文學觀念與文學批評史：上世紀三十年代關於郭紹虞《中國文學批評史》的評論

The Literary View and the History of Literary Criticism: Criticism about Guo Shaoyu's History of Chinese Literary Criticism in the Last Century's Decade of the Thirties

張健(Zhang Jian)

《中國文學學報》 1期 (2010/12) Pp. 225-259

https://doi.org/10.6903/JCL.201012_(1).0011

摘要

郭紹虞《中國文學批評史》的寫作與當時文化學術思潮密切相關，郭氏持文學進化及純文學觀念，將文學批評史分為三期：周秦至六朝文學觀念朝向純文學演進，為演進期；唐至北宋背離純文學觀念，為復古期；南宋以後綜合前兩期，為完成期。著者屢請胡適寫序，然胡序僅肯定其史料價值，卻否定其整體論斷。郭氏雖主文學進化，但其論述卻不符合進化論，胡適以為唐宋之復古正是進化，南宋以後仍在進化，不存在完成。郭紹虞雖未用胡序，卻在〈自序〉中暗作回應。錢鍾書〈論復古〉對郭著提出批評，而郭氏〈談復古〉作出回應。郭氏站在文學進化及純文學立場，以唐宋復古文學觀念為逆流；錢氏站在古典主義立場，質疑文學進化論及純文學觀，以為復古之實質是法自然，並非逆流。在當時，新文學派主文學進化，復古派主古典主義，二人雖討論批評史之復古問題，實則涉及新舊文學之爭。朱自清肯定郭氏以自己的材料與方法建立起中國文學批評的新的系統，但對其以純文學觀論述中國文學批評史提出質疑，認為無助於認識中國文學批評的本來面目。林庚則對郭著與羅根澤批評史作了比較評價，認為郭著是一元的史觀，羅著則是多元的；郭氏所有論述都圍繞史觀展開，羅氏則認為文學史多元發展，因而分別敘述。四人評論涉及文學觀念與文學批評史撰述諸問題，值得後人再思考。

關鍵字

文學批評史 ； 郭紹虞 ； 胡適 ； 錢鍾書 ； 朱自清 ； 林庚

並列摘要

The writing of Guo Shaoyu's History of Chinese Literary Criticism had a close relation to contemporary academic thought about culture. Using concepts of cultural evolution and of pure literature, Guo divided the history of literary criticism into three periods: from the Zhou and Qin dynasties to the Six Dynasties when the concept of literature tended towards pure literary development--a developmental period; from the Tang to the Northern Song dynasties when the concept of pure literature was abandoned--a period of returning to ancient styles; from the Southern Song Dynasty and thereafter, in which the preceding two periods were synthesized as a period of completion. The author repeatedly asked Hu Shi to write a preface, but Hu Shi would affirm only the value of the historical materials, denying the overall theoretical framework. Although Guo was mostly occupied with literary evolution, his narrative actually did not fit evolutionary theory; Hu Shi thought the return to ancient styles in the Tang and Song was really evolving, and that developments in the Southern Song and thereafter were still evolution--that there was no completion. Although Guo Shaoyu did not use Hu Shi's preface, in his own preface he wrote what can be taken as a response. In writing ＂On Imitation of Ancient Styles,＂ Qian Zhongshu criticized Guo, and in ＂Speaking of Returning to Ancient Styles＂ Guo gave his response. Guo's position was from the standpoint of literary evolution and pure literature. He saw the Tang-Song literary concepts about imitation of ancient styles as going against the current of historical flow. Qian Zhongshu's position was from the standpoint of classicism, and he doubted literary evolution and the concept of pure literature. He thought that returning to substantial ancient styles imitated nature, rather than going counter to the direction of historical flow. At that time, the New Literature School promoted literary evolution, and the Archaizing School advocated classicism. Although the two were discussing the problem of imitation of ancient styles in the history of literary criticism, the discussion really also had something to do with the struggle between new and old schools of literary thought. Zhu Ziqing affirmed that Guo had used his own materials and method to establish a new system of Chinese literary criticism, but doubted that pure literary concepts could narrate the history of Chinese literary criticism. He held that it was not helpful to understand the original reality of Chinese literary criticism. Lin Geng conducted a comparative assessment of Guo's contribution alongside of Luo Gengze's history of criticism, pointing out that Guo represented a unitary view of history while Luo held a pluralistic view. Guo's discussion always revolved around the unfolding of a view of history, while Luo's affirmed multiple developments, which thus could be treated separately. The critical discussions of the four men involved their views of literary concepts and selected aspects of the history of literary criticism, which merit further consideration by their successors.

並列關鍵字

history of literary criticism ； Guo Shaoyu ； Hu Shi ； Qian Zhongshu ； Zhu Ziqing ； Lin Geng