文艺；纳粹统治下的巴黎;

　　Flying the flag;

　　白旗飞舞;

　　A world of collaborators, resistors, speculators and “attentistes”

　　如此多的合作者，抵抗者，投机者和观望者们！

　　And the Show Went On: Cultural Life in Nazi-Occupied Paris. By Alan Riding. Knopf;

　　《当“秀”还在继续：纳粹统治下的巴黎文化生活》由奥兰·里丁·诺普夫所著。

　　“During the occupation”, declared Jean-Paul Sartre, “we had two choices: collaborate or resist.” But France's iconic intellectual, speaking some three decades after Hitler's tanks rolled into Paris, was rewriting history. As Alan Riding points out, in this meticulously researched history of French culture during the second world war, there was another option—attentisme, or wait and see—and the divisions between them were easily blurred. Sartre himself was certainly never a collaborator, but his image as a résistant was burnished rather late in the day. Mr Riding notes that “although his involvement in the intellectual resistance had been minimal, after the liberation he had suddenly appeared as the chronicler of France's calvary.”

　　让·保罗·萨特宣称：“在占领期间，我们有两个选择—合作还是抵抗”。但大约在希特勒的坦克驶入巴黎的30年后，法国代表性的知识分子正重写这段历史。正如奥兰·里丁指出的，经过这段二战时期的法国文化史的认真研究，发现还有另外一个选择——观望；或者称之为“等等再看”，很容易把它们混为一谈。萨特本人当然从来不是合作者，但作为一个抵制者的形象却在很晚的时候才被凸显出来。里丁提到“虽然他在知识分子的抵抗运动中参与度微乎其微，但解放后他突然摇身一变，成了法国磨难史的记录者。

　　Much of this book, notably the flight to America of artists such as Marc Chagall and Marcel Duchamp, or the collaboration of the narcissistic Jean Cocteau, will be familiar to those who have read Frederic Spotts's 2008 book, “The Shameful Peace”. Mr Riding used to write about European culture for the New York Times and was based in Paris. Where he adds value is in his analysis of the subtle challenges of the Nazi occupation for the various sectors of the arts. If escape and exile were not the chosen option, actors needed to tread the boards, singers needed the music halls, musicians needed the concert hall. How could they avoid giving succour to the enemy, given the many Germans in the audience?

　　如果有人读过弗雷德里克·斯波茨2008年的新作《可耻的和平》，就会对这本书里很多内容有似曾相识之感，不论是以马克·夏加尔和马塞尔·杜尚为代表的逃匿去美国的艺术家们，还是自恋的让·谷克多通敌。里丁长住巴黎，过去常给美国的《纽约时报》供稿，内容是关于欧洲的文化。关于纳粹对各艺术流派的微妙挑战的分析，为这本书加分了。如果不选择逃亡和放逐，那演员还是要登台演戏，歌手需要音乐厅，音乐家也需要演奏厅。所以就算观众席上坐着的有很多德国人，他们又怎么可能避免为敌人表演呢？

　　Most chose a degree of compromise, some larger than others. Edith Piaf, who said in 1940 that “my real job is to sing, to sing no matter what happens”, was willing to perform twice in Stalag III-D, a camp for French prisoners-of-war outside Berlin—but on her first visit cleverly encouraged the camp commander to allow photographs to be taken of her with him and the POWs. The photos were then cropped so that each POW's image could be attached to counterfeit documents identifying him as a French worker in Germany. On Piaf's next visit to the camp, the documents were secretly delivered. If a POW escaped, he had a protective German ID card. As Piaf put it, “I was not in the Resistance, but I helped my soldiers.”

　　很多人都选择了妥协，只是程度不一。伊迪斯·琶雅芙在1940年曾说“我真正的工作是唱歌，不管发生什么事，都要唱”，所以她很乐意的在柏林外关押法国战犯的德国战俘营Stalag III-D表演过两次，而且第一次去就很乖巧的请求营地指挥官允许她和指挥官本人及战俘们一起合影。然后，这些照片被裁减，这样每个战俘的头像就可以附在伪造文件上证明这个人是在德国工作的工人。第二次去Stalag III-D时，这些文件都已被悄悄的移交。如果有战俘逃出来，他就有一张可以保护他的德国身份证了。如琶雅芙所言“我不属于抵抗运动中的一员，但是我帮助了我们的士兵们。”

　　By contrast, Jean Guéhenno, an essayist, refused absolutely to write for any outlet approved by the Germans. Instead, his opinions were pseudonymously confined to an underground newspaper, Les Lettres Franeaises, and an equally clandestine publishing house, éditions de Minuit. “Writers should not be seeking the glory of the byline,” he noted in his “Journal des Années Noires”, which was published just after the war. “Now is the time to write for nothing, for pleasure.” Well said—but then Guéhenno did have the financial security of a teaching job at the Lycée Henri IV.

　　与之相对，散文家让·盖埃诺铁铮铮的拒绝写任何德国批准的公文，他的观点只能借假名出现在一家地下报纸——《法国人信札》和同样保密的出版社——《éditions de Minuit》。他在战后新出版的《Journal des Années Noires》中写道“作家，不应该只追求发表文章的自豪感。现在，是不为任何，只为快乐写作的时候。”说得非常好！但随后盖埃诺的确因在亨利四中教书而经济上得到了保障。

　　Mr Riding's book is an impressively comprehensive survey of the occupation years: the relentless persecution of France's Jews, especially the foreign-born, by the Vichy authorities as well as the Germans; Goebbels's expropriation of Jewish-owned art; the fascism of some French intellectuals, and the attraction of Stalin's communism for others. One irony is that French cinema, so enriched by Jewish directors, actors and producers before the war, nonetheless flourished after their expulsion thanks to an influx of new talent. Mr Riding particularly praises Marcel Carné's “Les Enfants du Paradis”.

　　让人印象非常深刻的是，里丁的书可谓对德占期法国的一次全面调查：法国的犹太人--特别是那些在国外出生的--被维希政权和德方残酷迫害；戈培尔“征收”（实则为抢）犹太人拥有的艺术品；一些法国知识分子的法西斯主义倾向，也有部分被斯大林的共产主义所吸引。一个巨大的讽刺是，战前的法国电影因有犹太导演,演员和制片人的加入而更加丰富，在他们遭到驱逐后，因新锐们蜂拥而入，电影业不受影响一如既往的繁荣着。里丁大力赞扬了马塞尔·卡内尔的《天堂的孩子们》。

　　But if the French arts, from the chansons of Maurice Chevalier to the ballet of the collaborationist, Serge Lifar, survived the Nazis, how lasting was their victory? Mr Riding saves his best for last, with a discomfiting portrayal of the post-Liberation épuration—the “purge” of collaborators—and a clear-headed judgment of Paris's subsequent cultural status.

　　但如果法国艺术——从珍妮特·麦克唐纳的《香颂》到合作主义者谢尔盖·里法的芭蕾——有幸逃过纳粹一劫，他们的胜利又维持了多久呢？里丁把他最好的篇章留到了最后，一是对解放后的“净化”——即合作主义者的清算进行了令人不安的描述，还对巴黎后来的文化地位作出了明确判断。

　　Simply put, between 1918 and 1939 the French capital was also the cultural capital of the world. Yet, by the late 1940s “culturally the city was no longer a magnet for artists and writers from around the world.” Perhaps that was for the better. Mr Riding notes that French intellectuals have “propagated doctrines—monarchism, Fascism, anti-Semitism, Communism, even Maoism—that offered explanations and solutions for everything.” With these doctrines having failed to bring Utopia, “politically speaking, artists and writers may now be less prominent, but they are also less dangerous.”

　　简单的说，1918到1939年间，法国的首都同时也是全世界的文化之都。然而到20世纪40年代后期，“文化上，巴黎不再是吸引全世界的艺术家和作家的‘磁铁石'了”。也许那样会更好。里丁写道，“法国的知识分子们各自鼓吹着包括君主主义，法西斯主义，反犹太主义，共产主义甚至毛泽东主义，以为这些足够为一切提供解释和解决之道。”这些理论没有给他们带来乌托邦，“政治上来说，艺术家和作家也许不那么重要，但也因为这样他们不那么危险”。