10½章世界史 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

巴恩斯最有野心、最受关注的作品！

十篇故事，半篇随笔

写尽人类历史的可笑与失落

上次世界末日，一只木蠹混进挪亚的方舟中。它目睹挪亚的所作所为和书中记载大相径庭。方舟在人类历史上反复重现，它或是遭劫游船，或是泰坦尼克，或是核恐慌中的海上孤舟……这个偷渡客也并未离去，它冷眼看着历史如何被歪曲，歪曲的又如何成为“真实”历史；它附身于巴恩斯的妙笔，教他以篇篇奇文拼贴出一部看似荒诞，但振聋发聩的世界史。

一 偷渡客

二 不速之客

三 宗教战争

四 幸存者

五 海难

六 山岳

七 三个简单的故事

八 逆流而上 !

插曲

九 阿勒计划

十 梦

作者注

朱利安•巴恩斯（1946— ），英国当代著名作家。父母皆为法语教师，哥哥在牛津大学教授哲学，妻子帕特•凯伐纳是著名的文学经纪人。巴恩斯毕业于牛津大学，曾参与《牛津英语辞典》的编纂工作，做过多年的文学编辑和评论家。

“聪明”是巴恩斯作品的一贯标识。八十年代他以突破性之作《福楼拜的鹦鹉》入围布克奖决选，跻身英国文坛一流作家之列。此后，获各大文学奖项无数，三进布克奖决选，并于2011年凭借《终结的感觉》赢得大奖，同年获大卫•柯恩英国文学终身成就奖。

巴恩斯也深得法国读者的好感，他是唯一一位同时获得法国梅第奇奖和费米娜奖的作家，并先后荣获法国文化部颁发的文学艺术骑士、军官、司令勋章，堪称在法国最受欢迎的英国作家之一。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：10½章世界史在线阅读

在线听书地址：10½章世界史在线收听

在线购买地址：10½章世界史在线购买

生活是一场骗局，一切都在证明。过去我只是猜想，现在我已确定。

所有这些努力有什么结果？对画面上的主波没有任何正式的回应，就像大多数人类情感没有回应一样。不仅仅是希望，而且任何累赘的期盼都如此抱负、仇恨、爱情（特别是爱情）——我们的情感多么难得撞上它们本应得到的对象？我们做信号手势如此无济于事；天空如此黑暗；海浪如此巨大。我们都迷失在茫茫的大海上，被海浪在希望与绝望之冲来冲去，呼唤某个可能永远不会来搭救我们的东西。灾难变成了艺术；但这绝不是一个淡化过程。这是释放，放大，解释。灾难变成了艺术：说到底，本来就该如此。

在西斯廷教堂里，方舟（这时样子更像浮动音乐台，而不像一条船）第一次失去了构图上的突出位置，一直推到画面的后部。前景挤满了那些生活在洪水之前的各种动物失魂落魄的身影，它们注定活不长久，被撇下等死，而上帝选定的挪亚及其家人得到了拯救。强调的是迷失的、遗弃的、废黜的孽种，上帝的垃圾。（我们自己可以把米开朗琪罗设想为理性主义者，为怜悯所动而对上帝的无情无义给予微妙的责难吗？抑或虔诚的米开朗琪罗履行教皇的约定，向我们昭示不改邪归正会有什么下场？也许是个纯粹美学意义的命题一一画家选择了横遭天之辈扭曲的身躯，而不愿再次一本正经地描绘出又一条木制方舟。）不管出于什么考虑，米开朗琪罗赋予这个主题新的方向、新的活力。巴尔达萨雷・佩鲁齐跟他学，拉斐尔跟他学，画家和插图画家越来越集中地表现被抛弃者，而不是被拯救者。随着这一创新变成传统，方舟本身便越驶越远，向天边退去，就像籍里柯接近定稿画面时阿尔戈斯号”向天边退去一样。风继续吹，潮继续涌：方舟最后抵达天边，然后越过天际而消失。

ps

c）籍里柯临死前听人提及这幅画时回答道：“哦，小玩意儿！”

这全都是因为她的大脑害怕死亡，她最后认定了这一点。在她皮肤得了病、头发开始脱落以后，她的大脑试图想出另一种解释。现在她甚至连它的技术术语都知道了：虚构。她从哪里拣来这词：她定是从那本杂志上读到的。虚构。你保留一些真相。以此为主干编织一个新的故事。

她记起前一天晚上她梦中的对话。梦里的那个男人说，你在生活中否认很多事，对不对；她回答说，不对，我不是这样。回过来看，这很好玩，但也很严肃。你不能欺骗自己。格雷格就是这样，大多数人都是这样。我们一定要看事物的真相：我们不能再依靠虚构。这是我们唯一的生存之道。

神话并不是叫我们对某个经过集体记忆而添油加酱、改头换面的事件追根究底；而是叫我们向前看那种将会发生而且一定会发生的事情。神话会变成现实，不管我们持什么样的怀疑态度。

我很熟悉马克思对黑格尔的阐释：历史经常重演，第一次是悲剧，第二次则是闹剧。

书籍介绍

巴恩斯最有野心、最受关注的作品！

十篇故事，半篇随笔

写尽人类历史的可笑与失落

上次世界末日，一只木蠹混进挪亚的方舟中。它目睹挪亚的所作所为和书中记载大相径庭。方舟在人类历史上反复重现，它或是遭劫游船，或是泰坦尼克，或是核恐慌中的海上孤舟……这个偷渡客也并未离去，它冷眼看着历史如何被歪曲，歪曲的又如何成为“真实”历史；它附身于巴恩斯的妙笔，教他以篇篇奇文拼贴出一部看似荒诞，但振聋发聩的世界史。

• 作者：韧勉 发布时间：2015-10-20 07:23:21

  荒诞故事荒诞的看不太懂......

• 作者：bololo 发布时间：2016-05-12 13:06:17

  啊好聪明啊以前看巴恩斯其他小说的时候是不是并没有意识到这一点啊

• 作者：出何典齋走狗 发布时间：2015-08-04 14:48:18

  读普鲁斯特或福楼拜好比是已知的矿藏，无非是耐心去读，耐心挖掘，结果不会辜负期待；然而对于尚未了解的作品，一旦发现其中价值，愉悦与成就感似乎和之前的惴惴小心成正比。今年小说类阅读的最大收获，感谢@译林-胡乡长 兄推荐。

• 作者：玑衡 发布时间：2015-08-13 14:59:40

  太好看了，尤其是诺亚方舟那个故事和恐怖分子那个故事。

• 作者：大罗 发布时间：2018-06-27 21:56:17

  辣鸡……求求你，可怜可怜地球吧……

• 作者：看不见的城市 发布时间：2015-12-24 12:07:46

  选材颇有些意思，总算是有本能看得下去的巴恩斯了～

• The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½

  作者：snowsun 发布时间：2013-11-02 10:44:57

  The Authority of the Author, the Reader and the Text in Julian Barnes`A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters, E.P. Thompson` Witness against the Beast and Roland Barthes` The Death of the Author

  Julian Barnes seems to be ambitious in trying to conclude the history of the whole world in ten and a half chapters, but if we understand that he is just using a literary way to express his historical view and the truth of human history he values, this length is enough for use. In Barnes` account, he raised a vital question of the authority in interpreting history, or the authority of interpreting the literary works, which are considered to bear history. Who has the authority to interpret the text, the reader or the author? What`s the responsibilities of the reader and the author respectively in bringing meanings to a text? Is there an absolute truth in the interpretation? Who should we trust if there is not?

  By discussing about how novelists, El Greco, poets and prose writers produce their art , Barnes seems to argue that the authors are responsible for bringing the text to the reader, but they lack control of the interpretation to it, just like the metaphor of the lonely sea-captain directing a ship without engine-room and rudder, although he spares no effort to direct the ship, it actually listens to the winds and tides instead of him. The author`s effort to control his work will probably come to a similar result, as his process of producing the artistic work is influenced by the social ideology, his past, the economic factors and many other mysterious issues nobody could possibly know. The author may hold his own interpretations to the artistic work, as El Greco painted himself in his ‘Burial of the Count of Orgaz’, he is showing his authority of production and interpretation of the work; however, the author could not master the reader`s interpretation to the artistic work, as the reader has his own interpretations basing on his life experience, world view etc., and he does not need to accept the author`s interpretation. It appears that the more flexibility the author has, the more control he has to turn his work into what he want, but at the same time more interpretation and ambiguity of the work are produced. The example of poets and prose writers has illustrated this point, as poets own the flexible ‘I’ and have the ability to turn bad love into good love poetry, while prose writers can only turn bad love into prose about bad love, poetry are less trustworthy than proses to the reader.

  E.P. Thompson however, holds a quite different view towards the authority of the reader and the author. In his Introduction to Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law, he tries to analyze William Blake in a historian`s way, which is, knowing who Blake actually was by ‘placing Blake`s thought within the political and cultural context of his times’ and ‘the very particular intellectual tradition which Blake formed his mind in’ . In his opinion, the academic way of studying Blake is too isolated and ex parte, the readers are welcome to bring meanings to Blake`s words, but at least they need to know what he really want them to discuss about. Therefore to precisely understand Blake`s poetry, proses and paintings, we should first know who he was and why he made his works that way, hence it is necessary to understand what tradition guided his reading and writing and painting.

  In this essay Thompson is in fact arguing that the author has the absolute right to interpret his work, while the reader can only follow and should not have entirely different interpretations basing on their own experience, ideology etc. Thus a fixed direction of explanation has been set for all kinds of artistic works, as ‘Baudelaire`s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh`s his madness, Tchaikovsky`s his vice’ . At this circumstance the text becomes the very narrowed ‘unique one’ with no potential to be further explained or developed; for the readers, they have only got the right to accept or reject the text; therefore both the reader and the text have been restricted. To solve this dilemma, Roland Barthes (1977) suggested a solution at the cost of ‘the death of the author’. According to him, only by cutting down the natural relationship between the writer and the text and giving the readers the right to interpret can the text be given new lives.

  In The Death of the Author, Barthes identified the relationship between the author and the reader as ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author’ . As stated by him, writing begins when ‘a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively’ , but it does not necessarily happen to the Author. In the ethnographic societies a mediator conducts writing, and the Author is a modern product of the capitalist society, as a result of the discovery of ‘human person’ . Consequently, ‘it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality to reach the point where only language acts, ‘performs’, and not ‘me’’ , and the author is removable. As a result of the removal of the Author, the text could be change. The Author, if believed in, will be considered father of his work in temporality, but if he is substituted to a position of a modern scriptor, he will exist at the same time with his text and writing can no longer represent a process of recording, notation etc. Hence he only writes for no origin, or if any origin, it is language itself. A text at this sense is ‘a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture.’ Thus, once the Author is removed, trying to decode a text will become meaningless. The Author puts limitations to the text and closes the writing, while reading can become the origin of new interpretations and give the text new life. The reader, who produces the space to hold together all the traces constructed the text, is the real solution to a restricted text.

  In summery, Barthes is maintaining that to interpret a text only through the text itself by destroying the instrumental function of language (recording, representing etc.), denying the stability of a text (Author-God interpretation) and cutting down the author-to-text and author-to-reader approaches in the author-text-reader relationships, the diverse explanation of the text could be achieved. His opinion is completely opposite to that of Thompson`s, who claims that the author has the absolute authority to interpret his work, and the readers can only choose to accept or reject it. Barnes looks to stand in the middle, or maybe the side closer to Barthes, as he believes, although the author wants to keep control of his work, he cannot manage it. He may want to get rid of the sway from his past and the environment but could not handle it, and there are many other factors changing his direction while he does not actually know. Even so the author still has the right to put himself in his work, but the reader may not accept it. And the more flexible the work is, the more interpretations the reader may bring to it. Both the author and the reader give the work meanings, but neither of them are dominate, hence the text has large freedom to speak for itself, which is also one of the goals Barthes wants to achieve at the sacrifice of the author.

  [Word count: 1362]

  References:

  Barnes, Julian. A History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters. London: Vintage, 2009

  Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. London: Fontana, 1977

  Thompson, E.P. Witness against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law. Cambridge: the University Press, 1994

• 和历史开个玩笑

  作者：老探戈 发布时间：2007-09-16 00:37:10

  对每一个活在当下的人来说，历史都是个头疼的问题。头疼在于你无法确认历史的真相，你读到的历史有不同的角度、不同的记述；很多时候，同一件事情、同一个人，会有不同的历史记述，——正史、野史、稗史，官修的、私人记录或者解读的，纷繁复杂地一股脑儿涌过来，令人目不暇给。当然，你可以简单化处理，选择自己相信的种类，但是，如果你是一个不满足的人，最好还是互读，——个人以为，历史需要互读，只有这样，才能在比较和分析中尽最大可能地接近真相。不过话又说回来，又有谁愿意这么较真呢？

  历史这东西，有趣之处就在于记录的不确定性，——这可以让你获得很多意外的发现，而且在阅读历史的过程中还可以享受当侦探的乐趣。还有一个有趣的地方，是你可以构筑属于自己的历史，形成自己对历史的一套看法，——这其实是读历史所能得到的最大乐趣。

  英国人朱利安·巴恩斯写了一本小说，叫做《10 1/2卷人的历史》。在这部小说里，巴恩斯和历史开了个玩笑；译者之一林本椿先生用这样一个标题来为这本小说作序——《史非史实，心非心形》，这八个字其实不仅概括了小说，也说明了一个基本的事实。

  从严格意义上讲，《10 1/2卷人的历史》既不能算是历史，也不能算是历史小说，甚至不具备传统意义的小说形式。它由十个相对完整的故事和一篇随笔构成，而那十个故事又选择不同的叙事方式，文本形式也不相同。文学和历史，其实是两个不同的表达或记录系统。当巴恩斯以历史的名义来建构他的小说的时候，其实你已经可以感觉到，这是一个玩笑。只是，玩笑与玩笑之间也并不相同，有些玩笑只是玩笑，而有一些玩笑则是严肃思考之后选择的表达方式。巴恩斯开的这个玩笑，属于后者。

  全书的十又二分之一卷，彼此之间并不相关，各自独立。这给阅读带来某种乐趣和可能性：你可以从任何一章读起，不必从头开始。我一直都希望读这样一本书，现在我读到了。然而，所有的这十又二分之一卷，又是一个不可分割的整体；之所以这么说，盖因书中有一条主线或者说一个基本意象，亦即挪亚方舟和它的变体。挪亚方舟，是西方文学中一个经常使用而且重要的意象，它体现或者说隐喻着西方文学中一个普遍的主题——救赎。巴恩斯在这部书里使用这个明显的隐喻，实际上说明了挪亚方舟的根本意义，即挪亚方舟在大洪水中拯救人类和动物，其意义不仅仅在于那次救赎，还在于对后来的人类或者世界历史所产生的深刻影响。

  巴恩斯的写法很具颠覆性，他并没有正面描述挪亚方舟的“伟大意义”，他只是利用了这个出自《圣经·创世纪》的线索，一开篇就以木蠹这种“偷渡客”的身份和角度颠覆了看似神圣的挪亚及其方舟。自此，在每一个故事里，巴恩斯都在不停地怀疑、揭露、颠覆以及解构，从而说明这样一个事实——历史是不可靠的。

  在历史记述的选材上，任何一种历史，哪怕是正史，也存在着不完整和偏差；在历史记述的过程中，因此还存在着信息的增减，记录历史的人从自己的角度增添了一些信息（譬如皇帝或圣人出生时的异相），或者删减了一些他不想让人知道的事情（譬如为尊者讳、为长者讳）。在关于梅杜萨之筏的故事里，我们可以清楚地看到，那场海难从事实变成名画的过程中究竟丧失了什么，从中可以看出历史是怎么被记述得面目全非的。由此证明了那个简单的道理，即人们所看的历史不是历史本身，而是经过了加工的历史。

  除了历史记述本身所存在的这些缺失之外，巴恩斯还描述了历史传播过程中的信息流失和人们对历史的曲解与误读。而凡此种种，都让我们越来越远离历史的真相，从而进一步证明了历史——哪怕是官修正史——的不可靠。老话说，历史是任人打扮的娼妓；巴恩斯说，历史并不是发生了的事情，历史只是历史学家对我们说的一套。的确如此。

  无疑，巴恩斯处理历史的手法是非传统的。通过这部书，巴恩斯告诉我们，不能相信官家或者权威们讲述的历史，也不能相信官修正史和已经被人们普遍接受的历史，不能相信宣传。那么，对于历史，我们还有什么可以相信的？这似乎有点儿堕入虚无主义。但是，巴恩斯又这样说，——历史只是打个嗝。我们又尝到它多少个世纪前咽下的生洋葱三明治的味道。于是，巴恩斯在解构历史的同时，也解构了自己的观点，——他说，不管我们怎么拚命涂改我们早先的思想，历史总有办法解决。

  耐人寻味的是，巴恩斯在书中插入了一个“插曲”，也就是那1/2卷。这篇“插曲”出人意料地讨论了爱以及爱与历史之间的关系。这个爱的主题实际上是救赎主题衍生出来的一个副部主题，也是西方文学中拯救人类于各种困境的一个重要途径。巴恩斯把“爱”看得十分重要，他说，即使爱情令我们失望，尽管爱情令我们失望，因为爱情令我们失望，爱情仍是我们的惟一希望。而巴恩斯之所以把“爱”看得如此重要，是因为在他看来“爱”与“真”相连，“这是最必不可少的结合”。由此，我们可以看出，虽然巴恩斯无情地解构和颠覆了历史，但却给我们留下了一个通往真相的途径。实际上，他是在跟历史开玩笑。

  最后说两句题外话。评论家们说巴恩斯的这部小说具有后现代文学的显著特征，但我不这么看，我一直以为，所谓后现代，如同其它的这个主义那个流派一样，不过是评论家、文学家们玩的把戏，图的是一个论述或者批评上的方便，亦即标签。有了这样的标签，文学家也好，评论家也罢，都可以方便行事。有意思的是，巴恩斯本人从来都不承认自己是在运用后现代的表现形式和技巧写小说。这同样说明一个问题：形式固然重要，但只要能够表达，选择什么样的表达方式并不是最重要的。这是我的一贯看法。