2025年5月28日 星期三

William F. Buckley Jr., 1925-2008. Ronald Egon [美]艾朗諾著:Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi.《才女之累:李清照及其接受史THE BURDEN OF FEMALE TALENT》


Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi. THE BURDEN OF FEMALE TALENT By Ronald Egon  [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》

分2014年蘇東坡傳記
jstor.org
Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi on JSTOR


至少兩篇重要書評,參考附錄。


才女之累:男人無法接受李清照的才華,才將易安詞理解為思念丈夫

 2017-07-09 高矅 文匯報 


艾朗諾教授是斯坦福大學漢學講座教授,長期致力於中國古典文學研究,對宋代詩學、宋代士大夫文化與宋代藝術史尤為關注。已經出版並引進國內的相關專著包括《歐陽修的文學作品》《蘇軾的言、象、行》《美的焦慮:北宋士大夫的審美思想與追求》等。

《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》是又一部著眼宋代文學的作品,英文原著於2013年由哈佛大學出版社出版,封面所用李清照畫像由中國美術史學家高居翰推薦。與大多數呈現女詞人婉約、柔弱的畫像不同,這幅畫像中的李清照顯得獨立而有想法,最符合艾朗諾對她的理解。

此書中文版經上海古籍出版社引進,於今年3月出版,其中諸多新穎觀點頗受學界關注。近日,艾朗諾教授接受《文匯學人》採訪,並就若干商榷意見給出回應。



▲漢學家艾朗諾

文匯:有關宋代文人的研究,您曾有幾本專著面世,重點關注歐陽修、蘇軾等士大夫。最近翻譯成中文引進中國的《才女之累》是一本圍繞宋代女性詞人李清照的專著,能否簡單介紹一下,您在其中落筆的重點?

艾朗諾:李清照是我個人很感興趣的宋代女性詞人。中國歷代也有其他一些女子得“才女”之名,頗享有聲望,但是,縱觀中國古代文學史,如果要問有幾位女性能算大家,我想只有李清照吧。李清照是唯一一位作品獲得經典地位的女性文人,能夠和歷代的陶淵明、杜甫、李白、白居易、蘇軾等同列於文學史,這一點是很特別的。當然這並不奇怪,中國古代文學當然是男性為主導,所以李清照顯得尤為特別。在這本研究李清照的《才女之累》中,我關注的重點,一方面是她和她的作品在文學史上的地位,另一方面是李清照過世以後,關於她的接受史的問題。

接受史的問題是我思考到後來的有趣發現。我仔細想過,中國古代文學史只讓一位女性成為大家,而她進入文學史的作品竟然都是在表達對丈夫的愛情?這兩者如此高度統一,不禁讓我產生懷疑,逐步意識到,傳統的對於李清照的了解恐怕是有問題的,對她作品的解讀恐怕也是有問題的。

在中文世界,李清照無疑是一位被反复研究的對象。後世文人對於李清照的思考和研究是非常有趣的,經常在變。比如她在趙明誠去世後嫁給張汝舟這件事,後世有一個曲折的認識和“接受”過程。人們一度無法接受這種“有失節操”的再嫁行為,甚至還引發一場否認再嫁、為才女雪恥辯誣的學術運動。由此可見,後世對待李清照,有著很矛盾的態度,一方面承認她的文學才華,欣賞她的作品。另一方面,要把這樣一位女子納入傳統文人的圈子,要承認她的文學地位,就要漸漸將她的形象重塑為合乎傳統的形象。

簡單地梳理一下我的想法:易安詞很受人喜愛;但是,男性文人又覺得,一位女性那麼有才華,是不大能接受的;但是,如果把她的作品都理解為是在抒發對丈夫的情感,那麼關係就理順了,就可以接受了。這就是男性的視角。

於是,喜愛她詞作的後世文人不斷強化他們理想中的李清照形象,到了明清時期,一般人所認為的李清照的形象,基本上就是一個深愛並思念著丈夫趙明誠、富有才華又忠貞不渝的女性形象。然而,這恐怕和真實的李清照有很大不同。

▲  [美]艾朗諾著:《才女之累:李清照及其接受史》,夏麗麗、趙惠俊譯,上海古籍出版社,2017年2月出版,384頁,78元

文匯:《才女之累》的“導論”中有一段話,大意為:建國以來中文學界對於李清照的研究充滿熱情,相關研究成果浩如煙海,數量驚人,但大量研究是重複多餘的。您又說:本書的一項任務是“將數世紀以來外加與她的累贅層層剝離,看看一旦擺脫附會之言後,我們可以如何評說她”。如此看來,廓清李清照身上的迷霧,似乎可以被視為您的寫作動機。那麼,根據您的研究,李清照是怎樣的形象?

艾朗諾:也許是因為女性詩人、詞人在古代文學史上非常少見,所以像李清照這樣富有才華的,自然會一直吸引大家研究的興趣。很多人欣賞她的詩詞,而且能感覺到,她寫的詩詞和一般男性作者的作品相比,別具風格,這更加引起研究者的興趣。所以,研究李清照的學術成果確實非常多,但往往落入窠臼,大量觀點重複。

李清照並不是明清學者和文學評論者筆下的那個脆弱、孤單、寂寞、成天思念丈夫的女性形象。她的個性頗為爭強好勝,這一點可以找到很多證據。她寫過一篇很有名的文章——《金石錄後序》。金石研究是她丈夫趙明誠的愛好和學問所在,夫妻兩人在這項愛好上花費了大量金錢和精力。李清照寫《金石錄後序》時,趙明誠已經過世了。文章並不是寫金石研究本身,而是將夫妻之間三十多年的婚姻往事娓娓道來。一位妻子描述自己和丈夫的私人生活,寫得非常動人,這樣的文章在唐宋時期找不到類似的,因此非常特殊。

文章的其中一段很好玩,寫的是李清照懷念他們剛剛結婚時的愉快生活。夫妻二人都是讀書人,常常到市場上買書,買古董、字畫,一起賞鑑。還談到兩人相互比試:“餘性偶強記,每飯罷,坐歸來堂烹茶,指堆積書史,言某事在某書某卷第幾葉第幾行,以中否角勝負,為飲茶先後。中即舉杯大笑,至茶傾覆懷中,反不得飲而起。”

這很有趣,她只形容自己贏,不描述趙明誠贏了是什麼樣子,彷彿這個遊戲一直是她贏得多。另外,我還揣摩過的是,猜中以後,高興是高興,可為何要“大笑”呢?有那麼高興嗎?趙明誠曾是國子監太學生,也就是受過高等教育的,而那個年代的學問評價,很重要的一點就是記憶書卷中的內容。李清照比丈夫還熟悉書裡的內容,這大概很令她得意,故而開懷大笑吧。

所以,就我自己對李清照的認識,她是很有性格的作家,有非常強烈的要與男性文人一爭高下的競爭意識。
▲《才女之累》英文版

文匯:要了解李清照的身世,她的詞作已被證明很難依憑,那麼只能依據詞作以外的創作。有三篇作品特別重要,即前述《金石錄後序》以及另兩篇——《投翰林學士綦崈禮啟》和《詞論》,您在書中也都予以了精密的分析。請您談談這幾篇文章的關鍵點所在?

艾朗諾:我想以《詞論》為例來談。李清照在《詞論》中逐個點評了北宋一些重要的詞人,甚至不乏批評之辭。這就很能反映李清照的性格特點。我們要注意,她並不是籠統地評論當時以男性為主的詞人群體,而是從平仄、韻律、風格等方面,對那些最有名望、廣受好評的詞家,如歐陽修、蘇東坡、秦觀、晏殊等,都有批評。同時代還有誰會這樣批評士人的詞作呢?他們的文章因為政治觀點被批評,這是有的,但是詞作被評價寫得不好,真是很稀見。文章甫一出來,很多文人就大為反感:這樣一位女性怎麼敢如此大膽地妄議當代詞家呢?

我以為這是個很突出的例子。如果是男性作家,也許寫不出這類批評。我並不是要強調女性作家有著與男性多麼判然有別的思考,而是,對於詞這種文體的評價,必須是有個站在外面的人,以旁觀者的眼光,才會這樣寫。男性文人都是“圈內人”,大家都“身在此山中”,而李清照是“圈外人”,所以才有那麼大膽和特殊的批評視角。這也反映出,儘管她努力地想要廁身士林,也儘管易安詞備受矚目,但其實她還是在“文壇之外”的,精英文人並未因為她的創作才華而接受她的創作者身份。


文匯:中文書名《才女之累》的“累(léi)”,是取“累贅”之意。請您簡單談談,書中試圖揭示的是怎樣的“累贅”?

艾朗諾:中文名的翻譯其實經歷了一個反复考慮的過程,我和編輯、譯者以及其他朋友有過很多討論。Burden直譯成中文的話,更直接的可能是“負擔”,但是如果書名是《才女的負擔》,並不能完全表達我在書裡對李清照的認識,所以覺得第二聲的累是最恰當。才女的累贅,大概是這個意思。

不管男性還是女性,有才華總是好事,但在李清照生活的年代,兩性之間非常不平等,女性如果很有才華,反而會招致很多麻煩。女子為文在當時是令人非議的事。李清照的作品是在她生前就獲得了不錯反響的,喜愛她詞作的男性文人對她的評價往往很有趣——喜愛,卻又不能輕易接受,無法忽視她的性別。

他們在評定她詞作的才華時,總是不免要強調一下:可惜是個女子啊!李清照在經歷了再嫁、離異的風波之後,名節方面的問題便成了她的又一層累贅。於是,評論者又會忍不住再強調這一點:可惜她名節有欠缺啊!比如宋代王灼的筆記就很典型,既讚許她“才力華贍,逼近前輩,在士大夫中已不多得”“若本朝婦人,當推詞采第一”,又評價她“晚節流蕩無歸”。

由此,我們可以想像一下她當時享有聲名的複雜處境,才華無法脫離性別和所謂的名節被加以評判。用現在的眼光來審視,同時代人對她的文學創作的評論,無疑是很不公平的。

《漱玉詞》

文匯:中國各朝有不少有名的女性文人,當然數量上和男性文人完全不能比,李清照的同時代也有一些女性文人,您在書裡提到可大致分為三類,即歌妓、名媛和閨閣文人。您認為李清照不能歸類於任何一種,這一點如何來理解?

艾朗諾:她的個人風格很鮮明,確實不屬於這三類。在當時,歌妓會寫詞,上流社會的閨閣婦女或名媛也有一些作品,但是,這些都是比較偶然的情況,並不是她們生活中要緊的事情。不少詞作,往往寫則寫矣,但事後被銷毀了,這些女性作者並不打算讓自己的作品被別人看到。李清照不一樣,她把文學創作視為生活中最要緊的事情。固然她從未有過自己是文學家之類的說法,但她對於自己的文學創作是很積極的,對於自己創作者的身份也有自覺。這些意識在她的作品裡可以被找到。

我可以找一首詞來談談文學創作在李清照人生里的重要性。看這首《漁家傲》:

天接雲濤連曉霧。星河欲轉千帆舞。彷彿夢魂歸帝所。聞天語。殷勤問我歸何處。我報路長嗟日暮。學詩謾有驚人句。九萬里風鵬正舉。風休住。蓬舟吹取三山去。

天帝殷勤地問她要去哪裡,大概意思就是,你這輩子到底想做什麼?她馬上回答的就是:這是一條長長的路,已經臨近日暮,我學習寫詩,卻謾有驚人句。這里首先能看出,天帝一問“歸何處”的終極問題,她就想到寫詩;此外,她明明已經寫出不少“驚人句”了,卻說“謾有驚人句”,即沒人注意我,也沒人欣賞我,不是沒有驚人句,是知音稀少。從中很能看出,文學創作對她來說是很要緊的事情。


文匯:聽您這樣談論李清照的才華和遭遇的困境,不禁想起BBC的一部短劇《隱於書後》。劇中的勃朗特姐妹也對文學創作很有熱情,她們受制於時代的局限,無法順利地以女性的身份寫作,但仍然默默而持久地付出努力,並最終在文學上取得了堪稱流芳後世的成就。您的新書和這部短劇頗有一些相似的觀感,在此也出於好奇地請問您,是否覺得哪位西方的文學女性很像李清照?

艾朗諾:西方文壇和中國文壇很不相同。以前有人說,李清照是中國的薩福。薩福是古希臘的女性文人,也寫作詩歌,不過從我對薩福詩歌的理解而言,我覺得她們倆不太像。在西方文學中,要等到十八、十九世紀,出現寫小說的簡·奧斯丁和勃朗特姐妹等,她們把文學看得如此重要,才大致可以對比李清照。但是你看,她們比李清照晚了好幾百年呢。

文匯:歷代選家在具體選目上必然有所偏好,您對《樂府雅詞》和《草堂詩餘》《花庵詞選》《陽春白雪》《全芳備祖》五種早期詞選的選目作了比較考察,這些詞選的選目高度重疊,但也有不同。您認為流傳甚廣的忠於丈夫的李清照形象影響了易安詞在詞選中的面貌。男性選家遇到極為罕見的女性詞人時,他們會被詞集中那些與主流相一致的女性形像作品所吸引,這個主流當然是佔壓倒性多數的男性作家決定的。這個論述是否可視為您在本書中試圖貫徹的女性主義批評角度?

艾朗諾:或許我很難有什麼直接的根據,可以來解釋李清照“具有女性主義的意識”;但我可以說,她不同於普通的女性,也不同於普通女性的文學創作,她對自己的創作是抱有很高期望的。

其實李清照的文學成就不能局限於詞來評論,儘管她的詞最出名。她寫過一些很有名的詩,也是非常值得討論的。她的詩風格迥異於詞,風格和題材很男性化,常涉及政事。她的詩裡都寫些什麼呢?像著名的《烏江》,“生當作人傑,死亦為鬼雄。至今思項羽,不肯過江東”,表達對宋室倉皇南渡的失望,這是人們很熟悉的。

再舉另外一個例子。唐代元結寫下《大唐中興頌》,是為歌頌唐代朝廷平定安史之亂而寫的頌文,後由顏真卿書丹,刻於浯溪碑石上。到了北宋,李清照父親李格非的那一代文人,像秦觀、晁補之、張耒等,都寫過關於中興碑的詩,態度和唐代的中興碑文相似,頌揚軍事勝利。當時李清照還很年輕,她也寫同樣的主題,和他人的韻,但態度很不同。她的重點不在於回顧和歌頌唐代朝廷如何抗擊安史之亂,而是表達了對唐代朝廷的懷疑和反思——為何安祿山會有那麼大的力量,為何安史之亂會發生。足見其批判性的態度。同時也可以看出,李清照身處當時男性主導的文士圈子,有意與當時有名望的文人競爭,以彰顯自己的思想更為深刻,也更有穿透表層的問題意識。


評論與回應

文匯:您在《才女之累》的《導論》中說:“本書研究的目標之一,是為婦女史及女性文學批評研究領域提供新的個案。”廈門大學錢建狀教授曾就您的英文原著寫過一篇書評,整體上給予很高的評價。他認為:“從女性主義文學批評來看,這樣的理論表述與文體解析自有其內在邏輯,並且可以增加釋讀易安詞的一個維度”,並指出書中的女性主義文學批評如鹽在水,不見踪影。能否請您簡單梳理一下,在李清照這個個案中,您想要呈現的女性文學批評的思路?

艾朗諾:《導論》中那句話的意思是,我想利用李清照的個案來擴張女性文學批評。因為在歐美學術界,對於女性文學,一直以近代與現代歐美文學作為研究對象,很少包含東亞文學,而更少注意到古代或中古的東亞文學。換句話說,女性文學批評這個領域至今範圍很窄小,我希望讓它廣闊一些。另外,我那本書出發點並不是“要用女性文學批評的角度來分析李清照”,更確切地說,我是受到一些當下女性文學批評的影響,然後重新來思考中國古代最偉大的女性詞人,或者說,我想利用近來女性文學批評的看法,嘗試看看,能不能把李清照從男性文壇的環境中抽出來,讓她得到自己的空間,而不光以男性的標準來衡量她。

文匯:錢建狀教授也指出:“宋代幾部詞選,各有其選詞標準。《樂府雅詞》標舉'黜浮',《草堂詩餘》為應歌而設,《花庵詞選》兼收並蓄,《陽春白雪》標榜高雅,而實有存詞之功,《全芳備祖》則是博物學專著。這幾部詞選,沒有一部是女性詞選,並且自有意義。一部詞選,操選政者不同,選詞標準不同,選源有別,皆有可能影響選目。不從詞選編纂學的視度來審視易安詞的傳播,僅從男性身份上來闡釋,也有可能失之偏頗。”對此商榷意見,您有何回應?

艾朗諾:說南宋詞選每本都有它獨特的選詞標準,這當然有道理。然而李清照的《漱玉詞》已經失傳,我們今天想了解李清照最可靠的詞作,除了這幾本南宋詞選外,沒有其他早期的文本可看,不管詞選本身有怎麼樣的偏頗,也只好靠它們。


文匯:《文匯讀書周報》2017年5月22日刊發了華東師範大學成瑋老師的文章:《如何證明女詞人不是女詞人》,最後部分對《才女之累》的論述提出商榷意見,轉引如下:

譬如著者認為,清人辯稱李清照未嘗再婚,背景在女性守節的嚴格化,大體可從。麻煩出在,第一位廣羅文獻論證此說的俞正燮,恰是思想開明,主張“其再嫁者不當非之”(《節婦說》)的。其《易安居士事輯》明言:“是非天下之公,非望易安以不嫁也。不甘小人言語,使才人下配駔儈,故以年分考之。”他反對再嫁論,與其說出於貞節立場,毋寧說出於對結褵雙方雅俗懸殊的惋惜。本書力求把一切“辯誣”者,納入單一背景之下,對此文的闡釋,遂未免失之迂曲。又如考察易安詩文,不僅詮釋方式迥異於詞,真偽判斷也大相徑庭。對詞嚴加甄辨,對詩文則全盤接受,絕無疑議。實則詩文和詞一樣,均係後人輯得。其間有無贗品,字句有無竄易,並非不言自明。舉《詞論》為例,早在1980年代,馬興榮先生已質疑其著作權(《李清照〈詞論〉考》),至今塵埃未定;或又謂此篇“在傳聞過程中字句原意難免改動失真” (孫望、常國武主編《宋代文學史》)。倘與詞作一視同仁,似也應下一番考辨工夫,而非不假思索,坦然據以為說。再如代言體之論,固然極富意義,但是,著者太珍視自己的新解,傾向於把易安詞統一劃歸代言體。即便發現“李清照甚至允許在詞中時不時地出現與她生平有關係的細節”,依然強調,這類作品“還是必須和李清照本人相區分開來”。如是處置,恐怕難饜人意。以常理度之,易安詞一部分系代言,一部分係自傳,兩者兼有,方為正常狀態,無須偏取一端。展望未來,在可能範圍內,盡量辨明多少詞作屬於前者,多少詞作屬於後者,或將變為討論李清照的一項新議題。

對以上幾點商榷意見,您有何回應?

艾朗諾:關於“再婚”的討論,我不相信俞正燮反對說李清照曾經再嫁是出於雙方雅俗懸殊的惋惜,而不是出於他的貞節觀念。我看他說“非望易安以不(改)嫁”是衝口而出的話,,披露了他真正的想法,就是說,如果李清照嫁了個相當好的人,他也會惋惜。俞正燮的動機也許很複雜,然而在他的影響下,後來一大堆清代學者相繼出來替李清照“辯誣”或“雪恥”是出於貞節觀念,這是不可否定的。

關於易安詩文,說她的詩作也像她詞作一樣,很多是後人輯得是對的,但她的散文卻不是,多半很早就有人引用,甚至她還在世的時候已經有人引用或註意到。《詞論》就是其中一篇。早期的《苕溪漁隱叢話後集》卷三十三引用了全篇,後面附上胡仔的評語。胡仔是當時的學者,在詩詞方面很有學問,所以這篇屬於李清照的可能性很大。這情況與現今歸屬於李清照的詞作大半是幾百年後(明代中期或晚期)才出現這情況,差異極大。

關於是否把易安詞統一劃歸代言體,這點當然有可商量之處,但我們將永遠沒有辦法分辨,李清照哪些詩是自傳性的,哪些是代言的。我這本書主要是要挑戰一般人閱讀李清照詞作的方法,若能引起一些人對他們慣有的讀法發生懷疑,我就達到目的了。至於把她的詞作分為兩種(一部分是代言,一部分是自傳),恐怕不好,而且是過於簡單。這兩種也許是分不開的,相信她許多詞既有自傳性也有代言性,混在一起,就像許多男性詞人的詞一樣。


本次訪談由《才女之累》責任編輯劉賽參與策劃
來源丨文匯學人




北美漢學新著|孫康宜、宇文所安評艾朗諾《才女的累贅:詞人李清照及其接受史》

2015-09-05 閱讀:10000+ 無待有為齋 pin it   360doc

評艾朗諾《才女的累贅:詞人李清照及其接受史》

The Burden of Female Talent: The Poet Li Qingzhao and Her History inChina. By Ronald Egan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013. ix, 422 pp.$ 59.95 (cloth).

孫康宜撰
卞東波譯


齋主按:斯坦福大學漢學講座教授艾朗諾(Ronald C. Egan)先生研究李清照的新作《才女的累贅——詞人李清照及其接受史》(The Burden of Female Talent: The Poet Li Qingzhao and Her History ,哈佛大學亞洲中心,2013年)確實給人以耳目一新的感覺。目前學界關於李清照的論文生產已經到了令人生厭的地步,艾朗諾教授此書試圖從新的角度解讀李清照,得出諸多讓人信服的結論。他認為詞是一種虛構的文體,也是一種高度程式化的文體,正如我們不能將柳永與他筆下的歌妓等同一樣,我們也不應將李清照與她詞中的抒情主人公視為一體。在《趙明誠遠遊時為什麼不給他的妻子李清照寫信》一文中,他指出,李清照詞中的相思並不是對趙明誠的告白,而是藉用詞體的傳統題材而已,並且趙明誠也從來沒有遠遊,兩人並未長久分別過。他又研究了《李清照集》作品增多的問題,宋代選本中李詞只有35首,到明清時已經增加到70多首,與晚明人對“情”的重視有很大關係。新增之作中多是偽作,包括一些李清照的“名作”,如“卻把青梅嗅”那首。李清照是否改嫁的問題也是學術史上的公案,本書也做了釐清,認為是清代學者受到理學影響而對李清照名譽的捍衛。作者認為,我們今天的李清照的形像是後人重塑的結果。書中又用女性主義的方法解讀了李清照《詞論》開頭的李八郎的故事,表明自己試圖突破傳統的決心。本書凡11章,有9章與李清照在後代的接受形塑有關,僅最後兩章論到李氏之詞,有點不滿足。封面所用的李清照的肖像是我們從未見過的畫像,由美國藝術史學者高居翰(James Cahill)在中國國家圖書館中發現。他與艾氏並不認識,得知艾在寫李清照之書,特地告知。待艾氏書出,而高已逝,學術情誼於斯可見。
艾朗諾教授新著出版後,北美漢學界兩大巨擘孫康宜、宇文所安教授分別撰文盛讚該書。今齋主受孫康宜教授之託譯出其書評,供大家參考。宇文所安教授的書評見《哈佛亞洲學報》2014年第2期,諸君可以參看。


艾朗諾關於中國最偉大的女詞人李清照新著無疑是一部傑作。本書在各個方面顯著擴展了我們關於這個課題的知識。近來年,李清照又成為中國學術界關注的熱點,出版了眾多研究著作,如陳祖美的《李清照新傳》(北京:北京出版社,2001 年)、諸葛憶兵的《李清照與趙明誠》(北京:中華書局,2004 年)及鄧紅梅的《李清照新傳》(上海:上海古籍出版社,2005 年)。但這些著作都沒有採用艾朗諾的研究方法,我堅信艾朗諾是在所有語種中,如此徹底而細緻研究李清照的第一人。本書在專題研究和宏觀論述上都取得了可喜的成績。
首先,本書對李清照進行了全新的重新解讀,從而將改變我們對女性詞人的傳統解讀。艾朗諾向我們揭示了這位獨特的女詞人如何致力於在她的作品中刻錄她的經歷的,要知道當時的貴族女性只被教習讀書認字,而不被鼓勵寫作。最重要的是,艾朗諾極具洞察力地將李清照的《金石錄後序》(這是李清照為她的丈夫趙明誠所收集的金石銘文題跋集所寫的後記)解讀為,李清照在短暫改嫁與離婚之後的“重塑自我”,以及“重申自己的作家身份”(第191 頁)。李清照離婚之後,是她作為作家一生中最多產的歲月,這也是艾朗諾為學術界新揭示出來的重要事實。這種新的解讀必然改變我們對李清照的認知。中國學者過去習慣性地認為,李清照在她晚年過著漂泊無定的生活,但艾朗諾的研究告訴我們,暮年的李清照在社交場上很活躍,與一些名流接觸頻繁,甚至與皇室還有聯繫。
艾朗諾援引大量文獻,展示了李清照的形像是如何在中國宋代以降被建構和改造的。他認為,將李清照的文學表達(特別是詞)等同於詩人的生平資料,這種慣常的研究理路大有問題。他指出,這種“自傳式解讀”的最難通之處就是批評家自我推理的循環闡釋。更糟糕的是,李清照的文集在後世散佚嚴重,這也使得闡釋變得問題重重。不過,拜艾朗諾精細的研究之賜,我們終於對中國歷代所編的詞集中收錄的李清照寫的詞(或歸於其名下的詞)有了概觀的了解。在處理作者問題時,艾朗諾常常對討論的對象提供充分的證據——包括正反兩方面的數據。譬如,書中討論了一些所謂“調情詞”,不少這類詞被歸到李清照的名下,艾朗諾在評論這種署名如何折射晚明的文學趣味時說:“恰恰因為明清時期產生了一種新的女性形象和偶像,女性受到推崇不僅僅是因為美貌,而且更因為才華……李清照就是古代女性詩人中的標誌性人物。”(第360 頁)而且,明代的夫妻交流,如黃峨與其夫楊慎之間的互動,可能也鼓勵了當時的選家認為類似的詞是李清照所寫,這些所謂李清照的詞“被想像為寫給她丈夫趙明誠的”(第362 頁)。[順便說,黃峨的名字在第362頁被誤植為“黃娥”。]另一方面,正如艾朗諾所言的,如果我們認為李清照“是對詞特別講究的人”,注重詞體“聲律的使用”和“風格的多樣”,那麼她自己也不是“沒有可能”寫這種詞的(第364 頁)。
通觀全書,艾朗諾認為,性別建構的觀念是解讀李清照的關鍵因素。艾朗諾主要關注的是,李清照作為女性詞人如何在男性文學世界取得一席之地的。他特別指出,李清照的詞學名篇《詞論》不但表達了女性詞人奮力克服性別偏見,這也是充滿抱負的李清照一直遭遇到的;而且也是為了“她的作品能夠贏得了某些文學品味和文學成就裁斷者的認可”(第75 頁)。這種解讀完全不同於傳統對李清照《詞論》的解讀。
每一位中國古典文學的研究者都應該讀一下本書,因為本書向讀者傳遞了互文性與重讀經典的神奇力量。

宇文所安教授書評

宇文所安教授的名作《追憶》中也論述過李清照及其《金石錄後序》,大家可以對讀。



sesquipedalian

marshalling exuberant perspicacityscourge

William F. Buckley Jr., 82, Dies; Sesquipedalian Spark of Right


Published: February 28, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died on Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn. He was 82.

Skip to next paragraph
Marilyn K. Yee/The New York Times

William F. Buckley Jr. in his National Review office, 1984 More Photos »

Related

Appreciations: William F. Buckley Jr. (February 28, 2008)

Comment Q&A
Sam Tanenhaus on Buckley

The editor of the Book Review and Week in Review, who is writing a biography of Mr. Buckley, answered questions from readers.

Times Topics
William F. Buckley Jr.

Highlights from the archives and reviews of Mr. Buckley’s books.

Audio

Back Story With The Times’s Sam Tanenhaus (mp3)
John Tierney on Buckley’s Life and Legacy (mp3)

Mr. Buckley suffered from diabetes and emphysema肺氣腫, his son, Christopher, said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Christopher Buckley said.

William Buckley, with his winningly capricious personality, his use of ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare to an anteater’s, was the popular host of one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine National Review.

He also found time to write more than 50 books, varying from sailing odysseys to spy novels to dissertations on harpsichord fingering to celebrations 讚美 of his own dashing daily life. He edited at least five more.

In 2007, he published a history of the magazine called “Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription” and a political novel, “The Rake.” His personal memoir of Senator Barry M. Goldwater is scheduled to be published this spring, and he was working on a similar volume on President Ronald Reagan at his death.

The more than 4.5 million words of his 5,600 newspaper columns, titled “On the Right,” would fill 45 more medium-size books. His collected papers, which were donated to Yale, weigh seven tons.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal postwar America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Mr. Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Mr. Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

President Bush said Wednesday that Mr. Buckley “brought conservative thought into the political mainstream, and helped lay the intellectual foundation for America’s victory in the Cold War.”

To Mr. Buckley’s enormous delight, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the historian, termed him “the scourge of liberalism.”

In remarks at National Review’s 30th anniversary in 1985, President Reagan joked that he picked up his first issue of the magazine in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his copy every two weeks — “without the wrapper.”

“You didn’t just part the Red Sea — you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism,” Mr. Reagan said.

“And then, as if that weren’t enough,” the president continued, “you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.”

War on Liberal Order

The liberal primacy Mr. Buckley challenged had begun with the New Deal and so accelerated in the next generation that Lionel Trilling, one of America’s leading intellectuals, wrote in 1950: “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

Mr. Buckley declared war on this liberal order, beginning with his blistering assault on Yale, from which he graduated with honors in 1950, as a den of atheistic collectivism.

“All great biblical stories begin with Genesis,” George Will wrote in National Review in 1980. “And before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980 has become a conflagration.”

Mr. Buckley wove the tapestry of what became the new American conservatism from libertarian writers like Max Eastman, “free market” economists like Milton Friedman, traditionalist scholars like Russell Kirk and anti-Communist writers like Whittaker Chambers. He argued for a conservatism based on the national interest and a higher morality.

He found his most receptive audience in young conservatives who were energized by Barry Goldwater’s emergence at the Republican convention in 1960 as the right-wing alternative to Nixon. Some met in September 1960 at the Buckley family home in Sharon, Conn., to form Young Americans for Freedom. Their numbers — and influence — grew.

Nicholas Lemann observed in Washington Monthly in 1988 that during the Reagan administration “the 5,000 middle-level officials, journalists and policy intellectuals that it takes to run a government” were “deeply influenced by Buckley’s example.” He suggested that neither moderate Washington insiders nor “Ed Meese-style provincial conservatives” could have pulled off the Reagan tax cut and other policy transformations.

Speaking of the true believers, Mr. Lemann continued, “Some of these people had been personally groomed by Buckley, and most of the rest saw him as a role model.”

Mr. Buckley rose to prominence with a generation of talented writers fascinated by political themes, people with names like Mailer, Capote, Vidal, Styron and Baldwin. Like the others, he was a magnet for controversy. Even people on the right — from members of the John Birch Society to disciples of the author Ayn Rand to George Wallace to moderate Republicans — frequently pounced on him.

People of many political stripes came to see his life as something of an art form — from racing through city streets on a motorcycle to a quixotic campaign for mayor of New York in 1965 to voicing startling opinions like favoring the decriminalization of marijuana. He was often described as liberals’ favorite conservative, particularly after suavely playing host to an adaptation of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited” on public television in 1982.

Norman Mailer may indeed have dismissed Mr. Buckley as a “second-rate intellect incapable of entertaining two serious thoughts in a row,” but he could not help admiring his stage presence.

“No other act can project simultaneous hints that he is in the act of playing Commodore of the Yacht Club, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Mitchum, Maverick, Savonarola, the nice prep school kid next door and the snows of yesteryear,” Mr. Mailer said in an interview with Harper’s Magazine in 1967.

Mr. Buckley’s vocabulary, sparkling with phrases from distant eras and described in newspaper and magazine profiles as sesquipedalian (characterized by the use of long words), became the stuff of legend. Less kind commentators preferred the adjective “pleonastic” (using more words than necessary).

And, inescapably, there was that aurora of pure mischief. In 1985, David Remnick, writing in The Washington Post, said, “He has the eyes of a child who has just displayed a horrid use for the microwave oven and the family cat.”

William Francis Buckley was born in Manhattan on Nov. 24, 1925, the sixth of the 10 children of Aloise Steiner Buckley and William Frank Buckley. His parents had intended to name him after his father, but the priest who christened him insisted on a saint’s name, so Francis was chosen.

When the younger William Buckley was 5, he asked to change his middle name to Frank and his parents agreed. At that point, he became William F. Buckley Jr.

The elder Mr. Buckley made a small fortune in the oil fields of Mexico and Venezuela and educated his children with personal tutors at Great Elm, the family estate in Sharon, Conn. They also attended exclusive Roman Catholic schools in England and France.

Family’s Deep Catholicism

Young William absorbed his family’s conservatism along with its deep Roman Catholicism. At 14, he followed his brothers to the Millbrook School, a preparatory school 15 miles across the New York line from Sharon.

In his spare time at Millbrook, young Bill typed schoolmates’ papers for them, charging $1 a paper, with a 25-cent surcharge for correcting the grammar.

He graduated from Millbrook in 1943, then spent a half a year at the University of Mexico studying Spanish, which had been his first language. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946 and managed to make second lieutenant after first putting colleagues off with his mannerisms.

In his 1988 book, “William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives,” John B. Judis quoted Mr. Buckley’s sister Patricia as saying that the Army experience changed Mr. Buckley. “He got to understand people more,” she said.

Mr. Buckley then entered Yale, where he studied political science, economics and history; established himself as a fearsome debater; was elected chairman of The Yale Daily News; and joined Skull and Bones, the university’s most prestigious secret society.

As a senior, he was given the honor of delivering the speech for Yale’s Alumni Day celebration, but was replaced after Yale’s administration objected to his strong attacks on the university. He responded by writing his critique in the book that brought him to national attention, in part because he gave the publisher, Regnery, $10,000 to advertise it.

Published in 1951, “God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom,’ ” charged the powers at Yale with having an atheistic and collectivist bent and called for the firing of faculty members who advocated values out of line with what he saw as Yale’s traditional values.

After a year in the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico City (his case officer was E. Howard Hunt, who went on to participate in the Watergate break-in), Mr. Buckley went to work for the American Mercury magazine, but resigned to write on his own.

Over the next few years, Mr. Buckley worked as a freelance writer and lecturer and wrote a second book with his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell. Published in 1954, “McCarthy and His Enemies” was a sturdy defense of the senator from Wisconsin, who was then at the height of his campaign against communists, liberals and the Democratic Party. The book made the New York Times best-seller list.

In 1955, Mr. Buckley started National Review as a voice for “the disciples of truth, who defend the organic moral order,” with a $100,000 gift from his father and $290,000 from outside donors. The first issue, which came out in November, claimed the publication “stands athwart history yelling Stop.”

It proved it by lining up squarely behind Southern segregationists, saying that Southern whites had the right to impose their ideas on blacks who were as yet culturally and politically inferior to them. After some conservatives objected, Mr. Buckley suggested instead that both uneducated whites and blacks should be denied the vote.

Mr. Buckley did not accord automatic support to Republicans. For President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom National Review was founded in part to oppose, the magazine ultimately managed only a memorably tepid endorsement: “We prefer Ike.”

Circulation increased from 16,000 in 1957 to 70,000 at the time of Goldwater’s candidacy in 1964, to 115,000 in 1972. It is now 166,000. The magazine has always had to be subsidized by readers’ donations, supplemented by Mr. Buckley’s lecturing fees.

Along with offering a forum to big-gun conservatives like Russell Kirk, James Burnham and Robert Nisbet, National Review cultivated the career of several younger writers, including Garry Wills, Joan Didion and John Leonard, who would shake off the conservative attachment and go their leftward ways.

National Review also helped define the conservative movement by isolating cranks from Mr. Buckley’s chosen mainstream.

“Bill was responsible for rejecting the John Birch Society and the other kooks who passed off anti-Semitism or some such as conservatism,” Hugh Kenner, a biographer of Ezra Pound and a frequent contributor to National Review, told The Washington Post. “Without Bill — if he had decided to become an academic or a businessman or something else — without him, there probably would be no respectable conservative movement in this country.”

Mr. Buckley’s personal visibility was magnified by his “Firing Line” program, which ran from 1966 to 1999. First carried on WOR-TV and then on public television, it became the longest-running program with a single host — beating out Johnny Carson by three years. He taped 1,504 programs, including debates on scores of topics like “Resolved: The women’s movement has been disastrous.”

There were exchanges on foreign policy with Norman Thomas, feminism with Germaine Greer, and race relations with James Baldwin. Not a few viewers thought Mr. Buckley’s toothy grin before he scored a point resembled nothing so much as a switchblade.

To the New York City politician Mark Green, he purred: “You’ve been on the show close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet?”

At age 50, Mr. Buckley crossed the Atlantic Ocean in his sailboat and became a novelist. Eleven of his novels are spy tales starring Blackford Oakes, who fights for the American way and beds the Queen of England in the first book.

Others of his books included a historical novel with Elvis Presley as a significant character, another about the Nuremberg trials, a reasoned critique of anti-Semitism and journals that more than succeeded in dramatizing a life of taste and wealth — his own.

Mr. Buckley’s spirit of fun was apparent in his 1965 campaign for mayor of New York on the ticket of the Conservative Party. When asked what he would do if he won, he answered, “Demand a recount.” He got 13.4 percent of the vote.

In retrospect, the mayoral campaign came to be seen as the beginning of the Republican Party’s successful courtship of working-class whites who later became “Reagan Democrats.”

Unlike his brother James, who served as a United States senator from New York, Mr. Buckley generally avoided official government posts. He did serve from 1969 to 1972 as a presidential appointee to the National Advisory Commission on Information and as a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations in 1973.

In his last years, as honors like the Presidential Medal of Freedom came his way, Mr. Buckley gradually loosened his grip on his intellectual empire. In 1998, he ended his frenetic schedule of public speeches, about 70 a year over 40 years, he once estimated. In 1999, he stopped “Firing Line,” and in 2004, he relinquished his voting stock in National Review. He wrote his last spy novel (the 11th in his series), sold his sailboat and stopped playing the harpsichord publicly.

But he began a new historical novel and kept up his columns, including one on the “bewitching power” of “The Sopranos” television series. He commanded wide attention by criticizing the Iraq war as a failure.

On April 15, 2007, his wife, the former Patricia Aldyen Austin Taylor, died. Mr. and Mrs. Buckley called each other “Ducky.”

He is survived by his son, Christopher, of Washington; his sisters, Priscilla L. Buckley of Sharon, Conn., Patricia Buckley Bozell of Washington, and Carol Buckley of Columbia, S.C.; his brothers, James L., of Sharon, and F. Reid, of Camden, S.C.; a granddaughter; and a grandson.

In the end it was Mr. Buckley’s graceful, often self-deprecating wit that endeared him to others. In his spy novel “Who’s on First,” he described the possible impact of his National Review through his character Boris Bolgin.

“ ‘Do you ever read the National Review, Jozsef?’ asks Boris Bolgin, the chief of KGB counter intelligence for Western Europe. ‘It is edited by this young bourgeois fanatic.’ ”


Op-Ed Columnist

Remembering the Mentor


Published: February 29, 2008

When I was in college, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote a book called “Overdrive” in which he described his glamorous lifestyle. Since I was young and a smart-aleck, I wrote a parody of it for the school paper.

“Buckley spent most of his infancy working on his memoirs,” I wrote in my faux-biography. “By the time he had learned to talk, he had finished three volumes: ‘The World Before Buckley,’ which traced the history of the world prior to his conception; ‘The Seeds of Utopia,’ which outlined his effect on world events during the nine months of his gestation; and ‘The Glorious Dawn,’ which described the profound ramifications of his birth on the social order.”

The piece went on in this way. I noted that his ability to turn water into wine added to his popularity at prep school. I described his college memoirs: “God and Me at Yale,” “God and Me at Home” and “God and Me at the Movies.” I recounted that after college he had founded two magazines, one called The National Buckley and the other called The Buckley Review, which merged to form The Buckley Buckley.

I wrote that his hobbies included extended bouts of name-dropping and going into rooms to make everyone else feel inferior.

Buckley came to the University of Chicago, delivered a lecture and said: “David Brooks, if you’re in the audience, I’d like to offer you a job.”

That was the big break of my professional life. A few years later, I went to National Review and joined the hundreds of others who have been Buckley protégés.

I don’t know if I can communicate the grandeur of his life or how overwhelming it was to be admitted into it. Buckley was not only a giant celebrity, he lived in a manner of the haut monde. To enter Buckley’s world was to enter the world of yachts, limousines, finger bowls at dinner, celebrities like David Niven and tales of skiing at Gstaad.

Buckley’s greatest talent was friendship. The historian George Nash once postulated that he wrote more personal letters than any other American, and that is entirely believable. He showered affection on his friends, and he had an endless stream of them, old and young. He took me sailing, invited me to concerts and included me at dinners with the great and the good.

He asked my opinion about things, as he did with all his young associates, and he worked hard on polishing my writing. My short editorials would come back covered with his red ink, and if I’d written one especially badly there might be an exasperated comment, “Come on, David!”

His second great talent was leadership. As a young man, he had corralled the famously disputatious band of elders who made up the editorial board of National Review. He changed the personality of modern conservatism, created a national movement and expelled the crackpots from it.

He led through charisma and merit. He was capable of intellectual pyrotechnics none of us could match. But he also exemplified a delicious way of living.

Magazines are aspirational. National Review’s readers no doubt shared a hatred for Communism, but many of them simply wanted to be like Buckley. He had a Tory gratitude for the pleasures of life: for music, conversation, technology and adventure.

Days at the magazine were filled with rituals. And through all the fun, I don’t recall him talking about politics much. He talked about literature, history, theology, philosophy and the charms of the peculiar people he had known. I don’t recall politicians at his home, but I do recall literary critics like Anatole Broyard and social thinkers like James Burnham, even after his stroke.

Buckley contained all the intellectual tensions of conservatism, the pessimism of Albert Jay Nock and Whittaker Chambers, as well as the optimism of Ronald Reagan. He loved liberty and felt it must be constrained by the invisible bonds of the transcendent order.

One night we were at his home, and his wife, Pat, at the height of her glamour, swept in from an evening on the town and took one look at the little group of us debating some point. You could feel her inner thought: “Why does he spend his time with those people?” But Buckley loved ideas, swept us along as his companions, and sent us out into the world.

And years later, I asked if he’d ever reached a moment of contentment. He’d changed history and accomplished all that any man could be expected to accomplish. After you’ve done all that, I asked, do you feel peace? Can you kick back and relax?

He looked at me with a confused expression. He had no idea what I could possibly be talking about.






沒有留言:

網誌存檔