画《瀑龙图》大幅 此画大奇，笔力健绝；惜有损坏之处，为俗手所补，减色不少。
四、赵子昂画《相马图》。
五、管夫人《墨竹》，有夫人之姊姚管道果题跋。
六、王振鹏（朋梅，永嘉人）《仿李龙眠白描》一幅，有钱大昕题字。另有他跋无数。此画大似龙眠，向定为龙眠之笔；钱大昕始见树干题“振鹏”二字，细如蝇头，乃定为王振鹏之笔。
七、仇宝父（寅）《骑士图》。
八、《犬图》（无名），大佳。
九、《蜻蜓图》（无名），花卉虫物皆佳。
十、《观瀑图》（无名），疑明以后之物。
十一、钱舜（元人），《花卉》。
十二、马远（？）《观音》。
十三、《释迦》（无名），著色极深而新，元人物也。
十四、学吴道子画三幅：
（一）天官紫微大帝。
（二）地官清翠大帝。
（三）水官洞阴大帝。
皆工笔也，学画者可于此见古人作画之工。（此三幅初疑为道子真笔，院中赏鉴家以为宋人仿本耳。）
十五、陆信中《十六罗汉图》十六幅。著色甚有趣，惜太板不生动耳。
十六、《五百罗汉图》一百幅之十。此百幅为宋人赵其昌、林定国所作，在日本某寺，凡百幅，毎幅五罗汉。此院得十幅，余仍在日本。著色极佳，画笔亦工致而饶生致，远胜上记之十六幅矣。此画与上记之十六幅皆足代表所谓“佛氏美术”，甚足供研究也。
此外不可复记矣。
既出藏室，复至昨日所过之室重观所已见之画。其宋徽宗一画，有题签为“摹张萱《捣练图》”，此幅真是人间奇物，不厌百回观也。
富田君知余不可久留，仅邀余观日本画一幅《平治物语绘卷》，写战斗之景，人物生动无匹。（为庆恩时代名笔，不著画家姓氏）
与富田君别，谢其相待之殷，并与约如今年夏间有暇，当重来作十日之留。
院中藏画，多出日人冈仓觉三购买收藏之力。此君乃东方美术赏鉴大家，二年前死矣。著书有 （Okakura Kakuzo；2nd ed. London，Murray）。
下午三时去波士顿，夜九时至纽约。以电话与韦莲司女士及其他友人约相见时。
**
二十二日至纽约美术院（The Metropolitan Museum of Art），韦莲司女士亦至，导余流览院中“尤物”。女士最喜一北魏造像之佛头，其慈祥之气，出尘之神，一一可见。女士言，“久对此像，能令人投地膜拜。”此像之侧，尚有一罗汉之头，笑容可掬，亦非凡品。院中有中国画一集，皆福开森氏所藏，今日乃不可见，以新得Benjamin Altman Collection方在陈列，占地甚多，不得隙地也。
午后，一时至女士寓午餐，遇John Ward Young君夫妇，皆韦莲司家之友也。
下午，四时许以火车至纽约附近一镇名Upper Montclair，N. J. 访友人节克生君（Rev. Mr. Henry E. Jackson为the Christian Union Congregational Church of Upper Montclair之牧师）于其家。此君即前与余论耶稣之死及苏格拉底之死之异同者也。此次闻余来纽约，坚邀过其家为一宿之留，不得已，诺焉。既至，见其夫人及一子（Robert）一女（Ruth），蒙相待甚殷。夜与此君谈宗教问题甚久，此君亦不满意于此邦之宗教团体（Organized Christianity），以为专事虚文，不求真际。今之所谓宗教家，但知赴教堂作礼拜，而于耶稣所传真理则皆视为具文。此君之家庭极圆满安乐。节君告我曰：“吾妇之于我，亦夫妇，亦朋友，亦伴侣。”此婚姻之上乘也。是夜宿其家。
**
二十三日晨以车归纽约，往访严敬斋（庄）及王君复（夏）于哥伦比亚大学。闻邓孟硕亦在此，访之于其室，相见甚欢。敬斋告我，此间有多人反对余之《非留学篇》，赖同志如王、易鼎新诸君为余辩护甚力。余因谓敬斋曰，“余作文字不畏人反对，惟畏作不关痛养之文字，人阅之与未阅之前同一无影响，则真覆瓿之文字矣。今日作文字，须言之有物，至少亦须值得一驳，愈驳则真理愈出，吾惟恐人之不驳耳。
与敬斋、君复同餐于中西楼。闻黄克强已去费城。不能一访之，甚怅。
下午，访韦莲司女士于其寓，纵谈极欢。女士室临赫贞河，是日大雾，对岸景物掩映雾中，风景极佳。以电话招张彭春君会于此间。五时许，与女士同往餐于中西楼。余告女士以近来已决心主张不争主义（Non-resistance）（参看本卷第一则），决心投身世界和平诸团体，作求三年之艾之计。女士大悦，以为此余近第一大捷，且勉余力持此志勿懈。余去夏与女士谈及此问题时，余犹持两端，即十一月中在Syracuse演说 （《从东方的观点看这次大战》）时，犹以国防为不可缓，十二月十二日所记，乃最后之决心。女士知吾思想之变迁甚审，今闻余最后之决心，乃适如其所期望，故大悦也。女士见地之髙，诚非寻常女子所可望其肩背。余所见女子多矣，其真能具思想，识力，魄力，热诚于一身者惟一人耳（参看卷七第一六则及第三五则）。
是夜宿哥伦比亚大学宿舍，与王严邓三君夜话。邓君当第二次革命前为上海《中华民报》主任，忤政府，为政府所控，受谳于上海租界法庭，罚禁西牢作苦工六月，另罚锾五百元。是夜，邓君自述狱中生活甚动人。
友朋中尝受囹圄之苦者多矣，若张亦农（耘）辛亥自西安南下，有所谋，途中为西川厅所拘，解至南阳道，居狱中月余，几罹死刑，幸民兵破南阳始得脱。去夏亦农为余道之，竟夕始已。
**
二十四日以车归。车中读《纽约时报》，见有日本人T. Iyenaga博士所作文论 （《日本在世界大战中的地位》），道远东外交史甚详。其论中国中立问题尤明目张胆，肆无忌惮。其言虽狂妄，然皆属实情。在今日强权世界，此等妄言，都成确论，世衰之为日久矣，我所谓拔本探原之计，岂得已哉！岂得已哉！
In undertaking the military operations beyond the war zone prescribed by China, some charge Japan with the violation of China's neutrality. Yes, Japan did violate the neutrality of China in exactly the same sense as England and France would violate the neutrality of Belgium by making it the scene of military operations in their effort to drive out the Germans from that much-harassed country.
Before Japan landed her troops at Lungkow the Germans in Kiao Chau had been taking military measures in the Shantung Province far beyond the zone within which China asked Germany and Japan to limit their operations. It would, then, have been suicidal for Japan to confine her military action within the so-called war zone. Others again impute to Japan the violation of the principle of China's territorial integrity should she retain Kiao-Chau after the war. I cannot agree with such a construction. Of course, we cannot foretell what final agreement will be made between China and Japan about Kiao-Chau. This much, however, is certain：If the Allies finally win, Japan will have proper claims to make for the blood and treasure expended for the capture of Kiao-Chau and in running the great risk of having for her foe a power so formidable as Germany. Even should Japan decide to retain Kiao- Chau, it would not be a violation of China's integrity, for Kiao-Chau was not a part of China; its complete sovereignty, at least for ninety-nine years, rested in Germany.
日本在中国划定的军事区域之外采取军事行动，有人指责说是破坏了中国的中立。是的，日本确实破坏了中国的中立，正如同法国和英国，他们为了将德国人从备受折磨的比利时驱赶出去，便将比利时用作军事行动的战场。他们也肯定是破坏了比利时的中立。
在日本涉足龙口之前，在胶州湾的德国人就一直在山东省的非军事区采取军事行动。中国早就要求日本和德国限制他们的军事行动。日本如果将自己的行动限制在所谓的军事区之内，那就无异是自取灭亡。又有人指责说如果战后日本仍占有胶州湾，那就是破坏了中国领土的完整。我不能苟同此说。诚然我们不能预见中国和日本就胶州湾最终将达成什么协议。然而有一件事是最要紧的，假若协约国最终获胜，日本将有正当的理由宣称他为了获得胶州湾已经付出了鲜血和金钱的代价，更何况他又冒着极大的风险与德国这样一个可怕的强国结为仇敌。即使日本决定占有胶州湾，这也没有破坏中国领土的完整，因为胶州湾早已不是中国的一部分，胶州湾的主权早已归于德国，至少有九十九年了。
〔附记〕归绮色佳后三日，君复寄示此论，欲余一一斥驳，余复书曰：“此日人不打自招之供状，不须驳也。”
车中又读一文，论《不争主义之道德》，则如羯鼓解秽，令人起舞：
SIR: In an editorial entitled "Security for Neutrals" in , the argument was advanced that the violation of Belgium proves the necessity of armament in the United States if we would preserve our national interests. "A world in which a Belgium could be violated was a world in which national inoffensiveness offered no security against attack and in which a pacifist democratic ideal would have to fight for its life. " If an ideal must fight for its life, may I suggest that a gun is an ineffective weapon for it? If your gun kills your opponent, naturally he can't be a strong supporter of your ideal. If your gun wounds him, naturally he won't be a strong supporter of your ideal. If you get shot by his gun—by the rules of warfare he will shoot you only if you are trying to shoot him—your ideal loses the only supporter it has. If Belgium and England and France had determined to uphold an ideal, such as democratic antimilitarism, and to persuade Germans to accept their ideal, they were idiotic to go about killing some of the Germans they wished to convert, and getting thousands of their own men—supporters of their ideal—into slaughtertrenches. It is an acknowledgment of lack of faith in the efficacy of an ideal to urge that it must have guns in order to live. If an ideal is worth anything at all it will make its own persuasive appeal to the minds of men, and any gun—protected ideal is likely not to be an ideal at all, but only gun—protected selfishness.
It was criminal for Belgians to shoot German peasants. It was criminal for German peasants to shoot Belgian factory-hands. On one side it was criminal self-preservation, the Germans fighting for their homes with the fear that if they did not march through Belgium, the French would, and on the other side it was criminal self-preservation, the Belgians fighting for their homes. What more am I saying than that war is hideously wrong? I am saying that war for self-preservation is hideously wrong, that self-preservation at the cost of war is criminal.
Would I kill a stranger in order to prevent his killing a neighbor? If there were no other way to prevent him—yes—or else I would be guilty of permitting murder. France is the cultural neighbor of Belgium—Germany compared with France is the stranger. Was Belgium therefore justified in trying to prevent Germany from crushing France? By no means, because by resisting Germany, Belgium made it possible for England and France to crush Germany. If my neighbor was bent on murdering the stranger, should I kill the stranger? No, for then I should be abetting murder. Belgium was aiding her neighbor France to murder German soldiers. The only argument that can be offered for Belgium is that she acted in self-defense, but I maintain that the setting up of self-defense above all consideration of others is criminal, for it logically leads in the end to murder.
The editorial to which I have referred maintained that if Belgium had refused to fight she would have been cowardly. Does the Editor of hold that the Socialists who vowed a year ago that they would refuse to fight, and who quickly joined the ranks when war was declared—does he hold that these men would have been more cowardly than they were if they had stood out against mobilization? Surely one cannot call the Socialists cowards because they did not refuse to fight, and with the same lips say that the Belgians would have been cowards if they had refused to fight. I believe that the man who kills another in self-preservation is a coward. He is a coward because he is so much afraid to lost his property or life that he is actually willing to commit murder. Am I a coward when I declare before God and my conscience that I would refuse to enlist even though there were conscription in the United States to create an army to resist foreign invasion? If I were a Quaker, there are precedents from Civil War times unter which I could legally escape service at the front. But I am not a Quaker. I would probably have to suffer imprisonment or execution for treason. Some of my
【打 印】 【来源：读书之家-dushuzhijia.com】
