混融、交涉、衍變到別用、分流、佈體──「抒情文學史」的反思與「完境文學史」的構想

二十世紀七○年代，旅美漢學家陳世驤提出中國文學「抒情傳統」之說，對台灣及美國學界關於中國文學之特質與歷史的論述，影響非常深遠；而約略同一時期，在大陸學界，被教條化的馬克斯主義，也成為中國文學史書寫的意識形態框架。這兩者都不免片面地簡化中國古代文學多元因素的結構與錯綜變遷的歷程；故本文在反思、批判這類論述之後，另外提出「完境文學史」的理論性構想，開展一種創造性的詮釋視域，期能更切實地重構中國古代文學史。這一理論性的構想，其基本假定是：文學家乃處於「三重性」的歷史存在與社會存在之情境中生產其文本。第一重是在「地域民族」限定下的存在情境；第二重是在「社會階層」限定下的存在情境；第三重則是在「文學社群」限定下的存在情境；而這三重空間性限定的存在情境，又都受到時間性之「文化傳統」的限定。前二重存在情境，我們稱之為「社會文化存在情境」；後一重存在情境，我們稱之為「文學存在情境」。而不管哪一重存在情境，都是由各種觀念性及經驗性之主客因素，經緯混融、交涉、衍變而構成的整體性情境。對於一個文學家而言，這三重存在情境必然形成靜態結構性的疊合、混融與動態歷程性的交涉、衍變，而最終以符號形式的「文本」表現為可被理解、詮釋的「文學存在情境」。而從「社會文化存在情境」轉化為「文學存在情境」，並表現成符號形式的文本，其關鍵性因素即是「文學心靈」。「完境文學史」的建構，就是以這一理論為基礎。其實踐操作必須兼顧文學家及其所生產之文本的三重存在情境，並有效詮釋他們如何從混融、交涉、衍變到別用、分流、佈體的結構與歷程。

In the 1970s, Chen Shih-hsiang, the sinologist who traveled to the U.S., proposed his theory of “lyrical tradition” in Chinese literature. This theory had a profound impact on how the Taiwanese and U.S. academic communities viewed the characteristics and history of Chinese literature. Around the same time, in Mainland China, dogmatic Marxism became the ideological framework used to write the history of Chinese literature. Both Chen’s “lyrical tradition” and the Marxist framework oversimplified the multi-faceted structure and complex historical development of traditional Chinese literature. In addition to critiquing these two positions, this paper introduces a theoretical concept – “the history of literature as an integral whole” - which opens a type of vista for creative interpretation. It is hoped that this concept will be able to reconstruct the history of Chinese traditional literature more fruitfully. The foundational hypothesis informing this theoretical concept is that literary authors produce their texts in a threefold field of historical and social existence. The first fold concerns the field of existence determined by “territorial nationality”; the second fold refers to “social stratum”; and the third fold denotes the “literary community.” Moreover, these three fields of existence are delimited by space and time; that is, by “culture and tradition”. We call the first two folds “the fields of social and cultural existence,” and the last fold “the field of literary existence.” Each fold is part of an integral situation that blends, interacts, and evolves through various conceptual and experiential, as well as subjective and objective factors. For a literary author, inevitably, this threefold field of existence not only overlaps and blends in a static structure, it further interacts and evolves in a dynamic process. In the final step, the author employs the symbolic form of the text to present an understandable and interpretable “field of literary existence.” In the transformation from “the field of social and cultural existence” to that of “literary existence,” and in its presentation in the symbolic form of the text, the key factor is the “literary mind.”The construction of the “history of literature as an integral whole” takes this theory as its basis. To put it into practice, one must give consideration to both literary authors and the threefold field of existence informing their production of texts. One must also effectively interpret the structure and process of how the fields blend, interact with each other, evolve, and further how they are separated, classified, and distributed.