文章 :: wen.org.cn

wen.org.cn 文章列表 普通 按标题倒序

http://wen.org.cn
wen dot org dot cn at gmail dot com
普通 推荐阅读 全部
缺省 时间 标题 评分 阅读 评论 跟踪网址 | 倒序 顺序
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 42 »
文章
  1. 黄俊杰:德川时代日本儒者对孔子“吾道一以贯之”的诠释——东亚比较思想史的视野
    宗教 2010/06/05 | 阅读: 1704
    一、引言 孔子自述他的学问特质,两度以"一以贯之"形容他所抱持的"道",《论语.里仁》:"子曰:'参乎,吾道一以贯之。'曾子曰:'唯。'子出,门人问曰:'何谓也?'曾子曰:'夫子之道,忠恕而已矣。'"《论语.卫灵公》:"子曰:'赐也,女以予为多学而识之者与?'对曰:'然,非与?'曰:'非也,予一以贯之。'"《论语》全书两见"一以贯之"一语,千百年来东亚儒者众说纷纭,索解无由,明代文学家贺复征说:"吾道一以贯之,千百年间未有明摘其蕴者",[1](P1314)清儒刘宝楠(17911855)说此语"自汉以来不得其解"。[2](P152)2000年来,东亚儒者对孔子"一以贯之"一语之疏解文字,犹如夏夜繁星,难以计数。中日韩儒者说解纷纷,家自为说,人各为书,各是其所是而非其所非,各家诠释争衡消长,构成东亚思想史中值得注意的现象。本文的写作,将以德川时代(1600-1868)300年间日本儒者对孔子所说"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释为中心,先分析各家诠释言论之内容,再从东亚比较思想史角度,探讨日本儒者对"吾道一以贯之"的解释之特点,以厘定日本儒学思想之特质。二、日本儒者对"吾道一以贯之"的解释 日本德川时代300年间,各派儒者杂然纷起,各立门户,不同学派之间既交互影响,又互相攻击,其间之思想交涉极为复杂。就以最受日本儒者尊崇的《论语》为例,17世纪伊藤仁斋(16271705)推崇《论语》为"最上至极宇宙第一书",[3](P4)并撰《论语古义》、《语孟字义》特加阐发。但是古文辞学派大师荻生徂徕(16661728)却撰着《论语征》对仁斋大加批评。徂徕所着《论语征》,却又受到冈白驹(号龙洲,16921767)、片山兼山(17301782)、五井兰洲(16971762)等人的批判,[4](P281289)其中18世纪大坂怀德堂儒者中井竹山(17301804)对徂徕的批驳尤为着名。[5]各家对孔子所说"吾道一以贯之"一语之解释论点各不相同,我们取其大同而略其小异,归纳日本儒者对这句话诠释的两个主要论点。 (一)"吾道者,先王之道也"[6](P82) 德川儒者诠释孔子"吾道一以贯之"一语,首先值得注意的是:多数日本儒者都将孔子的"道"界定为社会政治意义的"道",是经世济民之道。日本儒者从所谓"实学"立场重新解释孔子的"道"的思想倾向,早已出现于德川初期。16世纪促使朱子学成为官学的关键人物林罗山(15831657)说: 道者日用所共由当行、有条理之名也。天能运,地能载,人物能云为,各有其道,不可违;道有所行也,日用不可以由行则不道。圣人之道也,人道也;通古今,亘上下,可以由行也。若涉作为造作,我可行,彼不可行,古可行,今不可行,则非人之道,非率性之道。 道名从路上起也,人之行必有路。大路者,都城王畿之路,而车马可通,人物器用可交行,天下之人民各欲出其路。小径者,吾人所利之路而甚狭陋也,其险阻隘曲少可玩也。圣人之道大路也,异端之道小径也,小径少可玩而终不可安,大路无可玩,无可见,而万小径在目下,终不可离。[7](P20) 林罗山将孔子的"道"解释为"日用所共由当行"的"人道",已透露反宋学的宇宙论之思想倾向。17世纪古学派大儒伊藤仁斋对"道"的定义,取径也与林罗山相近,仁斋说: 圣人之道,不过彝伦纲常之间,而济人为大。故曾子以忠恕发挥夫子一以贯之之旨。呜呼!传圣人之道而告之后学,其旨明且尽矣。夫子尝答樊迟问仁曰:"与人忠。"子贡问曰:"有一言而可以终身行之者乎?"夫子唯曰:"其恕乎。"孟子亦曰:"强恕而行,求仁无近焉。"可见忠恕二者,乃求仁之至要,而圣学之所成始成终者也。盖忠恕所以一贯之道也,非以忠恕训一贯也。先儒以为:"夫子之心一理浑然,而泛应曲当。惟曾子有见于此。而非学者之所能与知也。故借学者忠恕之目。以晓一贯之旨。"岂然乎哉?[3](P230231) 仁斋在这一段解释中,以"彝伦纲常"解释孔子的"道",并指出"济人"才是"道"的核心,而不是如"先儒"(指朱子)所说:"夫子之心,一理浑然,而泛应曲当。"换言之,在仁斋的诠释中,"道"并不是如朱子所说是一种宇宙创生并运行的原理,而是社会政治运作的道德规范。 仁斋之后,荻生徂徕将孔子之"道"的社会政治性格发挥得淋漓尽致,徂徕说: 孔子之道,即先王之道也。......先王之道,先王为安民立之,故其道有仁焉者,有智焉者,有义焉者,有勇焉者,有俭焉者,有恭焉者,有神焉者,有人焉者,有似自然焉者,有似伪焉者,有本焉者,有末焉者,有近焉者,有远焉者,有礼焉,有乐焉,有兵焉,有刑焉,制度云为,不可以一尽焉,纷杂乎不可得而究焉,故命之曰"博文"。又曰:"儒者之道,博而寡要。"然要其所统会,莫不归于安民焉者,故孔门教人,曰:"依于仁",曰:"博文约礼",为学先王之道以成德于己也。学先王之道,非博则不足尽之,故曰"博文"。欲归诸己,则莫如以礼,故曰"约礼"。然礼亦繁矣哉,故又教之以"仁"。仁,先王之一德也,故谓先王之道仁尽之,则不可矣。然先王之道,统会于安民,故仁,先王之大德也,依于仁,则先王之道,可以贯之矣。故不曰"一",而曰"一以贯之"。[6](P6) 徂徕解释下的孔子之"道"是"先王之道","然先王之道,统会于安民"。在"先王之道"中,完全没有宇宙论、本体论或形上学的内涵。这种"道"是在时间与空间交叉作用之下的"具体性"的"道",其中有礼乐兵刑,有制度造作,有仁义礼智,充满了人民的苦难与先王的苦心孤诣。 除了仁斋与徂徕之外,日本儒者解释孔子"吾道一以贯之"的"道",均从"道"的社会性与政治性入手,例如龟井南溟(17731836)就这样解释: 吾道者何?夫子身先王之道。故称曰:"吾道",门人称之,曰:"夫子之道。"何谓"先王之道"?唐虞三代之盛,礼乐刑政,一日万机所施行,凡事之所征见于文献者,无不有道焉。能修其道,以训天下者,是先王也。是以曰:"先王之道。"[8](P63) 龟井也以"先王之道"释孔子的"道",并以"礼乐刑政"为"道"的内容。日本儒者从具体性诠释孔子的"道",充分显示德川时代儒者反宋学的思想氛围。这一点将在本文第三节加以说明。 (二)"一以贯之"解 其次,德川儒者所提出的第二项值得注意的论点集中在"一以贯之"这句话。日本儒者对"一以贯之"的解释言论要点如下: 1"贯,统也"。早在17世纪,古学派大师伊藤仁斋就解释说: 贯,统也。言道虽至广,然一而不杂,则自能致天下之善,而无所不统,非多学而可能得也。......曾子以为,忠恕足以尽夫子之道也,因为门人述夫子一以贯之之旨如此。......夫道一而已矣。虽五常百行,至为多端,然同归而殊涂,一致而百虑。天下之至一,可以统天下之万善,故夫子不曰"心",不曰"理",唯曰:"吾道一以贯之"也。[3](P5354) 仁斋以"统"释"一以贯之"的"贯",采用的是何晏与皇侃的解释。何晏注云:"善有元,事有会,天下殊途而同归,百虑而一致,知其元则众善举矣。故不待多学,一以知之也。"[9](P3)皇侃疏云:"道者,孔子之道也。贯,犹统也,譬如以绳穿物,有贯统也。孔子语曾子曰:'吾教化之道,唯用一道以贯统天下万理也。'故王弼曰:'贯,犹统也。'夫事有归,理有会,故得其归,事虽殷大,可以一名举总其会,理虽博,可以至约穷也。譬犹以君御民,执一统众之道也。"[10](P3132)伊藤仁斋的解释本于何晏与皇侃的注疏。 自仁斋以下,日本儒者多以"统"释"贯",例如照井全都(18181881)解释"吾道一以贯之"一语时说:"一者,不二之谓也,言不变。贯者,统也。之字设字。盖指交际之道也。一以贯之。犹《左传》壹以待之。言接人之道,不以彼与此贰其心也。"[11](P96)即为一例。 2以"仁"释"一"。日本儒者多认为"一"的涵义指"仁"而言,所谓"忠恕"就是求"仁"的根本途径。前引伊藤仁斋所说:"忠恕二者,乃求仁之至要,而圣学之所成始成终者也。盖忠恕所以一以贯之也,非以忠恕训一贯也。"已持此说。仁斋之后折衷学者片山兼山撰有《论语一贯》一书,亦持以"仁"释"一"之立场,他说:"曾子答门人以忠恕,亦仁之方,而夫子所云'一以贯之'之'一',即为仁可知也。"[12](P24)另外,反对宋学与仁斋学的荻生徂徕虽然立说与仁斋互异,但是,徂徕也以"仁"解释"一贯"的"一"。徂徕说: ^先王之道,统会于安民,故仁。先王之大德也,依于仁,则先王之道,可以贯之矣。故不曰一,而曰一以贯之。辟诸钱与襁。仁,襁也。先王之道,钱也。谓钱即襁可乎?是一贯之旨也。宋儒亦有钱襁之喻(钱襁之欲见大全朱说),以一理为襁,然一理贯万理,则万理一理之分,岂容言贯乎?一理贯万事,则歧精粗而二之,依然老佛之见已,可谓不成喻矣。忠恕者为仁之方也,故曾子云尔,然忠恕岂能尽先王之道乎?由此以往,庶几可以尽之,示之以其方也,故而已矣者。非竭尽而无余之辞,亦如尧舜之道,孝弟而已矣。(《孟子·告子》篇)孝弟岂尽于尧舜之道乎?亦言由此则可以尽之耳。此章之义,后儒(后儒诸说散见集注及大全)或以为一理,或以为一心,或以为诚,其谓之一理者,昧乎贯字也,其谓之一心者,不知先王之道也。其谓之诚者,仅谓动容周旋中礼耳,不知孔子之所为道也。忠者,为人谋而委曲周悉,莫不尽己之心也。恕者,己所不欲,勿施于人之谓也,皆以与人交者言之。仁之为道,亦在与人交之间,而长之养之,匡之成之,使各遂其生者也。[6](P8485) 徂徕主张以"仁"贯通"先王之道",所谓"一"是指"仁"而言。 徂徕以"仁"释"一以贯之"的"一"的立场,到了兵学者松宫观山(?1780)与折衷学者冢田虎(17451832)手中获得进一步的发挥。松宫观山说:"天下事有大小,物有精粗,唯道无大小精粗,一以贯之,一者,仁也。夫子之道,即先王之道在安民,苟知道之一而无二,何必就一事一物,究其大小精粗哉!曾子学于夫子已久,苟就一事一物,究其大小精粗莫不详悉,而未知其要归一,故夫子以此告知也。仍就一事一物究其大小精粗,是宋儒穷理之学,即物而穷其理也,《大学》致知格物亦是也。"[13](P25)足见松宫观山解释"一贯",承续徂徕立场而批判朱子的穷理之学。时代稍后的冢田大峰说: 吾道者,先王之道也。夫子祖述尧舜宪章文武故亲之曰:吾道。所谓一者何也?曰仁也。仁者何也?传曰:蓄义丰功,谓之仁。是也,何以知所谓一者仁也。盖先王安天下之道,三纲五典,五伦九经如此之属,其目不寡,其教各殊。然其要皆蓄义,以丰功于人者。而孝弟亦依于仁,忠顺亦依于仁。凡修身、齐家、治国、平天下之道,尽莫不依于仁也。故曰:'志于道,据于德,依于仁。'凡人之不孝不友、不慈不忠、事皆不善,而邦家不宁者。人人唯为己谋。而不思义之由也。所谓仁也者,能为人谋,而不悖义之道也。则人人苟且之间。犹能志于仁,则行事皆无不善也。故知圣人之道仁以贯之也,然则曾子答门人何为不曰之仁而已,而曰夫子之道,忠恕而已乎?曰:因曾子之言忠恕而已,愈知一者仁也。所谓忠者,为人谋事,以身纳其事,而尽己中心也。恕者,施事于人,反推之己,而如己心之所好恶也。此是忠恕者,为仁之方也。何以知之?孔子曰:夫仁者,己欲达而达人,能近取譬,可谓仁之方也已。此取于己之所欲;以譬诸人,而立人达人者,即是忠恕也。故知忠恕者,仁之方也。[14](P1617)^冢田大峰将作为"一"的"仁"的具体内容,进一步阐明为"蓄义丰功",认为"凡修身齐家治国平天下之道,尽莫不依于仁"。冢田大峰的解释与荻生徂徕一脉相承,都将孔子的"道"解释为社会政治之道,但冢田更引《论语》论"仁"之经文加以贯串,更自成理路。三、日本儒者对宋儒的批判及其思想史的定位 (一)对宋学的批判 从伊藤仁斋开始,德川时代儒者对孔子所说"吾道一以贯之"的解释言论中,呈现极其强烈的反宋学思想倾向,尤其以朱子学为主要攻击目标。伊藤仁斋所撰《论语古义》随处批评的"先儒"就是指朱子而言。仁斋解释孔子的"一以贯之"时说:"先儒以为:'夫子之心,一理浑然,而泛应曲当'",[3](P230231)就是指朱注而言。朱子在《论语集注》中说: 夫子之一理浑然而泛应曲当,譬则天地之至诚无息,而万物各得其所也。自此之外,固无余法,而亦无待于推矣。曾子有见于此而难言之,故借学者尽己、推己之目以着明之,欲人之易晓也。盖至诚无息者,道之体也,万殊之所以一本也;万物各得其所者,道之用也,一本之所以万殊也。以此观之,一以贯之之实可见矣。[15](P72) 朱子将孔子的"一以贯之"解释为孔子"一理浑然而泛应曲当",显然是将"理学"读入孔子思想,引起了17世纪以降日本儒者一致的挞伐。 日本儒者之所以在重读《论语》时批判宋学,尤其是朱子学,主要原因在于他们认为宋学已经受到佛教尤其是禅学的污染,故宋儒言论常受佛教思想渗透而不自知,荻生徂徕解"吾道一以贯之"章时说: 大抵宋世禅学甚盛,其渠魁者,自圣自智。称尊王公前,横行一世,儒者莫之能抗。盖后世无爵而尊者,莫是过也。儒者心羡之,而风习所渐,其所见亦似之,故曰'性'曰'心',皆彼法所尚。豁然贯通,即彼顿悟。孔、曾、思、孟,道统相承,即彼四七二三,遂以孔门一贯,大小之事,曾子之'唯',即迦叶微笑矣。岂不儿戏乎?过此以往,天理人欲即真如无明。理气即空假二谛,天道人道即法身应身,圣贤即如来菩萨,十二元会即成住坏空,持敬即坐禅,知行即解行,扬排而阴学之。至于其流裔,操戈自攻,要之不能出彼范围中,悲哉!如此章一贯之旨。诚非不能大知之者所及。然游夏以上,岂不与闻?特门人所录,偶有参与赐耳。千载之后,据遗文仅存者,而谓二子独得闻之。又以其有详略而为二子优劣,可不谓凿乎?盖孔子之道,即先王之道也。先王之道,先王为安民立之。[6](P83) 徂徕以后,18、19世纪之交的考证学派儒者猪饲敬所(17611845)有长文解此章,他也批评宋儒说: 宋儒以此章,为孔、曾传道之秘奥,是以有疑于忠恕不足以当一贯,故程子有天人体用等辨,朱子有借学者之自说,黄东发既病其非,平实矣。朱子又以为一是圣人具心之理,乃道之体也,是佛氏贵心性之说耳,失圣人之旨远矣,宜其弊至有谓道本自一,不必言贯者也。仁斋厌其虚高,以为纯一不二之谓,不知纯一不可言贯,且推之于告子、子贡之言,益见其说之不通也。徂徕以一为仁,似得之,然观其先王之道归于安民,则道非其道,仁非其仁,而不得其解也。且夫先王之道,安民为归,固是显然常理,易言易简,夫子何为艰涩其言,而特告曾子。愚窃谓先儒之说,皆似未得其旨,故今不自揣,敢演管见,以待后之君子。《卫灵公》篇,子曰:'赐也,汝以为予为多学而识之者与?'对曰:'然,非与?'曰:'非也,予一以贯之',告曾子则以行言,而告子贡则以学言,故所谓一者,自是不同。夫子尝言'学而不厌','多见而识之',岂非多学而识之者乎?而其言又如是者,何也?盖圣人之学,诗书六艺,制度文物,事理本末,互相统摄,是睿智贯之,不从事博文多识也。夫子又不以知自居,故亦唯曰一也。自他人目之,非睿智而何,亦所谓知者见之谓之知也。此亦圣人之一德也。诸家皆略其解,盖不察所谓一者,所指不同,而前解于此不通也。[16](P34) 猪饲敬所和伊藤仁斋、荻生徂徕一样,都批判宋儒,猪饲反对朱子将孔子的"一以贯之"的"一"解释为"圣人其心之理",他认为"一以贯之"是"以睿识贯之,不从事博文多识"。猪饲批判宋学以及其他日本儒者的个别论点还有可以商榷的余地,但是包括猪饲在内,许多日本儒者都反对朱子学将"一以贯之"的"一"解释为"理",这是十分确定的。 (二)思想史的定位现在,我们可以进一步将日本儒者对"吾道一以贯之"的解释,放在中日比较思想史的脉络加以定位。就对"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释而言,日本儒者对宋儒的批判虽然激烈,但却不致命,因为日本儒者并未深入宋儒解释"吾道一以贯之"这句话时的两项哲学问题,换言之,他们并未进入宋儒的"诠释之环",因此,他们的攻击就显得未能击中要害。我们依序讨论这两个问题。 1心与理之关系。朱子与宋儒解释"吾道一以贯之"这句话时,所涉及的第一个哲学问题就是"心"与"理"之关系。[17](P25)我们再读朱子的集注: 参乎者,呼曾子之名而告之。贯,通也。唯者,应之速而无疑者也。圣人之心,浑然一理,而泛应曲当,用各不同。曾子于其用处,盖已随事精察而力行之,但未知其体之一尔。夫子知其真积力久,将有所得,是以呼而告之。曾子果能默契其指,即应之速而无疑也。[15](P72) 朱子在这段注文中说"圣人之心,浑然一理",他认为孔子以"心"中之"一理"以"通"天下万物。朱子这段话是一种境界语,是指达到圣人境界以后"心"中"浑然一理"之精神状态。要达到这种精神境界,仍然必须循博学多闻的途径,才能有物可贯。《朱子语类》中的对话将这一点解释得更为清楚。朱子说: "一以贯之",固是以心鉴照万物而不遗。然也须"多学而识之"始得,未有不学而自能一贯者也。[18](P1149) 朱子强调人必须多学而识之,才能达到"圣人之心,浑然一理"的"一以贯之"的境界。朱子的解释中所触及的"心"与"理"之关系,正是朱子学的一大哲学课题。我们再以朱子对《孟子尽心上》的解释为例,进一步分疏这个问题。朱子《孟子集注》解释孟子所说的"尽心、知性、知天"说:心者,人之神明,所以具众理而应万事者也。性则心之所具之理,而天又理之所从以出者也。人有是心,莫非全体,然不穷理,则有所蔽而无以尽乎此心之量。故能极其心之全体而无不尽者,必其能穷夫理而无不知者也。既知其理,则其所从出,亦不外是矣。以《大学》之序言之,知性则物格之谓,尽心则知至之谓也。[19](P349) 朱子认为只有"穷理"才能使"心""具众理而应万事"。我们再看朱子对孟子"尽心"说的解释: (1)尽心,谓事物之理皆知之而无不尽;知性,谓知君臣、父子、兄弟、夫妇、朋友各循其理;知天,则知此理之自然。 (2)尽心,如何尽得?不可尽者心之事,可尽者心之理。理既尽之后,谓如一物初不曾识,来到面前,便识得此物,尽吾心之理。尽心之理,便是"知性,知天"。[20](P1426) 朱子在这两段话中,将孟子的"尽心"理解为认知意义的"尽",即穷尽万事万物(包括"心")之"理",这种说法与孟子"尽心"之说颇有歧出,这一点早经牟宗三(19091995)先生指出。[21](P444) 我要强调的是:朱子解释"吾道一以贯之"时,正如他在《四书章句集注》其他章篇一样,触及"心"与"理"之关系此一问题。朱子所提出"圣人之心浑然一理"的命题,主宰宋代儒者对孔子"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释思路。例如胡宏强调"会归于一心"以贯之,他说: 黄氏曰:夫子垂世立教,学者宗之,或得其一体,或闻其一言,有称其博学者,有誉其多能者,皆不能卞关而熟察之。乃若圣人之道,则闻而知之,传以心也,默而识之,悟以心也。况其泛应于域中,虽千变万化,未始有穷,而会归于一心,则天地之纯,全万人之大体,皆其分内耳,所谓一以贯之也。曾子早游圣门,省身于内,守之以约,故夫子告之,不待发问,而曾子受之,不复致疑,可谓相契以心,得于言意之外矣。及其答门人之问,语之以忠恕者,亦以其违道不远者告知,始知求诸心而切于践履者也。[22](P2324) 再如蔡节强调"众理本一理",他说: 夫子所云:"吾道一以贯之"者,圣人之心浑然一理,无所不该,其于应事接物之际,虽曰理各有所止,然而众理本一理也。以曾子自得之深,故告之以此,曾子心领神会,而直应之曰:"唯。"至答门人之问,则即忠恕以明之。盖自其近己知心而言之,则谓之忠;自其即己之心以及物而言之,则谓之恕。忠为体,恕为用,用之周乎物,即事体之流行者也,此所谓一以贯之有。其曰:"夫子之道,忠恕而已矣"者,舍忠恕之外,他无足以发明一以贯之也[23] 又说: 其所谓一者,则理而已。其所谓贯,则是理行乎事物之间,而无有不通者也。[24](P2) 蔡节以"理"释"一",仍不出朱子诠释的范围。 总而言之,朱子的诠释是宋儒解读《论语》"吾道一以贯之"一语所依据的解释典范,宋儒对孔子这句话的解释,都不出朱子所思考的"心"与"理"之关系的范围。胡寅(明仲,10981156)对"一以贯之"的解释具有代表性,他说: 赣川曾几书曰:穷理尽性,乃圣门事业。物物而察,知之始也;一以贯之,知之至也。无所不在者,理也;无所不有者,心也。物物致察,宛转归已,则心与理不昧,故知循理者,士也。物物皆备,反身而诚,则心与理不违,故乐循理者,君子也。天理合德,四时合序,则心与理一。无事乎循矣。故一以贯之,圣人也。子以四端五典,每事扩充,亦未免物物致察,犹非一以贯之之要,是欲不举足而登泰山,犹释氏所谓不假证修而语觉地也。四端固有,非外铄,五典天叙,不可违。在人则一心也,在物则一理也,充四端,可以成性,五典,可以尽伦,性成而伦尽,斯不二矣。[25](P68-69) 从以上所说,我们可以看出朱子对"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释,在《论语》解释史上实居于分水岭之地位。自朱子之后,宋儒解释"一以贯之"的"一",都从朱子的思考点--"心"与"理"的关系--出发,一直到18世纪清儒焦循与阮元以"行"或"事"释"贯"字,才开启另一个诠释典范,[26]其间之变化转折具有思想史意义,我将另撰文探讨。 我们将日本儒者对"吾道一以贯之"的诠释与朱子及宋儒的解释加以比较,就可以发现:日本儒者对朱子与宋儒的批判,并未深入朱子与宋儒诠释中的哲学问题--"心"与"理"之关系。日本儒者将孔子"吾道一以贯之"的"道"界定为社会政治之"道",抖落了"道"的超越性。荻生徂徕说:"吾道者,先王之道也......先王之道,统会于安民",[6](P8384)伊藤仁斋说:"圣人之道,不过人伦纲常之间,而济人为大",[3](P53)都是针对并企图颠覆朱子与宋儒所建构的"理"的形上思想世界,他们努力于将孔子的"道"还原为人伦日用之"道",但是他们思想中的"道"是一种具体性的社会政治实践的策略或措施,并不是一种抽象性的规律或规范,因此,日本儒者的孔学诠释就未能触及朱子学这个"心"与"理"之关系的重大命题。因此之故,日本儒者对朱子与宋儒的批判也就未能入室操戈,一举摧毁朱子的思想世界。冢田虎认为孔子之所以能"一以贯之"的关键在于"仁",冢田说:"其所一以贯之者仁,而欲措之行事;乃以忠恕示其方,故孔子之教诲而尔,而后悔不晓焉,或以一理一心解之者,圣人之所未曾言,而未亦得忠恕之所以为仁之方也,则皆凿空而已。"[27](P18)冢田虎认为"理"与"心"皆"圣人之所未曾言",因此不应取"理"或"心"以解释孔子的"一以贯之"。即使这种说法可以成立,[28](P2068)日本儒者对宋儒的攻击仍因未进入宋儒的"诠释之环"而失去焦点。 2方法论的个体论问题:朱子解释孔子"一以贯之"一语时,触及的第二个哲学问题是:"一以贯之"如何可能?朱子所采取的是近于个体论的方法论立场。所谓方法论的"个体论",是指朱子认为只有经由对万殊之理的切实掌握,才能达到"一以贯之"的境界。我们看看《朱子语类》中的这一段话: 所谓一贯者,会万殊于一贯。如曾子是于圣人一言一行上一一践履,都仔细理会过了,不是默然而得之。观《曾子问》中问丧礼之变,曲折无不详尽,便可见曾子当时功夫是一一理会过来。圣人知曾子许多道理都理会得,便以一贯语之,教它知许多道理却只是一个道理。曾子到此,亦是它践履处都理会过了,一旦豁然知此是一个道理,遂应曰:"唯!"及至门人问之,便云:"忠恕而已矣。"忠是大本,恕是达道。忠者,一理也;恕便是条贯,万殊皆自此出来。虽万殊,却只一理,所谓贯也。子贡平日是于前言往行上着工夫,于见识上做得亦到。夫子恐其亦以圣人为"多学而识之",故问之。子贡方以为疑,夫子遂以一贯告之。子贡闻此别无语,亦未见得子贡理会得,理会不得。自今观之,夫子只以一贯语此二人,亦须是它承当得,想亦不肯说与领会不得底人。曾子是践履笃实上做到,子贡是博闻强识上做到。夫子舍二人之外,别不曾说,不似今人动便说一贯也。所谓一者,对万而言。今却不可去一上寻,须是去万上理会。若只见夫子语一贯,便将许多合做底事都不做,只理会一,不知却贯个甚底![29](P679680)朱子说得好:"所谓一贯者,会万殊于一贯",这明显地倾向于方法论的个体论的立场。朱子主张所谓"一"必须"去万上理会"。朱子曾进一步解释他的个体论立场,他说: "吾道一以贯之",譬如聚得散钱已多,将一条索来一串穿了。所谓一贯,须是聚个散钱多,然后这索亦易得。若不积得许多钱,空有一条索,把甚么来穿!吾儒且要去积钱。若江西学者都无一钱,只有一条索,不知把甚么来穿。又曰:"一,只是一个道理贯了。"或问:"忠恕,曾子以前曾理会得否?"曰:"曾子于忠恕自是理会得了,便将理会得底来解圣人之意,其实借来。"直卿问:"'一以贯之',是有至一以贯之。"曰:一,只是一个道理,不用说至一。[29](P684) 朱子在这段话中用"钱襁之喻"说明如果没有许多个别的铜钱而空有一条襁,终不能"一以贯之"。朱子进一步批判陆九渊(象山,11391193)不从"万殊"入手说: 而今只管悬想说道"一贯",却不知贯个甚么。圣人直是事事理会得,如云"好古敏以求之",不是蓦直恁地去贯得它。如《曾子问》许多曲折,它思量一一问过,而夫子一一告之,末云:"吾闻诸老聃云。"是圣人当初都曾事事理会过。如天下之圣说道事亲,事亲中间有多少事;说道事君,事君中间有多少事。而今正患不能一一见个恰好处,如何便说"一贯"﹖?近见永嘉有一两相识,只管去考制度,却都不曾理会个根本。一旦临利害,那个都未有用处,却都不将事。吕伯恭向来教人亦云:"《论语》皆虚言,不如论实事。"便要去考史。如陆子静又只说个虚静,云:"全无许多事。颜子不会学,'择乎中庸,得一善则拳拳勿失'。善则一矣,何用更择?'子路有闻,未之能行,唯恐有闻'。一闻之外,何用再闻?"便都与禅家说话一般了。圣人道理,都不恁地,直是周。[18](P11481149) 朱子认为如永嘉学派只论"万殊"而不论"根本"固然不对,但如陆象山只论"一"而不论"多"也不免流于禅学。 总之,朱子对"吾道一以贯之"的解释,确实触及整体论或个体论的方法论问题。用宋儒的话来说,就是"涵养"与"察识"孰先,或"一贯"与"万殊"孰先的问题。这个哲学问题并不是朱子与宋儒"读入"于《论语》之中的问题,而是早已潜藏于孔子说"多学而识之"与"予一以贯之"之时,是先秦孔学原有的问题。但是,日本儒者解释"吾道一以贯之"这句话时,虽然猛烈挞伐朱子,但是却未触及朱子的孔学诠释中的这个方法论问题。因此,日本儒者与宋儒的对话可以说并无交集之处。四、日本儒者与朝鲜儒者的解释之比较 (一)朝鲜儒者的解释 儒学东传朝鲜始于高丽后期,14世纪权溥(12621346)刊印朱子《四书集注》,[30](P89)进入朝鲜时代(13921910)之后,儒学思潮杂然纷陈,有主治主义学派、性理学派、礼学派、阳明学派、经济学派以及实学派等,其中尤以研究朱子学为中心的性理学派最具影响力。韩国朱子学之流衍,首推李(15071570)、李珥(15361584),踵其后者则为宋时烈(16071689)及韩元震(16821751)。朝鲜性理派儒者研究心之哲学问题如理气、本然之性与气质之质、四端七情、已发未发、人心道心等均为朱子学之主要问题。[31](1-69)就朝鲜时代韩儒对孔子"吾道一以贯之"这句话的解释言论观之,基本上都在朱子的解释典范的影响之下发展,因袭多于创新,(1)因袭者主要在于"心"与"理"之关系此一课题之发挥,(2)其创新者则为以"诚"释"一以贯之"的"一"。我们详细阐释这两点。 1韩儒对"心"与"理"关系的再阐释。 朝鲜儒者在朱子学的笼罩之下,解释《论语》时常从朱子的思路出发,但讲得更为细致。朱子注《论语.里仁》"吾道一以贯之"一语云:"圣人之心,浑然一理,而泛应曲当,用各不同",朝鲜儒者循朱注之轨辙,开发出两个新的命题: (a)以"吾心之理"贯"万物之理"。朱子集注中潜藏一个问题:"圣人之心浑然一理,泛应曲当"如何可解?朝鲜儒者针对这个问题提出解释。金谨行说: 子曰:"参乎!吾道一以贯之"者,一者,理也。贯者,心之事也。理在吾心,以吾心之理,贯乎万物之理也。[32](P575) 金谨行这一段解释环绕着"心"与"理"之关系,循朱子之思路而进一步发挥,但是却也突破朱子旧轨。朱子曾与张讨论《论语》"一以贯之",朱子说"圣人之心,于天下事物之理无所不该,虽有内外、本末、隐显之殊,而未尝不一以贯之也",[33](P1212)朱子认为"心"有时不能对天下之"理"加以"一以贯之",乃是因为"梏于形器之私,是以有所蔽而不尽",[33](P1248)朱子认为只有经过"穷理"的工夫,才能使"心"对外在事物有所掌握,朱子说: 儒者之学,大要以穷理为先,盖凡一物有一理,须先明此,然后心之所发,轻重长短,各有准则。《书》所谓"天叙天秩,天命天讨",孟子所谓"物皆然,心为甚"者,皆谓此也。若不于此先致其知,但见其所以为心者如此,识其所以为心者如此,泛然而无所准则,则其所存所发,亦何自而中于理乎?[34](P1156) 朱子在以上这段话中明白指出"穷理"是使"心之所发"、"各有准则"的先决条件。 正是在与朱子对比之下,我们看到了朝鲜儒者对朱子学的突破。朝鲜儒者金谨行将孔子的"一以贯之"解释为"理在吾心,以吾心之理贯乎万物之理",所谓"理在吾心"一语显示相对于朱子的"穷理"之学而言的"内转"。 朝鲜儒者将朱子解释典范加以"内转"之后,提出一些新解,例如李秉休以"恕"字解"一贯",他撰《论语一贯说》云: 余读《论语》,孔子谓曾子曰:"参乎!吾道一以贯之。"门人未晓。曾子喻之曰:"夫子之道,忠恕而已",则一贯之旨不外于忠恕可知也。然忠恕二字,皆从接人上说。忠,故能恕,则忠在其中。或并称忠恕,或单称恕,其实一也。然则一贯,盖以恕言也。恕为一贯,其义何居?恕者,推己及物之谓也。夫以天下之理,万物之情,而以余一己之心推以及之,无不贯通。此非所谓一贯乎?[35](P29) 李秉休以"恕"解"一贯",并从"恕"字意为"推己及物"推衍为以自己之"心"推天下之理万物之情,此之谓"一贯"。 除了李秉休之外,丁若镛(17621836)也以"恕"释"一",他说:"一者,恕也。贯,穿也......吾道不外乎人伦,凡所以处人伦者,若五教九经,以至于经礼三百、曲礼三千,皆行之以一恕字。如以一缗贯千百之钱,此之谓一贯也。"[36](P116117)丁茶山与李秉休都以"恕"释"一以贯之"的"一",他们强调的是自我与"他者"之间的可类推性,而不是如朱子强调自我之"心"对"他者"之"理"的鉴知。 (b)"一本"与"万殊"皆归于"心"。本文第三节谈到朱子解释"一以贯之"时,显示他是一个方法论的个体论者,他主张"所谓一贯者,会万殊于一贯",[28](P2068)他强调"也须多学而识之始得,未有不学而自能一贯者也",[15](P72)他强而有力地批判陆象山说"而今只管悬想说道'一贯',却不知贯个什么"。[29](P684)朱子注《论语.里仁.15》曾子曰:"夫子之道,忠恕而已矣"一语云: 夫子之一理浑然而泛应曲当,譬则天地之至诚无息,而万物各得其所也。自此以外,固无余法,而亦无待于推矣。曾子有见于此而难言之,故借学者尽己、推己之目以着明之,欲人之易晓也。盖至诚无息者,道之体也,万殊之所以一本也;万物各得其所者,道之用也,一本之所以万殊也。以此观之,一以贯之之实可见矣。[37](72)但是,"万殊"与"一本"如何取得连系?朱子在集注中并未明言。正是在这个问题上,朝鲜儒者提出新见。他们指出"一本"与"万殊"正是在"心"上取得联系。朴知诫解释说: 孔子曰:"吾道一以贯之",朱子曰:"人之为学,心与理而已"。"心"即"一本"也;"理"即"万殊"也。古圣人垂教之说,无非一与万而已。从事于小学而存此心于端庄静一之中者,从一上做工也;从事于格致,而穷众理之妙者,从万上做工也。自一而万,自万而一,复自一而为万,乃圣人之学也。一本万殊,两仪之象也。知上行上皆有此两端。知觉不之在心,曰:"知上之一本"。明烛事物之理,曰:"知上之万殊",一心之浑然在中,曰:"行上之一本",躬行践履之在事物,曰:"行上之万殊",所谓忠恕是也。[38](P232234) 朴知诫所说的一段解释之特殊之处,在于将朱子的"一本"与"万殊",再细分为"知上之一本"与"知上之万殊",以及"行上之一本"与"行上之万殊",而归结在"心"的作用之上。 朝鲜儒者将"一本"与"万殊"汇归于"心"之上的解释立场,在金谨行的诠释中也有类似的表现,他说: 以道之总在一心者贯之于万事,则为散殊之道。以道之散在万事者本之于一心,则为总会之道。[32](P576) 金谨行以"心"将"散殊之道"与"总会之道"加以统一,确较朱子之解释更进一层。 2以"诚"释"一"。朝鲜儒者循朱子之轨辙,而有所创新的第二项就是以"诚"释"一以贯之"的"一",杨应秀与尹衡老的解释可以作为代表。杨应秀撰《论语讲说》中有以下两条资料: (1)问:一贯者,以一理而通贯万事之理欤?愿闻其义。曰:圣人之一心,虚明洞彻,至诚无妄,故天下万事万物之理,自然无所不通,此之谓一以贯之也。然此等道理,不可以言传,亦不可闻而知之,惟在积学切至而自得也。[39](P152) (2)问:一贯之理,或以行得之,或以知得之,其所以终能得之者何物欤?曰:诚也。[39](P153) 杨应秀在以上两条问答中,强调"一以贯之"之所以可解,乃是因为"诚"的作用,因"圣人之一心,虚明洞澈至诚无妄,故天下万事万物之理,自然无所不通"。尹衡老也本《中庸》解《论语》的"一以贯之",他说: 按圣人之无所不知,非多学而识也,即一理之贯通也。一贯而知之,即《中庸》所谓"自诚而明也",诚之至者,清明在躬无一毫人欲之蔽,故志气如神......。相似事物之来,无不迎刃而解。[40](P339)尹衡老在这一段中所说的"诚"字的用法,显然是指伦理学(而不是形上学)意义下的"诚"。[41](P5455)^(二)日本儒者诠释的特色:与朝鲜儒者诠释的对比 我们如果将日朝儒者对"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释作一对比,就可以发现:日本儒者的解释与朝鲜儒者的解释大不相同,两者之对比在于:日本儒者倾向于将"个体性"(individuality)置于"社会性"(sociality)的脉络中思考,所以,日本儒者以"仁"释"一",而朝鲜儒者以"诚"释"一";[42](P121136)日本儒者将"道"理解为先王所创设造作以安民的制度,而朝鲜儒者将"吾道一以贯之"的"道",理解为统会于人之一"心"的抽象之"理"。 日朝儒者对孔子"吾道一以贯之"解释的差异,从表面上看,可以归因于17世纪以后,朱子学在日本思想界的影响力逐渐式微,而朝鲜时代朝鲜思想界却笼罩在朱子学之下。但是,从更深一层来看,日本儒者之所以在解释"吾道一以贯之"一语时,将朱子解释中所见"心"与"理"之关系存而不论,并以"仁"而不以"诚"解释"一贯"的"一",皆有其思想理路可寻。 宋儒与朝鲜儒者在朱子学典范之下,建立一个以"理"为基础的形上思想世界,并以"理学"为"实学",朱子说: 子程子曰:"不偏之谓中,不易之谓庸。中者,天下之正道,庸者,天下之定理。"此篇乃孔门传授心法,子思恐其久而差也,故笔之于书,以授孟子。其书始言一理,中散为万事,末复合为一理,"放之则弥六合,卷之则退藏于密",其味无穷,皆实学也。善读者玩索而有得焉,则终身用之,有不能尽者矣。[43](P17) 朱子明言"理学"即"实学"。但是,17世纪以降德川时代日本儒者虽然学派取径各有不同,但却以人伦日用修己治人为"实学"。伊藤仁斋说: 圣人所谓知者,与后儒所谓知者,亦然不同。所谓知也者,自修己而乎治人,自齐家而及于平天下,皆有用之实学。[44](P30) 仁斋主张所谓"知"不是知抽象之"理",而是知具体的修己治人之方。荻生徂徕更明白宣示:"大抵先王之道在外,其礼与义,皆多以施于人者言之",[45](P65)这种"施于人者"的"先王之道",正是日本儒者理解的孔子"一以贯之"的"道"。徂徕又说:"外礼而语治心之道,皆私智妄作也。"[45](P86)徂徕及日本儒者在这种意义的"实学"思想之下,当然不会像朝鲜儒者一样地以"诚"这种"治心之道"解释"一以贯之"的"一"。五、结论:兼论日本儒者解经方法之特色 我们的分析显示:日本儒者将孔子"一以贯之"的"道"解释为"先王之道",这是具体的制度施设与人为造作而不是抽象的形上之"理"。日本儒者以"统"释"贯",而不是如朱子以"通"释"贯"。日本儒者也以"仁"释"一",他们着重人与人之间的互动,反对形上之"理"对人间万事万物的宰制。 日本儒者在重新诠释孔学时,也对朱子及宋学展开激烈的批判,他们反对在人间的"先王之道"之上,另立一个形上的"理"的世界。但是,从中日比较思想史视野来看,日本儒者对宋学的批判并未切中要害,因为他们并未进入宋儒之孔学诠释中的两个哲学问题,这就是"心与理之关系"以及"个体论或整体论之方法论问题"。 相对于德川时代日本儒者对孔学的解释而言,朝鲜儒者可说基本上承继朱子学的旧轨。韩儒对朱子学中的"心与理之关系"以及"一本与万殊之关系",皆有进一步的阐发。韩儒以"诚"释"一",明确地显示朝鲜儒学思想之"内转"。日韩儒者对孔子"一以贯之"之"道"的解释之差异,正反映日本儒者的反朱与朝鲜儒者之翼朱思潮。 整体来看,德川时代日本儒者对孔子"吾道一以贯之"一语的解释,部分地体现日本儒者采取"即存在论本质"的解经方法。我最近曾说明:一些日本古学派儒者常常运用这种解经方法重读古典,他们主张将经典文本的概念或命题,置于具体实践的情境之中,才能掌握其真正的涵义。这种解经方法在日本德川思想史上反朱子学的儒者中,表现得最为明显。参考文献: [1]贺复征文章辨体汇选:第590卷[M]台北:台湾商务印书馆,1983 [2]刘宝楠论语正义:上册[M]北京:中华书局,1990 [3]伊藤仁斋论语古义[A]关仪一郎日本名家四书注释全书:第3卷[M]东京:凤出版,1973 [4]高田真治论语の文献注释书[M]东京:春阳堂书店,1937 [5]中井积善非征[M]东京:吉川弘文馆,1988 [6]荻生徂徕论语征:乙卷[A]关仪一郎日本名家四书注释全书:第7卷[M]东京:凤出版,1973 [7]林罗山圣教要录[M]井上哲次郎,蟹江义丸日本伦理汇编:第4册[M]东京:育成会,1903 [8]龟井南溟论语语由[A]关仪一郎日本名家四书注释全书:第3卷[M]东京:凤出版,1973 [9]何晏集解、〔梁〕皇侃义疏、〔清〕鲍廷博校论语集解义疏:第8卷[M]台北:艺文印书馆,1966 [10]何晏集解、〔梁〕皇侃义疏、〔清〕鲍廷博校论语集解义疏:第2卷[M]台北:艺文印书馆,1966 [11]照井全都论语解[A]关仪一郎日本名家四书注释全书:第12卷[M]东京:凤出版,1973 [12]葛山寿述,片山兼山遗教论语一贯[M]京都:青萝馆,未载刊行年代,京都大学藏本 [13]松宫观山学论[A]日本儒林丛书:第5册[M]东京:凤出版,1971 [14]冢田虎圣道合语[A]日本儒林丛书:第11册[M]东京:凤出版,1971 [15]朱熹论语集注[A]四书章句集注:第2卷[M]北京:中华书局,1983 [16]猪饲敬所论语里仁篇一贯章讲义[A]日本儒林丛书:第14册[M]东京:凤出版,1971 [17]钱穆(宾四)钱宾四先生全集:12册[M]台北:联经出版公司,1998 [18]黎靖德朱子语类:第45卷[M]北京:中华书局,1986 [19]朱熹孟子集注[A]四书章句集注[M]北京:中华书局,1983 [20]黎靖德朱子语类:第60卷[M]北京:中华书局,1986 [21]牟宗三心体与性体:第3册[M]台北:正中书局,1968 [22]胡宏五峰集:第5卷[M]台北:台湾商务印书馆,19691970 [23]蔡节论语集说:第2卷[M]台北:台湾商务印书馆,1983 [24]蔡节论语集说:第8卷[M]台北:台湾商务印书馆,1983 [25]胡寅斐然集:第25卷[M]台北:台湾商务印书馆,19691970 [26]焦循雕菰集:第9卷[M] [27]冢田虎圣道合语:上篇[A]日本儒林丛书:第6册[M]东京:凤出版,1971 [28]陈荣捷王阳明与禅[M]台北:无隐精舍,1973 [29]黎靖德朱子语类:第27卷[M]北京:中华书局,1986 [30]韩国哲学会韩国哲学史:中卷[M]北京:社会科学文献出版社,1996 [31]钱穆朱子学流衍韩国考[J]新亚学报:第12卷1977 [32]金谨行论语疑[A]韩国经学资料集成:第23卷[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988^[33]朱熹朱子文集:第3卷[M]台北:财团法人德富文教基金会,2000 [34]朱熹朱子文集:第30卷[M]台北:财团法人德富文教基金会,2000 [35]李秉休论语一贯说[A]氏着论语禀目[A]韩国经学资料集成[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988 [36]丁若镛论语手[A]氏着白水先生文集:第22卷[M]韩国经学资料集成:第27卷[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988 [37]朱熹论语集注:第2卷[M]台北:财团法人德富文教基金会,2000 [38]朴知诫札录-论语[A]氏着潜治集:第10卷[M]韩国经学资料集成[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988 [39]杨应秀论语讲说[A]氏着白水先生文集:第21卷[M]韩国经学资料集成:第23卷[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988 [40]尹衡老札录-论语[A]氏着戒惧庵集:第7卷[M]韩国经学资料集成:第23卷[M]汉城:成均馆大学校大东文化研究院,1988 [41]劳思光新编中国哲学史:第1卷[M]台北:三民书局,19811988 [42]相良亨相良亨着作集:第2卷[M]。东京:ぺクかん社,1996 [43]朱熹中庸章句[A]四书章句集注[M]北京:中华书局,1983 [44]伊藤仁斋语孟字义:上卷[M] [45]荻生徂徕辨名:上卷[A]日本伦理汇编:第6册[M]东京:育成会,1903 
  2. 黄仁宇:从大历史的角度看淞沪会战
    历史 2009/08/18 | 阅读: 2503
    本文摘选自《从大历史角度读蒋介石日记》 黄仁宇/著 中国社会科学出版社
  3. 黃俊傑:論中國經典中「中國」概念的涵義及其在近世日本與現代台灣的轉化
    历史 2009/09/26 | 阅读: 2297
    在東亞思想史上,「中國」這個極具指標性的概念,雖然形成於古代中國,但其內涵在近世日本與現代台灣,卻經歷轉變。「
  4. 麦尔维尔:书记员巴特比:一个华尔街的故事
    人文 2011/04/12 | 阅读: 3094
    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 
  5. 麦宜生:一个“老外”对中国律师业的两次调查和10年观察
    法律 2009/12/05 | 阅读: 1578
    数据显示,在“晋升机会”、“工作报酬”、“工作稳定性”三个方面,中国青年律师的满意度都与美国青年律师有着明显的差距。而在“我的工作对社会的价值”的判断上,中国青年律师的评判还要稍微略高一些。
  6. 鲍德里亚:当代艺术只与它自己当代了
    艺术 2011/04/28 | 阅读: 1859
    那么这样的话,说当代艺术不值得是毫无意义,因为它是它自己的生存功能:它来说明我们的无用性和荒谬. 更准确地说,它让衰落变成一种生意,同时也让它变成一种表演。如果,像一些人说,艺术功能是让生活比艺术更有趣,那么我们可以把这个幻想忘记掉。
  7. 鲍德里亚:完美的罪行
    艺术 科技 2009/09/06 | 阅读: 2186
    幸好,出现在我们面前的物体都是已经消失的。幸好,什么也没有在实时出现在我们面前,就像夜间天上的星星那样。...幸好,没有什么在实时发生,否则我们就会在所有事件的信息面前不知所措。...幸好,我们是以一种必需的幻觉方式、一种不在场的方式、一种非现实的和一种与事物非直接的方式生活。幸好,没有什么是瞬间的、同时的或当代的。幸好,什么也不在场,什么也不与其真身相同。幸好,实在没有发生。幸好,罪行从来不是完美的。
  8. 魏冬、益西群培:藏族传统文化中的孔子形象
    社会 2010/04/06 | 阅读: 1468
    [摘要]早在吐蕃时期,孔子的盛名就随着唐蕃之间的文化交流而远播西藏并得到藏民族的文化认同。在藏汉交界地带,孔子被看作道德圣贤,但在西藏腹地则被看作是无数算学与消灾仪式文献传承的创始者,被改造成“圣、神、王”三位一体的贡则楚吉杰布。进而,苯教把贡则楚吉杰布看作是其教主辛饶米沃且的徒弟和岳父、苯教的四大护法神之一;而藏传佛教则把贡则楚吉杰布看作是文殊菩萨的弟子或者化身。不管贡则楚吉杰布与孔子的本来形象相去多远,其根本是藏民族基于自身文化传统的需要,发挥自己民族思维,在汉藏文化交流过程中对孔子形象进行认同改造的结果。[中图分类号]G127.14[文献标识码]A[文章编号]1000-0003-(2009)01-033-09“不语怪力乱神”是汉文化传统中孔子形象的基本特点之一,但在藏族文化传统中,孔子的形象却发生了令人不可思议的变化,他被看作是与占卜、禳灾、咒语、历算、工巧、仪式等神秘文化的创造者,并分别被苯教和藏传佛教吸收转化为教内重要神灵。孔子这种形象的变化,与汉文化传入吐蕃时期藏民族的崇拜信仰、思维方式和宗教需要密切相关,是处于特定文化发展水平的民族对外来文化接受和认同中所发生的必然现象。一在汉文化系统中,孔子用不同的称号来表示,如在儒家经典中,一般不言自明的“子曰”中的“子”即指孔子,这是孔子后学对孔子的敬称。这基本上为儒家传统所认同。而道家则称其为孔子。与之相同,在藏文化传统中,孔子也有其相应的表示文字。根据现存最早的藏文文献,即敦煌藏文写卷,在西藏传统文化中,“孔子”一般用“贡则”一词来表示。(一)孔子在藏文文献中的基本称谓能够证明“贡则”就是孔子的藏文文献,是敦煌文献中伯希和藏文写卷(P.tib)第987和第988号文献。根据法国藏学家石泰安的研究,这两种文献“实际上是同一部著作的两种抄本。这是一卷汉地儒教智慧格言集”,[1]这两部写卷的主要内容是具有强烈儒家伦理色彩的道德箴言,“都是先贤们以身所作出的表率”,而“贡则”是文中多次提到的先贤之一。特别是988号写卷中有一段内容是《论语》“已所不欲,勿施于人”或者《中庸》“施诸已而不愿,亦勿篱于人”的藏文译文或编译文,并明确说这是“贡则”说的,同时在第987号写卷中,相同的内容却被说明是“贡策”说的。这两部文献说明,至少在11世纪中叶敦煌石窟封闭之前,已经有人使用藏文“贡策”或“贡则”来指称孔子了。此外,18世纪藏族学者土观·罗桑却吉尼玛在其名著《土观宗派源流》中说:“儒家的导师是孔夫子或称孔子。藏人不能如汉语发音,遂讹称为公子。实际上指的是此人”。①(注:土观·罗桑却吉尼玛著:《土观宗教源流——善述一切宗教源流及教义晶镜史》,刘立千译,第202页;另外,在当今一些研究成果中,还有把孔子译为孔泽、孔策、贡则、贡孜等的现象。)可以看出,从古代以至于近代,藏文中把孔子一般记作“贡则”。(二)孔子在藏文化中的基本地位在藏文文献中,“贡则”除被单独使用外,更多的是和其他辞汇结合在一起,称为:“贡则楚吉杰布”或(贡则楚杰),后者是对前者的简称;“贡则楚吉布”;“贡则楚琼”;“贡则楚布琼 ”。根据学者的研究,这些与“贡则”相关的称谓并不一定指孔子本人,还可能包括与孔子存在某种关联意义的人。关于这一点,本文下面再作以解释。这里首先要揭示的是,这些称谓都普遍存在一个关键的藏文词汇:“楚”。这表明在藏文化中,“贡则”与“楚”之间存在着一种普遍的意义关联,了解“楚”的涵义,可以相应地了解孔子在藏民族传统文化中的地位。关于“楚”的涵义,藏学界已经有所讨论。著名的法国女藏学家麦克唐纳认为,在吐蕃社会早期西藏文化基本没有受到外来文化影响的前提下,“楚”所指涉的对象主要是现实社会统治者——赞普,其涵义“最初指全部的魔力,特别是指在天地之间往返活动的能力”。②(注:法国学者麦克唐纳著:《敦煌吐蕃历史文书考释》,耿升译,青海人民出版社1991年版,第194页;关于这段文字,曾德明译作:“最初是指神奇的能力,尤其是指在天界和人间往来自如的特殊能力”,参见《西藏文化中的孔子形象》,台湾东亚文明研究学刊第4卷第2期,第174页。)但在止贡赞普与罗昂决斗被杀之后的赞普丧失了这种魔力,但人神之间的联系并没有因此而断绝,吐蕃王室仍然是神的意志在现实社会的代表,神通过他们表达意愿。与这种变化相适应,“楚”“再也不被看作是往返于天地之间的体力了,而是一种比普通人要高一些的思想和智能能力”,[2]这是“楚”的转化意义。石泰安接受了麦克唐纳的这一观点,并提出了另外的两种内涵,即神奇和智慧。同时他和李方桂都认为,“楚”一词相当于汉文的“圣”。③(注:李方桂、石泰安也主张把“楚”理解为“圣”,参见Fangkuei Li, "The Inscription of the Sion - Tibetan Treaty of 821-822", Toung Pao,44(1956),石泰安著:《古藏语中的一个语义群:创造和生殖、存在和变成,活着、养活和救活》,褚俊杰译,载王尧、王启龙主编的《国外藏学研究译文集》(第7辑),西藏人民出版社1994年版,第16~18页。)我们认为,“楚”一词和汉语中的“圣”都具有常人所不具备的智慧和能力的意义,两者存在着一定的意义相通性,但也存在着一定的差异。在吐蕃原始信仰中,“楚”是“神圣”的结合体首先它是只有赞普才能够拥有的,因为赞普并不是人,而是神,是神在人间的代表,对于普通人来说,他们的智慧和能力是天赋的,是与生惧来的,是一般人所不能拥有的,不可超越的。与吐蕃原始信仰所不同的是,汉文化在春秋时代就逐渐消解了“圣”这一词汇的宗教和神话意义,把“圣”还原到了人,而不是继续归之于“神”,无论是作为统治的尧舜禹还是作为人间精神导师的孔子,他们本质上都是人,而不是神,他们所拥有的“神圣”的智慧和能力,固然是普通人所不具备的,但并不意味着永远不可超越的,只要人通过对自我的努力修养,也可以“超凡入圣”,拥有这种能力和地位。因此,如果注意到这一点,我们仍然可以把“楚”一词看作是汉文中“圣”一词的藏文对应词汇。“楚”的最初意义,或者准确的是在与汉文化接触之前的基本意义,应该是对吐蕃统治者神话性集中表现的词汇,指的是吐蕃赞普作为人间的神所拥有的上天(恰神)所赋予的、普通人所不可剥夺的、不可能拥有的、不可能认识的、超越常人的神秘的智慧和力量。那么,作为吐蕃赞普专用词“楚”又如何与表示孔子的“贡则”联系起来呢?我们认为,这和松赞干布时期及其之后西藏社会与外界社会的文化交流相关,特别是吐蕃社会时期与唐王朝的政治、经济、文化交流密切相关。史料和研究表明,吐蕃时期,唐王朝对西藏有着超越于其他周边国家的强大吸引力,如823年立于拉萨的唐蕃会盟碑记载:“神圣赞普鹘提悉勃野化身下界,来主人间,为大蕃国王……东方有国曰唐,东极大海,日之所出,与南方泥婆罗等诸国异教善德深,足与大蕃相匹敌。”[3]正因为如此,松赞干布及其后的赞普通过联姻和亲、使者交往等方式,加强对唐文化的学习。随着吐蕃政权与唐王朝交流的加强,与政治文化关系密切的汉文化人物,也获得了藏民族的普遍认同,特别是与本土赞普地位相应的政治人物,也被视为和赞普一样,具有特殊能力并与神紧密联系起来的人物。如在英藏藏文敦煌写卷中,唐玄宗被称作“具有上天所赋予的神奇能力的赞普李三郎”。同时,随着对汉文化的理解和吸收,孔子也作为汉文化的象征性人物获得了藏民族的认同,汉文化中的这一“圣人”也相应的获得了“楚”一词所具有的内涵。“贡则”与“楚”的多种结合,表明了西藏文化中,孔子是天神有着密切联系并具有一定特殊能力的形象。在这里,还要特别指出的是,因为藏文化对孔子和汉文化的接受认同,作为孔子的藏文名称“贡则”也逐渐地被转化为一种神圣形象,它的意义也不仅仅指孔子这个人,而成为一种文化符号,也可以指其他与汉文化关系密切的人。在完成于14世纪的著名藏文史书《拔协》中,“贡则”用来指唐朝皇帝李世民,他的全称是“贡则楚琼”。“楚”在藏语中是“小”的意思,按照我的理解,“贡则楚琼”的大致意思是“具有(与神相比)是小的神奇能力的孔子(一样的人)”。这里的意思基本上是“贡则楚吉布”是相通的,因为父亲是大的,儿子是小的,神是大的,人是小的,这是传统血缘社会的基本常识。用泛化的孙子来代表中国的皇帝,特别是唐太宗,应该与唐太宗推动汉文化在西藏传播的贡献密切相关。这种表述,一直延续到17世纪五世达赖喇嘛的《西藏王臣记》。而在16世纪的学者巴俄·祖拉陈瓦的《贤者喜宴》中介绍唐太宗的时候,所用的词汇就是“贡则楚杰”。这向我们表明,在藏文中即使出现了“贡则”这一词汇的时候,他并不一定就是指孔子本人,而有可能是指与孙子具有一定相似、相同性的人,当然,这种相似、相同性,并不能放在汉文化的视域去理解,而只能放在藏文化的视域下才能获得理解。不过,笔者坚信一点,即使在藏文文献中出现的“贡则”所指的并不是一个人,但一定是在汉文化系统下的人,这是他们相似、相同性的文化边界。二如上分析,在藏文化传统中,孔子与天神有着密切联系,也拥有特殊的神奇能力和崇高的文化地位。但问题在于,藏文化中的“贡则”是人还是神?对于这一点,藏文化的认识是存在分歧的,一般在靠近汉文化的地方,受汉文化影响比较深,对孔子的了解也相对深入,所以一般把孔子看作是先贤、圣人,而不是神;但在西藏腹地,则因为对汉文化缺乏全面深入的认识,并受本土神话思维的影响,所以一般会把孔子看作是神。关于这一点,要以通过相应的文献表现出来。(一)敦煌出土文献中的孔子敦煌是汉藏两种文化影响都比较深的地方。从敦煌文献可以看出,其中的孔子比较接近汉文化。最突出的例子,就是在敦煌文献(P.tib)第988号中,“贡则”和“贡则楚吉布”同时出现,都指孔子。此外,在敦煌藏文写卷I.O.742中也出现了“贡则楚吉布”,该写卷的内容主要与古卜有关,也是指孔子。前面说过,在藏文化中,“贡则”很少单独出现,而是与其他词汇结合在一起,便在敦煌文献中却出现了单独的“贡则”来表示孔子,这说明孔子在当地是为人们所熟悉的,他本身不需要过多的修饰说明就能为人们所理解。但“楚吉布”和“贡则”结合起来的“贡则楚吉布”也表明了吐蕃人对孔子的某种认同。如上所述,“楚”一词的出现表明了在当时藏族人的眼中,孔子具有神圣的特殊能力。但是只有对“楚”和“吉布”组成的“楚吉布”一词涵义的全面理解,才有可能理解当地人们心目中的孔子。关于如何理解“楚吉布”,藏学界一直存有不同的看法。麦克唐纳将“贡则楚吉布”理解为“具有神奇能力的孔子之子”;石泰安不同意这一看法,他认为,之所以用“楚吉布”——汉文意思为“具有神奇能力的小孩”来修饰孩子,则与“孔子项橐相问书”的内容相关。他认为,因为孔子虚心向项橐求教,所以被视为一个“具有神奇能力的小孩”。[4]显然,石泰安混淆了故事中孔子和项橐的角色,他的解释是很勉强的。我们认为,“楚吉布”的表面意思是“具有神奇特殊能力的小孩”,但在这里,应该看作是汉文“圣人”的对译。文献中所以用“楚吉布”来修饰孔子,与敦煌一带靠近汉文化地区的藏民族对“圣人”的意义理解相关。在他们看来,孔子是“圣”,他拥有一般人所不具备的神奇能力,所以应该用“楚”来修饰他,但孔子仍不是神,而是人。所以不能用“楚吉拉”来修饰,因为在藏文化中,“拉”是神的意思,“楚吉拉”的意思就是具有神奇能力的神,这一词汇,只能修饰在人间的神——赞普,而不能修饰其他人。但为什么用“楚吉布”来修饰孔子呢?我们认为,这应该与藏民族对汉文化中“天子”的接受相关。“天子”就是天的儿子,是天在人间的代表,在吐蕃社会,吐蕃赞普的尊号已经被人比作是汉文中的“天子”,认为赞普是“由上天所指定的”,“上天”这一短语是指高山,也指恰神,即赞普是由统治世界的神所指定的,是上天的儿子。孔子虽然也被看作是上天(神)的儿子,但他却是人,而不是神,而“布”在藏语中是小孩的意思,“楚吉布”则表达了“具有神奇能力的(神的)小孩”的意思,和汉文中的“圣人”、“天子”的意义是相通的,所以可以用这一词汇来修饰孔子。这一方面表达了藏文化对孔子的敬仰和认同;另一方面也表达了当地藏文化对孔子是世俗圣人的理性认识。(二)宗教历史文献中的孔子但是,在西藏腹地,人们的信仰思维具有强烈的神话性,而且这种思维的特点是把相通的事物往往连贯在一起理解、命名。如赞普,既是神在人间的代表,又是政治上的代表,还是文化方面的代表;同时又是超越于一般人的存在者。而孔子一旦被当作文化象征接受过来,也就具备了这些特点。具体来说,西藏腹地藏文化观念中的孔子,其形象并不是圣人,而是圣、神、王三者的结合体。这里的圣,指的是孔子具有一般人所不具备的超强能力;这里的神,表明孔子具有神的特点;这里的王,表明孔子又具有帝王化的色彩。在这种意义上的词汇“贡则楚吉杰布”(或其简称“贡则楚杰”)是最突出的表现。另外在14世纪完成的《汉藏史集》中出现了“贡则益杰布”、“贡则拉益杰布”等词汇,也表明了这一点。[5]现以藏文文献中频繁出现的人物“贡则楚吉杰布”为重点来探讨西藏传统文化中的孔子形象。按照汉语的意译,“贡则楚吉杰布”的意思为“孔子”和“具有神奇的特殊能力的国王”的结合;而有的学者则将之译为“孔子神变王”。当代著名的藏族学者卡尔梅认为:“贡则楚吉杰布”的原型就是孔子。①(注:引自曾德明、林纯瑜:《西藏文化中的孔子形象》,台湾东亚文明研究学刊第4卷第2期,第185页;原文参见Samten G.Karmay, "The Interview betwteen Phyva Keng-tse lan-med and Confucius", pp.6,171; "A General introduction to the Hisitory and Doctrines of Bon", p.107.)我们不必一定认为这一人物一定指的是孔子本人,但毋庸怀疑的是这一人物与孔子的确发生了某种意义的关联。土观·罗桑却吉尼玛在其《土观宗派源流》中比较集中地表达了西藏对这一人物的普遍看法,虽然他对这些看法持否定的态度。他说:藏人言公子神灵王,认为是灵异之王。又有些汉传历数禳解法中,制造了《公子现证修法》的仪轨。又有一类书中称工巧公子,认为他是一位善于工巧的能人,这些全是暗中摸索之语。[6]土观活佛的记述,表明了在他之前西藏文化关于孔子的基本认识,同时也说明了随着藏汉文化交流的加深,藏民族中已经有人对孔子有了更加明晰的认识,而对传统的看法开始质疑。另外,近代著名藏族学者工珠·云丹嘉措(1813~1899年)在其所著百科全书《知识宝库》中也表明,西藏文化中的“贡则楚吉杰布”就是孔子,他被视为“无数算学与消灾仪式文献的创造者”,[7]所有有关占卜、算命、工巧、仪式、禳灾的文化都与之相关。我们认为,“贡则楚吉杰布”与孔子密切相关,他是藏文化对孔子这一汉文化人物神秘化加工的艺术化人物。这一人物的产生与汉文化在唐代向吐蕃的传播有密切关系。唐代是汉文化,特别是儒家文化向西藏传播的一个高峰期。在这一时期,儒家文化大量进入西藏社会,并且为西藏本土文化所认同、吸收和改造。但是,输入西藏的汉文化,并不是主要表现为思想方面,而主要表现为与人们社会行为密切相关的礼仪、占卜、工巧文化,而唐文化对吐蕃文化的影响,也主要体现在这一方面。关于这一点,可以通过文成公主人藏时所带去的文明体现出来,据藏史记载,文成公主人藏时带去汉地很多东西,其中有“金镶书橱,诸种金玉器具,诸种造食器皿、食谱,诸种花缎、锦、绫、罗与诸色衣料二万匹”;还有“四百有四种医方,百诊五观六行术,四部配剂术和书典三百六十卷,术数书三百卷”。大致都是工艺、历算等方面的著作和物品。文成公主本人也好“术数”、通风水,她设计了大昭寺等建筑,这些都是唐文明对西藏影响的主要方面。与此同时,孔子的名声也被带到了西藏,他是汉文明或儒家文明的创造者,也就是工巧、风水、占卜、历算的创造者,所以被人们普遍认为他是具有特殊神奇能力的文化象征人物。而与汉文化交流更加频繁的敦煌以及唐蕃交界地带,人们对孔子更加熟悉,孔子对这一带的影响,主要体现在道德伦理方面,因此,他被看作圣人、先贤,而不是具有神秘色彩的占卜、禳灾人物。三虽然我们注意到在整个藏文化传统中,孔子主要表现为道德和神异两种不同形象的人物,但毫无疑问,作为神异人物的孔子形象“贡则楚吉杰布”是西藏文化中更为典型的形象。他不仅表明了藏文化对汉文化的吸收认同和理解接受能力,而且也表现了藏文化在吸收汉文化过程中所具有的民族思维特点,这就是在宗教文化需要的背景下,充分地展开民族特有的神话思维能力,对于孔子相关的传说进行艺术加工,从而创造出既与孔子本人相关、但又不完全同于汉文化中孔子形象的“贡则楚吉杰布”。(一)苯教文化对孔子的吸收和改造苯教是西藏的本土宗教,在汉文化输入吐蕃社会时期,它仍然是当时的强势文化,在社会思想中占据主流地位。而当孔子的种种传说随着汉文化的输人而逐渐为藏民族文化所了解的时候,苯教即已经开始运用自身的特点对这一汉文化的人物进行创造,这为西藏文化中孔子形象的形成奠定了一定文化基础。苯教文献中有大量与“贡则”或“贡则楚吉杰布”相关的记载。特别是在苯教教主辛饶米沃且具有强烈神秘色彩的传说文献中,已经为我们勾勒出一个完全苯教化的孔子形象。根据这些文献记载,“贡则楚吉杰布”的前世是一位叫作塞秋当巴的国王,由于累积许多功德,往生后投生为王子。他出生在贾拉欧玛洲其中一个最殊胜、以魔幻布局的城中。因为“贡则楚吉杰布”有汉王室血统,并且出生时双手掌上即有三十个环状的“贡则幻变字母”,所以他的父亲给他取名为“汉族幻变之王孔泽”。“贡则楚吉杰布”具有观察他手上的幻变字母以预测未来的能力,并且擅长念诵咒语。为了宣扬苯教教法,“贡则楚吉杰布”远离家乡,云游各地,在旅途中向神童洽肯则岚眉虚心请教并深受启发,最后建造了一座雄伟的苯教寺庙。但是他却无法对抗鬼怪的蓄意破坏,幸赖苯教教主辛饶米沃且的协助,这座寺庙才得以保全,“贡则楚吉杰布”也因此成为辛饶米沃且的弟子。辛饶米沃且后来娶“贡则楚吉杰布”的女儿为妻,并生有一子,取名楚布琼,并且辛饶米沃且将360种占卜法悉数传授给楚布琼。通过种种刻意的描述,“贡则楚吉杰布”被披上了一层神秘面纱。然而可以肯定的是,“贡则楚吉杰布”在苯教传统中扮演重要角色,是苯教四位重要大师,或者是苯教教主辛饶米沃且的化身。在苯教文献中,对“贡则楚吉杰布”或其孙“贡则楚布琼”的描述都与占卜有关,他还被看作苯教所有仪式文献的创造者。我们认为,苯教中“贡则楚吉杰布”的原型就是孔子。在唐代汉文化输入吐蕃社会的过程中,最能为藏民族所接受和认同的不是别的,而是与占卜、风水、历算、攘灾相关的神秘文化。这些文化的根源,从根本上说,都是源于《周易》及其他儒家文化典籍,而孔子注重礼仪,“删定六经”,在汉文化中一向被看作是包括《周易》在内的儒家文化的创造者,藏民族自然也就把他看作是神秘文化的象征人物,而把相应的一些典籍也归之于他的名下。至于说“贡则楚吉杰布”双手掌心上与生俱来的幻变字母,笔者认为也和利用《周易》占卜的记忆方法有关。中国古代的占卜,为了便于记忆,常常用手上的指节表示五行、干支、八卦,在推算过程中按照规律掐算,藏族人看了觉得挺神奇,以为手上有神秘的幻变字母,所以将之附会于孔子。而孔子为苯教所认同和吸收,则一方面在于苯教文化和汉地占卜、攘灾文化的相似性;另一方面则在于佛苯斗争的需要。在佛教和苯教的斗争中,苯教为了争取信徒,扩大影响,把本不属于自己神话系统的人物吸收过来,或者做特殊的转化,将之视为同一的。其中,最突出的例子,就是把汉文化中的老子和苯教教主辛饶米沃且等同起来,这首先来自于道教所编造而盛行于当时的“老子化胡”的传说。在这个传说中,老子被认为是释迦牟尼的老师,自然为苯教所接受认同。我们在苯教文献中看到,释迦牟尼也被看作是辛饶米沃且的弟子,苯教的四大法师之一。同时,汉文化中又有盛行的“孔子师老子”的故事,这样,把孔子吸收到苯教文化中也就不足为奇了。但是,为什么苯教又把孔子演变为辛饶米沃且的岳父呢?如上指出,藏民族思维中自然地把作为汉文化创造者的孔子和推动者的唐太宗等同起来,如把唐太宗叫作“贡则楚琼”,而孔子的名字中也有了“楚吉杰布”(皇帝)的称号涵义。众所周知,唐太宗是松赞干布的岳父,这在汉藏文化中家喻户晓,既然孔子和唐太宗是等同的,而唐太宗又把女儿嫁给了松赞干布,所以苯教自然把这美丽的故事纳入孔子的神话之中,孔子变成了国王,变成了岳父。这样的影射,也自然能获得藏民族百姓的认同,甚至会获得统治阶层的支持。另外,苯教文献中有关“贡则楚吉杰布”在旅途中与童子洽肯则岚眉的对话,也极可能是脱胎于描绘孔子与项橐事迹的民间传说。(二)佛教文化对孔子的吸收和改造佛教经过前弘时期的传播,为其在西藏立足奠定了基础。到后弘时期,具有本土特色的藏传佛教逐渐形成,随后在西藏社会意识形态中一直处于主流统治地位。但是,藏传佛教的形成也不能不考虑其他文化系统因素对藏族社会的影响,对于已经被苯教所改造并为西藏社会所普遍认同的孔子,藏传佛教也对之进行佛教化的吸收和改造。与苯教一样,藏传佛教在形成过程中大量吸纳了汉地神秘文化的内容,把这一方面的内容称之为“算学”,并视为佛教的“五明”之一,同时也认为“贡则楚吉杰布”是这一方面的象征性人物。但与苯教所不同的是,藏传佛教认为汉族神秘文化的起源以及在西藏的传播,都是佛教感化的结果。根据16世纪的藏文著作《格言集锦——如意宝石》的说法,佛陀看到汉族喜好外道而无法理解佛陀教法,便指派了在佛教中象征智慧的文殊菩萨以世俗谛的五行算学降伏汉族子民。文殊菩萨在汉地五台山显现了很多奇迹,并给“贡则楚吉杰布”传授了五行算学。关于“贡则楚吉杰布”向文殊菩萨学习的内容,《格言集锦——如意宝石》说是五行算学的三十一续部以及三百六十种占卜法;五世达赖喇嘛说是年、月、日、时、生命力、身体、财富、运势、八卦、九宫等命理学概念;而五世达赖喇嘛的摄政桑结嘉措却说是称之为“解”的医疗方法和称作“道”的消灾仪式。但无论如何,都可以说是西藏命理学的主要内容。关于五行算学传人西藏的情况,五世达赖喇嘛说是由文成公主首先带至西藏;而桑结嘉措认为,因为大悲圣者观音的悲心展现,早在西藏传说中的第一位国王聂赤赞普时期甚至更早,“贡则楚吉杰布”就来到西藏,并创作了各种仪式,他所创作的仪式经常与苯教仪式混淆。这种陈述清楚地传达了作者明显区分苯教与佛教传承的意图,并暗示苯教与佛教关于“贡则楚吉杰布”的记载实属不同传承。藏传佛教关于“贡则楚吉杰布”的种种说法,表明了他们对汉文化的认同,以及在佛教的立场上努力吸收和容纳汉文化的态度。从而以藏传佛教对汉族孔子的印象为基础,借由文殊菩萨和一位起源于高度发展文明中的圣人形象,创造了具有佛教色彩的“贡则楚吉杰布”,以确保他们所新创的、融人佛教理念的西藏命理学系统的威信。这个创造的过程,不仅呈现了藏民族独特的文化创造力,同时也揭示了藏传佛教徒企图吸收汉文化中的重要成份,以达传播佛法的目的和意图。到了近代,著名藏族学者工珠·云丹嘉措对关于西藏命理学的传统观点做了总结,在其名著《知识宝库》中说:“五行算学,或称为西藏命理学的来源是内地。在第一位内地皇帝罢忽刹替时,一位居住在海边的百姓献给皇帝一只金色乌龟。皇帝仔细检视金色乌龟之后,心中首次出现八卦的象征符号。他根据这些符号创造了与八卦、九宫和十二生肖相关的各种算法。在此基础上,转世的国王、大臣及学者们逐渐发展出五行算学。后来出现许多相关文献,尤其是孔夫子——他是文殊师利的化身,在西藏以贡则楚杰著称——他也是无数算学与消灾仪式文献传承的创始者。在西藏本地最初是由前、后二位公主带来汉族算学文献,开启相关传承”。工珠·云丹嘉措的记载表明了西藏古代传统文化对孔子的普遍共识,不管“贡则楚吉杰布”与汉文化中的孔子形象相去多远,其根本上都是基于藏民族根据自身文化传统的需要,对汉文化积极吸收、认同和改造的必然结果。[参考文献][1][4][法国]石泰安.两卷敦煌藏文写本中的儒教格言[A].耿升译.王尧、王启龙主编.国外藏学研究译文集(第11辑)[C].拉萨:西藏人民出版社,1994.269、272.[2][法国]麦克唐纳.敦煌吐蕃历史文书考释[M].耿舁译.西宁:青海人民出版社,1991:196.[3]王尧编著.吐蕃金石录[M].北京:文物出版社,1982.43.[5][法国]麦克唐纳.《汉藏史集》初释[A].王尧、王启龙主编.国外藏学研究译文集(第4辑)[C].拉萨:西藏人民出版社,1988:86.[6]土观·罗桑却吉尼玛.土观宗教源流[M].北京:民族出版社,2000.202.[7]曾德明、林纯瑜.西藏文化中的孔子形象[J].台湾东亚文明研究学刊,2007,(2):200.[收稿日期]2008-09-02[基金项目]本文为西藏民族学院2009年度青年项目“唐蕃时期儒家文化在西藏的传播”(项目批准号:09MYQ05)的阶段性成果[作者简介]1、魏冬(1977—),陕西合阳人,博士研究生,讲师,主要从事道家教哲学和隋唐三教关系研究;2、益西群培(1951—),藏族,西藏拉萨人,主要从事藏汉翻译和藏语言研究。(1、陕西师范大学哲学系,陕西 西安 710062;2、西藏自治区人民政府,西藏 拉萨 850000)
  9. 高璐:论国民党大陆时期土地改革未能成功的根本原因
    历史 2009/12/11 | 阅读: 3518
    国民党从1927年建立南京政权到1949年败退大陆,颁布了一系列土地政策和法规,并在部分地区实行了土地改革,但并未取得实质性的成效。对此,美国学者倾向责备国民党没有诚意推行和支持实质性的乡村改革。台湾官方则将土地改革不成功的原因归结为日本侵略的干扰。如果看看同一时期,同一历史背景下,共产党在其控制的区域成功地实行的土地改革,上述观点显然有推搪塞责之嫌。还有部分学者得出改良主义行不通的结论。相对于共产党以激进的方式取得成功的作法,似乎有一定道理。但再看一看国民党退避台湾后,实行三七五减租、公地放领、限田及征收私有土地给现耕农承领为主要内容的土地改革,手段并非激进却取得了成功,似乎说服力也不强。而多数学者认为南京政府是大地主大资产阶级利益的代表,为维护自身利益而未实行彻底的土地改革,倒是触及到了问题的实质。但笔者认为这只是问题的一个方面,南京政府在土地问题上的不成功,更缺少的是认真执行土地改革政策的基层政权力量。  1927年南京国民政府建立后,即开始着手制定各项土地法规,准备进行土地改革。仅1927-1937年10年中南京政府颁布的“地政法规及各省地政单行章则不下240种”(注:朱子爽:《中国国民党土地政策》,国民图书出版社1943年版。)。其中较重要的有1930年6月公布的《土地法》等。应该说国民党颁布的有关土地问题的法令法规大体体现了孙中山“平均地权”、“耕者有其田”的思想原则,只要坚持不懈地贯彻执行,中国的土地问题未必不能得到解决。然而直到1949年国民党败退大陆,“平均地权”主张非但没能实现,土地问题反而比任何时期都严重。  对于土地改革未能收效的原因,蒋介石1952年4月在台湾阳明山庄做关于《土地国有要义》的讲演中是这样认为的:“所可惜的是我们有完善的主义、政策、计划和方案,却缺乏具体精密的方法,和笃实践履的行动。……过去我们的失败,就失败在虽有计划,而没有行动,虽有行动,而缺少方法,即使有了行动,而又是与现实不合的。……没有方法,亦就不能获致效果”(注:中共中央党校党史教研室编:《三民主义历史文献选编》,第435页,中共中央党校科研办公室1987年印行。)。而曾参与国民党土地改革的肖铮的看法则更接近本质。他认为:“问题的焦点在于决心不够,只要我们有推行土地政策的决心,法不完全,可以修正,人力不够,可以培育罗致,经费不足,可以筹拨。所以,这些问题都不足以影响土地政策的推行。唯有决心不够,确实可以影响一切”(注:《地政通讯》第23期。)。其他类似的看法也认为:“自国都之所在南京而至各大省会特别市,对平均地权之实行,始终犹豫无决心”,以致“各省市严格执行者,殊不多见。”(注:郭汉民:《管教养卫与平均地权》,《中国土地政策》第38页。)至于为什么决心不够,肖铮认为,国民党执政后,“居于高级领导阶层的部分同志失去革命精神”,他们“在首都及其他大城市,已买进大批土地建筑大厦,甚至经营房地产生意,因之更牵涉到本身利害关系。”(注:肖铮:《土地改革五十年》,第72页,台湾中国地政研究所1980年版。)  其实,土地改革不仅仅牵涉到国民党内高级领导人的利益,还牵涉到从中央到基层很多人特别是把持乡村政权的地主豪绅的利益,因而受到他们激烈抵制。早在30年代进步的经济学家就指出:“租佃制度是否能够彻底改革,主要关键到还不在改革办法是否周密,而在乡村政权究竟在谁的手里,如果地主豪绅掌握乡村政权,那末任何周密办法都是无法推行。”(注:益圃:《中国地政学会怎样改革租佃制度》,薛暮桥、冯和法编:《〈中国农村〉论文选》(上),第342页,人民出版社1983年版。)中国是个半封建的社会,政治机构愈到下层,便愈带着浓厚的封建色彩。1927年大革命失败后,农村中豪绅地主阶级政治势力得到恢复与加强。旧式的乡董、图董等土劣,摇身一变,当上了“新式”的区长、乡长、镇长。乡村政权几乎被顽固的封建势力所操纵。“农村行政,为地主的广大势力所渗透,税收、警务、司法、教育,统统建立在地主权力之上”(注:《陈翰笙文集》第61页,复旦大学出版社1985年版。)。在北方,“一般来说,无论是新式或旧式区长,常为当地大小地主所包办。”农村复兴委员会1933年对陕西、河南两省66人区长的调查表明,拥有百亩以上土地的地主占70%左右。在南方,家村基层政权也多为中小地主直接掌握。同据农村复兴委员会调查,江苏无锡6个区的乡镇长中,地主占89.9%,富农占6.7%,中农占3.1%(注:李珩:《中国农村政治结构的研究》,《中国农村》第1卷第10期,1935年7月。)。另据陈翰笙等人1930年对无锡104个村长的调查,地主占91.3%,富农占7.7%,商人占1%(注:《陈翰笙文集》第62页,复旦大学出版社1985年版。)。同年,江苏省民政厅对该省374个占有千亩以上土地的大地主主要职业的统计表明,各级军政官吏占44.39%,高利贷者占34.49%,商人占17.91%,经营实业者占3.21%(注:肖铮:《民国二十年代中国大陆土地问题资料》第46155页,台北成文出版社、美国中文资料中心1966年联合出版。),正是由于这些兼任军政官吏、高利贷者、商人等新式豪绅地主盘距在乡村政权中,国民政府在日趋严重的农村土地问题上所择取的许多改革措施不是收效甚微,便是归于失败。“中央政府所制定的改良政策,往往传到省政府时打了一个折扣,传到县政府时再打一个折扣,落到区乡长的手里的时候,便已所余无几。譬如‘减轻田赋,废除苛杂’,中央虽然三令五申,但到县政府和区乡长的手里的时候,就会把一部分田赋变成税捐,把一部分的税捐变为摊派,换汤不换药地敷衍过去。”(注?益圃:《新土地政策的实施问题》,《中国农村》第3卷第7期,1937年7月。)又如“二五减租”,在江苏,经办减租的各县县长“为结好于彼等起见,故决不愿厉行此项法令,是以毫无成绩可言”(注:马寅初:《中国经济改造》(下),第678页,商务印书馆1935年版。)。在湖北,1927年9月30日省政府发布的文件说:省政府关于减租的文告“业布已经月余,其切实执行者固多,而借故迁延,意存观望者,亦复所在多有,甚至将所颁布布告,匿不张贴,藐视法令,违反党纲,显系土豪劣绅,把持操纵,流氓地痞,顽抗阻挠”(注:《中华民国史事纪要》,第609-610页。)。浙江最早实行“二五减租”,但开始后不久,就受到了地主势力的破坏和阻挠。他们或诬指减租农民为共产党报警逮捕,或借口收回自种以撤佃相威胁,或贿使地痞流氓及暴徒以武力抗拒减租。天台、遂安、武义等县都发生了县党部指导员因推进减租而被殴打或杀害事件。地主们纠集在一起联名向省政府及南京政府要求废止减租,收回成命的函电,更是屡见不鲜。1928年,省政府为修杭江铁路,准备预征田赋,有势力的地主即乘机向省政府主席张静江游说:如不取消“二五减租”,“明年(1929年)起将不缴田赋”(注:肖铮:《中华地政史》,第273页。)。在地主阶级的压力下,张乃于1929年4月,在省政府会议上提出:“‘二五减租’办法自实行以来,纠纷迭起,佃业双方均受其害,洵属有弊无利,拟民国十八年份起取消‘二五减租’。”(注:肖铮:《民国二十年代中国大陆土地问题资料》第33980页,台北成文出版社、美国中文资料中心1966年联合出版。)省政府遂通过了自本年起暂行取消减租的决议。后虽由中央派员协调,“二五减租”名义上仍旧存在,但已“名存实亡”。地主勾结警吏,压迫佃农,无端撤佃、追租、补租等事件频繁发生。许多县政府和区乡长阳奉阴违,甚至“伪造省府训令”,宣称“实行二五减租即以共匪论罪”(注:益圃:《新土地政策的实施问题》。)。这说明地方政府尤其是乡村组织中充满着豪绅封建势力,很难指望它来忠实执行反封建的改良政策。再如土地整理,首先要求册籍明了,但直至抗战爆发,国民政府在各省的清丈土地、编造图册的工作也未完成。而经办土地陈报的乡镇长大都是当地的地主豪绅。大小地主们利用册籍的混乱和在乡村中的特权,将田亩以少报多,以熟报荒,逃避或减少负担。地籍不明,册书散乱对他们来说有百利而无一弊。政府当局明知他们作恶多端,但大多数领导人与乡村中土地占有者“利?一致,思想感情相通”(注:(美)杨格著,陈泽宪等译:《1927年至1937年中国财政经济情况》,第337页,中国社会科学出版社1981年5月版。),又因税源所系,常与他们互相利用,互相掩饰。在江苏,地主豪绅贿赂地政官员隐瞒田产之案屡有发生。有的县居然出现查报后的田亩较查前反为短少的情况(注:肖铮:《民国二十年代中国大陆土地问题资料》,第14392页。)。由这些人来担任整理土地的责任,是不可能指望有所成就的。江苏的土地陈报“虽有四年之久而开办区域与登记,成绩实无甚大进步”(注:《地政月刊》第1卷第2期。)。浙江推行土地陈报工作一年余,动员专职人员12万余,农民负担每亩0.12元陈报费,耗资30余万元,最后仅完成全省耕地面积的17%(注:石西民:《我国田赋的积弊与整理》,薛暮桥、冯和法编:《〈中国农村〉论文选》(上),第386页。)。直到1948年,肖铮终于认识到:“我们20年来的政治基础是建筑在地主身上的”(注:《土地改革》第1卷第1期,1948年4月。)。  正因为豪绅地主势力充当着南京政权对乡村统治的基础,南京政府只能是旧有土地制度的维护者。它不可能打倒自己赖以生存的基础——地主阶级。它所制定的政策法规也以不违背大土地所有者的利益为宗旨。这一点《土地法》中已明白无误地表达出来。该法虽规定“中华民国领域内之土地,属于中华民国国民全体”,但同时又规定“其经人民依法取得所有权者,为私有土地”(注:《东方杂志》第27卷第13号,1930年7月。)。蒋介石说得更明白:“如果我们从地主手里拿走土地,赶走共产党岂不多此一举?”(注:章有义:《中国近代农业史资料》第3辑,第345-346页,三联书店1957年版。)蒋介石还一再向地主表明土地改革不会损害他们的利益。1941年6月,蒋介石在第三次全国财政会议上安慰地主说:“我们民生主义的土地政策,不是和共产党一样,要来没收土地,也不是现在就要地主的地盘,尽归公家所有;而只是由地主自行报价,政府只依照法规定税率,照价纳税而已,……而土地仍归原主所有,至土地定价以后将来的收益,才归于社会国家所公有。如此就是对于地主固有的权利与现在已得的利益,并无丝毫损失,而且藉此可以获得永久的保障”(注:张其昀:《先总统蒋公全集》第2册,第1522-1523页,台湾中华文化大学1984年版。)。  国民党一方面竭力维护地主阶级利益,另一方面不能也不敢公开放弃“平地地权”、“耕者有其田”的政策。再者,大革命失败后,由于长期军阀混战以及严重的自然灾害和世界经济危机的袭击,中国农村经济走上急速破产的道路,1932年以后几乎到了崩溃的边缘,直接影响到国民政府的财政收入。不仅如此,农村中有田无粮、无田有粮、田多粮少、田少粮多这种税负畸形状况加剧,农村问题的核心——土地所有与土地使用间的矛盾日趋尖锐,国统区农民自发斗争不断发生,共产党领导的苏区土地革命也日益发展和状大。这一切对国民党的统治构成了严重的威胁。土地问题已不仅仅是经济问题,更成为社会问题和政治问题。面对如此严峻的现实,国民党不得不对农村土地问题采取一定改革措施。可见国民党在土地问题上具有明显的矛盾性和被动性。这种矛盾性和被动性体现在国民政府对所制颁的土地法令条例往往是“议而不决”、“决而不行”,采取延宕办法“推”、“拖”了之。例如,《土地法》1930年6月就已公布,但国民政府并不打算很快实施。该法第5条规定:“本法之施行法另定之”。第6条规定:“本法各编之施行日期及区域,分别以命令定之”(注:《东方杂志》第27卷第13号,1930年7月1日。)。1935年5月国民政府才公布《土地法施行法》,此时距《土地法》颁布已有5年之久,且第2条规定:“本法之施行日期及区域与土地法同”(注:沈云龙:《近代中国史料丛刊续辑》第581辑,第52期,第32页。)。直到1936年2月,国民政府才公布《各省市地政施行程序大纲》,明令《土地法》、《土地法施行法》与此法于1936年3月1日同时施行(注:吴文晖:《中国土地问题及其对策》,第276页,商务印书馆1943年版。)。由于《土地法》本身存在许多弊病和漏洞需要修改,1937年5月,国民党中央政治委员会通过了《修正土地法原则》。修正的《土地法》草案亦经立法院经济委员会起草完稿。但不久抗日战争爆发,该方案一搁又是数年,迟迟不予公布,更不用说实行了。再如,1941年12月15日召开的国民党五届九中全会通过了《土地政策战时实施纲要》,行政院为此还设立了地政署以贯彻实行。但政府对此采取拖延战术,逐渐使问题由延缓而趋于冷漠。加上财政当局消极反对。“故卒使此案仍为本党之又一‘决而不行’之案例”(注:肖铮:《土地改革五十年》,第221页。)。1948年,肖铮等人向立法院提出了一个体现“耕者有其田”精神的《农地改革法案》,但讨论了半年之久也没通过,最后与其他二个提案“?付审查”,不了了之。类似上述“议而不决”、“决而不行”之事例不胜枚举。中国食货会的曾资生曾指出:“中国土地问题迄今不能获得合理解决,原因固多,但尤可注意的是政府的本质问题。……因之,一个进步的革命政策拿出来,转了两个弯便没有了”(注:《中央周刊》第10卷第13期,1948年3月。)。  国民党在土地问题上的不成功,不仅对当时国民政府经济上产生了深刻的影响,更导致了这个政权以后被倾覆的后果。大革命失败后,中国共产党建立了农村根据地,并在各革命根据地开展了以消灭封建地主土地所有制为主要内容的土地革命运动。国民党则抛弃了大革命时期“打倒土豪劣绅”的口号,转而依靠地主劣绅建立保甲制度,控制乡村政权,稳定乡村局势,因此,不得不向阻碍、抗拒土地改革的地主豪绅让步。抗战时期,国民党虽在湖北等地继续实行减租减息,但“在战时,政府要征粮,要筹财税,不免仍多依赖地主合作,故各县政府士绅均不能真正赞助二五减租的推行”(注:肖铮:《土地改革五十年》,第231页。)。抗战胜利后,由于国民党忙于“劫收”和准备内战,更无心搞什么土地改革了。国民党一而再、再而三地失去了解决土地问题的良机,以致土地问题积重难返到不可救药的地步。肖铮后来回忆道:“自从民国廿一年起,我们发动的各种土地改革步骤,统多遭到了反对者以‘应慎重’、‘再研究’等延宕战略,使土地改革的一切政策都遭到了搁置;以致有大陆整个沦亡的后果”(注:肖铮:《土地改革五十年》,第73页。)。而共产党则根据不同时期政治形势的变化,适时地提出相应的土地改革政策并彻底贯彻,以致有了中国革命的胜利。国共“两党的争论,就其社会性质来说,实质上是在农村关系的问题上。”(注:《毛泽东选集》合订本,第978页。)因此,对农村土地问题采取什么亩圆撸唤鼍哂芯靡庖澹凶胖匾恼我庖搴蜕缁嵋庖濉?936年毛泽东在延安回答美国记者埃德加·斯诺有关革命、农民和土地问题的提问时说:“谁赢得了农民,谁就会赢得中国,谁能解决土地问题,谁就会赢得农民”(注:《斯诺眼中的中国》,第47页,中国学术出版社1982年版。)。精辟地概括出土地问题在中国革命中的位置。
  10. 高王凌:刘松龄笔下的乾隆十三年
    历史 2009/05/31 | 阅读: 1336
    本文是拙作刘松龄研究之二,介绍乾隆朝钦天监正刘松龄的两封私人信件,讨论的主题,正是乾隆十三年——空前严重的教案未已,又发生金川之役、皇后薨逝风波,以及政府大政策收敛,等等——这一非同寻常的年份。其中提到若干中国史料没有谈到的史事,就是对同一个问题,也有着不同的看法。无疑,作为耶稣会士的刘松龄具有他不同一般的眼光和立场。这是不难理解的,也是不多见的。如何对待类似的史料,也就成为我们清史研究的一个新的问题。
  11. 高校富士康调查组:两岸三地高校富士康调研总报告
    社会 经济 2010/11/14 | 阅读: 2169
    两岸三地高校富士康调研总报告2010年10月发布,共六部分,指出富士康强制加班、超时加班——违反《劳动合同法》,克扣加班费——违反《劳动合同法》,滥用学生工——违反《实习见习条例》,漠视职业安全隐患——违反《劳动合同法》、《职业病防治法》,“私了”工伤事故——违反《工伤保险条例》。选登系列二与结束语
  12. 高彦颐:“天足”:一个崭新的基督教范畴
    宗教 历史 2012/05/15 | 阅读: 2179
    选自《缠足》;依循基督教义的逻辑与修辞,定罪缠足的审判,指向三个层面:缠足是狂妄的文化设计、缠足有违父母的慈爱之心,以及,缠足对上帝所垂爱的男性构成一种性威胁。1895-1898年间出现了许多反缠足团体,它们成为反缠足运动中最多人研究的环节。
  13. 高峰枫:通识教育读本之“欠通”
    书评 2009/09/11 | 阅读: 1615
    华夏出版社近年来翻译出版了大量书刊,仿佛空投集束炸弹一样,密集轰炸了中国的西方古典学研究领域。
  14. 高峰枫:赫胥黎与《圣经》
    宗教 2009/09/11 | 阅读: 1309
    赫胥黎平日在与亲朋友好的通信中,纯熟地运用了不少《圣经》典故,而且用典极为贴切。我们所熟悉的那个赫胥黎,是进化论的斗士、宗教的大敌。在他的晚年,对于基督教的批评异常严厉。但是,《圣经》之于他,或许还有更加复杂的意义。因此,确有必要勾勒一下赫胥黎对于《圣经》的态度。
  15. 高宣扬:福柯对基督教的批判
    宗教 2010/06/01 | 阅读: 2293
     作为一位后结构主义和后现代主义的重 要思想家,福柯对于基督教的批判具有重要的意义;这是因为它不仅集中地展现了福柯本人对基督教的具体批判态度,而且也显示了后结构主义和后现代主义对基督 教的基本观点及其理论基础。由于后结构主义和后现代主义是近三十年来活跃于西方学术界和理论界的一支重要的新型思想派别,福柯对基督教的批判,有助于我们 进一步了解西方学术界目前研究和批判基督教的动态及其理论和方法论方面的某些变化。     (一)福柯的基本思想以及基督教问题的提出        福柯所生活的法国,是传统的天主教拉丁国家,基督教在社会和文化生活中有广泛的影响。福柯本人并非研究基督教的专 家,而且,他最初的研究工作所感兴趣的,也不是基督教。但是,从二十世纪七十年代之后,随着福柯的知识考古学、权力和道德系谱学研究的深入展开,他对基督 教问题开始给予注意。从那以后,福柯越来越清楚地发现:西方传统思想、道德、文化、意识形态以及政治制度等,都同基督教教义、教会制度及其实践保持紧密的 内在关系。因此,基督教问题在他的整个系谱学理论批判活动中,占据着越来越重要的地位;基督教问题,在福柯的中期和后期研究活动中,成为了他的一个非常重 要的探索领域;甚至可以说,如果不了解基督教在福柯整个思想体系中的地位及意义,就无法真正把握他的理论的基本精神。    福柯究竟是在什么情况下提到基督教的?他为什么要转向批判基督教?对于基督教的批判,在他的理论中占据什么地位?为了弄清所有这些问题,我们不得不首先对福柯的整个理论体系及其基本思路进行概括的说明。    严格地说,福 柯的理论研究,实际上并没有固定的方向。福柯同其它后结构主义者和后现代主义者一样,为了同传统思想彻底决裂,不愿意使自己的任何一个理论研究,受到传统 的同一性原则和其它规范的约束,因此,他一生不断地改变自己的身份,也改变自己的理论研究方向和方法。福柯所关心的,只是个人自身的状况。他在理论研究 中,始终都把自己的思考注意力,集中在'与我们自身的命运密切相关的问题'上。按照他的说法,他从事理论研究,只是为了关怀我们自身的现状,也就是说,只 是为了彻底了解'我们自身今天究竟是什么'(que sommes-nous aujourd'hui)?'我们自身为什么成为现在这个样子'?(Foucault, 1994: IV, 814)。    翻开西方思 想史,福柯认为,始终贯穿于其中的核心问题,无非就是'真理与主体性'的相互关系(Foucault, 2001: 504)。所以,在福柯看来,'我们自身究竟是谁'的问题,实际上只能是在'真理与主体'的相互关系的框架中被探讨。他认为,'我们自身究竟是谁'的问 题,又可以翻译成这样的问题:'我们自身为什么现在非要成为一个主体不可'。福柯强调指出:我们自身究竟为什么和怎样成为主体,乃是西方思想史上最关键的 问题。这个问题不仅关系到我们自身的命运,而且也关系到揭示整个西方社会文化制度的奥秘。福柯后来明确地把这个重要问题称为'关于我们自身的历史存在论 '(l'ontologie historique de nous-mêmes)。他指出:关于'我们自身的历史存在论'所要探讨的基本问题,就是'我们自身是如何成为主体'?所以,福柯强调说:"我所研究的, 毋宁是探索我们文化中,有关我们人类的各种不同的主体化模式的历史(J' ai cherché plut?t à produire une histoire des différents modes de subjectivation de l'être humaine dans notre culture)"(Foucault, 1994 : IV, 222-223)。    福柯探索'关于我们自身的历史存在论'的过程,基本上经历了三大阶段:    第一阶段是二十世纪六十年代,他先后发表了五本论述知识考古学、权力和道德系谱学的奠基性著作《疯狂与非理性:古典时代精神病的历史》(Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'age classique, 1961)、《诊疗所的诞生:医疗望诊的考古学》(Naissance de la clinique. Une archéologie du regard médical, 1963)、《语词与事物:人文科学的考古学》(Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines, 1966)、《知识考古学》(L'archéologie du savoir, 1969)以及《论述的秩序》(L'ordre du discours, 1971)。由此可见,福柯在这一时期的研究重点,是知识考古学、权力和道德系谱学,也就是探索'我们自身'成为知识、权力和道德的主体的历史过程,并揭 示我们自身的主体化过程中,知识、权力和道德之间,通过复杂的三重交错关系,逐步地使我们自身一方面成为主体,另一方面又成为知识、权力、道德的对象和客 体,使我们自身沦为知识、权力和道德的宰制对象。    第二阶段是 二十世纪七十年代前半期,即从1970年至1976年为止。福柯在这一时期,把研究重点转向知识'论述的实践',特别是在监狱制度和'性的论述 '(discours de la sexualité)中所体现的'强制性实践'(pratiques coersitives)。所以,这一时期,他先后发表《监视与惩罚:监狱的诞生》(Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison, 1975)和《性史第一卷:知识的意愿》(Histoire de la sexualité, I: La volonté du savoir, 1976)。    第三阶段是 从二十世纪七十年代中期到他逝世的八十年代。福柯一方面继续深入研究'性史',另一方面加强了对于'自身的技术'的研究以及对生存美学的探索。所以,这一 时期,福柯发表了《性史第二卷:快感的运用》(Histoire de la sexualité, II: L'usage des plaisirs, 1984)及《性史第三卷:自身的关怀》(Histoire de la sexualité, III: Le souci de soi, 1984)。与此同时,福柯在法兰西学院的课程也同步地转向'自身的技术'、生命权力(Bio-pouvoir; Bio-Power)以及生存美学。    总之,福柯的基本思想可以简单地概括为三大组成部分:由考古学和系谱学所构成的'真理游戏'(jeu de vérité)、对于'自身的技术'(technique de soi)的批判以及生存美学(l'esthétique de l'existence)。其中,关于真理与主体性的关系,则成为贯穿上述三大部分的核心问题;而对于'自身的技术'的批判,则是福柯的政治权力理论的一 个重要组成部分,而且也是他从'真理游戏'转向生存美学探讨的关键环节。福柯就是在第二、三阶段探讨知识论述的'强制性实践'、'自身的技术'、生命权力 以及生存美学的时候,触及到基督教的'惩罚的权力'(le pouvoir punitif)和'规训的权力'(le pouvoir disciplinaire),并深入地批判了基督教的'自身的技术'、'基督教的教士权力运作模式'(le mode du pouvoir pastoral)及基督教道德。    在谈到'自 身的技术'同主体化的关系时,福柯直截了当地说:"我是通过以下的方式来研究这个问题。首先,通过对于精神病、精神治疗学、犯罪现象以及惩罚手段的研究, 我试图指出:我们是通过对某些犯罪和犯精神病的其它人进行隔离的手段、而间接地建构起我们自己。另一方面,从现在开始,我还要研究:我们自己究竟采用哪些 关于自身的道德技术手段、而由我们自己直接地建构我们自身的身份?这样一种由自己建构自身身份的技术,也可以称之为一种对于个人进行统治的政治技术;在西 方,它是从古到今的历史中一直存在的一种技术"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 814)。由此可见,个人主体化的过程,在西方,是通过两方面进行:一方面,通过知识论述及其论述实践对整个社会的人进行'区隔'的途径,由知识论述与权 力和道德力量的交叉运作,将每个人强制性地分成'正常'和'异常',迫使每个人在知识论述、权力和道德的控制下逐渐地改造成为'主体',另一方面,又通过 每个人自己对自身的'道德技术手段',通过一种'自身的技术',使每个人都能够直接地进行自我改造、自我熏陶和自我约束,将自身建构成为'主体'。对于主 体化过程中的上述两方面程序,福柯又形象地称之为主体的'向内折'和'向外折'。在上述两方面,基督教都扮演了非常重要的角色,也提供了具有决定性意义的 '历史经验'。 福柯认为, 基督教在促使西方人完成主体化的过程中,既创建和实行一种'基督教教士权力运作模式'(la modalité pastorale du pouvoir),为知识、权力和道德三大强制性力量共同地宰制个人主体化过程,提供最有效的策略;同时,又实行一种特殊的'自身的技术 '(technique de soi; technologie de soi),推动个人在自我形塑和自我约束的过程中,完成自身内在的直接的主体化程序。    由此可见, 福柯并不是孤立地研究和探讨基督教问题;他是把基督教问题放在他对西方思想、政治以及文化的整个系谱学考察研究的脉络之中,并试图将基督教问题同西方整个 知识、权力和道德的运作策略系统及其历史演变过程结合起来。所以,自始至终,福柯都同西方传统研究基督教的方式和方法有明显的区别。    (二)对基督教的'自身的技术'的批判        如前所述,从二十世纪七十年代开始,为了深入揭示西方人实行主体化过的具体策略及其历史经验,福柯集中研究了西方 文化中出现的三大历史形态的'自身的技术',即古代希腊、基督教和近代模式。福柯认为,基督教的'自身的技术',成为了从古代转向近代的过渡形态,在其 中,包含了'关于我们自身的历史存在论'所关注和要加以集中解构的'真理与主体性相互关系'核心问题的关键。    基督教是一 种非常特殊的宗教,根据福柯的看法,它不同于其它宗教的地方,主要表现在两个方面。第一,基督教是'关于真理的宗教',它非常重视真理的问题,并把真理同 信仰的关系当成其教义及其信仰实践的一个关键。第二,基督教非常重视对于教徒个人在身体和心灵两方面的形塑和管束,并往往试图通过教徒个人对其自身的自我 管束的途径、而实现教会对个人的宰制和管理。在这个意义上说,基督教对于教徒个人在信仰和宗教行为方面的期待,主要是通过教徒个人对于教义和教会的认识和 实践,通过教徒个人在认识和实践教义的过程中对其自身的忠诚程度的认识。    基督教的上述基本特点,使基督教所提出的'自身的技术'具有明显的特征。    在希腊和罗马时代,本来早就存在了一系列环绕'关怀自身'(souci de soi)而实行的一种'自身的文化'(la culture de soi)。在古代的自身的文化的脉络中,自身的技术具有两方面的意义。一方面,自身的技术是陶冶和培训自身,使自身不断地实现自我超越和自我完善,在身体 和精神两方面不断地达到审美的高度,实现从一种自由向另一种自由的过渡。在这个意义上说,古代的'自身的技术'是个人对于自身进行自愿的约束和自我教育, 使自身实现不断地完满化。在这个意义上的'自身的技术',实际上就是一种生存美学(l'esthétique de l'existence),它是通过无止境的审美超越而进行的自我熏陶。另一方面,古代的'自身的技术'又同对于'他人'(l'autre)的统治相关, 因此,在雅典的城邦时代和古罗马时期,凡是立志从政、而积极参与权力的统治和管理事业的人,都必须在学会和实现统治他人的艺术以前,首先学会和掌握关于自 身的技术的实践智慧(phronesis)。在这个意义上说,'自身的技术'是实现对于他人的统治艺术的前提。福柯在总结古代的自身的技术时说:"对希腊 人来说,关怀自身这个原则构成为城邦生活的一个重要原则,也构成为社会和个人生活的一个重要行为规则,同样也成为生活的艺术的一个基础 "(Foucault, 1994: IV, 786)。    自从基督教 文化占据统治地位之后,'自身的技术'的上述性质发生了变化。这是同基督教本身的性质有密切的关系。如前所述,基督教是一种不同于其它宗教的特殊宗教,因 为它是唯一强调把信仰同'真理'联系在一起的宗教(Foucault, IV, 171)。福柯指出,基督教通过'忏悔'、'自白'和'告白',要求教徒说出'真理',以便使教徒向教会、并通过教会向基督教的神说出有关他们自身的一切 '真相',也就是要求教徒说出'真理',以便教会能够有效地对每一个教徒的身体、心灵、思想、行为等各个方面,有全面的了解,进行全面的统治和宰制。所 以,基督教所实行的自身的技术,既是教会对于教徒的一种'统治的艺术',又是教徒个人对于教会的虔诚态度的保障和见证。根据这种情况,福柯说,基督教对它 的教徒要求两种'真理':第一种真理是强调基督教本身是真理的化身,耶稣基督就是真理,基督的每一句话和他的每一个行为都是真理,《圣经》的每一句话和它 的整体都是真理。面对这样的真理,基督徒必须无条件服从,并永远保持忠诚态度。第二种真理指的是教徒必须说出真相,必须把自身所想、所说和所做的一切都无 保留地向神和教会显示出来。对于基督教来说,忠于上述两种真理的原则,是基督徒得救的基础和条件。    所以,福柯 指出,基督教一方面是一种救世的宗教,另一方面又是忏悔的宗教(Foucault, 1994: IV, 804)。不论是为了救世还是为了忏悔,基督教都严格要求它的教徒,以忠于真理的态度,在行为、思想、心理以和肉体方面,同时地进行自身的改造,这就是基 督教的自身的技术的基本原则。    因此,基督 教要求其教徒实行一种"真理的义务"(l'obligation de vérité)。这种'真理的义务',一方面要求教徒无条件的服从被称为永恒真理的信条、教义和宗教仪式,以便在教徒的心灵及其行为中,表现出对于他们所 信仰的信条和教堂的无限忠诚。但是,基督教又要求他的教徒信仰另一种类型的真理,这就是要求每个教徒真正地认识他们自己,真正地知道在他自身中所发生的一 切,真正地认识到他自己所犯的各种错误,承认自己的各种企图和意向,真正了解自己的欲望的程度及其发生的场所,同时还要将所有这些发生在自身内外,发生在 自身身体和心灵的一切,哪怕是潜在地存在的,也哪怕是公开发生的或者私下发生的,都诚实地向神,或者向宗教共同体的其它成员,坦率地交待清楚,进行忏悔式 的自白。所以,基督教所要求的,是关于信仰以及关于个人自身的真理的义务。也就是说,所有的基督教徒,一方面必须对教义和信仰保持忠诚,将教义和信仰当成 永恒的真理,另一方面又要求基督教徒毫无保留的向神和教会交待自身的真理,也就是坦率说出自身的真实面貌。基督教所要求的上述两种类型的真理是相互补充相 互关联的。由于基督教将这两种真理关联在一起,所以它就把基督教徒个人灵魂的纯洁和教徒对于自身的认识联系在一起。    当然,随着 基督教的历史的演变,上述两种类型的真理及其对于自身的技术的关系,在整个中世纪历史时期内,也不断地发生变化。而在宗教改革之后,天主教同新教在自身的 技术的内容和实践两方面也有所不同。福柯曾经在许多地方较为详细地探讨基督教的自身的技术的历史演变过程。但是,不管怎样,整个基督教都强调对于信仰、圣 经和教义的真理的诚实态度,同时也强调基督教徒个人必须对于自身的心灵和思想抱着真理的态度,以便保证他们的心灵的纯洁性。所以,奥古斯丁说,只有使自身 显示出他的真理的本来面貌,才能进入到神的启示的光芒圈中。    在基督教的历史上,有关坦诚自身的方式及其具体技术,发生过各种变化。福柯指出,关于要求教徒告别自己的罪过以及作出必要的牺牲等程序,并不是从一开始就是基督教所要求的。有许多关于忏悔的程序是在中世纪的末期,也就是在中世纪将转入近代社会的前夕才出现的。    在基督教的历史上,围绕'自身'的问题,始终伴随着两个相互关联的因素:一方面是强调自身问题的普遍性,强调基督教对每个自身的召唤的普遍性 (l'universalité de l'appel)及其重要性,另一方面又强调自身获得拯救的珍贵性和稀有性(la rareté du salut)(Foucault, 2001: 116-117)。    所以,福柯指出,基督教在关乎每个人命运的'自身'的问题上,玩弄了双重的策略游戏:首先,它在强调神对世人的召唤的普遍性和平等性的同时,又指出并非人人都能幸运 地皈依基督教的神和信仰;唯有那些真诚向教会坦诚自身身体和心灵的真理的极少数教徒,即被教会奉为'圣徒'的个别人,才可以'获救'。接着,基督教又强 调,尽管它给予每个人的拯救是极其珍贵和罕见的,但仍然并不排除任何个人获救的可能性。也就是说,基督教强调:基督教是普世的宗教,是对于世人的普遍的拯 救的唯一途径,也是给予世人以最珍贵的幸福的宽宏大量的宗教。在这方面,基督教没有向世人提出任何条件,它永远都是敞开拯救的大门,不歧视任何人,不排除 任何人;所以,任何人都有可能获救。但是,基督教又认为,只有通过世人对自身的严格熏陶,遵循'真理'的标准,依据教规、教义和神的启示,才真正有机会获 救。基督教的这些说教,后来构成它的神学、思想、社会和政治学说的核心(Ibid.: 117)。    与此同时, 福柯通过对于性史的研究,也揭示了古希腊罗马时期的自身的技术同基督教占据统治地位之后的自身的技术,有明显的不同。如果说古希腊罗马时代的自身的技术还 显示出个人自身的相当程度的自由权,那么,基督教产生之后的自身的技术,就在性质上发生了根本的变化。这个变化的特点就是使自身的技术完全变成为统治者宰 制和规训被统治的个人的权力运作技术。    福柯对基督教的批判,就是这样从关于自身的技术问题出发,然后进一步深入揭露基督教在中世纪和近代阶段中所实行的权力运作模式的变化及其对于现代社会权力运作模式的影响。也就在这种批判中,福柯同时揭露了基督教道德及其同西方人的主体化历史过程的关系。    (三)对基督教道德的批判        福柯指出,不管是古代的还是基督教的'自身的技术',都同样具有伦理学的意义,包涵着道德的原则。但是,作为伦理学和道德原则,古代时期同基督教阶段的'自身的技术'是完全不一样的。    福柯从尼采的 道德系谱学(généalogie de la morale)研究中得到启示,深刻指出了基督教道德在扼杀个人自由和破坏关怀自身的原则方面的历史作用。同尼采一样,当福柯对基督教道德进行系谱学批判 的时候,并不只是把道德当成一个孤立的问题来研究,更不把道德问题同整个社会文化制度以及特定社会历史条件下的权力斗争割裂开来。也就是说,在福柯的道德 系谱学及他对于自身的技术的历史考察中,基督教道德的出现和发展,始终都是同整个西方社会的权力斗争及其历史走向密切相关。所以,基督教道德也就成为了社 会权力斗争的一个方面。    为了揭示基 督教道德的产生及其同社会权力斗争之间的复杂关系,福柯非常重视尼采的道德系谱学对'事件'的'突现'(Enstehung)的纯粹描述。福柯总是以尼采 的'突现'(émergence)概念,来描述他所揭露的各种历史事件的系谱学意义,因为在尼采那里,Enstehung一词,指的就是以突然冒现出来的 形式所显示出来的事件形成过程;它意味着从一开始,一切事物的出现就伴随着其天然的本性和依据其特有的发生规则,并以人们所无法认识和无法表达的复杂形式 产生于世界上。各种历史事件的突现,并不是像传统理论所说的那样,似乎都是依据必然的规则,或像自然科学的对象那样按照前因后果的所谓客观'逻辑'产生出 来;而是以其自身无可预测的偶然性、断裂性、突发性和自然性形成的。为此,福柯强调"'突现'始终都是透过一个特殊的强力阶段而发生的 (Emergence is always produced through a particular stage of forces)。所以,对于'突现'的分析,必须描述这个交互作用,描述这些强力相互抗拒交织而成的斗争,或者是抗拒对立的环境的斗争..."(M. Foucault, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In Rabinow, P. 1986: 83-84)。福柯指出,"在尼采那里,『突现』意味着一个发生对立的场所(Emergence designates a place of confrontation)"(Ibid.: 84)。但是,这个场所并非一个封闭的地点,以为在那里可以看到两个相互对等的强力的斗争状态。因此,这个出现的场所,勿宁是"一个『非场所』(non- place),是一种『纯粹的距离』:在那里,相互对立的对手并非属于同一个空间场所。唯一停留在『出现』的『非场所』的悲剧,就是统治的无止境的『重 演』。某些人对于另一些人的统治导致价值的分化;统治阶级产生自由的观念......"(Ibid.: 85)。    但是,福柯并不满足于从抽象的层面探讨基督教道德的政治意义及其同权力的相互关系,而是更具体地揭示基督教道德如何成为社会统治势力和权力斗争的一个手段,并深入地分析基督教道德在权力斗争中控制个人的具体策略。    福柯认为,在西方文化的脉络中,基督教道德实际上是从古代的'自身的技术'和关于'自身的文化'中演变而来的。细致地分析这个演变过程,就成为揭示基督教道德控制和扼杀自身的实质的关键。    福柯认为,在 古希腊,特别是在晚期的希腊化时期,关于自身的文化体系中已经存在了有关'拯救自身'(salut de soi)的道德原则和伦理实践。他举出了那个时代许多思想家的论述,强调关怀自身确实是一种道德的反思过程。但是,这种道德是建立在对自身的爱的基础上, 也就是说人们实行道德原则,不是为了扼杀自身,而是为了使自身获得快乐,得到更大的自由,并不断寻求更新的审美超越境界。正因为这样,福柯说,在古希腊和 罗马的希腊化时期,"道德所寻求的主要目标及其基本目的,是属于美学范畴,因为它只是涉及到个人选择的问题"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 384)。只是因为基督教的产生,才把道德和伦理问题归结为对于自身的否定(renoncement à soi),并以牺牲自身(sacrifice de soi)作为条件而建构道德原则(Foucault, 2001: 173-177)。    正因为这 样,在古代的自身的技术中,拯救自身是关怀自身的一个重要内容,是使自身完满化的一个过程。与此相反,在基督教时期,拯救自身就意味着否弃自身和牺牲自 身,也就是必须以祭献自身为前提才能达到自身的拯救。福柯对此加以严厉地批判,并由此指出:基督教道德的实质,就是要使自身完全归顺于基督教,从而达到消 除自身的目的。    为了进一步 揭示基督教道德对于自身的扼杀,福柯还分析了基督教道德的苦行主义(ascétisme)原则。福柯认为,在古代的自身的技术中,为了实现关怀自身的原 则,也存在过苦行(askesis)的方法。但是,如同上述有关拯救自身的原则一样,在苦行的问题上,古代的自身的技术与基督教的道德是完全不同的 (Foucault, 1994: IV, 799-800)。    在古代,特别是在斯多葛学派的自身的技术的理论中,苦行并不意味者否弃自身,而是相反是为了逐步地实现对自身的关怀,为了达到对自身的自我控制。所谓对自身的自我控 制,不是要求放弃其现实的欲望和要求,也不是要求其自身完全脱离现实的世界,而是为了使自身达到真理,并真正地了解真理的意义。所以,苦行的最后目的,不 是为了使自身超越到与现实无关的彼岸,而是为了更真实的进入此岸世界。也就是说,苦行就意味着'做好各种准备'。苦行就是个人能够获得和消化理解真理、并 使自身自然地遵循一种自由行动原则的必由之路,是保证自身越来越实现完满化的一整套进行思想和实践的原则体系。总之,苦行在古代包涵着一些进行操练、锻炼 和修行的步骤,以便在必要的时候,使自身能够从容地和灵活地面对实际生活中的各种复杂事件。在这个意义上说,希腊化时代的苦行,是一种对于各种事件的准备 过程,也是对于自身的自我修炼和自我完满的熏陶过程。所以,福柯强调:与基督教的苦行主义完全相反,在古代的苦行中,包涵着两个最重要的因素,一个是沉思 (meditation),另一个是训练(Gumnasia)。    但是,基督教的苦行完全否定了古代的苦行原则中对自身的关怀的内容。基督教的苦行只强调对自身的否定,因此制定了一整套的禁欲主义原则,把人的欲望以及各种需求都归结为犯罪的根源,同时又要求教徒对自身进行严格的自我摧残,达到使自身完全归顺信仰的目的。    因此,同尼采 一样,福柯在批判基督教道德时,重复了尼采的宣言:"狄奥尼索斯就是十字架上的耶稣的对头"。福柯同尼采一样认为,基督教道德使西方人固守'诚实'、'服 从命运'、'同情和怜悯弱者'、'不相信自己的力量'和'循规蹈矩'等信条,使他们丢弃了'自身',失去了生命的创造力,丧失了最可贵的原始本能冲动,变 成为'像羔羊那样'唯唯诺诺、没有个性的萎靡不振的动物。    福柯认为,基督教道德的基本特点,就是通过'对神绝对顺从'和'禁欲主义'两条原则,以便劝导和强制基督教徒完成'否弃自身'的过程而实现'救世'的最终目的。所以,在基督教道德面前,人的一切尊严消失殆尽。    为了深入揭示 基督教道德的上述性质,福柯围绕'责任'(la responsabilité)、'顺从'(l'obéissance)、'思想心灵检查'(l'examen de la conscience)及'在尘世中死亡'(la mortification dans ce monde)等基督教道德的四个最重要的概念,进行深入分析和批判(Foucault, 1994: IV, 144-147)。    福柯指出,基督教道德之所以提出和强调'责任'的范畴,是为了建立牧师(牧羊人)同信徒(羊群)之间相互负责的关系,使牧师和信徒之中的任何人,在他们之中发生'罪恶'的情况下,都逃脱不了受惩罚的责任。    其次,在谈到 '顺从'问题时,福柯说,在希伯来人的犹太教中,'顺从'是教徒本身发自内心的志愿顺从宗教法规的行为。但在基督教中,要求每个教徒和整个教徒群体,都无 条件顺从教士。因此,基督教把顺从当成一种绝对的'道德禀性';它并不是为了达到某种目的的暂时性手段,而是目的自身。也就是说,羊羔必须无条件和永久地 顺从教士。正如圣贝奴阿(Saint Benoit)所说:"修士不是依据他们自身的自由意愿而生活;他们的真诚愿望只能是顺从于修道院长"。    关于'思想 心灵检查'问题,基督教强调:作为'牧羊人'的教士,不能满足于对'羊群'(基督徒整体)的认识和控制,而是必须落实到'羊群'中的每一个'羔羊',直到 透彻了解他们中的每一个人的内心世界以及他们的一切不可见的部分。正是为达此目的,基督教才发明了两种最有效的办法。第一是基督徒自己'检查思想',第二 是牧师对基督徒'指导思想'。教士将两者紧密地结合起来,以便时时刻刻把握羊群中的每一个羔羊的内心世界及其可能的动向,并及时地监管他们中的每一个的心 灵活动。    最后,福柯 指出,通过'在尘世中死亡'的概念,基督教要求其教徒彻底否弃尘世生活和否弃自身,也就是要求他们在日常生活领域中,过一种没有血、没有肉的死人般的生 活。基督教道德为此向教徒们允诺,只有通过尘世中的死亡,才能换得彼岸世界中的幸福。福柯揭露说:"所谓'在尘世中死亡'当然并不意味着真正死去,而是指 否弃自身和否弃尘世;而这是一种'日常生活的死'(une espèce de mort quotidienne)。这是一种以彼岸世界中的生活作为允诺的死亡"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 147)。所以,福柯认为:"基督教的死亡概念,根本不同于古希腊政权的死亡概念,它并不是要求为城邦做出牺牲,而是一种'自身对自身'的关系形式;它的 意义,就在于体现基督教徒的完整身份"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 147)。由此也可以看出基督教的禁欲主义道德的实质。     (四)对基督教教士权力运作模式的批判        福柯不论在知识考古学、道德和权力系谱学的研究中,还是在性史、自身的技术以及生存美学的探索中,都强调权力关系 同社会文化生活的内在关系及其不可分割性。所以,权力问题始终受到福柯的关注,并成为他的思想理论体系中一个重要内容。福柯对基督教教士权力运作模式的批 判,就是他的整个权力理论的一个组成部分。但福柯从不孤立地研究权力,也从来不把权力当成像自然客体那样的一种'实体',而是强调权力是社会中相互竞争的 力量关系网络,是在它的运作中,特别是在其运作策略的实际贯彻中体现出来。福柯指出:"权力在本质上是一种力的关系"(le pouvoir est essentiellement un rapport de force)(Foucault, 1994: III, 87);权力是在各种关系的现实较量中,由于各关系中的各因素间的张力消长而形成,又随着各因素间的不断竞争而发生变化,并由此而对整个社会生活发生重要 影响。    因此,福柯 指出:根本不可能存在由统治者垄断的'主权';权力始终都不是由某个人所掌握的资源,也不是由某人发出的力量。权力既不属于某个人,也不属于某个集团。权 力只是在其扩散、中转、网络、相互支持、潜力差异、移动等状态中才存在。正是在这些相互差异的体系中,才能够正确地分析权力,权力本身也才能真正地运作起 来(Foucault, 2003: 6)。权力的运作、夺取和扩大,依靠着真理游戏的开展及其实现过程,而真理游戏又成为权力竞争的重要手段;两者相互依赖、相互交错而连成一体。    为了使权力 的研究不停留于抽象的层面,福柯还深入分析近代社会中各种权力运作的模式及其策略。对于权术策略游戏的分析批判,是福柯真理游戏整个批判战略活动的一个最 重要组成部分,也是他个人的理论和实践的主要内容。如同他自己所说:"当我研究权力的机制,我试图研究的,是它们的特殊性;.....我所力求掌握的,是权力 的实际实施机制(je m'attache à saisir des mécanismes d'exercise effectif de pouvoir)"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 92-92)。    值得指出的 是:福柯的思想是在二十世纪七十年代中期发生了重大变化。因此,他的权力理论也是在这个时期发生重大变化。他从1976年起,一方面在法兰西学院的授课 中,以《必须保卫社会》(Il faut défendre la société)为题,在权力问题上,集中探讨三大论题:(甲)'惩戒的权力'(le pouvoir punitif)(通过像监狱那样的惩罚机关的监视技术、规范性制裁和全方位环形敞视监督系统(système panoptique)等);(乙)生命权力(bio-pouvoir)(通过对于人口、生命和活人的管理控制);(丙)政府统管术 (gouvernementalité)(通过国家理性和警察装置和技术)。另一方面,褔柯开始着手撰写他的《性史》三卷本,打算以'性的论述'为主轴, 深入探讨紧密围绕权力运作而旋转、并始终控制着西方人的'主体化'过程。    为了深入分 析西方社会中的权力运作模式,福柯系统地研究了西方社会史上权力运作模式的变化情况。他发现,由于基督教在整个中世纪时期扮演了非常重要的角色,所以,在 中世纪时期,西方人建构了'基督教教士权力模式',不但用之于其本土范围内,而且也运用于其世界各地的殖民地统治(Foucault, M. 1994: III, 548-549)。这种'基督教教士权力模式'具有非常典型的性质,是进一步研究权力运作逻辑的最好出发点,也是深入揭示基督教性质的关键。    基督教权力 运作模式的主要特点,是将其统治的重点,从单纯的占有领土而转向控制'羊群'(即被统治者、被殖民者);'教士'(统治者),既是'羊群'的导引者、教导 者、管教者,又是惩罚者、持鞭者、规训者,既是最高权威,又是'救世主'、'施恩者'。这种基督教模式,显然把统治和规训的重点放在羊群中的每个个体,试 图使其统治渗透到每一个被统治者身上(Ibid. : 560-564)。    同时,福柯 还注意到:基督教教士权力模式还呈现以下重要特征。第一,其目的是保障将每个人从'另一个世界'中'拯救'(salut)出来。第二,它不只是发出命令和 指令,而且,它还时刻准备为它所统治和引导的人们的生命和获得拯救而做出牺牲。在这一点上,它不同于封建主权式的政权,因为后者只是要求它的被统治者做出 牺牲,特别为保卫王权而牺牲。第三,它不只是关心被统治的共同体的命运,而且还特别关心其中的个人,对个人一生的生命历程负责,关怀他们的每时每刻。第 四,它的统治方式是以了解和掌握每个人的心灵深处的一切思想活动为基础﹔它特别重视对每个被统治的个人的思想变化及其动向,并采取有效措施使被统治的个 人,能够心甘情愿地坦率说出他们心中所想的一切。所以,基督教教士权力模式很重视对被统治者的意识及其思想的控制,善于关怀他们的精神生活,并设计出一整 套适合的方法和技巧,以便正确有效地引导被统治者。由此可见,基督教教士权力模式是拯救式、奉献式和个人自律相结合的权力运作模式,它延伸到被统治者的生 活和生命历程中,也直接连贯到真理的生产与再生产的过程,特别是联系到被统治者个人自身的真理性的问题(Foucault, 1994: IV, 229)。    到了资本主 义时期,基督教模式被全盘继承下来、并以新的科学、理性和民主的观念加以改善,不仅成为西方各国国内统治,也成为其对外殖民统治的基本模式 (Foucault, M. 1994: IV, 137-139; 229-232)。福柯指出﹕"近代国家权力是全面性和总体性的权力形式,正因为这样,它比以往任何时期的权力都具有更强得多的力量。在人类社会历史上, 甚至连中国古代社会在内,都找不到另一种政权,能够比西方近代国家权力更加强而有力﹔在西方的国家权力的政治结构之中,把对于个人的统治技术同对于整体的 宰制程式,结合得如此复杂而巧妙﹗所有这一切,正是由于近代西方国家政权,整合了源自基督教制度的中世纪权力的古老技巧,并以新的政治权力形式,加以发 展。所以,我们就把基督教的权力运用技术,称为基督教教士权力模式"(Foucault, 1994: IV, 229)。    更值得注意 的,是当现代资产阶级接过对社会的统治权时,他们比中世纪的教会更加懂得控制和宰制个人以及统合和协调社会人口整体的重要性。正如福科早在1966年发表 《语词与事物》时所指出的,现代权力和道德的运作,需要与它并行存在的现代知识,也发生相应的变化,这才导致十八世纪至十九世纪知识模式 (épistèmê)的转变,即从原有的语法学、财富学和自然史研究,转变为语言学、政治经济学和生物学。这后两门现代知识,一方面体现了现代资产阶级对 夺取、积累和扩大财富的需要;另一方面则体现了他们对统治和控制有生命的生物,特别是控制能够创造财富的'人'的需要(Foucault, 1966)。因此,当现代政府试图针对资本主义社会的个人自由和社会人口整体进行全面控制的时候,基督教教士权力模式也就自然地成为资本主义社会权力运作 的一个出发点。    在福柯的批 判转向基督教的过程中,可以明显的显示出三个紧密相关的重要问题:第一,就是由基督教所继承和发展的西方从古到今整个文化和思想的核心问题,即关于'主体 化和真理'的问题。第二是基督教本身,作为一个在西方文化传统中产生、并对西方文化的发展扮演重要角色的宗教,不论在教义、教规和教会制度及其同世俗社会 的关系方面,都刻下了明显的西方传统的特征,这就使基督教在很大程度上同其它世界宗教区分开来,而且,也使它始终成为西方社会文化制度及其运作机制的重要 基础。在这方面,在福柯以前,包括马克思、韦伯在内的思想家,都已经从各个角度分析和批判了基督教同西方当代社会和文化的内在关系。第三,福柯以其新尼采 主义为指导,将他对于基督教的批判,从属于他本人的知识考古学、道德和权力系谱学以及生存美学的体系之中,从而显示了福柯的基督教批判的'后结构主义'和 '后现代主义'性质。福柯对基督教的批判并不是孤立进行,而是同他的整个理论兴趣和研究方向有密切关系。所以,福柯对于基督教的批判,一方面突出地将它同 西方文明和思想的核心问题联系在一起,另一方面又揭示基督教在维护和巩固西方社会文化制度方面所扮演的特殊角色,由此显示基督教的性质和特征。    参考资料    1.Foucault, 1966, Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.    2.Foucault, 1994, Dits et écrits. III-IV, Paris: Gallimard.    3.Foucault, 1997, Il faut défendre la société. Paris: Galimard.    4.Foucault, 2001, L'Herméneutique du sujet. Paris: Gallimard.    5.Foucault, 2003, Le pouvoir de psychiatrique. Paris: Gallimard.    6.Rabinow, 1986, The Foucault Reader. New York: Penguin Books.    (*本文原为作者于2004年春在中国社会科学院宗教研究所的演讲稿。)
  16. 高名潞:论毛泽东的大众艺术模式
    艺术 2009/04/07 | 阅读: 1362
    毛泽东的大众艺术并不是一个独特的现象,它可以纳入20世纪艺术发展的整体潮流之中
  17. 高全喜:如何看待美国这个事物?——美国金融危机、英美宪政主义及其中国视角
    政治 2009/09/10 | 阅读: 1771
    本文无意从经济学乃至全球经济的角度对这场危机做一种专业性的分析,而是准备跳出这场危机的场景,从一个现代政制的角度,对这场危机的特性、美国模式及其在中国当今转型时期的作用等问题做一个讨论。
  18. 马小红:中国近代法理学的形成与发展
    法律 2010/05/31 | 阅读: 1716
    1840年,中国被西方的殖民炮火拖入了近代化的历程。与有着数千年历史的古代社会相比,中国近代化的历史是短暂的,自1840年晚清王朝开始,到1912年国民政府的建立,再到1919年"五·四"新文化运动,中国近代的历史不足七十年。被动进入近代的中国,不只是在物质上受到西方武力的掠夺,更重要的是在文化上也失去了"话语权"。一方面,西方社会以西方法律模式为标准评价中国法律,并迫使中国修改律令。历史不幸验证了法国18世纪伟大思想家伏尔泰的预言:"对中国的礼仪地极大误会,产生于我们以我们的习俗为标准来评判他们的习俗,我们要把我们的偏执的门户之见带到世界各地。"[1]另一方面,在亘古未有的变局中,中国的仁人志士为了摆脱民族危机,救亡图存,也努力向西方学习,促使法律尽快地向近代化过度。因此,与西方相比,中国法律近代化的最大特点是制度上的传统模式中断,而法学思想和理论则处在艰难的探索与转变中。一、中国近代社会与法理学(一)中国近代社会的特征史学界一般以1840年作为中国近代历史的开端,因为这一年的鸦片战争使中国开始从一个"天朝"大国沦为割地赔款的半殖民地国家。从中国传统法发展的角度来说,这一划分也不无道理,因为自中英《南京条约》[2]签定后,中国便丧失了司法、关税等独立权。也有人认为中国近代始于1912年清王朝被彻底推翻,中华民国的建立。这一认定同样有它的道理,尤其是从传统法发展的角度上说,1912年以后,无论是制度、还是学理,正统法思想都不再占主导地位。在国际联系日趋密切的背景下,西方法学大量涌入,官方变法亦以西法为模式,传统法呈衰微瓦解之势。1912年孙中山建立的南京临时政府虽仅存三个月,且号令"不出百里",但其毕竟结束了"王朝"的统治,开辟了历史的纪元。无论是以1840年,还是以1912作为中国近代的开端,"近代"都不是中国社会内部发展的需要,不是像欧洲那样在古代社会的基础上,在传统的连接下顺理成章发展而成的。中国是在外界压力下被动进入"近代"社会的,因此中国近代社会首先是一个殖民社会。马克思说"没有希腊文化和罗马帝国所奠定的基础,也就没有现代的欧洲。"[3]我们从西方启蒙学者的著作中可以感受到他们对古希腊、罗马的神往和"复古"的激情。他们用传统抨击现实的黑暗,并为传统而自豪。孟德斯鸠、伏尔泰、魁奈、梅因这些思想的巨擘,虽然学术观点并非一致,但从他们的著作中,人们可以看到一个连接着传统的未来欧洲,毫无疑问,西方启蒙思想家对未来的信心是建立在对传统的信心之上的。而被西方殖民的民族和国家,传统则远没有西方那样幸运,在国土被侵占、财富被掠夺的同时,它们的历史与传统也被冠以"落后文化"之名遭到破坏,五千年文明从未间断的中国也是如此--尽管中国文明的辉煌在汉唐、在宋明,直至在清代的康雍乾盛世是举世公认的。因为在殖民与被殖民的历史进程中,以国力论文化的优劣不仅成为殖民的借口,而且成为学界的准则。19 世纪中后期,当西方用炮火打开了清王朝紧锁的国门时,中国文明随着西方殖民扩张的节节胜利,在一些学者的论著中成为一种怪异、保守、野蛮、恐怖、没有任何生气的"木乃伊"文化,在西方人的眼中,中国的哲学、宗教、法律、科技、甚至语言都处在幼儿时期。1840年以来中国社会的变化,即由古代向近代转变的动力主要来自外力的胁迫,在这场亘古未有的变局面前,在这场被动的变革中,无论是政治家还是思想家都难以保持往日的从容,因为这涉及到民族的生死存亡。变革之初,中弱西强的局面难免使人们对传统失去了信心,传统成为人们憎恶的对象,而向西方寻求"图存"、"图强"的道路成为时尚--这在当时是必然的现象。被动进入近代的中国,在近代伊始,效法西方成为民族生存的必经之途,在抵御、反击西方武力侵略的同时,又必须学习西方社会的经济、政治和文化,以达到富国强兵,救亡图存的目的。此时的人们无暇考虑到对传统的利用和发掘。因此与欧洲社会比较,中国近代社会的最大特征就在于外力的介入断裂的中国的传统。 (二)西学东渐与中国近代法理学的出现1、西学东渐随着欧风西雨涤荡中国,西学在中国的影响也迅速扩大。林则徐被誉为近代中国"睁眼看世界的第一人"。1839年其奉命到广州查禁鸦片,在频繁地处理外事公务中,林则徐敏锐地认识到"西夷"有"长技"可师,其精心组织翻译人员翻译西方的新闻和学术著作,以了解西方社会。1842年,林则徐的挚友魏源在林则徐的支持下完成了划时代的巨著《海国图志》的编篡。《海国图志》是魏源在广泛地搜集、整理、分析了大量的中西有关资料的基础上,系统地介绍世界各国、地区的历史、地理、文化、风俗、制度的著作,魏源批评了一些人"途知侈张中华,未睹寰瀛之大"的愚昧,提出"师夷长技以制夷"[4]《海国图志》开阔了国人的视野,为国人了解西方提供了渠道。更为重要的是其开启了近代中国学习西方的风气,自此,以仿效西学为主要内容的"新学"逐渐兴起,中国的学术无论是从方法论上说,还是从研究对象上说都进入了一个与以往不同的时代。19世纪末至20世纪初,是新学迅速发展时期,一是中日甲午战争加剧了中国人的危机感,效法西方以拯救中华的迫切性已然成为全社会的共识。二是随着国人对西方社会了解的深入,"比较"自然地成为时尚。国人并不满足于只了解西方社会的"现象",而更欲知西方社会现象背后的原因和道理,因此西方社会制度和其制度的学理更为中国人所关注。于是有以梁启超等、严复等为领袖的维新改良思想家将西学更广泛的介绍给国人,并率先以西学的研究方式来研究中国的问题。这也就是近现代中国学术的发端和基础。2、近代中国法学中国近代法学随着西学的涌入,新学的发展而产生。林则徐时,为了处理与西方各国间的关系译成《各国律例》一书,《各国律例》作者为瑞士著名国家法学家滑达尔所作,1758年用法文发表,原名为《国家法,或运用在国家和主权行为和事务上的自然法则》,翌年译为英文,该著风靡西方法学界,成为国际法学的经典著作。林则徐的随员袁德辉与美国传教医师伯驾节录其中的有关章节译为中文,名之为《各国律例》,这是中国第一部关于西方法律方面的专门译著。[5]在翻译和整理西学的过程中,不仅西学的方法影响到中国的学界,西方社会的一些思想、价值观也影响到了中国社会。《海国图志》中,魏源对美国的民主政治赞赏有加:"二十七部酋,分东西两路,而公举一大酋总摄之,匪惟不及世,且不四载即受代,一变古今官家之局,而人心翕然,可不谓公乎?议事听讼,选官举贤,皆自下始。众可可之,众否否之,众好好之,众恶恶之,三占从二,舍独洵同,即在下预议之人,亦由公举,可不谓周乎?"[6]其实从《海国图志》中我们已经可以看出当时中国的有识之士对西方政治制度所依据的"法理"的关注。对西方法学著作的翻译,戊戌变法前,基本上以实用性为主。因为在鸦片战争后,中国在与各国的交涉中深感熟知"国际法"的重要,1864年同文馆译成美国律师惠顿著作《万国公法》,总理衙门曾依据其中的一些原则、条文与外交涉,获得一些成效,故而将其刊印发给各省督抚和通商口岸的地方官员,以资备用。这期间《公法遍览》、《法国律例》(《拿破仑法典》)等也陆续译成。中日甲午战争,中国的失败加剧了民族的危机,此时的法学研究动向有两点值得我们关注:一是以康有为、梁启超、严复等为首的维新改良思想家,不再满足于对西方法律知识的了解及运用这些知识在一事一案中的小有所获,他们期望通过全面的社会变革拯救中国。对于法律也是如此,他们更渴望了解西方法律的原理并以此为指导,建立在中国建立起西方式的民主政治制度。戊戌变法的失败与清朝廷的立宪修活动更是从不同的方面刺激了中国社会对西方法学的渴求。于是20世纪初,法学译著不仅显著增加,而且学理性的著者远远多于知识性的介绍,《国法学》、《民约论》(《社会契约论》)、《万法精理》(《论法的精神》)、《法学通论》等纷纷译成。1898至1909年,仅严复的译书就有赫胥黎《天演论》(1898)、亚当·斯密《原富》(1902)、斯宾塞《群学肄言》(1903)、约翰·穆勒《群己权界论》(1903)、甄克斯《社会通诠》(1904)、孟德斯鸠《法意》(1904--1909)、约翰·穆勒《名学》(1905)、耶方斯《名学浅说》(1909)八种。这些译著系统的介绍了西方社会政治、经济、法学之"学理"。二是清朝廷下诏"预备立宪"并任命沈家本、伍廷芳为修订法律大臣,主持法律的修订。"宪政"为舶来品自不待言,修律的宗旨也是将现行的法律体例、条文"近代化",律例合一的法律形式通过修订也改为部门法的体系。总之,通过修律,中国法律起码在形式和语言上应该与西法相统一。于是,在沈家本主持的修订法律馆中,考察西方制度、翻译各国的法典、法规成为主要的一项工作。西学传入中国,形成了中国近代的法学,在翻译西方的法学著作时,译者每每有精彩的序言和评述(如严复《法意》按语),其中也有为数不多的学者学习西方的法学方法开始了近代的法学研究,诸如梁启超1896年写成的《论中国宜讲求法律之学》、1898年写成的《立宪法议》、1900年写成的《法理学大家孟德斯鸠之学说》、《近世文明初祖二大家之学说》、1904年写成的《中国法理学发达史论》、《论中国成文法编制之沿革得失》等。但是我们可以看到清朝末年中国近代的法学确实是舶来品,如有的学者所指出的那样:"中国近代有法学。但是基本没有自己的法学,即没有中国人用中国语言,以中国的社会为背景,融合中外法理,阐述中国近代的法学。"[7]3、中国近代的法理学即使今日,学界对"法理学"的定义也并非确定,沈宗灵主编的《法理学》教材中认为:"法理学,即以前所称的'法学基础理论',是法学的一门主要理论学科,是法律教育的基础课程之一。它所研究的是法的一般理论,特别是有关我国社会主义法的基本理论。""在西方各国,相应学科或课程一般称为'法律哲学'或'法理学',也有的称为'法学理论'。在前苏联和某些东欧国家,将国家和法两个现象结合起来研究,称为'国家与法的理论'。"[8]葛洪义主编的《法理学》在叙述了"法理学"一词语源和不同法系对其不同的命名后,总结道:"法理学研究的对象主要是法和法学的一般原理(哲理)、基本的法律原则、基本概念和制度以及这些法律制度的运行的机制。"作者引用当代英国法学家哈里斯的话深入浅出地介绍了法理学的研究内容:"法是干什么的?它要达到什么目的?我们应当尊重法吗?如何对法加以改良?法是可有可无的吗?谁(有权)创制法?我们从何处去寻找法?法与道德、正义、政治、社会实践或者与赤裸裸的暴力之间有什么关系?我们应当遵守法吗?法是为谁服务的?等等,这些都是一般法理学所应包含的内容。"[9]通过对中国近代法学形成的梳理,我们可以发现近代中国法学具有这样几个特点:第一,近代法学的形成发端于与西方各国交涉的需要,所以国际法为其先导。第二,近代法学首重实用,在清末修律过程中,部门法的译著和著书要远远多于法学理论方面的译著和著书。当我们翻阅《中国大百科全书·法学》[10]所收录的近代"人物"时,可以发现国国际法学家、宪法学家、行政法学家、行法学家、民法学家、法律史学家等等,"法学家"的研究中包括了对法理的研究,但却未能专列出"法理学家"。更为引人关注的是1984年出版的《中国大百科全书·法学》在"条目分类目录"中,没有"法理"类,而法的一般理论类的条目以"法"冠名。由此看出,法理学的研究在近代法学研究中实为薄弱之处,即使到了民国时期要寻找近代中国系统的法理学论著也并非易事。沈宗灵主编《法理学(第二版)》这样归纳了近代中国法理学的发展:"在1949年以前的旧中国,法学不受重视,法学专业的基础理论尤其不受重视。高等法律院系中开设有'法学通论'、'法理学'之类的课程,多半属于选修课。'法理学'主要讲授一些西方的法律派别,尤其是社会学法学的学说。'法学通论'一般讲授关于法的性质、作用、渊源、分类、效力、适用、权利、义务、制裁等问题的观点。在多数'法学通论'中,除以上问题,还简单的论述宪法、民法、刑法和诉讼法的基本内容。"[11]然而,无论系统的法理学在近代中国发展如何滞后,其都不可能对从西方舶来的法律制度以及这些制度中出现的新名词、新观念置若罔闻,况且经康有为等戊戌变法后,立宪、法治、权利、义务等新名词成为人们标新立异的流行语言,再经孙中山的共和革命,民主、民生、平等、分权等也深入人心,当时的政治家、思想家和学者不能不对已经变化了的法制进行阐释,也不能不对法治的新观念进行探讨。民国时期,中国学者以近代法学研究的方法对法的语源、概念、本质、功能的研究已经较清末以译文为主的状况有所改观,[12]而对西方法学流派和著作的介绍、翻译也有了长足的发展。就法理学的发展而言,近代中国有两个阶段:一是晚清(1840年至1911年)。随着民族危机的加深,维新派力倡变法图强,他们对西方的宪政制度和宪政理念情有独钟,在主张立宪的同时,他们对"法"有了不同于古代的诠释。维新改良失败后,清朝廷也开始了法律的变革,这次变革以西方法律为模式,瓦解了传统法律制度。在变革法律制度过程中,维护传统法理的礼教派与主张西方法理的法理派多有论战,其中"礼法之争"中涉及到的法律与道德问题也是中国近代以来法理研究所关注的基本问题。晚清中国古代法律在十几年间迅速瓦解,仿效西方的法律制度与体系在中国不仅缺乏传统的支持,而且"法理"的准备也明显不足。二是民国时期(1912年至1949年)。随着法律变革与发展,法理滞后的状况逐步改善。随着王朝时代的结束,中西文化由以冲撞为主变为融合,西方法理的影响也日益广泛。民国的缔造者孙中山的"五权宪法"理论充分体现了"法观念"的历史转折,即法从服务于君主到法服务于民众。此时,马克思主义关于法律的理论论述也传入中国,成为指导中国共产党建立的革命根据地政权的法律理论。与晚清时期的法理相比,民国时期的法理对西方法理学有了更深入和全面的理解,对传统法理也有了一定程度的肯定,并努力探索着中西法理的融合之路。 二、晚清时期的法理(一)维新改良派的法理主张维新改良派的领袖人物梁启超、严复并不是专门的法学家,但是他们最先较为彻底地摆脱了传统法理的约束,将法视为独立的学科而加以研究。在引进西方法理学,批判传统法律,开创中国近代法理学研究方面其功不可没。改良思想家的法理集近代以来人们法律观念变革之大成,建立在以西方法理系统地批判传统法观念的基础之上。1、对传统法的批判梁启超曾这样总结过中国近代社会变革的过程。"第一期,先从器物上感觉不足","于是,福建船政学堂,上海制造局等等渐次设立起来。""第二期,是从制度上感觉不足","所以拿'变法维新'作一面大旗,在社会上开始运动。""第三期,便从文化根本上感觉不足。"[13]这一总结被奉为经典。维新改良派的法理主张也是从认识中国法"不足"开始的。与明末清初启蒙思想家对传统的批判不同,改良思想家对传统的批判是以西学为武器的,他们通过"比较"的方法指出中国法的"缺陷"并主张效仿西法。如果说启蒙思想家对传统的批判是基于对现实的否定,而对未来则处在探索中。那么改良思想家对传统的批判则多是在与西方的比较中产生的,其对未来有着明确的目标。在与西方法律的比较中,梁启超认为中国法律的不足如下:第一、"法律之种类不完备":而私法部分全付阙如,更是中国法律最大的不幸。因为私法的阙如,民众所应具有的"权利"在法律中无法体现,因此法律对普通的民众而言只有约束,而缺乏保护,由此造成民众对法律的畏惧,而不能像私法发达的西方那样"人民之乐有法律,且尊重法律也。"与西方相比,中国的"公法"也不完善,因为"国家根本组织之宪法,未能成立也。",而无宪法,则无法进入法治国。第二、"法律之固定性太过":梁启超认为,无论怎样杰出的思想家和立法者都不可能制定出万世不变并与社会发展完全相符的法律,因此变法是每一个时代的必然之举。西方社会每每及时变法,用心立法,使社会的发展与立法事业相辅相成,所以社会日益进步,"国民幸福,遂以日增"。而中国"法律与社会两者俱成静止之形,殆如僵尸,毫无生气。""法典之复旧,与社会之麻木,两者相递为因,相递为果"。第三、"法典之题材不完善":梁启超认为,中国法律因缺乏学理的指导而"范围不确立"、"主义不一贯"、"纲目无秩序"。范围不确立表现为主法、助法的界限无严格区分,应入于主法的条款常常入于助法中,因而削弱了法律的效力;应入于助法的条款又常常入于主法中,因而使法律体系凌乱破碎,难以适用。主义不一贯表现为对学理的采用基本处在无意识状态中。而西方法典编纂,必先确定主义。比如宪法,取国家主义,还是君主主义,或民主主义。民法取家族主义,还是个人主义等等。主义不一贯则会造成法条文意矛盾,执法者无所是从的局面。纲目无秩序表现为将法作为"头痛炙头,脚痛炙脚"的工具,而无法体会到法律的"大原则"。第四、"法典之文体不适宜":梁启超吸纳了英国法学家边沁的思想,认为法律的言辞文体,即法律的术语必须具备"明"(简明易懂)、"确"(表达准确)和"弹性力"(法律条文有可容解释之余地)三要素。与西法相比,中国法律"'明'则有之,而'确'与'弹性力'皆甚缺乏",而"确"与"弹性力"缺乏的原因是中国律令条文所含学理不丰富造成的。梁启超在对传统法的批判中,强调了"学理"对于立法的重要性,法本身之善恶、其对社会之作用皆在于"理"。从西方法学引进的以"权利"为核心的法在梁启超的法理主张中得到了充分的肯定和赞扬。2、法以"权利"为核心权利,在中国古代意为"权势及财货"。《辞源》引《荀子·君道》、《史记》等为证。中国近代文献中,"权利"一词最早出现于1865年美国传教士丁韪良翻译的美国法学家惠顿的《万国公法》中:"国使之权利,皆出于公议"等。《万国公法》中虽然没有对"权利"明确定义,但其显然不是指"权势及财货",而具有近代的"正当利益"的含义。[14]维新改良思想家接受了"权利"观念的转变,认为无论国家还是个人所具有的正当利益都是天所赋予的,而法的核心和作用正是确认并保护这些"正当利益"。严复言:"彼西人之言曰:惟天生民,各具赋予得自由者乃为全受,故人人各得自由,国国各得自由,第勿令相侵损而已。"[15]"刑禁章条"应该是为维护这种天赋的权利而设。梁启超不仅将侵犯损害他人的自由视为犯罪,而且将放弃自由权利也视为不可饶恕的犯罪。因为"苟天下无放弃自由之人,则必无侵人自由之人。"[16]为维护正当利益,维新思想家鼓励人们摒弃"以德报怨"及以"忍让"为美德的传统,指出中国人不懂得珍惜自己的权利,随意放弃自己的正当利益,造成了中国人的"奴性":"遇势力之强于己者,始而让之,继而畏之,终而媚之。"[17]梁启超对以"权利"为核心的"新法律"寄予厚望:"权利思想愈发达,则人人务为强者,强与强相遇,权与权相衡,于是平和善美之新法律乃成。"[18]即使统治者"欲为不仁而不可得也,权在我者也。"[19]法以权利为核心,法的概念则有了全新的改变。1904年,梁启超写成《中国法理学发达史论》和《论中国成文法编制之沿革得失》,[20]在这两篇论著中,"法"被赋予了新的含义。梁启超主张全面拓展"法"的含义,使其与西方以"正义"为追求的法相连接。梁启超认为法有七层含义:一为平直、制裁;二为准则;三为均布;四为古训;五为秩序;六为"中正平均为体用";七为规范。这些含义的中心在于法应是公意的体现。3、"先开制度局而变法律",而变法律则"抽象的法理最为要也"。维新改良派的变法主张有两点不同于以往,一是对法律的格外重视,将法律的变革视为社会变革的先导,这一点显然是受西方社会崇尚法治的影响所致。二是主张社会的根本变革,即由君主制变为立宪制,再渐次进入民主制。康有为、梁启超在戊戌变法时批判当时清廷洋务派对西方"得其貌,失其真;慕其名,失其实"的所谓仿效,他们主张对传统进行彻底改革,要求"变法"而不仅仅只满足于"变事"。康有为明言:"今数十年诸臣所言变法者,率皆略变其一端,而未尝筹及全体。又所谓变法者,须自制度法律先为改定,乃谓之变法。今所言变者是变事耳,非变法也。臣请皇上变法,须先统筹全局而全变之,又请先开制度局而变法律,乃有益也。"[21]统筹全局的变法是康、梁维新所要达到的目的,而"先开制度局变法律"则说明了法律在变法中举足轻重的地位。维新改良派的"变法"有以下内容:第一、用君主立宪制取代君主独裁制。立宪派认为,与西方君主立宪制度相比,中国的君主专制制度犹如黑暗的地狱,"二千年来君臣一伦,尤为黑暗否塞,无复人理。"[22]"直无一法一政,足被记录,徒兹人愤懑而已。"[23]解决专制黑暗的唯一途径是效仿西方实施"君民共治"的君主立宪政体。康有为主张设议院、开国会,行三权分立。戊戌变法不仅震动了政界和学界,而且在国民中普及了宪政观念,启发了民权意识。民权意识的增长是戊戌变法失败后,清朝廷不得不继续变法的原因之一。第二、以现代的平等观取代传统的等级观念。立宪派接受了西方"天赋人权"的学说,并将中国传统的"性相近也,习相远也"的人性观附会于此。与传统的"平等"观不同,立宪派所宣扬的平等并不否定竞争,而是把平等同"鼓民力,开民智,新民德"相联系。在康有为描绘的理想的"大同之世"中仍然有"大富人"的存在。这种以西方理论为指导的平等,破除了中国数千年以礼教为立法指导思想的传统,破除了"三纲五常"的束缚。第三、以西方法取代传统法。立宪派之所以主张变法首先从变法律始,是因为在中西文化的比较中,中西法文化的差异格外引人注目。早期改良派马建忠在给洋务派李鸿章的信中说到:原本以为欧洲之强"专在制造之精,兵纪之严",后来到了法国"披及律例,考其文事,而知其讲富者以护商为本,求强者以得民心为要。"[24]康有为在游历香港时也敏锐的察觉到西人治国有法度,不可将其视为古代的狄夷。康有为主张改变传统的律典体系,仿效西方的法律制度,分别制定民律、刑律、商法、币则、讼律、军律等等。这些主张为清末的修律奠定了理论基础。改良维新派主张设"制度局"以变革法律,而法律的变革必须有学理可循,在《中国法理学发达史论》中,梁启超言:"在诸法樊然淆乱之国,而欲助长立法事业,则非求法理于法文之外。""一理之明,一法之立,必验之物物事事而皆然,而后定之为不易。""居今日之中国而治法学,则抽象的法理其最要也。"(二)、沈家本"会通中西"的法理主张传统的法律体系在世纪初清政府进行的"修律"中瓦解,西方的法律体系被迅速移植。1902年至1911年在日本专家的协助下,清政府制定了《大清新刑律》、《大清民律草案》、《商人通例》、《公司律》、《违警律》、《结社集会律》及《刑事诉讼律草案》、《民事诉讼律草案》、《各级审判厅试办章程》等。清政府甚至预备在中国实行君主立宪政体,颁发了《宣示预备立宪谕》及"宪法大纲"、《宪法重大信条十九条》等。经过19世纪后半叶与西方的冲突及戊戌变法,变君主专制为君主立宪已成为全社会的共识,而清末修律正是这种共识的产物。让我们先来看被学界称为"顽固派"或"保守派"的清朝廷的态度:1900年八国联军攻入北京,慈禧太后率朝臣西逃,逃亡途中以光绪名义颁诏罪己。在诏书中透露出"欲求振作,须议更张"的变革之意,并要求"军机大臣、大学士、六部九卿、出使各国大臣、各省都督各就现在情形,参酌中西要政,举凡朝章国故"而"各举所知,各抒己见。"[25]无论是迫于国际的压力,还是为了平息国内的舆论,此时的清朝廷已经放弃了"宁失祖宗之地,不变祖宗之法"的信条,变法的意向已经十分明确。从后来修律过程来看,清朝廷的"变法"之举也并非敷衍。再来看被人们称为"礼教派"、在"礼法之争"中扮演了保守派角色的张之洞等人的态度:张之洞是洋务运动晚期的主将,他的思想核心是"中学为体,西学为用。"清末修律的发起与他有直接的关系。在著名的《江楚会奏变法》的第二折中,他与刘坤一提出了整顿刑律的九点主张,又提出制定"矿律"、"路律"、"商律"、"交涉律"的建议。建议被采纳后,又联名保举"久在秋曹,刑名精熟"的沈家本和"练习洋务,西律专家"伍廷芳主持修律。朝廷与"礼教派"的态度尚且如此,其他各派主张"变革"的急切心情当然自不待言。然而,"必须变法"的共识并没有弥合人们对"如何变法"不同主张的对立,这就是在修律过程中产生"礼法之争"的原因。被称为"法理派"的沈家本、伍廷芳等人主张不仅要仿效西法的条文体例,而且要吸纳西方法理的学理。而礼教派认为旧律的条文规章可以模仿西方修订,但旧律体现的礼教精神和国情必须于新律中得到再现,而不是消亡。这是一场"主义"之争:"新刑律为采取世界最新之学理,与我国旧律统系及所持主义不同,故为我国'礼教派'所反对。"[26]这场争论的一个基本内容是:新律要不要,或怎样体现传统的精神,或在多大的程度吸纳西学。礼教派认为传统有可变与不可变之处,同样西法也有可学与不可学之分。就传统而言:"夫不可变者,伦纪也,非法制也;圣道也,非器械也;心术也,非工艺也。"[27]与此相应,有违伦纪、圣道、心术的西方法学原理不可学,而西方分别民法、刑法的部门法体系及监狱制度等则可以模仿。张之洞明言中国"必改用西法","孔孟之教乃能久存";但是"知君臣之纲则民权之说不可行也,知父子之纲则父子同罪免丧废祀之说不可行也,知夫妇之纲则男女平权之说不可行也。"[28]礼教派修律的理想境界是西方的某些制度与中国传统的精神合一。而法理派明言采纳西方"最新之学说"的同时,也一再申明修律的宗旨并不违背中国的传统。法理派的总的构想是运用西方的一些法学理论改造中国法律,以追随世界潮流,以达到融合中西的境界。沈家本对对于中西法律的总结是这样的:"大抵中说多出于经验,西学多本于学理。不明学理,则经验者无以会其通,不习经验,则学理无以证其是,经验与学理,正两相需也。"[29]融合中西,始终是沈家本所追求的目标。 三、民国时期的法理(一)、孙中山"五权宪法"的法理基础在立宪派转向传统时,以孙中山为首的民主共和派则从戊戌变法的失败中得出了另外的教训,即中国的变革不能走改良之路,立宪理论不适合中国的国情。所以,共和派对清朝廷的立宪与修律的举动另有一番深刻的见解。他们认为清朝廷的立宪不过是在内外压力下的一场骗局。针对立宪派的"开明专制"和对传统的回归,共和派提出了相反的见解,即通过革命的方式推翻清朝廷的统治,建立民主共和国。但就法理而言,共和派与立宪派并无大的分歧。梁启超在《中国法理学发达史论》中认为法有七种含义,即"平直、制载";"准则";"均布";"古训";秩序;"中正平均为体用";规范。这种法的概念不仅被共和派所接受,而且有所发展。但是,共和派的一个突出特点就是在吸收西方法律学说时并不盲从,与戊戌时的立宪派相比,他们更为冷静。孙中山"五权宪法"的构想就是在分析了西方社会三权分立的弊病时提出的。在谈到法律问题时共和派不仅注重到法应该包含怎样的内容,而且注重到法律应该体现怎样的精神和发挥怎样的作用。孙中山明确指出:法律,尤其是宪法应该是民意的体现,权力应当受到法律的制约。在就任南京临时政府大总统短短的三个月的时间中,孙中山下达了一系列保障民权和社会改革的法令并确立了民主共和的政体。在南北议和达成协议,孙中山卸任之前,经参议院决议后颁布了《中华民国临时约法》,对总统权力做了进一步的限制。民主派兴起之时,西方资产阶级社会的黑暗面开始日益暴露:资本主义社会中的贫富差别、资产阶级对殖民地的残酷掠夺、世界性的战争等等。立宪派此时虽然仍坚持君主立宪的主张,但已开始向传统回归。所以立宪派反对在中国实行民主派提倡的民主共和制度。而民主派虽然坚持民主共和的立场,但也开始注意到对传统文化的吸取。孙中山对西方社会的法律、制度、文化进行了比较,并力图寻找出中国落后于西方的原因和中国的出路。孙中山认为,中国要摆脱贫困落后必须追随世界的潮流,实行法治。但在效法西方的同时也必须注意到西方已出现的社会弊病,以避免同样的问题出现于中国。第一、孙中山在改革传统法时注意到对西方理论的深入理解和运用。他认为中国的出路在民主共和制度的确立,而民主共和制度确立的基础是近代化的法治:"国与天地,必有与立,民主政治赖以维系不敝者,其根本存于法律,而机枢在于国会。必全国有共同遵守之大法,斯政治之举措有常规;必国会能自由行使其职权,斯法律之效力能永固。所谓民治,所谓法治,其大本要旨在此。"[30]要实行法治,就必须改造传统的人治观念。孙中山认为在民主共和的国家中为了保障人民的权益,必须以法律的是非为是非,"只可以人就法,不可以法就人。"[31]传统的人治思想是为帝王张目的,是古代社会战乱频繁的原因。因为"君主专制国家,因人而治,所谓一正君而天下定。数千年来,只求正君之道,不思长治之方。而君之正,不可数数见,故治常少,而乱常多。"[32]只有民主与法治才能弥补贤人政治的缺陷,才能保证国家长治久安。同时,孙中山认为法治也有局限性,如因受政治影响,法律有时在现实执行中会悖于公理,而且法律无法穷尽世间之事,因此在建立法治国家的同时,国民不能放弃道德的追求。治理国家既要服从法律,也要"风以道德",[33]而且道德应成为判断法律优劣的标准。但是"风以道德"须在民主法治的原则下实现,而不是在人治中实现。运用西方法学的理论,孙中山重新解释了权势与法律的关系。他认为法治国家的最高目标是保障人民的权利,因而法律是人民意志的体现。权势或权力只是执行法律的一种手段,法治国家中"权"与"法"的关系应该是"法律者,治之体也;权势者,治之用也。"[34]这种法律为体,权势为用的思想颠倒了以往几千年的法与权的关系,从理论上说法律从此成为人们的理想,而不再是皇帝的御用工具。第二、孙中山吸纳西方学说时也注意到了对中国的优良传统的发掘。孙中山认为西方的社会并不是一个完美的社会。他注意到"英国财富多于前代不止数千倍,人民的贫穷,甚于前代也不止数千倍,并且富者极少,贫者极多。"[35]西方出现的社会问题使孙中山认识到西方资本主义的法治理论也存在着缺陷,三权分立的体制缺乏官员选拔的规则,难以保证议员及官吏的素质。而且在行政运作中,政府受议员的挟制,动辄得咎,有形成议员专制的倾向。因此孙中山反对照搬西方制度,认为要建立一个真正的理想的共和国,必须用中国的优良传统弥补西方理论的不足。在此基础上,孙中山提出了"五权宪法"的理论。即立法、司法、行政、考试、监察五权分立,互相制衡。五权宪法的理论显然吸收了中国传统的考试和监察制度。孙中山欲用考试制度保障官吏的素质,以杜绝一些愚昧无知的人通过各种手段当选为议员或成为政府的官员。考试权的独立是防止官场腐败无能的第一步。监察权的独立则是分议会之权,使议员亦不能随心所欲。它可以防止议员贿赂选民,挟公济私,掣肘政府。同时也有利于对官吏的监督,防止官吏利用职权进行非法活动。从立宪派主张三权分立到孙中山提出"五权宪法",中国的思想家、政治家对西方的学说由崇拜开始逐渐转向甄别。对传统文化也从彻头彻尾的批判开始逐渐转向较为冷静的反思。(二)马克思主义法理与中国共产党对法律的认识1、马克思主义法理马克思主义法学形成于19世纪中叶,法国学者亨利·莱维·布律尔在《法理社会学》中这样介绍了马克思法学:"将近19世纪中期,由于两位德国思想家马克思和恩格斯的出现,一种崭新的法律观诞生了。这一法律观彻底区别于以前的所有法理学说。......马克思和恩格斯是两位社会改革家,他们继承的是英法社会主义者的传统,......尽管卡尔·马克思曾攻读于柏林大学法律系,但他们首先是经济学家。马克思同时也是哲学家。他曾一度被黑格尔的学说所吸引,而他(马克思)对于法律的想法在一定程度上这是得到了这位导师(黑格尔)的启发。"[36]马克思主义的法理即吸收了前人法学研究的成果,也深刻地批判了各法学派的偏见并指出了他们的局限性。马克思主义法理主要包含了两个内容:第一、法律与国家政权相辅相成,都是历史发展的产物,其随着人类社会的发展而产生,也必将随着人类社会的发展而消亡。但是,社会主义政党并布放弃法的要求。恩格斯在《法学家社会主义》中说:"活动着的社会主义政党,象所有政党一样,没有这种法的要求是不行的。某一阶段为了实现依据共同利益所提出的要求,只有通过夺取政权,并以法律形式使其要求具备普遍约束的效力。"[37]第二、以往的法是统治者意志的体现,而这种意志最终决定于物质生活条件。马克思言:"我的研究得出这样一个结论,就是法律关系,如同国家形式一样,既不能从它们本身来理解,也不能用所谓人类精神的一般发展来解释,恰恰相反,它们是根源于物质生活关系。"[38]马克思、恩格斯关于法的论述,虽然为西方主流学派所排挤,但马克思、恩格斯对法学的贡献却是世所公认的。正如亨利·莱维·布律尔在《法律社会学》中所论述的那样:"必须承认,马克思主义法律学说是对法律科学的一大贡献,其贡献不在于该学说的法律观本身--这种法律观似乎是难以接受的,而在于该学说所完成的批判工作,这一工作恰好与历史法学派的批判工作殊途同归,共同推翻它们以前的各种学派所坚信的法律规定的所谓理性基础。马克思主义法律学说的有力贡献还在于剥去了法律的神圣外衣,甚至可以说,破除了法律的神秘力量,使人们得以把它作为社会生活的一项正常内容,人们能够、也必须像考察整个社会其他现象,诸如艺术、语言等现象那样来考察它。从此,道路开辟了,对于法律事实可以有实际的概念,这正是社会法学派所公开主张的概念。"[39]马克思、恩格斯的法学理论,将人们对法的价值的理论论述引向对法的实事的科学考察,这一道路的开辟,不仅丰富了原本就底蕴厚重的西方法学理论,而且通过批判也使西方法理学说产生了实质性的进步。2、马克思主义法学在中国的发展1919年俄国十月革命,马克思列宁主义传播到中国,马克思主义的法学也逐渐传入并为中国共产党所实践。值得注意的是,马克思主义传入中国的时候,中国正面临着巨大的民族危机,马克思对中国遭遇的深切同情和对西方资本主义贪婪与虚伪的揭露,自然在中国社会各个阶层引起强烈的共鸣。1924年,孙中山在国民党第一全国代表大会上作《中国国民党第一次代表大会宣言》,其中有这样一段话:"近世所谓各国民权制度,往往为资产阶级所专有,适成为压迫平民之工具。若国民党民权主义,则为一般平民所共有,非少数人所得而私也。"毛泽东非常的赞赏这一"民权"为"平民所共有"的主张,在1940年的《新民主主义论》、《新民主主义的宪政》、1949年《论人民民主专政》中反复引用。[40]毛泽东指出,以蒋介石为首的国民党背叛了这个宣言。毛泽东总结了近代中国学习西方的过程,说:"自从1840年鸦片战争失败那时起,先进的中国人,经过千辛万苦,向西方国家寻找真理......帝国主义的侵略打破了中国人学西方的迷梦。很奇怪,为什么先生老师侵略学生呢?中国人向西方学得很不少,但是行不通,理想总是不能实现。多次奋斗,包括辛亥革命那样全国规模的运动,都失败了。国家的情况一天一天坏,环境迫使人们活不下去。怀疑产生了,发展了,增长了。第一次世界大战震动了全世界。俄国人举行了十月革命,创立了世界上第一个社会主义国家......中国人从思想到生活,才出现理论一个崭新的时期。中国人找到了马克思列宁主义这个放之四海而皆准的普遍真理,中国的面貌就起了变化了。""就是这样,西方资产阶级的文明,资产阶级的民主主义,资产阶级共和国的方案,在人们的心目中一起破了产"[41]毛泽东对中国近代史的总结,有两点值得注意,一是历史证明马克思主义是拯救中国的唯一之"主义";二是中国马克思主义的民权观区别于西方,其吸取了孙中山的"平民所共有"的思想,主张宪法与法律服务于大多数人,即劳苦大众。同时鉴于当时中国共产党发展的艰难而残酷的环境,共产党对法律的"专政"职能格外重视,毛泽东说:"军队、警察、法庭等项国家机器,是阶级压迫阶级的工具。对于敌对的阶级,它是压迫的工具,它是暴力,并不是什么'仁慈'的东西。"[42]毛泽东的宪政思想和法律主张成为陕甘宁边区革命根据地抗日民主政权立法的指导思想,也成为1949年中华人民共和国成立后,法理之渊源。   [1] 伏尔泰著《风俗论》,上册,商务印书馆1995年,第221页。[2] 参见《近代史资料》,1957年第1期,第125页。[3] 《马克思恩格斯选集》,第3卷,第220页,人民出版社1972年版。[4] 参见《海国图志·筹海篇》。[5] 参见熊月之著《西学东渐与晚清社会》,第224-225页,上海人民出版社1994年版。[6] 《海国图志》(百卷本)卷五十九《外大西洋墨利加洲总叙》[7] 李贵连著《近代中国法制与法学》,第233页,北京大学出版社2002年版。[8]沈宗灵主编《法理学》(第二版),第20页,北京大学出版社2003年版。[9] 葛洪义主编《法理学》,第9页,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。[10] 中国大百科全书出版社1984年版。[11]沈宗灵主编《法理学》(第二版),第20页,北京大学出版社2003年版。[12] 近代中国法理学研究状况参见张骐《继承与超越--二十世纪前半叶中国法理学回顾论纲》,载《中外法学》2000年1期;孙育玮《中国法理学的世纪回顾》,载《上海师范大学学报(哲社版)》2003年4期;何勤华《中国近代法理学的诞生与成长》,载《中国法学》2005年3期。[13] 参见《五十年中国进化概论》,载《饮冰室合集》,第5册,中华书局1989年版。[14] 关于近代"权利"一词的出现与定义,参见李贵连《话说"权利"》,载《近代中国法制与法学》,北京大学出版社2002年版;俞江著《近代中国民法学中的私权理论》,第83-98页,北京大学出版社2003年版。[15] 《严几道文抄·卷二·论世变之亟》。[16] 《自由书·放弃自由之罪》,载《饮冰室合集》,第6册,中华书局1989年版。[17] 《新民学·第八节·论权利思想》,载《饮冰室合集》,第6册,中华书局1989年版。[18] 《新民学·第八节·论权利思想》,载《饮冰室合集》,第6册,中华书局1989年版。[19] 《严译名著丛刊·孟德斯鸠法意》,(上册),第258页,商务印书馆1981年版。[20] 载《饮冰室合集》第2册,中华书局1989年版。[21] 《康海南自编年谱》,载《戊戌变法》第4册,上海神州国光社1953年版。[22] 《致汪康年》,载蔡尚思、方行编《谭嗣同全书(增订本)》下册,中华书局1990年版。[23] 《仁学》,载蔡尚思、方行编《谭嗣同全书(增订本)》下册,中华书局1990年版。[24] 《适可斋记言记行》。[25] 《德宗景皇帝实录四七六》。[26] 《法政浅说报》第十一期,宣统二年(1910年)。[27] 《张文襄公全集·劝学篇》。[28] 《张文襄公全集·劝学篇》。[29] 沈家本《王穆伯佑新著无冤录序》,载《历代刑法考四》,中华书局1984年版。[30] 《大元帅辞职临行通知》,载《孙中山全集》第4卷,中华书局1985年版。[31] 《接见国会议员代表的讲话》,载《孙中山全集》第4卷,中华书局1985年版。[32] 《元旦布告》,载《孙中山全集》第4卷。中华书局1985年版。[33] 《批林修梅书》,载《孙中山全集》第5卷,中华书局1985年版。[34] 《驳保皇书》,载《孙中山全集》,第1卷,中华书局1981年版。[35] 《三民主义与中国前途》,载《孙中山选集》上卷,人民出版社1981年版。[36] 亨利·莱维·布律尔著《法律社会学》,许钧译,第15页,上海人民出版社1987年版。[37] 《马克思恩格斯论国家和法》,第104页,群众出版社1958年版。[38] 《马克思恩格斯论国家和法》,第1页,群众出版社1958年版。[39] 《法律社会学》,第17页,许钧译,上海人民出版社1987年版。[40] 《毛泽东选集》,第637、691、1414页,人民出版社1966年版,中国人民解放军战士出版社翻印,1967年版。[41] 《论人民主主专政》,载《毛泽东选集》,人民出版社1966年版,中国人民解放军战士出版社翻印,1967年版。[42] 《论人民主主专政》,载《毛泽东选集》,人民出版社1966年版,中国人民解放军战士出版社翻印,1967年版。《论人民主主专政》,载《毛泽东选集》,人民出版社1966年版,中国人民解放军战士出版社翻印,1967年版。《论人民主主专政》,载《毛泽东选集》,人民出版社1966年版,中国人民解放军战士出版社翻印,1967年版。 参考文献:熊月之著《西学东渐与晚清社会》,上海人民出版社1994年版。俞江著《近代中国民法学中的私权理论》,北京大学出版社2003年版。《法律社会学》,上海人民出版社1987年版。李贵连著《近代中国法制与法学》,北京大学出版社2002年版。沈宗灵主编《法理学》(第二版),北京大学出版社2003年版。葛洪义主编《法理学》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。 
  19. 马小红:中国古代社会的法理学
    法律 2010/05/31 | 阅读: 1468
    中国古代法思想的内容十分丰富,对一些具体问题和制度也有细致入微的论述--如肉刑、复仇、大赦及律令例的相互关系、立法变法的具体程序、法言法语的准确表达及一些具体条文的更改等等。梁启超曾作《中国法理学发达史论》[1]将中国古代法理研究的内容分为:"法之起因"、"法字之语源"、"旧学派关于法之观念"、"法治主义之发生"四个方面。其中,旧学派法之观念主述儒家、道家、墨家法思想,法治主义主述法家法思想及法家与儒道墨诸家的异同。梁启超的论述开启了以现代法学方法研究古代法思想的先河,但是这种现代法学研究方法继受西学,又处在开创时期,有些概念,尤其是新创或从西学中借用的概念,比如法理学、法治、主义等等难免差强人意。又将研究的重点放在先秦诸子的"治国"之术上,比如儒家的"礼治主义"、"人治主义";道家的"放任主义";法家的"法治主义"、"势治主义"等。梁启超的研究虽开时代风气,但也给人留下了缺憾(缺少秦以后的时代)。如果用现在的法理学研究内容分析中国古代法思想,我们可以归纳出中国古代法理研究的主要内容集中在两个方面,一是法与自然的关系,二是法与人的关系(法于人性、法与道德、法治与人治)。而法的概念、本质、特征、体系、作用等则都是在对这两者关系的论述中涉及到的。因为中国古人以"实事求是"的形象或经验思维方式为主,所以,在思想家、学派的理论体系中,没有一成不变的"概念"。对相同的事务,从不同的角度去考察,或将其放在不同的环境中论述时,便会有不同的"概念"。一、法与自然不同的自然环境与社会文化背景,使中西方人从大自然中感悟到不同的真谛。以农为本的中国人从自然中感受到的是万世不易的四时变化规律与万物相生相克的和谐之美。从中国古人的思想中不难寻找到崇尚自然、效法自然的法理念。顺应自然,和谐相处就是中国人观念中的最大公正。西方人则从自然界感悟到了"物竞天择"、"优胜劣汰"的"公正"原则,其自然法的精髓就在于"公正"。虽然这种"公正"在西方人眼里也只是一种人类社会可以不断接近,却永远不可能实现的理想法。基于对自然的不同感悟,中西方法理中都有"和谐"的理念,但是中国法理中强调的是一种安于本分和角色的和谐,西方法理更强调博弈后以秩序为基础的和谐。1、"天人合一"的立法思想崇尚上天(和神),用占卜获取天(神)意,是人类社会发展伊始必经的阶段。甲骨卜辞的发现证明商人几乎无事不卜:大到祭祀、征伐、立制,小到行止、梦幻、疾病之类。商统治者对"天"的崇拜迷信达到鼎盛,商纣王在周人大兵压境,商亡迫在眉睫的情况下依然说"我生不由命在天乎?"[2]周人革商人之命,对"天"的存在与威力不可能毫无怀疑,人对天的绝对服从在周初便有了改变。相对以往的"天"来说,人的地位有了显著的提高。周初统治者认为,天意通过占卜可以预测,但更直接的是通过民意反映出来。所谓"天畏棐忱,民情大可见。"[3]"民之所欲,天必从之。"[4]统治者只有凭藉"德政"才能获取民心,并由此获得天命。天--王--民由此成为一个有机的整体 "民之所欲,天必从之"的思想可以说是"天人合一"观念的萌芽。春秋战国时期,尽管卜筮之法仍盛行,但"天"的概念在学术上发生了很大的变化,各家各派在论及"天"时,基本上是各取所需。务实的思想家对"天"持敬而远之的态度:孔子学生记"子不语怪、力、乱、神";[5]孔子对鬼神的看法是"祭神如神在";[6]但对"天",孔子仍持"敬"的态度。《论语·乡党》记:"迅雷风烈,必变。"即遇到异常的天变,孔子一定作出恭敬的姿态来迎候。他还认为一旦"获罪于天,无所祷也"。[7]子产则认为"天道远,人道迩,非所及也。何以知之。"[8]尤为值得注意的是道家对"天"的解释,老子认为"天之道"就是"自然之道"。自然界的变化规律虽不受人事的影响,但人类社会若逆自然规律而动则必乱无疑,必亡无疑。在道家的理论体系中,自然之"道"是万物之本,是人类必须尊奉的"大法"。孟子言人性善,荀子与法家言人性恶,但他们最终都将人性说成是自然使之,天所生就。墨家虽迷信天地鬼神,但对天地鬼神也完全采取实用主义的态度。他们把自己"兼相爱,交相利"的社会理想说成是天地鬼神的旨意。原服务于宗室的阴阳五行家,由于宗法制的崩溃而"官失其守",流落民间,以占卜为生,成为方士[9]。为生活所迫,他们无法恪守以往的天命观,故从以占卜释天意转为注重以自然释天意。太史公说:"夫阴阳四时、八位、十二度、二十四节各有教令,顺之者昌,逆之者不死则亡,未必然也,故曰'使人拘而多畏'。夫春生夏长,秋收冬藏,此天道之大经也,弗顺则无以为天下纲纪,故曰'四时之大顺,不可失也。'"[10]对"天"多种多样的、现实的解释,使中国文化的发展避免了狂热的宗教崇拜而始终以人为中心。当然,也正因为如此,中国文化对自然的探索往往无法深入,因而对"天"那种若有若无的迷信也始终没有打破。中国人论证"天道"目的在于为"人事"提供效法的模式。日月运行,寒暑交替,春华秋实,生老病死,这些不可抗拒的自然规律为统治者解释法的来源和设法立制提供了依据。所谓"人法地,地法天,天法道,道法自然。"[11]天人合一观在西汉正统法思想形成时,被董仲舒系统化、理论化。正统法思想的奠基者董仲舒认为天人是相通的,人的精神形体就是大自然的副本:"人有三百六十节,偶天之数也;形体骨肉,偶地之厚也;上有耳目聪明,日月之象也;体有空窍理脉,川谷之象也。"既然天人相通,那么人与天便也可互相感应:"人之喜怒"可化为"天之寒暑"。[12]人间政事通和可致"阴阳调而风雨顺,群生和而万民殖,五谷熟而草木茂,......"[13]人与天相通、相应,天为人之本,因而在董仲舒看来,人最重要的莫过于效法上天,顺应自然,与自然融为一体来保天长地久之道。董仲舒的"天"有两个含义:一是阴阳、四时、五行、万物自然的演化,是为"天象",这是自然之天;二是主宰自然(也包括人类)的"天意",这层意义的"天"具有神秘的宗教色彩。[14]天象是天意的体现,在天人合一的体系中,在人对天的效法中,董仲舒更强调自然之天。因为"天意难见也,其道难理。"[15]而自然的阴阳、四时、五行变化却是人人都能感受到的。阴阳、五行、四时的变化造就了自然界中的"万象",古人称之为"天象",在儒家思想中天象是圣人制礼的依据,也是统治者立法的依据。儒家经典《礼记·月令》详细地记述了天子一年十二个月应穿的服饰、带的佩物及应行之政。以天子的为政应天所变,与春夏秋冬四时变化相协调。《月令》的大致内容是:春季为万物复苏、返青、生长之际,阳气渐盛。为迎春气,天子应衣青衣,服青玉。率三公、九卿、诸侯迎春气于东郊。对大自然采取保护措施,禁止捕杀幼鸟幼兽,禁止捕捞池鱼、掏取鸟卵、砍伐树木等。体察上天的好生之德,教化百姓,赏有功,恤幼怜弱,开仓廪、赐贫穷、赈乏绝。减少狱讼。夏季为万物成长、茁壮、茂盛之际,阳气最盛。天子应衣朱衣,服赤玉,率三公、九卿、诸侯至南郊而迎夏气。夏季对大自然也应采取保护措施,不可毁坏长成的万物,不可砍伐大树。体察上天的生养之德,天子应行仁政,别贵贱,多赏而薄刑。禁止大的土木工程。秋季为阳气开始收敛,阴气上升之时,万物转入萧条。天子应衣白衣,服白玉,率三公、九卿、诸侯迎秋气于西郊。应举行田猎而教战阵之法,举兵征讨不义,修订法令,断刑决狱,以迎自然肃杀之气。冬季阳气深藏,阴气最盛。天子衣黑衣,服玄玉,率三公、九卿、诸侯迎冬气于北郊。天子应体察冬藏之意,收租赋于民。民也应在有司的指导下猎取山泽之利。对没有收藏好的谷物和放佚的马牛等畜兽准许人们任意收取。对犯罪者申以严刑,加重制裁。2、顺天则时的"司法时令说""司法时令说"源于战国时期的阴阳家思想,其认为王政、法度都应该顺应阴阳消长、四季变化的规律而定,断讼听狱的司法活动也应该与天时相应。在春夏万物生长之际,应从事教化奖赏;秋冬万物肃杀之时,则应从事断狱活动,故尔"秋冬行刑"成为制度。"司法时令说"的具体体现是首先要求帝王"顺天":其将自然界的灾异之象,视为"上天遣告"帝王为政有失,所以帝王要检点言行,亲自复查、审断案件,平反冤狱。其次要求帝王"则时"。如《礼记·月令》中言,当春夏阳和之际,帝王也应效法天意,善待人犯,停止一般的狱讼和拷掠犯人以体现上天仁慈好生之德。秋冬时要效法天的肃杀之威,审决死刑,严惩犯罪。司法时令说为正统法思想所采纳,并形成日益完善的"司法时令制"。董仲舒认为,一岁之中有春、夏、秋、冬四季,"春暖以生,夏暑以养,秋清以杀,冬寒以藏。"王有四政:庆、赏、罚、刑,与四季之气相应:"以庆副暖而当春,以赏副暑而当夏,以罚副清而当秋,以刑副寒而当冬。"[16]天人合一与顺天则时,用天意、天象解释了人间法令的来源、作用和必要性。同时也赋予了法律神圣性和合理性。同时,这种对自然的崇尚和效法造就了古人"秋后处斩"、"秋后算帐"的习惯。 二、法与人性不同的人性论决定了不同的法思想。自春秋战国起,中国的先哲们便对人性与法的关系进行了探讨。说到底,人性与法的关系最终还是自然与法的关系的延续,因为人性生于自然。先秦儒家基本持"性善"的观点,所以他们相信道德教化的作用,主张"礼治";而法家是"性恶论"者,更相信"力"的约束,所以主张"法治"。其后,随着儒法两家的融合,正统法思想的"性三品"之说形成,以儒家为主的礼法并用,德主刑辅的法思想占据了主导地位。1、孔孟的"性善论"与"礼治"儒家的创始者孔子对人性的善恶并无明确的论断,他认为人性原本相近,是后天的教化与环境不同,使人性在发展中产生了差异,即所谓的"性相近也,习相远也"。[17]但孔子同时还认为"苟志于仁矣,无恶也",[18]表现了一定程度的性善主张。孔子之后,亚圣孟子明确提出了"人性善"的观点。孟子认为,无论什么人,若突然间看到一位孩童将跌落井中,都会"怵惕恻隐"。这种不自觉地唯恐孩童受到伤害的心情,便是"不忍人之心"。由"不忍人之心"而产生的"恻隐之心"为"仁之端";"羞恶之心"为"义之端";"辞让之心"为"礼之端";"是非之心"为"智之端"。[19]源于"不忍人之心"的仁、义、礼,智四种美德是人之所以为人的根本所在。孟子断言:"无恻隐之心,非人也;无羞恶之心、非人也;无辞让之心,非人也;无是非之心,非人也。"[20]忠、孝、节、义及仁、义、礼、智、信,这些儒家所推崇的道德在孔孟学说中不过是根植于"人性"之中的"人之常情"而已。由于倾向或确认"人性善",孔子与孟子都将拯救时弊的希望寄托于礼治对人性的恢复上。由于重视礼治,孔子和孟子对新兴的"法治"思潮皆持否定的态度。因为在孔孟看来,以严酷为特征的"法治"不仅不利于人性的恢复,反而会压抑人性、扭曲人情,"法治"的最佳结局也不过是"民免而无耻"。[21]孟子在肯定了"人皆可为尧舜"[22]的同时,也告诫统治者应注意对百姓的心灵熏陶:"谨庠序之教,申之以孝悌之义"。[23]他告诫人们做人须以"守身为大"。[24]"人性善"奠定了孔孟充满人情味的法思想,"礼乐不兴,则刑罚不中",[25]法律形式服务于法律的精神,由人性善而导源出的法应是顺从人情的法,这也是中国古代社会司法中常常出现以情破法,行"法外之仁"的法理依据。2、"人性恶"与"法治"战国中期的思想家荀子,在对人性的认识上与孟子截然不同。他认为"恶"才是人生来就有的本性,"善"不过是人们后天的修饰和伪装。《荀子·性恶》开篇便说:"人之性恶,其善者伪也。"因为人性本恶,所以世间的人情也"甚不美"。荀子引用舜的话说:"人性甚不美,又何问焉?妻子具而孝衰于亲,嗜欲得而信衰于友,爵禄盈而忠衰于君。人之情乎,人之情乎。"[26]有了妻儿,便会淡漠对父母的孝敬之心;自己的利益满足后,便会失信于朋友;爵至极品,便会对君主懈怠;这就是人情。荀子据此而断言:若"从人之性,顺人之情,必出于争夺,合于犯分乱理而归于暴。"[27]如果不节制人性,必然会发生争夺,最终悖理乱制而形成暴乱的社会。荀子的学生,法家思想的集大成者韩非对"甚不美"的人情揭露得更为深刻,对"人心险恶"的描述也更为尖锐、生动。孔子与孟子所向往的人间脉脉温情在韩非学说中变成了赤裸裸的"利"、"害"关系。人们的一举一动,一言一行无不为"利"而往。忠、孝、节、义成为迂腐的空谈。荀子与韩非同是"人性恶"论者,但在如何对待"人性"的问题上却不尽相同。荀子认为人性通过教化是可以得到改造的。人们在自省自律中可以抑制人性的膨胀,披上善良的伪装,这就是"化性起伪"。[28]承认通过教化可以改变人性是荀子仍被归于儒家学派的原因所在。但荀子的礼治教化毕竟以"人性恶"为基础,所以荀子的礼治又有别于孔孟,即在强调礼对道德的弘扬同时,也强调礼的规范约束作用。荀子将礼比作权威、绳墨、规矩,[29]有学者认为,荀子在谈礼的时候"而眼光却贯射于法的对象--'物'的度量分界(这是权力思想的萌芽,和孟子求"礼之端"于"辞让之心"的唯心理论何等两样)。如果把'礼'字换成'法'字似乎还要切实些。"[30]在改造孔孟之礼治的同时,荀子并不讳言"法治"。荀子对"礼治"不像孔孟那样满怀信心,他清醒地认识到教化非万能之器,对教而不化的"奸民"须用刑罚迫使其收敛本性。"不教而诛,则刑繁而邪不胜;教而不诛,则奸宄不惩。"[31]隆礼而至法,教化与刑罚并举便是荀子奉献给统治者的治世良方。因此荀子也被誉为儒法合流的思想先驱。法家,对人性"好利恶害"有着深刻的认识,他们对改造人性也不感兴趣,所以儒家和荀子的教化思想在法家看来都是迂阔之论。法家认为:明智的君主只须考虑对人性、人情加以利用便足矣。人们"好利恶害",君主便可设赏罚以统一人们的思想,使人们按照统治者的意愿行事。如耕战有利于国家,君主不妨设赏以劝之。当人们认识到努力耕战则有利可图,有赏可得时,就会戮力本业,为国效力。懒惰、私斗有害于国,君主不妨设刑以禁之。当人们认识到不努力工作,私斗逞强便会招致刑狱之灾时,就会避之如瘟疫。设赏罚以利用人性,比教化简单明确,而且起效快,可立竿见影。"人性有好恶,故民可治也。"[32]法家视儒家所提倡的道德君子为国家的大患:"儒以文乱法,侠以武犯禁,而人主兼礼之,此所以乱也。"[33]所谓的"富贵不能淫,贫穷不能移,威武不能屈"的君子,不是民之楷模,而是国君之大敌。在"人性恶"的基础上,法家彻底否定了礼治,而提倡以赏罚为基础的"法治"。法治的核心内容在于如何从事赏罚。法家认为,赏罚须遵循三项原则:一是"缘法"而赏罚,有功必赏,有过必罚,使法取信于民;二是用刑须重,使其足以镇慑人心。用赏须厚,使其足以打动人心。让法在所及范围内产生最大的社会效益。三是刑须多于赏。刑多使人不敢因恶小而为之;赏少使人竭尽所能效力国家。法家对人性、人情的利用可谓淋漓尽致。其重刑主张为后来的统治者实行"法外之法"提供了理论根据。3、"性三品"与正统法律思想体系的建立春秋战国人性善恶的争论中,还有一些颇为中庸的观点,如杨子说:"人之性,善恶混。"告子说人性"犹湍水也。决诸东方则东流,决诸西方则西流。" [34]汉代思想家对人性善恶的认识,杂糅了先秦各家思想。大儒董仲舒将人性比喻为"禾",将善比喻为"米"。他认为,"米出禾中而禾未可全为米也。善出性中,而性未可全为善也。"他进而论证人性有"善质",但"善质"须经王者教化而为"善"。[35]在此,董仲舒还确定了具有"善质"者的范围。他认为所谓"人性"不过是针对一般人,即"中民"而言的,并不包括大善大恶之人:"圣人之性不可名性,斗筲之性又不可以名性。名性者,中民之性。"[36]这样,实际上是将人分为三等,即圣人、中民、斗筲。在此基础上,唐代韩愈提出了系统的"性三品"、"情三品"之说:"性之品有上、中、下三。上焉者善焉而已矣,中焉者可导而上下也,下焉者恶焉而已矣。"情为性之表现,因而亦分上中下三品。上品之人,七情具合于善:"动而处其中"。中品之人,经教化可以达到善。下品之人则"情发而悖于善"。[37]因此,就人类整体而言,人的善恶参差不齐,良莠并存。就个人而言,大多数的中品之人,得教则向善,失教则向恶。宋代理学家朱熹总结历代人性论后说:"孟子言性,只说得本然底,论才亦然。荀子只见得不好底,杨子观得半上半下底,韩子所言却是说得稍近。盖荀、杨既说不是,韩子看来端的见有如此不同,故有三品之说。"[38]性三品、情三品实际上是春秋以来有关人性、人情争论的总结。鉴于对人性、人情较全面的认识,汉以后正统法思想主张礼法并举的治国方针。此处的礼与先秦孔孟所倡导的礼一脉相承,侧重于体现人情、人伦的礼之义,也是法的精神,其主要内容被概括为"三纲五常"。[39]礼与法是两种不同的治国手段,礼侧重于教化,目的在于通过道德教化,变人性中的"善质"为善。而法侧重于用严厉的刑罚扼制人们恶性的发展。其主要针对下品之人而设。简单地说,礼是一种由里及表的统治方式,法是一种由表及里的统治方式。礼以扬善,法以惩恶。礼法的最终目的都在于使人们能"情动而处其中"。先秦的礼治与法治之争在性三品、情三品学说中统一起来。正统法思想虽然认为礼与法在治国中不可或阙,但以弘扬忠、孝、节、义道德为务的礼治显然占据了主要地位。因为中品之人占据人类的大多数,这些人可以因教而善。《清史稿·刑法志》:"中国自书契以来,以礼教治天下。劳之来之而政生焉,匡之直之而刑生焉。正也,刑也,凡皆以维护礼教于勿替。"因此。德主刑辅、礼刑并举成为正统法思想体系中的核心内容。正统法思想对人性与法关系的论述,确定了法的作用不仅只是规范人们的言行,维护人类社会必要的"秩序","惩恶扬善"才是法律所要达到的最终目的。 三、法与道德前文中引孔子所言:"导之以政,齐之以刑,民免而无耻;导之以德,齐之以礼,有耻且格"。先秦儒家认为治理国家德礼政刑不可偏废,但是应该以"德礼"的普及为追求。因为德礼教化不仅可以使民众避免违法犯罪,而且可以使民众有羞耻之心,变被动守法为主动守法,即"有耻且格"。汉代在对秦法的反思中,孔子有关德礼政刑关系的论述成为全社会的共识,并进一步发展。在德与法关系的论述上,汉儒有两大贡献:第一,确立了刑在治国中的辅助地位,即"德主刑辅",并以此来指导立法、司法实践。汉武帝时的思想家董仲舒用自然阴阳五行的变化规律论证儒学德礼政刑的思想。董仲舒认为天地万物皆由阴阳演化而成,阳"以生育养长为事",阴"积于空虚不用之处",自然界中阳主阴辅是天意的体现,故而上天有好生之德。人类社会的发展,在董仲舒看来也是阴阳演化的一个组成部分,统治者为政的手段可以与阴阳变化相比附:"阳为德,阴为刑;刑主杀而德主生。"[40]第二,将先秦儒家学说现实化,使儒学由"圣人之学"变为统治者的学说,使儒家的法体系更具有实用性。孔子的学说之所以被春秋至秦代的统治者弃而不用,重要的原因在于过分强调教化,理想色彩太浓。有人曾问政于孔子"如杀无道,以就有道,何如?"孔子答道:"焉用杀?子欲善而民善矣。"[41]在先秦儒家看来,政治就是如此简单。"君正则天下正。"只要君主心存仁义,天下之人便会弃恶从善。与先秦儒家略有不同,相对统治者自身的道德修养来说,汉代儒生更注重统治者的统治方式。因而在肯定教化的同时,汉儒并不讳言刑杀的作用,所谓"阳不得阴之助,终不能独成岁。"对传统的礼,汉儒则明智地取其"微言大义",将礼作为刑的原则与指导。因此,在汉代,不仅儒家的思想得到了弘扬,而且在法家理论指导下建立的秦制亦得到继承。"汉承秦制"标志着汉代思想家、政治家的现实与成熟。 四、法治与人治在论述中国古代人治思想之前,必须首先区别中国与西方、古代与现代有关"人治"、"法治"的异同。第一,中国古代的"人治"思想可以与西方柏拉图"贤人政治"相比较。但无论是古代的,还是西方的"人治",都不是现实中某些人所说的"以人代法"、"以言代法"或"长官意志",将古代人治简单或庸俗地解释为"权大于法",完全是以今人之心度古人之腹。第二,中国古代法家法治思想的核心是维护君权,与民主思想水火不相容。鉴于此,对传统"人治"思想不加分析地贬斥,其结果将会是阻碍优秀文化传统的弘扬。相反,如果认为中国传统的法家"法治"在历史上曾起过进步作用,便将其视为精华而加以继承,并企图通过提倡传统意义上的法治而健全民主,其结果也必将是缘木求鱼。中国古代的人治思想主要集中于先秦儒家的论述中。先秦儒家"人治"思想的核心是论证"人"与"法"的关系,即在治国中是统治者,尤其是君主的道德才能更为重要,还是制度更为重要。儒家的回答是"人"(主要指君主)的品德与才能,尤其是君主的道德更为重要。孔子言"其身正,不令而行;其身不正,虽令不从。"[42]孔子认为在治理国家时,最高统治者的言行,甚至喜怒直接关系到国家的安危、社会的治乱、人民的苦乐。因为上行下效是普遍的规律。他强调"君子之德风,小人之德草,草上之风必偃。"[43]即将君子(泛指统治者)的品行比喻为风,小人(泛指人民)的品行为草,就如风往什么方向吹,草就往什么方向倒伏一样,有什么样的统治者,就有什么样的人民。因此,法令执行的最佳途径是统治者,当然是君主自己"身正"。孟子继承了孔子"身正令行"的思想,认为"惟仁者宜在高位"。[44]"君"与"法"的关系,孟子认为君是主要的、是核心,一个君主的品德,决定着一国的风气。即"君仁,莫不仁;君义,莫不义;君正,莫不正;一正君而国定矣。"[45]荀子的"有治人,无治法"[46]的思想完善了儒家的人治思想。其基本观点如下:第一,法是由人制定的。他开宗明义提出"有治人,无治法"。意为治理好国家的关键是人而不是法,必须有好的统治者才能治理好国家。法对治国虽然很重要,是"治之端也",但法毕竟是作为统治者的"人"制定出来的,所以说"君子者,法之原也。"[47] 法的善恶取决于"人"。第二,法是由人执行的。即使有了良法,也还是要由"人"来掌握和贯彻,否则便成为一纸空文,不能发挥其作用。"故法不能独立,类不能自行。得其人则存,失其人则亡。"[48]第三,法的作用是有限的。再完备的法律也不能对复杂、变化多端的国家大事、社会生活概括无遗。而且法有一定的稳定性,不能完全随机应变,法的漏洞需要"人"去弥补。汉至清末,随着古代成文法的逐步完善,逐渐形成了"人法并重"的法思想,其特点是既重视"法"的威严,又强调人的素质,人法兼治。宋代欧阳修说:"已有正法则依法,无正法则原情。"[49]王安石认为治理国家"非大明法度不足以维持,非众建贤才不足以保守"。[50]苏轼概括了在治国中单纯"任人"与单纯"任法"的缺陷:"任法而不任人,则法有不通,无以尽万变之情。任人而不任法,人各有意,无以定一成之论。"[51]自宋以来,这种"人治"与"法治"兼重的思想一直占主导地位。"人法兼重"的思想正是"人""法"之辩的归宿。我们应该注意到"人治"与"法治"之争的最终结论虽然是"人法兼重",但受儒家"民本"与法家"治吏"思想的影响,在治国中人们一般还是将"人"的因素放在首位。沈家本曾总结说:"有其法尤贵有其人。"[52] [1] 载《饮冰室合集》,第2册,中华书局1989年版。[2] 《史记·商本纪》。[3] 《尚书·康诰》[4] 《左传·襄公三十一年》引《泰誓》。[5] 《论语·述而》。[6] 《论语·八佾》。[7] 《论语·八佾》。[8] 《左传·昭公十八年》。[9] 阴阳五行家的由来,参见冯友兰著《三松堂全集》,第2卷,第430页,河南人民出版社1988年版。[10] 《史记·太史公自序》。[11] 《老子·二十五章》。[12] 《春秋繁露·为人者天》。[13] 《汉书·董仲舒传》。[14] 参见李泽厚著《中国古代思想史论》,第145页,人民出版社1985年版。[15] 《春秋繁露·天地阴阳》。[16] 《春秋繁露·四时之副》。[17] 《论语·阳货》。[18] 《论语·里仁》。[19] 参见《孟子·公孙丑》。[20] 《孟子·公孙丑》。[21] 《论语·为政》。[22] 《孟子·告子》。[23] 《孟子·梁惠王》。[24] 《孟子·离娄》。[25] 《论语·子路》。[26] 《荀子·性恶》。[27] 《荀子·性恶》。[28] 《荀子·性恶》。[29] 参见《荀子·王霸》。[30] 杜国庠著《先秦诸子的若干研究》,第129页,三联出版社1956年版。[31] 《荀子·富国》。[32] 《商君书·错法》。[33] 《韩非子·五蠹》。[34] 《孟子·告子》。[35] 参见《春秋繁露·深察名号》。[36] 《春秋繁露·实性》。[37] 参见《韩昌黎先生集·卷十一·原性》。[38] 《朱子语类·卷四》。[39] 三纲:"君为臣纲,父为子纲,夫为妻纲。"五常:仁、义、礼、智、信。[40] 《汉书·董仲舒传》。[41] 《论语·颜渊》。[42] 《论语·子路》。[43] 《论语·颜渊》。[44] 《孟子·离娄》、[45] 《孟子·离娄》。[46] 《荀子·君道》。[47] 《荀子·君道》。[48] 《荀子·君道》。[49] 《欧阳文忠公全集·论韩纲弃城乞依法札子》。[50] 《王文公文集·上时政书》。[51] 《东坡续集·王振大理少卿》。[52] 《历代刑法考·刑制总论·唐》。  
  20. 马勇:抗战时期有关三民主义的论争
    政治 2010/03/26 | 阅读: 1583
    中国共产党人对继承孙中山思想遗产态度一直比较积极,在很多时候自觉成为孙中山思想遗产的继承人,只是由于各个历史时期的政治环境不同,因而在对孙中山思想的解释上侧重点不同,但尊重则始终如一。中共在抗战爆发之初就提出在孙中山三民主义基础上的全面抗战原则,强调只有全面的民族抗战才能彻底地战胜日寇,然要实现全面的民族抗战,必须国民党政府要有全部的和彻底的转变,必须全国上下共同实行一个彻底抗日的纲领,这就是根据第一次国共合作时孙中山手定的革命的三民主义和三大政策的精神而提出的救国纲领。中共愿意继承的三民主义只是孙中山后来改定的"革命的三民主义和三大政策"。        共产党之所以同意以革命的三民主义、三大政策作为各党各派各阶层统一战线的共同纲领,主要是因为这些思想反映了抗战初期的中国需要,并不存在着中共在指导思想上发生了变化。然而由此反观国民党,他们在抗战时期除了实行孙中山的民族主义,坚持对日抗战外,在民权主义、民生主义方面体现实在太少。因此,"共产党的责任,在于大声疾呼地向国民党和全国人民作不疲倦的解释和说服,务使真正革命的三民主义、三大政策及孙氏遗嘱,全部地彻底地在全国范围内实行起来,用以扩大和巩固抗日民族统一战线。"     中国共产党在抗战时期对孙中山三民主义的拥护是真诚的,他们自始至终反对那些"口是心非"的假三民主义者。毛泽东在1939年的一次演讲中说:"有些人自己对自己加封为'三民主义的信徒',而且是老牌的三民主义者,可是他们做了些什么呢?原来他们的民族主义,就是勾结帝国主义;他们的民权主义,就是压迫老百姓;他们的民生主义呢?那就是拿老百姓身上的血来喝得越多越好。这是口是心非的三民主义者。"毛泽东在这里所批评的实际上是指国民党中的右派。    从国民党方面看,随着历史条件的变化他们对三民主义的解释也有不同。蒋介石1939年5月7日在中央训练团演讲《三民主义之体系及其实行程序》时说:"这民族、民权、民生三者构成了整个的三民主义,我们要全部信奉,不能取其一而舍其他,但三者之中各有对象,各有其特别的置重点。"    不过实质性的问题在于,蒋介石之所以死死抓住孙中山三民主义旗帜不放,是因为他的政治统治实在需要这面旗帜来进行粉饰。而且出于现实政治的需要,他在对孙中山的思想进行解释时,实在是引申发展了孙中山思想中的消极方面。对此周恩来指出:"从蒋介石这一切思想体系中,我们只能看出中国法西斯主义,决看不出孙中山的革命的三民主义。孙中山的思想中的唯心观点、消极因素,被蒋介石拿来发展成为他今天的思想体系;但孙中山的思想中还有某些合理的因素,更多的革命观点,尤其是在他晚年接近了共产党,采取了俄国革命的某些办法后,他的三民主义便成为革命的三民主义了。而蒋介石主义,却是另有一套东西,只能成其为中国的法西斯主义。"     二     出于其自身的政治需要,蒋介石将三民主义解释成服务于自己独裁统治的一种学说。蒋表示,他曾仔细研究过孙中山三民主义,并根据孙中山的论述,拟定了一个"三民主义的体系及其实行程序表",把三民主义的原理、内容,以及实现三民主义所需要的方略,乃至达成最终目的所必经的程序包括无遗。而这个体系包括六个部分:一、三民主义之原理--民生哲学;二、三民主义本身;三、革命的原动力;四、革命的方略;五、革命程序;六、最后的目的。    事实上,蒋介石对孙中山三民主义的解释,只是竭力发挥了孙中山思想中的消极因素,完全抛弃了孙中山思想的革命内容和革命精神,与国民党"一大"所确立的新三民主义原则相差甚远,因而理所当然地激起了中国共产党的反对。周恩来说:"蒋介石虽然标榜三民主义,但他在大革命时,并未诚意地实行过三大政策。在内战时,更将三民主义丢之脑后。抗战初期,又曾标榜过抗战建国纲领,实际上只是骗人,并且将其中条文解释和实行成为反全面抗战、反共、反民主的东西,于是就造成法西斯的纲领,而决不是三民主义的抗战建国纲领。"     当抗战胜利在望时,国共两党围绕着三民主义又进行了一场更为激烈的论争。1943年,国民党以蒋介石的名义抛出颇具理论色彩的《中国之命运》,毛泽东则于1940年发表《新民主主义论》,于1945年发表《论联合政府》。细读这些文件可以看出,主要分歧依然在于如何解释孙中山的三民主义。蒋介石在《中国之命运》中认为,英美思想与苏俄思想的对立,"不仅不切于中国的国计民生,违反了中国固有的文化精神,"只有三民主义才是挽救中国的灵丹妙药。    蒋介石的论调理所当然地为共产党人反对,即便是国民党内部清醒之士也不以此为然。张治中说:"《中国之命运》一书在发表以前,不仅外国友人,即干部中也多持不必发表之意见,乃今检查此书发表以后之影响,当了然当时认为期期不可者实非无见。"可见国民党方面对《中国之命运》中的某些提法并不是完全赞同。    当时针对蒋介石所谓"没有三民主义就没有抗战,没有中国国民党就没有革命"的说法,陈伯达撰文指出:"但事实又是如此:没有中国共产党,则三民主义就没有新的内容(首先是民族主义中的反帝废约的内容);没有中国共产党,就没有大革命以来直至今日的中国国民党;没有中国共产党,则不但大革命的局面不难设想,即六年来大抗战的局面亦不可设想。中国共产党生来就是为民族和人民谋利益的,而它帮助人做好事,本来也没有自夸的必要,但是许多狠心的国民党人对于中国共产党不但采取'过河拆桥'的手段,而且还极尽其造谣诬蔑之能事。"这是当年对蒋反共思想进行批判的一种共识。 三     中国共产党在抗战时期始终认为,他们接受孙中山的三民主义,主要的是接受孙中山晚年重新解释和建构的"革命的三民主义",而国民党方面似乎始终不承认有一个什么"革命的三民主义",不承认孙中山在晚年对三民主义进行过什么新的建构和创造性解释,依然坚持孙中山的三民主义是个整体,是个"连环",是个一以贯之不容分割的思想体系,并没有什么不合乎现实不合乎历史的所谓消极东西。    国民党的坚持当然有其意识形态的考量,而这种坚持当然也不可能获得中国共产党的认同,中国共产党愿意继承和接受的就是孙中山的"革命的三民主义",就是孙中山晚年提及的联俄联共扶助农工的三大政策,至于孙中山三民主义思想体系,实际上是一个"博大而欠精深"的学说,有其不易克服的内在缺陷。    中国共产党认为,在抗战时期同意以孙中山三民主义作为抗日民族统一战线的理论基础,但这丝毫不影响继续坚持共产主义信念和理想,也决不会因为任何原因或短暂或长久放弃共产主义理想和马列主义原则。在阶级性上,在科学性上,在革命的彻底性上,马列主义、共产主义同三民主义显然是不相同的。这种不同不仅不会妨碍中共去拥护三民主义,而且正像张闻天在《拥护真三民主义反对假三民主义》一文所指出的那样,正是马列主义使中共坚决拥护真三民主义,而且能坚持的为真三民主义的彻底实现而奋斗。这是因为,中共所拥护的三民主义历来同他们根据马列主义立场而提出的现阶段中国革命的政治纲领相吻合,与中共的政治纲领相一致。所以张闻天说共产党人为三民主义而奋斗,即是为这类共同的政治纲领而奋斗。中国共产党拥护三民主义就是承认它在抗日战争这个特殊时期的合理性和有用性。    不过这层理论在当年却引起许多人的怀疑和疑虑。张君劢在致毛泽东的一封公开信中问道:"共产党之特点与其异于他党者,在其阶级性,在其认定以阶级斗争为夺取政权之出路。""然民族斗争云者,以全体人民为主体,不应更有阶级之成见。"这里张君劢是不能够明白中共政治主张的,故而他要求中共暂时搁置马克思主义。    而另一方面,曾对中共理论有过研究后沦为国民党御用文人、专职研究三民主义的叶青,则认为马克思的"共产主义产生于资本主义发达的欧洲,阶级分化明显,是欧洲社会发展之产物,仅仅适合于欧洲",并不合乎中国国情,"与中华民族没有关系"。    对于叶青等人的攻击,中共给予了坚决痛击,对于那些误解和疑虑,中共思想界也给予耐心解释,"共产主义是革命发展的将来阶段实行的,共产主义者在现在阶段并不梦想实行共产主义,而是要实行历史规定的民族革命主义和民主革命主义,这是共产党提出抗日民族统一战线和统一的民主共和国的根本理由。"     当年,中国共产党对于三民主义的相关解释有助于化解那些误会,但决非是要从根本上弥缝共产主义与蒋介石所宣扬的三民主义之间的本质差别,历史事实已经证明了这一点,而国共两党在抗战时期对孙中山三民主义的不同阐述,则为两党抗战胜利后的政治选择提供了一些相关的理论上的支持和依据。 
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 42 »



技术支持: MIINNO 京ICP备20003809号-1 | © 06-12 人文与社会