跨文化比较研究
“Self-”in F.R. Leavis
——And Its Significance for Chinese Literature
Lu Jiande
Literary criticism provides the test for life and concreteness；where it degenerates，the instruments of thought degenerate too，and thinking，released from the testing and energizing contact with the full living consciousness，is debilitated，and betrayed to the academic，the abstract，the verbal. It is of little use to discuss values if the sense of value in the concrete—the experience and perception of value—is absent.[1]
Cross-cultural exchanges，to be fruitful，also require discussions about values in the concrete.
It is sometimes assumed that there must be a parallel between F.R. Leavis's moral concern and the Chinese preoccupation with literature as embodiment of Confucian propriety. But the affinity，I'm afraid，can only be talked about on a verbal level. Leavis's critical practice involves a subtle sensitiveness to intrusions of the authorial self in its various and often unconscious forms. Although a prudent and conscientious self-restraint is a basic Confucian criterion for a gentleman，the self of Chinese poets is entitled to greater license and wilder forms of expression. As a consequence literary scholars in China are much more tolerant of，or to put it differently，somehow insensitive to egotism in a variety of disguises. Perhaps idioms typical of Leavis's ethical sensibility might be tentatively used in analyzing and evaluating certain features of Chinese literature. The legitimacy of this application is of course open to question in an age of post-colonialist awareness，but I believe the attempt is worthwhile.
Omission of the subject in Chinese landscape poetry has attracted much attention from translators，sinologists and scholars of Chinese literature. According to Prof. James J. Y. Liu，this absence of first person singular represents a great advantage：“Chinese poetry often has an impersonal and universal quality，compared with which much Western poetry appears egocentric and earth-bound.” He then illustrates the point with Wordsworth's “I wandered lonely as a cloud” to the poet's disadvantage.[2] There might be an element of what Ruskin would call pathetic fallacy in this lovely poem. However，repeated use of “I” does not necessarily presuppose an attitude that is egocentric. Wordsworth does not，for example，drag the flowers into a highly conventionalized symbolic system and reduce them to an intoxicated self-projection of the poet himself. Instead he expresses a sense of gratitude to his “jocund company”，“the host of daffodils fluttering and dancing in the breeze”，whose healing power comes from its own movement and life. Under the influence of literary conventions different from those Wordsworth inherited，a poet could well write about himself as in the image of a daffodil，shining in glorious isolation，that is as a thinly veiled，idealized self-portrait，symbolizing ill-used talent，neglected man of worth，and a sense of being born-out-of-time. Reading and teaching Leavis compels one to be more alert to this particular aspect of self-representation in Chinese literature.
In Middlemarch，when George Eliot was talking about Lydgate's “miserable isolation of egoistic fears”，there is an impromptu aside：“Some gentlemen have made an amazing figure in literature by general discontent with the universe as a trap of dullness into which their great souls have fallen by mistake；but the sense of a stupendous self and an insignificant world may have its consolations.”[3] The satirical tone here might jolt a Chinese reader，who usually assumes that the universe，or the times，rather than individual failings，or psychological proclivity，must be held responsible for one's misery. This Chinese inclination partly explains why the translation of The Great Tradition （2002）has not made much of a stir in Chinese literary circles. The area in which Leavis excels still remains terra incognita to many Chinese readers. The treatment of George Eliot in The Great Tradition is a case in point.
In the part dealing with George Eliot，hyphenated phrases starting with “self” make surprisingly frequent appearances：self-absorption，self-identification，self-indulgence，self-pity，self-idealization，self-importance，self-admiration and so on. They are all variations on one central theme：lack of impersonality or self-knowledge. These are allegations of considerable weight in English，when rendered into Chinese，however，they immediately look limp and languid. Leavis's criticism of George Eliot's yielding to temptations of self-idealization challenges at the deepest level the Chinese belief in the goodness of the self and the common practice of self-identification with virtue or with morally exalted enthusiasm.
Leavis was uneasy about the closeness of the relation between heroine and author. The immature and soulful side of Maggie Tulliver in The Mill on the Floss is offered by the author without much criticism：
[U]nderstanding，in any strict sense，is just what she doesn't show. To understand immaturity would be to “place” it，with however a subtle an implication，by relating it to mature experience. But when George Eliot touches on these given intensities of Maggie's inner life the vibrations come directly and simply from the novelist，precluding the presence of a maturer intelligence than Maggie's own.... in George Eliot's presentment of Maggie there is an element of self-idealization. The criticism sharpens itself when we say that with the self-idealization there goes an element of self-pity.[4]
What worries Leavis is the author's imaginative participation in the heroine's warm emotional flows，which are not disinterested responses defined by particular situations. Maggie's case seems to reappear again and again in George Eliot's later novels. Romola，for example，is another idealized George Eliot. What the novelist says of Romola might have been said of herself：“The pressing problem for Romola just then was ... to keep alive that flame of unselfish emotion by which a life of sadness might still be a life of active love.”[5]Whenever there is the slightest sign of temporary aggrandizement of the authorial self，Leavis is always on the spot.
The weakness of Middlemarch is also in the heroine Dorothea. The last paragraph in the short “Prelude”（a cygnet among ducklings）is singled out by Leavis to make this point：“Dorothea …is a product of George Eliot's own ‘soul-hunger' —another day-dreaming ideal self.” [6]In the disappointing part of Daniel Deronda，“[George Eliot's] mature intelligence lapses and ceases to inhibit her flights—flights not deriving their impulsion from any external pressure. …the nobility，generosity，and moral idealism are at the same time modes of self-indulgence.” [7]All these phrases starting with the prefix “self” demonstrate that George Eliot has not yet achieved the kind of impersonality that Leavis is looking for.
However，the greatest surprise is the imbalance of George Eliot's art. In her directly matter-of-fact presentation of Mrs. Transome，and also her convincing psychological observations about Mr. Bulstrode，objectivity is informed with poignant sympathy. There is not a trace of self-pity or self-indulgence：“She was open，ardent，and not in the least self-admiring”. In short，when George Eliot directed her sensibility outward，and did not see herself in unconsciously flattering light，we can see the full realization of the “equivalent centre of self” [8]in others.
The Great Tradition is a continuation of Revaluation. How to perceive the outside world in relation to oneself is also crucial to Leavis's close reading of poetry. In the chapter on Shelley，after an unremitting analysis of the second stanza in the “Ode to the West Wind”，Leavis points out that the imagery somehow assumes an autonomy and right to grow and propagate to such an extent that eventually “the perception or thought that was the ostensible raison d'etre of the imagery” is lost. Imagery is not tested and controlled by a thinking mind：“The antipathy of his sensibility to any play of critical mind，the uncongeniality of intelligence to inspiration，these clearly go in Shelley，not merely with a capacity for momentary self-deception and insincerities，but with a radical lack of self-knowledge.” He is unable to realize the perceived world and objects of his love as “existing in their own natures and their own right.”[9] Here moral criticism and the analysis of style and imagery are united：in Shelley's self-absorption “the medium enjoys itself”.[10]
