[转帖] 【2011普利策获奖作品书评】美国国父的另一面

showcraft

http://article.yeeyan.org/view/95021/190242
【2011普利策获奖作品书评】美国国父的另一面
WideBridge于2011-04-27 10:44:09翻译 | 已有1073人浏览 | 有2人评论



他自我培养非凡气度，在污浊的政治中出淤泥而不染，成为孤傲而能泰然面对命运的人物。他认为美国要在世界上受到尊敬并被效仿，必须在自由与秩序间找到平衡。这种深谋远虑渗进了他的每一项举措。

Tags:历史 | 美国 | 独立战争 | 华盛顿

  

当乔治·华盛顿的尸骨入土还未满月，马里兰州一位锐意进取的部长名叫梅森·洛克·威姆斯的，立马赶到费城游说一名出版商。“我有要事与你相告，”威姆斯在1800年1月这样写道。“你知道华盛顿已经仙逝。无数人都在期盼能读到些介绍他的文字。…
…
我已经拟好了计划！我来介绍他的历史，非常细实详尽的历史，展现这位绝代伟人如何依靠自己优良美德而飞黄腾达。”威姆斯确实有先知先觉。于是，他那本充满伤感、常常不乏虚构杜撰情节的传记立刻成了畅销书，它也是弄潮儿在那股似乎永无止境的华盛顿研究波涛中的第一次收获。
对美利坚合众国所作的贡献没有人能比华盛顿更辉煌：他带领大陆军在美国独立战争中从胜利走向胜利；他是美国历史上第一任总统；他依据1787年宪法勾勒的蓝图创建了合法政府。如今，介绍华盛顿生平的卷帙继续以惊人速度问世，难怪罗恩·切尔诺的作品刚一出版就立刻引来这样的疑问：为什么还有下一本？
答案显而易见，因为作者切尔诺不是等闲之辈。与他深受读者欢迎的约翰D·洛克菲勒与亚历山大·汉密尔顿传记如出一辙，他笔下的《华盛顿》虽然篇幅冗长，但人物刻画栩栩如生、节奏安排得当。如果有人认为切尔诺对历史背景的感知有时难免浮于浅表，但他对人物心理的把握却相当精到，描绘的众生相让人过目不忘。大多数读者在看完本书之后，依然感觉自己在与历史人物共度良宵。鉴于切尔诺先生卓越的文学才华，又鉴于美国人对华盛顿身世以及对他丰功伟绩孜孜不倦的渴求，出版商如何能抵御住诱惑不在自己的书单榜上再添一本《华盛顿：美国国父的另一面》？
恐怕更复杂的答案还在于想一想为什么我们依然在搜寻华盛顿的奇闻轶事。可以肯定的是，他的一生，如果没有浓缩，至少也反映了曾经出现过的那段令人难以想象的社会变迁：若干块英国殖民地合并为一个势力遍及密西西比河流域的共和国。然而，我甚至怀疑，切尔诺同他的大多数读者更感兴趣的也许不在于美利坚合众国之如何成其所以然，而在于乔治·华盛顿之如何成其所以然。他们在接受了我们合众国诞生的必然趋势之后，仍然困惑于此人的卓越与伟大。显然，与威姆斯相比，在这方面切尔诺更老道、更体察入微。然而，有一道令人熟悉的光环罩在他要为世人“撩开”华盛顿“非凡领导才能神秘面纱”的欲望之上。切尔诺娓娓道来，介绍了华盛顿如何形成那些“非凡美德”，诸如“准确的判断力、纯洁的品格、清正廉洁、坚定的爱国精神、毫不松懈的责任感与公民意识”等。不过，我们依然会纳闷他的成功秘诀是什么？

他那些同时代人，甚至那些曾深深迁怒于他的对手也承认，华盛顿似乎受到了上帝眷顾，或者是幸运之神的安排。要不然，又如何解释无数的子弹在他身体周围呼啸而过，而他却毫发未伤？还有，在法国和印第安战争以及独立战争硝烟弥漫的战场上，他为何能多次从灾难性的军事危机中脱身，重整旗鼓，而声誉却不降反升？在以往的两个世纪中，对于华盛顿的“飞黄腾达”，学者们一个比一个更详尽地翻炒那些平淡无奇的牵强附会。譬如，他如何通过天降馅饼式的继承和冷酷无情的投机，获取耕地数千英亩；他如何攀龙附凤迎娶腰缠万贯的寡妇玛莎·丹德里奇·卡斯蒂斯；他如何巴结势力庞大的费尔法克斯家族，让其成为自己早期重要的赞助人；他如何在18世纪英美共和制的语言习俗中冲锋陷阵，用肢体和激情赢得青睐；以及最近写到的，他如何巧妙地把个人野心隐匿于打造共和国的事业中去，等等，不一而足。
对于所有这些有关华盛顿生活的诠释，切尔诺并没有装聋作哑。不过，由于他经常陷入与传记对象产生过多共鸣的漩涡，因此其特殊贡献在于，他积极为华盛顿在造就自己成为伟人乔治·华盛顿的过程中所起关键作用寻找理由。

很少有人一生中能比华盛顿更自觉地致力于证明自己是名副其实的。回想起来，他似乎有很深的危机感，他对别人给自己的评价极度敏感，时常阴郁易怒，尤其是对那些质疑其意图的人，作为对自己性格的弥补，他认真研习礼数规章，模仿年长成功者的举手投足，学习年轻气盛者的忠诚不渝。在旁人看来，没有什么比质疑他不纯动机更有可能激发起他勃然大怒的了。
他与许多同龄人一样，竭力抵制出任公职，这样做好像只是为了证明自己没有野心。不过，当华盛顿于1789年4月30日当选为总统之后，他对如何在曼哈顿下城联邦大厅阳台上登场纠结了许久。他应该如何穿着？又该如何举手投足？明白了“在当前形势下，重中之重是先创建一个先例”之后，他要在展示自己公职与它所代表的共和国尊严的同时避免出现君主国王式的登基仪式。数月之前，他已打定好主意应该说点什么，这于是就开创了总统就职演说的先例。在他初期的发言草稿中（目前只有硕果仅存的片段），切尔诺写道，华盛顿“花了大量时间为自己赴任总统的决心辩护，就像在接受一场针对弥天大罪的指控”。
不过，这种强硬的一面很少浮现在公众面前。事实上，他不知疲倦地在自我培养一种非凡气度，让自己到达完美境界，在污浊的政治活动中出淤泥而不染，成为一个孤傲而能泰然面对命运挑战的人物。
然而，乔治·华盛顿绝对不是一个冷漠的观察者。他不仅拜万物为师，而且要以自己的目的去改造世界。在他整个的政治生涯中，他先是希望弗吉尼亚然后是合众国的绅士们不仅要把握好自己和自己的情绪，还要掌控好北美的人民和地理版图。托马斯·杰斐逊一生中许多时候都在蔑视权力，而华盛顿却设想着如何利用权力改善交通、倡导教育、发展商贸、建立联邦政府权威，并把多元而散漫的共和国统一成一个整体以形成更大的气势。他说，“美利坚”必须凌驾于任何地方势力之上。
美利坚合众国要想在世界上受到尊敬并被效仿，必须在自由与秩序之间找到平衡。这种令人叹为观止的深谋远虑实际上渗透进了华盛顿的每一项举措。他作出决定，要在妻子玛莎·华盛顿亡故之后恢复名下大部分非洲黑奴的自由，他的行为完全是出于这样一种信念，“只有彻底铲除奴隶制才能让我们的合众国与世长存，也只有在一条共同原则的纽带束缚下其地位才能得到巩固。”
对涉及到他所帮助创建的国家以及他自己的声誉，华盛顿十分在乎，因为他明智地意识到，声誉的提高只能通过密切关注别人的期待来实现。假如我们以为，他仅把自己作为一个普通人如何成功变身为民主楷模的案例来展现给世人，那就大错特错了。成为公众形象的那个华盛顿并不认为是自己创造了自己性格的核心部分。相反，他的崛起、他的思想意识只是证据，证明他是一个始终拥有出色天赋与完整人格的非凡之人。如果他还会纠结于后人对他的评价，那可能是因为他怀疑我们是否愿意承认他的伟大。我想至少在这点上，他多虑了。

showcraft

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/books/review/Cayton-t.html
Learning to Be Washington
By ANDREW CAYTON
Published: September 30, 2010
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

        
Reprints

Share
CloseLinkedinDiggMySpacePermalinkGeorge Washington’s corpse was scarcely a month in its grave when an enterprising minister from Maryland named Mason Locke Weems made a pitch to a Philadelphia publisher. “I’ve got something to whisper in your lug,” Weems wrote in January 1800. “Washington, you know is gone! Millions are gaping to read something about him. . . . My plan! I give his history, sufficiently minute” and “go on to show that his unparalleled rise & elevation were due to his Great Virtues.” Weems was on to something. His sentimental and often fictional biography became a best seller, the first in a seemingly endless stream of studies of the man who led the Continental Army to victory in the American War for Independence and who as the first president of the United States did more than anyone else to establish the legitimacy of a national government merely outlined in the Constitution of 1787. Today, books about Washington continue to appear at such an astonishing rate that the publication of Ron Chernow’s prompts the inevitable question: Why another one?

Enlarge This Image

Hulton Archive/Getty Images
An engraving of George Washington, circa 1790.

WASHINGTON

A Life

By Ron Chernow

Illustrated. 904 pp. The Penguin Press. $40

Related
Excerpt: ‘Washington’ (pdf)

Books of The Times: ‘Washington: A Life’ by Ron Chernow (September 28, 2010) An obvious answer is that Chernow is no ordinary writer. Like his popular biographies of John D. Rockefeller and Alexander Hamilton, his “Washington” while long, is vivid and well paced. If Chernow’s sense of historical context is sometimes superficial, his understanding of psychology is acute and his portraits of individuals memorable. Most readers will finish this book feeling as if they have actually spent time with human beings. Given Chernow’s considerable literary talent and the continued hunger of some Americans for a steady diet of tales of Washington and his exploits, what publisher could resist the prospect of adding “Washington: A Life” to its list?

A more complicated answer lies in considering why we still long for news of Washington. To be sure, his life reflected, if it didn’t epitomize, the once unimaginable transformation of several British colonies into an imperial Republic whose dominion extended to the Mississippi River. But Chernow and, I suspect, most of his readers are less interested in how the United States became the United States than in how George Washington became George Washington. Accepting the inevitability of our nation, they remain perplexed by the pre-eminence of this man. Chernow is far subtler and far more sophisticated than Weems. Yet there is a familiar ring to his desire to “elucidate the secrets” of Washington’s “uncanny ability to lead a nation” by detailing his acquisition of such “exemplary virtues” as “unerring judgment, sterling character, rectitude, steadfast patriotism, unflagging sense of duty and civic-mindedness.” What, we still wonder, was the secret of his success?

Contemporaries, even those rivals who deeply resented him, observed that Washington seemed to be blessed by Divine Providence — or just plain luck. How else to explain the many bullets that whizzed around but never into his body? Or his emergence from a string of catastrophic military disasters in the French and Indian War and the War for Independence with a reputation enhanced rather than ruined? Over the past two centuries, scholars have detailed more prosaic explanations of Washington’s “unparalleled rise & elevation,” including his acquisition of thousands of acres through fortuitous inheritance and relentless speculation; his marriage to the wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis; his connection with members of the powerful Fairfax family, who became important early patrons; his struggle to master his body and his passions within the language and conventions of 18th-century Anglo-American republicanism; and most recently, his creative conflation of his personal ambition with the cause of the Republic. Chernow acknowledges all these interpretations of Washington’s life. But because he tends to slide into the biographer’s quicksand of identifying too closely with his subject, his particular contribution is to argue for the critical role Washington himself played in becoming George Washington.

Few human beings have ever lived a life more self-consciously devoted to proving he merited his fame. In retrospect, Washington seems profoundly insecure. Given to dark moods and angry outbursts, especially at those who questioned his intentions, he compensated by studying rules of etiquette, mimicking successful older men, cultivating the loyalty of younger men and displaying an extraordinary sensitivity to what others thought of him. Nothing was more likely to provoke his legendary rage than accusations that he was motivated by a base motive.

Like many of his peers, he made a great show of resisting public office, if only to demonstrate the absence of ambition. Washington fretted at length about the performance he would give from the balcony of Federal Hall in Lower Manhattan when he became president on April 30, 1789. What should he wear? How should he behave? Knowing that “the first of everything in our situation will serve to establish a precedent,” he wanted to avoid acting like a king while respecting the dignity of his office and the Republic it represented. Months earlier, he had decided he ought to say something, thereby inventing the presidential Inaugural Address. In an early draft, of which only fragments survive, Washington, Chernow writes, “spent a ridiculous amount of time defending his decision to become president, as if he stood accused of some heinous crime.” This prickliness rarely surfaced in public. Indeed, he tirelessly cultivated an impassive demeanor that suited to perfection his preferred role as a remote, stoic figure towering above the sordid business of ordinary politics.

But of course George Washington was anything but an uninterested observer. He didn’t just learn from events; he shaped them to his own purposes. Throughout his career he wanted the gentlemen of Virginia and then the United States to master the landscape and peoples of North America as well as their bodies and emotions. Where Thomas Jefferson spent much of his life defying power, Washington imagined using power to improve transportation, encourage education, develop commerce, establish federal authority and unite the diverse regions of the sprawling Republic into an imposing whole that transcended the sum of its parts. “The name of AMERICAN,” he said, must override any local attachments.

To command respect and inspire emulation throughout the world, the United States had to balance liberty with order. This breathtaking imperial vision informed virtually everything Washington did. When he decided to provide for the freedom of most of his enslaved Africans upon the death of Martha Washington, he acted in good measure out of a conviction that “nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle.”

Washington was concerned with his reputation and that of the nation he helped to found because he wisely understood that he could improve both through close attention to the expectations of others. But we are mistaken if we think he offered himself as a democratic example of how an ordinary person could succeed. The Washington who fashioned his public image did not believe he created the core of his character. To the contrary, his rise, he thought, served as proof that he was an extraordinary man who had always possessed exemplary talent and integrity. If he fretted about what posterity would think of him, it was probably because he doubted our willingness to acknowledge his greatness. On that score, at least, he needn’t have worried.


Andrew Cayton teaches history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.