《中国新文学的源流》自1932年刊行以来，就成为学术史上常议常新的话题；尤其他所提出的“言志”“载道”的文学史模式，更引发了一些学者对中国文学史中一系列问题的探讨。然而，在透视这种文学史模式背后的文学史观时，学界一般简单将其定论为循环论的文学史观。那么，它可以被简单定性为循环论吗？如果答案是否定的，那我们究竟该如何看待这种文学史观？本论文带着这样的问题，试图对《中国新文学的源流》一书进行一番新的探索。 论文首先清理了历来学界围绕《中国新文学的源流》所形成的争论，包括周钱之争，左翼批评家对该书的责难，朱自清、朱光潜等对“言志”“载道”的再解释。 其次，论文从《源流》文本出发，对整本书中所呈现或暗藏的问题进行重新解读，包括文本的特殊形式，作者对待本书的态度，作者对文学本质的看法，本书所勾勒出的中国新文学运动的源与流，以及置于文学史之流中的新文学运动。 再次，论文借助于周作人的文学观及历史观来重新审视其文学史模式和文学史观，认为在《源流》中，周作人建构了一种边缘性的文学史模式，它试图借助对历史中不变之物的把握，来发现中国文学发展的内在推动力。这不仅仅是对已有文学传统的重新肯定，更是将新文学写入文学史谱系的巧妙策略。这使得《中国新文学的源流》成为30年代的“另一种文学史”。 最后的余论部分则是对周作人和文学关系的再探讨和反思，认为文学已经成为周作人的一种生命形式，而绝不是生命附着物。用周作人自己的一个意象来说明，文学对他来说便是“十字街头的塔”：在一片思想静地中听喧闹市声。值得警醒的是，正是这种思想处境，使得周作人在思考历史时总是自外于历史，难以达到深刻的自省。

After published in 1932, The Origin of Chinese New Literature has been a hot topic for discussion. Among these discussions, what interested the scholars more and caused sequential studies is the pattern of literary history in the book, which can be epitomized as expressing will and carrying doctrine. And when they try to get clear with the conception of literary history through this pattern, they generally define it as kind of cyclical theory of literary history. But isn’t it too oversimplified to define it like that? If the answer is yes, then how should we regard it at all? With all these questions, this essay returns to the text The Origin of Chinese New Literature and tries to get a new understanding. First, this essay sorts out some vital discussions on the book after it was published, such as the argument between Qian Zhongshu and the author Zhou Zuoren, the censure on the book from some Left-wing critics, the new interpretation of the phrase “expressing will” and “carrying doctrine” from Zhu Ziqing and Zhu Guangqian. Second, it returns to the text, and tries to get new understanding with the questions in the book, including the special form of the text, the author’s attitude to the book, the author’s viewpoint of literary essence, the origin of Chinese New Literature illustrated in this book, and the New literature movement in the river of literary history. Third, this essay tries to make a new estimation of the pattern and conception of literary history of Zhou Zuoren, which will be achieved with a perception of the view of literature and history of Zhou Zuoren. It gets a conclusion that Zhou Zuoren constructed some alternative pattern of literary history in The Origin of Chinese New Literature, aimed at finding impetus of development within the Chinese literature by getting hold of the eternal thing in history. This is not simply identification with the existing literary tradition, but also an artful strategy to make New Literature admitted by the literary history, which made the book an alternative literary history in the 1930s. The last part of the essay rethinks profoundly the issue that what literature means to Zhou Zuoren, and comes to that literature is more likely a life form of Zhou Zuoren rather than attachments to life, as in his own words, for him, literature is a tower by the crossroads, which means that he can stay in his own quiet room built by thoughts while he can also listen to the hubbub outside. But what demands our consideration is that it is right this thought making Zhou Zuoren outside the history he is pondering over, and keeping him from deep self-examination.