传统是推动文学发展的根本动力——论新批评的文学史观  

The Literature Development is Rooted in Tradition——On historical view on the new literature criticism

作　　者：温潘亚[1] 

机构地区：[1]盐城师范学院,江苏盐城224002

出　　处：《河南社会科学》2006年第3期105-109,共5页Henan Social Sciences

基　　金：江苏省教育厅哲学社会科学基金指导项目(编号05SJD750015);江苏省重点建设学科--"比较文学与世界文学"科研基金项目;盐城师范学院教授;博士科研项目

摘　　要：长期以来,理论界几乎形成了一种共识,即认为新批评仅擅长共时研究而欠缺历史观念,其实这是不符合实际的。新批评派主要有两种类型:一类是专注于对诗进行细读;另一类以艾略特和韦勒克为代表,具有较明显的文学史意识。艾略特认为传统是推动文学发展的根本动力,文学史的评价标准是“外部权威”。韦勒克则主张文学批评、文学史与文学理论三者相结合。维姆萨特与比尔兹利的理论也间接地涉及文学史问题。但新批评文学史模式在竭力维护文本中心论的同时却不可避免地走向了另一种片面,殊为可惜。For a long time, it has been theoretically recognized that the new criticism is only keen on the synchronic research rather than t However, it is not the case. As he paradigmatic one due to the lack of known, there have existed two main forms historical views on literature. of the new criticism： the one focusing on the intensive reading of poems and the other, representative of Eliot and Wellek, being characteristic of the literature history. Eliot believes that the literature development is basically rooted in tradition and the literature history should be estimated depending should combine the literature criticism, the on ＂external authorities＂, while Weilek suggests that the reseachers literature history with the literature theory. Also, Wimsatt and Beardsley are concerned about the literature history indirectly. Nevertheless, it is inevitable the new literature criticism comes to the other end while it upholds the content-oriented view.

关 键 词：新批评文学史观 艾略特 “非个人化” 韦勒克 “意图谬见” 

分 类 号：I06[文学—文学理论]