检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:李建中[1]
机构地区:[1]中南民族大学文学院特聘首席教授,武汉430074
出 处:《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年第1期32-38,共7页Journal of Sun Yat-sen University(Social Science Edition)
基 金:教育部人文社会科学项目《中国文论之批评文体研究》(批准号07JA751004)
摘 要:该文以三位京派批评家(李长之、沈从文和李健吾)在20世纪三、四十年代的文学批评实绩为例,探讨中国古代文论的批评文体能否以及如何"活"在现代,"活"在当下。李长之标举"传记体批评",沈从文选择"印象式批评",李健吾践行"随笔式批评",表面上是模拟式地学习现代西方的文学批评方法,实质上是创造性地承续古代中国的文学批评文体,他们的"西就"之路实为"东归"之途。三位批评家在中与西、古与今之间的游走,对于我们重新认识中国古代文论的出路和走向有着重要启示意义和典范价值。This paper attempts to explore how the style of Chinese ancient literary criticism can exist in modern China by analyzing the tangible achievements of three critics of Beijing School in the 1930s and 1940s,namely Li Changzhi,Shen Congwen,and Li Jianwu.The biographical criticism of Li Changzhi,the impressionistic criticism of Shen Congwen,and the prosaic criticism of Li Jianwu all adopted the mode of modern Western literary criticism.However,their criticisms were the creative successions of the style of Chinese ancient literary criticism in essence.Therefore,the adoption of the Western methods was actually the return to the Chinese tradition.These three critics,by blending the Chinese and the Western,the ancient and the modern,provided great enlightening significance and valuable examples for studies on the future of Chinese ancient literary criticism.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15