【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 gh the audiences that witnessed their representation some time before they were published as things to be read。 and they were published in this scenical mode of publication with much more effect than they could have had as books during ages of costly copying or of costly printing.我們所說的“文學”是什么呢？人們，尤其是對此欠考慮者，普遍會認為：文學包括印在書本中的一切?？蛇@種定義無需多少理由便可被推翻。最缺乏思考的人也很容易明白，“文學”這一概念中有個基本要素，即文學或多或少都與人類普遍而共同的興趣有關；因此，那些僅適用于某一局部、某一行業(yè)或僅僅處于個人興趣的作品，即便以書的形式面世，也不該屬于“文學”。就此而論，文學之定義很容易變窄，而它同樣也不難拓寬。因為不僅有許多躋身于書卷之列的文字并非文學作品，而且與之相反，不少真正的文學著作卻未曾付梓成書。譬如基督教世界每星期的布道，這種篇什浩繁且對民眾精神影響極廣的講壇文學，這種對世人起告戒、鼓勵、振奮、安撫或警示作用的布道文學，最終能進入經(jīng)樓書館的尚不及其萬分之一。此外還有戲劇，如英國莎士比亞最優(yōu)秀的劇作，以及雅典戲劇藝術鼎盛時期的全部主流劇作，都曾作為文學作品對公眾產(chǎn)生過影響。這些作品在作為讀物出版之前，已通過觀看其演出的觀眾而“出版”了（這正是“出版”一詞最嚴格的意義）。在抄寫或印刷都非常昂貴的年代，通過舞臺形式“出版”這些劇作遠比將它們出版成書效果更佳。Books, therefore, do not suggest an idea coextensive and interchangeable with the idea of Literature。 since much literature, scenic, forensic, or didactic (as from lecturers and public orators), may never e into books, and much that does e into books may connect itself with no literary interest. But a far more important correction, applicable to the mon vague idea of literature, is to be sought not so much in a better definition of literature as in a sharper distinction of the two functions which it fulfills. In that great social organ which, collectively, we call literature, there may be distinguished two separate offices that may blend and often do so, but capable, severally, of a severe insulation, and naturally fitted for reciprocal repulsion. There is, first, the literature of knowledge。 and, secondly, the literature of power. The function of the first is—to teach。 the function of the second is—to move: the first is a rudder。 the second, an oar or a sail. The first speaks to the mere discursive understanding。 the second speaks ultimately, it may happen, to the higher understanding or reason, but always through affections of pleasure and sympathy. Remotely, it may travel towards an object seated in what Lord Bacon calls dry light。 but, proximately, it does and must operate—else it ceases to be a literature of power—on and through that humid light which clothes itself in the mists and glittering iris of human passions, desires, and genial emotions. Men have so little reflected on the higher functions of literature as to find it a paradox if one should describe it as a mean or subordinate purpose of books to give information. But this is a paradox only in the sense which makes it honorable to be paradoxical. Whenever we talk in ordinary language of seeking information or gaining knowledge, we understand the words as connected with something of absolute novelty. But it is the grandeur of all truth which can occupy a very high place in human interests that it is never absolutely novel to the meanest of minds: it exists eternally by way of germ or latent principle in the lowest as in the highest, needing to be developed, but never to be planted. To be capable of transplantation is the immediate criterion of a truth that ranges on a lower scale. Besides which, there is a rarer thing than truth—namely, power, or deep sympathy with truth. What is the effect, for instance, upon society, of children? By the pity, by the tenderness, and by the peculiar modes of admiration, which connect themselves with the helplessness, with the innocence, and with the simplicity of children, not only are the primal affections strengthened and continually renewed, but the qualities which are dearest in the sight of heaven—the frailty, for instance, which appeals to forbearance, the innocence which symbolizes the heavenly, and the simplicity which is most alien from the worldly—are kept up in perpetual remembrance, and their ideals are continually refreshed. A purpose of the same nature is answered by the higher literature, viz. the literature of power. What do you learn from Paradise Lost? Nothing at all. What do you learn from a cookery book? Something new, something that you did not know before, in every paragraph. But would you therefore put the wretched cookery book on a higher level of estimation than the divine poem? What you owe to Milton is not any knowledge, of which a million separate items are still but a million of advancing steps on the same earthly level。 what you owe is power—that is, exercise and expansion to your own latent capacity of sympathy with the infinite, where every pulse and each separate influx is a step upwards, a step ascending as upon a Jacob39。s ladder from earth to mysterious altitudes above the earth. All the steps of knowledge, from first to last, carry you further on the same plane, but could never raise you one foot above your ancient level of earth: whereas the very first step in power is a flight—is an ascending movement into another element where earth is forgotten.由此可見，書之概念與“文學”之概念不可相提并論，互相替換，因為許多文學作品，如戲劇演出或演講者，雄辯家的說教和辯論，也許永遠都不會付印成書，而不少印成書冊的作品卻可能與文學趣味并不相關。不過更為重要的是，要糾正人們對文學普遍的模糊觀念，與其去為文學找一個更好的定義，不如更明確地劃分文學的兩種功能。在那兩個被我們統(tǒng)稱為文學的龐大社會媒體中，可以分辨出兩種不同的功能。兩種功能可能混合，而且經(jīng)?；旌希髯杂志哂幸环N絕緣性，而且天生就互相排斥。這二者之一乃“知識文學”，之二則為“力量文學”。知識文學的作用在于教誨，力量文學的功能在于感化。前者可謂舵艄，后者則是槳橈或蓬帆。前者只有助于純粹的推理悟解，后者則總是通過愉悅之情和惻隱之心的影響，最終激發(fā)出更高的悟性，或曰理性。遠而望之，仿佛它可以通過培根稱之為“理性之光”中的某個目標，近而觀之，方知它必須通過那道被世人七情六欲之蒙蒙薄霧和閃閃彩虹包裹的“感性之光”發(fā)揮其作用，不然它就不再是一種“力量”的文學。世人對文學這兩個更為重要的作用思之甚少，所以如果有人說賦予知識是書本平庸或次要的用途，此說便被視為悖論。但只有在悖論亦真這個意義上，此說方為悖論。每當我們用平常語言談論求學求知的時候，總以為這些字眼與某種絕對新奇的事務有聯(lián)系。然而，能在人類關注的事物中占據(jù)極高地位的真理之所以偉大，就在于它對最卑微者而言也絕非新奇；無論在最卑微者還是最高貴者心中，真理永遠都以種子或潛在原理的方式存在，他只需去培育或發(fā)現(xiàn)，而無需去種植或創(chuàng)造。能夠被移植是判斷一個真理屬于低級真理的直接標準。除此之外，還有一種比真理更珍貴的東西，那就是力量，或曰對真理的深切認同。舉例而言，兒童對社會有何作用呢？兒童的無助、天真和單純所喚起的憐憫、柔情和種種特殊的愛慕之意，不僅可強化和升華世人與生俱來的仁愛之心，就連那些在上帝眼中最為珍貴的品質，諸如喚醒寬容的柔弱、象征神圣的天真、以及超凡脫俗的單純，也都會在永恒的記憶中得以保持，其完美典范亦會不斷更新。更高層次的文學，即力量的文學，要實現(xiàn)的正是與此相同的目的。從彌爾頓的《失樂園》中你能獲取什么知識呢？一無所獲。從一本烹調書中你能學到什么呢？從每一段中你都能學到某種新的知識，某種你不曾知曉的知識?？赡隳芤虼硕J為那本微不足道的烹調書比那部神圣的詩作更高明嗎？你應該感謝彌爾頓的不是他給了你什么知識，因為獲取一百萬條互不相干的知識，也不過是在茫茫塵世向前走了一百萬步；你應該感謝的是他給予你“力量”，使你能發(fā)揮并拓展與無限世界產(chǎn)生共鳴的潛能。在無限世界中，每一次脈動和心跳都是上升的一步，猶如沿雅各的天梯從地面攀向遠離凡塵的神秘高處。知識的步伐，自始至終都讓你在同一層面行進，但絕不可能使你從古老的人間塵世上升一步；而力量邁出的第一步就是飛升—— 升入另一種境界，一種使你忘卻凡塵的境界。 （集體討論 曹明倫、吳剛 執(zhí)筆）A