龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者第一百一十二期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類社會，只有強(qiáng)化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個(gè)人都應(yīng)實(shí)踐的活動(dòng)。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請他對話一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

馬丁·柯恩教授（Professor Martin Kern）

美國普林斯頓大學(xué)亞洲研究教授，美國哲學(xué)學(xué)會院士。

龔鵬程教授：您好。您可以描述一下中國文學(xué)體系的形成和中國詩歌的起源和早期發(fā)展嗎？

馬丁·柯恩教授：龔教授，您好。中國文學(xué)體系和"詩歌"的起源可以追溯到西周時(shí)期，當(dāng)時(shí)還沒有 "詩歌"或 "文學(xué)"的獨(dú)特概念。青銅器銘文為宗教和政治儀式的特定場合使用了諸如韻律、節(jié)奏和節(jié)拍等特征。這種強(qiáng)化的、具有美學(xué)特征的言語形式——當(dāng)時(shí)在《尚書》的演講、《詩經(jīng)》的詩歌和《周易》的詩句中也有比較系統(tǒng)的體現(xiàn)——靠著我們通常所說的 "詩 "的語言特征，在形式上與日常言語有所區(qū)別。

然而，這種"詩 "并不符合現(xiàn)代的 "詩 "的概念；在中國早期沒有一個(gè)單一的 "詩 "字，也沒有關(guān)于個(gè)別 "詩人 "和他們獨(dú)特的、原創(chuàng)的創(chuàng)作形式的成熟概念。相反，中國早期的 "詩 "是由共同的思想和表達(dá)方式組成的，也就是說，是由每一個(gè)這樣的話語中有限的、重復(fù)的詞匯組成。它的主要形式特征延伸到所有早期的非語錄性話語（銘文、演講、頌歌和其他歌曲、占卜規(guī)則等）。

因此，雖然不同類型的《詩經(jīng)》"詩"（"頌"、"雅"和 "風(fēng)"）彼此不共享相同的詞匯和修辭，但它們都屬于超越《詩經(jīng)》文本本身的大話語。將這些話語結(jié)合在一起的是它們對文化身份的表達(dá)、穩(wěn)定和傳播。韻律、節(jié)奏、節(jié)拍和其他美學(xué)特征以兩種方式發(fā)揮作用：它們標(biāo)志著什么是最重要的，而且它們是表演和記誦的記憶工具。

The origins of the Chinese literary system, and of “poetry,” are found in the Western Zhou dynasty, when no distinct concept of “poetry” or “l(fā)iterature” existed. Bronze inscriptions deployed features such as rhyme, rhythm, and meter for specific occasions of religious and political rituals. This form of intensified and aesthetically marked speech—then also found more systematically in the receivedShangshu speeches, Shijing poetry, and verses in the Zhou Yi—was formally distinguished from everyday speech by its linguistic features we commonly call “poetry.” Yet this “poetry” does not correspond to modern ideas of “poetry”; there is no a single word for “poetry” in early China, and there is no developed idea of individual “poets” and their unique, original forms of composition. Instead, early Chinese “poetry” is composed from shared repertoires of ideas and expressions, that is, from limited, repetitive lexicons within each such discourse. Its principal formal features extend across all early non-quotidian utterances (inscriptions, speeches, hymns and other songs, divination formulas, etc.). Thus, while the different types of Shijiing “poems” (the “Eulogies,” “Court Hymns,” and “Airs of the States”) do not share the same lexicon and diction with one another, they each belong to larger discourses that transcend the text of the Shijing itself. What unites these discourses is their commitment to the expression, stabilization, and transmission of cultural identity. Rhyme, rhythm, meter and other aesthetic features functioned in two ways: they marked what was centrally important, and they served as mnemonic devices for performance and memorization.

龔鵬程教授：中國人傳統(tǒng)上會認(rèn)為《尚書》在文學(xué)體系中的地位，至少不比《詩經(jīng)》差，可是西方學(xué)者比較重視或更多地討論詩。您認(rèn)為這種差異是如何產(chǎn)生的？

馬丁·柯恩教授：中國兩千年來的《詩經(jīng)》學(xué)術(shù)書目至少是《尚書》學(xué)術(shù)書目的兩倍。在帝制中國之前的資料中，幾乎看不到《尚書》（尤其是公認(rèn)文本），而《詩經(jīng)》的詩句卻被到處引用。

在帝制中國時(shí)期，《尚書》和《詩經(jīng)》都是五經(jīng)的一部分，但只有后者還享有廣大的文學(xué)讀者群。即使像朱熹（1130-1200）這樣的經(jīng)典學(xué)者也寫過《詩經(jīng)》的注釋，但沒有寫過《尚書》的注釋。

盡管如此，西方學(xué)者對《尚書》的研究仍然非常有限。對大多數(shù)現(xiàn)代漢學(xué)家來說，《尚書》的文本是困難的、枯燥的，而且在歷史上是存疑的。似乎很少有人喜歡讀它；更少有人認(rèn)為其中表達(dá)的思想有趣或互相關(guān)聯(lián)（與戰(zhàn)國政治思想相比）。簡而言之，雖然《詩經(jīng)》仍能觸動(dòng)我們的詩情畫意，并成為中國文學(xué)史的一部分，但對大多數(shù)西方漢學(xué)家來說，《尚書》僅僅具有古人的興趣。

這是不幸的，因?yàn)椤渡袝纷鳛橐粋€(gè)與其說是歷史，不如說是政治神話的文本，應(yīng)該對整個(gè)古代世界的文化比較具有重要意義。與《詩經(jīng)》的部分內(nèi)容一樣，《尚書》中有關(guān)周朝征服的言論仍然是思考中國政治起源和文化身份的核心參考點(diǎn)。僅就這一點(diǎn)而言，該文本就值得從比較的角度進(jìn)行研究。

然而，與此同時(shí)，即使是現(xiàn)代中國的政治學(xué)家，在尋找與我們這個(gè)時(shí)代相關(guān)的古代政治思想時(shí)，也從未求助于《尚書》。

Chinese bibliographies ofShijing scholarship across two millennia contain at least twice as many titles as those of Shangshu scholarship. In pre-imperial sources the Shangshu (especially the received text) is barely visible, while Shijing poetry is quoted everywhere. In imperial China, both Shangshu and Shijing were part of the Five Classics, but only the latter also enjoyed a broad literary reception. Even a canonical scholar like Zhu Xi (1130–1200) wrote a Shijing commentary but not a Shangshu commentary. That said, Western scholarship on the Shangshu remains woefully limited. To most modern Sinologists, the text is difficult, dull, and historically dubious. Few people seem to enjoy reading it; and fewer still find the ideas expressed there interesting or relevant (compared to, say, Warring States political thought). In short, while the Shijing continues to speak to our poetic sensibilities and is part of Chinese literary history, for most Western Sinologists the Shangshu holds merely antiquarian interest. This is unfortunate, because the Shangshu—as a text less of history than of political mythology—should be of great relevance to cultural comparisons across the ancient world. Together with parts of the Shijing, its speeches related to the Zhou conquest are still a central reference point for reflecting on China’s political origins and cultural identity. For this alone the text is worth studying from comparative perspectives. Yet meanwhile, even modern Chinese political scientists, when searching for ancient political ideas relevant to our time, never turn to the Shangshu.

龔鵬程教授：可以談?wù)勀摹罢Z文學(xué)的全球?qū)嵺`和對古代進(jìn)行比較研究”嗎？

馬丁·柯恩教授：這里有兩個(gè)問題：一個(gè)是關(guān)于全球語文學(xué)的實(shí)踐，另一個(gè)是關(guān)于古代的比較研究。

幾千年來，語文學(xué)的實(shí)踐在不同的文化中并存；有些與周圍的人互動(dòng)，有些則大多保持獨(dú)立。

佛教到來之前的中國語文學(xué)是后者的一個(gè)例子，而在許多語言文化中，或與其他語言文本密切接觸的文化中，翻譯始終是語文學(xué)的一個(gè)核心實(shí)踐。

然而，"獨(dú)立"并不等于 "獨(dú)特 "或 "無法比擬"。因此，我目前正在共同編輯一個(gè)大型項(xiàng)目《語文學(xué)實(shí)踐》。該項(xiàng)目涵蓋了大約20種不同的語言學(xué)文化，有來自世界各地的數(shù)百名學(xué)者參與，以確定和描述具體的語文學(xué)實(shí)踐。

西方也有許多比較語文學(xué)研究的中心，特別是比較手稿研究，但在中國還沒有。

另一方面，古代的比較研究本身就是一門在歐洲有數(shù)百年歷史的學(xué)科，但也是最近變得特別有活力的學(xué)科。它的意義不在于對兩種或更多的文化進(jìn)行比較以確定其相似性和差異性。相反，它提議根據(jù)彼此的情況來看待不同的文化，通過觀察其他文化中的重要問題來發(fā)現(xiàn)一種文化的新問題。

從根本上說，對古代的比較研究試圖使熟悉的東西變得不熟悉。如果不了解其他文化，就無法完全理解"自己的 "古代文化。

There are two questions here: one on global practices of philology, the other on the comparative study of antiquity. Practices of philology have existed side by side for thousands of years in different cultures; some have interacted with those around them, others have remained mostly separate. Chinese philology before the arrival of Buddhism is an example of the latter, while in many multilingual cultures, or cultures in close contact with texts in other languages, translation was always a core practice of philology. Yet “separate” does not equal “unique” or “incomparable.” Thus, I am currently co-editing a large project,Philological Practices: A Comparative Historical Lexicon, that covers some twenty different philological cultures and involves hundreds of scholars from around the world to identify and describe specific philological practices on their own terms. There also exist many centers for comparative philological study—especially comparative manuscript studies—in the West, though none yet in China. The comparative study of antiquity, on the other hand, is itself a discipline with a centuries-long history in Europe, but also one that recently has become particularly dynamic. Its relevance lies not in the comparison of two or more cultures to identify their similarities and differences. Instead, it proposes to view different cultures in light of one another, to discover new questions about one culture by looking at the important questions in other cultures. Fundamentally, the comparative study of antiquity seeks to defamiliarize the familiar. One cannot fully understand “one’s own” ancient culture without also understanding others.

龔鵬程教授：近年，對中國古代詩歌之口傳與書寫問題，已成為一個(gè)新的熱點(diǎn)或爭論。對于夏含夷（Edward L.Shaughnessy）、張萬民等人的意見，您有最新的回應(yīng)嗎？

馬丁·柯恩教授：這種關(guān)于《詩經(jīng)》的所謂辯論是適得其反的。我對駁斥關(guān)于"書寫和口述 "的簡單化誤解和錯(cuò)誤的對立并不感興趣。

自2002年以來，我多次撰文分析早期手稿中的文字變體，描述了絕大多數(shù)情況下，這些變體是基于聲音的相似性，而不是視覺外觀。

我的結(jié)論是，大多數(shù)早期文學(xué)或哲學(xué)手稿，不僅是關(guān)于《詩經(jīng)》的手稿，都是根據(jù)記憶或背誦寫成的。我認(rèn)為，這種單獨(dú)的寫作行為——有很多——通常是相互獨(dú)立的，沒有一個(gè)書面文本控制著《詩經(jīng)》詩歌的實(shí)際傳播時(shí)間。

相反，即使是"同一首 "詩，在不同的朗誦場合也會有不同的即興發(fā)揮，然后被寫下來。因此，這些詩在聲音上基本穩(wěn)定，但在字形上卻不穩(wěn)定，因此，對其文字的解釋仍有不同的可能性。

這正是《毛詩》和后來的注釋經(jīng)常將某些字形解釋為"借來的字形（假藉） "的原因，這些字形不應(yīng)該從表面上看，而應(yīng)該作為聲音相似的字形的不規(guī)則替代品來閱讀。

長話短說，我對《詩經(jīng)》詩歌的"口頭或書面性質(zhì) "不感興趣；我關(guān)注的是寫作和口頭表演中詩歌傳播的交錯(cuò)過程。從證據(jù)來看，包括被掠奪的安徽大學(xué)手稿，我認(rèn)為情況很清楚。也許有些學(xué)者誤解了有關(guān)的論點(diǎn)。

This so-called debate about theShijing is counterproductive. I am not interested in refuting simplistic misunderstandings and false antagonisms about “writing and orality.” Since 2002 I have repeatedly written on the analysis of textual variants in early manuscripts, describing how overwhelmingly, these variants are based on similarity in sound, not in visual appearance. I concluded that most early literary or philosophical manuscripts, not only those regarding the Shijing, were written from memory or recitation. I suggested that such individual acts of writing—of which there were many—were usually independent from one another and that no single written text controlled the actual transmission of a Shijing poem over time. Instead, even “the same” poem could be improvised differently on different occasions of recitation and then be written down as such. As a result, the poems were largely stable in their sounds but not in their graphs, and hence still open to different interpretations of their words. This is precisely the reason why the Mao Shi and later commentaries frequently interpret certain graphs as “l(fā)oan graphs” that should be read not at face value but as irregular substitutes for graphs of similar sound. Long story short, I am not interested at all in the “oral or written nature” of Shijing poetry; I am concerned with the intersecting processes of poetic transmission in both writing and oral performance. Looking at the evidence, including the looted Anhui University manuscript, I think the case is clear. Perhaps some scholars misunderstand the argument in question.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學(xué)博士，當(dāng)代著名學(xué)者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學(xué)、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設(shè)、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學(xué)于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展?，F(xiàn)為中國孔子博物館名譽(yù)館長、臺灣國立東華大學(xué)終身榮譽(yù)教授、美國龔鵬程基金會主席。