Qing 的个人资料舊人故事思想起照片日志列表 工具 帮助

日志


4月30日

Obituary: Mstislav Rostropovic

   今天看到Rostropovich去世的消息,不禁感觉有点怅然。事有碰巧的是,我去北京20余天,购书不过4本,其中两本都是关于Rostropovich的,在火车上也将他的传记完整读了一遍,刚回到上海,就传来他逝世的消息,真是冥冥中有某种暗示。
    Rostropovich的大提琴录音,我听过的不算少,大体而言,离开苏联前后对于他而言是个比较明显的分水岭,1978年,他被开除苏联国籍,从此流浪西方世界。他前期的演奏,俄罗斯民族的那种悲怆与沧桑感相当强烈,基本延续了柴可夫斯基、拉赫玛尼诺夫的俄罗斯音乐风格,而他对于德沃夏克的演绎,特别我曾经听过的那一个与卡拉杨合作的版本,听后相当令人动容,让我先前诟病他晚期演奏的态度大有改变。但是毫无疑问,长期流浪西方世界,他的音乐由于失去俄罗斯文化的持续滋润,Rostropovich的演奏越到晚年越显干涩,虽然我还没有系统听完他晚期的录音,但是从基本的聆听经验来看,晚期演奏似乎不如早期那么感情充沛。但是这并不意味他音乐走向末路,他对BACH的大无一直有着特殊的感情,我前不久刚好买下他1991年在法国Basilique Sainte Madeleine录制的BACH大无DVD,听过两次,但是并无法完全把握他的演奏,不过我对他的第二组曲印象却十分深刻,从那里我似乎听到了他早年的俄罗斯情怀,但是却已经收敛成尽洗铅华。
    可以肯定的是,他的演奏要远超YOYOMA的浮华,他既然对BACH有如此的眷恋,想必他一定从中领悟到什么,而我现在,却无法通过他的演奏把握住他的理解,或许对于这样一位演奏家,我们还需要更多的时间去理解,去聆听吧。
  他和苏联时代之间的关系也是错综复杂,他与Shostakovic,索尔仁尼琴的患难之交也说明,他对于那个制度对于人性的压抑,有着自己独特的认知,不过他的音乐表达,到底和那个时代有什么样的关系,这却不是我现在所能置喙的了。
  最后引用索尔仁尼琴写给他的信中的一段话,或许可以作为他最好的悼念与总结:
  “我非常钦佩你的音乐天才、光明磊落的天性以及你无比城市的思维方式。但同时我又担心,俄罗斯历史和子孙后代将对你做出何种评价。通常,为了艺术的艺术是存在的,但这偏偏不是俄罗斯的传统。在俄罗斯,这种艺术不会留下感激的记忆。这是因为我们国家有着另一种传统,即我们总是要求本国的天才置身于人民的灾难之中。”
   找到Rostropovic与BPO合作的柴可夫斯基的“如歌的行板”,也传到BLOG上,这个曲子是如此的耳熟能详,以至于有时候感觉有了肥皂音乐的味道,但是我所找到的这个版本,如今听来却是愁绪万千,俄罗斯音乐的精神,非要在苦难的绝境中才能表现出那种近乎残酷的美感,真是一种让人难以取舍的悖论。

Mstislav Rostropovich, the cellist, conductor and pianist whose death aged 80 was announced today, was generally regarded as the greatest, and was certainly the most famous, cellist since Pablo Casals.

Works were written for him by Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Britten, Lutoslawski, Bliss and others, all of whom were his friends.

advertisementHe took up conducting when he was 33 and made a parallel career on the rostrum in the opera house and the concert-hall.

He was a talented enough pianist to act as accompanist to his wife, the soprano Galina Vishnevskaya, whom he married in 1955.

In 1989 he celebrated the demolition of the Berlin Wall by playing Bach’s cello suites amid the rubble; and he became a national hero in Russia in August 1991 when, without telling his wife, he flew from Paris to Moscow after the coup against President Gorbachev and joined Boris Yeltsin inside the besieged Parliament building. He spent the night lifting the spirits of the deputies and broadcasting messages to the crowds in the square outside. Next morning he was carried shoulder-high from the building, and an admirer told him: “It was because you were there that they did not storm the Parliament.”

Rostropovich afterwards described it as “the most important, dangerous and emotional day of my life. I was ready to die and happy to die.”

Twenty years earlier Rostropovich had fallen foul of Leonid Brezhnev and the Soviet hierarchy when he and Vishnevskaya publicly defended the dissident novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn and offered him accommodation in their home. Concerts and recordings were cancelled, and for a year they were denied exit visas to fulfil foreign engagements.

In 1974 virtual banishment followed when the couple were allowed to leave Russia for two years and were later deprived of their Soviet citizenship. In 1990 this was restored by a parliamentary decree under Gorbachev’s regime, and a month later Rostropovich returned to Moscow and Leningrad to conduct four concerts with the National Symphony Orchestra of Washington DC, of which he had been principal conductor since 1977.

His first act was to go to the cemetery. He explained: “I have lost all my friends: Shostakovich, Emil Gilels, David Oistrakh, Khatchaturian, that whole generation. My old accompanist is dead, too, even my dear friend Sakharov.”

Oistrakh had once said to him: “Never return once you have left. If you get nostalgic, buy a big house and plant birch trees everywhere.”

Mstislav Leopoldvich Rostropovich was born in Baku on March 27 1927. His father was a distinguished cellist and teacher, his mother a concert pianist. He studied the piano from the ages of four to seven, then took up the cello; but his ambition was to be a conductor.

Rostropovich’s father was his cello teacher, until he died in 1942, when the family was evacuated from wartime Moscow. They returned to the capital in 1943, when Rostropovich entered the Conservatory to study composition, cello and piano.

His uncle, also a cellist, was head of the Conservatory and persuaded Shostakovich to hear a piano concerto Rostropovich had written. Shostakovich was so impressed that he accepted the young man into his already over-full composition class and tried to persuade him to abandon the cello.

At the end of his first year, Rostropovich won the Tchaikovsky Stipendium, the Conservatory’s only composition prize. But in 1945, as a cellist, he also won the first national Soviet competition since 1937.

In 1948 he invited Prokofiev to one of his recitals, at which he played the composer’s cello concerto. This work had been a failure at its first performance in 1939. Prokofiev was so impressed by the young cellist’s artistry that he revised the concerto and then converted it into the Sinfonia Concertante, dedicating it to Rostropovich, who gave the first performance in February 1952 with Sviatoslav Richter conducting.
The recital at which Rostropovich had played the concerto occurred 12 days before the infamous Andrei Zhdanov, who ran Stalin’s cultural policy, denounced Shostakovich and Prokofiev for their failure to reflect “Soviet realism” in their music.

“When I went afterwards for my lesson with Shostakovich,” Rostropovich recalled, “my fellow students silently directed me to a notice board where I read that Shostakovich was sacked as ‘not adequate to be a teacher’.”

Despite pressure at the Conservatory, Rostropovich refused to join the Communist Party, and was probably saved from arrest or exile to Siberia by his immense talent. He was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1951 and became a professor at Moscow Conservatory in 1956.

advertisementRostropovich made his London debut at the Royal Festival Hall in March 1956 and in Carnegie Hall, New York, a month later. His playing was eulogised by the Western critics and he immediately became the idol of audiences and of society hostesses. On a visit to London in 1960 he gave the British première of Shostakovich’s first cello concerto, dedicated to him, and afterwards was introduced by Shostakovich to Benjamin Britten.

This was the beginning of a warm and fruitful friendship. The two men communicated in what they called “Aldeburgh Deutsch”, and it was soon “Beninka” and “Slava”.

Rostropovich asked Britten to write a work for him, and the result, within a few months, was a cello sonata. They played this through together at Britten’s London flat when both were very nervous; they drank five large whiskies apiece before they started.

“We played like pigs but were very happy,” Rostropovich said. They gave the first performance in July 1961 at the Aldeburgh Festival. The sonata was followed by three unaccompanied suites and the Cello Symphony. Britten also wrote cadenzas for Rostropovich to play in Haydn’s Cello Concerto in C. The first performance of the Cello Symphony was given by Rostropovich, with Britten conducting, in Moscow in March 1964.

Rostropovich and his wife were frequent visitors to, and performers at, the Aldeburgh Festival; and after Britten’s death in 1976 Rostropovich was for 11 years one of the festival’s artistic directors — he conducted Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin there in 1979.

Rostropovich made his debut as a conductor in 1960 in the Russian city of Gorki when Vishnevskaya was soprano soloist in the first performance of Shostakovich’s orchestration of Mussorgsky’s Songs and Dances of Death. In 1968 he conducted Eugene Onegin at the Bolshoi, Moscow, with his wife as Tatyana.

His London conducting debut was with the New Philharmonia Orchestra in September 1974. The next year he conducted Tchaikovsky’s Queen of Spades in San Francisco.

He was appointed conductor and artistic director of the National Symphony Orchestra of Washington DC in 1977, relinquishing the post 17 years later.

His work schedule was phenomenal. He once said that he had no time to suffer from jet-lag because he didn’t know from which city he should count the hours. Existing on a few hours’ sleep, he would study scores for three hours from 5 am.

He did not practise his cello-playing every day, but would sometimes “relax” after conducting a concert by embarking on three or four hours of practice. He thought nothing of conducting in, say, Paris, flying the next day to Washington and flying back to London a day or two later.

During his exile he became an unofficial ambassador for Russian music and counted most of the world’s leaders and princes (and princesses) among his friends. Those jealous of his fame complained that he was too assiduous in his cultivation of the high-and-mighty.

He had homes in several countries, but his two daughters, Elena and Olga, went to live in the United States and their children are American citizens. His wife was happiest in Paris. It was there that he made several recordings, including the first of the original version of Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, again with Vishnevskaya in the title-role.
In 1987, the year of his 60th birthday, the Queen appointed Rostropovich an honorary KBE, and in the same year he received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Reagan, while France appointed him a Commander of the Légion d’honneur; he conducted and played in 19 concerts and recitals in Washington and New York; in London he was soloist in 15 concerto performances, and conducted four symphonies and Britten’s War Requiem.

Contemporary composers such as Dutilleux and Penderecki wrote works for Rostropovich; in all, nearly 50 concertante works were written for him during his career, including a second concerto from Shostakovich.

In 1990 he directed the London Symphony Orchestra in a Shostakovich season at the Barbican, returning to London the following year as soloist and conductor of 12 concerts in a Prokofiev festival.

advertisementIn 1993 he conducted a Barbican concert performance of Britten’s Peter Grimes.

In November 2005 Rostropovich cancelled an engagement to conduct Prokofiev’s War and Peace at the Bolshoi, Moscow, because of a combination of ill health and dissatisfaction with rehearsal conditions.

In April last year he announced that the world première in Vienna of Penderecki’s Largo would be his last public appearance as a cellist.

His recordings are many, both as cellist and conductor. They include complete cycles of Tchaikovsky’s and Prokofiev’s symphonies and several operas. He did not record the Elgar concerto, dropping it from his repertory after he had heard Jacqueline du Pré’s performance: “She did it perfectly, and unless I could say something new about the work, I decided not to play it.”

In 1975 he bought the Duport Stradivari of 1711 (once used by the cellist who had played in the Archduke Trio of Beethoven with the composer as pianist) and played it thereafter.

“Air France don’t charge me for the cello on Concorde,” he complained, “but the British Concorde do.”

Rostropovich returned to Moscow recently after living for a number of years in Paris. He had been suffering from cancer, but was able to attend, in March, his 80th birthday celebrations at the Kremlin, when President Putin presented him with the Order of Service to the Fatherland.

Technically Rostropovich’s playing opened up new vistas for cellists. His pizzicato was magical, and his control of a broad, sweeping melodic line unequalled. His interpretations were often as impulsive and emotional as his personality, and he would distort phrases to suit his own view of the music. Usually his playing was of such incandescence and power that these infidelities to the composer’s printed score could be forgiven and indulged.

It was much the same with his conducting. He did not possess the technical wizardry and baton technique of a Karajan, but his artistic personality, and his innate and easily communicated musicianship, were such that orchestras and singers responded wholeheartedly to him; magnificent performances often followed, especially in works he loved and understood, such as those of Prokofiev and Shostakovich.

That he was one of the great musicians and musical personalities of the 20th century, a superstar par excellence, and a human being of extraordinary charisma is beyond dispute.

His wife and two daughters survive him.


 

4月29日

“游”“学”归来

             4月8日出行,29号回到上海。整整20天,回家已感觉非常困乏,但是脑子里仍然十分活跃。
             我喜欢西安这座城市,或许是因为我们订的宾馆就在城区的中心:钟楼饭店,信步出行,即可抵达钟楼、鼓楼,回民小吃街与大清真寺,我和RHODES教授清晨和傍晚都喜欢在这一带散步观看,不仅欣赏到西安著名的“暮鼓晨钟”,也十分碰巧看到了下午穆斯林在清真寺做礼拜的场景,虽然人数并不算太多, 但是我亲眼目睹了他们沐浴、上堂与跟随阿訇祈祷的过程,这对于穆斯林信徒而言,只是一种生活方式,而对于我而言,却将之看作是一种寻找先验经验的努力方向,那场景的虔诚与肃穆,让我常常在想,还有多少人生的奥义需要我们去努力。
            我们去慈恩寺的过程也颇有趣,不仅看到一帮上海人组织的信徒进香团在集体朝拜,而且在几个厅堂里看到颇有意思的图画与教义解释,比如一段文字是如此说的,佛祖并非是上帝,他只是一个人而已。RHODES教授读到这段,在那里窃笑,这种解释和柏拉图如出一辄,不过事实上,佛教将佛祖“神化”已是不可争辩的事实,要让他恢复出人的面目,我想这就不是这一段拐角处的张贴文字所能改变的,我然后与教授讨论说,或许对于佛祖而言,他自己也未曾设想过宗教组织将他神秘化的结果,就如柏拉图也从不想让哲学学派化一样,我们需要的是一个空间,但是我们往往却将之看作是一个彼此之分的地域划分。
           我们在西安的第一站自然是兵马俑,初走进1号坑的大门,看到前面众人簇拥在栏杆前,待我走上前,不知道可否理解那种视野突然扩展的震撼感,我当时约莫10秒钟没想到拿相机出来,虽然电视上看过无数次画面,但是那种情境的某些氛围仍然超出了你的某些经验预期,我知道这种震撼感其实扩张了我的某些经验理解,但是目前我仍然无法用语言描述他们,那仍然还需要时间。秦始皇相信五德说,以周为火德,秦代周,乃是水德,如此五德始终之说,必然隐含了某种来世的意味。而他命徐市携童男童女数千人入海寻仙,企图获得长生不老之药,这种行为似乎可以解读为,秦始皇对此生到来世仍报有不确信之理解,否则既然人可轮回,今生必然可以有来世来循环,或许这种朴素的宇宙观,对于秦始皇而言,还不够周全。墓中这规模巨大的兵马俑群,或许并非是因为礼制排场,而是因为秦始皇以这样一种象征符号,来为人与超越经验作一个符号化的说明,他或许还认为,他死后还可以有军队守护,防止敌人之攻击。这种想法今人看来,荒诞不羁,但是问题在于,那构成了秦始皇对于人及生命超越性的经验的某种理解,于是就有了这么多让人震惊的墓葬文化符号。
         以上观感,大多只是信手写来,如需说明,自然还得有大量周边知识来作支撑,不过西安之行,我将之总结为观察古代中国、穆斯林与佛教这三种追寻超越经验的不同路径的观察,对于我而言,自然是恰如其分。
    
4月24日

从北京到西安

     25号晚上离开北京前往西安,28号早上返回北京,当天晚上便要搭乘回上海的火车,粗粗计算,四天内我将旅行3000多公里,这无疑是我一个新的记录。
      预订了市中心的钟楼饭店,感谢几位朋友,特别是朱承兄对西安游玩的详细介绍,还有郦MM和++兄的建议,西安,I am coming~~~
4月21日

北京游记(三)

       来北京已经三个星期了,逛了一些地方,听了几次课,与朋友聊了几回,过几日就要去西安呆两天,这次的出行计划也就基本结束。总体而言,感受很多,无论是和RHODES教授多次私下的聊天或者对北京上海两个城市的一些个人的比较,廓清了一些想象,也梳理了一些人生的看法,无论如何,行万里路的确需与读书同时进行,眼界才会一次次的被扩宽,才会整合过往的一些碎片化的经验,以次内化成自己的一种新的世界和人生的理解。
       昨日听说RHODES教授在复旦的讲座争议颇大,数位博士深不以为然,这本在我的意料之中。今天我们的哲学与思想,一方面由于接受史的关系,深受德国哲学与英美分析哲学影响,要么陷入一种无止境的迷思之中,比如对于海德格尔等人的狂热,要么相信语言哲学或者现代的某种心灵科学一劳永逸解决了人生意义的问题。对于哲学的看法,要么就要求进入一种近乎神秘化的CULT崇拜,要么就认为通过大量琐细的语言分析就能抵达人类心灵的核心所在。这两种模式对于今天大陆思想界影响之深,或许一时间难以改变。那么VOEGELIN这一传统,既没有结构严密的门徒系统,也没有刻意神秘化的玄思崇拜,他的意义是什么呢?我想这或许也是RHODES教授所要面临的问题,当你把问题说的那么浅白的时候,就会有人指责你思想无深度,如果思想的丰富需要用严密的语言来包装,那么我们到底迷恋的是形式,还是其内容?
     VOEGELIN的核心观点或许只有一句话,我们所有对于灵魂的超越经验,都是相似的,区别只在于我们用不同的象征符号去表征它,而关于那一超越经验,我们实在不能说的太多,就如苏格拉底宣称自己一无所知一样。这样的观点初看起来实在简单,但是就我的阅读而言,这样的哲学理解,已经不再停留在现代知识分科的体系上,而是将哲学重新和人的心灵结合在一起,探索人类的一些基本心灵处境问题,而不是被晦涩语言重重包裹的哲学黑话。从这个角度上而言,我赞同RORTY的一些观念,我不同意他的或许只是,我仍然相信,人的超越经验值得追求,但却不能被神秘化和学术黑帮化,而是一种更为开放的古典哲学的态度,也就是“DIALOGUE”的主旨。
    而对于斯特劳斯而言,吸引了如此多的粉丝,我想大多数是归功于他的遮掩术,他从不把讲话说的太白,尽管他时常露出马脚,而且也闹出在CHICAGO大学故作神秘的课堂笑话,甚至还有只让其学生才能上课发言的学术黑帮规矩,如果哲学是这样一种封闭化,神秘化的心灵探索,我想那一头应该是黑暗的力量,而不是某种寻求光明的路径。
     昨天详细读了RHODES教授关于斯特劳斯与VOEGELIN比较的章节,我想他很清楚他自己的立场在哪里,反对斯特老斯,是反对他故作神秘的隐微写作的阐释,而且反对他将哲学家看作是一群时刻遭受迫害的神秘群体,而相信,哲学的生命力来自于每个人都具备其可教化性,而且相信我们对真理的理解,无法垄断也无法宣称比其他人了解的更多,只有那些拥有超越经验的人,才会了解那样一个世界的美丽,但是那些人不能用刀剑试图改变这个世界,而是需要更有耐心的教化,因为我们永远处在的是一个“In-Between”的状态,我们爱好真理,我们却不以真理为名去强求什么。
    如果了解这个道理,我们就会了解哲学对于我们,究竟意味着什么。在今天国内哲学要么越来越虚无,要么越来越诡秘化的情境下, 如何秉持着清明的理智、开放的心灵以及对真理的那种温和而节制的“Eros",将是考验我们的最重要的议题。
   也正是今天,我才真正理解,人是如此的复杂,以至于我们常常天真的相信,他们是那样的简单。
4月13日

摄影不属于北京

       来了北京快一个星期,跑了一些地方,拍了一些照片,但是发觉,北京的景点实在人太多,几乎难以找到没人的地方,除了今天去定陵,那里颇有几份清净外,其他地方都是熙熙攘攘,让人难以静心体味历史背后的意蕴,不禁让我怀念起在黄山时候的“万山鸟飞绝”的时光了。
       我新拍的照片:http://www.flickr.com/photos/72389638@N00/
4月9日

北京游记(二)

         今天游历了故宫、天坛,来来回回坐了几趟的士,和北京司机聊的很欢,似乎这座城市于我而言并不陌生,宽敞的街道,熟悉的地名,尽管那些地名都只是我从民国史中所获得的,比如八大胡同之类,我知道那是个妓院区,不过和我聊天的司机似乎并不知道陈独秀在那里为女人大打出手,他们总觉得大文人总是洁身自好,正襟危坐的,殊不知,民国也就文人玩的疯,有钱有时间,读书那是副业了。
         天安门广场并没有超过我的想象,这么大的广场,政治和旅游这两个主题总是不停的轮换上演,而我来的今天,政治主题显然被旅游压倒,而失去政治意味的广场,于我而言,又有什么意义,那年那月那日的事件,我没有亲历,也无法移情体验,但是正对的城楼的标志性头像与标语明确无误的提示我,这样的事件已经过去,未必不会重来,只要这个广场依然,就会随时代变迁而滋生出政治的力量。
          故宫的游览并未花去我和RHODES教授太多的时间,我们只是沿着故宫主轴线看完主要的大殿,而两旁的侧房我基本没有去驻留,太多的历史琐碎细节会让人淹没其中,而我此行的目的是FIRST TOUCH,感受大于了解,或许以后还有很多机会。从审美角度而言,我并不太青睐故宫的建筑风格,那些花纹与装饰,我并没有太强烈的感受,反而感觉太过繁复,以至拖泥带水,毫无美感。但是这丝毫不影响故宫给人带来的震撼,那是一种皇权布控四方的霸气和贪欲,家天下的格局铺展开来,就是国家,而故宫里的一切一切,既是私人的,同时也带有强烈的“公”的色彩。
        天坛让我感觉强烈,我和RHODES也就此谈论了很多,中国的建筑一般以平面的铺展为主要特色,与高耸的天坛明显不同,那是一种逼近“天”的努力,尽管中国思想中所理解的天,既不人格化,也不制度化,但是那代表了中国人哲学思想中的超越冲动,在皇权无法掌握的超验世界里,他们想到了“天”,所以才有那么多繁缛的敬神的仪式,甚至乾隆因为70岁高龄而另开小门进入祁年殿,也害怕子孙从此懈怠,而规定年满70岁的子孙才可出入这一“古稀门“,可见祖宗之训是为了强化仪式的严肃性,制度保证观念,从来如此。
        游玩之后,RHODES教授兴致很高,又专门请我吃了全聚德的烤鸭,两人140元吃的很不错,而更有趣的是,RHODES教授讲了很多关于Leo Strauss与VOEGELIN的八卦,而且都与他和这两位大哲学家的交往有关,因此听来栩栩如生,让人忍俊不禁。
         饭后步行回北大,夜晚中的北大,颇有我90年代在武汉读大学时的氛围,朴素而低调,而与上海高校那种浮华与社会习气十足的氛围有很大不同,这里的建筑虽然略显沉闷,但是却透露出某种积淀,我虽然只是感觉而已,但是我知道,只有这样的学校,才可能产生某种读书求知的氛围,尽管今天的北大已经大不如前,但是与其他高校相比,他毕竟还有历史可以挥霍,还可以包容若干读书的种子,我不知道未来20年内,有哪里可以培育出类似的气氛,与之相比,师大显然还有相当的距离。
        
4月8日

北京游记(一)

          今天,不对,应该是昨天,我终于来到北京。有诗云,至今思项羽,不肯过江东。可是于我而言奇怪的是,无人可思,而尽管有太多机会可以来北京一游,却一等就是临近30岁,才穿越黄河以北,看到真正的北方。
          这样一个北方,对于我来说,想象的成分居多,而历史中的北方,兵戈铁马,宫闱权谋,与我的距离不知远到几何。因而我一直在给自己寻找一个去北方的理由,这个说法或许有点荒谬,但我从来都认为,去一个地方,离开一个地方,都是有其莫可名道的原因,就如我曾经多次离开本可安居一生的地方。但是我这次的北京之行,却因一位美国教授而起,却也是让人啼笑皆非了。
           从前晚开始,我的北京之行似乎就充满戏剧性,因为被猫抓伤,因而不得不去北京接种狂犬疫苗,未到北京却已预定一个重要的医院旅游项目,这也是足够夸张。而一上飞机却发现自己的4排位置难寻,然后才知,自己成为本次航班的LUCKY GUY,被升级到公务舱,而看到后面机舱黑亚亚的经济舱的朋友们,我心中暗念:“啊,朋友再见!”
          过了淮河,进入华北平原,飞机上俯瞰,环境之恶劣让人震惊,与南方航行俯瞰的景色相比,北方土地的沙化难以描述,而如果与南方森林的郁郁作比较,更是不可以道里计。这样的北方,还能支撑几许年?
          住宿安排妥当后,与在民大读书的妹妹吃完晚饭,我前去RHODES教授的宾馆与他相聚,相谈甚欢,他赠我一本他花9年时间所写的EROS,WISODOM,AND Silence,一本分析柏拉图的会饮与菲多的大部头,并题词云,I Hope, a lifelong friend.让我深为感动。随后讨论了数小时的Voegelin和STRAUSS,收获颇丰,更为难得的是感觉其心性与我相近,因而相谈也才能尽兴而归。
         今日将去故宫参观,又是一个忙碌日。
        
4月6日

清明时节雨纷纷

成庆 FOR Sina 评论
                                                                     

      法国作家加缪曾说,真正严肃的哲学问题只有一个,那就是自杀。选择生死是一个最难逃避而又需要面对的问题,只有一个人的生命意义完全消失后,或许才会让人选择绝路。而今天的中国,我们仍然可以看到,有一些农民,不是为了其他原因,只是为了基本的生存危机而选择了自杀的道路,这样的悲惨事实已经不再仅仅是一个制度问题,而更象是一个道德伦理的问题,那就是在今天,我们如何让人不再因为生存而面对常人难以承受的生死选择。
       目前有媒体报道,湖北省公安县一对夫妇,因为丈夫患病无钱医治,双双投江赴死,身后留下一个正在读小学的儿子孤苦伶仃。更让人感觉震惊的是,两人投江时用腰带将两人紧紧缠住,或许他们想以此表明共同赴死的决心与不再分离的期望。这样的自杀形式让人难以直视,贫困让他们失去生活的勇气,但是他们却用生死同穴的决心超越了死亡的问题,这分明是一种绝望与希望并存的选择。
       根据报道,这位丈夫患有血吸虫病、乙肝、肾结石,黄疸四种病,虽然十分严重,但是却不无救治希望,让他们绝望的不是意志,而是金钱。事实上,他所在的公安县开展的农村合作医疗水平已经无法满足需要大量救治费用的病患,而一旦染上重病,农民基本都是拖延时日。不过就当村支书将村中的捐款送到时,这对夫妇早已选择放弃的道路,因为他们深知,在那样的农村环境, 这样的病意味着什么。
       在今天国家越来越重视全民医保的情况下,我们虽然看到了参保普及面在日益扩大,但是对于农村而言,其实是一种“以面换点”的策略,单个农民的医保水平相当低,更不用说贫困家庭。而恰恰在农村,那些最为贫困的家庭,一方面要应对日常生活的强大经济压力的,还要面对医疗以及子女教育的高额费用,在现有的制度体系下,单个农户是一个独立的经济体系,国家对于农民的救助实际上因为各种原因难以覆盖,实际上让农民成为经济高风险的群体,传统社会中以家族为单位的宗族社会如今早已消失,因此依靠血缘关系组成的共同体今天无法发挥救治和保全单个人的作用,当单户农民面对绝境时,他们基本难以有一个直接的渠道可以求助。虽然也会有国家民政部门的救济,但是这些措施由于依托在行政机构部门,与农民的生活距离十分遥远,解决问题的作用有限。
      如此看来,让农村最贫困的群体不再因为生存而失去生活的勇气,其实给我们提出了相当复杂的问题。从制度上来讲,我们将人民看作是一个个的数字,比如参保率多少,报销比例多少。但是当我们去仔细打量那一个个具体的人的时候,我们看到的却是人生百态,就如那对投江的夫妇,我们永远难以体会,他们是如何面对贫困与生死的,而那些感受,是衡量中国生存状态最为真实的指标,民生问题不是数字统计,而是我们每个人心中的感受与生存的基本尊严。
      而正因为我们对这些具体的感受的淡漠,我们的制度设计中,其实缺乏了对最穷困群体的有效救助制度安置,只有让最贫困的群体不再因为生病而选择自杀,我们的保障体系才可以说是人道的,而并不是仅仅去盯住那一个个统计数据,因为任何制度,只有让最为困难的群体都拥有生存的可能性,才证明这个制度的努力方向是对的,而不是以所谓的普遍性而去任由那些特殊性自生自灭。
       又到一年清明日,那对夫妇的12岁的儿子或许又将去祭奠他的父母,今天的他,每天写的日记中加入了一项收入支出,年幼的他已经初尝生活的艰辛,或许他会由亲戚们继续抚养,或许他将去某个孤儿院去度过他的少年时光,父母的选择或许他还无法理解,但是他的生存状态却清楚的标明了今天农村民生的一些突出问题,他们是最脆弱的一群,对待他们,或许倾注再多的社会关注与国家救助也不过分,因为那是中国社会发展的重要指标,正是那一个个人的幸福,才可能促使今天政府所呼吁的“和谐社会”的最终达成。
4月3日

傅聪:浪漫与激情

              昨天听了傅聪的独奏音乐会,欣喜与失望皆半,当然失望与傅聪无关,最近夜夜赶论文到4点,精神大打折扣,而且昨天是收养“KIMBA”的第二天,早上8点多钟就起床看他进食情况,所以精神并不太好,而听音乐会恰恰是需要精神高度集中的事情,每个乐曲的内部细节变化的领会更是高强度的脑力活动,因此整场音乐会,我几乎一半时间都状态不好,Chopin的“船歌”与舒伯特D960的第二三乐章都没有听的清楚,到是第五乐章8分多钟的快板让我清醒不少,但是未能完整聆听完傅聪的这部舒伯特的演绎,未免还是有点遗憾。毕竟D960是舒伯特钢琴奏鸣中的最好作品之一。
             整体观感而言,由于我对傅聪的过往演奏听的实在不多,因此也不敢胡言,就这场独奏会而言,他的发挥与演绎略让我失望,德彪西和CHOPIN的Mazurk OP59都很不错,尤其是CHOPIN的马祖卡 OP59这一作品,和我过往听到的几个CHOPIN版本都不一样,我只有在傅聪这里听到柔情与坚毅的双重性,我称之为浪漫与激情的结合,浪漫虽需激情,但是表达出来的可能是柔情万分,激情虽然热烈澎湃,但却不一定是失去自我,而是展现出一种坚毅与不舍。也是这一作品,让我本昏昏欲睡的神经清醒了不少。
           船歌的开始部分感觉很不错,不过由于当时精神不济,实在未能与傅聪先生的演绎有所反应,也只能怪自己时运不佳了。而到了舒伯特的D960时,我本来精神为之一振,但是第一乐章听下来,比我十分喜欢的BRENDEL的演绎似乎有很大差别,这或许并不在演绎的角度,而是技巧的把握,或许这和傅聪手伤的状况有关,舒伯特的这首D960的歌唱性和旋律性应该是非常之强的,而且里面的起承转合也相当微妙和难把握,有几次傅聪的过渡让我感觉颇为突兀,回家后再温习BRENDEL的演奏,感觉并不是风格差别,而是对整个舒伯特作品的技巧把握有关。这里当然不是臧否傅聪的演奏,而是就现场个人观感而言。
            不过听完整场之后,回来细想,如果按照艺术家的特质而言,仅从演奏而言,傅聪似乎并不缺激情,也不缺浪漫,他的CHOPIN,柔情似水处似乎又有壁立千仞,但是为什么他演绎的舒伯特我感觉一般呢,是否是他性格中理性一面有或多或少的缺失呢?BRENDEL的演奏,感情始终被一种秩序所牵引,让舒伯特的整个旋律被织入一根主干之中,而傅聪的演奏,似乎缺乏这样一根主线,因此常常前后难以衔接,也失去舒伯特所追求的悲凉与欢欣交织的整体氛围。
           初入大学读傅雷家书,曾给我许多精神的力量,也体会到很多那代人所谓的人生道理,傅聪的风骨一直为我所佩服,在他身上,我看到了传统中国文人的那种典型特点,灵性十足却难以自我平衡,至于中国艺术史中理性主义与浪漫主义传统的细节,我想那又是更大的话题。不过傅聪让我看到了一个无时无刻不在表达自我的丰满形象,尽管那些表达有时候超越掌控的界限。