T.S.艾略特“秩序”理论批评研究
|
摘要
本论文《T. S.艾略特“秩序”理论批评研究——诗化哲学探究》主要探讨艾略特(1888-1965)的“秩序理论”,如何从哲学领域转化、运用、实践到其诗学、宗教、文化、社会与创作之中,构成一个密不可分的整体。“秩序理论”是T. S.艾略特众多理论中的一个极其复杂、极其矛盾的核心理论之一,它是理解艾略特的哲学思想、宗教思想、诗学理论和创作活动的重要线索。对各种“秩序”的探讨贯穿了这位“诗人哲学家”的一生:从孩提时候的“神秘幻觉”:“结束小姐与开始先生结婚”;“上先生与下小姐私奔”(Ackroyd 22),到年老时的“上升的路就是下降的路,向前的路就是向后的路”;“开始就是结束,结束就是开始”(CP, Four Quartets 189, 210, 221)。但一系列有关秩序理论的正式出现是在艾略特的博士论文《认知与经验:布莱德利的哲学研究》(1911-1916完成,1964年出版)中,后来完善于他的诗学和戏剧理论中,并在他的创作中得以印证和实践。艾略特的秩序理论既是一种形而上的哲学与宗教的探讨,也是一个诗学和创作的具体实践过程。艾略特一生在“思”与“诗”之间的不断求索中艰难地摸索着,从哲学秩序到诗学秩序,从宗教秩序到伦理道德秩序,从文化秩序到社会秩序,从世俗秩序到非世俗秩序,最终找到了一个包罗万象的“宇宙秩序”。
本论文采用对话的形式,从哲学视角阐释了T. S.艾略特的“秩序理论”的发展历程,其“秩序理论”既包含对立面的对话,也包含统一面的对话,对话最终追寻的是一个统一谐调的“秩序”。但它们并非表层的现实对话,而是表达了一个隐形的艰辛探索。这个艰辛代表着被研究者的“秩序”是“一个痛苦的黑暗探究”(Jain 205)。正如艾略特本人所以为的:“灵魂的生命本身并非拥有一个固有的统一体”,而是我们在为它们执行“一个痛苦的统合各种互为冲突的任务”(KE 147)。通过建立一个理念上、艺术上的社会秩序,艾略特让诗学承担起了危机四伏的现代哲学的使命,为在生命之轻中漂泊辗转的现代人重新寻回生命的根基。正如李维斯所说:“二十世纪中期,英美的传统批评源头极其复杂,极其矛盾……现代社会的哲学和宗教将会被‘诗学取代’,其中最有影响的人物就是美国的诗人、戏剧家、批评家,T. S.艾略特”(Selden 13)。艾略特用自己的诗思和生命体验筑建起意义丰盈的世界,让我们在与他那些作品赤诚相间的瞬间,经历彻悟和感动。他用那束玫瑰花渗透我们生命的光芒:“一个极其单纯的境界/……烈火与玫瑰合二为一/一切将平安无事/宇宙万物将平安无事”(CP, Little Gidding 222-223;赵罗蕤译179)。艾略特是通过有智性的、有智慧的、有传统意义的秩序的追求,重建生命世界的统一体,重新召回人类存在的原始本真:“谦逊是道成肉身最原始、最好的体现和智慧的化身”(FLA 14-15)。
本论文通过艾略特的“传统观”、“非个性化”、“客体关联物”(注:“objective correlatives”本作者以为应译为“客体关联物”,而不是“客观对应物”)、“情感统一说”的理论溯源,并结合对艾略特成长过程中受影响的作家、哲学家、文学批评家以及人类学家的思想,对艾略特的秩序观作了全方位的探讨,归纳了其秩序理论中的四个重要模块:第一个模块:“哲学视角下”的秩序包含两种模式:“认识论视角下”的秩序和“方法论视角下”的秩序;第二个模块:“诗学视角下”的秩序隐含两种模式:“语言视角下”的秩序和“心理视角下”的秩序;第三个模块:“文化视角下”的秩序包含了三种模式:“宗教视角下”的秩序,“伦理道德视角下”的秩序以及“文化视角下”的秩序;第四个模块:“社会视角下”的秩序模式。每一组秩序的对立面及其统一面都是在具有智性维度和传统价值的“更高的有限中心”寻找统一和皈依的产物。
本论文共分六章。第一章“序言”包括五点:第一点指出了许多人对艾略特的三个误读。第一个是有人认为“非个性化”和“客体关联物”理论是艾略特首先提出的;第二个误读是有人认为这两个理论是艾略特在其论文“传统与个人才能”(1919)和“哈姆雷特与他的问题”(1919)中提出的;第三个误读是有人认为“非个性化”和“客体关联物”仅仅是艾略特的诗学批评理论,是受法国象征主义诗人波德莱尔的“契合论”和英国浪漫主义诗人济慈的“消极感受力”诗学理论的影响而提出的。事实上,除“非个性化”、“客体关联物”理论外,艾略特还强调了“智性”、“理性和非理性的调和”、“情感统一”等概念的重要性。艾略特在哈佛大学读书期间,曾经通过阅读细读过亚里斯多德的《后分析》,了解到柏拉图的“理念论”:智性的客体就是理念。早在他的博士论文中,艾略特已借用了这些哲学术语,后来又巧妙地借用到其诗学研究。人们对艾略特误读的原因主要有三点:第一,人们只知道艾略特是诗人、文学评论家而不了解其哲学思想;第二,人们只研读艾略特来到英国(1914)以后的文学理论和诗歌创作,很少有人读过他的博士论文以及其在哈佛大学读书期间研讨会上的发言稿;第三,在中国,艾略特的博士论文《认知与经验:布莱德利的哲学研究》,《在陌生的神祗之后》(1934),《远古与现代研究》(1936),《基督教社会理念》(1939),《文化定义札记》(1948),《对批评家的批评及其作品》(1965),以及他在哈佛大学大学读书时的研讨报告,还有许多发表在学术期刊上的论文,至今没有汉语版,而这些著作和论文对我们理解艾略特的哲学思想及其后来的诗学、宗教、文化社会等等理论的发展渊源有重要的意义。
事实上,艾略特的思想本身就是哲学、诗学、宗教和社会学相交融的“有机秩序”,其中哲学是他诗歌创作的思想基础,文学批评理论的铺垫,是他在文学创作和文学批评的道路上走向辉煌的导航,尽管他是因诗作流芳百世。对艾略特的诗学与诗歌的理解和研究离不开他的哲学思想,因为“他是一个诗人哲学家”(Abel 2006)。艾略特在哈佛大学攻读硕士和博士学位的研究方向都是探讨哲学问题,他一生从师于许多世界哲学名师,如欧文·白璧特、柏格森、罗素、劳伊斯、烂熳、伍德斯等等,研读过众多哲学家、人类学家、宗教家的著作,如苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德、笛卡尔、康德、黑格尔、布莱德利、涂尔干、莱维?布吕尔、弗雷泽等等,这些学者对艾略特的“秩序”思想产生了巨大的影响,尤其是柏拉图、亚里士多德、罗素、布莱德利、柏格森、欧文·白璧特、弗雷泽等。艾略特聚这些哲学家的思想于一身,一直在为无家可归的现代人寻找生命秩序和灵魂皈依。艾略特的秩序理论在他的作品中得到体现,同时又在其作品中得到升华,表现最突出的有《疯狂的夜晚》(1911)、《情歌》(1917)、《荒原》(1922)、《灰星期三》(1930)《合家团圆》(1939)、《四个四重奏》(1944)、《致妻子》(1959)。这也是他一直主张理论与创作相结合的缘由所在:“诗人的理论更源于他的创作实践”(OPP 42)。
第二点和第三点是关于国内外艾略特的哲学与诗学、创作关系的研究现状。到目前为止,国外除一些零星的分析外,有四部相关研究专著(尚无汉语版):弗里德(Lewis Freed)的《T. S.艾略特:哲学批评家》于1979年由普渡大学出版社出版,此书认为艾略特的哲学思想受益于布莱德利形而上的哲学思想;斯伽佛(William Skaff)的《T. S.艾略特哲学:从怀疑主义到超现实主义诗学,1909-1927》于1986年由宾夕法尼亚大学出版社出版,此书从哲学视角探讨了艾略特怎样从怀疑主义走向超现实主义;舒斯特曼(Richard Shusterman)的《T. S.艾略特和批评哲学》于1988年由吉拉德?大科沃斯有限公司出版,此书认为罗素和亚里士多德影响了艾略特的哲学思想;蔓菊·简(Manju Jain)的《T. S.艾略特和美国哲学:哈佛大学时期》于1992年由剑桥大学出版社出版,此书探讨了艾略特在哈佛大学读书期间所受过影响的哲学思想以及艾略特所表现的哲学思想。这四本专著对本作者的研究有极大的帮助和启发。这些研究成果普遍认为艾略特是一个一元论者(Allan 172; Freed 30; Frye 34; Leavis 180; Shusterman 47; Stead 48; Tate 234; Blackmur“T. S. Eliot: From‘Ash Wednesday’to‘Murder in the Cathedral,”203-304),本论文以为艾略特是一个追求多元统一的“诗人哲学家”。
与此相关,在中国也有一些研究成果。北京外国语大学张剑教授在发表于《外国文学评论》1995年第2期的论文“艾略特在西方——艾略特评论史述评”中指出:“‘艾氏’分析的两个阶段:20世纪上半叶侧重艾略特的诗歌文本研究;下半叶主要转向艾略特的诗学与文化研究”。但近几年已进入了艾略特研究的第三个阶段:艾略特诗化哲思的探讨。如,西南大学刘立辉教授的论文,“艾略特《四个四重奏》的文体特征”(《外语教学与研究》,2004年第5期)涉猎了《四个四重奏》的哲学背景的探讨,其另一篇论文“艾略特《四个四重奏》引语解读”(《国外文学》,2002年第3期)详细分析了艾略特基督教化的逻格斯话语与诗化哲学的智慧和理性融合为一种至高无上的浑然一体的诗性效果;湖南师范大学蒋洪新教授的“论艾略特《四个四重奏》的时间主题”(《外国文学研究》,1998年第3期)在分析艾略特的哲学时间观和宗教时间观方面给了读者一条清晰的思路;深圳大学徐文博教授的“《荒原》诗序变易的认识论观照”(《外国文学评论》,1996年第2期)从认识论的角度解释了这首被人们称为“世纪之诗”的创作理据;史成芳博士(北京大学博士,已故)的“无常与永恒之间——《四个四重奏》的时间编码”(《国外文学》,1993年第4期)结合伟大的哲学家赫拉克利特和新柏拉图式的时间观分析了艾略特在《四个四重奏》中所表现的时间观;中国社会科学院外文所陆建德教授的论文“艾略特:改变表现方式的天才”给我们暗示了艾略特的哲学思想对他的创作的影响,此论文发表在《外国文学评论》,1999年第3期;北京第二外国语学院刘燕教授的专著《现代批评之始——T. S.艾略特诗学研究》(广西师范大学出版社,2005年10月)对我们研究艾略特的哲学思想颇有启发。本文作者于2002～2004年按计划成功地完成了湖南省教育厅科研项目“《荒原》话语模式研究”,撰写了专著《<荒原>话语蕴藉研究》,于2005年4月由黑龙江教育出版社出版发行;目前正在主持2005-2008年湖南省社科联立项课题:“T. S.艾略特的诗化哲学研究”,此博士论文是该课题的主干部分。近十年的努力使本文作者对艾略特的作品、诗学理论已有较深刻的认识和较丰富的研究底蕴,对艾略特的哲学思想亦有初步的了解。如论文“探讨T. S.艾略特的‘秩序’理论”(2002年第3期《外国文学评论》)从宗教的视角上得出艾略特的“宇宙秩序”观是世俗和非世俗相交融的统一体,成为本博士论文选题的开端;发表在2005年第4期《国外文学》的“T. S.艾略特的自我意识本体论”是对艾略特秩序理论的进一步研究。这些成果为本文作者继续对从哲学视角全面地阐释艾略特的秩序理论提供了良好的基础。
第四点关于艾略特秩序理论研究的必要性。本论文力图消除多数人对艾略特的“非个性化”和“客体关联物”导致的一系列误读,如:艾略特一味地崇尚“非个性”,主张“客体化”,追求“古典”,反对“浪漫”等等说法具有重要的澄清作用。它进一步说明“非个性化”和“客体关联物”理论是艾略特诗学理论中对诗歌创作的基本要求,其目的是追究一种更深远的宇宙化的“永恒”和“秩序”,此秩序包含了“具体”与“抽象”的统一、“理性”和“感性”的统一、“个性”与“非个性”的统一、“主体”和“客体”的统一、“浪漫与古典”的统一、“宗教与社会”的谐调、“个体”与“群体”的融合、“上帝”与“人类”的和谐、“生”与“死”的循环、“过去”与“未来”的连接、“文学”与“传统”的一致等等。其最终目的是为这个疯狂、无序、混乱、浮躁的现代社会设置一个具有智性的“宇宙秩序”,并使一直以来西方理论界中“主客”分离的二元倾向得以弥合、统一。艾略特的秩序思想是追求形而上的一种理念秩序。
第二章“哲学视角下的秩序”含有两种模式:“认识论视角下的秩序”模式和“方法论视角下的秩序”模式。前者从艾略特后期的诗学散文到他早期的研讨会上的哲学论文以及其博士论文,追溯了“客体”与“客体关联物”的溯源,阐释了艾略特怎样消解“主体”和“客体”、“过去”与“将来”、“内在”与“外在”、“现实”与“理念”四组二元对立的矛盾,使其互为统一,共存一个秩序中。艾略特认为情感、印象和记忆都是感知客体,所以它们能消解“主客”二分的对立,融之为一体,在此,“主体”是“客体”的主体,“客体”是“主体”的客体。此外,诗人的“世界”是一个情感统一的“有限中心”,在这个“有限中心”里,“主体在对优秀艺术作品感知的经验和智性中与其得到融合”(KE 141-142)。在艾略特的一生中,他一直在寻找客体来统一“内在世界”和“外在世界”,掩盖个人的有限情感。“内在的不安”和“外在的冲动”是在客体的感受、转化过程中,在“心理有限中心的直接经验中”,“得到调整,保持一致”(KE 15-16)。艾略特受劳伊斯的“理念主义”和布莱德利的“绝对理念”的哲学思想影响,又融合了柏拉图和亚里斯多德的“理念”观,综述了“现实”与“理念”在“有限中心”中的统一,其中,“理念”受“现实”的限制,其本身就是“真实的”,另一方面,“理念”所指的“现实”是一个理念的现实,它通过“思想”把世界各个表象整合为一体,但它又必须依靠思想而存在,“因为世界是完整现实或者完整的理念组成的”(KE 3, 35, 57)。尽管艾略特深受他们的思想影响,他有别于他们:艾略特不是一个一元论理念主义,而是一个追求多元统一的理念主义者。在时间统一方面,艾略特受柏格森“记忆”思想的影响,认为个人的无意识是一种永恒绵延,一种感觉——在场的感觉经验是由从记忆中带入过去的感知组成,同时也是一个从个体无意识到集体历史无意识所建构的种族记忆的过程,在其组合的过程中,“现在”是“过去”与“将来”的“有限中心”,为时间的循环构成秩序。艾略特是一个追求多元并存的哲学家,他把四组对立矛盾统一在“认识论视角下的秩序”中。
“方法论视角下的秩序”模式含有四个统一:“个性”与“非个性化”、“理性”与“非理性”、“古典主义”与“浪漫主义”、“批评与审美”。它论述了艾略特怎样使前三组对立在“有限中心”得到统一和后一组得到谐调一致以及其内在关联,修正人们通常认为艾略特是一个提倡“非个性化”、“理性”、“古典主义”的一元论者。进一步论述了刘燕教授在其专著《现代批评之始——T. S.艾略特诗学研究》中提出的思想:“艾略特提倡多元化批评理论”,并“试图通过一种具有张力的‘辩证统一’的方法”为它们建立了一个理念上的统一秩序(Liu Yan 5)。艾略特主张把个人经验转化为非个性化、陌生化,借用有意识的经验不表达私人情感,而表达无意识的倾向,把主观愿望变成共性或普遍性,使之融入“有限中心”中的非个性无意识中。此外,艾略特认为经验中的情感是个人的、非理性的,创作中的情感必须是非个性的、理性的,非理性、个性、混乱的情感应该要转化成理性、有序、非个性的诗歌情感。也就说把个人经验转化为社会经验或诗性经验,使之具有共性、具有智性,具有艺术效果,从而掩盖个人情感。在“审美理想”与“批评功能”的关系中,艾略特认为审美理想追求的是秩序、逻辑、和谐、智性、感情适度,做到“乐而不淫,哀而不伤”,它必须与文学、宗教信仰必须保持一致,因此,它不是一种狂热而是一种有限制的“快乐”。“批评功能”则主张情感客体化、主观客观化、个性非个性化,两者保持高度一致达到智性的维度。在“古典主义”和“浪漫主义”之间的关系上,艾略特并非人们想像得那样崇尚古典、反浪漫。其实,他强调置“外部声音”与“内部声音”于智性的统一体中,在此,古典主义的理性思想和浪漫主义的非理性的因素在“有限中心”都得到克制和调和。艾略特受罗素的思想的影响:“世界有统一体,但这个统一体是由各种对立面的融合而成;‘万物源于一,而一源于万物’;然而众多实体远不如一,一是神”(Russell A History of Western Philosophy, 41)。
第三章“诗学视角下的秩序”包含两种模式:“语言学视角下的秩序”模式和“心理视角下的秩序”模式。前者拥有两个统一:第一个是“词与概念”之间的统一,其要求是用精确的词把抽象概念具体化,让两者在感觉经验中同时客体化和智性化,从而求得统一。最后使诗性效果达到:“在感觉的指尖上摸到智性”;“感觉他们[玄学派]的思想就像立刻闻到了玫瑰花的香味”,这就是诗性“内外张力融为一体”的体现(SE 209, 210, 287)。艾略特受益于亚里士多德的《后分析》:“在诗学中把概念具体化是实现‘抽象与具体’的统一的方法”。第二个是“词与词义”之间的统一,在此,艾略特强调不但“诗学批评而且诗学本身都应把词义具体化,赋予意义精确、严谨、明确,避免模糊、笼统、不确定”(SW 78; Freed 148),否则会导致“语言死亡”(SE 327)。词与它的意义在文学的历史语境中有继承性作用,所以,它们在相互渗透、相互赋予意义时能构成一个文学秩序,赋予语言永恒的生命。因为“具体的词义能代表一个美德”(SW 39),“能阐释基督道义”(ICS 10)。此外,“语境的变化会扩充词义”,也正是“这种变化才使得语言永恒”(TCC 74; Shusterman 74)。词义所依靠的语境能保持词汇意义的扩大和更新语言的秩序。艾略特的最终结论是哲学如同诗学,其思想也应该要客体化、智性化,“因为哲学和诗学中用词含糊、无所指,那么它们会脱离现实”(Skaff 158)。艾略特此观点也受益于布莱德利的“有限中心”(the finite center)理论的影响:诗人和哲学家的“世界”是个“有限中心”(KE 147),它展示的是感觉经验下的精确以及智性与情感的统一秩序。
第二种秩序从心理上首先阐述了“词”与“客体”怎样结合在一起,然后阐述“客体”与“感性”怎样相互移注,最后论述“情感”与“智性”应怎样才能保持一致,不脱节。对艾略特来说,“词”是情感思想的符号;情感思想是“客体”的符号。“词”与“客体”不依赖于情感思想,但是,思想依赖于“词”与“客体”。“客体”的内在的象征功能把“词”与“客体”融为一体。一切事物始于知觉,终于知觉。即:客体刺激感官,感官做出反应,获取信息,然后传递信息给知觉;知觉进行消化,然后把消化过的信息传递给情感;情感把信息转化成思想、想象或情绪。整个信息转化过程是一个“感受”过程,“感受”使它们在“有限心理中心”得到“高度智性化”,并使它们“保持直觉的统一”(SW 4, 7; KE 16)。因此,情感的统一是指思想与情绪的统一、理念与智性的统一、理性与感性的统一。艾略特此思想不仅仅体现布莱德利的“有限中心”思想,还有柏拉图的“理念一致”原则的参合(http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.html)。在“统一的情感”中,“智性”在整个过程中起了关键的作用,体现出细致和周密,并“能使过去隐形的内容在心理活动的秩序中显现出来”(KE 27),进入“道德维度”,用心理理念来维持社会秩序(ICS 10-16)。
第四章,“文化视角下的秩序”含有三种模式:“宗教视角下的秩序模式”、“伦理道德视角下的秩序模式”和“文化视角下的秩序模式”。
“宗教视角下的秩序模式”探讨了艾略特的“神秘主义与怀疑主义”的统一性,“宗教与哲学”的互补性,“上帝与人类”的协调性,“人类与自然”的和谐共生,“多元宗教与拯救”的一致性,“火与灵魂”熔合的关系以及“生与死”的循环。艾略特的宗教成长经历了孩提时期的神秘主义和青年时期的怀疑主义的过程,到成熟时期,皈依英国国教,时年39岁。童年受母亲艺术气质的影响,青年求学于哈佛大学,留学于法国、英国又受到不少哲学名师的直接影响。所以,他一直在哲学、宗教、诗学三方面寻找方法把他的神秘“瞬间感”和怀疑主义的苦行思想融入一个智性的维度,在此,诗学使它们得到了完整的呈现,并在“玫瑰园”中栖居着:“脚步声在记忆中回响……/进入玫瑰园……/栖居在玫瑰园……/只有在玫瑰园,在时间中,瞬间……/通过时间,得到征服”(CP, Burnt Norton 189, 192;张子清译136,140);哲学为它们找到了一个有智性的体系,把它们融入了一个整体世界观;宗教则为它们保持了一个无意识的结构,这个结构把各个信仰链接在一起,由“神祗”把世界各个部分包括人类在内,置于一个人们能通过直接经验感知的和谐的秩序中。艾略特把布莱德利“宇宙万物”存在于有限中心的哲学思想融入他的宗教信仰:“道成肉身”把所有的矛盾进行智性地化解并统一在“有限中”(Bradley Appearance and Reality, 486; KE 147)。在艾略特看来,“上帝”具有人的个性,他是一个无限的统一体,“人”是有限的物体现象,所以在直觉经验的统觉中,“人”通过“道成肉身”能进入“上帝”的统一体。“自然”为上帝之物,其命运由上帝掌管,不能任人宰割,人应“顺从上帝的旨意”与“自然和谐共生”(ICS 60-62)。只有这样,社会秩序才能持久、永恒,宇宙才有“天人合一”的静像(CP, Little Gidding 222);艾略特的哲学思想则认为人的才智是先辈们的智慧和大自然的结晶,当人尊重“自然”时,“人和自然作为客体在自然的有限中心融为一体”(KE 145-146)。然而,艾略特拥有的“天主教精神”,“卡尔文主义的根基”,“清教徒的性情”(OPP 209),“希腊神话的智谋”,以及他身上还具有的“印度教的沉思”,“佛教的悟性”,“孔子的大智”等等所有这一切作为集体历史无意识的“人文主义”精神关怀(FLA 138-140),为诗学构建了一个强大的拯救统一体,在《荒原》中得到实践,在《四个四重奏》中得到升华。在“火与灵魂”的熔合方面,艾略特认为,当肉体的欲望与感知在烈火中烧毁时,肉体与灵魂得到统一。因为在烈火燃烧的过程中,“灵魂生命把各个不符合社会准则的东西统一起来,从两个或更多的不一致的‘有限中心’转换到一个更高层的‘有限中心’,然后把它们归于一个秩序”(KE 148)。艾略特把此“秩序”视为“火结”,“当火舌绞成火结时/烈火与玫瑰合二为一”(CP, Little Gidding 223;张子清译179)。玫瑰象征着“灵魂生命”(KE 147)。在“生”与“死”的统一中,艾略特承袭了弗雷泽的“死亡-再生”的模式,以及其具有东方智慧的“轮回”思想,体现了集体-历史无意识的社会延续的秩序。
“伦理道德视角下的秩序”模式包括三组对话。在此“智慧”是一个关键词,它把哲学、诗学和宗教链为一体。艾略特认为诗学给人们提供智慧,并为伦理道德履行职责,因为诗人是天才,是智者,应该要继承由前辈们无意中传承下来的智慧。智慧是“一种美德、仁慈、谦逊”,也是“一种直觉,能看到生命的本质和人心脏的好坏”(OPP 221)。所以,只有那些“兴趣广泛、同情心强、善解人意的”伟大的诗人才能把智慧置于一个智性和经验之上的“根本的统一体”中,履行道德职责(OPP 214)。艾略特此方面的思想受益于亚里士多德的“智性”思想,主张伦理道德应该把“智性”发展成“智慧”,旨在为维持社会秩序服务,因为亚里士多德认为“智慧”具有“真理性和实用性”,其真理性是指人类向往的善和美,其实用性则是指维护社会秩序的精神准则(Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, 1103b15-25)。因此,艾略特认为“一个正真的对社会行为具有操作性的哲学,不仅需要科学,更需要的是智慧”(EAM 116)。此外,艾略特认为“谦逊”是一种对上帝的信仰,一种超自然的宗教“智慧”,人类生命的主要元素,人类应拥有的最基本的美德。“谦逊”和“智慧”能通过经验共同一致教诲人们、净化人们的心灵,建立起宇宙秩序。因此,艾略特在《在陌生的神祗之后》中反复强调了培养道德意识的重要性:“缺乏道德意识”意味着“缺乏社会责任感”(ASG 373)。
“文化视角下的秩序”模式包括六个方面,彼此相辅相成,构成互动关系。一、传统与时间的互动是传统随着时间变化而变化,随着新的思想不断融入,以及个体思想加入集体思想而改进,因为“秩序不是消极的,它具有创造性和自由性”(SE 430)。二、语言与传统相互影响、相互制约,构成一个统一群体。在此群体里,语言依靠继续不断的集体生活方式、不断扩大的共同的实践活动以及不断规范的共有的习俗——传统而存在。另一方面,传统的统一群体既需要语言,也被语言需要,正如伽达默尔所说:“人类生活群体的一切方式都是语言群体的形式”(Gadamer Truth and Method, 404)。此外,诗学的社会功能是继承传统,保护过去,服务未来,它的直接职责是“保护、修复语言的美性”,同时也“帮助发展语言”(OPP 22),因此,诗学把传统与语言融为了一体。三、在“客体”与“传统”的互动中,诗学储存传统,传统包含智性,智性要求诗学客体化、非个性化,从而在活着的诗人与死去的诗人之间保持一个文化秩序。此外,“非个性化”意识是艾略特提倡诗歌创作非个性化、客体化的核心,其目的是忠实传统。艾略特的“客体”观以“非个性化”理论为中心,把诗歌创作客体化和非个性化建在“活”的传统观上,这样的“活”的传统又能为“客体”和“非个性”提供一个长期持久的一致性,这个一致性正是我们所需求的客体模式——稳定而持久。四、文学与传统的关系在“传统与个人才能”中得到阐释,其互动则在《荒原》文本中得到体现。艾略特把《荒原》视为一个“有限中心”,把最远古的文化以降,直到艾略特同时代的文学链接在一起,使文本在审美理想上保持了一个世界性的文学秩序。五、“宗教与文化是直觉经验中统一的两个方面”(NDC 68),他们的互动展现了一个综合体系,它包括文学、诗学、宗教以及伦理道德方面的教育,其目的是服务于社会秩序。在这项对话中,艾略特特别关注宗教对文学批评的作用。他认为文学中“有智性的行为导向”应建立在宗教信仰的台阶上以及伦理道德教育为目的的基础上。艾略特且强调“行为是由基督教原则来规范”,人们应从“积极的基督教精神中”“不断地积累、提炼和发展基督教新文化,使其智性化”(ICS 13-15)。六、文化与传统的关系在《在陌生的神祗之后》得到细述,其互动体现了有效的传统会带来健康的文化,健康的文化是整个社会有序的保证。此外,传统与文化的统一与审美理想的“直接经验”保持一致,传统是集体历史无意识文化,是人类的不断积累和储存的经验,是各种文化现象的统一体。它们在以现在为“有限中心”的轴心中循环绵延、共存并行,构成一个永恒秩序。
第五章,从社会视角探讨艾略特的“秩序观”,重要阐述了艾略特如何设法从认识论上求得社会秩序的多维的一致性,包括“个体”与“群体”、“个体与宇宙”、“宗教”与“社会”、“文化”与“社会”、“原始礼节”与“现代社会”之间的关系。它们都在“有限中心”形成“有机整体”。“自我”无意识地存在于“群体”中,“每一个群体”是一个“多个自我”的组合,每个“自我”不是个体而是会员,这样才能培养群体或社会意识。此外,根据布莱德利的“有限中心”理论,“自我”永远是“一个具有智性结构的生物”,“主体自我不断地与作为客体的自我延续着”(Bradley Appearance and Reality, 468),这样,自我能够在宇宙中心经历多个“有限中心”,在“它感知的过程中”,“有限中心”是一个整体世界,并且,每一个有限中心从根本上来讲就是“下一个整体经验的会员”,是直接经验把许多有意识的个体统觉在宇宙中。艺术、科学、宗教的群体是隐形的,因为它们是无意识的融合,一种精神上的合作。社会群体则是一个显形的组织。不管何种群体,基督教群体是艾略特理念中处于最高社会水准和最高智性维度中的群体,它是艾略特哲学秩序中的“更高的有限中心”,因此,它能将个体有意识和无意识的行为融为一体,它是有形群体和无形群体的相结合的“有机整体”(ICS 28)。宗教是社会必有之物,也是秩序建立的前提,因为它能帮助建立“健康社会”。在动乱不安、市场混乱、“工业主义野蛮”的当今世界,宗教与社会的关系问题涉及到了人们的命运、国家的前程,甚至还牵连了人们灵魂的升天。因此,艾略特呼吁诗人、评论家对这些问题进行评估、分析、宣传,而后把它们转化为非个性化问题。这样人们就能忠于宗教、维护社会秩序。并且,艾略特曾多次强调,赋予教会的权力应要多于国王的权力,因为“教会能规范秩序,良好的秩序能带来事业的成功和财富……没有对上帝的畏惧感,社会会走向毁灭”(FLA 55),此外,“教会的共性理念”是“一种超自然的各民族联合的理念”,在这“有限中心”——“基督教社会的理念”的直觉经验里,“世俗生活和精神生活能得到和谐统一”(ICS 54),“各种信仰秩序,各种敛心默祷的秩序,甚至那些与世隔绝的秩序”“都与大自然统合在一起”,“并与上帝的意愿保持高度一致”(ICS 60-61)。在文化与社会的对话方面,艾略特视文化为母体,是社会的生命线,而社会拥有各种不同文化,这些文化的多样性要求包括思想、情感、行为以及宗教、道德、诗歌在内的一切社会方式智性地统一在集体历史无意识的群体中。在此,艾略特重点阐述了诗歌中的智性秩序和理念秩序,并强调了两个秩序服务于社会的重要性。此外,文化在集体历史无意识的环境中能从过去穿越现在到将来进行自身转化,每一次转化就是一次文化“积累和更生”,当其到达“更高的智性的维度时”,就是一次“新文明”的诞生,每一次“新文明”的诞生就是一次“社会改良”。(NDC 20-34; SW 5; KE 147-148, 204)。“原始礼节”与“现代社会”对话的思想主要建立在三位哲学家、人类学家:涂尔干、莱维?布吕尔和弗雷泽的思想之上。三位人类学家的共识是:“图腾”是神秘、意象、传统的最佳阐释,也是远古的人们在宗教活动中最受崇奉的信物,因为它是部落群体的“徽章”,宗教就是在这种原始礼节的社会语境中产生出来。此后,便有了社会的秩序性发展。三位人类学家的不同之处表现在:涂尔干认为宇宙存在于社会,被社会感知,又成为社会内在生活的一部分,他把这个过程叫做“集体良知”(Durkheim 398),在此,习俗、信仰、宗教礼节、神秘经过无数代人的不断地原始积累融入现代社会,组成一个整体。艾略特认为这个整体是所有的自远古以来的自我、客体、事件的集体历史无意识积累起来的,在人们的直接经验中建立了一个共存的秩序,在“有限中心”作为一个整体维护着。莱维?布吕尔视这个秩序为原始个体对“社会化集体的需求和情感的反应”,是一种“前逻辑心理(原始智力)”现象的表现(Lévy-Bruhl 17)。艾略特视其为来自“意识生命”的“社会心理”的抽象物(EC 27),是直觉经验,由无意识把“原始智力”和“现代智能”在“有限心理中心”融为一体(KE 16),构建社会秩序。弗雷泽则为神秘提供了框架结构,以此来构建经验和连续统,使神秘比清教徒更有活力,同时也使宗教的历史从最原始延续到现在,维护了社会生存的秩序。一言以蔽之,在维护社会秩序方面,艾略特的思想类似孔子的“修身、齐家、治国、平天下”的哲学思想。
第六章结语,前面所分析的各种秩序模式在《四个四重奏》玫瑰园的原型意象“伊甸园”中得到了综述。“伊甸园”是艾略特哲学思想中的一个具有智性的最高“有限中心”,它统觉了瞬间与永恒的时间统一、宗教与社会的协调、现实与理想的一致、生与死的循环、远古与现代的链接,非个性与个性化的完美结合。这是艾略特的“秩序观”里面所表现的神秘主义、宗教思想、社会理想的形而上学观点的实践,也是智慧的、传统的、具有智性的集体无意识思想的缩影。他的这种形而上的“秩序观”离不开上帝,并且只能由万能的上帝来保证,才能赋予“秩序”生命,享受“绝对的父爱”(CP, East Coker 202),使秩序永恒:“上升的路就是下降的路,向前的路就是向后的路”(CP, Burnt Norton 189;张子清译135)。此外,在《荒原》中,艾略特从宗教和神话中借用大量的典故,曲折地反映自己为拯救想象中的“荒原”,建立一个超理念的“秩序”所作的努力。典故的象征意象使人的意识从一个“有限中心”转移到另一个“有限中心”:即从一个概念转移到另一个概念,从一种语境转入另一语境,从最远古的神话到现代的无政府状态,从“上帝”的警示到“佛陀”的训诫,从而突破理性和逻辑的束缚,使各个对立矛盾得以消解而共存于“一个更高的有限中心”的秩序中:“克制。施舍。同情。/平安。平安。/平安”(CP, The Waste Land 79;赵罗蕤译83)。
《四个四重奏》和《荒原》分别再现了基督教中最神圣的“伊甸园”以及印度教中最高境界的“梵”。它们相互辉映,互为一体,为饱经两次世界大战创伤的现代社会重建一个理想的“天人合一的伊甸园”,在那里:“烈火与玫瑰园合二为一/一切都会平安无事/宇宙万物也会平安无事”(CP, Little Gidding 223;张子清译)。伊甸园意象作为艾略特哲学思想中的“最有限中心”同时又体现了艾略特精神世界的最高、最原始的境界:“一个极其单纯的境界”(CP, Little Gidding 222;张子清译),这种境界又体现了原始之诗思的语言所蕴涵的“天地有大美而不言”的审美理想。艾略特用极其简单的诗歌语言把他心目中“三位一体”的东西:哲学、宗教与诗学置于同一个秩序中,表达了哲学家难以表达的问题,突破了单一哲学研究的制约,提供了一个互文性的新的研究方法,获得了真理境界、伦理境界、审美境界的统一与和谐。
1965年1月艾略特死于伦敦,4月份,他的骨灰按照他的遗愿被安置在东库克村圣·米歇尔教堂里,回到了他的曾祖父的故居,他的曾祖父曾于1669年离开东库克村庄航海来到新英格兰。之后,其祖父离开新英格兰到中部的圣?路易斯,艾略特于1888年9月生于此地,并在此地度过了童年和少年。青年时,他回到祖父曾耕耘的地方:新英格兰,求学于哈佛大学,老年时,他最终落叶归根。艾略特孜孜不倦探索的一生,既维持了艾氏家族的血统秩序,也归向了基督教传统的神圣秩序(Behr 86)。
总之,在艾略特的宗教信仰、哲学思想、文学批评、诗歌创作以及他的人生历程中都或隐或显、或多或少地贯穿着一种对秩序的诉求,并呈现着一个循序渐进的不断发展、扩充、统合的过程,这也体现了在一个四分五裂的现代文明危机的历史进程中,一个伟大的艺术家如何克服混乱与破碎、黑暗与堕落,走向崇高与神圣的统一体的艰辛求索历程。在一个“上帝死了”,解构“逻各斯”、“中心”、“秩序”、“结构”的后现代文化语境中,艾略特诉求秩序的拯救之路似乎具有了一种悲剧的意味。但这对于缺乏信仰根基的种种后现代主义却是一服必不可少的解毒剂,是一种更高的呼吁与回归。由此而言,艾略特的秩序理论无论是在哲学、宗教、道德上,还是在诗学、语言、文化上,都具有划时代的意义和超越时空的思辨启示:(1)它可以为后现代主义的“破碎”、“分裂”、“无中心”、“漂泊无定”、“无意义”的否定姿态提供了一个隐形的对比,提供一个可以遵循的显性参照;(2)它可以为后现代主义“世界是荒谬无序,存在是不可认知的”的否定价值观找到了一个重新思考人生、道德、传统、历史等问题的肯定出发点,让艺术家再一次承担起崇高神圣的社会职责:维护社会秩序,建构审美秩序,承接永恒秩序;(3)它可以为后现代主义“怀疑一切”、“否定一切”、解构“逻各斯”的哲学和诗学思潮提供一个导航:在尊重差异、对立、多元的前提下回归本体,重建逻各斯和信仰。当然,这并不意味着艾略特的秩序理论中没有矛盾和时代的局限性,艾略特的“逻各斯”秩序思想立足于“欧洲中心主义”的文化传统,强调“欧洲秩序”,“本国秩序”,“欧洲头脑”,“欧洲血统”,“基督教社会理念”(SE 14-16; ASG 34; ICS 8 ),他不像庞德那样更关注“西方”之外的“东方”,更具有“世界主义”的情怀。因此,当我们在20-21世纪的中国文化语境中研究艾略特的秩序理论时,尤其有必要指出这一点,进而更好地理解东西方文化之间的关系,为建构人类的和谐理想秩序而不懈努力。
作为作者十多年来研究艾略特的成果之一,本论文虽已初具规模,但其中瑕疵不少,如引语过多,侧重于对众多学者的研究成果的综述以及艾略特思想的总结,缺乏更深层次的探究与拓展。这或许也印证了艾略特的文学批评思想:“从来没有任何诗人,或从事任何艺术的艺术家或评论家,他本人就具备完整的意义”(SW 25)。本论文是集体智慧的结晶。
任何批评研究的有限性与缺失有待于不断地修正与完善。本作者有信心今后继续就这一课题进行深入的思考与研究。
A Critical Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order—An Aspect of the Poetic Philosophy as my dissertation for the doctor’s degree makes a close study of T.S. Eliot’s Theory of Order from his philosophical theory to his poetry, religious belief, cultural phenomena, and sociological requirements as well as his creating writings, which form an integral order by themselves.“Order”is, in Eliot’s philosophy, a fairly complex and contradictory notion; but it’s a key clue for us to getting a clear understanding of these subjects in Eliot’s eye.“Order”starts from his childhood’s mystical hallucination:“the betrothal of Miss End and Mr. Front”and“the elopement of Mr. Up and Miss Down”to his mature thought:“The way up and the way down are one; the way forward and the way backward are one”(CP, Four Quartets 189);“And the way up is the way down, the way forward is the way back”(CP, The Dry Salvages 210);“What we call the beginning is often the end/ And to make an end is to make a beginning”. Eliot’s theory of order was formally initiated in his dissertation, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, for the doctor’s degree and, later, was interwoven into his poetic and dramatic criticism, and his writing as well. Eliot’s theory of order is a problem of metaphysical philosophy and religion, and it also displays a process of his poetry and creating. Eliot has sought with diligence between“thinking”and“poetry”“a universal order”from philosophical order to poetic order, religious order to ethical order, cultural order to sociological order, and from secular order to sacred order.
This dissertation goes along from the philosophical perspective with the dialogues between the opposite pairs as well as the congruous pairs, which are not superficial conversations but imply Eliot’s“painfully dark work”and“the painful task of unifying jarring and incompatible ones [worlds]”for“a universal order”; for“the life of soul does not consist in the contemplation of one consistent world”. Eliot’s poetry commits the crisis of modern philosophy, tries to get back the traditional life view for the modern people, and constructs an idealistic and artistic social order for them, which is just as what Leavis says—“The origins of the dominant Anglo-American traditions of criticism in the mid-twentieth are of course complex…. And philosophy and religion would be‘replaced by poetry’in modern society…and the single most influential common figure…was the American poet, dramatist and critic, T. S. Eliot”. Besides, Eliot uses his own poetics and his own experience of life to build up a meaningful world where we can reach an ultimate enlightenment from his works the moment we read them, feeling our life beaming with the rose:“A condition of complete simplicity/…And all shall be well and/ All manner of thing shall be well/ When the tongues of flame are in-folded/ Into the crowned knot of fire/ And the fire and the rose are one”. Furthermore, Eliot tries to reconstruct the reunion of the spiritual world with intelligence, wisdom, and tradition, and to get back the way of the primitive existence:“humility is the first and most complete incarnation…and the sign of wisdom”.
In order to get a panoramic point of view of“order”, this dissertation traces back to the origin of Eliot’s“tradition”,“impersonality”,“objective correlatives”, and“the unification of sensibility”as well as the other writers, philosophers, literary critics, and anthropologists who have had great influence upon his career, thus, finding out order of four aspects in Eliot:“the order from the philosophical perspective”embodying epistemological and methodological patterns”,“the order from the poetic perspective”containing linguistic and psychological patterns,“the order from the cultural perspective”covering religious, ethical, and cultural patterns, and“the order from the sociological perspective”enfolding four dialogues, in which all the opposites And concords are unified in and attached to a higher finite center with intellectual dimension and traditional value.
There are six chapters including the introduction and the conclusion. In Chapter One, there are five points, the first of which points out three misunderstandings of Eliot, the first two of which are that most people are likely to think that“impersonality”and“objective correlative”were first put forward by Eliot in“Tradition and the Individual Talent”, and“Hamlet and His Problems”, and the third of which is that the two theories are simply regarded as Eliot’s poetic criticism and merely regarded as the influence of the French Symbolist, Baudelaire’s“correspondences”and the English Romanticist, John Keats’“negative capacity”. Actually, besides“impersonality”and“objective correlative”, Eliot stressed the importance of“intellect”, the concord of“rationality”and“irrationality”, and“the unification of sensibility”; but all of the notions are first posed by Plato for the argument of his“idealism”—the object of the intellect is eidos (idea), which was improved by Aristotle, one of his students, in his Posterior Analytics, which Eliot made a close-reading when he was a student at Harvard University. And he employed these philosophical terms first into his dissertation and then skillfully into his poetry.
There are three major reasons for people’s misunderstanding of Eliot, the first of which is that people simply regard him as a poet and critic, and the second of which is that people only read his literary criticism and verses written ever since he came to England in 1914, because they know little about his dissertation and his presentations at the seminars at Harvard. The third is that Eliot’s dissertation, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, and some important monographs in culture like After the Strange Gods, Essays Ancient and Modern, The Idea of a Christian Society, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, To Criticize the Critics and Other Writings, and his presentations in philosophy at the seminars at Harvard haven’t yet been translated into Chinese. Eliot’s literary criticism and creative writings since 1914 when he came to England help to make people believe that he is simply a literary critic and poet.
Actually, Eliot’s thought itself is“an organic order”of philosophy, poetry, religion, and sociology, in which philosophy is both the base of and the guide to his success in his writing and literary criticism. Though he is well-known for his writing and literary criticism, Eliot cannot be ignored as a real philosopher; for he has explored the unique value of philosophy from poetry and religion. It’s no wonder that“Eliot is always ready to call his doctrine as a poet’s philosophy”(Abel 2006). Eliot specializes in philosophical science during his study for the master’s degree and the doctor’s degree; and in the course of it, he attended quite a few distinguished philosophers’classes like Bergson’s, Bertrand Russell’s, Harold Joachism’s, Josiah Royce’s, James Haughton Woods’, and Charles Lanman’s, and read Plato, Aristotle, Irving Babbitt, RenéDescartes, Hegel, Kant, Bradley, Martin Heidergger, and Frazer, among whom, Plato, Aristotle, Russell, Bradley, Bergson, and Frazer have the greatest influence upon him and have been, in turn, reflected in his thought which has been seeking for“a universal order”in which the spiritually distorted people can settle their life and soul in ideology. Eliot’s theory of order is reflected as well as improved in his plays and verses like Rhapsody on a Windy Night, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, Ash-Wednesday, Four Quartets, The Family Reunion, and A Dedication to My Wife; that’s the reason why Eliot holds that“the poet’s theories should arise out of his practice rather than his practice out of his theories”.
The second and the third points are concerned with Eliot’s social position as a philosopher and the research work about the relationship between Eliot’s philosophy and poetry, and the relationship between his philosophy and poetry, and his creative writings. Eliot has already been recognized as a philosopher, but, generally, a monist in the West. Besides some fragmentary studies, there have been four monographs about his philosophical thought: Freed’s T. S. Eliot: The Critic as Philosopher (1979) which asserts that Eliot’s philosophical ideas and critical prose are derived from Bradley’s metaphysics:“Bradley is the way to understand Eliot”(Freed xvii). Skaff’s The Philosophy of T. S. Eliot (1986) has examined how Eliot goes from a skeptic to a surrealist poet, saying that“T. S. Eliot is the first poet since Coleridge to have constructed a comprehensive philosophical system out of eclectic sources and then to have allowed those ideas to determine the nature of his verse and his principles of literary criticism, and to influence even the conduct of his personal life”(Skaff 3); and Shusterman’s T. S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism (1988) which reverses Freed’s affirmation of Bradley’s influence upon Eliot insists that Eliot should be a beneficiary of Russell’s analytical philosophy and Aristotle’s intelligent mind (Shusterman 9). Manju Jain makes a close study of T. S. Eliot’s Harvard years and“traces the genesis of his major literary, religious and intellectual preoccupations in his early work as a student of philosophy, and explores its influence on his poetic and critical practice”(Jain Preface). Jain also offers answers to the questions of why Eliot failed to find satisfaction in an academic career devoted to philosophy and why he gave up the speculations of metaphysics for the dogmas of theology. Finally, Jain offers some insights into Eliot’s early years as an important philosophical source for his poetry and critical thought (Jain xii). All of the achievements about Eliot’s theory, especially about his philosophical ideas inspired my dissertation which is, on the contrary, trying to demonstrate how Eliot, as a pluralist, plants the opposite pairs like“subjectivity and objectivity”,“personality and impersonality”,“inner and outer”,“death and birth”, and“the secular and the sacred”, etc. in a unity.
In China, there are also some relative researches but no monographs about Eliot’s poetic philosophy. In“Eliot in the West― Eliot’s Research Records (1995)”, Professor Zhang Jian, Expert of T. S. Eliot in Beijing Foreign Language Studies University, draws a conclusion about Eliot’s research in our country, saying that in the first half of the 20th century, Eliot’s poems were studied, and in the later half of the 20th century, his poetic theories and cultural phenomena were researched (Zhang Jian 118-126). Actually, we’ve already gone into Eliot’s philosophy or his philosophical influence upon his poetry and writing. For example, in“Time Code of Four Quartets― Between Change and Eternity (1993)”, Shi Chengfang, Doctorate Graduate of Beijing University in 1997, fused Herakleitos and New-Platoism in Eliot’s view of time (Shi Chengfang 76-83). In“The Epistemological Change of Poetic Order The Waste Land (1996)”, Xu Wenbo, Professor of Shenzhen University, supplied us with a way to enjoy the writing technique of The Waste land from the epistemological point of view (Xu Wenbo 16-21). In“A Study of the Time of Eliot’s Four Quartets (1998)”, Jiang Hongxing, Professor of Hunan Normal University, makes a study of“time”from both philosophical and religious perspectives (Jiang Hongxing 76-81). In“T. S. Eliot: Genius Who Has Changed the Way of Expression (1999)”, Lu Jiande, Professor of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, gives us a hint that Eliot’s poetry embodies philosophical thought (Lu Jiande 47-56). In“T. S. Eliot: Meditation upon Time (2002)”, Zhang Ziqing, Professor of Nanjing University, puts emphasis on the relationship between past, present and future reflected in the Four Quartets (Zhang Ziqing 54-55). In“A Study of the Quotations of Four Quartets (2002)”, Liu Lihui, Professor of Southwest University, gives a rational analysis of Eliot’s view of Christian Logos and poetic philosophy, and expounds how they come together naturally and intellectually in a consummate order in the Four Quartets (Liu Lihui,“A Study of the Quotations of Four Quartets,”106-112); in another paper called“The Stylistic Features of Four quartets (2004)”, Professor Liu also gives a slight touch of Eliot’s philosophical influence upon his poetics (Liu Lihui“The Stylistic Features of Four quartets,”56-58). In Pioneer of Modern Criticism― A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Poetics (2005), Liu Yan, Professor of Beijing International Studies University, makes a close study of Eliot’s poetic theory which also ranges into Eliot’s moral, religious, philosophical and sociological thought. (Liu Yan 4-5). My paper,“A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order (2002)”gives an initial discussion about how Eliot keeps a literary order both in theory and writing, and how we can find“a universal order”where we can live both physically and mentally (Jiang Yujiao“A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order,”61-63); another one,“A Study of Ontology of Eliot’s Self-Consciousness (2005)”is a further study of Eliot’s philosophy ( Jiang Yujiao“A Study of Ontology of Eliot’s Self-Consciousness,”105-108). The dissertation on Eliot’s Order of Theory is the continuation and furtherance of these achievements.
The fourth point is about the necessity of this research work. Of course, it is worth studying Eliot’s theory of order. First, it can help people to dissolve the misunderstandings which resulted from their bias towards Eliot’s“impersonality”and“objective correlative”; for example, they maintain that Eliot is a monist of“impersonality”and“objectivity”, an advocate of“classicism”and opponent of“romanticism”. So, this research will tell us that“impersonality”and“objective correlative”are simply the basic requirements for writing verses; but Eliot’s aim of these two theories is to establish a universally eternal order in which“personality”and“impersonality”,“rationality”and“irrationality”,“subjectivity”and“objectivity”,“romanticism”and“classicism”,“religion”and“society”,“individual”and“community”,“God”and“man”,“death”and“life”,“past”and“future”get along well with each other and are unified as“an organic whole”. Thus, at the same time, Eliot has offered an intelligent order to this crazy, chaotic, disorderly society; and what’s more important is that the separation of“subjectivity”from“objectivity”in the Western philosophical history is fused. Eliot’s order is ideological and metaphysical.
Chapter Two,“Eliot’s Order from the Philosophical Perspective”, embodies two patterns: epistemological and methodological. The epistemological point of view traces Eliot’s notions of“objectivity”and“objective correlative”from his later prose on poetry to his early seminars and dissertation on philosophy, expounding how he unifies“subjectivity”with“objectivity”,“past”with“present”,“inner”with“outer”, and“reality”with“ideality”in a metaphysical order of epistemology. To Eliot, feeling, impression, and memory are all felt objects that can integrate“subjectivity”and“objectivity”into an order in which“subjectivity”is a kind of“objective”subjectivity; and“objectivity”,“subjective”objectivity. Besides, a poet’s“world”is a finite center which is the unity of feeling in which subject and object are a fusion of sensory experience and intelligence in a great work of art. Eliot has been hunting for the object to unify the“inner”world with the“outer”world, thus, covering the limited personal emotions. Besides, to Eliot, when the inner unrest and outer impact go into relations by feeling and transmuting of the object,“the coincidence of inner unrest and outer impact”propels“the immediate unity of a psychical finite center”(KE 15-16). Having benefited from Royce’s idealism and Bradley’s Absolute as well as Plato’s view of“idea”and Aristotle’s view of“concept”, Eliot maintains that“reality”and“ideality”“ultimately coincide in epistemology”in“the finite center”. The idea with which this reality is qualified is itself real; on the other hand, the reality to which it refers is an ideal reality, the nature of which is one unified whole, composed of various appearances of the world; but it depends on thought for its existence,“for the world is completely real or completely ideal”. Though he is greatly influenced by their thought, Eliot is a little different from them: he is not a monistic idealist but a pluralistic one who just seeks for the unity of the“reality and ideality”. In the unification of“time”, Eliot resembles Bergson’s“memory”, the personal unconscious which evolves from his concept of the timeless duration― any perception that we experience in the present is composed of past sensations which are brought to the conscious range by memory by the process of association, which is also the process of the forming of the racial memory from the individual unconscious to the collective-historical unconscious, during which“past”and“future”orient“present”as a finite center, making the order of the cycle of time.
The methodological point of view expounds how the opposites of“personality”and“impersonality”,“rationality”and“irrationality”, and“classicism”and“romanticism”, and the consort of“criticism”and“aestheticism”are intrinsically unified in the finite center, correcting some people’s one-sided understanding of Eliot’s“impersonality”as a single-minded“impersonal”monist, and making a further exploration to Professor Liu Yan’s thought that“Eliot advocates the existing of pluralism”, and also“advocates establishing an ideological order in which all the conflicts will be resolved and reconciled through‘the dialectic unity’”. Eliot transmuted personal experience into something impersonal and unfamiliar by employing the conscious experience to express an unconscious tendency rather than a private emotion― the kind of“personality”, with its coherence, which moves beyond the merely subjective to the universality and the unification of the impersonal unconscious of the finite center. Besides, to Eliot, the emotion in experience is personal or irrational while the emotion in the writing must be impersonal and rational; therefore, the irrational disordered emotions ought to be transformed into the rational and impersonal emotion of the poem. That’s to say, personal feelings should be transmuted into social experience or poeticized into artistic effect, thus, becoming common sense and being of intelligence. That’s the reason why we cannot feel Eliot’s own emotions when we read his works. As for the conformity of“aesthetic ideals”and“criticism function”, Eliot holds that aesthetic ideals should be in pursuit of order, logic, harmony, restrained emotion, and“proper pleasure”, which is just like what Confucian says:“乐而不淫,哀而不伤”; and Eliot also insists that aesthetic ideals should be in conformity with literary and religious belief, so it’s not a kind of ecstasy but a kind of restrained pleasure. For Eliot, critical functions should be in pursuit of objectified feeling, objectified subjectivity, and depersonalized personality, both of which are with the same aim to reach an intellectual dimension. Eliot is not of so much Classicism or not of so much resistance to Romanticism as he has been spoken of, especially in our country; on the contrary, he placed the“outer voice”and the“inner voice”into an intellectual synthesis which overcomes and reconciles the collective rationality of Classicism and the individual irrationality of Romanticism in the finite center. Conclusively, Eliot’s thought of fusing the opposites together, having benefited from Russell’s philosophy:“There is unity in the world, but it is a unity formed by the combination of opposites.‘All things come out of the one, and the one out of all things’; but the many have less reality than the one, which is God”.
Chapter Three,“T. S. Eliot’s Order from the Poetic Perspective”, includes two patterns: linguistic and psychological. The former lays special emphasis on the unifications of“words”and“ideas”, and“words”and“meanings”, in the former of which abstract ideas require to be reified by concrete words; as a result, both words and ideas are objectified and intellectualized in the finite center in conformity with each other in the sensory experience. Then, when we read the verse, we can feel“the intellect was [is] immediately at the tips of the senses”, and“feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose”, which is the presentation of“the fusion of the intension and the extension”in poetry. Actually, Eliot is using Aristotle’s philosophical thought about“Induction”which is introduced in Posterior Analytics to“generalize the concrete ideas in poetry as a methodology to realize the combination of the abstract and the concrete”. The latter unity refers to the unity of words and meanings in which Eliot emphasizes the importance and superiority of the precise, clear, particular, and definite meaning of the word, and“deplores the vague, general, and indefinite not only in literary [poetic] criticism but also in literature [poetry] itself”(SW 78), because the vague and indefinite meanings will make“the language dead”. The meanings of words have their succession in the contexts of literary history; and they interpenetrate each other and give significance to each other, forming an order of the whole literature and making language alive forever; if a precise meaning can be found for the word,“this meaning may occasionally represent a virtue”“in the light of Christian ethics”. Apart from that, the changing of the contexts brings to“the extension of the meanings of the word”; and it is their changes in meaning that keep a language alive”(TCC 74). If meaning depends on context, it follows that a text in principle has no fixed meaning, which“keeps the expansion of the meaning of the vocabulary and the order of the renewing language”(Shusterman 125). Philosophy should be like poetry in which thought must be intellectualized and objectified; for“Philosophy and poetry that are‘verbal,’that use words that have no concrete referent, can be neither clear nor precise because they are out of touch with the real world”. A poet’s or a philosopher’s“world”is the finite center (Eliot quotes the term from Bradley [KE 141]) which displays the kind of precision and seeks the unity of intelligence and emotion in the sensory experience in philosophy and poetry.
The psychological point of view is the continuation and furtherance of the linguistic point of view. It first demonstrates how“the word”and“the object”come together, and then, how“the object”and“the sensation”are transfused, and finally, how“emotion”and“intelligence”are associated with each other. To Eliot,“the word”is the symbol of the thought of emotion; the thought of emotion, the symbol of“the object”.“The word”and“the object”are independent of the thought of emotion, but the thought cannot be independent of them. And it’s the underlying implication of“the object’s”symbolic function that unifies“the word”and“the object”. Everything depends on sensation, starting with it and returning to it. Namely, the object stimulates sense; the sense responds, gains, and passes information to sensation; the sensation digests and passes the information to sensibility which transmutes the information into thought, imagination or emotion, the process of which is“feeling”which makes them“highly intellectualized in the activities”as“the immediate unity of a finite psychical center”. We can enjoy Eliot’s thought much in Bradley’s“finite center”and a little in Plato’s“association of ideas”. The unification of sensibility refers to the unification of thought and emotions, ideas and intelligence, rationality and sensations; and in the“unified sensibility”, intelligence operates within this whole, in the elaboration and articulation of the whole― the making explicit of what was implicit in the order of psychological activities, directly into the“ethic dimension”in the psychical idea for the order of society.
Chapter Four,“Eliot’s Order from the Cultural Perspective”, embraces three patterns: religious, ethical, and cultural. Eliot’s religious initiation, development, and maturity goes from mysticism affected by his mother’s poetry in his childhood to skepticism affected by his teachers’thought during his early years’studies at Harvard in America, at Sorbonne in France, and at Oxford in England where he had sought some philosophical and religious methods to integrate his mystical“moments”and skeptical“asceticism”into an intellectual dimension, in which poetry reveals a number of attempts to express mystical moments of varying intensity, clarity, and illumination, which Eliot, later, has settled down“in the Rose-Garden”:“Footfalls echo in the memory/…. Into the rose-garden/…. Inhabit the garden/…. To be conscious is not to be in time/ But only in time can the moment in the rose-garden/…. Only through time time is conquered”. Philosophy has found some intellectual system which explains and validates these mystical moments by integrating them into a comprehensive view of the world; and religion keeps them an unconscious structure which, in turn, embodies and unifies all kinds of belief, and in which God places all the components of the world including human beings into a harmonious order which is felt in the immediate experience. Eliot fused Bradley’s philosophical thought that“the Absolute is immanent in finite centers”into his religious belief—Incarnation is a finite center in which opposites of different kinds are intellectually unified”. Besides, Eliot holds that God, the infinite unity, is like man,“a thinking and feeling being”who has a“private personality”; thus, man, as the finite objects of appearance in the unity of immediate experience, is capable of entering into a“relation”with God by“Incarnation”.“Nature”is the creation by God who, in return, operates and protects its nature and its values which cannot be imposed or deformed by man with material power. Man must be“in conformity with nature…as well as in better conformity with the Will of God”. Consequently, we can enjoy the durable or eternal order of the society, and“the natural conformity of man and Nature”—“A condition of complete simplicity”. Philosophically, to Eliot, our minds do not refer to the individual but to the collective minds of the unconscious accumulation from our ancestors and the Nature. Only when man respects the Nature, can man and the Nature be of“one meaning”as objects in the finite center of the Nature in the immediate experience. Moreover, Eliot’s being of“a catholic cast of mind, a calvinistic heritage, and a puritanical temperament”,“Greek Gods’tacts”, and also“Hinduism meditation”,“Buddhist enlightenment”, and“Confucian’s wisdom”as a kind of“humanism”, embodying the wisdom of the collective-historical unconsciousness makes great impulse upon his sense of unification of the religions in epistemology in service of the society. As for the fusion of“the fire and the soul”, Eliot argues that when people’s desire and sensations are burned in the“fire”,“The fire and the rose are one”. The fire and the rose are so transfused that one is absorbed into the other, as they would be in the Absolute― The soul and the body are one; for the rose is the symbol of“the soul life”; and“the life of a soul…consist…in the painful task of unifying jarring and incompatible ones, and passing…from two or more discordant viewpoints to a higher [finite center] which shall somehow include and transmute them”into an order which is beheld by Eliot as the“crowned knot of fire”which suggests the“knot”of the universe, crowned by the Trinity of the Soul, the Body, and the Fire which“declare/ The one discharge from sin and error”(KE 148; CP, Little Gidding 221); and“Sin is behovely, but/ All shall be well”(CP, Little Gidding 219). Eliot’s thought of this sort is practiced in The Waste Land, and improved in the Four Quartets. In regard with“birth”and“death”, Eliot’s following suit of Frazer’s“death-rebirth pattern”and the Wisdom of the East, the believing of“reincarnation”indicate an order of sociological continuation with the collective-historical unconsciousness; therefore, to sum up, Eliot’s religious belief begins, progresses, and matures with his philosophical thought.
The ethical aspect mainly explores Eliot’s point of view towards“wisdom”, which unifies philosophy, poetry, and religion into one. To Eliot, poetry should provide people with wisdom and carry out the duty of ethical instruction. Great poets are geniuses and wise men who should inherit the wisdom that has been accumulated timelessly and unconsciously from their forefathers; for wisdom is“a kind of virtue, a kind of charity, humility”, and also“a kind of intuition for understanding the nature of living things and the nature of the human heart”. So, only great poets who have“a very wide range of interest, sympathy, and understanding”can lay wisdom in“a fundamental unity”“on intelligence and experience”, and carry out the duty of morality. Eliot’s thought of this regard benefits from Aristotle who advocates that“intelligence”should be developed by moral virtue to the level of gaining true wisdom, aiming to serve the order of the society. Aristotle conceives of phronesis (practical wisdom) as productive of truth and pragmatism, the former of which, in his sense, refers to what is good for human beings, and the latter of which is something of a virtue or spiritual criterion in the hope of keeping the order of the society. Therefore, in Eliot’s eye,“A really satisfactory working philosophy of social action…requires not merely science but wisdom”. Besides, Eliot refers to“humility”as a kind of belief in God, a kind of religious supernatural wisdom, a major factor of which our life is made up, and a fundamental virtue that man should own.“Humility”and“wisdom”are congruent with each other for the purpose of inculcating people and purify their soul through experience for a universal order. It is no wonder that Eliot repeated the importance of inculcating moral sense, saying that“the absence of any moral sense”means“the absence of social sense”.
The cultural aspect consists of six dialogues which interact on and conform to each other. The first dialogue discusses how tradition and time keeps with each other conformity in which tradition changes with time and improves with new ideas’joining in the past ones, and individual’s joining communities’, as is concluded by Eliot as:“Order is thus not merely negative, but creative and liberating”. The second one explains how language and tradition interact on and shape each other, thus, forming a consensual community in which language depends upon a shared form of life, communal practices and customs which extend with continuity and regularity over time― in short, upon tradition whose consensual community both requires and is required by language, which is as what Hans-Georg Gadamer (German 1900-2002) says,“All forms of human community of life are forms of linguistic community”. Besides, the prime social function of poetry is the propellant of the progression of tradition; and its direct duty is to preserve, and to restore the beauty of the language, and also to develop it; consequently, it places tradition and language in an order. The third expounds the relationship between objectivity and tradition, in which poetry must store tradition and tradition must embody intelligence which requires that poetry be objectified and depersonalized in order to keep a cultural order between the living poets and the dead ones; besides, the sense of impersonality is at the heart of Eliot’s advocacy of poetic impersonality and objectivity through adherence to tradition; and Eliot’s treatment of objectivity in“Tradition and the Individual Talent”, which centers on the impersonal theory of poetry begins with an attempt to base poetic objectivity and impersonality on the idea of
本论文采用对话的形式,从哲学视角阐释了T. S.艾略特的“秩序理论”的发展历程,其“秩序理论”既包含对立面的对话,也包含统一面的对话,对话最终追寻的是一个统一谐调的“秩序”。但它们并非表层的现实对话,而是表达了一个隐形的艰辛探索。这个艰辛代表着被研究者的“秩序”是“一个痛苦的黑暗探究”(Jain 205)。正如艾略特本人所以为的:“灵魂的生命本身并非拥有一个固有的统一体”,而是我们在为它们执行“一个痛苦的统合各种互为冲突的任务”(KE 147)。通过建立一个理念上、艺术上的社会秩序,艾略特让诗学承担起了危机四伏的现代哲学的使命,为在生命之轻中漂泊辗转的现代人重新寻回生命的根基。正如李维斯所说:“二十世纪中期,英美的传统批评源头极其复杂,极其矛盾……现代社会的哲学和宗教将会被‘诗学取代’,其中最有影响的人物就是美国的诗人、戏剧家、批评家,T. S.艾略特”(Selden 13)。艾略特用自己的诗思和生命体验筑建起意义丰盈的世界,让我们在与他那些作品赤诚相间的瞬间,经历彻悟和感动。他用那束玫瑰花渗透我们生命的光芒:“一个极其单纯的境界/……烈火与玫瑰合二为一/一切将平安无事/宇宙万物将平安无事”(CP, Little Gidding 222-223;赵罗蕤译179)。艾略特是通过有智性的、有智慧的、有传统意义的秩序的追求,重建生命世界的统一体,重新召回人类存在的原始本真:“谦逊是道成肉身最原始、最好的体现和智慧的化身”(FLA 14-15)。
本论文通过艾略特的“传统观”、“非个性化”、“客体关联物”(注:“objective correlatives”本作者以为应译为“客体关联物”,而不是“客观对应物”)、“情感统一说”的理论溯源,并结合对艾略特成长过程中受影响的作家、哲学家、文学批评家以及人类学家的思想,对艾略特的秩序观作了全方位的探讨,归纳了其秩序理论中的四个重要模块:第一个模块:“哲学视角下”的秩序包含两种模式:“认识论视角下”的秩序和“方法论视角下”的秩序;第二个模块:“诗学视角下”的秩序隐含两种模式:“语言视角下”的秩序和“心理视角下”的秩序;第三个模块:“文化视角下”的秩序包含了三种模式:“宗教视角下”的秩序,“伦理道德视角下”的秩序以及“文化视角下”的秩序;第四个模块:“社会视角下”的秩序模式。每一组秩序的对立面及其统一面都是在具有智性维度和传统价值的“更高的有限中心”寻找统一和皈依的产物。
本论文共分六章。第一章“序言”包括五点:第一点指出了许多人对艾略特的三个误读。第一个是有人认为“非个性化”和“客体关联物”理论是艾略特首先提出的;第二个误读是有人认为这两个理论是艾略特在其论文“传统与个人才能”(1919)和“哈姆雷特与他的问题”(1919)中提出的;第三个误读是有人认为“非个性化”和“客体关联物”仅仅是艾略特的诗学批评理论,是受法国象征主义诗人波德莱尔的“契合论”和英国浪漫主义诗人济慈的“消极感受力”诗学理论的影响而提出的。事实上,除“非个性化”、“客体关联物”理论外,艾略特还强调了“智性”、“理性和非理性的调和”、“情感统一”等概念的重要性。艾略特在哈佛大学读书期间,曾经通过阅读细读过亚里斯多德的《后分析》,了解到柏拉图的“理念论”:智性的客体就是理念。早在他的博士论文中,艾略特已借用了这些哲学术语,后来又巧妙地借用到其诗学研究。人们对艾略特误读的原因主要有三点:第一,人们只知道艾略特是诗人、文学评论家而不了解其哲学思想;第二,人们只研读艾略特来到英国(1914)以后的文学理论和诗歌创作,很少有人读过他的博士论文以及其在哈佛大学读书期间研讨会上的发言稿;第三,在中国,艾略特的博士论文《认知与经验:布莱德利的哲学研究》,《在陌生的神祗之后》(1934),《远古与现代研究》(1936),《基督教社会理念》(1939),《文化定义札记》(1948),《对批评家的批评及其作品》(1965),以及他在哈佛大学大学读书时的研讨报告,还有许多发表在学术期刊上的论文,至今没有汉语版,而这些著作和论文对我们理解艾略特的哲学思想及其后来的诗学、宗教、文化社会等等理论的发展渊源有重要的意义。
事实上,艾略特的思想本身就是哲学、诗学、宗教和社会学相交融的“有机秩序”,其中哲学是他诗歌创作的思想基础,文学批评理论的铺垫,是他在文学创作和文学批评的道路上走向辉煌的导航,尽管他是因诗作流芳百世。对艾略特的诗学与诗歌的理解和研究离不开他的哲学思想,因为“他是一个诗人哲学家”(Abel 2006)。艾略特在哈佛大学攻读硕士和博士学位的研究方向都是探讨哲学问题,他一生从师于许多世界哲学名师,如欧文·白璧特、柏格森、罗素、劳伊斯、烂熳、伍德斯等等,研读过众多哲学家、人类学家、宗教家的著作,如苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德、笛卡尔、康德、黑格尔、布莱德利、涂尔干、莱维?布吕尔、弗雷泽等等,这些学者对艾略特的“秩序”思想产生了巨大的影响,尤其是柏拉图、亚里士多德、罗素、布莱德利、柏格森、欧文·白璧特、弗雷泽等。艾略特聚这些哲学家的思想于一身,一直在为无家可归的现代人寻找生命秩序和灵魂皈依。艾略特的秩序理论在他的作品中得到体现,同时又在其作品中得到升华,表现最突出的有《疯狂的夜晚》(1911)、《情歌》(1917)、《荒原》(1922)、《灰星期三》(1930)《合家团圆》(1939)、《四个四重奏》(1944)、《致妻子》(1959)。这也是他一直主张理论与创作相结合的缘由所在:“诗人的理论更源于他的创作实践”(OPP 42)。
第二点和第三点是关于国内外艾略特的哲学与诗学、创作关系的研究现状。到目前为止,国外除一些零星的分析外,有四部相关研究专著(尚无汉语版):弗里德(Lewis Freed)的《T. S.艾略特:哲学批评家》于1979年由普渡大学出版社出版,此书认为艾略特的哲学思想受益于布莱德利形而上的哲学思想;斯伽佛(William Skaff)的《T. S.艾略特哲学:从怀疑主义到超现实主义诗学,1909-1927》于1986年由宾夕法尼亚大学出版社出版,此书从哲学视角探讨了艾略特怎样从怀疑主义走向超现实主义;舒斯特曼(Richard Shusterman)的《T. S.艾略特和批评哲学》于1988年由吉拉德?大科沃斯有限公司出版,此书认为罗素和亚里士多德影响了艾略特的哲学思想;蔓菊·简(Manju Jain)的《T. S.艾略特和美国哲学:哈佛大学时期》于1992年由剑桥大学出版社出版,此书探讨了艾略特在哈佛大学读书期间所受过影响的哲学思想以及艾略特所表现的哲学思想。这四本专著对本作者的研究有极大的帮助和启发。这些研究成果普遍认为艾略特是一个一元论者(Allan 172; Freed 30; Frye 34; Leavis 180; Shusterman 47; Stead 48; Tate 234; Blackmur“T. S. Eliot: From‘Ash Wednesday’to‘Murder in the Cathedral,”203-304),本论文以为艾略特是一个追求多元统一的“诗人哲学家”。
与此相关,在中国也有一些研究成果。北京外国语大学张剑教授在发表于《外国文学评论》1995年第2期的论文“艾略特在西方——艾略特评论史述评”中指出:“‘艾氏’分析的两个阶段:20世纪上半叶侧重艾略特的诗歌文本研究;下半叶主要转向艾略特的诗学与文化研究”。但近几年已进入了艾略特研究的第三个阶段:艾略特诗化哲思的探讨。如,西南大学刘立辉教授的论文,“艾略特《四个四重奏》的文体特征”(《外语教学与研究》,2004年第5期)涉猎了《四个四重奏》的哲学背景的探讨,其另一篇论文“艾略特《四个四重奏》引语解读”(《国外文学》,2002年第3期)详细分析了艾略特基督教化的逻格斯话语与诗化哲学的智慧和理性融合为一种至高无上的浑然一体的诗性效果;湖南师范大学蒋洪新教授的“论艾略特《四个四重奏》的时间主题”(《外国文学研究》,1998年第3期)在分析艾略特的哲学时间观和宗教时间观方面给了读者一条清晰的思路;深圳大学徐文博教授的“《荒原》诗序变易的认识论观照”(《外国文学评论》,1996年第2期)从认识论的角度解释了这首被人们称为“世纪之诗”的创作理据;史成芳博士(北京大学博士,已故)的“无常与永恒之间——《四个四重奏》的时间编码”(《国外文学》,1993年第4期)结合伟大的哲学家赫拉克利特和新柏拉图式的时间观分析了艾略特在《四个四重奏》中所表现的时间观;中国社会科学院外文所陆建德教授的论文“艾略特:改变表现方式的天才”给我们暗示了艾略特的哲学思想对他的创作的影响,此论文发表在《外国文学评论》,1999年第3期;北京第二外国语学院刘燕教授的专著《现代批评之始——T. S.艾略特诗学研究》(广西师范大学出版社,2005年10月)对我们研究艾略特的哲学思想颇有启发。本文作者于2002～2004年按计划成功地完成了湖南省教育厅科研项目“《荒原》话语模式研究”,撰写了专著《<荒原>话语蕴藉研究》,于2005年4月由黑龙江教育出版社出版发行;目前正在主持2005-2008年湖南省社科联立项课题:“T. S.艾略特的诗化哲学研究”,此博士论文是该课题的主干部分。近十年的努力使本文作者对艾略特的作品、诗学理论已有较深刻的认识和较丰富的研究底蕴,对艾略特的哲学思想亦有初步的了解。如论文“探讨T. S.艾略特的‘秩序’理论”(2002年第3期《外国文学评论》)从宗教的视角上得出艾略特的“宇宙秩序”观是世俗和非世俗相交融的统一体,成为本博士论文选题的开端;发表在2005年第4期《国外文学》的“T. S.艾略特的自我意识本体论”是对艾略特秩序理论的进一步研究。这些成果为本文作者继续对从哲学视角全面地阐释艾略特的秩序理论提供了良好的基础。
第四点关于艾略特秩序理论研究的必要性。本论文力图消除多数人对艾略特的“非个性化”和“客体关联物”导致的一系列误读,如:艾略特一味地崇尚“非个性”,主张“客体化”,追求“古典”,反对“浪漫”等等说法具有重要的澄清作用。它进一步说明“非个性化”和“客体关联物”理论是艾略特诗学理论中对诗歌创作的基本要求,其目的是追究一种更深远的宇宙化的“永恒”和“秩序”,此秩序包含了“具体”与“抽象”的统一、“理性”和“感性”的统一、“个性”与“非个性”的统一、“主体”和“客体”的统一、“浪漫与古典”的统一、“宗教与社会”的谐调、“个体”与“群体”的融合、“上帝”与“人类”的和谐、“生”与“死”的循环、“过去”与“未来”的连接、“文学”与“传统”的一致等等。其最终目的是为这个疯狂、无序、混乱、浮躁的现代社会设置一个具有智性的“宇宙秩序”,并使一直以来西方理论界中“主客”分离的二元倾向得以弥合、统一。艾略特的秩序思想是追求形而上的一种理念秩序。
第二章“哲学视角下的秩序”含有两种模式:“认识论视角下的秩序”模式和“方法论视角下的秩序”模式。前者从艾略特后期的诗学散文到他早期的研讨会上的哲学论文以及其博士论文,追溯了“客体”与“客体关联物”的溯源,阐释了艾略特怎样消解“主体”和“客体”、“过去”与“将来”、“内在”与“外在”、“现实”与“理念”四组二元对立的矛盾,使其互为统一,共存一个秩序中。艾略特认为情感、印象和记忆都是感知客体,所以它们能消解“主客”二分的对立,融之为一体,在此,“主体”是“客体”的主体,“客体”是“主体”的客体。此外,诗人的“世界”是一个情感统一的“有限中心”,在这个“有限中心”里,“主体在对优秀艺术作品感知的经验和智性中与其得到融合”(KE 141-142)。在艾略特的一生中,他一直在寻找客体来统一“内在世界”和“外在世界”,掩盖个人的有限情感。“内在的不安”和“外在的冲动”是在客体的感受、转化过程中,在“心理有限中心的直接经验中”,“得到调整,保持一致”(KE 15-16)。艾略特受劳伊斯的“理念主义”和布莱德利的“绝对理念”的哲学思想影响,又融合了柏拉图和亚里斯多德的“理念”观,综述了“现实”与“理念”在“有限中心”中的统一,其中,“理念”受“现实”的限制,其本身就是“真实的”,另一方面,“理念”所指的“现实”是一个理念的现实,它通过“思想”把世界各个表象整合为一体,但它又必须依靠思想而存在,“因为世界是完整现实或者完整的理念组成的”(KE 3, 35, 57)。尽管艾略特深受他们的思想影响,他有别于他们:艾略特不是一个一元论理念主义,而是一个追求多元统一的理念主义者。在时间统一方面,艾略特受柏格森“记忆”思想的影响,认为个人的无意识是一种永恒绵延,一种感觉——在场的感觉经验是由从记忆中带入过去的感知组成,同时也是一个从个体无意识到集体历史无意识所建构的种族记忆的过程,在其组合的过程中,“现在”是“过去”与“将来”的“有限中心”,为时间的循环构成秩序。艾略特是一个追求多元并存的哲学家,他把四组对立矛盾统一在“认识论视角下的秩序”中。
“方法论视角下的秩序”模式含有四个统一:“个性”与“非个性化”、“理性”与“非理性”、“古典主义”与“浪漫主义”、“批评与审美”。它论述了艾略特怎样使前三组对立在“有限中心”得到统一和后一组得到谐调一致以及其内在关联,修正人们通常认为艾略特是一个提倡“非个性化”、“理性”、“古典主义”的一元论者。进一步论述了刘燕教授在其专著《现代批评之始——T. S.艾略特诗学研究》中提出的思想:“艾略特提倡多元化批评理论”,并“试图通过一种具有张力的‘辩证统一’的方法”为它们建立了一个理念上的统一秩序(Liu Yan 5)。艾略特主张把个人经验转化为非个性化、陌生化,借用有意识的经验不表达私人情感,而表达无意识的倾向,把主观愿望变成共性或普遍性,使之融入“有限中心”中的非个性无意识中。此外,艾略特认为经验中的情感是个人的、非理性的,创作中的情感必须是非个性的、理性的,非理性、个性、混乱的情感应该要转化成理性、有序、非个性的诗歌情感。也就说把个人经验转化为社会经验或诗性经验,使之具有共性、具有智性,具有艺术效果,从而掩盖个人情感。在“审美理想”与“批评功能”的关系中,艾略特认为审美理想追求的是秩序、逻辑、和谐、智性、感情适度,做到“乐而不淫,哀而不伤”,它必须与文学、宗教信仰必须保持一致,因此,它不是一种狂热而是一种有限制的“快乐”。“批评功能”则主张情感客体化、主观客观化、个性非个性化,两者保持高度一致达到智性的维度。在“古典主义”和“浪漫主义”之间的关系上,艾略特并非人们想像得那样崇尚古典、反浪漫。其实,他强调置“外部声音”与“内部声音”于智性的统一体中,在此,古典主义的理性思想和浪漫主义的非理性的因素在“有限中心”都得到克制和调和。艾略特受罗素的思想的影响:“世界有统一体,但这个统一体是由各种对立面的融合而成;‘万物源于一,而一源于万物’;然而众多实体远不如一,一是神”(Russell A History of Western Philosophy, 41)。
第三章“诗学视角下的秩序”包含两种模式:“语言学视角下的秩序”模式和“心理视角下的秩序”模式。前者拥有两个统一:第一个是“词与概念”之间的统一,其要求是用精确的词把抽象概念具体化,让两者在感觉经验中同时客体化和智性化,从而求得统一。最后使诗性效果达到:“在感觉的指尖上摸到智性”;“感觉他们[玄学派]的思想就像立刻闻到了玫瑰花的香味”,这就是诗性“内外张力融为一体”的体现(SE 209, 210, 287)。艾略特受益于亚里士多德的《后分析》:“在诗学中把概念具体化是实现‘抽象与具体’的统一的方法”。第二个是“词与词义”之间的统一,在此,艾略特强调不但“诗学批评而且诗学本身都应把词义具体化,赋予意义精确、严谨、明确,避免模糊、笼统、不确定”(SW 78; Freed 148),否则会导致“语言死亡”(SE 327)。词与它的意义在文学的历史语境中有继承性作用,所以,它们在相互渗透、相互赋予意义时能构成一个文学秩序,赋予语言永恒的生命。因为“具体的词义能代表一个美德”(SW 39),“能阐释基督道义”(ICS 10)。此外,“语境的变化会扩充词义”,也正是“这种变化才使得语言永恒”(TCC 74; Shusterman 74)。词义所依靠的语境能保持词汇意义的扩大和更新语言的秩序。艾略特的最终结论是哲学如同诗学,其思想也应该要客体化、智性化,“因为哲学和诗学中用词含糊、无所指,那么它们会脱离现实”(Skaff 158)。艾略特此观点也受益于布莱德利的“有限中心”(the finite center)理论的影响:诗人和哲学家的“世界”是个“有限中心”(KE 147),它展示的是感觉经验下的精确以及智性与情感的统一秩序。
第二种秩序从心理上首先阐述了“词”与“客体”怎样结合在一起,然后阐述“客体”与“感性”怎样相互移注,最后论述“情感”与“智性”应怎样才能保持一致,不脱节。对艾略特来说,“词”是情感思想的符号;情感思想是“客体”的符号。“词”与“客体”不依赖于情感思想,但是,思想依赖于“词”与“客体”。“客体”的内在的象征功能把“词”与“客体”融为一体。一切事物始于知觉,终于知觉。即:客体刺激感官,感官做出反应,获取信息,然后传递信息给知觉;知觉进行消化,然后把消化过的信息传递给情感;情感把信息转化成思想、想象或情绪。整个信息转化过程是一个“感受”过程,“感受”使它们在“有限心理中心”得到“高度智性化”,并使它们“保持直觉的统一”(SW 4, 7; KE 16)。因此,情感的统一是指思想与情绪的统一、理念与智性的统一、理性与感性的统一。艾略特此思想不仅仅体现布莱德利的“有限中心”思想,还有柏拉图的“理念一致”原则的参合(http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.html)。在“统一的情感”中,“智性”在整个过程中起了关键的作用,体现出细致和周密,并“能使过去隐形的内容在心理活动的秩序中显现出来”(KE 27),进入“道德维度”,用心理理念来维持社会秩序(ICS 10-16)。
第四章,“文化视角下的秩序”含有三种模式:“宗教视角下的秩序模式”、“伦理道德视角下的秩序模式”和“文化视角下的秩序模式”。
“宗教视角下的秩序模式”探讨了艾略特的“神秘主义与怀疑主义”的统一性,“宗教与哲学”的互补性,“上帝与人类”的协调性,“人类与自然”的和谐共生,“多元宗教与拯救”的一致性,“火与灵魂”熔合的关系以及“生与死”的循环。艾略特的宗教成长经历了孩提时期的神秘主义和青年时期的怀疑主义的过程,到成熟时期,皈依英国国教,时年39岁。童年受母亲艺术气质的影响,青年求学于哈佛大学,留学于法国、英国又受到不少哲学名师的直接影响。所以,他一直在哲学、宗教、诗学三方面寻找方法把他的神秘“瞬间感”和怀疑主义的苦行思想融入一个智性的维度,在此,诗学使它们得到了完整的呈现,并在“玫瑰园”中栖居着:“脚步声在记忆中回响……/进入玫瑰园……/栖居在玫瑰园……/只有在玫瑰园,在时间中,瞬间……/通过时间,得到征服”(CP, Burnt Norton 189, 192;张子清译136,140);哲学为它们找到了一个有智性的体系,把它们融入了一个整体世界观;宗教则为它们保持了一个无意识的结构,这个结构把各个信仰链接在一起,由“神祗”把世界各个部分包括人类在内,置于一个人们能通过直接经验感知的和谐的秩序中。艾略特把布莱德利“宇宙万物”存在于有限中心的哲学思想融入他的宗教信仰:“道成肉身”把所有的矛盾进行智性地化解并统一在“有限中”(Bradley Appearance and Reality, 486; KE 147)。在艾略特看来,“上帝”具有人的个性,他是一个无限的统一体,“人”是有限的物体现象,所以在直觉经验的统觉中,“人”通过“道成肉身”能进入“上帝”的统一体。“自然”为上帝之物,其命运由上帝掌管,不能任人宰割,人应“顺从上帝的旨意”与“自然和谐共生”(ICS 60-62)。只有这样,社会秩序才能持久、永恒,宇宙才有“天人合一”的静像(CP, Little Gidding 222);艾略特的哲学思想则认为人的才智是先辈们的智慧和大自然的结晶,当人尊重“自然”时,“人和自然作为客体在自然的有限中心融为一体”(KE 145-146)。然而,艾略特拥有的“天主教精神”,“卡尔文主义的根基”,“清教徒的性情”(OPP 209),“希腊神话的智谋”,以及他身上还具有的“印度教的沉思”,“佛教的悟性”,“孔子的大智”等等所有这一切作为集体历史无意识的“人文主义”精神关怀(FLA 138-140),为诗学构建了一个强大的拯救统一体,在《荒原》中得到实践,在《四个四重奏》中得到升华。在“火与灵魂”的熔合方面,艾略特认为,当肉体的欲望与感知在烈火中烧毁时,肉体与灵魂得到统一。因为在烈火燃烧的过程中,“灵魂生命把各个不符合社会准则的东西统一起来,从两个或更多的不一致的‘有限中心’转换到一个更高层的‘有限中心’,然后把它们归于一个秩序”(KE 148)。艾略特把此“秩序”视为“火结”,“当火舌绞成火结时/烈火与玫瑰合二为一”(CP, Little Gidding 223;张子清译179)。玫瑰象征着“灵魂生命”(KE 147)。在“生”与“死”的统一中,艾略特承袭了弗雷泽的“死亡-再生”的模式,以及其具有东方智慧的“轮回”思想,体现了集体-历史无意识的社会延续的秩序。
“伦理道德视角下的秩序”模式包括三组对话。在此“智慧”是一个关键词,它把哲学、诗学和宗教链为一体。艾略特认为诗学给人们提供智慧,并为伦理道德履行职责,因为诗人是天才,是智者,应该要继承由前辈们无意中传承下来的智慧。智慧是“一种美德、仁慈、谦逊”,也是“一种直觉,能看到生命的本质和人心脏的好坏”(OPP 221)。所以,只有那些“兴趣广泛、同情心强、善解人意的”伟大的诗人才能把智慧置于一个智性和经验之上的“根本的统一体”中,履行道德职责(OPP 214)。艾略特此方面的思想受益于亚里士多德的“智性”思想,主张伦理道德应该把“智性”发展成“智慧”,旨在为维持社会秩序服务,因为亚里士多德认为“智慧”具有“真理性和实用性”,其真理性是指人类向往的善和美,其实用性则是指维护社会秩序的精神准则(Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, 1103b15-25)。因此,艾略特认为“一个正真的对社会行为具有操作性的哲学,不仅需要科学,更需要的是智慧”(EAM 116)。此外,艾略特认为“谦逊”是一种对上帝的信仰,一种超自然的宗教“智慧”,人类生命的主要元素,人类应拥有的最基本的美德。“谦逊”和“智慧”能通过经验共同一致教诲人们、净化人们的心灵,建立起宇宙秩序。因此,艾略特在《在陌生的神祗之后》中反复强调了培养道德意识的重要性:“缺乏道德意识”意味着“缺乏社会责任感”(ASG 373)。
“文化视角下的秩序”模式包括六个方面,彼此相辅相成,构成互动关系。一、传统与时间的互动是传统随着时间变化而变化,随着新的思想不断融入,以及个体思想加入集体思想而改进,因为“秩序不是消极的,它具有创造性和自由性”(SE 430)。二、语言与传统相互影响、相互制约,构成一个统一群体。在此群体里,语言依靠继续不断的集体生活方式、不断扩大的共同的实践活动以及不断规范的共有的习俗——传统而存在。另一方面,传统的统一群体既需要语言,也被语言需要,正如伽达默尔所说:“人类生活群体的一切方式都是语言群体的形式”(Gadamer Truth and Method, 404)。此外,诗学的社会功能是继承传统,保护过去,服务未来,它的直接职责是“保护、修复语言的美性”,同时也“帮助发展语言”(OPP 22),因此,诗学把传统与语言融为了一体。三、在“客体”与“传统”的互动中,诗学储存传统,传统包含智性,智性要求诗学客体化、非个性化,从而在活着的诗人与死去的诗人之间保持一个文化秩序。此外,“非个性化”意识是艾略特提倡诗歌创作非个性化、客体化的核心,其目的是忠实传统。艾略特的“客体”观以“非个性化”理论为中心,把诗歌创作客体化和非个性化建在“活”的传统观上,这样的“活”的传统又能为“客体”和“非个性”提供一个长期持久的一致性,这个一致性正是我们所需求的客体模式——稳定而持久。四、文学与传统的关系在“传统与个人才能”中得到阐释,其互动则在《荒原》文本中得到体现。艾略特把《荒原》视为一个“有限中心”,把最远古的文化以降,直到艾略特同时代的文学链接在一起,使文本在审美理想上保持了一个世界性的文学秩序。五、“宗教与文化是直觉经验中统一的两个方面”(NDC 68),他们的互动展现了一个综合体系,它包括文学、诗学、宗教以及伦理道德方面的教育,其目的是服务于社会秩序。在这项对话中,艾略特特别关注宗教对文学批评的作用。他认为文学中“有智性的行为导向”应建立在宗教信仰的台阶上以及伦理道德教育为目的的基础上。艾略特且强调“行为是由基督教原则来规范”,人们应从“积极的基督教精神中”“不断地积累、提炼和发展基督教新文化,使其智性化”(ICS 13-15)。六、文化与传统的关系在《在陌生的神祗之后》得到细述,其互动体现了有效的传统会带来健康的文化,健康的文化是整个社会有序的保证。此外,传统与文化的统一与审美理想的“直接经验”保持一致,传统是集体历史无意识文化,是人类的不断积累和储存的经验,是各种文化现象的统一体。它们在以现在为“有限中心”的轴心中循环绵延、共存并行,构成一个永恒秩序。
第五章,从社会视角探讨艾略特的“秩序观”,重要阐述了艾略特如何设法从认识论上求得社会秩序的多维的一致性,包括“个体”与“群体”、“个体与宇宙”、“宗教”与“社会”、“文化”与“社会”、“原始礼节”与“现代社会”之间的关系。它们都在“有限中心”形成“有机整体”。“自我”无意识地存在于“群体”中,“每一个群体”是一个“多个自我”的组合,每个“自我”不是个体而是会员,这样才能培养群体或社会意识。此外,根据布莱德利的“有限中心”理论,“自我”永远是“一个具有智性结构的生物”,“主体自我不断地与作为客体的自我延续着”(Bradley Appearance and Reality, 468),这样,自我能够在宇宙中心经历多个“有限中心”,在“它感知的过程中”,“有限中心”是一个整体世界,并且,每一个有限中心从根本上来讲就是“下一个整体经验的会员”,是直接经验把许多有意识的个体统觉在宇宙中。艺术、科学、宗教的群体是隐形的,因为它们是无意识的融合,一种精神上的合作。社会群体则是一个显形的组织。不管何种群体,基督教群体是艾略特理念中处于最高社会水准和最高智性维度中的群体,它是艾略特哲学秩序中的“更高的有限中心”,因此,它能将个体有意识和无意识的行为融为一体,它是有形群体和无形群体的相结合的“有机整体”(ICS 28)。宗教是社会必有之物,也是秩序建立的前提,因为它能帮助建立“健康社会”。在动乱不安、市场混乱、“工业主义野蛮”的当今世界,宗教与社会的关系问题涉及到了人们的命运、国家的前程,甚至还牵连了人们灵魂的升天。因此,艾略特呼吁诗人、评论家对这些问题进行评估、分析、宣传,而后把它们转化为非个性化问题。这样人们就能忠于宗教、维护社会秩序。并且,艾略特曾多次强调,赋予教会的权力应要多于国王的权力,因为“教会能规范秩序,良好的秩序能带来事业的成功和财富……没有对上帝的畏惧感,社会会走向毁灭”(FLA 55),此外,“教会的共性理念”是“一种超自然的各民族联合的理念”,在这“有限中心”——“基督教社会的理念”的直觉经验里,“世俗生活和精神生活能得到和谐统一”(ICS 54),“各种信仰秩序,各种敛心默祷的秩序,甚至那些与世隔绝的秩序”“都与大自然统合在一起”,“并与上帝的意愿保持高度一致”(ICS 60-61)。在文化与社会的对话方面,艾略特视文化为母体,是社会的生命线,而社会拥有各种不同文化,这些文化的多样性要求包括思想、情感、行为以及宗教、道德、诗歌在内的一切社会方式智性地统一在集体历史无意识的群体中。在此,艾略特重点阐述了诗歌中的智性秩序和理念秩序,并强调了两个秩序服务于社会的重要性。此外,文化在集体历史无意识的环境中能从过去穿越现在到将来进行自身转化,每一次转化就是一次文化“积累和更生”,当其到达“更高的智性的维度时”,就是一次“新文明”的诞生,每一次“新文明”的诞生就是一次“社会改良”。(NDC 20-34; SW 5; KE 147-148, 204)。“原始礼节”与“现代社会”对话的思想主要建立在三位哲学家、人类学家:涂尔干、莱维?布吕尔和弗雷泽的思想之上。三位人类学家的共识是:“图腾”是神秘、意象、传统的最佳阐释,也是远古的人们在宗教活动中最受崇奉的信物,因为它是部落群体的“徽章”,宗教就是在这种原始礼节的社会语境中产生出来。此后,便有了社会的秩序性发展。三位人类学家的不同之处表现在:涂尔干认为宇宙存在于社会,被社会感知,又成为社会内在生活的一部分,他把这个过程叫做“集体良知”(Durkheim 398),在此,习俗、信仰、宗教礼节、神秘经过无数代人的不断地原始积累融入现代社会,组成一个整体。艾略特认为这个整体是所有的自远古以来的自我、客体、事件的集体历史无意识积累起来的,在人们的直接经验中建立了一个共存的秩序,在“有限中心”作为一个整体维护着。莱维?布吕尔视这个秩序为原始个体对“社会化集体的需求和情感的反应”,是一种“前逻辑心理(原始智力)”现象的表现(Lévy-Bruhl 17)。艾略特视其为来自“意识生命”的“社会心理”的抽象物(EC 27),是直觉经验,由无意识把“原始智力”和“现代智能”在“有限心理中心”融为一体(KE 16),构建社会秩序。弗雷泽则为神秘提供了框架结构,以此来构建经验和连续统,使神秘比清教徒更有活力,同时也使宗教的历史从最原始延续到现在,维护了社会生存的秩序。一言以蔽之,在维护社会秩序方面,艾略特的思想类似孔子的“修身、齐家、治国、平天下”的哲学思想。
第六章结语,前面所分析的各种秩序模式在《四个四重奏》玫瑰园的原型意象“伊甸园”中得到了综述。“伊甸园”是艾略特哲学思想中的一个具有智性的最高“有限中心”,它统觉了瞬间与永恒的时间统一、宗教与社会的协调、现实与理想的一致、生与死的循环、远古与现代的链接,非个性与个性化的完美结合。这是艾略特的“秩序观”里面所表现的神秘主义、宗教思想、社会理想的形而上学观点的实践,也是智慧的、传统的、具有智性的集体无意识思想的缩影。他的这种形而上的“秩序观”离不开上帝,并且只能由万能的上帝来保证,才能赋予“秩序”生命,享受“绝对的父爱”(CP, East Coker 202),使秩序永恒:“上升的路就是下降的路,向前的路就是向后的路”(CP, Burnt Norton 189;张子清译135)。此外,在《荒原》中,艾略特从宗教和神话中借用大量的典故,曲折地反映自己为拯救想象中的“荒原”,建立一个超理念的“秩序”所作的努力。典故的象征意象使人的意识从一个“有限中心”转移到另一个“有限中心”:即从一个概念转移到另一个概念,从一种语境转入另一语境,从最远古的神话到现代的无政府状态,从“上帝”的警示到“佛陀”的训诫,从而突破理性和逻辑的束缚,使各个对立矛盾得以消解而共存于“一个更高的有限中心”的秩序中:“克制。施舍。同情。/平安。平安。/平安”(CP, The Waste Land 79;赵罗蕤译83)。
《四个四重奏》和《荒原》分别再现了基督教中最神圣的“伊甸园”以及印度教中最高境界的“梵”。它们相互辉映,互为一体,为饱经两次世界大战创伤的现代社会重建一个理想的“天人合一的伊甸园”,在那里:“烈火与玫瑰园合二为一/一切都会平安无事/宇宙万物也会平安无事”(CP, Little Gidding 223;张子清译)。伊甸园意象作为艾略特哲学思想中的“最有限中心”同时又体现了艾略特精神世界的最高、最原始的境界:“一个极其单纯的境界”(CP, Little Gidding 222;张子清译),这种境界又体现了原始之诗思的语言所蕴涵的“天地有大美而不言”的审美理想。艾略特用极其简单的诗歌语言把他心目中“三位一体”的东西:哲学、宗教与诗学置于同一个秩序中,表达了哲学家难以表达的问题,突破了单一哲学研究的制约,提供了一个互文性的新的研究方法,获得了真理境界、伦理境界、审美境界的统一与和谐。
1965年1月艾略特死于伦敦,4月份,他的骨灰按照他的遗愿被安置在东库克村圣·米歇尔教堂里,回到了他的曾祖父的故居,他的曾祖父曾于1669年离开东库克村庄航海来到新英格兰。之后,其祖父离开新英格兰到中部的圣?路易斯,艾略特于1888年9月生于此地,并在此地度过了童年和少年。青年时,他回到祖父曾耕耘的地方:新英格兰,求学于哈佛大学,老年时,他最终落叶归根。艾略特孜孜不倦探索的一生,既维持了艾氏家族的血统秩序,也归向了基督教传统的神圣秩序(Behr 86)。
总之,在艾略特的宗教信仰、哲学思想、文学批评、诗歌创作以及他的人生历程中都或隐或显、或多或少地贯穿着一种对秩序的诉求,并呈现着一个循序渐进的不断发展、扩充、统合的过程,这也体现了在一个四分五裂的现代文明危机的历史进程中,一个伟大的艺术家如何克服混乱与破碎、黑暗与堕落,走向崇高与神圣的统一体的艰辛求索历程。在一个“上帝死了”,解构“逻各斯”、“中心”、“秩序”、“结构”的后现代文化语境中,艾略特诉求秩序的拯救之路似乎具有了一种悲剧的意味。但这对于缺乏信仰根基的种种后现代主义却是一服必不可少的解毒剂,是一种更高的呼吁与回归。由此而言,艾略特的秩序理论无论是在哲学、宗教、道德上,还是在诗学、语言、文化上,都具有划时代的意义和超越时空的思辨启示:(1)它可以为后现代主义的“破碎”、“分裂”、“无中心”、“漂泊无定”、“无意义”的否定姿态提供了一个隐形的对比,提供一个可以遵循的显性参照;(2)它可以为后现代主义“世界是荒谬无序,存在是不可认知的”的否定价值观找到了一个重新思考人生、道德、传统、历史等问题的肯定出发点,让艺术家再一次承担起崇高神圣的社会职责:维护社会秩序,建构审美秩序,承接永恒秩序;(3)它可以为后现代主义“怀疑一切”、“否定一切”、解构“逻各斯”的哲学和诗学思潮提供一个导航:在尊重差异、对立、多元的前提下回归本体,重建逻各斯和信仰。当然,这并不意味着艾略特的秩序理论中没有矛盾和时代的局限性,艾略特的“逻各斯”秩序思想立足于“欧洲中心主义”的文化传统,强调“欧洲秩序”,“本国秩序”,“欧洲头脑”,“欧洲血统”,“基督教社会理念”(SE 14-16; ASG 34; ICS 8 ),他不像庞德那样更关注“西方”之外的“东方”,更具有“世界主义”的情怀。因此,当我们在20-21世纪的中国文化语境中研究艾略特的秩序理论时,尤其有必要指出这一点,进而更好地理解东西方文化之间的关系,为建构人类的和谐理想秩序而不懈努力。
作为作者十多年来研究艾略特的成果之一,本论文虽已初具规模,但其中瑕疵不少,如引语过多,侧重于对众多学者的研究成果的综述以及艾略特思想的总结,缺乏更深层次的探究与拓展。这或许也印证了艾略特的文学批评思想:“从来没有任何诗人,或从事任何艺术的艺术家或评论家,他本人就具备完整的意义”(SW 25)。本论文是集体智慧的结晶。
任何批评研究的有限性与缺失有待于不断地修正与完善。本作者有信心今后继续就这一课题进行深入的思考与研究。
A Critical Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order—An Aspect of the Poetic Philosophy as my dissertation for the doctor’s degree makes a close study of T.S. Eliot’s Theory of Order from his philosophical theory to his poetry, religious belief, cultural phenomena, and sociological requirements as well as his creating writings, which form an integral order by themselves.“Order”is, in Eliot’s philosophy, a fairly complex and contradictory notion; but it’s a key clue for us to getting a clear understanding of these subjects in Eliot’s eye.“Order”starts from his childhood’s mystical hallucination:“the betrothal of Miss End and Mr. Front”and“the elopement of Mr. Up and Miss Down”to his mature thought:“The way up and the way down are one; the way forward and the way backward are one”(CP, Four Quartets 189);“And the way up is the way down, the way forward is the way back”(CP, The Dry Salvages 210);“What we call the beginning is often the end/ And to make an end is to make a beginning”. Eliot’s theory of order was formally initiated in his dissertation, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, for the doctor’s degree and, later, was interwoven into his poetic and dramatic criticism, and his writing as well. Eliot’s theory of order is a problem of metaphysical philosophy and religion, and it also displays a process of his poetry and creating. Eliot has sought with diligence between“thinking”and“poetry”“a universal order”from philosophical order to poetic order, religious order to ethical order, cultural order to sociological order, and from secular order to sacred order.
This dissertation goes along from the philosophical perspective with the dialogues between the opposite pairs as well as the congruous pairs, which are not superficial conversations but imply Eliot’s“painfully dark work”and“the painful task of unifying jarring and incompatible ones [worlds]”for“a universal order”; for“the life of soul does not consist in the contemplation of one consistent world”. Eliot’s poetry commits the crisis of modern philosophy, tries to get back the traditional life view for the modern people, and constructs an idealistic and artistic social order for them, which is just as what Leavis says—“The origins of the dominant Anglo-American traditions of criticism in the mid-twentieth are of course complex…. And philosophy and religion would be‘replaced by poetry’in modern society…and the single most influential common figure…was the American poet, dramatist and critic, T. S. Eliot”. Besides, Eliot uses his own poetics and his own experience of life to build up a meaningful world where we can reach an ultimate enlightenment from his works the moment we read them, feeling our life beaming with the rose:“A condition of complete simplicity/…And all shall be well and/ All manner of thing shall be well/ When the tongues of flame are in-folded/ Into the crowned knot of fire/ And the fire and the rose are one”. Furthermore, Eliot tries to reconstruct the reunion of the spiritual world with intelligence, wisdom, and tradition, and to get back the way of the primitive existence:“humility is the first and most complete incarnation…and the sign of wisdom”.
In order to get a panoramic point of view of“order”, this dissertation traces back to the origin of Eliot’s“tradition”,“impersonality”,“objective correlatives”, and“the unification of sensibility”as well as the other writers, philosophers, literary critics, and anthropologists who have had great influence upon his career, thus, finding out order of four aspects in Eliot:“the order from the philosophical perspective”embodying epistemological and methodological patterns”,“the order from the poetic perspective”containing linguistic and psychological patterns,“the order from the cultural perspective”covering religious, ethical, and cultural patterns, and“the order from the sociological perspective”enfolding four dialogues, in which all the opposites And concords are unified in and attached to a higher finite center with intellectual dimension and traditional value.
There are six chapters including the introduction and the conclusion. In Chapter One, there are five points, the first of which points out three misunderstandings of Eliot, the first two of which are that most people are likely to think that“impersonality”and“objective correlative”were first put forward by Eliot in“Tradition and the Individual Talent”, and“Hamlet and His Problems”, and the third of which is that the two theories are simply regarded as Eliot’s poetic criticism and merely regarded as the influence of the French Symbolist, Baudelaire’s“correspondences”and the English Romanticist, John Keats’“negative capacity”. Actually, besides“impersonality”and“objective correlative”, Eliot stressed the importance of“intellect”, the concord of“rationality”and“irrationality”, and“the unification of sensibility”; but all of the notions are first posed by Plato for the argument of his“idealism”—the object of the intellect is eidos (idea), which was improved by Aristotle, one of his students, in his Posterior Analytics, which Eliot made a close-reading when he was a student at Harvard University. And he employed these philosophical terms first into his dissertation and then skillfully into his poetry.
There are three major reasons for people’s misunderstanding of Eliot, the first of which is that people simply regard him as a poet and critic, and the second of which is that people only read his literary criticism and verses written ever since he came to England in 1914, because they know little about his dissertation and his presentations at the seminars at Harvard. The third is that Eliot’s dissertation, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, and some important monographs in culture like After the Strange Gods, Essays Ancient and Modern, The Idea of a Christian Society, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, To Criticize the Critics and Other Writings, and his presentations in philosophy at the seminars at Harvard haven’t yet been translated into Chinese. Eliot’s literary criticism and creative writings since 1914 when he came to England help to make people believe that he is simply a literary critic and poet.
Actually, Eliot’s thought itself is“an organic order”of philosophy, poetry, religion, and sociology, in which philosophy is both the base of and the guide to his success in his writing and literary criticism. Though he is well-known for his writing and literary criticism, Eliot cannot be ignored as a real philosopher; for he has explored the unique value of philosophy from poetry and religion. It’s no wonder that“Eliot is always ready to call his doctrine as a poet’s philosophy”(Abel 2006). Eliot specializes in philosophical science during his study for the master’s degree and the doctor’s degree; and in the course of it, he attended quite a few distinguished philosophers’classes like Bergson’s, Bertrand Russell’s, Harold Joachism’s, Josiah Royce’s, James Haughton Woods’, and Charles Lanman’s, and read Plato, Aristotle, Irving Babbitt, RenéDescartes, Hegel, Kant, Bradley, Martin Heidergger, and Frazer, among whom, Plato, Aristotle, Russell, Bradley, Bergson, and Frazer have the greatest influence upon him and have been, in turn, reflected in his thought which has been seeking for“a universal order”in which the spiritually distorted people can settle their life and soul in ideology. Eliot’s theory of order is reflected as well as improved in his plays and verses like Rhapsody on a Windy Night, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, Ash-Wednesday, Four Quartets, The Family Reunion, and A Dedication to My Wife; that’s the reason why Eliot holds that“the poet’s theories should arise out of his practice rather than his practice out of his theories”.
The second and the third points are concerned with Eliot’s social position as a philosopher and the research work about the relationship between Eliot’s philosophy and poetry, and the relationship between his philosophy and poetry, and his creative writings. Eliot has already been recognized as a philosopher, but, generally, a monist in the West. Besides some fragmentary studies, there have been four monographs about his philosophical thought: Freed’s T. S. Eliot: The Critic as Philosopher (1979) which asserts that Eliot’s philosophical ideas and critical prose are derived from Bradley’s metaphysics:“Bradley is the way to understand Eliot”(Freed xvii). Skaff’s The Philosophy of T. S. Eliot (1986) has examined how Eliot goes from a skeptic to a surrealist poet, saying that“T. S. Eliot is the first poet since Coleridge to have constructed a comprehensive philosophical system out of eclectic sources and then to have allowed those ideas to determine the nature of his verse and his principles of literary criticism, and to influence even the conduct of his personal life”(Skaff 3); and Shusterman’s T. S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism (1988) which reverses Freed’s affirmation of Bradley’s influence upon Eliot insists that Eliot should be a beneficiary of Russell’s analytical philosophy and Aristotle’s intelligent mind (Shusterman 9). Manju Jain makes a close study of T. S. Eliot’s Harvard years and“traces the genesis of his major literary, religious and intellectual preoccupations in his early work as a student of philosophy, and explores its influence on his poetic and critical practice”(Jain Preface). Jain also offers answers to the questions of why Eliot failed to find satisfaction in an academic career devoted to philosophy and why he gave up the speculations of metaphysics for the dogmas of theology. Finally, Jain offers some insights into Eliot’s early years as an important philosophical source for his poetry and critical thought (Jain xii). All of the achievements about Eliot’s theory, especially about his philosophical ideas inspired my dissertation which is, on the contrary, trying to demonstrate how Eliot, as a pluralist, plants the opposite pairs like“subjectivity and objectivity”,“personality and impersonality”,“inner and outer”,“death and birth”, and“the secular and the sacred”, etc. in a unity.
In China, there are also some relative researches but no monographs about Eliot’s poetic philosophy. In“Eliot in the West― Eliot’s Research Records (1995)”, Professor Zhang Jian, Expert of T. S. Eliot in Beijing Foreign Language Studies University, draws a conclusion about Eliot’s research in our country, saying that in the first half of the 20th century, Eliot’s poems were studied, and in the later half of the 20th century, his poetic theories and cultural phenomena were researched (Zhang Jian 118-126). Actually, we’ve already gone into Eliot’s philosophy or his philosophical influence upon his poetry and writing. For example, in“Time Code of Four Quartets― Between Change and Eternity (1993)”, Shi Chengfang, Doctorate Graduate of Beijing University in 1997, fused Herakleitos and New-Platoism in Eliot’s view of time (Shi Chengfang 76-83). In“The Epistemological Change of Poetic Order The Waste Land (1996)”, Xu Wenbo, Professor of Shenzhen University, supplied us with a way to enjoy the writing technique of The Waste land from the epistemological point of view (Xu Wenbo 16-21). In“A Study of the Time of Eliot’s Four Quartets (1998)”, Jiang Hongxing, Professor of Hunan Normal University, makes a study of“time”from both philosophical and religious perspectives (Jiang Hongxing 76-81). In“T. S. Eliot: Genius Who Has Changed the Way of Expression (1999)”, Lu Jiande, Professor of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, gives us a hint that Eliot’s poetry embodies philosophical thought (Lu Jiande 47-56). In“T. S. Eliot: Meditation upon Time (2002)”, Zhang Ziqing, Professor of Nanjing University, puts emphasis on the relationship between past, present and future reflected in the Four Quartets (Zhang Ziqing 54-55). In“A Study of the Quotations of Four Quartets (2002)”, Liu Lihui, Professor of Southwest University, gives a rational analysis of Eliot’s view of Christian Logos and poetic philosophy, and expounds how they come together naturally and intellectually in a consummate order in the Four Quartets (Liu Lihui,“A Study of the Quotations of Four Quartets,”106-112); in another paper called“The Stylistic Features of Four quartets (2004)”, Professor Liu also gives a slight touch of Eliot’s philosophical influence upon his poetics (Liu Lihui“The Stylistic Features of Four quartets,”56-58). In Pioneer of Modern Criticism― A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Poetics (2005), Liu Yan, Professor of Beijing International Studies University, makes a close study of Eliot’s poetic theory which also ranges into Eliot’s moral, religious, philosophical and sociological thought. (Liu Yan 4-5). My paper,“A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order (2002)”gives an initial discussion about how Eliot keeps a literary order both in theory and writing, and how we can find“a universal order”where we can live both physically and mentally (Jiang Yujiao“A Study of T. S. Eliot’s Theory of Order,”61-63); another one,“A Study of Ontology of Eliot’s Self-Consciousness (2005)”is a further study of Eliot’s philosophy ( Jiang Yujiao“A Study of Ontology of Eliot’s Self-Consciousness,”105-108). The dissertation on Eliot’s Order of Theory is the continuation and furtherance of these achievements.
The fourth point is about the necessity of this research work. Of course, it is worth studying Eliot’s theory of order. First, it can help people to dissolve the misunderstandings which resulted from their bias towards Eliot’s“impersonality”and“objective correlative”; for example, they maintain that Eliot is a monist of“impersonality”and“objectivity”, an advocate of“classicism”and opponent of“romanticism”. So, this research will tell us that“impersonality”and“objective correlative”are simply the basic requirements for writing verses; but Eliot’s aim of these two theories is to establish a universally eternal order in which“personality”and“impersonality”,“rationality”and“irrationality”,“subjectivity”and“objectivity”,“romanticism”and“classicism”,“religion”and“society”,“individual”and“community”,“God”and“man”,“death”and“life”,“past”and“future”get along well with each other and are unified as“an organic whole”. Thus, at the same time, Eliot has offered an intelligent order to this crazy, chaotic, disorderly society; and what’s more important is that the separation of“subjectivity”from“objectivity”in the Western philosophical history is fused. Eliot’s order is ideological and metaphysical.
Chapter Two,“Eliot’s Order from the Philosophical Perspective”, embodies two patterns: epistemological and methodological. The epistemological point of view traces Eliot’s notions of“objectivity”and“objective correlative”from his later prose on poetry to his early seminars and dissertation on philosophy, expounding how he unifies“subjectivity”with“objectivity”,“past”with“present”,“inner”with“outer”, and“reality”with“ideality”in a metaphysical order of epistemology. To Eliot, feeling, impression, and memory are all felt objects that can integrate“subjectivity”and“objectivity”into an order in which“subjectivity”is a kind of“objective”subjectivity; and“objectivity”,“subjective”objectivity. Besides, a poet’s“world”is a finite center which is the unity of feeling in which subject and object are a fusion of sensory experience and intelligence in a great work of art. Eliot has been hunting for the object to unify the“inner”world with the“outer”world, thus, covering the limited personal emotions. Besides, to Eliot, when the inner unrest and outer impact go into relations by feeling and transmuting of the object,“the coincidence of inner unrest and outer impact”propels“the immediate unity of a psychical finite center”(KE 15-16). Having benefited from Royce’s idealism and Bradley’s Absolute as well as Plato’s view of“idea”and Aristotle’s view of“concept”, Eliot maintains that“reality”and“ideality”“ultimately coincide in epistemology”in“the finite center”. The idea with which this reality is qualified is itself real; on the other hand, the reality to which it refers is an ideal reality, the nature of which is one unified whole, composed of various appearances of the world; but it depends on thought for its existence,“for the world is completely real or completely ideal”. Though he is greatly influenced by their thought, Eliot is a little different from them: he is not a monistic idealist but a pluralistic one who just seeks for the unity of the“reality and ideality”. In the unification of“time”, Eliot resembles Bergson’s“memory”, the personal unconscious which evolves from his concept of the timeless duration― any perception that we experience in the present is composed of past sensations which are brought to the conscious range by memory by the process of association, which is also the process of the forming of the racial memory from the individual unconscious to the collective-historical unconscious, during which“past”and“future”orient“present”as a finite center, making the order of the cycle of time.
The methodological point of view expounds how the opposites of“personality”and“impersonality”,“rationality”and“irrationality”, and“classicism”and“romanticism”, and the consort of“criticism”and“aestheticism”are intrinsically unified in the finite center, correcting some people’s one-sided understanding of Eliot’s“impersonality”as a single-minded“impersonal”monist, and making a further exploration to Professor Liu Yan’s thought that“Eliot advocates the existing of pluralism”, and also“advocates establishing an ideological order in which all the conflicts will be resolved and reconciled through‘the dialectic unity’”. Eliot transmuted personal experience into something impersonal and unfamiliar by employing the conscious experience to express an unconscious tendency rather than a private emotion― the kind of“personality”, with its coherence, which moves beyond the merely subjective to the universality and the unification of the impersonal unconscious of the finite center. Besides, to Eliot, the emotion in experience is personal or irrational while the emotion in the writing must be impersonal and rational; therefore, the irrational disordered emotions ought to be transformed into the rational and impersonal emotion of the poem. That’s to say, personal feelings should be transmuted into social experience or poeticized into artistic effect, thus, becoming common sense and being of intelligence. That’s the reason why we cannot feel Eliot’s own emotions when we read his works. As for the conformity of“aesthetic ideals”and“criticism function”, Eliot holds that aesthetic ideals should be in pursuit of order, logic, harmony, restrained emotion, and“proper pleasure”, which is just like what Confucian says:“乐而不淫,哀而不伤”; and Eliot also insists that aesthetic ideals should be in conformity with literary and religious belief, so it’s not a kind of ecstasy but a kind of restrained pleasure. For Eliot, critical functions should be in pursuit of objectified feeling, objectified subjectivity, and depersonalized personality, both of which are with the same aim to reach an intellectual dimension. Eliot is not of so much Classicism or not of so much resistance to Romanticism as he has been spoken of, especially in our country; on the contrary, he placed the“outer voice”and the“inner voice”into an intellectual synthesis which overcomes and reconciles the collective rationality of Classicism and the individual irrationality of Romanticism in the finite center. Conclusively, Eliot’s thought of fusing the opposites together, having benefited from Russell’s philosophy:“There is unity in the world, but it is a unity formed by the combination of opposites.‘All things come out of the one, and the one out of all things’; but the many have less reality than the one, which is God”.
Chapter Three,“T. S. Eliot’s Order from the Poetic Perspective”, includes two patterns: linguistic and psychological. The former lays special emphasis on the unifications of“words”and“ideas”, and“words”and“meanings”, in the former of which abstract ideas require to be reified by concrete words; as a result, both words and ideas are objectified and intellectualized in the finite center in conformity with each other in the sensory experience. Then, when we read the verse, we can feel“the intellect was [is] immediately at the tips of the senses”, and“feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose”, which is the presentation of“the fusion of the intension and the extension”in poetry. Actually, Eliot is using Aristotle’s philosophical thought about“Induction”which is introduced in Posterior Analytics to“generalize the concrete ideas in poetry as a methodology to realize the combination of the abstract and the concrete”. The latter unity refers to the unity of words and meanings in which Eliot emphasizes the importance and superiority of the precise, clear, particular, and definite meaning of the word, and“deplores the vague, general, and indefinite not only in literary [poetic] criticism but also in literature [poetry] itself”(SW 78), because the vague and indefinite meanings will make“the language dead”. The meanings of words have their succession in the contexts of literary history; and they interpenetrate each other and give significance to each other, forming an order of the whole literature and making language alive forever; if a precise meaning can be found for the word,“this meaning may occasionally represent a virtue”“in the light of Christian ethics”. Apart from that, the changing of the contexts brings to“the extension of the meanings of the word”; and it is their changes in meaning that keep a language alive”(TCC 74). If meaning depends on context, it follows that a text in principle has no fixed meaning, which“keeps the expansion of the meaning of the vocabulary and the order of the renewing language”(Shusterman 125). Philosophy should be like poetry in which thought must be intellectualized and objectified; for“Philosophy and poetry that are‘verbal,’that use words that have no concrete referent, can be neither clear nor precise because they are out of touch with the real world”. A poet’s or a philosopher’s“world”is the finite center (Eliot quotes the term from Bradley [KE 141]) which displays the kind of precision and seeks the unity of intelligence and emotion in the sensory experience in philosophy and poetry.
The psychological point of view is the continuation and furtherance of the linguistic point of view. It first demonstrates how“the word”and“the object”come together, and then, how“the object”and“the sensation”are transfused, and finally, how“emotion”and“intelligence”are associated with each other. To Eliot,“the word”is the symbol of the thought of emotion; the thought of emotion, the symbol of“the object”.“The word”and“the object”are independent of the thought of emotion, but the thought cannot be independent of them. And it’s the underlying implication of“the object’s”symbolic function that unifies“the word”and“the object”. Everything depends on sensation, starting with it and returning to it. Namely, the object stimulates sense; the sense responds, gains, and passes information to sensation; the sensation digests and passes the information to sensibility which transmutes the information into thought, imagination or emotion, the process of which is“feeling”which makes them“highly intellectualized in the activities”as“the immediate unity of a finite psychical center”. We can enjoy Eliot’s thought much in Bradley’s“finite center”and a little in Plato’s“association of ideas”. The unification of sensibility refers to the unification of thought and emotions, ideas and intelligence, rationality and sensations; and in the“unified sensibility”, intelligence operates within this whole, in the elaboration and articulation of the whole― the making explicit of what was implicit in the order of psychological activities, directly into the“ethic dimension”in the psychical idea for the order of society.
Chapter Four,“Eliot’s Order from the Cultural Perspective”, embraces three patterns: religious, ethical, and cultural. Eliot’s religious initiation, development, and maturity goes from mysticism affected by his mother’s poetry in his childhood to skepticism affected by his teachers’thought during his early years’studies at Harvard in America, at Sorbonne in France, and at Oxford in England where he had sought some philosophical and religious methods to integrate his mystical“moments”and skeptical“asceticism”into an intellectual dimension, in which poetry reveals a number of attempts to express mystical moments of varying intensity, clarity, and illumination, which Eliot, later, has settled down“in the Rose-Garden”:“Footfalls echo in the memory/…. Into the rose-garden/…. Inhabit the garden/…. To be conscious is not to be in time/ But only in time can the moment in the rose-garden/…. Only through time time is conquered”. Philosophy has found some intellectual system which explains and validates these mystical moments by integrating them into a comprehensive view of the world; and religion keeps them an unconscious structure which, in turn, embodies and unifies all kinds of belief, and in which God places all the components of the world including human beings into a harmonious order which is felt in the immediate experience. Eliot fused Bradley’s philosophical thought that“the Absolute is immanent in finite centers”into his religious belief—Incarnation is a finite center in which opposites of different kinds are intellectually unified”. Besides, Eliot holds that God, the infinite unity, is like man,“a thinking and feeling being”who has a“private personality”; thus, man, as the finite objects of appearance in the unity of immediate experience, is capable of entering into a“relation”with God by“Incarnation”.“Nature”is the creation by God who, in return, operates and protects its nature and its values which cannot be imposed or deformed by man with material power. Man must be“in conformity with nature…as well as in better conformity with the Will of God”. Consequently, we can enjoy the durable or eternal order of the society, and“the natural conformity of man and Nature”—“A condition of complete simplicity”. Philosophically, to Eliot, our minds do not refer to the individual but to the collective minds of the unconscious accumulation from our ancestors and the Nature. Only when man respects the Nature, can man and the Nature be of“one meaning”as objects in the finite center of the Nature in the immediate experience. Moreover, Eliot’s being of“a catholic cast of mind, a calvinistic heritage, and a puritanical temperament”,“Greek Gods’tacts”, and also“Hinduism meditation”,“Buddhist enlightenment”, and“Confucian’s wisdom”as a kind of“humanism”, embodying the wisdom of the collective-historical unconsciousness makes great impulse upon his sense of unification of the religions in epistemology in service of the society. As for the fusion of“the fire and the soul”, Eliot argues that when people’s desire and sensations are burned in the“fire”,“The fire and the rose are one”. The fire and the rose are so transfused that one is absorbed into the other, as they would be in the Absolute― The soul and the body are one; for the rose is the symbol of“the soul life”; and“the life of a soul…consist…in the painful task of unifying jarring and incompatible ones, and passing…from two or more discordant viewpoints to a higher [finite center] which shall somehow include and transmute them”into an order which is beheld by Eliot as the“crowned knot of fire”which suggests the“knot”of the universe, crowned by the Trinity of the Soul, the Body, and the Fire which“declare/ The one discharge from sin and error”(KE 148; CP, Little Gidding 221); and“Sin is behovely, but/ All shall be well”(CP, Little Gidding 219). Eliot’s thought of this sort is practiced in The Waste Land, and improved in the Four Quartets. In regard with“birth”and“death”, Eliot’s following suit of Frazer’s“death-rebirth pattern”and the Wisdom of the East, the believing of“reincarnation”indicate an order of sociological continuation with the collective-historical unconsciousness; therefore, to sum up, Eliot’s religious belief begins, progresses, and matures with his philosophical thought.
The ethical aspect mainly explores Eliot’s point of view towards“wisdom”, which unifies philosophy, poetry, and religion into one. To Eliot, poetry should provide people with wisdom and carry out the duty of ethical instruction. Great poets are geniuses and wise men who should inherit the wisdom that has been accumulated timelessly and unconsciously from their forefathers; for wisdom is“a kind of virtue, a kind of charity, humility”, and also“a kind of intuition for understanding the nature of living things and the nature of the human heart”. So, only great poets who have“a very wide range of interest, sympathy, and understanding”can lay wisdom in“a fundamental unity”“on intelligence and experience”, and carry out the duty of morality. Eliot’s thought of this regard benefits from Aristotle who advocates that“intelligence”should be developed by moral virtue to the level of gaining true wisdom, aiming to serve the order of the society. Aristotle conceives of phronesis (practical wisdom) as productive of truth and pragmatism, the former of which, in his sense, refers to what is good for human beings, and the latter of which is something of a virtue or spiritual criterion in the hope of keeping the order of the society. Therefore, in Eliot’s eye,“A really satisfactory working philosophy of social action…requires not merely science but wisdom”. Besides, Eliot refers to“humility”as a kind of belief in God, a kind of religious supernatural wisdom, a major factor of which our life is made up, and a fundamental virtue that man should own.“Humility”and“wisdom”are congruent with each other for the purpose of inculcating people and purify their soul through experience for a universal order. It is no wonder that Eliot repeated the importance of inculcating moral sense, saying that“the absence of any moral sense”means“the absence of social sense”.
The cultural aspect consists of six dialogues which interact on and conform to each other. The first dialogue discusses how tradition and time keeps with each other conformity in which tradition changes with time and improves with new ideas’joining in the past ones, and individual’s joining communities’, as is concluded by Eliot as:“Order is thus not merely negative, but creative and liberating”. The second one explains how language and tradition interact on and shape each other, thus, forming a consensual community in which language depends upon a shared form of life, communal practices and customs which extend with continuity and regularity over time― in short, upon tradition whose consensual community both requires and is required by language, which is as what Hans-Georg Gadamer (German 1900-2002) says,“All forms of human community of life are forms of linguistic community”. Besides, the prime social function of poetry is the propellant of the progression of tradition; and its direct duty is to preserve, and to restore the beauty of the language, and also to develop it; consequently, it places tradition and language in an order. The third expounds the relationship between objectivity and tradition, in which poetry must store tradition and tradition must embody intelligence which requires that poetry be objectified and depersonalized in order to keep a cultural order between the living poets and the dead ones; besides, the sense of impersonality is at the heart of Eliot’s advocacy of poetic impersonality and objectivity through adherence to tradition; and Eliot’s treatment of objectivity in“Tradition and the Individual Talent”, which centers on the impersonal theory of poetry begins with an attempt to base poetic objectivity and impersonality on the idea of
引文
1. T. S. Eliot’s Works Cited (In this dissertation I refer to Eliot’s own works by abbreviations.)
SW Eliot, T. S. 1920. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism, http://www.bartleby.com/2007/sw.html.
FLA For Lancelot Andrewes, London: Faber & Gwyer, 1928.
ASG After the Strange Gods, London: Faber & Faber, 1934.
EAM Essays Ancient and Modern, London: Faber & Faber, 1936.
Revelation Introduction to Revelation, John Baillie and Hugh Martin (ed.), London: Faber & Faber, 1937.
ICS The Idea of a Christian Society, London: Faber & Faber, 1939.
NDC Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, London: Faber & Faber, 1948.
SE Selected Essays by T. S. Eliot, London: Faber & Faber, 1948.
Sermon A Sermon, Preached in Magdalene College Chapel (7 March, 1948), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
OPP On Poetry and Poets, London: Faber & Faber, 1957.
CP Collected Poems 1901-1962, London: Faber & Faber, 1963.
TUP The Use of Poetry and The Use of Criticism, London: Faber & Faber, 1963.
KE Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
TCC To Criticize the Critic and Other Writings, London: Faber & Faber, 1965.
CPP The Complete Poems and Plays 1909―1950, New York: Harcourt, Brace & world, 1971.
WL The Waste Land: A Facsimile and Transcript of the Original Drafts Including the Annotation of Ezra Pound, Valerie Eliot, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1971.
SP Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot, Frank Kermode, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1975.
Letters The Letters of T. S. Eliot, Valerie Eliot, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1988.
EC Eliot Collection: T. S. Eliot Collection, Modern Books and Manuscripts Collections, Houghton Library, Harvard. http://hd.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/collections, Copyright 2007.
2. Eliot’s Papers Cited (As for these papers, the name and the page of the journals are inserted into the dissertation.)
“Van Wyck Brooks’The Wine of the Puritans,”Harvard Advocate 87, no. 5, May, 1909.
“Review of Group Theories of Religion”, New Statesman 7, July, 1916.
“Eldrop and Appleplex,”part 1, Little Review 4, May, 1917.
“Reflections on Contemporary Poetry,”Egoist 4, Oct., 1917.
“Turgenev,”Egoist 4, Dec., 1917.
“In Memory of Henry James,”Egoist 5, Jan., 1918.
“Studies in Contemporary Criticism,”Egoist 5, Jan., 1918.
“A Note on Ezra Pound,”Today 4, Sep., 1918.
“Kipling Redivivus,”Athenaeum, no.4645, Apr., 1919.
“American Literature,”Athenaeum, no. 4645, Apr., 1919.
“A Sceptical Patrician,”Athenaeum, no. 4647, May, 1919.
“Was There a Scottish Literature?”Athenaeum, no. 4657, Aug., 1919.
“The Method of Mr. Pound”Athenaeum, no. 4669, Oct., 1919.
“Prose and Verse,”Chapbook, no. 22, Apr., 1921.
“The Three Provincialities,”Tylor, no. 2, Spring, 1922.
“Dramatic Personae,”Criterion 1, Apr., 1923.
“The Function of a Literary Review,”Criterion 1, Apr., 1923.
“A Preface to Modern Literature,”Vanity Fair 21, Nov., 1923.
“A Prediction in Regard to Three English Authors,”Vanity Fair 21, Feb., 1924.
“A Commentary,”Criterion 2, Apr., 1924.
“Mr. Read and Mr. Fernandez,”Criterion 4, Oct., 1926.
“A Note on Poetry and Belief,”Enemy no. 1, Jan., 1927.
“Political Theorists,”Criterion 6, July, 1927.
“A Commentary,”Criterion 6, Oct., 1927.
“Mr. Middleton Murry’s Synthesis,”Criterion 6, Oct., 1927.
“Commentaries,”Criterion 8, Oct., 1928.
“Three Reformers,”Times Literary Supplement, no.1397, Nov., 1928.
“Poetry and Propaganda,”Bookman 70, 1930.
“Mystic and Politician as Poet: Vaughan, Traherne, Marvell, Milton,”Listener 3, Apr., 1930.
“A Commentary,”Criterion II, 42, Oct., 1931.
“The Modern Dilemma: Christianity and Communism,”Listener 7, Mar., 1932.
“A Commentary,”Criterion II, 46 Oct., 1932.
“A Commentary,”Criterion I, 53, July, 1934.
“Views and Reviews,”New English Weekly 7, June, 1935.
“Literature and the Modern World,”American Prefaces 1, 1935.
“Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Tomlin, and the Crisis,”New English Weekly, Feb., 1937.
“George Herbert,”The Salisbury and Winchester Journal, May, 1938.
“The English Tradition: Address to the School of Sociology,”Christendom 10, no. 40, Dec., 1940.
“The English Tradition: Address to the School of Sociology,”Christendom 10, no. 40, Dec., 1940.
“The Significance of Charles Williams,”Listener 36, Dec., 1946.
“From Mary to You,”Centennial Issue, Dec., 1959.
3. The Other Writers’Works Cited (The writers’family names are used; if the writer has more than one book, then, his or her name and the name of the book are inserted.)
Abel, Corey.“Oakeshott and Eliot on the Relation of Poetry, Philosophy, and Practice,”Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Bost Marriott Coley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusettes, August 28, 2006 on Line: http//: www. All Academic. Com.
Ackroyd, Peter. T. S. Eliot: A Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Allan, Mowbray. T. S. Eliot’s Impersonal Theory of Poetry. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1974.
Aristotle . Nicomachean Ethics. trans. W.D. Ross, web edition published by eBook@Adelaide 2006.
——. Posterior Analytics. In the Students’Oxford Aristotle, trans. W.D. Ross, Vol. 1, web edition published by eBook@Adelaide 2006.
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis
Augustin, Saint. Confessions. Oak Harbour: Logos Research System, Inc., 1996.
Allan, Mowbray. T. S. Eliot’s Impersonal Theory of Poetry. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1974.
Babbitt, Irving. The Masters of Modern French Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1912.
——. The Dhammapada. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936.
——. Rousseau and Romanticism. originally published in 1919, Austin and London: University ofTexas Press, 1987.
Behr, Caroline. T. S. Eliot: A Chronology of His Life and Works. London: Macmillan, 1983.
Bergonzi, Bernerd (ed.). T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets: A Casebook. London: Macmillan, 1969.
Bergson , Henri. Mind-Energy. trans. H. Wildon Carr, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920.
——. Matter and Memory. trans. Nancy Margaret Paul, London: Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1987.
——. Creative Evolution. trans. Arthur Mitchell, London: Macmillan, 1998.
——. Time and Free Will. trans. F. L. Pogson, New York: Dover Publications, 2001.
Blackmur, Rechard, P.“In the Hope of Straightening Things Out,”in T. S. Eliot: A Collection of Critical Essay. ed. Hugh Kenner, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
——.“T. S. Eliot: From‘Ash Wednesday’to‘Murder in the Cathedral,”in The Double Agent. New York: Arrow, 1985.
Bluck, Robert.“T. S. Eliot and‘What the Thunder Said,’”Notes and Queries, New Series 24, no. 5,Oct. 1977.
Bollier, E. P.“T. S. Eliot and F. H. Bradley: A Question of Influence,”Tulane Studies In English 12, 1962.
Bosanquet, Bernard. The Principle of Individuality and Value. London: Macmillan, 1927.
——. Science and Philosophy and Other Essays. Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1967.
——. Implication and Linear Inference (1920). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
——. Knowledge and Reality (1885). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
——. Logic (2d ed., 2vols., 1911). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
Bradbrook, Muriel Carla. in T. S. Eliot: A Study of His Writing by Several Hands. ed. B. Rajan, New York: Haskell House, 1964.
Bradley, F. H. Appearance and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897.
——. Essays on Truth and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914.
——. Principles of Logic (2d ed., 2vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922
——.“Association and Thought,”in Collected Essays (2vols.). New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1968.
——. Ethical Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Dante, Alighieri. The Divine Comedy. trans. Charles Eliot Norton, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982.
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. trans. Joseph W. Swain, London: Allen and Unwin, 1915.
Eliot, Charlotte. Easter Songs. Boston: Massachusetts Press, 1899.
——. Savonarola: A Dramatic Poem. London: R. Gobden-Sanderson, 1926.
——. Scrapbook, Eliot Family Memoriabilia, Box 1, Envelope 10. Houghton Library, Harvard.
Eliot, Esme Valerie. Poems Written in Early Youth. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1967.
——. Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot. New York: A Harvest Book·Harcourt, 1971.
Foerster, N. (ed.). Humanism and America. New York: Farrar and Rhinehard, 1930.
Freed, Lewis. T. S. Eliot: The Critic as Philosopher. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1979.
Frye, Northrop. T. S. Eliot. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.
——. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
Gardner, Helen. The Art of T. S. Eliot. London: Cresset Press, 1949, 1968.
——.“The Landscapes of Eliot’s Poetry,”Critical Quarterly 10, 1968.
Gordon, Lyndall. Eliot Early Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
——. Eliot’s New Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Harmon, William.“T. S. Eliot, Anthropologist and Primitive”, American Anthropologist 78, no.4, December 1976.
Horkheimer, M., and T. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum, 1986.
Howe, Daniel Walker. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861. Cambridge: University of Massachusettes Press, 1970.
Hulme, T. E.“Romanticism and Classicism”in Speculations. London: Routledge and kegan Paul, 1960.
Inge, W. R. Studies of English Mystics. London: Clarendon Press, 1906.
Ishak, M. The Mystical Philosophy of T. S. Eliot. New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press, 1970.
Jain, Manju. T. S. Eliot and American Philosophy: The Harvard Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Joachim, H. H. Logical Studies.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948.
Jones, R. M. Studies in Mystical Religion. London: George Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1909.
Kearns, CleoMcNelly. T. S. Eliot and Indic Tradition, A Study in Poetry and Belief. London: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Kenner, Hugh. The Invisible Poet. New York: McDowell, Obolensky Inc., 1959.
Kermode, Frank. Romantic Image. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.
Kojecky, Roger. T. S. Eliot’s Social Criticism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1917.
Krieger, Murray. The Apologists for Poetry. Minnesapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.
——.“The Critical Legacy of Matthew Arnold,”Southern Review 5, 1969.
Kuiper, Kathlee (ed.). Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature Springfield: Merriam-Wester,Incorporated, Publishers, 1995.
Lanman, Charles Rockwell.“Hindu Law and Custom as to Gifts,”in Anniversary Papers by Collegues and Pupils of George Lyman Kittredge. London: Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1913.
——. The Beginnings of Hindu Pantheism. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts Press, 1890.
——. The philosophy of India and its Impact on American Thought. Springfield: Illinois, 1970
Leavis, F. R.“T. S. Eliot’s Later Poetry,”Scrutiny XI, No.1, Summer, 1942.
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. How Natives Think. trans. Lilian A. Clare, London: Allen and Unwin, 1926.
Louth, Andrew. The Origin of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Margolis, John D. T. S. Eliot’s Intellectual Development, 1922-1939. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press, 1972.
Matthiessen, Francis Otto. The Achievement of T. S. Eliot. New York & London: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Miller, J. Hillis.“T. S. Eliot,”in Poets of Reality: Six Twentieth-Century Writers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Moody, A. David (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2000.
Pears, D. F. (ed.). Bertrand Russell and the British Traditon. London: Collins, 1968.
——. Russell’s Logical Atomism. London: Fontana, 1972.
Perse, St-Jean. Anabasis (2d ed.). trans. T. S. Eliot, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1938.
Pieper, Josef. Leisure the Basis of Culture. trans. Alexander Dru and introduction, T. S. Eliot, London:
Faber & Faber, 1952.
Plato. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.introduction.html
Putnam, Hilary. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979,
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Ransom, John Crowe. Literary Opinion in America (2vols). ed. Morton D. Zabel, New York: Harper & Row, 1937.
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. Coleridge on Imagination. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.
Riepe, Dale. The Philosophy of India and its Impact on American Thought. Springfield: Illinois, 1970.
Royce, Josiah. The Religious Aspect of Philosophy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1885.
——. Studies of Good and Evil. New York: State University of New York Press, 1898.
——. The World and the Individual. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.
——. The Problem of Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Rubinoff , Lionel (ed.). The Presuppositons of Critical History. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1968.
Russell, Bertrand. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.
——. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
——. A History of Western Philosophy. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1963.
——. Autobiography. London: Allen and Unwin, 1978.
Santayana, George.“Three American Philosophers,”American Scholar 22, 1952-1953.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. trans. John Oman, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1893.
Selden, Raman, Peter Willdowson and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
Selwyn, Edward G. (ed.). Essays Catholic and Critical. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1926.
Shusterman, Richard. T. S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1988.
Skaff, William. The Philosophy of T. S. Eliot: From Skepticism to A Surrealist Poetic, 1909-1927. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1986.
Smidt, Kristian. Poetry and Belief in the Work of T. S. Eliot. London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.
Smith, Grover A. T. S. Eliot’s Poetry and Plays: A Study in Sources and Meaning. Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1974.
Soldo, John. The Tempering of T. S. Eliot. Epping: Bowker, 1983.
Spencer, Theodore (ed.).“Donne in Our Time, in A Garland of John Donne, 1631-1931. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Stanford, Donald E.“Hulme’s‘Leccture on Modern Poetry,”Southern Review 5, 1969.
Stead, C. K. The New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot. London: Faber & Faber, 1964.
Tate, Allan(ed.). T. S. Eliot: The Man and His Works. New York: Delacorte Press, 1966.
Taylor, A. E. Elements of Metaphysics. London: Methuen, 1924.
Unger, Leonard.“The Rose Garden,”T. S. Eliot: Moments and Patterns. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966.
Urmson, J.O.“Aristotle on Pleasure,”Aristotle. ed. J. M. E. Moravcsik. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
Valéry, Paul.“A Brief Introduction to the Method of Paul Valéry (by T. S. Eliot),”Le Serpent. trans.Mark Wardle, London: R. Cobden-Sanderson, 1924.
Vickery, John B. The Literary Impact of“The Golden Bough.”Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Watson, John B. Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company, 1925; revised, 1936.
Wellek, René.“The Criticism of T. S. Eliot”, in Sewanee Review 64, 1956.
Wheelwright, Philip Ellis. in T. S. Eliot, ed. Rajan.
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Zabel, Morton D. (ed.).“Poetry and Propaganda,”in Literary Opinion in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1937.
——.“Experiment in Criticism,”in Literary Opinion in America (2vols). New York: Harper & Row, 1937. Holy Bible. The United Bible Society.
董洪川.《“荒原”之风:艾略特在中国》,北京:北京大学出版社2004年版。
韩志先等主编.《英语阅读教程》4,北京:高等教育出版社2001年版。
蒋洪新.“论艾略特《四个四重奏》的时间主题”,《外国文学研究》,1998年第3期。
蒋永福等主编.《东西方哲学大辞典》,南昌:江西人民出版社1977年版。
江玉娇.“探讨T. S.艾略特的‘秩序’理论”,《外国文学评论》,2002年第3期。
——.“艾略特自我意识本体论初探”,《国外文学》,2005年第4期。
——.《<荒原>话语蕴藉研究》,哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社2005年版。
刘立辉.“艾略特《四个四重奏》的文体特征”,《外语教学与研究》,2004年第5期。
——.“艾略特《四个四重奏》引语解读”,《国外文学》,2002年第3期。
刘燕.《现代批评之始:T. S.艾略特诗学研究》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社2005年版。
陆建德.“艾略特:改变表现方式的天才”,《外国文学评论》,1999年第3期。
史成芳.“无常与永恒之间——《四个四重奏》的时间编码”,《国外文学》,1993年第4期。
徐文博.“《荒原》诗序变易的认识论观照”,《外国文学评论》,1996年第2期。
张伯香.《英美文学选读》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社2005年版。
张剑.“艾略特在西方——艾略特评论史述评”,《外国文学评论》,1995年第2期。
张子清.“T. S.艾略特:对时间的沉思”,《名作欣赏》,2002年第1期。
赵萝蕤,张子清等译.《艾略特诗选》,济南:山东大学出版社1998年版。
赵毅衡.《新批评——一种独特的形式主义文论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社1986年版。
王佐良.《英诗的境界》,北京:三联书店出版社1991年版。
SW Eliot, T. S. 1920. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism, http://www.bartleby.com/2007/sw.html.
FLA For Lancelot Andrewes, London: Faber & Gwyer, 1928.
ASG After the Strange Gods, London: Faber & Faber, 1934.
EAM Essays Ancient and Modern, London: Faber & Faber, 1936.
Revelation Introduction to Revelation, John Baillie and Hugh Martin (ed.), London: Faber & Faber, 1937.
ICS The Idea of a Christian Society, London: Faber & Faber, 1939.
NDC Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, London: Faber & Faber, 1948.
SE Selected Essays by T. S. Eliot, London: Faber & Faber, 1948.
Sermon A Sermon, Preached in Magdalene College Chapel (7 March, 1948), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
OPP On Poetry and Poets, London: Faber & Faber, 1957.
CP Collected Poems 1901-1962, London: Faber & Faber, 1963.
TUP The Use of Poetry and The Use of Criticism, London: Faber & Faber, 1963.
KE Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F. H. Bradley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
TCC To Criticize the Critic and Other Writings, London: Faber & Faber, 1965.
CPP The Complete Poems and Plays 1909―1950, New York: Harcourt, Brace & world, 1971.
WL The Waste Land: A Facsimile and Transcript of the Original Drafts Including the Annotation of Ezra Pound, Valerie Eliot, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1971.
SP Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot, Frank Kermode, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1975.
Letters The Letters of T. S. Eliot, Valerie Eliot, ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1988.
EC Eliot Collection: T. S. Eliot Collection, Modern Books and Manuscripts Collections, Houghton Library, Harvard. http://hd.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/collections, Copyright 2007.
2. Eliot’s Papers Cited (As for these papers, the name and the page of the journals are inserted into the dissertation.)
“Van Wyck Brooks’The Wine of the Puritans,”Harvard Advocate 87, no. 5, May, 1909.
“Review of Group Theories of Religion”, New Statesman 7, July, 1916.
“Eldrop and Appleplex,”part 1, Little Review 4, May, 1917.
“Reflections on Contemporary Poetry,”Egoist 4, Oct., 1917.
“Turgenev,”Egoist 4, Dec., 1917.
“In Memory of Henry James,”Egoist 5, Jan., 1918.
“Studies in Contemporary Criticism,”Egoist 5, Jan., 1918.
“A Note on Ezra Pound,”Today 4, Sep., 1918.
“Kipling Redivivus,”Athenaeum, no.4645, Apr., 1919.
“American Literature,”Athenaeum, no. 4645, Apr., 1919.
“A Sceptical Patrician,”Athenaeum, no. 4647, May, 1919.
“Was There a Scottish Literature?”Athenaeum, no. 4657, Aug., 1919.
“The Method of Mr. Pound”Athenaeum, no. 4669, Oct., 1919.
“Prose and Verse,”Chapbook, no. 22, Apr., 1921.
“The Three Provincialities,”Tylor, no. 2, Spring, 1922.
“Dramatic Personae,”Criterion 1, Apr., 1923.
“The Function of a Literary Review,”Criterion 1, Apr., 1923.
“A Preface to Modern Literature,”Vanity Fair 21, Nov., 1923.
“A Prediction in Regard to Three English Authors,”Vanity Fair 21, Feb., 1924.
“A Commentary,”Criterion 2, Apr., 1924.
“Mr. Read and Mr. Fernandez,”Criterion 4, Oct., 1926.
“A Note on Poetry and Belief,”Enemy no. 1, Jan., 1927.
“Political Theorists,”Criterion 6, July, 1927.
“A Commentary,”Criterion 6, Oct., 1927.
“Mr. Middleton Murry’s Synthesis,”Criterion 6, Oct., 1927.
“Commentaries,”Criterion 8, Oct., 1928.
“Three Reformers,”Times Literary Supplement, no.1397, Nov., 1928.
“Poetry and Propaganda,”Bookman 70, 1930.
“Mystic and Politician as Poet: Vaughan, Traherne, Marvell, Milton,”Listener 3, Apr., 1930.
“A Commentary,”Criterion II, 42, Oct., 1931.
“The Modern Dilemma: Christianity and Communism,”Listener 7, Mar., 1932.
“A Commentary,”Criterion II, 46 Oct., 1932.
“A Commentary,”Criterion I, 53, July, 1934.
“Views and Reviews,”New English Weekly 7, June, 1935.
“Literature and the Modern World,”American Prefaces 1, 1935.
“Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Tomlin, and the Crisis,”New English Weekly, Feb., 1937.
“George Herbert,”The Salisbury and Winchester Journal, May, 1938.
“The English Tradition: Address to the School of Sociology,”Christendom 10, no. 40, Dec., 1940.
“The English Tradition: Address to the School of Sociology,”Christendom 10, no. 40, Dec., 1940.
“The Significance of Charles Williams,”Listener 36, Dec., 1946.
“From Mary to You,”Centennial Issue, Dec., 1959.
3. The Other Writers’Works Cited (The writers’family names are used; if the writer has more than one book, then, his or her name and the name of the book are inserted.)
Abel, Corey.“Oakeshott and Eliot on the Relation of Poetry, Philosophy, and Practice,”Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Bost Marriott Coley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusettes, August 28, 2006 on Line: http//: www. All Academic. Com.
Ackroyd, Peter. T. S. Eliot: A Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984.
Allan, Mowbray. T. S. Eliot’s Impersonal Theory of Poetry. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1974.
Aristotle . Nicomachean Ethics. trans. W.D. Ross, web edition published by eBook@Adelaide 2006.
——. Posterior Analytics. In the Students’Oxford Aristotle, trans. W.D. Ross, Vol. 1, web edition published by eBook@Adelaide 2006.
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
——. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis
Augustin, Saint. Confessions. Oak Harbour: Logos Research System, Inc., 1996.
Allan, Mowbray. T. S. Eliot’s Impersonal Theory of Poetry. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1974.
Babbitt, Irving. The Masters of Modern French Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1912.
——. The Dhammapada. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936.
——. Rousseau and Romanticism. originally published in 1919, Austin and London: University ofTexas Press, 1987.
Behr, Caroline. T. S. Eliot: A Chronology of His Life and Works. London: Macmillan, 1983.
Bergonzi, Bernerd (ed.). T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets: A Casebook. London: Macmillan, 1969.
Bergson , Henri. Mind-Energy. trans. H. Wildon Carr, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920.
——. Matter and Memory. trans. Nancy Margaret Paul, London: Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1987.
——. Creative Evolution. trans. Arthur Mitchell, London: Macmillan, 1998.
——. Time and Free Will. trans. F. L. Pogson, New York: Dover Publications, 2001.
Blackmur, Rechard, P.“In the Hope of Straightening Things Out,”in T. S. Eliot: A Collection of Critical Essay. ed. Hugh Kenner, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
——.“T. S. Eliot: From‘Ash Wednesday’to‘Murder in the Cathedral,”in The Double Agent. New York: Arrow, 1985.
Bluck, Robert.“T. S. Eliot and‘What the Thunder Said,’”Notes and Queries, New Series 24, no. 5,Oct. 1977.
Bollier, E. P.“T. S. Eliot and F. H. Bradley: A Question of Influence,”Tulane Studies In English 12, 1962.
Bosanquet, Bernard. The Principle of Individuality and Value. London: Macmillan, 1927.
——. Science and Philosophy and Other Essays. Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1967.
——. Implication and Linear Inference (1920). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
——. Knowledge and Reality (1885). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
——. Logic (2d ed., 2vols., 1911). New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1968.
Bradbrook, Muriel Carla. in T. S. Eliot: A Study of His Writing by Several Hands. ed. B. Rajan, New York: Haskell House, 1964.
Bradley, F. H. Appearance and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897.
——. Essays on Truth and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914.
——. Principles of Logic (2d ed., 2vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922
——.“Association and Thought,”in Collected Essays (2vols.). New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1968.
——. Ethical Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Dante, Alighieri. The Divine Comedy. trans. Charles Eliot Norton, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982.
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. trans. Joseph W. Swain, London: Allen and Unwin, 1915.
Eliot, Charlotte. Easter Songs. Boston: Massachusetts Press, 1899.
——. Savonarola: A Dramatic Poem. London: R. Gobden-Sanderson, 1926.
——. Scrapbook, Eliot Family Memoriabilia, Box 1, Envelope 10. Houghton Library, Harvard.
Eliot, Esme Valerie. Poems Written in Early Youth. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1967.
——. Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot. New York: A Harvest Book·Harcourt, 1971.
Foerster, N. (ed.). Humanism and America. New York: Farrar and Rhinehard, 1930.
Freed, Lewis. T. S. Eliot: The Critic as Philosopher. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1979.
Frye, Northrop. T. S. Eliot. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.
——. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
Gardner, Helen. The Art of T. S. Eliot. London: Cresset Press, 1949, 1968.
——.“The Landscapes of Eliot’s Poetry,”Critical Quarterly 10, 1968.
Gordon, Lyndall. Eliot Early Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
——. Eliot’s New Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Harmon, William.“T. S. Eliot, Anthropologist and Primitive”, American Anthropologist 78, no.4, December 1976.
Horkheimer, M., and T. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum, 1986.
Howe, Daniel Walker. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861. Cambridge: University of Massachusettes Press, 1970.
Hulme, T. E.“Romanticism and Classicism”in Speculations. London: Routledge and kegan Paul, 1960.
Inge, W. R. Studies of English Mystics. London: Clarendon Press, 1906.
Ishak, M. The Mystical Philosophy of T. S. Eliot. New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press, 1970.
Jain, Manju. T. S. Eliot and American Philosophy: The Harvard Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Joachim, H. H. Logical Studies.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948.
Jones, R. M. Studies in Mystical Religion. London: George Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1909.
Kearns, CleoMcNelly. T. S. Eliot and Indic Tradition, A Study in Poetry and Belief. London: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Kenner, Hugh. The Invisible Poet. New York: McDowell, Obolensky Inc., 1959.
Kermode, Frank. Romantic Image. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.
Kojecky, Roger. T. S. Eliot’s Social Criticism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1917.
Krieger, Murray. The Apologists for Poetry. Minnesapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.
——.“The Critical Legacy of Matthew Arnold,”Southern Review 5, 1969.
Kuiper, Kathlee (ed.). Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature Springfield: Merriam-Wester,Incorporated, Publishers, 1995.
Lanman, Charles Rockwell.“Hindu Law and Custom as to Gifts,”in Anniversary Papers by Collegues and Pupils of George Lyman Kittredge. London: Allan and Unwin Ltd., 1913.
——. The Beginnings of Hindu Pantheism. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts Press, 1890.
——. The philosophy of India and its Impact on American Thought. Springfield: Illinois, 1970
Leavis, F. R.“T. S. Eliot’s Later Poetry,”Scrutiny XI, No.1, Summer, 1942.
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. How Natives Think. trans. Lilian A. Clare, London: Allen and Unwin, 1926.
Louth, Andrew. The Origin of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Margolis, John D. T. S. Eliot’s Intellectual Development, 1922-1939. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press, 1972.
Matthiessen, Francis Otto. The Achievement of T. S. Eliot. New York & London: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Miller, J. Hillis.“T. S. Eliot,”in Poets of Reality: Six Twentieth-Century Writers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Moody, A. David (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2000.
Pears, D. F. (ed.). Bertrand Russell and the British Traditon. London: Collins, 1968.
——. Russell’s Logical Atomism. London: Fontana, 1972.
Perse, St-Jean. Anabasis (2d ed.). trans. T. S. Eliot, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1938.
Pieper, Josef. Leisure the Basis of Culture. trans. Alexander Dru and introduction, T. S. Eliot, London:
Faber & Faber, 1952.
Plato. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.introduction.html
Putnam, Hilary. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979,
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Ransom, John Crowe. Literary Opinion in America (2vols). ed. Morton D. Zabel, New York: Harper & Row, 1937.
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. Coleridge on Imagination. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.
Riepe, Dale. The Philosophy of India and its Impact on American Thought. Springfield: Illinois, 1970.
Royce, Josiah. The Religious Aspect of Philosophy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1885.
——. Studies of Good and Evil. New York: State University of New York Press, 1898.
——. The World and the Individual. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001.
——. The Problem of Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Rubinoff , Lionel (ed.). The Presuppositons of Critical History. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1968.
Russell, Bertrand. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.
——. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
——. A History of Western Philosophy. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1963.
——. Autobiography. London: Allen and Unwin, 1978.
Santayana, George.“Three American Philosophers,”American Scholar 22, 1952-1953.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. trans. John Oman, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1893.
Selden, Raman, Peter Willdowson and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004.
Selwyn, Edward G. (ed.). Essays Catholic and Critical. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1926.
Shusterman, Richard. T. S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1988.
Skaff, William. The Philosophy of T. S. Eliot: From Skepticism to A Surrealist Poetic, 1909-1927. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1986.
Smidt, Kristian. Poetry and Belief in the Work of T. S. Eliot. London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.
Smith, Grover A. T. S. Eliot’s Poetry and Plays: A Study in Sources and Meaning. Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1974.
Soldo, John. The Tempering of T. S. Eliot. Epping: Bowker, 1983.
Spencer, Theodore (ed.).“Donne in Our Time, in A Garland of John Donne, 1631-1931. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Stanford, Donald E.“Hulme’s‘Leccture on Modern Poetry,”Southern Review 5, 1969.
Stead, C. K. The New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot. London: Faber & Faber, 1964.
Tate, Allan(ed.). T. S. Eliot: The Man and His Works. New York: Delacorte Press, 1966.
Taylor, A. E. Elements of Metaphysics. London: Methuen, 1924.
Unger, Leonard.“The Rose Garden,”T. S. Eliot: Moments and Patterns. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966.
Urmson, J.O.“Aristotle on Pleasure,”Aristotle. ed. J. M. E. Moravcsik. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
Valéry, Paul.“A Brief Introduction to the Method of Paul Valéry (by T. S. Eliot),”Le Serpent. trans.Mark Wardle, London: R. Cobden-Sanderson, 1924.
Vickery, John B. The Literary Impact of“The Golden Bough.”Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Watson, John B. Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company, 1925; revised, 1936.
Wellek, René.“The Criticism of T. S. Eliot”, in Sewanee Review 64, 1956.
Wheelwright, Philip Ellis. in T. S. Eliot, ed. Rajan.
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Zabel, Morton D. (ed.).“Poetry and Propaganda,”in Literary Opinion in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1937.
——.“Experiment in Criticism,”in Literary Opinion in America (2vols). New York: Harper & Row, 1937. Holy Bible. The United Bible Society.
董洪川.《“荒原”之风:艾略特在中国》,北京:北京大学出版社2004年版。
韩志先等主编.《英语阅读教程》4,北京:高等教育出版社2001年版。
蒋洪新.“论艾略特《四个四重奏》的时间主题”,《外国文学研究》,1998年第3期。
蒋永福等主编.《东西方哲学大辞典》,南昌:江西人民出版社1977年版。
江玉娇.“探讨T. S.艾略特的‘秩序’理论”,《外国文学评论》,2002年第3期。
——.“艾略特自我意识本体论初探”,《国外文学》,2005年第4期。
——.《<荒原>话语蕴藉研究》,哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社2005年版。
刘立辉.“艾略特《四个四重奏》的文体特征”,《外语教学与研究》,2004年第5期。
——.“艾略特《四个四重奏》引语解读”,《国外文学》,2002年第3期。
刘燕.《现代批评之始:T. S.艾略特诗学研究》,桂林:广西师范大学出版社2005年版。
陆建德.“艾略特:改变表现方式的天才”,《外国文学评论》,1999年第3期。
史成芳.“无常与永恒之间——《四个四重奏》的时间编码”,《国外文学》,1993年第4期。
徐文博.“《荒原》诗序变易的认识论观照”,《外国文学评论》,1996年第2期。
张伯香.《英美文学选读》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社2005年版。
张剑.“艾略特在西方——艾略特评论史述评”,《外国文学评论》,1995年第2期。
张子清.“T. S.艾略特:对时间的沉思”,《名作欣赏》,2002年第1期。
赵萝蕤,张子清等译.《艾略特诗选》,济南:山东大学出版社1998年版。
赵毅衡.《新批评——一种独特的形式主义文论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社1986年版。
王佐良.《英诗的境界》,北京:三联书店出版社1991年版。