诺贝尔文学奖与世界文学的概念①

〔瑞典〕贺拉斯·恩达尔 著 武梦如 译

诺贝尔文学奖设于一九〇一年，逐年颁发，是瑞典发明家、实业家阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔所创立的五大奖项之一。诺贝尔奖还有三个奖项用来奖励科学研究方面的成就，一个是为了表彰为争取世界和平所做贡献的人或组织。一般认为，诺贝尔文学奖是一个作家能被授予的最高荣誉。中国的译林出版社即将出版一套诺贝尔文学奖获得者作品丛书，这是一则令人欣喜的消息，也进一步证明了诺贝尔文学奖的重要性。

诺贝尔文学奖获得者的写作，与其他优秀作家相比，有何殊异之处？一种合理的怀疑是：为什么该有殊异之处呢？作家的履历表上增添一个条目，一本书于是就改变了面目吗？以何种方式改变了呢？然而，一位作家的作品不仅仅是一整套文本而已，还包含了阅读这些文本的精神前提，因此，一旦作家获奖，某些东西也就无可否认地随之改变了。

俄国流亡作家伊凡·蒲宁一九三三年获得了诺贝尔文学奖。他曾在日记中记述，接到从斯德哥尔摩打来的电话以后，他如何被一种心理反作用所困扰，本能地感到怀疑。他走回普罗旺斯格拉斯小镇上他的小小居所，途中开始感到了疑惑，相信这一切都只是自我暗示的假象。快到家的时候，天色向晚，荒寂的橄榄树林中暮色渐浓，他看见了每一扇窗里点亮的灯火，被带回到现实中来。人们都在那里，等着向他祝贺。“静静的忧伤停落在我心上”，他写道。他恍然明白他的生活永远改变了，再也不会回到原来的样子。他的写作也是如此。从那一刻起，他的作品将被视为属于精英文学，依此被划定等级，无论人们对于精英文学本身持什么样的看法。他写的书仍然可能不被阅读，但作家蒲宁不再有可能被遗忘。从此以后，诺贝尔奖的明灯将永远在他写作生涯的窗口闪耀，仿若在静静地迎候。

由于诺贝尔文学奖为全世界所瞩目，由于它享有如此高的声望，诺奖获得者的作品不免被认为构成了一类经典。这就引起了不少批评指责，例如，二十世纪最伟大的作家们有许多并不在获奖之列，获奖者中女性太少，欧洲之外的作家太少，而平庸之辈太多。我相信，于一九〇一年开始第一届诺贝尔委员会工作的瑞典学院成员们，如果意识到他们将为后世带来什么，一定会感到惶恐。自然，在诺贝尔文学奖初创立的那些年头，没有人把这个奖项视作定义经典的手段。“经典”的概念也并不适用于当时的文学。阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔在遗嘱中说明，奖项将颁发给前一年出版的一部作品，很显然这指的是单一的一部作品，而不是一整套著作。很显然，这位捐赠人希望诺贝尔文学奖在当代发生作用，而不是为从古到今的大师加冠加冕。不过瑞典学院对诺贝尔基金会章程的用词加以引申，认为“前一年”原则上应理解为对作品持久生命力的要求，因此，更早的作品也可以获奖，但“只有当它们的重要性刚刚开始显现”（《诺贝尔基金会章程》第二节）方才可以。这样一来，考量一个作家毕生的全部作品而非一部单一的作品，就成为了诺贝尔文学奖的一项原则。从瑞典学院的角度来看这是十分明智的，如果严格遵照阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔的遗嘱来做的话，诺贝尔文学奖的重要性就会大打折扣了。

如果说诺贝尔文学奖的初衷不在于树立经典，当初它的捐赠者仍然希望它能具有某种国际影响力。一般来说，文学奖项往往局限于一国或一种语言，但为何阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔把如此艰巨的任务交给瑞典学院，令其在全世界的文学中挑选胜出者？诺贝尔是一位世界主义者，在许多国家都有生意往来。他能用五种语言交谈、通信。他说过一句有名的话：“我的祖国是我工作的地方，而我在任何地方工作。”但这些都只是答案的一部分。诺贝尔的文学观是建立在一种特殊的思想传统之上的。他在着手撰写最后一份遗嘱时，很显然深深地受到歌德与爱克曼对谈中那一著名段落的影响——在那段话中首次出现了“世界文学”（Weltliteratur）这一术语：“民族文学如今已经不那么重要，世界文学的时代快要来临了，我们每个人都应该努力让它尽快到来。”

诺贝尔在遗嘱中声明，他 “怀着明确的愿望，希望评奖的时候不要掺杂任何有关候选人国籍的考虑”（《诺贝尔基金会章程》第一节）。这一奖项是为了奖励个人的成就，而不是把作家当作国家或语言、社会或种族的代表，也不是作为某一性别的代表。遗嘱中不涉及任何关于“公平地”分配奖项的说法，不管是何种意义上的公平，这种取向显然都是与捐赠者的理念相悖的。对他来说，至关重要的是获奖作家为人类进步作出了贡献 （“给人类带来了最大的益处”），而不在于奖项能取悦这一群或那一群人的自尊心。

纯以国别来划分文学，缺陷会是显而易见的，这只要看看一九〇一年至今的获奖者名单就清楚了。对其中一些作家来说，流亡，不管是境内还是境外的流亡，是他们的写作无可逃脱的境况。他们祖国的读者大众以及文学见解制造者们往往更偏爱其他作家，而不是瑞典学院选中的这些作家。在独裁的或非常传统的社会中，诺贝尔文学奖获得者常被看作局外人或是异见分子。

伟大的作家往往是流浪者，很难用种族或语言把他们归类。引人注意的是，尤其是近些年来，如此之多的获奖者都拥有模糊或有疑义的国籍归属。贝克特是用法语写作的爱尔兰人。卡内蒂是犹太裔英国人，来自保加利亚，他的文学语言是德语。获得诺奖的布罗茨基不再用俄语的“约瑟夫”称呼自己，而改用英语，他是一位用双语写作的诗人。奈莉·萨克斯属于德语文学，却不属于德国，也不属于瑞典，尽管她在瑞典度过了一生中大部分的时光。辛格锁定意第绪语和英语进行写作，他对消逝了的东欧犹太文化所进行的想象重建，正需要以异国他乡的体验以及一个现代世俗社会所提供的距离感为前提。

二〇〇一年奈保尔获得诺贝尔文学奖，英国外事人员起初拒绝承认奖项颁给了英国作家。贺信于是发至了特立尼达！但奈保尔在特立尼达出生时，这个岛还是大英帝国的一部分，他也很早就移居到了英国。他从来都只是英国公民，最近他甚至还被英国女王封为了爵士。尽管如此，斯德哥尔摩的英国大使还是不情不愿又磨磨蹭蹭，最后才接纳这位极其英式的作家为同胞。

再回到获奖者名单的前面，我们发现上文提到的伊凡·蒲宁是一个没有国家的流亡者，持南森护照。①南森护照是一种被国际承认的身份证，由国际联盟首推，当时是为无国籍的难民而设。我作为常务秘书深有体会：观察颁奖之后各界的反应，会发现带有敌意的评论往往来自作家的祖国。伟大的作家是很惹人厌的。

文学的诞生

诺贝尔的遗嘱和诺贝尔基金会的章程都假定“文学”这个词的含义是众所周知而毫无争议的。章程中仅有的一段补充说明并不见于诺贝尔的遗嘱，它声明此处的文学一词“不仅指纯文学，还应包括因其形式和风格而具有文学价值的其他作品”。其中“纯文学”一词是由奥古斯特·威廉·施莱格尔发明的，描述一类出于艺术的意图而非实用或理论目的而写出的作品。可见，诺贝尔文学奖的评选采用的是一种约有两百年之久的文学观念，在今天它似乎已通行于世界大部分地区，但在当时它才刚刚被欧洲文化圈之外的世界所了解和接受。这一文学观念并不是不言自明的，也并不如何古老。

“文学”较早的定义往往着眼于一类“符合高标准”的书面写作，亦即具有经典品质的文学纪念碑。这些文本具有典范性的内容和风格，并非我们现在所理解的“想象性文学”。例如，在今天的阿拉伯国家，古典阿拉伯语已经不再是任何人的母语了，但用古兰经的文辞写成的诗歌仍然体现着对古老语言的良好掌握。

根据这一问题的权威意见，阿拉伯语中的“文学”颇类似于十八世纪法语中的“文学”：意为学问和良好的教养。现今日语中的文学概念产生于十九世纪末二十世纪初。当时，《源氏物语》这样的作品被提升到了伟大杰作的地位。日语中原有的“文学”一词更早产生，涵义不同；后来在明治时代（一八六八-一九一二），日本人以德国“民族文学”（Nationalliteratur）概念为模型，重新理解了这一词汇。欧洲人所理解的文学类型（literary genres），原先在日本是与其他活动牢牢结合在一起的：书法、绘画、茶道、三味线，②三味线，日本传统弦乐器。等等，这些都属于日语中的“游艺”，是相对“武艺”而言的。③日文的“游艺”（芸）一词意为闲暇时的艺术活动，与之相对地，“武艺”（武芸）意为武术、武功。我们不应忘记，类似的划分在西方世界也曾有过。比如我想到克劳德·佩罗在《古今之相似》（一六八八）中对美术的讨论，其中有一个关于烟火制造的段落。曾几何时，我们是把艺术称作“人生的装饰”的。

直到约一七〇〇-一八〇〇年间，一种涵盖了散文体虚构作品的文学概念，才在欧洲突破阻力而出现。在世界其他地区，阻力更大，更占上风。中国古典诗学理论是鄙弃虚构作品的，给受过良好教育的精英看的书和给大众看的书迥然不同。汉语中的“文学”涵盖了诗歌和学者散文，与深思自省相关，被认为是建立在真实经历的基础之上。虚构作品则属于一个较低的类别。这一划分似乎带有一种嫌恶女性的弦外之音，老太太所讲的民间传奇故事是尤其受到轻视的。要待很久以后，写一部连贯的中国文学史才成为可能。第一部中国文学史似乎正是一位日本批评家所写。中国的士大夫传统延续千年，影响尤在，虽然可能也在逐渐消退。如今，在与西方文学长达一个世纪之久的交流之后，中国的男性和女性作家们都能自豪地以小说家的身份展现自己了。

诺贝尔文学奖背后的标准

西方之外的种种文化，往往以诗歌为理解文学的基础。而在西方，亚里士多德的深远影响使得“摹仿”（mimesis）成为理解何为文学的关键，致使诸如戏剧、叙事诗这样的类型也被纳入到文学之中。西方的文学观念由十九世纪初的德国浪漫派最终塑造成形，诺贝尔文学奖总的说来是以这种文学观念为基础的。不过，有了章程中的那段补充文字，更古老的文学定义的遗风余韵，还能在诺贝尔奖的规则中占据一席之地。关于如何理解文学的那句话被引申过五次，有两次是为了授奖给哲学家，三次是为了授奖给历史学家，柏格森和丘吉尔分别是其中最著名的代表。这种好古倾向似乎颇有预示性，因为在当前的文化气候中，诗歌和虚构作品的地位相对来说正在衰退，而报告文学、游记文学、目击者实录、自传和散文，似乎正在文学领域内占据日益重要的位置。

很难说阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔当时觉得应以怎样的标准来判定作品的文学价值，并作为诺贝尔文学奖的评选依据。遗嘱中，他仅仅说奖项应该授予 “在文学领域创作出具有理想主义倾向的最杰出作品的人”。关于“理想主义倾向”，诺贝尔指的是什么，还没有人能进行无可争议的解读。

当现代主义在西方文学或至少是在文学批评领域内大获成功的时候，人们批评瑞典学院支持过时的理想，对当代文学的真正创新视而不见。然而瑞典学院的院士们相信，如果获奖作家的作品不具有广泛的感染力，那是不符合诺贝尔的遗嘱精神的。自一九四七年来，诺贝尔文学奖颁给了一些 “现代主义的伟大先驱者”，例如纪德、T.S.艾略特和福克纳，瑞典学院舍弃了原先对精英主义的抵触，向知识分子的见解靠近。在其后的获奖者名单中，你既能发现特立独行、只为少数幸运者写作的大师，也会看到享有世界声誉、拥有广泛读者群的作家。

迈向世界文学

当下对世界文学的探讨中，“中心”与 “边缘”的概念起着突出作用。诺贝尔文学奖常被视作西方文化圈核心地带文学取向的体现。然而与诺贝尔文学奖相关的工作使我们看到，文学系统绝非一个统一、集中的整体。每个民族都有自己的世界文学概念，没有所谓的中立区域，也不存在一种为所有人共享的跨国界视野。要使全世界文学创作的潮流汇聚一处，形成一种统一的大文学，看起来是不可能的。

参与评选诺贝尔文学奖，促使我们形成另一种世界文学的概念。这一概念并不指代全世界现有的全部文学作品，而是意味着一种语境，我们希望把获奖的作品带入这个语境。世界文学意味着一个逐渐成形的共同体，翻译就是它的通用语言。全世界的各民族文学将日益紧密地联结在一起，并相互发生作用。这一进程中，诺贝尔奖文学无疑是一剂催化剂。

The Nobel Prize in literature is one out of five great awards instituted by the Swedish inventor and industrialist Alfred Nobel and distributed yearly since 1901.Three of the other prizes are given for scientific achievements and one for contributions to the struggle for peace in the world.The literature prize is generally considered to be the finest distinction that can be conferred on an author.The welcome news that the Chinese publishing houseYilin will put out a series of books by Nobel laureates is a further confirmation of its importance.

Is the writing of the Nobel Prize winners different from that of other good writers？ Sound scepticism answers：why should it be？ In what way would a book be altered because its author has a new entry in his CV？But since a literary oeuvre consists not only in a body of texts but also in the mental preconditions for their reading，something undeniably changes as a result of the award.

Ivan Bunin，the Russian émigré writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933，described in his diary how after receiving the celebrated telephone call from Stockholm he was assailed by a counter-reaction，an instinctive suspicion.Walking home to his little house in Grasse，Provence，he began to have doubts and to believe it was all self-suggestion.But on approaching the house，at that time of day normally nestling dark in deserted olive groves，he saw lights in every window and was brought back to reality.Everyone was there，waiting to congratulate him， and “〔a〕 quiet sorrow settled on my heart，” he writes.He understood that his life was forever changed and his previous existence unattainable.It was the same for his writing.From that moment on，his work would be regarded as belonging to an elite order and ranked accordingly，whatever one might think of the order itself.His books still risked not being read but Bunin no longer risked being forgotten.The Nobel lamp would forever burn in the window of his authorship，like a quiet welcome.

Because of the attention that the literature prize attracts across the world and because of its prestige，the Nobel laureates have inevitably come to be seen as forming a kind of canon，which has provoked the critical reproach that many of the twentieth century’s greatest writers are missing from the list，that it includes too few women，too few non-Europeans and too many mediocrities.I believe that the Academy members who commenced work in that first Nobel Committee of 1901 would have been terrified had they realized what they were about to set in train.Certainly in those first few years no one thought of the prize as a means to define a canon.Nor was the concept of a canon applied to contemporary literature.Alfred Nobel’s will talks of rewarding a literary work published in the previous year and obviously refers to a single book， not a body of writing.The donor clearly intended the literature prize to act in the present rather than to crown masters for all time.But the Swedish Academy exploited the wording of the of the Nobel Foundation’s statutes， stating that the phrase “during the preceding year” should be understood principally as a demand for the continued viability of a work；older works may therefore be rewarded， but“only if their significance has not become apparent until recently.”（Statutes of the Nobel Foundation，§ 2.） As things turned out，it immediately became a principle to consider the writing of a lifetime rather than an individual work.From the Academy’s point of view，this was wise.Carrying out Alfred Nobel’s orders to the letter would have greatly diminished the importance of the prize.

If canonization，then，was not the purpose of the prize，it was nevertheless apparent that the donor wanted it to have international reach.Literary prizes are generally limited to a single country or language.Why did Alfred Nobel bequeath to the Swedish Academy the daunting task of choosing prize-winners from the literature of the entire world?Nobel was a cosmopolitan with business interests in many countries.He spoke and corresponded in five languages.He is known to have said：“My country is where I work， and I work everywhere.”But this is only half an explanation.Nobel’s idea of literature was founded on a particular intellectual tradition.When working on his last will，Nobel was clearly under the influence of the famous passage from Goethe’s conversations with Eckermann where the term “Weltliteratur” appeared for the first time.The quotation goes as follows：“Nationalliteratur will jetzt nicht viel sagen，die Epoche der Weltliteratur ist an der Zeit， und jeder muss jetzt dazu wirken，diese epoche zu beschleunigen” （National literature has no great meaning today；the time has come for world literature，and each and every one of us should work to hasten the day）.

In his will，Nobel declared that it was his“express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatsoever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates.” （Statues of the Nobel Foundation， § 1.） The prize is intended as an award for individual achievements and is not given to writers as representatives of nations or languages nor of any social or ethnic group or gender.There is nothing in the will about striving for a“just”distribution of the prize，whatever that could be.Such an aim would clearly contradict the donor’s philosophy.What was vital for him was that the prize-winning author should have contributed to humanity’s improvement （“conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”），not that the prize should flatter the self-esteem of one or other human herd.

The deficiency of a strictly nation-based concept of literature is evident from a mere glance at the list of prize-winners from 1901 to the present day.For several of the winners，exile，whether internal or external，has been the inescapable condition of their work.The reading public and literary opinion-makers in their home countries have often preferred other writers to those selected by the A-cademy.In authoritarian or strongly traditional societies laureates have often been perceived as out-siders or dissidents.

Great authors are quite often nomadic beings，hard to classify ethnically or linguistically.It is striking how many prize-winners，especially in recent years，have had uncertain or problematic nationalities.Beckett was an Irishman who wrote in French，Canetti a British subject of Jewish origin from Bulgaria whose literary language was German.The Brodsky who won the prize no longer called himself Iosif but Joseph and was bilingual as a poet.Nelly Sachs belongs to German literature but not to Germany-nor to Sweden，where she spent most of her life.Singer was anchored in Yiddish and in English，and his imaginative recreation of the vanished Jewish culture of Eastern Europe presupposed the distance of a foreign shore and a modern，secular society.

When Naipaul was given the prize in 2001，the British foreign service at first refused to accept that the award had gone to Great Britain.Congratulations were extended to Trinidad!But at the time Naipaul was born on that island，it was still part of the British empire and Naipaul，who moved to England early in life，has never been anything but a British subject，in recent times even knighted by the Queen.Despite this，the British ambassador in Stockholm only reluctantly and belatedly accepted this intensely English writer as a compatriot.Likewise，the Chinese government in 2000 announced that Gao Xingjian was not a Chinese writer and congratulated France on the prize.

Going further back in the list of literature laureates，one finds the above-quoted Ivan Bunin，a stateless refugee with a Nansen passport.It has been my experience as a permanent secretary，when looking at the reactions to the announcement of the prize，that the hostile comments usually come from the writer’s own country.Great authors are a great annoyance.

The Birth of Literature

Nobel’s will and the statutes of the Nobel Foundation assume that the meaning of the word‘literature’ is commonly known and uncontroversial.The only explanation comes in a supplementary paragraph not found in the will，stating that the term “literature”shall comprise “not only belles-lettres but also other writings which，by virtue of their form and style，possess literary value.” （Statutes of the Nobel Foundation， The term belles-lettres （“schöne Literatur”） was coined by August Wilhelms Schlegel to describe texts created with an artistic intention as opposed to writing with a practical or theoretical aim.Thus the Nobel process employs an approximately two-hundredyear-old concept of literature that has only fairly recently been adopted outside the cultural sphere of Europe， even though today it seems to have achieved currency in most parts of the world.The concept is nonetheless neither obvious nor very ancient.

Older definitions of literature often focus on written documents having the character of“utterances answering to high standards，”that is， literary monuments of a canonical character.These are texts of normative content and exemplary style，not “imaginative literature” as we understand it.Thus，for example， poetry in the language of the Koran in Arab countries is still in part a demonstration of the ability to use literary Arabic（arabía），a language no one speaks as a mother tongue.

According to authorities on the subject，the Arabic concept adab carries much the same sense as eighteenth-century French literature：learning and good breeding.The current Japanese concept of literature came into being in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.At the time，Genji monogatari，for example，was elevated to the status of a literary masterpiece.The generic word bun-gaku came into existence earlier but had another meaning.During the Meji period （1868-1912）， it was reinterpreted on the model of Germany’s“Nationallitteratur.” Previously，what were known in Europe as literary genres had been bundled together with calligraphy，painting，tea ceremonies，the shamisen and so on as yugei（leisure activities），the antithesis of bugei （the arts of war）.It should not be forgotten that there was a time when similar classifications were accepted in our part of the world.I am thinking，for example，of the passage about pyrotechnics in the discussion of the fine arts in Claude Perrault’s Parallèle des anciens et des modernes （1688）.We once used to call the arts“embellishments to life.”

A concept of literature that encompassed prose fiction appeared in Europe as late as the 1700-1800s，against some resistance.In other parts of the world，opposition was greater and more successful.Traditional Chinese poetic theory condemned fiction （Kaikkonen 39）.A sharp distinction was made between books intended for the educated elite and books intended for the masses.Chinese wenxue encompassed poetry and scholarly essayism，which was associated with reflection and considered to be based on real experience.Fiction，on the other hand，was a lower category.The classification has a misogynist undertone.Folkloric sagas of the kind recounted by old women were especially despised.It would take a considerable time before it became possible to produce a coherent account of what we call the history of Chinese literature.The first was apparently written by a Japanese critic.The Mandarin class，China’s literati，existed for a thousand years and the influence of that tradition is still tangible，though perhaps waning.Today，after a century of exchange with Western literature，Chinese writers of both sexes are proud to present themselves as novelists.

Criteria Behind the Nobel Prize in Literature

Cultures other than the Western have generally based their understanding of literature on poetry.In the West，however，Aristotle’s influence meant that the idea of mimesis became decisive for the understanding of what was literary，which led to the inclusion of other genres such as drama and narrative poetry.The Nobel Prize for literature basically rests on the Western concept of literature that was given its final shape by the German romanticists of the early 19th century.But thanks to the paragraph in the Nobel Statutes allowing nonfiction writing of literary value to be considered for the award，a relic of an older definition is preserved in the regulations.This clause has been exploited five times，twice for philosophers and three times for historians，of whom Bergson and Churchill respectively are the best known.This archaism may yet prove to be prophetic in a climate where the position of poetry and fiction is in relative decline and reportage， travel writing， witness accounts，autobiography and the essay seem to be gaining importance in the field of literature.

It is harder to tell what criteria of literary quality Alfred Nobel thought should guide the choices of the prize-givers.All he says in the words of the will is that the prize should go to“the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.”No one has been able to establish indisputably what Nobel meant by “ideal direction.”

When modernism triumphed in Western literature or at least in literary criticsm，the Swedish Academy came under attack for upholding outdated ideals and for being blind to the true innovators of contemporary literature.The members of the Academy，however， did not believe that it was compatible with the spirit of Alfred Nobel’s will to award writers whose work did not have a broad appeal.In awarding， from 1947 and on， the “great precursors” of modernism， authors such as Gide，T.S.Eliot，and Faulkner，the Academy abandoned its resistance to elitism and moved closer to the opinion of the intellectuals.In the list of laureates of later years you will find both exclusive masters，who write for the happy few and on the other hand writers with a large and world-wide readership.

Toward a World Literature

In the current discussion of world literature，the idea of a centre and a periphery plays a prominent role.The Nobel Prize is generally seen as an expression of literary values characteristic of the nucleus of the Western cultural sphere.

But from the viewpoint granted by working with the Nobel Prize，the literary system appears far from unified and centralized.Every nation seems to have its own idea of world literature.There is no neutral ground or transnational vision shared by all.It seems improbable that the major strands of literary creativity in the world should ever unite into a global and unified mega-literature.

Taking part in the act of choosing Nobel laureates encourages a different idea of“world literature”.Rather than designating the bulk of literary works existing world-wide，it comes to signify a context into which we hope to bring the winning oeuvre：a community-in-progress，with translation as its universal language.Gradually，the national literatures of the world are tied together and made to act upon one another.In this process，the Nobel Prize no doubt serves as a catalyst.