梦远书城 > 胡适 > 胡适留学日记 | 上页 下页
卷八 一一、再游波士顿记


  (一月廿七日追记)

  波士顿有卜朗吟会(Boston Browning Society),会中执行部书记施保定夫人(Mrs. Ada Spaulding)为哈佛大学吴康君之友。夫人邀吴康君至会中演说“Confucianism and the Philosophy of Browning”(儒学与卜朗吟哲学),吴君谦辞之。已而思及余,因力荐余任此役。夫人以书致余,余初不敢遽诺,既思此会代表波士顿文物之英,不可坐失此机会,遂诺之。以数日之力写演说稿成,正月十八夜以火车离绮色佳,十九晨至波城,此余第二次来此也。

  往访讷博士夫妇于康桥。

  午往访郑莱君,遇孙学悟君;同出门,遇吴康君。余与吴康君初未相见,执手甚欢。同餐于哈佛饭厅,室极大,可容千人,此康乃耳所无也。席上遇宋子文、张福运、竺可桢、孙恒、赵文锐、陈长蘅、贺楙庆诸君。

  下午三时至Hotel Vendome,为卜郎吟会会场。到者约百人,皆中年以上人,有甚老者。余演说约四十五分钟,颇受欢迎。继余演说者为一英国妇人,皈依印度梵丹教者(Vedanta),演说“Vedanta and Browning”。以余私见言之,余此次演稿,远胜余去年得卜朗吟奖赏之论文也。

  吴康君宴余于红龙楼,同席者七人,极欢。

  夜宿卜朗吟会执行部长陆次君(Rev. Mr. Harry Lutz)之家,陆君夫妇相待极殷,见其二子焉。

  *  *

  二十日晨至哈佛,重游大学美术馆(Fogg Art Museum)。

  访米得先生(Edwin M. Mead)于世界和平会所(World Peace Foundation)。此君为此间名宿,著书甚富,为和平主义一健将。访张子高于青年会,不遇。

  至康桥赴世界会(哈佛)午餐,纳博士、墨茨博士及南非巴士曼君(Bosman)等皆在座。

  下午,与郑莱君往游波城美术院(Boston Museum of Fine Arts),访其中国画部主者,承令一日本人指示余等。其人名富田幸次郎,极殷勤,指导甚周至。所见宋徽宗《捣练图》,马远三幅,夏圭二幅,其一大幅夏圭画尤佳。富田君语余,“以馆地太隘,故仅此数幅陈列于外。尚有多幅深藏内室,不轻示人,以时太晚,不能相示。如君等明日能来,当一一相示。”余本拟明晨去纽约,以此机不可坐失,遂决意明日再来,与约后会而去。

  是夜,澄衷同学竺君可桢宴余于红龙楼,同席者七人,张子高后至,畅谈极欢。昨夜之集已为难继,今夜倾谈尤快,馀与郑君莱话最多,馀人不如余二人之滔滔不休也。是夜,所谈最重要之问题如下:

  一、设国立大学以救今日国中学者无求高等学问之地之失。此意余于所著《非留学篇》中论之极详(见《留美学生年报》第三年)。

  二、立公共藏书楼博物院之类。

  三、设立学会。

  四、舆论家(“Journalist”or“Publicist”)之重要。吾与郑君各抒所谓“意中之舆论家”。吾二人意见相合之处甚多,大旨如下:

  舆论家:

  (一)须能文,须有能抒意又能动人之笔力。

  (二)须深知吾国史事时势。

  (三)须深知世界史事时势。至少须知何处可以得此种知识,须能用参考书。

  (四)须具远识。

  (五)须具公心,不以私见夺真理。

  (六)须具决心毅力,不为利害所移。

  郑君谈及俄文豪屠格涅夫(Turgenev)所著小说Virgin Soil之佳。其中主人乃一远识志士,不为意气所移,不为利害所夺,不以小利而忘远谋。滔滔者天下皆是也,此君独超然尘表,不欲以一石当狂澜,则择安流而游焉。非趋易而避难也,明知只手挽狂澜之无益也。志在淑世固是,而何以淑之之道亦不可不加之意。此君志在淑世,又能不尚奇好异,独经营于贫民工人之间,为他人所不能为,所不屑为,甘心作一无名之英雄,死而不悔,独行其是者也。此书吾所未读,当读之。

  *  *

  二十一日晨往美术院访富田幸次郎,与同至藏画之室。此院共有中日古画五千幅,诚哉其为世界最大“集”也。(英文Collection,余译之为“集”,初欲译为“藏”,以其不确,故改用“集”。)是日所观宋元明名画甚多,以日力有限,故仅择其“尤物”(Masterpieces)五六十幅观之。今记其尤佳者如下:

  一、董北苑《平林霁色图》郑苏戡题字“北苑真笔”。董其昌跋。王烟客(时敏)跋。端陶斋(方)跋。此画为一满人所藏,字朴孙,号三虞堂主人,不知其姓名,以英文音译之,乃勤信也。此画饶有逸气,为南派神品。

  二、阮文达藏《宋元拾翠》册页 此集皆小品册页。其尤佳者:

  (一)顾德谦《文姬归汉图》。

  (二)胡瑰画《番马》。

  (三)范宽一画。

  (四)夏圭《山水》。

  (五)班恕斋(惟志)一幅。

  (六)王振鹏《龙舟》。

  此集尚有宋绣花鸟一幅,其线色已剥落,然犹可供史家之研究也。

  三、宋陈所翁(容)画《瀑龙图》大幅 此画大奇,笔力健绝;惜有损坏之处,为俗手所补,减色不少。

  四、赵子昂画《相马图》。

  五、管夫人《墨竹》,有夫人之姊姚管道果题跋。

  六、王振鹏(朋梅,永嘉人)《仿李龙眠白描》一幅,有钱大昕题字。另有他跋无数。此画大似龙眠,向定为龙眠之笔;钱大昕始见树干题“振鹏”二字,细如蝇头,乃定为王振鹏之笔。

  七、仇宝父(寅)《骑士图》。

  八、《犬图》(无名),大佳。

  九、《蜻蜓图》(无名),花卉虫物皆佳。

  十、《观瀑图》(无名),疑明以后之物。

  十一、钱舜(元人),《花卉》。

  十二、马远(?)《观音》。

  十三、《释迦》(无名),著色极深而新,元人物也。

  十四、学吴道子画三幅:

  (一)天官紫微大帝。

  (二)地官清翠大帝。

  (三)水官洞阴大帝。

  皆工笔也,学画者可于此见古人作画之工。(此三幅初疑为道子真笔,院中赏鉴家以为宋人仿本耳。)

  十五、陆信中《十六罗汉图》十六幅。著色甚有趣,惜太板不生动耳。

  十六、《五百罗汉图》一百幅之十。此百幅为宋人赵其昌、林定国所作,在日本某寺,凡百幅,毎幅五罗汉。此院得十幅,余仍在日本。著色极佳,画笔亦工致而饶生致,远胜上记之十六幅矣。此画与上记之十六幅皆足代表所谓“佛氏美术”,甚足供研究也。

  此外不可复记矣。

  既出藏室,复至昨日所过之室重观所已见之画。其宋徽宗一画,有题签为“摹张萱《捣练图》”,此幅真是人间奇物,不厌百回观也。

  富田君知余不可久留,仅邀余观日本画一幅《平治物语绘卷》,写战斗之景,人物生动无匹。(为庆恩时代名笔,不著画家姓氏)

  与富田君别,谢其相待之殷,并与约如今年夏间有暇,当重来作十日之留。

  院中藏画,多出日人冈仓觉三购买收藏之力。此君乃东方美术赏鉴大家,二年前死矣。著书有The Ideals of the East(Okakura Kakuzo;2nd ed. London,Murray)。

  下午三时去波士顿,夜九时至纽约。以电话与韦莲司女士及其他友人约相见时。

  *  *

  二十二日至纽约美术院(The Metropolitan Museum of Art),韦莲司女士亦至,导余流览院中“尤物”。女士最喜一北魏造像之佛头,其慈祥之气,出尘之神,一一可见。女士言,“久对此像,能令人投地膜拜。”此像之侧,尚有一罗汉之头,笑容可掬,亦非凡品。院中有中国画一集,皆福开森氏所藏,今日乃不可见,以新得Benjamin Altman Collection方在陈列,占地甚多,不得隙地也。

  午后,一时至女士寓午餐,遇John Ward Young君夫妇,皆韦莲司家之友也。

  下午,四时许以火车至纽约附近一镇名Upper Montclair,N. J. 访友人节克生君(Rev. Mr. Henry E. Jackson为the Christian Union Congregational Church of Upper Montclair之牧师)于其家。此君即前与余论耶稣之死及苏格拉底之死之异同者也。此次闻余来纽约,坚邀过其家为一宿之留,不得已,诺焉。既至,见其夫人及一子(Robert)一女(Ruth),蒙相待甚殷。夜与此君谈宗教问题甚久,此君亦不满意于此邦之宗教团体(Organized Christianity),以为专事虚文,不求真际。今之所谓宗教家,但知赴教堂作礼拜,而于耶稣所传真理则皆视为具文。此君之家庭极圆满安乐。节君告我曰:“吾妇之于我,亦夫妇,亦朋友,亦伴侣。”此婚姻之上乘也。是夜宿其家。

  *  *

  二十三日晨以车归纽约,往访严敬斋(庄)及王君复(夏)于哥伦比亚大学。闻邓孟硕亦在此,访之于其室,相见甚欢。敬斋告我,此间有多人反对余之《非留学篇》,赖同志如王、易鼎新诸君为余辩护甚力。余因谓敬斋曰,“余作文字不畏人反对,惟畏作不关痛养之文字,人阅之与未阅之前同一无影响,则真覆瓿之文字矣。今日作文字,须言之有物,至少亦须值得一驳,愈驳则真理愈出,吾惟恐人之不驳耳。

  与敬斋、君复同餐于中西楼。闻黄克强已去费城。不能一访之,甚怅。

  下午,访韦莲司女士于其寓,纵谈极欢。女士室临赫贞河,是日大雾,对岸景物掩映雾中,风景极佳。以电话招张彭春君会于此间。五时许,与女士同往餐于中西楼。余告女士以近来已决心主张不争主义(Non-resistance)(参看本卷第一则),决心投身世界和平诸团体,作求三年之艾之计。女士大悦,以为此余近第一大捷,且勉余力持此志勿懈。余去夏与女士谈及此问题时,余犹持两端,即十一月中在Syracuse演说The Great War from the Point of View of An Oriental(《从东方的观点看这次大战》)时,犹以国防为不可缓,十二月十二日所记,乃最后之决心。女士知吾思想之变迁甚审,今闻余最后之决心,乃适如其所期望,故大悦也。女士见地之髙,诚非寻常女子所可望其肩背。余所见女子多矣,其真能具思想,识力,魄力,热诚于一身者惟一人耳(参看卷七第一六则及第三五则)。

  是夜宿哥伦比亚大学宿舍,与王严邓三君夜话。邓君当第二次革命前为上海《中华民报》主任,忤政府,为政府所控,受谳于上海租界法庭,罚禁西牢作苦工六月,另罚锾五百元。是夜,邓君自述狱中生活甚动人。

  友朋中尝受囹圄之苦者多矣,若张亦农(耘)辛亥自西安南下,有所谋,途中为西川厅所拘,解至南阳道,居狱中月余,几罹死刑,幸民兵破南阳始得脱。去夏亦农为余道之,竟夕始已。

  *  *

  二十四日以车归。车中读《纽约时报》,见有日本人T. Iyenaga博士所作文论Japan's Position in the World War(《日本在世界大战中的地位》),道远东外交史甚详。其论中国中立问题尤明目张胆,肆无忌惮。其言虽狂妄,然皆属实情。在今日强权世界,此等妄言,都成确论,世衰之为日久矣,我所谓拔本探原之计,岂得已哉!岂得已哉!

  AS TO CHINESE NEUTRALITY

  In undertaking the military operations beyond the war zone prescribed by China, some charge Japan with the violation of China's neutrality. Yes, Japan did violate the neutrality of China in exactly the same sense as England and France would violate the neutrality of Belgium by making it the scene of military operations in their effort to drive out the Germans from that much-harassed country.

  Before Japan landed her troops at Lungkow the Germans in Kiao Chau had been taking military measures in the Shantung Province far beyond the zone within which China asked Germany and Japan to limit their operations. It would, then, have been suicidal for Japan to confine her military action within the so-called war zone. Others again impute to Japan the violation of the principle of China's territorial integrity should she retain Kiao-Chau after the war. I cannot agree with such a construction. Of course, we cannot foretell what final agreement will be made between China and Japan about Kiao-Chau. This much, however, is certain:If the Allies finally win, Japan will have proper claims to make for the blood and treasure expended for the capture of Kiao-Chau and in running the great risk of having for her foe a power so formidable as Germany. Even should Japan decide to retain Kiao- Chau, it would not be a violation of China's integrity, for Kiao-Chau was not a part of China; its complete sovereignty, at least for ninety-nine years, rested in Germany.

  〔中译〕

  论中国之中立

  日本在中国划定的军事区域之外采取军事行动,有人指责说是破坏了中国的中立。是的,日本确实破坏了中国的中立,正如同法国和英国,他们为了将德国人从备受折磨的比利时驱赶出去,便将比利时用作军事行动的战场。他们也肯定是破坏了比利时的中立。

  在日本涉足龙口之前,在胶州湾的德国人就一直在山东省的非军事区采取军事行动。中国早就要求日本和德国限制他们的军事行动。日本如果将自己的行动限制在所谓的军事区之内,那就无异是自取灭亡。又有人指责说如果战后日本仍占有胶州湾,那就是破坏了中国领土的完整。我不能苟同此说。诚然我们不能预见中国和日本就胶州湾最终将达成什么协议。然而有一件事是最要紧的,假若协约国最终获胜,日本将有正当的理由宣称他为了获得胶州湾已经付出了鲜血和金钱的代价,更何况他又冒着极大的风险与德国这样一个可怕的强国结为仇敌。即使日本决定占有胶州湾,这也没有破坏中国领土的完整,因为胶州湾早已不是中国的一部分,胶州湾的主权早已归于德国,至少有九十九年了。

  〔附记〕归绮色佳后三日,君复寄示此论,欲余一一斥驳,余复书曰:“此日人不打自招之供状,不须驳也。”

  车中又读一文,论《不争主义之道德》,则如羯鼓解秽,令人起舞:

  ETHICS OF NON-RESISTANCE

  SIR: In an editorial entitled "Security for Neutrals" inThe New Republic, the argument was advanced that the violation of Belgium proves the necessity of armament in the United States if we would preserve our national interests. "A world in which a Belgium could be violated was a world in which national inoffensiveness offered no security against attack and in which a pacifist democratic ideal would have to fight for its life. " If an ideal must fight for its life, may I suggest that a gun is an ineffective weapon for it? If your gun kills your opponent, naturally he can't be a strong supporter of your ideal. If your gun wounds him, naturally he won't be a strong supporter of your ideal. If you get shot by his gun—by the rules of warfare he will shoot you only if you are trying to shoot him—your ideal loses the only supporter it has. If Belgium and England and France had determined to uphold an ideal, such as democratic antimilitarism, and to persuade Germans to accept their ideal, they were idiotic to go about killing some of the Germans they wished to convert, and getting thousands of their own men—supporters of their ideal—into slaughtertrenches. It is an acknowledgment of lack of faith in the efficacy of an ideal to urge that it must have guns in order to live. If an ideal is worth anything at all it will make its own persuasive appeal to the minds of men, and any gun—protected ideal is likely not to be an ideal at all, but only gun—protected selfishness.

  It was criminal for Belgians to shoot German peasants. It was criminal for German peasants to shoot Belgian factory-hands. On one side it was criminal self-preservation, the Germans fighting for their homes with the fear that if they did not march through Belgium, the French would, and on the other side it was criminal self-preservation, the Belgians fighting for their homes. What more am I saying than that war is hideously wrong? I am saying that war for self-preservation is hideously wrong, that self-preservation at the cost of war is criminal.

  Would I kill a stranger in order to prevent his killing a neighbor? If there were no other way to prevent him—yes—or else I would be guilty of permitting murder. France is the cultural neighbor of Belgium—Germany compared with France is the stranger. Was Belgium therefore justified in trying to prevent Germany from crushing France? By no means, because by resisting Germany, Belgium made it possible for England and France to crush Germany. If my neighbor was bent on murdering the stranger, should I kill the stranger? No, for then I should be abetting murder. Belgium was aiding her neighbor France to murder German soldiers. The only argument that can be offered for Belgium is that she acted in self-defense, but I maintain that the setting up of self-defense above all consideration of others is criminal, for it logically leads in the end to murder.

  The editorial to which I have referred maintained that if Belgium had refused to fight she would have been cowardly. Does the Editor ofThe New Republichold that the Socialists who vowed a year ago that they would refuse to fight, and who quickly joined the ranks when war was declared—does he hold that these men would have been more cowardly than they were if they had stood out against mobilization? Surely one cannot call the Socialists cowards because they did not refuse to fight, and with the same lips say that the Belgians would have been cowards if they had refused to fight. I believe that the man who kills another in self-preservation is a coward. He is a coward because he is so much afraid to lost his property or life that he is actually willing to commit murder. Am I a coward when I declare before God and my conscience that I would refuse to enlist even though there were conscription in the United States to create an army to resist foreign invasion? If I were a Quaker, there are precedents from Civil War times unter which I could legally escape service at the front. But I am not a Quaker. I would probably have to suffer imprisonment or execution for treason. Some of my friends who will read this present statement may despise me. Other young men may sneer at me. Yet I say I would never willingly kill a man to save my own life. Now, do you think me a coward?

  If the people of the United States continue to believe that self-preservation is their highest duty, let them put their trust in armament as the only "security for neutrals". If they ever come to believe what the Greatest Man taught—a doctrine his Church has been denying—they will see that war even in self-defense, like all war, is murder, is criminal and cowardly.

  Frederick J. Pohl

  New York City.

  不争主义之道德

  〔中译〕

  在《新共和》杂志一篇题为《中立国之安全》的社论中,某君提出了这样的观点:由比利时之遭侵略推出结论证明美国为维护国家利益起见必须要有必要的军备。“在这个世界上连比利时都要受到侵犯,那么任何国家的‘不犯人’主义对于任何外来侵略均无安全可言。一个持和平民主之主义的理想主义者,首先必须为自己的生存而斗争。”如果一种理想先得为自己的生存而抗争,那还用我来说明他用以抗争的枪杆子是毫无效用的武器吗?如果你枪杀了你的仇敌,自然他就不可能是你的理想的积极支持者。如果你用枪伤害了他,自然他也不会是你的理想的积极支持者。按照战争规则,如果你要射击他,他也会射击你。万一你被他击中,那么你的理想也就失去了唯一的支持者。如果比利时、英国、法国决心抱民主的反战主义,为了说服德国人接受他们的主义,他们却去屠杀德国人,而这些德国人本是他们打算要说服的,并又使成千上万的自己理想的支持者成为杀人凶手。他们这样做,岂不是白痴吗?如果一种理想必需为了自己的生存去动武抗争的话,这就必定是对自己的力量缺乏信心的表现。任何稍有价值的理想必定是以说服去打动众人之心的。任何用武力维护的理想也就不是理想了,而只不过是武力保护下的利己主义。

  德国农民枪杀比利时工人是犯罪,比利时人枪杀德国农民也是犯罪。德国人担心他们若不假道比利时攻打法国,法国一定会假道比利时攻打他们,因此他们为了保卫自己的家乡而战斗,这种自卫是一种犯罪。同样比利时为保卫自己的家乡而战斗也是一种犯罪,还用我来说明战争是极为错误的么?我要表明的是为自卫而战斗是极为错误的,为了自卫而发动战争就是犯罪。

  为了阻止一个陌生人杀我的邻居,我会去杀这个陌生人吗?如果没有其他的法子好阻止他(确实没有)我又不去杀他,那我岂不是容许杀人而有罪吗?法国人是比利时人有教养的邻居,相比较而言德国人就是那个陌生人了,这样比利时就为自己阻止德国去践踏法国的行为找到了一个辩白的理由了吗?不管怎样比利时阻止了德国,就有可能使英国和法国去侵略德国。

  如果我的邻居没有办法,只好去杀那个陌生人的话,我也要杀那个陌杀人吗?不。不然我就是协同犯罪了。比利时帮助邻居法国杀德国士兵,比利时可能会为自己辩解说,这是自卫行为。但是我以为任何基于不为他人着想的自卫都是犯罪,因为它最终必定会导致杀害别人。

  我刚才提到的那篇文章以为如果比利时拒绝参战,就将被人看作胆小鬼。社会党人在一年以前立誓不参战。可是战争一起,他们便即刻加入战争的队伍。如果他们不这样做,而是站出来反对动员令的话,试问《新共和》的主编,他们哪一种行为更为怯懦呢?当然大家决不会叫社会党人做胆小鬼,因为他们没有拒绝参战。说这话的人又会说比利时若不参战便是胆小鬼。我认为一个人为了保存自己去杀人便是胆小鬼,因为他害怕失去自己的产业和生命,宁可去杀人,他实实在在是一个胆小鬼。如果我面对美利坚合众国为抵御外侮而发起的征兵动员令,敢于当着上帝和自己的良心发誓决不去当兵,我是一个胆小鬼吗?如果我是一个魁克党人,我便可援引内战时期的先例而合法地逃脱军事服务。可我不是一个魁克党人,于是我大约就只好去蹲监狱或是因叛国罪而服刑了。看了我的这篇文章的朋友一定会鄙视我,其他的青年也必定要耻笑我。但是我还是要说,我决不为了救自己的命而去杀人,现在你还认为我是一个胆小鬼么?

  假如美国的国民仍然相信自卫是他们最高的责任,那就让他们去相信军备是中立国安全的唯一保障吧!如果某一天他们终于相信了上帝所倡导的学说(一直遭到他的教会诋毁的学说),那么他们便会明白自卫的战争与其他的战争毫无区别,都是凶手、罪犯、懦夫的作为。

  佛兰德立克·保尔 纽约市

  此君真今日不可多得之人,当觅其住址与结交焉。

  车中忽起一念如下:

  中国之大患在于日本。

  日本数胜而骄,又贪中国之土地利权。

  日本知我内情最熟,知我无力与抗。

  日本欲乘此欧洲大战之时收渔人之利。

  日本欲行门罗主义于亚东。

  总之,日本志在中国,中国存亡系于其手。日本者,完全欧化之国也,其信强权主义甚笃。何则?日本以强权建国,又以强权霸者也。

  吾之所谓人道主义之说,进行之次宜以日本为起点,所谓擒贼先擒王者也。

  且吾以舆论家自任者也,在今日为记者,不可不深知日本之文明风俗国力人心。

  据上两理由,吾不可不知日本之文字语言,不可不至彼居留二三年,以能以日本文著书演说为期。吾国学子往往藐视日本,不屑深求其国之文明,尤不屑讲求沟通两国诚意之道,皆大误也。

  吾其为东瀛三岛之“Missionary”乎?抑为其“Pilgrim”乎?抑合二者于一身欤?吾终往矣!

  夜六时至绮色佳。此次旅行毕凡六日。


梦远书城(guxuo.com)
上一页 回目录 回首页 下一页