历史辩证法的政治修辞呈现——文体视角下的《共产党宣言》创作史研究

The Political Rhetorical Presentation of Historical Dialectics:The History of the Creation of the Manifesto of the Communist Party from a Stylistic Perspective

近年来,在文献学层面上展开的《共产党宣言》创作史研究,将恩格斯先行撰写的《共产主义信条草案》和《共产主义原理》纳入观察视野,并与马克思后来执笔完成的《宣言》定本进行系统比较,广泛认可了《宣言》创作的“三稿本说”。这种论说精于细部的文献梳理,但是,如何证明《宣言》定本的原创意味和独立价值,也随之成了一个颇具挑战性的问题。鉴此,有必要引入一个政治修辞学的解释框架,借以分析和澄清:(1)“宣言”(manifesto)与“教义问答”(catechism)在文体功能上有什么重大差异?(2)无产阶级“宣言”(manifesto)与资产阶级“宣言”(declaration)在立论依据上存在着怎样的实质区分?(3)马克思执笔的“宣言”(manifesto)如何实现了对各路空想社会主义思潮的根本超越?《宣言》定本的书写展现了高超的修辞技巧,但对马克思来说,任何修辞技巧的运用都必须服从和服务于理论论证的大逻辑,那就是在过去—现在—未来的宏阔尺度上展开的历史辩证法。

In recent years,studies on the history of the creation of the Manifesto of the Communist Party have been conducted at the bibliographical level,including the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith and The Principles of Communism written by Engels,and comparing them systematically with the final version of the Manifesto written by Marx later.The"theory of three drafts"has been widely recognized.This theory is strong for its detailed bibliographical work,but it comes with the challenging issue to prove the originality and independent value of the final version of the Manifesto.In view of this,it is necessary to introduce a political rhetorical interpretive framework in order to analyze and clarify:(1)What are the major differences between a"manifesto"and a"catechism"in terms of their stylistic functions?(2)What is the substantive distinction between the proletarian"manifesto"and the bourgeois"declaration"in terms of their theoretical basis?(3)How did Marx's"manifesto"achieve a fundamental transcendence of the various socialist ideologies?The final version of the Manifesto is written with great rhetorical skill,but for Marx,any rhetorical skill must be subordinated to and serve the larger logic of theoretical argumentation,which is the historical dialectics unfolded on the grand scale of past-present-future.