This is a basic proposition of the relationship between China literature and Taoism. Although all parties have different understandings of the meaning of Tao, including the way of nature, the way of ethics and the way of practice, and also have different expressions on the relationship between literature and Tao, such as macro-Tao, patriarchal clan, channel, carrying Tao, etc., literature is regarded as "Tao" "Writing with Tao" and "writing with Tao" are his most influential and representative expositions. In the Tang Dynasty, Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan advocated "thinking of literature", and clearly put forward "revising its words to make its way clear" [1] and "thinking of literature" [2]. Zhou Dunyi, a Neo-Confucianist in the Song Dynasty, put forward the theory of "writing carries Tao" in his "Shu Tong's literary works". Song Lian and Fang Xiaoru in the Ming Dynasty, Zhang Xuecheng, Ye Xie and Tongcheng School in the Qing Dynasty all held the concept of "writing carries Tao". During the May 4th Movement, the new literature began to comprehensively reevaluate the tradition, establish new literary concepts, guide literary creation, and reflect and criticize the concept of "literature carries Tao".

1. Revaluation: Criticism of Writing for Tao

The new literary revolution has undergone profound changes in thought and style. However, in recent years, there has been an academic tendency to deconstruct the May 4th Movement. They traced their roots to the consequences and pushed the source of left-leaning radicalism and nihilism to it, thus denying the positive value of the May 4th New Culture and the New Literature Revolution. Or extend the starting point of new culture and new literature to the late Qing Dynasty, so as to deconstruct the revolutionary significance of the May 4th New Culture and New Literature. Judging from the overall reconstruction of the concept of new literature, the May 4th Movement is the historical starting point of the emergence of new literature.

The emergence of the new literature movement and the establishment of the new literature view are based on the re-evaluation of the value of traditional literature, so the cleaning and reflection of the traditional literature view has become an important content, and "writing to carry the Tao" has also become the first focus of its criticism. "The new literature movement began with the victory of overthrowing the old tradition of' writing carries Tao'" [3]. Hu Shi's literature improved the proposition of "eight things", the first of which is "there are things in words", and at the same time, it is specially stated that the "things" here are "not what the ancients said. What he said "things" are emotions and thoughts, which is what the ancients called "quality" [4]. Chen Duxiu advocated the new literature revolution, and put forward the "three principles" of building new literature, such as "national literature", "realistic literature" and "social literature", and made it clear that it was different from the traditional concept of "literature carries Tao". Chen Duxiu believes that although Han Yu "changed the law of the Eight Dynasties. Before the Song and Yuan Dynasties, he was a literary hero, but he was mistaken for the fallacy that "literature is not designed to carry Tao", because "literature was originally designed to carry what Zeng Guofan called Tao since Changli, and it was just a superficial and vague facade language copied from Confucius and Mencius. I often say that the so-called "writing carries the Tao" by the eight masters in the Tang and Song Dynasties is directly related to the so-called "generation of sages" of stereotyped writing, and it is vented in the same nostril [5]. It is equivalent to "generation of sages." The words of sages cannot be changed and shaken in traditional society. " Writing is not only a means and tool of Tao, but also a handmaiden of Tao. Thus, since Han Yu, almost all the advocates of new literature have pointed their criticism at the concept of "writing carries Tao", thus forming a discourse alliance against the concept of "writing carries Tao". Liu Bannong put forward his own view of literary improvement, aiming at conveying the Tao in words, but he was different from Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu. If Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu mainly criticized Tao's content, Liu Bannong dismantled the relationship between them from the text. He believes: "Tao is Tao, and text is text. The two are hard to talk about. "If stereotyped writers regard the Four Books and Five Classics as a treasure house, eat Confucius and Mencius alive and pile them on paper as" texts ",why not let them out?" In fact, the Book of Songs, which is regarded as one of the Five Classics, does not have a "veritable' literary' person. Therefore, "its argument is unreasonable and overreached" [6]. Therefore, he put forward the theory of separation of literature and Taoism, which excluded the traditional "literature" containing Taoism from the real "literature" In his view, China literature did not form the relationship of literature and Taoism, but the fallacy of Taoist fiction. This is a more thorough and revolutionary view than Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu. Once the relationship between "Wen" and "Tao" is deconstructed, it provides the possibility for the independence of "Wen", thus restoring the true value of China literature. Zhou Zuoren is also a member of this alliance. He believes: "Since Han Yu was good at preaching orthodoxy in his articles, it has become an old problem that Taoism can never get rid of. Although the slogan "Moon Jae in Dao" was put forward by talents in the Song Dynasty, he just inherited Han Yu's system "[7]. Zhou Zuoren took "writing the Tao" as his slogan. It should be said that the theory of "Wen Dao" became the mainstream concept in China literature after the Tang and Song Dynasties. From the ancient prose movement in the Tang and Song Dynasties and the retro movement in the Ming Dynasty to the ancient prose writers and Tongcheng School in the Qing Dynasty, although ancient prose writers, Taoists and writers have different understandings and views on the connotation and relationship of Wen Dao, it is the most profound and extensive literary concept in the history of China literature, and China literature also has a "Tao" that embodies Taoist thought, as Zhou Zuoren said.

The new literature's criticism of the concept of literature carrying Tao aims at criticizing the feudal thought in traditional literature, that is, the feudal "Tao" contained in literature, so that literature can get rid of the shackles of feudal orthodoxy and get real liberation. In this respect, Mao Dun is the most persistent and thoughtful person. With the help of his own literary criticism, he discussed the essence of literature, the identity of a writer and the skills of literary creation. He believes that China's literature "carries Tao" and "abandons real literature and regards non-literature with heavy significance as literary works; Therefore, previous scholars often regarded classics and historical subsets as literature, which really covered up our literature in China. It doesn't matter if the definition of literature is narrowed, but the scope of literature is narrowed. If we enlarge the definition of literature and treat all non-literature as literature, then not only the real literature will be buried, but also people will not understand the true meaning of literature, which will cause great harm. " [8]. Criticizing literature is to redefine literature, redefine the boundaries of literature, and eliminate non-literature, so that literature becomes "literature" and is not restricted by non-literature. As for what is literature? Mao Dun's answers are "image" and "aesthetics", "a constantly new and extremely active image born in our consciousness; The aesthetic concept that our consciousness plays in adjusting and sorting out everything "[9]. This should be Mao Dun's literary definition. Whether it is the "image" active in consciousness or the "aesthetics" generated from it, it is a rebellion and transcendence of "carrying Tao".

Tao has a long history and extensive influence in China. There are Taoist words in orthodox poems, and miscellaneous notes are not immune. "Just open any writer's collection, and you can always see words with the taste of' writing to carry the Tao'. It is rare that there are several literary works that do not attack officialdom novels, and it is rare that there are several words that do not aim at' making things up'. Therefore, the idea of loyalty to the monarch and patriotism and not forgetting the world must be placed on Fu. When you write a poem, you should also have the principle of punishing the world and not forgetting the sacred words in the poem. When writing a novel, you have to add the title of encouraging good and punishing evil; Even if the author doesn't say it himself, the audience will definitely give him this beautiful name. In a word, they all think that the article is written for something. The article is to publicize the road for the sages. The article is to praise the sages and sages. The article is to distinguish between good men and evil women. " [10] Obviously, Mao Dun's understanding of the way literature exists and its harm is much deeper than that of others in the same period. He also reflects on the influence of literature on literature from the artistic method, and thinks that this is a "toxic" literary concept. A novelist poisoned by literature will "abandon real life without observing and describing, but only know." It has not only become the value norm of China literature, but also a creative method. It is no different from the theme supremacy that people say today, and its negative value is exposed completely. Mao Dun further thought about the way of life of literary writers under the concept of "literature carries Tao", and thought that "literature has long lost its independent qualification and is recognized as an accessory". In the long run, "accessory embellishment is the identity of an uninvited writer in China" [12]. In this way, from the author to the works, from the creative methods to the artistic techniques, there are constraints and influences on literature, and China literature has become an educational tool and accessory lacking independent value and free identity. Then, the criticism of the new literature on "writing the Tao" is to open up a new road for the new literature, strive for the social status of literature, and re-establish the concept and value of the new literature.

Ye Shengtao, who is also a member of the Literature Research Association with Mao Dun, also has a similar view of using literature to carry Tao. He believes that literature is a dreamless dream of China literature. "China people's view of literature is fallacious: they regard literature as a toy and a tool to defend Taoism. Because of this point of view, I am engaged in writing, of course, living in a dark period, and there are no works with permanent glory. This is a deep dream and must be awakened. " [13]. The era of "taking Tao as literature" is the "dark period" of China literature, which makes China literature have no permanent "glory", and it is easy to remind people of Lu Xun's fable of "dark room". To some extent, we can also see how scared and nervous the advocates of new literature are, and of course there is no lack of suspicion of deliberate exaggeration. In the new literature camp, Lao She, who made a relatively late debut, wrote "Lectures on Literature Introduction" in the 1930s, and also aimed the arrow of criticism at "using literature to carry Tao", but Lao She was much more rational. He believes that "we are born in modern times", and we should systematically clean up the traditional documents with the vision of "doubting, thinking, comparing and evaluating the value of antiquities". From "Naive Thinking" to Zhou Dunyi, "writing is the creed of literati", but it ruined "literature and art! The result of this argument and its implementation is that China literature is "lifeless" [14]. Liu Xie's "Tao is gentle and smooth, and saints are Ming Dow because of literature", "Blending literature and Tao" and "Blocking the road of free creation" [15]. When Han Yu reached the point where "literature and morality are inseparable, there is no way and no text", how can this make sense? Morality is ethical, literature is artistic and morality is practical. Literature is imaginable. The goal of morality is goodness, and the destination of literature and art is beauty; How can literature marry morality and give birth to beautiful children? " [16] Starting from the pursuit of the free beauty of literature, Lao She believes that literature is contrary to its values and goals and cannot produce good results. Obviously, his criticism has appropriate artistic feelings and calm rational thinking. This is also an exploration of the essential characteristics of literature, taking the "beauty" of literature and the "freedom" of creation as the basic connotation of the new literary view. Then, the criticism of "taking Tao as literature" is to realize the transformation of China literature from the prescribed "goodness" to the free "beauty" and establish a new literary concept.

Second, the darkness of Chencang: the continuation of the Tao in the text

The new literary revolution has many meanings. In Yu Dafu's words, it integrated China literature into the world literature system, "connected with the torrent of world literature and became a branch of world literature". It "promoted" the birth of new "meanings", discovered "self", abolished "classical Chinese" and made "vernacular Chinese" popular [55439.100000000105] In fact, the growth of every new meaning of new literature is just a change from tradition. Re-evaluating or rebelling against tradition will not only arouse people's fierce resistance to tradition, but also activate people's re-understanding of tradition, and tradition will also be continued and inherited. In the process of "breaking", the new literary revolution completed "establishment", criticized the old, built the new, and the broken remained in the new China and became new content. Radicalism during the May 4th Movement does not mean that there are no traditional things, and the old school represented by Lin Shu, Xue Heng School and Jiayin School does not mean that there are no new breakthroughs in tradition. It is the structural tension caused by the conflict between the old and the new that gives new ideas the motivation to change constantly, and the old tradition has new vitality.

The criticism of "Wen Tao" in new literature has also been incorporated into the discourse logic of the relationship between "Wen Tao". In the process of establishing a new literary view, "Wen Tao" has become the value train of thought of new literature. Although "Wen" and "Tao" have been endowed with new connotations respectively, there is still a * * * relationship between them. Where there is "literature", there must be "Tao". The independent value of "Wen" has not been fully established, and the formalism and language ontology concepts of new literature have not yet formed. In fact, this is what the advocates of new literature have discovered and felt, and they have long been alert and aware of it. 19 17 in April, Chen Duxiu said in his reply to Ceng Yi: "Respect means that reason is matter, that is, the content of thought. This broad interpretation of the word' Tao' is extremely taken for granted by servants. However, the so-called "Tao" in ancient literature is actually a sacred and blameless channel, so writers must attach importance to the Six Classics. The narrow interpretation of the word "Tao" is not far from the so-called generation of sages by stereotyped writing writers. The abuse of the phrase' there is something in the words' downplays the expression' literature carries the Tao', but it is not easy to understand, and it is easy for literati to stick to their legacy and lose the original meaning of literature. " The moral of this passage is Hu Shi's "words have substance". Although it is lighter than the text, it still has the disadvantages of the text containing the Tao and has the same logical stipulation. Literature is still used as a tool and means of "things". "Things" are different from "Tao", but people's thoughts and emotions, which is the liberation of "Tao". It changed the relationship between "Wen" and "Tao" into the relationship between "Yan" and "Wu", and did not really realize the complete independence and liberation of "Wen". Therefore, Chen Duxiu proposed that the original meaning of literature is nothing more than "words instead of language" and "expressing things", which is not for carrying things, let alone limiting things. In addition to "expressing things", if other functions are given and other conditions are attached, literature will become things and its own independent value will be destroyed. Therefore, it is not only the sages who advocate the bad habits of stereotyped writing, that is, whether it carries the Tao or not, nor is it the reason for the existence of the fundamental role of literature "[18]. In order to maintain the "independent value" of literature, Chen Duxiu relaxed literature. He reduced and weakened the function and function of literature, and even regarded literature only as "something to express". In today's words, literature is meaningless. This is actually caught in a paradox and trap of thinking. Chen Duxiu put forward the "Three Principles" of literary revolution because he valued the great function and function of literature, that is, literature could express various "doctrines" such as "nationality", "society" and "realism", but at the same time he was worried that literature would be used by "Tao" and become "doctrine". The paradox of history is that the future development of new literature is exactly what Chen Duxiu said.

The new literary revolution has put forward various new literary concepts, but all of them have a discourse logic of "writing carries Tao". Hu Shi advocated "the concept of historical literature", and thought that each era had its own literature, and the latter era was usually better than the previous one. He regards a history of China literature as the changing history of literary tools, from poetry to ci, from ci to song is the progress of literature, but he also thinks that "the life of literature lies in expressing the emotions and thoughts of an era with the living tools of an era. Tools become stiff and must be replaced with new ones. This is the literary revolution "[19]. The literary revolution is interpreted as a tool revolution, which opens the door for new literature to carry new ideas. Whether the literature advocated by the Literature Research Association is for life or the literature advocated by the Creation Society is for self, new literature has new missions and responsibilities. Its function and function exist for other things, and the logic of literary ethics and instrumentalization is hidden behind it. However, the new "text" carries the new "Tao" and the vernacular. Ye Shengtao believes that "expressing ambition" and "carrying Tao" are two sides of the same coin. "In China, orthodox literature has always been committed to promoting the way of sages, and modern literature has various doctrines and programs in terms of views and methods, which is obviously' carrying Tao'. But it can be said that those authors are "aiming at the way of sages" and "aiming at a certain theory and program" The connotation of "Tao" is different between the old and the new, and the tools of "Wen" are also different, but the new literature has revived the bearing of Tao. In his view, it can be said that it has never really disappeared [20]. Mao Dun clearly put forward that new literature should cooperate with the spread of new thoughts. "China has its own cultural movement, so the word" new ideological trend and new literature "came into being, which is now almost known to all women and children. Everyone knows how much the new trend of thought has to do with the new literature-the new literature is based on the new trend of thought, and the new trend of thought needs to be publicized by the new literature "[2 1]. The new literature that "publicizes" the new trend of thought will naturally continue the fate of carrying the Tao with the text.

As for the revolutionary literature produced after the New Literature Revolution, as well as the left-wing literature in the 1930s and the literature in the Liberated Areas in the 40s, their interdependence, mutual support and cooperation between literature and revolution, literature and class, and literature and workers, peasants and soldiers also share the same discourse logic of "literature carries the Tao". Even Liang Shiqiu, who is very urgent in opposing revolutionary literature, is not opposed to using literature as a tool. He only opposes the "lesson meaning" of literature, but thinks that "literature is closely related to morality". Even if literature is used as a propaganda tool, we "have no reason and desire to express our opposition. There is nothing that can't be used. But do revolutionaries use literature? " He is just worried about the future of revolutionary literature. "However, if literature is purely used as a revolutionary tool, when the revolution ends, the utility of the tool will be cut off" [22]. 1930, Guo Moruo regained the honor for the "writing to carry the Tao" once held by the new literary revolution. He believes: "The ancients said that' literature carries Tao', although they strongly attacked it during the literary revolution, in fact, this formula is not bad at all. Tao is the social consciousness of the times. In feudal times, social consciousness was orthodoxy, so the Tao contained in literature at that time was a hymn of loyalty, filial piety and benevolence. The social consciousness in the era of modern capital system is to respect natural human rights and encourage free competition, so the text at this time can not but bear this new road of freedom and equality. This kind of Tao is fundamentally opposed to the Tao of feudal society, so an epoch-making literary revolution cannot but take place here [23]. Because of the different connotations of "Tao", it is also considered as an epoch-making literary revolution, so "Tao" in new literature has a justified position.

In the 1940s, Zhu Ziqing also had a profound understanding of new literature. He believed that the New Literature Movement aimed at "making literature independent" and made a "merciless attack" on "literature carrying Tao". "Literature is literature, but it is art, not skill, and it has its own reasons" [24]. However, after a serious struggle, individualism and humanitarianism generally show that literature has assumed a new mission, cooperated with the May 4th Movement, and even leapt to the leading position. Although not the only leadership position. Therefore, literature has a reason for independent existence and new ideas. The "novelty" of this new literature is "carrying Tao"; But it carries a new Tao, and it is integrated with this new Tao, regardless of master and slave. So from the traditional point of view, it is still in the same strain. On the one hand, it attacks' Wen Zai Dao', on the other hand, it carries another Dao, which is exactly the opposite and complementary, so-called contradictory development "[25]. Zhu Ziqing unveiled the "mysterious veil" of the New Literature Movement. What he said was cruel, but it was true. In addition, he also said the same thing: "At the beginning of the new literature, we opposed writing to carry Tao, but we opposed feudal Tao. It's almost thirty years now. We see that most of the works are still carrying Tao, just new Tao. Although there have been many changes in the past 30 years, literature is a tool most of the time, and efforts to realize its mission and responsibility are related to other aspects of society. " [26] Although literature has "changes", it also has "constancy". The "Tao" of the new literature has changed the methods of the new "Wen", the new "Tao" and the new "Tao", but what has not changed is that the "Wen" still gains the "Tao". Therefore, Zhu Ziqing believes that the "people's nature" expressed in literature during the Anti-Japanese War is also a kind of Tao, and it is imperative to use literature to carry the people's Tao. At the same time, he also warned against "over-tightening the scale, for fear of repeating the mistake of Song Confucianism that' writing harms Tao'" [27].

Whether in the early days of the New Literature Revolution, Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu's presupposition and prevention of "taking literature as the carrier" or Mao Dun's "new mission" of actively advocating new literature, even Liang Shiqiu, who opposed the theory of literary tools, understood and "retreated". Guo Moruo clearly rehabilitated him, and Zhu Ziqing gave him full understanding and sympathy. In addition, Xue Heng School, Jiayin School, Nationalist Literature, Three People's Principles Literature, Yuanyang Butterfly School also provided their own theoretical and creative support for "loading Tao with literature" to a greater or lesser extent, which all showed a literary fact that all new literary writers with different literary schools and aesthetic pursuits invariably returned to the new "loading Tao with literature". While criticizing the concept of "loading Tao with literature", new literature,