論文學史述作的學術倫理——從楊雲萍批判黃得時之「剪刀漿糊」說起

On the Academic Ethics of Literary History Writing--Starting with Yang Yun-ping’s Criticism of Huang De-shi’s Work as “Scissors and Paste”

黃得時（1909－1999）述論臺灣文學史，被楊雲萍（1906－2000）譏為「剪刀漿糊」，係剽竊、剪貼、複製，陳芳明等學者亦質疑黃得時史觀抄襲連橫。惟研究者葉石濤、吳叡人等，則推崇黃氏臺灣文學史研究確立臺灣文學的範疇、發揮了臺灣人的主體性、建立個人創新性的見解與脈絡。這些迥異的觀點揭示了包括黃氏在內的文學史書寫者的兩個向度：文學史處理文獻，提出詮釋，在文獻使用或對普遍性詮釋接受的部分；亦有具創新性個人見解與脈絡，此即史觀與洞見。本文關注黃氏的創襲爭議，指出學術倫理的判斷必須回到當時的語境，並將之提升到文學史書寫的議題，佐證以郭沫若、魯迅的案例，藉此指出文學史文獻材料處理的模糊地帶：作者生平小傳、年譜、跨國譯述等等，創襲不易分判；再加上文學史書寫跨歷史與文學，不同學科對創襲的認知有所不同，更加劇了創襲的爭議性。本文嘗試建立以「原義所指」與「創義所指」作為判定創襲的新標準。原義所指係符號所要表達之物，容許合理使用不引注；創義所指則為個人從符號所表達的意思中建立自己的看法。後者形成與文本新的關係，屬個人的創新論見，務須引注。藉此，期能廓清今昔學術倫理的思考脈絡，有助於未來學者對中文學術書寫倫理的認識與分判。

Huang De-shi’s (1909-1999) work on the history of Taiwanese literature was criticized by Yang Yun-ping (1906-2000) as a work made with “scissors and paste,” and questioned by Chen Fang-ming and other scholars for plagiarizing Lian Heng’s historical view. However, researchers like Yeh Shih-tao, Wu Rui-ren, etc., have praised Huang’s work for establishing the field of Taiwanese literary study, inspiring the subjectivity of Taiwanese people, and constructing an innovative perspective and context. These differing views reveal two dimensions to the writing of literary history: a literary history organizes historical materials and offers interpretation that could be similar or identical to previous works, but it must also offer innovative context, namely original historical view and insights. This article focuses on the controversy surrounding Huang De-shi’s work of creative plagiarism work, treating it as a case of literary history writing and referencing the other cases involving Guo Mo-ruo and Lu Xun to highlight a grey area in the treatment of historical materials--it is difficult to draw a line between plagiarism and creative plagiarism when it comes to biographies, chronicles, and translations, etc. In addition, literary history writing encompasses both history and literature, disciplines that have differing views on plagiarism, further complicating the controversy. This article attempts to establish a new criteria for judging plagiarism cases based upon the two principles of “original referent” and “creative referent.” Original referent refers to the object symbols meant to represent and can be employed without proper reference. Creative referent, on the other hand, refers to the personal view, the meaning expressed through individual use of symbols. The latter establishes a new relationship with the text, creating innovative, original perspectives that require reference. It is hoped that the new principles can contribute to a clearer understanding of Chinese academic ethics for future scholars.