南鵲書廬

當代傳奇劇場團長吳興國及製作人林秀偉在亞洲文化協會及企業家康陳銘藝術獎助下，在馬尼拉郊區山上的工作坊，用3個禮拜的時間，將自己一身的功夫親自傳授給柬埔寨皇家劇團，從21歲到70歲共16位演員，台、柬、菲三地創造出難得一見的文化交流。

【…】

吳興國說，原本很擔心柬國演員是否願意接受創造，是否需要中國戲曲文化的刺激，果真第一個星期就感覺到柬方演員心裏有點抗拒，然而，「我們不是來改變，是來交流的。」等到第3個星期，對方已經會主動請教身段唱腔，尤其是劇團中一位70多歲的老演員，3個禮拜全勤，學習精神令人感動。     

吳興國帶著助教，每天至少教學7小時做緊密的訓練，包括喊嗓、摔打跌撞毯子功、基本功、耍刀舞槍把子功、身段、臉譜、排戲等，他說：「每天至少要溼透3套衣服」。

詳見中國時報：吳興國台、柬、菲三地創造文化交流

GEORGE BUSH'S MAN IN BAGHDAD, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, was refreshingly candid in an interview he granted this newspaper on Monday. Describing the situation in Iraq, he acknowledged that the United States had opened a "Pandora's box" when it removed Saddam Hussein from power, creating the potential for widespread sectarian violence to lead to a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

Khalilzad's observation would have been obvious to anyone in Iraq in the aftermath of the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra. But because the Bush administration's spin machine has been so relentless, it's noteworthy, sadly enough, to hear a top U.S. official bluntly state what is clear to anyone else on the ground in Iraq. Usually such candor from high-ranking administration officials — about Iraq or anything else — comes only after the word "former" appears before their titles. 

【…】 

The ambassador said it would be disastrous for the United States to abandon Iraq the way it disengaged from civil wars in Lebanon and Somalia. But if sectarian violence were to someday degenerate into an all-out civil war in Iraq, is there anyone who seriously believes that the U.S. military should be asked to put an end to it? And is Khalilzad really suggesting that the United States could have stopped the civil war in Lebanon? Khalilzad's worst-case scenario is so bad it almost makes the numbers of U.S. troops on the ground an academic question.

But the ambassador is right that it is too soon to give up on Iraq. The country may be a far cry from the shining beacon on the hill in the Middle East that many think-tank neocons once dreamed of creating. Yet there is still a chance that a stable, peaceful state can emerge. The consequences of utter failure — characterized by a dismemberment of the nation into warring sectarian regions — would be disastrous for U.S. interests.

詳見洛杉磯時報社論：Now he tells us

If current efforts in Congress make it a felony to shield or offer support to illegal immigrants, Cardinal Mahony said, he will instruct his priests — and faithful lay Catholics — to defy the law.

The cardinal's focus of concern is H.R. 4437, a bill sponsored by James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin and Peter King of New York. This grab bag legislation, which was recently passed by the House, would expand the definition of "alien smuggling" in a way that could theoretically include working in a soup kitchen, driving a friend to a bus stop or caring for a neighbor's baby. Similar language appears in legislation being considered by the Senate this week.

【…】

Cardinal Mahony's declaration of solidarity with illegal immigrants, for whom Lent is every day, is a startling call to civil disobedience, as courageous as it is timely. We hope it forestalls the day when works of mercy become a federal crime.

詳見紐約時報社論：The Gospel vs. H.R. 4437

文：張作錦

台灣學英語的熱潮數十年不退，各種鼓勵和協助學英語的書籍成群結隊而來，坊間就有《英語三月通》、《英語一月通》的書。後來大概嫌「三月」、「一月」太慢了，乃出現《英語一周通》、《英語三日通》之類的教本。 

一輩子自學英語成為翻譯家、當時在香港大學教授高級翻譯課程的思果先生，見獵心喜，在報上撰文說，既然大家都想速成，不願費勁，他就來寫一本《英語不讀通》———不讀就通，夠快了吧？不讀就通了，這本書誰還買？思果先生大概後來想「通」了，沒有寫。 

從這件事「觸類旁通」到推動台灣獨立建國的人士。他們不斷喊口號，不斷向對岸挑戰，不斷向國際嗆聲，在湧如噴泉的語言中，卻從來沒有半句話告訴當事人，也就是生活在台灣的兩千三百萬人，獨立要不要打仗？ 

他們不說，我們可不能不問；《英語不讀通》固然誘人，但很難教人相信。

【…】

國防部官員曾在立法院公開說明，中共攻台的第一波戰爭，我軍傷亡人數預估為十二萬八千人。這些人，必然是你家的和我家的青年。前民進黨主席施明德曾說，那些台獨基本教義派對大陸的立場雖很強悍，他們的子弟可沒有一個讀軍校的。 

英儒羅素雖然反共，但他曾說：「赤化勝於死亡。」因為活著才能繼續反共，打敗它，或影響它使它質變。台灣跟著民進黨和陳水扁這樣走下去，赤化和死亡可能二者得兼。 

英語不讀通？別作夢了！ 

詳見聯合報：英語不讀就通順 台灣不戰能獨立（2006.3.2）

南飛烏鵲曰：
政論家的拿手絕活，便是以此喻彼，增加文章的說服力，雖然有時不免引喻失義。而讀者的看家本領，則在兼顧彼此、刻意誤讀。張公舞劍，意在台獨，但是我這讀者私心作祟，偏要斷章取義，借今人酒杯，澆心中塊壘：英語不讀通？別作夢了！

文：陳儀深（中研院近史所副研究員）

針對張祖詒先生〈蔣中正寬容處理二二八〉一文，本人忝為該研究報告撰稿人之一，願作簡要回應。   

 一、事件發生之前，蔣主席即曾親擬電文給陳儀：「據報共黨分子已潛入台灣漸起作用，……台省不比內地，軍政長官自可權宜處置也。」事件之後，陳儀呈復的電文：「……奸匪勾結流氓，乘專賣局查緝私菸機會聚眾暴動，傷害外省籍人員，特於28日宣布臨時戒嚴，必要時當遵令權宜處置。」 

二、根據秦孝儀編《總統蔣公大事長編初稿》，蔣介石在3月5日就已經派整編第21師師長劉雨卿「率部赴台灣維持秩序」；又據大溪檔案蔣介石確已在3月5日致電陳儀：「已派步兵一團並派憲兵一營，限本月7日由滬啟運，勿念。」這是第一批到達的援兵；諉諸二二八處委會提出42條的過分要求才出兵，不符事實。     

三、蔣介石擁有來自各方的資訊。3月5日桂永清將軍轉達他巡視左營之際當地士紳的要求：「台胞絕無獨立思想，前中央日報所載台人有獨立企圖，完全無稽。」「希望對過去接收期間諸不法官吏，分別懲治。」同日政治建設協會電文交給蔣介石，謂「台灣此次民變純為反對貪汙官僚、要求政治改革，並無其他作用。」但蔣謂：「此必反動分子在外國領館製造恐怖所演成，余置之不理。」    

四、援軍登陸之後大勢底定，陳儀在3月13日呈蔣的信函謂：「此次事變設非鈞座調兵迅速，其演變不堪設想。」可是，不論民間立場的處委會，或官方立場的中執會、國防最高委員會，究責程度都達陳儀應被「撤職查辦」為止。    

五、後來蔣介石不但袒護陳儀，而且對柯遠芬也不懲處；事後，台灣警備司令一職，蔣介石堅持拔擢彭孟緝。總之，沒有任何軍政首長為台灣二二八事件負責。     

筆者同意黃丞儀的「複數的二二八」觀點，但是我相信如果站在統治者的、中國的立場，一定與站在人權的、台灣的觀點不一樣。 

中國時報：228 蔣介石要負最大責任

文：張祖詒（總統府前副秘書長）

 二二八事件傷痛至今未消，反而被一些政治人物操作，使得真相更為模糊。我過去服務公職，由於職務關係，曾詳細看過《大溪檔案》中有關二二八事件部分的全部案卷，深深記得有些重要文件涉及當時國民政府主席蔣中正處理二二八事件的政策與態度，關係到研究史案對他的褒貶與評價。    

 一、民國36年3月9日，蔣主席指派國防部長白祟禧赴台宣慰，並指出台灣行政長官公署應依照省政府組織法改組為台灣省政府，改組時應儘量容納當地優秀人士。

 二、3月10日，蔣主席在中樞國父紀念週集會講話時稱：「本人已嚴電留台軍政人員，靜候中央派員處理，不得採取報復行動，以期全台同胞親愛團結，互助合作。」     

三、13日，蔣主席親自電令陳儀長官。電文曰：「請兄負責嚴禁軍政人員施行報復，否則以抗令論罪。」    

四、17日，蔣主席對台灣同胞廣播，明示中央處理台灣事件四項原則：1、台灣省行政長官公署改為台灣省政府；2、台灣省各縣市長提前民選；3、台灣省政府委員及各廳處局長以儘量選用本省人為原則；4、民生事業公營範圍應儘量小，公民營劃分辦法，由主管部會迅速審定。     

五、同日廣播詞中強調，地方政治常態應即恢復，其參與此次事變有關之人員，除共黨煽惑暴動者外，一律從寬免究。     

六、19日，因據報國軍21師有一營士兵追擊所謂「二七部隊」（即謝雪紅之民軍）進入山區，立電赴台宣慰之白祟禧部長，囑其轉告「不可孟浪，尤應特別注意軍紀，萬不可拾取民間一草一木，軍隊補給必須充分週到，勿使官兵藉口破壞紀律。」     

七、當不幸事件趨於平息時，對於案件偵辦審理管轄問題，依戒嚴法規定，全案應歸軍法機關審理，但蔣主席特別批示，將非軍人身份的涉案人員移歸司法機關處理。     

綜上各點，可以想見當時中樞對二二八事件之處理，採取寬大包容之原則。今所謂「政治責任歸屬報告」竟指蔣為事件之「元兇」，誠屬匪夷所思。

中國時報：蔣中正 寬容處理二二八（2006.3.1）

相關文章：複數的二二八（中國時報，2006.3.1）

南飛烏鵲曰：
論戰之中，正反雙方各據史料，攻守辯駁，本來就是件稀鬆平常的事。受過教育、敏於思考的讀者，該懂得評比論述粗劣，定其是非。民國三十六年的二二八事件，誰該負起最大責任？陳儀深、張祖詒兩位先生的說法，何者更具說服力？中國時報的社論很值得參考：民政府遷台之初在統治心態上與手段上，也不符合人本與自由的判準，釀成巨變當然也該嚴厲譴責。我們要提醒台灣人民…譴責五十年前的國民政府也不等於歸咎今日的國民黨、批判當年軍隊的鎮壓更不表示敵視其官兵所歸隸的省籍。

林茂生；王添灯；陳炘；宋斐如；吳鴻麒；施江南；阮朝日；吳金鍊；林旭屏；黃朝生；徐春卿；陳屋；李仁貴；楊元丁；郭章垣：張七郎；許錫謙；王育霖；林連宗；黃媽典；張榮宗；陳復志：陳澄波；潘木枝；盧炳欽；湯德章；蕭朝金；黃賜；王石定；葉秋木

相關網站：
財團法人二二八事件紀念基金會

南飛烏鵲曰：
每一個死難者的名字都是對不義政權的控訴。

By Matthew Pearl（Guest Columnist）

Until the 1860's, Harvard presidents were anointed by and answered to the university's Board of Overseers, a powerful group of political and religious establishment figures that included the governor of Massachusetts, along with other dignitaries appointed by the Legislature. But in 1865 the Legislature passed a law democratizing things, allowing Harvard alumni to elect the overseers, in an effort said to "emancipate" Harvard (a loaded term in 1865) from politics, and render it an independent rather than state institution.

In the years leading up to this transition, the Harvard presidents fought against the tide of liberalism, limiting the number of disciplines that could be taught and, within those disciplines, maneuvering student choices toward rigidly designed classical studies. When Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked to Henry David Thoreau that all branches of learning were taught at Harvard, Thoreau recalled of his own time there that, yes, "all the branches, but none of the roots." Students were insulated, reprimanded for congregating in groups, raising their voices and even "throwing reflections of sunshine around the College Yard."

All five of the transitory line of pre-1865 presidents — Edward Everett, Jared Sparks, James Walker, Cornelius Felton and Thomas Hill — had been Harvard students themselves, and all but one were clergymen. They fought in the humanities against the expansion of teaching foreign languages, and in the sciences against the spread of Darwinism, which was seen as antireligious.

Harvard students not only pushed back against the institutional emphasis on recitations, the prevailing pedagogical method of memorization and repetition, but also pushed the culture on campus outward and into the larger world. When the Civil War broke out, Harvard students volunteered to fight in surprisingly large numbers

【…】

The 1865 law shaking up the Board of Overseers allowed the university to adjust more nimbly to events outside its gates. But the biggest result, four years later, was the selection of the next president, the chemist Charles William Eliot, who ushered in large-scale reforms that marked the renaissance in liberal arts education, not just at Harvard but also across the country.

Eliot, only 35 at the time of his inauguration, published a two-part series on "The New Education" in The Atlantic Monthly, setting forth a national agenda for educational reform. The presidents of colleges like Cornell and Johns Hopkins were compelled to coordinate their efforts with Harvard's. Appropriately, Eliot remained president for 40 years, the longest term in the university's history, and brought Harvard into the first years of the 20th century.

【…】

So, if the culmination of events at Harvard in 1865 was a factor in reshaping higher education in America for the last 140 years, will we see a similar impact from the Summers affair? I suspect that this time it will be mostly for Harvard alone.

【…】

America has outgrown Harvard. It is still our most prestigious brand; but as a Harvard alumnus, I find it especially obvious that today there are so many equally outstanding institutions, public as well as private, and such a huge proportion of the public is now college-educated, that Harvard no longer dictates the dominant model for the American university.

詳見紐約時報：How the Liberal Arts Got That Way

By Eugene Robinson（Op-Ed Columnist）

Summers's defeat at the hands of the restive and determined Faculty of Arts and Sciences is being portrayed by his supporters as a sad triumph of liberal orthodoxy and political correctness. Really, though, it's nothing of the sort. Summers is being forced to resign because, as brilliant as he is -- and you don't become a tenured Harvard professor at 28, as Summers did, unless you're ridiculously brilliant -- he proved to be a terrible politician. That alone is reason for him to have to go.

【…】

Time and again he used a verbal machete where a stiletto would have sufficed, until the famous disquisition last year on gender differences in which he suggested "intrinsic aptitude" might explain why fewer women than men excel at math and science -- spoken before an audience of experts who knew far more about the subject than he did.

【…】

His failure as a politician, I think, is enough to explain Summers's early departure. But there's also the question of the direction in which he sought to lead Harvard. I did spend a year there once on a fellowship, and I've got to say that I didn't notice any stifling blanket of political correctness -- nor any tidal wave of diversity that was in danger of lowering standards, as some of Summers's most vocal supporters seem to fear. I saw an institution that by no means was turning its back on the Western canon but rather trying to expand its field of vision.

Summers's great strength, in the end, was a passionate commitment to undergraduate education. Students liked him and sensed that he cared about them, and it's good that after a sabbatical he will return to the Harvard faculty. I suspect that if I run into him again in a few years, he'll be in his element -- no longer an ineffective herder of cats but once again the big cat he was meant to be.

詳見華盛頓郵報：The Subject Larry Summers Failed（2006.2.24）

南飛烏鵲曰：
不禁想起龔鵬程先生： “未滿三十取得博士學位、未滿三十五升等正教授、最年輕的文學院長與大學校長”（ “像他這樣一個老師”）。龔先生也是個引起爭議的人物，當佛光大學校長的時候，弄了個烤全羊的活動，結果“校長率眾吃了羊，護生愛羊的佛光教徒吃了校長”（王孝廉教授語）。這兩年他到對岸作逍遙之遊，還不忘砲轟台灣亂象。昔日的青年才俊，如今到了知命之年，依然活力十足。

 
余光中表示，五四運動提倡白話文學的改革者，全都飽讀詩書，古文基底深厚，所以才能寫出優美的白話文。像胡適、魯迅，都是飽讀古典文學的學者，而不是讀了古書就斷了新文學的前程，杜正勝拿讀不讀文言文，劃分「保守與前進」，是太粗糙的分法。     

「我是外文系的，」他以自己舉例：「我讀了很多英文（作品），還有很多古文，白話文。」但並非讀進文言文，吐出來就是文言文，而是讀通文言文後，自然筆下出現的是流暢的白話文。「這就好像蠶吃了桑葉，變成蠶絲。」

詳見中國時報：余光中：他轉太快 見風轉舵

在語言文字上，【南方朔】還說，先進國家莫不用心維護自己的語言，我國卻不注重語言文化。「學習文言文有什麼不好？」他說：「不好好讀文言文，你連歌仔戲都看不懂！吳濁流、賴和等人寫了很多漢詩，都是古文啊！」又如日治時期去世的知名文人洪棄生，也是以樂府的形式撰寫很多與台灣相關的詩文。

詳見中國時報：南方朔：不讀文言文 連歌仔戲都看不懂

南飛烏鵲曰：
文言、白話之爭，爭的不只是文體，更是面對傳統的態度。化用古文，文白交融，筆下自然精采。更重要的，閱讀古文，養成歷史意識，以傳統對照現代，筆下自然有深度。

懂得尊重、援用、參照自己的傳統，便能推而廣之，進而尊重、援用、參照他國的傳統。Seamus Heaney 談論Wordsworth，寫道： “【Wordsworth】was helped back towards his characteristic mental "chearfulness " by two indispensable soul-guides. His Beatrice was now his volatile and highly intelligent sister Dorothy, his Virgil the ardent philosophical poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge” 文中借用《神曲》裡的人物，來說明Dorothy、Colerdige對於Wordsworth影響深遠。不曉得這個典故，對文章的理解便要大打折扣。

接納傳統、兼容並蓄的文化必然是生氣蓬勃的，正如汪洋大海，可納百川。反過來說，背離歷史的文化只是一潭死水。今天之所以提倡文言，豈是要學生一個個在文章裡頭之乎者也？強調文言，其實是為了要給台灣文化注入源頭活水啊。