诸神下界

晚清的“诸神”处境十分尴尬。在晚清小说里，像这样的段落令人莞尔。我也把它翻译成英文，希望尽量保持原有趣味。

文昌帝君怒容滿面曰：“甚么立憲！下界人只講得一句變法，便停了科舉，遂使我的血食登時冷淡起來，此刻索性鬧到天上來了。”

魁星曰：“豈但是你，便連我這枝朱筆也沒用了。你不見我么，舉起手，高高的提起這枝筆，永遠沒得點下去，好不難受！”

香案吏嘆曰：“豈但你二位，還有可怜的呢。自從那年中國把台灣割歸日本，日本听說是個立憲國，崇尚西法，不敬神道的，所有台澎一帶的府縣城隍，都沒了事，猶如裁缺官儿一般，都到天上來候補，天天到我這里來鑽門路。你道可怜不可怜？”

夜游神拍手道：“几個府縣城隍，又算得什么。你還不知道，自從台灣歸了日本之後，几十万個灶君，莫不流离失所，窮得十分可怜，跑回內地來，無可托足，往往餓急了，扒到人家灶 突上窺探，等人家的灶君睡著了，卻下去偷冷飯吃。內中只有三四個得著好處的，這三四個跑到上海，查一查，見金隆、寶德、密采里等几家外國飯店是沒有灶君 的，他們便各据一家。天天吃大菜。…”

Lord Wenchang (god of letters) is very indignant: “What a constitutional reform! No sooner some people in the under realm say something about reform than their court abolishes the Imperial Examination.[1] This causes the reduction of offerings to me. Now the reform even disrupts the heaven!”

The Dipper Star[2] says: “Not only you are being affected. Even my red ink brush is useless now. Cannot you see it? I am holding my brush pen high, but cannot stroke it down.[3] This is really unbearable.

The Incense Burner Table Clerk sighed: “Not only you are pathetic. There are other wretched ones. Since that year China ceded Taiwan to Japan[4]—a constitutional monarchy that worships the West while disregarding gods and spirits—all the city gods in prefectures and counties in Taiwan and Penghu (The Pescadores) have been fired. Resembling laid-off officials, they swarm into the firmament, waiting for reassignments. They sit in my lobby everyday. Isn’t that pathetic?”

The Night Wandering Spirit claps his hands and says: “It’s not big news that some city gods have lost jobs. You know what? After Taiwan was taken by Japan, hundreds of thousands of kitchen gods have become poor vagabonds. They flee back to inland China but without a place to settle down. When they get too hungry, they climb up chimneys of households, waiting for the residential kitchen gods’ sleeping time. Then they will drop into the kitchens to steal some cold meals. A few lucky ones—only three or four of them—come to Shanghai. After some exploration, they discovered that several foreign restaurants—Jin Long, Bao De, Mi Cai Li and so on—have no residential kitchen gods. So they each occupy one kitchen. Everyday they eat Western dishes….

---

[1] This was happened in 1905.

[2] Who is said to be another star that is in charge of literary fame.

[3] Such an expression implies that his duty is meaningless now. Without the Imperial Examination, his brush is useless.

[4] As a result of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895).

学长的“营养价值”

© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者：Dun Wang (王敦)。

学长的“营养价值”

王敦

小时候读过郭沫若先生一篇回忆体《我的童年》，里面有个老师自我介绍时说：“学问之道，为师者半，为友者半，为己者半。”这句开场白，却为先生换来了“三半先生”的诨名。先生听到以后并不以为然，说：“一个橘子不还十好几瓣吗？”

小朋友们拿“三半先生”找乐儿，当然合乎儿童心理学原理，但我觉得这位先生的话其实也不错。特别是现在的我——经历了七八年的留学——对“学问之道”的这“三半”感受很深。细分起来，一个人的求学生涯里会有很多师，很多友，也有不同阶段的多个自我，如果一瓣一瓣地剖析起来，不正像剖一个橘子吗？一个橘子要想长好，需要土壤和阳光雨露都合适——正如同我在加州大学伯克利分校遇到的环境——如此，每一瓣嚼起来才会是甜的。

二〇〇一年，我初到伯克利就有幸认识了一“瓣”很有营养的学长，高峰枫。他是北大英文系出身，在这里念比较文学系，却来旁听我们东亚语言与文化系的唐宋词研讨。课上，Robert Ashmore教授——北大中文系硕士，哈佛大学宇文所安教授的博士——带领我们进行细读。高学长是个训练有素的文学阅读者，总能发现字里行间隐秘的“张力”和工艺。他分明是在向我示范四五十年代英美“新批评”的威力，然而都是在中国诗词学的范围内就事论事，不落半点理论言筌。课程过半，我正对高峰枫佩服得紧，他却消失了，据说是加紧赶制毕业论文，来不了了。从此， Ashmore 教授在课上常常若有所思：“不知道峰枫对这一句怎么看？”或：“不知道峰枫会对此处做何解？”我彻底服了，觉得高峰枫就像王冕，是只在《儒林外史》第一回才出现的高人。

学长从课堂上消失之前，已经对我这个北大学弟问寒问暖了。我更是很兴奋从此能和峰枫兄论学、喝啤酒、让峰枫兄带我——如同城里老鼠带乡下老鼠一般——去伯克利有名的书店 Moe’s Books 和 Cody’s Books 里见世面。（在中餐馆里，峰枫兄一定先问酒保：“你会中文官话吗？”如果回答说“会！”峰枫兄就只跟酒保说普通话。）如今，我亦饱尝了赶写博士论文的甘苦，所以对峰枫兄在我身上花的时间更为领情。几年难得见上一面了。在记忆的咀嚼中，高峰枫对我来说不仅仅是一“瓣”普通的学长。他的营养价值极高，是不断滋养着我的“高乐高”。

我在来美国前就已经从《读书》杂志上见识这个名字了。二〇〇〇年某期有一篇《找寻历史上的耶稣》，署名“高峰枫”。我对其渊博而又平易的风格很欣赏。没想到在伯克利，竟能碰到该作者，而且是位学长！高学长钻研拉丁文和古典的学问，拿西方经典中的经典圣经开刀。对于这样的学问我到今天也不懂，所以也不敢乱说。因此，下面不说学问，只说“隐私”。

说高学长的妙处，真不必拘泥于学问上面。就说他的房租吧，真是在伯克利没见过的低。这不是说他住得很破——相反，他的公寓在学生中是很奢侈的，又位于校园附近很漂亮的College Ave.。高学长能享如此之福，真真说明了“无所用心”的实惠。当年学长搬进去的时候——我来伯克利多年以前的事了——那个公寓真是贵。楼主以此价租给学长，觉得一定是稳赚了。为了能稳住学长，更在租约里写了 Rent Control 的款项——也就是说只要房客不搬走，就不能涨价。学长图个上学方便，乖乖就范，再不挪窝儿了。但谁都没有料到后来房租行情会飙升如火山喷发。就这样年复一年，随着学长的学业有成，旧金山湾区一带的平均房租也翻了一翻多。如此，学长以最便宜之价格享受如此美宅，让房地产资本家气死，让出版业资本家乐死。（他把省出来的钱 拿去买书了。）楼主多次问他还毕不毕业了，我看是快疯了。人说“一诺值千金”，我看学长这“一诺”，赚了何止“千金”。最后学长终于说要毕业了，还帮我问楼主如果我接着租要多少钱。听到楼主的答复，这回轮到我疯了。

如此美宅，峰枫兄也慷慨地让我白住了一暑假多。我也就在此期间“登堂入室”，进一步窥测学长的“私生活”。事情是这样，国际会馆（International House, Berkeley）暑假太贵。我搬出来后没地方周转，高兄就收留了我。他搬到客厅里，睡床垫，我在他的卧室里睡剩下的光板儿 box。未几，高兄回国一趟，临行前把他那举世无双的房钱塞在写好的小信封里，让我按月塞在“经理室”的门下。我每天上午在暑期学校学日语——系里要求学两年半的日语——下午写作业，在国际会馆打工，周末全打工，做小卖部的伙计。每天晚上复预习日语之余，唯有仰望高学长的若干大书架以解乡愁。望着堆得满满的洋书——极贵，每本儿至少二三十美元——我想：这钱就是用来下馆子也够好几年啊！我也想起了我系奚如谷（Stephen H. West）教授爱说的一句话：读书人是长了两只脚的书橱。

独自享用如此美宅，我就把床垫又搬回 box 上面，躺着看高峰枫的书。可惜我那时的知识比现在还贫瘠，又太忙，面对这么多宝贝，真是吃不动，只留下了若干模糊的印象。我后悔当时没拿个本子把书名作者名都记下来。要想重访这些面目模糊的朋友——我想——也只好以后“登堂入室”高峰枫在北京的家了。高峰枫也曾教我一个好习惯，那就是用本子把看到的好文章都给抄下来，一来养眼，二来养心。这一点我是听进去了，到现在不论是引用资料还是揣摩中英文章法，都受惠无穷。这些摘抄到今天我都已经给“数码化”了，还不时地放在“博客”上去显摆一番。

暑假过得很快。塞了两回小信封，我的日文强化课也上完了。有一天回来推开门，听见古典音乐，知道峰枫兄回来了。果然，床垫又回到客厅，峰枫兄正躺在上面睡呢。第二天，他连时差也没倒，就明显加快了写论文的步伐。我看他自律极严，坐功极佳，是个早起早睡并以蔬菜胡萝卜代肉之人。他说只有上午干够了一定的活 儿，心里才觉得踏实。一直到天黑之前，他都是这样伏案正坐。他的笔记本电脑里有一个下象棋的软件。我看他换脑筋的时候，就以此下棋自娱。天黑之后，峰枫兄就从紧绷的状态松弛下来，看书，跟我聊天儿，处理杂务。他还要看一集中文电视里的“小李飞刀”，看的时候还“嘿嘿儿”地一个人乐出声儿来。到了九点多，他再听听古典音乐，翻看金圣叹评点的古典小说，喝杯牛奶，然后就早早地躺在床垫上睡觉了。就这样，天天如此，除了在周末他会抽出一个半天，坐地铁去旧金山中国城的一个文化中心去拉二胡。（或者是板胡、京胡或高胡，再不就是弹琵琶或打扬琴——我记不清了。）

八月中旬，新学期伊始。每天把书读来读去，课听来听去，我仿佛一个人同时开练几种武功，方寸大乱。高兄看我这个样子就安慰我：你自个儿别乱，先往里灌，以后总有一天会清楚的。再后来，我找到了住处，搬出了高兄的“美地”。如学长所言，我每天努力往里“灌”。可惜再也听不到学长看“小李飞刀”时的“嘿嘿儿”声了。

天下没有不散的宴席。学长毕业了，要归国了。临行前，在人民公园（People’s Park）里，峰枫兄留给了我一口袋书——他说实在太沉，搬不走了。其中有德语和法语词典——他说以后用得着，有韦勒克的《文学理论》，词汇学名著 Chasing the Sun，日本学者岛田虔次的章太炎研究，历史学家 Paul Cohen 的义和团研究，William Harmon 编的文学术语手册，等等。人民公园一别，学长就回北大英文系教书去了。面对这些书，我茫然若失了好一阵子，如同漫画《三毛流浪记》里形单影只的三毛。

“一诺千金”、“内力深厚”、“临别授予秘笈”，还有拉二胡……这些都是大众想象中“大侠”的风范。我很幸运在步入当代“儒林”的第一“回”，就能遇到峰枫兄这样的高人。有一次我在 Email 里谈他留下的这些书对我多有帮助。他回信说都忘了把《文学理论》送给了我；有时还纳闷：这书去哪里了？还以为寄回来的时候弄丢了呢。古人讲：滴水之恩，必将涌泉相报。我不但没报，还尽在这里披露学长的“隐私”。好在学长是个宽厚之人；现在没准儿正对着书橱，拉二胡偷着乐呢！

© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者：Dun Wang (王敦)。

小说的开头

J. Hillis Miller, On Literature (London & New York: Routledge, 2002), 30-32.

Sometimes it is not quite the first sentence that brings the character alive. The opening sentence of the second chapter of Pickwick Papers brings Mr Pickwick to life for me, along with the distinctive ironic parodic voice of Dickens himself, the “Immortal Boz,” as he liked to be called. What is parodied in this case is the circumstantiality of place and date that is expected of “realist” fiction. The sentence opening the second chapter picks up the fiat lux echo in the first sentence of the novel. Here is part of that first first sentence: “The first ray of light which illumines the gloom, and converts into a dazzling brilliancy that obscurity in which the earlier history of the immortal Pickwick would appear to be involved…” This opening parodies not only Genesis but also the pomposities found in official biographies of “great men.” It also indicates Dickens’s inaugural power as author, light-bringer. The echo of that in the beginning of the second chapter applies the same figure to Pickwick’s appearance find morning:

That punctual servant of all work, the sun, had just risen, and begun to strike a light on the morning of the thirteenth of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, when Mr Samuel Pickwick burst like another sun from his slumbers, threw open his chamber window, and looked out upon the world beneath. Goswell Street was at his feet, Goswell Street was on his right hand—as far as the eye could reach, Goswell Street extended on his left; and the opposite side of Goswell Street was over the way.

George Eliot’s Dorothea Brooke, in Middlemarch, to give another example of a deferred beginning, does not come fully alive for me in the opening sentences. The novel opens like this: “Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress. Her hand and wrist were so finely formed that she could wear sleeves not less bare of style than those in which the Blessed Virgin appeared to Italian painters…” This is circumstantial enough, but what really brings Dorothea to life for me is a moment in the opening scene with her sister Celia when, against her principles, Dorothea admires the jewelry they have inherited from their mother: “‘How very beautiful these gems are!’ said Dorothea, under a new current of feeling, as sudden as the gleam [that the sun has just reflected from the jewels].”

The attentive reader will note how often these openings, though I have chosen them more or less at random from those that stick in my mind, involve in one way or another either the sun or the opening of a window. Sometimes, as in Pickwick papers, both motifs are present. Mrs Dalloway, to give a final example, a few sentences beyond the opening sentence I have cited, shows Clarissa remembering an experience of her childhood:

What a lark! What a plunge! For so it had always seemed to her, when, with a little squeak of the hinges, which she could hear now, she had burst open the French windows and plunged at Bourton into the open air.

The beginning of the world, even these imaginary literary ones, seems naturally figured by a rising sun or by a window opening from the inside to the outside.

国耻图录（六）

《圣经》的汉化

译经·释经·尊经 ——评冯象《创世记传说与译注》

高峰枫 《书城》2004年第12期

…… 释经 　　经典的解释有许多方式，我们习见的形式是注疏，就是以明白的学术语言讲明经文的意思（包括词语的训解和经义的阐发）。还有一种更加高明的阐释手法，是以经文为蓝本，改写或者续写经文片断，创造出新的故事和寓言。这后一种方式不如注疏来得扎实和详备，但天资高的人往往能以大力甚至蛮力撕开经文的一角，使得本来拒斥解释的段落涌出丰富的含义来。比如卡夫卡著名的短篇《塞壬女妖的沉默》就是对《奥德赛》绝好的注释。 　　冯象在译文之前有二十篇“故事新编”，是将短注中容纳不了而又舍不得扔掉的材料另外写成故事。按照他自己在前言中的说法，是将“原著拆了重新敷演，融入中文的语境与文学传统”（页11）。虽云故事，但不少篇章实际上是对经文的独特阐释。冯象给我们的不是高头讲章式的解经，他是要将个人生活史努力汇入经文的世界，将受时空历史局限的小我安放在经文广大的空间中。读经是要和经书发生碰撞，发生关联，不是硬生生地牵合经文以就己意，而是面向经文敞开自我、暴露自我，否则经自经，我自我，读经再多，也与自家身心了无关涉。 　　在这些故事新编中，冯象总是往来穿行于犹太经典和个人际遇之间。一方面用地道的中文重述、“改写”《创世记》中的故事以及许多离奇、甚至玄怪的传说，另一方面则穿插个人的生活遭际和师友往还（“扯上几位师长古人，以为点缀、起兴”），两条线索交错而行，相互映射，结果激荡出一种非笺注、非小说的独特文体。比如“举目”一篇，叙述神毁灭所多玛和蛾摩拉两城（《创世记》十八、十九章），剪除城中恶贯满盈的刁民，只放过亚伯拉罕的侄儿罗得一家。穿插于其间的是作者一位朋友的故事。西蒙是纽约一家金融资讯公司的副总，和作者在书店偶遇，两个人都对圣经有兴趣，言谈甚欢，始有交往。所多玛是他们第一次谈话的主要话题，在此埋下伏笔。后来交往渐多，还相约九月十一日共同参加一个募捐活动，结果西蒙在“九一一”事件中不幸遇难，遂成永诀。两城的覆灭和世贸中心双塔轰然倒地，冯象将两件事并置在一处，逼迫读者思考无辜人受难这样的大问题，故这一篇尤其沉郁动人。读到这样的故事，我们会感到犹太古经不再与我们隔膜，对于冯象来说，希伯来圣经不是一部死经，而是一卷活书。 　　可惜二十篇故事新编中并不是每一篇都能象“举目”一样打动人心。很多时候，现代故事与古代经文之间的联系不甚紧密，或者作者自有深意存焉，可惜愚钝如我者看不清其间的关联。如果个人经历仅仅作为点染或者起兴，那只能算文学创作的手段。比如“假如”一文，本是写亚伯拉罕老管家为小主人娶妻一段故事，但冯象偏偏搬来博尔赫斯老人家（可能是模仿博氏某著名短篇），笔法虚虚实实，生动则生动矣，却难以看出对老管家井边遇利百加这段事迹有什么具体的关联。 　　这里要特别提一下冯象的语言。译文的语言已然十分精彩，到了故事新编，因为没有太多的限制，作者更为自由，精彩的笔墨比比皆是。作者将圣经题材融入中文语境，在文字上着力最多。我们经常能读到“耶和华合拢浮云，轻推日月”这样的句子，下面这些话都颇多可圈可点之处： 　　“耶和华正在宝座上筹划人类大同的未来，隐隐约约听见几声号子，便伸出小指，拨开浮云，俯瞰大地。” 　　“天使按下云头，厉声喝道：‘狸狸站住，神子在此。’” 　　“她是宫里生、宫里长的丫头，奴婢的命，那种自由自在浪迹天涯的牧人生活，只要能过上一天，也就心满意足了！” 　　“艾利泽挑出几个得力的家奴，备办了礼品，发十匹骆驼，动身北上。餐风露宿，不必细表。” 　　不用我啰嗦，读者自然会联想到古典小说中那些精妙的文字，发出会心的微笑。此种韵味十足的语言虽不大适合译经，但最能显示出冯象作为小说家笔力之雄健。 尊经 　　下面说一些不同意见。为这样一本好书写书评，如果不吹毛求疵，那就只剩下满篇谀辞了。 　　论到冯象这部书，有一大关节处需要讨论。冯象在二十篇故事新编中广采经外书、特别是犹太古代注解中保存的大量神话传说和逸闻，作为对《创世记》经文故事的补充。他于前言中明言：“情节素材则主要取自希伯来语和希腊语‘伪经’（pseudepigrapha）、《巴比伦大藏》和古代犹太律法中的经义串解（midrashim），以及中世纪密宗文献等”（页11）。这样的作法有利也有弊。经文原本简约，有语焉不详处，也有深藏不露处。比如，亚伯拉罕蒙召之前的事迹，《创世记》中并无记载。第十二章起首处，耶和华蓦地让这位犹太人的圣祖离开家乡和族人，到神指定的地方。经中随后说此时亚伯拉罕年已七十五岁。冯象则引古斯拉夫语《亚伯拉罕启示录》等书，叙述亚伯拉罕儿时焚烧家中外族神的偶像，使家人重新找回祖先信仰，这样足以补足亚伯拉罕前半生的事迹。此类故事不管可信与否，都能让读者对这位“上帝之友”有更加完整的了解。但是，冯象辑录的传说，大多类似我们的志怪小说，颇多灵异神怪，充满诸如飞升变化等记述，如果放在中文的语境中，大约可入《搜神记》、《玄怪录》一类书。比如，“被上帝接去了”的以诺竟然化作精液登上天庭（页53），宁录有一件刀枪不入的皮衣（页74），亚伯拉罕之妻莎拉用自己乳汁喂饱一百婴儿（页99），这些竟象是《封神演义》中的故事了。又如洪水消退之后，方舟内一片欢腾，诺亚不小心一脚踩到母狮的尾巴，母狮以为是公狮调戏，一掌拍下，正中诺亚胯下（页67），这里语涉滑稽，在经文中是断断看不到的。 　　这些离奇的故事颇能满足人们猎奇的心理，也使冯象讲的故事生动活泼、妙趣横生。但是，如果过于倚重这些正典之外的异闻，于《创世记》本身的载记就会难免轻轻滑过。譬如行军打仗，不与劲敌正面交锋，却反而盘桓周旋于流寇之中。目前国人对希伯来圣经扎实的研究甚少，此时大谈经外书和塔木德，未免过于奢侈，尤其对于初读《创世记》的读者，我总担心容易耽于诸传说的玄怪，反而于正典中的故事留意不多。这就好比研究孔子，若不仔细读《论语》和《孔子世家》，却总在纬书或者《韩诗外传》中找材料，这样的做法就不够稳健。 　　我们不要忘记，《创世记》经文中实际上极少这类怪力乱神的故事。随便翻看一部西方学者关于《创世记》的详注本，都可以发现这《摩西五经》的第一部乃是精心构造的作品。此书作者或者编纂者于材料的去取格外小心，在开天辟地这样的叙述中，神造天造地、造光、造日月星辰、造山河大地，这本是驰骋想象的绝好机会，本不难写成光怪陆离、荒诞不经的神话，但是作者或者编者偏偏不采这样的神话思路，而是以节制、低调的笔法描写宇宙的创生，以神口说的圣言为创造的原始，这本身体现了与异族宗教迥异的神学思想。比如，造日月一节（1:16），经文只说“于是神造了两个大光，大的管昼，小的管夜”，不出“日月”等字样。冯象此节注曰：“太阳与月亮的名字故意省略了，因它们是周边异教民族膜拜的神明”（页224）。这里就不难见到编定正典者的深刻用心。 　　《创世记》编者排除了诸多玄怪的记述，而冯象却是反其道而行之。在故事新编中，他有意将正典编定者舍弃的那一类材料重新收集，加以敷陈，然后竭力融入经文故事中，或作为补充，或作为谈资。虽然这些传说可能兴起于正典形成之后，但是其性质应该与正典编定者所淘汰的那部分资料无异。就是说，《创世记》编者努力去除“神话”因素（de-mythologize），而冯象的工作却是努力恢复、还原“神话”因素（若自造一新词，可称之为re-mythologize）。前者为区别于近东当时流传的异教神话，精确表述希伯来一神论的神学，故而行文极持重，而后者为渲染故事性、增强传说色彩，广采奇闻轶事，故而为文轻快跳荡，多用小说笔法。这两种倾向针锋相对，形成奇怪的张力。若简要总结，我们是否可以说冯象的工作旨在将经文“文学化”、“传奇化”、甚至“世俗化”呢？这个问题还需深思。 　　以上拉拉杂杂写了一些读后的感想，放在这里，以就教于冯象先生和各位读者。

Reading Style In Dickens

Robert Alter, “Reading Style In Dickens” in Philosophy and Literature 20.1 (1996) 130-137.

…

A grey dusty withered evening in London city has not a hopeful aspect. The closed warehouses and offices have an air of death about them, and the national dread of colour has an air of mourning. The towers and steeples of the many house-encompassed churches, dark and dingy as the sky that seems descending on them, are no relief to the general gloom; a sun-dial on a church-wall has the look, in its useless black shade of having failed in its business enterprise and stopped payment for ever; melancholy waifs and strays of housekeepers and porters sweep melancholy waifs and strays of papers and pins into the kennels, and other more melancholy waifs and strays explore them, searching and stooping and poling for anything to sell. The set of humanity outward from the City is as a set of prisoners departing from jail, and dismal Newgate seems quite as fit a stronghold for the mighty Lord Mayor as his own state-dwelling.

This is the sort of passage in Dickens that rewards repeated readings, for on rereading–optimally, rereading out loud–one comes to a fuller perception of how all the verbal elements cohere in an integrated vision of the city. The evening sky is covered with clouds; the indication that they are “dingy” suggests dirt and pollution (in fact, a grave problem in an overcrowded London where at any given moment hundreds of thousands of soft-coal fires were burning). When Dickens does not use actual anaphora, he nevertheless usually enforces a unity of thematic perspective by lining up a whole set of overlapping, nearly synonymous attributes in his descriptions. The sequence “grey dusty withered” leads quickly to “death,” semantically echoed in “air of mourning” and “black shade,” visually reinforced by “dark and dingy,” with the integrated effect of the whole underlined phonetically by the alliteration: dusty-death-dark-dingy-descending-departing-dismal. There [End Page 133] are four different elaborated metaphors here that manage to hang together effectively: first death, then bankruptcy, then the swept away refuse as strays and waifs, then imprisonment. What rereading leads me to see is how remarkably all four resonate with the larger vision of the novel. The repetition of melancholy waifs and strays sweeping out melancholy waifs and strays of refuse to be picked through by human counterparts takes up the novel’s recurrent sense of all economic activity as an unending chain of scavenging, wealth extracted from garbage. (The fact that the street-people are “poling” through the refuse takes us directly back to the opening scene of the novel, in which Gaffer Hexam poles the Thames in search of human bodies and whatever wealth they may carry.) Marxists may happily find here an image of alienated labor, Foucauldians, an image of the carceral self; what is clear is that Dickens’s vision of capitalist society at the height of the Industrial Revolution is unable to accommodate the idea of productive labor in all the new distortions of human relations, imagining instead only an endless dirty paper-chase, filthy lucre extracted from filth.

As I ponder the deployment of metaphors, what emerges as the center of the passage, both spatially and figuratively, is the fantastically witty representation of the bankrupt sundial. It cannot indicate time, of course, because the sky is covered with dingy clouds; the metaphor of bankruptcy has a metonymic trigger because the sundial stands in the middle of the financial district, the City of London. Its location on a church-wall, realistically plausible, may suggest the futility or irrelevance of religion in this dead urban world of finance. The characteristic trait of the later Dickens is that the fantastication leads to grim visionary perception, metaphor carrying him to unanticipated depths. For a sundial that has “stopped payment forever” is a forlorn, now useless, index of time in a world hopelessly cut off from nature, where it seems as though the sun will never shine again. The passage, I notice on a third or fourth reading, proceeds through intensification, culminating in the image of the bankrupt sundial. It begins with the studied formality of an understatement: “A grey dusty withered evening . . . has not a hopeful aspect.” Then the buildings have “an air of death.” The sundial trapped in black shade intimates the possibility of the death of the sun itself. As a reader, I keep the apocalyptic broodings fostered by this imagery very much in mind when I encounter this related cityscape, just two chapters on: [End Page 134]

It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. Gas-lights flared in the shops with a haggard and unblest air, as knowing themselves to be night-creatures that had no business under the sun; while the sun itself, when it was for a few moments dimly indicated through circling eddies of fog, showed as if it had gone out, and were collapsing flat and cold. Even in the surrounding country it was a foggy day, but there the fog was grey, whereas in London it was, at about the boundary line, dark yellow, and a little within it brown, and then browner, and then browner, until at the heart of the City–which call Saint Mary Axe–it was rusty-black. From any point of the high ridge of land northward, it might have been discerned that the loftiest buildings made an occasional struggle to get their heads above the foggy sea, and especially that the great dome of Saint Paul’s seemed to die hard; but that was not perceivable at their feet, where the whole metropolis was a heap of vapour charged with the muffled sound of wheels and enfolding a gigantic catarrh.

Dickens’s prose is thematically organized in a virtually musical sense, and so the first sentence enunciates the fog-theme, tells us this is going to be a set-piece on fog: “It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark.” Again there is a precisely observed realistic matrix for Dickens’s metaphoric fantastication. Although the word “smog” had not yet been invented, that is clearly what Dickens is describing, as the narrator’s panoramic view moves inward through concentric circles from the still unpolluted fog in the countryside to the yellow-tinged fog near the city limits to the poisonous brown and reddish black smog of the metropolitan center that looks like modern Los Angeles on a very bad day. (A tiny bonus of repeated readings is to notice how the rust in “rusty black” is associatively triggered by the near-to-hand iron tool in “Saint Mary Axe.”) As so often in late Dickens, these niceties of realistic observation are transformed into phantasmagoric vision by the play of metaphor, and for me as a reader, pondering the ramifications of metaphor helps me see what the passage and the novel are all about.

As in the previous passage, an apocalyptic image lies at the heart of the description–the sun swathed in fog that “showed as if it had gone out, and were collapsing flat and cold.” This strikes me as a grimmer evocation of the extinguishing of the sun than the nervous jocularity of the bankrupt-sundial image: what follows the “as if” is a chilling sense of [End Page 135] light dying in the universe. The idea of the collapsed sun is coordinated with three interrelated metaphors, two of which have a physiological basis: choking, drowning, and ghosts. The last of these three provides folkloric definition for the first two since a ghost is an intermediate being between the living and the dead, and choking or drowning is a transitional state between life and death. In this connection, rereading helps one feel the etymological weight with which Dickens often uses words. To be “animate” is to possess an anima, a spirit, while the inanimate is devoid of spirit; and Dickens works the ambiguities of connection and correspondence between these two ostensibly opposed categories. Fog-enshrouded London, like a ghost, cannot make up its mind whether to be visible or not; and the “haggard” air of the gas-lamps lit by day, coupled as it is with “unblest” and “night-creatures,” activates the folk-etymological connection between “haggard” and “hag.”

The metaphoric imagination of the mature Dickens is powerfully integrative–often, I suspect, intuitively rather than intentionally–and one sees that power working here in the image of the city drowning in fog (lofty Saint Paul’s the last to go), which of course carries forward the images of death by drowning that run through the novel from the first sombre scene on the Thames till the watery death of Rogue Riderhood and Bradley Headstone near the end. Asphyxiation, in turn, is a kind of inner drowning, and Dickens’s representation of what thick smog really does to eyes and throat and lungs gives his overarching motif of drowning a physiological immediacy. If style, as I have proposed, is the air we breathe in the constructed world of the novel, the Dickensian procedure of using chains of overlapping terms makes the breathing here labored: “Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking.” Dickens continues to assume these respiratory difficulties as he goes on to evoke the spectral gas-lamps, the collapsed sun, the chromatic gradations of smog, and the drowning city, and they resurface in the brilliant summarizing metaphor with which the passage concludes: “the whole metropolis was a heap of vapour charged with the muffled sound of wheels and enfolding a gigantic catarrh.” That final revelatory image, saved for the last word of the paragraph, illustrates the almost coercive force of metaphoric imagination, combining in a single term disease, difficulty of breathing, rheumy fluids, bleariness, messiness–all that the industrial age has made of London in Dickens’s eyes.

…

鸽异

《聊斋志异·鸽异》

鸽异

---

鸽类甚繁：晋有坤星，鲁有鹤秀，黔有腋蝶，梁有翻跳，越有诸尖，皆异种也。又有靴头、点子、大白、黑石、夫妇雀、花狗眼之类，名不可屈以指，惟好事者能辨之也。
邹平张公子幼量癖好之，按经而求，务尽其种。其养之也，如保婴儿：冷则疗以粉草，热则投以盐颗。鸽善睡，睡太甚，有病麻痹而死者。张在广陵，以十金购 一鸽，体最小，善走，置地上，盘旋无已时，不至于死不休也，故常须人把握之；夜置群中使惊诸鸽，可以免痹股之病，是名“夜游”。齐鲁养鸽家，无如公子最；公子亦以鸽自诩。
一夜坐斋中，忽一白衣少年叩扉入，殊不相识。问之，答曰：“漂泊之人，姓名何足道。遥闻畜鸽最盛，此亦生平所好，愿得寓目。”张乃尽出所 有，五色俱备，灿若云锦。少年笑曰：“人言果不虚，公子可谓养鸽之能事矣。仆亦携有一两头，颇愿观之否？”张喜，从少年去。月色冥漠，旷野萧条，心窃疑俱。少年指曰：“请勉行，寓屋不远矣。”又数武，见一道院仅两楹，少年握手入，昧无灯火。少年立庭中，口中作鸽鸣。忽有两鸽出：状类常鸽而毛纯白，飞与檐齐，且鸣且斗，每一扑，必作斤斗。少年挥之以肱，连翼而去。复撮口作异声，又有两鸽出：大者如鹜，小者裁如拳，集阶上，学鹤舞。大者延颈立，张翼作屏，宛转鸣跳，若引之；小者上下飞鸣，时集其顶，翼翩翩如燕子落蒲叶上，声纸碎类鼗鼓；大者伸颈不敢动。鸣愈急，声变如磬，两两相和，间杂中节。既而小者飞起， 大者又颠倒引呼之。张嘉叹不已，自觉望洋可愧。遂揖少年，乞求分爱，少年不许。又固求之，少年乃叱鸽去，仍作前声，招二白鸽来，以手把之，曰：“如不嫌 憎，以此塞责。”接而玩之，睛映月作琥珀色，两目通透，若无隔阂，中黑珠圆于椒粒；启其翼，胁肉晶莹，脏腑可数。张甚奇之，而意犹未足，诡求不已。少年 曰：“尚有两种未献，今不敢复请观矣。”
方竞论间，家人燎麻炬入寻主人。回视少年，化白鸽大如鸡，冲霄而去。又目前院宇都渺，盖一小墓，树二柏焉。与家人抱鸽，骇叹而归。试使飞，驯异如初，虽非其尤，人世亦绝少矣。于是爱惜臻至。
积二年，育雌雄各三。虽戚好求之，不得也。有父执某公为贵官，一日见公子，问：“畜鸽几许？”公子唯唯以退。疑某意爱好之也，思所以报而割爱良难。又念长者之求，不可重拂。且不敢以常鸽应，选二白鸽笼送之，自以千金之赠不啻也。他日见某公，颇有德色，而其殊无一申谢语。心不能忍，问：“前禽佳否？”答云：“亦肥美。”张惊曰：“烹之乎？”曰：“然。”张大惊曰：“此非常鸽，乃俗所言‘靼鞑’者也！”某回思曰：“味亦殊无异处。”
张叹恨而返。至夜梦白衣少年至，责之曰：“我以君能爱之，故遂托以子孙。何以明珠暗投，致残鼎镬！今率儿辈去矣。”言已化为鸽，所养白鸽皆从之，飞鸣径去。天明视之，果俱亡矣。心甚恨之，遂以所畜，分赠知交，数日而尽。异史氏曰：“物莫不聚于所好，故叶公好龙，则真龙入室，而况学士之于良友，贤君之于良臣乎？而独阿堵之物，好者更多，而聚者特少，亦以见鬼神之怒贪，而不怒痴也。”向有友人馈朱鲫于孙公子禹年，家无慧仆，以老佣往。及门，倾水出鱼，索柈而进之，及达主所，鱼已枯毙。公子笑而不言，以酒犒佣，即烹鱼以飨。既归，主人问：“公子得鱼颇欢慰否？”答曰：“欢甚。”问：“何以知？” 曰：“公子见鱼便欣然有笑容，立命赐酒，且烹数尾以犒小人。”主人骇甚，自念所赠，颇不粗劣，何至烹赐下人。因责之曰：“必汝蠢顽无礼，故公子迁怒耳。” 佣扬手力辩曰：“我固陋拙，遂以为非人也！登公子门，小心如许，犹恐筲斗不文，敬索柈出，一一匀排而后进之，有何不周详也？”主人骂而遣之。
灵隐寺僧某以茶得名，铛臼皆精。然所蓄茶有数等，恒视客之贵贱以为烹献；其最上者，非贵客及知味者，不一奉也。一日有贵官至，僧伏谒甚恭，出佳茶，手自烹进，冀得称誉。贵官默然。僧惑甚，又以最上一等烹而进之。饮已将尽，并无赞语。僧急不能待，鞠躬曰：“茶何如？”贵官执盏一拱曰：“甚热。”此两事，可与张公子之赠鸽同一笑也。

〈论华人之可用〉

这一篇〈论华人之可用〉，见于郑振铎先生编的《晚清文选》，（生活书店1937年初版），放在严复的名下。1962年，中华书局委托南京大学历史系编辑一部《严复集》。经过考证，编纂者对于此篇是否为严复所作提出质疑，所以没有收入1962年的《严复集》中。1962年的质疑与1937年郑振铎先生的收录，各有其见解。对于2008年的我来说，无论该文作者是不是严复，他的口吻和从中透出的阅历，与严复实在很像。

此文互联网上还见不到。我就花了一点时间，从《晚清文选》中把这篇〈论华人之可用〉敲录下来，为网络上的人文资源添一块砖。

论华人之可用

严复（？）

今之策时局者，鳃鳃以乏才为虑。夫虑之诚是也，然所谓才者无一定之准的，非必有体国经野之模，战胜攻取之勇，始得谓之才也，即片长薄技，各食己力，其致功也勤，其为谋也忠，亦无不可谓之才。今始语人曰：中国人之职业勤，莫不讶然异。又使语人曰：中国人之谋事忠，莫不哑然笑。不知无容异，无容笑也。诚以浅近琐屑之事证之。通商互市之区，凡所谓洋关洋行领事馆等，主之者洋人，而华人之司事其间者，或理账目，或操笔札，等而下之又有奔走使令之役，每所少则数人，多则数十人，责有专属，无推诿也，时有定晷，无虚旷也。非礼拜不得治私，非要事不得请假。凡夫朋友之酬酢，亲戚之往来，即有疏略，在彼可以自解，在人亦可相谅，则谓之不勤于作事不得也。洋人在中国，非传教经商，即办理交涉事宜，究其要诀，在熟识人情，习知华事。顾欲识人情知华事，非通语言，识文字不可。而洋人在中国，能通我之语言者，百不得十焉，能识我之文字者，百不得一焉。然往往见微知著，凡华人之俗尚好恶，与夫一切情伪，无不洞若观火，岂真有先觉之贤哉？亦得之为彼 司事之华人为多也。夫华人得其薪赀，既与之勤恳办事，又复出其余力，导之以几微曲折之故，俾之阅历愈深，世故愈熟，无丝毫之隔膜，欲谓不忠于为谋不得也。或者曰：子之言过矣。由前之说，以食毛践土之俦，不思效用于国家，而甘为洋人服役，虽勤何足取。由后之说，以中国之人道中国之弊，无异不肖子弟，将家庭暧昧之事，播告邻里乡党，忍心害理，莫此为甚，而子顾许之以忠，不亦悖乎？噫为是说者，抑亦勿思甚矣。天下立言之理，但当就事，而责人之道，亦当不为己甚。 中国人之为洋人办事者，类不过能操洋语，善探主意，固非读书明理者比。必以大义绳之，殊觉不恕。况食其禄者忠其主，桀之狗吠尧，尧非不仁，吠非其主。对镜参观，彼之竭尽心力，冀图酬报，亦为天理所当然，人情所必然也。曰：华人为洋人办事，既如是之勤且忠，而为中国办事，往往不然。且即以为洋人办事之华人，授之中国之事，亦若有迁地勿良之慨，则又何说？曰：此非任事者之过，乃用者之咎也。洋人用人，功过必分，赏罚必明，设有偾事，立遭屏斥。其谨慎小心，始终无怠者，不特优加薪水，或以他事托辞，则为之先往，或当新旧交替，则为之敦托。不幸而积劳病故，有抚恤之典，有捐助之款，俾其父母妻子，藉以养赡，藉以成立。此虽外洋之公例固然，然而仁至义尽，实足感动人心，无怪人之乐为之用也。中国则不然，其用人也，率顾一己之私情，不问人之能否。偷惰者未必见责，操劳 者未必获奖。夫人情不甚相远，既无利害于其间，何苦独为其难。久之锐气渐消，颓丧成习，而于所当为之事，废驰败坏，遂至不可收拾。由是言之，其所以致此之弊，亦较然著明矣。抑又闻之，西人之言曰：华人中经营贸易之事，独为擅长，至开垦耕种，能耐劳苦，尤非他国所及。华人愈多，市埠愈甚。呜呼！洋人借重中国人也如此。中国乃不能鼓励人材，如货之弃地而不惜，致使灰心短气，糊其口于四方者实繁有徒。是不惟楚材不为晋用，而晋材反为楚用也。可胜慨哉！可胜慨哉！

国耻图录（五）

日清韓談判之図

Genesis Commentary in Traditional Chinese Style/ 对《圣经•创世记》的金圣叹式评点

十年磨一剑。高峰枫在加州大学伯克利钻研圣经学，回国后在此文中“拿西方第一经典《圣经》‘动刀’”，作为“燔祭”献给我国传统文学批评方法，真是“快哉快哉”。关于动“刀”之文，还让我想起古人一篇短的：

聊斋志异•快刀

明末济属多盗，邑各置兵，捕得辄杀之。章丘盗尤多。有一兵佩刀甚利，杀辄导窾。一日捕盗十余名，押赴市曹。内一盗识兵，逡巡告曰：“闻君刀最快，斩首无二割。求杀我！”兵曰：“诺。其谨依我，无离也。”盗从之刑处，出刀挥之，豁然头落。数步之外犹圆转，而大赞曰：“好快刀！”

亚伯拉罕杀子的故事

高峰枫

《读书》2003.3

……

不知为什么，每当我读亚伯拉罕这段放事，总会不由自主地想到《水浒》，特别是被金圣叹批过的那部《水浒》。我总觉得用批《水浒》的方式来注解亚伯拉罕杀子故事，于义理和文章都可以兼顾。克尔凯郭尔曾说：“亚伯拉罕故事之奇绝处在于，不管人们对它的理解有多么充分，它永远是一段光辉的故事。”读到这样的话，我也就不用在乎自己的理解有多么的浅陋了。下面我将以评点的形式来批注《创世记》第二十二章前十六节。《圣经》中译文是通行的“和合本”，个别字句根据 Robert Alter 的最新英文译注本(诺顿，一九九五年)稍加改动。批语融合上述各家意见，也参照一些《旧约》学者的注释(人名和书目此处不一一列出)，笔法则着意模仿金圣叹。

采用我国古典小说批评来剖析希伯来经典，除了向金圣叹这位文学怪才致意之外，还有另一层含义。二十世纪八十年代以来，西方现代文学批评夹杂着吵闹声源源不断输入我国，这些舶来品当中哪些是精华，哪些是糟粕，我们现在应该看得稍稍清楚一些了。至于这些五花八门的理论对我国学术本身是否有什么积极的影响，前景似乎不容乐观。但是我们固有的传统文学批评除了专业学者之外，似乎无人问津。而下面的评点就是想来印证传统小说批评威力巨大。我们就是要拿西方第一经典《圣经》“动刀”，而且还是希伯来圣经的首卷，希望能有一些象征意义。以批《水浒》的鬼才来注《创世记》，我们可以看到小说评点不仅不输于其他光怪陆离的文论，而且完全可以吸收、消化、甚至改造西方的经书。

这些事以后，（将上文一笔代过。） 神要试验亚伯拉罕，（劈手写来。无半点征兆。没头没脑。妙。）就呼叫他说：（鹘突。不写何时何地，完全跳脱于时空之外。确是真神。）“亚伯拉罕!” 他说： （神从无何有之乡呼叫。亚伯拉罕亦是在无何有之乡应答。）“我在这里。”（此句全文凡三现。亚伯拉罕对神。以撒。天使无不应以此句。读者需留意。）神说： “你带着你的儿子，（哪个儿子。）就是你独生的、（独子。）你所爱的（爱子。）以撒（东说西说。最后方点出名姓。）往摩利亚地去，在我所要指示你的山上， 把他献为燔祭。”（骇人。）

亚伯拉罕清早起来，（神妙之笔。神不说破原因。亚伯拉罕亦不追问。一句清早起来。何等悠闲。又是何等动人心魄。）备上驴，（细。）带着两个小厮（细。）和他儿子以撒，（儿子字样反复出现。需留意。）也劈好了燔祭的柴，（点出有刀。）就起身往神所指示的地方去 了。（看他慢慢写来。全似无事人一个。）到了第三日，（于路程只字不提。真吓煞人也。）亚伯拉罕举目远远看见那地方。亚伯拉罕对他的小厮说：“你们和驴在此等候，我与童子往那里去拜一拜，就回到你们这里来。”（支开旁人。） 亚伯拉罕把燔祭的柴放在他儿子以撒身上，自己手里拿着火与刀，（自己拿着危险物事。借此可略窥亚伯拉罕心事。）于是二人同行。（一老一少。一个手持利刃。一背负柴薪。一个满腹心事。一个浑然不觉。父只要杀子。子只要听从。）以撒对他父亲亚伯拉罕说：（看他句句不离儿子。父亲。）“父亲哪!”（叫得亲切。）亚伯拉罕说：“我儿，（答得也亲切。）我在这里。”（又是这句。）以撒说：“请看，火与柴都有了，但燔祭的羊羔在哪里呢？”（小孩子家恁地精细。莫非已生疑。）亚伯拉罕说：“我儿，（又是一句我儿。令人泪下。）神必自己预备作燔祭的羊羔。”（语带玄机。）于是二人同行。（又一句二人同行。父要送子上黄泉路。）

他们到了神所指示的地方，（字字紧扣神。）亚伯拉罕在那里筑坛，把柴摆好，捆绑他的儿子以撒，放在坛的柴上。（筑坛。摆柴。捆子。有条不紊。笔法狠辣之极。）亚伯拉罕就伸手拿刀，（一切收拾停当。霍地抽出刀来。令人心惊肉跳。）要杀他的儿子。（局面至此。真真是回天乏术。野猪林中胖大和尚安在。）耶和华的使者从天上呼叫他说：（又是一声呼叫。）“亚伯拉罕!亚伯拉罕！”（连声呼叫。足见情势危急。）他说：“我在这里。”（不管天塌地陷。只是这句。）天使说；“你不可在这童子身上下手，一点不可害他。（两番制止。以见危急。）现在我知道你是敬畏神的了，因为你没有将你的儿子、就是你独生的儿子（回应最初的试探。）留下不给我。”亚伯拉罕举目观看，（前番举目观看。看到以撒的刑场。此番举目观看。看到替罪羊。两番举目观看。读者于此等处断不可轻轻放过。）不料，有一只公羊，两角扣在稠密的小树中，亚伯拉罕就取了那只公羊来，献为燔祭，代替他的儿子。（以儿子结此一段奇文。）