周作人（1885-1967）於1939 年元旦遇刺後不久，即陸續與日本合作，直到1945 年被國民黨軍統局逮捕，蒙上「漢奸」罪名，入獄服刑。這是他在近現代中國文學史上隱晦的主要原因。歷來論者有關周作人此一「悲劇性」的抉擇，各有不同的詮釋進徑，雖多肯定其文學事業，要皆不免尖銳批判其無能固節的作為。 較罕見的論點，如鄭清茂、高瑞泉，顯然已經能夠拉近人格與文章的距離，但基本上還是認為周作人具有「污名」。較殊異的見解，要屬楊牧與木山英雄。前者以「文質炳煥」稱揚周作人的學術事功，指出其一生乃是文化衝突和現實政治推展下的悲劇；且認為周作人是一個相當完整的新時代知識分子，一個博大精深的「文藝復興人」（Renaissance Man）。木山氏亦謂周氏為「中國近代知識人的典型」。 本文想要探索的是：這段時期周作人有關中國文學文化與時局的論述，與他前此的寫作，可有區隔？周作人對日本文化的確有強烈、恆久的戀慕，是否基於這樣的戀慕導致他與侵略者的合作？如果他的見解於戰前戰後皆大同小異，那所謂的「日本情結」又有何關鍵性的意義？在六十多年後的現時此地，我們能否從文章與言行互涉的角度，重建對他的另一種詮釋？本文欲藉其「倫理自然化」與「道義事功化」的主張，佐以「在地」與「異域」共構的地緣情感，梳理周作人看似弔詭的認同情結，提供一個或有新意的閱讀觀點：「儒而近墨的周作人」；並回應：人無論處身任何時空下，此一恆在的，取捨去就的生命議題。

After being attacked on New Year’s Day in 1939, Zhou, Zuo Ren (1855-1967) started to work with the Japanese government until he was put in prison by KMT in 1945 and convicted afterwards of being a “Chinese Traitor.” This is why Zhou could not find his proper place in Modern Chinese Literary History. Critics have tended to prove his literary career and strictly criticized his treachery ever since. Among those such as Zheng, Qing Mao and Gao, Rui Quan who decrease the distance between his character and writing but basically accuse Zhou of his “notorious reputation,” judgment of Yang Mu and Mu Shan Ying Xiong seems to be unique. Pointing out that Zhou’s life is a tragedy composed of conflict of cultures and political development, Yang Mu not only praises for Zhou’s academic contribution but considers that Zhou is an intellectual in a new age, a “Renaissance Man.” On the other hand, Mu Shan regards that Zhou is “an icon of Chinese modern intellectuals.” The essay aims to explore the difference between Zhou’s writing on Chinese literature/culture before and after 1939. Did his cooperation with the intruder come from his appreciation of Japanese culture? What impact did his “Japanese Complex” have if his viewpoint stayed more or less the same before and after the war? Is it possible to reconstruct the interpretation by way of observing the intertextuality of his writing and behaviour? Analyzing Zhou’s statement, “Naturalization of Ethics” as well as “Achievement of Morals,” which were supplemented by geographical feelings consisting of “localness” and “foreignness,” and probing into his seemingly paradoxical identity, this essay hopes to provide an other reading point and response to the eternal life issue—to accept and refuse whenever and wherever one is.