叶燮与艾略特比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-19 06:31

本文选题：叶燮 + 艾略特　；参考：《山东大学》2006年硕士论文

【摘要】：顾祖钊先生曾经提出古代文论的现代转化有四种模式：共通性研究、互补性研究、对接式研究和辨析式研究。本文在这四种模式的理论基础上，将叶燮与艾略特的文学思想进行比较。从意象理论和文学史观两方面，通过辨析，寻找两者的共通性和互补对接的必要性。在中国，从《周易》的“立象以尽意”，到汉代“比兴”说的提出，到刘勰从文学审美角度提出“神用象通”，有关“意象”的认识不断丰富深入。叶燮摆脱了其他文论家在意象认识上的偏离，回归了意象的本质内涵。在西方，康德的“审美观念”在意象主义诗歌运动中得到实践，受意象主义影响的艾略特提出了“客观对应物”理论。叶燮和艾略特都认识到，意象兼具形而下色彩和形而上意义，能够突破语言的局限，把人引入审美境界中。两人的不同处在于，叶燮是感性自然派，强调“意”的表达，艾略特是理性技巧派，，强调“象”的运用。从想象的满足、思想的意义、和谐的形式三个角度考察，可以更深入地理解这种差异。叶燮认为想象推动着创作的展开和主观情感的表达，想象本身就是目的；艾略特认为想象可以连接各种经验、使思想鲜明生动，把想象看做是手段。叶燮认为意象是情、景与理的契合，成功的作品思致微渺、绝议论而穷思维，真性情的流露甚至可以掩饰思想的不足；艾略特认为意象的运用必须和思想的深度结合起来，一部作品如果缺乏独到的见解和洞察力，即使意象新奇、感情强烈，也不能称为伟大。叶燮认为和谐的形式是作品整体和谐的一部分，折射着理事情的融合、在物者与在我者的统一；艾略特认为和谐的形式是作者运用技巧的结果，因此在文学评论中把“外部权威”当作批评的标准。文学史在当今已经成为文学研究的一种途径。叶燮在几百年前就尝试改变前代文论家诗评杂而无章的做法，将文学史和文学批评结合起来，揭示出诗歌的源流本末正变盛衰。艾略特批评英国文学史的研究忽视文学内部关联性的历史结构，脱离了文学批评的实践。他们认识到文学的自律性，因此摆脱了从社会政治经济等角度进行文学研究的窠臼，从而颠破了单数的线性文学史观及其产生的文学优劣论。在中国，线性
[Abstract]:Gu Zuzhao once put forward four modes of modern transformation of ancient literary theory: commonality study, complementary study, docking study and discriminative study. On the basis of the four models, this paper compares Ye Xie's literary thoughts with Eliot's. From the two aspects of image theory and literary history, this paper tries to find the commonality of the two and the necessity of complementing each other. In China, from the idea of setting up images to the theory of "Bi Xing" in Han Dynasty, to Liu Xie's putting forward "using God with Image" from the point of view of literary aesthetics, the understanding of "image" has been enriched and deepened. Ye Xie got rid of the deviation of other literary theorists in image cognition and returned the essential connotation of image. In the West, Kant's "aesthetic concept" was put into practice in the movement of imagism poetry, and Eliot, influenced by imagism, put forward the theory of "objective counterpart". Ye Xie and Eliot both realized that imagery, with both metaphysical and metaphysical meanings, can break through the limitations of language and introduce people into the aesthetic realm. The difference between the two is that Ye Xie is a sensual natural school, emphasizing the expression of "meaning", and Eliot is a school of rational skill, emphasizing the use of "elephant". From the three angles of imagination satisfaction, thought meaning and harmonious form, we can understand the difference more deeply. Ye Xie holds that imagination promotes the development of creation and the expression of subjective emotion, and imagination itself is the end; Elliott thinks that imagination can connect various experiences, make ideas vivid and vivid, and regard imagination as a means. Ye Xie believes that imagery is the combination of emotion, scenery and reason, that successful works are thinkable, and that they are never discussed but poor, and that the expression of true temperament can even cover up the shortcomings of thought. Eliot believes that the use of imagery must be combined with the depth of thought. Without original insight and insight, a work cannot be called great, even if it is novel and emotional. Ye Xie holds that the form of harmony is a part of the overall harmony of the work, reflecting the fusion of the matter and the matter, and the unity between the real and the I. Eliot believes that the form of harmony is the result of the author's skill. Therefore, external authority is regarded as the criterion of criticism in literary criticism. The history of literature has become a way of literary research nowadays. Ye Xie tried to change the poetical criticism of literary theorists of the previous generation hundreds of years ago, combining literary history with literary criticism, and revealing the rise and fall of the source and stream of poetry. The study of Eliot's criticism of the history of English literature neglects the historical structure of the internal relevance of literature and breaks away from the practice of literary criticism. They realized the self-discipline of literature, so they got rid of the pattern of literature research from the angle of social, political and economic, thus breaking the singular view of linear literary history and the theory of literary superiority and inferiority. In China, linea
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：I0-03;I106.2

【引证文献】