关于老舍之死，许多人大概和我一样，所有的概念差不多都来自教科书：“文革”初期，老舍因被迫害自沉于太平湖；私下未必不曾认同草明所说的，那个年代“自杀的好多，不过是他有名气”。但读完这本《老舍之死口述实录》，我想我不会再轻意看待“非正常死亡”，即便当它仅作为一个印刷体的词组存在。
Regarding the death of Lao She, many people probably have the same concept as I do, mostly derived from textbooks: "At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, Lao She drowned himself in Taiping Lake due to persecution"; privately, one might not disagree with Cao Ming's statement that "many people committed suicide in that era, but he was famous." However, after reading this "Oral Record of Lao She's Death," I think I will no longer take "unnatural death" lightly, even if it only exists as a printed phrase.

 

这本由傅光明夫妇花费十余年时间走访事件亲历者采写成的书，疑团迭出，扑朔迷离。请原谅我用了描述侦探小说的词汇，傅光明也曾用《罗生门》来形容它。受访人多数要求对采访记录进行删改，还有人不愿公布真实姓名，有的口述者互相指斥扯谎，还有人在读完别人的访谈后，气愤得要将其告上法庭。舒乙说：“个人有个人的立场，个人有个人的动机。”他是老舍先生的儿子。
This book, written by Fu Guangming and his wife after spending more than ten years visiting the witnesses of the events, is full of mysteries and complexities. Please forgive me for using terms that describe detective novels; Fu Guangming also used "Rashomon" to describe it. Most of the interviewees requested edits to their interview records, some were unwilling to reveal their real names, some accused each other of lying, and some were so angry after reading others' interviews that they wanted to take them to court. Shu Yi said, "Everyone has their own stance, everyone has their own motives." He is the son of Mr. Lao She.

 

从大多数当事人的口述来看，老舍之死似乎并不是蓄意的。简单经过是这样：1966年8月23日，老舍到了文联，造反派要斗萧军，萧不服。有人打电话叫来女八中的红卫兵。随后接到孔庙那边的电话，说搜出来许多旧戏装，红卫兵要破“四旧”，烧戏装，让这边揪出来的文人到那边去接受批斗。红卫兵把包括老舍、端木蕻良、荀慧生、萧军等一批人弄上卡车，拉到孔庙。老舍在孔庙被打伤，有人善意要“保护”，将他提前送回文联，结果又“意外”遭批斗、挨打。老舍举起身上的牌子，碰到了红卫兵。为防老舍被打死，又有人以拘留“反动派”为由将他“保护”到派出所。晚上被夫人接回家。第二天离家出走。尸体在太平湖被发现。
From the oral accounts of most of the parties involved, Lao She's death does not seem to have been premeditated. The brief account is as follows: On August 23, 1966, Lao She went to the Writers' Association. The rebels wanted to struggle against Xiao Jun, but Xiao refused. Someone called the Red Guards from the Eighth Girls' School. Then a call came from the Confucius Temple, saying that many old costumes had been found, and the Red Guards wanted to destroy the "Four Olds" and burn the costumes, and they wanted the literati who had been captured to go there for criticism and struggle. The Red Guards put Lao She, Duanmu Hongliang, Xun Huisheng, Xiao Jun, and others on a truck and took them to the Confucius Temple. Lao She was injured at the Confucius Temple, and someone kindly wanted to "protect" him by sending him back to the Writers' Association early, but he was "unexpectedly" criticized and beaten again. Lao She raised the sign on his body and accidentally hit a Red Guard. To prevent Lao She from being beaten to death, someone "protected" him by taking him to the police station under the pretext of detaining a "reactionary." He was taken home by his wife that night. The next day, he left home and his body was found in Taiping Lake.

 

但出人意料的是，几乎每一位亲历者提供的证据都牵扯出更为纷繁的疑团：是谁打电话叫来的女八中学生？老舍是有意用牌子砸人还是无意碰到红卫兵的？谁是主要负责人？前一个问题无人承认，互相推诿；第二个问题众口异词，无从确定；后一个问题据杨沫、浩然指证，揭发出了一个当事者，但他矢口否认，只差说自己比窦娥还冤。面对如此情形，本书采写者都忍不住在后记中表露出这样的怀疑：“历史与文学合二为一的结果，便是遗留下这样的一个难解之谜：何以老舍会在这么多的同情与保护之下死去？”没有人愿意为历史负责，或许也没有人能够负得起。一位我敬重的老师说：所谓时代，就是所有人的“共业”。谁能担负得起我们时代的“共业”？
But surprisingly, almost every witness's evidence led to more complex mysteries: Who called the students from the Eighth Girls' School? Did Lao She intentionally hit someone with the sign or accidentally bump into the Red Guard? Who was the main person responsible? No one admitted to the first question, passing the buck to each other; the second question had conflicting answers and could not be determined; the third question, according to Yang Mo and Haoran, pointed to a participant, but he vehemently denied it, almost claiming he was more wronged than Dou E. Faced with such a situation, the authors of this book couldn't help but express their doubts in the postscript: "The result of combining history and literature is leaving such an unsolvable mystery: How did Lao She die under so much sympathy and protection?" No one is willing to take responsibility for history, and perhaps no one can. A respected teacher of mine said: The so-called era is the "collective karma" of everyone. Who can bear the "collective karma" of our era?

 

敏感问题无法解答，那么事件细节终归应该清楚吧，但采访的结果仍是出人意料。单说是谁捞起老舍的尸体，先后冒出三个声称打捞起老舍尸体的人，描述互相抵牾：“大片大片青紫色的淤血，遍体鳞伤”；“没发现血迹，身上没有伤，衣服是完整的，身体不浮肿”；“瞪着双眼不肯瞑目，我给老舍合上眼”。先生有没有遗物也说法不一，有说“孤零零，什么都没有”；有说“散落一些诗词的稿纸，还有两本书《燕山夜话》和《三家村札记》”；有说“带去《毛主席诗词》漂在水里”；还有说“一件黑色上衣，衣服上放着钱包、眼镜、一捆书、一张名片、一根手杖”。谈到细节问题，有口述者忠告采访者，“宜粗不宜细”，也有口述者强调说，正是这些细节的完整才能表明他的传述是真实的。然而每一个人都只可能从一个侧面给出几段不完整的细节——姑且相信他们都说了实话，历史终归无法还原，何况这件发生在两天内的事件，远不只十年之“功”。意识到这一点，编者索性采取了“实录”的形式。比起傅光明之前以口述史为构架的著作，本书更像《罗生门》的原著——芥川龙之介的小说《莽丛中》，仅是呈出每个人的“供辞”，不乞求作出结论，“哪怕所表现的仅仅是人性世界的一个侧面”即足矣。笔者好奇，如果能像《莽丛中》里般让老舍先生附身神巫发言自述，先生是否还会说“改我一字，男盗女娼”？
Sensitive questions cannot be answered, so the details of the event should be clear, but the interview results are still surprising. Just talking about who retrieved Lao She's body, three people claimed to have done it, with conflicting descriptions: "Large patches of purple bruises, covered in wounds"; "No bloodstains found, no injuries on the body, clothes were intact, body not swollen"; "Staring eyes that wouldn't close, I closed Lao She's eyes." There are also different accounts of whether he had any belongings: some said "nothing at all"; some said "scattered drafts of poems and two books, 'Yanshan Night Talks' and 'Three Family Village Notes'"; some said "he took 'Mao Zedong's Poems' which floated in the water"; others said "a black jacket with a wallet, glasses, a bundle of books, a business card, and a cane." When it comes to details, some interviewees advised the interviewer, "better to be vague than detailed," while others emphasized that the completeness of these details proves the truth of their accounts. However, each person could only provide a few incomplete details from one perspective—assuming they all told the truth, history ultimately cannot be restored, especially for an event that happened over two days, not just ten years. Realizing this, the editors simply adopted a "documentary" style. Compared to Fu Guangming's previous works based on oral history, this book is more like the original "Rashomon"—Ryunosuke Akutagawa's novel "In a Grove," merely presenting each person's "testimony" without seeking to draw conclusions, "even if it only shows one side of the human world." The author is curious, if Lao She could speak through a medium like in "In a Grove," would he still say, "Change one word of mine, and you are a thief and a whore"?

 

就在近日，由《龙须沟》改编的同名电视剧在北京首播。把它推上屏幕的人说，“作为一个文艺工作者有责任把这部戏搬上荧屏”。据胡絜青口述，“文革”开始不久老舍曾说，“没有我，我也要参加，完了之后，我知道‘文化大革命’怎么回事，我好写”。老舍大概也想过将来把“文革”搬上荧屏，却未料到自己以生命为代价参演了这部未能写出的大戏。
Recently, the TV series adapted from "Dragon Beard Ditch" premiered in Beijing. The person who brought it to the screen said, "As a literary worker, it is my responsibility to bring this play to the screen." According to Hu Jieqing's oral account, shortly after the start of the "Cultural Revolution," Lao She said, "Even without me, I want to participate. After it's over, I will know what the 'Cultural Revolution' is about, so I can write about it." Lao She probably also thought about bringing the "Cultural Revolution" to the screen in the future, but he did not expect to participate in this unwritten drama at the cost of his life.

 

《科学时报》 (2009-7-30 B3 社科 视点)
Science Times (2009-7-30 B3 Social Sciences Viewpoint)