关于“中国文学古今演变”的讨论(笔谈)

[主持人语] 在20世纪末到新世纪初的文学史重构讨论中，章培恒先生倡导的“中国文学古今演变研究”作为“重写文学史”思考的延伸，产生了较大影响。继章培恒先生之后，黄霖教授、梅新林教授、廖可斌教授、黄仁生教授等都相继提出了启人思路的讨论。尽管这一研究，以明代中后期到民国文学间联系沟通较为直接可行，但的确还可以从更宽泛的角度来理解、践行。这里选编的4篇短文，从不同角度，继续把该话题“接着说”。许结教授《赋体论述与古今之变》从文体特征角度巡览，强调了赋体文学源起、演变的阶段性特征，对近百年来赋体研究的史学化、“兼才学”带来的缺失等，提出了自己的思考。普慧教授《文学经典的形成与传承》从文学作品的流传接受史角度，关注其经典化过程的动态性变化问题，诸如陶渊明、《文心雕龙》、杜甫、张玉娘等，都有一个被人们认可价值的过程，期间人格魅力、接受趣味、时代风尚、政治家提倡等，都会一定程度地介入其中。因此，文学作品创作时的价值，与若干年后被认知的价值，不可同日而语。他提醒的是，“演变”未必由此及彼地变更了作品对象，而是不同观照主体所处的时代环境、审美标准、趣尚观念变化了。汤哲声教授《不变与变：中国通俗文学批评的原则性和适应性及其思考》也关注到评价标准的问题，以其通俗文学的评价标准更应该引起注意，更费琢磨。该文指出在古今通俗文学三个演变阶段中，应遵循“不变”(原则性)与“变”(适应性)的批评原则，这当是对钱锺书先生“一”与“不一”哲学的发挥，而在通俗文学作品这里，大众性、商业性和类型模式构成了中国通俗文学性质的“三足鼎”，成为其批评标准原则性的基本要素，因而，用分析鲁迅等新文学作家作品的方法批评通俗文学作品是不符合实际的。王立教授《中国文学古今演变研究的几点思考》从章培恒先生弟子张勇博士新著《中国小说古今演变举隅》说起，强调了该著在古今演变格局中的新创获，在文本细读与多元拉伸的同时，不仅比较了若干古今小说人物类型，还集中在一些“负面”人物类型的系列沿革中阐发出文化反思的意义。回顾相关学术史，也可以对于古今演变研究的学理价值加深认同感。

A Discussion about the Evolution of Chinese Literature

Host’s words：Speaking of the evolution of Chinese literature study and ancient literary history reconstruction and its academic significance in the literary history reconstruction discussion from the end of 19thcentury to the beginning of the 20thcentury，“the evolution of Chinese literature study” raised by Mr.Zhang Peiheng，as an extension of “rewriting literary history”，has a relatively significant influence.Chinese ancient literature research center in Fudan University opened this new discipline and a doctoral degree program.It also collaborates with Zhejiang Normal University and other universities and held many national academic seminars centered this research，publishing several collections of theses.HebeiJournalopened a new column about this research and gained excellent opinions.After Mr.Zhang Peiheng，Professor Huang Lin，Professor MeiXinlin，Professor Liao Kebin，Professor Huang Rensheng，etc.put forward brilliant ideas.Despite its direct access to literature of middle and post Ming dynasty to ROC，a wider understanding and practice is indeed possible.Here we have 4 different articles continuing this topic.From a stylistic perspective，DiscussiononFuanditsevolutionby Professor Xu Jie emphasizes characteristics of FU in its origin and evolution stages，and also raises some questions about the deficiency caused by historization and scholarization of FU study.From the perspective of circulation and acceptance history of literature，Professor Pu Hui’sFormingandPassingofLiteratureClassicsfocuses on dynamics in its process of becoming a classic.For example，Tan Yuanming，WenXinDiaoLong，Du Fu，Zhang Yuniang，etc.all shared a time when personal charming，acceptance interest，time fashion，politician appeal got involved.Therefore，the value of a literature work in its creation time can be different from its later value.What he wants us to know is that “evolution” is not referring to the literary work itself；it is the environment，aesthetic standard，and the interest ideal that change with time.Professor Tang Zhesheng’sUnchangingandChanging:PrincipleandAdaptationofChinesePopularLiteratureCriticismalso talks about aesthetic standards，and the aesthetic standards of popular literature worth more noticing.This paper points out that in the three stages of Chinese popular literature，the aesthetic standards should be “unchanging” (principle)，and “changing” (adaptation)，reflecting Mr.Qian Zhongshu’s philosophical “one” and “no one”.In popular literature，popularity，commerciality，and type mode are three important factors，so，it would be wrong and impractical to access a popular work using the standard we use in Lu Xun’s works.Opening withExamplesofChineseNovelEvolutionby Zhang Peiheng’s student，Dr.Zhang Yong，Professor Wang Li’sSeveralThoughtsaboutChineseLiteratureEvolutionResearchemphasizes the breakthroughs by Zhang Yong’s new book and in the meantime makes a comparison between several character types by close reading and multiple extensions.He also focuses on some negative characters and concludes some cultural significance.Reflecting relative academic history can help increase the sense of identity in the evolution research theory.