china-dictatorship/贾植芳-《访苏联归来》新译本序.md

# 贾植芳：纪德《访苏联归来》新译本序（1998）

注：此文为贾植芳先生为法国文学家纪德三十年代在苏联的游记《访苏联归来》的中译本写的序言。 以下为正文： 

朱静先生写好她的《纪德传》，并作为“世界文化名人传记”丛书之一，在去年由台北业强出版社出版后，我又奉劝她驾轻就熟地重译一下在三十年代政坛与文坛引起一场轩然大波的纪德的《访苏联归来》，并自告奋勇地向朱静先生推荐自己以一个从历史深处走过来的人的身份，为这个新译本写几句话。我这个建议是近年来遵从作者遗嘱被封存了五十年以后，也是和纪德的《访苏联归来》写于同一个时期，甚至内容有惊人的相似之处的他的同行，也是我国知识界所熟知的罗曼.罗兰的《莫斯科日记》，接连在我国出版了两种译本后，在文坛成为一个热点的论题并引起争议的热潮所萌发的。

纪德是一个喜欢旅行的人，是一个不是把自己关于书房内埋头著述的学者型的问人。他喜欢到处走走看看，在生活中寻求人生，体验人生，认识世界，认识自我。因此，朱静先生又嘱她学生黄蓓重译了另一部也是在法国引起争议的他揭发和控诉殖民主义统治罪恶的在一九二七年出版的《刚果之行》，这样对于认识纪德在《访苏联归来》所表现的人生态度，写作观念会更加全面与深入。

安德烈.纪德，是一个思想型的作家，一个远离功利主义的喜欢思索的作家，虽然他很早就开始写作，并通过写作来认识自我，认识世界，认识人生。正如他早年所说：“只有当我最初的思想，我正在觉醒的自然而然的思想支持我正在写的那本书，它才可能成为一部杰作。”但真可谓曲高和寡，纪德开始写作的十几年中，他虽然写得不少，却始终得不到世俗的承认，他早期写的书，印数只有三五百册，在那个文化市场发达的社会，这是一种很特出的文化现象。

纪德自己感到不被人理解和接受的精神压抑，为了逃避寂寞，也为了寻求新知，他经常外出旅游。一九二六年七月至一九二七年五月，他沿着刚果河周游了赤道非洲的几个法国殖民地。回国后，发表了《刚果之行》，继而又发表了《乍得归来》。他以亲身的目睹耳闻，他抛开了政治问题，从社会学、人种学的角度，详细而具体地介绍了法国殖民地赤道非洲的状况，记录了殖民制度下的不公正与丑恶现象。他指出，是殖民地制度破坏了非洲。这正是纪德一贯坚持的对现实的理性而客观的质疑态度。

纪德的《刚果之行》发表后，遭到了右翼报刊的围攻，纪德也针锋相对的在文章中作答。他指出，如果殖民地政府继续那样统治下去的话，殖民制度是长久不了的。后来非洲的历史果然证实了纪德的论断的正确性，殖民制度行不通了。

这场辩论大大提高了纪德的知名度，它已超出来了文学爱好者的圈子，走向整个社会。纪德写《刚果之行》和《乍得归来》的本来目的，是想唤起公民的正义意识，为非洲土著居民讲几句应该讲的公道话，但事情的发展远远超出了他原来的意愿。纪德对非洲土著居民一点点同情渐渐地把他引向当时盛行的共产主义思潮。二十世纪二十年代末期，苏联是一个新兴事物，右派攻击它，诋毁它，左派拥护它，向往它，寄希望于它。纪德四十年来一直苦苦思索着，他对天主教的禁锢和家庭的束缚不满，使他对标榜共产主义的苏联产生了一种希望与向往，他说：“我要大声为苏联呼喊，我的呼喊一定会被人听到的，一定会起作用的，我一定要去苏联看看。”

二三十年代，由于西欧的民主政治体制受到法西斯主义的挑战，暴露出它虚弱的一面，知识分子本来是些理想主义者与浪漫主义者，他们怀着对人类命运的终极关怀与追求。斯大林专政下的苏联，恰恰利用这个有利的国际形势，又提出反法西斯国际统一战线的策略，这就赢得了全世界有良知的知识分子的赞许与拥护，所以三十年代的左翼思潮成为世界性的主流思潮，所谓红色的三十年代就是这样形成的。对二三十年代的欧洲知识分子来说，尤其是左派知识分子，是个狂热的阶层，他们出于对所处的社会的现实不满或愤慨，都热衷于投入改革社会运动，热衷于建立新的道德体系。苏联政府因势利导地利用了这股思潮，它通过宣传机器鼓励他们，为他们的狂热加热，推波助澜，让这些天真而单纯的知识分子对苏联充满了遐想与憧憬，把苏联当做他们那种柏拉图式的理想国，把斯大林奉若神明，纪德也是这些天真的知识分子中的一员。他说：“我全心全意地祝愿它成功，我也愿意为它的成功出点力。“他到处演讲、作报告、主持大会，世界各地无产阶级给纪德寄来的信，堆积如山，把他看成看了一名共产主义的代表作家，他也经常穿着左派作家协会的会服，到处抛头露面。他这种狂热的意境，正适应了当时经受各方势力包围下的苏联的政治需要，它为了摆脱孤立的处境，争取国际舆论的同情，常常以作家协会，艺术家协会的名义，邀请各国左派知识分子的代表人物，去苏联参观访问。比如同时期内就先后邀请了法国的巴比塞，罗曼.罗兰与纪德。一九三六年五月，纪德怀着满腔希望应邀去苏联出席了在莫斯科红场上举行的高尔基追悼会，他发表了热情洋溢的讲话，他说：“在我们的思想中，文化的前途和苏联的命运是紧紧地相连的，我们要捍卫他！”追悼会后，纪德一行继续在苏联参观访问，他作为贵宾收到了隆重的接待。起初，纪德心里对苏联充满了期望与感情，他说：“我想，人们在任何地方也不会在苏联一样表现出如此深沉、强烈的人类感情！”

但是不久，他亲眼所见的苏联现实打破了他的理想式幻觉。他对苏联各地的自然风物注意得很少，他关心的是苏联人的生存环境和他们的内心世界，他为苏联的前途深深地担忧。他经过独立思考，写出了这本《访苏联归来》，真实地记录了他在苏联的所见所闻与所感。他认为他有权这样做，这是作家之所以为作家应具有的良知与社会责任感的正常表现。他说：“如果说，起先我弄错了，那么最好的办法，就是尽快地承认我的错误……在我看来，还有比我自己更重要的东西，那就是全人类，全人类的命运，全人类的文化。”

尽管苏联人竭力向纪德展示苏维埃式的自由幸福，纪德却以一个崇尚自由，崇尚个性的西方人，从人们穿着的整齐划一，集体农庄住的房屋，家具都千篇一律的背后，一语道破了天机：“大家的幸福，是以牺牲个人的幸福为代价。你要得到幸福，就服从（集体）吧？”纪德敏锐地指出，在苏联任何事情，任何问题上，都只允许一种观点，一种意见，即我们所熟知的“舆论一律”，人们对这种整齐划一的思想统治已经习以为常，麻木不仁了。纪德发现跟随便哪一个苏联人说话，他们说出的话都是一模一样的。纪德说，这是宣传机器把他们的思想统一了，使得他们都不会独立思考问题。另一方面，一点点不同意见，一点点批评都会招来重大灾祸。纪德严厉批评道：“我想今天在其他的任何国家，即使在希特勒的德国也不会如此禁锢人们的思想，人们也不会是如此俯首帖耳，如此胆战心惊，如此惟命是从。”人之所以为人，不同其他低级动物，在于人有头脑，有思想本能，用极权手段剥夺人的思想自由，或者同意人的思想，使人成为真空地带，无异于抽去人的灵魂，这是极权统治的结果，同时也维护了极权，使之得以继续存在下去。“面对这种思想贫乏，语言模式化的现状，谁还敢谈论文化？”纪德断言：“这将走向恐怖主义。”值得玩味的是，纪德当时的这种隐忧与担心，转瞬之间，就变成了活生生的苏联生活现实。从纪德访苏的一九三六年起始，由斯大林亲自发动和领导的大清洗、大肃反运动在苏联全面展开，一直延续到一九三八年，历史仿佛又回到了尼克拉梭夫在长诗《在俄罗斯谁能快活与自由》中对沙皇俄国专制时代生活的咒骂，那是个“连石头也会哭泣”的恐怖和黑暗时代，也正如法国十八世纪启蒙学者孟德斯鸠所总结的历史经验：“专制政治体制需要恐怖。”更值得思议的是，斯大林一九三六年搞肃反运动，实在国家宪法颁布了一年以后开始的。

纪德对在苏联到处所见的对斯大林个人崇拜很反感。他认为对斯大林令人肉麻的称呼太愚蠢了，反而贬低了斯大林。他一针见血地指出：“这种做法在斯大林与人民之间设置了一段可怕的，无可逾越的距离。”

纪德在苏联到处可见的是斯大林的画像。他参观了一个所谓现代画展，参展的每一幅画的专题，都围绕着斯大林。纪德直言不讳地说：“他们都已经不是画家了……斯大林的文化专制，扼杀了多少艺术‘天才’。”“生命在于运动，艺术生命在于创新，在于不断突破传统，突破规范，一旦艺术作品被置于正统性之下，不管它有多高的技巧，它就已经死亡了，一统化扼杀了艺术的生命力。”

纪德在欧洲，尤其在法国是很受青年欢迎的作家，他早期的作品，反映了一代青年的苦恼，困惑和理想。他在苏联对青年也很感兴趣，愿意和他们谈心，他对斯大林制度下的唯我独尊的教育提出了尖锐的批评，他敏感地发觉，苏联人很在乎外国人是怎么想他们的，“对于他们说来，苏联之行都是黑暗的。”幼儿园小女孩对法国是否有幼儿园并不感兴趣，他们只想知道，法国人是否知道苏联有她们这么好的幼儿园。一个苏联水兵对纪德说：“要把苏联发生的一切美好的、伟大的新成就都报道出来的话，把全世界的纸张收拢来都不够。”这种夜郎自大的心态足以说明被关闭在自己国度里的普通人，被愚弄得又愚蠢、又可笑、又可怜的麻木心态。这种愚蠢像对我们也并不陌生。“文革”中，我们在报刊上或口头上不是常听见这类豪言壮语吗？-----“全世界有三十亿在帝修反的铁蹄下，过着饥寒交迫、水深火热的日子的阶级兄弟等待我们去解放。”“敌人一天天乱下去，我们一天天好起来。”“社会主义是天堂，资本主义是地狱。”等等就是脱胎于斯大林所创立的思维模式，在改革开放的新的历史形势下，回头看来，真是满纸荒唐言，一把辛酸泪，不堪回首话当年了！

纪德认为，更可悲的是夜郎自大的苏联青年实在是无辜的，这是整部宣传机器和教育机器造就出来的产品，造就这样的青年，对统治者是再舒适不过了。苏联把自己的青年培养成抽去灵魂的人。纪德扼腕叹息道：“苏联人的脑子被洗干净了！”这真像我国儒家传统治世权术：“民可使由之，不可使知之。”或对这句名言从五十年代以还就在我国风行不衰的现代化表达方式，“做党的驯服工具”的生活守则。在去苏联观光之前，纪德身在资本主义的欧洲，出发于一种理念，一种追求，把苏联理想化了，把苏联想象为他一直向往的一个没有任何约束的无所禁忌的理想国、自由国。他设想在共产主义的苏联，没有他在资本主义社会中与之碰撞的道德规范，他希望在苏联看到“一个没有教会的国家，没有家庭的社会能够给我们带来的东西”。他认为，教会和家庭是进步社会的两个最坏的敌人，其实这是一场误会或误解。而我们受到“五四”文化精神熏陶的中国现代知识分子，都是出发于反对长期阻碍社会进步，生产落后，人民穷困，文化出版受到压制的以农业生产为根基的封建专制制度或民国以来的变相封建统治，从马克思主义的经典作品《共产党宣言》中惊喜地发现这句名言：“个人的解放，以整个社会解放为前提。”以苏联为起首并获得胜利的社会主义革命，对于中国及世界在旧制度生活下的广大劳动人民，包括我这类知识分子，就是一种极大的鼓舞与支持力量，是一个样板，所以“苏联的今天，就是我们的明天”，成为我们这一代知识分子为之战斗和出生入死的人生追求，以致为此付出沉重的生命的代价。

话说当纪德凑近去看这个理想国时，他看到了严酷、刻板、教条、多疑、强权、虚伪，造成了难以忍受的、窒气的生存环境。他指出：“社会状况改变不会促进人性的变化，这里不能机械地看问题。没有个人内心的改造，我们看到资产阶级旧社会又形成了，‘旧人’又出现了，他们重又兴旺发达起来了。”纪德在此揭示了人的自我内心世界的改造问题。他指出：“苏联社会中的当权者，不尽兴自我改造，又形成了新的特权阶级，他们打着革命的旗号，蒙蔽了人民，攫取了革命的果实，兴旺发达起来了。这种‘新人’的内心比‘旧人’更贪婪，更毒狠，他们是革过‘旧人’命的人，为了维护他们既得的利益，他们对不同意见的人更凶狠，更无情。”纪德失望了，幻灭了。

大失所望的纪德，凭着自己的良知，报道了他眼见为实的苏联的真实。一九三六年十一月，纪德的《访苏联归来》正式出版，当年就销了十万册，并引起各国的注目，纷纷出了译本。苏联对他大失所望，发动了影响所及的世界各国左派，对他进行了指责和攻击，称他是“披着羊皮的狼”、“疯狂的反苏联反共分子”、“法西斯的奸细”等罪名。纪德和苏联走到一起是偶然的，他们的决裂是必然的。他继《访苏联归来》以后，又写了《<访苏联归来>之补充》，对苏联一些敏感性的问题，更尖锐地提出了他的看法。纪德说：“到苏联参观的人，都预先有了先入为主的想法，他们各自有敏感性的事物，对苏联友好的人，往往拒绝看阴暗面，或者至少说拒绝承认它的阴暗面。暴露苏联的真实情况的人往往是带有仇恨的人，热爱它的人却又在编造谎言”，苏联以及它在世界上的追随者害怕别人批评，害怕暴露苏联的真实情况，他们竭力为苏联辩解，他们竭力证明，苏联的现状完全是理所当然的，或者说这是迈向共产主义的唯一正确途径。他们要竭力证明是纪德搞错了，他是戴了有色眼镜看苏联，甚至说这是他的资产阶级世界观的局限于阶级偏见的表现。这些议论，对我们这一代从历史走过来的人并不陌生，至多是感到这位非功利主义的自由主义的作家，何以对一个新兴的政治社会体制要求得这么苛刻，是否有点求全责备？换句话说，我当时对这场文化政治现象的争论感到惊异。老实说，当时还不懂这本书。反之，随着中国政治形势的激变，对苏联仍然充满了迷恋与向往。真是“实践出真知”，经过解放后的历届政治运动，而且我被作为“专政对象”，经过长期的监禁与劳改，与自己在苦难中的种种经历与耳闻目睹中国的现实，尤其在九十年代初苏联解体以后，和这之前，中国打倒了“祸国殃民”的“四人帮”之流，我又获得人身解放，由“鬼”变成人后，我连续读了我国在改革开放的新时期以来，先后出版的有关苏联研究的学术著作，如当时作为“内部发行”的前苏联持不同政见者，阿.阿夫托尔的《权力学》、鲍罗斯.列维斯基编的作为“苏联出版物材料汇编”的《三十年代斯大林主义的恐怖》、罗.亚.麦德维杰夫著的《让历史来审判----斯大林主义的起源及其后果》和他的《苏联的少数者的意见》日译本以及被称为西方马克思主义者，德国卡尔.魏夫特的英译本《东方专制主义》等，以及八十年代以来，我国翻译出版的有关描写斯大林统治时期的文艺作品，如柏思捷尔纳克的《日瓦戈医生》、雷巴科夫的《阿尔巴特街的儿女》、索尔仁尼琴的《癌病房》、《古列特群岛》等等，至九十年代又读了罗曼. 罗兰的《莫斯科日记》等之后，我才真正读懂了纪德的《访苏联归来》和《<访苏联归来>之补充》，并对这位坚持自己的良知和社会责任感的作家，和他敢于顶住当时的政治风浪的人格力量，表示衷心的尊敬，这也就是我怂恿朱静先生译这本久已绝版的旧书的由来，我认为它对我国读者应该是一本不过时的新书，这就叫“历史的经验值得注意”。

应该再补充地说几句的是，在上引述的纪德说的另一类应邀到苏联访问的人士中，那种“对苏联友好的人往往“拒绝看阴暗面，或者至少说拒绝承认它的阴暗面，”“热爱它的人却又在编造谎言，”据我的记忆，与纪德同一历史时代被邀访问苏联的法国的左派作家，以写参加第一次世界大战的实战经验，写过《在火线下》驰名的巴比噻，当时也写了一本访苏的作品《从一个人看一个世界----斯大林传》，这本书出版不久，就被徐懋庸从法文译成中文，并且由生活书店出版，但不可思议的是，这本对苏联，对斯大林从自己理念与热情出发唱颂歌的作品，在火热的三十年代并没有什么译者所期望的轰动效应，而且似乎也未再版过。更值得研究与思议的是，与纪德同一历史时代访问过苏联的法国作家罗曼. 罗兰，虽然出版于作家过世后的五十年以后，内容也与纪德的《访苏联归来》有着异曲同工之妙的《莫斯科日记》，但当纪德的《访苏联归来》在法国出版后，却也参加了对纪德的指摘与声讨，正如此书新译者朱静先生说：“他为什么嘱咐要把它迷藏五十年却又来指摘讲了真话的人呢？”他又不是斯大林统治下的公民，向斯大林时代的苏联作家或我国五十年代以迄“文革”时的中国作家那样，为了求得个人的人身安全以至荣华富贵，才“小子无奈出此下策”的明知故犯呢？也因此，当罗曼. 罗兰这部《莫斯科日记》同一时期以两个译本在我国新时期出版后，在我国文坛之所以成为热门的议论话题时，我认为这大约也是其中原因之一。

纪德对读者说：“你们迟早会睁开眼睛的，你们将不得不睁开眼睛，那时，你们会扪心自问，你们这些老实人，怎么会长久的闭着眼睛不看事实呢？”

我想，今天读者读朱静先生这本新译本，也会发生纪德这样的感触的。

纪德生前没有看到罗曼. 罗兰的《莫斯科日记》，纪德在当时伤心的不是罗曼. 罗兰对他的指责，他说：“我伤心的是在生命之前能一直伟大到底的伟人实在太少了。”

现在引述纪德的一句话，作为这篇序文的结论：“惟有能摆脱功利追求的作品，才是有价值的。”再引证我在前文引证过的纪德早年所说的另一段话：“只有当我最初的思想支配我正在写的那本书，它才可能成为一部杰作。”我认为纪德这几句格言式的话，可以作为本书的最恰当不过的题词。苏联虽然已在历史面前解体了，但纪德这本纪实性作品，作为历史经验或教训，绝不会失去其应有的历史意义与文学价值，反而通过历史实践的检验，确定了它在世界文学史上的历史地位。说到这里，我相信，朱静先生在繁重的教学工作之余，花了心血重译这本旧书，也正因为它是旧书而会发出永远的历史光芒。她的辛劳，会值得我们感谢的！

一九九八年四月上旬在上海寓所

# Jia Zhifang: Preface to the new translation of "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union" by Gide (1998)

Note: This article is the preface written by Mr. Jia Zhifang for the Chinese translation of Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union, a travelogue written by French writer Gide in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The following is the text:

After Mr. Zhu Jing wrote her "Biography of Gide" and published it as one of the "Biographies of World Cultural Celebrities" series by Taipei Yeqiang Publishing House last year, I advised her to skillfully re-translate the political and political circles of the 1930s. Gide's "Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union" caused an uproar in the literary world, and he volunteered to recommend to Mr. Zhu Jing that as a person who has come from the depths of history, he would write a few words for this new translation. This suggestion of mine was made in recent years after being sealed for fifty years in compliance with the author's will. It was also written in the same period as Gide's "Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union" and even has striking similarities in content. It is also a colleague of his in our country's intellectual circles. The well-known "Moscow Diary" by Romain Rolland became a hot topic in the literary world and caused controversy after two translations were published in my country.

Gide was a person who loved to travel, and he was a scholar-type questioner who did not immerse himself in writing about his studies. He likes to walk around, seek life in life, experience life, understand the world and himself. Therefore, Mr. Zhu Jing asked her student Huang Bei to re-translate another book "A Journey to the Congo" published in 1927, which also caused controversy in France, in which he exposed and accused the evils of colonial rule. This will help us understand Gide. The attitude towards life and writing concepts expressed in "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union" will be more comprehensive and in-depth.

Andre Gide is an ideological writer, a writer who is far away from utilitarianism and likes to think. Although he started writing very early, he understood himself, the world and life through writing. As he said in his early years: "Only when my first thoughts, my awakening natural thoughts support the book I am writing, can it become a masterpiece." Although he wrote a lot in the past few years, he never received recognition from the world. The books he wrote in his early days were only printed in three to five hundred copies. In that society with a developed cultural market, this was a very special phenomenon. cultural phenomenon.

Gide himself felt depressed by not being understood and accepted by others. In order to escape loneliness and seek new knowledge, he often traveled. From July 1926 to May 1927, he traveled along the Congo River to several French colonies in Equatorial Africa. After returning to China, he published "A Journey to the Congo" and then "Return from Chad". He witnessed and heard with his own eyes. He put aside political issues and introduced the situation of French colonial equatorial Africa in detail and concretely from the perspective of sociology and ethnography, recording the injustice and ugliness under the colonial system. He pointed out that it was the colonial system that destroyed Africa. This is the rational and objective questioning attitude towards reality that Gide always insisted on.

After Gide's "A Journey to the Congo" was published, he was besieged by right-wing newspapers and periodicals, and Gide responded tit-for-tat in his article. He pointed out that if the colonial government continued to rule like that, the colonial system would not last long. Later, the history of Africa really confirmed the correctness of Gide's conclusion, and the colonial system was unworkable.

This debate greatly increased Gide's popularity, and it has gone beyond the circle of literary enthusiasts to the entire society. Gide's original purpose in writing "A Journey to the Congo" and "Return from Chad" was to arouse citizens' awareness of justice and say a few words of justice to the indigenous Africans, but the development of the matter far exceeded his original intention. . Gide's little sympathy for the indigenous Africans gradually led him to the prevailing communist ideology at the time. In the late 1920s, the Soviet Union was an emerging thing. The right attacked it and slandered it, while the left supported it, yearned for it, and placed hope in it. Gide has been thinking hard for forty years. His dissatisfaction with the confinement of Catholicism and the constraints of his family gave him a hope and yearning for the Soviet Union that advertised communism. He said: "I want to shout loudly for the Soviet Union. My cry will definitely be heard and it will definitely work. I must go to the Soviet Union to see it."

In the 1920s and 1930s, as the democratic political system of Western Europe was challenged by fascism and exposed its weakness, intellectuals were originally idealists and romantics who harbored the ultimate concern and pursuit of human destiny. The Soviet Union under Stalin's dictatorship took advantage of this favorable international situation and proposed the anti-fascist international united front strategy. This won the praise and support of conscientious intellectuals around the world. Therefore, the left-wing ideological trend in the 1930s became a worldwide trend. The mainstream trend of thought, the so-called red 1930s, was formed in this way. For European intellectuals in the 1920s and 1930s, especially left-wing intellectuals, they were a fanatical class. Out of dissatisfaction or indignation with the reality of the society in which they lived, they were keen to join the reform social movement and to establish a new society. Moral system. The Soviet government took advantage of the situation and took advantage of this trend of thought. It encouraged them through propaganda machines, heated up their enthusiasm, and fueled the flames. These naive and simple intellectuals were full of daydreams and longings for the Soviet Union, and regarded the Soviet Union as their Platonic ideal. The Utopia worshiped Stalin as a god, and Gide was also one of these naive intellectuals. He said: "I wholeheartedly wish it success, and I am willing to contribute to its success." He lectured, made reports, and chaired conferences everywhere. Letters from proletarians around the world to Gide piled up, which made him I saw a representative writer of communism. He often wore the uniform of the Leftist Writers Association and showed up everywhere. His fanatical artistic conception suited the political needs of the Soviet Union, which was surrounded by all forces at that time. In order to get rid of its isolation and win the sympathy of international public opinion, it often invited left-wing intellectuals from various countries in the name of writers associations and artists associations. A representative figure of the Communist Party went to the Soviet Union to visit. For example, during the same period, France's Babisset, Romain Rolland and Gide were invited. In May 1936, Gide was invited to the Soviet Union with great hope to attend Gorky's memorial service held in Moscow's Red Square. He delivered a passionate speech. He said: "In our thoughts, the future of culture and The fate of the Soviet Union is closely linked, and we must defend it!" After the memorial service, Gide and his delegation continued to visit the Soviet Union, and he received a grand reception as a distinguished guest. At first, Gide was full of expectations and feelings for the Soviet Union. He said: "I don't think people anywhere will show such deep and strong human feelings as in the Soviet Union!"

But soon, the reality of the Soviet Union that he saw with his own eyes shattered his idealistic illusion. He paid little attention to the natural scenery in various parts of the Soviet Union. He was concerned about the living environment of the Soviet people and their inner world. He was deeply worried about the future of the Soviet Union. After independent thinking, he wrote the book "Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union", which truly recorded what he saw, heard and felt in the Soviet Union. He believes that he has the right to do so, which is a normal manifestation of the conscience and social responsibility that a writer should have as a writer. He said: "If I made a mistake at first, then the best way is to admit my mistake as soon as possible... In my opinion, there is something more important than myself, and that is all mankind, all mankind destiny, the culture of all mankind.”

Although the Soviets tried their best to show Gide the Soviet-style freedom and happiness, Gide used a Westerner who advocated freedom and individuality to tell the truth from the uniformity of people's clothes and the uniformity of the houses and furniture in collective farms. Tianji: "Everyone's happiness comes at the expense of personal happiness. If you want to be happy, just obey the (collective), right?" Gide pointed out keenly that in the Soviet Union, only one kind of policy was allowed for anything and any issue. A point of view, an opinion, is what we know as "uniformity of public opinion." People have become accustomed to this uniform ideological rule and are insensitive. Gide found that no matter which Soviet person he spoke to, they all said exactly the same thing. Gide said that this is because the propaganda machine has unified their thoughts, making them unable to think independently. On the other hand, a little dissent, a little criticism can lead to great disaster. Gide severely criticized: "I don't think in any other country today, even in Hitler's Germany, people's minds would not be so restricted, and people would not be so submissive, so fearful, and so obedient." Therefore, human beings are different from other lower-level animals in that they have brains and thinking instincts. Using totalitarian means to deprive people of their freedom of thought, or to agree with people's thoughts and make people become a vacuum zone, is tantamount to removing people's souls. This is totalitarianism. The result of this rule is also the maintenance of totalitarianism, allowing it to continue to exist. "Faced with this current situation of poverty of thought and stereotyped language, who dares to talk about culture?" Gide asserted: "This will lead to terrorism." It is worth pondering that Gide's hidden worries and worries at the time suddenly disappeared in the blink of an eye. time, it became a living reality of Soviet life. Beginning with Gide's visit to the Soviet Union in 1936, the Great Purge and Counterrevolutionary Movement, initiated and led by Stalin himself, was fully launched in the Soviet Union and lasted until 1938. History seemed to have returned to Niklasso In the long poem "Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia", the husband cursed the life in the autocratic era of Tsarist Russia. It was a terrifying and dark era in which "even stones can cry", just like the French enlightenment scholar Montesquieu in the eighteenth century. The historical experience summarized is: "The authoritarian political system requires terror." What is even more surprising is that Stalin's anti-revolutionary campaign in 1936 actually started one year after the promulgation of the national constitution.

Gide was disgusted by the cult of Stalin's personality that he saw everywhere in the Soviet Union. He believed that the disgusting name for Stalin was too stupid and instead belittled Stalin. He pointedly pointed out: "This approach set up a terrible and insurmountable distance between Stalin and the people."

Gide In the Soviet Union, portraits of Stalin can be seen everywhere. He visited a so-called modern painting exhibition, and the theme of every painting in the exhibition revolved around Stalin. Gide said bluntly: "They are no longer painters...Stalin's cultural autocracy has killed so many artistic 'geniuses.'" "Life lies in movement, and artistic life lies in innovation, which lies in constantly breaking through traditions and norms. Once art When a work is placed under orthodoxy, no matter how high its skill, it dies; uniformity kills the vitality of art.”

Gide is a very popular writer among young people in Europe, especially in France. His early works reflect the distress, confusion and ideals of a generation of young people. He was also very interested in young people in the Soviet Union and was willing to talk to them. He made sharp criticisms of the self-centered education under the Stalin system. He was sensitive to the fact that the Soviet people cared very much about what foreigners thought of them. "For them, The trip to the Soviet Union was dark." The little girls in the kindergarten were not interested in whether there were kindergartens in France. They just wanted to know whether the French knew that the Soviet Union had such good kindergartens as theirs. A Soviet sailor said to Gide: "If we want to report all the beautiful and great new achievements that have happened in the Soviet Union, we would not be able to collect all the papers in the world." This kind of arrogant mentality is enough to explain being shut down in his own country. The ordinary people here are fooled into being stupid, ridiculous, and pitifully numb. This kind of stupidity is not new to us either. During the "Cultural Revolution", didn't we often hear such heroic words in newspapers and periodicals or verbally? -----"There are three billion class brothers in the world who are living in poverty, hunger, cold, and dire straits under the iron heel of the imperialist revisionists, waiting for us to liberate them." "The enemy is in chaos day by day, and we are getting better day by day. "Socialism is heaven, capitalism is hell." etc. are derived from the thinking model created by Stalin. Under the new historical situation of reform and opening up, looking back, it is really full of absurdities and bitter tears. I can’t bear to look back on those days!

Gide believes that what is even more tragic is that the arrogant Soviet youth are actually innocent. This is a product created by the entire propaganda machine and education machine. Such young people cannot be more comfortable for the rulers. The Soviet Union trained its youth to be soul-drained people. Gide sighed sadly: "The brains of the Soviet people have been wiped clean!" This is really like our country's traditional Confucian governance: "The people can make it happen, but they cannot make it known." Or he has been paying attention to this famous saying since the 1950s. A modern expression that is ever popular in our country and a code of life of "being a taming tool of the Party". Before going sightseeing in the Soviet Union, Gide was in capitalist Europe. He idealized the Soviet Union based on an idea and a pursuit, and imagined the Soviet Union as an utopia with no restrictions and no taboos that he had always longed for. , free country. He envisioned a communist Soviet Union without the moral codes he collided with in capitalist society, and he hoped to see in the Soviet Union "what a country without a church, a society without a family can give us." He believed that the church and the family were the two worst enemies of a progressive society, which was actually a misunderstanding or misunderstanding. And our modern Chinese intellectuals who have been influenced by the cultural spirit of the "May 4th" are all motivated by opposing the feudal autocratic system based on agricultural production or the system since the Republic of China that has long hindered social progress, backward production, poor people, and suppressed cultural publishing. Disguised feudal rule, I was pleasantly surprised to find this famous saying from the Marxist classic "The Communist Manifesto": "The liberation of the individual presupposes the liberation of the entire society." The socialist revolution started by the Soviet Union and won, for China It is a great inspiration and support force and a model for the vast number of working people in the world who live under the old system, including intellectuals like me. Therefore, "Today in the Soviet Union is our tomorrow" and has become our generation's Intellectuals fought for it and pursued life through life and death, so much so that they paid a heavy price with their lives.

It is said that when Gide took a closer look at this utopia, he saw harshness, rigidity, dogma, suspicion, power, and hypocrisy, which created an unbearable and suffocating living environment. He pointed out: "Changes in social conditions will not promote changes in human nature. We cannot look at the problem mechanically. Without the transformation of individual hearts, we see the old bourgeois society formed again, the 'old people' reappearing, and they are thriving again. It has become developed." Here Gide reveals the transformation of people's inner world. He pointed out: "Those in power in Soviet society, instead of trying to transform themselves, formed a new privileged class. Under the banner of revolution, they deceived the people, grabbed the fruits of the revolution, and prospered. This kind of 'new people' 'Their hearts are more greedy and vicious than the 'old people'. They are people who have revolutionized the 'old people'. In order to protect their vested interests, they are more vicious and ruthless towards people who have different opinions." Gide was disappointed. Yes, disillusioned.

Gide, who was greatly disappointed, relied on his own conscience to report the truth about the Soviet Union that he saw as belief. In November 1936, Gide's "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union" was officially published. It sold 100,000 copies that year and attracted the attention of various countries, which led to the publication of translations. The Soviet Union was greatly disappointed in him, and mobilized the left-wing influence in various countries around the world to accuse and attack him, calling him a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a "crazy anti-Soviet and anti-communist element", and a "fascist spy". . The coming together of Gide and the Soviet Union was accidental, and their breakup was inevitable. After "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union", he wrote "Supplement to "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union", which more pointedly put forward his views on some sensitive issues in the Soviet Union. Gide said: "People who visit the Soviet Union have preconceived ideas and their own sensitivities. People who are friendly to the Soviet Union often refuse to see the dark side, or at least refuse to acknowledge its dark side. Exposing the Soviet Union Those who tell the truth are often those with hatred, and those who love it are making up lies.” The Soviet Union and its followers in the world were afraid of criticism from others and the exposure of the true situation of the Soviet Union. They tried their best to defend the Soviet Union. Strive to prove that the current situation in the Soviet Union is completely natural, or that this is the only correct way to move toward communism. They tried their best to prove that Gide was wrong, that he looked at the Soviet Union through colored glasses, and even said that this was a manifestation of his bourgeois worldview limited to class prejudice. These comments are no stranger to people of our generation who have gone through history. At most, we feel why this non-utilitarian liberal writer has such strict requirements for an emerging political and social system. Is it a bit too much to blame? In other words, I was amazed by the debate over this cultural-political phenomenon. To be honest, I didn’t understand this book at the time. On the contrary, with the drastic changes in China's political situation, China is still full of fascination and yearning for the Soviet Union. It is true that "practice makes true knowledge". After the political movements after liberation, and I was regarded as a "dictatorship object", after long-term imprisonment and labor reform, I have experienced various hardships and heard and witnessed the reality of my country, especially in the 1990s. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and before that, China overthrew the "Gang of Four" and others who "brought disaster to the country and the people". I gained personal liberation and changed from a "ghost" to a human being. , has successively published academic works on Soviet studies, such as the "Internally Released" Dissidents of the Former Soviet Union, "The Science of Power" by Avtor, and "The Soviet Union" edited by Boros Levitsky. "The Terror of Stalinism in the Thirties", "Let History Be the Judge - The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism" by Roya Medvedev and his "The Terror of Stalinism in the Thirties" The Japanese translation of "Opinions of the Minority" and the English translation of "Oriental Despotism" by the German Karl Weft, known as a Western Marxist, as well as literary and artistic works translated and published in my country since the 1980s that describe Stalin's rule. , such as Bosternak's "Doctor Zhivago", Rybakov's "Children of Arbat Street", Solzhenitsyn's "Cancer Ward", "Gulet Islands", etc., to After reading Romain Rolland's "Moscow Diary" in the 1990s, I truly understood Gide's "Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union" and "Supplement to "Return from a Visit to the Soviet Union", and I was deeply impressed by this man who insisted on his own conscience. I would like to express my sincere respect for a writer with a strong sense

It should be added that among the other category of people invited to the Soviet Union quoted by Gide, those who are "friendly to the Soviet Union" tend to "refuse to see the dark side, or at least refuse to recognize it." "The dark side," "Those who love it are making up lies," according to my memory, a French leftist writer who was invited to visit the Soviet Union in the same historical era as Gide to write about his actual combat experience in participating in the First World War, wrote Barbitia, who is famous for "Under the Line of Fire", also wrote a book about his visit to the Soviet Union at that time, "Seeing a World from a Person - A Biography of Stalin". Shortly after this book was published, it was translated from French into Chinese by Xu Maoyong , and was published by Life Bookstore, but what is incredible is that this work, which eulogized the Soviet Union and Stalin based on his own ideas and enthusiasm, did not have the sensational effect that the translator expected in the fiery 1930s, and it seemed that it did not It has not been reprinted. What is more worthy of study and thinking is that the French writer Romain Rolland, who visited the Soviet Union in the same historical era as Gide, although it was published fifty years after the writer's death, the content is also similar to Gide's "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union". "Moscow Diary" has the same purpose but when Gide's "Returning from a Visit to the Soviet Union" was published in France, it also joined in the criticism and denunciation of Gide. As the new translator of this book, Mr. Zhu Jing, said: " Why did he order it to be hidden for fifty years but then came to accuse those who told the truth? "He is not a citizen under Stalin's rule. Like the Soviet writers in the Stalin era or the Chinese writers in our country during the "Cultural Revolution" from the 1950s to the 1950s, in order to seek personal safety and even glory and wealth, he "had no choice but to make this move" "What about knowingly committing the crime? Therefore, when Romain Rolland's "Moscow Diary" was published in two translations in the new era of our country at the same time, it became a hot topic of discussion in our country's literary circles. I think this is probably one of the reasons. one.

Gide said to readers: "Sooner or later you will open your eyes. You will have to open your eyes. At that time, you will ask yourself, how could you honest people keep your eyes closed for so long and not see the facts?"

I think today’s readers will feel the same way as Gide when they read Mr. Zhu Jing’s new translation.

Gide did not read Romain Rolland's "Moscow Diary" during his lifetime. What made Gide sad at that time was not Romain Rolland's accusation against him. He said: "What makes me sad is that there are too few great men who can remain great until the end of their lives." ”

Now I quote a sentence from Gide as the conclusion of this preface: "Only works that can get rid of utilitarian pursuits are valuable." Let me quote another passage from Gide's early years that I quoted above: " Only when my original thoughts dominate the book I am writing can it become a masterpiece." I think these aphoristic words from Gide can be the most appropriate epigraph for this book. Although the Soviet Union has disintegrated in the face of history, Gide's documentary work, as a historical experience or lesson, will never lose its due historical significance and literary value. Instead, through the test of historical practice, it has confirmed its role in the world historical position in literary history. Speaking of which, I believe that Mr. Zhu Jing spent time re-translating this old book in addition to his heavy teaching work. It is precisely because it is an old book that it will emit eternal historical light. Her hard work will be worthy of our gratitude!

In early April 1998, at my residence in Shanghai