Fuli said Part Three was "the speech by Deng Xiaoping;" I don't know what speech that is but since Deng was the head of state after the CR I figured I could get it elsewhere and not tax Fuli to translate it.
【卞案研究】
A good story may not be historical fact
My opinion on the death of Bian Zhong-yun
By Ye Weili
贵刊登载了一篇美国哈里斯先生关于原北京师大女附中卞仲耘老师之死的文章，文中点了我的名，我觉得应该有所回应。
You published an article by Mr. Harris about the death of Ms. Bian Zhong-yun, a former teacher of the High School for Girls attached to
卞校长之死，是文革初期的一起骇人听闻的暴力事件。该事件由于其发生的时间、地点，施暴者的性别、年龄，特别是施暴者与被害人的（师生）关系，在当年就震惊京城。多年过去了，文革中绝大多数暴力死亡事件逐渐淡出公众视野，但卞仲耘之死，却日益凸显出来。近年来不断有关于卞之死的电影和书籍、文章面世，最近又由校友们集资，在实验中学（原女附中）里为卞校长立了一座纪念铜像。为文革中死于非命的师长塑像，这应是开了先例。很多很多年以后，当文革成为遥远的历史，在众多文革受难者中，一个叫卞仲耘的名字大概会流传下来。她曾是北京一所最好女校的领导，在该校工作了17年。1966年8月5号，她遭受自己学生的毒打折磨，不治身亡。她是全北京和全中国第一个遇难的中学教育工作者。她之后，又倒下了一大批中学教职员工，使这个群体死于非命的人数在文革受难者中触目惊心，她的名字应该被历史记住。
The death of Principal Bian is a horrifying violent incident at the beginning of the cultural revolution. It shocked Beijing Experimental High School Beijing and China
（右图：卞仲耘铜像。实验中学东楼一层会议室。原北京师大女附中部分学生敬立。2009年11月18日）
(Picture on the right) Statue of Bian Zhong-yun. Conference room, 1st Floor, East Building , Experimental High School attached to Beijing Normal University
作为原女附中的学生，我感谢所有提醒我们不忘记卞校长之死的人，包括哈里斯先生。一个人不必学过“法律”，也不必是“检察官”，更不必为自己不是中国人却关心中国事而解释。文革是20世纪世界史上的一场大罪恶，但目前在中国却公然遭到抹煞和遗忘，天底下关注它的人越多越好。
As an alumnus of the High School for Girls, I thank all the people who remind us of the death of Principal Bian, including Mr. Harris. A person is not necessary a student of law, nor prosecutor. and he does not need to explain why he is not a Chinese but concerned with China’s affairs. The cultural revolution is a grand evil in 20th century, but has been blotted out and forgotten in China
这是我对哈里斯先生文章的基本态度。
This is my basis attitude toward Harris'article.
我曾经写过一篇题为《卞仲耘之死》的学术论文（白芳《卞仲耘之死》，见“二闲堂”网站：www.edubridge.com; 原文为英文，中译文不包括原文中大量注释）。在最近出版的中文书籍中，我也对我校“八五事件”进行了叙述（叶维丽《动荡的青春：红色大院的女儿们》，北京：新华出版社，2008，第三章）。写出来，就是希望大家评头品足，我非常欢迎批评。
I wrote a thesis in the title of The Death of Bian Zhongyun.(Bai Fang: The Death of Bian Zhongyun. See www.edubridge.com. The original is in English. The Chinese version doesn't include the numerous notes.) In a book in Chinese, I describe the 'Incident on August 5'(Ye Wei-li: Youth in Turmoil: the Daughters in the Red Compound. Beijing
哈里斯先生的文章没有对我的具体观点进行评论，也没有对具体事实提出非议，却质疑我在卞仲耘之死的问题上基本的是非立场。我愿明确地对哈里斯先生说，对这样的批评，我不能接受。我的文章和书籍都不难找到，请大家不妨自己去作评判。
Mr. Harris doesn't make any comment on my specific points, nor disagree to concrete facts, but questions my fundamental position of right and wrong. I like to tell Mr. Harris: I don’t not accept criticism of this type. It is not hard to locate my articles and books. Readers can make their own judgment.
《记忆》在推介哈里斯先生的文章时，将它称为对女附中八五事件的“调查”。但严格地说，哈里斯先生做的不能算是调查。他在北京逗留期间用了25个小时与7人谈话，这7人中，大多数人与女附中无关。如此草率匆忙，他的文章中有若干处事实上的硬伤就毫不奇怪了。
In its recommendation of Harris’ article, the Remembrance labels it an ‘investigation’ on the August 5 incident of the High School. But strictly speaking, Harris didn’t conduct investigation. During his stay in Beijing
从哈里斯文中，不难看出他对八五事件叙述的基本脉络：那一天，女附中“红卫兵”肇事，残忍批斗校领导，导致卞仲耘死亡。当时红卫兵的负责人是宋彬彬。13天后的八一八，宋登上天安门，给毛泽东戴上红卫兵袖章，毛对宋说，“要武嘛”，由是表明毛批准“红色恐怖”。哈里斯先生认为，卞仲耘之死一案也因此而获得了“历史意义”。
From Harris’ article, it is easy to see his description of the August 5 accident. On that day, the ‘red guards’ruthlessly punished the school leaders, and beat Bian to death. The person in charge of the red guards was Song Binbin. Thirteen days after, on August 18, she went up to the Tian-An-Men tower and put an armband of red guard on Mao Ze-dong. Mao told Song that ‘you must take up arms (yao wu ma)’, indicating that Mao approved ‘red terrorism’. Mr. Harris believes that the case of Bian’s death therefore attained an ‘historic significance’.
因为做关于卞校长之死的调查，我查阅了很多材料，对这个叙述脉络十分熟悉。哈里斯先生在文中几次提到的王友琴女士，就是照这个脉络讲述卞仲耘之死的。看起来，哈里斯先生受到王友琴女士很大影响。我和王女士都是当年女附中的学生，王上高一，我上初三，我们两人近年来都为卞校长之死写过文章。在关于八五事件的叙述上，我们在一些关键处有不同说法，在一定意义上，提供了有关该事件的两个版本。哈里斯先生对我的批评，也与这两个版本的不同有关。我想，与其回应对女附中文革所知实在有限的哈里斯先生，不如借《记忆》的版面，直接与王友琴女士对话。这里所引用的，全部来自《文革受难者》中的卞仲耘篇 （王友琴《文革受难者》，香港：开放杂志出版社，2004）。所以想公开地讨论问题，不仅因为卞仲耘之死是极具影响的文革案例，值得一丝不苟地对待；也因为从我和王友琴女士的分歧中，或许能反映出文革研究中一些带有普遍性的倾向。
I’ve read a lot of materials in order to investigate the death of Principal Bian, and know the description well. Harris mentioned Wang Youqin several times, and followed this line of description on Bian’s death. It looks that Harris was influenced a lot by Wang. Wang and I were both students of the High School for Girls. Wang was in grade 1 of senior high. I was in grade 3 of junior high. During recent years we both wrote articles on the death of Principal Bian. On some key issues we held different points of view, thus provided two versions of the incident. Harris’criticism on me is somehow relevant to the difference of these two versions description. Therefore, I would rather have a direct dialog with Wang Youqin on this Remembrance journal, than responding to Mr. Harris who didn’t know much about the cultural revolution of the High School for Girls. All quotes in this article are from the article about Bian Zhong-yun in by Wang Youqin published in Hong Kong in 2004. The open discussion is because not only that the death of Bian is a significant case in the cultural revolution and must be treated very carefully, but also the difference between me and Wang is a possible reflection of some universal tendencies in the research of the cultural revolution.
在向王女士请教之前，我想先说，我对王女士多年来担当“历史义工”、为文革中惨死的“小人物”们伸张正义的作法十分敬佩，这个意思我在以前的文章中已有表达。这里具体涉及的，仅与卞校长之死一案有关。
Before asking advice from Ms. Wang, I would extend admiration to her for working as a‘volunteer of history’, seeking justice for the victims of the cultural revolution. I said so before. And said so again in relation to the death of Principal Bian.
如果没记错，我和王友琴是见过面的，但没有真正交流过。今天，我就借此机会向老校友请教吧。说实话，有些问题在我心里已经存了很久。这里会涉及到当年事件的一些重要细节，希望大家能够耐心地读下去。有个英谚说，the devil is in the details，或许可以翻译成“真相在细节中”。作为一个历史工作者，我不相信历史能够被“还原”，但我相信，经过努力，包括对细节的认真挖掘，可以尽量接近历史真实。
If my memory serves right, Ms. Wang You-qing and I met, but didn't really communicate with each other. I would like to take this opportunity to seek advice from an alumnus. Some questions have long been in my mind for a long time. Some important details of the incident may be discussed in this article. I hope that readers can read it through patiently. An English proverb says: the devil in the details. As a historian, I don’t believe that history can be returned to its original state, but through efforts, including digging the details, the true history can be approximately approached.
我向王友琴女士请教五个问题：
一．8月5号时，女附中处在一个怎样的形势？是否存在一个名分明确、有职有权的“权力当局”？
王女士的说法是，7月底工作组被撤销后，“控制学校的是红卫兵组织以及工作组建立的‘革命师生代表会’”；又说，卞死后的当晚，“女附中的权力当局”接见了她的丈夫王晶垚。即是说，王认为工作组撤走后存在着一个立即接管学校的“权力当局”，这个权力当局由红卫兵组织和革命师生代表会共同组成。
I am asking Wang You-qin for advice on five questions:
1. What situation was the High School in on August 5, 1966? Whether or not there was an ‘administration’ with proper power?
In Ms. Wang’s opinion, after the work team left at the end of July, the School was under the control of an red guard organization and the congress of revolutionary teachers and students established by the work team. She said that on the night of Bian’s death, the School’s power authorities received her husband Wang JingYao. In other words, Wang thinks after the withdrawal of the work team, there was an ‘power authorities’ that took over the School immediately. The power authorities consisted of the red guard organization and the congress of revolutionary teachers and students.
根据我的调查和当年的记忆，7月底突然撤销工作组后的一段时间里，女附中陷入混乱、失序和相当无政府的状态，并不存在王女士所说的那样一个权力当局。这个问题是我和王友琴的一个重要分歧。
According to my investigation and recall, in the period after the work team suddenly left in late July, the School for fell into disorder, chaos and anarchy. There was no authorities as claimed by Ms. Wang. This is an important disagreement between me and Ms. Wang.
8月5号被打的五位校领导之一、副校长胡志涛在多年后的回忆文章中提到，8月4号下午她和卞仲耘在办公室已遭到一些学生毒打，为此她曾不顾自己“黑帮”身份，在4号晚上和5号上午分别去西城区委和北京市委向有关部门呼救，说明“生命不保”的危急形势，但无人理睬（胡志涛《八五祭》，收入胡志涛、丁丁着《生活教育论》，合肥：安徽教育出版社，1996）。4号晚上回家后，她丈夫看到她的伤痕，问道，怎么打得这么狠？胡回答说，工作组不在了，没人管了。“没人管了”是胡志涛眼中女附中在工作组突然撤离后的状况，而胡志涛在区委和市委的遭遇，说明当时区、市两级权威机构在领导文革的问题上的不作为、甚至瘫痪的状态。
Ms. Hu Zhi-tao, then vice principal, and one of the five school administrators beaten up on August 5, wrote an article of recollection many years later. She said that Bian and she were already beaten up by some students on August 4. Therefore, despite the status of ‘gangster’, she went to CCP’s offices in the West District and Beijing city for help on the evening of August 4 and morning of August 5 respectively, reporting the crisis of ‘life in dangers’. She got no response from either office. When getting home on the evening of August 4, her husband saw the injuries on her body, and asked her why she was beaten up so badly. Hu answered: the work team left, and no one managed the school. ‘No one managed the school’ is the school’s situation after the abrupt leaving of the work team. And Hu’s bitter experience with the district and city authorities of CCP, indicates the status of doing nothing or even paralysis.
但说女附中完全“没人管了”，似乎也不尽然。这里需要提及由工作组建立的“革命师生代表会”。卞死前在医院的抢救、死后向上级报告及第二天向全校公布消息，都是由代表会负责人员做的，可见事情到了一定的地步，还是得由代表会出面张罗维持。但工作组撤离后代表会的身份变得尴尬，也是一个基本事实，否则就没有必要在8月8号，由代表会学生成员中的基本骨干发起，成立了一个叫“筹委会”的机构。改名换姓就是为了脱离和工作组的关系，“重打鼓、另开张”，“名正言顺 ”地管理学校事务。
On the other hand, it seems not correct to say ‘no one managed the school’at all. It is necessary to mention the ‘congress of revolutionary teachers and students’ set up by the work team. Bian was rescued in the hospital before she died, reporting to higher authorities and announced the news to the school next day. The congress did all of this. When things happened, someone must have taken care of it. However, after the work team left, the identity of the congress became rather awkward. Therefore, on August 8, the backbone members of the congress started an organization of ‘Preparation Committee.’ The purpose was to break away from the work team, and manage the school with a right title.
因此，我的看法是，8月5号时的师生代表会，由于它的权力来源“工作组”轰然倒台，使它“名分”不清，“余威”犹存，更像一个“维持会”或“留守处”。据我了解，此时有一些学生（“反工作组”的学生）已不承认它的权威；代表会的个别原负责人，也认为自己因追随工作组而“犯了错误”，不再任事。同时，工作组的突然撤离和毛泽东对派工作组做法的严厉批评给代表会的主要成员带来极大困惑。8月5号当天她们在开会，议题是：工作组走了，文革怎么干？
Thereafter, it is my opinion that the congress of teachers and students, as its source of authorities, the work team, abruptly collapsed, its ‘status’ became unclear but the ‘power residue’ still existent, it was more like an office for preservation or staying behind office. By my investigation, at this time, some students who were against the work team, had already not approved the congress’s authorities. Some leaders of the congress thought they had made mistakes by following the work team, did not work on it. In the meantime, the major member of the congress were feeling greatly perplexed by the abrupt leaving of the work team and Mao Zedong’s severe criticism on the method of sending work team to schools. They had a meeting on August. The topic was: How will the cultural revolution be conducted after leaving of the work team?
其实，在历史的这一刻，不要说中学生们，就连“老革命”们，从北京市负责人李雪峰、吴德到中央的刘少奇、邓小平，都连呼不知怎么干了，从上到下一片混乱，胡志涛在西城区和北京市上访无门就是明证。不夸张地说，整个北京都乱了套。有人认为，此时的京城正在发生由毛泽东发动的“十级政治大地震”。在这种严重失序和复杂诡谲的形势下，说女附中仍然存在一个按部就班运作的“权力当局”，实在是无视风云突变的大局对一所中学可以产生的剧烈影响。何况这所学校集中了中共党政军高层干部子女，对时局的变化应该比一般学校更为敏感。
In fact, at this historical moment, not only the high school students, but also the ‘senior revolutionaries’, from Li Xue-feng and Wu De, both were in charge of Beijing, to Liu Shao-qi and Deng Xiao-ping of CCP’s central committee, were keeping saying not knowing how to proceed. The situation was in total chaos. The fact that Hu received nothing for her visits to CCP’s offices was the evidence. It is not exaggerating to say the whole Beijing Beijing
我在写作关于卞之死的学术论文时遇到的一个挑战，是如何向今天的读者解说当年那个非常的时刻。为此，我下了相当的功夫，有兴趣的读者可以去看我的文章。在这里，我只想简要地说，研究卞仲耘之死离不开对当时文革形势突变大局的把握。在我看来，这是理解该案的钥匙。
I encountered a challenge when writing the thesis on the death of Bian: how to explain to today's reader about that extraordinary moment? I made great efforts on this. Interested readers can read the thesis. In this article I only simply point out that research on Bian's death must keep the rapid change of the cultural revolution in mind. I think this is the key in understanding this case.
1966年7月下旬8月中上旬，毛泽东自南方返京后，亲临第一线，再次发动文革（我对这一时间段文革史的理解，受到王年一先生《大动乱的年代》的启发，该书1988年由河南人民出版社出版）。这轮发动的关键词是毛7月份给江青信上写的“天下大乱”。这时的女附中，由于工作组的突然撤离和“对联”（“老子英雄儿好汉，老子反动儿混蛋”）的横空出世，处在一种亢奋、困惑、恐惧的混乱氛围中（往往由于“出身”不同而感受不同）。来自“上面”的信息是，学生们应该“踢开工作组，自己闹革命”、“自己解放自己”。没有了工作组的约束，唯一的权威就是“最高指示”。“革命不是请客吃饭”成为当时最流行的语录和对“革命”最权威的诠释。要革命，就不能“温良恭俭让”，这是当时的信条。可以说，8月初的女附中达到了最高领袖所希望的“乱”，而“乱”和暴力如影随形，这是中共历次运动所证明了的。暴力有通过威慑打开局面的重要功能。在这一轮发动中，毛似乎有意借助暴力。（我在论文中对暴力的功能有探讨，不赘述。）卞的死恰恰发生在这个节骨眼上。无独有偶的是，8月5号当天，正在主持八届十一中全会的毛泽东撤销了此前刘少奇关于反对“乱斗”的指示。在女附中校园发生的正是失控下没有节制的乱斗。
After Mao Zedong returned to Beijing from the South during the late third of July to the first or second third of August, he came to the front and started the cultural revolution again (my understanding of this period is enlightened by Mr. Wang Nianyi’s book, , published by the Henan Publishing House in 1988.). The key word for Mao’s action was ‘great disorder under heaven’ in a letter he wrote to Jiang Qing in July. Due to the sudden withdrawal of the Work Team and appearance of the slogan, ‘Like father, like son’, the High School at this time was in an excited, perplexed, terrorist atmosphere (which was felt differently due to different family background). The message from ‘ above’ was that students had to kick the work team away, and conduct revolution by themselves. Liberate selves by selves. When the work team’s restriction was removed, the only authority was ‘the highest direction’. Revolution is not an invitation to dinner’ is the most popular quotation and most authoritative annotation to the word ‘revolution’. To conduct revolution, one must not be temperate and gentle. This was the creed for the time. In early August, the ‘chaos’, as expected by the highest leader, has dominated the High School for Girls. And chaos and violence are twin brothers. This has been proved by all the movements in CCP’s history. Violence plays the role of opening a new situation by force. In the bout of movement, Mao seemed to rely on violence intentionally. I discussed the role of violence in my thesis, and will not make redundancy here. Bian died exactly at this point of time. Not alone but in pair, on that day Mao was hosting a meeting in which Liu Shaoqi’s direction of ‘no arbitrary denouncement’ was abolished. What happened on the campus of the High School for Girls was exactly the uncontrolled, unrestricted arbitrarily denouncement.
所以用了这么长的篇幅来谈这个问题，是想说明，在对女附中当时是否存在通常意义上的“权力当局”上，我和王友琴有不同看法；而不同看法的背后，是对当时文革大背景的把握。我的主要观点是，毛泽东“大乱”的指导思路，直接导致女附中校园相当程度的失序和无政府，暴力在这个背景下发生。（关于工作组撤离后的师生代表会的地位和状况，以及代表会负责人在八五事件中的表现，我在署名“白芳”的论文中曾用了相当篇幅讨论，在本期的女附中五人座谈会中也有探讨，在此不赘述。）
The reason that I discussed this topic in such a detail is that I disagree with Wang You-qin on whether there were regular authorities in the High School. Behind the disagreement is the understanding of the general situation of the cultural revolution. My opinion is that Mao Ze-dong’s guideline of ‘massive disorder’ caused the chaos and anarchy on the campus of the High School for Girls to a substantial degree. Violence happened under such circumstances. As far as the status and condition of the congress, and the behavior of people in charge of the congress, I discussed at length in another article by the name of Bai Fang, so will not say more here.
二．女附中当时是否已出现红卫兵组织? 该组织是否应对八五事件负责？
2. Had any organization of red guards come into being at that time in the High School for Girls? If yes, whether or not that organization was responsible for the August 5 incident?
对这两个问题，王友琴女士在多处做了肯定的回答。
我调查的结果是，7月31号，女附中成立了一个叫“毛泽东主义红卫兵”（“主义兵”）的组织，主要由“反工作组”的高中学生组成。8月5号那天打人没有她们的事。“主义兵”始终是少数派，从未在学校掌过权。
Wang You-qin’s answer to these two questions are positive in many places of her writings.
My investigation indicates that on July 31, an organization in the name of ‘Maoist Red Guards’(ist guards) was established in the School, mainly consisting of senior high students against the work team. They did not beat up on August 5. They were a minor faction throughout, and never in power at the School.
女附中还有一个叫“红卫兵”的组织，参加的人数较众。这是一个一哄而起、较为松散的“组织”。没有证据证明这个组织在8月5号已经存在。这两个红卫兵是有明显区别的，作为当年女附中的学生，王女士不应将二者混淆。
There was another organization named ‘red guards’in the High School. It had more members. This was a suddenly appearing and loosely organized ‘group’. There was no evidence that this group was already in existence on August 5. These two red guard organization were clearly different. As a student of the High School at that time, Ms. Wang should not have mixed them up.
澄清是否存在“红卫兵”的问题，是为了在事实上力求准确，也是为了从一个重要的方面反映当时的氛围：个别班级的一些学生有资格、也有能力在全校发起斗争校领导，这只能是在一个极度混乱、相当无政府的非常时期才可能发生。不仅如此，自发的行动正是毛泽东倡导的，学生们起事的资格来自最高领袖对“自己解放自己”的鼓励。因为是“正当时令”的“革命行动”，无人敢质疑其合法性，顶多是像师生代表会的一些负责人那样，在事件进行的过程中做些无济于事的劝阻。
Clarifying the issue of whether there was‘red guards’in the School is to describe the facts more accurately and present the atmosphere at the time. Students from individual classes had qualification and ability to denounce the leaders. This can only happen in a period of extreme disorder and anarchy. And self-starting activities were exactly Mao recommended.
需要指出的是，在血统论无比猖獗的8月份，“革命”是要有资格的。发起斗争校领导的学生应以“红五类”干部子女为主，红卫兵在女附中出现后，她们很有可能是红卫兵，但八五那天她们不是以红卫兵身份发起斗争校领导的。
It’s necessary to point out that in August when the theory is overwhelmingly dominant, to conduct revolution needed qualification. It is very possible that the students who started to denounce the school leaders were children of CCP officials. And after the appearance of the red guards, it is also possible that these students became red guards. But on the day of August 5 when denouncing the school leaders, they didn’t do that as red guards.
三．王女士是否知道8月5号那天发起斗争校领导的始作俑者，就是女士同班高一3班的某些学生？
Did Ms. Wang know that the originators for denouncing the school leaders on August 5 exactly were her classmates?
高一3班在那天所起的关键性作用，是当年女附中很多人都知道的。我在调查中，访问了班主任艾老师和若干位原高一3班学生，她（他）们都非常坦率地说到这个基本事实。老实说，对那天斗人时，谁格外活跃，大家也都心中有数。事过多年后，艾老师仍然不理解，一个文革前“不起眼”的班级怎么会在文革后突然疯狂。
Many people of the High School of that time know the key role played on that by Class 3 of senior grade 1. In my investigation, I interviewed Teacher Ai, the head teacher, and several students of the class. They all frankly talked about this fact. To be honest, all people of the High School knew who were particularly active. But teacher Ai still was not able to figure out many years after: how come an ordinary class before the cultural revolution suddent became that crazy?
我的遗憾是，没能找到当年的“活跃分子”，直接和她们交谈，了解她们当时的心态和今天的想法。据说，多年来高一3班从未有过全班聚会，一些人的踪迹已难以找寻。
Unfortunately, I didn’t find those activists, talk to them in person, and find out their mental status of current opinion. It is said this class have never had gatherings. It is hard to locate some of them.
在提及八五事件发起人时，王女士仅用“高一年级的红卫兵”做为主语。很难想象，作为高一3班的一员，王女士不知道她同班同学的关键作用。在当时和后来，王女士都有其它班级的人所没有的优势，来了解批斗校领导的活动到底是如何策划发起的，谁是主要的组织者，以及她们事先是否知会师生代表会。今天，所有这些重要信息都已模糊不清（据原师生代表会的负责人说，她们事先并不知道。其实，她们即使知道，也只能支持学生自发的“革命行动”）。在这些关键问题上，王女士并没有给我们提供任何帮助。如果王女士明明清楚是本班同学发起的，但出于种种原因希望模糊淡化这一事实，我可以理解。我不理解的是，为什么王女士总在突出和强调宋彬彬的作用？这是我下一个问题。
In her discussion about the initiator of the August 5 accident, Ms. Wang only said that it was ‘red guards of senior high grade 1’. As a student of Class 3, senior grade 1, Ms. Wang didn’t know the key role played by her classmates. At that time and afterwards, Ms. Wang had opportunity better than others to investigate the activities of denouncing the school leaders was planned and started. Who were the organizer, and whether they knew the Congress of Teachers and Students. Today, all the important information has become blurred. According to the persons in charge of Congress, they didn’t know anything about the denouncement beforehand. In fact, even if they had known, they only could have supported the ‘revolutionary action’ initiated by the students. On these key questions, Ms. Wang didn’t give us any help. If Wang knew that her own classmates were the initiators, but attempted to water down the fact, I would understand. But I don’t understand why Wang always stresses the role played by Song Binbin. This is my next question.
四．为什么多年来王友琴女士一直将矛头指向既没有发起斗争校领导、也没有参与打人的宋彬彬？
有关宋彬彬的问题，因为涉及到我认为非常重要的文革研究中带有普遍性的倾向，我会在后面做比较详细的讨论，这里仅仅提出问题。
4. Why, for so many years, has Wang You-qin been concentrating on Song Bin-bin who did not start denouncing the school leadership, nor took part in the beating? The issue of Song Binbin is related to a universal tendency which I believe is very important to the research on the cultural revolution, I will discuss it in detail later. So here I am raising the question only.
五．王友琴女士在关于卞仲耘之死的调查中，提到一份包括宋彬彬在内的七人名单。学“法律”的哈里斯先生将此名单认定为宋彬彬等红卫兵应对卞之死负责的“证据”。由王友琴女士做顾问的胡杰影片《我虽死去》也给人以这份名单的重要性非同小可的印象，可见这份名单在王女士叙事版本中举足轻重的分量。请问王女士是否对该名单做过认真调查？是否知道这个名单是谁的笔迹？当时做什么用途？
In the investigation conducted by Ms. Wang You-qin on the death of Bian Zhong-yun, she mentioned a list of seven people including Song Bin-bin. Mr. Harris, a student of law, claims this name list as evidence that Song Bin-bin and other red guards were responsible for the death of Bian. The list was also in the movie ‘Even though I Died’ made by Hu Jie who was also an advisor to Wang you-qin, it also impresses people that it was significant. So, it is vitally important in Wang You-qin’s story.
（下图：七人名单）
关于这份名单，王女士是这样说的：王晶垚先生在卞去世后赶到医院，因为不认识在场的人，王先生请求“女附中权力当局”写下他们的名字，事后他保留了这份有七人名字的纸片。王女士说，“这七人中有六人是红卫兵，名单的第一个名字是宋彬彬，该校高三的学生，红卫兵负责人”。
About this list, Ms. Wang talked about this list as following. Mr. Wang Jing-yao rushed to the hospital after Bian passed away. As he didn't know anyone at present, Mr. Wang requested the 'authorities of the High School for Girls' to wrote down 'their names'. And later he saved this piece of paper bearing the seven names. Ms. Wang said: 'six of these seven people were red guards,', and the first name on the list is Song Bin-bin, a senior student of the s
据我了解，这份名单是李松文老师写的，他竖着写了七个人的名字。阅读竖排字的通常顺序是从右到左（而非王女士的从左到右）。名单中第一名是李老师本人，也是七人中唯一的教师，最后一名是宋彬彬。六个学生中，三名高二学生，三名高三学生。当时的情况是，8月5号傍晚7点多钟卞校长终于被送到邮电医院，师生代表会教师代表李松文老师和其它几位教师、师生代表会主席刘进、副主席宋彬彬和其它一些学生，都参与了送卞仲耘入院的过程。到了医院后，起初院方不愿救治，要求出示学校证明，因一时无法做到，而时间不等人，李松文老师签名作为担保，并征得学生同意，写下了在场他认识的六个人的姓名，共同承担责任，这样医院才进行了抢救。（多年后还有原女附中老师说，很佩服李松文当年的胆量。）当然，这时的抢救已经无效。关于这份名单，最近有原女附中学生做了详尽的调查。我希望这个调查能够和大家见面，这里仅作简要说明。
As far as I know, this name list was written by Teacher Li Song-wen. He wrote the seven names vertically. When reading this type of writing, one need do it from right to left, rather than from left to right as Ms. Wang did. The first name was Li himself, the only teacher of the seven. The last one was Song Bin-bin. Of the six students, three were of grade 2 of senior high, the other three were of grade 3 of senior high. The situation was that at about seven o’clock on the evening of August 5, Bian was finally sent to the You-dian Hospital. Teacher Li Song-wen and several other teachers, chair of the Congress Liu Jin, vice chair Song Bin-bin and several other students, were sending Bian to the hospital. Upon arrival, the hospital was not willing to take Bian at first, and requested an official document from the school. This was not possible in a short time, and no time could be wasted. Teacher Li signed his name as guarantee, obtaining the consent of six students, and wrote down their names whom he knew to share the responsibility. The hospital then started the rescue with this name list. Many years later, some teachers from the School of that time still expressed admiration of Teacher Li’s courage. Of course, the rescue already couldn’t work at this time. Recently, some the School’s alumna conducted thorough investigation on this name list. I hope it be published as soon as possible. And I just told a short story of it.
这份名单后来到了王晶垚先生手中。看起来，王先生对它的记忆有误差。事隔多年，有误差不奇怪。作为研究者，王女士应调查核实，起码该找找健在的李松文老师。
This list later fell into Mr. Wang Jingyao’s hand. It seems Mr. Wang’s memory is not exactly correct. This is normal as many years have passed. As a researcher, Mr. Wang should have conducted investigation, at least talked to Teach Li Songwen who was still alive.
上述五个方面涉及了女附中八五事件的一些核心问题。我和王友琴女士对该事件叙述的基本不同，或曰我们两个“版本”的基本区别，在这五个方面有清晰的反映。
The above five questions concern some central issues of the August 5 Incident. My description of this incident is different from Ms. Wang’s. Or the basic difference of my version and Wang’s, is mirrored in these five aspects.
现在，我想再回到第四个问题上，集中谈谈与宋彬彬有关的“事儿”。
坦白地说，我在写作关于卞仲耘之死的学术论文时，并不愿意涉及宋彬彬，原因在于，我没有找到任何宋在8月5号参与组织游斗卞仲耘或其它校领导的证据。如果说，我以前不想纠缠宋彬彬的问题，是认为这与严肃的学术讨论无关，现在我愿意认真地对待它。所以这样做，是因为王友琴女士不断将我们的注意力引向宋彬彬，也因为关于宋彬彬/“宋要武”与八五事件有关的说法，不自王女士始，而是流传了几十年，长盛不衰，这本身就是一个值得历史工作者注意的有趣现象。
Now I like to return to question #4, and focus on the matter of Song Binbin. Frankly, when writing the thesis on the death of Bian Zhong-yun, I didn’t want to involve Song Binbin. The reason was that I didn’t find any evidence that Song organized the denouncement of Bian on August 5. If I didn’t want to discuss Song Binbin because I didn’t think it was relevant to earnest academic discussion, but like to deal with it now in earnest. This is because that Wang always always directs our attention to Song. Also The opinion of Song Binbin/Song Yaowu being related to the August 5 Accident didn’t not start from Ms. Wang, but has been circulated for decades. This phenomenon itself deserves attention from the historians.
仔细阅读王友琴女士关于卞仲耘之死的调查，不难看出她时时将注意力锁定在宋彬彬身上，但关于宋与八五事件的关系却又语焉不详。王女士没有提供任何证据证明宋参与策划发起游斗校领导的行动，也没有任何证据证明宋具体参与了对包括卞仲耘在内的校领导的言语辱骂和人身伤害。但同时，宋彬彬又是王女士文中唯一被点名的人，她的名字反复出现在王女士的叙述中。她与八五事件到底是什么关系？在这最关键的问题上，读者似乎得顺着王女士的叙述逻辑，得出自己的推论：八五事件是红卫兵的行动→宋彬彬是红卫兵负责人→作为负责人，宋彬彬应该负责任。
Carefully Reading Wang’investigation on the death of Bian, it is not hard to see that Wang focused her attention on Song, but didn’t make it clear on the relevance between Song and the August 5 accident. Wang provides any evidence on neither Song taking part in planning the action of denouncing the school leaders, nor abusive language and beating behavior. But in the meantime, Song is the only name mentioned in Wang’s article, and this name frequently appears in Wang’s description of the accident. Then, what is the relationship between Wang and the accident? At this most crucial question, the reader can seemingly follow Wang’s deduction: The August 5 accident was an action by the red guards. Song was in charge of the red guards. Thereafter, Song was responsible for the accident.
不仅在八五事件上王友琴女士突出了莫须有的“红卫兵负责人”宋彬彬的作用，就是6月初文革开始以来女附中的一系列重大事件，如“第一张大字报”，师生代表会的成立，和向邓小平汇报，宋彬彬都是唯一有名有姓的学生，其它人都成了她后面的“等”。
Wang You-qin emphasized Song Bin-bin’s role as groundless labeling her as ‘person in charge’, and all other events since the beginning of June, such as the writing of ‘the first big-character poster’, the establishment of the congress of teachers and students, reporting to Deng Xiaop-ping. Song was the only name mentioned. No other names were.
文革开始以来，宋彬彬确实是主要的学生积极分子之一。但如果一定要在文革初期的女附中找出一个学生“头儿”，这个头儿应该是刘进，不是宋彬彬。“第一张大字报”是刘进发起写的，宋彬彬与另一个学生参与签名；在师生代表会里，主席是刘进，宋是四个副主席之一（而并非像王女士所说的，“主任”是工作组长，“宋彬彬等”为“副主任”）。没有任何证据说明在文革初期骨干学生群体里，宋彬彬比刘进更重要。不提刘进，只提宋彬彬，对于熟悉当年女附中情况的人来说，是有些奇怪的。
At the beginning of the cultural revolution, Song Binbin was indeed one of the major activists. But if we have to name a student as leader, this person should be Liu Jin, not Song Binbin. The author of the first big-character poster was Liu Jin. Song and another student were just signed their names. In the congress of teachers and students, the chair was Liu Jin. Song was one of four vice chairs. But not as Ms. Wang said that the ‘director’ was the leader of work team, and Song and some others were ‘vice directors’. There is no evidence that Song was more important than Liu at the beginning of the cultural revolution. For those who are familiar with the situation will feel somewhat strange if a discussion only mentions Song Binbin, but not Liu Jin.
但认真一想，又并不奇怪。是“宋要武”害了宋彬彬，是“八一八”改写了“八五”，也改写了文革初期以来的女附中历史。
But consider in earnest, it would not be strange. It was Song Yaowu who harmed Song Binbin, August 18 that rewrote the August 5 Accident, and also rewrote the history of the High School for Girls.
自从八一八宋彬彬上天安门给毛泽东戴红卫兵袖章，成了红卫兵的“脸”，宋彬彬就不再属于她自己，甚至连叫什么名字都无法做主了。（这里加一句：在得到上天安门的通知后，是刘进决定由宋彬彬带领四十名女附中学生上天安门，刘本人和多数学生留在广场。）因为毛泽东一句“要武嘛”，宋彬彬在全国人民心中变成了钦定的“宋要武”。八一八后局势的迅猛发展，使北京成为“红色恐怖”的无底深渊，“红卫兵”成了无法无天、草菅人命的代名词。还有什么比“要武”二字更能精炼地概括暴力横行天下的恐怖？而这个“宋要武”正好来自刚刚打死校长的学校，还有什么能比这更说明问题！“宋要武”顿时成了一个鲜明的符号，一个浓缩的象征，在很多人的心目中，它代表的是以干部子女为主体的“红卫兵”的蛮横、暴虐，对生命的极端漠视，和对法制的任意践踏。不要忽略宋彬彬是东北局书记宋任穷女儿的家庭背景，这一背景也是王女士刻意提醒读者的：一个来自打死校长的学校的高官的女儿。不经意中，19岁的宋彬彬背负了沉重的历史和政治的十字架。
After Song Bin-bin wore the armband of red guard on Mao Ze-dong’s arm on August 18, 1966, she became the symbol of red guards. She no longer belonged to herself, and was even not able to decide what name to take. It helps to add that after being notified of going to tian-an-men tower, it was Liu Jin made the decision that Song Bin-bin would take the 40 students to the stand, while she and most other students remained in the square). Because of Mao Ze-dong said: ‘yao wu (take up arms)’, for the people of whole country, Song Bin-bin became ‘yao wu’ appointed by the emperor. After August 18, the situation in Beijing changed rapidly, which made Beijing
“宋要武”迅速地成为了传说，在大江南北不胫而走。1966年10月我和我的同学们在南方串联，看到一份到处张贴的传单，上面说宋要武打死了多少人，印象中有六七个人之多。记得我们看后一笑置之，觉得编得太离谱。
但既然是“宋要武”，怎能与发生在她自己学校打死校长之事无染？她必得有染才是宋要武，她必得杀人如麻才是宋要武。于是就有了上面提到的1966年秋天的传单。
‘Song Yaowu’ was rapidly becoming a legend walking everywhere in the nation. In October 1966 when traveling with my classmates in Southern China, everywhere I read a pamphlet, saying how many people that Song had beaten up to death, I remember the number was six or seven. We all ignore it, feeling the story was too far from the truth. But she was ‘Song Yaowu’, she must have been part of beating the principal of her school to death. And she must have killed many people. This is why the appearance of above-mentioned pamphlet.
令人遗憾的是，事隔多年后，王友琴女士仍然没有脱离“宋要武传说”的窠臼，所以才在她的叙述中，出现了女附中在8月初即存在红卫兵、红卫兵打死了校长、宋要武是红卫兵负责人等一系列说法，也才有了宋彬彬在文革之初即为女附中造反学生第一人的指认。如此，才能圆“宋要武传说”，成全一个有头有尾、“顺理成章”的“故事”。也只有头尾连贯，才使得女附中八五事件在哈里斯先生眼里获得“历史意义”。宋彬彬成为赋予八五事件历史意义的关键人物，连接了8月5号的女附中校园和八一八的天安门大舞台，因此，就注定了她在八五那天不能因工作组的撤离而心感迷茫，不能在斗校领导事发后反应乏力、劝阻无效，不能最终出现在将卞仲耘送往医院的人群中，不能连夜和另外几个学生一起向上级汇报，而只能做打死校长的“红卫兵”的“负责人”。
Unfortunately, many years after, Wang youqin is still not able to jump out of the ‘legend of Song Yaowu’. Therefore, in her story, red guards were already in the High School in early August. The red guards beat the principal to death. Song Yaowu was in charge of the red guards. And so forth. So Song Binbin was the first rebellious student at the High School. Only this can make a complete ‘legend of Song Binbin’with a beginning and an end. So the August 5 Incident has historic significance in Harris’eyes. Song Binbin became the key person who gave historical significance to the August 5 Accident. She linked the campus of High School for Girls on August 5 with the Tian-an-men Square
美国有一位叫柯文的中国史学者，在他的题为《历史三调》的书里，谈到历史书写时，有这么一句话：What comes after cannot influence what came before （Paul Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth, NY: Columbia University, 1997, p.62/《历史三调：作为事件、经历和神话的义和团》，杜继东译，江苏人民出版社，2000），这句话的意思是，后面发生的事情不能倒过来影响已经发生了的事情。我在琢磨“宋要武传说”到底是怎么回事儿时，这句话给以我启迪。我们眼前看到的，是一个典型的“后面发生的事情”影响“已经发生了的事情”的例子。
Paul Cohen, American scholar on Chinese history, in his History in Three Keys, says: What comes after cannot influence what came before. This sentence means: what happens after an event cannot move in front of the event to affect it. This sentence gave me revelation when I was figuring out the ‘legend of Song Yaowu’. What we have seen is a typical case of ‘what happened after an event’affects the ‘event.’
其实，柯文说的这一历史书写中的倾向，古今中外都不罕见；在中国文革史的书写中，这个现象可以说比比皆是。不说别的，就说对林彪的研究，一个“九一三事件”，就抹煞了历史上的林彪和他的战功，明明会打仗也成了不会打仗。在中国二十世纪其它时期的历史研究中，这种例子也不乏见，使历史丧失了公信力。在这个意义上，女附中的例子不是孤立的个案，而有相当的代表性。
在《历史三调》中，柯文讨论了“神话”（myth）现象，认为这是人们和“过去”发生联系的一个重要方式，而且往往比严肃的历史书写更容易深入人心。我马上想到的一个例子，就是《三国演义》比《三国志》更为人们熟知。一提起曹操，就是《三国演义》里的大奸雄，而对历史人物曹操，既没有多少人了解，也没有多少人感兴趣。拿宋彬彬和曹操相比，极不恰当，但人们对“宋要武”的兴趣远远超过真实生活中的宋彬彬，却是实情。Myth（神话）所以能够流传久远，是因为它往往表达了人们心中受到压抑的诉求，甚至可以成为人们对现实批判的一种方式，因而有深厚的“群众基础”。有时myth甚至可以成为一些人坚守的“信仰”，触犯它会激起“众怒”
In fact, this tendency of writing history discussed by Cohen is not rare in both China China
我的感觉，经过多年“发酵”，“宋要武传说”已具备这个特点，质疑它会激起人们强烈的情绪反应。我署名“白芳”的文章在网上发表后，我对此已有领教。有意思的是，对“宋要武传说“不但在中国、在外国也有人“追捧”，哈里斯先生就是个例子；不但普通百姓，严肃的学者也无法“免俗”。就在最近，一位在国内颇受尊重的学者仍在一份很有影响的杂志上重复此说。柯文说，myth虽然偏离历史真实，但对了解人们的心理、精神和情绪有重要价值，具有心灵史上的意义。学者也是人，胸中也有块垒，有时也要借题发挥，而对某一说法是否有事实根据未必总那么在意。应该承认，“宋要武传说”是个“好故事”，对今天的中国颇有寓意。但好故事未必是好历史，事实上，好故事往往不是好历史。作为一个历史工作者，我别无选择，只能有一说一，有二说二。哈里斯先生说我是“宋彬彬和刘进的朋友”，我最初的反应是不值一驳，但又一想，觉得这背后的思维方式很成问题。对不同意见，不是就事实和观点进行辩论，而是对我和宋刘二人的关系进行主观臆测，这不够高明。至于要解释“宋要武传说”是如何形成的，为什么几十年来长盛不衰，值得认真写一篇论文，在这里无法展开。但说到底，与文革从未得到过彻底清算，与人们对中国现实的种种不满，应该有密切的关联。这就是为什么我对王友琴女士其实有“同情的理解”。
I feel that after many years of being fictionalized, the legend of Song Yaowu has already attained this feature. Questioning it would arouse strong emotional response. I’ve experienced it after my article in the pen name of Bai Fang published in the Internet. It is interesting to note that the Song Yaowu legend has fans not only in China China China
为了写这篇文章，我再次翻看了王女士的《文革受难者》，再次被女士挺身为文革中遇难的“小人物”代言而感动。我们虽然在关于女附中八五事件的叙述上有诸多分歧，但我们用自己的心血，提醒人们不忘人类历史上无比残暴血腥的一页的目标是一致的。我们两人均在海外，有很多国内没有的便利条件。目前，文革研究在国内几成禁区。在这种情况下，有条件做文革研究的人，就更有责任力求在事实上准确严谨，切记道德评判不能代替事实考证，政治正确不能代替事实准确，这样才能在历史上站住脚。我欣赏胡适的一句话：“有几分证据，说几分话；有七分证据，不说八分话”，愿与王友琴女士共勉。
In order to write this article, I browsed Wang youqin’s ‘Victims of the Cultural Revolution’ again, and was moved by her standing up to speak out for those who were persecuted to death during the cultural revolution. Though our descriptions of the August 5 Accident at the High School for Girls are different, we share the common goal of reminding people of an extremely bloody and cruel page of human history. We are both overseas, having many conveniences not available in China China
最后，我想对哈里斯先生说，你提出了一个很好的问题：谁之责？哈里斯先生不满意将一切责任都推给毛泽东，我也不满意。和哈里斯先生不同的是，我不认为卞仲耘之死的惨剧是个易于审理的法律问题。法律不是全能的，特别是应用于由最高领袖有意制造的“天下大乱”的非常时期。在一度出现“你一下、我一下”众人参与打人的混乱情形下，到底谁是“凶手”？在“革命不是请客吃饭”成为很多人最高信条的时代，如何判断个人还剩下多少“自由意志”和“是非标准”？这样说，绝不是否认个人应负的责任，而是说，事情不像哈里斯先生想的那样简单明了、黑白分明。但同时我也认为，即使在那样一个癫狂的时代，不管怎么有限，仍然存在一定的个人选择空间。我曾自问，如果当时我在场，会怎么做？我知道，我会吓坏了，我甚至会在心里谴责眼前的暴力，但我绝不会有胆量上前阻拦，我不具备那样的道德勇气，我所受的教育不足以使我那样去做。
Lastly, I like to tell Mr. Harris: you’ve raised a very good question: Who is responsible? Mr. Harris is not satisfied with that all responsibilities go to Mao Zedong. Me either. But different from Harris, I don’t think the tragedy of Bian Zhongyun is a legal issue that is easy to handle. Legal system is not omnipotent, particularly applying to events in a chaotic period of time created intentionally by a top ruler. Which one is the murderer when the beating was participated by many people in a chaotic situation? When ‘revolution is not a dinner for invited guests’has become the supreme creed for many people, how to judge that how much ‘free will’and ‘criteria for right and wrong’have left to individuals? This is not to deny personal responsibility, but to say that things are not so simple and clearly demarcated as between black and white, as Harris sees them. But I also believe that even in deranged times, room still exists for individual choice, not matter how limited it is. I used to ask myself: If I had been present at the beating up, what would I have done? ,I know I would be extremely frightened. I even could have condemned the violence in front of me, but I would never have had gall to stop it. I din’t have the moral courage. The education I received could not make me to do it.
我想，四十多年后的今天，我们要做的不是去“抓凶手”，而是每个人面对自己的良知。我们都已鬓发灰白，夜深人静时，我们是否曾扪心自问？就像当时选择怎么做是要经过每个人的大脑一样，今天的反省也只能是个人的。在调查了解卞校长之死的过程中，我发现我和我很多校友们共同的问题是：
为什么当年北京最出色的女校的学生，会做出如此伤天害理的事情？
我们都在追问。
I think that after more than 40 years, what we need to do today is not to ‘catch the murderer’, but confront our own conscience. Our hair is turning white. Late at the quiet night, do we ever search in our own heart? Our engagement in introspection can be individual only, just like we think about it each time we make decision on what to do. In my investigation on the death of Principal Bian, I’ve found that many alumna and I have same question: why the students from the best school for girls in those days, could have done such bloody atrocities? We are all looking for answers.
