I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. Truth be told, I never graduated from college, this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents’ savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn’t see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn’t interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn’t all romantic. I didn’t have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends’ rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, its likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something - your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky, I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation - the Macintosh - a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn’t know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me Ð I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I retuned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything Ð all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn’t even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor’s code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you’d have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I’m fine now.

This was the closest I’ve been to facing death, and I hope its the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960’s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

作者:陈丹青

大家好：

这是我第三次谈论鲁迅先生了。每次都是又恭敬，又有点紧张。昨天特地剃了头，换双新皮鞋。我不会当场讲演，讲到鲁迅的话题，尤其郑重，总要事先写点稿子才能自以为讲得清楚一些。下面我按着稿子念，再作些发挥，请诸位原谅。

（一）

鲁迅先生的纪念会，七十年来不知开过多少次了。在中国，鲁迅至今是个大话题。

粗略说来，从鲁迅逝世的1936年到1949年，鲁迅话题为民族革命问题所缠绕；从1949年到八十年代初，鲁迅话题则成为准官方意识形态，在大陆无人敢于冒犯，在台湾被长期封杀。总之，“鲁迅话题”是百分之百的“政治话题”。

八十年代中期，鲁迅话题逐渐被移出政治祭坛，挪进学术领域；九十年代迄今，官方对鲁迅话题开始了沉默、回避、冷淡的戏剧性过程。二十多年来，举凡重要的国家话题和政府语言，不再能够，也不再打算从鲁迅那里盘剥搜寻任何说法，鲁迅话题的庞大利用价值似乎走到尽头，由“在朝”转向“在野”，随即在学界与民间展开“鲁迅争议”，王朔，是这场争议的发难者。

到了新世纪，“鲁迅争议”衍生了“还原鲁迅”的愿望。就我所知，不论是鲁迅的“捍卫派”还是“质疑者”，近十余年出版的鲁迅专著大幅度抛弃官方意识形态尺度，试图描述真实的鲁迅。旧史料出现新的解读，一些新的史料披露了。其中，最可注意的声音来自鲁迅后代：先有2002年周海婴回忆录《我与鲁迅七十年》，后有2006年海婴先生大公子周令飞同志在交通大学的一场讲演，这位鲁迅的长孙直截了当问道：“鲁迅是谁？”

这可能是迄今为止关于鲁迅最为激烈而讽刺的发问。这一问，宣告七十年来我们被告知的那位鲁迅先生，面目全非。

（二）

我们可能都会同意，几十年来，中国历史远远近近的大人物几乎都被弄得面目全非。而鲁迅的被扭曲，是现代中国一桩超级公案。从五十年“政治话题”到近二十年的“鲁迅争议”，中国毕竟有所进步了，今天，鲁迅的读者有可能稍微接近鲁迅生前的语境。

但这并不意味着鲁迅的“还原”。

鲁迅先生的寿命是五十多年，他死后被政治化也有五十多年；鲁迅著作是一份遗产，被极端政治化的鲁迅是另一份遗产。鲁迅的幽灵、鲁迅的读者，七十年来始终在两个鲁迅、两份遗产之间游荡。

这是鲁迅公案的一面。另一面，我们看看西方。譬如但丁、蒙田、莎士比亚、歌德、黑格尔、托尔斯泰、尼采、马克思……都是巨大的历史公案、文化公案，他们在身后被不断解读、塑造、发掘、延伸。他们属于不同的国族和时代，但不属于政权；他们对文化与政治发生深远影响，但从未被现实政治吞没；他们的主张阶段性过时了，因为后人接续了他们的文脉；他们历久常新，因为他们早经熔铸为文化之链与历史坐标。

鲁迅身后的命运正相反：他是中国现代文学的头牌，但始终抵押在政权手里；他对现实政治其实毫无影响，却沦为政权的超级打手；他被悬置，但难以过时，因为他身后既不曾出现、也不可能出现等量齐观的人物；因此他历久长在，不完全由于他著作的影响，而是最高规格的孤立状态；他的全集一版再版，但与当今文化难以建立活的关系——相比被封杀、被遗忘，鲁迅身后的命运与处境更其诡谲，更其悲哀。

七十年来，鲁迅墓前曾有无数革命者或权势者的鲜花，近二十年，煞有介事也罢，发乎内心也好，官方与民间不再主动拜祭。鲁迅清静了，不再被利用，也不再被供奉。这种暧昧的冷漠和前五十年炙手可热的“鲁迅政治”一样，都是反常与变态，是历史的冻结。目前这份已告冷却的鲁迅遗产，仍然是官方撤除之后的官方遗产。

九十多年前，鲁迅的大愿是“救救孩子！”今天，孩子们的命题可能是：“救救鲁迅”！


（三）

鲁迅身后的所有话题，是鲁迅先生的问题还是我们的问题？如果是鲁迅的问题，他的遗作俱在，要争议就争议，不愿读就不去读，无所谓还原不还原；如果这是我们的问题，那么，我们为什么要还原鲁迅？怎样还原？有没有可能还原？

我想来想去，答案是：一，问题出在我们；二，鲁迅很难还原。三，要还原鲁迅和无数历史人物，有待于“我们”发生根本的变化；四，不论是良性的、恶性的、还是中性的，不论与鲁迅有关系还是没关系，这种变化的过程会很长——可能需要另一个七十年——但眼下这变化已初露端倪。

所以重要的不是鲁迅，不是还原，而是“我们”的变化。

以下试着扼要谈论鲁迅为什么难以还原，为什么这“难以还原”是我们的问题。最近，香港凤凰台就鲁迅逝世七十周年来访，给我一组关于鲁迅的质疑。有的早就听过，有的闻所未闻。记忆所及，仅举如下数端：

1，鲁迅的思想可以商榷吗？2，鲁迅的精神是否被继承？是否值得继承？3，鲁迅喜欢骂人，是否导致人们在文革中互相攻击斗争的恶习？4，怎么看待鲁迅认同“无产阶级专政”？5，鲁迅的名句：“我向来不憚以最坏的恶意揣测中国人”，是否助长了中国人的恶？

在半小时访答中，我无能展开谈论，现在顺着问题想下去，我清清楚楚看见，问题在我们，在那份鲁迅政治的遗产。

其一，鲁迅可以商榷吗？这是典型的奴才思路，是极权文化才会提出的问题——所有人物与思想都可以“商榷”，理应“商榷”，但我不用“商榷”这个词，那是中国式伪争论的代用词，吞吞吐吐，躲躲闪闪。当“商榷”二字得以流行的年代，正是抹杀批评，禁止怀疑的年代，我们是思想被封锁被掐灭的几代人证。

其二，鲁迅的精神是否被继承？是否值得继承？我的回答是：假如鲁迅精神指的是怀疑、批评和抗争，那么，这种精神不但丝毫没有被继承，而且被空前成功地铲除了。我不主张继承这种精神，因为谁也继承不了、继承不起，除非你有两条以上性命，或者，除非你是鲁迅同时代的人。最稳妥的办法是取鲁迅精神的反面：沉默、归顺、奴化，以至奴化得珠圆玉润。

其三，鲁迅喜欢骂人，是否导致文革期间人们互相攻讦斗争的恶习？阿弥陀佛！这样的问题需要回答么？有趣的倒是看看别的国家、别的时代，文学家思想家怎样骂人——我不认为这是骂人，反而指为骂人者，真是一种骂。但既是谁都用这个词，姑且从众吧——太远的例子不去说，仅看比鲁迅略早、略晚，或大致同期的人物：有人问福娄拜最近在干什么，他说，我在继续诅咒我的同胞，向他们头上倒粪便；托尔斯泰一辈子骂人，谁都骂，骂皇帝和教主，骂莎士比亚和尼采，骂前辈赫尔岑，骂老朋友屠格涅夫，当然，也骂他自己；尼采的咒骂则指向整个基督教世界，他说，天下只有一位基督徒，那就是耶稣，而“耶稣教”是两千年来欧洲最大的政治……在中国，应该为温柔敦厚的良人们编一册世界文豪骂人史，虽然全世界没有一个国家发生过文革，那样人整人。

这种人整人的恶习、模式、话语方式，在三十年代的左翼内部已经发难，成为五四百家争鸣的异化。八十年代出版了鲁迅论敌骂鲁迅的大部头史料，九十年代有一部书叫做《鲁迅：最被污蔑的人》，历历举证鲁迅被谩骂被围攻的史实。这里仅举一例，即在新中国文艺牌坊中仅次于鲁迅的郭沫若同志，即曾公然宣判鲁迅为“双重的封建余孽”。当郭同志出口定罪前，他自称几乎不读鲁迅的书。

其四，怎样看待鲁迅认同“无产阶级专政”？是的，我们这代人都是“无产阶级专政”的子民。但不要弄错：从六七十年代的《红旗》杂志或《人民日报》通栏标题读到“无产阶级专政”这句话，和二三十年代在秘密书刊以及文人写作中读到同一句话，是两种读法，两种后果，两回事。是的，鲁迅曾是左翼阵营的大将——在他的时代，世界范围激进知识分子和艺术家十之七八选择左翼立场，譬如法国人文人阿拉贡、西班牙画家毕加索、意大利导演帕索里尼、彼德鲁齐等等，不仅左倾，而且是准共产党员——当“双重封建余孽”鲁迅先生晚期靠拢左翼，模写“无产阶级专政”这句话，不是出于政治信仰，而是再三目击“无产阶级”青年肝脑涂地，被枪毙。但及早道破左翼内部的虚伪、狡诈、霸道、浅薄，同样也是鲁迅。为什么呢？

因为其五，鲁迅“向来不憚以最坏的恶意揣测中国人”——这句话居然“助长了中国人的恶”，且不说此话通不通，这是什么逻辑？莫非此后至今遍中国滔滔不绝的恶人们在作恶之前，都曾请教过鲁迅的著作么——恶意，分两种，一种是自知其恶，一种竟出于所谓“善意”，若是今天还有中国人以这样的“善意”去责难鲁迅，这善意，在我看来就是十足的恶意。

不过以上的问，以上的答，都愚蠢，那是一笔现代中国是非观的糊涂帐，是不值一谈的常识问题。可资详实对照的是鲁迅时代与我们时代的差异，这差异，才是还原鲁迅真正的难处。


（四）

以下粗略排列一组时代背景、社会指标与文化形态，借以提醒我们为什么难以还原鲁迅。

鲁迅青少年时期，中国有大清政府，有康梁乱党，有孙中山革命集团，有无数民间集社，有列国的殖民地。鲁迅壮年时期，北方是军阀政府，南方是国民政府，江西是苏维埃政府；而军阀在各省据有势力，国民政府曾分为宁汉政府，许多省份还设有苏维埃地下政府。到了鲁迅的中期与晚期，中国粗粗统一，但仍有南京政府与延安政府，抗战时期还有南京伪政府与重庆国民政府；而在鲁迅居住的上海，有日租界与法租界。

鲁迅在北京厦门广州上海时期，学界有前清遗老，有各省宿儒，有留日派，留英派，留美派，留德派等等，这些海龟派与今日的海龟派不可同日而语，各有真正的学派、主张和势力。政治流派，则先后出现过君主立宪派，共和派，保皇派，三民主义，共产主义，资本主义，自由主义，法西斯主义，民族主义，还有无政府主义——在座年轻人可能不知道，“巴金”的笔名，就是取两位欧洲无政府主义者的中文译名：巴库宁和克鲁泡特金，他比鲁迅谈论“无产阶级专政”还激进，居然公开顶着无政府主义者的名，活了一百多岁——最近中央电视台新闻频道一挡节目还公布了史料：虽然昙花一现，形同儿戏，但上世纪二十年代前后，中国的政党出现过上百个。

鲁迅的同学、战友、论敌，有的是国民党要人，如蔡元培和陈仪；有的是共产党要人，如陈独秀与瞿秋白；有的既是国民党员又是共产党员，如郭沫若与田汉，有的既是学者教授又是党国重臣，如胡适之；当然，自也有许多无党无派的文人。教科书总是凸显鲁迅年轻朋友中的左翼人士与共产党人，察看鲁迅通信的朋友，却有国民党军人如他格外溺爱的李秉中；有鲁迅为之谋职，解放后被镇压的国民政府县官如荆有驎；也有先左后右的青年，如选择台湾的台静农。鲁迅与好几位左翼小青年从亲昵到绝交，但与国民党军政界或右翼小朋友反倒未有闹翻的记载。鲁迅的外国友人，则有俄国没落诗人爱罗先珂，有美国左翼小子史沫莱特与斯诺，而内山完造与增田涉等等日本友人，非左非右，并没有政治色彩。

说到鲁迅与他同代人的交友范围，今天即便人脉最广，身份最特殊的角色，也不可能与社会身份杂异、政治立场截然对立的人群维持朋友关系或彼此为敌的关系。从五十年代到七十年代，朋友等同朋党，胡风集团、二流堂圈子，均曾获罪，关押自杀多人，株连千百。政治集团的类似案例更是不可胜数。八十年代迄今，则朋友关系大致是权利关系，或以升官，或以发财。相对纯粹的私人友谊勉强恢复常态，然而众人的出身、职业、观点或有差异，但我们全是国家的人，教育背景和整体人格，都是一样的。

总之，鲁迅与他同代人的政治与文化版图，鲁迅与他敌友置身其间的言行空间，以我们这几代人同出于一个模子的生存经验，绝对不可能想象，不可能亲历，不可能分享鲁迅那代人具体而微的日常经验——当然，我们几代人共享齐天洪福，免于三座大山的压迫，免于乱世之苦。其代价，是我们对相对纷杂的社会形态，相对异样的生存选择，相对自主的成长经历，迹近生理上的无知。

至于鲁迅的言论与思想，再早、再晚，都出不来。他的时代，是中国现代史国家祸乱与历史机会最为密集的世代，也是春秋以来唯一一次短暂的“百家争鸣”时代。倘若他被认为高于其他人，因为有其他人；倘若其他人不认同他，便说明那是群雄并起的年代。他身后被高悬、孤立，使我们只能仰望他一个。近二十年，那个时代与他对立的学说大约出齐了，然而最初的阅读形同烙印：我们读鲁迅在先，读其他人在后，听他骂人在先，得知骂他的文章在后。这种先后差异，不可低估。

但这些都不重要，真的要害，是我们几代人早已被塑造为另一群物种。我们的思维模式、话语习惯、价值判断及无数生存细节，几乎无法与鲁迅及他的同代人衔接对应。我们的困难不是不认识鲁迅，而是不认识我们自己。要还原鲁迅，恐怕先得借助鲁迅的生存经验，做一番自我还原。

譬如，鲁迅在中国数度迁移，但不必到派出所申办户口或暂住证；他与好几所大学有受聘解聘的关系，但从来没有一份人事档案尾随其后；他有身居高官的老朋友，但从未受制于任何单位领导；他被特务监视，但弄堂隔壁没有居民委员会；他的文章常被封杀禁止，但从未写过一纸思想汇报与书面检讨；他被多位友朋明攻暗伤，但并非出于卑怯的检举揭发；他被不同阵营污蔑围攻，但从未被国民政府“打倒”并发动全国性批判；他活在战祸频仍的时代，但从未领教过举国民众的武斗；他擅逃亡，但不是为了逃避隔离审查、监督劳动或遣送下乡；他活画出旧文人孔已己的凄惨末路，但对学者教授沦为囚犯或贱人的经历毫无感知；他为我们留下永恒的阿Q，但绝不会料到到阿Q同志后来可能当上役使乡民的村长，甚至县长；他私通乱党，名列通缉，但从未被戴上一顶右派或现行反革命帽子，所以，他不知道什么叫做被平反的狂喜与委屈。许多人讥嘲他是位“绍兴师爷”，可他从未经手一件我们时代哪怕最卑微的“冤假错案”；兄弟失和诚然是他最难释怀的内伤，此外，要论无可申说的个人委屈和无妄之灾，他身后的大小文人都比他阅历深厚；晚期，鲁迅主动阅读马克思学说，但从未被命令以唯物主义检讨、修改、以至公开否定自己的著作；不消说，他从未申请入党，从未听说全国文联与作家协会，从未被阻止或恩准阅读“内部文件”，从未由于行政级别分到或分不到一间住房，从未接受过哪位人事处科员的威胁或奉承；他的葬礼与为他抬棺的巴金同志的葬礼完全不同，不是国家操办；他被覆盖《民族魂》大旗的殊荣不是根据国务院或XX部的指令；当国母宋庆龄与国师蔡元培以私人身份出席他葬礼时，伙同沈君儒章乃器等第三势力，而葬礼的秘密策划与公开策动，是当时的青年乱党如冯雪峰与大批左翼青年。这些人的政治身份与社会地位完全不同，却堂而皇之站在鲁迅的灵柩旁轮番演说，慷慨激昂，公然咒骂政府的无能与不抵抗。

对不起，还有：鲁迅生前从未见过粮票和布票。


（五）

所以周令飞动问“鲁迅是谁”，鲁迅怕也弄不清“令飞是谁？”——令飞与我同岁同届，我一见他，除了头十秒钟惊喜，旋即发现他是我的哪位中学同学。我在他脸上搜寻鲁迅，结果读到所有老知青的心理与生理密码：十六岁我下乡落户，在赣南零上四十度的酷暑中割水稻；他十六岁当兵，在东北零下四十度的严寒中站岗；八十年代我去了纽约，他去了东京；在台湾，我有一位爷爷，他有一位太太，当初他俩在东京向中国大使馆与台湾办事处申报婚姻，两边的官员均不敢作主成全这对政治鸳鸯……反正令飞同志的成长与他祖父没有任何相似之点，却和我出奇地相似。

我也见到令飞的爸爸。多么熟悉的老上海人。在他的回忆录中，许广平先生晚年经历了所有国家高干的悲喜剧，那是由人事处、房管所、中央领导、以及历届运动编写的曲折剧情。假如鲁迅先生半夜敲门回家，海婴母子必须花费无数口舌才能使鲁迅听明白——只有一部分故事早已为鲁迅所熟悉，那就是左翼分子的上纲上线、弄权整人。但他绝对想不到当年左翼小圈子的暴戾，日后竟扩大为神州大地数十年斗争生活，其中，单是“气宇轩昂”的左联“元帅”周杨同志当了文化部长，六十年代又遭报应的个案，就会使他大开眼界。

这就是鲁迅决定拯救的孩子们。调动他平生所有经验，他也弄不清这些孩子玩得是什么把戏。

七十年历史，是我们与鲁迅成为彼此的异类的历史。今天不论怎样谈论鲁迅、阅读鲁迅，我们的感知系统或研究手段，其实都很难真的奏效。在我们的上下周围，鲁迅那样的物种灭绝了——岂止是他，伟大的早期国民党人，伟大的早期共产党人，伟大的革命者与启蒙者一代，在今天的人群与人格类型中，消失净尽——而在鲁迅的时代，这些人不论为敌为友、为官为匪，但他们的伦理道德血脉教养，个个跨越唐宋，上溯先秦，同时，他们是中国第一代世界主义者，第一代现代民族主义者，第一代新型的文化精英和政治精英。

或曰，难道时代没有进步吗？大大进步了。“革命前辈的鲜血岂能白流！”我相信诸位不会误解我在夸大过去，贬低今天。事物与人物需要比较，至少，一个物质的现代化中国足使鲁迅目瞪口呆——鲁迅早年在北平穿着单裤过冬，无缘享受空调；鲁迅坐车有感于道路颠簸，无缘驰骋高速公路；他主张抛弃毛笔，可未曾梦见电脑；他晚岁收藏不少《世界裸体美术全集》，可惜看不到今日的超短裙……一个价值迷失的中国也足使鲁迅与他的敌友哑口无言。不过他早经预先绝望过了，好像知道将要认不出未来的中国，他说过，未来是坟，坟的未来，无非是被踏平。

西方人物的身后命运怎样呢？譬如，启蒙运动确实塑造了今日西方，尼采果然标举了新型知识精英的立场，马克思大大颠覆了资本主义。然后，启蒙先贤、尼采学说、马克思主义不断被后代展开、追问，并持续超越。当李维·斯特劳斯怀疑晚辈福柯或德里达的学说时，他知道审慎而准确地用词；巴特尔出道之书《写作的零度》旨在与长辈萨特辩难，而他最后著作《明室》的扉页，题写“向萨特的想象致敬”……十倍百倍于鲁迅耗尽心智的文化论战，在西方从未停止，那种激烈、深度、不苟同，尤其是丰富的建树，远远超过鲁迅与他的敌友。在西方，文人从未被打倒，而是被质疑；从未被神化，而是被纪念；从未被架空，而是实实在在地被试图理解、被持续研究。我所亲见的西方人谈起先贤与哲人，并不大惊小怪，只是平静而诚恳的尊敬。

我们只有一位鲁迅。当我们这代人被纵容阅读鲁迅及不准阅读胡适，乃出于同一的原由和性质。而鲁迅死后，他的价值追求便被成功地窒息：或者割裂、或者歪曲，休想继续传递、提升、展开。他的大半命题在今日中国远未过时，却被迫停在过去时。同时，那份政治化的鲁迅遗产以不可抗拒的方式灌输至今，看不出停止的迹象——在中国，鲁迅和马克思各有分工：鲁迅专门负责诅咒万恶的旧中国，马克思专门负责证明社会主义的必然性。而今“与时俱进”的国情又将鲁迅和马克思的脸涂得又红又白，他们仍然被孤零零吊在中国现代史上空，既当圣人，又做恶人：不是吗？今日千千万万中学生大学生对马克思或鲁迅敬而远之，又不得不与之周旋：他们年年必须背诵马克思教条（俗称“马概”）以便通过政治考试，又年年被迫阅读鲁迅并书写读后感。什么是马克思主义？鲁迅有哪些价值？孩子们根本不在乎。在今日知识谱系中，马克思与鲁迅被重视的程度是半世纪以来最低点，除了屈就而厌烦，年轻人对他们没有尊敬，没有爱。

这也是为什么维护或质疑鲁迅的种种絮叨，均难发生真的影响和说服力。我们既难消除鲁迅，也难以挽救他，他在我们够不着的某处，他甚至不属于自己的血亲：当周令飞问道“鲁迅是谁？”我猜想，他愿意强调的身份并非仅仅因为他是鲁迅的孙儿。他与父亲在家里提起祖父，恐怕不常称之为“爸爸”、“爷爷”，而是直呼“鲁迅”，正象七十年前周作人指着自己妈妈说：“这是鲁迅的母亲。”

说来不仅是令飞的祖父，五四前后的重要人物都被架空了、作废了：梁启超、孙中山、蔡元培、胡适、陈独秀、梁漱溟、马寅初……这份名单顶多进入学术研究，不再发生温热，投射光芒。他们的命运模式是这样的：先是失败的历史英雄，接着，空留英雄之名而遭遇历史性失败。

“鲁迅话题”不能只谈鲁迅。只谈鲁迅，将会加深他的孤立，使这孤立更精致，更难以把握，“鲁迅研究”本该是文化研究，然而我们时代货真价实的文化在哪里，拿什么去研究鲁迅——当海涅对哥德微妙地不敬、庞德改动艾略特的诗章、巴特评析纪德的文体、纪德发掘妥斯托也夫斯基的深度、博尔赫斯偏爱叔本华的哲学、昆德拉分析贝多芬的乐谱，他们不必顾虑种族与时空的阻隔，因为他们当然地属于同一的、有效的欧洲人文大统，不曾迷失于历史谎言，更不会在历史断层的深隙中，坐井观天；当以赛亚·柏林大范围质疑启蒙遗产，并居然从康德的线索中清理出民族主义信号时，他是在挽救并丰富前辈的学说，而他纵横捡视古希腊迄今的思想遗产，乃基于对西方文化版图足够的资格与确信。

我们有这样牢靠的资格与确信吗？

十月以来，鲁迅逝世七十周年似乎成为媒体与社会一组相对自发的话题，看过去显然不是官方纪念的老花样。可喜的是，当今中国莫可名状的文化形态，其表层，稍微有一丁点接近鲁迅时代的意思了：知识景观逐渐铺展，言论空间有限豁裂，开放的国策不容逆转，旧有意识形态在年轻一代相对失效。总之，这都是好消息——不是对鲁迅的好消息，而是对于我们。

最近我收到几家媒体关于鲁迅的问题，重复道：我们为什么还要阅读鲁迅？我的回答是：一，不必勉强。当年《呐喊》《彷徨》再版时，鲁迅就不愿意，说不要用他阴暗的念头影响小孩子；二，七十年来的历史剧情是我们解读鲁迅的珍贵资源，因为他的光焰需要我们世代作有效的映衬。换句话说，第三，鲁迅早将自己烧毁了，他的价值可能照亮的，应该是我们——我们愿意被照亮吗？

回到这篇讲稿的题目：“鲁迅是谁？”我愿去掉“鲁迅”两个字，改成“我们”。

写于2006年10月12日   2006年10月14日在上海图书馆讲演