文章 - - wen.org.cn - 文章列表 - 普通

拆迁是城市化和工业化的前提，又能让拆迁户拿到补偿，这本来于国于民于公于私都是好事。政府与拆迁户的最佳选择，就是在博弈的基础上达成共赢，但是，当前另一种趋势却愈演愈烈：某些媒体刻意贬低政府，抬高钉子户，夸大政府与拆迁户的对立，结果让政府与拆迁户双输，或者让钉子户漫天要价，损害了全社会的利益，而媒体却借机成为为民请命伸张正义的意见领袖。钉子户与媒体，能永远代表正义吗？

 此为十年前陈传席教授在南京接受几位记者联合采访的部分内容，现予摘发。——编者  记者（以下简称记）：陈教授，你虽然是研究美术史的，但你偶尔对书法发一些议论，我们读了都觉得很有深度，很有学问，十分中肯，十分正确。现在书法界鱼龙混杂，希望你出来点评一番。陈传席（以下简称陈）：我在美术界得罪了一大批人，不想在书法界再得罪人。记：我们只听，不乱传。陈：不乱传就好，至少十年内不能把我讲的内容传出去，更不能在报刊上……你们叫我谈什么？评谁？记：先评你们南京的林散之吧，他被人称为书圣。他的字到底如何？陈：首先给林散之定位：当代书法家中他是第一人，和他同时的书法家都超不过他（业余书法家又另论）。他的字有书卷气，内蕴丰富，即内在变化丰富。这方面，他甚至超过一些古人。（记者插话：他的字符合你提出的“阳刚大气”、“正大气象”吗？）林散之的书法，其优点我们可以说一本书，讲的人已经很多，现在就不多说了。现在谈存在的问题。首先他的字缺少“结构”。完整地说，他的字有线条而无结构。结构在书法上又叫结体，也叫结字。结字，你们是怎么理解的？我理解就是结构，犹如绘画的造型结构，是非常重要的。唐张彦远在《历代名画记》卷二中说：“……书则不得笔法，不能结字，已堕家声，为终身之痛……”一个“笔法”，一个“结字”，是十分重要的。我们学字，学名家字，首先学其结构。你学王字、学颜字、柳字，线条完全一样，但结构错了，那就不是王字、颜字、柳字了。比如“柳”字，你把右边提高，左边“木”字压低，你的线条再像柳字，也不是柳字了。记得董其昌在《画禅室随笔》中说：“米海岳书，无垂不缩，无往不收，此八字真言，无等等咒也。然须结字得势，海岳自谓集古字，盖于结字最留意……”有人说学古人书要“略其形迹，得其神采”。这完全是胡说。学古人字首先是得其结构，最后得其神采。结构都不像，学王字不像王字，学颜字不像颜字，还奢言什么神采。你们都是学米字的，米“于结字最留意”，怎么能不讲结字呢？林散之写字就不讲结字（结构），当然不是绝对不讲，这一点可能是受他的老师黄宾虹的山水画的影响。黄宾虹晚年成熟的山水画不太讲究结构，因为他晚年眼睛不好，看不清，所以不讲结构。黄宾虹以“法高”而取胜，人们欣赏其“法高”而忽其结构。其实黄宾虹早年画山水十分讲究结构，你们注意看黄宾虹早年的画就知道了。林散之书法线条质量高，也是“法高”，但忽视结构总不是优点。这正如一个满腹经纶的硕儒，而身体却瘫痪，总不是好事吧。霍金是大数学家、大经济学家、大天文学家，他对宇宙起源的研究震动全世界，但他身体瘫痪，脸斜口歪，说话艰难，坐轮椅，不能自立，这不能说不是一个缺陷吧，至少说不是优点吧。《庄子·盗跖篇》中，孔丘说：“丘闻之凡天下人有三德，生而长大，美好无双，少长贵贱见而皆说之，此上德也……”（记者插话“呦，你都能背诵出来”。）他把人的结构之美，看为上德，才、勇反在其次。当然这只是他一家之说。封建社会用人标准“身、言、书、文”，也是把人的身体结构之美放在第一位的。那么，书法作为艺术，岂能不讲结构美？古人说“得形体不如得笔法，得笔法不如得气象”。这气象就是形体结构和笔法的结合，结构还是应该讲一点的。当然，林散之字的线条内涵更重要。这正如霍金，人虽病瘫，但毕竟是大学问家。我只是说，他的字不讲结构美，总不算是优点。（记者插话：对对，陈老师您如果不讲，我们就把他的缺陷看成是优点了。）现在学林字的人只学他的缺点，他的线条质量反而被人忽略了。所以，几乎没有人请他写大牌子。你看这个《益寿文摘》四字书名，写得……（记者插话：结体真的不美，甚至很难看）但格调还是不俗的。你看毛泽东的字，谢无量的字，结构都很美的，但人家字的内涵也不错呀。还有林散之说他的字比祝允明好，但见到王铎低头。当然，你林老的字肯定不如王铎，说比祝枝山字好，绝非公论。祝枝山作为书法家，何等了得，于右任也赶不上，其他人要想和祝枝山比，先缓一缓吧。我也曾经认为祝字内涵不足，但现在我看法变了，祝字结构优美爽朗，他的线条为表达他的真性情，流畅而飞动，恰到好处。书，如也，如其人，祝字最得其真。任何人都不可以己长立项，强人从之……（当中一段听不清）所以，江苏人宁肯找尉天池写大牌子，也不找林散之写大牌子。你的字线条质量高，但只有专家看得懂，貌似专家的人跟着叫好，不懂字的人看不懂你的线条质量，（记者插话：这不能怪林散之）当然，所以我说他们不懂字。但不懂字的人专看字的结构，尉天池就专讲字的结构，这方面，尉天池并不错……

 如果美国不理顺其财政状况，“我们就会重蹈欧洲的覆辙，甚至可能更糟，”美国众议院预算委员会新任主席、共和党人保罗•瑞安(Paul Ryan)断言——这可谓是最骇人听闻的警告。 瑞安1月初在华盛顿的一次集会上向与会预算专家和经济学家们表示，如果美国不能解决日渐沉重的债务负担，其后果将是严重的。“我们将遭遇街头骚乱、债务违约、以及所有那些丑陋的问题。”他暗指“法国年轻人朝汽车投掷燃烧弹，烧毁学校，因为法国政府将退休年龄从60岁推迟至62岁”。 目前，美国每支出一美元，就有大约40美分是借的。削减预算赤字作为共和党新星瑞安公开宣扬的使命已有数年时间。但最近几个月，华盛顿的此类呼声日益高涨，一些人表示，由此引发的财政及预算政策辩论是数十年来最激烈的一次。 风险是巨大的。如果美国政府仓促采取紧缩措施，削减力度过大，步伐过快，就有可能妨碍经济复苏。但如果政界无法就美国赤字恢复至可持续水平的步骤方面达成某种共识，风险可能会更高：这个世界最大的经济体有可能爆发一场主权债务危机。 美国银行-美林(Bank of America Merrill Lynch)的伊桑•哈里斯(Ethan Harris)表示：“美国经济目前处于疲弱期，因此我认为政府并不愿意大幅削减赤字，但我们是在玩一场危险的游戏，我们将开始为不负责任的财政政策付出代价。” 人们十分担心，如果不采取行动，投资者或许最终会因为其财政松懈而惩罚美国。这会推高企业和消费者的借债成本，迫使美国采取严厉的紧缩措施，并有可能引发社会动荡。不仅美国的AAA信用评级有下调风险，还有人认为，美国的外交事务及国防也会受到影响。美国参谋长联席会议主席迈克•马伦(Mike Mullen)去年警告，债台高筑会限制美国为军队拨款的灵活性——在他看来，这是“对我们国家安全的最重大威胁”。 直至今年1月，资本市场一直未对黯淡的长期前景做出太大反应。例如，10年期美国国债收益率尽管过去几个月出现上扬，但仍低于3.4%，接近历史最低水平。不过，越来越多的人正呼吁美国政府出台相关政策，缓解其紧张的财政状况，哪怕这意味着要向长期受到保护的老年人退休津贴和医保等政策开刀。 但在未来几个月——直至2012年总统大选，这种反对赤字的言论能否促使政策切实转向紧缩仍很成问题，原因主要有两点：政治分歧严重，经济复苏持续疲弱。 曾任小布什政府高级经济官员的菲利普•斯瓦格(Phillip Swagel)表示：“此事现在尚不急迫，但将来肯定会变得更紧要。显然，市场认为我们不是阿根廷，但我们应该发出信号，告诉他们这么想是对的，我们会解决这个问题。” 去年12月通过的减税法案则未能传递出这个讯息——该法案延长了小布什时期的减税和失业津贴措施。此举将增加8580亿美元的长期赤字，却没有做出任何未来将削减赤字的承诺，尽管支持者宣称，如果这些措施能提振增长，美国的预算状况也将得以改善。 但美国遵守财政纪律的承诺，即将迎来更多重大考验。1月25日，美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)在《国情咨文》中阐述了他在2011年的立法重点，并将削减长期赤字的措施纳入了议程。 美国政府已出台了一些相应政策。去年12月，奥巴马宣布将公务员工资冻结两年，这是对未来某一时刻有必要开始削减预算的认可。五角大楼也一直设法取得先手：上月宣布将削减每年逾5000亿美元的预算，在未来5年内总计裁减预算780亿美元。 这些措施及其它可能采取的步骤——削减政府部门的可自由支配开支、着手社保改革、设定税改框架等，都将纳入白宫将于2月中旬发布的年度预算草案。人们将重点关注这些提案的涉及范围和具体程度，并从中寻觅踪迹，了解政府对待削减赤字承诺的严肃程度。 奥巴马新经济团队的人员组成，对于财政鹰派人士而言当然是个好消息——杰克•卢(Jack Lew)任预算办公室主任，吉恩•斯珀林(Gene Sperling)任国家经济委员会(National Economic Council)负责人。二人都回到了上世纪90年代在比尔•克林顿(Bill Clinton)政府内中扮演的角色。当时，通过民主党控制的白宫与共和党控制的国会之间的协商，美国赤字得以削减。克林顿卸任时，美国已实现预算盈余。 很少有人认为，奥巴马政府会像一些著名的民主党人（例如与其关系密切的美国进步中心(Center for American Progress)的约翰•波德斯塔(John Podesta)）所希望的那样，采取激进的方式，包括削减社会保障和医疗保险(Social Security and Medicare)等大规模计划，随后迅速推进税改。这种情况不太可能发生，因为它可能会让白宫同时遭受两党的猛烈攻击。 不过，卢仍然认为，奥巴马政府在削减赤字方面的决心是明确的。“我们需要得到两党的共同支持，才能解决摆在我们面前的重大财政挑战，同时推进将构建未来美国经济基础的议程。对我们而言，这意味着即使我们削减其他领域的投资，也要继续投资于教育和创新，”他说道。 共和党人却不这么认为。在去年11月的中期选举中，凭借实施财政清廉的态度和反对政府开支，共和党获得了众议院的控制权。他们设想的支出削减规模，远高于白宫和许多民主党议员认为的合理水平，而且奥巴马政府推进新刺激措施的任何尝试，都有可能遭到他们的反对。 许多共和党人丝毫不愿考虑将增税纳入赤字削减计划之中，而许多经济学家认为，增税是赤字削减计划的必要组成部分。其结果很容易变成僵局：两党和白宫互相指责，而投资者和企业越来越担心美国解决债务问题的能力。 此外，两党将被迫就财政问题进行接触——很可能会彼此作对——的最后期限即将来临。据财政部估计，3月31日至5月16日之间，美国债务总额随时可能突破国会规定的近14.3万亿美元的上限。如果奥巴马政府和国会无法达成一致，提高上限，美国将不得不关闭政府，宣布对国际债务违约——由此可能触发目前看来仍很遥远的债务危机。 许多共和党人一直坚称，提高债务上限应与他们更激进的支出削减目标相绑定。随着美国债务总额突破上限的日子日益临近，这为两党的一决胜负搭建了舞台。 奥巴马政府认为不应该将提高债务上限当做获得让步的筹码。卢表示：“我们认为，不拖欠债务是唯一值得提倡的负责任之举——而我们显然必须让国会参与进来。我们别无选择，只能提高债务上限。而趁机引发一场会严重削弱美国经济及其世界地位的危机，是一种不负责任的行为。” 国会议员和分析人士普遍预计，未来几个月，各方将达成一份有限的协议——可能只是提高债务上限，也有可能将奥巴马政府提议的部分赤字削减措施付诸实施，以及包括一些新措施。不过，尽管这样一项协定能暂时安抚美国债务的投资者，但这可能只会耽误美国解决其不可持续的公共财政，而不是拨正方向。 在截至去年9月的一年内，美国的预算赤字总计约1.3万亿美元，为有史以来第二高水平。未来几年，随着经济复苏取得进展，衰退期间采取的应急支出措施的影响开始消退，预计美国的赤字会自然收窄。 但缓和只是暂时的：因为婴儿潮一代人的退休将于今年正式启动，政府的医保和退休金计划开支预计会大幅上升。由18位成员组成的两党财政责任委员会去年12月发布的报告显示，到2025年，美国的税收将只够支付利息——预计将从目前的每年2000亿美元飙升至逾1万亿美元——和福利计划，没有余力去做其它任何事情。 报告警告称：“其它各项联邦政府活动——从国防和国土安全到运输和能源——都将不得不依靠借债。”到2035年，不断增加的债务造成的人均GDP降幅可能高达15%，意味着美国人的生活水平将明显下降。 这一黯淡前景最终有可能造成国际资本市场危机，也正因为此，由克林顿白宫办公室主任厄斯金•鲍尔斯(Erskine Bowles)和前怀俄明州共和党参议员阿兰•辛普森(Alan Simpson)领导的财政责任委员会，才会试着去做一件华盛顿以前很少尝试过的事情：制作一个解决美国预算困境的详尽模板，让美国民众和国会议员对于解决问题需要付出何种代价有一个明确的了解。 该计划建议到2020年共削减赤字3.9万亿美元，支出削减与增税的比率为三比一。该委员会提议调高法定退休年龄，削减政府医保，并限制一些深得人心的税收减免措施，例如减免抵押贷款利息的资格。 一些可能的赤字削减手段——例如征收消费或增值税，或碳排放税——因为在政治上不可行而没有考虑。因此，上述建议在该委员会获得了令人惊讶的支持率，共有11位成员支持这项计划，其中包括6名在任国会议员。尽管如此，这仍不足以促成国会就这些措施投票表决，因为那样需要至少14位成员的多数票。 辛普森与鲍尔斯领导的委员会未能获得必要的支持票数，将美国的财政命运交到了常规政治流程的手中，从白宫到参院预算委员会主席肯特•康拉德(Kent Conrad)及瑞安等国会领导人。回到欧洲债务困境的话题上，瑞安宣称：“我们和他们不一样，这也不是我们想要的命运。” 不管怎样避免这种命运——并由此开创一个美国在财政上负责任的新时代——都要求一定程度的政治和谐。但现在，尽管人们日益意识到这个问题，我们似乎仍看不见和谐的踪影。 http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001036842

“这种对客观和主观福祉的测量能提供有关人们生活质量的关键信息。统计局应纳入考虑追踪人们的生活评价、享乐经验和优先事项……”
斯蒂格利茨等人在2009年经济表现和社会进步委员会上如是说。

2010年8月报道，有谀文风格，不过提供了一些数字。2009秋拍市场上，以1.69亿元天价成交的吴彬的古画《十八应真图卷》，其估价为2000万元-3000万元。虽然尤伦斯夫妇并没有向外透露当时他们购买这件藏品所花费的资金，但他们在委托保利进行拍卖时，大多数藏品都是以接近当时的买进价格作为底价的。而且记者还发现，此件书画作品1992年在纽约的拍卖成交价为62万美元(如果按当时的汇率计算，成交价不超过600万元人民币)。由此可见大胆地估计，《十八应真图卷》至少让尤伦斯夫妇获得了超过亿元的收益。

开罗公民教育顾问对埃及公民社会和新社会运动进行分析。尽管埃及争取变革运动在形成公民民主的一极——能够在埃及建立新的不同性质的社会运动方面起火车头作用的一极——方面取得了部分成功，在这里公民社会也构建了自己的生态范围，但是仍然存在若干需要面对的挑战。

埃及的新自由主义政策拆散了公有部门，并且为跟随跨国公司的资本和支持者脚步起舞的私有部门大开方便之门，从而实现了自己在经济领域中的主要目标。然而，政治领域却没有实施类似的自由化，对公共自由的束缚也没有任何的松动，尽管埃及不断声称要给予全体公民以真正的自由。

 也许最高人民法院会后悔他们关于《婚姻法》“司法解释三”公开征求意见的决策。如果像以往颁布 “解释一”（2001年）和“解释二”（2003年）那样，采取“悄悄地进村，打枪的不要”的做法，“解释三”或许会像他们2010年初预计的那样，到12月底怎么也通过了；而全中国的夫妻，除了少数上法庭闹离婚的，恐怕永远不会关心，甚至不用知道这个“司法解释三”。 公开征求意见让一份还没有法律效力的文件，发挥了许多法律法规梦寐以求也达不到的效力。笔者一位亲戚本来正准备花钱给女儿、女婿买房结婚，看到“解释三”条文后感到事态严重，反复斟酌拟出一份《合作购房协议书》，让我这个学法律的给把把关。这份《协议书》共18条，涉及甲（准女婿）、乙（女儿）和丙（准岳父母）三方，看来是吃透了“解释三”的精神，充满了法言法语，满纸的数字、比例、公式，以及各种假设情形下那“婚房”的归宿。我看着不由哑然失笑，又悲从中来：这哪里是结婚，明明是合伙做生意嘛，而且还没合伙就想着散伙。于是给亲戚回话：不看，也不建议这样做，对自己有点信心，老百姓用不着跟着最高法院的指挥棒过日子。 资本主义对中国家庭的侵入 “司法解释三”闹出这么大的动静，自然不仅仅是公开征求意见所致。细究1950年、1980年、2001年新中国三部《婚姻法》，以及2001年《婚姻法》颁布以来最高法院三个解释的条文，“司法解释三”的实质无非是：把2001年《婚姻法》开始侵入家庭的资本主义意识形态，进一步引入了家庭房产领域，而无论是在广大农村，还是在城市中产阶级中，房产目前都是最大的一笔家庭财产，在房产上按照资本主义意识形态建立个人所有制，基本就等于在家庭中建立资本主义式的个人财产制。 新中国婚姻法的资本主义和个人主义化滥觞于2001年《婚姻法》。1950年新中国第一部《婚姻法》中使用的是“家庭财产”的概念。其第10条规定：“夫妻双方对于家庭财产有平等的所有权与处理权。”1980年《婚姻法》提出了“夫妻共同财产”的概念，其第13条规定：“夫妻在婚姻关系存续期间所得的财产，归夫妻共同所有，双方另有约定的除外。”但显而易见，夫妻共同财产不过是“家庭财产制”的一种（蹩脚的）法律表述，因为紧接着第14条规定“夫妻有互相扶养的义务”，第15条规定，“父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。”“夫妻共同财产”不能只用于夫妻两人的消费，也要用于赡养老人、抚养子女这样的法律义务；扶养、抚养、赡养的经济基础就是家庭财产制或曰家产制；甚至，在夫妻双亡、“夫妻共同财产”的概念已不存在的情况下，爷爷奶奶、外公外婆对未成年的孙辈，兄姐对未成年的弟妹，都有抚养的义务（1980年《婚姻法》第22、23条），这义务的基础是什么？当然是家庭伦理和与之相应的家产制。 2001年《婚姻法》一个前所未有的举动是，尽管在字面上保留了“夫妻在婚姻关系存续期间所得的财产归夫妻共同所有”的表述，但却苦心孤诣地对“夫妻共有财产”和“夫妻个人财产”采取了列举式的规定方式。“夫妻共有财产”的目录有着鲜明的阶级特征，因为第1条是“工资、奖金”，第2条是“生产、经营的收益”，第3条是“知识产权的收益”，立法者对一个现代资本主义经济的主要组成部分——工薪阶层、资本家及其经理以及知识分子阶层的“夫妻共有财产”的来源了如指掌，却对占人口最大多数的农民夫妻最大共有财产——比如房屋、家庭承包土地——不着一字。本文不拟对2001年《婚姻法》进行更深入的阶级分析，只想指出，新中国《婚姻法》的价值转向和阶级转向实际上始于2001年。 2001年《婚姻法》对于夫妻共有财产和个人财产的列举式规定都有一个兜底条款：“其他应当归共同所有的财产”，“其他应当归一方的财产”。这两个兜底条款成为最高人民法院肆意扩大解释的依据。2003年《婚姻法》“司法解释二”29个条文中，有16个条文都在往这两个条款里装东西。其中涉及在上市公司、有限责任公司、合伙企业、独资企业投资的有4条，总的原则是：夫妻离婚分割财产不能因此影响到企业的运作和资本的效率。比如下面这一条：“夫妻以一方名义投资设立独资企业的，人民法院分割夫妻在该独资企业中的共同财产时，应当按照以下情形分别处理：（一）一方主张经营该企业的，对企业资产进行评估后，由取得企业一方给予另一方相应的补偿；（二）双方均主张经营该企业的，在双方竞价基础上，由取得企业的一方给予另一方相应的补偿。” 市场：隐藏在“个人财产”之后 比较来看，“解释二”对资本逻辑的贯彻还只限于家庭之外的企业，“解释三”则将资本的逻辑贯彻到家庭之内的房产。当后者把中国人置房结婚过日子看作办一个典型的资本主义合伙企业的时候，关于《婚姻法》的司法解释也就不再是《婚姻法》的一部分，而是《物权法》或者《合伙企业法》的一部分了。 2003年的“解释二”涉及房屋的有三条，其中第22条规定，“当事人结婚前，父母为双方购置房屋出资的，该出资应当认定为对自己子女的个人赠与，但父母明确表示赠与双方的除外。当事人结婚后，父母为双方购置房屋出资的，该出资应当认定为对夫妻双方的赠与，但父母明确表示赠与一方的除外。”由于放弃了1950年《婚姻法》“家庭财产”的概念，1980年以来《婚姻法》中采用的“夫妻共同财产”的蹩脚概念，把中国家庭历来选择在子女结婚的当口，上一代与下一代之间转移和分割财产的“分家”实践，表述成别扭的父母对子女的“赠与”——但别扭只是在法律上别扭，感情上还过得去：究竟是父母把我们共同的东西“分”给我，还是他们把自己的东西“赠”给我，在后果上似乎也没有多大的差别。 而“解释三”共21条，其中涉及夫妻共同财产和个人财产的有14条，涉及房产或不动产的有5条，其中第8条特别值得玩味。其第1款是：“婚后由一方父母出资购买的不动产，产权登记在出资人子女名下的，可视为对自己子女一方的赠与，应认定该不动产为夫妻一方的个人财产。”有人认为，这一款改变了“解释二”第22条的规定，将婚后父母出资购买的房产，由原先的夫妻共同财产变更为夫妻一方的个人财产，实质上是对2001年《婚姻法》的越权解释。 事实上，由于1980年以后《婚姻法》不采“家庭财产”的概念，父母名下向子女名下的财产转移，在法律上只能被视为“赠与”，在2001年《婚姻法》中，“赠与”所得的财产，既可以按照第17条归于“夫妻共有财产”，也可以按18条归于“夫妻个人财产”，“解释二”认为是前者，“解释三”认为是后者，说它朝令夕改可以，但说它是对2001年《婚姻法》的越权解释，理由未必充足。 笔者认为，“解释三”第8条第1款的真正意义，是确定了《物权法》上的不动产登记的效力要高于《婚姻法》上结婚的效力。“解释二”认为，婚前婚后的区别是重要的，父母同样为子女购置房屋，在子女婚前是对他或她个人的“赠与”，在婚后则是对“他们”的“赠与”。“解释三”则确定，产权登记的效力是最高的，它不随子女是否结婚而改变，登记在谁名下就是谁的。 当然，最高人民法院确认产权登记的最高效力，并不是为了强调父母对于子女的爱。稍稍有点头脑的中国父母都知道，真的爱子女，就是要千方百计成全那个小家庭的和睦，把房子登记在谁名下看得那样重，在小两口中间制造隔阂，不是明智的父母所为。 “解释三”第12条透露了第8条第1款的秘密。“登记于一方名下的夫妻共同所有的房屋，一方未经另一方同意将该房屋出售，第三人善意购买、支付合理对价并办理登记手续，另一方主张追回该房屋的，人民法院不予支持，但该房屋属于家庭共同生活居住需要的除外。”第8条第1款要照顾的最大利益终于出场了，它既不是男方及其父母，也不是女方及其父母，它就是那个人格化为“善意第三人”的市场。严格登记主义，“谁名下就是谁的”，可以最大限度地保障“交易安全”，最大限度降低“交易费用”，最大限度地实现物的“市场价值”。而此物——这里是房屋——的伦理价值，是在所不论的。 据说，原来的第12条连那个“但该房屋属于家庭共同生活居住需要的除外”的排除条款都没有，一位参与讨论的婚姻法学者想起来，中国的宪法中还有一条“婚姻、家庭、母亲和儿童受国家的保护。”不能为了二手房市场的繁荣而让“母亲和儿童”没有地方住，才匆匆忙忙加上了这一条。即便如此，第12条反映的仍然不过是“炒房者”的价值观：房子主要是用来炒来炒去的，只有在偶然的情况下才是“家庭共同生活居住需要的”，所以司法解释背后隐含的逻辑是：在从别人手中买房子的时候，假定对方也是一个炒房者就足够了，而无需问他或她一句：房子是不是供全家人住的？ 从人身关系法到投资促进法 “解释三”第8条第2款是真正的神来之笔，它把“解释二”开始引入婚姻法的“谁投资，谁收益”的资本主义原则，从家庭之外的企业注入了家庭之内的房产；这一条用语大胆、明确、理直气壮，具有摧毁性的力量：“由双方父母出资购买的不动产，产权登记在一方名下的，可以认定该不动产为按照双方父母的出资份额按份共有，但有证据证明赠与一方的除外。” 笔者有时候不禁会想，是什么样的巨大力量，促使起草“解释三”的那支笔写下了如此气壮山河的文字。想来想去，还是《共产党宣言》里的那些话最准确：“资产阶级撕下了罩在家庭关系上的温情脉脉的面纱，把这种关系变成了纯粹的金钱关系。”“现代的、资产阶级的家庭是建筑在什么基础上的呢？是建筑在资本上面，建筑在私人发财上面的。” 可以说，从这一款开始，2001年以来的婚姻法的进化史将完成它的涅，那就是从人身关系法，变成投资促进法。无数中国父母含辛茹苦，为下一代筑巢安家的伦理实践，被规范为一次次冷静理性的投资活动。我们的眼前仿佛出现了四位白发苍苍的投资者的形象，他们草拟了一份《投资购房协议书》，一遍遍计算着各自的份额和投资回报率。与此同时，1980年后中国婚姻法所臆想的那个慷慨的、把自己的财产在子女结婚的当口“赠与”子女的父母形象消失了，取而代之的是将子女的婚事视为一次投资机会的精明的父母—资本家。 从家产制到个人财产制的下行路线 其实事情本不如此。也不应如此。 无须引用太多的研究。读者只要稍微想想自己家里的情况，就会同意如下的判断：中国人自古至今一直实行的是“同居共财”的家庭财产制，这一点，1950年《婚姻法》的表述是正确的。1980年《婚姻法》采用“夫妻共同财产”的法律表述，并不能涵盖家庭财产制的全部内容。 法律史学者俞江运用徽州文书证明，日人滋贺秀三的《中国家族法原理》在关于中国古代分家、 遗嘱、 赠与等财产习惯方面存在着不少误解，这导致他形成了中国家父享有家产所有权的观点。实际上，中国家长从属于作为整体性的“家” 。家长可以管理和增益家产，却不能随意处分。在另一篇文章中，俞江还写道： 理解家产制的性质，还须理解家产归属于家。如果非要给家产找一个归属，那么只能说，家产归属于家，而不是任何个人。“家”是不可分割的概念，不能贸然把任何家人包括家长、家属，从“家”这个概念中分裂出去……“家产究竟是哪个人的”这个问题纯属今人的思考方式……在古代中国的家中，祖先从未离开，无子必须立嗣。祖先要祭祀，后代要抚育，都需要财产，故财产制度无不围绕“家”而安排。在世的家人，无论父族还是子孙，不过是整体的、延续性的家的一部分。父祖在子孙未成年时掌管家产，在子孙成年后移交家产。哪一辈人都只是这个延续性的家的一部分，无所谓哪个人是家产的主体。（俞江：《家产制视野下的遗嘱》） 这种“同居共财”的家产制一直延续到今天。和实行个人财产制的社会，如12世纪以后的英格兰不同，在中国家庭中，从每一个子女的诞生之日起，他/她就已经是“业主”了，无需等待父母的死亡就能成为家产的主人。而子女结婚，则是家庭上下两代传递家业的一个契机，农村的父母为儿子盖房娶媳妇，为女儿置办嫁妆；城市的父母为儿子买房安家，同样为女儿置办嫁妆，这都是太常见的传递家业的做法。将这种做法误解为父母对子女的“赠与”，是用个人财产制的逻辑硬套中国的实际。而将此想象为父母作为资本家利用儿女婚事投资，则更属丧心病狂。 与中国家产制利用子女结婚的契机传递家业相比，个人财产制下，利用被继承人的死亡传递个人财产容易制造更多的悲剧。原因很简单，因为只有被继承人死亡才发生财产向继承人的转移，在这种制度下，即使儿子不希望父亲早死，也会被认为内心里盼父亲早死。这样一种制度下怎可能有父慈子孝之说！ 而更大的愚蠢，是像“解释三”这样，通过将家庭大宗财产（尤其是房产）界定为出资者所有的方式，彻底抛弃“夫妻共同财产”这个家产制仅存的法律概念，从而彻底告别家产制，驱赶中国人集体走向鲁滨逊那个孤家寡人的荒岛世界。 这种自我放逐，才是中国家庭三千年未有之大变局！ （作者单位：清华大学法学院）

“婚姻和情感是两个领域的事情，法律是调整婚姻关系而不是调整男女情感的。……今天的心爱之人，随着时光的流逝、审美的疲劳，明天可能变成漠然之人甚至切齿之人，情感的千变万化又岂是理智的法律所能左右呢？……感情没有了，婚姻解体了，起码在经济上还能得到一些保障吧，也许“婚姻契约”不失为聪明女性的明智选择。” 最高人民法院某法官的这段名言，表达了一种开始普遍流行的契约婚姻观：“爱情归爱情、财产归财产”。爱情与财产的分离建立在个人主义和自由主义的立场上。但爱情与财产非此即彼的选择仅仅是生活的极端例外状态，而大多数婚姻介乎二者之间：爱情可能已消退，财产还不至于分割，婚姻并不因此解体。正是在这种状态下，“家庭”才具有特别的意义，由此成为稳定的生活常态。家庭关乎个人幸福和文明培育，承担着教育子女、塑造人格、培育社会道德、形成善良风俗的社会功能。因此，任何文明社会都会认为家庭具有独立于且高于爱情的价值，家庭稳定就成为立法者的首要任务。 家产制的式微：个别财产制与明晰房产 家庭稳定首先依赖于“家庭共有财产”这种物质性纽带。革命根据地时期激进的婚姻立法虽然肯定了离婚自由原则，但“同财共居”的家产制传统却一直保留下来。例如，与土地有关的财产法就延续了古代家产制。无论“打土豪分田地”还是改革开放之后的“家庭联产承包责任制”，财产法的主体不是个人，而是家庭。家庭承包的集体土地不会因为结婚或离婚而立即发生法律变更。家庭人口的不断变动导致村庄要经过一段时间之后重新在家庭之间进行“调地”。同样，与土地相关的宅基地划分也是按照家庭来进行的，离婚不可能导致宅基地的分割。城市的房屋产权虽然登记在家庭成员一方的名下，但在法律上也属于家庭共有财产，以至于房屋购买合同要求夫妻双方签字。1950年《婚姻法》中确立的夫妻共有财产制就源于“中国人的理想是家庭成员模模糊糊地共同拥有家产”的法律传统。而在1993年最高人民法院的规定中，甚至明确规定将个人财产吸纳到家庭财产中。至于在继承法中，虽然法律上赋予了女儿与儿子平等的继承权，可实际上女儿基本上不继承家产，强调“嫁出去的女儿泼出去的水”，依然遵循着“同居共财”的逻辑。 新中国初始的《婚姻法》在表面上是激进的，但对共同财产的强调却是保守的。加之计划经济体制、社会主义价值观念和“调解为主”司法政策的配合，中国的家庭稳定并没有受到根本的影响。然而，随着改革开放以来，尤其是上世纪90年代中后期市场经济推动了个人欲望的张扬，文化左派的后现代思潮消解了传统价值。“单身贵族”、“契约婚姻”、“AA制婚姻”与同性恋婚姻一道，成为中国家庭生活中的价值选项，甚至成为时髦人士追捧的时尚生活。在这种背景下，立法和司法解释不断瓦解“家产制”这一维持家庭稳定的财产纽带。2001年全国人大对《婚姻法》作出了全面修改，明确划分了“夫妻共有财产”与“个人拥有的财产”，同时2001年《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国婚姻法〉若干问题的解释（一）》（即司法解释一）特别强调，个人财产不因婚姻关系而转化为夫妻共同财产，由此引发了“婚前财产登记”的浪潮。在财产的天平上，个人自由与家庭稳定第一次向有利于个人自由的方向倾斜，以此为契机，后来最高人民法院关于《婚姻法》的司法解释都以摧毁家庭共同财产作为其立法的目标，而家产制的式微，则意味着家庭稳定的最后防线也开始动摇了。 对家产制的摧毁中，最大力量就来自最高人民法院司法解释中关于离婚房产分割的具体规定。对大多数普通家庭而言，家产中最大宗的财产就是房屋。房屋不是普通商品，而是家庭生活必须拥有的居住空间；它不仅是属于财产权范畴，而且体现了人类最低限的生存权。如果说婚姻奠定家庭的精神基础，那么房产就奠定了家庭的物质基础。“家”不仅是一种血缘伦理关系，而且是一种对房屋开辟的物理空间的占有关系。由此，对于注重家庭价值的中国人而言，房产往往与“家”联系在一起，在生活中占据了特别重要的地位。在家产制中，最主要的家产就是土地与房屋。以家庭为主体的土地承包制度不断受到“土地私有化”主张的冲击，而房屋家产制的瓦解，则是从2003年最高人民法院关于《婚姻法》的“司法解释二”开始的。 在离婚案件中，法官一般都会考虑到房产对于家庭生活的重要性，对房产分割尤为慎重。虽然《婚姻法》上明确了平均分割的原则，但由于婚姻诉讼属于民事调解的核心，法官在司法调解过程中必然卷入到家庭问题中，所面对的不仅是离婚财产分割问题，而且涉及到子女抚养、老人赡养、离婚后的家庭生活问题。可以说，法官无法按照单纯的感情破裂或共同财产平均分配的法律规定来判案，而必须全方位地思考家庭问题。其一，要考虑普通家庭妇女对家庭的贡献主要集中在照料小孩、赡养老人、操持家务这样的事务中，而这些活动的经济贡献很难用货币化方式来体现；其二，考虑离婚双方的过错，谁为了个人自由而提出离婚，就意味着要在财产分割上做出相应的牺牲和让步；其三，离婚后一般妇女抚养小孩，需要房屋居住，且家庭妇女的经济收入有限，没有能力购买房屋。由此，虽然法律上规定财产平均分配，但法官在分割家产时考虑的不是财产法问题，而是考虑家庭生活、社会公正、保护弱者等等这样一些更为基本的原则。这些原则实际上影响到了房产的分割，以至于法官在司法过程中往往把房产分割给抚养小孩、且离婚后经济能力较弱的女方，以利于家庭的稳定。 然而，随着市场经济的发展，房屋的价值越来越大。离婚当事人在房产问题上争执不下，给法官在离婚诉讼如何分割房产带来很大困难。为此，2003年底在最高人民法院出台对家产制的摧毁中，最大力量就来自最高人民法院司法解释中关于离婚房产分割的具体规定。“司法解释二”不仅明确了房产分割按照市价进行分割，而且特别规定：双方都主张房屋所有权的，采取市场竞价的方式来确定产权，由出价最高的一方获得房屋所有权，并给另一方以相应的补偿。这种市场竞价的方式表面上体现了公平，而实质上有利于家庭中货币化经济能力较强的一方，不利于货币化能力较弱的另一方。 如果将法官在司法实践过程中形成的分割房产的思路与上述司法解释中明确的分割房产的思路做一比较，就会发现有两个根本的不同：其一，法官在司法实践过程中采用更全面的视野，把房产分割问题放在家庭问题、婚姻过错补偿的公正问题以及离婚后的社会问题中进行思考，而最高法院则仅仅把房屋看作市场上竞价的商品，按照市场经济的规律来解决家庭问题。其二，如果说法官在长期的司法过程中形成了保护妇女、保护弱者的司法价值倾向，那么最高人民法院“司法解释二”实际上否定了这种价值倾向，并确立了保护强者、保护男性的价值取向。或许可以说，这个司法解释实际上开辟了一个家庭财产分割中男性对女性、强者对弱者的弱肉强食时代。 房产分割中形成的市场经济逻辑，在2010年最高人民法院关于对家产制的摧毁中，最大力量就来自最高人民法院司法解释中关于离婚房产分割的具体规定。“司法解释三”的征求意见稿中（下称“意见稿”）得到了进一步的升级，以至于这个“意见稿”一出台就形成了“男人一片叫好，女人一片抓狂”的局面。比如第11条规定，“夫妻一方婚前签订不动产买卖合同，以个人财产支付首付款并在银行贷款，婚后不动产登记于首付款支付方名下的，离婚时可将该不动产认定为不动产权利人的个人财产，尚未归还的部分贷款为不动产权利人的个人债务。婚姻关系存续期间由夫妻共同财产还贷部分，应考虑离婚时不动产的市场价格及共同还贷款项所占全部款项的比例等因素，由不动产权利人对另一方进行合理补偿。” 在一些学者眼中，该规定挑起了一场“性别战争”。因为中国的婚姻习惯是男方提供房屋，女方提供嫁妆，二者都属于家庭共同财产。而且很多情况是男方支付首付，婚后夫妻双方用共同财产还贷，若离婚时根本不考虑离婚过错、抚养小孩、赡养老人等社会问题，将房屋按照登记名字分割给男方，显然不利于家庭中的女性。进一步而言，性别问题实质上依然是阶层问题，“意见稿”挑起的不仅是性别战争，而且是阶层战争，因为有机会购房并支付首付的，往往是经济条件富裕的家庭或经济收入比较高的个人。需要注意的是，当前中国经济正处于房地产经济的畸形发展中，房产市值增加的空间越来越大。这种背景下采取登记主义的房产分割办法，实际上让家庭中的另一方以无息贷款的形式支持房屋产权登记人获得更大的暴利。这无疑是家庭中的隐性剥削。当《婚姻法》“司法解释二”试图用市场竞价的形式公平来掩盖房产分割中双方经济力量的实质不公平时，“意见稿”可以说撕下了市场公平的面纱，完全站在有经济实力的强者一方，甚至用法律强制的方式，让弱者成为强者进行剥削以谋取更大利益的工具。市场经济中的弱肉强食逻辑被最高人民法院引入到婚姻家庭中。不受约束的市场经济会摧毁有机的社会组织，而把市场逻辑引入到婚姻家庭法中，最终摧毁的无疑是家庭本身。 司法能动的法律想象：“AA制契约婚姻” 《婚姻法》中对离婚财产的分割作出了原则规定，而法官在司法实践中也已形成了一套处理家庭财产分割的原则、办法和价值取向。立法者之所以给出法官自由裁量的空间，是由于“家家有本难念的经”，“清官难断家务事”，这就需要法官在司法个案中根据不同的状况来解决。而法官在司法实践中形成的解决问题的价值取向，也符合婚姻立法的目的。法律确立了人们未来行动的预期，因此，法律的最大功能不仅在于解决问题，而在于通过预期的设定来塑造一种行为模式。婚姻立法既要保证婚姻自由，但又要保证家庭稳定。从立法行为预期模式来看，《婚姻法》中规定的家庭财产越多，离婚中家产的分割越困难，离婚中过错一方获得的财产越少，那么离婚成本就越高，离婚率也就越低，家庭自然越稳定。反之亦然。 然而，从2000年以来，最高人民法院在婚姻法领域采取了司法能动主义的立场，不断以立法者的姿态积极介入到婚姻纠纷的审判活动中，短短十年中就酝酿推出三次司法解释。这些司法解释的总体取向，是用“个别财产制”逐步取代“家庭财产制”的思路，逐步明晰家庭财产的个别归属。其结果无非减少了分割家产的难度，降低离婚诉讼成本，方便法官审理离婚案件，以至于离婚诉讼中调解的意义已经不大了。既然家庭财产最大宗的房产已经明确了归属，那么按照最高人民法院的司法解释的逻辑，下一步就是明确汽车、冰箱、彩电、铺盖乃至锅碗瓢盆的产权归属。有人认为，最高法院关于《婚姻法》的司法解释贯穿了“部门立法”的逻辑，方便法官审理案件，提高诉讼效率。而要方便法官审理案件，最大的理想就是让当事人很容易离婚，根本就不需要到法院来诉讼。而要实现这一目的，最方便的途径就是实现“AA制契约婚姻”。 最高人民法院推出“司法解释二”时，明确指出要将“司法为民”转化为“司法便民”。在《婚姻法》中，“司法为民”当然要维持家庭的稳定，恐怕很少有人希望把家庭变成合伙生意。但最高法院将这个司法政策解释成“司法便民”时，实际上方便了当事人离婚，以至于“司法为民”和“司法便民”无非是服务、方便于那些想离婚的人、希望离婚很容易的人。至于那些不希望离婚、希望离婚成本很高因此保住家庭的人，似乎不在最高法院“服务”和“方便”的范围之内。而方便离婚的最佳途径，就是通过司法解释将家庭共同财产分拆为明晰的个人财产，这样夫妻之间没有商量妥协的余地，法官也没有调解的余地。当夫妻双方的感情破裂时，最高法院早就把家庭财产分割清楚，就等着当事人说再见了。 由此，从最高人民法院关于“司法便民”的司法哲学，到明晰家产中的个别财产归属的法律技术操作来看，我们可以清楚地看出，最高人民法院关于理想家庭的法律想象就是：按照“爱情归爱情，财产归财产”的逻辑，将家庭变成了分别拥有个人感情和财产的两个人组合在一起的合伙生意，其理想模式就是“AA制契约婚姻”。这无疑是充满后现代主义婚姻价值观的激进想象。在这种理想婚姻模式中，共同家产就是两个人的私人财产的简单组合，以至于当两个人的爱情消失后，每个人可以很轻松地拿着自己的财产走人。由此，最高人民法院贯彻司法能动路线的最终结果，就是不需要法院来调解和判决婚姻案件，而由当事人按照司法解释所设定的财产分割标准自行离婚。司法能动主义的最大理想就是无为而治。我们可以预期，如果最高人民法院想象的理想婚姻模式实现了，那么法院的离婚诉讼率会大幅度下降，而整个社会的离婚率却会大幅度上升。 司法能动的意外后果：婚姻的再封建化 立法和司法最大功能不是解决已发生的社会问题，而是通过设定行为预期引导人们的行为模式。根据最高人民法院关于《婚姻法》的司法解释对人们行为的指引来看，我们可以设想中国未来的婚姻家庭模式可能会发生怎样的变化。 从“意见稿”采取明晰家产的一系列法律规定看，人们对婚姻家庭的预期无疑会发生根本性变化。此前，两个年轻人会在恋爱结婚之后共同购房置家，一起为家庭生活打拼。这其实是近代婚姻革命以来几代中国人的婚姻家庭模式。然而，当房产不再属于家庭共有财产，而要变成房产登记人的财产时，两个年轻人就很难共同购房。如果要购房，双方也会为用谁的名字登记而发生争执。其结果，没有经济地位的年轻人就会视婚姻为陷阱，不敢轻易结婚，至少在自己没有登记名下的房产时，结婚且用共同财产购房就变成了一项不明智之举，因为一旦离婚就等于自己在婚姻中给对方打工作贡献。由此，婚姻的首要因素不再是感情，而变成房子。“要不要双方共同购房”就成为婚姻面临的首要问题。 在这种背景下，年轻人不得不求助于家庭。以前一般是男方购置房屋，而现在必然是双方家庭都为自己的子女购置房屋。当年轻人因为房子问题让两个家庭卷入到婚姻过程时，家庭对子女婚姻的发言权就会越来越大，以至于“门当户对”慢慢会变成父母们考虑子女婚姻的首选要素。目前，随着中国社会分化的加快，门当户对已经成为许多家庭的婚姻选择。家庭共同财产的丧失无疑会加快这一过程，使得中国婚姻家庭制度必然会面临着“再封建化”的过程，即父母对子女婚姻的发言权越来越大，房产等经济因素在婚姻中的重要性会越来越增加，而爱情的要素会越来越弱。“司法解释三”的本来目的是方便离婚自由，促进个人自由，而未能料到的意外后果却是离婚自由摧毁了结婚自由。 改革开放30年，“黄世仁”回来了，“胡汉三”也回来了，门当户对的封建婚姻也开始回来了，家庭悲剧又开始慢慢上演。在“告别革命”的流行风潮中，五四精神倡导的婚姻自由也逐渐走向了衰落，整个社会变成了市场和金钱的奴隶，精神的猥琐与犬儒主义盛行。娜拉不会再出走了，因为在法律的视野中“小三”也被看作是受害者，需要法律来保护其权益；《伤逝》中为爱情而死的子君也不会再有，现代“聪明女性”已经为自己安排好了“契约婚姻”。爱情要么变成财产附庸和人身依附，要么就变成勒索财产的工具。“五四”一代宣扬的高贵、神圣的爱情婚姻在市场经济以及推行市场经济逻辑的法律的双重打击下，将随着家庭衰落而逐步沉沦。 “司法解释民主化”：司法节制的美德 对于“意见稿”，最高人民法院民一庭庭长杜万华法官特别指出：“这个解释不仅是最高人民法院的事，也是全民的事，司法解释要民主化。”这无疑是至理名言，因为今天最高人民法院不是普通的司法机关，而渐趋成为拥有一般性立法权的立法机关。最高人民法院的司法解释实质上就是制定一般性规则的立法活动。立法权与司法权合一被启蒙思想家看作是专制的典型形态，但在中国特殊的历史背景下，全国人大常委会授权最高人民法院行使司法解释这种一般性立法权的确有其必要性。但是，由于司法解释不是针对个案，而是为全民立法，“司法解释民主化”在所必然。 “司法解释民主化”决不是在形式上的广泛征求意见，哪怕是采取网络的形式征求意见。“司法解释民主化”的真正含义应该是最高人民法院面对不同的主张、不同的价值和不同的利益群体，必须坚定不移地站在大多数人一边。 就这次“意见稿”通过网络征求民意而言，应当注意网络群体的特殊性：网络主体属于有文化、比较年轻且经济条件比较好的社会阶层，网络言论往往反映“小资产阶级”的文化精英主义的意识形态，以至于“财产归财产、婚姻归婚姻”的“契约婚姻说”不仅在网络上很流行，在法官中也开始流行起来。然而，广大农村地区的家庭成员（尤其是普通家庭主妇）很少上网，他们的主张不会反映在网络中，但他们却构成了这个国家中真正“沉默的大多数”。这两个群体的经济条件不同、文化价值不同，有人甚至把这两个群体简约地概括为精英和大众。如果最高法院的司法解释真的准备体现“民主化”，首先就应当考虑“沉默的大多数”的主张和利益。在离婚自由与家庭稳定的平衡中，倾向于个人本位与倾向于家庭本位究竟哪一个在中国社会占据了大多数，这似乎不是一个很难判断的问题。 经济上的强势群体可以轻而易举地“包小三”或“离婚再娶”，网络上流行的“契约婚姻说”代表了这部分人的“先进文化”，似乎也代表着中国未来的发展方向。可对于大多数中年妇女，尤其大多数房产不在自己名下的普通农村妇女，对于大多数要看着女儿出嫁的母亲，这种“先进文化”可能是她们的梦魇。司法解释的“民主性”绝不能拿是否采取征求意见的民主形式（包括“网络民主”形式）来衡量，众所周知，“形式民主”往往是强者手中的玩偶。司法解释的“民主性”必须用一个实质性的标准来衡量，这个实质性的标准就是：民主社会必须体现“沉默的大多数”的利益，必须“代表最广大人民群众的利益”。这个“最广大人民群众”究竟是那些想维持家庭稳定的大多数人，还是那些急于离婚、寻找个人自由的少数人？我相信，这个问题不需要通过网络征求意见就能够搞清楚。“意见稿”所设想的“AA制契约婚姻”虽然代表了“小资产阶级”的意识形态，然而，没想到“意见稿”一公布就在网络上遭到了很大的批判，这很大程度上是由于房地产经济使得网络文化精英阶层也和普罗大众一样变成了弱势阶层，“小资”“小众”的婚姻乌托邦也破产了。 在今天社会急剧分化的中国，如何平衡个人与家庭、财产与情感、强者与弱者、男性与女性、普通大众与“小资”“小众”以及“先进文化”与“最广大人民群众的利益”，的确是一个需要小心对待的问题。最高法院作为司法审判机关，无论如何平衡都必然因为缺乏立法的正当性基础而遭到批评。“名不正，则言不顺”。面对公众舆论的批评和诘难，最高人民法院应当克服能动主义的倾向，保持适度的司法节制。 这里所说的“司法节制”有两层含义：一是最高人民法院在行使立法权的司法过程中应当保持节制，毕竟最高人民法院不是立法机关，哪怕采取广泛征求意见的形式也无法为自己的立法活动奠定合法性基础，因此，最高人民法院尽可能少采取司法解释的方式来扩张自己的权力。相反，应当不断推动司法案例制度建设，用司法个案理性或技艺理性来取代一般理性或者立法理性，用司法个案的丰富性来发现社会生活中的“活法”，并将其上升为一般性规则的意义上来，而不是用抽象一般性规则来压制社会生活的丰富性，从而扼杀社会生活自身形成的法。 二是法官在司法过程中不应热衷于创造各种新型的法律权利，不应当制造出“空床费”、“眼泪费”、“第三者补偿费”之类的概念。法官不应当像法学家那样追求概念的新颖，相反应当尽可能保守，以便维持社会稳定的预期。至少在婚姻家庭法领域，最高人民法院不应当通过司法解释的方式预先明晰和分割家庭财产，法官在司法过程中更不应当执行说不清楚的“忠诚协议”。既然“家家有本难念的经”，“清官难断家务事”，那就让一家人在司法过程中慢慢去消化“打断骨头连着筋”的家庭关系。“司法效率”的概念可以适用于解决其他纠纷，但决不应适用于家庭纠纷。 家庭是社会的基本细胞，是伦理道德的基础，是培育善良风俗和民情习惯的温床。在这个意义上，家庭纠纷不能由按照司法理性化和行政官僚化逻辑来行事的普通法院体系来处理。一个理想的解决方案，就是把婚姻家庭纠纷从目前的民事一庭中分离出来，设立独立的“家事法庭”，或在目前法院体系之下设立专门的“民事四庭”。在这个特殊的法庭中，有职业法官，有单位同事，有邻里和亲朋好友，大家在调解优先的原则下，按照道德、良知、伦理、仁爱的逻辑来处理家庭婚姻财产纠纷，因为法律代表的理性计算本来就不适合用于解决爱的难题。 因此，当法律面对爱情和家庭时，必须小心翼翼、异常谨慎，因为爱的世界是由激情、良知、伦理和道德统治的世界。真正的法治理想绝不是要消灭良知之治，也不是要摧毁道德权威，更不准备取代伦理秩序。相反，面对爱情和家庭，法律应当采取适度的回避，以克服司法扩权的内在利益冲动，避免法律全能主义的僭妄。对于今天处于司法能动主义状态中的最高人民法院而言，要“有所为”，但更要“有所不为”。在婚姻家庭以及其他涉及到社会道德生活的领域，司法节制反倒成为一项值得赞许的法治美德。 （作者单位：北京大学法学院）

看了《婚姻法》“司法解释三”征求意见稿以及相关的各种争论，很多人不禁问出了这样一个貌似庸人自扰的问题：“我们为什么要结婚？”这份拟议中的司法解释已经使人不得不怀疑婚姻生活的基本常识，怀疑家庭存在的根本价值。简单地检索一下历史，我们就会发现，相比古今中外的人们而言，当代中国人确实在这个最基本的问题上越来越迷失了。 古代中国人为什么结婚？在传统中国的礼乐文明中，素有“礼始于谨夫妇”（《礼记·内则》）的说法。《礼记·昏义》中这样安排几种最主要的礼的关系：“夫礼，始于冠，本于昏，重于丧、祭，尊于朝、聘，和于射、乡，此礼之大体也。”这几种礼都是必不可少的，在古代的生活秩序中都占居非常重要的位置。婚礼，即经典中说的“昏礼”，虽不像丧祭那么重，不像朝聘那么尊贵，却是众礼之本，也是人伦之本，换言之，是家庭生活和政治生活的根本。所以《礼记·昏义》中进一步说：“昏礼者，将合二姓之好，上以事宗庙，而下以继后世也，故君子重之。”这将婚礼作为人伦之本的意义说得更清楚了。为什么婚礼如此重要，就是因为它在祖先和后世之间起到承前启后的关键作用，是家族延续所不可少的环节，是成家立业的必由之路。在中国文化中，婚姻是每个人和每个家庭的大事，它和中国人以家族为核心的价值观紧密联系在一起。古代中国人很清楚，结婚，就是为了延续家族，对祖先和后代负责。 西方人为什么结婚？西方的传统与中国非常不同，但同样为婚姻赋予了不可替代的神圣意义。《旧约·创世记》第一章里说：“神就照着自己的形像造人，乃是照着他的形像造男造女。神就赐福给他们，又对他们说，要生养众多，遍满地面。”上帝赐福给他所造的男女，让他们生育后代。因此，在基督教传统中，婚姻被视为神圣的。使徒保罗在《以弗所书》中说：“人要离开父母，与妻子连合，二人成为一体。这是极大的奥秘，但我是指着基督和教会说的。”由于《圣经》中的这些说法，天主教将婚配定为七圣事之一，结婚与司铎祝圣，有着类似的意义，因此两个仪式的重要标志，都是一枚戒指。妻子的戒指象征着她对丈夫的忠贞，司铎的戒指象征着他对上帝的虔敬。在西方的传统法律体系中，婚姻属于教会法的管辖范畴，因为它具有神圣的含义。即使到了今天，虽然人们对婚姻和宗教的理解都几经变化，但婚姻仍然带有这种神圣的光环。西方的基督徒很清楚，结婚，就是为了荣耀上帝，完成上帝颁布的诫命。 古代的中国人和古今西方人都知道自己为什么结婚，都清楚婚姻对他们意味着什么。那么，我们——现代的中国人为什么要结婚呢？ 自民国以来，越来越多的人不再为了家族的延续而结婚。民国时，婚姻问题还属于《亲属法》的范畴，因而和古代的家族体系有一定关联。但新中国建立后，1950年制定单行的《婚姻法》，取消了《亲属法》，这样做到底是否恰当，现在还有争议。不过毫无疑问，在中国家庭婚姻制度史上，这是一个巨大的变革。新中国的《婚姻法》，既不属于亲属法，也不属于民法，而是一个独立的法律部门。但是，这并不意味着它取消了婚姻的神圣意义和价值取向。相反，它始终贯穿着一种现代中国人所追求的价值取向，体现在它的第一章的两条原则中。第一条是：废除包办强迫、男尊女卑、漠视子女利益的封建主义婚姻制度。实行男女婚姻自由、一夫一妻、男女权利平等、保护妇女和子女合法利益的新民主主义婚姻制度。第二条是：禁止重婚、纳妾。禁止童养媳。禁止干涉寡妇婚姻自由。禁止任何人藉婚姻关系问题索取财物。 我们一眼就可以看出来，1950年的《婚姻法》强调的是男女平等、婚姻自由的理念。在那个时代，人们也很清楚为什么结婚，就是为了追求自由爱情，建立幸福美满的家庭。《婚姻法》后文关于结婚、离婚、家庭财产等的具体规定，无不是为了实现这一基本理念。这个理念与《礼记》或《圣经》中的都很不相同，但仍然是一种令人激动的、值得追求的美好生活。这种美好生活，究竟是不是现代中国人最应该追求的美好生活，能否成为现代中国人追求的神圣目标，当然是一个需要仔细考察的问题，因为这会关涉到此一法律的文化价值与有效性。但不管怎样，毋庸置疑的是，这一法律在很长时间当中得到了有效的执行，规范了人们的婚姻家庭生活，帮助很多人实现了他们想追求的美满生活，也帮助很多人结束了他们不愿继续下去的婚姻。婚姻与家庭，在现代中国人关于美好生活的安排中有了一个比较明确的位置，因此，虽然人们不再相信古代的家族理念，也没有西方的宗教观念，却知道自己为什么结婚，知道婚姻为什么是通向美好生活的必要步骤，也知道当婚姻变成怎样的形态的时候，就已经无法帮自己获得美好生活，因而需要终结。 1980年的《婚姻法》，将1950年的《婚姻法》的基本原则更详细、更明确地表达了出来：婚姻自由、一夫一妻、男女平等、保护妇女、儿童和老人的合法权益，唯一比1950年《婚姻法》多出来的一项原则是计划生育。按照这样的原则，三十年来的中国人的婚姻仍然有比较明确的目标，《婚姻法》中的主要原则都在帮助人们实现这些目标。这套《婚姻法》指导和管理下的婚姻，仍然有可贵的价值追求。 但是，现在我们正在面对的“司法解释三”，却在逐渐放弃这种价值追求。在我看来，这一司法解释的根本问题，还不在于它支持怎样的婚姻理念，而在于它完全丧失了任何理念。理念的改变、价值的转换，都是值得更深入讨论的问题，但若是根本就没有任何理念，完全放弃了婚姻的价值追求，那才是最可悲的事情。 这一拟议中的司法解释之所以面世，是因为随着经济和社会的发展，婚姻生活中出现了很多以前没有过的复杂情况，因此各地基层法院的法官们在裁决时缺乏明确依据。为了让法官们在具体办案时能有统一的标准，避免模棱两可的模糊情况，最高法院酝酿了这个司法解释。换句话说，这更多是为了法庭办案的简便快捷而颁布的，而它的结果，却将会使成千上万家庭陷入长久的惶恐与矛盾当中。婚姻生活越来越变成冷冰冰的契约，家庭将不再有任何美好和高贵的价值可言。 纠纷解决的方便快捷，当然是理性化政治的必然要求，但是，如果司法政策完全出于技术性的考虑，而不再考虑婚姻中蕴含的价值理念，那就失去了其存在的根本意义，而成为单纯追求效率的办案机器。国家如果只是作为社会生活的一个管理者而存在，它所考虑的主要问题就是效率、方便这些技术性的问题。于是，在制订法律的时候，最重要的标准就是方便快捷、有章可循。有了这一司法解释，法官们人手一册，遇到案件就可以按图索骥，很快地产生出一个结论。而这给当事人所带来的却是无穷的麻烦。比如，由于第6条规定，“夫妻一方的个人财产在婚后产生的孳息或增值收益，应认定为一方的个人财产”，就会打破夫妻之间必然会有的分工合作的关系，使双方都要为未来离婚时自己的可能损失而担忧，于是在婚姻中都不愿意牺牲和付出；再如，由于第13条规定，“婚后由一方父母出资购买的不动产，产权登记在出资人子女名下的，可视为对自己子女一方的赠与，应认定该不动产为夫妻一方的个人财产”，父母在是否要帮助孩子买房，以及如何为孩子买房的问题上，就要仔细权衡，考虑到以后自己的孩子万一离婚，将会怎样才能更有利。这样的规定不仅无助于帮助人们实现美好家庭的理想生活，反而会破坏家庭生活的道德价值。婚姻成为一种负担，一种麻烦，而不再是美好神圣的生活安排。难怪人们会越来越不知道究竟为什么而结婚。 赞成者或许力图表明，这一司法解释是为了适应时代的潮流、根据社会的具体情况而制订的。该司法解释的起草者之一在谈到夫妻之间就一方夜不归宿而签订的“空床费协议”时说：“‘空床费协议’可以在一定程度上制约夫妻双方对自己行为的放纵，也算是对独守空房一方些许经济上的安慰吧。”她在这里的逻辑是，既然现实中已经有了那么多婚外情的不忠现象，法律就应该看到这个现实，允许夫妻双方签订“空床费协议”，在给受害者一方经济补偿的同时，也赋予了不忠的一方通过付费来寻求婚外情的权利。这种逻辑不仅没有起到任何纠正社会风气堕落、提升道德的作用，而且通过以金钱衡量夫妻感情的方式，认可了社会中的种种不正常的现象。类似的逻辑在这份司法解释中随处可见。这位起草者还认为，“婚姻和情感是两个领域的事情，法律是调整婚姻关系而不是调整男女情感的。老翁和青年女子去婚姻登记机关履行结婚登记手续时，婚姻登记人员只会询问双方是否完全自愿结婚，而没有资格去探询双方是否真心相爱，这不是法律所关心的事情。”她所谓的“调整关系”，就是被动地接受现实婚姻中存在的种种状况，法律只能认可这些关系，同时给以一些弥补，让人们在接受现实的同时，获得一些心理平衡。比起中西古代的神圣婚姻观，这自然已是相去甚远；哪怕和1950年和1980年的《婚姻法》相比，法律的意义与功能也更是彻底改变了。它已经不具有丝毫提升道德、弘扬价值的功能，而完全成了法官用来办案的技术依据。夫妻之间一清二楚地明算账，家庭关系彻底退化成契约关系，家庭的组合，与任何商业性的结合没有什么两样，那还为什么结婚呢？ 按照一些学者的说法，这套解释中也并不是没有价值的，因为它支持和推动了个体自由。的确，一个完全掏空了价值观、彻底沦为办案机器程序指南的法律，是不可想象的。据说，其中的某些规定可以尽量保护夫、妻、第三者、非婚生子女等每个人的自由。我们且不说上述关于财产分割的各种规定并不是在保护个体的自由，反而使婚姻中的个体陷入更大的不自由当中，就算是这一司法解释真的能保护婚姻家庭中每个个体的自由，那我们就必须追问一个更根本的问题：个体自由真的应该成为法律保护的唯一价值吗？ 其他各个法律领域对个人自由的强调往往更加着力，而婚姻家庭立法上却总显得保守一些，这恰恰因为，在婚姻家庭问题上，个人自由并不是最重要的价值。个人的自由当然是现实社会的一大趋势，对自由的强调无疑属于我们时代不容置疑的意识形态。但是，任何一个健康的现代社会所支持的价值，并不只有个人自由这一种，甚至并不将个人自由当作最重要的价值。只有在其他更重要的价值同样得到保护的前提下，个人自由才能得到真正的保护，并且变成能够引领人们走向幸福生活的康庄大道。当今的商业社会已经是一个过于功利化的空间，我们所担心的并不是个体自由得不到保护，而是过多的自由已经使现实生活变得人情冷漠。婚姻家庭作为最后的一块道德领域，理应在一定程度上与社会中过于泛滥的人情浇薄相抗衡，张扬个人自由之外的其他一些价值。 我们前面看到，《礼记》中之所以重视婚姻，是因为婚姻会服务于家族这个更重要的群体；《圣经》中之所以认为婚姻神圣，是因为婚姻来自更重要、更神圣的上帝的诫命。1950年的《婚姻法》之所以取得了巨大成功，就是因为它所保护的婚姻自由并不只是个人之间的自由，而是个人追求美满家庭的自由。这套司法解释的制订者们都知道，感情往往是容易变化的，感情上的一时认同往往并不意味着幸福生活。如果法律所保护的仅仅是个人根据自己的意愿来选择的自由权利，而丝毫不关心家庭的幸福、生活的质量、道德的提升，那么，作为《婚姻法》基本原则的“保护妇女、儿童和老人的合法权益”的说法都将变成一纸空文。 无论文化和宗教有怎样的差别，人类社会往往将婚姻家庭当作一种神圣的制度，因为它代表和固守了人类非常高贵的美德。这些美德与家庭之外的很多价值相互制约，抵消其他的价值可能带来的负面效应，才可能保证社会的良性运转，使家庭外的价值能够更好地起到积极的作用。在张扬个体自由的现代，稳定家庭的价值不是削弱了，而是加强了。虽然古代的大家族不复存在，但现代人对家庭的渴望和依恋却更加强烈。个体自由固然可贵，却也是危险、孤独、不易承受的；若是将个体自由当作唯一的价值，法律也就会慢慢沦为办案工具。在这个时候，只有能够有力地维护家庭伦理，保护家庭稳定的社会制度，才能使个体真正得到滋养、获得力量，勇敢地承担和实现他的自由。法律应当能够帮助每个自由人找到结婚的理由，而不是以冷冰冰的自由，剥夺我们对婚姻仅存在的一点梦想。（作者单位：北京大学哲学系）

“如果亚历山大大帝侵略意大利，结果会如何？”公元前三世纪，在罗马人和希腊人交战期间，一个反事实（counterfactual）问题在罗马人中流传。亚历山大大帝当然没有侵略过罗马，他远征印度归来后不久就死于巴比伦。但这个没有事实基础的问题却绝不是无稽之谈，在思想史上，它开启了对共和政体（regime）优越性的讨论——在罗马共和派和后世倾慕罗马的思想家眼中，亚历山大代表的是绝对君主政体，而罗马所代表的是一个共和政体。他们之间的虚拟战争，实质上是对两个政体优劣高低的比较研究。 本文试图重构和展示一个通过历史典范来进行政体比较的西方思想传统。西方古典思想中对于政体的探讨已是汗牛充栋。古希腊和罗马的哲学家们，如柏拉图、亚里士多德、西塞罗，都已经贡献出了精细和复杂的政体理论。但与哲学家相比，历史学家的政体探讨采取的是不同的进路。他们所从事的文体并没有留给他们多少作长篇理论探讨的空间，他们通常采取的做法是以某些历史范例（exemplar）来阐发自己的理论关怀——中国传统史学一般将这种范例称为“义例”。在这种探讨中，“反事实”（counterfactual）的运用，使史家可以超越对具体的历史事实的描写，而进入“可能性”的领域，使历史写作获得了更高的普遍性。 [1] 在希腊-罗马时期，对于共和政体和君主政体的比较，戏剧性地落到亚历山大大帝和罗马共和国两个“义例”身上，一直到文艺复兴时期，我们还能听到这种比较的余音。本文的讨论将围绕三个思想家而展开：李维、普鲁塔克与马基雅维利。普鲁塔克记录了“如果亚历山大大帝侵略意大利，结果会如何？”这个反事实问题，并对亚历山大给予了较多赞赏的笔调。李维则第一次将对这个反事实问题的讨论上升到政体比较的高度。而马基雅维利批驳了普鲁塔克的罗马观，并将李维的视角发展成为一个更为精细的政治理论。 要进入这场讨论，我们必须首先理解它所采用的关键词。希腊人和罗马人各自用了一对意思非常接近的概念，汉语可翻译成“德性/机运（命运）”[2]，希腊文是τύχη/αρετή ，拉丁文是fortuna/ virtus。对τύχη的较早解释可见于亚里士多德的《物理学》II. 4-6，在那里，亚里士多德将τύχη放在因果关系语境中讨论，对亚里士多德来说，τύχη作为一个偶然性的原因，发生在行动者有目的性行动的领域——某种偶然性的因素出现，导致行动偏离行动者的目的或预期。动植物和儿童因为不具有理性的目的或预期，因而与τύχη无关。显然，Τύχη是非理性的。[3] 在伦理事务上，Τύχη被分出好坏，时人常将好的τύχη等同于幸福。在希腊城邦的衰落时期，Τύχη一跃而成为一个极其重要的希腊女神，她掌管着权力、荣耀和物质财富等外在的善好（external goods）的分配，其意图不可为凡人所猜度。而与之相比，αρετή——卓越或美德，则以个人灵魂的理性部分为基础，它是个人能够控制和修炼的美德，从而与控制外物的Τύχη 形成对立。道德理论家们强调Τύχη的变幻莫测，从而要求个人将注意力放在自我德性的修炼上，而不是抱着侥幸心理随波逐流。fortuna/ virtus是τύχη/αρετή 这对概念在拉丁文中的对应物。Virtus（拉丁文词根vir,男子）在早期指向男子气概，尤其是战争中的勇敢。但随着希腊道德哲学的影响，到了共和国晚期，它已经与灵魂学说发生密切关联，与αρετή的意思几无实质差别。 这两对概念的伦理-政治意义如下：Τύχη-fortuna集中体现了作为有朽者的人类所从事的事业的脆弱性。人类在外在世界中所留下的作品，总是很容易在命运的打击下烟消云散。但这种脆弱性因此也恰恰成为一个试金石：对个人来说，要在Τύχη-fortuna的打击前面保持稳固，需要卓越的内在品质；而由众人集合而成的国家也是如此，无论是君主国，还是共和国，都要经受变幻莫测的Τύχη-fortuna的考验。通过将政治表述为在德性和机运之间永恒的斗争，史家们得以观察和比较不同的政治行动主体在历史中的能力。 一、“亚历山大入侵”：问题的提出 “如果亚历山大大帝侵略意大利，结果会如何？”，对产生这个问题的历史情境的最早记录，可见于普鲁塔克（Plutarch）的《皮洛斯传》（Pyrrhus）。如果我们接受普鲁塔克的叙事，这个问题应该早在皮洛斯和罗马人交战的时候就已经初现。在《皮洛斯传》（Pyrrhus）中, 普鲁塔克记录了一个场景: 罗马人和皮洛斯发生战争, 而后者因骁勇善战，常被同时代的希腊人看作是亚历山大的化身。罗马人在一场战斗中失利。皮洛斯知道自己没有足够的力量完全摧毁罗马人，建议休战。罗马元老院因为恐惧，几乎决定接受皮洛斯的条件。然而，曾经多次担任执政官和独裁官，已经双目失明的元老阿披乌斯·克劳迪乌斯（Appius Claudius）站起来对诸元老发表了一番演讲: “… 你们反复向全世界重申的话——当我们还年轻，而我们的父亲正当盛年时，如果声名远播的亚历山大大帝来到意大利并与我们发生冲突，他不会像现在那样被推崇为不可战胜的，而可能已经逃逸，或者已经倒下，而使得罗马更加光荣——结果怎样？你们现在正在确凿无疑地证明这是自我吹嘘和空洞的喧嚣，因为你们害怕查奥尼人和莫洛西人, 他们曾经是马其顿人的猎物；你们在皮洛斯前面颤抖，而他只不过曾经是亚历山大的一个护卫的臣仆和随从，现在他来了，在意大利漫游，与其说是要帮助居住在这里的希腊人，还不如说是为了逃避他在国内的敌人，他吹嘘说要用那支甚至不能为他保存马其顿的一小部分的军队，来赢得对我们的支配地位…”(Pyrrh., 19) 这个演讲表明，反事实问题 “如果亚历山大大帝侵略意大利，结果会如何?” 在那个时代已广为传布, 罗马人出于他们一贯的高傲，认为自己必将获得胜利。但在当下，他们却被亚历山大的一位仆从和模仿者吓得战战兢兢。克劳迪乌斯在罗马人的回答和当下的反应作了鲜明的对比，进而向他的听众提出了严厉的批评，隐含的意思是，如果罗马人言行不一，必将招致其他民族的蔑视。 在这个语境中，这个问题涉及到的仅仅是罗马人的自我评价和当下表现脱节的“面子问题”，但没有涉及罗马人的自我评价的具体构成：这个共和国的卓越，到底体现在什么地方？然而，到了奥古斯都时期，这一问题在李维的著作中重新出现。这一次，已上升到了政体比较的高度。 二、 unus homo的反面：李维对罗马共和的辩护 李维是在IX.16-18展开对亚历山大入侵罗马的想象。但在IX.16之前，已经有很多线索隐隐约约地指向了这一想象。早在李维叙述亚伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大（Alexander of Epirus, 亚历山大大帝的舅舅）在意大利登陆的时候（VIII.3），他就已经留给我们某些信号，表明他将在某个时候讨论亚历山大大帝。李维指出，伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大登陆的时刻恰恰是亚历山大大帝死亡的时刻。李维的担忧是，“如果他一开始就所向披靡，战争将会扩展到罗马。” (VIII.3) 这里的意涵是，伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大有与罗马作战的潜在可能性。[4] 在VIII.24, 李维详细地叙述了伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大在战场上的悲剧性死亡，作出了一个非常微妙的评论： “… 虽然命运阻止他与罗马为敌，他在意大利进行的战争在这部历史中给了他一个位置。”李维的意思是，如果这位亚历山大没有在这个时刻死亡的话，或早或晚，总有一天他会和罗马兵刃相见。在VIII.24, 李维再一次提到伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大的姐妹正是亚历山大大帝的母亲。这两位亚历山大之间的关联在IX.19得到了进一步的重申。在那里，李维告诉我们，据说伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大在受到致命伤之后，曾经将自己的命运和亚历山大大帝在其亚洲远征中的命运相比较。所有这些线索都为李维对亚历山大远征意大利的想象作了语境上的准备。 那么，李维又是如何具体提出他的亚历山大问题的呢？在IX.16, 李维叙述了亚历山大大帝的同时代罗马将领帕披鲁斯（Papirus）的高尚言行之后，评论道：“没有一个时代比帕披鲁斯所生活时代有更多的伟大和高贵的人物，而即便在那个时代，也没有人比他更杰出地以自己的力量维系共和国。”他赞美的不仅仅是帕披鲁斯所生活的时代，而且也是帕披鲁斯的伟大美德与对共和国的贡献。接着，他提到，有些人认为如果亚历山大大帝在征服亚洲之后挥戈西进，他会在帕披鲁斯那里遭遇到劲敌。这当然是某些罗马人所提出的反事实虚拟，其目的是通过与亚历山大帝对比而赞美帕披鲁斯。[5]李维宣布，他在这里将开始一段较长的离题论述，因为上面对于亚历山大的意见诱使他对下面这个反事实问题做出一点反思： “如果罗马与亚历山大交战，罗马的结果会是如何? (IX.17)" 李维的讨论语境与这个问题第一次提出时的语境非常不同。一方面，罗马已经征服了希腊世界；另一方面，在征服希腊世界之后，罗马自身的败坏也已经开始。与在战争期间不同，李维用不着赞美罗马以提升其同伴的士气。但他对这个问题的回答和罗马人通常的回答没有两样: 罗马有能力赢得与亚历山大的战争。在他看来，战争的结果依赖于三个指标：军队的数量和勇气，指挥者的能力(virtus, animus),以及命运（ fortuna）——她 “对于人类事务有强大的影响，尤其是在战争事务中。” (Plurimum in bello pollere videntur militum copia et virtus, ingenia imperatorum, fortuna per omnia humana maxime in res bellicas potens. IX.17) 下面，李维按照三个指标，依次对亚历山大和罗马进行了比较。 就军事指挥官这一方面而言，李维并不否认亚历山大是一位杰出的将军，但他的声誉其实被下述事实放大了：亚历山大死得太早，以至于没有经历过命运的逆转。但有很多其他的英雄经历了人类事务的变化，如过去的居鲁士（Cyrus）, 或近期的庞培（Pompey）——李维意味着，如果这些英雄们也像亚历山大那样在命运逆转之前死亡，他们也许会获得类似的声誉。接下来，李维指出，有许多罗马的将领，其实力可能与亚历山大相当: M. Valerius Corvus, C. Marcius Rutilus, C. Sulpicius, T. Manlius Torquatus, Q. Publilius Philo, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, L. Volumnius, and Manlius Curius, 等等。所有这些人在勇气、才能和战争的技艺(animi ingeniique, tum disciplina militaris)都与亚历山大旗鼓相当，而就战争的技艺而言，从建城以来，罗马已经有了一个丰富的战争技艺传统。 接下来，李维提出一系列修辞意味十足的问题，讨论亚历山大是否能够征服这些罗马将领。他用一系列排比句来强调，亚历山大会在意大利折戟沉沙。最后一个句子甚至指向了他的舅舅，伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大：“… 他将在阿普利亚（Apulia）山口以及卢卡尼亚（Lucania）山脉找到最近落在他的家族身上的灾难的痕迹，当他的舅舅，伊庇鲁斯国王亚历山大，灭亡的时候。( uisus illi habitus esset, saltus Apuliae ac montes Lucanos cernenti et uestigia recentia domesticae cladis, ubi auunculus eius nuper, Epiri rex Alexander, absumptus erat.)” 这和他在VIII.24中对于伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大在意大利的死亡的描述遥相呼应。现在，我们可以清楚地看到，虽然这两个亚历山大没有一个真正与罗马打过仗，在李维的眼里，他们同样代表着来自希腊世界的紧迫威胁。 但上面的讨论仍然只是第一阶段，只是讨论亚历山大并没有被败坏的时候。李维接下来把讨论推向了第二个阶段。他指出，亚历山大被他自己的胜利败坏——被命运女神（fortuna）宠坏。作为一个征服者，他采取了被征服者的服饰和生活方式。李维列举了亚历山大的败坏的各个方面：他对波斯服饰的喜爱，他的酗酒，他的虚荣和残酷….. 在此对亚历山大从征服者向被征服者逆转的描述，进一步强化了李维的论点：亚历山大会在与罗马的战争中失败。 下面到达了讨论的高潮部分：在李维看来，更要命的是，那些将亚历山大与罗马进行对比的人都犯了一个错误，他们并没有意识到“他们是在拿一个人，一个年轻人的行动与一个经历800年战争的民族的成就相对比。” (non intellegunt se hominis res gestas, et eius iuuenis, cum populi iam octingentesimum bellantis annum rebus conferre).” 亚历山大不过是“一个人”(unus homo) 而已, 但罗马是一个具有悠久历史的共和国，并不是一个人。就单个人来看，罗马的领导人们受到体制的约束，他们的个人的计划常常受到环境的阻碍。而相比之下，“国王们没有任何阻碍，他们是时间和环境的主宰，将所有的事物都纳入他们自己的计划之中.(At hercule reges non liberi solum impedimentis omnibus sed domini rerum temporumque trahunt consiliis cuncta, non sequuntur)” 然而，从整个帝国的风险来看，亚历山大尽管非常勇敢，但也可以说非常脆弱，因为他只不过是“独夫”。而罗马的基础更为稳固，因为“有许多人，在荣耀和事迹的伟大方面可与亚历山大相提并论，然而他们中的每个人会以生命或死亡来实现他们的命运，而不危及国家的生存。( (Romani multi fuissent Alexandro uel gloria uel rerum magnitudine pares, quorum suo quisque fato sine publico discrimine uiueret morereturque. IX.18)” 这里的意涵是，因为罗马的安全并不依赖于一个人 (unus homo),她能够更好地承受命运（fortuna）的变幻起伏。 李维的讨论还包括对于每一方军事力量的的数量和勇气的比较。李维认为亚历山大在这两方面都有缺陷。马其顿的方队和罗马的军团也无法比较——这是波里比乌斯在若干代之前就做过的比较 (Polybius, XVIII.28-32)。 李维进一步将迦太基人也纳入了他的思想实验：亚历山大，将和汉尼拔一样，发现自己在一片陌生的外国土地上战斗，他的军队的数量在减少，勇气在减退。罗马经历了漫长的布匿战争，但亚历山大不可能活这么长。对亚历山大来说，更糟糕的是，罗马和迦太基很可能联合起来，对付他这个共同的敌人。这又一次呼应了“亚历山大只是一个人(unus homo)，因而无法承受命运的跌宕起伏”的命题。 因此，罗马共和国（res publica）便是君主制的反面，其政治和军事领导权并非掌握在一个人（unus homo）手中，而是由许多受任期限制的政治家和军事将领们共享。权力的共享和任期的限制使得他们中的每一个都无法完全实现自己的雄才大略，但是共和国却因建立在许多人身上而更为稳固。前仆后继的爱国者们将会为共和国抵御机运（fortuna）的突变，而再有雄才大略的君主毕竟只是一个人（unus homo），随着他的倒下，他的事业也将化为乌有。 这个很长的离题论述是李维即兴而作，还是深思熟虑的结果？我认为是后者。 在这里，李维不仅仅是用第一人称在发言，在谈到罗马具有的诸项资源的时候，他始终用第一人称复数。如此明显的叙述干预（authorial intervention）在李维的作品中是很少出现的现象，可以表明李维对于这一段评论的深度情感投入。IX.18的最后一句话(“…有许多人，在荣耀和事迹的伟大方面可与亚历山大相提并论，然而他们中的每个人会以生命或死亡来实现他们的命运，而不危及国家的生存。”) [6] 和IX.19对于内战的提及，也给我们进一步的线索。在罗马共和国晚期的内战中，难道不正是那些野心勃勃的军事指挥者们危及罗马国家的存在吗？李维对罗马道德败坏的担忧当然源于他对于内战时期的经历。虽然奥古斯都宣称恢复了共和政体，败坏仍然在继续。正如李维在《建城以来史》的前言中表明的，他的时代的败坏已经如此令人灰心，他甚至将他的作品看作从这种时代状况的逃避。 在这里，我们还应当参考这样一个重要的背景：共和国晚期的那些政治和军事领袖们——庞培，安东尼，凯撒，甚至奥古斯都，都是亚历山大大帝的钦慕者。大卫·坎宁安（David R. Cunningham）的博士论文 The Influence of the Alexander Legend on Some Roman Political Figures 提供了足够的证据，证明亚历山大在共和国后期的那些军阀身上投下的阴影。[7] 而我在这里要强调的是，那些军阀对亚历山大的模仿，对于那些忠于共和原则的保守人士来说，是一个非常令人不快的信息。比如说，西塞罗就清楚地意识到凯撒对亚历山大的模仿。在给阿提库斯（Atticus）的一封信里，西塞罗解释它自己为什么没有将一封建议信送给凯撒：“你应该看到，甚至是那位亚里士多德的学生，尽管具有卓越的智慧与审慎，一旦获得‘国王’的头衔之后，也变得傲慢、残酷与放纵。什么？你想象这个受追捧的偶像、这个奎里努斯（Quirinus）的同帐伙伴有可能享受像我写的这样温和的信吗？” (Epist. ad Att, XII.28.3) [8] 对这位享有“祖国之父”（Pater Patriae）荣誉称号的共和主义者来说, 在凯撒和亚历山大之间的相似性是很明显的：他们都被野心和权力所败坏，成为骄傲、残酷、缺乏节制的僭主，站在西塞罗的共和原则的对立面。后来，卢卡（Lucan）在其被广泛人士是影射凯撒的史诗《内战记》（De bello civili）将亚历山大描绘为疯狂、无节制、腐败的人，将其作为注定灭亡的那一类人的代表 (De bello civili, III.233-34, X.25-52)。它所传递的信息和西塞罗非常相似。在他们的感觉中，共和国的背叛者们身上已经附着亚历山大的阴魂，因而亚历山大对他们来说是如此危险！ 对像亚历山大这样的范例政治影响的关注，也可以在更晚时期的罗马文献中看到。赛涅卡，尼禄皇帝的教师，经常将亚历山大描绘为“疯狂的青年” （vesanus adulescens）, [9]，尤其是他杀克雷图斯（Cleitus）事件中所表现出来的野蛮（feritas）, 是塞涅卡喜欢谈的主题。[10] 和斯多葛的智慧者（sapiens）不同，亚历山大并没有控制住自己的激情，他的酗酒导致了克雷图斯（Cleitus）的死亡，最后是他自己的死亡 (Epistulae，LXXXIII.19, 23, De Ira. II.23.1-2, 4-8), [11] 他有的并不是勇敢（virtus），而是幸运的莽撞（ felix temeritas） ( De Beneficiis, I.13.3, VII. III.1; cf De bello civili,X.21). 他对于名声和财产有无穷无尽的欲望 (De Beneficiis, VII.2.5 f.; Quaestiones naturals, V.18.10), 自我膨胀 (De Beneficiis, V. 6.1, ‘homo super mensuram humanae superbiae tumens’; cf II.16.2, ‘tumidissimum animal’). 鉴于塞涅卡作品中很大一部分是为尼禄皇帝而写，他对亚历山大的评论明显有着一个教育的目的。亚历山大是其“君主镜鉴”（mirror of the prince）中诸多反面例子的一个。 总的来说，帝国早期的罗马作家们对于亚历山大并不那么友好。塞涅卡和卢卡对亚历山大的猛烈攻击乃是出自斯多葛主义对于专制的反对；昆体良， （Quintilian）、尤文纳尔（Juvenal）和格里乌斯（Gelius）也对亚历山大给出了许多负面评价。[12] 在克劳迪乌斯皇帝之下写作的库尔提乌斯(Qintus Curtius) 表现出了一种褒贬参半的态度。[13] 尽管有像特罗古斯（Trogus）那样的赞赏亚历山大的作者，他们的声音从来不是压倒性的。对于保守共和理想的人士来说，亚历山大从来都是对他们的罗马共和传统理想的威胁。这一反事实问题“如果亚历山大入侵罗马，结果会如何”看起来似乎只是关于过去，但隐藏在这个问题背后的恰恰是在罗马人和希腊人之间，在罗马政治的两种可能性之间的斗争。 三、无关政体的辩护：普鲁塔克 李维的探讨方式在保守共和理想的罗马人那里非常多见，但在希腊人那里，却并不能引起多少同情的回应。毕竟，亚历山大是一个希腊人。曾长期作为人质而客居罗马的希腊史家波里比乌斯（Polybius）在讨论到亚历山大的时候，采用的调子就以褒扬为主。在其《历史》V.11中, 当他比较腓力五世、腓力二世与亚历山大的时候，曾经提到亚历山大将忒拜城夷为平地，但他马上指出，甚至在那种情况下，亚历山大也很尊敬这个城邦的诸神。这里的调子完全是辩护性的。像狄奥多罗斯（Diodorus）,普鲁塔克（Plutarch）和阿里安（Arrian）这样的希腊史家都更倾向于将亚历山大看作是希腊文化和军事力量的代表者。 上文已经提到普鲁塔克在《皮洛斯传》中记录了罗马人对于亚历山大入侵罗马的假设，在那里，普鲁塔克并未以自己的名义发表看法。但他对这个问题是有自己判断的。在《论罗马人的命运》（De fortuna Romanorum，简称De fort. Rom）中，普鲁塔克对这个问题作了间接的回应： … 我也把亚历山大之死归结于命运, 他，凭借着源于其不可战胜的勇猛和高尚的抱负的巨大的好运(εὐτυχήμασι μεγάλοις) 和辉煌的成功 (κατορθώηασι λαμτπροἳς),，像一颗流星一样从东到西横扫世界，已经允许其武器的光泽在意大利闪烁… (De fort. Rom, 326 a-b) 普鲁塔克隐含的意思是，亚历山大是有夺取意大利的能力的。如果不是命运过早夺取了他的生命的话，他将横扫东方和西方。 李维却认为，亚历山大早年所向披靡，很大程度上只是由于他幸运而已。普鲁塔克在同一演讲中指出，亚历山大固然享有巨大的幸运 (εὐτυχήμασι μεγάλοις), 但很快补充，这不过是“源于其不可战胜的勇猛和高尚的抱负”(ὑπὸ θάρσους ἀμάχου καὶ φρονήματος)。换而言之，亚历山大的好运并非被武断地授予，而是由其卓越的德性而获得。与之形成鲜明对比的是，当普鲁塔克说命运女神（Τύχη）最终定居在罗马并变得稳定的时候，他并没有指出命运女神这样做的理由。如果说，他对亚历山大的分析表明亚历山大享有的好运具有一个理性基础，他对罗马人命运的分析却遵循着一条不同的线索：命运女神(Τύχη)在关键的时刻，通过许多非理性的力量来帮助罗马人。比如说，当高卢人夜袭卡匹托尔山(Capitol)的时候，山顶神殿的鹅被惊醒，叫了起来，吵醒了罗马人，使高卢人的阴谋没能得逞。命运女神也保佑罗马人，使他们始终能够避免同时打两场战争。这与罗马人对他们自己历史的态度形成鲜明对比——虽然罗马人通常相信自己获得帝国是有神意支撑，但他们倾向于相信，这个神意是通过他们自己的德性，而非神灵的毫无理由的干预而实现的。[14] 普鲁塔克的两个演讲《论亚历山大的命运》（De fortuna Alexandri，简称De Alex. fort.） 和《论罗马人的命运》（De fortuna Romanorum）围绕着这个问题展开: 亚历山大大帝和罗马帝国，它们是机运(τύχη) 的产物，抑或德性 (αρετή)的产物? 普鲁塔克和李维所用的关键词是类似的：李维用的是 virtus/fortuna, 普鲁塔克用的是 τύχη/αρετή，在罗马帝国早期，这两对概念，尽管是在不同文字里，意思已经高度接近。在De Alex. fort.中, 普鲁塔克勾勒出的命运形象是这样的：她对亚历山大充满恶意，处处设障，亚历山大的成功，因而凸显出其德性之高贵。而在De fort. Rom中，普鲁塔克将罗马帝国视为德性和命运的合作产物。他举了无数例子来说明命运通过非理性的力量来帮助了罗马人，同时也以罗马人对于命运女神的崇敬作为证据，以加强自己的论证。研究普鲁塔克的学者们对于这两篇演说的严肃性有一定的争议。[15] 当然，这两篇演讲修辞性十足，但这并不说明它们不具有严肃性，或者对于研究普鲁塔克的时代的文化气氛没有用处。正因为它们诉诸希腊人的文明自豪感与对于征服者的本能的抗拒，它们至少展现了当时希腊人对于亚历山大和罗马的荣耀与成就的一种具有代表性的思考方式。 普鲁塔克对亚历山大的辩护并不仅仅存在于这两篇演讲中，他在其《亚历山大传》（Alexander）记录了亚历山大的一些名声不佳的行迹，如摧毁忒拜城和戕害其朋友。但他并没有对这些事迹进行评论。在De Alex. Fort中,普鲁塔克也提到了这些缺点，但他评述说，如果其他人处于亚历山大的位置，他们可能被败坏得更加厉害 (De Alex. fort. 337.E ) . 在这里，他采取的立场和波里比乌斯在V.10-11中的立场相近，波里比乌斯记录了亚历山大摧毁忒拜城以及对波斯人的报复，但指出亚历山大始终对他们的神保持着崇敬。 反亚历山大的罗马作家们通常忽略亚历山大传播希腊文化的功绩。而普鲁塔克则在De Alex. Fort 和 Alexander (《亚历山大传》)中对此大加赞赏. 在 De Alex. Fort中, 他将亚历山大称为一个哲学家——柏拉图只不过是教导了几个学生，而亚历山大则照亮了整个世界。 (De Alex. Fort, 328C-D) 对于亚历山大传播希腊文化的强调表明了普鲁塔克强烈的文化自豪感，正如罗马人对于道德的强调能够表明他们对于罗马德性的自豪一样。 在普鲁塔克这里，政体的因素并不是对比的关键。作为被罗马征服的希腊人，他既希望通过自己的写作来使希腊人理解罗马的伟大，也希望在罗马人前面为希腊人辩护。因此，他并不需要像李维那样，忧心于野心家们对共和国的颠覆。他要捍卫的仅仅是希腊世界的文化和政治尊严。尽管他并不情愿介入关于政体的争论，但他对亚历山大与罗马所发表的看法，客观上有可能减损罗马共和政体的正当性。在一千多年之后，一位意大利的政治思想家硬将他拉入了一场关于政体的跨时空讨论。 四．对抗fortuna的政治学：马基雅维利 我在这里要讨论的是马基雅维利，《君主论》与《论李维的前十书》的作者。马基雅维利是以一种非常怪异的方式间接地接入这场讨论的。在《论李维》第二卷第一章，马基雅维利提出这样一个问题：罗马人获得帝国，究竟是因为德性，还是因为命运的庇佑？他要批评的权威是普鲁塔克：在他看来，普鲁塔克认为罗马人是通过命运而非德性而获得一个帝国的。[16] 这并不是对普鲁塔克观点的忠实转述。在De fort. Rom中，普鲁塔克并没有说罗马帝国仅仅是τύχη的产物，他强调τύχη 和 αρετή之间的合作促成了罗马帝国的建立。但他对罗马人受τύχη庇佑的强调，显然给马基雅维利留下了深刻的印象。在后者看来，普鲁塔克的这一观点剥夺了原本应该属于罗马人的荣耀。 马基雅维利起而捍卫罗马的光荣，争辩道，罗马人是通过他们自己的德性获得帝国的。在我看来，《论李维》全书对普鲁塔克提出了两方面的回应，一个是直接的，一个是间接的。 第一，普鲁塔克的一个观点是，罗马人从来没有同时打两场仗，这说明他们受到命运的庇佑。马基雅维利承认这一现象，但指出，罗马人并没有同时打两场战争，并不是一个偶然的巧合，而是罗马人的军事和外交努力的结果。他们在安排战事的时候，总是避免同时打两场战争。而那些可能趁火打劫的敌人，或者受到他们的震慑，或者被他们收买，并不能对他们构成致命威胁。这恰恰证明罗马人能力（virtù）之高超。[17] 第二，普鲁塔克在De fort. Rom这篇演讲中指出，罗马人认为自己的成功受到命运女神的庇佑。马基雅维利根本无法接受这一证据。他并没有对这一观点作出别的评论，但《论李维》所包含的某些理论视角可以说已经隐含了对普鲁塔克的回应。对Fortuna女神的崇拜是罗马宗教的一部分，而宗教，在马基雅维利看来，可以被还原为一种在政治上非常有用的恐惧。伟大的立法家努马利用了这种原始的恐惧，创立了罗马宗教，将粗野和放荡不羁的罗马人改造成为虔敬守法的罗马公民。正是普通公民的宗教虔敬和政治领袖们对于宗教的巧妙利用，使得共和国的秩序建立并且稳固下来，并使共和国在战场上所向披靡。[18] 可以说，罗马的宗教崇拜，即便是对Fortuna的崇拜，也是罗马人的virtù的构成成分之一。 从表面上看，马基雅维利使用的术语virtù/fortuna保持着与罗马史家的连续性，但其实质已经发生了显著变化。马基雅维利研究者们已经达成的共识是，马基雅维利已经将virtù改造成为一个与古典的virtus有很大差异的概念。Virtù脱离了与灵魂理性部分以及自然（natura）的紧密关联，淡化了virtus的古典伦理意涵，它仅仅指向政治主体在一个外在事物（external goods）的世界赢得成功的能力，而与灵魂的完善与得救无关。这一外在事物的世界，恰恰处于变幻莫测的fortuna女神的权限范围。正因为隐去了灵魂完善和得救的视野，对于马基雅维利笔下的政治行动者来说，他们的一切政治行动都是与他们所处的政治环境——fortuna——进行搏斗。只有战胜变幻莫测的fortuna, 他们才能被称为是有能力（virtù）的。 在古典的视野中，政治行动者是以他们灵魂的秩序 —— 外化为卓越的行动—— 来制约变幻莫测的fortuna的力量。即便是从事权变的审慎美德（φρόνησις， prudentia）也是这个灵魂秩序的具体化。这个内在的灵魂秩序，从本体论上与自然（natura）相对应。而对于悬置灵魂秩序的马基雅维利来说，与fortuna的对抗征用的并不是一个固定的理性秩序的力量。在《君主论》第二十五章，马基雅维利公然说，一个人如果能根据时势和事情本身而改变自己的自然（natura），他的好运(fortuna)就不会改变。[19] 这是一个石破天惊的提议，因为在古典与中世纪的视野中，natura是不可由人自己来改变的。而马基雅维利想像，他的“新君主”可以根据不同的时势需要，以自身virtù之中不同的方面来从容应对。他的virtù是复合的，既包含了人所特有的对于荣耀的渴求，也包括了狮子的强力和狐狸的灵活多变以及制造幻象的能力——这意味着他的natura本身必然也是复合的，而不像古典作家强调的那样，只有一种单一的秩序。 但《君主论》第25章同时也包含了对改变natura这一提议现实可能性的自我怀疑。马基雅维利举了教皇朱里奥二世的例子。这位君主在行事时总是非常迅猛（impetuosamente），这种方式和时势相协调，因而取得了成功。但他像亚历山大那样英年早逝，未能经历机运（fortuna）的逆转。马基雅维利评述道：“如果时光流转到了他必须谨慎行事的时候，他就会毁灭了；因为他永不会抛弃他的自然（natura）使他倾向的那些方法。”从中得出的结论是，人们的行事方式必须与fortuna的变化相协调。然而，遗憾的是，马基雅维利并没有展开分析“新君主”到底是否能在多大程度上改变自己的自然，而是很快跳跃到鼓励他的读者以青年人的勇猛去征服命运女神（fortuna）,而无视上文对朱里奥二世可能的命运逆转的分析，“自然”是否可以改变的问题也就滑落在这个文本的断裂里。像这样的断裂和跳跃在马基雅维利的文本中并不罕见，要追问那些被马基雅维利的断裂和跳跃忽略和掩盖的问题，我们或许要从他的文本的其他地方寻找线索。 在此，让我们回顾一下李维的视角：成功的君主，如亚历山大，也只不过是一个人（unus homo），。他的所有过去的经历，都参与了塑造其行事的方式。他可能很多变，但绝不能突破unus homo的限度，一旦机运突变，他的事业也许就会遭遇到戏剧性的失败。在我看来，熟读李维的马基雅维利，在很大程度上已经将李维的视角融合到自己的写作之中。 根据马基雅维利的政体分类，一个国家不是共和国就是君主国。从表面上看，二者之间似乎存在一种相互排斥的关系。但是，在《论李维》中，马基雅维利不时使用“共和国的君主们”这样的用法，[20] 表明他的共和国并非是君主的绝对反面。实际上，共和国更像是一个复合的结构，在其中，君主的因素，贵族的因素和平民的因素混合在一起。由于这种复合结构，共和国将许多不同的行事方式混合在一起。正如马基雅维利指出： 与君主国相比，共和国有着更强盛的活力，更长久的好运，因为它有形形色色的公民，能够比君主更好地顺应时局…只用一种方式做事的人，绝不会改弦易辙；如果时局已变，他的方式不再适用，他也就覆灭了。（III.9） 这一段引文包含了丰富的内涵。像李维一样，马基雅维利指出了unus homo的限度：一个人的行事方式难以应付机运的无穷变化，一旦其方式不适合时局，就会遭遇失败。而拥有各色公民的共和国，却能够超越unus homo的限制，在不同的时局中采取不同的行事方式。马基雅维利举的例子是法比乌斯(Fabius)与西庇阿(Scipio)两位罗马将领，他们一个谨慎保守，一个勇猛大胆，但因为各自的行事方式与时局相适应，最终合力打败遵循自身行动程式的汉尼拔。马基雅维利在此甚至作了一个反事实的假设，如果罗马是一个君主国，而法比乌斯是国王的话，那么他很可能会输掉战争，因为他的本性所决定的方式并不足以对付汉尼拔。所幸罗马是一个共和国，在不同的时机能适用具有不同秉性的将领，因此取得了成功。[21]从汉尼拔一方来说，尽管他来自迦太基，一个类似于罗马的共和国，但在意大利的土地上，他指挥军队如同君主。他的失败，正如李维想象中的亚历山大大帝的失败，是unus homo对于一个复合的res publica的失败。 而如果离开共和国的政治结构，法比乌斯与西庇阿作为个人未必能长久胜利。在《君主论》第17章中，马基雅维利曾指出西庇阿性情和易，对自己的士兵过于仁慈，从而难以赢得士兵对他个人的尊敬。“如果西庇阿这样继续保持他的统帅地位，这种性情早晚要把他的名声和荣誉葬送掉。但是，由于他是在元老院的监督之下，他这种有害的品性不仅被掩盖起来，而且还使他获得荣誉。”[22] 马基雅维利在此暗暗指向了罗马共和国的政制结构，西庇阿在这个结构中，既不是唯一的统帅，更不是永久的统帅。他的弱点对于君主的事业来说是致命的，但因为他是在一个共和国里，他的弱点所造成的消极影响就被大大弱化了，不至于对共和国的事业造成致命伤害。因而，在《君主论》这本以君主国为主题的书中，马基雅维利已经暗暗向罗马共和国致意。 《论李维》对共和国稳固性的强调，似乎可以对解读《君主论》第25章中的文本断裂有所启发。在我看来，“改变自然”是马基雅维利对君主的主张和号召，但基于历史经验，一个人“改变自然”是极其困难的。一个国家若是基于一种实现的概率极小的可能性，就无法稳如磐石。因而，与其试图在一个人内部创造出一种复合结构，还不如以无数人为原料，创造出一个宏观的复合结构。对个人所发出的“改变自然”的号召，对于共和国这样一个复合结构来说就变成多余了——它可以使用性情、禀赋和行事方式大相径庭的公民和政治家来应对不同的政治时势。 这个复合结构的稳固性还体现在以下两个方面： 第一、在一个法纪严明的共和国里，人民抗拒败坏的力量要比君主更为强大。在《论李维》I. 58, 马基雅维利比较了民众与君主的德性，指出历史上对于民众虚妄和多变的指控存在很大的盲点： 然而，我们的史家在谈到群体的本性时所指的群体，并不是像罗马人那样受法律管辖的群体，而是像叙拉古人那样目无法纪的群体，是这种群体犯下了狂放不羁的个人犯下的错误，譬如......亚历山大大帝和希律。（I.58） 在这里，亚历山大大帝在马基雅维利笔下，成为不守法纪的君主的典型，尽管马基雅维利在《君主论》中将他作为伟大的创建者（founder）的典范。在马基雅维利看来，在不受法纪约束的时候，民众和君主都会作恶，就恶劣程度来说，前者并不比后者更大。但如果考察共和制下法纪严明的罗马人民，就会发现，他们维护良好政治秩序方面的能力要远远超过君主。罗马人民在行事时比君主更为审慎、更加持之有恒。他们能够保持一种荣耀观念数百年不变，而君主却很容易被千万种诱惑所败坏。共和国人民的稳定性，是一种因集合而成的稳定性。在法纪严明的情况下，共和国体制下政治权力的分享，能将个别官员和公民败坏的消极后果降到最低。 第二、共和国的稳固性还体现在它对颠覆行动的抗拒能力上。在III.6中，马基雅维利告诉我们，反对君主的个人阴谋比反对共和的阴谋更容易成功。毕竟，君主的事业依赖于其肉身。而共和国的事业却超越了单个肉身。即便个人倒下，共和国的制度结构依然屹立不倒。如果我们将颠覆政权的阴谋和败坏官员的尝试都作为一个政治共同体必须面对的fortuna, 可以说，相比于君主，共和国展现出了更为惊人的virtus。在共和国里，一个人的死亡和败坏尚并不至于影响到整个共和国的结构，因而其衰变会比君主国更为缓慢。 当然，马基雅维利对共和体制的推崇并非是无条件的。他充分认识到，共和国的创建在很多时候是伟大个人行动的结果；在构成共和国的民众本身已经败坏的情况下，需要有人大权独揽，将共和国带回到其开端——这意味着对共和的再造。但对于这些政治家来说，最大的荣耀并非在于将他们手中的独裁权力永久化，而是用这种独裁权力为共和国奠基。正像他在《论李维》I.10中指出的那样，一个君主若想追求现世的荣耀（gloria），他应当占有一个腐化的城邦，“不是像凯撒那样彻底摧毁它，而是像罗慕路斯那样予以整饬。”（I.10） 而在《君主论》中，马基雅维利尽管就“新君主”的种种活动提出建议，但对其继承问题保持了高度沉默。这也许指向了这样一种可能性：将继承“新君主”位置并有可能继续统一意大利使命的，将不再是一位世袭继承的“旧君主”，而是另一位与他没有血缘关系的“新君主”——如在罗马人那里，与罗穆路斯（Romulus）没有血缘关系的努马(Numa)继承了前者的王位；[23] 继承“新君主”事业的，甚至有可能是一个超越个人的复合结构，这一结构能够同时容纳诸多“新君主”，征用他们的能力来对抗fortuna, 并赋予他们不朽的荣耀。 五、 尾声 欧洲思想史上对于共和体制的辩护，一般采取两种进路：一种是从规范视角出发，力主公民的政治自由（libertas），君主制因违反这种规范而不可欲。另一种是从政治体制的治理绩效出发，阐明共和政体的优越性。这两种进路都可以在李维和马基雅维利那里找到。本文重构的是他们从第二种视角出发而展开的论述：以罗马共和国为代表的复合共和政体克服了单个统治者肉身和行为习惯的限制，综合了许许多多政治家和公民的才干，来应对内外挑战。因而，它比君主政体更为稳固。类似这样的论述，在中国近代思想中其实屡见不鲜。君主专制在中国的倒台，与晚清的丧权辱国和内部民族压迫有着密切关联。无论革命派还是立宪派都指出了君主专制在应对内外挑战时的重大局限，都试图推动结构性的政治变迁。从这个角度来看，李维和马基雅维利的论述，包含了许多普遍的、可适用于其他时空环境的成分。只是他们采取的论述形式会让我们觉得陌生：他们以亚历山大和罗马这样的特殊的“义例”来讨论政体，并往往以反事实（counterfactual）的虚拟方法来作比较研究; 他们用以探讨问题的术语τύχη/αρετή，fortuna/ virtus（virtù）也打着欧洲古代-中世纪的宇宙论与灵魂学说的深刻烙印，从近代以来已日益淡出人们的视野。但总结这条思想史线索，还是会有助于我们理解现代共和主义如何从西方文化的母体中生长出来，并走向世界。 同时，本文的研究在政治/法律思想史方法论上也许具有某些一般意义：第一，“义例”的建构与政治/法律思想的探究：通过对史家如何建构“义例”的考察，我们可以达到其政治/法律思想中一些精微之处。因而，对“义例”的考察，是研究历史叙事中的政治思想的有效切入点。第二，史家往往出于比较研究的目的而进行反事实（counterfactual）叙事，在涉及政治主题的时候，这些“反事实”叙事中往往隐含了作者强烈的政治判断。通过搜寻文本中的“反事实”叙事，往往能很快地深入到史家的核心政治关切。[24] 注释 *北京大学法学院讲师，北京大学西方古典学中心学术委员，美国加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）政治学博士。本文的写作基于笔者提交给UCLA政治学系的研究领域论文“Between Virtue and Fortune: Visions of Political Action in Plutarch and Machiavelli”（2005）和博士论文“Imagining Alternate Possibilities: Counterfactual Reasoning and Writing in Graeco-Roman Historiography”（2008）。感谢笔者两位来自意大利的博士论文导师Giulia Sissa与Carlo Ginzburg对本文思路的启发。一如既往，文责自负。 [1] 在《诗学》中，亚里士多德认为“诗是一种比历史更富哲学性、更严肃的艺术，因为诗倾向于表现带普遍性的事，而历史却倾向于记载具体事件”（1451b5-7）这一见解是狭隘的。早在亚里士多德之前，希罗多德与休昔底德等历史学家已经通过“反事实”探讨，使得历史写作的对象从现实的、具体的事物扩展到可能的、普遍的事物上去。具体参见拙文Imagining Alternate Possibilities: Counterfactual Reasoning and Writing in Graeco-Roman Historiography, Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2008。 [2] 根据汉语习惯, 本文根据语境将τύχη/fortuna翻译成“命运”、“机运”或“好运”。当它们被作为女神看待的时候，统一翻译成“命运女神”。 [3] 这里还需要考虑两部作者归属有一定争议的亚氏伦理学著作。在《优苔谟伦理学》（Ethica Eudemia）中，Τύχη被认为是通过一种行动者身上的一种本能冲动起作用，这种本能冲动使人在缺乏良好的理性考虑的时候，也能取得成功结果（Ethica Eudemia,1247b)。《优苔谟伦理学》认为这种本能冲动起作用的方式与理性和自然均无关，因而最终应当归结到神灵的引导。但作者归属更有争议的《大伦理学》（Magna moralia）认为，行动者身上的这种本能冲动是自然的，但并非理性的 (Magna moralia ,1207a 16)。不过，不管这几部著作之间有何种分歧，对Τύχη的非理性性质的判断是一致的。 [4] 李维在VIII.17中的分析则进一步印证这一点： “亚伊庇鲁斯的亚历山大在帕埃斯图姆（Paestum）附近的登陆迫使萨姆奈特人和卢卡尼亚人联合起来，但是他们的联军在一场激战中被亚历山大击垮。他进而与罗马建立了友好关系，但是非常值得怀疑的是，他会在多大程度上维持这种关系，如果他的其他事业是同样成功的话。” [5] 类似分析，参见Ruth Morello,"Livy's Alexander Digression (9.17-19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics",The Journal of Roman Studies,Vol. 92, (2002), pp. 62-85。 [6] 原文如下: “immo etiam eo plus periculi subisset quod Macedones unum Alexandrum habuissent, multis casibus non solum obnoxium sed etiam offerentem se, Romani multi fuissent Alexandro uel gloria uel rerum magnitudine pares, quorum suo quisque fato sine publico discrimine uiueret morereturque. ” (Livy, IX.18) [7] See David R. Cunningham, The Influence of the Alexander Legend on Some Roman Political Figures. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, 1971. See also Ceaucescu, Petre, 'La double image d'Alexandre le Grand à Rome: essai d'une explication politique', Studii Clasice 16, 1974, pp.153-68; and Wirth, Gerhard, 'Alexander und Rom', Alexandre le Grand: image et réalité , Entretiens Hardt 22 ,1976 , pp. 181-210. [8] 原文如下: “Quid? Tu non uides ipsum illum Aristoteli discipulum, summo ingenio, summa modestia, postea quam rex appellatus sit, superbum, crudelem, immoderatum fuisse? Quid? Tu hunc de pompa, Quirini contubernalem, his nostris moderatis epistulis lacetaturum putas? ” ((Epist. ad Att, 12.28.3)) [9] De Beneficiis. 1.13.1, II.16.1; Epistulae, XCI.17, XCIV.62. Cf. De bello civili ,X.20, 42 – vesanus rex. [10] De Clementia. I.25.1; De Ira III.17.1, XXIII.1; Epistulae. XCIV.62. [11] 普鲁塔克对这一批评的回应见于De Alex. fort. II.5. f [12] Quintilian, I.1.9; Juvenal X. 168-72; Gelius XIII 4. [13] 见 curt. IV. 7.29: “ fortuna quos uni sibi credere coegit magna ex parte avidos gloriae magis quam capaces facit’. 同时参见X. 5. 26 ff. [14] 维吉尔的《埃涅阿斯纪》（Aeneid）代表了这样一种解读罗马史的态度。虽然埃涅阿斯受到神的预言的指引，但这一预言的实现，却是通过他自己的勇敢和坚韧。 See John Alvis. Divine Purpose and Heroic Response in Homer and Virgil: the Political Plan of Zeus. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefied Publishers, 1995. See also George E. Duckworth, “Fate and Free Will in Virgil’s Aeneid”, The Classical Journal, Vol. 51, no. 8 (May, 1956), pp. 357-64. 命运女神在罗马的稳定性是李维著作的一个重要主题，而西塞罗也在其《论共和国》（De Republica）中承认罗马从好运中获益。但他们的进路是一致的：罗马人以他们自己的伟大的德性而赢得好运。 [15] J.R.Hamilton 认为这两篇演讲不过是修辞学练习, 参见氏著 Plutarch’s Alexander: A Commentary. Oxford University Press,1969. p. xxxi. 此观点亦可参见 R.H. Barrow. Plutarch and His Times. London : Chatto & Windus, 1967. 但Tim Duff 反对这一观点，认为我们可以将之作为对两个文化的严肃比较，See Tim Duff. Plutarch's Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, pp. 300-301 [16] 《论李维》， II. 1。 以下标明来自《论李维》的译文都出自冯克利译本，上海人民出版社2005年版。 [17] 同上注。 [18] 参见《论李维》, I. 11, 13, 14. [19] 原文为：ché, se si mutassi di natura con li tempi e con le cose, non si muterebbe fortuna. [20] 参见《论李维》, I. 30. [21] 《论李维》，III.9. [22] 中译参见马基雅维利：《君主论》，潘汉典译，北京：商务印书馆，1997年，页82. [23] 参见《论李维》， I. 19. [24] 对于“反事实”在希腊-罗马史学中的运用，可参见笔者博士论文Imagining Alternate Possibilities: Counterfactual Reasoning and Writing in Graeco-Roman Historiography. University of California, Los Angeles, 2008.

医疗外交一直是中国走向世界时的先行者。自1963年应阿尔及利亚政府之邀派出第一支医疗小队以来，中国已向亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲、欧洲和大洋洲的69个国家派出20679名医生。其中最主要的受援方为非洲，这是中国在1949年后，为在反殖民运动中扩大政治影响力，寻求独立于西方帝国主义的国家联盟的直接成果。 而在过去的50年间，中国全球医疗援助的意图已发生了改变。如今的中国政府已认识到，参与国际医疗援助可建立中国作为全球福利贡献者的形象。而中国经济的持续高速发展，也有赖于非洲和拉丁美洲丰富的自然资源。既然早期基于支持民族解放的医疗外交已有深厚基础，那么现在中国则可借由那些非传统的安全威胁——比如海外疫情，来培养其“软实力”，维持国内稳定和经济增长。 2003年的SARS疫情让中国政府意识到全球性卫生问题的严重性。自那时起，中国就开始有意识地将其医疗外交的版图向那些可发展紧密经济联系的地区扩展，尤其是东南亚以及非洲、拉美一些资源丰富的国家。中国提供的医疗援助包括医疗基础设施的建设、中医的传播、对当地医疗专业人员的训练等。在海地、智利的地震以及尼泊尔、巴基斯坦洪灾时，中国都在人道救援上做出了积极的行动。 中国在有限的资源条件下，实现了国内卫生水平的大幅度提升，这对其他发展中国家是很好的借鉴。但同样也有很多因素制约着中国在全球医疗事业中的脚步，中国已超过日本，成为世界第二大经济体，这就意味着富起来的国民要求更好更多的医疗资源。同时城乡差距也是前所未见的，如今的中国依然有1.5亿人生活在贫困线以下。中国网民认为，比起非洲，这些国民更需要政府的援助。同时，中国并无一个如美国国际发展中心那样的机构来专门从事医疗外交。由于医疗援助往往是商务活动的一部分，中国的商务部、卫生部以及省级医疗部门都参与到了这一过程中，这种状态使得中国的医疗援助组织化程度低并难以评估。 尽管中国当前的医疗外交战略已逐渐重视透明和合作，但“不干涉内政”依然是其参与全球健康问题的核心信条。中国无政治附加条件式的援助，限制了系统解决援助国问题的机会，因此面临着国际社会的压力。但它依然受到那些正在经历政治挑战的国家的欢迎。 以非洲为例，中国2009年对非洲的援助额较2006年已翻倍。调查显示非洲大部分国家的国民对中国很有好感。同时对国内的制药工业来讲，非洲是稳步成长的市场。中国对非洲的医疗产品出口额已从2001年的1.9亿上升到2009年的11.4亿。 对美国而言，中国海外医疗援助同样提供了潜在的合作空间。艾滋、肺结核，霍乱以及世界银行的援助项目上，美中两国应增加合作，并就透明化和政府责任等问题展开更广泛的对话。   CSIS 全球健康政策中心 2010年12月发布 （该中心将于2011年3月召开讨论如何推动美国在全球卫生事业中的领导者地位。）

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

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

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

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

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）

评汪晖近期出版的日文著作《世界历史中的中国：文革、琉球、西藏》（《世界史の中の中国――文革・琉球・チベット》，笔者：汪暉；译者：石井剛・羽根次郎；东京：青土社，2011年1月24日），柄谷行人于地震次日（3月12日）主持的长池讲义中讨论此书。 -- 作者是我最信赖的中国现代思想家。他是鲁迅研究者出身，在天安门事件时遭到镇压之后，涉足了其它更广泛的领域。但是，从某种意义上来说，他看来似乎走着一条更具鲁迅特色的道路。即他在通晓世界规模的知识状况的同时，还经常在中国这种特殊的文脉下思考问题。这是他比较独特的地方。 本书中也有这样两个观点。一个是从普遍角度来思考世界的状况，并将中国也放在其中。用作者的话来，现代世界的主要倾向是“去政治化”。也许用下面那样的话来说的话更容易理解一点。例如：自1990年之后，我们用“市场经济”这个词语来代替“资本主义”。这就忽视了资本的积累是基于资本与雇佣劳动的阶级关系这一事实，并将资本主义视为是自然与永久的。 在日本和资本主义发达国家发生过这样的“去政治化”，其实中国也同样发生过。在中国，资本主义经济（新自由主义）在“社会主义市场经济”之名下急速展开，各地产生严重的阶级对立。但是这个问题被偷换成了民族主义、民族认同、或者人权问题等“政治”层面上来。这些看上去是政治问题，其实是去离政治的。 本书的另外一个观点是，从中国的特殊问题中提取普遍性的认识。为了理解现代中国的民族问题，我们有必要研究一下由清朝扩大的册封体制，即朝贡关系。从由西方产生的主权国家这种观点来看的话，朝贡关系只是支配—从属的关系而已。但是朝贡关系在实际上以交易形式而表现，帝国根本不干涉其他国家的政治和文化。朝贡关系就是保障贸易和和平的国际体系。如果把它当做“帝国”的话，那么“帝国主义”则先承认对方为主权国家，又将其卷入资本主义经济当中，甚至在文化层面也进行同化。西方列强是以“将从属于‘帝国’的各个国家解放出来”为借口而进行对它们的支配。 要想从历史角度理解现在的西藏问题的话，对这种朝贡关系的理解是不可或缺的。不仅如此，对于包括周边国家在内的亚洲政治结构的理解也是必要的，例如，琉球王国原来向清朝和日本都进贡，但是日本依据近代原理来灭亡这王国，最终将其归为自己的领土。对于现在的冲绳基地问题，如果对上述的事情经过缺乏了解，就无法进行研究。当然，作者并不是在称赞清朝的政治体系，只是想从朝贡关系和儒学的传统中去寻找某些用以能够构建“跨体系社会”的原理的启发而已。 羽根次郎译

英文 Sami G. Hajjar (1980). The Jamahiriya Experiment in Libya: Qadhafi and Rousseau. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 18, pp. 181-200.

Zero Hour in Benghazi by Nicolas Pelham