Some Notes on History and the Sense of History
(1) History
The word "story" comes from "history"; but the word "history" does not come from "his-story." In Greek, the word "historia" was derived from the root "histor," the latter meaning "knowing, learned, wise man, judge"; and "historia" itself referred to "a learning or knowing by INQUIRY," and by extension, "an ACCOUNT of one's inquiries, narrative, history." The word was then taken up in Latin, by direct transliteration; but its reference was slightly changed, referring now to a "NARRATIVE of past events, account, tale, story"; the original reference to "learning" or "inquiry" dropped out, but any event, and not only an inquiry, could now be the subject of history. The word later entered English with pretty much the Latin scope of reference; and "story" is but an aphetic form of "history." The "hi" or "his" in the word "history" has nothing to do with any English pronoun whatsoever.
(2) The Sense of History
If the sense of history prevails in a civilization, it will not be impaired by the demolition of a clock; if the sense of history has already languished, no clock, no preservation of any clock could save it. No clock indeed could save that sense flowing out of Dong Qiao's pen, or that sense wobbling through the air when Li Wo spoke; for that sense, to keep it, does not dwell in a clock, not in the banners surrounding a clock; but in the web of meanings which come most naturally to the minds dwelling therein, meanings which they will at ease pick up, allude to, feel through, write about, not on a banner nor in an academic paper, but very ordinarily, in the very mode of living, thinking, and speaking.
To appraise how much sense of history young people nowadays have, we do not interview them how they look upon the clock, or whether they believe that the clock should be demolished or no. We instead listen to their conversations in university canteens, on the streets, in private gatherings, in public pronouncements, in the way they relate themselves to the totality of meanings (and not only visible and tangible artifacts) from the past.
To gain a sense of the past, it is not enough to study past objects, putting them into theoretical categories, handy for seminar presentations. A music student today, to instance just this, may speak splendidly of the history of music, citing documents, pointing to Beethovenhaus or Brahmshaus which he has just visited, cutting eighty or so years into the Classical and the Romantic, this way or that, describing a Bach mass in the vocabulary of latest music theories; and yet, he may still lack a sense of the past completely. Indeed I say, completely. For he is thoroughly but an observer. He has not tried to feel through how a mass was written; he has not related his innermost part to that something in the past which could hardly be captured by the visible and the tangible.
Many people visit Europe every year. And from them we hear happy reports of wonderful museums, of magnificent buildings, of food, of lodging, of worth-seeing sites old and new. They probably gain a sense of Europe; not necessarily though a sense of history.
Many believers in the Christian religion understand that their Faith has a long history; nay, indeed that their Faith is grounded in a set of historical events. They may long to visit Israel today, or Rome, or Corinth, or Ephesus, so to walk the way the Lord and the Apostles once walked; and after which, like tourists, they are satisfied; for, like pilgrims, they have paid visit to the worthy places. The sense of history, however, need not have taken root in their hearts thereby. The vicissitude of the Church, the complexity of the events surrounding the birth and death of Jesus, even the very episodes, absent which they would today not have to choose, if indeed they consciously did, between the Roman Church and other churches: these things rarely interest them, any more than, say, the story behind the Star Ferry Clock would interest many young people of our time.
But the sense of history, I say, is neither in a Beethovenhaus, nor in an Arc de Triomph, nor in an account of the Crucifixion, nor in a Clock; we can have all those things well preserved, and still lack a sense of history. For then we will leave behind, for our children, a very good museum, as large as the whole of HK, or any city we happen to dwell in; and make the children but happy visitors. The sense of history may probably swell in certain moments; but ordinarily, it will be very far from them; they will still be quite alergic to being deemed old-fashioned.
The sense of history resides not in things, but in minds. It reflects how a person sees time, sees the significance of things past for his very being here and now, a significance intimate and diffused. It takes the form of a relationship, wherein the person wishes to take them in the past as contemporaries, as partners in a conversation, their views and their sayings, their moods, their values, their small deeds and heroic, their own ways of relating to their past: all these the person wishes to participate in, against any presumption that they deserve only to be an object of study.
That many ancient artifacts had long been demolished, did not hinder Du Fu from writing nostalgically, with a genuine sense of history. The sense flows out from his finding himself part of a larger whole in time, sustained by a culture which treasured history in a living way. Jews having lost most of their historical artifacts, did not fail to develop a very strong sense of history; one book, and they can anywhere in the world re-build their community, connecting it with all those prevenient.
History overcomes mundane existence; it nourishes the soul. But it so nourishing, is not itself to be nourished by a grand museum. To preserve a clock, some will eagerly fight; but to preserve, nay, to foster, the sense of history, many would not be prepared to alter their relationship to time, not in some concentrated moments, but in their ordinary existence. A few years past, I wrote of history and historical education. There are bits which I wish I would not disown any day in the future.
若夫秉其狐筆。奮厥鴻才。燼十九年之光陰。聿資皇業。囊數萬里之風物。用紀方輿。定名制而實齋。考山川而霞客。必循脈絡。細顯源流。懼後世以佚亡。談遷再寫。惡前書之疏缺。永叔重修。史家之心。著者之跡。庶不愧乎千秋以下而已。其有憂乎吾道之孤者乎。薺麥多悲。況杜郎以俊賞。蒹葭遽老。何屈子其遠求。竹杖挑燈。外塵軀之禍福。風檐展卷。凜霜節於丹青。紹百代之精神。養一生之氣度。蕭蕭落木。終黃土以為根。漾漾扁舟。寧滄波而亡櫂。煦西湖之歌舞。輒醉游人。冽北國之風光。堪移處士。履荒煙兮野蔓。臨廣漠兮一身。
嗚呼。楮墨猶存。風燈寡續。寄塵滾滾。形骸赴僥倖之鄉。逐浪滔滔。名利翻沉浮之域。高山則沐猴群笑。淺水則錦鯉爭翔。溫柔敦厚之教已衰。誠正修治之功莫致。壘壘史乘。痛輕薄之青襟。葉葉杏壇。愧艱辛之白骨。斷鴻聲裡。厭終古之斜陽。下馬碑前。趕一時之倩影。范公有吾誰與歸之嘆。錢老有先亡其史之嗟。何哉。...
舉世竟無云惜于墜古。一人其有聿憂乎追新。宏約深美以為序兮。蔡公治業。中西古今皆會心矣。槐聚通經。乃知力學弗移。用固根本。博聞不棄。能歸海山。陋室侵淫。君子必慎其始也。中宵採擷。先生可由其統哉。源遠流長。無斷章以取義。天高地迥。有逞論而蒙嘲。文其如斯。史亦何異。耀九原以寸燭。鏗一葉而千秋。偶爾推窗。雨洗東坡之月。驀然回首。風翻暗浪之聲。 ...
問南朝之煙雨。馬帳空披。論西岸之干戈。龍門忝托。百年以樹亡根之木。一水而航失櫂之舟。醉啼笑於金風。雁思故岫。役死生以朝露。鮭識來津。嗚呼。師說虛傳。春秋誰續。誠心代有。異法何為。昔者讀誦之聲。不絕於耳。興亡之事。遂牢於心。明辨之功。必基於厚。篤行之志。莫急於隨。前賢後賢。悉學風以立本。身教言教。毋科技以爭新。童子何知。浮淺之談勿作。高山仰止。謙沖之度彌堅。冉冉清芬。不期立竿以見影。茫茫古道。庶免緣木而求魚。嗚呼。何今日一以反之哉。媚客之風。漸乎庠序。厚民之學。易以荒蕪。梗泛蓬飛。遍哀大夫之論晉。觚藏楮束。獨怪士子而聞周。日新則物佐為先。夕改則心思是尚。唐崇詩賦。遂襲八代之衰。明策時文。終患九流之竭。場屋有加於後至。英華豈出於偏成。積水增冰。疏而知其因果。浮雲白日。比以別其賢奸。鐘磬悠揚。寧片花而鑑往。關河冷落。且杯酒以祝來。聽殘雨之籠晴。滅孤燈以破曉。豈知鳳回南國。已非晉代衣冠。夢入西風。猶是漢家陵闕。
回應
民主歷史
同意歷史並不是硬件,亦同意現今的年青人視野窄得很.但或許我們要問,年青人為何會變成這樣?當鐘樓舊區等引證了香港歷史文化的地方全都消失;當父母們都對孩子說讀書是為了將來可以住豪宅,我們還可以怎樣要求我們的下一代有廣闊的視野?請Y.T兄指教.
再者,我想今次運動的主要目的並不是保住個鐘,示威者要求「停拆」的背後,還有更重要的 - 「對話」.抗議的不是拆走鐘樓,而是整個城巿規劃的不合理;整個制度的不公平.為何當立法會通過了暫停清拆的動議,政府卻以24小時加快清拆來回應?左一句五年足夠資詢,右一句簽定合約就可橫行霸道.有多少人知道她資詢了誰?有多少人知道民調結果?今天爭取的不只是歷史,更是民主.
A Note on gutfei's "民主歷史"
It is my belief, that the decline in the sense of history among the young is neither a consequence of demolishing this or that artifact, nor a consequence of the want of democracy, but (perhaps) a consequence of a gradual and long-term shift in the way we uphold or not uphold certain values and standards. For the sense of history comes not from the sheer presence of a thing, but from the desire to connect the present with the past, the desire, that is, to see ourselves as inheriting a culture, as being bidden to live up to it.
Two or three decades ago, educated people were expected to write elegant Chinese; writing, they also felt that they were living up to a traditional standard; those (educated or not) who wrote uglily, would not boast of that ugliness (say, as fashionable, or expressive of their idiosyncracies), but feel shameful. When an essay was to be judged, people would readily compare it with a classic; they would make references to tradition, to values which were not, as are today, grounded in this or that "theory" or "framework," but nourished by a communal history going back to many generations before.
Permit me to take the Jews and the Japanese as examples. Two ethnic groups both having a very strong sense of history, they do not develop that sense by democracy, nor maintain it that way. It is when the Jews try very hard to ascertain how a certain word in the Torah ought to be interpreted, feeling that they are engaging in a dialogue with rabbis many centuries before them; or when the Japanese endeavor to decipher a certain ritual, or a certain text, endeavor perhaps even to include historical references in their political speeches or commentaries; it is in these moments, that the sense of history is kept alive. Nothing to do with democracy whatsoever.
It is in fact a gross error, commonly found among commentators on this Forum, to see everything so intimately connected with democracy; as if democracy would be the solution to most problems besetting HK. No. If one accepts, that the sense of history was in fact quite strong in HK before the eighties, but declined rapidly since the early nineties; then one must at least grant that, that ebb and flow does not correspond in any clear fashion with the rise of democratic sentiments or the building of democratic institutions.
Dissociating democracy and the sense of history is, I take it, the first step to a better diagnosis about why the younger generation, while part of which seems to care about cultural artifacts quite passionately, does not, on the whole, show more than minimal interest in upholding certain values and standards. "To appraise how much sense of history young people nowadays have, we do not interview them how they look upon the clock, or whether they believe that the clock should be demolished or no," I wrote in the original thread. "We instead listen to their conversations in university canteens, on the streets, in private gatherings, in public pronouncements, in the way they relate themselves to the totality of meanings (and not only visible and tangible artifacts) from the past."
I do not think that a genuine sense of history is to be promoted by more theories about culture, more post-colonial discourses, or more attempts at fitting bits of culture into academic categories. It is much more promising, I would say, to try to uphold the standards (first in educated communities, and then in society at large), to let young people simply immerse themselves in the HK before the decline of the sense of history. It is only when writing wrongly or uglily is no longer deemed an act of emancipation, but truly something to be ashamed of; only then, I say, will it be possible to cultivate the desire to see history as relevant.
I shall append below a newspaper article which deals with the same themes I wrote of here in a specific case, namely, the Chinese language. I simply cannot see in what way more democracy could ever prevent the problem from worsening; nor can I understand, why there are so few protests against this very unfortunate development. But fancy that there be really such a protest. Who would be the target thereof? Perhaps chiefly the young people themselves. I cannot avoid the impression, therefore, that while there are indeed areas of social life where young people, like the protesters, can do quite a bit, if they will so, to revive the sense of history, they are rarely inclined to demand of themselves this way.
To blame colonial rule, capitalism, developmentalism, the Government, the Establishment, and all that, for the decline of the sense of history in HK, seems then simply an easy way out: Nothing need be changed on the part of the young people themselves; for every change must be sought elsewhere. This mode of thinking is, I hasten to add, well sustained by a theoretical discourse, which channels all the energy towards fighting that which is named Power. But the spread of this theoretical discourse is, I gather, yet another cause of the decline in the sense of history. How this might be, I can only explicate on another occasion. But taken thus, then the whole discursive edifice, much invoked in the recent protests, needs probably a very serious re-examination. The solution may, at the end, turn out to be part of the problem.
信報財經新聞 雷競璇
2006-12-21 如此中文，讀之頭痛
二六年十二月十四日《信報》文化版有陳雲君一篇文章，說的是香港由於用母語方法教英文，又用外語方法教中文，弄得社會上充斥中式英文和英式中文。
問題可能比陳君說的來得嚴重。我最近讀了中文大學在九月初發出的一份重要文件，發覺裏頭的文句是相當典型的英式中文。文件就教學語言向師生校友徵求意見，如果不是關心此問題，我無法卒讀。這份文件由中大的雙語政策委員會發布，成員馬傑偉教授在報端撰文指出，內容經多位語言學者反覆推敲，但結果如此，我感到很奇怪。
讓我舉幾個例子說明一下。文件開首如下：「香港中文大學﹙中大﹚是一所立足香港，面向全中國，在亞太區、在全球追求卓越的研究型綜合大學。本報告書以中大的使命和大學在二十一世紀所面臨的全球化挑戰為出發點，就中大雙語教育作宏觀及長遠的考慮，提出原則性、策略性及前瞻性的建議，以配合香港獨特的語言環境和優勢。」行文窒礙，語句冗贅，看得出是以英文思考中文寫作，或者從英文翻譯過來而又譯得笨拙。茲分析如下。
首先，贅辭甚多，如「一所立足香港……的研究型綜合大學」，「一所」此量辭並無必要；「本報告書以中大的使命和大學在……」，「中大」和「大學」重複，可去其一；「以……為出發點」為英式辭藻，說「從……出發」即可，類似情況在文件內此起彼落，不勝枚舉。漢語本來偏重短句，不像英語般將幾個分句串在一起，短句的好處是易讀易明，而且現代漢語源自文言文，淺白之中還是力求簡潔，既節省篇幅，也不浪費讀者時間，這些要求，上述段落以至整份文件看來都沒有顧及。
求卓越 假大空
其次，「追求卓越」一辭甚為突兀，是從英文的strive for excellence翻譯而來，屬於陳雲君所說的「趕西洋時髦」，是不成熟的媚俗辭藻。傳統漢語有「自強不息」一辭，用之無損文意，如要文雅一些，可以說「為臻善境，孜孜不倦」，或者「孜孜以求完善」。這當中其實涉及漢語辭彙如何健康發展、新舊用語如何取捨的問題，大學的語言專家未知思考及之否？
其三，此段開首三句細讀則覺其可笑。中大為「立足香港，面向全中國，在亞太區、在全球追求卓越的研究型綜合大學」，那麼，中大追求卓越﹙如果勉強用此辭﹚的地域是只在亞太區和全球而不在香港和中國嗎？文件執筆者恐怕並無此心，但文句的表達確有此意，所謂辭不達意，就是如此。
這一段最令人不舒服的，還是其中的假大空感覺。同樣是表達自信和自詡，可以有含蓄文雅的寫法，如以以下數句開首：「經過四十多年的努力，中文大學現已成為研究型綜合大學，成績有幸得到各方嘉許。」中國教育歷來講究禮義廉恥，其中作為先行的禮又特別重視謙遜恭讓，大學的文書能夠做到自信自詡而又不失溫厚謙遜，本身就是修養，更容易得到有識者敬重。
綜合上文所言，以較簡潔文辭，暫且不講求謙遜，將以上段落按原句次序重寫如下，以作參照。
「香港中文大學﹙中大﹚為研究型綜合大學，立足香港，面向中國、亞太區以至全球，一直自強不息。本報告書從中大的使命出發，因應二十一世紀全球化的挑戰，配合香港獨特的語言環境和優勢，對雙語教學作宏觀及長遠規劃，提出原則、策略及前瞻性建議。」以上文句，只算通順，談不上典雅，但囿於原文，只能如此。
再舉一些例子。「中大四十多年來一直堅持中英雙語﹙兩文三語﹚的教育方針，雙語教育是中大的特點和優勢，中大雙語教育政策和目標應維持不變。」﹙摘要第2段﹚
用語重複冗贅，可改為：「中英雙語﹙兩文三語﹚教學是中大的特點和優勢，四十多年來一直堅持，這方面的政策和目標應維持不變。」「學生入讀中大須達到本科課程入學規則指定的中英雙語水平，即使有學生經教務會特別考慮而獲豁免入學的語文要求，入讀後仍須達到所需標準，例如修讀指定的語文科目並取得合格成績，方可完成學業。」﹙摘要第11段﹚
可改善為：「學生入讀本科課程，中英雙語須達入學規則指定水平，如因特殊情況獲教務會豁免，入讀後須修讀指定語文科目並合格，方能畢業。」
「粵語有深厚的歷史文化資源，與香港本土生活息息相關。」﹙正文第7.5.3段﹚
「深厚」不能配對「資源」，說「豐富」則可。「本土」可用固有的「本地」一辭，不必標新立異。故改之如下：「粵語根基深厚，源遠流長，與本地生活息息相關。」類似情況還有許多，茲不細論，如果要自討苦吃一讀全文，可從互聯網將之下載﹙www.cuhk.edu.hk/bilingualism/ b5/report. htm﹚。
言而無文 行之不遠
其實中國歷來非常重視文辭，很早就知道「言而無文，行之不遠」的道理。科舉時代進士科最為尊榮，中進士是要能夠寫得好文章，皇帝身邊的一群翰林，主要也是起草辭藻典雅的詔誥，地方官的榜文如果文辭不雅馴，烏紗帽可能不保。特別是遇到重大典禮或者宣布重大事項時，就更加講究，歷史上好幾篇出師檄文，就是著名的代表。流風所及，即使一介武夫蔣中正，遇有重要演講或文告要發表時，必先關照手下文膽好好起草，陳布雷就為蔣執筆寫過不少好文章，抗戰爆發前後的幾篇告國人書，的確也足以傳誦後世，其中好幾句我現在還能夠琅琅上口。
我在中文大學讀書時，這樣的風氣還比較濃厚。記得當時李卓敏校長有一位特別助理宋淇先生﹙筆名林以亮﹚，主要處理校長的文書工作，也就是作俗語所謂的「刀手」。我當時參與編輯學生報，宋先生甚為留意也經常閱讀，偶爾還提點我們注意文辭方面的粗疏。身負重任的人物，因為重視文辭而聘用像宋淇這樣的助手，當時是常見之事。
八十年代中我留學回到香港後，這樣的風氣好像不再有了。以中文為名的大學，再也不見得怎樣重視對外文書的文辭文彩，行文往往乾巴巴，枯燥無味。高焜校長基本上不能運用中文書寫閱讀，後來醫科出身的李國章當上校長，我也一直懷疑他是否寫得出通順達意的中文，但還未有機會求證，他已高升，主管全香港的教育去了。然後出台了這樣一份行文拙劣的諮詢文件，堂堂以中文命名的大學，中文水平竟然淪落至此，想想也是令人傷心的事。