“道”论的显隐与学科分化——20世纪英语世界中国文学叙述中的《庄子》  

The Visibility and Invisibility of the“Dao”Theory and the Division of Disciplines——Zhuangzi in the Narratives of Chinese Literature in the English-speaking World in the 20th Century

作　　者：于雪棠[1] YU Xue-tang

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学文学院

出　　处：《河北学刊》2025年第2期73-81,共9页Hebei Academic Journal

摘　　要：《庄子》的第一学科属性是哲学,文学是其第二学科属性。在20世纪英语世界的中国文学叙述中,对《庄子》的选篇及解读从一个侧面反映出文学与哲学的学科分化过程。翟理斯介绍《庄子》的“道”论,关注生命主题,与其《庄子》英文全译本相比较,哲学注释退场,文学初步独立。华兹生不再论及《庄子》的“道”论,白之将哲学与文学完全对立。与同时期的哲学选本相比较,文学与哲学形成了各自的话语体系。20世纪最后十年,梅维恒、宇文所安和闵福德、刘绍铭等学者编选的三种文选,再次述及《庄子》之“道”,不再排斥《庄子》的哲学属性。《秋水》《齐物论》《说剑》等篇全文入编,与哲学文选虽有重合,但其着眼点仍有区别,具有鲜明的文学研究特征。The primary disciplinary attribute of the Zhuangzi is philosophy,with literature being its secondary attribute.In the 20th-century narratives of Chinese literature in the English-speaking world,the selection and interpretation of Zhuangzi reflect,from one perspective,the process of the division between literature and philosophy.Herbert Giles introduced the“Dao”theory of Zhuangzi,focusing on the theme of life.Compared with his complete English translation of Zhuangzi,the philosophical annotations receded,and literature began to emerge as an independent entity.Burton Watson no longer discussed the“Dao”theory of Zhuangzi,while Cyril Birchcompletely opposed philosophy and literature.Compared with contemporary philosophical anthologies,literature and philosophy formed their own discourse systems.In the last decade of the 20th century,three anthologies edited by scholars such as Victor H.Mair,Stephen Owen,John Minford,and Liu Shaoming re-addressed the“Dao”in Zhuangzi,no longer excluding its philosophical attributes.Chapters such as Autumn Floods,On The Equality of Things,and Delight in the Sword-fightwere included in full.Although there was some overlap with philosophical anthologies,the focus remained distinct,characterized by a clear literary research feature.

关 键 词：英语世界 庄子 “道”论 学科分化 《齐物论》 

分 类 号：I206[文学—中国文学]