Scidem's Prime 叩子的青春: 关于西藏暴动，比较客观的一个西方报道

关于西藏暴动，比较客观的一个西方报道

简单介绍一下，James Miles是来自《经济学人》The Economist的记者。他是在暴动发生的两天前获得官方的采访许可证的。没想到，两天后西方拉萨就发生了暴动事件，而他也成了在拉萨的唯一一名有采访许可证的西方权威媒体记者。另外Jame Miles曾经为经济学人报道过19年前的一起事件，那次报道也奠定了他的事业基础。

这一次他从拉萨回到英国后，CNN对他进行了采访。其采访原文如下。阅读全文后，我觉得他作为一个记者是很客观公正的。他拥有第一手资料，他也只说他看到的和他经历的实际情况，而不会像其他并没有获得第一手资料的西方记者一样凭空想象或者夸大其词。强烈建议大家看一下全文，相信对整个事件有一个更加客观的认识。另外参考看一下《经济学人》的其他相关文章，因为对此事件有一个更加全面的认识。

我想简单总结一下采访中提到的最重要的几点。

1. 记者James Miles在拉萨暴乱的采访过程中一直没有受到来自官方的阻挠。这一点，甚至连记者本身都很惊讶。记者猜想，这与北京做出的奥运会有何大关系。新闻也会在这段时期相对自由。而记者本人离开的原因并不是官方的驱逐，而是记者的采访证期限到了。这一点和BBC所报道的“最后一名外国记者被驱逐”的新闻大相径庭。这也显示BBC在这条的新闻处理上是夸大事实甚至违背事实的。

2.James Miles亲眼看到，亲身经历的事实是，藏族人的这次暴动基本上是针对汉族人和回族人的商店和餐馆。汉族人拥有大部分的商铺，回族人掌握着当地的肉类市场。参与暴动的藏族人把藏族人开的商店或者餐馆用白色的哈达标记。然后把剩下的商店抢光，砸光。很多抢来的东西也被堆在街上烧光。甚至记者本人都觉得非常的unpleasant（非常的不舒服），记者也了解到当地的藏族人也被这样的情景惊吓到了。

值得一提的是，很多汉族人和回族人在暴动一开始的时候就逃走了，但是晚逃一步的汉族或回族人的生命都受到很大的威胁。藏族人向那些滞留的汉族人投掷石块。甚至记者亲眼看到一个触目惊心的情景。记者看到一群人像一个10岁左右大小的儿童扔石块。记者看不下去了，就跑到那些扔石块的藏族人的面前进行阻止。

3.James Miles并没有看到中国安全保卫人员Security force和藏族暴乱分子之间的正面冲突。James Miles看到的是那些藏族人身上都戴着传统的藏族刀。但是没有亲眼看到他们使用刀，或者用刀威胁其他人。但是在采访过汉族人后，他知道藏族人确实用刀威胁过汉族人。

而且令记者惊讶的是，官方没有一开始就介入其中，而是没有任何行动（inaction）。安全保卫人员也始终保持克制，到后来会偶尔放一枪，但很明显是为了警告那些人停止暴动。troops with rifles that they occasionally let off with single shots, apparently warning shots,in order to scare everybody back into their homes and put an end to this.记者分析可能的原因还是奥运会的压力，因为如果一开始就介入其中，肯定会发生流血冲突事件。如果是这样的话，那么会对正在举办奥运会的中国将非常不利。所以官方一直对暴动活动保持克制，但后果就是汉族人的众多商铺和生意被毁被砸被抢。这一点和中国官方的报道是非常一致的。

另外，记者看到的唯一一次，是在拉萨旧城区的中心地带。一群藏族人用石块扔向安全保卫人员Security force。安全保卫人员用催泪瓦斯驱散藏族人。但安全保卫人员并没有快速前进。而是一直保持克制，非常偶尔的时候，会用催泪瓦斯。然后那些藏族人会撤退到小箱子里面去。记者提到这次安全保卫人员的克制显然是用心思考过的，官方更愿意这次时间会自己淡化下来。

But for a long time, just with occasional, with the very occasional round of tear gas, which would send and I could see this, people scattering back into these very, very, narrow and winding alleyways. What I did not hear was repeated bursts of machine gun fire, I didn't have that same sense of an all out onslaught of massive firepower that I sensed here in Beijing when I was covering the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests in June, 1989. This was a very different kind of operation, a more calculated one, and I think the effort of the authorities this time was to let people let off steam before establishing a very strong presence with troops, with guns, every few yards, all across the Tibetan quarter. It was only when they felt safe I think that there would not be massive bloodshed, that they actually moved in with that decisive force.

4.关于死亡人数。作为唯一一位在拉萨的西方记者，记者提到他会不时的听到一些关于小范围的流血冲突的传闻（rumor），但是他只能依据他看到的实际情况报道。结论就是，有可能，有几个汉族人在暴力活动中被杀，同时也有可能，有几个藏族人在暴乱活动中被杀。但记者也承认并没有第一手的证据支持这样的结论，也不可能得到死亡人数。所以中国官方所说的十几个汉族人被杀害应该是死亡人数的下限，至于并没有亲历暴动事件的外国媒体或组织所声称的一百多人，则几乎肯定没有事实根据的是被夸大的上限。在这一点上BBC的“一百人死亡”的新闻标题应该是有偏倚的，不准确的。

But I can do no more really on the basis of what I saw then say there was a probability that some ethnic Chinese were killed in this violence, and also a probability that some Tibetans, Tibetan rioters themselves were killed by members of the security forces. But it's impossible to get the kind of numbers or real first hand evidences necessary to back that up.

5.关于拉萨汉族人对于这次事件的反应。记者James Miles说，他看到在暴动最激烈发生过后，有一些汉族人回来看他们的商店。记者看到，很多汉族人流着泪在废墟里面捡剩下来的东西。记者和那些汉族人都对废墟的景象感到非常的震惊。即使在警戒线被划出来之后，旧城区里面的暴乱分子还是自由的抢劫和放火，官方依然站在后方保持克制状态。很多在当地生活了很多年的汉族人都对这样的事件感到完全的震惊。他们从来没想到过藏族和汉族的紧张关系会到这个地步。当地汉族人都非常担心，都说他们也许以后会离开拉萨。这也许会给西藏的经济带来非常严重的影响。而且当地旅游业会受到非常大的打击。甚至有人担心，中国的西藏铁路会成为暴乱分子的一个目标。

On the second day we came back to the shops and I saw them picking through the wreckage, tears in their eyes. They were astonished, as I was, at the lack of any security presence on the previous day.  was only during the night at the end of the first day that this cordon was established around the old Tibetan quarter. But even within it, for several hours afterwards, people were still free to continue looting and setting fires, and the authorities were still standing back.

另外文中还有很多其他的信息。我就不一一列举了。

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/20/tibet.miles.interview/

Transcript: James Miles interview on Tibet

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- James Miles, of The Economist, has just returned from Lhasa, Tibet. The following is a transcript of an interview he gave to CNN.

James Miles

Q. How easy was it for you to see what you wanted to see?

A. Well remarkably so, given that the authorities are normally extremely sensitive about the presence of foreign journalists when this kind of incident occurs. I was expecting all along that they were going to call me up and tell me to leave Lhasa immediately. I think what restrained them from doing that, one very important factor in this, was the thoughts of the Olympic Games that are going to be staged in Beijing in August. And they have been going out of their way to convince the rest of the world that China is opening up in advance of this. I think they probably didn't want me there but they knew that I was there with official permission, and one thing they've been trying to get across over the last few months is that journalists based in Beijing can now get around the country more freely than they could before. Of course Tibet is a special example. I've been a journalist in China now for 15 years altogether. This is the first time that I've ever got official approval to go to Tibet. And it's remarkable I think that they decided to let me stay there and probably they felt that it was a bit of a gamble. But as the protests went on I think they also probably felt that having me there would help to get across the scale of the ethnically-targeted violence that the Chinese themselves have also been trying to highlight.

Q. What you say you saw corroborates the official version. What exactly did you see?

A. What I saw was calculated targeted violence against an ethnic group, or I should say two ethnic groups, primarily ethnic Han Chinese living in Lhasa, but also members of the Muslim Hui minority in Lhasa. And the Huis in Lhasa control much of the meat industry in the city. Those two groups were singled out by ethnic Tibetans. They marked those businesses that they knew to be Tibetan owned with white traditional scarves. Those businesses were left intact. Almost every single other across a wide swathe of the city, not only in the old Tibetan quarter, but also beyond it in areas dominated by the ethnic Han Chinese. Almost every other business was either burned, looted, destroyed, smashed into, the property therein hauled out into the streets, piled up, burned. It was an extraordinary outpouring of ethnic violence of a most unpleasant nature to watch, which surprised some Tibetans watching it. So they themselves were taken aback at the extent of what they saw. And it was not just targeted against property either. Of course many ethnic Han Chinese and Huis fled as soon as this broke out. But those who were caught in the early stages of it were themselves targeted. Stones thrown at them. At one point, I saw them throwing stones at a boy of maybe around 10 years old perhaps cycling along the street. I in fact walked out in front of them and said stop. It was a remarkable explosion of simmering ethnic grievances in the city.

Q. Did you see other weapons?

A. I saw them carrying traditional Tibetan swords, I didn't actually see them getting them out and intimidating people with them. But clearly the purpose of carrying them was to scare people. And speaking later to ethnic Han Chinese, that was one point that they frequently drew attention to. That these people were armed and very intimidating.

Q. There was an official response to this. In some reporting, info coming from Tibetan exiles, there was keenness to report it as Tiananmen.

A. Well the Chinese response to this was very interesting. Because you would expect at the first sings of any unrest in Lhasa, which is a city on a knife-edge at the best of times. That the response would be immediate and decisive. That they would cordon off whatever section of the city involved, that they would grab the people involved in the unrest. In fact what we saw, and I was watching it at the earliest stages, was complete inaction on the part of the authorities. It seemed as if they were paralyzed by indecision over how to handle this. The rioting rapidly spread from Beijing Road, this main central thoroughfare of Lhasa, into the narrow alleyways of the old Tibetan quarter. But I didn't see any attempt in those early hours by the authorities to intervene. And I suspect again the Olympics were a factor there. That they were very worried that if they did move in decisively at that early stage of the unrest that bloodshed would ensue in their efforts to control it. And what they did instead was let the rioting run its course and it didn't really finish as far as I saw until the middle of the day on the following day on the Saturday, March the 15th. So in effect what they did was sacrifice the livelihoods of many, many ethnic Han Chinese in the city for the sake of letting the rioters vent their anger. And then being able to move in gradually with troops with rifles that they occasionally let off with single shots, apparently warning shots, in order to scare everybody back into their homes and put an end to this.

Q. Would be false to suggest there was heavy-handed security approach?

A. Well this was covering a vast area of the city and I was the only foreign journalist, at least accredited, to ... who was there to witness this. It was impossible to get a total picture. I did hear persistent rumors while I was there during this rioting of isolated clashes between the security forces and rioters. And rumors of occasional bloodshed involved in that. But I can do no more really on the basis of what I saw then say there was a probability that some ethnic Chinese were killed in this violence, and also a probability that some Tibetans, Tibetan rioters themselves were killed by members of the security forces. But it's impossible to get the kind of numbers or real first hand evidences necessary to back that up.

Q. Form any sense of where it would go from here?

A. Well I think they now have a huge problem on their hands. When I left Lhasa yesterday the city was still in a state of effectively Martial Law. They've been bending over backwards this time not to declare martial law as they did in 1989 after the last major outbreak of anti-Chinese unrest in Lhasa. This time they have not used that term and yet the conditions now in Lhasa are pretty much the same as they were in 1989 under martial law. Officials say there are no soldiers, no members of the People's Liberation Army involved in this security operation. And yet I saw numerous, many military vehicles, military looking vehicles with telltale license plates covered up or removed. And also many troops there whose uniforms were distinctly lacking in the usual insignia of either the police or the riot police. So my very, very strong suspicion is that the army is out there and is in control in Lhasa. And removing that security given the way Tibetans are now focusing on the Olympics as a window of opportunity, removing that security now I think would be something they would be very, very cautious about. And yet there are enormous pressures on them to do so. Coming up to the Olympic torch carrying ceremony in Lhasa in June. That is one obvious event they will want the world to see and they will want the world to see that Lhasa is normal. But I think getting to that stage will be enormously tricky given the depth of feeling in Lhasa itself among Tibetans.

Q. Did you actually see clashes between security forces and Tibetan protesters?

A. Well what I saw and at this stage, the situation around my hotel which was right in the middle of the old Tibetan quarter, was very tense indeed and quite dangerous so it was difficult for me to freely walk around the streets. But what I saw was small groups of Tibetans, and this was on the second day of the protests, throwing stones towards what I assumed to be, and they were slightly out of vision, members of the security forces. I would hear and indeed smell occasional volleys of Tear gas fired back. There clearly was a small scale clash going on between Tibetans and the security forces. But on the second day things had calmed down generally compared with the huge rioting that was going on...on the Friday. And the authorities were responding to these occasional clashes with Tibetans not by moving forward rapidly with either riot police and truncheons and shields, or indeed troops with rifles. But for a long time, just with occasional, with the very occasional round of tear gas, which would send and I could see this, people scattering back into these very, very, narrow and winding alleyways. What I did not hear was repeated bursts of machine gun fire, I didn't have that same sense of an all out onslaught of massive firepower that I sensed here in Beijing when I was covering the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests in June, 1989. This was a very different kind of operation, a more calculated one, and I think the effort of the authorities this time was to let people let off steam before establishing a very strong presence with troops, with guns, every few yards, all across the Tibetan quarter. It was only when they felt safe I think that there would not be massive bloodshed, that they actually moved in with that decisive force.

Q. At time you left, were Han Chinese moving freely back?

A. There were some on the Saturday morning. On the second day we came back to the shops and I saw them picking through the wreckage, tears in their eyes. They were astonished, as I was, at the lack of any security presence on the previous day. It was only during the night at the end of the first day that this cordon was established around the old Tibetan quarter. But even within it, for several hours afterwards, people were still free to continue looting and setting fires, and the authorities were still standing back. And it was only as things fizzled out towards the middle of the second day that as I say they moved in in great numbers. Ethnic Chinese in Lhasa are now very worried people. Some who had been there for many, many years expressed to me their utter astonishment that this had happened. They had no sense of great ethnic tension being a part of life in Lhasa. Now numerous Hans that I spoke to say that they are so afraid they may leave the city, which may have very damaging consequences for Lhasa's economy, Tibet's economy. Of course one would expect that ethnic Chinese would think twice now about coming into Lhasa for tourism, and that's been a huge part of their economic growth recently. And leaving Lhasa, I was sitting on a plane next to some Chinese businessmen, they say that they would normally come in and out of Lhasa by train. But their fear now is that Tibetans will blow up the railway line. That it is now actually safer to fly out of Tibet than to go by railway. We have no evidence of Terrorist activity by Tibetans, no accusation of that nature so far. But that is a fear that's haunting some ethnic Han Chinese now.

Q. When you were told to leave, what were you told?

A. Well I had an 8-day permit to be in Lhasa. That permit began two days before the rioting, on March 12, and was due to run out on March 19. My official schedule was basically abandoned after a couple days of this. Many of the places on my official itinerary turned out to be hotspots in the middle of this unrest. They left me to my own devices. I was stopped by the police at one point, taken to a police station. They made a few phone calls and then let me go back out on the streets full of troops and police carrying out the security crackdown. They insisted however that when my permit did expire on the 19th that I had to leave. I asked for an extension and they said decisively no.

Q. So you weren't expelled? It just ran out?

A. Well we're in a gray area here. Because in theory China has been opened up to foreign journalists since January 2007, which means no longer, which was the case before, do we have to apply for provincial level government approval every time we leave Beijing for reporting. The official regulations don't mention Tibet. But orally, officials have made it clear that Tibet is an exception to these new Olympic rules and journalists who have made their own way there, unofficially, both before this unrest and during it have been caught or ... and expelled. Or those who have succeeded in making it out without being detected have been criticized by the authorities for doing so. So one could argue that yes I was expelled, if one looks at the regulations they've announced which one could interpret as meaning we have the freedom to be where we like. But in their interpretation, Tibet is an exception and in their view they were being rather liberal towards me by letting run to the end of my official permit.

Q. Is Dalai behind this?

A. Well we didn't see any evidence of any organized activity, at least there was nothing in what I sensed and saw during those couple of days of unrest in Lhasa, there was anything organized behind it. And I've seen organized unrest in China. The Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 involved numerous organizations spontaneously formed by people in Beijing to oppose, or to call for more reform and demand democracy. We didn't see that in Lhasa. There were no organizations there that ... certainly none that labeled themselves as such. These accusations against what they call the Dalai Lama clique, are ritual parts of the political rhetoric in Tibet. There is a constant background rhetoric directed at the Dalai Lama and his supporters in India. So it is not at all surprising that they would repeat that particular accusation in this case. But they haven't come across, haven't produced any evidence of this whatsoever. And I think it's more likely that what we saw was yes inspired by a general desire of Tibetans both inside Tibet and among the Dalai Lama's followers, to take advantage of this Olympic year. But also inspired simply by all these festering grievances on the ground in Lhasa.

引自王开林《同舟共进》2007年6期

人间已无梁任公

——集合六大矛盾于一身的梁启超

    1873年，梁启超出生于广东新会县熊子乡茶坑村。小时候，梁启超常于静夜躺在卧榻上听祖父娓娓动情地讲述古代豪杰、忠臣、志士、哲人的嘉言懿行，其中印象最深的便是陆秀夫身背幼帝赵昺在厓山跳海殉国的悲壮史事。厓山位于新会县南部，离茶坑村不远，梁启超去过那里的三忠祠多次，“海水有门分上下，江山无界限华夷”，前人的这两句诗犹如刀刻斧砍般铭记在他心中。

一、科举路上的顺与不顺

    梁家名为耕读之家，田产却并不多，仅够糊口而已，梁启超的父亲梁莲涧是一位不甘心受穷的穷秀才，他倒是很有办法，曾专程跑到日本，向梁启超索款购置产业，梁启超当时经济拮据，无法应付，梁莲涧便以自杀相要挟，最终由梁启超的弟子们解囊相助，集资一千二百块银元，让梁莲涧欢天喜地满载而归。梁启超平生不爱置田产，他曾开玩笑说：“假若十块钱买一亩田，或十块钱买一只鸡，我宁愿吃鸡不买田。”由此可见，他根本瞧不起那些一门心思买田修屋的土财主。

    梁启超堪称神童，才华早秀。对对子，人出上联“东篱客赏陶潜菊”，他脱口即能对出“南国人思召伯棠”；吟诗，“咸鱼”这样的题目居然也难不倒他，“太公垂钓后，胶鬲举盐初”，典故用得满贴切；写八股文，同样不在话下，塾师出题“小不忍则乱大谋”，他笔下立刻就蹦出警句，“或大仇未报，凄凉吹吴市之箫；或时会未来，匍匐出细人之胯”。古人说，“小时了了，大未必佳”，王安石撰文“伤仲永”，即存此意。实则，这句话颠倒过来，更有道理，“小时不佳，大未必了了”。岂不闻民间谚语如是说，“人看其小，马看蹄爪”？

    别人在科举路上跌跌撞撞，梁启却走得很顺，十三岁成秀才，十七岁成举人，只是在会试时莫名其妙地栽了个大跟头。据胡思敬《国闻备乘》所记：主持乙未（1895年）科会试的主考官是大学士徐桐，副主考则为启秀、李文田、唐景崇三人。“文田得启超卷，不知谁何，欲拔之而额已满。乃邀景崇共诣桐，求以公额处之。”也就是说，还有一些机动名额由徐桐灵活掌握，拨一个给李文田，即可成全梁启超。徐桐是个老顽固，不喜欢梁启超的卷稿牵引古义，越出绳尺，硬是不肯拨给名额。他还对李文田袒庇粤省同乡，颇有微词。李文田无奈，只好将梁卷“抑而不录”，并在卷末批曰：“还君明珠双泪垂，恨不相逢未嫁时。”表明其惜才而又无奈的心情。此后，梁启超便绝迹科场，他做《时务报》主笔时，更是痛诋科举制度扼杀人才。

二、六大矛盾的集合体

    梁启超为人天真、率直、热忱、进取、虚心、无我、和蔼可亲、全无城府、一团孩子气，他自称为“中国之新民”和“少年中国之少年”，识者皆认可，不觉其矫情。当初，他以举人之身拜监生康有为为师，如此见贤思齐，不虚心绝对做不到；与朋友订交，他能多规过，少奖善，坦受直谏，不拒苦口良言，有改过之勇和服善之智，即使是来自别一阵营的攻讦（比如戢元丞、秦力山在《新大陆》杂志上纠举梁启超剽袭日本人德富苏峰的文章），他也不作回应，所以他的一干朋友，如赵熙、周善培等人都认为，任公是最可爱的朋友，即使到了身败名裂的紧要关头，也要想办法救他。

    最难得的是，梁启超精力弥满，至死不衰。从外貌看，他短小精悍，秃顶宽下巴，目光如电，他喜欢穿长袍，步履稳健，风神潇洒，顾盼生辉。他三十余岁办《新民丛报》，志在开言路，通舆情，启民智，下笔动辄万言，不惮其难。他的文章气势凌厉，感情充沛，深刻影响了一代青年。且看《饮冰室自由书》中的一段：“…… 我国民全陷落于失望时代。希望政府，政府失望；希望疆吏，疆吏失望；希望政党，政党失望；希望自力，自力失望；希望他力，他力失望！忧国之士，溢其热血，绞其脑浆，于彼乎？于此乎？皇皇求索者有年，而无一路之可通；而心血为之倒行，脑浆为之瞀乱！”任公晚年著述，用力尤勤，仅仅1920年一年，他就撰成《清代学术概论》、《老子哲学》、《孔子》、《墨经校释》，以及多篇佛教历史论文。别人玩上几天，他就成书一部，最出奇的是，他接连三十四个小时不睡觉，草成洋洋数万言的《戴东原哲学》。他彻夜写作，“固有春蚕食叶之乐”，这岂是外人轻易体会得到的？梁任公将“万恶淫为首，百行孝为先”改易二字，变成“万恶懒为首，百行勤为先”，他常常用这句警策的话作为座右铭，同时用它劝勉弟子。

    梁启超身处大动荡、大混乱、大嬗变的时代，“其保守性与进取性常交战于胸中，随感情而发，所执往往前后相矛盾”。比如说，他所主张的“做人的方法——在社会上造成一种不逐时流的新人”和“做学问的方法——在学术界造成一种适应新潮的国学”，二者之间潜藏着难以调和的矛盾。他要逃避或解决这些矛盾，行之有效的办法就是善变，“不惜以今日之我难昔日之我”，这是他最令人敬佩的地方（从善如流），也是他最令人诟病的地方（立脚不稳），康有为即曾呵斥这位大弟子 “流质易变”，还有人批评梁启超“见理不定，屡变屡迁”，认为他是“反复无常”、“首鼠两端”的无行小人，更有人对他作出“卖朋友，事仇雠，叛师长，种种营私罔利行为，人格天良两均丧尽”的酷评。梁启超一生所遭遇的全部荣辱、毁誉、成败、得失，莫不根源于一个“变”字。孙悟空有八九七十二种变化，梁启超则有九九八十一种变化，当别人趋于保守了，他还在激进；当别人开始退步了，他还在前行；当别人头脑僵化了，他仍旧活跃；当别人心态苍老了，他依然年轻。这就是他常变常新的好处。作为近、现代政界、文坛和杏林最具争议性的巨擘，梁启超在生活上，在政治上，在学问上，一生构成六大矛盾，他是一个典型的矛盾体，其通体附丽着异常驳杂的色彩，就像一个大大的调色盘。

[矛盾之一]：梁启超是“一夫一妻世界会”的发起人，却明里蓄妾。任公十七岁中举，深得正主考李端棻和副主考王仁堪的赏识，赞为国士无双，许为大器。李端棻觉得做房师不过瘾，他宁愿自降一级辈分，去做梁启超的内兄，结下这门亲戚。他请王仁堪执柯作伐，将堂妹李蕙仙许配给梁启超。任公的父亲梁莲涧乃拘谨乡儒，以寒素之家齐大非偶为词，表示不敢高攀。李端棻便让人转告梁莲涧：“我固知启超寒士，但此子终非池中物，飞黄腾达，直指顾间。我只管物色人才，勿以贫富介介。且我知我女弟固深明大义者，故敢为之主婚。毋却也！”这桩婚事倒有点像是剃头挑子一头热。李端棻学行渊雅，性情笃厚，他赞成变法维新，戊戌政变后，他赠予梁启超赤金二百两，助这位内弟在日本横滨创办《清议报》，因此受累，丢掉乌纱帽，流放新疆。李蕙仙比梁启超大几岁，贵小姐下嫁穷书生，她能处丰，亦能处约，持家有方，只是阃威太严，任公敬她让她，也有些怕她，惧内之名一度与胡适相埒。冯自由在《革命逸史》中有一节专门写到“梁任公之情史”，认定梁启超的婚姻并不美满：“李女貌陋而嗜嚼槟榔。启超翩翩少年，风流自赏，对之颇怀缺憾，然恃妇兄为仕途津梁，遂亦安之。”1899年冬，梁启超从日本乘船去美国檀香山，应华侨保皇会之邀，前往演讲，妙龄女郎何蕙珍临时充当译员。何女士是当地的小学教员，不仅身材窈窕，容颜妩媚，而且具有一般女子所不具备的才华智识。彼此交往之后，梁启超为之倾倒，于是梁郎赠小像，何女馈小扇，两情暗洽。然而待到梁启超露出求婚之意，何蕙珍却以任公使君有妇，文明国不许重婚为由，婉言拒绝。任公情怀缱绻，难以自持，于是舒吐为诗，共计二十首，发表在《清议报》上。以下所录的是其中三首：

    目如流电口如河，睥睨时流振法螺。

    不论才华论胆力，须眉队里已无多。

     眼中既已无男子，独有青睐到小生。

     如此深恩安可负，当筵我几欲卿卿。

     匈奴未灭敢家为，百里行犹九十赊。

     怕有旁人说长短，风云气尽爱春华。

    何蕙珍性情刚烈，不肯屈为姬妾，这是一场无望的情事，梁启超怕遭物议，只好撒手。但他还是被康（有为）老师斥责为“荒淫无道”。梁启超怅然返回东瀛，心思一转，他决意做一回月老，将何蕙珍介绍给中年丧偶的同门师弟麦孟华，以免肥水流入外人田。但何蕙珍以恪守独身主义终生不嫁为由，婉言谢绝，实则她深心里爱慕任公，只可惜两人有缘无分。浪漫情怀与现实处境相冲突，胡适每每选择逃避，回到江东狮吼的妻子江冬秀的身边，威莲司和曹成英惟有黯然神伤；梁任公则是一味进取，终被不肯苟且委屈的何蕙珍拒之千里，好在他另有想头，回到夫人李蕙仙身边，还有一位陪房丫头王桂荃侍候他，聊慰其落寞情怀。李蕙仙为他生思顺、思成、思庄一男二女，王桂荃则为他生思永、思忠、思达、思懿、思宁、思礼四男二女，梁家人丁兴旺，倚赖王氏为多。梁启超是“一夫一妻世界会”的发起人，到头来，却改变初衷，安享齐人之福。梁启超颇能取巧，妻只一人，妾可忽略不计，如此一来就算是遵守游戏规则了，这一矛盾显然暴露出他感情丰富、意志薄弱的一面，他曾经振振有词，自称“风云气多，儿女情少”，实在难以服众。

[矛盾之二]：梁启超提倡科学精神，却又喜欢谈玄扶乩。当年，严复翻译《天演论》，梁启超为之润饰十分之六、七，但他的兴趣是散漫的，除了玩味佛老之学，他还一度对扶乩这样的迷信课目颇为上瘾。乙未（1896年）晋京前，梁启超与同门师兄弟扶乩问休咎，乩仙下凡，在沙盘上出示律诗二首：

        蛾眉谣诼古来悲，雁殡衡沙远别离。

        三字冤沉名士狱，千秋泪洒党人碑。

        阮生负痛穷途哭，屈子怀忧故国思。

        芳草幽兰怨摇落，不堪重读楚骚辞。

        煮鹤焚琴事可哀，那堪回首望蒿莱。

        一篇鵩鸟才应尽，五字河梁气暗催。

        绝域不逢苏武驾，悲歌愁上李陵台。

        男儿一死何当惜，抚剑纵横志未灰。

    这两首诗若果真是乩仙所作，那么他（她）对戊戌党人的命运预言之准确灵验，则确实令人惊诧莫名，可是梁启超于戊戌政变后才向外界出示这两首诗，就难免被人怀疑为他故意杜撰陈迹，用于宣传。

[矛盾之三]：梁启超想做学问家，却又想做通人。他记诵力极强，求知欲极炽，对各类学术皆有研究的兴会，贪多务得，追求速成，缺乏恒心，三者是其治学的大病。梁启超颇有自知之明，他为长女梁思顺的《艺蘅馆日记》题诗，便对自己的痼疾痛下手术刀： “吾学病爱博，是用浅且芜。尤病在无恒，有获旋失诸。百凡可效我，此二无我如。”梁启超肯教女儿以父为训，勿蹈故辙，可见他并不是讳疾忌医的人。

    梁启超的笔端常带感情，颇能动人，但丘壑不够，文气太盛，缺乏令人百读不厌的回味。他名心重，耐不住寂寞，好与后辈争强斗胜，兴趣容易转移，时不时要与胡适等人竞赛一番，最终就成了一个无所不通的大“字纸篓”，缺乏专业方面的精深造诣。魏铁三曾集古人诗句为楹帖赞道任公博学：“腹中贮书一万卷（刘长卿诗），海上看羊十九年（黄庭坚诗）。”任公五十华诞，名士罗瘿公撰写的贺寿联为：“每为天下非常事，已少人间未见书。”下联同样是赞其腹笥之丰富，一时无几。

    有一次，上海美专校长刘海粟问梁启超：“你为什么知道的东西那样多？”任公想了一想，恳切地回答道：“这不是什么长处，你不要羡慕。我有两句诗：‘吾学病爱博，用是浅且芜。’一个渔人同时撒一百张网，不可能捉到大鱼。治学要深厚。你应该尽一切力量办好美专，造成一批人才；此外还要抽出精力作画。基础好，天分好都不够，还要业精于勤。以上两件事要毕生精力以赴，不能把治学的摊子摆得太大。盖生命有限，知识无穷。‘才成于专而毁于杂’，一事办好，已属难得；力气分散，则势必一事无成。”任公能讲这番话，说明他对自己的缺点是洞若观火的，只是不能改，如名医无法治己病。他一生勤勉不倦，“平昔眼中无书，手中无笔之日亦绝少”，共计留下一千四百多万字的精神遗产，真正著作等身，若单论其宏富，中国近代作家无人能出其右。然而至今仍被众人提及的仅有《新民说》、《王安石传》、《李鸿章传》、《戴东原哲学》等急就章，其学术方面的成果竟不大被同时代学者和后代学者认可，折腾来折腾去，始终都只是个空头学问家，这不能不说是梁启超的悲哀。早在上个世纪二十年代初，东南大学即有学者批评梁启超所著的《先秦政治思想史》“完全背离客观的学者态度”，还批评他“治学感情有余而理智不足，在精神上莫衷一是”。撇开学者之间的意气之争且不说，这都是梁启超博而不精的缺点惹的祸。

    南京宝华山慧居寺的大莲和尚（此人做过袁世凯的秘书）曾当着黄伯易的面对其业师梁启超作了鞭辟入里的评论：“梁启超治学务博而不求精，泥于学古而忽于今用，服膺师训或改弦更张都不彻底，只依违两可之间，因此进退失据。梁启超单独搞政治总是捭阖不定，而且多疑善变，比乃师康长素真是自郐以下了！”这话虽然过头，但也一针见血。黄伯易将此酷评转告了梁启超，后者颇为动容，未加辩驳，足见他是心服口服的。

[矛盾之四]：保皇与排满虽为冰炭，不可同炉，却曾一度令梁启超踌躇不定。戊戌变法乃历史上不朽之名剧，以“黄匣”“朱谕”始，以“银刀”“碧血”终，这一点想必没人持反对意见。变法前的国家情形是，甲午中日海战，北洋海军折损殆尽，赔巨款，割台湾，朝野为之震恐，士民为之激愤。即便如此，满族统治者最恨最防的仍是汉人，而非洋毛子。大臣刚毅在满汉之间掘出一条鸿沟，曾傲狠扬言：“汉人强，满洲亡；汉人疲，满洲肥！”在他心目中，汉人只不过是毋须善待的“家奴”而已。“宁与友邦，不畀家奴”，这也是刚毅的高论。醇亲王奕劻更进一步，将汉人视为 “家贼”，他对外国使节说：“吾国之兵，用以防家贼而已！”康有为力主变法图强，清廷大臣居然有人一口咬定：“变法者，汉人之利也，而满人之害也。”当时满汉之间的民族对立由此可见一斑。梁启超从小受到祖父的影响，华夷之辨谨记于心，感情上绝对是排满的，但理智告诉他，要改造国家，刷新政治，无论如何不应绕开决意变法的光绪皇帝，自上而下的变革仿佛高屋建瓴，易于收功。因此，其所谓保皇与排满的矛盾实为理智与情感的冲突。“六君子”喋血菜市口，光绪皇帝被幽禁于瀛台，变法宣告彻底失败，在梁启超心中和笔下，感情便占据了上风，排满遂成为主调。1905年，他发表《伸论种族革命与政治革命之得失》一文，言论之激烈无异于革命党：

……鄙人诚非有爱于满洲人也。……鄙人虽无似，一“多血多泪”之人也。每读《扬州十日记》、《嘉定屠城纪略》，未尝不热血溢涌！故数年前主张“排满论”，虽师友督责日至，曾不肯即自变其说。至今日而此种思想蟠结胸中，每当酒酣耳热，犹时或间发而不能自制。苟思有道焉，可以救国，而并可以复仇者，鄙人虽木石，宁能无歆焉！

    近代著名翻译家严复抱有根深蒂固的保皇思想，他曾慨叹：“梁氏实为亡清代二百六十年社稷之人！”这话即有感于梁启超的排满言论笔锋锐利，启发深到，影响广远。康有为终身保皇，表面看去，其节操坚如磐石，但观其实质，保皇只不过是他的幌子，他用这个名目在海外募捐敛财，中饱私囊，极为可鄙，他参演张勋复辟的丑剧，更可见其老眼昏花。梁启超保皇只是一幕戊戌前后的短剧，他很快就站到了排满的民族革命立场上去，与革命党的观点相暗合。张勋复辟，他助段祺瑞马厂誓师，扫清妖氛；袁世凯登基，他助蔡锷云南起义，护全国本。从保皇到排满，从排满到维护共和，梁启超的进步是显著的，康有为骂他为“枭獍”，骂他为“梁贼启超”，适足以说明老师之昏聩，徒弟之清醒。

[矛盾之五]：希腊哲人亚里斯多德尝言：“吾爱吾师，吾尤爱真理。”梁启超早年敬重康有为，惟其马首是瞻，中年却反对康有为，斥之为“大言不惭之书生”，差一点被逐出师门。究其实，梁启超尊师自有其道，那就是当仁不让。

    梁启超十七岁时与同学陈千秋慕名拜访康有为，听其高谈阔论，一旦尽失故垒，梁举人竟屈尊做了康监生的弟子，他打从心底里服膺康有为变易旧法，改良国家的信心蹈略。他对今文经学、对孔子改制、对虚无缥缈的大同世界则未必很感兴趣。现代学人、梁启超的得意弟子周传儒在《回忆梁启超先生》一文中谈到这一点：“梁重墨学，不讲六经，说明梁与康有为名义上是师生，而在学术上没有追随康氏。康有为讲今文经学，重《公羊传》；梁喜《左传》，平时不大讲三世说，也不谈《新学伪经考》、《孔子改制考》，据此可见，梁任公与康有为思想有差异。”在行动方面，康氏极迂缓极粗疏，无论是发起公车上书，还是创办强学会、保国会，都很潦草，卒无所成。梁启超则极敏速极强干，做《时务报》的主笔，则《时务报》风行全国；做时务学堂的中文总教习，则时务学堂培养出大批爱国人才；在日本办《新民丛报》，则《新民丛报》深受留学生喜爱；作为高参，倒张（勋）倒袁（世凯），无不克捷；他晚年退出政治漩涡，任教于清华国学研究院，乐育英才，同样成就卓著。他越活越精彩，康有为则是每况愈下，老境颓唐，实则由于他们的思想、个性、行事风格和处世方式迥异而形成巨大差别。一句话，梁启超与时俱进，康有为则抱残守缺，有人轻诋梁启超操守不坚，便是看不惯他的善变，有时他会变得让那些自以为最熟悉他的人也看不懂。起初，康有为以爱国救国为职志，胆魄极大，信心极大，目标极大，梁启超敬他是黑暗世界的火炬，是盲哑国中的先知，敬他智勇超凡，可是后来时易世变，业已证明在旧政体内部维新改良此路不通，康有为却还要保皇，还想复辟，还去为弱智的溥仪凑热闹，梁启超对康老师的这些表演剧目很难佩服，他们之间已经不复存在任何契合点。梁启超反康甚至骂康，师徒反目实为必然。事实证明，那些终身追随康有为的保皇顽部——万木草堂的旧弟子，一条路埋头走到黑，完全浪费了生命，也没有给历史留下多少有价值的东西。孰智孰愚？凡是有头脑的人应该可以作出正确的判断。

    康有为性情偏执，惟我独尊，门人弟子谁若拂逆他的意愿，他就火冒三丈。1913年，梁启超应袁世凯之邀，出任北京政府司法部长，康有为向这位大弟子请托太多，又是要钱，又是荐人，梁启超不胜其烦，倒也耐烦，但无论怎样都做不到事事尽如其意，于是康有为大动肝火。梁启超向他赔罪道歉，叩下头去，康有为也不还礼，也不搭理，摆明了不给任公下步的台阶。这样一来，梁启超脾气再好，心中也难免会起反感。师徒之间的感情趋于冷淡，乃是冰冻三尺，非一日之寒，原因多而复杂。

    1926年，康有为去世，梁启超尽弃前嫌，亲自主持康老师的大型追悼会，还撰写了至为感人的祭文，对康有为的历史贡献和学术成就作出了充分的肯定。这说明，任公秉性并不凉薄，他对康有为的态度之所以前后矛盾，更多的是出于彼此政见上的歧异，他若阳奉阴违，那才是小人儒，而他要做的始终是堂堂正正的君子儒。

[矛盾之六]：有定则无定见无定行。梁启超的定则是爱国之心、立宪之志和新民之道，在此定则之下，其见解、行动则是不断流变的，维新——保皇——君主立宪——护法——民主共和，仿佛三级跳远，助跑之后，他就必然会有一连串的腾挪。他在《自由书· 善变之豪杰〉一文中写道：“君子之过也，如日月之食焉，人皆见之，及其更也，人皆仰之。大丈夫行事磊磊落落，行吾心之所志，必求至而后已焉。若夫其方法随时与境而变，又随吾脑识之发达而变，百变不离其宗，斯变而非变矣。”梁启超的多变既表明他能从善如流，也表明他有改过之勇，与“变节”是完全不同的两码事。现代作家郑振铎在《梁任公先生》一文中对梁启超的多变表示了深深的理解：“他之所以‘屡变’者，无不有他的最坚固的理由，最透彻的见解，最不得已的苦衷。他如顽执不变，便早已落伍了，退化了，与一切的遗老遗少同科了；他如不变，则他对于中国的贡献与劳绩也许要等于零了。他的最伟大处，最足以表明他的光明磊落的人格处，便是他的‘善变’，他的‘屡变’。”

    “五·四”时期，梁启超在俱乐部大讲欧洲的社会主义，被李大钊斥之为“安福俱乐部社会主义”，讲归讲，他心中并不认为中国是社会主义的合适土壤，他在《晨报》上发表文章，与陈独秀、李大钊持完全相反的论调：“布尔什维克何妨客气一些，先让资本家来掌握政权，大办实业，给中国三亿工农带来温饱。这样对工农既有好处，工农吃饱穿暖，中国也能富强……若一味争取政权，反而把工农害了。”陈、李二人自然不会与他打这种商量，结果是一番劈头盖脑的痛击。梁启超度量大，兴趣广，这个话题腻了，便会另选一个话题，往往是他率先挑起论争，却又第一个撤退。他曾对日本、英国文化赞不绝口，并且认定：“中国经一次外化，就有一次进步。”但他在东南大学讲学期间，却对输入美国文化不表赞同，讽刺其为“雕花饭桶”。孟禄博士呼吁用美国学制来取代中国学制，梁启超不以为然，他指着餐桌上的饭桶对学生黄伯易等人说：“这是一个饭桶，它只是一个装饭的饭桶！凭你把这饭桶雕花塑彩甚至把它描金也不会改变饭的质量。但中国之大，主张‘美食不如美器’的人不在少数，让他们去欣赏他们的饭桶艺术吧！”这话够幽默，但不无乖谬，还很伤人。

    梁启超有定则无定见无定行这一点，外人难以理解，多有责难，他曾对学生李任夫等人作过自辩：“我自己常说，‘不惜以今日之我去反对昔日之我’，政治上如此，学问上也是如此。但我是有中心思想和一贯主张的，决不是望风转舵、随风而靡的投机者。例如我是康南海先生的信徒，在很长时间里，还是他得力的助手，这是大家知道的。后来我又反对他，和他分手，这也是大家知道的。再如我和孙中山，中间曾有过一段合作，但以后又分道扬镳，互相论战，这也是尽人皆知的。至于袁世凯，一个时候，我确是寄以期望的，后来我坚决反对他，要打倒他，这更是昭昭在人耳目了。我为什么和康南海先生分开？为什么与孙中山合作又对立？为什么拥袁又反袁？这决不是什么意气之争，或夺权夺利的问题，而是我的中心思想和一贯主张决定的。我的中心思想是什么呢？就是爱国。我的一贯主张是什么呢？就是救国。我一生的政治活动，其出发点和归宿点，都是要贯彻我爱国救国的思想与主张，没有什么个人打算。例如在清朝末季，在甲午战争以后，国家已是危如累卵，随时有瓜分豆剖之忧。以当时的形势来说，只能希望清朝来一个自上而下的彻底改革。康先生的主张是对的，我以为是有前途的，不幸成了历史悲剧。可是后来情况变化了，清朝既倒，民国建立，已经成了定局，而康先生主观武断，抱着老皇历不放，明知此路不通，他还要一意孤行到底，这是不识时务。为了救国，我不能不和他分开。至于孙中山，他是主张暴力革命的，而我是稳健派，我是主张脚踏实地走的。我认为中国与法国、俄国的情况不同，所以我不主张暴力革命，而主张立宪改良，走日本维新的路，较为万全。我并不是没有革命思想，但在方法上有所不同而已。对于袁世凯之为人，因为他当时有相当力量基础，我拥护他是想利用他的地位来实行我的主张。孰知他后来倒行逆施，甘冒天下之大不韪，成为国贼。为了国家的前途，我当然与他势不两立，与他决一死战。回想我和蔡松坡发动讨袁时，我们约定，事如不济，以死殉国；事如成功，决不做官。我开始拥袁，是为了国家，以后反袁，也是为了国家。我是一个热烈的爱国主义者，即说我是国家至上主义者，我也承认。顾亭林说得好：天下兴亡，匹夫有责。假如国之不存，还谈什么主义、主张呢！还谈什么国体、政体呢？总之知我罪我，让天下后世批评，我梁启超就是这样一个人而已。”

三、在袁世凯那儿多交了一笔学费

    孙中山、黄兴、蔡锷等人对袁世凯都有一个交学费的认知过程，拥袁——反袁——倒袁三部曲，一个环节都不少。梁启超亲身经历过戊戌政变，由于袁世凯的叛卖， “六君子”喋血，变法失败，梁启超已交过一次高昂的学费，怎么还会认为袁世凯是扭转中国国运的可靠力量？他居然留级，把学费再交一次，这确实是一个不容易解答的问题。袁氏有一“私”字横亘于胸，欲移中国为其私产，可谓司马昭之心，路人皆知，竟然能够迷惑梁启超，诱他出任袁氏政权的司法总长，可见梁氏确实只是迂阔的书生，而不是睿智的政治家。

    周善培在《谈梁任公》一文中揭示了此中的隐秘：当年（1912年），他听说袁世凯召梁启超去北京，便与赵熙乘船去横滨，劝梁启超慎重其事。周善培说：“对德宗（光绪皇帝）是不该去，对袁世凯是不能去。”梁启超被劝不过，于是吐露真言：他并不想去北京，但康有为催促他尽快成行，他不能违拗恩师的意愿。其实还有一点，毋庸讳言，梁启超从事纸面政治已经十多年，登上政坛，真正有所作为，这是头一遭，诱惑确实太大了，他无力抵御。梁启超当了一、两年的司法总长，眼看袁氏的专制独裁日甚一日，不但不听他的话，而且不大敷衍他，便辞了职。 1915年，筹安会成立，袁世凯意欲称帝的阴谋露出冰山一角，梁启超洞烛其奸，即在天津发表《异哉所谓国体问题者》，斥骂“筹安会”诸公，大戳袁世凯的痛处。文章刚刚脱稿，便有人向袁世凯告密。袁世凯惊慌之余，软硬兼施，他派杨度送上二十万元银票，为梁启超的父亲祝寿，请梁启超销毁成文，否则后果莫测。二十万块银洋是一笔巨款，这张银票则堪称试金石，梁启超是不是真正的爱国者，一试即知。结果是，梁启超拒收银票，发出文章，揭露袁世凯改共和国为君主国，其真实意图是要走家天下的专制老路。登载此文的报纸不胫而走，国人因而醒悟。没错，梁启超多交了一笔学费，笨是笨了一点，但关键时刻他并不弱智，更没有利令智昏，他不仅撰文反对袁世凯，还极力赞成弟子蔡锷潜赴云南，高揭护国之旗。这就不奇怪了，政论宿敌章太炎也由衷称赞梁启超：“共和再造赖斯人。”

四、死于西医之手

    1929年1月19日，由于尿血症，一枚好肾被误割，梁启超病逝于北京协和医院，丧命于西医之手，仅止于中寿（57虚岁）。这一医疗事故曾引起社会的质疑和公愤。有趣的是，梁启超一生笃信西医，认为西医远比中医更科学更济用，及至好肾被误割，他仍主动为西医说话，为协和医院寻找开脱之词。这样大度为怀的好病人真是举世少见。

    拣择当时的挽联，以蔡（元培）、陈（少白）二公的联语最称允当，蔡联是：“保障共和，应与松坡同不朽；宣传欧化，不因南海让当仁。”陈联是：“五就岂徒然，公论定当怜此志；万言可立待，天才端不为常师。”

    梁启超有一句名言传播极广，那就是：“战士死于沙场，学者死于讲座。”他是病死的，也是累死的，去世前他还在落力编写《辛稼轩年谱》。他一生饱经忧患，却是一个不折不扣的快乐的人，他有责任心，也有兴味，所以他活得丰富，也活得精彩，在这两方面，近代政治家和学者中都罕有比并者。

    “人间已无梁任公”，他是特异的，也是惟一的。