真隐士的看不见与道家是一个零?——略说客观的了解与文学史的编写

Was the Real Hermit Unsighted or the Taoism School Didn't Exist?:An Brief Exposition on the Objective Understanding and the Compiling of the Literary History

鲁迅、钱锺书对中国隐士文学的传统缺乏正面认识。他们有二元化的思维,即中国文人不是帮忙,就是帮闲,于是中国文学只是程度不同地维护统治而已。他们只是从上往下看,几乎全是从统治术的角度理解隐士问题,无视还有另外一个重要的论述,即思想史上"道统"(即士君子传统)的观察角度。因此,在求真求实上他们无疑有识见,然而在求正大与通识方面,毕竟与隐士传统隔阂。这一隔阂是现代文学史家最重大的古今之变,重新认识20世纪中国文学史观是当代学术史上急迫的思想课题。本文还从严陵诗学传统的意义与当代隐士诗人的事实两个层面,再认中国历史中隐士的真实生命及其存在意涵。

This paper considers that both Lu Xun and Qian Zhongshu didn＇t have an positive appraisal of the Chinese hermit literature. Their binary thinking, which defined the only two characters of chinese literati, helper or hack, leaded to such conclusion that chinese literature was all royalist more or less. Their viewpoints were both from top to bottom, understanding the issue of hermit in a statecraft perspective while ignoring the ideological history＇s perspective, the ＇Confucian Orthodoxy＇ （means the tradition of the noble intellectuals）, which was also very important. Therefore, they were successful in seeking the truth without fail, but estranged from the hermit tradition in the aspect of general - knowledge. So this paper points out that the very estrangement of the compiler of modern literature history is the most signifieant change from the ancient to the present, and it is very urgent to reconsider the 20th eentury＇ s view of literary history for the contemporary academia. Besides, this paper also reconsiders the real life of the chinese hermits and their ontological meaning, and that is from two levels ： one is the significance of the Yan- Ling poetic tradition, the other is the fact of contemporary hermitie poets.