7.25最新朱學(xué)勤驚天抄襲證據(jù)（三）：第八章第一節(jié)

7.21朱學(xué)勤驚天抄襲證據(jù)（一）：小女子點(diǎn)朱學(xué)勤的死穴

 7.23朱學(xué)勤驚天抄襲證據(jù)（二）：第七章第五節(jié)

7.25最新朱學(xué)勤驚天抄襲證據(jù)（三）：第八章第一節(jié)

小女子

           這是小女子考證的朱學(xué)勤先生的第三個(gè)章節(jié)，《道德理想國(guó)的覆滅》第八章第一節(jié)（共8頁(yè)，276頁(yè)至283頁(yè)）。結(jié)果與上兩次考證（分別為第八章第五節(jié)——共5頁(yè)，298-302頁(yè)；第七章第五節(jié)——共8頁(yè)，266-273頁(yè)）完全相同，這三節(jié)都來(lái)自Blum一書。本節(jié)除了兩段，所有內(nèi)容出現(xiàn)在Blum一書。小女子本乃幽默之人（看本人的第一篇就知道了），可是，面對(duì)這樣嚴(yán)峻得不能再嚴(yán)峻的事實(shí)，已經(jīng)幽默不起來(lái)鳥。

          僅以小女子的這三篇考證，朱學(xué)勤抄襲一事，到此可以鐵板釘釘了。這還不包括Isaiah和邢玉思兩位大哥的指控。網(wǎng)上有朱粉這樣辯解：“像這類外國(guó)歷史的出處一般都不是原創(chuàng)，而是分別收集自各種不同的外文原文資料或者國(guó)內(nèi)各種翻譯過來(lái)的有關(guān)資料。但又是根據(jù)各種資料結(jié)合個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行取舍的，所以很難說誰(shuí)抄誰(shuí)，或者，因?yàn)樽髡邔⒏鞣N資料揉和得很好，因而有效地表達(dá)了自己的觀點(diǎn)，應(yīng)該就不算抄襲。” 是的，是應(yīng)該根據(jù)不同的資料結(jié)合自己的研究進(jìn)行取舍和綜合，可是，朱學(xué)勤的這幾個(gè)章節(jié)又來(lái)自什么不同的資料呢？ 這里其實(shí)就只有一個(gè)資料，就是Blum一書，引用的文獻(xiàn)也都是從Blum一書的文獻(xiàn)搬過來(lái)的（這從他照搬跨頁(yè)腳注、抄錯(cuò)腳注就看出來(lái)了），偶爾夾雜一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)王養(yǎng)沖、陳崇武一書的內(nèi)容。要不，您這幾章節(jié)怎么有高達(dá)90%以上的內(nèi)容都來(lái)自Blum一書啊？哪怕是編中學(xué)歷史教科書，也不至于都從一本書抄過來(lái)吧啊？那樣的話，大家也會(huì)說編者沒有水平，只會(huì)抄呵抄。這個(gè)道理，是再清楚不過了滴。您90%以上都來(lái)自同一本書（加上王、陳一書，基本就是100%了），哪里去找您“自己的觀點(diǎn)”啊？至于什么“很難說誰(shuí)抄誰(shuí)”，Blum一書出版時(shí)間是1989年，朱學(xué)勤那年才開始讀博士呢，難道是Blum抄朱學(xué)勤先生不成？

         朱的這幾個(gè)章節(jié)是原封不動(dòng)按Blum的英文原文翻譯過來(lái)的，改動(dòng)的只有少數(shù)幾個(gè)地方有縮簡(jiǎn)，可以算是編譯集，呵呵。要核對(duì)，對(duì)照小女子在朱文的注解和后面的Blum英文原文，也是一目可以看見滴，即便是復(fù)旦調(diào)查，也不需要什么額外的舉證之類的多此一舉，調(diào)查人只要是合格的大學(xué)畢業(yè)生水平（即過了英語(yǔ)四級(jí)）就夠了。還有一點(diǎn)，網(wǎng)友的貼子也說鳥滴，就是朱學(xué)勤先生您既然從Carol Blum那里“拿來(lái)”了這么多看家寶，對(duì)大債主的名字應(yīng)該是畢生難忘的的，咋在末尾的文獻(xiàn)把大債主的名字都搞成Carol Bloom鳥滴呢？這也太不夠哥們鳥吧？真是幾次出版都沒有意識(shí)到啊，還是故意讓別人看不到真正的作者英文名字啊啊啊？

         朱學(xué)勤的問題，比起汪暉的幾個(gè)不算什么嚴(yán)重的引文規(guī)范啊之類的問題，性質(zhì)已經(jīng)完全不同，因?yàn)橹鞂W(xué)勤是整節(jié)整節(jié)的抄襲同一本書。除了這三節(jié)、邢玉思考證的第八章第四節(jié)、還有Isaiah大俠考證的，你要小女子再考證朱書十節(jié)來(lái)自Blum都不成任何問題（舉個(gè)例子朱書第八章第二節(jié)也是來(lái)自Blum第12章；小女子已經(jīng)沒有興趣再浪費(fèi)時(shí)間了），Isaiah說朱書100多頁(yè)抄襲自Blum，現(xiàn)在看來(lái)他當(dāng)初的判斷一點(diǎn)都不夸張，牛！哪怕按90年代初的學(xué)術(shù)不咋規(guī)范來(lái)說，朱學(xué)勤的整節(jié)整節(jié)抄襲也是可以拿出來(lái)大打一千大板的。這剛好驗(yàn)證了朱學(xué)勤說過滴“我不是第二個(gè)汪暉”，呵呵，確實(shí)不是。當(dāng)然，小女子也不主張像那些卑鄙地想整倒汪暉的偽媒體偽學(xué)者那樣來(lái)打倒朱學(xué)勤。人也需要大度的心態(tài)適當(dāng)寬恕他人。前段時(shí)間在汪暉一事中老當(dāng)益壯的那些50年代問題老人或者更老的“老人頭”們，現(xiàn)在面對(duì)朱學(xué)勤一事是長(zhǎng)吁短嘆全啞了，確實(shí)很搞笑的嗦。老人們還是該向小女子80年代的學(xué)兄學(xué)妹們學(xué)習(xí)學(xué)習(xí)。都快進(jìn)土的人了，還不曉得以大度的心態(tài)來(lái)看別人的人，小女子同情中——

          下面是考證朱書第八章第一節(jié)的結(jié)果，黑色為朱文，紅色為小女子注解，后面的英文為Blum原文。本節(jié)朱文共使用9個(gè)腳注（從第3到第11，第1到2的腳注出現(xiàn)在引言），其中兩處是Blum。小女子的注解共46處，都來(lái)自Blum 一書。

第八章第一節(jié)、霜月批判——百科全書派雪上加霜

　　盧梭的信徒與啟蒙遺老之間的論戰(zhàn)始終在進(jìn)行。

　　革命初起時(shí)，孔多塞這樣的啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)后繼者尚在政治中心公開活動(dòng)，（1. Blum：229頁(yè)最后一段第3行至230頁(yè)第1行）但其他百科全書派成員年事已高，亦因外界盧梭聲望日隆，大多隱居民間，深居簡(jiǎn)出。（2. Blum：229頁(yè)最后一段第1行至第3行）８０歲高齡的修道院長(zhǎng)雷諾爾，自１７８１年５月２５日逃避巴黎市議會(huì)的逮捕令，一直隱匿于馬賽，閉門著述。（3. Blum：230頁(yè)第6行至第7行,第8行至第10行）１７９０年８月，斐揚(yáng)派傾慕其啟蒙思想家的聲名，宣布舊時(shí)代對(duì)他的逮捕令撤銷無(wú)效，邀其進(jìn)入巴黎，登上議會(huì)講壇講演。（4. Blum: 230頁(yè)第14行至第16行） 不料這位白發(fā)老翁上臺(tái)后，向著底下正仰頭瞻仰他作為百科全書派化身之風(fēng)采的眾議員輕蔑地掃了一眼，隨即就連珠炮般猛烈抨擊自１７８９年以來(lái)所發(fā)生的所有變化…… （5. Blum: 230頁(yè)第一段倒數(shù)第6行至倒數(shù)第3行）

　　羅伯斯庇爾站起發(fā)言：

　　你們看，（自由的）敵人是如何懦弱，他們不敢親臨前線甘冒矢石，卻在這里舉起他們的遁詞。用心險(xiǎn)惡者把這個(gè)有名望的老人從墳?zāi)惯呁狭嘶貋?lái)，以利用他的弱點(diǎn)。他們唆使他當(dāng)眾背棄了本來(lái)是構(gòu)成他威望基礎(chǔ)的那些教義和原則。（6. Blum: 230頁(yè)第二段全段; 注：朱文這里標(biāo)注了Blum）

　　在羅伯斯庇爾建議下，議會(huì)把這個(gè)“昏瞆老人”轟了出去。（7. Blum: 230頁(yè)第三段第1行至第3行）從此，羅伯斯庇爾對(duì)百科全書派的厭惡公開化，與他們結(jié)下了怨恨。8. Blum: 230頁(yè)第三段第4行至第6行）

　　１７９２年４月，羅伯斯庇爾出版了《憲法保衛(wèi)者》雜志。（9. Blum: 231頁(yè)第一段第1行至第2行）他攻擊的第一個(gè)靶子，就是米拉波曾在議會(huì)發(fā)言中多次提及的孔多塞與達(dá)朗貝爾的友誼。（10. Blum: 231頁(yè)第一段第8行至第10行；注：此處朱抄錯(cuò)了，Blum原文中說提及他們友誼的是Brissot，不是米拉波Mirabeau，下面的Blum引文中也是Brissot先生）羅伯斯庇爾這一次公開數(shù)落百科全書派當(dāng)年排斥迫害盧梭的惡跡：

　　米拉波先生，（朱抄錯(cuò)了，應(yīng)是Brissot先生）他對(duì)他的那幫朋友推崇倍至，提醒我們回憶孔多塞與達(dá)朗貝爾的友誼以及他的學(xué)術(shù)名望，譴責(zé)我們以輕率的語(yǔ)氣評(píng)論那些他稱之為愛國(guó)主義和自由主義導(dǎo)師的人們。可是就我而言，我從來(lái)就認(rèn)為，在那些方面，我們除了自然之外，別無(wú)導(dǎo)師可言。我愿意指出這一點(diǎn)，那就是革命已經(jīng)砍掉了許多舊制度下大人物的腦袋。如果說這些院士、數(shù)學(xué)家遭到攻擊和恥笑，那是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)徒Y(jié)過那些大人物，并對(duì)那么多的國(guó)王奉迎拍馬，以求飛黃騰達(dá)。誰(shuí)都知道他們是多么的不可饒恕：他們迫害過讓·雅克·盧梭的美德和自由精神！盧梭那神圣的面容我曾親眼目睹，按我的判斷，唯有他才是那個(gè)時(shí)代眾多名人中唯一的、真正的哲學(xué)家。他才應(yīng)該得到公認(rèn)的榮譽(yù)，而這種榮譽(yù)恰恰就被那些政治上的雇傭文人和心懷忌恨的英雄們用種種陰謀手段肆加踐踏！（11. 這段全段見Blum: 231頁(yè)第二段全段）

　　百科全書派當(dāng)年與歐洲各王室之間的關(guān)系，確實(shí)不如盧梭的民粹主義道德實(shí)踐那么漂亮；⑤百科全書派當(dāng)年不寬容盧梭，也是事實(shí)。但是，這種哲學(xué)家內(nèi)部的理論紛爭(zhēng)是否到了迫害程度，未必如羅伯斯庇爾所言。羅伯斯庇爾令人不安處，是他的這種強(qiáng)烈暗示：“革命已經(jīng)砍掉了許多舊制度下大人物的腦袋。”羅伯斯庇爾所使用的“砍掉”這一字眼——正是當(dāng)時(shí)民間流傳的“斷頭臺(tái)”一詞俚語(yǔ)。這種獨(dú)尊盧梭罷黜百家的肅殺之氣，預(yù)示著后來(lái)的“焚書、坑儒”（前文已述）一連串極端行動(dòng)，已難以避免。

　　孔多塞試圖起來(lái)反抗。他指斥羅伯斯庇爾：“當(dāng)一個(gè)人在他的內(nèi)心或內(nèi)心情感中毫無(wú)思想可言時(shí)，當(dāng)他毫無(wú)知識(shí)可以填補(bǔ)他智慧的空白時(shí)，當(dāng)他連把單詞聯(lián)接起來(lái)的這點(diǎn)可憐能力都不具備的時(shí)候，盡管他盡其所能設(shè)想自己是一個(gè)偉人，還有什么事情可以留給他做呢？通過好勇斗狠的行為，他只能贏得土匪，強(qiáng)盜的喝采。” （12. Blum: 234頁(yè)最后一段第5行至235頁(yè)第1行）

　　德穆蘭則主張?jiān)诒R梭與伏爾泰之間應(yīng)妥協(xié)調(diào)和。他提出，法國(guó)應(yīng)該彌平它的英烈們之間曾經(jīng)存在過的敵意。（13. Blum: 229頁(yè)第5行至第7行）他說：“伏爾泰和讓·雅克的遺骸都應(yīng)該被保存為民族的財(cái)產(chǎn)。現(xiàn)在，各民族分裂為成千個(gè)碎片，同一民族內(nèi)，某種碎片被一部分人認(rèn)為是圣靈遺跡，同時(shí)又被另一種人視為瀆神之物，可厭之物。然而，這本來(lái)是一座神殿（指先賢祠——本書作者）。人們瞻仰這一神殿和它所收納的各種遺物時(shí)，本不該爭(zhēng)吵。這是古羅馬的神殿，應(yīng)該把所有的崇拜所有的宗教融合在一起”。（14. Blum: 229頁(yè)第9行至第14行；注：此處朱書標(biāo)注引文來(lái)自Blum 227頁(yè)，但應(yīng)該是229頁(yè)）

　　德穆蘭此言未免天真。當(dāng)時(shí)對(duì)盧梭和伏爾泰、百科全書派的褒貶，正反映著現(xiàn)實(shí)政治生活中的嚴(yán)重對(duì)立，人們?cè)趺磿?huì)聽得進(jìn)調(diào)和者的聲音？（15. Blum: 229頁(yè)第三段第1行至第5行）

　　１７９２年１２月５日，雅各賓俱樂部集會(huì)。羅伯斯庇爾在這次集會(huì)中發(fā)表重要講話，公開號(hào)召打倒百科全書派，（16. Blum: 233頁(yè)倒數(shù)第3行至倒數(shù)第1行）推倒雅各賓俱樂部中的愛爾維修胸像。當(dāng)時(shí)雅各賓俱樂部中共有四座胸像：米拉波、布魯圖斯，盧梭和愛爾維修。（17. Blum: 233頁(yè)倒數(shù)第1行至234頁(yè)第2行）羅伯斯庇爾說：

　　我看只有兩個(gè)人值得敬仰：布魯圖斯和盧梭。愛爾維修是一個(gè)陰謀家，一個(gè)可憐的詭辯家，一個(gè)非道德行為的始作俑者，是正直的讓·雅克·盧梭的最無(wú)情的迫害者！只有盧梭才值得我們敬仰。如果愛爾維修還活著，決難想象，他會(huì)加入自由的事業(yè)。他只會(huì)加入那群所謂詭辯家的陰謀集團(tuán)，那些人今天正在反對(duì)祖國(guó)！⑦。（18. Blum: 234頁(yè)第二段全段）

　　羅伯斯庇爾的建議獲得一致通過。（19. Blum: 234頁(yè)第三段第1行）在一片歡呼鼓噪聲中，米拉波和愛爾維修的胸像被推倒，踩得稀爛。（20. Blum: 234頁(yè)第三段第2行至第4行）

　　接下來(lái)的一個(gè)月，民間開始出現(xiàn)反百科全書派浪潮。一個(gè)主題被反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)：只有投身于盧梭式美德的雅各賓派才是“人民”，而反對(duì)盧梭者，不是陰謀家，就是人民的敵人。（21. Blum: 234頁(yè)第四段第1行至第4行）圣鞠斯特宣稱，在人民的敵人里，他能辨別出這樣一類人：（22. Blum: 234頁(yè)第四段第5行至第6行）“他們?cè)珊薏㈥幹\迫害過讓·雅克。”連德國(guó)來(lái)的無(wú)政府主義革命家克勞茨也來(lái)湊趣，說那些百科全書派尚存者“抱著團(tuán)來(lái)懲治我，就像他們懲治過讓·雅克一樣。”（23. Blum: 234頁(yè)第四段最后五行）

　　１７９３年春，盧梭遺孀泰勒絲來(lái)到國(guó)民公會(huì)，要求給予盧梭以置身先賢祠的榮譽(yù)。（24. Blum: 227頁(yè)第三段第1行至第3行）而在此之前，在斐揚(yáng)派時(shí)期，１７９１年７月１１日伏爾泰遺骸已移入先賢祠。盧梭與伏爾泰能否置于一堂，成了現(xiàn)實(shí)政治中如何對(duì)待盧梭及其思想的敏感問題。阿馬爾出面接待泰勒絲，慨然允諾：“民族的代表們將再也不會(huì)延期償還盧梭的恩典了。” （25. Blum: 227頁(yè)第三段第4行至第6行）國(guó)民公眾經(jīng)過激烈辯論，議決把盧梭遺骸送入先賢祠。（26. Blum: 228頁(yè)第1行至第2行）

　　１７９３年５月，吉倫特派垮臺(tái)，啟蒙遺老進(jìn)入地下狀態(tài)。（27. Blum: 235頁(yè)第5行至第6行）孔多塞隱匿不出，格里姆逃亡哥特，波麥賽逃亡英格蘭，馬蒙特爾隱居于諾曼底，留在巴黎的人只能秘密聚會(huì)，不定期見面。（28. Blum: 235頁(yè)第6行至第9行）專門研究這一問題的史學(xué)家卡夫克羅列了當(dāng)時(shí)３８?jìng)€(gè)人的命運(yùn)，得出結(jié)論：“百科全書派的合作者決不是恐怖政策的合作者。” （29. Blum: 229頁(yè)第三段第5行至第10行）當(dāng)時(shí)最著名的百科全書派地下活動(dòng)者有三個(gè)：孔多塞、雷諾爾和修道院院長(zhǎng)摩萊勒。（30. Blum: 229頁(yè)最后三行）這群幸存者在愛爾維修遺孀家里，秘密活動(dòng)。這些人有：都德特夫人（盧梭晚年曾與之交惡，見《懺悔錄》下卷——本書作者）、米拉波私人醫(yī)生彼埃爾·卡布尼，以及前文所述那個(gè)給科黛作詩(shī)悼亡的詩(shī)人舍尼埃。（31. Blum: 232頁(yè)第三段第6行至第11行）時(shí)人稱他們?yōu)椤氨R梭式民主的敵人”。（32. Blum: 232頁(yè)第三段第12行至第13行；注：原文并不是“時(shí)人”，而是一個(gè)叫Sergio Moravia的人這樣說）摩萊勒回憶說：１７９３年底的一個(gè)夜晚，他在杜伊勒里宮附近一家餐館里就餐，正好旁聽到鄰桌上的一場(chǎng)談話，談的是各區(qū)正在散發(fā)“愛國(guó)公民證書”，以甄別“正義者”與“邪惡者”。（33. Blum: 232頁(yè)最后一行至233頁(yè)第6行）一個(gè)人對(duì)另一個(gè)人說：“他們給了一個(gè)著名貴族一張愛國(guó)公民證！” （34. Blum: 233頁(yè)第6行至第7行）此人越說越憤怒：“那個(gè)貴族就是埃貝爾·摩萊勒！他寫過一本反對(duì)盧梭的書，我把他們從杜伊勒里區(qū)剛剛驅(qū)逐出來(lái)！” （35. Blum: 233頁(yè)第7行至第9行）摩萊勒一聽此言，趕緊拉下帽檐，悄悄溜走。⑨（36. Blum: 233頁(yè)第9行至第10行；此處朱的腳注標(biāo)注為：參見卡夫克：“恐怖與百科全書派”，載法國(guó)近現(xiàn)代史，196年14期284-295頁(yè)，其實(shí)朱搞混了，這個(gè)腳注應(yīng)該是Morellet, Memoires (Paris: Ladvocat, 1821), 2:97。朱抄的這個(gè)腳注內(nèi)容也來(lái)自Blum，但Blum原文本用于上面的第29個(gè)標(biāo)注，但朱文在第29處沒有給腳注，卻把它搬到這里來(lái)了，搞錯(cuò)了；另外年份是1967年，不是196年，朱也抄錯(cuò)了）

　　１７９３年１１月２１日，即霜月１日，羅伯斯庇爾在雅各賓俱樂部正式發(fā)動(dòng)了反無(wú)神論運(yùn)動(dòng)。（37. Blum: 240頁(yè)第二段倒數(shù)第4行至倒數(shù)第3行）演說一開始，他就以黑白對(duì)分法，把“貴族式”的無(wú)神論和人民所廣泛接受的“偉大的主宰關(guān)心受壓迫的無(wú)辜者”的觀點(diǎn)對(duì)立起來(lái)，（38. Blum: 240頁(yè)第二段最后三行）頓時(shí)激起旁聽席上一陣掌聲。羅伯斯庇爾迅速把掌聲變?yōu)樗恼摀?jù)：“給我鼓掌的是人民，是不幸者。如果有人指責(zé)我的話，那一定是富人，是罪犯。”他暗示：國(guó)民公眾將采取恢復(fù)宗教信仰的重大步驟，并打擊那些瀆神者、非道德者。這就是著名的９３年霜月演說10。

　　“霜月演說”無(wú)異于發(fā)布對(duì)百科全書派的討伐令。（39. Blum: 243頁(yè)第3行至第4行）百科全書派雪上加霜，更難生存。繼此之后，羅伯斯庇爾又發(fā)表“花演說”，對(duì)百科全書派施以最后一擊。（40. Blum: 235頁(yè)第四段第1行至第3行）

　　１７９２年以來(lái)共和國(guó)境內(nèi)的非基督教化運(yùn)動(dòng)，始終刺激羅伯斯庇爾的道德憂患與宗教情懷。在他看來(lái)，瀆神者是瀆德者，百科全書派的無(wú)神論抽空了共和國(guó)的道德基礎(chǔ)。（41. Blum: 243頁(yè)第7行至第9行）１７９４春丹東事件更使他把這筆帳記在百科全書派宣揚(yáng)的世俗功利主義上。（42. Blum: 245頁(yè)第三段第7行至第8行）處死丹東的當(dāng)天，巴雷爾曾宣布羅伯斯庇爾正在起草一項(xiàng)道德救國(guó)的宏偉計(jì)劃。１７９４年５月７日，羅伯斯庇爾代表救國(guó)委員會(huì)向國(guó)民公會(huì)提出了這一計(jì)劃，其中最富道德義憤的那一部分，就是對(duì)百科全書派排炮般的攻擊：（43. Blum：235頁(yè)第四段第1行至第5行）

　　這一派人在政治方面，一直輕視人民權(quán)利；在道德方面，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不滿足于摧毀宗教偏見；……這一派人們以極大的熱情傳播唯物主義思想……。實(shí)用哲學(xué)的很大一部分就淵源于此，它把利己主義化成體系，把人類社會(huì)看作詭計(jì)的一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)斗，把成功看作正義和非正義的尺度，把正直看作一種出于愛好或者出于禮貌的事情，把世界看作靈巧的騙子的家產(chǎn)。……人們已經(jīng)注意到，他們中的好些人同奧爾良家族有密切的聯(lián)系，而英國(guó)憲法在他們看來(lái)，是政治的杰作和社會(huì)幸福的·最·高·點(diǎn)。

　　在我講到的那個(gè)時(shí)期里，……有一個(gè)人（指盧梭——本書作者）以其高尚的心靈和莊嚴(yán)的品格，顯得無(wú)愧于是克盡職責(zé)的人類導(dǎo)師。……他的學(xué)說的純正性來(lái)自自然和對(duì)邪惡的深刻的憎恨，同樣也來(lái)自他對(duì)那些盜用哲學(xué)家的名義搞陰謀的詭辯家的無(wú)法抑制的蔑視，而這，引起了他的敵人和假朋友對(duì)他的仇恨和迫害。啊！如果他曾是這場(chǎng)革命的見證人……，誰(shuí)能懷疑他的高貴的心靈充滿激情地關(guān)注著正義和平等的事業(yè)呢！然而，他的卑怯的對(duì)手們?yōu)楦锩闪诵┦裁茨兀克麄儭c革命為敵，…… 腐蝕公共輿論，……把自己出賣給一些叛亂集團(tuán)，尤其出賣給奧爾良派！11（44. 以上兩段朱注出了引文來(lái)自王養(yǎng)沖、陳崇武，沒有問題；后面這段也出現(xiàn)在Blum 235頁(yè)的最后一段最后四行和236頁(yè)的第二段；因?yàn)橹齑斯?jié)基本都來(lái)自Blum一書，說明朱在考慮使用這段引文時(shí)也是參考了Blum一書的）

　　這是法國(guó)革命期間，對(duì)百科全書派所作的一次最猛烈最全面的討伐。盧梭和啟蒙思想家的理論是非，已經(jīng)上升到革命與反革命的高度，百科全書派再也生存不下去了。（45. Blum：233頁(yè)第二段第1行至第4行；此處朱文縮簡(jiǎn)）愛爾維修遺孀的地下沙龍被迫解散，啟蒙遺老非逃即亡，他們中的大多數(shù)人后來(lái)還是走上了斷頭臺(tái)。（46. Blum：233頁(yè)第一段最后五行；此處朱文縮簡(jiǎn)）啟蒙主流哲學(xué)留給法國(guó)大革命的最后一絲影響，只有花月廣場(chǎng)上那尊無(wú)神論模擬像，等著羅伯斯庇爾付之一炬了。

Blum原文（共46處）

1. Blum: 229-230: three of the best known intellectuals of the ancien regime, Condorcet, the Abbe Raynal, and the Abbe Morellet, overtly refused to accept the revisionist interpretation of the Enlightenment which some Jacobins were attempting to propagate.

2. Blum. P. 229: the majority of former Encyclopedists and other philosophes left letters and memoirs recounting efforts to make themselves inconspicuous during the Terror,

3. Blum. P. 230: He persuaded the Abbe Guillaume-Thomas Raynal, one of the fabled names of the philosophic group, to leave his retreat in Marseilles. The abbe, in August 1790, was still technically wanted under an arrest order from the parlement of Paris

4. Blum. P. 230: The Assembly, moved at the thought of the old warrior's long struggles on behalf of freedom, declared the decree against him void and invited him to speak before the deputies.

5. Blum. P. 230: Opposition incarnate in one human being, the elderly radical looked down on the adoring faces of the delegates and delivered a blast of venom against everything which had taken place since 1789.

6. Blum. P. 230: Robespierre handled the momentary ontological panic of the Assembly with great aplomb: "You see," Malouet quotes him as saying, "how the enemies [of liberty] dare not risk a frontal attack and are obliged to resort to subterfuge. The wretches drag forth a respectable old man from the edge of his tomb, and abusing his weakness, they make him abjure the doctrine and the principles which founded his*reputation."13

7. Blum. P. 230: Rather than parrying Raynal's attack, Robespierre's response simply dismissed him as a befuddled dotard and indeed the abbe's eighty years,

8. Blum. P. 230: Nonetheless, Robespierre subsequently expressed increasing rancor toward the entire group of philosophes,

9. Blum. P. 231: in April 1792, he began publishing a journal, Le Defenseur de la Constitution (a misnomer since it had no bearing on the constitution)

10. Blum. P. 231:  In the first issue Robespierre took on Brissot, who had just made a speech in praise of Condorcet's long friendship with the Encyclopedist d'Alembert.

11. Blum. P. 231: M. Brissot, in the panegyric of his friend, while reminding us of Condorcet's liaisons with d'Alembert and his academic glory, has reproached us for the temerity with which we judge men whom he calls our masters in patriotism and liberty. For my part I would have thought that in those respects we had no other masters than nature. I could point out that the revolution has cut down many a great man of the old regime [here Robespierre used the sinister word 'rapetiss£' which was a colloquial term for guillotining] and if the academicians and mathematicians whom M. Brissot proposes to us as models attacked and ridiculed priests, they nevertheless courted the great and adored the kings in whose service they prospered; and who is unaware of how implacably they persecuted virtue and the spirit of liberty in the person of this Jean-Jacques Rousseau whose sacred image I see before me, of this true philosopher who alone, in my opinion, among all the famous men of those times, deserved the public honors which have been prostituted since by intriguers upon political hacks and contemptible heroes. [4: 35-37朱文腳注照搬Blum此引文出處

12. Blum. P. 234: Of Robespierre he charged: "When a man has no thoughts in his head or feelings in his heart, when no learning makes up for his lack of wits, when he is incapable, despite his best efforts, of rising to the petty talent of combining words, and nevertheless he aspires to be a great man, what is there for him to do? By outrageous acts he must earn the protection of brigands."19

13. Blum. P. 229: attempted to reconcile Rousseau with the philosophes in the tomb. Camille Desmoulins described the Republic's need to gloss over its heroes' antagonisms and to weld them into a posthumous united front.

14. Blum. P. 229: "the remains of Voltaire and of Jean-Jacques will be transferred there as national property. Nations are divided between a thousand sects, and in the same nation what is the holy of holies for one sect is for another a place of blasphemy and abomination. But there will be no dispute between men over the holiness of this temple and its relics. This basilica will reunite all in its cult and its religion" (Revolutions de France et de Brabant, 72: 321). 此處朱書標(biāo)注引文來(lái)自Blum 227頁(yè)，但應(yīng)該是229頁(yè)

15. Blum. P. 229: It is not always enough to bury a quarrel, however; one must first be certain it is dead. Such was not the case, despite the shared apotheosis of Voltaire and Rousseau, not only because of the profound vibrations of their fundamental discord, but because certain philosophes inconveniently lived on.

16. Blum. P. 233: In a speech at the Jacobin Club on December 5, 1792, Robespierre moved from verbal denunciation to symbolic act.

17. Blum. P. 233-234: He demanded that of the four busts decorat-ing the hall, those of Mirabeau, Brutus, Rousseau, and Helvetius, two be struck down.

18. Blum. P. 234: I see here only two men worthy of our homage: Brutus and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Mirabeau must fall. Helvetius must fall. Helvetius was a schemer, a miserable wit (bel esprit), an immoral creature, one of the crudest persecutors of the good Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is the only one worthy of our homage. If Helvetius were alive today, don't go believing he would have embraced the cause of liberty: he would have joined the crowd of conniving so-called wits who today are devastating the fatherland.9：143-44朱文腳注照搬Blum此引文出處

19. Blum. P. 234: This speech touched off a wild display of approval at the club,

20. Blum. P. 234: In the midst of shouting and applause, ladders were brought in, the busts of Mirabeau and Helvetius were thrown down and smashed

21. Blum. P. 234： "Men of letters" and "wits" were, from this point on, in Jacobin texts, synonymous with traitors. In the months that followed, one theme was constantly reiterated: the Jacobins who embraced Rousseau's "virtue" were the people.

22. Blum. P. 234: Saint-Just declared that in his enemies he recognized the same people whose

23. Blum. P. 234: "envy and malice persecuted the good Jean-Jacques," and Anacharsis Clootz claimed, shortly before he himself was denounced by Robespierre as a foreigner and atheist, that "they want to punish me corporally as they did Jean-Jacques" (Jaures, 8: 74). 朱文腳注照搬Blum此引文出處

24. Blum. P.227: Therese appeared before the Convention, accompanied by a deputation of the Republican Society of the Commune of Franciade (formerly Saint Denis), demanding the honors of the Pantheon for Rousseau.

25. Blum. P. 227: The presiding officer, Amar, responded to the visitors by declaring that "the national representatives would not delay paying the debt they owed to the most intrepid defender of the rights of the people;

26. Blum. P. 228: the Convention decreed that Rousseau's remains be brought to the Pantheon

27. Blum. P. 235: When the Terror moved into its most active phase with the fall of the Gironde in May of 1793, Condorcet went into hiding.

28. Blum. P. 235: Condorcet went into hiding. A number of other intellectuals of the old regime were abroad, imprisoned, or dead. Grimm had fled to Gotha, Beaumarchais to England, Marmontel was hoping to escape notice in Normandy,

29. Blum. P. 229: Frank A. Kafker, in an effort to determine whether the Encyclopedists who had survived into the Terror were active supporters of it, examined the revolutionary fortunes of thirty-eight men who had contributed to the great dictionary and concluded:

30. Blum. P. 229: three of the best known intellectuals of the ancien regime, Condorcet, the Abbe Raynal, and the Abbe Morellet,

31. Blum. P. 232: Pierre Cabanis who had been Mirabeau's physician, Constantin de Volney, the Abbe Sieves, Andre Chenier, Condorcet for a time and Mme Condorcet after her husband went into hiding, Mme d'Houdetot, who had so inflamed Rousseau, M. d'Houdetot, and a handful of others banded together in Auteuil at the home of Mme Helvetius, the widow of the wellknown materialist philosopher.

32. Blum. P. 232: Sergio Moravia has characterized them as "adverseries of Rousseauvian democracy,"

33. Blum. P. 232-233: Abbe Morellet. He recounts how one evening while dining near the Tuileries he overheard one of Hebert's dinner companions telling the Pere Duchesne that the sections were dispensing certificates of "civisme" too casually. These certificates, awarded by neighborhood committees, were necessary for survival in revolutionary Paris, for without one a person was liable to arrest as a "suspect"

34. Blum. P. 233: "They gave one to a well-known aristocrat,"

35. Blum. P. 233: Pere Duchesne's friend announced indignantly, "the Abbe Morellet whom I had thrown out of the Tuileries section for having written against J.-J. Rousseau."17

36. Blum. P. 233: Morellet recounts scuttling from the restaurant only to risk his neck朱文此處的腳注抄錯(cuò)

37. Blum. P. 240: On 1 frimaire, at the Jacobins, Robespierre began his crusade against "atheism."

38. Blum. P. 240: From the beginning he meant to oppose atheism, which was "aristocratic," to the idea of a "great Being who watches over oppressed innocence," an idea that was "completely plebeian."3

39. Blum. P. 243: Within this context Robespierre began to formulate the attack on the philosophes which was discussed in the previous chapter.

40. Blum. P. 235: At the meeting of the Jacobin Club on 18 floreal (1794), three months before Thermidor, Robespierre put the finishing touches on his indictment of the now defunct "coalition" formed by the philosophes

41. Blum. P. 243: To have denied the existence of God and the communion of believers in favor of some individualistic rational doctrines was to undermine the foundation of the republic of virtue.

42. Blum. P. 245: he came to Danton, with an accusation which defined the orator's corruption:

43. Blum. P. 235: At the meeting of the Jacobin Club on 18 floreal (1794), three

months before Thermidor,Robespierre put the finishing touches on his indictment of the now defunct "coalition" formed by the philosophes in anticipation of the Revolution, which, according to him, they had foreseen. Among the philosophes before the Revolution, he said:

44. Blum. P. 235: Among those who were outstanding in the world of letters there was one man who, by the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the ministry of preceptor of the human race. [10: 454—55] depicted in strokes of flame the charms of virtue... The purity of his doctrine, imbibed from nature and from a profound hatred of vice, as well as his invincible contempt for the scheming intriguers who usurped the name of philosophes, called forth the hatred and persecution of his rivals and false friends. Ah! Had he been the witness of this revolution of which he was the precursor, who can doubt that his generous soul would have embraced the cause of justice and equality with transports of joy? But what did his cowardly adverseries do? They fought against the Revolution. [10: 455-56]

45. Blum. P. 233: The existence of this group with its lingering aura of political heroism, intellectual prestige, impeccable elegance and ironic snobisme drew fire from Robespierre as much as it had from Rousseau, and on much the same grounds.

46. Blum. P. 233: he escaped the fate which befell other members of the group in Auteuil, like the poet Andre Chenier, who was executed, and the luckless aphorist Sebastien-Roch Chamfort, who attempted suicide three different ways and yet managed to survive his last attempt for a few months.

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)