紀弦、覃子豪的東京經驗及戰後在台詩歌活動潛藏的日本路徑

The ''Tokyo Experiences'' of Ji Sián and Qín Zǐh-Háo and the Hidden Paths in Their Post-War Poetry Activities in Taiwan

1970年，陳千武首度提出「兩個根球論」，修正既往將台灣現代詩視為 中國五四新文學之支流、一元論的文學史敘事，代之以中國、日本殖民統治時 期的雙重源流。然而二元分立的根球論，卻也讓我們容易忽略東亞現代文學在 戰前的發展即存在著相當頻繁的人員移動及美學流動的「跨境」事實。例如， 主導1950-1960年代的台灣詩壇的幾位外省籍詩人如紀弦、覃子豪等都擁有留 日經驗。他們在戰後來到台灣，即與以日本現代主義文學為養分的台籍詩人林 亨泰等合流，共同推動戰後台灣的現代主義運動。 這篇論文嘗試回溯紀弦、覃子豪在戰後鮮少談起的東京經驗，並追索其 戰後在台詩歌活動與日本現代主義詩運動系譜的聯繫，指出兩點：一、紀弦自 中國帶來的現代詩火種，並不只是源自西方或上海，亦有取徑自日本春山行夫 的「主知」論、及《詩與詩論》引介的世界現代主義思潮的影響。二、覃子豪 為了隱蔽其在東京時期與「左聯東京支盟」密切往來的左派身分，在戰後台灣 以一溫和且無涉政治的浪漫主義、象徵派詩人姿態登場，且鮮談東京經驗。但 他在現代派論戰中對紀弦採取的修正主義路線―包括反對橫的移植、調和知 性與抒情，以及將象徵主義置於自身詩學建構的核心位置，雖不能排除法國象徵主義或後期創造社對他的直接影響，卻也重現了1930年代中期「四季派」對《詩與詩論》極端主知主義路線的修正。透過這兩個例子可以發現，日本在戰前的1930年代已經結束了的現代主義詩運動的遺產，透過中國、台灣複線的傳播，重新匯聚於戰後的台灣，並成為戰後中文現代主義詩運動的養分、以及台籍／外省籍作家交會對話的知識基礎。在這層意義上，構成戰後台灣現代詩的「兩個根球」並非截然分立的兩脈，而是布滿著各種曲折流動的跨文化路徑。戰後台灣中文現代詩的成立及現代主義運動的重探，不只是台灣文學的議題，而是涉及東亞的文學傳播及再生產的新議題。

In 1970, Chen Cian-Wǔfirst proposed the ''Two Bulbs Theory,'' a concept which sought to amend the historical narratives of literary history that regarded modern Taiwanese poetry as a tributary to the May Fourth New Literature of China, and claiming that modern Taiwanese poetry emerged in both China and the Japanese Period. However, due to the binary view of the Two Bulbs Theory, the fact that frequent ''cross-border'' human migrations and aesthetic flows had already influenced the development of East Asian Modernist literature prior World War II is often ignored. Ji Sián and Qín ZǐhHáo, two Mainlanders who were among those writers that dominated Taiwanese poetry in the 1950s and 1960s, both studied in Japan for some time. After arriving in Taiwan post-WWII, together with Taiwanese poet Lin Heng-Tai, whose writing was heavily nurtured by Japanese modernist literature, they promoted the post-war modernist movement in Taiwan. This paper retraces the Tokyo experience that both Ji Sián and Qín Zǐh-Háo seldom referred to after the war, thus finding the connection between their post-war poetry activities and the genealogy of the Japanese modernist poetry movement. Firstly, the ''kindling'' of modernist poetry that Ji Sián brought with him not only traced its origins to Shanghai or the Western world, but was also influenced by Japanese poet Yukio Haruyama's ''Intellectualism'' and the Modernist thoughts introduced in Poetry and Poetics. Secondly, in order to conceal his identity as a leftist who had close contacts with the Tokyo branch of the Chinese League of Left-Wing Writers during his stay in Tokyo, Qín Zǐh-Háo presented himself as a gentle, apolitical romanticist and symbolist poet in Taiwan after WWII, and rarely talked about his experiences in Tokyo. Yet, in his revision to Ji Sián's theories in the modernist debates, including his opposition the ''horizontal transplantation'', a harmonizing intellectualism and lyricism, and the placing of symbolism at the core of his poetic construction, Qín Zǐh-Háo represented the Seasonists' revision to the extreme intellectualism in Poetry and Poetics in mid-1930s, although it is not possible to disregard the influences that French Symbolism and later The Creative Society had on him. The legacy of Japan's modernist poetry movement, ending prior WWII, was disseminated through both China and Taiwan, and recurred in post-war Taiwan, where it then nurtured the post-war Chinese modernist poetry movement, and became the knowledge base from which interactions and dialogues among Taiwanese and mainland poets took root. In this sense, the ''Two Bulbs'' that consist of post-war Taiwanese modernist poetry are not a binary opposition, but rather paths lined with flows and intricacies instead. The establishment of post-war modernist Chinese poetry in Taiwan and the re-exploration of Modernism are more than just a topic of discussion in Taiwanese literature; they involve the spread and reproduction of literatures across East Asia.