“文學批評” 與 “文學科學”：夏志清與普實克的 “文學史” 辯論

1961年3月，美國耶魯大學出版夏志清的《中國現代小說史》。這是以英語寫成的第一本中國現代文學史著作；前此，西方學界對中國文學的關注點主要在於古代文學，因此，夏志清這部深具前瞻性的著作出版後很受學界歡迎。1962年，著名漢學期刊T’oung Pao刊出普實克長篇書評，對夏著做了非常苛刻的批評。夏志清為文反駁，在同一刊物發表響應。由於意識形態的分野，再加上一些個人意氣，兩人的爭論非常激烈。雙方互相指控對方充滿"政治偏見"，而力陳己方才是文學的"藝術價值"的守護者。然而，這次辯論的真正學術意義卻不在此，而在於雙方對"文學史書寫"的態度和取向：夏志清以"文學批評"作為首要任務，而普實克則認為"文學科學"才是研究"文學史"的正道。事實上二人的理論各有淵源：普實克深受布拉格學派和馬克思主義的影響，而夏志清論述背後則是"新批評"和利瓦伊斯"偉大的傳統"觀念。二人的辯論，牽涉文學定位和研究方法的思考；其不同的意見，對今天的文學研究或者文學史書寫活動，實有其參考價值。
C. T. Hsia’s "A History of Modern Chinese Fiction,1917—1957: appeared in 1961. It is the first literary history of modern Chinese literature written in English, and exerted an immense impact on the ensuing Chinese studies in the West. Nonetheless, not long after its publication, Jaroslav Průšek, a renowned sinologist from Czechoslovakia, wrote an extremely unfavorable long review attacking the book as "political propaganda" of "dogmatic intolerance". In response, Hsia published a similarly lengthy rejoinder criticizing Průšek’s socialist indoctrination. However, the genuine significance of the Hsia-Průšek debate is that of literary historiography. Průšek associates a literary historian with a scientist, whereas Hsia makes no differentiation between the writing of literary history and that of literary criticism. Their varied approaches in fact originate from different theoretical backgrounds. The former is an advocate of Prague structuralism and Marxism, while the latter a disciple of New Criticism and F. R. Leavis. Their debate does shed lights on our understanding of the nature and function of literary study and literary history. Copyright © 2011 北京大學.