耿幼壮 中国人民大学
Geng, Youzhuang, Renmin University of China
原文Original
谢阁兰、博尔赫斯、福柯
现在，谢阁兰（Victor Segalen，1878—1919）作为一位汉学家的历史地位已经无可动摇，也无需置疑。不过，翻阅谢阁兰的著作，我们会发现一个极为有趣的现象：在那里，严谨翔实的实地考证和灵动飘逸的异邦想象竟然完美地融合在一起。确实，谢阁兰的著作常常难以分类。《中国西部考古记》介乎于游记和考古著作之间；《古今碑录》（Ste1es，1912）是基于实录和想象之上的诗歌创作；《画》（Paintings，1916）集画评、画论和中国历史与政治分析于一体；《勒内·莱斯》（Rene Leys，1922）将自传和虚构混杂在一起；即使那本未完成的《论异国情调》（Essay on Exoticism: An Aesthetics of Diversity）也是如此，虽然有着一个中规中矩的论文标题，却很难算是严格意义上的学术论文。
近年来，谢阁兰“再度”被重新发现。今天，谢阁兰的身份已经不仅是一位探险家，旅行者，外交官和汉学家，而且被认为是一位伟大的诗人。关于这个问题，一个经常为人所援引，可以说是津津乐道的说法是，博尔赫斯（Jorge Luis Borges）去世前不久曾谈道：一提到诗歌，法国人总是谈论瓦雷里（Paul Valery），乃至夏尔·佩吉（Charles Peguy），却忘了谢阁兰。难道他们不知道，谢阁兰是我们时代最睿智的作家之一，而且可能是唯一一位能够将东西方美学和哲学融合为一的作家。有的时候，比如在《画》一书的英文版前言中，我们甚至还会看到对于这段论述的绘声绘色的直接援引。问题不在于这个评价是否恰当，而在于后来人们发现，翻遍博尔赫斯的文稿，在哪里也找不到他说的这段话。
如果博尔赫斯并没有说过这样的话，谢阁兰作为诗人的历史地位仍然稳固吗？当然没有问题。那么，作为历史学家和哲学家的福柯（Michel Foucault）呢？许多人都知道，在令福柯声名鹊起的那部《词与物》中，福柯通过对于博尔赫斯的引证，提到了一部充满了奇异想象的中国百科全书，并声称《词与物》就诞生于其阅读那个段落时发出的笑声。下面的问题是：博尔赫斯说过这话吗？这回是真的。关于某一中国百科全书的话出在博尔赫斯的一篇文章（《约翰·威金斯的分析语言》，The Analytical Language of John Wilkins）中。其中，博尔赫斯提到了“由弗兰茨·库恩归之于一部标题为《中国百科全书》”的著作。不过，在德国汉学家和翻译家的库恩（Franz Kuhn）那里，还是找不到关于这一部中国百科全书的文字。所以，这部中国百科全书可能还是出自文学家博尔赫斯的想象。
如果关于中国百科全书的描述完全出自想象和虚构，福柯的历史-哲学著作的基础还可靠吗？我们知道，福柯本人在《词与物》中用了一个很大的段落描述中国和中国文化。如果仔细辨析，福柯关于中国的认识也充满了异邦想象的成分。不过，不同于大部分西方思想家，福柯并不为自己对于中国或东方的“不真实”认识而感到什么不妥或不安。因为，福柯清楚地意识到并试图明确表明，他、博尔赫斯、或者其他西方人的中国本身就是这样一种构成——即真实存在与虚幻存在的一种结合或统一。
对于福柯来说，那种可能不那么真实的东西才是真正的[思想]历史产物。因为，不可能的并不是传说中的、种种不可思议的存在物，因为它们就是思想的产物，就是历史的构成。相反，不可能的是我们对它们的所谓真实的认识，即所谓客观的，或者基于历史事实之上的认识。历史当然存在，但历史告诉我们的，重要的不是它们是否真的存在，重要的是它们如何成为真实的存在。这就是我们的历史先验性，这就是我们的思想和我们的存在所无法逃离的限度。对于汉学来说，可能也是如此。
译文Translation
Victor Segalen, Jorge Luis Borges and Michel Foucault
Victor Segalen (1878-1919) is highly regarded as a sinologist, and his historical position in the study of sinology seems to be unquestionable. Reading Segalen’s works, however, we find one very interesting phenomenon: in those writings, the precise, detailed and accurate records of his archaeological field work are perfectly integrated with his refreshing and graceful imagination of the exotic lands. Indeed, Segalen’s writings are hard to classify into defined categories. His A Record of Archaeological Search in the Western Regions of China: Investigating the Tuhuoluo Language can be read either as travel notes or as an archaeological work. Steles (1912) is a collection of poems based on his field work and imagination. Paintings (1916) integrates his critiques of paintings and his analysis of Chinese history and politics. Rene Leys (1922) mixes autobiography and fictional stories. Even his unfinished piece, Essay on Exoticism: An Aesthetics of Diversity, cannot be counted as an academic essay in a strict sense although it has a serious essay title.
In recent years, Victor Segalen has been “rediscovered”. Today, Segalen is regarded as an adventurer, a traveler, a diplomat and a sinologist. He is also regarded as a great poet. People like to cite some anecdotes concerning this identity as a poet. The most common one relates to Jorge Luis Borges. It was said that before Borges passed away, he complained that when French people discussed poetry, they always liked to refer to Paul Valery or Charles Peguy, but they tended to forget Victor Segalen. Borges even wondered, “Did not they know that Segalen is one of the smartest writers in our time and maybe the only one who can integrate eastern and western aesthetics and philosophy together?” Sometimes, for instance in the “Preface” to the English version of Segalen’s book Paintings, we can still see a vivid depiction of this anecdote. The problem is not one of whether Borges’ comment on Segalen is appropriate, but of the fact people cannot find evidence in Borges’ writings that he made such a comment.
If Borges had never made this comment, would Segalen’s identity as a poet still be solid? I do not think this is a problem. How much do we know about Michel Foucault as a historian and philosopher? Many people know that in Les Mots et les choses, the book that set the foundation for his great fame, Foucault referred to Borges, who mentioned a Chinese Encyclopedia that is full of strange and exotic imaginings, and Foucault claimed that his book Les Mots et les choses emerged from the laughter when reading that paragraph. The question is: Did Borges ever say these words? In this case, yes. This paragraph about the Chinese Encyclopedia came from Borges’ article “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins”, in which Borges said, “Franz Kuhn mentioned a book called Chinese Encyclopedia.” However, we still cannot find the so-called Chinese Encyclopedia in Franz Kuhn’s writings. Therefore, this Chinese Encyclopedia may come out of Borges literary imagination.
If we know that this Chinese Encyclopedia is a sheer fiction, can the foundation of Foucault’s historical-philosophical works still be reliable? We know that Foucault himself used a long paragraph to talk about China and Chinese Culture in Les Mots et les choses. If we read it carefully, we can tell that Foucault’s understanding of China is also filled with imaginings of an exotic and alien country. Unlike many other western thinkers, Foucault did not feel uneasy with his “un-genuine” understanding of China or the East. This was because Foucault clearly realized and tried to show with a clear intention that the China depicted by Foucault, Borges or any other westerner is such kind of formation, a unity or integration of genuine existence and fictional existence.
For Foucault, being or existence that might be not very true or genuine may be the true or genuine historical product (thoughts). Legendary or unimaginable beings are not impossible, because they are the products of thinking, and the formation of history. On the contrary, what is impossible is to have what is called a genuine or true understanding of being, or the so-called objective being, the understanding based on historical facts. History does exist, but history tells us that what is most important is not whether something truly existed or not, but rather how an existence came to be real. This is our historical a priori, which sets the limits our thoughts and our existence, cannot go beyond. The same might be true with sinology.