字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2010/08/15 04:09:08瀏覽369｜回應0｜推薦1 | |
| 錢鍾書《圍城》書中詩人曹元朗一角，據稱影射《新月》詩刊創辦人葉公超（原名崇智，1904-1981）。
葉氏留學劍橋時，與美國詩人「愛利惡德」（艾略特，T. S. Eliot，1888-1965）相識，是為中國引進其詩的第一人。鍾書先生初入清華大學時，葉氏方應聘執教外文系大一英語，鍾書先生常偕同學許振德、常風等往謁葉氏於其宿舍「竹影婆娑室」。葉氏也慧眼識英雄，曾於其主編的《新月》、《學文》兩刊，選載鍾書先生中、英文字七篇。據當時學生評論，葉氏在清華授課不甚準備，也不甚講解，程度較差的同學頗為吃力（包括日後曾出言埋怨「我不記得從他那裏學到什麼」的楊振寧），鍾書先生因有此語調侃：「葉公超太懶，吳宓太笨，陳福田太俗」（亦有一說云是錢氏在西南聯大任教時的戲言）。 這句頑皮話，或許便是兩人結隙之始，葉氏當時便曾贈以「你不該來清華，應該去牛津」之「挖苦」語（許淵仲，〈追憶流水年華〉，《清華校友通訊》，復27、28期，1993；但當時同學亦有聽不出此話皮裡陽秋，而視之為尋常褒語者）。鍾書先生後曾以七絕一首敬呈葉師，似帶請罪之意：「毀出求全辨不宜，原心略迹賴相知；向來一瓣香猶在，肯轉多師謝本師。」故有論者以為，「詩中流露出的『本事』頗耐人尋味。這個『謝』，是章太炎對俞夫子的『謝』，還是『謝罪』的『謝』呢？保不準兩人在30年代就產生過誤會，而這種『誤會』八成是由於錢鍾書講了什麼『難聽』的話，所謂『迹』是也。」（李洪岩，《錢鍾書與近代學人》，33頁） 1938年秋，鍾書先生應聘為昆明西南聯大外文系教授，據王佐良回憶，時任系主任的葉氏向高級英語研修班同學介紹鍾書先生云：「錢先生是我的學生。你們真幸運，請到這樣一位好教師！」（同上，34頁）但力主聘請鍾書先生的，實非葉氏，而是文學院長馮友蘭與外文系教授吳宓。鍾書先生在西南聯大，其實頗受葉氏與陳福田排擠。1939年夏返上海省親之後，便隨尊翁基博先生轉赴湖南藍田國立師範學院任教。當時曾去信向聯大校長梅貽琦致歉，有「豈料人事推排，竟成為德不卒之小人哉」語，又致書聯大秘書長沈履：「不才此次去滇，實為一有始無終之小人，此中隱情不堪為外人道。」（黃延復，〈錢鍾書在清華〉，《清華校友通訊》，復18期，1988）所謂「推排」，吳宓之女曾據其父當年日記敘述：「父親與寅恪伯父都認為錢鍾書『人才難得』。一九三九年秋，錢辭職別就，父親讀了李賦寧君所記錢鍾書的《Contemporary Novel》、《Renaissance Literature》等講義，『甚為佩服，而更加惋惜錢君之改就師範學院之教職。』一九四零年春，父親因清華外文系主任陳福田先生不聘錢鍾書，憤憤不平，斥為『皆妾婦之道也』。他奔走呼籲，不得其果，更為慨然，『終憾人之度量不廣，各存學校之町畦，不重人才』。又怨葉公超、陳福田先生進言於梅校長，對錢等不滿，『殊無公平愛才之意……』。」（吳學昭，《吳宓與陳寅恪》，北京：清華大學出版社，1992，103頁）葉氏向以脾氣之大著名，而循此蛛絲馬迹，似亦可見其器量之小（吳宓對葉氏平時行事斤斤計較之小氣便曾有議論）。 昔日清華同窗未識「此中隱情」的，對錢、葉二氏之不合，大概都有此感歎：「一個人從當小學生到大學生，對於教師總不免要品頭論足的。頭些年流傳着幾句話，說是錢鍾書說的，清華的幾位老教授某某老朽，某某懶惰，又說某某不學無術等等。這些話都是我們在學校時經常談論的，其中說的某某不學無術是人們稱為福田將軍的教授。這位先生後來果真當上了將軍──美國戰地服務團的將軍。我們在學校時，這位先生經常是在球場上當裁判特別是棒球裁判。他本來是夏威夷的華僑，在學校裡教大一大二的英語，不過國語說得很好。他經常陪着一位美國女教授散步。我們三年級暑假前夕那位女教授忽然邀請我們班全體同學到她家吃茶，她說陳先生在美國哈佛大學學習了一年專門研究彌爾頓，可以教我們第四年的英語；大家只是聽她說吃她準備的點心喝咖啡，都沒有發表意見。我們第四年仍然是溫源寧教的彌爾頓，陳先生還是教一二年級的英語，所以如果錢鍾書說過這位先生不學無術也並不是毫無根據的。……葉先生還在西南聯大時，在一次通信中（三？年）談起『現在聯大保留一個教授的位置是準備給錢鍾書的』，我曾給錢鍾書寫信時提起此事，他在回信中說，『莫非要我每日三餐都要禱告感激葉公超嗎？』錢鍾書何以對葉公超態度變成這樣，我莫明其妙，本來交情很好，怎麼變成這樣了？其中過節我也不知道，所以從此我給他寫信再也不提葉公超了。許多年前我從報上看到說有外國記者訪問葉公超問錢鍾書是他的學生嗎？據說葉公超裝聾作啞，既沒肯定也沒否定，我也就不對葉公超提起錢鍾書了。二人原是很好的師生情誼沒想到竟變成這樣，我不知其中原因，也未向二人問過，他們也未曾向我提起過。一直到勝利後，記得有一次錢鍾書給我信中提到葉公超如何如何。這就是二人交往的結局。」（常鳳，〈和錢鍾書同學的日子〉，《山西文學》，第9期，2000） 早在1934年，《中國評論週報》（The China Critic）第7期第20號曾刊有一篇葉氏英文小傳，題為〈George T. Yeh〉，作者並未署名，但自稱是經常上門聆教的弟子，學界咸認出於鍾書先生之手。文中對葉氏天馬行空的教學方法及所謂「魯鈍學生」（dull students）上課時不知所以的情形，有段諧謔的描述。 文中另有一段喻葉公超、吳宓、溫源寧為「三劍客」，結尾問云：「達塔尼昂安在？」（Et D’artagnan?）似頗有當仁不讓之豪。果不其然，三劍客雖然分道揚鑣，達塔尼昂畢竟青出於藍。 ----------------- George T. Yeh THERE is no English equivalent to the Chinese term ming shih (名士) just as there is no Chinese equivalent to the English word "gentleman." "Aesthete" seems as near as one can possibly get in English to a correct translation of the term ming shih, in the light of that illuminating chapter on "The Aesthetic Type" in Osbert Burdett’s book, The Beardsley Period. But the word "aesthete" is apt to bring to mind the lilies and languors of an Ernest Dowson, anemic and emaciated; while a ming shih, on the other hand, may be even brawny, full-blooded, of the earth, earthy like (say) Dr. Johnson or Prof. George T. Yeh. Prof. Yeh’s appearance is impressive and almost majestic. He is a six-footer, of a heavy build, swarthy and handsome. He has broad shoulders, a carrying voice, a jaw just on this side of squareness, and walks with a perceptible swagger. In spite of his aestheticism, he looks an athlete all over. We are told that he played tennis wonderfully well during his salad days. But we might guess the fact even without being told of it; for anyone who has conversed with Prof. Yeh will know how skillfully he can "keep the ball rolling" in conversation. Indeed, he is one of those remarkable talkers who have at command more than one conversational style. Epigram and small talk are equally his fortes. But he is at his best in the digressive style, whether it be the freely associational manner of Mrs. Nickleby or the rambling allusiveness of Charles Lamb of whom, by the way, Prof. Yeh has a towering admiration. Like Johnson, he does not suffer interruption gladly, particularly interruption from a youngster whose role is to cock his ears and listen. I still remember my first talk with him in his charming study five years ago. I was a self-conscious jackanapes then; flushed with a grandiose sense of my own importance and primed with borrowed wit and wisdom, I tried desperately to get in a word edgewise to make a display. After having made several futile attempts to put a spoke on Prof. Yeh’s conversational wheel, I had at last the good sense to give up the attempt as impossible and sink back in Prof. Yeh’s comfortable sofas (the most comfortable sofas in Tsing Hua), and sip Prof. Yeh’s famous Pu-er (普洱) tea and allow Prof. Yeh to spin on without let or hindrance his reams and reams of interesting talk. Literature forms the staple of his talk of course; but one can never draw a line at anything in his "dualogue" which ranges over the whole encyclopaedia -- everything under the sun and something above it. Prof. Yeh suffers as a lecturer from the defects of his qualities as a talker. His lectures are without programme or outline, trusting all to improvisation and mother-wit. His lectures upset all our preconceived notions of what lectures should be. They are full of surprises and shock tactics; and this unexpectedness constitutes not the least of their charms. They abound in brilliant apercus and profound asides but lack in system and organization. Although they are so invigorating that one should ask for nothing better, yet dull students whose besetting virtue is note-taking and who come to class with the sincere hope to have their empty heads crammed with well-ordered facts, are apt to find them baffling. But then, so much the worse for dull students! What cares Prof. Yeh for them? He is all for educating a few individuals at the expense of the whole class. Prof. Yeh is a literary free lance. He is too broadminded to belong to any one clique or make common cause with any one faction. Like Mr. Yuan-ning Wen, he keeps himself abreast of every latest tendency in art and literature. Both are dilettantes or amateurs in the best sense of the words. I have often compared them to two reeds through which every prevailing wind of doctrine blows into exquisite music. In this respect, they are diametrically opposite to that singlehearted humanist Prof. Wu Mi who, a doctrinaire among his dilettantish colleagues, seems to invert the moral of Aesop’s famous fable and suffer from the self-consciousness of a fox with a tail. All the same, these three professors are the three musketeers in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of Tsing Hua: Yeh suggests Porthos even in physical appearance; Wu, at once moralistic and romantic, certainly reminds us of Aramis; and Wen with his urbanity and resourcefulness resembles not a little Athos. Et D’artagnan? Prof. Yeh is a first-rate essayist and critic. He had encouraged essay-writing long before it came into vogue and has perhaps the largest collection of English essays in China. His recent critical papers are especially interesting; e.g. the distinction he draws between impressions as the data of criticism and impressionism as the methodology of criticism, is probably of permanent validity. In spite of his overbearing presence and his uproarious laughter which possesses all the sinister qualities of the Whistlerian "ha! ha!" he is at bottom very shy, very sensitive and fastidious, not unlike the man he loves so much -- Charles Lamb. |
|
| ( 創作｜另類創作 ) |
