2007年12月23日星期日

“火宅”之喻/ The Lotus Sutra


“三界火宅”之喻,出自后秦鸠摩罗什译《妙法莲华经》的譬喻品第三,里面用慈父对诸子的爱做宗教譬喻,很棒。这里把故事部分摘录如下。后面的英语译文是翻译大师 Burton Watson 所做。

。。。

《妙法莲华经》譬喻品第三

‘舍利弗,若国邑聚落,有大长者、其年衰迈,财富无量,多有田宅、及诸僮仆。其家广大,唯有一门,多诸人众,一百、二百、乃至五百人、止住其中。堂 阁朽故,墙壁隤落,柱根腐败,梁栋倾危,周匝俱时、欻然火起,焚烧舍宅。长者诸子,若十、二十、或至三十、在此宅中。长者见是大火从四面起,即大惊怖,而 作是念:“我虽能于此所烧之门、安隐得出,而诸子等,于火宅内、乐著嬉戏,不觉不知,不惊不怖,火来逼身,苦痛切己,心不厌患,无求出意。”’

‘舍利弗,是长者作是思惟:“我身手有力,当以衣祴、若以几案、从舍出之。”复更思惟:“是舍、唯有一门,而复狭小。诸子幼稚,未有所识,恋著戏 处,或当堕落,为火所烧。我当为说怖畏之事,此舍已烧,宜时疾出,勿令为火之所烧害。”作是念已,如所思惟,具告诸子,汝等速出。父虽怜愍、善言诱喻,而 诸子等乐著 嬉戏,不肯信受,不惊不畏,了无出心。亦复不知何者是火,何者为舍,云何为失,但东西走戏、视父而已。’

‘尔时长者即作是念:“此舍已为大火所烧,我及诸子若不时出,必为所焚,我今当设方便,令诸子等得免斯害。”父知诸子、先心各有所好,种种珍玩奇异 之物,情必乐著。而告之言:“汝等所可玩好、稀有难得,汝若不取,后必忧悔。如此种种羊车、鹿车、牛车,今在门外,可以游戏。汝等于此火宅、宜速出来,随 汝所欲,皆当与汝。”尔时诸子闻父所说珍玩之物,适其愿故,心各勇锐,互相推排,竞共驰走,争出火宅。是时长者见诸子等安隐得出,皆于四衢道中、露地而 坐,无复障碍,其心泰然,欢喜踊跃。时诸子等各白父言:“父先所许玩好之具,羊车、鹿车、牛车,愿时赐与。”’

‘舍利弗,尔时长者各赐诸子等一大车,其车高广,众宝庄校,周匝栏楯,四面悬铃。又于其上、张设幰盖,亦以珍奇杂宝而严饰之,宝绳交络,垂诸华缨, 重敷婉筵,安置丹枕。驾以白牛,肤色充洁,形体姝好,有大筋力,行步平正,其疾如风。又多仆从、而侍卫之。所以者何。是大长者、财富无量,种种诸藏,悉皆 充溢。而作是念,我财物无极,不应以下劣小车、与诸子等,今此幼童,皆是吾子,爱无偏党,我有如是七宝大车,其数无量,应当等心各各与之,不宜差别。所以 者何。以我此物、周给一国,犹尚不匮,何况诸子。是时诸子各乘大车, 得未曾有,非本所望。’

‘舍利弗,于汝意云何,是长者、等与诸子珍宝大车,宁有虚妄否?’舍利弗言:‘不也、世尊,是长者、但令诸子得免火 难,全其躯命,非为虚妄。何以故。若全身命,便为已得玩好之具,况复方便,于彼火宅而拔济之。世尊,若是长者,乃至不与最小一车,犹不虚妄。何以故。是长 者先作是意:“我以方便、令子得出。”以是因缘,无虚妄也。何况长者、自知财富无量,欲饶益诸子,等与大车。’

佛告舍利弗:‘善哉善哉,如汝所言。舍利弗,如来亦复如是,则为一切世间之父。于诸怖畏、衰恼、忧患、无明闇蔽,永尽无余,而悉成就无量知见、力无 所畏,有大神力及智慧力,具足方便、智慧波罗蜜,大慈、大悲,常无懈倦,恒求善事,利益一切。而生三界朽故火宅,为度众生、生老病死、忧悲、苦恼、愚痴、 闇蔽、三毒之火,教化令得阿耨多罗三藐三菩提。见诸众生为生老病死、忧悲、苦恼之所烧煮,亦以五欲财利故、受种种苦,又以贪著追求故,现受众苦,后受地 狱、畜生、饿鬼之苦,若生天上、及在人间,贫穷困苦、爱别离苦、怨憎会苦、如是等种种诸苦。众生没在其中,欢喜游戏,不觉不知,不惊不怖,亦不生厌,不 求解脱。于此三界火宅、东西驰走,虽遭大苦,不以为患。舍利弗,佛见此已,便作是念:“我为众生之父,应拔其苦难,与无量无边佛智慧乐,令其游戏。”’

‘舍利弗,如来复作是念:“若我但以神力、及智慧力,舍于方便,为诸众生赞如来知见、力无所畏者,众生不能以是得度。所以者何。是诸众生,未免生老病死、忧悲、苦恼,而为三界火宅所烧,何由能解佛之智慧。”’

‘舍 利弗,如彼长者、虽复身手有力,而不用之,但以殷勤方便、勉济诸子火宅之难,然后各与珍宝大车。如来亦复如是,虽有力、无所畏,而不用之,但以智慧方便, 于三界火宅、拔济众生,为说三乘、声闻、辟支佛、佛乘,而作是言:“汝等莫得乐住三界火宅,勿贪粗敝、色声香味触也。若贪著生爱,则为所烧。汝速出三界, 当得三乘、声闻、辟支佛、佛乘,我今为汝保任此事,终不虚也。汝等但当勤修精进。”如来以是方便、诱进众生,复作是言:“汝等当知此三乘法,皆是圣所称 叹,自在无系,无所依求。乘是三乘,以无漏根、力、觉、道、禅定、解脱、三昧等,而自娱乐,便得无量安隐快乐。”’

‘舍利弗,若有众生, 内有智性,从佛世尊闻法信受,殷勤精进,欲速出三界,自求涅槃,是名声闻乘,如彼诸子为求羊车、出于火宅。若有众生,从佛世尊闻法信受,殷勤精进,求自然 慧,乐独善寂,深知诸法因缘,是名辟支佛乘,如彼诸子为求鹿车、出于火宅。若有众生,从佛世尊闻法信受,勤修精进,求一切智、佛智、自然智、无师智、如来 知见、力无所畏,愍念、安乐无量众生,利益天人,度脱一切,是名大乘,菩萨求此乘故,名为摩诃萨,如彼诸子为求牛车、出于火宅。’

‘舍利弗,如彼长者、见诸子等安隐得出火宅,到无畏处,自惟财富无量,等以大车而赐诸子。如来亦复如是,为一切众生之父,若见无量亿千众生,以佛教 门、出三界 苦、怖畏险道,得涅槃乐。如来尔时便作是念:“我有无量无边智慧、力无畏等诸佛法藏,是诸众生,皆是我子,等与大乘,不令有人独得灭度。”皆以如来灭度而 灭度之。是诸众生脱三界者,悉与诸佛禅定、解脱、等娱乐之具,皆是一相、一种,圣所称叹,能生净妙第一之乐。’

。。。

Burton Watson trans. “Chapter Three: Simile and Parable” in The Lotus Sutra

。。。

"Shariputra, suppose that in a certain town in a certain country there was a very rich man. He was far along in years and his wealth was beyond measure. He had many fields, houses and menservants. His own house was big and rambling, but it had only one gate. A great many people--a hundred, two hundred, perhaps as many as Five Hundred--lived in the house. The halls and rooms were old and decaying, the walls crumbling, the pillars rotten at their base, and the beams and rafters crooked and aslant.

"At that time a fire suddenly broke out on all sides, spreading through the rooms of the house. The sons of the rich man, ten, twenty perhaps thirty, were inside the house. When the rich man saw the huge flames leaping up on every side, he was greatly alarmed and fearful and thought to himself, I can escape to safety through the flaming gate, but my sons are inside the burning house enjoying themselves and playing games, unaware, unknowing, without alarm or fear. The fire is closing in on them, suffering and pain threaten them, yet their minds have no sense of loathing or peril and they do not think of trying to escape!

"Shariputra, this rich man thought to himself, I have strength in my body and arms. I can wrap them in a robe or place them on a bench and carry them out of the house. And then again he thought, this house has only one gate, and moreover it is narrow and small.

My sons are very young, they have no understanding, and they love their games, being so engrossed in them that they are likely to be burned in the fire. I must explain to them why I am fearful and alarmed. The house is already in flames and I must get them out quickly and not let them be burned up in the fire!

"Having thought in this way, he followed his plan and called to all his sons, saying, 'You must come out at once!" But though the father was moved by pity and gave good words of instruction, the sons were absorbed in their games and unwilling to heed them. They had no alarm, no fright, and in the end no mind to leave the house. Moreover, they did not understand what the fire was, what the house was, what the danger was. They merely raced about this way and that in play and looked at their father without heeding him.

"At that time the rich man had this thought: the house is already in flames from this huge fire. If I and my sons do not get out at once, we are certain to be burned. I must now invent some expedient means that will make it possible for the children to escape harm.

"The father understood his sons and knew what various toys and curious objects each child customarily liked and what would delight them. And so he said to them, 'The kind of playthings you like are rare and hard to find. If you do not take them when you can, you will surely regret it later. For example, things like these goat-carts, deer-carts and ox-carts. They are outside the gate now where you can play with them. So you must come out of this burning house at once. Then whatever ones you want, I will give them all to you!'

"At that time, when the sons heard their father telling them about these rare playthings, because such things were just what they had wanted, each felt emboldened in heart and, pushing and shoving one another, they all came wildly dashing out of the burning house.

"At that time the rich man, seeing that his sons had gotten out safely and all were seated on the open ground at the crossroads and were no longer in danger, was greatly relieved and his mind danced for joy. At that time each of the sons said to his father, "the playthings you promised us earlier, the goat-carts and deer-carts and ox-carts--please give them to us now!'

"Shariputra, at that time the rich man gave to each of his sons a large carriage of uniform size and quality. The carriages were tall and spacious and adorned with numerous jewels. A railing ran all around them and bells hung from all four sides. A canopy was stretched over the top, which was also decorated with an assortment of precious jewels. Ropes of jewels twined around, a fringe of flowers hung down, and layers of cushions were spread inside, on which were placed vermillion pillows. Each carriage was drawn by a white ox, pure and clean in hide, handsome in form and of great strength, capable of pulling the carriage smoothly and properly at a pace fast as the wind. In addition, there were many grooms and servants to attend and guard the carriage.

"What was the reason for this? This rich man's wealth was limitless and he had many kinds of storehouses that were all filled and overflowing. And he thought to himself, 'There is no end to my possessions. It would not be right if I were to give my sons small carriages of inferior make. These little boys are all my sons and I love them without partiality. I have countless numbers of large carriages adorned with seven kinds of gems. I should be fair-minded and give one to each of my sons. I should not show any discrimination. Why? Because even if I distributed these possessions of mine to every person in the whole country I would still not exhaust them, much less could I do so by giving them to my sons!

"At that time each of the sons mounted his large carriage, gaining something he had never had before, something he had originally never expected. Shariputra, what do you think of this? When this rich man impartially handed out to his sons these big carriages adorned with rare jewels, was he guilty of falsehood or not?"

Shariputra said, "No, World-Honored One. This rich man simply made it possible for his sons to escape the peril of fire and preserve their lives. He did not commit a falsehood. Why do I say this? Because if they were able to preserve their lives, then they had already obtained a plaything of sorts. And how much more so when, through an expedient means, they are rescued from that burning house! World-Honored One, even if the rich man had not given them the tiniest carriage, he would still not be guilty of falsehood. Why? Because this rich man had earlier made up his mind that he would employ an expedient means to cause his sons to escape. Using a device of this kind was no act of falsehood. How much less so, then, when the rich man knew that his wealth was limitless and he intended to enrich and benefit his sons by giving each of them a large carriage."

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "Very good, very good. In is just as you have said. And Shariputra, the Thus Come One is like this. That is, he is a father to all the world. His fears, cares and anxieties, ignorance and misunderstanding, have long come to an end, leaving no residue. He has fully succeeded in acquiring measureless insight, power and freedom from fear and gaining great supernatural powers and the power of wisdom. He is endowed with expedient means and the paramita of wisdom, his great pity and great compassion are constant and unflagging; at all times he seeks what is good and will bring benefit to all.

'He is born into the threefold world, a burning house, rotten and old. In order to save living beings from the fires of birth, old age, sickness and death, care suffering, stupidity, misunderstanding, and the three poisons; to teach and convert them and enable them to attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.

"He sees living beings seared and consumed by birth, old age, sickness and death, care and suffering, sees them undergo many kinds of pain because of their greed and attachment and striving they undergo numerous pains in their present existence, and later they undergo the pain of being reborn in hell or as beasts or hungry spirits. Even if they are reborn in the heavenly realm or the realm of human beings, they undergo the pain of poverty and want, the pain of parting from loved ones, the pain of encountering those they detest--all these many different kinds of pain.

"Yet living beings drowned in the midst of all this, delight and amuse themselves, unaware, unknowing, without alarm or fear. They feel no sense of loathing and make no attempt to escape. In this burning house which is the threefold world, they race about to east and west, and though they encounter great pain, they are not distressed by it.

Shariputra, when the Buddha sees this, then he thinks to himself, I am the father of living beings and I should rescue them from their sufferings and give them the joy of the measureless and boundless Buddha wisdom so that they may find their enjoyment in that.

"Shariputra, the Thus Come One also has this thought: if I should merely employ supernatural powers and the power of wisdom; if I should set aside expedient means and for the sake of living beings should praise the Thus Come One's insight, power and freedom from fear, then living beings would not be able to gain salvation. Why? Because these living beings have not yet escaped from birth, old age, sickness, death, care and suffering, but are consumed by flames in the burning house that is the threefold world. How could they be able to understand the Buddha's wisdom?

"Shariputra, that rich man, though he had strength in his body and arms, did not use it. He merely employed a carefully contrived expedient means and thus was able to rescue his sons from the peril of the burning house, and afterward gave each of them a large carriage adorned with rare jewels. And the Thus Come One does the same. Though he possesses power and freedom from fear, he does not use these. He merely employs wisdom and expedient means to rescue living beings from the burning house of the threefold world, expounding to them the three vehicles, the vehicle of the voice-hearer, that of pratyekabuddha, and that of the Buddha.

"He says to them, 'You must not be content to stay in this burning house of the threefold world! Do not be greedy for its coarse and shoddy forms, sounds, scents, tastes and sensations! If you become attached to them and learn to love them, you will be burned up! You must come out of this threefold world at once so that you can acquire the three vehicles, the vehicles of the voice-hearer, the pratyekabuddha and the Buddha. I promise you now that you will get them, and that promise will never prove false. You have only to apply yourselves with diligent effort!'

"The Thus Come One employs this expedient means to lure living beings into action. And then he says to them, 'You should understand that these doctrines of the three vehicles are all praised by the sages. They are free, without entanglements, leaving nothing further to depend upon or seek. Mount these three vehicles, gain roots that are without outflows, gain powers, awareness, the way, meditation, emancipation, samadhis, and then enjoy yourselves. You will gain the delight of immeasurable peace and safety.'

"Shariputra, if there are living beings who are inwardly wise in nature, and who attend the Buddha, the World-Honored One, hear the Law, believe and accept it, and put forth diligent effort, desiring to escape quickly from the threefold world and seeking to attain nirvana, they shall be called [those who ride] the vehicle of the voice hearer.

They are like those sons who left the burning house in the hope of acquiring goat-carts.

"If there are living beings who attend the Buddha, the World-Honored One, hear the Law, believe and accept it, and put forth diligent effort, seeking wisdom that comes of itself, taking solitary delight in goodness and tranquility, and profoundly understanding the causes and conditions of all phenomena, they shall be called [those who ride] the vehicle of the pratyekabuddha. They are like the sons who left the burning house in the hope of acquiring deer-carts.

"If there are living beings who attend the Buddha, the World-Honored One, hear the Law, believe and accept it, and put forth diligent effort, seeking comprehensive wisdom, the insight of the Thus Come One, powers and freedom from fear, who pity and comfort countless living beings, bring benefit to heavenly and human beings, and save them all, they shall be called [those who ride] the Great Vehicle. Because the bodhisattvas seek this vehicle, they are called mahasattvas. They are like the sons who left the burning house in the hope of acquiring ox-carts.

"Shariputra, that rich man, seeing that his sons had all gotten out of the burning house safely and were no longer threatened, recalled that his wealth was immeasurable and presented each of his sons with a large carriage. And the Thus Come One does likewise. He is the father of all living beings. When he sees that countless thousands of millions of living beings, through the gateway of the Buddha's teaching, can escape the pains of the threefold world, the fearful and perilous road, and gain the delights of nirvana, the Thus Come One at that time has this thought: I possess measureless, boundless wisdom, power, fearlessness, the storehouse of the Law of the Buddhas. These living beings are all my sons. I will give the Great Vehicle to all of them equally so that there will not be those who gain extinction by themselves, but that all may do so through the extinction of the Thus Come One.

"To all the living beings who have escaped from the threefold world he then gives the delightful gifts of the meditation, emancipation, and so forth, of the Buddhas. All these are uniform in characteristics, uniform in type, praised by the sages, capable of producing pure, wonderful, supreme delight.

"Shariputra, that rich man first used three types of carriages to entice his sons, but later he gave them just the large carriage adorned with jewels, the safest, most comfortable kind of all. Despite this, that rich man was not guilty of falsehood. The Thus Come One does the same, and he is without falsehood. First he preaches the three vehicles to attract and guide living beings, but later he employs just the Great Vehicle to save them. Why? The Thus Come One possesses measureless wisdom, power, freedom from fear, the storehouse of the Law. He is capable of giving to all living beings the Law of the Great Vehicle. But not all of them are capable of receiving it.

。。。


2007年12月21日星期五

国耻图录(一):日本联合舰队击溃北洋水师


“于黄海我军大捷”



由当时日本的浮世绘画师小林清亲、井上吉次郎绘 (寻自 Wikipedia


2007年12月20日星期四

隐私、仆人与十八世纪


吕大年,〈理查逊和帕梅拉的隐私〉,《外国文学评论》 200301期。


……

再说舒适。著名历史学家斯通(Lawrence Stone) 对十八世纪英国上层社会的家居生活有一番描述,可以借用:

主人的卧室和小套房里,总要有仆人进来,川流不息。一早,他们先来开窗户、生炉子、送早点,或者帮助男女主人穿衣服。过一会儿,他们再来清洗便桶、铺床、打扫房间。下午,他们要来送茶、加柴火。天晚了,他们要来点灯、关窗、再添火。再晚一点,他们拿铜碳炉来为主人暖床,然后帮主人脱衣服。从早到晚,他们还要 来来去去地给主人传话、送信。仆人们白天黑夜出入主人的房间,没有准时候。仆人到处都是,主人对之习以为常,视若无睹,除非是有事情要询问,或者有差事要吩咐。

这是舒适吗?也是,也不是。舒适是自我的感觉,因习惯而异。这些人家的主人娇生惯养。饮食寝兴,凡事由人伺候,是他们的习惯,也是他们的文化。他们对仆人还有一个很特殊的称呼——family”。 现在懂一点英语的人都知道这个词的意思是“家庭”,它原先所指的却是家中的仆人,《牛津英语词典》中最早的用例出于十五世纪。当初这么称呼,大概是因为主仆朝夕相处,宛若一家,就像旧时汉语里把仆人叫做“家人”。十八世纪英国大户人家的主人嘴上这样叫,不过是模仿过去的贵族,摆谱。他们心里明白,仆人是雇来的劳动力,和自己根本不是一条心,须加防范。防范的措施之一是写“character”。这是前任雇主就仆人的人品、习惯出具的证明,是一份操行评语。新主人读了“character”,知道仆人手脚干净,做事牢靠,才敢雇;仆人为了将来有一纸好的“character”,在旧主人家里就要守规矩。

然而,仆人更加了解主人的人品和习惯。他们不见得能写,但是个个都能说,工余三五相聚,说长论短,话题经常是各家主人的秉性为人和门内发生的种种事情。这是仆人给主人、穷人给富人所下的操行评语,无形无字,但却有声有色,是名副其实的“口碑”。“Privacy” 在十八世纪英语里的意思是隐而不宣,不愿他人与闻的事情,译成“隐私”很贴切。成群的仆役,出门前呼后拥,入门片刻不离,主人的活动范围,不论大小,都超不出他们的耳目所及。大户人家为了排场和舒适所付出的代价就是隐私。这是早有确证的事情。十八世纪英国流行许多写给仆人看的小册子,有各种名目,像《仆人须知》(Servants Book of Knowledge),或者《给仆人的礼 物》(A Present for Servants), 其实都是给仆人立规矩的。规矩之一就是嘴要严,不张扬散布在主人家里的见闻。更加广为人知的证据,是十八世纪上等人家的通信。这些人家多有存信的习惯,不少保留的家信在后世刊行,是史学家经常征引的材料。其中时常有父母告诫子女,在仆人眼前要留意言谈举止,免为物议所非。另外,十八世纪二十年代,许多有身份的人家开始在餐厅里用一种架子,摆放食物饮料,用者起身自取,不像原先由随侍在旁的仆人端着。这样,吃饭的人可以畅所欲言,无须担心自己说的话会被仆人 传出去。架子的名称很有意思,叫做“哑仆” (dumb waiter)。这些事例告诉我们,十八世纪的雇主很清楚仆人是对自己的隐私的威胁,而且对此十分在乎。

飞短流长,不可不防。而新近的研究证明,仆人知道主人的隐私,还可能有更大的危害。离婚在十八世纪的英国还不是通行的制度,上层社会的婚姻解体,一般是分居。私下不能达成协议的,就要诉诸教会的法庭。所谓“分居”其实是分产。婚姻在当时是遗产继承之外最重要的财富转移手段,嫁谁、娶谁大都是出于经济上的考虑。结婚时,女方名下的财产完全划归男方;男方则相应地承诺,婚后每年拨给女方一笔钱,及身而止,不得遗赠。一旦判决分居,男方非但停付这笔年金,而且对女方所欠的债务,从此概不负责。通常判决分居的根据是外遇和家庭暴力。如果过失在男方,女方会得到为数不小的赡养费,反之,女方分文不得。此外还有一种婚 姻诉讼,由民事法庭受理,叫做“criminal conversation——实在难以翻译, 权且称为“索赔”。它是丈夫向妻子的外遇要求赔偿,理由是妻子是自己的财产,与其有染就是侵害产权。这两种都是有钱的人才打的官司。如果当事人有点名气, 书商就会派人到法庭去旁听,把证词记录下来,印成小册子出售。总是有很多人想知道名人的隐私。这些小册子在二十世纪八十年代由美国学者整理影印,一共七卷。九十年代,斯通为了研究英国离婚制度的历史,又发掘、整理了一批存档的庭审记录,从中挑选了十几个案例,出版成书。由这些史料我们得知一件事情:十八 世纪婚姻诉讼的证词大都来自当事者的仆人。这些仆人告诉法庭,主人何时、何地、与何人有外遇,说了什么,做了什么,留下了什么痕迹。他们还告诉法庭,男主 人是否经常打女主人,因为什么动手,用了什么凶器,伤着了没有,厉害不厉害。这些细节,有的是他们每天例行公事,——添火、铺床、赶车、传话时偶然撞见的,有的是他们用了手段,——在 壁板上钻孔,或者通过钥匙孔偷听、偷看来的。有的仆人还专门做了笔记。官司的胜败关系重大,当事双方都会在仆人身上下功夫。已经离开,在别处做事的,要派人去找到,想办法让他们道出真情,或者教他们作伪证。还有不惜重金,专门把仆人送到法国藏起来,避免出庭的。这种时候也是仆人要挟主人的好机会。

历史学家研究这些庭审记录,原本是为了追溯离婚制度的由来,对十八世纪的主仆关系只是旁及。然而我们却由之发现,许多已知的事情,比如上面提到的仆人守则和上流社会的家训,还有象“哑仆”这样的器具,实际上蕴藏着更加丰富的意义。雇主防范仆人,心之所系远不止于名誉,泄露隐私还会危及财产。约翰逊1750年 在杂志上劝人修身,他这么说:“我们的短处,让仆人知道了很危险,但是又瞒不过他们,因此我们必须行为检点,无可指摘。难堪、可耻无过于让仆人握住自己的把柄。”后世的人欣赏这段话的言辞,但是未必完全明白它在当时的含义。种种的婚姻官司和刊载庭审记录的小册子,对约翰逊来说是时事,是耳熟能详的常识,他不是泛泛而谈,而是有所指的。当时的有钱人读了这段话,一定是深有同感,感同身受。

……


2007年11月25日星期日

Northrop Frye: Imagination


Northrop Frye, The Educated Imagination (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964), 102-103.

Literature, then, is not a dream-world: it’s two dreams, a wish-fulfillment dream and an anxiety dream, that are focused together, like a pair of glasses, and become a fully conscious vision. Art, according to Plato, is a dream for awakened minds, a work of imagination withdrawn from ordinary life, dominated by the same forces that dominate the dream, and yet giving us a perspective and dimension on reality that we don’t get from any other approach to reality. So the poet and the dreamer are distinct, as Keats says. Ordinary life forms a community, and literature is among other things an art of communication, so it [Page 103] forms a community, too. In ordinary life we fall into a private and separate subconscious every night, where we reshape the world according to a private and separate imagination. Underneath literature there’s another kind of subconscious, which is social and not private, a need for forming a community around certain symbols, like the Queen and the flag, or around certain gods that represent order and stability, or becoming and change, or death and rebirth to a new life. This is the myth-making power of the human mind, which throws up and dissolves one civilization after another.


2007年11月20日星期二

“一天”与“世界”

王敦

一天世界



您給我一天,我給您一個世界。
——贾樟柯电影,《世界》

睡一百年是值得的,如果醒来以后发现,正确的答案已经被真地找到了。
——爱德华
·贝拉米(Edward Bellamyl8501898),《回顾:2000-1887》(Looking Backward2000—1887



回顾百年以前的历史,给人一种似曾相识的感觉,仿佛各种可能性在晚清就已经初见端倪了。举个例子说,上海将会在2010年举办世界博览会,这是人所共知的。然而,大多数人也许并不知道,在整整一百年前的1910年,清朝政府在南京举办了为期六个月的“南洋劝业会”。共吸引数十万中外人士前来参观和贸易。这个清末宣统年间“走向世界”的“热点”新闻,在当时的重要报刊《东方杂志》和《时报》等上面均有报道。上海的英文月刊《远东评论》曾以“中国之首次盛大国家展览”为题进行报道。美国的《评论之评论》上,也以“中国的第一个世界博览会”为题进行评述。

把这一百年前西学东渐的和今天改革开放的大趋势放在一起思考,不难发现,百年以来的中国社会发展有一个大主题,那就是如何从自己固有的历史中突围,以对自己最有利的姿态来改变这个迄今为止依然被西方所主宰的现代世界。这不仅是当代国人的热门问题,也曾经让百年前的中国人苦苦思索。

本文的题目来自于贾樟柯的电影《世界》里的广告词:您给我一天,我给您一个世界。世界公园一类的东西在现今的中国大都市如北京深圳等很流行。它通常是在一个有限的空间里微缩陈列世界各个国家和民族的标志性建筑。从这部电影的取景来看,选取了很多西方最具有标志性的人文景观,如艾菲尔铁塔,伦敦塔桥,比萨斜塔,悉尼歌剧院等等。微缩世界景观公园以微缩的方式去解决立足本土走向世界的 矛盾。它满足了中国人在有限的时间和空间内就能享受和拥有国际化,特别是西方化的欲望。在一个公园里面,浓缩了世界各地特别是西方最表面化的浮光掠影。这 是一个经过微缩、简化之后,想象中的世界图景。尽管逛一回公园并不等于就拥有了每一处景观的文化渊源和历史沉淀,但并不妨碍人们在短暂的一天内将世界尽收眼底,获得恶补式的满足。

镜头里的霓虹灯广告您给我一天,我给您一个世界正是一语道出了卖点和主题。卖点是一天,主题则是世界微缩世界景观是一个以世界为主题的梦幻公园,用一天的时间就可以美梦成真,拥有世界。您给我一天,我给您一个世界已然是一个意味深长的修辞。它的涵义 是用最短、最快、最廉价的历史进程来换取梦寐以求的现代性世界空间。贾樟柯这个主题公园的寓意不仅表述了当代中国的潜意识,也道出了一百年来中华民族的生存主题──“世界

笔者把贾樟柯的世界放在引号里面,还因为另一层寓意。做为生活空间,它是外来务工人员真实生活的地方。他们选择工作和生活在这里是因为生存的实际需要。这个由毫无实际用处的陌生建筑微缩而成的世界,对他们来说既枯燥又真实,时间长了就感受不到对观众所宣传的那番靓丽和新奇。夜晚游人散去之后,长住这里的是外地打工者。在人造的假景中,世界对他们来说就是赖以生存的角落。

贾樟柯在电影《世界》里数次呈现了公园里的艾菲尔铁塔。其中有一个场景:男主角,世界的保安队长成太生,开车送女主角赵小桃的前男友,也是俩人共同的山西老乡,去北京火车站。老乡此趟来北京,是来和赵小桃告别,然后就从北京启程,坐火车去蒙古人民共和国──做廉价的国际劳工。去火车站的路上,成太生把复制的埃菲尔铁塔指给老乡看,并不无骄傲地说:不出北京,走遍世界

此情此景,加上另一个场景里给出的一行字幕大兴的巴黎总让人觉得些许反讽的意味:复制了一个原样三分之一大小的铁塔,并不等于就把法国巴黎的格调也搬来了。大兴的巴黎下面还有另一行的英文字幕:“Paris in Beijing suburb”。把它翻译回中文,勉强可以称之为北京郊区的巴黎。然而,中文里的郊区不等同于英语的 suburb。中国大都市外围的郊区是落后于城区中心的边缘地带,是城与乡的过渡。Suburb的含义则相反,是房地产资本主义特地避开市中心而在外围开发的舒适居住区,是占国家人口大多数的中产阶级生存繁衍的地方,是中产阶级价值观的家园和堡垒。可见,英文的Suburb和中文的郊区相差甚远。语言概念的不对应,又反映了现代性所依存的具体国情不同。

埃菲尔铁塔能在巴黎屹立百余年并在当今世界家喻户晓,自然有其卖点。这样的卖点也是随着时间一层一层地交织起来的。大铁塔最初是一个临时性景观,为了1889法国大革命一百周年巴黎世界博览会而建,用来展现法国的工业成就。 尽管设计师亚历山大古斯塔夫艾菲尔(1832-1923)煞费苦心地罗列出了铁塔可能的若干长久性用途──军事制高点,气象观测应用等等──它原本是要在世博会之后就予以拆除的。世博会之后,法国人没有舍得把大铁塔拆除。归根结底在于人们发现它可以留着做为标志性景观,担当起向全世界展示巴黎的宣传任务。这真是事半功倍,没用之中反而藏有大用了,让人想起《庄子》里的介于材与不材之间。 巴黎大铁塔的轮廓,成为了各国人等一代代崇拜、描摹和复制的由头和原本。其中的一个复制品就位于《世界》里的世界公园。在保安队长成太生的眼里,世界公园 的铁塔已经足以让他骄傲得淡忘了自己实际生存空间的狭小。对特定时空的时空复制,来自于象征性占有的欲望,也导致了简化、缩略,和幻想式的满足。这样的满 足是以牺牲实际用途的代价换来的。似是而非的西洋景与本土厚重的历史文化传统搭不上界,反而把有限的可利用空间挤压了,也不能使原居住者受益。

男女主人公的工作告诉了我们支撑这个世界靠什么:秩序和宣传。男主角成太生代表了准军事化的秩序,他是保安队的头目。女主角赵小桃则是歌舞演出的台柱,通过把各种服装展示在自己的身体上来演铎多元化, 为世界进行魅力宣传。一天晚上,女主角在纸醉金迷的表演厅里表演,与此同时身着制服皮靴的男主角则牵着白马走过黑暗中孤零零、微缩的古希腊帕德嫩神殿。此时此景,表演厅外面巨大的霓虹灯标语您给我一天,我给您一个世界显得格外显眼。这是时空错位的荒诞和悲凉。让我们觉得,这个世界不过是舞台加道具而已,毫无历史与文化的内在合理性。如果有经营不善的一天,它就会倒闭,世界会变成历史。


想到这里,我的思路不禁凝滞在电影《世界》的结尾。此时,男女主角已经在北京郊外因煤气中毒而窒息了。严冬,忙乱中围观的众人,连同他们的嘈杂,都从屏幕和音响中消失了。许久,画外音想起,是男女主人公的声音。我们不知道这番对话来自何时何地,何方世界。这是亡魂的一问一答,还是两人已经被抢救过来,复苏了?
……
成太生:我们是不是死了?
赵小桃:没有。我们才刚刚开始。


© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者:Dun Wang (王敦)。


2007年11月16日星期五

“粪肥”与“英谚”


翻看严复译述的《天演论》,读到这样一段话:

英谚有之曰。粪在田则为肥。在衣则为不洁。然则不洁者。乃肥而失其所者也。故豪家土苴金帛。所以扬其惠声。而中产之家。则坐是以冻馁。猛毅致果之性。所以成 大将之威名。仰机射利之奸。所以致驵商之厚实。而用之一不当。则刀锯囹圄从其后矣。由此而观之。彼被刑无赖之人。不必由天德之不肖。而恒由人事之不详也审 矣。今而后知绝其种嗣俾无遗育者之真无当也。今者即英伦一国而言之。挽近二百年治功所进。几于绝景而驰。至其民之气质性情。尚无可指之进步。而欧墨物竞炎 炎。天演为炉。天择为冶。所骎骎日进者。乃在政治学术工商兵战之间。 呜呼。可谓奇观也已。(上卷,《导言十六·进微》)

读完想一想,觉得这话也忒损了。如此说来,英国二百年的治功虽然了得,其民之气质性情却和进步沾不上边儿 。英伦奇观,也就值一句呜呼而已。言外之意,中国二百年来的停滞,也并不是由于人民气质性情的落后。那为什么落后呢?其道理暗含在引用的那句英谚——“粪在田则为肥。在衣则为不洁。然则不洁者。乃肥而失其所者也。所以英国的成功就相当于肥在田,中国的失败就相当于粪在衣粪在田则为肥,在衣则为不洁橘生淮南则为橘,生于淮北则为枳也有点象。但语比语意思上要暧昧,随你怎么想都行。 严复可能没想到,这个谚语其实也可以用来说他自己的事儿。伊藤博文和严复在英国是同学,严复在伊藤的眼里还是个高材生。而伊藤博文在明治天皇的内阁当了总理,严复却始终“失其所”,在晚清也只是个翻译家。这也是对该谚语的一个例证。

(此篇小文的上面一部分,被北京《读书》杂志刊登在08年11期的“读书短札”里。——王敦,2008年11月2日 补记。)

为了查实此句英谚,我特地求教一位博学鸿辞的美国朋友,是位老先生。他说没听说过有这么一句谚语。我让他再从跟有关的名言类里找找,他说能想到的只有里根总统的一个典故。据说里根有个特点,就是凡事抱个积极乐观的态度。有一次里根打个比方:如果推开一扇房门,发现了一屋子的马粪,应该怎么想?里根开导我们这样想:太好了,可能有一匹骏马住在里面!

关于粪肥的英语名言名谚,似乎也就是这个沾边儿了。问题是严复翻译《天演论》的时候,里根的爸爸可能都还没有出生呢!严复是位翻译大师,讲究信、达、雅。粪在田则为肥这句话怎么听也不像是英谚,倒像是庄稼人的农谚。毕竟中国是农耕的国度。严复用说事儿的时候,可能是在追求信、达、雅辞达而已吧?

© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者:Dun Wang (王敦)。

2007年11月5日星期一

乌龟与“青明子”


这是晚清的一则“俏皮话”,见于1907年某杂志:

活画乌龟形

自轮舶通商以来。往来海面。鼓动海水。波涛益多。龙王不安于宫。欲遣使臣与外国人商量设法使水族宁静。遂登殿问诸臣。谁能任交涉之事者。乌龟乃学毛遂之自荐。龙王大喜。即敕令前往。乌龟衔命而去。在路上遇见一轮船。龟欲登船致意。苦于无路可上。乃环舟觅路。正徘徊间。忽船后放出热气。不偏不倚。正射着乌龟。龟大惊。遁回。龙王问交涉事如何。龟顿首曰。臣实无此才干。请别遣能员去办罢。龙王又问何故回来。龟细奏前事。龙王大怒曰。亏尔起先还挺身自荐。说是能办交涉。怎么外国人放了一个屁。你便吓的跑回来。


另外再说说“青明子”。此为何人?其实不是人,是黑猩猩——英文“chimpanzee”的音译。译者为谁?就是翻译《天演论》的严复。能结识青明子,是这次读《天演论》的忍俊不禁之处。音译归音译,严复是够幽默的。黑乎乎、毛扎扎的黑猩猩变成了“青明子“,俨然一个清俊飘逸之士。这可能就是体现了严氏“译事三难”里的“雅”吧。


© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者:Dun Wang (王敦)。


2007年10月23日星期二

里尔克——《给一个青年诗人的十封信》/ Rainer Maria Rilke


里尔克,《给一个青年诗人的十封信》 (冯至 译)(北京:三联书店,1994年重印)。



  第八封信


  亲爱的卡卜斯先生,我想再和你谈一谈,虽然我几乎不能说对你有所帮助以及对你有一些用处的话。你有过很多大的悲哀,这些悲哀都已过去了。你说,这悲哀的过去也使你非常苦恼。但是,请你想一想,是不是这些大的悲哀并不曾由你生命的中心走过?当你悲哀的时候,是不是在你生命里并没有许多变化,在你本性的任何地方也无所改变?危险而恶劣的是那些悲哀,我们把它们运送到人群中,以遮盖它们的声音;像是敷敷衍衍治疗的病症,只是暂时退却,过些时又更可怕地发作; 他 们聚集在体内,成为一种没有生活过、被摈斥、被遗弃的生命,能以此使我们死去。如果我们能比我们平素的知识所能达到的地方看得更远一点,稍微越过我们预感的前哨,那么也许我们将会以比担当我们的欢悦更大的信赖去担当我们的悲哀。因为它们(悲哀)都是那些时刻,正当一些新的,陌生的事物侵入我们生命;我们的 情感蜷伏于怯懦的局促的状态里,一切都退却,形成一种寂静,于是这无人认识的就立在中间,沉默无语。

  我想信几乎我们一切的悲哀都是紧张的瞬间,这时我们感到麻木,因为我们不再听到诧异的情感生存。因为我们要同这生疏的闯入者独自周旋;因为我们平素所信 任的与习惯的都暂时离开了我们;因为我们正处在一个不能容我们立足的过程中。可是一旦这不期而至的新事物迈进我们的生命,走进我们的心房,在心的最深处化为无有,溶解在我们的血液中,悲哀也就因此过去了。我们再也经验不到当时的情形。这很容易使我们相信前此并没有什么发生;其实我们却是改变了,正如一所房子,走进一位新客,它改变了。我们不能说,是谁来了,我们望后也许不知道,可是有许多迹象告诉我们,在未来还没有发生之前,它就以这样的方式潜入我们的生命,以便在我们身内变化。所以我们在悲哀的时刻要安于寂寞,多注意,这是很重要的:因为当我们的未来潜入我们的生命的瞬间,好像是空虚而枯僵, 但与那从外边来的、为我们发生的喧嚣而意外的时刻相比,是同生命接近得多。我们悲哀时越沉静,越忍耐,越坦白,这新的事物也越深、越清晰地走进我们的生命,我们也就更好地保护它,它也就更多地成为我们自己的命运;将来有一天它发生了(就是说:它从我们的生命里出来向着别人走进),我们将在最内心的地方感到我们同它亲切而接近。并且这是必要的。是必要的,——我们将渐渐地向那方面发展,——凡是迎面而来的事,是没有生疏的,都早已属于我们了。人们已经变换过这么多运转的定义,将来会渐渐认清,我们所谓的命运是从我们里出来,并不是从外边向着我们走进。只因为有许多人,当命运在他们身内生存时,他们不曾把它吸收,化为己有,所以他们也认不清,有什么从他们身内出现;甚至如此生疏,他们在仓皇恐惧之际,以为命运一定是正在这时走进他们的生命, 因为他们确信自己从来没有见过这样类似的事物。正如对于太阳的运转曾经有过长期的蒙惑那样,现在人们对于未来的运转,也还在同样地自欺自蔽。其实未来站得很稳,亲爱的卡卜斯先生,但是我们动转在这无穷无尽的空间。

  我们怎么能不感觉困难呢?

  如果我们再谈到寂寞,那就会更明显,它根本不是我们所能选择或弃舍的事物。我们都是寂寞的。人能够自欺,好像并不寂寞。只不过如此而已。 但是,那有多么好呢,如果我们一旦看出,我们都正在脱开这欺骗的局面。在期间我们自然要发生眩昏;因为平素我们的眼睛看惯了的一切这时都忽然失去,再也没 有亲近的事物,一切的远方都是无穷地旷远。谁从他的屋内没有准备,没有过程,忽然被移置在一脉高山的顶上,他必会有类似的感觉;一种无与伦比的不安被交付给无名的事 物,几乎要把他毁灭。他或许想像会跌落,或者相信会被抛掷在天空,或者粉身碎骨;他的头脑必须发现多么大的谎话,去补救、去说明他官感失迷的状态。一切的距离与尺度对于那寂寞的人就有了变化;从这些变化中忽然会有许多变化发生。跟在山顶上的那个人一样,生出许多非常的想像与稀奇的感觉,它们好像超越了一切能够担当的事体。但那是必要的,我们也体验这种情况。我们必须尽量广阔地承受我们的生存;一切,甚至闻所未闻的事物,都可能在里边存在。根本那是我们被要 求的惟一的勇气;勇敢地面向我们所能遇到的最稀奇、最吃惊、最不可解的事物。就因为许多人在这意义中是怯懦的,所以使生活受了无限的损伤;人们称作的那些体验、所谓幽灵世界、死,以及一切同我们相关联的事物,它们都被我们日常的防御挤出生活之外,甚至我们能够接受它们的感官都枯萎了。关于,简直就不能谈论了。但是对于不可解的事物的恐惧,不仅使个人的生存更为贫乏,并且人与人的关系也因之受到限制,正如从有无限可能性的河床里捞出来,放在一块荒芜不毛的的岸上。因为这不仅是一种惰性,使人间的关系极为单调而陈腐地把旧事一再重演,而且是对于任何一种不能预测、不堪胜任的新的生活的畏缩。但是如果有人对于一切有了准备,无论什么甚至最大的哑谜,也不置之度外,那么他就会把同别人的关系,当作生动着的事物去体验,甚至充分理解自己的存在。正如我们把各个人的存在看成一块较大或较小的空间,那么大部分人却只认识了他们空间的一角、一块窗前的空地,或是他们走来走去的一条窄道。这样他们就 有一定的安定。可是那危险的不安定是更人性的,它能促使亚仑·坡 的故事里的囚犯摸索他们可怕的牢狱的形状,而熟悉他们住处内不可言喻的恐怖。但我们不是囚犯,没有人在我们周围布置了陷阱,没有什么来恐吓我们,苦恼我 们。我们在生活中像是在最适合于我们的原素里,况且我们经过几千年之久的适应和生活是这样地相似了,如果我们静止不动,凭借一种成功的模拟,便很难同我们 周围的一切有所区分。我们没有理由不信任我们的世界,因为它并不敌对我们。如果它有恐惧,就是我们的恐惧;它有难测的深渊,这深渊是属于我们的;有危险, 我们就必须试行去爱这些危险。若是我们把我们的生活,按照那叫我们必须永远把握艰难的原则来处理,那么现在最生疏的事物就会变得最亲切、最忠实的了。我们 怎么能忘却那各民族原始时都有过的神话呢;恶龙在最紧急的瞬间变成公主的那段神话;也许我们生活中一切的恶龙都是公主们,她们只是等候着,美丽而勇敢地看 一看我们。也许一切恐怖的事物在最深处是无助的,向我们要求救助。

  亲爱的卡卜斯先生,如果有一种悲哀在你面前出现,它是从未见过地那样广大,如果有一种不安,像光与云影似地掠过你的行为与一切工作,你不 要恐惧。你必须想,那是有些事在你身边发生了;那是生活没有忘记你,它把你握在手中,它永不会让你失落。为什么你要把一种不安、一种痛苦、一种忧郁置于你 的生活之外 呢,可是你还不知道,这些情况在为你做什么工作?为什么你要这样追问,这一切是从哪里来,要向哪里去呢?可是你要知道,你是在过渡中,要愿望自己有所变 化。如果你的过程里有一些是病态的,你要想一想,病就是一种方法,有机体用以从生疏的事物中解放出来;所以我们只须让它生病,使它有整个的病发作,因为这才是进步。亲爱的卡卜斯先生,现在你自身内有这么多的事发生,你要像一个病人似地忍耐,又像一个康复者似地自信;你也许同时是这两个人。并且你还须是看护自己的医生。但是在病中常常有许多天,医生除了等候以外,什么事也不能做。这就是(尽你是你的医生的时候),现在首先必须做的事。

  对于自己不要过甚地观察。不要从对你发生的事物中求得很快的结论,让它们单纯地自生自长吧。不然你就很容易用种种(所谓道德的)谴责回顾你的过去,这些过去自然和你现在遇到的一切很有关系。凡是从你童年的迷途、愿望、渴望中在你身内继续影响着的事,它们并不让你回忆,供你评判。一个寂寞而孤单的童年非常的情况是这样艰难,这样复杂,受到这么多外来的影响,同时又这样脱开了一切实生活的关联,纵使在童年有罪恶,我们也不该简捷了当地称作罪恶。对于许多名称,必须多多注意;常常只是犯罪的名称使生命为之破碎,而不是那无名的、个人的行为本身,至于这个行为也许是生活中规定的必要,能被生活轻易接受的。因为你把胜利估量得过高,所以你觉得力的消耗如此巨大;胜利并不是你认为已经完成的伟大,纵使你觉得正确;伟大是你能以把一些真的、实在的事物代替欺骗。不然你的胜利也不过是一种道德上的反应,没有广大的意义,但是它却成为你生活的一个段落。亲爱的卡卜斯先生,关于我的生活,我有很多的愿望。你还记得吗,这个生活是怎样从童年里出来,向着伟大渴望?我看着,它现在又从这些伟大前进,渴望更伟大的事物。所以艰难的生活永无止境,但因此生长也无止境。

  如果我还应该向你说一件事,那么就是:你不要相信,那试行劝慰你的人是无忧无虑地生活在那些有时对你有益的简单而平静的几句话里。他的生活有许多的辛苦与悲哀,他远远地专诚帮助你。不然,他就绝不能找到那几句话。

  你的:莱内·马利亚·里尔克1904812;瑞典,弗拉底,波格比庄园


2007年10月21日星期日

Foucault’s “Recipes”/ 福柯的配方


Michel de Certeau, Heterologies: Discourse on the Other (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986).


Chapter 13, Micro-Techniques and Panoptic Discourse

[Page 190]

...

As in cooking, here we find subtle “recipes” to get theories of practices. Yet in the same way that a cooking recipe is punctuated with a certain number of action imperatives (blend, baste, bake, etc.), so also the theoretical operation can be summed up in two steps: extract, and then turn over; first the “ethnological” isolation of some practices for obtaining a scientific “object,” then the logical inversion of this obscure object into an enlightening center of the theory.

The first step is a “découpe”: it isolates a design of some practices from a seamless web, in order to constitute these practices as a distinct and separate corpus, a coherent whole, which is nonetheless alien to the place in which theory is produced. It is the case for Foucault’s panoptical procedures, isolated from a multitude of other practices. By this way, they receive an ethnological form. Meanwhile, the particular genre thereby isolated is taken to be the metonymy of the whole species: a part, observable because it has been circumscribed, is used to represent the undefinable totality of practices in general. To be sure, this isolation is used to make sense out of the specific dynamics of a given technology. Yet it is an ethnological and metonymic “découpage.”

In the second step, the unity thus isolated is reversed. What was obscure, unspoken, and culturally alien becomes the very element that throws light on the theory and upon which the discourse is founded. In Foucault, procedures embodied in the surveillance systems at school, in the army, or in hospitals, micro-apparatuses without discursive legitimacy techniques utterly foreign to the Aufklärung, all become the very ordering principle that makes sense of our own society just as they provide the rationale of our “human sciences.” Because of them, and in them, as in a mirror, Foucault sees everything and is able to elucidate everything. They allow his discourse itself to be theoretically panoptical in its turn. This strange operation consists in transforming secret and aphasic practices into the central axis of a theoretical discourse, and making this nocturnal corpus over into a mirror in which the decisive reason of our contemporary history shines forth.

[Page 192]

On a first Level, Foucault’s theoretical text is still organized by the panoptical procedures it elucidates. But on a second level, this panoptical discourse is only a stage where a narrative machinery reverses our triumphant panoptical epistemology. Thus, there is in Foucault’s book an internal tension between his historical thesis (the triumph of a panoptical system) and his own way of writing (the subversion of a panoptical discourse). The analysis pretending to efface itself behind an erudition and behind a set of taxonomies it busily manipulates is like a ballet dancer disguised as a librarian. And so, a Nietzschean laughter meanwhile runs through the historian’s text.

Two short propositions may be an introduction to a debate, and may take the place of a conclusion:

1) Procedures are not merely the objects of a theory. They organize the very construction of theory itself. Far from being external to theory, or from staying on its doorstep, Foucault’s procedures provide a field of operations within which theory is itself produced. With Foucault we get another way of building a theory, a theory which is the literary gesture of those procedures themselves.

2) In order to clarify the relationship of theory with those procedures that produce it as well with those that are its objects of study, the most relevant way would be a storytelling discourse. Foucault writes that he does nothing but tell stories (“récits”). Stories slowly appear as a work of displacements, relating to a logic of metonymy. Is it not then time to recognize the theoretical legitimacy of narrative, which is then to be looked upon not as some ineradicable remnant (or a remnant still to be eradicated) but rather as a necessary form for a theory of practices? In this hypothesis, a narrative theory would be indissociable from any theory of practices, for it would be its precondition as well as its production.


Chapter 14, The Laugh of Michel Foucault

[Page 196]

This optical style may seem strange. Did not Foucault find the panoptic machine to be at the very heart of the system of surveillance that spread from the prison to all the social disciplines by means of a multiplication of techniques allowing one to “see without being seen”? Moreover, he exhumed and pursued, following them into the most peaceful regions of knowledge, all the procedures that are based on confession and productive of truth, in order to pinpoint the technology by means of which visibility transforms space into an operator of power. In fact, the visible becomes for him the arena of the new stakes of power and knowledge. Already a major locus for Merleau-Ponty, the visible constitutes for Foucault the contemporary theater of our fundamental options.


2007年10月18日星期四

丰子恺的画(十二):春昼

Sinology 1964/ 汉学1964

Joseph R. Levenson, “The Humanistic Disciplines: Will Sinology Do?” Journal of Asian Studies, Volume 23, Issue 4 (Aug., 1964), 507-512.

[Page 512]

Conclusion

The sum of the matter is this: the world is a world, not the sum of –ological areas. Sinology as a conception will not do, not because China ought to be bleached out of its individual significance, but because, as an individual, China belongs now in a universal world of discourse. The sinologist is entitled to be very reserved about easy universal analogies, but he should entertain comparisons, if only to give his particular field a universal context. Only then, when the creative life of China is studied in something more than the Sinological spirit, will Chinese civilization seem not just historically significant. A purely “Sinological” form of admiration of Chinese culture may amount to denigration. significant but historically

For when “Sinology” came to be the sum of Western interest in Chinese civilization, then its historical significance was “mere.” From Western sources, on the other hand, Chinese were indulging an interest in all the other-ologies, the sciences (in the broadest sense) that have no historical boundaries. The vital quest was for knowledge in the abstract, not knowledge of Western thought. In a world where a “Congress of Orientalists” would regularly convene, the idea of a “Congress of Occidentalists” had the force of whimsical paradox.

It was whimsy, but not a joke. It was no joke, first, because China indeed had once been able to conceive the idea of “barbarian experts,” much as the modern West conceives of its “China experts”; that was a time when China could still be thought of, at least at home, as the kind of world to which Europeans like the philosophes applied, not in the “Sinological” spirit, but in search of answers to universal questions. And it was not a joke, too, because it was anything but funny. Lu Hsün, for one (and he spoke for more than one) would not see himself as a happy antique. He could not bear to see China as a vast museum. History had to be made there again, and the museum consigned to the dead, as a place of liberation for the living, not a “Sinological” mausoleum for the modern dead-alive.


2007年10月2日星期二

苏曼殊的“拜轮”(拜伦)

好诗和天才的诗人都是通灵的。我赞叹:苏曼殊和拜伦是凡人还是仙人?译事之难,在这儿变成了风格的交相辉映——古风的苍凉与英格兰的冷峻。


柳亚子编,《苏曼殊全集》(北京:中国书店据北新书局
1927本影印,1985),第一册75-78(苏曼殊译诗),94-97(拜伦原诗)。


译拜轮去国行


行行去故国 濑远苍波来
鸣湍激夕风 沙鸥声凄其
落日照远海 游子行随之
须臾与尔别 故国从此辞


日出几刹那 明日瞬息间
海天一清啸 旧乡长弃捐
吾家已荒凉 炉灶无余烟
墙壁生蒿藜 犬吠空门边


童仆尔善来 恫哭亦胡为
岂惧怒涛怒 抑畏狂风危
涕泗勿滂沱 坚船行若飞
秋鹰宁为疾 此去乐无涯


童仆前致辞 敷衽白丈人
风波宁足惮 我心谅苦辛
阿翁长别离 慈母平生亲
茕茕谁复愿 苍天与丈人


阿翁祝我健 殷勤尚少怨
阿母沉哀恫 嗟尤来无远
童子勿复道 泪注盈千万
我若效童愚 流涕当无算


火伴尔善来 尔颜胡惨白
或惧法国仇 抑被劲风赫
火伴前致辞 吾生岂惊迫
念独闺中妇 顗容定枯瘠


贱子有妻孥 随公局泽边
儿啼索阿爹 阿母心熬煎
火伴勿复道 悲苦定何言
而我薄行人 狂笑去悠然


谁复信同心 对人阳太息
得新以弃旧 媚目生颜色
欢乐去莫哀 危难宁吾逼
我心绝悽怆 求泪反不得


悠悠仓浪天 举世无与忻
世既莫吾知 吾岂叹离群
路人饲吾犬 哀声或狺狺
久别如归来 啮我腰间褌


帆樯女努力 横赶幻泡漦
此行任所适 故乡不可期
欣欣波涛起 波涛行尽时
欣欣荒野窟 故国从此辞


My Native Land—Good Night.

(From “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage”)


Adieu, adieu! my native shore
Fades o’er the waters blue;
The night-winds sigh, the breakers roar,
And shrieks the wild sea-mew,
Yon sun that sets upon the sea
We follow in his flight;
Farewell awhile to him and thee,
My native Land - Good Night!


A few short hours and he will rise
To give the morrow birth;
And I shall hail the main and skies
But not my mother earth.
Deserted is my own good hall,
Its hearth is desolate;
Wild weeds are gathering on the wall;
My dog howls at the gate.


“Come hither, hither, my little page;
Why dost thou weep and wail?
Or dost thou dread the billows’ rage,
Or tremble at the gale?
But dash the tear-drop from thine eye;
Our ship is swift and strong:
Our fleetest falcon scares can fly
More merrily along.”


“Let winds be shrill, let waves roll high,
I fear not wave nor wind:
Yet marvel not, Sir Childe, that I
Am sorrowful in mind;
For I have from my father gone,
A mother whom I love,
And have no friend, save these alone,
But thee - and One above.


My father bless’d me fervently,
Yet did not much complain;
But sorely will my mother sigh
Till I come back again.
” -
“Enough, enough, my little lad!
Such tears become thine eye;
If I thy guileless bosom had,
Mine own would not be dry.”


“Come hither, hither, my stanch yeoman!
Why dost thou look so pale?
Or dost thou dread a French foeman?
Or shiver at the gale?” -
“Deem’st thou I tremble for my life?
Sir Childe, I’m not so weak;
But thinking on an absent wife
Will blanch a faithful cheek.


My spouse and boys dwell near thy hall,
Along the bordering lake,
And when they on their father call;
What answer shall she make?” -
“Enough, enough, my yeoman good,
Thy grief let none gainsay;
But I, who am of lighter mood,
Will laugh to flee away.”


For who would trust the seeming sighs
Of wife or paramour?
Fresh feares will dry the bright blue eyes
We late saw streaming e’er.
For pleasures past I do not grieve,
Nor perils gathering near;
My greatest grief is that I leave
No thing that claims a tear.


And now I’m in the world alone,
Upon the wide, wide sea:
But why should I for others groan,
When none will sigh for me?
Perchance my dog will whine in vain,
Till fed by stranger hands;
But long ere I come back again
He’d tear me where he stands.


With thee, my bark, I’ll swiftly go
Athwart the foaming brine;
Nor care what land thou bear’st me to,
So not again to mine.
Welcome, welcome, ye dark-blue waves!
And when you fail my sight,
Welcome, ye deserts and ye caves!
My native Land - Good Night!

Byron.


2007年9月30日星期日

“现代史”


鲁迅-> 伪自由书-> 现代史


从我有记忆的时候起,直到现在,凡我所曾经到过的地方,在空地上,常常看见有变把戏的,也叫作变戏法的。

这变戏法的,大概只有两种——一种,是教一个猴子戴起假面,穿上衣服,耍一通刀枪;骑了羊跑几圈。还有一匹用稀粥养活,已经瘦得皮包骨头的狗熊玩一些把戏。末后是向大家要钱。

一种,是将一块石头放在空盒子里,用手巾左盖右盖,变出一只白鸽来;还有将纸塞在嘴巴里,点上火,从嘴角鼻孔里冒出烟焰。其次是向大家要钱。要了钱之后,一个人嫌少,装腔作势的不肯变了,一个人来劝他,对大家说再五个。果然有人抛钱了,于是再四个,三个……抛足之后,戏法就又开了场。这回是将一个孩子 装进小口的坛子里面去,只见一条小辫子,要他再出来,又要钱。收足之后,不知怎么一来,大人用尖刀将孩子刺死了,盖上被单,直挺挺躺着,要他活过来,又要钱。

在家靠父母,出家靠朋友…… Huazaa! Huazaa!” 变戏法的装出撒钱的手势,严肃而悲哀的说。

别的孩子,如果走近去想仔细的看,他是要骂的;再不听,他就会打。

果然有许多人 Huazaa 了。待到数目和预料的差不多,他们就检起钱来,收拾家伙,死孩子也自己爬起来,一同走掉了。

看客们也就呆头呆脑的走散。

这空地上,暂时是沉寂了。过了些时,就又来这一套。俗语说,戏法人人会变,各有巧妙不同。其实是许多年间,总是这一套,也总有人看,总有人Huazaa,不过其间必须经过沉寂的几日。

我的话说完了,意思也浅得很,不过说大家 Huazaa Huazaa 一通之后,又要静几天了,然后再来这一套。

到这里我才记得写错了题目,这真是成了不死不活的东西。


汉学之难


Elling O. Eide, “Methods in Sinology: Problems of Teaching and Learning” Journal of Asian Studies, Volume 31, Issue 1 (Nov., 1971), 131-141.


[Page 134]

…Achilles Fang has said that competence in Chinese demands an effort roughly equivalent to that required for the mastery of Greek and Latin plus all the Romance Languages. That may be an extreme position, but there was, I think, some merit in the dragon speeches that used to greet the beginners in a Chinese program. Chinese is not, after all, just another language, and competence in Chinese does require much more than the mere learning of a foreign tongue. The student deceived on this point is almost sure to suffer, for not only is he likely to have come ill prepared for rigorous language training, but he will then even be denied a refuge for his wounded ego. It is one thing to be having difficulty with the most difficult language in the world, quite another to be going down for the count in your struggle with something promoted as “just another language.” Further, and worse, such a student is ill prepared for the other demands that will, or should, be placed upon him. We cannot expect students to learn everything at once, but it is important that they know from the beginning what our standards are. You cannot talk purposefully of methods, or even of Sinology, with a student who eyes you resentfully when you refer to works in French or German, and who has not yet dreamed of the things in Japanese. It is essential, therefore, that we not promote Chinese in such a way as to conceal the elements of training that are necessary for competence and expertise.

[Page 137]

… It is not surprising that administrators are ignorant of our special needs, but it is, certainly, our duty to explain. To remind them that the mere fact Chinese is a language does not mean we need, or even want, the same facilities as other language programs. An English professor does not, after all, have to worry in the slightest about the arrangements of the books on the shelf when he suggests that a student look something up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But what if that encyclopaedia, call it “The Primary Tortoise of Her Britannic Majesty,” were in a thousand volumes rather than twenty-five, written in unpunctuated Chaucerian English, and arranged not alphabetically, but by subject or by rhyme—the rhyme, let us note, of Caedmon’s day. Clearly, we can make a strong case that our problems really are peculiar, and for the sake of our students it is important that we do so at every opportunity.


“变天账”史前史


革 命 倡 议 书


我们要粉碎旧世界,创造新世界。目前城市中还存在着大量的私有房屋及私有土地出租,资本家和房主还白白的拿着大量定息、定租进行剥削,这是封建主义残余,是修正主义的温床,要向他们猛烈的出击,直至砸碎、砸烂。我们倡议:

1、废除封建的土地私有制,凡私有土地一律没收归国有。

2、私有房屋一律归国家所有。

3、停发经租房主的固定租金。

北京市房管局革命领导小组

1966822


最 后 通 牒


正告你们资产阶级房霸们,造你们的反,专你们的政的日子到了!

现在命令你们:

1、除了你们自己住用(不得多于一般居民面积)外,统统要到房管所登记、交出、归公,自己留住的房子按公价交房租。

2、凡是由房管局“经租”的房屋和私人出租的房子一律归公。

3、黑帮资产阶级反动“权威”和一切牛鬼蛇神占用的房子面积,不得超过一般居民的最低水平,把多占的房子统统交出。

4、自即日起,限你们在十天之内,主动到房管局办理登记,交出手续。

你们要明智点,如果你们用任何借口拒不执行,顽抗到底,我们绝不放过你们,我们将采取一切必要行动,由此而引起的一切后果,将由你们自己负责。


2007年9月27日星期四

关于中国的火

鲁迅——>且介亭杂文——>关于中国的两三件事


关于中国的火


自从燧人氏发见,或者发明了火以来,能够很有味的吃火锅,点起灯来,夜里也可以工作了,但是,真如先哲之所谓有一利必有一弊罢,同时也开始了火灾,故意点上火,烧掉那有巢氏所发明的巢的了不起的人物也出现了。

和善的燧人氏是该被忘却的。即使伤了食,这回是属于神农氏的领域了,所以那神农氏,至今还被人们所记得。至于火灾,虽然不知道那发明家究竟是什么人,但祖师总归是有的,于是没有法,只 好漫称之曰火神,而献以敬畏。看他的画像,是红面孔,红胡须,不过祭祀的时候,却须避去一切红色的东西,而代之以绿色。他大约像西班牙的牛一样,一看见红色,便会亢奋起来,做出一种可怕的行动的。他因此受着崇祀。在中国,这样的恶神还很多。

然而,在人世间,倒似乎因了他们而热闹。赛会也只有火神的,燧人氏的却没有。倘有火灾,则被灾的和邻近的没有被灾的人们,都要祭火神,以表感谢之意。被了灾还要来表感谢之意,虽然未免有些出于意外,但若不祭,据说是第二回还会烧,所以还是感谢了的安全。而且也不但对于火神,就是对于人,有时也一样的这么办,我想,大约也是礼仪的一种罢。

其实,放火,是很可怕的,然而比起烧饭来,却也许更有趣。外国的事情我不知道,若在中国,则无论查检怎样的历史,总寻不出烧饭和点灯的人们的列传来。在社会上,即使怎样的善于烧饭,善 于点灯,也毫没有成为名人的希望。然而秦始皇一烧书,至今还俨然做着名人,至于引为希特拉烧书事件的先例。假使希特拉太太善于开电灯,烤面包罢,那么,要在历史上寻一点先例,恐怕可就难了。但是,幸而那样的事,是不会哄动一世的。

烧掉房子的事,据宋人的笔记说,是开始于蒙古人的。因为他们住着帐篷,不知道住房子,所以就一路的放火。然而,这是诳话。蒙古人中,懂得汉文的很少,所以不来更正的。其实,秦的末年 就有着放火的名人项羽在,一烧阿房宫,便天下闻名,至今还会在戏台上出现,连在日本也很有名。然而,在未烧以前的阿房宫里每天点灯的人们,又有谁知道他们的名姓呢?

现在是爆裂弹呀,烧夷弹呀之类的东西已经做出,加以飞机也很进步,如果要做名人,就更加容易了。而且如果放火比先前放得大,那么,那人就也更加受尊敬,从远处看去,恰如救世主一样,而那火光,便令人以为是光明。


人民英雄纪念碑


这是一段言简意赅、精心而有力的历史叙事。它全新地成就了一段可歌可泣的百年史,又以此碑奠定了一个全新的纪元。当时,尽管诸如你我一样的升斗小民尚未获得书写历史的权威,此篇铭文的立意和字句倒也并不寒碜。毛的文笔:


三年以来在人民解放战争和人民革命中牺牲的人民英雄们永垂不朽

三十年以来在人民解放战争和人民革命中牺牲的人民英雄们永垂不朽

由此上溯到一千八百四十年从那时起为了反对内外敌人争取民族独立和人民自由幸福在历次斗争中牺牲的人民英雄们永垂不朽


一九四九年九月三十日

张贡士


聊斋志异 卷六 张贡士


安丘张贡士,寝疾,仰卧床头。忽见心头有小人出:长仅半尺,儒冠儒服,作俳优状。唱昆山曲,音调清彻;说白,自道名贯,一与己同;所唱节末,皆其生平所遭。四折既毕,吟诗而没。张犹记其梗概,为人述之。

[但评]
人之一生,不过一场戏耳。只要问心,自己是何脚色,生平是何节末。要作发眉毕现,毋为巾帼贻羞;要认本来面目,毋作粉脸相迎;要求百世流芳,毋致当场出丑。能令人共看方有好下场。

[何评]
此疑是贡士心神。


2007年9月22日星期六

mimēsis praxeōs


Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative (1) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984).


To conclude, I would like to return to the question of mimesis, the second focus of my interest in reading the Poetics. It does not seem to me to be governed by the equating of the two expressions “the imitation (or representation) of action” and “the organization of the events.” It is not that something has to be taken back from this equation. There is no doubt that the prevalent sense of mimesis is the one instituted by its being joined to muthos. If we continue to translate mimesis by “imitation,” we have to understand something completely contrary to a copy of some preexisting reality and speak instead of a creative imitation. And if we translate mimesis by “representation” (as do Dupont-Roc and Lallot), we must not understand by this word some redoubling of presence, as we could still do for Platonic mimesis, but rather the break that opens the space for fiction. Artisans who work with words produce not things but quasi-things; they invent the as-if. And in this sense, the Aristotelian mimesis is the emblem of the shift [décrochage] that, to use our vocabulary today, produces the “literariness” of the work of literature.

Still the equation of mimesis and muthos does not completely fill up the [End of Page 45] meaning of the expression mimēsis praxeōs. We may of course—as we did above—construe the objective genitive as the noematic correlate of imitation of representation and equate this correlate to the whole expression “the organization of the events,” which Aristotle makes the “what”—the object—of mimesis. But that the praxis belongs at the same time to the real domain, covered by ethics, and the imaginary one, covered by poetics, suggests that mimesis functions not just as a break but also as a connection, one which establishes precisely the status of the “metaphorical” transposition of the practical field by the muthos. If such is the case, we have to preserve in the meaning of the term mimesis a reference to the first side of poetic composition. I call this reference mimesis1 to distinguish it from mimesis2—the mimesis of creation—which remains the pivot point. I hope to show that even in Aristotle’s text there are scattered references to this prior side of poetic composition. This is not all. Mimesis, we recall, as an activity, the mimetic activity, does not reach its intended term through the dynamism of the poetic text alone. It also requires a spectator or reader. So there is another side of poetic composition as well, which I call mimesis3, whose indications I shall also look for in the text of the Poetics. By so framing the leap of imagination with the two operations that constitute the two sides of the mimesis of invention, I believe we enrich rather than weaken the meaning of the mimetic activity invested in the muthos. I hope to show that this activity draws its intelligibility from its mediating function, which leads us from one side of the text to the other through the power of refiguration.


2007年9月21日星期五

国民革命轶事:指马为牛


(冯玉祥 1882-1948,照片取自 Wikipedia)













指马为牛

西北军出动北伐时,共产党正在主持全军政治部。时在五月,共党用红墨印行特刊一张,名为“红色的五月”,到处张贴,甚至豫西穷乡僻壤也到处可见。有几个不大识字、不分青红皂白的乡人看见“红色的五月”内有共产主义始祖马克思、列宁的肖像,指着说:“这是帝国主义!”

又一则:

缘悭一面

十六年夏会师帝国主义后,革命军俄顾问嘉伦将军亦随诸中委到郑,屡欲与冯会晤,均未有机缘。一日特请人与冯约商会晤时间,冯指定次日清晨六时。翌晨,嘉犹拥其恋人女秘书高卧未起,及醒来已误了时间,乃请原人道歉,另约时间。冯又指定翌晨五时——比上次更早一个钟头。次日嘉仍误点,会晤之议终作罢论。冯后与人谈及此事,犹捻髭微笑也。

大华烈士(简又文,1896-1978),《西北东南风》。


丰子恺的画(十一):不妨同享北窗风






飞来山鸟语惺忪,
却是幽人半睡中,
野竹成阴无弹射,
不妨同享北窗风。

陆游 护生吟













2007年9月16日星期日

为迷人而迷人:林语堂的北平


王敦

为迷人而迷人:林语堂的北平


林语堂〈迷人的北平〉,见于姜德明 编的《北京乎》(北京:三联书店,1992),507-515

林语堂的文章为幽默而幽默,为性灵而性灵,也为迷人而迷人。这个出来的迷人可以从林氏《迷人的北平》一文看出来。且看开头第一段:

北平和南京相比拟,正像西京和东京一样。北平和西京都是古代的京都,四周是环绕着一种芬芳和带历史性的神秘的魔力。那些在新都,南京和东京,是见不到的。南 京(一九三八以前)和东京一样,代表了现代化的,代表进步,和工业主义,民族主义的象征;而北平呢,却代表旧中国的灵魂,文化和平静;代表和顺安适的生活,代表了生活的协调,使文化发展到最美丽,最和谐的顶点,同时含蓄着城市生活及乡村生活的协调。

第一句话有些发虚发飘。推测上下文意,可以改为北平和南京相比拟,正像西京和东京一样,充满对比。或者北平和南京的对比,正像西京和东京一样。虚飘的原因在于,当林氏写下比拟两个字的时候,他可能自己也知道如此的对比不能当真。

此段的第二句话要把中国的北平比做日本的西京(京都)。不用说也明摆着,北平和西京都是古代的京都,这没错。然而二者究竟如何才算神似?林语堂说不出来了,只好说四周是环绕着一种芬芳和带历史性的神秘的魔力。这是故弄玄虚,在语法结构上也欠佳。因为没有实实在在的语言图像来再现北平或西京的样子,所以他笔下芬芳和带历史性的神秘的魔力既不属于北平,也不属于西京,只代表着林氏本人对迷人的 追求。

在林文此段的第三句话里,林氏把南京(一九三八以前)和东京归为一类,代表了现代化的,代表进步,和工业主义,民族主义的象征。这很牵强。且不说南京当时的现代化和工业主义比日本的东京差得太远,南京就是跟临近的大上海相比,也被公认为乡下。在一般人眼里,南京生活的宁静正好对比着上海的繁华喧嚣。对当时南京的党国要人来说,南京是办公的地方,安稳的六朝古都;上海才是现代大都会,东方的巴黎(不过话说回来,我毕竟没有在三、四十年代生活过。 照国民党元老回忆,南京政府机关,在抗战之前,确实有一股紧张活泼,奋发向上的气氛。年青职员,不敢涉足舞厅,赌场,周末下馆子都有顾虑。大家把上海当成腐败的地方,从这个意思上说南京也没准儿一度象征着主义进步)

林语堂写此文的时候应该是一九三八抗日 战争爆发和南京沦陷以后。这篇文章是收在一九四一年上海人间书屋出版的《语堂随笔》。当时,包括北平和南京在内的众多名城都在日寇的铁蹄之下呻吟。(南京大屠杀之事,不知当时的国人是否已经知道?)能出这样的来,拿北平比日本京都,拿南京比日本东京,确实别具一格。

其实也不必对林语堂过于苛责。他可能只是觉得北平南京的南北,正好可以配东京西京的东西,煞是迷人。

这种迷人是禁不住细看的,还是在第一段里——如果你问林语堂:文化发展最美丽,最和谐的顶点到底是什么样子?城市生活及乡村生活的协调的具体表现是什么?他很可能也不知道。

以上是对林文第一段的分析。

林氏此文一共二十七段,每一段都是这样为了迷人而迷人。如果每一段都分析一下,连语法带逻辑,太累。下面就只从全文正中挑出第十三段,粗略地读一下:

这里也是多色彩的——有旧的色素和新的色素。有王家宏大的,历史时代的,和蒙古平原的色素。蒙古和中国的商人带着骆驼队从张家口和南口来进入这有历史的城 门,有数里相接的城墙,四五十英尺阔的城门。有城楼和鼓楼,那是在黄昏时报告给居民听的。有寺宇,古花园,和宝塔,那里的每一块石头和每一棵树,以及每一座桥都有历史和古迹的。

林氏在此段的第一句话里,提到了多色彩”——“ 有旧的色素和新的色素。当然,这个色彩学是个比方,其实是说北京在视觉上即有历史遗存,又有现代场面。然而,在这个主题句后面的四句话里,新的色素完全看不到了。(这跟林语堂的方言有无关系?北京话说得好的人如老舍、梁实秋,可能不会这样写。不过也难说,沈从文一辈子讲不好普通话,但是善于描写地方 景物。把他们两人的文字比一比,可能会有的说。)

读者所看到的都是诸如王家宏大蒙古平原的色素骆驼队这样的字眼,还有城墙、城门,城楼鼓楼寺宇古花园宝塔等等古老的建筑与空间。这些旧的色素的运用,在风格上感觉像是意大利歌剧《图兰朵》里的北京城布景,或者像几十年前洋人观光客写给纽约时报的小文,而不像现代中国作家用中文描述的北平。

我真怀疑这篇文章本来是用英文打的底稿,原本是想投合洋人口味的。那个时代每个对中国着迷的洋人到了中国都幻想着自己是踏上这神秘东方的唯一西方人。于是他们眼中的北平就总也离不开马可波罗为汗八里(马可波罗所称呼的元大都)定下的色素

殊不知,曾经有成千上万的洋大人端着毛瑟枪、来复枪、机关枪、拉着迫击炮、加农炮、榴弹炮,从塘沽一路杀进北京,再大包小包地把宝物都运走。在那段时间里, 这座古城是屠宰场、废墟和匪窝,一点也不迷人。那是在一九零零年。更不用说在之前四十年圆明园就被洋人烧掠一空。那里的每一块石头和每一棵树,以及每一座桥都有历史和古迹的。是的。不知从咸丰皇帝以来的事儿算不算历史?林语堂没有说。不过他也建议读者到避暑山庄(圆明园?)中意大利式宫殿的废墟上去凭吊古迹。(第二十四段)意大利式宫殿是如何成为废墟的?凭吊哪般古迹?他也没说。连带着,东交民巷的洋房汽车洋兵,六国饭店的繁华,以及属于现在进行时的新的色素,也都将真事隐去,不去说它了。

从前清的京师到民国的北京、北平,这座城市饱尝了国破家亡的味道,特别是林氏写作此文的时候,北平早已落入日寇手中。国破山河在,城春草木深。感时花溅泪,恨别鸟惊心。这样的泪水不会闪烁在洋大人的眼中,在这篇以迷人为目的的随笔里也是没有的。对林语堂来说,泪水也要溅得迷人。于是就有了《京华烟云》

*****************************************************************************

人,有时会对自己宽,对别人严而不自知。现在回过头来看这篇文章,就觉得写得偏颇了。以此为戒。王敦,2008415日补记。

© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者:Dun Wang (王敦)