古文家钱基博对文学革命的退让与反击
|
摘要
对于文学革命、新诗运动以至新文化运动的意义,自发端之初以迄当代,素有争议。作为古文家和认同"中体西用"思想的开明守旧派,钱基博对胡适及其所倡导的新文化运动和新诗运动经历了由退让到反击的转变,彰显了中国新文学史单向叙事的否定之维。他在出版于1930年代的《现代中国文学史》一书中,沿袭"甲寅派"的观点将胡适暗比"不思道德"、诡谲多诈的汉代权臣朱博,又在同时期劝诫其子勿效胡适、徐志摩,而应学习南朝名臣王僧虔在乱世的"处法";对于闻一多、朱湘等新诗人提倡格律、用典和模仿古人,他认为是"新体诗之穷而当变,思复其初"的征兆。本文探讨了钱基博对胡适及新文化运动、新诗运动的评价,揭示了他对文学革命所持态度的微妙转变,并对其守旧诗观加以反思。对于新诗的体例与新诗的成就,笔者认为,天道有常,文体代兴,不为格律、声韵所缚的自由诗乃新诗主流,其中佳制,实非胡适、周作人等人尝试之作所可及。
There has always been a dispute about the significance of the Literary Revolution, the New Poetry Movement and even the New Culture Movement ever since their inception. As a scholar of classical Chinese language and an enlightened traditionalist who identifies with the ideology of ‘Zhongti xiyong’, that of the Chinese studies as the foundation and the Western studies for practical use, Qian Jibo experienced a retreat from and a counterattack on the New Culture Movement and the New Poetry Movement as promoted by Hu Shi, demonstrating the dimension of negation in terms of single-directional narration in the history of new Chinese literature. In his book, A History of Modern Chinese Literature, published in the 1930 s, he based his view on that of the Jiayin School, comparing Hu Shi to Zhu Bo, a powerful minister in the Han dynasty, one that was immoral and cunning, while, at the same time, advising his own son to not follow Hu Shi and Xu Zhimo, instead learning the ways from Wang Sengqian, a well-known minister in the Southern Dynasties. He regarded the promotion of rules and forms of classical poetic composition, the use of allusions and the imitation of ancient men of letters by such poets as Wen Yiduo and Zhu Xiang as signs of the‘new poetry seeking a return to its origin when it has exhausted itself’. This article discusses Qian's comments on Hu Shi, the New Culture Movement and the New Poetry Movement, revealing his subtle change of attitude towards the Literary Revolution and reflecting on his concepts of the old poetry. It is this writer's opinion that, in relation to the rules of new poetry and its achievements, free verse, free from the old rules regarding style and sound, is the mainstream of new poetry as part of a natural law, and the fine works of such poetry are not something that trial work by either Hu Shi or Zhou Zuoren could ever match.
There has always been a dispute about the significance of the Literary Revolution, the New Poetry Movement and even the New Culture Movement ever since their inception. As a scholar of classical Chinese language and an enlightened traditionalist who identifies with the ideology of ‘Zhongti xiyong’, that of the Chinese studies as the foundation and the Western studies for practical use, Qian Jibo experienced a retreat from and a counterattack on the New Culture Movement and the New Poetry Movement as promoted by Hu Shi, demonstrating the dimension of negation in terms of single-directional narration in the history of new Chinese literature. In his book, A History of Modern Chinese Literature, published in the 1930 s, he based his view on that of the Jiayin School, comparing Hu Shi to Zhu Bo, a powerful minister in the Han dynasty, one that was immoral and cunning, while, at the same time, advising his own son to not follow Hu Shi and Xu Zhimo, instead learning the ways from Wang Sengqian, a well-known minister in the Southern Dynasties. He regarded the promotion of rules and forms of classical poetic composition, the use of allusions and the imitation of ancient men of letters by such poets as Wen Yiduo and Zhu Xiang as signs of the‘new poetry seeking a return to its origin when it has exhausted itself’. This article discusses Qian's comments on Hu Shi, the New Culture Movement and the New Poetry Movement, revealing his subtle change of attitude towards the Literary Revolution and reflecting on his concepts of the old poetry. It is this writer's opinion that, in relation to the rules of new poetry and its achievements, free verse, free from the old rules regarding style and sound, is the mainstream of new poetry as part of a natural law, and the fine works of such poetry are not something that trial work by either Hu Shi or Zhou Zuoren could ever match.
引文
(1)黎锦熙:《国语运动史纲》,上海书店1990年版,第110-111页。
(2)鲁迅:《答KS君》,1925年8月28日刊发于《莽原》周刊第19期,载鲁迅《华盖集》,人民文学出版社1980年版,第103页。
(3)陈衍:《石遗室诗话·续编》,卷一,人民文学出版社2004年版,第549页。
(4)钱穆:《八十忆双亲·师友杂忆》,三联书店2005年版,第128页。
(5)(8)(9)(10)(11)钱基博:《谕儿锺书札两通》,《光华大学半月刊》1932年第4期。
(6)常风:《和钱锺书同学的日子》,《山西文学》2000年第9期。
(7)(17)钱基博:《自我检讨书》,《天涯》2003年第1期。
(12)(13)(22)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(36)(37)(38)(40)(41)(42)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》,江苏文艺出版社2008年版,第485页;第484页;第479页;第495页;第495-496页;第495-496页;第496页;第495页;第494页;第494页;第494页;第494页;第494-495页;第495页;第485页。
(14)邵祖平乃章士钊弟子,此信原载于《甲寅周刊》第一卷第一号,收入《章士钊全集》第五卷,文汇出版社2000年版,第301-302页。
(15)(16)(汉)班固:《汉书》,卷八十三,《汉书》第10册,中华书局1962年版,第3402页;第3409页。
(18)徐敏:《胡适---荒唐的民国范儿》,《书摘》2015年第3期。
(19)记载于钱瑗致叶坦的书信,见叶坦《天堂就在她的心里》,杨绛等著《我们的钱瑗》,三联书店2005年版,第104页。
(20)《终身大事》刊于《新青年》第6卷第3号(1919年3月),胡适在“跋”中对此事作了说明:“这出戏本是因为几个女学生要排演,我才把它译成中文的。后来因为这戏里的田女士跟人跑了,这几位女学生竟没有人敢扮演田女士,况且女学堂似乎不便演这种不道德的戏!所以这稿子又回来了。我想这一层很是我这出戏的大缺点。我们常说要提倡写实主义。如今我这出戏竟没有人敢演,可见得一定不是写实的了。这种不合写实主义的戏,本来没有什么价值,只好送给我的朋友高一涵去填《新青年》的空白罢。”
(21)胡适:《朋友》,《新青年》第2卷第6期,1917年2月。
(23)钱基博:《语体文范》,傅宏星主编《钱基博集·文范四种》,华中师范大学出版社2012年版,第172页;第174页;第173页。
(26)胡适:《〈中国哲学史大纲〉导言》,胡适《中国哲学史大纲》(卷上),东方出版社1996年版,第25页。
(27)龚刚:《朱光潜与文白之争---兼谈学习和创作文言文的现实意义》,《社会科学论坛》2016年第1期。
(33)钱锺书:《评吴宓先生其人其诗》(“A Note on Mr.Wu and His Poetry”),《钱锺书英文文集》,第76页,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005。英文原文如下:“Hsu Tse-mo,for all his aestheticism and artiness,is still a baby who can enjoy innocently the pleasures of life;his fits of unhappiness are those of a spoiled child who wails either because he has not got enough of sweets to eat or because he has eaten more than is good for his stomach.”
(34)钱锺书:《围城》,人民文学出版社1997年版,第83页。
(35)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》。钱氏此说基本照抄其光华大学同事周澂的《十年来之中国文学》,《光华大学半月刊》第三卷第九、十期合刊,1935年6月,第493页。
(39)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》,第494页。钱基博所引“自由诗之提倡,白情、平伯之功不少”之说,原文如下:“自由(无韵)诗的提倡,白情、平伯的功劳都不小。但旧诗词的鬼影仍旧时时出现在许多‘半路出家’的新诗人的诗歌里。平伯的《小劫》,便是一例……”(胡适《〈蕙的风〉序》)
(43)胡适:《文学改良刍议》,《新青年》2卷5号,1917年1月。
(44)胡适:《谈新诗》,姜义华主编《胡适学术文集·新文学运动》,中华书局1993年版,第389页。
(46)(宋)严羽著,郭绍虞校释《沧浪诗话校释》卷一《诗辨》,人民文学出版社1961年版,第26页。
(2)鲁迅:《答KS君》,1925年8月28日刊发于《莽原》周刊第19期,载鲁迅《华盖集》,人民文学出版社1980年版,第103页。
(3)陈衍:《石遗室诗话·续编》,卷一,人民文学出版社2004年版,第549页。
(4)钱穆:《八十忆双亲·师友杂忆》,三联书店2005年版,第128页。
(5)(8)(9)(10)(11)钱基博:《谕儿锺书札两通》,《光华大学半月刊》1932年第4期。
(6)常风:《和钱锺书同学的日子》,《山西文学》2000年第9期。
(7)(17)钱基博:《自我检讨书》,《天涯》2003年第1期。
(12)(13)(22)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(36)(37)(38)(40)(41)(42)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》,江苏文艺出版社2008年版,第485页;第484页;第479页;第495页;第495-496页;第495-496页;第496页;第495页;第494页;第494页;第494页;第494页;第494-495页;第495页;第485页。
(14)邵祖平乃章士钊弟子,此信原载于《甲寅周刊》第一卷第一号,收入《章士钊全集》第五卷,文汇出版社2000年版,第301-302页。
(15)(16)(汉)班固:《汉书》,卷八十三,《汉书》第10册,中华书局1962年版,第3402页;第3409页。
(18)徐敏:《胡适---荒唐的民国范儿》,《书摘》2015年第3期。
(19)记载于钱瑗致叶坦的书信,见叶坦《天堂就在她的心里》,杨绛等著《我们的钱瑗》,三联书店2005年版,第104页。
(20)《终身大事》刊于《新青年》第6卷第3号(1919年3月),胡适在“跋”中对此事作了说明:“这出戏本是因为几个女学生要排演,我才把它译成中文的。后来因为这戏里的田女士跟人跑了,这几位女学生竟没有人敢扮演田女士,况且女学堂似乎不便演这种不道德的戏!所以这稿子又回来了。我想这一层很是我这出戏的大缺点。我们常说要提倡写实主义。如今我这出戏竟没有人敢演,可见得一定不是写实的了。这种不合写实主义的戏,本来没有什么价值,只好送给我的朋友高一涵去填《新青年》的空白罢。”
(21)胡适:《朋友》,《新青年》第2卷第6期,1917年2月。
(23)钱基博:《语体文范》,傅宏星主编《钱基博集·文范四种》,华中师范大学出版社2012年版,第172页;第174页;第173页。
(26)胡适:《〈中国哲学史大纲〉导言》,胡适《中国哲学史大纲》(卷上),东方出版社1996年版,第25页。
(27)龚刚:《朱光潜与文白之争---兼谈学习和创作文言文的现实意义》,《社会科学论坛》2016年第1期。
(33)钱锺书:《评吴宓先生其人其诗》(“A Note on Mr.Wu and His Poetry”),《钱锺书英文文集》,第76页,北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005。英文原文如下:“Hsu Tse-mo,for all his aestheticism and artiness,is still a baby who can enjoy innocently the pleasures of life;his fits of unhappiness are those of a spoiled child who wails either because he has not got enough of sweets to eat or because he has eaten more than is good for his stomach.”
(34)钱锺书:《围城》,人民文学出版社1997年版,第83页。
(35)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》。钱氏此说基本照抄其光华大学同事周澂的《十年来之中国文学》,《光华大学半月刊》第三卷第九、十期合刊,1935年6月,第493页。
(39)钱基博:《现代中国文学史》,第494页。钱基博所引“自由诗之提倡,白情、平伯之功不少”之说,原文如下:“自由(无韵)诗的提倡,白情、平伯的功劳都不小。但旧诗词的鬼影仍旧时时出现在许多‘半路出家’的新诗人的诗歌里。平伯的《小劫》,便是一例……”(胡适《〈蕙的风〉序》)
(43)胡适:《文学改良刍议》,《新青年》2卷5号,1917年1月。
(44)胡适:《谈新诗》,姜义华主编《胡适学术文集·新文学运动》,中华书局1993年版,第389页。
(46)(宋)严羽著,郭绍虞校释《沧浪诗话校释》卷一《诗辨》,人民文学出版社1961年版,第26页。