poplar

The relationship between literature and time handled by the history of literature is not only the natural connection between "events" and "processes". The significance of time to literature lies in that it can make the latter enter a "historical narrative". The subjectivity of "history" to "literature" in concept and structure, on the one hand, the selectivity of its writing process is reflected in the subjective initiative of "historian", on the other hand, it is related to his understanding and application of the concept of "history". The narrative object of literary history is countless events, and it is especially necessary to deal with the existing "temporality". The possibility or credibility of the so-called literary history must depend on the new narrative time of literary events. The internal structure of "time" comes from the concept of "history" before the text-the concept of historical philosophy. It virtually controls and dominates the generation of literary history in terms of "language" and "writing". For historians, managing history is first of all a kind of "hypothesis", acknowledging that history is primitive or true, and the feasibility of this hypothesis in the process of historicizing events, thus making history a way of writing and thinking, rather than a goal or a destination.

one

The relationship between literature and time is not only the natural connection between "event" and "process", but the significance of time to literature lies in that it can make the latter enter a "historical narrative". At this point, when "literature and time" are jointly named as "history" or "history", the relationship between them becomes mysterious and confusing. The development of literature always presents a kind of quantitative accumulation, and "state literature" always compresses time in people's feelings. As soon as those literary events that were originally independent of the subject's will entered the horizon of time, they disappeared. In the norm of "history", they undoubtedly and forcibly obtained "structure" or "purpose" (the so-called regularity). According to the past habits, when people didn't think of investigating the concepts of "literary event", "time" or "history" separately, the naming transformation between them seemed to be a natural process, that is, in the usual unconscious, people understood the three concepts as homogeneous expressions in different states, rather than concepts with clear boundaries and references and self-vitality. Just as we often refer to potato chips as potato chips, the problems arise here: literary events, time, history and literary history, etc. In the writers of history, different conceptual subjectivity is not used to describe or judge the structure of a text, but is ranked by the level of the subject from the beginning. Literary events play a major role in the text structure, and time is absorbed by the combination of literary events, thus being obscured in the text. History is embodied in the selective arrangement of specific dates from front to back. The history of literature is full of 46 literary events strung together by language, which is actually equal to the history of literature. Similarly, we also see that the linguistic facts of literary events are ignored in this arrangement, and the China facts revealed by the interpretation can only be eroded by the process description framework of events, so that the history of literature is far from the ontological perspective of language and literature, and the logic of process representation becomes the internal structure of the structure of literary history.

"History" is not equal to process, and natural "literary history" is not equal to "literary process"-this should be self-evident in the metaphysical sense. On the one hand, the subjectivity of "history" in the concept and structure of "literature" is that the selectivity of its writing process is reflected in the subjective initiative of "historian", that is, it not only contains all the qualities of the subject, but also relates to his understanding and application ability of the concept of "history"-"historical knowledge". Of course, the "historical knowledge" here not only emphasizes what is historically credible "real materials" in the traditional sense, but also "historical philosophy concept", which is lacking in our traditional historiography. In the history of literature, when the background and production process of "literary events" including individual factors such as writers, works, theories, society and debates are taken as the basic scope of concept development, "history", as a "time" process that has been re-integrated into "language description", is different from "events" in its original complexity. If we think it is appropriate to say that "events" (including those that are well known, neglected or still sleeping) are "real estates", then we must consider how these "real estates" become "capital" and circulate, that is, the possibility of "events" entering "history". The difference between "history" and "event" is that "history" is a kind of "naming" after all, and it has countless repetitions. The "repetition" of this "naming" of "history"-infinite reference, shows that "history" and "event" are two different things.

In this way, the concepts of "event", "process", "time" and "history" are completely different concepts, and it is impossible to find or give their commensurability categories. As far as literature is concerned, no matter how many writers' works and their events come into our field of vision, we can't think that simultaneous phenomena can erase their differences with time-the complexity of the problem is that we may have distinguished this "boundary" in theory, but we often succumb to it involuntarily in practice. Just as literary criticism is not a historical description, the chronology of writers' works is by no means a history of literature in the sense of historical philosophy.

The question I want to think about is how to take "history" as the main concept of "literary history" and how to replace the temporality of literary events with the new temporality of history when integrating literary events. How to preset the structure of literary history, generate historical narrative with the concept of history, so as to complete the possibility of "event" entering "history" in the process and establish the credibility symbol of "history".

We can further analyze that there is a difference between "literary events" entering "historical" narrative and "historical" narrative of "literary events". The narrative object of literary history is countless events, and it is especially necessary to deal with the existing "temporality". The difficulty of this kind of treatment is that the timeliness of countless events has long been perceived by people. The narrative of literary history is obviously not to confirm these personal experience facts in the usual sense, nor to connect the time fragments of personal perception events, that is, not to reproduce the "time facts" in the experience world, but only to make the "events" regenerate their own time in the narrative of literary history, thus forming a right. If the narrative of literary history is a reconstruction, then the "historical" description of events is mostly an analysis in the context of experience and time perception. In the description of "historicity", "event" cannot but be isolated, and its own "natural sense of time" is generally ignored or ignored by most interpreters. Although the potential reference of the historical description of a single "event" (referring to other related or unrelated events that have not entered the narrative) has always accompanied it, the actual effect of this reference has been virtually reduced to zero in inertial operation-it has no pointing effect on the narrative direction and no structural correction effect. As a type of literary criticism, the historical description of "events" still fails to see the independence of the concept of "history" and the generation of new "history". The derivation of the concept of "event" has not been replaced, and the "time" of the experience world and its process still restrict the overall appearance of literary history narration.

Therefore, I believe that the possibility or credibility of the so-called literary history depends on the literary events entering a new narrative time, and the internal structure generated by this time comes from the concept of "history" before the text. For all "literary events" in the past, their texts must be new "historical narratives". Its "truth" is not to return to the empirical world, but to transcend it and achieve academic reliability.

two

I think a priori that the "historical concept" in the history of literature should be standardized, unchangeable and easy to master and use. Of course, it is not "metaphysics", but it is by no means something that can be bred by the daily level of any individual experience. It is true that "fact" or "event" is undoubtedly important for understanding it, but it is far from unique-that is, the general relationship between soil and mother. In fact, it is related to the ontological inquiry of "what is history". In narratology, "history" has lost the sanctity endowed by our tradition, but it can be said at will like other factors encountered in human life. "Historical narrative" and "narrative history" are just two expressions of the same thing here. "History" can be written, not just titled "compilation". For analytical philosophy, as Wittgenstein bluntly said, history or all historical problems do not exist, but are created by us. In fact, human subjectivity has been deprived of the narrative state of writing, that is, the current "language" has become the only way for human subjectivity to rely on external phenomena. "Art is pure intuition"-this tells us that the temporality between artistic worlds or events cannot be defined by the temporality of collective perception. Heidegger declared that "language is the home of existence", which implied the suspicion of "history". Why does "language" gain unprecedented trust? In fact, it is obvious that solemn history can only use changeable and uncertain "language" as the basic building material. When people were shocked by Wittgenstein's proposition that "all philosophy is language criticism", they had to be lost in thought before his series of expositions on usage, context and family similarity. In fact, all the problems we listed above are related to the "language" of narrative history. "Language" is a symbol of death, but the way of thinking about how to arrange it should be alive. For a long time, the dead way of thinking turned language into a dead thing. Of course, the result is sad-language is just relegated to the corner of historical creation, which can only be created, but it can't update itself. Therefore, it becomes a single description tool. In fact, language has unlimited possibilities to create itself, and any narrative, including the narrative of literary history, should be accompanied by the greatest concern for its creative potential. The generation process of "history" should be "linguistic", and the "concept" mentioned above should be recognized here first.

The "historical concept" in the history of literature refers to an attitude at the level of "historical philosophy", or a way of thinking to deal with "literary events". The advantage of this "historical concept" is that it doubts the empirical world of human natural life from the beginning, and this doubt is accompanied by the narrative, thus effectively avoiding surrendering to the "time frame" of experience. This is a necessary prerequisite for the establishment of "literary history" and "time order". Facing the "literary event" with a questioning attitude, its force point is not the "literary event" stuck in front of us, but the whole literary history itself. All our historians must constantly and repeatedly ask themselves and "describe" the following questions:

First, what is "history"?

Second, how likely is literature to become "history"? Where is it?

Third, is everything named after "history" or anything named after "history" credible? How does our "narrative" win the trust of the people?

Fourth, can we always believe in the "history" described by our "language"? What hidden assumptions do we need to explain? Are these assumptions based on the commonness of experience?

5. Is "history" a kind of "report" or a kind of "reconstruction" in writing? Where is the "timeliness" boundary of the reconstructed "history"?

……

Asking these questions does not hinder the writing of "history". The key is whether we think we are writing. When we dress ourselves up as real witnesses of "historical truth", these problems certainly do not exist, but they will emerge from readers. Obviously, when the self's "faith" and the reader's "unbelief" form tension, the above problems are inevitable. Strictly speaking, the writing of "history" should avoid the above tension, but the way to avoid it cannot be to deify or deify one's own "history" writing, but only to return to the view that history can be written.

When we face "history", "history" may appear in two States here: one is that "history" is a transcendental "truth", which coincides with our experience, and it is difficult for us to see or see clearly, but it is not nothingness, and this "existence" is the existence of "original concept" that does not need to be falsified or difficult to falsify. People's ability to walk in is extremely limited, perhaps only close, but never difficult to walk in. For this kind of "original existence", the task that people put forward for "history" writing is to annotate it to make it logical and legitimate, so as to be in the same category as the existing discourse facts of "things" in people's consciousness, that is, to combine the "transcendence" of "history" with the life traces of "history" that people perceive in the language operation of writing. Therefore, the structure of "history" must be a state of "value proof" and exists in the form of "worship of logos" because such "original existence" has a definite reference (in fact, the concept here has been materialized, so it is also a definite reference). There is no doubt about the timeliness of "things", which forms the internal order of "value proof" state. The ethicalization of the process of value proof and the standard of value determination (that is, the restoration of life or the recognition of current value) have maintained a close relationship between "history" and ideological annotation activities from the beginning, and the original order of "literary events" and the ideology surrounding the "context" of events will naturally occupy the "narrative" highland under the banner of "restoration" in the form of collusion. This kind of "historical" narrative can only choose "hot narrative", that is, the subject of "historical" writing agrees with the external interest community. It is true that writing becomes description, which does not mean the disappearance of individual subjectivity, but that subjectivity is replaced by another way-common subjectivity. Therefore, the writing personality or individual narrative of "history" can only become a common narrative, and its "history" is difficult to exist. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, most historical works about China's modern and contemporary literature belong to this category.

Another state that "history" presents to people is that the past "time" and "history" are just a lot of language events that are not necessarily related. It is only the first step to connect these language events in thinking. It is more important to polish and reconstruct "historical time" under the control of "historical concept", establish new connection modes and states, and make this kind of work. Here, "history" has always been regarded as an "artificial" existence narrated by language, that is, "language is the home of history". The subjectivity of "language" is unchangeable for historians. The difference between human subjectivity and the previous formula of value determination is reflected in an effort-"history" has many possibilities of interpretation in the bearing of language.

Both of the above states depend on the self-generation of "historical memory". The so-called "historical memory" refers to all the materials that future generations can use to realize the existence of the "past". It includes both words, objects and other things.

A historian who regards "history" as a transcendental "original value" shows the process, what he expects in his search is "restoring history", and all kinds of efforts reflect the unremitting exploration of the real picture or the original appearance of events covered up by various reasons in order to go to the "historical hinterland". However, the "desire to restore" itself comes from questioning. In fact, the process of "reduction" can also be regarded as a process of questioning-it is worth noting that questioning is not only aimed at the material, but also at the structure and timeliness formed according to the original material, and in this process, a new "historical concept" will inevitably be formed, that is, breaking the original timeliness. But this requires the choice of "historical memory"-and it must run through the whole choice. The problem lies in the particularity of "historical memory" (that is, data, historical documents, etc.). ) will affect the value search. The self-generation of "historical memory" is both a choice and a "report" (I emphasize the report again). Historical memory itself is a kind of narration through language (mainly records), and the operations of users in the process of restoration (including mining, supplementing, comparing and rereading) are also "narration"-and its formation is inevitably due to historical events, because "narration" is inevitable and helpless. I think subjectivity is embodied in this "increase" or "decrease". In 2000, Hong Zicheng's History of Contemporary Literature in China and Chen Sihe's Course of Contemporary Literature in China attracted much attention. The former is eager to go deep into history and discover the new state of literature in the context of "system", which makes "system" rise to the concept of "historical philosophy" in the discussion, but the time reorganization has not been realized. It is still difficult to avoid such a problem: in any case, the historical existence of "deep" or "hinterland" is still a suspended matter illuminated by language, and the inevitability of "report" and "choice" makes the generation of "history" inevitably have extremely obvious individual characteristics. In this way, its credibility will also be challenged. In Zhu Hong's works, "historical memory" is a vertical exploration of the past "temporality", and through "reporting" and "selection", it reveals a "historical concept" that has never been valued by people. Zhu Chen used the method of "changing blood" (that is, replacing "historical memory") to push the dark objects to the foreground, making the marginal objects the central image of the historical stage, which is close to creating a new "historical memory". Leaving aside the bias caused by his bold abandonment of "mainstream" and "center" and various indispensable influencing factors, he failed to establish the concept of "folk" as the core. The increase or decrease of historical memory in the process of reporting is a common phenomenon in the development of literature, especially when the historization of literary events is carried out when the parties are still alive, and the choice of historical memory faced by historians is more complicated-because the living parties will continue to create historical memories in the new context. If historians deliberately regard the "memory" of the parties as the truth factor of "literary events", the result is self-evident. For example, the memory of the "Left-wing League" in the history of modern literature in China, especially the study of the relationship between Lu Xun and all the writers who had "entanglements" with him, is full of the above-mentioned "unreliability".

In fact, the writing of literary history is full of such a paradox: "history", as a transcendental and physical existence in people's consciousness, has not only been generated, but also seems unchangeable. However, any party's recollection of "material property" or the reappearance of "history" and "material property" by means of recollection may result in the transplantation of "historical memory". How can we judge which is more real? The variability of "memory" caused by "language" makes it impossible for us to judge. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, many "history" books about China's modern literature and contemporary literature are similar, except for ideological constraints, which are not caused by "plagiarism" but "transplantation" of "historical memory".

three

The above argument is just to show that the so-called "historical truth" and "trusting history" are meaningful only if they are recognized as a narrative strategy. As far as literature is concerned, the so-called "management history" not only runs through the choice, retelling and acceptance of the subject, but also makes the "historical narrative" permeate with strong personality, and the "historical" treatment of "literary events" can only be defined by historians with their own knowledge system and interpretation. The principle of "historical writing" may be here. Like other types of literary creation, "fiction" is inevitable. It is a kind of writing that focuses on other people's speeches. Its "creativity" is embodied in the self-logicalization, selection, cognition and interpretation of speech materials, as well as the generation and dissemination of metaphysical "historical philosophy" in the process of this logical development. Taking "believing in history" (the traditional historical philosophy and the requirement of "straight writing" for historians' mentality and rationality) as a realm is obviously of little significance, and it is difficult to become a realm-because of the entanglement of language, it will always be utopia.

In my opinion, for historians, managing history is first to admit that "history is primitive" or "history" is a true "hypothesis" and the feasibility of this hypothesis in the process of historicizing events. Therefore, for any literary history, especially China modern literature and contemporary literature, it seems more appropriate to grasp the concept of its "historical" process: regard "history" as a "way of thinking" (different from literary creation and literary criticism) or methodology, admit that this "writing" has some pre-existing rules, and always remember the object nature (speaking materials) that this "writing" faces. It embodies the creativity of his metaphysical theory in the choice, interpretation and reorganization of "time relationship", making the presentation of "history" a process of intellectuals' power resources being externalized continuously, and a process of intellectuals' self-awareness and care in the way of literature as their life.

(Author: College of Literature, Fujian Normal University)

Text: Research on Literary Theory, No.5, 2002