未有天才之前

来源:百度文库 编辑:神马文学网 时间:2024/03/29 07:55:02
Lu Xun
Waiting for a Genius
A Lecture Delivered to the Alumni of the
Peking Normal University‘s Middle School on January 17, 1924--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Written/Presented: January 17, 1924
Source: Selected Works of Lu Hsun Volume II, pp. 77-81 Foreign Languages Press, 1957
Online Version: Lu Xun Reference Archive, September 2005
Transcribed/HTML Markup: Mike B.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am afraid my talk will be of no use or interest to you, for I really have no special knowledge. But after putting this off so long I have finally had to come here to say a few words.It seems to me that among the many requests shouted at writers and artists today, one of the loudest is the demand for a genius. And this proves two things: first, that there is no genius just now in China; secondly, that everybody is sick and tired of our modern art. Is there really no genius? There may be, but we have never seen one and neither has anyone else. So on the evidence of our eyes and ears we can say there is not—not only no genius, but no public capable of producing a genius. Genius is not some freak of nature which grows of itself in deep forests or wildernesses, but something brought forth and nurtured by a certain type of public. Without such a public there will be no genius. When crossing the Alps, Napoleon once declared, "I am higher than the Alps!" What a heroic statement! But we must not forget how many troops he had at his back. Without these troops he would simply have been captured or driven back by the enemy on the other side; and then, far from seeming heroic, his behaviour would have appeared that of a madman. To my mind, then, before we expect a genius to appear, we should first call for a public capable of producing a genius. In the same way, if we want fine trees and lovely flowers, we must first produce good soil. The soil, actually, is more important than the flowers and trees, for without it nothing can grow. Soil is essential to flowers and trees, just as good troops were to Napoleon.Yet judging by present-day pronouncements and trends, the demand for genius goes hand in hand with attempts to destroy it—some would even sweep away the soil in which it might grow. Let me give a few examples:First, take the "study of national culture." Although the new ideas have never made much headway in China, many old fogeys—young ones too—are already scared to death and have started ranting about national culture. "China has many good things," they assure us. "To run after what is new instead of studying and preserving the old is as bad as renouncing our ancestral heritage." Of course, it carries enormous weight to trot out our ancestors to make a point; but I cannot believe that before the old jacket is washed and folded no new one must be made. As things stand at present, each can do as he pleases: old gentlemen who want to study the national culture are at liberty to pore over dead books by their southern windows, while the young can have their living studies and modern art. As long as each follows his own bent, not much harm will be done. But to rally others to their banner would mean cutting China off for ever from the rest of the world. To demand this of everyone is even more fantastic! When we talk with curio-dealers, they naturally praise their antiques, but they do not condemn painters, peasants, workers and the rest for forgetting their ancestors. The fact is they are much more intelligent than many old scholars.Then take the "worship of original work." Looked at superficially, this seems quite in keeping with the demand for genius; but such is not the case. It smacks strongly of chauvinism in the realm of ideas, and thus will also cut China off from the current of world opinion. Although many people are already tired of the names of Tolstoy, Turgeniev and Dostoevsky, how many of their books have been translated into Chinese? Those who look no further than our own borders dislike the names Peter and John, and will read only about Third Chang and Fourth Li; thus come the original writers. Actually, the best of them have simply borrowed some technical devices or expressions from foreign authors. However polished their style, their content usually falls far short of translations, and they may even slip in some old ideas to suit the traditional Chinese temperament. Their readers fall into this trap, their views becoming more and more confined, until they almost shrink back between the old traces. When such a vicious circle exists between writers and readers for the abolition of all that is different and the glorification of the national culture, how can genius be produced? Even if one were to appear, he could not survive.A public like this is dust, not soil, and no lovely flowers or fine trees will grow from it.Then take destructive criticism. There has long been a great demand for critics, and now many have appeared. Unhappily, quite a number of them just carp and complain instead of writing genuine criticism. As soon as a work is sent to them, they indignantly grind their ink and lose no time in penning a most superior verdict: "Why, this is simply childish. What China needs is a genius!" Later even those who are not critics learn from them and raise the same clamour. Actually, the first cry of even a genius at birth is the same as an ordinary child‘s: it cannot possibly be a beautiful poem. And if you trample something underfoot because it is childish, it is likely to wither and die. I have seen several writers scared into silence by abuse. There was doubtless no genius among them, but even the ordinary ones I would like to keep.Of course, the destructive critics have great fun galloping over the tender shoots. The ones to suffer are the tender shoots—ordinary shoots as well as shoots of genius. There is nothing disgraceful in childishness; for childishness and maturity in writing are like childhood and manhood among human beings. A writer need not be ashamed of making a childish start, because unless he is trampled underfoot he will grow to maturity. What is incurable is decadence and corruption. I would let those who are childish—some of them may be old people with childlike hearts—express themselves in a childish way, speaking simply to please themselves; and when the words are said or even published, there let the business end. No attention need be paid to any critics, whatever banners they carry.I dare say at least nine-tenths of the present company would like to see a genius appear. Yet as things are at present it is not only hard to produce a genius, but hard to procure the soil from which a genius could grow. It seems to me that while genius is born, not made, anyone can become part of the soil to nurture genius. It is more urgent for us to provide the soil than to demand the genius; for otherwise, even if we have hundreds of geniuses, they will not be able to strike root for lack of soil, like bean-sprouts grown on a plate.To be the soil we must become more broad-minded. In other words we must accept new ideas and free ourselves of the old fetters, in order to accept and appreciate any future genius. Nor must we despise the humblest tasks. Original writers should go on writing; others can translate, introduce, enjoy, read, or use literature to kill time. It may sound rather odd to speak of killing time with literature, but at least this is better than trampling it underfoot.Of course the soil cannot be compared with genius, but even to be the soil is difficult unless we persevere and spare no pains. Still, everything depends on men‘s efforts, and here we have a better chance of success than if we wait idly for a heaven-sent genius. In this lie the strength of the soil and its great expectations, as well as its reward. For when a beautiful blossom grows from the soil, all who see it naturally take pleasure in the sight, including the soil itself. You need not be a blossom yourself to feel a lifting of your spirit-provided, always, that soil has a spirit too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lu Xun Internet Archive
Back to Reference Archive
 
  
未有天才之前① 
 
  ——一九二四年一月十七日在北京师范大学附属中学校友会讲    我自己觉得我的讲话不能使诸君有益或者有趣,因为我实在不知道什么事,但推托拖延得太长久了,所以终于不能不到这里来说几句。  我看现在许多人对于文艺界的要求的呼声之中,要求天才的产生也可以算是很盛大的了,这显然可以反证两件事:一是中国现在没有一个天才,二是大家对于现在的艺术的厌薄。天才究竟有没有?也许有着罢,然而我们和别人都没有见。倘使据了见闻,就可以说没有;不但天才,还有使天才得以生长的民众。  天才并不是自生自长在深林荒野里的怪物,是由可以使天才生长的民众产生,长育出来的,所以没有这种民众,就没有天才。有一回拿破仑过Alps 山②,说,“我比Alps山还要高!”这何等英伟,然而不要忘记他后面跟着许多兵;倘没有兵,那只有被山那面的敌人捉住或者赶回,他的举动,言语,都离了英雄的界线,要归入疯子一类了。所以我想,在要求天才的产生之前,应该先要求可以使天才生长的民众。——譬如想有乔木,想看好花,一定要有好土;没有土,便没有花木了;所以土实在较花木还重要。花木非有土不可,正同拿破仑非有好兵不可一样。  然而现在社会上的论调和趋势,一面固然要求天才,一面却要他灭亡,连预备的土也想扫尽。举出几样来说:  其一就是“整理国故”③。自从新思潮来到中国以后,其实何尝有力,而一群老头子,还有少年,却已丧魂失魄的来讲国故了,他们说,“中国自有许多好东西,都不整理保存,倒去求新,正如放弃祖宗遗产一样不肖。”抬出祖宗来说法,那自然是极威严的,然而我总不信在旧马褂未曾洗净叠好之前,便不能做一件新马褂。就现状而言,做事本来还随各人的自便,老先生要整理国故,当然不妨去埋在南窗下读死书,至于青年,却自有他们的活学问和新艺术,各干各事,也还没有大妨害的,但若拿了这面旗子来号召,那就是要中国永远与世界隔绝了。倘以为大家非此不可,那更是荒谬绝伦!我们和古董商人谈天,他自然总称赞他的古董如何好,然而他决不痛骂画家,农夫,工匠等类,说是忘记了祖宗:他实在比许多国学家聪明得远。  其一是“崇拜创作”④。从表面上看来,似乎这和要求天才的步调很相合,其实不然。那精神中,很含有排斥外来思想,异域情调的分子,所以也就是可以使中国和世界潮流隔绝的。许多人对于托尔斯泰,都介涅夫,陀思妥夫斯奇⑤的名字,已经厌听了,然而他们的著作,有什么译到中国来?眼光囚在一国里,听谈彼得和约翰⑥就生厌,定须张三李四才行,于是创作家出来了,从实说,好的也离不了刺取点外国作品的技术和神情,文笔或者漂亮,思想往往赶不上翻译品,甚者还要加上些传统思想,使他适合于中国人的老脾气,而读者却已为他所牢笼了,于是眼界便渐渐的狭小,几乎要缩进旧圈套里去。作者和读者互相为因果,排斥异流,抬上国粹,那里会有天才产生?即使产生了,也是活不下去的。  这样的风气的民众是灰尘,不是泥土,在他这里长不出好花和乔木来!  还有一样是恶意的批评。大家的要求批评家的出现,也由来已久了,到目下就出了许多批评家。可惜他们之中很有不少是不平家,不像批评家,作品才到面前,便恨恨地磨墨,立刻写出很高明的结论道,“唉,幼稚得很。中国要天才!”到后来,连并非批评家也这样叫喊了,他是听来的。其实即使天才,在生下来的时候的第一声啼哭,也和平常的儿童的一样,决不会就是一首好诗。因为幼稚,当头加以戕贼,也可以萎死的。我亲见几个作者,都被他们骂得寒噤了。那些作者大约自然不是天才,然而我的希望是便是常人也留着。  恶意的批评家在嫩苗的地上驰马,那当然是十分快意的事;然而遭殃的是嫩苗——平常的苗和天才的苗。幼稚对于老成,有如孩子对于老人,决没有什么耻辱;作品也一样,起初幼稚,不算耻辱的。因为倘不遭了戕贼,他就会生长,成熟,老成;独有老衰和腐败,倒是无药可救的事!我以为幼稚的人,或者老大的人,如有幼稚的心,就说幼稚的话,只为自己要说而说,说出之后,至多到印出之后,自己的事就完了,对于无论打着什么旗子的批评,都可以置之下理的!  就是在座的诸君,料来也十之九愿有天才的产生罢,然而情形是这样,不但产生天才难,单是有培养天才的泥土也难。我想,天才大半是天赋的;独有这培养天才的泥土,似乎大家都可以做。做土的功效,比要求天才还切近;否则,纵有成千成百的天才,也因为没有泥土,不能发达,要像一碟子绿豆芽。  做土要扩大了精神,就是收纳新潮,脱离旧套,能够容纳,了解那将来产生的天才;又要不怕做小事业,就是能创作的自然是创作,否则翻译,介绍,欣赏,读,看,消闲都可以。以文艺来消闲,说来似乎有些可笑,但究竟较胜于戕贼他。  泥土和天才比,当然是不足齿数的,然而不是坚苦卓绝者,也怕不容易做;不过事在人为,比空等天赋的天才有把握。这一点,是泥土的伟大的地方,也是反有大希望的地方。而且也有报酬,譬如好花从泥土里出来,看的人固然欣然的赏鉴,泥土也可以欣然的赏鉴,正不必花卉自身,这才心旷神怡的——假如当作泥土也有灵魂的说。    ①本篇最初发表于一九二四年北京师范大学附属中学《校友会刊》第一期。同年十二月二十七日《京报副刊》第二十一号转载时,前面有一段作者的小引:“伏园兄:今天看看正月间在师大附中的演讲,其生命似乎确乎尚在,所以校正寄奉,以备转载。二十二日夜,迅上。”  ②Alps山即阿尔卑斯山,欧洲最高大的山脉,位于法意两国之间。拿破仑在一八○○年进兵意大利同奥地利作战时,曾越过此山。  ③“整理国故”当时胡适所提倡的一种主张。胡适在一九一九年七月就鼓吹“多研究些问题,少谈些主义”;同年十二月他又在《新青年》第七卷第一号《“新思潮”的意义》一文中提出“整理国故”的口号。一九二三年在北京大学《国学季刊》的《发刊宣言》中,他更系统地宣传“整理国故”的主张,企图诱使知识分子和青年学生脱离现实的革命斗争。本文中所批评的,是当时某些附和胡适的人们所发的一些议论。  ④“崇拜创作”根据作者后来写的《祝中俄文字之交》(《南腔北调集》),这里所说似因郭沫若的意见而引起的。郭沫若曾在一九二一年二月《民铎》第二卷第五号发表的致李石岑函中说过:“我觉得国内人士只注重媒婆,而不注重处子;只注重翻译,而不注重产生。”他的这些话,是由于看了当年上海《时事新报》副刊《学灯》双十节增刊而发的,在增刊上刊载的第一篇是翻译小说,第二篇才是鲁迅的《头发的故事》。事实上,郭沫若也重视翻译,他曾经翻译过许多外国文学作品,鲁迅的意见也不能看作只是针对个人的。  ⑤托尔斯泰(1828—1910)俄国作家。著有《战争与和平》、《安娜·卡列尼娜》、《复活》等。都介涅夫(1818—1883),通译屠格涅夫,俄国作家。著有小说《猎人笔记》、《罗亭》、《父与子》等。陀思妥夫斯奇(1821-1881),通译陀斯妥耶夫斯基,俄国作家。著有小说《穷人》、《被侮辱与被损害的》、《罪与罚》等。  ⑥彼得和约翰欧美人常用的名字,这里泛指外国人。