【作者】 刘金华；

【导师】 江弱水；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 美学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 本文所做的是关于神韵说与纯诗论的比较诗学研究。论文主体分为引言、正文和结语三部分共六章。引言部分拟对本研究为何以中国新诗理论为切入点做一说明。中国新诗自诞生之日起就处于不断的推翻与重建,中与外,新与旧,正与变等关系的循环中。与新诗自身包含的诸多矛盾相适应,启蒙、政治与美学等多重标准的并置,使得新诗理论研究难以形成稳定的发展模式。本文通过为神韵说和纯诗论建立谱系这一尝试,试图在梳理和界定两种基础诗学理论的基础上,还能够为发掘新诗发展的隐形线索以及史学定位提供帮助。正文部分首先梳理了神韵说与纯诗论的谱系,之后分三章考察了神韵说与纯诗论之间存在的文学的价值关系而不是事实关系。第三章“否定的诗学”。神韵说主张诗有别趣,不以文字、文学、议论和形器论诗；纯诗论从“诗不是什么”的角度定义诗,不以道德、科学、哲学和生活中的真实为诗。两种诗论都强调了诗与散文的区别,肯定了诗所以为诗的一面；第四章“暗示的诗学”。神韵说强调“妙悟”与“伫兴”,诗人惯于以少总多,以简驭繁,追求语言之外的深远韵味；纯诗论认为形式具有金子的价值,诗人重视“空白”与“暗示”,意图用文字创造音乐,在诗歌中追求一种“美学的震颤”。两种诗论都从“两端”论诗,尊重诗意产生的“偶然”,同时不乏对诗歌技巧的精微探讨；第五章“神秘的诗学”。神韵说推崇“兴趣”,波德莱尔强调“契合”。两种诗歌理论都突出了诗歌整体的浑融之美,在哲学层面上也都包含了一种泛神论的思想。在神韵与纯诗诗家看来,诗总尝试着把幻想变成事实,把神秘的事物化为常识。即便诗永远不能成功,也绝不会接受有局限的事实,秉持这种理念而作的诗,才算得上真正的诗。诗战胜了时间的一面,就在于它和别的艺术形式一样,可以同时吸取不同时期、地域和人群的成果。神韵说是中国一直或隐或显存在着的诗歌理论,纯诗论则是爱伦·坡确定诗的真正价值以来,出现于西方十九世纪末的诗学观念体系,两者分属异域,更不同时,然而,正是这两种诗学曾交汇于中国新文学时期,并共同影响了中国新诗。面对这两种似乎已成为“过去”的经典诗论,本文结语部分重申了诗论内容“无意中的巧合”。这两种诗论对具体诗学问题的思考,在今天看来仍不无启发意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation deliberately focuses on the comparative study on the poetic theories of Verve and Pure Poetry. The dissertation is divided into six chapters including an introduction, the research on pedigree, the body part comprising of three chapters and the conclusion. Since the birth of Chinese New Poetry at the beginning of the 20th century, the paradoxes such as Overthrown/Restruction, China/Foreign, New/old, Center/Change cycles, have existed spontaneously in the whole period of the Chinese Modern Literature. The study will be made under this specific situation. The purpose of this dissertation is to sort out and define the two basic poetic theories, and to explore the historical clues of Chinese New Poetry as well. The details are as follows:After arranging systematically the development of the poetic theories of Verve and Pure Poetry, the dissertation mainly explores the literary value relationship, but not the factual relationship, between them. There are three chapters in the main body of the dissertation:in the first chapter, which is entitled as "Negative Poetry". Theory of Verve advocates poetry should not be judged and analyzed from the perspectives of words, literature, discussion and form because poetry is of distinctive features, while Theory of Pure Poetry defines poetry from the angle of the concept that poetry is nothing. Accordingly the theory advocates ethics, science, philosophy and realities in life are not poetry. Both theories emphasize the differences between poetry and prose and further affirm the distinctive aspect of poetry. In the second chapter, which is entitled as "Implication of Poetry", Theory of Verve stresses epiphany and sudden comprehension. In pursuit of everlasting charm beyond language itself, the poets always attempt to employ as accurate and few words as possible.Theory of Pure Poetry attaches importance to form. Poets value blank space and implication, intend to create music by words and pursue the aesthetic shock in poetry. In the third chapter, which is entitled as "Mystery of Poetry", Theory of Verve speaks highly of "Interest". Baudelaire attaches importance to "Correspondence". Both theories give prominence to the beauty of being integrated as a whole, which include pantheism in philosophy. In the view of poets holding both theories, poetry always attempt to turn fantasy into reality, mysterious things into common sense. The composition of poetry should be under control of concepts, that is, never accept limitations although it is possible that poems will never be successful.Poetry can be immortal on the grounds, just as other forms of art, that it can absorb the achievements of different periods, regions and groups of people. Theory of Verve has been influential poetic theory in China while Theory of Pure Poetry has been poetic views in the Western regions at the end of 19th century since the establishment of poetic value by Adgar Allen Poe. Both theories in different regions and periods, however, encountered and were integrated in the period of Chinese New Literature and co-influenced Chinese new poems. The two seemingly has-been classical theories are concluded and reiterated as "unconscious coincidence". Today the two theories are still enlightening for the consideration on some concrete poetic issues.更多还原