2008年5月29日星期四

Reading Style In Dickens

Robert Alter, “Reading Style In Dickens” in Philosophy and Literature 20.1 (1996) 130-137.

A grey dusty withered evening in London city has not a hopeful aspect. The closed warehouses and offices have an air of death about them, and the national dread of colour has an air of mourning. The towers and steeples of the many house-encompassed churches, dark and dingy as the sky that seems descending on them, are no relief to the general gloom; a sun-dial on a church-wall has the look, in its useless black shade of having failed in its business enterprise and stopped payment for ever; melancholy waifs and strays of housekeepers and porters sweep melancholy waifs and strays of papers and pins into the kennels, and other more melancholy waifs and strays explore them, searching and stooping and poling for anything to sell. The set of humanity outward from the City is as a set of prisoners departing from jail, and dismal Newgate seems quite as fit a stronghold for the mighty Lord Mayor as his own state-dwelling.

This is the sort of passage in Dickens that rewards repeated readings, for on rereading--optimally, rereading out loud--one comes to a fuller perception of how all the verbal elements cohere in an integrated vision of the city. The evening sky is covered with clouds; the indication that they are "dingy" suggests dirt and pollution (in fact, a grave problem in an overcrowded London where at any given moment hundreds of thousands of soft-coal fires were burning). When Dickens does not use actual anaphora, he nevertheless usually enforces a unity of thematic perspective by lining up a whole set of overlapping, nearly synonymous attributes in his descriptions. The sequence "grey dusty withered" leads quickly to "death," semantically echoed in "air of mourning" and "black shade," visually reinforced by "dark and dingy," with the integrated effect of the whole underlined phonetically by the alliteration: dusty-death-dark-dingy-descending-departing-dismal. There [End Page 133] are four different elaborated metaphors here that manage to hang together effectively: first death, then bankruptcy, then the swept away refuse as strays and waifs, then imprisonment. What rereading leads me to see is how remarkably all four resonate with the larger vision of the novel. The repetition of melancholy waifs and strays sweeping out melancholy waifs and strays of refuse to be picked through by human counterparts takes up the novel's recurrent sense of all economic activity as an unending chain of scavenging, wealth extracted from garbage. (The fact that the street-people are "poling" through the refuse takes us directly back to the opening scene of the novel, in which Gaffer Hexam poles the Thames in search of human bodies and whatever wealth they may carry.) Marxists may happily find here an image of alienated labor, Foucauldians, an image of the carceral self; what is clear is that Dickens's vision of capitalist society at the height of the Industrial Revolution is unable to accommodate the idea of productive labor in all the new distortions of human relations, imagining instead only an endless dirty paper-chase, filthy lucre extracted from filth.

As I ponder the deployment of metaphors, what emerges as the center of the passage, both spatially and figuratively, is the fantastically witty representation of the bankrupt sundial. It cannot indicate time, of course, because the sky is covered with dingy clouds; the metaphor of bankruptcy has a metonymic trigger because the sundial stands in the middle of the financial district, the City of London. Its location on a church-wall, realistically plausible, may suggest the futility or irrelevance of religion in this dead urban world of finance. The characteristic trait of the later Dickens is that the fantastication leads to grim visionary perception, metaphor carrying him to unanticipated depths. For a sundial that has "stopped payment forever" is a forlorn, now useless, index of time in a world hopelessly cut off from nature, where it seems as though the sun will never shine again. The passage, I notice on a third or fourth reading, proceeds through intensification, culminating in the image of the bankrupt sundial. It begins with the studied formality of an understatement: "A grey dusty withered evening . . . has not a hopeful aspect." Then the buildings have "an air of death." The sundial trapped in black shade intimates the possibility of the death of the sun itself. As a reader, I keep the apocalyptic broodings fostered by this imagery very much in mind when I encounter this related cityscape, just two chapters on: [End Page 134]

It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. Gas-lights flared in the shops with a haggard and unblest air, as knowing themselves to be night-creatures that had no business under the sun; while the sun itself, when it was for a few moments dimly indicated through circling eddies of fog, showed as if it had gone out, and were collapsing flat and cold. Even in the surrounding country it was a foggy day, but there the fog was grey, whereas in London it was, at about the boundary line, dark yellow, and a little within it brown, and then browner, and then browner, until at the heart of the City--which call Saint Mary Axe--it was rusty-black. From any point of the high ridge of land northward, it might have been discerned that the loftiest buildings made an occasional struggle to get their heads above the foggy sea, and especially that the great dome of Saint Paul's seemed to die hard; but that was not perceivable at their feet, where the whole metropolis was a heap of vapour charged with the muffled sound of wheels and enfolding a gigantic catarrh.

Dickens's prose is thematically organized in a virtually musical sense, and so the first sentence enunciates the fog-theme, tells us this is going to be a set-piece on fog: "It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark." Again there is a precisely observed realistic matrix for Dickens's metaphoric fantastication. Although the word "smog" had not yet been invented, that is clearly what Dickens is describing, as the narrator's panoramic view moves inward through concentric circles from the still unpolluted fog in the countryside to the yellow-tinged fog near the city limits to the poisonous brown and reddish black smog of the metropolitan center that looks like modern Los Angeles on a very bad day. (A tiny bonus of repeated readings is to notice how the rust in "rusty black" is associatively triggered by the near-to-hand iron tool in "Saint Mary Axe.") As so often in late Dickens, these niceties of realistic observation are transformed into phantasmagoric vision by the play of metaphor, and for me as a reader, pondering the ramifications of metaphor helps me see what the passage and the novel are all about.

As in the previous passage, an apocalyptic image lies at the heart of the description--the sun swathed in fog that "showed as if it had gone out, and were collapsing flat and cold." This strikes me as a grimmer evocation of the extinguishing of the sun than the nervous jocularity of the bankrupt-sundial image: what follows the "as if" is a chilling sense of [End Page 135] light dying in the universe. The idea of the collapsed sun is coordinated with three interrelated metaphors, two of which have a physiological basis: choking, drowning, and ghosts. The last of these three provides folkloric definition for the first two since a ghost is an intermediate being between the living and the dead, and choking or drowning is a transitional state between life and death. In this connection, rereading helps one feel the etymological weight with which Dickens often uses words. To be "animate" is to possess an anima, a spirit, while the inanimate is devoid of spirit; and Dickens works the ambiguities of connection and correspondence between these two ostensibly opposed categories. Fog-enshrouded London, like a ghost, cannot make up its mind whether to be visible or not; and the "haggard" air of the gas-lamps lit by day, coupled as it is with "unblest" and "night-creatures," activates the folk-etymological connection between "haggard" and "hag."

The metaphoric imagination of the mature Dickens is powerfully integrative--often, I suspect, intuitively rather than intentionally--and one sees that power working here in the image of the city drowning in fog (lofty Saint Paul's the last to go), which of course carries forward the images of death by drowning that run through the novel from the first sombre scene on the Thames till the watery death of Rogue Riderhood and Bradley Headstone near the end. Asphyxiation, in turn, is a kind of inner drowning, and Dickens's representation of what thick smog really does to eyes and throat and lungs gives his overarching motif of drowning a physiological immediacy. If style, as I have proposed, is the air we breathe in the constructed world of the novel, the Dickensian procedure of using chains of overlapping terms makes the breathing here labored: "Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking." Dickens continues to assume these respiratory difficulties as he goes on to evoke the spectral gas-lamps, the collapsed sun, the chromatic gradations of smog, and the drowning city, and they resurface in the brilliant summarizing metaphor with which the passage concludes: "the whole metropolis was a heap of vapour charged with the muffled sound of wheels and enfolding a gigantic catarrh." That final revelatory image, saved for the last word of the paragraph, illustrates the almost coercive force of metaphoric imagination, combining in a single term disease, difficulty of breathing, rheumy fluids, bleariness, messiness--all that the industrial age has made of London in Dickens's eyes.



鸽异

《聊斋志异·鸽异

鸽异



  鸽类甚繁:晋有坤星,鲁有鹤秀,黔有腋蝶,梁有翻跳,越有诸尖,皆异种也。又有靴头、点子、大白、黑石、夫妇雀、花狗眼之类,名不可屈以指,惟好事者能辨之也。
  邹平张公子幼量癖好之,按经而求,务尽其种。其养之也,如保婴儿:冷则疗以粉草,热则投以盐颗。鸽善睡,睡太甚,有病麻痹而死者。张在广陵,以十金购 一鸽,体最小,善走,置地上,盘旋无已时,不至于死不休也,故常须人把握之;夜置群中使惊诸鸽,可以免痹股之病,是名夜游。齐鲁养鸽家,无如公子最;公子亦以鸽自诩。
  一夜坐斋中,忽一白衣少年叩扉入,殊不相识。问之,答曰:漂泊之人,姓名何足道。遥闻畜鸽最盛,此亦生平所好,愿得寓目。张乃尽出所 有,五色俱备,灿若云锦。少年笑曰:人言果不虚,公子可谓养鸽之能事矣。仆亦携有一两头,颇愿观之否?张喜,从少年去。月色冥漠,旷野萧条,心窃疑俱。少年指曰:请勉行,寓屋不远矣。又数武,见一道院仅两楹,少年握手入,昧无灯火。少年立庭中,口中作鸽鸣。忽有两鸽出:状类常鸽而毛纯白,飞与檐齐,且鸣且斗,每一扑,必作斤斗。少年挥之以肱,连翼而去。复撮口作异声,又有两鸽出:大者如鹜,小者裁如拳,集阶上,学鹤舞。大者延颈立,张翼作屏,宛转鸣跳,若引之;小者上下飞鸣,时集其顶,翼翩翩如燕子落蒲叶上,声纸碎类鼗鼓;大者伸颈不敢动。鸣愈急,声变如磬,两两相和,间杂中节。既而小者飞起, 大者又颠倒引呼之。张嘉叹不已,自觉望洋可愧。遂揖少年,乞求分爱,少年不许。又固求之,少年乃叱鸽去,仍作前声,招二白鸽来,以手把之,曰:如不嫌 憎,以此塞责。接而玩之,睛映月作琥珀色,两目通透,若无隔阂,中黑珠圆于椒粒;启其翼,胁肉晶莹,脏腑可数。张甚奇之,而意犹未足,诡求不已。少年 曰:尚有两种未献,今不敢复请观矣。
  方竞论间,家人燎麻炬入寻主人。回视少年,化白鸽大如鸡,冲霄而去。又目前院宇都渺,盖一小墓,树二柏焉。与家人抱鸽,骇叹而归。试使飞,驯异如初,虽非其尤,人世亦绝少矣。于是爱惜臻至。
  积二年,育雌雄各三。虽戚好求之,不得也。有父执某公为贵官,一日见公子,问:畜鸽几许?公子唯唯以退。疑某意爱好之也,思所以报而割爱良难。又念长者之求,不可重拂。且不敢以常鸽应,选二白鸽笼送之,自以千金之赠不啻也。他日见某公,颇有德色,而其殊无一申谢语。心不能忍,问:前禽佳否?答云:亦肥美。张惊曰:烹之乎?曰:然。张大惊曰:此非常鸽,乃俗所言靼鞑者也!某回思曰:味亦殊无异处。
  张叹恨而返。至夜梦白衣少年至,责之曰:我以君能爱之,故遂托以子孙。何以明珠暗投,致残鼎镬!今率儿辈去矣。言已化为鸽,所养白鸽皆从之,飞鸣径去。天明视之,果俱亡矣。心甚恨之,遂以所畜,分赠知交,数日而尽。异史氏曰:物莫不聚于所好,故叶公好龙,则真龙入室,而况学士之于良友,贤君之于良臣乎?而独阿堵之物,好者更多,而聚者特少,亦以见鬼神之怒贪,而不怒痴也。向有友人馈朱鲫于孙公子禹年,家无慧仆,以老佣往。及门,倾水出鱼,索柈而进之,及达主所,鱼已枯毙。公子笑而不言,以酒犒佣,即烹鱼以飨。既归,主人问:公子得鱼颇欢慰否?答曰:欢甚。问:何以知?曰:公子见鱼便欣然有笑容,立命赐酒,且烹数尾以犒小人。主人骇甚,自念所赠,颇不粗劣,何至烹赐下人。因责之曰:必汝蠢顽无礼,故公子迁怒耳。佣扬手力辩曰:我固陋拙,遂以为非人也!登公子门,小心如许,犹恐筲斗不文,敬索柈出,一一匀排而后进之,有何不周详也?主人骂而遣之。
  灵隐寺僧某以茶得名,铛臼皆精。然所蓄茶有数等,恒视客之贵贱以为烹献;其最上者,非贵客及知味者,不一奉也。一日有贵官至,僧伏谒甚恭,出佳茶,手自烹进,冀得称誉。贵官默然。僧惑甚,又以最上一等烹而进之。饮已将尽,并无赞语。僧急不能待,鞠躬曰:茶何如?贵官执盏一拱曰:甚热。此两事,可与张公子之赠鸽同一笑也。

2008年5月23日星期五

〈论华人之可用〉


这一篇〈论华人之可用〉,见于郑振铎先生编的《晚清文选》,(生活书店1937年初版),放在严复的名下。1962年,中华书局委托南京大学历史系编辑一部《严复集》。经过考证,编纂者对于此篇是否为严复所作提出质疑,所以没有收入1962年的《严复集》中。1962年的质疑与1937年郑振铎先生的收录,各有其见解。对于2008年的我来说,无论该文作者是不是严复,他的口吻和从中透出的阅历,与严复实在很像。

此文互联网上还见不到。我就花了一点时间,从《晚清文选》中把这篇〈论华人之可用〉敲录下来,为网络上的人文资源添一块砖。


论华人之可用


严复(?)


今之策时局者,鳃鳃以乏才为虑。夫虑之诚是也,然所谓才者无一定之准的,非必有体国经野之模,战胜攻取之勇,始得谓之才也,即片长薄技,各食己力,其致功也勤,其为谋也忠,亦无不可谓之才。今始语人曰:中国人之职业勤,
莫不讶然异。又使语人曰:中国人之谋事忠,莫不哑然笑。不知无容异,无容笑也。诚以浅近琐屑之事证之。通商互市之区,凡所谓洋关洋行领事馆等,主之者洋人,而华人之司事其间者,或理账目,或操笔札,等而下之又有奔走使令之役,每所少则数人,多则数十人,责有专属,无推诿也,时有定晷,无虚旷也。非礼拜不得治私,非要事不得请假。凡夫朋友之酬酢,亲戚之往来,即有疏略,在彼可以自解,在人亦可相谅,则谓之不勤于作事不得也。洋人在中国,非传教经商,即办理交涉事宜,究其要诀,在熟识人情,习知华事。顾欲识人情知华事,非通语言,识文字不可。而洋人在中国,能通我之语言者,百不得十焉,能识我之文字者,百不得一焉。然往往见微知著,凡华人之俗尚好恶,与夫一切情伪,无不洞若观火,岂真有先觉之贤哉?亦得之为彼司事之华人为多也。夫华人得其薪赀,既与之勤恳办事,又复出其余力,导之以几微曲折之故,俾之阅历愈深,世故愈熟,无丝毫之隔膜,欲谓不忠于为谋不得也。或者曰:子之言过矣。由前之说,以食毛践土之俦,不思效用于国家,而甘为洋人服役,虽勤何足取。由后之说,以中国之人道中国之弊,无异不肖子弟,将家庭暧昧之事,播告邻里乡党,忍心害理,莫此为甚,而子顾许之以忠,不亦悖乎?噫为是说者,抑亦勿思甚矣。天下立言之理,但当就事,而责人之道,亦当不为己甚。中国人之为洋人办事者,类不过能操洋语,善探主意,固非读书明理者比。必以大义绳之,殊觉不恕。况食其禄者忠其主,桀之狗吠尧,尧非不仁,吠非其主。对镜参观,彼之竭尽心力,冀图酬报,亦为天理所当然,人情所必然也。曰:华人为洋人办事,既如是之勤且忠,而为中国办事,往往不然。且即以为洋人办事之华人,授之中国之事,亦若有迁地勿良之慨,则又何说?曰:此非任事者之过,乃用者之咎也。洋人用人,功过必分,赏罚必明,设有偾事,立遭屏斥。其谨慎小心,始终无怠者,不特优加薪水,或以他事托辞,则为之先往,或当新旧交替,则为之敦托。不幸而积劳病故,有抚恤之典,有捐助之款,俾其父母妻子,藉以养赡,藉以成立。此虽外洋之公例固然,然而仁至义尽,实足感动人心,无怪人之乐为之用也。中国则不然,其用人也,率顾一己之私情,不问人之能否。偷惰者未必见责,操劳者未必获奖。夫人情不甚相远,既无利害于其间,何苦独为其难。久之锐气渐消,颓丧成习,而于所当为之事,废驰败坏,遂至不可收拾。由是言之,其所以致此之弊,亦较然著明矣。抑又闻之,西人之言曰:华人中经营贸易之事,独为擅长,至开垦耕种,能耐劳苦,尤非他国所及。华人愈多,市埠愈甚。呜呼!洋人借重中国人也如此。中国乃不能鼓励人材,如货之弃地而不惜,致使灰心短气,糊其口于四方者实繁有徒。是不惟楚材不为晋用,而晋材反为楚用也。可胜慨哉!可胜慨哉!

2008年5月18日星期日

国耻图录(五)


日清韓談判之図


2008年5月11日星期日

Genesis Commentary in Traditional Chinese Style/ 对《圣经•创世记》的金圣叹式评点


十年磨一剑。高峰枫在加州大学伯克利钻研圣经学,回国后在此文中“拿西方第一经典《圣经》‘动刀’”,作为“燔祭”献给我国传统文学批评方法,真是“快哉快哉”。关于动“刀”之文,还让我想起古人一篇短的:

聊斋志异•快刀

明末济属多盗,邑各置兵,捕得辄杀之。章丘盗尤多。有一兵佩刀甚利,杀辄导窾。一日捕盗十余名,押赴市曹。内一盗识兵,逡巡告曰:“闻君刀最快,斩首无二割。求杀我!”兵曰:“诺。其谨依我,无离也。”盗从之刑处,出刀挥之,豁然头落。数步之外犹圆转,而大赞曰:“好快刀!”



亚伯拉罕杀子的故事

高峰枫

《读书》2003.3

……

不知为什么,每当我读亚伯拉罕这段放事,总会不由自主地想到《水浒》,特别是被金圣叹批过的那部《水浒》。我总觉得用批《水浒》的方式来注解亚伯拉罕杀子故事,于义理和文章都可以兼顾。克尔凯郭尔曾说:亚伯拉罕故事之奇绝处在于,不管人们对它的理解有多么充分,它永远是一段光辉的故事。读到这样的话,我也就不用在乎自己的理解有多么的浅陋了。下面我将以评点的形式来批注《创世记》第二十二章前十六节。《圣经》中译文是通行的和合本,个别字句根据 Robert Alter 的最新英文译注本(诺顿,一九九五年)稍加改动。批语融合上述各家意见,也参照一些《旧约》学者的注释(人名和书目此处不一一列出),笔法则着意模仿金圣叹。

采用我国古典小说批评来剖析希伯来经典,除了向金圣叹这位文学怪才致意之外,还有另一层含义。二十世纪八十年代以来,西方现代文学批评夹杂着吵闹声源源不断输入我国,这些舶来品当中哪些是精华,哪些是糟粕,我们现在应该看得稍稍清楚一些了。至于这些五花八门的理论对我国学术本身是否有什么积极的影响,前景似乎不容乐观。但是我们固有的传统文学批评除了专业学者之外,似乎无人问津。而下面的评点就是想来印证传统小说批评威力巨大。我们就是要拿西方第一经典《圣经》动刀,而且还是希伯来圣经的首卷,希望能有一些象征意义。以批《水浒》的鬼才来注《创世记》,我们可以看到小说评点不仅不输于其他光怪陆离的文论,而且完全可以吸收、消化、甚至改造西方的经书。

这些事以后,(将上文一笔代过。) 神要试验亚伯拉罕,(劈手写来。无半点征兆。没头没脑。妙。)就呼叫他说:(鹘突。不写何时何地,完全跳脱于时空之外。确是真神。)亚伯拉罕!” 他说: (神从无何有之乡呼叫。亚伯拉罕亦是在无何有之乡应答。)我在这里。(此句全文凡三现。亚伯拉罕对神。以撒。天使无不应以此句。读者需留意。)神说:你带着你的儿子,(哪个儿子。)就是你独生的、(独子。)你所爱的(爱子。)以撒(东说西说。最后方点出名姓。)往摩利亚地去,在我所要指示你的山上, 把他献为燔祭。(骇人。)

亚伯拉罕清早起来,(神妙之笔。神不说破原因。亚伯拉罕亦不追问。一句清早起来。何等悠闲。又是何等动人心魄。)备上驴,(细。)带着两个小厮(细。)和他儿子以撒,(儿子字样反复出现。需留意。)也劈好了燔祭的柴,(点出有刀。)就起身往神所指示的地方去 了。(看他慢慢写来。全似无事人一个。)到了第三日,(于路程只字不提。真吓煞人也。)亚伯拉罕举目远远看见那地方。亚伯拉罕对他的小厮说:你们和驴在此等候,我与童子往那里去拜一拜,就回到你们这里来。(支开旁人。) 亚伯拉罕把燔祭的柴放在他儿子以撒身上,自己手里拿着火与刀,(自己拿着危险物事。借此可略窥亚伯拉罕心事。)于是二人同行。(一老一少。一个手持利刃。一背负柴薪。一个满腹心事。一个浑然不觉。父只要杀子。子只要听从。)以撒对他父亲亚伯拉罕说:(看他句句不离儿子。父亲。)父亲哪!”(叫得亲切。)亚伯拉罕说:我儿,(答得也亲切。)我在这里。(又是这句。)以撒说:请看,火与柴都有了,但燔祭的羊羔在哪里呢?(小孩子家恁地精细。莫非已生疑。)亚伯拉罕说:我儿,(又是一句我儿。令人泪下。)神必自己预备作燔祭的羊羔。(语带玄机。)于是二人同行。(又一句二人同行。父要送子上黄泉路。)

他们到了神所指示的地方,(字字紧扣神。)亚伯拉罕在那里筑坛,把柴摆好,捆绑他的儿子以撒,放在坛的柴上。(筑坛。摆柴。捆子。有条不紊。笔法狠辣之极。)亚伯拉罕就伸手拿刀,(一切收拾停当。霍地抽出刀来。令人心惊肉跳。)要杀他的儿子。(局面至此。真真是回天乏术。野猪林中胖大和尚安在。)耶和华的使者从天上呼叫他说:(又是一声呼叫。)亚伯拉罕!亚伯拉罕!(连声呼叫。足见情势危急。)他说:我在这里。(不管天塌地陷。只是这句。)天使说;你不可在这童子身上下手,一点不可害他。(两番制止。以见危急。)现在我知道你是敬畏神的了,因为你没有将你的儿子、就是你独生的儿子(回应最初的试探。)留下不给我。亚伯拉罕举目观看,(前番举目观看。看到以撒的刑场。此番举目观看。看到替罪羊。两番举目观看。读者于此等处断不可轻轻放过。)不料,有一只公羊,两角扣在稠密的小树中,亚伯拉罕就取了那只公羊来,献为燔祭,代替他的儿子。(以儿子结此一段奇文。)

2008年5月3日星期六

"Deep Frye"

The New York Review of Books

Volume 4, Number 6 · April 22, 1965

Deep Frye


By Frank Kermode

A Natural Perspective: The Development of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance
by Northrop Frye

Columbia, 159 pp., $3.75

And here, I think, is the clue to what finally invalidates Frye. If literature does the work that ritual and myth once did, the arrangement is providential, for myth and ritual can obviously no longer do it. What makes literature different is, roughly, a different reality principle, appropriate, in an expression of Eliade's which Frye himself quotes, to this time as myth was appropriate to that time. The difference between illud tempus and hoc tempus is simply willed away in Frye's critical system, but it is essential to the very forms of modern literature, and to our experience of it. I do not mean simply that in the literature of our own time, which is itself considerably complicated by the prestige of myth, we are made aware of the conflicting claims of rigorous fact and comforting fiction; in my generalization I include Shakespeare, and especially the Shakespeare of the tragedies. King Lear dies on a heap of disconfirmed myths, and modern literature follows Shakespeare into a world where the ritual paradigms will not serve, and magic does not work; where our imaginative satisfactions depend on a decent respect for the reality principle and our great novels are, in the words of Lukacs, "epics without god."

And even Shakespeare's romances belong in hoc tempore. We do not accept their conventions as we accept those of popular tales, simply as given for our ease and comfort. The tough verse forbids that, and so does the particularity of what happens on the stage. The statue that moves might enact the Pygmalion myth, were it not that Perdita in all her vitality stands motionless beside it; and that it is shown how no chisel could ever yet cut breath. It is the breath of Hermione, the presence of Perdita, that are lost to view as you stand back; you sacrifice them to a system and a myth. The conclusion seems obvious: when you hear talk of archetypes, reach for your reality principle.


Copyright © 1963-2008, NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.


入眼入耳

好诗人的眼睛比一般人亮,耳朵比一般人尖。我不读诗很久了。今天偶然看到这首诗,虽算不得极品,倒也入眼入耳,让我驻足发愣了好几分钟。同样的内容如果用散文来表达,就会显得臃肿拖沓多了。但不是说,无韵之散文就是废物。无韵之文适合讲引人入胜的故事,爱恨嗔痴,江山社稷,复杂得很。诗则不然,宛若“行为艺术”,只让人驻足发愣一小会儿。但一小会儿的工夫足够让你发现天人,比如徐志摩。


(胡续冬)
  
  我怀念那些戴袖套的人,
  深蓝色或者藏青色的袖套上,沾满了
  鸵鸟牌蓝黑墨水、粉笔灰、缝纫机油和富强粉;
  我怀念那些穿军装不戴帽徽和领章的人,
  他们在院子里修飞鸽自行车、摆弄锃亮的
  剃头推子、做煤球、铺牛毛毡,偶尔会给身后
  歪系红领巾的儿子一记响亮的耳光,但很快
  就会给他买一支两分钱的、加了有色香精的冰棒;
  我怀念那些在家里自己发豆芽的人,
  不管纱布里包的是黄豆还是绿豆,一旦嫩芽
  顶开了压在上面的砖块,生铁锅里
  菜籽油就会兴奋地发出花环队的欢呼;
  我怀念那些用老陈醋洗头的人,
  在有麻雀筑巢的屋檐下,在两盆
  凤仙花或者绣球花之间,散发着醋香的
  热乎乎的头发的气息可以让雨声消失;
  我怀念那些用锯末薰腊肉的人,用钩针
  织白色长围巾的人,用粮票换鸡蛋的人,用铁夹子
  夹住小票然后地一声让它沿着铁
  丝滑到收款台去的人;
  我怀念蜡梗火柴、双圈牌打字蜡纸
  清凉油、算盘、蚊香、浏阳鞭炮、假领
  红茶菌、军属光荣的门牌、收音机里
  我们的生活充满阳光的甜美歌声……
  现在是2003年了。我怀念我的父母。
  他们已经老了。我也已不算年轻。