摘要
嚴復與梁啟超相差近20歲，在清末民初思想界均曾發揮關鍵性的影響。本文主要依賴嚴梁之著作、書札中提及對方的史料與相關文獻，來釐清雙方之友誼，並以此反省近代中國知識份子間的互動。簡言之，嚴梁在思想上親和，在私交上卻頗為疏離。在思想路向上，光緒29年（1903）之後，嚴梁都採取溫和漸進的「調適模式」，反對激烈的「轉化」主張。但奇特的是兩人之間的交往主要不在學術討論，而在詩文酬和，以及嚴復單方面對梁政治立場的抨擊。嚴復從戊戌前夕到過世之前，一貫地在公私場合批評任公在言行上的激烈、躁進，造成中國的亂象。他完全抹煞任公在光緒29年訪美歸來之後從激進到保守的重大轉變。作為後輩的任公則默默地接受嚴復的批評，除了光緒23年（1897）所寫的〈與嚴又陵先生書〉之外，我們看不到任何的反駁。嚴梁之間的關係，和梁啟超、胡適之間的關係有明顯的不同。梁胡之間有更多學術上的討論，少有政治辯論，而沒有詩文酬和。相對於嚴復對任公激進、革命傾向的批評，胡適以為任公最大的貢獻在「指摘中國文化的缺點，頌揚西洋的美德」；最大的缺點是「衛道」。嚴復與胡適對任公評價的差異，顯示中國激烈化的走向日盛一日。嚴梁之交往亦顯示雙方缺乏合理的對話，無法以容忍精神來尋求團結與合作，這是近代中國許多知識份子所面臨的一個難題，也是自由主義在中國發展的一個嚴重障礙。
並列摘要
Yan Fu (1854-1921) was twenty years older than Liang Qichao (1873-1929). Both men exerted tremendous influence on the intellectual world in late Qing and early Republican China. Based on the works by Yan and Liang, the correspondence between them, and other materials, this paper studies their friendship and further examines the interactions among intellectuals in modem China. To put it briefly, Yan and Liang were intellectually intimate but socially alienated. In terms of their intellectual approaches, especially after 1903, Yan and Liang both adopted a mild, gradualist, accommodative mode of thinking, and rejected the radical, transformative alternative. Yet the major interactions between them were not intellectual discussions, but poems written to each other on special occasions and Yan's unilateral criticism on Liang's political stance. From the eve of the 1898 Reform Movement to his death, Yan consistently criticized Liang in public and in private for radical, ”irresponsible,” and revolutionary thought and action that contributed to the ”radicalization” of chaotic China. Yan completely ignored Liang's intellectual transformation that took place after his trip to America in 1903. After this transformation Yan and Liang in fact shared a very similar intellectual outlook. Being a member of the younger generation, Liang just accepted Van's criticism without arguing with Van directly (his letter to Yan written in 1897 was an exception). The relationship between Yan and Liang was very different from that between Liang and Hu Shi (1891-1962). Liang and Hu had more intellectual discussions, less political debates, and did not write poems to each other. In contrast to Yan's criticism of Liang's radical thought, Hu said that Liang's most important contribution was ”pointing out the shortcomings of Chinese culture and glorifying Western virtues.” And Liang's biggest mistake was to ”protecting Chinese culture.” The different evaluations of Liang by Yan and Hu indicate the growing radicalization in twentieth-century China. The interaction between Yan and Liang also reveals their lack of reasonable dialogue and their failure to cooperate on the basis of the idea of tolerance. This failure has been a serious problem of Chinese intellectuals in modem times and an obstacle for the development of liberalism in China.