【正文】 irst, and cover the roots again with earth, thus giving the tree time to readjust itself. In the second year the main root on the opposite side would be cut and again covered up. In the third year, after marking the directions of the four sides of the trunk, the tree was removed, and at the time of transplanting, care was taken that the tree faced the same way as it did in the original site. p. 365The chapter closes with the death of Chaoyun on July 5, 1095, her burial,his poems to her, and the order for his exile to the island of Hainan.Chapter Twentyseven, Outside China (pp. 369383), starts with thecontinued oppession of the Yuanyu scholars and Sus uniqueness in beingsent to Hainan, largely inhabited by Loi. First he met with his brother.The chapter tells of the pracise of sacrificing cows to obtain cures, ofSus view that the Loi deserved justice, and force without fairness wouldnot work. Theres more on Sus enjoyment of the simple lifestyle, on hisknowledge of herbs, on his friendships, on his literary works, includinghis mentaries on the I Ching and THE ANALECTS, as well as on THE BOOKOF HISTORY this last pleted now.Chapter Twentyeight, The End (pp. 384395), begins with the death ofthe emperor and the end of Sus exile. There was death on Sus returnjourney, including of the old carefree Taoist Wu Fuku and six servants ofchildren in the party. In June 1101, Su came down with what Lin Yutangfeels may be amoebic dysentry. Several weeks later, on July 28, he died.The book has a chronological summary, bibliographical notes in English,bibliography in Chinese, a list in English and in Chinese of significantpersonalities, an index, a map of China in Sus day, and about eightplates, including a portrait of Su by Li Lungmien.This sensitive portrayal of the life of so talented, courageous andendearing a person is very highly remended.關(guān)于蘇東坡賦英譯本的錢序 　　　　《讀書(shū)》一九九四年第二期柳葉先生介紹英譯《蘇東坡文選》的文章，談到了錢鐘書(shū)先生的書(shū)評(píng)、序和《談藝錄》中的有關(guān)記載；但又說(shuō)沒(méi)讀到錢序，推測(cè)是為再版寫的。對(duì)于柳先生淘舊書(shū)的福氣，真是羨慕之至。蘇東坡和錢鐘書(shū)是筆者最喜歡的兩位文學(xué)家，而這本書(shū)也是向往已久而又自知既不可求也無(wú)緣遇的，羨慕之余，便也來(lái)湊湊熱鬧?！　∈昵埃甲x海外學(xué)人陳幼石所著《韓柳歐蘇古文論》一書(shū)，見(jiàn)到書(shū)里引用了李高潔(陳誤譯為“克拉克”，Le Gros Clark是三字姓)《蘇東坡的賦》的錢序(《The PurePoetry of Su Tungpo》，一九六三年紐約Panagon再版，Pure當(dāng)為Prose之誤)，被吊起胃口而又不能解饞，就冒昧寫信向錢先生借閱。錢先生很快回函告知，李高潔英譯蘇賦于一九三五年由Kelly ＆ Wabsh出版，序言憶作于一九三四年；該書(shū)已遺失，“無(wú)存稿，也不想存稿”。后來(lái)到了廈門大學(xué)，鄭朝宗先生授我一本陸文虎學(xué)長(zhǎng)編的《錢鐘書(shū)詩(shī)文輯》油印稿，其中有用英文寫的《蘇東坡的文學(xué)背景及其賦》，就是這篇序言，原文載于一九三四年六月出版的《學(xué)文月刊》一卷二期。從時(shí)間先后來(lái)看，柳先生的推測(cè)應(yīng)該是大致不差的?！　≡诠糯骷抑校K軾應(yīng)該是與錢鐘書(shū)最具相同點(diǎn)的一個(gè)：深沉而能笑對(duì)人生，達(dá)觀而不茍且敷衍；聰明絕頂，辯才無(wú)礙，幽默風(fēng)趣，比喻繁富；錢先生在這篇序言中稱贊蘇軾“那不加節(jié)制的、漫不經(jīng)心的天賦隨意揮灑，咳唾成珠”，也是本地風(fēng)光，完全適合他自己。所以，由錢評(píng)蘇，無(wú)論對(duì)于蘇軾研究者還是錢鐘書(shū)研究者，想必都是一份值得重視的文獻(xiàn)。因柳先生提起此序，我找出過(guò)去粗粗譯成的草稿，對(duì)照原文又細(xì)讀改譯了一遍；鍵入電腦后仍手癢不止，乘興向大家略作介紹?！　≡谶@篇五千字的序言里，錢先生從宋代的文學(xué)批評(píng)、道學(xué)、詩(shī)文風(fēng)尚以及歷代賦體四個(gè)方面把蘇東坡跟他的文學(xué)背景作了比較，批評(píng)和道學(xué)尤為著重。錢先生首先勾勒了彌漫宋代的批評(píng)風(fēng)氣，但認(rèn)為宋人尚奇甚于明辯，好奇心多于神秘感。所以在他們的智力活動(dòng)中沒(méi)有掃空一盡，沒(méi)有大膽無(wú)忌，沒(méi)有闊大的氣魄，也沒(méi)有確定的界限。在詩(shī)文評(píng)里，存在著過(guò)分集中地研究煉字錘句的傾向，這既是文學(xué)批評(píng)的兆端，同時(shí)也是結(jié)束。當(dāng)然錢先生也肯定了宋人對(duì)文學(xué)批評(píng)的熱心實(shí)踐，他們用評(píng)論各別詩(shī)人的方式探討文學(xué)原理，而詩(shī)話因此就作為中國(guó)式批評(píng)的載體得以確立起來(lái)。與此相比，在他的同時(shí)代人作為批評(píng)家的那種意義上，蘇東坡并不是個(gè)批評(píng)家。在蘇東坡的藝術(shù)哲學(xué)精華中，他直探問(wèn)題的根本，從藝術(shù)作品轉(zhuǎn)向藝術(shù)家的內(nèi)心：按照他的看法，一個(gè)詩(shī)人應(yīng)該身與物化，不能僅僅滿足于文學(xué)的表面色澤。這與那種“點(diǎn)鐵成金”之類的“近視”相較，自然是不可同日而語(yǔ)。不過(guò)錢先生甚至斷言蘇東坡與時(shí)代精神無(wú)涉，這多少有點(diǎn)使人覺(jué)得太“過(guò)”一些。東坡愛(ài)發(fā)議論，詩(shī)文里論詩(shī)書(shū)畫的不在少數(shù)；東坡好辯，敲進(jìn)一層隨手抹倒正其所擅；東坡也曾對(duì)陶詩(shī)對(duì)門人詩(shī)詞煉過(guò)字錘過(guò)句；雖然他明顯高出時(shí)人一籌，但畢竟與時(shí)人習(xí)氣有其相似之處。　　錢先生對(duì)道學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)甚低，稱之為形而上學(xué)、心理學(xué)、倫理學(xué)和詭辯術(shù)的雜拌兒；指出道學(xué)家們的冗長(zhǎng)詭辯麻痹人心，虛耗元?dú)猓恢S刺他們把道教或佛教打扮成正統(tǒng)儒教是虛偽的“哲學(xué)化妝”。他提示，中國(guó)的普通讀者常常把宋人稱為假道學(xué)；宋人的一本正經(jīng)和心智道德上的瑣細(xì)拘執(zhí)，對(duì)于中國(guó)人慣常的任真氣質(zhì)來(lái)說(shuō)是既可惱又可笑的。他認(rèn)為道學(xué)對(duì)性理的條分縷析、碎碾細(xì)研是一種消蝕哲學(xué)也消蝕時(shí)代精神的病態(tài)自省，盡管他也承認(rèn)他們對(duì)人類靈魂的解剖將會(huì)對(duì)文學(xué)心理學(xué)很有幫助。而蘇東坡從根本上憎惡道學(xué)的精神上的賣弄，即良心和道德感的漫無(wú)邊際的虛飾，反對(duì)道學(xué)集團(tuán)的領(lǐng)袖人物程頤，同時(shí)也受到朱熹的怪罪責(zé)難。這也是錢先生斷言蘇東坡與時(shí)代精神無(wú)涉的主要根據(jù)。他還特別區(qū)分道學(xué)和蘇東坡之間貌同心異的自然主義，認(rèn)為前者僅僅是在教條上的；而后者卻是個(gè)性上的，是精神的一部分，其文化來(lái)源則錢先生傾向于認(rèn)為受道家和佛家的薰染?！　≡诎烟K詩(shī)和整個(gè)宋詩(shī)比較時(shí)，錢先生援引席勒的概念，把宋詩(shī)稱為“刻露見(jiàn)心思之今詩(shī)”，以與唐詩(shī)之為“真樸出自然之古詩(shī)”相對(duì)應(yīng)。他不無(wú)贊許地說(shuō)，至今還是空靈縹渺、精致纖弱的中國(guó)詩(shī)歌，在宋代變得豐腴結(jié)實(shí)，而它承負(fù)的思想更使它增加了分量。他指出宋詩(shī)多刻露的思想和直露的宣說(shuō)，少言外之意、幽掩之美；而最惱人的事情也許是宋代詩(shī)人的博學(xué)和慣于隱喻，使他們喜歡大量用典使事，即使在中國(guó)詩(shī)人中也顯得堆垛不堪。在我看來(lái)，上述特點(diǎn)在蘇詩(shī)中都明顯存在。當(dāng)然，蘇詩(shī)又有超越宋詩(shī)的一面。錢先生說(shuō)蘇詩(shī)是宋詩(shī)中最“真樸出自然”的。用《談藝錄》中的觀點(diǎn)推論，我們或許可以說(shuō)，蘇詩(shī)就是“唐詩(shī)”。這也許是為了強(qiáng)調(diào)蘇詩(shī)的天成，清新，簡(jiǎn)潔，自然，充滿即興，行云流水，揮灑自如，亦即一般宋詩(shī)所缺乏的特點(diǎn)。　　作為一部英譯蘇賦的序言，錢先生沒(méi)有像我們所期望的那樣就蘇賦發(fā)表長(zhǎng)篇大論。不過(guò)他對(duì)蘇賦的評(píng)價(jià)顯然非常之高。他稱東坡是寫賦的大家圣手，使賦變成了至今依然壯觀的嶄新文體；他特別贊許蘇賦的革新意義：拋棄了舊賦家慣于向讀者炫耀的靡麗繁艷，把庚信以來(lái)駢四儷六的僵硬的律賦改造成富于彈性的散賦。正是在這個(gè)意義上，錢先生稱贊蘇賦超過(guò)蘇軾在其它藝術(shù)門類的貢獻(xiàn)，是文學(xué)史上的一大奇跡。錢先生還特別指出，蘇賦的節(jié)奏特慢，不同于其他詩(shī)文的疾速飛馳。比如，在《前赤壁賦》的開(kāi)頭問(wèn)道：“何為其然也？”節(jié)奏的推進(jìn)伴著審思細(xì)商，仿佛摩娑著每一個(gè)字眼。這一點(diǎn)似乎為評(píng)論家們所忽略，值得重視。　　和錢先生的所有作品一樣，本文也是妙語(yǔ)連珠，妙喻連篇。如說(shuō)到宋詩(shī)變得豐腴結(jié)實(shí)，盡管與西洋詩(shī)相比仍顯輕淡，“但是宋詩(shī)的輕淡，仿佛一架飛機(jī)劃出的優(yōu)雅曲線，而不再是一只飛蛾在柔美朦朧的暮靄中振翼輕翔了。”只是筆者的英文水平太過(guò)可憐，不敢多引。同樣，上面譯述錢先生的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，恐怕也有不少誤解。若因拙文而引得有心人去尋讀錢先生的原作，那可真叫“拋磚引玉”了?！　⊥跻烂瘛　　蹲x書(shū)》1995年第3期　　錢鐘書(shū)：蘇東坡的賦及其文學(xué)背景　　SU TUNGPO’S LITERARY BACKGROUND AND HIS PROSEPOETRY by Qian Zhongshu 　　(Primarily written as a foreword to “Su TungPo’s Prosepoems” translated into English With Notes and Commentaries by C. D. Le Gros Clark, this is published here by kind permission of Mr. Le Gros Clark. Those who are interested in textual criticism may consult Mr. Wu Shihch’ang’s review in Chinese which appeared in The Crescent Monthly, Vol. IV, No. 3. –Ed.)　　Of the Sung dynasty, it may be said, as Hazlitt said of himself, that it is nothing if not critical. The Chinese people dropped something of their usual wise passiveness during the Sung dynasty, and “pondered, searched, probed, vexed, and criticized”. This intellectual activity, however, is not to be pared with that of the PreChin period, the heyday of Chinese philosophy. The men of the Sung dynasty were inquisitive rather than speculative, filled more with a sense of curiosity than with a sense of mystery. Hence, there is no sweep, no daring, no roominess or margin in their intellectualism. A prosaic and stuffy thing theirs is, on the whole. This critical spirit revealed itself in many directions, particularly in the full flourish of literary criticism and the rise of the taohs252。eh （道學(xué)）, that m233。lange adultere of metaphysics, psychology, ethics and casuistry.　　Literary criticism in China is an unduly belated art. Apart from a handful of obiter dicta scattered here and there, Liu Hsieh’s Literary Mind （劉勰文心雕龍） and Lo Chi’s A Prosepoem on Literature （陸機(jī)文賦） are the critical writings that count up to the Sung dynasty. There is Chung Yung’s Classification of Poets (鐘嶸詩(shī)品) of course. But Chung Yung is a literary genealogist ra