记尼采和bloom教授论麦克白

尼采这番言论（见附）可称惊世骇俗，也只有够分量的人说起来才有底气，若为某无名评论家所言，那么大概早已被划为哗众之论，石沉海底。而此番逆道而行之言，实使我受益良多，颇为赞同。

与Bloom教授不同的是，我并不认同尼采所言意为：最高的艺术作品是不道德的，反而认为：艺术作品在道德观上是中立的。不以正面形象为范本，不将悲剧人物作批判。我所理解的尼采之言，从最后开始：对待莎士比亚之作，应该“not to understand it”——不去理解，而去感受。

这里引用止庵先生的一句话以说明我的看法：“以道德眼光阅读文学作品是最下等的趣味，以道德眼光批评文学作品是最恶劣的批评。”创作者的创作背景和心境无疑是复杂的，那么他所持的态度当然也是多重的。读书不去理解，去感受，意为揪出一种读书的误区。我们不应该企图从作者的角度来理解作品的“大是大非”，体味作者的意图，而应该从故事中感受自己的心境，回到自身。如此，尼采其余之言便豁然开朗。当我们不以道德眼光看待作品的角色，不要说作为野心家，就算是在普通人的眼中，麦克白如火的热情与无畏不使人热血沸腾吗？

有种说法是：对一个拜金者显露自己超脱世俗的崇高境界是不起作用的，因为只有一个在金钱上更富有的人才能受到他的追崇。而这点，在任何一种特质上都成立。于《麦克白》而言，野心家非但不会因为麦克白的“悲惨”结局而失去热情，反而会受到更大的鼓舞。在某种程度上来看，这种精神其实相当具有英雄主义色彩。为什么？反顾尼采的话，野心家具有一种“魔鬼般的”诱惑力，即为：in defiance against life and advantage for the sake of a drive and idea。一个人，为了达到心中所认定的崇高理想，即使如飞蛾扑火，亦在所不惜，展露一种视死如归的觉悟，他难道不是一个英雄？如此之人，若是为真善美而牺牲，固然受到广泛赞扬，但如麦克白之“战士”，就不值得肯定了吗？我认为不然。

尼采说莎士比亚醉心于一种充满热情而视死如归的心境，这样的心境里，灵魂之附着于生命，一如水滴依附于瓶壁之不牢靠。而这大概即为麦克白之所处吧。艾伦琼斯有句话为：“一个人的灵魂需要四种看不见的力量来构筑，即：爱，死亡，权力和时间。”以我的角度，麦克白的灵魂定为十分饱满的。他对权力的热爱远胜于对死亡的恐惧，于是乎不惧怕失去灵魂对肉体的附着，他对权力这样的热爱，到了一种有失体面的地步，却格外地让人兴奋。Bloom教授指麦克白的欲望过于原始与本能以至于显得羞耻，但我却认为人原始的本能是没有善恶的。韩非子坚信性恶论，是将人初始之贪婪与欲望视为恶，但这不过是不同的定义偏失下的看法。人之本性，大自然赋予，有何对错？将人固有的原始冲动装点、束缚，即称文明，何其可笑？故而麦克白不过是一个坚信自己的欲望，不回头不退步的人，我眼里，他的失势、死亡并不悲惨，因为他已不惧怕。而实际上悲惨的是，他有英雄般无畏而不懈的精神，却追求了普世价值中不被认同的不轨目标，谋害了他人。他视死如归，最终却或许死而无归。

我理解的莎士比亚与尼采，并非在肯定和宣扬悲剧人物的那些无良做法，但也绝不是以此为反面教材向世定义大非。因为这里没有大非之言。有的不过是血肉之躯，有的莫过于人之常情。他们不以是非体悟人生，以心体悟。

弘一法师曾言：“物忌全胜，事忌全美，人忌全盛”。但人生若以麦克白般，在理想中以全盛之态无畏地迎接死亡，岂不美哉？ 附：尼采评《麦克白》 On the morality of the stage.— Whoever thinks that Shakespeare's theater has a moral effect, and that the sight of Macbeth irresistibly repels one from the evil of ambition, is in error: and he is again in error if he thinks Shakespeare himself felt as he feels. He who is really possessed by raging ambition beholds this its image with joy;and if the hero perishes by his passion this precisely is the sharpest spice in the hot draught of this joy. Can the poet have felt otherwise? How royally, and not at all like a rogue, does his ambitious man pursue his course from the moment of his great crime! Only from then on does he exercise "demonic" attraction and excite similar natures to emulation—demonic means here: in defiance against life and advantage for the sake of a drive and idea. Do you suppose that Tristan and Isolde are preaching against adultery when they both perish by it? This would be to stand the poets on their head: they, and especially Shakespeare, are enamored of the passions as such and not least of their death welcoming moods—those moods in which the heart adheres to life no more firmly than does a drop of water to a glass. It is not the guilt and its evil outcome they have at heart,Shakespeare as little as Sophocles (in Ajax, Philoctetes, Oedipus): as easy as it would have been in these instances to make guilt the lever of the drama, just as surely has this been avoided. The tragic poet has just as little desire to take sides against life with his image of life! He cries rather: "it is the stimulant of stimulants, this exciting, changing, dangerous, gloomy and often sun-drenched existence! It is an adventure to live—espouse what party in it you will, it will always retain this character!"— He speaks thus out of a restless, vigorous age which is half-drunk and stupefied by its excess of blood and energy—out of a wickeder age than ours is: which is why we need first to adjust and justify the goal of a Shakespearean drama,that is to say, not to understand it.