Comment

Comment by Margaret Hsing 21 hours ago

論個人才、學、識～～宋代文壇群星璀璨。前有范仲淹、歐陽修、王安石、蘇軾、黃庭堅、司馬光、曾鞏，后有陸游、辛棄疾、李清照、楊萬里、范成大。和諸多同時代巨星相比，姜夔（號白石道人）並不出眾。然而，他以自身的才、學、識，開創宋詞“清空”一派，影響文壇數百年﹔且其才藝跨文學、音樂、書法三界，並均有所建樹，實屬難得。成就背后是艱辛。姜夔從布衣詞人到藝壇大家的曲折從藝之路和為人風骨，值得后人品味。

總結姜夔前半生事業成功的原因，除了時代、機緣、機遇，剩下的就是三個字：才、學、識。這三者，構成他作為一個草根文人能名滿天下並最終成為文壇巨匠的實力基礎。

廣義的“才”，就藝術領域而言，指的是獨特的想像力和創造力。它的基礎是學和識。沒有學（廣泛的知識攝入），難有識（卓越的見識看法），也就無法支撐起所謂的才——全面的綜合創造能力。這裡，學、識、才是遞進的，互相涵育、關聯、支撐。

狹義的“才”，指的是藝術思維的高度敏感性及其付諸實踐、創造藝術作品的能力。正如法國雕塑家羅丹所說：“所謂大師, 就是這樣的人, 他們用自己的眼睛去看別人見過的東西, 在別人司空見慣的東西上能夠發現出美來。”(《羅丹藝術論》)藝術家之所以成為藝術家，首先在於他有一雙和常人不同的眼睛，他能夠在常人視而不見的地方看到大千世界的真如，看到暗藏的生命、力量和美。如鄭板橋畫竹，“眼中之竹”有了，通過高超的技藝，把促發“胸中勃勃遂有畫意”的“胸中之竹”畫出來，然后創造“手中之竹”，完成藝術創造。這裡有才、有識、有學、有技，能把石頭、泥土、草木魚虫，甚至蜘蛛、老鼠、牛糞轉換為視覺審美意象、變成藝術作品，這就是藝術家。

說到“才”——姜夔的詩人和藝術家獨特氣質的形成，除了天地合精、自然性分的不可知因素，破落家庭的出身，是賦予他善感細膩執著的藝術家性格的重要因素。先祖的輝煌和現實的黯淡的巨大反差，使他內心時時感到刺痛，而他又不甘沉淪。這是他能夠以獨特眼光看世界，在豪放派、婉約派雙峰並峙的宋代詞壇另辟蹊徑，開創“清空詞派”的深層心理動力來源。

其次“學”。“門蔭世代延，玉堂繁花開”，是所有仕宦家族的夢想。因此督促子弟焚膏繼晷、勤奮向學，保持家風不墜，是仕宦家庭的堅守。從姜夔的詩詞看，無論《詩經》、楚騷、漢賦，還是晉唐風雅，他一定從小就浸潤其中。這可以說是家族遺澤。

再說到“識”。一個詩人有什麼樣的觀念，先天后天，成因複雜。姜夔的幸運，是天地造化賦予他一個敢於獨立思考的頭腦，這使他在南宋文壇群雄並峙的格局下，有足夠的思想力，別開戶牖，闖出一條自己的藝術新路。

詩是姜夔最自信的藝術。在其詩論中，可以看到他的藝術主張：不蹈襲、不模仿。在《白石道人詩集》自序中，他提出，詩是天籟，沒有固定格式，“詩本無體，《三百篇》皆天籟自鳴”。在《白石道人詩說》中他說：“一家之語，自有一家之風味……模仿者語雖似之，韻亦無矣。”

最凸顯他理論高度的是他的這一段有點像繞口令的詩論：

作者求與古人合，不若求與古人異﹔求與古人異，不若求與古人合。不求與古人合而不能不合﹔不求與古人異而不能不異。彼惟有見乎詩也，故向也求與古人合，今也求與古人異﹔及其無見乎詩已，故不求與古人合，而不能不合﹔不求與古人異，而不能不異。其來如風，其止如雨。如印印泥，如水在器。其蘇子所謂“不能不為”者乎。

歷經唐末五代之亂，宋代文壇一直流行兩種思潮，一種主張復古，一種主張開新。復古者求道統延續，強調文脈傳承，歷史不能斷線﹔開新者求道統拓展，標舉白居易“文章合為時而著，歌詩合為事而作”的宗旨，認為一代要有一代之文，力避蹈襲，不落窠臼。

在求開新的這一群體中，又有人主張借用沿襲，化古為新。如黃庭堅倡導的所謂“奪胎換骨”“點石成金”法——“不易其意而造其語，謂之換骨法﹔窺入其意而形容之，謂之奪胎法”（惠洪《冷齋夜話》），意古語新，或語古而意新。這實質上是一種舊瓶裝新酒、舊酒裝新瓶的經典游戲。另一主張是目空萬古，獨造為新。蘇軾就是這一主張的代表。他的理念是，文學當“有為而作”，“詩以奇趣為宗, 反常合道為趣”，“吾文如萬斛泉源，不擇地皆可出”﹔“及其與山石曲折，隨物賦形，而不可知也。所可知者，常行於所當行，常止於不可不止”。特別值得注意的是，蘇軾強調“我書意造本無法”，“吾雖不善書，曉書莫如我。苟能通其意，常謂不學可”。他認為在精研藝術規律的基礎上，創作者可以無拘繩墨，從心所欲，自由地進行創造。

仔細閱讀姜夔這一段詩論，可以發現，他的“不求與古人合，而不能不合﹔不求與古人異，而不能不異”，和蘇軾說的是一個意思。“不求與古人合”就是沒有蹈襲模仿，“而不能不合”是結果都在藝術規律的軌道上，因此它們必然都在峰頂目光交匯。“不求與古人異而不能不異”，說的是並不是成心人為造作要和古人不一樣，但是服從內心的表現需要，按照一般的藝術規律去創造，結果自然就不一樣。這裡可看到姜夔思想的高度，他和北宋的藝術思想高峰蘇軾走在了一起。當然，這也可能是受了蘇軾影響，因為那段詩論最后他說了一句話：“其蘇子所謂‘不能不為’者乎。”

與蘇軾有驚人相合處的還有這兩段話。一是聲明自己原來學黃庭堅，后來明白了必須離開黃庭堅，努力做到“不學”：“三薫三沐，師黃太史氏，居數年，一語噤不敢吐。始大悟學即病，顧不若無所學之為得。雖黃詩亦偃然髙閣矣。”這應該是從蘇軾“常謂不學可”來的。另一段：“余之詩，余之詩耳。窮居而野處，用是陶寫寂寞則可，必欲其步武作者，以釣能詩聲，不惟不可，亦不敢。”則應該是蘇軾“我書意造本無法”的翻版。

清代學者在讀了姜夔的這些詩論后，說：“今觀其詩，運思精密，而風格髙秀，誠有拔於宋人之外者。傲視諸家，有以也。”（《四庫全書提要》）在南宋文壇，姜夔的思想高度造就了他的藝術高度，由此也奠定了他的歷史高度。

(節錄自：鄭曉華：布衣詞人姜夔和他的《續書譜》，2021年11月26日 光明日報；作者：鄭曉華，系中國書法家協會分黨組副書記、秘書長，中國人民大學藝術學院教授）

Comment by Margaret Hsing on Tuesday

愛墾APP:詩性的詮釋學情動轉折～本文以詩性為貫穿主題，試圖重新檢視詮釋學從維柯到迦達默爾之間的思想系譜，並聚焦於其中「情動轉折」（affective turn）的重要意涵。相對於以理性中心、邏輯秩序為主導的解釋傳統，此一詮釋學路徑更強調感受性、歷史感、語言的情感厚度與人之生存經驗的詩性基礎。本文將通過對五位思想家的文本細讀與文獻綜合，呈現詮釋學如何歷經「詩性—感性—情動—存在」的深化歷程，並指出此種詮釋學可為當代人文與文化研究提供創新的基礎視野。

壹、緒論：詮釋學中的詩性與情動問題～在現代人文思想的發展歷程中，詮釋學（Hermeneutik）歷經從文本理解方法到存在論思維的重大轉折。本文關注的是一條可稱之為「詩性詮釋學」的路徑，即從維柯的詩性智慧開始，歷經施萊爾馬赫的心靈共鳴理解、狄爾泰的歷史生命再現、海德格爾的詩性存在論，至迦達默爾的語言與傳統地平線融合。這一傳統中的共同特徵是：詮釋活動不再是對理性文本的還原，而是對生命情動、歷史厚度與語言詩性的生成回應。

貳、維柯的詩性智慧：情動起源中的神話與象徵～
維柯（Giambattista Vico, 1668–1744）在《新科學》中指出，人類最初的理解活動是源自於「詩性智慧」（sapienza poetica）：「最初的人類，面對雷霆與閃電時，因為恐懼與顫慄，開始以神話與象徵去解釋自然，這即是詩與宗教的同源。」—《新科學》，§375，譯自李明輝，《維柯〈新科學〉選讀》，2003。維柯指出，語言、神話與法律並非理性的產物，而是人類情動的象徵性反應。他所提出的「詩性歷史哲學」重估了感性、想像力與共同體經驗的重要性，為後來的詮釋學奠定了情動基礎。

參、施萊爾馬赫：理解中的心理共感與語境整體～施萊爾馬赫（Friedrich Schleiermacher, 1768–1834）將詮釋學系統化為一門理解藝術，並主張：「理解一個說話者，不僅要根據語言，更要從其整體心靈活動來重建意圖。」——《詮釋學綱要》，引自Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, 1838/1977。他提出兩種詮釋方式：「文法詮釋」與「心理詮釋」，並強調語言使用的歷史性和理解者的同理能力。施氏的貢獻在於：理解不再是客觀化知識的獲得，而是透過「心理共感」進行的內在重構——此為詩性理解的「內化」。

肆、狄爾泰：歷史生命的體驗與再現～狄爾泰（Wilhelm Dilthey, 1833–1911）將詮釋學擴展到文化與歷史領域，並提出「精神科學」應區別於自然科學的理解方式：「我們理解他人，並非通過解釋因果，而是透過再現其生活關係中的感受與動力。」——Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, 1883。他強調「生活經驗（Erlebnis）—表達（Ausdruck）—理解（Verstehen）」三位一體的結構，進一步將理解根植於生命活動的流動性與情感性。狄爾泰的詩性轉折，在於他確認了感受經驗作為歷史理解的條件，並拓展出文化詮釋的實踐空間。

伍、海德格爾：詮釋為詩性存在的開啟～海德格爾（Martin Heidegger, 1889–1976）繼承並超越狄爾泰的存在主義詮釋學，他在《存在與時間》中指出：「理解是此在的存在方式。」——Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927，§31。海德格爾將詮釋視為「此在」與世界互動的本質活動，而非單純的主體對象操作。他後期更提出「詩性棲居」（dichterisch wohnet der Mensch），主張詩意語言是對存在的原初開顯方式。詮釋不僅為方法論，更是人如何存在於語言與世界之中的存在論展現。

陸、迦達默爾：融合地平線與語言的詩性事件～迦達默爾（Hans-Georg Gadamer, 1900–2002）則以其《真理與方法》深化詮釋學為一種歷史對話。他強調：「理解是地平線的融合，是歷史效果與語言傳統交織而成的事件。」——Gadamer, Truth and Method, 1960/2004，p. 305。

他強調「歷史效果意識」、「前理解」與「語言的對話性」，認為所有理解都是在語言之中進行的詩性建構。詩性，在此意指語言的開放性與創造力，使理解成為意義生成的「事件」（Ereignis），而非重現。

柒、結論：從詮釋學到詩性存有學的情動轉折～從維柯的「像徵起源」到迦達默爾的「語言事件」，本文梳理了一條可稱為「詩性詮釋學」的思想譜系，核心在於：

1.情動不是理解的障礙，而是其生成的條件；

2.語言不是中立媒介，而是詩性開顯的場域；

3.歷史不是要被超越的過去，而是理解的活體地景。這條詩性詮釋學之路，亦為當代面對技術理性霸權、人文教育衰微的現象，提供了重新思考文化創造、地方感受與情感理解的深層資源。

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 25, 2025 at 6:40am

Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919) by T. S. Eliot

I

IN English writing we seldom speak of tradition, though we occasionally apply its name in deploring its absence. We cannot refer to "the tradition" or to "a tradition"; at most, we employ the adjective in saying that the poetry of So-and-so is "traditional" or even "too traditional." seldom, perhaps, does the word appear except in a phrase of censure. If otherwise, it is vaguely approbative, with the implication, as to the work approved, of some pleasing archæological reconstruction. You can hardly make the word agreeable to English ears without this comfortable reference to the reassuring science of archæology.

Certainly the word is not likely to appear in our appreciations of living or dead writers. Every nation, every
race, has not only its own creative, but its own critical turn of mind; and is even more oblivious of the shortcomings and limitations of its critical habits than of those of its creative genius. We know, or think we know, from the enormous mass of critical writing that has appeared in the French language the critical method or habit of the French; we only conclude (we are such unconscious people) that the French are "more critical" than we, and sometimes even plume ourselves a little with the fact, as if the French were the less spontaneous. Perhaps they are; but we might remind ourselves that criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion about it, for criticizing our own minds in their work of criticism. One of the facts that might come to light in this process is our tendency to insist, when we praise a poet, upon those aspects of his work in which he least resembles anyone else. In these aspects or parts of his work we pretend to find what is individual, what is the peculiar essence of the man. We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet's difference from his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessors; we endeavour to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed. Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously. And I do not mean the impressionable period of adolescence, but the period of full maturity.

Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, "tradition" should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 24, 2025 at 9:59pm

It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity.

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the
appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.

You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of æsthetic, not merely historical,criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not one-sided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it.

The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature, will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 23, 2025 at 8:25pm

厄土·譯:T.S.艾略特：傳統與個人才能

I

在英國文學寫作中，我們很少會談到傳統，盡管偶爾我們在悲嘆傳統的缺席時也會用到這個名字。但我們無法指出「這種傳統」或「一種傳統」，頂多，是在討論某某人的詩歌時，用形容詞來說它是「傳統的」，或者甚至「太傳統」了。這個詞匯的確罕見，除了可能在一些貶義的短語中出現。要不然，就是一種含混的贊許，帶著這種暗示：被贊許的作品是件令人喜愛的考古復制品。如果不是輕鬆地提及考古這門讓人放心的學問的話，你很難讓英國人對「傳統」這個詞聽著順耳。

當然了，這個名詞不會出現在我們對以往或者健在作家的賞析裡。每個國家、每個種族不僅在創作上，而且在批評上都有自己的氣質；不過，相比自己創作天賦上的缺陷和局限，更容易忘記自己批評習慣上的缺陷和局限。從浩瀚的、法文的、呈現法國人批評理論和習慣的批評著作中，我們明白了，或者以為自己明白了；我們就斷定（我們是如此不自覺的民族）法國人比我們「更挑剔」，有時甚至因為這樣的事實而有些沾沾自喜，好像法國人沒有我們率真。他們或許如此，不過我們也應該提醒自己批評和呼吸一樣不可或缺，當我們讀到一本好書並且因此感動時，我們仍然應該清楚地表達我們心裡的想法，批評我們在批評工作中的思維想法。在這個過程中一個漸趨明朗的事實即是我們堅持的傾向，當我們贊揚一個詩人，我們關注的是他作品中與別人最不相似的部分。在他作品的這些方面或部分中，我們自稱找到了什麼是個體的，什麼是這個人獨有的本質。我們在詩人與前輩、尤其是他的直接前輩的不同中滿意地棲居，我們竭力挑選出那些可以與世隔絕的部分來欣賞。但是，如果我們在接近一位詩人時擯棄這種偏見，我們會經常發現，不僅在他作品最好的部分、而且最個人最獨特的部分裡，那些死去的詩人、他的先輩們，也在強有力地宣示著他們的不朽。我所指的不是詩人易受影響的青春期，而是他們完全成熟的時期。

但是，如果傳統的、流傳的唯一形式，存在於盲目的追隨前代的步伐或者懦弱地忠誠於前代的成功方法裡，「傳統」就絕對是阻礙。我們看到過許多如此遲鈍的水流很快就消失在了沙灘裡；新穎勝過反覆。傳統是一個擁有更廣泛意義的事物。它不可能通過繼承權而得到，如果你想得到它，就必須付出巨大的努力。這就牽涉到：首先，歷史意識，對於那些想在二十五歲以後還繼續做詩人的人而言是必不可少的；而且歷史意識也牽涉到一種感知力，不僅是要領悟過去事物的過去性，而且要領悟過去事物的此在性；歷史意識迫使人們寫作時不僅要與他自己的時代一起，而且還要意識到從荷馬以來整個歐洲文學史以及整個本國文學是一個同在的實體，構成了一個同在的秩序。這種歷史意識，既是一種永恆的意識，也是一種現世的意識，同時也是關於永恆與現世相結合的意識，正是這種歷史意識，使得一個作家成為傳統的。也正是這種歷史意識，使一個作家敏銳地意識到自己在時間中的位置，在當代的位置。

沒有詩人或者任何藝術形式的藝術家，可以獨自具有他全部的意義。他的重要性、對他進行鑑賞就是對他和以往詩人及藝術家之間關係的鑑賞。你不能對他單獨進行評估，你必須把他放置在前輩藝術家和詩人之間來對照、比較。我的意思是，這是一條美學批評准則，不僅是歷史的。他必須遵守、必須協同，這種必要性並非單方面的；當一件新的藝術作品被創作時發生的情況，正是同時發生於它之前存在的藝術作品的情況。現存的傑作自身就構成了一個完滿的秩序，這個秩序在新的（真正新的）藝術作品引入其中時被修正和改良了。現存的秩序在新作品的來臨前是完滿的，為了在新事物加入之後繼續保持完滿，整個現存秩序就必須改變，哪怕是微小的變化；因此每件藝術作品相對於整體之間的關係、均衡和價值就會重新調整；這就是新和舊之間的協同。無論誰贊同這個關於秩序、英國文學、歐洲文學的看法，就不會認為過去被現在所更改、現在受過去指引是荒謬的了。明了這一點的詩人就會認識到巨大的困難和責任感。

在一種特殊意義上，他也會知道他不可避免地要經受過去標凖的裁判。我說裁判，不是說被他們裁剪；不是被裁判得相比逝者一樣好、更好或者更糟糕。當然也不是用已逝的批評家的橫尺來裁判。這是一種裁判、對照，其中，兩者之間彼此斟酌、橫度。如果說協同僅僅只是對新作品而言，那麼從根本上說，就不是真正的協同，新作品也就不會被稱之為「新」，而且因此就不是一件藝術作品。而且，我們也沒有說，新作品之所以更有價值是因為其與（過去的標凖）更相符。但是，它是否與之相符確屬對其價值的一種測試——這種測試，是真實的，只能緩慢且審慎地運用，因為在對是否協同進行審判上，我們沒有人是不會犯錯的。我們宣稱：它顯得協同，而且可能是獨特的，或者顯得獨特，而且可能協同；但是，我們不可能知道它是此非彼。

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 20, 2025 at 9:25am

In a peculiar sense he will be aware also that he must inevitably be judged by the standards of the past. I say
judged, not amputated, by them; not judged to be as good as, or worse or better than, the dead; and certainly not judged by the canons of dead critics. It is a judgment, a comparison, in which two things are measured by each other.

To conform merely would be for the new work not really to conform at all; it would not be new, and would therefore not be a work of art. And we do not quite say that the new is more valuable because it fits in; but its fitting in is a test of its value—a test, it is true, which can only be slowly and cautiously applied, for we are none of us infallible judges of conformity. We say: it appears to conform, and is perhaps individual, or it appears individual, and may conform; but we are hardly likely to find that it is one and not the other.

To proceed to a more intelligible exposition of the relation of the poet to the past: he can neither take the past as a lump, an indiscriminate bolus, nor can he form himself wholly on one or two private admirations, nor can he form himself wholly upon one preferred period. The first course is inadmissible, the second is an important experience of youth, and the third is a pleasant and highly desirable supplement. The poet must be very conscious of the main current, which does not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished reputations. He must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but that the material of art is never quite the same. He must be aware that the mind of Europe—the mind of his own country—a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private mind—is a mind which changes, and that this change is a development which abandons nothing en route, which does not superannuate either Shakespeare, or Homer, or the rock drawing of the Magdalenian draughtsmen. That this development,refinement perhaps, complication certainly, is not, from the point of view of the artist, any improvement.

Perhaps not even an improvement from the point of view of the psychologist or not to the extent which we imagine; perhaps only in the end based upon a complication in economics and machinery. But the difference between the present and the past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an extent which the past's awareness of itself cannot show.

Some one said: "The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did."

Precisely, and they are that which we know. 

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 18, 2025 at 8:43am

讓我們轉而更明白曉暢地闡述詩人和過去的關係：他不能對過去不加區分、鬍子眉毛一把抓；也不能完全熱衷一兩位自己私好的人物；也不能完全撲在自己感興趣的一個時期。第一條路是不會有效的；第二條是青年人的一次重要經歷；第三條是愉悅且高度可取的增補。詩人必須對主流有深刻認識，主流未必會都經過那些最負盛名的人來體現。他必須對這一點有相當的認識：藝術從未進化，但藝術的素材從未完全一樣過。他必須相當了解歐洲的思維、本國的思維——他遲早會知道這比他自己的思維更重要——是一種變化的思維，而且這種變化是一種發展，這發展不會在中途丟棄任何事物，它沒有把莎士比亞、荷馬或者馬格林達時期繪畫者們的作品，當做落後時代的累贅。這種發展，或許是精細化，當然是複雜化，從藝術家的角度來看，並非進步。也許在心理學家看來也不是進步或者並未達到我們想象的程度；或許最後看來不過是出自經濟和機械影響下的並發症候而已。但是過去和當下的差別在於，自覺的當下是對過去某種程度的了解，達到了過去對自身的認識所不能展示的尺幅。

有人說：「那些逝去的作家離我們很遠，因為我們知道的遠比他們多。」的確如此，他們本身就是我們知道的內容。

對於我為詩歌這個行當所擬訂部分綱領，我清楚地知道有一種慣常的異議。這種異議認為：我的教條依賴於一種近乎荒謬的博學（炫學），是一種即使訴諸任何眾神殿或者先賢祠去了解詩人們的生平也會橫遭拒絕的主張。他們甚至斷言，學識淵博會壓抑詩感或者使其墮落。但不論如何，我們堅持相信，一個詩人應該知道的越多越好，只要不妨害他必需的感受力和必需的懶散，而那種將知識的作用僅僅局限於應付考試、客廳閒談或者當眾炫耀自誇的觀點是不足取的。有人能吸收知識，但較遲鈍的則必須下苦功夫。莎士比亞從普魯塔克那裡獲得的重要史實，比大多數人從整個大英博物館獲得的還多。我們應該堅持的是，詩人必須設法取得或發展一種對過去的意識，而且應該在他的事業生涯中不斷發展這種意識。

為此，一個詩人就需要不斷地拋棄「舊我」，同時不斷趨向更有價值的事物。一個藝術家的成長之旅，就是一段持續地犧牲自我，持續地消解自己個性的旅途。我們來繼續說明這個消解個性的過程及其與傳統意識的關係。在這種消解個性的過程中，藝術可能會達到一種科學的狀態。因此，我要邀請你們將之當做一種啟發性的類比，來考慮一下：當一根細細的鉑金被放入充滿氧氣和二氧化硫的容器中後發生的反應。 

II

誠實的批評和細致的鑑賞，其導向是詩歌而非詩人。如果我們留心報端批評家雜亂的喊叫和眾人隨之而起的人云亦云的私語，我們將能聽到大量詩人的姓名；如果我們探尋的並非藍皮書般的知識，而是詩歌的愉悅；我們尋找一首詩歌，卻極難找到。上文中我已經嘗試指出了一首詩和其他詩人的其他詩歌之間關係的重要性，表明詩歌是自古以來創作的一切詩歌組成的活生生的整體這樣一個概念。這種詩歌的非個人理論的另外一面，即詩歌和他的作者之間的關係。我曾用一個類比來暗示，成熟詩人的思維相比未成熟詩人的思維的差異，並非是具有更精確的「個性」價值上，也並非更具必需的趣味或者擁有「更多內涵」；而是擁有更完美、獨特的介質，或者非常豐富多樣，各種感情可以自由地進入並組成新作品。

我用化學催化劑來類比。前面提到的兩種氣體和那根細細的鉑金絲混合，它們就會化合成亞硫酸。這個化學反應只有在鉑金絲出場時才會發生；然而產生的新化合物中卻不含有一點點兒的鉑金元素，鉑金本身也紋絲未動，依舊保持中立、毫無變化。詩人的思維就是這樣一條鉑金絲。它可以部分或者全然地在詩人自己的經驗上起作用；但是，藝術家越想完美，就越要徹底地在他身上分離出感受者和創造者的角色；就越要完美地消化和煉化激情這個材料。

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 12, 2025 at 12:12pm

I am alive to a usual objection to what is clearly part of my programme for the métier of poetry. The objection is that the doctrine requires a ridiculous amount of erudition (pedantry), a claim which can be rejected by appeal to the lives of poets in any pantheon. It will even be affirmed that much learning deadens or perverts poetic sensibility. While, however, we persist in believing that a poet ought to know as much as will not encroach upon his necessary receptivity and necessary laziness, it is not desirable to confine knowledge to whatever can be put into a useful shape for examinations, drawing-rooms, or the still more pretentious modes of publicity. Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum. What is to be insisted upon is that the poet must develop or procure the consciousness of the past and that he should continue to develop this consciousness throughout his career.

What happens is a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.

There remains to define this process of depersonalization and its relation to the sense of tradition. It is in this depersonalization that art may be said to approach the condition of science. I shall, therefore, invite you to consider, as a suggestive analogy, the action which takes place when a bit of finely filiated platinum is introduced into a chamber containing oxygen and sulphur dioxide.

II

Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry. If we attend to the confused cries of the newspaper critics and the susurrus of popular repetition that follows, we shall hear the names of poets in great numbers; if we seek not Blue-book knowledge but the enjoyment of poetry, and ask for a poem, we shall seldom find it. In the last article I tried to point out the importance of the relation of the poem to other poems by other authors, and suggested the conception of poetry as a living whole of all the poetry that has ever been written.

The other aspect of this Impersonal theory of poetry is the relation of the poem to its author. And I hinted, by an analogy, that the mind of the mature poet differs from that of the immature one not precisely in any valuation of "personality," not being necessarily more interesting, or having "more to say," but rather by being a more finely perfected medium in which special, or very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations.

The analogy was that of the catalyst. When the two gases previously mentioned are mixed in the presence of a filament of platinum, they form sulphurous acid. This combination takes place only if the platinum is present; nevertheless the newly formed acid contains no trace of platinum, and the platinum itself is apparently unaffected; has remained inert, neutral, and unchanged. The mind of the poet is the shred of platinum. It may partly or exclusively operate upon the experience of the man himself; but, the more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material.

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 11, 2025 at 3:55pm

（續上）這種經驗，你將注意到，那些接觸催化劑而改變的元素有兩種：情緒和感覺。一件藝術作品對於欣賞者們的影響是一種特殊的經驗，與任何非藝術的經驗不同。

它可以由一種情緒單獨組成，也可以是多種感情的混合；因作者運用的特別的詞語、短句或者意象而產生並存在的各種感覺，會綜合起來產生最終的效果。也有偉大的詩歌可以不用情感來指引，而是從容地單獨依賴感官。

《地獄》第15章（布魯托·拉蒂尼）中的感情，就是明顯地通過環境不斷地激起的；其效果雖然那和任何其他藝術作品一樣單純，但確是從大量細節錯綜交織中獲得的。最後的四行詩給出了一個意象，一種附著在意象上的感覺，它是「自臨」的，不是簡單地從前章發展而來的，大概是懸浮在詩人的思維中，直到適當的組合來臨才加入其中的。但丁的思維的確是一種容器，收藏著無數感覺、短語和意象，能夠到時結合在一起形成一個新的化合物。

如果你比較一下這部最偉大的詩歌中的一些代表性章節，你將明白這種組合種類的多種多樣是多麼卓越，任何關於「崇高」的半倫理的批評凖則是怎樣地全然難中肯綮。因為重要的不是感情和或者組成部分的「偉大」與強烈；而可以說是藝術加工的強度，也可以說是壓強，在這種壓強下，聚變發生了，這才是有意義的。在帕奧羅和弗朗西斯卡那一章節中，作者驅使了一種明確的感情，但是，詩歌中的強烈感和任何我們設想中的經驗帶來的印象都截然不同。而且，它也不會比第二十六章中描寫尤利西斯在海上漂流時更強烈，在二十六章中，同樣沒有依賴任何一種情感來引導。在煉化感情的過程中種種變化都是有可能的：阿伽門農被刺、奧賽羅的痛苦，帶來的藝術效果明顯比但丁作品裡的情景更接近真實。在《阿伽門農》裡，藝術感情仿佛是一種真是旁觀者的感情；在《奧賽羅》裡，藝術感情似乎就是劇中主角自身的感情。但是藝術和時間之間的差別總是絕對的；阿伽門農被刺的藝術組合和尤利西斯漂流的藝術組合也許一樣複雜。兩者中任何一個都有各種元素的結合。濟慈的《頌歌》中包含了許多和夜鶯沒有特別關系的感覺，但是這些感覺，一定程度上是因為夜鶯美妙的名字，一定程度上是因為夜鶯的名聲，就都在夜鶯身上組合了起來。

一種我竭力想擊破的觀點，就是關於靈魂實體形而上學的說法：在我看來，詩人沒有可以表現的「個性」，只有特別的手法，這僅僅是一種手法而非一種個性，在這種手法裡，種種經驗和印象以意想不到的方式互相結合。這些對詩人具有重要意義的印象和經驗，可能在詩歌中並未顯現，但這些對於詩歌來說非常重要的經驗和印象對於詩人本身，對於詩人的個性，卻幾乎沒有什麼作用。

Comment by Margaret Hsing on July 10, 2025 at 9:25am

The experience, you will notice, the elements which enter the presence of the transforming catalyst, are of two kinds: emotions and feelings. The effect of a work of art upon the person who enjoys it is an experience different in kind from any experience not of art. It may be formed out of one emotion, or may be a combination of several; and various feelings, inhering for the writer in particular words or phrases or images,may be added to compose the final result. Or great poetry may be made without the direct use of any emotion whatever: composed out of feelings solely.

Canto XV of the Inferno (Brunetto Latini) is a working up of the emotion evident in the situation; but the effect, though single as that of any work of art, is obtained by considerable complexity of detail. The last quatrain gives an image, a feeling attaching to an image, which "came," which did not develop simply out of what precedes, but which was probably in suspension in the poet's mind until the proper combination arrived for it to add itself to. The poet's mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together.

If you compare several representative passages of the greatest poetry you see how great is the variety of types of combination, and also how completely any semiethical criterion of "sublimity" misses the mark. For it is not the "greatness," the intensity, of the emotions, the components, but the intensity of the artistic process, the pressure, so to speak, under which the fusion takes place, that counts. The episode of Paolo and Francesca employs a definite emotion, but the intensity of the poetry is something quite different from whatever intensity in the supposed experience it may give the impression of. It is no more intense, furthermore, than Canto XXVI, the voyage of Ulysses, which has not the direct dependence upon an emotion. Great variety is possible in the process of transmution of emotion: the murder of Agamemnon, or the agony of Othello, gives an artistic effect apparently closer to a possible original than the scenes from Dante. In the Agamemnon, the artistic emotion approximates to the emotion of an actual spectator; in Othello to the emotion of the protagonist himself. But the difference between art and the event is always absolute; the combination which is the murder of Agamemnon is probably as complex as that which is the voyage of Ulysses. In either case there has been a fusion of elements. The ode of Keats contains a number of feelings which have nothing particular to do with the nightingale, but which the nightingale, partly, perhaps,because of its attractive name, and partly because of its reputation, served to bring together.

The point of view which I am struggling to attack is perhaps related to the metaphysical theory of the substantial unity of the soul: for my meaning is, that the poet has, not a "personality" to express, but a particular medium, which is only a medium and not a personality, in which impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways.

Impressions and experiences which are important for the man may take no place in the poetry, and those which become important in the poetry may play quite a negligible part in the man, the personality.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page