2015年10月31日 星期六

1944年12月7日哈佛大學: HU SPEAKS ON CHINA PUZZLE Communist Faction Lagging Claims Former Ambassador



關於《胡適之先生年譜長編初稿-補編》,我看到鍾漢清老師已經在用補編的資料了,解釋胡適先生論三民主義,解釋胡適先生論該打屁股。欣見補編資料被引用。有興趣的朋友可移步鍾漢清老師的部落格「胡適之先生的世界」

hc我對"為什麼刪"有興趣。有的,想不出來,譬如說,1959年3月4日的"中午,應孔德成的宴會。"
1944年度只刪9月的一行:"九月起,先生應哈佛大學之聘。 (趙元任1968.4.15復編者的信)"

-------

根據胡適日記,1944.12.7,他的談話有段他想留給後世的:
中國的戰爭問題是一個在科學與技術上毫無準備的國家,對上軍事產業都是一流的日本。這一問題在起初的七年半都沒改變。直到過去3年中國取得西方的援助,才有所改變。日本更是打從一開始就全心讓中國無法取得西方的援助。 (我的簡略翻譯)
哈佛大學的刊物The Harvard Crimson 隔天即有所報導:對老美而言,中國內部的共產黨抗日說法和史迪威將軍與蔣介石失和的故事,都是老外很有興趣的。此文可了解胡適認為共產黨的抗日論是誇大的,不實的.....史迪威將軍事件,外人都還不清楚。

HU SPEAKS ON CHINA PUZZLE

Communist Faction Lagging Claims Former Ambassador


Hu Shih, professor of Chinese Thought, addressed a group of 50 in the Lowell House Junior Common Room Wednesday night, in a speech sponsored by the International Club, the Harvard Liberal Union, and the Postwar Council.
Admitting the power of the Communist Party in China, and its threat to the Chungking Government, he asserted that the Communists' fight against Japan was not all that it should have been. "How could the Japs," he asked, "have made such great gains in China if the Communist armies had done all that they claim to have done?"
Professor Hu based the ability of China to withstand the ravages of war for almost eight years on four main factors. These are China's vast superiority to Japan in quantity of land and manpower, its intense national patriotism, and its firm belief that the forces of good must eventually overcome those of evil.
On the question of General Stilwell's return, Professor Hu pleaded ignorance, adding that the few who knew couldn't say. He closed his address by pointing out that China's need for aid was greater than ever and urged even closer Chinese-American relations.





























******胡先生後來的想法


China in Stalin's Grand Strategy By Hu Shih, October 1950 Issue
American aid and arms for the Communists in China never materialized. Even President Roosevelt's attempt in 1944 to place General Joseph W. Stilwell in command, under Chiang Kai-shek, of all Chinese forces, "including the Communist forces," did not succeed. The President had said to Chiang Kai-shek: "When the enemy is pressing us toward possible disaster, it appears unsound to reject the aid of anyone who will kill Japanese." But Chiang Kai-shek was opposed to it. His position was supported by the American Ambassador, Patrick J. Hurley. So General Stilwell was recalled. The Chinese Red Army remained poorly armed and ill-equipped. It remained a guerrilla force of great mobility and skill, but as late as the last year of the war, it had not attained the stature of an established army that could face the Japanese enemy or the Government forces in open battles.

2015年10月29日 星期四

2015年胡適紀念演講:從【胡適之先生年譜長編初稿。補篇】看1980年代的台灣出版品的自我審查;胡適:"三民主義" 那可以作經典? (1959)《新文化運動與國民黨》1929

2015年12月20日左右,擬辦一場胡適紀念演講,講題:從【胡適之先生年譜長編初稿。補篇】看1980年代的台灣出版品的自我審查;

----- (時間:2015-09-23 來源:南方都市報(文/林建剛 文史學者))

 第四條涉及胡適的一個學術觀點。前段時間,臺灣出版了《胡適之先生年譜長編初稿》的補編,其中有這樣一條:
  “胡適晚年談話,多次提到愈是邊疆地區的人,愈趨向文化保守和排外。如康有為、梁廷枏、張蔭麟等,都因為是廣東人,那正是中國文化的邊區。”
  有學者商榷説:“胡適地偏人保守的判斷難以完全成立。康有為當然是粵人,但梁啟超這位胸懷開闊的思想領袖不也是粵人麼?處在文化邊緣地帶的人們,感受到異文化的挑戰,煥發出某種保守本位文化的精神很自然,但另外一些人以開放的胸懷接納吸收外來文化也很多見。難以接觸異文化之地也無從吸納異文化。”
  同樣是在這本《胡適之先生年譜長編初稿補編》中還有下面一條記載:“1960年3月27日,胡適對胡頌平説:張蔭麟是廣東人,廣東是我們中國文化的邊區。凡是邊區文化都是守舊的,像梁廷柟、康有為、梁啟超,都是邊區守舊思想的反動,因為邊區先與外國文化溝通的關係。”
  也就是説,胡適認為邊疆地區學者的文化姿態是相反相成的,既有極端保守的一面,又有極端開風氣的一面。而這種開風氣的一面,一方面源於對保守思想的反動,另一方面也源於西方文化的刺激。梁啟超的出現,恰恰就是源於這樣的思想文化氛圍


----

近日雙十節的"唱國歌"成為一話題。大家都注意"吾黨",很少人談"三民主義"。請參考胡適之先生的看法:

【胡適之先生年譜長編初稿。補篇】1959.2.20

先生談起當年在中公校長任內,有人請他把孫中山先生的全集看了一遍,那些是中山先生的真心話,那些是國共時代臨時應付的話,去泰去甚,作一番整理的工作。先生看了一遍,寫了一篇{知難行亦不易}的文章,在一個很小的【吳淞月刊】登出來。誰知這小小的刊物,竟會引起大風潮。三民主義是當時中山先生的講演,筆記者有些地方還不明瞭中山先生的原意。這種講演的筆記,那可以作經典?




【三民主義、吾黨所宗……】

我們的國歌其實是黃埔軍校的校歌,後來變成國民黨的黨歌,再後來變成國歌。一個以民族主義為號召的軍校,信奉精神領袖的學說,那樣的校歌是非常貼切的。問題在於,把黨歌推成國歌這種把一國等同一黨的行徑本身其實已經是反民主主義了。





  新文化運動與國民黨

    胡適


  中國本來是一個由美德築成的黃金世界。

今年雙十節,我在杭州車站買了一張杭州報紙的雙十節號,忽然看見這一句大膽的話。我嚇了一大跳,連忙揩揩眼鏡,仔細研讀,原來是中央宣傳部長葉楚傖先生的大文,題目是《由党的力行來挽回風氣》,葉部長說:

  中國本來是一個由美德築成的黃金世界。自從覺羅皇帝,
袁皇帝,馮爵帥,徐閣老,以及文武百官,衣缽相傳,掘下個
大坑,政治道德掃地無遺。洋大人,外交人才,買辦,跑街,
以及西崽,也掘下個大坑,民族氣節又掃地無遺。張獻忠,白
蓮教,紅燈罩,共產黨,——這一套;保皇黨,研究系,同善
社,性欲叢書,——這又一套:大家在那裏焙奇鬥勝,分頭並
作,一坑又一坑,將社會風尚又攪成個落花流水。這樣一個不
幸的環境擺佈在眼前,憑你是誰,偶一不慎,便會失足滅頂。

  我看完了這一篇文章,心裏很有點感觸。這一個月以來,我時時想到葉楚傖先生的話,時時問自己:覺羅皇帝以前的中國,是不是一個由美德築成的黃金世界

   這個問題是一個很重要的問題,因為這是今日我們不能避免的新舊文化問題的一個重要之點。如果三百年前的中國真是一個由美德築成的黃金世界,那麼,我 們還做什麼新文化運動呢?我們何不老老實實地提倡復古呢?黃金世界既然在三百年前,我們只須努力回到覺羅皇帝以前的美德築成的黃金世界就是了。

   不幸葉部長的名論終不能叫我們心服。葉部長做了幾年大事業,似乎把中國歷史忘記了。葉部長似乎忘了女子纏足已有了一千年的歷史,全國士子做八股也有五六 百年的歷史,張獻忠之前也曾有過魏忠賢,魏忠賢之前有過劉謹,劉謹之前也曾有過仇士良,有過十常侍。葉部長似乎又忘了白蓮教之前也曾有過提倡燒紙焚身的佛 教,也曾有過最下流的拜生殖器的各種中古宗教。葉部長似乎又忘了張競生博士以前也曾有過提倡餓死事極小,失節事極大的吃人禮教和無數無數血淚築成的貞 節碑坊。葉部長似乎又忘了洋大人和外交人才以前也曾有過五胡之亂和遼金元的征服。

  然而葉部長正式宣傳道,三百年前的中國本來是一個由美德築成的黃金世界

  我們從新文化運動者的立場,不能不宣告葉部長在思想上是一個反動分子,他所代表的思想是反動的思想。

   我們看了葉部長的言論以後,不能不進一步質問:葉部長所代表的反動思想究競有幾分可以代表國民黨?國民黨時時打起剷除封建勢力,打倒封建思想的旗 幟,何以國民黨中的重要人物會發表這樣擁護傳統文化的反動思想呢?究竟國民黨對於這個新舊文化的問題抱什麼態度呢?在近年的新文化運動史上國民黨占什麼地 位呢?

  要解答這幾個問題,我們不能不先看看國民黨當國以來實地設施的事實。我們可以舉幾組的事實做例。

  近年的新文化運動的最重要的方面是所謂文學革命。前兩個月,有一位國民黨黨員張振之先生發表了一篇《知難行易的根本問題》,內中引了戴季陶先生在《國民革命與中國國民黨》內說的話,戴先生說:

  再說民國三年的時候,大家倘若肯一致贊成文字革命
的主張,以革命黨的黨義來鼓吹起來,何至於要等到民國八年
才讓陳獨秀胡適之來出風頭?(今年八月升八日上海民國日報)

   誰來出風頭,這是極小的事。但是我們至少要期望一個革命政府成立之日就宣佈一切法令公文都改用國語。這點子小小風頭,總應有人敢出吧?但是國民黨當國已 近兩年了,到了今日,我們還不得不讀駢文的函電,古文的宣言,文言的日報,文言的法令!國民黨天天說要效法土耳其,但新土耳其居然採用了拉丁字母了,而我 們前幾天還在恭讀國民政府文官長古應芬先生打給閻錫山先生的駢四倔六的賀電!

  在徐世昌做總統,傅岳芬做教育總長的時代,他們居然敢 下令廢止文言的小學教科書,改用國語課本。但小學用國語課本,而報紙和法令公文仍舊用古文,國語的推行是不會有多大效力的;因為學了國語文而不能看報,不 能做訪員,不配做小書記,誰還肯熱心去學白話呢?一個革命的政府居然維持古文駢文的壽命,豈不是連徐世昌傅嶽芬的膽氣都沒有嗎?

  在這一點上,我們不能不說今日國民政府所代表的國民黨是反動的。

   再舉思想自由作例。新文化運動的一件大事業就是思想的解放。我們當日批評孔孟,彈劾程朱,反對孔教,否認上帝,為的是要打倒一尊的門戶,解放中國的思想,提倡懷疑的態度和批評的精神而已。但共產黨和國民黨協作的結果,造成了一個絕對專制的局面,思想言論完全失了自由。上帝可以否認,而孫中山不許批評。 禮拜可以不做,而總理遺囑不可不讀,紀念周不可不做。一個學者編了一部歷史教科書,裏面對於三皇五帝表示了一點懷疑,便引起了國民政府諸公的義憤,便有戴 季陶先生主張要罰商務印書館一百萬元!一百萬元雖然從寬豁免了,但這一部很好的歷史教科書,曹銀吳佩字所不曾禁止的,終於不准發行了!

   至於輿論呢?我們花了錢買報紙看,卻不准看一點確實的新聞,不准讀一點負責任的評論。一個負責任的學者說幾句負責任的話,討論一個中國國民應該討論的問 題,便惹起了五六個省市黨部出來呈請政府通緝他,革掉他的校長,嚴辦他,剝奪他的公權2然而蔣介石先生在北平演說,葉楚倫先生在南京演說,都說:上海的各 大報怎麼沒有論說呢?

  所以在思想言論自由的一點上,我們不能不說國民政府所代表的國民黨是反動的。

  再舉文化 問題本身做個例。新文化運動的根本意義是承認中國舊文化不適宜於現代的環境,而提倡充分接受世界的新文明。但國民黨至今日還在那裏高唱抵制文化侵略 還在那裏高談王道精神文明!還在那裏提倡國術打擂臺!把孔廢止了,但兩個軍人(魯滌平,何鍵)的一道電報便可以叫國民政府馬上恢復孔子紀念日。中央宣傳部長葉楚傖現在對我們宣傳中國本來是一個由美德築成的黃金世界,但葉部長還把這個黃金世界放在覺羅皇帝以前。去年何鍵先生便更進一 步,說現在的思想紊亂和道德墮落都是陳匪獨秀胡適兩個人的罪惡了!我們等著吧,回到黃金世界的喊聲大概不久就會起來了。

  所以在這對文化問題的態度上,我們也不能不說國民黨是反動的。

  以上不過列舉三項事實來說明,至少從新文化運動的立場看來,國民黨是反動的。

   這些事實不是孤立的,也不是偶然的。國民黨對於新文化運動的態度,國民黨對於中國舊文化的態度,都有歷史的背景和理論的根據。根本上國民黨的運動是一種極端的民族主義的運動,自始便含有保守的性質,便含有擁護傳統文化的成分。因為國民黨本身含有這保守性質,故起來了一些保守的理論。這種理論便是後來當國 時種種反動行為和反動思想的根據了。

  這個解釋並不是砥誣國民黨,也不是菲薄國民黨,只是敍述一件歷史事實,用來解釋一些現象。這個歷史事實的說明,也許還可以給國民黨中的青年分子一個自覺地糾正這種反動傾向的機會。

   本來凡是狹義的民族主義的運動,總合有一點保守性,往往傾向到頌揚固有文化,抵抗外來文化勢力的一條路上去。這是古今中外的一個通例,國民黨自然不是例 外。試看拿破崙以後的德國民族運動,普法戰爭以後的法國民族運動,試讀民族國家主義的哲學的創始者菲希脫(Fichte)的《告德國國民書》,便可以明白 這個歷史通例。凡受外力壓迫越厲害,則這種擁護舊文化的態度越堅強。例如印度人在英國統治之下,大多數民族主義者都竭力替印度舊宗教舊文化辯護。有時候他 們競故意作違心之論。前年我在康橋大學的世界學生會茶會上談話,指出東方文明的弱點;散會之後,幾個印度學生陪我走回寓,他們都說我的主張不錯,但他們卻 不便如此公開主張。我說,為什麼不說老實話呢?他們說:如果今天我們印度學生這樣批評東方文明,明天英國報紙上便要說我們承認英國統治了。Johann Gottlieb Fichte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   中國的民族主義的運動所以含有誇大舊文化和反抗新文化的態度,其根本原因也是因為在外力壓迫之下,總有點不甘心承認這種外力背後的文化。這裏面含有很強 的感情作用,故偏向理智的新文化運動往往抵不住這種感情的保守態度。國民黨裏便含有這種根據於民族感情的保守態度,這是不可諱也不必諱的歷史事實。國民黨的力量在此,他的弱點也在此。

  中國的新文化運動起于戊戌維新運動,戊戌運動的意義是要推翻舊有的政制而採用新的政制。後來梁啟超先 生辦新民叢報,自稱中國之新民,著了許多篇新民說,指出中國舊文化缺乏西方民族的許多美德,如公德,國家思想,冒險,權利思想,自由,自治, 進步,合群,毅力,尚武等等;他甚至於指出中國人缺乏私德2這樣推祟西方文明而指斥中國固有的文明,確是中國思想史上的一個新紀元。同時吳研人,劉鐵雲, 李伯元等人的譴責小說,竭力攻擊中國政治社會的腐敗情形,也是取同樣的一種態度。

  但那時國內已起了一種保存國粹的運動。這運動有兩方面。王先謙,葉德輝,毛慶善諸人的存古運動,自然是完全反動的,我們且不論。還有一方面是一班新少年也起來做保存國粹的運動,設立國學保存 ,辦國粹學報,開神州國光社,創立南社。他們大都是抱著種族革命的志願的,國粹保存者。他們極力表章宋末明末的遺民,借此鼓吹種族革命; 他們也做過一番整理國故的工作,但他們不是為學問而做學問,只是借學術來鼓吹種族革命並引起民族的愛國心。他們的運動是一種民族主義的運動,所以他們的領 袖人才,除了鄧實劉光漢幾個人之外,至今成為國民黨的智識分子。柳亞子,陳去病,黃節,葉楚傖,邵力子……先生都屬於這個運動。因為這個緣故,國民黨中自始便含有保存國粹國光的成分。

  孫中山先生雖然不是國粹學報或南社中人,但他對於中國固有的文明也抱一種頌揚擁護的態度。他是一個基督徒,又是一個世界主義者,但他的民族思想很強,到了晚年更認定民族主義是俄國革命成功的要素,故在他的三民主義第四第六講裏很有許多誇大中國古文化的話。例如他說:

  我們中國四萬萬人不但是很和平的民族,並且很文明的民
族。近來歐洲盛行的新文化,和所講的無政府主義與共產主義,
都是我們中國幾千年以前的舊東西。……
  我們中國的新青年,未曾過細研究中國的舊學說,便以為
這些學說就是世界頂新的了,殊不知道在歐洲是最新的,在中
國,就有了幾千年了。(第四講)

  這種說法,在中山先生當時不過是隨便說說,而後來三民主義成為一黨的經典,這種一時的議論便很可以助長頑固思想,養成誇大狂的心理,而阻礙新思想的傳播。

  中山先生又說:

  歐洲之所以駕乎我們中國之上的,不是政治哲學,完全
是物質文明。……至於講到政治哲學的真諦,歐洲人還要求
之於中國。(第四講)

他又說:

  講到中國固有的道德,中國人至今不能忘記的,首是忠
孝,次是仁愛,其次是信義,其次是和平。這些舊道德,中
國人至今還是常講的。但是現在受外來民族的壓迫,侵入了
新文化;那些新文化的勢力此刻橫行中國。一般醉心新文化
的人,便排斥舊道德,以為有了新文化便可以不要舊道德。
不知道我們固有的東西,如果是好的,當然是要保存,不好
的才可以放棄。(第六講)

   這些話都可以表示中山先生實在不能瞭解當時的新文化運動的態度。新文化運動的大貢獻在於指出歐洲的新文明不但是物質文明比我們中國高明,連思想學術,文 學美術,風俗道德都比我們高明的多。陳獨秀先生曾指出新文化運動只是擁護兩位先生,一位是賽先生(科學),一位是德先生(民治)。吳稚渾先生後來加上一位 穆拉爾姑娘(道德)。中山先生既歡迎科學,又分明推祟民治政治,卻不幸在這裏極力用誇大的口氣,抬高中國的舊政治思想和舊道德,說話之間稍有輕重,便使讀 者真以為中山先生相信歐洲的新文化都是我們中國幾千年以前的舊東西了。這種附會的見解,在三四十年前的老新黨的言論裏毫不足奇怪,但在中山先生的講演 裏便是很可詫異,更可惋惜的了。

  中山先生又曾說:
  中國從前的忠孝仁愛信義種種的舊道德,固然是駕乎
外國人,說到和平的道德,更是駕乎外國人。(第六講)

   三十年周遊歐美的孫中山先生尚且說這樣沒有事實根據的話,怪不得不曾出國門的葉楚倫先生要說中國本來是一個由美德築成的黃金世界了!在這一點上,我 們不能不佩服吳稚輝先生的偉大。他老人家在六十歲時還能大膽地宣言中國人的道德低淺,而西洋人的道德高明。孫中山先生也並非不明白這種事實,不過他正在講民族主義,故不能不繞彎子,爭面子。例如他講仁愛,曾說:

  照這樣實行一方面講起來,仁愛的好道德,中國現在
似乎還不如外國。中國所以不如的原故,不過是中國人對
于仁愛沒有外國人那樣實行。但是仁愛還是中國的舊道德。

   這是很費力的回護。更隔幾分鐘,他便輕輕地宣言中國從前的仁愛也是駕乎外國人的了。吳稚輝先生是個世界主義者,沒有衛道的熱心,故他敢老實說西洋人什麼仁義道德,孝梯忠信,吃飯睡覺,無一不較有作法,較有熱心。但吳老先生這種論調是國民黨中的國粹分子所不能瞭解的。

  以上 所說,都可以證明國民黨的歷史上本來便充滿著這保存國粹和誇大傳統文化的意味。民國八年五月以後,國民黨受了新文化運動的大震動,決計加入新文化的工作, 故這種歷史的守舊性質和衛道態度暫時被壓下去了,不很表現在星期評論建設覺悟的論壇裏。民國十三年改組以後,國民黨中吸收了許多少年新分子,党的 大權漸漸移入一班左傾的激烈分子手裏,稍稍保守的老黨員都被擯斥了。所以這種歷史的反動傾向更不容易出現了。直到近兩年中,鐘擺又回到極右的一邊,國民黨 中的暴烈分子固然被淘汰了,而稍有革新傾向的人也就漸漸被這淘汰的運動趕出黨外,於是國民黨中潛伏著的守舊勢力都一一活動起來,造成今日的反動局面。

   即如上文指出國民黨對於文學革命的態度,我們從歷史上看去,毫不足奇怪。許多國民黨的領袖人物,如孫中山,汪精衛,王寵惠諸先生對於新文學運動都曾表示不贊成的態度。國粹保存家與南社詩人反對新文學,更不用說了。中山先生在孫文學說第三章裏,很明白地說古文勝於白話,他說:

  言語有變遷而無進化,而文字則雖仍古昔,其使用之
技術實日見精研。所以中國語言為世界中之粗劣者;往往
文字可達之意,言語不得而傳。是則中國人非不善為文,
而拙於用語者也。亦惟文字可傳久迄,故古人所作,模仿
匪難;至於言語,非無傑語,非無傑出之士妙於修辭,而
流風餘韻無所寄託,隨時代而俱泛,故學者無所繼承。然
則文字有進化而言語轉見退步者,非無故矣。抑歐洲文字
基於音韻,音韻即表言語,言語有變,文字即可隨之。中
華制字以象形會意為主,所以言語雖殊,而文字不能與之
俱變。要之,此不過為言語之不進步,而中國人民非有所
聞於文字。歷代能文之士,其所創作,突過外人,則公論
所歸也。

   這種見解的大錯誤,九年前我在《國語的進化》一篇裏(胡適文存卷三國語文法概論)已有詳細的駁論了。中山先生此書成於民國八年春間,在新青年同人提倡 文學革命之後二年,他這種議論大概是暗指這個運動的。他在當時很不贊成白話文學的主張,這是很明白的。這種議論雖然是他個人一時的錯誤,但也很可以作為後 來國民黨中守舊分子反對新文學的依據。中山先生有手不釋卷的名譽,又曾住過歐美,他尚且說中國歷代能文之士,其所創作,突過外人,得一班不能讀外 國文學的國粹家和南社文人要擁護古文駢文了。

  民國八年五月以後;國民黨的刊物幾乎都改用白話了,星期評論覺悟成了南方的新文學重 要中心。然而十年之後,革命的國民黨成了專政的國民黨了,新文學和新思想的假面具都可以用不著了,於是保存國粹的喊聲漸漸起來,於是古文駢文的死灰又複燃 了。八九年前在新文學的旗幟之下搖旗呐喊的人物,到今年雙十節便公然宣告胡適的嘗試集和同善社和性欲叢書是同樣害人的惡勢力了。這種情形,毫不足奇怪,因 為在擁護古文駢文的局面之下,嘗試集當然成了罪魁禍首了。這不是死文學的僵屍復活,這不過是國民黨原有的反動思想的原形呈現而已。

   我們這樣指出國民黨歷史上的反動思想,目的只是要國民黨的自覺。一個在野政客的言論是私人的言論,他的錯誤是他自身的責任。但一個當國的政黨的主張便成了 一國的政策的依據,便是一國的公器,不是私人責任的問題了。一個當國專政的政黨的思想若含有不合時代的反動傾向,他的影響可以阻礙一國文化的進步。所以我 們對於國民黨的經典以及党中領袖人物的反動思想,不能 不用很誠實的態度下懇切的指摘。過去歷史上的錯誤是不用諱飾的;但這種錯誤思想,若不討論個明白分曉,往往可以有很大的惡影響;個人的偏見可以成為統治全國的政策;一時的謬論可以成為教育全國的信條。所以我們要明白指出國民黨裏有許多思想在我們新文化運動者的眼裏是很反動的。如果國民黨的青年人們不能自覺 地糾正這種反動思想,那麼,國民黨將來只能漸漸變成一個反時代的集團,決不能作時代的領導者,決不能擔負建立中國新文化的責任。

  孫中山先生在五四運動以後曾有很熱烈的讚歎新文化運動的話,他說:

  自北京大學學生發生五四運動以來,一般愛國青年無不以
新思想為將來革新事業之預備,於是蓬蓬勃勃,發抒言論。國
內各界輿論一致同倡。各種新出版物為熱心青年所舉辦者,紛
紛應時而出,揚葩吐豔,各極其致。社會遂蒙絕大之影響。雖
以頑劣之偽政府,猶且不敢攖其鋒。此種新文化運動在我國今
日誠思想界空前之大變動。推原其始,不過由於出版界之一二
覺悟者從事提倡。遂至輿論放大異彩,學潮彌漫全國,人皆激
發天良,誓死為愛國之運動。倘能繼長增高,其將來收效之偉
大又久遠者,可無疑也。吾党欲收革命之成功,必有賴於思想
之變化。兵法攻心,語曰革心,皆此之故。故此種新文化運動
實為最有價值之事。( 九年一月二十九日,與海外同志募款籌
辦印刷機關書——孫中山全集,三民公司本,第四集,二,頁
二七——二八) 孫中山生著作資料庫

   中山先生在此時雖然只把新文化運動看作政治革命的一種有力的工具,但他已很明白地承認吾黨欲收革命之成功,必有賴於思想之變化。今日的國民黨到處念 革命尚未成功,卻全不想促進思想之變化!所以他們天天摧殘思想自由,壓迫言論自由,妄想做到思想的統一。殊不知統一的思想只是思想的僵化,不是 謀思想的變化。用一個人的言論思想來統一思想,只可以供給一些不思想的人的黨義考試夾帶品,只可以供給一些黨八股的教材,決不能變化思想,決不能靠此 革命之成功

  十年以來,國民黨所以勝利,全靠國民黨能有幾分新覺悟,能明白思想變化的重要。故民國七八年之間,孫中山先生還反對 白話文,而八年五四運動以後,中山先生便命他的同志創辦星期評論和建設雜誌,參加新文化運動。這便是國民黨的思想之變化。十三年的改組,便是充分 吸收新文化運動的青年,這又是國民黨的思想之變化。八年的變化使國民黨得著全國新勢力的同情。十三年的變化使國民黨得著革命的生力軍。這是歷史的事 實。

  現在國民黨所以大失人心,一半固然是因為政治上的設施不能滿人民的期望,一半卻是因為思想的僵化不能吸引前進的思想界的同情。前進的思想界的同情完全失掉之日,便是國民黨油於燈草盡之時。

  國民黨對於我這篇歷史的研究,一定有很生氣的。其實生氣是損人不利己的壞脾氣。國民黨的忠實同志如果不願意自居反動之名,應該做點真實不反動的事業來給我們看看。至少至少,應該做到這幾件事:

  (1)廢止一切鬼話文的公文法令,改用國語。
  (2)通令全國日報,新聞論說一律改用白話。
  (3)廢止一切鉗制思想言論自由的命令,制度,機關。
  (4)取消統一思想與黨化教育的迷夢。
  (5)至少至少,學學專制帝王,時時下個求直言的詔令!

  如果這幾件最低限度的改革還不能做到,那麼,我的骨頭燒成灰,將來總有人會替國民黨上反動的縊號的。


  十八,十一,十九
  (《新月》267)

2015年10月28日 星期三

胡適住康乃爾大學Cascadilla Gorge 旁的宿舍

the author unkown.

HU SHI, CORNELL CLASS OF 1914, may be counted among the most important alumni Cornell University has ever produced; some say he is the most important of all. Yet there still remains a discrepancy between name and recognition, between historical impact and local Ithaca lore. 
  A brief sketch of Hu Shi (or Su Hu, as he styled himself here for a while) must include his birth, which can be safely assumed to have taken place in Shanghai on Dec. 17, 1891.
 Dr. Hu‘s Early Life 
  
  
  HU SHI, CORNELL CLASS OF 1914, may be counted among the most important alumni Cornell University has ever produced; some say he is the most important of all. Yet there still remains a discrepancy between name and recognition, between historical impact and local Ithaca lore. 
  
  A brief sketch of Hu Shi (or Su Hu, as he styled himself here for a while) must include his birth, which can be safely assumed to have taken place in Shanghai on Dec. 17, 1891. This was a time when Charles Darwin was much discussed in intellectual circles east and west, and the end of the authoritative and aristocratic Chinese imperial system became foreseeable. The first Chinese newspapers started to take hold, and the creation of a public sphere of opinion would permeate the entire country. A few years later, in 1910-11, public opinion would play a huge role in the process of China‘s revolution. In fact when Hu Shi was asked, in 1942, what he liked best about the United States, he answered: "The press!" 
  
  Hu Shi was in Beijing around the time of the Chinese revolution, studying at one of the newly established universities. He applied for a scholarship, which brought him to Cornell University in the fall of 1910 where he embarked on studies in agriculture. He abandoned that field rather quickly to address the more existentialist questions offered by history, philosophy, and the arts. He was hailed as the "incurable optimist" by his close friend Elmer Eugene Barker in his Personal Recollections of a Great Humanist‘s Intellectual Development of 1962. Hu graduated with his B.A. in 1914 after four years of undergraduate and one year of graduate studies. In his later Cornell years, he lived in a rooming house for instructors at the edge of Cascadilla Gorge, one of the two beautiful ravines that border the Cornell campus. 
From Old to New 
  
  
  Hu went on to receive his Ph.D. from Columbia two years later. His thesis was on the development of logical thought in ancient China, a comparative analysis in which John Dewey‘s pragmatism (Dewey was his teacher at Columbia) figured most prominently as a theoretical model. Returning home to China, Hu Shi (now Dr. Hu) taught at Peking University, the intellectual center of China‘s literary renaissance movement. Hu is directly credited with sparking this renaissance, and Ithaca‘s Cayuga Lake figures rather prominently in this development. According to Hu‘s belief in the "immortality of words," a canoe ride on the lake changed the intellectual fortunes of an entire nation. 
  
  As the story goes, a party of Chinese Cornellians entertained guests from other campuses, including a female student from Vassar College. When the group decided to go boating on Cayuga Lake, a freak storm almost brought disaster upon them, resulting in their "thorough drenching." Subsequently, they built a fire on land to dry their clothes, and in true Chinese fashion, Hoong C. Zen (Class of 1916), a member of the group, composed a poem of traditional diction to commemorate the incident. Zen‘s antiquated style of expression so infuriated Hu Shi, to whom the poem was respectfully submitted for criticism, that Hu started a vigorous discussion about the pros and cons of contemporary modes of expression. The discussion resulted in his call for abolishing the terse and, as perceived by most Chinese, incomprehensible language of the traditional literati and substituting it with the vernacular language, which he claimed was much more suited to debating pressing contemporary issues. 
  
  The impact of this discussion, already started earlier in the 1890s but greatly amplified by Hu from Ithaca, was a complete paradigm shift in the way the new nation of China would henceforth communicate. In a magazine article published in China, Hu demanded that all literary matter be written in the common language of everyday use. The article propelled Hu, at age 27, into the top 12 most influential celebrities of his country. It is hard to underestimate the impact of this literary renaissance. When the Chinese minister of education in 1920 ordered that all textbooks and popular educational reading matter be rewritten in the vernacular tongue, an entire nation was finally able to access a regular, modernized education. 

 Political and Scholarly Influence 
  
  
  Hu‘s influence did not end with the literary revolution he helped to bring about. Being extremely interested in politics and the economy, Hu was sent to America by the Generalissimo Jiang Kai-shek as ambassador (1938-1942). Legend has it that he was once asked to become president of China, to which he responded that he was a scholar who couldn‘t keep his own desk clean, let alone run an entire country. Hu returned to the United States to live in New York in the 1950s and served as the Chinese delegate to the United Nations and the curator of the Gest Library at Princeton University and was a highly productive scholar. Hu Shi passed away in 1962, two years before the Cultural Revolution would sweep his native country clean of everything considered to hamper the progress of the socialist revolution. Both his son Tsu-wang and his grandson Fu Victor graduated from Cornell University in 1942 and 1978, respectively. 
  
  Throughout his life, Hu received numerous honors, awards, and medals as well as 30 honorary doctorates. As literary output goes, his published writings were compiled into 37 volumes. A bibliography of his unpublished writings fills up to 32 pages. A postage stamp was issued in his honor, and there are buildings named after him. 
  
  The Wason Collection has a huge amount of material on Hu Shi, including pieces handwritten or collected by him. For example, while in Japan, Hu purchased original letters of famous Chinese literati and officials. These 16 volumes are unique testimonies to the literary and political life in 18th- and 19th-century China. The very first edition of the famed Dream of the Red Chamber (Hong lou meng) is among the items constituting the Hu Shi Collection in the Rare and Manuscript Collections. Rubbings, autographs, and photographs complete the materials on the Cornell alumnus, whom Martin W. Sampson, one of Cornell‘s most respected English professors, honored by saying: "If in 2,000 years Cornell should cease to exist, it may well be remembered as the place that educated Hu Shi." At the time this statement was made, Hu was still in his 30s. 

  Jerome B. Grieder. Hu Shih and the Chinese Renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese Revolution, 1917-1937. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. 
  
  This is an exploration first of Hu Shi as a liberal philosopher, and secondly of the inherent problems posed by the application of liberal philosophy to China in the early twentieth century. As such, it is both an intellectual biography and the history of a larger struggle over politics and culture. The narrative begins with Hu Shi‘s childhood in a fatherless house and the contradictory influences of his mother, who was at once a "traditional" Chinese woman and a supporter of a "modern" education for her son. To achieve this education, Hu moved to Shanghai where he learned skepticism from the Song-dynasty writer Sima Guang and was exposed to the West through Liang Qichao and Yan Fu. 
  
  By this time already committed to the quest of modernizing China, in 1910 Hu won a Boxer Indemnity scholarship to enroll at Cornell, where he quickly came under the influence of liberal political philosophy in general and John Dewey‘s experimentalism in particular. Upon his return to China in 1917, Hu Shi became a leader in the New Culture movement, his most celebrated historical role. While he continued throughout the 1920s and 1930s to participate actively in culture and politics, his influence went into a slow decline as his ideas lost relevance in the escalating fever of revolution. However, Grieder notes that his contribution to scholarship on China‘s literature and history continued to play an important role, particularly in the inspiration of other writers. Grieder suggests further research in two interesting appendices: one on "the women in Hu‘s life," and the other on the 1950s attack on Hu in the PRC. 
  
  Grieder‘s ultimate concern is the evaluation of Hu Shi‘s liberal thought in light of its incontrovertible failure. It failed not because Hu sought blindly to apply Western ideas without concern for China‘s own traditions. Rather, Hu proposed that the Hanxue scholarship arising in the early Qing dynasty rested on the same methods as Western science, a strategy similar to the later Communist invocation of a "popular tradition" in Chinese history. Nor was the failure due to a lack of concern for political process, despite Hu‘s aversion to narrowly defined political action. Rather, an interest in governmental institutions as a means to protect the rights of individuals once the nation-state had been built was what distinguished Hu and his contemporary liberals from earlier political thinkers like Liang Qichao and Yen Fu. 
  
  Hu himself failed, in Grieder‘s analysis, in his elitist conflation of his own understanding of "freedom" (that of individual thought) with the desires of the people for freedom from hunger and oppression. The failure of the greater cause of liberal reform in China failed for related though different reasons. The gradual process of social evolution, while perhaps relevant to literary reform and other intellectual movements, could not provide the solution to China‘s pressing needs for social transformation. Liberalism is itself paradoxical in this respect: democracy can only arise from a democratic society; it offers no source of power other than public opinion, which cannot be effective in a system driven by brute force. Tragically, China‘s liberals were forced either to abandon their liberalism for the politically more realistic cause of revolution or, as Hu Shi, to hold on to their liberalism and become increasingly irrelevant. This is the same dilemma with which Chow Tse-tsung and James Thomson (among others) have wrestled, and their conclusions, though differing in particulars, are largely in agreement. 
  
  Grieder found inspiration for this study, begun in 1955, in the communist attack on Hu Shi then in full swing. Despite his conclusion that liberalism could not have succeeded in revolutionary China, he is saddened by this failure of "what we ourselves might have hoped to see done" (p. 347). This sentiment clearly resonated with reviewers of the time, who had little but praise for Grieder‘s sensitive and detailed approach for this vitally important figure. 
  
  See Edward Rhoads (The American Historical Review, 76.4:1207-8), C. P. Fitzgerald (Pacific Affairs, 44.3:432), and David Roy (Journal of Asian Studies, 30.2:440-2) for contemporary reviews. 
  



----

He was hailed as the "incurable optimist" by his close friend Elmer Eugene Barker in his Personal Recollections of a Great Humanist‘s Intellectual Development of 1962. Hu graduated with his B.A. in 1914 after four years of undergraduate and one year of graduate studies. In his later Cornell years, he lived in a rooming house for instructors at the edge of Cascadilla Gorge, one of the two beautiful ravines that border the Cornell campus.


2015.10.27

360 view of Cascadilla Gorge.



Cornell UniversitySàtísh Khànál
2月18日 23:46 ·


Cornell right now: Frozen falls in Cascadilla Gorge.