2013年5月31日 星期五

聂绀弩--或《聂绀弩全集》,《聂绀弩雜文集》《聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評》


聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評(全三冊)

 這是迄今收集聶詩最全,注解聶詩最詳,對聶詩研究用力最勤的一部書,作者是一位八十多歲的叫侯井天的老人,老人窮二十余年之力搜集、整理、箋注聶詩,期 間,老人在子 芦輩的幫助下,曾靠微薄的收入自費印刷修訂過三次,其注本也一次比一次輯詩更全,一次比一次完善,一次比一次得到更多的好評。

侯井天注詩,有自己的主張,非窮究詩理不可。他勇氣百倍地以白話譯詩;對詩的“本事”、“典故”,乃至多音歧義的字詞,均不厭詳注;又悉心搜羅各家對紺弩 詩的品評,尤其是詩家舒蕪為校其書稿而寫下的“讀詩筆記”,更是一一存錄。在查明有關的人和事中,他又引用了大量的活資料,對本事作了翔實生動的介紹,從 中可以看到那幾十年“中國現代史”的一個個側面。這里面有一個個大大小小的悲歡離合的故事,有一個個栩栩如生的人物,這一卷“社會風情史”富有傳奇性,令 人如進入了“金庸世界”。如“聶紺弩失慎火燒草料場”;“聶紺弩樂抽路邊煙頭”;“聶紺弩信囑胡風速焚詩”;“聶紺弩把酒罵林(彪)、江(青);”“朱靜 芳巧救聶紺弩出獄”;……既反映了那特定時代的荒唐事,也反映了正與邪的斗爭,更一一反映了在逆境中,聶紺弩與周圍的及海外的文化人、親屬、右派朋友、牢 友們自尊、自重,又相濡以沫,互助、互愛、互救的俠骨童心,時窮節現,從中可感受到中國知識分子的獨立的人格力量!


聶紺弩,著名作家、現代詩人、散文家。曾用筆名耳耶、二鴉、簫今度等,湖北京山人。 1924年考入黃埔軍校第二期,參加了國共合作的第一次東征。途中留在上海豐擔任農民運動講習所教官半年。1925年考入莫斯科中山大學。學習兩年後回國 任南京國民黨中央通訊社副主任。九一八事變後,因參加文藝青年反日會,被迫離職逃往上海,參加了“左聯”,曾任上海《中華日報》副刊《動向》的編輯。 1934年加入中國共產黨。1937年起先後在漢口、桂林、重慶等地當報刊編輯,並發表了不少文章。1948年撤退到香港。同年在《小說》月刊第六期發表 中篇力作《天壤》。這期間,他還寫了一些犀利的雜文,發表在《華商報 》副刊和秦似主編的《野草》上,呼喚新中國的誕生。 解放後,歷任中南區文教委員會委員、香港《文匯報》總主筆、人民文學出版社副總編兼古典部主任,聶紺弩夫人周穎任民革中央常委。1957年夫婦二人被錯劃 為“右派”,送往北大荒勞動。“文革”中又以“現行反革命罪”被判無期徒刑。在山西關押10年後,1976年被“寬大釋放”。1979年正式平反昭雪。 聶紺弩落拓不羈,我行我素,不拘小節,周恩來說過他是“大自由主義者”。當年《申報》的《自由談》上,有兩個人的雜文與魯迅神似,一是刻意學魯的唐蟥,一 是隨意為之的聶紺弩,他被認為是魯迅之後的雜文第一人。晚年,聶紺弩運交華蓋後又寫起舊體詩來,古怪而又美妙,實為文壇一絕,堪稱“我國千年傳統詩歌里的 天外彗星。 侯井天,山東齊河人,1924年生,1940年加入中共,1985年在山東省委黨史資料征集研究委員會離休。其後一直從事聶詩的收集整理研究工作。




目錄

王序
散宜生詩
拾遺草
聶紺弩舊體詩全編集評補編
代跋一 紺弩“詩案”的偵破——侯井天注《聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評》
代跋二 九年辛苦出奇書
代跋三 侯井天和《聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評》
代跋四 敢當詩史聶紺弩——讀侯井天《聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評》
代跋五 侯井天和他的《聶紺弩舊體詩全編注解集評》
後記 注聶心路
附錄
讀者通信
讀者贈詩
聶紺弩舊體詩研究資料索引

庾信平生最蕭瑟,暮年詩賦動江關。杜甫的詩竟像是專門為一千二百年後的聶紺弩寫的。

我沒有見過聶先生,從年齡上說他是前輩,這個名字我所以記得,最早是在批判胡風的高潮中,我冶巛人民日報》上讀到了聶先生的批胡文字。我無意在這里哪壺不 開提哪壺,更無意在這里喪盡天良地橫掃一切,我只是說我們並沒有假裝全部忘記了我們的昨天。我們巴不會因為某些人的毫不腰痛地站著說風涼話就信了他們的胡 說八道。

直到“文革”以後,聶詩流傳到我耳朵里來了。我強調是流傳,因為我未見其書,未知其人,未尋其句,它卻硬是進人了我眼我心。例如這一類句子,最早是從友人的信巾看到的︰

哀莫大于心不死……
無多幻想要全刪……

這樣的句子直擊要害,見血封喉,一看,你傻了,你怔了。

何處有苗無有草,每回鋤草總傷苗。
培苗常恨草相混,鋤草又憐苗太嬌。
未見新苗高一尺,來鋤雜草已三遭。
停鋤不覺手揮汗,物理難通心自焦。


聶的鋤草詩,與我的生活經驗百分之百地一致。其實這裂有接受改造的含意,說明下鄉勞動是何等艱難,何等偉大,知識分子是何等無能,何等汗顏。不,這里絕對 不包含訴苦,農民鋤個草還不是小菜一碟。人生本來就不公平,莊稼本來就不好長,未見新苗高一尺雲雲,倒是有點內心不快、不那麼順氣的感覺,本來那個時期人 們都說是大豐收,放衛星的。鋤草三遭,苗未長一尺,看來聶公那時已經開始刪除幻想了。

此外他老還寫過許多誠懇地乃至是詩竹畫意地描寫勞動生活的詩,例如搓草繩之類的題材。他本來是寧願在熱愛勞動的高調中逆來順受的。

他寫刨凍菜,“明鐺翠羽碧琉璃”,居然有富貴氣。寫挑水“一擔乾坤肩上下,雙懸日月臂東西”(當年拙作有句︰“肩挑日月添神力,足踏山川鬧自然”,蓋斯時 亦受大躍進氣氛之影響也)。寫向日葵地,“赤日中天朝懇摯,秋風落葉立清遒”,仍然峭美自傲,中氣十足。寫削土豆種傷手,“狂言在口終羞說,以此微紅獻國 家”,我堅信此二句仍然是誠摯地近乎天真爛漫的。尤其是寫推磨、說是要“把壞心思磨粉碎,到新天地作環游”,干脆是決心與思想匯報的文體了。  *****
2008.7.24   我的舊文稿中一部分 當時還不知道"聂绀弩全集"已出版......
《聂绀弩全集》(十卷本)武汉出版社 2004
我最想一讀的是他晚年的舊體詩

張放《文藝節書話》(2004/5/3 中央日報):
「明 亡 , 有 一 首 乞 丐 絕 命 詩 流 傳 民 間 , 詩 曰 :
「 三 百 年 來 養 士 朝 , 文 武 百 官 盡 皆 逃 。 綱 常 留 在 卑 田 院 , 乞 丐 休 留 命 一 條 。 」
卑 田 院 是 佛 家 收 容 貧 民 之 地 。 貧 民 何 以 寫 出 如 此 有 氣 節 的 詩 稿 ? 我 曾 思 索 數 載 ,最 後 方 悟 出 文 人 被 擠 出 官 場 , 或 者 看 不 起 官 場 , 終 於 淪 為 流 民 乞 丐 , 這 是 明 朝 滅亡 的 悲 哀 。」

聂绀弩《明末遺恨》(1944)(北京:三聯出版社,1995, 《聂绀弩雜文集》頁332)

「 三 百 年 來 養 士 朝 ,
   如何文 武 官 盡 皆 逃 。
   綱 常 留 在 卑 田 院 ,
   乞 丐 休 存 命 一 條 。 」
據說這是明亡時一個乞丐的絕命詩。第一句把有明一代的列祖列宗寫得何等的大恩大德!但連下面三句讀,卻只是一個尖刻的諷刺,真的養士朝,怎能得到這樣的絕果?

然而,這故事大概是好事者的隨興創作。若真有其事,只此一端,明朝就該亡:逃亡迎降者為文武,氣節之士卻淪為乞丐。



《聂绀弩雜文集》(北京:三聯出版社,1995,頁343-44),

《聂绀弩雜文集》有篇「愛智盧」(1934),談成都的宜人住家,和其中的智者吳又陵先生(1872-)(胡適在《吳虞文錄•序》稱之爲"'四川省手打孔家店'的老英雄"。)通篇許多「吳老頭子」

斯人寂寞——聶紺弩晚年片斷









聶紺弩在小說、詩歌、雜文、散文、古典文學研究方面的貢獻,是繼魯迅之
後的第二人。特別是他的舊體詩,形類打油,旨同莊騷,讀來令人欲笑而哭
,自成一格,人稱"聶體",是"異端"詩的高峰。

聶紺弩敢想、敢怒、敢罵、敢笑、敢哭。魯迅說:"救救孩子。"聶紺弩"
孩子救救我們。"魯迅撰有《我們怎樣做父親》;聶紺弩寫下《怎樣做母親
》。看過《紅樓夢》的人大多不喜歡陰柔的寶釵、襲人;聶紺弩認為"不寫
寶釵、襲人是壞人,《紅樓夢》的反封建的意義就更深。"人家學習馬列,
圖的是政治進步;聶紺弩看《資本論》第一卷,讀到少年女工自覺是女性後
,常到河邊偷看男工游泳的段,能聯繫"王安石詩,《聊齋志異》的'績女
',魯迅的文章,融會貫通,有所徹悟。⑵"舉一反三,探究"聊齋"的思
想性。蹲過大牢的人,都恨監獄;聶紺弩常常懷念監獄,說"監獄是學習聖
地,監獄裏醫療衛生方便"。

「 "你認為,他老人家的結果是什麼?"

聶紺弩伸出四個手指,說:"四句——身敗名裂,家破人亡,眾叛親離,等
到一切真相被揭開,他還要遺臭萬年。"

"聶伯伯,'文革'中我的父親也說過類似的話。他認為——毛澤東幾十年
的執政錯誤給中國的每個家庭,都製造了災難和痛苦,別看現在是'紅海洋
',將來會是個悲劇的收場。" 」

"聶伯伯,你讀《資本論》17遍之後,有什麼感想?"

"最大感想就是懷疑理想。共產黨建黨至今,不知道給我們樹立了多少理想
。理想有高,有低。高到共產主義,低到公共食堂。無論高或低,幾乎都很
少實現。即使實現了,也很快失敗。包括現在我們這個不高不低理想——社
會主義,也不成功。為什麼總是實現不了?我們都是在路線、方針、政策和
方法上找原因。

其實最根本的原因,就是理想錯了。我們中國共產黨和毛澤東說的共產主義
和德國大鬍子講的共產主義完全不同。而且,事實證明——基於反抗壓迫的
革命,並不一定通向自由和幸福。"


有人勸老聶講幾句。
他不幹,私底下說:'別看都是文人,可文壇自來就是一個小朝廷,不歇風
雨。'又說,'如果這個文代會能計算出自建國以來,我們的領袖為歌頌領
袖,我們的黨為歌頌黨,花了多少錢?再計算一下從批判《武訓傳》以來,
中國知識份子因為思想言論丟了多少條命?該是很有意思的一件事。'"


根據 "文坛奇才聂绀弩档案首度公开" 新华网 ( 2004-03-25 13:43:29 ) 稿件来源: 中华读书报 文/张隽

聂绀弩

聂绀弩是现代文学史上的一位奇才。他由湖北京山穷乡僻壤的小学毕业生,成长为“左联”作家、知名报人、教授、诗 人。以一支犀利的笔,叱咤文坛数十年,出版了几十部小说、新诗、散文、文艺理论等几百万字的著作。聂绀弩是一位传奇式的人物。他当过兵,教过书,办过报, 是黄埔军校二期的学生,又是莫斯科中山大学的留学生,在中山大学与蒋经国是同学,与后来成为国民党核心人物的康泽交谊甚厚。20世纪30年代他却参加了 “左联”,从事革命文艺活动。在日本曾坐过牢。到延安,曾为毛泽东的座上客。到新四军工作,与陈毅将军成为诗友。后来又到香港《文汇报》任职。新中国成立 后回内地。到了上世纪50年代中被错划为“右派”,下放到北大荒劳动。“文革”期间又因骂了江青、林彪被扣上“恶毒攻击伟大旗手”的罪名,判处无期徒刑, 成了山西临汾监狱的“劳改犯”。后来经他的老伴周颖的多方活动,才与台湾军政人员一道被“特赦”出狱。直到党的十一届三中全会以后,才真正得到平反昭雪。

十卷本《聂绀弩全集》是对聂绀弩同志百年诞辰的最好纪念。 这套十卷本全集收录迄今有确切线索并有文献印证的聂绀弩杂文、散文、旧体诗、古典文论等全部创作,包括部分未刊稿和历次 运动中的交代材料等,全面、系统、客观地反映了他一生的创作风貌和文学成就。其中第十卷《运动档案》是最值得关注的,它收录的是聂绀弩在1954年至 1957年几次运动中的部分检查交代材料,这些材料是聂绀弩错划“右派”问题得到改正后,人民文学出版社整理档案时发还的,材料由聂绀弩生前的助手周健强 女士提供。其中《槛房杂记》已编入回忆文集《脚印》,其余均未发表,是首次对外公开。它真实地反映了社会的变迁和历史的原貌。

ANDREW M. GREELEY, 1928-2013, Priest, Author, Scholar, Scold



ANDREW M. GREELEY, 1928-2013

Priest, Author, Scholar, Scold


Andrew M. Greeley, the Roman Catholic priest and writer whose outpouring of sociological research, contemporary theology, sexually frank novels and newspaper columns challenged reigning assumptions about American Catholicism, was found dead on Thursday morning at his home in Chicago. He was 85.
Jonathan Kirn
The Rev. Andrew M. Greeley

Exuberantly combative, he could be scathing about the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops; at one point he described them as “morally, intellectually and religiously bankrupt.” If the church wanted “to salvage American Catholicism,” he wrote, it would be well advised to retire “a considerable number of mitered birdbrains.”

But he could be equally critical of secular intellectuals, whom he accused of being prejudiced against religion, and reform-minded Catholics, who he said had a weakness for political or cultural fads.
He wrote more than 120 books, many published by university presses, and countless articles about Catholic theology in both sociological journals and general-interest magazines, often incorporating the latest scholarship. He wrote op-ed pieces and syndicated columns in both religious and secular publications.
His greatest readership certainly stemmed from his scores of novels, many of them rife with Vatican intrigue, straying priests and explicit sex. At least 10 of them appeared on The New York Times’s best-seller list, including his first, “The Cardinal Sins” (1981), a tale of two Irish-American boys from Chicago’s West Side who enter the priesthood together, one of whom contrives to become the cardinal of Chicago, takes a mistress and fathers a child.
“Sometimes I suspect that my obituary in The New York Times,” Father Greeley once wrote, “will read, ‘Andrew Greeley, Priest; Wrote Steamy Novels.’ ”
Were they steamy? The question would probably not have even been raised if the author had not been a priest and if some of the steam had not been produced by fictional priests, in one case a cardinal, breaking their vows.
In fact, most of the priests in his novels were virtuous, wise and hard-working. The big sex scenes were generally reserved for married couples rediscovering the redemptive healing of passion after trials and estrangement.
“I suppose I have an Irish weakness for words gone wild,” Father Greeley once told The Times. “Besides, if you’re celibate, you have to do something.”
No Use for Elites
The books made him rich, though he gave his first million to charity and continued to give to various causes, including a donation, decades ago, to the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, then a fledgling advocacy group.
Father Greeley had been an early and vehement advocate for victims of abusive priests at least since 1989, when he began writing articles in Chicago newspapers demanding that the church take action against pedophile priests. The public criticism angered the archdiocese and many fellow priests, but his outrage and proposals for reform were eventually recognized by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, among others, as prescient.
Father Greeley was not shy about his politics, a New Deal liberalism grounded in an acute sense of family and neighborhood. (One of his recent books was titled with typical directness, “A Stupid, Unjust and Criminal War: Iraq 2001-2007.”) Nor did he hide his devotion to his hometown Chicago Bears, Bulls and Cubs.
He defended parochial schools, priestly celibacy, ethnic loyalties, Chicago politics and the vivid imagery of traditional Catholic piety. He deplored negative attitudes toward sexuality in the church and assailed church leaders for paying little heed to the views of the laity. He identified the controversy surrounding “Humanae Vitae,” the 1968 papal encyclical reasserting the church’s condemnation of contraception, as a turning point for the church — a time when attendance at Mass dropped precipitously and Catholics began to question church authority on an ever-growing list of topics.
If there was anything tying Father Greeley’s torrent of printed words together, it was a respect for what he considered the practical wisdom and religious experience of ordinary believers and an exasperation with elites, whether popes, bishops, church reformers, political radicals, secular academics or literary critics.
It was a thread that ran though his sociological research documenting the gap between what Catholics thought about sex and marriage — their more relaxed stance concerning artificial birth control, for example — and the more proscriptive positions of the church.
His work with the distinguished sociologist Peter H. Rossi in the early 1960s revealed the strengths of parochial schools, then being viewed by secular educators as second-rate and authoritarian and by liberal Catholics as a questionable use of church resources. The failure of many public schools soon provoked a fresh appreciation for the Catholic educational tradition.
In a 1972 book, “Unsecular Man: The Persistence of Religion,” Father Greeley marshaled evidence against the widespread intellectual assumption that religion was a fading force in the world. Developments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the United States and the Middle East later altered that perception too.
Religion, he argued, “is the result of two incurable diseases from which humankind suffers — life, from which we die, and hope, which hints that there might be more meaning to life than a termination in death.”
Before religion became creed or catechism, he said, it was poetry: images and stories that defy death with glimpses of hope, and with moments of life-renewing experience that were shared and enacted in communal rituals.
“The theological voice wants doctrines, creeds and moral obligations,” Father Greeley wrote. “I reject none of these. I merely insist that experiences which renew hope are prior to and richer than propositional and ethical religion and provide the raw power for them.”
This same concern for the religious experience of ordinary Catholics tied his sociological work to the fiction that he churned out with such energy. It was mostly about middle-class Irish-Americans from the same upwardly mobile milieu as the author’s, with an occasional foray into science fiction and thrillers about Vatican skulduggery.
He was criticized for never having had an unpublished thought — or an unpublished fantasy, some added, faulting his fiction. Yet even his unpublished thoughts could cause trouble, as they did in 1981.
Conspiracy Theory
Materials from the 1970s found in Father Greeley’s papers by a young journalist working on an article about him led to accusations that Father Greeley had been plotting to write an exposé of his nemesis, Cardinal John Cody of Chicago, that would have shown the prelate guilty of financial misconduct and paved the way for his ouster.
As part of the scheme, according to these allegations, Father Greeley wanted to see Cardinal Cody replaced by Cardinal Bernardin, then archbishop of Cincinnati, who, the thinking went, on becoming a liberal member of the College of Cardinals would be inclined to vote for a reform-minded successor to Pope Paul VI upon the pope’s death.
In fact, Cardinal Cody’s conduct had raised alarms in the Vatican beginning in the mid-1970s and eventually led to a criminal investigation in Illinois, halted only by the cardinal’s death in 1982. And Archbishop Bernardin had long been considered the likely successor in Chicago. The archived materials, Father Greeley maintained, were speculative but reasonable scenarios developed for a book on the papal election that would follow Pope Paul’s death, which, as it happened, occurred in 1978.
“This business of conspiracy is ridiculous,” Father Greeley said, adding, “I didn’t do it, but I wish I had.”
Though the furor blew over, it momentarily appeared to create an obstacle to Archbishop Bernardin’s appointment to head the Chicago archdiocese, and it severely strained relations between the archbishop and Father Greeley.
To be sure, Father Greeley had openly stated that battling Cardinal Cody was one of the chief “crusades” of his life. He was regularly and unsparingly critical of his leadership. After the cardinal closed a number of inner-city schools, Father Greeley denounced him as a “madcap tyrant.”
Success and Setbacks
Andrew Moran Greeley was born on Feb. 5, 1928, in Oak Park, Ill., the son of Andrew T. Greeley, a businessman, and the former Grace McNichols. His grandparents were Irish immigrants. Besides his niece Ms. Durkin, he is survived by a sister, Mary Jule Durkin; four other nieces; two nephews; and 18 grandnieces and grandnephews.
From boyhood, Andrew Greeley wanted to become a priest. He attended Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary in Chicago and then went to St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Ill. He was ordained in 1952. For almost a decade he worked as assistant pastor of Christ the King Church in an affluent area of Chicago, writing his first books on young Catholics and church life in the suburbs.
In 1962 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Chicago, adding it to earlier degrees in theology, and joined the staff of the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago, serving as its senior study director until 1968. The group surveys American attitudes about religious, cultural and other issues.
He never quite got over a string of setbacks. One was his failure to be granted tenure at the University of Chicago in 1973, though he had taught there for a decade and been widely published. He attributed the rejection at least in part to prejudice against a Catholic priest; others said it had more to do with his cantankerous nature.
Another blow came when the American bishops repudiated a sociological study of Catholic priests that they had commissioned from him. A two-year project completed in 1972, the study found that American priests were widely dissatisfied with church leadership.
Then there was the resistance among liberal Catholics to his positive findings about Catholic schools. His research debunked the received view at the time that Catholics had low college attendance rates. He found instead that white Catholics earned bachelor’s degrees and pursued advanced degrees at higher rates than other whites, and he attributed their success to the quality of education in parochial schools, a controversial assertion in a time of public-school ascendancy.
Finally came the unwillingness first of Cardinal Cody and then Cardinal Bernardin to give him a parish of his own and appoint him its pastor.
Father Greeley later felt that he had readers everywhere and allies nowhere. Sensitive to accusations that he was getting rich from peddling stories of Catholic failings in his novels, he gave large sums to charity, notably to aid Chicago Catholic schools that served minority populations and to endow a chair in Roman Catholic studies at the University of Chicago, a double-edged gesture to the university that had spurned him.
A Parish of Readers
The pugnacious style, sweeping generalizations and ad hominem attacks often found in his writing made him an alienating figure. “Andy Greeley shoots from the hip at practically everyone with whom he has some grievances,” Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, a leading advocate of improving relations between Judaism and the Catholic Church, complained to The Times in 1976.
Father’s Greeley’s chip-on-the-shoulder attitude may have stemmed from a belief that he had been misunderstood and marginalized. Indeed, a second volume of memoirs, “Furthermore!,” published in 1999, suggests a man who even while striving for serenity could never quite shed a sense of being embattled and having scores to settle.
This was particularly true when his fiction received poor reviews. He would never forget a bad one and would continue to denounce the offending reviewer for decades.
It was easy for Father Greeley to dismiss critics of his novels as prudes, because some of them were. Other critics, however, found the sex not prurient but preposterous. Some feminists complained that it was too often brutal and his treatment of women condescending. The criticism stung Father Greeley, whose advocacy of women’s advancement in the church had earned him feminist defenders as well.
Father Greeley knew well that he was writing genre novels, but he, like many of his readers, saw them as much more. They were theological parables and, for Father Greeley, something approaching sacramental ministrations. If he did not have a parish, he had a mailbox — and later an e-mail address. The faithful gathered there in huge numbers, thanking him for new insights into God and their church, adding their own tales of return and reconciliation.
For critics, the novels were merely publishing successes or even wasteful diversions from sociological scholarship. For Father Greeley, they were “the most priestly thing I have ever done.”
And priesthood was what, in Father Greeley’s eyes, held his life together.
“I always wanted to be a priest,” he once wrote. “My core identity is priest. I will always be a priest.”
Daniel E. Slotnik and Richard Severo contributed reporting.

2013年5月28日 星期二

東海的人與書 (XVII):林衡哲,方師鐸,蔡一諤,張定綺



東海的人與書 (84):
張定綺是資深的名譯家......怪的是連博客來都只有她1/100的作品.......
東海外文,台大外文系研究所碩士,美國哥倫比亞大學東亞研究所、西雅圖華盛頓大學比較文學研究所研究。曾任『美國新聞與世界報導』中文版資深編輯、輔仁大學翻譯研究 所筆譯組召集人,曾任職中國時報人間副刊。獲新聞局評鑑為優良中譯作家,譯著甚豐,如《與天為敵》、《歷史學家》、《浮世男女》、《伊娃露娜的故事》、 《精靈之屋》等。

東海的人與書 (83):

抗戰時 燕京大學總務長

作品: 日本在漢蒙投資之調查,蔡一諤
蔡一諤 1953-69 東海的董事會, 1962-69董事長

陳其寬、蔡一諤、夏菁、東海相思林 - 教育人行道: On Education

Mar 22, 2013 – 陳其寬、蔡一諤、夏菁、東海相思林. 「……那時他在農復會工作,是台灣有數的森林專家之一。(他曾說過,他親自參予(sic)大度山的相思樹和木麻黃之 ...



東海的人與書 (82):
方師鐸, 1912-1994 

 
國語日報第一屆董事 方師鐸先生。
刨根兒集/ 方師鐸撰 , 臺北市: 文星書店 ...1965
傳統文學與類書之關係/ 方師鐸著,天津市: 天津古籍出版 .

手稿整理札記:
方師鐸老師的《小兔ㄦ冒險記》
施麗珠(期刊組)文 http://www.lib.thu.edu.tw/newsletter/Library%20oldnews/LIBNEWS.HTM

探索東海: 方師鐸先生全集1-3 - yam天空部落

by ( Book )
in Chinese and held by 34 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 32 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 30 libraries worldwide
by ( Book ) 台北:文星,1965
4 editions published in in Chinese and held by 29 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
3 editions published in in Chinese and held by 23 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
3 editions published in in Chinese and held by 20 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 19 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published between and 1974 in Chinese and held by 17 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published between and 1969 in Chinese and held by 14 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
1 edition published in in Chinese and held by 14 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 13 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 12 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
2 editions published in in Chinese and held by 7 libraries worldwide
by ( Book )
1 edition published in in Chinese and held by 7 libraries worldwide



手稿整理選 
館藏贈書專櫃手稿整理方師鐸先生《淺說唐詩》系列
 編者按:《淺說唐詩》係 方師鐸先生未刊手稿,經方師母張愍言女士謄錄。方老師授課一向先建構講課大綱,編定講義,每週講授一至二章。並就學生容易混淆或觀念不清處,撰文加以說 明,其《國語詞彙學》與《方師鐸文史叢稿》所收諸作即是。先生伉儷先後將其藏書捐贈本館,其中未刊之手稿數量龐大,幸得小方姐(先 生之幼女方謙亮小姐)協助將《淺說唐詩》鍵成電腦檔,期刊組施麗珠小姐協助校稿,中文系呂教授珍玉釐定其篇序。是稿內容簡淺易懂,誠如呂教授所說:「用淺 顯有趣的表達方式,讓學生對唐詩的形成和語文分析能真正瞭解,消化並加以應用」,欲對唐詩有基本認知者,是頗適合閱讀的專文。本刊故闢專欄逐一登載以饗讀 者。
第一篇、怎樣研讀唐詩
 一切藝術(包括音樂、繪畫、舞蹈、戲曲、詩歌等)所追求的,不外捕捉並刻畫出「時」「空」中的某一剎那間的印象或感受而已。「時」「空」是廣闊無垠、綿延不斷,千變萬化的;其中有雜亂、有安詳、有真有幻,有美有醜,全憑每一個人的身受與立場而自我認定;即使在同時同地,也不會有兩個人照得出完全相同的相片來。
 藝術品(包含唐詩)所能傳達給人們的訊息都是部分的,片段的,經過特殊設計而刻意安排出來的。它和現實世界的最大分別是:現實世界五味雜陳,有美有醜,有弱肉強食,也有和平共存;誰也分不清楚現實世界的來龍去脈,更不知道它們孰主孰從。藝術家掌握到的,只是大海中的一滴水,深山中的一片落葉,天空中的一抹晚霞。他們刪減、放棄了那些環節、過程,就得憑讀者(聽眾或觀眾)的經驗與想像加以補足了。同一首詩(或同一幅畫)每個人對它的感受、評價也不相同,尤其是內行人和外行人間的差別最大。
 所 謂「內行」就是對某種事物具有特殊經驗,甚或對之已成習慣,並有所成偏愛。這就是如同吃辣椒、臭豆腐一樣,有人認為它是天下第一美味,另一些人卻根本不能 入口。人們對詩歌欣賞亦復如此:有人喜歡李白,有人喜歡杜甫,還有人特別喜歡李賀、羅隱。就算十個人都喜歡李白,而十個人所喜歡的李白詩卻未必相同。即使 十個人都喜歡李白的同一首詩,而各人欣賞的角度和層面也未必完全相同。
 就 拿唐詩來說吧,唐詩中描寫長江景物的句子極多:有強調月明的,有強調落日的,有強調風急的,有強調波平的;對某一景象特別誇大,則對其他事物必然相對減 少,甚或一字不提;其中的去取全憑作者的一時高興。後人連篇累牘的考證和批評,都是多餘的;即使請原作者用原題材再寫一首詩或畫一幅畫,也一定不會與原作 相同。就是當面請教作者寫某首詩時,懷有何種感觸,受了甚麼刺激?為甚麼只寫風而不提雨?為甚麼只說蟬而不提黃雀?恐怕作者也不自知,更無法作答。
 唐詩是我們祖先遺留下來的文化遺產,用漢民族特有的「單音節」「有平仄」的語文工具寫下來的藝術珍品。凡是中華兒女都應當珍惜這份遺產,理解它的內容及價值。也許一開始時,我們對它很陌生,有點莫測高深;那不要緊,只要我們不斷的親近它,諷誦它(用已經具備了的漢語、漢字、漢文去諷誦它),最後我們終於會喜愛上它。原因是:我們是中華兒女,我們所用的語言文字和李白、杜甫所用的語言文字完全相同。我們一脈相承,很容易就水乳交融。一個外國人要讀唐詩可就沒有我們這麼方便了:他先得學會華語、中文,才能更進一步的來讀唐詩;單憑翻譯只能略知大意,卻無法得知唐詩的全貌。
 本 文以下若干單篇中能為讀者效勞的,只有歷史觀念的介紹和語文運用的分析而已。「歷史觀念」是闡明唐詩內在規律和外表形式之如何逐步形成,及唐代社會大眾如 何熱愛唐詩,為唐詩加油喝采,促使唐詩成為全民愛好的藝術。「語文分析」則是從字數、句式、平仄、對仗、詞彙、句法、修辭等方面,作各別的綜合探討,以期 發掘出:唐詩之所以獲得劃時代的輝煌成就,並非由於少數大詩人的天才橫溢,而是六朝以來文人累積下來的創作經驗所形成的。

 

第二篇、詩的語言不同於一般日常語言
語言是人類獨有的表情達意工具,文字是語言在時間和空間方面的延伸。語言和文字都是利用有限的符號(聲音符號或圖形符號),配合著一定的規律(文法),來表達無限的意思和情感的人際交通工具。
除了人類以外,沒有第二種動物曾用如此複雜而抽象的語言;除了漢民族以外,沒有第二種人類會用單音節的語言,和一形一音的漢字。
在起初,語言和文字的用途與形式都很單純;久而久之,語言文字隨著人類文明的進步,從日常應用的語言,進步到更高層次的「文學語言」和「詩的語言(現在只說「唐詩的語言」);「詩的語言」是「文學語言」的一種,只不過比「文學語言」更突出、更高一個層次而已。
仔細分析起來「日常語言」又可以分為「通語」、「方言」和「專業用語」等等,我們在此不能細說;我們須要弄清楚的,是「日常語言」和「文學語言」的分別。「日常語言」只重實用,想到就說,沒有特殊安排,沒有固定形式,不求精緻,不避重複,不嫌囉唆,也不一定合乎文法。
「文 學語言」要求的是表達效果:它可以用來打動別人,也可以用來陶醉自己。它為了「強調」喜、怒、哀、樂的感情,不惜用誇大、諷刺、比喻、襯托、重複、迂迴、 歪曲、謾罵等種種手法,來達到它的目的;也可能為了「掩飾」自己內心的情感,故意用隱晦、閃爍、模糊、曖昧、比喻等等手法,來作出如夢如幻、迷離惝恍的作 品來。
「詩的語言」比一般文學語言更精練、更動人。它不但要求「限字」、「限句」、「內在美」,還要注重外在的「形式」和整體的「結構」。唐詩更進一步、要求「平仄」、「對仗」、「押韻」等,那就越發難上加難了。
「詩 的語言」,尤其是「唐詩」的語言,就在這重重的束縛下,表現出詩人的最高智慧:他們突破了「有形的」重重障礙,而達到「無形的」空靈世界,可以隨心所欲的 在尺幅中寫盡千山萬壑,在短短兩「聯」中道盡胸中塊壘;字數有限而意思無盡,令人掩卷讚嘆,回味無窮。愈是第一流的佳作,愈是空靈而不落實際。明明是萬馬 奔騰,卻不見一人一騎;明明是驚濤駭浪,一瀉千里,卻寫得輕鬆自在:「兩岸猿聲啼不住,輕舟已過萬重山」。
「唐詩」的語言之最大成就,就在只寫「點」而不必執著於「線」與「面」; 只說出「風急天高猿嘯哀」或「月落烏啼霜滿天」而不必寫出全景全貌;所有空白部分,任由讀者憑個人想像自行補充:各人的經驗不同,心境不同,想法不同,所 補充、所詮釋者自亦不同。口之於味,目之於色,自亦如此:詩人決不會將酸甜苦辣、紅黃藍白,一併陳列,供讀者選擇;它只是提供一鱗半爪,供讀者補充思索而 已。是以「龍」與「鳳」、「嫦娥」與「巫山神女」為例:誰也沒有見過他們的真面目,誰也不知他們的實際形象如何;但人人皆知有龍鳳,也有嫦娥,究竟「龍」 有沒有「傳人」?「鳳凰臺上」當真出現過鳳凰沒有?嫦娥有沒有「偷靈藥」,長住在冷冷清清的月宮裡?所有這一切都不是讀者所關心的,也不是詩人所要描繪 的;詩中雖也偶而提到,但蜻蜓點水,一觸即止,決不會笨得把楊貴妃搬上銀幕,從頭到腳展現在觀眾面前,那就無復朦朧之美,耐人尋味了。
文學語言和詩的語言都是建築在一般日常語言的基礎之上的。它的基本規律和全盤架構也都和日常語言相同,縱然有所改變,也只限於局部的差異,決不會徹頭徹尾的全面更張,變成了與漢語全然不同的語言。
日常語言無拘無束,它不斷吸收新詞,改用新的說法,甚至大量引進外來語,採用外來語法;這就使得日常語言變動的幅度極大:三十年一小變,一百年一大變;我們看不懂古書,其原因即在此。
詩 的語言受了種種形式和格律的限制,只能在一定的範圍之內,作局部的改變,而不能逾越樊籬作全面的突破;於是文學語言和詩的語言只能在舊觀念、舊題材、舊格 局下兜圈子,墨守一兩千年的老調;時代進步了,日常語言進步了,相反的,詩的語言卻與現實越離越遠,和社會大眾完全脫節。它看不起社會大眾,社會大眾也就 揚棄了它;只有極少數的「歷史癖者」,到「象牙之塔」內去探視它。這是無可奈何之事,任何有生命或有文化傳統的事物,都逃脫不了僵化或老死的命運,唐詩又 何能例外。


第三篇、「平仄律」實現了「永明」文士的夢想
本文所謂的「平仄律」,是指唐人近體詩中「平平」對「仄仄」、「仄仄」對「平平」的平仄格律。「永明」是指「南朝」齊武帝蕭賾的年號。「永明」前後共十一年,時當西元482至493年。
永明是駢體文的鼎盛時期:文人作詩為文都特別注重字數整齊、前後對稱;其中尤以王融為首,謝朓、沈約為輔的一小撮人最為大家所仰慕。和他們同時的鍾嶸,曾在《詩品》一書中,說他們三個人都是權貴子弟,從小就能言會道,享有盛名。王融鼓吹「宮商」與「二儀俱生」之說(「宮商」即平上去入四聲,「二儀」謂天地);謝朓、沈約推波助瀾,主張「為文皆用宮商,以四聲制韻」。當時文人聞風景從,紛紛響應,稱他們為「永明體」。
「永明體」是中國文學史上一大公案,所有大大小小、各式各樣的文學史上,沒有一本不提到它的;但「永明體」究竟是個甚麼樣子的文體呢?是指五言詩,還是指駢文?所謂用平上去入「四聲制韻」又是怎麼個「制」法?誰也說不清楚。最省事的辦法就是把「永明體」說成「平仄」,那就一了百了了。
這種不管青紅皂白、一口咬定的辦法雖然省事,卻有兩件事交代不過去:第一是謝朓、沈約等人都是南朝極富文名的詩人,他們都有很多很多詩文留傳下來。他們所作的詩文也和齊梁時代其他文人的作品一樣,不合唐人所遵行的「平仄黏對」之法。第二是唐人及唐以後的資料中(如《南史》、《南齊書》、《文鏡秘府論》)又出現了「四聲八病」之說,把這個問題越攪越糊塗:「八病」究竟是「詩」中之病,「文」中之病?是「兩」種病、「四」種病,還是「八」種病?到底是甚麼樣子的病?
鍾嶸《詩品》裡只提到「蜂腰」、「鶴膝」兩個名稱,卻沒有認為他們是「病」,反而說他 們是當時作詩作文人人都具備的必要條件。他說:「至平上去入,則予病未能;蜂腰、鶴膝,閭里已具」。在「蜂腰」「鶴膝」之外,又加上「平頭」、「上尾」等 等名稱,那是齊梁以後才出現的說法,而一口咬定「四聲八病」的則是留學中華上國的日本和尚空海。為甚麼永明時代的人不知有「八病」,反而越到後頭的人說的 越詳細?至於這「八病」和「四聲」之間究竟有甚麼關聯?不但日本和尚說不清楚;一直到現在,誰也說不清楚。我們的文學史上卻把它說的活靈活現,好像有那麼 回事似的;可是追根究底以後,誰也答不上話來了;因為大家所根據的都是同樣的材料---《南史》、《南齊書》、和《文鏡秘府論》。
這裡頭,最糾纏不清的問題,就是永明文人以「四聲制韻」。究竟四聲能不能「制韻」?永明文人又是怎樣用四聲「制韻」的?這一點如 果交代不出來,一切皆全部落空。我們認為:四聲是可以「制韻」的,但不是像《南史》所說:「五字之中,音韻悉異;兩句之內,角徵不同」;而是詩文押韻的時候,平聲只能和平聲押韻,上聲只能和上聲押韻,去聲只能和去聲押韻,入聲只能和入聲押韻;平上去入四聲卻不能雜在一起互相押韻。事實上,唐人近體詩正是如 此,齊梁時代的五言詩也是如此,沒有甚麼新奇之處。至於「五字之中,音韻悉異;兩句之內,角徵不同」;那只是騙人的空話:不但永明文人做不到,任誰也做不 到,就是天王老子來也做不到。
這個問題自永明文人提出後,歷經二三百年,不知絞盡了齊、梁、陳、隋多少文人腦汁,最後才在隋末唐初,得到了突破。這大概不是某一人發明的,而是經過無數大 詩人的暗中摸索和民間樂府的傳唱,在不斷簡化的過程中,終於水到渠成,瓜熟蒂落,把四聲合併為「平仄」二類,而近體詩的人為格律遂脫穎而出。
要把每一個「五言句」中的每一個字,都按照平上去入四聲,組合成各種排列組合不同的句子,還要顧及到文意的通順,對仗的工整,韻腳的配合,那根本是件做不到的事;也不知道是哪位民間歌手或無名作家,忽然心血來潮,冒險一試,把原本分屬「四類」的平上去入,合併為平仄「二類」。這是多麼簡單明瞭,人人都辦得到的事。因為「平」和「側」(「仄」字原寫作「側」)是相對的:「側」就是「傾側、不平」,「平」就是「不傾倒」。平上去入四聲之中,除了平聲是「平而不側」外,其餘上去入三聲,都不是不平的,所以一概被稱為「側」。
這 個發現太簡單了,一點神秘感都沒有;比起王融所謂的「宮商與二儀俱生」那句話來說,未免太平凡、太庸俗,太沒有學問了,不像是讀書人的口吻。也就由於這個 發現,使得唐人近體詩獲得非凡的成就;而「人為的」作詩規律,終於在永明文人解不開的環扣下,得到了新的突破。大唐帝國政府更喜出望外的把它收進,新開辦 的「進士科」考試的規律之中,作為「試帖詩」寫作的國家標準。這一切,雖然都是我們推測之辭,並未見諸《新、舊唐書》和其他唐代的官文書中;但四聲若不簡化為「平、側」二類,則唐代近體詩的格律必將永遠無法完成。

第五篇、「聲調」、「四聲」和「平仄」


        每一個漢字,都可以寫成一個單獨的字形,讀成一個單獨的音節;每一個音節都有一 定的聲調。注音符號就是專為拼注單音節國語的字音而設計的,它包含著「聲母」、「韻母」、「聲調」三種符號系統。我們今天,把這種既表音讀之數、又表字形 之數的單位叫做「字」或「音節」,古人卻稱之為「言」。「五言」就是指五個音節、五個字形說的,「七言」就是指七個音節、七個字形說的;《老子道德經》五 千「言」,就是五千個「字」的意思。在中國,字形和字音剛好成「一對一」的關係。
        「聲調」在字音當中佔有極重要的地位:即使「聲母」「韻母」完全相同,如果「聲調」不同,意思也將隨之而不同(如「媽」和「馬」,「買」和「賣」)。 這是外國人學華語時,最頭疼的地方。在全世界的語言中,除漢語外,只有泰語也走單音節和聲調辨義的路子;但泰文卻是拼音的,而非表義的,泰語和泰文並不能 跟漢語漢字一樣,呈現「一對一」的關係。這也就是說:全世界的人類中,只有漢字是單音節的、單個兒字形的、有聲調的、非拼音的表義文字---唐詩就是建立 在這樣的文字基礎之上。也只有這種文字,才產生得出:限字、限句、限韻、平仄、對仗的近體詩來。
        用單音節漢字來寫整齊對稱的駢體文和律詩,那真是天造地設,靈活無比,多音節的拼音文字,無論如何,也達不到這種地步。漢字的靈活情形,就和整齊劃一的紅 磚一樣:兩英吋厚、四英吋寬、八英吋長的紅磚之所以能夠成為建築材料中的寵兒,是因為它體積小、搬運容易、堆砌方便,適合建築上的各種用途。如果它是不規 則形、八個人也抬不動的大石塊,恐怕就不會這麼被人重用了。漢字的情形亦復如此:它的外形(尤其是印刷體的字形)總是整整齊齊,一般大小的。它一個字形念一個音節---字音和字形恰好成「一對一」的關係。如果是一首五律,它永遠是五個字一句,八句共四十個字。寫在有格子的稿紙上,就跟排列整齊的紅磚一樣。
        以往的西方漢學家認為漢字難學、難寫,是最原始,最落伍、尚未進化的文字。那是他們站在多音節、拼音文字立場上的一偏之見,根本沒有理解單音節表義不表音 的漢字之「靈活性」。漢字誠然難學、難寫,但它的兩大優點,卻是拼音文字無法企及的。它的兩大優點,就是「靈活性」和「超時空性」。「靈活性」已如上述, 「超時空性」則是不受「時間」和「空間」的影響,無遠弗屆,無往不利:台灣人和上海人各用家鄉方言說話時,雖然無法溝通;若改用漢字筆談,則毫無窒礙。一 兩千年之後的人,讀漢高祖的「大風起兮雲飛揚,威加海內兮歸故鄉」,李白的「床前明月光,疑是地上霜」也毫不費力,比今日大、中學生的「作文」好懂得多。
        中國境內的方言複雜是出乎一般人想像之外的:它不是以「十」計,而是以「百」計,以「千」計。全國各地,沒有兩個地方的「聲調」是完全相同的。我們平常所 說的「平上去入四聲」是從古到今「聲調的大類」;如今全中國沒有一處方言是這麼整整齊齊、不多不少,剛好分為四大類的。我們在小學時代所學的「國語注音符 號」有「陰平、陽平、上聲、去聲」四種聲調,卻少了個入聲。上海、南京、廣東,福建各地方言中都有入聲,但入聲的數目卻並不相同:上海話只有一個入聲,客 家話卻把入聲分為「陰陽」兩類,廣州話更把入聲分為「陰入、陽入、中入」三類;廣州話裡,單單聲調,就有「九類」之多。如果中國當初不用「超時空」的漢 字,而用「隨方就讀」的拼音文字的話,將會產生數百種乃至上千種的拼音文字。時間越久,變化越大,終將變成語言文字都不相通的、數百個各自分裂的小國;對 於數千年前流傳下來的《詩經》、《楚辭》、漢賦、唐詩也將如「天書」一樣的看不懂。請想想看:大漢子孫會希望有這樣的後果嗎?
        從上面一連串的討論裡,我們已可看出:「四聲」和「聲調」是兩碼子事:「聲調」是現今各地方言中、實實在在存在的語音成分:既可以用錄音機把它錄存下來, 也可以用圖譜把它的聲調曲線描繪出來。它的調形和數量既隨各地方言而異,它的變動的幅度也很大:東城和西城的腔調可能不同,江南和江北的調數可能多寡不 一。時間相隔三、五十年,聲調的差異就很大了:我們今天常常聽到「台灣國語」這個名稱,就不難想像得到:流行於今日年輕朋友口中的「國語」,已不同於老一 輩口中的「標準國語」;而這兩種國語相異之處,除小部分的詞彙外(如「驢」、「菜」、「拉風」之類),大部分都由於聲調不同。
        中國歷古相傳的「四聲」是指「平、上、去、入」四大類的字音。這四大類的字音,各地方言中的實際腔調雖然各不相同,但它們卻都有這「四類」字音存在。用最 簡單的話來說:中國各地方言雖然複雜,但在同一種方言中,凡是讀平聲的字,它永遠讀平聲;凡是讀上聲的字,它永遠讀上聲。儘管在同一大類中,可能有小幅度 的變動(如平聲之分為陰平、陽平,上聲之分為陰上、陽上);但較大的類卻很少有變動的。把「平上去入」一分為二,併合為「平、仄」兩大集團,那大概是隋末唐初、追求「聲律」的文人,吟誦詩文時的意外發現。這和各地方言的真正讀音無關,也不會破壞原有的「平上去入」的界限。
        「平」是甚麼意思?「仄」又是甚麼意思?像這一類空洞的理論,我們一概不提。我們只籠統的說:所謂「平聲」,就相當於我們今日的「陰平聲」(第一聲)和「陽平聲」(第二聲);所謂「仄聲」,就相當於我們今日的「上聲」和「去聲」(第三聲和第四聲)---這四種「聲調」,凡是學過注音符號的人都知道,這裡不必再說。
        我們應當知道:今國語之把聲調分為「陰平、陽平、上聲、去聲」四大類,完全是根據北平一地的方言來說的;中國其他方言中的聲調,跟北平話完全不一樣。我們 甚至可以說:在中國,沒有兩個地方的聲調是完全一樣的;而各地方言之所以不同,大部分是由於聲調不同的原故。中國古人所謂的「四聲」是指「平、上、去、 入」四大類的字音。這四大類的字音,各地方言中的實際腔調雖然各不相同,但他們卻都有這「四類」字音的存在。這話怎麼講呢?
        用最簡單的話來說:中國各地方言雖然複雜,但在同一種方言中,凡是讀平聲的字,它永遠讀平聲;凡是讀上聲的字,它永遠讀上聲。儘管在同一大類中,可能有小幅度的變動(如平聲之分為陰平、陽平,上聲之分為陰上、陽上);但較大的類卻很少有變動的。
        把「平上去入」一分為二,併合為「平、仄」兩大集團,那大概是隋末唐初、追求「聲律」的文人,吟誦詩文時的意外發現。沒想到這一意外發現,卻極合當時新創 立的「進士試」的需要,並得到政府和文士的認同。但這和各地方言的真正讀音無關,也不會破壞原有的「平上去入」的類別。
        「平上去入」劃分為四大類的情形,就好比「甲、乙、丙、丁」四位家庭主婦,同在市場上買了「紅、黃、藍、白」四個瓷罐,打算用它來分裝「鹽、糖、胡椒粉、 芡粉(太白粉)」的情形一樣:甲主婦以紅罐裝糖,黃罐裝鹽,藍罐裝胡椒粉,白罐裝芡粉。乙主婦以紅罐裝鹽,黃罐裝糖,藍罐裝芡粉,白罐裝胡椒粉。丙主婦以 紅罐裝芡粉,黃罐裝胡椒粉,藍罐裝鹽,白罐裝糖。丁主婦以紅罐裝胡椒粉,黃罐裝芡粉,藍罐裝糖,白罐裝鹽。這四位主婦雖然各行其是,互不相謀;但他們用起 來卻都得心應手,決不會以鹽作糖,用胡椒粉來代替芡粉。這又是甚麼道理呢?因為他們雖然各行其是,卻沒有把「類」分錯:凡裝糖的罐子永遠用它來裝糖;凡裝 鹽的罐子永遠用它來裝鹽;如此而已。但甲主婦如到乙主婦的家,或乙主婦到丙主婦家,如想在他們用慣了的固定顏色的罐子裡,取出他們心目中的東西來,必然十 取九錯,而大罵別人糊塗。為甚麼?因為別人的安排,不合自己的習慣也。
        中國字音之分為四類,大概自先秦以來,便已如此。經歷了這麼久的時間,各地方言又如此複雜;在長期使用的過程中,有些方言中的字類發生了部分的變化,自屬 難免。最顯著的例子,就是今國語把「古入聲」字分別歸進陰平、陽平、上聲和去聲裡去。這麼一來,「平仄」的界線就給弄
亂了。用國語讀唐詩,反不如用廣東話、台灣話、上海話讀唐詩來得「合律」。這就是為甚麼台灣的老先生喜歡用台語吟詩的原故。



第六篇、「韻」和「壓韻」


        我們幼時所唱的兒歌和各地流行的山歌,幾乎都是「合轍壓韻」的(「合轍」的意思就是「壓韻」,謂猶車輪之「合於轍」)。不但中國的歌謠如此,全世界的歌謠也無不如此。合轍壓韻是人類即興歌唱時的共同要求:它不但討好了別人,也滿足了自己。
         詩歌之所以要壓韻,目的當然是為了便於吟唱;這本來是自然形成的,沒有甚麼深文大義在內,但是唐代「律詩」的情形可就不同了:顧名思義,所謂「律」,就是 有一定「規律」、一定「紀律」的意思。「法律」定出來了,人人都得遵守,處處都得「合律」。關於唐詩的各種規律,我們將在後面加以解說,現在先把規律中最 重要的兩件事---「韻」和「壓韻」提前交代一下:
         上面已經說過,「合轍壓韻」本是人類即興歌唱時的共同要求,既用不著官方提倡,也用不著政府壓制;但是「律詩」的情況就不同了:它不是隨嘴亂唱的山歌,也 不是哄哄小孩子的兒歌。它的「前身」是大唐帝國考選「進士」時所定的一種「作詩規格」---凡是應試的考生都得用這種規格作答(就是作詩),否則不予錄取。
         大唐政府限制考生作詩時不得「自由壓韻」,要壓韻必須「壓官韻」。大唐政府國訂的「韻書」,把可以互相壓韻的字,合在一起,叫做一個「韻」。作詩的人得先查閱「韻書」,再來壓韻。

         唐朝人是把「四聲」不同的字音分為幾個「韻」的,例如:「媽、麻、馬、罵」、「通、同、桶、痛」,在後代戲曲和民間歌謠裡都認為是可以互相壓韻的;但唐代的韻書裡卻把它們分開,不認為它們是同一個「韻」。於是「唐韻」(唐代的官韻書)裡就多達二百零六個「韻」!唐朝還沒有雕版印刷的書籍,更沒有今天的照相和影印,一切書籍都得用手抄寫;要叫考生硬記住206個韻裡的千千萬萬個壓韻字,真是一件苦差事。經過應試考生無數次的請願、要求,鬧了不少次大大小小的風潮,「禮部」(相當於現在的教育部) 終於一再讓步,准許考生「若干韻可以同用」。所謂「同用」就是這幾個韻的字音本來就很近似,容易弄錯,考生最感困擾;現在表面上雖然仍認為它們是不同的 「韻」,卻不加限制,認為它們可以互相通壓。這麼一來,考生的目的達到了,政府的權威也仍然保全:並沒有向考生屈服,修改法令。事實上,大唐政府原先所訂 的「韻」是206個;後來經過若干次「同用」的結果,可以互相壓韻的字群,卻只剩下106個(無形中併掉100個)。宋朝繼承唐朝的傳統,不敢妄肆更改; 等到金人入主中原,編印「平水韻書」的時候,才老老實實的合併為106個「韻」---那就是現在常見的所謂「詩韻」(《詩韻集成》、《詩韻合璧》、《佩文詩韻》、《佩文韻府》等,都是以106個韻的「平水韻」為底本)。

        唐詩壓韻的部位很固定:無論近體或古體,壓韻都一律壓在句子的末一字上。近體詩除第一句可壓韻,可不壓韻外,凡壓韻都一律壓在偶數句上。古體詩偶數句的末一字也一定要壓韻,但單數句則可壓可不壓,並無「只准第一句壓韻」的拘束。
         正因為唐詩壓韻都壓在句子的末一字上,所以才叫做「壓」韻。「壓」有「大力鎮壓」之意;整個句子(甚至上下二句)都被最後一個字「壓」住了,跑不掉了;可 見「壓韻字」的重要性。又因為這個字是句中的最末一個字,所以又被稱為「韻腳」。中國古代的歌謠和現代的民歌、兒歌,也都要壓韻;卻不一定非壓在「韻腳」 上不可。隨便舉「詩經」裡的兩首詩來看:

《周南‧樛木》

南有樛木                 葛藟「纍」之

樂只君子                 福履「綏」之
 
 
南有樛木                 葛藟「荒」之

樂只君子                 福履「將」之

《召南‧鵲巢》

維鵲有巢                 維鳩「居」之

之子于歸                 百兩「御」之


維鵲有巢                 維鳩「方」之

之子于歸                 百兩「將」之

再看兒歌:

風來了,

「雨」來了,

老和尚揹著「鼓」來了。
上引歌謠中,凡加括號之字都是「壓韻字」,它卻不是句中的最末一字,當然不能算是「韻腳」。儘管所有古詩及民歌中,「韻腳」壓韻者居多數;可都是隨各人的高興,並沒有硬性的規定;只有唐人近體詩中的壓韻,卻如一成不變。

第七篇、首句壓韻和隔句壓韻問題

        拿我們最熟悉的那幾首唐詩來說,很顯然的可以分為兩種情況:一種是:同一「聯」內(是緊接著的上下兩句)兩個「韻腳」;這兩個「韻腳」互相壓韻。另一種是:同一「聯」內只有一個「韻腳」;它只能和另一「聯」內的「韻腳」壓韻,卻不能在本聯內找到「同伴」。為方便計,我們稱上下兩句可互相壓韻者為「甲類」,上下兩句只有一個「韻腳」不能互相壓韻者為「乙類」;下面舉詩為證。
李白<夜思>:
床前明月「光」\ 甲類
疑是地上「霜」/
舉頭望明月    \ 乙類
低頭思故「鄉」/

王維<相思子>:

紅豆生南國    \ 乙類
春來發幾「枝」/
願君多採擷    \ 乙類
此物最相「思」/

        上面雖然只舉了兩首五絕為例,其實七絕、五律、七律、五古、七古的情形也與此相同,都可以分為「甲」「乙」兩種壓韻情況;而「甲類」壓韻 句又只出現於開始的第一「聯」內。換句話說,就是每一首詩的第一句有壓韻和不壓韻兩種情況;其他的「奇數句」(第三句、第五句、第七句)都不壓韻(長篇古風在「轉韻」時有「奇數句」壓韻情況,但近體詩卻不可如此)。

        正因為這個原故,唐朝人就不把首句壓韻的詩句,列為「韻腳」的範圍之內,而把四句的絕句稱為「二韻詩」(它很可能有三個壓韻句),把八句的律詩稱為「四韻詩」(它很可能有五個壓韻句)。其他如「五言六韻」就是指十二句詩,「五言八韻」就是指十六句詩。
         詩句之分為「甲」「乙」兩種壓韻情況,並非只有唐詩如此;上自先秦漢魏六朝古詩,下至宋、元、明、清一切有韻詩文無不如此。先看《詩經》:
關關睢「鳩」 \ 甲類
在河之「洲」 /
采采卷耳     \ 乙類
不盈傾「筐」 /

再看漢詩:

孔雀東南「飛」\ 甲類
五里一徘「徊」/
涉江採芙蓉    \ 乙類
蘭澤多芳「草」/

南朝齊梁古詩:

聞歡下揚「州」\ 甲類
相送楚山「頭」/
碧玉破瓜時    \ 乙類
郎為情顛「倒」/

南朝周興嗣《千字文》:

天地玄「黃」 \ 甲類
宇宙洪「荒」 /
日月盈昃     \ 乙類
辰宿列「張」 /

可能出自趙宋的《百家姓》

趙錢孫李     \ 乙類
周吳鄭「王」 /

目前仍流行於大眾口頭上的壓韻的俚語俗諺,它們所採取的壓韻形式,也跟《詩經》、漢魏六朝古詩一樣,也可分為「甲類」和「乙類」。下面就是今日仍然能夠看到的民間謠諺實例:


女大不中「留」    \ 甲類
留來留去留成「仇」/
*                 *                 *
天皇「皇」 地皇「皇」 \ 甲類
我家有個夜哭「郎」    /
行人君子念一遍    \ 乙類
一夜睡到大天「光」/





東海的人與書 (81):


林衡哲部落格-從初中時代就認定有第一流的文化,才能創見第一流的國度,這是催生新潮流文庫的主因,出國後才認識多采多姿的台灣文化,從1983年全力奉獻台灣文化的國際化, ...
林衡哲簡介
林衡哲簡介: 林衡哲,本名林哲雄,台灣宜蘭人,1939年生,1967年台大醫科畢業,1968年旅美, 1997年10月返台。現任花蓮門諾醫院小兒科主任。曾任南加州台灣人 ... 林衡哲先生在東海外文讀一年之後,重考入臺灣大學醫科。創立、主持望春風出版社。


看了愛因斯坦這段話.想起林衡哲先生翻譯過它......

廿世紀台灣代表性人物廿世紀台灣代表性人物(二十七位)
  林衡哲
1997年人文科學獎
 
大約在三十年前,我在醫學院時代曾主編過【廿世紀代表性人物】一書,並附上一篇很長的序,此書介紹廿世紀各行各業三十六位代表性人物,並儘可能選最好的短 篇傳記介紹他們,當時廿世紀才走完了三分之二,因此要在那時就選出廿世紀代表性人物,確實是很大的冒險,不過一九九五年七月我返台去拜訪中央研究院長李遠 哲先生時,特別帶了一本【廿世紀代表性人物】送給他,那時我順便問他,我選愛因斯坦與居里夫人作理論與實驗科學家的代表性人物,是不是很適當。他同意我三 十前的選擇,認為這二位確實是廿世紀科學界的代表人物。
此書可能是我在新潮文庫編譯的書中,影響最深遠的一本書,有些讀者已經忘記了書名,但卻記得這本附有長序的書,一九九二年我與苦苓到美國奧立岡州演講時,踫到當地一位中文學校校長,她拿一本翻爛的【廿世紀代表性人物】要我簽名,說此書對她影響很大,那時我非常感動,作夢也沒有想到,我編譯的書經過那麼多年的歲月,還是有人在珍藏與閱讀,去年(一九九九)六 月一日因獲賴和醫療獎,到總統府見陳水扁新總統時,他也主動提到此書在大學時代對他的影響。在編譯此書時,我是典型的台灣文化文盲,

2013年5月27日 星期一

Steve Jobs (1955-2011)



〔編譯陳成良/綜合報導〕終其一生,美國蘋果公司創辦人賈伯斯(Steve Jobs)都因不愛捐錢而飽受批評,但賈伯斯遺孀勞倫(Laurene Powell Jobs)、他的接班人庫克(Tim Cook)以及U2樂團主唱波諾(Bono)最近均透露,賈伯斯其實為善不欲人知,生前曾捐出至少5000萬美元(約15億台幣)給醫療機構,並贊助愛滋 病相關研究。
為善不欲人知 打破外界偏見
賈伯斯與積極投入 慈善事業的微軟公司董事長比爾蓋茲(Bill Gates)不同,往往給人較為冷漠的觀感,他也拒絕參與由蓋茲和股神巴菲特(Warren Buffet)發起的「樂施誓約」(The Giving Pledge)行動,其宗旨是希望億萬富豪能在有生之年或逝世後, 將其名下50%以上資產或遺產,捐贈給世界各地的慈善團體。
英國每日郵報報導,賈伯斯和妻子勞倫都相當注重隱私,賈伯斯生前從未討論自己對 於慈善事業的貢獻,甚至連傳記作者艾薩克森詢問時他都拒絕說明,但勞倫最近接受紐約時報訪問時,被問及是否會加入「樂施誓約」時表示,「簽署一個東西並不 是最重要的。重要的是他們做了什麼,以及他們的作為會產生什麼影響。」勞倫說,「對於別人所做偉大的工作,我們會非常注意儘量突出他們的事跡,但我們不喜 歡附上自己的名字。」
勞倫創立的慈善組織「愛默生基金會」(Emerson Collective LLC),結構更像個小型企業,有限責任公司的型態可讓她在從事捐贈、投資及其他政治捐款活動時不必公開,「敏捷、靈活、即時」。勞倫還在1997年協助 成立非營利教育機構「大學之路」(College Track),幫助弱勢高中生取得大學文憑。
紐時2011年一篇文章宣稱,賈伯斯沒有捐款給慈善公司的公開紀錄,但後來賈伯斯的好友波諾說,蘋果長期贊助他創辦的RED抗愛滋組織與產品,也是「全球抗愛滋基金」主要贊助者,還捐款數百萬美元贊助愛滋病研究,賈伯斯對於非洲對抗愛滋病的貢獻「無可算計」。
賈伯斯生前協助創立的皮克斯動畫公司(Pixar),每年都會主辦電影放映會籌募善款。現任蘋果執行長庫克也說,賈伯斯生前捐了5000萬美元贊助史丹福醫院,挹注兒童醫療中心與新大樓建設。




紐約時報 Steve Jobs 這些讚揚

Steve Jobs, Apple’s Visionary, Dies at 56

Video: Jobs's Legacy NEW
Photographs


Steven P. Jobs transformed the personal computer and created a series of revolutionary products.

Apple Co-Founder Had Waged Public Battle With Cancer

Steven P. Jobs helped usher in the era of the personal computer and led a cultural transformation in mobile communications and music for the digital age.

A Tough Balancing Act Remains Ahead for Apple

Apple’s executives will have to figure out how to follow the lessons Steven P. Jobs imparted prior to his death without being trapped by his legacy and unable to adapt to future changes.
Jobs’s Death Draws Outpouring of Grief and Tributes
Fans reacted to the death of Steven P. Jobs by using their Apple laptops, leaving flowers at Apple stores and flooding Twitter with messages — a veritable technology 21-gun salute.
Interactive READER SUBMISSIONS
How Did Steve Jobs Affect You?
Share a photo that shows the impact of Mr. Jobs's life.

F. Moody

\\\\\
2011/01/6 7:45 CNN 快報說 該公司確定Steve Jobs 已過世
http://www.apple.com/


アップル前CEO、スティーブ・ジョブズ氏死去

 アップルの創業者であるスティーブ・ジョブズ前最高経営責任者(CEO)が死去したことが、5日分かった。56歳だった。アップルがホームページ上で明 らかにした。ジョブズ氏は、iPhone(アイフォーン)やiPad(アイパッド)など、世界的な大ヒットになった商品の開発・販売を主導し、アップルを 再生させたことで知られる。健康上の理由で今年8月、CEO職を退いていた。
 アップルはホームページ上で「アップルはビジョンがあり創造的な天才を失った。世界は素晴らしい人物を失った」との声明を出した。(ワシントン=尾形聡彦)


Steve Jobs 辭Apple 的 ceo 當起董事長
這是20年來唯一一家
技術願景夢想成真的公司

Apple’s Steve Jobs Reshaped Industries
It’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever see another 15 years of blockbuster, culture-changing hits like the iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad — from Apple or anyone else.

Steve Jobs resigns

The minister of magic steps down

Can Silicon Valley’s most disruptive firm prosper without its maker?



IN A commencement speech to students at Stanford University in 2005, Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, advised his audience to avoid being trapped by dogma and to have the courage to follow their hearts and their intuition. “Stay hungry. Stay foolish,” he said as he signed off. By following his own advice, Mr Jobs, who resigned as Apple’s boss on August 24th, has turned the company from a basket case on the brink of bankruptcy when he returned to its helm in 1997 into a world-beater that is reshaping a big chunk of the technology industry. Earlier this month, Apple even briefly surpassed Exxon Mobil, an oil giant, to become the world’s most valuable company.
No other boss in recent history has embodied and defined a firm as completely as Mr Jobs. So his decision to resign as chief executive has inevitably raised the question of whether Apple will remain as hungry and as wildly successful without its entrepreneurial maestro at the helm. Other giants in the tech industry have seen their fortunes fade after iconic leaders have departed. Microsoft has struggled to regain its mojo since Bill Gates stood down as its chief executive in January 2000. Could Apple suffer a similar fate?
That seems unlikely for several reasons. One is that the company has had plenty of time to plan for this moment. Mr Jobs has stepped aside from day-to-day management at Apple on a couple of occasions before, after having surgery for a rare form of pancreatic cancer in 2004 (see timeline). Each time, Tim Cook, Apple’s chief operating officer, temporarily assumed his boss’s responsibilities.
That allowed Mr Cook, who is taking over from Mr Jobs as CEO, to get a taste for the top spot—and it gave Apple’s board a chance to see him in action. On each occasion, Mr Cook kept Apple’s money-making machine ticking over smoothly. An expert in manufacturing and logistics, he closed down almost all of Apple’s manufacturing operations after he arrived at the firm in the late 1990s and outsourced much of these to Asia. Announcing his promotion, Apple’s board said that he had shown “remarkable talent and sound judgment in everything he does.”
Talent is something that Apple also has an abundance of elsewhere in its ranks. Executives such as Phil Schiller, who oversees the company’s marketing, and Jonathan Ive, a Briton whose domain is design, are part of a team that has worked closely together for many years. If Mr Cook can keep this group intact, then Apple’s future should be bright.
The firm also benefits from an intensely loyal and motivated workforce. Glassdoor, an online jobs and careers community, carries reviews of the company from almost 1,000 Apple employees. Most are glowing about the firm and in particular about Mr Jobs’s impact on it. One post even calls Apple’s former boss “the Thomas Edison of this century”. Paul Saffo of Discern Analytics, a financial-analytics company, reckons that this depth of loyalty will mean that even though Mr Jobs is stepping down, the firm’s employees will continue to ask themselves “what would Steve do?” when making decisions. (Of course, asking the question is easier than guessing the right answer.)
Another reason for optimism is that Mr Jobs is not disappearing from the scene entirely. Instead he is taking on a new role as the chairman of Apple’s board, which should allow him to keep weighing in on important decisions for some time to come, assuming that his health allows. Apple has a pretty clear product pipeline for the next couple of years, which is reassuring. The firm is due to unveil the latest version of its hugely successful iPhone in the coming weeks and is expected to launch a new iPad early next year.
But Apple is far more than the sum of the devices that it sells, impressive though they are. Its secret sauce lies in the integration of these with software and services such as its iTunes online content store and its recently announced iCloud online-storage offering. These form what tech types like to call an “ecosystem” that has proved so popular that it is forcing other companies to develop similar capabilities. Google, which has long excelled at developing software, recently splashed out $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility so that it could get its hands on the firm’s smartphones, tablets and other devices. And Amazon, which has a huge cloud business, is planning to launch its own tablet computer to compete with Apple’s iPad.
The good news for Apple’s investors is that the firm has been given a great head start in the battle for dominance of this emerging tech landscape thanks to Mr Jobs, whose vision of the future has been honed over a long and tumultuous career. After co-founding Apple with Steve Wozniak in the 1970s, he went on to pioneer the era of the personal computer in the following decade. He was then ousted from Apple after a boardroom coup in 1985.
After that, Mr Jobs followed his heart and his intuition by building up Pixar, a film studio that specialises in computer-animated films. It has produced a string of hits, from “Toy Story” to “Finding Nemo”.
He returned to Apple as an adviser in 1996, when the firm was in dire straits. A year later he was made interim chief executive. Asked at the time what he thought Mr Jobs should do with Apple, Michael Dell, a rival computer-maker, helpfully suggested that he should shut it down.
Mr Jobs ignored that advice. Instead he led the company on to its greatest triumphs. Among them were the creation of the iMac, which revived the firm’s ailing computer business, and the development of the iPod, which ended up transforming the music industry. But just as important as what Apple did was what it did not do. Charles Golvin of Forrester, a research firm, says that one of Mr Jobs’s greatest skills has been to decide which projects the firm should not undertake.
It has been widely rumoured, for example, that engineers at Apple were urging its boss to create a tablet computer in the early part of the decade. But Mr Jobs turned a deaf ear to their entreaties and instead insisted that the company focus on producing a smartphone. The result was the iPhone, which transformed yet another market and is still minting money. In a creative cauldron like Apple, ideas are rarely in short supply. But the skill of choosing the right ones to focus on at the right time is rare. Mr Jobs has it. Apple’s shareholders will have to hope that Mr Cook does too.