文章 - - 文章列表 - 全部

菲利普•费尔南德兹－阿迈斯托编著：《世界：一部历史》，叶建军等译，钱乘旦审读，北京大学出版社2010年版。

本文选自康德《历史理性批判文集》，何兆武译，北京商务印书馆1991。  简介：康德是18世纪启蒙运动集之大成者，其“批判哲学”奠定了现代哲学的基础，划定科学、道德与美学的界限。本文尝试回答何谓启蒙，并说明启蒙与“公开使用自由”（即言论自由、学术自由）的关联。  启蒙就是人从他自己造成的未成年状态中走出。未成年状态就是没有他人的指导就不能使用自己的知性。要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动的口号。  启蒙运动就是人类脱离自己所加之于自己的不成熟状态，不成熟状态就是不经别人的引导，就对运用自己的理智无能为力。当其原因不在于缺乏理智，而在于不经别人的引导就缺乏勇气与决心去加以运用时，那么这种不成熟状态就是自己所加之于自己的了。Sapere aude！①要有勇气运用你自己的理智！这就是启蒙运动②的口号。  懒惰和怯懦乃是何以有如此大量的人，当大自然早己把他们从外界的引导之下释放出来以后（naturaliter maiorennes）③时，却仍然愿意终身处于不成熟状态之中，以及别人何以那么轻而易举地就俨然以他们的保护人自居的原因所在。处于不成熟状态是那么安逸。如果我有一部书能替我有理解，有一位牧师能替我有良心，有一位医生能替我规定食谱，等等；那么我自己就用不着操心了。只要能对我合算，我就无需去思想：自有别人会替我去做这类伤脑筋的事。  绝大部分的人（其中包括全部的女性）都把步入成熟状态认为除了是非常之艰辛而外并且还是非常之危险的；这一点老早就被每一个一片好心在从事监护他们的保护人关注到了。保护人首先是使他们的牲口愚蠢，并且小心提防着这些温驯的畜牲不要竟敢冒险从锁着他们的摇车里面迈出一步；然后就向他们指出他们企图单独行走时会威胁他们的那种危险。可是这种危险实际上并不那么大，因为他们跌过几交之后就终于能学会走路的；然而只要有过一次这类事例，就会使人心惊胆战并且往往吓得完全不敢再去尝试了。  任何一个个人要从几乎已经成为自己天性的那种不成熟状态之中奋斗出来，都是很艰难的。他甚至于已经爱好它了，并且确实暂时还不能运用他自己的理智，因为人们从来都不允许他去做这种尝试。条例和公式这类他那天分的合理运用、或者不如说误用的机械产物，就是对终古长存的不成熟状态的一副脚梏。谁要是抛开它，也就不过是在极狭窄的沟渠上做了一次不可靠的跳跃而己，因为他并不习惯于这类自由的运动。因此就只有很少数的人才能通过自己精神的奋斗而摆脱不成熟的状态，并且从而迈出切实的步伐来。  然而公众要启蒙自己，却是很可能的；只要允许他们自由，这还确实几乎是无可避免的。因为哪怕是在为广大人群所设立的保护者们中间，也总会发见一些有独立思想的人；他们自己在抛却了不成熟状态的羁绊之后，就会传播合理地估计自己的价值以及每个人的本分就在于思想其自身的那种精神。这里面特别值得注意的是：公众本来是被他们套上了这种羁绊的，但当他们的保护者（其本身是不可能有任何启蒙的）中竟有一些人鼓动他们的时候，此后却强迫保护者们自身也处于其中了；种下偏见是那么有害，因为他们终于报复了本来是他们的教唆者或者是他们教唆者的先行者的那些人。因而公众只能是很缓慢地获得启蒙。通过一场革命或许很可以实现推翻个人专制以及贪婪心和权势欲的压迫，但却绝不能实现思想方式的真正改革；而新的偏见也正如旧的一样，将会成为驾驭缺少思想的广大人群的圈套。  然而，这一启蒙运动除了自由而外并不需要任何别的东西，而且还确乎是一切可以称之为自由的东西之中最无害的东西，那就是在一切事情上都有公开运用自己理性的自由。④可是我却听到从四面八方都发出这样的叫喊：不许争辩！军官说：不许争辩，只许操练！税吏说：不许争辩，只许纳税。神甫说：不许争辩，只许信仰。（举世只有一位君主⑤说：可以争辩，随便争多少，随便争什么，但是要听话！君主指普鲁士腓德烈大王）到处都有对自由的限制。  然则，哪些限制是有碍启蒙的，哪些不是，反而是足以促进它的呢？--我回答说：必须永远有公开运用自己理性的自由，并且唯有它才能带来人类的启蒙。私下运用自己的理性往往会被限制得很狭隘，虽则不致因此而特别妨碍启蒙运动的进步。而我所理解的对自己理性的公开运用，则是指任何人作为学者在全部听众面前所能做的那种运用。一个人在其所受任的一定公职岗位或者职务上所能运用的自己的理性，我就称之为私下的运用。  就涉及共同体利益的许多事物而言，则我们必须有一定的机器，共同体的一些成员必须靠它来保持纯粹的消极态度，以便他们由于一种人为的一致性而由政府引向公共的目的，或者至少也是防止破坏这一目的。在这上面确实是不容许有争辩的；而是人们必须服从。但是就该机器的这一部分同时也作为整个共同体的，乃至于作为世界公民社会的成员而论，从而也就是以一个学者的资格通过写作面向严格意义上的公众时，则他是绝对可以争辩的，而不致因此就有损于他作为一个消极的成员所从事的那种事业。因此，一个服役的军官在接受他的上级交下某项命令肘，竟抗声争辩这项命令的合目的性或者有用性，那就会非常坏事；他必须服从。但是他作为学者而对军事业务上的错误进行评论并把它提交给公众来作判断时，就不能公开地加以禁止了。公民不能拒绝缴纳规定于他的税额；对所加给他的这类赋税惹事生非地擅行责难，甚至可以当作诽谤（这可能引起普遍的反抗）而加以惩处。然而这同一个人作为一个学者公开发表自己的见解，抗议这种课税的不适宜与不正当不一样，他的行动并没有违背公民的义务。同样地，一个牧师也有义务按照他所服务的那个教会的教义向他的教义问答班上的学生们和他的会众们作报告，因为他是根据这一条件才被批准的。但是作为一个学者，他却有充分自由、甚至于有责任，把他经过深思熟虑有关那种教义的缺点的全部善意的意见以及关于更好地组织宗教团体和教会团体的建议传达给公众。这里面并没有任何可以给他的良心增添负担的东西。因为他把作为一个教会工作者由于自己职务的关系而讲授的东西，当作是某种他自己并没有自由的权力可以按照自己的心意进行讲授的东西；他是受命根据别人的指示并以别人的名义选行讲述的。他将要说：我们的教会教导这些或那些；这里就是他们所引用的论据。于是，他就从他自己不会以完全的信服而赞同、虽则他很可以使自己负责进行宣讲的那些条文中--因为并非是完全不可能其中也隐藏着真理，而且无论如何至少其中不会发见有任何与内心宗教相违背的东西，--为他的听众引绎出全部的实用价值来。因为如果他相信其中可以发见任何与内心宗教相违背的东西，那么他就不能根据良心而尽自己的职务了，他就必须辞职。一个就任的宣教师之向他的会众运用自己的理性，纯粹是一种私下的运用；因为那往往只是一种家庭式的聚会，不管是多大的聚会；而在这方面他作为一个牧师是并不自由的，而且也不能是自由的，因为他是在传达别人的委托。反之，作为一个学者通过自己的著作而向真正的公众亦即向全世界讲话时，则牧师在公开运用他的理性上便享有无限的自由可以使用他自己的理性，并以他自己本人的名义发言。因为人民（在精神事务上）的保护者而其本身居然也不成熟，那便可以归结为一种荒谬性，一种永世长存的荒谬性了。  然则一种牧师团体、一种教会会议或者一种可敬的教门法院（就象他们在荷兰人中间所自称的那样），是不是有权宣誓他们自己之间对某种不变的教义负有义务，以便对其每一个成员并且由此也就是对全体人民进行永不中辍的监护，甚至于使之永恒化呢？我要说：这是完全不可能的。这样一项向人类永远封锁住了任何进一步启蒙的契约乃是绝对无效的，哪怕它被最高权力、被国会和最庄严的和平条约所确认。一个时代决不能使自己负有义务并从而发誓，要把后来的时代置于一种决没有可能扩大自己的（尤其是十分迫切的）认识、清除错误以及一般地在启蒙中继续进步的状态之中。这会是一种违反人性的犯罪行为，人性本来的天职恰好就在于这种进步；因此后世就完全有权拒绝这种以毫无根据而且是犯罪的方式所采取的规定。  凡是一个民族可以总结为法律的任何东西，其试金石都在于这样一个问题：一个民族是不是可以把这样一种法律加之于其自身？它可能在一个有限的短时期之内就好像是在期待着另一种更好的似的，为的是好实行一种制度，使得每一个公民而尤其是牧师都能有自由以学者的身份公开地，也就是通过著作，对现行组织的缺点发表自己的言论。这种新实行的制度将要一直延续下去，直到对这类事情性质的洞见已经是那么公开地到来并且得到了证实，以致于通过他们联合（即使是并不一致）的呼声而可以向王位提出建议，以便对这一依据他们更好的洞见的概念而结合成另一种已经改变了的宗教组织加以保护，而又不致于妨碍那些仍愿保留在旧组织之中的人们。但是统一成一个固定不变的、没有人能够（哪怕在一个人的整个一生中）公开加以怀疑的宗教体制，从而也就犹如消灭了人类朝着改善前进的整整一个时代那样，并由此给后代造成损害，使得他们毫无收获，--这却是绝对不能容许的。一个人确实可以为了他本人并且也只是在一段时间之内，推迟对自己有义务加以认识的事物的启蒙；然而径行放弃它，那就无论是对他本人，而更其是对于后代，都可以说是违反而且践踏人类的神圣权利⑥了。  而人民对于他们本身都不能规定的事，一个君主就更加不可以对他的人民规定了；因为他的立法威望全靠他把全体人民的意志结合为他自己的意志。只要他注意使一切真正的或号称的改善都与公民秩序结合在一起，那么此外他就可以把他的臣民发觉对自己灵魂得教所必须做的事情留给他们自己去做；这与他无关，虽则他必须防范任何人以强力妨碍别人根据自己的全部才能去做出这种决定并促进这种得救。如果他干预这种事，要以政府的监督来评判他的臣民借以亮明他们自己的见识的那些作品；以及如他凭自己的最高观点来这样做，而使自己受到"Caesar non estt supra grammaticos"⑦（凯撒并不高于文法学家）的这种责难；那就会有损于他的威严。如果他把自己的最高权力降低到竟至去支持自己国内的一些暴君对他其余的臣民实行精神专制主义的时候，那就更加每况愈下了。  如果现在有人问："我们目前是不是生活在一个启蒙了的时代？"那么回答就是："并不是，但确实是在一个启蒙运动的时代"。⑧目前的情形是，要说人类总的说来已经处于，或者是仅仅说已经被置于，一种不需别人引导就能够在宗教的事情上确切地而又很好地使用自己的理智的状态了，则那里面还缺乏许多东西。可是现在领域已经对他们开放了，他们可以自由地在这上面工作了，而且对普遍启蒙的、或者说对摆脱自己所加给自己的不成熟状态的障碍也逐渐地减少了；关于这些我们都有着明确的信号。就这方面考虑，这个时代乃是启蒙的时代，或者说乃是腓德烈⑨的世纪。  一个不以如下说法为与自己不相称的国君：他认为自己的义务就是要在宗教事务方面决不对人们加以任何规定，而是让他们有充分的自由，但他又甚至谢绝宽容这个高傲的名称；这位国君本人就是启蒙了的⑩，并且配得上被天下后世满怀感激之情尊之为率先使得人类，至少从政权方面而言，脱离了不成熟状态，并使每个人在任何有关良心的事务上都能自由地运用自身所固有的理性。在他的治下，可敬的牧师们可以以学者的身份自由地并且公开地把自己在这里或那里偏离了既定教义的各种判断和见解都提供给全世界来检验，而又无损于自己的职责：至于另外那些不受任何职责约束的人，那就更加是如此了。这种自由精神也要向外扩展，甚至于扩展到必然会和误解了其自身的那种政权这一外部阻碍发生冲突的地步。因为它对这种政权树立了一个范例，即自由并不是一点也不关怀公共的安宁和共同体的团结一致的。只有当人们不再有意地想方设法要把人类保持在野蛮状态的时候，人类才会由于自己的努力而使自己从其中慢慢地走出来。  我把启蒙运动的重点，亦即人类摆脱他们所加之于其自身的不成熟状态，主要是放在宗教事务方面，因为我们的统治者在艺术和科学方面并没有向他们的臣民尽监护之责的兴趣；何况这一不成熟状态既是一切之中最有害的而又是最可耻的一种。但是，一个庇护艺术与科学的国家首领，他的思想方式就要更进一步了，他洞察到：即使是在他的立法方面，容许他的臣民公开运用他们自身的理性，公开向世上提出他们对于更好地编篡法律、甚至于是直言无讳地批评现行法律的各种见解，那也不会有危险的。在这方面，我们有着一个光辉的典范，我们所尊敬的这位君主（指普鲁士腓德烈大王）⑾就是没有别的君主能够超越的。  但是只有那位其本身是启蒙了的、不怕幽灵的而同时手中又掌握着训练精良的大量军队可以保障公共安宁的君主，才能够说出一个自由国家所不敢说的这种话：可以争辩，随便争多少，随便争什么；但是必须听话。这就标志着人间事务的一种可惊异的、不能意料的进程；正犹如当我们对它从整体上加以观察时，其中就几乎一切都是悖论那样。程度更大的公民自由仿佛是有利于人民精神的自由似的，然而它却设下了不可逾越的限度；反之，程度较小的公民自由却为每个人发挥自己的才能开辟了余地。因为当大自然在这种坚硬的外壳之下打开了为她所极为精心照料着的幼芽时，也就是要求思想自由的倾向与任务时，它也就要逐步地反作用于人民的心灵面貌（从而他们慢慢地就能掌握自由）；并且终于还会反作用于政权原则，使之发见按照人的尊严--人并不仅仅是机器而已⑿--去看待人，也是有利于政权本身的。⒀  1784年9月30日，于普鲁士哥尼斯堡  本文选自康德《历史理性批判文集》，何兆武译，商务印书馆，1996年  注：  ①[要敢于认识!]语出罗马诗人贺拉斯(公元前65-8)《诗论》。——译注  ②按启蒙运动(Aufklarung)亦称“启蒙时代”或“理性时代”；这篇为当时的启蒙运动进行辩护的文章，发表在当时德国启蒙运动的主要刊物《柏林月刊》上。——译注  ③[由于自然方式而成熟]。——译注  ④ 此处“公开运用自己理性的自由”即指言论自由。康德在这个问题上曾和当时普鲁士官方的检查制度发生冲突。——译注  ⑤指普鲁士腓德烈大王(FrederickⅡ，der Grosse，1740-1786)。——译注  ⑥按“权利”一词原文为Recht；此词相当于法文的droit，英文的right，中文的“权利”、“权”、“法律”、“法”或“正义”。一般或译作“法”，下同。——译注  ⑦[凯撒并不高于文法学家]按，此处这句话可能是针对传说中普鲁士的腓德烈大王回答伏尔泰(Voltaire， 1718-1778)的一句话：“凯撒高于文法学家。”又，传说神圣罗马帝国皇帝西吉斯蒙(Sigismund，1411-1437)在 1414年的康斯坦司会议上说过：“我是罗马皇帝并且高于文法学家。”——译注  ⑧康德《纯粹理性批判》第1版序言：“我们的时代特别是一个批判的时代，一切事物都必须接受批判。”——译注  ⑨指普鲁士腓德烈大王。——译注  ⑩“启蒙了的”即“开明的”。——译注  ⑾指普鲁士腓德烈大王。——译注  ⑿“人并不仅仅是机器而已”这一命题为针对拉梅特利(Julien Offray de La Mettrie，1709-1751)《人是机器》 (1748年)的反题。——译注  ⒀今天我在9月13日的《布兴每周通讯》(布兴，Anton Friedrich Buching，1724-1793，地理学家，格廷根大学教授，当时主编《地图、地理、统计与历史新书每周通讯》。——译注)上读到本月30日《柏林月刊》的预告，其中介绍了门德尔松先生(Moses Mendelsohn，1726-1786，德国启蒙运动哲学家，《论“什么叫作启蒙运动”这一问题》一文刊载于《柏林月刊》1784年第4卷第9期，康德本文刊载于该刊同年同卷第12期。康德撰写本文时尚未读到门德尔松的文章，所以只在本文末尾附加了这条注释。——译注)对于本问题的答复。我手头尚未收到该刊，否则就会扣发本文了。现在本文就只在于检验一下偶然性究竟在多大程度上能带来两个人的思想一致。 

齐仁在《论中国模式》一文中，将马克思主义中国化的历程区分为三个阶段，即毛泽东思想、中国特色社会主义与中国化马克思主义的第三期的确立。他并且指出，正是中国特色社会主义理论的科学发展观阶段提出的“和谐观”预示了中国化马克思主义第三期的到来。全面、深入、自觉的“和谐型文明”将是马克思主义中国化第三阶段中本质性的东西。（见《文化纵横》2010年第10期）这个观点，在哲学上仍有进一步探讨的必要。近年来，和谐观在我国逐渐深入人心，凝聚了越来越多的社会共识，并日益成为执政者进行经济与社会建设、处理国内国际政治问题的主要指导原则。从理论高度上说，和谐观念明显扬弃了上世纪八十年代之前强调政治斗争的意识形态。作为改革精神的自觉与总结，和谐观可以说是马克思主义中国化第二阶段的终极概括。   不过，作为新兴理论形态的基石，和谐观在经济发展社会政治上的内容显然多于哲学上的。它虽然克服了“无产阶级专政下继续革命”的阶级斗争式政治话语，却缺乏哲学上的系统表述去克制作为这一话语基础的所谓斗争哲学。换言之，和谐观尚未成为和谐哲学，以便在辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的层面上同样成为毛泽东哲学的后继者。毛泽东思想是一个包含了世界观、认识论、社会历史图景与政治经济学说的完整体系。有斗争哲学必有斗争政治，无法在不改动其哲学的同时单单改正其政治话语。毛泽东给和谐时代的理论家们带来的麻烦还不止于此。正是同一个毛泽东思想在指导着革命和建设。如果完全抛弃斗争政治，那么就意味着一笔勾销中国革命与革命建国的正当性。和谐理论如果以斗争的态度对待斗争学说，以革命的态度对待革命，那么它仍然只是斗争学说与革命实践的极端变形而已。强调对立是斗争哲学的特点，和谐理论的陷阱是它既不能强调它同前者的对立，又不能抹杀它与前者的差别。要之，和谐理论的不足在于缺少哲学以圆融地处理“和谐”与“斗争”的关系——它甚至极少严肃地反省过这对概念。马克思主义中国化的不同阶段的关系在哲学上归根结底就是“斗争”观与“和谐”观的关系。“革命”与“改革”的关系则是这一哲学关系的社会政治运用。正面思索这一关系，的确是马克思主义中国化自我深化所不可或缺的头等要务。实际上，早在改革前期，就有一位先知式的人物在“世界观”上严肃检讨了“斗争哲学”，代之以“和谐哲学”。他就是哲学家冯友兰（1895-1990）。在其晚年巨著《中国哲学史新编》的结尾，冯以“中国古典哲学”亦即儒家道统的继承人自居，对他所理解的马克思主义毛泽东思想做了深刻的批评，也对当时中国的改革探索做了最深沉的回应。这个回应来自中国思想传统最权威的继承人和阐释者，因此尤其值得重视。迄今为止，思想界关于“和谐哲学”所能产生的一切构造，无非都在以各种方式运用或改写冯友兰的晚年思想。可以说，庸俗“和谐哲学”的真正源头，就是《中国哲学史新编》的终章。本文将在对冯氏版本的“和谐哲学”进行批判性考察之后，以综合“斗争”以及“和谐”的方式，为马克思主义中国第三期的思想探索给出哲学方面的建议。一． 冯友兰版本的“和谐哲学”及其疑难冯友兰认为，马列主义毛泽东思想与“中国古典哲学”的哲学立场是有根本差异的：“客观的辩证法只有一个，但人们对于客观辩证法的认识，可以因条件的不同而有差别。照马克思主义的辩证法思想，矛盾斗争是绝对的，无条件的；‘统一’是相对的、有条件的。这是把矛盾斗争放在第一位。中国古典哲学没有这样说，而是把统一放在第一位。理论上的这点差别，在实践上有重大的意义。”（冯友兰，《中国现代哲学史》，第11章——“《中国哲学史新编》总结”；下引冯著均出此）冯友兰援引了宋儒张载的四句话，更加明确地总结了这两种不同的辩证法认识在立场上的差异：“‘有象斯有对，对必反其为；有反斯有仇，仇必和而解’。这四句中的前三句是马克思主义辩证法也同意的，但第四句马克思主义就不会这样说了……照我的推测，它可能会说‘仇必仇到底’。”  按照冯氏的解释，“仇必和而解”“是要维持两个对立面所处的那个统一体”。而所谓“仇必仇到底”，则是“要破坏两个对立面所处的那个统一体。”他更直接质疑毛泽东说，“毛泽东思想也当然要主张‘仇必仇到底’。问题在于什么叫‘到底’，‘底’在哪里？”。冯友兰指点说，破坏统一体之后，就进入了下一个统一体。这个统一体也是有对立和矛盾的，但此时的矛盾斗争应该要维护这个共处的新统一体，此谓之“和”。“和”是张载哲学的关键概念，不是“随便下的”。它既是辩证法对立统一的范畴，又表达了客观世界的“正常状态”。因此， “仇必和而解”既有宇宙论含义，更有社会政治上的含义。在张载那里，作为宇宙正常状态的“太和”与作为“社会正常状态”的“和”是一致的。张载的“和”要维持“封建社会的统一体”。而冯友兰主张的“和”，则是在革命终结（是为仇之到底）、作为革命对象的社会统一体被破坏后，维持那个作为革命目的的新社会的统治关系，同时在国际上谋求和平。“和”的社会历史含义，就是后革命的统治，与后战争的永久和平。冯友兰依据张横渠阐发的和谐精义，既代表儒家传统回应了马克思主义，又通过哲学思辨把握了时代大势，以精粹的语言概括了中西理想之差别、古今世变之枢机。然而，细推冯氏之说，竟不能使人无疑。第一个疑问：冯氏所理解的“仇必和而解”果能代表“中国古典哲学”乃至儒家吗？如果不能，儒家究竟如何看待这一命题？第二个疑问：冯氏明白表示，“仇必和而解”才是客观辩证法（同上，页253）。客观辩证法确实可以表述为统一先于斗争吗？马克思主义辩证法与儒家的差别确实在于“仇到底”与“和而解”，亦即一主斗争一主统一吗？第三个疑问：冯氏所谓“和”有理论与实践的双重命意。在辩证法上“和”指“统一”，在实践上“和”指后革命的统治、国际和平等等。理论上统一在先，也就是实践上“和谐”在先。儒家与马克思主义会如何看待对“和谐”的这种解释？下文将沿着这些疑问研究，以期在明了中国古典思想与马克思主义辩证法的前提上，从所谓客观辩证法的层面搞清楚“和谐”与“斗争”的关系。二． 儒家主张“仇必和而解”吗？    冯友兰发挥张载“仇必和而解”的思想，并以此代表“中国古典哲学”与马列主义毛泽东思想相抗衡。冯的权威掩盖了这样一个事实，张载的这个观点——无论在宇宙观还是伦理政治观上——在儒家正统中其实大有可议之处。我们且从理学与经学上分别考察之。   冯引横渠四句，出自《正蒙》首篇——《太和》。本是对气化万物过程之总概括。《太和》立清虚一大为本。太虚无形即所谓气之本体。气之聚散，乃成万物之变化。万物消散，仍返于太虚而已。即张子所谓“太虚不能无气，气不能不聚而为万物，万物不能不散而为太虚。”一气无对。气化为万物，则有刚柔、寒温、生杀之对立乃至互夺。彼此对反之万物，终有消亡，形销气散，返归太虚，不复成其对立。依王船山注，所谓“仇必和而解”，不过“解散仍返于太虚”之意。所立之一，无对无仇，并非对立统一，实是不含对待之太虚一气。   横渠之说，以理学正统核之，不无瑕疵。杨时尝疑“民胞物与”有消解仁爱等级界限的墨家兼爱倾向。程颐则直指此误之本在于四句所出之气论：“横渠立言诚有过，乃在《正蒙》”（《程书分类》，卷第十三）朱熹更在道体上反驳了无仇无对之一：“渠初云‘清虚一大’，为伊川诘难，乃云‘清兼浊，虚兼实，一兼二，大兼小’。渠本要说形而上，反成形而下……须是兼清浊、虚实、一二、小大来看，方见得形而上者行乎其间。 ”。（《朱子语类》，卷第九十九） 朱子说得清楚，无仇无对之气，只是形而下的，形上之道，必须是兼一二的对立统一。用冯友兰喜欢的术语也可以说，无仇无对之物，本非对立统一，只是抽象统一。很显然，这不可能是任何“辩证法”的主张。冯先生不会不明白这个道理，所以强调张载说过“两不立则一不可见，一不可见则两之用息”，来表明张子是讲对立统一的，是有辩证法的。但从前引朱子言论就可以知道，张载的那些“对立”是后来面对批评的补救措施，是强索精思凑泊上去的“造道之言”，并非出自真切的体会。这就是为什么还能在同一本《正蒙》里发现“若一则有两……无两亦一在”这样仍然主张抽象统一先于、高于对立的词句。必须明白，被冯先生大书特书的“仇必和而解”即属于此类词句，其所主张的就是对立消解之后的“清虚一大”，就是无两之一、无对立的抽象统一。而这非但不属所谓辩证法，也不为“中国古典哲学”的理学正统所容。与“和”相比，“仇”乃是张载的特殊用语，在理学传统中并无多高地位。不过“和”与“仇”都能在儒家原典中找到相应的阐述。那么，就经义说，儒家是否会同意“仇必和而解”呢？恰恰相反。此言如以理学正统观之，不过义有未安。然若以经学正统核之，竟是大逆不道。群经诸传之中，但凡言仇，唯主复，绝不许和。《礼记.曲礼》云：“父之仇，弗与共戴天。兄弟之仇，不反兵[丁按：不回取兵器，随身携配，见即格杀仇人]。交游之仇，不同国。”《礼记.檀弓》、《周礼.调人》说有小出入，其主复仇大义则一也。复仇实出于对君臣父子关系主导的伦理秩序的维护，非同小可，实是大经大法所在。《春秋公羊传》更是对此做了强调。它认为，作为鲁国国史的春秋之所以高度肯定鲁仇齐襄公为报九世远祖之仇而灭纪国的行动——须知齐襄公于鲁君有弑父之仇、淫母之辱——就是为了表彰复仇大义。甚至齐襄公的卑劣都无法掩盖他复仇行动的高尚。“《春秋》…..何贤乎襄公？复仇也……九世犹可以复仇乎？虽百世可也！”（《春秋公羊传.庄公四年》）荣复仇，正深恶不能复君父之仇也。不复仇者无人臣人子之道，不可立于天地之间：“君弑，臣不讨贼，非臣也。子不复仇，非子也。”（同上，“隐公十一年”）在儒家传统的影响下，中国历代法律主流虽对私相复仇设定了若干限制，但仍坚持了复仇大义，甚至设立了“亲属为人杀私和”的罪名（参见《唐律疏议笺解》卷第十七，“贼盗”）。这就是说，不是不许复仇，而是应当依律复仇；不复仇、“和而解”是有罪的。于此可知，与张载的主张正相反，有仇必复才是儒经大义。宋儒主流，于春秋大义，每多隔膜。故北宋先默然于“攘夷”，南宋终噤口于“复仇”。张载以北宋五子之一，甚至公然说出“仇必和而解”来，倒是为赵构秦桧之流的腼颜事仇，事先给了一个哲学辩护。综上所述，无论核之以经学还是理学，无论察之以宇宙论还是社会政治，“仇必和而解”之说均未得儒家之正。至其末流，学出异端，行在乡愿而已。张载在哲学上一味强调抽象统一，贬低乃至取消对立，在实践上就为抹煞家国天下之内必须的伦理界限开了方便之门。以德报怨，似是而非。知和而和，乡愿之道。伦理上的乡愿主义对应的就是政治上以和平主义面目出现的投降主义。张横渠本力学君子，其学虽有不足，盖非其人所乐见。而冯友兰的当代发挥，恐怕正应了程伊川评价张邵二子的话：“特立不惑，子厚、尧夫而已。然其说之流，亦未免于有弊也。”三．“和”在辩证法上的意义与地位冯友兰借用张载的学说，以“和”的概念来发挥矛盾的统一性原理。上文已示，张载“太和”之说并不符合冯氏所寄之意。现在我们把这层撇开，从辩证法的视野略论冯氏本人所主之“和”在理论与实践上的地位。冯友兰把“和”及“仇”解释为矛盾的统一性与斗争性。他的辩证法是对马克思主义辩证法的倒转，即将矛盾斗争性在哲学上第一性、绝对性的地位，转赋予矛盾的统一性。显然，冯友兰认同马克思主义对事物的矛盾以及其斗争性与统一性的涵义分析分析。他只是在此基础上调整了两者的地位。这个调整所针对的当是毛泽东《矛盾论》的第五部分“矛盾诸方面的同一性与斗争性”。在那里毛泽东发挥了列宁的如下观点“对立面的统一（一致、同一、均势）是有条件的、暂时的、易逝的、相对的。相互排斥的对立面的斗争则是绝对的，正如发展、运动是绝对的一样。”（列宁，《谈谈辩证法问题》）毛泽东对此解释说，“一切过程都有始有终，一切过程都转化为它们的对立物。一切过程的常住性是相对的，但是一种过程转化为他种过程的这种变动性则是绝对的。”（《毛泽东选集》，第一卷，页332）。很清楚，所谓矛盾斗争性是绝对的、第一位的，矛盾的统一性是相对的，第二位的，无非是以更具体的方式解说了变化先于存在的观点：亦即运动、过程是绝对的、第一位的，静止、实体则是相对的、第二位的。这个观点绝不是马克思主义发明的，它既贯穿在从赫拉克里特到黑格尔的古典辩证法历史中，也在例如以怀特海为代表的现代过程哲学那里得到回应，更是六经之首《周易》的基本精神。马克思主义的特点在于通过处理事物复杂的具体矛盾来解说和把握变化的原理与规律。但马克思主义从未以绝对运动的名义拒绝暂存。这就是说，从未以矛盾的斗争性的绝对性去排斥矛盾的统一性。“在（客观的）辩证法中，相对和绝对的差别也是相对的。”（列宁，同上）。冯本人也承认，变化的机理在于矛盾之间的斗争，存在的机理在于矛盾双方的均势或者统一。马克思主义辩证法并不回避矛盾之间的统一。因此虽然主张矛盾之间斗争在先，却仍然建议“把辩证法简要地确定为关于对立面的统一的学说。”（列宁，《辩证法的要素》）。这是因为它从未割裂运动与静止、过程与实在。运动之理即仇，暂存之理即和。是以马克思主义辩证法所主张的乃是仇与和的统一。在某种意义上，它也主张仇可和而解。但在新的统一体之中，却仍然存在着矛盾的斗争。因此，凡有和解之处，必有新对新仇生焉，否则就是否定了运动之绝对，暗示宇宙有终，大化不流。割裂、对立仇与和，就会割裂、对立存在与变化。而只要主张变化在先，就无法接受矛盾统一性在先。因为变化可以包摄暂存，而存在无法包摄变化。即使暂存之中，亦渗透着矛盾双方之较量转化，否则，这个暂存者的变化之理，就不是内在的了。因此，“对于客观的辩证法说来，相对中有绝对。对于主观主义和诡辩说来，相对只是相对的，是排斥绝对的。”（列宁，《谈谈辩证法问题》）。这样看来，主张矛盾的统一性先于斗争性，实际上主张的是可以有超脱于变化过程的永住者，它作为绝对的东西先于变化。而主张斗争在先者反是而已。庸俗版本的“和谐哲学”只是简单地把“斗争哲学”翻转过来而已。斗争云云，首出于赫拉克里特残篇，为解释事物的暂存与流变。它首先是个理论概念，不是为了在实践上挑起矛盾搞斗争，而是用来解释事物变化的客观规律。就象中国哲学所谓阴阳翕辟之属，是用来解释事物的变化之道，而不是在主张性享乐那样。 另一方面，正因为在理论上正视流变与暂存的统一，在实践上才能既不回避变革斗争，又能稳健持重。常变之间，时中而已，岂能泥于一端。然而时即变，知时中之道即已以变为唯一常道。难道因为在实践上厌倦斗争害怕革命，就要在理论上承认永住、降低变化的地位吗？这难道不是神学与末世论的翻版吗？将变化的地位取消于无形，还能自称为辩证法吗？四． “和”在儒学中的意义与地位冯友兰自认对马克思主义辩证法的倒转是承接了中国古典思想“和”的学说。现在撇开冯友兰所谓“辩证法”意义，专就儒家思想考察“和”。关于“和”最著名的儒家论述大概出自《论语.学而》：“有子曰：礼之用，和为贵。先王之道，斯为美，小大由之。有所不行，知和而和。不以礼节之，亦不可行也。”此章既讲了和对礼的补救，亦讲了礼对和的节制，决非单纯主和，而是透出了儒家在这个问题上的圆融与审慎。朱熹《论语集注》引前贤语，以为此章得礼乐之本。则此章所谓“和”，实指乐之用。儒家一贯礼乐并重。盖礼主分别，乐主和融，不可偏废。“乐者为同，礼者为异。同者相亲，异则相敬。乐胜则流，礼胜则离。”（《礼记.乐记》）“离”，郑玄注曰：“析居不和也。”礼主分别，分别过甚则疏远不和，此时即需“乐”的补救。“礼之用，和为贵”的真意即以和融克服礼的分别疏远倾向。而反过来一味主和，则“乐胜则流”，“流”为“合行不敬”，概指上下失序，抹煞界限，即孔子所谓近则不逊之类。此时便需礼来节制这个越界的“和”。然则礼乐孰为本？礼为本，和为末。朱熹确然指出：“有礼而不和，则尚是存得那本之体在。若只管和，则并本都忘了。”（《朱子语类》卷第二十二）。如此看来，和只是对礼的补充，地位逊于礼。儒家对“和”在实践上最全面的阐述当推《礼记》之《乐记》篇。“和”在儒家经典之中的首要意义是“乐”的功用。《乐记》篇对乐“和”的阐述即从自然与人性的本源一直贯穿到伦理与政治的意义。但即使在这篇赋予“和”最高地位的权威文献中，乐也始终附随于礼。“乐者，天地之和也。礼者，天地之序也。和，故百物皆化；序，故群物皆别。”（《礼记.乐记》）。此篇中但凡说和，必并举礼乐。但凡礼乐并举，多说一端过重之危。实际上，“和”只是自然德性之一。天地之德既备，单举一端便是不准确的。王道法天地，不可只取“和”。“礼节民心，乐和民声，政以行之，刑以防之。礼乐刑政，四达而不悖，则王道备矣。”（同上）很明显，王道不能仅用“和”概括。王道不是无原则的亲善和平。它也包括了适宜的刑戮甚至战争：“夫乐者，先王之所以饰喜也。军旅斧钺者，先王之所以饰怒也。故先王之喜怒皆得其侪焉……喜则天下和之，怒则暴乱者畏之。”（同上）这就是说，斗争与和睦一样是王道的组成部分。两者都是王道的运用，都不是根本。根本在于运用斗争还是和睦的合宜原则与适时判断。这就是 “时中”。五． 导“和”归“中”——马克思主义中国化第三期的哲学对于“和”在道学上的意义与地位，儒家最深刻的表述出于《礼记.中庸》。此篇并未选择“和”，而是强调“中”为根本：“喜怒哀乐之未发谓之中，发而皆中节谓之和。中也者，天下之大本也，和也者，天下之达道也。”（《礼记.中庸》）《中庸》所谓“和”首先拓展了《乐记》之意，将后者与乐之和对立的“怒”都收入“和”的范围之内。但两者仍有贯通之处，这就是以“节”引导、规范和。节就外在而言，出于礼文。其实质即无过无不及，亦即篇题所谓“中”。 “‘中庸’之中，本是无过无不及之中，大旨在时中上……是兼已发而中节、无过不及者得名。”（《朱子语类》卷第六十二）也就是说，时中为和之本，和即时中之用。和只是中节，也就是无过无不及。和无非是中的一种形态。正是在这个意义上，周濂溪甚至干脆将和化入中：“惟中者，和也，中节也，天下之达道也。”（《通书.师第七》）复核《乐记》可以发现，王道中体现为战争的中节之怒，在《中庸》里完全可作时中之和处理。通过以上梳理，可以发现，“和”在儒家传统中固然重要，但只是表用的，不是表体的。就其狭义而言只是补救性的，与一切补救性的东西一样带有片面性。而就其作为一切时中发用之广义而言，包含了斗争。无论如何，“和”不是首要、全面、得体的概念，不宜用之概括中国古典思想或者中华文明的精神，更不能拿它代表中国古典哲学来抗拒毛泽东思想。如我们恰当地把握儒家思想的精髓，就不会对马列主义辩证法与中国古典思想的关系采取那种鲁莽灭裂的态度，也就能更好地把握“和谐”与“斗争”的关系。上文已示，儒家哲学比“和”更为根本的概念是“中”。“中”有两个基本维度。一面通过“时中”与变易（时）联系，一面通过“中庸”与常住（庸）联系。也就是说，“中”体现了变易与常住的统一与沟通。儒家义理学的最重要典籍《周易》与《中庸》研究的就是常变关系问题，“中”就凝聚了儒家对于这个问题在理论与实践上的双重回答。中道既包含随时变化的尺度，又体现平实不变的定理，更指涉在行动上把握适宜的分寸、通过变化实现不变。从儒家传统看来，中为本、体，和为末、用。从中国化马克思主义的传统看来，“中道”概念更是将“斗争”与“和谐”作为两个环节统一在自身之中。这就是说，马克思主义中国化第三阶段的哲学最合适基础就是中道。理论上的和谐与斗争已包含在“中”对常变的统一之中，实践上狭义的和谐与斗争则都是时中之用。我们知道，马克思主义辩证法的基本问题正是常变关系问题。所谓矛盾的斗争性与统一性就是用来思维常变的。马克思主义辩证法主张变化是绝对的，常住是相对的，而绝对与相对又是统一的，相对之中也包含了绝对。马列主义辩证法的矛盾论充分地思维了变化和常住的原理，但却没有为两者之间这个如此重要的统一性单独提供一个概念，以致常常要做补充说明。在这个问题上，中国传统哲学完全可以对马克思主义辩证法做实质性的推进 ——当然不是以冯友兰的方式。辩证法的核心既非绝对的变化观，亦非相对的常住观，而是两者的统一。用具有中国化佛教哲学风格的话说，变化观是“真谛”（哲学之理），常住观是“俗谛”（世俗生活之理），作为变化与常住统一的时中观才是“中道第一义谛”（最高的圆融真理）。分离的、单纯的“斗争”、“变化”与“和谐”、“常住”都是应当被扬弃的“边见”（片面的见解）。在哲学上，中国化马克思主义第一期的“斗争”观无非更为强调变化，第二期的“和谐”观无非更为强调常住。则第三期的哲学基础必然是作为“斗争”与“和谐”两端统一的更高概念——中道。这也正是中国之为“中”国的最高涵义。“中道”哲学除包含常变统一之外，也保证了两者在实践上的沟通。中在实践上的体现就是广义的“和”。政治伦理学说都可依此发挥。“中”在理论与实践上的双重意蕴既代表了儒家的精髓，也可以在马克思主义中国化的道路上同时推进辩证法与实践哲学。在把儒家从误读中解放出来的基础上，中国古典思想与马列主义的贯通与互补是可能的，对“和谐”观念进行更深入的思考与辩护同样也是可能的。“和谐”的本意并非与“斗争”也就是运动变化对立的死水一潭的稳固。正如老黑格尔早就指出的那样：“和谐正是绝对的变或变化”（黑格尔《哲学史讲演录》第一卷）。所谓“和谐型”文明的真正基础，只能是与变化、斗争不相割裂的“中道和谐”观。

近日引起社会极大关注的百度文库事件涉及到一系列复杂的著作权法规则，需要进行理性的法律分析。 按照百度方面的说明，百度文库中的文档由用户上传，文库系统只是自动接收用户上传的文档并将其发布，百度并不直接上传任何文档。如果此点属实，则文库的性质属于“信息存储空间”。只要文库经营者“不知道也没有合理的理由应当知道”用户上传了侵权内容，同时也没有引诱、教唆用户上传侵权内容，就无需与用户承担连带责任。这是美国《千禧年数字版权法》、欧盟《电子商务指令》和我国《信息网络传播权保护条例》均规定的“避风港”规则。 对于文字作品，有两种作品需要加以区分。其一，不少“草根”小说作家和其他作者会主动将其作品上传至网络或不反对他人上传自己的作品。如著名作家蔡智恒(痞子蔡)和慕容雪村各自的成名作《第一次亲密的接触》和《成都今夜请将我遗忘》就是首先在网络上发表的。其二，另有许多作家以出版社支付的版税为其主要收入来源，其不大可能自行或许可他人将其作品上传至文库等网络论坛供公众免费阅读。 正是由于存在着不少小说作者自愿上传其作品的事实，不能仅以文库设立了“小说”栏目而认定文库经营者故意引诱用户未经许可而上传他人作品。 但是，文库在首页中有“热门推荐”栏目，其中显示了文档的名称和快照，而且不少快照是书籍的封面。对此，文库经营者显然是一看便知的。如果其中显示的是已出版的知名作品和相关书籍封面，而文库经营者根据其应当具备的专业知识和阅历，能够明显发现相关作品极有可能是未经许可上传的，则应当立即删除该文档。假如著名作家刘心武新近出版的《续红楼梦》出现在“热门推荐”之中，任何有常识的文字网站经营者都应当意识到:对于这样一本新书，著作权人不大可能自行或许可他人上传。文库经营者如不及时删除，就应当承担责任。 这种做法在国外得到了认可。在美国法院判决的哥伦比亚影业公司诉Gary Fung案中，被告作为影视BT种子文件分享网站，专门对电影提供了“最热搜索”、“20部热门电影”和“20个热门电视节目”等列表。法院认为被告明显知晓列表中的电影是未经许可传播的，因此应当承担侵权责任。 但是，如果作品的信息没有出现在“热门推荐”栏目或分类阅读栏目的显著位置，则难以认定文库经营者的过错。因为如果文库经营者甚至不知道有一部作品被上传到了文库，又如何能判断它侵权与否?同样，如该作品的相关信息无法使文字类网站的经营者判断该作品是未经许可上传的，在权利人向其发出侵权通知之前，也难以认定文库经营者具有帮助用户侵权的意图。 美国法院去年判决的Viacom诉YouTube案可供借鉴。视频传媒公司Viacom起诉视频分享网站YouTube侵权，理由是YouTube上有15万部未经许可上传的视频片断。但由于YouTube已将用户上传的视频长度限制在10分钟之内，而10分钟之内的视频既可能是影视剧片断，也可能是网友的自拍。因此法院认为YouTube不知道哪些用户上传的视频片断侵权，可以进入“避风港”免责。 同时，要求文库经营者对用户上传的每一篇文档都进行著作权方面的事先审查是不现实的。《信息网络传播权保护条例》也没有向“信息存储空间”服务提供者施加事先审查的义务。 立法在这方面并非存在疏漏，而恰是与欧美有关网络环境中著作权保护的立法相一致。美国《千禧年数字版权法》明确规定:网络服务提供者享受“避风港”免责不以其监控网络服务，积极寻找侵权内容为前提。《欧盟电子商务指令》也宣布:成员国不得规定网络服务提供者负有监视其存储的信息以及积极发现相关侵权事实的义务。《欧盟电子商务指令报告》更加明确地指出:规定网络服务提供者没有监视网络的义务十分重要，因为要求网络服务提供者监控海量内容不但在实践中不可能，也会给网络服务提供者造成过重的负担和提高用户使用基本网络服务的费用。 因此，文库经营者应当承担的是“注意义务”，即在能够发现用户上传的侵权内容后应立即删除，并采取合理的措施防止重复侵权行为的发生，而不是严格的事先审查义务。 当然，在这次知名作家集体向百度提出抗议之后，文库经营者应当知道自己的服务已被一些用户严重滥用。因此，其需要采取合理措施，及时阻止侵权内容的传播并防止侵权内容的重复上传。 如果文库经营者在尽了合理注意义务并采取了这些合理措施之后，客观上仍然存在用户未经许可上传文字作品的情况，文库经营者难有过错可言。此时权利人可借助“通知和移除规则”保护自己的利益，即向文库经营者发出足以准确定位侵权内容的通知，以使文库经营者删除侵权内容。

环境问题作为燃眉之危机使人类不得不直面正视,乃始于环境概念的扩及全球、环境破坏之影响力波及整个地球之时。国际环境法就是在现代政治、经济、文化、科技等各种因素错综复杂的变革条件下发展起来的,它主要是将国际法的一般原则适用于国际环境领域并通过创立、维持或认可其主体之间在利用、保护和改善环境方面的权利义务关系来实现其对国际环境关系的调整。   一、国际环境法的产生 　　  随着工业化、城市化以及科学技术的迅猛发展,人类社会的活动对环境的影响大规模地超出了国界,影响到他国或不在国家管辖之下乃至地球以外与地球生态紧密联系的环境,出现了诸如淡水资源短缺、外层空间污染、自然文化遗产毁坏、湿地和山地的破坏、气候变化、大气污染、臭氧层空洞、海洋环境恶化、森林毁损、土地荒漠化、物种锐减以及生物安全等环境问题。人们开始深刻地认识到:长此以往,大自然将在不久的将来衰亡乃至崩溃,将失去供养人类的能力;人类将无立足之地藏身之所;环境问题已经成为危及整个人类生存与发展的全球性根本问题。为了保护人类赖以生存的环境,为了人类的健康和财富,为了拯救自己,我们必须采取共同的行动,进行广泛的合作,必须考虑自身的行为方式,制订规章制度以规范我们的环境行为。       1972年6月5日,人类历史上第一次环境保护的全球会议———联合国人类环境会议——在斯德哥尔摩召开。会议提出“只有一个地球”的口号,呼吁全世界各国政府和人民为维护和改善人类环境造福后代而共同努力。会议通过的《人类环境宣言》宣布,地球的自然资源不仅包括石油和矿物,也包括空气、水、动植物以及自然生态系统中的代表性样本,……人类负有特殊责任保护由野生动植物及其生存环境构成的遗产。应使可再生资源的再生能力受到保护、使不可再生资源不被耗竭。在任何情况下,充分的管理都是必要的。宣言还强调规划的统一和协调的必要性以及国际环境政策的手段:国家机构的规划和管理、运用科学技术、交换信息和进行环境教育。       《人类环境宣言》的最后是关于国际合作,对国际法的发展具有特殊意义,第21条原则规定:“依照联合国宪章和国际法原则,各国有根据其环境政策开发其资源的主权权利,各国也有义务使其管辖范围内或控制下的活动不对其他国家的环境和任何国家管辖范围以外的地区造成损害。”今天已被公认为是国际环境法的习惯规则。斯德哥尔摩大会的重大意义在于,它将环境保护问题和全面实现这一保护的立法置于全球范围内。这次大会的全球性体现在各个方面,不仅体现在环境这个概念上,也体现在世界性的机构和政策中。至此,国际环境法虽然不尽完善,但已形成体系,成为国际法的一个分支。         1972年联合国人类环境会议是国际环境保护运动发展史上的里程碑,是制订一套国际环境法规则、原则的首次尝试,是国际环境法诞生的标志。源于斯德哥尔摩环境大会的思想和方法成为以后国际环境法发展的主要特征,在法律发展方面,越来越多的国际环境法律文件被起草和通过,国际环境法成为国际法领域中发展最迅速的一个分支。 二、国际环境法的目的 　　  《世界自然宪章》指出:每种生命形式都是独特的,无论对人类的价值如何,都应得到尊重,为了承认其他有机体的内在价值,人类必须受行为道德准则的约束。同样,1992年6月5日的《生物多样性公约》也承认:“缔约国清楚地知道生物多样性的内在价值。”〔1〕越来越多的国际法律文件承认了环境要素的内在价值。这些都表达了所谓“不惟独是人类,生物的物种、生态系、景观等等,与人类一样也具有生存的权利,人类不可随意地加以否定。”这就是“自然的生存权”,它揭示了“环境”的伦理基础。       人类是自然的一部分。〔2〕没有这个自然界,人类就不能生存。人类是环境的组成部分,从这个角度看,环境的每个组成部分不仅具有直接关系到人类的价值,而且,还是一个相互关联的系统中不可缺少的要素,必须保护这个系统以确保人类的生存。尽管人类生存这个最高目标仍然是以人为中心,人类却不再被视为自然界之外或之上,而是与自然界相互联系、相互依赖的一部分。由于自然界各个部分都是相互联系的,每一部分都应受到保护,因此,国际环境法的规范是既保护人类又保护环境。       “环境”的总体乃是“生物圈”,〔3〕是指以各种生命形式为中心的宇宙的一部分,人类通过保护生物圈来保护自己。人类是生物圈中的一个组成部分,自然界与人类是同呼吸共命运的统一体。一方面,人类是自然的产物并在自然界中生存,自然遭毁灭,人类的生存和发展将会变成无源之水,无本之木;另一方面,没有人类的生存及其实践,自然界也无法显示它的存在论意义和生存论价值。这就决定了人与自然在本质上存在着一种共存共荣的关系。我们应充分认识到,地球只有一个,在可以预见的未来,人类只能生活在茫茫宇宙中如同汪洋大海中的小舟上,同舟共济。人类是一个整体,尽管生活在不同的主权国家内,但在环境保护问题上,必须齐心协力。否则,终有一天,整个人类将彻底灭绝,就如同现在地球上许多物种已经灭绝一样。地球将重归平静,大自然又会以其在过去亿万年中所显示的创造力而崛起于人类遗留的废墟之上。人类在此星球上的存活史终将降格为一段插曲———一段很成问题、毫无结果的插曲。数百年后,我们的足迹就不复存在。〔4〕         如果真正认识到这一点,那么环境的国际保护就是整个人类的最高利益,是任何其他利益所不能抵触的。保护环境是全人类———不分种族、不分地域、不论信仰、不论贫富———所有地球人应该履行,必须履行的义务。因此,我们必须理性地认识作为保护环境和自然资源、防治污染和制裁公害的规章制度的国际环境法所特有的功能。首先,国际环境法是各国维护主权和全球公益权的重要工具。国际环境法保护各国在本国和国际环境领域享有的权利。这些权利包括各国在开发利用、保护改善本国环境及自然资源时所应享有的充分主权和在国际关系中所应享有的公益权,如对国际海底区域、地球极地大陆、地球静止轨道、月球等外空实体的开发利用等;其次,国际环境法是主体之间在国际环境保护领域进行活动并解决国际环境问题的法律依据。它调整主体在国际环境领域的行动,协调其在保护和改善环境方面的关系,促进主体之间在保护国际环境领域的交流与合作,采取一致行动和有效措施,避免造成因各种原因引起的环境污染和重大损害;第三,国际环境法规定其主体特别是国家在开发、利用和保护、改善国际环境中的法律责任和义务,是保护和改善国际生态环境和生活环境的法律武器。国际环境法规定了因不适当地开发利用和其他人为原因对别国环境或不在国家管辖或控制范围内的“公域”造成损害应承担的法律责任。这种不适当的开发利用行为,在国际环境领域的表现是多方面的,如对南北极、公海、月球等天体这些人类共有资源的不当开发利用所造成的环境恶化和潜在威胁,越境污染行为所造成的损害等。也就是说,在本国辖区从事的危害环境行为,对别国或更大范围造成了损害,如污染界河、国际河流,因大量排放大气污染物所产生的酸雨物质对别国造成的酸雨危害以及因改变河道、改变天气采取的措施危害了他国的环境等等。这些都须依据国际环境法承担法律责任。        可见,国际环境法对国际环境关系的调整,是通过创立、维持或认可其主体之间在利用、保护和改善环境方面的权利义务关系来实现的。这种调整是以特定的与利用、保护和改善环境有关的法律事实的存在为根据的。例如1941年美加之间的特雷尔冶炼厂案,加拿大的特雷尔冶炼厂排放的富含二氧化硫的浓烟给毗邻的美国造成损害,两国就产生调整相互间有关权利义务的关系。国际仲裁庭裁决加拿大应对美国做出赔偿,这就规定了美国的求偿权利和加拿大的赔偿义务。由于人类释放的二氧化碳等“温室气体”在大气层中大量增加导致一种危及生命支持系统的效应———“温室效应”的出现,从而引起全球气候变暖;起泡剂生产以及使用制冷剂和喷雾剂所释放的气体,引起大气臭氧层的耗竭,而臭氧的大量损失又对人类和牲畜健康以及海洋食物链下部的一些生命形态都造成灾难性的影响。所以各国一致认为需控制和减少人类“温室气体”的排放,于是就制定《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》(1985)、《联合国气候变化框架公约》(1992)等国际条约来对各国有关的权利和义务加以调整。          总之,国际环境法对环境的保护是通过法律规则而不是通过道德规范来实现的,是通过调整其主体之间在开发利用、保护和改善环境的过程中所产生的各种国际环境关系来达到防止和解决国际环境问题的目的。其终极目标是为了保护和改善国际生态环境和生活环境,促进国际经济的发展和人类社会的进步,最终建立一个人类可持续生存的社会。 三、国际环境法的特点 　　    国际环境法作为一个正在蓬勃发展的新兴的法律部门,在具有一般法律属性及国际法的共同属性的同时,其自身还有着一些区别于其他法律部门的特点。 (一)国际法的新领域         20世纪中叶以来,国际法有了很大的发展,其表现和特点之一就是调整范围不断扩大、出现了许多新领域。国际环境法便是这些正在蓬勃发展的新领域之一。可以说,国际环境法是在国际环境问题日趋严峻的情况下形成和发展起来并逐渐成为一个新的法律部门,她为了改善和保护国际生态环境和生活环境而产生,是国际法进步和发展的必然产物。         从现代意义上说,国际法的国家责任制度已不仅仅指国家为其不法行为而承担的国际法律责任,作为国家责任的一个方面,还包括“国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任”。〔5〕国家责任的意义不仅是对国家的违反其国际义务的不当行为的国际法律责任进行追究,也是使受损害国家的利益得到合理赔偿的标准。在现代国际关系中“国家责任是指国际法主体为其国际不法行为或损害行为所应承担的国际法律责任。”〔6〕       跨界损害责任(国际法不加禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任)发展和丰富了传统国家责任理论(国家为其不法行为而承担的国际法律责任),二者有着内在的密切联系。首先,跨界损害责任概念源于传统国家责任概念,两者都旨在确定国家对其行为的后果所应承担的国际责任。在此意义上,跨界损害责任是国家责任制度的有机组成部分。其次,跨界损害责任是传统国家责任的补充和完善。由于科学技术的高速发展,高新技术的应用,人类社会工业化程度的大幅度提高,引起跨界损害的活动十分多样化,如核材料的和平利用、航天航空活动、远洋石油运输、跨界河流开发等等,这些活动对其他国家的国民人身、财产以及他国和国际社会所造成的损害日趋严重,逐渐成为国际关系中突出问题,要求国际法加以规定。但是,这些造成跨界损害的活动虽然造成了损害性后果,但行为本身并非国际法所禁止的。对于这些“国际法不加禁止的行为”所引起的损害性后果,依传统国家责任已不能得到满意的解决。鉴于传统国家责任制度的局限性和现实的需要,“跨界损害责任制度”补充和发展了传统国家责任。        反映到国际环境领域,我们十分清楚,环境质量的日益退化、大规模的环境灾难、大量的环境难民、不可逆转的生态破坏、恃强欺弱的生态侵略等等,乃是人类长期以来以“征服者”和“统治者”自居,对自然界实行无节制的索取和任意排放污染物的结果。要扭转环境质量退化,保持和谐、健康的持续发展,就必须通过变革。在这种变革中法律具有不可忽视的作用,国家和国际社会应通过制定法律制度来促进和保障这种变革。这就是不断提出新概念、新措施和新制度的国际环境法。国际环境法中的新概念、新思想、新原则、新制度、新问题,是对传统国际法的有力推动和革新。如“各国有按照其本国的环境与发展政策开发本国自然资源的主权权利,同时负有确保在其管辖范围内或在其控制下的活动不致损害其他国家或在各国管辖范围以外地区的环境的责任”的确立;关于建立新的、公平的全球伙伴关系的思想;关于对保护全球环境各国负有共同的但又有区别的责任原则;关于应对发展中国家的特殊情况和具体需要给予优先考虑;关于国家管辖范围以外的海床和海底及其底土、外层空间是“人类共同继承财产”的规定;环境安全概念的提出等,使国际合作原则得到了新发展,不仅使保护全球环境成为可能,而且将大大推动建立新的国际经济秩序,促进人类的共同发展。        毫无疑问,在保护人类环境、确立有利于人类社会可持续发展的生产和生活方式、创立新的环境规范等领域,国际环境法将日益发挥更大的作用,为国际法的进一步发展做出贡献。 (二)国际环境法的公益性        环境污染和生态破坏是危及全人类生存和发展的全球性问题,保护环境是为了全人类的共同事业和共同福利。对此,许多国际公约都在序言和条约中作了明确规定。如1972年12月29日通过的《防止倾倒废物及其他物质污染海洋公约》一开始就宣布:“本公约各缔约国,认识到海洋环境及赖以生存的生物对人类至关重要,确保对海洋环境进行管理使其质量和资源不致受到损害关系到全体人民的利益。”《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》在前言中宣布:“决心要保护人类健康和环境使其免受臭氧层变化所引起的不利影响。”《联合国气候变化框架公约》则更清楚地指出:“承认地球气候的变化及其不利影响是人类共同关心的问题”,并“决心为当代和后代保护气候系统。”        在全球化背景下,任何一个人或一个国家都不可能建立起自己的环境防线。很明显,环境保护绝不是一个人、一个地区或一个国家就能够做到的,需要全世界、全球范围的大动员,是整个人类共同的事业。面对人类共同的危机,为了人类共同的利益,人类必须采取共同的行动。因而通过国际合作,制定改善环境、保护环境的法律,就全人类而言,其显著的公益性就不言而喻了。        国际环境法的目的是保护和改善人类赖以生存的环境。保护地球环境,使人类社会得以在与自然的和谐中持续发展,是一项造福人类,惠及千秋万代的最大的、根本性的公益事业。人类社会的所有利益和价值,都不得不服从这个根本的公益。正因如此,1972年的《联合国人类环境宣言》在宣布“保护和改善人类环境是关系到全世界各国人民的幸福和经济发展的重要问题,也是全世界各国人民的迫切希望和各国政府的责任”的同时, 还宣布:“各国应进行合作,以进一步发展……国际法。”〔7〕1989年联合国大会关于召开环境与发展大会的第44/228号决议也宣布“大会认识到保护和改善环境对所有国家的重要性……决定会议在讨论发展方面的环境问题时应以下列各点为目标……。促进国际环境法的进一步发展。”〔8〕 (三)国际环境法的边缘综合性         作为国际法的一个新领域,国际环境法是一个与许多法律部门紧密交叉的边缘性法律部门,她处于多种学科的交汇点上,融汇了多种学科的知识并对多种学科产生影响,具有显著的边缘综合性。         首先,国际环境法与海洋法、国际发展法、国际经济法密切联系,互相交叉、互相影响。海洋环境保护既是海洋法的内容也是国际环境法的内容。环境问题是在人类和经济的发展过程中产生的,保护环境和合理利用自然资源是经济和社会发展的前提和不可分割的组成部分。因此,国际发展法和国际经济法包含了不少关于保护环境和公平合理开发利用自然资源的内容,它们的一些基本原则也与国际环境法基本相同。如都强调发展权是一项重要人权;发展与环境保护应协调一致;国家对其自然资源享有永久主权;应建立新的公平合理的国际经济秩序;应对不同发展水平的国家予以区别对待;发达国家对发展中国家给予优惠待遇,促进其发展和环境保护等等。这在联合国大会通过的《关于天然资源之永久主权宣言》、《建立新的国际经济秩序宣言》、《各国经济权利和义务宪章》、《发展权利宣言》等国际文件中得到了充分的反映。此外,国际环境法还适用国际公法关于处理国家间关系的各项基本原则。         其次,国际环境法还与国内法律部门互相渗透,互相交叉,如与经济法、环境法具有密切的联系。人类赖以生存的地球环境是一个整体,必须从国内和国际两个方面进行保护。国内法和国际法在保护环境方面的手段和措施有许多相同之处,虽然调整方式和手段有很大不同,国际环境法和国内环境法是在相互影响、相互作用下发展的。在国际环境法发展的初期,受国内环境法的影响很大,国际环境法中的不少制度和原则是各国国内法中共同的成功部分的延伸和发展,如环境保护与社会经济应协调发展原则、环境影响评价制度、环境监测和标准制度、污染损害赔偿制度等。反之,国际环境法的发展又影响、促进和协调国内环境法的发展。其表现是:各缔约国有义务使自己的国内立法与其缔结和参加的有关国际条约相一致。国际环境法促进国内环境法发展的例子可以举出很多,如《防止船舶和飞机倾弃废物污染海洋公约》的通过,使许多国家制定了自己的海洋倾废法规,而且采用了该公约中的许多规定;《世界遗产公约》的缔结,推动了各国保护自然文化遗产的工作和有关立法;《濒危物种国际贸易公约》通过后,许多国家根据公约的规定制定了自己的国内法规;等等。值得特别指出的是,许多国际环境法律文件都直接规定了各国有义务进行相应的国内立法。如《生物多样性公约》第6条和第16条,《联合国气候变化框架公约》第4条等。此外,环境问题与人权也交织在一起。作为“人权”之一的“环境权”中的健康权也只有在人们可以呼吸到无害健康的空气、喝到干净的水的前提下才能实现。       最后,在法学体系外,国际环境法与环境科学、伦理学、物理学、化学、天文学、地理学、生物学和经济学等学科亦有密切联系。例如,环境科学知识是国际环境法的基础知识的一部分;经济学关于经济刺激和成本-效益分析的理论被国际环境法的很多规定所采纳。 (四)国际环境法的科学技术性        由于国际关系的复杂化,由于科学技术的突飞猛进影响到社会生活的各个领域,调整国际关系的现代国际法日益紧密地与科学技术结合,从而具有越来越强的科学技术。英国国际法教授詹宁斯1983年8月24日在国际法学会第61届会议上指出,“国际法的范围扩大了、复杂化了,其主要特点是国际法要与自然科学和现代技术相结合。”〔9〕波兰国际法学家M·拉赫克斯在1983年荷兰阿塞尔国际法研究所为纪念格老秀斯诞生400周年举行的国际法讨论会上作总结发言时也特别指出,“国际法已经进入了属于科学和技术性质的领域;要解释和适用它,就必须考虑到包括物理、化学和生物在内的几乎一切科学。”他还从海洋资源、核能、电讯等方面说明科学技术对于国际法的重要性,证明法律与科学技术有着越来越密切的联系。〔10〕         国际环境法的科学技术性,首先表现在国际环境法的很多目标和规定以对它们所针对的环境问题的科学了解为依据。各国往往等待科学对某一环境问题的原因及其与后果的联系有了“相当程度的令人信服的证明”时,才会在法律上采取相应的行动。例如,1985年《保护臭氧层维也纳公约》和1992年《联合国气候变化框架公约》都是在科学家分别证明臭氧层的破坏和全球变暖问题主要是人类活动的影响所引起和各国有必要采取行动预防问题发展到不可逆转的程度才制定的。其次,国际环境法本身包含许多技术性法律规范。这些技术性法律规范是经过国际立法程序,被各国共同采纳为法律规范的技术规范。如1972年《防止船舶和飞机倾弃废物污染海洋公约》和1989年《控制危险废物越境转移及其处置巴塞尔公约》。前者将废弃物按其毒性、持久性和对生物和海洋环境的影响,分为“黑名单”、“灰名单”和“白名单”三类,分别规定禁止倾弃、经特别许可方可倾弃和经一般许可方可倾弃三种管理办法。后者在其附件三里,对危险废物的危险特性分类做了简明的界定,以利于各成员国对危险废物的识别。最后,环境污染、生态破坏及其对人类健康和社会经济的危害是有一定规律和演变机制的,人们必须运用现代科学技术从各方面进行研究才能认识这种规律和机制,必须运用现代科学技术才能实现保护环境资源的目的。所以,制定国际环境法律文件必须以现代科学技术为基础,进行科学的论证,必须在国际条约中做出相应的技术规定,将技术规范上升为国际法律规范。 四、结论 　　    国际环境法是主要作为国际法主体的国家(但不限于国家)在利用、保护和改善环境而发生的国际交往中形成的,体现它们之间由其社会经济结构决定的在利用、保护和改善环境方面的协调意志的,调整国际环境关系的法律规范的总体。它包括相关的国际条约、国际习惯和一般法律原则,国际组织(会议)的宣言、决议也是国际环境法的一部分。国际环境法表现为法律规范,即有法律约束力的行为规则,是适用于国际社会的法律,由国家作为主要的法律主体。她调整那些与利用、保护和改善环境有关的国际关系,其调整对象是广泛的。凡与利用、保护和改善环境有关的国际关系,不论它属于国际政治关系、国际经济关系还是属于其他领域的国际关系,都在国际环境法的调整范围之内。这里的“环境”,是指人类赖以生存和活动的空间环境,它包括自然因素和社会因素。自然因素指陆地、土壤、水域、大气、动物、植物、矿藏、文化和自然遗产等;社会因素诸如为保护环境而采取的政策、方针、贸易措施等与各国社会、经济条件有关的各国有关利用、保护和改善环境的影响他人环境权益的行为。        环境问题自古有之,有些国内法早就有关于环境保护的规则。中国古籍《周书》云:“春三月,山林不登斧,以成草木之长。夏三月,川泽不入网罟,以成鱼鳖之长。”又《礼记?月令》载:“孟春之月,命祀山林川泽,牺牲毋用牝;禁止伐木;毋覆巢,毋杀孩虫、胎夭、飞鸟,……。”国际上,早在19世纪的一些条约中,就已经存在保护自然的规范。但这些对环境的保护都局限在很窄的范围,没有形成对国际环境保护具有指导意义的一般原则。直到20世纪70年代,环境问题成为危及整个人类生存与发展的全球性根本问题时,国际环境法才得以产生并迅速发展。国际环境法诞生30多年来,从寻求保护环境的部门,主要规范可能对环境产生不利影响的物质到始于20世纪90年代的对环境进行综合的保护,越来越多的法律手段将对环境的法律保护建立在多方面的人类活动基础之上。         在此,我要特别加以强调的是“环境保护无国界”。水流、大气、野生物种乃至整个自然环境都不受人为国界的限制,一国境内严重的环境污染,其危害性在很多情况下会波及多个国家乃至影响整个地球的生态系统。所以,环境问题的有效解决,单靠各国的国内立法是难于实现的,国际合作是保护人类环境的必由之路,而国际法则是保证国际环境合作取得成功的必要基础,在国际环境领域的合作,必须以国际法的一般规则为基础。在现代国际关系中国际法的“国家责任是指国际法主体为其国际不法行为或损害行为所应承担的国际法律责任。”因此,从性质而论,国际环境法是国际法的一个新领域、新部门,是国际法进步和发展的必然产物。  

附作者相关采访：日本排放核污水已违反国际法

利比亚战争远远不只关乎穆阿迈尔•卡扎菲一人的命运。战争的结果将在整个中东地区引起反响，并影响今后数十年的国际政治。一项至关重要的原则处于詹急关头。 支持对利比亚进行外部干预的人认为，他们不仅是在为制止发生在利比亚的暴行而战，而且也是在为未来奠定的里程碑而战。他们想要表明，独裁者可以屠杀本国公民的时代行将结束。 法国哲学家贝尔纳•亨利一莱维表示：“在这件事上，重要的是‘干预的责任’得到了认可。”亨利莱维在利比亚反政府武装与法国总统尼古拉•萨科齐之间发挥了不可思议的桥梁作用。 美国《纽约时报》专栏作家纪思道表达了类似的观点：“当独裁者毁灭本国人民时，世界强国有权利和义务加以干预。”这种观点在2005年得到了联合国的认可。纪思道表示，干预利比亚行动就是“在落实这个新理念”。 “保护的责任”原则(俗称为R2P) 如今发挥了切实的作用——若能这么想该多好。反政府武装正沿着利比亚海岸线快速推进，干预行动的支持者想必欢欣鼓舞。 新兴强国质疑干预主义 然而，在现实中，利比亚战争与其说昭示着新黎明的到来，不如说是标志着自由干预主义的绝唱。残酷的现实是： 最热衷于倡导上述理念的西方强国，将缺乏实施更多海外干预行动所需的经济实力或民众支持。而中国、印度、巴西及其他新兴经济强国，则对干预主义的整套理念深表怀疑。 英法美都投票赞成联合国授权对利比亚动武的决议。但时髦的“金砖四国” 集团——巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国——却全都投了弃权票。 在中国、印度和巴西等国看来，实施海外干预行动会让资金、人员和影响蒙受危险，得不到什么，却会失去很多。它们的本能是管好自己的事情，致力于发展本国经济实力这一长远目标。 诚然，发生在利比亚的屠杀或许是不幸的——但班加西距离北京或巴西利亚都十分遥远。 情况有些复杂。德国投了弃权票，可这么做等于自行脱离了西方主流。获邀出席下届金砖国家峰会的南非投了赞成票，但其后却高声谴责针对利比亚的轰炸行动。 因此总体局势已然明了。老牌西方强国仍满怀在世界匡扶正义的使命感。而新兴强国则谨慎得多，也更加以自我为中心。 但是，西方盟国是在自身财力不断萎缩的背景下作战的。 英国刚刚宣布了大规模削减国防开支的计划，法国也在竭力控制预算赤字，以维持其福利制度。 对于出兵利比亚这项新使命，美军的不情愿也显而易见。美国总统奥巴马和军方将领都明白，美国总统能够干脆地说出美国将“不惜一切代价”的时代已经结束。 美军参谋长联席会议主席迈克• 马伦曾表示，美国国家安全面临的最大威胁是预算赤字。在后伊拉克和后阿富汗时代，美国民众对海外军事行动的支持也较为有限。 西方国家愈加力不从心 当然，假如利比亚干预行动能够迅速并圆满收场——卡扎菲被赶下台，人们聚集在的黎波里欢呼—一那么，自由干预主义将得到褒奖。 但是，成功埋下的隐患可能不亚于失败。每次成功的干预行动，都将引发新的干预需求，而这种需求向来就不会短缺。 事实上，叙利亚政府枪杀平民事件，就已经提出了这个问题。然而，西方强国面对的干预需求越多，那种越来越力不从心的现象就会愈加明显。 假如有那么一天，“金砖四国”及其他新兴强国改变了对自由干预主义的态度，或许能填平财力与雄心之间的鸿沟。但眼下根本看不到这方面的苗头。 中国政府对外国有权干预一个主权国家、以制止侵犯人权行为的观点非常警惕。经历过车臣问题的俄罗斯亦是如此。 对印度、巴西和南非来说，曾经作为殖民地的历史促使它们对寻求在世界各地使用武力的西方强国的动机抱有怀疑态度。而且，这些新兴强国还不习惯以全球视野来思考问题。 相比之下，英国和法国仍然保持着全球思维的本能，只是缺乏相应的财力支撑。就连当前的全球超级军事强国美国，也正发出越来越不愿意充当世界警察的强烈信号。 在维多利亚时代，英国人曾经唱道： “我们不想打仗，但是一旦开战，我们有船，有人，也有钱。” 干预利比亚行动给人的感觉更像是这首老歌的最后一次回放，而非开创一个新时代的大胆宣言。

我在课堂上问：“说到‘现代’这个词，你们第一个想到的是什么？”二、三年级的本科生，七嘴八舌：“手机！”“磁悬浮”！“互联网！”“3D电影！”…… 我知道，他们实际所指的，并非只是手机和磁悬浮，而是被这手机组织起来的人际交往，和被高速火车不断扩大的活动范围。但是，他们脱口而出的，都是技术及其制品的名称，你就不由得不感慨：技术对人生的干预，确是厉害！ 这感慨也是老生常谈，谁不知道呢。但是，泛泛地知道技术改变人生，是一回事，面对具体的状况，能不能记得技术的厉害，又是另一回事了。比如，都知道十年来网络游戏风靡天下，再偏僻的小镇，只要有网吧，附近的十五六岁的少年，就很少没有玩过《魔兽世界》之类、被其深深吸引的。可是，当我们谈论未来——不用很遥远，十年以后吧——的文化、未来的戏剧电影文学等等的时候，有多少人是认真将网络游戏算作一项重要的影响参数的？譬如我，要不是被一位老朋友点醒，大概至今也不会意识到，“网游”和——比如说——文学有什么大关系。 老朋友是小说家，北美名校的比较文学博士，人虽长居纽约，视线却不离中国小说，差不多二十年了，只要听说大陆有哪个年轻人写得有意思，他就会找他的作品来读。去年，在电话里，他忽然说：“有些新的小说，我真读不懂了，这么多年，这还是第一次……”我明白他的意思，他所谓“不懂”，并非指这些小说的字面意思，而是指它们背后的样板。 小说不是孙悟空，凭空从石头缝里蹦出来，再天马行空的作家，真写起来，也是有所依凭、有所本根的，只不过他自己经常不觉得。越是结构严密的现代社会，艺术创作者——不只是文学家——的所依和所本，越容易受社会的支配性文化的影响。家庭氛围、学校教育、人际交往、传媒熏染…… 几乎所有这些层面，荒莽之地都消失了，一切都被纳入结构，虽然不见得都放妥帖了，但也难有在结构的大网之外独自生长的空间。你可以激愤地冲撞这网，但你全身肌肉的紧张，依然暴露出与它的密切关系。甚至你深层的心理和生理组织，都刻着这密网的烙印，而你几乎全部的反抗之心，正是从这些组织中迸发。这就是为什么，当阅读1980年代中期的那些字面上扑朔迷离的“先锋”小说的时候，我们并不真地看不懂。我们知道，是哪些作家——尤奈斯库、博尔赫斯，等等——站在这些作品的后面充当样板，我们也知道，是怎样的社会政治和文化教育，特别将这些作家送上了样板的位置。 因此，当老朋友说自己真的看不懂的时候，他其实是说，在这些小说背后，有一些新的样板，和造就它们的更深层次的新的社会和文化结构，一同出现了。 是不是说得太夸张了？当今世界，大凡有一点记性的，都会强烈感觉到生活它的停滞和陈腐。许多重大的事情，比如，总是有一部分人压迫更多的人，这事情就从过去一直延续到现在，而且好像还要再延续很多年。由此引发的许多人生难题，也就一代接一代地压在人们心头。比如，历史究竟是听权势者的，老百姓只要挤进跟班的队伍，跟着走就行了？还是果真由“人民”创造，我们虽然人微言轻，只要尽力参与，就也能一起决定大伙儿的命运？150年前龚自珍们在京郊寺庙里酒酣耳热辩论的，和今天白领们在写字楼里暗自嘀咕的，不都有一部分，是继续这个难题吗？ 当被这样的感受压得很难受的时候，遇见有人欢欣鼓舞：“进步真快啊，你看咱的“高铁”，时速400公里了！”我们的第一反应，大概都是这么粗鲁的吧：“你不长眼睛啊……” 但是，这只是世界的一面。当代人生的一大诡异之处，就在于让你同时经历两种强烈的感受：一些绝对重大的事情的出乎意料的稳定，和另一些不能说不重要的状况的加速度变化。1950年代，丘吉尔说，只要25年，就可以造就完全不同的一代人；今天，这世界的许多地方，大概不用十年，人跟人就能生出“代沟”来。我就听不止一位的“80后”抱怨：“那些‘90后’啊，看不懂……”套用狄更斯的句式：这是一个不变的时代，也是一个变化越来越快的时代。  在这矛盾现象的底下，是整个社会基础的分裂。一方面，社会各部分的联系越来越紧密，世界越来越一体，支配性的社会结构，因此能更细密地掌控全局，不容有一小片化外之地存在；另一方面，正因为结构之网太大太密，强势力量必不可免地过度膨胀，凡它所欲之物，全力催肥，它没兴趣的，弃之如敝履，人类生活各部分之间长久遗存的平衡和弹性联系，就势必被深度破坏，社会的地面，反而愈益倾斜。这就又会激出许多变化，一潭死水中忽然涌起大团泡沫，径自升腾，也就成了当代的常见景观。 这一类景象看得多了，你甚至会怀疑：当今世界，“一潭死水”的定义是不是已经改了？它不再只是表现为波纹不起、腐色凝集，而是越来越经常地现身为波澜迭起、云气蒸腾？或许，正是靠着泡沫式的速变景象，死水才能继续稳坐潭中央？ 不用说，各种径自升腾者中，“科技”要算头一名。在今天，它也许不再能从达·芬奇式的狂想中，汲取大部分的灵感，无数个人胡思乱想、自由探索宇宙奥秘的时代，至少现在看起来是快要结束了。瞧瞧大学就可以知道，如今的“科技”“研发”，越来越听命于资本的逻辑i，依照市场的节拍踏步。但是，也惟其如此，它反而得到持续的强力推动，能在社会的其他方面都黯淡不堪的情形下，孤身“进步”。 别小看了这“进步”。它绝不只是表现为“3G”或“黑莓”取代前两代手机那样的花拳绣腿。虽然广告上吹嘘的大部分商品的“升级换代”，都是近于蒙人，但我们必须看到，今天这样的“科技”“进步”的根本结果，却绝非只在忽悠人进商场，而是要从根本上改造人。资本逻辑的最终意图，是不断将人改造成更贴切地符合资本增值之需要的劳动力和消费者，因此，“科技”越是被“研发”成资本增值的利器，它就越会对准人的根本处，频出高招。 如今风靡的网络游戏，是否就是这高招之一？ 网络游戏本身是一种商品，它催生了一个庞大的产业，许多公司大赚其钱。但是，就像它的中文缩写——“网游”——的双重词性所暗示的，它不仅是名词，更是动词，不仅意味着一种新的游戏，更意味着一种玩游戏的方式、一种被这个方式引领着蓬勃展开的网上生活。因此，它的真正的下手处，是年轻和年少——乃至年幼——玩家的心智习惯。去年初夏，在意大利帕多瓦的机场候机楼，我就看到一个最多七八岁的金发小孩，目不转睛地玩一款单机游戏。登机了，妈妈多次唤他，差不多要发火了，他却依旧如被钉在游戏机前那样，继续目不转睛——我至今不明白，为什么那座候机楼里会设置这种机器！ 想象一下：这个孩子回家之后，如何急切地溜进自己的小房间，关门、开电脑、一头扑进那个游戏…… 他每天都尽可能挤出时间接着玩；他很快就不满足单机游戏，开始多人“网游”；他就这样一年一年长大，越来越习惯于呆在“网游”的世界里；而同时，他大学毕业、搬出父母家、踏进“真实”的社会了；他甚至开始有点不那么迷恋“网游”了。但是，当他端详眼前这个“真实”社会的时候，他内心的那些在“网游”世界进进出出所养成的习惯——节奏感、空间感、兴奋点、注意力、想象力、逻辑意识、情绪倾向，乃至审美情趣、文化认同和善恶观，却会一齐顺着他的视线进入对象。他越是深入“真实”的现实，可能越分不清什么是虚拟、什么非虚拟。新的感受吸收得越多，过去的记忆就越受刺激、越活跃。老人常说，生活比小说更离奇；他却可能觉得，跟“魔兽”的世界相比，现实根本不值得兴奋…… 绝不只是一个金头发的孩子。全世界各种发色的孩子和非孩子，都正在卷入类似的心理历程，黑头发的中国人，也是一样。这会造成什么后果？随着时间的推移，后果是不是越来越多？今天，已经有不少“网瘾”研究者相信：数千万陷入“网瘾”的中国青少年当中，一半是被“网游”推下去的。ii 韩国和美国则都有评论家认为，目前这样的“网游”的流行，明显助长了凡事从效率出发的“资本主义工具理性”。iii 当上海一家大型网游公司的代表自豪地宣布，“本土文化”将成为他们设计新游戏的核心素材的时候，他显然觉得，这是在培养未来中国人的国家认同。而一位跨国企业的高级经理向我笑谈那些痴迷“网游”的年轻同事：“总是两眼直视前方，眼球好像不习惯左右转动一样！”玩笑的口气，掩不住对他们缺乏对周围人事的热情的忧虑。…… 当然，情况还在发展当中，现在远不到能看清后果的时候。以目前的粗略观察和报告，也还难以判断，网络游戏的风靡，到底跟资本的逻辑是什么关系。1998年，韩国爆发金融危机，大批青年人上线玩《天堂》，“网游”似乎开出了逃避现实的新路口，让人更容易忍受压迫。2010年，一群中国的资深“魔兽玩家”，却发布视频长片《网瘾战争》，辛辣抨击野蛮的“网瘾”治疗、网络管控和“网游”审查制度，掀起了一阵“渴望自由和公正的怒吼”！iv  你也许要说，是被逼得没路走了，才这么“怒吼”的，如果用“国服”能顺畅地玩下去，他们大概会和十年前的韩国玩家一样，继续埋头“宅”着吧？也许是这样。但也许不。现代的各种物质和精神条件，的确加速度地强化了城市人对于室内空间的依赖，在减弱我们的生理能力——例如望远的视力——的同时，让我们误以为外面的事情不重要，有一间房子，让我下班以后舒舒服服地呆着，日子就能过了。但是，另一方面，也是这些条件——至少是其中的一部分，明显降低了不同的室内空间在公共影响力上的悬殊差异。这方面一个最新的例子，就是“维基解密”：瑞典的一个小山洞，竟能在一时间，令白宫都手忙脚乱。当“懦弱”地“宅”在“蜗居”和“蚁居”里的少年和青年人，经由各种网上交往——包括“网游”，体验到无数“细小声音”汇合的效应之后，他们对自己和现实之间力量对比的消极感受，会不会改变呢？  这些年来，我一直相信，互联网正在有力地改变中国。但我也听到许多对网络世界的激烈的批评，看到有愤而关闭博客者说，博客的世界，其实和现实一样糟糕，我已经活在这个现实中了，为什么还要开博客？！我在前面提出的那个问题——今天这样的“网游”的风靡，究竟会给资本的逻辑，也给我们这个社会，带来什么？是并不容易回答的。 但有一点可以肯定，“网游”已经改变了许许多多今天的青年甚至中年人，并且正在更深刻地改变未来的更多的青年和中年人。人变了，别的也都会变。即以中国的文学来说，当那些习惯于进网吧、宅电脑的少年人日后成为文学阅读的主体人群、其中许多更成为未来作家的主体部分的时候，《传奇》和《魔兽世界》们，势必要把尤奈斯库和博尔赫斯们挤到一边，充任文学感受和小说构思的首席样板吧？由此强化的那种习惯在室内的方寸之地和仿佛无边的虚拟世界之间来来回回、并以此组织其他生活感受的心智方式，对于未来的中国文学，也必然有更深远的影响吧？ 这样的或类似这样的变化，并非只是将来时，有的已经发生了。拿2010年的中国文学地图，对比1990年的，谁能说变化小！v  当今社会，资本逻辑的覆盖面越来越大，但也总有它不能一手遮天的地方，江河湖海，依然会游出大大小小的漏网之鱼。所以，面对各种与不变相伴、以其为前提、甚至充任其化身的变化，即便一时看不清其后果，也完全不必悲观。但这有个前提，就是不能继续如我这般迟钝。无论是为了理解和改变世界，还是小而言之，为了读懂那些很大程度上是依照玩《魔兽世界》时养成的心智习惯写出来的诗歌和小说，我们都必须直面现实的变化，而且——因为已经迟钝得太久了——从现在就开始。                                              2010年1月 屯门

BARTLEBY, THE SCRIVENER.A STORY OF WALL-STREET.I am a rather elderly man. The nature of my avocations for the last thirty years has brought me into more than ordinary contact with what would seem an interesting and somewhat singular set of men, of whom as yet nothing that I know of has ever been written:—I mean the law-copyists or scriveners. I have known very many of them, professionally and privately, and if I pleased, could relate divers histories, at which good-natured gentlemen might smile, and sentimental souls might weep. But I waive the biographies of all other scriveners for a few passages in the life of Bartleby, who was a scrivener of the strangest I ever saw or heard of. While of other law-copyists I might write the complete life, of Bartleby nothing of that sort can be done. I believe that no materials exist for a full and satisfactory biography of this man. It is an irreparable loss to literature. Bartleby was one of those beings of whom nothing is ascertainable, except from the original sources, and in his case those are very small. What my own astonished eyes saw of Bartleby, that is all I know of him, except, indeed, one vague report which will appear in the sequel.Ere introducing the scrivener, as he first appeared to me, it is fit I make some mention of myself, my employees, my business, my chambers, and general surroundings; because some such description is indispensable to an adequate understanding of the chief character about to be presented.Imprimis: I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best. Hence, though I belong to a profession proverbially energetic and nervous, even to turbulence, at times, yet nothing of that sort have I ever suffered to invade my peace. I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury, or in any way draws down public applause; but in the cool tranquility of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men's bonds and mortgages and title-deeds. All who know me, consider me an eminently safe man. The late John Jacob Astor, a personage little given to poetic enthusiasm, had no hesitation in pronouncing my first grand point to be prudence; my next, method. I do not speak it in vanity, but simply record the fact, that I was not unemployed in my profession by the late John Jacob Astor; a name which, I admit, I love to repeat, for it hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and rings like unto bullion. I will freely add, that I was not insensible to the late John Jacob Astor's good opinion.Some time prior to the period at which this little history begins, my avocations had been largely increased. The good old office, now extinct in the State of New York, of a Master in Chancery, had been conferred upon me. It was not a very arduous office, but very pleasantly remunerative. I seldom lose my temper; much more seldom indulge in dangerous indignation at wrongs and outrages; but I must be permitted to be rash here and declare, that I consider the sudden and violent abrogation of the office of Master in Chancery, by the new Constitution, as a—premature act; inasmuch as I had counted upon a life-lease of the profits, whereas I only received those of a few short years. But this is by the way.My chambers were up stairs at No.—Wall-street. At one end they looked upon the white wall of the interior of a spacious sky-light shaft, penetrating the building from top to bottom. This view might have been considered rather tame than otherwise, deficient in what landscape painters call "life." But if so, the view from the other end of my chambers offered, at least, a contrast, if nothing more. In that direction my windows commanded an unobstructed view of a lofty brick wall, black by age and everlasting shade; which wall required no spy-glass to bring out its lurking beauties, but for the benefit of all near-sighted spectators, was pushed up to within ten feet of my window panes. Owing to the great height of the surrounding buildings, and my chambers being on the second floor, the interval between this wall and mine not a little resembled a huge square cistern.At the period just preceding the advent of Bartleby, I had two persons as copyists in my employment, and a promising lad as an office-boy. First, Turkey; second, Nippers; third, Ginger Nut. These may seem names, the like of which are not usually found in the Directory. In truth they were nicknames, mutually conferred upon each other by my three clerks, and were deemed expressive of their respective persons or characters. Turkey was a short, pursy Englishman of about my own age, that is, somewhere not far from sixty. In the morning, one might say, his face was of a fine florid hue, but after twelve o'clock, meridian—his dinner hour—it blazed like a grate full of Christmas coals; and continued blazing—but, as it were, with a gradual wane—till 6 o'clock, P.M. or thereabouts, after which I saw no more of the proprietor of the face, which gaining its meridian with the sun, seemed to set with it, to rise, culminate, and decline the following day, with the like regularity and undiminished glory. There are many singular coincidences I have known in the course of my life, not the least among which was the fact, that exactly when Turkey displayed his fullest beams from his red and radiant countenance, just then, too, at that critical moment, began the daily period when I considered his business capacities as seriously disturbed for the remainder of the twenty-four hours. Not that he was absolutely idle, or averse to business then; far from it. The difficulty was, he was apt to be altogether too energetic. There was a strange, inflamed, flurried, flighty recklessness of activity about him. He would be incautious in dipping his pen into his inkstand. All his blots upon my documents, were dropped there after twelve o'clock, meridian. Indeed, not only would he be reckless and sadly given to making blots in the afternoon, but some days he went further, and was rather noisy. At such times, too, his face flamed with augmented blazonry, as if cannel coal had been heaped on anthracite. He made an unpleasant racket with his chair; spilled his sand-box; in mending his pens, impatiently split them all to pieces, and threw them on the floor in a sudden passion; stood up and leaned over his table, boxing his papers about in a most indecorous manner, very sad to behold in an elderly man like him. Nevertheless, as he was in many ways a most valuable person to me, and all the time before twelve o'clock, meridian, was the quickest, steadiest creature too, accomplishing a great deal of work in a style not easy to be matched—for these reasons, I was willing to overlook his eccentricities, though indeed, occasionally, I remonstrated with him. I did this very gently, however, because, though the civilest, nay, the blandest and most reverential of men in the morning, yet in the afternoon he was disposed, upon provocation, to be slightly rash with his tongue, in fact, insolent. Now, valuing his morning services as I did, and resolved not to lose them; yet, at the same time made uncomfortable by his inflamed ways after twelve o'clock; and being a man of peace, unwilling by my admonitions to call forth unseemly retorts from him; I took upon me, one Saturday noon (he was always worse on Saturdays), to hint to him, very kindly, that perhaps now that he was growing old, it might be well to abridge his labors; in short, he need not come to my chambers after twelve o'clock, but, dinner over, had best go home to his lodgings and rest himself till teatime. But no; he insisted upon his afternoon devotions. His countenance became intolerably fervid, as he oratorically assured me—gesticulating with a long ruler at the other end of the room—that if his services in the morning were useful, how indispensable, then, in the afternoon?"With submission, sir," said Turkey on this occasion, "I consider myself your right-hand man. In the morning I but marshal and deploy my columns; but in the afternoon I put myself at their head, and gallantly charge the foe, thus!"—and he made a violent thrust with the ruler."But the blots, Turkey," intimated I."True,—but, with submission, sir, behold these hairs! I am getting old. Surely, sir, a blot or two of a warm afternoon is not to be severely urged against gray hairs. Old age—even if it blot the page—is honorable. With submission, sir, we both are getting old."This appeal to my fellow-feeling was hardly to be resisted. At all events, I saw that go he would not. So I made up my mind to let him stay, resolving, nevertheless, to see to it, that during the afternoon he had to do with my less important papers.Nippers, the second on my list, was a whiskered, sallow, and, upon the whole, rather piratical-looking young man of about five and twenty. I always deemed him the victim of two evil powers—ambition and indigestion. The ambition was evinced by a certain impatience of the duties of a mere copyist, an unwarrantable usurpation of strictly professional affairs, such as the original drawing up of legal documents. The indigestion seemed betokened in an occasional nervous testiness and grinning irritability, causing the teeth to audibly grind together over mistakes committed in copying; unnecessary maledictions, hissed, rather than spoken, in the heat of business; and especially by a continual discontent with the height of the table where he worked. Though of a very ingenious mechanical turn, Nippers could never get this table to suit him. He put chips under it, blocks of various sorts, bits of pasteboard, and at last went so far as to attempt an exquisite adjustment by final pieces of folded blotting paper. But no invention would answer. If, for the sake of easing his back, he brought the table lid at a sharp angle well up towards his chin, and wrote there like a man using the steep roof of a Dutch house for his desk:—then he declared that it stopped the circulation in his arms. If now he lowered the table to his waistbands, and stooped over it in writing, then there was a sore aching in his back. In short, the truth of the matter was, Nippers knew not what he wanted. Or, if he wanted any thing, it was to be rid of a scrivener's table altogether. Among the manifestations of his diseased ambition was a fondness he had for receiving visits from certain ambiguous-looking fellows in seedy coats, whom he called his clients. Indeed I was aware that not only was he, at times, considerable of a ward-politician, but he occasionally did a little business at the Justices' courts, and was not unknown on the steps of the Tombs. I have good reason to believe, however, that one individual who called upon him at my chambers, and who, with a grand air, he insisted was his client, was no other than a dun, and the alleged title-deed, a bill. But with all his failings, and the annoyances he caused me, Nippers, like his compatriot Turkey, was a very useful man to me; wrote a neat, swift hand; and, when he chose, was not deficient in a gentlemanly sort of deportment. Added to this, he always dressed in a gentlemanly sort of way; and so, incidentally, reflected credit upon my chambers. Whereas with respect to Turkey, I had much ado to keep him from being a reproach to me. His clothes were apt to look oily and smell of eating-houses. He wore his pantaloons very loose and baggy in summer. His coats were execrable; his hat not to be handled. But while the hat was a thing of indifference to me, inasmuch as his natural civility and deference, as a dependent Englishman, always led him to doff it the moment he entered the room, yet his coat was another matter. Concerning his coats, I reasoned with him; but with no effect. The truth was, I suppose, that a man of so small an income, could not afford to sport such a lustrous face and a lustrous coat at one and the same time. As Nippers once observed, Turkey's money went chiefly for red ink. One winter day I presented Turkey with a highly-respectable looking coat of my own, a padded gray coat, of a most comfortable warmth, and which buttoned straight up from the knee to the neck. I thought Turkey would appreciate the favor, and abate his rashness and obstreperousness of afternoons. But no. I verily believe that buttoning himself up in so downy and blanket-like a coat had a pernicious effect upon him; upon the same principle that too much oats are bad for horses. In fact, precisely as a rash, restive horse is said to feel his oats, so Turkey felt his coat. It made him insolent. He was a man whom prosperity harmed.Though concerning the self-indulgent habits of Turkey I had my own private surmises, yet touching Nippers I was well persuaded that whatever might by his faults in other respects, he was, at least, a temperate young man. But indeed, nature herself seemed to have been his vintner, and at his birth charged him so thoroughly with an irritable, brandy-like disposition, that all subsequent potations were needless. When I consider how, amid the stillness of my chambers, Nippers would sometimes impatiently rise from his seat, and stooping over his table, spread his arms wide apart, seize the whole desk, and move it, and jerk it, with a grim, grinding motion on the floor, as if the table were a perverse voluntary agent, intent on thwarting and vexing him; I plainly perceive that for Nippers, brandy and water were altogether superfluous.It was fortunate for me that, owing to its peculiar cause—indigestion—the irritability and consequent nervousness of Nippers, were mainly observable in the morning, while in the afternoon he was comparatively mild. So that Turkey's paroxysms only coming on about twelve o'clock, I never had to do with their eccentricities at one time. Their fits relieved each other like guards. When Nippers' was on, Turkey's was off; and vice versa. This was a good natural arrangement under the circumstances.Ginger Nut, the third on my list, was a lad some twelve years old. His father was a carman, ambitious of seeing his son on the bench instead of a cart, before he died. So he sent him to my office as student at law, errand boy, and cleaner and sweeper, at the rate of one dollar a week. He had a little desk to himself, but he did not use it much. Upon inspection, the drawer exhibited a great array of the shells of various sorts of nuts. Indeed, to this quick-witted youth the whole noble science of the law was contained in a nut-shell. Not the least among the employments of Ginger Nut, as well as one which he discharged with the most alacrity, was his duty as cake and apple purveyor for Turkey and Nippers. Copying law papers being proverbially dry, husky sort of business, my two scriveners were fain to moisten their mouths very often with Spitzenbergs to be had at the numerous stalls nigh the Custom House and Post Office. Also, they sent Ginger Nut very frequently for that peculiar cake—small, flat, round, and very spicy—after which he had been named by them. Of a cold morning when business was but dull, Turkey would gobble up scores of these cakes, as if they were mere wafers—indeed they sell them at the rate of six or eight for a penny—the scrape of his pen blending with the crunching of the crisp particles in his mouth. Of all the fiery afternoon blunders and flurried rashnesses of Turkey, was his once moistening a ginger-cake between his lips, and clapping it on to a mortgage for a seal. I came within an ace of dismissing him then. But he mollified me by making an oriental bow, and saying—"With submission, sir, it was generous of me to find you in stationery on my own account."Now my original business—that of a conveyancer and title hunter, and drawer-up of recondite documents of all sorts—was considerably increased by receiving the master's office. There was now great work for scriveners. Not only must I push the clerks already with me, but I must have additional help. In answer to my advertisement, a motionless young man one morning, stood upon my office threshold, the door being open, for it was summer. I can see that figure now—pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn! It was Bartleby.After a few words touching his qualifications, I engaged him, glad to have among my corps of copyists a man of so singularly sedate an aspect, which I thought might operate beneficially upon the flighty temper of Turkey, and the fiery one of Nippers.I should have stated before that ground glass folding-doors divided my premises into two parts, one of which was occupied by my scriveners, the other by myself. According to my humor I threw open these doors, or closed them. I resolved to assign Bartleby a corner by the folding-doors, but on my side of them, so as to have this quiet man within easy call, in case any trifling thing was to be done. I placed his desk close up to a small side-window in that part of the room, a window which originally had afforded a lateral view of certain grimy back-yards and bricks, but which, owing to subsequent erections, commanded at present no view at all, though it gave some light. Within three feet of the panes was a wall, and the light came down from far above, between two lofty buildings, as from a very small opening in a dome. Still further to a satisfactory arrangement, I procured a high green folding screen, which might entirely isolate Bartleby from my sight, though not remove him from my voice. And thus, in a manner, privacy and society were conjoined.At first Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion. He ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light. I should have been quite delighted with his application, had he been cheerfully industrious. But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically.It is, of course, an indispensable part of a scrivener's business to verify the accuracy of his copy, word by word. Where there are two or more scriveners in an office, they assist each other in this examination, one reading from the copy, the other holding the original. It is a very dull, wearisome, and lethargic affair. I can readily imagine that to some sanguine temperaments it would be altogether intolerable. For example, I cannot credit that the mettlesome poet Byron would have contentedly sat down with Bartleby to examine a law document of, say five hundred pages, closely written in a crimpy hand.Now and then, in the haste of business, it had been my habit to assist in comparing some brief document myself, calling Turkey or Nippers for this purpose. One object I had in placing Bartleby so handy to me behind the screen, was to avail myself of his services on such trivial occasions. It was on the third day, I think, of his being with me, and before any necessity had arisen for having his own writing examined, that, being much hurried to complete a small affair I had in hand, I abruptly called to Bartleby. In my haste and natural expectancy of instant compliance, I sat with my head bent over the original on my desk, and my right hand sideways, and somewhat nervously extended with the copy, so that immediately upon emerging from his retreat, Bartleby might snatch it and proceed to business without the least delay.In this very attitude did I sit when I called to him, rapidly stating what it was I wanted him to do—namely, to examine a small paper with me. Imagine my surprise, nay, my consternation, when without moving from his privacy, Bartleby in a singularly mild, firm voice, replied, "I would prefer not to."I sat awhile in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties. Immediately it occurred to me that my ears had deceived me, or Bartleby had entirely misunderstood my meaning. I repeated my request in the clearest tone I could assume. But in quite as clear a one came the previous reply, "I would prefer not to.""Prefer not to," echoed I, rising in high excitement, and crossing the room with a stride. "What do you mean? Are you moon-struck? I want you to help me compare this sheet here—take it," and I thrust it towards him."I would prefer not to," said he.I looked at him steadfastly. His face was leanly composed; his gray eye dimly calm. Not a wrinkle of agitation rippled him. Had there been the least uneasiness, anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner; in other words, had there been any thing ordinarily human about him, doubtless I should have violently dismissed him from the premises. But as it was, I should have as soon thought of turning my pale plaster-of-paris bust of Cicero out of doors. I stood gazing at him awhile, as he went on with his own writing, and then reseated myself at my desk. This is very strange, thought I. What had one best do? But my business hurried me. I concluded to forget the matter for the present, reserving it for my future leisure. So calling Nippers from the other room, the paper was speedily examined.A few days after this, Bartleby concluded four lengthy documents, being quadruplicates of a week's testimony taken before me in my High Court of Chancery. It became necessary to examine them. It was an important suit, and great accuracy was imperative. Having all things arranged I called Turkey, Nippers and Ginger Nut from the next room, meaning to place the four copies in the hands of my four clerks, while I should read from the original. Accordingly Turkey, Nippers and Ginger Nut had taken their seats in a row, each with his document in hand, when I called to Bartleby to join this interesting group."Bartleby! quick, I am waiting."I heard a slow scrape of his chair legs on the uncarpeted floor, and soon he appeared standing at the entrance of his hermitage."What is wanted?" said he mildly."The copies, the copies," said I hurriedly. "We are going to examine them. There"—and I held towards him the fourth quadruplicate."I would prefer not to," he said, and gently disappeared behind the screen.For a few moments I was turned into a pillar of salt, standing at the head of my seated column of clerks. Recovering myself, I advanced towards the screen, and demanded the reason for such extraordinary conduct."Why do you refuse?""I would prefer not to."With any other man I should have flown outright into a dreadful passion, scorned all further words, and thrust him ignominiously from my presence. But there was something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed me, but in a wonderful manner touched and disconcerted me. I began to reason with him."These are your own copies we are about to examine. It is labor saving to you, because one examination will answer for your four papers. It is common usage. Every copyist is bound to help examine his copy. Is it not so? Will you not speak? Answer!""I prefer not to," he replied in a flute-like tone. It seemed to me that while I had been addressing him, he carefully revolved every statement that I made; fully comprehended the meaning; could not gainsay the irresistible conclusions; but, at the same time, some paramount consideration prevailed with him to reply as he did."You are decided, then, not to comply with my request—a request made according to common usage and common sense?"He briefly gave me to understand that on that point my judgment was sound. Yes: his decision was irreversible.It is not seldom the case that when a man is browbeaten in some unprecedented and violently unreasonable way, he begins to stagger in his own plainest faith. He begins, as it were, vaguely to surmise that, wonderful as it may be, all the justice and all the reason is on the other side. Accordingly, if any disinterested persons are present, he turns to them for some reinforcement for his own faltering mind."Turkey," said I, "what do you think of this? Am I not right?""With submission, sir," said Turkey, with his blandest tone, "I think that you are.""Nippers," said I, "what do you think of it?""I think I should kick him out of the office."(The reader of nice perceptions will here perceive that, it being morning, Turkey's answer is couched in polite and tranquil terms, but Nippers replies in ill-tempered ones. Or, to repeat a previous sentence, Nippers' ugly mood was on duty and Turkey's off.)"Ginger Nut," said I, willing to enlist the smallest suffrage in my behalf, "what do you think of it?""I think, sir, he's a little luny," replied Ginger Nut with a grin."You hear what they say," said I, turning towards the screen, "come forth and do your duty."But he vouchsafed no reply. I pondered a moment in sore perplexity. But once more business hurried me. I determined again to postpone the consideration of this dilemma to my future leisure. With a little trouble we made out to examine the papers without Bartleby, though at every page or two, Turkey deferentially dropped his opinion that this proceeding was quite out of the common; while Nippers, twitching in his chair with a dyspeptic nervousness, ground out between his set teeth occasional hissing maledictions against the stubborn oaf behind the screen. And for his (Nippers') part, this was the first and the last time he would do another man's business without pay.Meanwhile Bartleby sat in his hermitage, oblivious to every thing but his own peculiar business there.Some days passed, the scrivener being employed upon another lengthy work. His late remarkable conduct led me to regard his ways narrowly. I observed that he never went to dinner; indeed that he never went any where. As yet I had never of my personal knowledge known him to be outside of my office. He was a perpetual sentry in the corner. At about eleven o'clock though, in the morning, I noticed that Ginger Nut would advance toward the opening in Bartleby's screen, as if silently beckoned thither by a gesture invisible to me where I sat. The boy would then leave the office jingling a few pence, and reappear with a handful of ginger-nuts which he delivered in the hermitage, receiving two of the cakes for his trouble.He lives, then, on ginger-nuts, thought I; never eats a dinner, properly speaking; he must be a vegetarian then; but no; he never eats even vegetables, he eats nothing but ginger-nuts. My mind then ran on in reveries concerning the probable effects upon the human constitution of living entirely on ginger-nuts. Ginger-nuts are so called because they contain ginger as one of their peculiar constituents, and the final flavoring one. Now what was ginger? A hot, spicy thing. Was Bartleby hot and spicy? Not at all. Ginger, then, had no effect upon Bartleby. Probably he preferred it should have none.Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance. If the individual so resisted be of a not inhumane temper, and the resisting one perfectly harmless in his passivity; then, in the better moods of the former, he will endeavor charitably to construe to his imagination what proves impossible to be solved by his judgment. Even so, for the most part, I regarded Bartleby and his ways. Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence; his aspect sufficiently evinces that his eccentricities are involuntary. He is useful to me. I can get along with him. If I turn him away, the chances are he will fall in with some less indulgent employer, and then he will be rudely treated, and perhaps driven forth miserably to starve. Yes. Here I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval. To befriend Bartleby; to humor him in his strange willfulness, will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience. But this mood was not invariable with me. The passiveness of Bartleby sometimes irritated me. I felt strangely goaded on to encounter him in new opposition, to elicit some angry spark from him answerable to my own. But indeed I might as well have essayed to strike fire with my knuckles against a bit of Windsor soap. But one afternoon the evil impulse in me mastered me, and the following little scene ensued:"Bartleby," said I, "when those papers are all copied, I will compare them with you.""I would prefer not to.""How? Surely you do not mean to persist in that mulish vagary?"No answer.I threw open the folding-doors near by, and turning upon Turkey andNippers, exclaimed in an excited manner—"He says, a second time, he won't examine his papers. What do you think of it, Turkey?"It was afternoon, be it remembered. Turkey sat glowing like a brass boiler, his bald head steaming, his hands reeling among his blotted papers."Think of it?" roared Turkey; "I think I'll just step behind his screen, and black his eyes for him!"So saying, Turkey rose to his feet and threw his arms into a pugilistic position. He was hurrying away to make good his promise, when I detained him, alarmed at the effect of incautiously rousing Turkey's combativeness after dinner."Sit down, Turkey," said I, "and hear what Nippers has to say. What do you think of it, Nippers? Would I not be justified in immediately dismissing Bartleby?""Excuse me, that is for you to decide, sir. I think his conduct quite unusual, and indeed unjust, as regards Turkey and myself. But it may only be a passing whim.""Ah," exclaimed I, "you have strangely changed your mind then—you speak very gently of him now.""All beer," cried Turkey; "gentleness is effects of beer—Nippers and I dined together to-day. You see how gentle I am, sir. Shall I go and black his eyes?""You refer to Bartleby, I suppose. No, not to-day, Turkey," I replied; "pray, put up your fists."I closed the doors, and again advanced towards Bartleby. I felt additional incentives tempting me to my fate. I burned to be rebelled against again. I remembered that Bartleby never left the office."Bartleby," said I, "Ginger Nut is away; just step round to the Post Office, won't you? (it was but a three minute walk,) and see if there is any thing for me.""I would prefer not to.""You will not?""I prefer not."I staggered to my desk, and sat there in a deep study. My blind inveteracy returned. Was there any other thing in which I could procure myself to be ignominiously repulsed by this lean, penniless wight?—my hired clerk? What added thing is there, perfectly reasonable, that he will be sure to refuse to do?"Bartleby!"No answer."Bartleby," in a louder tone.No answer."Bartleby," I roared.Like a very ghost, agreeably to the laws of magical invocation, at the third summons, he appeared at the entrance of his hermitage."Go to the next room, and tell Nippers to come to me.""I prefer not to," he respectfully and slowly said, and mildly disappeared."Very good, Bartleby," said I, in a quiet sort of serenely severe self-possessed tone, intimating the unalterable purpose of some terrible retribution very close at hand. At the moment I half intended something of the kind. But upon the whole, as it was drawing towards my dinner-hour, I thought it best to put on my hat and walk home for the day, suffering much from perplexity and distress of mind.Shall I acknowledge it? The conclusion of this whole business was, that it soon became a fixed fact of my chambers, that a pale young scrivener, by the name of Bartleby, and a desk there; that he copied for me at the usual rate of four cents a folio (one hundred words); but he was permanently exempt from examining the work done by him, that duty being transferred to Turkey and Nippers, one of compliment doubtless to their superior acuteness; moreover, said Bartleby was never on any account to be dispatched on the most trivial errand of any sort; and that even if entreated to take upon him such a matter, it was generally understood that he would prefer not to—in other words, that he would refuse pointblank.As days passed on, I became considerably reconciled to Bartleby. His steadiness, his freedom from all dissipation, his incessant industry (except when he chose to throw himself into a standing revery behind his screen), his great, stillness, his unalterableness of demeanor under all circumstances, made him a valuable acquisition. One prime thing was this,—he was always there;—first in the morning, continually through the day, and the last at night. I had a singular confidence in his honesty. I felt my most precious papers perfectly safe in his hands. Sometimes to be sure I could not, for the very soul of me, avoid falling into sudden spasmodic passions with him. For it was exceeding difficult to bear in mind all the time those strange peculiarities, privileges, and unheard of exemptions, forming the tacit stipulations on Bartleby's part under which he remained in my office. Now and then, in the eagerness of dispatching pressing business, I would inadvertently summon Bartleby, in a short, rapid tone, to put his finger, say, on the incipient tie of a bit of red tape with which I was about compressing some papers. Of course, from behind the screen the usual answer, "I prefer not to," was sure to come; and then, how could a human creature with the common infirmities of our nature, refrain from bitterly exclaiming upon such perverseness—such unreasonableness. However, every added repulse of this sort which I received only tended to lessen the probability of my repeating the inadvertence.Here it must be said, that according to the custom of most legal gentlemen occupying chambers in densely-populated law buildings, there were several keys to my door. One was kept by a woman residing in the attic, which person weekly scrubbed and daily swept and dusted my apartments. Another was kept by Turkey for convenience sake. The third I sometimes carried in my own pocket. The fourth I knew not who had.Now, one Sunday morning I happened to go to Trinity Church, to hear a celebrated preacher, and finding myself rather early on the ground, I thought I would walk around to my chambers for a while. Luckily I had my key with me; but upon applying it to the lock, I found it resisted by something inserted from the inside. Quite surprised, I called out; when to my consternation a key was turned from within; and thrusting his lean visage at me, and holding the door ajar, the apparition of Bartleby appeared, in his shirt sleeves, and otherwise in a strangely tattered dishabille, saying quietly that he was sorry, but he was deeply engaged just then, and—preferred not admitting me at present. In a brief word or two, he moreover added, that perhaps I had better walk round the block two or three times, and by that time he would probably have concluded his affairs.Now, the utterly unsurmised appearance of Bartleby, tenanting my law-chambers of a Sunday morning, with his cadaverously gentlemanly nonchalance, yet withal firm and self-possessed, had such a strange effect upon me, that incontinently I slunk away from my own door, and did as desired. But not without sundry twinges of impotent rebellion against the mild effrontery of this unaccountable scrivener. Indeed, it was his wonderful mildness chiefly, which not only disarmed me, but unmanned me, as it were. For I consider that one, for the time, is a sort of unmanned when he tranquilly permits his hired clerk to dictate to him, and order him away from his own premises. Furthermore, I was full of uneasiness as to what Bartleby could possibly be doing in my office in his shirt sleeves, and in an otherwise dismantled condition of a Sunday morning. Was any thing amiss going on? Nay, that was out of the question. It was not to be thought of for a moment that Bartleby was an immoral person. But what could he be doing there?—copying? Nay again, whatever might be his eccentricities, Bartleby was an eminently decorous person. He would be the last man to sit down to his desk in any state approaching to nudity. Besides, it was Sunday; and there was something about Bartleby that forbade the supposition that he would by any secular occupation violate the proprieties of the day.Nevertheless, my mind was not pacified; and full of a restless curiosity, at last I returned to the door. Without hindrance I inserted my key, opened it, and entered. Bartleby was not to be seen. I looked round anxiously, peeped behind his screen; but it was very plain that he was gone. Upon more closely examining the place, I surmised that for an indefinite period Bartleby must have ate, dressed, and slept in my office, and that too without plate, mirror, or bed. The cushioned seat of a rickety old sofa in one corner bore the faint impress of a lean, reclining form. Rolled away under his desk, I found a blanket; under the empty grate, a blacking box and brush; on a chair, a tin basin, with soap and a ragged towel; in a newspaper a few crumbs of ginger-nuts and a morsel of cheese. Yes, thought I, it is evident enough that Bartleby has been making his home here, keeping bachelor's hall all by himself. Immediately then the thought came sweeping across me, What miserable friendlessness and loneliness are here revealed! His poverty is great; but his solitude, how horrible! Think of it. Of a Sunday, Wall-street is deserted as Petra; and every night of every day it is an emptiness. This building too, which of week-days hums with industry and life, at nightfall echoes with sheer vacancy, and all through Sunday is forlorn. And here Bartleby makes his home; sole spectator of a solitude which he has seen all populous—a sort of innocent and transformed Marius brooding among the ruins of Carthage!For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me. Before, I had never experienced aught but a not-unpleasing sadness. The bond of a common humanity now drew me irresistibly to gloom. A fraternal melancholy! For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam. I remembered the bright silks and sparkling faces I had seen that day, in gala trim, swan-like sailing down the Mississippi of Broadway; and I contrasted them with the pallid copyist, and thought to myself, Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none. These sad fancyings—chimeras, doubtless, of a sick and silly brain—led on to other and more special thoughts, concerning the eccentricities of Bartleby. Presentiments of strange discoveries hovered round me. The scrivener's pale form appeared to me laid out, among uncaring strangers, in its shivering winding sheet.Suddenly I was attracted by Bartleby's closed desk, the key in open sight left in the lock.I mean no mischief, seek the gratification of no heartless curiosity, thought I; besides, the desk is mine, and its contents too, so I will make bold to look within. Every thing was methodically arranged, the papers smoothly placed. The pigeon holes were deep, and removing the files of documents, I groped into their recesses. Presently I felt something there, and dragged it out. It was an old bandanna handkerchief, heavy and knotted. I opened it, and saw it was a savings' bank.I now recalled all the quiet mysteries which I had noted in the man. I remembered that he never spoke but to answer; that though at intervals he had considerable time to himself, yet I had never seen him reading—no, not even a newspaper; that for long periods he would stand looking out, at his pale window behind the screen, upon the dead brick wall; I was quite sure he never visited any refectory or eating house; while his pale face clearly indicated that he never drank beer like Turkey, or tea and coffee even, like other men; that he never went any where in particular that I could learn; never went out for a walk, unless indeed that was the case at present; that he had declined telling who he was, or whence he came, or whether he had any relatives in the world; that though so thin and pale, he never complained of ill health. And more than all, I remembered a certain unconscious air of pallid—how shall I call it?—of pallid haughtiness, say, or rather an austere reserve about him, which had positively awed me into my tame compliance with his eccentricities, when I had feared to ask him to do the slightest incidental thing for me, even though I might know, from his long-continued motionlessness, that behind his screen he must be standing in one of those dead-wall reveries of his.Revolving all these things, and coupling them with the recently discovered fact that he made my office his constant abiding place and home, and not forgetful of his morbid moodiness; revolving all these things, a prudential feeling began to steal over me. My first emotions had been those of pure melancholy and sincerest pity; but just in proportion as the forlornness of Bartleby grew and grew to my imagination, did that same melancholy merge into fear, that pity into repulsion. So true it is, and so terrible too, that up to a certain point the thought or sight of misery enlists our best affections; but, in certain special cases, beyond that point it does not. They err who would assert that invariably this is owing to the inherent selfishness of the human heart. It rather proceeds from a certain hopelessness of remedying excessive and organic ill. To a sensitive being, pity is not seldom pain. And when at last it is perceived that such pity cannot lead to effectual succor, common sense bids the soul rid of it. What I saw that morning persuaded me that the scrivener was the victim of innate and incurable disorder. I might give alms to his body; but his body did not pain him; it was his soul that suffered, and his soul I could not reach.I did not accomplish the purpose of going to Trinity Church that morning. Somehow, the things I had seen disqualified me for the time from church-going. I walked homeward, thinking what I would do with Bartleby. Finally, I resolved upon this;—I would put certain calm questions to him the next morning, touching his history, etc., and if he declined to answer them openly and unreservedly (and I supposed he would prefer not), then to give him a twenty dollar bill over and above whatever I might owe him, and tell him his services were no longer required; but that if in any other way I could assist him, I would be happy to do so, especially if he desired to return to his native place, wherever that might be, I would willingly help to defray the expenses. Moreover, if, after reaching home, he found himself at any time in want of aid, a letter from him would be sure of a reply.The next morning came."Bartleby," said I, gently calling to him behind his screen.No reply."Bartleby," said I, in a still gentler tone, "come here; I am not going to ask you to do any thing you would prefer not to do—I simply wish to speak to you."Upon this he noiselessly slid into view."Will you tell me, Bartleby, where you were born?""I would prefer not to.""Will you tell me any thing about yourself?""I would prefer not to.""But what reasonable objection can you have to speak to me? I feel friendly towards you."He did not look at me while I spoke, but kept his glance fixed upon my bust of Cicero, which as I then sat, was directly behind me, some six inches above my head."What is your answer, Bartleby?" said I, after waiting a considerable time for a reply, during which his countenance remained immovable, only there was the faintest conceivable tremor of the white attenuated mouth."At present I prefer to give no answer," he said, and retired into his hermitage.It was rather weak in me I confess, but his manner on this occasion nettled me. Not only did there seem to lurk in it a certain calm disdain, but his perverseness seemed ungrateful, considering the undeniable good usage and indulgence he had received from me.Again I sat ruminating what I should do. Mortified as I was at his behavior, and resolved as I had been to dismiss him when I entered my offices, nevertheless I strangely felt something superstitious knocking at my heart, and forbidding me to carry out my purpose, and denouncing me for a villain if I dared to breathe one bitter word against this forlornest of mankind. At last, familiarly drawing my chair behind his screen, I sat down and said: "Bartleby, never mind then about revealing your history; but let me entreat you, as a friend, to comply as far as may be with the usages of this office. Say now you will help to examine papers to-morrow or next day: in short, say now that in a day or two you will begin to be a little reasonable:—say so, Bartleby.""At present I would prefer not to be a little reasonable," was his mildly cadaverous reply.Just then the folding-doors opened, and Nippers approached. He seemed suffering from an unusually bad night's rest, induced by severer indigestion then common. He overheard those final words of Bartleby."Prefer not, eh?" gritted Nippers—"I'd prefer him, if I were you, sir," addressing me—"I'd prefer him; I'd give him preferences, the stubborn mule! What is it, sir, pray, that he prefers not to do now?"Bartleby moved not a limb."Mr. Nippers," said I, "I'd prefer that you would withdraw for the present."Somehow, of late I had got into the way of involuntarily using this word "prefer" upon all sorts of not exactly suitable occasions. And I trembled to think that my contact with the scrivener had already and seriously affected me in a mental way. And what further and deeper aberration might it not yet produce? This apprehension had not been without efficacy in determining me to summary means.As Nippers, looking very sour and sulky, was departing, Turkey blandly and deferentially approached."With submission, sir," said he, "yesterday I was thinking about Bartleby here, and I think that if he would but prefer to take a quart of good ale every day, it would do much towards mending him, and enabling him to assist in examining his papers.""So you have got the word too," said I, slightly excited."With submission, what word, sir," asked Turkey, respectfully crowding himself into the contracted space behind the screen, and by so doing, making me jostle the scrivener. "What word, sir?""I would prefer to be left alone here," said Bartleby, as if offended at being mobbed in his privacy."That's the word, Turkey," said I—"that's it.""Oh, prefer? oh yes—queer word. I never use it myself. But, sir, asI was saying, if he would but prefer—""Turkey," interrupted I, "you will please withdraw.""Oh certainly, sir, if you prefer that I should."As he opened the folding-door to retire, Nippers at his desk caught a glimpse of me, and asked whether I would prefer to have a certain paper copied on blue paper or white. He did not in the least roguishly accent the word prefer. It was plain that it involuntarily rolled form his tongue. I thought to myself, surely I must get rid of a demented man, who already has in some degree turned the tongues, if not the heads of myself and clerks. But I thought it prudent not to break the dismission at once.The next day I noticed that Bartleby did nothing but stand at his window in his dead-wall revery. Upon asking him why he did not write, he said that he had decided upon doing no more writing."Why, how now? what next?" exclaimed I, "do no more writing?""No more.""And what is the reason?""Do you not see the reason for yourself," he indifferently replied.I looked steadfastly at him, and perceived that his eyes looked dull and glazed. Instantly it occurred to me, that his unexampled diligence in copying by his dim window for the first few weeks of his stay with me might have temporarily impaired his vision.I was touched. I said something in condolence with him. I hinted that of course he did wisely in abstaining from writing for a while; and urged him to embrace that opportunity of taking wholesome exercise in the open air. This, however, he did not do. A few days after this, my other clerks being absent, and being in a great hurry to dispatch certain letters by the mail, I thought that, having nothing else earthly to do, Bartleby would surely be less inflexible than usual, and carry these letters to the post-office. But he blankly declined. So, much to my inconvenience, I went myself.Still added days went by. Whether Bartleby's eyes improved or not, I could not say. To all appearance, I thought they did. But when I asked him if they did, he vouchsafed no answer. At all events, he would do no copying. At last, in reply to my urgings, he informed me that he had permanently given up copying."What!" exclaimed I; "suppose your eyes should get entirely well—better than ever before—would you not copy then?""I have given up copying," he answered, and slid aside.He remained as ever, a fixture in my chamber. Nay—if that were possible—he became still more of a fixture than before. What was to be done? He would do nothing in the office: why should he stay there? In plain fact, he had now become a millstone to me, not only useless as a necklace, but afflictive to bear. Yet I was sorry for him. I speak less than truth when I say that, on his own account, he occasioned me uneasiness. If he would but have named a single relative or friend, I would instantly have written, and urged their taking the poor fellow away to some convenient retreat. But he seemed alone, absolutely alone in the universe. A bit of wreck in the mid Atlantic. At length, necessities connected with my business tyrannized over all other considerations. Decently as I could, I told Bartleby that in six days' time he must unconditionally leave the office. I warned him to take measures, in the interval, for procuring some other abode. I offered to assist him in this endeavor, if he himself would but take the first step towards a removal. "And when you finally quit me, Bartleby," added I, "I shall see that you go not away entirely unprovided. Six days from this hour, remember."At the expiration of that period, I peeped behind the screen, and lo!Bartleby was there.I buttoned up my coat, balanced myself; advanced slowly towards him, touched his shoulder, and said, "The time has come; you must quit this place; I am sorry for you; here is money; but you must go.""I would prefer not," he replied, with his back still towards me."You must."He remained silent.Now I had an unbounded confidence in this man's common honesty. He had frequently restored to me sixpences and shillings carelessly dropped upon the floor, for I am apt to be very reckless in such shirt-button affairs. The proceeding then which followed will not be deemed extraordinary."Bartleby," said I, "I owe you twelve dollars on account; here are thirty-two; the odd twenty are yours.—Will you take it?" and I handed the bills towards him.But he made no motion."I will leave them here then," putting them under a weight on the table. Then taking my hat and cane and going to the door I tranquilly turned and added—"After you have removed your things from these offices, Bartleby, you will of course lock the door—since every one is now gone for the day but you—and if you please, slip your key underneath the mat, so that I may have it in the morning. I shall not see you again; so good-bye to you. If hereafter in your new place of abode I can be of any service to you, do not fail to advise me by letter. Good-bye, Bartleby, and fare you well."But he answered not a word; like the last column of some ruined temple, he remained standing mute and solitary in the middle of the otherwise deserted room.As I walked home in a pensive mood, my vanity got the better of my pity. I could not but highly plume myself on my masterly management in getting rid of Bartleby. Masterly I call it, and such it must appear to any dispassionate thinker. The beauty of my procedure seemed to consist in its perfect quietness. There was no vulgar bullying, no bravado of any sort, no choleric hectoring, and striding to and fro across the apartment, jerking out vehement commands for Bartleby to bundle himself off with his beggarly traps. Nothing of the kind. Without loudly bidding Bartleby depart—as an inferior genius might have done—I assumed the ground that depart he must; and upon that assumption built all I had to say. The more I thought over my procedure, the more I was charmed with it. Nevertheless, next morning, upon awakening, I had my doubts,—I had somehow slept off the fumes of vanity. One of the coolest and wisest hours a man has, is just after he awakes in the morning. My procedure seemed as sagacious as ever.—but only in theory. How it would prove in practice—there was the rub. It was truly a beautiful thought to have assumed Bartleby's departure; but, after all, that assumption was simply my own, and none of Bartleby's. The great point was, not whether I had assumed that he would quit me, but whether he would prefer so to do. He was more a man of preferences than assumptions.After breakfast, I walked down town, arguing the probabilities pro and con. One moment I thought it would prove a miserable failure, and Bartleby would be found all alive at my office as usual; the next moment it seemed certain that I should see his chair empty. And so I kept veering about. At the corner of Broadway and Canal-street, I saw quite an excited group of people standing in earnest conversation."I'll take odds he doesn't," said a voice as I passed."Doesn't go?—done!" said I, "put up your money."I was instinctively putting my hand in my pocket to produce my own, when I remembered that this was an election day. The words I had overheard bore no reference to Bartleby, but to the success or non-success of some candidate for the mayoralty. In my intent frame of mind, I had, as it were, imagined that all Broadway shared in my excitement, and were debating the same question with me. I passed on, very thankful that the uproar of the street screened my momentary absent-mindedness.As I had intended, I was earlier than usual at my office door. I stood listening for a moment. All was still. He must be gone. I tried the knob. The door was locked. Yes, my procedure had worked to a charm; he indeed must be vanished. Yet a certain melancholy mixed with this: I was almost sorry for my brilliant success. I was fumbling under the door mat for the key, which Bartleby was to have left there for me, when accidentally my knee knocked against a panel, producing a summoning sound, and in response a voice came to me from within—"Not yet; I am occupied."It was Bartleby.I was thunderstruck. For an instant I stood like the man who, pipe in mouth, was killed one cloudless afternoon long ago in Virginia, by a summer lightning; at his own warm open window he was killed, and remained leaning out there upon the dreamy afternoon, till some one touched him, when he fell."Not gone!" I murmured at last. But again obeying that wondrous ascendancy which the inscrutable scrivener had over me, and from which ascendancy, for all my chafing, I could not completely escape, I slowly went down stairs and out into the street, and while walking round the block, considered what I should next do in this unheard-of perplexity. Turn the man out by an actual thrusting I could not; to drive him away by calling him hard names would not do; calling in the police was an unpleasant idea; and yet, permit him to enjoy his cadaverous triumph over me,—this too I could not think of. What was to be done? or, if nothing could be done, was there any thing further that I could assume in the matter? Yes, as before I had prospectively assumed that Bartleby would depart, so now I might retrospectively assume that departed he was. In the legitimate carrying out of this assumption, I might enter my office in a great hurry, and pretending not to see Bartleby at all, walk straight against him as if he were air. Such a proceeding would in a singular degree have the appearance of a home-thrust. It was hardly possible that Bartleby could withstand such an application of the doctrine of assumptions. But upon second thoughts the success of the plan seemed rather dubious. I resolved to argue the matter over with him again."Bartleby," said I, entering the office, with a quietly severe expression, "I am seriously displeased. I am pained, Bartleby. I had thought better of you. I had imagined you of such a gentlemanly organization, that in any delicate dilemma a slight hint would have suffice—in short, an assumption. But it appears I am deceived. Why," I added, unaffectedly starting, "you have not even touched that money yet," pointing to it, just where I had left it the evening previous.He answered nothing."Will you, or will you not, quit me?" I now demanded in a sudden passion, advancing close to him."I would prefer not to quit you," he replied, gently emphasizing the not."What earthly right have you to stay here? Do you pay any rent? Do you pay my taxes? Or is this property yours?"He answered nothing."Are you ready to go on and write now? Are your eyes recovered? Could you copy a small paper for me this morning? or help examine a few lines? or step round to the post-office? In a word, will you do any thing at all, to give a coloring to your refusal to depart the premises?"He silently retired into his hermitage.I was now in such a state of nervous resentment that I thought it but prudent to check myself at present from further demonstrations. Bartleby and I were alone. I remembered the tragedy of the unfortunate Adams and the still more unfortunate Colt in the solitary office of the latter; and how poor Colt, being dreadfully incensed by Adams, and imprudently permitting himself to get wildly excited, was at unawares hurried into his fatal act—an act which certainly no man could possibly deplore more than the actor himself. Often it had occurred to me in my ponderings upon the subject, that had that altercation taken place in the public street, or at a private residence, it would not have terminated as it did. It was the circumstance of being alone in a solitary office, up stairs, of a building entirely unhallowed by humanizing domestic associations—an uncarpeted office, doubtless, of a dusty, haggard sort of appearance;—this it must have been, which greatly helped to enhance the irritable desperation of the hapless Colt.But when this old Adam of resentment rose in me and tempted me concerning Bartleby, I grappled him and threw him. How? Why, simply by recalling the divine injunction: "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another." Yes, this it was that saved me. Aside from higher considerations, charity often operates as a vastly wise and prudent principle—a great safeguard to its possessor. Men have committed murder for jealousy's sake, and anger's sake, and hatred's sake, and selfishness' sake, and spiritual pride's sake; but no man that ever I heard of, ever committed a diabolical murder for sweet charity's sake. Mere self-interest, then, if no better motive can be enlisted, should, especially with high-tempered men, prompt all beings to charity and philanthropy. At any rate, upon the occasion in question, I strove to drown my exasperated feelings towards the scrivener by benevolently construing his conduct. Poor fellow, poor fellow! thought I, he don't mean any thing; and besides, he has seen hard times, and ought to be indulged.I endeavored also immediately to occupy myself, and at the same time to comfort my despondency. I tried to fancy that in the course of the morning, at such time as might prove agreeable to him. Bartleby, of his own free accord, would emerge from his hermitage, and take up some decided line of march in the direction of the door. But no. Half-past twelve o'clock came; Turkey began to glow in the face, overturn his inkstand, and become generally obstreperous; Nippers abated down into quietude and courtesy; Ginger Nut munched his noon apple; and Bartleby remained standing at his window in one of his profoundest dead-wall reveries. Will it be credited? Ought I to acknowledge it? That afternoon I left the office without saying one further word to him.Some days now passed, during which, at leisure intervals I looked a little into "Edwards on the Will," and "Priestly on Necessity." Under the circumstances, those books induced a salutary feeling. Gradually I slid into the persuasion that these troubles of mine touching the scrivener, had been all predestinated from eternity, and Bartleby was billeted upon me for some mysterious purpose of an all-wise Providence, which it was not for a mere mortal like me to fathom. Yes, Bartleby, stay there behind your screen, thought I; I shall persecute you no more; you are harmless and noiseless as any of these old chairs; in short, I never feel so private as when I know you are here. At last I see it, I feel it; I penetrate to the predestinated purpose of my life. I am content. Others may have loftier parts to enact; but my mission in this world, Bartleby, is to furnish you with office-room for such period as you may see fit to remain.I believe that this wise and blessed frame of mind would have continued with me, had it not been for the unsolicited and uncharitable remarks obtruded upon me by my professional friends who visited the rooms. But thus it often is, that the constant friction of illiberal minds wears out at last the best resolves of the more generous. Though to be sure, when I reflected upon it, it was not strange that people entering my office should be struck by the peculiar aspect of the unaccountable Bartleby, and so be tempted to throw out some sinister observations concerning him. Sometimes an attorney having business with me, and calling at my office and finding no one but the scrivener there, would undertake to obtain some sort of precise information from him touching my whereabouts; but without heeding his idle talk, Bartleby would remain standing immovable in the middle of the room. So after contemplating him in that position for a time, the attorney would depart, no wiser than he came.Also, when a Reference was going on, and the room full of lawyers and witnesses and business was driving fast; some deeply occupied legal gentleman present, seeing Bartleby wholly unemployed, would request him to run round to his (the legal gentleman's) office and fetch some papers for him. Thereupon, Bartleby would tranquilly decline, and yet remain idle as before. Then the lawyer would give a great stare, and turn to me. And what could I say? At last I was made aware that all through the circle of my professional acquaintance, a whisper of wonder was running round, having reference to the strange creature I kept at my office. This worried me very much. And as the idea came upon me of his possibly turning out a long-lived man, and keep occupying my chambers, and denying my authority; and perplexing my visitors; and scandalizing my professional reputation; and casting a general gloom over the premises; keeping soul and body together to the last upon his savings (for doubtless he spent but half a dime a day), and in the end perhaps outlive me, and claim possession of my office by right of his perpetual occupancy: as all these dark anticipations crowded upon me more and more, and my friends continually intruded their relentless remarks upon the apparition in my room; a great change was wrought in me. I resolved to gather all my faculties together, and for ever rid me of this intolerable incubus.Ere revolving any complicated project, however, adapted to this end, I first simply suggested to Bartleby the propriety of his permanent departure. In a calm and serious tone, I commended the idea to his careful and mature consideration. But having taken three days to meditate upon it, he apprised me that his original determination remained the same in short, that he still preferred to abide with me.What shall I do? I now said to myself, buttoning up my coat to the last button. What shall I do? what ought I to do? what does conscience say I should do with this man, or rather ghost. Rid myself of him, I must; go, he shall. But how? You will not thrust him, the poor, pale, passive mortal,—you will not thrust such a helpless creature out of your door? you will not dishonor yourself by such cruelty? No, I will not, I cannot do that. Rather would I let him live and die here, and then mason up his remains in the wall. What then will you do? For all your coaxing, he will not budge. Bribes he leaves under your own paperweight on your table; in short, it is quite plain that he prefers to cling to you.Then something severe, something unusual must be done. What! surely you will not have him collared by a constable, and commit his innocent pallor to the common jail? And upon what ground could you procure such a thing to be done?—a vagrant, is he? What! he a vagrant, a wanderer, who refuses to budge? It is because he will not be a vagrant, then, that you seek to count him as a vagrant. That is too absurd. No visible means of support: there I have him. Wrong again: for indubitably he does support himself, and that is the only unanswerable proof that any man can show of his possessing the means so to do. No more then. Since he will not quit me, I must quit him. I will change my offices; I will move elsewhere; and give him fair notice, that if I find him on my new premises I will then proceed against him as a common trespasser.Acting accordingly, next day I thus addressed him: "I find these chambers too far from the City Hall; the air is unwholesome. In a word, I propose to remove my offices next week, and shall no longer require your services. I tell you this now, in order that you may seek another place."He made no reply, and nothing more was said.On the appointed day I engaged carts and men, proceeded to my chambers, and having but little furniture, every thing was removed in a few hours. Throughout, the scrivener remained standing behind the screen, which I directed to be removed the last thing. It was withdrawn; and being folded up like a huge folio, left him the motionless occupant of a naked room. I stood in the entry watching him a moment, while something from within me upbraided me.I re-entered, with my hand in my pocket—and—and my heart in my mouth."Good-bye, Bartleby; I am going—good-bye, and God some way bless you; and take that," slipping something in his hand. But it dropped upon the floor, and then,—strange to say—I tore myself from him whom I had so longed to be rid of.Established in my new quarters, for a day or two I kept the door locked, and started at every footfall in the passages. When I returned to my rooms after any little absence, I would pause at the threshold for an instant, and attentively listen, ere applying my key. But these fears were needless. Bartleby never came nigh me.I thought all was going well, when a perturbed looking stranger visited me, inquiring whether I was the person who had recently occupied rooms at No.—Wall-street.Full of forebodings, I replied that I was."Then sir," said the stranger, who proved a lawyer, "you are responsible for the man you left there. He refuses to do any copying; he refuses to do any thing; he says he prefers not to; and he refuses to quit the premises.""I am very sorry, sir," said I, with assumed tranquility, but an inward tremor, "but, really, the man you allude to is nothing to me—he is no relation or apprentice of mine, that you should hold me responsible for him.""In mercy's name, who is he?""I certainly cannot inform you. I know nothing about him. Formerly I employed him as a copyist; but he has done nothing for me now for some time past.""I shall settle him then,—good morning, sir."Several days passed, and I heard nothing more; and though I often felt a charitable prompting to call at the place and see poor Bartleby, yet a certain squeamishness of I know not what withheld me.All is over with him, by this time, thought I at last, when through another week no further intelligence reached me. But coming to my room the day after, I found several persons waiting at my door in a high state of nervous excitement."That's the man—here he comes," cried the foremost one, whom I recognized as the lawyer who had previously called upon me alone."You must take him away, sir, at once," cried a portly person among them, advancing upon me, and whom I knew to be the landlord of No.—Wall-street. "These gentlemen, my tenants, cannot stand it any longer; Mr. B—" pointing to the lawyer, "has turned him out of his room, and he now persists in haunting the building generally, sitting upon the banisters of the stairs by day, and sleeping in the entry by night. Every body is concerned; clients are leaving the offices; some fears are entertained of a mob; something you must do, and that without delay."Aghast at this torrent, I fell back before it, and would fain have locked myself in my new quarters. In vain I persisted that Bartleby was nothing to me—no more than to any one else. In vain:—I was the last person known to have any thing to do with him, and they held me to the terrible account. Fearful then of being exposed in the papers (as one person present obscurely threatened) I considered the matter, and at length said, that if the lawyer would give me a confidential interview with the scrivener, in his (the lawyer's) own room, I would that afternoon strive my best to rid them of the nuisance they complained of.Going up stairs to my old haunt, there was Bartleby silently sitting upon the banister at the landing."What are you doing here, Bartleby?" said I."Sitting upon the banister," he mildly replied.I motioned him into the lawyer's room, who then left us."Bartleby," said I, "are you aware that you are the cause of great tribulation to me, by persisting in occupying the entry after being dismissed from the office?"No answer."Now one of two things must take place. Either you must do something, or something must be done to you. Now what sort of business would you like to engage in? Would you like to re-engage in copying for some one?""No; I would prefer not to make any change.""Would you like a clerkship in a dry-goods store?""There is too much confinement about that. No, I would not like a clerkship; but I am not particular.""Too much confinement," I cried, "why you keep yourself confined all the time!""I would prefer not to take a clerkship," he rejoined, as if to settle that little item at once."How would a bar-tender's business suit you? There is no trying of the eyesight in that.""I would not like it at all; though, as I said before, I am not particular."His unwonted wordiness inspirited me. I returned to the charge."Well then, would you like to travel through the country collecting bills for the merchants? That would improve your health.""No, I would prefer to be doing something else.""How then would going as a companion to Europe, to entertain some young gentleman with your conversation,—how would that suit you?""Not at all. It does not strike me that there is any thing definite about that. I like to be stationary. But I am not particular.""Stationary you shall be then," I cried, now losing all patience, and for the first time in all my exasperating connection with him fairly flying into a passion. "If you do not go away from these premises before night, I shall feel bound—indeed I am bound—to—to—to quit the premises myself!" I rather absurdly concluded, knowing not with what possible threat to try to frighten his immobility into compliance. Despairing of all further efforts, I was precipitately leaving him, when a final thought occurred to me—one which had not been wholly unindulged before."Bartleby," said I, in the kindest tone I could assume under such exciting circumstances, "will you go home with me now—not to my office, but my dwelling—and remain there till we can conclude upon some convenient arrangement for you at our leisure? Come, let us start now, right away.""No: at present I would prefer not to make any change at all."I answered nothing; but effectually dodging every one by the suddenness and rapidity of my flight, rushed from the building, ran up Wall-street towards Broadway, and jumping into the first omnibus was soon removed from pursuit. As soon as tranquility returned I distinctly perceived that I had now done all that I possibly could, both in respect to the demands of the landlord and his tenants, and with regard to my own desire and sense of duty, to benefit Bartleby, and shield him from rude persecution. I now strove to be entirely care-free and quiescent; and my conscience justified me in the attempt; though indeed it was not so successful as I could have wished. So fearful was I of being again hunted out by the incensed landlord and his exasperated tenants, that, surrendering my business to Nippers, for a few days I drove about the upper part of the town and through the suburbs, in my rockaway; crossed over to Jersey City and Hoboken, and paid fugitive visits to Manhattanville and Astoria. In fact I almost lived in my rockaway for the time.When again I entered my office, lo, a note from the landlord lay upon the desk. I opened it with trembling hands. It informed me that the writer had sent to the police, and had Bartleby removed to the Tombs as a vagrant. Moreover, since I knew more about him than any one else, he wished me to appear at that place, and make a suitable statement of the facts. These tidings had a conflicting effect upon me. At first I was indignant; but at last almost approved. The landlord's energetic, summary disposition had led him to adopt a procedure which I do not think I would have decided upon myself; and yet as a last resort, under such peculiar circumstances, it seemed the only plan.As I afterwards learned, the poor scrivener, when told that he must be conducted to the Tombs, offered not the slightest obstacle, but in his pale unmoving way, silently acquiesced.Some of the compassionate and curious bystanders joined the party; and headed by one of the constables arm in arm with Bartleby, the silent procession filed its way through all the noise, and heat, and joy of the roaring thoroughfares at noon.The same day I received the note I went to the Tombs, or to speak more properly, the Halls of Justice. Seeking the right officer, I stated the purpose of my call, and was informed that the individual I described was indeed within. I then assured the functionary that Bartleby was a perfectly honest man, and greatly to be compassionated, however unaccountably eccentric. I narrated all I knew, and closed by suggesting the idea of letting him remain in as indulgent confinement as possible till something less harsh might be done—though indeed I hardly knew what. At all events, if nothing else could be decided upon, the alms-house must receive him. I then begged to have an interview.Being under no disgraceful charge, and quite serene and harmless in all his ways, they had permitted him freely to wander about the prison, and especially in the inclosed grass-platted yard thereof. And so I found him there, standing all alone in the quietest of the yards, his face towards a high wall, while all around, from the narrow slits of the jail windows, I thought I saw peering out upon him the eyes of murderers and thieves."Bartleby!""I know you," he said, without looking round,—"and I want nothing to say to you.""It was not I that brought you here, Bartleby," said I, keenly pained at his implied suspicion. "And to you, this should not be so vile a place. Nothing reproachful attaches to you by being here. And see, it is not so sad a place as one might think. Look, there is the sky, and here is the grass.""I know where I am," he replied, but would say nothing more, and so I left him.As I entered the corridor again, a broad meat-like man, in an apron, accosted me, and jerking his thumb over his shoulder said—"Is that your friend?""Yes.""Does he want to starve? If he does, let him live on the prison fare, that's all.""Who are you?" asked I, not knowing what to make of such an unofficially speaking person in such a place."I am the grub-man. Such gentlemen as have friends here, hire me to provide them with something good to eat.""Is this so?" said I, turning to the turnkey.He said it was."Well then," said I, slipping some silver into the grub-man's hands (for so they called him). "I want you to give particular attention to my friend there; let him have the best dinner you can get. And you must be as polite to him as possible.""Introduce me, will you?" said the grub-man, looking at me with an expression which seem to say he was all impatience for an opportunity to give a specimen of his breeding.Thinking it would prove of benefit to the scrivener, I acquiesced; and asking the grub-man his name, went up with him to Bartleby."Bartleby, this is Mr. Cutlets; you will find him very useful to you.""Your sarvant, sir, your sarvant," said the grub-man, making a low salutation behind his apron. "Hope you find it pleasant here, sir;—spacious grounds—cool apartments, sir—hope you'll stay with us some time—try to make it agreeable. May Mrs. Cutlets and I have the pleasure of your company to dinner, sir, in Mrs. Cutlets' private room?""I prefer not to dine to-day," said Bartleby, turning away. "It would disagree with me; I am unused to dinners." So saying he slowly moved to the other side of the inclosure, and took up a position fronting the dead-wall."How's this?" said the grub-man, addressing me with a stare of astonishment. "He's odd, aint he?""I think he is a little deranged," said I, sadly."Deranged? deranged is it? Well now, upon my word, I thought that friend of yourn was a gentleman forger; they are always pale and genteel-like, them forgers. I can't pity'em—can't help it, sir. Did you know Monroe Edwards?" he added touchingly, and paused. Then, laying his hand pityingly on my shoulder, sighed, "he died of consumption at Sing-Sing. So you weren't acquainted with Monroe?""No, I was never socially acquainted with any forgers. But I cannot stop longer. Look to my friend yonder. You will not lose by it. I will see you again."Some few days after this, I again obtained admission to the Tombs, and went through the corridors in quest of Bartleby; but without finding him."I saw him coming from his cell not long ago," said a turnkey, "may be he's gone to loiter in the yards."So I went in that direction."Are you looking for the silent man?" said another turnkey passing me. "Yonder he lies—sleeping in the yard there. 'Tis not twenty minutes since I saw him lie down."The yard was entirely quiet. It was not accessible to the common prisoners. The surrounding walls, of amazing thickness, kept off all sounds behind them. The Egyptian character of the masonry weighed upon me with its gloom. But a soft imprisoned turf grew under foot. The heart of the eternal pyramids, it seemed, wherein, by some strange magic, through the clefts, grass-seed, dropped by birds, had sprung.Strangely huddled at the base of the wall, his knees drawn up, and lying on his side, his head touching the cold stones, I saw the wasted Bartleby. But nothing stirred. I paused; then went close up to him; stooped over, and saw that his dim eyes were open; otherwise he seemed profoundly sleeping. Something prompted me to touch him. I felt his hand, when a tingling shiver ran up my arm and down my spine to my feet.The round face of the grub-man peered upon me now. "His dinner is ready. Won't he dine to-day, either? Or does he live without dining?""Lives without dining," said I, and closed his eyes."Eh!—He's asleep, aint he?""With kings and counselors," murmured I.* * * * * * * *There would seem little need for proceeding further in this history. Imagination will readily supply the meager recital of poor Bartleby's interment. But ere parting with the reader, let me say, that if this little narrative has sufficiently interested him, to awaken curiosity as to who Bartleby was, and what manner of life he led prior to the present narrator's making his acquaintance, I can only reply, that in such curiosity I fully share, but am wholly unable to gratify it. Yet here I hardly know whether I should divulge one little item of rumor, which came to my ear a few months after the scrivener's decease. Upon what basis it rested, I could never ascertain; and hence, how true it is I cannot now tell. But inasmuch as this vague report has not been without certain strange suggestive interest to me, however sad, it may prove the same with some others; and so I will briefly mention it. The report was this: that Bartleby had been a subordinate clerk in the Dead Letter Office at Washington, from which he had been suddenly removed by a change in the administration. When I think over this rumor, I cannot adequately express the emotions which seize me. Dead letters! does it not sound like dead men? Conceive a man by nature and misfortune prone to a pallid hopelessness, can any business seem more fitted to heighten it than that of continually handling these dead letters, and assorting them for the flames? For by the cart-load they are annually burned. Sometimes from out the folded paper the pale clerk takes a ring:—the finger it was meant for, perhaps, moulders in the grave; a bank-note sent in swiftest charity:—he whom it would relieve, nor eats nor hungers any more; pardon for those who died despairing; hope for those who died unhoping; good tidings for those who died stifled by unrelieved calamities. On errands of life, these letters speed to death.Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity! End of Project Gutenberg's Bartleby, The Scrivener, by Herman Melville*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BARTLEBY, THE SCRIVENER ***This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net 

在古代埃及人那里，确切(exactness)是用一根羽毛作为象征的；羽毛作为秤盘上的砝码用以测量灵魂。这一轻轻的羽毛叫做马特（Maat），是天平女神。记录马特的象形文字也指长度单位，即标准砖块的三十三厘米的长度，还指笛子的基本音符。 这一知识来源于乔其奥·德·桑蒂拉纳（Giorgio de Santillana）论古代人观察天象之精确的演讲；这个演讲是我一九六三年在意大利听的，它给了我一种深刻的影响。近来，我常常想起桑蒂拉纳，我一九六○年初访美国时在麻萨诸塞州他是我的向导。为了纪念他的友谊，我用天平女神马特的名字开始我这篇论文学中的确切的讲演——而且，还因为天平座是黄道十二宫中我的符号。 首先，我想先来规定一下我的题目内容。我认为，确切首先是指三件事： 一、为一件工作制定的规定明确、计算细致的计划；  二、引发出清晰、鲜明容易记忆的视觉形象。在意大利语里有一个来自希腊语的形容词icastico，在英语里是没有的；  三、在造词和表现思想和想象力的微妙时，尽可能使用确切的语言。 为什么我感到必须保卫许多人可能已经认为极为明显的一些价值观了呢？我想，我的第一个冲动来自一种敏感。我觉得语言总是在被随意地、近似地漫不经心地使用着，这个情况令我烦恼，不可忍受。请不要认为我这种反应是我对我的邻居不宽容的结果：实际上最大的不愉快来源于我听到自己的言谈。 我之所以尽量少说话，原因也就在这里。如果说我爱好写作，那就是因为我可以审察每一个句子——如果我不十分满意我的遣词造句的话——我至少可以消除我能看到的、令我不满意的原因所在。文学——我指的是可以达到这种要求的文学——文学是福地，语言在这里应该显现出其真正面目。有时候我觉得有某种瘟疫侵袭了人类最为独特的机能，也就是说，使用词汇的机能。这是一种危害语言的时疫，表现为认识能力和相关性的丧失，表现为随意下笔，把全部表达方式推进一种最平庸、最没有个性、最抽象的公式中去，冲淡意义，挫钝表现力的锋芒，消灭词汇碰撞和新事物迸发出来的火花。 在这里，我不想多谈这种瘟疫的各种可能的根源，无论这种根源是否在于政治、意识形态、官僚机构统一用语、传播媒介的千篇一律，是否在于各种学校传授凡夫俗子们文化的方式。我关心的是维护健康的办法。文学，很可能只有文学，才能创造出医治这种语言疾病的抗体。 我还要补充一句，不仅仅语言看来是受到这种瘟疫的侵袭。例如，再看看视觉形象吧。我们生活在没完没了的倾盆大雨的形象之中。最强有力的传播媒介把世界转化成为形象，并且通过魔镜的奇异而杂乱的变化大大地增加这个世界的形象。然而，这些形象被剥去了内在的必要性，不能够使每一种形象成为一种形式，一种内容，不能受到注意，不能成为某种意义的来源。 这种如烟如雾的视觉形象的大部分一出现便消退，像梦一样不会在记忆中留下痕迹；但是，消退不了的却是一种疏离和令人不快的感觉。 不过，这种缺乏内涵的情况不仅仅见于形象或者语言，而且也见于世界本身。这种瘟疫也时时侵袭人们的生活和民族的历史。它使全部的历史漫无定形、散乱、混杂，既无头，又无尾。因为我察觉到生活缺乏形式而痛感不快，就想使用我能想到的唯一的武器来反抗，这就是关于文学的思想。因此，我甚至要使用消极的词语来规定我要全力保护的价值观。使用同样有说服力的论据来为相反的论题辩护能否成功，当然还有待观察。例如，贾科莫·列奥帕第认为，语言越模糊、越不精确，就越有诗意。我还想顺便说一下，就我所知，只有在意大利语中，“模糊”（vago）这个词还有“可爱的，有吸引力的” 意思。vago一词原意为“流浪的”，还带有运动与变化的含义，在意大利语中既和不确定性、非限定性，也和优雅和快乐联系在一起。 为了证实我对确切性的推崇，我想再回顾一下列奥帕第在《凡人琐事》中对vago的称赞。他说：“‘遥远的’、‘古代的’还有,（乱码）不确定的意念。”（一八二一年九月二十五日）。“‘夜’、‘夜晚的’等词，用来描写夜等等，很有诗意，因为夜晚使景物模糊，心智只接受一种苍茫的、不清晰的、不完备的形象，夜本身及其所包含的形象。‘幽暗’、‘深邃’也是如此。” 列奥帕第的说理完善地体现在他的诗中，他的诗给事实的证明带来了权威性。我重新浏览《凡人琐事》，寻找表明他这种爱好的例证，无意中发现比较长的一段，罗列出许多激发心智“不确定”状态的情景： 从一个看不到太阳或月亮、无法识别光源的地方见到的阳光或者月光；一个仅仅部分地受到这种光线照明的地方；这种光线的反光，这种光线造成的不同物质的效应；这种光线穿过某些地方而变得不确切、受到阻隔，因而不易分辨，例如透过竹林、树丛，半关闭的百叶窗，等等等等；这种光线在某种它不直接透入和照射，却由它照射的某一其他地方或物体反射或散乱的地方；在一个从里边或者从外边看的道理[“道路”之误？]里，同样的，在一个走廊里，等等，光线和阴影混合等等的地方，又如在柱廊下、在高耸的拱顶走廊下、在岩石丛和溪谷中、在只能看到阴影侧面而顶端呈现金色的山峦上；光线透过彩色窗玻璃在所及物体上造成的反光；总之，通过一种不确定、不清晰、不完美、不完全，或者不同寻常的方式，藉着各种不同物质和小环境及于我们视觉、听觉等等的全部客体。 这就是列奥帕第对我们的要求，他叫我们品味模糊与不限定的事物的美！他所要求的是确切地、细致地注意每一个形象的布局、细节的微细限定、物体的选择、光照和大气，这一切都是为了达到高度的模糊性。进行概念辩护的理想对手的列奥帕第，到头来竟是维护这个概念的重要见证人……朦胧诗人只能是提倡准确性的诗人，善于用眼睛和耳朵、用敏捷而百发百中的手捕捉最微妙的感觉。把《凡人琐事》中的这一段札记读完是十分值得的，因为寻求不限定事物就是观察全部多重的、丰富的、由无数分子组成的一切。 与此成为对照的是，一片广阔、优美田野上，或晴朗天空中等等所见到的太阳或者月亮，令人心旷神怡。同样道理，天空飘着朵朵白云，阳光或者月光透过云朵造成种种不同的、模糊的、不同寻常的效果，这种景象也令人赏心悦目。最令人愉快和感受多样化的是城市里看到的光线；在城市里，光线被阴影切分，幽暗在许多地方和光明形成对照，在许多地方——例如在屋顶上，光线逐渐变少，有些突出的地方挡住我们观望光体的视线，等等，等等。扩展这种愉快的是多样性、不确定性、无法看见一切的情况，因此可以漫步徘徊，去想象无法看到的一切。类似的事物产生类似的效果，如树木、藤丛、山峦、凉亭、远处的屋舍、草垛、田垅，等等。另外一方面，一片宽广的平野，亮光铺满、流泻，没有变化、不受阻挡，令目光迷茫，也是让人欣喜的，因为这样的景观给人带来无限延展的遐想，万里无云的晴空也是如此。在这方面，我注意到，多样性和不确定性给人的愉快，是比显而易见的非限定性和巨大的整齐划一给人的愉快更大的。因此，点缀着几朵白云的天空也许比全无点缀的晴空更让人愉快；仰望天空也许不如眺望大地和田野等等愉快，因为多样性小（不很像我们自己，不太是我们自己，不太属于我们自己的杂物，等等）。的确，如果你仰面向上躺下；则只看到天空，和大地隔离开，这时候你的感觉是远远不如你远望大地、或者按比例地和大地联系起来观望天空、以同一视角将其统一起来的时候愉快的。 出自上述理由，观看极为众多的事物也是令人愉快的，如繁星，如人群，等等；这是多重的运动，不确定、紊乱、不规则、没有秩序，这是一种模糊的起伏，等等，如人群、如蚁群，或者波涛汹涌的大海，等等，心智是不能确定地或者显明地感受的，等等。类似的还有不规则地混合为一、不易分辨彼此的、交响的声音。 在这里，我们触及了列奥帕第诗学的神经中枢之一，这中枢就蕴含在他一首最著名、最优美的抒情诗《无限》之中。诗人受到一道篱笆的保护，在篱笆尽头他只看到天空；他想象着无限的宇宙空间，感受到喜悦与惧怕。这首诗作于一八一九年。我在《凡人琐事》中看到在此两年后的一则札记[*]表明，列奥帕第在继续考虑着《无限》这首诗引发出的问题。在他的思索中，常常比较的两个词语是不确定的和“无限”。列奥帕第是一个不幸福的享乐主义者，对于他来说，未知的一切总是比已知的一切更有魅力；对于经历中的失望和悲伤来说，希望和想象是仅有的慰藉。 因此，人总要把自己的欲望投射到无限中去，而且只有在能够想象这种愉快没有结尾时方才感到愉快。然而，由于人的心智不能设想无限，而且事实上一想到无限就感到莫名惊恐，所以只好满足于不确定的感受；这类感受混合为一，创造出一种虽是幻觉，却又是愉快的无限宇宙的印象：“沉没在这片海水中我也感到甜美。”不仅仅在这首《无限》的著名结尾中柔和战胜了恐惧，而且全部诗行通过词语音乐表达出了一种柔和感，虽然这些词语可能表现出忧虑。 我知道，我是纯粹从感受方面来解释列奥帕第的，似乎已经接受了他作为一个十八世纪感觉论门徒所要给予的他自己的形象。事实上列奥帕第所面对的问题是思辨的和形而上学的，是从帕美尼德斯（Parmenides）到笛卡儿和康德的哲学史上的一个问题，即：作为绝对空间和绝对时间的无限的观念与我们关于空间与时间的经验知识二者之间的关系。因而，列奥帕第的出发点是关于空间与时间的数学概念的严格抽象，并将其与感觉的模糊而不确定的流动加以比较。 所以，准确与缺乏确定性是两极；罗伯特·穆希尔（Robert Musil）没有结尾的（实际上是未完成的）小说《没有品格的人》（Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften）中的人物乌尔里希（Ulrich）的哲学思考和反讽思想不断地在这两极之间摆动： 如果被观察的因素是准确性本身，如果把它孤立出来并令其发展，如果把它认定为一种精神习惯和一种生活方式，让它对于每种接触它的事物施加它示范性的影响，那么，合乎逻辑的结论则是：人具有精确和不确定性这种相谬结合的特性。人具有一种不可动摇的、有意的镇定倾向，即伴同确切性的气质；然而，除了这一品质、超出这种品质，则一切都是不确定的。 穆希尔最接近某种可能的解决办法的时刻是在他提及这一事实的时候：数学问题不承认某种总体的解决，但是个体的解决办法汇合之后，是能够得出某种总体的解决的（第83章）。他认为这个办法可能也适用于人类的生活。多年以后，另一位作家，罗兰·巴特（Roland Barthes）认为，确切性这一魔鬼是和敏感性这魔鬼并列生存的，并且提问道是否可以设想出一种研究独一无二、不可重复事物的科学：“为什么不能以某种方式为每一个对象建立一门科学呢？”如果说穆希尔的乌尔里希很快地屈服于追求确切性的热情必定遭受的失败的话，那么，保尔·瓦莱里的台斯特先生（Monsieur Teste）——本世纪另一个智慧型文学人物——则毫不怀疑人类的精神能够在最精确、最严格的条件下发挥出潜能。列奥帕第是抒发人生悲哀的诗人；在描写给人愉快的不准确感受方面表现出高度的确切性；而描写冷静严格理智的诗人瓦莱里，则让他的人物台斯特先生面对疼痛，让他以运算抽象几何的方法来对抗躯体的痛苦，从而展示出高度的准确性。 “这算不了……什么，”他说。“没什么，不过……顶多有十分之一秒……等一下……有几刹那，我的身体全给照亮了……很有意思。我突然看见了我内部……我可以看到我肌肉层次的深处：我感觉到了痛感区……疼痛是环状、棍状、羽毛状的。你们看到了这些活的形体了吗，我的几何形的痛感？这些闪烁恰恰像思想一样。让我理解——从这儿，到那儿……可是也让我感到犹疑。令人犹疑的不是词儿[+]……一个词要出现的时候，我发觉我有某种困惑或恍惚。我感到脑海里出现……影影绰绰一片一片的，广阔的空间出现在眼前。于是我从记忆中挑选出一个问题，任何一个问题……我全神思考它。我数沙粒的数目……只要我能看见这些沙粒……但是越来越大的剧痛迫使我去观察它。我正分析它呢！我就等我哭了……我刚一听见它，这个对象，可怕的对象，就变小，越来越小，从我内在视线中消失了。” 在二十世纪，只有保尔·瓦莱里最精辟地给诗下了一个定义：努力追求确切。我现在主要谈谈他作为一个批评家和文论作者的作品，在这些作品里，关于确切性的诗学可以通过从马拉美（Mallarme）到波德莱尔（Baudelaire），和从波德莱尔到埃德加·爱伦·坡（Edgar Allan Poe）直线地推本溯源。 在爱伦·坡身上——在波德莱尔和马拉美眼里的爱伦·坡——瓦莱里看见了“明快的魔鬼、分析的天才、逻辑与想象力、神秘主义与明确计算的最新式、最有诱惑力组合的发明者、研究特殊现象的心理学家、研究和使用全部艺术手段的文学工程师”。瓦莱里在论文《波德莱尔的情景》中写了这段话；我认为这篇论文具有某种诗学宣言的价值；他还有另外一篇论爱伦·坡和宇宙创造论的论文，其中谈到了《尤莱卡》（Eureka）。在论爱伦坡的《尤莱卡》的论文中，瓦莱里就作为一种文学体裁，而不是作为一种科学思辨的宇宙创造论提出疑问，并且雄辩地反驳了关于“宇宙”的观念，这也是对于“宇宙”的每一个形象 所具有的神话般力量的肯定。在这里，正如在列奥帕第那里一样，我们也看到了关于无限的吸引力与排斥力。还有，在这里，我们也看到了宇宙论猜想被看作为一种文学体裁，列奥帕第就是在几篇“伪经的”散文中来以此作为消遣品：《斯特拉托尼·达·兰普萨科的伪经片段》谈地球的开始、尤其是终结，地球变得扁平、空心，像土星环一样，渐渐消散，最后在太阳中烧毁；他翻译的一篇伪经犹太法典文段《大野雄鸡之歌调》（Cantico del gallo silvestre），在这里整个宇宙都毁灭、消失了：“广漠无垠的空间中将笼罩着一种赤裸裸的寂静和最为深沉的凝重感。这样，宇宙存在的这种奇异而令人惊惧的秘密还未及探明和理解，就会消隐、化为乌有。”在这里，我们看到，令人惊惧而又不可思议的不是无限的空无，而是存在。 这篇讲演一直上不了我预定的轨道。开始的时候，我是要谈确切性、而不是谈无限和宇宙的。我是想要告诉诸位我热爱几何形式、对称、数列、一切可组合物、数的比例等等；我是想要解 释一番我就我对界限、量度等……的忠诚态度所写下的东西……但是，很可能，正是这个关于形式的观念引发出来了关于无限的观念：整数序列，欧几里德直线……与其向诸位谈我已经写的东西，还不如谈谈别的更有意思，比如我还没有解决的问题，不知道怎么解决的问题，这些问题又会促使我写些什么：有的时候我力图集中精力写一篇我想要写的短篇小说，可是我却又知道我感兴趣的完全是别的内容，或者不是什么具体的内容，而是符合我应该写的内容的某种事——这就是某一论据及其全部可能的变体或取代物之间的关系，在时间和空间中可能发生的种种情况。这是一种吞噬一切的、毁灭性的着魔心态，足以使写作无法进行。为了对抗这种心态，我想尽力限制我要谈论的范围，把它划分为更为限定的范围，再加以划分，等等。可是另一种晕眩又袭击了我，这就是细节的晕眩，我被拖进了无限小，或者极微之中，正如我以前被拖入无限大之中一样。 “善良的上帝在细节中。”我想用乔达诺·布鲁诺（Giordano Bruno）这位伟大而有见识的宇宙论者的哲学来解释福楼拜的这句名言；布鲁诺把宇宙看成是无限的，由无数的世界组成，但是他又不能称其为“完全无限”，因为这些世界中的每一个都是有限的。另一方面，上帝却是无限的：“他的全部都是在整个世界，而且是无限地、全然地就在这世界的每一部分之中。”过去几年之内我最常读、重读和思考过的意大利文书籍之中，有保罗·杰里尼（Paolo Zellini）的《论无限性的简史》（Breve Storia Dell''infinito，1980）。本书以博尔赫斯对《龟的化身》的无限的攻击开卷[#]（这个概念令其他人走上歧途并且困惑），继而评论有关这一议题的全部论据，结果，消散了这个议题，使无限性转成为艰深的无限小。 我认为文学作品的形式选择和对于某种宇宙论模式（或者某种总体的神话学参照系）的需要之间的这种联系，甚至在并未清晰宣扬这一点的作家身上也是存在的。这种几何布局的爱好的历史可以马拉美开始在世界文学中探索，而这种爱好是以作为现代科学基础的有序和无序的对照为基础的。宇宙分解为一团热，必定化为熵的涡动，但是在这个不可逆转的过程中有可能出现某些有序的区域，即存在的一些部分，这些部分倾向成为某种形式；即某些特殊的点，我们在其中似乎可以见出某种图案或者图景。一篇文学作品就是这种最小部分之一，其中的存在物结晶成为一个形体，形成某种意义——不是固定的、不是限定的、没有变得岩石般稳固僵凝，而是像有机体一样是有生命的。 诗歌是偶然性的大敌，虽然它又是偶然性的女儿，所以，归根结底，偶然性将会赢得战斗（投一次骰子不会取消机遇）。在这一语境中，我们可以看一看本世纪最初几十年的形体艺术和后来在文学中蔚然成风的对逻辑的、几何的和形而上学的程序的重新评价。如法国的保尔·瓦莱里、美国的华莱士·斯蒂汶斯（Wallace Stevens）、德国的戈特弗里德·本恩（Gottfried Benn）、葡萄牙的费尔南多·佩索亚（Fernando Pessoa）、西班牙的拉蒙·德·拉·塞尔纳（Ramon Gomez de la Serna）、意大利的马西莫·邦探佩里（Massimo Bontempelli）和阿根廷的霍尔赫·路易斯·博尔赫斯（Jorge Luis Borges）。 因为具有精确的小平面和能够折射光线，晶体是完美性的模型，我一向珍视它，视它为一种象征；而且，这一偏爱已经变得更有意义，因为我们知道，晶体发生和成长的某些特性和最基本的生物体一样，在矿物世界和有生命物之间架起一座桥梁。在我为寻求对想象力的刺激而涉猎的科学著作中，我最近看到，生命体形成过程的模式“清楚地体现在晶体这方面（特殊结构物的恒定）和火焰这另一方面（尽管内部强烈震荡，依然保持外部形式的恒定）”。我所引用的是马西莫·皮亚泰里-帕尔马里尼Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini写的序言，这本书是专论一九七五年在罗奥蒙特（Royaumont）中心由让·皮亚杰（Jean Piaget）和诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）进行的一场辩论的（Language and Learning，1980，p.6）。火焰与晶体的对比的形象可以用来显现向生物学提供的选择，并且由此而过渡到关于语言和学习能力的理论。我现在是不谈皮亚杰和乔姆斯基所提出的见解中包含的对科学哲学的意义；皮亚杰主张“噪音中的秩序”即火焰的原则，而乔姆斯基则赞成“自我组成的系统”即晶体。 在这里，我感兴趣的是这两个象征的对比，正如我在上次讲演中提及的十六世纪象征之一那样。晶体与火焰：两种我们一定要凝望不已的完备优美的形式，两种随时间而成长、而消耗其周围物质的模式，两种道德的象征，两种绝对物，对事实和思想、风格和情感加以分类的两个类别。上文中我暗示二十世纪文学中的“晶体派”，我想，也可以提“火焰派”的近似的名单吧。我一向认为自己是晶体派的拥戴者，但是上一段引文却教导我不要忘记作为一种存在形式、一种生存模式的火焰的价值。同样，我也希望自认为火焰派信徒的人看到晶体派那种不声不响、不畏辛劳的风格。 给予我更大机会来表现几何理性与人生莫测变幻之间的张力的、更为繁杂的形象是城市的形象。我尽力多加叙述我的思想的书依然是《隐身城市》（Invisible Cities），因为我在书中聚集了我对一个单一象征全部的思考、实验和猜想；还因为我构建了一个多面的结构物，在其中每篇短文都十分接近其他短文，组成一个不表现逻辑序列或者等级关系的系列；它要表现的是一个网络，在这个网络中可以采纳多重的途径，得出多重的、派生的结论。 在我写的《隐身城市》中，每一个概念和价值尺度——甚至确切性——都证明是双重的。在某一点上，忽必烈汗体现出了走向理性化、几何和代数的智慧的趋势，把他对帝国的知识降低为棋盘上棋子的行走规则。马可·波罗（Marco Polo）以大量细节向忽必烈描述的城市，忽必烈却用黑白棋格上城堡、主教、士、王、后和卒的种种排列来代表。这种做法给他带来的最后结论是，他南征北战的目标不过是每个棋子身下的木座：这是虚无的象征。但是，在这一时刻出现了场景的骤变，因为马可·波罗请求忽必烈仔细审视他所看到的虚无： 大汗想要集中精神下棋，但是下棋的道理现在却让他感到困惑。每局棋的结果是非输即赢，但是赢了什么、输了什么呢？真正的赌注是什么呢？在将死的时候，在赢家的手把王推开后，王位的脚下什么也没有剩下，只有一个黑格或者白格。忽必烈剥去了他多番征战的表层，以看其本质，作出了一次终极的运算：这是一次最终的征服，而帝国多种多样的财宝只不过是虚幻的外衣而已；这最终的征战被降低为平板上的一格。 于是，马可·波罗说：“大王的棋盘上镶嵌着两种木块，黑木和枫木。大王看着的那一个棋格的木头是从一个在干旱年份里成长的树干上砍下来的；大王看到年轮、木纹是怎么排列的吧？这儿，细看可以看出一个结子：在一个早春，一个幼芽正要冒出，可是夜里下霜，它又停住了。” 到那个时候以前，大汗一直没有注意到这个外国人说大汗国的活竟说得这么流利，但是，令他赞叹的却不是马可·波罗的语言流利。“这个有一个小厚疽儿，大概是一个幼虫窝；不过不是钻木虫的，因为钻木虫生下来以后就要往下钻；应该是一个毛毛虫，因为毛毛虫吃树叶子，所以这棵树才被人发现，用斧子砍倒了……木匠用尺子划出了这个边儿，以便和下一个格子接上，更显得清楚了……”这么一小块光滑而空荡的木头中竟然包含这么多的道理，令忽必烈十分惊奇；而马可·波罗现在又谈起黑木森林、顺流而下装满木材的筏子、码头和倚窗眺望的女人…… 从我写下上一页书的时刻起，我就明确意识到我对于确切性的寻求走上了两个方向：一方面，把次要情节降低成为抽象的类型，可以依据这些类型来进行运算并且展现原理；另一方面，通过选词造句的努力尽可能确切地展现物体可感的面貌。 事实上，我的写作过程一直是面对着符合知识的两种类型的不同途径的。一条途径引向无形体的理性的空间，可以在这里追索将要汇合的线、投影、抽象的形式、力的矢量。另外一条途径则要穿过塞满物体的空间，并且试图通过在纸页上写满字的办法创造出这个空间的语言等价物，作出最细心、最艰苦的努力，使已写出的东西适应尚未写出的，适应一切可言说和不可言说的总体。这两种奔向确切性的努力永远也不会圆满成功：一是因为“自然”语言言说的总要比形式化的语言多，自然语言总是带有影响信息本体的一定数量的噪音；二是语言在表现我们周围世界的密度和延续性时会显出它的缺陷和片断性：它所言说的总是比我们所能体验的一切要少。 我在这两条路中间不断地跳来跳去；在我觉得我已经充分探索了一条路的好处的时候，我就跳向另一条，反之亦然。因而，在最近几年，我用以取代故事结构练习的是描写方面的其他练习；在今天，这是一门被大大忽视了的艺术。像一个小学生写家庭作业以《描写长颈鹿》或者《描写星空》为题写作文一样，我也努力在笔记本中写满了这样的练习，而且从这些材料中编写出一本书来。这就是《帕洛马尔先生》（Mr. Palomar），英译本最近已经出版（一九八五年）。这是一种日记，谈的是知识的最细微的问题、与世界建立关系的方式，和在使用沉默与语言中得到的满足和失望。 在这类的探索中，我是一直记着诗人们的实践的。我想到了威廉·卡洛斯·威廉斯（William Carlos Williams），他描写樱草的叶子细致入微，我们可以在想象中伏在他为我们描述的叶片上的花朵：他就是这样地把这一植物的纤细秀丽赋予这首诗的。 我也想到了玛丽安·莫尔（Marianne Moore），她在描写她那动物寓言集中长着鳞甲的食蚁兽和鹦鹉螺及全部其他动物时，是把动物学著作中的有关知识和种种象征的和寓言的意义融汇在一起的，从而使她的每一首诗都是一篇讲道德伦理的寓言。我又想到了尤赫尼奥·蒙塔莱（Eugenio Montale），可以说他在《鳗鱼》这首诗中总结了上面两位的成就。这首诗只有一个很长的句子，形体像一条鳗鱼，记述了鳗鱼的整个一生，使鳗鱼成为一个道德的象征。 但是，我尤其想到了弗朗西斯·彭热（Francis Ponge），因为他以他短小的散文诗创造了现代文学中一个独特的体裁：那个小学生的“练习本”：在这个本子里，他把文字作为世界上现象的延伸而开始练习写作，通过了一系列的预演、草稿和概算。对我来说，彭热是无与伦比的大师，因为《万物有本心》（Le parti pris des choses）中的简短篇章和他其他的同类作品，虽然读的是一只虾、一个石子儿或者一块肥皂，但是给我们提供了最好的战斗范例，他要迫使语言成为万物的语言，语言从万物出发，归返到我们感官时却已发生变化：获得了我们投放于万物中的人性。彭热直言道明的意思是，通过简洁的说文及其匠心独具的变体，来编写一部新《物性论》。我相信他可能成为当代的卢克莱修，他要通过词汇轻而无实体的、粉末般的纤尘来重建世界万物的物性。 在我看来，彭热的成就是和马拉美并驾齐驱的，方向尽管不同，却是互补的。在马拉美那里，由于达到了最高一级的抽象，而且表明虚无是世界终极本质，词语达到了极致的确切性。在彭热那里，世界呈现的是最微不足道、次要而不对称事物的物体，而世界恰恰就让我们认识到这些不规则的、细小而繁复形体的无限的多样性。 有人认为，词汇是用以获取世界本质，最终的、独特的、绝对的本质的手段。其实，词汇代表不了本质，只能与其本身同一（所以称词汇是达到目的的手段是错误的）：词汇只认识它本身，提供不了关于世界的其他知识。另外一些人认为，使用词汇就是对事物的不断的探索，虽然不能接近事物本质，却可以接近事物无限的多样性，可以触及事物不可穷尽的多种形式的表层。 霍夫曼塔尔（Hoffmannsthal）说，“深层是隐藏着的。在哪里呢？就在表层上。”维特根斯坦（Wittgenstein）说得更绝：“凡是隐藏着的……我们都不感兴趣。”我不想把话说绝。我认为，我们总是在寻求某种隐藏着的，或者潜在的，或者设想中的东西，只要这些东西出现在表层，我们就要追踪。我认为，我们的基本思维过程是通过每一个历史时期延续留给我们的，从我们旧石器时代进行狩猎和采集活动的先父时代起。词汇把可见的踪迹和不可见物、不在场的物、欲求或者惧怕的物联系了起来，像深渊上架起的一道细弱的紧急时刻使用的桥一样。 正因为如此，至少对我个人来说，恰当地使用语言就能使我们稳妥、专注、谨慎地接近万物（可见的或者不可见的），同时器重万物（可见的或者不可见的）不通过语言向我们发出的信息。 列奥纳多·达芬奇（Leonardo da Vinci）是一个为了把握住他的表达能力所不及的事物而和语言进行搏斗的突出范例。列奥纳多的手稿本不同寻常地记载了和语言——粗俗、尖利的语言的斗争；他不断地从这种语言中寻求更丰富的、更细腻的和更准确的表达法。处理一个意念的各个阶段（比如弗朗西斯·彭热，是把处理的情况连续发表了的，因为真正的劳作不是在于最终的形式，而是在于为获得这种形式而达到的一系列的近似表述）对于作为作家的列奥纳多来说，是他在把写作视为一种知识工具而投入的努力的证明；同时也是这样一个事实的证明，即：对于他曾考虑撰写的著作来说，他感兴趣的是探索的过程，而不是完成撰写拿去发表。列奥纳多写作的关于物件或动物系列短小寓言的主题，都常常是类似彭热的。 例如，让我们来看一看关于火的一则寓言吧。列奥纳多给了我们一个明快的梗概：火因为锅里的水在自己的上方而恼怒，虽然火是“更高级的”原素，却冒出火焰，越冒越高，把水烧开，令水溢出而把自己浇灭。列奥纳多不厌其烦地把这个故事连续写了三个文稿，都不完全，成并列的三段。每次他都添加一些细节，描写火焰如何从一小块木炭发出，劈劈啪啪地钻过木柴中间的空隙，越烧越大。但是很快他就打住了，因为他意识到，即使用来说一个最简单的故事，一个细节的详尽描写也是没有尽头的。即使是厨房中木柴烧着的故事也能够从其本身发展，变得没有尽头。 列奥纳多自称“没有文字修养”，所以和书面文字的关系困难。他的知识在当时世界上没有人能超过，但是他不懂拉丁文，不懂语法，也就妨碍了他用文字和当时的知识界交流。他肯定认为他能够用草图比用文字更清楚地表述他的许多知识。他在谈解剖学的笔记中写道：“啊，作家，你用什么文字才能够像素描这样完美地表现出这整个的图形呢？”不仅在科学方面；而且在哲学方面他也确信用绘画和素描他表达得更好。然而，他也越来越感觉到需要写作，用写作来探讨世界的多形态现象和秘密，来纪录他的种种想象、情绪变化和烦闷怨恨——例如他要责备一些文人，这些人只会拾人牙慧，和自然与人之间的发明者和解释者毫无共同之处。因此，他越写越多。几年过去之后，他完全放弃了绘画，只用写作和素描来表达自己的见解，似乎只遵循用素描和词语进行探讨这一条线路，用他那左手镜读反书文字填满了许多笔记本。 在大西洲笔记对开本265号上，列奥纳多开始记录证据，以确认地球成长的理论。在举出被泥土吞没的城市例子后，他进一步讨论在山地发现的海洋生物化石，尤其是某些骨骼，他认为必定属于太古时期的某种海怪。在这一时刻，他的想象必定充塞着在波浪中游荡的巨大海兽的图景。不管怎么样吧，他把这页纸倒了过来，努力捕捉这个动物的形象，三次尝试写一个句子来表达对这一图景的惊叹。 啊，有多少次你被看到在汹涌海洋中沉浮，你长满毛刺的黑背像大山一样突兀，你仪态沉稳而端庄！ 然后，他使用了“旋转”这个动词，以求给这个巨兽的活动增添更多的动感。 有多少次你被看到在汹涌海洋中沉浮，你仪态沉稳而端庄，在海水中旋转。你长满毛刺的黑背像大山一样突兀，击败并且驾驭了海水！ 但是，在他看来，“旋转”这个词降低了他想要引发出的壮观和宏伟的印象。所以他选择了“犁开”这个动词，并改变了整个句势，给它带来了紧凑感和节奏感，颇具文学判断性。 啊，有多少次你被看到在汹涌海洋中沉浮，你像大山一样突兀，击败并且驾驭了巨浪，你长满毛刺的黑背犁开了海水，仪态沉稳而端庄！ 这个景象被表现得几乎是大自然威严力量的象征；列奥纳多对这影象的求索让我们看到了他的想象力活动的一斑。我在这次演讲结束之际把这一形象留给诸位，希望诸位把它尽可能长久地留在记忆之中，连同它的全部的透明性和神秘感。   [*] 整理者注：当即为前文所引、论述“不确定性”的札记。 [+] 整理者注：参看台湾译本，此句似当为“‘令人犹疑的’不是合适的字眼”。后文亦不当是“一个词要出现的时候”，而是“它们[几何形的痛感]要出现的时候”。 [#] 整理者注：《龟的化身》（Avatars of the Tortoise）当为博尔赫斯作品。

提到英国城市曼彻斯特，80后和90后的年轻人可能首先想到“曼联”---曼彻斯特足球联队。但对我这个60后来说，曼彻斯特带来的第一联想却是：这个英国工业革命的发源地是恩格斯写作“英国工人阶级状况”一书的地方。但最近，我觉得关于重庆和曼彻斯特的两个故事特别引人入胜。 第一个故事：来自曼彻斯特的英国人立德乐第一个驾驶轮船通过三峡抵达重庆，促成了重庆的正式开埠。1859年，19岁的立德乐来到香港，先在一家德国洋行当茶叶检验员。第二年，他只身到上海，参加清政府抵抗太平天国起义的上海保卫战。1861年，他又加入洋枪队，配合清军镇压太平天国。他装扮成商人，先后到江苏、浙江等省刺探太平军情报。太平天国失败后，清王朝授予立德乐三品官衔。1876年，中英《烟台条约》特别规定：“四川重庆府可由英国派员旅居，查看川省英商事宜。轮船未抵重庆之前，英国商民不得在彼居住。开设行栈，俟轮船上驶后再行议办。” 这意味着能否驾轮驶抵重庆，已成为英国进入西南的关键。1898年，立德乐夫妇卖掉首饰与在上海的房产，订造轮船“利川”号，从上海开到宜昌，并终于在同年3月9日清晨驶抵重庆。重庆的门户从此打开了。邓小平20年后也正是从重庆朝天门码头乘船赴法国勤工俭学的。2006年，重庆市人民政府为200位重庆历史名人在朝天门塑像纪念，其中12名外国人中，来自曼彻斯特的英国人立德乐排座首席。 第二个故事：2010年3月10日重庆机电集团与英国精密技术集团（Precision Technologies Group Ltd，以下简称PTG)签订收购协议，重庆机电集团在香港上市的控股子公司重庆机电股份有限公司以2000万英镑现金收购PTG下属的6间公司全部股本。本次收购后，重庆机电将拥有三个百年品牌（霍洛伊德、宾斯巴瑞、克劳福德-斯维夫特），获得螺杆机床、各种型线的螺杆加工、磨齿机、大型机床（包括大型卧式车床、轧辊磨床、深孔镗床、摩擦焊接机等）等4类主要产品的开发、设计及制造的国际先进技术，同时，可以获得国际领先的五轴联动技术。 重庆机电集团董事长谢华骏透露，在最终签订协议之前，他与英国公司的每一个高管都进行了单独谈话，目的是力求稳住一个高技术的企业，通过其在国际上领先的研发和制造能力，与国内的制造业形成互补，而不是单纯的看中几项专利，不排除今后使其在伦敦上市的可能。 有趣的是，重庆市国资委---重庆机电集团国有资产的出资人---主任崔坚到曼彻斯特参加签约仪式期间，特别启用了PTG公司多年不用的职工食堂，宴请了全体职工。英国职工颇感惊奇，因为他们从没有和老板在一起吃饭过。恩格斯如果再生，可能会给“英国工人阶级状况”一书加写一个崭新的篇章。

该立案针对联邦通讯委员会去年12月发布的“保持开放互联网”通知，虽然作者认为这项议案很难通过参议院，并且奥巴马总统也声称将对其否决，但此次通过表明了重大问题。

四月初的华府本来应该是春心荡漾的季节，盛开的樱花为大地回春揭开了秀丽的序幕，灿烂的阳光也驱散了不少早春的寒意。可是华府的政治却弥漫着令人不安的肃杀气氛，共和党保守派夹着去年十一月期中选举大胜的余威，正磨刀霍霍迎接一场预算大战，准备将欧巴马政府的施政计划砍得体无完肤。     　其实美国二○一○财政年度始于去年十月一日，到今年九月三十日结束。由于共和党阻挠，二○一一预算案迄今未在国会获得通过，之前一直是靠一个接一个的临时预算决议支撑政府的运转。目前的临时预算决议只能让政府维持现有的支出水平至四月初，现在两党仍摆明不愿妥协，甚至不惜让联邦政府暂时停摆。     　在共和党尚未夺回众议院多数之前，由于「茶党」运动风起云涌、右派媒体的恶意诋毁、既得利益集团的顽强抵制、以及欧巴马个人的懦弱政治性格，他上台前信誓旦旦要推动三项最重要改革法案：全面医疗保险、整顿金融秩序、以及减少温室气体排放与开发绿色能源，每一项改革方案都难以贯彻，所有通过的立法都是七折八扣。     　现在共和党内由「茶党」支持的极端保守派国会议员更是气焰高涨，准备全面反扑。他们不但坚持要大砍联邦政府预算六一五亿美元，还拒绝为欧巴马的健保改革法提供必要的作业经费，让其无法如期实施。他们还在预算法案中夹带各种极具争议的修正案，例如禁止环保署在这个财政年度内限制发电厂和工厂温室气体排放，不准联邦政府给「家庭计划机构」（Planned Parenthood）提供经费。     　共和党保守派表面上的理由是要避免联邦赤字失控，不让美国重蹈希腊与葡萄牙财政危机的覆辙，但是他们真正的用意在于肢解过去历届民主党总统所建构的社会保障体系。所以他们左手砍社会福利预算，右手护航国防预算，并且坚持维持布什政府针对最富裕群体的减税方案。完全无视于美国目前还有一千四百万人失业，同时还有六百万家庭正陷入房屋遭银行查封拍卖的悲剧。     　同样惨烈的预算大战也正在美国各州展开。在二○一二年财政年度，预计全美有四十四个州和华盛顿特区面临预算短缺，缺口高达一一二○亿。现在全美国各地都在演出图书馆与公园被迫关门、小学老师大量裁减、低收入老年人津贴减少、卫生保健服务中断、警察与公务员周休一日无薪假的凄凉故事。     　共和党保守派不但决心肢解美国的社会保障体系，也决心瓦解民主党的基层组织。新上任的威斯康星州长强力推动立法，限制公务员与老师组织工会的权利，并取消他们的集体谈判权利，在威州首府引发了六○年代越战以来最大规模的示威抗议。类似的政治斗争也正在俄亥俄州、印第安纳州上演。     　威斯康辛大学知名历史学家William Cronon在《纽约时报》撰文批评州长背离该州的「友善、斯文、相互尊重」传统（人文与社会：详情见克鲁格曼：美国思想警察），结果立刻遭遇共和党州议员围剿，要求他交出他大学电子邮箱内出现「共和党」三字的所有邮件。其他大学教授为其声援，抗议学术自由遭遇侵犯，也立刻遭遇共和党外围组织的报复。保守派组织以《信息自由法》名义要求学校交出这些教授信箱内过去几个月所有出现「威斯康辛」、「工会」等字眼的电子邮件，准备指控他们利用「上班时间」与「公家资源」从事政治活动，一场文字狱风波正方兴未艾。     　而与此形成强烈对比的，是欢颜绽开的华尔街金融大鳄。过去即使民主党拥有参众两院多数，欧巴马倾尽全力所通过的金融改革法案，也只能成立新的保护消费者机构、赋予监管机构更大权力解散陷入困境的金融企业、加强限制高风险的衍生工具交易活动、禁止传统银行同时经营投资银行业务，却未能限制金融高级主管的收入和分红。     　这一年多来，在联准会量化宽松货币政策的支撑下股市回暖，金融和银行业盈利恢复，华尔街的贪婪本性故态复萌，纷纷向政府施加压力要求放宽监管。同时，去年美国金融机构给高级主管的薪资与红利又创下历史新高，共发放了一一四○亿美金。历史再度证明他们才是美国政治的永远赢家。     　（作者为台湾大学政治学系教授）

斯蒂格利茨挪用了林肯的名句--民有民治民享：”美国民主中1%的人获取将近1/4的收入--这种不平等是富有者也将会感到后悔的。“

美国《外交》双月刊2 0 1 1年3/4月号文章题：后“华盛顿共识”———危机之后的发展，作者美国全球发展中心主席南希·伯索尔、美国斯坦福大学弗里曼-斯波格利国际问题研究所高级研究员弗朗西斯·福山

quickness诺顿讲稿之二

在第一讲里，我要谈谈轻与重之间的对立；侧重于对轻lightness的价值判断。这并不是说我认为重的价值较少引人入胜，而仅仅是因为，对前者我有更多的话可说。 写了四十年小说，探索过各种道路和作过多种实验之后，应该是我寻求自己毕生事业的总体定义的时候了。我想指出：我的写作方法一直涉及减少沉重。我一向致力于减少沉重感：人的沉重感，天体的沉重感，城市的沉重感；首先，我一向致力于减少故事结构和语言的沉重感。 在这一讲中，我要尝试向我自己一一还有诸位一一解释清楚，我何以认为轻是一种价值而并非缺陷，指出在哪些过往的作品中我发现对轻的理想，并且表明现在我把这种价值放置在何处，又如何将其投射于未来。 我先谈谈上述最后一点。我开始写作生涯之时，每个青年作家的诫命都是表现他们自己的时代。我带着满怀的善良动机，致力于使我自己认同推动着二十世纪种种事件的无情的一一集体的和个人的一一动力。在激发我写作的那种探险性的、流浪汉般的内在节奏，和世界上时而戏剧性时而丑怪的狂热景象之间，我设法寻求和谐。不久以后，我就意识到，本来可以成为我写作素材的生活事实，和我期望我的作品能够具有的那种明快轻松感之间，存在着一条我日益难以跨越的鸿沟。大概只有这个时候我才意识到了世界的沉重、惰性和难解；而这些特性，如果不设法避开，定将从一开始便牢固地胶结在作品中。 在某些时刻，我觉得整个世界都正在变成石头；这是一种石化，随着人和地点的不相同而程度有别，然而绝不放过生活的任何一个方面。就像谁也没有办法躲避美社萨（Medusa）那种令一切化为石头的目光一样。唯一能够砍下美杜萨的头的英雄是柏修斯（Perseus），他因为穿了长有翅膀的鞋而善飞翔。柏修斯不去看美杜萨的脸，而只观察映入他青铜盾牌的女妖形象（即使是在此刻，我即将落入这石头老虎钳之际，也还是柏修斯才能解救我；每当我想谈谈我自己以往生涯之时，无不如此）还是让我用希腊神话中的形象来说明为好。 为斩断美杜萨首级而又不被化为石头，柏修斯依凭了万物中最轻者，即风和云，目光盯紧间接映象所示，即铜镜中的形象。我不由自主地立刻把这篇神话看作是对诗人与世界的关系的一个比喻，写作时可资遵循的一种方法。但是我知道：任何阐释都有可能损害一篇神话的涵义，从而将其窒息。对于神话，切切不可轻率。最好让神话存于记忆之中，玩味其每个细节、多加思考，却又保持住对于其形象语言的感悟。我们从一篇神话中领悟的道理在于文学的叙事过程，而不是我们从旁对其添加的因素。 柏修斯和美杜萨之间的关系是繁复的，并不止于这女妖被斩首。从美杜萨的血里诞生出了飞马佩加索斯（Pegasus）：石头的沉重转化成为其对立物。佩加索斯的马蹄踩上赫里肯山（Mount Helicon），便引发出一股清泉，这是司文艺众女神饮水的地方。据这篇神话其他一些变体，是柏修斯乘坐了生于美杜萨可咒之血、却又为众文艺女神钟爱的飞马佩加索斯。（说来也巧，就连柏修斯的有翼之鞋，也来自妖魔界；他取自于美杜萨另外两个姊妹——这两姊妹共用一个牙齿、一只眼睛。）至于那斩下的首级，柏修斯则没有丢弃，而是藏在袋中随身携带。在他的敌人可能快要战胜他的时候，他只消抓住那首级上由小蛇组成的发卷，这件血淋淋的战利品在这位英雄手里便立即变成一件克敌制胜的武器。这件武器，他只在非用不可之时才使用，而且只用来对付那些罪大恶极只配化为石像的对手。在这里，这篇神话肯定是给予我们某种启示，蕴含在只能作如此解释的形象之中的启示。柏修斯通过藏匿的办法成功地制服了女妖凶险的脸面；正如起初他通过在铜镜中观察它的办法战胜了它一样。 柏修斯的力量在于他能做到不去直接观看，而不是在于他拒否他命定生活于其中的现实；他承担着现实，将其作为自己的一项特殊负荷来接受现实。 在柏修斯和美杜萨的关系方面，我们可以从奥维德（Ovid）的《变形记》（Metamorphoses）中学习到更多的东西。柏修斯赢得了另一个战斗：用剑把一个海妖劈成碎块；解救了安德洛梅达（Andromeda）。现在他要做一件事——在完成一件如此令人厌恶的任务之后人人都想要做的一件事：洗手不干。但是，另一个问题旋即出现：把美杜萨的头放在什么地方。在这里，奥维德的几行文字（iv. 740-752）在我看来不同凡响，表明一个人要想充当斩妖勇将柏修斯应该具有何等细心周密的精神：“为了不让粗沙损伤这长满小蛇发卷的头，他用柔软的树叶铺垫地面，上面又加一层水下植物的嫩枝，才把美杜萨的头放下，脸朝下。”我认为，柏修斯作为一个英雄所代表的那种轻逸，在对如此凶恶、如此恐怖，同时又有些脆弱和夭折的妖怪所表现出来的，令人耳目一新的礼仪姿态中，体现得淋漓尽致。但是，最为令人匪夷所思的事是如下的奇迹：细软的海草稍一触及美杜萨就变成了珊瑚和水仙，而且，为了让珊瑚成为装饰品，又急急忙忙把嫩枝和海藻推向那可怕的首级。 在优美的珊瑚同美社萨这种凶蛮恐怖形象的冲撞之中，包含着深远的意义，我不愿意强加说明或解释而去损害其意义。 我所能够做到的是把奥维德的诗句和现代诗人欧杰尼奥·蒙塔莱（Eugenio Montale）的诗句加以比较。我们在蒙塔莱的《小遗嘱》（Piccolo testamento）中也可以找到可资作为其诗歌象征的最为微妙的因素“蜗牛珠母层颜色的踪迹／或者碎玻璃般的云母片/要起来对抗一个可怕的恶魔，一个扑向西方城市的、长着漆黑色翅膀的魔鬼"。这首诗写于一九五三年，蒙塔莱在其他诗中从来没有引发如此具有启示意义的景观，正是这些微弱的、泛出光泽的踪迹构成了前景：与压城黑云般的灾祸形成对比：“即使灯光一一熄灭／舞蹈化为凶狂踢踏／你也要把它的灰烬珍藏在室盒之中。”但是，对于最为脆弱者，我们如何能够袖手旁观呢？蒙塔莱的诗是一篇表白，表明他信赖那看上去似乎注定消亡的事物，信赖那仅在依稀可见踪迹中包含着的道德价值："那细弱见微的闪烁，不是正在熄灭的火柴。" 为了谈谈我们的时代，我兜了一个大圈子，还动用了奥维德的脆弱的美杜萨和蒙塔莱的黑翼魔鬼。一个小说家如果不把日常生活俗务变作为某种无限探索的不可企及的对象，就难以用实例表现他关于轻的观念。这正是米兰·昆德拉（Milan Kundera）所做的。他做得十分明确，十分直截了当。他的小说《生活中不可忍受之轻》（The Unbearable Lightness of Being）实际上是对生活中无法躲避的沉重表示出来的一种苦涩的认可，这不仅仅存在于他的祖国命定遭受的那种极度的、无所不及的受压迫的处境之中，也存在于我们大家所处的人类命运之中，尽管我们可能要比他们幸运十倍、百倍。对于昆德拉来说，生活的沉重主要存在于威迫，把我们裹得越来越紧的公共和私人事务的小孔眼大网般的威迫。他的小说告诉我们，我们在生活中因其轻快而选取、而珍重的一切，于须臾之间都要显示出其令人无法忍受的沉重的本来面目。大概只有凭借智慧的灵活和机动性我们才能够逃避这种判决；而这种品质正是这本小说写作的依据，这种品质属于与我们生活于其中的世界截然不同的世界。 只要人性受到沉重造成的奴役，我想我就应该像柏修斯那样飞入另外一种空间里去。我指的不是逃进梦景或者非理性中去。我指的是我必须改变我的方法，从一个不同的角度看待世界，用一种不同的逻辑，用一种面目一新的认知和检验方式。我所寻求的轻逸的形象，不应该被现在与未来的现实景象消溶，不应该像梦一样消失…… 在广阔的文学天地之中，永远存在着有待探索的途径，无论是最近的还是最古老的风格和形式都能够改变世界给予我们的形象。但是，如果文学还不足以令我确信我不是在追逐梦景，那我就要求助于科学来培育我的景观，因为在科学中一切沉重感都会消失。今天，科学的每一个分枝都旨在表明，世界是由最为细小的实体支撑着，如脱氧核糖核酸所包含的信息，神经元的脉冲，夸克，以及自从时间开始就在空间漫游的中微子…… 还有计算机科学。的确，软件只能够通过沉重的硬件来发挥它轻捷的功能。然而，到底还是软件发出指令，影响着外在世界和机械，机械只作为软件的功能实现物而存在，机械的发展可以实现更为复杂的设计。第二次工业革命，不像第一次那样，没有向我们展现车床轰鸣和钢水奔流这类惊心动魄的形象，而是提供以电子脉冲形式沿着线路流动的信息流的“点滴”。钢铁机械依然存在，但是必须遵从毫无重量的点滴的指令。 用科学研讨的办法来寻求什么世界形象适应我的观点，这有道理吗？如果说，我在这里的企望对我具有吸引力，那么，这是因为我觉得这种企望可能和诗学史中一条古老的线索有联系。 卢克莱修（Lucretios）的《物性论》（De Rerum Natura）是关于诗歌的第一部伟大著作；在这部著作中，有关世界的知识倾向于消解世界的实在性，诱导到对一切无限细小、轻微和机动的因素的感受。卢克莱修的出发点是写一篇关于物理世界的诗，但是从一开始他便预告物质是由不可见的粒子组成的。他是一位注重物体具体性的诗人，这种具体性见于其永恒不变的实体，然而他首先要告诉我们的是，空虚也和实在的物体一样具体。卢克莱修的主要用心在于防止物质的沉重压垮我们。即使是在叙述确定每种现象的严格机械规律时，他也感到必须让原子不可预知地偏离直线，从而保证原子和人的自由。关于不可见物和无限的、不可预期的或然性的诗——甚至是关于空无的诗——就源于这样一位诗人，一位对世界实体现实毫不质疑的诗人。 这种对事物所持的原子化的态度也扩及到了可见世界的诸方面（也正是在这里，卢克莱修才是一位最好的诗人）：暗室里一室阳光柱中漂移旋转的尘埃微粒（II.114-124），海浪轻轻推到“接纳来者的白沙”上面的那些看似相同、实则各异的细薄贝壳（II. 374-376），在我们周围组结起来，而我们从旁而过却视而不见的蜘蛛网（III．381-390）。 我已经谈到另一部百科全书式的诗作，即奥维德的《变形记》（写作时间比卢克莱修的《物性论》晚五十年），它的出发点不是实体的现实，而是神话故事。对于奥维德来说，一切都会变化成为不同的东西，关于这世界的知识意味着消解世界的实体性。 还有，对于他来说，在世界上存在的一切事物之间，都有一种本质上的可比拟性，与权力和价值观的任何等级观对立。如果说卢克莱修的世界是由不变的原子组成，那么，奥维德的世界则由规定着万物——无论是植物、动物或者是人——的多样性的品质、属性和形式组成。但这些不过是一个单一的共同本质的外在表象而已；这本质一旦被潜在的情绪激发，就会成为与其绝不相同的现象。 奥维德正是遵循了一种形体向另外一种转化的延续性，才表现出他无以伦比的才华。他讲了一个女人如何意识到自己正在变成一棵忘忧树的故事：她的两只脚深深地植入土地中，一层柔软的树皮渐渐向上扩展，裹起她的大腿，她抬起手梳理头发， 发现手臂长满树叶。他还谈到阿拉奇纳（Arachne）的手指；阿拉奇纳是梳纺羊毛、旋转纺子、穿针引线进行刺绣的专家。在某一个时刻，我们看到阿拉奇纳的手指渐渐延长，变成纤细的蜘蛛腿，开始织起蛛网来。 在卢克莱修和奥维德那里，轻是一种基于哲学和科学的观看世界的方法：对卢克莱修而言，是伊壁鸠鲁（Epicurus）的理论，对奥维德而言，是毕达哥拉斯（Pythagoras）的（而奥维德所展现的毕达哥拉斯是十分类似佛的）。在他们两人那里，这种轻来自写作风格，来自诗人驾驭语言的能力，完全独立于诗人自称所要 遵循的哲学学说。 话说到这里，我想，关于轻的概念快要开始成形了吧。首先，我希望我已经说明，的确存在着一种包含着深思熟虑的轻，正如我们都知道也存在着轻举妄动那种轻那样。实际上，经过严密思考的轻会使轻举妄动变得愚笨而沉重。 我可以用《十日谈》（Decameron, VI.9）中的一个故事来最好地说明这一点。故事中的一个人物是佛罗伦萨诗人吉多·卡瓦尔康蒂（Guido Cavalcanti）。薄迦丘（Boccaccio）把卡瓦尔康蒂描写成一位严肃的哲学家，常在一座教堂附近大理石坟墓间漫步、思考。而佛罗伦萨的纨绔子弟们则成群结队在城里骑着马招摇过市，总要抓紧机会寻欢作乐。他们不欢迎卡瓦尔康蒂；卡瓦尔康蒂虽然富有、文雅，却不参加他们的欢宴；另一个原因是，人们怀疑他的神秘主义哲学缺乏虔敬精神。 一天，吉多离开圣米开莱广场，沿着他常常行走的路线——穿过阿达马里街来到圣乔万尼。现在在圣莱帕拉塔广场附近的高大的大理石坟墓，当时都散乱分布在圣乔万尼。他站在教堂斑点石柱和这些坟墓之间，身后教堂的大门关闭着。这时候，贝托少爷和他的同伙从圣莱帕拉塔广场骑着马奔来。一看见吉多伫立在墓石中间，他们便说：“走，去敲打敲打他。”于是刺马前进，嘻嘻哈哈地奔到他面前，像冲锋队一样，弄得他不知所措。他们开口便说：“吉多，你不理睬我们，可是你要放明白点，就是你证明了上帝不存在，那你又能怎么样？”吉多见被他们包围，便迅速回话：“各位少爷，你们要骂我就回你们家里去骂吧。”[*]说罢，他一只手扶着一块大墓石，轻快灵便地一跳，跳到那墓石后面，随即拔腿走开，摆脱了他们。 在这里，令我们感兴趣的不是卡瓦尔康蒂理直气壮的回答（可以作如下的解释：诗人所主张的“伊壁鸠鲁哲学”（Epicurianism）实际上是阿维罗学说（Averroism）；这一学说认为个体的灵魂只是普遍智慧的一部分：坟墓是你们的归宿，不是我的；因为凡是能够通过智慧思辨而上升到普遍观照的人，都会克服个体肌体的死亡）。给我印象最深刻的是薄伽丘提供的视觉场景：卡尔康蒂一跃而逃脱，真是一个身轻如燕的人。 如果让我为新世纪选择一个吉利的形象的话，那么，我要选择的就是：超脱了世界之沉重的哲学家诗人那机敏的骤然跳跃，这表明尽管他有体重却仍然具有轻逸的秘密，表明许多人认定的时代活力——喧嚣、攻击、纠缠不休和大喊大叫——都属于死亡的王国，恰如一个堆满锈迹斑斑破旧汽车的坟场。 我要继续谈论卡瓦尔康蒂这位轻逸诗人，想要提醒诸位记住上面的形象。他诗中的“戏剧人物”不会是连连叹息的人，不是道道的光明，透明的形象，首先不是他称之为“精神”的全部那些非物质的冲动和信息。像爱情的痛苦这种绝非“轻松”的题材，都被化解为在敏感心灵和智慧心灵之间、在情感与理智之间、在目光与声音之间移动的难以察觉的实体。总之，在每种情况下，我们都能注意到三个特点：一、极度轻微；二、不断地运动；三、是一个信息的矢量。在一些诗中，这信息传递者就是诗歌本文。在最有名的一首《我从不希望归来》（Perch'i' no spero di tornar giammai）中，流亡的诗人谈到他正在写作的一首歌谣，他说：“你又柔和又轻盈／快到我那姑娘的身旁。”在另外一首诗中，作家的工具鹅翎毛笔和削翎毛用的小刀说了话：“我们是可怜的、心神不安的翎毛／小剪子和悲伤的修笔刀。”在第十三首十四行诗中，“精神”（spirito）或“灵魂”（spiritello）这两个词出现在每一行诗里。在一首平常的自嘲诗中，卡瓦尔康蒂对这个关键词的偏爱发展到了极致，组成包括十四种“精神”的一篇复杂而抽象的叙述，每种“精神”均有其不同的功能，而全部在十四行的范围之内。在另一首十四行诗中，爱情的痛苦肢解了躯体；但那躯体仍然像铜制或石制或木制自动机器一样地行走。几年以前，魁尼柴理（Guinizelli）在一首十四行诗中把他的诗人蜕变成为一尊铜像，这是一个从它给予的沉重感中汲取力量的具体形象。 在卡瓦尔康蒂那里，因为构成人的形象的材料多种多样，而石可以互相取代，所以物质的沉重感被消解。比喻不会施予我们一种强硬的形象，就连“石头”这样一个词语也不会给诗行增加沉重感。在这里我们还可以见出我在评论卢克莱修和奥维德时谈到的一些现存物的等同性。批评家吉安弗朗科·孔蒂尼（Gianfranco Contini）说这是“卡瓦尔康蒂的现实物等同观”，指的是卡瓦尔康蒂把一切置于同等水平上。卡瓦尔康蒂等同一切事物的最恳切范例见于他的一首十四行诗；诗一开始就罗列了许多美的形象，但注定都要被一位所钟爱的女人的美超过： 美丽的女人和美丽聪颖的心灵，  身披甲胄的骑士，却文雅虔敬，  百鸟的啁啾和倾诉的爱情，  明丽的船只在海面上全速滑行。 清新的空气流遍破晓的黎明，  还有徐徐落下的白雪，寂静无风，  流水潺潺，草地上百花怒放，  装饰品有黄金、白银和淡蓝的水晶。 “还有徐徐落下的白雪，寂静无风”这一行，但丁在《地狱篇》（Inferno，XIV.30）中稍加改变后引用：“有如大雪在无风的山中飘落。”这两行诗几乎完全相同，但是表达的思想却完全不一样。在这两行中，无风日子中的雪表现出一种轻飘的、寂静中的运动。但是，相同之处仅此而已。在但丁的诗行中，地点（“山中”）占重要地位，表现出山的风景，而在卡瓦尔康蒂那里，可能显得冗赘的形容词"白"字，和动词“落下”——完全可以预计的是——把一片风景溶入一种茫然的期待。不过，还是这两行的第一个词确定了两者的区别。卡瓦尔康蒂用的连接词“还有”把雪和其前后的其他景观置于同一平面上；这是有如世界上美丽事物的目录一样的一系列形象。在但丁那里，副词“有如”囊括了比喻范围中的整个场景，但是在这个范围之内，它包含着一种具体的现实。地狱里倾盆大雨的情况也同样具体而有戏剧性，他是以纷然飘落的雪片来比喻火的。在卡瓦尔康蒂那里，一切都极快地运动着，我们体会不到其恒定性，只能见出其效果。在但丁那里，一切都具有恒定性和稳定性：事物的沉重感已恰如其分地确定。但丁即使是在谈论轻微的事物时，看来也是想要表现出这种轻微中的沉重感：“有如大雪在无风的山中飘落。”在另外一行十分类似的诗中，沉入水中而正在消失的物体的沉重感似乎被抑制住，下降减慢，“就像深水中的沉重物体一样”（《天堂篇》（Paradiso，III.123）。 在这里，我们应该记得，正因为我们明确知道事物的沉重，以关于世界由毫无重量的原子构成这一观念才出人意表。同样道理，如果我们不能体味具有某种沉重感的语言，我们也就不善于品味语言的轻松感。 我们可以说，几个世纪以来，文学中有两种对立的倾向互相竞争：一种倾向致力于把语言变为一种像云朵一样，或者说得更好一点，像纤细的尘埃一样，或者说得再好一点，磁场中磁力线一样盘旋于物外的某种毫无重量的因素。另外一种倾向则致力于给予语言以沉重感、密度和事物、躯体和感受的具体性。在意大利文学——实际上是欧洲文学的初期，第一种倾向就已经由卡瓦尔康蒂开创，而第二种则由但丁开始。对比在总体上是成立的，但是需要繁复的分析，因为但丁的写作极为丰富，他又多才多艺得超凡绝伦。但丁的一首充溢着最为恳切轻松感的十四行诗（《吉多，我愿你、拉波和我》（Guido, i'vorrei che tu e Lapo ed io）事实上是献给卡瓦尔康蒂的，这绝非偶然。在《新生》中，但丁也像写老朋友、老主人翁那样地写同样的题材；某些用语、题材和思想都见于两位诗人。甚至在《神曲》中，但丁对轻松的描写也是前无古人的，但是，他的真正的天才却在于一个相反的方面：他善于从语言中提取出全部潜在的音韵、情感和感觉，在诗歌的不同层面中，全部的形式和属性中把握世界，传达出这样一种意象，即：世界是一个有组织的系统，是一种秩序，是一个各得其所的等级体系。我也许稍微夸大了一点对比，不过，我依然想说，但丁甚至把实体性赋予了最为抽象的精神思辨，而卡瓦尔康蒂则在格律严谨的诗行的每个词中化解了真实经验的具体性，思想似乎像迅速闪光一样从黑暗中连连迸发。 上面对卡瓦尔康蒂的讨论可以用来澄清我所指的“轻松”了，至少对我是如此。对我来说，轻微感是精确的，确定的，不是模糊的、偶然性的。保尔·瓦莱里（Paul Valery）说：“应该像一只鸟儿那样轻，而不是像一根羽毛。”我至少在三层意思上引用了卡瓦尔康蒂描写轻感的例子。首先是语言的轻松化；使意义通过看上去似乎毫无重量的语言机质表达出来，致使意义本身也具有同样淡化的浓度。诸位自己可以找到这类的例子。例如艾米莉·狄根森（Emily Dickinson）就可以提供许多： 一个花托，一片花瓣和一根刺针，  在一个普通的夏日的清晨—— 长颈瓶上挂满露珠——两个蜜蜂—— 一息微风——轻轻摇曳的树林—— 还有我，是一朵玫瑰！ 其次，是对有微妙而不易察觉因素在活动的思想脉络或者心理过程的叙述，或者涉及高度抽象活动的任何一种描写。在更为近代的作家中，我们可以看看亨利·詹姆斯（Henry James），随便打开他的哪一本书： 这些鸿沟的两侧常常被虽然很轻、虽然微小的旋转气流也不时引起摆动、却十分坚固的构件连接起来；似乎这些鸿沟为了安定自己的神经间或也需要有一枚探锤投下，以测量那深渊的深度，有一件事实已经一成不变地存在，这就是：她看起来一向没有感觉到需要反驳他对于她秘藏心底而不敢明言的一个念头的责备；这个念头，直到他们最近推心置腹的讨论结尾，才被和盘托出。（【丛林猛兽】，The Beast in the Jungle，第三章） 第三，轻逸的视觉形象具有象征的价值，例如薄伽丘故事中卡瓦尔康蒂以轻便的腿脚翻跃过墓碑。有些文学创新是以其语汇变化、而不是其实际的词语给我们留下深刻印象的。而堂吉诃德将其长矛戳入风磨叶片、自己也被拉入空中的场面，在塞万提斯的小说中只用了几行的笔墨。可以说，作者只把素材最小的一部分写进小说。然而，这是全部文学中最为著名的段落之一。 凭借这些见解、我想可以浏览我的藏书、寻找轻逸的例子了。在莎士比亚，我马上就注意到了，默库肖（Mercutio）上场要点（I.iv.17-18）：“你是情人；要借用爱神的翅膀／超越平凡的境界，自由飞翔。”罗密欧和默库肖见地相反，回答道：“在爱情重担压迫下，我正在下沉。”默库肖巡游四方的方式，可以轻易见于他所使用的动词：舞蹈、飞翔、策马奔驰。人脸是一个假面具，“一副面甲”。他刚一上场，就感到有必要解释他的哲理，不是通过理论阐述，而是讲述一个梦。仙女们的接生婆麦布女王出现在一辆用“一个空心檬子核”做的战车上： 她战车的轮辐材料是大蜘蛛的细腿，  华盖用料是蚱蜢的翅膀，  缰绳是小蜘蛛吐出的细丝，  项圈是闪烁银色的月光，  鞭杆是蟋蟀的腿骨，鞭子是薄膜细条 不要忘记，拉车的是“一队纤小的侏儒”（drawn with a team of little atomies，在原文中为atomies，此词另一意义则为“原子”）。依我看，这个生动的细节可以让麦布女王的梦把卢克莱修的原子论、文艺复兴时期的新柏拉图主义，以及凯尔特 （Celtic）的民间故事结合为一。 我还想让默库肖的舞步伴随我们跨过未来一千年的门槛。构成《罗密欧与朱丽叶》背景的那个时代在许多方面与我们的时代不无相似之处：城市血淋淋的暴力斗争和蒙塔古家族与卡普列（Capulets）家族之间的争斗一样毫无意义；乳母教导的性解放没有能够变成普遍之爱的楷模；凭着劳伦斯修道士主张的“自然哲学”的广大的乐观主义开展的事业成果不显：既可带来生命，也会导致死亡。 莎士比亚的时代承认连接宏观世界与微观世界的微妙力量，从新柏拉图主义的天，到炼金术士坩锅中被变形的金属的精神。古典神话包含有许多山林水畔的仙女，但是，凯尔特神话中有精灵和仙女，有关最细弱的自然力量的形象更为丰富。这一文化背景（我不由自主地想起弗朗西斯·叶芝（Francis Yates）对文艺复兴时期神秘哲学及其在文学中的反响所进行的令人入迷的研究）可以解释莎士比亚为什么对我的论题提供了最为充分的例证。我想到的不仅仅是《仲夏夜之梦》中的精灵和全部梦景，或者爱俪儿和那些“造成梦幻的／材料”。我首先想到的是那使莎士比亚的人物能够脱离自己所在戏剧、从而使戏剧溶入伤感和讽刺之情的那种特殊的、对存在的反思。 我在谈论卡瓦尔康蒂时提及的没有重量的沉重感，又复现在塞万提斯（Cervantes）和莎士比亚的时代：这就是莱蒙特·克里班斯基（Raymond Klibansky）、欧文·帕洛夫斯基（Erwin Panofsky）和弗里茨·萨克斯尔（Fritz Saxl）在《土星与忧郁》（ Saturn and Melancholy，1964）中所研究的那种在忧郁与幽默之间的特殊联系。忧郁是添加了轻松感的悲哀，幽默则是失去了实体重量感（即构成薄伽丘和拉伯雷伟大之处的人类俗念的那一维）的喜剧。幽默感对本身、对世界、对有关的整个关系网提出了疑问。交织为一、密不可分的忧郁与幽默构成了丹麦王子谈吐的特点；这类谈吐，几乎在全部莎士比亚戏剧众多的哈姆莱特这一角色的种种化身上出现，真是耳熟能详的。其中之一，《皆大欢喜》中的雅克（IV.i.15-18），是这样限定忧郁的：“但是，这是我自己特有的忧郁，由许许多多的小事造成，来源于许多问题，说实在话，来源于我走南闯北旅途中的许多见闻；我常常琢磨这一切，陷入一种滑稽的悲哀之中。”因而，这不是一种浓重的、压抑的忧郁，而是一张由幽默和情绪波动微粒组成的面纱，一种由原子组成的纤尘，就像组成天下万物最终本体的那一切。 我承认，我想要建造我自己的莎士比亚，认定他是一个原子论者，但是我也知道这有胆大妄为之嫌。在现代世界上，第一位明确地对变幻莫测宇宙提出原子论概念的作家是在若干年后在法国被发现的，这就是西拉诺·德·贝热拉克（Cyrano de Bergerac）。 西拉诺是一位杰出的作家，理应更为知名，这不仅是因为他是科幻小说的第一个真正的先驱者，还因为他所具有的智慧和人的气质。他是卡森迪（Gassendi）“感觉论”和哥白尼（Copernicus）天文学的拥护者，但是首先受到了意大利文艺复兴时期卡尔达诺（Cardano）、布鲁诺（Bruno）、康帕内拉（Campanella）等人自然哲学的熏陶，所以；是现代文学中第一位原子论诗人。在他作品的字里行间，讽刺掩遮不住某种具有真正宇宙感的激荡：他赞美包括有生命和无生命的万物的一体性；赞美决定一切生命形式的多样性的基本形体的结合能力；然而，他首先要表达的却是一切生命形式背后各种过程的不稳定感。亦即：人如何几乎没有成人，生命如何几乎没有成为生命，世界如何几乎没有成为世界。 物质任凭机遇随意杂乱无章地混合，竟然造出人来，而且，为了构成人的生存，又需要极多必不可少的条件，对此，你会惊异莫名。然而，你应当知道，在造就人的路上，这物质曾亿万次停下脚步，时而造出一块石头，时而造出一块铅块、一枝珊瑚、一朵花、一个彗星；这都是因为设计人时需要或者不需要的原素不是大多就是太少。在不断变化和搅动的、数量无穷的物质中，我们所见的不多的动物、植物和矿物得以造成，这就不足为奇了；不比掷一百次骰子才得一次对子更令人惊异。的确，全部这类的掺合不可能不导致某物的形成；然而，某种蠢才笨伯竟会对这某物大为惊奇，皆因这种人永远也不明白某一个很小的变化就会把它变成另外一物。 （《月球内部旅行》【Voyage dans la lune】） 依照这一思路，西拉诺就宣称了人与白菜亲缘的关系，因而想象一棵即将砍下的白菜所提出的抗议：“喂，我的骨肉兄弟，我怎么惹你啦，你非让我死不可？……我从土里长出来，开花，向你伸出手臂，把我的孩子——种子奉献给你；我以礼相待，但报答却是处死！” 如果我们注意到，赞扬真正普世博爱的这慷慨激昂文字几乎是在法国大革命以前一百五十年写就的，那么现在我们就能看到，人类意识摆脱人类中心论偏狭心理的极度缓慢性是可以由诗歌的创新于须臾之间消除的。而这一切则都是以登月旅行为背景；在这里，西拉诺的想象力超过了他最优秀的先驱者萨莫萨塔（Samosata）的路齐安（Lucian）和路多维科·阿里奥斯托（Ludovico Ariosto）。在我关于轻逸的讨论中，西拉诺以其感受宇宙重力问题的方式而必定独树一帜（在牛顿以前）。或者可以说，正是逃避重力的问题激发了他的想象力，推动他设想出一系列抵达月球的方法，一个比一个妙，例如，用装满露水的小瓶，因为露水遇阳光就蒸发；他全身涂满牛骨髓油，因为月亮吸食这种油；或者，从一只小船里不断向上抛出磁化球。 至于磁力技术，当然要由乔纳森·斯威夫特（Jonathan Swift）为使拉普塔（Laputa）飞岛浮在空中而加以发展和完善了。拉普塔岛首次飞起之时，亦正是斯威夫特两项热衷所在，在磁力平衡之时刻消散之际。我说的是他讽刺锋芒所指向的理性主义的无形体抽象观念，是躯体的物质重量：“我能够看到它的两侧，都配有几层走廊，每隔一段又有一个楼梯，以供上下行走。我看到在最下一层走廊上有几个人用长鱼杆钓鱼，其他的人在旁观望。” 斯威夫特是牛顿的同时代人，反对牛顿。伏尔泰则拥该牛顿；他想象出来一个叫米克罗美加斯（Micromegas）的巨人；这个巨人不同于斯威夫特大人国里的巨人，之所以大，不是因为身材巨大，而是因为言谈中数字的巨大，用科学论文式严格、冷漠术语罗列的时空品质。凭借这种逻辑和风格，米克罗美加斯成功地穿过太空，从天狼星飞到土星和地球。可以说，在牛顿的理论中，最能激发文学想象力的不是万物不可避免的重量本身对万物的限制，而是俾使天体在空中浮游的力的平衡。 十八世纪的文学想象充满了空中飘游体。决非偶然的是，在十八世纪初，安东·加兰（Antoine Galland）的法语译本《天方夜谭》开启了西方人对东方式奇迹的想象：飞毯、翼马、灯中冒出的魔鬼。在这种漫无界线的想象力发挥过程中，由于冯·敏豪森男爵（Baron von Munchausen）乘炮弹飞行这一情节，想象力在十八纪达到了顶峰；又由于居斯塔夫·多莱（Gustave Dore）的插图杰作，这一形象便永久地固着在我们的记忆之中。敏豪森的这些奇遇——像《天方夜谭》一样，可能有一个作者；或者许多作者，或者全无作者——是对于重力的经常性的挑战。男爵骑鸭子腾空；揪自己假发尾辫而令自己和坐骑离地；攀着一条绳子从月亮下降，绳子还断了几次，却又重新接起。 民间文学中的这些形象，以及我们在作家作品中见到的形象，乃是文学对牛顿理论作出的反响的一部分。贾科莫·列奥帕第（Giacomo Leopardi）十五岁时写作了一部表现出他惊人博学的《天文学史》，在这本书中，他的业绩之一是总结了牛顿的理论。仰望夜空给了列奥帕第写出最优美诗行的灵感，但是仰望夜空却不是一种抒情题材：他在谈论月亮的时候，他是准确地知道他所云为何的。列奥帕第在不断地评论生活的不可忍受的沉重感时候，把很多轻快的形象赋予了他认为我们无法企及的欢愉：飞鸟，倚窗低唱姑娘的歌声，空气的清新，还有首要的月亮。只要月亮一出现在诗歌之中，它就会带来一种轻逸、空悬感，一种令人心气平和的、幽静的神往。我开始构想这几次讲演之时，就想要用一次讲演只谈月亮，追溯一下月亮在古今与各地文学中出现的情况。后来我又转念，认定月亮理论理应全然归于列奥帕第。他的诗歌的妙处就在于他利利落落地抽去了语言的沉重感，竟致使他的语言变得有如月光。月亮在他诗歌中出现，所用笔墨不多，诗句不繁，但是足以把月光洒向全诗，或者向全诗散播月亮隐藏时空中的幽明。 夜色柔和、晴明、风也无踪影，  月光洒遍花园和屋顶，  远处显现出山峦，  寂寥而谧静。 啊，优雅的月亮，我不禁追忆  一年前我曾来到此地  仰望着你，心里一片苦悲。  现在和去年一样，你依伴着这片树林，  让林木披满清辉。 啊，心爱的月亮，在你柔漫的银辉里  兔儿正在林中嬉戏…… 暮色在天空大地流溢，  碧蓝色又旋即泛起，  阴影从屋顶和山峦遁离  新月的白色光辉徐徐飘飞。 月亮，你在做什么，远在那天上。  告诉我吧，啊沉默的月亮；  夜晚你上升；观照荒原，  然后你依然下沉、隐藏。 这篇讲演中是不是有很多的线索纠结在一起了呢？我应该拉哪条线抽出头来呢？有一条线索把月亮、列奥帕第、牛顿、重力和浮力联系了起来。有一条卢克莱修、原子论、卡瓦尔康蒂的爱的哲学、文艺复兴时期魔术、西拉诺的线索。还有作为一个比喻、谈论世界上微尘般细小事物的写作线索。对于卢克莱修来说，文字就像永恒移动的原子一样，通过组合，创造出极多种多样的词汇和音韵。古今许多思想家都使用过这个观念，他们认为，世界的种种秘密都包含在书写符号的种种结合之中：我们不禁会想到莱蒙特·吕黎（Raymond Lully）的《大艺术》（Ars Magna）、西班牙犹太法师的大经书和皮戈·德拉·米兰多拉（Pico della Mirandola）……甚至伽利略（Galileo）也把字母表看作为最小单位一切组合的典范……还有莱布尼茨……我是否应该沿着这条路走下去呢？等待着我的结论看来不是很明显的吗？写作就是现实中每一种过程的模式……的确是我们所能知道的唯一的现实，的确干脆就是唯一的现实……不不，我不会走像这样的路，因为这些路会让我远离我所理解的语词的用法，也就是说，语词是对事物的永恒的迫逐，是对事物无限多样性的永无止境的顺应。 还有一条线索，就是我首先抽出的这一条：文学是一种存在的功能，追求轻松是对生活沉重感的反应。大概甚至卢克莱修也痛感这一需要，甚至还有奥维德；卢克莱修寻求过——或者他认为他寻求过——伊壁鸠鲁的冷漠；奥维德寻求过——或者他认为他寻求过——依照毕达哥拉斯教导所说的轮回。 我习惯于认为文学是一种知识追求。为了进入有关存在的论述，我必须考虑延伸到人类学、民族学和神话学的文字。面对着部落生活的苦难困境——干旱、疾病、各种邪恶势力——萨满的反应是脱离躯体的沉重，飞入另一个世界，另一层次的感受，从而可以找到改变现实面貌的力量。在距离我们较近的世纪和文明中，在女人承担艰苦生活大部分重担的农村，巫婆们夜里骑着苕帚棍飞驰，或者乘坐更轻的车具，如麦穗，或者稻草。在被宗教裁判所列为禁忌以前，这些场景是民间想象力的一部分，或者甚至可以说是生活感受的一部分。我认为这是人类学的稳固特征，是人们向往的轻松生活与实际遭受的困苦之间的一个连接环节。而文学则把人类学的这一设想永久化了。 首先，口头文学：在民间故事里，飞入另一世界是常见的事。在符拉基米尔·普罗普（Vladimir Propp）的《民间故事形态学》（Morphology of the Folktale，1968）中开列的“功能”当中，有一种方法是“人物转移”，说明如下：“通常，被寻求的物体是在‘另一个’或者‘不同的’国度，这个国度可能在横向上十分遥远的地方，或者，在纵向上，或在高空，或在深海或地下。”接着，普罗普罗列许多人物腾空的例证：骑马或骑鸟，化装为鸟，乘飞船，乘飞毯，坐在巨人或鬼魂肩上，乘魔鬼的车辆。 把民族志和民俗学中记载的萨满教和巫术的功能与文学中包含的形象目录接合起来，也许不是无的放矢的。恰恰相反，我认为每种文学手段背后的最深刻的理性是可以在这种理性所符合的人类学的需要之中找到的。 我想以卡夫卡（Kafka）的《木桶骑士）（Der Kübelreiter）结束我这篇讲演。这一篇在一九一七年写成的第一人称的故事，很短。故事出发点是奥地利帝国战争期间最艰苦的一个冬天中的真实情况：缺煤。叙事人提着空木桶去寻找火炉用煤。路上，木桶像一匹马一样驮着他，把他竟驮到了一座房屋的第二层；他在那房屋里颠簸摇摆得像是骑着一匹骆驼。煤店老板的煤场在地下室，木桶骑士却高高在上。他费尽力气才把信息传送给老板，老板也的确是有求必应的，但是老板娘却不理睬他的需求。骑士恳求他们给他一铲子哪怕是最劣质的煤，即使他不能马上付款。那老板娘解下了裙子像轰苍蝇一样把这位不速之客赶了出去。那木桶很轻，驮着骑士飞走，消失在大冰山之后。 卡夫卡的许多短篇小说都具有神秘色彩，这一篇尤其如此。也许是卡夫卡不过想告诉我们，在战时寒冬之夜外出找煤一事把晃动的木桶变成了游侠的索求，或者一辆大篷车穿过沙漠，或者乘魔毯的飞翔。但是，一只空木桶让你超离既可以得到帮助、又可发现他人利己主义的地方；一桶空木桶，作为匮乏、希求和寻找的象征，又把你带到一个连小小的要求也得不到满足的地方——所有这一切都足以引发人无限的思考。 我读到了萨满和民间故事中的人物，读到了被转化为轻松、使飞翔进入一个神奇的、有求必应的境界这样的事成为可能的困苦。我谈到了乘着普通家常用具——如一只木桶——飞翔的巫师。但是，卡夫卡故事的主人翁看来没有被赋予萨满教或者巫术的力量；大冰山后面的国度看起来是一个空木桶有可能被装满的地方。事实上，那木桶装得越满，就越不可能飞翔。就这样吧，让我们骑上我们的木桶，来面对未来一千年；我们能够往里面装多少东西就装多少，不可抱更大的奢望。例如，轻逸；于轻逸的好处，在这里我已经用尽心思谈论了一番。 [*] 整理者注：参照《十日谈》原文，吉多此句回话大意为“你们这是在自己家里，要怎么骂我都由得你们”

最近我在美国芝加哥大学留学时的“学弟”雷默（Joshua Ramo）来重庆。他现在是基辛格咨询公司董事总经理，帮助已经88岁高龄的基辛格博士经营业务。但他在中国更为人知的原因，是他发明了“北京共识”一词。他认为“北京共识”是和“华盛顿共识”不同的发展模式，其三个构成要素是“改革创新”，“注重公平”和“非对称国防战略”。2008年北京奥运会期间，他是美国唯一获得转播权的NBC电视台的解说兼评论员。  在重庆见到雷默格外亲切。因为芝加哥在美国西部开发中的桥头堡作用，美国媒体常把重庆比喻做“长江上游的芝加哥”。芝加哥市市长刚刚来访重庆。位于重庆解放碑的农蓄产品交易所的生猪远期交易和芝加哥的活牛期货交易，是目前世界上仅有的两个牲畜活体远期市场。在重庆的短短一天半中，雷默拜访了有关市领导和重庆金融界的实干家，参观了“民心佳园”公租房，“三峡博物馆”和刚建成的“中国民主党派陈列馆”。但一度使我略感惊奇的是，重庆令他最感兴趣的是政府干部的“三进三同”，他多次对我表示，下次再来重庆时一定也要参加到农民家中的“同吃，同住，同劳动”。 我说一度“略感惊奇”，是因为我早已了解他和相当多的西方政界学界人士不同：他极为真诚地想了解中国人的所为所想，而不是根据西方主流意识形态“想当然”，虽然这并不意味着他的价值观与我们相同。其实，他的这种态度也不仅仅是对中国的。在他的已被译成中文的新书“不可思忆的世界”第8章中，他详细描述了“黎巴嫩真主党的管理秘诀”：以色列每炸毁黎巴嫩南部一座民宅，真主党就帮助老百姓盖一座新的。正是通过帮助老百姓盖房，修马桶，重建被炸的学校，黎巴嫩真主党和人民水乳交融，能够在以色列的打击下生存发展。我问他，“到真主党人中去不是很危险吗”？他说，多年前在黎巴嫩当记者时认识了值得信任的真主党人朋友。听到他的回答，我对他想参加“三进三同”的热情的惊奇豁然消逝了。我答应他下次带他去重庆合川参加“三进三同”。 提到合川，是因为我上周刚好去合川调研，了解到今年春节刚过后合川干部集中两周时间开展“三进三同”春季行动。他们的做法是：全体区级领导率30个镇街工作队，3531名干部组成387个工作组，同时成立整修农村公路、解决饮水困难、帮助就业、村（居）务公开、医疗卫生免费体检、强化基层组织建设6个专项工作组。曾任中共西藏日喀则市委书记的现任合川区委书记王作安的“三进三同”体会是极为生动的排比句：“真下去，老百姓真欢迎。真下去，真管用。真下去，真受教育”。 为了使雷默更好理解“三进三同”，我在送他去机场的路上试图用1938年死在法西斯狱中的意大利共产党领袖葛兰西的理论加以阐释。葛兰西在“狱中笔记”中提出一个重大问题：为什么作为文艺复兴发源地的意大利，在政治发展上却远远落后于英国，法国和西班牙，以致意大利独立民族国家建立很晚（拿波里长期是西班牙殖民地）？他的部分答案是：文艺复兴尽管辉煌，但局限于上层精英，而宗教改革才是深入普通人民的“民族-大众”意志。葛兰西认为意大利共产党应领导一个现代的“宗教改革”运动，而不少西方学者已经发现毛泽东和他的同龄人葛兰西有许多惊人相似的思路：毛泽东的农村包围城市战略和葛兰西的意大利南部农民问题论述，毛泽东和葛兰西都重视统一战线而为此受到正统斯大林主义批判，毛泽东和葛兰西都强调令人心服的文化领导权而不是简单的统治权。雷默对毛泽东和葛兰西的理论比较极为兴奋，在飞离重庆的飞机上，他可能会用毛泽东及葛兰西的视角琢磨“三进三同”吧？这只有下次他再来重庆时问他了。

基辛格咨询公司董事总经理Ramos（北京共识提出者）新书中译第八章之前半部分选登，译者何帆。

就在我为辛亥百年第三个“乡建十年”做反思之际，传来刘老石遭遇车祸的噩耗！痛心疾首。夜不成寐。遂有挽联： 　　他是一块铺路石，无论生前死后，得道筚路蓝缕以启山林。 　　你是一个志愿者，历尽蹉跎坎坷，惟留一甑一钵庇荫后人。 　　刘老石不仅是我招收的2010级博士研究生，也是从2000年起就与我一起历经了新世纪乡村建设风风雨雨的同事。因此，我们不仅是师生，也是同仁。所谓相知甚深，相交甚笃；十年生死是可以相托的。 　　老石本名刘湘波，2000年在天津某大学开展学生社团活动的时候曾经请我去做演讲。2002年中国改革杂志社成立《农村版》则是我请他做兼职编辑，他便成了如今成千上万青年学生都熟悉的“刘老石”；无数不齿于跟着各个画地为牢的小俱乐部玩家“掉洋书袋”的有志青年冲出樊篱就教于这个不在其位却因“学高为师德高为范”而自成一体的中国乡土大百科教师…… 　　海内外很多高校学生都会记得这个充满活力的老师，因为无论在支农活动中遭遇什么困难都会得到他的指引和鼓舞！各地基层的农民骨干会怀念这个充满亲和力的志愿者，因为他是那种心中装着农民而能够自然地融入乡土社会的真正知识分子！各界的支农志愿者会永远在内心深处保留他的音容笑貌，因为从事乡建工作从来负重潜行但他脸上却没有过愁容…… 　　诚然，百年乡建人至今不悔无解，都只为救救孩子而做了一块块的铺路石。 　　2004年农村版被关闭的时候，我写了“农村版祭”。现在则写“老石祭”。 　　对于他这个如此年轻却先我而去的同志，号呼无以宣泄悲愤，歌哭无以表达祭奠……惟以寻常话语、屏息静气地劝告刘老石的所有相知，与其蜂拥其陵前献泪，莫如静心回忆他的所作所为，以便我们作为乡建志愿者的各界人士都能得到他一甑一钵的精神遗产。 　　我们这一代在贪欲横流之际只要还有平常之心的便都是铺路石。无论面对世间一切艰难困苦，还是体验人生蹉跎坎坷，皆若修为而砺心智。于是，我们便高尚于能够低首下心地微笑面对一切，不伤于宵小们的非难与自私们的不解。或于泥泞，或于瓦砾，匍匐下如佛陀般忘却小我的身子、深怀着如甘地般感天动地之仁德，随时随地幻化成大大小小铺在路上的石头，不论在风狂雨骤或在骄阳沙暴的淫威之下……惟担忧着过往之人踩踏得稳妥与否。 　　我们这一代只要在贵贱浸淫之中还愿做平常之事的就都是志愿者。前无古人后无来者地、成千上万地、前赴后继地走向乡村民宅。倘能秉持先贤五千年之“民本”理念，去实实在在地做出力所能及的、点点滴滴的努力，也就锻炼了使自己成为大写的“人”而必须区别于虽高冠而行尸走肉之徒、虽博带却蝇营狗苟之辈的心智和能力。这些志愿者之所以历尽坎坷而不悔，在于大家已经是惟一甑一钵而南海得道之“脊梁”！越来越多的志愿者潜心平常之事而细密修成和合大同之道，才可在光大中华传统多样化文明之中为子孙后代谋得一片生存庇荫。 　　老石就是这样的铺路石，这样的志愿者。与他共事的人们记下他的言行就是最好的祭奠。 　　刘老石的心路，永远畅行在我们的热血之中。 　　2011年3月25日星期五，于香港虎地 刘老石，本名刘湘波，1968年3月1日出生于黑龙江黑河。刘老石硕士研究生就读于湖南师范大学哲学系。 毕业后，老石一度执教于天津科技大学（原天津轻工业学院）基础科学部。世纪之交，“三农”问题突显，刘老石开始组织学生下乡支农调研。2001年，兼职加入由温铁军教授主编的《中国改革•农村版》杂志。 2004年底，刘老师和几位下乡支农运动中涌现出来的青年骨干学生注册成立了北京梁漱溟乡村建设中心，继续从事乡村建设工作。 十年如一日地，刘老石带领并影响了成千上万的青年，从城市回到农村，帮助农民成立专业合作社、夜校、文艺队、农民协会。 2011年3月24日，刘老石逝于天津。