臆说钱钟书
钱钟书这个人，太聪明，也太刻薄；太清高，也太世故；太博学，也太博杂。对他难有一面倒的评价，以致不虞之誉和求全之毁互不相让，也是情理中事。
和多数当代读者一样，我也是因为一部《围城》而发现了钱钟书。这部小说的诙谐刻薄，以及弥漫着的文人味和没落贵族的气息，使它特立于当时的小说界，令我有一种不期然的惊喜。在这部小说的前半程叙事中，我隐约看到一个站在人生边上、对浮世众生评头品足、且极尽冷嘲热讽之能事的钱钟书；到了后几章节，我看到的是一个“忧世伤生”的钱钟书，并感受到一种直透肺腑的悲凉之气。有西方学者以为，《围城》的终局部分是全书的败笔，我却以为钱钟书在临近终局也就是关于方孙婚姻破裂的叙事中，因人生的哀感压倒了炫智炫博的冲动，文笔愈趋纯净，刻薄味也趋于寡淡，实为全书的精华。
照我的猜测，女性读者对《围城》的反感程度多半偏高。因为这部小说对苏文纨、孙柔嘉、汪太太等女性心理不留情面的揭穿，及其对女性外形、仪态、言谈举止的“刻划”----刻薄勾划，委实有伤厚道。但不得不承认，钱钟书确实是一位描写女性的高手，这在他的短篇小说《猫》和《纪念》中也可以得到印证。这两部小说把爱默式的虚荣、曼倩式的精致偷情表现得细腻传神，因喜欢《围城》而渴望读续篇的读者不妨找它们来过瘾。我以为，同样讽刺文化人和表现婚姻困局的《猫》放大了就是一部《围城》，而布局考究、叙事流丽的《纪念》在小说艺术上甚至超过了《围城》。
在钱钟书小说提供的女性群像中， 唐晓芙大约是唯一逃过刻薄笔墨的一桩“罕物”，但也因而成了一个最虚渺无味的角色。杨绛曾对号入座，暗示唐晓芙的原型就是她。我以为不然。在我看来，方孙的夫妻口角多半是钱杨斗嘴的翻版，文化修养不够，吵架也不会如此精致。
钱杨都是亦学者亦作家的世间一流人物。杨绛的散文写得干净而有情味。相比之下，钱钟书的散文就未免流于造作，一册《写在人生边上》，徒见才智挥霍，似未得散文写作之妙谛。以小说而论，杨绛的《洗澡》形似《围城》，亦是状写文人之颠沛与情爱，但其烛照人性的洞察力和书写人情世态的笔力，则远逊于《围城》。小说和散文写作原是两副笔墨，非冷血静观，不足以言小说，非人情深蕴，不足以言散文。
钱钟书亦是旧诗作手，此非杨绛所能。钱诗风格有前后期之别，近代诗评宗匠陈石遗病其少作好为李义山、黄仲则辈风华绮丽之体，劝其多读宋诗。钱后期之作确乎近宋而有以才学为诗之弊，时人诟其诗以一"；紧"；字，可谓切中要害。我手头藏有中书君诗初刊一册(未刊)，槐聚诗存一册。两相对照，足见诗艺流变之几。
因钱钟书与陈石遗渊源颇深(记录老少二位恣意月旦近世文人并大有“天下英雄惟使君与操耳”狂态的《石语》即是明证)，而陈是“宋诗派”领军人物，故郑振铎想当然尔地以为钱钟书喜欢宋诗，遂嘱其着《宋诗选注》，作为中国古典文学读本丛书之分册。钱自谓《宋诗选注》因“个人学识上的缺陷和偏狭也产生了许多过错，都不能归咎于那时候意识形态的严峻刑律”，此言可见钱之襟怀，且适足反衬动辄叫屈喊冤而不知自省者之作态。
《选注》一书以毛泽东“在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话”压阵，以“人民性”为标尺，选录了大量表现无产阶级老前辈受剥削受压迫的篇什，藉以迎合意识形态需要，配合忆苦思甜的政治韬略，到底留下了那个时代的烙印。 但坚持不录《正气歌》之举则颇合于以“铁的硬”为特征之一的方鸿渐老家的民风。该选本的精彩处诚如胡适所言在于小传和注释。钱以小说笔法，勾画出一帧帧风趣传神的诗人小像，注释中则每有 匠心独云之洞见， 颇能启人灵思。 我虽孤陋，所读近人、今人之各类诗词选本亦甚伙，就中以考据精审或选诗眼光高出钱氏选本者，不在少数，但以文字趣味而论，尚无出其右者。盖因钱氏深得“能作”“能评”、“善写”“善鉴”互洽之旨，于手操选政之际，能以己之创作心得化入诗评，且出之以小说笔意。此为习于高头讲章撰著者所不能为，亦浸淫西式学术体制者所不能为，不敢为。
《选注》序言亦堪称妙文。该序言对宋人备受番邦欺压的苦况、宋诗深受唐诗压迫的苦况、宋诗的特点与缺陷及其选诗的标准(也即著名的四不原则:“押韵的文件不选”，“学问的展览和典故成语的把戏也不选”，“大模大样的仿照前人的假古董不选”，“把前人的词意改头换面而绝无增进的旧货充新也不选”)作了俏皮评说。其所状写之诗人，读来如小说角色；其所描述之诗艺流变，读来如小说情节。若谓钱氏小说乃学人小说，则此类文字可说是小说化的文评。
该序言全文长达三十余页，乃钱氏诗学观之一大结穴处。法人编辑迻译之钱钟书《诗学五论》将其收录其中，与《谈艺录》第一则(谈“诗分唐宋”)及《七缀集》中的《中国诗与中国画》、《读〈拉奥孔〉》、《诗可以怨》并列。此选集可与宗白华的《美学散步》相颉颃。编翻译者虽有偏私之处(比如看中《读〈拉奥孔〉》，大约不无民族虚荣心作祟的成份)，但也算得眼光不凡 ，修美学、文艺理论(含古代文论和外国文论)、比较文学者，可人手置一册。
在钱钟书的所有中文著述中， 《谈艺录》和《管锥编》无疑是最厚重的两部。这两部大书都以文言和札记体写成。有人推断钱氏所以用文言写《管锥编》，求的是深文隐曲以避文祸。我以为这纯属过度的政治化诠释。其实， 钱氏习于文言写作，又对西式的体系化建构不甚认同，他以文言和札记体成书，毋宁说是一种学术范式上的复古行为，和政治环境的强压并无直接关联。 于此言之，《管锥编》一书可谓对抗文学研究西化进程的个性化之作。
《谈艺录》旨在谈艺衡文，主题相对集中。《管锥编》则有熔文史哲于一炉之势，颇似顾炎武的《日知录》，且成书时亦采用了以重视一手材料之收集与别择为特征的“纂辑”之法，只不过，钱氏“纂辑”所及的范围比顾氏更广，且以探究诗艺、抉发文心为内核。由于《管锥编》内容庞杂，征引繁富，各片断之间基本不相连属，所涉语言达七种之多，通读此书的任务真可说是一项Impossible Mission。其实，此书更适合闲暇时翻读，可我受导师之命研究钱钟书，又不得不通读此书，其苦况可想而知。有人以“在七度空间逍遥”喻钱氏著书时广引英、法、德、意、西各语种文献的潇洒，我作为阅读者，则压根是在七度空间煎熬。近日为撰此文，重新打开《管锥编》，发现此书最后一页题着这样一行字:“本书最后阶段之阅读，乃在老张义正词严之牢骚声中勉力完成。99。1。18零点志”。老张是陪伴我度过燕园生活最后时日的好友，他如今已荣升某校国关学院副院长，当时却为无处容身而牢骚满腹，我读《管锥编》也读得牢骚满腹，甚至对导师说过读此书读得我生存感受支离破碎的昏话，但到底是“勉力完成”了，至今回想，犹欲称幸。
以我之见， 《管锥编》征引七种语言的文献，除了见其所学广博和语言天赋、并使引证更为详实之外，对其学术思考的深化，并无实质性的意义，他还不如集中发挥精擅英、法、德三种外文的优势，研读相关论著，并将闳深不浮的心得纳入其会通中西的学术框架之中，也许成就更为卓著。平心而论，一位拥有多语种优势的学者确实让人欣羡，如钱钟书，如陈寅恪，但如果他不善用其多语种优势，也未必会因此而有所超胜。 陈精通梵文，令他在印度学研究及佛学东渐的研究方面独树一帜，但他后来写《论〈再生缘〉》、《柳如是别传》，基本不出传统治学法门，虽建树不凡，但其兼通十数语种的优势并无发挥。《管锥编》于牛中藏羊、羊中藏鹅、鹅中藏鸽式的美食把戏之类话题，也肆其多语优势，广征博引，未免有些浪费。为学贵专精，习外语、运用多语优势，亦复如是。
对《管锥编》一书，褒之者誉为“文化昆仑”， 贬之者斥为“玩票”、“不成体系”，我以为这些评论或言过其辞，或不得要领。照我的体会，这是一部带有类书风格和趣味主义色彩的智慧书。你可以把它当类书来查，也可以择其趣味性的片断来消遣，更可以从散布全书的灵思妙想中受到治学、衡文、为人等多方面的启迪。我友常红君以“益人神智”评价钱氏学术，实深获我心。
钱钟书对人文学术的科学化持保留态度。他曾有“逻辑不配裁判文艺”之论，且对人文科学的“科学性”与个人趣味的二元紧张有敏锐觉察。 《管锥编》一书中每有体现作者趣味的话题，如“服药不如独卧”、“亵语入正史”、“房中调戏散步海外”之类，颇能显示作者对“科学化”的逆反心理，读者于偷乐之余，也该对此有所体会。我一向认为，人文学术不应过求“科学性”而压抑个人趣味， 与作为科学研究典范的自然科学相比，人文学术有其主体性色彩较强的特点，研究主体的生命体验对人文学术而言是不可或缺的前提，因此，带有个人趣味色彩的人文研究也有其合法性。那种主张彻底眅依自然科学范式且以此自矜的论调，恰恰暴露了人文的自卑。人文研究不是自然科学，不可能当下即如地转化为生产力，其人文化生的功效，如粮食发酵为酒，作用于无形，且无法期以速成。
由于受社会达尔文主义影响，中国的人文学者先是受理工科学者鄙视，如北大前副校长、以创造恐龙蛋著称的生物学家陈某就曾私下主张取消北大文科，其后又受作为生产力新宠的商科挤压，如北大现任副校长、深通经济决定论的张某就准备对某些无法带来产业效益的人文学科大开杀戒。此皆浅人妄见、妄作，如任其肆虐，小则使人文学者饭碗不保，大则令文明之邦沦为物化之国，海德格尔所谓技术文明的黑夜也就为期不远了。我作为“既得利益者”，焉能不忧心忡忡?
回到人文研究范式而言，唯科学主义自然不可取，但一味受个人趣味主宰亦非正道。《管锥编》一书即有从容个人趣味之嫌，有人以“玩票”视之，也不谓无因。我以为，人文研究者（尤其是文评家）可依个人趣味确定选题，也可于论证中追求文字趣味，但也当济之以科学研究之法，藉以融主观趣味与客观分析、“可爱”与“可信”于一体。此为上乘之境。此外， 某些过于私人化的趣味性话题如“服药不如独卧”之类，还不如留作随笔的素材:人文学术诚然不同于自然科学，但也非随笔、闲谈之可比。
如前所述，《管锥编》非体系化论著，且有打通文史哲之势，所牵涉话题繁若星辰，且每谈一话题，往往广征博引，出东入西，也时有灵光一闪的洞见。人文专业的读者如研究相关话题，可按图索骥查阅此书，多半会看到不少面生的文献，找到一些新线索，并得到研究思路上的启示。此即以《管锥编》为类书之义，亦是其为智慧书之一端。我近来热衷伦理-叙事研究，回头翻看《管锥编》，发现了不少伦理学话题，如“事效论”/“意愿论”、“失信而义”之类，大可整理出《〈管锥编〉中的伦理学资源》一文，不免私心窃喜。有对语言哲学、女性主义、文化人类学等时髦学术感兴趣的读者，如翻看此书，也定会有意外惊喜。
此外，从钱钟书晚年以札记体结撰总结其一生所学的《管锥编》可见，他确乎比较偏爱传统学术范式，但他也并非不擅长西式论文的撰着。一册《七缀集》及包括学位论文《17、18世纪英国文学中的中国》在内的多篇英文论文，即是明证。钱早年就学于清华大学西洋文学系，后负笈英法，深受西方学术熏陶，对近代西式论文格式也操练甚熟。在此背景下，钱对过求系统性、科学性的西化人文学术范式的批评，就如同反戈一击，格外具有杀伤力。习读革命化文学史叙事者当更易理解这一点，因为这就好比来自封建阵营者对封建制度的批判，如鲁迅、巴金之类。
值得一提的是，《七缀集》中的七篇学术专论，有半数以上在开篇处或结局处，都有方法论性质的大段陈辞。如《中国诗与中国画》一文的开头，几乎整整用了一节的篇幅说明“文艺风气”与文艺创作的关系；《汉译第一首英语诗〈人生颂〉及有关二三事》一文的结尾，则揭示了“理论系统”与历史“事实”的脱节；而《一节历史掌故、一个宗教寓言、一篇小说》一文的开头，则显明了人文“科学”的“科学性”与个人“趣味”的二元紧张。此外，在《谈艺录》、《管锥编》中，也散布着大量的方法论言述。 可见钱是一个方法论意识很强的学者，这在“方法论贫困”的大陆学界相当难得且特出。有心人不妨将星散于钱着中的方法论言述收罗、打捞，并照着洋八股的套路作些加工，估计可换来两三顶博士帽。
最后免不了要谈谈钱钟书的为人。据我观察，世人谈钱，最热衷者即是其为人。因为这最不费脑子。只要生而为人，自然有谈为人的本钱，而无需学术委员会予以资格审核。鉴于此，我就少费点口水，简单说上几句。在我看来，钱是狂生和智者的合体，我喜欢他的狂，也佩服他的智。他能够在文革中幸存下来，可说是智压倒狂的结果。有所谓大陆李敖者，讥笑钱明哲保身，并赐之以“沉默就是犯罪”的高帽，诚黄口小儿之言。钱乃一介书生，无权无枪，身当“有理说不清”之乱世，潜心著述，以默求存，其情实可悯，而竟以罪人视之，未免有伤恕道。
诚然，钱比不得张志新、遇罗克式的烈士，也比不得无欲无私的圣人，但烈士、圣人乃为人之理想境界，非常人所能，实不必以此苛责世人。古往今来，烈士尚可得见，圣人则无迹可寻，子见南子，不也芳心大动?《围城》中方鸿渐、董斜川辈戏言赵辛楣“还不是圣人，还可以做朋友”，实已道破圣人之不人道。另有新锐学人指钱钟书非公共知识分子，未能以良心、德行范世，此亦一偏之见。知识分子有专业、公共之别，各有其社会功能。作为书斋型专业知识分子，钱已尽了本份，我以为。
转自：关天茶舍
- Re: 鑷嗚閽遍挓涔� - ZTposted on 12/06/2003
有些议论比较简陋，不过对管椎编的看法，还是很何人心意。 - Re: 鑷嗚閽遍挓涔� - ZTposted on 12/09/2003
此篇单就文章而论，未尾两段显得小器，而谈及西学和自然科
学之处，又未能见真谛。
别的我不敢评，但文中也能透出一些东西，似是钱之随意，随
意就好。 - posted on 12/09/2003
Ezra Pound once wrote: "Knowledge is not culture. The domain of culture begins when one has 'forgotten-what-book'." If Mr. Chien was not a Chinese, he would be remembered and respected the most as a novelist. Knowing 7 languages (plus ancient and modern Chinese makes it 9) is certainly impressive. To apply all that to literature studies is even more admirable. Only Chinese, however, would have made such a big fuss about it. The ruling class (or kings) as well as the society in general gave such special respect and admiration to those who are so knowledgeable about literature simply because they all want to pretend they "have" culture. But culture only begins when one forgot from what book his knowledge came from. I guess I'm waiting for the day when I forgot Ezra Pound said this. - posted on 12/10/2003
Just a minor observation. I think there might have been some confusion in the use of the term "culture" here. The word "culture," as used by Ezra Pound, presumably refers to one which is the subject of, say, ethnology. Culture in that context, as is typical in the English language, is broad and all embracing, if we consider the Tylor's classic definition in his much famed "Primitive Culture". It is the collective quality of a society. However, the term "culture" in the phrase "to have culture", as also often used in the Chinese language, actually has a much narrower meaning: it usually refers to the overall quality of a person, is akin to "cultivation", sometimes synonymous with, or mistaken for, "knowledge" or "education". One can have knowledge, but normally only a society is said to have certain culture. In that sense, the "culture" the emperors aspired to acquire for themselves is certainly different from the "culture" of a society. To what extent, if any, the word can be used freely and interchangeably in both linguistic contexts, is a question for another day.
zxd wrote:
> Ezra Pound once wrote: "Knowledge is not culture. The domain of culture begins when one has 'forgotten-what-book'." If Mr. Chien was not a Chinese, he would be remembered and respected the most as a novelist. Knowing 7 languages (plus ancient and modern Chinese makes it 9) is certainly impressive. To apply all that to literature studies is even more admirable. Only Chinese, however, would have made such a big fuss about it. The ruling class (or kings) as well as the society in general gave such special respect and admiration to those who are so knowledgeable about literature simply because they all want to pretend they "have" culture. But culture only begins when one forgot from what book his knowledge came from. I guess I'm waiting for the day when I forgot Ezra Pound said this. - posted on 12/10/2003
In the context of Ezra Pound's words, culture here actually means cultivation. In fact, the word culture was derived from the word cultivation, both are standard in meaning “well-read, well-mannered, and polished.” Culture is based on unique human capacity and usually acquired through enculturation. Culture is embedded in a person’s way of life and it frequently exists at an unconscious level, or at least tends to be so pervasive that it escapes everyday thought. "Knowledge is not culture," as I understand, means that, without human touch, knowledge can not become culture. This is exactly suitable to Qian's case.
Commentator wrote:
> Just a minor observation. I think there might have been some confusion in the use of the term "culture" here. The word "culture," as used by Ezra Pound, presumably refers to one which is the subject of, say, ethnology. Culture in that context, as is typical in the English language, is broad and all embracing, if we consider the Tylor's classic definition in his much famed "Primitive Culture". It is the collective quality of a society. However, the term "culture" in the phrase "to have culture", as also often used in the Chinese language, actually has a much narrower meaning: it usually refers to the overall quality of a person, is akin to "cultivation", sometimes synonymous with, or mistaken for, "knowledge" or "education". One can have knowledge, but normally only a society is said to have certain culture. In that sense, the "culture" the emperors aspired to acquire for themselves is certainly different from the "culture" of a society. To what extent, if any, the word can be used freely and interchangeably in both linguistic contexts, is a question for another day.
>
> zxd wrote:
> > Ezra Pound once wrote: "Knowledge is not culture. The domain of culture begins when one has 'forgotten-what-book'." If Mr. Chien was not a Chinese, he would be remembered and respected the most as a novelist. Knowing 7 languages (plus ancient and modern Chinese makes it 9) is certainly impressive. To apply all that to literature studies is even more admirable. Only Chinese, however, would have made such a big fuss about it. The ruling class (or kings) as well as the society in general gave such special respect and admiration to those who are so knowledgeable about literature simply because they all want to pretend they "have" culture. But culture only begins when one forgot from what book his knowledge came from. I guess I'm waiting for the day when I forgot Ezra Pound said this. - posted on 12/10/2003
康妮一向可好。我把CND木绵误认为你了？:)
在我自己来看，Ezra Pound对Culture的理解，不及钱钟书的脚跟。
钱不是艺人，不是戏子，而是学者。一点不过分地说，他站在巍巍昆仑之上，却以道之无形，如水之思，如水之适，俯览千变文化，吸于胸中。学思瀚若繁星，而身姿却谦若常人。无意匪夷所思，立文化宏论，博普通人的欢心与景仰，博一时一世之俗名。
所谓学者，治学为本。钱治学之念，是个通字。天下文化，是一个“通”字。“东海西海，心理攸同；南学北学，道术未裂”。康德说，中西从来就没有互相理解的困难。但康德之流的哲学家，亦只能放天下之大话如此，而无力给以充分的学证。天下罕有人能如此。中学西学，本性不同。如有此种人，也就是钱钟书了。顾亭林日知录可以纵贯古今，拉为一体。但钱可以古今中外，混为一元。
一个“日暖玉生烟”意向，从《困学纪闻》究其起源，林林总总，历数各家各说之来历，直到海涅诗曰：“如大理石之美好洁白，而复如大理石之寒冷”，融于一思，结于自论。“此情可待成追忆，只是当时已惘然”，则从自评自解起，使其意象完整无瑕，准确细微，再至朱行中《渔家傲》论，直到拜伦收曰：“入世务俗，交游酬应，男女爱悦，图营势位，乃至贪婪财货，人生百为，于兴最高、心最欢时，辄微觉乐趣中杂以疑虑与忧伤，其故何耶。” 充分回溯重建意象。这就是学。知其美，亦知其所以美，重建脑中虚幻的文化概念，供后人鉴定，而不是只给出结论，供后人先学再解。那是哲学。是黑格尔之流唬人的把戏。
..... - posted on 12/10/2003
康妮一向可好。我把CND木绵误认为你了？:)
在我自己来看，Ezra Pound对Culture的理解，不及钱钟书的脚跟。
钱不是艺人，不是戏子，而是学者。一点不过分地说，他站在巍巍昆仑之上，却以道之无形，如水之思，如水之适，俯览千变文化，吸于胸中。学思瀚若繁星，而身姿却谦若常人。无意匪夷所思，立文化宏论，博普通人的欢心与景仰，博一时一世之俗名。
所谓学者，治学为本。钱治学之念，是个通字。天下文化，是一个“通”字。“东海西海，心理攸同；南学北学，道术未裂”。康德说，中西从来就没有互相理解的困难。但康德之流的哲学家，亦只能放天下之大话如此，而无力给以充分的学证。天下罕有人能如此。中学西学，本性不同。如有此种人，也就是钱钟书了。顾亭林日知录可以纵贯古今，拉为一体。但钱可以古今中外，混为一元。
一个“日暖玉生烟”意向，从《困学纪闻》究其起源，林林总总，历数各家各说之来历，直到海涅诗曰：“如大理石之美好洁白，而复如大理石之寒冷”，融于一思，结于自论。“此情可待成追忆，只是当时已惘然”，则从自评自解起，使其意象完整无瑕，准确细微，再至朱行中《渔家傲》论，直到拜伦收曰：“入世务俗，交游酬应，男女爱悦，图营势位，乃至贪婪财货，人生百为，于兴最高、心最欢时，辄微觉乐趣中杂以疑虑与忧伤，其故何耶。” 充分回溯重建意象。这就是学。知其美，亦知其所以美，重建脑中虚幻的文化概念，供后人鉴定，而不是只给出结论，供后人先学再解。那是哲学。是黑格尔之流唬人的把戏。
..... - posted on 12/10/2003
不像令胡说的老钱，是东西互融的成功。
管窥一豹：
————“英国自由主义大师哈耶克在其《通向奴役的道路》一书中，用一条小小的注释，对老庞可怜的经济与社会思想以及他的对于以英国自由主义传统所做的荒谬的否定如是说，“我们这一代人已经看见了无数诽谤密尔顿的英国人和美国人——并且他们当中的第一人，庞德是这次战争期间从意大利发表广播演说的人这或许是深有意义的。””
他还要谈文化吗？他连自己国家的传统都没有搞清楚。————
现场＠非虚拟批判
主 页|总目录 |作者索引| 投 稿|讨论／留言
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted on 2000-12-21]
·刘自立·
庞德之所谓
－－读《庞德诗选比萨诗章》
庞德和Ｔ·Ｓ·艾略特是我们北京人一向所说的哥儿们。但细看两人作品，却不无不同。这主要体现在他们关于未来与现在的看法，而这，对于了解新近出版的汉译《庞德诗选比萨诗章》 不无补益。
在《比萨诗章》之开首，庞德提出了他自相矛盾的时间观。当然，这是在诗学意义上的时间观。庞德说道，“我与世界争斗时／失去了我的中心／一个个梦想碰得粉碎／撒得到处都是——／而我曾试图建立一个地上的／乐园。”他又说，“有一个画好的天堂在其尽头／没有一个画好的天躺在其尽头”。
老庞看来是很矛盾的。他的伟大的关于《诗章》的构思，在某种意义上是说，是建立在这样一个思想基础上的；我们是否可以说，诗人主张二律悖反式的思考呢？如果确实如此，老庞也许比现在要更伟大一些。除了今天的新左派可能不以为然。那麽，艾略特又是怎样看待他自己的时间观的呢？在他著名的《四个四重奏》的开篇，诗人极为明确地写到，一切的过去和未来都是现在。熟熟老艾的人对于他的“现在主义”，恐怕都是并不陌生的。
但是我们却很少看到老庞和老艾在时间观上不同的有关分析。二人的观点何以如此大相径廷，其原因是不难从他们的政治态度和哲学态度上找到的。而一旦发现了其中的原委，老庞身上一向以来闪闪发光的假面就会毁掉大半。而老艾的思想确是一板一眼，头头是道。
和老庞不同的老艾的名言，除了他的时间观，他的“四月的残忍”；他的世界的毁灭是“扑”的一声；他的“空心人”，等等，都意谓着他的对于那个时代的悲观之看法。
悲观乎如老艾，还是乐观乎如老庞，这是一个问题。
事情还要从他们生活的那个特殊的年代说起。一战以后的欧洲，处在两次世界大战间隙。所有别出新裁的思想，在二十世纪初以来呈现的强大惯性已沿续至此时。时局产生的特殊的土壤，使新思潮的到来格外有劲。人们难以辨其真伪，善恶。比如，在意大利，在德国，兴起了法西斯纳碎主义，在当时吸引了大批的信众。他们在墨索里尼和希特勒相信未来的蛊惑下，以毁灭今天为其未来开道。其主要的思想罪行，就是沿续一种在地上建立天堂的梦想。而建立此种梦想，势必要摧毁地上的一切，并把他们归类为一种一直以来的先验的罪恶。而这样的罪恶的复载者，就是建立了天堂观念的犹太人群体。此其一。
其二是，这些未来主义的信众们大多厌恶了“万恶”的资本主义制度。加上德国在一战后的经济大萧条和恶性通货膨胀，德国人本性中的德意志至上的理想大规摸破产。一种反对西方传统自由主义的社会主义理想，或者说希特勒的国家社会主义，开始越过兴登堡的死尸弥布全德国。人们在那个魔鬼的呼哮声中完全麻木了，完全麻醉了。每一个人都变成了疯狂的准诗人。而在大小诗人之中，最最引人注目的诗人，那就是庞德！
从老庞自身的观点而言，他第一是一个未来主义者。而他的未来主义，是以他所谓“愈古老愈现代”的面目出现的。虽然他的诗中大量引用了无论是东方还是西方的传统与神话，但是，他的着言点却无疑是要在这些老东西的体系上，来一个黑格尔或者希特勒式的体制革命（包括政治体制和文化走向）。极为可笑的是，他在企望重新认识与归类他眼中的西方文化时，他的所谓的体系，居然容入了大量莫以名状的中国文化与中国文字。他的这些汉字的出现，建立在他严重对抗西方文化的，可悲的，像沙滩一样薄弱的基础上。他的对于中国文化的误读，到达无以复加的程度。在他的《比萨》中，与其说他是在吟咏我们的泰山，不如说他是在用泰山这个一般西方人无从了解的诗歌意象，达到他为西方文化唱一唱挽歌之目的。而对西方传统的自由主义文化唱挽歌，既不意谓着在西方兴起东方文化——更不意味着他要创建一种优越的新文化——而可以阻断欧洲的老文化。这在当时的环境里是极为滑稽的举措。而对于西方传统的民主主义的蔑视，却带来不可估量的灾难。
英国自由主义大师哈耶克在其《通向奴役的道路》一书中，用一条小小的注释，对老庞可怜的经济与社会思想以及他的对于以英国自由主义传统所做的荒谬的否定如是说，“我们这一代人已经看见了无数诽谤密尔顿的英国人和美国人——并且他们当中的第一人，庞德是这次战争期间从意大利发表广播演说的人这或许是深有意义的。”
哈耶克是针对老庞对他的诗歌鼻祖密尔顿大不敬而对他进行抨击的。在哈耶克看来，“那些不但‘说的是莎士比亚的语言，’而且所抱的‘也是密尔顿的信仰和道德的英国人似乎都已经消逝殆尽了。”
而尼采的要对一千个人施加一千具枷锁的，他所谓的“人类的目标”，在第三帝国的统治者手中，早已有效地魔化为“上帝的鞭子了”！ 而所有这些让人兴奋的新理想，使得爱因斯坦和托马斯。曼逃之夭夭；而让海德格尔，福特文格勒们却看到了“新世界的曙光”，这里当然也包括了庞德！
其二。老庞以反对高利贷为他的《诗章》的中心思想。这个古怪的想法本身，就是他对法西斯主义之迷恋 的结果。诚然，１９３８年第三帝国的确消灭了失业，其经济增长率高达百分之三十。然而，这样的一个经济奇迹，是以怎样的对人的异化为其前提的啊！
哈耶克也许没有或不愿意面对老庞的伟大诗歌文本。但是他对于老庞的定位，也就是他对于老庞在那个自由主义和纳碎主义较量的年代里的自我选择，对于一个痛斥罗斯福经济政策的诗歌狂人的毫无意义的和豪无价值的政治思想所抱的几乎是不宵一顾的态度，反映了在那个鬼迷心窍的年代里，真知卓见者的清醒与胆识。（也许人们总是把诗歌和一个空洞的理想或理想主义连在一起；把一个诗人的对于未来的不着边际的理想之歌，与他对于罪恶的责任感分割开来；即便这个诗人本身已堕落成一个杀人犯，人们还是要从他的诗歌文本中，发掘那些子虚乌有的所谓的人的价值。虽然他的诗歌文本比其老庞来，已经是一堆极为可怜的废物。）
其三。任何对于本民族优秀文化传统的否定，从历史的经验来看，都是一种莫以名状的选择，其后果往往是可悲的，甚至是罪恶的。这同样涉及老庞对于汉文化在那个特殊年代的特殊兴趣。
《比萨诗章》的编者很有眼光地收入了一篇批评老庞的文章，取名为《痛击法西斯主义》，该文作者查尔斯·伯恩斯坦写道，“当庞德作为伟大的艺术家，其政治观点被原谅时，法西斯主义就胜利了。当庞德的政治观点，被用来全盘否定他的诗歌创作方法时，法西斯主义就胜利了。”我们还可以加上一句，当黑格尔为了他的德意志绝对意志而对历史削足适履时，人们一开始是兴奋的，但荒谬一旦呈现在人们的面前，人们就完全有理由对之斥之以鼻。
正如伯恩斯坦所言，“在诗歌或其他艺术中，对先有或原始或偶遇的材料的运用，仍然值得我们从政治上进行考察。这些材料是作为无法更改的成品独立自主地存在呢？——还是它们被一个侵透着为作者的思想倾向所决定特殊含义的框架所套用，或是它们已堕落退化成简单的符号，空洞的能指——……。一种唯心的普遍真理与一种欺骗性的叙述虚构的双重组合，只不过是那些不愿意生活于此时此刻的人所演的皮影戏。”是的，他的话起码有两层含义。一是，没有，也不可能有一种抽象的对于历史与未来的虚枉之言。任何对于过去与现在的那怕是诗的陈述，也必须敬畏历史。
二是。如果诗人在他所处的年代强奸历史，那怕他以诗的名誉，和诗人的所谓的疯狂，也无法让他的作品摆脱最终的虚伪。这是很残酷的判决！
由此看来，老庞的诗歌，他的意象派试验，他的对于汉文化的运用，是不是都会随着他的反自由主义思想而一无所值了呢！这当然是一个极为严重的问题。在此，又是人们所说的二律悖反救了他的命。正是这一点，使其诗作一直以来是被当做诗作来看的，而不是以复杂的文化现像来看待。无独有偶，比如在黑格尔前提错误的局部论述中，也有着某些真知卓见一样。老庞的诗作几几忽同构于天地，他的无可比拟的，无数的细节，使他的作品突破了他本人的观念。在这样一个意义上，他的诗名与他的诗作，得以以“朦胧诗”的定位流传下来，甚而受到人们的褒扬。而这实际上是他对于他所受用的无限多的体裁之驾驭的失败而至！就像伯恩斯坦所说，是他对于他的体材之专制态度的失败所致，这是十分耐人寻其味的。这里包括那些真正懂得他的人，和那些本来就对于诗歌行拆烂污之态度的庸众和假诗人。
我们没有在这里深入涉及老庞对于汉文化所采取的态度，以及他的所谓的方法论。然而作为中国人，我们明显地发现了他的在骨子里对于我们汉文化的极大的陌生感和无知。尤其是，他根本就丝毫也不具备我们汉文化的思维特点。我们的先人说过，大道无形，大辩不言，大音希声一类为西学所不曾言，也不能言的诗歌与哲学思维特性。我们老祖宗的文本完全是启发性的，无逻辑的，箴言体的。我们从他们的伟大论说里可以感觉到他们的内敛的语言张力，但是他们却并不想解释一切，论证一切。几千年来，我们在西方“解释学”的意义与方法论上来理解他们的言论（如果可以这样说的话），他们的语式，他们的现在时。我们从未看到过我们的老祖宗企望实现“体系”（如果这个词可以做动词用的话）这个世界的野心。我们也根本不可想向，像庞德那样如此大规模的“乱写”出现在我们的古代汉语的文本当中。！只有西方的文人才可以这样来构思其作。而这，如果是在西方的别一个什麽诗学者笔下，倒也罢了；而偏偏是一个鼓吹汉文化的老庞，事情就变得不那麽美妙了。（在另一方面，老庞的意象派风格的诗作，似乎有了一丁点与我们汉文化在表面上的灵通；而他转向《诗章》，则意味着他的对于中国文化的一闪即逝的“领悟”之结束。）
严格来说，庞德对于中国文化的了解，和许多对于中国文化同样十分迷恋者如马勒，如尤瑟纳尔，甚至奥登一样，只不过略触皮毛而已。以此一异象来对抗他所在地域之文化；一如在我们中国人里，确有一些乞望以翻译体文本和全盘西化之精神，来辟开中国新诗之前途的虚望中人，都一样是南辕北辙，昼夜颠倒而已。
■〔寄自北京〕
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
现场＠非虚拟批判
主 页|总目录 |作者索引| 投 稿|讨论／留言
橄榄树文学社发行。版权所有、未经许可、不得翻印。 © Copyright by Olive Tree Literature Society. All rights reserved. This web site is maintained by webmaster@wenxue.com. - posted on 12/10/2003
If we narrowly construe the word "culture" only to mean “well-read, well-mannered, and polished," then it appears that Qian certainly would fit into the definition nicely like a glove. There's very little dispute that Qian is a well-learned and well-mannered scholar. He is also refined and elegant in his writing.
Under your elaborated, "thick description" of the cultural basis, acquisition and form of existence, Qian would be in an even better position to be called "a man with culture", since those cited attributes of culture do not catapult it into an unattainable, pristine state. Instead, everyone can be said, without a stretch, to have culture.
The author's whole argument, which I agree, rests upon the proposition that the knowledge or its mere accumulation, in and of itself, without more, is not culture. Therefore, it turns on a broad, expanded definition of culture, which was not supplied here. It prompted me to speculate that we might be talking about two separate, although related, things, since Qian would definitely qualify to be called a cultivated man.
It is my position that it doesn't take a lot of to become a cultivated individual. But culture operates on a much larger scale. It implies and often has some influential power in a society and upon the people living in or around it. In a sense, it is an abstract behavior pattern, transmittable and symbolic. To the extent that Qian's reputation is confined only to the lavish display of the knowledge he amassed, his scholarly contribution to academia and society is diminishingly small, largely due to lack of creativity and originality, and very few are likely to follow his steps or adopt his research methodology, I concur with the author's view Qian is not a man with culture. But this conclusion can only be warranted by adopting a more expanded, analytical definition of culture, albeit not necessarily the one fashioned here.
Just curious, whose do we think can be crowned as a "Chinese Culture Man"?
康妮 wrote:
> In the context of Ezra Pound's words, culture here actually means cultivation. In fact, the word culture was derived from the word cultivation, both are standard in meaning “well-read, well-mannered, and polished.” Culture is based on unique human capacity and usually acquired through enculturation. Culture is embedded in a person’s way of life and it frequently exists at an unconscious level, or at least tends to be so pervasive that it escapes everyday thought. "Knowledge is not culture," as I understand, means that, without human touch, knowledge can not become culture. This is exactly suitable to Qian's case.
>
> Commentator wrote:
> > Just a minor observation. I think there might have been some confusion in the use of the term "culture" here. The word "culture," as used by Ezra Pound, presumably refers to one which is the subject of, say, ethnology. Culture in that context, as is typical in the English language, is broad and all embracing, if we consider the Tylor's classic definition in his much famed "Primitive Culture". It is the collective quality of a society. However, the term "culture" in the phrase "to have culture", as also often used in the Chinese language, actually has a much narrower meaning: it usually refers to the overall quality of a person, is akin to "cultivation", sometimes synonymous with, or mistaken for, "knowledge" or "education". One can have knowledge, but normally only a society is said to have certain culture. In that sense, the "culture" the emperors aspired to acquire for themselves is certainly different from the "culture" of a society. To what extent, if any, the word can be used freely and interchangeably in both linguistic contexts, is a question for another day.
> >
> > zxd wrote:
> > > Ezra Pound once wrote: "Knowledge is not culture. The domain of culture begins when one has 'forgotten-what-book'." If Mr. Chien was not a Chinese, he would be remembered and respected the most as a novelist. Knowing 7 languages (plus ancient and modern Chinese makes it 9) is certainly impressive. To apply all that to literature studies is even more admirable. Only Chinese, however, would have made such a big fuss about it. The ruling class (or kings) as well as the society in general gave such special respect and admiration to those who are so knowledgeable about literature simply because they all want to pretend they "have" culture. But culture only begins when one forgot from what book his knowledge came from. I guess I'm waiting for the day when I forgot Ezra Pound said this. - posted on 12/11/2003
Wow! Such a harvest of thoughts! So glad to see the discussion. This really makes Maya cafe serve one of its two important functions. To follow up the long thread of thought, let me begin with Maya's first note on the distiction between culture and civilization. It's an important distinction and it could be confusing. In general, I totally agree with her on this point. As for my quote of Pound, I think it is a special case. In this case, Pound seems to refer to individual not society. I'm not 100% sure, because I was reading his quotes, without context. But I'm pretty sure, because he was talking about forgetting what book (one has read). So in that sense, I think he is only making an acute observation at individual level.
The second note from Maya seems to understand my position better. The rest of the discussion ran away from my thought, but brought about perhaps even more interesting topics to discuss. One is how do we evaluate Mr. Chien's achievement and who do we think is the most admirable "man with culture". I don't think we need or can reach any consensus on this point, but if each one takes his/her vote with explained reasons, that might be interesting because it will enlighten us to see the value system of each voter.
Another interesting topic is about Pound and/or his or anyone's understanding of culture or civilization. That's a big topic, and we may not have the energy to explore it fully, but with limited exchange of thoughts we may gain quite a few insights. Thanks to zili for introducing the article on Pound. That's another function of Maya cafe I like or enjoy the most. That is, I can read interesting things that I usually do not find.
In addition, there seems to be some evaluation or comparison of Pound and Chien going on here. To that, I have little to say because I know too little about both of them. The reason I recently was reading some of his quotes is because I suddenly noticed that he was once the public enemy and was jailed for betraying his nation. After 9/11 and world events afterwards, I found it extremely interesting to see how the literary circle had tried to protect or defend a politically incorrect person.
Even though I only read some of his quotes, I can see some or most of his comments are either out of date, shallow, or incorrect. Among the few that I felt interesting is the one that I cited. Originally I was thinking of posting it separately in a humorous way. I found it comforting because it gave me an excuse for being a lazy man with bad memory.
Since I found the notes by 令胡冲 and xw, it reminds me of another phenomenon in Chinese society. We seem to have a special admiration or cult for individuals who can memorize many books. This is interesting to me and makes me wonder why. One reason I think, as I mentioned in my original post, is people (including kings) are doing this to pretend they "have culture" or respect culture. I still think so, but I found something else that seems even more interesting. The Chinese seems to be a nation who are the worst in remebering what horrible things that happened in its history, (including what happened less than 40 years ago). Yet it gives such a special honor for those who can remeber many, many books that have nothing or little to do with actual history, something kind of "useless" or "harmless". What a hypocrat is that! This reminds me of a poem by Auden (W.H.?). (I can't cite it now for my bad memroy. Sorry.) Anyway, I'm just trying to point out some of the weakness or ugliness of ourselves as a nation or people. Only in that sense, I am using the word "culture" to refer to a society. Sorry for the confusion. Hope this help to clarify it. - posted on 12/11/2003
I knew I made mistake by saying "Qian's case." I didn't intend to discuss Qian as a whole person but only his essays. As a person, he is a man with culture. As a researcher, you can say he is with culture too. Culture itself doesn't require creativity and originality. It is more about inheritance and pervasiveness. His essays, however, are mountains of knowledge with little or no human touch. That's it, "human touch," as what the author said "小说和散文写作原是两副笔墨，非冷血静观，不足以言小说，非人情深蕴，不足以言散文。"
Commentator wrote:
> If we narrowly construe the word "culture" only to mean “well-read, well-mannered, and polished," then it appears that Qian certainly would fit into the definition nicely like a glove. There's very little dispute that Qian is a well-learned and well-mannered scholar. He is also refined and elegant in his writing.
>
> Under your elaborated, "thick description" of the cultural basis, acquisition and form of existence, Qian would be in an even better position to be called "a man with culture", since those cited attributes of culture do not catapult it into an unattainable, pristine state. Instead, everyone can be said, without a stretch, to have culture.
>
> The author's whole argument, which I agree, rests upon the proposition that the knowledge or its mere accumulation, in and of itself, without more, is not culture. Therefore, it turns on a broad, expanded definition of culture, which was not supplied here. It prompted me to speculate that we might be talking about two separate, although related, things, since Qian would definitely qualify to be called a cultivated man.
>
> It is my position that it doesn't take a lot of to become a cultivated individual. But culture operates on a much larger scale. It implies and often has some influential power in a society and upon the people living in or around it. In a sense, it is an abstract behavior pattern, transmittable and symbolic. To the extent that Qian's reputation is confined only to the lavish display of the knowledge he amassed, his scholarly contribution to academia and society is diminishingly small, largely due to lack of creativity and originality, and very few are likely to follow his steps or adopt his research methodology, I concur with the author's view Qian is not a man with culture. But this conclusion can only be warranted by adopting a more expanded, analytical definition of culture, albeit not necessarily the one fashioned here.
>
> Just curious, whose do we think can be crowned as a "Chinese Culture Man"?
>
>
>
>
>
> 康妮 wrote:
> > In the context of Ezra Pound's words, culture here actually means cultivation. In fact, the word culture was derived from the word cultivation, both are standard in meaning “well-read, well-mannered, and polished.” Culture is based on unique human capacity and usually acquired through enculturation. Culture is embedded in a person’s way of life and it frequently exists at an unconscious level, or at least tends to be so pervasive that it escapes everyday thought. "Knowledge is not culture," as I understand, means that, without human touch, knowledge can not become culture. This is exactly suitable to Qian's case.
> > - posted on 12/11/2003
令胡好。
我从来都没有办法象这样去仰视一个人， 就算他得道成仙， 就算他上了昆仑蹬了了神坛。
我只会感动。 我为了感动而阅读。 确切地讲， Knowledge不是Culture也不是我在阅读中寻求的东西， 我寻求的是人性的色彩。读钱的散文， 我总是觉得自己滞留在书本中而感受不到生命的实在。
钱钟书说梁遇春的小品文：“我们看来， 老觉得他在掉书袋， 够不上空灵的书卷气。。。”书袋是Knowledge, 而空灵的书卷气大概正是我们在说的Culture --“书袋不是空灵的书卷气，” 这样就比较好理解了。
令胡冲 wrote:
> 康妮一向可好。我把CND木绵误认为你了？:)
>
> 在我自己来看，Ezra Pound对Culture的理解，不及钱钟书的脚跟。
>
> 钱不是艺人，不是戏子，而是学者。一点不过分地说，他站在巍巍昆仑之上，却以道之无形，如水之思，如水之适，俯览千变文化，吸于胸中。学思瀚若繁星，而身姿却谦若常人。无意匪夷所思，立文化宏论，博普通人的欢心与景仰，博一时一世之俗名。
>
> 所谓学者，治学为本。钱治学之念，是个通字。天下文化，是一个“通”字。“东海西海，心理攸同；南学北学，道术未裂”。康德说，中西从来就没有互相理解的困难。但康德之流的哲学家，亦只能放天下之大话如此，而无力给以充分的学证。天下罕有人能如此。中学西学，本性不同。如有此种人，也就是钱钟书了。顾亭林日知录可以纵贯古今，拉为一体。但钱可以古今中外，混为一元。
>
> 一个“日暖玉生烟”意向，从《困学纪闻》究其起源，林林总总，历数各家各说之来历，直到海涅诗曰：“如大理石之美好洁白，而复如大理石之寒冷”，融于一思，结于自论。“此情可待成追忆，只是当时已惘然”，则从自评自解起，使其意象完整无瑕，准确细微，再至朱行中《渔家傲》论，直到拜伦收曰：“入世务俗，交游酬应，男女爱悦，图营势位，乃至贪婪财货，人生百为，于兴最高、心最欢时，辄微觉乐趣中杂以疑虑与忧伤，其故何耶。” 充分回溯重建意象。这就是学。知其美，亦知其所以美，重建脑中虚幻的文化概念，供后人鉴定，而不是只给出结论，供后人先学再解。那是哲学。是黑格尔之流唬人的把戏。
>
> ..... - posted on 12/11/2003
Interesting point! Let me continue, just for the sake of argument, or, to be exact, entertainment.
So a person, under the influence of pervasive culture embedded in him, which operates at the subconscious level, can be one with and without culture all at the same time, depending on how he writes. The "human touch" serves as a magic switch which can miraculously turn an individual without culture into one with culture, or the other way around. Moreover, the powerful switch is capable of halting the subconscious functioning of culture in a person and carve out vacuum from the ubiquitous culture pervasive in him .
That's not a human touch. That's a divine touch. :)
康妮 wrote:
> I knew I made mistake by saying "Qian's case." I didn't intend to discuss Qian as a whole person but only his essays. As a person, he is a man with culture. As a researcher, you can say he is with culture too. Culture itself doesn't require creativity and originality. It is more about inheritance and pervasiveness. His essays, however, are mountains of knowledge with little or no human touch. That's it, "human touch," as what the author said "小说和散文写作原是两副笔墨，非冷血静观，不足以言小说，非人情深蕴，不足以言散文。"
>
> Commentator wrote:
> > If we narrowly construe the word "culture" only to mean “well-read, well-mannered, and polished," then it appears that Qian certainly would fit into the definition nicely like a glove. There's very little dispute that Qian is a well-learned and well-mannered scholar. He is also refined and elegant in his writing.
> >
> > Under your elaborated, "thick description" of the cultural basis, acquisition and form of existence, Qian would be in an even better position to be called "a man with culture", since those cited attributes of culture do not catapult it into an unattainable, pristine state. Instead, everyone can be said, without a stretch, to have culture.
> >
> > The author's whole argument, which I agree, rests upon the proposition that the knowledge or its mere accumulation, in and of itself, without more, is not culture. Therefore, it turns on a broad, expanded definition of culture, which was not supplied here. It prompted me to speculate that we might be talking about two separate, although related, things, since Qian would definitely qualify to be called a cultivated man.
> >
> > It is my position that it doesn't take a lot of to become a cultivated individual. But culture operates on a much larger scale. It implies and often has some influential power in a society and upon the people living in or around it. In a sense, it is an abstract behavior pattern, transmittable and symbolic. To the extent that Qian's reputation is confined only to the lavish display of the knowledge he amassed, his scholarly contribution to academia and society is diminishingly small, largely due to lack of creativity and originality, and very few are likely to follow his steps or adopt his research methodology, I concur with the author's view Qian is not a man with culture. But this conclusion can only be warranted by adopting a more expanded, analytical definition of culture, albeit not necessarily the one fashioned here.
> >
> > Just curious, whose do we think can be crowned as a "Chinese Culture Man"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 康妮 wrote:
> > > In the context of Ezra Pound's words, culture here actually means cultivation. In fact, the word culture was derived from the word cultivation, both are standard in meaning “well-read, well-mannered, and polished.” Culture is based on unique human capacity and usually acquired through enculturation. Culture is embedded in a person’s way of life and it frequently exists at an unconscious level, or at least tends to be so pervasive that it escapes everyday thought. "Knowledge is not culture," as I understand, means that, without human touch, knowledge can not become culture. This is exactly suitable to Qian's case.
> > > - posted on 12/11/2003
自立兄的帖子有不少处是有专业水平的，如果读者读到细节里面还没有晕倒的话。:-)
钱的书文是专业水平，千百页的书，几乎每一行里都别有洞天，自成一景。然而与宏观处却又似无可把握。人们说的不错，文言文为器，乾嘉学派的治学方式，札记体裁的借用，使其无尽佳思妙语尽失于古体负面的sterotype。也与西方主流的治学方式背道而驰。我们理工科出身的人，大多习惯于物理性的思维，喜欢宇宙万物收敛于一道一理，喜欢简朴而和谐的精美韵律。
但在钱眼里，他恰恰不持此观，甚至反对这种所谓的“科学”治学方式来表达人文文化，一统天下。所以他主张“通”却不统，“通”而不“同”。如分形理论一般，树形、枝形、叶形，宏处亦微，微处亦宏。天下万物，心中千象，皆含宇宙之理，人间之象。
如此成札，至少对于读书人和学者们来说，是取之不尽的词源，对于有慧根的人而言，更是象原。人脑中形成的意象，何以为佳象，源于何处，孕于何处，丰于何处，美于何处，他都能给一个交代。如此集堆的珠海，也真是少见的。 - posted on 12/12/2003
>我只会感动。 我为了感动而阅读。 确切地讲， Knowledge不是Culture也不是我在阅读中寻求的东西， 我寻求的是人性的色彩。读钱的散文， 我总是觉得自己滞留在书本中而感受不到生命的实在。
With knowledge, you can walk on water, at will; while for a spark of sensational touch, you might meet a dark stranger, at surprise, every reading. Both ways are enjoyable for yourself, I trust. :)
康妮 wrote:
> 令胡好。
>
> 我从来都没有办法象这样去仰视一个人， 就算他得道成仙， 就算他上了昆仑蹬了了神坛。
>
> 我只会感动。 我为了感动而阅读。 确切地讲， Knowledge不是Culture也不是我在阅读中寻求的东西， 我寻求的是人性的色彩。读钱的散文， 我总是觉得自己滞留在书本中而感受不到生命的实在。
>
> 钱钟书说梁遇春的小品文：“我们看来， 老觉得他在掉书袋， 够不上空灵的书卷气。。。”书袋是Knowledge, 而空灵的书卷气大概正是我们在说的Culture --“书袋不是空灵的书卷气，” 这样就比较好理解了。
>
>
> 令胡冲 wrote:
> > 康妮一向可好。我把CND木绵误认为你了？:)
> >
> > 在我自己来看，Ezra Pound对Culture的理解，不及钱钟书的脚跟。
> >
> > 钱不是艺人，不是戏子，而是学者。一点不过分地说，他站在巍巍昆仑之上，却以道之无形，如水之思，如水之适，俯览千变文化，吸于胸中。学思瀚若繁星，而身姿却谦若常人。无意匪夷所思，立文化宏论，博普通人的欢心与景仰，博一时一世之俗名。
> >
> > 所谓学者，治学为本。钱治学之念，是个通字。天下文化，是一个“通”字。“东海西海，心理攸同；南学北学，道术未裂”。康德说，中西从来就没有互相理解的困难。但康德之流的哲学家，亦只能放天下之大话如此，而无力给以充分的学证。天下罕有人能如此。中学西学，本性不同。如有此种人，也就是钱钟书了。顾亭林日知录可以纵贯古今，拉为一体。但钱可以古今中外，混为一元。
> >
> > 一个“日暖玉生烟”意向，从《困学纪闻》究其起源，林林总总，历数各家各说之来历，直到海涅诗曰：“如大理石之美好洁白，而复如大理石之寒冷”，融于一思，结于自论。“此情可待成追忆，只是当时已惘然”，则从自评自解起，使其意象完整无瑕，准确细微，再至朱行中《渔家傲》论，直到拜伦收曰：“入世务俗，交游酬应，男女爱悦，图营势位，乃至贪婪财货，人生百为，于兴最高、心最欢时，辄微觉乐趣中杂以疑虑与忧伤，其故何耶。” 充分回溯重建意象。这就是学。知其美，亦知其所以美，重建脑中虚幻的文化概念，供后人鉴定，而不是只给出结论，供后人先学再解。那是哲学。是黑格尔之流唬人的把戏。
> >
> > ..... - 鐩稿浜庝功鏂嬪瀷鐨勫鑰咃紝鎴戞洿娆ｈ祻鏈夊垱鎰忋�佸垱瑙佺殑瀛﹁�呮枃浜�posted on 12/12/2003
当然创作是需要积累才会产生的。 - posted on 12/12/2003
Here's my follow-up on this interesting discussion.
1) Maya's point (on divine touch) is very sharp and funny. I like it very much. But I also love 康妮's earlier point (我从来都没有办法象这样去仰视一个人， 就算他得道成仙， 就算他上了昆仑蹬了了神坛。)
2) Last night I read a little bit more from Pound's original essays and I think I can confirm on two things. First, his sentence on knowledge and culture is referring to individuals, not society as a whole. So my quote is correct without misunderstanding. Second, I very much appreciate zili's article and his comment and analysis about Pound. If there is anything I can add or improve, I would say this: Zili is not the first one to point out that Pound doesn't know Chinese and doesn't understand Chinese. When Pound was first introduced and loved in Taiwan or HK many many years ago, people noticed that he didn't understand Chinese. But they applauded him for that. They enjoyed to see that someone can use Chinese language and culture as a source of stimulation to create new arts, even though the artist didn't really understand or actually misunderstands Chinese. In other words, this matter was celebrated in a positive perspective. Therefore, when zili wrote his essay it is not enough to merely point out that Pound doesn't understand Chinese. The criticism on his lack of knowledge of Chinese therefore has to come from a new angle. I look forward to seeing that new angle from zili.
3) I am afraid that there is some misunderstanding between 令胡 and me. When he post that article on Mr. Chien, he commented that he especially appreciated the part on 《管锥编》. To me, this article provides both praising and criticism on this book. Since I have heard so much praising before, I assume what 令胡 means is that he is glad to see some criticism finally come as well. But he followed up with an extremely positive view. That surprised me. I thought he must have already heard so much nice words and fuzz about Chien and this book and wouldn't care to add much more. Make no mistake about it. We all respect and admire Chien's achievement, both academic and novel writing. But quite enough have been said on that part already. If there is anything new to add, it got to be accurate and reasonable criticism. A follow-up note by xw seems also to tune down the feverish rave about Chien that we often heard about. Under that circumstances, I followed up with my quote of Pound, and never thought 令胡 would jump in with more rave as if we hurt his hero. There seems to be some inconsistence in his earlier and later comments or change of his position during a conversation. I hope this is not because of his dislike of me or my previous comments in this cafe. If so, I'll just shut up and be quiet. - posted on 12/12/2003
To me, knowledge and culture are byproducts of readings. Of course, readings in school are solely for knowledge. It therefore becomes utility instead of joy. As you can guess, I had never been a good student in school. But I am a very good worker, a worker who can walk on water. This is because, believe or not, I have imagination. :-)
I thought Commentator were Maya. After her touch, my human touch turned into divine touch. Only Maya has this kind of charm, doesn't she? :-)
令胡冲 wrote:
>
> >我只会感动。 我为了感动而阅读。 确切地讲， Knowledge不是Culture也不是我在阅读中寻求的东西， 我寻求的是人性的色彩。读钱的散文， 我总是觉得自己滞留在书本中而感受不到生命的实在。
>
> With knowledge, you can walk on water, at will; while for a spark of sensational touch, you might meet a dark stranger, at surprise, every reading. Both ways are enjoyable for yourself, I trust. :)
>
>
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation