中國古代原生性「正變文學史觀」詮釋模型之重構

Abstract

晚清以降，自林傳甲或竇警凡或黃人的第一本《中國文學史》開始，迄今百餘年間，現代化的《中國文學史》著作，累計已千餘種；然而，由於缺乏這門學科的知識本質論、認識論、文學史觀、方法學，故多轉相抄襲，極少合格而質優者。其中，二大主流的「文學史觀」，更是非常偏謬：一為因追求現代化及文界革命，而深受西方生物學與社會學之「進化論」影響，「文學進化史觀」蔚為風潮；二為受教條化之馬列思想與政治意識形態所支配，倡說階級鬥爭的「唯物論文學史觀」成為僵化的框架。這二種史觀乃舶來移植，與中國古代文學源流全無任何關係。其詮釋有效性，自一九九○年代興起的「文學史理論」熱潮開始，已備受質疑、批判。然而至今學界仍破而不立，還沒有學者能從中國古代「原生性」的文學史觀，重構系統嚴整的「詮釋模型」，以做為「中國文學史」書寫的理論基礎。本論文即針對中國古代「原生性」的「正變文學史觀」，經由相關文本的理解、詮釋、分析、綜合，將隱涵、零散的觀念加以揭明、統整；而在「文學史觀」的理論設準下，將它「重構」為二種系統嚴整的「詮釋模型」：一為「因正創變，迭代循環」詮釋模型；二為「歸源宗正，因時創變」詮釋模型。這二種正變史觀的詮釋模型，可資應用於現代《中國文學史》的書寫，以詮釋歷代各類文體的正變演化發展。

Since the emergence of the first Chinese Literary History by Lin Chuanjia, Dou Jingfan or Huang Jia in the late Qing dynasty, there have been more than one thousand modern Chinese Literary History published over the past hundred years or so. However, due to lack of knowledge on essentialism, epistemology, perspectives on literary history and methodology, many of these works plagiarized among one another, resulting in most of them being in poor quality. The two mainstream trends of ＂perspectives on literary history＂ among these are especially biased and absurd: one is deeply influenced by western biological and sociological ＂evolution＂ theories in pursuit of modernization and literary revolution, consequently ＂evolutionary perspective on literary history＂ becomes very popular. The other is dominated by dogmatic Marx-Leninism and political ideology, and promotes the rigid theoretical framework of ＂materialistic perspective on literary history.＂ These two perspectives are grafted from outside, therefore have no connection with the origin and development of ancient Chinese literature. Their interpretive validity has been questioned and criticized repeatedly since the ＂literary theory＂ boom in the 1990s. However, so far, the academic world only manages to deconstruct without being able to reconstruct. A systematic and rigorous ＂interpretive model＂ for original ancient Chinese perspectives on literary history has yet to be established to form the theoretical basis for writing ＂Chinese literary history.＂ This paper, therefore, focuses on the original ancient Chinese ＂normal and mutated perspectives on literary history.＂ Through understanding, interpreting, analyzing, assembling relevant texts, it reveals and reorganizes hidden, scattered ideas, so as to ＂reconstruct＂ them into two systematic and rigorous ＂interpretive models＂ as standards for theories on ＂literary history.＂ They are ＂circular movements from the normal to the mutated and back＂ and ＂changing with time and returning to the origin.＂ These two interpretive models about the normal and the mutated perspectives on literary history can guide the writing of modern Chinese Literary History and also explain the transformation from the normal to the mutated and back for various genres over the ages.