龔鵬程對話海外學者第六十二期：在后現代情境中，被技術統治的人類社會，只有強化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個人都應實踐的活動。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學研究中心”。我們會陸續推出“龔鵬程對話海外學者”系列文章，請他對話一些學界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學，會涉及多種學科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授（Professor Gabriele Rognoni）

英國皇家音樂學院的物質文化與音樂研究教授。

龔鵬程教授：您好。談到物質文化與音樂的關系，我立刻會想起：中國音樂的基本分類，正是由物質定的，金、石、絲、竹、匏、土、革、木，合稱“八音”，代表音樂的整體。有些地方的“八音會”未必八種物器齊備，也仍要以八音來標榜。相對來說，西方好像沒這么強調物器之聲。例如音樂只大體分為管弦樂或打擊樂，就其演奏的行為說，而不是就其物器說。談到提琴，也不會像中國這樣，要強調是“絲桐”，且絲桐就是古琴的代稱。您覺得這算是中西方的一種差異嗎？

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授：龔教授，您好。我總是被人們對人類經驗的巨大分類方式所吸引，因為這些方式往往反映了人們看待世界的不同方式。瑪格麗特-卡托米在她具有里程碑意義的《論樂器的概念和分類》一書中精彩地抓住了這一點。在這種情況下，我們需要關注樂器研究和音樂本身研究之間的區別。

談到樂器，西方在許多世紀以來采用了不同的分類系統，通常將其劃分為弦樂器、管樂器和打擊樂器。

然而，自19世紀末以來，維克多·查爾斯·馬榮、弗朗西斯·加爾平和科特·薩赫、埃里克·馮·霍恩博斯特爾根據每件樂器的發聲元件（產生聲波的部分）開發了一個更準確的系統，形成了體鳴樂器（如鐘等樂器，其振動是由三維物體產生的），膜鳴樂器（振動是由二維表面產生的），弦鳴樂器（振動是由線性體產生的）和氣鳴樂器（所有樂器的聲音是由空氣的振動產生的。振動是由三維物體產生的），膜樂器（振動是由二維表面產生的），和弦樂器（振動是由線性體產生的）和空氣樂器（所有樂器的聲音是由空氣體積的振動產生的）。

后來，又增加了電子樂器的類別。這種分類——及其眾多的細分——有助于比較不同地域和時間的樂器，有時還能突出音樂傳統之間的聯系，否則就不明顯了。

這個故事中有一個鮮為人知的部分，我覺得特別吸引人，那就是馬榮——他在布魯塞爾生活和工作——顯然從印度的分類系統中獲得了他的分類的靈感，這就再次強調了知識流通的重要性以及我們可以從彼此的傳統中學習到多少東西。

我一直很喜歡基于材料的中國分類系統的想法，因為反過來我相信它有可能向我展示特別吸引我的不同聯系。

然而，我想知道它是如何處理今天使用的各種合成材料和樂器的，如鋼琴，其中普遍的結構材料與聲音的產生沒有關系（鋼琴主體可以由木頭、金屬、有機玻璃，甚至玻璃制成），或如長笛這類樂器，是用木材、金屬、象牙和玻璃制成。

然而，雖然沒有一個分類系統是完美的，但許多學者試圖開發新的和更明確的方法，來對復雜的樂器進行分類，但沒有人能夠在一個系統中涵蓋所有的東西，而且要保持簡單和直接，并可以應用。

我想知道，一個新的多文化的方法，結合幾個世紀的傳統方法，是否會帶來新的和有趣的想法。

I am always fascinated by the many ways people classify the immensity of the human experience, as the often reflect different ways of looking at the world. This was wonderfully captured by Margaret Kartomi in her landmark book On Concepts and Classifications of Musical Instruments. In this case we need to focus on the difference between studies on musical instruments and those that focus on music itself. When it comes to musical instruments, the west has adopted different classification systems for many centuries, often dividing them in stringed, wind and percussion instruments. However, since the late 19th century, Victor Charles Mahillon, Francis Galpin and the Curt Sach and Eric von Hornbostel developed a more accurate system based on the sound-producing element of each instrument (the part that generates the sound-wave), resulting in the articulation in Idiophones (instruments such as bells, where the vibration is generated by a three dimensional object), Membranophones (where the vibration is generated by a bidimensional surface), Chordophones (where the vibration is generate by a linear body) and Aerophones (all instruments where sound is produced by the vibration of a volume of air).

Later on, the category of Electrophones had to be added. This – with its numerous subdivisions – has helped to compare musical instruments across geography and time and sometime highlighted connections between musical traditions that would not be evident otherwise. One of the less-known part of this story which I find particularly fascinating is that Mahillon – who lived and worked in Brussels – apparently took inspiration for this system from an Indian classification system, once more highlighting the importance of the circulation of knowledge and how much we can all learn from each other’s traditions.

I always liked the idea of the material-based Chinese classification system, as in turn I believe it has the potential to highlight different connections that are particularly interesting to me. However, I wonder how it deals with the variety of synthetic materials that are in use today and with instruments, such as the piano, where the prevalent material of construction is not relevant for the production of sound (piano bodies can be made of wood, metal, Plexiglas, even glass) or with instruments, such as the flute, that have been made in wood, metal, ivory and glass.

However, while no classification system is perfect, many scholars have tried to develop new and more articulated ways to classify the complexity of musical instruments, but no one has managed to cover everything in a system that remains sufficiently simple and straightforward to be usable. I wonder if a new multi-cultural approach, combining centuries of traditional approaches, might lead to new and interesting ideas.

龔鵬程教授：現代音樂教育似乎越來越偏于培養或成就藝術家，物質文化與音樂的關系，被認為屬于工匠的事，不受重視。音樂家只練習演奏，偶爾作曲，基本不會造琴。琴都是買的或借的。中國彈古琴的也一樣，通常不會斵琴修琴。您覺得這種“藝術和工技的區分”是必要或合理的嗎？

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授：曾幾何時，直到17世紀，歐洲音樂家們還普遍具有樂器制作和維修的技能。從那時起，這些技能變得越來越專業化，以至于同一個人在這兩方面都很出色變得非常困難，但也不是完全不可能。

另外，音樂家們有時也深怕毀掉他們的藝術所依賴的昂貴樂器，而更喜歡專業制作者或修理者所提供的安全感。

然而，我認識幾個優秀的專業音樂家——尤其是木管樂器演奏家——他們制作了自己演奏的樂器，往往達到了非常高的標準，所有的雙簧管和巴松管演奏家都花時間制作自己的簧片。

總的來說，音樂家和他們的樂器之間的關系，是非常物理性的，樂器對演奏者的影響，就像演奏者在某種特定的樂器上表現一樣出色，但有時在類似的樂器上卻不盡如人意。

因此，我相信鼓勵學生熟悉他們所演奏的樂器的物質性，對鼓勵心靈和身體之間更深的聯系有非常有益的影響，并將音樂體驗擴展為更全面的綜合體驗。現在鍵盤手可以學習鋼琴和大鍵琴的調音課程，而在這個方向上我們可以做得更多。

There was a time, until the Seventeenth century, when it was common for European musicians to also be skilled in musical instrument making and repair. Since then, the skills became more and more specialised to the point that it became very difficult – but not entirely impossible – for the same person to excel in both. Also, there is sometimes a deep fear by musicians to ruin the very expensive instruments on which their art relies, and to prefer the safety offered by a professional maker or repairer.

However, I know several excellent professional musicians – particularly among woodwind players – who have made the instruments that they play, often reaching very high standards and all oboe and bassoon players spend hours making their own reeds.

Overall, the relationship between musicians and their instruments is very physical and the instrument influences the performer as much as the performer excels on one specific instrument, but sometime not on a similar one. Therefore I believe that encouraging students to familiarise with the materiality of the instrument that they play can have very beneficial effects on encouraging a deeper connection between the mind and the body and expand the musical experience into a more holistic and comprehensive experience. Courses in piano and harpsichord tuning are now routinely offered to keyboard players and more could be done in this direction.

龔鵬程教授：由于工業化和社會變動，音樂與物器的關系也會有變化。例如中國本來有笛子，后來因胡漢交流加劇出現了羌人的樂器：羌笛，類似竹笛，但有簧片。近代則因文化大革命，制作古琴絲弦的人才斷層了，只好研究用鋼絲包尼龍線來代替。這似乎都是觀察物質文化與音樂關系的例子。您在這方面的研究，應該會給我們更多啟發。

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授：樂器確實是復雜的文化物品，因為它們處于技術、經濟和劇目之間的交叉點。此外，它們還需要適應人體的限制和音樂場所的要求。所有這些因素都隨著時間的推移而變化，因此，樂器也在變化，試圖滿足特定時間、地點和人群的不同需求和時機。這使得樂器不僅是產生聲音的物品，而且是社會和人類文化的有力代表。

我們博物館所收藏的樂器之一，是世界上現存最早的吉他。當我們看到它時，我們可能會想彈奏它，聽聽它的聲音。然而，我們也可以想想它精美的工藝，這是550年前里斯本木匠能力的一個典型代表，或者想一下它的材料，這些材料來自遙遠的南美和非洲，代表了當時葡萄牙帝國的廣度。還可以把它作為一個起點，了解擁有和演奏它的特殊家庭的生活。然而，我們也可以研究這種樂器在今天如何在現代吉他演奏者中引發強大的反應，他們經常長途跋涉，來看看他們所演奏的樂器的最古老存在，或者它如何喚醒人們深刻的記憶，將吉他與他們生活中的重要時刻聯系起來。

因此，這種樂器跨越時間和空間將成千上萬的人聯系在一起，產生了遠遠超過其自身歷史的記憶和想法。

Musical instruments are indeed complex cultural objects as they are at the intersection between technology, economics, and repertoire. Moreover, they need to adapt to the limitations of the human body and to the requirements of music venues. All of these elements change with time, so that musical instruments also change, trying to meet the different demands and opportunities of specific times, places and people. This makes musical instruments not only sound producing objects, but also powerful representation of society and human culture.

One of the instruments that are held in our museum is the earliest guitar surviving in the world. When we look at it, we might want to play it to listen to its sound. However, we might also consider its beautiful workmanship, which is an extraordinary example of the ability of woodworkers in Lisbon 550 years ago, or consider its materials, which come from as far as South America and Africa and represent the breadth of the Portuguese empire at that time, and also take it as a starting point to understand the life of the exceptional families who owned and played it. However, we can also study how this instrument, today, triggers powerful reactions in modern guitar players, who often travel long journeys to come and see the oldest example of the instrument that they play, or how it can awaken profound memories in people who connect the guitar to important moments in their life. As such, this instrument connects thousands of people across time and space, generating memories and ideas that go well beyond its own history.

龔鵬程教授：我們近年在古書保存和修復的技術傳承和人才培養方面，都有了些成果，樂器的物質性保存和修復也同樣受到了重視。這方面，可以請教您們是怎么做的？

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授：自從我在這個領域開始工作以來，大約25年前，技術在文化遺產保護方面的應用有了令人難以置信的發展。我清楚地記得，二十年前某些技術是多么的冒險和復雜，而現在這些技術幾乎已經司空見慣。其中，CT掃描的使用，碳14用于木材測年，測年和材料分析技術往往是從醫療、軍事和安全行業中借用的，在這些行業中，更多的投資是集中于此。

然而，樂器保護的一些基本問題仍然沒有得到解決，因為它們涉及到道德決定而不是科學：我們可以在多大程度上修改一件舊樂器，以使其可以再次演奏？在做出這些決定時，應該以什么觀點為準？我們應該追求什么樣的聲音理想？樂器的使用/維護/修理往往導致歷史證據的破壞和新材料的加入，但它也使人們能夠欣賞和理解該樂器的演奏方式，并加強該物品與音樂家和公眾之間的聯系。

雖然我相信科學和技術將永遠向前發展，并導致新的驚人的發現，但我相信這些問題的答案將一直變化，因為它們與不斷變化的文化觀念有關。

在過去的十年里，我在我的領域里看到的最有趣的發展，是視角的擴展和學科障礙的消除，所以今天我們知道我們與許多其他類型的物體——例如歷史上的汽車、衣服、科技產物——共享其中的一些問題，我們可以討論包容更多復雜程度的想法。還有很多工作要做，但我們正逐漸把樂器看作不是孤立的物品，而是作為具有特定功能的更廣泛的人類人工制品文化的一部分。

當與來自不同國家的同事進行討論時，這種討論變得更加有趣，因為每個文化傳統在保護文化遺產方面都有不同的優先事項和關于對錯的想法，這表明我們也許應該放棄對錯的分類，而是關注我們今天如何與我們過去的物質記憶聯系起來。

The application of technology to the preservation of cultural heritage has developed incredibly since I started working in this area, about 25 years ago. I remember very well how adventurous and complex certain techniques appeared twenty years ago, which are now almost commonplace. Among them the use of CT scanning, Carbon 14 for wood dating, dating and material analysis techniques often borrowed from the medical, military and security industries, where more investment are focused. However, some of the fundamental issues of musical instrument conservation are still unresolved, as they relate to ethical decisions rather than science: how much can we modify an old musical instrument in order to make it playable again? What perspectives should prevail when these decisions are taken? What sound ideal should we pursue? The usage/maintenance/repair of musical instruments often leads to the destruction of historical evidence and to the addition of new materials, but it also enables the appreciation and understanding of the way that instrument was played and strengthens the connection between the object, the musicians and the public.

While I believe that science and technology will always move forward and lead to new impressive discoveries, I believe that the answers to these questions will always change, as they relate to cultural ideas which are constantly in flux.

The most interesting development that I have seen in my field over the past decade has been the expansion of perspectives and the removal of disciplinary barriers, so that today we know that we share some of these questions with many other types of objects – for example historical cars, clothes, objects of science and technology – and we can discuss ideas embracing a much greater level of complexity. There is still a lot of work to do, but we are gradually looking at musical instruments not as isolated objects, but as part of a much broader culture of human artefacts that have a specific function.

This discussion becomes even more interesting when undertaken with colleagues from different countries, as each cultural tradition has different priorities and ideas about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the preservation of cultural heritage, which shows that we should probably abandon the categories of right and wrong and focus instead on how we all relate today with the material memories of our past.

龔鵬程教授：對于數字技術對音樂遺產的記錄和傳播，您們又是怎么做的？

加布里埃爾·羅格諾尼教授：數字人文領域的技術發展甚至更快，在線和數字資源的數量和質量幾乎已經讓人無法跟上。出于這個原因，每個機構在投資數字項目時，都需要確定一些可管理的優先事項來關注。就我而言，我認為我們領域最緊迫的兩個優先事項是鞏固和擴大網絡，以及在更廣泛和不同類型的受眾中建立對我們領域的復雜性和興趣的認識。

對于第一個問題，我相信沒有一個音樂博物館足夠大，足夠引人注目，可以單獨出類拔萃，數字技術可以幫助我們與其他可比的機構，無論大小，在我們的領域和相關領域，擴大我們的影響力和聯系。在過去的幾年里，我們開發了兩個大型項目。第一個項目匯集了來自世界各地的64,000多件樂器，第二個項目專注于英國的200多個收藏，可以讓人訪問超過20,000件樂器。這種類型的集合增加了樂器在文化遺產大世界中的影響，多年來產生了許多進一步的項目，使不同時代和文化的樂器得到比較，并促進了與其他研究領域的合作。

此外，我堅信社交媒體連接人們的力量，盡管我也意識到這個不斷發展的新世界的風險和弱點。然而，我也意識到，技術并不是每個人都能平等獲得的，當我們把資源集中在技術上時，我們有可能把大量可能有身體、經濟或文化障礙而無法使用技術的人排除在外。因此，我認為我們應該特別小心，確保每一個數字項目都有對它可能造成的障礙的仔細研究，以及解決如何減輕這些障礙的周密策略。

Technological development is even faster in the field of digital humanities and the number and quality of online and digital resources has become almost impossible to follow. For this reason each institution needs to identify a manageable number of priorities to focus on when investing in digital projects. In my case, I believe that the two most urgent priorities in our field are the consolidation and expansion of networks and the creation of awareness of the complexity and interest of our field among a broader and diverse type of audience.

For the first, I believe that no music museum is big and visible enough to excel on its own and that digital technologies can help us to connect with other comparable institutions, small and large, in our field and in relatable field, to expand our reach and connect. Two large projects were developed over the past years. The first brings together over 64,000 musical instruments from all over the world, and the second focuses on over 200 collections in the UK offering access to over 20,000 instruments. This types of aggregations increase the impact of musical instruments in the large world of cultural heritage and has generated many further projects over the years, enabling the comparison of instruments across time and cultures and facilitating the collaboration with other areas of study.

Also, I strongly believe in the power of social media to connect people, although I am also aware of the risks and weaknesses of this new and ever-evolving world. However, I am also aware that technology is not equally accessible to everyone, and when we focus resources on technology we risk excluding large numbers of people who might have physical, economic or cultural barriers that prevent them from using them. Therefore I believe that we should be particularly careful in always making sure that every digital project is accompanied by a careful study of the barriers that it can create and by a careful strategy addressing how these could be mitigated.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學博士，當代著名學者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規劃城市建設、主題園區等多處。講學于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展。現為中國孔子博物館名譽館長、美國龔鵬程基金會主席。