何新哈雷尔斯约恩与弗莱堡0-0互交白卷，双方难分伯仲：希腊伪史论的开云体育官网关键六点
（英文稿）
【英文稿】
He Xin: Six Crucial Points of Criticism on Pseudo Greek History
【Six Crucial Points of Criticism on Pseudo Greek History】
The problem whether the Greek civilization is fact or fiction lies in the following six crucial aspects. And these are the vital points which all cunning western scholars and their followers in China are always trying elaborately to avoid and have never dared to directly respond to:
I. “Greece” or “Greek culture” never existed in the history
As a matter of fact, I base my crucial arguments of criticism on the pseudo Greek culture and history on the following four points:
（1.） Some people think that Greece is a country. In fact, before the Greek independence campaign against the rule of Ottoman Turks in the 19th century, neither had there been a unified, independent and autonomous country with sovereignty named “Greece” on the Greek peninsula throughout the history, nor had there been a brilliant “ancient Greek culture” with Athens as its center.
（2. ）As ancient Greece had never formed a unified country, it did not have independent sovereignty, kingship, dynasty or the king of Greece.
During most of the time in the history, the Greek peninsula was subordinate in whole or in part to Persia, Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, and later the Ottoman Empire. However, on the Greek peninsula and its surrounding areas in history, there has never been a “Great Greek Colonial Empire”.
[Please note: here it is not to emphasize whether a country or culture called “Greece” or something else exists, but to stress that there is no “Greece” as a sovereign country and culture throughout the history. The so-called Greek culture is a democratic Utopia fabricated in the modern western history and archaeology.]
（3） Before conquered by Alexander, there were only some small city-states with backward economy and culture on the Greek peninsula, such as Athens and Sparta. In the most prosperous period of Athens, there were only 20, 000 to 100, 000 citizens. As a matter of fact, this figure is overrated.
[There were around 20, 000 to 30, 000 citizens in Athens in the ancient times. Plus people in the surrounding villages and slaves, the gross population was about 100, 000. (This is based on the estimation made by Wang Daqing and Xie Guangyun, scholars specializing in Greek history.)
Greece is a mountainous country with harsh geographical conditions, and it has not overcome poverty so far. Without a convenient way of transportation, its city-states rarely contacted with one another. As in the history there was neither a unified Kingdom of Greece/Greek Empire nor a unified Greek army, the governing power of the rulers of the small city-states on this peninsula was always confined in their own limited territories.
（4.） Therefore, “the great prehistoric Greek history” which has always been circulating and admired was just a series of legends and fairy stories concocted and fabricated by the westerners after the Renaissance, by using the ambiguous concept of “Greece” and on the basis of the “Homer’s Epic” without a definite origin. As a matter of fact, it has never existed in history.
In fact, whoever wants to refute my criticism on the pseudo Greek history, he must first demolish the four points mentioned above to prove the existence of the Kingdom of Greece, Greek Dynasty, Greek Colonial Empire or “Greek Democratic and Federal State” before 1832 in the world, and to prove when and where the country Greece or the Greek nation has ever existed as a political system and a culture carrier. In this case, my criticism on pseudo Greek history will prove false, and all the greatness and glory can be attributed to this political and cultural entity.
However, if no such country called Greece can be found in history as an entity and principal part of Greek civilization, we will have no idea where on earth the unified Greek nation and culture exist. And we have to admit that all the fairy tales on the great and glorious “ancient Greek history and civilization” worshipped by fans of Greece at home and abroad are all nonsense.
II. Homer was an Asian and Homeric Hymns is not an epic of Greece
The source or origin of Homeric Hymns is suspicious and unclear.
Where on earth did Homer come from? What was his nationality? If there is no such country of Greece in the world, Homer would surely not be a Greek. Was Homer a world citizen without nationality?
Or was he a native European of Greek peninsula? The answer is no. Instead, Homer who has always been called a great Greek poet was not a Greek in Europe but an Asian—who was from Asia Minor.
It is interesting that, if there was no such country of Greece in the world at that time, how can Homer’s works be regarded as legends and epics about Greece?
Actually, who was Homer? When was Homer born? Is Homer a man or a woman? Is Homer a person or a group of people? These questions have not been made clear in the Western academic circles. However, all the available Greek prehistory was fabricated on the basis of the unidentified and inexplicable Homer Hymns and fairy tales!
[It is said that the Library of Alexandria, which was famous for keeping the only original copy of this work of Homer, was destroyed in chaos of war in the earlier years of the Christian era, without any piece of paper left. However, A Short History of Classical Scholarship written by the British writer Sandys in the 19th century is highly touted by Gao. Stop talking nonsense! That book is for closing the loopholes of the fabricated Western history, which is a pack of lies. For example, Sandys said that the Library of Alexandria survived the fire hazard, which was like a big blow to the British historian Gibbon, the granddaddy of research on the history of Greece and Rome.
Actually, it has always been controversial in the study of western history whether the Library of Alexandria truly existed on earth and whether it is possible for the library to have existed. This is still a problem now. There is no credible history of the west in the ancient times! There suddenly popped up some works about Greece and Rome in the west after the Renaissance. The authenticity of most of them has still not been verified.]
Gao has listed in detail the opinions of some British people on Homeric Hymns, declaring to have got a series of discoveries in the fragments of Egyptian papyrus. I am not a scholar of bibliology of Homeric Hymns, so it’s not my intention now to discuss the authenticity of the so-called Egyptian papyrus version of Homeric Hymns. I just want to say the papyrus will not be of any help to the fabricators of the pseudo Greek history.
Homeric Hymns is mainly about the legend that Achaeans attacked the city of Ilium. However, neither did this war take place on Greek peninsula nor could it be called the “Greek” war. Since the country of Greece did not really exist, how could there be a war of the Greek against foreign invaders? In fact, the Achaeans mentioned in Homeric Hymns were Asians (Ionian—Asia Minor) rather than Europeans on the Greek peninsula or in Athens of Greece.
In Western archaeology during the past century, it has been recognized that the war described in Homeric Hymns took place in Asia and Asia Minor on the east coast of Mediterranean Sea. (For example, in the end of the 19th century, a German scholar Schliemann discovered the relics of an ancient city in Hissarlik on the western coast of Asia Minor, and he believed that this ancient city was the capital city Ilion of the ancient Trojans.)
To sum up, Homeric Hymns has nothing to do with the so-called history of the Greek peninsula, particularly, the history of Athens and Greece. So, it is irrelevant to identify Homeric Hymns as the epics of the Greeks.
III. Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations did not belong to Greece
Some people argue that there were discoveries about Minoan and Mycenaean cultures in Greek archaeology. I’d like to ask them whether there was a country called “Greece” in the world between 3000 BC and 1000 BC.
If the answer is no, why do people include the two independent island cultures into ancient Greece which didn’t exist at all? Someone said it was based on the fairy tales of Homer. This is nonsense at all. If Homer’s fairy tales could serve as a testimony to history, the Journey to the West and the Legend of Deification could be included in the textbooks of Chinese history.
As for the so-called Minoan and Messinia archaeology, though the unearthed are not all fakes, there are quite a lot of fake antiques disclosed and doubted by western scholars. (For example, the clay pots with exquisite paintings are rather doubtful, because all the human beings had not been able to invent the technology of colored pottery firing and painting then.) And the ox-headed monster Minos, the king of Crete, is absolutely a fake. And it is surprising that those linear letters A/B on clay tablets are similar to the square characters of Classical Chinese. In my opinion, it seems that they are not genuine. I question it boldly and verify it carefully to assume whether they were forged by foreigners by imitating the clay square characters of China in the Stone Age. Things like the clay tablets were easy to forge.
IV. Plato’s and Aristotle’s works are doubtful
As for Plato’s and Aristotle’s works, it is true that they have all been passed down from unknown sources, without any original versions left. (Hope the discussion will not be directed to the argument that I do not know ancient Greek so I am not qualified to discuss it. If I am not, there will be no one eligible on the earth! Those so-called Greek works are hardly the original versions in ancient Greek, but are either in Hebrew or in Arabic. No one has ever seen the original version in ancient Greek). If someone argues there are such versions, please tell us which Chinese version of these Greek works is translated directly from ancient Greek?
As for those innumerable works of Aristotle, they are most probably made up of works of different authors in ancient Asia Minor in different periods, and even Mr. Miao who translated the complete works of Aristotle into Chinese is also suspicious of it.
V. Most of the so-called great Greek philosophers and scientists were not Greeks in Europe but Asians.
The most ironic thing is that the so-called great Greek philosophers, except Plato, worshipped by numerous Chinese fans were not native Athenians or Greeks, but were Asians—from Asia Minor, including those quite famous such as Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, etc.
All these are iron-clad facts. How can they be denied?
One of the important ways used in the western academic circles to fabricate pseudo Greek history is to steal the developed ancient civilization and philosophy of Asia Minor (i.e. Ionia), and then disguise them and pass them off as European civilization of Greece (Athenian Greece).
VI. There’s no coherence between ancient Greek and Roman civilization and the barbaric Germanic and Anglo-Saxon civilization.
In addition, it will give worshippers of the West in China the greatest blow that the Greek civilization is not the source of the western white culture. Since the Holy Roman Empire times, the western white people have adopted Greece and Rome as their ancestors. However, just as one of Voltaire’s for pseudo imperial tradition "the holy Roman empire," said a meaningful words -——" This Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor empire!"
Even if the history of Greece is totally true and there is no pseudo history, it will make no difference at all. It is because the Greeks and later Romans are by no means the ancestors of Germanic people, Anglo-Saxons (those people from Northern Europe), and nor is the so-called Greek and Roman civilization the source of western civilization. Neither are these people the same race, nor are their cultures coherent by inheritance.
On the contrary, the Germanic people, including Anglo-Saxons, were always the sworn enemies of the Greeks and Romans. These white people were called by Greeks and Romans barbaric ethnic groups speaking pagan languages. These barbarians were regarded as enemies by Greeks and Romans.
These white people originally did not have ancient history which they could take pride in. Because they felt embarrassed at their barbaric origin, they fabricated pseudo history of Greece and Rome which they worshipped as their ancestors. And the so-called Renaissance movement was actually a campaign that the white race (Latin, Germanic people and Anglo-Saxons) systematically forged the western civilization.
It is just on the basis of the six aspects which are described rather concisely above that I risk to challenge a sea of Greek literature and archaeological discoveries in the west in modern times.
To uncover the pseudo history of Greece and Rome is to smash a large hole in the civilization myths of the West. I believe there must be Chinese successors following this thought to keep thinking and make serious research. And then they will find the whole world history written by westerners is actually fabricated according to the western values in recent times—and by no means credible. And the pseudo history that I have disclosed is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Chinese civilization was corrupted seriously because of the ruling of Donghu tribes and Qing Dynasty in the past nearly 300 years before the establishment of PRC, but the ancient civilization of Great China was rather brilliant in Han, Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties, so we Chinese do not have to fabricate our history and civilization. We Chinese should build up our cultural confidence and self-esteem and feel proud of our own culture.
（发表于2014年3月13日）
【附录】
高峰枫："学术义和团"的胜利
新近出版的《希腊伪史考》是何新先生的博客文章汇编。博客是自家的后花园哈雷尔斯约恩与弗莱堡0-0互交白卷，双方难分伯仲，栽花，种草，吊嗓子，发牢骚，总归是个直抒胸臆的地方。学术型、研究型的博客偶然能见到，但大多人是不会以严谨的态度来经之营之的。这部“博文”集也不例外。书中到处可见饱满的情绪和昂扬的斗志，所缺的是细密的分析和连贯的论证。标题中空悬一个“考”字，像一道障眼法，让人误以为作者下了考辨、考证的真功夫。但稍读几页，就会发现，作者的“研究”，大约不出上网、查维基百科、摘抄百科全书的范围。把道听途说来的零星资讯塑成令人骇怪的观点，把几十篇单薄的博文粘贴成一个超长的文档，然后再找人印出来，一本书就这样诞生了。
书的写成，是很轻易的，但书中所涉及的话题却极其重大。按市价估算，养活四五个社科重大项目，是一点问题都没有的。在序言第一页，作者就激动地宣告，古希腊历史完全是西方人凭空捏造出来的，古希腊的一切典籍都是文艺复兴时期的作伪高手一手炮制的。也就是说，西方文明的根基不仅是虚浮的，而且压根儿就不存在。这个惊人的发现，足以让义和团情结尚存的人们心驰神醉、血脉贲张。
按常理，有一分证据说一分话。如此大胆的假设，再小心的论证也不为过。很多擅长经营宏大叙事者，在抛出高见之时，多少也要忸怩作态，拼凑些材料，完成学界几套规定动作，好交差了事。但《希腊伪史考》的作者却十分的特立独行，他连面子工程都不做（其实也是无力做），只负责把耸人听闻的观点，怒吼给我们听。比如，作者说彼得拉克、薄伽丘等人“杜撰或再创作了荷马史诗”（第23页），而且背后的黑手是共济会。但是证据何在？杜撰就是生编硬造，彼得拉克可有这样大的本事？1354年，拜占庭帝国派驻天主教教廷的特使，将一部希腊文的《伊利亚特》赠给彼得拉克。得到渴慕已久的荷马史诗，本是天大的好事，可是诗人在欣喜之余，却又感觉无比沮丧——因为他不通希腊文。在当年的书信中，彼得拉克说，自己虽然热切盼望能听到荷马的原声，但可惜手中的荷马“喑哑不能言”（mutus）。宝藏近在咫尺，但是却没有解锁的钥匙，这一幕已然定格在古典学术史上。一个读不懂希腊文、手捧荷马史诗而望洋兴叹的人，如何能“杜撰”出两万多行的希腊文诗句？
再看所谓“再创作”。作者提到皮拉图（Leonzio Pilato，？-1366）接受彼得拉克的建议，将两部荷马史诗译成拉丁文，再由薄伽丘润色。作者说皮拉图和薄伽丘“不仅是重要的抄本发掘及收藏者，也是再创作者”（第23页）。但是“再创作”究竟指的是什么，始终不清楚。揣摩作者之意，似乎是说二人在翻译过程中对荷马的原文上下其手，夹带私货，用自编的新故事代替了荷马的旧传说。按说这算是一个重大指控，等于说，原本成型于周代的古书，一下子降格成了元明之际的伪作。可是证据何在呢？翻遍这本印得非常疏朗的书，也找不到一丝证据。但一无证据，二无分析，这些都不能阻止作者判定皮图拉和薄伽丘作伪。而他所能依据的，自然还是充沛的情感和超人的胆识。
没有受过专门学术训练，稍微一碰具体细节，就不免出错。比如，作者要证明皮拉图和薄伽丘篡改、伪造了荷马史诗，使得劣币驱逐了良币，于是便极力抬高这个拉丁译本的地位：“以后这个拉丁译本就被作为荷马史诗的基本文本，被西方大量转译成英文、法文、德文本。至于现在中国人顶礼膜拜的荷马史诗则已经是经过第四道的中文翻译……”（第31页）这个相当粗糙的拉丁文翻译，竟被作者当成了一座独木桥，好像后世欧洲各国的译者舍此便没有其他出路一般。但如果我们看看西方近代几个著名的译本，比如查普曼和蒲柏的英译本，达西埃夫人（Madame Dacier，1654-1720）的法文本，哪一个译者还会捧着这个十四世纪的拉丁译本不放呢？至于说中译本是“第四道”，也不明何义，难道作者竟会以为罗念生、王焕生的译本是从英文本转译的？
这部三百多页的灌水书，仅凭个人好恶和臆测，便随意给彼得拉克、薄伽丘安上各种罪名。古人已死，不会从地底下爬上来，和活人对簿公堂。这时诬枉古人，毫无压力，也毫无风险。作者在书中像念咒一样，反复高喊这样的指控，把自己的心情和嗓子都喊痛快了。但是谬误重复一千次，并不自动蜕变成真理。作者处理问题的随意和轻慢，也并不说明他的观点不值一驳。看在书名中“考”字的分上，和作者较一较真儿，还是多少有些必要的。
荷马史诗是伪造的吗？
作者和荷马史诗最过不去，车轱辘话说了一大摞，反复说这两部口传史诗不是信史，还搬来十九世纪德国和英国史学家以为佐证。可问题是，谁说过《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》是“信史”呢？谁会相信《伊利亚特》卷十四中，宙斯和赫拉真的在山顶上豪放地男欢女爱？谁又相信《奥德赛》卷十一中，奥德修斯真的沉入地下，作冥府一日游？不要说十八世纪之后，就是未受启蒙洗礼的古人，都你追我赶、忙不迭地质疑这些神话。前苏格拉底派的哲人和后来的柏拉图，虽都对荷马作道德鞭挞，但共同的前提是，均不以这些故事为实录。早期基督教就更不用提了，希腊教父对荷马的诅咒和詈骂还言犹在耳（试读一下Tatian）。作者先把无人相信的理论扣在所有人身上，说西方人和中国人都把夸诞的史诗当作了上古史，然后再义正词严地予以驳斥，这样的胜利也未免太过轻巧了吧。
荷马史诗是否伪造，只要读读版本流传、校勘的简史，就不难弄明白。如果嫌这些文献学的书太过专业，还有一种省事的办法，就是看看考古发现。作者忿然道：“有谁来给我说一说？”我倒是可以请出一位证人，那就是在埃及发现的古代纸草文献（papyri）。这些文物从十九世纪开始陆续出土，既有残篇断简，也有篇幅较长的纸草卷子。其中有平头百姓过日子需要写的借条、契约、往来书信，有学生的习字帖，也有识文断字的人抄录的高雅文学。单单在著名的奥克西林克斯（Oxyrhynchus）一地，纸草残片和卷子就出土了数千件之多。这些外观破烂不堪的历史遗物，足以给作者上一课了。
目前出土的古代典籍的纸草写本中（区别于公文、文书类），以荷马史诗的残片数量为最多。我们先用数字来说话。纸草学领域，过去有一部常用的工具书，是Roger A. Pack编辑的《希腊-罗马时代埃及的希腊文、拉丁文典籍写本编目》（The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt，第二版，1965年，以下简称《编目》）。编者将誊抄有古代典籍的所有已知的纸草写本，按照古典作家的姓名和所抄写文本的章节数，全部罗列出来，并加以编号。所以学者提到某件纸草残篇，往往会注出Pack这部书中的序号。《编目》中著录的有名有姓的希腊作家，共占七十五页（16-90页），著录的写本共计一千五百六十六件。这其中，抄录有荷马史诗的写本就占了二十一页（49-69页），共计六百零五件（编号552-1156），占到写本总数的五分之二。这还只是截止到1965年的情况。英国古文书学专家特纳在《希腊纸草》一书中（E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri，第二版，牛津，1980年），说当时已经编辑过的荷马史诗古抄本和残篇已有六百五十件之多，这个数字肯定在持续增长。这些纸草写本的年代，最早的被学者定在公元二世纪，最晚的定在六七世纪。这可以说明在古代晚期，荷马史诗在埃及一地是广受欢迎的。
这些古代写本，大多是残篇，只保留下几行、甚至几个字。但是古文献的专家凭借哪怕几个字母，都可以确定书手抄录的是荷马史诗哪几行。另外，也有保存相对完整、抄有大段诗行的写本。比如，英国人佩特里（William Flinders Petrie）于1888年在埃及哈瓦拉（Hawara）一处墓穴中，发现了荷马史诗的纸草残卷，现保存于牛津的“饱蠹楼”。在Pack《编目》中，残卷的编号为616，抄写的年代定在二世纪，学界有时简称为“Hawara Homer”。虽是残卷，但从保存较完好的部分，不难看出原本抄录在卷子上的，是《伊利亚特》第二卷全文。这个残卷的最后一页，止于史诗卷二最后一行（第877行），书手在卷末还写有“《伊利亚特》卷二”字样，甚至还有校对者校读过后所加的记号。
另有几件保存相对完好的荷马史诗写本，值得介绍。我们只需翻翻一部出版于1891年的老书，就会有更详细的了解。之所以引这本老书，是因为如今网上下载非常容易，读者可自行查对。这本书标题是《大英博物馆藏古代典籍纸草写本》（Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum），编辑者是凯尼恩（Frederic G. Kenyon，1863-1952）。凯尼恩于1909年担任大英博物馆馆长，是二十世纪上半叶最知名的英国古文字学家。所著《古希腊罗马的图书与读者》一书，已有极好的中译本，译者苏杰对他的生平有详细的介绍。编辑这本书时，凯尼恩还是写本部的助理，他将当时尚未披露的几部馆藏纸草写本做了详细的介绍，其中就列出了四件荷马史诗写本。比如，当时所知最长的荷马史诗写本（大英博物馆编号为126，Pack编号为634），是由英国人A. C. Harris于1854年在埃及发现的。这个写本的形制不是卷子（roll），而是册子（codex），共九页，每页对折，左上角装订的穿孔仍在。书手誊抄的是《伊利亚特》，始于第二卷101行，终于第四卷第40行。虽然卷二中，希腊和特洛伊英雄登台亮相的部分（Catalogue）省略了三百行，但只看抄在纸草页面上的，也有多半部第二卷和整部第三卷，加起来超过一千行。肯尼恩将这个写本的年代定在公元四五世纪之间（详第81-92页），但后来也有学者定在更早的三世纪。肯尼恩讨论的最后一部写本（大英博物馆编号128， Pack《编目》中编号为 998）是《伊利亚特》最后两卷，共保留了第二十三卷中的五百六十多行，以及第二十四卷中五百二十余行。就是说，这个写本为我们提供了古代晚期在民间传抄的一千多行的荷马史诗。
《希腊伪史考》的作者不是高呼“荷马史诗是文艺复兴时期的伪作”吗？在立说之前，最好能先做初步的调研。如果想脚踏实地，甚至可以到现今的大英图书馆访一访这些卷子。若不明纸草文献的贡献，便没有资格对荷马史诗的传抄说三道四。当然，作者还可以祭出“阴谋论”这件法宝，谁也无权阻止他作下面的推测：由共济会资助的造伪高手，先雇人、雇船远赴埃及，购得生产纸草的原材料；再依老普林尼《自然史》中给出的步骤，加工出从十一世纪以来就已不见于欧洲的纸草；然后，将编造出的史诗文本秘密抄录于其上，并制造文字漫漶的假象；此后，再花钱雇人、雇船，千里迢迢，重返埃及，觅得几处穷乡僻壤，选择月黑风高夜，将整批赝品深埋于地下，并巧设标记，以为诱饵，吸引四百年后一群头脑简单的英国人来发掘整理。这就如同当年康有为所论，刘歆为辅佐王莽篡汉，不仅于古书多所羼乱，还私铸钟鼎彝器，偷偷埋藏各地，以欺后世。作者若能以康南海为榜样，揪出共济会里的刘歆，以自圆其说，倒是一个更加新颖、更加刺激的假说。
亚里士多德也是伪造的？
《希腊伪史考》的作者豪气干云，虽缺乏专业知识，却准备赤手空拳，推翻西方古典学问的大厦，打一个学术上的翻身仗。他不是质疑某部古代典籍，而是想一窝端，将全部希腊古书斥为伪作。按说这样的全称判断最容易推翻，只要随便找出一个特例，作者惊悚的论断就不攻自破了。上一节中，我找来纸草写本这样一位哑巴证人，证明荷马史诗的传抄渊源有自。但作者除了荷马之后，对亚里士多德也是揪着不放，所以这里只好再费些唇舌，在纸草文献之外，说说亚氏著作的流传。
为证明亚里士多德“只是一个子虚乌有的传疑人物”（125页），作者引用了中文版《亚里士多德全集》主编苗力田的综述。苗力田撮述西方学者的论点，介绍了亚氏著作在早期的传抄和编辑。这个过程一波三折，很有些扑朔迷离，但苗教授并未遽然下判断，将亚氏所有撰述均斥为伪造（否则翻译中文版全集，意义何在？）。《希腊伪史考》的作者却拿着鸡毛当令箭，从苗教授存疑的口吻，一下子飞跃到取消亚里士多德的历史存在。为更好说明，我先简要追述一下这件事的原委。由于其中涉及的人物众多，所以无关紧要的人名我就先略去。这段故事的来源，是希腊地理学家斯特雷波（Strabo，约公元前63-21年）。在其《地理志》一书中（13. 1. 54），提到亚氏辞世时，将其藏书（应当包括自己的撰述和札记）和主持的学园托付给弟子泰奥弗拉斯托斯（Theophrastus）继承。此人死后，亚氏的藏书就被人带到小亚细亚的Troad。由于接手这批藏书的人不事学问，所以只胡乱散放在家中。后来，帕伽玛（Pergamum）国王为建图书馆，广搜天下图籍，这家的后人怕藏书被官家征走，就把这批书埋于地下。这样一来，书籍不免受潮，又被虫蛀，所以严重受损。再后来，这家后人将书高价卖给雅典的藏书家Apellion。此人试图修补，将稿本誊抄在新卷之上，但传写中间，文字上不免又增了更多的讹误。后来，罗马执政官苏拉（Sulla，就是平定斯巴达克斯起义的主将）于公元前86年攻克雅典，将这批藏书据为己有，并运至罗马。普鲁塔克在《希腊罗马名人传·苏拉列传》中又记，最后是逍遥派一位学者安德罗尼库斯（Andronicus of Rhodes）得到抄本，编定目录，并公之于众。以上就是这段故事的梗概。
讨论如此专业的问题，需要求助于专业人士。专治亚里士多德的学者乔纳森·巴恩斯（Jonathan Barnes）曾撰一篇长文，题为“Roman Aristotle”（载于他主编的论文集Philosophia Togata II，牛津，1997年）。巴恩斯对于上面这一段古代记载，做了穷尽的考证。学界一般认为，最后在罗马编定亚氏著作的安德罗尼库斯，做了大量校勘、编辑的工作，在历史上首次推出亚氏著作的定本，并直接导致了逍遥派学说在罗马的全面复兴。巴恩斯却证明，这位亚里士多德的大功臣，其实远称不上亚氏著述校勘整理的鼻祖。他的工作很可能只是简单的修修补补（加标题、分章节、疏通文句），而不是对勘不同抄本，然后完成真正意义上的校雠。和我们眼前这个话题相关的是，巴恩斯在文中梳理了西塞罗的全部作品，确定了西塞罗对亚里士多德哲学究竟有何了解、熟悉到何种程度（46-59页），从而证明了在安德罗尼库斯开始着手整理亚氏著作之前，亚里士多德的重要著作已经通过其他渠道流传于学者中间，大家不必非要等到罗马版的《亚里士多德全集》问世。
如果《希腊伪史考》的作者想证明亚氏作品全是伪造，那么他也需要同时证明，现存拉丁文一切典籍中对亚氏的引用、总结、撮述也全是被西方的“刘歆”们阴谋羼入的。希腊和罗马血肉相连，牵一发而动全身。谁要想将希腊枭首，也必须要砍罗马的头。所以，我建议作者为证成己说，不妨采用更简单、更凶猛的做法，就是干脆宣布所有拉丁文献也是伪作。只有这样，才能真正做到斩尽杀绝，从而将西方古代所有载籍夷为平地，变成白茫茫一片大地真干净。到那时，再妄诞的理论都不愁没有立足的空间。
“学术义和团”的焦虑
这本书拉拉杂杂，啰里啰嗦，但其独到之处可归纳为两点：把西方古典传统批倒批臭，再踏上一万只脚，这就是《希腊伪史考》的主题；不拿证据，不讲道理，这就是这本书的方法。
书中有一篇一页半的博文，题为“疑古不要只疑中国”，可算是对作者的创作心理最好的诠释。作者以为，既然顾颉刚可以怀疑中国古史和古籍，那我们为何不能怀疑西洋古史和古籍呢？“无脑一族的不少中国精英只会怀疑中国古史的一切，对矛盾百出千奇百怪的希腊伪史则始终深信不疑”（79页）。因为不满国人对自家历史的怀疑，于是在缺少任何知识储备的情况下，就硬要去怀疑西人的古史，这多少有点像是小孩子赌气。作者仿佛说：你们自甘堕落，抬高西方，那我就要把西方毁给你们看！这样可爱的愤怒好像是作者主要的精神动力。所以，作者要“通过疑洋人之古而颠覆西化精英们创造的迷信，是老顽童闲暇之一乐”（97页）。作此书的目的，“不为其他，只为找寻真相，戏弄西化精英并博智者一笑。也让西人知道中国人还并非皆属无脑一族”（101页）。这“一笑”和“一乐”，说明作者很戏谑、很欢乐，但是要真想让西人知道国人并非“无脑”，这本书只能起到适得其反的效果。
对西方学术宣告胜利，有两法。一种是深入西方学术腹地，然后以严谨的学术、充足的证据、理性的语言，将人家批驳得体无完肤，哑口无言，让老外输得心服口服，不得再藐视我天朝上国。这件工作，若假以时日，不见得就没人能完成。这是笨办法，也是讲理的办法。还有一种巧胜法，便是作者的招式：不看书，不学习，不和人家真正过招，将臆造的理论如同符咒般念动上千次，然后直接宣布自己的胜利。这样的胜利来得太容易，自然也很廉价，它拼的不是学识和学力，而是胆量和张狂。指望毕其功于一役，又没有练得硬功夫，便只有在新时代活学活用精神胜利法了。
何新先生坚定地认为，西方伪造希腊历史的幕后黑手是共济会，而且这个“境外势力”已早早干预了我国内政。可怜的胡适，被作者册封为“共济会的中国门徒”（96页）。据作者称，这位胡骨干发展了他的下线顾颉刚，策划并制造了“古史辨”运动，否定了中国的上古史，沉重打击了国人的自尊自信。如此精彩的故事，想必会引来小说家的注意。但是，我还是执拗地想再问一句：证据何在？如何证明胡适是共济会中国分舵的堂主呢？共济会给他的委任状也罢，派遣证也罢，密电码也罢，好歹也应举出一两样证据，以作为呈堂证供。可惜我们的作者永远在指控，却永远不能举证。
《希腊伪史考》的论点，因为没有任何论证，所以连荒谬都说不上。书中暴露出的，不仅仅是无知，还有更惊人的狂妄和虚矫。面对这样一部蛮不讲理的书，其中数不清的车轱辘话、专业知识的硬伤、西文拼写错误、逻辑不通、排印错误等等，都可以忽略不计了。但有一处，最后还是想提出来说一说。从正文第一页开始，一直到最后一页，所有“印度”、“印欧”之“印”字，都被一神秘记号取代。这个字，字典中不收，连“字”都称不上，恐怕只能称为“符”。它是左右结构，左边是一小横，右边是偏旁“卩”。这个“符”反复出现，贯穿全书，赋予这部毫无结构可言的随感集一种独特的连贯性。连“印刷”的“印”字都印错了上百次的书，居然还能印行，这实在令人称奇。不知道这又是哪个秘密帮会在作怪。
☆ 何新时事公众号互动方式 ☆ 文章转载加：zhouwen56789
评论