外国文学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (5): 29-38.

• 中外学者对话“世界文学” • 上一篇    下一篇

作为挑战和伦理问题的世界文学

伊戈尔·沙伊塔诺夫   

  • 出版日期:2018-10-25 发布日期:2022-05-24
  • 作者简介:伊戈尔·沙伊塔诺夫,俄罗斯国立人文大学比较文学系教授,比较研究中心主任,俄罗斯国家经济和公共管理学院首席研究员,《文学问题》(Voprosy Literatury)主编,俄语布克奖文学秘书,其研究领域包括比较文学、历史诗学、欧洲文艺复兴、英俄关系研究、英俄诗歌。
  • 基金资助:
    俄罗斯科学基金项目(17-78-30029)

World Literature as a Challenge and Ethical Problem

Igor Shaytanov   

  • Online:2018-10-25 Published:2022-05-24
  • About author:Igor O. Shaitanov is professor of the Comparative Literature Department at Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow 125993, Russia), Head of the Centre for Comparative Research (RSUH), leading research fellow (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), Editor-in-Chief of the bimonthly Voprosy Literatury, and Literary Secretary for the Russian Booker prize. His fields of interests include comparative literature and historical poetics, European Renaissance, Anglo-Russian affinities, English and Russian poetry. Email: shigor00@mail.ru
  • Supported by:
    Russian Science Foundation (RSF), Project No. 17-78-30029

内容摘要: 1827年,歌德参照赫尔德的世界史模式,提出了“世界文学”这一概念。此后,“世界文学”引发了学界的激烈讨论,其中不乏对伦理的重视与强调。问题是,开启世界文学纪元的歌德为什么把民族文学贬为“一个无意义的术语”?答案一方面可能在于歌德的历史远见,他惧怕晚期浪漫主义意义上的民族主义,另一方面也可能在于他把自己对古希腊文学理念的喜恶放置于所有时期和所有地方的文化。与歌德同时期的德国学者威廉·冯·洪堡立即表达了其对民族文化的不同意见。洪堡认为,民族文化强调从不同语言视角看到的世界不可能呈现一幅普遍性的画卷。两个世纪之后,世界文化和民族文化之间的对立问题再次引发批评界的关注。“世界历史”也成了一个有争议的概念。例如,弗兰科·莫莱蒂指出“世界文学不是对象,而是一个问题,需要新批评方法,而且没有人能通过阅读更多文本找到一种方法”。莫莱蒂的这个观点作为现行研究世界文学的新路径得到了很多人的认同和响应。如果我们生活在“后民族”的全球化世界,那么如比较研究的“学科之死”固然是不可避免的,但若古巴比伦仍然使用多种语言时,情况又将如何?文学(世界的和民族的)—文化—语言—领土现在是比较研究的动态关系里至关重要的概念,比较研究不是一个对象,而是具有广泛政治—文化—伦理影响力的问题,它们要求批评方法的变革和更新。就此而言,亚历山大·维谢洛夫斯基提出的“历史诗学”又能否对传统起到推陈出新的作用呢?

关键词: 世界文学, 伦理挑战/问题, 和谐一致, 民族—文化—语言—领土, 世界文学的诗学, 边界

Abstract: Since 1827, when Goethe coined the term “world literature” on the model of Herder’s Welgeschichte, it has provoked a polemical discussion with a strong ethical emphasis. Why should Goethe, while heralding the epoch of world literature, belittle national literature as “now an unmeaning term?” The possible answers might be either he with his historical foresight was apprehensive of natioanalism in its late romantic version, or that his attitude was due to his classical taste with the ancient Greek ideal universal for culture always and everywhere. His great contemporary and countryman Wilhelm von Humboldt, in immediate response to Goethe, took issue on the side of national culture emphasizing the fact that the world, seen through the windows of different languages, could not represent a universal picture. After two centuries, the conflicting issues of world and national cultures regain critics’ attention. The concept of “world history” becomes problematic. Franco Morretti, for example, states that “World literature is not an object, it’s a problem, and a problem that asks for a new critical method; and no one has ever found a method by just reading more texts.” His view is echoed by many as a new way to approach world literature now. The “death of a discipline,” i.e. comparative study, is inevitable if we live in the global world “after nations,” but how could it be when old Babylon is still multilingual? Literature (world and national) -culture-language-territory are the key notions involved now in a dynamic relationship in the comparative study. As such, comparative literature study is not an object but a problem with a wide range of implications: political-cultural-ethical. They ask for a critical method to be transformed and updated. Could “historical poetics,” as it was laid out by Alexander Veselovsky, serve as a productive tradition in view?

Key words: world literature, ethical challenge/problem, concordia discorse, nation-culture- language-territory, poetics of world literature, boundary

Journal Integrated Operation and Management Platform with Network