【作者】 刘丹霓；

【导师】 杨燕迪；

【作者基本信息】 上海音乐学院 ， 音乐学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 德国音乐学家卡尔·达尔豪斯(Carl Dahlhaus,1928-1989)是公认的20世纪下半叶西方音乐学研究的领军人物,也是现当代西方音乐史学研究最具影响力的学者之一,在音乐史学学术范型转变过程中发挥着承前启后的重要作用。本论文旨在对其音乐史学研究进行综合性考察,立足史学元理论思考与研究写作实践两个层面,以达尔豪斯的最主要研究领域之一——19世纪音乐史为焦点,力求在理论与实践的比照与互动中,展开对其音乐史学方法论的探索,以实现对其史学研究较为全面的认识和深入的理解,并在此基础上对其历史地位进行相对公允的评价,获得对于当下音乐史学研究的启示。达尔豪斯音乐史学的核心要旨是审美与历史的关系,其音乐历史哲学以此为根本问题,其音乐史学研究写作实践以此为中心目标,其音乐史学研究方法则是致力于实现这一目标的重要途径。本文认为,达尔豪斯并未真正提出一套立场鲜明、体系完整的音乐史学理论,而是在普通历史哲学的基本框架下,对音乐史学各个维度(涉及历史事实、历史主体、历史理解、历史解释、历史叙事、价值判断等)的基本问题以及与之相关的既有理论进行反思和论证,意在凸显音乐历史自身的特殊性,这在学理反思相当贫乏的音乐史学界不啻为具有里程碑意义的成就。然而,对于达尔豪斯这样一位笔耕不辍的著述者而言,具体音乐史课题的研究和历史写作或许比理论反思有着更为关键和切实的意义,其理论思考更多不是支配实践的决定性原则,而是为实践探索可行之路,提供有效的指引和建议。其视野宽广、视角多元、态度开放、卷帙浩繁的研究著述最大程度地展现出其独树一帜的学术风格和敏锐深邃的音乐洞见。达尔豪斯独特的史学方法论是其整体音乐史学研究中最为重要的贡献之一。本文总结了其方法论中最为突出、最具个性的三个方面：“结构性思维”、多元方法的折衷主义、作品与历史的辩证关系。其中又以“结构性思维”占据主导,它普遍贯穿于达尔豪斯史学探索的各个层面,直接影响到其学术风格的成型。根据达尔豪斯的史学成就,基于其所处的特定历史情境,并放眼当下的音乐学术生态,本文认为,达尔豪斯以其深刻的音乐史学原理反思、独特的音乐史学方法论、对诸多音乐历史问题的敏锐洞见以及规模庞大的著述成果,从传统音乐史学内部发动了意义深远的革新,成为引领音乐史学学术转向的主要先驱之一,在近四十年中先后对德语学界、英美学界和中国学界产生不同程度的影响。其学术思想总体而言具有相当程度的包容性、开放性、批判性和务实性,同时也不乏矛盾性,在个别问题上由于特定的文化情境和意识形态制约而略显保守。其结构性思维、多元方法论以及个性化的历史诠释和写作方式对于当下中国的西方音乐史乃至中国音乐史研究具有启示意义。本文主体内容由七章构成,分为上、中、下三篇。上篇“理论篇”包括第一章,主要围绕达尔豪斯对音乐历史哲学的反思,结合普通史学和艺术史学中的相关理论和倾向,分别审视其对各个史学基本问题的研究；同时呈现了新旧史学思潮在其中的碰撞,力图表明达尔豪斯史学思想的折衷姿态、批判意识和务实态度。中篇“实践篇”包括第二章至第五章,从思想观念、艺术问题、社会建制三个方面来审视达尔豪斯对19世纪音乐史的研究。第二章涉及达尔豪斯对19世纪音乐史的总体看法。第三章论述了他对影响19世纪音乐的三种主要思想观念的深入研究,即绝对音乐观念、现实主义和民族主义。第四章审视了其关于19世纪音乐中各种艺术问题的考察,主要触及这一时期音乐语言的普遍问题以及交响曲和歌剧两个领域中的创作问题。第五章聚焦于达尔豪斯对19世纪音乐的社会性研究,包括资产阶级的音乐文化以及相关的主要音乐建制。经过以上两篇对“理论”与“实践”两个层面的考察,下篇“审思篇”致力于探索达尔豪斯的音乐史学研究方法,并对其学术成就做一评价。此篇包含两章。第六章集中提炼和讨论了达尔豪斯史学方法论最具特点和借鉴意义的三个方面。第七章在对达尔豪斯既有接受状况加以概括和分析的基础上,从历史定位与当代启示两个视角对其史学成就予以评价。结论部分梳理和总结了本论文所解决的五个主要问题以及所得出的最终答案,并对作为“学者研究”的本论文的原创性做一说明。更多还原

【Abstract】 Carl Dahlhaus (1928-1989) is acknowledgedly among the leading scholars in the Western musicology in the second half of the20th century. His especially significant and influential accomplishment in the study of music history made him a crucial figure in the profound change in the paradigm of the discipline. It is this very accomplishment that this dissertation is focused on. It discusses both his reflection on the philosophy of music history on the one hand, and his specific study on and writing of music history on the other (represented by a case study on his work in the19th century music), explores the methodologies he adopted in his work, and tries to provide a relatively appropriate evaluation of his position in the history of music scholarship and his value in today’s context.The problem of the relationship between aesthetics and history lies at the heart of Dahlhaus’s conception of music history. It is not only the fundamental and central issue in his discussion of the philosophy of music history, but also the very goal that he strove toward in the study and writing of music history, by means of his quite unique methodologies.Instead of developing a systematic and independent theory of music history, Dahlhaus reflected on the basic issues of the philosophy of music history (such as historical fact, historical subject, value judgment in history, and the understanding, interpretation and construction of music history) as well as a number of existing theories about these issues. While there are quite a few similarities between music history and general history, and he did draw on the latest developments of the latter, what he emphasized the most is the particularities of the former. All these amount to an unprecedented contribution to historical musicology, a discipline traditionally lacking theoretical reflection.For a prolific writer on music that Dahlhaus is, however, the study of specific historical subjects and the actual writing of music history are probably of greater importance. It is more likely that his theoretical reflection was not intended as some kind of principles or rules governing the practice, but served to explore a feasible path and offer some guidance for the practice. Therefore, observing these practices, found in his numerous writings, may be the best way to get a clear knowledge and deep understanding of his one-of-a-kind approach to music history.The methodologies that Dahlhaus employed in his work is another highlight. This dissertation proposes three categories as a summary of his characteristic methodology:"structural thinking","methodological pluralism", and "work-history dialectics". Of these categories, "structural thinking" is the dominant one, prevailing at all levels of his work and directly shaping his own paradigm of history study.The position that Dahlhaus possessed in music scholarship can be defined in both historical and contemporary terms. He is doutlessly revolutionary in his philosophy, methodology and historiography of music history, which makes him a pioneer in the significant change of the direction of historical musicology. He has had important influence on the German, English and Chinese academic communities, to different degrees and at different times. On the whole, his attitude and approach can be characterized as eclectic, open, critical, pragmatic, and to no less extent paradoxical. His opinions on a few issues are relatively conservative due to the particular cultural and ideological context. And his work has constantly been inspiring and thought-provoking.The dissertation consists of seven chapters, grouped into three parts. Part1includes only the first chapter, which is concentrated on his theoretical reflection on the philosophy of music history. Part2is made up of four chapters, focused on his work in the study of19th century music. Chapter2gives a general picture of how he viewed this period as a whole. The next three chapters deal respectively with three major perspectives from which he investigated the one hundred years of music:ideas, artistic problems and social institutions. Based on the first two parts, Part3seeks to abstract the essence of his methodology, and evaluate in general his work in music history.更多还原