作为理论“应和”与作为主义的“象征”——波德莱尔与象征主义问题

“Correspondence”as a Theory and “Symbol” as an Ism——Baudelaire and Issues of Symbolism

“超验主义”是“应和”理论的理论背景,也是后来整个象征主义运动和思潮的安身立命之处。作为理论的“应和”与作为主义的“象征”有联系又有区别。其区别在于,前者由波德莱尔提出,而后者是波德莱尔去世后由魏尔伦、兰波和马拉美等所表征出来的;前者是一种哲学美学理论,而后者是一种下降到可操作(实践)层面的“主义”。其联系在于,前者为后者奠定了宇宙观,而后者则为前者“趟”开了向欧洲乃至全球扩展的具体路径。如果说魏尔伦、兰波对作为主义的“象征”的贡献在于对诗歌“音乐至上”和音色相通的呼唤,马拉美的贡献就在于类推、暗示方法的树立。事实上,作为主义的“象征”是将“应和”理论推向全球的一个中介。

This paper analyses the implications of ＂Correspondence＂ theory, in particular pointing out ＂Transcendentalism＂ as the background of the theory in which the subsequent symbolism movement and ideological trend is located. It also argues that ＂Correspondence＇as a theory and ＂Symbol＇as an ism is connected to as well as distinct with each other. The difference is that ＂Correspondence＂asa theory is put forward by Baudelaire, which is a theory of philosophy- aesthetics, while ＂Symbol＂ as an ism is expressed by Verlaine, Rimbaud and Mallarme after Baudelair, which is a doctrine reduced to a practical level. The connection is that the former is the view of universe while the latter opens the paths for the former to spread into Europe even the whole world. If it is true that what Verlaine and Rimbaud contribute to ＂Symbol＂ as an ism lies in the appeal to ＂music supreme＂, sound and quality of poetry, then Mallarme＇s contributions must be the establishment of analogy and suggestion. In fact, ＂Symbol＇as an ism is the medium that leads ＂Correspondence＇theory into the whole world.