也谈“讽寓”与《诗经》——答张隆溪教授之二

Also on Allegory and the Book of Poetry——The Second Reply to Prof. Zhang Longxi

张隆溪认为,作为一个理论概念,“讽寓解释”既适用于西方,也适用于中国,因此可以成为跨文化理解的“概念工具”。就像西方中世纪基督教神学家对《圣经》雅歌的解释,汉代儒者对《诗经》的评注,也属于这种“讽寓解释”。在《讽寓解释:东西方经典的阅读》一书中,他分析了儒者对《关雎》《野有死麕》《将仲子》等诗的阐释,以此证明其在东西方经典释读中的普遍存在。如儒者认为《关雎》是“美后妃之德”,就是用道德和政治的意涵取代了这首“民歌类情诗”原来的字面意义。近年来《诗经》研究者聚焦于诗歌文本(text)与历史语境(context)关系的考察,指出《关雎》的性质不是民歌,而是周王室的宫廷乐歌,曾具有房中乐的功能,诗歌文本与儒者的阐释之间并非全然断裂,而具有内在的关联。张隆溪企图用“清楚明白”的字面意义来抵抗儒者的“讽寓解释”,但《诗经》的字面并不易解,如《野有死麕》“无感我帨兮”中的“帨”,就远非张隆溪理解的普通的围裙,而负载着更为深邃的历史和文化意涵。汉儒不仅是《诗经》意义的诠释者,同时也是其字面的最终写定者,张隆溪用《毛诗》的字面来否定《毛诗》的阐释,在方法论上是值得怀疑的。从先秦《孔子诗论》开始,儒者就采用“以色喻以礼”的方式来解读《将仲子》这样的爱情诗歌,这种解读后来在比兴诗学中形成了一种“托意男女”的模式,如果将之视为“讽寓解释”必然会造成对中国诗学传统的严重歪曲和误读。我们可以在研究中借鉴采用西方的理论,但必须依据中国古代文学的历史经验加以检验,一旦回到《诗经》的历史,无论是其产生的历史,语言的历史,阐释的历史,作为一个“概念工具”的“讽寓解释”就会遭遇挫败,铩羽而归。

In order to prove that allegory can become a “conceptual tool” for cross-cultural understanding, Zhang Longxi cited as textual evidences several Confucianists' critical remarks on the Book of Poetry. But putting back into the history of the Book of Poetry, the history of its production, its language, or its interpretation, this “ conceptual tool ” becomes a failure, for these remarks cannot be included in the so-called “allegoresis. ” When he tries to prove that “allegoresis in a cultural phenomenon common to both the East and the West,” Zhang actually employs this theoretical concept originated in the West as something that is abstract, universal, and applicable to all human beings. This is completed at the cost of erasing the profound historical and cultural differences between the East and the West. Western theories and concepts, of course, can be referred to and even appropriated in the study of Chinese literature. They must, however, be examined in the context of the historical experiences of classical Chinese literature. Such a historical dimension is exactly what is lost in Zhang's work.