•   敬德善解避矟,每单骑入贼阵,贼矟攒刺,终不能伤,又能夺取贼矟,还以刺之。是日,出入重围,往返无碍。齐王元吉亦善马矟,闻而轻之,欲亲自试,命去矟刃,以竿相刺。敬德曰:“纵使加刃,终不能伤。请勿除之,敬德矟谨当却刃。”元吉竟不能中。太宗问曰:“夺矟、避矟,何者难易?”对曰:“夺矟难。”乃命敬德夺元吉矟。元吉执矟跃马,志在刺之,敬德俄顷三夺其矟。元吉素骁勇,虽相叹异,甚以为耻。

                    ---《旧唐书.列传第十八.尉迟敬德》

     

     

      《新唐书》上也有类似的记载。尉迟恭这个家伙也太厉害了,李元吉也不是什幺大菜鸟,居然空手夺白刃。后面发现程咬金也善使这种兵器(不使大斧了)。

    不知道矟是一种什幺样子的兵器,到网上搜了一下,发现原来矟就是槊啊。

    汉末三国时代,骑兵普遍使用马戟和马矟。矟又写作槊,《释兵》说:“矛长丈八尺曰矟,马上所持,言其矟矟便杀也”。

    http://www.sekigun.com/sanguozhi/weiguo/bingfa/wq02.htm

    发现有这么一个地方,兵器多多

    http://www.sekigun.com/sanguozhi/weiguo/xwd.htm

     

     

  • [zt]http://www.xycq.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=22989

      辜鸿铭的力作《SPIRIT OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE》。此文原载于1914年的《中国评论》,1915年更名《春秋大义》在京出版,一时轰动西方。洋人皆视为经典,如今事过境迁,热血再次为理智所取代,炎黄子孙们又把它请了回来,用心感受这位前辈及传统中国人的的深沉、博大和淳朴。

    就是找不到中文版的麻煩。看著累。

    INTRODUCTION
    The Religion of Good-citizenship

    Sage, thun ivir nicht rechtl Wir mussen den Pobel betrugen,

    Scih nur, ivie ungeschickt, sich nur ivie wild er sich zeigt\ Ungeschick und wild sind alle rohen Betrogenen ;

    Seid nur redlich und fiihrt ihn zum Menschlichen an.

    Goethe

    THE great war at the present moment is absorbing all the attention of the world exclusive of everything else. But then I think this war itself must make serious thinking people turn their attention to the great problem of civilisation. All civilisation begins by the conquest of Nature, i.e. by subduing and controlling the terrific physical forces in Nature so that they can do no harm to men. The modern civilisation of Europe to-day has succeeded in the conquest of Nature with a success, it must be admitted, hitherto not attained by any other civilisation. But there is in this world a force more terrible even than the terrific physical forces in Nature and that is the passions in the heart of man. The harm which the physical forces of Nature can do to mankind, is nothing compared with the harm which human passions can do. Until therefore this terrible force,_the human passions_is properly regulated and controlled, there can be, it is evident, not only no civilisation, but even no life possible for human beings.

    In the first early and rude stage of society, mankind had to use

    _ Aren't we just doing the right thing? the mob we must befool them;

    See, now, how shiftless! and look now how wild! {or such is the mob-Shiftless and wild all sons of Adam are when you befool them;

    Be but honest and true, and thus make human, them all.

    physical force to subdue and subjugate human passions. Thus hordes of savages had to be subjugated by sheer physical force. But as civilisation advances, mankind discovers a force more potent and more effective for subduing and controlling human passions than physical force and this force is called moral force. The moral force which in the past has been effective in subduing and controlling the human passions in the population of Europe, is Christianity. But now this war with the armament preceding it, seems to show that Christianity has become ineffective as a moral force. Without an effective moral force to control and restrain human passions, the people of Europe have had again to employ physical force to keep civil order. As Car-lyle truly says, " Europe is Anarchy plus a constable. " The use of physical force to maintain civil order leads to militarism. In fact militarism is necessary in Europe to-day because of the want of an effective moral force. But militarism leads to war and war means destruction and waste. Thus the people of Europe are on the horns of a dilemma. If they do away with militarism, anarchy will destroy their civilisation, but if they keep up militarism, their civilisation will collapse through the waste and destruction of war. But Englishmen say that they are determined to put down Prussian militarism and Lord Kitchner believes that he will be able to stamp out Prussian militarism with three million drilled and armed Englishmen. But then it seems to me when Prussian militarism is thus stamped out, there will then arise another militarism, _the British militarism which again will have to be stamped out. Thus there seems to be no way of escape out of this vicious circle.

    But is there really no way of escape? Yes, I believe there is. The American Emerson long ago said, "I can easily see the bankruptcy of the vulgar musket worship, _though great men be musket worshippers; and 'tis certain, as God liveth, the gun that does need another gun, the law of love and justice alone can effect a clean revolution." Now if the people of Europe really want to put down militarism, there is only one way of doing it and that is, to use what E-merson calls the gun that does not need another gun, the law of love and justice, _in fact, moral force, With an effective moral force, militarism will become unnecesary and disappear of itself. But now, that Christianity has become ineffective as a moral force the problem is where are the people of Europe to find this new effective moral force which will make militarism unnecessary?

    I believe the people of Europe will find this new moral force in China, _in the Chinese civilisation. The moral force in the Chinese civilisation which can make militarism unnecessary is the Religion of good citizenship. But people will say to me, "There have also been wars in China. " It is true there have been wars in China; but, since the time of Confucius ,years ago, we Chinese have had no militarism such as that we see in Europe to-day. In China war is an accident, whereas in Europe war has become a necessity. We Chinese are liable to have wars, but we do not live in constant expectation of war. In fact the one thing intolerable in the state of Europe, it seems to me, is not so much war as the fact that every body is constantly afraid that his neighbour as soon as he gets strong enough to be able to do it, will come to rob and murder him and he has therefore to arm himself or pay for an armed policeman to protect him. Thus what weighs upon the people of Europe is not so much the accident of War, but the constant necessity to arm themselves, the absolute nec-cessity to use physical force to protect themselves.

    Now in China because we Chinese have the Religion of good citizenship a man does not feel the need of using physical force to protect himself; he has seldom the need even to call in and use the physical force of the policeman, of the State to protect him. A man in China is protected by the sense of justice of his neighbour; he is protected by the readiness of his fellow men to obey the sense of moral obligation. In fact, a man in China does not feel the need of using physical force to protect himself because he is sure that right and justice is recognised by every body as a force higher than physical force and moral obligation is recognised by every body as something which must be obeyed. Now if you can get all mankind to agree to recognise right and justice, as a force higher than physical force, and moral obligation as something which must be obeyed, then the use of physical force will become unnecessary; then there will be no militarism in the world. But of course there will be in every country a few people, criminals, and in the world, a few savages who will not or are not able to recognise right and justice as a force higher than physical force and moral obligation as something which must be obeyed. Thus a-gainst criminals and savages a certain amount of physical or police force and militarism will always be necessary in every country and in the world.

    But people will say to me how are you to make mankind recognise right and justice as a force higher than physical force. I answer the first thing you will have to do is to convince mankind of the efficacy of right and justice, convince them that right and justice is a power; in fact, convince them of the power of goodness. But then a-gain how are you to do this? Well, _in order to do this, the Religion of good citizenship in China teaches every child as soon as he is able to understand the meaning of words, that the Nature of man is good. *

    Now the fundamental unsoundness of the civilisation of Europe to-day, it seems to me, lies in its wrong conception of human nature;

    its conception that human nature is evil and because of this wrong conception, the whole structure of society in Europe has always rested upon force. The two things which the people of Europe have depended upon to maintain civil order are Religion and Law. In other words, the population of Europe have been kept in order by the fear of God and the fear of the Law. Fear implies the use of force. Therefore in order to keep up the fear of God, the people of Europe had at first to maintain a large number of expensive idle persons called priests. That, to speak of nothing else, meant so much expense, that it at last became an unbearable burden upon the people. In fact in the thirty years war of the Reformation, the people of Europe tried to get rid of the priest. After having got rid of the priests who kept the population in order by the fear of God, the people of Europe tried to maintain civil order by the fear of the Law. But to keep up the fear of the Law, the people of Europe have had to maintain another class of still more expensive idle persons called policemen and soldiers. Now the people of Europe are beginning to find out that the main-tainence of policemen and soldiers to keep civil order, is still more ruinously expensive than even the maintainence of priests. In fact, as in the thirty years war of the Reformation, the people of Europe wanted to get rid of the priest, so in this present war, what the people of Europe really want, is to get rid of the soldier. But the alternatives before the people of Europe if they want to get rid of the policeman and soldier, is either to call back the priest to keep up the fear of God or to find something else which, like the fear of God and the fear of the Law, will help them to maintain civil order. That, to put the question broadly, I think, everybody will admit, is the great problem of civilisation before the people of Europe after this war.

    Now after the experience which they have had with the priests, I do not think the people of Europe will want to call back the priests. Bismarck has said, "We will never go back to Canossa." Besides, even if the priests are now called back, they would be useless, for the fear of God is gone from the people of Europe. The only other alternative before the people of Europe therefore, if they want to get rid of the policeman and soldier, is to find something else, which, like the fear of God and the fear of the Law, can help them to maintain civil order. Now this something, I believe, as I have said, the people of Europe will find in the Chinese civilisation. This something is what I have called the Religion of good citizenship. This Religion of good citizenship in China is a religion which can keep the population of a country in order without priest and without policeman or soldier. In fact with this Religion of good citizenship, the population of , China, a population as large, if not larger than the whole population r of the Continent of Europe, are actually and practically kept in peace and order without priest and without policeman or soldier. In China, as every one who has been in this country knows, the priest and the , policeman or soldier, play a very subordinate, a very insignificant ( part in helping to maintain public order. Only the most ignorant class in China require the priest and only the worst, .the criminal class in China, require the policeman or soldier to keep them in order. Thus I say if the people of Europe really want to get rid of Religion and Militarism, of the priest and soldier which have caused them so much trouble and bloodshed, they will have to come to China to get this, what I have called the Religion of good citizenship.

    In short what I want to call the attention of the people of Europe and America to, just at this moment when civilisation seems to be threatened with bankruptcy, is that there is an invaluable and hitherto unsuspected asset of civilisation here in China. The asset of civilisation is not the trade, the railway, the mineral wealth, gold, silver, iron or coal in this country. The asset of civilisation of the world today, I want to say here, is the Chinaman,_the unspoilt real Chinaman with his Religion of good citizenship. The real Chinaman, I say, is an invaluable asset of civilisation, because he is a person who costs the world little or nothing to keep him in order. Indeed I would like

    here to warn the people of Europe and America not to destroy this invaluable asset of civilisation, not to change and spoil the real Chinaman as they are now trying to do with their New Learning. If the people of Europe and America succeed in destroying the real Chinaman, the Chinese type of humanity; succeed in transforming the real Chinaman into a European or American, i.e., to say, a person who will require a priest or soldier to keep him in order, then surely they will increase the burden either of Religion or of Militarism of the world, _this last item at this moment already becoming a danger and menace to civilisation and humanity. But on the other hand, suppose one could by some means or other change the European or American type of humanity, transform the European or American into a real Chinaman who will then not require a priest or soldier to keep him in order,;_just think what a burden will be taken off from the world.

    But now to sum up in a few plain words the great problem of civilisation in Europe arising out of this war. The people of Europe, I say, at first tried to maintain civil order by the help of the priest. But after a while, the priest cost too much expense and trouble. The people of Europe then, after the thirty years war, sent away the priest and called in the policeman and soldier to maintain civil order. But now they find the policeman and soldier are causing more expense and trouble even than the priests. Now what are the people of Europe to do? Send away the soldier and call back the priest? No, I do not believe the people of Europe will want to call back the priest. Besides the priest now would be useless. But then what are the people of Europe to do? I see Professor Lowes Dickinson of Cambridge in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The War and the Way out, " says: "Call in the mob." I am afraid the mob when once called in to take the place of the priest and soldier, will give more trouble than even the priest and the soldier. The priests and soldiers in Europe have caused wars, but the mob will bring revolution and anarchy and then the state of Europe will be worse than before. Now my advice to the people of Europe is: Do not call back the priest, and for goodness sake don't call in the mob, _but call in the Chinaman; call in the real Chinaman with his Religion of good citizenship and his experience of ,years how to live in peace without priest and without soldier.

    In fact I really believe that the people of Europe will find the solution of the great problem of civilisation after this war, _here in China. There is, I say here again, an invaluable, but hitherto unsuspected asset of civilisation here in China, and the asset of civilisation is the real Chinaman. The real Chinaman is an asset of civilisation because he has the secret of a new civilisation which the people of Europe will want after this great war, and the secret of that new civilisation is what I have called the Religion of good citizenship. The first principle of this Religion of good citizenship is to believe that the Nature of Man is good; to believe in the power of goodness; to believe in the power and efficacy of what the American Emerson calls the law of love and justice. But what is the law of love? The Religion of good citizenship teaches that the law of love means to love your father and mother. And what is the law of justice? The Religion of good citizenship teaches that the law of justice means to be true, to be faithful, to be loyal; that the woman in every country must be self-lessly, absolutely loyal to her husband, that the man in every country must be selflessly, absolutely loyal to his sovereign, to his King or Emperor. In fact the highest duty in this Religion of good citizenship I want to say finally here is the Duty of Loyalty, loyalty not only in deed, but loyalty in spirit or as Tennyson puts it,

    To reverence the King as he were

    Their conscience and their conscience as their King,

    To break the heathen and uphold the Christ.

    THE SPIRIT OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE

    A Paper that was to have been read before the Oriental Society of Peking

    LET me first of all explain to you what I propose, with your permission, this afternoon to discuss. The subject of our paper I have called "The Spirit of the Chinese people."! do not mean here merely to speak of the character or characteristics of the Chinese people. Chinese characteristics have often been described before, but I think you will agree with me that such description or enumeration of the characteristics of the Chinese people hitherto have given us no picture at all of the inner being of the Chinaman. Besides, when we speak of the character or characteristics of the Chinese, it is not possible to generalize. The character of the Northern Chinese, as you know, is as different from that of the Southern Chinese as the character of the Germans is different from that of the Italians.

    But what I mean by the spirit of the Chinese people, is the spirit by which the Chinese people live, something constitutionally distinctive in the mind, temper and sentiment of the Chinese people which distinguishes them from all other people, especially from those of modem Europe and America. Perhaps I can best express what I mean by calling the subject of our discussion the Chinese type of humanity, or, to put it in plainer and shorter words, the real Chinaman.

    Now, what is the real Chinaman? That, I am sure, you will all agree with me, is a very interesting subject, especially at the present moment, when from what we see going on around us in China today, it would seem that the Chinese type of humanity_the real Chinaman_is going to disappear and, in his place, we are going to have a new type of humanity_the progressive or modern Chinaman. In fact I propose that before the real Chinaman, the old Chinese type of humanity, disappears altogether from the world we should take a good last look at him and see if we can find anything organically distinctive in him which makes him so different from all other people and from the new type of humanity which we see rising up in China today.

    Now the first thing, I think, which will strike you in the old Chinese type of humanity is that there is nothing wild, savage or ferocious in him. Using a term which is applied to animals, we may say of the real Chinaman that he is a domesticated creature. Take a man of the lowest class of the population in China and, I think, you will agree with me that there is less of animality in him, less of the wild animal, of what the Germans call Rohheit, than you will find in a man of the same class in a European society. In fact, the one word, it seems to me, which will sum up the impression which the Chinese type of humanity makes upon you is the English word "gentle." By gentleness I do not mean softness of nature or weak submissiveness. "The docility of the Chinese," says the late Dr. D. J. Macgowan, "is not the docility of a broken-hearted, emasculated people. " But by the word " gentle" I mean absence of hardness, harshness, roughness, or violence, in fact of anything which jars upon you. There is in the true Chinese type of humanity an air, so to speak, of a quiet, sober, chastened mellowness, such as you find in a piece of well-tempered metal. Indeed the very physical and moral imperfections of a real Chinaman are, if not redeemed, at least softened by this quality of gentleness in him. The real Chinaman may be coarse, but there is no grossness in his coarseness. The real Chinaman may be ugly, but there is no hideousness in his ugliness. The real Chinaman may be vulgar, but there is no aggressiveness, no blatancy in his vulgarity. The real Chinaman may be stupid, but there is no absurdity in his stupidity. The real Chinaman may be cunning, but there is no deep malignity in his cunning. In fact what I want to say is, that even in the faults and blemishes of body, mind and character of the real Chinaman, there is nothing which revolts you. It is seldom that you will find a real Chinaman of the old school, even of the lowest type, who is positively repulsive.

    I say that the total impression which the Chinese type of humanity makes upon you is that he is gentle, that he is inexpressibly gentle. When you analyse this quality of inexpressible gentleness in the real Chinaman, you will find that it is the the product of a combination of two things, namely, sympathy and intelligence. I have compared the Chinese type of humanity to a domesticated animal. Now what is that which makes a domesticated animal so different from a wild animal? It is something in the domesticated animal which we recognise as distinctively human. But what is distinctively human as distinguished from what is animal? It is intelligence. But the intelligence of a domesticated animal is not a thinking intelligence. It is not an intelligence which comes to him from reasoning. Neither does it come to him from instinct, such as the intelligence of the fox, _ the vulpine intelligence which knows where eatable chickens are to be found. This intelligence which comes from instinct, of the fox, all,_even wild, animals have. But this, what may be called human intelligence of a domesticated animal is something quite different from the vulpine or animal intelligence. This intelligence of a domesticated animal is an intelligence which comes not from reasoning nor from instinct, but from sympathy, from a feeling of love and attachment. A thorough-bred Arab horse understands his English master not because he has studied English grammar nor because he has an instinct for the English language, but because he loves and is attached to his master. This is what I call human intelligence, as distinguished from mere vulpine or animal intelligence. It is the possession of this human quality which distinguishes domesticated from wild animals. In the same way, I say, it is the possession of this sympathetic and true human intelligence, which gives to the Chinese type of humanity, to the real Chinaman, his inexpressible gentleness.

    I once read somewhere a statement made by a foreigner who had lived in both countries, that the longer a foreigner lives in Japan the more he dislikes the Japanese, whereas the longer a foreigner lives in China the more he likes the Chinese. I do not know if what is said of the Japanese here, is true. But, I think, all of you who have lived in China will agree with me that what is here said of the Chinese is true. It is well-known fact that the liking_you may call it the taste for the Chinese_grows upon the foreigner the longer he lives in this country. There is an indescribable something in the Chinese people which, in spite of their want of habits of cleanliness and refinement, in spite of their many defects of mind and character, makes foreigners like them as foreigners like no other people. This indescribable something which I have defined as gentleness, softens and mitigates, if it does not redeem, the physical and moral defects of the Chinese in the hearts of foreigners. This gentleness again is, as I have tried to show you, the product of what I call sympathetic or true human intelligence_an intelligence which comes not from reasoning nor from instinct, but from sympathy_from the power of sympathy. Now what is the secret of the power of sympathy of the Chinese people?

    I will here venture to give you an explanation_a hypothesis, if you like to call it so_of the secret of this power of sympathy in the Chinese people and my explanation is this. The Chinese people have this power, this strong power of sympathy, because they live wholly, or almost wholly, a life of the heart. The whole life of Chinaman is a life of feeling_not feeling in the sense of sensation which comes from the bodily organs, nor feeling in the sense of passions which flow, as you would say, from the nervous system, but feeling in the sense of emotion or human affection which comes from the deepest part of our nature_the heart or soul. Indeed I may say here that the real Chinaman lives so much a life of emotion or human affection, a life of the soul, that he may be said sometimes to neglect more than he ought to do, even the necessary requirements of the life of the senses of a man living in this world composed of body and soul. That is the true explanation of the insensibility of the Chinese to the physical discomforts of unclean surroundings and want of refinement. But that is neither here nor there.

    The Chinese people, I say, have the power of sympathy because they live wholly a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affection. Let me here, first of all, give you two illustrations of what I mean by living a life of the heart. My first illustration is this. Some of you may have personally known an old friend and colleague of mine in Wuchang_known him when he was Minister of the Foreign Office here in Peking_Mr. Liang Tun-yen, Mr. Liang told me, when he first received the appointment of the Customs Taotai of Hankow, that what made him wish and strive to become a great mandarin, to wear the red button, and what gave him pleasure then in receiving this appointment, was not because he cared for the red button, not because he would henceforth be rich and independent, _and we were all of us very poor then in Wuchang, _but because he wanted to rejoice, because this promotion and advancement of his would gladden the heart of his old mother in Canton. That is what I mean when I say that the Chinese people live a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affection.

    My other illustration is this. A Scotch friend of mine in the Customs told me he once had a Chinese servant who was a perfect scamp, who lied, who "squeezed, " and who was always gambling, but when my friend fell ill with typhoid fever in an out-of-the-way port where he had no foreign friend to attend to him, this awful scamp of a Chinese servant nursed him with a care and devotion which he could not have expected from an intimate friend or near relation. Indeed I think what was once said of a woman in the Bible may also be said, not only of the Chinese servant, but of the Chinese people generally:_"Much is forgiven them, because they love much. " The eyes and understanding of the foreigner in China see many defects and blemishes in the habits and in the character of the Chinese, but his heart is attracted to them, because the Chinese have a heart, or, as I said, live a life of the heart_a life of emotion or human affection.

    Now we have got, I think, a clue to the secret of sympathy in the Chinese people_the power of sympathy which gives to the real Chinaman that sympathetic or true human intelligence, making him so inexpressibly gentle. Let us next put this clue or hypothesis to the test. Let us see whether with this clue that the Chinese people live a life of the heart we can explain not only detached facts such as the two illustrations I have given above, but also general characteristics which we see in the actual life of the Chinese people.

    First of all let us take the Chinese language. As the Chinese live a life of the heart, the Chinese language, I say, is also a language of the heart. Now it is a well-known fact that children and uneducated persons among foreigners in China learn Chinese very easily, much more so than grown-up and educated persons. What is the reason of this? The reason, I say, is because children and uneducated persons think and speak with the language of the heart, whereas educated men, especially men with the modern intellectual education of Europe, think and speak with the language of the head or intellect. In fact, the reason why educated foreigners find it so difficult to learn Chinese, is because they are too educated, too intellectually and scientifically educated. As it is said of the Kingdom of Heaven, so it may also be said of the Chinese language:_"Unless you become as little children, you cannot learn it. "

    Next let us take another well-known fact in the life of the Chinese people. The Chinese, it is well-known, have wonderful memories. What is the secret of this? The secret is: the Chinese remember things with the heart and not with the head. The heart with its power of sympathy, acting as glue, can retain things much better than the head or intellect which is hard and dry. It is, for instance, also for this reason that we; all of us, can remember things which we learnt when we were children much better than we can remember things which we learnt in mature life. As children, like the Chinese, we remember things with the heart and not with the head.

    Let us next take another generally admitted fact in the life of the Chinese people_their politeness. The Chinese are, it has often been remarked, a peculiarly polite people. Now what is the essence of true politeness? It is consideration for the feelings of others. The Chinese are polite because, living a life of the heart, they know their own feelings and that makes it easy for them to show consideration for the feelings of others. The politeness of the Chinese, although not elaborate like the politeness of the Japanese, is pleasing because it is, as the French beautifully express it, la politesse du coeur, the politeness of the heart. The politeness of the Japanese, on the other hand, although elaborate, is not so pleasing, and I have heard some foreigners express their dislike of it, because it is what may be called a rehearsal politeness_a politeness learnt by heart as in a theatrical piece. It is not a spontaneous politeness which comes direct from the heart. In fact the politeness of the Japanese is like a flower without fragrance, whereas the politeness of a really polite Chinese has a perfume like the aroma of a precious ointment_instar unguenti fra-grantis_ which comes from the heart.

    Last of all, let us take another characteristic of the Chinese people, by calling attention to which the Rev. Arthur Smith has made his reputation, viz. :_want of exactness. Now what is the reason for this want of exactness in the ways of the Chinese people? The reason, I say again, is because the Chinese live a life of the heart. The heart is a very delicate and sensitive balance. It is not like the head or intellect, a hard, stiff, rigid instrument. You cannot with the heart think with the same steadiness, with the same rigid exactness as you can with the head or intellect. At least, it is extremely difficult to do so. In fact, the Chinese pen or pencil which is a soft brush, may be taken as a symbol of the Chinese mind. It is very difficult to write or draw with it, but when you have once mastered the use of it, you will, with it, write and draw with a beauty and grace which you cannot do with a hard steel pen.

    Now the above are a few simple facts connected with the life of the Chinese people which anyone, even without any knowledge of Chinese, can observe and understand, and by examining these facts, I think, I have made good my hypothesis that the Chinese people live a life of the heart.

    Now it is because the Chinese live a life of the heart, the life of a child, that they are so primitive in many of their ways. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact that for a people who have lived so long in the world as a great nation, the Chinese people should to this day be so primitive in many of their ways. It is this fact which has made superficial foreign students of China think that the Chinese have made no progress in their civilisation and that the Chinese civilisation is a stagnant one. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that, as far as pure intellectual life goes, the Chinese are, to a certain extent, a people of arrested development. The Chinese, as you all know, have made little or no progress not only in the physical, but also in the pure abstract sciences such as mathematics, logic and metaphysics. Indeed the very words "science" and "logic" in the European languages have no exact equivalent in the Chinese language. The Chinese, like children who live a life of the heart, have no taste for the abstract sciences, because in these the heart and feelings are not engaged. In fact, for everything which does not engage the heart and feelings, such as tables of statistics, the Chinese have a dislike amounting to aversion. But if tables of statistics and the pure abstract sciences fill the Chinese with aversion, the physical sciences as they are now pursued in Europe, which require you to cut up and mutilate the body of a living animal in order to verify a scientific theory, would inspire the Chinese with repugnance and horror.

    The Chinese, I say, as far as pure intellectual life goes, are to a certain extent, a people of arrested development. The Chinese to this day live the life of a child, a life of the heart. In this respect, the Chinese people, old as they are as a nation, are to the present day, a nation of children. But then it is important you should remember that this nation of children, who live a life of the heart, who are so primitive in many of their ways, have yet a power of mind and rationality which you do not find in a primitive people, a power of mind and rationality which has enabled them to deal with the complex and difficult problems of social life, government and civilisation with a success which, I will venture to say here, the ancient and modern nations of Europe have not been able to attain_a success so signal that they have been able practically and actually to keep in peace and order a greater portion of the population of the Continent of Asia under a great Empire.

    In fact, what I want to say here, is that the wonderful peculiarity of the Chinese people is not that they live a life of the heart. All primitive people also live a life of the heart. The Christian people of medieval Europe, as we know, also lived a life of the heart. Matthew Arnold says:_"The poetry of medieval Christainity lived by the heart and imagination." But the wonderful peculiarity of the Chinese people, I want to say here, is that, while living a life of the heart, the life of a child, they yet have a power of mind and rationality

    which you do not find in the Christian people of medieval Europe or in any other primitive people. In other words, the wonderful peculiarity of the Chinese is that for a people, who have lived so long as a grown-up nation, as a nation of adult reason, they are yet able to this day to live the life of a child_a life of the heart.

    Instead, therefore, of saying that the Chinese are a people of arrested development, one ought rather to say that the Chinese are a people who never grow old. In short the wonderful peculiarity of the Chinese people as a race, is that they possess the secret of perpetual youth.

    Now we can answer the question which we asked in the beginning:_What is the real Chinaman? The real Chinaman, we see now, is a man who lives the life of a man of adult reason with the heart of a child. In short the real Chinaman is a person with the head of a grown-up man and the heart of a child. The Chinese spirit, therefore, is a spirit of perpetual youth, the spirit of national immortality. Now what is the secret of this national immortality in the Chinese people? You will remember that in the beginning of this discussion I said that what gives to the Chinese type of humanity_to the real Chinaman_his inexpressible gentleness is the possession of what I called sympathetic or true human intelligence. This true human intelligence, I said, is the product of a combination of two things, sympathy and intelligence. It is a working together in harmony of the heart and head. In short it is a happy union of soul with intellect. Now if the spirit of the Chinese people is a spirit of perpetual youth, the spirit of national immortality, the secret of this immortality is this happy union of soul with intellect.

    You will now ask me where and how did the Chinese people get this secret of national immortality_this happy union of soul with intellect, which has enabled them as a race and nation to live a life of perpetual youth? The answer, of course, is that they got it from their civilisation. Now you will not expect me to give you a lecture on Chinese civilisation within the time at my disposal. But I will try to tell you something of the Chinese civilisation which has a bearing on our present subject of discussion.

    Let me first of all tell you that there is, it seems to me, one great fundamental difference between the Chinese civilisation and the civilisation of modern Europ. Here let me quote an admirable saying of a famous living art critic, Mr. Bernard Berenson. Comparing European with Oriental art, Mr. Berenson says:_"Our European art has the fatal tendency to become science and we hardly possess a masterpiece which does not bear the marks of having heen a battlefield for divided interests. " Now what I want to say of the European civilisation is that it is, as Mr. Berenson says of European art, a battlefield for divided interests; a continuous warfare for the divided interests of science and art on the one hand, and of religion and philosophy on the other; in fact a terrible battlefield where the head and the heart_the soul and the intellect_come into constant conflict. In the Chinese civilisation, at least for the last , years, there is no such conflict. That, I say, is the one great fundamental difference between the Chinese civilisation and that of modern Europe.

    In other words, what I want to say, is that in modern Europe, the people have a religion which satisfies their heart, but not their head, and a philosophy which satisfies their head but not their heart. Now let us look at China. Some people say that the Chinese have no religion. It is certainly true that in China even the mass of the people do not take seriously to religion. I mean religion in the European sense of the word. The temples, rites and ceremonies of Taoism and Buddhism in China are more objects of recreation than of edification; they touch the aesthetic sense, so to speak, of the Chinese people rather than their moral or religious sense; in fact, they appeal more to their imagination than to their heart or soul. But instead of saying that the Chinese have no religion, it is perhaps more correct to say that the Chinese do not want_do not feel the need of religion.

    Now what is the explanation of this extraordinary fact that the Chinese people, even the mass of the population in China, do not feel the need of religion? It is thus given by an Englishman. Sir Robert K. Douglas, Professor of Chinese in the London University, in his study of Confucianism, says:_"Upwards of forty generations of Chinamen have been absolutely subjected to the dicta of one man. Being a Chinaman of Chinamen the teachings of Confucius were specially suited to the nature of those he taught. The Mongolian mind being eminently phlegmatic and. unspeculative, naturally rebels against the idea of investigating matters beyond its experiences. With the idea of a future life still unawakened, a plain, matter-of-fact system of morality, such as that enunciated by Confucius, was sufficient for all the wants of the Chinese. "

    That l_amed English professor is right, when he says that the Chinese people do not feel the need of religion, because they have the teachings of Confucius, but he is altogether wrong, when he asserts that the Chinese people do not feel the need of religion because the Mongolian mind is phlegmatic and unspeculative. In the first place religion is not a matter of speculation. Religion is a matter of feeling, of emotion; it is something which has to do with the human soul. The wild, savage man of Africa even, as soon as he emerges from a mere animal life and what is called the soul in him, is awakened, _ feels the need of religion. Therefore although the Mongolian mind may be phlegmatic and unspeculative, the Mongolian Chinaman, who, I think it must be admitted, is a higher type of man than the wild man of Africa, also has a soul, and, having a soul, must feel the need of religion unless he has something which can take for him the place of religion.

    The truth of the matter is, _the reason why the Chinese people do not feel the need of religion is because they have in Confucianism a system of philosophy and ethics, a synthesis of human society and civilisation which can take the place of religion. People say that Confucianism is not a religion. It is perfectly true that Confucianism is not a religion in the ordinary European sense of the word. But then I say the greatness of Confucianism lies even in this, that it is not a religion. In fact, the greatness of Confucianism is that, without being a religion, it can take the place of religion; it can make men do without religion.

    Now in order to understand how Confucianism can take the place of religion we must try and find out the reason why mankind, why men feel the need of religion. Mankind, it seems to me, feel the need of religion for the same reason that they feel the need of science, of art and of philosophy. The reason is because man is a being who has a soul. Now let us take science, I mean physical science. What is the reason which makes men take up the study of science? Most people now think that men do so, because they want to have railways and aeroplanes. But the motive which impels the true men of science to pursue its study is not because they want to have railways and aeroplanes. Men like the present progressive Chinamen, who take up the study of science, because they want railways and aeroplanes, will never get science. The true men of science in Europe in the past who have worked for the advancement of science and brought about the possibility of building railways and aeroplanes, did not think at all of railways and aeroplanes. What impelled those true men of science in Europe and what made them succeed in their work for the advancement of science, was because they felt in their souls the need of understanding the awful mystery of the wonderful universe in which we live. Thus mankind, I say, feel the need of religion for the same reason that they feel the need of science, art and philosophy; and the reason is because man is a being who has a soul, and because the soul in him, which looks into the past and future as well as the present_ not like animals which live only in the present_feels the need of understanding the mystery of this universe in which they live. Until men understand something of the nature, law, purpose and aim of the things which they see in the universe, they are like children in a dark room who feel the danger, insecurity and uncertainty of everything. In fact, as an English poet says, the burden of the mystery of the universe weighs upon them. Therefore mankind want science, art and philosophy for the same reason that they want religion, to lighten for them "the burden of the mystery, ....

    The heavy and the weary weight of All this unintelligible world. "

    Art and poetry enable the artist and poet to see beauty and order in the universe and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore poets like Goethe, who says: "He who has art, has religion, " do not feel the need of religion. Philosophy also enables the philosophers to see method and order in the universe, and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore philosophers, like Spinoza, "for whom, " it has been said, "the crown of the intellectual life is a transport, as for the saint the crown of the religious life is a transport," do not feel the need of religion. Lastly, science also enables the scientific men to see law and order in the universe, and that lightens for them the burden of this mystery. Therefore scientific men like Darwin and Professor Haeckel do not feel the need of religion.

    But for the mass of mankind who are not poets, artists, philosophers or men of science; for the mass of mankind whose lives are full of hardships and who are exposed every moment to the shock of accident from the threatening forces of Nature and the cruel merciless passions of their fellow-men, what is it that can lighten for them the

    "burden of the mystery of all this unintelligible world?" It is religion. But how does religion lighten for the mass of mankind the burden of this mystery? Religion, I say, lightens this burden by giving the mass of mankind a sense of security and a sense of permanence. In presence of the threatening forces of Nature and the cruel merciless passions of their fellowmen and the mystery and terror which these inspire, religion gives to the mass of mankind a refuge_a refuge in which they can find a sense of security ; and that refuge is a belief in some supernatural Being or beings who have absolute power and control over those forces which threaten them. Again, in presence of the constant change, vicissitude and transition of things in their own lives_birth, childhood, youth, old age and death, and the mystery and uncertainty which these inspire, religion gives to the mass of mankind also a refuge_a refuge in which they can find a sense of permanence; and that refuge is the belief in a future life. In this way, I say, religion lightens for the mass of mankind who are not poets, artists, philosophers or scientific men, the burden of the mystery of all this unintelligible world, by giving them a sense of security and a sense of permanence in their existence. Christ said: " Peace I give unto you, peace which the world cannot give and which the world cannot take away from you." That is what I mean when I say that religion gives to the mass of mankind a sense of security and a sense of permanence. Therefore, unless you can find something which can give to the mass of mankind the same peace, the same sense of security and of permanence which religion affords them, the mass of mankind will always feel the need of religion.

    But I said Confucianism, without being a religion can take the place of religion. Therefore, there must be something in Confucianism which can give to the mass of mankind the same sense of security and permanence which religion affords them. Let us now find out what this something is in Confucianism which can give the samesense of security and sense of permanence that religion gives.

    I have often been asked to say what Confucius has done for the Chinese nation. Now I can tell you of many things which I think Confucius has accomplished for the Chinese people. But, as to-day I have not the time, I will only here try to tell you of one principal and most important thing which Confucius has done for the Chinese nation_the one thing he did in his life by which, Confucius himself said, men in after ages would know him, would know what he had done for them. When I have explained to you this one principal thing, you will then understand what that something is in Confucian-ism which can give to the mass of mankind the same sense of security and sense of permanence which religion affords them. In order to explain this, I must ask you to allow me to go a little more into detail about Confucius and what he did.

    Confucius, as some of you may know, lived in what is called a period of expansion in the history of China_a period in which the feudal age had come to an end; in which the feudal, the semi-patriarchal social order and form of government had to be expanded and reconstructed. This great change necessarily brought with it not only confusion in the affairs of the world, but also confusion in men' s minds. I have said that in the Chinese civilisation of the last ,years there is no conflict between the heart and the head. But I must now tell you that in the period of expansion in which Confucius lived there was also in China, as now in Europe, a fearful conflict between the heart and the head. The Chinese people in Confucius' s time found themselves with an immense system of institutions, established facts, accredited dogmas, customs, laws_in fact, an immense system of society and civilisation which had come down to them from their venerated ancestors. In this system their life had to be carried forward; yet they began to feel_they had a sense that this system was not of their creation, that it by no means corresponded with the wants of their actual life; that, for them, it was customary, not rational. Now the awakening of this sense in the Chinese people ,years ago was the awakening of what in Europe to-day is called the modern spirit_the spirit of liberalism, the spirit of enquiry, to find out the why and the wherefore of things. This modern spirit in China then, seeing the want of correspondence of the old order of society and civilisation with the wants of their actual life, set itself not only to reconstruct a new order of society and civilisation, but also to find a basis for this new order of society and civilisation. But all the attempts to find a new basis for society and civilisation in China then failed. Some, while they satisfied the head_the intellect of the Chinese people, did not satisfy their heart; others, while they satisfied their heart, did not satisfy their head. Hence arose, as I said, this conflict between the heart and the head in China ,years'ago, as we see it now in Europe. This conflict of the heart and head in the new order of society and civilisation which men tried to reconstruct made the Chinese people feel dissatisfied with all civilisation, and in the agony and despair which this dissatisfaction produced, the Chinese people wanted to pull down and destroy all civilisation. Men, like Laotzu, then in China as men like Tolstoy in Europe to-day, seeing the misery and suffering resulting from the conflict between the heart and the head, thought they saw something radically wrong in the very nature and constitution of society and civilisation. Laotzu and Chuang-tzu, the most brilliant of Laotzu' s disciples, told the Chinese people to throw away all civilisation. Laotzu said to the people of China: "Leave all that you have and follow me; follow me to the mountains, to the hermit's cell in the mountains, there to live a true life_a life of the heart, a life of immortality."

    But Confucius, who also saw the suffering and misery of the then state of society and civilisation, thought he recognised the evil was not in the nature and constitution of society and civilisation, but in the wrong track which society and civilisation had taken, in the wrong basis which men had taken for the foundation of society and civilisation. Confucius told the Chinese people not to throw away their civilisation. Confucius told them that in a true society and true civilisation_in a society and civilisation with a true basis men also could live a true life, a life of the heart. In fact, Confucius tried hard all his life to put society and civilisation on the right track; to give it a true basis, and thus prevent the destruction of civilisation. But in the last days of his life, when Confucius saw that he could not prevent the destruction of the Chinese civilisation_what did he do? Well, as an architect who sees his house on fire, burning and falling over his head, and is convinced that he cannot possibly save the building, knows that the only thing for him to do is- to save the drawings and plans of the building so that it may afterwards be built again; so Confucius, seeing the inevitable destruction of the building of the Chinese civilisation which he conid not prevent, thought he would save the drawings and plans, and he accordingly saved the drawings and plans of the Chinese civilisation, which are now preserved in the Old Testament of the Chinese Bible_the five Canonical Books known as the Wu Ching, five Canons. That, I say, was a great service which Confucius has done for the Chinese nation_he saved the drawings and plans of their civilisation for them.

    Confucius, I say, when he saved the drawings and plans of the Chinese civilisation, did a great service for the Chinese nation. But that is not the principal, the greatest service which Confucius has done for the Chinese nation. The greatest service he did was that, in saving the drawings and plans of their civilisation, he made a new synthesis, a new interpretation of the plans of that civilisation, and in that new synthesis he gave the Chinese people the true idea of a State_a true, rational, permanent, absolute basis of a State.

    But then Plato and Aristotle in ancient times, and Rousseau and

    Herbert Spencer in modern times also made a synthesis of civilisation, and tried to give a true idea of a State. Now what is the difference between the philosophy, the synthesis of civilisation made by the great men of Europe I have mentioned, and the synthesis of civilisation_the system of philosophy and morality now known as Confu-cianism? The difference, it seems to me, is this. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and of Herbert Spencer has not become a religion or the equivalent of a religion, the accepted faith of the masses of a people or nation, whereas Confucianism has become a religion or the equivalent of a religion to even the mass of the population in China. When I say religion here, I mean religion, not in the narrow European sense of the word, but in the broad universal sense. Goethe says:_" Nur saemtliche Menschen erkennen die Natur; nur saemtliche Menschen leben das Menschliche * . Only the mass of mankind know what is real life; only the mass of mankind live a true human life." Now when we speak of religion in its broad universal sense, we mean generally a system of teachings with rules of conduct which, as Goethe says, is accepted as true and binding by the mass of mankind, or at least, by the mass of the population in a people or nation. In this broad and universal sense of the word Christianity and Buddhism are religions. In this broad and universal sense, Confucianism, as you know, has become a religion, as its teachings have been acknowledged to be true and its rules of couduct to be binding by the whole Chinese race and nation, whereas the philosophy of Plato, of Aristotle and of Herbert Spencer has not become a religion even in this broad universal sense. That, I say, is the difference between Confucianism and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and of Herbert Spencel_the one has remained a philosophy for the learned, whereas the other has become a religion or the equivalent of a religion for the mass of the whole Chinese nation as well as for the learned of China.

    In this broad universal sense of the word, I say Confucianism is a religion just as Christianity or Buddhism is a religion. But you will remember I said that Confucianism is not a religion in the European sense of the word. What is then the difference between Confucianism and a religion in the European sense of the word? There is, of course, the difference that the one has a supernatural origin and element in it, whereas the other has not. But besides this difference of supernatural and non-supernatural, there is also another difference between Confucianism and a religion in the European sense of the word such as Christianity and Buddhism, and it is this. A religion in the European sense of the word teaches a man to be a good man . But Confucianism does more than this; Confucianism teaches a man to be a good citizen. The Christian Catechism asks:_"What is the chief end of man'?" But the Confucian Catechism asks:_"What is the chief end of a citizen ?" of man, not in his individual life, but man in his relation with his fellowmen and in his relation to the State? The Christian answers the words of his Catechism by saying:" The chief end of man is to glorify God. " The Confucianist answers the words of his Catechism by saying: "The chief end of man is to live as a dutiful son and a good citizen. " Tzii Yu, a disciple of Confucius, is quoted in the Sayings and Discourses of Confucius, saying: "A wise man devotes his attention to the foundation of life_the chief end of man. When the foundation is laid, wisdom, religion will come. Now to live as a dutiful son and good citizen, is not that the foundation_the chief end of man as a moral being?" In short, a religion in the European sense of the word makes it its object to transform man into a perfect ideal man by himself, into a saint, a Buddha, an angel, whereas Confucianism limits itself to make man into a good citizen_ to live as a dutiful son and a good citizen. In other words, a religion

    in the European sense of the word says:_"If you want to have religion, you must be a saint, a Buddha, an angel;" whereas Confucian-ism says:_"If you live as a dutiful son and a good citizen, you have religion."

    In fact, the real difference between Confucianism and religion in the European sense of the word, such as Christianity or Buddhism, is that the one is a personal religion, or what may be called a Church religion, whereas the other is a social religion, or what may be called a State religion. The greatest service, I say, which Confucius has done for the Chinese nation, is that he gave them a true idea of a State. Now in giving this true idea of a State, Confucius made that idea a religion. In Europe politics is a science, but in China, since, Confucius' time, politics is a religion. In short, the greatest service which Confucius has done for the Chinese nation, I say, is that he gave them a Social or State religion. Confucius taught this State religion in a book which he wrote in the very last days of his life, a book to which he gave the name of Ch'un c/i'im(^^, Spring and Autumn. Confucius gave the name of Spring and Autumn to this book because the object of the book is to give the real moral causes which govern the rise and fall_the Spring and Autumn of nations. This book might also be called the Latter Day Annals, like the Latter Day Pamphlets of Carlyle. In this book Confucius gave a resume of the history of a false and decadent state of society and civilisation in which he traced all the suffering and misery of that false and decadent state of society and civilisation to its real cause_to the fact that men had not a true idea of a State; no right conception of the true nature of the duty which they owe to the State, to the head of the State, their ruler and Sovereign. In a way Confucius in this book taught the divine right of kings. Now I know all of you, or at least most of you, do not now believe in the divine right of kings. I will not argue the point with you here. I will only ask you to suspend your judgment until you have heard what I have further to say. In the meantime I will just ask your permission to quote to you here a saying of Carlyle. Carlyle says: "The right of a king to govern us is either a divine right or a diabolic wrong. " Now I want you, on this subject of the divine right of kings, to remember and ponder over this saying of Carlyle.

    In this book Confucius taught that, as in all the ordinary relations and dealings between men in human society, there is, besides the base motives of interest and of fear, a higher and nobler motive to influence them in their conduct, a higher and nobler motive which rises above all considerations of interest and fear, the motive called Duty; so in this important relation of all in human society, the relation between the people of a State or nation and the Head of that State or nation, there is also this higher and nobler motive of Duty which should influence and inspire them in their conduct. Bnt what is the rational basis of this duty which the people in a State or nation owe to the head of the State or nation? Now in the feudal age before Confucius' time, with its semi-patriarchal order of Society and form of Government, when the State was more or less a family, the poeple did not feel so much the need of having a clear and firm basis for the duty which they owe to the Head of the State, because, as they were all members of one clan or family, the tie of kinship or natural affection already, in a way, bound them to the Head of the State, who was also the senior member of their clan or family. But in Confucius' time the feudal age, as I said, had come to an end; when the State had outgrown the family, when the citizens of a State were no longer composed of the members of a clan or family. It was, therefore, then necessary to find a new, clear, rational and firm basis for the duty which the people in a State or nation owe to the Head of the State_ their ruler and sovereign. Now what new basis did Confucius find for this duty? Confucius found the new basis for this duty in the word Honour.

    When I was in Japan last year the ex-Minister of Education, Baron Kikuchi, asked me to translate four Chinese characters taken from the book in which, as I said, Confucius taught this State religion of his. The four characters were Ming fen to. yi (^'^_^fo^C) . I translated them as the Great Principle of Honour and Duty. It is for this reason that the Chinese make a special distinction between Con-fucianism and all other religions by calling the system of teaching taught by Confucius not a chiao (^_the general term in Chinese for religion with which they designate other religions, such as Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Christianity_but the ming chiao (^ ^C)_the religion of Honour. Again the term chum tzu chih too (^ ^.$lM) in the teachings of Confucius, translated by Dr. Legge as "the way of the superior man, " for which the nearest equivalent in the European languages is moral law_means literally, the way_the Law of the Gentleman. In fact, the whole system of philosophy and morality taught by Confucius may be summed up in one word: the Law of the Gentleman. Now Confucius codified this law of the gentleman and made it a Religion, _a State religion. The first Article of Faith in this State Religion is Ming fen ta yi_the Principle of Honour and Duty_which may thus be called: A Code of Honour.

    In this State religion Confucius taught that the only true, rational, permanent and absolute basis, not only of a State, but of all Society and civilisation, is this law of the gentleman, the sense of honour in man. Now you, all of you, even those who believe that there is no morality in politics_all of you, I think, know and will admit the importance of this sense of honour in men in human society. But I am not quite sure that all of you are aware of the absolute necessity of this sense of honour in men for the carrying on of every form of human society; in fact, as the proverb which says: "There must be honour even among thieves, " show_even for the carrying on of a society of thieves. Without the sense of honour in men, all society and civilisation would on the instant break down and become impossible. Will you allow me to show you how this is so? Let us take, for example, such a trivial matter as gambling in social life. Now unless men when they sit down to gamble all recognise and feel themselves bound by the sense of honour to pay when a certain colour of cards or dice turns up, gambling would on the instant become impossible. The merchants again_unless merchants recognise and feel themselves bound by the sense of honour to fulfil their contracts, all trading would become impossible. But you will say that the merchant who repudiates his contract can be taken to the law-court. True, but if there were no law-courts, what then? Besides, the law-court_how can the law-court make the defaulting merchant fulfil his contract? By force. In fact, without the sense of honour in men, society can only be held together for a time by force. But then I think I can show you that force alone cannot hold society permanently together. The policeman who compels the merchant to fulfil his contract, uses force. But the lawyer, magistrate or president of a republic_how does he make the policeman do his duty? You know he cannot do it by force; but then by what? Either by the sense of honour in the policemen or by fraud.

    In modem times all over the world to-day_and I am sorry to say now also in China_the lawyer, politician, magistrate and president of a republic make the policeman do his duty by fraud. In modem times the lawyer, politician, magistrate and president of a republic tell the policeman that he must do his duty, because it is for the good of society and for the good of his country; and that the good of society means that he, the policeman, can get his pay regularly, without which he and his family would die of starvation. The lawyer, politician or president of a republic who tells the policeman this, I say, zises fraud. I say it is fraud, because the good of the country, which for the policeman means fifteen shillings a week, which barely keeps him and his family from starvation, means for the lawye
  • BLOGCN又访问不了了。幸亏以前有些文章在硬盘上有备份,花了九牛二虎之力把以前的一些文章给发上来了,当然不是所有的都发喽。

    这样看起来这个BLOG总算是有点东西,不至于光秃秃的。

    这个BLOG感觉上模板编辑功能不如BLOGCN,看来看去只有那个CSS文件可以编辑编辑,以后有空慢慢弄弄。

    这个BLOG目前还是作为候补的。等把模板完善了就要两边平起平坐了。

  •     除了德意荷法等强队外,丹麦和捷克这两支球队一直以来在我心中有比较高的地位,它们虽然没有非常显赫的战绩,也没有象英西一样以国内联赛为基础而拥有比较多的追随者,但它们常能以自己的出色表现而征服我的心。从1996年起,只有在2000年的欧锦赛上这两支球队与巅峰时候的法国队和东道主荷兰队分在同一组,小组赛就被淘汰了而没有充分的发挥,其他几次大赛总有一支能给人留下比较深刻的印象。

     

        不象对德意荷这样的强队,它们比赛输或平了,由此而没有取得好成绩,心里要触动会比较的大(1997年后一直有点看中国队的比赛就是因为这个);而对丹麦和捷克这样的球队心理则要平和得多,它们打好了自然高兴,它们没打好由此输了、没出线、或被淘汰了,则只有一种心有戚戚焉的感觉----喔,可惜。所以一直以来看这两支球队的比赛都会全力以赴一点,也不怕自己的扫帚星效应起作用。

     

        说起喜欢丹麦队,其实刚开始是很奇怪的一种理由。由于没有经历过1992年的童话,在1996年又没有丹麦队的身影,所以直到1998年才见到了这支球队的庐山真面目,最初对这支球队感兴趣完全是因为施梅切尔,这位当时曼联队的钢门。虽然那时这位丹麦人已经走下坡路了,但因为曼联队的比赛看过不少,所以对他还是有点感情,加之自己是踢后卫的,对这种门将在心里就有一种认同感----有他在后面心里踏实,爱屋及乌就把丹麦队放在心中了。可喜的是丹麦队自此以后的表现让我一直对它是青眯有加----丹麦队对得起施梅切尔呀。(丹麦的哥本哈根,很有文化底蘊的一座城市,量子物理学史上的哥本哈根学派影响深远呀,以前在学校时教我们物化的老师就是持哥本哈根派观点的一个家伙----又是爱屋及乌,其实很多东西都是爱屋及乌来的)。丹麦在地理上来讲虽是一个北欧国家,其实由于它比较的靠近低地国家一点,所以在北欧洲球队中应该是最有技术含量的一支球队,有过大小劳德鲁普兄弟就是一种明证。不象看挪威这样的球队比赛----看得直皱眉头,看丹麦队的比赛有时真的是一种享受,看得直热血沸腾,它的比赛对得起它球队球衣的颜色----红色。

     

        1998年的时候丹麦队小组赛的时候并没有怎样的惹人注目,但进入淘汰赛后开始显示出英雄本色。当很多人已经开始在心中想象四分之一决赛尼日利亚大战巴西队的时候,丹麦队用行动证明了忽视它们是多么愚蠢的一种行为。四分之一决赛时面对强敌巴西队的表现不得不令人对这支球队肃然起敬----尼日利亚队死得不冤呀。

     

        2000年的欧洲杯是丹麦队最为背运的时候,低谷时期的丹麦队被分在了死亡之组。首战即被世界冠军法国队打了个03,最后三战皆墨的结果令人很无语(这一年没什么可说的,就这样结束了)

     

        在两年前的世界杯上,真可谓风水轮流转,丹麦人终于把高傲的法国人给狠狠的教训了一下,把他们从天堂扔进了地狱(应该是塞内加尔人把法国人从天上扔回了人间,丹麦人再把法国人从人间打进了地狱,因为爱丹麦队一点,所以这笔账就算在丹麦队上了)。丹麦队的使命也由此结束(总不能把什么艰难险阻的事情都交给它吧),后来败给英格兰队也就有点心安理得了。

     

        今年的丹麦队虽然没有打过什么惊心动魄的大战,但小组赛三场比赛也还是没有亏待过我们这些看比赛的人。可惜的是最后与捷克队火拼了,而且也没有给捷克队什么有实质性压力,如果双方来一场你来我往的大战这就完美了。

     

        不比丹麦队这些年常常在大赛中露脸,捷克队1998年与2002年的世界杯都没有参加。对捷克队的感情大多建立在在五大联赛效力的球员、1996年的亚军及对这支球队的历史的崇敬之上。翻翻捷克队的历史很令人的吃惊,对比它的国家地位,对比东欧足球之活得艰难,不得不对它在世界及欧洲足球史上的足迹心驰神往。

     

        最早认识的捷克球员应该是曼联的波波斯基,可惜的是早期比赛看得比较少(没有那样的条件看比赛),波波斯基在曼联的时间也不长,所以也只是记得有这么一个人,速度很快的而已。其实也有一个人是认识很早,就是当年大连万达的内梅切克,此人可以排在中国联赛几年来最厉害的外援前三甲之列,只不过这家伙后来就已经不是国家队的人了,所以不算在对捷克队的记忆球员之列。除了一闪而过的波波斯基,在英超利物浦队的博格、斯米切尔也是对我倾向捷克队有贡献的球员。说点题外话,也不记得是那一年的联赛,当时贝克汉姆已经开始红起来了(当然跟后来有LP了以后不能比喽),在MM中开始有比较高的人气。有一次利物浦对曼联比赛时不知是谁说了一句,贝克汉姆算啥呀看看博格----电视画面刚好是长发飘飘的博格的一个特写,当场把在场的MM看得是目瞪口呆。那场球当然曼联没有占到丝毫的便宜啦。使我坚定对捷克队信念的球员则是战士内德维德。如果齐达内是球场上的魔法师,那内德维德就是球场上的战士(可惜魔法有失灵的时候,且用多了人家会免疫,战士也会有受伤的时候),而且是有勇有谋的战士,戴维斯跟他比起来就只能算是斗士了。当年在拉齐奥的时候就对他是另眼相看(拉齐奥是不是以倒卖倒买为生的,从它手里进进出出的球员早可以组成一支超级球队了),到了尤文图斯后更对它是倍加敬仰。

     

        19982002年两届世界杯捷克队都是铩羽于附加赛,令人不得不对这支东欧球队感到一丝丝的酸楚与无奈。在2000年的欧洲杯虽然上与法国、荷兰同组,但实际上本是有机会从中杀出一条血路的,首战对荷兰在双方势均力敌的情况下最后时刻的一个点球不得不令他们过早的离开。虽然败给荷兰这样的球队于情于理都可以接受,但对那个点球心里总不免要臭骂一顿那个光头(瞪什么瞪,我可不怕你)

     

        到了2004年,历史好象总跟人开玩笑似的,法国与丹麦的账双方在2002年的时候算清了,这回轮到荷兰与捷克了。小组赛惊天地泣鬼神的一场大战比之四年前是更令对手心服口服一点。遗憾的是对荷兰这场好象耗光了捷克人的激情与运道,对丹麦那场好象用光了上帝分给他们的进球,最后倒在了宇斯之神的脚下,给人留下一缕缕的惋惜与悲凉。

     

        实际上在世界及欧洲足球版图中,象丹麦与捷克这样能给人留下美好印象的球队还是很多的,象欧洲的葡萄牙、瑞典、前南斯拉夫,南美的巴拉圭、乌拉圭,非洲的喀麦隆、尼日利亚,以及亚洲的韩国(撇开中国这个结不谈,我还是比较的欣赏这支球队的)。只不过很多球队没有上述两支如此的持续性----无论是整支球队及个人球员方面都不能比较长时间的留在我的心中。

     

        至此,本系列文章告一段落。对欧洲足球,主要是欧洲的国家队的回忆到这就结束了。当然以后写五大联赛的话还会提到自己多年来对欧洲足球的一些感受。不过这不知要什么时候开始写了。接下来要先写别的文章了。

  •     英格兰与西班牙这两支球队真有点象是难兄难弟。由于西甲与英超的关系总是令这两支球队有比较高的人气,但此两位老兄每次总是令人是大跌眼镜,在球场上的表现是名不符实,应该是名符其实了(总不能名不符实这么久吧)。真是辜负了大家的一片期望。

     

        英格兰队在欧洲杯上的战绩之差简直可以用惨不忍睹来形容,如果没记错的话英格兰队在欧洲杯上的成绩比起捷克、南斯拉夫、罗马尼亚等这些相对不太为人知的球队都要差,更别与德法荷意之类的比了(四年前曾经查过,当时看了后马上对这支本不怎么喜欢的球队是极度的鄙视,当时发现捷克队成绩是相当之好,好象只比德国等几支球队差那么一点点)。在世界杯上的成绩也好不到那里去,只是几十年前靠东道主之利算是捧了一次杯,好歹为这个足球鼻祖是挣回了脸面(中国是不是也要靠东道主之利捧回杯,不过亚洲杯怎么看都象是鸡胁)

     

        西班牙在欧洲杯上的战绩也就比英格兰好一点点而已,能闯个**强的,好象还夺得过一次冠军(有点忘了是不是),不过西班牙在世界杯上的成绩就要比英格兰差了,不但第一没拿过,连**强也是不太沾边,总被人冠以预选赛之王的美誉。

     

        说起不喜欢英格兰队的理由刚开始还是因为英国的关系。当19961997年足球进入我眼帘的时候也是我开始关注天下大势之时,英国这个美国的小兄弟当然在我眼里就不会有太高的地位,也就顺便把英格兰队打入冷宫了。没曾想这一打,英格兰队在我眼里就再也没翻过身来,当然也是它自己不争气,它要争气从98年起也已经六年了,还不足以令我改变吗?

     

        98年世界杯小组赛结束实际就可以看出英格兰队的不济了,其他几个小组都是几支强队以小组第一出线,就它被罗马尼亚给抢了风头(当然还有比它更惨的,就是西班牙了---连小组都没出线),害得八分之一决赛就要碰上强队,又摊上了阿根廷这个冤家对头,真是屋破偏逢连夜雨。一边是自己喜欢的球队,一边是被打入了冷宫而且被记了一帐的球队(你不要在小组赛败了,晚点碰上阿根廷队就算了),后来阿根廷点球把英格兰队送回家后,心里是说不出的舒畅。(英格兰队两年前总算是扬眉吐气了一回,从死亡之组中杀出。不过最后还是被巴西队玩死,真可怜!)

        不过最舒畅的时候是2000年的欧洲杯,两个23后跟德国队一起回家的感觉真爽。四年前因为德国队惨败的伤情也因为有了英格兰队的作伴而冲淡了不少。(那时是不是很阿Q)

        这一次从某种意义上来讲还不如四年前,四年前跟德国队一起走的,不过它好歹是赢了德国队的;这一回跟法国队一起走的(只是走得远一点),不过是输给了同路人了。而且在自己的点球征战史上又添了一笔败绩(连荷兰都有胜绩了,只有英格兰队还活在点球恐惧中了)

     

        对西班牙则没有对英格兰队那样的痛恨,压根就是从一开始就没喜欢过。每次西班牙队比赛时,从里到外都不希望它赢过;英格兰队虽然也不是很喜欢,但只要不是对我喜欢的其他几支球队或与它们有关时,看比赛时还是保持中立的。

     

        看西班牙队的第一场比赛是法国世界杯时对尼日利亚队那场,就这场始西班牙队在我心中就再也没有过什么地位。那场比赛恰逢周未,而且比赛的时间也比较的早,所以是在宿舍里一大堆人一起看的,有趣的是比赛过程中看球的是一边倒呀,都是为尼日利亚队加油的----这么多人不希望西班牙队赢呀。实际上是那天晚上西班牙自己的表现把很多人给推到了对手那边去了。

        要说1998年的时候对西班牙队的喝倒彩还只是潜意识的,那2000年的时候就是无意识的了----已成习惯了。对挪威和南斯拉夫那两场球,在看比赛中总是希望西班牙队输(或平)(心里怎么这样恶毒),挪威的一个头球使我那天早上看完比赛连小睡一会都没睡就上班去了;南斯拉夫队最后没能封杀住西班牙队,使我对它在四分之一决赛中被荷兰队狂砍也不抱以一点同情。

        本届比赛的小组赛最后一轮再次证明这支球队是没有前途的,在那种生死大战中居然让对手改写历史,不死何为。

        忽然想起来,劳尔是不是有点象NBA中的格兰特.希尔,中看不中用。

     

        对上述两支球队虽然不是很友好,用心也有点险恶,但其实对置身于十万八千里外的我来说,对它们的一切都是很虚幻的,还不是为了对得起自已的日日夜夜,只要它们酣畅淋漓的生,酣畅淋漓的死就行了。

  •     荷兰足球过去很让人尊敬,只能是过去,近两年来渐渐的有点让人看不懂了。各支球队在这个世界上有各支球队的活法,荷兰本是靠进攻起家的,在世界足坛上也算是进攻成性的球队了,虽然以往大赛的成绩不是那样的理想,但看来还算是踢起来有板有眼的,不亏了那个虚名。但现在。。。

        为了夺得比赛的胜利我们无法去强求一支球队一定要干什么,但结果是东施效颦就很令人无语了。

     

        一直以来对防守型的球队偏向一点,而且自我看球以来,荷兰队最好的成绩只是大赛的四强,对这支球队也就谈不上有什么的感觉,只是有一种尊敬。一个那么小的国家(跟德意法英比),能够出如此之多的足球明星,而且有时还引领足球的潮流真的是很不容易。最早对荷兰足球的感性认识就是当年席卷欧洲的阿贾克斯(以前是只闻其名,不见其面呀),不过好景不长,自博斯曼法案后,荷兰的俱乐部就在各大赛事中不灵了,阿贾克斯也有点消声匿迹了(不过波尔图都出人头地了,阿贾克斯还没出头,照这个层面来讲后来荷兰队败了也是合情理的)

     

        1996年时候对荷兰队没什么的印象,只记得它们在小组赛惨败给英格兰后出线了,至于最后死在谁的手里已经不记得了,没看过直播是记不太住。

        1998年时候,不温不火,小组赛倒是拿韩国队开了一下刀,不过后来被墨西哥人逼平使我对这支球队从一开始就兴趣不大(第一印象真的很重要噢,对韩国队的比赛不能算的^-^,对比利时又没看)。现在只剩四分之一决赛以对阿根廷最后的绝杀还有点印象(因为自己是阿根廷这一边的),最后死在巴西人手里反正也不冤(荷兰对巴西好象没什么高招嘛,看来对巴西肯定要有不对称战法才行)

     

        2000年的欧锦赛是荷兰队的最后辉煌,东道主力压法国队头名出线(不过第三场是走过场),四分之一决赛狂胜南斯拉夫队使我有点心惊胆战的,担心意大利过不了关。不过事实再次证明上帝是讲平衡原则的,前面进了太多球到后面注定要倒霉,到了半决赛对意大利无论怎样狂轰滥炸就是破不了门,最后点球出局。

    两年前更是胡闹得连附加赛的资格都没得到,这次还是浑浑噩噩的最后反正死得是没人同情。可悲呀。

     

        虽然荷兰队不是自己最喜欢的球队之一,但一直很喜欢看它的比赛,缺少了真正的荷兰队,世界足球将缺少一道亮丽的风景线。

        因进攻而死还有人同情你,因防守而死将很少有人睬你,至少我不理它了。

     

     

     

  •     法国,一个很浪漫的名字,球场上的法国队也是很浪漫的。当时作为所谓的欧洲拉丁派的打法的确也是一度令我折服。但后来的表现令我很失望,具体的说是2002年令我很失望,一支没什么历史的球队,给予它很大的期望后得到了很大的失望,就不能指望能让我象对德国队那样的对待它。这次的欧锦赛上的表现再次令我对它的不信任又增了一层。

     

        96年的时候对法国队没什么印象,因为这支球队以前本没有什么显赫的历史,那届比赛也是表现得很平谈,真正的对法国队有印象的是自意甲的尤文图斯队起。齐达内与德尚的中场,加鼎盛时期的皮耶罗与刚出道的维耶里这么一支当前极其强大的尤文图斯队使我认识了法国人。

     

        意甲看得少,所以只闻其名不见其技的状况是到了98年的世界杯领略了齐达内,领略了法国后才改变。齐达内与德尚的中场再加当时当打之年的德塞利、***(这个人的名字忘了,很不应该,当年也是法国队的领袖)、图拉姆、利扎拉祖,法国队的中后场真是无与伦比。但稚嬾的前锋线使它们很艰难的杀入决赛后靠齐达内的光头奇迹般的大胜巴西队。由于一直以来对防守好的球队青眯有加,所以即使是由于它的拙劣的前锋线而使很多人不喜欢这支球队,但我还是渐渐的喜欢上了它。

     

        法国队的巅峰是2000年的欧锦赛,我对它的青眯也到了顶峰,这支球队的成绩左右了我的喜好度,由此也可见对它与对德国、意大利的区别。法国的前锋们经过了两年磨练,不再是当年的菜鸟,后防虽然比起两年前有那么一点点的老化,但中前场的成长,再加维埃拉的脱颖而出使法国队的实力是有增无减。最后决赛虽然是打败了自己又爱又恨的意大利队,但对这支球队还是认同的。后防还是那样的稳固,中场攻守兼备,前锋也极具冲击力,夺得当年的冠军绝不是靠运气的。有的人由于这届比赛法国队的糟糕表现就落井下石说当年法国连夺世界杯、欧锦赛冠军靠的是运气那简直是胡扯,就象说2002年出征时状况糟糟的巴西队最后夺得冠军靠的是运气一样的值一驳。

     

        2002年时,对这支球队就有预感会不太妙,因为2年来没看到法国队有过什么新的变化,除了皮雷的崛起,但那时皮雷又去不了,加之它没有预选赛的洗礼,不过没想到的是它会连小组赛都过不了。由此也把我对它从1998年始建立起来的一点点情感是击得粉碎,两个冠军的荣誉在三场小组赛后就灰飞烟灭后自己才发现我爱的原来不是法国队,是齐达内。

    转眼到了2004年,法国队怎么还是那支法国队,一点都没变,但时间已经过去两年了呀。领袖人物齐达内在小组赛频频进球就预示着这支球队可能已经走不远了----齐达内的进球太早了,后来就那样失落的输给希腊队我竟然有一点幸灾乐祸的感觉。

     

        法国队由天堂打回了人间,一切都回到了起点,后防线的乏人与不世天才齐达内的迟早退役使这支球队又回到了平庸。但法国人的那点气质应该还是不会丢的,法国人的中场一直是不乏好手,法甲也是藏龙卧虎之地,常常能涌现出色的年轻人。

        天堂难上,地狱也是难下的。

  •     罗马、文艺复兴、南欧、亚平宁半岛、米兰、法拉利等名字连在一起就是人们中的意大利,除了上述外就是意甲了,尤文图斯、AC米兰等名字对于大多数球迷来说是如雷灌耳。

        以意甲为基础的意大利队在球迷中一向来是很有市场。不过这支球队带给人的足球上的东西与上述的一些名词是大相径庭,足球外的东西倒才是有点相称。刚开始还不知道,后来有人说意大利队有很多MM球迷,才发现意大利中还真没有长得很奇形怪状的人,都标致得很。因为男的多看男的没什么意思,而且真的看球的人看比赛从来是看球不看人的,所以这个大秘密在四年前的欧锦赛上才发现。决赛输给法国队后看马尔蒂尼的的眼神终于明白了,罗伯特.巴乔为什么会有那么多的球迷(特别是女球迷),那天我也被马尔蒂尼住了。

     

        意大利队看看它的历史也是有三次世界杯冠军的名头的,不过有两次要追溯到二战前的上个世纪三十年代,还有一次则是二十二前的陈年老事了。至于欧洲杯则是不可同日而语了,好象只夺得过一次冠军,好象也是好久以前的事了跟德国简直不能比呀。意大利为人所津津乐道的是它的防守反击,最后一次的大赛冠军就是靠这个拿来的,以后这支球队一直把这个法宝发扬光大,即使别人都纷纷的效仿而使这种打法有点名以后也是毫无悔改之意。不过话又说回来,要说打防反,从里到外打得最好的应该还是意大利队,意大利队的这个传统是保持得很好呀。

     

        由于各方面的原因,自己在踢球时是司职后卫,也比较喜欢去当后卫,一直以来比较的注重防守,所以在同级别的球队中会比较喜欢防守好的球队,所以对意大利队也算是比较喜欢的之列了。意大利的防守之好是其他球队所无法比拟的,意大利队的后卫防守完全不是靠身体条件(不象那些黑人球员有无与伦比的身体素质),而是靠意识,靠全队的协防,意大利的前卫也是有很强的防守意识,不会防守的中后场球员在意大利队看来是无法生存。看过那么多球队的比赛,还真没有一支球队有意大利队如此之强的防守欲望,凡事都讲一个度字,可有时候事情就是坏在这度上。也正是它的防守,它的永远的防守,使很多人对这支球队是又爱又恨。

     

        看意大利队的比赛时,感受很莫名,既希望它不要丢了自己的传统,不太愿意看到意大利队在比赛中老丢球;但又不想它总是那样的缩头缩脚,适当的时候也要压出来打打,压制压制对方。而且这支球队又不是打不来进攻,象本届欧锦赛对瑞典队也曾打出很象样的进攻。当然要它象荷兰、巴西等球队那样的崇尚进攻是不现实的,自己也不希望意大利队变得那个样子。如何在攻守之间找自己合适的点真的很难。

     

        从过去的三届比赛来看(96年虽没看过,但进程还是了解的),看来在强手如林的欧锦赛小组赛中,意大利这种温吞吞的球队活得很艰难(世界杯由于小组赛的对手相对弱些所以还算比较的好活点)。只在2000年的时候从小组赛杀出后,一路杀进决赛。

        其实在2000年的时候很想让意大利夺一次冠,那次半决赛对荷兰时的攻防演练之后,仿佛冠军就在眼前了,而且那次是意大利先进球,对一支擅长打防守反击的球队来说先入球意味着什么大家都明白。可惜可恶的皮耶罗没有终结法国队,最后意大利人的后防线在经过与荷兰人的大战后,再经法国人的九十几钟的冲击终于崩溃了。98年的时候还原谅皮耶罗,可2000年时已经无法原谅他了,即使他是尤文图斯的人,真奇怪皮耶罗这种人能一直在意大利国家队呆着。可恶的特拉帕托尼,这个人老心也老的老头。

     

        不比德国,意大利并不缺人,缺的是作为一支冠军球队所具有的气质。一支强队在比赛中时常以弱者的姿态出现,作为战术上的需求还情有可完,但作为战略来实施就说不过去了。如果意大利队不能在之间找到平衡点,那它只能永远的在球场上扮演悲剧英雄的角色。

    2年后会怎样呢?

  • 德国队在世界及欧洲足坛上的辉煌战绩现在只能到历史堆中去寻找了,那些看起来不起眼的比分,那些读起来也平平无味的世界足球历史,还有那些看起来粗糙,有些还是黑白的画面,无不记载着这个足坛巨人的厚重的脚步,令人无法忘怀。

     

    德国队的征战史本身就是对现代足球何为世界第一运动的最佳诠释。球场上的冠军不一定是踢得最漂亮的与技术最好的;现实中的成功者也不一定是最有资本的与最聪明的;人类历史上今天能留下来的也不一定是最令人神往的。冠军、成功者、胜利者虽然并不一定是最好的,最令人喜欢和最令人称道的,但胜者作为胜者总有胜的理由,总有胜的原因。这就是德国队告诉我们的。

     

    由于看球的历史比较的晚,自己并没有见证过德国队的冠军,只能从历史的记忆中探寻这支球队的光辉业绩,但这并没有妨碍我喜欢这支球队。

     

    96年欧锦赛前对世界足球可以说是一无所知,只在94年美国世界杯时听到班上的一位同学提到过马拉多纳(自己喜欢阿根延队是不是因为当时的这个第一印象呢?)1996年当时刚到外面的世界,第一次知道世界足球除了世界杯还有欧洲杯这一大盛事(现在认为这是水平最高的赛事了,其水平比世界杯是有过之而无不及)。那时大一大二的时候一方面是不象后来这样有门路能到处找到地方看球,另一方面是当时的足球还没现在这样的热,学校的基础设施也没后来那样的好,所以那届的欧锦赛一场现场都没有看过,不过它的进程倒是一直关注着的。

     

    德国队在"死亡之组",德国队从中轻松的杀出,不象这一次死得这样难看。从那时也认识了自己喜欢的另一支球队----捷克。两支从死亡之组杀出的球队最后又在决赛中相遇。最后德国队在加时赛中凭一粒金球夺得了德国历史上的第三个欧洲杯冠军,自从关注德国队比赛起目前为止的唯一一个冠军。从那时起开始慢慢的知道德国队的一些历史,自已的历史感使我喜欢上了他,以后也知道那届的德国队其实已经是强弩之未,不过这又更使我尊敬及喜欢这支球队。同样的强弩之未,现在的法国队为什么就不能在02年世界杯后回光返照一下呢?

     

    真正的看到德国队的正式比赛的是98年的法国世界杯。虽然最后在四分之一决赛中惨败给了克罗地亚队,但老迈的德国队还是给我留下了深刻的印象,小组赛22平南斯拉夫队可以说是这支球队的真正写照。德国队在场上踢得的确是没有南斯拉夫队有看头,而且看来对南斯拉夫的球门也是没有办法,打得是极其的难看。但最后还是在02落后的情况下追平了比分。就从这场比赛来看,那批球员已经证明了他们的价值。德国老头头球队完成了他们的使命。

     

    2000年欧锦赛是悲情的开始,虽然德国足球的衰败在慢慢的展露,在新一代的德国球员中再也找不到有什么令人眼前一亮的球员,德甲的俱乐部也在欧洲俱乐部的各大赛事中节节的败退。但一支有如此辉煌战绩的球队,一支常能让人出其意外的球队,谁也不敢轻视,虽然不是什么大热门,但谁也不想作为卫冕冠军会在小组就被淘汰。小组赛第二轮虽然01负于英格兰队,但那场比赛已经衰败的德国队实际上场面上并没有什么劣势(有人由此断定英格兰队也是没成大器,真是英雄所见略同),所以还是对他抱有一线的希望。鉴于自己的"扫帚星"的推断,那天晚上特意没去看比赛,希望能奇迹发生(一方面也是怕面对德国队被淘汰的局面)。但最后的结果很令人失望,德国队遭到了惨败,那是我看球以来迄今为止最痛苦的时刻。正因为有了四年前的那一幕惨状,所以这一次德国队的扫地出门也就没那么的令人难受了。

     

    2002年的世界杯也证明只是德国队的一次奇迹,不过在历史上为什么能上演奇迹的球队那么少呢?不管摆出什么样的理由,意外、运气、强队的纷纷落马,反正德国队杀进了决赛就是对这支球队的肯定。为什么运气会降临他,为什么会好意外会偏向他,坏意外会偏向别的球队,为什么那些所谓的""队纷纷落马,而德国队这支只剩历史的强队没有落马,上帝是德国人?那次巴西队赛前也是很不被看好。但他们都杀进了决赛,因为他们都没有丢掉他们赖以成为一支强队的传统支柱。不得不令我深深的喜欢德国队。

     

    这次出征欧锦赛之前本没对德国队抱什么大的幻想,有的只是四年前那个晚上的那种梦想,两年前的那种奇迹而已。第一场平荷兰让人看到一点点的希望,但第二场平拉脱维亚就马上把那点仅有的希望又破灭了,最后时刻没脾气的输给捷克队就此出局令人黯然神伤。虽本没抱什么大的希望,但这样的结局还是很心酸,我心中的德国队什么时候能回来?

     

    相信永远的德国队,期待2006

  • 回想一下大学时的课程。发现文史类的给人留下比较深刻的影响,可当时在校时学的理工的课程比文史类要多得多(一个学期就一两门文史类的),一方面是学的专业基础课多如牛毛,凡事多了总是会鱼目混珠,这个一平均就显得少了,一方面那些理工类的老师上课一般总没有文史的老师上课上得有味道,课程所决定的。实际上当然各种基础、专业课里也有上得不错的,但那东西对外人来说枯燥得很,要我把它洋洋洒洒的写出来有点困难,所以就不写了。今天特回忆一下大学时的一些文史课

     

    有些乱七八糟的也忘了,只找好讲的讲。

     

    大学第一年的第一学期,学的是一门历史课,讲得比较的笼统,主要是近代为主,课程名忘了,这个东西常改名,好象以前的名字叫***革命史什么的(很政治),我们那时当然不会叫那样的名字了,教程也变了,是学校自编的。应该说课程本身没什么可说的,但遇上了一个好老师,一下子使这门课增色不少,否则我肯定会把这种课忘掉。

    教师是一位中年妇女,带一幅浅色眼镜,一看就觉得她有种不同寻常的气质。我个为认为她是我大学四年里碰到的最有学识的文史老师。上课的地方在一个阶梯教室,这种教室中等规模,稀稀落落的能坐百十号人,可选她课的人并不是很多,只有二三十个。她是研究晚清历史的,跟我们讲洋务运动、讲曾国潘、讲袁世觊,还讲了“分封建制”, 讲中学历史教科书所没有的东西。也就是从那以后起知道了李鸿章所不为不知,不为人解的一面,知道了义和团背后的一些故事,也知道了世界上居然有郭沬若这种狗屎。

    我想自己喜欢历史虽然有一些自身的原因,但她对我的影响应该也是不容忽视的,应该说这门课是我在大学里的一些文史课里唯一算是学到知识的吧。

     

    也忘了是大一的第二学期还是大二的第一学期,有一门课叫西方社会分析,又是自己编的教材,后来发现学校自己编的教材的课程比用公共教材的课程要受欢迎些。这门课涉及的话题比较的大,但那本教材我认为还是胜任了,虽然没什么长篇大论,当然也不会有很深的深度,但作为一本理工类学生的文史教材应该还是比较满意的。这次选上的教师又是一个女的,实际上大学里选课有时是很盲目的如果没有什么一致认为很好的,就看老师的名字或大家一窝蜂(逃课时可以照顾一下),有时干脆就是要交选课单前心血来潮的填了一个。

    这位比上位教我们历史的要年轻,而且课程也比上次要难上得多,我觉得她是有点驾驭不住,不过有一本好的教材,再加上教的是学理工的人,而且是刚进大学不久的(呵呵,如果是现在来教我这门课就够怆了)。这个人上课一直是波澜不惊,老实说也没有什么新的观点与看法,她的水平好象超不出那本教材,所以有时候我会在课上看英语单词。中间只有一段小插曲,一次上公开课,有位领导在场(这家伙是不是吃饱的撑了),我也忘了是上什么内容,反正在上课的一次发言中有个家伙对我的观点用意识形态的东西来反驳,这门课本身就不是注重这个的,这时她出来把局面控制住了,观点还是有点偏“左”。我不知道这是不是就是她的认识,因为当时现场有不确定的因素,但不管怎样因为这个我记住了这门课,不过我还是偏向于她是违心的。

     

    接下来能记起的是邓理----邓小平理论,正式的名字是很长的,叫什么中国特色***理论。课本身倒是没什么好说的,这次照例是碰上有一位厉害的主。选课前师兄师姊们就关照过了,说这个人的课好,好象这个是一致公认的,选他的课的多得不得了,上课是在500人的大教室上的。

    课程本身真的是没什么好说的,那点东西来来去去的,大家都知道。可这次碰上了一个能说会道的,好家伙,上课时在那个大讲台上把教材一扔,就那薄薄的一本,拍拍话筒,然后站在那儿就开讲了,一堂课好象也没怎么坐下来过,讲得兴致时还拿起话筒走动走动。讲的东西30%是跟课程一点关系都没有的,50%是跟课程粘点边(用这些事来说明道理),只有20%才是那本书上的东西,再加枯燥的理论解说。邓小平理论这种课居然没什么人逃课真是奇迹,大家都喜欢听他侃大山。

     

    最后讲个不愉快的,在大三有一门课----马克思主义哲学,这课大家都上。其它课都可选,邓小平理论也是可以大家自己选的呀,可就这课不能选,谁给你上你就上谁的。给我们上课的我认为是我在大学里碰到的最差的老师,又摊上了这门最难上的课(哲学没人认为是好上的课吧)。这家伙又自认为是自己掌握了真理,好象不可一世的样子。又没什么学识,我真怀疑这家伙看过马克思的原著没有(外文是不指望了,看过中文版也万事大吉了),其它康德、黑格尔的更是水月镜花了。又没什么魅力,一个男的,既不是小白脸,又不是大丈夫,人极其的龌鹾,常常点名,从没有碰到过象他那样勤点名的。课上得没劲,考试也糟糕透顶,没什么可发挥的空间(不比邓小平理论,考试时让人可以尽情发挥的),又碰上了这种上课常点名的主,平时成绩可想而知,由此也创下了大学四年来第二低的考试成绩(第一低的是英语,刚爬上及网格线)。后来想想当时那么想离开学校这个方面也是一个原因。

     

    大学时代的文史课就到这里,还有些连课名,连学的什么都记不起来的,不足道。下次写大学时代的选修课。