諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)與世界文學(xué)的概念①

〔瑞典〕賀拉斯·恩達(dá)爾 著 武夢(mèng)如 譯

諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)設(shè)于一九〇一年，逐年頒發(fā)，是瑞典發(fā)明家、實(shí)業(yè)家阿爾弗雷德·諾貝爾所創(chuàng)立的五大獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)之一。諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)還有三個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)用來獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)科學(xué)研究方面的成就，一個(gè)是為了表彰為爭(zhēng)取世界和平所做貢獻(xiàn)的人或組織。一般認(rèn)為，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)是一個(gè)作家能被授予的最高榮譽(yù)。中國(guó)的譯林出版社即將出版一套諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲得者作品叢書，這是一則令人欣喜的消息，也進(jìn)一步證明了諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的重要性。

諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲得者的寫作，與其他優(yōu)秀作家相比，有何殊異之處？一種合理的懷疑是：為什么該有殊異之處呢？作家的履歷表上增添一個(gè)條目，一本書于是就改變了面目嗎？以何種方式改變了呢？然而，一位作家的作品不僅僅是一整套文本而已，還包含了閱讀這些文本的精神前提，因此，一旦作家獲獎(jiǎng)，某些東西也就無可否認(rèn)地隨之改變了。

俄國(guó)流亡作家伊凡·蒲寧一九三三年獲得了諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。他曾在日記中記述，接到從斯德哥爾摩打來的電話以后，他如何被一種心理反作用所困擾，本能地感到懷疑。他走回普羅旺斯格拉斯小鎮(zhèn)上他的小小居所，途中開始感到了疑惑，相信這一切都只是自我暗示的假象。快到家的時(shí)候，天色向晚，荒寂的橄欖樹林中暮色漸濃，他看見了每一扇窗里點(diǎn)亮的燈火，被帶回到現(xiàn)實(shí)中來。人們都在那里，等著向他祝賀?！办o靜的憂傷停落在我心上”，他寫道。他恍然明白他的生活永遠(yuǎn)改變了，再也不會(huì)回到原來的樣子。他的寫作也是如此。從那一刻起，他的作品將被視為屬于精英文學(xué)，依此被劃定等級(jí)，無論人們對(duì)于精英文學(xué)本身持什么樣的看法。他寫的書仍然可能不被閱讀，但作家蒲寧不再有可能被遺忘。從此以后，諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的明燈將永遠(yuǎn)在他寫作生涯的窗口閃耀，仿若在靜靜地迎候。

由于諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)為全世界所矚目，由于它享有如此高的聲望，諾獎(jiǎng)獲得者的作品不免被認(rèn)為構(gòu)成了一類經(jīng)典。這就引起了不少批評(píng)指責(zé)，例如，二十世紀(jì)最偉大的作家們有許多并不在獲獎(jiǎng)之列，獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)咧信蕴?，歐洲之外的作家太少，而平庸之輩太多。我相信，于一九〇一年開始第一屆諾貝爾委員會(huì)工作的瑞典學(xué)院成員們，如果意識(shí)到他們將為后世帶來什么，一定會(huì)感到惶恐。自然，在諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)初創(chuàng)立的那些年頭，沒有人把這個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)視作定義經(jīng)典的手段?！敖?jīng)典”的概念也并不適用于當(dāng)時(shí)的文學(xué)。阿爾弗雷德·諾貝爾在遺囑中說明，獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)將頒發(fā)給前一年出版的一部作品，很顯然這指的是單一的一部作品，而不是一整套著作。很顯然，這位捐贈(zèng)人希望諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)在當(dāng)代發(fā)生作用，而不是為從古到今的大師加冠加冕。不過瑞典學(xué)院對(duì)諾貝爾基金會(huì)章程的用詞加以引申，認(rèn)為“前一年”原則上應(yīng)理解為對(duì)作品持久生命力的要求，因此，更早的作品也可以獲獎(jiǎng)，但“只有當(dāng)它們的重要性剛剛開始顯現(xiàn)”（《諾貝爾基金會(huì)章程》第二節(jié)）方才可以。這樣一來，考量一個(gè)作家畢生的全部作品而非一部單一的作品，就成為了諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的一項(xiàng)原則。從瑞典學(xué)院的角度來看這是十分明智的，如果嚴(yán)格遵照阿爾弗雷德·諾貝爾的遺囑來做的話，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的重要性就會(huì)大打折扣了。

如果說諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的初衷不在于樹立經(jīng)典，當(dāng)初它的捐贈(zèng)者仍然希望它能具有某種國(guó)際影響力。一般來說，文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)往往局限于一國(guó)或一種語言，但為何阿爾弗雷德·諾貝爾把如此艱巨的任務(wù)交給瑞典學(xué)院，令其在全世界的文學(xué)中挑選勝出者？諾貝爾是一位世界主義者，在許多國(guó)家都有生意往來。他能用五種語言交談、通信。他說過一句有名的話：“我的祖國(guó)是我工作的地方，而我在任何地方工作?！钡@些都只是答案的一部分。諾貝爾的文學(xué)觀是建立在一種特殊的思想傳統(tǒng)之上的。他在著手撰寫最后一份遺囑時(shí)，很顯然深深地受到歌德與愛克曼對(duì)談中那一著名段落的影響——在那段話中首次出現(xiàn)了“世界文學(xué)”（Weltliteratur）這一術(shù)語：“民族文學(xué)如今已經(jīng)不那么重要，世界文學(xué)的時(shí)代快要來臨了，我們每個(gè)人都應(yīng)該努力讓它盡快到來?！?/p>

諾貝爾在遺囑中聲明，他 “懷著明確的愿望，希望評(píng)獎(jiǎng)的時(shí)候不要摻雜任何有關(guān)候選人國(guó)籍的考慮”（《諾貝爾基金會(huì)章程》第一節(jié)）。這一獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)是為了獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)個(gè)人的成就，而不是把作家當(dāng)作國(guó)家或語言、社會(huì)或種族的代表，也不是作為某一性別的代表。遺囑中不涉及任何關(guān)于“公平地”分配獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的說法，不管是何種意義上的公平，這種取向顯然都是與捐贈(zèng)者的理念相悖的。對(duì)他來說，至關(guān)重要的是獲獎(jiǎng)作家為人類進(jìn)步作出了貢獻(xiàn) （“給人類帶來了最大的益處”），而不在于獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)能取悅這一群或那一群人的自尊心。

純以國(guó)別來劃分文學(xué)，缺陷會(huì)是顯而易見的，這只要看看一九〇一年至今的獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)呙麊尉颓宄?。?duì)其中一些作家來說，流亡，不管是境內(nèi)還是境外的流亡，是他們的寫作無可逃脫的境況。他們祖國(guó)的讀者大眾以及文學(xué)見解制造者們往往更偏愛其他作家，而不是瑞典學(xué)院選中的這些作家。在獨(dú)裁的或非常傳統(tǒng)的社會(huì)中，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲得者常被看作局外人或是異見分子。

偉大的作家往往是流浪者，很難用種族或語言把他們歸類。引人注意的是，尤其是近些年來，如此之多的獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)叨紦碛心：蛴幸闪x的國(guó)籍歸屬。貝克特是用法語寫作的愛爾蘭人。卡內(nèi)蒂是猶太裔英國(guó)人，來自保加利亞，他的文學(xué)語言是德語。獲得諾獎(jiǎng)的布羅茨基不再用俄語的“約瑟夫”稱呼自己，而改用英語，他是一位用雙語寫作的詩人。奈莉·薩克斯屬于德語文學(xué)，卻不屬于德國(guó)，也不屬于瑞典，盡管她在瑞典度過了一生中大部分的時(shí)光。辛格鎖定意第緒語和英語進(jìn)行寫作，他對(duì)消逝了的東歐猶太文化所進(jìn)行的想象重建，正需要以異國(guó)他鄉(xiāng)的體驗(yàn)以及一個(gè)現(xiàn)代世俗社會(huì)所提供的距離感為前提。

二〇〇一年奈保爾獲得諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)，英國(guó)外事人員起初拒絕承認(rèn)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)頒給了英國(guó)作家。賀信于是發(fā)至了特立尼達(dá)！但奈保爾在特立尼達(dá)出生時(shí)，這個(gè)島還是大英帝國(guó)的一部分，他也很早就移居到了英國(guó)。他從來都只是英國(guó)公民，最近他甚至還被英國(guó)女王封為了爵士。盡管如此，斯德哥爾摩的英國(guó)大使還是不情不愿又磨磨蹭蹭，最后才接納這位極其英式的作家為同胞。

再回到獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)呙麊蔚那懊?，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)上文提到的伊凡·蒲寧是一個(gè)沒有國(guó)家的流亡者，持南森護(hù)照。①南森護(hù)照是一種被國(guó)際承認(rèn)的身份證，由國(guó)際聯(lián)盟首推，當(dāng)時(shí)是為無國(guó)籍的難民而設(shè)。我作為常務(wù)秘書深有體會(huì)：觀察頒獎(jiǎng)之后各界的反應(yīng)，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)帶有敵意的評(píng)論往往來自作家的祖國(guó)。偉大的作家是很惹人厭的。

文學(xué)的誕生

諾貝爾的遺囑和諾貝爾基金會(huì)的章程都假定“文學(xué)”這個(gè)詞的含義是眾所周知而毫無爭(zhēng)議的。章程中僅有的一段補(bǔ)充說明并不見于諾貝爾的遺囑，它聲明此處的文學(xué)一詞“不僅指純文學(xué)，還應(yīng)包括因其形式和風(fēng)格而具有文學(xué)價(jià)值的其他作品”。其中“純文學(xué)”一詞是由奧古斯特·威廉·施萊格爾發(fā)明的，描述一類出于藝術(shù)的意圖而非實(shí)用或理論目的而寫出的作品。可見，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的評(píng)選采用的是一種約有兩百年之久的文學(xué)觀念，在今天它似乎已通行于世界大部分地區(qū)，但在當(dāng)時(shí)它才剛剛被歐洲文化圈之外的世界所了解和接受。這一文學(xué)觀念并不是不言自明的，也并不如何古老。

“文學(xué)”較早的定義往往著眼于一類“符合高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的書面寫作，亦即具有經(jīng)典品質(zhì)的文學(xué)紀(jì)念碑。這些文本具有典范性的內(nèi)容和風(fēng)格，并非我們現(xiàn)在所理解的“想象性文學(xué)”。例如，在今天的阿拉伯國(guó)家，古典阿拉伯語已經(jīng)不再是任何人的母語了，但用古蘭經(jīng)的文辭寫成的詩歌仍然體現(xiàn)著對(duì)古老語言的良好掌握。

根據(jù)這一問題的權(quán)威意見，阿拉伯語中的“文學(xué)”頗類似于十八世紀(jì)法語中的“文學(xué)”：意為學(xué)問和良好的教養(yǎng)?，F(xiàn)今日語中的文學(xué)概念產(chǎn)生于十九世紀(jì)末二十世紀(jì)初。當(dāng)時(shí)，《源氏物語》這樣的作品被提升到了偉大杰作的地位。日語中原有的“文學(xué)”一詞更早產(chǎn)生，涵義不同；后來在明治時(shí)代（一八六八-一九一二），日本人以德國(guó)“民族文學(xué)”（Nationalliteratur）概念為模型，重新理解了這一詞匯。歐洲人所理解的文學(xué)類型（literary genres），原先在日本是與其他活動(dòng)牢牢結(jié)合在一起的：書法、繪畫、茶道、三味線，②三味線，日本傳統(tǒng)弦樂器。等等，這些都屬于日語中的“游藝”，是相對(duì)“武藝”而言的。③日文的“游藝”（蕓）一詞意為閑暇時(shí)的藝術(shù)活動(dòng)，與之相對(duì)地，“武藝”（武蕓）意為武術(shù)、武功。我們不應(yīng)忘記，類似的劃分在西方世界也曾有過。比如我想到克勞德·佩羅在《古今之相似》（一六八八）中對(duì)美術(shù)的討論，其中有一個(gè)關(guān)于煙火制造的段落。曾幾何時(shí)，我們是把藝術(shù)稱作“人生的裝飾”的。

直到約一七〇〇-一八〇〇年間，一種涵蓋了散文體虛構(gòu)作品的文學(xué)概念，才在歐洲突破阻力而出現(xiàn)。在世界其他地區(qū)，阻力更大，更占上風(fēng)。中國(guó)古典詩學(xué)理論是鄙棄虛構(gòu)作品的，給受過良好教育的精英看的書和給大眾看的書迥然不同。漢語中的“文學(xué)”涵蓋了詩歌和學(xué)者散文，與深思自省相關(guān)，被認(rèn)為是建立在真實(shí)經(jīng)歷的基礎(chǔ)之上。虛構(gòu)作品則屬于一個(gè)較低的類別。這一劃分似乎帶有一種嫌惡女性的弦外之音，老太太所講的民間傳奇故事是尤其受到輕視的。要待很久以后，寫一部連貫的中國(guó)文學(xué)史才成為可能。第一部中國(guó)文學(xué)史似乎正是一位日本批評(píng)家所寫。中國(guó)的士大夫傳統(tǒng)延續(xù)千年，影響尤在，雖然可能也在逐漸消退。如今，在與西方文學(xué)長(zhǎng)達(dá)一個(gè)世紀(jì)之久的交流之后，中國(guó)的男性和女性作家們都能自豪地以小說家的身份展現(xiàn)自己了。

諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)背后的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

西方之外的種種文化，往往以詩歌為理解文學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)。而在西方，亞里士多德的深遠(yuǎn)影響使得“摹仿”（mimesis）成為理解何為文學(xué)的關(guān)鍵，致使諸如戲劇、敘事詩這樣的類型也被納入到文學(xué)之中。西方的文學(xué)觀念由十九世紀(jì)初的德國(guó)浪漫派最終塑造成形，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)總的說來是以這種文學(xué)觀念為基礎(chǔ)的。不過，有了章程中的那段補(bǔ)充文字，更古老的文學(xué)定義的遺風(fēng)余韻，還能在諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的規(guī)則中占據(jù)一席之地。關(guān)于如何理解文學(xué)的那句話被引申過五次，有兩次是為了授獎(jiǎng)給哲學(xué)家，三次是為了授獎(jiǎng)給歷史學(xué)家，柏格森和丘吉爾分別是其中最著名的代表。這種好古傾向似乎頗有預(yù)示性，因?yàn)樵诋?dāng)前的文化氣候中，詩歌和虛構(gòu)作品的地位相對(duì)來說正在衰退，而報(bào)告文學(xué)、游記文學(xué)、目擊者實(shí)錄、自傳和散文，似乎正在文學(xué)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)占據(jù)日益重要的位置。

很難說阿爾弗雷德·諾貝爾當(dāng)時(shí)覺得應(yīng)以怎樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來判定作品的文學(xué)價(jià)值，并作為諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的評(píng)選依據(jù)。遺囑中，他僅僅說獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)應(yīng)該授予 “在文學(xué)領(lǐng)域創(chuàng)作出具有理想主義傾向的最杰出作品的人”。關(guān)于“理想主義傾向”，諾貝爾指的是什么，還沒有人能進(jìn)行無可爭(zhēng)議的解讀。

當(dāng)現(xiàn)代主義在西方文學(xué)或至少是在文學(xué)批評(píng)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)大獲成功的時(shí)候，人們批評(píng)瑞典學(xué)院支持過時(shí)的理想，對(duì)當(dāng)代文學(xué)的真正創(chuàng)新視而不見。然而瑞典學(xué)院的院士們相信，如果獲獎(jiǎng)作家的作品不具有廣泛的感染力，那是不符合諾貝爾的遺囑精神的。自一九四七年來，諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)?lì)C給了一些 “現(xiàn)代主義的偉大先驅(qū)者”，例如紀(jì)德、T.S.艾略特和?？思{，瑞典學(xué)院舍棄了原先對(duì)精英主義的抵觸，向知識(shí)分子的見解靠近。在其后的獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)呙麊沃?，你既能發(fā)現(xiàn)特立獨(dú)行、只為少數(shù)幸運(yùn)者寫作的大師，也會(huì)看到享有世界聲譽(yù)、擁有廣泛讀者群的作家。

邁向世界文學(xué)

當(dāng)下對(duì)世界文學(xué)的探討中，“中心”與 “邊緣”的概念起著突出作用。諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)常被視作西方文化圈核心地帶文學(xué)取向的體現(xiàn)。然而與諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)相關(guān)的工作使我們看到，文學(xué)系統(tǒng)絕非一個(gè)統(tǒng)一、集中的整體。每個(gè)民族都有自己的世界文學(xué)概念，沒有所謂的中立區(qū)域，也不存在一種為所有人共享的跨國(guó)界視野。要使全世界文學(xué)創(chuàng)作的潮流匯聚一處，形成一種統(tǒng)一的大文學(xué)，看起來是不可能的。

參與評(píng)選諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)，促使我們形成另一種世界文學(xué)的概念。這一概念并不指代全世界現(xiàn)有的全部文學(xué)作品，而是意味著一種語境，我們希望把獲獎(jiǎng)的作品帶入這個(gè)語境。世界文學(xué)意味著一個(gè)逐漸成形的共同體，翻譯就是它的通用語言。全世界的各民族文學(xué)將日益緊密地聯(lián)結(jié)在一起，并相互發(fā)生作用。這一進(jìn)程中，諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)文學(xué)無疑是一劑催化劑。

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 “l(fā)iterature”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 （“sch?ne 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.