小女子点朱学勤的死穴：任选一节为朱书加注
――以第八章第五节为例
小女子猪偷懒
小女子为留美在读经济学PhD 学生（博士生），本无意掺合中文学科涉及朱学勤抄袭之事。既然欧洲的Isaiah哥哥已经为揭批伪学者朱学勤（汶川大地震后此人大言不惭地发表“天谴论”）尽了一份绵薄之力，在美国的小妹我也该有所表示才对。欧美从来都是一家嘛，欧美的中国留学生更是一家亲哈！想当初2008年春保护奥运火炬免受脏毒势力和西方媒体干扰，也是咱欧美中国留学生的共同努力嘛！小女子学过看相，对比汪晖和朱学勤的照片，小女子就感觉，汪晖是个好男人（你看，被别人抓了点小辫子被那些伪媒体、伪文人骂得那么惨也默不作声，小女子看着都心疼，在心里痛骂那些自以为得意、其实只有猪胆趁人之危的文痞们），朱学勤则似个油嘴滑舌的小暴发户相色。在网上看到朱学勤自信满满地回应指控“一条都不成立”后，小女子更验证了自己对朱学勤的相面判断，很反感他的油腔滑调，更不相信他的所谓辩解。
Isaiah哥哥的最严重指控是朱学勤抄袭了Blum一书，最近邢玉思网友的“朱学勤抄袭铁证：任选一节的文本分析”，也很有杀伤力，抄袭Blum已经是铁板钉钉了。不过，小女子还是觉得，那些论证虽然很有说服力，但从文中抽出若干句子，把中英文摆在一起，显得累赘，不美观，外行读者看起来累。何不给朱书全文摆出来，一一逐句标注，这样更一目了然呢？ 受他们的启发，小女子花了6个小时，整出这篇指控朱学勤抄袭的文章，供大家切磋。欧洲的Isaiah哥哥，小妹我不令你失望吧？
小女子任选朱书一节，也就是第八章第五节。该节除第一段和第二段外，共标注了5个脚注，均标注来源于《罗伯斯庇尔全集》。但基于小女子的考证，其实此节的所有内容，除了第一段、第二段和最后一段外，几乎每一句均来自于同一本书――Carol Blum的英文书籍Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue（即《卢梭与德性共和国》）。“美观”起见，除第一段和第二段外，小女子原封不动地抄上朱书全文（请允许我抄您朱老哈），并给朱书逐句标注出其在Blum一书的具体页数和行数，这样，抄还是没抄，大家就一目了然了。小女子在文后列出替朱书加注的Blum英文原文，供大家核对朱书的中文。朱书的中文，与Blum一书的英文，是非常对应的，完全就是Blum一书的翻译，所以都省得我去翻译了哦――这我得感谢朱老帮我节约了时间，改天请您喝茶。懂英文的同志们可以饭前逐条对比着中英文看。有兴趣核对朱书和Blum一书的，可以对照中文里注释的页码、行数去网上找Blum电子版的英文，就清楚了。
朱学勤及其辩护者可能会说：“历史事实不都是一样的么？”正如网友邢玉思所指出的：“学术规范的要求并非如此，通过参见Blum布拉姆的著作我们可以发现，关于史实细节，其中有大量不厌其烦的引用基础史料的规范脚注。历史不会自动展现在我们面前，是学者们根据自己的兴趣、理解和组织从原始史料中梳理出来的结果。而朱学勤在《道德理想国的覆灭》中呈现给我们的，正是布拉姆女士辛苦劳动的成果”。
小女子也可以举例说明，除第一段和第二段外，朱书此节共使用了五个脚注，而这五个脚注恰恰在Blum一书均有，巧合吧？还有更巧合的呢，在朱书的脚注第37和第41，也就是小女子给朱文标的注解8和31，注解页码分别为P. 492-494, P. 554-556。这可神了，Blum一书的这两处引文因为内容多，所以使用了跨页脚注，一个是从492页到494页，一个是从554页到556页。但是朱书的引文均很短，不可能真正需要这样跨页引用。这说明了什么呢？这说明（结合本文给朱书的注解），朱书此节，其实全部来源于Blum一本书。网友Isaiah和网友邢玉思都考证了朱书抄袭Blum 一书的事实，而小女子的考证，也更进一步确认了这一事实：朱书大量剽窃了Blum一书。
朱学勤先生，小女子是不是点到了你的死穴啊？服，还是不服？舒不舒服啊？如若不服，小女子再给你整一篇。尽管如此，小妹我也同意Isaiah的看法，不要像那些伪文人伪媒体想把别人汪晖往死里整，我们年轻一代学人对伪学者朱学勤也主张点到为止，宽宏大量，不需要他交出学位、辞职之类的。但是我们主张：朱学勤先生去向Blum和该书的出版社道歉，也给汶川大地震的死难同胞去烧个香、下个跪。我们和王彬彬们当然不同，他们这代人痞子心态严重（比如搞派系斗争，靠在媒体开骂来出名，非要把对方往死里整，等等），可以归耕养老了。也以此文，警告那些伪学者（比如那个恶毒咒骂汪晖先生的丑老男人易中天，还有一些人，给你们面子暂不点名）、伪媒体（就无需点名了），你们想要打压左派来充老大，还要看我小妹答应不答应！左派最坚定地代表底层人民的利益，小女子普通工人家庭出身，支持他们，咋的！小妹后面还有一大帮哥们妹们，个个都是欧美在读PhD，谁厉害，谁怕谁，走着瞧！
小女子猪偷懒
2010年7月19日于大不列颠印弟安美利坚联合国
以下是考证的具体内容。黑色字体为朱书原文，红色字体为小女子逐句给朱书加的注解出处，共31处注解，均来自Blum一书。文后逐条列出Blum的英文原文，也是一共31条。
298页――
本节开头两小段，标注了两个来源。
第299页――
广场上一片沉寂，洞穴内暗室四起。雅各宾派失尽人心，国民公会内种种反对派阴谋四处蔓延。有些议员自牧月令公布之日起，即不敢回家睡觉，害怕被捕 （1.Blum：260页倒数第7行至倒数第6行）。牧月24日（6月12日），布尔东和梅兰在议会发言，要求澄清牧月法令是否废纸了议员不受逮捕的豁免权（2.Blum：260页倒数第2行至261页第2行）。罗伯斯庇尔认为，这两个议员的发言是“企图把救国委员会从山岳党人分离开来” （3.Blum：261页第4行至第6行）。
他说：“允许一些阴谋家分裂山岳党人，并且自封为党派领袖，就是对人民的残忍，对人民的谋杀。” （4.Blum：261页第13行至第14行）
布尔东要求出示证据：“我决不想自封为一党领袖，我要求你拿出刚才那番指控的证据，我已经被说成一个邪恶者了”！” （5.Blum：261页第15行至第18行）
罗伯斯庇尔：“我决不是指布尔东。谁要是对好入座，算他活该。我的职责迫使我描绘这样一幅肖像，如果他认出这便是他，我没有权力阻止他。是的，山岳当人是纯洁的，它是高尚的，而阴谋家绝不是山岳党成员。” （6.Blum：261页第19行至第23行）
一个声音高叫着：“指出他的名字！” （7.Blum：261页第24行）
罗伯斯庇尔：“到应该指出来的时候，我会指出他的名字！” （8.Blum：261页第25行）
辩论表明，罗伯斯庇尔已再现卢梭晚年的这一心态：（9.Blum：265页倒数第6行至倒数第5行）既然我是道德的，那么反对者只可能是站在反道德立场上反对我；而反道德者不是有错，只可能是有罪；唯我有美德，他人在犯罪……：（10.Blum：265页最后一行至266页第4行）罗伯斯庇尔已经进入内省确信状态，不需要证据，他就可以凭直觉指控任何一个反对者，这样一个直觉敏锐者、“激情迅猛者”，又是大权在握！议院内人人自危，如汤浇蚊穴，一片慌乱。
第300页――
牧月27日（6月15日），瓦迪埃向国民公会报告卡特琳泰奥事件。被告泰奥是个民间巫婆，逮捕是在他的草垫下发现了一封给罗伯斯庇尔的信，信中把罗伯斯庇尔称为“神人”、“救世主” （11.Blum：265页第三段最后4行）。泰奥于5月28日被捕，即花月法令前，拖到此时来公布，显然是有反对派暗中活动，以此败坏罗伯斯庇尔花月令、牧月法令的道德声誉（12. Blum：265页第二段第5行至第8行）。罗伯斯庇尔闭门起草反击报告。他悲愤地写道：
“这是为什么，我们总是要提及我们自己？…… （13.Blum：266页第6行至第7行）
“我们为什么不为自己辩护，就不能为共和国辩护？（14.Blum：266页第8行）
“他们为什么总是要把我们和公共利益绑在一起，以致我们如果不为自己辩解，就不能为政府，为国民公会的各项原则辩解？” ？（15. Blum：266页第9行至第11行）
罗伯斯庇尔已无可挽回地进入了卢梭晚年的悲剧处境，控诉者被控诉，连语言都极其相似：（16. Blum：265页倒数第6行至倒数第5行）。当他仰天悲问，“他们为什么总是要把我们和公共利益绑在一起？(pourquoi nous a-t-on lies a l'interet general?) ” 。：（17. Blum：266页第三段第3行至第5行，此处法语也完全照搬Blum，一词不多，一词不少）他已预设了一个前提：他为自己辩护，就是为人民辩护。“我就是人民”，在这里又一次出现。奇丽斯玛的外倾语式是“无限上纲”：不同政见者必是道德邪恶者，道德邪恶者必是道德罪恶者。：（18. Blum：266页第三段第1行至第3行）。奇丽斯玛的内倾语式是“预先联系”：把自己和人民、共和国连成一体，攻击他，就是攻击人民，共计共和国。前者为矛，后者为盾。（19. Blum：266页第三段第5行至第8行）“我――道德――人民”，成了奇丽斯玛怯魅入巫所陷入的最大语言巫区。（20. Blum：266页第三段第8行至第10行）
7月9日，罗伯斯庇尔出现于雅各宾俱乐部讲演，他再一次强调花月法令的意义：
第301页――
所有拯救过共和国的法令中，最崇高的法令唯有这一项法令，它把共和国从腐败者的手中夺了回来，它使所有的人民从暴君手中释放了出来，这就是使得美德和城市成为生活秩序的法令，然而，那些只愿带着自由面具的人，却在美德法则的贯彻过程中投下了巨大的障碍。（21. Blum：271页第二段全段）
又过了一星期，离事变前10天，他再次把自己的困境归结为花月法令激起的抵抗，他们中的大多数人对美德这一词语的信念，仅限于家政和私人义务，决不愿将其理解为公共道德，理解为对人民事业的全部奉献，而后一点正是美德的英雄主义、共和国的唯一支柱、人类幸福的唯一保证。（22. Blum：271页第三段第7行至第11行）
罗伯斯庇尔似乎朦胧意识到，所有的问题就出在这个道德边界的认定？道德通常被人理解为私人事务，而他则坚持道德必须成为强制性的公共状态，必须成为国家、政治、乃至文明历史的唯一基础。（23. Blum：271页第三段第1行至第3行）
7月26日，临事变前夜，他再国民公会演说，也是他生平最后一次演说。（24. Blum：272页第三段第1行至第2行）历史学家将其称为他的“政治遗嘱”。冥冥之中，他似乎预感到什么，急不可待地向历史交代，他此生信仰与这一场革命统一于美德这一基点：（25. Blum：274页第二段第1行至第2行）
我只知道有两种人：正直的公民与邪恶的公民。（26. Blum：273页第三段第1行、第3行）爱国主义不是一个政治党派问题，而是心灵问题。（27. Blum：273页第三段第4行）谁能作出这种区别？良知和正义。（28. Blum：273页第三段第6行至第7行）
第302页――
我说的是什么？美德！（29. Blum：273页最后一第1行）没有美德，一场伟大的革命只不过是一种乱哄，是一种罪恶摧毁另一种罪恶。（30. Blum：274页第一段第3行至第4行）拿走我的良知，我就成了一个可怜的人。（31. Blum：274页第一段最后一句）
7月27日晚，热月事件发生。罗伯斯庇尔在国民公会议员们的叫骂声中被捕，他留给这个嘈杂大厅的最后一句话是：“强盗们得胜，共和国完了。”当晚8点半至11点，他曾被短暂地营救出3个小时。但在这3个小时内，他无所作为，只是用手枪打碎了自己的下巴。在被人推上断头台前，他先打碎了自己的铁嘴――语言器官。7月28日下午6点，罗伯斯庇尔一行22人被送到停放断头台的广场。7点半，他被推上断头台。 他临行前沉默不语，亦不能语，只是在沉默中最后一次聆听广场上的群众欢呼：“国民公会万岁！”（最后这一部分不知道出处，大家可以去查查。因为朱书抄Blum和陈崇武的多，有可能是陈崇武的《罗伯斯庇尔评传》。不过，这个已经不重要了。朱抄没抄Blum，连小学生都可以看出来了。）
第八章第五节完。
小女子注解朱书的英文出处及原文（共31条，均来自Blum一书）：
1. Blum. P. 260: He alluded to rumors: a number of deputies to the Convention no longer slept in their beds, fearing arrest in the middle of the night.
2. Blum. P. 260-261: On 24 prairial, Bourdon (delegate from l'Oise) and Merlin (from
Douai) demanded an amendment to the law of 22 prairial which would exclude the members of the Convention themselves from arrest, trial, and execution under its provisions.
3. Blum. P. 261: He stated that Bourdon was attempting to separate the Committee [of Public Safety] from the Mountain.
4. Blum. P. 261: Robespierre continued, "it would be assassinating the people to permit some schemers to drag off a portion of this Mountain and make themselves party leaders."
5. Blum. P. 261: Bourdon's reply was to deny the role Robespierre assigned him. "I never intended to make myself a party leader," he protested. "I demand that what was just claimed be proven; I have just been called a scoundrel―"
6. Blum. P. 261: "I did not name Bourdon," Robespierre replied. "Woe unto him who names himself. If he wishes to recognize himself in the general portrait that duty forces me to trace, I cannot stop him. Yes, the Mountain is untainted, it is sublime, and schemers are not part of the Mountain."
7. Blum. P. 261: A voice called out: "Name them."
8. Blum. P. 261: "I will name them when the time comes," Robespierre replied. [10:
492-94]朱文此处照搬此注解，注为： 第10卷, P. 492-494
9. Blum. P. 265: Robespierre's reaction demonstrated the parameters of self-generated virtue in the same way that Rousseau juge de Jeanjacques had done.
10. Blum. P. 265-266：Both Robespierre and Rousseau, after long, persistent, and successful efforts to center attention upon their revealed selves as incarnations of virtue, struggling with the evil of the world, uttered reactions of surprise and hurt when they suddenly experienced that attention as unfriendly.
11. Blum. P. 265: Vadier and Barere presented a report in the name of the committees of Public Safety and General Security, claiming that "the Mother of God" was addressing
Robespierre as her "first prophet, the son of the Supreme Being, the Redeemer, the Messiah.
12. Blum. P. 265: but the real accused was understood to be Robespierre himself, and the accusation was that of aspiring not to dictatorship but to divinity. The records of the trial of Theot suggest an atmosphere of farce.
13. Blum. P. 266: "Why is it," he asked, "that we always have to mention ourselves?"
14. Blum. P. 266: Why can we not defend the public good without defending ourselves?
15. Blum. P. 266: Why have they so bound us to the public interest, that we cannot speak
in favor of the government, of the principles of the National Convention, without seeming to speak of ourselves? [10: 507] 朱文此处照搬此注解，注为：同上, P.507
16. Blum. P. 265: Robespierre's reaction demonstrated the parameters of self-generated virtue in the same way that Rousseau juge de Jeanjacques had done.
17. Blum. P. 266: When Robespierre asked "Why have they bound us to the public interest? (pourquoi nous a-t-on lies a l'interet general?),"
18. Blum. P. 266: Robespierre, like Rousseau, was claiming the right to experience in a passive way as external evil the situation he had actively created, as internal good.
19. Blum. P. 266: the identity between himself and the people, upon which he had so intensely insisted, he now described as an alien and suspicious connection, one designed to make him seem contemptible.
20. Blum. P. 266: It was as if the heroic figure that he called himself were suddenly exposed in a different light, in which it took on a comic aspect.
21. Blum. P. 271: Of all the decrees which have saved the Republic, the most sublime, the only one that wrenched it from corruption's grasp and freed all the people from tyranny, is the one which made virtue and probity the order of the day [18 floreal]. If this decree had been executed, liberty would have been perfectly established and we would not need to make the grandstands ring with our voice; but the men who wear only the mask of virtue put the greatest obstacles into the execution of virtue's own laws. [10: 519] 朱文此处照搬此注解，注为：同上, P.519
22. Blum. P. 271: At most they understand by the word virtue a faithfulness to certain domestic and private obligations, but never the public virtues, never the generous devotion to the cause of the people which is the heroism of virtue and the only support of the Republic, the only pledge of the happiness of the human race. [10: 531] 朱文此处照搬此注解，注为：同上, P.531
23. Blum. P. 271: When virtue was solemnly made the order of the day, the enemies of
the Republic did not associate the idea of every man and every citizen's sacred and sublime duties toward the Fatherland and humanity with the word virtue.
24. Blum. P. 272: Robespierre's last speech, on 8 thermidor, took place before the Convention, where he had not appeared since 24 prairial.
25. Blum. P. 274: This impassioned discourse described, for the last time, Robespierre's
dynamic model of the French Revolution as a fusion in virtue.
26. Blum. P. 273: "I know of only two parties," he continued, "that of the good citizens and that of the bad citizens;
27. Blum. P. 273: patriotism is not a question of party but of the heart.
28. Blum. P. 273: Who will make this distinction? Good sense and justice."
29. Blum. P. 273: What am I saying, Virtue!
30. Blum. P. 274: without which a great revolution is but a dazzling crime which
destroys another crime.
31. Blum. P. 274: Take away my conscience and I am the most miserable of men. [10: 554-56] 朱文此处照搬此注解，注为：同上, P.554-556
朱学勤惊天抄袭证据
小女子
考证完毕朱学勤先生的第七章第五节，与小女子上次考证的第八章第五节结果一样，基本完全（本节共8页，四小段除外）来自Blum一书，惊讶得说不出话了。那就什么都不说了。黑色字体为朱原文，红色字体为本人考证内容。本节朱文共使用了9个脚注，也很巧合，这9个脚注在Blum一书中均出现，引用的内容与Blum一书也完全相同，而且，本节的脚注只有一个提到了Blum。而从考证的内容看，其实本节都是来源于Blum。因此，抄袭成立。
第七章第五节 内外禁锢――舆论划一与道德对抗
罗伯斯庇尔上台之时，正是巴黎经受革命道德清洗之际。
在革命上层，人们推举出比马拉更具道德热忱的罗伯斯庇尔；在革命下层，人们点火焚烧一切不合道德标准的文化“奢侈品”：烧书，烧画，烧锦旗，烧旧制度文献，烧所有从私人住宅抄检出来的带有贵族气息的文化作品。据《导报》记载，从１７９３年至１７９４年，不断有爱国者结队冲进国民公会底楼，自发地进行焚书活动。(1. Blum: 220页第三段第6行至第8行) 浓烟时常从国民公会的各个窗户内飘逸而出，法国议会就在这种腾腾烈焰之上，大声辩论他们的革命进程。(2. Blum: 220页第三段第9行，承接上面来的，英文原文说那些焚书的民众在烈焰周围舞蹈，朱改写了)
１７９３年１０月２３日，一位革命前的精神贵族――主教蒂博实在心疼这些文化精品毁于一炬，询问议会：(3. Blum: 220页第三段第9行至第11行)
爱国者有什么权力烧毁这些从邻居家里抄检来的东西，即使这些东西证明是保皇主义或封建主义的标志？ (4. Blum: 220页第三段第11行至第13行)
雅各宾党人约瑟夫・德・谢尼埃平静地回答说：(5. Blum: 220页第13行至第14行)
不是有一些被公认是伟大的共和主义者的书籍吗？比如说，他们之中有西尼和让・雅克・卢梭。（6. Blum: 220页最后一行至221页第2行）
卢梭的著作和思想到了这种时候，就不限于一种无形的语言暴力了。它已与强大的群众暴力、行政暴力相结合，形成一种公开的政教合一的政治暴力。(7. Blum: 243页第三段第1行至第4行；作者曲解成“政教合一”，Blum并非这个意思)１７９３年６月１９日，《世界信使报》公然载文说：“人，仅仅是政府塑造的模样。在一个民主政体下，在一种如此纯洁的空气里，在一个如此美好的政府下，母亲毫无生产痛苦就生下了她的孩子”。(8. Blum: 264页第二段倒数第7行至倒数第2行)
这正是卢梭改造新人思想，从哲学推行到政治实践的关键点。卢梭当年曾抱恨没有一个优秀的政府来塑造他所设计的至善人性，现在轻而易举地由一家革命报纸堂皇说出，而且正在一个革命政府的行政推动下，轻而易举地进入了社会实践。
罗伯斯庇尔当然信奉这一主张。但是，他考虑得更为深远。报纸虽有宣传卢梭思想的这一作用，但是报纸七嘴八舌，有时可能争夺政府对塑造人性的社会影响。１７８９年８月２４日，他在三级议会上的发言曾反对限制出版自由。但是到了１７９３年他显然改变了这一看法。他更相信由政府来直接塑造人，也就是说，直接钳制舆论，在此之后，扫荡一切政府之外的文化媒体、知识分子。６月２４日先发出警报，他指出：
有一种最简单最有力的力量，能把公共舆论引入各种主张和各色人等的混乱，这就是报纸为何在革命中总是扮演一种重要角色的原因。 敌人在出钱收买一些作者。(9. Blum: 265页第3行至第5行)
一个月后，罗伯斯庇尔进入救国委员会。８月８日，国民公会公布法令：“查禁所有阳奉阴违的学院、学术机构、医学机构、艺术团体、法律机构。” (10. Blum: 235页第三段第1行至第2行)８月１０日起，逮捕所有“反革命”的作家、记者。(11. Blum: 264页脚注3第2行至第3行)《巴黎新闻报》的迪罗苏瓦于８月２５日被推上断头台，这是革命法庭处死的第一个新闻记者。(12: Blum: 264页脚注3第5行至第7行) 根据这个月公布的监护者法令：民间街头报纸要么被封闭，要么成为雅各宾派的喉舌。(13. Blum: 264页第二段第1行至第4行)９月５日，在忿激派武装示威要求下，国民公会决定把恐怖正式提上议事日程。救国委员会命令：关闭法兰西剧院，逮捕所有演员。
下一步清洗的，是司法系统。这年圣诞节，罗伯斯庇尔签署文件，由救国委员会发至各省，仅剩无几的法理程序、科层制过程都被废止。(14. Blum: 222页第四段第1行至第4行)“加强革命，只能在一个自由的空间进行，这就是立法者之所以要清除阻碍道路的所有事物的原因。…… 到目前为止，我们清洗了不少人，但是还存在着很多有待清洗的任务。……革命法律的智慧只有在毫无阻碍的高空飞翔，如果增加它周围的限制，它就会逐渐停顿下来”。（15. Blum: 222页最后一段）
进入１７９４年春，恐怖主义呼声更加高涨。马赛军事委员会宣称：“法律的刀刃每天都应切下一些罪恶的头颅，断头台工作得越繁忙，共和国就越巩固。” （16. Blum: 226页第11行至第14行）（３月２６日）处死丹东派当日，奥布省来的议员说：“如果我们清洗了自己，我们就有权力去清洗法兰西。我们不能让异质团体再留在共和国躯体之内。”（17. Blum: 226页第8行至第10行）处死丹东派后，圣鞠斯特也催促国民公会：“消灭所有帮派，只有这样，共和国内才能只剩下人民和你们自己”。（18. Blum: 227页第5行至第7行）
当时的国民公会形同虚设，大权已经集中在救国委员会少数人手中。罗伯斯庇尔等人进一步实践卢梭政治哲学之真谛：让人民的一盘散沙与最高寡头的集权直接对位，中间削平一切社会团体。
１７９４年４月至５月，雅各宾派开始清洗巴黎各区的民众团体。３９个区的民众团体被迫解散。除限定每十天集会两次的区会议以外，只有雅各宾俱乐部一个组织可以自由集会。雅各宾派俱乐部经多次清洗、分裂，此时亦办成了官办机关，成为政府之工具。即使如此，每逢集会，讲坛上下亦派人严密监视。
在这一清洗民间团体的过程中，最具典型意义、亦具讽刺意义的是妇女参政命运的起落。
１７８９年三级会议所收到的民间陈情书中，有３３份要求改进妇女的命运。（19. Blum: 204页第二段第1行至第2行）有一份称为“法兰西妇女的陈情书”写道
“三级会议的组成，就概念来说，它既然能代表整个民族，也就应该代表我们。可是，民族一半以上的人口却被排斥在外。先生们，这是一个问题，而这一问题伤害的是我们这个性别。” ：（20. Blum: 205页第三段第6行至第11行）专门研究卢梭妇女观与妇女运动关系的西方史学家保罗・费里兹和理查德・莫顿整理总结这批陈情书说：（21. Blum: 204页第二段第2行至第4行。注：Blum原文是Ruth Graham，而不是保罗・费里兹和理查德・莫顿---Paul Fritz and Richard Morton，这两人是Women in the 18th Century and Other Essays一书的编者，其中收录了Ruth Graham的文章Rousseau's Sexism Revolutionized，这里Blum有注解，朱肯定看到了此注解，不然不会刚好用这两个编者的名字，可惜弄巧成拙，搞错了。）
妇女的陈情书虽不登大雅之堂，但正是这些陈情书提醒人们注意，妇女是被排斥三级会议之外的。１７８９年的法兰西，危机四伏，也正是妇女们提出了一个治疗药方：卢梭的道德或伦理更新。（22: Blum: 204页第二段第4行至第8行。）
妇女对卢梭的呼唤，在革命前夕和初期的卢梭热中起了很大推动作用。革命前半阶段的民众运动中，妇女参政权确实大大推进了一步。（23. Blum: 208页最后一行至209页第一行）包括雅各宾俱乐部在内的许多政治性俱乐部都吸收了女性。《铁嘴报》上也不断鼓吹女权。（24. Blum: 209页第一段第5行至第9行）但是，卢梭道德理想普及之时，恰恰正是妇女重回厨房之日。
法国大革命中，轻视妇女的封建传统始终没有全部消退。《人权宣言》中的“人”，指的是“男性”，而不是“女性”。(25. Blum: 209页第二段第1行至第3行)１７９１年宪法中，亦将妇女划入消极公民，这种观念到了雅各宾专政时期，不仅没有克服，反而由于卢梭幽闭妇女的理论影响，大大增加。（26. Blum: 212页注解18第1行至第4行）１７９３年１月２５日，雅各宾党人普律多姆反对里昂妇女组建政治俱乐部，（27. Blum: 209页第二段第7行至第9行）首先发难：“里昂妇女俱乐部当她们这么做 时，是怎么考虑让・雅各・卢梭在《社会契约论》里教育年轻女公民的那些完整章节呢？（原文如此，这些章节在该书中没有，只出现在《致达朗贝尔――论观赏》中）……妇女俱乐部将是家政的苦难渊源……。我们恳求里昂的那些好公民，留在家里吧，好好照看你们的子女吧，而不是妄称什么懂得《社会契约论》！” （28. Blum: 209页第三段全段）
有妇女代表用孟德斯鸠观点反驳他：“在亚洲，从最古老的年代起，我们就被束缚在家务劳动中，用以配合专制统治！”（29. Blum: 210页第二段最后三行）
普律多姆用卢梭回敬孟德斯鸠：“有一个圣人曾经不断重申，最好的妇女是说得最少的妇女，当他听到这番高论时，恐怕会愁眉苦脸，顿生不快。卢梭断断不会喜欢一个妇女有如此高超的才智。如果妇女们也加入一个俱乐部，我们可就要把我们曾说要遵循自然、遵循理性、遵循卢梭所说的一切统统收回了”。（30. Blum: 210页第三段第1行至第5行；第9行至第10行）
１７９３年１０月，雅各宾专政出现反妇女参政高潮。１０月１日，王后受审，审讯中出现污秽不堪的性侮辱和性歧视。１０ 月２４日，罗兰夫人受审，３１日处死。１０月２９日，国民公会前 出现请愿者，要求“关闭所有的妇女社团”，“因为正是这些娘们才让法兰西受苦遭罪。”（31. Blum: 213页第一段第1行至第3行）次日，阿马尔以救国委员会名义在国民公会发言，提出三个问题，然后一一加以否定：（32. Blum: 213页第一段第3行, 第5行，第9至第10行）
１、是否应允许妇女在那种特殊的社团里集会？
２、 妇女们能否掌握政治权力，在政府中任要职？
３、妇女们在政治生活或公共集会中能否保持头脑冷静，深思熟虑？（33. Blum: 213页第二段第5行至第9行―包含以上三个问题）
他的否定理由是，“公共舆论拒绝承认”，？（34. Blum: 213页第二段第14行至第15行）以及卢梭的理论如此规定――“男人们创造道德统治，女人们使得美德受人爱戴”。？（35. Blum: 214页第二段倒数第4行至倒数第3行）
经过一番辩论，接下来通过的法令是：“以任何名义建立的妇女俱乐部、妇女公众团体，一律禁止。”１２月３１日，又发布补充法令：“妇女们只有在丈夫和孩子一起出席的情况下，才能参加社会活动。” ？（36. Blum: 215页最后四行）
从此，曾热烈呼唤过卢梭道德救国主张的法兰西妇女，在雅各宾专政时期销声匿迹。（37. Blum: 215页倒数第5行至倒数第4行）
如此清洗，制镇住国内舆论后，还有最后一笔，就是闭锁国门，强化与外界的道德对抗。
法国大革命初期以世界主义面貌著称。它曾以宽广博大的胸怀，接纳过欧洲各国的倾慕者和参加者。国民公会曾授予华盛顿、潘恩、克劳茨等外国革命家以“法兰西荣誉公民”称号，选举潘恩为法国议会的正式议员。以世界主义为号召，法国革命甚至一度出现向外输出革命的冲动。
但是，这种世界主义和输出革命，本身就存在着道德优越和道德泛化的底色，一旦形势逆转，同样的底色很快变幻为紧闭国门，排斥外人，关起门来实行“道德净化”的另一面目。(38. Blum: 227页倒数第7行至第6行)
１７９３至１７９４年冬天，英国作出和平试探。（39. Blum: 224页最后一行）接受或拒绝这一和平机会，一度成为丹东与罗伯斯庇尔的争辩焦点。罗伯斯庇尔宣称：“有必要注意英国的罪恶”。（40. Blum: 225页第2行至第4行）科・德布瓦说，在英法两国政府间没有共同的基础，“他不想拿英国的政府与法国的政府作比较，那就导致在所有美德的清单旁边罗列一长串邪恶的清单。” （41. Blum: 225页第4行至第8行）巴雷尔宣称和平是腐败的根本动力，“君主制需要和平，共和国需要战争精神；奴隶们需要和平，共和主义者则需要自由的酵母。” 。（42. Blum: 225页第一段最后五行）
在牧月法令通过前几个星期，罗伯斯庇尔签署了一个报复英国的法令：狱中的英格兰人和汉诺威人一律处死。(43. Blum: 263页第3行至第6行) 英国随之通过了一个对应法令。(44. Blum: 263页第8行至第9行) 这样，双方都废止了旧时代战争规则中不虐杀战俘的人道规定。(45. Blum: 263页第9行至第11行) 约克公爵呼吁对双方战俘都施仁政，罗伯斯庇尔以道德逻辑拒斥说――(46. Blum: 263页第三段第1行至第2行)
自由与专制之间有什么共同点？美德与罪恶之间有什么共同点？……(47. Blum: 263页第三段第2行至第4行) 那些与专制主义作战的士兵应该得到救援，让他们重回医院，这是可以理解的；奴隶宽待奴隶，暴君宽待暴君，这是可以想象的。然而，一个自由人与一个暴君或暴 君的仆从相妥协，勇敢与怯懦相妥协，美德与罪恶相妥协，这是不可想象的，也是决不可能的！(48. Blum: 263页第三段最后六行)
这就把圣鞠斯特在国王审判案中的道德逻辑，延伸到外交事务中来了。卢梭抗英情结发展至此，雅各宾专政道德理想国实践历程行进于此，道德逻辑不仅磁化了国内事务，而且也磁化了国际事务。整个世界划分为道德与非道德的两个国际阵营，(49.Blum: 263页最后一段)意识形态纷争压倒了民族利益，法兰西政治文化的内战风格延续到外部世界，不仅给法国人民造成长期的战争苦难，而且给近现代国际政治生活留下了深刻的历史影响。
Blum英文原文：
1. Blum. P. 220: Throughout 1793-94, t n e Moniteur describes the Convention receiving groups of patriots bearing books, papers, paintings, flags, objects of all kinds which had been found in private homes, libraries, and collections, and burning them on the Convention floor
2. Blum. P. 220: while "dancing the Carmagnole in a circle around the flames."
3. Blum. P. 220: On October 23, Anne-Alexandre-Marie Thibault, former constitutional bishop of Cantal, had asked the Convention to clarify the situation.
4. Blum. P. 220: Were patriots really authorized to burn the belongings of their neighbors if they bore "signs of royalty or feudalism"? (Moniteur).
5. Blum. P. 220: Marie-Joseph Chenier replied cautiously that
6. Blum. P. 220-221: "there are some very republican books which are dedicated to princes, for example those of Sydney [sic] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau."
7. Blum. P. 243: Robespierre was accused of being a crypto-Catholic, working to restore the church's lost fortunes, but this is a misreading of his discourses. It was not the actual Catholic church for which he expressed admiration or respect, but rather the idea of a body of believers, held together in an ecstatic fusion of virtue.
8. Blum. P. 264: In the Mercure universel, for example, fidelity to the republican repudiation of original sin was demonstrated in the statement: "Men are only what the government makes of them. In a democracy (under a sky so pure, under such a beautiful government) the mother gives birth without labor pains...
9. Blum. P. 265: he pointed out on 6 messidor, "and one of the simplest and most powerful is to lead public opinion astray in regard to principles and men: this is why newspapers always play a role in Revolutions. The enemy has always hired writers; hence this competition organized by the factions for moral means which journalists furnish the enemy outside and the enemy inside" (10: 503).
10. Blum. P. 235: A decree was passed on August 8, 1793, suppressing all literary organizations in France, including the Academic francaise.
11. Blum. P. 264: "Following 10 August [1793], the arrest of all counter-revolutionary authors was ordered
12. Blum. P. 264: Durosoi of the Gazette de Paris was executed on 25 August―the first journalist to be condemned to death by the new Revolutionary Tribunal." The Press in the French Revolution (London: Ginn, 1971), p. 12.
13. Blum. P. 264: The press, which had enjoyed a period of unprecedented liberty starting several years before the Revolution and lasting until the censorship decrees of August 1793, had become by the summer of 1794 a totally Jacobin organ.3
14. Blum. P. 222: On Christmas day, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety sent out a message to the departments, drafted by Robespierre, Billaud-Varenne, and Carnot, explaining the "reform of the laws." All red tape and bureaucratic procedures had to be eliminated:
15. Blum. P. 222: Revolutionary intensity can only be exercised in a free space, which is why the legislator clears the road of.. .everything which is an obstacle. Thus you will perform a useful sacrifice to the public good and to yourselves in rejecting from your functions everything which may act to the detriment of the fatherland, and thus against yourselves. Up until now we have purified men, there remains the task of purifying things The genius of revolutionary laws is to soar without being hindered in flight: it would be less rapid if it multiplied circles around itself.4
16. Blum. P. 226: The military commission at Marseilles announced to the Convention that "the blade of the law strikes off the heads of the guilty every day; the more the guillotine works, the more firm the republic becomes" (Moniteur, 6 germinal).
17. Blum. P. 226: Gamier (delegate from FAube) insisted: "if we purge ourselves it is to have the right to purge France. We will leave no heterogenous bodies in the republic" (Moniteur, 16 germinal [April 5, 1794]).
18. Blum. P. 227: "Destroy all the factions," he exhorted the Convention, "So that there remains in the republic only the people and you."
19. Blum. P. 204: Of the regular cahiers des doleances, according to Elizabeth Racz, thirty-three recommended educational reforms for women.1
20. Blum. P. 205: in a brochure, dated March 5, 1789, entitled "Doleances des Femmes franchises," was stated the following objection to the Estates General: "The notion that the organization of this respectable assembly of the Estates General, as it is presented to us, can really represent the entire Nation, while more than half the Nation is excluded; that, gentlemen, is a problem, and a problem injurious to our sex."
21. Blum. P. 204: Ruth Graham has studied the numerous pamphlets written by women in imitation of the authorized cahiers.
22. Blum. P. 204: "The women's cahiers were unofficial but the very name reminded readers that women were excluded from the Estates-General. France in 1789 was in acute, economic distress; society was turned upside down and the women advocated one cure: Rousseau's regeneration of moeurs or morality."2
23. Blum. P. 208: under the National and Legislative Assemblies women enjoyed the beginnings of some direct influence in political affairs.
24. Blum. P. 209: A number of clubs admitted females to varying degrees of participation, including the Club des Indigents, Club des Halles, Club des Nomophiles, Club des Minimes, the Jacobins, and the Cordeliers.14 Several publications, including the Abb£ Fauchet's Bouche de Fer, pushed the cause of women's rights regularly and fairly aggressively.
25. Blum. P. 209: Under the "Jacobin Republic" these steps toward defining "man" as "human being" rather than as "male" were halted in the name of virtue, according to Rousseau's arguments.
26. Blum. P. 212: Paule-Marie Duhet comments: "The Constitution of 1791 had established the distinction between active and passive citizens: women... were part of the second category." Under Jacobin hegemony, however, this antidemocratic discrimination was jettisoned
27. Blum. 209: On January 25 of that year, Prudhomme had launched the attack against feminine participation in political life with an address to a recently formed women's club at Lyons.
28. Blum. 209: was a far cry from the behavior of the citizenesses of Lyons: What do they think they are doing, the club of Lyons women, teaching young girl citizens entire chapters of J.-J. Rousseau's Contrat social} In the name of the fatherland whose love they carry in their hearts, in the name of nature from which one must never stray, in the name of good domestic morality, of which women's clubs are the scourge... we implore the good citizenesses of Lyons to stay home, to look after theirhouseholds ... without claiming to understand the Contrat social.15
29. Blum: P. 210: she finished him off with a quotation from Montesquieu: "In Asia from the earliest times we have seen domestic servitude marching in step with arbitrary government."
30. Blum. P. 210: Prudhomme rose to the challenge and responded: "The sage who repeated endlessly that the most estimable woman is she of whom the least is said would have been pained to read the letter of President Blandin-Demoulin; Rousseau did not like so much wit and such fine reasoning in women." If Cornelia had belonged to a club we would take back everything we have said according to nature, reason, and J.-J. Rousseau."
31. Blum. P. 213: On 8 brumaire a petitioner appeared before the Convention to demand "the abolition of all societies of women, because it is a woman who is responsible for the misfortunes of France" (Moniteur, 9 brumaire [October 30, 1793]).
32. Blum. P. 213: J. B. Andre Amar, who in April 1794 was to award Jean-Jacques Rousseau the honors of the Pantheon, spoke on 9 brumaire (the previous October), in the name of the Committee of General Security. He declared that no one could be forced to wear the cocarde, and then addressed himself to the three important questions: The Committee of General Security decided in the negative to all these questions.
33. Blum. P. 213: "(1) Must assemblages of women meeting in popular societies be permitted? (2) Can women exercise political rights and take an active part in government affairs? and (3) Can they deliberate in political or popular gatherings?" (Moniteur, 9 brumaire).
34. Blum. P. 213: Universal opinion rejects this idea
35. Blum. P. 214: Thus, in a republic where men "made virtue reign," women were charged with "making it loved."
36. Blum. P. 215: The Conseil general, however, did vote on 11 nivose (December 31) that at civic ceremonies patriotic women were to have a special place, "where they will be present with their husbands and children and where they will knit" (Moniteur, 11 nivose).
37. Blum. P. 215: they were, for all practical purposes, silenced.
38. Blum. P. 227: Jacobins seemed to turn away from the possibility of realizing their ambitions on earth and looked rather toward a divine reward.
39. Blum. P. 224: was challenged in the winter of 1793-94 by British peace feelers.
40. Blum. P. 225: Robespierre announced that it had become necessary "to pay attention to British crimes" (Moniteur, 21 nivose [January 10, 1794]).
41. Blum. P. 225: Collot d'Herbois began by saying that there could be no common ground between the two governments. "He did not want to compare the English government with that of France; that would be putting the excess of all vices up next to the sum of all virtue" (Moniteur, 24 nivose).
42. Blum. P. 225: Barere spoke up on 3 pluviose (January 22) announcing that peace was an essentially corrupt impulse: "Monarchies need peace," he claimed, "the republic needs the energy of war. Slaves need peace, republicans need the fermentation of liberty" (Moniteur).
43. Blum. P. 263: A few weeks before passage of the Law of 22 prairial, a decree was drafted and passed under Robespierre's aegis declaring that no English or Hanoverian prisoners would be taken. This document served to destroy the conventions protecting prisoners of war
44. Blum. P. 263: Shortly thereafter, the English decreed denial of mercy, quarter, or acceptance of surrender of troops.
45. Blum. P. 263: Thus the old monarchical tradition, which had held that war was a bit of a game, one the soldier could sometimes quit before he lost too heavily, was abolished.
46. Blum. P. 263: Robespierre's response contemptuously dismissed the Duke of York's pleas for French clemency toward captured soldiers: "
47. Blum. P. 263: "What does liberty have in common with despotism?" he asked, "virtue with
vice?"
48. Blum. P. 263: "That soldiers fighting for despots might give a hand to defeated soldiers to return to the hospital together, that is understandable; that a slave might deal with a slave, a tyrant with a tyrant, that also is conceivable, but a free man compromising with a tyrant or his satellite, courage with cowardice, virtue with crime, that is inconceivable, that is what's impossible" (10: 499).
49. Blum. 263: Thus in international affairs the world was divided into two moral camps; the French, and theoretically a few other republics1 personified virtue, while all other countries incarnated vice. Virtuous France's duty was to kill the wicked nations.
最新朱学勤惊天抄袭证据（三）：第八章第一节
小女子
这是小女子考证的朱学勤先生的第三个章节，《道德理想国的覆灭》第八章第一节（共8页，276页至283页）。结果与上两次考证（分别为第八章第五节――共5页，298-302页；第七章第五节――共8页，266-273页）完全相同，这三节都来自Blum一书。本节除了两段，所有内容出现在Blum一书。小女子本乃幽默之人（看本人的第一篇就知道了），可是，面对这样严峻得不能再严峻的事实，已经幽默不起来鸟。
仅以小女子的这三篇考证，朱学勤抄袭一事，到此可以铁板钉钉了。这还不包括Isaiah和邢玉思两位大哥的指控。网上有朱粉这样辩解：“像这类外国历史的出处一般都不是原创，而是分别收集自各种不同的外文原文资料或者国内各种翻译过来的有关资料。但又是根据各种资料结合个人的观点进行取舍的，所以很难说谁抄谁，或者，因为作者将各种资料揉和得很好，因而有效地表达了自己的观点，应该就不算抄袭。” 是的，是应该根据不同的资料结合自己的研究进行取舍和综合，可是，朱学勤的这几个章节又来自什么不同的资料呢？ 这里其实就只有一个资料，就是Blum一书，引用的文献也都是从Blum一书的文献搬过来的（这从他照搬跨页脚注、抄错脚注就看出来了），偶尔夹杂一点点王养冲、陈崇武一书的内容。要不，您这几章节怎么有高达90%以上的内容都来自Blum一书啊？哪怕是编中学历史教科书，也不至于都从一本书抄过来吧啊？那样的话，大家也会说编者没有水平，只会抄呵抄。这个道理，是再清楚不过了滴。您90%以上都来自同一本书（加上王、陈一书，基本就是100%了），哪里去找您“自己的观点”啊？至于什么“很难说谁抄谁”，Blum一书出版时间是1989年，朱学勤那年才开始读博士呢，难道是Blum抄朱学勤先生不成？
朱的这几个章节是原封不动按Blum的英文原文翻译过来的，改动的只有少数几个地方有缩简，可以算是编译集，呵呵。要核对，对照小女子在朱文的注解和后面的Blum英文原文，也是一目可以看见滴，即便是复旦调查，也不需要什么额外的举证之类的多此一举，调查人只要是合格的大学毕业生水平（即过了英语四级）就够了。还有一点，网友的贴子也说鸟滴，就是朱学勤先生您既然从Carol Blum那里“拿来”了这么多看家宝，对大债主的名字应该是毕生难忘的的，咋在末尾的文献把大债主的名字都搞成Carol Bloom鸟滴呢？这也太不够哥们鸟吧？真是几次出版都没有意识到啊，还是故意让别人看不到真正的作者英文名字啊啊啊？
朱学勤的问题，比起汪晖的那些不算什么严重的引文啊之类的问题，性质已经完全不同，因为朱学勤是整节整节的抄袭同一本书。除了这三节、邢玉思考证的第八章第四节、还有Isaiah大侠考证的，你要小女子再考证朱书十节来自Blum都不成任何问题（举个例子朱书第八章第二节也是来自Blum第12章；小女子已经没有兴趣再浪费时间了），Isaiah说朱书100多页抄袭自Blum，现在看来他当初的判断一点都不夸张，牛！哪怕按90年代初的学术不咋规范来说，朱学勤的整节整节抄袭也是可以拿出来大打一千大板的。这刚好验证了朱学勤说过滴“我不是第二个汪晖”，呵呵，确实不是。当然，小女子也不主张像那些卑鄙地想整倒汪晖的伪媒体伪学者那样来打倒朱学勤。人也需要大度的心态适当宽恕他人。前段时间在汪晖一事中老当益壮的那些50年代问题老人或者更老的“老人头”们，现在面对朱学勤一事是长吁短叹全哑了，确实很搞笑的嗦。老人们还是该向小女子80年代的学兄学妹们学习学习。都快进土的人了，还不晓得以大度的心态来看别人的人，小女子同情中――
下面是考证朱书第八章第一节的结果，黑色为朱文，红色为小女子注解，后面的英文为Blum原文。本节朱文共使用9个脚注（从第3到第11，第1到2的脚注出现在引言），其中两处是Blum。小女子的注解共46处，都来自Blum 一书。
第八章第一节、霜月批判――百科全书派雪上加霜
卢梭的信徒与启蒙遗老之间的论战始终在进行。
革命初起时，孔多塞这样的启蒙运动后继者尚在政治中心公开活动，（1. Blum：229页最后一段第3行至230页第1行）但其他百科全书派成员年事已高，亦因外界卢梭声望日隆，大多隐居民间，深居简出。（2. Blum：229页最后一段第1行至第3行）８０岁高龄的修道院长雷诺尔，自１７８１年５月２５日逃避巴黎市议会的逮捕令，一直隐匿于马赛，闭门著述。（3. Blum：230页第6行至第7行,第8行至第10行）１７９０年８月，斐扬派倾慕其启蒙思想家的声名，宣布旧时代对他的逮捕令撤销无效，邀其进入巴黎，登上议会讲坛讲演。（4. Blum: 230页第14行至第16行） 不料这位白发老翁上台后，向着底下正仰头瞻仰他作为百科全书派化身之风采的众议员轻蔑地扫了一眼，随即就连珠炮般猛烈抨击自１７８９年以来所发生的所有变化…… （5. Blum: 230页第一段倒数第6行至倒数第3行）
罗伯斯庇尔站起发言：
你们看，（自由的）敌人是如何懦弱，他们不敢亲临前线甘冒矢石，却在这里举起他们的遁词。用心险恶者把这个有名望的老人从坟墓边拖了回来，以利用他的弱点。他们唆使他当众背弃了本来是构成他威望基础的那些教义和原则。（6. Blum: 230页第二段全段; 注：朱文这里标注了Blum）
在罗伯斯庇尔建议下，议会把这个“昏老人”轰了出去。（7. Blum: 230页第三段第1行至第3行）从此，罗伯斯庇尔对百科全书派的厌恶公开化，与他们结下了怨恨。8. Blum: 230页第三段第4行至第6行）
１７９２年４月，罗伯斯庇尔出版了《宪法保卫者》杂志。（9. Blum: 231页第一段第1行至第2行）他攻击的第一个靶子，就是米拉波曾在议会发言中多次提及的孔多塞与达朗贝尔的友谊。（10. Blum: 231页第一段第8行至第10行；注：此处朱抄错了，Blum原文中说提及他们友谊的是Brissot，不是米拉波Mirabeau，下面的Blum引文中也是Brissot先生）罗伯斯庇尔这一次公开数落百科全书派当年排斥迫害卢梭的恶迹：
米拉波先生，（朱抄错了，应是Brissot先生）他对他的那帮朋友推崇倍至，提醒我们回忆孔多塞与达朗贝尔的友谊以及他的学术名望，谴责我们以轻率的语气评论那些他称之为爱国主义和自由主义导师的人们。可是就我而言，我从来就认为，在那些方面，我们除了自然之外，别无导师可言。我愿意指出这一点，那就是革命已经砍掉了许多旧制度下大人物的脑袋。如果说这些院士、数学家遭到攻击和耻笑，那是因为他们曾巴结过那些大人物，并对那么多的国王奉迎拍马，以求飞黄腾达。谁都知道他们是多么的不可饶恕：他们迫害过让・雅克・卢梭的美德和自由精神！卢梭那神圣的面容我曾亲眼目睹，按我的判断，唯有他才是那个时代众多名人中唯一的、真正的哲学家。他才应该得到公认的荣誉，而这种荣誉恰恰就被那些政治上的雇佣文人和心怀忌恨的英雄们用种种阴谋手段肆加践踏！（11. 这段全段见Blum: 231页第二段全段）
百科全书派当年与欧洲各王室之间的关系，确实不如卢梭的民粹主义道德实践那么漂亮；⑤百科全书派当年不宽容卢梭，也是事实。但是，这种哲学家内部的理论纷争是否到了迫害程度，未必如罗伯斯庇尔所言。罗伯斯庇尔令人不安处，是他的这种强烈暗示：“革命已经砍掉了许多旧制度下大人物的脑袋。”罗伯斯庇尔所使用的“砍掉”这一字眼――正是当时民间流传的“断头台”一词俚语。这种独尊卢梭罢黜百家的肃杀之气，预示着后来的“焚书、坑儒”（前文已述）一连串极端行动，已难以避免。
孔多塞试图起来反抗。他指斥罗伯斯庇尔：“当一个人在他的内心或内心情感中毫无思想可言时，当他毫无知识可以填补他智慧的空白时，当他连把单词联接起来的这点可怜能力都不具备的时候，尽管他尽其所能设想自己是一个伟人，还有什么事情可以留给他做呢？通过好勇斗狠的行为，他只能赢得土匪，强盗的喝采。” （12. Blum: 234页最后一段第5行至235页第1行）
德穆兰则主张在卢梭与伏尔泰之间应妥协调和。他提出，法国应该弥平它的英烈们之间曾经存在过的敌意。（13. Blum: 229页第5行至第7行）他说：“伏尔泰和让・雅克的遗骸都应该被保存为民族的财产。现在，各民族分裂为成千个碎片，同一民族内，某种碎片被一部分人认为是圣灵遗迹，同时又被另一种人视为渎神之物，可厌之物。然而，这本来是一座神殿（指先贤祠――本书作者）。人们瞻仰这一神殿和它所收纳的各种遗物时，本不该争吵。这是古罗马的神殿，应该把所有的崇拜所有的宗教融合在一起”。（14. Blum: 229页第9行至第14行；注：此处朱书标注引文来自Blum 227页，但应该是229页）
德穆兰此言未免天真。当时对卢梭和伏尔泰、百科全书派的褒贬，正反映着现实政治生活中的严重对立，人们怎么会听得进调和者的声音？（15. Blum: 229页第三段第1行至第5行）
１７９２年１２月５日，雅各宾俱乐部集会。罗伯斯庇尔在这次集会中发表重要讲话，公开号召打倒百科全书派，（16. Blum: 233页倒数第3行至倒数第1行）推倒雅各宾俱乐部中的爱尔维修胸像。当时雅各宾俱乐部中共有四座胸像：米拉波、布鲁图斯，卢梭和爱尔维修。（17. Blum: 233页倒数第1行至234页第2行）罗伯斯庇尔说：
我看只有两个人值得敬仰：布鲁图斯和卢梭。爱尔维修是一个阴谋家，一个可怜的诡辩家，一个非道德行为的始作俑者，是正直的让・雅克・卢梭的最无情的迫害者！只有卢梭才值得我们敬仰。如果爱尔维修还活着，决难想象，他会加入自由的事业。他只会加入那群所谓诡辩家的阴谋集团，那些人今天正在反对祖国！⑦。（18. Blum: 234页第二段全段）
罗伯斯庇尔的建议获得一致通过。（19. Blum: 234页第三段第1行）在一片欢呼鼓噪声中，米拉波和爱尔维修的胸像被推倒，踩得稀烂。（20. Blum: 234页第三段第2行至第4行）
接下来的一个月，民间开始出现反百科全书派浪潮。一个主题被反复强调：只有投身于卢梭式美德的雅各宾派才是“人民”，而反对卢梭者，不是阴谋家，就是人民的敌人。（21. Blum: 234页第四段第1行至第4行）圣鞠斯特宣称，在人民的敌人里，他能辨别出这样一类人：（22. Blum: 234页第四段第5行至第6行）“他们曾忌恨并阴谋迫害过让・雅克。”连德国来的无政府主义革命家克劳茨也来凑趣，说那些百科全书派尚存者“抱着团来惩治我，就像他们惩治过让・雅克一样。”（23. Blum: 234页第四段最后五行）
１７９３年春，卢梭遗孀泰勒丝来到国民公会，要求给予卢梭以置身先贤祠的荣誉。（24. Blum: 227页第三段第1行至第3行）而在此之前，在斐扬派时期，１７９１年７月１１日伏尔泰遗骸已移入先贤祠。卢梭与伏尔泰能否置于一堂，成了现实政治中如何对待卢梭及其思想的敏感问题。阿马尔出面接待泰勒丝，慨然允诺：“民族的代表们将再也不会延期偿还卢梭的恩典了。” （25. Blum: 227页第三段第4行至第6行）国民公众经过激烈辩论，议决把卢梭遗骸送入先贤祠。（26. Blum: 228页第1行至第2行）
１７９３年５月，吉伦特派垮台，启蒙遗老进入地下状态。（27. Blum: 235页第5行至第6行）孔多塞隐匿不出，格里姆逃亡哥特，波麦赛逃亡英格兰，马蒙特尔隐居于诺曼底，留在巴黎的人只能秘密聚会，不定期见面。（28. Blum: 235页第6行至第9行）专门研究这一问题的史学家卡夫克罗列了当时３８个人的命运，得出结论：“百科全书派的合作者决不是恐怖政策的合作者。” （29. Blum: 229页第三段第5行至第10行）当时最著名的百科全书派地下活动者有三个：孔多塞、雷诺尔和修道院院长摩莱勒。（30. Blum: 229页最后三行）这群幸存者在爱尔维修遗孀家里，秘密活动。这些人有：都德特夫人（卢梭晚年曾与之交恶，见《忏悔录》下卷――本书作者）、米拉波私人医生彼埃尔・卡布尼，以及前文所述那个给科黛作诗悼亡的诗人舍尼埃。（31. Blum: 232页第三段第6行至第11行）时人称他们为“卢梭式民主的敌人”。（32. Blum: 232页第三段第12行至第13行；注：原文并不是“时人”，而是一个叫Sergio Moravia的人这样说）摩莱勒回忆说：１７９３年底的一个夜晚，他在杜伊勒里宫附近一家餐馆里就餐，正好旁听到邻桌上的一场谈话，谈的是各区正在散发“爱国公民证书”，以甄别“正义者”与“邪恶者”。（33. Blum: 232页最后一行至233页第6行）一个人对另一个人说：“他们给了一个著名贵族一张爱国公民证！” （34. Blum: 233页第6行至第7行）此人越说越愤怒：“那个贵族就是埃贝尔・摩莱勒！他写过一本反对卢梭的书，我把他们从杜伊勒里区刚刚驱逐出来！” （35. Blum: 233页第7行至第9行）摩莱勒一听此言，赶紧拉下帽檐，悄悄溜走。⑨（36. Blum: 233页第9行至第10行；此处朱的脚注标注为：参见卡夫克：“恐怖与百科全书派”，载法国近现代史，196年14期284-295页，其实朱搞混了，这个脚注应该是Morellet, Memoires (Paris: Ladvocat, 1821), 2:97。朱抄的这个脚注内容也来自Blum，但Blum原文本用于上面的第29个标注，但朱文在第29处没有给脚注，却把它搬到这里来了，搞错了；另外年份是1967年，不是196年，朱也抄错了）
１７９３年１１月２１日，即霜月１日，罗伯斯庇尔在雅各宾俱乐部正式发动了反无神论运动。（37. Blum: 240页第二段倒数第4行至倒数第3行）演说一开始，他就以黑白对分法，把“贵族式”的无神论和人民所广泛接受的“伟大的主宰关心受压迫的无辜者”的观点对立起来，（38. Blum: 240页第二段最后三行）顿时激起旁听席上一阵掌声。罗伯斯庇尔迅速把掌声变为他的论据：“给我鼓掌的是人民，是不幸者。如果有人指责我的话，那一定是富人，是罪犯。”他暗示：国民公众将采取恢复宗教信仰的重大步骤，并打击那些渎神者、非道德者。这就是著名的９３年霜月演说10。
“霜月演说”无异于发布对百科全书派的讨伐令。（39. Blum: 243页第3行至第4行）百科全书派雪上加霜，更难生存。继此之后，罗伯斯庇尔又发表“花演说”，对百科全书派施以最后一击。（40. Blum: 235页第四段第1行至第3行）
１７９２年以来共和国境内的非基督教化运动，始终刺激罗伯斯庇尔的道德忧患与宗教情怀。在他看来，渎神者是渎德者，百科全书派的无神论抽空了共和国的道德基础。（41. Blum: 243页第7行至第9行）１７９４春丹东事件更使他把这笔帐记在百科全书派宣扬的世俗功利主义上。（42. Blum: 245页第三段第7行至第8行）处死丹东的当天，巴雷尔曾宣布罗伯斯庇尔正在起草一项道德救国的宏伟计划。１７９４年５月７日，罗伯斯庇尔代表救国委员会向国民公会提出了这一计划，其中最富道德义愤的那一部分，就是对百科全书派排炮般的攻击：（43. Blum：235页第四段第1行至第5行）
这一派人在政治方面，一直轻视人民权利；在道德方面，远远不满足于摧毁宗教偏见；……这一派人们以极大的热情传播唯物主义思想……。实用哲学的很大一部分就渊源于此，它把利己主义化成体系，把人类社会看作诡计的一场战斗，把成功看作正义和非正义的尺度，把正直看作一种出于爱好或者出于礼貌的事情，把世界看作灵巧的骗子的家产。……人们已经注意到，他们中的好些人同奥尔良家族有密切的联系，而英国宪法在他们看来，是政治的杰作和社会幸福的・最・高・点。
在我讲到的那个时期里，……有一个人（指卢梭――本书作者）以其高尚的心灵和庄严的品格，显得无愧于是克尽职责的人类导师。……他的学说的纯正性来自自然和对邪恶的深刻的憎恨，同样也来自他对那些盗用哲学家的名义搞阴谋的诡辩家的无法抑制的蔑视，而这，引起了他的敌人和假朋友对他的仇恨和迫害。啊！如果他曾是这场革命的见证人……，谁能怀疑他的高贵的心灵充满激情地关注着正义和平等的事业呢！然而，他的卑怯的对手们为革命干了些什么呢？他们……与革命为敌，…… 腐蚀公共舆论，……把自己出卖给一些叛乱集团，尤其出卖给奥尔良派！11（44. 以上两段朱注出了引文来自王养冲、陈崇武，没有问题；后面这段也出现在Blum 235页的最后一段最后四行和236页的第二段；因为朱此节基本都来自Blum一书，说明朱在考虑使用这段引文时也是参考了Blum一书的）
这是法国革命期间，对百科全书派所作的一次最猛烈最全面的讨伐。卢梭和启蒙思想家的理论是非，已经上升到革命与反革命的高度，百科全书派再也生存不下去了。（45. Blum：233页第二段第1行至第4行；此处朱文缩简）爱尔维修遗孀的地下沙龙被迫解散，启蒙遗老非逃即亡，他们中的大多数人后来还是走上了断头台。（46. Blum：233页第一段最后五行；此处朱文缩简）启蒙主流哲学留给法国大革命的最后一丝影响，只有花月广场上那尊无神论模拟像，等着罗伯斯庇尔付之一炬了。
Blum原文（共46处）
1. Blum: 229-230: three of the best known intellectuals of the ancien regime, Condorcet, the Abbe Raynal, and the Abbe Morellet, overtly refused to accept the revisionist interpretation of the Enlightenment which some Jacobins were attempting to propagate.
2. Blum. P. 229: the majority of former Encyclopedists and other philosophes left letters and memoirs recounting efforts to make themselves inconspicuous during the Terror,
3. Blum. P. 230: He persuaded the Abbe Guillaume-Thomas Raynal, one of the fabled names of the philosophic group, to leave his retreat in Marseilles. The abbe, in August 1790, was still technically wanted under an arrest order from the parlement of Paris
4. Blum. P. 230: The Assembly, moved at the thought of the old warrior's long struggles on behalf of freedom, declared the decree against him void and invited him to speak before the deputies.
5. Blum. P. 230: Opposition incarnate in one human being, the elderly radical looked down on the adoring faces of the delegates and delivered a blast of venom against everything which had taken place since 1789.
6. Blum. P. 230: Robespierre handled the momentary ontological panic of the Assembly with great aplomb: "You see," Malouet quotes him as saying, "how the enemies [of liberty] dare not risk a frontal attack and are obliged to resort to subterfuge. The wretches drag forth a respectable old man from the edge of his tomb, and abusing his weakness, they make him abjure the doctrine and the principles which founded his*reputation."13
7. Blum. P. 230: Rather than parrying Raynal's attack, Robespierre's response simply dismissed him as a befuddled dotard and indeed the abbe's eighty years,
8. Blum. P. 230: Nonetheless, Robespierre subsequently expressed increasing rancor toward the entire group of philosophes,
9. Blum. P. 231: in April 1792, he began publishing a journal, Le Defenseur de la Constitution (a misnomer since it had no bearing on the constitution)
10. Blum. P. 231: In the first issue Robespierre took on Brissot, who had just made a speech in praise of Condorcet's long friendship with the Encyclopedist d'Alembert.
11. Blum. P. 231: M. Brissot, in the panegyric of his friend, while reminding us of Condorcet's liaisons with d'Alembert and his academic glory, has reproached us for the temerity with which we judge men whom he calls our masters in patriotism and liberty. For my part I would have thought that in those respects we had no other masters than nature. I could point out that the revolution has cut down many a great man of the old regime [here Robespierre used the sinister word 'rapetiss£' which was a colloquial term for guillotining] and if the academicians and mathematicians whom M. Brissot proposes to us as models attacked and ridiculed priests, they nevertheless courted the great and adored the kings in whose service they prospered; and who is unaware of how implacably they persecuted virtue and the spirit of liberty in the person of this Jean-Jacques Rousseau whose sacred image I see before me, of this true philosopher who alone, in my opinion, among all the famous men of those times, deserved the public honors which have been prostituted since by intriguers upon political hacks and contemptible heroes. [4: 35-37朱文脚注照搬Blum此引文出处
12. Blum. P. 234: Of Robespierre he charged: "When a man has no thoughts in his head or feelings in his heart, when no learning makes up for his lack of wits, when he is incapable, despite his best efforts, of rising to the petty talent of combining words, and nevertheless he aspires to be a great man, what is there for him to do? By outrageous acts he must earn the protection of brigands."19
13. Blum. P. 229: attempted to reconcile Rousseau with the philosophes in the tomb. Camille Desmoulins described the Republic's need to gloss over its heroes' antagonisms and to weld them into a posthumous united front.
14. Blum. P. 229: "the remains of Voltaire and of Jean-Jacques will be transferred there as national property. Nations are divided between a thousand sects, and in the same nation what is the holy of holies for one sect is for another a place of blasphemy and abomination. But there will be no dispute between men over the holiness of this temple and its relics. This basilica will reunite all in its cult and its religion" (Revolutions de France et de Brabant, 72: 321). 此处朱书标注引文来自Blum 227页，但应该是229页
15. Blum. P. 229: It is not always enough to bury a quarrel, however; one must first be certain it is dead. Such was not the case, despite the shared apotheosis of Voltaire and Rousseau, not only because of the profound vibrations of their fundamental discord, but because certain philosophes inconveniently lived on.
16. Blum. P. 233: In a speech at the Jacobin Club on December 5, 1792, Robespierre moved from verbal denunciation to symbolic act.
17. Blum. P. 233-234: He demanded that of the four busts decorat-ing the hall, those of Mirabeau, Brutus, Rousseau, and Helvetius, two be struck down.
18. Blum. P. 234: I see here only two men worthy of our homage: Brutus and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Mirabeau must fall. Helvetius must fall. Helvetius was a schemer, a miserable wit (bel esprit), an immoral creature, one of the crudest persecutors of the good Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is the only one worthy of our homage. If Helvetius were alive today, don't go believing he would have embraced the cause of liberty: he would have joined the crowd of conniving so-called wits who today are devastating the fatherland.9：143-44朱文脚注照搬Blum此引文出处
19. Blum. P. 234: This speech touched off a wild display of approval at the club,
20. Blum. P. 234: In the midst of shouting and applause, ladders were brought in, the busts of Mirabeau and Helvetius were thrown down and smashed
21. Blum. P. 234： "Men of letters" and "wits" were, from this point on, in Jacobin texts, synonymous with traitors. In the months that followed, one theme was constantly reiterated: the Jacobins who embraced Rousseau's "virtue" were the people.
22. Blum. P. 234: Saint-Just declared that in his enemies he recognized the same people whose
23. Blum. P. 234: "envy and malice persecuted the good Jean-Jacques," and Anacharsis Clootz claimed, shortly before he himself was denounced by Robespierre as a foreigner and atheist, that "they want to punish me corporally as they did Jean-Jacques" (Jaures, 8: 74). 朱文脚注照搬Blum此引文出处
24. Blum. P.227: Therese appeared before the Convention, accompanied by a deputation of the Republican Society of the Commune of Franciade (formerly Saint Denis), demanding the honors of the Pantheon for Rousseau.
25. Blum. P. 227: The presiding officer, Amar, responded to the visitors by declaring that "the national representatives would not delay paying the debt they owed to the most intrepid defender of the rights of the people;
26. Blum. P. 228: the Convention decreed that Rousseau's remains be brought to the Pantheon
27. Blum. P. 235: When the Terror moved into its most active phase with the fall of the Gironde in May of 1793, Condorcet went into hiding.
28. Blum. P. 235: Condorcet went into hiding. A number of other intellectuals of the old regime were abroad, imprisoned, or dead. Grimm had fled to Gotha, Beaumarchais to England, Marmontel was hoping to escape notice in Normandy,
29. Blum. P. 229: Frank A. Kafker, in an effort to determine whether the Encyclopedists who had survived into the Terror were active supporters of it, examined the revolutionary fortunes of thirty-eight men who had contributed to the great dictionary and concluded:
30. Blum. P. 229: three of the best known intellectuals of the ancien regime, Condorcet, the Abbe Raynal, and the Abbe Morellet,
31. Blum. P. 232: Pierre Cabanis who had been Mirabeau's physician, Constantin de Volney, the Abbe Sieves, Andre Chenier, Condorcet for a time and Mme Condorcet after her husband went into hiding, Mme d'Houdetot, who had so inflamed Rousseau, M. d'Houdetot, and a handful of others banded together in Auteuil at the home of Mme Helvetius, the widow of the wellknown materialist philosopher.
32. Blum. P. 232: Sergio Moravia has characterized them as "adverseries of Rousseauvian democracy,"
33. Blum. P. 232-233: Abbe Morellet. He recounts how one evening while dining near the Tuileries he overheard one of Hebert's dinner companions telling the Pere Duchesne that the sections were dispensing certificates of "civisme" too casually. These certificates, awarded by neighborhood committees, were necessary for survival in revolutionary Paris, for without one a person was liable to arrest as a "suspect"
34. Blum. P. 233: "They gave one to a well-known aristocrat,"
35. Blum. P. 233: Pere Duchesne's friend announced indignantly, "the Abbe Morellet whom I had thrown out of the Tuileries section for having written against J.-J. Rousseau."17
36. Blum. P. 233: Morellet recounts scuttling from the restaurant only to risk his neck朱文此处的脚注抄错
37. Blum. P. 240: On 1 frimaire, at the Jacobins, Robespierre began his crusade against "atheism."
38. Blum. P. 240: From the beginning he meant to oppose atheism, which was "aristocratic," to the idea of a "great Being who watches over oppressed innocence," an idea that was "completely plebeian."3
39. Blum. P. 243: Within this context Robespierre began to formulate the attack on the philosophes which was discussed in the previous chapter.
40. Blum. P. 235: At the meeting of the Jacobin Club on 18 floreal (1794), three months before Thermidor, Robespierre put the finishing touches on his indictment of the now defunct "coalition" formed by the philosophes
41. Blum. P. 243: To have denied the existence of God and the communion of believers in favor of some individualistic rational doctrines was to undermine the foundation of the republic of virtue.
42. Blum. P. 245: he came to Danton, with an accusation which defined the orator's corruption:
43. Blum. P. 235: At the meeting of the Jacobin Club on 18 floreal (1794), three
months before Thermidor,Robespierre put the finishing touches on his indictment of the now defunct "coalition" formed by the philosophes in anticipation of the Revolution, which, according to him, they had foreseen. Among the philosophes before the Revolution, he said:
44. Blum. P. 235: Among those who were outstanding in the world of letters there was one man who, by the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the ministry of preceptor of the human race. [10: 454―55] depicted in strokes of flame the charms of virtue... The purity of his doctrine, imbibed from nature and from a profound hatred of vice, as well as his invincible contempt for the scheming intriguers who usurped the name of philosophes, called forth the hatred and persecution of his rivals and false friends. Ah! Had he been the witness of this revolution of which he was the precursor, who can doubt that his generous soul would have embraced the cause of justice and equality with transports of joy? But what did his cowardly adverseries do? They fought against the Revolution. [10: 455-56]
45. Blum. P. 233: The existence of this group with its lingering aura of political heroism, intellectual prestige, impeccable elegance and ironic snobisme drew fire from Robespierre as much as it had from Rousseau, and on much the same grounds.
46. Blum. P. 233: he escaped the fate which befell other members of the group in Auteuil, like the poet Andre Chenier, who was executed, and the luckless aphorist Sebastien-Roch Chamfort, who attempted suicide three different ways and yet managed to survive his last attempt for a few months.加拿大华人网 http://www.sinoca.com/
|
SinoCa.COM All Rights Reserved.