论文部分内容阅读
周作人对晚明小品散文的关注经历了由文体借鉴到文学史梳理的转变。前者以1924年的“美文”写作为核心,表征着他对个体精神生活的强调;而后者则集中反映在《中国新文学的源流》中。在史的梳理中,周作人着力勾勒出两种文学力量的对抗——“言志”对于“载道”的反抗,这是“个性”对于“统制”的反抗。借助于这样一种描述,周作人提炼出一种反对文学“道统”控制的思想质素,从而维护了个体自身的独立与价值。由此,周作人以“抒情言志”的文学传统和“文以载道”的主张相对立,其目的就不完全在于文学本身,还牵涉到他对中国文化与现实的批评,以及他对中国现代知识分子的理解。当他觉得中国的思想问题仍然在于道统与八股时,他就愈强调论者的个性自由,反对社会整体利益与个体特殊利益之间的绝然对立。在20世纪30年代中国民族主义情绪高涨的文化背景下,周的这一立场既使他与激进的左翼文学力量保持距离,同时也从正面表明了他的民族主义立场。那是一种既不表现为简单的排外主义,也不表现为文化上的复古主义,而是建立在“思想革命”基础之上的民族主义立场。由此,在周作人的文学史观中,我们读出了与20世纪中国流行的公理世界观迥然不同的文化指向与内涵。
Zhou Zuoren’s attention to the late Ming essay’s prose has undergone a transformation from stylistic learning to the combing of literary history. The former takes “writing in the United States” in 1924 as the core, which emphasizes his emphasis on individual spiritual life; the latter is concentrated in “the origin of Chinese new literature.” In the history of combing, Zhou Zuoren focused on describing the confrontation between two literary forces - “dialect” for the “resistance”, which is “personality ” for “system ” resistance . With such a description, Zhou Zuoren extracted a kind of ideological quality that is opposed to the control of literature and “morality”, thereby safeguarding the individual’s independence and value. As a result, Zhou Zuoren’s opposition to the literary tradition of “lyricism ” and “literature to contain ”, the purpose is not entirely in the literature itself, but also involves his criticism of Chinese culture and reality , And his understanding of modern Chinese intellectuals. When he feels that the ideological problems in China are still dominated by Taoism and stereotyped personality, the more he emphasizes the personality freedom of the arguer and the absolute antagonism between the interests of society as a whole and the special interests of individuals. Under the cultural sentiments of the rising Chinese nationalism in the 1930s, this position of Zhou kept him far away from radical left-wing literary forces and at the same time showed his position of nationalism in a positive way. It is a nationalist position that does not manifest itself as a simple xenophobia nor as a cultural retroism but as a foundation of “ideological revolution.” Thus, in Zhou Zuoren’s view of literary history, we read out the very different cultural points and connotations with the popular axiom of the axiom in China in the 20th century.