Historic writing The earliest form of writing

Historic writing
The earliest form of writing

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/writing/historic_writing.aspx


The earliest writing we know of dates back to around 3,000 BC and was probably invented by the Sumerians, living in major cities with centralised economies in what is now southern Iraq. Temple officials needed to keep records of the grain, sheep and cattle entering or leaving their stores and farms and it became impossible to rely on memory. So, an alternative method was required and the very earliest texts were pictures of the items scribes needed to record (known as pictographs).



These texts were drawn on damp clay tablets using a pointed tool. It seems the scribes realised it was quicker and easier to produce representations of such things as animals, rather than naturalistic impressions of them. They began to draw marks in the clay to make up signs, which were standardised so they could be recognised by many people.

A wedge-shaped instrument (usually a cut reed) was used to press the signs into soft clay. This gave the writing system its name, 'cuneiform', meaning wedge-shaped.
Cuneiform



From these beginnings, cuneiform signs were put together and developed to represent sounds, so they could be used to record spoken language. Once this was achieved, ideas and concepts could be expressed and communicated in writing. Letters enclosed in clay envelopes, as well as works of literature, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh have been found. Historical accounts have also come to light, as have huge libraries such as that belonging to the Assyrian king,Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC).

The latest known example of cuneiform is an astronomical text from AD 75. During its 3,000-year history cuneiform was used to write around 15 different languages including Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Elamite, Hittite, Urartian and Old Persian.

While cuneiform was spreading throughout the Middle East, writing systems were also being developed in Egypt and China.
Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs

It is not known exactly where and when Egyptian writing first began, but it was already well-advanced two centuries before the start of the First Dynasty that suggests a date for its invention in Egypt around 3,000 BC. The most well-known script used for writing the Egyptian language was in the form of a series of small signs, or hieroglyphs.

Some signs are pictures of real-world objects, while others are representations of spoken sounds. These sound signs are pictures that get their meaning from how the word for the object they represent sounds when said aloud. Some signs write one letter, some more, while others write whole words.

Like cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs were used for record-keeping, but also for monumental display dedicated to royalty and deities. The word hieroglyph comes from the Greek hieros 'sacred' and gluptien 'carved in stone'. The last known hieroglyph inscription was AD 394.

Other scripts used to write Egyptian were developed over time. Hieratic was handwritten and easier to write so was used for administrative and non-monumental texts from the Old Kingdom (about 2613-2160 BC) to around 700 BC. Hieratic was replaced by demotic, which means popular, in the Late Period (661-332 BC), and was a more abbreviated version. In turn demotic was replaced by Coptic, which may have been introduced to record the contemporary spoken language, in the first century AD.
Writing in China

In China, the earliest writing dates back to around 1200 BC and was found at the Shang Dynasty (about 1500-1050 BC) site of Anyang. Shang kings believed their ancestors could advise them and would use hot rods to crack pieces of polished oxen shoulder blade or the under shell of turtles. The patterns of the cracks were used to forecast the future.

Scribes carved questions and answers into these ‘oracle’ bones. They might ask about the best time to grow crops, for example. The origins of this script are unclear, but the oldest examples are already highly-developed, suggesting it had been in use for some time. Inscriptions have also been found on Shang bronzes from this period.

Unlike cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, however, the Chinese script did not die out. It underwent major changes and was adapted for use in other languages, but is still in use today.

Later Chinese scripts were developed for specific reasons. Seal script was used by the First Emperor (around 221 BC) but is still used for seals as a personal signature. Clerical script was developed in around 200 BC for record keeping. An easy-to-read script was used for ordinary writing and printed books, while grass script was used when writing had to be done quickly, such as note-taking.

Writing, or calligraphy, is China’s highest art form. Characters must be drawn with perfect balance and proportion and the order in which the strokes are made always follows a set pattern.

The Chinese script still used today has 40-50,000 characters, although only around 3,000 are needed to write a newspaper. The characters can represent a sound, a whole word, or even a concept.
The glyphs of Central America

Across the Pacific Ocean, the Maya civilisation was at its height between AD300 and 900. Inscriptions have been found on monumental sculpture, public buildings, murals, pottery, shell, obsidian, bone, wood, jade and screenfold books called codices. They were only identified as a writing system by scholars during the nineteenth century.

The majority of surviving examples of Maya writing are from the Classic period (AD 250-900) although some date to the Late Preclassic (400 BC - AD 250). Inscriptions record calendar and astronomical information, and historical events such as alliances, wars, lineages and marriages.

Maya glyphs were inscribed in blocks placed in horizontal and vertical rows. One or more glyphs were set in each block. It is generally read from left to right and top to bottom. The text sometimes appears in single columns, but can appear in L-shaped or other arrangements, such as on the carved lintels from the city of Yaxchilán.

More information about objects featured here (from top)

Tablet recording the allocation of beer, southern Iraq
Clay tablet with a cuneiform letter and envelope, Turkey
Cuneiform tablet with omens, northern Iraq
The Flood Tablet, from Nineveh, northern Iraq
Ivory label for King Den's sandals, Egypt
Page from the Book of the Dead of Hunefer, Egypt
Bronze gui (ritual food vessel), China
The Fenton Vase, from Nebaj, Guatemala

Highlights
Search:Go

Browse or search over 4,000highlights from the Museum collection

Shop Online


Cylinder seals, £90.00
Visit the online shop

Enewsletter sign up

Cuneiform: 6 things you (probably) didn’t know about the world’s oldest writing system

Cuneiform: 6 things you (probably) didn’t know about the world’s oldest writing system

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/cuneiform-6-facts-about-worlds-oldest-writing-system?utm_source=Facebook+referral&utm_medium=Facebook.com&utm_campaign=Bitly




Distinguished by its wedge-shaped marks on clay tablets, cuneiform script is the oldest form of writing in the world, first appearing even earlier than Egyptian hieroglyphics
Tuesday 26th May 2015
Submitted by Emma McFarnon
Share 53
Share
Tweet
Plus

A counting of goats and rams in cuneiform script, ancient Ngirsu, Iraq, 2360 BC. (DEA / G. DAGLI ORTI/De Agostini/Getty Images)


Now, the curators of the world’s largest collection of cuneiform tablets – housed at the British Museum – have written a book exploring the history of cuneiform. In it, they reveal why the writing system is as relevant today as ever.

Here, Irving Finkel and Jonathan Taylor share six lesser-known facts about cuneiform…


1) Cuneiform is not a language

The cuneiform writing system is also not an alphabet, and it doesn’t have letters. Instead it used between 600 and 1,000 characters to write words (or parts of them) or syllables (or parts of them).

The two main languages written in Cuneiform are Sumerian and Akkadian (from ancient Iraq), although more than a dozen others are recorded. This means we could use it equally well today to spell Chinese, Hungarian or English.


2) Cuneiform was first used in around 3,400 BC

The first stage used elementary pictures that were soon also used to record sounds. Cuneiform probably preceded Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, because we know of early Mesopotamian experiments and ‘dead-ends’ as the established script developed – including the beginning of signs and numbers – whereas the hieroglyphic system seems to have been born more or less perfectly formed and ready to go. Almost certainly Egyptian writing evolved from cuneiform – it can’t have been an on-the-spot invention.

Amazingly, cuneiform continued to be used until the first century AD, meaning that the distance in time that separates us from the latest surviving cuneiform tablet is only just over half of that which separates that tablet from the first cuneiform.


3) All you needed to write cuneiform was a reed and some clay

Both of which were freely available in the rivers alongside the Mesopotamian cities where cuneiform was used (now Iraq and eastern Syria). The word cuneiform comes from Latin cuneus, meaning ‘wedge’, and simply means ‘wedge shaped’. It refers to the shape made each time a scribe pressed his stylus (made from a specially cut reed) into the clay.

Most tablets would fit comfortably in the palm of a hand – like mobile phones today – and were used for only a short time: maybe a few hours or days at school, or a few years for a letter, loan or account. Many of the tablets have survived purely by accident.


4) Cuneiform looks somewhat impossible…

Those who read cuneiform for a living – and there are a few – like to think of it as the world’s most difficult writing (or the most inconvenient). However, if you have six years to spare and work round the clock (not pausing for meals) it’s a doddle to master! All you have to do is learn the extinct languages recorded by the tablets, then thousands of signs – many of which have more than one meaning or sound.



c2044 BC, Sumeria, Ancient Iraq: Ur III clay administrative tablet, impressed with the scribes seal, which depicts a goddess leading a worshipper and the text Ur Gigir, scribe, son of Barran. The main text on the reverse (pictured) lists ploughmen employed by the state with the quantities of land assigned to them as wages. (Photo by Werner Forman/Universal Images Group/Getty Images)


5) … but children master it surprisingly quickly

Children who visit the British Museum seem to take to cuneiform with a kind of overlooked homing instinct, and they often consider clay homework in spikey wedges much more exciting than exercises in biro on paper.

In fact, many of the surviving tablets in the museum collection belonged to schoolchildren, and show the spelling and handwriting exercises that they completed: they repeated the same characters, then words, then proverbs, over and over again until they could move on to difficult literature.


6) Cuneiform is as relevant today as ever

Ancient writings offer proof that our ‘modern’ ideas and problems have been experienced by human beings for thousands of years – this is always an astounding realisation. Through cuneiform we hear the voices not just of kings and their scribes, but children, bankers, merchants, priests and healers – women as well as men.
It is utterly fascinating to read other people’s letters, especially when they are 4,000 years old and written in such elegant and delicate script.



Irving Finkel and Jonathan Taylor are the authors of Cuneiform (British Museum Press, March 2015). To find out more, click here.

To learn more about the world’s largest collection of cuneiform tablets, which contains more than 130,000 examples of cuneiform writing, click here.

Elections in the late Roman Republic: how did they work?

Elections in the late Roman Republic: how did they work?





Ancient Rome made much of the fact it was a republic, ruled not by kings, but by people, with legislative power vested in the people’s assemblies. Yet, as Dr Valentina Arena from University College London reveals, this system did not guarantee equal participation to all citizens…
Wednesday 6th May 2015
Submitted by: Emma McFarnon
88
Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5

Tribune in the Roman Republic: proposing a law. 20th-century illustration on Liebig collectible card (Culture Club/Getty Images)


A res publica, the Roman philosopher Cicero claims, is a legitimate form of commonwealth if, and only if, the people are the sovereign power, and they entrust their sovereignty into the capable hands of the elite.

At the beginning of the constitutional debate in de re publica [a dialogue on Roman politics by Cicero, written in six books between 54 and 51 BC], Cicero effectively says: “res publica, then, is the property of a people (res populi). A people, further, is not just any gathering of humans assembled in any way at all; it is a gathering of people in large number associated into a partnership with one another by a common agreement on law (iuris consensu) and a sharing of benefits (utilitatis communione).”

The construction of the definition of a res publica as res populi in terms of a property metaphor allows Cicero to state that in any legitimate form of government, the populusshould own its own res. In order to do so in any meaningful way, it is necessary that the people should possess the right to manage and administer it. This, in turn, is tantamount to the possession of liberty and the ability to exercise it.

Tracing the development of the Roman constitution as the historical incarnation of the best form of government, Cicero showed how Rome came to acquire that matrix of civic and political rights essential to the establishment of the citizens’ status of liberty.

Of these rights, the most important was the right to suffragium. This provided the people with a certain degree of political participation, thereby guaranteeing that they were the de facto owners of their own property, which they could administer as they wished. In this form of government, the powers of this sovereignty were entrusted to an elected aristocracy, which would conduct the affairs of the people while keeping in mind the common advantage, and in accordance with a common sense of justice. This, at least, was the theory...


Assemblies

In practice, in the first century BC – the Republican period best documented – the people exercised their right to vote mainly in two assemblies: the comitia centuriataand the comitia tributa.

The comitia centuriata, which was in charge of electing Roman higher magistrates, and rarely at this time passed legislation or acted as a jury court, was an assembly that originally mirrored the military structure of the Roman army. The Romans did not know the one-citizen one-vote system, but rather adopted the idea of voting units – in the case of this assembly, the military centuria, within which the Roman people were distributed.

The majority of votes within one unit counted as the outcome of that unit, and in turn the majority of units constituted the final outcome of the voting. The people were divided in classes by the census, traditionally on the basis of their financial ability to arm themselves. Each class within the census was assigned a designated number ofcenturiae – the higher the census class, the higher the number of centuriae that class held.

In the vast majority of cases, the rest of the Roman people were not even consulted, and the last class of census, the capite censi – to whom only one centuria was assigned – were very rarely involved in any decision of this assembly. There were some attempts to address the timocratic bias of this assembly [a state where only property owners may participate in government], but the Romans largely justified the system that lay at the centre of their political organisation.

They claimed it embodied the principle that “the greatest number should not have the greatest power” (Cicero’s de re publica, 2.39), and they praised this organisation because it guaranteed that “the majority of votes was in the hands of those to whom the highest welfare of the commonwealth was the most important”.

However, what all Roman authors also equally emphasised as an important feature of this political organisation was that “no one was deprived of the suffrage” – no one, that is, except women, foreigners, and slaves. In theory as well as in practice, it was essential for the Romans that no adult male citizen was deprived of his right to vote – this would have been tyrannical.

The true advantage of this system was the guarantee that those who had more at stake in the commonwealth were also in a position of political predominance. It also meant everyone was equally entitled to vote – that is to say everyone equally possessed the most basic political right, which allowed him to play a role in the management and administration of the people’s property: the commonwealth.



c1989: head detail of bust of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman, scholar and writer. (Photo By DEA/G DAGLI ORTI/De Agostini/Getty Images)


The Comitia Tributa

The main legislative assembly of the late Republic was the Comitia Tributa, which was also in charge of the elections of Roman magistrates. This assembly was organised around the voting unit of the tribe – a territorial unit to which each Roman citizen belonged by birth or legal act. The number of tribes increased progressively throughout the Republic with Roman conquest, but by 231 BC the Romans decided no longer to augment their number, which became fixed at 35, comprising four urban and 31 rustic tribes.

The voting principle, although not based on wealth, was identical to the one applied in the case of the comitia centuriata. The majority of votes from one tribe constituted the vote of that tribe, and the majority of tribes then determined the final outcome. As in the case of the comitia centuriata, it is clear that this assembly did not guarantee equal participation to all citizens, as it was based on an obvious bias towards the rustic tribes. The citizens registered in the four urban tribes had, no doubt, no chance to prevail.

The citizens were politically informed in the contiones, the non-decision making assemblies where political debates took place before the community. This random gathering of people, not subdivided into voting units, included not only adult male citizens, but also women, foreigners, and slaves – essentially whoever happened to be around and could afford the leisure to listen.

Those in favour of a proposal addressed the crowd, and often allowed their opponents to counter-argue their position. Although in theory anyone could stand on the rostra and speak (if given permission by the magistrate in charge), in practice only members of the elite are recorded as having addressed the people.


Voting hurdles

However, alongside the limits imposed by the structure of these assemblies, there were a number of practical obstacles that might have hampered the actual exercise of the citizens’ right to vote.

First of all, assemblies took place in Rome, either in the Campus Martius or in the Forum, which could hardly contain the totality of those entitled to exercise their right to vote. By the end of the first century BC, the Roman census recorded some four million citizens (although the precise demographic significance of that figure is highly debated). Roman citizens could be found throughout the Mediterranean, but the heart of Roman territory remained the Italian peninsula, from south of the river Po (before 49 BC) down to the Straits of Messina.

Not many citizens would have been able to afford the journey to Rome, and even those who lived nearby might not have been able to take time off to spend at least a day in Rome to exercise their political right, for which, contrary to Greek custom, there was no economic compensation. In his vitriolic criticism of the Roman politician Publius Clodius Pulche, and the tribune of plebs responsible for his exile in 58 BC, Cicero claimed there had been so few people taking part in the comitia tributa that people had to be drafted in from other tribes to make sure that each tribe fulfilled its voting function.



Marcus Tullius Cicero takes his case against the Roman politician Lucius Sergius Catilina to the Roman people. © Ivy Close Images/Alamy

The secret vote

Assemblies could only be called by a Roman magistrate, and in the legislative assemblies they could only approve or reject the proposal put forward without being able to propose any amendments. From the second century BC onwards though, a system of oral voting, which was open to pressure and intimidation, was replaced by the secret vote. This was progressively adopted for all the spheres of popular political activities: the electoral, legislative, and judicial.

Even a century after its introduction, the existence of the written secret vote was hailed as the bastion of the people’s freedom. But conservative members of the elite manifested their disquiet. In their opinion, the secret vote provided the people with a hiding place, which allowed them to vote as they wished, outside of the elite’s control. However, the measure was so intrinsically ingrained in the people’s political consciousness that it could not be abolished.

Cicero proposed a rather puzzling alternative: the people must preserve their written vote as a safeguard of their liberty, but, before casting it, they should show it to the most eminent citizens “so that the citizens may enjoy liberty also in this very privilege of honourably winning the favour of the aristocracy”.

It seems, then, there is a considerable discrepancy between Roman political thought – which conceived of the libera res publica as the property of the people, who entrusted their sovereign power to the elected aristocracy – and the actual gathering of people who exercised in practice their right to vote.

Many scholars assert that the voting process in the late Roman Republic was ultimately a public ritual that only a minority of people attended, and whose function was exclusively to reinforce the ideological centrality of the power of the people on a symbolic level. But if this is true, how can we explain the advice that Cicero’s brother, Quintus, supposedly gave him on how to win a consular election?

He said: “And yet you must not enter upon political measures in senate-house and public meeting while a candidate: you must hold such things in abeyance, in order that from your lifelong conduct the senate may judge you likely to be the supporter of their authority; the Roman knights, along with the loyalists and wealthy, judge you from your past to be eager for peace and quiet times; and the people think of you as not likely to be hostile to their interests from the fact that in your style of speaking in public meetings, and in your declared convictions, you have been on the popular side”.

This advice was most likely given in the year 64 BC, but it seems today not much has changed.

Dr Valentina Arena is a University College London lecturer who specialises in Roman history, with a particular emphasis on the study of politics and political concepts. She is the author of Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge University Press, January 2013).
Article Type: | Romans | Social history | Feature | BBC History Magazine |

Piracy in ancient Greece

Piracy in ancient Greece


http://www.historyextra.com/blog/skull-and-cross-bones-ahoy

Tuesday 13th July 2010
Submitted by: Michael Scott

Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5




Piracy has been in the headlines in the UK a lot recently, particularly following the on-going abduction of a British couple, Paul and Rachel Chandler, by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean in 2009. The realities of this gruesome situation are a far cry from the romanticised notion of pirateering embodied in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

In the ancient Greek world, however, piracy was, much more than just an occasional headline, it was an endemic part of how the ancient world operated. Alongside the continual military campaigns that crisscrossed the Aegean sea, a citizen of any city was perfectly free to fit out a private ship, capture enemy vessels and keep the spoils for themselves.

Often these ‘pirate’ ships would band together into their own pirate fleets to increase their chances of success. Certain islands in the Aegean were renown for providing safe harbour for pirates, like the island of Melos, and others were well known as places in which to trade stolen goods and slaves, like the island of Aegina just off the coast of Athens.

Outside the Aegean was no safer. The Adriatic sea, between Italy and Greece, had an even more cosmopolitan mix with Greek and Etruscan (the native inhabitants of Italy before the Romans) pirates sharing the waters. Indeed the city of Zankle (modern day Messina) on the coast of Sicily was well known for producing some of the most ferocious and successful pirates in the whole of the ancient world.

But what is even more interesting is the reaction of the city and state authorities of ancient Greece to the problem of piracy. There were occasional attempts to attack pirate vessels and ransoming captured individuals was not unheard of. But much more often, city authorities chose to work with the pirates.

Generals would sometimes employ pirate ‘fleets’ as a ‘shock and awe’ first wave of attack before sending in their own troops. Conversely the admirals of large city fleets would often extract protection money from islands in the Aegean to keep them safe from pirates.

But perhaps the most outrageous case is this. In 355 BC, according to the orator Demosthenes, Athenian ambassadors were on their way to Karia in Turkey on state business when they made a detour to capture a ship sailing from Egypt and pocketed for themselves the wealth on board!

Reprinted from Neos Kosmos www.neoskosmos.com

Looking at ancient Greece... from South America

Looking at ancient Greece... from South America


http://www.historyextra.com/blog/looking-ancient-greece-south-america

Tuesday 28th December 2010
Submitted by: Michael Scott

Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5




I was recently working in Rio di Janeiro at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) university where I was invited to give a course of lectures about ancient Greek democracy to Brazilian students of international politics, law, economics and history. It was, I must admit, a surprising request to be invited to Brazil to teach about a place 10,000 km and 2,500 years away.

While people often turn to ancient Greece for explanations of the language, culture, art, architecture, philosophy and politics in Western Europe, the US and in Australia, it seems slightly more bizarre to imagine ancient Greece being thought of as a subject directly relevant to South America. It is equally more bizarre to have written this column about ancient Greece, in Rio, for publication in Australia (and the UK) – an image of the globalised world in which we live!

Working with the students in Rio, though, has helped me realise just why ancient Greece is relevant, even in Brazil. It is not only Brazil's Portuguese and French heritage that has imported linguistic, cultural and architectural echoes of ancient Greece into modern-day Brazil. Nor is it only because of the importance FGV attaches to providing a classically ´well-rounded´ education fostered within a Brazilian outlook that has traditionally been orientated towards Europe rather than the rest of Latin America. Nor indeed is it only because ancient Greece has recently been used to test modern theories of international politics, like democratic peace theory (the idea that democracies don’t make war on one another – sadly the ancient Greek example doesn't obviously support that idea).

But it is also, more importantly, because of the way in which ancient Greece is still continually used as an active currency for comparison, exhortation and justification in our modern world, a world in which Brazil is playing an increasingly important role.

To the students of international politics at FGV in Brazil, it is worth learning about ancient Greece because they want to be able to understand and judge better the use made of 'the [ancient] Greek example' across the international political world. Interestingly, Brazil itself has also begun to make its own use of that example.

Following the recent clamp-down by police on drug trafficking in the favelas in Rio over the last month, a great deal of praise has been heaped on the police and particularly its crack units, to such an extent that they have been compared to the warriors of ancient Sparta (as have US Marines over the last years, too). It seems that the legacy of ancient Greece is alive and well in Brazil and the rest of the world.

Reprinted from Neos Kosmos www.neoskosmos.com

Ancient Greek healthcare: as contentious as today?

Ancient Greek healthcare: as contentious as today?


http://www.historyextra.com/blog/ancient-greece/ancient-greek-healthcare-contentious-today

Thursday 13th May 2010
Submitted by: Michael Scott

Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5




America has just voted through its biggest health-care reform in decades. But what was medical treatment like in ancient Greece?

Ancient Greece was, first and foremost, a world full of gods – gods who determined much of people’s lives. So, it will come as no surprise that when ancient Greeks were ill, they often believed a god was responsible for the illness. Epilepsy, for example, was known simply in ancient Greece as the Sacred Disease.

In search for a cure, the Greeks also turned to the gods – either in an effort to appease the god who have caused their illness or to the god of healing, Asclepius, who they hoped would cure them.

The great sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidauros – which so many people still visit today for its magnificent theatre – was one of the sanctuaries to the god of healing built during the early part of the 4th century BC. People would come to the temple in the sanctuary and pay a fee to the priests to sleep there, hoping the god would come to them in a dream and cure them, or tell them how they could be cured.

But, over time, the god-cure route stopped being the only option. During the 4th century BC, the development of medical knowledge about the human body, and about human illness started to take off.

Hippocratus, for example, whose Hippocratic oath doctors still swear today, was making his investigations of the human body and human disease at just this time and offering alternative practical remedies to many problems that did not depend on the gods.

The sacred disease, it is argued in the Hippocratic corpus of medical writing, had nothing to do with the gods, but had human causes and human solutions. The era of scientific medicine had begun.

By the end of the 4th century BC, the sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidauros may have been genuinely worried about the threat this new ‘medicine’ posed to its flow of ‘customers’. The sanctuary responded by commissioning a whole series of ‘success stories’ to be written up on stone and displayed at the sanctuary.

Those ‘stories on stone’ have survived to today and make fascinating reading. The god is claimed to have helped a woman pregnant for 5 years to give birth, to have cured wounds that had seeped pus for years, to have given the dumb back their voice and even the bald their hair. It seems that, even in ancient Greece, there was disagreement about who provided better healthcare.

Reprinted from Neos Kosmos www.neoskosmos.com

An Ancient Greek sense of humour

An Ancient Greek sense of humour

http://www.historyextra.com/blog/ancient-greek-sense-humour


Tuesday 14th December 2010
Submitted by: Michael Scott

Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5




Were the ancient Greeks funny? It’s a question not often asked. When thought about, most people will turn to the ‘comedies’ put on at different religio-theatrical festivals across ancient Greece, most notably in Athens. The majority surviving for us today are by Aristophanes, writing across the divide of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, but some also survive by Menander writing later in the 4th century BC.

Aristophanes makes political jokes, imitates the politicians of the day (who without doubt were often sitting in the audience) and uses exaggeration and caricature to pass comment on the social and political well being of the city. The caricature of ‘Demos’ – the people – is, for example, an old man who is easily hood-winked. What we have of Menander on the other hand seems to reveal a comic writer much more concerned with representing a kitchen-sink-drama style portrayal of domestic hilarity.

But did the Ancient Greeks tell jokes? Yes they did. Sources tell of ‘joke-groups’ who met to trade and test their wit, like the group of 60 who met in the Temple of Heracles in Athens in the 4th century BC, and whom even Philip of Macedon paid to send him a collection of their best.

A much later text that has survived down to us is the ‘Philogelos’ – 'the laughter lover' – compiled by Hierocles and Philagrius (of which almost nothing is known) in perhaps the AD 4th century. Here the compilation reveals something of the nature of Greek jokes – and they are surprisingly like are own.

There are those that focus on the ‘buffon’, the idiot, who does something stupid and funny, which have a remarkable parallel, as some scholars have already pointed out, with the ‘English, Scottish and Irish’ jokes still told in Britain today in which the Irish person always does something ridiculous (and which, I’d wager, every country has a version, which simply varies the nationalities).

One ancient Greek idiot joke reads: “An idiot, wanting to go to sleep but not having a pillow, told his slave to set an earthen jar under his head. The slave said that the jug was hard. The idiot told him to fill it with feathers.”

There are also the comic insults, listed so as to be used in instant one-line put downs – “You don’t have a face, but a fireplace” reads one. But my particular favourites are the ‘doctor’ jokes: “A person went to a doctor and said “doctor, whenever I get up from sleeping, I’m groggy for a half an hour afterwards and only after that am I all right” To which the doctor replied: “Get up half an hour later.”

Reprinted from Neos Kosmos www.neoskosmos.com

Ancient Greek democracy: as similar to ours as we think?

Ancient Greek democracy: as similar to ours as we think?




Thursday 18th March 2010
Submitted by: Michael Scott
38
Share
Tweet
Plus
BBC History Magazine - 5 issues for £5

© Sergeyak | Dreamstime.com


Ancient Greece’s most famous export to this day is arguably democracy. America, alongside many nations, recently celebrated the 2500th ‘anniversary’ of the invention of democracy in ancient Athens and its links with today’s democracies in America and around the globe. But was ancient Athenian democracy as alike to democracies of today as we may like to think?

The more you look at the facts, the more the ancient democracy of Athens and the democracies of today look different. Ancient Athens only allowed a very small group of men resident in Athens the vote. Women and foreigners were excluded.

Athens’ democracy also demanded a lot of time: adult male citizens who had the vote had to put a halt to their jobs and take up positions of authority within the democratic system on a rota system. They also had to go to the Athenian assembly (the Pnyx) on a regular basis to debate and vote on important issues like going to war.

This dedication of so much time to the democratic system was made easier because many of these citizens had a good number of slaves working for them, and Athens also eventually decided to encourage citizens further by paying them to come to the assembly and to undertake other democratic duties like acting as jurors in the law courts.

So, Athenian democracy was not our ideal of equal freedom and rights, but more like a select club, facilitated to some extent by a slave population and in addition only really made possible, many scholars argue, by Athens’ control over a large and profitable empire which kept money pouring into the city.

But at the same time we should not be too complacent as to think that we are more ‘democratic’ now. It is my bet that just as we may not want to recognize Athens’ democracy as properly democratic, so too an ancient Athenian would not recognize many of our democratic systems today as ‘true’ democracies.

Ancient Athenians participated in a direct democracy: every citizen went to the assembly and voted on the issues. Moreover, if they were voting on whether or not to go to war, the voters did not go home afterwards to put their feet up while professional soldiers carried out their orders, they went home to pick up their armour and go off to fight.

To a democrat of ancient Athens, today’s democracies, where the majority of voters elect representatives to make most of the decisions for them (and who then rely on professionals to carry out those decisions), wouldn’t merit the label of democracy either.

Reprinted from Neos Kosmos www.neoskosmos.com

司馬遷筆下的項羽

司馬遷筆下的項羽

http://paper.udn.com/udnpaper/POC0004/73464/web/

　　前陣子有文友在文學討論區提到一個問題：「〈項羽本紀〉中，項羽為何不殺劉邦？」這個問題的背後，其實潛 藏著一個很簡單的想法：如果項羽在鴻門宴中把劉邦給殺了，那麼後來的歷史就會改觀，也許項羽西楚霸王的地位會維持更久一些。這個想法當然只是個假設性的想 法，因為歷史的事實是項羽敗在劉邦之手，最後自刎而亡。沒有人能夠知道，如果劉邦死在鴻門宴，後來的歷史會如何演變。當然，這不是不能討論的問題，只不過 這樣的問題已屬於科幻小說或反演義小說之類的題材，而非真正的歷史了。

　　在談文友所提出的問題之前，我們或許可以先想想，「歷史」是什麼？最簡單的說法，歷史是「曾經發生過的事 件」。但若進一步想，美國進軍伊拉克是曾發生過的事，隔壁的母狗生小狗一樣是發生過的事，但百年之後的歷史記載，可能會出現「美國進軍伊拉克」的專章，但 卻不會有任何關於我家隔壁母狗生小狗的記錄。兩者之間的差別何在？當然在於「後續影響」上。因此，所謂的「歷史」這時就必需更精確地定義為「曾發生過且對 人類社會發生過影響的事件」，而歷史人物自然就是「曾存在過且對人類社會發生過影響的人」。當這樣的定義能得到認可時，進一步就必需思考，是「誰」決定事 件或人物在人類社會中的重要性？又是「誰」決定了某件事或某個人在歷史中所呈現出來的面貌？這時就必需要面對史冊記載究竟是「客觀的記錄」還是「主觀的抉 擇」這個問題。

　　對一般讀者而言，史書所記錄下來的歷史，是如假包換的史實，不容質疑，也不容挑戰。但若對史學研究者而言，所謂的「真實」卻是個不容易說明的問題。

　　歷史所強調的是「真實」，虛假的事物絕不允許記入歷史之中。然而，在真實與虛假之間，絕不是一條涇渭分明 的直線，反而是兩者之間具有一大片的模糊地帶。這一大片的模糊地帶，就是所謂的「史料」。「史料」是歷史事件發生後所留下的相關記錄或証據，照理來說，史 料同樣是真實的一部份，不應視為模糊地帶。但是只要深入暸解便可發現，史料並不像是結果。一場戰爭打完後，其結果誰勝誰敗，是不辨自明的真實，但戰爭過程 中所遺留下的種種材料，卻往往有自相衝突的情況。最簡單的例子，便是二次大戰結束後，美國與日本同樣製作了許多歌頌與反思二戰的作品，然而其內容卻可大逕 庭。其次，雖然勝敗結果不容改變，但單一事件所能產生的影響，卻不見得如同戰爭結果般地清晰。倘若一場單一的戰爭都有可能充滿了許多不可確定的歷史真相 時，若將歷史的眼光放到一個人、一個家族甚至是一個國家時，則其中所具有的模糊地帶自然愈加廣大。

　　既然史料充滿了不確定性，那麼，後人所看到的歷史是如何被寫出來的？答案當然是史家寫出來的。然而，史家 本身也是人，有自己的知識水準，也有自己的是非判斷，更有著自己的好惡情緒。因此，雖然後人願意相信歷史是「客觀的記錄」，但實際上，卻是史家透過自身學 養人格，精心從眾多史料中，挑選出特定的材料予以編排整理，呈現給世人的「主觀的記錄」。

　　於是乎，當我們試圖著去討論〈項羽本紀〉中如鴻門宴這種具有決定歷史走向關鍵的事件為何會出現意料之外的結局時，首先需想到的便是，司馬遷寫下〈項羽本紀〉時，究竟想讓讀者看到些什麼？

　　在歷史的真實中，在項羽身上有幾件事是絕不容質疑的。首先，項羽是戰國楚國貴族的後代，而且有個能征擅戰 的叔父項梁，所以才有機會發揮他自身的征戰長才。其次，項羽雖出身世家，但本身具有高度的戰爭才華，並非是一個靠著血緣得到地位的貴公子，所以才能攻無不 克、戰無不勝，直到建立了西楚霸王的地位。再次，在攻破秦都咸陽一役中，劉邦的地位與能力浮上檯面，也種下了鴻門宴後楚漢相爭的基調。最後，項羽與劉邦在 爭奪統治權的過程中，雖然項羽本人是每戰皆捷，但在麾下將領敗戰連連的整體挫敗下，最後仍免不了自刎烏江的結局，而漢帝國也正式成為接續秦、楚的正統。

　　上述這些歷史的真實，雖然絕不可被改變，但卻顯得過於簡略，而且中間缺少了太多必要的環節。諸如項羽是如 何從一名「世代為楚國將軍」的貴胄，一躍成為指揮抗秦大軍的「諸候上將軍」？而項、劉二人的爭鬥，劉邦面對項出，明明只有挨打的份，但為何卻還能將項羽逼 上絕路？這些問題的答案，便賦予了司馬遷呈現個人主觀抉擇的空間，也塑造出一個完整的項羽形象。

　　司馬遷的第一個抉擇，來自於對項羽地位的肯定。項羽原只是個「西楚霸王」，本應如同春秋戰國時期各國王室 一般，列入「世家」之範圍，但司馬遷卻將項羽的傳列在「本紀」之中，很顯然的，司馬遷認為項羽雖名之為「霸王」，實際上卻具有「帝王」的權威與地位。問題 是，項羽的權威是如何建立起來的？從本紀看來，「世為楚將軍」只能算是項羽的出身，而聽從項梁的指揮攻城略地，也只是身為一名武將應有的職責。直到救趙一 役的勝利開始，才讓楚軍之威震攝諸候，也讓項羽的身份，從項梁的侄子一變成為諸候上將軍。司馬遷在救趙一役的記錄中，對於楚軍之威、項羽之勇、諸候軍之懦 皆細細描寫。自此以後，項羽儼然成為戰神一般，只要有交戰的機會，便只能期待項羽必然的勝利，毫無意外可言。從這個角度來看，司馬遷筆下的項羽，只能算是 個優秀的武將，是否夠格作為一個優秀領導者，還很難說。話說回來，司馬遷雖然不見得認同項羽是個好的領導者，但他曾擁有一時的天下是不爭的事實。即便項羽 最後的作法，是將情勢恢復到近似戰國時代的格局，但畢竟不同於春秋戰國時代諸候稱霸稱雄的年代。

　　司馬遷的第二個抉擇，是如何說明項羽成就反秦大業的過程。項羽雖然能征擅戰，但比起秦帝國的整體力量而 言，仍是偏弱。項梁起事之初，多半在打游擊，挑弱的城市下手，本紀並曾提到項羽因無法攻克某一目標都市，只好轉而他向的過程。關鍵性的救趙一役，雖說是大 勝，論其實質，不外是一場豪賭。更何況，項羽所得到的「諸候上將軍」之位，不過就是反秦聯合軍的總指揮權，仍是不足以與秦帝國抗衡。而後，項羽挾各路軍馬 之威，向秦國首都進軍，所面對的，卻是秦國的主力軍。楚、秦二軍的對恃，其結果本難預料，如果以後勤補給的角度來看，長時間的消耗戰，反而對秦軍有利。項 羽與秦將章邯的對決，成了情勢逆轉的關鍵，然而司馬遷話鋒一轉，卻談起了章邯與趙高之間的猜忌，與章邯為求自保而投降的思考過程。於是項羽雖然在最後是收 服了章邯，立下了反秦戰爭勝利的關鍵，但這場勝利，從司馬遷的筆鋒看來，項羽之勝，既非力敵，亦非智取，而是來自於秦帝國的內部矛盾使然。換言之，這時司 馬遷筆下的項羽，頗有時勢造英雄的味道，項羽的成就，與其說是人力，還不如說是天命！當然，章邯的投降，或許可以用項羽懂得利用敵人的內部矛盾此一觀點解 讀，而這當然是不戰而屈人之兵的智取。但在司馬遷的筆法中，我們可以看到項羽對章邯的招安不只一次，並刻意忽略項羽是否已掌握秦軍內部權力鬥爭的可能性。 因此，不論歷史的真實是否為項羽利用情勢逼降秦軍，在司馬遷的記載中，都是刻意地表現出章邯投降的「主動權」，而非項羽及其謀臣之功。

　　司馬遷的第三個抉擇，則在於描寫楚漢相爭的過程。秦軍主力章邯投降，情勢整個逆轉之後，秦帝國的滅亡已是 意料中之事。而後劉邦攻破咸陽，又將最終的勝利轉送給項羽，秦帝國正式滅亡，項羽的地位也達到最高峰。鴻門宴、封諸候二事，標誌著反秦戰爭的結束，卻也是 反秦聯合軍內部鬥爭的開始。

　　鴻門宴與分封諸候二事，雖然都是反秦勢力內部對抗的開始，但其意義卻大不相同。項羽分封諸候，象徵著他實 際掌握了天下，何人得大，何人得小，都在他的乾綱獨斷之中，毫無異議的空間。原本這只應是一篇流水帳，只要把分封的名單羅列出來即可。但司馬遷在書寫的過 程中，卻刻意地把田榮未得到任何封地一事加以強調，並說明田榮之所以未得到應有的獎賞，主要原因在於田榮與項梁有些舊怨，又沒有參與最後攻秦的行動。當讀 者看完一連串的受封名單中，連惜日的敵人--秦國降將都有封地時，田榮所受到的待遇，也就格外地引人注目。此外，項羽在大封天下後，又自封為西楚霸王並引 兵回故鄉，這段過程中，司馬遷花了一些篇幅闡述項羽身旁謀士對項羽的期許，以及項羽想要回鄉炫耀的心態。把封諸候與項羽回鄉這二件事合在一起看，很顯然 地，項羽在司馬遷眼中，其實並不是個具有帝王氣度的人。司馬遷這個階段的描寫，儼然為接下來各地諸候軍相互的爭鬥拉開序幕。

　　鴻門宴在項羽霸業中的意義，顯然與封諸候一事有所不同。劉邦起事之初，即依附在項梁麾下，項羽與劉邦不但 份屬同僚，更曾并肩作戰，並在義帝牽合下「約為兄弟」。換言之，項、劉二人的關係，從開始就是同一陣營，甚至在某些階段還可稱之為「夥伴」，遠不同於與其 他諸候的同盟關係。即便後來項羽成為「諸候上將軍」，天下兵馬皆歸他調度，但畢竟是各擁山頭的聯合軍，而非單一勢力的項家軍或楚軍。可是，為了咸陽一役勝 利的成果屬誰，項、劉二人有了矛盾，雖然鴻門宴全程中所發生的一切凶險，未必都是項羽所授意，卻也是得到了默許。劉邦最後逃過一劫，但二人心結已成，彼此 間已有猜忌，一番對決也在所難免。然而，司馬遷之所以會對此事詳加記載，除了劉邦是漢朝的開國君主，身為漢家天下的史官，當然要記上一筆。但更重要的，是 因為項、劉二人的分裂，根本可視為楚軍內部的分裂。一個勝利者，卻連自身陣營和諧都維持不了，離失敗之日想必也不遠了。更何況，司馬遷在描敘的過程中，一 直在強調項羽的強勢與劉邦的卑微，若對照當年「先入關中者為王」的誓約，更顯得項羽的惡形惡狀。然而仔細想想，若非項羽一路牽制秦軍主力的行動，劉邦又那 來的便宜可揀？但這個部份，司馬遷又是再次的予以忽略了。

　　如果說，司馬遷最終的結論，是項羽「成也天命，敗也天命」的話，那麼項羽仍不失是個悲劇英雄。畢竟，項羽 雖擁有極高的軍事才能，但在各路人馬皆有異心的情況下，終究獨木難以支天。然而，司馬遷是否認為項羽是個逃不過天命的悲劇英雄呢？從他對項羽某些作為的描 述看來，似乎並不是如此。

　　項羽的性格，我們可從司馬遷仔細描寫的幾件事去看。

　　第一件是項羽年少時求學過程，從他事事學一半，想學「萬人敵」的心態，以及看到秦始皇的車隊，脫口而出的 「彼可取而代之」這些小細節來看，基本上，少年時代的項羽，可以是個雄心高丈之人，也可是個眼高手低之徒。第二件則是自封西楚霸王之後，原應著手於接下來 的統治天下，卻只顧著回鄉炫耀功績，可見得，項羽雖得到了天下，卻連得到天下的意義是什麼都不能理解。對應到少年項羽的表現，顯然眼高手低的可能遠大於雄 心高丈。第三件則是項羽最後以八百騎之眾逃出垓下之圍，最後來到烏江邊時，身邊剩不到三十騎，但他為了証明是「天之亡我，非戰之罪」，竟然還要奮力出戰， 而非保存實力，以圖東山再起。姑不論後人對此事寄予多少同情，但從一個曾經取得天下的領導人角度來看，顯然他是無法面對挫折與失敗的，而言也更坐實了眼高 手低的觀點。

　　當然，沒有人可以當聖人，每個人的性格都一定有著必然的缺失，但項羽的性格缺點，卻讓他在取得天下的過程 中，充滿了令人難以想像的「恐怖手段」。在項羽進攻秦軍時期，項羽雖對秦國降將頗為禮遇，但卻對降卒、降城毫不手軟。章邯投降時，項羽坑殺了秦降卒二十 萬；入咸陽時，整個情勢本已被劉邦穩定下來，項羽卻是殺子嬰、燒都城，毫無仁義之師的味道。如果說，這是反秦戰爭中的必要之惡，那麼在分封諸候後，分明已 取得天下之大器，又何必在擊潰田榮時，燒遍齊地，又坑殺降卒？攻劉邦時，明明已大勝，卻一味追殺敗軍，殺十數萬又逼十數萬人跳河。更誇張的是攻彭越時，只 因外黃城曾向彭越投降，即便外黃城居民曾參與保衛城池的行列，但從未與項軍接戰過，項羽卻因此想坑殺十五歲以上之男子。一連串的舉動，不但顯示出司馬遷所 刻意營造出來，項羽性格中殘暴不仁的一面，同時也証明了項羽仍以諸候自居，絲毫沒有已有天下的自覺。而司馬遷藉由外黃城一位少年的口，更說出了項羽失敗的 關鍵：「彭越彊劫外黃，外黃恐，故且降，待大王。大王至，又皆阬之，百姓豈有歸心？從此以東，梁地十餘城皆恐，莫肯下矣。」(意譯：彭越引軍進攻外黃城， 當地居民因恐懼而暫時投降，只等項羽來解救。當項羽軍至，卻又因此要坑殺百姓，則百姓怎會誠心歸服項羽？這個消息一旦傳了出去，之後所有的城鎮為了自保， 也只好奮力抵抗項羽大軍了。)換言之，司馬遷記下這些事件，無非只為了表明一件事：所有的阻礙，都是項羽自己造成的，怪不得旁人，更怨不得天。

　　項羽的另一個人格特點，是敵我分明、恩怨分明。若就一般人而言，這或許是個優點，但對一個手握天下的帝王而言，無甯是個缺點。

　　項羽面對敵人時，總是毫不留情的殺，但在鴻門宴中，竟對劉邦手下留情，這是個令人難以想像的結局。也因此，對於這件事情，便容易出現許多不同的臆測與推論。就文學討論區的討論來看，以下三位先生的說法較為完整：

1. 老藍先生：「項羽當時是在一個已成就霸業的狀態(至少他認為)，他看待劉邦的感覺應該是把他看做一個有實力，又擺得出一些功勞的將領，在霸王分封之前便濫殺將領對於他近在咫尺的一統江湖的霸業勢必構成阻礙。」

2. 心安靜觀閒雲過先生：「他不殺劉邦的原因，是因為他根本沒把劉邦放在眼裏，項是貴族出身(項世世為楚將)劉邦只是個角頭(泗水亭長)。」

3. 天涯浪子先生：「項羽大概是太過自信。鴻門宴的機會已經擺在眼前，卻因為項伯的幾句讒言，就認為反正劉邦不成氣候，鴻門宴殺劉邦有失顏面與威風，日後還有機會再殺，才導致沒殺了他，反而讓劉邦成就大業吧。」

　　「鴻門宴」一事，記載著因項羽懷疑劉邦可能會有異心，企圖殺之以除後患的一個陷阱。若就單一歷史事件來看，三位先生的說法都有一定的合理性，然若就司馬遷撰作本紀的手法來看，其實還是要歸結到項羽的性格問題上。

　　在楚、漢正式決裂之前，項羽雖然殺人如麻，分封諸候時又小動作不斷，然究其原因，這些「受害者」總是因為 與項羽有著新仇舊恨在，才會被項羽惡整，甚至是殺戮。而劉邦呢？不但與項羽同為楚人，且早在項梁起事之初，便與項羽共為楚軍將領之一。雖然軍功不及項羽， 也未必對項羽有何恩惠，至少，他與項羽從沒有過衝突。二人之間的矛盾，要到鴻門宴之後，才開始檯面化。值得注意的是項伯與范增的角色。項伯是項羽的叔叔， 雖因與張良有私交而走漏風聲，但後來舞劍保護劉邦、楚漢對恃時力保劉邦之父、妻性命，都看得出來他很有自己的想法，已不僅只是顧及到好友張良的性命而已。 同樣的，范增本是項梁的謀臣，項梁死後轉而為項羽謀事，雖被尊為亞父，名為項羽的謀臣，實際上他卻可私自調動項莊刺殺劉邦，而不需事先經過項羽的批准。就 一位君候而言，這種令不由己出的情況，恐怕會比一個在面前裝孫子的劉邦來得更具威脅性。換言之，在項家軍中，項伯、項羽、范增各有自己的想法，也各有自己 的地位與勢力。端看鴻門宴後，劉邦立殺曹無傷所表現出來的強勢，與項羽在范增當場發飆、項伯回家睡覺的「平和」相比，看得出項羽就算在自家軍中都不是個可 以「乾綱獨斷」的掌權者。換言之，就司馬遷撰寫〈項羽本紀〉的手法來看，鴻門宴除了是漢興楚亡的關鍵點外，其中項羽所表現出來的性格與所面臨的情勢，都可 說是司馬遷所意欲著墨之所在。

　　最後，談談司馬遷將項羽之事編為本紀的立意問題。

　　後世有些人在談到〈項羽本紀〉時，常認為這是司馬遷為了歌誦悲劇英雄所做的安排。然而，若將〈項羽本紀〉 與〈陳涉世家〉放在同一個標準上來考量，或許該說這只是司馬遷為了標舉出項羽與陳涉在亡秦過程中，所具有的關鍵地位而做的安排。司馬遷在〈項羽本紀〉最後 的評語中，曾對項羽何以能快速取得天下提出質疑，雖然他沒有提出合理的解釋，卻說了這麼一段話：「(項羽)自矜功伐，奮其私智而不師古，謂霸王之業，欲以 力征經營天下，五年卒亡其國，身死東城，尚不覺寤而不自責，過矣。乃引『天亡我，非用兵之罪也』，豈不謬哉！」 (意譯：項羽自以為有大功勞，只懂得遂行個人的意志，而不知道汲取前人的智慧與經驗，竟認為他的霸業單憑武力便可妥善經營，導致享國只有短短的五年，卻不 懂得反省與覺悟，這已是犯了難以挽回的錯誤了。到死前，竟還說出：「是上天要滅亡我，而不是我不懂得用兵」，就更令人覺得荒謬了。)由這段評語可知，從頭 到尾，司馬遷都不認為項羽的失敗與劉邦的成功，是因為天命的流轉，或是劉邦有何特出的長才，而是項羽本身的想法與作為有問題，才會導致滿盤皆輸的後果。從 這個角度來看，司馬遷編撰〈項羽本紀〉的立意，究竟是正面肯定，還是負面評價，也就不言可喻了。

撰文者：蘭流／輔仁大學中國文學系博士生

司馬遷緣何冷看劉邦惜項羽？

司馬遷緣何冷看劉邦惜項羽？

    來源：薛中鼎         2011-01-13 流覽 517次     暫無評論     字體： 大   中   小

       中國幾千年來影響力最大的歷史學家，毫無疑問的應該是司馬遷了。如果沒有司馬遷寫了《史記》，中國的歷史，會少了很多很多重要的記載。很多我們今天所熟悉 的成語，譬如“破釜沉舟”、“完璧歸趙”、“雞鳴狗盜”、“負荊請罪”、“暗渡陳倉”、“四面楚歌”都是來自於司馬遷。幾千年來，中國知識份子對他都有很 崇高的敬意，所以歷朝歷代的讀書人，都會尊稱司馬遷為“太史公”。

　　有位著名的英國歷史學家Jonathan D. Spence，是當代最負盛名的中國歷史小說專業作家，也是耶魯大學歷史學講座教授。有趣的是，Spence教授給自己取了個中文名字，叫做“史景遷”。 史景遷這三個字的意思很明顯，研究歷史的Spence先生，對於司馬遷，是很景仰的。

悲劇英雄司馬遷

　　司馬遷最讓人讚歎的是，他寫的歷史人物，都非常的有“人性”。什麼是人性？人性就是喜怒哀樂、有弱點、有感情。司馬遷筆下的幾個悲劇英雄，尤其是栩栩如生，令人惋惜，也令人敬愛。

　　司馬遷自己就是悲劇英雄。唯有悲劇英雄才能真正體會，悲劇英雄為什麼會成為悲劇英雄。我們先看看司馬遷是如何形容自己，司馬遷說他自己是：“少負不羈之才，長無鄉曲之譽。”(司馬遷《報任少卿書》)

　　短短的兩句話，其實表述了悲劇英雄的人格特質。悲劇英雄都是富有才華的，對很多事情，都有他自己與眾不同的看法；在鄉里之間，可能沒有什麼好的名聲。

　　司馬遷的巨大悲劇發生在西元前98年，那年他大約是47歲。當時的名將李陵討伐匈奴，兵敗投降。漢武帝劉徹震怒，滿朝文武都認為李陵的全家應該被誅殺。司馬遷與李陵相識，但是來往並不多。他就事論事，為李陵的處境辯解，結果被劉徹下獄，處以“宮刑”。可以想像，劉徹對於犯顏直諫的司馬遷，給了一個最極端的羞辱。劉徹要讓司馬遷，愧對他的祖宗，在別人面前永遠抬不起頭來。

　　如果你是“負不羈之才，無鄉曲之譽”的司馬遷，你會怎麼辦呢？司馬遷 說：“皇帝玩弄人的生命，好像掐死一隻螞蟻一樣。如果我選擇死亡，我算是什麼東西呢？我只是一個傻子，活該去死的罪犯而已。”司馬遷面臨兩個選擇，是要像 螞蟻一樣的被皇帝搞死？還是讓羞辱追隨自己的餘生，生活在別人的輕蔑之下？

　　最後，他選擇了屈辱的活著。他活著是為了要完成一件事情，要寫一部史 書。這件事他的父親就已經開始做了，而且期望他能完成這部著作。司馬遷很清楚，他是有能力、有機會完成這部巨著的。他與父親司馬談，都是朝廷的太史令，讀 了很多很多的史書；他與父親，都已經花了多年的時間準備寫這部書；他曾經壯遊天下，在民間採集了很多的史料。我相信，司馬遷很清楚的認知到，全天下只有他 有機會、有能力、寫下這部史書。如果他不寫，別人是不可能寫得出來的。

　　所以他說：“死有重於泰山，或輕於鴻毛。”一個人的生死之間，有很大的輕重差異。他選擇了屈辱的活著，因為他如果選擇了死，他的一生，就只是一個傻瓜罪犯，死的活該。他屈辱的活著，他說，是要：“究天人之際，通古今之變，成一家之言。”(司馬遷〈報任少卿書〉)

　　結果他真的做到了他所謂的“究天人之際，通古今之變，成一家之言”。在他完成他的著作之後，歷史上就再也找不到有關他的任何記載了。我想，對他來說，《史記》完成了，他的人生的意義就結束了。

　　一代曠世奇才司馬遷，有學問、有個性、有文采、有感情；結果被劉徹給處以極其不堪的“宮刑”，是他一個絕大的悲劇。司馬遷承載著無比的屈辱，完成了中國幾千年來最重要的一部史書，司馬遷是英雄。所以，司馬遷是個當之無愧的悲劇英雄典範。

　　關於這本浩瀚巨著，司馬遷在《史記》的卷130《太史公自序》中說， 此書有“五十二萬六千五百字”，而且是“藏之名山，副在京師，俟後世聖人君子”。我覺得疑惑的是，在西元前90多年的那個時代，是用什麼樣的工具來完成這 樣的巨著呢？當時應該是用毛筆寫在竹簡上，再把竹簡裝訂成冊的吧！

　　那麼一本52萬字的竹簡書冊，到底要佔用多大的空間，如何來保留呢？何況司馬遷還寫了兩本，“藏之名山，副在京師”，是一本在郊縣，一本在京城。司馬遷拖著殘疾而受屈辱的身子，完成這樣艱巨的工作，是需要多大的毅力與努力啊！

　　司馬遷寫《史記》，寫活了那個時代的兩個悲劇英雄。這兩個悲劇英雄， 得到了後人千年的禮贊與謳歌。我想，如果沒有悲劇英雄司馬遷；這兩個悲劇英雄的故事，就不會像我們今天所認知的如此生動感人。司馬遷的悲劇，造成他自己的 英雄色彩；也因為司馬遷的悲劇，才能讓另外這兩個悲劇英雄，得到司馬遷的特殊青睞，著墨如此之深。

　　換句話說，這兩個悲劇英雄的故事，如果是換了個人來寫，可能是完全的乏味無趣。所以，他們的故事，能有司馬遷來寫，也是他們的幸運。

　　有趣的是，這兩位悲劇英雄，最後都選擇了以自殺來結束自己的生命，這是司馬遷曾經想做而沒有做到的。

　　司馬遷寫的兩個悲劇英雄，一個是西楚霸王項羽，一個是漢飛將軍李廣。

　　司馬遷筆下的悲劇英雄項羽

　　項羽與李廣與司馬遷所受到的悲劇屈辱，都有直接或間接的關係。項羽與劉邦打天下，項羽失敗了，劉邦當了皇帝。漢武帝劉徹是劉邦的曾孫，劉徹的無上的權力，來自于劉邦。司馬遷寫劉邦，是否會想到自己刑餘之身，以及自己的無邊的屈辱？

司馬遷是如何寫項羽“悲劇英雄”的故事呢？

　　司馬遷對項羽最經典的描述是項羽的“巨鹿之戰”。當時的諸路起義英雄，都不敢與秦兵交戰。項羽出來，彷佛是天兵天將由天而降：

　　諸侯軍救巨鹿下者十余壁，莫敢縱兵。及楚擊秦，諸將皆從壁上觀。楚戰士無不以一當十，出兵呼聲動天，諸侯軍無不人人揣恐。於是破秦軍，項羽召見諸侯將，入轅門，無不膝行而前，莫敢仰視。(《史記‧項羽本紀》)

　　項羽的英雄神勇，讓諸侯的將軍們，都會不自覺的屈膝而行，不敢抬頭看他。在司馬遷的筆下，項羽真是蓋世英雄，無人能比。

　　在項羽最後的日子，司馬遷對於項羽的描述，是充滿了感情與愛惜。無論 如何，末日英雄項羽的身邊，還是有美人始終不渝的愛情。於是，項羽臨別作詩悲歌“力拔山兮氣蓋世……虞兮虞兮奈若何”；美人翩翩起舞，“項王泣下數行，左 右皆泣，莫能仰視”。司馬遷描述這段故事，如詩入畫。

　　最後在項羽自刎之前，司馬遷還依依不捨的作了三個場景的描述：

　　1.項羽為了要證明他的失敗是“天亡我，非戰之罪”，一聲令下，雖然只有28騎，再度衝刺，依舊所向披靡；

　　2.有烏江亭長備了船，請項羽渡江，徐圖再舉。項羽說，他已“無顏見 江東父老”，所以婉拒了亭長請他渡江的建議。為了感謝亭長的關愛，項羽還把自己的千里名駒，送給了亭長。等於是死前還好好的安置自己的烏駒愛馬，酬謝了對 自己有善意的亭長。代表的是，項羽這個人情深義重，連對自己的愛馬，都不例外；

　　3.最後，項羽看到了故交呂馬童，跟呂馬童說，我知道劉邦以千兩黃金懸賞我的人頭。這個功勞就給你吧！於是自刎而死。

　　我想，只有司馬遷才會這樣寫項羽、寫得如此富有感情。之後的二十四史，描寫人物，也沒有像司馬遷描寫項羽這麼的文學與浪漫。可以看得出來，司馬遷對於悲劇英雄項羽，是多麼的厚愛。

　　相對來說，司馬遷寫劉邦是個工於權術、沒有感情的無賴。為了自己逃 命，可以把自己的兒子、女兒推下車，以減輕車子的重量。項羽要烹殺劉邦的父親，劉邦會說，請把父親的肉，分我一杯羹吃吃。劉邦的老婆呂雉，心狠手辣，也不 是什麼好東西。司馬遷寫劉邦，看不出來有什麼仰慕之情。

　　劉項之爭，劉邦贏得了皇位；項羽得到了悲劇英雄的名聲、美人的愛情。在司馬遷的筆下，孰輕孰重，讀者都可以感覺得出來。很明顯的，司馬遷對項羽的偏愛，遠遠多於劉邦。

　　司馬遷對於項羽，還作了一個意味深長的處理。項羽是個失敗的軍事領 袖，但是，司馬遷給了項羽帝王的尊榮。司馬遷把項羽的故事，列入了《史記》中的“本紀”。《史記》中的本紀，說的都是帝王故事，在司馬遷的心目中，項羽是 “帝王”。項羽本紀，司馬遷放在《史記》的第七卷。第六卷是秦始皇本紀，第八卷是漢高祖本紀。項羽排在秦始皇的後面，劉邦的前面。

　　這就是悲劇英雄司馬遷，如何以充滿感情的心情，在寫悲劇英雄項羽。

司馬遷“項羽故事”的餘波

　　因為司馬遷寫項羽寫得如此精彩，才有了國樂的《十面埋伏》，有了戲劇 的《霸王別姬》。在中國唐宋以及現代的文學作品中，對於項羽，也有很多的歌詠與讚歎。譬如唐朝的著名詠史詩人杜牧，到烏江的項羽廟，寫了一首著名的懷古 詩：“勝敗兵家不可期，包羞忍恥是男兒。江東子弟多豪俊，捲土重來未可知。”(《烏江亭》)

　　宋朝的詩人劉克莊，有一首詞，有這樣的一句話：“千載後。君試看，拔山扛鼎俱烏有。英雄骨朽。問顧曲周郎，而今還解，來聽小詞否。”(《摸魚兒》)

　　宋朝的女詩人李清照，也寫了一首詠歎項王的詩：“生當作人傑，死亦為鬼雄。至今思項羽，不肯過江東。”(《夏日絕句》)

　　中國近代最有名的有關項羽的詩，應該是毛澤東詩中的名句了：“宜將剩勇追窮寇，不可沽名學霸王。”(《人民解放軍佔領南京》)毛澤東的意思是說，要乘勝追擊國民黨，務求“解放全國”。不可以像項羽一樣，心慈手軟，縱虎歸山。

　　至於有沒有什麼詩文是在讚歎劉邦的呢？我就真的不知道了。

司馬遷寫悲劇英雄李廣

　　在司馬遷寫的《史記》中，有一個傳記，是《李將軍列傳》，說的是邊塞名將“飛將軍”李廣的故事。

　　李廣是個悲劇英雄，最後以自殺結束生命。李廣的悲劇，延續到他的第三代，李陵。李陵的變故又直接導致了司馬遷的悲劇。

　　司馬遷與李陵認識，交往不多。司馬遷愛才，對李廣的才氣非常的敬仰，對於李廣的悲劇非常的同情。偏偏李陵“善騎射，愛人，謙讓下士”，有祖父李廣之風。所以，一旦李陵有難，司馬遷挺身而出，觸怒了霸道的漢武帝劉徹。司馬遷愛才的情感因素，加上仗義執言的個性，決定了他的悲劇與命運。

　　李廣的故事，似乎只有在《史記》中找得到。換句話說，如果沒有司馬遷寫李廣，李廣的故事就不會流傳下來了。

　　司馬遷寫的李廣故事，成了很多後人文學作品的題材。有些人評論唐詩說，唐詩中寫得最好的一首七言絕句，是王昌齡的〈出塞〉詩。詩的內容，就是緬懷司馬遷筆下的大漢“飛將軍”李廣：

　　秦時明月漢時關，萬里長征人未還。

　　但使龍城飛將在，不教胡馬度陰山。

　　詩人王昌齡感歎邊塞不甯，秦時明月漢時關。想像中，如果“飛將軍”李廣還在的話，也就不至於萬里長征人未還了。

　　司馬遷在小時候，見過李廣，他的印象是李廣“悛悛如鄙人，口不能道辭”。名震一時的飛將軍，看來竟然是個很鄉土的人，口才不好。但是，李廣雖然粗土、不善言辭，司馬遷給他的評價卻是非常的高。司馬遷說：

　　余睹李將軍悛悛如鄙人，口不能道辭。及死之日，天下知與不知，皆為盡哀。 彼其忠實心誠信于士大夫也？諺曰：“桃李不言，下自成蹊。”此言雖小，可以喻大也。(《史記‧李將軍列傳》)

　　李廣死的時候，不管是認識他的還是不認識他的，都感到深沉的悲哀。我想是因為他為人忠實有誠信。俗話說：“桃李不言，下自成蹊。”桃樹李樹都不說話，憑著自己的魅力，吸引了人來人往，最終桃李樹下，因為人氣的聚集，也會形成路徑的。

　　有趣的是，一直到今天的日本東京與大阪，都還各有一所“成蹊大學”。日本前任首相安倍晉三，就是成蹊大學的畢業生。日本成蹊大學的名稱，就是來自于司馬遷對李廣的評贊。

　　司馬遷雖然在小時候見過李廣，但是與李家三代，並無深交。他為了沒有 深交的李陵，受到極其不堪的羞辱。司馬遷有才華、有個性、有感情；甚至在感情的驅使之下，會不計後果，做出衝動的事情。司馬遷所謳歌、所讚賞的人，像項羽 與李廣，其實也都跟他一樣，有才華、有個性、有感情；也會因為感情而做出衝動的事情。這樣的人格特質，決定了他們悲劇英雄的宿命。

　　司馬遷的人格特質，決定了他用什麼樣的筆觸，來描寫什麼樣的人物。似乎也決定了，他寫什麼樣的人物，會投入多大程度的感情。

　　所以，很多人評價司馬遷，不是一個“純正”、“理性”的歷史學家。司馬遷是一個浪漫的文學歷史學家；或者說，是一個寫歷史故事的浪漫文學家。

　　司馬遷愛才，他喜歡有才氣的人。他寫項羽的，是“力能扛鼎，才氣過 人”；他寫李廣是“李廣才氣，天下無雙，自負其能”。司馬遷說李廣人高手長，天賦異稟善於射箭。別人怎麼學，都無法超越他。有一次他出外打獵，看到草叢中 一個石頭，他以為是老虎，一箭射出，箭力如神，整個得箭鏃都射入石頭之中。司馬遷寫的這個故事，到了唐朝，詩人盧綸把他寫成了廣為流傳的邊塞詩：“林暗草 驚風，將軍夜引弓；平明尋白羽，沒在石棱中。”(《塞下曲》)

　　司馬遷寫李廣，寫的是一個戰場上的藝術家。李廣好多次與匈奴的對手遭 遇，李廣都是在發揮他個人的才華、發揮他個人的在戰場上的騎射藝術。好像是在敵我雙方陣營中，都只能看到他一個人的風采。不過，就像是一個藝術家，似乎不 能成為一個藝術公司成功的老闆。李廣作為戰鬥藝術家，並沒有帶來輝煌的開疆辟土的戰果。最後，李廣與大將軍衛青之間發生了矛盾，李廣因為行軍迷路，要被送 去審訊。李廣很感慨，認為自己一生戎馬，到了60多歲，怎麼還可以再去面對“刀筆之吏”的審訊、甚至是判監服刑的羞辱呢？於是，李廣告訴衛青，行軍迷路完 全是他一個人的錯，與他的屬下無關。李廣終於選擇了自殺，來維持他自己的尊嚴。一代名將，就在這個情況之下，結束了自己的生命。

　　有趣的是，司馬遷寫當代的名將衛青與霍去病，就沒有這麼多的感情。衛 青與霍去病都是開拓疆土的名將，功勳與官階都比李廣高很多，而且深得劉徹的寵愛。司馬遷形容李廣行軍大漠，缺水缺糧的時候，一定都是以士卒為優先。要讓士 卒喝夠了水、吃飽了，他才會喝水進食，所以士卒們都很愛戴他：

　　廣之將兵，乏絕之處，見水，士卒不盡飲，廣不近飲。士卒不盡食，廣不嘗食。寬緩不苛，士以此愛樂為用。(《史記‧李將軍列傳》)

　　霍去病剛好相反。霍去病少年富貴，注重享受，皇帝劉徹特地安排了十幾輛的專車，侍奉他的飲食。回軍的時候，自己的軍車剩下了糧食酒肉亂丟，但是士兵都面有饑色。

　　驃騎將軍……然少而侍中，貴，不省士。其從軍，天子為遣太官齎數十乘，既還，重車餘棄粱肉，而士有饑者。其在塞外，卒乏糧，或不能自振，而驃騎尚穿域蹋鞠。事多此類。(《史記‧衛將軍驃騎列傳》)

　　衛青與霍去病深得皇帝的寵愛，有一個原因，就是劉徹有個很會唱歌跳舞的寵妃衛子夫，衛子夫就是衛青的姊姊、霍去病的阿姨。司馬遷對於靠著“夫人關係”而竄紅的人物，似乎沒有什麼感情上的偏愛。

　　司馬遷是如何形容大將軍衛青呢？大將軍等於是總司令，是全國最高的軍事長官。司馬遷說衛青是“大將軍為人仁善退讓，以和柔自媚於上，然天下未有稱也”；就是說衛青：“為人仁善退讓，知道如何以柔軟的身段討得皇帝的歡喜。但是天下沒有多少人會稱賞他。”

　　司馬遷寫衛青與霍去病的傳記，對於這兩位名將作了一個很有趣的總評論。他說衛青與霍去病這兩位將軍，有一個共同的看法，就是都不願意招募賢能、排斥不肖。因為招募賢能、排斥不肖，會引起皇帝的猜忌，做人臣的只要奉法遵職就好。這兩位將軍，都沒有興趣幫助政府引進人才。

　　太史公曰：蘇建語餘曰：“吾嘗責大將軍至尊重，而天下之賢大夫毋稱 焉，願將軍觀古名將所招選擇賢者，勉之哉。大將軍謝曰：‘自魏其、武安之厚賓客，天子常切齒。彼親附士大夫，招賢絀不肖者，人主之柄也。人臣奉法遵職而 已，何與招士！’”驃騎亦放此意，其為將如此。(《史記‧衛將軍驃騎列傳》)

　　比較李廣與衛青，李廣是一個失敗的將軍，最後是在軍前哀傷自刎；衛青是赫赫功名，位極人臣。

　　但是，司馬遷寫李廣是“桃李不言，下自成蹊”；寫李廣的自殺，“廣軍士大夫一軍皆哭。百姓聞之，知與不知，無老壯皆為垂涕”。司馬遷寫衛青，卻是“以和柔自媚於上，然天下未有稱也”。

　　對於我來說，要如何解讀司馬遷寫李廣、寫衛青霍去病的心境呢？

　　我的感想是，司馬遷要說的是，李廣贏得了全天下的心，但是沒有贏得皇帝的心；衛青贏得了皇帝的心，卻沒有得到天下多少人的稱賞。

　　司馬遷是否也是替自己，做了個千秋的歷史評價呢？他沒有贏得皇帝的心，但是他終究會贏得天下人的讚賞。

結語

　　一個人的人格與個性，會決定他的作品風格。司馬遷是一個悲劇英雄，他 的作品，充滿了悲劇英雄的風格。我們看他寫的《項羽本紀》與他寫的《高祖本紀》，就可以知道，他所喜愛、所敬重的是失敗的英雄項羽；他對於劉邦，似乎是冷 眼看戲，還略帶鄙夷。我們比較他所寫的《李將軍列傳》與《衛將軍驃騎列傳》，就可以知道，司馬遷所喜愛、所敬重、甚至所深深同情的是李廣。他對於衛青、霍 去病，並沒有什麼多餘的感情。

　　在功名成敗的評價上，劉邦與項羽的對抗，劉邦是贏家，項羽是輸家。衛 青、霍去病與李廣，其實是有兩代的恩怨。李廣的自殺，多多少少是與衛青有關的；李廣的兒子李敢英勇善戰，為了想替父親報仇，結果是死在霍去病的手上。在功 名利祿的天平上，李廣輸得很慘。但是在司馬遷的筆下，他把他的感情毫不猶豫的給了項羽與李廣。同時，他也冷冷的批判了劉邦、衛青與霍去病。司馬遷寫《史 記》，的確是投入了很多個人的感情。

　　悲劇英雄寫悲劇英雄。司馬遷的想法很清楚，雖然他因為他的人格特質而受到了極端的屈辱，但是他所最敬愛、最依戀、評價最高的，還是與他有相同人格特質的悲劇英雄。

(摘自臺灣《歷史月刊》2009年258期 作者：薛中鼎)

 http://his.tsingming.com/simaqian/Information/3873.htm