追源溯流，旁敲側擊：論周作人的《新文學的源流》
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014-03-??
Authors
陳岸峰
Chan, Ngon-fung
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國文系
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Department of Chinese, NTNU
Abstract
一般論述均以為周作人《中國新文學的源流》中之文學史觀乃對胡適文學史觀的挑戰。事實上，周作人在《中國新文學的源流》表面上攻擊胡適文學史觀及其種種不足，並回擊了胡適昔日他兄弟二人及師承之學術批評；而其貶抑「載道」而揄揚「言志」，甚至提倡晚明小品文之個性與抒情，均乃意圖力挽左翼之挪用五四文學遺產作為革命宣傳之狂瀾。準此而言，周作人在書中之「追源溯流，旁敲側擊」既是其論述策略，亦是其以學理釐清真相、建構國語及提倡晚明小品文，藉此以捍衛五四文學傳統之獨立與尊嚴。
In The Source of Chinese New Literature, most of the critics believe that Zhou’s comment was a challenge to Hu Shih’s view on literary history. In fact, Zhou’s viewpoints was not only an attack to the insufficiency of Hu Shih’s views on literary history but also a feedback to Hu Shi’s academic criticism on him and his brother Lushun and their academic succession. Zhou’s underlying intention, he praised the concept of “expressing aspirations and feelings” and criticized the concept of “conveying Tao in article”, and advocated individuality and lyricism of late Ming essays, however, was to prevent the literary legacy of the May Fourth Movement from being appropriated as revolutionary propaganda by the Left-wing Association. In short, Zhou’s “searching for the sources and probing other possibilities” was a strategic discourse, as well as his academic interpretation to clarify the truth of literary development, to construct ideal National Language, to advocate late Ming essays, and hereby to defend the independence and dignity of literary tradition of May Fourth Movement.
In The Source of Chinese New Literature, most of the critics believe that Zhou’s comment was a challenge to Hu Shih’s view on literary history. In fact, Zhou’s viewpoints was not only an attack to the insufficiency of Hu Shih’s views on literary history but also a feedback to Hu Shi’s academic criticism on him and his brother Lushun and their academic succession. Zhou’s underlying intention, he praised the concept of “expressing aspirations and feelings” and criticized the concept of “conveying Tao in article”, and advocated individuality and lyricism of late Ming essays, however, was to prevent the literary legacy of the May Fourth Movement from being appropriated as revolutionary propaganda by the Left-wing Association. In short, Zhou’s “searching for the sources and probing other possibilities” was a strategic discourse, as well as his academic interpretation to clarify the truth of literary development, to construct ideal National Language, to advocate late Ming essays, and hereby to defend the independence and dignity of literary tradition of May Fourth Movement.