宇文所安文学史观下文学史与选集间互证关系刍论--以《剑桥中国文学史》《诺顿中国文选》唐代研究为例  

Under Stephen Owen’s View of Literary History:A Tentative Discussion on the Mutual Verification Relationship Between Literary History and Anthologies--Taking the Tang Dynasty Research in The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature and The Norton Anthology of Chinese Literature as Examples

作　　者：姬洁如 周睿[1] Ji Jieru;Zhou Rui

机构地区：[1]西南大学文学院,400715

出　　处：《杜甫研究学刊》2025年第2期112-124,共13页Journal of Du fu Studies

基　　金：上海市浦江人才计划项目“英语世界书写中国文学史的批评文艺史观比较研究”(2022PJC088)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：《剑桥中国文学史》与《诺顿中国文选》是宇文所安中国文学史观的一体两面。二者在文本选择、编撰方式上具有相似性,体现作者的文学文化史理念与评价体系,同时又各有侧重:《剑桥中国文学史》主要从外部物质环境中考察文学实践,《诺顿中国文选》则更关注文学传统的互文性与审美特征,两者恰好在互证互补之中集中彰显宇文所安对中国古典文学的基本认知。宇文所安文学史观的系统建构与傅汉思的引领及自身早期唐诗史写作实践间存在密切关联。The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature and The Norton Anthology of Chinese Literature are two sides of the same coin in Stephen Owen’s conception of Chinese literary history.Both works share similarities in text selection and compilation methods,reflecting the author’s literary-cultural historical perspectives and evaluation systems.At the same time,each has its own emphasis:The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature primarily examines literary practice from the perspective of external material environments,while The Norton Anthology of Chinese Literature pays more attention to the intertextuality and aesthetic characteristics of literary traditions.Together,through mutual verification and complementarity,the two works collectively highlight Stephen Owen’s fundamental understanding of classical Chinese literature.The systematic construction of Owen’s literary historiography is closely related to the guidance of David Hawkes and his own early practices in writing the history of Tang poetry.

关 键 词：宇文所安文学史观 《剑桥中国文学史》 《诺顿中国文选》 互证互补 

分 类 号：I20[文学—中国文学]