Sunday, July 30, 2006

ZT: I were a boy again

If I were a boy again, I would practice
perseverance more often, and never give up a thing because it was inconvenient. If we want light, we must conquer darkness. Perseverance
can sometimes equal genius in its results. “There are only two
creatures,” says a proverb, “Who can surmount the pyramids — the eagle
and the snail.”

  If I were a
boy again, I would school myself into a habit of attention; I would let
nothing come between me and the subject in hand. I would remember that
a good skater never tries to skate in two directions at once.

 
 The habit of attention becomes part of our life, if we begin early
enough. I often hear grown up people say, “I could not fix my attention
on the sermon or book, although I wished to do so”, and the reason is,
the habit was not formed in youth.

 
 If I were to live my life over again, I would pay more attention to
the cultivation of the memory. I would strengthen that faculty by every
possible means, and on every possible occasion. It takes a little hard
work at first to remember things accurately; but memory soon helps
itself, and gives very little trouble. It only needs early cultivation
to become a power.

  If I were a
boy again, I would cultivate courage. “Nothing is so mild and gentle as
courage, nothing so cruel and pitiless as cowardice,” says a wise
author.

  We too often borrow
trouble, and anticipate that may never appear.” The fear of ill exceeds
the ill we fear.” Dangers will arise in any career, but presence of
mind will often conquer the worst of them. Be prepared for any fate,
and there is no harm to be feared.

 
 If I were a boy again, I would look on the cheerful side. Life is very
much like a mirror: if you smile upon it, I smiles back upon you; but
if you frown and look doubtful on it, you will get a similar look in
return.

  Inner sunshine warms not
only the heart of the owner, but of all that come in contact with it.
“Who shuts love out, in turn shall be shut out from love.”

  Importance of learning very early in life to gain that point where a young boy can stand erect, and decline.

 
 If I were a boy again, I would school myself to say no more often. I
might write pages on the doing an unworthy act because it is unworthy.

 
 If I were a boy again, I would demand of myself more courtesy towards
my companions and friends, and indeed towards strangers as well. The
smallest courtesies along the rough roads of life are like the little
birds that sing to us all winter long, and make that season of ice and
snow more endurable.

  Finally,
instead of trying hard to be happy, as if that were the sole purpose of
life, I would, if I were a boy again, I would still try harder to make
others happy.

The best kind of love







The Best Kind of Love

  作者:
Annette Paxman Bowen
  |  发布日期:
2005-7-6 17:34:52






I have a friend who is falling in love. She honestly claims the sky is
bluer. Mozart moves her to tears. She has lost 15 pounds and looks like
a cover girl.

"I'm young again!" she shouts exuberantly.

As
my friend raves on about her new love, I've taken a good look at my old
one. My husband of almost 20 years, Scott, has gained 15 pounds. Once a
marathon runner, he now runs only down hospital halls. His hairline is
receding and his body shows the signs of long working hours and too
many candy bars. Yet he can still give me a certain look across a
restaurant table and I want to ask for the check and head home.


When my friend asked me "What will make this love last?" I ran through
all the obvious reasons: commitment, shared interests, unselfishness,
physical attraction, communication. Yet there's more. We still have
fun. Spontaneous good times. Yesterday, after slipping the rubber band
off the rolled up newspaper, Scott flipped it playfully at me: this led
to an all-out war. Last Saturday at the grocery, we split the list and
raced each other to see who could make it to the checkout first. Even
washing dishes can be a blast. We enjoy simply being together.

And
there are surprises. One time I came home to find a note on the front
door that led me to another note, then another, until I reached the
walk-in closet. I opened the door to find Scott holding a "pot of gold"
(my cooking kettle) and the "treasure" of a gift package. Sometimes I
leave him notes on the mirror and little presents under his pillow.

There
is understanding. I understand why he must play basketball with the
guys. And he understands why, once a year, I must get away from the
house, the kids—and even him-to meet my sisters for a few days of
nonstop talking and laughing.

There
is sharing. Not only do we share household worries and parental
burdens—we also share ideas. Scott came home from a convention last
month and presented me with a thick historical novel. Though he prefers
thrillers and science fiction, he had read the novel on the plane. He
touched my heart when he explained it was because he wanted to be able
to exchange ideas about the book after I'd read it.

There
is forgiveness. When I'm embarrassingly loud and crazy at parties,
Scott forgives me. When he confessed losing some of our savings in the
stock market, I gave him a hug and said, "It's okay. It's only money."

There
is sensitivity. Last week he walked through the door with that look
that tells me it's been a tough day. After he spent some time with the
kids, I asked him what happened. He told me about a 60-year-old woman
who'd had a stroke. He wept as he recalled the woman's husband standing
beside her bed, caressing her hand. How was he going to tell this
husband of 40 years that his wife would probably never recover? I shed
a few tears myself. Because of the medical crisis. Because there were
still people who have been married 40 years. Because my husband is
still moved and concerned after years of hospital rooms and dying
patients.

There is faith. Last
Tuesday a friend came over and confessed her fear that her husband is
losing his courageous battle with cancer. On Wednesday I went to lunch
with a friend who is struggling to reshape her life after divorce. On
Thursday a neighbor called to talk about the frightening effects of
Alzheimer's disease on her father-in-law's personality. On Friday a
childhood friend called long-distance to tell me her father had died. I
hung up the phone and thought, This is too much heartache for one week.
Through my tears, as I went out to run some errands, I noticed the
boisterous orange blossoms of the gladiolus outside my window. I heard
the delighted laughter of my son and his friend as they played. I
caught sight of a wedding party emerging from a neighbor's house. The
bride, dressed in satin and lace, tossed her bouquet to her cheering
friends. That night, I told my husband about these events. We helped
each other acknowledge the cycles of life and that the joys counter the
sorrows. It was enough to keep us going.

Finally,
there is knowing. I know Scott will throw his laundry just shy of the
hamper every night; he'll be late to most appointments and eat the last
chocolate in the box. He knows that I sleep with a pillow over my head;
I'll lock us out of the house at a regular basis, and I will also eat
the last chocolate.

I guess our
love lasts because it is comfortable. No, the sky is not bluer: it's
just a familiar hue. We don't feel particularly young: we've
experienced too much that has contributed to our growth and wisdom,
taking its toll on our bodies, and created our memories.

I
hope we've got what it takes to make our love last. As a bride, I had
Scott's wedding band engraved with Robert Browning's line "Grow old
along with me!" We're following those instructions.

If anything is real, the heart will make it plain.
 

Saturday, July 29, 2006

婚姻八项盟誓






婚姻八项盟誓


 柏杨和他的夫人诗人张香华致力于推广新的婚姻八项盟誓:

  
    “两人立下承诺,即令沧海化为桑田,桑田再化为沧海,也要携手共进,相亲相爱,直到白头。
  
    一、
我们宣誓——从结婚这一天开始,不但成为夫妻,互相敬爱,分担对方的快乐和忧愁。也同时成为朋友,而且是诤友,互相勉励,互相规劝,互相批评。

  
    二、
我们领悟——愉快的共同生活,全靠心灵沟通,所以,我们一定善用言语,不仅表达爱心、关心,也使彼此藉语言加深了解,一齐成长。绝不粗声叱责,绝不用肢体代替言词,绝不允许发生婚姻暴力。

  
    三、
我们认知——家庭与事业是夫妻共同经营的果实,夫妻对家庭的贡献等值,在家庭内或社会上,价值完全相同,社会工作薪俸无论多少,家务工作的薪俸都与其相同。

  
    四、
我们同意——将来我们有子女,管教上如果有不同的意见,甚至有尖锐对立的意见,一定会克制自己,去请教专家,绝不把孩子当成实现自己希望的工具,也绝不用孩子来炫耀自己。

  
    五、 我们认为——一夫一妻制,是社会安定的盘石,是孩子们成长最安全的温床,我们喜爱并尊重这种制度,并用事实和行动,维持它的尊严。

  
    六、
我们警惕——婚姻生活并不多采多姿,它不但平凡,而且琐碎,如果不滋养珍惜,容易使生命憔悴,心灵伧俗,所以生活之中,我们一定保持适度的假期,与孩子一起长大。

  
    七、 我们谨记——我们孝敬自己的父母,也孝敬对方的父母,不仅是回报养育之恩,也是培养自己人格的完整,为我们的下一代立下榜样。

  
    八、
我们了解——我们将来会老,所以,我们从结婚这一天,就培养专业之外的其它艺术兴趣,如书、如画、如音乐,使我们的生命永远充实灿烂。

KQED TV 9: Conversation with Gregory Peck

Duration: 1:26:46 CC Stereo TVG
It turns out it isn't an act. Of all the memorable, colorful and honorable characters he has played through the years, perhaps his finest is that of Gregory Peck. Never afraid to show decency, never afraid to stand alone, he asserted his independence from the studio system and chose his own projects, using the silver screen to express his creativity, love of his craft and, ultimately, his own values. Peck's roles in Hitchcock's "Spellbound," "Moby Dick," "Roman Holiday," and "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which earned Peck an Academy Award), forged an indelible impression on movie audiences around the world. Now in his 80s, this film follows Peck as he creates a dialogue with his adoring audience in his one-man performance "A Conversation with Gregory Peck." This unique perspective will show a man who many people feel they already know from his screen performances. Yet at the same time, they will be surprised by his infectious sense of humor, his gift for storytelling and his ambition.

Channels and Airdates

KQED Channel 9





Sat, Jul 29, 2006 -- 8:00 pm

KQED Encore









Sun, Jul 30, 2006 -- 8:30 am
Sun, Jul 30, 2006 -- 6:00 pmemail reminder email reminder

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Cinema Elegy: Peter Bogdanovich and The Last Picture Show







Cinema Elegy:
Peter Bogdanovich and The Last Picture Show


by Girish Shambu

The Last Picture Show







Girish Shambu is a Professor of Business at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York.


"He is as moved as I am, by the ending of things, by the waning of periods, generations, human couples, a town. I might have deduced this from his feeling for Ford or Hawks, the most elegiac of our directors."


- Larry McMurtry on Peter Bogdanovich (1)




Peter Bogdanovich is one of the few examples of the critic-turned-director in American cinema. In France on the other hand, that strong tradition was ignited by the cadre of writers at Cahiers du Cinéma who turned to directing feature films in the late 1950s. Truffaut, Godard, Rivette, Chabrol and Rohmer were cinephiles and critics who steeped themselves in cinema of decades past at the Paris Cinémathèque. After the publication of Truffaut's seminal salvo for auteur cinema in 1954 (2), a sea change began to occur in the way films were viewed, thought about and discussed. Truffaut harshly attacked the "tradition of quality" in French cinema, making specific reference to the assumed importance of screenwriters and novelists in adapting well-known literary works for the screen. This practice, he argued, resulted in stilted, literary, uncinematic films. He defined a film auteur as one who brings his or her personal concerns to bear on the film instead of merely transferring literary source material to the screen with tasteful dullness. He hailed Bresson, Renoir, Cocteau, Hitchcock and Hawks, among others, as model auteurs.


When the auteur theory made its way soon after to America, it was embraced by, among others, Andrew Sarris of The Village Voice and Eugene Archer of The New York Times. It is under the profound influence of these two critics that Bogdanovich fell when he began to write about film. He then produced a series of book-length monographs on, among others, Howard Hawks (3), to coincide with retrospectives held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.


The influence of the history of American cinema on Bogdanovich's early films is overt and substantial. His debut Targets (1967) knowingly cast Boris Karloff as an ageing horror-movie star who encounters a killer loose at a drive-in movie theater. The film even includes a clip from Hawks' The Criminal Code (1931), which featured Karloff. The respectful documentary Directed by John Ford (1971) was followed by The Last Picture Show (1971) - shot in black-and-white and paying homage to Hawks' Red River (1948) by bestowing it with key symbolic significance within the film's narrative. What's Up, Doc? (1972), a screwball comedy, was explicitly intended as a loose remake of Hawks' Bringing Up Baby (1938). Paper Moon (1973), once again shot in black-and-white, evokes John Ford in its landscapes and compositions as much as Hawks in its comedy. His much-maligned At Long Last Love (1975) was a send-up of 1930s musicals in its characters, sets and Cole Porter songs. Accused upon its release of wallowing in nostalgia, it now appears, with the distance of time, a modestly pleasing lark. Nickelodeon (1976), set in the period 1910-1915, is an enthusiastic homage to the early silent-movie pioneers.


The cinema-going experiences of Bogadanovich's childhood and youth were formative and indelible, and he thinks his "taste was purest" (4) when he was ten, when he saw Hawks' Red River five times and Ford's She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (1949) ten. In 1972, when asked for his top ten favorite films of all time for a Sight & Sound poll, Bogdanovich included both those films, along with Hawks' Only Angels Have Wings (1939) and Rio Bravo (1958), and Ford's The Searchers (1956) and Young Mr. Lincoln (1939). In fact, only four directors were present on that top-ten list: Hawks, Ford, Welles and Hitchcock. And, furthermore, all ten films were American. Later, in a chapter published in his book Pieces Of Time (5), Bogdanovich issued an embarrassed disclaimer, regretting the many omissions (Renoir, Lubitsch and Lang) that such an assignment invariably entails. Nevertheless, the impact of Hawks and Ford on his films has been clear and strong.


In Bogdanovich's 1999 book Movie Of The Week: 52 Classic Films For One Full Year (6), we find that a full 46 of the recommended 52 films were made before 1960. Andrew Yule points out in his book Picture Shows (7) that Bogdanovich felt a closer kinship with an older generation of directors (like Hawks and Ford) rather than his peers and contemporaries (like Scorsese, De Palma, Cassavetes or Coppola). He sought out opportunities to meet with these older directors, whom he interviewed extensively and championed tirelessly throughout his writing. However, the mantle of "film critic" did not sit easily with Bogdanovich. He wrote in 1973: "To borrow Shaw's phrase, and without meaning to be pretentious, I was more a popularizer than a critic (.) I've seen about six thousand movies and I have a large fund of happy memories-many of which I like to recapture." (8) His first two films Targets and The Last Picture Show -arguably his very best work-demonstrate how he draws from this vast "fund" while incorporating something new: a sense of the death of one era, and the uncertain beginning of another. One does not have to look far-in fact, no further than its title-to find this elegiac spirit in The Last Picture Show.


* * *


In Laurent Bouzereau's documentary The Last Picture Show: A Look Back (1999), included on the Region 1 DVD edition of the film, Bogdanovich recalls first encountering Larry McMurtry's novel in a supermarket checkout line, being arrested by the title (as any red-blooded cinema-lover would), and putting it back swiftly when he realized that it was set in small-town Texas. Having been raised on New York's Upper West Side and never visited Texas, it interested him little as a project. However, the book returned to him when it was recommended by actor-friend Sal Mineo (whom he had met while visiting Ford on the set of Cheyenne Autumn [1964]) and his own wife Polly Platt, who was later responsible for the stunning production design of The Last Picture Show. McMurtry and Bogdanovich then co-wrote the screenplay, basing it largely (but not completely) on the novel.


The film follows a group of characters in a small town-Anarene, Texas-over a one-year period, 1951-1952, from one high-school football season to the next. Among the characters are: teenagers Sonny (Timothy Bottoms), Duane (Jeff Bridges) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd); Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson) who owns the local pool hall, café and movie theater; Lois (Ellen Burstyn), Jacy's bitter and bored mother; and Ruth (Cloris Leachman), the neglected wife of Sonny's football coach. Sonny and Duane are close friends, both aimlessly connected to the stable but unpromising existence the town has to offer. Sonny ends his dull and unrewarding relationship with Charlene (Sharon Ullrick) and drifts into an affair with the older Ruth. The selfish and beautiful Jacy agrees to go to bed with her boyfriend Duane only after a society boy she is after refuses to sleep with her because she is a virgin. After Duane leaves town, Jacy hears of Sonny's affair with Ruth and abruptly begins to court him, clearly enjoying the effect her charms have upon him and swiftly ending his affair with Ruth. After they marry, and before they can consummate their relationship, Jacy's father forcibly breaks up the couple and takes her home. Duane returns and has a violent confrontation with Sonny over their shared unrequited love for Jacy. Sam the Lion dies and leaves Sonny the pool hall in his will. Sam's son, Billy, who is mentally retarded and has looked up to Sonny as his guardian, is accidentally killed by a passing truck. At film's end, Duane has left for Korea after reconciling with Sonny, and the symbol of the renewal of their friendship is a visit to the movie theater for its last picture show before closing down, Red River. Sonny returns to Ruth, whom he had abandoned for Jacy. At the end, the wind blows through the empty, forlorn town, which looks a little sadder for the death of its movie theater.


Possessing a talented ensemble cast, The Last Picture Show examines the lives of two generations of townspeople, creating both male and female characters with convincing depth. The film deals both with the problems of adolescence and the stultifying boredom of middle age. Both generations share a vague purposelessness and quiet despondency. They seek satisfaction in temporary sexual liaisons, unable and unwilling to convert these encounters into something lasting. A notable exception to the rootlessness of these characters is the presence of Sam. Failing in health and modest in means, he is nevertheless a figure of reassuring strength and quiet ideals. He provides places (the pool hall, café and movie theater) for the town community to gather in, and yet when the film draws to a close, the deadening spell of television combined with his passing has all but destroyed this communal cohesiveness.


Bogdanovich strove to establish a vivid sense of time and place for the film. He and McMurtry drove through scores of towns, scouting locations until they settled on Archer City, Texas - the very town that was the original basis for McMurtry's 'Thalia' in the novel. Bogdanovich changed its name to Anarene for the film, as a nod to Abilene in Red River. Because the film was shot in the town McMurtry fictionalized, it was not uncommon for the cast and crew to run into the actual townspeople who were models for various characters in the film. Bogdanovich altered the time scheme of the novel, which was set at a general, unspecified time during the 1950s, restricting the action to one year, and also chose the songs on the soundtrack carefully to reflect this narrow time period. In terms of the visual strategy of the film, Orson Welles advised Bogdanovich that in order to get the kind of deep-focus compositions he wanted for the film, he would have to abandon color and film in black-and-white, which he wisely did.


Bogdanovich employs a powerful conflation in The Last Picture Show: the bittersweet nostalgia for the passing of an era is blended with a realism and honesty that views the early 1950s very differently from the way films of that period did. The film is book-ended by two movie screenings at the Royal cinema theater: Father of the Bride (Vincente Minnelli, 1951) and Red River. The former, starring a glamorous Elizabeth Taylor, perfectly symbolizes the confectionary quality of the studio product of its day, quite out of touch with American realities, the very realities that Bogdanovich set out to capture so mournfully and vividly in his film.


Despite its austere black-and-white texture and its visual spareness, The Last Picture Show is clearly a 1970s film about the 1950s. The prosperity and stable social complacencies of 1950s America are nowhere in view. Even the pride of work and professionalism - an integral part of the Hawksian universe - are absent in the film. Sonny and Duane are professionally adrift, the former accidentally falls into inheriting a broken-down pool hall and the latter leaves for Korea with the grim last words "See you in a year or two-if I don't get shot." Genevieve runs the ramshackle café but struggles to pay her husband's medical bills. Though she longs to be free of working at the café, she ruefully admits to Sonny that she will "probably be making cheeseburgers for your grandchildren". Lois' husband is modestly wealthy from the oil business, but their marriage is a complete failure. She fidgets restlessly on the sofa as her husband falls asleep in front of the television, then makes a call to her lover Abilene who is uninterested, and busy with his oil-drilling. Ruth continues to stay with her husband even though it is clear that their marriage is entirely loveless, citing that she "wasn't brought up to leave her husband". Documenting the lives of these characters, Bogdanovich demonstrates great generosity toward them. He does not judge his characters' actions but merely presents them to us, allowing a complex portrait of the community to emerge.


The nostalgic element of the film is incarnated in Sam the Lion, whose retrospective reflection at the tank dam is one of the film's key sequences. While Sam's reminiscence has a tinge of the sentimental, Bogdanovich's direction of the sequence is steely and poignant. The choice of Red River as the closing film for the last picture show at the Royal is also meaningful. The scene Bogdanovich references is that of the cattle drive, set in a historical time full of hope, venture and the pioneer spirit. With Sam's death, the closing of the theater and the careless death of Sam's son, the contrast between Red River and the world outside the Royal could not be sadder. McMurtry originally intended to use an Audie Murphy B-western called The Kid From Texas (1950), but by replacing it with the Hawks film, Bogdanovich immeasurably multiplied the power of the film's ending. Take for example, the character Sam - a man of silent integrity, even if it brought him no great wealth in his life, nevertheless, he is committed to the daily rituals of work (he runs three local establishments), communal activities (he bets on his local high school football team even when they are unlikely to win, and loses money to the dissolute Abilene) and principle (watching over the teenagers who visit his pool hall and expelling them when he finds they have abused his trust and forced his mentally retarded son Billy into losing his virginity with a prostitute). These values are echoed not just in the Red River scene that Bogdanovich shows us, but also in Ford's Wagon Master (1950), a poster for which we see at Sam's movie theater. (Ben Johnson, who plays Sam, also played the lead in that film, enriching the allusion). There is also a steady indication in the film of the rise of television's influence, and many scenes feature the inane drone of the TV in the background. Thus, the nostalgia for Sam, his era and his principles, is contrasted with the unsavory realities of Anarene. Teenagers stagnate in undemanding jobs upon graduation from high school. Husbands and wives lose interest in each other and get "itchy" for diversion (epitomized by Lois and Ruth). Casual sex is common (for example, Jacy's liaison with Abilene in the pool hall). Sonny, who has been charged with the responsibility of being Billy's guardian, cannot prevent the latter's accidental death under the wheels of a passing truck. Both Sonny and Duane are scarred by their relationships with Jacy, with little hope of quick recovery.


The film even manages to evoke a nostalgia for a time and place that never existed, setting it next to the day-to-day lives of its characters. For example, when Sonny meets his girlfriend Charlene at the movies, they kiss. While this takes place, Sonny's attention is clearly not on Charlene but on the screen where we see an outsized image of the glamorous Elizabeth Taylor in Father of the Bride. A striking contrast exists between the employment of Red River and Father of the Bride in The Last Picture Show. The nostalgia of Red River is truer and feels rooted in a bygone historical time and place while the confection of Father of the Bride is clearly implied to be manufactured and fake Nevertheless, the adventure and accomplishment in Red River are as distant and unattainable for the characters in The Last Picture Show as the glamour of Elizabeth Taylor. The two films referenced in The Last Picture Show are polar opposites and yet they jointly deepen the melancholic aura surrounding the characters of the film. At film's end, Sonny attempts to leave town after Billy's death but after driving for a few miles is overcome with the paralyzing weight of his dull but stable past in Anarene, turns around and drives right back, unable to sever the connection with his grim reality. These realities of the small-town social milieu are meticulously captured by the film, and are particularly affecting because Hollywood films of the 1950s rarely ever saw the decade and its values and practices as perspicaciously as The Last Picture Show does.


It is clear that the casting process for the film deliberately attempted to draw out the above contrasts. Bogdanovich wanted Ben Johnson for the part of Sam, and pursued him vigorously. Johnson demurred, uncomfortable with the quantity of dialogue (he preferred reticent parts), and the number of "dirty words" in his lines. Bogdanovich then used his influence with John Ford, who placed a call to Johnson and persuaded him to take the part. It is meaningful to recall that Johnson played the lead in Ford's majestic Wagon Master, which chronicled the pioneering drive of the Mormons westward, analogous to the cattle drive of Red River. Jeff Bridges, an eminently likable actor, was cast in the part of Duane, a basically unpleasant, hot-headed and unprincipled character, thus creating a productive tension between player and part. Cybill Shepherd, a young model with no films to her credit, was cast as temperamental and selfish Jacy, whom Bogdanovich pictured "as a butterfly flitting from flower to flower, wilting them all." (9) Bogdanovich admits that once again, the distinction between player and character began to blur, and he found himself involved in an affair with Shepherd during the shoot, not always knowing whether it was Shepherd or Jacy he was attracted to: "It was the way she said things and flirted reflexively, just like Jacy..." (10) This directly led to the break-up of his long-time marriage to Polly Platt. Cinema had bled dangerously into real life.


The blend of nostalgia and realism can also be viewed through the lens of generational differences. The older generation, represented by Lois, Ruth, Genevieve, and Sam, has experienced all manner of failure, personal and professional, but still carries a core of romantic yearning and personal honesty. Lois has a lover on the side but affectingly tells her daughter Jacy, "What I did didn't work out for me, we'll have to think of something else for you". Lois does not want her life's mistakes to go to waste, but instead wishes that they might somehow be used to improve her daughter's choices. Ruth longs for a deep relationship and invests her entire being in her affair with Sonny, changing the décor of her house and giving him thoughtful presents. Genevieve works hard to maintain her family's health, and Sam is the social pillar of the community. In contrast, the younger generation is either aimless (Sonny and Duane) or callow and narcissistic (Jacy or Bobby Sheen). For all the older generation's flaws, the younger characters of the film are weaker, more self-centered and less promising. Jacy is a vivid, if somewhat extreme, example of the young generation. She lies casually to her boyfriend Duane, slips away from him to attend a nude swimming party at a wealthy home, sleeps with Duane in order to expeditiously lose her virginity, and lures Sonny away from Ruth simply because she is beautiful and she relishes the effect she has on men. Jacy is the least attractive character in the film but the film also accords her moments of charm, confusion, helplessness and hurt which serve to humanize her and render her sympathetic.


Part of what remains vibrant about The Last Picture Show today is its palpable honesty and bittersweet qualities. These are epitomized in the small details of several scenes, and almost every scene in the film quietly possesses such detail: the deafening, rhythmic creak of bed-springs that drowns out Ruth's tears when she and Sonny make love, awkwardly, for the first time; Sonny and Ruth sharing their first secret kiss as they empty a can of garbage in the moonlight; Duane trying unsuccessfully to make love to Jacy as she snaps irascibly, "You know I don't like to be tickled.!"; or the fleeting moment, pregnant with estrangement, of Sonny running into his father at the Christmas party, and both having little to say to each other. The world of The Last Picture Show is one in which each generation is a little less purposeful, a little weaker, and a touch more defeated than the generation that came before it. The film captures these accumulating defeats tenderly and forgivingly, and makes each moment feel authentic and real. Without in any way being heavy-handed, the film gently leads us to contrast the lives of the younger characters with what might have been if the communal traditions of the pre-television past had survived.


During Sonny and Jacy's first sexual encounter, the awkwardness of the moment does not rob it of its emotion and significance. When Sonny and Ruth first kiss, it is not a romantic kiss plucked from the screen of a 1950s film, but a moment that involves the close-up of a filthy garbage can. As Duane and Jacy attempt to sexually consummate their relationship, Jacy is not the understanding and enraptured sweetheart but instead the cold and opportunistic local beauty. Finally, the myth of Eisenhower-era family values do not harmonize with that fleeting moment when Sonny and his father pass each other at the party like strangers, their relationship empty and defunct. These are moments that somehow conjure up a sense of a world larger than the characters, larger than the film, an American world that curiously belongs equally to the past and to the present.




Ó Girish Shambu, March 2001


Endnotes:



  1. Larry McMurtry, in Film Flam: Essays On Hollywood, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1987, p. 121

  2. François Truffaut, "Un Certaine Tendence du Cinema Français", Cahiers du Cinéma, No.31, January 1954, pp. 15-28

  3. Peter Bogdanovich, The Cinema of Howard Hawks, Museum of Modern Art Library, New York, 1962

  4. Teresa Grimes in World Film Directors: Volume Two 1945-1985, ed. John Wakeman, H.W. Wilson Company, New York, 1988, p. 133

  5. Peter Bogdanovich, Pieces Of Time, 1975, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, p. 143

  6. Peter Bogdanovich, Movie of the Week: 52 Classic Films for One Year, Ballantine Books, New York, 1999

  7. Andrew Yule, Picture Shows, Limelight Editions, New York, 1992

  8. Pieces of Time, p. 144

  9. Laurent Bouzereau's documentary The Last Picture Show: A Look Back (1999)

  10. Ibid.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

《故事新编》漫谈

              ——2004年11月27 日在国林风的演讲

                           钱理群
今天我们讲一个比较感性化的、文学的问题,具体说来就是一个文学欣赏的内容——《故事新编》漫谈。
首先,讲一下为什么今天我们来漫谈《故事新编》。这其实是人们对鲁迅作品认识的一个过程。在开始的时候,大家比较关注《呐喊》、《彷徨》和鲁迅的杂文,同学们所熟悉的中学语文课本里所选的鲁迅的文章,恐怕大都出自这两部小说和杂文,到了八十年代人们比较关注《野草》,到了九十年代、本世纪初,至少在学术界都对《故事新编》感兴趣。为什么会有这样一个变化呢?这是一个很有意思的问题,不过,今天在这里就不谈了,因为说起来话会比较多。我们还是来读作品吧。
                               (一)

首先,对这个题目作一下解释。所谓《故事新编》,首先是“故事”。鲁迅说得很清楚,“故事”是中国古代的一些神话、传说以及古代典籍里的部分记载,这实际上表现了古代人对外部世界和自身的一种理解,一种想象。所谓“新编”,就是鲁迅在二十世纪二、三十年代里重新编写、改写,某种程度上这是鲁迅和古人的一次对话,一次相遇。既然是重写,是重新相遇,鲁迅在写《故事新编》时就要在古代神话、传说、典籍里注入自己所处时代的精神,注入个人生命体验。——我们读《故事新编》,就是要了解他在里面注入了什么东西。
那么,这到底是部怎么样的小说呢?又怎样去理解它呢?我有一个简单的理解:它是鲁迅奇思怪想的产物。我想每一个作家写作时都有一定的灵感,会有所谓神来之笔,而《故事新编》恰是鲁迅的一个灵感,是他的奇特想象。小说里讲的故事的主人公,有古代神话里的英雄,比如射日的后羿,造人的女娲,治水的大禹,还有一些古代的圣人、贤人,比如孔子、老子、墨子,庄子,他们身上都有一些神圣的光圈。鲁迅突发异想:这样一些身上有着神圣光圈的英雄、圣贤,如果有一天走到百姓当中,成了普通人,神变成人,圣人变成常人,这个时候他们会有什么奇怪的遭遇,奇怪的命运呢?他的整本《故事新编》就是围绕这个多少有些古怪的想象展开的。
最能体现鲁迅构思的是《奔月》。这篇小说写的是后羿的故事,但写得很特别。后羿的故事本来是说:天上有十个太阳,老百姓被晒得受不了了,这时后羿出来,把九个太阳射了下来,留着最后一个保证人们的生存发展。对于这样一个英雄,鲁迅并没有从正面描写他当年怎么射日,怎样创造丰功伟绩,而是描写英雄业绩完成以后,后羿有什么遭遇。——“以后”,这才是鲁迅所关注的。鲁迅对很多问题都喜欢追问“以后怎么样”。可以随便举个例子,在五四时期谈到女子解放,有一个共同的命题,是从易卜生《傀儡之家》那里拿来的,就是“娜拉走出家门”:这是五四很有名的一个命题。大家都这么说,鲁迅却要问:“娜拉出走后会怎么样?”他回答说:“要么堕落,要么回来。”他的思考就是这样彻底而特别,老是追问“以后”。现在同样的,鲁迅也要追问:后羿完成其英雄业绩以后,会怎么样,有什么遭遇。
后羿射下九个太阳之后,同时也把天下的奇禽异兽都射死了,这就出现一个生存问题。尤其是他的夫人嫦娥,是天下的美女,作为一个丈夫拿什么来给这样一个美女夫人吃呢?天下所有的奇禽异兽都被射死了,找不到吃的东西了,所以每天只有请他的夫人吃“乌鸦炸酱面”。这样,夫人就大发脾气了。于是,这天一大早,嫦娥起来就娥眉直竖,对后羿说:“今天你给我什么吃?还是乌鸦炸酱面?那不行,我吃腻了,必须给我找到别的东西,否则不准回家”。这就是所谓“妻管严”,是普通老百姓生活里很常见的事。就象天下所有的丈夫一样,后羿也只得听夫人的话,骑马到了几百里之外。他远远看见一只肥鸡,非常高兴,心想:这回有鸡吃,回家就好交待了。他一箭射去,那鸡应声落下。但就在他赶过去想拿鸡的时候,被一个老太婆一把抓住。——这是谁?鸡的主人。
“赔我鸡来!”
“这鸡我已经射死了。”
“那不管,你得赔。”
后羿没办法了,就把身上所有值钱的东西都给她了。
“不行,还不够。”后羿万般无奈只有亮了相,说:“你知道我是谁吗?”
“我管你是谁!”
“我是后羿呀!”
“后羿是什么东西?”
人们已经把他给忘了。
他没办法,最后只得说“明天这个时候我准时来,拿更好的东西给你。”
就这样,后羿好不容易才脱了身。
刚走没多远,只见远处一只箭飞过来,后羿“啊”的应声倒地。这箭从哪儿来呢?这是他当年的学生逢蒙射的。所以你看现在的后羿,人们都把他遗忘了,他的学生也背叛他了。逢蒙看到他倒下去,就赶来想杀害自己的老师。后羿却从地上翻身而起,说:“你小子,幸亏我留了一手!”这一手又是什么呢?——原来,箭飞过来以后,“啊”一声倒地不是真的倒,而是用嘴把箭衔住了。这样逢蒙就很狼狈,逃走了。但后羿到家后,仆人过来报告说:“不好了,先生,夫人跑了!”——嫦娥奔月,到天上去了,连老婆都背弃了自己。后羿就发怒了,说“拿箭来”——他要重新射日,这次是射月亮。这里鲁迅先生有一段很精彩的描写:
“他一手拈弓,一手捏着三只箭,都搭上去,拉了一个满弓,正对着月亮。身子是岩石一般挺立着,眼光直射,闪闪如岩下电,须发开张飘动,像黑色火,这一瞬息,使人仿佛想见他当年射日的雄姿。”
这一段描写是非常精彩的。后羿虽说已经落魄了,但雄姿仍在,可这仍然不能改变他的命运。因为当所有的奇禽异兽被射死以后,他就没有施展自己才能的对象,面临着“英雄无用武之地”的尴尬。而且连基本生存都难以维持,整天纠缠在日常生活的琐事当中,这就导致了他自身精神的平庸化,使他无法摆脱内心的那种无聊和疲倦感。这里写的不仅是一个被遗忘、遭背叛、被遗弃的外在的悲剧,更有一种内心世界的变化所导致的内在生命弱化的悲剧。鲁迅在这里,实际上是讨论了一个非常重大的问题——先驱者的命运问题,不只是指后羿,实际也渗透了鲁迅自己的生命体验,五四过去之后,先驱者都面临类似后羿一样的遭遇与命运。

另外还有一篇叫《补天》,是写女娲造人的故事。这篇开头非常漂亮,用笔很华丽,在鲁迅的作品很少见。我们看其中一段,大家要注意他用的色彩。
“粉色的天空中,曲曲折折的漂着许多条石绿色的浮云,星便在那后面忽明忽灭的目夹 眼,天边的血红的云彩里有一个光芒四射的太阳,如流动的金球包在荒古的熔岩中;那一边,却是一个生铁一般的冷而且白的月亮。”
我们可以想象:“粉色的天空”……“石绿色的浮云”……“金球般的太阳”……“冷且白的月亮”……,是一副色彩艳丽浓烈的壮阔的场景——女娲就在这种场景下造人、补天。而鲁迅最关心的,是女娲在造人过程中的心理变化。开始时ï
¼Œå¥¹ç²¾åŠ›å……æ²›ï¼Œå…´è¶£ç›Žç„¶ï¼Œæ‹¿æ³¥ææˆä¸€å›¢ï¼Œæ‰”å‡ºåŽ»ï¼Œâ€œå“‡â€çš„ä¸€å£°ï¼Œä¸€ä¸ªäººå°±è¯žç”Ÿäº†ã€‚å¥¹åˆ›é€ äº†äººï¼Œæœ‰ä¸€ç§åˆ›é€ è€…çš„å–œæ‚¦ã€‚ä½†æ˜¯ä¸ä¹…ï¼Œå¥¹å‘çŽ°ï¼Œåœ¨å¥¹èƒ¯é—´å‡ºçŽ°äº†ä¸€ä¸ªå°äººåœ¨å˜€å˜€å’•å’•å‘ŠçŠ¶ï¼Œè¯´åˆ«äººçš„åè¯ã€‚å¤§æ¦‚äººéƒ½å–œæ¬¢åšè¿™ç§äº‹ï¼Œå°¤å…¶æ˜¯ä¸­å›½äººã€‚å¥³å¨²è§åˆ°è¿™æ ·çš„äººå¿ƒé‡Œå°±çƒ¦äº†ï¼Œæƒ³ï¼šæˆ‘æ€Žä¹ˆé€ å‡ºè¿™æ ·è‡ªç§çš„ã€å§”ççš„äººå‘¢ï¼Ÿé¡¿æ—¶ä¸€ç§æ— èŠæ„Ÿè¢­ä¸Šå¿ƒå¤´ï¼Œå¥¹ä¸æƒ³é€ äººäº†ï¼Œè§‰ç€é€ äººæ²¡æ„æ€ã€‚å°±ä¸è±¡ä»¥å‰é‚£æ ·ç”¨å¿ƒæäº†ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯ç”¨æ ‘æžè˜¸ç€æ³¥æ°´ä¸€ç”©ï¼Œç”©å‡ºäººæ¨¡äººæ ·çš„ä¸€äº›ä¸œè¥¿æ¥ã€‚å¥¹å‰è¾¹ç”¨å¿ƒæçš„éƒ½æ˜¯èªæ˜Žçµä¿çš„ï¼ŒåŽé¢çš„åˆ™éƒ½ä¸€ä¸ªä¸ªçå¤´é¼ ç›®ã€‚æ‰€ä»¥æˆ‘ä»¬ä»Šå¤©çœ‹åˆ°çš„çœ‰æ¸…ç›®ç§€çš„äººï¼Œå¤§æ¦‚å°±æ˜¯å¥³å¨²ç”¨å¿ƒæçš„ï¼›é‚£äº›è´¼å¤´è´¼è„‘çš„ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯ç”©å‡ºæ¥çš„ã€‚æœ€åŽå¥¹ç–²å€¦äº†ï¼Œä»¥è‡´ç´¯æ­»äº†ã€‚
她刚死,那边就有一彪人马来了,打着一个旗号——女娲之嫡系,在她的肚皮上安营扎寨。为什么在肚皮上呢?因为那里脂肪最多,是最丰腴的地方。这有点滑稽,细细一想,又透出残酷:女娲是人类之母啊,她为创造人而献出了自己的生命;人却连她的死尸都要利用,还打着“嫡系”即所谓忠实的继承者的旗号。前面我们看到的那段壮阔的场景、绮丽的色彩,到这里就全都消解了。我们就会感到荒诞,而荒诞背后有一种说不出的悲凉感,这就是《补天》。
还有一篇小说《理水》,写夏禹的故事。夏禹的故事大家很熟悉,我们先来看看鲁迅怎么写夏禹:“面目黧黑,衣服破旧”,而且“不穿袜子”,他一坐到椅子上就把两脚伸出来,大脚上长满栗子般的老茧。在鲁迅的笔下,夏禹是一个平民实干家的形象。不仅是他,他的助手也像“铁铸”般地坐着,“不动、不言、不笑”,构成一个黑色的家族。鲁迅作品里就有这么一个“黑色家族”,而且鲁迅自己就是“黑色家族”的成员。许广平当年做学生的时候,对鲁迅有个一回忆,讲鲁迅先生给她们上课的情景。当时鲁迅已经是非常有名的作家,大家都怀着好奇心,期待着他的上课。铃声一响,滚过来一团黑,只见鲁迅穿着一身黑衣服,黑浓的头发又粗又硬地直竖着,可不就是“一团黑”。在鲁迅作品中也就有这么“一团黑”:《理水》里的夏禹,我们刚读过的《奔月》里的后羿,下面就要讲的《铸剑》里的“黑色人”,还有《孤独者》里的魏连殳,《野草》里《过客》中的过客等等,都是黑色的人,鲁迅也就把自己的形象,自己的生命感受都渗透到这些黑色的人的形象中。
他写夏禹,也不着重写他怎样创造治水的英雄业绩,仍旧写功成名就“以后”。首先是称呼变了,不再叫“禹”,而是叫“禹爷”——成为“爷”了。大街小巷的老百姓都在传颂禹爷的故事,而且越说越神,越说越玄。说他夜间变成一只熊,用嘴和爪开通了九条河;说他把天兵天将请来,把兴风作怪的妖怪压在山脚下。这样,在老百姓的传说中,禹就被神化了。本来治水对于夏禹是一件利国利民的严肃的事业,现在却变成了老百姓聊天、谈笑的资料,大家只是觉着好玩。这样,大禹的一切努力、奋斗都变得没有什么意义与价值,变成一个故事了。于是就出现了万头攒动、争相看禹爷的场面,出现了鲁迅最为关注的“看客”现象。鲁迅有一篇小说《示众》就是专门写“看客”的:小说开头写北京的夏天,天气极热,大家都觉得无聊,没什么可干。这时在马路对面,突然有一个巡警牵着一个犯人出现了,这可是一件有刺激性的事,于是,大家就从四面八方拥过来看犯人。开始是大家看犯人,后来是犯人看大家,再后来是大家互相看。每个人既看别人又被别人看,就形成了“看”与“被看”的模式。这是鲁迅对中国人的生存方式和人与人间关系的一个高度概括。大家不妨想想,你们和周围的人是不是这种关系。一方面看别人,一方面被别人看。比方说,今天我坐在这里,在众目睽睽之下被大家看,同时东张西望地看大家。这就是一个“看”与“被看”的关系。一切都成了表演,成了游戏,鲁迅说“中国是一个文字的游戏国”,“中国的群众都是戏剧的看客”,这是内含着一种沉重的,因为就在看戏的过程中,一切真实的不幸与痛苦,一切严肃、认真的努力与奋斗,都被消解了。所以“万人攒动看夏禹”的场面实际是包含着内在悲剧性的,表面是一个喜剧,热闹得不得了,但热闹的背后是一个悲剧,夏禹治水的意义,被遗忘了,价值也消解殆尽了,他成了全民观赏的对象了。
还不止于此,当时的司法部长皋陶还下令全国向夏禹同志学习,否则就要关进监狱。一强制学习,就变成专制了。夏禹实际上就成了统治阶级统治的工具了。而且最后还危及到了自身,他自身也异化了。既然成了“禹爷”,就要有符合“爷”的身份的一套行为方式,必须遵循应有的规矩。比方说,作为一介平民,夏禹平时穿衣服很随便,但现在是“禹爷”,上朝廷就必须穿漂亮的官服,这叫“入乡随俗”。结果呢?他就异化了,也就成了统治阶级里的一员。小说最后一句话鲁迅写得非常轻松:“终于太平到连百兽都会跳舞,凤凰也飞来凑热闹了”。果真是“太平盛世”了,禹这样的为民请命的人,现在也不成为威胁了,皆大欢喜了。但就是这“太平”二字掩盖了天下多少不平事,“太平”的背后又有多少血和泪!读到这里,人们不能不感到这轻松背后的沉重,从而引发出无限的感慨。

还有一篇《非攻》,是写墨子的故事。大家知道墨子的老乡公输,他发明一种攻城的机械,献给了楚王,楚王就决定用他的发明去攻打宋国。墨子听到消息后从很远的地方赶来,当着楚王的面,和公输般斗智、斗法,一攻一守,最后还是墨子技高一筹,公输般认输,战争也就制止了。这战争是怎么打的呢?不是双方士兵面对面地直接厮杀、打斗,而是双方主帅斗谋略、斗军事武器、技术。这就很有点现代战争的味道,就像美国当年的海湾战争,现在的伊拉克战争,都是决胜在战场之外。《非攻》写的就是一场现代意味的战争,这是很有意思的。但更值得注意的是,墨子制止了这场战争“以后”,他来到了宋国,这个刚被他拯救的国家,他遭遇到了什么呢?他“一进宋国界,就被搜检了两回”,为什么?因为他穿得太寒酸,土头土脑的,所以,就被当地警察不放心的搜检了两回。然后“又遇见了募捐救国队”要向他募捐,连破包裹也捐掉了。“到得南关外,又遇着大雨”,想到亭子里避雨,因为他的衣服太破旧也被两个警察拒绝了。一个为民请命的人,到最后连躲雨的地方都没有,只能“淋得一身湿,从此鼻子塞了十多天”。他战胜公输般令人非常敬仰,但现在又让人觉着非常可怜,一下子把前面的庄严感都消解掉了,留给读者的依然是透骨的悲凉感。
所以,我们读鲁迅的《故事新编》,无论是《奔月》、《理水》,还是《非攻》,都会感觉到他是在讨论一个问题,就是先驱者的命运的问题,一切为民请命者的命运问题。我们可以发现:鲁迅的每一篇小说都有两种“调子”:崇高的与嘲讽、荒诞的,悲壮的与悲凉的。两种调子互相消长,形成内在的紧张关系,而且小说后半部分情节都忽然翻转,把前面的情节颠覆,很像现在所说的先锋派小说和后现代小è¯
´ã€‚而这样的复杂化的叙述与描写的背后,隐现着鲁迅的怀疑的审视的眼光:他要打破一切人、我制造的神话。
                              (二)
现在我要讲《铸剑》,它是《故事新编》里写的最好、表现最完美的一篇,因此我们要作一个文本细读。
小说的故事大家都很熟悉:有一天楚王的王妃白天摸了一下铁柱子,晚上就生下了一块铁,这自然是块奇铁,楚王就把当时楚国最著名的铸匠莫邪找来,命令他用这块铁铸一把剑。莫邪铸了一把雄剑和一把雌剑,他知道大王善于猜忌又极其残忍,所以就献出雌剑留下了雄剑,交给夫人,嘱咐她将剑埋在地下,待儿子长大,到十六岁时再取出来,让儿子为他报仇。他的儿子果然长大了,叫作“眉间尺”,就是说,双眉之间距离有一尺之宽——当然,古代的一尺没有今天这样宽,但总之是很宽的了,我们可以想见,浓眉大眼宽距离,是个英俊的小伙子。小说一开始就是十六年后的子夜时分,母亲向眉间尺追述当年他父亲铸剑的情景,那真是惊心动魄——
“当最末次开炉的那一日,是怎样地骇人的景象呵!哗拉拉地腾上一道白气的时候,地面也觉得动摇。那白气到天半便变成白云,罩住了这处所,渐渐现出绯红颜色,映得一切都如桃花。我家的漆黑的炉子里,是躺着通红的两把剑。你父亲用井华水慢慢地滴下去,那剑嘶嘶地吼着,慢慢转成青色了。这样地七日七夜,就看不见了剑,仔细看时,却还在炉底里,纯青的,透明的,正像两条冰。”
“……待到指尖一冷,有如触着冰雪的时候,那纯青透明的剑也出现了。……”
“窗外的星月和屋里的松明似乎都骤然失了光辉,惟有青光充塞宇内。那剑便溶在这青光中,看去好像一无所有。”
我们看到的是鲁迅式的颜色:白的,红的,黑的,“通红”以后的“纯青”。还有鲁迅式的情感:从“极热”到冰一样的“极冷”。鲁迅正是这样外表“极冷”而内心“极热”,这把“纯青的,透明的,正像两条冰”的“剑”,正是鲁迅精神的外化。而在小说里,真正代表了这性格、这精神的,是“黑色人”。
这黑色人是如何出现的呢?
   这天晚上楚王做了一个梦,梦见有人拿剑刺杀他,便下令全城搜捕眉间尺。正在最危急的时候出现了“黑色人”。
“前面的人圈子动摇了,挤进一个黑色的人来,黑须黑眼睛,瘦得如铁。他并不言语,只向眉间尺冷冷地一笑……”。
“眉间尺浑身一颤,中了魔似的,立即跟着他走;后来是飞奔。……前面却仅有两点磷火一般的那黑色人的眼光。”
黑色人对他说,“我为你报仇”,“只要你给我两件东西:一是你的剑,二是你的头。”眉间尺毫不犹豫地割下头,“‘呵呵!’他一手接剑,一手捏着头发,提起眉间尺的头来,对着那热的死掉的嘴唇,接吻两次,并且冷冷地尖利地笑。”
黑色人确实像冰一样冷酷无情。但当眉间尺问他:“你为什么要给我报仇呢?”“黑色人”却这样回答:因为“我的灵魂上有这么多的,人我所加的伤,我已经憎恶了我自己!”这就告诉我们,黑色人有一个受了伤的灵魂。我们可以想见,黑色人原来也有火热的心灵、热烈的追求,但他受到一次又一次打击和侮辱,他的心变硬了,排除了一切情感与追求,只剩下一个感情——那就是憎恨,只有一个行为——那就是复仇。他把自己变成一个复仇之神。可见黑色人同样外表冰冷而内心火热,他同样是“黑色家族”的一个成员,在某种程度上即是鲁迅的化身。在小说里,他的名字叫宴之敖,而这恰是鲁迅的笔名。“鲁迅——黑色人——剑”,三者是融为一体的。
我们再看黑色人如何复仇。他把自己打扮成一个玩杂技的人,宣称有绝妙的杂技表演。而楚王此时正觉得无聊,想找刺激,就把他召上宫来。
黑色人要求将一个煮牛的大金鼎摆在殿外,注满水,下面堆了兽炭,点起火来。“那黑色人站在旁边,见炭火一红,便解下包袱,打开,两手捧出孩子的头来,高高举起。那头是秀眉长眼,皓齿红唇;脸带笑容;头发蓬松,正如青烟一阵。黑色人捧着向四面转了一圈,便伸手擎到鼎上,动着嘴唇说了几句不知什么话,随即将手一松,只听得扑通一声,坠入水中去了。水花同时溅起,足有五尺多高,此后是一切平静。”“……炭火也正旺,映着那黑色人变成红黑,如铁的烧到微红……他已经伸起两手向天,眼光向着无物,舞蹈着,忽地发出尖利的声音唱起歌来:
哈哈爱兮爱乎爱乎!
爱兮血兮兮谁乎独无。
…………
血乎呜呼兮呜呼阿呼,
   阿乎呜呼兮呜呼呜呼!
   随着歌声,水就从鼎口涌起,上尖下广,像一座小山,但自水尖至鼎底,不住地回旋运动。那头即随水上上下下,转着圈子,一面又滴溜溜地自己翻筋斗,人们还可以看见他玩得高兴的笑容。过了些时,突然变了逆水的游泳,打旋子夹着穿梭,激得水花向四面飞溅,满庭洒下一阵热雨来。
……黑色人的歌声才停,那头也就在水中央停住,面向王殿,颜色转成端庄。这样的右余瞬息之久,才慢慢地上下抖动,从抖动加速而为起伏的游泳,但不很快,态度很雍容”。——请注意,这里对眉间尺形象的描写:“秀眉长眼,皓齿红唇”,“颜色端庄”,“态度雍容”,还有那“玩得高兴的笑容”,这样的年轻,如此的秀美,这是一个多么美好的生命!但不要忘了,这只是一个头,一个极欲复仇的头颅,这其间的反差极大,造成一种奇异的感觉。这个头颅“忽然睁大眼睛,漆黑的眼珠显得格外精采”,就这么“开口唱起歌来”,依然是听不懂的古怪的歌:
       “王泽流兮浩洋洋;
        克服怨敌,怨敌克服兮,赫兮强!
        …………
        堂哉皇哉兮嗳嗳唷,
        嗟来归来,嗟来陪来兮青其光!”
唱着唱着头不见了,歌声也没有了。楚王看得正起劲,忙问这是怎么一回事,黑的人就叫楚王下来看,楚王也就果真情不自禁地走下宝座,刚走到鼎口,就看见那小孩对他嫣然一笑,这可把楚王吓了一跳,仿佛似曾相识,因为小孩正像他的发出父亲。“刚在惊疑,黑色人已经掣出了背着的青色的剑,只一挥,闪电般从后项窝直劈下去,扑通一声,王的头就落在鼎里了。”“仇人相见,本来格外眼明,况且是相逢狭路。王头刚到水面,眉间尺的头便迎上来,狠命在他耳轮上咬了一口。鼎水即刻沸涌,澎湃有声;两头即在水中死战。约有二十回合,王头受了五个伤,眉间尺的头上却有七处。王又狡猾,总是设法绕到他的敌人的后面去。眉间尺偶一疏忽,终于被他咬住了后项窝,无法转身。这一回王的头可是咬定不放了,他只是连连蚕食进去;连鼎外面也仿佛听到孩子的失声叫痛的声音。”这时,黑色人也有些惊慌,但仍面不改色,从从容容地伸开那捏着看不见的青剑的臂膊,如一段枯枝;臂膊忽然一弯,青剑便蓦地从他后面劈下,剑到头落,坠入鼎中,“他的头一入水,即刻奔向王头,一口咬住了王的鼻子,几乎要咬下来。王忍不住叫一声‘阿唷’,将嘴一张,眉间尺的头乘机挣脱了,ä
¸€è½¬è„¸å€’将王的下巴死劲咬住。他们不但都不放,还用全力上下一撕,撕得王头再也合不上嘴。于是他们就如饿鸡啄米一般,一顿乱咬,咬得王头眼歪鼻塌,满脸鳞伤。先前还会在鼎里面四处乱滚,后来只能躺着呻吟,到底是一声不响,只有出气,没有进气了。黑色人和眉间尺的头也慢慢地住了嘴,离开王头,沿鼎壁游了一匝,看他可是装死还是真死。待到知道了王头确已断气,便四目相视,微微一笑,随即合上眼睛,仰面向天,沉到水底里去了。”这就结束了复仇的故事。
你看,在这一段文字里,鲁迅充分发挥了他的想象力,把这个复仇的故事写得如此的惊心动魄,又如此的美,可以说是把复仇充分的诗化了。小说写到这里就好像到了一个高潮,应该结束了,如果是一般作家也就这样结束了。但是如果真到此结束,我们就可以说这不是鲁迅的小说。老实说,这样的想象力,这样的描写,尽管很不凡,但别一个出色的作家还是可以写得出的。鲁迅之为鲁迅,就在于他在写完复仇的故事以后,还有新的开掘。甚至可以说,鲁迅的本意,或者说他真正兴趣所在,还不是描写复仇本身,他要追问的是,复仇“以后”会怎么样。也就是说,小说写到复仇事业的完成,还只是一个铺垫,小说的真正展开与完成,小说最精彩,最触目惊心之处,是在王头被啄死了以后的描写。
当王死后,侍从赶紧把鼎里的骨头捞出来,从中挑拣出王的头,但三个头已经纠缠在一起,分不清谁是谁的了。于是,就出现了一个“辨头”的场面——
“当夜便开了一个王公大臣会议,想决定那一个是王的头,但结果还同白天一样。并且连须发也发生了问题。白的自然是王的,然而因为花白,所以黑的也很难处置。讨论了小半夜,只将几根红色的胡子选出;接着因为第九个王妃抗议,说她确曾看见王有几根通黄的胡子,现在怎么能知道决没有一根红的呢。于是也只好重行归并,作为疑案了。
“到后半夜,还是毫无结果。大家却居然一面打呵欠,一面继续讨论,直到第二次鸡鸣,这才决定了一个最慎重妥善的办法,是:只能将三个头骨都和王的身体放在金棺里落葬。”
我们很容易就注意到,鲁迅的叙事语调发生了变化,三头相搏的场面充满悲壮感,三头相辨就变成了鲁迅式的嘲讽。也就是说,由“复仇”的悲壮剧变成了“辨头”的闹剧,而且出现了“三头并葬”的复仇结局。这又意味着什么呢?从国王的角度来说,国王是至尊者,黑色人和眉间尺却是大逆不道的叛贼,尊贵的王头怎么可以和逆贼头放在一起葬呢?对国王而言,这是荒诞不经的。从黑色人、眉间尺的角度说,他们是正义的复仇者,国王是罪恶的元凶,现在复仇者的头和被复仇者的头葬在一起,这本身也是滑稽可笑的。这双重的荒谬,使复仇者和被复仇者同时陷入了尴尬,也使复仇本身的价值变得可疑。先前的崇高感、悲壮感到这里都化成了一笑,却不知道到底该笑谁:国王?眉间尺?还是黑色人?就连我们读者也陷入了困境。
而且这样的尴尬、困境还要继续下去:小说的最后出现了一个全民“大出丧”的场面。老百姓从全国各地、四面八方跑来,天一亮,道路上就挤满了男男女女、老老少少,名义上是来“瞻仰”王头,其实是来看三头并葬,看热闹。大出丧变成了全民狂欢节。当三头并装在灵车里,在万头攒动中招摇过市时,复仇的悲剧就达到了顶点。眉间尺、黑色人不仅身首异处,而且仅余的头颅还和敌人的头颅并置公开展览,成为众人谈笑的资料,这是极端的残酷,也是极端的荒谬。在小说的结尾,鲁迅不动声色地写了这样一段文字——
“此后是王后和许多王妃的车。百姓看她们,她们也看百姓,但哭着。此后是大臣,太监,侏儒等辈,都装着哀戚的颜色。只是百姓已经不看他们,连行列也挤得乱七八糟,不成样子了”。
这段话写得很冷静,但我们仔细的体味,就不难发现看与被看的关系。百姓看她们,是把她们当成王后和王妃吗?不是,百姓是把她们当成女人,是在看女人,是男人看女人;她们看百姓,是女人看男人。就这样,男人看女人,女人看男人,全民族从上到下,都演起戏来了。这个时候,复仇者和被复仇者,连同复仇本身也就同时被遗忘和遗弃。这样,小说就到了头了,前面所写的所有的复仇的神圣、崇高和诗意,都被消解为无,真正是“连血痕也被舔净”。只有“看客”仍然占据着画面:在中国,他们是唯一的、永远的胜利者。
不知大家感觉怎么样,我每次读到这里,都觉得心里堵得慌。我想鲁迅自己写到这里,他的内心也是不平静的。因为这个问题涉及到鲁迅的信念,鲁迅是相信复仇、主张复仇的。他曾经说过:“当人受到压迫,为什么不反抗?”鲁迅的可贵,就在于他对自己的“复仇”主张也产生了怀疑。虽然他主张复仇,但同时又很清楚在中国这样的一个国家,复仇是无效的、无用的,甚至是可悲的。鲁迅从来不自欺欺人,他在情感上倾心于复仇,但同时他又很清醒地看到在中国这样的复仇是必然失败的。——这就表现了鲁迅的一种怀疑精神。而且这种怀疑精神是彻底的,因为它不仅怀疑外部世界,更怀疑自己,怀疑自己的一些信念,这样他就把怀疑精神贯彻到底了。
于是,我们也就明白,在《故事新编》里,鲁迅所要注入的是一种彻底的怀疑主义的现代精神,把他自己非常丰富的痛苦而悲凉的生命体验融化其中。这样一种怀疑精神表现在他的艺术上又是如此的复杂:悲壮的、崇高的和嘲讽的、荒诞的悲凉的两种调子交织在一起,互相质疑、互相补充,又互相撕裂。很多作家的写作是追求和谐的,而鲁迅的作品里找不到和谐,那是撕裂的文本,有一种内在的紧张。就写作结构而言,小说各部分之间,尤其是结尾与前面的描写,常常形成一个颠覆,一个整体的消解。这些都可以看出鲁迅思想的深刻,艺术的丰富性和创造性。这样的小说是我们过去没有看到过的,是全新的创造。
三
鲁迅在《故事新编》中同样以严峻的、批判的态度,去重新审视中国历史上的一些圣人、贤人——孔子、墨子、老子和庄子。他让这些圣人、贤人和一些意想不到的人之间发生奇怪的相遇,使他们处在一种荒诞的情景之中。
《采薇》这一篇写的是伯夷、叔齐的故事。大家都知道他们是儒家里的道德典范,两人互相谦让,谁也不肯当皇帝,然后一起逃到首阳山,“不食周粟”。他们是孔孟之道的忠实信徒,开口闭口都是要遵循“先王之道”。鲁迅认为他们是真正的信徒,是真心真意相信,并且实实在在愿意实践儒家先王之道的。在鲁迅看来,其他更多的表面上宣布自己奉行先王之道的那些所谓儒家信徒都是假的。一个真信徒和一个假信徒相遇,这个真信徒就显得非常可笑。于是,鲁迅就凭空设置了一个伯夷、叔奇去首阳山的路上碰到强盗的场景。这个强盗叫小穷奇,是鲁迅创造出来的一个人物。他处处宣布“我是信奉先王之道的,我是儒家最忠实的信徒”,这就出现了一个非常滑稽可笑的场面。强盗提着刀说:“小的带了兄弟们在这里,要请您老赏一点买路钱。”很客气,可以说是彬彬有礼。“æ
ˆ‘们哪有钱呢?大王。我们是从养老堂里出来的。”“阿呀!”强盗吃了一惊,立刻肃然起敬。“那么,您两位一定是‘天下之大老’了。小人们也遵循先王遗教,非常敬老,所以要请您老留下一点纪念品……”伯夷、叔齐不知说什么。强盗将大刀一挥,提高了声音说道:“如果您老还要谦让,那可小人们只好恭行天搜,瞻仰一下您老的贵体了!”——你看,他明明是个强盗,却口口声声“遵先王遗教”,在“敬老”的大义之下,行拦路抢劫之实。还要宣称这是“恭行天搜”。“恭行天搜”是什么意思呢?就是我搜身也是是根据天的旨意。小穷奇打着“天”的旗号来抢劫,其实与皇帝自称“天子”,以“天”的名义统治天下,没有实质的区别。这个情景看起来非常荒诞,实际上有很大的概括性,是一个隐喻。所有“主义”的信徒都有真有假,假信徒们常常打着“主义”的旗号,窃取美名,干抢劫的勾当,而这样的人却最吃香,最能风行于天下。伯夷、叔齐这样的真信徒在他们面前,确如鲁迅所说,就像一头“笨牛”,反而显得滑稽可笑。鲁迅对这种真信徒怀有非常复杂的感情,称之为“笨牛”,就既有嘲讽、否定,又多少觉得他们也还有可爱之处,他最痛恨的就是“小穷奇”这样的假信徒。在现实生活中,这样的假信徒比比皆是,而真正像伯夷、叔齐那样的老实人反而是行不通的。这里面包含着鲁迅对儒家学说及其命运,非常深刻的理解及感悟。
《出关》讲的是老子,而老子主张无为而治。鲁迅在三十年代国难当头的背景下,当然要反对这种无为而治。所以他要对老子开一个玩笑,用游戏笔墨跟他开个玩笑。老子要出函谷关,关长说:“老先生既要出关,我有个条件,请你来讲学。”就出现了老子被迫讲学的场面。听他讲学的是些什么人呢?“四个巡警,两个签字手,五个探子,一个书记,账房和厨房。”于是,老子这样一个大哲学家、大学者,就与这些巡警、侦探、账房、厨房有了一个奇怪的相遇。
“老子像一段呆木头似的坐在中央,沉默了一会,这才咳嗽几声,白胡子里面的嘴唇在动起来了。大家即刻屏住呼吸,侧着耳朵听。只听他慢慢的说道:
‘道可道,非常道;名可名,非常名……故常无欲以观其妙……常有欲以观其窍,此两者,同出而异名。同,谓之玄,玄之又玄,众妙之门……’”他越说越玄,“大家显出苦脸来了,有些人还似乎手足无措。”——请注意,这“手足无措”三个字写得非常传神。巡警、账房们开始打哈欠,连笔记本都掉下来了,哗啷一声,把大家吓了一跳。
这是典型的“对牛弹琴”的场景,“牛”固然可笑,可这个“弹琴”者也许更为可笑,而且他还被这些人议论,轻薄地议论。等他走了,那个巡警说:“哈哈哈!……我真只好打盹了。老实说,我是猜他要讲自己的恋爱故事,这才去听的。要是早知道他不过这么胡说八道,我就压根儿不去坐这么大半天受罪……”最后关长把老子留下的《道德经》扔在架子上,在堆满灰尘的架子上,有没收来的盐和土豆——跟这些东西放在一起,实在是不伦不类。
这是鲁迅跟老子开了个不大不小的玩笑。
再看庄子,就更可笑了。我们一起来读《起死》。这个题目就很有意思:所谓“起死”就是让彼时彼地的古人复活,与此时此地的现代人对话,这其实就是鲁迅写《故事新编》的本意,整本《故事新编》就是一篇“起死”。具体到这篇文本,是从《庄子》《至乐》篇的寓言故事里演义出来的。故事中的那个骷髅,是五百年前的一个乡下人。当年是条汉子,夹着一个包裹,拿了雨伞去看亲戚,走在半路,被一棍子打死了,而且被剥光了衣服。现在,这个骷髅被庄子施法术,复了生,不过却是赤条条的,没衣服穿。他只看到旁边有一个老头,当然这老头就是庄子。于是他一把抓住庄子说:
“你把我弄的精赤条条的,活转来又有什么用?叫我怎么去探亲?”
庄子说,这跟我没关系呀!不是我弄你的。
“我不信你的胡说。这里只有你,我当然问你要!我扭你见保甲去!”
这时,庄子就开始和他讲起自己的哲学来:“慢慢的,慢慢的,我的衣服旧了,很脆,拉不得。你且听我几句话:你先不要专想衣服罢,衣服是可有可无的,也许是有衣服对,也许是没有衣服对。鸟有羽,兽又毛,然而黄瓜茄子赤条条。此所谓彼也一是非,此也一是非。你固然不能说没有衣服对,然而你又怎么能说有衣服对呢?”
这是鲁迅的神来之笔。庄子大谈他的哲学,汉子大怒:“放你妈的屁,不还我的东西,我先揍死你!”
哲学家的相对主义,遇到了乡下人的现实主义,就一筹莫展,陷入非常狼狈的境地。
汉子说,既然你说衣服可有可无,那你把衣服剥下来给我穿吧。庄子说,不行,不行,我要见楚王,怎能不穿衣服去呢?可见这样的玄而又玄的相对主义哲学是连哲学家自己也不准备认真实行的。汉子死死揪住庄子不放,庄子没办法,只好吹警笛,请巡警帮他解围。
这也是鲁迅和庄子开的一个不大不小的玩笑。在古代文化中,对鲁迅影响最大的就是庄子了。鲁迅说过:孔孟之道对我没多大影响,真正对我有影响的一个是庄子,一个是韩非子。实际上,鲁迅对庄子怀有很复杂的一种情感。作为学者的鲁迅,他对庄子的评价,和作为一个杂文家的鲁迅对庄子评价是不一样的:在《汉文学史纲》中,鲁迅对庄子的文采给予了极高的评价;而作为杂文家的鲁迅关注的则是,庄子这种哲学在中国现实生活中发挥了什么作用。学者的鲁迅和杂文家的鲁迅,在面对不同对象、不同任务的时候,对庄子有不同的评价,这是我们在读鲁迅著作时应该注意的。
刚才我们在不长的时间里把鲁迅的《故事新编》读完了,每一篇都作了简要的分析。我想最后再说几句:我们今天是一个文学之旅,大家一边读一边会感受到一种诧异感。鲁迅的很多描写都在我们的意料之外,和我们所见到的小说不大一样。这就是鲁迅作品经常给人的审美的感受,一种惊喜和惊奇感。这样的层出不穷的出乎意外的奇思异想,是显示了鲁迅非凡的想象力的,我们甚至感到这种想象力仿佛要溢出艺术文本,并能引起我们新的想象和新的创造。在我们感受到鲁迅这样一种想象力和创造力的时候,不得不想到中国的现代文学以至当代文学有个非常大的问题:缺乏想象力,特别是这种非凡的想象力。为什么鲁迅有如此的想象力,而我们一般的作家没有呢?这除了鲁迅个人的才情外,很重要的一个方面就是与鲁迅自觉的继承神话传统和子书传统有关。中国小说的渊源来自于神话、传说和史书,中国小说和这三种古代文献关系最密切。但小说在后来发展过程中越来越受到史书影响,相反,神话、传说的影响越来越小,这就是造成小说发展中想象力不足的一个非常重要的原因。从更深层面来说,我们这个民族可能是想象力不足的。鲁迅曾做过解释,他说原因在于中国人的生存太困难了,所以中国最发达的哲学是生存哲学,是一种“活着”的哲学。因为现实苦难太多,“怎么活着”就成为中国人第一性的问题。这样身受的艰难就使得中国人对彼岸ä
¸–界的想象有些不足,这可能就构成了我们这个民族的一个弱点。从这个角度我们再来看《故事新编》,看它的非凡的想象力,就显得特别可贵。
我们还注意到,《故事新编》八篇小说中,有五篇写于1935-1936这个时期,是鲁迅生命的最后一个阶段。在这个阶段中,鲁迅时时刻刻面临着死亡的威胁,处在一个内外交困、身心交瘁的境地,然而他的小说风格却如此从容、洒脱、幽默。鲁迅自己对《呐喊》、《彷徨》并不完全满意,大家都认为《狂人日记》是鲁迅的代表作。但鲁迅在一篇文章里公开表示:“我的《狂人日记》写得太逼促,不够从容。”他最满意的小说是《孔乙己》,而《孔乙己》的长处就在于写得非常从容。鲁迅在这里提出了一个非常重要的审美标准——从容。但追求从容之美又和前面所说的他的小说内在的紧张,形成了一个内在的矛盾。象《故事新编》、《孔乙己》、《在酒楼上》都很好的处理了这种矛盾,而有的小说处理这种矛盾就会露出某种破绽。比如《狂人日记》,“我看来看去,从字里行间看见了‘吃人’两个字”,这样的描写从艺术上讲太逼促了,太急于把自己的看法表白出来,显得不够从容,不够含蓄。反过来看《故事新编》,显然有内在紧张,但表达出来却是如此诙谐、幽默、从容不迫,这种笔调,就能使读者在大笑中感受他内在的紧张。幽默是一个大境界,不仅是文学的大境界,更是人生命的一个大境界。《故事新编》是鲁迅思想和艺术的一次超越,所以小说家的鲁迅以《呐喊》、《彷徨》开始,以《故事新编》作为结束,这本身就是非常有意义的。其实《故事新编》也是一个没有达到十分完美的境界的作品,因为他写得毕竟太匆忙,而且是在大病的情况下写的。在某种程度上说《故事新编》是一部没有完成的杰作。
读鲁迅的作品,我们会时时刻刻为鲁迅的艺术才华所折服,同时我们也常常会感到千古文章未竟才的遗憾。因此,就像鲁迅说他自己是“中间物”一样,他的小说在整个中国现当代文学发展中仍然是一个中间物,它只是一个阶段,但这个阶段,却是十分的辉煌,而且让我们后人永远怀想。

Tuesday, July 4, 2006

史记卷七十七 魏公子列传 第十七

史记卷七十七 魏公子列传 第十七

魏公子无忌者,魏昭王子少子而魏安厘王异母弟也。昭王薨,安厘王即位,封公子
为信陵君。①是时范睢亡魏相秦,以怨魏齐故,秦兵围大梁,破魏华阳下军,走芒卯。
魏王及公子患之。

注①索隐按:地理志无信陵,或是乡邑名也。
公子为人仁而下士,士无贤不肖皆谦而礼交之,不敢以其富贵骄士。士以此方数千
里争往归之,致食客三千人。当是时,诸侯以公子贤,多客,不敢加兵谋魏十余年。
公子与魏王博,而北境传举烽,言“赵寇至,且入界”。①魏王释博,欲召大臣谋。
公子止王曰:“赵王田猎耳,非为寇也。”②复博如故。王恐,心不在博。居顷,复从
北方来传言曰:“赵王猎耳,非为寇也。”魏王大惊,曰:“公子何以知之?”公子曰:
“臣之客有能深得赵王阴事③者,赵王所为,客辄以报臣,臣以此知之。”是后魏王畏
公子之贤能,不敢任公子以国政。

注①集解文颖曰;“作高木橹,橹上作桔槔,桔槔头兜零,以薪置其中,谓之烽。
常低之,有寇即火然举之以相告。”
注②正义为,于伪反。
注③索隐按:谯周作“探得赵王阴事”。
魏有隐士曰侯嬴,①年七十,家贫,为大梁夷门监者。公子闻之,往请,欲厚遗之。
不肯受,曰:“臣修身絜行数十年,终不以监门困故而受公子财。”公子于是乃置酒大
会宾客。坐定,公子从车骑,虚左,自迎夷门侯生。侯生摄敝衣冠,直上载公子上坐,
不让,欲以观公子。公子执辔愈恭。侯生又谓公子曰:
“臣有客在市屠中,愿枉车骑过之。”公子引车入巿,侯生下见其客朱亥,俾倪②
故久立,与其客语,微察公子。公子颜色愈和。当是时,魏将相宗室宾客满堂,待公子
举酒。巿人皆观公子执辔。从骑皆窃骂侯生。侯生视公子色终不变,乃谢客就车。至家,
公子引侯生坐上坐,篃赞宾客,③宾客皆惊。酒酣,公子起,为寿侯生前。侯生因谓公
子曰:“今日嬴之为公子亦足矣。④嬴乃夷门抱关者也,而公子亲枉车骑,自迎嬴于觽
人广坐之中,不宜有所过,今公子故过之。然嬴欲就公子之名,故久立公子车骑巿中,
过客以观公子,公子愈恭。巿人皆以嬴为小人,而以公子为长者能下士也。”于是罢酒,
侯生遂为上客。

注①索隐音盈。又曹植音“羸瘦”之“羸”。
注②索隐上音浦计反,下音五计反。邹诞云又上音疋未反,下音五弟反。正义不正
视也。
注③索隐篃音遍。赞者,告也。谓以侯生遍告宾客。
注④集解徐广曰:“为,一作‘羞’。”
侯生谓公子曰:“臣所过屠者朱亥,此子贤者,世莫能知,故隐屠闲耳。”公子往
数请之,朱亥故不复谢,公子怪之。
魏安厘王二十年,秦昭王已破赵长平军,又进兵围邯郸。公子姊为赵惠文王弟平原
君夫人,数遗魏王及公子书,请救于魏。魏王使将军晋鄙①将十万觽救赵。秦王使使者
告魏王曰:“吾攻赵旦暮且下,而诸侯敢救者,已拔赵,必移兵先击之。”魏王恐,使
人止晋鄙,留军壁邺,名为救赵,实持两端以观望。平原君使者冠盖相属于魏,让魏公
子曰:“胜所以自附为婚姻者,以公子之高义,为能急人之困。今邯郸旦暮降秦而魏救
不至,安在公子能急人之困也!且公子纵轻胜,□之降秦,独不怜公子姊邪?”公子患
之,数请魏王,及宾客辩士说王万端。魏王畏秦,终不听公子。公子自度终不能得之于
王,计不独生而令赵亡,乃请宾客,约车骑百余乘,欲以客往赴秦军,与赵俱死。

注①索隐魏将姓名也。
行过夷门,见侯生,具告所以欲死秦军状。辞决而行,侯生曰:“公子勉之矣,老
臣不能从。”公子行数里,心不快,曰:“吾所以待侯生者备矣,天下莫不闻,今吾且
死而侯生曾无一言半辞送我,我岂有所失哉?”复引车还,问侯生。侯生笑曰:“臣固
知公子之还也。”曰:“公子喜士,名闻天下。今有难,无他端而欲赴秦军,譬若以肉
投馁虎,何功之有哉?尚安事客?然公子遇臣厚,公子往而臣不送,以是知公子恨之复
返也。”公子再拜,因问。侯生乃屏人闲语,①曰:“嬴闻晋鄙之兵符常在王卧内,而
如姬最幸,出入王卧内,力能窃之。嬴闻如姬父为人所杀,如姬资之三年,②自王以下
欲求报其父仇,莫能得。如姬为公子泣,公子使客斩其仇头,敬进如姬。如姬之欲为公
子死,无所辞,顾未有路耳。公子诚一开口请如姬,如姬必许诺,则得虎符夺晋鄙军,
北救赵而西却秦,此五霸之伐也。”公子从其计,请如姬。如姬果盗晋鄙兵符与公子。






注①索隐闲音闲。[闲]语谓静语也。
注②索隐旧解资之三年谓服齐衰也。今案:资者,畜也。谓欲为父复雠之资畜于心
已得三年矣。
公子行,侯生曰:“将在外,主令有所不受,以便国家。公子即合符,而晋鄙不授
公子兵而复请之,事必危矣。臣客屠者朱亥可与俱,此人力士。晋鄙听,大善;不听,
可使击之。”
于是公子泣。侯生曰:“公子畏死邪?何泣也?”公子曰:“晋鄙嚄唶①宿将,往
恐不听,必当杀之,是以泣耳,岂畏死哉?”于是公子请朱亥。朱亥笑曰:“臣乃市井
鼓刀屠者,而公子亲数存之,所以不报谢者,以为小礼无所用。今公子有急,此乃臣效
命之秋也。”遂与公子俱。公子过谢侯生。侯生曰:“臣宜从,老不能。请数公子行日,
以至晋鄙军之日,北乡自刭,以送公子。”公子遂行。

注①集解上音乌百反,下音庄白反。索隐上乌白反,下争格反。案:嚄唶谓多词句
也。正义声类云:“嚄,大笑。唶,大呼。”
至邺,矫魏王令代晋鄙。晋鄙合符,疑之,举手视公子曰:“今吾拥十万之觽,屯
于境上,国之重任,今单车来代之,何如哉?”欲无听。朱亥袖四十斤铁椎,椎杀晋鄙,
公子遂将晋鄙军。勒兵下令军中曰:“父子俱在军中,父归;兄弟俱在军中,兄归;独
子无兄弟,归养。”得选兵八万人,进兵击秦军。秦军解去,遂救邯郸,存赵。赵王及
平原君自迎公子于界,平原君负□矢①为公子先引。
赵王再拜曰:“自古贤人未有及公子者也。”当此之时,平原君不敢自比于人。
公子与侯生决,至军,侯生果北乡自刭。

注①集解吕忱曰:“□盛弩矢。”索隐□音兰。谓以盛矢,如今之胡簏而短也。
吕姓,忱名,作字林者。言□盛弩矢之器。
魏王怒公子之盗其兵符,矫杀晋鄙,公子亦自知也。已却秦存赵,使将将其军归魏,
而公子独与客留赵。赵孝成王德公子之矫夺晋鄙兵而存赵,乃与平原君计,以五城封公
子。公子闻之,意骄矜而有自功之色。客有说公子曰:“物有不可忘,或有不可不忘。
夫人有德于公子,公子不可忘也;公子有德于人,愿公子忘之也。且矫魏王令,夺晋鄙
兵以救赵,于赵则有功矣,于魏则未为忠臣也。
公子乃自骄而功之,窃为公子不取也。”于是公子ç
«‹è‡ªè´£ï¼Œä¼¼è‹¥æ— æ‰€å®¹è€…。赵王埽
除自迎,执主人之礼,引公子就西阶。公子侧行辞让,从东阶上。①自言谸过,以负于
魏,②无功于赵。赵王侍酒至暮,口不忍献五城,以公子退让也。公子竟留赵。赵王以
鄗③为公子汤沐邑,魏亦复以信陵奉公子。公子留赵。

注①集解礼记曰:“主人就东阶,客就西阶。客若降等,则就主人之阶。”
注②索隐负音佩。
注③索隐音臛,赵邑名,属常山。
公子闻赵有处士毛公藏于博徒,薛公藏于卖浆家,①公子欲见两人,两人自匿不肯
见公子。公子闻所在,乃闲步往从此两人游,甚欢。平原君闻之,谓其夫人曰:“始吾
闻夫人弟公子天下无双,今吾闻之,乃妄从博徒卖浆者游,公子妄人耳。”夫人以告公
子。公子乃谢夫人去,曰:“始吾闻平原君贤,故负魏王而救赵,以称平原君。平原君
之游,徒豪举耳,②不求士也。无忌自在大梁时,常闻此两人贤,至赵,恐不得见。
以无忌从之游,尚恐其不我欲也,今平原君乃以为羞,其不足从游。”乃装为去。
夫人具以语平原君。平原君乃免冠谢,固留公子。平原君门下闻之,半去平原君归公子,
天下士复往归公子,公子倾平原君客。

注①集解徐广曰:“浆,一作‘醪’。”索隐按:别录云“浆,或作‘醪’字”。
注②索隐谓豪者举之。举亦音据也。
公子留赵十年不归。秦闻公子在赵,日夜出兵东伐魏。魏王患之,使使往请公子。
公子恐其怒之,乃诫门下:“有敢为魏王使通者,死。”宾客皆背魏之赵,莫敢劝公子
归。毛公﹑薛公①两人往见公子曰:“公子所以重于赵,名闻诸侯者,徒以有魏也。今
秦攻魏,魏急而公子不恤,使秦破大梁而夷先王之宗庙,公子当何面目立天下乎?”语
未及卒,公子立变色,告车趣驾归救魏。

注①索隐史不记其名。
魏王见公子,相与泣,而以上将军印授公子,公子遂将。魏安厘王三十年,公子使
使遍告诸侯。诸侯闻公子将,各遣将将兵救魏。公子率五国之兵破秦军于河外,走蒙骜。
遂乘胜逐秦军至函谷关,抑秦兵,①秦兵不敢出。当是时,公子威振天下,诸侯之客进
兵法,公子皆名之,②故世俗称魏公子兵法。③

注①索隐抑音忆。按:抑谓以兵蹙之。
注②索隐言公子所得进兵法而必称其名,以言其恕也。
注③集解刘歆七略有魏公子兵法二十一篇,图七卷。
秦王患之,乃行金万斤于魏,求晋鄙客,令毁公子于魏王曰:“公子亡在外十年矣,
今为魏将,诸侯将皆属,诸侯徒闻魏公子,不闻魏王。公子亦欲因此时定南面而王,诸
侯畏公子之威,方欲共立之。”秦数使反闲,伪贺公子得立为魏王未也。魏王日闻其毁,
不能不信,后果使人代公子将。公子自知再以毁废,乃谢病不朝,与宾客为长夜饮,饮
醇酒,多近妇女。日夜为乐饮者四岁,竟病酒而卒。其岁,魏安厘王亦薨。

秦闻公子死,使蒙骜攻魏,拔二十城,初置东郡。其后秦稍蚕食魏,十八岁而虏魏
王,①屠大梁。

注①索隐魏王名假。
高祖始微少时,数闻公子贤。及□天子位,每过大梁,常祠公子。高祖十二年,从
击黥布还,为公子置守頉五家,世世岁以四时奉祠公子。
太史公曰:吾过大梁之墟,求问其所谓夷门。夷门者,城之东门也。天下诸公子亦
有喜士者矣,然信陵君之接岩穴隐者,不耻下交,有以也。名冠诸侯,不虚耳。高祖每
过之而令民奉祠不绝也。

【索隐述赞】信陵下士,邻国相倾。以公子故,不敢加兵。颇知朱亥,尽礼侯嬴。
遂却晋鄙,终辞赵城。毛﹑薛见重,万古希声。