1940年代「九葉派」詩論──以袁可嘉為例

Poetic Theory of the “Nine Leaves School” in the 1940s: Yuan Kejia As A Prime Example

所謂「九葉詩派」，是指1940年代在《中國新詩》上發表作品的九位重要詩人，標誌著當時新詩藝術的高峰。他們崇尚現代主義，跟寫實主義的主流相悖。因為政治因素，在50至70年代消失於中國大陸的文學史，及至1981年其《九葉集》面世大受歡迎，才被學術界重新發現。九葉詩人當中，袁可嘉是最具洞察力的評論家，他借鑒英美文學理論和中西現代派詩歌實踐，發展出一套可跟左翼評論家針鋒相對的論述，又能落實到具體的文本分析，透視穆旦等九葉詩人的詩藝特質，成為九葉派詩論的代言人。他強調詩的本質以對抗政治至上的文藝大眾化思潮，提倡用間接、迂迴的手法來呈現複雜的現代生活經驗，推動理性與情感結合的「感性革命」，這些理論正好矯正了新詩散文化和大眾化帶來的弊端。本文擬對袁可嘉的詩論作整體性分析，解釋當中各主要元素之間的關係。全文分為三個部分，首先審視他對新詩藝術本質的論述，然後討論他如何受西方現代主義啟發，在反對「人民的文學」過程中建立一種強調複雜性和協調包容的民主思想。第二部分闡釋他提倡綜合「象徵、玄學與現實」的新詩傳統，探索背後有何論據和預設。最後從他論新詩「戲劇化」的技術層次開展探討，進而深入其詩學的核心，指出當中包含著自由主義政治觀，跟其民主文化論述互相呼應。

The “Nine Leaves School” refers to nine prominent poets who published their works in the Shanghai-based journal Zhongguo xinshi during the 1940s, which marked the zenith of the art of Chinese new poetry at the time. They were advocates of modernism, reacting against the main current of realism. Because of political reasons, these poets vanished from the literary scene of Mainland China from the 1950s to 1970s. But because of the 1981 publication of Jiuye ji, an anthology of their poems, they were “rediscovered” by the academia. Among them, Yuan Kejia was the most clairvoyant critic, who had learnt from Anglo-American literary theory as well as the poetic practices of Western and Chinese modernists. His critical discourse rivaled the best of contemporary Leftist critics, while being meticulous in terms of textual explication. Countering the highly politicized current of “mass literature,” Yuan emphasized the autonomy of literature, promoted a subtle and indirect way of representing the complex experiences of modern life in poetry, and hastened the fusion of reason and feeling in what he called the “revolution of sensibility.” Divided into three sections, this paper offers a comprehensive analysis of Yuan's poetic theory. The first part examines the nature of new poetry in his theory, explaining how, inspired by Western modernist ideas, he developed a democratic thought which stresses complexity, reconciliation of differences, and tolerance. The second part details his concept of a poetic tradition synthesizing “symbolism, metaphysics and reality.” The last part tackles the core of his theory, focusing on his understanding of dramatization and dialectics, which is in correspondence with his liberal humanist ideal of democracy.