对文学与历史分工的理性重拾

普通读者意识中文学与历史的功能界线是模糊的,它造成了许多认识上的误区。新历史主义的历史观与亚里斯多德的＂诗比历史更有哲学意味＂等主张对这种情形难辞其咎。新历史主义忽略了史料的视界、史家客观意识和效果历史,其历史观是偏颇的。亚里斯多德及其追随者过分强调了哲学的主体地位,而忽略了历史与文学、哲学的过分膨胀导致其把文学从其竞争者变成为增强其激情与形象性的认识工具,而把历史从其制约者变成帮助其解释与规划未来的蓝图,造成了理性的＂致命的自负＂。因此有必要重新处理历史与文学的分工：把赋予文学的直接的认识价值还给历史,把新历史主义主张的虚构和激情尽量从历史里剥离出来还给文学。

The Rational Reconsideration of the Division of Literature and History

The functional boundary of literature and history in the ordinary reader consciousness is fuzzy.It caused a lot of misunderstanding.Such opinions as the conception of history of new historicism and Aristotle’s "Poetry is more philosophical than history" blame for this situation.New historicism ignores the horizon of the historical materials,the objective consciousness of the historian,and the effective history;its conception of history is biased.Aristotle and its followers put too much emphasis on the dominant position of the philosophy, and ignore the history and literature.The over-expansion of philosophy contributes to literature from its competitors into understanding tool enhance its passion and figurativeness,while history from the constraints into those who help them explain and plane of the future,caused the rational "fatal conceit".So it is necessary to deal with the division of history and literature: give the direct cognition value of literature back to history,strip the fiction and passion which the new historicism maintains off history and then give them back to literature as far as possible.