當時在蔣介石委員長統治下的自由中國已經瀕於崩潰，而史迪威名義上是蔣介石的“總參謀長”。這是多麼鮮 明的對比！一個是美國的頑強的理想主義者，決心訓練出中國部隊並“打垮小日本”；另一個則是狡詐的軍事政治家，同樣很有決心，那就是不想讓中國繼續打下去，從而保住自己的位子。史迪威與蔣介石的對峙濃縮了美國在中國的戰時目標所遭遇的種種挫折。然而本書並非只是快節奏地敘述籠罩在悲劇陰影下的紛繁事件。隱藏在這個戰爭故事後面的是長期以來美國試圖使中國跟自己更相似的努力——這是個堂吉訶德式的努力，但是屢敗屢試，現在這種努力又再度興起了。讀者會發現本書的結語恰如其分（直到1971年前都是如此）：“最後，中國走了自己的道路，就彷佛美國人從來沒有去過那裡似的。”但在將近十五年後，另一輪的接觸、旅遊、交流、投資和外交活動又在展開了。現在是美國公眾好好回顧從前的時候了，用中國人的話說即所謂“前車之鑑”。特別是我們發現，幫助盟友國民黨使我們成了共產黨所發動的中國革命的敵人，對我們來說最糟的是，這場革命最後成功了。總之，正如我們說過的，我們開始是想幫助中國，而之後在冷戰的強權政治中，出於我們的“國家利益”，我們又跟中國人對立起來。這樣做真的符合我們的國家利 益嗎？尤其在考慮到那就是我們的朝鮮和越南戰爭的序曲時？巴巴拉•塔奇曼的《史迪威與美國在中國的經驗》給我們帶來了很多直至今天仍然很重要的問題。但這本書真正吸引人的地方在於，它是部一流的歷史著作，作者是一位自信而又熟悉這種藝術的大家。一開始巴巴拉•沃特海姆•塔奇曼（Barbara Wertheim Tuchman）就很自然地躋身於美國知識精英階層中。她的祖父和外祖父都是紐約從事實務的人們中的自由派領袖。她的外祖父是老亨利•摩根索（Henry Morgenthau, Sr.），他的兒子，也就是她的舅舅，後來成了羅斯福的財政部長。她還是哈佛拉德克利夫（Radcliffe）學院的學生時，就曾陪祖父參加在倫敦舉行的世界經濟會議。對她來說，眼界高遠和公眾人物的品性都是遺傳的一部分。在拉德克利夫的時候，她專注於既相關又各有專攻的歷史和文學。 1933年她畢業後不久，這個世界就不得不為反對法西斯和軍國主義而動員起來。她主動、思路清晰而又無所畏懼，這些素質使得她成為太平洋關係研究所（Institute of Pacific Relations）的研究人員。 1934年她在紐約，1935年則在東京。該研究所是一個富有開創性的“智囊團”和會議組織，1920年代由基督教青年會的一些前幹事在檀香山創辦。它由十幾個國家級研究所組成，分佈於主要的環太平洋國家，包括歐洲在那裡的殖民地。它獨自在太平洋地區開創了當代研究和定期國際討論的模式，而現在的中心和協會幾乎每天都在採用這種研究模式。 1935年巴巴拉•沃特海姆從軍國主義的東京去了共產黨控制前的中國。回到紐約後她開始為《國家》（The Nation）雜誌工作；她父親曾經是該雜誌的出版人。然後她在1937－1938年間去馬德里報導西班牙內戰。她作為倫敦《新政治家》（New Statesman）雜誌的駐美國記者回到紐約，並於1940年與萊斯特•塔奇曼（Lester Tuchman）博士結婚，之後很快生下三個女兒。從1943年到1945年，她在紐約戰時新聞處遠東新聞部工作。對一個家道殷實又忙忙碌碌的母親來說，這樣的早期職業經歷足以讓她參加外國關係委員會的會議從而紐約的當權者們增光，但也就僅此而已。然而對巴巴拉•塔奇曼來說，她才剛剛走上軌道。 1956年，她重拾早年的興趣，發表了《聖經和劍：從青銅時代到貝爾福宣言時期的英國和巴勒斯坦》（Bible and Sword: Britain and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour），一本一直講到1918年的歷史著作。那以後她避免了那些牽扯到她個人情感的題目，並作為面向大眾寫作歷史的作家找到了自己的風格。某個把巴巴拉的這些書稱為“通俗歷史”的批評家與其說是在評論這些書，倒不如說是在評論他自己。確實，它們是“非學術性的”，因為它們主要不是為了討論那些歷史“問題”——太多這類問題來源於社會科學對歷史學的滲透。在大學裡，那些尋求科學一致性的人入侵歷史學後強調的是概括、事件的模式和比較研究的先驗圖式。這些很可能加快了學生對歷史的興趣的減少。總而言之，巴巴拉•塔奇曼主張把歷史看作是具有可讀性的故事，在這一點上她暢所欲言、深刻，並有廣泛說服力。對她來說，關鍵的是人們的感受和言行；相比這些，像社會流動性、合法性、投資比率和工作觀念之類的問題只是次要的。她反復強調了事件、人物以及地方的獨特性。當然，多年來在歷史學領域里個別性和普遍性一直在爭鬥，以期獲得更多的重視。這裡我們很難用只言片語——不管我們怎樣斟詞酌句——就解決這個古老的哲學問題。其實這也用不著我們解決：巴巴拉•塔奇曼的歷史是自立的，根本用不著任何理論支持。它就是讓讀者著迷了，它讓他們得以如此接近過去的歷史，這接近的程度是前所未有的。她的秘密首先在於她驚人的勤奮。她在研究時發掘了所有的記錄，哪怕是最小的紙片也不放過。醞釀《史迪威與美國在中國的經驗》花了四年，這個時間跟《八月炮火》（The Guns of August）花的一樣多；後者講述了第一次世界大戰的第一個月，是本暢銷書，並獲得普利策獎。 1967年，當她開始創作《史迪威與美國在中國的經驗》的時候，當時已經完成的一些深入研究已經揭示了二戰時美國對華政策在外交和官僚政治上的盤根錯節之處。兩個很有才幹的軍事歷史學家寫了三厚本有關史迪威在中緬印戰區的著作。事件的框架已經有了。尤為可貴的是，史迪威將軍的家人公開了他內容廣泛的日記和私人記錄。要關注史迪威，塔奇曼夫人就得避開那些雷區，即那些自美國宣告“失去中國”之後所積累的單方面證據、指責，以及那些各懷心思的回憶錄。另外，聚焦史迪威使得她可以探求美國與其盟友中國國民政府之間的利益衝突——這才是關鍵所在。這樣就避免了把注意力分散到蔣介石所率領的國民黨和毛澤東統治下的中國共產黨之間的那場殊死搏鬥；1946年史迪威突然死於癌症後，這場搏鬥掙脫了美國的影響爆發了，美國國內政治因此充滿怨恨。另一個也跟勤奮有關的秘密則很容易察覺到，那就是巴巴拉•塔奇曼通過掌握並使用這些記錄而提煉出了她所謂的“確證的細節”。即便她已經感知了某些事件的相關性，她仍然必須通過現場證據——不言自明的一條引語、一個事實或者一個事件——才可以將這一點傳達給讀者。這些細節使得不同事件聯繫起來了。因為她是在講一個故事，並不是想證明什麼，所以巴巴拉•塔奇曼瞧不起計算機打印出來的那些玩意，也不喜歡引用其他歷史學家的話。 “我從來不覺得引用某人在旁邊大學工作的鄰居的話有什麼意義。在我看來這根本就不是什麼來源；我想知道某個事實的原出處，而不是最近誰引用了它。” 幸運的是，她除了有一種咄咄逼人的獨立精神（她不是個教授），對那些眾多學者所關注的政治、經濟以及社會制度或者那些“因素”也具有敏銳觀察力。例如，她對蔣介石在中國所達成的脆弱又耗神費力的權利平衡的分析，便是本書闡發最為清晰的地方之一。她所刻畫的史迪威的早期經歷——他的語言天分和海外遊歷，他對體育運動的熱愛，以及他在1920年代和1930年代對中國的探索——既是他本人的傳記，又是他那個時代的社會歷史。塔奇曼夫人善於發掘和利用各種記錄， 這使得她可以把故事貫穿起來。從1980年代的視角來看，史迪威以及美國人在中國的經歷是怎樣的呢？歷史地看，1911年到1945年是新的中國共和國摸索建立新政體的時期。到1928年國民黨一黨專政終於取代了君主專制。不過，自1931年起，由於日本入侵，中國的政治生活重又陷入混亂。在這個時期，政治上的分裂和虛弱使得外國人——特別是美國人——難得地有了參與中國生活的機會。在很多中國愛國人士看來，美國那些用條約維持的各種特權不過是十九世紀歐洲和日本帝國主義的繼續。羅斯福總統在1944年竟然提議由史迪威將軍指揮全部中國對日作戰部隊，這無疑是整個帝國主義歷史中一個登峰造極的時刻。自1949年以來，中國共產主義革命改變了這一切。然而……雖然在1980年代中國的政體是獨立自主的，但它的經濟看起來仍然需要外國的貿易、技術和投資。自1949年後中國人口增加了一倍多，這消耗了革命成果。中國的貧窮是顯而易見的，特別是對那些見過外國物質富足的愛國者而言。毛主席排外的平均主義跟他針對統治階級特權和官僚主義的社會革命一樣，只能讓位於鄧小平的工業－技術革命。這個人民共和國現在只能藉助外國的幫助增加產量。美國人——包括那些闊綽的美國遊客——又一次成了貧窮中國的特殊人群。我們再次跟處於統治地位的中國人密切交往起來，跟他們談生意、交朋友。我們的中國朋友再次可能成為排外的民粹運動攻擊的目標。我們在1980年代所看到的中國革命是史迪威未能看到的——這是個社會和工業革命的富於活力的交替變化，是鄉村和城市人民渴望的彼此消長。彷彿有一個內置的鐘擺，引導中國就像一個盲人一樣走了一條迂迴曲折的路線，先在農民中間開展平均主義的社會變革，然後轉而在現代技術領域培養出新的統治階層。過去三十多年的歷史所預示的可不是一種單調的穩定。自巴巴拉•塔奇曼寫作此書後，其他歷史學家又有什麼新見解？有關贏得了未來的毛澤東和中國共產黨的新見解很多，但有關1940年代美國戰時努力的卻很少。也許最有價值的研究是邁克爾•沙勒（Michael Schaller）的《美國在中國的東征，1938－1945》（The US Crusade in China, 1938-1945） ，此書利用了根據“自由信息法”剛剛解禁的秘密政府檔案。沙勒的研究僅僅加深了對美國在戰時中國的意圖和所作所為的幻滅感，而塔奇曼在她的《史迪威與美國在中國的經驗》裡早已明確傳達了這種幻滅感。舉例來說，他記載了統率美國駐華海軍的米爾頓•邁爾斯（Milton Miles）中校的工作。邁爾斯走在了美國陸軍的前面。通過1943年4月羅斯福總統所簽署的一個秘密協議，他讓美國海軍利用中國自己的飛機向中國提供軍火，並幫助蔣介石的秘密警察頭目戴笠對其人員進行培訓，從而更好地打擊對手——中國共產黨。邁爾斯好像有童子軍的素質，看上去也很像。他還在海軍軍官學校（US Naval Academy）的時候，朋友們就叫他“瑪麗”，因為他也有酒窩，長得挺像舞台明星瑪麗•邁爾斯•敏特（Mary Miles Minter）。在自由中國，邁爾斯統率著2500－3000個美國人。有些幫助戴笠進行反共活動，從事暗殺、投毒、抓捕和鎮壓。由於有美國海軍上層的支持，邁爾斯屢次挫敗了史迪威試圖控制他的努力。邁爾斯感到戴笠有種“磁石般的吸引力”，因為他“本身是個自由、民主人士……建立的集中營都是完全合法的……而且他愛自己的母親並支持婦女教育” 。據邁爾斯的批評者說，他參加了戴笠主持的集體審判，審判後那些政治犯就被活埋了。這位浪漫而可怕的海軍軍官提前在中國揭開了冷戰的序幕，後來他得了誇大妄想症並於1945年9月被送回美國。中國共產黨對他的活動進行抗議是完全正當的。邁爾斯一事說明，史迪威與美國在中國的經驗的戰時努力是怎樣被限制在國民黨的冷漠和中美反革命之間的。喬•史迪威這個帶兵高手很想教中國那些被徵募來服兵役的農家子弟們怎樣保衛自己的祖國。他身上體現了我們引以為榮的美國的優點，如民主和主動盡職。他的經歷說明了一個有天賦又有超人毅力的人能夠取得什麼， 以及不能夠取得什麼。毫無疑問，史迪威很幸運沒有成為中國抗日軍隊的統帥；在史迪威1944年被召回前羅斯福總統曾經這樣建議過。那將使他置身於國民黨和中國共產黨之間，而當時他們誰都不想對日作戰。中國的愛國情緒正在高漲，而國共內戰已經開始。這個被蔣介石拒絕的任命將使美國捲入戰後中國，從而招致一個致命的“超級越南”。即便如此，直到三十年後美國才承認了中國革命。費正清1985年 -----
"In Thucydides’s morally coherent universe, moral action is also, inevitably, practical action, and immoral action is inevitably impractical, no matter how insistently short-sighted strategists pretend that it isn’t," writes Edward Mendelson. "In the two years since the 2016 US election, it seems ever more clear that Thucydides is the greatest historian not only of empire but also of contemporary politics."
NYBOOKS.COM
What Thucydides Knew About the US Today Historians argue among themselves whether Thucydides is a moralizing philosopher or, in a common phrase, “the first scientific historian.” What is radical about him, and gives him his unerring clear-sightedness, is that he is both. He understands morals, not as a set of arbitrary rules imposed o...
War(New York, 1951), 14I Thucydides (trans. John H. Finley, Jr.), ThePeloponnesian 15. ... The essential idea THEORY OF HEGEMONIC WAR embodied in Thucydides' theory of hegemonic war is that fundamental changes in the international system are the basic determinants of such wars. it is caused by broad changes in political.
2013/02/25 - Gilpin focuses on how the international order emerges from hegemonic wars, is forged and upheld by dominant ... Historically, the wars that meet these three criteria are: the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta ...
monic war. This essay argues that Thucydides' theory of hegemonic war constitutes one of the central organizing ideas for the study of international ... I Thucydides (trans. John H. Finley, Jr.), ThePeloponnesian War (New York, 1951), 14-. 15.
Thucydides’ account of The Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta is one of the classic pieces of writing on war. Thucydides, himself a failed Athenian admiral, wrote a detailed history of the war which, unlike the writings of his contemporaries, explained events by reference to the interplay of personalities and power rather than by the divine intervention of the gods. Above all, his account is written from a realist perspective which seeks to explain and understand rather than to moralize about war, although he does moralize implicitly and explicitly about the domestic pressures for war.
"I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time."
Mary Renault (1905-1983)一九五六年的《殘酒》（The Last of the Wine） 以伯羅奔尼撒戰爭（431–404 BC）為背景，講述在柏拉圖老師蘇格拉底門下的一對雅典情侶十三年的流離。呂西斯與阿列克西亞的關係，再現了雅典所崇尚的男同性戀習俗：較年長的「愛者」（erastes）要擔當他傾慕的少年「所愛」（eromenos）的精神導師。兩人彷彿是另一時空的拉爾夫與羅瑞，因生活在一個推崇男風的英雄主義時代，而能更加高貴而長久地相愛。戰爭與和平交替，暴民與寡頭輪番上台，雅典由盛而衰的歷程如長卷一樣徐徐鋪展。這小說一舉奠定了瑞瑙特作為歷史文學大師的地位，也確立了她用得爐火純青的敘事手法—第一人稱回憶體的成長小說。
【绕不开的修昔底德陷阱，美中必有一战？ 】
2015年9月，中国国家主席 #习近平 对美国进行国事访问期间，“修昔底德陷阱”(Thucydides Trap)一说的提出者——美国知名国际关系和外交政策学者、哈佛大学教授格雷厄姆·艾里森(Graham T. Allison)在《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上发表了题为《修昔底德陷阱：美国和中国正在走向战争？》的文章，指出快速崛起的中国必将冲击美国主导的国际秩序。在这一过程中，新兴大国中国和守成大国美国极有可能爆发战争。艾里森在他刚刚出版的新书《注定一战：美国和中国能否逃脱修昔底德陷阱？》(Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap)详尽阐述了这一观点。他表示，如果美国不及时拿出全面应对方案，不做出重大战略调整，美中极有可能爆发灾难性的冲突，而冲突的导火索将极有可能是朝鲜。
2015年9月，中国国家主席习近平对美国进行国事访问期间，“修昔底德陷阱”(Thucydides Trap)一说的提出者——美国知名国际关系和外交政策学者、哈佛大学教授格雷厄姆·艾里森(Graham T. Allison)在《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)上发表了题为《修昔底德陷阱：美国和中国正在走向战争？》的文章
Allison derived his interesting metaphor, the “Thucydides Trap,” from the fifth-century B.C. Peloponnesian War recounted by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. The combatants were the ruling power Sparta, which the “trap” describes as corresponding to 21st-century United States, and the rising power Athens, corresponding to today’s China. Thucydides attributed the war to the “growth in power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta,” spurring the latter to launch what became a 27-year war.
But the comparisons do not end there. The Thucydides Trap further stretches history and credulity by presuming equivalence with other distant wars. Allison’s examples date to the 16th-century war between the ruling power France and the rising power the Habsburgs, the 17th-century war between the Dutch Republic and England, and the 19th-century war between the ruling power France and the rising power Germany — among several others, reaching back centuries. But the equivalences with 21st-century United States and China — geostrategic challenges and opportunities, international order, deepening and irreversible globalization, myriad interdependences, robust trade, potentially existential nature of war today and preferred resort to diplomacy — don’t really hold up. Especially not to ancient Sparta and Athens.
Professor Graham Allison of the Harvard Kennedy School has popularized the phrase “Thucydides' trap,” to explain the likelihood of conflict between a rising power and a currently dominant one.May 6, 2015
哈佛大學教授傅高義(Ezra F. Vogel)傾十年心力完成的巨著《鄧小平時代》(Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China)於2013年1月由生活·讀書·新知三聯書店出版，在中國大陸首度公開發行了簡體中文版。 《鄧小平時代》一書英文原著於2011年在哈佛大學出版社出版，2012年香港中文大學出版社出版了未經刪節的中文版，譯者為馮克利。港版全書約58萬字，其中注釋6.1萬字。三聯書店的大陸版仍採用了馮克利的譯本，但對內容進行了刪節。
大陸版正文較港版刪節約5.3萬字，其中包括“鄧小平時代的關鍵人物”(Key People in the Deng Era)一文約2.6萬字。附錄部分，大陸版的注釋從港版的105頁縮減為78頁，索引由港版的39頁縮減為11頁。 在給《紐約時報》的郵件回復中，傅高義坦承了他對《鄧小平時代》大陸版的看法。他表示，三聯書店能夠獲准出版《鄧小平時代》中文版並保留了他想表達 的核心內容（占原著篇幅90%以上），令他感到欣慰。他稱讚三聯書店“努力地呈現了所有我想要表達的核心內容”，“當我抱怨我想說的話被省掉的時候，他們 （三聯）有時會想出辦法把（我想說的）話說出來。” 傅高義還確認了他與三聯書店達成的協議，即三聯方面保證將大陸版所有的刪節之處告知傅高義並做出說明，而且不添加傅高義原話之外的任何內容。這一承 諾從《三聯生活周刊》對三聯書店總編輯李昕的訪談中，可以得到佐證。《紐約時報》曾就《鄧小平時代》一書在大陸出版的情況聯繫三聯書店置評，但三聯方面表 示不便就此接受採訪。 客觀地說，大陸版《鄧小平時代》對天安門事件、鄧小平南巡前後對改革停滯的不滿、鄧小平子女的腐敗傳聞等敏感話題並未避而不談。那麼，正文部分蒸發 的約2.7萬字都涉及怎樣的內容？這無疑是一個了解今日中國歷史敘述禁區及出版審查紅線的難得機會。筆者在認真比對《鄧小平時代》英文原版、香港中文大學 版和三聯書店版的基礎上，將《鄧小平時代》大陸版編輯取捨的主要思路歸納舉要如下。 黨內的矛盾和鬥爭 《鄧小平時代》記載了不同歷史時期，中共高層領導人之間存在的矛盾，如毛澤東與周恩來的矛盾，華國鋒和鄧小平的矛盾，鄧小平與陳雲的矛盾等。在大陸版中，對這些矛盾的描寫被不同程度地刪減和淡化。例如： 第2章《放逐與回歸》(Banishment and Return, 1969-1974)中，兩段對毛澤東既不喜歡周恩來，又離不開周恩來的心態的描寫，第5章《靠邊站》(Sidelined as the Mao Era Ends, 1976)中對周恩來去世後毛澤東的冷漠態度的描寫被刪去。 第12章《重組領導班子》(Launching the Deng Administration, 1979-1980)中寫道，葉劍英反對華國鋒去職但最終向多數意見妥協，後來葉帥病重時鄧小平沒有禮節性地前去看望他；以及為了更順利地使華國鋒下台， 鄧小平分階段施加壓力——這些暴露中共黨內分歧的細節也被刪去。 1980年代後期，主張大力改革的鄧小平和主張穩健的陳雲在1984年之後分歧日益明顯。為了弱化這種分歧，第14章《廣東和福建的實驗》 (Experiments in Guangdong and Fujian, 1979-1984)部分刪去了對陳雲保守態度的刻畫，例如“與此同時，廣東的幹部則認為他（陳雲）始終是個讓他們頭痛的人。幾乎所有的高幹都去過特區至 少一次，對特區的成就予以表揚，只有陳雲和李先念不去。陳雲每年都去南方過冬，比如杭州和上海等地，但他總說自己的身體狀況不允許他去廣東。” 類似對鄧小平和陳雲分歧的淡化處理在第14章節中出現了3次，第16章中出現了7次，在第22章（由於內地版將第20和21章合并為一章，所以英文 版和港版是第23章，內地版是第22章）《終曲：南方之行》 (Deng’s Finale: The Southern Journey, 1992)中也刪節了部分有關二人矛盾的內容。不過，在傅高義“鄧小平時代的關鍵人物”一文中，也強調了鄧陳之前合作的一面。他寫道，“鄧小平和陳雲還是 在這種路線分歧中盡量做到了和平相處。” 鄧小平1992年南巡前後，黨內改革與保守路線的鬥爭也成是大陸版《鄧小平時代》努力迴避的一個話題。傅高義認為，鄧小平1992年南巡最重要的意 義在於使江澤民站到了改革者的行列中。有軍方要人出席的“珠海會議”是其中一個重要事件。大陸版刪去了大半有關珠海會議的內容，如鄧小平會上“誰不改革， 誰就下台，我們的領導看上去是在做事，但其實他們沒有做任何有用的事”的嚴厲講話，及“如果江澤民不推行改革，得到軍隊擁護的鄧小平將用喬石來替換他”， “江澤民向時任福建省委書記的賈慶林索要珠海會議錄音”等。不過，大陸版第22章中仍保留了與“珠海會議”相關的一個段落（大陸版第626頁）。 天安門事件的經過和細節 大陸版《鄧小平時代》將原著及港版的第20章《北京之春：1989年4月15日至5月17日》(Beijing Spring, April 15-May 17, 1989)和第21章《天安門的悲劇：1989年5月17日-6月4日》(The Tiananmen Tragedy, May17-June 4,1989)合并為第20章《北京，1989》。 在描述1989年天安門事件時，傅高義英文原著中使用了“鎮壓”(crackdown)、“悲劇”(tragedy)、“災難” (catastrophe)和“人類的苦難”(human suffering)等詞彙，但沒有使用西方世界形容天安門事件的另一種流行說法“屠殺”(massacre)。大陸版《鄧小平時代》對傅高義的表述進行 了弱化，描寫6月4日的“鎮壓”(The Crackdown)一節，標題被改為“清場”。此外，大陸版用“六四”代替了港版中“天安門事件”一詞，來稱呼這場政治運動。 有關天安門事件的內容是大陸版刪節最明顯的一部分（比港版少了約一萬字），不過該事件的大致經過基本得到保留，包括以下十六個標題：“胡耀邦去 世”，“騷動的根源”，“從悼念到抗議”，“‘四二六社論’”，“李鵬和趙紫陽的分歧”，“為戈爾巴喬夫的訪問做準備和絕食抗議”，“戈爾巴喬夫訪問北 京”，“戒嚴令和趙紫陽離職，5月17-20日”，“戒嚴受阻，5月19-22日”，“準備清場解決,5月22日-6月3日”，“籌組新的領導班子，“強 硬派學生的堅持，5月20日-6月2日”,“清場，6月3-4日”，“溫室中的一代和被推遲的希望”，“天安門意象的力量”，“假如”。 下列內容則被不同程度地刪減：悼念胡耀邦的天安門抗議與1976年悼念周恩來的“四五運動”的類比；“四二六社論”加劇衝突，李鵬的生硬態度和趙紫 陽對學生的同情（如“李鵬的態度甚至無法贏得官方媒體的支持”，而趙紫陽在5月3日和4日的兩次重要講話則“像是一個長者去勸說本質還不錯的孩子”）；鄧 小平接待戈爾巴喬夫時因為廣場局勢不斷惡化而將餃子從筷子上滑落下來的細節；趙紫陽和一批自由派退休幹部——李昌、李銳、于光遠和杜潤生——為避免暴力鎮 壓做的最後的努力；趙紫陽去職和被軟禁的細節，比如他在廣場對學生說話時“聲音顫抖，眼含淚水”；趙紫陽試圖寫信給鄧小平，解釋他與戈爾巴喬夫說過的令鄧 氣憤的話，並於同一天被軟禁；鄧小平決定使用武力，如何在高層領導中取得一致，如何準備坦克，裝甲兵車，把遠距離的軍隊運送到北京；軍隊在6月4日夜間行 動的經過，等等。 對於1989年6月3日夜至4日凌晨鎮壓的描寫，未刪減的港版有1283字，而大陸版只有325字。此外，對於傷亡數字，原著提供了6種版本：中國 官方估計的200多人，李鵬對布蘭特·斯考克羅夫特(Brent Scowcroft)說的310人，遇害人之一丁子霖的母親截至2008年搜集到的近200個姓名；外國觀察家估計的300人至2600人，外國媒體報道 的，“被嚴重誇大的”的上萬人；以及外國武官的估計和來自北京11所醫院的報告的478人；但大陸版只保留了中國官方報告的200人以及外國媒體的上萬 人，並指出那是“嚴重的誇大”。 對領導人的評說 大陸版《鄧小平時代》中對有關中共高級領導人評價的內容字斟句酌，其中不乏“為尊者諱”的情況。 傅高義用“喜歡報復(vindictive)”、“邪惡狡猾(devious)”等詞語來形容毛澤東，而這些詞語在大陸版中被弱化。他在第2章《放 逐與回歸》中寫道，“毛澤東無論作為個人還是作為領袖，都是個強勢人物。他功高蓋世，整起好同志來也毫不留情；他精於權謀，任何人在對他的評價上都很難做 到不偏不倚”(英文版第54頁、港版47頁)。這句話在大陸版中被改為：“毛澤東無論作為個人還是作為領袖，都是個強勢人物，任何人在對他的評價上都很難 做到不偏不倚”(大陸版第67頁)。序言部分也有類似的刪節，如“在他統治的27年間，毛澤東不僅消滅了資本家和地主，也毀掉了很多知識分子和老幹部”。 針對周恩來的一些負面情節也被大陸版略去。例如，在第2章《放逐與回歸》里，傅高義寫道：“周恩來對文革受害者的幫助是有限的。周恩來在1956年 一次政治局會議後曾惹惱毛澤東，他當時私下對毛說：他從良心上不贊成毛的經濟政策。自從那次受批評後，他在長達15年時間裡一直小心翼翼，避免讓毛澤東找 到理由懷疑他沒有全心全意貫徹毛的意圖。儘管如此，毛澤東在1958年1月還是對周恩來大發脾氣，他說周恩來離右派只有五十步遠，這一斥責讓周恩來進一步 退縮。”又如，第2章中，“並非人人都把周恩來視為英雄，例如陳毅的家人就對他沒有保護陳毅很氣憤，一些沒有得到周恩來幫助的受害者家屬也有同樣的心情， 還有一些人說他助紂為虐，對於文革的浩劫難辭其咎。”（英文版第66頁、港版57頁） 大陸版剔除了第16章《加快經濟發展和開放步伐》中對鄧小平1988年推行物價闖關失敗的批評：“鄧小平宣布進行全面物價改革這一決定，後來被證明大概是他一生中代價最高昂的錯誤”，以及“83歲的他已經遠離了群眾”（英文版第470-471頁、港版420頁）。 不過，與“為尊者諱”相反的是，大陸版淡化了原著對胡耀邦和趙紫陽的正面評價，如在第16章《加快經濟發展和改革開放步伐》中，傅高義寫道：“在智 囊團為趙紫陽工作的人，都十分尊重和欽佩趙紫陽，他們喜歡他毫不做作的隨和作風，不拘一格，廣納賢言的開放態度，以及把想法轉化為推動國家前進的實際政策 的能力。” 這段話在大陸版中被刪去(英文版第455頁、港版407頁)。 港版第20章《北京之春：1989》寫到李鵬“固執而又謹慎”的性格，與“熱情且富有同情心”的胡耀邦，或“超然而具有紳士風度和分析才能”的趙紫 陽形成鮮明對比，而在大陸版中，對胡耀邦和趙紫陽的性格描述被刪去（但保留了李鵬性格“固執而又謹慎”的說法）。不過，在“胡耀邦去世”一節中，對他的正 面評價仍然被保留：“群眾能夠長久被胡耀邦感動，不僅因為他熱情親切，還因為他做人正派，對黨忠心耿耿。他是知識分子的希望，曾為他們做過勇敢的鬥爭。他 是他們心目中好乾部的表率——有崇高理想，無任何腐敗劣跡。他曾長期擔任團中央第一書記，能夠與他所培養和提攜的年輕人打成一片。”（大陸版第567至 568頁） 此外，書的末尾“鄧小平時代的關鍵人物”一文包含了傅高義對陳雲，鄧力群，胡喬木，胡耀邦，華國鋒，李先念，毛遠新，任仲夷，萬里，王洪文，習仲勛，葉劍英，余秋里，趙紫陽的生平和他們個人性格的簡介，而這個2.6萬字的部分在大陸版中被省去。 一些極富爭議的國際人物和事件 對於中國與波爾布特(Pol Pot)的關係、1979年中越戰爭，齊奧塞斯庫(Nicolai Ceausescu)之死及東歐劇變這些極富爭議的國際人物和事件，大陸版《鄧小平時代》也進行了刪節。 第18章《為軍事現代化作準備》(The Military: Preparing for Modernization)寫道，鄧小平為了遏制蘇聯與越南的軍事合作，要通過攻打越南來展示不惜一戰的決心。當越南出兵柬埔寨之後，紅色高棉 (Khmer Rouge)領導人波爾布特請鄧小平派兵幫助柬埔寨。儘管波爾布特的暴政受到西方的強烈譴責，鄧小平依然決定與他合作。第9章波爾布特的名字和第18章對 越戰爭的一些細節（如戰爭之後，鄧小平指示大量中國軍隊在邊境駐紮，對越南人進行騷擾），以及高層領導人對對越戰爭的不同意見在大陸版中被刪去。 第22章《穩住陣腳》(Standing Firm)寫到，羅馬尼亞領導人、中國的老朋友齊奧塞斯庫及其妻子因為向平民開槍被槍決。中國媒體對齊奧塞斯庫的向平民開槍未作任何報道；當齊奧塞斯庫被 槍決兩天後，《人民日報》在第四版下方簡短地發佈了一句話：“羅馬尼亞電視台12月25日宣布，羅馬尼亞特別軍事法庭宣判齊奧塞斯庫及其妻子死刑，這一判 決已經得到執行。” 又如，原著第22章中對東歐和蘇聯社會主義陣營崩潰及中國反應的記載，“波蘭在1989年6月4日以公投的方式選出議會，東德於1989年10月7 日爆發大規模抗議，1990年2月蘇共全會討論放棄黨對權力的壟斷，這些重大事件都被中國媒體淡化和掩蓋。”在大陸版中，中國媒體對東歐劇變的蓄意淡化也 被淡化為兩句話：“通過《參考資料》上每天從西方媒體翻譯過來的材料，中國的官員要比一般的群眾更了解真相”，“儘管中國的領導人在向民眾報道蘇東劇變時 動作遲緩，但很快就根據新的現實調整了其外交政策。” 注釋中的禁書 傅高義撰寫的《鄧小平時代》旁徵博引，其中也引用了一些在大陸尚無法公開出版的著作。在大陸版中，這些涉及禁書的注釋被大量刪減，但也有一部分被保留了下來。 曾在中共中央文獻研究室工作的、周恩來生平研究專家高文謙所著《晚年周恩來》一書，在第2章英文注釋共出現了19次，大陸版中被悉數刪去。 張良、黎安友(Andrew J. Nathan)和林培瑞(Perry Link)編著的《天安門文件》(The Tiananmen Papers) 是很多學者研究天安門事件使用的重要史料，該文件集在英文版注釋中出現了26次，但在大陸版中僅了1次：它與《李鵬六四日記》，另外兩位學者的論文和著 作，《紐約時報》記者紀思道(Nicholas Kristof)和伍潔芳(Sheryl WuDunn)的著作一併出現在第20章的注釋12中。《天安門文件》被刪減的25條注釋中，有12條對應的正文被刪去，其餘13條則保留了引用內容，但 將出處單獨刪去。《李鵬六四日記》英文版注釋出現19次，內地版12次，刪減的7處相應引文均被刪去。 根據趙紫陽軟禁期間口述整理的《改革歷程》(Prisoner of the State)，在英文版中出現12次，大陸版出現1次。其中4條注釋被單獨刪去，引文保留，其餘7條則與對應引文一齊刪去。《杜導正日記》在第19章出現了3次，但注釋與引文都被刪除。 原新華社記者楊繼繩的《中國改革年代的政治鬥爭》雖然在第20章中的注釋被刪去，但在第14章注釋7和第19章注釋59中得以保留。 第17章《台灣，香港和西藏問題》注釋102中提到的王力雄著《天葬：西藏的命運》和蘇紹智、陳一咨、高文謙編《人民心中的胡耀邦》也被保留下來。 儘管大陸版刪節了5.3萬字，對於很多大陸讀者來說，它還是披露了大量的細節，許多關於1980年代中國歷史的敘述在大陸公開出版物中都屬首次出 現。讀者仍然有機會從書中領略到歷史及歷史人物的真實和複雜。對於在出版審查中生活，並建立了“自我審查”的筆者，大陸版中許多保留的內容已令筆者感到意 外驚喜。 參考資料： 1. [美] 傅高義(Ezra F. Vogel)著，馮克利 譯，香港中文大學出版社編輯部、生活·讀書·新知三聯書店編輯部 譯校《鄧小平時代》，生活·讀書·新知三聯書店，2013年1月北京第1版； 2. 傅高義(Ezra F. Vogel)著，馮克利 譯，香港中文大學出版社編輯部 譯校《鄧小平時代》，中文大學出版社，2012年香港； 3. Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, by Ezra F.Vogel The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 2011
Two mighty rhetorical questions conclude this enormous biography of Deng Xiaoping (1904-97): “Did any other leader in the 20th century do more to improve the lives of so many? Did any other 20th-century leader have such a large and lasting influence on world history?” The answers emerge from this comprehensive, minutely documented book, but not as predictably as Ezra F. Vogel, a Harvard University emeritus professor of social sciences, assumes. After Mao’s death in 1976, Deng became the champion of the economic reforms that transformed the lives of many, but not most, Chinese. (Vogel observes that Mao’s immediate successor, Hua Guofeng, was the initiator of the reforms.) Deng had long been a central figure in the Communist Party. Vogel rightly says that “for more than a decade before the Cultural Revolution” — 1966-1976 — “no one had greater responsibility for building and administering the old system than Deng Xiaoping.” Yet, most of Deng’s life and career takes up only a quarter of Vogel’s 714 pages of narrative.
The Chinese version of Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China, written by Ezra F. Vogel,will be published on Jan, 18th, 2013.
By 1978, Deng had become China’s “paramount leader.” It follows, therefore, that apart from his long period of house arrest and banishment during the years 1967-73, and during another year in 1976-77, when Mao again removed him from the political scene, Deng must share the blame for much of the agony Mao inflicted on China and the Chinese. He certainly bears the major responsibility for the Tiananmen Square killings in 1989. It is a curiosity of “Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China” that Deng the man is almost invisible. There is a well-known list of his personal characteristics: he played bridge; liked bread, cheese and coffee; smoked; drank and used spittoons. He was unswervingly self-disciplined. Though Deng left no personal paper trail, Vogel ably relates what is known. Deng came from a small-landlord family in Sichuan Province, yet his formal education, apart from his time at a local school when he was a child, consisted mainly of a single year, 1926, of ideological indoctrination at Sun Yatsen University in Moscow. For five years before that, he lived in Paris, where he received a practical, and enduring, education inside the infant Chinese Communist Party, serving under the leadership of the young Zhou Enlai. After Paris and Moscow, Deng went back to China, and before long had ceased being “a cheerful, fun-loving extrovert.” He commanded a small force against warlords, was defeated and may have run away. Eventually, he joined the “Mao faction,” rising and falling with its inner-party fortunes. During the Long March of 1934-35 Deng attended the meeting where Mao took supreme power, and after the Communist triumph in 1949, he served as party commissar for the army that occupied Tibet, although he seems not to have set foot there. In the southwest Deng organized the land reform program of 1949-51 “that would wipe out the landlord class.” Mao praised Deng “for his success . . . killing some of the landlords.” (As part of a national campaign in which two million to three million were killed, “some” seems an inadequate word.) In 1957, Deng oversaw the “anti-rightist campaign,” a “vicious attack on 550,000 intellectual critics” that “destroyed many of China’s best scientific and technical minds.” As for the Great Leap Forward of 1958-61, when as many as 45 million people starved to death, Vogel provides no evidence that Deng objected to Mao’s monomaniacal policies. Frank Dikötter’s well-documented book “Mao’s Great Famine,” however, shows that Deng ordered the extraction of grain from starving peasants for the cities and export abroad. In late 1966, Vogel tells us, Deng was accused of “pursuing the capitalist road.” Under house arrest in Beijing until 1969, he was transferred to Jiangxi Province to work half days in a factory. Red Guards harassed his five children, and the back of one of his sons was broken when he may have jumped from a window after the guards frightened or bullied him. Mao permitted Deng to return to Beijing in 1973. Vogel contends that during his internal exile Deng concluded that something had gone systemically wrong with China: it was economically backward and isolated from the international scene; its people were poorly educated. China under Deng became an increasingly urban society. And following Deng’s view that corruption crackdowns limit growth, many officials, Vogel writes, “found ways not only to enrich China, but also to enrich themselves.” The result, he says, is that China is more corrupt than ever and its environment more polluted. While Deng believed that science and technology were important — as have many Chinese reformers since the late 19th century — he feared that the humanities and social sciences could be seedbeds of heterodoxy; he never hesitated in punishing intellectuals, whose divergent views could “lead to demonstrations that disrupt public order.” It is telling that for Deng perhaps the worst development in the Communist world after Tiananmen was the execution on Dec. 25, 1989, of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife. Ceausescu was the only Eastern European leader whose troops had fired on civilians. Vogel calls Tiananmen a “tragedy,” and quotes Deng brushing aside doubts from colleagues that using troops to smash the uprising would disturb foreigners; “Westerners would forget.” Actually, it is young Chinese for whom the demonstrations in over 300 cities are a dim fact absent from their history lessons. Vogel’s account of the crackdown is largely accurate, although he omits the shooting down on Sunday morning of many parents milling about at the edge of the square, searching for their children. In this, as in other parts of this narrative, Vogel could have spoken with journalists who were there, and not just read their accounts. (I declare an interest; I saw these events.) What is disappointing is Vogel’s comments about why “the tragedy in Tiananmen Square evoked a massive outcry in the West, far greater than previous tragedies in Asia of comparable scale.” Part of the answer, Vogel correctly says, citing another scholar, was the real-time television in Tiananmen. Then he perplexingly adds that viewers “interpreted” what they saw “as an assault on the American myth that economic, intellectual and political freedom will always triumph. Many foreigners came to see Deng as a villainous enemy of freedom who crushed the heroic students.” Furthermore, Vogel contends, for foreign reporters the Tiananmen uprising “was the most exciting time of their careers.” Such comments are unworthy of a serious scholar. He states flatly that “Deng was not vindictive.” If he means Deng didn’t order his adversaries and critics killed, that is true — as far as individuals are concerned. But Deng never shrank, either in Mao’s time or his own, from causing the murder of large numbers of anonymous people. The most valuable part of Vogel’s account is his survey of Deng’s economic reforms; they made a substantial portion of Chinese better-off, and propelled China onto the international stage. But the party has obscured the millions of deaths that occurred during the Maoist decades. In the end, what shines out from Vogel’s wide-ranging biography is the true answer to his two questions: for most of his long career Deng Xiaoping did less for China than he did to it.
Jonathan Mirsky is a journalist and historian specializing in China.
China's President Lashes Out at Western Culture New York Times BEIJING — President Hu Jintao has said China must strengthen its cultural production to defend against the West's assault on the country's culture and ideology, according to an essay in a Communist Party policy magazine published this week. ...
Ezra F. Vogel is Henry Ford II Research Professor of the Social Sciences Emeritus at Harvard University. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition ...
Japan as number one. Land of the setting sun. Japan's economy was on course to surpass America's. What happened? Nov 12th 2009 | tokyo | from the print ...
The Japanese edition of his book Japan as Number One: Lessons for America (
1979) is the all-time best-seller in Japan of non-fiction by a Western author. ...
Economics focus
How to get a date
The year when the Chinese economy will truly eclipse America’s is in sight
Dec 31st 2011 | from the print edition
IN THE spring of 2011 the Pew Global Attitudes Survey asked thousands of people worldwide which country they thought was the leading economic power. Half of the Chinese polled reckoned that America remains number one, twice as many as said “China”. Americans are no longer sure: 43% of US respondents answered “China”; only 38% thought America was still the top dog. The answer depends on which measure you pick. An analysis of 21 different indicators chosen by The Economist (see the full set) finds that China has already overtaken America on over half of them and will be top on virtually all of them within a decade. Economic power is best gauged by looking at absolute size rather than per-person measures. On a few indicators, such as steel consumption, ownership of mobile phones and beer-guzzling (a crucial test of economic superiority), the milestone was reached as long as a decade ago. Several more have been passed since. In 2011 China exported about 30% more than the United States and spent some 40% more on fixed capital investment. China is the world’s biggest manufacturer, and partly as a result it burns around 10% more energy and emits almost 40% more greenhouse gases than America (although its emissions per person are only one-third as big). The Chinese also buy more new cars each year than anybody else.
The country that invented the compass, gunpowder and printing is also challenging America in the innovation stakes. We estimate that in 2011 more patents were granted to residents in China than in America. The quality of some Chinese patents may be dubious but they will surely improve. The World Economic Forum’s “World Competitiveness Report” ranks China 31st out of 142 countries on the quality of its maths and science education, well ahead of America’s 51st place. China’s external financial clout also beats America’s hands down. It has total net foreign assets of $2 trillion; America has net debts of $2.5 trillion.
The chart shows our predictions for when China will overtake America on several other measures. Official figures show that China’s consumer spending is currently only one-fifth of that in America (although that may be understated because of China’s poor statistical coverage of services). Based on relative growth rates over the past five years it will remain smaller until 2023. Retail sales are catching up much faster, and could exceed America’s by 2014. In that same year China also looks set to become the world’s biggest importer—a huge turnaround from 2000, when America’s imports were six times those of China.
Find even more indicators and adjust the figures to make your own predictions using our interactive chart
What about GDP, the most widely used measure of economic power? The IMF predicts that China’s GDP will surpass America’s in 2016 if measured on a purchasing-power parity (PPP) basis, which adjusts for the fact that prices are lower in poorer countries. But America will only really be eclipsed when China’s GDP outstrips it in dollar terms, converted at market-exchange rates. In 2011 America’s GDP was roughly twice as big as China’s, down from eight times bigger in 2000. To predict how quickly that gap might be closed, The Economist has updated its interactive online chart (also here) which allows you to plug in your own assumptions about real GDP growth in China and America, inflation rates and the yuan’s exchange rate against the dollar. Our best guess is that annual real GDP growth over the next decade averages 7.75% in China (down from 10.5% over the past decade) and 2.5% in America; that inflation (as measured by the GDP deflator) averages 4% and 1.5% respectively; and that the yuan appreciates by 3% a year. If so, then China will overtake America in 2018. That is a year earlier than our prediction in December 2010 because China’s GDP in dollar terms increased by more than expected in 2011. Second place is for winners Even if China became the world’s biggest economy by 2018, Americans would remain much richer, with a GDP per head four times that in China. But Rupert Hoogewerf, the founder of the annual Hurun Report on China’s richest citizens, reckons that it may already have more billionaires. His latest survey identified 270 dollar billionaires but the true total, he says, is probably double that because many Chinese are secretive about their wealth. According to the Forbes rich list, America has 400 billionaires or so. America still tops a few league tables by a wide margin. Its stockmarket capitalisation is four times bigger than China’s and it has more than twice as many firms in the Fortune global 500, which lists the world’s biggest companies by revenue. Last but not least, America spends five times as much on defence as China does, and even though China’s defence budget is expanding faster, on recent growth rates America will remain top gun until 2025. Being the biggest economy in the world does offer advantages. It helps to ensure military superiority and gives a country more say in fixing international rules. Historically, the biggest economy has become the issuer of the main reserve currency, which is why America has also been able to borrow more cheaply than it otherwise would. But it would be a mistake for American leaders to try to block China’s rise. China’s rapid growth benefits the whole global economy. It is better to be number two in a fast-growing world than top dog in a stagnant one.
***2012年02月08日 07:57 AM 彭定康評《鄧小平傳》Deng and the Transformation of China作者：前香港總督彭定康為英國《金融時報》撰稿 When Chinese historians are able one day to ply their subversive trade without control or censorship, their judgment will surely be that their country should revere Deng Xiaoping way above his predecessor Mao Zedong. Mao led the Communist party to victory over the Kuomintang and the Japanese, and united China in the 1950s. He then plunged his country into the famine and bloody mayhem of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Deng carefully put the pieces of the smashed nation back together again and launched China on its recovery to become assuredly once again the world's largest economy. 如果中國的歷史學者在從事他們具有顛覆性的職業時，能有朝一日不受控制和審查, 他們一定會有這樣的評價：中國人對於鄧小平的崇敬，應遠遠超過毛澤東。毛澤東曾領導中國共產黨打敗日軍和國民黨，並在20世紀50年代統一中國，但他隨後又使國家陷入了大躍進造成的飢荒和文化大革命的混亂。而鄧小平則小心翼翼地重整破碎的山河，使中國充滿信心, 推向了再度成為世界最大經濟體的複興之路。Ezra Vogel's massive biography assembles the case for Deng (1904-97) with narrative skill and prodigious scholarship. Vogel, for many years a Harvard professor, published the bestselling Japan as Number One in 1979. His principal academic interest then turned to China and he spent some time in the late 1980s studying economic reform in Guangdong. The sources and acknowledgements he cites in this book indicate the breadth of his contacts and study, though when required to stray outside the world of conventional western Sinology he is less sure-footed. His knowledge of British and Hong Kong politics, for example, is pretty sketchy. 傅高義(Ezra Vogel)這部厚重的傳記, 寫得很有敘事技巧, 富有高超學術水準，闡明了應當對鄧小平更崇敬(1904年-1997年)的理由。傅高義在哈佛大學任教多年，曾在1979年出版暢銷書《日本第一》 (Japan as Number One)，之後他的主要研究興趣轉向中國，並在20世紀80年代花時間研究廣東的經濟改革。書中引述的資料來源和鳴謝對象，都顯示出他交友廣泛、學識淵博。儘管在超出西方漢學的常規領域時，其論述或可商榷。例如，他對英國和香港政治的了解就頗為欠缺。The book is not hagiographical but it does occasionally read a little like the Deng family's authorised biography. Warts are mentioned from time to time but the overall picture presented usually discounts the blemishes. While we learn once again that Deng's time as a young emigrant worker in France in the 1920s left him with a lifetime love of croissants, his later military exploits in the civil war are dealt with pretty summarily. Moreover, Deng's rule in the south-west of China, including his native Sichuan from 1949-52, gets just a page and a half. It was sufficiently brutal to earn Mao's approval. Larger landlords were attacked and killed. One day we will presumably learn more about Deng's methods at this time; they were plainly not for the squeamish. 本書並非充滿溢美之詞，但某些段落讀來確有幾分像是鄧家授權的傳記。書中或會提及鄧的缺點，但給出的總體評價中，展示其瑕疵時卻是手下留情。雖然我們再次得知，20世紀20年代鄧小平少年時在法國務工的經歷，使他終生都愛吃法式羊角麵包，然而對於他後來在內戰中的軍事成就，描述卻十分簡明扼要。更有甚者，對鄧小平1949年至1952年間在中國西南部(包括他的故鄉四川省)的治理，僅一頁半的篇幅輕輕帶過。而鄧小平那段時間的作為足稱殘暴，並贏得毛澤東的賞識，大地主遭攻擊和殺害。有一天我們一定能對鄧小平當時採取的手段了解更多，那絕對不是神經脆弱者能夠承受的。Deng's role as Mao's enforcer during the “anti-rightist campaign” of the 1950s is hardly mentioned. Half a million intellectuals were shipped to labour camps. His careful avoidance of personal trouble during the disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1958-61, which led to 45m or more deaths (he broke a leg playing billiards and used a sick note as an excuse for missing difficult meetings) was not heroic. Almost 10m of his fellow Sichuanese starved to death. 在20世紀50年代的“反右運動”中，該書對鄧小平充當毛澤東執行者的歷史幾乎沒有談及。那段時間有近50萬名知識分子被送去勞改。 1958至1961年的大躍進造成了災難性後果，導致4500萬甚至更多人死亡（他在打台球時弄傷了腿，用病假做藉口缺席那些麻煩的會議），鄧小平在這個時期小心翼翼避免個人麻煩的做法稱不上英雄所為。當時幾乎有1000萬四川人餓死。But it is Deng's muddled view of the relationship between economic progress and political freedom that will always attract the most criticism. In his policy battles with the economic hardliner Chen Yun in the 1980s, he was always in the camp that contested the argument that if the party gave up control over the economy it would sooner or later lose control of the state. For Deng and his circle, stepping back from command economics was essential for growth and job creation, and without them the Communist party would certainly lose control of the state . Both propositions are probably true and China's main existential challenge remains the issue of resolving this dilemma. 不過, 鄧小平招致最多批評的，還是他對經濟發展和政治自由兩者關係的糊塗看法。在20世紀80年代，與經濟強硬派陳雲的政策紛爭中，他一直反對如果黨放棄經濟控制權，遲早會失去國家控制權的觀點。對於鄧小平和他圈子裡的人，放鬆經濟控制權對促進經濟增長和創造就業至關重要，而如果不能實現經濟增長並解決就業，共產黨肯定會失去對國家的控制。這兩種說法可能都是成立的，中國主要的生存挑戰至今仍然是如何解決這個兩難局面。The problem was bloodily resolved in 1989 in and around Tiananmen Square, “a tragedy of enormous proportions”, in Vogel's words. It is, maybe, unfair but inevitable that Deng's life will be viewed by many through the prism of this catastrophe. Those of us who were in Beijing just before the crackdown should not have been carried away by the epic romance of what was happening in the streets. We should have listened more carefully to the seasoned hacks who told us it would all end in tears and that Deng's whole career showed that he would never accept such a challenge to the authority of the Communist party. 這個問題曾在1989年，在天安門廣場周圍，以血腥的方式得到了解決。用傅高義的話說，那是“一場異常巨大的悲劇”。許多人看待鄧小平生平時，都是通過這起災禍的棱鏡，這或許不公平，但不可避免。我們當中，在鎮壓前剛好身處北京的那些人，不可能不對北京街頭髮生的史詩般的浪漫運動嘆為觀止。一些熟稔政局者，曾經對我們說過，這一切都會以眼淚告終，鄧小平的畢生經歷都顯示出，他永遠不會接受共產黨的權威受到挑戰。我們本應更關切地傾聽他們的意見。One unnamed provincial first party secretary is quoted, by Vogel, as saying that Deng's view of democracy was like Lord Ye's view of dragons. “Lord Ye loved looking at a book with pretty pictures of dragons but when a real dragon appeared, he was terrified .” This well-known story about a mythical figure from China's distant past is customarily told to draw attention to the inconsistency between words and actions. 傅高義在書中寫道，一位不願透露姓名的省委書記說，鄧小平看待民主，就像葉公好龍——葉公子高好龍，於是夫龍聞而下之。葉公見之，棄而還走，失其魂魄，五色無主。 “葉公好龍”這則廣為人知的故事，習慣上用來比喻言行不一。Vogel chronicles very well Deng's role in stabilising China after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), in which he and his family had themselves suffered, literally getting the trains running again, making people work together without reprisals, and re-establishing schools and universities. His initial success in preventing China capsizing led to his second ousting by Mao in 1976. The paranoid Mao was suspicious that the younger man would not support unequivocally the case for the Cultural Revolution, was jealous of his growing popularity and feared that he might, on Mao's own death, become the Khrushchev to his Stalin, denouncing the departed tyrant. 傅高義對經歷文化大革命（1966年-1976年）混亂之後鄧小平穩定中國的角色闡述得當，鄧小平和他家人在文革中也承受了苦難。實際上是鄧小平讓火車又開動起來，讓人們沒有互相報復就重新開始工作，還恢復大中小學教育。他開始成功地讓中國免於傾覆，而這個成功又令他在1976年第二次被毛澤東打倒。偏執多疑的毛澤東懷疑比他年輕的鄧小平並不會堅定地擁護文化大革命，嫉妒鄧越來越強的聲望，恐懼鄧會在毛本人去世後像赫魯曉夫對待斯大林那樣，譴責已故的獨裁者。When Hua Guofeng succeeded Mao later that year, he was soon persuaded to reinstate Deng, China's best pragmatic manager. But Hua, who had shown great resolve in arresting Mao's widow and the other members of the Gang of Four, proved no match politically for his wily rival. Deng's sidelining and despatch of Hua is a masterclass in ruthless, though not vindictive, politics. Hua was stripped of authority, humiliated but not imprisoned. 華國鋒在1976年晚些時候繼承毛澤東的權力後，很快就被人說服重新啟用鄧小平這個中國最好的務實派。儘管華國鋒逮捕了毛澤東的遺孀和“四人幫”的另外三個成員，表現出極大的決斷力，但他在政治上卻無法與精明的對手相抗衡。鄧小平排擠和打發了華國鋒，顯示出大師級的冷酷政治手腕。華國鋒被剝奪了權力，遭到羞辱，不過並沒有入獄。Intellectually, it was Deng's bold pragmatism, learning truth from facts, that triumphed over what was ridiculed as the “whateveritis” of Hua – whatever Mao had said or done must be the correct way to act. This approach led to the opening of China to the world, the reform of agriculture and industrial management and the years of stupendous growth. In 1978, the year that really saw the beginnings of change, China exported about as much in 12 months as it now exports in a day. 就思想而言，鄧小平果敢的務實主義，“實踐檢驗真理”，戰勝了華國鋒被戲稱為“兩個凡是”的理論——凡是毛澤東說過的和做過的，就一定是正確的。這條路線使中國向世界開放，引發了農業和工業管理的改革，促成了許多年令人驚嘆的經濟增長。今天, 中國一天的出口額，幾乎相當於改革真正開始的1978年12個月的出口總額。The first experiments were in Fujian and Guangdong, where the father of the man tipped to be China's next leader, Xi Jinping, was provinicial party secretary. Vogel has written before about the economic adjustments and rural reforms in China under Deng, starting with the creation of a Special Economic Zone around the hitherto sleepy fishing village of Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong. Foreign investment was welcomed and foreign technology was brought in, copied and, of course, stolen. The commands of a controlled economy were partly replaced by markets and profits. Vogel tells this story authoritatively, culminating in Deng's journey to the south in 1992 to give heart to the reformers and embolden his successor, Jiang Zemin. 鄧最初的實驗是在福建和廣東進行的，很有可能成為中國下一屆領導人的習近平的父親，曾在廣東擔任省委書記。傅高義以前就曾撰文講述過鄧小平時代中國的經濟調整和農村改革，其開端就是在與香港一河之隔，以前一直沉睡的漁村深圳周圍，建設一個經濟特區。那裡歡迎外資，吸引並模仿境外技術，當然也有盜版。對經濟的指令式控制，在那裡部分為市場和利潤追求所取代。傅高義對這段故事的描寫十分權威，高潮是1992年鄧小平的南巡，讓改革者吃了定心丸，也給他的繼任者江澤民極大的鼓勵。Deng was never an ideologue and, as Vogel argues, it would be unfair to criticise him for failure to set out an overarching philosophy for what he was doing. Sometimes economic activity simply took off once central control was relaxed. Deng himself celebrated the spontaneous emergence of township and village enterprises. 鄧小平從來都不是一個意識形態理論家，正如傅高義所說，批評他未能對自己所做的事業提出一個概括性的哲學理論是不公平的。有時候，只要集中控制一放鬆，經濟活動就會很容易發展起來。鄧小平本人就曾稱讚過鄉鎮企業的自發湧現。How should we describe what has happened? It does not seem to have much to do with socialism, given for example that in the decade of fast growth after 1997, workers' wages as a proportion of gross domestic product fell from 53 per cent to 40 per cent. Whatever the correct economic nomenclature, authoritarian party control was never abandoned. Perhaps it is best described as “market Leninism”. 我們應當怎樣描述發生的這些事件？它們似乎與社會主義並沒有太大關係，例如，在1997年後中國經濟的十年高速增長中，工人工資佔國內生產總值(GDP)的比例從53%下降到40%。無論在經濟學上該如何正確地命名，威權主義的一黨專制從未遭到摒棄。或許最恰當的描述應該是“市場列寧主義”。Describing Deng's art of governing, Vogel sets out a list of the principles that underpinned his rule. Several would have been embraced by other leaders, including his ruthless sacrifice of pawns to preserve the position of the king and his throne. First, he cut down the political reformer and party general secretary Hu Yaobang in 1987 for being too soft in dealing with student protests; then he destroyed Zhao Ziyang during the Tiananmen demonstration in 1989. Deng believed above all in preserving his own authority and that of the party. Whether that was essential to transform China will remain the subject of increasingly open debate. Whatever the answer, Vogel makes a strong case for according Deng the prize for lifting more people out of poverty than anyone else in history. 闡述鄧小平的治國藝術時，傅高義列出了支撐鄧的統治的一系列原則。其中有若干條別的政治領袖也會採納，包括為了保護王者的地位和自己的權柄無情地捨棄下屬。鄧小平先是因為黨的總書記胡耀邦對待學生示威過於溫和，而在1987年罷免了這位政治改革者，後來又在1989年天安門抗議事件中解決了趙紫陽。鄧小平的首要信條是保護自己的權威和黨的權威。至於這對於中國的轉變是不是至關重要，仍然會是辯論的主題，而辯論也會越來越開放。無論答案如何，傅高義有力地闡述了這樣一個觀點：因鄧小平而得以脫離貧困的人數，比歷史上任何人都要多，為此他應該得到嘉許。Lord Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust and chancellor of the University of Oxford, was the last governor of Hong Kong 作者彭定康勳爵(Lord Patten)是BBC委員會主席，牛津大學(University of Oxford)校監，香港最後一任總督。 譯者/何黎
When Chinese historians are able one day to ply their subversive trade without control or censorship, their judgment will surely be that their country should revere Deng Xiaoping way above his predecessor Mao Zedong. Mao led the Communist party to victory over the Kuomintang and the Japanese, and united China in the 1950s. He then plunged his country into the famine and bloody mayhem of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Deng carefully put the pieces of the smashed nation back together again and launched China on its recovery to become assuredly once again the world’s largest economy.
Ezra Vogel’s massive biography assembles the case for Deng (1904-97) with narrative skill and prodigious scholarship. Vogel, for many years a Harvard professor, published the bestselling Japan as Number One in 1979. His principal academic interest then turned to China and he spent some time in the late 1980s studying economic reform in Guangdong. The sources and acknowledgements he cites in this book indicate the breadth of his contacts and study, though when required to stray outside the world of conventional western Sinology he is less sure-footed. His knowledge of British and Hong Kong politics, for example, is pretty sketchy.
傅高义(Ezra Vogel)这部厚重的传记, 写得很有叙事技巧, 富有高超学术水准，阐明了应当对邓小平更崇敬(1904年-1997年)的理由。傅高义在哈佛大学任教多年，曾在1979年出版畅销书《日本第一》 (Japan as Number One)，之后他的主要研究兴趣转向中国，并在20世纪80年代花时间研究广东的经济改革。书中引述的资料来源和鸣谢对象，都显示出他交友广泛、学识渊 博。尽管在超出西方汉学的常规领域时，其论述或可商榷。例如，他对英国和香港政治的了解就颇为欠缺。
The book is not hagiographical but it does occasionally read a little like the Deng family’s authorised biography. Warts are mentioned from time to time but the overall picture presented usually discounts the blemishes. While we learn once again that Deng’s time as a young emigrant worker in France in the 1920s left him with a lifetime love of croissants, his later military exploits in the civil war are dealt with pretty summarily. Moreover, Deng’s rule in the south-west of China, including his native Sichuan from 1949-52, gets just a page and a half. It was sufficiently brutal to earn Mao’s approval. Larger landlords were attacked and killed. One day we will presumably learn more about Deng’s methods at this time; they were plainly not for the squeamish.
Deng’s role as Mao’s enforcer during the “anti-rightist campaign” of the 1950s is hardly mentioned. Half a million intellectuals were shipped to labour camps. His careful avoidance of personal trouble during the disastrous Great Leap Forward of 1958-61, which led to 45m or more deaths (he broke a leg playing billiards and used a sick note as an excuse for missing difficult meetings) was not heroic. Almost 10m of his fellow Sichuanese starved to death.
But it is Deng’s muddled view of the relationship between economic progress and political freedom that will always attract the most criticism. In his policy battles with the economic hardliner Chen Yun in the 1980s, he was always in the camp that contested the argument that if the party gave up control over the economy it would sooner or later lose control of the state. For Deng and his circle, stepping back from command economics was essential for growth and job creation, and without them the Communist party would certainly lose control of the state. Both propositions are probably true and China’s main existential challenge remains the issue of resolving this dilemma.
The problem was bloodily resolved in 1989 in and around Tiananmen Square, “a tragedy of enormous proportions”, in Vogel’s words. It is, maybe, unfair but inevitable that Deng’s life will be viewed by many through the prism of this catastrophe. Those of us who were in Beijing just before the crackdown should not have been carried away by the epic romance of what was happening in the streets. We should have listened more carefully to the seasoned hacks who told us it would all end in tears and that Deng’s whole career showed that he would never accept such a challenge to the authority of the Communist party.
One unnamed provincial first party secretary is quoted, by Vogel, as saying that Deng’s view of democracy was like Lord Ye’s view of dragons. “Lord Ye loved looking at a book with pretty pictures of dragons but when a real dragon appeared, he was terrified.” This well-known story about a mythical figure from China’s distant past is customarily told to draw attention to the inconsistency between words and actions.
Vogel chronicles very well Deng’s role in stabilising China after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), in which he and his family had themselves suffered, literally getting the trains running again, making people work together without reprisals, and re-establishing schools and universities. His initial success in preventing China capsizing led to his second ousting by Mao in 1976. The paranoid Mao was suspicious that the younger man would not support unequivocally the case for the Cultural Revolution, was jealous of his growing popularity and feared that he might, on Mao’s own death, become the Khrushchev to his Stalin, denouncing the departed tyrant.
When Hua Guofeng succeeded Mao later that year, he was soon persuaded to reinstate Deng, China’s best pragmatic manager. But Hua, who had shown great resolve in arresting Mao’s widow and the other members of the Gang of Four, proved no match politically for his wily rival. Deng’s sidelining and despatch of Hua is a masterclass in ruthless, though not vindictive, politics. Hua was stripped of authority, humiliated but not imprisoned.
Intellectually, it was Deng’s bold pragmatism, learning truth from facts, that triumphed over what was ridiculed as the “whateveritis” of Hua – whatever Mao had said or done must be the correct way to act. This approach led to the opening of China to the world, the reform of agriculture and industrial management and the years of stupendous growth. In 1978, the year that really saw the beginnings of change, China exported about as much in 12 months as it now exports in a day.
The first experiments were in Fujian and Guangdong, where the father of the man tipped to be China’s next leader, Xi Jinping, was provinicial party secretary. Vogel has written before about the economic adjustments and rural reforms in China under Deng, starting with the creation of a Special Economic Zone around the hitherto sleepy fishing village of Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong. Foreign investment was welcomed and foreign technology was brought in, copied and, of course, stolen. The commands of a controlled economy were partly replaced by markets and profits. Vogel tells this story authoritatively, culminating in Deng’s journey to the south in 1992 to give heart to the reformers and embolden his successor, Jiang Zemin.
Deng was never an ideologue and, as Vogel argues, it would be unfair to criticise him for failure to set out an overarching philosophy for what he was doing. Sometimes economic activity simply took off once central control was relaxed. Deng himself celebrated the spontaneous emergence of township and village enterprises.
How should we describe what has happened? It does not seem to have much to do with socialism, given for example that in the decade of fast growth after 1997, workers’ wages as a proportion of gross domestic product fell from 53 per cent to 40 per cent. Whatever the correct economic nomenclature, authoritarian party control was never abandoned. Perhaps it is best described as “market Leninism”.
Describing Deng’s art of governing, Vogel sets out a list of the principles that underpinned his rule. Several would have been embraced by other leaders, including his ruthless sacrifice of pawns to preserve the position of the king and his throne. First, he cut down the political reformer and party general secretary Hu Yaobang in 1987 for being too soft in dealing with student protests; then he destroyed Zhao Ziyang during the Tiananmen demonstration in 1989. Deng believed above all in preserving his own authority and that of the party. Whether that was essential to transform China will remain the subject of increasingly open debate. Whatever the answer, Vogel makes a strong case for according Deng the prize for lifting more people out of poverty than anyone else in history.
“Although human beings are incapable of talking about themselves with total honesty, it is much harder to avoid the truth while pretending to be other people. They often reveal much about themselves in a very straightforward way. I am certain that I did. There is nothing that says more about its creator than the work itself.”
Dabney, Ross H. (March 1980). "Review: The Book of Snob by William Makepeace Thackeray, John Sutherland". Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 34 (4): 456–462, 455.
John Andrew Sutherland (born 9 October 1938)[1] is a British academic, newspaper columnist and author. He is Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London.
Biography After graduating from the University of Leicester in 1964, Sutherland gained a PhD from the University of Edinburgh,[2] where he began his academic career as an assistant lecturer.[3] He specialises in Victorian fiction, 20th century literature, and the history of publishing. Among his works of scholarship is the Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction (known in the US as Stanford Companion, 1989), a comprehensive encyclopedia of Victorian fiction. A second edition was published in 2009 with 900 biographical entries, synopses of over 600 novels, and extensive background material on publishers, reviewers and readers.[4]
Apart from writing regularly for The Guardian newspaper, Sutherland has published eighteen books and is editing the forthcoming Oxford Companion to Popular Fiction. The series of books which starts with Is Heathcliff a murderer? has brought him a wide readership. The books in the series are collections of essays about classic fiction from the Victorian period. Carefully going over every word of the text, Sutherland highlights apparent inconsistencies, anachronisms and oversights, and explains references which the modern reader is likely to overlook. In some cases he demonstrates the likelihood that the author simply forgot a minor detail. In others, apparent slips on the part of the author are presented as evidence that something is going on below the surface of the book which is not explicitly described (such as his explanation for why Sherlock Holmes should mis-address Miss Stoner as Miss Roylott in "The Adventure of the Speckled Band").
In 2001, he published Last Drink to LA, a chronicle of his alcoholism, drug addiction and return to sobriety. In 2004, he published a biography of Stephen Spender. In 2005, he was involved in Dot Mobile's project to translate summaries and quotes of classic literature into text messaging shorthand. In the same year he was also Chair of Judges for the Man Booker Prize, despite having caused some controversy in 1999 when he revealed details of disagreements between his fellow judges in his Guardian column.[5] In 2007, he published an autobiography The Boy Who Loved Books. The same year his annotated edition of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Black Arrow was released by Penguin Books. In 2011, he published Lives of the Novelists: A History of Fiction in 294 Lives, an 800-page book containing 294 idiosyncratic sketches of famous and lesser-known novelists selected from the past 400 years.
Partial bibliography Is Heathcliff a Murderer? Puzzles in Nineteenth-century Fiction, Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-19-282516-X Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? More Puzzles in Classic Fiction, OUP, 1997, ISBN 0-19-283309-X Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Further Puzzles in Classic Fiction, OUP, 1999 Henry V, War Criminal? & Other Shakespeare Puzzles, (w/ Cedric Watts), OUP, 2000, ISBN 0-19-283879-2 Last Drink to LA, Faber and Faber, 2001, ISBN 978-0-571-20855-5 The Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction, 2nd edition, 2009, ISBN 978-1-4082-0390-3 The Boy Who Loved Books: A Memoir, John Murray, 2007, ISBN 978-0-7195-6431-4 Lives of the Novelists: A History of Fiction in 294 Lives, Profile Books, 2011, ISBN 978-1846681578 A Little History of Literature, Yale University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0300186857 References Who's Who 2002. J. A., Sutherland, (1973). "Thackeray at work". "40 years on" (retirement thoughts), The Guardian – Higher education, 5 May 2004. Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction, 2nd edition, 2009, ISBN 978-1-4082-0390-3 Reynolds, Nigel (5 January 2005). "Protests at 'infuriating' Booker judge". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
I.M. Pei: Mandarin of Modernism November 7, 1995 by Michael Cannell
The first biography of an amazing modern master whose architectural vision and political skill have shaped our environment. Michael Cannell reveals here the history and personality behind the enigmatic Pei, our most famous living architect. 90 black-and-white photographs.
Master architect Pei's clean and elegant buildings are well known, but the man himself remains somewhat of an enigma, even to those closest to him. Cannell, who writes for Time and the New Yorker, couldn't penetrate Pei's mask, but he does offer a rich and vivid portrait that captures the essence of Pei's charm, vitality, and success. Born into a wealthy and influential Chinese family, Pei grew up in Shanghai where he received a Western education, became enamored of American culture, and chose to study in the U.S. He arrived here in the 1930s, and his academic prowess carried him to Harvard and Walter Gropius' influential circle. But Pei, more a man of action than theory, left teaching to build buildings. Cannell chronicles the creation of all Pei's original structures, emphasizing the buildings that made him famous--the Kennedy Library and the National Gallery's East Building--as well as those that triggered controversies, such as the disaster-prone Hancock Tower in Boston and the Louvre pyramid. Urbane, diplomatic, and ardent, Pei has maintained a distinctive bicultural and aesthetic balance and retained an openness to fresh challenges, such as the design of the recently opened Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Donna Seaman From the Inside Flap
The first biography of an amazing modern master whose architectural vision and political skill have shaped our environment. Michael Cannell reveals here the history and personality behind the enigmatic Pei, our most famous living architect. 90 black-and-white photographs.
This polemical masterpiece challenging western attitudes to the east is as topical today as it was on publication – and comes in at number 8 in our 100 best novels series
“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn't trust the evidence of one's eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest mission civilizatrice.” ― Edward W. Said, Orientalism
More than three decades after its first publication, Edward Said’s groundbreaking critique of the West’s historical, cultural, and political perceptions of the East has become a modern classic. In this wide-ranging, intellectually vigorous study, Said traces the origins of “orientalism” to the centuries-long period during which Europe dominated the Middle and Near East and, from its position of power, defined “the orient” simply as “other than” the occident. This entrenched view continues to dominate western ideas and, because it does not allow the East to represent itself, prevents true understanding. Essential, and still eye-opening, Orientalism remains one of the most important books written about our divided world. READ more here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/…/orientalism-by-edward…/
書名：東方主義，語言：繁體中文，ISBN：9578453728，出版社：立緒，作者：愛德華‧薩依德(Edward W. Said)，譯者：王志弘，王淑燕，莊雅仲等，出版日期：1999/
The mission civilisatrice (the French for "civilizing mission"
The noted critic examines the way in which the West observes the Arabs.
1 How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!
2 It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe. 3 It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.
Two star-crossed lovers, Layla and Majnun. One of them inspired Eric Clapton to write one of the greatest love songs ever. The other is known to us only by his nickname, Majnun, which is Arabic for Madman.
This is Majnun in the desert with his odd flock of semi-wild animals. Have you ever loved someone so much that you abandoned everything to wander like a hermit for the rest of your life before dying of a broken heart?
This may be as close as you want to get to finding out what it’s like.
"Life continues and I, some mornings, tired of the noise, discouraged before the endless work to continue, sick of this madness of the world also who assails you to get up in the newspaper, sure finally that I will not suffice and that I will disappoint everyone, I just want to sit down and wait for the evening to come in. I have this desire, and sometimes I give in ". ---- Albert Camus, Carnets III (1951-1959)
"La vie continue et moi, certains matins, lassé du bruit, découragé devant l'œuvre interminable à poursuivre, malade de cette folie du monde aussi qui vous assaille au lever dans le journal, sûr enfin que je ne suffirai pas et que je décevrai tout le monde, je n'ai que l'envie de m'asseoir et d'attendre que le soir arrive. J'ai cette envie, et j’y cède parfois".
Find even more indicators and adjust the figures to make your own predictions using our interactive chart
ｎ
ｏ ｌ
ｎ
ｎｇ ｈ
ｕ ｌ
ｎｇ
