功利与审美的交光互影：1895-1916中国文论研究

【作者】 包莉秋；

【导师】 姚文放；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 文艺学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 在政治的迫切需要和西学的不断引进下,自1895年起中国文论发生巨大变化,从此走上现代意义上的功利与审美之途。而1917年文学革命的发生,使文论又有了本质性的转变。本文的主要宗旨在于结合历史变革,对1895-1916年间功利与审美两种主要文学功用以具有代表性的文论家与流派为结构主线,对这一段时期的文学功用观的变化作一梳理并对其内容作详细论述,并以文学功用为契入点展现在西方文化强烈撞击下中国文论发生了怎样的变化。绪论部分首先回顾中国传统文论中的文学功用观,在此基础上探寻文学功用观在1895年发生巨变的原因,并从形式、方法、目标、功能四个方面分析文论的各种变化,通过比较和分析得出文学功利性的定义。接着从史的角度对1895-1916年间的功用观做一简单勾勒。最后从内容、文学观念、形式三个方面交待论文为何结束于1916年。第一章对梁启超的功利性文学功用观作一论述。梁启超首先是政治家,其次才是文论家,这种身份决定了其文学思想服务于政治思想。他的文学功用观主要通过其小说理论体现。他借鉴西方国家变革的成功经验,大力倡导新小说,视小说为新民的工具,将小说从“小道”提升到“文学之最上乘”的位置。同时,他从接受者角度分析小说的艺术特征,但最终指向是为了说明小说是最适合开启民智的文体。故梁启超的文学功用观体现为较强的功利性。第二章探讨“小说界革命”影响下小说理论的功利性。重视文学的社会作用是中国文论历来重视和强调的,与“文界革命”、“诗界革命”相比,“小说界革命”恰恰是从社会功用入手获得社会的最广泛认可,由此具有较强的功利性。综观1895-1916年小说期刊的发刊词,其宗旨可分为三类:一是承认小说具有巨大的社会功用,是唤醒国民、开通民智的重要工具,二是以为小说具有审美性,是文学倾向于美的一种,三是主张小说有消遣、娱乐的功能。其中大部分期刊都持第一类宗旨,故主要体现为功利性。同时,维新派兴起的白话文运动,尽管得到有识之士的响应,但出现了实践与理论相脱节的现象。出于政治目的发动的白话文运动功利性极强,而它的不彻底性与其政治功利密切相关。第三章以林纾的小说理论为主要研究对象。林纾的小说功用观主要有两方面,一是希望通过域外小说唤起国民的爱国之心,二是欲借西方文学的经验推动中国文学的发展。受知识结构的限制,林纾以以中观西的角度对西方小说作阐释,在阐释中又带有中西比较的成分在内。他翻译的小说影响了一大批年轻作家的成长,但主要受益的是对外国小说形式、风格等,相对忽略了林纾对小说社会功用的初衷。总体而言,林纾对小说社会功用的重视和对小说本体的探索都没有体现现代意义上的功利与审美,他的小说功用观是对传统功利与审美的回归。第四章的主要内容是王国维的审美功用观。王国维反对将文学视为政治的工具,在扎根于中国传统文化的土壤中吸收西方近代美学思想,提出了“无用之用”的文学观,认为文学是没有功利的,无用并非真正没有用处,它只是按实用角度讲不能直接见效于社会。他的“无用之用”是指“超出乎利用之范围”的审美功用,是要放弃利害关系获得最纯粹的快乐。他与蒋智由同年引进西方悲剧理论,但前者注重审美性,后者侧重功利性。他的悲剧观贯彻的是其“无用之用”思想。从事文学研究时的王国维强烈反对文学为政治服务,坚持文学的独立性,其“无用之用”是一种文学审美观。第五章为革命派的文学功用观。在文学和人生的关系问题上,革命派的理解要比维新派的全面客观,认为文学是社会的反映,它来源于社会但对社会起极大的推动作用。同时,还积极引进西方美学理论来分析中国文学或重视文学本体特征,其主要代表人物是徐念慈、黄人、黄世仲和黄伯耀等。徐念慈主要引进黑格尔美学思想分析小说的审美特性,认为只有符合理想美学、感情美学方为最上乘小说。黄人于1904年编《中国文学史》时就明确指出文学是美的一部分,并在维新派一味视小说为开启民智的工具的浪潮中,在1907年敢于发出小说是文学倾向于美的一种的呼喊。黄世仲、黄伯耀兄弟虽没有借用西方美学解读中国小说,但他们肯定中国古典小说的成就,并从主题、创作风格、形式等角度对小说的艺术特征作了详细的论述。总之,革命派承认小说的社会功用,又注重小说的审美性,他们的文学功用观体现为审美与功利的兼顾。第六章对国粹派的文学功用观作一分析。国粹派以“发明国学,保存国粹”为宗旨以期发扬国学精神,所以他们的文学功用在对古代文学的整理和挖掘中体现并带有功利色彩。其在文学领域的代表人物是章太炎、刘师培和金天翮,功用观各有特色,但他们都注重文学的社会作用并也重视文学的形式、风格等,一旦考虑到现实时就偏向于社会功用。学术与革命使他们的文学功用观充满矛盾性,逡巡于审美与功利之间。第七章的考察对象为鲁迅早期的文学功用观。鲁迅在弃医从文之前就注重文学的功用了,从文学的功利性到文学的审美性,在梁启超、尼采、章太炎等思想的影响下,最终形成了“不用之用”的文学功用观,其基本要义是文学给予人以情感上的愉悦,在此过程中使人不知不觉地受教育和启发,最终使人的精神得以改变。“不用之用”与“无用之用”有本质区别,它集审美与功利于一身,是审美与功利的协调。第八章探讨蔡元培早期的美育思想。1916年前为蔡元培美育思想的早期阶段。蔡元培继承中国传统文化中的致用精神,并汲取康德美学思想中的超功利性与普遍性,于1912年提出了自己的美育思想,以审美的手段实现功利目的。他和王国维都把美育视为审美与功利的统一体,却存在差异性。他后期的美育思想可以从早期美育思想中找到源头。最后从社会背景和自身属性角度对王国维、蔡元培的美育思想进行述评。结语从审美与功利角度将1895-1916年中国文论的主要特征概括为广纳西学、重视文学与社会的关系、小说至上、借助教育启蒙和关注人之本身等五方面。更多还原

【Abstract】 Under urgent political demand and western literature being introduced into China continuously, Chinese Literature Theory, which had changed greatly after 1895,developed along a trail of typical modern utility and aesthetics. The literature revolution in 1917 brought some essential changes in the theory. The goal of this paper is to analyze the changes of literature function opinions existed from 1895 to 1916.This analysis is along the main road based on the features of representative literature theoreticians and trends on utility and aesthetic literature function at the time. And this paper vividly digs out the changes and development which are caused by the violent impact of western Literature on China literature theory by way of literature function.The preface reviews the viewpoints of literature function in traditional Chinese literature theory. Then explores the causes for the great changes of literature function happened in 1895.At the same time analyzes all kinds of changes in the theory by the methods of form, method, aim and function. The definition of literature utility is obtained by comparison and analysis. After that the paper simply outlines the function viewpoints existed from 1895 to 1916 through the angle of history. At last it states why the event ended in the year of 1916.Chapter One discusses Liang Qichao’s viewpoint of pure utility on literature function. Liang Qichao was primarily a politician, secondly a literature theoretician. That fact decided that his literature ideology served for his political ideology. His literature function viewpoints were mainly incarnated by his novel theories. He borrowed experience from the western world, and strongly proposed neo-novel. He regarded novel as new civil tool. He increased novel from a minor position to the superlative status in literature. At the same time he analyzed the artistic features of novel as an embracer, in order to show that novel is the best to make people to be civilized. So Liang Qichao’s literature function viewpoint showed pure utility.Chapter Two discusses the utility in novel theories affected by Novel Revolution. Chinese literature theory stresses social function all the time. Compared with Poetry Revolution and Prose Revolution, Novel Revolution gained widely acceptance just by way of carrying out through social literature function, so it was full of utility. Making a comprehensive view on forewords to periodicals from the year 1895 to 1916, the content could be divided into three categories: Admitting the idea that novel had great social function for waking up and civilizing the people; Novel tends to aesthetics; Stressing the entertainment function of novel. Most periodicals held utility doctrine. Some people of insight supported colloquial language movement arisen by the Reformist, but the theories were not well combined with practice. Because of the strong utility in colloquial language movement that was caused by political springboard, its incompleteness was closely connected with political utility.Chapter Three mainly discusses Lin Shu’s theories about literature. Lin’s viewpoints on literature function were mainly made up of two parts: 1. Hoping to arouse patriotism among the people by novels from abroad; 2.Impeling Chinese literature development by referring to western experience. But limited by his knowledge makeup, Lin Shu expatiated western novel by way of observing the West through Chinese opinions, and compared western literature with Chinese Literature in his expatiation. It was the novels, which he translated that influenced a lot of young writers at the time. They benefited mainly on elements of novel form, style and so on. But they ignored Lin’s primary idea about the social function of novel. All in all Lin Shu’s recognition on social function about novel and the exploration to the novel indicated no modern utility and aesthetics. His novel function viewpoint was the combination of traditional utility and aesthetics. Chapter Four discusses mainly about Wang Guowei’s functional aesthetic viewpoint. Wang opposed to regard literature as apolitical tool. He put forward the literature viewpoint of Usefulness Through Uselessness that was based on traditional Chinese literature and absorbed modern western aesthetic ideas. He thought that there was no utility in literature. Uselessness did not mean that it was really no use to the society. It meant that it couldn’t take effect in the society directly through application. His Usefulness Through Uselessness referred to the aesthetic function of beyond-utilization. It referred to the purest happiness and ignored advantages and disadvantages. He introduced western tragic theory. Jiang Zhiyou did so simultaneously. The former stressed on aesthetics, and the latter stressed on utility. His tragic idea followed his Usefulness Through Uselessness. Wang Guowei intensely opposed the viewpoint of literature serving politics. He insisted on literature independence. His Usefulness Through Uselessness was a kind of aesthetic literature viewpoint.Chapter Five discusses the literature function viewpoints of the Revolutionist. On the problem of literature and life, the Revolutionist’s understanding was broader and more objective insisting that literature was the reflection of society. It sprung from the society and greatly pushed the society forward. At the same time, they actively introduced western aesthetic theories for analyzing Chinese literature and paid much more attention on literature noumenon features. The representatives included Xu Nianci, Huang Ren, Huang Shizhong and Huang Boyao. Xu Nianci mainly introduced Hegelian aesthetic theory to analyze the aesthetic features of novels, thought that the best novel should accord with idealist and emotional aesthetics. Huang Ren pointed out that literature was one part of aesthetics in his Literature History of China compiled in 1904. When the Reformist saw novel as a tool for arousing the people of China, he bravely and clearly argued that literature was one part of aesthetics. Though the brothers of Huang Shizhong and Huang Boyao didn’t analyze Chinese novel through western aesthetics, they affirmed the great success of Chinese classical novel, and discussed the artistic features of novel in detail from angles of topic, creation, style and form. All in all, the Revolutionist stressed both social function and aesthetics of novel. Their literature function was expressed as the combination of aesthetics and social function.Chapter Six analyzes the writers holding Nationality viewpoints on literature function. These writers took Invent National Literature and Keep Nationality as their doctrine in order to develop national literature. So their literature showed utility by carefully collecting and studying ancient literature materials. The representatives were Zhang Taiyan, Liu Shipei and Jin Tianhe. They had respective features on literature function. But they all stressed social function, form and style of literature. They emphasized social function while considering literature realism. Academic action and revolution made their literature function be full of contradictions. That feature strolled between Aesthetics and utility.Chapter Seven explores Lu Xun’s early viewpoint about literature function. Lu Xu stressed literature function before giving up learning medical knowledge. From literature utility to literature Aesthetics, he formed his Use Out of No Use literature viewpoint under the influence of Liang Qichao, Nietzsche and Zhang Taiyan. It focused on emotional happiness of literature to people, educated and aroused people unconsciously, then changed people’s spirit. Use Out of No Use is different from Usefulness Through Uselessness distinctly; the former one combines both Aesthetics and utlity. Chapter Eight discusses Cai Yuanpei’s Aesthetic Education viewpoint. During the early stage of this idea (before the year of 1916), Mr Cai inherited the practice idea in traditional Chinese literature, and draw the idea of Beyond-utility and Universalism from Kantianism. He put forward his Aesthetic Education viewpoint in 1912. It advocated the way of gaining utility through aesthetic methods. He and Wang Guowei both saw Aesthetic Education as the combination of aesthetics and utility, though they didn’t completely agree with each other. His latter Aesthetic Education viewpoint is originated in his early Aesthetic Education viewpoint. Finally, this paper explains Mr Cai’s Aesthetic Education viewpoint from social background and self- attribute.The ending part outlines the main features of Chinese literature theories from 1895 to 1916. It includes Novel Paramount, Self-regard of People, Stressing the Relation of Literature and Society, Arousing People And Widely Absorbing Western Literature Ideas Through Education. That would be done from the angles of Aesthetics and utility.更多还原