中国小说与史传文学之间的关系

2017-01-10 00:46赵宽熙
关键词:独创性复古

摘要:对历史和叙事关系的研究也是在努力追寻中国小说起源。在文中,我将对中国小说叙事传统形成的原因和意义进行解释。无论是中国还是欧洲,历史和小说都有特定的形式特征因而很容易辨别,但在早期,小说还不能从历史中区别出来,随着时间的推移,小说逐渐从历史中分离出来。然而,这一趋势唤起了复古和拟古的中国文学传统,复古也就是将古复活于今日,这一传统会刺激后来者努力超越前人。因此,如果不将历史和叙事区别开来,就无法理清楚它们两者之间的关系。

关键词:史传性;独创性; 复古;正典;建设的想象力

中图分类号:I207.4

文献标识码:A DOI:10.3963/j.issn.16716477.2016.06.0001

一、史传与虚构

历史与小说的关系是古今众多从事中国小说研究的学者们所关注的一个重要课题。近代以前,中国人对小说抱着双重态度,即志怪、传奇乃至话本、白话小说之类的叙事作品,并没有受到重视,反而一直被轻视甚至被忽略;另一方面,这类作品所具有的教化功能却受到了过分的夸张。这又例证了一个事实:古代中国人并没有单纯地将这些叙事作品视为记录虚构的事件。可以说,这一切源自于中国人传统上将所有小说视为历史的一部分。

这样看来,围绕着历史与小说关系所进行的讨论,已超越了单纯的体裁区分问题,其中蕴含着更加广泛的意义。

“对探究中国叙事的本质问题必须从史传文的重要性与在某个意义上又为文化的总合体的历史主义理解下出发。实际上,如何定义中国叙事的范畴这一问题,归根结底可以总结为中国传统文化的两大重要形态——史传和虚构是否存在内在的平衡感。”①

在中国小说史上,探究历史与小说的关系,不仅意味着从体裁方面比较两者之间的异同,更意味着这是在探寻中国叙事的本质问题。为此,现代众多学者关注“历史与小说的关系”,可以说就是揭示“中国小说的起源”的一个重要环节。之所以这样说,是因为“小说出于历史”的主张,正是为阐明“中国小说的起源”所作的努力之一②。

二、小说是不是“正史之补”?

有趣的是,中国学者们在议论“中国小说的起源”时,往往有为其区分“稗官说”与“史传说”的倾向。这里所谓的“稗官说”,是主张小说的由来是源自于统治者为了解民情而派遣名为稗官的官吏去采集民间“街谈巷语,道听途说者之所造”而来的;“史传说”则认为小说是从史传文学发展而来的。由此可集约出这样一个结论,即“稗官说”是以创作的主体为基准,“史传说”则是侧重于与其他文学体裁的联系关系。

另外,从“稗官”来探索小说的起源,是另具含义的,这可以从后代小说史家对小说功能的重视得以论证。绝大多数的小说史家主张小说是“正史之补”,“小说出自稗官”一说则是他们的有力依据。这一过程中成为问题的是有关“稗官”的职责和地位。据文献所载,中国古代各个领域,都有大小不同的官吏各司其职,稗官是其中地位甚微的一个官职,其地位远不如正统史官[1]5-6。

在上述内容的基础上,张振君概括了古代中国“小说”所包涵的几种含义:[1]6-7

其一,就小说的作者而言,其乃是地位低下的稗官,而非高贵的史官(如太史);

其二,就小说的内容而言,其主要记“里巷世故,刍荛狂夫之议”,而不是像正史那样记君国大事;

其三,就小说的形式而言,其“含残丛小语,近取譬喻,以作短书”,而不是像正史那样可洋洋洒洒,连篇累牍;

其四,就小说的功用而言,其主要供封建统治者观民风、知民情,而不是像正史那样“鉴君臣之善恶,载政事之得失,观人才之吉凶,知邦家之休戚”;

其五,就小说的价值而言,其浅薄虚妄,而不是像正史那样征实可靠。

张振君就此还进一步阐述了“史传性”才是中国小说所具有的民族特征③。

综上所述,我们可以发现不少学者认为小说出于稗官、小说是“正史之补”。根据记载,该主张最早见于汉代班固的《汉书·艺文志》:“小说家者流,盖出于稗官,街谈巷语,道听涂说者之所造也。”班固在此所指的小说家并非如今的小说家,他所列举的小说15家1380篇作品亦不同于如今的小说,故无需追加解释。不过重要的是,自班固以来后世毫无质疑地接受了小说的起源源于历史这一说法。

自班固以后,最能体现此说的乃是魏晋南北朝时期的一些志怪作家。首先葛洪指出:

“然神仙幽隐,与世异流,世之所闻者,犹千不得一者也。……予今复抄集古之仙者,见于《仙经服食方》及百家之书,先师所说,耆儒所论,以为十卷,以传知真识远之士。”[2] 在此葛洪阐明了为补遗秦代阮仓和汉代刘向记录的缺陷而作。同时期的代表志怪作品集有《搜神记》,该书作者干宝的主张亦无异于葛洪,其言曰:“虽考先志于载籍,收遗逸于当时,盖非一耳一目之所亲闻赌也,亦安敢谓无实者哉!……然而国家不废注记之官,学士不绝诵览之业,岂不以其所失者小,所存者大乎!…… 及其著述,亦足以明神道之不诬也。群言百家不可胜览,耳目所受不可胜哉。”[3]

干宝不仅强调了历史记录的重要性与困扰,进一步对事实(reality)作了广泛的规定,那就是所谓著名的“神道之不诬也”。对于干宝的主张,我们需要破读的不是其话语的真伪,而是话语中所隐含的那个时代的人们对现实的认识④。即使以现代的观点,志怪的内容无非有超越现实之感,然而当时人们对其所持的态度是绝对当真的,以至于认为是某种历史。从这一意义上来说,也许古代中国人认为志怪就是历史记录的一股支流⑤。

《汉武洞冥记》作者郭宪亦曾在其书的序中指出过:“欲保存古代记录是作为一个历史家的冲动”⑥。

宪家世述道书,推求先圣往贤之所撰集,不可穷尽,千室不能藏,万乘不能载,犹有漏逸。或言浮诞,非政声所同,经文史官记事,故略而不取。盖伪国殊方,并不在录。愚谓古曩余事,不可得而弃,况汉武帝明俊特异之主,东方朔因滑稽浮诞以匡谏,洞心于道教,使冥迹之奥,昭然显著,今藉旧史之所不载者,聊以闻见,撰《洞冥记》四卷,成一家之书,庶明博君子,该而异焉。武帝以欲穷神仙之事。故绝域遐方,贡其珍异奇物及道术之人,故于汉世,盛于君主也,故编次之云尔。东汉郭宪序。

唐代历史家刘知几又言:“国史之任,记事记言,视听不该,必有遗逸,于是好奇之士,补其所亡。”[4]

此后到了明代,不仅冯梦龙指出“史统散而小说兴”(冯梦龙,《古今小说序》),之后亦有诸多学者谈及到历史与小说的关系:“传记之作……而通之于小说。”(马端临,《文献通考》)“正史之流而为杂史也,杂史之流为类书、为小说、为家传也。”(陈言《颖水遗编·说史中》)“稗官野史实记正史之未备。”(熊大木,《新刊大宋演义中兴英烈传序》)“小说,正史之余也。”(笑花主人,《今古奇观序》)“用佐正史之未备,统曰历朝小说。”(刘廷玑,《在园杂志序》)

近代以后,谈及“历史与小说”关系的作者自鲁迅以来不计其数。绝大多数的中国小说史或小说史之类的著作也是一直把小说跟中国“史传”传统联系起来进行讨论的。

关于“小说与历史”的相关性认识,不仅仅局限于中国。

“根据Lionel Gossman:很长时间历史与文学的关系并没有造成什么问题,因历史是文学的一部分。18世纪末,文学一词的意义或文学制度本身开始发生变化的时候,历史与文化才被区分开。”⑦而且这些初期的西方小说家对自己的作品被归类为小说一直持否定态度。

“就像近代一些学者所表示,17—18世纪大部分作者默示或者明示地将隐瞒了他们写小说或罗曼史Romance的事实。将他们所写的作品命名为‘一史,‘一生活,‘一回忆录等。这将为了区分轻浮、变异、荒唐,时而隐含不道德的一些已有作家的作品。常会发现写在序文上的‘这既不是小说,也不是罗曼史、故事的句段”⑧。

这和一些志怪与传奇作家们将他们的作品命名为 “一经”、“一传”或“一记”的事实的缘由相同⑨。由此可见,无论是西方还是中国,对于虚构的看法都一致,都在有意识地否定与回避这一事实,并且倾向于历史的观念上相同⑩。

可见将叙事与历史等同看待的原因是因为两者之间所具有的形式上的特征B11。因此,像刘歆、班固等初期的目录学者也就将志怪列入了杂传类之中。

传统中国一直到相当晩期的大部分文学理论家对叙事采取“历史中心”的研究方法。对叙事的注解与理论以历史叙事作为其原型的基础。一些虚构叙事往往以历史叙事的尺度理论化来评价。历史著作成为解释叙事作品的主要依据(方式)。叙事既是历史,小说既是非正式且不完整的历史B12。

三、是事实的记述,还是意义的解释?

中国古代历史记述同时存在两个相对的立场:其一是历史记述的接近方式;其二是解释学的接近方式。这也可以理解为史学与经学的两个分支,《春秋》正是说明这两者的一个好例子。也就是说《春秋》具有经典与史书的双重性格,“《春秋》既是六经之一,属于经学领域,同时也是作为历史文本,属于史学领域。”B13上述两点,即一个是站在中立的立场对客观事实的记述,另一个是对此事实的内在含义进行解释的过程。

同时,这种差异在小说里同样可以发现志怪与传奇的区别:

这个(志怪)流传到唐代发展为传奇。这(传奇)与志怪不同,志怪自始至终就是记录怪异之事,重视记录性和事实性;传奇则为传,有解释之义,换言之,就是发挥作家的想象力,即发展为以作家想象力为主的创作。传奇无需根据事实,更重视作家的想象力与语言表达能力,这与我们所认为的“现代小说”的定义相接近,而且已具备了现代小说的一些要素。另外,志怪并不重视作者,但传奇却很重视作者[5]。

传奇的“传”并不单纯意味着事实的传达,其在积极意义上是作家参与并加以解释的行为,由此唐代被认为是中国小说史上的一个重要转折点。历史记述上的这种差异,在后人理解真实(reality)的方式上也呈现出不同的立场,即是“历史的意义并不是通过解释这一扭曲过程所发现的”,“事实是在历史文本中自身显现”B14的立场,和“从历史的角度解释的‘存在is,sein与‘当为ought to be,sollen,相互交织而不可分离”,“道德的、意识形态的、政治的基准是建立在对于历史里实际的、事实的所有探求的基础上”B15的两相对立的立场。

前者代表人物为唐代著名史学家刘知几。他主张历史记述的中心原则为“实录”,又认为“像《左传》一样写得完美无缺的历史叙事,因记录完整,无须解释”B16。这很容易使人联想到19世纪后期法国自然主义者陈述的刘知几的这些主张,基于历史叙事中的语言和意义不存在分歧,它们之间是一致的观念。他的这种假设是根据人与人之间的关系基于事物与事件的本质,“只要客观地叙述过去的故事,就会使读者在他们所看到的故事中得到道德上的教训。”随即“客观的历史谈论将一切事实放在透明自然的视角中,就不需解释了。”就在此点上由此引起了动人的辩证的反转,这就是刘知几的那种“起初所抱有的‘否定的怀疑性解释学显然变为‘肯定的逼真性诗学”。也就是说“写历史并不是构成‘事实的某物而是朝着罗兰·巴特所说的创造‘引起现实感的效果(Reality Effect)”的方向改变了B17。

刘知几的逼真性可让我们回顾一下历史撰写的基本背景为“历史材料根据人与现实的特定观点,错综复杂而又意识形态化的组织体系”。换言之,由于逼真性,而得以“无法隐蔽已被公认的结构与所设定的主题”。如今历史编撰已不是“外表上起初所看到的自然谈论,反倒是意识形态,即‘在特定社会里的历史存在和角色所赋予的再现体系”B18在此正当性是取得逼真性存在的原理,同时又是上面所谈到的解释学接近方式的最终实体。在此要提示一下,以上谈及的历史记述的接近方式,与解释学的接近方式——“文本text里的‘语言与‘意义、‘文字与‘真义之间具有不一致性”的看法——正好找到了切点B19。

其实,在中国历史的探究上,“关注客观性与经验主义的背后,隐含着深厚的‘政治的无意识的基础”,由此“读、写历史的中国人有一个基本上的前提”就是“‘正统性,即社会地位的正统性、对继承王室与王朝的正统性的中心观念”B20。换言之,“中国的历史谈论一直是高级的政治化行为”,从而必须是“客观性的同时,又是规范性”。“历史可以说是正当化、自我合理化的后设叙事(Meta-Narrative)。”B21以客观事实为依据的逼真性的追究与正当性促成了绝妙的组合,引致历史记述的接近方式与解释学的接近方式的和谐,由此历代王朝的史官与文人就无需在处理两者的关系之间产生冲突了。

我们发现,与历史的界限含糊不清且具模糊地位的小说亦有此倾向。就中国小说而言,区分历史与小说的基准并不在于“单纯的事实与编造出的故事,实际性与盖然性,文字字义的真实与想象中的真实”的两分法,而在于“正典与非正典,正式被公认的故事与非正式的谈论,正统与非正统”之间B22。因此,无论在中国和西方,为理解古代叙事必须接受几乎所有的记录都与历史记述有着密切相关的事实。换言之,中国小说史是从历史中分出的虚构要素走向独立的过程B23。

虚构事实的记录自历史分离出来的过程,体现在传统目录学家谈论样式的分类中。如上所述,较早期的目录学家刘歆、班固等人将小说列入杂传类以来,以目录学的立场对小说的分类,早期的时候并没有与历史划分界限。但到了后期,小说遂与历史区分了。这种认识直接影响了后世的目录学者,因此有着将小说看作史书的主导倾向。古代中国传统目录分类法——四部分类法虽已被广泛接受,但小说一直没有被纳入文学领域里,最初使用四部分类法的魏征的《隋书·经籍志》则为代表之例。根据安正燻所指,《隋书·经籍志》与被认为是沿袭了《隋书·经籍志》的《旧唐书·经籍志》里,属于志怪的作品大致分类为史部杂传类、杂事类里;“对历史人物的逸话、评论和以诙谐而富有讽刺的谈论所形成的”志人作品被分到子部小说家中[6]54-58。而且魏征的四部分类法造成了“哲学和历史、(在形式上)谈论和叙事间明显的界限”,由于小说“其本身具有繁杂琐碎的故事、细小的事情、鸡鸣狗盗的言说之义”。因此跟叙事相比,其顺其自然就属于谈论的领域了B24。

然而到了宋代这种局势就发生了巨大变化,小说终于摆脱了历史的范畴。首先就史书的情况看,欧阳修参与编纂的《新唐书·经籍志》一书中,属于史部杂传类的大量志怪作品被列入小说家[6]58-61;小说脱离历史范畴的另一个标志可举同一时期编纂的各种类书。类书意义的依据可从“当时具有补充渐次精细而纯正的历史书的作用”,“承担保存排在正统历史书之外的一些古代记录的责任”上寻找B25。

鲁晓鹏对此举出《文选》和《文苑英华》中“传”的一例相反意见的情况:“与《文选》相比,《文苑英华》的明显差异是以‘传记或‘传为名的小说体裁的出现。《文选》里确实包含‘碑、‘墓志、‘行状等等的叙事与准传奇的体裁。可‘传与其说是文学体裁,不如说是更接近历史体裁,因而被排除选集之外。……关注于多样传奇作品的定义与分类的却是一些史学家和目录学家。《隋书·经籍志》在‘历史部门列举了217个《杂传》题目,并将这些划分为历史作品的13类型之一。在《史通》中,刘知几通过〈杂述〉这一章节叙述了不能包含在正统、正式的历史全集中的准历史作品。他认为‘别传是非正式历史的十个类型中的一个。”

《文苑英华》中,载有很多如“行状”、“志”、“碑”、“铭”的古传奇与准传奇体裁。其与过去选集不同的最大特点是其中混杂了唐代作家所作的30个以上的虚构“传奇”。虚构传奇可与高雅的正统文学体裁并肩而立了。对微不足道的虚构体裁的这种认识,以及对虚构体裁赋予了正式文学正典的资格,此两点可为中国小说研究的一大变迁。宋代之前,传奇与小说以历史与准历史的形态分类,并以历史记述的观点论述。”B26

在此之前,被史家们定为“杂传”的传奇类叙事作品,在《文选》里被看成历史而没有收录,但在《文苑英华》里“传”却被归为文学领域。这说明具有浓厚的文学性的“传”,在《文选》中被看作文学分类之外的历史领域,而到了《文苑英华》却发生了变化。这样看来,宋代小说脱离历史领域的标志可以总结为以下三点:其一,在《文苑英华》一书中,将虚构传奇与其他文学体裁放在一起,作为文学体裁相提并论;其二,出现具有特殊地位的小说全集《太平广记》的编纂B27;其三,列举在《新唐书》里的小说部门的书的题目性质接近于现代小说的概念B28。

综上所述,自“史部杂史类”转移到“子部小说家”的过程,可以说是排除虚构成分的结果。也可以解释为对“事实性”认识的变化。主张中国小说“史传说”的代表学者之一石昌渝认为:从现代观念来看,“说实话”的是历史学家,“说假话”的是小说家[7]3。与此同时,他主张在中国人的观念中,将小说列入子部也好史部也好,这并不重要,排斥虚构与不允许作者的想象掺进叙述过程里,才是中国人的传统思维[7]2。

四、回归历史的小说谈论

排斥虚构、不允许作家的想象掺进叙述过程的这一主张,不禁让人想起孔子所主张的“述而不作”与遵循其说的司马迁的一句名言:“余所谓述故事,整齐其世传,非所谓作也,而君比之于春秋谬矣。”[8]

司马迁认为史记不是“作”之产品,故声明不可与所谓“作”领域的《春秋》进行比较。他的这一表明,为对创作的传统理解提供了引人注目的反转契机。黄卫总认为,司马迁本着孔子述而不作的原则,主张其《史记》不是革新,同时又不可与为其本身看作革新者的孔子相提并论的这种看法,这一瞬间,却把中国历史上最具革新的人物之一的孔子或司马迁本身的独创性否认了B28。黄卫总的指责,其意义甚为深远。他指出了这样的事实:在传统观念上,中国人为了追随孔子“述而不作”的精神,而否认了自身著作的独创性,这种观点反倒形成了主张独创性的特殊修辞手段。“通过否认得以主张(claiming by means of disclaiming)”,才呈现出具有极致反向的独创性的本质。黄卫总的此论,使F. W. Mote在对有关艺术独创性的中国传统态度的下列一段言论中得到了很大启示:“美学上、技术上的成就度越高,富于创造力的个人就越能控制过去,反之则被控制于过去。因为它们是完全统一的。”B29

进而在此基础上,黄卫总例示了中国文学史上在复古restoring antiquity or returning to antiquity与拟古imitation of the ancients的名分下所形成的诸多文学创作。首先以唐代李白为首的诸多诗人所创作的诗歌如果是在拟古之下取得的成果,那么唐代发起的古文运动同样也是被反向命名的散文改革运动。因此,明代何景明对于把复古的名称用于韩愈的古文运动感到别扭,以至于声明“古文精神与其说是复兴于韩愈的手上,毋宁说是败在其手中”。当然,何景明的这一见解,不仅使不懂独创性之“逆说”的诸多评论家陷入混乱,甚至于激怒了他们B30。究其缘由,无非在于他们不了解反面教材的应用原理而已。

值得注意的是,就连“独创性”一词也往往藉“复古”、“拟古”等范例加以表达的中国人的思维体系将传统小说的研究对象局限于“原本研究”、“影响研究”、“派生研究”等范畴之内,也就不难理解了B31。从而“按时间先后,以较晩出现的小说叙事文学来探讨史传文学的‘源头和‘原型,进行所谓逆流而上的研究”B32成了过去相当一段时期中国小说研究的主要趋势B33。

可谓“对起源的怀古之情(nostalgia for origin) ”B34常会引发后人一种焦虑感,即“究竟让我们能做到的还剩下什么”?这种过去的负面影响,可总结之前所说的对“独创性”的渴望和与此同时伴随突破传统方式的一种尝试。因此江西诗派对文体进行“脱胎换骨appropriating the embryo”或“点铁成金catalytic transformation”的做法,亦即通过把前人的诗句和诗意等的互文inter-textuality手法来减轻“因先例而不安anxiety for precedence”的心理负担。这“复古”不再是单纯的拟古倾向,而是积极意义上的“用古using antiquity”[9]。

总的来说,“中国小说与史传文学之间的关系”,在某个意义上,应该被看成是维持在一种文学的相互连贯或互文性上。故事记述者的惊人记忆力和描绘技巧,以及在过去威权下被从属的小说谈论的富有生产性、创作性的实例不停地还原到回归历史B35。

况且,古代中国小说理论家一方面重视小说“正史之补”的功能,另一方面主张小说不仅停留在单纯地对事实的传达。这是一个重要的态度转换,意味着不再把小说单纯视为文本text的累积,而看作是一个谈论discourse的主体。例如,可以说古代统治者仅藉稗官以解民风与民情的做法,到后来竟发展成藉小说来教化百姓的境界。

从历史走向虚构的这一事实,意味着人们的关心不再停留在事实(实际)与证实上了。早期由稗官采集的民间故事是统治者为考察“民情(习俗)”所用的工具,如今却扩大其领域成了教化百姓的积极涵义。如果说由稗官采集故事的过程能起到一种“向心力”的作用,那么在一定意义上,积极地向百姓散布教化意图的行为,可称为是一种“离心力”。

科林伍德(Collingwood)将这种离心力称为“构成上的想象力”(constructive imagination)B36是指事实与意义(意味)活跃结合的过程。正是“通过这种结合过程形成了谈论的特定意义结构,而我们必须承认这就是历史意识的产物”B37。进而Hayden White将科林伍德的“构成上的想象力”称为“(在不能随意启动义上的)先验的、(或组成可能思考的对象,并在为形式的一贯性概念所控制的义上)构造的”B38。

中国古代不能或不许将小说与历史分开来谈论。问题的核心是,小说和历史均为属于叙事这一大范畴的何物?对此进行划分,而其基准终究是当代社会所要求的实际需求。如今,我们究竟是在记述历史,还是在写小说呢?

注释:

①“Any theoretical inquiry into the nature of Chinese narrative must take its starting point in the acknowledgement of the immense importance of historiography and, in a certain sense, ‘historicism in the total aggregate of the culture. In fact, the question of how to define the narrative category in Chinese literature eventually boils own to whether or not there did exist within the traditional civilization a sense of the inherent commensur ability of its two major forms:historiography and fiction.”(See Plaks,Andrew H., Chinese Narrative Theory-Towards a Critical Theory of Chinese Narrative,Plaks, Andrew H. ed., Chinese Narrative-Critical and Theoretical Essays,Princeton University Press, 1977. p.311.)

②中国小说的起源众说纷纭,有“稗官说”、“方士说”、“神话说”、“史传说”、“庄子说”、“诸子寓言说”、“劳动的休息说”等。详细内容可参考张稔穰的《中国古代小说艺术教程》一书(山东教育出版社,1991年版第4-5页);更加详细的论议可参考刊载在《中国小说论丛》第4辑(首尔:中国小说研究会,1995年3月)赵宽熙的《试论中国小说的起源、概念和定义》一文。

③张振军所说的“史传性”为:题材的史传性;思想观念的史传性;小说艺术的史传性。详细内容请参考张振军的《传统小说与中国文化》一书(广西师范大学出版社,1996年版第16-19页)

④“我们必须早日从辨別所有古代记录的真伪这一愚蠢的行动中脱离。如同东洋学界本世纪文献学的金字塔之一的张心澂的《伪书通考》所代言,吾人还不能脱离这种真伪辨別文献学的幼稚阶段。……所有历史的陈述由于其样式具有各自特有、固有的意义,所以不能做为真伪的对象。” (参见金容沃的《何为女》一书,首尔:Tongnamu,1986年第134-135页)。

⑤“按照一般的常理言,小说并非历史。可是魏晋南北朝小说,无论内容和形式,都受到先秦两汉史传的影响,实际是史传的一股支流。” (参见刘叶秋的《魏晋南北朝小说》一书,中华书局,1961年第21页)

⑥“……the historians urge to preserve ancient records.”(See DeWoskin, Kenneth J.,“The Six Dynasties Chih-Kuai and the Birth of Fiction”, in Plaks, Andrew H. ed., Chinese Narrative, Princeton University Press, 1977. p.30)

⑦“According to Lionel Gossman, ‘For a long time the relationship of history to literature was not notably problematic. History was a branch of literature. It was not until the meaning of the word literature, or the institution of literature itself began to change, toward the end of the eighteenth century, that history came to appear as something distinct from literature.Lionel Gossman”,“History and Literature:Reproduction or Signification”,in The Writing of History:Literary Form and Historical Understanding, Eds.Robert H. Canary and Henry Kozicki, Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1978. P.23. 转引自Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.29.

⑧“As recent scholars have shown, most seventeenth-and eighteenth-century authors implicitly or explicitly denied that they were writing novels or romances.They entitled their works ‘histories, ‘lives, or ‘memoirs to dissociate themselves from the frivolous,fanciful, improbable, sometimes immoral aspects of the former. In one form or another, the phrase ‘this is not a novel/romance/story appeared frequently in prefaces.”(See Wallace Martin, op. cit., p.43)

⑨“只要大致检讨现存志怪文本,显然就会发现与历史著作类似。大部分的志怪集以‘志、‘记、‘传作为题目。With even a cursory examination of the chih-kuai texts that we now have, their affinity with traditional historical writing is obvious. Most collections are entitled ‘records, ‘accounts, ‘biographies.”(See DeWoskin, Kenneth J., op. cit., p.26)

⑩不过,虽然历史与小说之间有相同性,但对两者之间的关系,中国与西欧认识上的差异是比较鲜明的。在中国,小说从历史中被分离,而在西欧,历史从文学中被分离。这可以说是因为“在西欧清楚强调‘模仿,作家讲故事是从虚构中所产生的”,与此相反,“在中国讲究‘传达,强调作家讲故事都是真实所产生的”。(参见金震坤的《中国小说研究序说》之《故事、小说、Novel》,首尔:艺文书院,2001年第39页)

B11其中最具代表性的是在中国的小说作品中“以采取第三人称全知视角为多”。“历史记述者大体上想要强调事实,由此,想要不把叙述主体放在前面,而完善地再建构叙述对象”,“这种趋势必定对中国小说产生影响。”(参见金震坤的《中国小说研究序说》之《故事、小说、Novel》,首尔:艺文书院,2001年第39页)

B12“Until quite late in the Chinese tradition, most literary theorists adopted a ‘historical approach to narrative. Notions and theories of narrative were essentially based on the model of historical narratives. More often than not, fictional narratives were theorized and judged in accordance with the standards of historical narratives. Historical interpretation remained the predominant mode of reading narrative works. Narrative was history, and fiction was unofficial, defective history. "”(See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p. 3.)

B13“The annals itself has the double status of being at once a Classic and a history. As one of the Six Classics, the annals falls in the domain of ching-hsüeh, the ‘study of the Classic. But as a historical text, it also belongs to the realm of shih-hsüeh, ‘historical studies. Whereas the hermeneutic approach grew out of exegesis of the Classics, the historiographical approach emerged from the discipline of history. ” (See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.54.)

B14“The meaning of history is not to be recovered through the tortuous procedures of interpretation:it emerges freely and naturally from a well-structured historical narrative. ”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.55.)

B15“The ‘is and the ‘ought are intertwined and become inseparable in historical interpretation. Behind all intentions of objectivity and empiricism in Chinese historical inquiry exists a deep-seated ‘political unconscious. A moral, ideological, and political measure underlies all search for the actual and real in history. ”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., pp.90-91.)

B16“Liu thinks that in a well-written historical narrative, such as the Tso chuan, the meaning of the recorded events is self-evident and interpretation is superfluous.”(See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.75.)

B17“The curious point in Lius historiography is his belief in a natural,inevitable link between language and meaning,and between signifier and signified. His fundamental assumption is that human relations are grounded in the nature of things and events. Once the stories of the past are narrated ‘objectively , the reader can draw moral lessons from what he reads. Interpretation becomes superfluous once objective historical discourse locates everything within a transparent, natural perspective.At this point, his initial ‘narrative hermeneutics of suspicion apparently transforms into a positive poetics of vraisemblance. In the end objective narration and realistic description support the existing conventions of representing history. The writing of history does not constitute the ‘real but creates, in Barthess words, a ‘reality effect(Barthes,‘Historical Discourse, 154).”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., pp.76-77.)

B18“But what is backgrounded in historiography is an intricate and ideologically motivated system of organizing historical materials that conforms to specific views of humanbeings and reality.The effects of vraisemblance do no succeed in concealing the entrenched structure of legitimation and the establishment of subjects.Historiography is far from being the natural discourse it might seem at first:rather, it is nothing less than an ideology, ‘a system(with its own logic and rigor)of representations(images,myths,ideas or concepts……)endowed with a historical existence and role within a given society(Althusser, For Marx, 231)”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.6.)

B19“A basic premise of the Chun-chiu commentators is that a discrepancy between word and meaning,between the ‘letter and the ‘spirit, exists in the text.” (See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., pp.60-61.)

B20“Behind all intentions of objectivity and empiricism in Chinese historical inquiry exists a deep-seated ‘political unconscious.……one fundamental assumption of Chinese readers and writers of history is the central notion of ‘legitimacy: the legitimacy of social posit ions and the legitimacy of the succession of royal houses and dynasties.” (See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., pp.90-91.)

B21“Historical discourse has always been a highly politicized activity in China:it has had to be at once objective and normative.……History may be called the grand me tanarrative of legitimation and self-legitimation.”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.82.)

B22“The difference between history and fiction was no longer solely the dichotomy of fact and invention, actuality and probability, or literal truth and imaginative truth.The line separating them was,to alarge extent,between canonical and non-canonical texts, between officially sanctioned discourse and non-official discourse,between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. ” (See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.5.)

B23上述所引用的鲁晓鹏一书,就如其书名,不难看出是以自历史的事实性到小说虚构之变化这一范例paradigm为中心追遡中国小说史的发展趋势。“中国古代历史的著作与小说的要素尚未区分、共存之际,把某样式或某时期指定为小说的诞生正是说明小说与历史的分割。If ficton is said to have cohabitated with genuine historical writing from the beginning in China,when we designate a genre or a perion as the birth of fiction we are in face describing the divergence of fiction and history from each other.(See DeWoskin, Kenneth J., op. cit., p.27)

B24“In the ssu-pu system as Wei Cheng inherited it, there was an explicit line drawn between philosophy and history, discourse and narrative in formal terms, and the hsiao-shuo were naturally shelved with the philosophies.hsiao-shuo,be the term rendered ‘little talk,trivial explanation, ‘minor persuasion,or the like,clearly belonged to the discursiverather than the narrative in a division.”(See DeWoskin, Kenneth J., op. cit., p.46.)

B25“The emergence and development of the lei-shu seen from this perspective complements the increasing sophistication and purification of the historical writing of the period, their appearance coming in response to the need to preserve ancient records that were being abandoned by the traditional bearer.” (See DeWoskin, Kenneth J.,op. cit., p.48)

B26“A notable difference between the Wen-hsüan and the Wen-yüan ying-hua is the emergence hsiao-shuo genre of ‘biography,or chuan. To be sure,the Wen-hsüan contains such narrative and quasi-biographical genres as the ‘stone inscription(pei),the ‘commorative record (mu-Chi),and the ‘account of a career(hsing-chuang).But the chuan is exclude from the anthology for being a historical genre rather than a literary one.Chapter 12 of Liu Hsiehs theoretical treatise,the Wen-hsin tiao-lung,is devoted to the semibiographical genres of ‘elegy(lei) and ‘stone inscription(pei). Chaper 6, which deal with historical writings,briefly mentions the topic of the chuan. But neither the Wen-hsüan nor the Wen-hsin tiao-lung discusses the ‘biography(chuan) in its diverse forms. It was, rather, the historians and bibliographers who were interested in defining and classifying the varietyes of biographical writings.The ‘Chin-chi chih of the Sui-shu lists 217 titles of ‘miscellaneous biography(tsa-chuan) in the ‘History Sectionand teats them as one of the thirteen types ofhistorical writings.The ‘BibliographicTreatise of the Chiu Tang-shu basically follows the practiceof the Sui-shu on this matter.In the Shih-tung,Liu Chih-chi devoted a chapter,Miscellaneous Narritive(‘Tsa-shu), to the quasi-historical writings that cannot be included in the corpus of canonical and official histories.He considers,separate biography(pieh-chuan) one of the ten types of non-offical histories. In the Wen-yüan ying-hua,there is no lack of such old biographical and semi-biographical genres as hsing-chuang, chih(record), ei, and ming(commemorative record). A major change from previous anthologies is the incorporation of more than thirty fictional ‘biographies be Tang writers.Fictional biography is now listed alongside the elevated official literrary genres.This recognition of a humble fictional genre and its investiture by the official literay canon are not insignificant for the study of Chinese fiction.Before the Sung,biograph and hsiao-shuo had been classified as forms of historical and quasi-historical writings and discussed from the point of view of historiography.”(See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng (1994), op. cit., pp.131-132.)

B27“专门收集有关小说记录的第一本类书《太平广记》的编纂,象征宋初并未将志怪看作小说的最后一个证据这与欧阳修将志怪排除《新唐书·史部》可作一比较。The compilation of the Tai-ping kuang-chi,the first anthology explicitly engaged in the gathering of hsio-shuo,in the same sense marks the final rejection of the chih-kuai as history in the early Sung, and coincides with Ou-yang Hsius expunging of the shih-pu(史部 histories) in the Hsin Tang-shu of chih-kuai material.”(See DeWoskin, Kenneth J., op. cit., p.48.)

B28“This is indicated by several facts first,the treatment of fictional biographies as a literary genre alongside other literary genres in the Wen-yüan ying-hua:second,the compilation of the special hsiao-shuo anthology,the Tai-ping kuang-chi:and third,the nature of the title listed in the hsiao-shuo section of the Hsin Tang-shu, which come close to the modern conception of fiction.”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1994), op. cit., p.132.)

B29“Having in mind Confuciuss remark about innovation and transmission, Sima Qian was saying that his writing of Shiji was not innovation. But his insistence that he should not be compared with Confucius(whom he considered an innovator) seems to subvert Confuciussdisclaimer of originality and ultimately his own. (Of course, both Confucius and Sima Qian are considered to be among the most innovative figure in Chinese history.) ” Huang, Martin Weizong, “Dehistoricization and Intertextualization The Anxiety of Precedents in the Evolution of the Traditional Chinese Novel脱历史化和互文性化:在中国传统小说发展上的因先例而不安”, CLEAR 12, 1990. p.46.

B30“So, the greater the aesthetic and technical achievement, the more the creative individual was thought to be in command of the past, or under command of the past―for they were the same thing. ”Frederic W. Mote,“The Art and the ‘Theorizing Mode of theCivilization 艺术与文明的”理论化样式, Christian F. Murck ed. ,Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture: Artists and Traditions(Princeton university Press, 1976. p.7. 转引自黄卫总,同上书,第46页)

B31何景明对韩愈的评论,激怒了若干评论家的实例可参见刘大杰的《中国文学发展史》(上海古籍出版社,1982年版第901页)

B32“A major constituents of the research in the area of traditional Chinese fiction has been what is called ‘source study,‘influence study,or ‘derivation study which attempts to establish textual connections between works of fiction and the earlier works from the same or a different generic tradition. ” (See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng, "The Fictional Discourse of Pien-wen: The Relation of Chinese fiction to Historiography", CLEAR 9, 1987. p.49.)

B33“Very often in the case of Chinese fiction, retrogressive searches ultimately come back to the the tradition of historical writings or historiography which is chronologically the ‘origin and ‘antecedent of the much later fictional narrative literature.”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1987), op. cit., p.49-50.)

据说,经常以“索隐”名目被称呼的这种研究倾向,依照鲁晓鹏的主张,赋予在“中国的文言传统”与“整个中国文化之内存续高度的持续性和统一性”的印象。“The evidence of the happy linkage of the two essential modes of Chinese narrative leaves one with the impression that there exits a great continuity and uniformity within the Chinese literary tradition and Chinese culture at large.”(See Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng(1987) , op. cit., p.50.)

B34“for a culture as old as the Chinese, it may be expected that Sinology is often haunted by a nostalgia for origin and motivated toward hunting for direct, factual sources.” (See Lu, Sheldon Hsiapeng(1987), op. cit., p.50.)

B35“Forms of traditional, positivistic adaptation/derivation studies often go back to historiography for the final location of textual sources and the basis of subsequent literary inspiration. for the better or worse, these studies unavoidably picture a process of reduction towards tradition and continuity in accountiong for the mechanism of textual formation and variations. The productive and creative instances of fictional discourse are subjugated to the techniques of mnemonics and creative instances of the past.”(See Lu,Sheldon Hsiao-peng (1987), op. cit., p.52.)

B36“This, according to Collingwood, is ‘the renacment of past thought in the historians mind. ……they certainly acknowledge with him the necessity of the constructive imagination in in writing a history. ”(Yu, Anthony C. 余国藩, "History,Fiction and the Reading of Chinese Narrative", CLEAR 10, 1988. p.5.)

B37“This discourse itself is the actual combination of facts and meaning which gives to it the aspect of a specific structure of meaning that permits us to identify it as a product of one kindof historical consciousness rather than another. ”(See Yu, Anthony C. 余国藩, op. cit., p.6.)

B38“This is, in fact,how White explains Collingwoods understanding of the constructive imagination,……was both a priori(which meant that it did not act capriciously) and structural (which meant that it was governed by notions of formal coherency in its constitution of possible object of thought). which for the latter”(See Yu, Anthony C. 余国藩, op. cit., p.6.)

[参考文献]

[1]张振军.传统小说与中国文化[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1996.

[2]葛洪.神仙传·自序[M]∥黄霖,韩同文,选注.中国历代小说论著选:(上).南昌:江西人民出版社,1982:14.

[3]干宝.搜神记序[M]∥黄霖,韩同文,选注.中国历代小说论著选:(上).南昌:江西人民出版社,1982:20.

[4]刘知几.史通·杂述[M]∥黄霖,韩同文,选注.中国历代小说论著选:(上).南昌:江西人民出版社,1982:33.

[5]金容沃.骆驼祥子[M].首尔:Tongnamu,1997:167.

[6]安正燻.中国古代小说观念与起源研究[D].首尔:首尔大学,1997.

[7]石昌渝.中国小说源流论[M].北京:三联书店,1993.

[8]司马迁.史记[M].北京:中华书局,1972:3299-3300.

[9]Huang, Martin Weizong. Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture:Artists and Traditions[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,1976:48-49.

(责任编辑 文 格)

Abstract:The concern about the relationships between history and fiction can be described as one of the efforts that illustrate the origin of Chinese novel. In this thesis, I will explain the reason and meaning of the tradition of historiography of Chinese fiction being treated as an important thing. The reason that history and fiction can be easily identified in China and Europe is mainly due to the formal features of both. In an early stage, fictions were not distinguished from history, but gradually diverged from history as time went by. This trend, however, evoked the returning to antiquity and imitation of the ancients in the Chinese literary tradition. The restoring antiquity that can be called the nostalgia to the originality always fretted the descendants to do their efforts of relieving their anxiety for precedence. Consequently, it might be impossible to discuss the relationship between history and fiction without both being separated.

Key words:historiography;originality;restoring antiquity or returning to antiquity;canon;constructive imagination

猜你喜欢
独创性复古
论非独创性数据库的邻接权保护模式
秋日的复古之约
错过这些复古店,要等下个世纪
复古小清新 我的慢生活
重返八十年代复古态度
复古“轻”暗黑
议作品之独创性*