1705038480
对人类创造的精挑细选！——我们对人文学的理解必在此之上。从根本上说，这意味着传记；因此我们的大学应当讲授的是传记历史，不仅是政治，而是有关人类努力和成就的任何事物和一切事物。依此展开研究，我们就知道何种活动经受住了时间的检验，从而取得衡量卓越与持久的标准。所有的艺术、科学和机构都不过是人类对完美孜孜不倦的追求；在看到卓越的不同类型，检验的多种多样，适应的灵活变化时，我们就对普遍意义上的“更好”和“更坏”有了更深的理解。批判能力就变得多一分敏锐，少一分偏执。即使在纠正他人的偏误时，也能够将心比心；即使在为胜利的一方喝彩时，也可以对功败垂成和崎岖年代的痛苦感同身受。
1705038481
1705038482
虽然表述尚不确切，观点也有待完善，但意思是显而易见的。大学——讲授人文学所举案例或许特殊，但必须是典型而富有深意的——至少应该力图拨开重重迷雾，让我们至少在普遍意义上知晓高贵一直以来并将继续承担的含义。对一切人类杰作的感知，对值得仰慕之事的仰慕，对廉价、低劣和昙花一现的蔑视——所谓批判意识即是如此，是对理想价值的渴求。这是更为高级的智慧。在这方面有些人天性聪慧，有些人却永远难以企及。但是如果年轻人进了大学，接触了精选、稀有而珍贵的事物，却仍然愚昧庸俗，做不到去芜存菁，只有等别人做好了标记说明，三令五申之后才有所察觉，那么这才真正是高等教育的灾难和悲剧。
1705038483
1705038484
因此，追求人的高贵应当视作我们的本业，正如乏味的地铁之于工程师，阑尾炎之于外科医生。大学应当让我们心中始终保有对贤达的向往，对平庸之辈的漠视，以及对贩夫走卒的鄙视。在应对纷繁复杂的事务时，我们应当留意人们品格与意见的不同。擅长于此或许能补偿我们对事物的不知所措，弥补我们对原动力的无知。我们对大学教育的最高要求，最能概括高等教育目的的正是我说过的那句话——让我们在遇见贤达时能有知人之明。
1705038485
1705038486
之所以说这句话并非空洞的辞藻是因为，如果你问在我们这样的民主中，最该让人们在哪方面拥有才能，你就会发现这一方面脱颖而出。“人尽其才”——这正是人们最需要的智慧。民主正经历一场试验，没有人知道它将如何渡过难关。我们周围有太多悲观的预言家。他们曾经给民主安上反复无常和暴力的罪名，但如今已经不再如此。批评家们现在的论调是，民主习惯性地倾向于底层。他们因此宣称，民主起步如此，并将照此状不断向世界扩散。他们告诉我们，粗俗登上了王位并且体制化，将所有的高雅推到一旁，这将是我们无药可救的宿命；欧洲大陆的画报在描绘美国时，已经用猪替掉了老鹰的标志。过去高高在上的贵族，纵使恶贯满盈，至少沿袭了一部分对人类高贵品质的追求，并通过保留下来的传统，推崇某种形式的雅致生活。但是，在质疑者看来，一旦民主占了统治地位，高贵便成了某种看不见的教会，失去了荣誉、优先和偏爱，真诚和雅致便只有在私人的角落苟延残喘，不再拥有广泛的影响力，沦落为与人无害的怪癖。
1705038487
1705038488
那么，谁敢断言这可能不是民主事业呢？未来的事情是难以确定的；有些国家已经从内部变得腐朽；民主作为一个整体也有可能经历自我毒害。但是，就另一方面而言，民主是一种宗教，我们必定不会承认它的失败。信仰和乌托邦是对人类理性最高尚的锻炼，稍有理性的人都不会在抱怨者描绘的图景面前坐以待毙。我们中间最优秀的人头脑里更是充满民主逆流而上的愿景，历经艰难，直至其正义的制度和习俗放出美丽的光芒。精英们应当指明道路，我们应当紧紧相随；这样我们就又回到了高等教育帮助我们在遇见贤达时能有知人之明这一使命。
1705038489
1705038490
如今大家已经知道，民众可以自我运行和管理事务是最荒唐的无稽之谈。大小事务，若没有创造者开辟道路、其他人追随模仿，人类会一事无成——这些是人类进步过程中唯一发挥作用的因素。天才们指引道路、建立模式，普通人采纳效法。模式间的斗争构成了世界历史。因此民主的问题可以用最简洁的表达来描述：谁为大部分人带来启发？谁应当成为领袖人物？这里我们和我们的领袖分别代表方程式中的x和y；其余一切历史环境，不论是经济、政治，还是知识上的，都只不过是生活戏剧上演的背景罢了。
1705038491
1705038492
受教育阶层用这样一个简单的方式定义自身价值；我们比其他人更有能力预见谁可以成为更可敬可佩的领袖人物。这当然是极端简化后的说法，但是纵览全局让我们可以迅速定位。在我们的民主中，其他一切事物都在变化，只有我们这些大学校友成为稳定的存在，与旧国度的贵族一脉相承。跟贵族一样，我们沿袭传统；而我们的口号也正是“位高则任重”；与贵族不同之处在于，我们只代表理想的利益，因为我们不会徇私舞弊，也不会贪赃枉法。我们应当抱有阶层自觉性。“知识分子！”没有比这个集体名词更加充满自豪感的了，但是那些满脑子愚蠢的偏见和冲动的“血性”阶层却在“反德雷福斯狂热”中，用这个称号来讽刺法国那些仍然保有批判意识和判断力的人！必须承认，批判意识并非一个激动人心的词语，更不会成为游行中高举的横幅。对于旧习惯的喜好、自私的潮流、狂热的风潮是让人类这艘大船前行的力量；而睿智的船长在舵柄上施加的力量相对而言则微不足道。但是这些喜好、热情和利益是在不断变化、交替和错乱的；就在这此消彼长之中，船长的手却是稳定的。他对罗盘了然于心，并且在偏航时抢风行驶，奋力向前。再微弱的力量，如果持之以恒，相比起那些虽然强劲但却时断时续的力量而言，其效果都将是更为可观的。更加恒久的理想信念有如微风轻轻吹拂，真理和正义坚持不懈地引领道路，那么假以时日，必能扭转乾坤。
1705038493
1705038494
在民主的起伏中来纵观大学生发挥的总体引领作用，可以帮助我们从更广阔的视角来看待大学本身的目标。如果我们要成为民主这个面团的酵母，如果我们要通过文化的偏好来推动民主，我们就必须保证文化鼓起风帆。我们就必须将折叠风帆打开接受风和阳光的洗礼，接受现代学科进入——如果视野足够宽广，那么任何学科都将是人文的。
1705038495
1705038496
史蒂文森曾经这样写道：“你认为自己只是在谈判，其实却在人类进程中建立了一个联系。”当然了，技校理应教会你得心应手地讨价还价，但是大学应当向你展现出人类进程中这种谈判的场所——可能是个破烂不堪的地方。这应当是围绕大学每一门学科的通识观、视角和氛围。
1705038497
1705038498
身处大学的我们应当消除一个不少人关于哈佛等古老学府的奇怪观念。在很多无知的旁观者看来，这个名字不过意味着固执自负和难以取悦。在伊迪斯·怀亚特描写芝加哥的书《各行其是》中，有一对夫妇代表着一种独一无二的文化，即理查德·艾略特和他的妻子，他们见到任何美好的事物都无从辨别，若没有一个印出来的标签，欣赏就无从谈起——这二人正是对人类的讽刺影射。这类文化可能就存在于哈佛校园附近，那里恐怕找得到一些典型人物，因为自命不凡就好像画家的疝气或其他各种职业病一样。但是每所好的大学都避免让学生沾染上这类顽疾，避免让病菌扩散到附近的书本：它们调动整体基调活跃起来，让病菌难以为继。真正的文化兴盛之道在于同理心与敬畏心，而非厌恶和鄙夷，即能够突破重重伪装，直达人类心灵深处。如果一所大学在人类恶习的控制之下，无法创造蓬勃的氛围基调，就将因丧失社会功能而一败涂地；民主会对它敬而远之，视而不见。
1705038499
1705038500
当然，“基调”这个词太过模糊，但是也没有其他的选择，而此处的全部思考正是有关基调的问题。人类的所有事物正是因基调而丢失，或是留存。若要留住民主，就必须抓住更为高尚和健康的基调。如若我们要让民主如愿发展，就必须使用恰当的基调。而我们正是从自己的老师那里继承基调。最终一切都回到无数个体的相互模仿，回到何种基调拥有最大影响力这一问题上来。作为一个阶层，大学毕业生应当力图使我们的基调得到传播。这种基调应当拥有最高的传播力。
1705038501
1705038502
在辨识贤达之人这一本质功能之中，我们现在也遇到了来自外界的劲敌。《麦克卢尔杂志》《美国杂志》《科里尔周刊》，以及类似的《环球作品》，在这一领域共同打造了一所真正的平民大学。如果将来哪位历史学家写了接下来这段话，那可真是一桩憾事：“二十世纪中叶，高等学府对于美国的公众意见已全然丧失了影响力。这些学府已经证实了自己无力承担起提高民主基调这一使命，取而代之的是一股新兴的教育力量，带着无与伦比的热情，并用非凡的能力和成就付诸实践；为了满足同理心，提升人生品位，大众已经习惯完全听命于某些私下开展的文学行动，市场上通常把它们亲切地统称为‘十美分杂志’。”
1705038503
1705038504
难道我们不应该力图避免历史学家说出这样的话来吗？尽管“遇见贤达能有知人之明”这样的表述还不够明了，在实际运用中也难免困惑与不确定，但是还能找到其他方法来很好地描述高等学府应有的使命吗？如果大学做到了这一点，那么就做了想象中最好的事情。如果没有办到，那么就一事无成。这确实是一个不错的综合表述方法。如果有朝一日大学的师生能够集体认识到，它便是自己一直以来在摸索的伟大的目标，那么很多问题将有望得到解决；并且鉴于他们在社会体系中的影响力，也将开辟一番全新的蓬勃事业。
1705038505
1705038506
（郑文博 译）
1705038507
1705038508
西南联大英文课（英汉双语版） [:1705033840]
1705038509
26 LIBERTY AND DISCIPLINE
1705038510
1705038511
By Abbot Lawrence Lowell
1705038512
1705038513
1705038514
LIBERTY AND DISCIPLINE, by Abbott Lawrence Lowell, from the Yale Review , Vol. V, p.741, July, 1916. Reprinted in Maurice Garland Fulton’s National Ideals and Problems , New York, The MacMillan Company, 1918, pp. 269-282.
1705038515
1705038516
1705038517
1705038518
Abbott Lawrence Lowell （1856-1943）, American educator, president of Harvard University, 1909-1933. He is distinguished as an authority on the science of government and is the author of many books and articles in this field.
1705038519
1705038520
We are living in the midst of a terrific war in which each side casts upon the other the blame for causing the struggle;but in which each gives the same reason for continuing it to the bitter end—that reason being the preservation from destruction of the essential principle of its own civilization. One side claims to be fighting for the liberty of man; the other for a social system based on efficiency and maintained by discipline. Of course the difference is one of degree. No one believes in permitting every man to do whatever he pleases, no matter how it may injure his neighbor or endanger the community; and no country refuses all freedom of action to the individual. But although the difference is only of degree and of emphasis, it is none the less real. Our own people have always asserted their devotion to the principle of personal liberty, and in some ways they have carried it farther than any other nation. It is not, therefore, useless to compare the two principles that we may understand their relative advantages, and perceive the dangers of liberty and the conditions of its fruitfulness.
1705038521
1705038522
Americans are more familiar with the benefits of discipline, in fact, than conscious of them in theory. Anyone who should try to manage a factory, a bank, a railroad, a ship, a military company, or an athletic team, on the principle of having every employee or member of the organization take whatever part in the work, and do it in whatever way seemed best in his own eyes, would come to sudden grief and be mercilessly laughed at. We all know that any enterprise can be successful only if there is coördination of effort, or what for short we call team play; and that this can happen only if the nature of each man’s work, and the way he is to perform it, is arranged with a view to the whole, so that each part fitting into its place contributes its proper share to the total result. Experience has taught us that the maximum efficiency is attained where the team play is most nearly perfect, and therefore, the subordination of the individual to the combined action is most nearly complete. Then there is the greatest harmony of action, and the least waste by friction or working at cross purposes. But everyone is aware that such a condition does not come about of itself. Men do not fit into their places in a team or organization spontaneously. Until they have become experts they do not appreciate the relation of their particular work to the plan as a whole; and even when they have become familiar with the game or the industry, they are apt to overestimate their own part in it, or disagree about the best method of attaining the result. Everyone likes to rule, and when Artemus Ward suggested that all the men in a regiment should be made Brigadier Generals at once to avoid jealousy, he touched a familiar weakness in human nature. He was not obliged to explain the joke, because no one fails to see the absurdity of having everybody in command. But that would be exactly the situation if nobody were in command. If there is to be a plan for combined action, somebody must have power to decide what that plan shall be; and if the part of every performer is to be subordinated to the common plan, somebody must have authority to direct the action of each in conformity with the plan. Moreover, that authority must have some means of carrying its directions into effect. It must be maintained by discipline; either by forcing those who do not play their parts rightly to conform to the general plan, or by eliminating them from the organization.
1705038523
1705038524
This principle of coördinated effort maintained by discipline applies to every combination of men where the maximum efficiency for a concrete object is desired, be it a business, a charity, or a whole state. It is a vitally important principle which no people can afford to lose from sight, but it is not everything. Whether it conduces to the greatest happiness or not is a question I leave on one side, for I am now discussing only effectiveness. Yet even from that standpoint we have left something out of account. The principle would be absolutely true if men were machines, or if the thing desired were always a concrete object to be attained by coöperation, such as the building of a railroad, the production of wealth, the winning of victory in war or on a playing field. But men are human beings and the progress of civilization is a thing far too complex to be comprised within any one concrete object or any number of such objects depending on combined effort. This is where the advantages of liberty come in.
1705038525
1705038526
Pasteur, one of the greatest explorers of nature and benefactors of the age, remarked that the value of liberty lay in its enabling every man to put forth his utmost effort. In France under the ancient monarchy men were very nearly born to trades and professions or at least large portions of the people were virtually excluded from many occupations. The posts of officers in the army were generally reserved for men of noble rank. The places of judges were purchased, and were in fact largely hereditary, and so on through much of the higher grade of employments. The Revolution broke this system down, and Napoleon insisted that the true principle of the French Revolution was the opening of all careers to talent;not so much equality as freedom of opportunity. Under any system of compulsion or restraint a man may be limited to duties unsuited to his qualities, so that he cannot use the best talents he possesses. The opportunities in a complex modern civilization are of infinite variety, subtle, elastic, incapable of being compassed by fixed regulations for attaining definite objects. The best plan for perfecting the post office, if strictly followed, would not have produced the telegraph; the most excellent organization of the telegraph would not have created the telephone; the most elaborate system of telephone wires and switchboards would not have included the wireless. The greatest contributions to knowledge, to the industrial arts, and to the comforts of life have been unforeseen, and have often come in unexpected directions. The production of these required something more than a highly efficient organization maintained by discipline.
1705038527
1705038528
Moreover—what is nearer to our present purpose—believers in the principle of liberty assert that a man will put forth more effort, and more intelligent effort, if he chooses his own field, and works in his own way, than if he labors under the constant direction of others. The mere sense of freedom is stimulating in a high degree to vigorous natures. The man who directs himself is responsible for the consequences. He guarantees the result, and stakes his character and reputation on it. If after selecting his own career he finds that he has chosen wrongly, he writes himself down a fool. The theory of liberty, then, is based upon the belief that a man is usually a better judge of his own aptitudes than anyone else can be, and that he will put forth more and better effort if he is free than if he is not.
1705038529