Zhang Wei: Choosing the Classical Spirit Anew
Zhang Wei argues that the classical spirit must be recovered not as academic antiquarianism or as material to be assimilated by existing orthodoxies, but as a living, heterogeneous force of individuality, creativity, and self-overcoming.
复旦大学历史学系古典学教授张巍先生专注于古希腊文学、古希腊思想史、西方古典在中国的传播的研究，著有《希腊古风诗教考论》《西方古典学研究入门》等。在最近出版的《古典的别择》一书中，他将目光投向几位对“古典精神”情有独钟的独行者：他们没有沿着“正统”的轨道前行，而是另辟蹊径，探索更贴近古典本质的道路。在接受《上海书评》的专访时，张巍阐释了他所理解的古典精神，并谈到了这种精神之于当下生活的意义，以及我们应该如何去追寻它。
Zhang Wei, professor of Classics in the Department of History at Fudan University, has devoted his research to ancient Greek literature, the history of ancient Greek thought, and the transmission of the Western classics in China. He is the author of Studies in Greek Archaic Poetics and Education and An Introduction to Western Classical Studies, among other works. In his recently published book The Alternative Choice of the Classical, he turns his attention to several solitary figures who cherished a particular attachment to the “classical spirit”: they did not proceed along the “orthodox” track, but opened paths of their own in search of a road closer to the essence of the classical. In an interview with Shanghai Review of Books, Zhang Wei explained what he understands by the classical spirit, spoke about the meaning of that spirit for life today, and considered how we ought to pursue it.
先从一个简单的问题出发：您给这本书取名为《古典的别择》，您所理解的“古典”是什么样的，要从中“别择”出什么？
Let us begin with a simple question: you have titled this book The Alternative Choice of the Classical. What, as you understand it, is “the classical,” and what is to be “chosen out” from it?
张巍：关于“古典”是什么意思，一言以蔽之，就是古希腊罗马的“古典精神”；而对“古典的别择”，可以说是在今天重新选择古典精神。具体而言，既是对我们看待西方的文化视角做出选择，也是对中国当前的文化态度做出选择。
Zhang Wei: As for what “the classical” means, it can be summed up in a phrase: the “classical spirit” of ancient Greece and Rome. And by “the alternative choice of the classical,” one might say I mean choosing the classical spirit anew today. More specifically, it is both a choice concerning the cultural perspective from which we look at the West, and a choice concerning China’s present cultural attitude.
先来谈西方视角。一方面，在西方现代文化的很多阶段，都盛行古典已经“死去”的观点。只有在一些特殊的时期——比如我在书中特别强调的十八世纪末到十九世纪初的德国，以及上世纪二三十年代——才有人站出来，对这种“古典已死”的观点提出质疑。除了这些时期，大多数时候主流观点确实是把古典当成一个已经终结的文化来看待的。你可以去做历史层面的研究，把古典当作纯粹的知识去研究，这当然没有问题，但人们普遍认为，它已经没有多大现实意义了。所以我在书中所说的“别择”，首先就是针对这一点——这是面向现代西方文化的一个视角。我想区别于传统学院派那种纯粹的学术研究视角，强调学习古典精神的重要意义。另一方面，古希腊罗马的古典精神和基督教精神之间一直存在着一种张力,在现代西方主流文化中，有一种普遍的看法认为，古典世界已经被基督教文明所取代。换句话说，古典精神已经被彻底吸纳、转化为基督教精神的一部分，因此也就不再具有独立的价值。于是有人会说，如果你想研究古典，那当然可以，但那只是作为历史的兴趣、知识的探索而已。除了学术研究以外，它在精神层面已经很难再给予我们什么了。我恰恰不这么看。我认为古典精神并没有完全被基督教“消化”（而且也不应该被“消化”），它仍然保留着一些不仅不同于基督教精神，甚至可以说是相异乃至对立的价值取向。也正是在这一点上，我们今天才更需要“别择”——也就是有意识地去重新理解古典精神，看它是否还能在当代语境中提供另一种可能。
Let us first speak of the Western perspective. On the one hand, at many stages of modern Western culture, the view that the classical had already “died” was prevalent. Only in certain special periods, such as Germany from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, which I particularly emphasize in the book, and again in the 1920s and 1930s, did people stand up and question this notion of “the death of the classical.” Apart from such periods, the mainstream view for most of the time did indeed treat the classical as a culture that had come to an end. You can study it historically, treat the classical as pure knowledge, and of course there is nothing wrong with that; but people generally believed that it no longer had much practical significance. So the “alternative choice” I speak of in the book is first directed at this point: it is a perspective on modern Western culture. I want to distinguish it from the purely scholarly perspective of traditional academic classicism, and to stress the significance of studying the classical spirit. On the other hand, there has always been a tension between the classical spirit of ancient Greece and Rome and the spirit of Christianity. In mainstream modern Western culture, there is a widespread view that the classical world has already been superseded by Christian civilization. In other words, the classical spirit has been thoroughly absorbed and transformed into part of the Christian spirit, and therefore no longer possesses independent value. Thus some will say: if you want to study the classical, of course you may, but that is merely a historical interest, an exploration of knowledge. Beyond academic research, it can hardly give us anything more on the spiritual level. I see things precisely otherwise. I do not think the classical spirit has been completely “digested” by Christianity, nor should it be. It still preserves certain value orientations that are not only different from the Christian spirit, but may even be called divergent from it, or opposed to it. It is precisely on this point that we today have greater need of an “alternative choice”: that is, consciously to understand the classical spirit anew, and to see whether it can still offer another possibility in the contemporary context.
而对当下的中国来说，我认为同样存在两方面的问题，也需要做出“别择”。一方面，是对从西方舶来的那套学院派古典学术的反思。我们不能简单地照搬西方的研究方法，就以为能够原封不动地把“古典”移植过来。这本书是对传统学院派的古典学术的一种回应，我不是按照主流、正统学术研究的方式去理解古典的。另一方面，是对另一种趋向的回应：这是一种和西方“基督教同化古典”的逻辑平行的文化态度。具体而言，在今天的中国，有些人主张用儒家来“同化”古典精神，也就是说，不是去理解西方古典的异质性，而是想把它纳入儒家的价值体系中，进而用它来反证儒家的正确性。这个时候，古典精神就被当作一个彻底为儒家所征服的“他者”来占有了。
As for present-day China, I think there are likewise two problems, and here too an “alternative choice” must be made. On the one hand, there is the need to reflect on the academic discipline of classical studies imported from the West. We cannot simply copy Western research methods and imagine that we can transplant “the classical” intact. This book is a response to traditional academic classicism; I do not understand the classical according to the mainstream, orthodox mode of scholarly research. On the other hand, it is a response to another tendency: a cultural attitude parallel to the Western logic by which “Christianity assimilates the classical.” More specifically, in China today, some people advocate using Confucianism to “assimilate” the classical spirit; that is, rather than understanding the heterogeneity of the Western classics, they want to incorporate them into the Confucian value system, and then use them in turn as proof of Confucianism’s correctness. At that point, the classical spirit is possessed as an “other” thoroughly conquered by Confucianism.
正因如此，《古典的别择》在结构上有意做出了安排：前两篇是回应西方的问题，后两篇则是回应当下中国语境中的问题。两者在结构上是并置的、平行的。
For this very reason, The Alternative Choice of the Classical deliberately arranges its structure in a certain way: the first two essays respond to problems in the West, while the latter two respond to problems in the present Chinese context. Structurally, the two are juxtaposed and parallel.
既然要对“古典精神”做出“别择”，那么，您依据什么标准来判断何种“古典精神”是值得提倡的？
Since an “alternative choice” is to be made with respect to the “classical spirit,” by what standard do you judge what kind of “classical spirit” is worth advocating?
张巍：这个问题非常好。其实在书中第一篇我已经尝试给出一种历史性的回答。我认为，如果我们要判断古典精神的价值，有必要回溯一下我们今天所说的“古典学术”是怎么形成的，它的历史开端是什么。
Zhang Wei: This is an excellent question. In fact, in the first essay of the book I have already tried to offer a historical answer. I believe that if we want to judge the value of the classical spirit, it is necessary to look back at how what we today call “classical scholarship” was formed, and what its historical beginning was.
回到十八世纪下半叶的德国，当时出现了一种被称为“爱希腊主义”（Philhellenism）的思潮。这种思潮并不限于德国，后来也波及整个西欧，但在德国尤其狂热。原因之一，是德国文化中那种喜欢刨根究底的精神强调对古典的深入发掘和不断追问。这个阶段的古典学，并不只是冷静地研究过去的文献或语法，而是在文化上扮演了一种革命性的角色，直接与当时占据主流地位的基督教精神发生对抗。可以说，在现代古典学的诞生时刻，古典精神本身就带有一种“反抗既有秩序”的颠覆性。如果我们把时间再往前推，比如文艺复兴时期，其实也是类似的情况。那时候所强调的重新发现古典，其实是借助古典来提出一种新的文化可能性，进而挑战当时的宗教秩序。
Returning to Germany in the second half of the eighteenth century, we find the emergence of a current of thought known as Philhellenism. This current was not confined to Germany; later it spread throughout Western Europe. But in Germany it was especially fervent. One reason was that the German cultural spirit, with its fondness for getting to the root of things, stressed deep excavation of the classical and unceasing questioning. Classical studies at this stage were not merely a cool-headed study of past documents or grammar; culturally, they played a revolutionary role, entering into direct confrontation with the Christian spirit that then occupied the mainstream. It may be said that at the moment modern classical studies were born, the classical spirit itself bore a subversive quality, a “resistance to the existing order.” If we push the timeline further back, to the Renaissance, for instance, the situation was in fact similar. The rediscovery of the classical emphasized then was really a way of using the classical to propose a new cultural possibility, and thereby to challenge the religious order of the time.
因此，在我看来，古典精神本质上就是一种创造性，它不是对传统的维护，而是对传统的突破。德国文化在十九世纪初的迅速崛起，很大程度上正是因为通过激活古典精神，提出了一种不同于法国启蒙传统的文化路径。我们可以说，德国之所以成为当时欧洲的思想高地，背后的动力恰恰来自古典精神。
Therefore, in my view, the classical spirit is essentially a kind of creativity. It is not the maintenance of tradition, but a breakthrough beyond tradition. The rapid rise of German culture in the early nineteenth century was due in large measure precisely to its activation of the classical spirit, through which it proposed a cultural path different from the French Enlightenment tradition. We may say that the reason Germany became the intellectual high ground of Europe at that time was that the impetus behind it came precisely from the classical spirit.
那么，对今天的中国来说，我们同样是古典的“后世”。从这个角度看，古典精神能不能重新被激活，不只是一个“研究过去”的问题，而是一个“文化未来”的问题。我们要做的，不是把它束之高阁，也不是把它驯化后纳入现有的文化框架，而是认真对待它所提供的异质性和创造力。
For China today, likewise, we are the “later age” of the classical. Seen from this angle, whether the classical spirit can be activated anew is not simply a question of “studying the past,” but a question of “the cultural future.” What we must do is neither put it away on a high shelf, nor domesticate it and incorporate it into an existing cultural framework, but take seriously the heterogeneity and creativity it offers.
您前面从整体着眼，谈到古典精神具有巨大创造力。能不能请您谈谈，这种古典精神具体指什么，体现在哪些作家作品之中？而它最值得关注的特质又是什么？
You have just spoken in broad terms of the immense creativity of the classical spirit. Could you discuss what this classical spirit specifically refers to, in which writers and works it is embodied, and what its most noteworthy qualities are?
张巍：这个问题非常关键。所谓“古典精神”，在我看来，主要是指古希腊所体现出来的一套文化价值和思想气质。当然，罗马人也深受古希腊文化影响，并且在他们的历史经验中对其做了改造和发挥，但从精神气质上讲，罗马人和古希腊人有本质的差异。所以我个人关注的，主要还是古希腊的古典精神。
Zhang Wei: This question is crucial. What I call the “classical spirit,” as I see it, refers chiefly to a set of cultural values and an intellectual temperament embodied by ancient Greece. Of course, the Romans were also deeply influenced by ancient Greek culture, and they transformed and developed it through their own historical experience; but in terms of spiritual temperament, the Romans and the ancient Greeks are essentially different. So what I personally attend to is mainly the classical spirit of ancient Greece.
如果要追溯古典精神的源头，那么无疑是从荷马开始。《荷马史诗》，尤其是《伊利亚特》，还有后来的阿提卡悲剧，都可以说是古典精神最深刻、最本质的体现。
If we are to trace the source of the classical spirit, it begins without question with Homer. The Homeric epics, especially the Iliad, and later Attic tragedy, may all be said to be the deepest and most essential expressions of the classical spirit.
我现在讲授《荷马史诗导读》，一直强调一个核心点：个体英雄主义。在我看来，这是古典精神中十分重要，甚至是最为核心的组成部分。这种个体英雄主义，在后来的西方世界中，恰恰是被基督教精神所排斥的。而中国思想文化传统，尤其是儒家学说，对个体英雄主义也并不重视，甚至可以说是有所压制。
I am now teaching an Introduction to the Homeric Epics, and I have always emphasized one central point: individual heroism. In my view, this is an extremely important, indeed perhaps the most central, component of the classical spirit. This individual heroism was precisely what the Christian spirit later rejected in the Western world. And China’s intellectual and cultural tradition, especially Confucian doctrine, likewise placed little emphasis on individual heroism; one might even say it suppressed it.
这种个体英雄主义可以说是独属于古希腊人。罗马人例如维吉尔的《埃涅阿斯纪》中的埃涅阿斯，虽然也具备某种英雄主义气质，但更为突出的品质则是一种“责任感”——这种为了国家、家族等共同体而担负责任的观念，是罗马人的文化特色，也是他们对古希腊文化的改造。而希腊人的个体英雄主义则更加纯粹而极致。当然，他们并不缺乏责任感，古希腊人对城邦也有着强烈的认同，但他们更愿意去彰显个体的卓越。
This individual heroism may be said to belong uniquely to the ancient Greeks. Among the Romans, Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid, for example, also possesses a certain heroic quality, but his more prominent trait is a sense of “responsibility”: the notion of taking responsibility for the state, the family, and other communities. This is a distinctive feature of Roman culture, and also their transformation of ancient Greek culture. The Greeks’ individual heroism is purer and more extreme. Of course, they do not lack a sense of responsibility; the ancient Greeks also had a strong identification with the polis. But they were more willing to bring forth individual excellence.
在《伊利亚特》中，阿基琉斯和赫克托尔就代表了两种不同的英雄。赫克托尔愿意为了家庭和城邦而战，哪怕明知一去不返。如人类学家所概括的那样，他的行为动因是一种“耻感文化”的体现——他在乎别人怎么看他，不愿失去尊严，近乎中国文化所说的“知耻而后勇”的观念。而阿基琉斯则完全不同。他的行为动因不来自外部评价，而在于成为他自己。他的行动是因为忠于自己的意志，即使他为好友帕特罗克洛斯复仇，也是因为内心的痛苦，而不是担心别人如何看他。我一直跟学生讲，诗人之所以花那么多笔墨描写赫克托尔，是为了更强烈地烘托出阿基琉斯的与众不同。阿基琉斯体现的是一种极为稀有、极具力量的精神类型，在我看来，这是古典精神中最珍贵的部分。
In the Iliad, Achilles and Hector represent two different kinds of hero. Hector is willing to fight for his family and city, even when he knows he will not return. As anthropologists have summarized it, the motive for his conduct is an expression of a “shame culture”: he cares how others see him, and is unwilling to lose his dignity. It is close to the Chinese cultural idea that one knows shame and is thereby moved to courage. Achilles is entirely different. The motive for his conduct does not come from external judgment, but from becoming himself. He acts because he is faithful to his own will. Even when he avenges his friend Patroclus, it is because of his inner anguish, not because he worries how others will see him. I have always told my students that the reason the poet spends so much space describing Hector is to set off all the more powerfully the singularity of Achilles. Achilles embodies an exceedingly rare and exceedingly powerful spiritual type. In my view, this is the most precious part of the classical spirit.
回到开头您所谈到的问题：这种强调“个体英雄主义”的古典精神如何逐步在西方基督教语境中被边缘化，直至最终消退？
Returning to the question you raised at the beginning: how was this classical spirit that emphasizes “individual heroism” gradually marginalized within the Western Christian context, until it finally receded?
张巍：这是一个非常复杂的问题。我可能很难提供一个系统化的源流分析，只能基于个人理解来稍作说明。
Zhang Wei: This is an extremely complex question. I may find it difficult to provide a systematic account of origins and development; I can only offer a brief explanation based on my own understanding.
应该说，基督教并不是否认个体的意义，恰恰相反，基督教是高度强调个体的宗教。只不过，它所强调的是一种在神面前的个体，每一个人都拥有一颗独一无二的灵魂，都需要在神面前为自己的灵魂负责、争取救赎。在基督教的影响之下，个体不是要成为“自己”，而是要努力成为“像耶稣那样的人”。一个个体所能做的，是不断效仿十字架上的基督，去趋近那个神圣的标准。这与古希腊完全不同。古希腊的个体英雄主义，是一种“成为你自己”的精神。像阿基琉斯，就不是要模仿任何人，而是活出个体的卓越。
It should be said that Christianity does not deny the significance of the individual. Quite the contrary: Christianity is a religion that places a very high emphasis on the individual. Only, what it emphasizes is the individual before God. Every person possesses a unique soul, and must be responsible for that soul before God and strive for salvation. Under the influence of Christianity, the individual is not to become “himself,” but to strive to become “like Jesus.” What an individual can do is continually imitate Christ on the cross, and approach that divine standard. This is wholly different from ancient Greece. Ancient Greek individual heroism is a spirit of “becoming yourself.” Achilles, for instance, is not trying to imitate anyone, but to live out individual excellence.
所以，从精神结构上来说，基督教对个体有很深的道德约束，它确实是不容许也无法接纳那种古希腊式的、崇尚卓越与自我实现的英雄主义的。在这种文化语境中，“个体的卓越”往往被理解为骄傲，是一种堕落的开端。
Thus, in terms of spiritual structure, Christianity imposes a profound moral constraint on the individual. It indeed does not permit, and cannot accept, the ancient Greek kind of heroism that venerates excellence and self-realization. In this cultural context, “individual excellence” is often understood as pride, as the beginning of a fall.
这样说来，基督教的道德观念，某种程度上类似于中国古人所讲的“弱德”，也就是说，它常常歌颂那些身处底层的弱者所体现的美德。不过，尼采就尖锐地批判了这一点，他说希腊人的道德是“主人道德”，而基督教的道德则是“奴隶道德”，对此您怎么看？
Put this way, the Christian moral idea is in some sense similar to what the ancient Chinese called “weak virtue”: that is, it often praises the virtues embodied by the weak who occupy the lower strata. Nietzsche, however, sharply criticized this point. He said that the morality of the Greeks was “master morality,” while Christian morality was “slave morality.” How do you view this?
张巍：尼采的说法确实非常尖锐，有时也会显得有些极端甚至带有挑衅性，但他提出的这种对比是具有启发性的。在他看来，希腊人的“主人道德”，强调的是力量、胜利、荣耀，是强者立场上的美德，而基督教的“奴隶道德”，是从被压迫的弱者这一角度出发，对谦卑、顺服、舍己等美德加以肯定。一言以蔽之，过去那些被视为高贵、强大的品质，在基督教世界观中往往要受到抑制，而这些原本被视为卑微、软弱的品质反而成了道德的核心，就像你提到的“弱德”一样。
Zhang Wei: Nietzsche’s formulation is indeed very sharp, and at times it can seem somewhat extreme, even provocative; but the contrast he proposed is illuminating. In his view, Greek “master morality” emphasizes strength, victory, and glory: virtues from the standpoint of the strong. Christian “slave morality” begins from the perspective of the oppressed weak, and affirms virtues such as humility, obedience, and self-denial. In a word, qualities that in the past were regarded as noble and powerful are often restrained within the Christian worldview, while qualities originally regarded as lowly and weak instead become the core of morality, much like the “weak virtue” you mentioned.
事实上，古希腊人的道德建构，基础是完全不同于基督教世界的。希腊城邦里的贵族属于“有闲”阶级，他们拥有参与体育锻炼以及修辞学和哲学实践的时间和财富。因此，他们同时追求身体的强健与精神的卓越。同时，他们也生活在一个冲突频仍的政治世界之中，几百个甚至上千个城邦之间持续不断地爆发战争和冲突。在希腊人的观念中，和平是暂时的，冲突才是常态。从这个现实出发，他们自然也就发展出了一种倾向于荣誉和卓越的价值体系。
In fact, the foundation of the ancient Greeks’ moral construction was wholly different from that of the Christian world. The aristocrats of the Greek polis belonged to the “leisure” class; they possessed the time and wealth to participate in athletic training and in the practice of rhetoric and philosophy. Therefore, they pursued both physical strength and spiritual excellence. At the same time, they lived in a political world full of frequent conflict, with wars and conflicts continually breaking out among hundreds, even thousands, of city-states. In the Greek conception, peace was temporary; conflict was the norm. Starting from this reality, they naturally developed a value system oriented toward honor and excellence.
似乎存在一个非常微妙的悖论：古希腊罗马经典在西方世界是被当作“正典”来学习的，尤其在十八、十九世纪，拉丁文的学习和古典作品的研读，都是从中学开始必不可少的功课。既然古典文本一直没有被抛弃，为什么它们所承载的古典精神反而会被遮蔽？
There seems to be a very subtle paradox here: the ancient Greek and Roman classics were studied in the Western world as a “canon,” especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the study of Latin and the reading of classical works were indispensable subjects beginning in secondary school. Since the classical texts were never abandoned, why was the classical spirit they carried instead obscured?
张巍：这个现象确实很值得深思。从表面上看，古典文本似乎始终没有退出历史舞台，但它所承载的精神却在很大程度上被削弱、压制了。
Zhang Wei: This phenomenon is indeed worth deep reflection. On the surface, the classical texts seem never to have withdrawn from the stage of history, yet the spirit they carried was to a great extent weakened and suppressed.
如果我们把目光聚焦在现代古典学诞生以后的阶段，也就是十八世纪以来的西方教育体系，其实能看到一个趋势：古典文本确实被广泛纳入了中学乃至大学的课程体系，但它的使用功能发生了变化。在很多教育体制中，比如英国的“文法学校”中，古典作品（尤其是拉丁文作品）更多地被当作语言与修辞训练的范本。例如，西塞罗的拉丁文就是修辞学的经典；柏拉图的希腊文则被认为是古希腊语写作的最高典范。学生学习这些文本，目的往往不是理解其中蕴含的古典精神，而是通过翻译和模仿，来提升自己在现代语言中的表达能力。
If we focus on the period after the birth of modern classical studies, that is, the Western educational system since the eighteenth century, we can in fact see a trend: classical texts were indeed widely incorporated into secondary-school and even university curricula, but their function changed. In many educational systems, such as the “grammar schools” in Britain, classical works, especially Latin works, were treated more as models for training in language and rhetoric. Cicero’s Latin, for example, was a classic of rhetoric; Plato’s Greek was regarded as the highest model of ancient Greek prose. Students studied these texts often not in order to understand the classical spirit contained within them, but to improve their expressive ability in modern languages through translation and imitation.
换而言之，古典文本被当作提升语言能力、锤炼逻辑与思维训练的工具，而不再是唤醒文化自觉、建立文明认同的典范。与此同时，基督教的文本，比如《圣经》，则在同一时期的教育体系中发挥着核心作用。你可以这样理解：学生的表达训练由古典完成，而他们的伦理教化则交给了《圣经》。
In other words, classical texts were treated as tools for improving language ability and honing logic and thought, and no longer as models for awakening cultural self-consciousness or establishing civilizational identity. At the same time, Christian texts, such as the Bible, played a central role in the educational system of the same period. You might put it this way: students’ training in expression was completed by the classics, while their ethical formation was entrusted to the Bible.
当然，这种划分并不是铁板一块，也存在很大的区域差异和历史变动。例如，在德国的特殊历史语境下，情况就相当不同。在十八世纪末至十九世纪初，德国古典学的兴起，恰恰是把古典精神本身当作思想文化资源来看待的。他们并不是仅仅学习古典文本的修辞技巧，而是试图从古希腊文化中重建一种能与当时盛行的法国的拉丁文化与天主教传统相抗衡的精神传统。
Of course, this division was not monolithic; there were great regional differences and historical changes. In Germany’s special historical context, for instance, the situation was quite different. From the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, the rise of German classical studies treated the classical spirit itself precisely as a resource for thought and culture. They were not merely learning the rhetorical techniques of classical texts; rather, they attempted to reconstruct from ancient Greek culture a spiritual tradition capable of contending with the French Latin culture and Catholic tradition then in the ascendant.
为什么德国会出现这样的文化诉求？一个重要背景是，当时的德国并未完成国家统一，政治上也比较弱势，而秉承着拉丁文化、天主教传统的法国却是当时欧洲最强盛、最具文化主导力的国家。德国作为新教国家，在文化上始终处于边缘地位。因此，德国知识分子开始转向古希腊，寻找一种更古老同时也更“非拉丁化”的文化资源，以建立属于日耳曼民族自己的精神传统。这也是德国古典学尤其强调“古典精神”的原因——不是把它当作一种工具性的语文训练，而是当作一种民族精神建构的根基。不过，这种做法在当时也受到法国人的嘲讽。他们说德国人是“日耳曼蛮族”，现在想要制造出一个“希腊神话”，硬要说自己是古希腊文化的继承者。
Why did Germany develop such a cultural demand? One important background was that Germany at the time had not completed national unification and was relatively weak politically, while France, inheriting Latin culture and the Catholic tradition, was then the most powerful country in Europe and the one with the greatest cultural dominance. Germany, as a Protestant country, remained culturally peripheral. German intellectuals therefore began turning to ancient Greece, seeking a cultural resource that was more ancient and also more “non-Latinized,” so as to establish a spiritual tradition belonging to the Germanic nation itself. This is also why German classical studies especially emphasized the “classical spirit”: they did not treat it as an instrumental training in language, but as the foundation for the construction of a national spirit. This approach, however, was mocked by the French at the time. They said the Germans were “Germanic barbarians” who now wanted to manufacture a “Greek myth,” insisting that they were heirs to ancient Greek culture.
曾在美国颇有影响的施特劳斯学派在中国也很流行，他们尤其强调古典学研究中的政治哲学这一维度。您怎么评价施派的古典学研究？
The Straussian school, once rather influential in the United States, is also popular in China. Its adherents place particular emphasis on the dimension of political philosophy in classical studies. How do you evaluate Straussian classical research?
张巍：美国的施派现在其实已经没什么影响力了，基本上应该算是退出历史舞台了。施特劳斯的女儿是一位很有名的古典学者，连她都觉得很纳闷，对她父亲突然之间在中国这么受关注百思不得其解。
Zhang Wei: The American Straussians in fact no longer have much influence now; they have basically exited the stage of history. Strauss’s daughter is a very well-known classicist, and even she found it baffling, quite unable to understand why her father suddenly attracted so much attention in China.
当然，我们比她更容易理解。中国的所谓施派，其实就是把古希腊罗马的古典作品政治哲学化。罗马在其中不过是附属品而已，真正受到关注的是古希腊，是修昔底德、柏拉图、亚里士多德这些人。而中国施派集中关注政治哲学层面，一个隐含意图就是要用儒家文化“同化”希腊文化，换而言之，就是要把它和儒家文化嫁接、融合，最后为复兴儒家思想服务。这种思路并不新鲜，早在上世纪二三十年代“学衡派”那一代学者就做过尝试。比如吴宓就说过，要让柏拉图为孔子服务。
Of course, we can understand it more easily than she can. The so-called Chinese Straussians are in fact politicizing the classical works of ancient Greece and Rome as political philosophy. Rome is merely an appendage in this; what truly receives attention is ancient Greece: Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, and figures of that sort. The Chinese Straussians’ concentrated focus on the level of political philosophy has an implicit intention: to use Confucian culture to “assimilate” Greek culture. In other words, they want to graft it onto Confucian culture, fuse it with Confucian culture, and ultimately make it serve the revival of Confucian thought. This line of thinking is not new. As early as the 1920s and 1930s, scholars of the Xueheng school had already attempted it. Wu Mi, for example, once said that Plato should be made to serve Confucius.
这种思路的弊端其实很明显，就是会把那些和他们自己的政治哲学主张无关，甚至是相反的那些思想——统统排除在外。你读施派出版的那些译丛、期刊、著作，几乎都是什么“某某的微言大义”“某某的政治哲学”这种风格。要知道，古典文明其实是非常丰富多元的，远远不止政治一个维度。可是在施派的视野里，其他东西似乎都是可以忽略不计的，一切都要纳入所谓“政治哲学”的框架之中。这种态度，在我看来，其实跟中国文化的传统重心很有关系。自古以来，我们的主流儒家文化是关注政治的，大到帝王治国，小到君子修身，本质上都是对政治的关注。像道家、佛家都是逃离政治、讲究出世的，不具备与儒家正面对抗的力量。而施派之所以能在中国走红，正是因为它抓住了中国文化最熟悉的政治这个层面不放。他们把柏拉图、苏格拉底统统拉来，说这些人也是讲治国之道的，其实跟基督教传统对古典的“神学化改造”是一回事。古典精神之所以可贵，不是因为顺应了什么现成的体系，而是因为具有一种根本的创造性。你要是非得让柏拉图为孔子服务，结果不过就是，世上又多了一个“孔子”（甚至孔门弟子）而已。说到底，就是放弃了古典精神本身的异质性和创造力，把它纳入一个熟悉的、可控的语境之中。这是对真正的古典精神的一种消解与遮蔽。
The flaw in this line of thought is in fact very obvious: it excludes entirely those ideas that have nothing to do with their own political-philosophical claims, or that may even be opposed to them. When you read the translation series, journals, and works published by the Straussians, almost all of them are in the style of “the subtle words and profound meaning of so-and-so” or “the political philosophy of so-and-so.” One must understand that classical civilization is in fact extraordinarily rich and diverse, and extends far beyond the single dimension of politics. But in the Straussian field of vision, everything else seems negligible; everything must be incorporated into the framework of so-called “political philosophy.” In my view, this attitude is closely related to the traditional center of gravity in Chinese culture. Since ancient times, our mainstream Confucian culture has been concerned with politics: from the emperor’s governance of the realm to the gentleman’s cultivation of the self, its essence is a concern with politics. Daoism and Buddhism both flee politics and emphasize withdrawal from the world; they do not possess the power to confront Confucianism directly. The reason the Straussians became popular in China is precisely that they seized on the political dimension, which is what Chinese culture knows best, and refused to let it go. They drag in Plato and Socrates and say that these people, too, were speaking about the Way of governing the state. In fact, this is the same thing as the Christian tradition’s “theological transformation” of the classical. What makes the classical spirit precious is not that it conforms to some ready-made system, but that it possesses a fundamental creativity. If you insist on making Plato serve Confucius, the result is merely that the world gains another “Confucius,” or even another disciple of Confucius. In the end, this is an abandonment of the heterogeneity and creativity of the classical spirit itself, incorporating it into a familiar and controllable context. It is a dissolution and obscuring of the true classical spirit.
还有一个重要话题，是关于当下的学术体制的。您在《澎湃新闻·思想市场》发表的“另眼看古典学”系列文章中，生动地刻画了满怀热情的年轻人在进入学术体制之后，怎样因为学界的绩效考核和学术社交而逐渐异化。他们从原本热爱古典一步步发展到只关注如何发表论文、如何在学界“混出名堂”。那么，我们今天怎样从条条框框中把古典精神重新解放出来？
There is another important topic, concerning the current academic system. In your series of essays “Looking at Classical Studies Otherwise,” published in The Paper’s Think Market, you vividly depicted how young people full of passion, after entering the academic system, are gradually alienated by academic performance assessments and scholarly networking. From originally loving the classics, they develop step by step into people who care only about how to publish papers and how to “make a name” in the academic world. How, then, can we today liberate the classical spirit again from all these rules and constraints?
张巍：这是一个非常现实的问题。事实上，它也不只是古典学的问题，而是整个人文社科领域都面临的困境。很多人一开始进入某个学术领域，是带着一种青年人特有的理想主义的，希望通过读书、研究、写作，去接近某种真理。但当他们真正接受严格的学术训练，逐步适应学术规范之后，反而会由于整个学术体制的规训而理想破灭。
Zhang Wei: This is a very real problem. In fact, it is not only a problem for classical studies, but a predicament facing the entire field of the humanities and social sciences. Many people enter an academic field at the beginning with a kind of idealism peculiar to youth, hoping that through reading, research, and writing they may approach some kind of truth. But when they truly receive rigorous academic training and gradually adapt to academic norms, their ideals are instead shattered by the discipline imposed by the entire academic system.
但是，这是不是一个完全无解的局面呢？我并不这么认为。我经常设想一个场景：如果现在的学术体制发生了一定松动，比如说对论文发表数量不再强制要求了、对科研成果的产出不再量化考核了，怨声载道的青年学者们会怎么做？他们是不是就会燃起极大的热情去深入研习古典呢？我是持怀疑态度的。有了时间和自由，他也未必会去读书、思考，可能只是把更多的时间用在刷手机上。也就是说，我们不能简单地把问题全部归结于制度的压迫，认为只要革除这个制度，就会自然而然地达到理想状态。
But is this a situation with absolutely no solution? I do not think so. I often imagine a scenario: if the current academic system loosened to some extent, say, if there were no longer compulsory requirements for the number of papers published, and if research output were no longer quantitatively assessed, what would the young scholars who are now full of complaints do? Would they then ignite with immense passion and devote themselves deeply to studying the classics? I am skeptical. Given time and freedom, one still might not read and think; one might simply spend more time scrolling through one’s phone. That is to say, we cannot simply attribute the whole problem to oppression by the system, believing that once this system is abolished, the ideal state will naturally arrive.
在制度之外，其实还有一个更本质的问题：究竟是什么促使一个人愿意真正地去读书、去思考、去实践？这个问题才是需要深入反思的。古典精神能否被激活，不完全取决于外在制度的严苛或宽松，更取决于一个人内心是否还有那种不可遏制的追求。在任何时代、任何体制之下，总会有一些人，他们哪怕要付出代价、要忍受冷遇，也还是会去追求自己所相信的东西。他们会读书、会思考，会用他们自己的方式去实践他们所想要的精神生活。恰恰是这些人，让古典精神得以延续。我们除了追问和反思制度存在的问题，更重要的是叩问我们自己的内心：你对古典精神究竟有多热爱？
Beyond the system, there is in fact a more essential question: what, in the end, prompts a person truly to read, to think, to practice? This is the question that needs deep reflection. Whether the classical spirit can be activated does not depend entirely on the strictness or looseness of external institutions; it depends still more on whether there remains within a person that irrepressible pursuit. In any age, under any system, there will always be some people who, even if they must pay a price and endure neglect, will still pursue what they believe in. They will read, they will think, and in their own way they will practice the spiritual life they desire. It is precisely these people who allow the classical spirit to continue. Apart from questioning and reflecting on the problems that exist in the system, what is more important is to interrogate our own hearts: how deeply do you truly love the classical spirit?
您所谈的，让我想到《古典的别择》弁言中的一段话：“本书讲述的是一些独行者对古典的别择。他们走上各自的学问之路，却没有随着惯性一路向前，不愿亦步亦趋跟从受到现代精神宰制的正统古典学术，反而对古典精神情有独钟，要独辟蹊径寻索真正的古典精神，并在这个过程中成为自己。”在我看来，您前面提到的哪怕面对现状下的种种困扰，也依然保有极大热情的学者，似乎就是这段话里所说的“独行者”？那么，一位学者究竟应该如何“别择”出一条符合古典精神的学问之路，最终“成为自己”，能否请您结合自身经历展开谈谈？
What you have said reminds me of a passage in the preface to The Alternative Choice of the Classical: “This book tells of several solitary figures and their alternative choices of the classical. They set out on their respective paths of learning, yet did not continue forward by inertia; unwilling to follow step by step the orthodox classical scholarship dominated by the modern spirit, they instead cherished the classical spirit, opened paths of their own in search of the true classical spirit, and in this process became themselves.” It seems to me that the scholars you mentioned earlier, who preserve immense passion even in the face of all the troubles of the present situation, are the “solitary figures” spoken of in this passage. How, then, should a scholar “choose out” a path of learning that accords with the classical spirit, and in the end “become himself”? Could you discuss this in connection with your own experience?
张巍：这个问题确实很重要。我的一部分思考，其实也写在书中。这里再具体谈谈吧。
Zhang Wei: This question is indeed important. Part of my thinking is in fact written into the book. Let me speak about it more concretely here.
我是上世纪九十年代初去美国学古典学的。那个时候的社会氛围和今天可以说是完全不同的：没有手机，没有电脑，只有书。那也是一个“文化热”的时代，很多青年人对思想、学术以及古典传统，都怀有真诚的热情。我当时去读古典学，出发点其实很简单：我想从原文来阅读经典。我学古希腊语和拉丁语，只是想真正地亲近那些伟大的作品。这是我最初的愿望。
I went to the United States to study classics in the early 1990s. The social atmosphere then was completely different from today’s: there were no mobile phones, no computers, only books. It was also an era of “culture fever,” and many young people held a sincere passion for thought, scholarship, and the classical tradition. My reason for studying classics at the time was actually very simple: I wanted to read the classics in the original. I studied ancient Greek and Latin simply because I wanted truly to draw close to those great works. That was my original wish.
到了美国以后，我很快接触到现代古典学的专业训练体系。这个体系当然也有它的价值，我也接受了它，但与此同时，我产生了强烈的反思。最主要的问题有两点。第一点是，这个体系其实让你和经典之间的距离越来越远，你和文本之间的关系，不再是直接地阅读、对话和感受，相反，你的所有时间几乎都用在熟悉他人的研究上——几十、上百位学者对相关文本的分析、研究，你都要一一掌握。第二点是，你必须学习一套“时髦”的理论工具，然后用这些理论去强行解读文本。这样做的目的，是为了让你的研究显得“前沿”、与“国际学界接轨”。我当时一边在学这些东西，一边心里响起了一个非常清晰的声音：“这不是我当初想要的。”此外的问题，我也在“另眼看古典学”的文章里举过例子，读者可以参看。另外，在美国念博士的最后阶段，很多同学之间讨论的主题不再是古典本身，而是“怎么建立学术网络”“怎么找工作”。这当然是现实，谋生也是必须的。但如果你满脑子只有这些东西，却完全忘了自己为什么要读古典，我觉得是很可悲的。
After arriving in the United States, I quickly encountered the professional training system of modern classical studies. This system of course has its value, and I also accepted it; but at the same time, it gave rise in me to a strong reflection. There were two main problems. The first was that this system in fact made the distance between you and the classics greater and greater. Your relation to the text was no longer direct reading, dialogue, and feeling; on the contrary, almost all your time was spent becoming familiar with other people’s research. The analyses and studies of dozens, even hundreds, of scholars on the relevant texts had to be mastered one by one. The second was that you had to learn a set of “fashionable” theoretical tools and then use these theories to force interpretations onto the text. The purpose of doing so was to make your research appear “cutting-edge” and “in step with the international academy.” As I was studying these things, a very clear voice sounded in my heart: “This is not what I wanted in the beginning.” Other problems I have also illustrated in my essays “Looking at Classical Studies Otherwise,” which readers may consult. In addition, during the final stage of my doctoral studies in America, the topics many students discussed were no longer the classics themselves, but “how to build an academic network” and “how to find a job.” This is, of course, reality, and making a living is necessary. But if your head is filled only with these things, and you have completely forgotten why you wanted to study the classics, I think that is very sad.
我想起苏格拉底那句名言：“未经反省的人生不值得一过。”我读古典，不是为了掌握多少条注释，也不是为了在某个理论谱系中占一个位置，而是想靠近文本所蕴含的精神——像柏拉图的对话录，不是死的文本，其中包含的，是一个活生生的叫苏格拉底的人，以及他代表的生活方式。我对“古典精神”的理解就是：持续不断地直接与古人对话、持续不断地追问和思考。我始终在努力避免陷入一种“技术化”的学术规训之中，永远不能忘记自己为何而学、为何而写、为何而生。
I think of Socrates’ famous saying: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I study the classics not in order to master a certain number of annotations, nor to occupy a place in some theoretical genealogy, but in order to draw near to the spirit contained in the texts. Plato’s dialogues, for example, are not dead texts. What they contain is a living person called Socrates, and the way of life he represents. My understanding of the “classical spirit” is this: to engage continuously and directly in dialogue with the ancients, and to continue questioning and thinking without cease. I have always tried to avoid falling into a “technicalized” academic discipline, and never to forget why I study, why I write, and why I live.
在您自身的学术经历和生命体验之外，您在《古典的别择》中其实也点出了几条在当下实践古典精神的路径，比如说尼采、王国维、周作人，他们各自代表着不同的实践方式。能否请您展开谈谈？
Beyond your own academic experience and lived experience, in The Alternative Choice of the Classical you also point out several paths for practicing the classical spirit today: Nietzsche, Wang Guowei, and Zhou Zuoren, for example, each represents a different mode of practice. Could you elaborate?
张巍：我书中的四篇内容其实就是你说的四条路径，我大致梳理一下吧。
Zhang Wei: The four essays in my book are in fact the four paths you mention. Let me sketch them out.
第一篇是从历史追溯的角度讲，试图把“古典精神”的来龙去脉梳理清楚。我们今天讲的“古典精神”很大程度上是在十八世纪末被重新发现、重新构造的一个文化理想。那个时候德国兴起的“爱希腊主义”，在我看来，正是这种古典精神的源头。这当中有两条特别重要的线索，一条是“教化”（Bildung），就是从温克尔曼、赫尔德一直到洪堡这一脉。他们看到古希腊文化中有一种高度自足、自洽，能够塑造人格、培养精神的力量，所以要把古希腊当作一种“教化”的理想范式。另一条是“活力”（Vitalität），就是尼采讲的冲破秩序、进行创造的因素。你可以说它更原始、更野性，但其实也是古典世界不可分割的一部分。所以第一篇要做的，是追踪这两条线索，从中提炼出一种在主流的古典学术之外，孤独地去承担、去体认古典精神的使命。
The first essay proceeds from the angle of historical tracing, attempting to clarify the ins and outs of the “classical spirit.” The “classical spirit” we speak of today was to a large extent a cultural ideal rediscovered and reconstructed at the end of the eighteenth century. The “Philhellenism” that arose in Germany at that time was, in my view, precisely the source of this classical spirit. Within it there are two especially important threads. One is “cultivation” (Bildung), the line running from Winckelmann and Herder to Humboldt. They saw in ancient Greek culture a highly self-sufficient and coherent force capable of shaping personality and cultivating spirit, and therefore wanted to take ancient Greece as an ideal paradigm of “cultivation.” The other is “vitality” (Vitalität), the element Nietzsche describes as breaking through order and engaging in creation. You could say it is more primitive, more wild, but in fact it too is an inseparable part of the classical world. So what the first essay seeks to do is trace these two threads, and from them extract a mission: to bear and comprehend the classical spirit in solitude, outside the mainstream of classical scholarship.
第二篇转到学术内部。假如我们不立刻跳出“古典学”这个范畴，而是从它的边缘地带来思考，是不是还有别的可能性？我找了一个特别的例子，就是尼采。他青年时代在巴塞尔大学教书、还没有完全成为“哲学家”之前，其实是一个古典语文学者。尼采对古典语文学的反思是从内部发起的。他并没有一开始就否定这个学科，但他很清楚它的局限。他想的是：能不能从古典语文学内部走出一条道路，把它作为跳板来转到哲学上？我称之为“语文学向哲学的转化”。在我看来，这是一个方法论的示范——在古典学的边缘地带，重新把握古典精神。
The second essay turns inside scholarship itself. If we do not immediately leap outside the category of “classical studies,” but think from its margins, are there other possibilities? I found one especially distinctive example: Nietzsche. In his youth, when he taught at the University of Basel and had not yet fully become a “philosopher,” he was in fact a classical philologist. Nietzsche’s reflection on classical philology began from within. He did not negate the discipline from the outset, but he was very clear about its limitations. What he was thinking was: could one open a path from within classical philology, using it as a springboard to move into philosophy? I call this “the transformation from philology to philosophy.” In my view, it is a methodological demonstration: at the margins of classical studies, one can grasp the classical spirit anew.
第三篇和第四篇，就是我提出的两种可能的“中国路径”，也就是说，如果古典精神真的能够进入中国文化，它可能有两条通道，一个是王国维，一个是周作人。
The third and fourth essays are the two possible “Chinese paths” I propose. That is to say, if the classical spirit can truly enter Chinese culture, there may be two channels: one is Wang Guowei, and the other is Zhou Zuoren.
王国维的路径是纯文学和纯哲学的，他是要从古希腊的“悲剧美学”和“言真诗学”中，找到能够“化合”中国文化中相呼应的东西。这个我称之为“中心化”的努力，是想把古典精神融入中国文化的核心建构。而周作人是另外一条 “边缘化”的路径。他特别关注神话和神话思维这些被传统中国文化压抑的面向。在他看来，中国传统太道德化、政治化、历史化，而这些东西恰恰将神话思维边缘化了。所以，周作人是要借古希腊的神话精神去激活中国文化中那些被边缘化的可能性。这两条路径其实都很重要，我觉得都很值得继续探索。
Wang Guowei’s path is one of pure literature and pure philosophy. From ancient Greek “tragic aesthetics” and “truth-speaking poetics,” he sought elements that could “combine” with corresponding things in Chinese culture. I call this a “centering” effort: an attempt to integrate the classical spirit into the core construction of Chinese culture. Zhou Zuoren represents another path, one of “marginalization.” He paid particular attention to myth and mythical thinking, dimensions that traditional Chinese culture had suppressed. In his view, Chinese tradition was too moralized, politicized, and historicized, and precisely these things marginalized mythical thought. Therefore, Zhou Zuoren wanted to use the mythic spirit of ancient Greece to activate those possibilities within Chinese culture that had been marginalized. Both paths are in fact very important, and I think both are well worth continuing to explore.
关于周作人和王国维，想具体求教一下。周作人曾说，他一生最得意的工作是翻译了《路吉阿诺斯对话集》。您怎么看这种自我评价？对王国维，我们比较熟悉的是他借助德国哲学来理解中国古典文学。如果按照王国维的路径走下去，也就是说，用古希腊精神来解读中国古典文学，您觉得还有哪些工作是可以继续往下做的？
I would like to ask more specifically about Zhou Zuoren and Wang Guowei. Zhou Zuoren once said that the work of which he was proudest in his life was his translation of the Dialogues of Lucian. How do you view this self-assessment? As for Wang Guowei, we are relatively familiar with the way he used German philosophy to understand Chinese classical literature. If we were to continue along Wang Guowei’s path, that is, to use the ancient Greek spirit to interpret Chinese classical literature, what work do you think could still be done?
张巍：我当然认为周作人的这个自我评价是准确的。书的第四篇标题就叫《“识者自知之”》，这是他晚年遗嘱的结尾：“余一生文字无足称道，唯暮年所译希腊对话是五十年来的心愿，识者当自知之。”什么是“自知之”？在他那里，其实是一种不便明言、也很难讲透的体认。要知道，他对翻译路吉阿诺斯的评价并不仅仅是翻译工作中最得意的，而是一生工作中最得意的，这个说法特别需要我们注意。其实他也翻译了许多欧里庇得斯的剧作，数量上来说甚至超过路吉阿诺斯，比如后来出版的《欧里庇得斯悲剧集》是上中下三卷，而《路吉阿诺斯对话集》是上下两卷，为什么他偏偏看重路吉阿诺斯？我认为这个选择极具象征意义。路吉阿诺斯是一个用讽刺去戏谑权威人物的写作者。周作人通过翻译表达了自己对一切权威的质疑。这不仅是一种作品的选择，更是一种精神的选择。
Zhang Wei: I certainly think Zhou Zuoren’s self-assessment was accurate. The title of the fourth essay in the book is “‘Those Who Understand Will Know It for Themselves,’” a phrase from the end of his late-life testament: “Of all my writings in this life, none is worth speaking of; only the Greek dialogues I translated in old age were the wish of fifty years, and those who understand will know it for themselves.” What does “know it for themselves” mean? In his case, it is a kind of recognition that could not conveniently be stated outright, and is also very difficult to explain thoroughly. One should know that his evaluation of his translation of Lucian was not merely that it was the work of translation of which he was proudest, but that it was the work of his whole life of which he was proudest. This formulation particularly deserves our attention. In fact, he also translated many plays by Euripides, in greater quantity even than Lucian: the later published Tragedies of Euripides fills three volumes, upper, middle, and lower, while Dialogues of Lucian is in two volumes. Why did he attach special importance to Lucian? I think this choice is highly symbolic. Lucian was a writer who used satire to mock figures of authority. Through translation, Zhou Zuoren expressed his suspicion of all authority. This was not only a choice of works, but a choice of spirit.
至于王国维，他的伟大在于，为中国文学的“重新估价”打开了大门。他用德国语境下的美学，去理解词、理解《红楼梦》，在当时是非常大胆的尝试。在他之前，诗才是正宗与主流，词被认为是“艳科”“小道”，小说更是不入士大夫法眼。时至今日，词早已得到正名，《红楼梦》更是成为中国文学乃至中国文化的巅峰。所以，王国维完成了一次价值的重估：那些原本被视为边缘的文学形式，如今已然成为中国文化的核心所在。可以说，没有王国维，就没有我们今天这样的文学理解框架。所以，我们今天应该循着这样一条价值重估之路，一方面要回头去发掘传统文化中那些被遮蔽、被边缘化的部分，给予它们应有的地位和关注，另一方面要继续向前，鼓舞并激励更多的文学家、思想者，以真正深刻的生命体验和艺术创造力，去创作出新的作品——那些能够像《红楼梦》那样，深刻表达中国文化精神的伟大作品。
As for Wang Guowei, his greatness lies in the fact that he opened the door to a “reevaluation” of Chinese literature. He used aesthetics in the German context to understand ci poetry and Dream of the Red Chamber, which at the time was an extremely bold attempt. Before him, shi poetry was the orthodox and mainstream form; ci was regarded as a “sensuous genre,” a “minor way,” and fiction was even less able to enter the eyes of the scholar-official class. Today, ci has long since been vindicated, and Dream of the Red Chamber has become a summit not only of Chinese literature, but of Chinese culture. Thus Wang Guowei accomplished a reevaluation of value: literary forms originally regarded as marginal have now become central to Chinese culture. One may say that without Wang Guowei, we would not have the framework for literary understanding that we have today. So today we should follow this path of value reevaluation. On the one hand, we should turn back to excavate those parts of traditional culture that have been obscured and marginalized, granting them the status and attention they deserve. On the other hand, we should continue forward, encouraging and inspiring more writers and thinkers, through truly profound life experience and artistic creativity, to create new works: great works that, like Dream of the Red Chamber, can profoundly express the spirit of Chinese culture.
我想起一位前辈学者陈康，他曾经翻译过《巴门尼德篇》，还说过一句很有气魄的话：要让学习古希腊哲学的西方人以不通中文为憾。您对这种工作怎么评价？
I am reminded of an elder scholar, Chen Kang. He once translated the Parmenides, and also said something of great boldness: he wanted Westerners who studied ancient Greek philosophy to regret that they did not know Chinese. How do you evaluate this kind of work?
张巍：我对陈康先生的这句话是非常钦佩的。他当时在西南联大，选择从《巴门尼德篇》入手翻译柏拉图，是非常不寻常的选择——因为《巴门尼德篇》是柏拉图对话录里最难的篇目之一。
Zhang Wei: I greatly admire this statement by Mr. Chen Kang. At the time he was at the National Southwestern Associated University, and his decision to begin translating Plato with the Parmenides was a most unusual choice, because the Parmenides is one of the most difficult of Plato’s dialogues.
也正因为它难，陈康才决定要由它入手。他的想法是，如果这篇最难的能用地道的中文译好，那么其他的对话也就水到渠成了。这不仅是学术的自信，更是文化的雄心。因为他的愿望绝不仅仅是用中文转译柏拉图的对话，而是希望借助中文语言本身——以及它背后的中国文化思维方式——去展现出一些西方语言无法传达的内容。对他而言，翻译柏拉图，首先要在中文语言及中国文化中，寻觅出独特的因素，再通过富于创造性的组织方式，使它们映照出柏拉图对话中某些被英文、法文或德文等现代西方语言遮蔽的面向。因为这些语言本身与柏拉图的原文过于接近，又深受其影响，反而在翻译时失去了必要的距离，难以显现那些隐微而深邃的精神特质。
Precisely because it is difficult, Chen Kang decided to begin with it. His thought was that if this most difficult dialogue could be well translated into idiomatic Chinese, the other dialogues would follow naturally. This was not only scholarly confidence, but cultural ambition. For his wish was by no means merely to render Plato’s dialogues into Chinese, but to use the Chinese language itself, and the Chinese cultural mode of thinking behind it, to reveal certain things that Western languages cannot convey. For him, translating Plato required first seeking out distinctive elements within the Chinese language and Chinese culture, and then, through a creatively rich mode of organization, enabling them to illuminate certain aspects of Plato’s dialogues that are obscured by modern Western languages such as English, French, or German. Because these languages themselves are too close to Plato’s original and deeply influenced by it, they instead lose the necessary distance in translation, making it difficult to reveal those subtle and profound spiritual qualities.
我还想请教一个现实层面的问题。现在中国有不少小朋友，在家长的安排下或者出于自己的兴趣开始学习拉丁语、古希腊语这类古典语言，并用这些语言来翻译小说、动漫等文艺作品。您怎么看待这种现象？
I would also like to ask a practical question. Nowadays in China, quite a few children, arranged by their parents or acting out of their own interest, have begun studying classical languages such as Latin and ancient Greek, and using these languages to translate novels, anime, and other literary and artistic works. How do you view this phenomenon?
张巍：这个问题很有意思。其实你刚才提到的这些现象，在西方世界已经持续了很多年，甚至可以说我们国内的这些尝试某种程度上是在仿效西方人的做法。比方说，西方人会把《哈利·波特》《阿斯泰利克斯历险记》这样的通俗读物译成拉丁文，甚至也有人尝试用古希腊语翻译。在我看来，这些做法是一种给古典语言注入活力的方式，我并不反感。像拉丁语，严格来说是一种“半死不活”的语言，虽然不是完全死去，但也早已退出日常交流的舞台。如果希望它维持某种“生命力”，那就需要用它来承载新的内容，也就是说，要表达新的情感、讲述新的故事。古希腊语虽然是“死语言”，但是不是也可以这样做？我觉得未尝不可。
Zhang Wei: This question is very interesting. In fact, the phenomena you just mentioned have existed in the Western world for many years; one might even say that these domestic experiments are to some extent imitating what Westerners have done. For example, Westerners have translated popular books such as Harry Potter and The Adventures of Asterix into Latin, and some have even tried translating them into ancient Greek. In my view, these practices are a way of injecting vitality into classical languages, and I do not dislike them. Latin, strictly speaking, is a “half-dead, half-alive” language: though it is not completely dead, it has long since withdrawn from the stage of everyday communication. If one hopes for it to maintain a certain “vitality,” then one must use it to carry new content; that is, to express new emotions and tell new stories. Ancient Greek, though a “dead language,” might perhaps also be treated this way. I think there is no reason it cannot.
那么，回到中国小朋友学习古典语言这件事上，如果把它和所谓的“学奥数”相比，我肯定是更偏向古典语言这一边。说不定在这样的学习中，真的能激发出一部分孩子对古典精神的兴趣。不过，我在复旦的教学中也观察到一种情况：有些学生非常热衷于语言的学习，他们会先后学习十几门语言，拉丁语、古希腊语只是其中两门。如果他们的志向是成为语言学家、特别是从事历史语言学研究的学者，这当然是值得鼓励的。但如果他们只对语言本身感兴趣，却对语言所承载的文化缺乏热情，在我看来，这样的学习就有点无的放矢了。
Returning, then, to the matter of Chinese children studying classical languages: if one compares it with so-called “Olympiad mathematics,” I would certainly lean toward classical languages. Perhaps such study really can awaken in some children an interest in the classical spirit. However, in my teaching at Fudan I have also observed something: some students are extremely enthusiastic about language study. They may learn more than a dozen languages one after another, with Latin and ancient Greek merely two among them. If their aspiration is to become linguists, especially scholars engaged in historical linguistics, this is of course worth encouraging. But if they are interested only in languages themselves, and lack passion for the cultures those languages carry, then in my view such study is somewhat aimless.
最后我想请张老师谈谈两个群体。一个是高校的学生，您会对他们学习和研究古典学提出怎样的建议？另一个是学院之外的业余爱好者，您觉得他们应该怎样去学习和研究古典学？
Finally, I would like Professor Zhang to speak about two groups. One is university students: what suggestions would you offer them for studying and researching classical studies? The other is amateurs outside the academy: how do you think they should study and research classical studies?
张巍：我在复旦教书的这些年，发现本科生当中还是有不少同学是真正对古典精神感兴趣的。也许正是因为年轻，怀抱着理想，和我当年一样。这是非常宝贵的。我想给他们的建议是：不要太早进入学术研究的思维方式，尤其是在本科阶段。
Zhang Wei: In my years teaching at Fudan, I have found that among undergraduates there are still quite a few students who are truly interested in the classical spirit. Perhaps it is precisely because they are young and carry ideals, as I did back then. This is extremely precious. The advice I would give them is: do not enter too early into the mode of thinking of academic research, especially at the undergraduate stage.
这个阶段，更重要的是和经典直接对话。就像我常说的，要和柏拉图对话，或者，哪怕是退一步，向那些与柏拉图对话的人学习如何与柏拉图对话。什么意思呢？就是你要找到那些真正去思考柏拉图所思考的“大问题”的人，比如尼采，比如黑格尔，比如海德格尔。当然，这些人读起来是很难的，尤其是海德格尔，但也有读起来相对没那么难的，比如克尔凯郭尔，他的博士论文就是写苏格拉底的反讽，给了我很大启发。这些思想家的共同之处是：他们不是把柏拉图当作一个文本分析的对象，而是把柏拉图的问题当成自己的问题来思考。学术研究固然有它的意义，但当你一开始就被拉入“文本的解读是否成立”“这个词的用法是否一致”等问题中，很容易就会迷失方向。过早、过多地沉溺于这些所谓学术范畴的问题，对追寻古典精神，有时候反而是南辕北辙的。我建议，学生们先试着去理解这些思想家回答那些大问题时的出发点是什么，而这个出发点往往来自他们的生命体验。我一直强调：文本的背后，是活生生的个体。这些文字是基于某种生命体验才被书写出来的。你要进入他的文本，但更要进入他的生命体验。
At this stage, what is more important is direct dialogue with the classics. As I often say, one must converse with Plato; or, even one step back, one should learn from those who converse with Plato how to converse with Plato. What do I mean? I mean that you must find those people who truly think about the “great questions” Plato thought about: Nietzsche, for instance, Hegel, Heidegger. Of course, these people are very difficult to read, especially Heidegger; but there are also some who are relatively less difficult, such as Kierkegaard, whose doctoral dissertation was on Socratic irony and gave me great inspiration. What these thinkers share is this: they do not treat Plato as an object of textual analysis, but take Plato’s questions as their own questions to think through. Academic research certainly has its meaning, but if from the very beginning you are pulled into questions such as “whether this interpretation of the text holds” or “whether the usage of this word is consistent,” it is very easy to lose your way. To become prematurely and excessively immersed in these so-called academic questions may sometimes be the very opposite of pursuing the classical spirit. I suggest that students first try to understand the starting points from which these thinkers answered those great questions, and that starting point often comes from their lived experience. I have always emphasized: behind the text is a living individual. These words were written on the basis of a certain life experience. You must enter his text, but still more you must enter his life experience.
还有一点很重要，这些思想家之间，是存在某种对话关系的。你要去观察、体会他们之间的对话结构。比如阿里斯多芬对苏格拉底的嘲讽。他虽然是喜剧诗人，但其实是一个非常深刻的思想家，体现出非常强的喜剧精神。周作人就很欣赏阿里斯多芬，虽然当年被分配翻译欧里庇得斯，没能如愿翻译阿里斯多芬，但他仍主动翻译了一部《财神》。
Another point is very important: among these thinkers, there exists a certain relationship of dialogue. You must observe and experience the structure of dialogue among them. Take Aristophanes’ mockery of Socrates, for instance. Although he was a comic poet, he was in fact a very profound thinker, and he embodied an extremely strong comic spirit. Zhou Zuoren greatly admired Aristophanes; although back then he was assigned to translate Euripides and could not fulfill his wish to translate Aristophanes, he nevertheless took the initiative to translate Plutus.
那么，对非专业的、学院之外的爱好者呢？除了我刚才说的建议，我还想特别强调一点：尽量学习古典语言。古希腊语和拉丁语的美，只能通过原文体会到，就像我们读《史记》的原文，才能真正感受到古汉语的风韵。古典语言的韵律和词语的微妙变化，是无法完全通过翻译传达的。现在学习语言的渠道比以前多了，真心感兴趣的人，完全可以通过正规或非正规的方式自学。
As for nonprofessional enthusiasts outside the academy, beyond the suggestions I have just mentioned, I want to emphasize one point in particular: study the classical languages as much as possible. The beauty of ancient Greek and Latin can be experienced only through the originals, just as only by reading Records of the Grand Historian in the original can we truly feel the charm of classical Chinese. The rhythms of classical languages and the subtle changes in their words cannot be fully conveyed through translation. There are now more channels for language study than before, and those who are sincerely interested can certainly teach themselves through formal or informal means.
我个人也非常敬佩那些在学院体制之外进行翻译工作的业余爱好者。他们往往出于热爱，去一点一点琢磨那些难懂的原典。他们做的工作，很多时候反而是体制内的学者不愿做、也做不了的。这是因为，一方面，翻译不被纳入现有的学术考核体系，另一方面，很多学者已经深陷于自己那一方小小的天地之中难以抽身。
Personally, I also greatly admire those amateurs outside the academic system who undertake translation work. Often out of love, they ponder those difficult original texts bit by bit. The work they do is often something scholars within the system are unwilling to do, and unable to do. This is because, on the one hand, translation is not incorporated into the existing academic assessment system; on the other hand, many scholars have already sunk so deeply into their own tiny patch of ground that they find it hard to extricate themselves.
正因如此，对学院外的业余爱好者，我不仅抱有敬意，还寄予很大希望。英文里的“amateur”来自法语，意思是“热爱者”。业余爱好者恰恰是因为热爱才来学习和研究古典的。至于那些把古典当成职业的学者，还有几个真正热爱古希腊罗马？我对此深表怀疑。
For precisely this reason, toward amateurs outside the academy I not only hold respect, but also place great hopes. The English word “amateur” comes from French, and means “one who loves.” Amateurs come to study and research the classics precisely because they love them. As for those scholars who treat the classics as a profession, how many of them still truly love ancient Greece and Rome? On this I have deep doubts.