下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
August 20, 1954
Dear Mr. Russell:
I am writing a Ph. D. dissertation on the subject“The May Fourth Movement (this includes the Chinese student movement of 1919, and the new literary and new thought movements of 1917－1923) and Its Influence upon China's Political and Social Development”.
It is well known that you were in China from October, 1920 to the fall of 1921, and that your lectures then influenced greatly the later development of the whole Movement. About November, 1920, Ch'en Tu-hsiu
[2]
, then editor of the Chinese
New Youth
(
La Jeunesse
)
Monthly
and later founder of the Chinese Communist Party, wrote a letter to you, asking you to clarify a statement attributed to you that China should develop first education and then industry, and should pay little attention to socialism.
It is said that you answered Ch'en with a letter in English, but I cannot find it in the libraries here in the United States.
The May Fourth Movement was essentially a movement of reevaluation of the traditional Chinese civilization in the light of Western democracy and science. When you were in China, you praised highly some aspects of the traditional Chinese civilization. That praise may be justified from a long-range point of view. It was, however, as shown by progressive and radical Chinese intellectuals, distorted and utilized by some Chinese conservatives as a theoretical justification for attempting to halt the contemporary influx of Western learning into China. You are of course not held responsible for this, since you had repeatedly advised that the most urgent things China should learn from the West were science and scientific technical skill. It is interesting to note that, while your criticism of the materialistic, aggressive Western civilization in science was in fact an unconventional and progressive view in the West, it might be used as pretext for conservatism in China. The diehards said, apparently, that Western civilization based on science was a bankrupt; and that, consequently, the Chinese study their own“national heritage. ”
You also said, “What we have to teach the Chinese is not morals, or ethical maxims about government, but science and technical skill. The real problem for the Chinese in tellectuals is to acquire Western knowledge without acquiring the mechanistic outlook. ”（ The Problem of China , chap. IV, p. 81) This view seems to be very close to the opinions of some Chinese in the latter part of the last century. It was later criticized by many Chinese especially during the May Fourth Period, and also by the late Prof. John Dewey. They thought that democracy as an idea and way of life and the Western philosophies and ethics were as important to China as science and technique. Dewey cited Japan as an example of the dangers of only learning science and technique from the West. We may of course answer him that traditional Chinese ethics were not similar to those of Japan. The question might be posed thus: Since the pacific and passive characteristics of China's ethics were indispensable only to an agricultural civilization, how could China preserve them after she was industrialized?
I would be extremely grateful if you would be so kindly as to furnish me with the text of your letter to Ch'en Tu-hisu, or explain briefly what you said in it if you do not have the text; and answer the following questions:
(1) Were you aware that your remarks on the Chinese and Western Civilizations in China had been somewhat misunderstood or distorted by the conservatives; or do you think that the charge that the conservatives distorted your views was false?
(2) Do you think that the concepts of democracy and socialism might be profitably studied by the Chinese at this time?
(3) Would you please make some comments on the intellectual or student movement in China based on the personal impression you got when you stayed there?
May I add that, since my high school days, I have read almost all the Chinese translations of your works. During World War II, I had published a few articles, in Chinese, on your political and social philosophy. Since I came to the United States in 1948 I have read some more of your books and articles, and once write a short book review in English on your Authority and the Individual . I need hardly say I am one of your greatest admirers.
Very sincerely yours,
Tse-Tsung Chow
晴，凉
上午收到罗素先生（Bertrand Russell）底回信 [3] ，这老头儿很有趣，在信底末了对现在世界大局发了一顿小牢骚。本来目前世界战祸滔滔，也实在使人悲观。他所说的，正反映人类底愚蠢。问题是：谁该负这罪责呢？怎么办呢？现在把罗素原信译成中文如下：
美国密西根
东安娜堡
帕克嵨街2481号但尼尔生先生转交
周策纵先生
策纵先生：
谢谢你底来信，很对不起，我实在记不起任何有关陈独秀先生于1920年给我一信及我回信的事了。我对你所说的关于我底意见在中国给误解的事很感兴趣。我可以想象到，我底意见可能被反动派利用，然而这完全违反我底本意。我所认为中国应该做的，我都已在北京的一次临别赠言和拙著《中国的问题》一书中说明过了。我承认中国已经决定尽可能快地工业化。现在世界上工业化较落后的部分也都正在这么做。很快地工业生产品将大量的过剩而食物大量地缺乏。这两个毛病将在一次大战争里救济，在那大战争里工业生产品会用来减少那要吃饭的人底嘴巴的数目。这，我在三十年前，以及在目前，都认为不是一件一千年以后的遥远的道路。敬祝大安
罗素
1954年八月二十六日
于英国，沙雷州，累乞忙市皇后路41号
[1] 罗素（1872—1970），英国哲学家、数学家、逻辑学家，毕业于剑桥大学，政治上主张和平主义。1920年10月至1921年7月到中国讲学，在当时中国学术界引起不少回响。主要著作有 The Problem of Philosophy （《哲学问题》，1912）、 The Problem of China （《中国问题》，1922）、 The Conquest of Happiness （《幸福之路》，1930）、 A History of Western Philosophy: And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day （《西方哲学史：及其与从古代到现代的政治、社会情况的联系》，1945）等。
[2] 陈独秀（1879—1942），原名庆同，字仲甫，号实庵，安徽怀宁（今安庆）人，五四运动先驱，中国共产党创立者之一。1915年创办《青年杂志》，翌年第二卷第一号改名为《新青年》（ La Jeunesse , 1915—1926）。1920年与人创立上海共产主义小组，为中国共产党前身，《新青年》亦改为机关刊物。主要著作收入《独秀文存》。
[3] 罗素回信发出日期为8月26日。周策纵在《五四运动史》第九章“观念与政治上的分歧（1920—1922）”中摘引此信，附注罗素忘记陈独秀写信问他有关资本主义的言论原意为何及覆信时如何作答。同时指出陈独秀原信见于《新青年》同卷第四号，另外在同刊第八卷第五号（1921年1月1日）《编辑室杂记》中暗示罗素的回信会于下期刊出（“本志记者陈独秀先生前期致罗素先生底信，罗素先生已有回信寄出，可惜路上失落了，所以这期不及译登”），但第六号及其后未刊。见Tse-tsung Chow, The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China , Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960, p.238。另外，中文全译本有此信节录本译文（钟玲译），理解和表述上与周公略有不同，参见周策纵著，陈永明、张静等译，欧阳哲生审校：《五四运动史：现代中国的知识革命》，北京：世界图书出版公司北京公司，2016年，第235—236页。