论文部分内容阅读
本文从考虑事与史的关系开始。如果事之为事离不开史,离不开史对于事之依据时间和因果模式的记录,那么就是史使事成为事,尽管史又只是或只应该是事之忠实记录。因此,我们需要对历史(historiography)的被认为应该具有的客观性和科学性进行质疑。具体到文学史上,我们需要重新考虑文学之事——作为全新事件的文学——与文学史——作为对于文学事件的某种形式的记录——之间的关系,需要重新考虑我们在文学史中对所谓客观性或科学性的不可避免的追求所必然蕴涵的问题。如果文学的历史试图讲述一个有关过去的文学之事的故事,试图把过去所发生的作品放在一个可以让人理解其前因后果的序列之中,那么文学史本质上就属于文学——我们通常所理解的文学——的一个主要形式范畴:叙事。于是,文学史在某种意义上其实也是文学,是历史的文学,是叙(文学之)事的艺术,而不是可以与“文学”对立起来的“科学”。本文进而分析了这一情况的复杂含义。
This article begins with considering the relationship between events and history. If things are inseparable from history, and inseparable from the historical records of events based on time and causal patterns, it is the events of history that make things happen, though history is only or should be a faithful record of things. Therefore, we need to question the supposed objectivity and scientificity of historiography. Specifically in the history of literature, we need to reconsider the issue of literature - the relationship between literature as a whole new event - and literary history - as a form of recording of literary events - that requires reconsideration of what we have done in literary history In the so-called objective or scientific inevitable pursuit of the inevitable problems. If the history of literature attempts to tell a story about past literary things, trying to put the works of the past in a sequence that can make sense of the antecedents and consequences, then literary history is essentially literature - Understand the literature - one of the main forms Category: narrative. Thus, in a certain sense, literary history is actually literary, historical literature, the art of narrative (literary) matters, not “science” that can be contrasted with “literary”. This article further analyzes the complex meaning of this situation.