【作者】 李晶晶；

【导师】 凌晨光；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 文艺学， 2025， 博士

【摘要】 约翰·弗兰克·克默德(John Frank Kermode,1919——2010)是英国文学批评领域的重要奠基者之一,被学界认为“迄今为止最卓越的莎士比亚解读者”(詹姆斯·夏皮罗语)。在20世纪后半叶至21世纪初的英国文学批评领域,他以文本细读的功力和对文学传统的深刻理解著称,尤其因对莎士比亚作品的精湛解读与独到视野而享有极高声誉,对莎学研究产生显著影响。克默德的研究领域广泛,涵盖虚构叙事、文学经典、解释理论、文艺复兴文学及现代主义文学,其批评实践贯穿着对时间性、意义生成及历史意识的持续关注。他始终坚持在文本细读的基础上进行理论反思,通过对虚构结构、经典建构与解释行为的持续探讨,发展出一种融合理论敏锐度与实践操作性的学术路径。这一路径不仅推动了当代文学批评的理论基础深化,也为后续学者在文本意义的生成、历史传统与现代经验的交织,以及批评策略的更新与实践,提供了切实有效的方法论支持。当前关于克默德的研究主要聚焦于其某一具体批评理论的探讨,或将其理论作为批评工具应用于具体文本的分析,难以全面展现其批评理论的整体框架。对于在英美文学批评领域活跃逾半个世纪的重要学者,这种局限性的研究显然不足以反映其学术贡献的全貌。造成这一研究现状的原因主要有二:首先,克默德的理论散见于多篇批评论文中,其行文风格兼顾古典文学史论与现代哲学思辨,且涉及神学、哲学、历史学、叙事学及解释学等多学科交叉领域,对研究者系统梳理其理论体系与批评实践提出较高要求;其次,纵观克默德学术生涯,其理论立场经历了显著的转变:在20世纪60—70年代,他曾积极引介并推广法国结构主义等新兴理论,展现出对理论创新的高度热情;而进入二十一世纪后,他则表现出对整体理论话语的日益审慎,甚至在某些场合流露出拒斥态度。这对完整把握克默德的批评理论体系构成了实质性挑战。基于此,本论文以整体视野审视克默德的批评理论,结合其批评文本及历史语境,进行系统性梳理与批判性阐释,重点聚焦其理论核心与批评取向,旨在实现对克默德文学批评理论体系的全面而深刻的揭示。论文的基本思路是,从克默德学术生涯入手,综合考察其各阶段的批评关注与理论立场,探析其思想资源与发展轨迹;围绕虚构、经典与解释三大贯穿其批评理论的核心范畴,细致梳理其批评观点与理论构架,揭示其批评体系的构成逻辑与演变方式。在此基础上,进一步结合其身份背景与学术处境,分析其理论立场与批评实践之间的互动关系,呈现其批评思想的独特品格与生成机制。论文兼顾批评文本与历史语境两大维度,融合文献研究、历史语境分析、比较研究及跨学科视野等方法,力图辩证地呈现克默德文学批评理论的独特特征,深入论述其在英国文学批评史中的理论地位与学术贡献。论文共分五章,各章主要内容如下:绪论立足于克默德在当代英美文学批评中的独特地位,分析其批评理论与实践的学术意义,指出当前研究多聚焦于个别文本或概念,缺乏对其整体批评理论的系统考察。在此基础上,本文以虚构、经典与解释三大核心理论为研究对象,聚焦其批评理论的结构逻辑、历史语境与方法论特征,确立起贯通其理论主张与批评实践的研究框架,旨在深入揭示其文学批评体系的思想基础与内在张力。第一章考察克默德文学批评理论的生成语境与思想来源,内容包括学术身份、学术历程与理论来源三部分。首先,结合20世纪英美学术与出版场域的社会文化背景,梳理克默德的三重身份——大学教师、编辑与文学评论家,勾勒出其独特的知识形象与批评立场。其次,将克默德自20世纪40年代至21世纪初的学术实践划分为四个阶段,分别为文艺复兴与浪漫主义研究阶段、虚构与经典理论的初探阶段、理论深化阶段以及批评反思与回顾阶段,展现其批评理论的发展轨迹与关注重心的转变。最后,深入分析奥尔巴赫(Erich Auerbach)的“喻象”理论与库尔提乌斯(Ernst Robert Curtius)的“主题学”传统如何深刻塑造了克默德的虚构理论与经典观念,揭示其文学批评体系中的历史主义视角及对传统的持续关注。本章旨在建构理解克默德批评理论的历史基础与理论脉络,为后续章节的文本分析与理论解释提供概念支撑与路径指引。第二章系统梳理克默德的虚构与叙事理论,重点阐释时间秩序与叙事结构在文本意义生成中的互动机制。克默德认为,虚构作为组织经验与理解生活的叙事方式,其基础在于通过起始、发展与终结构建时间结构。本章重点分析三种核心范式:时间范式通过人为划分时间节点,将连续的时间经验转化为有序段落,建立叙事的时间秩序与意义期待;结尾范式在此基础上强化终点结构,通过形式闭合与内容完成,实现意义的整体建构;启示范式作为结尾范式的变体,以灾难或救赎性终结赋予叙事更强烈的象征深度与文化张力。最后,本章探讨虚构中的秘密因素对叙事节奏与顺序的调控作用,展现出寓言陈述与阐释过程间的动态互动。通过对范式类型与结构机制的系统梳理,本章力图揭示克默德虚构理论中时间秩序与叙事结构的内在逻辑。第三章聚焦克默德的经典理论,系统梳理其对经典标准的界定方式及经典在历史语境中的动态生成。克默德认为,现代经典观念与传统历史主义之间存在根本分歧,需通过整合历史意识与批评实践,建立一种既面向传统又回应当下的经典观。在判断标准方面,他指出经典应满足两个核心条件:其一,文本必须具备解释的潜力,即持续生成意义的复杂性与开放性,能够回应不同历史语境下的解释需求;其二,作品应能激发深层的审美体验,这一体验的区别性特征是愉悦与沮丧的并列与碰撞,进而形成持久的阅读吸引力。以桑德罗·波提切利(Sandro Botticelli)重返经典行列的过程为例,克默德强调观念变迁在经典建构中的决定性作用,经典的权威并非由知识累积所决定,而是在文化接受与评价更新的过程中不断生成。本章通过分析经典的标准建构、生成机制与文化呈现,揭示克默德如何融合解释开放性与历史意识,提出理解经典演变与价值转换的理论框架。第四章集中探讨克默德的解释理论,系统分析文本意义的生成机制及其面临的制度控制。克默德区分“肉体意义”与“精神意义”,前者指向文本的字面层面,包括语法和历史语境中的直接信息,后者则涵盖超越字面的象征与隐喻意义。由于时间的流逝和语境的变迁,这两者之间存在内在的张力,导致文本呈现出模糊性与多义性。解释活动因此成为一种不断展开的多元过程,文本意义在读者的文化经验和想象力推动下持续被重构与拓展。与此同时,克默德强调学术共同体及相关教育机构通过规范、标准和理论框架,对解释行为施加制度性限制,这些制度性机制界定了意义生产的合法边界及方法论路径。尽管这一制度话语往往强调确定性,但解释的不确定性和多重可能性恰是文本生命力和批评创新的根基,这体现出克默德在开放的解释空间与规范的制度控制之间寻求平衡的学术立场。本章通过对克默德解释理论的层层剖析,揭示了其对文本意义生成过程复杂性的深刻认识,为理解其批评理论的实践机制与制度环境提供了细致的理论框架。第五章系统评析克默德文学批评理论的核心特征及其学术定位。首先,结合理论立场与批评实践,阐释克默德作为批评家的双重身份:他既是理论论争中的调和者,通过折中与对话缓解学术分歧;又是学术共同体与公共文化之间的纽带,推动批评话语跨界传播。这种身份不仅塑造了其批评理论开放且兼容并包的结构特性,更体现出其理论深厚的历史意识和现实关怀,使批评实践兼具跨学科的开放性与公共影响力,进而形成一种突破单一理论框架、融合深刻思想反思与积极文化参与的现代批评典范,具有鲜明的代表性与持久的生命力。其次,通过对其虚构理论、经典理论与解释理论的细致梳理,揭示克默德批评实践中贯穿始终的主题——意义的多维生成过程,具体涵盖意义的建构、回响与历史性再生产三个维度。最后,本章对克默德理论的贡献与局限进行深入反思。克默德的批评理论体系以敏锐的洞察力和广博的知识储备推动了文学与历史的对话,深化了经典文本的跨时空解释,并强调了解释活动的开放性和多样性。然而,其理论亦显现出立场模糊、理论深化不足、以及对经典普遍性强调过度而忽视文本多样性的局限与不足。通过论述,全面呈现克默德文学批评理论的复杂结构与学术价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 John Frank Kermode(1919-2010)was one of the key founders of British literary criticism,acclaimed by scholars as“the best living reader of Shakespeare"(in the words of James Shapiro).From the latter half of the 20th century into the early 21st century,Kermode gained prominence for his meticulous textual analysis and profound grasp of literary traditions,particularly through his nuanced interpretations and distinctive perspectives on Shakespeare’s works,which significantly influenced Shakespearean scholarship.His research spanned a broad spectrum of fields,including fictional narrative,literary classics,interpretive theory,Renaissance literature,and modernist literature.Throughout his critical practice,Kermode consistently engaged with themes of temporality,meaning construction,and historical consciousness.He grounded his theoretical reflections in close textual reading and,through sustained inquiry into fictional structures,the formation of the classic,and interpretive practices,developed a scholarly approach that combined theoretical insight with practical applicability.This approach not only enriched the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary literary criticism but also offered methodological guidance for future scholars in exploring textual meaning,the interplay between historical traditions and modern experiences,and the renewal of critical strategies.Current scholarship on Kermode primarily centers on individual theoretical concepts or applies his critical frameworks to specific texts,thereby failing to offer a comprehensive overview of his theoretical system.For a scholar who remained influential in British and American literary criticism for over half a century,such fragmented research clearly falls short of capturing the full scope of his intellectual contributions.There are two primary factors which contribute to this scholarly limitation.First,Kermode’s theoretical insights are dispersed across numerous essays,written in a style that blends classical literary historiography with modern philosophical inquiry and engages with interdisciplinary domains such as theology,philosophy,history,narratology,and hermeneutics—posing significant challenges for scholars seeking to systematically reconstruct his theoretical framework.Second,throughout his academic career,Kermode’s theoretical orientation underwent notable shifts:during the 1960s and 1970s,he actively promoted emerging theoretical paradigms such as French structuralism,demonstrating a strong commitment to theoretical innovation;however,by the early 21st century,he adopted a more cautious,and at times even skeptical,stance toward overarching theoretical discourses.These shifts complicate efforts to construct a unified understanding of his critical theory.In response,this thesis adopts a holistic perspective to examine Kermode’s critical thought,systematically analyzing and critically interpreting his major writings and historical context,with particular attention to the central categories of fiction,the classic,and interpretation.The aim is to offer a comprehensive and in-depth exposition of Kermode’s literary critical theory.The central approach of this thesis is to begin with an examination of Kermode’s academic trajectory,systematically analyzing his evolving critical concerns and theoretical positions across different phases of his career,and tracing the intellectual sources and developmental arc of his thought.It focuses on the three core concepts—fiction,the classic,and interpretation—that underpin his critical theory,carefully delineating his theoretical viewpoints and conceptual architecture to reveal the structural logic and evolution of his critical system.Furthermore,the thesis situates Kermode’s theoretical positions within his personal and institutional context,examining the interplay between his intellectual stance and critical practice,and highlighting the distinctive features and generative mechanisms of his critical thought.Drawing on a combination of textual analysis and historical contextualization,and employing methodologies such as literary research,comparative analysis,and interdisciplinary perspectives,the thesis seeks to present Kermode’s critical theory in a dialectical manner,offering a nuanced assessment of his theoretical significance and scholarly contributions within the broader history of British literary criticism.The thesis is structured into five chapters,summarized as follows:The introduction establishes Kermode’s distinctive position within contemporary Anglo-American literary criticism,evaluates the academic significance of his theoretical and critical work,and identifies the limitations of current scholarship,which tends to focus on isolated texts or concepts rather than offering a systematic analysis of his overall theoretical framework.Building on this foundation,the thesis centers on the three core theoretical categories—fiction,the classic,and interpretation—examining their structural logic,historical context,and methodological implications.It constructs a research framework that connects theoretical propositions with critical practice,aiming to provide a thorough and nuanced understanding of the ideological foundations and internal tensions within Kermode’s literary critical system.Chapter One investigates the generative context and ideological foundations of Kermode’s literary criticism,structured around three interrelated dimensions:academic identity,academic career,and theoretical sources.First,it situates Kermode’s intellectual development within the socio-cultural and institutional landscape of 20th-century British and American academia and publishing,identifying his three principal roles—university professor,editor,and literary critic—to delineate his distinctive intellectual persona and critical orientation.Second,it maps Kermode’s academic trajectory from the 1940s to the early 21st century into four distinct phases:the early stage of Renaissance and Romanticism studies,the initial formulation of theories on fiction and the classic,the period of theoretical deepening,and the phase of critical reflection and retrospective evaluation.This periodization illustrates the evolution and shifting focus of his critical thought.Finally,the chapter examines how Erich Auerbach’s "figural" theory and Ernst Robert Curtius’s "topical" tradition profoundly influenced Kermode’s conceptualization of fiction and the classic,underscoring the historicalist orientation and enduring engagement with literary tradition that characterize his critical system.This chapter thus lays the historical and theoretical groundwork for understanding Kermode’s critical framework,offering conceptual clarity and methodological guidance for subsequent textual and theoretical analyses.Chapter Two offers a systematic exposition of Kermode’s theory of fiction and narrative,centering on the interplay between temporal order and narrative structure in the production of textual meaning.According to Kermode,fiction functions as a narrative mode for organizing experience and interpreting life,grounded in the construction of temporal sequences through beginning,development,and conclusion.This chapter identifies and analyzes three central paradigms:the temporal paradigm,which transforms continuous temporal experience into structured segments through the artificial division of time,thereby establishing narrative order and anticipatory meaning;the ending paradigm,which reinforces the structural closure of the narrative,achieving holistic meaning through formal completion and thematic resolution;and the beginning paradigm,a variation of the ending paradigm,which imbues the narrative with heightened symbolic resonance and cultural tension through catastrophic or redemptive openings.The chapter further explores how concealed or implicit elements within fictional narratives regulate narrative rhythm and sequencing,illustrating the dynamic relationship between allegorical expression and interpretive processes.By systematically categorizing these paradigms and structural mechanisms,this chapter aims to elucidate the internal logic of time and narrative structure within Kermode’s theory of fiction.Chapter Three examines Kermode’s theory of the classic,systematically analyzing his criteria for defining classical status and the historical dynamics of classic formation.Kermode argues that the modern understanding of the classic fundamentally diverges from traditional historicism,necessitating a synthesis of historical consciousness and critical practice to construct a classic that is both rooted in tradition and responsive to contemporary concerns.He proposes two essential criteria for classical status:first,a classical text must possess interpretive potential—marked by complexity and openness—that enables it to generate meaning across diverse historical contexts;second,it must evoke profound aesthetic experiences,characterized by the interplay of pleasure and frustration,which sustains long-term reader engagement.Using Sandro Botticelli’s reintegration into the literary classic as a case study,Kermode highlights the pivotal role of conceptual shifts in the process of classic formation.He contends that classical authority is not derived from the accumulation of knowledge but is continually reconstituted through cultural reception and evaluative renewal.This chapter explores the mechanisms of classical standard-setting,historical emergence,and cultural representation,revealing how Kermode synthesizes interpretive openness with historical awareness to develop a theoretical model for understanding the evolution and transformation of the classic.Chapter Four explores Kermode’s theory of interpretation,offering a systematic analysis of the mechanisms of textual meaning-making and the institutional constraints that shape interpretive practices.Kermode distinguishes between "corporeal meaning"—the literal level of textual content,encompassing grammatical and historical referents—and "spiritual meaning," which encompasses symbolic and metaphorical dimensions that transcend the surface level.The temporal and contextual shifts that occur between the production and reception of a text generate an inherent tension between these two levels,resulting in textual ambiguity and multiplicity.Interpretive activity,therefore,emerges as an ongoing and pluralistic process,wherein meaning is continually reinterpreted and expanded through readers’ cultural experiences and imaginative engagement.At the same time,Kermode emphasizes the role of academic institutions and disciplinary norms in regulating interpretation,as they impose methodological frameworks and evaluative standards that define the boundaries of legitimate interpretation.While such institutional structures often prioritize textual certainty,Kermode underscores the importance of interpretive openness and multiplicity as the very source of a text’s vitality and critical innovation.This chapter thus provides a detailed account of Kermode’s interpretive theory,elucidating the complex interplay between textual meaning,reader response,and institutional mediation.Chapter Five offers a systematic evaluation of the core characteristics and scholarly positioning of Kermode’s literary criticism.First,by integrating theoretical stance with critical practice,it delineates Kermode’s dual role as a critic:he functions both as a mediator in theoretical debates,mitigating academic divisions through dialogue and synthesis,and as a conduit between academia and public culture,facilitating the broader dissemination of critical discourse.This dual identity not only informs the open and integrative structure of his critical theory but also reflects his deep historical awareness and engagement with contemporary concerns.As a result,his critical practice exhibits both interdisciplinary breadth and public relevance,exemplifying a modern critical model that transcends singular theoretical paradigms by combining rigorous intellectual reflection with active cultural participation—demonstrating both representativeness and enduring relevance.Second,through a comprehensive review of his theories on fiction,the classic,and interpretation,this chapter identifies a central unifying theme in Kermode’s work:the multi-dimensional process of meaning generation,encompassing meaning construction,resonance,and historical recontextualization.Finally,the chapter critically examines the contributions and limitations of Kermode’s theoretical framework.His critical system,grounded in acute analytical insight and extensive scholarly knowledge,has significantly advanced the dialogue between literature and history,enriched cross-temporal interpretations of classical texts,and emphasized the openness and plurality of interpretive practices.Nevertheless,certain limitations persist,including occasional theoretical ambiguity,insufficient elaboration of key concepts,and an overemphasis on the universality of the classic at the expense of textual diversity.Through this critical assessment,the chapter presents a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexity and scholarly value of Kermode’s literary critical theory.更多还原