【作者】 刘璐；

【导师】 王立新；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪后半叶，后现代主义思潮席卷整个思想文化领域。以碎片化、多元化和解定论化为主要特征的后现代主义思潮带动了许多人文学科开始重新思考自身，历史哲学这门古老学科也不例外。在后现代主义思潮进入历史哲学领域之后，研究者开始关注“历史”这个包容性极强的概念中存在的矛盾和分裂，开始追问和反思传统历史叙述中被刻意忽略和回避的问题。经过重新思考的历史在后现代主义语境中被剥夺了“高高在上”的地位：历史文本成为一切文本中的一种文本、历史叙事也成为了一切叙事中的一种叙事。而对历史问题的重新认识也从历史哲学领域蔓延到文学领域，小说界近年来呈现出一种“带着问题回归历史”的趋势——大量小说开始着眼于历史和过去。但是这些植根于后现代主义的小说对历史问题和历史叙述都有着非常清醒的“自我意识”，这些小说的作者直面历史被“书写”的过程，并以对历史的解构和重构来把历史的呈现变成一个问题。加拿大学者哈琴称这种小说为“历史编纂元小说”，而这类小说常常被认为是比论文更加有效的历史研究文本。虽然身处后现代主义思潮之中，但历史编纂元小说却并不认同废黜历史的主张。因为相信“历史”这个人类真实经历过的、经验上实实在在存在过的“过去”承载着人类社会的价值和意义，这个过去也成为人类现在和将来的保障。在质疑历史中回归历史，历史编纂元小说成为集合了后现代主义诸般矛盾的文本。本文将历史编纂元小说的出现和滥觞与后现代主义历史哲学的转向相结合，将其看作是对后现代主义思潮的一个响亮回应，通过对历史编纂元小说的思想基础、文本特征、书写意义的梳理，希望对其进行一种较全面的综合性研究，并提出有关历史编纂元小说思想特征方面的独特之处：1，历史编纂元小说注意到在历史书写中，意义的自律和经验的可还原性之间存在矛盾；2，作为后现代思潮的产物，历史编纂元小说特别警惕历史叙述中的权力控摄。这也是本论文主要创新之处。本文共分为六个部分：绪论部分讨论了20世纪后现代主义思潮之下的历史哲学转向和历史主题在文学小说领域的回归，而历史编纂元小说正是植根于这个文化背景之下。它认同历史与文学一样是一种文字建构，修辞和语言习惯才是历史文本建造中的首要因素，因此历史编纂元小说确定了以自身观念结构历史的方式。绪论还对历史编纂元小说的国内外研究现状进行了梳理，并特别针对历史编纂元小说提出者哈琴的有关论述进行了研究，归纳出其理论的核心内容。第一章主要论述了历史编纂元小说的基础理论方面的特征。提出历史编纂元小说的思想基础是后现代主义的历史哲学，并将历史编纂元小说与后现代主义历史哲学转向相结合进行了交叉研究，对历史编纂元小说在思想特征方面的独到之处提出自己的看法。第二章讨论历史编纂元小说的历史表征方式。历史编纂元小说中的叙述是带有史学研究特征的叙述，主要体现为其对“人与过去”和“过去的存在与当下的描述”等问题的认识和实践。而历史编纂元小说又将其文本建立在一种活动的叙述链条之上、将意义展现为一种展开的过程史，从而历史性地将文本变为一个不断被解释的意义增殖体。第三章探讨了历史编纂元小说对历史的解构。后现代主义时期，历史编纂元小说的作者和历史学家同样发现历史叙述中存在着一个作为话语的“元历史”，其中心正是所谓的“伟大故事”。历史编纂元小说反对元历史的叙述，以反讽的方式将其消解在自身发展的过程中，以此解构了传统历史叙事的基础和形式。本章共有两节，分别是：1，解构历史叙述；2，解构历史言说。第四章讨论了历史编纂元小说与历史的重构。历史编纂元小说对历史的重构主要采用如下几种方式：1，重访历史遗落的书写；2，摩拟史传文学的写作；3，对话当代面临的问题。通过重构，历史编纂元小说重新发现了过去与人类自身的密切关系。结论部分探讨了历史编纂元小说的书写意义。历史学家耶尔恩·吕森说过“过去之中存在着许许多多开放着的将来”，这也正是后现代时期许多作家重拾历史写作的因由。而在历史编纂元小说那里，更聚焦了人类对时代、道德等等问题的重新思考。通过研究，本文得出了如下结论：在历史编纂元小说中，重要的不是对过去真实与否的考量，而是引起人们对判断故事讲述的评判标准的重新评价；对于理解人类的自身和行为，历史叙述承担着不容忽视的作用，它不仅关乎现在，也向将来敞开。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the second half of the20thcentury, post-modernism swept through almost allthe cultural fields.The so called post-modernism has some major characteristics such asfragmented, pluralistic and decentralized, and these led many humanity instutions,including the philosophy of history, began to rethink themselves. During thepost-modern times, researchers started to pay attention to the contradictions anddivisions in the highly inclusive concept ‘history’. They began to ask and rethink thedeliberately ignored and evaded parts in the traditional history writings. In the contextof post-modernism,‘history’ lost its ‘superior’ status. The history text became onetext in all texts; the history narrative became one narrative of all narratives. The newunderstanding of historical issues spread to the literature and fiction field from thefield of philosophy of history. In the field of fiction, there shows a trend of returningto the history with questions centered in recent years. A large number of novels beganto focus on the history and the past. But rooted in post-modernism, these novels havea very clear self-consciousness of history and history narrative. The authors faced theprocess of history writings, and presented history as a question by deconstructing andreconstructing history. The Canadian scholar Linda Hutheon called this kind of novel‘historiography meta-fiction’, which is often seen as a kind of text ‘more than anacademic paper’. Though living in a so called post-modern society, the historiographymeta-fiction does not agree with the opinion of expelling the history. Believing that‘history’ was a real past, a real experience of human beings, historiographymeta-fiction knows it is responsible for preserving human. And of course the ‘past’may become a guarantee to the human present and future. Returning to history byquestioning history, historiography meta-fiction is filled with post-modernistcontradictions.This paper combined historiography meta-fiction’s appearance with thepost-modernism turning of philosophy of history, and considers it as a response to the post-modernism ideological trend. The paper summarizes the ideological foundation,text features and the text meanings of historiography meta-fiction, and points out thehistoriography meta-fiction has its own features in writing history. It also finds thecontradictions between the regularities of history meanings and the restoring ofhuman experiences. It is also alert to the control of power in history narratives. Theseare also the main innovations of this paper.This paper is divided into6parts:The introduction section discusses the turning of history themes in literaturewritings as well as the post-modernism turning of the philosophy of history. Thehistoriography meta-fiction agrees that history writing was a kind of text constructingthe same as literature and novel. Rhetoric and the language habits were its primaryfactors too. Therefore, historiography meta-fiction determined to structure history inits own way. In this part, the paper also summarized historiography meta-fiction’sstudy status nowadays, especially Hutheon’s study on it.Chapter1mainly discusses the basic characteristics of historiographymeta-fiction, points out that the ideological basis of historiography meta-fiction wasthe post-modernism philosophy of history. In this part, the paper made a cross-overstudy to historiography meta-fiction and the post-modernism philosophy of history.Chapter2discusses the historical representing way of historiography meta-fiction.The narrative in historiography meta-fictions is a kind of narrative much likehistorical research. It focuses on the relationship between the people and the past aswell as the relationship between the existence of the past and the telling of the past.The historiography meta-fiction builds its own text on a chain of active narratives,representing history as an unfolding process, makes the text a body filled withrepeatedly explanations.Chapter3explores the historiography meta-fiction’s deconstruction of history. Inthe period of post-modernism, writers of historiography meta-fiction finds there is a‘meta-history’ as a discourse and a power in history narratives like the historians. Andthe center of the discourse is actually ‘the Great Story’. The historiographymeta-fiction opposes to the ‘meta-history’ narratives, deconstructing and digesting itin an ironical way, shaking the basis and the form of traditional history narrative. This chapter has two parts:1, the deconstruction of history narrative;2, the deconstructionof history telling.Chapter4discusses the historiography meta-fiction’s reconstruction of history. Itmainly uses the following ways:1, revisiting the lost parts of history writings;2,imitating the biographical literatures;3, dialogue with the contemporary problems.Through reconstructing history, historiography meta-fiction rediscoveres the closerelationship between human beings and the past.Chapter5discusses the meanings of historiography meta-fiction as theconclusion of this paper. The historian Jorn Rüsen said that ‘there were many openingfutures in the past’, and this is also the reason why more and more writers pick uphistory as their writing subjects. The historiography meta-fiction questions on thetimes, the moral, and the future of human world through writing the past. Inhistoriography meta-fiction, the most important thing is not whether the historywriting’s real or not, the historiography meta-fiction was written to make peoplere-evaluate the judgments about history narratives. After all, history narratives areresponsible for understanding people and people’s behaviors; it not only hassomething to do with today, but also opens to the future.更多还原