“文学批评”与“文学科学”——夏志清与普实克的“文学史”辩论  

Literary Criticism and Literary Science: A Debate on Literary Historiography Between C. T. Hsia and Jaroslav Pruek

作　　者：陈国球[1] 

机构地区：[1]香港教育学院语文学院

出　　处：《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2011年第1期48-60,共13页Journal of Peking University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

摘　　要：1961年3月,美国耶鲁大学出版夏志清的《中国现代小说史》。这是以英语写成的第一本中国现代文学史著作;前此,西方学界对中国文学的关注点主要在于古代文学,因此,夏志清这部深具前瞻性的著作出版后很受学界欢迎。1962年,著名汉学期刊T’oung Pao刊出普实克长篇书评,对夏著做了非常苛刻的批评。夏志清为文反驳,在同一刊物发表响应。由于意识形态的分野,再加上一些个人意气,两人的争论非常激烈。双方互相指控对方充满"政治偏见",而力陈己方才是文学的"艺术价值"的守护者。然而,这次辩论的真正学术意义却不在此,而在于双方对"文学史书写"的态度和取向:夏志清以"文学批评"作为首要任务,而普实克则认为"文学科学"才是研究"文学史"的正道。事实上二人的理论各有渊源:普实克深受布拉格学派和马克思主义的影响,而夏志清论述背后则是"新批评"和利瓦伊斯"伟大的传统"观念。二人的辩论,牵涉文学定位和研究方法的思考;其不同的意见,对今天的文学研究或者文学史书写活动,实有其参考价值。C.T.Hsia’s＂A History of Modern Chinese Fiction,1917—1957： appeared in 1961.It is the first literary history of modern Chinese literature written in English,and exerted an immense impact on the ensuing Chinese studies in the West.Nonetheless,not long after its publication,Jaroslav Pruek,a renowned sinologist from Czechoslovakia,wrote an extremely unfavorable long review attacking the book as ＂political propaganda＂of＂dogmatic intolerance＂.In response,Hsia published a similarly lengthy rejoinder criticizing Pruek’s socialist indoctrination.However,the genuine significance of the Hsia-Pruek debate is that of literary historiography.Pruek associates a literary historian with a scientist,whereas Hsia makes no differentiation between the writing of literary history and that of literary criticism.Their varied approaches in fact originate from different theoretical backgrounds.The former is an advocate of Prague structuralism and Marxism,while the latter a disciple of New Criticism and F.R.Leavis.Their debate does shed lights on our understanding of the nature and function of literary study and literary history.

关 键 词：夏志清 普实克 文学史 文学批评 文学科学 

分 类 号：I06[文学—文学理论]