【作者】 季剑青；

【导师】 陈平原；

【作者基本信息】 北京大学 ， 中国现当代文学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文的研究对象是1930年代北平的大学教育与文学生产,主要是以大学为视角,考察北伐后到抗战前(1928-1937)这十年北平的新文学活动。这一时期的北平被称为“文化城”或“大学城”,文学活动往往是在各大学中展开的;在时空上以1930年代的北平为范围,描述和分析大学参与到新文学的想像和再生产中去的不同层面,是本文的主要任务。大体而言,本文从两个层面来考察“大学视野中的新文学”:作为知识生产的场所,大学通过学术研究和课程设置,生产着有关新文学的各种知识、观念和历史叙述;而作为由教师和学生组成的“文化共同体”,大学又为新文学再生产创造了诸如文学社团、刊物、师生关系、人际网络等制度性的条件。本文在结构上即遵循此一思路,大体上分为前后两个部分。前三章以北大、清华等学术化取向较为明显的大学为中心,讨论大学有关新文学的知识生产,为新文学提供了怎样的视野,其中涉及新文学中“传统/现代”、“中/西”等诸多命题。后两章则将对象扩展到北平师大、中国大学等学术等级较低的学校,以及大学外的文艺青年,分析不同大学中文学群体从事文学活动的不同策略,以及背后蕴含着权力关系的制度性条件。通过引入场域的角度,本文试图说明,在1930年代的特定历史条件下,北平各大学间存在着一个分化的场域结构,人们对于新文学的想像,以及他们参与新文学的方式,总是和他们在这一场域结构中的位置紧密相关。引论部分首先对作为背景的五四以来新文学与大学之关系略加梳理,以便将本文的研究对象置于更长时段考察,并由此引伸出研究思路。继而交待本文的框架结构和研究方法,并对相关的学术史进行清理。第一章主要以北大、清华两校为对象,考察它们的文学课程及其包含的文学想象。由于学术专业化的趋势,两校的国文系课程仍多以“国学”为主体,方法上则以趋向于历史考据的“科学方法”为主,而于文学自身的品评鉴赏则置之度外。加之五四反传统的“范式压力”,传统难以成为新文学的资源,主事者虽有心在国文系中引入新文学,基本上仍以失败告终。与此形成对比,当时外文系则以文学为本位,尤为引人瞩目的是对欧美现代主义的大力引介,开拓了新文学的资源,刺激了对传统的重新发现,由此形成的“普遍性的视野”,构成了对五四反传统范式的超越。第二章则选择文学批评为个案,讨论当时的文学批评与学院文学教育之关系。新文学早期的文学批评主要注重于观念的表达和体系的建立,文学批评的过于观念化,引起了不少人的反思。1930年代北平的批评界,发出了把批评重心放到作品上的呼声,转而试图建立起以具体作品为批评对象的“实际批评”,这一批评立场背后,其实有很强的学院背景。本章主要涉及叶公超、瑞恰慈、李健吾、李长之等人,分析学院背景在其批评理路形成中的作用,而这一背景仍可归结为前章所述“普遍性的视野”。第三章则以新诗为例,分析新文学背景的学者的学术研究和新文学之间的对话关系。对于胡适、朱自清及《歌谣》周围的学人来说,他们面临的主要任务是将新诗纳入到整个文学史的叙述中去,其中种种缝隙和紧张仍昭昭可见;而朱光潜、梁宗岱等西学背景的学人,通过将西学转化为某种普遍性的知识,于无形中化解了困扰新诗乃至新文学的“中/西”“新/旧”的沟通和弥合问题。本章同时讨论了当时的“读诗会”这一具体的空间,不同学术背景的学人在这一空间的对话,亦使得新/旧、中/西呈现出融合汇通的态势。第四章考察了当时北平各大学中两种文学空间:社团和人际网络。早期新文学的校园文学活动主要通过社团进行,北大、清华莫不如是,进入1930年代后,由于学术专业化的压力和国民政府的有意控制,以及新文学自身格局的变化,北大、清华等校中的学生文学社团渐趋萎缩,取而代之的是一种松散的人际网络。而在北平师大、中国大学等校中,带有左翼色彩的文艺社团活动仍相当活跃,并伴随着一二九运动浮出地表,但由于和政治运动之间的复杂纠葛,他们的文学创作却难以进入到文学场中。第五章则在更大的范围内,从场域的角度,探讨当时北平文坛两个主要的文学群体——“学院派”和学院外的“文艺青年”——的文学策略和文学立场,特别是表现在有关文类的等级观念和文类的选择倾向上,学院写作以新诗为大宗,文艺青年则多集中于小说一途。作为两者中介的是掌握着《大公报·文艺》等阵地的沈从文、萧乾,他们编辑副刊的同时,也在行使着某种文类选择和过滤的权力。结语部分则试图对“大学视野中的新文学”这一论题所包含的学术、政治及文学之间的复杂纠葛,作进一步的概括和提炼。特别是分析了作为1930年代北平文坛主体的学院派,其对新文学的想像(“普遍性的视野”),与他们面对现实政治的姿态以及自我定位之间的内在关联。然而,无论功过得失,随着民族危机的日益严峻,学院派也面临着越来越大的压力,被迫调整着自己的姿态,其结果则是最终走向解体。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation focuses on the tertiary education and literary production in 1930s Beijing. It examines New Literature activities in Beijing between 1928 and 1937 from the perspective of university, when the city was called“culture city”or“university city”, and literary activities were usually taken in the universities. The main aim of this study is to describe and analyze the different aspects on which the universities get involved in the imagination and reproduction of New Literature. In principle, the dissertation examines the“New Literature in perspective of university”from two aspects: first, as space of knowledge production, university produces knowledge, ideas and historical narratives about New Literature through sholarly pursuits and curriculum projects; and secondly, as“cultural community”which is composed of teachers and students, university create such institutional conditions as literary societies, journals, teacher-student ties and intercourse networks for the reproduction of New Literature.Following the conception, this dissertation is divided into two parts in principle. The first three chapters center on those more scholarly universities such as Beijing University and Tsinghua University, and discuss that what vision the kownledge production in these universities had brought about for New Literature, in which the propositions of“tradition/modern”and“Chinese/West”are dealt with. The following two chapters extend the scope to less sholarly schools like Beiping Normal University and China College, and literary youth outside the shools. They analyze the different strategies which were taken by the literary groups in different universities and the institutional conditions dominated by power behind them. By introducing the method of field, this dissertation tries to illuminate that there existed a polarized structure among the universities of Beijing in the special historical context of 1930s. People’s imagination of New Literature and the way they threw themselves into it were always tightly connected with the positions they had taken in the structure.The introduction firstly clarifies briefly the relationship between university and New Literature from May Fourth on so as to put the study in a longer period, from where the main conception of the study is drawn. Then the framework and method of the study are provided, and the preceding researches concerned are summarized.Chapter 1 focuses on Beijing University and Tsinghua University and examines their literary curricula and the literary imagination they contained. Because of the trend of academic professionalization, the curricula of Chinese departments in the two schools were mostly about Guoxue (classical learning). The method was inclined to historical and textual research which were callde“scientific method”, and literary appreciation was omitted. Adding the May Fourth iconoclastic“paradigm pressure”, it is difficult for tradition to be a resource of New literature. Though the department heads intended to introduce New Literature into the curricula, their endeavor fell into failure. In contrast, the departments of foreign languages were based on literature itself. Their active introduction of western modernism was striking, which enlarged the resoureces of New Literature and stimulated the rediscovery of tradition. Therefore a“universalistic vision”was formed and surpassed the May Fourth iconoclastic paradigm.Chapter 2 choses the case of literary criticism, and discusses the relationship between the literary criticism and academic literary education then. The early litrary criticism of New Literature payed attention to the establishment of theory systems. The overconceptualization of literary criticism aroused much reflection. The criticism circle of 1930s Beijing appealed to put emphasis on literary works, and tried to establish“practical criticism”which dealt with concrete woks. There existed stong academic background behind such position. This chapter mainly treats of Ye Gongchao, I. A. Richards, Li Jianwu and Li Changzhi, analyzes the role their academic background had played in the formation of their criticism logic. The academic background could also be attributed to the“universalistic vision”,which is put forward in the preceding chapter.In Chapter 3, new poetry is exemplified to elucidate the dialogue relationship between New Literature and the research work of scholars with New Literature background. For Hu Shi, Zhu Ziqing and the scholars around Geyao weekly (Ballad Weekly) , their object were to incorporate new poetry into the whole history of Chinaes Literature. Many intensions and gaps came out in this process. While by converting western learning into universal knowledge, scholars like Zhu Guangqian and Liang Zongdai resolved virtually the problem of communication between Chinese and West, New and Old, which had been obsessing new poetry and New Literature. This chapter also discusses the then“dushi hui”(reading poetry party), where sholars with different academic background gathered and talked with each other, making an atmosphere of amalgamation and convergence.Chapter 4 examines two kinds of literary space in then Beijing: societies and intercourse networks. Literary activities of early New Literature in campuses usually went along through societies, both Beijing University and Tsinghua University without exception. Entering into 1930s, under the pressure of academic professionalization and the government controls, and along with the change of situation of New Literature itself, student literary societies in PKU and Tsinghua declined, a kind of loose intercourse network coming out instead. While left-wing literary societies were pretty active in Beiping Normal University, China College and other schools. They emerged from underground after the December Ninth movement. However, due to the entanglements with political movements, their works were hard to enter into literary field.Chapter 5 probes the strategies and positions of two main literay groups from the perspective of field, which were identified as“academic school”and“literary youth”outside academy, specially focusing on their hierachical concepts of genre and their options on it. The academic school highlighted new poetry, while literary youth generally concentrated on novel. As the bridge between them, Shen Congwen and Xiao Qian were in charge of wenyi supplement of Ta Kungpao,thus exercising the power of genre filtration.The conclusion tries to clarify and generalize further the complicated imbroglios among academy, politics and literature, which were embodied by the thesis of“New Literature in perspective of university”. It emphatically analyzes the inner relevancy among the imagination of New Literature (“universalistic vision”) by the academic school, which was the mainbody on the literary scene in 1930s Beijing, their attitudes towards real-life politics and their self-orientation. However, whether success or failure, with national crisis deepening the academic school were confronted with more and more heavy pressure. They were forced to adjust their gestures, and as a result they fell apart finally.更多还原