学术腐败在我国已经实实在在成了社会公害，丘成桐院士说它是国耻，一点也不为过。但迄至今日，人们在讨论学术腐败时，注意力集中在高校。的确，我国高校在整体上学术失范，人们称为学术腐败的种种劣行俨然成了主流：行贿跑点，抄袭无度、铺天盖地，造假常规化、制度化，大量炮制低水平重复和跟风投机、趋权趋钱的伪学术，评奖及课题申报和评审分赃化……等等。大学的学术腐败无论规模、范围还是深度，都是空前的。然而，并不只是高校成了学术腐败重灾区，编辑这一环节的失范也相当严重，但却一直逃逸于人们视野之外，至今未提上日程。在网上查到为数不多把编辑与学术规范联系起来的文章，注重的也是“通过编辑活动对作者的失范行为（包括有意的和无意的）进行制约”，即使谈及编辑界的不当行为，也还限于“买卖书号、刊号，权钱交易”这类多半应归咎于我国出版制度的问题（参见：《学术出版物编辑与学术规范》作者：畅引婷）。但更应引起重视的大量存在于编辑界的破坏编辑职业行规的情况却不为人们注意。例如，一些杂志编辑凭借掌握的话语平台，在辑录介绍学界观点或社会讨论热点时，违背刊物应谨守的客观、中立立场，以偏向性强烈的介绍和选择性失明的观点辑录误导读者；编辑界与不正当学术行为共谋的情况也不在少数，这是低水平重复乃至有抄袭剽窃问题的“学术成果”能源源不断变成正式出版物的一个重要原因——当然，并不排除无良学者蒙骗编辑的情况存在，可当问题揭出后，编辑出版界往往采取回避、遮掩、护短的态度，即使先前没有共谋，事后也形成了不光彩的共谋关系。编辑界最不堪的失范行为是抄袭作者。这种事，笔者遇上过几次，最近一次，发生在民政部主管刊物《中国社会导刊》上。由于两个原因促使我作出公开反应。

第一，我在这家刊物的两篇文章，一篇被编辑部不知哪一位把别人的观点和文字强加在我的文章里，另一篇则遭到杂志社的抄袭。如果说把跟我毫无关系的文字强加到我头上，反映的是完全无视编辑界的通则：尊重作者的精神世界，不张冠李戴、移花接木，强加于人；那么，抄袭作者则突破了职业的道德底线。鉴于编辑与作者之间是主要靠诚信来维系的特殊合作关系，编辑对作者的抄袭，破坏了人们对编辑这一角色身份的基本信任，影响远比发生在其他人身上的同类行为更恶劣。第二，编辑部对我郑重提出的问题采取了置之不理的态度。一个月前（6月16日），我就被强加一事给编辑部去信，除了收到一封对来稿的电子自动回复外，没有任何答复。10天前，偶然发现另一篇文章的一些观点和表述在刊登于今年三月（上）关于“贫富悬殊”的策划专题中，变成了“本刊编辑部”和“本刊记者”的观点和表述。而这篇文章是该社编辑第一次跟我电话联系时征得我同意使用的文章，同时也是引出这一专题策划的文章。这种情况下，文章没有使用，观点和表述却被其编辑或编辑部盗用，这就不能不让人感到其间还有对作者的欺骗。我当即去了信，并附上6月16日发的第一封信（两封信均附于后）。现在10天过去，仍然是除了一封电子自动回复外，编辑部没有任何反应。

《中国社会导刊》的行为不光侵犯了我作为作者的权利，还侮辱和冒犯了编辑界的正直同行。如同我国的思想、学术写作环境一样，我国编辑界的工作环境也相当艰难，许多优秀编辑为了给思想学术界撑起一块相对自由的平台，承担着本不应该由编辑来承担的风险，为推出好稿作了巨大努力，与此同时，又以自己的正直和热诚跟作者之间建立起相互信任、相互支持的健康关系。在不久前写的一篇谈编、作关系的文章中，我提到“优秀的编辑在推进我国的思想、学术进步上，他们的作用举足轻重”。但这里必须补充一句：“不良编辑对思想、学术的阻滞、破坏作用，非学界中一般不良分子能及。”

编辑规范与学术规范同源，都是从独立思想和精神自由原则直接派生出来的。学界和编辑界，任何一方面不尊重独立思想原则及其由此派生的行规，都会破坏双方合作所不可缺少的信任，而且对整个学风造成破坏性影响。我公开中国社会导刊抄袭剽窃作者的行为，希望引起对编辑界行为失范的重视。

2006年7月17日星期一

附：致中国社会导刊的两封信

《中国社会导刊》杂志社

主编 王杰秀

执行主编 赵焕军

副主编 张民巍 山啸 秦艳：

我是贵刊的作者。来信抗议贵刊对我的抄袭，要求作出公开道歉。

事情经过如下。

去年11月，贵刊的李芳女士大概在网上看到上海证券报刊5月份刊发的我解析我国巨大贫富差距的文章《财富与社会公正》，来电话表示内容很适合贵刊，希望使用。我同意了，并在随后给她的邮件中发去其他几篇。她于12月12日回邮件作了如下通报：“上次电话里跟您说的那个稿子，在报选题的时候，领导说可以作成策划，也就是占12个页码，当然由多篇文章组成，一般是5篇。我正在写策划方案，等写好了发给您看看，谢谢您的支持。”但在此之后，我并没有收到策划方案，而且她也再没有跟我联系。我估计可能受制于当下舆论空间，选题没有做成，所以，尽管有几篇稿子在她手里，我也没有去信询问。上月中旬收到今年的《中国社会导刊》6月（上），刊登的却是我谈教育产业化的文章。因为事隔半年多了，我已经忘了她当初说要用的是《财富与社会公正》一文，并没在意。只是，读了文章后，发现刊出的文章把大量其他人的文字强加于我，而在对我的文字进行的改动又把原本好端端的内容给改错了。我对这种违背编辑规范把他人文字安在我名下的做法很生气，当即写信提出意见，并要求她把意见转告贵刊负责人。我的邮件是6月16日发给李芳的。二十多天过去了，除了收到一封贵刊对来稿的电子自动回复之外，我没有得到任何答复。

今天翻看一份友人赠寄的主题为“直面贫困”的时文汇编，发现辑录了贵刊2006年3月（上）一组关于贫富差距的文章。在《贫富悬殊，底线何在》的策划题目下，注明：“策划/本刊编辑部  执行/本刊记者李芳”。我记起了：这就是李芳12月12日邮件说的那个专题策划。专题由五六篇文章组成，我的《财富与社会公正》不在其中，这不重要。但令我大为吃惊的是，我文章中一些观点和表述竟出现在署名“本刊编辑部”和“本刊记者李芳”的《贫富悬殊，底线何在》短文中，不知道是李芳还是贵刊编辑部对我的观点和表述作了一点删节以及几个字的改动，就完成了编者对作者的抄袭。请看： 

《贫富悬殊，底线何在》云：

“贫富差距过大造成了我国现在必须面对的许多棘手的社会问题，而同样不可回避的，还有我国贫富分化的特殊性。

我国的贫富分化不象其他同样受这个问题困扰的国家那样，一般经历了相对长期也相对自然的分化过程。我国发生在转轨时期的贫富分化非常特殊：没有经历数代人的长期积累过程，而是在很短时间内，通过社会财富迅速向极少数人手中集中发生的。这是一个很不自然的财富分化过程。这中间，最容易触动社会神经的公正问题又格外引人瞩目。

贫富差距过大，将会成为危及社会安宁的重大隐患：如果贫富分化的形成过程充斥着对公正的漠视和践踏，那么，可预见的或不可预见的危机将把多种社会矛盾置于火山口上。”（提示：这里的红色字符抄自笔者下面的一段文字，黑色字符是抄袭者作的一点小改动。另，在7月7日发给致中国社会导刊的信中没有这个提示，是现在为了方便读者而加的。特此说明——7月17日）

 下面是《财富与社会公正》中相关内容的原文：

“贫富差距过大并在事实上已趋两极分化，对我国正面临的种种社会问题来说，是不可回避的基本背景，同样不可回避的，还有我国两极分化的特殊性。

我国的两极分化不像其他同样受这个问题困扰的国家那样，一般经历了相对长期也相对自然的分化过程。我国私人财富积累的自然过程，经由上个世纪50年代以来对私有财产的全面否定和大规模没收，早就彻底中断。后来发生在转轨时期的两极分化非常特殊：没有经历数代人的长期积累过程，而是很短时间内通过社会财富迅速向极少数人手里集中发生的。这是一个很不自然的财富分化过程，始终有制度上的安排在起作用，有公权力的渗透和参与。这中间，最容易触动社会神经的公正问题格外引人瞩目。

纵然人们对社会有贫富差距的事实一般是接受的，可如果差距过大，哪怕富有的一极致富手段基本正当，贫富两极分化也会成为危及社会安宁的重大隐患；如果两极分化的形成过程充斥着对公正的漠视和践踏，那么，可预料的或不可预料的危机将把社会置于火山口上。” 

抄袭的文字不过区区几百字，但占了“策划语”——《贫富悬殊，底线何在》——近一半篇幅。而不足千字的《贫富悬殊，底线何在》去除掉从我文章抄来的文字，就只剩下引述世界银行的几个数据和几句抒情加套话。但真正问题不在于所抄袭文字在以贵刊编辑部和贵刊记者名义发表的“策划语”中占了近半篇幅，而在于，这是编辑对作者思想和文字的盗窃。

我经历和见识过许多抄袭剽窃事件，几年前就曾在多篇文章中谈及中国已经成为“剽窃者的天堂”，论及抄袭剽窃行径的恶劣。但编辑对作者的抄袭和剽窃远比人们通常了解的同类行为性质更恶劣、影响更坏。这种行为破坏编辑与作者之间进行合作的基本信任。许多情况下，作者并不认识约稿编辑，能放心地把稿件交给素昧平生的约稿编辑，完全是基于对编辑这一角色身份的信任，相信对方能遵守该角色的职业底线。“底线何在”？——至少，不能对作者顺手牵羊。

但贵刊突破了底线，给编辑界带来耻辱。

由于《贫富悬殊，底线何在》的落款是“本刊编辑部”和“本刊记者李芳”，我不清楚抄袭行为究竟是某人的个人行为还是编辑部行为。但不管那种情况，都脱不了编者盗窃作者这一实质。

作为著作权受侵害的作者，我郑重要求贵刊公开道歉。包是包不住的，要采取不理睬态度——如同对我二十多天前请李芳女士转的那封要求贵刊就对我另一篇文章的胡加乱改作出必要说明和澄清的邮件那样——，也是不明智的。

我两篇文章在贵刊的遭遇很有讽刺意味。一篇被贵刊抄袭，另一篇则不管我是否同意，就把别人的观点和文字强加在我的文章里。而这两种做法都发生在你们这一家刊物，贵刊实在应该在规范编辑行为上狠下一番工夫。

下面附上6月16日请李芳女士转交的邮件内容，请一并答复和处理。

致礼！

肖雪慧

7月7日 

附6月16日邮件

李芳女士：

你向我约稿，我给了稿件，用不用，我不在乎。但作为一个独立思想者，我在乎思想者的权利：不被篡改，不接受不属于我自己思想的文字。而杂志社一方，尊重作者的精神世界，不强加于人，不把根本不属于我的文字张冠李戴到我头上，这是应该遵守的起码职业规范；如果有什么表述贵刊认为有问题，应及时与作者沟通，也是一个好编辑应有的作风，尤其是现在通讯发达，一个电话、一份邮件就可以实现沟通，更应该如此，不沟通，随意改动，造成错误，就对作者构成严重损害。

但刚收到的这期中国社会导刊（总124期，2006年6月上），署名“肖雪慧”的《“教育产业化”下的贫穷世袭》一文，既严重的强加于我，又改出了严重错误。首先，不过五千来字，竟有四分之一不知谁的文字安在了我的头上，而且安在一头一尾。

中国再怎么践踏思想自由，大不了封杀。把别人的文字强加于我，这也太糟蹋人了！

第二，贵刊耗费了那么多篇幅把别人的文字强加于我，却把我的稿子删的文不对题，根本看不出怎么就造成了“贫穷世袭”。不仅如此，还擅自改了我对中国所谓“教育产业化”的实质的界定，既改变了我的原意，造成片面化，又发生了彻头彻尾的错误。我原话如下：

            如果因为美国高等教育具有一定产业特征，这里鼓吹者非要说是从美国移植过来的，那也像其他种种移植一样，充分发挥了“为我所需”和“确保滥用和扭曲”的特长。一方面，抓住“产业”一说却抛弃了人家始终坚守的核心价值和原则（略）；另一方面，径直把“产业”与商业等同，把人家承担更多社会责任的举措变形为受教育机会的商品化，更多地向每个家庭伸手。

贵刊却改成下面这个样子：

中国“教育产业化”的问题在于，径直把“产业”与商业等同，把国家应承担更多责任的举措变形为受教育机会的商品化。

这一改，把我谈中国教育产业化的那不可分割的两方面问题简化成一方面问题，而且抛弃的那一方面是更基本的。我很纳闷，把文章改的很片面进而愚蠢，难道杂志社就那么受用？！

这且不说，还改出错误。我原话中“人家承担更多社会责任”，根据上下文不难看出，“人家”指的是美国那些进行一定程度产业化尝试的大学，根本不是指国家。贵刊要改，也起码应该联系上下文，认真查对和思考一下这么改，意思对不对。但显然没有这么做，径直就把大学改成“国家”。这可真是牛唇不对马嘴。

毕竟我是作者，公开发表出来的文章弄成这个样子，受损害的是我。所以我不可能对此保持沉默。我不知道是谁这么改的。但不管是谁，我都不能接受。写这封信，是请贵刊作出必要的公开说明：

指出文章一头一尾那一千多字与我无关，是贵刊添加的。

请指出被改出的错误。

无论出于对作者、读者还是刊物自身负责，都应该对这两点作公开的说明。这不难，只需在下一期杂志刊一简短声明即可。

请向贵刊负责人转告我的意见，并希望尽快得到答复。

致礼！

肖雪慧

6-16

 

首发民主中国

殷海光生于1919年，在他幼小的时代，光华四射的“五四”已渐渐退潮，他没有踩上“五四”的尾巴，虽然他喜欢自称是“五四后期的人物”，其实准确地说，他不过是“后五四时期的人物”。在他处于精神成长中的三、四十年代，离“五四”已远，他是西南联大孕育的知识份子，在那个烽火连天的抗战岁月中他开始思考国家、社会和个人的命运，他的身上一直有着一种强烈的忧患意识，他是传统与现代交融的产物，怎么评估他求学7年之久的西南联大对他的影响都不会太过分，那是他思想之旅中最重要的一站，他的精神底色大致上就是这个阶段打下的。在他看来，西南联大汇集了“五四”一代的精华，那里的校园风光就是一个小型的“五四”，对当时中国大西南的影响，也是一个小“五四”，他本人受到的就是这样一种“心灵的鼓舞”，多少年后回忆起来还是那么美好，他不是无根的飘萍。他的人生追求从对逻辑学的热烈向往起步，然后踏上执笔论政之路，并以他在《自由中国》半月刊的那些炽热文字赢得声誉，最后又回到学术的殿堂，即使身处逆境，贫病交加，他始终守护着“知识的庄严”，他死于1969年，与海峡这一边的另一个孤独的思想者顾准晚年的命运有许多相似性。他死的时候，只有50岁，正当学术生命的旺盛期，他的肉体生命就被折断了。

殷海光的悲剧命运，以及他在20世纪中国走过的道路，都令人叹息、令人深思，近年来，随着他的著作和有关他的著作，不断在他最终未能回来却从未忘怀过的故土问世，他作为自由主义的代表人物，影响了台湾社会转型的知识份子形象，已在许多年轻或不再年轻的读者心中定格。他常说自己“没有机会享受五四时代人物的声华，但却遭受着寂寞、凄凉和横逆”，不过，他生前应该想得到，总有一天，当人们蓦然回首，会重新发现他的存在，注视他的心路和他奋斗的全程，还有他亲身经历的那个可以歌、可以哭的大时代。放在整个历史的三峡中，这个“大时代”至今还没有收尾，殷海光这个独特的个体生命的意义也正在一点点显现出来。

在上个世纪40年代末，青年殷海光在南京《中央日报》主笔任上，曾发表过一些尖锐批评国民党统治下的腐败现象，诸如《赶快收拾人心》等文，表现过对时局的忧虑和急切。他对国民党政权的态度前后经历了几次变化，从坚定的拥护者（西南联大的“右翼学生”）到怒其不争的批评者，最后在台湾岛上，他终于与这个他寄托过希望的权力集团彻底分道扬镳。他一生中最有光彩的就是《自由中国》执笔和台湾大学哲学系任教的阶段，他那些犀利痛快的政论代表了一个时代，曾引起广泛的共鸣，穿过了台湾岛上阴郁的50年代，直到1960年雷震锒铛入狱，他与《自由中国》另外两位主要撰稿人夏道平、宋文明毅然发表共同声明，愿意为自己的文字承担责任。在台大校园里，他更是一位受欢迎的老师，在学生陈鼓应的印象中，他的讲课不如他的文章，他的文章不如他的聊天，他的聊天不如他的演讲，他的演讲灵光闪闪，理性中带有浓厚的感性色彩。不过他所以成了台大学生心目中的一块“精神磁石”，主要不是靠演讲，而是他的人格魅力，他树立的人格标杆，他代表的道德力量，对年轻一代富有强烈的感召，不光是哲学系，还有历史系的许多学生都将他视为精神偶像。这一切当然都是当时国民党当局所难以容忍的，1966年，他们以种种卑鄙的小动作迫使殷海光离开台大，他失去了他赖以安身立命的职业和能够影响青年学子的直接渠道。

政论的浪花消失了，学术的晚潮卷过殷海光生命的沙滩，他最后的三年，身处连基本生活都没有保障的逆境，依然没有意气消沉，他的学术关怀、文化关怀和现实关怀是相呼应的，他从来没有把学术当作自我娱乐的方式。即使病魔袭来，他也含笑面对。故乡湖北黄冈的山川人物勾起他温暖的记忆，西南联大的师友让他感叹时代的沧桑，他尤其忘不了金岳霖老师，尽管海峡隔断了他们的音问，但这一切都萦绕着他生命的晚年，和哈耶克、波普尔一起陪伴着他那些寂寞、凄凉、未能免于恐惧的时光。当雷震被捕时，他在公开文章中曾引用《圣经》的话“为义受难的人，有福了。”我也想对殷海光说：为思想受难的人，有福了。他留下的遗言说，他的墓碑只要刻上“自由思想者”几个字就可以了。

大纪元首发

虽然同为沧州人，但和郭起真见面并不多，只有一次，还是在他摔伤之后。然而，通过电话和网络的交往却并不少，以此知道这是一个梗直、率真之人。沧州是个偏僻落后之地，与外人谈起沧州时，一般人家总要问，是林冲罚配的那地方吗？每到此时，总不免感觉到一些尴尬。然而，内心深处却也不能不承认，沧州的落后是从经济到文化各方面的，虽然他离两个大都市北京和天津都是那样的近。即以近年敢于在网络发出不同声音者来说，偌大一个沧州，似乎也不过郭起真、綦彦臣和我本人三人而已。然而，也正是因此，我对于郭起真先生的事也就非常关心。

郭起真先生不久前被捕，独立中文笔会予以声援，并委托笔会的法律顾问李建强先生代理郭起真先生一案的法律事务。然而，通过李建强先生及其助手发表在《民主中国》上的文章得知，非常不幸，李建强先生先后两次来沧州却居然未能获得与郭起真先生会见的机会。尤其不能令人理解者，作为一个尚在羁押、而且还未开过庭的犯罪嫌疑人，他的家属及某些朋友却能够得到会见的机会。这一切完全无法用刑事诉讼法的有关规定来解释，李建强先生为此感到气愤，更感到羞辱，这样的心情很可以理解。那么我们有必要来分析一下，沧州方面为什么要阻止律师与郭起真先生的会见呢？

也许我们应该先看一看以前的案例。就我个人了解，除了某些法轮功案件，沧州近年被以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”关押的连郭起真在内只有三例。其他两例则是綦彦臣先生和我本人。我们先来看綦彦臣先生一案的情况：

在綦先生出事后，我出于责任和他夫人的请求曾为綦先生奔走，其中也就包括为他联系了一位叫张青的本地律师。当时的情况是，张青律师所在的律师事务所租用了泊头市农业银行的几间办公室，我则因为半路出家正担任该行的专职法律顾问，所以特意和这些律师们搬到一起去办公，以方便随时请教和学习法律方面的知识。在为綦先生联系辩护律师时，我先找了一位叫刘若菊的律师，因为她是那间律师事务所唯一的科班出身的律师，而且说实话，在那群律师中，我最佩服她的法律素养。然而，刘律师不愿接这个案子，原因不必说了；于是我转而请求与我同在一间办公室、关系比较好的臧玉恒律师，也遭到委婉拒绝。不过，臧律师看在和我关系好的份上给我提了个建议：“你找张青吧！”当时的张青是那间律师事务所的主任，我与他的交往并不多，后来才了解到，他因为“六四”期间的事，也曾受过冲击——刚刚从公安学校毕业的他被从公安局调整到了司法局。在我找到他谈了情况后，说真的他有些为难，然而后来还是答应了下来，我考虑是因为有我的因素在里面——他作为律师事务所的主任不好再拒绝我，否则我就只能到其他律师所想办法。

本来，我对于本地律师能为綦先生做什么也是很怀疑的，因为我怀疑他们是否敢于为綦先生做绝对独立的辩护。也就是说，我怀疑他如何为綦先生辩护有可能也要事先要获得当局的允许。（但是，是不是张青先生如綦先生所说那样实质上成为迫害綦先生的一个帮凶，我则不敢肯定。而綦先生因为此事居然在不久前质疑起我为他联系张青律师的“动机”来，我也只能抱以苦笑！）然而，以1999年时的情况来说，一方面根本没有这样多的维权律师，即使有几个，如张思之先生等，我也联系不上；一方面请外地律师的费用也是一个无法解决的问题。而从该案最后的结果后，似乎张青律师也真的没有为綦先生提供什么帮助。（当然，我相信最起码有这样一点帮助是可以肯定的，即綦先生或者可以拿到被当局指控为“犯罪证据”的那些文章。这一点是针对我本人的案子的理解而来的，后面会具体讲到。）

綦先生被捕一年后，即2000年的9月，是我的被捕。我被捕后，有与綦先生不同的地方，即当时所有有关我的消息在各种媒体（包括网络）上都是见不到的。我其实比綦先生还要无助，是彻底的无助。是否请律师，请什么样的律师，只能由我个人来决定。开始，我根本就不想请律师，有这样一些原因：一个原因是我根本不相信律师能在这样的案子中给我提供真正有效的帮助；另一个原因是我的家属在咨询了我在沧州市中级人民法院的几个关系不错的法官后告诉我，“没有必要请律师！没有用！”此外还有一个原因，是我对于依靠自己来应对还比较有信心，因为我在担任银行专职法律顾问的4年时间里经历过不少次开庭的场面，自信无论是在被审讯阶段和开庭时都不会“说错话”。而我刚刚被关押进看守所时一位非常有良心的看守给我的提醒也使我对于应付局面有了信心。——我是在被捕第二天被押进看守所的，当天，值班的看守在把我叫到他的办公室登记时鼓励我：“不要怕，写文章算什么罪！就是判了你，早晚也要翻案”。然后是在第三天，在我被关进看守所第一次接受国安人员的审讯时，又是那位看守，他在提我出去时在走廊上轻声告诉我：“说话要谨慎，有把握的话就说，没有把握的话就不要说。要注意他们会诱供、骗供。不要怕他们，在这里他们不敢打你。”

但是后来我想请律师了，为什么？因为我连他们指控我犯罪的、我自己写的文章都拿不到，他们说那涉及到国家机密，不能提供给我。真要把我活活气死！我自己写的文章，成了他们的国家机密，反不能提供给我本人！而我要考虑的问题是，这让我如何应对庭审？因为虽然那些文章是我自己写的，但他们对我的指控是天底下最最典型的断章取义，甚至连断章取义的级别都够不上，他们是指控我某篇文章中之某一段落中有某一句话。而我的记忆力当然根本不足以让我对“那一句话”出现在一个怎样的话语环境中做出保证。所以我当时当然要想，如果有个律师，还怎么会有这样的情况呢？于是，我向他们提出聘请律师。然而他们说，不能说你想聘请就聘请，你聘请当然是你的权利，但是我们要审查律师是不是适合代理你的辩护。而正是为了这样的原因，我也便赌气没有再聘请律师，甚至于在开庭时我根本就没有做任何当庭辩护，我只是把我写的辩护材料交给了他们，因为我知道一切不过是走个形式罢了。

联系以上两个案子，李建强先生被阻止与郭起真先生的会见似乎也就可以理解了。什么原因呢？因为李建强律师的被聘请明显未曾经过沧州方面官方的审查，因为李建强律师要为郭起真做的将是独立的辩护。

于是我真地不能不重复李建强先生说给我的老乡们的那句话：“现在国际媒体密切关注这个案子，任何技术性的失误都可能损害司法机关的形象，损害国家的形象啊。”当然，我还想加上一句：这样做会损害沧州的形象啊！

————————–
首发《议报》

威权和极权是一对罪恶兄弟，都试图逃离出文明社会，但总是被吃了“善恶果”的人们拉着不放。于是，这对兄弟在一些国家和地区“留守”着，苟延残喘，或者继续黎明前的黑暗，或者实施最后的疯狂。

相对于极权来说，威权似乎还更不坏一点。极权大有无所不至的劲头，是手段，又是目的。比如张学良悲剧，假若落在极权者手里，肯定是不知头掉了几个了。而威权时代，却只是软禁张学良而已，正如邓小平软禁赵紫阳到死一样。

极权，就是用权用到极点，所以刘少奇碰上毛泽东，就只有死路一条。或许，当初若能够监禁到死，刘少奇就一定要谢天谢地了，可是，毛泽东绝不会那样干。他不但要刘少奇死，还要在死之前饱受苦难，屈辱，并冠以“叛徒、内奸、工贼”的莫须有罪名，让他含恨而死，死不得其所。

比起毛泽东对刘少奇，邓小平对赵紫阳就是宽容到死了。但对天安门广场上的学生们，邓小平还是“开了杀戒”，至今那些冤屈的灵魂还在游荡，那些年迈的“天安门母亲们”还在哭泣。

邓小平不让赵紫阳死，其实邓小平心已经死了，他下令杀了学生，他的一世大名都随着那些断头的学生们一起埋葬了。

非法软禁政治对手，并不是邓小平的发明，他是学习蒋介石的。蒋介石对张学良是仁至义尽，据说张到了台湾也对蒋承认“害了国家”，承认自己当初“有过”。

毕竟他们是结拜兄弟，总是耍点“慈悲为怀”的小游戏，不杀并不意味着自由，于是蒋介石生前就没有张学良的自由——这是惩罚，又是代价。

不过，比起对待张学良来，蒋介石对待雷震就没有那么客气了。

但是，威权时代偏偏比极权时代更不坏一点，对友软禁一生可以取代死刑，对匪实刑可以取代死刑——从某种意义上讲，免除死刑，更接近于文明社会的标准。

雷震是闻名大陆和台湾的争人权的民主斗士，又是蒋介石不能见容的“不安定分子”。

为了对付这样具有煽动能力的大学者，蒋亲自在总统府主持专门会议，亲笔批示对雷震“刑期不得少于十年”、“终审判决不能变更初审判决”，《自由中国》一定要关门，上诉也没有用。如今台湾公开的这些细节，相信大家都会“不寒而栗”，感慨万千：不但应该珍惜雷震为台湾民主自由的付出，也要看到他对大陆争民主自由的意义——具有镜子的作用。

无论威权，还是极权，大都是权力至上的反文明的残暴方式，也是封建专制独裁的“拿手戏”。毛泽东、邓小平杀人如麻，蒋介石也杀人如麻，无论是在大陆，还是在台湾，都有无数的冤魂。

这些独裁者，除了喜欢杀人，还喜欢罗织罪名，毛泽东为刘少奇定的罪名是“叛徒、内奸、工贼”，蒋介石为雷震定的罪名是“匪谍”，也有“叛徒、特务”的意思。其实，在蒋眼里，只要不拥护蒋的都是反对蒋的，反对蒋的也自然是敌人了。如此“革命”的逻辑，自然少不了大量的冤屈。想当年，安徽籍抗日名将孙立人上将军，涉及“匪谍”案件，也差点没被收押——最后还是被蒋软禁，就像对待张学良一样。假如孙立人碰上毛泽东，同样不知死几回了。

幸好台湾现在是民主社会了，雷震案也得以真相大白，得以平反了——而有点威权和又不放弃的极权的大陆，现在却还没到平反“六四”的时候——甚至连“六四”都只字不提了，不敢提了。

今年3月7日，是雷震先生逝世29周年的纪念日，台湾举行“公益信托雷震民主人权基金”成立会，国民党主席马英九出席并致词，以党主席身分正式向雷震亲属及所有被政治迫害者两度鞠躬道歉。他说，雷震宣扬自由、民主、人权、法治，却被诬陷为匪谍而系狱十年，这段历史让人感慨。真是有来就有往，历史旧帐总要算的。马英九代表国民党正式向雷震家属表达，对雷震遭遇的诚挚歉意，总是民主时代的必然，又是告别威权时代的民主见证。而身为台湾当局最高领导人的阿扁，也亲自出席，当场引用史料，直指国民党出身的前总统蒋介石罗织罪名害雷震好苦，并见证今天台湾民主的来之不易。

同样曾经是“民主斗士”的阿扁高度评价雷震为“人权民主斗士”，认为其在政治理念和民族情感间选择了民主、自由、人权和宪政。如能学习雷震对价值立场的选择，民族的情感便能在文化、社会和政治生活中找到适如其份的位置。他还表示，若有机会阅读国民党要员黄杰“警总日记”，其中国民党罗织雷震罪名的细节，如蒋介石如何对雷震案的起诉书“详细批阅，在认为满意处，曾加圈加点，表示激赏”，以及史料馆出版的《雷震案史料汇编》中，又如何在法院判决之前，于总统府主持项目会议亲自批示“刑期不得少于十年”等，要纪念雷震。阿扁如此表态，令在场的雷震家属低头啜泣，频频拭泪。

1986年底，台湾的民主进步党在台北宣布成立。当时还没有公开解除党禁的国民党政府却没有制止，更没有抓人，因为1987年初台湾就要宣布解除党禁和报禁了。如果当初抓人，几个月再放人，是那么地愚蠢。所以政府不愿意那样干，只有默许，期待。

民主虽然不是最好的制度，却一定是最不坏的制度。

台湾民主化以后，国民党的“独把交椅”也坐不成了，轮到了民主进步党执政了，这是文明渐进、和平演变的方式。目前，台湾已经彻底告别了极权和威权。

国民党的威权是过去时，共产党的极权是现在进行时。在现在的大陆，人们只能继续在期望，在等待，等待大陆的“雷震”们一一平反，等待文明渐进的政府“有朝一日”默许大陆的“民主进步党”成立，等待解除党禁和报禁，进而实行民主选举国家领导人、实行宪政，立法、行政和司法三权分立，政府民选，新闻自由，建立公民社会，国家真正进入一个民治、民享、民有的新时代，让大陆和台湾共同建设一个伟大的民主、共和、文明的新中国。

不过，可以相信，民主这个大陆将来时，已经是不久的将来了，让我们期待着，努力着。

————————–
首发《议报》

自从我讨伐中宣部后，该部即如茄子遇霜，迅速进入垂死状态。去年底今年初来势汹汹的《新京报》事件和冰点事件虎头蛇尾，是中宣部的一段回光返照。中宣部何去何从？这不仅是该部乃至该系统迫在眉睫的问题，也是中共领导层难以回避的问题。

六月五日《人民日报》发表一篇长文〈毫不动摇地坚持改革方向──为实现「十一五」规划目标提供强大动力和体制保障〉，署名锺轩理。我认为这是中宣部尝试转型转业，开始为自己寻找出路或后路的讯号。

从此要做良家子

锺轩理，显然应是中宣部理论局的谐音缩写。这篇文章不是该部初出江湖的处女作。早在去年四月三十日，新华社已发表锺轩理〈努力形成人人遵纪守法的社会氛围〉一文。使用如此容易令人联想的笔名，似乎旨在告诉世人，它中宣部从此也要做良家子，不做专司追打新闻自由的意识形态神棍了。据《纽约时报》报道，《人民日报》发表的这篇长文，没有超出胡锦涛的思想半径。如果确出自胡的授意，那么或可看作即便是胡主席，也在为这条意识形态看门狗谋划后路了。中宣部究竟应该怎样退场、善后、安乐死，甚或办丧事？本人作为「中宣部的掘墓人」，本救火须救灭、救人须救彻的中华民族传统美德，也要讲究掘墓掘成、埋人埋好。没有新闻自由，就不可能有现代民主社会，而有中宣部中国就决不可能有新闻自由。

让法律管理新闻

中宣部肯定要退出历史。因而我为中宣部思谋出两条光明的死路。第一条是，中宣部主动牵头，制订出一套依法操作的新闻管理制度，抛开人管新闻，让法律制度管新闻，从业人员全部转岗分流。中宣部功成身退，整个系统寿终正寝，中国从此宣告进入新闻自由时代。自己操办自己的葬礼，就像皇帝活就为自己修建陵墓，这是中宣部最光明、最体面的结局。第二条是，沿目前锺轩理的逻辑继续发展，於三、二年内完成由行政单位到事业单位的转变，成为中共党务系统的一个智库。鑑於共产党也不可能长期实行一党独裁的事实，可以考虑一次转变成政府系统的智库，如国务院下属的事业单位一样。当然最好是一步到位，转变成非政府组织类的智库。美国有许多这类机构，可以参考借鑑.这两条光明的死路，也许中宣部诸公及中央上层已想清楚了，也许尚未。如果已经想清楚了，那我这就算野人献曝，聊表寸心，把责任负到底──讨伐它也是爱它嘛！如果尚未想清楚，这篇短文算是向中宣部提出一个关於其后路的建议。

政改的最大包袱

这两条路都是主动选择与时俱进之路，是进取之路。如果放弃这两条路，那么第三条路是甚么？我还没有想出来。我现在所能想出来的第三条死路，就不属於光明的死路，而是黑暗的死路，那就是固守僵化思维，继续与新闻自由为敌，继续做意识形态神棍，继续做中华民族精神创造力的杀手。无庸讳言，中宣部有自己独立的部门利益和领导层个人利益，如果说有人倾向选择走这条黑暗的死路，一点都不奇怪。可是，这是一条注定成为共产党政治改革最大包袱之路，是一条不仅自己将不得善终，而且也必将把共产党拖死的黑暗之途。

首发苹果日报

Mickey Spillane; Tough-Guy Writer Of Mike Hammer Detective Mysteries

By Adam Bernstein

Mickey Spillane, 88, who died July 17 in Murrells Inlet, S.C., was one of the world’s most popular mystery writers. His specialty was tight-fisted, sadistic revenge stories, often featuring his alcoholic gumshoe Mike Hammer and a cast of evildoers who launder money or spout the Communist Party line.

His writing style was characterized by short words, lightning transitions, gruff sex and violent endings. It was once tallied that he offed 58 people in six novels.

Starting with “I, the Jury,” in 1947, Mr. Spillane sold hundreds of millions of books during his lifetime and garnered consistently scathing reviews. Even his father, a Brooklyn bartender, called them “crud.”

Mr. Spillane was a struggling comic book publisher when he wrote “I, the Jury.” He initially envisioned it as a comic book called “Mike Danger,” and when that did not go over, he took a week to reconfigure it as a novel.

Even the editor in chief of E.P. Dutton and Co., Mr. Spillane’s publisher, was skeptical of the book’s literary merit but conceded it would probably be a smash with postwar readers looking for ready action. He was right. The book, in which Hammer pursues a murderous narcotics ring led by a curvaceous female psychiatrist, went on to sell more than 1 million copies.

Mr. Spillane spun out six novels in the next five years, among them “My Gun Is Quick,” “The Big Kill,” “One Lonely Night” and “Kiss Me, Deadly.” Most concerned Hammer, his faithful sidekick, Velda, and the police homicide captain Pat Chambers, who acknowledges that Hammer’s style of vigilante justice is often better suited than the law to dispatching criminals.

In one typical passage from “The Big Kill,” Hammer narrates: “I snapped the side of the rod across his jaw and laid the flesh open to the bone. I pounded his teeth back into his mouth with the end of the barrel . . . and I took my own damn time about kicking him in the face. He smashed into the door and lay there bubbling. So I kicked him again and he stopped bubbling.”

Mystery specialist Anthony Boucher, writing in the New York Times, said that novel “may rank as the best Spillane — which is the faintest praise this department has ever bestowed.”

Mr. Spillane’s success rankled other critics, who sometimes became very personal in their reviews. Malcolm Cowley called Mr. Spillane “a homicidal paranoiac,” going on to note what he called his misogyny and vigilante tendencies.

Like Hammer, Mr. Spillane learned to keep emotion at a distance when discussing a lifetime of dreadful reviews. “I pay no attention to those jerks who think they’re critics,” he said. “I don’t give a hoot about readin’ reviews. What I want to read is the royalty checks.”

His books were translated into many languages, and he proved so popular as a writer that he was able to transfer his thick-necked, barrel-chested personality across many media. With the charisma of a redwood, he played Hammer in “The Girl Hunters,” a 1963 film adaptation of his novel.

In the 1970s and 1980s, he was a caricature of his tough-guy alter ego as a pitchman for Miller Lite beer, sporting a trench coat, a porkpie hat and a cantilevered blonde.

Frank Morrison Spillane was born March 9, 1918, in Brooklyn, N.Y. He described surviving a very tough neighborhood by inventing ghost storiesto scare others his age otherwise intent on beating him up. By his high school graduation in 1935, he sold his first story to a pulp magazine.

He briefly attended college in Kansas and considered studying for the law before a friend got him a writing and editing job at Funnies Inc., a comic book publisher in Manhattan. He churned out one a day when other authors needed a week.

After stateside service in the Army Air Forces during World War II — he was a cadet flight instructor — he and two friends began a comic book business. About that time, he and his first wife bought several acres of land in Newburgh, N.Y., and he wrote “I, the Jury” to afford the $1,000 property.

During the next several years, Mr. Spillane received large royalty payments from film companies to turn his rush of books into motion pictures. The best was Robert Aldrich’s 1955 version of “Kiss Me Deadly,” with Ralph Meeker as Hammer going after a nuclear secret.

He also scripted several television shows and films and played a detective in the 1954 suspense film “Ring of Fear,” set at a Clyde Beatty circus. He rewrote much of the film, too, refusing payment. In gratitude, the producer, John Wayne, surprised him one morning with a white Jaguar sportster wrapped in a red ribbon. The card read, “Thanks, Duke.”

After a long hiatus from novel writing in the 1950s — partly from his time-consuming conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses — he began a long run of books with characters other than Mike Hammer. He featured an antihero hoodlum in “The Deep” (1961) and “Me, Hood!” (1963), followed by books with protagonists named Tiger Mann, a former spy in the James Bond mold, and Mako Hooker, a former CIA agent who enjoys fishing.

He was fond of making wild claims about his literary stature. At one point early in his career, he was taunted at a dinner party by “some New York literary guy” who told him it was “disgraceful” that seven of the 10 best-selling books of all time bore Mr. Spillane’s name. He replied, “You’re lucky I’ve only written seven books.”

Done initially on a dare from his publisher, Mr. Spillane wrote a children’s book, “The Day the Sea Rolled Back” (1979), about two boys who find a shipwreck loaded with treasure. This won a Junior Literary Guild award.

He also wrote another children’s novel, “The Ship That Never Was,” and then wrote his first Mike Hammer mystery in 20 years with “The Killing Man” (1989). “Black Alley” followed in 1996. In the last, a rapidly aging Hammer comes out of a gunshot-induced coma, then tracks down a friend’s murderer and billions in mob loot. For the first time, he also confesses his love for Velda but, because of doctor’s orders, cannot consummate the relationship.

Late in life, he received a career achievement award from the Private Eye Writers of America and was named a grand master by the Mystery Writers of America.

In his private life, he neither smoked nor drank and was a house-to-house missionary for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He expressed at times great disdain for what he saw as corrosive forces in American life, from antiwar protesters to the United Nations.

He was long settled in Murrells Inlet, having once judged a beauty contest there and subsequently fallen in love with the beachside community where he fished, crabbed and skin-dived and housed an impressive gun collection.

His marriages to Mary Ann Pearce and Sherri Malinou ended in divorce. His second wife, a model, posed nude for the dust jacket of his 1972 novel “The Erection Set.”

Srvivors include his third wife, Jane Rodgers Johnson, a former beauty queen 30 years his junior; and four children from the first marriage.

He also carried on a long epistolary flirtation with Ayn Rand, an admirer of his writing.

Art under control in North Korea

Jane Portal

What does a totalitarian regime expect from its artists? Jane Portal explores the role of art in North Korea.

Nations have always requisitioned and utilized art works. If anything, this process proliferated in the 20th century, when art was widely adopted for propaganda purposes and those who produced it were strictly controlled by totalitarian states. It was the Soviet Union that initially kept the tightest control on cultural output and defined the needs of the state.

In many ways, art for the state in Kim Il-song’s North Korea followed on from and copied that of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, notably the development of Socialist Realist art. Many features of the organisation of artists and the works of art produced are similar, and can be seen as standard features of art in totalitarian societies. In most circumstances, art for the state can be characterised as being essentially large-scale, dramatic and message-laden.

According to the official account, from the 1960s onwards, Socialist Realist art in North Korea took a new development and was independently guided by the philosophy of Juche. Juche was Kim Il-song’s most important political idea, which he used to promote himself as leader of the North Korean people. Juche is usually translated as “self-reliance”, although the academic Dae-sook Suh describes it in practise as “nothing more than xenophobic nationalism”.

Socialist Realism is now referred to in North Korea as Juche Realism. Juche art theorists in North Korea divide world art history into two kinds: “peoples’ art”, reflecting the needs of the masses, and “reactionary art”, reflecting the ideology of the exploiting class. Kim Il-song’s 1966 instruction, “Let’s develop our National form with Socialist content”, is still regarded as the absolute guiding principle of Juche art. This “call” for a new Juche Art was in fact a paraphrase of both Stalin and Mao. Stalin had defined Socialist Realism as “national in form, socialist in content”, while Mao called it “national in form, new democratic in content”.

The “national form” of painting naturally meant traditional Korean ink painting or Chosonhwa, but oil painting (an imported western technique) was also encouraged. Large public wall paintings, which would normally be expected to be carried out in oils, were therefore also produced in ink painting, encouraging ink painters to paint realistically. Still today, there are many more ink painters classed as Merit Artists or Peoples’ Artists than there are oil painters, as a matter of principle.

The subjects originally required by Juche art were limited to such themes as: portraying the General, the relationship of the military and the people, the construction of socialism, National Pride and such like. However, in the 1970s landscape was also approved, when Kim Jong-il instructed: “The idea of describing Nature in a socialist country is to promote patriotism, heighten the national pride and confidence of the public in living in a socialist country.” The result has been a huge increase in the production of oil paintings of natural scenes.

All artists in North Korea are registered as members of the Korean Artists Federation and receive monthly salaries, for which they are expected to produce a certain number of works. Some artists work “on the spot”, at factories or construction sites, whereas others go to an office. Both would be expected to work regular hours and have about two hours of study or discussion in theevenings with regular reports and evaluations. Abstract or conceptual art is forbidden and the subjects and themes of works of art are limited.

There is no question of arranging a solo exhibition but there is a National Art Exhibition every year and an Industrial Art exhibition every two years. There is no museum or gallery of contemporary art and no private galleries, but modern art is included in the displays of the National Gallery “because past tradition is a process by which the present can be understood”. However, most of the works on display are also the ones that appear in all the books on contemporary art  there is no uncertainty as to which are the masterpieces.

In fact, there is no uncertainty at all expressed in North Korean contemporary art, no individual hopes or expressions, no mystery. As Kim Jong-il said: “A picture must be painted in such a way that the viewer can understand its meaning. If the people who see a picture cannot grasp its meaning, no matter what a talented artist may have painted it, they cannot say it is a good picture.”

Shelley’s fantastic prank

Times Online July 12, 2006

H. R. Woudhuysen

In 1809 the controversial naval officer Sir Home Popham invited Peter Finnerty, a radical Irish journalist and supporter of the United Irishmen, to join him on the British expedition to the Scheldt: its object was to attack Antwerp, then held by the French. Although Flushing fell, a large number of troops succumbed to a form of malaria on the island of Walcheren and the expedition ended in disaster with the deaths of around 4,000 men. Finnerty’s reports on these events in the Morning Chronicle led to his arrest and transportation back to England. In January 1810 he accused his “ancient enemy” Lord Castlereagh of trying to silence him and compounded the offence by repeating accusations against the politician about the abuse of United Irish prisoners in 1798. Finnerty was tried for libel in February 1811 and sentenced to eighteen months in Lincoln Gaol. It was not the first time he had gone to prison as a result of clashing with Castlereagh: he had previously spent two years in prison in Dublin for printing a seditious libel and had been made to stand in the pillory. This second libel case was reported in great detail and Finnerty’s plight attracted widespread support, prompting a debate during the summer in the House of Commons and a public subscription, initiated by Sir Francis Burdett, which reached £2,000 on his release. Among those who contributed to a fund to maintain the journalist while he was still in prison was Percy Bysshe Shelley, then an undergraduate at Oxford in his second term at University College. His name appears in a list of four subscribers, each pledging a guinea, printed in the Oxford University and City Herald on March 2, 1811. A week later the journal carried an advertisement for a Poetical Essay, “Just published, Price Two Shillings”; it was described as “On the Existing State of Things . . . for Assisting to Maintain in Prison Mr. Peter Finnerty, Imprisoned for a Libel” and was “by a Gentleman of the University of Oxford”. Similar advertisements for the book appeared in the national press, in The Morning Chronicle (on March 15 and 21) and in The Times (on April 10 and 11).

Shelley’s authorship of this poem was known to his contemporaries at Oxford and the existence of the pamphlet was recorded by the Oxford bibliographer and book collector Philip Bliss. Those who knew Shelley might have associated this publication with An Address to the Irish People (Dublin, 1812), the first work to appear with his full name on its title page (rather than a pseudonym or his initials), and in which he refers to Finnerty’s fate (“He was imprisoned for persisting in the truth”). The designation “by a Gentleman of the University of Oxford” gave little away in itself, but sharp-eyed readers may have noticed that this was also the formula used on the title page of the anonymous gothic novel, St Irvyne; or, The Rosicrucian: A Romance, which Shelley published in 1811 in London with the Pall Mall bookseller J. J. Stockdale. His third anonymous publication of the year was The Necessity of Atheism (Worthing: printed by C. & W. Phillips) in which he collaborated with his fellow undergraduate T. J. Hogg. It was that pamphlet which led to Shelley and Hogg being sent down from University College on March 25, “for contumaciously refusing to answer questions proposed to them and for also repeatedly declining to disavow a publication entitled ‘The Necessity of Atheism’”. It seems likely that the Poetical Essay, whose authorship was probably known to the authorities, contributed to the poet’s expulsion, the episode that his cousin Thomas Medwin rather mildly called “Shelley’s mishap at Oxford”.

The Poetical Essay was no doubt one of what another contemporary at University College, C. J. Ridley, described as “Shelley’s strange and fantastic pranks”. Although it was advertised as for sale by the London publisher B. Crosby & Co. (“and all other Booksellers”), it was actually printed by the Oxford firm of Munday and Slatter. Two months before it was published, on January 11, Shelley had written to Hogg saying: “I have a Poem, with Mr Lundi which I shall certainly publish. There is some of Eliza’s in it: I will write tomorrow I have something to add to it & if Lundi has any idea (when he speaks to you of publishing it wth my name[)] will you tell him to leave it alone till I come”. “Mr Lundi” must be John Munday and the letter might be taken to suggest that Shelley and his sister Elizabeth had been working on the poem together and that the “something to add to it” might relate to the imprisonment of Finnerty. The brother and sister had previously collaborated in the production of the poet’s first book, Original Poetry by Victor and Cazire (Worthing, 1810), which had to be withdrawn when the publisher, Stockdale, realized that one of the poems in the collection of lyrics and gothic narratives had been lifted entirely from a piece by M. G. Lewis.

Original Poetry sank from view and was forgotten about until 1859; an actual copy of the collection was only discovered in 1897, when it was reprinted in facsimile by Richard Garnett. The Poetical Essay, however, has completely eluded Shelley scholars for nearly two centuries. Its title page – whose contents, including the epigraph concerning the ravages of famine from Southey’s recently published The Curse of Kehama (1810), were reproduced in the press advertisements – made it clear that it had some direct link with the case of Peter Finnerty, but the nature of “the State of Things” (Stephen C. Behrendt has detected an allusion to Things as They Are, the proper title of William Godwin’s Caleb Williams) remained obscure. What Kenneth Neill Cameron described as “One of the unsolved mysteries of Shelley bibliography” can now be solved, for a copy of the pamphlet has been discovered and is in the possession of the booksellers Bernard Quaritch.

The pamphlet is a quarto, consisting of twenty pages with a final leaf of notes on the recto and errata on the verso; printed on paper with a watermark date of 1807, it is stitched and uncut, still very much in the same state as it was when it was issued. The poem is dedicated “TO HARRIET W–B–K”, that is Harriet Westbrook with whom Shelley eloped in August 1811: this constitutes the first printed reference to the poet’s wife. The dedication is followed by a “Preface”, a short essay touching on politics and religion, calling for “a total reform in the licentiousness, luxury, depravity, prejudice, which involve society”, not by warfare, which he vigorously denounces, but by “gradual, yet decided intellectual exertions”. The poem which follows consists of 172 lines of rhyming couplets.

It ranges over the devastations of war, the fearless voice of Sir Francis Burdett, the iniquities of Castlereagh, the tyranny of Napoleon and the oppressions of colonial India. Rather than remaining focused on Finnerty and Ireland, Shelley is concerned with England and the war:

Millions to fight compell’d, to fight or die
In mangled heaps on War’s red altar lie . . .
When legal murders swell the lists of pride;
When glory’s views the titled idiot guide.
It is the “cold advisers of yet colder kings” who have “the power to breathe / O’er all the world the infectious blast of death”.

Burdett is the hero of the poem and Castlereagh, with his “Vices as glaring as the noon-day sun”, its principal but unnamed target. As former President of the Board of Control and Colonial Secretary, Castlereagh stands for the iniquities of British rule in India (“The fainting Indian, on his native plains, / Writhes to superior power’s unnumbered pains”), while in Europe, Napoleon is like an “evil spirit brooding over gore”. Shelley’s concluding vision is of the virtuous reign which the overthrow of monarchy will bring:

Man must assert his native rights, must say
We take from Monarchs’ hand the granted sway;
Oppressive law no more shall power retain,
Peace, love, and concord, once shall rule again,
And heal the anguish of a suffering world;
Then, then shall things which now
confusedly hurled,
Seem Chaos, be resolved to order’s sway,
And error’s night be turned to virtue’s day –

While some of the language in the poem, for example the use of abstract terms, is reminiscent of Shelley’s other work, the regularity of the couplets is uncharacteristic. A possible explanation for this could be the fact that the poem was some sort of collaboration between Shelley and his sister Elizabeth. The fate of the pamphlet has been a mystery. The switch from local advertising in Oxford to its appearance in national newspapers coincided with Shelley’s move to London after being sent down from Oxford. It is known that although Munday refused to publish The Necessity of Atheism, Shelley put copies of it in the windows and on the counter of the bookseller’s High Street shop. They were spotted by a Fellow of New College there and all but one of the shop’s stock of them was burnt in its back kitchen. Munday and Slatter may have disposed of their copies of the Poetical Essay in the same way. In April, however, it was said to be available from Benjamin Crosby & Co of Ludgate Hill in London. These press advertisements and the Quaritch copy of the pamphlet suggest that previous theories that Shelley withdrew it, or that the Oxford printers refused to produce it until they were paid by the aristocratic but hard-up undergraduate, cannot be sustained.

Whatever the explanation for the disappearance of the pamphlet, some of the early history of this copy can be recovered. Immediately after being sent down, Shelley went to London. His arrival is recorded in a famous passage in Thomas Medwin’s Life of him:

I remember, as if it occurred yesterday, his knocking at my door in Garden Court, in the Temple, at four o’clock in the morning, the second day after his expulsion. I think I hear his cracked voice, with his well-known pipe, – “Medwin, let me in, I am expelled;” here followed a sort of loud half-hysteric laugh, and a repetition of the words – “I am expelled,” with the addition of, “for Atheism.”

Shelley was, as ever, in financial trouble and after a time in London he spent some of May and June 1811 with his father at Field Place, trying to mend their difficult relationship. When he eloped with Harriet Westbrook he sought money and legal advice from Medwin’s father, a solicitor who lived near to the Shelley home at Horsham in Sussex. It seems likely that it was around this time that he gave the sole surviving copy of the Poetical Essay to Thomas Medwin’s younger brother Pilfold (The unusual first name was a family one: Shelley’s mother was Elizabeth Pilfold), who was then about seventeen years old. He signed this copy at the top right of the title page. The signature can be compared with that on documents relating to Shelley in the Horsham Museum.

It is not unusual for manuscripts which are thought to have been lost to reappear  by their very nature they can be hard to read, hard to identify and may easily be passed over  but it is extremely rare for printed books of any period to be rediscovered after an absence of 200 years. The Quaritch copy of the Poetical Essay is all the more remarkable for its unexpected emergence and for the insights a full study of it will give into Shelleys development as a poet and political thinker.

THE STORM OF STYLE

by ALE