郭松民:法官判决应体现“天理良心”

 

看来,南京市鼓楼区法院对彭宇案所做的一审判决,注定将成为一起影响深远的诉讼,这种影响,将主要体现在世道人 心方面。

彭宇案并不复杂:7月,南京的一位老太太将青年彭宇告上法庭,称是他撞倒自己,要求其赔偿十几万元的损失。彭宇则称自己是好心帮助那位老太太,却反被诬。本来,民事纠纷应该是遵循“谁主张,谁举证”的原则,但法官在老太太并没有拿出有力证据的情况下,“从常理分析,他与老太太相撞的可能性比较大”,于是裁定彭宇补偿原告40%的损失,即45876元(9月6日南方网)。

浏览一下法官的判决书,我感到做出这一裁决的法官,似乎颇异于常人,因为他把彭宇当时所做的所有对老太太有利的行为,都按“常理”做了恶意的揣测。比如彭宇送老太太去医院,法官认为这正说明是他撞倒了老太太,否则这一行为“显然与情理相悖”;到了医院以后,彭宇掏出了200多元钱给老太太的家人交医药费,法官也认为,这一举动证明了他就是撞人者,理由是“如果撞伤了他人,则最符合情理的做法是先行垫付款项”,如此等等。

这样的判决会对彭宇产生什么影响?我在这里也按“常理”推论一番:彭宇究竟是不是那个撞倒老太太的人?我想无非有两种可能性,第一,是他撞倒的;第二,不是他撞倒的。而无论是不是他撞倒的,他从法官的判决中得出的结论只能有一个:那就是决不能做好人,不能采取任何对老太太可能有利的举措,因为这都有可能会成为日后法官做出对自己不利判决的依据。在当时的情况下,最佳的选择就是尽可能快速地离开现场。

其实,何止彭宇会得出这样的结论,所有关注这一案件的人,恐怕都会得出同样的结论。可以预期的是,这个判决一出,我们的社会无疑将变得更冷漠、人与人之间将变得更互不信任、人们对处于危难中的陌生人将更不敢伸出援手——因为未来如果一旦出现任何纠纷,你的一切善意的行为,都可能会被法官当成是有恶意的动机。

严格说起来,按照我国“以事实为依据,以法律为准绳”的审判原则,法官在老太太无法拿出事实并且没有证人为她作证的情况下,是不能作出如此判决的。法官这样判,似乎是想走衡平法的路子,靠自己的自由裁量权来判决,但殊不知衡平法是以“正义、良心和公正”为基本原则,以实现和体现自然正义为主要任务的,用中国的传统语言说就是要体现“天理良心”四个字。但这个判决体现了“天理良心”吗?我看很难这么说,网民几乎一边倒的反对之声,也证明它不符合人们内心深处的“天理良心”。

从司法的角度看,这个案件在判决前已经引起了社会的广泛关注,属于典型的“影响性诉讼”。所谓“影响性诉讼”,顾名思义就是具有相当社会影响力的诉讼,通常是指在一定范围内为公众普遍知晓和广泛关注,能够在较大范围和一定深度影响立法创新、司法改革和人们法治和道德观念的典型诉讼。

由于“影响性诉讼”因其本身的典型性和代表性,容易引起媒体的关注和传播,因而通常比普通的诉讼更具有社会关注度和影响力,其意义要远远超越解决单纯个案的层面。法官在处理“影响性诉讼”时,要格外的谨慎,不仅要考虑案件本身,还应考虑案件对法治建设和世道人心的影响。但遗憾的是,在这次彭宇案的一审判决中,我们却没有看到应有的谨慎!

赵志疆:武断的“常理”让人胆战心惊

 

南京一男子彭宇称因搀扶摔倒的老太太,反而被告上法庭。昨天,法院做出一审判决,彭宇被判赔45876元。判决书称“彭宇自认其是第一个下车的人,从常理分析,他与老太太相撞的可能性比较大。如果不是彭宇撞的老太太,他完全不用送她去医院”。(《现代快报》9月6日)

一起本来并不复杂的纠纷,孰是孰非大可摆事实、讲道理,据理力争。然而现实的结果是,虽然法院做出了判决,非但没有平息事端,反而激起了更大面积的非议。在这里,笔者无意猜测法院的判决是否准确,我只是感到好奇——庄严神圣的法庭之上,法官为什么置证据、证言于不顾,而别出心裁地依据“常理分析”,其所赖以分析的究竟又是什么样的“常理”?

看得出来,法官所谓的“常理”,正是无数人所抨击并致力于扭转的冷漠风气,而依据这样的“常理”来分析,则当今社会不可能也不应该出现诸多见义勇为助人为乐的好人好事。撇开彭宇是否真的撞人的话题,这样的“常理”所展示出的冷漠与武断何等令人胆战心惊!

掉在地上的钱包不能轻易去捡,因为有可能是圈套;摔倒在街头的老人不要轻易去搀扶,否则就有可能引火上身。相信很多人都会有类似的“经验教训”。每次意外乃至悲剧的发生,现场总是不乏一些看客的存在,但这并不意味着每个人都是一样的冷血而麻木,也许会有人想到应该去做点什么,但再三权衡利弊得失之后,他们终于还是出于一种“趋利避害”的本能而选择了沉默。因为他们深知,“善”并非都能得到“善报”,甚至还会有可能是“恶报”。类似的“集体冷漠症”,人们谴责了无数遍。但时至今日,冷漠依然在一点一点吞噬着我们的正义良知。或许,我们真的有必要回头来重新审视一下,那些并不冷漠的人,他们究竟得到了什么?

如果说普通人嗟叹世风日下已成“常理”是一种悲哀的话,由法官亲口宣布并将此作为判案的依据则令人在无比惊诧的同时,心情沮丧到了极点。至此,我们不难理解为什么越来越多的人不愿助人为乐,为什么那么多父母亲朋身口相传“少管闲事”,以及为什么太多的见义勇为者无奈被人视为“另类”——因为那样的行为原本就违背“常理”,不仅不容易为外人所轻易接受,甚至还有可能成为自己犯下过失的“铁证”。

这注定是一次将会写进法制进程的庭审,其中焦点不仅仅在于法官仅凭“常理”来判别是非,更在于由这种“常理”所流露出的对人与人之间关系日趋冷漠的关系所下的定义。在社会各界不遗余力大力颂扬雷锋精神,呼唤热情互助的时代背景下,很难想象,这样无情的判决将不啻为向那些热血沸腾的志愿者兜头泼下的一盆冷水。

时寒冰:史上最弱智判决将把人性引向恶

 

这是一份注定将被载入史册的判决书。

先看事情的大致经过:2006年11月20日,彭宇在南京市某公共汽车站好心扶一名跌倒在地的老人起来,并送其去医院检查。不想,受伤的徐老太太及家人得知胫骨骨折,要花费数万元医药费时,一口咬定是彭宇撞了人,要其承担数万元医疗费。被拒绝后,老人向南京市鼓楼区法院起诉,要求彭宇赔偿各项损失13万多元。此案惟一的目击证人陈先生当庭陈述,他看到的情况是:老太太手里拎着保温瓶,向第三辆公交车跑去。她跑到第二辆车的车尾时,不知为什么就跌倒了。这时,他看到从第二辆车后门下车的彭宇走了几步,上前帮忙,然后自己也上前帮忙,并打电话叫老人的儿女过来,整个过程大约半个小时。徐老太太曾在法庭上称不认识陈先生。当时不是他帮助的自己,陈先生非常气愤,提出自己当时曾用自己的手机帮老太太打电话,手机里有通话记录可以证明。

这位徐老太太的儿子是一位警察。当彭向承办法官申请,向当时出警的派出所调取彭宇、陈先生及高老太的原始询问笔录时,派出所却以正在装修为由,无法提供。后来更是声称笔录遗失。当事的派出所长说,“我至少找了6次还是没有找到,不过我拍了笔录纸的照片,”并说,“我为了搞清事实才用手机拍了笔录的。”当被追问到谁的手机拍的,所长拿出手机说就是他的这部手机。紧接着,彭宇当着所长的面调出照片Exif信息证明照片并非所长手机所摄。在记者的追问下,这位所长说出了实情:照片是老人的儿子拍摄的。卢所长说老人的儿子对他说是同行,他就把老太儿子的手机扣下了……即使没有学过法律的人,根据常识也能感觉中此案的蹊跷之处。然而,法官却作出了史无前例的判决,裁定彭宇补偿原告(徐老太太)损失45876元,10日内给付。这份判决书当之无愧地成为天下奇文,下面一同赏析:南京鼓楼区法院认为,老太太是与彭宇相撞受伤。理由是:“根据日常生活经验分析,老太太(原文为”原告“)倒地的原因除了被他人的外力因素撞倒之外,还有绊倒或者滑倒等自身原因情形。但双方在庭审中均未陈述存在老太太绊倒或滑倒等事实,故根据本案现有证据,应着重分析老太太被撞倒之外力情形。” 判决书继续说:“人被外力撞倒后,一般首先会确定外力来源,辨认相撞之人;如果撞人之人逃逸,作为被撞倒之人的第一反应,是呼救并请人帮忙阻止。本案事发地点是公共场所的公交站台,且事发时间是视线较好的上午,事故发生的过程非常短促,故撞倒老太太的人不可能轻易逃逸。而根据彭宇自认,其是第一个下车的人,从常理分析,他与老太太相撞的可能性比较大。” 法院认为,如果彭宇是见义勇为做好事,“更符合实际的做法是抓住撞倒原告的人,而不是好心相扶。”“如果被告是做好事,根据社会情理,在老太太的家人到达后,其完全可以说明事实经过并让老太太的家人将她送到医院,然后自行离开。但彭宇未作此等选择,他的行为显然与情理相悖,”判决书写道。

“如果不是他撞的,应该不会垫钱。” 在和老太太家人一起将老太太送到医院后,彭宇曾掏出了200多元钱给老太太的家人交医药费,彭宇的解释是,“当时老太太家里人急着给老人看伤,又说没带钱。这样我才把钱给了他们,他家里人当时还说要给我打欠条。”而现在这成了他有责任的证据之一。 判决书作了这样的表述:“在事发当天,彭宇曾给老太太200多元钱,且此后一直未要求老太太返还。关于彭宇给钱的原因双方说法不一:老太太说是彭宇先行垫付的赔偿款;彭宇认为是借款。” “彭宇和老太太素不相识,一般不会贸然借款。即便如彭宇所说是借款,在有承担事故责任之虞时,也应当请公交站台上无利害关系的其他人证明,或者向老太太家属说明情况后索取借条或说明。但彭宇在本案中未存在上述情况,而且在老太太家人陪同前往医院的情况下,由他借钱给老太太的可能性不大。” “而如果撞伤了他人,则最符合情理的做法是先行垫付款项,”基于上述判断,法院认为,可以认定这200多元钱并非借款,而是赔偿款。 放下彭宇到底是撞了人还是救了人不提,单就这份判决书而言,就可称得上史上最弱智判决书。这种判决是对法律的彻底的颠覆和背叛!是对法律的公然强暴和亵渎!这种凭借想像力和推理判案的做法,是一次前所未有的大倒退,是对人类良知和道德底线的公然蚕食和破坏!法官断案,要求“以事实为依据、以法律为准绳”,然而,这些判决书从头到尾都在用推理和猜测的口吻表述,这哪里是一份判决书?分明就是一部充满奇特想像力的小说,光天化日之下,法院竟然启用一位不入流的文学青年来断案!我靠!!! 这份史上最弱智判决侮辱了国人的智商!窃以为,即使换只狗坐在法官的位置上,也不至于犯下如此匪夷所思的错误,因为,它不拥有那种奇特至极的怪异智慧和思维方式!老太太跌倒了,别人去救,法官就能得出“他的行为显然与情理相悖”的结论,在这个法官心目中,我们这个社会该是多么的黑暗啊!人心该是何等恶毒!倘若今后这位法官的老娘跌倒,因无人相救而亡,这位法官还有理由埋怨社会缺乏爱心吗?不,人们的爱心正是被这种白痴和弱智的混账判决给葬送了啊!我做记者十多年,见过不少冤屈,但从来没有一份判决令我如此愤怒。这份判决书的危害在于,它彻底地以法的形式摧毁人们的爱心!它在明目张胆地把人心引向恶!它告诫人们,见人危难千万不要相救,否则将引火烧身,给自己带来无尽的痛苦和灾难。这种错误的引导显然是违背公理、违背大道的。如果人人自保,人人见死不救、见危不助,我们这个社会该是多么的冷酷!我们这个社会现在的问题不是爱心泛滥,而是私心泛滥啊!我们建设和谐社会,需要的是对爱的倡导而不是对爱和善的绞杀。任何一个有公心的人都应该明白,我们目前的社会对爱和善的企盼是何等的焦渴和强烈!我的愤怒在于,这种弱智的判决与我毕生追求的公心思想完全背离,它犹如一把剑,深深地刺伤我,令我痛楚难忍,让我条件反射般作出最愤怒的反应!依照想像力裁决案件是非常危险的。

如果本人也依照该法官的思路想象下去会发生什么?这位法官出生的时候也许被驴踢伤了脑壳,或受过严重惊吓,不然,拿出如此判决书“显然与情理相悖”;这位法官也许从中得到了什么好处,不然,拿出如此判决书“显然与情理相悖”……这样可以一直推理下去。如果第一个推理成立,我建议全国人大常委会,对法院系统组织一次彻底的检查,凡智商为负数,出生后有被驴踢伤脑壳病史、受过严重惊吓的家伙,一律清除出法官队伍,以防止类似丢人现眼的弱智判决沦为这个时代的笑柄。同时,应该彻查为这类法官发放证书的相关责任人,为何将如此脑子不够用的家伙引入法院系统。

我还建议对此案进行重审,严查背后有无作伪证、外力干预司法甚至腐败等问题,要以令人信服的证据作出公正的判决,还善良人以清白,把恶人的狰狞面目昭示于天下,维护法律的尊严,捍卫人类的公理和道德底线!如果有法官认为本人此文所言“显然与情理相悖”,欢迎法官去法院起诉,时寒冰即为本人真名。By the way,提醒该法官,根据举证责任,要告我首先证明我写的那个脑壳被驴踢过的家伙就是你,你要出示出生证明和被驴踢过的医疗鉴定、还有智商为负数的医疗鉴定。我不相信我正好倒霉透顶,又在法庭上碰见一位想像力奇特的文学青年,在还没有看清楚我长得帅不帅的情况下就判我败诉!(注明:文中楷体部分是引用的媒体公开报道)写于2007年9月6日

情妇起义:21世纪的中国传奇

 

在9月7日的《南方日报》上读到《11名情妇联手告倒陕西政协副主席——庞家钰贪污腐败案惊动中央》,我的第一感受是感动,觉得曾倩(化名)这个女人还真了不起。虽然她是副省级高官庞家钰的“首席情妇”,但庞家钰泼天的富贵占有不了她的基本良心。当金融公司非法经营国债巨亏导致市民上访而案发,庞家钰为自保哄骗曾的丈夫李思民揽罪后却判他死刑灭口,她找庞交涉无果,便不顾一切誓把狠毒的庞家钰告倒。事实上,她当初也是被庞家钰设计霸占的。这不由得使我想起“千古艰难惟一死,伤心岂独息夫人”的春秋故事,甚至想起《西游记》中的唐僧他妈(为腹中子息忍辱陪侍害死丈夫而冒名赴任的江贼多年,最终报仇团圆)。人,今日要做到曾倩这样良知不泯并不容易。

我的第二感受却是疑惑。宝鸡市国债案发是2003年,曾倩是知情人,有真凭实据,怎么告了这么久才“惊动中央”?

原来,来自人民网的上述报道摘要于《知音》杂志的海外版,同一作者的原版有很多生动的细节,颇堪玩味:

1986年,庞家钰在当了十几年的技术员后,担任一家工厂的副厂长。而厂长李思民大权独揽,根本没把庞家钰放在眼里,使庞怀恨在心。庞当市长后,“老领导”李思民只是一个副局长,他想,“如果把曾倩搞到手,不仅满足生理的刺激,还可借机羞辱李思民。”把曾倩弄到手后,庞当着众人的面一语双关地羞辱李思民:“你媳妇最近表现不错,我很满意……”李思民气得面色青紫,但官大一级压死人,他又能怎样呢?

1998年3月,庞家钰当上了宝鸡市委书记,在上任后的第一次市委全会上他说:“我是宝鸡的一把手,从现在开始,我的要求就是圣旨,大家必须无条件服从!”庞玩弄的女人越来越多。宝鸡有官员形象地说:市委书记成了“妇联主席”。

以上两个细节,说的是权力魔杖的威力和如今某些地方官员不加掩饰的帝王作派。庞家钰这样的官员稀有吗?

庞家钰是怎样把曾倩弄到手的呢?为此,他不仅导演了宝鸡市一批干部带家属到临潼骊山召开年度总结会,并让市政府办公室紧急通知李思民赶回宝鸡处理要事,还早就设圈套偷拍了李思民嫖娼的一摞照片;当他将照片给曾倩看过并细语安慰她时,给她冲了一杯热茶,悄悄放入安眠药——高衙内不可能这样假公济私,西门大官人也没有搞这么龌龊的迷奸吧?

《知音》原版写得很清楚,虽出现了金融公司巨亏和引水工程豆腐渣两大“险情”,曾倩第一次并没告倒庞家钰,中央调查组无果而归;于是,曾倩便找老干部搜集材料并联合对庞家钰心怀怨恨的11名情妇一起上告……然而,这只是“知音版”,对男女恩怨情仇有偏爱。

今年7月5日《检察日报》头版,讲的却是“西北政法大学81级校友举报8年把陕西省原政协副主席庞家钰拉下马”。该报“独家披露”的情节是:早在1986年,有人举报庞家钰任副厂长的工厂倒卖工业用的黄金,在市纪委工作的魏建军(化名)查案把庞家钰得罪了;后来魏通过公开招考当上某局副局长,已当上市领导的庞家钰找个理由把他的副局长给免了;魏多次参加省内、省外副厅级干部公推公选,因为不愿给庞送钱化解矛盾,结果都遭到庞家钰压制。魏于是决心不惜代价扳倒庞,在决定举报之初就与老婆离婚。他走访老干部,又联络被庞整过的30多个县处级干部,收集材料并附上身份证复印件寄北京,跑北京;庞调到省里后又搞七人联名举报……

不论把扳倒庞的功劳归于反目的情妇,还是归于不服整的官员,都不脱当代贪官倒台的基本模式,都有很鲜明的“中国特色”。何以如此再说也不新鲜了。我只是感慨我们这些文人想象力的相形见绌。小说大家贾平凹人称有鬼才,他的《废都》能虚构出这么“精彩”的人物和故事吗?

有人说,中国当下的新闻报道已大大超过今古传奇的想象力。不是吗?段义和案、庞家钰案都可以证实这一点。天天可听到这样的传奇故事,是中国人的幸还是不幸?西人福山所谓的“历史”在中国肯定没有终结,“传奇”何时可以终结呢?

——这是一个天问?

When Bad Things Happen

When Bad Things Happen


Published: September 9, 2007

In late July, a story appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, then quickly sprang onto the international news loop: a cat named Oscar, who lives in a Rhode Island nursing home, can predict which residents are about to die. Mild and fluffy but reticent by nature, Oscar gives his elderly neighbors a wide berth until one of them is about to slip into a fatal decline  at which point he leaps onto the bed, cuddles up to the patient and mews vociferously if anybody tries to remove him. Opening Ann Packers new novel, Songs Without Words, you understand how relatives of Oscars chosen might feel when they learn that the cat has singled out their loved ones. A sense of foreboding descends, the wait begins.

Skip to next paragraph

Emiliano Ponzi

SONGS WITHOUT WORDS

By Ann Packer.

322 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $24.95.

Related

First Chapter: Songs Without Words (September 9, 2007)

A Profile of Ann Packer (September 3, 2007)

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Ann Packer’s new book is “Songs Without Words.”

Packer writes sensitive, quietly distressing fiction about ordinary people waylaid by misfortunes great and small. Her 1994 collection, “Mendocino and Other Stories,” included 10 tales rinsed in loss. Her wrenching first novel, “The Dive From Clausen’s Pier,” which appeared five years ago, deservedly became a best seller. In uncannily true-to-life language, without exaggeration and at an unhurried pace, Packer told the story of Carrie Bell, a diffident 23-year-old Midwesterner whose fiancé breaks his neck in a diving accident at a time when the couple’s relationship, like the water level at Clausen’s Reservoir, is at a dangerous low.

Methodically and without judgment, Packer follows Carrie as she wrestles with guilt, avoidance and defiance, trying to gauge her responsibilities to her now quadriplegic fiancé, his family, her friends and herself. “How much do we owe the people we love?” Carrie asks herself. Finding no answer, she flees to New York. “What does it say about me that I’d leave?” she asks her mother over the phone. “Bad isn’t the issue,” her mother, a therapist, replies. “You do what you do. Not without consequences for other people,” she concedes. “But it’s not very helpful to regard your choices as a series of right or wrong moves.”

The extraordinary authority of Packer’s voice lies in her refusal to make heroes of the victims of mischance or villains out of the friends, lovers and family members who sometimes fail them. She has firsthand knowledge of this difficult moral landscape: her father was partly paralyzed by a stroke when she was a child, and took his own life almost four years later. In 2002, at the time of the release of “The Dive From Clausen’s Pier,” Packer explained in an interview on the literary blog Beatrice.com that she suspected she had been moved to write the book because she was “thinking about how people cope with both the unthinkable tragedies that happen in life and their own reactions to those tragedies.” Like Auden, who wrote that tragedy strikes “while someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along,” Packer seems to be fascinated by the randomness of human suffering and the continuity of everyday life around it.

In “Songs Without Words,” calamity visits a placid, prosperous California family — a homemaker, Liz Mackay; her handsome Wi-Fi executive husband, Brody; and their adolescent kids, Lauren and Joe — all of them so vanilla and photo-friendly they could be cast in a T-Mobile “Fave Five” commercial.

Liz has lived an unusually lucky life. Growing up secure and well loved in a happy family, she gave in early to an inclination to look after others — particularly her childhood friend Sarabeth, whose mother committed suicide when Sarabeth was in high school. Now in her 40s and still single, Sarabeth wallows in regret for her life’s missteps, but Liz nurses only one sprig of misgiving: embarrassment that she never yearned for a career. “All Liz had ever really wanted was to be a mother,” Packer explains. “Lauren and Joe were her career — her work, her life.” When disaster touches her family, Liz is completely unprepared.

To give too many particulars about the crisis that overtakes the Mackays would be unfair, since Packer builds toward it slowly and elliptically. Suffice it to say that the role the diving accident plays in her first novel is reprised here by a suicide attempt. The incident smashes the Mackay family’s smooth surface like a meteorite landing in a pond. Liz blames herself. “I know, it sounds crazy,” she tells her husband, “but the point is: if it was your fault, then you weren’t powerless — you weren’t at the mercy of stuff just happening.” He replies, “You’re always going to be at the mercy of stuff just happening, no matter what.”

Can the Mackays regain the illusion of serenity that had been their terra firma? Will Liz and Brody’s marriage survive this blow? And what will become of Sarabeth, who has leaned on Liz for three decades?

Like the accident in “The Dive From Clausen’s Pier,” the suicide attempt in “Songs Without Words” turns a spotlight on achingly normal, decent people whose uneventful lives might otherwise have passed unnoticed by anyone but the paperboy. Yet this novel lacks its predecessor’s urgency, perhaps because the diving accident in the first book occurs just a few pages in, acting like a springboard for the narrative, while here the crucial action takes place after nearly a hundred pages, slowing the story’s momentum.

Apart from the disaster device, the two novels also share significant structural details and plot points. In each, a wholesome family of five provides refuge to an only child who grows up to let her caretakers down; in each, a needy friend emotionally blackmails the female lead; in each, eccentric elderly ladies befriend eccentric younger women. Other overlaps include gay male friends and sporty, uncomplicated younger brothers, even soothing memories of butter-pecan ice cream.

While both novels are written in a flowing style and compassionate voice, rich in solace for any reader familiar with the traumas Packer explores, “Songs Without Words” conveys the eerie sensation of having been re-gifted — we’re unwrapping the central struggle of the previous novel in new packaging. Here, as in her other writing, Packer admirably deploys delicate perceptions of adult unhappiness and intergenerational need, especially when her focus lands on Sarabeth. In a memorable scene, Sarabeth is sitting on the steps of her house, gazing, as she often does, at the yard next door, when one of the neighbors’ children asks her, “Did you make any friends yet?” When Sarabeth seems puzzled by the question, the child explains: “My mom says that’s why you look at us. Because you’re lonely.” But is Sarabeth lonely or lazy?

At a time when Liz could use some comfort, Sarabeth doesn’t rush to her side. She’s used to taking from Liz, not giving; and adversity, Packer likes to show, isn’t always character-building. As the author interweaves the two women’s crises, the story lines don’t so much mesh as compete for resources. Liz’s family and her friends both need her, but sometimes charity has to end at home.

LUCIANO PAVAROTTI: 1935-2007

LUCIANO PAVAROTTI: 1935-2007

A natural talent with superb range, tenor brought opera to the masses

Thursday, September 6, 2007


Luciano Pavarotti, whose glorious, unforced tenor voice and gusto as a performer helped redefine tenor stardom at a level scarcely seen since Enrico Caruso, died today at his home in Modena, Italy, after a yearlong battle with pancreatic cancer, his manager said. He was 71.

Pavarotti had been in poor health since undergoing emergency cancer surgery in July 2006, after which he canceled all his remaining engagements for the year. He was hospitalized last month for a series of tests, then released.

His manager, Terri Robson, told the Associated Press in an e-mail that Pavarotti died at 5 a.m. local time.

Pavarotti was one of the great natural operatic talents of the latter half of the 20th century. He boasted a bright, ringing tone with high notes that could sound with effortless clarity, and there was a ripe, sensual beauty to his singing that penetrated the heart.

Although he rarely ventured outside the Italian repertoire, Pavarotti brought a full measure of emotional ardor and lyrical grace to the music he championed. His phrasing was fluid and articulate, with an easy eloquence that illuminated even the most technically challenging music.

Pavarotti was never an especially committed actor, and in his later years, when his lifelong struggle with weight had hampered his mobility, his stage performances were often perfunctory. But from a purely musical perspective, his accounts of some f his signature roles – in operas by Verdi, Puccini and Donizetti above all – defined those roles for an entire generation of singers and audiences.

“He was a unique artist,” said former San Francisco Opera General Director Lotfi Mansouri, who worked extensively with Pavarotti throughout his career. “First of all, he had this fantastic voice and an Italian style that was so natural. Like Callas, it was one of those voices that as soon as you heard just two notes on the radio, right away you knew who it was.

“He loved the audience, he lived for the audience – at the end of every concert, he would have this incredible smile on his face. And he popularized opera, because he was one of the very few opera stars whose name everybody knew.”

“He had the most gorgeous, supple, musical, Italianate lyric tenor of a half-century – maybe a whole century,” said San Francisco Opera General Director David Gockley, “as well as a delightful down-to-earth teddy-bear personality that reached out and brought millions of people closer to opera. I specifically remember his games of tennis out on Fifth Avenue with Johnny Carson.”

Beginning in the late 1980s and early ’90s, Pavarotti expanded the range of his celebrity beyond the world of the operatic stage. His appearance during the 1990 World Cup, singing “Nessun dorma” from Puccini’s “Turandot,” made him the equivalent of an international pop star, and his high-profile appearances with Plácido Domingo and José Carreras as the Three Tenors brought him huge new audiences.

He made other forays into the world of pop entertainment as well, beginning with the 1982 Hollywood film “Yes, Giorgio,” in which he played an opera singer who falls for a throat specialist played by Kathryn Harrold. In 1998 he was the musical guest on “Saturday Night Live.”

Pavarotti was a frequent and extraordinarily popular performer with the San Francisco Opera, from his 1967 company debut as Rodolfo in Puccini’s “La Bohème” to his final 1988 appearance in the same role.

Throughout the 1970s, he appeared with the company nearly every season, giving his first career performances here of a large number of the mainstay roles in the Italian repertoire.

San Francisco audiences heard his role debuts as Riccardo in Verdi’s “Un Ballo in Maschera” (1971), Fernando in Donizetti’s “La Favorita” (1973), Rodolfo in Verdi’s “Luisa Miller” (1974), Manrico in Verdi’s “Il Trovatore” (1975), Calaf in Puccini’s “Turandot” (1977), Enzo Grimaldi in Ponchielli’s “La Gioconda” (1979) and Radames in Verdi’s “Aida” (1981).

In 1981, Pavarotti gave a concert at the Civic Auditorium to raise money for the Italian town of Morra de Sanctis, which had been devastated by an earthquake the previous year.

Pavarotti was born Oct. 12, 1935, in Modena, Italy, the son of working-class music lovers. A childhood friend was the soprano Mirella Freni, whose mother worked with Pavarotti’s in the same factory.

“We both drank from the same wet nurse,” he told The Chronicle’s Marilyn Tucker in a 1967 interview. “I drank doubles, as you can see.”

After musical studies in Modena, Pavarotti made his operatic debut in 1961, in a production of “La Bohème” at Reggio nell’Emilia in Northern Italy. Engagements in Amsterdam and London quickly followed, and he made his U.S. debut in 1965 with the Greater Miami Opera, stepping in as a last-minute substitute for an ailing tenor in Donizetti’s “Lucia di Lammermoor” on the recommendation of soprano Joan Sutherland.

His career took off soon thereafter as companies throughout the United States and Europe clamored for his services. He recorded voluminously as well, compiling a discography that according to his official Web site extended to 110 discs.

By the 1990s, though, he was making fewer appearances in opera houses and more in arenas.

In 1994, on the eve of an appearance in the 20,000-seat San Jose Arena, Pavarotti took a swipe at the acoustics of the War Memorial Opera House, where he had sung so often in previous decades. “In America,” he said, “there is only one theater made for opera – the Met. The others, even San Francisco, are more like a big cinema.”

Pavarotti faced new hurdles during the final years of his career. He was heckled at Milan’s venerable Teatro alla Scala and banned from the Lyric Opera of Chicago after canceling one too many times. He was caught lip-syncing during a performance for the BBC.

He underwent an acrimonious split from his longtime manager, Herbert Breslin, who responded with the tell-all memoir “The King and I,” co-written with New York Times critic Anne Midgette. In 1996, a tabloid scandal hit when Pavarotti left his wife of 35 years for his 26-year-old assistant, whom he later married.

Pavarotti is survived by his wife, the former Nicoletta Mantovani, four daughters and a granddaughter.

Pavarotti on disc

Among the highlights of the tenor’s discography for Decca:

— Donizetti: “L’Elisir d’Amore” (1970) with Joan Sutherland, Richard Bonynge conducting.

— Puccini: “Turandot” (1972) with Joan Sutherland, Zubin Mehta conducting.

— Puccini: “La Bohème” (1972) with Mirella Freni, Herbert von Karajan conducting.

— Puccini: “Madama Butterfly” (1974) with Mirella Freni, Herbert von Karajan conducting.

— Mozart: “Idomeneo” (1983), Sir John Pritchard conducting.

— “Carreras, Domingo, Pavarotti in Concert” (1990), Zubin Mehta conducting.

Email Joshua Kosman at [email protected].

Married to the myth

Married to the myth

Charles Nicholl admires Germaine Greer’s spirited attempt to defend Ann Hathaway, Shakespeare’s Wife

Saturday September 1, 2007
The Guardian

Shakespeare's Wife by Germaine Greer
Buy Shakespeare’s Wife at the Guardian bookshop
Shakespeare’s Wife
by Germaine Greer
406pp, Bloomsbury, £20

Ann or Agnes Hathaway was a farmer’s daughter from Shottery, near Stratford. Born in about 1556, she was 26 years old when she married William Shakespeare, a glove-maker’s son eight years her junior. It seems he was already a budding poet. An early sonnet, written in jaunty octosyllabics and concluding with a laboured pun (hate away /Hathaway), is thought to have been a courtship poem. Ann was pregnant when they married, and six months later, in late May 1583, the first of their three children was born – a daughter, christened Susanna.

While her husband found fame and fortune in London, Ann’s life remained firmly rooted in Stratford. In 1598, when she was in her early 40s, the family moved into a large house on the edge of town, New Place, bought, presumably, on theatrical profits. Shakespeare returned there when he could, which was probably not often. The outlines of Ann’s career as a wife and mother are inscribed in the parish register – the baptisms of her children; the death of her only son, Hamnet, at the age of 11; the weddings of her daughters; the birth of her first grandchild, Elizabeth, in 1608. Shakespeare died in the spring of 1616, having made his will a few weeks earlier, including its notoriously brusque bequest: “I gyve unto my wief my second best bed with the furniture”. Ann died, in her mid-60s, in August 1623.

Apart from the sonnet, which tells us nothing about her, what we know of Ann is more or less what we know of hundreds of middle-class Elizabethan and Jacobean women – a skeleton of documentary fact, mostly familial. It is Germaine Greer’s laudable aim in Shakespeare’s Wife to rescue this woman seemingly condemned to the shadows at the edge of her famous husband’s life, to retrieve some kind of individuality for her, and to “re-embed” the story of their marriage “in its social context”.

In part her book succeeds in this mission. She gives a robust account of Ann’s origins and formative family experiences: she finds the Hathaways “a frugal, no-nonsense people”, and notes the Puritan leanings of some of the family. She writes informatively, en passant, about various aspects of a provincial Elizabethan woman’s life and choices. We hear of the costs of wet nursing, the routines of light agriculture, the contents of a visiting pedlar’s pack. This is enjoyable, if sometimes self-defeating, as it tends to make Ann exemplary rather than individual: an identikit housewife of the period.

But this would not be a book by Germaine Greer if t did not also include a generous dollop of controversy. Her book has an agenda. Its thesis is broadly twofold – that Ann has been consistently undervalued, for what she meant to Shakespeare and for what she contributed to his work; and that this downgrading has been the product of generations of blinkered, misogynistic, male biographers. Ann has “left a wife-shaped void in the biography of William Shakespeare, which later bardolaters filled up with their own speculations, most of which do neither them nor their hero any credit”. From Edmund Malone to Sir Sidney Lee to Stephen Greenblatt, these “Shakespeare wallahs” have “succeeded in creating a Bard in their own likeness, that is to say, incapable of relating to women, and then vilified [Ann] in order to exonerate him”. Greer rightly condemns “bardolatry”, though she must herself stand accused of arrant “bardography” – ie the frequent and irritating use of “The Bard” as a name for Shakespeare.

That the Shakespeare marriage has been viewed negatively cannot be denied. The age difference, the shotgun wedding, the long months apart while Shakespeare worked in London, and above all that crabby-sounding legacy to “my wife”, which gives neither her name nor the formulaic adjective “well-beloved” – all these have contributed to an impression that Shakespeare entered the marriage unwillingly, and exited from it bitterly, that it was at best semi-detached and at worst cold and loveless.

Greer is quite right to challenge all this, but her oppositional approach tends to affect her historical acuity. Analysis gives way to a rhetoric of female empowerment, and argument to the familiar sound of special pleading. She claims that as part of their downgrading of Ann’s intelligence, commentators have ignored the “curious fact” that she was related to a minor Elizabethan dramatist, Richard Hathway. But there is no such curious fact – only the more boring one that the dramatist has no known connection with the Hathaways of Shottery. Elsewhere she says sternly, “We can find no evidence of Shakespeare having supported his family, especially during the lost years [ie 1585-91, when there is no documentary record of his circumstances]”. This conveniently casts Ann in a heroic feminist mould of fending for herself while looking after three children. But what kind of evidence would we expect to find of Shakespeare’s financial support?

In her chapter “Of Ann’s Reading of the Sonnets”, Greer casually states that the first edition of the sonnets (1609) was a piratical publication done without Shakespeare’s consent. There is no evidence for this, but again it is convenient for her argument – it would mean that the published sequence of the sonnets has no authorial imprimatur; and if the sequence is random it becomes more possible that some of the sonnets which are apparently addressed to the “Fair Youth” are (as Greer believes) addressed to Ann. Greer’s crowning idea – that Ann was a behind-the-scenes promoter and financier of the First Folio – seems fanciful.

The best way to learn more about Ann Shakespeare would be actually to discover something new about her – a formidable task which Greer does not attempt. She refers to her theories as “daring”, and “heresy”, and to herself as “the intrepid author”, yet in the end she offers just a different set of unsupported hypotheses. At its best this is a spirited, voluble, scholarly book which gives some depth and some dignity to the marginalised Mrs Shakespeare, but it is marred by a tendency to play ideological ping pong with her reputation. Charles Nicholl’s The Lodger: Shakespeare on Silver Street is to be published by Allen Lane in November.



国际笔会狱中作家委员会关于陈树庆被判刑四年的紧急行动通报

 


2007年9月7日
紧急行动网络2007年第30号第一次补充 


中国:重要异议作家陈树庆被判入狱四年 

国际笔会狱中作家委员会抗议,重要异议作家陈树庆于2007年8月14日被判决四年徒刑。国际笔会认为,关押陈树庆违反了中国已签署的联合国《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第19条,呼吁立即无条件释放他。 

根据笔会信息,异议作家和被禁的中国民主党(CDP)浙江省党部负责人陈树庆,被以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑四年、剥夺政治权利一年。据报道,陈树庆共有七篇文章被定罪,它们分别发表在被禁的CDP杂志和海外网站《博讯》、《大纪元》、《中国事务论坛》、《议报》和《多维新闻》上。 

陈树庆于2006年9月14日以煽动颠覆罪遭拘捕,此案因缺乏证据曾被两次退回警方。他在收到警方传票后主动去浙江省杭州市大关苑派出所而被捕,警方随后搜查了他家,搜走了他的电脑和一些资料。陈以他发表在海外各中文网站如《博讯》、《民主论坛》、《大纪元》 、《议报》、《观察》和《新世纪》上的批评文章而知名, 

陈树庆现年42岁,1999年曾因参与建立被禁的中国民主党被拘押四个月。获释后,他学做律师,并通过了考试,但浙江省司法厅于2005年以他在互联网上所发表的文章“违反中国宪法”为由,拒发他律师执照。陈为此向法院提出诉讼,但初审和上诉均遭法院裁决败诉,此后一直遭警方骚扰。 

请发出呼吁书:

——抗议陈树庆因其批评文章被判四年徒刑,呼吁根据中国已成为签约国的《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第19条立即无条件释放他;
——敦促当局在他被羁押期间,尊重其基本权利,充分保障他与家人和律师见面以及一切必要的医疗保障。 

中国政府地址: 
中华人民共和国北京市,邮政编码 100032
中华人民共和国国务院转
国家主席胡锦涛阁下 

中华人民共和国北京市,邮政编码 100745
东城区东交民巷27号
最高人民法院院长肖扬先生 

请注意:中国当局的传真号码不好用,因此可要求你所在国的中国外交使节转寄呼吁书。 
如果可能请将呼吁书副本递交你所在国的中国外交使节。 
**如果在2007年9月30日后发出,请与本办公室联系。** 
有关进一步消息,请联系国际笔会狱中作家委员会的Cathy McCann,
地址:Brownlow House, 50/51 High Holborn, London WC1V 6ER UK,
电话:+44(0)20 7405 0338
传真:+44(0)20 7405 0339
电子信箱:[email protected]