文章 - - 文章列表 - 普通

在英文中，与逻辑哲学相关的表达一般有三个：哲学逻辑(philosophical logic)、逻辑哲学(philosophy of logic)和逻辑的哲学(logical philosophy)。从文献来看，使用较多的是前两个。关于这两个表达，人们的看法是不一样的。而且，即使是关于其中的某一个表达，看法也不一样。这些看法不仅表现出人们对逻辑哲学的不同理解，而且也反映出在以逻辑哲学为名的东西上存在的问题。　 一般认为，罗素最早使用了“哲学逻辑”这个概念。但是，这个词以及与它相近的词“逻辑哲学”的频繁出现却是在进入20世纪60年代以后。在过去几十年的时间里，不仅以“逻辑哲学”或“哲学逻辑”为名出版了一些专著和文集，而且还出版了几份以它们为题的专业杂志。因此，至少从表面上看，逻辑哲学或哲学逻辑已经堂堂正正地走入了人们的研究视野，成为人们研究的对象或领域。但是，人们对哲学逻辑或逻辑哲学存在不同的理解，而且至今也没有形成一致的看法。其次，也有人承认哲学逻辑或逻辑哲学的提法有问题，但是为了某种目的和便利，仍然使用它。此外，还有人干脆简单地用逻辑哲学或哲学逻辑为题，根本不对它们进行任何说明或解释。在这三种情况中，第一种情况比较清楚，因为只要看一看不同作者的不同观点，就可以明白其差异所在；而后两种情况则不太清楚。然而，从作者或编者的具体论述或选编的文章，我们大致仍然可以看出或体会到他们的基本意图和想法。　 　　一　含糊的用法　 1967年11月10～12日在伦敦开了一个以“哲学逻辑”为题的学术讨论会。两年以后，与会论文结集出版，名称不变(Philosophical Logic,D.Reidel Publishing Company 1969)。值得注意的是，除了会上宣读和讨论的文章外，文集又增加了几篇论文，而所增加的第一篇文章就是戴维森的“真与意义”。这篇文章是语言哲学的重要文献，刚发表不久，影响很大。由于编者没有解释，因此我们无法知道编者对“哲学逻辑”的理解。真无疑属于逻辑研究的范围，意义是不是属于逻辑研究的范围却值得思考。把这篇文章与文集中诸如欣迪卡的“命题态度的语义”和冯·莱特的“论逻辑的规范和本体论”等论文放在一起，自然是把它划入哲学逻辑的范围。这种做法反映出编者对哲学逻辑采取一种非常宽泛的态度。　 1971年，普特南发表论文《逻辑哲学》。开篇第一节“什么是逻辑”说：“让我们首先问什么是逻辑，然后试图看一看为什么应该有关于逻辑的哲学问题。”（注：Putnam,"Philosophy of Logic",in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics,S.Laurence & C.Macdonald,ed.Blackwell Publishers,1998,p.404.）通过对几条逻辑推理规则或逻辑定律的分析，普特南得出一个结论，逻辑推论规则或定律没有什么太大的变化，逻辑学家们的看法也是一致的。这些是逻辑的主要部分，是“逻辑中‘永久的学说’”（注：Putnam,"Philosophy of Logic",in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics,S.Laurence & C.Macdonald,ed.Blackwell Publishers,1998,p.第406页。）。但是在如何接受它们的问题上，逻辑学家们的解释和态度却是不同的。在这个结论的基础上，他说：“显然有一些与逻辑相联系的哲学问题，而且至少它的一个理由也是清楚的，这就是：关于所有逻辑学家在某种程度上似乎普遍承认的一般原理，很难得到任何普遍接受的陈述。如果我们深究这个困难，那么与逻辑相联系的更深的哲学问题就会变得更加清楚。”（注：Putnam,"Philosophy of Logic",in Contemporary Readings in the Foundations of Metaphysics,S.Laurence & C.Macdonald,ed.Blackwell Publishers,1998,p.第406页。）接下来，他讨论了唯名论和实在论之争，逻辑和数学的关系，以及由唯名论所带来的与集合论相关的一些问题。从他的文章可以看出，他所说的逻辑哲学，主要是指在逻辑的基础上，对各种涉及逻辑、与逻辑相关的不同哲学考虑的反思。　 科奈(Korner,S.)于1976年编辑出版了一本名为《逻辑哲学》文集，目的是“讨论一个核心的哲学问题”。文集包括：本体论与哲学；多值逻辑的用途；同一性、必然性和物理主义；自然语言和形式化语言的关系；量词逻辑中的量词与自然语言中的量词。从这些内容来看，许多问题显然很难说是逻辑问题。　 1978年，科比和古尔德编了一本题为《当代哲学逻辑》的文集，前言涉及文集内容的说明只有如下一小段：　 现代逻辑的课本趋于把大部分内容用来发展逻辑技术和逻辑系统的构造。因此它们不太能够注意其主题的历史、逻辑理论的问题或逻辑发展的最新方向。但是有成果的课堂讨论必须探讨逻辑的理论或哲学，而不是探讨它的技术：困为这些技术，作为技术而言，几乎是不可争议的。这个读本旨在为符号逻辑课提供补充课本。它想起的作用是为课堂上讨论逻辑问题提供基础和动力。（注：I.M.Copi & J.A.Could,Contemporary Philosophical Logic,St.Martin's Press,Inc.,1978.）　 从这段说明来看，作者是想在逻辑技术和逻辑系统的基础上，还要探讨其他一些不同的东西。全书共分八章：形式途径，联结词和演绎有效性，意义和所指，逻辑和本体论，类型论，模态逻辑，道义逻辑，多值逻辑。所选文章的作者包括罗素、卡尔纳普、奎因等人。从内容来看，作者打破了一般现代逻辑教材的体系，因循的思路是现代逻辑从经典到非经典的基本分类。　 1996年出版了一本文集《哲学逻辑与逻辑的哲学》（注：P.I.Bystrov & V.N.Sadovsky,Philosophical Logic and Logical Philosophy,Kluwer Academic Publisher,1996.）。这本文集是为了纪念前苏联著名逻辑学家斯米尔莫夫(Smirmov,V.A)，共四部分：一，认识论与科学哲学；二，现代逻辑与科学方法；三，逻辑语义学；四，逻辑证明的分析。“对各种哲学和方法论问题提出了非标准的解决办法”。这里许多文章并不属于逻辑研究或与逻辑相关的研究，只用“哲学逻辑”还不能涵盖它们，所以又加了“逻辑的哲学”这个更为宽泛的名称。　 以上文章和文集采用了“哲学逻辑”或“逻辑哲学”的名称，但是对这两个名称没有明确说明。从具体内容来看，既有现代逻辑技术性的讨论，也有非技术性的讨论，既有逻辑讨论，也有哲学讨论。一个比较明显的特征是，加上“哲学”这一表达，自然而然地容纳了比逻辑更多的内容。　 　　二　明确的说明　 20世纪70年代初，《哲学逻辑杂志》(The Journal of Philosophical Logic)正式出版。该杂志明确地说，它的范围限制在使用形式方法或探讨逻辑理论中的论题的哲学研究。具体内容可分为四类：非经典逻辑；用形式逻辑的方法进行的哲学讨论；讨论与逻辑和语言的逻辑结构相关的哲学问题；与特殊学科相关的哲学工作。该杂志的目的是为具有明确的哲学意义而本质上是技术性的工作提供舞台。这四类内容实际上就是文章的内容。由此可以看出，这份杂志主要有两个特点和精神，一个是突出关于纯逻辑的研究，另一个是用逻辑的技术手段来探讨和处理一些与哲学、语言以及相关学科的问题。　 1980年出版了一本杂志，题目是《逻辑的历史和哲学》(History and Philosophy of logic)，直接含有“逻辑哲学”(Philosophy of logic)这一表达。编者在序中说，其主要感兴趣的是有关逻辑的一般哲学问题：存在和本体论方面，经典和非经典逻辑之间的关系等等。它特别提到，对历史方面的文章感兴趣，而“对现在被划分为‘哲学逻辑’的那类专门文章不感兴趣，对与逻辑教学有关的文章也不感兴趣”。这份杂志对文章的要求无疑是十分明确的。但是值得注意的是，它提到排除“被划分为‘哲学逻辑’的那类文章”。从该杂志的内容来看，这类文章应该是属于《哲学逻辑杂志》中所说的非经典逻辑。由此也就说明，非经典逻辑是“哲学逻辑”中的主要部分，或者至少是其中一部分非常重要的内容。同时似乎还说明，逻辑哲学与哲学逻辑是不同的东西。　 1983年，《哲学逻辑手册》（注：D.Gabbay & F.Guenthner,Handbook of Philosophical Logic,vol.Ⅰ，D.Reidel Publishing Company,1983.）第一卷出版。编者在序中明确地说，目的主要有两个。首先介绍经典逻辑的主要部分。其次是为理解以后的部分提供相关的背景材料。所谓以后的部分即是第二卷和第三卷的内容。编者认为，十分重要的是古典逻辑及其“扩展”，这主要是第二卷（注：D.Gabbay & F.Guenthner,Handbook of Philosophical Logic,vol.Ⅱ，D.Reidel Publishing Company,1984.）的主要内容，包括模态逻辑、时态逻辑、条件句逻辑、内涵逻辑、道义逻辑等等。一些“不同方式”的扩展也是十分重要的，这主要是第三卷（注：D.Gabbay & F.Guenthner,Handbook of Philosophical Logic,vol.Ⅲ，D.Reidel Publishing Company,1986.）的主要内容，包括多值逻辑、相干逻辑、衍推逻辑、直觉主义逻辑、自由逻辑、量子逻辑等等。编者认为，哲学逻辑领域十分广阔，且具有多样性，比如，它植根于一般的哲学、数理逻辑和理论语言学之中。基于这样的思想，后来又出版了该书第四卷（注：D.Gabbay & F.Guenthner,Handbook of Philosophical Logic,vol.Ⅳ，D.Reidel Publishing Company,1989.）。在第四卷，编者认为，几乎任何哲学逻辑系统都不会不与自然语言的语义密切相关。从历史上看，语言哲学与哲学逻辑从一开始就一直是相互交织在一起的。而在过去的一百年里，数理逻辑与哲学逻辑成熟了，成为哲学中的主要学科，并与哲学中的问题相联系。该卷突出并强调语言的形式语义化能力以及形式的语言哲学，因此概述的重点不是揭示语义学上特殊的理论途径，而是展示任何成熟的自然语言的语义理论都要考虑的问题的途径。因而它介绍了广义量词理论、与谓述相关的问题、专名与摹状词的问题、命题态度、预设，等等。　 从1993年起，Nicholas Copernicus University Press每年出版一本文集，题目为《逻辑与逻辑的哲学》(Logic and Logical Philosophy,ed.By Perzanowski,J./Pietruszczak,A.)，主编都是逻辑教授。它声称“主要是专门集中在哲学逻辑和逻辑的哲学部分，即由把逻辑手段应用到哲学问题而产生的哲学。同时不排除其他逻辑问题和逻辑在相关学科中的应用”。　 1994年出版了一本文集《逻辑哲学在波兰》。编者是波兰著名逻辑学家沃伦斯基。他在该文集的序中说，卢卡西维奇在1929年出版的《数理逻辑基础》一书中说过，哲学逻辑是逻辑、认识论和心理学的混合物，为了数理逻辑应该把它抛弃。由于卢卡西维奇的巨大影响，波兰逻辑学家对“哲学逻辑”这个说法一直是有保留的。尽管完全知道“哲学逻辑”这个术语的含义并不是完全确定的，但是沃伦斯基仍然采用了它。他有两个理由：其一，“哲学逻辑”可以十分便利地涵盖许多不同种类的逻辑研究，而这些研究是哲学家们感兴趣的。其二，“哲学逻辑”表达了一种评价态度，即逻辑是与哲学家最相关的。从这两个理由来看，第一个理由最重要，因为它比较清楚地说明哲学逻辑的实质，而从所选论文来看，主要也是一些非经典逻辑的研究，比如“极小蕴涵逻辑”，“对象逻辑”等等。　 从以上几份主要的哲学逻辑杂志和文集我们可以看出两个特点。一个特点是，哲学逻辑或哲学的逻辑这个概念虽然不是十分明确，在使用中也不是特别清楚，但是有一点非常明确，这就是它包含非经典逻辑的研究，甚至说，非经典逻辑是哲学逻辑的非常重要的部分和内容。这也是哲学逻辑区别于经典逻辑的主要所在。另一个特点是，哲学逻辑有不太清楚的一面，这就是涉及哲学的一面。正是由于涉及哲学，因此这一面是不太容易界定的。从《哲学逻辑杂志》的说明来看，这样的哲学讨论主要是要突出技术性，也就是运用现代逻辑的方法，而不是纯思辨的方法。而从《逻辑的历史与哲学》的说明却无法明显看出这一点。但是如果我们看到整个国际学术界对于逻辑的看法，了解逻辑杂志的内容和水平，就没有理由怀疑，今天哲学逻辑的讨论，即使是纯粹哲学的讨论，也完全是以现代逻辑的方法为基础的。　 　　三　不同的看法　 1967年，斯特劳森编辑出版了一本文集《哲学逻辑》，序中说，逻辑有形式的部分和哲学的部分。所谓形式的部分，就是通常所说的形式逻辑，而所谓哲学的部分，就是他所说的哲学逻辑。他认为，哲学逻辑主要回答以下问题：命题是什么？一个命题是真的，这样说是什么意思？从一个命题得出或演绎出另一个命题，命题之间这种关系的实质是什么？如此等等。而回答这些问题迫使人们必须回答其他许多问题，比如关于语言的实质和作用，许多种类型的语言表达式的实质和作用，等等。说明了这种区别，斯特劳森进一步论述了一般命题形式，所指和谓述，真值函项和条件式，意义和使用，意义和必然性，真，范畴等一些问题。显然，他认为哲学逻辑应该研究这些问题。　 斯特劳森的区分十分清楚。形式逻辑是大家都明白的，尤其是在今天，随着现代逻辑的发展，逻辑已经成为一门独立的学科，因此对于形式逻辑没有任何歧义。而关于哲学逻辑的说明，应该也没有什么问题。我们仅从他问的那几个“是什么”就可以看出，这是典型的哲学思考的方式，由此也大致可以领会他所说的哲学逻辑。但是从他具体论述的那些问题来看，我们还是会有一些疑问的。像所指、意义和使用等等这些问题，显然不是逻辑问题，而是哲学问题。但是难道我们不能说它们是语言哲学所一般探讨的问题吗？而且，如果说它们是语言哲学的问题，难道不是更恰当吗？　 1978年，哈克(Haack,S.)出版专著《逻辑哲学》。他十分明确地说：“逻辑哲学的职责，正像我所理解的，是研究逻辑所提出的哲学问题，一如科学哲学的职责是研究科学提出的哲学问题，数学哲学的职责是研究数学提出的哲学问题。”（注：S.Haack,Philosophy of Logics,Cambridge University Press,1978,p.1.）逻辑要区别有效论证与无效论证，逻辑的形式系统则为论证的有效性提供严格的工具和纯形式的标准。与此相区别，哲学逻辑所要考虑的主要是这里所涉及的一些哲学问题：一个论证是有效的，是什么意思？从一个陈述得出另一个陈述，是什么意思？一个陈述是逻辑真的，是什么意思？应该把有效性解释为相对于某个形式系统吗？有效的与好的论证有什么关系吗？如此等等。这些问题显然属于逻辑的范围，但是使人感到它们是元逻辑的问题。哈克显然也认识到这一点，因此强调应该把逻辑哲学与元逻辑相区别。他认为，元逻辑主要研究形式逻辑系统的形式性质，诸如一致性、完全性、可判定性的证明，而逻辑哲学却不考虑这些纯形式问题，而主要考虑哲学问题。比如关于二值和多值命题演算之间的关系，对这样两种演算，究竟应该如何替换，如何取舍呢？而做出替换和取舍的依据又是什么呢？此外，他认为，逻辑哲学并不完全限于形式逻辑的问题，它还要考虑非形式论证，以及形式系统和非形式论证之间的关系。　 哈克的说明与斯特劳森有十分相似的地方。而最相似之处就是关于逻辑的说明是清楚的，而关于逻辑哲学的说明却不是特别清楚。在涉及说明什么是逻辑哲学的地方，哈克两次都是通过举例。举例无疑是为了说明。但是一个真正的说明，仅有举例是不够的。它充其最只能使我们去体会一些东西，而没有明明白白地告诉我们它实际想要表达的东西。具体地说，知道探讨有效论证和好论证的区别是属于逻辑哲学的问题，与知道什么是逻辑哲学难道是一回事吗？　 我们发现，在哈克的书名中逻辑是复数(logics)。这是哈克与斯特劳森比较明显不同的地方。也就是说，哈克说的逻辑哲学中的“逻辑”与斯特劳森说的“哲学逻辑”中的逻辑是有区别的。从哈克的具体论述来看，他说的逻辑，主要是指各种不同的形式逻辑，比如传统逻辑、经典逻辑、扩展的逻辑、异常逻辑和归纳逻辑等。因此，他所说的逻辑哲学主要是关于这些逻辑或形式系统的哲学，或与它们有关的哲学。比如，有没有一种逻辑的自然本质可以使人们区别形式逻辑与其他系统？标准的经典的逻辑显然是逻辑，那么非标准的扩展的变异的逻辑系统是不是逻辑？这里不仅涉及各种逻辑的形式，而且涉及它们的内容。那么有关论证的形式和内容如何区分呢？因此，从这些问题来看，他所讨论的逻辑哲学与斯特劳森所要讨论的哲学逻辑是有很大区别的。　 此外，哈克不主张使用“哲学逻辑”这个术语。他认为，这个术语“容易传达一种不幸的印象，好像有一种作逻辑的专门的哲学方式，而不是有关于逻辑的专门的哲学问题”（注：S.Haack,Philosophy of Logics,Cambridge University Press,1978,p.1.第2页。）。　 1989年，沃尔夫拉姆出版了《哲学逻辑》一书。他的观点与斯特劳森十分相似，做法也差不多，区别只是在阐述观点的过程中更细致具体一些。他认为逻辑有两个分支，一个是形式逻辑或符号逻辑，另一个是哲学逻辑。形式逻辑很清楚，它要使论证规范化，提供对一致性和有效性的检验方法。但是，哲学逻辑却很难划定界限和定义。他对哲学逻辑的具体说明如下：　 可以说，哲学逻辑研究论证、意义和真。它的主题与形式逻辑的主题密切联系，但是它的对象是不同的。它不着手使有效论证规范化，也不提供可以使人们对越来越复杂的论证进行评价的公理和符号方法，而是检验构造这样的系统的砖石和灰浆。尽管它的目的主要是对通过构造起来的公理使论证成为形式化的系统进行说明，或者有时候是进行质疑，但是它并不限于研究被形式逻辑规范化了的论证。（注：S.Wolfram,Philosophical Logic,Routledge,1989,p.12.）　 这里的说明有很大比喻的成份。以命题演算为例，p,q,r等表示命题的符号被说成是“砖石”，而“真”，“假”，“并且”，“或者”等等被说成是“灰浆”。因此，相对于命题演算而言，哲学逻辑考虑的问题是：命题演算的“命题”是什么？只有两个真值吗？命题演算在什么程度上体现论证？如此等等。问题是，这样的说明能不能使人明白究竟什么是哲学逻辑？而且这样的说明能不能令人满意？　 除了从与形式逻辑的关系来谈论哲学逻辑外，沃尔夫拉姆还从与哲学的关系论述了哲学逻辑。他认为，任何哲学分支都产生一些问题，这些问题不仅是这个哲学分支专门的问题，而且可以说是哲学逻辑的问题。他的具体说明是，涉及的问题，如果不是专属于论题，而是与论证的有效性有关，则是逻辑的问题。具体地说，比如摩尔关于“道德善”的论证，这个论证是不是一个正确的描述，就属于道德哲学领域，而它是不是含有逻辑错误，则是哲学逻辑的问题。比如，关于“上帝存在”的本体论证明，它后来被基于“存在不是谓词”而说成是谬误。这就是把哲学逻辑应用到哲学家一直考虑的某个问题。在这样的说明中，令人比较困惑的是：哲学逻辑是不是等同于逻辑理论和逻辑方法的应用？它们之间是究竟有没有区别？如果有，有些什么样的区别？　 1982年，格雷林出版专著《哲学逻辑导论》，1997年又出了修订版。他认为，哲学逻辑不是关于逻辑的，也不是逻辑；（注：A.Grayling,An Introduction to Philosophical Logic,Blackwoll Publishers Ltd.,1997,P.2.）“哲学逻辑是哲学，尽管是充满逻辑信息和对逻辑敏感的哲学，依然是哲学”。（注：A.Grayling,An Introduction to Philosophical Logec,Blackwoll Publishers Ltd.,1997,P.3.）书中讨论的题目是：命题、分析性、必然性、存在、同一性、真、意义和所指。选择这些内容并把它们称为哲学逻辑，主要有三个理由：第一，“哲学逻辑”标明它们是相互联系的；第二，“哲学逻辑”标明它们在所有严肃的哲学讨论中的核心地位；第三，“哲学逻辑”反映出自19世纪后期以来逻辑学发展所带来的影响。　 格雷林说得非常明确，哲学逻辑是哲学。但是，既然不是逻辑，也不是关于逻辑的，为什么要叫哲学逻辑呢？“充满逻辑信息”和“对逻辑敏感”是非常不清楚的表达，以此我们无法理解哲学逻辑是什么。从他所选择的内容看，我们很难相信这些是哲学逻辑所专门研究的内容，实际上，说它们是语言哲学研究的内容可能会更合适。格雷林在书中非常强调逻辑的重要性和作用，这无疑是正确的。但从他提供的理由来看，我们很难理解它们就应该属于哲学逻辑。具体地说，无论这些内容是不是相互联系，在哲学讨论中有多么重要，即使不叫哲学逻辑又有何妨？至于说为了强调逻辑的作用而叫哲学逻辑，难道不是有些牵强吗？　 在格雷林的论述中，哲学逻辑与逻辑哲学是有区别的。他认为，思考逻辑会使人们一定要提出一些哲学问题，比如蕴涵问题、列文海姆－司寇伦定理的意义、量词理论的范围和限度、逻辑和集合论的关系，等等。这些问题属于逻辑哲学研究的范围，但是这些问题的研究会导致更具有一般性的基本而重要的问题。这时，研究的范围就超出逻辑领域，涉及到语言和思想的性质，世界的结构和内容等问题。这时就成为哲学逻辑研究。因此可以说，格雷林知道而且承认有关于逻辑或与逻辑有关的哲学研究，但是他所说的哲学逻辑并不是这样的研究，而是一种更为广泛的哲学研究。只是他在这里比较强调逻辑的重要性。　 1989年，恩格尔(P.Engel)出版了法文本专著《真之标准》，副标题是“逻辑哲学导论”。1991年，该书被译成英文出版。恩格尔认为，“哲学逻辑”是一个包罗万象的词，涵盖许多不同种类的问题和研究类型。逻辑是关于依形式而有效的推理的理论。逻辑哲学则是与逻辑有关的东西。狭义地理解，逻辑哲学表示一系列与逻辑的方法论有关的问题，这就是对逻辑学家所使用的概念和方法进行分析。但是，这样说依然含糊。如果逻辑哲学是一门专门的学科，那么在探讨一个具体的问题时，逻辑与哲学的分界线在哪里呢？即使在有了现代逻辑的今天，以技术手段来进行这样的区分似乎也是不够的，因为“许多显然是‘纯技术’的问题能够具有哲学兴趣，而逻辑论证和哲学论证的区别有时候是难以区分的”。（注：P.Engel,The Normof Truth:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic,University of Toronto Press,1991,P.2.）　 此外，恩格尔认为，逻辑哲学的含糊性也与哲学逻辑有关。他不赞成哲学逻辑的说法。他认为，现在一般所说的“哲学逻辑”非常强烈地具有弗雷格－罗素的遗产的性质。哲学逻辑被看作是语言哲学的继续，并且是使用逻辑作工具来对语言进行分析。哲学逻辑一般有形式和非形式的区别。从非形式的角度来探讨哲学逻辑，一般会把问题局限在基础逻辑的范围之内；而从形式的角度来探讨哲学逻辑，一般会把问题局限在非经典逻辑的范围之内。这样，哲学逻辑研究最终会限制逻辑所能产生的与哲学相关的问题的范围。因此，无论如何，“逻辑哲学不应该划归为哲学逻辑”。（注：P.Engel,The Norm of Truth:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic,University of Toronto Press,1991,P.5.）恩格尔明确地说，他“不相信有‘哲学逻辑’这样一个学科。但是，同样也没有‘逻辑哲学’，如果它意味着一个有明确规定和明确限定的论题、概念和方法的领域。若是由于缺少更好的术语，因而仍然想用这个说法来表示某种研究，那么就应该记住，逻辑哲学不是逻辑的一部分。它也不是关于逻辑的，如果这意味着它仅仅探讨属于逻辑的问题和概念。它完全是哲学！”（注：P.Engel,The Norm of Truth:An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic,University of Toronto Press,1991,P.7.）　 值得注意的是，恩格尔同样谈到语言哲学。他认为逻辑哲学是与语言哲学不同的东西，但是他要遵循当代大多数人的做法，从语言哲学的角度来看待逻辑哲学的问题。为此，他提出三种分析层次。第一层次是语义分析，这主要是在分析句子的结构或逻辑形式的基础上，分析形式语言中句子的真和所指的条件。第二层次是分析第一层次上使用的理论概念，比如意义、真、所指、结构、逻辑形式等等。在第三层次会产生一些关于这样一种一般性意义理论的后果的问题，比如什么是逻辑真、逻辑真句子如何获得它们的意义、它们关于世界有任何表达吗、逻辑根本就是关于真的问题吗，等等。　 从恩格尔的论述不难看出，他关于逻辑哲学的设想，与语言哲学差不了太多。而且，他开诚布公地承认，他关于逻辑哲学的构想受到了今天人们比较熟悉的语言哲学的构想的影响，而这样的语言哲学构想主要是由于戴维森和达米特的著作。戴维森和达米特关于语言哲学的核心思想是意义理论。因此，我们不能不问：逻辑哲学能够等同于意义理论吗？或者说，逻辑哲学能够等同于以意义理论为核心的语言哲学吗？　 在2001年出版的《哲学逻辑》一书中，戈布尔认为，逻辑为哲学提供支持，哲学为逻辑提供营养，二者结合，“结果就是哲学逻辑”，“哲学逻辑可以很容易被看作用于哲学的逻辑”（注：L.Goble,The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic,Blackwell Publisher Ltd.,2001,P.1.）。在他的论述中，哲学逻辑与逻辑哲学是有区别的。前者发展哲学研究中一些核心概念的形式系统和结构，如模态逻辑、认知逻辑、时态逻辑等等，后者研究与逻辑命题的认识论和本体论立场相关的问题，如什么是逻辑常项，什么是逻辑真的本质，以致“什么是逻辑”等等这样的问题。他希望可以把哲学逻辑与逻辑哲学区别开来，但认为哲学逻辑、语言哲学和逻辑哲学这些领域相互交织，因而“试图确立它们之间的实在界限会是错误的”（注：L.Goble,The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic,Blackwell Publisher Ltd.,2001,P.2.）。　 综上所述，虽然逻辑哲学和哲学逻辑在使用中似乎不加区别，但是不少人还是认为应该把它们区别开来，尽管他们区别的理由各不相同，而且一般也承认明确的区别不易做到。　 　　四　国内的一些看法　 近年来国内出版了一些哲学逻辑和逻辑哲学方面的论著，对哲学逻辑一般有比较明确的看法，认为“哲学逻辑方面的分支一般都以命题逻辑、谓词逻辑为基础，与传统哲学中的概念、范畴和问题有直接或间接的联系”，哲学逻辑“是各种非经典逻辑分支的统称”（注：张清宇等：《哲学逻辑研究》，社会科学文献出版社，1997，第Ⅲ页。）。这样的看法也得到比较普遍的支持。（注：例如，参见陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社，2000，第13页。）但是对于逻辑哲学的看法，即存在一些差异。　 张尚水认为，“从负面的意义来说，逻辑哲学不是哲学的一个分支学科，也不是哲学的一个流派，粗略地说，逻辑哲学是一些哲学家和逻辑学家对逻辑科学的哲学问题的探讨和发表的一些哲学看法。用哲学术语来表示，逻辑哲学就是对于逻辑的哲学反思”（注：张尚水编：《当代西方著名哲学家评传》第5卷，“逻辑哲学”，山东人民出版社，1996，第1页。）。基于这样的看法，也就是说，由于逻辑哲学不是哲学的分支学科或流派，他明确地认为“也没有逻辑哲学家，至少现在还没有专门研究逻辑哲学而可以名家的学者”（注：张尚水编：《当代西方著名哲学家评传》第5卷，“逻辑哲学”，山东人民出版社，1996，第29页。）。陈波也认为，“逻辑哲学作为一个学科仍不十分成熟，讨论、争辩得很热烈，但各种问题尚无定论，自身也尚未成为一个严整的知识体系”（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社，2000，第10页。）。尽管如此，他认为在这领域里仍然可以“有所作为”（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社， 2000，第10页。）。他明确提出，“逻辑哲学力图揭示隐藏在各种具体逻辑理论背后的基础假定、背景预设或前提条件，并质疑和拷问它们的合理性根据以及做其他选择的可能性”。（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社， 2000，第16页。）　 就逻辑哲学研究的内容而言，张尚水认为有三个方面的问题。首先是关于逻辑这门科学的一些哲学问题：逻辑的对象和范围、逻辑真理的性质、逻辑与其他学科的关系等等。比如什么是逻辑？人们一般都承认一阶逻辑是逻辑。但是，二阶逻辑是不是逻辑？集合论是不是逻辑？模态逻辑是不是逻辑？以模态逻辑为基础而发展的众多逻辑理论是不是逻辑？其次是逻辑研究自身提出的哲学问题。比如一阶逻辑刻画了命题联结词和量词，那么对命题联结词和量词的涵义应该如何理解？具体地说，比如“A→B”是不是刻画了“如果……，则……”？在什么意义上刻画了“如果……，则……”？最后是元逻辑研究中提出的哲学问题。比如在元逻辑研究中，什么方法可以使用，什么方法不可以使用？等等。　 张尚水的描述基本上是按照现代逻辑的特征进行的。一阶逻辑是基础，以此为基础，形成了现代逻辑众多的系统群，也形成了现代逻辑庞大的知识体系。一阶逻辑自身有明显而独特的性质，与其他逻辑，比如二阶逻辑、模态逻辑等等有比较明显的区别。因此探讨它们之间的关系和区别乃是自然的。现代逻辑采用形式语言来刻画逻辑常项，自然会涉及这样的语言及其刻画与自然语言中相应的东西的关系。因此讨论这样的问题也是自然的。现代逻辑显著的特点之一是可以进行元逻辑研究，即对形式系统本身进行研究，比如一个形式系统是不是可靠，有多强？因此这里涉及一些十分有意思而深刻的哲学问题，当然可以进行探讨。张尚水的这些说明十分明确，也容易理解。至于说它们是不是十分系统，是否基本或完全体现了逻辑哲学这门学科的特征和性质，则可以讨论。由于他认为逻辑哲学作为一门学科不太成熟，而且明确地说，他想通过这样的说明使人们“对逻辑哲学可以有一个粗浅的理解”（注：张尚水编：《当代西方著名哲学家评传》第5卷，“逻辑哲学”，山东人民出版社，1996，第29页。），因此我们没有必要从体系的角度去理解他的论述。在这种意义上，我认为我们大致可以体会出什么是逻辑哲学。　 陈波也认为逻辑哲学的研究涉及三类问题。第一类是关于逻辑科学整体的哲学分析；第二类是从逻辑系统内部提出，但在传统哲学中有深厚背景的问题；第三类是对逻辑和哲学的基本概念的精细分析。从具体的论述来看，第一类内容涵盖了张尚水所说的第一和第三方面的问题，第三类内容远远超出张尚水所说的第二方面的问题，第二类内容则是张尚水根本没有提及的。陈波的做法与张尚水有一个根本区别，他在论述逻辑哲学问题的时候是有体系考虑的，（注：陈波曾说：“逻辑哲学不是一些零碎知道的机械堆砌，而是由一系列相互联系的内容构成的知道整体。”（陈波：《逻辑哲学引论》，人民出版社，1990，第10－11页）他在那里提出逻辑哲学至少要涉及12个重要论题，讨论了其中8个，明显表达了一种体系的考虑。在2000年出版的《逻辑哲学导论》中，他改变了这样的说法，认为逻辑哲学学科尚不成熟。他讨论了10个问题，除“是”的研究外，基本上仍然属于10年前所谈的范围。从他关于逻辑哲学的论述以及“有所作为”的表达，可以认为他仍然有体系方面的考虑。）因此他所说的这些就值得我们予以思考。由于他与张尚水的区别主要在第二类和第三类问题上，因此我们简要地考虑这两类问题。　 陈波对第三类问题是这样描述的：“第三，对于逻辑和哲学的基本概念的精细分析，这些概念包括：名称和摹状词，语句、命题、陈述、判断，命题形式和命题态度，命题联结词的意义，主词和谓词，量词和本体论承诺，意义、指称、谓述、用法和证实，存在与同一，意义、真理、实在论与反实在论，逻辑、思维与理性，等等。词类分析的目的在于给逻辑研究提供基础框架，或赖以出发的基本假定。”（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社， 2000，第16－17页。）　 这些概念有的是逻辑概念，比如命题联结词、量词；有的既是逻辑概念又是哲学概念，比如摹状词、命题形式和命题态度；有的仅仅是哲学概念，比如本体论承诺、意义、指称、谓述、用法与证实、意义、实在论、反实在论、思维、理性等等。也就是说，这些概念完全超出了逻辑的范围。逻辑显然不会研究超出自己范围的东西，因此逻辑不会研究这些概念。问题是：逻辑哲学会不会研究这些概念？由于这些概念与逻辑没有关系，研究这些概念会不会给逻辑研究提供基础框架或赖以出发的基本假定。　 关于第二类问题，陈波认为“最典型的是归纳逻辑中的休谟问题，它本质上是涉及人们能不能达到关于这个世界的普遍必然知识的问题，因此它归根结底涉及人类的认识能力及其限度，世界是否可知这样一些重大的哲学问题”（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社， 2000，第16页。）。因此他在书中也设立专章讨论了这个问题。休谟问题不仅在哲学史上而且在现代哲学中都是非常重要的，但是这个问题以及与此相关的归纳问题究竟是不是逻辑哲学问题却值得思考。即使不深入探讨归纳本身的性质，仅从陈波对逻辑哲学的说明来看也是有问题的。他认为，并非“逻辑哲学古已有之”，“严格意义上的逻辑哲学是一门新兴的哲学学科，它是现代逻辑与现代哲学相互渗透、相互作用的产物”（注：陈波：《逻辑哲学导论》，中国人民大学出版社， 2000，第2页。）。根据这种看法，休谟问题显然不应该属于逻辑哲学，因为休谟问题早在现代逻辑产生以前就出现了；而且，就归纳问题本身来说，也不是逻辑系统自身提出来的。所以，第二类问题这样的研究范围，是不是逻辑哲学，显然是有问题的。　 周北海认为，模态谓词逻辑涉及三类问题：第一类是形式问题，包括形式表达式及其关系和形式语义；第二类是形式与实际对象的问题，实际对象指直观对象、直观语义或直观背景；第三类是实际对象本身的问题，如实际对象的存在性，它们本身具有什么性质等等。第一类是逻辑问题，第二类是理论问题，第三类是哲学问题。“第三类问题看起来已与形式无关，只是我们所面对的外在世界的某些一般性问题，即哲学问题。但是，既然是对象的问题，而这里的对象又总是某些形式的对象，所以这里的哲学问题仍与逻辑有关，属逻辑哲学问题”（注：周北海：《模态逻辑导论》，北京大学出版社，1997年，第386页。）。他还认为“逻辑哲学问题并不仅仅限于对象，还应包括逻辑对哲学的作用等”（注：周北海：《模态逻辑导论》，北京大学出版社，1997年，第386页。）。前者为“前前逻辑问题”，后者为“后后逻辑问题”。“对于逻辑学来说，哲学的复杂性、重要性以及魅力大概都在这里：在人们认识、研究逻辑的总体思想和方法上，它既是前前的，又是后后的，既是起点，又是终点，起点和终点在这里被错综复杂地交织在一起”（注：周北海：《模态逻辑导论》，北京大学出版社，1997年，第386页。）。　 与张尚水和陈波不同，周北海不是在专门探讨逻辑哲学，而是在论述模态谓词逻辑所涉及的各种问题时谈到逻辑哲学问题，因此他没有过多地论证。但是在他的论述中，有两点是显然的。第一，他在逻辑研究的问题本身区分出三类，由此得出逻辑问题与逻辑哲学问题的区别。逻辑问题是形式方面的问题，逻辑哲学问题是对象方面的问题。这里的区别是，逻辑哲学的问题与形式无关，因此与逻辑问题不同。但是，逻辑哲学所讨论的对象总是一些形式的对象，因此这里的哲学问题又与逻辑相关。第二，他区分出两类逻辑哲学问题，一类与逻辑理论有关，影响到逻辑理论问题的形成与解决。另一类与哲学有关，涉及逻辑对哲学的作用。而且，前一类问题也就是在逻辑研究本身区别出来的第三类问题。　 周北海的区别是清楚的，意思也是明白的，但是却存在两个问题。一方面，形式对象的问题毫无疑问是哲学问题。然而，逻辑哲学是否仅仅考虑形式对象是不是存在？如果真是这样，问题似乎简单许多。但是我们前面介绍过的那些关于逻辑哲学的论述显然都不是这样。比如，什么是命题？什么是推理？一个命题是真的是什么意思？这些问题显然不是关于对象是否存在的思考。此外，说明这样的问题，大致会涉及逻辑理论问题与逻辑哲学问题的区别。因此也可以问，这两类问题能不能区别清楚？另一方面，逻辑在哲学中的作用无疑是通过逻辑在哲学中的应用体现出来的。然而，如果逻辑哲学包括逻辑对哲学的作用，探讨的东西就会非常宽泛，大概很难确定出探讨的范围；而且这里也会涉及到逻辑与哲学的关系。而就逻辑与哲学的关系而言，我们能说它是逻辑哲学的问题吗？　 以上我们简要介绍了国内外关于逻辑哲学这一术语的一些用法，着重介绍了有关逻辑哲学研究的一些主要观点，进行了一些分析和讨论，也提出了一些问题。最后仅指出以下几点：第一，我们赞同区别哲学逻辑与逻辑哲学的做法；第二，我们对以上观点提出一些不同看法仅仅表明从明确学科界限的角度说，逻辑哲学还存在不少问题；第三，哲学逻辑和逻辑哲学的研究发展势头良好，鉴于它们与哲学研究关系密切，应该得到国内学界的关注。

从形式到内容，《破恶声论》包含着一种自我的颠覆性：从形式上看，它是一个民族主义的文本，但文本的落脚点之一，是对民族主义思潮的批判。这个文本的自我颠覆性不是一个简单的否定，鲁迅对民族主义和世界主义的批判都不是简单的否定，毋宁说他通过这个否定表达了一种自觉。所以，这个文本的形式和内容之间有一种特殊的张力。《破恶声论》帮助我们打破民族主义与全球化的二元论，通过寻找另外一个根基来进行自我批判。

  当读者看到本书中译本之际，不知道是否还可以说，这是波斯纳法官的最新著作[1]因为他的《法律与文学》第三版已预告“即出”。尽管讨论的主要是美国的法官和司法，本书对于中国当下的法官、法学人乃至法律人却都有重要的实践和学术启示、参考甚或是指导意义。我先简单概括阅读后感受最强烈的，尽管未必是波斯纳着重传达的一些要点。普通人、法学教科书以及法官自己通常对审判的看法或声称，大致是法条主义的。依据明确的法律(大前提)，事实(小前提)，法官得出一个确定不移的法律决定(结论、判决)。这一理论基本是18至19世纪欧洲理性主义的产物。典型代表是刑法的罪刑法定原则。[2]就刑法而言，这一理论的实践追求尽管有后面分析的不现实，却很有意义，它在一定程度上限制了国家权力的滥用和无理扩张，维护了公民权利，具有重要的社会功能。但这被法学家扩展成了普遍化的法治和司法的理论原型。根据这一原型理论及其隐含的逻辑，法官只是适用法律，从不创造法律———那是立法机关的工作和责任；因此有了严格的三权分立的理论。这个源于刑法的理论原型控制了法学家对司法的想象，乃至伟大的韦伯悲观地预测，未来会出现自动售货机型的司法和法官。[3]但从一开始，即使在贝卡利亚那里，这一观点也不像我们今天通常认为的那么坚定不移。[4]从理论上看，除了有关小前提的假定———事实总是清楚———不现实外(补救的实践制度是“疑罪从无”)；有关大前提的假定也不现实韦伯的悲观预言来自他对“形式理性”的历史主义迷信和价值怀疑，更来自他对司法实践的陌生。在英美法系，特别在普通法领域，不仅法官造法是常例，在美国的宪法和制定法领域，司法也从来不是三段论的。[6]喜好理论圆融和整体性的法学家不自在了；但更不自在的是法官。如果承认这一点，那么自己裁决的政治合法性又何在)的司法经验和参与性观察，在这两个方面弥补了主流司法理论的缺失，重塑了法官研究的基本模型，大大推进了司法决策研究。尽管一如既往吸纳了诸多学科的洞见，波斯纳将此书界定为更多是法律心理学著作，因其集中关注的是法官如何思考(包括不思考)，这种思考会受哪些个人性因素(认知和情感)的影响。但波斯纳的“心理学”不是传统的普通心理学或生理心理学或社会心理学，而是相对晚近的认知心理学，关注的是与法官行为紧密联系的认知和情感的社会和制度塑造。在这个意义上，这也是一本法律社会学或法律交叉学科研究著作。是他的又一次“超越法律”的努力。二基于其他学科的诸多研究以及他个人的分析观察，波斯纳发现，法官并非圣人、超人，而是非常人性的，行为受欲望驱动，追求诸如收入、权力、名誉、尊重、自尊以及闲暇等他人同样追求的善品，因此受工作条件和劳动力市场的影响。只是法官职位的激励和约束(制度)以及更大的司法行动语境与其他人或其他职业不同，才使法官追求的表现形式与常人不同。尽管常规(大多数)司法决定看上去都是法条主义驱动的，但法官绝不是仅适用已有规则或有什么独特的法律推理模式的法条主义者；法官的政治偏好或法律以外的其他个人性因素，例如法官个人特点以及生平阅历和职业经验，会塑造他的司法前见(preconception)，进而直接塑造他对案件的回应。特别是非常规的案件，在美国，在上诉审，在联邦最高法院，法条主义决策材料常常得不出可接受的答案，因此会出现一个开放领域。但职责要求法官决定，法官不得不相当多地依赖其他传统非法律的材料和信息，包括个人的政治看法、政策判断乃至个人特性。结果是，法官的决策不仅不符合法条主义模式，而且司法判决中还充满了政治以及其他许多东西，乃至是“政治的”(political)。所谓“政治的”，很容易被误解。波斯纳界定，它首先指法官在开放领域的被迫的“偶尔立法”。它可以指法官的决定反映了(因此并不一定是刻意追求)对政党或政党纲领的忠诚，或对与政党或党纲都无关的某种政治意识形态的认同(“自由派”或“保守派”)。它还可以指一些看似纯技术性的判断，例如，为大家一致赞同的目标寻找最佳手段的判断。在美国制度语境下，政治甚至还可能指法官为了获得法院多数票，用个人魅力、狡猾、交换票以及恭维来诱使其他法官赞同自己，尽管他想要的也许只是恪守现行法律，而不是造法。影响法官司法决定的还有个人性的要素，包括先天的个人性格或气质，后天的个人背景特点(如与种族和性别相关的经验)，以及个人阅历和职业阅历。法官甚至会有与其政治观点和个人特点都不一定有关的个人策略考量。例如，在美国合议庭审判中，一位法官接受并加入多数法官的意见，也许并不因为他认同该决定，只是若公开反对反而会引发人们的关注，从而增加了该意见的影响力。此外，司法制度的许多细节，薪水、工作量、年龄以及法官的晋升可能，都会进入法官的有意无意的思考，并影响法官的司法行为。波斯纳分析表明，法学界通常认为会内在约束法官的“司法方法”、“法律推理”、“解释”等，以及学术界和舆论的评论对美国法官不大起作用。法条主义工具，包括那些最神圣化的工具，既空泛，其中还总是有大量的裁量，不构成有效约束。学界批评往往太不理解法官的工作，对法官完全无用，也不产生影响。舆论很少关心除联邦最高法院的决定，仅仅对大法官略有约束。由此导致在开放的法律问题上，恰恰因为没有其他约束，情感、人格、政策直觉、意识形态、政治、背景以及阅历这些在其他职业中(例如医生或商业)本不重要的因素就会决定法官的司法决定。哪怕法官自认为没有任何政治考量，旁观者也会有不同的发现，乃至指责法官虚伪或口是心非。美国联邦最高法院，除舆论之外，其他约束更少，则更是一个政治的法院。波斯纳并不因此认为司法是随机的、任性的或是党派政治的；司法的政治性不等于党派政治或意识形态。他指出，大多数法官都希望、也都在努力“干好”。这就好比下盘棋，理论上讲棋手自己想怎么下就怎么下，但他想赢，会努力下好，因此不会随心所欲，不会任性，会遵守游戏规则。法官想成为好法官，也会遵守司法的游戏规则。但这个游戏规则不是法条；司法上的“好”，标准也不确定，会随情势变化，往往不可能获得全社会一致认可。这就使得任何决定都变得有政治意味了。因此，波斯纳认为，重复他之前的分析和倡导，[8]美国法官其实都是实用主义者；但不是“怎么都行”的，而是受约束的实用主义者。游戏的规则要求法官无偏私，理解法律可预测并足以指导人们行为的意义，整体上关注和理解制定法的文字。实用主义法官会高度关注并评估一个司法判决的系统、长远后果。但即使如此，法官还是有很大的活动空间；他可能成为，尽管无需成为一位政治性的法官。读者若只是由此了解到司法并非仅仅适用明确的法律规则，那就是有眼无珠了。该书的贡献在于展示了活生生的人如何与司法的和社会的制度互动造就了我们称之为“法官”的这些行动者，他们为什么如此行为和思考，从而为“在非常规案件中，法官实际上是如何得出其司法决定的{(提出了}一个令人信服的、统一的、现实的且适度折衷的解说……一种实证的审判决策理论”。[9]它完全不是当代中国法学研究中普遍采取的那种模式）？在目前条件下，会不会加剧目前已经引发社会不满的尽管是部分法官的滥权和腐败问题？在社会价值观日益多元化的情况下，位高权重的单个法官（而不是法院）也一定会受到更多的各种压力，不仅使来自党政领导和机关，而且常常甚至更多来自强大但未必正确的民粹压力，中国的法官或法院会不会变得更孱弱？波斯纳关于法官和法院的政治性分析凸显的另一问题是，中国法学界至今关注不够，但英美司法中很明显，即初审与上诉审的必要功能(职能)分工。大致说来就是，初审集中关注事实问题和纠纷解决，上诉审则集中关注法律、政策和隐含在这背后的政治性问题，即规则治理的问题。受传统司法模式影响，当代中国至今没有严格意义上的上诉审，只有二审。二审在很大程度上是监督和指导初审，关注的仍然是纠纷解决，基本放弃了或至少没有自觉追求协调统一二审法院法域内的法律实施，在必要时解释“造法”，推进规则的完善和发展。这在2008年的许霆案[11]中就非常突出，广东高院的二审判决以“事实不清证据不足”八个字将之发回重审，放弃了本应当由其承担的“法律审”；而重审后广东高院的二审裁决书不过是更精细地重复了重审的判决。[12]这种审级制度，主要借鉴的是欧陆司法模式，但在中国语境下更强化了，各级法院功能基本相似，关注重复，没有职能分工导致缺乏效率。我不是说这在中国当代语境下完全没有道理，目前中国一审法院总体而言司法专业技能确实相对弱，不时有地方保护主义，还有法官腐败的因素，也许都需要强化二审的业务指导甚至监督。但当代中国语境也有很强的审级职能分工的要求不仅是司法的效率要求，改变司法体制日益行政化的要求，防止利用行政关系串联更大腐败的要求，[13]以及平衡纠纷解决与规则治理的要求。放眼看来，在中国这个各地政治经济文化发展不平衡的大国，审级职能分工甚至有更重要的制度意义。由于各地法律需求不同，更需要各上诉法院来有效兼顾法治统一和灵活适用的准立法者功能，需要上诉法院在社会争议大的案件中凝聚社会的道德和法律共识，以便促使各地的司法和司法制度竞争。而这些都要求对审级制度从制度功能的角度展开深入分析、讨论、评估和改革。五这也就触及到波斯纳集中讨论的另一个问题，一个在当下中国主流法律意识形态中很是“政治不正确”的问题在处理“难办案件”之际，[14]上诉法官和法院是否必须有一种政治判断，有一些政治考量，而不能仅仅持法条主义。至少有三种情况迫使当代中国法院和法官必须政治上敏锐、犀利并无论如何要做出一些政治性判断。我甚至预测这种需求会日益增加，而不会如同一些学人乐观预测的“五年之后，规范法学即教义学———引者注问题就会明朗了”。[15]首先是面临没有直接可适用的法律但必须且只能由法院通过“解释法律”———其实是“偶尔立法”———来解决的新现象，例如侵权案的“侵权精神损害赔偿责任”问题。[16]二是看似可适用的法律，但适用的结果直接冲撞了广大民众在历史传统中形成的公平正义底线，也需要运用政治判断才能有效解决，例如“许霆案”。[17]以及三，由于社会价值日益多元，以及民众对相关信息了解有限，法院无论如何判决，都可能引发很多争议，但法院只能也必须基于社会的核心价值(即罗尔斯的“重叠共识”[18]做出一种显然有政治意味的选择，例如所谓的“二奶继承案”。[19]因此需要政治判断和考量并不是“后现代”的。政治敏锐、政治判断和政治考量当然不等于直接套用和搬用执政党方针、纲领或政策。这种做法应当反对；它可能会破坏改革开放以来法学界有效区分政治和法律、政策的真诚努力，结果既不利于政治，也不利于法治。但至少在上面提及的这三种情况下，法院和法官则必须以规则治理的方式承担起无法推卸的政治责任。否则，法院的司法合法性和权威性就会受侵蚀；短期的民粹一定会转换成为媒体的舆论压力，党、政、人大等机关会对司法机关施加强大、直接的压力，而这会极大冲击司法独立的发展。刘涌案就是一个典型的例子。[20]换言之，政治性判断不是应当不应当的问题，而是不可避免的。必须认真面对，而不能采取鸵鸟政策。这要求法官和法院在处理这类难办案件之际，除了考虑法律之外，必须考虑系统的后果———对社会，对整个政治制度，以及对司法体制。法官当然首先必须依法，但他还必须考虑“治国”和“办事”。法条主义说这种考量不对，只应当考虑法律。但问题是，如果司法结果直接与社会的基本道德和法律共识或当代中国人的公平正义观相抵触，这样的法条主义的判决在社会中一定会被视为并最终会变成是政治的。有政治考量或政治判断并不必定是追求司法政治化，而恰恰是为了避免司法政治化。注意，我说的主要还是上诉法院和法官，不是每个法官，也并非各层级法院。因为，即使要求，也不大可能做得到。如同上一节所分析的，不同层级的法院和法官的制度功能必须不同，司法所需的政治考量、敏锐和判断因此应当随着审级不同和法院层级不同而不同。波斯纳在书中对此有过细致的分析，也正因此，他才专章讨论了为什么美国联邦“最高法院是一个政治性法院”，不是每个层级的法院，甚至不是每个州的最高法院，尽管这些上诉法院的判决也需要一些政治性判断和考量。他也才不遗余力地揭示了法条主义、原旨主义、文本主义以及其他种种司法理论中立原则、过程学派、“生动宪法”等在美国社会中的政治寓意，以及这些主义或理论倡导者不愿摆在桌面上的政治议事日程。波斯纳开玩笑说，原来甚至打算本书题名《法官思考吗？》或《哪些法官思考？》。[21]暂不考虑这里可能具有的对法官和司法的反讽，也可以看出，波斯纳认为至少有些层级的法官必须思考。而思考在波斯纳那里，从来就不是发现立法原意或教义分析，而是对后果的系统的实用主义考量。六波斯纳此书对我以及对中国司法、法律和法学界的启发应远不止这些。此书第一章概括性介绍了9种研究司法的理论。这足以大大丰富当代中国法学界讨论司法和法官问题的理论资源和视角，从不同层面摆脱那种我戏称为“动物吃植物”[22]的、基于高度抽象因此不着边际的学术研究模式和话语方式。不仅如此，与这些理论视角相伴随，它也提醒我们可能用来分析中国司法制度和法官行为的潜在的中国资料，以及可能参与或邀请参与司法和法官研究的其他学科。他对司法和法官的外在和内在制约的细致经验分析，也丰富了我们对司法独立的经验性理解。司法独立不是一个理念，而是一系列具体的、体贴入微的制度，甚至不仅仅是政治制度。他对法官职任(tenture)和薪水的分析（第6章）指出了制度改革的复杂利弊。尽管数据显示美国联邦法官薪水一直因通胀等因素下降了，但他指出，如果大幅提高法官的薪水，并不一定会引来更多能干并喜欢司法的法律人进入法院，而可能引来贪图高薪却不一定喜欢司法的法律人进入法院。有人抱怨法官工作负荷太重，因此要减负；波斯纳指出，闲暇较多，就会引来更多看重闲暇的法律人加入法院。这些分析都是一两句话就令人恍然大悟，调动了我们沉睡的经验。难道不是吗，在深圳和广州这些城市，许多法院大部分法官都是女性，男性法官辞职当律师的数量大大高于女性法官？为什么？一个也许有待经验材料验证但大致可以成立的假说是一般说来，女性更“风险厌恶”，更珍惜法官职位，尽管收入(相对于律师)较低、工作繁重，但职业风险较小，收入稳定；而那些“风险偏好”更强的、或“风险中性”但在法院晋升中希望不大的男性法官更可能选择离开法院。这甚至可以解说为什么近年来评选出来的“全国优秀法官”大多是女性，这还不包括之前的尚秀云法官、宋鱼水法官。这给人启发，让人警醒，让人慎重改革。这种基于经验、缜密思考并负责任的学术精神恰恰是近年来中国司法改革的呼喊中非常缺乏的。这也就再一次提醒了学术研究联系司法实际的重要性。在第8章“法官不是法律教授”以及第11章“全面的宪法理论”以及第12章“司法世界主义”，波斯纳以不同方式触及了这个问题。他指出当法官独立之际，出色的法学批评本应最能影响法官。但由于精英法学院的教授们往往过分关注话语，不关心能否做成事，站着说话不腰疼，这让要做事的人只能不管说嘴的人了。在美国以法官为中心的体制中，“势利”的法学人都盯着最高法院（但最高法院大法官因其地位特殊又最无所谓学术批评），不关心下层级法院和法官，或爱用联邦最高法院和大法官为典型教训下层级法院和法官，不了解这些法院和法官的具体问题，因此法官也就不搭理这些学术著作了。中国目前不是这样，法学人在不少法官心目中还有点地位。但这也许是假象。也许法院和法官遇到麻烦案件之际还想从法学人那里获得某种学理的支持，或法学人可以协助抵抗一下或至少不参与民粹主义大合唱，或需要法学人为其改革措施摇旗呐喊，或希望能在法学院里兼职教授甚或“博导”因此有一件“学者型法官”的行头。注意，这都不是法学人以学术获得的法官的关注和尊重。波斯纳指出的美国法学界的问题在中国同样存在，并有可能愈演愈烈都表明他学术视野的开阔和开放。他的批评是，一国的法律反映了一国的政治共识或妥协，是回应特定社会具体问题的，因此司法是政治性的，也因此法学是地方性的；以枚举替代论证，以枚举作为根据，并不是一种智识开放，而恰恰是一种思想的封闭———以外国的权威替代对问题的分析和对后果的考察。而这种思维习惯在中国法学界实在太普遍了。还有一点启发是波斯纳对自身职业的研究，甚至是犀利的批判。他充分利用了他27年联邦法官不仅是上诉法官，而且是初审法官)的经验，通过他也许并未事先计划的参与性观察，撰写了这本研究法官和法院的著作，力求把它提高到理论高度这就是他的“本土资源”。身在这个行当，他不是简单地为美国司法或法官辩护，相反，他犀利剖析了法官的思维和行为，提出了许多外人不可能发现的问题、理论命题和论点。尽管进入法律这个行当已50年了，波斯纳说“我还是没有完全被法律职业同化……大多数人进了法学院两周后就适应了的，而我就是不能理解，律师滔滔不绝一些他们并不相信的东西。如果某人显然有罪，你哪来那么多鬼话呢？”[24]“成功者罕有挑战使他成功的那个架构”，一位美国学者评论说，而波斯纳是这罕有之一。[25]除了对自身职业作为利益集团以及对自身的警醒外，这与波斯纳始终如一的学术追求、基于社会责任感的广泛社会参与有关除了全职担任法官，在上诉和初审法院审判，撰写了所有联邦上诉法官中最多的并被其他法官引证最多的判决书，[26]他还在芝加哥法学院每年开一门新课，指导博士生眼下其中一位还是北大法学院的本科毕业生，调解案件微软案件，担任过7年第七巡回区法院“院长”，大量学术写作(每年一到两本学术著作，近10篇学术论文)、以及更大量的报刊时评、书评文章，甚至每周一篇博客[27]等。这种求知和批判精神在当代中国法学人中，其实在各行各业中，都非常缺乏。时下，中国法学界太多仅仅围绕法律、法学、法学教育、法官、律师甚至部门法的利益的“研究”论证了，很少有人能真正从整个社会的利益出发，立足于法学之外，运用法学和多学科的知识和手段以反思的眼光看自己投身的事业和行当，予以体贴入微且有理有节的分析。小家子气注定不可能成就或不断开拓真正坚实的法学。“敢嘲笑哲学者，方为真哲学家”。[28]七本文部分是概括，部分是随想。概括就是省略，随想更可能漫无边际；结果必然是某种程度的篡改。读者还是阅读全书吧。一如波斯纳的其他著作，除了因为学术传统和社会背景可能令读者有陌生甚至生涩感外，该书给人启发、出人意料之处比比皆是，读者会获得智识的愉悦、思想的开阔和坦诚，以及我无法有效传递的那种明快、犀利的文风。曾经说过不翻译了，为的是集中有限的时间和精力研究和写些有关中国的东西。但看到这本4月才出版的波斯纳的新作后，读了几页，就架不住先是法律出版社的高山编辑然后是北大出版社的蒋浩、杨剑虹编辑的劝说，接下了这本书的翻译。之后就是蒋浩先生和杨剑虹女士联系版权和其他方面的准备工作。6月，去康奈尔开会，我顺访了芝加哥法学院；在院长勒夫摩(Paul Levmore)和在该院任教的陈若英老师的安排下，同波斯纳法官见面午餐，谈到了本书的翻译。所有这些，促使我暑假一开始就投入了夜以继日的翻译。和波斯纳笔下的法官一样，人架不住诱惑，而智识的诱惑也是诱惑！也还有其他庸俗和卑微的考虑。这就是，鉴于中国目前法学界的学术状况，任何问题，中国人出来讨论，可能都不如找个外国人更好；有名最好，无名也行，管他有无真才实学。这其实是中国法学人的悲剧，也是我的悲剧，甚至是波斯纳的悲剧。当然由于种种原因，包括翻译的追求，也包括奥运期间专业看电视、业余翻译，最后拉出的这个大旗，因为我的种种差错，可能不大像一张虎皮，也许更像一张猫皮。那么我只能首先请波斯纳法官，然后请中国读者原谅。在此也欢迎读者和朋友指正，以便在适当时修订。希望不仅仅是拉大旗，也是一个自我激励。 【作者简介】苏力，北京大学法学院，教授。【注释】[1]Richard A. Posner，How Judges Think，Harvard University Press， 2008.[2]贝卡利亚《论犯罪与刑罚》，黄凤译，中国大百科全书出版社1993年版，第11页只有法律才能为犯罪规定刑罚。[3]Max Weber，On Law in Economy and Society，ed. by Max Rheinstein， trans. by Edward Shils and Max Rheinstein， Harvard Uni-versity Press， 1954， p.354.[4]注意，贝卡利亚只是认为“刑事法官根本没有解释刑事法律的权利，因为他们不是立法者”着重号为引者添加；认为若允许解释，“法律的精神可能会取决于一个法官的逻辑推理是否良好，对法律的领会如何；取决于他感情的冲动；取决于被告人的软弱程度；取决于法官与被侵害者的关系；取决于一切足以使事物的面目在人们波动的心中改变的、细微的因素。”(前引[2]，第12—13页)。但这不意味着他认为立法可以做到让法官在司法中不解释法律或让法律无需解释。事实上，他承认法律的含混性使人们不得不进行这种解释，尽管他认定这是一个弊端。[5]例如，《法国民法典》第4条的规定“法官不得以法律没有规定或法律不明确不完备而拒绝审理”；特别是《瑞士民法典》第1条第2款的规定“如果不能从法律条文引出规则，法官应按照如果自己是立法者可能颁布的规则来决定案件”。[6]“……道德或政治理论……直觉甚至……偏见……所起的作用远远大于三段论。”参见Oliver Wendell Holmes， Jr.，The CommonLaw，Little， Brown， and Company， 1948， pp. 1—2.[7]自1981年担任第7巡回区上诉法院法官以来，在完成本职工作和额外的教学、研究和社会服务工作外，波斯纳每年还主动“深入基层”，到联邦地区法院担任初审法官，审理一定数量的案件，以积累初审法官的经验。参见Stephen J. Choi and Mitu Gulati，Mr.Justice Posner？ Unpacking the Statistics，61 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 1， (2005)， p.26 n.23.[8]Richard A. Posner，Problems of Jurisprudence，Harvard University Press， 1990；以及Law， Pragmatism， and Democracy，Har-vard University Press， 2003.[9]前引[1]，p.19.[10]李慧娟是河南省洛阳市中级人民法院法官。她在2003年一宗代繁种子纠纷案件审理判决书中称“《河南省农作物种子管理条例》作为法律阶位较低的地方性法规，其与《种子法》相冲突的条款自然无效……”判决一出，首先在河南、继而在全国引发轩然大波。[11]因自动柜员机系统升级出现异常，许霆以自己余额为176.97元的银行卡连续取款170余次，金额达174000余元。广州中院一审认定许霆犯有盗窃金融机构罪，量刑时，虽选择最低法定刑，仍然为无期徒刑。一审判决引发了社会公众、媒体以及法律界和法学界的广泛激烈争议。后重审并经广东高院和最高院核准判许霆有期徒刑5年。[12]参见苏力《法条主义、民意与难办案件———从许霆案切入》，载《中外法学》2009年第1期。[13]最近被撤职的最高人民法院原副院长黄松有所涉及的案件就是一个典型例证。据媒体透露，黄松有被怀疑涉及其潮汕同乡、广东省高级法院原执行局局长杨贤才的贪污舞弊案，涉案金额高达4亿元人民币。参见politics.people.com.cn/GB/41223/8247606.html，发布时间2008年10月29日。[14]关于难办案件的界定，参见前引[12]。[15]黄卉《一切意外都源于各就各位———从立法主义到法律适用主义》，载《读书》2008年第11期，第35页。[16]参见《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》(2001年2月26日最高人民法院审判委员会第1161次会议通过，法释〔2001〕7号)，特别是第4条“具有人格象征意义的特定纪念物品，因侵权行为而永久性灭失或者毁损，物品所有人以侵权为由，向人民法院起诉请求赔偿精神损害的，人民法院应当依法予以受理。”[17]我曾对此案的诸多广义的法条主义处理方案有细致的分析，指出其背后实用主义的、具有立法性因此也具有政治性的判断。参见前引[12]。[18]John Rawls，Political Liberalism，Columbia University Press， 1993.[19]四川省黄某和蒋某结婚后多年未有生育。1994年黄某认识了张姓女子并同居。2001年2—4月在黄患肝癌期间，张一直以妻子的身份守候。黄死前立下遗嘱并公证，将相关部分钱财和住房售价的一半遗赠张某。张根据遗嘱向蒋索要遭拒绝，遂向人民法院起诉。此案经媒体报道后引发全国广泛争论。法院于2001年宣判认为尽管继承法中有明确法律条文，本案遗赠也真实，但黄将遗产赠送给“第三者”的行为违反了民法通则第7条“民事活动应当尊重社会公德，不得损害社会公共利益，破坏国家经济计划，扰乱社会经济秩序”，驳回了原告的诉讼请求。[20]刘涌是辽宁省一位民营企业集团老总。他以集团为依托，采取暴力、威胁等手段聚敛钱财，称霸一方，先后致死、致伤的达42人。2002年，铁岭市中级法院以组织、领导黑社会性质组织等罪一审判处刘涌、宋健飞死刑。辽宁省高院在三次非正式请示了最高人民法院后，改判死缓。舆论哗然。2003年最高法院以原二审判决对刘涌的判决不当为由，依照审判监督程序提审本案，再审判处刘涌死刑。[21]Paul Wachter，How Judges Think， U.S. Appellate Judge and Prolific Author Richard Posner Explains the View from theBench，http//www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2008/march2008/Posner_talk.[22]这来自一则有哲学意味的笑话。某学人下乡，见牲口吃庄稼，想赶，未果；想呼吁他人参与，但不知是何牲口、何庄稼；于是高呼“快来人呀，动物吃植物了！”这是对中国学界人士的一个极好提醒。[23]例如，Richard A. Posner，Law and Legal theory in England and America，Clarendon Press， 1996；以及Law， Pragmatism， and Democracy，Harvard University Press， 2003.[24]Larissa MacFarquhar，The Bench Burner， An Interview with Richard Posner，The New Yorker， Dec. 10， 2001， at 78.[25]Robert A. Ferguson，Tribute to Judge Richard A. Posner，61 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 1，2 (2005).[26]Choi and Gulati，前引[7]。[27]http//www.becker-posner-blog.com/.[28]Blaise Pascal，Pensees， trans. by W. F. Trotter， E. P. Dutton & Co.， 1931， sec. 1，§4.

年《联合国气候变化框架公约》（UNFCCC）第14次缔约国大会，美国政府始终拒绝承担任何强制性温室气体减排义务，导致美国成为迄今唯一没有签署《京都议定书》的发达国家。今年初，美国第44任总统奥巴马宣誓就职以来，美国的气候政策走向就成为人们关注的焦点。本文在回顾美国历任政府在气候变化问题上立场与主张的基础上，发现美国新政府的气候政策既有调整又有延续。 [b]美国往届政府在气候变化问题上态度摇摆不定[/b] 在过去三十年中，美国往届政府在气候变化问题的态度摇摆不定，其相关政策也随之变化。卡特政府时期，美国国家科学院就对气候变化的人为原因及其必然后果做出科学评估并建议采取行动。 但是，20世纪80年代初，在经济滞胀与保守主义回流的背景下，里根政府将环境管制看作是经济的负担，采取了一系列“反环境”措施，掀起了一股“环保逆流”。老布什执掌白宫后，在对待环境问题上延续前任政府的指导思想，在缓解全球变暖趋势上行动迟缓，被戏称为“里根政府第三任期”。 克林顿政府虽然从一开始就正视气候变化问题，并将包括气候变化问题在内的环境问题置于战略性高度，大力推动国际气候谈判进程，并于1998年签署了《京都议定书》。但是，由于共和党国会的阻挠，克林顿政府在其两个任期内对气候变化问题都未能采取实质性行动。 小布什政府当政之初，在“科学政治化”趋势下，籍气候变暖缺乏科学根据而宣布退出《京都议定书》。虽然迫于国际社会愈来愈多的指责和压力，小布什接连出台了《国家能源政策法案》（2005年）、《能源独立与安全法案》（2007），规定了鼓励发展可再生能源和新能源、提高能效等内容，但是在其任期内始终没有限制温室气体排放水平。 [b]奥巴马政府积极倡导绿色能源[/b] 奥巴马多次明确提出通过积极发展替代能源来减缓气候变化、实现能源独立的立场和主张。概括起来说，奥巴马政府沿袭《京都议定书》的思路，以总量减排方式为美国设定了温室气体减排的长期目标和时间表，并主张在全国范围内针对温室气体排放实施“限额-交易制度”。同时，奥巴马政府要重新定位美国在全球气候努力中的地位和作用。 在国内政策层面，奥巴马政府承诺2020年温室气体排放降低到1990年水平；2050年的排放在1990年的基础上降低80%；在全国范围内实施“限额-贸易制度”，且拟拍卖全部排放许可证。在国际政策层面，奥巴马政府强调，美国必须重回联合国气候谈判的轨道，与国际社会紧密合作，以便恢复美国在气候变化问题上的领导地位，特别是恢复美国在绿色能源技术领域的领导作用。 为了充分贯彻其政策主张，奥巴马政府计划在下列领域开展工作：今后10年要向可再生能源、高级生物燃料、能效及其它清洁技术方面投资1500亿美元，创造500万个绿色就业岗位。同时，还任命了一批“环境友好型”的官员或专家来担任能源和环境机构的领导。如任命推崇可再生能源的朱棣文（Steven Chu）为能源部部长，任命提倡保护环境的杰克逊（Lisa P. Jackson）为环保署署长；并重新启用克林顿政府时期的环保官员掌管新政府中的重要机构，如原环保署署长卡洛尔•布朗内（Carol Browner）担任白宫能源和环境政策协调官等。这些领导不但有能力和经验，而且更具有行动的政治意愿。 而且，其政策已经具有较为广泛的政策和实践基础。国内各州和地方政府在气候和能源政策、立法方面已取得不少进展。目前，美国有40个州建立了统一的温室气体报告制度；30多个州设定了可再生能源目标；30多个州已经或正在制定气候行动计划；23个州已经实施了排放贸易；另有7个州正在考虑实施该机制。 [b]奥巴马政府的气候政策既有调整又有延续[/b] 由于美国国会和政府分立、两党分野的治理结构以及利益集团之间的复杂博弈，奥巴马政府的气候政策既有调整又有延续。最根本的调整在于指导思想与对外政策两个方面。在指导思想上，奥巴马政府把美国未来的经济安全、气候安全、能源安全统筹起来考虑。最有代表性的例子就是在面对经济危机时，奥巴马政府提出通过增加“绿色岗位”来缓解庞大的就业压力，并将新能源产业建设成为美国未来的支柱产业之一。这与小布什政府将经济与气候变化对立起来形成鲜明对比。在对外政策上，奥巴马总统多次向国际社会传递 “行动”与“合作” 的积极信号，在气候变化问题上试图摆脱以往单边、孤立的做法，在政策目标和行动上明显向前迈出了一大步。 但是，美国气候政策仍然具有一定的延续性。首先，美国希冀借助气候变化问题将气候与能源、贸易、投资、技术等领域联系起来，从而降低发展中国家产品的国际竞争力，最终达到维护美国全球利益的目的。从长期看，欧盟于2009年1月宣布承诺2020年温室气体排放在1990年排放的基础上降低20%，而奥巴马则承诺2020年将温室气体排放降至1990年水平，因此奥巴马政府的承诺实在是“太少，太慢”。从短期看，由于美国的立法与决策程序及当前现实情况，在2009年“哥本哈根会议”之前美国很难做出国际社会所预期的实质性减排承诺，至多会就“2012年后制度框架”的要点及某些要点的细节问题达成大致协议。 其次，在对待中国温室气体减排问题上，由于美国两党始终保持一致立场，即促使中国承担减排或限排义务，因此其最终目标没有改变，改变的只是实现目标的方式。奥巴马政府仍然是竭尽所能诱使中国等发展中大国参与美国主导的减排框架，但已进行战术调整，即试图弱化、模糊发达国家与发展中国家的“责任”与“能力”差别。克林顿国务卿访华时明确提出希望中国作为美国减轻全球变暖的合作伙伴。美国智库也在努力推动中美两国将“气候与能源议题”纳入双边合作的关键范畴。最有代表性的是近期美国亚洲协会发布的《共同的挑战：协作应对——中美能源与气候变化合作路线图》和美国布鲁金斯学会发布的《突破中美气候合作的障碍》。 [b]世界期待美国在能源改革上做表率[/b] 美国在能源消费和二氧化碳排放量方面举世无双，而其超级霸国的地位也决定了其对影响全球能源体系变革的强大能力。美国有责任和能力率先垂范，执行削减排放的目标任务。奥巴马总统曾表示，“世界上没有别的国家比我们更有能力引领全球化体系的发展，或让各国围绕使自由、安全、富裕的地方越来越多的新国际规则达成共识。”我们将拭目以待，看美国将如何行动，从而确保国际体系向更平等、更公平和更繁荣的方向发展。

据中国政府网消息，为了进一步增强立法工作的透明度，拓宽公众参与立法的渠道，广泛听取社会各方面的意见，提高立法质量，现将《城市公共交通条例(征求意见稿)》(以下称征求意见稿)全文公布，征求社会各界意见。

本文有关家族史研究的介绍涵盖了家庭、家族、宗族三个层次。20世纪80年代以来，家族问题日益受到史学界的关注，家族研究逐渐成为社会史研究中的重要课题，明代的家族研究也是如此，不断有重要的研究成果面世。笔者就20世纪80年代以来大陆学者在这方面的研究情况作一概要的总结(其他酌情介绍)。

《清代中国的物价与经济波动》第六章

最近，重庆市实施的“十大民生工程”吸引了社会各界的广泛关注和热议。特别是，重庆市启动了目前全国最大规模的城乡户籍制度改革和公租房建设。重庆“十大民生工程”中的各个部分相互补充、相互促进。重庆实施“十大民生工程”的制度基础是我所谓“重庆经验进行时”——国资增值与藏富于民并进，地票交易促进城乡统筹发展；其政治保障是干部“三进三同”，“三项制度”。

由于去年基数等原因，今年我国经济增速将逐季回落。然而市场担心，一些不确定因素也可能打乱这种节奏，甚至引起经济超预期下滑。

The philosopher, professor and author talks about gender, the dehumanization of Gazans, and how Jewish values drove her to criticize the actions of the State of Israel.

概述选文要点。《忧郁的文化政治》2010年3月19日出版，多篇选自Loss: the politics of mourning, David L. Eng,David Kazanjian eds.

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

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。

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。

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。

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 

附作者相关采访：日本排放核污水已违反国际法

康德"三大批判"新译过程。

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）

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。