詩(shī)意的碰撞

1892年11月16日，郭沫若出生于四川省樂(lè)山縣，峨眉、凌云、岷江、大渡河等名山大川的博大與雄偉，深遠(yuǎn)地、潛移默化地影響了這位浪漫主義詩(shī)人。對(duì)于西湖，郭沫若只是匆匆游客，但杭州山水的細(xì)膩與文化沉淀亦滋養(yǎng)了不少文人大家，魯迅、郁達(dá)夫、徐志摩等等，所屬不同文學(xué)社團(tuán)，有不同文學(xué)主張，作為創(chuàng)造社主將，郭沫若與他們或親或疏，都是一段佳話。今年是郭沫若誕辰110周年，掀開歷史帷幕，駐足杭州，探尋郭沫若與杭州、杭州人的點(diǎn)滴故事，可以體味他對(duì)人生、對(duì)文學(xué)的思考。

西子湖畔的愛情詩(shī)

1925年正月十四晚，郭沫若在上海收到了一封由浙江新登三溪口寄來(lái)的信，署名是一位郭沫若并不認(rèn)識(shí)的“余抱節(jié)”。信的開頭大膽而熱烈:“孤山的梅花這幾天一定開的很好，如果你想到西湖去玩，最好可以這幾天，我們也可借此機(jī)會(huì)一敘?！毙胖须m沒有桃色信息，但秀麗的字跡和柔和的文句已經(jīng)深深牽引住了郭沫若的心。并且，信中提到將回信寄杭州某某女校余猗筠小姐轉(zhuǎn)，郭沫若自然而然地推斷余抱節(jié)就是信中所提的余猗筠小姐。

此時(shí)的郭沫若處于事業(yè)和生活的雙重低谷期，生活拮據(jù)，靈感枯竭，這封信讓這位滿含激情的詩(shī)人有點(diǎn)喘不過(guò)氣來(lái)。收到這優(yōu)美的來(lái)信，聯(lián)想起約請(qǐng)賞月觀梅這件富于詩(shī)情的絕妙好事，郭沫若心中的浪漫主義火星被激起了。“……假使她能夠彈四弦琴或者曼多琳，那是再好也沒有。她一定會(huì)唱歌……但我自己又做什么呢?我最好是朗吟自己的詩(shī)……”郭沫若覺得不可輕率地就此辜負(fù)了一個(gè)青年女子的厚誼，于是下定決心，在安娜的支持下“往詩(shī)國(guó)里去旅行”與“詩(shī)的女神去見面了”。

有趣的是這次的相會(huì)撲空了，卻給他注入了靈感。可能是余猗筠這個(gè)形象太過(guò)動(dòng)人，再加之杭州的青山綠水帶給他的創(chuàng)作感，郭沫若自我的青春就此被帶回，喚起了他強(qiáng)烈的創(chuàng)作欲望。郭沫若說(shuō):“我又是一個(gè)沖動(dòng)型的人……我便做起詩(shī)來(lái)，也任我一己的沖動(dòng)在那里跳躍。我在一有沖動(dòng)的時(shí)候，就好象一匹奔馬。”“受著詩(shī)興連續(xù)不斷的侵襲”，郭沫若開始援筆描繪主人公的形象:

“她的額沿上蓄著有劉海幾分，

總愛俯視的眼睛不肯十分看人。

她的臉色呀，是的，是白皙而豐潤(rùn)?！?/p>

“我還牽持過(guò)她那凝脂的手頸?！?/p>

“秸?；ㄉ木G襪后鼓出的腳脛，

那是怎樣的豐滿、柔韌、動(dòng)人!”

郭沫若從1925年2月18日動(dòng)筆，到3月10日寫就，在不到一月的時(shí)間中，便完成了42首詩(shī)的創(chuàng)作。愛情組詩(shī)《瓶》，希望猶如小小的瓶，每日有西湖汲取的水灌注，給了他生命的活力。

與郁達(dá)夫肝膽相照

清文學(xué)家嚴(yán)懋功言:“自古名勝以釣臺(tái)命名繁多……呂尚、韓信、任昉三釣臺(tái)較為著稱，然均不及桐廬富春山嚴(yán)子陵釣臺(tái)?！背舜?jīng)過(guò)富春江上風(fēng)光最美麗的一段——七里瀧，可見富春山麓，沿江高閣連亙、粉墻黛瓦、飛檐翅角，一片古樸的建筑，這就是相傳為東漢高士嚴(yán)光(字子陵)隱居垂釣之地。

1961年，年逾七旬的郭沫若初次來(lái)到富春江邊。面對(duì)蒼蒼云山、泱泱江水，郭沫若的思古之情迸發(fā)，作詩(shī)“百尋磴道辟蒿萊，一對(duì)奇峰屹水涯。西傳皋羽傷心處，東是嚴(yán)光垂釣臺(tái)。嶺上投竿殊費(fèi)解，中天墮淚可安排。由來(lái)勝跡流傳久，半是存真半是猜”。此時(shí)，生于富春江邊的老友郁達(dá)夫已經(jīng)去世十幾載。嚴(yán)子陵與劉秀的故事，以及眼前的美景，恐怕郭沫若心中一定懷念著富春江水旁長(zhǎng)大的昔日戰(zhàn)友，不會(huì)忘記他當(dāng)年轟動(dòng)一時(shí)的散文《釣臺(tái)的春晝》以及寫在西湖山林中的晚期小說(shuō)代表作《遲桂花》。

郭沫若與郁達(dá)夫可謂是意趣相投。當(dāng)兩個(gè)浪漫主義派逢到一起時(shí)，創(chuàng)作的火花立刻迸發(fā)了。

1921年5月，郭沫若有出版文學(xué)刊物的想法的時(shí)候，當(dāng)時(shí)在日本京都的幾個(gè)人興致都不是特別高，于是郭沫若來(lái)到東京找郁達(dá)夫，雖說(shuō)彼時(shí)，郁達(dá)夫還在病中，卻與郭沫若一拍即合，就這樣在6月8日下午，郭沫若約了幾位朋友一起到郁達(dá)夫寓中聚會(huì)，討論關(guān)于創(chuàng)造社成立以及文學(xué)刊物的事情，這次聚會(huì)也成了創(chuàng)造社實(shí)際成立的開始。

創(chuàng)造社一開始的情況并不樂(lè)觀，沒有期望中的反響，反倒都是批評(píng)的聲音，十里洋場(chǎng)，摩肩接踵的行人，理解他們的有幾個(gè)?在這孤寂的哀感中，郭沫若與郁達(dá)夫去喝酒，一連喝了三家酒樓，醉意闌珊之時(shí)，郭沫若望著眼前林立的空酒壺，不禁嘆道“我們是孤竹君之二子呀!結(jié)果是只有在首陽(yáng)山上餓死呀!”但郭與郁也都是充滿斗志與熱情的人，逃避不是他們的選擇，在酒醒后繼續(xù)堅(jiān)持自己的創(chuàng)作，與文學(xué)研究會(huì)展開論爭(zhēng)，雖有年少輕狂、意氣用事的地方，卻也是他們對(duì)理想的一腔熱血。

與徐志摩、周氏兄弟相逢陌路

沒有詩(shī)人不性情不至情的。與同道中人肝膽相照，文學(xué)主張不同，則相逢陌路。

徐志摩自稱“也算是杭州人”，其西湖詩(shī)作細(xì)膩纖柔，大約便同山水性格。徐志摩本應(yīng)與郭沫若有一些浪漫情懷相通，但終究不同人生道路，不能走到一起。1923年5月6日，徐志摩在胡適主辦的《努力》周刊上發(fā)表了《雜記·壞詩(shī)，假詩(shī)，形式詩(shī)》一文，批評(píng)了郭沫若的詩(shī)句“淚浪滔滔”，郭沫若知道這件事后是否生氣，我們已經(jīng)無(wú)從考證，但從成仿吾隨即寫的近似絕交的信，以及后來(lái)郭沫若在一篇紀(jì)念聞一多的文章里，說(shuō)聞一多的成就遠(yuǎn)超徐志摩，可見端倪。之后他們?cè)瓜峨y消，終成陌路了。盡管之后徐志摩寫了一封“求和”的公開信《天下本無(wú)事》，盡管之后尚有來(lái)往，卻不能“破鏡重圓”，終成一聲長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的嘆息。

“到江吳地盡，隔岸越山青”，劃界明晰。郭沫若有女神的星空，也有汲西子湖水的瓶，但周氏兄弟絕不會(huì)有如此懸殊的風(fēng)格，魯迅激烈的思辯與周作人平和的文風(fēng)，是紹興的民情與山水的印證。

“革命文學(xué)論爭(zhēng)”是郭沫若與魯迅不同文學(xué)主張的爭(zhēng)執(zhí)。1927年南昌起義南下失敗后，在白色恐怖形勢(shì)下，郭沫若想到應(yīng)該與魯迅聯(lián)合起來(lái)，魯迅也欣然同意，并打算恢復(fù)《創(chuàng)造周刊》作為文學(xué)陣地，但好事多磨，在郭沫若與魯迅談合作的事時(shí)，成仿吾在日本聯(lián)系一批新銳青年，他們認(rèn)為魯迅已經(jīng)落伍，他們的熱情感染了郭沫若，他此時(shí)的思想也偏向于激進(jìn)，與魯迅合作的想法便束之高閣，沒有了后續(xù)。

一個(gè)為浪漫主義，一個(gè)為現(xiàn)實(shí)主義，郭沫若與魯迅最終沒有合作的遺憾，是整個(gè)文學(xué)界的遺憾，卻也并不意外，郭沫若對(duì)自己文學(xué)理想的追求是不容出現(xiàn)偏倚的。特立獨(dú)行的郭沫若與周作人漸行漸遠(yuǎn)，這樣的遠(yuǎn)離發(fā)生在郭沫若身上同樣不意外，如此性情的一個(gè)人怎會(huì)忍得一時(shí)之氣?

郭沫若與周作人的關(guān)系很是微妙，分別是創(chuàng)造社和文學(xué)研究會(huì)的主將，他們的文藝觀點(diǎn)和個(gè)人秉性都截然不同。他們會(huì)有針鋒相對(duì)的時(shí)候，比如，1932年春，施蟄存主編大型文學(xué)月刊《現(xiàn)代》。郭沫若當(dāng)即寄散文《離滬之前》，由于文章比較長(zhǎng)，施蟄存準(zhǔn)備連載三期。當(dāng)發(fā)表該文的第一期樣刊寄出之后，卻收到郭沫若的一封短函，讓他們不要繼續(xù)刊發(fā)他的文章。施蟄存摸不著頭腦，反復(fù)查閱，才發(fā)現(xiàn)這一期也發(fā)表了周作人的文章，而且在目錄排列上是周作人在前，郭沫若尾隨其后。但實(shí)際的編排上，則是郭沫若的文章在周作人的前面。盡管他表示“無(wú)端得與偶像并列，亦非所安”，這是謙虛之辭，如此拘泥于排名前后，確實(shí)也是他內(nèi)心不肯與周作人平起平坐的表現(xiàn)。

“江山也要文人捧，堤柳而今尚姓蘇。”郁達(dá)夫詮釋了杭州與文人的關(guān)系:西子湖的美好與文人的辭彩交相輝映。郭沫若的熱情溫暖了孤山的梅花，豐富了西湖。晴中見瀲滟、雨中顯空蒙的杭州風(fēng)景是纏綿悱惻的，是溫柔的，郭沫若本可以就這樣謳歌風(fēng)景，卻在洪波涌起的時(shí)代用他的熱情與現(xiàn)實(shí)斗爭(zhēng)。他吟著浪漫主義新詩(shī)踱入新文壇，創(chuàng)造社的興起有郁達(dá)夫相印證，承有魯迅等人相抗禮，唱盡湖山的清麗與時(shí)代的喧囂。

(本文照片由沈安娜提供)

Guo Moruo and Hangzhou

By Guo Hanghui

This year marks the 110th anniversary of the birthday of Guo Moruo (1892-1978). Though a native of Sichuan Province in southwestern China， Guo Moruo had close relationships with men of letters born in Zhejiang. Lu Xun， Yu Dafu， Xu Zhimo were all literary figures of national renown in the first half of the 20th-century China. There are stories to tell about Guo， his friendships and feuds with these fellow men of letters， and about the West Lake.

Love Poems

On the evening of the 14th of the first lunar month of 1925， Guo Moruo， living in Shanghai at that time， received a letter from Sanxikou， Xindeng， Zhejiang Province. Xindeng is a small rural town near Hangzhou. Guo did not recognize the name of the sender， but the letter touched his heart. The writer invited him to view plum blossoms on the West Lake and proposed to meet the poet and have a talk. From the information in the letter， Guo Moruo deduced (probably mistakenly) that it was written by a Miss Yu.

At that time， Guo Moruo was down and out with his career and life. This letter jolted his heart. With the support of his wife， he decided to come to Hangzhou and meet with Miss Yu. The girl did not show up， but Guo Moruo was utterly excited with the burning romance in his heart. He wrote poems. From February 18 to March 10， 1925， he wrote 42 poems about the girl in his burning imagination.

Friendship with Yu Dafu

In May 1921， Guo Moruo in Kyoto， Japan hit upon an idea of publishing a literary magazine. He tried the idea out with a few friends in Kyoto， but received lukewarm responses. Dissatisfied， he came to see Yu Dafu in Tokyo. Yu Dafu responded enthusiastically though at that time he was seriously ill. On the afternoon of June 8， 1921， Guo Moruo and a few friends came to visit Yu Dafu. At the meeting， they discussed issues of the future literary periodical. The Creation Society came into being. Though the periodical did not receive very warm responses from readers， it turned a new page in the history of the 20th-century China’s literature.

Fall-out with Xu Zhimo and Zhou Brothers

Xu Zhimo， a native of Haining， a town very close to Hangzhou， called himself a semi-native of Hangzhou. His poems about the West Lake reveal his romantic temperament. Some people reason that Xu Zhimo and Guo Moruo， both romantic poets with so many things in common， should have gone well along with each other. Instead， a feud existed between the two. Xu Zhimo started the feud by publishing a sharp criticism， in May 1923， on bad poetry citing a line of Guo Moruo as a perfect example. A mutual friend wrote a letter accusing Xu of giving such ruthless criticism. Nobody knows for sure how Guo Moruo felt about the criticism， but Guo responded indirectly years later when he commented in an essay that Wen Yiduo accomplished more than Xu Zhimo in poetry. Though Xu Zhimo later wrote an open letter seeking to make up with Guo Moruo， and though their paths crossed in life again， the two never made up.

After the Nanchang Uprising failed in 1927， Guo Moruo contacted Lu Xun (born as Zhou Shuren) in a bid to restart his literary career. They intended to start a literary weekly. While the new weekly was still on the design board， a group of young radical intellectuals studying in Japan strongly opposed Lu Xun， thinking his ideas were outmoded. Affected by the enthusiastic opposition， Guo Moruo thought they were right. The cooperation went nowhere. Years later， Guo Moruo and Lu Xun were involved in a public debate about revolutionary literature， each embracing a different set of ideas about literature.

Guo Moruo had a cold relationship with Zhou Zuoren， Lu Xun’s younger brother. The two did not have much in common in literary ideas and personality. In the spring of 1932， Guo Moruo sent an essay to a literary monthly. As the essay was long， the editor decided to publish it in three installments. After Guo received the first monthly， he wrote to the editor requesting to withdraw the essay. The editor had the foggiest idea why. After examining the issue carefully， the editor came to the tentative conclusion that Guo was unhappy because his essay followed an essay by Zhou Zuoren. Guo Moro later explained politely in a letter that he felt uneasy about having his essay sitting side by side with the iconic essayist he admired. Some experts believe that he actually did not think Zhou Zuoren was a good enough writer to deserve sitting side by side with him.